Liquid Permeability

Permeability Measurement

Darcy's Law for Incompressible Fluids (Liquids)

Q.μ .L.14700
K=
A.ΔP
Where K = Liquid permeability (mD)
Q = Liquid
q flow rate ((cm3s-1)
μ = Liquid viscosity (cP)
L = S
Sample
l llength
th ((cm))
A = Sample cross sectional area (cm2)
ΔP = Differential pressure across core (psi)
 Comparison of Permeabilities

Equivalent liquid permeability, K∞, not equal to measured K(liquid)

K∞
Often 1.5 - 10
K(liquid)
Typical Permeability Data

CLEAN ‘DIRTY’ LIME-

SAND SAND STONE
Most Kair 400 80 1.0
Optimistic
Absol te
Absolute K∞ 390 74 06
0.6
Evaluate Kwater ≤390 50 0.4
Reaction
Actual Koil @ Swi ≤390 50 0.4
Initial
Actual at Kwater @ Sor 70 10 0.05
Floodfront
Permeability in mD
 Typical Permeability Data

Influence of Saturant

Outcrop Sandstone, Koil vs K∞ Outcrop Sandstone, Kwater vs K∞

100 100

md
Permeability, m
d
ermeability, md

10 10

Water P
Oil Pe

1 1
1.00 10.00 100.00 1 10 100
Klinkenberg Permeability, md Klinkenberg Permeability, md

Average Koil/K∞ = 0.99 Average Kwater/K∞ = 0.60

Permeability

ν = Q/A
A

Permanent
damage

ΔP/L
 Water Sensitivity

1000 100

Water Permeability, % original

Particle
ability, mD
D

movement
75
100
Waterr Permea

50,000 ppm
50
Clay swelling and/or
10 Flow direction ti l movementt
particle
reversed
Fresh water 25

W
1.0 0
1.0 10 100 1000 0 50
Ai Permeability,
Air P bilit mDD Brine injected
injected, pore vols
vols.
W tt bilit
Wettability
Wettability of the Oil/Water/Rock System

θc = contact angle
OIL
σOW
WATER

σOS θC σWS

Rock Surface

θC θC

Water Wet Oil Wet

Wettability

Wettability controls fluid saturation and distribution

Th f
Therefore affects
ff t relative
l ti permeability
bilit and
d capillary
ill
pressure data

To have representative relative permeability and

capillary pressure data

Must
ust have
a e representative
ep ese tat e wettability
ettab ty

Need to define correct p

preparation
p and test p
procedures
Contact Angle

Single-Crystal Static Method

SOLID

θ = 30º CONTACT ANGLE WETTABILITY

degrees Indicator
OIL 0 to 75 Water-Wet
75 to 105 Intermediate
105 to 180 Oil-Wet
After Treiber, Archer & Owens, SPEJ, 1972.

WATER WATER

• Three phases, solid, water, and oil comprise the system

• Oil droplet is exposed to water-wetted solid
• At equilibrium, the contact angle, θ, is measured through the
denser phase at the point of 3-phase contact
• Contact angle values are used as system WETTABILITY
indicators
Contact Angle

Single-Crystal Static Method

SOLID

θ = 120º OIL

OIL

WATER

• Polar molecules may preferentially replace adsorbed water

molecules

• Oil spreads on (wets) the surface resulting in an increased

contact angle
 Contact Angle – Advancing and Receding

Dual-Crystal Dynamic or Water-Advancing Method

θR, Water-Receding θA, Water-Advancing

Contact Angle Contact Angle

• Water-RECEDING and Water-ADVANCING contact angles can

be determined
• Water-ADVANCING angles apply when Sw increases (advances)
onto ‘aged’ surfaces. E.g., Waterflood
• Relative translation of crystals permits Water to ADVANCE on an aged
surface
• Opposite side of droplet mimics oil-advance or water-receding
Wetting Equilibrium

W a t e r - A d v a n c in g C o n t a c t A n g le

1 6 0 UAE Kareem, 30° API θ = 140°

Contact Angle: Degrees

1 2 0

W. Tx San Andres,, 30° API θ = 88°

8 0

4 0 Alaska Tert. Kenai, 38° API θ = 15°

Pure Grade C10 θ = 0°

0
0 6 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 8 0 0
A g e o f O il-M in e r a l In te r fa c e : H o u r s
 Water Advancing Contact Angle

Crude Oil-Brine Contact Angles

2 CRYSTAL METHOD 79 CRUDE OILS
180 79 crude oils measured by Core Lab
(through 1987)
<75 75-105 >105
160 • >50% from outside US
• Fairly
F i l uniform
if di
distribution
ib i off wettability
bili
140 • No lithology bias
ANGLE

120
G CONTACT A

WW IW OW
100

80
26 samples 23 samples 30 samples
RECEDING

60

40

20

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
ADVANCING CONTACT ANGLE Source: File Data
 Amott Technique

Vw1 Forced Water

Forced Oil
Imbibition
Imbibition

Spontaneous
Oil Imbibition
Vw2

Vo2
Spontaneous Vo1
Water Imbibition

Vw1
V Vo1
V
Ww = Wo =
Vw1 + Vw 2 Vo1 + Vo2
Water Wet Neutral Oil Wet
Ww 1 ~0 0
Wo 0 ~0 1
 Representation of Amott Wettability Indices

0
N

WW WO
I

M
M
SW SO
1 1

M = Mixed N = Neutral I = Intermediate WW = Weakly Water Wet

WO = Weakly Oil Wet SW = Strongly Water Wet SO = Strongly Oil Wet
 USBM Technique

Drainage and Imbibition

A = Swi
C = Sor
+Pc Sw

AC = forced water imbition

Primary
CA = forced oil imbition
a1 drainage
C
A Sw
a2 Primary Imbibition a2
Secondary Drainage a1
-Pc
⎡ a1 ⎤
I d = log
W tt bilit y Index
Wettabilit 10
l ⎢ ⎥
⎣a2 ⎦

Oil Wet Neutral Water Wet

-ive USBM Index 0 +ive USBM Index
 Combined Amott-USBM Technique

Drainage and Imbibition

A = Swi
C = Sor
+Pc Sw
AB = Vw1 spontaneous imb.
BC = Vw2 forced imbition
Primary CD = Vo1 spontaneous imb.
drainage
DA = Vo2 forced imbition
D C
A B Sw
Primary Imbibition a2
Secondary Drainage a1
-Pc
⎡ a1 ⎤
I d = log
W tt bilit y Index
Wettabilit 10
l ⎢ ⎥
⎣a2 ⎦

Oil Wet Neutral Water Wet

-ive USBM Index 0 +ive USBM Index
Values of Wettability Indices

Water Wet Neutral Oil Wet

Amott Ww 1 ~0 0
Amott Wo 0 ~0 1

Amott-Harveyy 0.3
0 3 to 1 0.3 to -0.3
0.3 -0.3
0.3 to -1
1
USBM near 1 ~0 near -1

Contact Angle 0° - 60° 60° - 120° 120° - 180°

 Wettability Assessment from Rel K

Gas Saturation
Tertiary
y Kenai Sd, Alaska
0.4 0.2 0
1 • Agreement between Krw and
Krog suggests both are
Krow
wetting phases in their
respective tests (ww)
Krog

0.1
• Swi appears to be a function
Relative Permeabilitty

of K-φ (ww)
• Krw max is 1.1% (ww)
• Overall assessment based on
Ka, md: 56
0.01 φ, %: 16.8
Krg
K rel: water wet

Krw

Water advancing contact angle

0 001
0.001 was 15°
15 (ww)
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Water Saturation Source: Treiber, Archer, Owens: SPEJ, 1972
 Wettability Assessment from Rel K

Gas Saturation
Miocene Kareem Sd, UAE
0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
1 • Large disagreement between
Krw and Krog (ow)
Krow
• S i low
Swi lo (15(15.5%),
5%) ma
may not be a
function of K-φ (ow?)
Krog

0.1 • Krw max is 65% ((ow))

ve Permeabilitty

• Overall assessment based on

Krw
K rel: oil wet
Relativ

0.01 Ka, md: 118 Krg

φ, %: 18.3

Water advancing contact angle

0 001
0.001 was 160°
160 (ow)
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Water Saturation Source: Treiber, Archer, Owens: SPEJ, 1972
 Wettability Assessment from Rel K

Gas Saturation
I Sand, Argentina
g
0.6 0.4 0.2 0
1 • No curves agree, however
Krog Krw is close to Krog (iw)
Krow
• S i appears to be a function
Swi f nction
of K-φ (ww)
0.1 • Krw max is 30% ((iw-ow))
ve Permeabilitty

• Overall assessment based on

K rel: not strongly wet by
Krw
either phase
phase, perhaps more
Relativ

0.01 Krg
ww than ow: intermediate wet
Ka, md: 184
φ %:
φ, % 25 6
25.6

0 001
0.001 Water advancing contact angle
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
was 85° (iw)
Water Saturation
Source: Treiber, Archer, Owens: SPEJ, 1972
Wettability Profiles
Sw core So core Kair

Amott WWI Amott OWI USBM Porosity

Core Saturations, percent Depth, ft Permeability, md

100 80 60 40 20 0 0.01 0.1 1.0 10 100 1000

x100

x120

x140

x160

x180

x200

x220

x240

x260
-1.00 -0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 50 40 30 20 10 0
Source: File Data
Wettability Index Porosity, percent
 Wettability Restoration

ntact Angle
Con Ageing Period

0 10 20 30 40 80
Days
After Treiber, Archer and Owens
 Effects of Wettability

C ill
Capillary Pressure
Pressure,
P , Pc 2σcos
P = 2σcosθθ/r
/
Wettability affects θ

Resistivity Index
Wettabilityy affects water p
placement and continuity,
y
therefore resistivity and saturation exponent

Waterflood
W t fl d
Wettability affects flooding efficiency and residual oil saturation

Relative Permeability
Wettabilityy affects flood-
flood-front stabilityy and
relative permeability values
Wettability SUMMARY

• Result of complex relationships

• Difficult
Diffic lt to assess reser
reservoir
oir wettability
ettabilit with
ith
certainty
• Assess using cores and/or fluids
• Cores display native or altered wetting that
can be semi
semi-quantitatively
quantitatively assessed
• Native wetting may vary with texture and
column height
• Success of wettability restoration depends
on thoroughness of cleaning and quality of
crude sample
• Wettability test results help interpretation of
other data
Stress Effects and
Measurements
 Overburden Pressure

Gross overburden pressure (lithostatic gradient) ≈ 1.0 psi/ft

Reservoir pressure (hydrostatic gradient) ≈ 0.45 psi/ft

Net overburden pressure = Gross overburden pressure – Reservoir pressure

 Example

• Depth = 7,600 ft
⇒ Gross overburden pressure = 7,600 psi (est at 1.0 psi/ft)
• Hydrostatic head = 3,420 psi
((est at 0.45 psi/ft))
(Estimate net overburden = 4,180 psi)
σv - po

• Reservoir pore pressure = 5,100 psi (measured)

• Net overburden pressure = 2,500 psi
 Reservoir Loading

• An element of rock at depth is

stressed by 3 principal,
σv
orthogonal stresses from
overlying and surrounding
sediments, each countered by
fluid pressure
pressure, Pres, to yield net or
effective stresses, σv, σhmax, σhmin P Pres σhmin
σhmax
• Coring removes these stresses
resulting in relaxation and slight hma
expansion of the rock element
• In the laboratory it is desired to
reestablish the effective net stress
for measurement of pore
• The reservoir net stress condition can be
geometry related properties
approximated in special lab load cells
(triaxial or biaxial) on vertically-oriented
core samples
 Lab vs Reservoir Loading

• Biaxial loading cannot be

duplicated on HORIZONTALLY-
σv
ORIENTED core samples
• Most petrophysical tests utilize
horizontal samples in hydrostatic
(isostatic) load cells
P Pres σhmin
• Usually, the 3 reservoir net
stresses are averaged to σhmax
hma
approximate a representative
laboratory hydrostatic stress
Simplifying
Assumptions:
1. Vertical net stress
greater than horizontal
σv > σh
σh1 = σh2
net stresses:
2. Horizontal net stresses
equal:
Reservoir vs Laboratory Loading;
Stress - Strain Relationships

Exaggerated strains due to Uniaxial & Hydrostatic Loading

Reservoir Laboratory
• Uniaxial Strain • Hydrostatic (Isostatic) Strain
• Normal to Bedding • Horizontal Plug (typically)
• ~ Zero
Z Lateral
L t l Strain
St i • E
Equivalent
i l tN Nett V
Vertical
ti l St
Stress Yi
Yields
ld
> Strain
TEEUW Correction

⎡1 + ν ⎤
εz = ε H
1
⎢1 − ν ⎥
⎣ ⎦
3

Where ν = Poisson’s ratio (typically 0.20 - 0.35)

εZ = Uniaxial compaction ((strain))
εH = Hydrostatic compaction (strain)
 Representative Hydrostatic Stress

1 ⎡ 1⎤ ⎡1 + ν ⎤
ε=⎢ ⎥ ⎢1 − ν ⎥
⎣3 ⎦ ⎣ ⎦
Uniaxial Strain
0.9
p / Vpi

0.8
1 - ΔVp

Measured Hydrostatic ε
0.7

Estimate of Strain-
Equivalent Hydrostatic
Stress Estimate of Reservoir
0.6
Vertical Net Stress

0.5
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
Hydrostatic Stress, psi
Estimate representative hydrostatic stress from calculated uniaxial strain test data
 Critical Stress Test

(Unconsolidated Sand)
100
• Use o
of Vertical
e t ca Net
et St
Stress
ess
90 UNCONSOLIDATED OIL RESERVOIR
may overstress sample
NORMALLY-PRESSURED
– lithostatic g
grad 1.0 ((est))
nal

80
effective), % of Origin

Sample Depth: ~7000'

7000'
K orig: ~250 md
70 1x7000 = 7000
60
Thin section on twin indicates – hydrostatic grad 0
0.465
465 (est)
DAMAGE related to new,
50 previously unexperieced stress:
grain rotation, cracking, 0.465x7000 = 3255
crenulations of mica
40
– Vert Net Stress = 3745
K liquid (e

30

20 Plateau taken to represent return

of grain contacts to that existing
• Critical Stress test
10
prior to coring
coring, as indicated by
thin section on twin
indicates ~2000
2000 psi
0
hydrostatic brings sample
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
to representative strain
Net Hydrostatic Confining Stress, psi
Porosity & Permeability Effects of Stress

Unconsolidated Sand
10000

Recent GOM Unconsolidated

Core
>15000 feet depth

1000
Visual & CT observations indicate
core not damaged
Ka, md

100

~3 PU
400 - 2200

10

400 psi
2200 psi

1
15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35
Porosity
 Porosity & Permeability Effects of Stress

Transforms provide means to adjust

low stress data sets ((other wells))
10000 35

1000 30

Por 2200
Ka 2200

100 25

y=x y=x
10 20

1 15
1 10 100 1000 10000 15 20 25 30 35

Ka 400 Por 400

Unconsolidated Sand
 Porosity & Permeability Effects of Stress

Tight Gas Sand

Effect of Stress & Slippage
1 1

1.2041
y = 0.2861x

K Klinkenberg at NCS, md
0.1

0.01
0.1

0.001
Perrmeability, md

0.0001
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1
0.01 K air 'Ambient', md

14

y = 1.0335x - 0.7727
12

Porosity at NCS, %
10

0.001 K air 800 8

6
K∞ 800
4

K∞ & φ at NCS 2

0
0.0001
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Porosity 800, %
Porosity, %
 Permeability Effects of Stress
Cemented Sand, S. America
K∞, % of Kzero vs Net Confining Stress
Jones 2-point
p Fits Cemented Sandstone,, So. America
100
K∞ at 0, md

2272
90
963
445
K∞, % of K∞ at Zero Stress

157
80
40

70
High slope commonly observed in LOW PERMEABILITY samples;
probably resulting from closure of stress-release features. VALUES AT
LOW STRESS MAY BE NON-REPRESENTATIVE -- OPTIMISTIC.
60

50

40 3.44
Measured

30
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000

Net Hydrostatic Confining Stress, psi

Effect of Net Stress on Core Water Saturations
Unconsolidated Sand
100
(Oil-Based Mud)

90 • Routine core saturations

80
are often related to low
stress porosity
70

60
• Corrections required
Sw Core
e

-0.9218
50
y = 447.81x
2
R = 0.6115
40 -0.6793
y = 154
154.95x
95x
2 400 psi
R = 0.746
30 2200 psi

20

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
0.5
(Ka/Por)
 Stress Effects on Routine Rock Properties

• Stress effects are texture-dependent

texture dependent
• Properties are functions of NET confining stress
(NCS)
• Care must be applied in estimation of
representative
ep ese tat e lab
ab NCS;
CS; seseveral
e a app
approaches
oac es
available
• Measurements allow adjustment
j transforms for
data sets at low stress
• Jones curve fit p
process has many y applications
pp
• NCS vs Rock Property models can be developed
and integrated with log analysis
 Measurements at Overburden Pressure

Hydrostatic or Isostatic Micro pipette for pore volume

Core Holder reduction

Rubber sleeve

Resistance (FF),
Hydraulic
y oil Core Δp (permeability)
pressure

Pump for
permeability
measurement
Pore Volume Compressibility - Hydrostatic

Definition: "Rate of fractional change in pore volume

with respect to change in confining
f stress"
20

0-6
Vp/dpsi x 10
Porosity: 0.046

Pore Volume Compressibility, dVp/V

1 dVpp
PVC =
10
.
Vpi dσ Porosity: 0.071

Porosity: 0.110

0
0 5000
Vp = pore volume Effective Overburden Pressure, psi
 Pore Volume Compressibility
Hydrostatic, Instantaneous & Average Corrected to Uniaxial Conditions
1.20E-04
Instantaneous Cf Average Cf
1 ⎡δ Vp ⎤ 1 ⎡Vpi − Vpj ⎤
Cfuniaxial j = • •T Cf uniaxial = •⎢ ⎥ •T
Vp j ⎢⎣ δ P ⎥⎦ j
1.00E-04
Vpi ⎣ ΔP ⎦

j = current conditions
p/Vp/dpsi

8.00E-05 Vpi = reference Vp, initial conditions

Vpj = Vp at current pressure
ΔP = change in pore pressure, original to current
T = Hydrostatic > Uniaxial conversion factor
PVC, dVp

6 00E 05
6.00E-05
For Average Compressibility, reference Vp is at
1856 psi EOB

4.00E-05
P

2.00E-05

Inst. Hydrostatic Inst. Hyd-to-Uniaxial Avg Hydrostatic-to-Uniaxial

0.00E+00
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
EOB, psi
Pore Volume Compressibility - Uniaxial

Maintain Axial Load Constant

(Constant Overburden Stress)

Control Confining
Pressure

Measure
Axial Strain

Maintain Zero
R di l St
Radial Strain
i

Permeability, Pore Pressure Depletion

Acoustic Velocity (Production)
 PVC - Observed Variations
As a Function of Porosity, Rock Type & Cementation

100
e Compressibility x 10-6 psi--1
ssure

Hall s Sandstones
Hall’s
of Lithosttatic Pres

Hall’s Limestones
Consolidated
Limestones
Consolidated
10
Sands
Friable Sands
At 75% o
Porre Volume

Unconsolidated
U lid t d
Sands

Hall’s Correlation
(1952)
1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Porosity at Zero Stress

Newman, JPT, Feb 1973 Chevron Research

Effect of Cf in Calculation of OOIP

• Calculation 1, Cf=8.2 x 10-6: N = 41.45 STB x 106

• Calculation 2, Cf=5.0 x 10-6: N = 50.74 STB x 106

• If 8.2 x 10-6 is correct and 5.0 x10-6 used in error, a

22.4% %oover-estimation
e est at o o of OO
OOIP results
esu ts
• If 5.0 x 10-6 is correct and 8.2 x 10-6 used in error, a
18 3% under-estimation
18.3% under estimation of OOIP results

• Note: 8.2 x 10-6 x 0.61 (an average conversion

factor; hydrostatic-to-uni-axial) = 5.0 x 10-6.
PVC - Over-Pressured Gas Reservoir Application

8000

⎛P⎞ P ⎡ ΔP(CwSw + Cf) ⎤

= Correc ted⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ = • ⎢1 − ⎥
⎝ Z ⎠ Z ⎢⎣ 1 − Sw ⎥⎦
6000
Uncorrected P/Z,
Actual OGIP:
Over-estimated
447 BCF
OGIP: 659 BCF
P/Z
Z

4000
P/Z Corrected for
PVC permits
accurate early-
time prediction of
2000 OGIP

Over-Pressured Region Normally-Pressured Region

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Cumulative Gas Production, BCF

Rock Mechanics
 Reservoir Stress

σv

σv = Effective vertical stress

σ2 = Maximum effective
σ2 horizontal stress

σ3 = Minimum effective
σ3 horizontal stress
Static Mechanical Properties

Deviatory
D i t St
Stress vs Strain
St i
800 psi Confinement
2500
s (psi)

2000
atory Stress

1500

1000
Devia

Young's Modulus 92 kpsi

(slope of axial strain)
500
Poisson's Ratio 0.24
(ratio of slopes)
0
-0.060 -0.040 -0.020 0.000 0.020 0.040 0.060 0.080

Radial Strain Axial Strain

Y = “Deviatory Stress” = Axial minus Radial Stresses

Unconfined Compressive Strength

Load
UCS =
Area
 Brinell Hardness

L
BH =
πdh
Reported in kg/mm2
 Triaxial Test
• Core sample: vertical orientation
LVDT Resolution ± .0001” preferred; fresh (uncleaned or
dried) condition recommended
• Sleeved sample is mounted
Axial LVDT’s between platens
• Linear Volume Displacement
Transducers (LVDT’s) are affixed
to measure radial and axial
R di l LVDT
Radial strains
t i

Piston

R ubber
Sleeve
Proppant

Piston
Triaxial Cells and Control Systems

400 000 psi load frame

400,000

60 000 psi load frame

60,000

Sonic velocity equipment

 Mohr Circles

τ = C + σ tan φ
0

φ
Shear Strress, τ

C0
S

Normal Stress, σ
σ3
σ1
 Mohr-Coulomb Failure Line

σ 1 = σ 0 + kσ 3
1+ sin φ
10000

k=
9000

8000 φ
1− sin φ
Axial Stress, σ1, psi

7000

6000

k −1
5000

4000
tan φ =
3000
2 k
σ0 2000

1000

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

σo Confining Stress, σ3, psi

Co =
2 k
Thick Wall Cylinder

Apply Confining Measure Axial &

Pressure Radial Strains

Measure Pore
Fluid Expelled
 Dynamic Elastic Moduli

ρ
• Shear Modulus G= b
1 . 34 x10 −1 0

Δt s
2

• Young’s
Y ’ MModulus
d l E = 2 G (1 + ν )
1 ( Δt / Δ t ) 2 − 1
s c
• Poisson’s Ratio ν= 2
( Δt s / Δt c ) 2 − 1
⎛ 1 4 ⎞ −10
• Bulk Modulus K = ρb⎜ 2 − ⎟ 1.34 x10
⎝ Δt c 3Δt s2 ⎠
1
• Bulk Compressibility β=
K
ρb in g/cc and Δt in μsecs/ft
 GSD Analysis

Grain Size Distribution Data

d 40
Cμ =
100.0

d 90 90.0

80.0
Cμ < 3: Uniform
70.0

Cum ulativve P ercent Overssiz e

3113.6 m
3 <Cμ < 5: non-uniform 60.0
3189.1 m
3036.0 m
50.0 3201.2 m
μ > 5: Highly
Cμ g y non-uniform 3046.6 m
40.0

30.0

20 0
20.0
In these examples
10.0
d50= 65 - 300 microns
0.0
1000.00 100.00 10.00 1.00
Cµ= 3.0 - 13.3 Grain Size (microns)
 Mechanisms for Sand Production

• Shear failure: occurs when near wellbore region

is subjected to a higher shear stress than the
rock can support
support- low Pw

• Tensile failure: related to fluid drag forces

exerted on grains, high flow rates - too high Pw

• Shear failure causes more catastrophic failure,

tensile failure self stabilises through cavity
growth, reduced fluid gradient
Rock Mechanics - Summary

• Properties vary significantly

• Properties may be method-dependent
– static vs dynamic
– hydrostatic vs zero lateral strain
• Time & cost-effective measurements on
core provide formation-specific values
– fracture design
– wellbore stability
– static:dynamic transforms
– pore volume compressibility
Electrical Resistivity
Electrical Measurements

Objective: To refine logging data (resistivity tools)

• Cementation factor m
• Saturation
S t ti exponentt n
• Excess conductivity
⇒ Water saturation

• Measurements at either atmospheric or

overburden pressure
• m and n determined on cleaned, resaturated samples
• If samples are shaley, determine excess conductivity
 Formation Factor

Ro a 1000

FF = = m
Rw φ 100
m = 1.90

Formation Factorr
m = 1.80
FF = Formation factor
Ro = Samplep resistivityy at 100% Sw
10
Rw = Brine resistivity
a = Intercept
φ = Porosity (fraction)
m = Cementation factor 1
0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Porosity, fraction

Measure resistance of fully saturated sample, calculate Ro

Plot log FF vs log φ for all samples
Determine slope = -m, intercept = a
 Resistivity Index

Rt 1
RI = = n
1000

Ro Sw 100
n = 2.20

Resiistivity Index
n = 1.60
RI = Resistivity index
Rt = Sample resistivity at any Sw
10
Ro = Sample resistivity at Sw = 100%
n = Saturation exponent
p

1
0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Sw fraction
Sw,

Measure resistivity of sample at various uniform Sw's

Plot log RI vs log Sw
Slope = -n (constrain intercept to = 1)
 Calculation of Water Saturation

aRw
The Archie equation:
Sw = m
n

φ Rt
core-derived, F= a/φm

core-derived, I = 1/Swn
a
•R
φ m w
Sw =n
Rt
A m iincreases, S
As Sw iincreases, particularly
ti l l att llow porosity
it
As n increases, Sw increases
Experimental Methods

Determination of m,
m n

• Measure resistance of fully saturated sample

⇒ FF
• If shaley,
h l d
determine
t i excess conductivity
d ti it b by
multiple salinity or by CEC
• Desaturate by porous plate technique ⇒ RI
• Or ultra low rate continuous oil injection ⇒ RI
• Centrifuge desaturation - not recommended
Formation Factor / Resistivity Index

Pressure-Controlled Non-
wetting Phase
(non-conductive tubing)

To Resistivityy Meter
P
Power Electrode:
El t d
• Steel tube
• Steel plate Oil Cap

• Perforated silver membrane

Potential Electrode: ΔVw

• Viton sleeve
• Silver wire (rings)

Porous Disk:

Hydrostatic Core Cell:

• Net Confining Stress to Insulated Bushing
10000 psi
• electrically insulated
To Resistivity Meter
Continuous Oil Injection Technique

Ultra Low Rate Oil Injection Oil

PT
A

PB

D
Water
Continuous Oil Injection Technique

Resistivity Index by Continuous Ultra Low Rate Oil Injection - RICI

1000

A
Slope (C to D)
D Representative n
100
B

Log RI
10
C

B
C
A
D 1
0.01 0.1 1.0
L Sw
Log S
Comparison with Porous Plate Technique

100
PorousPlate
RICI

RI 10

∆ Sw ∆ Sw
= 0.02 = 0.03
1
0.1 0.2 1
Water Saturation
 Effect of Shales

Archie definition of FF (clean sands): 1000

1 1 Clean sand and

= 100
limestone

Ro FF .Rw

Resistivity Index
Shaley
Modified definition of FF (shaley sands): sand

10

1 1
= +x
Ro F * .Rw 1
0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Sw, fraction

x = Excess conductivity = B.Qv/F*

a*
• Rw
φ m*
F * = FF (1 + Rw.B.Qv ) Sw = n*
⎛ Rw • B • Qv ⎞
Rt • ⎜1 + ⎟
⎝ Sw ⎠
Waxman-Smits-Thomas Nomenclature

a*
•R
φ m* w
Sw =
n* ⎛ ⎞
⎜ Rw • B • Qv ⎟
Rt • ⎜1+ ⎟
⎜
⎝
Sw ⎟
⎠

a*//φm* Clean sand equivalent Formation Factor

F* = a
F
m* Exponent associated with F*; ‘clean sand’ m
n* Clean sand equivalent saturation exponent
Rw Resistivity of lab brine at test temperature OR reservoir
brine at reservoir temperature; ohm-m
B Counter ion activity of lab brine at lab test temperature OR
reservoir brine at reservoir temperature; (1/ohm-
m)/(equiv/liter)
Qv Cation exchange capacity per ml pore space of each test
sample; a rock property OR from core-based log correlation;
meq/ml
HYDRATION WATER, φCBW

• CONDUCTIVITY of Hydration Water

– dependent on effective Qv, CEC/ml pore space
– dependent on equilibrium salinity of pore water
– dependent
p on magnitude-distrib.
g of total Sw
– VARIES with temperature
– Waxman-Smits-Thomas combined salinity &
temperature effects in the term ‘B’, counterion
conductance
– At a given temperature, B reaches a MAXIMUM
value at some higher brine concentration
concentration, Bmax
 Qv & Salinity Effects on Available Porosity

Qv= 0.00 meq/cm3; Salinity= 50000 ppm NaCl Qv= 0.25 meq/cm3; Salinity= 50000 ppm NaCl

Water of Water of
Hydration= 0.000 Hydration= 0.077
Qv Surface Qv Surface
fraction of total fraction of total
porosity porosity

1.000 0.923
effective:total effective:total
porosity porosity

Pore Space Fraction (0-1) Pore Space Fraction (0-1)

Qv= 2
2.00
00 meq/cm3; Salinity= 50000 ppm NaCl Qv= 1
1.00
00 meq/cm3; Salinity= 50000 ppm NaCl

Water of Water of
Hydration= 0.619 Hydration= 0.309
Qv Surface Qv Surface
fraction of total fraction of total
porosity porosity

0.381 0.691
effective:total effective:total
porosity porosity

Pore Space Fraction (0-1) Pore Space Fraction (0-1)

B derived from experimental data

B as a Function of Rw & Temperature

28

• Experimental lower salinity limit:

24 5.3 g/l
• At given T, B reaches a max value
20
hm-m)/(equiv/liter)

at some higher salinity

16
200 C (392 F)

12
170 C (338 F)
Bmax
B, (1/oh

140 C (284 F)

8 110 C (230 F)
80 C (178 F)
4
50 C (122 F)
25 C (77 F)
Group 1 B25 = [1-0.83*EXP(-0.5/Rw)]*3.83
0
0.01 0.1 1 10

Rw, ohm-m
Waxman & Thomas 1972, Figure 16
 Typical Imperfections in CRYSTALS

• Lattice
L i d defects
f result
l iin
electrochemical imbalances at the
grain (crystal) surface
SUBSTITUTION e.g., Al+3 for Si+4 • Quantity of defects is a function of
or Mg+2 for Al+3 surface area

Typical Surface Area

PER UNIT WEIGHT
VACANCY BROKEN EDGES
1 gram SAND 0.01 m2
~0.01
1 gram KAOLINITE ~20 m2
1 gram SMECTITE 800 m2
~800

DISPLACEMENT
Cation Exchange Capacity vs Surface Area

API Standard Clays

1000

Kaolinite Illite Smectite

q/100 g

100
CEC, meq
C

10

1
10 100 1000
Surface Area, m2 /g
After Patchett, 1975
 Total CEC estimated from XRD

• Example calculations
TYPICAL XRD DATA (5 samples) Calculations using AVERAGE CEC/Species SUM

(weight %) Relative Clay Abundance CEC due to Individual Species CEC

(Normalized to 100%) (meq/100 g dry sample) Calculated
Illite/ Smectite Ill-Smec. Illite Chlorite Kaolinite (meq/100 g
Total Clay Smectite Smectite Illite Chlorite Kaolinite 115 43 25 3 5.5 dry rock)
6 0 23 19 58 0 0 0.5934 0.285 0.1044 0 0.98
9 0 26 24 50 0 0 1.0062 0.54 0.135 0 1.68
17 0 32 36 32 0 0 2.3392 1.53 0.1632 0 4.03
12 0 30 25 45 0 0 1.548 0.75 0.162 0 2.46
11 0 16 11 73 0 0 0.7568 0.3025 0.2409 0 1.30

(Total Cla
Clay, fraction) * (Species
(Species, fraction) * (Species CEC)

Mixed-Layer (Ill-Sm) % Smectite Layers: 20

Mixed-Layer (Ill-Sm), fraction = x: 0.200

contribribution of smectite = x*115: 23
contribution of illite = (1-x)*25: 20
Sum of contributions: 43
 Multiple Salinity method (Co-Cw)

Water Saturated Core Cw B.Qv

Q
C =
Co +
F* F*

vity (CO)
Gradient @ Bmax brines = 1/F*
Conductiv
Gradient = 1/F*

Shaley sand
Core C

Excess conductivity
Bmax Q v
F*
fm brine
1 C
CO = ⋅ CW = W
F F
Clean sand
0
BmaxQv Bfm brine Qv Brine Conductivity (CW)
Wet Chemistry or Titration method

• Barium Chloride
• Ammonium Acetate

CEC.((1 − φ ).
) ρma
Qv =
100.φ

Where:
CEC meq/100 g dry rock
ρma density, g/cm3
grain density
φ porosity, fraction
Qv meq/ml pore space
 F & m, I & n Corrected for BQv
100

Fa
m = 1.81
F*
m*= 2.16
F, (Ro/Rw)

10
F

1
0.01 0.1 1
Porosity (total) 100
Ia
n = 1.51
I*
Rt/Ro) n* = 1.90

10
I, (R

1
0.01 0.1 1
Sw, fraction total Vp
Effect of Salinity & Sw

Ia & n Corrected for BQv

Frio Formation
100
rho g g/cm3 2.68
porosity
po os ty 0.190
0 90
1/por 5.26316
Fa 23.3
CEC, meq/100 g 1.76
Qv 0.20
F*
F 27 7
27.7
n* 1.9099

10
I

n* = 1.91
200000 ppm NaCl
100000 ppm NaCl
35000 pp
ppm NaCl
5000 ppm NaCl
1000 ppm NaCl
1
0.01 0.1 1
Sw
Effect of Pore Geometry

100

RI 100

1
0.01 0.1 1.0
Sw
Micro-Porosity Effects on I vs Sw

10 10000

1000

HgPc, psia
a
I, (Rt/Ro)

100

I vs Sw 10

HgPc vs Sw

1 1

0.1 1

Sw
Effect of Oil Wet Character

100

Wettability
change

Oil-wett
Oil
‘imbibition’

Water-wet
RI 10 drainage

1
0.1 WaterSaturation 1
 Core Electrical Properties - Summary

• Measured Rt with
1.4

1.00
composite
it m & n
•R
1.2
1.79
φ1.77
core
w Lab predicted Sw
Sw = accuratelyy
R t core
ameters

1
• Parameters
independent of
m Rt & Para

0.8
salinity or
temperature if
0.6
negligible Qv effect
Sw from

m, n = 1.77 1.79
0.4
m & n = 2.00 • Use of 2 & 2 for m
y=x & n with lab Rt’s
Rt s
0.2 +/- 0.026
resulted in
overestimation of
0
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 Sw from 10 - 30
Sw, Measured saturation units
Acoustic Properties
 Acoustic Properties

Sili
Siliceous S d t
Sandstone Dolomite
30 30
Best Fit for data
Vm = 22,500 ft/sec Average Line for Dol
Vf = 5,400 ft/sec
Transit Time, μs/ft

Vm = 24,000 ft/sec

Transsit Time, μs/ft

Vf = 5,300 ft/sec
60 60

Best Fit for data

Average Line for SS Vm = 18,500 ft/sec
Vm = 18,000 ft/sec Vf = 6,100 ft/sec
,
Vf = 5,200 ft/sec

100 100
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Porosity,
y, fraction Porosity, fraction
Acoustic Anisotropy

North

Full Diameter Micro-cracks

Oriented Core

Direction of Minimum
Maximum = Horizontal
Velocity Stress

90°
Direction of Maximum
Minimum = Horizontal
Velocity Stress
NMR
 NMR Calibration

Key terms:
terms:

Longitudinal Relaxation Time Constant (T1): The time in

milliseconds taken for hydrogen protons (existing in water or
hydrocarbons in the pore spaces of the reservoir rock) to align
themselves to an applied magnetic field.

Transverse Relaxation Time Constant (T2): The time in

milliseconds taken for hydrogen
y g p protons to relax back to a random ((non-
(non-
aligned) condition.

Bulk Volume Irreducible (BVI): Rock

R kb bulk
lk volume
l percentage
t
occupied by immobile water due to capillary forces.

Free Fluid Index (FFI): Rock bulk volume percentage containing

hydrogen--rich fluids free to flow (gas, oil, and water).
hydrogen
 NMR T2 determination

T2 at Swir; Determine T2 Cutoff

4.0 30
‘standard’ T2c = 33 ms

T2c = 10 ms 25
3.0

(%)
20
Relative Porosity (%)

20
2.0 15

Cumulative
10
1.0
5

BVI FFI
0.0 0
01
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
T , ms
2

T2 cutoff
Cum. Porosity - 100% Saturated
Cum. Porosity - Desaturated
Rel. Porosity - 100% Saturated
Rel. Porosity - Desaturated
Total vs Effective POROSITY Effect of CBW

20
• NMR may provide an
18 Total effective porosity that
Effective
16
yy=x
x
is most compatible
14
with shaley sand
(dispersed shale) log
NMR Porosity

12 y = 1.5706x - 10.36
2
R = 0.9091 effective porosity
10
• This is a core analysis
8 application that does
N

6 not depend on
4 runningg the log
g
2
φ CBW
0
0 5 10 15 20
Total Porosity (Helium at 1000 NCS)
Overburden Nuclear Magnetic Resonance

Confining Stress
and Temperature
Controls

Hydrostatic
NMR Core Cell
Electronics
and Magnet

• 1” OD core plugs
• Applications
• Up to 150°C
– Stress-Sensitive rock
• U tto 5000 psii NCS
Up
– Oil-Wet rock
• Proton-free hydraulic
– High viscosity contrasts fluid
 Wireline Logs

LOG MEASURES INTERPRETED

Gamma natural radiation lithology
Acoustic sound velocity porosity
Density gamma decay porosity
Neutron neutron decay porosity
Resistivity electrical resistance water saturation
Micro-resistivity electrical resistance imaging
Micro acoustic
Micro-acoustic sound velocity imaging
NMR hydrogen spin porosity, water
saturation,
t ti
permeability?

All require calibration against core measurements for best interpretation

Capillary Pressure
Capillary Pressure Definition

When two immiscible fluids (such as oil and water)

coexist at equilibrium in a capillary tube, there is a
difference in pressure across their interface. This
"Capillary Pressure" is caused by the preferential
wetting of the capillary walls by one of the fluids and
gives rise to the familiar curved meniscus.

Pc = Pnw - Pw

Pc = Capillary pressure
Pnw = Pressure of the non
non-wetting
wetting phase
Pw = Pressure of the wetting phase
Capillary Pressure (Pc)

Well
Pressure →
G pressure
Gas
Gradient (0.01 psi/ft)
Gas GOC

Depth
Oil

←D
Pc = Po - Pw = g.h.(ρw-ρo)

Oil pressure
Gradient (~0.35 psi/ft)
h

OWC
Free Water Level
Water pressure
Water Gradient
((0.433 – 0.5 p
psi/ft))
Static pressures in a homogeneous reservoir
 Capillary Pressure (Pc)

θ Air
h1
h2
r1 r2 θ
FWL h

Hg

2σ cos θ
Pc = = ( ρw − ρo) gh = Pnw − Pw
r
Capillary Pressure Theory
At Equilibrium: Force Up = Force Down
Force Up = 2 π r • σ Cos θ
σ
Force Down = π r 2 • h • ( ρ W − ρ H ) • g
σ Cos θ
Capillary Pressure = Force / Unit Area
r
Pc = Force Up / π r2 = Force Down / π r2

θ ∴Pc = 2 π r • σ 2Cos θ =
2σ Cos θ
πr r
π r 2 • h • (ρ W - ρH ) • g
h and Pc = = h • (ρ W - ρH ) • g
πr 2

Pc 2σ Cos θ
∴h = =
(ρ W - ρ H ) • g r • (ρ W - ρ H ) • g

Pc 2σ Cos θ
h= =
Δρ g r Δρ g
 Application of Capillary Pressure Data

• To predict fluid saturations in reservoir vs height,

transition zones, free water level
(compare with log data)
• Can assist in interpretation of relative
permeability data
• Yields pore size distribution
• Differentiate
Diff ti t pay from
f non-pay
• Reserves calculation
Laboratory Methods

Mercury Injection

Porous Plate

C t if
Centrifuge

Relative Permeability
Mercury Injection Apparatus

Valve
V l Automatic
Manual
Sightglass
Sample

Penetrometer
Sample
Seal Hg
Hg

Pressure
gauge
Piston
Screw thread
Oil at pressure
 Capillary Pressure vs Saturation

2000

1600
Pinj (pssi)

1200

800

Threshold
400 pressure

0
1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0

Hg Saturation (Fraction)
Effect of Qv & Salinity on Pc

Comparison
p of AIR-BRINE Pc to MERCURY INJECTION Pc
Standard Conversion Factor, 5.1 Frio Formation, South Texas
400
si
ent Air-Brine Pc, ps

350
A-B
K: 144 md K: 0.53 md
300 φ: 0.221 φ: 0.201
Qv: low Qv: high
250

200 A-Hg
Equivale

150
A-B
100
A-Hg
50

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Sw
CORRECT Air-Hg Pc for Qv & Salinity Effect

φeffective
(0 6425 * S−0.5 + 0.22)
= 1 − (0.6425 0 22) • Qv
Air-Brine & Hg Pc φtotal
Juhasz Correction
3000
φeffective
A-B Pc Snw* = Snw •
φtotal
e Pc, psi

2500
Hg
HgPc*, 1-Snw*
nt Air-Brine

2000
−0.5
⎛ φeffective ⎞
1500 Pc* = Pc • ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎝ φtotal ⎠
Equivalen

1000

Sample Properties
500
Qv, meq/ml 0.30
0 Salinity, g/l 194
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
φeff/φ
φtot 0.92
Sw
 Pore Size Distribution
2 σ cosθ
r=
Pc

Surface Vugs

50.0
Mercury Enters the
Largest Pores First
40.0
sub-nano nano sub-micro meso macro super-macro

micro
Frequency 30.0
Pore Space Controlled by
Small Pore Throat Radii 20.0

10.0

0.0
0. - 0. 5
7 5 75

25 5

5
75 5
1. 1.0

2. 2.5

5. 5.0

7. .5

00
5

5
07 75

00
50 0
75 75
10 0

25 5
0. 5 - 25
5 .0 0

0. 0.2

0. 0.7
01 .0

02 02

05 .0

0. - 0.
0. - 0.

-5
-1

-2
-7
0. 0.0
00 00

>1
-1
0

0. - 0
0. - 0

-
0. - 0.

-
-
00 .0

00 0

5
-

0
5
0. - 0

5
5
2
0

Pore Radius, microns (1/4 decade bar)

Pore Size Distribution

esoports
0.9

0.8

Me
on, fraction

Microports

Macroports
0.7

0.6 M

M
ury Saturatio

0.5

0.4
Mercu

0.3

0.2

01
0.1

0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
P
Pore Throat
Th t Radius,
R di microns
i
 Mercury Injection

Advantages
Quick
Small irregular samples
Automated
High resolution
High Pc – small PSD

Disadvantages
Sample cannot be reused
May damage delicate minerals
May have lithology-dependent
wettability
Drainage only
Porous Plate Technique

Non-Wetting Fluid Under

Constant Pressure at Each of
Several Pressures Yields Pc vs Sw
Closed Cell
to Hold Pressure
of Non-wetting Phase

100% Water-Saturated
Sample (Initially)

Tissue Paper & Diatomaceous

Earth Beneath Core for
100% Water-Saturated Capillary Contact
Porous, Semi-Permeable
Plate Water Moves From Core
Through Contact Material
& Outside Cell
Porous Plate At Reservoir Stress

Pressure-Controlled Non-
wetting Phase
(non-conductive tubing)

To Resistivityy Meter
P
Power Electrode:
El t d
• Steel tube
• Steel plate Oil Cap

• Perforated silver membrane

Potential Electrode: ΔVw

• Viton sleeve
• Silver wire (rings)

Porous Disk:

Hydrostatic Core Cell:

• Net Confining Stress to Insulated Bushing
10000 psi
• electrically insulated
To Resistivity Meter
 Porous Plate

Advantages
Simple
Samples can be reused
Electrical resistivity concurrently
Can be done at stress

Disadvantages
Slow
Grain loss errors at ambient
Few
e data po
points
ts
Limited maximum Pc
 Drainage and Imbibition
Hysteresis

Drainage
+Pc
Poil = x, not
hysteresis
Primary sufficient to
drainage drain small pore
imbibition

Sw

Primary Spontaneous
imbibition
-Pc Imbibition

Poil = x,, too

great to allow
imbibition into
large pore
Centrifuge Technique

Centre of Rotation Centre of Rotation

Oil

Oil Plug

Support
Mat or Plug Water
Footbath
Water Support
Mat
Drainage Imbibition
Capillary Pressure by Centrifuge

At hydrostatic equilibrium, PC at any point is equivalent to the

difference in hydrostatic pressure between the phases such that

Δρ .ω 2

Pc ( r ) = ( re − r )
2 2

2
r = Distance from centre of rotation
re = Distance of core outlet face from centre of rotation
Δ
Δρ = D
Density
it diff
difference
ω = Rate of rotation (rads s-1)
At each value of PC there is a corresponding value of Sw
 Centrifuge Saturation Distribution
Centre of rotation Reported Pc-Sw data
relate to INLET FACE
conditions

Fluid Distribution
Centrifuged Sample

Typical Saturation Profiles

ht
Pllug Heigh

Low perm

High perm

Outlet end remains

at Pc = 0; Sw = 1
throughout test
0 Sw 100%
Downstream End
 Capillary Pressure by Centrifuge
End-face Saturation Correction
⎛ V ⎞
Treatment of experimental data Sw = 1 − ⎜ ⎟
where V = Extracted fluid volume ⎝ Vtot ⎠
Vtot = Pore volume of core

Δρ .ω 2

At inlet face of core (r = ri) Pc( ri ) = z = ( re − ri )

2 2

2
(For ri/re > 0.70) Plot z.Sw vs z and determine
Sw(z) from curve
d [ z.S w( z )]
Sw( ri ) = Sw( z ) ≈
(Hassler and Brunner model) dz
Automated Centrifuge

Wate r Production

8.0

70
7.0

6.0

cc)
5.0

Water Production (c
E
Experimental
i t l production
d ti
Simulated production
4.0

3.0

W
2.0

1.0

0.0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Tim e (m inute s )
Capillary Pressure Data

Air-Brine Centrifuge Method Samples from 3 Wells in a low permeability gas field

400

300
ne, psi

K∞, md
3.47
c, Air-Brin

1.90
200
1.07
1.03
0 490
0.490
Pc

0.317
100
0.154
0.102
0.090
0
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Sw
 Centrifuge

Advantages
Quick
Oil-brine
Oil brine fluids
Drainage and imbibition
Higher Pc than porous plate
At stress available
Automation available

Disadvantages
g
Can damage samples
Uneven saturation profile
E df
End-face S
Sw correction
ti
 Capillary Pressure

σ cosθ ( o / b )
P ( o / b ) = Pc
(o / b)
Pc P ( a / Hg )
σ ( a / Hg ) cos θ ( a / Hg )

Typical Values (water wet)

Interfacial Tension σ Contact Angle θ σcosθ
Fluids (dynes cm-1) (degrees)

Gas/Brine (lab) 72 0 72
Oil/Brine (lab) 35 - 48 30 30 - 42
Gas/Mercury (lab) 485 140 372
Oil/Brine (reservoir))* 15 - 30 30 13 - 26
Gas/Brine (reservoir)* 50 0 50
*variable
 Capillary Pressure Conversion

(σ cos θ ) R
PcL
P R
Pc (σ cos θ ) L
h= =
( ρ w − ρh ) ( ρ w − ρh )
h = height, feet
subscript R = reservoir conditions
subscript L = laboratory conditions
ρw = water density gradient, psi/ft
ρh = hydrocarbon
h d b d density
it gradient,
di t psi/ft
i/ft
Effect of WETTABILITY

Centrifuge Method Fine-grained sand; v. low Qv

1000
200
Ka: 4 md
φ: 18.5%
160 OIL-BRINE
OIL-BRINE Core cut with OBM
100 AIR-OIL
AIR-OIL P tests:
Pc t t O-B
O B th
then A
A-O
O
OIL Pc, psi

120
• Observations
Δ
ALENT AIR-O

– Pd:
Pd large
l
10
– Transition: large Δ
80 – Swi: same > 50 ppsi
EQUIVA

(~0.17 micron ptr)

1 • Comparison suggests
40
– Oil
Oil-wet
wet large pores
Effect of Altered Wettability
– Water-wet small pores
0
0.1
– O-B data below 50 psi
00 20
20 40
40 60
60 80
80 100 non representative
non-representative
WETTING
WETTINGPHASE
PHASESATURATION,
SATURATION,PERCENT
PERCENT
Source: File data
 Effect of WETTABILITY

Dolomite (oil reservoir)

Centrifuge & Mercury Injection Methods
Ka: 126 md
1000
4 1. 1st Flow-cleaning (tol, chl-meth)
2
2. Air-Brine Pc
2: AIR-BRINE following 1st cleaning 3. 2nd Flow-cleaing (pyridine, chl-meth)
4: AIR-BRINE
AIR BRINE following 2nd cleaning 4
4. Air-Brine Pc
100
5: MERCURY INJECTION 5. Mercury Injection
Air-Brine Pc, psi

• Observations
Effect of Altered Wettability
– Pd: large Δ
10
– Transition: large Δ
– Swi:
S i large
l Δ
– Discoloration w/1st
1 pyridine
5
• Comparison suggests 1st AB
– Oil-wet large pores
01
0.1 – Oil-wet small pores
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
– Discontinuous water
Sw
Source: O’Meara el.al., SPE 18296, 1988
phase
RECEDING CONTACT ANGLE

Receding & Advancing Contact Angle

as a Function of Surface Roughness
Non-Polar Fluids on Low Energy Smooth or Roughened Surface
After Morrow, JCPT 1975
180

160 ADVANCING
act Angle,

on Roughened Surface
140
ancing Conta

120 SMOOTH SURFACE

Advancing=Receding=Intrinsic
RECEDING
egrees

100
on Roughened Surface
de
ding or Adva

80

60
• Receding angle matches drainage
Pc application
Reced

40

• Receding angles in natural systems

20 remain low at moderate to high
Intrinsic and Advancing values
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Intrinsic (Static/Smooth) Contact Angle, degrees

Air-Brine IFT

Air-Brine IFT at 20 C
as a Function of Compound Concentration
Chemical Handbook (CRC) 1989-90
88

86
%NaCl
84 %KCl
%M Cl2
%MgCl
ynes/cm

82 %MgSO4
Na2CO3
Na2SO4
NaCl
80
IFT, dy

78

76

74

72
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Wt % Solute
Crude Oil - Water & Brine IFT

Crude Oil - Water & Brine

INTERFACIAL TENSION vs API Gravity
y
Published Data: Livingston 1934; Firoozabadi & Ramey 1988
45
Livingston: 34 Crudes vs Brines (Texas);
ambient conditions
40
Firoozabadi & Ramey: 20 Crudes & water at
elev T&P. Actual API range of 25.4-50.2. API
35 values not g
given but estimated for plotting
g here
IFT, dynes/cm

(Mobil research)

30

25

20
P = bubblepoint
P > bubblepoint
15
P ~ STO
Livingston 70 F
10
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
API Gravity (estimated for F&R)
Methane - Water IFT

Methane-Water INTERFACIAL TENSION

AT ELEVATED TEMPERATURE AND PRESSURE
Measured Data of Jennings & Newman, SPEJ, June 1971
80

74 F 74 F Measured
TERFACIAL TENSION, , dynes/cm

70
212 F Measured
350 F Measured
60
212 F

50

350 F
40
INT

30

20
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000

PRESSURE, psia
 Fluid Distribution

Homogeneous Water-Wet Oil Reservoir

Well Residual Oil

Clean Oil
( t becomes
(water b discontinuous)
di ti )

Top Transition Zone

Oil and
d D
Mobile Water E
P
Transition Zone T
Lowest Oil Production H

Observed OWC
(Pc = Pce)

Free Water Level

0 Swi 100%
(Pc
(P = 0)
Sw
 Oil-Water Contact

Water-Wet Oil-Wet

+Pc +Pc
OWC
FWL Sw
0 FWL 0
Sw
OWC
-Pc -Pc

Neutral-Wet

+Pc

0 OWC
FWL Sw

-Pc
P
 Fluid Distribution with Varying Rock Type

Rock Type A B C
B
(lagoon SS)

ssure or Height Sw from

A
uence

Wireline
(beach SS)
ary Sequ

C
(lagoon OWC
edimenta

ary pres

carbonate)

B
Capilla
Se

A
B OWC

A OWC
Water Saturation Î Sw Î
J Function

Pc k
J = 0.2166. .
σ cos θ φ

A single curve through J vs Sw should fit all

data from the same rock type or hydraulic unit
 Improve Log Sw Estimates

0.45 100

0.4

0.35
Power Law trend line

0.3 10
Swir,, fraction

unction
0.25

J fu
02
0.2

0.15 1

0.1
Power Law trend line
0.05

0 0.1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0.001 0.01 0.1 1
RQI microns
RQI, Sw*

Data from high permeability, unconsolidated sandstone.

Several hydraulic units.
 Capillary Pressure - SUMMARY

• Capillary pressure concepts are fundamental

to thorough reservoir evaluation
• Applications vary from Sw-Ht modeling to
relative permeability, and residual oil
estimates
• Effective test and modeling methods are
available
• Cut core, measure formation Capillary
P
Properties
ti
Relative Permeability
 Relative Permeability Applications

GAS RESERVOIRS OIL RESERVOIRS

• INITIAL RATES: Refine • INITIAL RATES: Refine
permeability profiles permeability profiles, particularly
• Predict
P di t WWater
t Cut
C t in transition zone
• Understand perm loss due to • Predict Water Cut
drilling completion
drilling, completion, stimulation • Predict and compare
• Predict recovery & trapped gas performance under depletion
for aquifer-drive
q reservoirs,, drive and water drive
including gas storage reservoirs • Understand perm loss due to
• Predict recovery as a function drilling, completion, stimulation
of increasing condensate
saturation
• Gas sequestration
Relative Permeability Two Phase Flow

Definition: Relative Permeability is the ratio

of effective permeability of water or oil or gas
relative to a base permeability (e.g. Kw at
100% or Keo at Swi or K∞)

Relative p
permeabilities are
saturation dependent
 Typical Relative Permeability Curves

1 1
Kro at Swi Kro at Swi
Krw at Sor

0.8
eability

eability
0.1
0.6
ative Perme

ative Perme
Krw at Sor

0.4
Rela

Rela
0.01

0.2

0 0.001
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Water Saturation Water Saturation
Drainage and Imbibition Cycles

+Pc

Primary
drainage

Sor
Swi Sw

Primary
imbibition
-Pc
Saturation History

0.8
eability

0.6
ative Perme

0.4
Rela

Water wet, primary

drainage,decreasing Sw
0.2
Water wet, primary
imbibition, increasing Sw
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Oil wett drainage
d i
Water Saturation increasing Sw
 End Point Relative Permeability
Curve Shape Effect
Sample Depth, ft K∞, md Por
• Viscosity-matched WF;
9 xx953 9.58 0.142
1
end-point data only
• Curvature uncertain
• Incremental WF
7.64 md
performance uncertain
0.801 md
Relative Permeability

01
0.1 N 1
No= 1.5
5
Nw= 2
No= 4
Waterflood Performance
Nw= 1 0.5

overy, Frac Vp
0.4

0.01 0.3

02
0.2

Oil Reco
No 1.5; Nw 2
0.1 No 4; Nw 1

0 271 Swi 0.415

0.271 0 415 mobile oil 0.314
0 314 Sor 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Water Fractional Flow
0.8 1

0.001
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 16% 77%
Sw
Waterflood Susceptibility

1 10
• This graph shows typical
presentation of
0.8 8
waterflood performace
results

Pore Volumes
w of Water

0.6 6 • Also shown is the effect

of oil:water viscosity ratio
ow

Injected, P
Fractional Flo

0.4 4
on performance
• These data were

Water
W
generated
t d from
f the
th same
0.2 2
sample with all other
10
5
1
25 :Reservoir μo/μw
factors held constant
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Oil Recovery, fraction Vp
Swi: 0.200
1 : Reservoir μo/μw Sor: 0.264
No: 3
25 : Reservoir μo/μw Nw: 2
Flow Regimes

• Steadyy state

• Unsteadyy state

• Centrifuge
g

• Static-Dynamic
y
 Water/Oil Relative Permeability

Water

Pump ΔP
Filter
Oil Plug
Filter Effluent to fraction

Pump collector, or fluids

may be
b recirculated
i l t d
 Gas-Liquid Relative Permeability

Liquid

Pump

Filter
Pressure regulator
or gas flow controller
G supply
Gas l Plug
P
ΔP
Effluent to fraction
collector,, or fluids
may be re-circulated
 Steady State Water/Oil Relative Permeability

∆P
Oil
100% Sw Water
Swi
Mixer Head

Ko at Swi
Swi Swi

Sor

Swi Swi
Kw at Sor
Calculation of Steady State Data

Apply Darcy’s Law to each flowing phase:

Qw.μw.L Qo.μo.L
Kw = K =
Ko
A.Δp A.Δp
If base permeability = Keo then:

Krw = Kw/Keo Kro = Ko/Keo

Average Sw is obtained directly from gravimetrics or

from in situ saturation monitoring
Unsteady State Water/Oil Relative Permeability

Oil
100% Sw Water
Swi Water
Breakthrough

Ko at Swi

Swi Swi

Sor

Swi Swi
Kw at Sor
 USS Calculation

Standard Analytical solution - JBN

(Johnson, Bossler and Naumann, 1959, or Jones and Roszelle,
1978)

A
Assumptions
i made
d using
i JBN method:
h d
• Flow velocity is constant across the sample (it is
homogeneous and isotropic, no gravity effects, no
viscous fingering)
• Flow velocity is high enough to cause capillary
end-effects to be negligible
 Effect of Capillary Number, Nc
K .Δp ν .μ
Nc = =
0.5
σ .L σ
Typical range of Critical
Nc for NW Phase
0.4
Sor Typical
T i l range off
Critical Nc for
Wetting Phase
Swr

0.3
Sor & S

0.2

S
Swr
0.1

0
1.00E-06 1.00E-05 1.00E-04 1.00E-03 1.00E-02 1.00E-01 1.00E+00

Nc, ((ν*μ)/σ)*9.9973*10-3
after Lake, 1989
 Unsteady State Pressure Data

Constant Flow Rate

Breakthrough
essure
Differential Pre

Volumetric Throughput
 Unsteady State Production Data

Sw2 = Swav - ((fo2 * Q))

Sw, fraction PV
Sw2

Average Sw at
breakthrough dSwav
fo2 =

Average S
Sw2 just after
dQ
breakthrough

A
Breakthrough

Cumulative Volume Injected, Q

(water/oil example)
JBN Calculation of Unsteady State Data

• Plot SwAV versus Q

dSwav 1
fo2 = = Hence Kro/Krw
dQ 1+ Krw.μo
Kro.μw
• Plot 1/Q Ir versus 1/Q, where Δpi.q
Ir =
fo2 Δp.
p qi
Kro =
⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛1⎞ Hence Kro, therefore
d ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ d ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ Krw from Kro/Krw above
⎝ QI r ⎠ ⎝Q⎠
• Welge
Welge's
s Correction Hence plot Kro and Krw
Sw2 = Swav - fo2 * Q against Sw2
 SS vs USS Kw/Ko Comparison

USS vs SS Water-Oil Relative Permeability

Hollin Fm; Villano Field; Ecuador • ~1 foot-long composite core
SCA 9902
9902; SPE 57318
( 1100 md)
(~1100 d)
1
• USS method used 1st due to
time limitations
• 215°F; Dead Crude (resv cond)
• Viscosity ratio: μo:μw = 40
USS Kro
0.1 USS Krw • 60 cm3/hr injection rate
e Permeability

SS Kro
SS Krw • USS not representative due to
No USS 10.42 viscous instabilities
Nw USS 1.22
• Sample
Relative

No SS 5.50 S l reconditioned
diti d to
t initial
i iti l
Nw SS 3.06
0.01
conditions
Cent Krw end pt
Cent Krow • SS run at 215°F w/same crude
• 600 Vp throughput required for
SS at end point
• Centrifuge Krow and Krw (end
0.001 point) provided assist in fitting
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Sw
SS curves
 Centrifuge Method

At outlet end face:

1.000E+00

1.000E-01

μo.φ .L dQo
Kro =
1.000E-02

α .Δ
Δp.
p k dt 1.000E-03

K r, frac tion
1.000E-04

Kro

dQo
So = 1 − Qo + t
1.000E-05

dt 1.000E-06

1.000E-07
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

Sw, fraction
Static-Dynamic Method

0.481
0.267

01
0.1
0.054
Krg D
NCS

KrgDmax
K eff / K∞ N

0.01
Krg I
Krw Specific
Krw D
Krw I
0.001 Krw at Sgt

0 0001
0.0001
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Sw
How Does Wettability Affect Relative Permeability?

• Water wet

• Oil wet

• Intermediate
 Water Wet System at Swi, Unsteady State

1
Kro at Swi

0.8

Relative Perrmeability
0.6
>> Flow Direction

0.4

R
Krw at Sor
0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Water Saturation

Rock Water Oil

 Oil Wet System at Swi, Unsteady State

1
Kro at Swi

0.8

Relative Perrmeability
>> Flow Direction 0.6
Krw at Sor

0.4

R
0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Water Saturation

Rock Water Oil

 Effect of Wettability

Wettability Effect on Water-Oil

Relative Permeability Effect of Wettability on K effective
1 600
98% of Ka (WW)

500
e Permeabiliity, fraction

Ko & Kw END POIINTS, md

63% of
0.1 400
Ka (OW)
Torpedo Sand;
S Ka 571 md
300 Ko effective, Swi: 20% in all cases
Kw effective end point, Sor: varies
49% of Ka
Iso Sw for Kw comparison: 0.6
0 01
0.01 200
Relative

0 degrees
47 degrees
90 Degrees 100
138 degrees
180 degrees 6.4% of Ka
0.001 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 45 90 135 180
Sw Water-Advancing Contact Angle, degrees

After Owens & Archer, JPT, July 1971

 Wettability Restoration

Relative Permeability, fraction

n
0.1

Kro Native
K Native
Krw N ti
Kro Cleaned
Krw Cleaned
Kro Restored
0.01
Krw Restored

0.001
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Sw
Mungan, SPEJ, 1972
 Effect of Wettability on Relative Permeability

1
Kro at Swi 1
Kro at Swi

0.8 Krw at Sor

Oil Wet

eability
eability

0.1
0.6 Water Wet

ative Perme
ative Perme

0.4

Rela
Rela

0.01
Krw at Sor

0.2
Oil wet
Water wet

0 0.001
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Water Saturation Water Saturation
Mobility Ratio

krw
M= μ w

k ro

μ o

M ≤1: Stable, piston

piston--like, efficient displacement
M >1: Unstable,
Unstable less efficient displacement
Effect of Viscosity Ratio

meability 1.0

0.8

06
0.6 Oil
Relattive Perm

Water
0.4

0.2
Breakthrough saturation
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Water saturation

μ
<1
o

μ
w
Effect of Viscosity Ratio

meability 1.0

0.8

06
0.6 Oil
Relattive Perm

Water
0.4

0.2 Breakthrough saturation

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Water saturation

μ
>1
o

μ
w
 Effect of Viscosity Ratio

meability 1.0

0.8

06
0.6 Oil
Relattive Perm

Water
0.4 Breakthrough
0.2 saturation

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Water saturation

μ
>> 1
o

μw
Fractional Flow
1.0
Oil
0.8 The Same Relative
bt bt: Breakthrough Permeability Curves
0.6
kr
0.4 bt

0.2 Water bt

1.0
μ/μ=25
bt
08
0.8 Fractional Flow
μ/μ =2.5 Functions for Three
0.6
fw bt Viscosity Ratios
bt
0.4
μ/μ =0.25
0.2

0
0.2 0.3 0.4 Sw 0.5 0.6 0.7
Mobility Ratio

Sf

Swi

krw krw( Sf )
+
kro( Sf )
μ μw μo
M= w Ms =
kro kro, Swi
μo μo
 Effect of Initial Sw

0.5
• Swi can have impact on:
– Kromax
0.4
Initial-Residual data – Sor
Land's Function – Krwmax
Swi = 0.30
Sor = 0.26
0.3
• Data at invalid Swi may
yet be useful as they
Snwt

0.2
represent values of
d
describable
ib bl ffunctions
ti
Land's Equation:
Snwt = Snwi / (1+ C x Snwi) – Corey exponents
0.1
C = Land's Trapping Constant
may be same
C = (1/Sorlab) - (1/Soilab) – Soi:Sor on I-R curve
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Snwi
Relative Permeability Data with End-Effect

ative Perrmeabilityy 1.0

0.8
Bump 2
0.6
‘Corrected’ Curve
0.4
Bump 1
Rela

0.2
End of Low-rate
0 Flood
0 02
0.2 0.4
0 4 06
0.6 08
0.8 10
1.0
Water saturation

Bump 2
Sw Bump 1
L
Low-rate
t

Length
Capillary Number

K .Δp νμw
Nc = =
σ .L σ
M i
Maximum = 10-55
SMAX - Saturation Monitoring by Attenuation of X-rays

Kro Krw

Sw

Sw

Length
Water Flood

Water & Oil

X-Rays
 SMAX Saturation Profiles

1.000
0.900
0.800
ater Saturation

0.700
0.600
0.500
0.400
Wa

0.300
0.200
0 100
0.100
0.000
0.000 0.200 0.400 0.600 0.800 1.000
Core Length
SMAX Saturation Profiles

End effect
0.8
Further oil production

0.6
Sw
w

Saturation behind
0.4 flood front
Flood Front

0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Core Length
NUMERICAL SIMULATION

Models constructed assume one

dimensional flow and that the samples
are homogeneous
g

INLET OUTLET

Grid Block Average

g pporosityy and ppermeability,
y, actual Sw
Total: 40-60 assigned to each grid block
NUMERICAL SIMULATION

Data used in history matching

D t G
Data Group I
Input
t Data
D t

Fluids Data Viscosity, Density, Pore Pressure

Rock Data Porosity, Vp, Swi, Ko@ Swi, Dimensions (Area, Length)
p
Experimental Injection
ject o type, Flow
o Rates/Pressures,
ates/ essu es, Test
est Times,
es,
Data Orientation
Saturation Profiles, Differential Pressure
Measured Data
(Production, Injection rate)
 SENDRA Estimation Method

Rock, Fluids Properties

Rock Rel Perm.
Rel. Perm / Pc
& Flow Conditions Model
Physical
Process
Simulator

Change Model
Parameters

No
Measured Calculated
Experimental Compare Experimental
Output Output
Yes

Report
History Match

16
14
Oil Production 12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
Time

120

100
Pressure Diifferential

80

60

40

20

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
Time
 History Match

0 900
0.900
0.800
0 700
0.700
uration

0.600
0 500
0.500
ater Satu

0.400
0 300
0.300
Wa

0.200
0 100
0.100
0.000
0.000 0.200 0.400 0.600 0.800 1.000
Core Length
 NUMERICAL SIMULATION

1 1

0.9

0.8
01
0.1

0.7
meability

w Water
0.6

Fractional Flow
Relative Perm

0.01 0.5

0.4

0.3
0.001

0.2

0.1

0.0001 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Water Saturation Water Saturation
 History Match

Saturation Profiles

1.0

0.9

08
0.8

0.7
Water Saturation (ffraction)

0.6

0.5

0.4
W

0.3

0.2

01
0.1

0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Sam ple Length (norm alised)

Profile time, mins 2499.4 2713.2 2884.3 2999.8 4001.3 4209.2 4249.5 6849.3

Steady State Water Displacing Oil Example

 Numerical Simulation

1 1

0.9

0.8
0.1
07
0.7
Relative Permeability

0.6

Ko Ratio
0.01 0.5

Kw:K
0.4

0.3
simulation
0.001 analytical
02
0.2
Krw simulation
Krw analytical
Kro simulation 0.1
Kro analytical
0.0001 0
0 02
0.2 04
0.4 06
0.6 08
0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Sw (fraction) Sw (fraction)

Steady State Water Displacing Oil Example

 History Match

1800

1600
Pa )

1400
D iffe re n ttia l Pre s su re (kP

1200
1000
800

600

400
dP input data
200
dP simulated data
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000 22000 24000
Time (minutes)
 5 plug Composite
Water-Oil Reservoir Conditions, Homogeneous Sandstone, 1100 mD

1.0

Plug 1 Plug 2 Plug 3 Plug 4 Plug 5

0.9

Bump floods
08
0.8

0.7
action)

06
0.6
aturation (fra

0.5
Water Sa

04
0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Sample Length (normalised)
 History Match - 5 plug Composite
Water-Oil Reservoir Conditions, Homogeneous Sandstone, 1100 mD

1.0

Plug 1 Plug 2 Plug 3 Plug 4 Plug 5

0.9

08
0.8

0.7
action)

06
0.6
Water Saturation (fra

0.5

04
0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Sample Length (normalised)
 History Match - 5 plug Composite
Water-Oil Reservoir Conditions, Homogeneous Sandstone, 1100 mD

Differential Pressure

5.00
Measured dp
4.50 Simulated dp
4.00

3.50
sure, psi

3.00

2.50
Press

2.00

1.50

1.00

0 50
0.50

0.00
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

Time
 Simulation - 5 plug Composite
Water-Oil Reservoir Conditions, Homogeneous Sandstone, 1100 mD

Capillary Pressure

01
0.1 50
5.0

4.0
ative Permeability

3.0

2.0
0.01
1.0

Pc (psi)
0.0

-1.0
0.001
20
-2.0
Rela

-3.0

-4.0

0.0001 Krw simulation -5.0

Krw analytical 00
0.0 02
0.2 04
0.4 06
0.6 08
0.8 10
1.0
Kro simulation
Kro analytical Sw (fraction)

0.00001
0 02
0.2 04
0.4 06
0.6 08
0.8 1
Sw (fraction)
 Relative Permeability Project Design

Type of Core Oil Temp. Type Kw/Ko

• Extracted • refined • ambient • end point • No
• Fresh state • refined- • elevated • incremental • Yes
crude blend (WFS)
• Restored • dead crude • reservoir • unsteady- • Yes
y
Wettability state
• live crude • steady- • Yes
state
• SMAX
• Simulation
• The 1st 4 columns list the primary design parameters;
increasing complexity (and cost) downward, generally
– Least complex: extracted core, refined oil, room T, basic flood
– Most complex: restored-wett core, live crude, Resv T, SS Kw/Ko
 Relative Permeability Project Design

Type of Core Oil Temp. Type Kw/Ko

• Extracted • refined • ambient • end point • No
• Fresh state • refined- • elevated • incremental • Yes
crude blend (WFS)
• Restored • dead crude • reservoir • unsteady- • Yes
y
Wettability state
• live crude • steady- • Yes
state
• SMAX
• Simulation
• The 1st 4 columns list the primary design parameters; increasing
complexity (and cost) downward, generally
– Least complex: extracted core, refined oil, room T, basic flood
– Most complex: restored-wett core, live crude, Resv T, SS Kw/Ko
 Reservoir Conditions

• Test carried out at reservoir temperature (up

to 150°C)) and pressure
p ((10,000
, psi)
p )
• More expensive than ambient condition tests
• More time consuming
• More difficult to obtain accurate data without
SMAX
Obtaining Live Reservoir Fluids

All samples should be validated before use!

‘Clean’ crude oil samples are preferred but

rare
– Conventional bottom-hole sample from a
completed, cleaned-up well
– Separator oil and gas samples recombined in PVT
lab
– Dead stock tank oil recombined with synthetic gas
– Formation Test Tool sample (MDT,
(MDT MPSR,
MPSR RCI,
RCI
RFT)
– Dead crude blended with compatible lab oil
 Relative Permeability Study - Flow Diagram
Sedimentology, HU, PSD, Mineralogy

CT Scan Whole Core and p

plugs
g

NO Can Fresh State Samples be Used? YES

Wettability Restoration Flush Saturate with Oil

NO Are full curves required?
YES
YES Is Viscosity Ratio ≤1? NO
End points or
St d State
Steady St t
Unsteady State
YES Stable Flood Front? NO
NO

Capillary Effects? YES History Matching?

NO YES

Data Interpretation
 Kg/Ko
Gas-Oil Relative Permeability
Steady-State Gas-Oil Relative Permeability Overburden Centrifuge Method
4000 psi Confining Pressure, 160°F
1 10
e Permeabilitty, fraction

action
Krg Gas Increasing 0.1
01
0.1

Permeability, fra
Kro Gas Increasing
0.01 Ka, md: 46
Ka, md: 190 Porosity: 13%
0.001
Porosity: 16% Swi: 17%
Relative

Relative P
Swi: 16% Kocw, md: 27
0.01 0.0001
Kocw, md: 180 Cemented sand
Cemented Sand
0.00001
kro
krg
0.000001
0.001 Swi
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.0000001
Gas Saturation, fraction 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Outlet-Face Gas Saturation fraction
• Steady state results display very good gas-oil Centrifuge method provides displaced phase Kr to very
displacement behavior low values; 1-4 order of magnitude lower than other
• Kro at high gas probably suppressed methods
• High apparent Sgc Excellent method for
f
Gravity drainage
Best determination of Sorg
Develops Kro at high Sg
 Relative Permeability Averaging

1 1

Sw − Swi
Sw* =
1 − Swi − Sor

krw*
kro*

kro((SSw)
kro* =
kro( Swi)
krw( Sw)
krw* =
krw(1 − Sor )
0 0
0 Sw* 1
 Initial – Residual Relationships
CARBONATES
0.8 • Sor or Sgt
g values are often
best correlated with
0.7
porosity
06
0.6 • Keelan & Pugh (SPEJ,
(SPEJ April
1975) studied trapping for a
pped Gas at 80% Sgi

0.5 variety of carbonate pore

types yet found the
0.4
adjacent correlation with
0.3
porosity at a common initial
Trap

tti
wetting phase
h saturation
t ti
0.2 • No correlation with
All Pore Types permeability
p y was observed
0.1
• Carbonates, many pore
0
types
0 01
0.1 02
0.2
Porosity
03
0.3 04
0.4 • Swi
S i = 20%
 Initial – Residual Relationships
SANDSTONES
60 • Sor or Sgt
g values are often
best correlated with
50 porosity
or

• Legatski,
OIL, Sgt or So

L t ki et.
t al.
l (SPE 899,
899
40
1964) found the adjacent
correlation with porosity for
ED GAS or O

30 equilibrium residual gas or

oil upon water advance
• No correlation with
TRAPPE

20

permeability was observed

10 Oil Displ
Gas Displ • Unconsolidated & cemented
sands
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 • No information on Swi was
POROSITY
given
 Initial – Residual Relationships

Sgt max = Sgt when Sgi = 1

Land & Jerauld I-R Functions
0.4 Sgi
Sgt =
⎡ 1 1 ⎤
I-R Data 1+ ⎢ − ⎥ * Sgi
⎣ Sgt
g lab Sgi
g lab ⎦
L d II-R
Land R

0.3 Sgt max L Land' s Equation

Sgt max J
Jerauld I-R

Sgi
Sgt

0.2
Sgt = ⎛ 1 ⎞
⎡⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎤ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
1 + ⎢⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ - 1⎥ x Sgi
S i ⎝ 1-Sgt max ⎠

⎣⎝ Sgtmax ⎠ ⎦
0.1 Swi: 0.253
g 0.229
Sgt:
Jerauld’s
Jerauld s Equation

0
0 02
0.2 04
0.4 06
0.6 08
0.8 1
Sgi
Trapping Variation with Initial Saturation

Initial-Residual Relationships:
Various Carbonate Pore Types
KEELAN & PUGH, SPEJ APRIL, 1975
0.7

I
0.6 II
III
0.5 I-III
III I
III-I
Land Eq.
0.4
1:1
Sgt

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Sgi
Trapping Variation with Initial Saturation

Initial-Residual -- Clastics
Counter Current Imbibition
Counter-Current

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.330
Sgr

0.3

0.2

01
0.1

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Sgi
MI NS Storage NOR A-P "Land" Form "Jerauld" Form
Trapped Gas Saturation

Counter-Current Imbibition

127.63

Toluene saturation at residual gas

ation
e Satura
Toluene G diffusion
Gas diff i

Time
Trapped Gas Saturation

Co-Current Imbibition
Process
– wetting phase with low-
pressure frontal advance
controlled by small head &
capillary imbibition
– Gas
G volumel recovered
d
permits calculation of
trapped gas
 Applications - Fractional Flow

1 • This data set is used to compute

Water Flood Performance (WFP)
in the following slides.
Kro
• These curves are defined by
on
Relative Permeability, fractio

– Kro max =1
0.1
– Swi = 0.20
Krw
– Sor = 0.264
– Krw @ Sor = 0.3
– No = 3
0.01 – Nw
N =2
• At selected water saturations,
calculate fractional flow of water
using
– Resv. oil viscosity = 10 cp
0.001
0 02
0.2 04
0.4 06
0.6 08
0.8 1 – Resv. water visc. = 0.4 cp
Sw
 Fractional Flow Analysis

Each intercept at
1
0.442 fw of 1 = Sw2

0.9 1

Average Sw (Sw2)
0.8 Behind flood front
(Sw2 = tangent
0.7 0.372 intercept at fw=1)

0.6 0.9
Each Point of
Saturation (Sw1 face) tangency provides

fw
fw

0.5
And fw at Breakthrough fw and Sw1
(Sw1 = point of tangency
0.4 to fw curve)

0.3 0.8

fw
0.2
Breakthrough
g tangent
g
0.1 post Breakthrough tangents

0.200
0 0.7
0 02
0.2 04
0.4 06
0.6 08
0.8 1 0 35
0.35 0 45
0.45 0 55
0.55 0 65
0.65 0 75
0.75

Swi; anchor of initial Sw Sw

tangent construction
Water Flood Performance from Kw/Ko

1 10

>90% fw

0.8 8

Water IInjected, Pore Volumes

of Water

0.6 6
ctional Flow o

0.4 4
Frac

0.2 2

0.5 Vp injected
0 0
0 02
0.2 04
0.4 06
0.6 08
0.8 1
Oil Recovery, fraction Vp
32% Vp oil recovery
 Relationships

Rock type, or Hydraulic Unit A, high permeability and porosity

Rock type,
type or Hydraulic Unit B,
B moderate permeability and porosity
or Height →

Rock type, or Hydraulic Unit C, low permeability and porosity

WC = 10%
Pc, o

ability →
Relative Permea
Water Saturation →

Waterr Cut →
Water Saturation →

1
WC =
kro μw Bw
1+ . .
krw μo Bo Water Saturation →
Relative Permeability SUMMARY

• Relative permeability is fundamental to

understanding flow behavior of reservoir
• Terms can be confusing -- BE SPECIFIC
• Definition of Kr functions is key to
usefulness
• Relative perm correlating parameters may
come from other than rel p
perm data sets
• Design test to suit rock type and
mechanism
h i tto b
be studied
t di d