• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
SCA2008-03 1/12 
THE IMPORTANCE OF SPECIAL CORE ANALYSIS INMODELLING REMAINING OIL SATURATION INCARBONATE FIELDS
 
S.K. Masalmeh and X.D. JingShell Technology Oman 
This paper was prepared for presentation at the International Symposium of theSociety of Core Analysts held in Abu Dhabi, UAE 29 October-2 November, 2008
ABSTRACT
An integrated study has been carried out to understand the field performance andremaining oil distribution of a number of heterogeneous and oil-wet carbonate reservoirsunder waterflooding. Demonstrating the impact of basic rock characterization and specialcore analysis (SCAL) laboratory data on waterflood performance of a Cretaceouscarbonate reservoir is the main focus of this paper.The rock characterization programme includes measuring detailed permeability distributionalong reservoir intervals and integration with geological facies modeling. The SCALprogramme consists of drainage and imbibition capillary pressure and relative permeabilitymeasurements for the predominant rock types using rock and fluid samples underrepresentative reservoir conditions of pressure, temperature and wettability. To ensure dataquality and repeatability, a combination of steady state with end-point bump floods andcentrifuge techniques have been used for measuring the relative permeability curvesextended to waterflood residual oil saturation. Numerical simulation was used to reconcilethe various SCAL datasets and derive a consistent set of saturation functions.The SCAL measurements took into consideration the importance of core sampling,cleaning and the proper procedures for obtaining reliable drainage capillary pressure data.We show that both imbibition capillary pressure and relative permeability have majorimpact on the waterflood sweep efficiency and cross-flow between adjacent oil-wet layersand hence on the distribution of remaining oil saturation. An incorrect understanding of thedistribution of remaining oil saturation may lead to ineffective well and reservoirmanagement and IOR/EOR decisions.
INTRODUCTION
In the past few years, we have been working on understanding waterflooding performancein heterogeneous oil-wet carbonate reservoirs (Masalmeh et al., 2003 & 2007) with a focuson the impact of geological heterogeneity and imbibition capillary curves. In this paper wewill report on our ongoing study to include the impact of relative permeability curves oncross flow between reservoir layers and hence sweep efficiency and field-wide remainingoil saturation distribution.
 
SCA2008-03 2/12 In this study we combine conventional core analysis (porosity, permeability), mercury-aircapillary pressure and special core analysis data (i.e., the imbibition Pc, relativepermeability and residual oil saturation) with the aim to better predict water floodingperformance. The capillary pressure data used in this paper are measured using mercuryinjection and centrifuge techniques. Mercury injection is frequently used for measuringdrainage Pc curves as the technique is relatively cheap, fast and requires relativelystraightforward data interpretation. The measured data, however, need to be converted to insitu reservoir conditions by taking into account the differences in interfacial tension andcontact angle between the rock/fluid systems used in the laboratory and that found inreservoir. The multi-speed centrifuge method can be used for both drainage and imbibitionPc measurements using representative reservoir fluids. Compared with the porous-plateequilibrium technique, the centrifuge method is relatively fast, which is a clear advantagefor studying carbonates with low matrix permeabilities. However, the design of thecentrifuge experiment and the interpretation of the data are not straightforward andnumerical simulation of centrifuge experiments is generally required to derive capillarypressure data (Maas and Schulte 1997). In this study we employed the steady state (withhigh-rate end point bumps), and centrifuge techniques to get the full relative permeabilityand imbibition capillary pressure curves using numerical simulation of SCAL experiments.We will first present the experimental data and experimental procedures required to obtainrepresentative capillary pressure and relative permeability curves. We then show theimpact of such data on field simulations using 3-D sector models from a CretaceousMiddle East carbonate reservoir.
EXPERIMENTAL MEASUREMENTS
 
Drainage Capillary Pressure
Drainage capillary pressure is used for reservoir rock classification or rock typing and toinitialise reservoir static model, i.e., to determine saturation as a function of height abovefree water level (FWL) in conjunction with saturation logs. Several authors have discussedthe complexity of obtaining a consistent set of drainage capillary pressure curves from thedifferent techniques available (Honarpour et al. 2004; Sallier and Hamon 2005; Masalmehand Jing 2004 and 2006). Although the experimental procedures are well established, themeasured drainage Pc curves using different techniques are not always consistent andconflicting data are often encountered (e.g., when comparing data from different fluid pairsfor the same rock or data from different measurement techniques). One of the reasons forthe discrepancies is due to the ineffective core cleaning (a particular challenge forcarbonates) to establish correct wettability conditions mimicking the primary drainageprocess in the reservoir (Masalmeh and Jing, 2006 & 2007). Another uncertainty lies in theprocedure to convert measured Pc curves using different fluid pairs and/or differentexperimental conditions. For example, the Hg-air Pc curves can be converted to oil-waterdrainage Pc curves using the following equation:
 
SCA2008-03 3/12 where
σ
is the interfacial tension (IFT) between the two fluids,
θ
is the contact angle,subscript L refers to laboratory (Hg-air) and R refers to reservoir (oil-water) fluids. Fordetailed review and discussion on relating mercury injection data to equivalent oil-watersystems, see Morrow and Melrose (1991).To ensure consistency of the measured data and take into account rock heterogeneity on themeasured Pc curves, the mercury/air capillary pressure curves have been measured usingcore plugs of 15 mm in diameter and 22 mm long which have been drilled in the vicinity of the selected SCAL plugs used in the centrifuge experiments.We reported previously (Masalmeh and Jing 2004, 2006) that the capillary pressuresmeasured using centrifuge and mercury injection methods (after converting the data towater-oil equivalent Pc) showed a close match for samples that have been properlycleaned. For converting mercury-air Pc curves into water-oil or water-air Pc, both IFT andcontact angle of different fluid pairs are substituted in equation (1). The IFTs betweendifferent fluids can be accurately measured using established techniques, however, contactangles cannot be measured directly on reservoir rocks. Contact angles measured onpolished mineral surfaces are not likely to represent reservoir rocks even for the water-wetcase due to the impact of surface roughness.In the literature, contact angles of 140, 30, 0 and 0 have been used for mercury-air,reservoir oil-water, refined oil-water and water-air, respectively (Archer and Wall 1986,Honarpour et. al. 2004). We found no experimental or theoretical support evidence forthese assumptions. In order to check the validity of these assumptions we have measuredcapillary pressure curves using four different fluid pairs, i.e., mercury-air, water-air, water-oil and water-decane on either the same samples or on adjacent small samples. We havealso measured IFT between the different fluid pairs (used literature data for the mercury-air) at the different experimental conditions. Using equation (1), the only un-known is theratio of the cosine of the contact angles. The measured IFT values between the differentfluid pairs are 480, 72, 27 and 52 mN/m for mercury-air, water-air, water-oil and water-decane, respectively. The best match between the measured Pc curves was obtained usingthe same effective contact angle for the different fluid pairs in equation (1), i.e., cos(
θ
)cancels out. Figure 1 shows a comparison between mercury-air and centrifuge water-oil,water-air and water-decane Pc curves on three different samples. The data presented heredoes not provide a contact angle value, however, it shows that the contact angle for eachfluid pair can be considered to be the same. Note that contact angle in this study refers toan effective contact angle for the respective saturation direction (Dumore and Schols1974).(1) )cos()cos(
 L L R R L R
PcPc
θ σ θ σ 
=
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...