1.

Give an approximate viscosity at reservoir conditions (T = 140 F, p = 5000 psi) for the following fluids:

Quick Check of Chart

Type of Fluid Your Intuition
and/or Excel Calcs
(a) Reservoir water:
(b) Light oil (API 35-40)
(c) Heavy oil (API 15-20):
(c) Gas
(First pick numbers from your head. I hope your intuition is right. Then, look at your correlation charts and/or
plug basic numbers into the Excel calculations to get a more firm idea. For both oils, consider moderate values
of Rs of 600-800 SCF/STB.)
2. How does reservoir water viscosity vary with temperature? pressure? salinity? (Sketch three small graphs
of w vs. T, w vs. Pressure (p), and w vs. Salinity (S).)

3. Water viscosity: Determine the viscosity of a formation water with these properties: (p = 6000 psi,
T = 180 F, and Salinity S = 4 wt % salinity) Use the McClain charts, check with Excel.

Method w1 (w/w1) w

Chart

Excel

4. Gas viscosity (Lee, Gonzalez and Eakin): For a gas with gravity  = 0.9, at p = 5000 psi and T = 160 F,
please determine: (a) AMW; (b) Gas Density, g ; (c) Gas viscosity, g . (Use Z from Excel. Show your
calculations on another piece of paper.)

Excel Hand Calc’s

AMW
Z
g

g

5. Sketch a graph of how gas viscosity varies with pressure, p.

Formation Compressibility Equations

209
(Thermodynamic) Definition of Isothermal Compressibility [Eqn (1)]
(units are 1/pressure; for petroleum engineers, usually 1/psi)

In terms of ordinary derivative (understanding that T = const) [Eqn (2)]

In terms of V and p….(this is a(n) (useful) approximation) [Eqn (3)]

Integrated form of Eqn (2) [Eqns (4a) and (4b)]

Truncated series approximations to Eqns (4) [Eqn (5a) and (5b)]

Reduction (V) of pore volume V in a reservoir which has undergone

an average p (over the entire volume V) (rearranged Eqn (3)) [Eqn (6)]
∞
xn x2 x3
Series representation of ex….. ex = ∑ =1+x+ + +.. .
n=0 n ! 2 6

6. Look at the graph of the Hall data. (a) From the graph, read the c f for  = 10%.

(b) From Hall’s equation (1) which takes  as a percent, calculate cf for  = 10%.

(c) From Hall’s equation (2) which takes as a fraction, calculate cf for  = 10%. How close are
these three values?

7. Give four examples of volume changes that occur in an oil/free gas/water reservoir as pressure drops.

210
 Formation Compressibility Correlations

1. Hall Correlation (porosity as a PERCENT)

(in other words, if  = 16%, use 16, not 0.16)

2. Newman Correlation for Consolidated

Sandstones: (porosity as a fraction)

3. Newman Correlation for Limestones:

(porosity as a fraction)

8. Look at the Newman Consolidated Sandstone graph. (a) From the graph, read the c f for  = 10%.

(b) From Newman’s SS equation (3), calculate cf for  = 10%. How close are these two values?

9. Look at the Newman Limestone graph. (a) From the graph, read the c f for  = 15%.

(b) From Newman’s LS equation (4), calculate cf for  = 15%. How close are these two values?

10. A reservoir with an initial pressure of p1 = 7800 psi has a porosity 1 = 17.0%. If the reservoir has a
formation compressibility of cf = 8·10-6 1/psi, determine the porosity 2 of the formation after the average
pressure has declined to 6500 psi. Use both the “exact” equation and the equation using the truncated series
approximation for ex. [Answers: 16.823% and 16.823%]

211
11. Below is a graph of measured values of cf for friable sandstones. Does the Hall correlation fit this data?
Would any correlation fit this data set? Why is this data so scattered?

From Newman’s paper: Measured values of cf for friable sandstones.

212
Petr 241: Formation Compressibility Correlations

1. Hall Correlation
(porosity as a PERCENT)
(in other words, if  = 16%, use 16, not
0.16)

2. Hall Correlation (porosity as a

fraction)
(in other words, if  = 16%, use 0.16)

(I do not know the origin of this version of

Hall’s. Most books give the first version of
Hall’s. Both give fairly similar results (but not
identical).
Note: The Hall correlations are based on only 12
rock data points! Sandstones and limestones.
This is a very limited set of data.

213
3. Newman Correlation for Consolidated
Sandstones: (porosity as a fraction)

This was based on data for 79 SS samples,

ranging in porosities from 2-23%. The average
error of the correlation is 2.6%.
Note that this equation (and the one below) are of
the general hyperbolic form:

4. Newman Correlation for Limestones:

(porosity as a fraction)

This was based on data for LS samples (not sure

the number) ranging in porosities from 2-33%,
with average error of 11.8%. (A poorer
correlation for LS.)

214
215