You are on page 1of 8

1

BASc in Petroleum Engineering 2015

Instructor: Yanitza Wilson-Ollivierre

Petrophysics

FEMV 2003

Poroperm Report

Prepared by:

Andrew Grant

ID#: 65188

Introduction:

A key variable in permeability control is porosity, that is, there is a direct proportional
relationship between porosity and permeability. Thus, formations with larger porosity
value may relatively have larger pore throats and therefore a relatively boarder
pathway for fluid flow. As of consequence, permeability can be plotted on a
logarithmic scale vs percentage porosity for a given rock formation. The results
obtained will show a clear trend analysis with a certain degree of deviation
associated with other factors influencing permeability. These factors may include:
grain size, connectivity of the flow paths in the rock, pore geometry of the rock as
well as the composite or directional properties of pore geometry.

Method:
Results were obtained by conducting conventional core analysis on well logs and
cuttings.
Results:
See attached document

Discussion:
With respect to graph 1 part 1: the following relationships between permeability and
porosity were observed:
In this core sample, the poroperm graph followed an exponential trend between the
permeability and porosity values. Furthermore, the data for the number of samples
taken for this formation was distributed in a uniform and homogeneous trend along
the exponential regression line. This is evident of the direct correlation between the
two parameters (i.e. permeability and porosity). For this formation the regression line
is given by: y = 0.0939e47.074 from graph 1.
Using Nelsons regression of analysis the regression line follows:

Ln k = 47.074

2.366 with the square correlation coefficient (R 2) = 0.6703. Since

the correlation coefficient is greater than 0.5, it is considered from this data, that
there is a significantly strong relationship between permeability and porosity for this
formation.
Moreover, in addition to the aforementioned information above, the lithology of this
formation was identified by referring to the following poroperm map below:

Graph showing Klinkenberg Permeability vs Porosity


Based on the poroperm trends for different lithologies as shown above, graph 1
(from excel spreadsheet) showed a similar pattern to that of finely crystalline
carbonates with vugs (for example limestones and dolomite). In that, it showed a
general trend of a relatively high porosity with a relatively corresponding fair to high
amount of permeability. This phenomenon could be as a result of the following:

Grain size: The grain size for finely crystalline carbonates ranges from 10m to
1/16mm. Because grain size is relatively small to medium, this directly affects
porosity of the formation and as a result permeability.
Grain composition/grain packing: Carbonate minerals are composed of three sub
groups namely calcite, dolomite and aragonite. Minerals of the calcite and dolomite
divisions belong to the rhombohedral grain packing system whereas, the aragonite
group belongs to the orthorhombic group (Boggs 2008). Theoretically, these grain
packing systems are 26 % and 39.5 % respectively. However the porosity range for
this formation in graph 1 is from .06 to .18 % respectively. This signifies that the
permeability porosity relationship is influenced by the granulometric composition of
this reservoir. Meaning that porosity is influenced by the geometry of the grain
composition, that is, both rhombohedral and orthorhombic packing systems usually
result in a relatively smaller pore space and pore throats. This restricts fluid flow and
as a result permeability for this formation.
With reference to graph 2 part 2: the following relationships between permeability
and porosity were observed:
In this core sample, the poroperm graph shows a plot of permeability versus porosity
data obtained from a large number of samples of a sandstone formation. The data
pattern was generally a diffused cloud with a direction almost in parallel to the x-axis;
that is the data was distributed in a scattered trend along the linear regression
trendline as shown in graph 2. It also means that permeability was influenced by
factors other than porosity such as grain size etc. This is supported by the direct
correlation between permeability and porosity as shown in the regression equation
below:
y = 33.13x 335.03 as shown in graph 2
Using Nelsons regression of analysis the regression line follows:
Ln k = 33.13 x + 5.814, with the square correlation coefficient (R 2) = 0.1376. This is
indicative of a weak correlation between permeability and porosity since the
coefficient correlation is less than 0.5. This is because, even though this formation
possesses a high percentage porosity, its corresponding permeability is generally
zero or near zero. In this situation, the relationship represented by the data provided

between permeability and porosity is qualitative and does not quantify between the
two parameters in any way. This means that effective porosity (which permeability)
value is relatively insignificant in this formation.
Based on the information stated above and the poroperm trends for different
lithologies as shown in graph 1 above, the lithology follows a pattern of clay
cemented sandstones and chalks. Since it followed a general trend of high porosity
but with almost zero permeability. This phenomenon is influenced by the following:
Grain size: clay minerals are usually typical in sandstone as matrix components. In
many cases, they are usually lumped together with fine-size of < 0.03 mm (as small
as 4 m) (Boggs 2008). Since grain size is very fine, the pore size (as well as pore
throats) for this formation will be relatively small and this causes an increase in
surface area to the fluid flow as well as frictional forces between the rocks. Therefore
even though there is high porosity, it is mainly in the form of micro-porosity filled with
contained water which is usually immobile. This type of porosity restricts fluid flow
and as a result permeability for this formation is significantly low.

With respect to graph 3 part 3: the following relationships between permeability and
porosity were observed:
In this core sample, the poroperm graph followed an exponential trend between the
permeability and porosity values. Furthermore, the data for the number of samples
taken for this formation was distributed in a uniform and homogeneous trend along
the exponential regression line. This is evident of the direct correlation between the
two parameters (i.e. permeability and porosity). For this formation the regression line
is given by: y = 0.4392e0.322x from graph 3.
Using Nelsons regression of analysis the regression line follows:
Ln k = 0.322

- 0.823 with the square correlation coefficient (R 2) = 0.8344. Since

the correlation coefficient is greater than 0.5, it is considered from this data, that
there is a significantly strong relationship between permeability and porosity for this
formation.

Furthermore, the lithology of this formation was identified by referring to the


poroperm map above. Graph 3 showed a similar pattern to that of clean standstones
as identified in figure 1 above. From graph 3, the permeability of the clean sandstone
for this formation illustrates that it is controlled mainly by porosity. Also from graph 3,
the data illustrates, both a high degree of permeability with a corresponding degree
of porosity. This means that there are a significant amount of interconnected pore
spaces and pore throats surrounding these pore spaces and as of consequence this
enhances the fluid flow (effective porosity) within the formation.
With regard to graphs four and five it was observed that porosity and permeability
decreases with increasing depth in feet. However, porosity only showed a marginal
decrease by 5.61 (i.e. 23.61-18). In contrast permeability showed a sharp decrease
with increasing depth by 12115 ft (i.e. 12498 383). This is because of as depth
increases compaction due to overburden pressure increases along with the
geothermal gradient. This results in an increase in the kinetics of the chemical
reactions as subsurface temperature increases. Consequently, cementation and
diagenesis which reduces pore spaces in the rock formation decreases at increased
subsurface depth. This significantly reduces fluid flow and thus permeability of the
formation.
The main difference between poroperm three vs one and two is that the data is more
symmetrically distributed about the trendline with most of the data clustering near the
high permeability and porosity region of the exponential regression line. Also there is
less deviation between points along the regression line as oppose to graphs one and
two. This signifies that permeability is influenced significantly by porosity for
poroperm three than one and two. This is attributed to the different depositional
environment for all three formations, with poroperm three being the most optimal for
high porosity and permeability.
With regards to poroperm plot L-12-03 its R2 = 0.4883, the correlation for this rock
formation is relatively strong since the R2 value is approximately 0.5. Also, based on
the graph, the data presented was homogeneous and uniform cloud about the
logarithmic regression line. Moreover, based on the Wentworth grain-size scale for
sediments, its equivalent phi () unit range is approximately between 0.1 and 0.18.
This range corresponds to the Wentworth class size of coarse sand grain size that

is well sorted (Boggs 2008) and therefore it is inferred that the lithology of this
poroperm is a sandstone with coarse grain sizes between 0.1 and 0.18.
With regards to poroperm plot ROSLU its R2 = 0.0876, the correlation for this
multiwell interval plot is relatively weak since it is less than 0.5. Also the based on
graph, the data presented was heterogeneous, but with a relatively uniform cloud
about the logarithmic regression line, which possesses phi () units ranging from
0.02 to 0.28. This is because data taken was from multiple wells at varied ranges of
depth for each well. As a result, this data was more relatively diffused about the
logarithmic regression line. The phi () range (as mentioned above) also
corresponds to the Wentworth class size of coarse sand grain size that is well
sorted (Boggs 2008) and therefore it is inferred that the lithology of this poroperm is
also a sandstone with coarse grain sizes between .02 and 0.28.

Conclusion:
Permeability is influenced by many factors, a key factor is porosity, and this was the
common denominator from all of the poroperm data provided. Other factors that
affect permeability are grain size, packing geometry as well as diagenesis.

Regards
Andrew Grant