Permeability Modeling of Hamada Field in Libya

THE PETROLEUM ENGINEER FACULTY
MASTER'S THESIS
TITLE OF THE THESIS

Permeability modeling of Hamada Field
Researcher
Eng. Hatem Salem Ismaiel
Supervisor
Professor. Achilles Kanellopoulos
Specialization
Reservoir Engineering
Keywords
Borehole Logging
Number of pages: .........100.........
Date / year 8/2016

‫إھ اء‬
‫ ت‬#‫و‬$‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫د و‬ ‫و‬ ‫ا ان د‬ ! ‫وا ي ا‬ ‫يإ‬ ‫أھ ي‬
1 ‫أد‬ ‫ وا‬, ‫اھ ي ھ ا ا‬ ‫ إ‬%‫* ت ط ال ' اري ا را‬+ ‫ ا‬,- ‫ وز‬/‫ * و‬0 ‫ا‬
8 ‫ﺑ‬ - , 4‫ ر ا‬6- ‫ا‬ ‫وا‬ 6 ‫ ا‬,7‫ا‬ ‫ ا‬5 - 5 / / %‫أ‬ ‫ وا‬/ 4‫أ‬ ‫ وا‬2 ,!‫ﺑ‬
Acknowledgement
I would like to express my appreciation to my supervisor, (Professor
Achiles C.Kanellopoulos) who has cheerfully answered my queries,
provided me with materials, checked my examples, assisted me in a
myriad ways with the writing and helpfully commented on earlier drafts
of this project. Also, I'm very grateful to my family for their good
humour and support throughout the production of this project

DECLARATION
This to certify that the work submitted for the degree of master of science under title of
"Permeability modeling of Hamada field" eastern Ghadames Basin, Libya is the result of
original work. No part of this thesis has been accepted in substance for any other degree
and is not currently being submitted in candidature for any other degree
Candidate:.....................................................
Hatem Salem Ismaiel
Director of research:..........................................
Professor Achilles Kanellopoulos, PHD

Contents
Abstract ..................................................................................................................................3
Introduction ............................................................................................................................4
Hamada Field .........................................................................................................................5
Formations.. ...........................................................................................................................7
Reservoir Description ...............................................................................................................11
Permeability ...........................................................................................................................12
Mineral effect ........................................................................................................................13
Rock structure .......................................................................................................................14
Permeability from logs ..........................................................................................................15
Permeability – porosity correlation ........................................................................................16
Capillary pressure and permeability .......................................................................................16
Permeability estimate from porosity and resistivity ................................................................19
Nuclear magnetic resonance ..................................................................................................20
Permeability from cores.........................................................................................................24
Overburden pressure ..............................................................................................................26
Klinkenberg effect ..................................................................................................................27
Scaling of permeability ..........................................................................................................28
Permeability from cores and logs – Cross plots......................................................................30

Permeability from well tests ...................................................................................................32
Openhole Wireline testing ......................................................................................................33
Drillstem Testing (DST) .........................................................................................................34
Interpretation of well tests........................................................................................................35
Characterizing Permeability with Formation Testers..............................................................37
RDT (Reservoir Description Tool)..............................................................................................40
Conventional Permeability Measurements.................................................................................45
Evaluation of Hamada field ....................................................................................................61
Results of forecasting..................................................................................................................65
Water injection case....................................................................................................................70
Conclusion ..............................................................................................................................72
Reservoir Engineering Analysis................................................................................................76
Economic indicators.............................................................................................................84
Appendix..................................................................................................................................87
Sources........................................................................................................................................98
List of Figures and Table
Table 1: Test DST......................................................................................................................3
Table 2: Summary table of wells status in the producing pools...............................................6
Table 3: Type of Accumulations ...............................................................................................7
Table 4: Hamada NC8A field remaining reserve to production ratio.........................................8
Table 5: formation of well .......................................................................................................10
Table 6: Values of a, in the different equations.....................................................................................16
Table 7: PVT summary for Gullebi....................................................................................................................67
Table 8: Reservoir Engineering Analysis..................................................................................76
Table 9: The results of the PVT reports are shown...................................................................77
Table 10: Economic indicators...................................................................................................84
Figure 1: Location of the pools in Hamada.................................................................................5
Figure 2: The available routine core analysis data from 31 wells in Hamada.............................9
Figure 3: Cross plot from density and neutron log,......................................................................30
Figure 4 : Sketch of a single – probe module..............................................................................33
Figure 5 : A cross section of an idealized....................................................................................39
Figure 6 : Permeability baffles and conduits at different length scales....................................... 40
Figure 7 : Typical MDT tool configurations for permeability measurements..............................44
Figure 8: Typical relative-permeability curves for oil and water in a water-wet.........................46
Figure 9: Features of the flow sources and methods ....................................................................51
Figure 10: Pressure difference......................................................................................................53
Figure 11: Comparison of the horizontal......................................................................................55
Figure 12: Pressure and pump rate...............................................................................................57
Figure 13: Pressure difference.....................................................................................................57

Figure 14: The sequence of events in a typical IPTT.................................................................59
Figure 15: 9 models was constructed to represent Hamada field..............................................61
Figure 16: Core from Well LL8.................................................................................................62
Figure 17: Core from Well LL4.................................................................................................63
Figure 18: Structure Map............................................................................................................64
Figure 19: field water production rate........................................................................................65
Figure 20: field liquid production rate........................................................................................65
Figure 21: Oil production by pool set........................................................................................66
Figure 22: DSTs available for well............................................................................................68
Figure 23: In Gullebi Tahara DSTs ..........................................................................................69
Figure 24: Water injection case..................................................................................................70
Figure 25: remaining oil saturation............................................................................................73
Figure 26: remaining oil saturation............................................................................................74
Figure 27: Conceptual depositional model................................................................................75
Figure 28: Tide dominated estuary model..................................................................................75
Figure 29: Reservoir Engineering Analysis...............................................................................76
Figure 30: Two wells had SCAL analysis..................................................................................78
Figure 31: Height above function based ....................................................................................79
Figure 32: Average Relative permeability..................................................................................79
Figure 33: probability chart.......................................................................................................80
Figure 34: Winland and Por-perm relationship..........................................................................81
Figure 35: Static and dynamic pressures.....................................................................................82
Figure 36: pressure performance...........................................................................83

Figure 37: Clean (Shale Free) Formation............................................................................. 85
Figure 38: Gamma ray log is an indicator of shaliness of sand............................86
Figure 39: Hamada Monthly oil Production Forecast............................................87
Figure 40: Relation between oil rate and water cut................................................88
Figure 41 : Hamada NC5A + NC8A.................................................................... 89
Figure 42 : Ghadamis Basin...................................................................................90
Figure 43 : NC8A...................................................................................................91
Figure 44 : Facies Modeling..................................................................................92
Figure 45: Facies Modeling .................................................................................93
Figure 46 : Core permeability vs. core porosity...................................................94
Figure 47 : Permeability ve Stressed Permeability ve Permeability Ratio............95
Figure 48 : Typical reservoir permeability vs. Sw crossplot.................................97

Abstract
Permeability has been calculated for three exploration wells from the “Hamada” field, from
southern part of the Ghadamis basin close to Gargaf arch. Permeability from logs, cores
and cross plots have been derived and compared with permeability from well testing.
Permeability from logs alone is derived by the Timur’s correlation. It is observed that this
permeability is affected by the shape of the well. Timur’s correlation is based on porosity and
water saturation, porosity has been calculated from density log which is easily affected by the
shape of well. And the constants in the correlation must be corrected for each formation to
give a good match.
Permeability from cores, gives a good overview of the permeability distribution in the cored
interval, but is difficult to scale up for the un – cored interval. The Arithmetic scaling gives
much higher values than the geometric method. Gas slippage (Klinkenberg effect) has also
been discussed, this effect leads to wrong (higher) permeability and must be corrected for at
low pressures.
Table 1:
Test Top Bottom K DST K Arith K geom

6406/2-1
DST 7 4427 4495 0,03 0,05 0,44
DST 6 4645 4704 4,2 16,62 0,61
DST 5 4816 4858 3,2 5,89 0,43
DST 4 4910 4924 4,0 0,94 0,76
DST 3 5021 5041 0,49 1,45 1,06
DST 2 5099 5170 6,5 8,515 0,67
DST 1 5201 5227 0,29 0,41 0,98
6406/2-2
DST 2 4714 4745 15 56,40 1,62
DST 1 4868 4927 0,7 9,18 1,59
6406/2-4SR
DST 2 4684 4704 0,07 4,02 0,95
DST 1 4874 4904 16,1 26,8 1,71
Permeability from cross plot gives a good overview of permeability distribution, as seen from
the result. The best permeability is from well testing; the effective permeability of the tested
interval is calculated. All effects are counted for in the permeability, as seen in the literature
study, minerals and overburden pressure reduces the permeability.
3
Introduction
HISTORY
Drilling activity in NC8A started in 1959 and continued intermittently through the early
1980’s, but commercial oil production did not commence until 1982. 16 wells were
drilled between 1993 and 2000 and three more wells were drilled in 2004. Additional 4
wells were drilled in 2008 (but not put on production as of 31.12.2009). Two wells, one
development and one exploration well, were drilled and completed in 2009. Neither of
these is on production as of 31.12.2009. The current total number of drilled wells in
NC8A concession is 166. The number of producing wells varied during the early
production period. It is now 72 oil producing wells. All wells are using sucker rod
pumps to produce the oil.
There are currently two gas wells; one producing, the other being the standby gas well.
These wells do not produce gas for commercial purposes, but gas for use in surface
facilities only.
Introduction
Permeability is one of the most important parameters affecting almost all phases of the
reservoir management and well performance. Permeability describes formations ability to
conduct fluid flow, and can be affected by different factors as grain size, distribution,
overburden pressure, minerals and so on.
There are different ways to measure permeability:
Permeability from logs
Permeability from cores
Permeability from cores and logs
Permeability from wireline testing
Permeability measured from logs, cores and from combination of both are to be calculated,
and then compared with the permeability found from well testing.
NC8A is located in the southern part of the Ghadamis basin close to Gargaf arch. The
exploration in Hamada-NC8A started in the late 1950’s. Total number of exploration,
appraisal and development wells drilled in Hamada-NC8A is about 170. Ten (10)
individual pools/fields have been identified and are being produced for more than 40
years (Figure 1.1). Out of 170 wells drilled in Hamada-NC8A, 139 are located in 10
producing pools in Hamada-NC8A for which the static and dynamic modeling were
performed
4
Hamada Field
Figure 1: Location of the pools in Hamada-NC8A. The outlines of the modeled areas of
each pool are also shown.
l
Po o V -P oo
I-Pool AA- l
o ol
F-P
l
O-Poo
ol
-P o ol
FF Po
Y-
o ol
-P A-Pool
F FF
l
P oo
LL-
[ Fig u re 1 : Hamada f ie l d i n t h e Libyan ,]
5
Hamada field consists of the Lower Devonian Tadrart Formation subdivided according to old
studies into three members, D1,D2 and D3 respectively, and continuous impermeable shale
beds separate between the sandstone members. The oil producing. This field is located at
approximately 400 km south-southwest of Tripoli, Libya.
Hamada NC8A field started producing in Jun-82 and 72 wells currently are on production
(total number of drilled wells in Hamada NC8A is 160 wells till 31-Dec-07). In the early
drilling phase of the field, some wells were drilled and plugged back as no hydrocarbons
were recovered in the initial tests. On the other side some wells were producing and
suspended or converted to observation wells to measure the static pressure of the
reservoir.
Table 2: Summary table of wells status in the producing pools
6
Formations
SEVEN (07) REPRESENTATIVE ACCUMULATIONS HAVE BEEN

AGREED AND SELECTED FOR DYNAMIC SIMULATION MODELS IN
PHASE 5, THESE STRUCTURES ARE:
Table 3:
7
Table 4: Hamada NC8A field remaining reserve to production ratio
Hamada NC8A wells are tested on monthly basis through satellite area test
separator, which is two phase separator (Gas and liquid). On this basis the WC is
determine the oil production and water production. The processed oil exported
through export line to Zaywia near Tripoli.
The wells were successfully put on production stream with artificial lift. The
recent drilled wells used sucker rod pump (SRP) from day one of production. The
used artificial lift type is SRP for all the wells. Progress cavity pump (PCP) had
been used 3 times as a trial. The main objective of the Production Optimization
(PO) project for Hamada NC8A field is to optimize the field production. We look
for opportunities of increasing the oil rate with low water rate expectation using
the different relevant methodologies
8
The available routine core analysis data from 31 wells in Hamada-NC8A were used in the study
Heterogeneity was estimated Fi g u re 2 :
Probability chart, V6-D3 Formation , Vdp =0.77
1000
Permeability (md)
100
10
2 4 6 8 10 15 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 85 90 92 94 96 98
Cumulative Probability (percent greater than)
9
Table 5: Formation of wells
10
RESERVOIR DESCRIPTION
The oil producing reservoirs are in the Lower Devonian Tadrart Formation sandstones.
These sandstone reservoirs are located in structures extending from southeast to
northwest at subsea levels from -1200 to -3200 feet. They are largely fluvial in nature
and occur along domal or monoclinal trends, which are partially fault bound; the major
faults extending from southwest to northeast. The traps therefore result from both
stratigraphic and structural components.
The Tadrart formation consists of continental to subcontinental sandstone. The lower

part is thickly bedded and cross stratified, with rare plant fragments, whereas the
uppermost sandstones are thin bedded with more marine character and abundant trace
fossils. The Tadrart Formation decreases in thickness towards the southeast and is
less than 150 feet thick in some of the LL Pool wells. The Tadrart formation is deeper in
the NNW area of the concession and gets shallower towards SE.
The oil bearing Tadrart Formation consists of sandstone members designated from top
to bottom as D1, D2 and D3. Continuous impermeable shale beds separate these
sandstone members. In A Pool a thin gas bearing sandstone, separated from the
underlying oil bearing Tadrart sandstone, characterizes the top of the Tadrart
Formation and is unique in NC8A.
The oil producing pools in concession NC8A are designated as A Pool, AA Pool, F
Pool, FF Pool, FFF Pool, GG Pool, I Pool, LL Pool, O Pool, Y Pool, V Pool. Some of
these pools constitute a trend. These are therefore also designated as AA/I/V and
FF/FFF trends.
Gas was found in the Tahara Formation (Upper Devonian) in the same structures
where oil was found. This gas bearing sandstone of the Tahara Formation overlies the
oil-bearing reservoirs in NC8A. The reservoir rock consists of sandstones and
interbedded shale, deposited in a shallow marine environment. Like the oil bearing
Tadrart Formation, the Tahara Formation is deeper in the NNW area of the concession
and gets shallower towards the SE.
11
Permeability
In porous rock, it is possible to see small spacing between the rock grains. This Spacing will
contain liquid, which sometimes can be water, oil or gas. The permeability of the rock is a
measurement of how easy this liquid can run through the rock. The permeability is measured
in Darcie’s. One Darcy is defined as a fluid with viscosity 1 cp is flowing at a rate of 1cm3/s
through a porous medium with a cross section of 1 cm2, creating a pressure difference of 1
atm/cm. In the geological context 1 Darcy is too great, so 1/1000 fraction is used, which is
then called millidarcy (mD).
This is known from the Darcy’s law, and is given by (Darcy’s Law)

= ∗

Permeability of given rock to flow of homogeneous fluid is constant, provided that the fluid
does not interact with the rock. Permeability measured by air must be corrected for “slippage”
effect or Klinkenberg effect, this is discussed later.
The permeability is affected by different factors. Formation rocks can be clean or it may
contain clays. The presence of clays can affect log readings, and as well have a significant
impact on the permeability.
Consolidation is a mechanical property, which will influence the acoustic measurements and
have an impact on the stability of the borehole walls. This will also affect the ability of the
formation to produce flowing fluids.
Formations can be homogeneous, fractured or layered. The existence of fractures, induced or
natural, alters the permeability significantly. In layered rocks, the permeability can be very
varying in the different layers, and the thickness of the different layers can vary from a
fraction of an inch to tens of feet.
The internal surface area of the reservoir rock is used to evaluate the possibilities of producing
fluids from the pore space. So this is related to granular nature which can be described by the
grain size and distribution. Grain size and the distribution will also affect the permeability.
Permeability can be measured by different methods;
• Permeability from cores

• Permeability from logs
• Permeability from logs and cores
• Permeability from production tests
12
Mineral effect
Most oil and gas formations contain clay minerals that either was originally deposited during
sedimentation precipitated from flowing water or were formed by the action of heat, pressure
and time on minerals already present. Clay minerals can damage the permeability, there are
two major mechanisms behind this. The first mechanism is swelling, and the second is
migration. In swelling, clay imbibes water into the crystalline structure and increases in
volume. This can cause plugging of the pores in which it resides. During migration clay
minerals can be dispersed when they come in contact with other fluid and be transported until
a restriction is encountered (usually a pore throat). These minerals can block the path and
restrict flow.
Most common clays:
• Smectite
• Kaolinite
• Illite
• Mixed layers
Basically most clay surfaces of the most common clays in the formations have many
negatively charged. These negative charges are responsible for the sensitivity to fluid. Clay
minerals exist naturally in stacked or randomly arranged platelets within the pores. Within the
pores they are found as either pore – lining or pore – filling minerals surrounded by saline
water. Usually Na+ or Ca2+ makes up the salts and is fixed onto the clay surfaces by electrical
attraction effectively neutralizing the negative charges. In this state the clay is stable, when a
less saline fluid comes in the pore it can dilute the connate water and reduce its salinity. As
the cation cloud covering the clay surface becomes spread, water molecules come in between
clay platelets, resulting in swelling (Smectite clays and some mixed layers) or dispersion
(Kaolinite, Illite, Chlorite and mixed layers). This type of damage is mostly irreversible and
requires acid stimulation for removal.
13
Rock structure
It has generally been known that grain size is a fundamental variable controlling the
permeability in unconsolidated rocks. This fact is well seen from the basic intrinsic
permeability equation:
= ∗
Where k is intrinsic permeability; C is a dimensionless constant describing the path tortuosity,

particle shape, sediment sorting and possible porosity; and d is either the diameter for the pore
throat or grain diameter. That permeability varies with the grain size was first reported by
Hazen in 1911 and has later been experimentally verified by numerous investigators. The
sand grains found in the coastal environments are well – sorted, rounded and are close to the
ideal for which these relationships are developed.
It was originally used the 10th percentile of grain size, but small deviations from the ideal
sediment properties can induce large deviations in sediment permeability. Later it was shown
that the exponent had to be less than two for non – ideal sediments, and the exponent
decreased with decreasing texture maturity.
Smaller grain size will reduce the permeability significantly compared to the ideal, well –
sorted homogeneous sediments. Some fine – grained sands can have high interconnected
porosity, although the individual pores and pore channels are quite small. As a result the
available paths for the movement of the fluid are quite restricted and tortuous. In practice
permeability are rarely estimated from grain size for field applications because the estimates
are usually very different from the actual measured values. Inclusion of clay and silt in small
percentages can reduce the permeability by orders of magnitude, while inducing negligible
changes in grain sizes.
Sedimentary diagenesis in form of physical compaction or precipitation of cements can also

alter the permeability without reducing the grain size.
When grain size analysis is done by sieving, some of the finest sand will be lost. This will
give a uncertainty in permeability estimate by grain size. The expression given earlier
commonly fails to reproduce either the mean permeability or the variability in permeability of
natural sand sediments.
14
Permeability from logs
The goal of deriving permeability from logs is elusive, since logs make static measurement
whereas permeability is a measure of dynamic properties. The only exception is the Stonley
wave (which can be measured in the sonic log). The Stonley wave actually moves the fluid in
the rock, all other log – based methods relies on correlations with dynamic permeability
measurements made with cores or tests.
Permeability can be seen as a tensor and strongly dependent on direction. For example, the
process of sedimentation usually causes the horizontal permeability to be much greater than
the vertical permeability.
Secondly it is not obvious how permeability should be scaled up to larger volumes, whether it
should be averaged arithmetically, harmonically, geometrically or in some other way. This
makes it difficult to compare permeability measured at different scales.
Formation fluids in the measured volume, will also affect the permeability. If there are two or
more fluids, they can seriously impede each other’s flow, so that the effective permeability of
each fluid is less than the absolute permeability. In addition the salinity of the water flowing
through shaly sand can affect the clays and alter the permeability (of core samples).
Permeability measured from different techniques can be very different. Permeability can be
calculated with both resistivity and porosity log measurements. The resistivity logs can be
used to make some broad and quantitative estimates because they depend on some extent on
the result of fluid movement.
One of the methods is based on the length of the transition zone between water at the bottom
of the reservoir and oil or gas at irreducible saturation above. The longer this zone is, the
higher the capillary forces and the lower the permeability will be. Changes in the resistivity in
the transition zone can be related to the permeability.
Another type of estimate is based on the invasion zone. The depth of invasion is manly
dependent of the drilling history, but in very low – permeability formations there are some
sensitivity to the formations. In high – permeability reservoirs gravity causes the filtrate to
move upwards or downwards depending on the density of the formation water. The vertical
invasion profile holds information on the vertical permeability. In general the shape of the
invasion front radially away from the borehole can be related to the relative permeability of
the different fluids.
Porosity is used much more than resistivity to estimate the permeability.
15
Permeability – porosity correlation
Most models can be characterized by a linear relationship in the log – log permeability-
porosity coordinate system, with following form:
log = ∗ log +
Where k is permeability, φ is the porosity and a and b are calibration constants. There are
several models which describes the permeability, and according to those models the
parameters a and b can vary as shown in table below.
Table 6: Values of a, in the different equations.
The parameter b, can be interpreted as the flow zone indicator (FZI) or as an interconnectivity
parameter. This parameter is variable defines different types of rocks. Differences in the
models can be explained by parameterization options between porosity and permeability.
Most authors expressed the permeability as a function of the dominant rock type under the
study. The dominant rock characteristic is grain geometry or pore space geometry, which can
vary widely.
16
Capillary pressure and permeability
Capillary pressure curves can also be used to predict permeability, these are direct indicators
of the pore geometry of the rocks. This again controls the permeability. Permeability is
generally obtained as a function of either one or two parameters.
In a reservoir that contains water and hydrocarbons column, the saturation may vary from 100
% water at the bottom of the zone to a maximum oil saturation (and irreducible water
saturation) at the top. There is gradual transition between these two extremes in saturation.
The transition interval may be very short for porous and permeable formations, or it may be
quite long in formations of low permeability.
One parameter is enough when using the segment above the transition zone, because the water
saturation tends to be a fixed value at irreducible conditions (S wi). Two points are needed
when using the bending or the flat part of the capillary pressure curve, these points’ falls in
the transition zone, where saturation and capillary pressure keep changing. This point in the
transition zone is set by water saturation (Sw) and a pore throat ®.
One important factor is the effective oil permeability at irreducible water saturation
conditions. The most interesting part is the vertical/oblique portion of the capillary curves at
irreducible water saturation. This behavior necessarily involves the major and much smaller
pore systems contribution to flow. Higher pressures are required to drain the smaller pores to
overcome the natural resistance of the flow paths.
Buoyancy, hydrodynamic forces and capillary pressures control migration of hydrocarbons.

Normally much larger forces are involved in the extraction of hydrocarbons, the limit of this
is set by irreducible conditions. When no additional pore system can contribute to the flow,
the irreducible saturations have been reached. This signifies a true permeability definition,
which is independent of pressure changes. The irreducible water saturations can wary from
10 % to more than 50 %.
17
Permeability transform values from well logs are generally calibrated to air permeability, and
usually assumes “equivalent” to liquid permeability. Air is preferred in permeability
measurements because of its convenience and availability. Air is a relative inert fluid toward
the core material, for a strongly water wet system with a clean smooth wetting surface, the
contact angle for air is equal to zero. Wettability is considered unimportant in for
porosity/permeability core analysis.
A good correlation generally exists between irreducible water saturation and permeability.
Resistivity (Rt) correlates with permeability too, explained by Ohm’s law and Darcy equation
similarities. Effective porosity is one of the most common parameters found to correlate with
permeability. Exceptions to these correlations have also been found, problems arise when the
electric characteristics of the rocks are changed due to variations in the resistivity/salinity of
the formation water or because of the presence of clay minerals.
18
Permeability estimate from porosity and resistivity
In many cases there may exist a correlation between porosity and permeability. But these
correlations are usually derived for a certain formation, and therefor they do not exhibit
general application or validity. A more general empirical relationship was proposed by Wyllie
and Rose, which includes irreducible water saturation. Wyllie and Rose proposed this
equation:
= ∗
Based on the general equation of Wyllie and Rose several equat ions have been proposed
which can be used to derive permeability from porosity and irreducible water saturation.
By Tixier
%
.!
= 250 ∗
By Timur

' (.()
.!
= 100 ∗ *+,
By Coates - Dumanoir
% 01
k .!
= ./
∗ 21
13

By Coates
0( 67213
k ,!
= 70 ∗
213
Where k is permeability in mD, φ is porosity, Swi is irreducible water saturation and w is

textural parameter related to the cementation and saturation exponents, w ≈ m ≈ n.
All these relationships are based on intergranular porosity data, and there for their application
is usually restricted to sandstones.
19
Nuclear magnetic resonance
Is a measurement of spin and magnetic properties of nuclei, and was first successfu l in 1946.
First well logging application was introduced by Chevron in 1960. The interest of magnetic
resonance for logging was initially based on the newly discovered method for detecting
protons. Which is hydrogen in common pore fluids, and hence a measure of porosity.
Most nuclei have a magnetic moment. From the classical point of view each nucleus is
equivalent to a magnetic dipole. In the presence of an externally imposed magnetic field, the
dipoles will tend to line up in the direction of the field lines. Each nucleus will have an
angular momentum in addition to the magnetic momentum. The angular momentum can be
described as a vector, which is oriented along the axis of rotation.
There are two important implications exploited in NMR measurements followed by the
properties of the nuclei. The existence of the magnetic moment allows electromagnetic energy
to be absorbed by the magnetic dipole, by changing the orientation of the magnetic moment
with respect to the external magnetic field. The existence of the angular momentum (or spin),
along the same axis as the dipole moment will tend to resist any change in the orientation of
the angular momentum vector.
Introducing an external magnetic field will create a torque, which in turn produces a
precession of the angular momentum vector about the axis of the applied filed. The precession
frequency is governed by the intrinsic magnetic moment and the applied external magnetic
field. It is known as the Larmor frequency.
The operating principle of a magnetometer consists of using a coil to apply a magnetic field,
roughly 100 times the magnitude of the earth’s field. After a few seconds, some of the
magnetic moments of the protons are aligned with the external field, which is oriented nearly
perpendicular to the earth’s field. When the applied magnetic field is removed, the induced
magnetic moment will begin to precede about the remaining field (which is the earth’s field).
The frequency of the precession is proportional to the local magnetic field. The precession of
the induced magnetic moment of the sample will induce a sinusoidal voltage in the coil to
establish the magnetic field. This effect is referred to as nuclear free induction.
20
The measurement of the local geomagnetic field consists of determining the frequency of the
voltage induced in the coil. Hydrogen is the only nuclear species encountered in formations
that can be easily detected by the nuclear induction technique. The first requirement is that a
nucleus has nuclear angular momentum and magnetic moment. Many of the most common
elements do not have sufficient numbers of isotopes which possess these attributes, for
example carbon, magnesium, sulfurand calcium. The elements that possess the attributes are
much less detectable than hydrogen. Measurements of proton free – precession in earth
formations reflects nearly exclusively hydrogen. Because of the technique used in the
progress, the only hydrogen detectable will be that associated with fluids in pores, either
water or hydrocarbons. The measurements will not be sensitive to hydrogen associated with
hydroxyls in clay minerals contained in the shale. So the nuclear magnetic measurement in a
wellbore is related to the porosity of the formation.
21
The NMR process involves a series of steps that are common for laboratory experiments or
similar implementations adapted for borehole measurements. The first step is the alignment of
protons in an external magnetic field, which is produced by NMR logging instrument. The
time constant associated with the polarization is called the longitudinal time constant T1.
In the second step there is provided a magnetic field, to rotate the polarized protons by 90
degrees to the “transverse” plane. The magnetic field is provided at the Larmor frequency,
this will produce a measurable signal. Once the protons have been rotated, they continue their
precession, but perpendicular to the polarizing field. This will create an easy detectable
fluctuating magnetic field. The protons will rapidly diphase, so that the transverse magnetic
field disappears.
Much of the dephasing of the proton precession in the transverse plane might be caused by
imperfections in the polarizing magnetic field at the location of the proton. These dephasings
are reversible and can be described by a characteristic time constant T2. Many pulse – echo
schemes, consisting of polarizing pulse sequences have been derived to overcome the
reversible dephasing.
Since the NMR measurements are related to fluids saturating porous rocks, there are four
properties of interest. The hydrogen index, the longitudinal relaxation time T 1, the transverse
relaxation time constant T2 and the diffusion constant related to the viscosity.
For the conventional logging tool, the borehole signal had to be removed. This is done by
adding paramagnetic ions to the mud and circulates it to produce a uniform mixture. This
method is very expensive and time consuming.
The modern tool avoids this problem and it is called inside – out NMR. Instead of using
earth’s magnetic field for producing the precession of the protons, two opposed magnets are
located inside the tool. The opposition of the two dipole magnets produces a radial magnetic
field, in the halfway between the two magnets. This field is increased to a maximum,
controlled by the magnetic length and then decreases with increasing distance. This creates a
region of roughly toroidal field around the tool, the field will be relatively constant and
producing a net magnetization radially outward. With this type of configuration, the more
classical pulsed NMR measurements can be performed, without being influenced by the
borehole.
To make the measurement an oscillating current in the coil, with the Larmor frequency is used
to flip the net magnetization by 90 degrees. Once the turning signal is turned off, the coil is
acting as a receiver to record the signal from the protons.
The advantage of such system is the avoidance of mud doping and the availability of the
signal with minimum delay. This enables a more precise determination of the volume of the
moveable fluids, since the uncertainties of extrapolating to the end of the polarizing are
avoided.
22
One of the claims for using the NMR is to obtain a lithology – independent porosity. This
minimizes the complications from having to know the hydrogen index of the pore fluids
and under emphasizes the ability of NMR to determine the irreducible water saturation. The
irreducible water saturation, related to the water – cut, helps to establish the production
potential of a zone.
All the relationships that have been developed to calculate permeability from NMR are based
on a combination theoretical and experimental measurement. The physical basis comes from
the notion that permeability, depends most strongly on the size of the pore throats of the
medium. The casual link to NMR is that some measure of the T 2 distribution (for example the
mean log value) is related to the pore dimension, and the pore size dimension is also related to
the throat size. The last link is more reliable among sandstones than carbonates. There are teo
general transforms used to estimate the permeability.
The first is referred to as Timur – Coates, and is given by:

::;
= ∗ 8
∗9 >
<=;
Where FFI is the volume of the free fluid and BVI corresponds to the bound volume fraction.
FFI can also be defined as:

::; = ∗ 1−
The second approach is given by:
= ∗ 8
∗@ ,AB
Where T2,LM is logarithmic mean value of the measured T2 distribution. For both
approaches the constant a, the exponent of the porosity (4) or on the NMR parameter (4)
may need to be adjusted to local conditions to give a better fit to known values of
permeability.
23
Permeability From Cores
Core plugs are dried and cleaned, to measure the permeability. Each core plug are tested at
ambient conditions. Organic solvents such as toluene, naphtha and methanol are used to clean
the plugs. Darcy’s law is applied to measure the permeability values using a gas permeameter
apparatus at ambient conditions under steady – state flow. In routine core analysis, almost all
permeability’s are obtained by flowing gas, either air or nitrogen through the samples.
The permeabilities are measured by first placing them in a core holder, and applying an
overburden pressure of 200 – 400 psi. Next dry gas is flowed through the core until steady
state flow is achieved. Then the flow rate, upstream pressure, and pressure drop are measured.
The gas permeability can then be calculated:
2000 ∗ DC ∗ E ∗ FC ∗ G
C =
D6 − D ∗ H
Where Pa is the atmospheric pressure, P1 is the upstream pressure, P2 is outlet pressure.
There is also another method, called “the transient pulse method”. A porous sample is
connected between upstream and downstream reservoirs of a pore fluid. Pore fluid pressures
are set to a prescribed value, prior to a measurement. At the beginning of a measurement (t =
0), a small pressure pulse ∆P0 is introduced to the upstream reservoir. The pressure in the
upstream reservoir decays as the fluid flows through the sample, while that in the downstream
reservoir rises. When the fluid flow is sufficiently slow, the flow is approximately isothermal.
The pressure difference decays as follows:
∆D J = ∆D ∗ K 7LM
Where decay constant γ is given by:

H 1 1
N= ∗∗9 + >
EO G =6 =
Where µ is viscosity, β is isothermal compressibility, V1 and V2 are volumes of upstream and

downstream reservoirs. When the pore fluid is an ideal gas isothermal compressibility becomes
1/P and viscosity is independent of the pressure the permeability can be calculated:
G =6 =
= EPO ∗ ∗9 >
H =6 + =
24
Permeability is then determined from the pressure evolution in the reservoirs.
The transient pulse method is suitable for permeability measurements of low
permeability materials, since the determined permeability is without measuring
fluid flux. Fluid flux in such materials is to low measure with standard techniques.
Another method is the pore pressure oscillation method, for low permeability
materials. Its application is limited since it requires an elaborate fluid pressure
oscillation system. The transient pulse method can be carried out with a much
simpler system.
25
Overburden pressure
Reservoirs are under considerable compressive stress as a result of the weight of the
overlaying formations. Overburden pressure affects the reservoir properties. The pressure
causes only a small decrease in the porosity, which can usually be ignored. The porosity is
only reduced by almost 5 % of the original porosity. The effect of overburden pressure on
permeability is greater and varies considerably with the type of reservoir rock. The effect of
overburden pressure on relative permeability is small or nonexistent.
The gas permeability of tight sand stone is markedly reduced with increasing overburden
pressure, in fractures permeability can be reduced to as much as 6 % of the initial
permeability. Water saturation also reduces the gas permeability.
26
Klinkenberg effect
Permeability measurements can sometime be affected by the fluids used in the tests. This is
caused by some interactions between the fluid and the porous medium. To avoid this problem
gases are often used to determine permeability. The uses of gases introduce other problems,
such as turbulent flow behavior, increased uncertainty in gas rate measurements and at low
pressure, the Klinkenberg effect. The rock permeability to gas is not the same as for liquids,
since the gas permeability is pressure dependent.
The Klinkenberg effect is seen on low pressures, measurements of gas permeability give
erroneously high results as compared to the non – reactive liquid permeability measurements.
This effect is known as the “gas slippage effect” or as the Klinkenberg effect, found by
Klinkenberg in 1941.
Klinkenberg found that the gas permeability of a core sample varied with both the type of gas
used in the measurements and the average pressure in the core. One of the conditions for the
validity of Darcy’s Law is that the requirement of laminar flow. At low pressures in
combination with small pore channels this condition is broken. At low pressures gas
molecules are often so far apart that they slip through the pore channels without almost
without any interactions, this gives an increased flow rate. At higher pressures, the distances
between the molecules are smaller so they interact more strongly as molecules in liquids.
Compared to laminar flow, with constant pressure difference, the Klinkenberg dominated
flow will have higher flow rate than laminar flow.
In early core analysis the Klinkenberg permeability was estimated by using a steady – state
estimate for permeability measurements at different mean pressures or by using the
correlation:
Q = A 91 + R >
QSCT
Where km is measured permeability, kL is the liquid permeability and b represents properties

of the rock depending on the type of gas used in measurement.
Corrections to measured gas permeability’s due to the Klinkenberg effect are normally
moderate to small corrections. In most laboratory measurements of gas permeability, it is safe
to neglect Klinkenberg effect if the gas pressure is higher than 10 bar. As for the reservoirs,
the pressure will be much higher than 10 bar and the significance of the Klinkenberg effect is
of no importance.
27
Scaling of permeability
It is relatively simple to derive the permeability from the porosity. Once the permeability has
been derived, it is important to examine this for the intervals where the permeability goes to
very high values. Most sandstone formations do not exceed about 1500 mD, but there are top
– quality reservoirs with porosities above 35 % with permeability’s up to about 4000 mD. It is
also possible to apply a cut off value to cap the permeability at a level that is supportable by
the core data. In non – reservoir formations, the permeability should usually be set to a very
low value, for example 0,001 mD. For making zonal averages of the permeability there are
three types of averages:
The first one is arithmetic average, which is given by:
ℎ
=W ∗
CU MV
∑ℎ
This average is appropriate to use if the flow in the reservoir is in the direction of the bedding
plane. Small impermeable streaks will have very little effect on the average.
The second one is geometric average, which is given by:
ℎ
= K\R 9W log ∗ >
ZS[Q
∑ℎ
In effect, the average of the logarithms of the individual permeability’s is used, and at the end
the exponent of the logarithms are taken. This average is appropriate to use if the flow in the
reservoir is partially in the direction of bedding plane and partly normal to the bedding plane.
Impermeable streaks will have some influence on the average, but not big enough to destroy the
average.
The third is the harmonic average, which is given by:
1
=
VCUQ
ℎ
]∑ ] ^ / ∑ ℎ ^
The average of the inverse of the individual permeability’s is used, and the results are inverted at
the end. This average is appropriate to use if the flow in the reservoir is normal to the direction
of the bedding plane. Impermeable streaks will completely dominate the zonal average.
28
These three methods can give very different values for the same formation. Typically the
arithmetic method will give a result 10 times higher than the harmonic method, while the
geometric method will be somewhere in the middle.
In horizontal well there is an additional effect due to the fact that the vertical permeability is
greater than the horizontal permeability. The average permeability, which is partially influenced
by the vertical permeability and partly by the horizontal permeability, is given by:
1+
C` = V ∗
2
Where α is the vertical permeability divided by the horizontal permeability.
29
Permeability from cores and logs – Cross plots
Cross plots have widely been used in determination of porosity, lithology and in different
zone parameters (for example GRmin) for petrophysical calculations. Cross plots can also be
used to indicate minerals, also in more complex formations with three minerals. One of the
most used cross plots is density – neutron cross plot, based upon density and porosity logs.
Density – porosity cross plot is the most used method in determination of lithology and
porosity, for a simple clean formation. If the formation is clean sandstone, limestone or
dolomite in a waterzone, the points in the plot will be along the lithology lines in the figure
below.
[Figure3: Cross plot from density and neutron log, with sandstone, limestone and dolomite indication.]
30
The crossplot can also be used to determine fractions of different minerals. The distance
between sandstone-, limestone- and dolomite line indicates a good dissolution for these
lithologies. The most common 24vaporates (as halite and anhydrite) are easily identified
with the crossplot. Formations containing clays are difficult to identify, because of its high
values in neutron log and low values in density log. This will give points in the lower right
corner in the plot when the volume of clay increases. This makes it difficult to part
sandstone from dolomite and limestone. In a gas zone the points will be moved to the
upper left corner, and it becomes difficult to part sandstone from dolomite.
There are also other possibilities of cross plots, for example sonic – neutron, density –
sonic and porosity – permeability.
31
Permeability From well Tests
The general formation evaluation consists of using seismic to evaluate the reservoir, logs
provides initial information about the fluid type and producibility. Well testing provides
confirmation, detailed fluid properties, accurate pressure measurements and production
evaluation. Formation testing is the final step before production is started and provides
essential information to design the well completion and production facilities. There are two
different technologies that can be used for testing:
• Wireline formation testing uses a sonde that can be positioned at a selected depth in
the formation to provide measurements of pressure and fluid type, with limited
production data.
• Well testing uses a packer lowered in drill pipe or tubing. The tested interval is not
precisely defined and downhole measurements are limited, but the volume of fluid
produced enables complete evaluation of production potential.
There are many applications of well testing, and they can be grouped into four fundamental
classes:
• Formation pressure measurement

• Formation fluid characterization
• Reservoir characterization
• Skin and permeability measurement
Skin and permeability measurement:

The pressure measurements are interpreted to give the reservoirs dynamic properties, which
are relevant to fluid flow. These parameters can for example be formation permeability and
any occurrence of skin (for example formation damage) which impair the flow. The
measurements will help to determine
• Reservoir permeability
• Well deliverability
• A damaged or stimulated well condition
• Vertical rock permeability
• The efficiency of stimulation treatments
32
Openhole Wireline Testing
The history of wireline testing began with the single – test tool in the 1950s. The main object
of this tool was to collect a fluid sample. The tools had to be pulled out after each sample was
taken. Multiple (repeat) wireline pressure testing was introduced in 1974, which theoretically
could take infinite pressure points and two fluid samples. The MDT tool was introduced in
1988. It was designed to take multiple fluid samples per run, in addition to distributed
pressure points. This new tool made it possible to make an immediately reservoir pressure
profile, which was largely unavailable at that time.
Formation pressure is obtained by withdrawing a small amount of fluid to generate a short

transient test, called a “pretest”. The pressure is then recorded until it becomes stabilize. In
thick reservoirs with relatively high permeabilities, vertical pressure profiles are used to
determine in – situ fluid densities and contact levels.
The permeability from single – probe tool represents a combination of vertical and horizontal
permeability. Single probe measurements are affected by different factors such as mudcake
blocking, non – Darcy flow, fines migration and formation damage. There are several
modules and measure techniques to overcome the problems encountered. During fluid
sampling there is an uncertainty about the sampled fluid, whether the fluid sample is truly
representative of the reservoir fluids and the degree of contamination by the mud filtrate.
[Figure 4 : Sketch of a single – probe module.]
33
Drillstem Testing (DST)
A DST string is a multiple array of downhole hardware used for temporary completion of a
well. It is also used for longer – duration production tests. DTS is a safe and efficient method
of controlling the flow while gathering essential reservoir data in the exploration, evaluation
and sometimes development phase of a well. DST can also be used for preconditioning or
treatment prior to permanent completion.
The DST assemblies can be customized.
The pressure controlled tester is operated by annulus pressure to control formation flow. This
tester is very important part of the DST assembly. By operating the PCT valve, the reservoir
can be opened to flow or shut – in. Downhole pressures are continuously monitored, the string
is first lowered into the well and short test is performed. The initial flow period serves the
purpose of cleaning the formation damage and measuring initial shut – in pressure after a
short pressure buildup. The reservoir is then opened for a longer duration, often called the
“final flow period”.
There are many advantages in combining perforating and testing operations. Perforating can
be performed underbalanced, resulting clean perforations and an undamaged formation before
testing.
It is also possible to fix permanent pressure monitoring systems, they are placed downhole
with the completion string near the depth of reservoir. They are connected to the surface with
a cable that runs the length of the completion string and exits the wellbore through suitable
connectors. Advanced telemetry allows the sensors to be interpreted at any time. Most current
systems record both bottomhole temperature and pressure.
34
Interpretation of well tests
One of the elemental basis for well test interpretation is that sometime during the test, the flow
in the reservoir is radial and not influenced by any outer boundaries. In geometrical terms, this
means that the flow lines are horizontal (no effect of gravity) and perpendicular to the
wellbore axis. During conventional well tests it is very important that the flow in reservoir
reaches radial flow regime, because of the mathematical solution of the diffusivity equation
simplifies greatly. And it is only in this flow regime, that he tests can be interpreted for its
target parameters such as permeability – thickness product and skin – factors.
In wireline testing radial flow may not always occur because of the configuration of the tool
and depth of investigation. The interpretation of wireline test does not require that radial flow
regime, other techniques can be used.
35
Calculation of Skin and permeability – thickness:
Skin is dimensionless parameter that represents the additional (positive or negative)
pressure drop suffered at the sandface by the reservoir fluids flowing into the well, on
account of near
– wellbore flow restricting or flow enhancing situations.
Skin factor has been described by Hawkins:
Pbc
=a − 1d ∗ ;e
bc P
Where kfd is the permeability of formation damage, rfd is radius of damage.
Permeability thickness can be calculated from semi logplot, of time vs pressure:
88,4 ∗ i ∗ E
f =
j∗h
Where m is the slope from semilog – plot.
From log – log plot of dimensionless time vs dimensionless pressure:
ℎ = 141,2 ∗ F ∗ E ∗ lm
Where Mp is pressure match.
36
Characterizing Permeability with
Formation Testers
Modern wireline formation testers bring special knowledge about reservoir

dynamics that no other tool can acquire. Through multiple pres-sure-transient
tests, they can evaluate vertical as well as horizontal permeability. By measuring
at a length scale between cores and well tests, they can quantify the effect of thin
layers that are not seen by other techniques. These layers play a vital role in
reservoir drainage, controlling gas-and waterflood performance, and leading to
unwanted gas and water entries. Modern wire-
line formation testers can also be a cost-effec-tive, environmentally friendly
alternative to regular drillstem and pressure-transient tests.
This article shows how permeability measure-ments derived from wireline
formation testers are contributing to reservoir understanding and making an
impact on reservoir development
Which Permeability?
Permeability determines reservoir and well per-formance, but the term can refer
to many types of measurements. For example, permeability can be absolute or
effective, horizontal or vertical.
Permeability is defined as a formation property, independent of the fluid. When a
single fluid flows through the formation, we can measure an
absolute permeability that is more or less inde-pendent of the fluid.1 However,
when two or more fluids are present, each reduces the ability of the
other to flow. The effective permeability is the permeability of each fluid in the
presence of the others, and the relative permeability is the ratio of
effective to absolute permeability. In a producing reservoir, we are most
interested in effective per-meability, initially of oil or gas in the presence of
irreducible water, and later of oil, gas and water at different saturations. To
further complicate matters, effective and absolute permeabilities
can be significantly different (see “Conventional Permeability Measurements,”
page 38).
Formations are usually anisotropic, meaning their properties depend on the
direction in which they are measured. For fluid-flow properties, we usually
consider transversely isotropic forma-tions, meaning formations in which the two
hori-zontal permeabilities are the same and equal to kh, while the vertical
37
permeability, kv, is different.
Although more complicated formations exist, there are typically not enough
measurements to quantify more than these two quantities.
Permeability anisotropy can be defined as kv/kh,
kh/kv, or the ratio of the highest to the lowest per-meability. In this thesis we will
use kh/kv, a quan-tity that is most often greater than 1.2
The next complication is related to spatial dis-tribution. Reservoir management
would be much simpler if permeability were distributed uniformly, but, in
practice, formations are complex and het-erogeneous—that is, they have a range
of values about two or more local averages. The number of measurements needed
for a full description of a heterogeneous rock is impossibly high; moreover, the
result of each measurement depends on its scale. For example, for an idealized
reservoir com-prising isotropic sand with randomly distributed isotropic shales,
there are three scales to consider—megascopic (the overall reservoir), macro-
scopic (the grid squares used in reservoir simulation), and mesoscopic (individual
facies) (above). The megascopic anisotropy is very high—between 103 and 105.
However, areas A and B are isotropic, while the grid squares are intermediate,
showing that the large-scale anisotropy is in fact caused by local heterogeneity.
Measurements at different scales and in different locations will find different
values for both kh and kv and hence different anisotropy
Which permeability to choose? In a single-phase, homogeneous reservoir, the
question is irrelevant—but such reservoirs do not exist.
Almost all reservoirs, and particularly carbon-ates, are highly stratified.
For some formations, flow properties also vary laterally. For instance,in deltaic
sandstone deposits, the world’s most prolific reservoirs, flow properties vary
laterally because of the sorting of sediments according to size and weight during
transport and deposition. Whether in sandstone or carbonate, as hetero-geneity
increases, the distribution of permeabil-ity becomes as important as its average
value.
Early in the life of a reservoir, the main concern is the average horizontal
effective permeability to oil or gas, since this controls the productivity and
completion design of individual wells. Later on, vertical permeability becomes
important because of its effect on gas and water coning, as well as the
productivity of horizontal and multilateral wells. The distribution of both
horizontal and ver-tical permeability strongly affects reservoir perfor-mance and
the amount of hydrocarbon recovery, while also determining the viability of
secondary- and tertiary-recovery processes
The magnitude of permeability contrast becomes increasingly important with

prolonged production. Thin layers, faults and fractures can have a dramatic effect
on the movement of a gas cap, aquifer, and injected gas and water. For example,
a low permeability layer, or baffle, will impede the movement of gas downwards.
A high-permeability layer, or conduit, will quickly
38
bring unwanted water to a production well. Both can significantly affect the
sweep efficiency and require a change in completion practices. Sound reservoir
management depends on knowing not only the average horizontal permeability
but also the permeability distribution laterally and verti- cally, and the
conductivity of baffles and conduits (left). As has been known for a long time,
reservoir heterogeneity is one of the major reasons why enhanced oil recovery
is so difficult. Permeability heterogeneity, unexpected baffles and insufficiently
detailed reservoir evaluation are often the reasons that these projects fail to
be economical.3
In normal reservoir-engineering practice, the main sources of average effective
permeability are pressure-transient well testing and production tests. These are
usually good indicators of overall well performance. Cores and logs are used, but
often after some matching, or scaling up, to well-test results. Once a reservoir has
been on production, conventional history matching
gives information on average permeability, but cannot resolve its distribution.
The presence of high- or low-permeability streaks and their distri- butions are
inferred from cores and logs, but this information is qualitative rather than
quantitative.
Figure 5 :
A Grid square B
A cross section of an idealized reservoir that exhibits large-scale anisotropy caused by local
heterogeneity. A sandstone reservoir (yellow) contains randomly distributed shales (gray). The
vertical permeability for the whole reservoir is about 104 times less than the horizontal perme-
ability—a very large anisotropy. However, the small areas A and B are in isotropic sand and
shale, respectively. The grid square, which might represent a reservoir-simulation block, has
intermediate permeability anisotropy. Vertical permeability is close to the harmonic average of
sand and shale permeabilities, while the horizontal permeability is the arithmetic average.
[Adapted from Lake LW: “The Origins of Anisotropy,” Journal of Petroleum Technology 40, no.
4(April 1988): 395–396.]
39
Wireline formation testers (WFTs) have stepped into this gap, providing various
measurements of
permeability from simple drawdowns with a single probe to multilayer analyses
with multiple probes. The latter were originally used mainly to
determine anisotropy.4 With recently developed analytical techniques and further
experience, multilayer analyses now provide quantitative information about
permeability distribution
Figure 6 :
40
RDT (Reservoir Description Tool)
1. In direct measurements of fluid flow in rocks, the quan-tity measured is the
mobility (permeability/viscosity).According to Darcy’s law, all fluid effects are
accounted for by the viscosity term, and permeability is independent of fluid.
In practice, this is not exactly true, even without chemical interactions between
rock and fluid. Absolute permeability is also known as intrinsic permeability.
2. The term radial permeability, kr, describes radial flow into a wellbore. In
vertical wells, radial permeability is the same as horizontal permeability. Vertical
permeability is written both as kv and kz. Spherical permeability is
written as ks.
3. The so-called drawdown permeability is calculated as kd = C qµ/∆pss in units

of mD, where q is the flow rate in cm3/s, µ is the fluid viscocity in cp, and ∆ρss is
the measured drawdown pressure in psi (and therefore includes any pressure
drop due to mechanical skin). C, the flow-shape factor, depends on the effective
radius of the probe, and equals 5660 for the standard RFT and MDT Modular
Formation Dynamics Tester probes and the units given.
4.Dussan EB and Sharma Y: “Analysis of the Pressure Response of a Single-

Probe Formation Tester,” SPE Formation Evaluation 7, no. 2 (June 1992): 151-
156.
5. Jensen CL and Mayson HJ: “Evaluation of Permeabilities Determined from
Repeat Formation Tester Measurements Made in the Prudhoe Bay Field,” paper
SPE 14400, presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Las Vegas, Nevada, USA,September 22-25, 1985.
6. Goode PA and Thambynayagam RKM: “Influence of an Invaded Zone on a
Multiple Probe Formation Tester,” paper SPE 23030, presented at the SPE Asia
Pacific Conference, Perth, Western Australia, Australia,
November 4-7, 1991.
We might expect the buildup permeability to be higher than kd since, by reading
farther into the formation, it should read closer to the effective permeability of the
formation to oil or gas. However, in general experience, the buildup permeability
reads lower
41
Wireline Formation Testers Early wireline formation testers were designed
primarily to collect fluid samples. Pressures were recorded, so that the pressure
buildups at the end of sampling could be analyzed to determine per-meability and
formation pressure. In spite of the limited gauge resolution and the few data
points available, the results were often an important input to formation evaluation.
Now, buildups acquired after sampling are still analyzed to obtain an estimate of
permeability at little extra cost.The Schlumberger RFT Repeat Formation Tester
tool introduced the pretest, a short test
initially designed to determine whether a point was worth sampling. To the
surprise of many,pretest pressure turned out to be representative of reservoir
pressure. As a result, pressure mea-surements became the main WFT
application.Permeability could be estimated from both the drawdown and the
buildup during a pretest. Since a reliable pressure gradient required pretests at
several depths, much more perme-ability data became available. With tens of test
points in a single well, it became easier to establish a permeability profile and
compare results with core and other sources.
Pretests continue to be an important feature of modern tools, although the
reliability of the permeability estimate varies. Since pretests sample a small
volume, typically 5 to 20 cm3 [0.3 to 1.2 in.3], the drawdown permeability, kd,
can be overly influenced by formation damage and other near-wellbore features.5
Detailed anal-ysis shows that kd is closest to kh, although it is influenced by kv.6
The volume of investigation is significantly larger than that of a core plug, but of
the same order of magnitude. However, kd is typically the effective permeability
to mud filtrate in
the invaded zone rather than the absolute permeability as obtained from core.
Although some good correlations between the two have been found, kd is
generally considered to be the minimum likely permeability.7 Never theless, it
can be computed automatically at the wellsite, and is still used regularly as a
qualitative indicator of productivity.
42
Pretest buildups investigate farther into the formation than drawdowns, several
feet if the gauge resolution is sufficiently high and the buildup is recorded long
enough. Except in low- permeability formations, buildup time is short, so that the
tool may be measuring the permeability of either the invaded zone, the
noninvaded zone, or some combination of the two.8 As in the interpretation of
any pressure-transient data, flow regimes are identified by looking for characteris-
tic gradients in the rate of change of pressure with time. For pretest buildups in
which the flow regimes are spherical and occasionally radial, consistent gradients
often prove hard to find, and even then may be affected by small changes the
pretest sampling volume. For reliable results, each pretest must be analyzed—a
time-consum-ing process. Today, the analysis of short pretest buildups for
permeability is rare, mainly because there are much better ways to obtain
permeabil-ity with modern tools.
Modular Wireline Formation Testers The third-generation WFT is the modular

tester.This tool can be configured with different mod-ules to satisfy different
applications, or to handle varying conditions of well and formation (below).
43
Figure 7
> Typical MDT tool configurations for permeability measurements: single probe with sample chamber
and flow-control module (A); a sink, normally the bottom probe, with one (B) or two (C) vertical
observation probes; dual-probe module with one (D) or two (E) vertical probes; mini-DST configuration
with dual-packer and pumpout module (F); dual-packer module with one (G) or two (H) vertical probes.
The flow-control module, sample chamber and pumpout module can be added to any configuration.
When only one pressure transient is recorded, as in (A) and (F), permeability determination depends on
identifying particular flow regimes, type-curve matching or parameter estimation using a forward model.
With one or more vertical probes, as in the other configurations, it is possible to perform a local
interference test, also known as an interval pressure-transient test (IPTT). With these tests, interpreters
can determine kv and kh for a limited number of layers near the tool. Storativity, øCt, can be determined
with the dual-probe module, and sometimes when three vertical transients are available, as in (C) and
(H). With other configurations, it must be determined from other data. Pretest drawdown and buildup
permeabilities can be determined with the dual-packer module and each probe in all configurations.
44
Conventional Permeability Measurements
Pressure-transient analysis, production tests, his-tory data, cores and logs are all
used to estimate permeability. Each measurement has different characteristics,
advantages and disadvantages.
Core data—Routine core measurements give absolute, or intrinsic, permeability.
In shaly reservoirs with high water saturation or in oil-wet reservoirs, the effective
permeability can be significantly lower than the absolute permeabil-ity (right).
Core data are taken on samples that have been moved to surface and cleaned, so
that measurement conditions are not the same as those made in situ. Some of
these conditions, such as downhole stress, can be simulated on surface. Others,
such as clay alteration and stress-relief cracks, may not be reversible.
To be useful for reservoir characterization, there should be enough core samples
to capture sufficiently the reservoir heterogeneity—various statistical rules exist
to determine how many samples are required. But it is not always possible to
capture a statistically valid range of samples even in one well. Highly porous
samples may fall out of the core barrel, while cutting plugs from very tight
intervals is difficult. Some analysts prefer permeameter measurements because
more samples can be taken.1 Averaging, or scaling up, is another tricky issue. For
layered flow, the arithmetic average,
C` = ∑ ℎ /∑ℎ ,
is the most appropriate for the horizontal permeability. For random two
dimensional flow, it is the geometric average,
C` = kav =[ ∏kipq / ∑ pq ]
while for the vertical permeability, the harmonic average,
C` =[∑ki76 hi/ ∑hi 76
is important. Log data—Logs measure porosity and o ther quantities that are
related to pore size, for example irreducible water saturation and nuclear magnetic
resonance parameters.Permeability can be estimated from these measurements
using a suitable empirical relationship. This relationship normally must be
calibrated for each reservoir or area to more direct measurements, usually cores,
but sometimes, after scaling up, to pressure-transient results. The main use of
log-derived permeability is to provide continuous estimates in all wells.
On the economic side, cores and logs have many applications, so that the extra
cost of obtaining permeability from them is relatively small.
45
Figure 8
Typical relative-permeability curves for oil and water in a water-wet
reservoir (top) and an oil-wet reservoir (bottom). Effective permeabilities
are relative permeabilities multiplied by the absolute permeability. Points
A and A’ represent the typical situation for a wireline formation tester
drawdown measurement in water-base mud. In a water-wet reservoir, the
filtrate flows in the presence of 20% residual oil and has a relative perme-
ability of 0.3. Points B and B’ represent the typical situation for pressure-
transient analysis in an oil reservoir. In a water-wet reservoir, the oil flows
in the presence of 20% irreducible water and has a relative permeability of
0.9. Points A, A’, B and B’ are also known as endpoint permeabilities. Some
engineers refer relative permeabilities to the effective permeability to oil
rather than the absolute permeability, as shown here.
46
Well tests—Pressure-transient analysis of well tests measures the average in-situ,
effective permeability of the reservoir. However, the results have to be interpreted
from the change of pressure with time. Interpreters use several techniques,
including the analysis of specific flow regimes, and matching the transient to type
curves or a formation model. In conventional tests, the well is produced long
enough to sample up to the reservoir boundaries. Impulse tests produce for a short
time and are useful for wells that do not flow to surface. In both cases, but
especially for impulse tests, there is not necessarily any unique solution for
permeability In most conventional tests, the goal is to mea-sure the transmissivity
(khh/µ) during radial flow. The reservoir thickness, h, can be esti-mated at the
borehole, but is it the same tens and hundreds of feet into the reservoir where
the pressure changes are taking place? In practice, other information—
geological models and seismic data—helps improve results. With conventional
well tests, the degree of heterogeneity can be detected, but the permeability
distribution cannot be determined and there is no vertical resolution
Economically, well tests are expensive from the point of view of both equipment
and rig time. Well tests are also undertaken to obtain a fluid sample so that the
incremental cost of determining permeability may be small.
However, obtaining high-quality permeability data often requires long shut-in
times and extra equipment such as downhole valves, gauges and flowmeters
Production tests and production history— An average effective permeability can
be obtained from the flow rate and pressure during steady-state production,
preferably from specific tests at different flow rates. Skin and other near-wellbore
effects have to be known or assumed. An average permeability can also be
determined from production-history data by adjusting the permeability until the
correct history of production is obtained. However, in both cases, the
permeability distribution cannot be
obtained reliably. In the presence of layering or heterogeneity, this is a highly
nonlinear inverse problem, for which there can be more than one solution.
In the absence of other data, permeability is often related to porosity. In theory,
the relation is weak—there are porous media that have been leached to give high
porosity with zero permeability, and others that have been fractured to give the
opposite. However, in practice, there do exist well-sorted sandstone reservoirs
with a consistent porosity-permeability relation.
Other reservoirs are less simple. For carbonate rocks in particular, microporosity
and fractures make it almost impossible to relate porosity and lithofacies to
permeability.
47
Some of these modules are particularly relevant for permeability measurements.
The descriptions of the modules below refer to the Schlumberger MDT Modular
Formation Dynamics Tester tool, unless otherwise specified.
The single-probe module—This module provides communication between the
reservoir and the tool. It consists of the probe assembly, pretest chamber, strain
and quartz pressure gauges, and resistivity and temperature sensors.
The probe assembly has a small packer, which contains the actual probe. When a
tool is set, telescoping backup pistons press the packer assembly against the
borehole wall. The probe is pressed farther through the mudcake into contact with
the formation. Special probe-assembly designs are available for difficult
conditions.7
Communication is established with the formation by a short pretest, after which
the module can withdraw fluids for sampling or act as a passive
monitor of pressure changes.
The dual-probe module—This module consists of two probe assemblies
mounted in fixed positions on the same mandrel. In the Halliburton RDT
Reservoir Description Tool, the probes are mounted above one another, separated
by a few inches and facing the same way.10 One probe, known as the sink probe,
withdraws fluids, while the other monitors the pressure transient. In the MDT
tool, the two probe assemblies are mounted diametrically opposite each other on
the mandrel.11 One probe is a sink while the other, known as the horizontal
probe, is solely a moni-tor with no sampling capability. The main purpose of the
dual-probe module is to combine with a vertical probe to determine kh, kv and
storativ-ity (øCt) through a local interference test or, to use a more specific name,
the interval pressure- transient test (IPTT).12 By withdrawing fluid through the
sink, three pressure transients can be recorded at three different locations along
the wellbore, two of which are from monitor probes and are not contaminated by
the effects of tool storage, skin and cleanup.13
The dual-packer module—This module has two packer elements that are
inflated to isolate a borehole interval of about 1 m [3.3 ft]. Once these are inflated,
fluid is withdrawn, first from the isolated interval, and then from the formation.
Since a large section of the borehole wall is now open to the formation, the fluid-
flow area is several thousand times larger than that of conventional probes. This
offers important advantages in both low- and high-permeability formations, and in
other situations.
48
Probes are sometimes ineffective when set in laminated, shaly, fractured, vuggy,
unconsolidated or low-permeability formations. The dual packer allows
pressure measurements and sampling in these conditions.
• Used alone, the dual packer makes a small ver- sion of a standard drillstem test
(DST) that is known as a mini-drillstem test, or mini-DST.Since the mini-DST
opens up only 1 meter of formation, it acts as a limited-entry test from which
both kv and kh may be determined under favorable conditions. Used in
combination with one or more vertical probes, the dual packer
can record an IPTT.
• The pressure drop during drawdown is typically much smaller than that
obtained with a probe. Thus, it is easier to ensure that oil is produced above its
bubblepoint, and that unconsolidated sands do not collapse. Also, with a smaller
pressure drop, fluids can be pumped at a higher rate, so that for the same time
period, a larger volume of formation fluid can be withdrawn and a deeper-reading
pressure pulse created.
7. For the MDT tool these include: large-area packers for tight formations; large-
diameter probes for unconsoli-dated as well as tight formations; long-nosed
probes for unconsolidated formations and thick mudcakes; and gravel-pack
probes and a large-area filter similar to an automobile oil filter for extremely
unconsolidated sands (the Martineau probe).
8. Proett MA, Wilson CC and Batakrishna M: “Advanced Permeability and

Anisotropy Measurements While Testing and Sampling in Real-Time Using a
Dual Probe Formation Tester,” paper SPE 62919, presented at the SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, USA, October 1-4, 2000.
9. Zimmerman T, MacInnes J, Hoppe J, Pop J and Long T: “Applications of
Emerging Wireline Formation Testing Technologies,” paper OSEA 90105,
presented at the 8th Offshore Southeast Asia Conference, Singapore, December 4-
7, 1990.
9. The term vertical interference test (VIT) is also used for vertical wells. The
terms local interference test and interval pressure-transient test are appropriate for
devi- ated or horizontal wells. Storativity is the product of porosity, ø, and total
rock compressibility, Ct, which is the sum of the solid compressibility, Cr, and
the fluid compressibility, Cf . When not measured by an IPTT, Cf must be
estimated from fluid properties and Cr from knowledge of the solid framework
based on acoustic logs, porosity and other data. If there is more than one fluid,
the saturation of each fluid is estimated from logs or sample volumes.
49
10. Skin is defined as the extra pressure drop caused by near-wellbore damage
(mechanical skin), flow convergence in a partially penetrated bed, and
viscoinertial flow effects (usually ignored). The flow-convergence factor can be
calculated from knowledge of bed thickness and test interval.Tool storage is due
to the compressibility of the fluid in the tool, and causes the measured flow rate to
be different from the actual flow rate at the formation surface, or sandface.
Cleanup refers to the increase in flow rate as the flow of fluids removes formation
damage near the borehole.
The pumpout module—This module pumps fluid from the formation into the
mud column, and from one part of the tool to another. Pumping into the mud
column allows much larger volumes of fluid to be withdrawn than when sampling
into fixed-volume sample chambers. The module can also pump fluid from one
part of the tool to another; from the mud column into the tool, for example to
inflate the packer elements; or into the interval between the packers to initiate a
small hydraulic fracture. For permeability measurements, the pumpout module is
capable of sustaining a constant, measured flow rate during drawdown, thereby
simplifying considerably the interpretation of pressure transients. The flow rate
though the pump depends on the pressure differential, increasing at low
differential to a maximum of 45 cm3/s [0.7 gal/min]. At very high differential,
such as in a tight rock, the pump may not be able to maintain a constant rate.
The flow-control module—This module with-draws up to 1000 cm3 [0.26 gal]
of fluid from the formation while controlling and measuring the flow rate. The
fluid withdrawn is either sent to a sample chamber or pumped into the borehole.
The module works in various modes such as constant flow rate, constant pressure
and ramped pressure, and can also draw repeated pulses of fluid from the
formation. The time for pulses to arrive at a vertical probe is an important input
in the determination of kv. Since the flow-control module can control flow rate
precisely, it can regulate the withdrawal of sensitive formation fluids into small-
volume pressure-volume-temperature (PVT) sample bottles. This is important
for the sampling of condensate reser-voirs.
50
All these features provide many ways to measure permeability, ranging from
simple pretest drawdown to multiple probes and dual packers (right). For the most
reliable in-situ determination of permeability and anisotropy, experience has
shown that interference tests should be performed with multiple pressure
transients. Results from other methods will always be more ambigu- ous, but can
still be useful, and even good, estimates in the right conditions. One such
technique is the mini-DST. Figure 9:
51
Mini-DSTs
In a standard DST, drillers isolate an interval of the borehole and induce

formation fluids to flow to surface, where they measure flow volumes before
burning or sending the fluids to a disposal tank. For safety reasons, many DSTs
require the well to be cased, cemented and perforated beforehand. The MDT tool,
in particular the dual- packer module, provides similar functions to a DST but on
wireline and at a smaller scale.
The advantages of the mini-DST are less cost and no fluids to surface. Cost
benefits come from cheaper downhole equipment, shorter operating time and the
avoidance of any surface-handling equipment. On offshore appraisal wells, cost
sav- ings can be more than $5 million. With no fluidsflowing to surface, there are
no problems of fluid disposal, no surface safety issues and no problems with
local environmental regulations. Mini-DSTs are much easier to plan and can test
multiple stations on the same trip—usually a sufficient number to sample the
entire reservoir interval.
The mini-DST has disadvantages: it investi- gates a smaller volume of
formation due to the smaller packed-off interval (3 ft versus tens of
feet), and withdraws a smaller amount of fluid at a lower flow rate. In theory, we
may be able to extend the tests and withdraw large amounts of fluid, but in
practice, there may be a limit to how long the tool can safely be left in the hole.14
The actual depth of investigation of a wireline tester depends on formation
permeability and other fac-tors, but is of the order of tens of feet, rather than the
hundreds of feet seen by a normal DST.
The smaller volume of investigation is not necessarily a disadvantage. A full
DST reveals the average reservoir characteristics and assesses the initial
producibility of a well. Permeability variations will be averaged, and although
they contribute to the average, they are neither located nor quantified. With the
help of logs, the smaller volume mini-DST can evaluate key intervals. The
procedure for interpreting pressure transients from mini-DSTs is the same as for
full DSTs and the same software can be used for both.
TotalFinaElf used mini-DSTs in the Arab reser-voir of an aging Middle East
field to look for zones with moveable oil and to calibrate the permeability
anisotropy used in a simulation model.15 Since the packed-off interval rarely
covers the whole reservoir, a mini-DST is a limited-entry, or partially penetrating,
well test. To determine formation parameters, interpreters need to identify flow
regimes in the buildup. In a homogeneous layer, there are three flow regimes:
early radial flow around the packed-off interval, pseudospherical flow until the
pressure pulse reaches a boundary,and finally total radial flow between upper and
52
lower no-flow boundaries.
Rarely are all three seen because tool storage effects can mask the
early radial flow, while the distance to the nearest barrier determines whether or
not the other regimes are developed during the test period.16
However, it has been common to observe a pseudospherical flow regime, and
occasionally total radial flow in buildup tests (below). On a log-log
plot of the pressure derivative versus a particular function of time, spherical flow
is identified by a slope of –0.5, and radial flow by a stabilized
horizontal line, Spherical permeability,
t
r =s V `
can be estimated from a pressure-derivative plot during spherical flow or from a

separate specialized
> Figure 10: Pressure difference and the derivative of pressure with
respect to a function of time for the buildup at the end of a typical
mini-DST. The pressure difference is between the measured
pressure and a reference taken near the end of the drawdown
period. The derivative is calculated from d∆p/dln[(tp+∆t)/∆t]
where tp is the producing time and τ is the time since the end
of the drawdown. We identify spherical flow by the slope of
–0.5 on the log-log derivative, and radial flow by the slope of
0 (horizontal). The solid lines are the results of a type curve, or
model, computed with the parameters in the tab
53
11. In one recent job, the pumpout module was run continuously for 36 hours. In
another job, the dual-packer module was in the hole for 11 days.
12. Tool storage includes the compressibility of the fluid between the packers. A
common model is to relate the sand face flow rate, qsf, to the measured flow rate,
q, and the rate of change of pressure by a constant, C: qsf =q+24Cdp/dt. The very
early part of a buildup is dominated by wellbore storage, also called afterflow.
C can be estimated from the rate of change of pressure at this time.
13. On a specialized spherical plot, the slope, msp during spherical flow is given
by:
%/
jrm = 2453qµ(sμøwM )/ r
in oil field units, where ø is usually taken from logs, and q, the flow rate, is
measured or estimated. The viscocity, µ, is determined from the PVT properties
of the mobile fluids . If there is more than one mobile fluid, their saturations are
estimated from logs or sample volumes.
14. Horner time is

[(Jm +∆t)/∆t]
where Jm is the drawdown time, and ∆t is the time since the end of the drawdown
the slope, jU , during radial flow is given by
jU =162qµ/ Vh
, where h is the thickness of the formation interval .
TotalFinaElf recorded ten tests in two wells, one of which was cored. Both kv and
kh were subsequently measured on core plugs sampled every
0.25 or 0.5 m [9.8 or 19.6 in.], and compared with the mini-DST results (below).
Care was taken to scale up the core data to the mini-DST interval and to convert
from absolute to effective permeability. For some of the tests, pressure-transient
data were also available from two probes in the MDT tool string, making it
possible to compare mini-DST results with results from a full IPTT as well as
from core samples. The IPTTs measure larger volumes of formation, yet the
results generally agree with the mini-DST, especially for the near probe. The fact
that the different measurements agree suggests that the formations may be
relatively homogeneous, or that the scaling up of the core data was appropriate.
While this good agreement validates the use of a mini-DST in these conditions, it
is inadvisable to assume the same degree of homogeneity in other formations
54
> Figure 11: Comparison of the horizontal (top) and vertical (bottom) permeabilities
measured by mini-DSTs, cores and IPTTs. The core data were
averaged over each mini-DST test interval and converted to effective
permeability using relative-permeability curves. Arithmetic averaging
was used for horizontal permeabilities, and harmonic averaging for
vertical permeabilities. The IPTT data are from the same tests as the
mini-DSTs, but using two probes: V1 at 2 m [6.6 ft] and V2 at 4.45 m
[14.6 ft] above the packer interval. The intervals tested are therefore
different. In this case, the agreement between the different measurements
is generally good.
55
Cased-Hole Mini-DSTs
Phillips Petroleum, operating in the Peng Lai field offshore China, found that
cased-hole mini-DSTs were a valuable complement to full DSTs and openhole
WFTs in evaluating their reservoir. Like many operators, they initially ran
mini-DSTs to obtain high-quality PVT samples, but then found that the pressure
transient data contained valuable information. Peng Lai field consists of a series
of stacked, unconsolidated sandstone reservoirs with heavy oil—11° to 21° API—
of low gas/oil ratio (GOR), whose properties vary widely with depth. Testing each
reservoir in each well with full DSTs was proving expensive, and was not always
successful. Among other factors, the handling of the heavy oil at surface caused
each DST to last between five and seven days.
Large drawdowns, which were sometimes needed to lift the oil to surface, caused
the formation to collapse and the near-wellbore pres-
sure to drop below the bubblepoint. As a result, mini-DSTs were an attractive
alternative for all but the largest zones.
With a probe, the drawdowns were too high,while unstable boreholes and high
pressure differentials made openhole wireline testing with a dual-packer module
risky. Phillips’ answer was to run the dual packer in cased holes. By the end of
2000, they had performed 27 cased-hole
mini-DSTs in seven wells. In one typical test, they identified a 3-ft low-resistivity
zone that was isolated from the main reservoir at the well by thin shales above
and below (next page, left). After cement isolation was checked, a 1-ft [30-cm]
interval was perforated, and the MDT dual packers were set across it.
Communication was established, and the formation fluid was pumped into the
borehole until the oil fraction stabilized (next page, top right). Two oil samples
were taken, and after an additional drawdown, a pressure buildup was recorded
over 2 hours. The total testing time of 16 hours would normally be considered
excessive and risky in openhole conditions, but presented no problem in cased
hole.
The pressure derivative during buildup shows a short period of probable
spherical flow followed by a period of radial flow (next page,bottom right). With
initial values of ks and kh from flowregime identification, the buildup data were
matched with a limitedentry model, assuming a formation thickness of 3 ft with
no outer boundaries. The match is excellent. The high horizontal permeability
(2390 mD) and the low vertical permeability (6 mD) were not surprising for this
zone. Overall, a zone that looked doubtful on logs proved not only to be oil-
bearing but also to have excellent producibility.
56
> Figure 12: Pressure and pump rate during the cased-hole mini-DST from Peng
Lai field. After communication was established with the formation,
the pump withdrew invasion fluids until oil broke through. Once the
oil fraction had stabilized (as measured by the OFA Optical Fluid
Analyzer tool, not shown), two samples were taken. After one additional
drawdown, a 2-hr buildup was recorded. Minimum drawdown pressure
was 164 psi [1130 kPa], at or above the expected bubblepoint pressure,
thereby avoiding free gas. The solid pressure line is the result predicted
by the limited-entry model.
> Figure 13: Pressure difference and derivative for the buildup at the end of the
Peng Lai test. Spherical flow is identified by the slope of –0.5 on the
derivative and radial flow by the slope of zero. The solid lines are the
predictions of a limited-entry model using the parameters in the table.
57
Mini-DST Limitations
In spite of these good results, the permeability measurements have some
limitations. The lack of an observation probe means that the only pressure
transient comes from the pressure sink, which is affected by skin and tool storage.
Both skin and storage influence the early part of the buildup and make
identification of flow regimes and interpretation more difficult. Later in the
buildup there needs to be the right combination of formation properties and bed
thickness for significant periods of both spherical and radial flow to be observed.
The radial-flow interpretation depends directly on identifying bed boundaries,
while spherical-flow interpretation depends on knowing the storativity. Thus, it is
difficult to determine both kv and kh simultaneously. Finally, several factors can
make a single transient hard to interpret. These include gas evolution near the
wellbore, pressure and flow rate variations due to continuous cleanup, and noisy
drawdown pressures from pump strokes. Pressure measurements at observation
probes are not usually affected by these phenomena. Since these probes are higher
up the string, they also increase the volume investigated.
IPTTs have proved to be an effective means for determining permeability

distribution near the wellbore; in fact, they are the preferred method
for layered systems. Mini-DSTs are usually run when the main objective is to
recover a fluid sample, or to measure reservoir pressure, particularly in tight or
heterogeneous formations. Permeability is an additional parameter with which to
judge the producibility of the interval.
.
58
> Figure 14:The sequence of events in a typical IPTT, as shown by the pressure
and the flow rate recorded in the dual-packer interval (top). After tool
setting, the pretest establishes communication with the reservoir by
withdrawing up to 1000 cm3 [60 in.3] through the packer and 20 cm3
[1.2 in.3] through each probe. During drawdown, the flow rate is constant
since it is controlled by the pumpout module. During the buildup
period, the pressure is recorded for a sufficiently long time, approximately
the same as the drawdown period, to ensure good pressure-
transient data. At the end of the buildup period, the probes and packer
are retracted. Packer and probe pressures were recorded with CQG
Crystal Quartz Gauge pressure gauges during the IPTT (bottom). Note
the much more sensitive scale for the probe pressures. Their final
buildup pressure is lower because they are higher in the well. Note
also the distinct delay in the start of the buildup on Probe 2, due to the
low vertical permeability. The delay on Probe 1 cannot be seen at this
time scale. The packer pressure is slightly noisy due to pump movement
59
many of these intervals, and, in any case, give a very local value of the
permeability. The operator decided to investigate the stylolites with a series of
IPTTs in a new well. These could be recorded on a single trip in the hole,
allowing the complete reservoir section to be tested efficiently.
An IPTT needs a minimum of one vertical observation probe and a sink, either
a dual-probe or a dualpacker module. In this case, in order to sample more layers,
the MDT tool was equipped with two vertical observation probes at 6.4 ft and
14.4 ft [1.95 and 4.4 m] above the center of the packer interval. The dual-packer
module was chosen so as to generate a sufficiently large pressure change at the far
probe. The pumpout module was used to withdraw formation fluids from each
tested interval. Pressures were measured by quartz-crystal and strain gauges at
both probes and packer.
Sequence of operations—Using openhole logs, the operator selected six test
locations, with the depths chosen so that the stylolites lay between the dual packer
and near probe. At each test location, the operator followed the same sequence of
events: set the packers and probes, pretest probes and packer interval, drawdown,
buildup, and retract packers and probes (above). The pretests measured formation
pressure and established communication with the formation. Once communication
was established, formation fluids were withdrawn through the packer interval at
an almost constant rate for between 30 and 60 minutes. The rate was slightly
different for each test, but remained between 15 and 21
B/D [2.4 and 3.3 m3/d]. After each drawdown, the interval was shut in for another
30 to 60 minutes
In this test, packer pressure dropped sharply by approximately 300 psi
[2070 kPa], while nearprobe pressure dropped more slowly by 10 psi
[69 kPa] and far probe by 2 psi [14 kPa]. These responses give a first idea of
permeability. The fact that there is a response at the vertical probes showed that
there was communication across the stylolite. Analysis—Interpretation starts with
a look at each test independently. As with mini-DSTs, the first step is to analyze
flow regimes. Buildups are preferred to drawdowns because they are less
60
Evaluation of Hamada field
Figure 15: 9 models was constructed to represent Hamada NC8A field
61
Core description
Core from Well LL8

• Well LL8: 50 ft
• Emgayat (15 ft.)
• Tadrart (36 ft.)
Figure 16:
62
Core from Well LL4
• Well LL4: 57 ft
• Emgayat (11 ft.)
• Tadrart (46 ft.)
Figure 17:
63
Structure Map
Figure 18:
64
Figure 20:
Figure 19:
Predicted NC8A Water Production Rate (STB/D)
Predicted NC8A Liquid Production Rate (STB/D)
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
50000
55000
60000
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
Jan-09 Jan-09
Jan-10 Jan-10
Jan-11 Jan-11
Jan-12 Jan-12
ESP+SRP
ESP+SRP
Jan-13 Jan-13
Jan-14 Jan-14
Jan-15 Jan-15
SRP_A
Jan-16
SRP_A
Jan-16
Jan-17 Jan-17
Jan-18
65
Jan-18
Results of forecasting
Jan-19
Jan-19
Jan-20
Base Case
Base Case
Date
Jan-20
Date
Jan-21
Jan-21
Jan-22
Jan-22
Field liquid production rate

Field water production rate
Jan-23
Jan-23
Jan-24
Jan-24
Jan-25
Jan-25
Jan-26
Jan-26
Base Case+Workover
Jan-27
Base Case+ Workover
Jan-27
Jan-28
Jan-28
Jan-29
Jan-29
Jan-30
SRP_B
Jan-30
SRP_B
Oil production by pool set
Figure 21:
66
PVT summary for Gullebi ( Tadarat)
PVT input
PVT report for well A19 – NC7A
(Tadarat).
No oil PVT model avalaible for
Gullebi Tahara.
Table 7:
67
Production Tests Matching (Tadrar)
DSTs available for well A19 and A 20

(Tadrart ).
Figure 22:
68
In Gullebi Tahara DSTs available for
well A10 and A 16
Figure 23:
69
Water injection case
Injection starts 2 years after first production.

• Controlled by the on – site production of water.
• Well constrained in BHP ( sat at reservoir initial pressure to avoid
fracturing ).
• Additional injection rate set at 20000 BWPD.
Figure 24:
70
Results
FOLLOW CLOSELY UP THE PERFORMANCE OF WELL A7-

NC7A, MAINLY GOR PROFILE --- IN FEBRUARY 2013, JUST
AFTER COMPLETING RST JOB, THE EXISTING LOWER
PERFORTAION INTERVAL IN TADRART/D1 WAS SQUEEZED
OFF AND THEN THE WELL WAS RE-COMPLETED IN THE
UPPER TADRART/D1 FORMATION. DIRECTLY AFTER THE RE-
COMPLETION, THE WELL PRODUCED NATURALLY AND WAS
TESTD IN DIFFERENT CHOKE SIZES. THE PT’S RESULTS
SHOWED GOO-VERY GOOD OIL PRODUCTION WITH NO
WATER PRODUCTION AND WITH STABLE GOR ~ 350
SCF/BBL. IN MARCH AN OTHER SET OF PT’S WAS
CONDUCTED IN THIS WELL BUT THE PT’S RESULTS SHOWED
NOT STABLE AND HIGHER GOR’S. CURRENTLY, THIS WELL
IS PUT ON PRODUCTION TO FOLLOW UP ITS PERFORMANCE
AND THEN PROPOSE ANY REMEDIAL JOB IF DEEMED
NECESSARY.
FOLLOW UP THE RE-COMPLETION BEING DONE ON WELL

A8-NC8A AFTER THE RST RESULTS
71
Conclusion
Permeability from logs is not easy to derive. Timur’s correlation has been used here, which is
based on water saturation and porosity. Porosity can easily be affected by bad hole
(permeability derived from density log), and the constant in Timur’s correlation must also be
changed for each formation. Using the same constant will not give a good match with
permeability from cores. This can be seen from CPI plots, the permeability from cores and
logs (K-Hybrid) has a better match with the core permeability. Permeability from NMR has
not been calculated.
Permeability from cores gives a good picture of the cored interval, but permeability from
cores is difficult to scale up. Results from different scaling are very different; the Arithmetic
values can be much greater than the geometric values. This is seen from the results of scaling.
There are some local points with very high permeability or very low permeability, this gives
inaccurate results in the scaling.
Cross plots of total permeability and permeability from cores (corrected for overburden and
illite) has been used to derive an expression for permeability. The derived expression can be
used to calculate permeability for rest of the formation. Since the core permeability is used, it
gives a good approximation to real permeability.
Permeability from well testing gives the best value of the permeability, compared to
the other methods. Permeability is estimated from pressure buildup data (it can also be
estimated from pressure drawdown analysis). Since permeabilities calculated from well
testing are from flow tests, they are essentially effective permeabilities. This permeability
will be the real permeability, where all effects (mineral and overburden) are counted for.
72
Figure 25:
73
Figure 26:
74
Conceptual depositional model
Figure 27:
Figure 18:
A) Tide dominated estuary model(D1&D3) B) Composite model of a braided river deposit(D2)
75
Reservoir Engineering Analysis
PVT
• There are thirteen (13) fluid samples’ reports, including six complete PVT analysis
reports and eight compositional analysis reports
• The C1 compositions are clearly consistent with the producing GOR
Table 8:
High GOR Low GOR

Component A8 LL1 LL4 O1 GG1 Y1 F-22 I3 V8 V6 AA4 F-28 F-8
N2 0.04 0.25 0.33 0.13 0.00 0.4 2.13 0.14 0.13 0.26 0.58 0.00 0.22
CO2 1.68 0.2 0.24 0 0.00 0.23 0.01 0.06 0.03 0.95 0.04 0.00 0.37
H2s 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
C1 25.81 13.95 14.39 24.62 0.52 2.19 0.64 0.26 0.03 0.5 0.92 0.00 1.36
C2 0.05 0.13 1.15 0.78 0.13 0.04 0.13 0.00 0 0.13 0.34 0.28 0.33
C3 0.11 0.34 1.72 0.52 0.96 0.07 0.26 0.02 0.04 0.33 0.63 0.71 2.59
IC4 0.4 0.42 0.34 0.13 1.00 0.25 0.91 0.05 0.09 0.1 0.97 0.53 1.08
NC4 1.00 1.11 1.13 0.52 4.89 0.90 1.80 0.20 0.31 0.54 0.87 2.02 0.97
IC5 1.91 1.28 0.48 0.65 2.32 1.98 2.75 0.43 0.61 0.14 3.25 2.12 3.56
NC5 2.13 1.62 0.70 2.88 5.18 2.91 0.19 0.68 0.90 0.40 2.90 2.87 3.96
C6 5.89 5.38 2.52 6.06 10.33 8.39 6.42 3.80 3.74 2.14 14.64 5.71 7.10
C7+ 60.98 75.32 77 63.71 74.67 82.64 84.76 94.36 94.12 94.51 74.86 85.76 78.46
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Figure 29:
G O R D is tr ib u tio n f o r N C 8
4 6300 0 478 000 493 000 50 8000 52300 0 538000 5530 00 568000
D a te :6 /1 /2 0 0 7 G O R ( c f /b b l )
0 .0 0 1 0 0 0 .0 0 2 0 0 0 .0 0
4 0500 0
F1 1 F1
F1
F3 6F7
F17
F2
F24 I
8F2F2F42 1
8F 1 F23
I4I2
I6I7 AA V
I1I5I3 AA
AAA
8AA
2A4
A1AA
A9A
A6
V
0V314
V2
A1A5 4V 12V51V
8VV7
1V6 V2
VV712
V4
1V
7322 V
8VV2
V V1
V
2V1
28
V2
V123
0V
V1
1V
V623597
926
011
405000
FF15
6 F2 V5
F
F26F1F1
3 9
F1F9
F2
F25
F2 9
2F1F745A
F8 F1 0
O4
O 1OO O
1O2 O
47O
O3
OOO 95O
1O 81 3
5H
1 21O16O 1 0
3 9000 0 FF1FF4 FF1 0

FF5
1F F1 390000
FF
FF1 41 3
FF6
FF2
FF18
FFF1
FF9
FF7
F17 6 FF FF1 5
FF8
Y3 Y 1Y 2Y5
YY7Y8
Y4 Y6
FF23
FF1
F FF2 A2 A5
3 7500 0 FF
F FF1
GG G G3
G GG
G1 4
A1A1 A6
A3
A4
1 A7
A 9A 8
A 375000
F GG2
3 6000 0 360000
3 4500 0 LL9
LL5 345000
LL8
LL1 LL LL3
LL5
LL7
LL2
LL4
LL6
LL1
3 3000 0 330000
4 6300 0 478 000 493 000 50 8000 52300 0 538000 5530 00 568000
76
PVT
The results of the PVT reports are shown
Table 9:
An unusual feature of most of the PVT reports is the low solution gas-
oil ratio (Rs). This is as low as 18scf/stb, but the field producing GOR is
generally much higher
77
SCAL
• Two wells had SCAL analysis: V-8 (D2) and F-22 (D1)
• Water wet: plot of swi vs phi
• Typical Pc, Rel perm plots
Figure 30: I9-NC8A

Msol:Sw / Msol:Phie
Active Zone : (36) I9-NC8A Z:2 TADRART D1
0.3
0.24
0.18
Msol:Phie
0.12
0.06
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Msol:Sw
841 points plotted out of 1073
Well Zone Depths
(33) I6-NC8A (2) TADRART D1 5142.F - 5198.56F
(32) I5-NC8A (2) TADRART D1 5135.49F - 5189.15F
(25) F8-NC8A (2) TADRART D1 5222.94F - 5278.1F
(23) F24-NC8A (2) TADRART D1 5158.49F - 5200.47F
(20) F21-NC8A (2) TADRART D1 5178.53F - 5218.F
(13) F1-NC8A (2) TADRART D1 5164.67F - 5219.73F
(10) F25-NC8A (2) TADRART D1 5208.F - 5265.44F
(7) F3-NC8A (2) TADRART D1 5169.03F - 5224.46F
(6) F12-NC8A (2) TADRART D1 5214.F - 5272.05F
(5) F14-NC8A (2) TADRART D1 5208.F - 5270.44F
Discriminators
TVDSS < 3170
78
Figure 31:
Height above function based on F-22 SCAL
350
300 Bin 4
Bin 3
250 Bin 2
Bin 1
Height ft
200
150
100
50
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Sw
Figure 32:
Average (De-Normalized) Relative Permeability Curve for Sand Facies - F22
1.000
0.900
0.800
0.700
0.600
Kr
0.500
0.400
0.300
0.200
0.100
0.000
0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900 1.000
Sw
Krw Kro
79
RCAL
• The available routine core analysis data from 31 wells in Hamada-NC8A were used
in the study
• Heterogeneity was estimated
Figure 33:
Probability chart, V6-D3 Formation , Vdp =0.77
1000
Permeability (md)
100
10
2 4 6 8 10 15 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 85 90 92 94 96 98
Cumulative Probability (percent greater than)
80
RCAL
Winland and Por-perm relationship
Figure 34:
Winland Plot for V6-Core D3 and V1 in D1 & D3
10000
1000
Permeability(md)
100
10
0.1
0.01
0.001
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Porosity(%)
micron 0.1 micron 2 micron 0.5 micron 5 micron 20

micron 30 V1-Core D1 V1-Core -D2 V6-Core D3
81
Static and dynamic pressures
• The Hamada field has a strong aquifer; therefore the pressure

depletion is small
• There is uncertainty in dynamic pressure measurement
Figure 35:
Well AA-1 Cross Plot bet FL vs. Total Rate

4000
3500
3000
2500
Fluid Level, ft
2000 1800 ft
1500
1000
500
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Total Rate, bpd Old Tests Last Tests
82
Figure 36:
Pressure Performance for F Pool Datum= 3060 VSS ft

Pressure F
2500 F1 D1
F10 D1
F11 D1
Wells put on F14 D1
Production 1860
2000 F16 D1
1875
F17 D1
1750 F18 D1
1625
F19 D1
1500 1725 F21 D1
F22 D1
F24 D1
F25 D1
1000 F27 D1
F28 D1
F3 D1
F3 D2
F4 D1
500
F5A D1
F5A D2
F6 D1
F7 D1
0 F9 D1
1958 61 64 67 70 73 76 79 82 85 88 91 94 97 2000 03 06
Date F9 D2
83
Economic indicators
Table 10:
Base Case Scenario

Oil Price ($/bbl)
Economic Indicators
35 50 65
Net present Value at Jan 2031 (MM$) 369 724 1079
Base case plus workover

Oil Price ($/bbl)
Economic Indicators
35 50 65
DROI 79.98 148.92 217.87
SRP Scenario
Oil Price ($/bbl)
Economic Indicators
35 50 65
DROI 5.32 9.69 14.06
SRP Scenario+Water control for some wells

Oil Price ($/bbl)
Economic Indicators
35 50 65
DROI 5.27 9.60 13.94
SRP + ESP Scenario

Oil Price ($/bbl)
Economic Indicators
35 50 65
DROI 5.98 10.66 15.34
84
Clean (Shale Free) Formation.
Formation
Figure 37: Clean (Shale Free) Formation.

Formation
85
Gamma ray Log - Shale volume
evaluation .
Figure 38: Gamma ray log is an indicator of shaliness of sand.
> Gamma ray, resistivity and porosity logs across

a low-resistivity reservoir in the Peng Lai field,
offshore China. The mini-DST was performed in a
thin 3-ft zone that is isolated above and below by
thin shale beds (gray) within a larger reservoir.
Any oil found in this zone was expected to be
about 13º API with high viscosity.
86
Appendix
Figure 39: Hamada Monthly oil Production Forecast
87
Figure 40: Relation between oil rate and water cut
88
Figure 41 : HAMADA NC5A + NC8A TEN YEAR OIL PRODUCTION
FORECAST BASE CASE AND DEVELOPMENT CASE
89
Figure 42 : Ghadamis Basin
90
Figure 43 : NC8A
91
Figure 44 : Facies Modeling
92
Figure 45 : Facies Modeling
93
permeability vs. porosity correlation is often taken as semilogarithmic but usually
with a steeper slope at low--porosity
porosity values. demonstrate the characteristics of these
relationships. Fig. 46 presents a typical permeability vs. porosity relationship from
routine-core-analysis
analysis data (the scatter in these data increases at the
th lower-porosity
levels). shows the permeability ratio (stressed permeability divided by unstressed
permeability) vs. unstressed permeability. This ratio is much smaller for low-
low
permeability
ity values and approaches a value of 1.0 for the high-permeability
high permeability
values.
Figure 46 : Core permeability vs. core porosity crossplot; data from an Asian gas
field
94
Figure 47 : (A) Relation Between Surface Permeability and Stressed Permeability
Permeab
(B) Relation Between Surface Permeability and Permeability Ratio
95
Crossplots of core permeability at stressed vs. surface conditions and core
permeability ratio vs. core permeability at surface conditions; data from an Asian
gas field. “Stressed” refers to the rock being subjected to simulated overburden
pressure of approximately 4,500 psia. The permeability correction is larger at low
permeabilities.
In developing the permeability vs. porosity relationships, the technical team needs
to identify the extent to which the reservoir interval needs to be subdivided into
zones or layers. The subdividing of the core data over the reservoir interval should
be into logical subdivisions that are strongly influenced by the geologists’
understanding of the depositional environment. This will naturally account for
major differences in grain size, sorting, and key mineralogical factors.
Alternatively, a sufficiently thick reservoir interval can be subdivided into layers
of 50 to 100 ft each. A superior petrophysical methodology will be developed if a
thick reservoir is appropriately subdivided, compared with treating the full
reservoir interval with a single permeability vs. porosity correlation. A single
permeability vs. porosity correlation for a reservoir interval with different
depositional environments can lead to under prediction of permeability by an order
of magnitude in an interval of better-sorted rocks compared with poorly sorted
rocks . Identifying the location and correct values of highest-permeability rocks is
very important for reservoir flow modeling.
96
Figure 48 : Typical reservoir permeability vs. Sw crossplot; data from an Asian
gas field
97
Sources
From the National Oil Corporation Research.
From the Arabian Gulf Oil Company Research.
From theses graduated predecessor.
The article from Schlumberger Company.
The article from Halliburton Company.
The article from Journal of Petroleum Technology.
Master's Thesis from University of Stavanger.
98
99

Permeability Modeling of Hamada Field in Libya

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Permeability Modeling of Hamada Field in Libya

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE PETROLEUM ENGINEER FACULTY

TITLE OF THE THESIS

Number of pages: .........100.........

Date / year 8/2016

I would like to express my appreciation to my supervisor, (Professor

Achiles C.Kanellopoulos) who has cheerfully answered my queries,

provided me with materials, checked my examples, assisted me in a

humour and support throughout the production of this project

Hatem Salem Ismaiel

Professor Achilles Kanellopoulos, PHD

Hamada Field .........................................................................................................................5

Reservoir Description ...............................................................................................................11

Mineral effect ........................................................................................................................13

Rock structure .......................................................................................................................14

Permeability from logs ..........................................................................................................15

Permeability – porosity correlation ........................................................................................16

Capillary pressure and permeability .......................................................................................16

Permeability estimate from porosity and resistivity ................................................................19

Nuclear magnetic resonance ..................................................................................................20

Permeability from cores.........................................................................................................24

Overburden pressure ..............................................................................................................26

Klinkenberg effect ..................................................................................................................27

Scaling of permeability ..........................................................................................................28

Permeability from cores and logs – Cross plots......................................................................30

Openhole Wireline testing ......................................................................................................33

Drillstem Testing (DST) .........................................................................................................34

Interpretation of well tests........................................................................................................35

Characterizing Permeability with Formation Testers..............................................................37

RDT (Reservoir Description Tool)..............................................................................................40

Conventional Permeability Measurements.................................................................................45

Evaluation of Hamada field ....................................................................................................61

Water injection case....................................................................................................................70

Reservoir Engineering Analysis................................................................................................76

Table 2: Summary table of wells status in the producing pools...............................................6

Table 3: Type of Accumulations ...............................................................................................7

Table 4: Hamada NC8A field remaining reserve to production ratio.........................................8

Table 5: formation of well .......................................................................................................10

Table 6: Values of a, in the different equations.....................................................................................16

Table 7: PVT summary for Gullebi....................................................................................................................67

Table 8: Reservoir Engineering Analysis..................................................................................76

Table 9: The results of the PVT reports are shown...................................................................77

Table 10: Economic indicators...................................................................................................84

Figure 1: Location of the pools in Hamada.................................................................................5

Figure 3: Cross plot from density and neutron log,......................................................................30

Figure 4 : Sketch of a single – probe module..............................................................................33

Figure 5 : A cross section of an idealized....................................................................................39

Figure 6 : Permeability baffles and conduits at different length scales....................................... 40

Figure 7 : Typical MDT tool configurations for permeability measurements..............................44

Figure 8: Typical relative-permeability curves for oil and water in a water-wet.........................46

Figure 9: Features of the flow sources and methods ....................................................................51

Figure 10: Pressure difference......................................................................................................53

Figure 11: Comparison of the horizontal......................................................................................55

Figure 12: Pressure and pump rate...............................................................................................57

Figure 13: Pressure difference.....................................................................................................57

Figure 15: 9 models was constructed to represent Hamada field..............................................61

Figure 16: Core from Well LL8.................................................................................................62

Figure 17: Core from Well LL4.................................................................................................63

Figure 18: Structure Map............................................................................................................64

Figure 19: field water production rate........................................................................................65

Figure 20: field liquid production rate........................................................................................65

Figure 21: Oil production by pool set........................................................................................66

Figure 22: DSTs available for well............................................................................................68

Figure 23: In Gullebi Tahara DSTs ..........................................................................................69