Lab Report for Permeability and Porosity

© All Rights Reserved

1.4K views

Lab Report for Permeability and Porosity

© All Rights Reserved

- Constant & Falling Head Permeability Test
- Falling Head Permeability Test lab report
- The Boys Gas Calorimeter
- Lab Report-Permeability Test
- Introduction to Porosity
- Laboratory Manual for Porosity Measurement
- Permeability Test Lab Report
- Lab Report##3
- Boys Gas Calorimeter
- GFM Lab Report
- GAS METER CALIBRATION
- LAB REPORT GEOLOGY
- MUD VISCOCITIES AND OTHER RHEOLOGICAL PROPERTIES
- TECHNIQUES FOR RELATIVE PERMEABILITY CALCULATIONS : A CLOSER LOOK
- Properties of Gas and Liquid Experiment Report
- ICP Determination of Metal in Waste Water
- Porosity.pdf
- Lab Mud solid content determination
- Field Development Project Group 2 Final Report
- -Lab Experiment 1 Repaired)

You are on page 1of 30

EXPERIMENT

Author:

Academic Session:

2014/2015

Lecturer:

Course Moodle:

PETROPHYSICS

Mode of Study:

DATE:

FULL TIME

NOVEMBER 30,2014.

TABLE OF CONTENT

Cover page

------------------------------------

Table of context

------------------------------------

1.0 Introduction

----------------------------------

--------------------------------

-----------------------------1.3 Experimental equipment

-----------------------------1.4 Experimental procedure and observations --------------------------i.

Experiment one

-------------------------------------------ii.

Experiment two ------------------------------------------------1.5 Experimental results and calculations --------------------------------1.6 Presentation and analysis of result

--------------------------------1.7 Error analysis

-----------------------------------1.8 Conclusion

------------------------------------1.9 References

17

-------------------------------------------

16

-------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------2.2 Experimental apparatus

-----------------------------------------2.3 Experimental procedures and observation ---------------------------2.4 Results and calculations ----------------------------------------------2.5 Discussion

----------------------------------------------2.6 Conclusions

--------------------------------------------2.7 Summary

-------------------------------------------2.8 References

---------------------------------------------Attach notes

-----------------------------------------------

pg. 2

4

5

5

5

6

6

13

15

15

17

17

17

18

19

21

22

22

23

1.0 INTRODUCTION :

The topic investigated in this experiment were permeability determination of a porous media and

its porosity, permeability is a measure of how well a porous media allows the flow of fluids

through it, Permeability and porosity forms the two major characteristics of reservoir rocks. A

reservoir rock must have the ability to allow petroleum fluids to flow through its interconnected

pores. Permeability is an indication of the porous mediums ability to permit fluid flow.

Permeability and porosity forms the two major characteristics of reservoir rocks. A reservoir rock

must have the ability to allow petroleum fluids to flow through its interconnected pores. The

permeability of a porous medium is a measure of its resistance to the flow of a fluid through it.

The fluid may be a liquid or a gas. However, the only fluid used in this experiment was water.

The majority of the work was based on using sand as the permeable material.

Basically, permeability could be of three types: absolute permeability, relative permeability and

effective permeability. The relative permeability of the oil, gas and water would be;

kro = ko/k,

krg = kg/k, and krw = kw/k respectively. This describes the extent to which the

Where:

kro is the relative permeability of the oil

(Dimensionless)

(Darcy)

(Darcy)

(Dimensionless)

(Darcy)

(Dimensionless)

(Darcy)

The equation that defines permeability in terms of measurable quantities is Darcys law. This

equation is given by:

Q=

AK P

(1)

L

Where:

Q is the flow rate

(cm3/s)

K is permeability

(Darcy)

pg. 3

(cm2)

(atm)

L is the length of the bed

(cP)

(cm)

K=

QL

A P

(2)

Darcy equation can be written individually for each fluid/phase that flows in the pore as:

Qi =

A Pi

( Kkri

i ) L

(3)

Where :

Qi = flow rate of phase i

K = absolute permeability of medium

Kri = the viscosity of the phase i

P = pressure drop

L = length of the medium

A = cross sectional area of medium

(cm3/s)

(mD)

(cP)

(atm)

(cm)

(cm2)

Porosity of a rock is the fraction of the volume of space between the solid

particles of the rock to the total rock volume. The space includes all pores,

cracks, vugs, inter- and intra-crystalline spaces.The porosity is conventionally

given the symbol , and is expressed either as a fraction varying between

0 and 1, or a percentage varying between 0% and 100%. Sometimes

porosity is expressed in porosity units, which are the same as percent (i.e.,

100 porosity units (pu) = 100%).

Reservoirs with high porosity indicate abundant fluids in their pore spaces while those with low

porosity indicates low capacity to hold fluids.

Knowledge of two basic reservoir properties; porosity and permeability is essential in order to

know the types of fluids, amount of fluids, rates of fluid flow and fluid recovery estimates (Tiab

and Donaldson, 2012). In addition, porosity can be use quantitatively when it comes to

calculating oil reservoir content volumetrically.

Types of porosity are Primary porosity, Secondary, total and effective porosity.

Porosity can be calculated as the pore volume of the rock divided by its bulk volume.

=Pore volume/bulk volume

(Vp/V b)

=V bV m/V b=V p/V b

pg. 4

Porosity can be measured directly or indirectly but this laboratory measurement of core samples

is a direct measurement which is generally considered to be reliable and accurate and it requires

measurement of pore volume and bulk volume.

The bulk volume is usually estimated by volumetric or gravimetric method, volumetric method

measures the volume of displaced liquid by a rock sample when completely immersed in liquid

and the gravimetric method is the mass of the sample when immersed in a known density liquid.

For this experiment, three plugs extracted from sandstone core sample with known

permeabilities (50mD, 100mD and 500mD) were used to carry out a direct measurement of

porosity using the gravimetric and volumetric method.

The experiment in details

1.1 PERMEABILITY MEASUREMENT

1.2 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES:

The objectives of the laboratory practical were to determine the absolute permeability of sand in

porous media, and to determine the relative permeability of multi-phase flow (water and oil)

using darcy and corey equations

This experiment was important because knowledge of it would show how well a porous media

allows fluids to flow through it, and as petroleum engineers, one of the interest in reservoir rocks

is how easily petroleum will flow through them to the wellbore from where they are transported

to the surface.

1.3 EXPERIMENTAL EQUIPMENT

In order to carry out the experiment, a permeability/fluidisation studies apparatus manufactured

and supplied by Armfield (ltd) was used. See figure 1 below.

pg. 5

Manomet

er

Flow

meter

Packed bed sand

medium

Thermometer

1.4 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE AND OBSERVATIONS

i.

EXPERIMENT ONE

Part A

Flow rates were varied (not above 500 cm3/min, so as not to cause fluidisation) and the

corresponding pressure drops were recorded.

At the beginning of the experiment, all the valves were kept closed and then the pump was

switched on. At a point, a trickle from the overflow pipe indicated a constant water level in the

overhead tank, the experiment was started. Keeping the inlet and outlet valves closed, the

manometer valves were opened.

The drain tube from valve 4 was inserted into a beaker placed on the water tank to prevent any of

the bed material that passed through the sieve returning to the system. A thermometer was then

placed in the beaker to indicate the water temperature, and the temperature read after which bed

height (L) was recorded along with the water & mercury manometer zero levels.

Valves 1 and 4 were opened to admit water through the column in a down flow direction.

Valve 1 was then used to adjust the flow rate (Q) and the manometer levels were both recorded

for the various flow rate.

The temperature was recorded at the beginning of the experiment and at the end of the

experiment to obtain the water average temperature.

Part B

pg. 6

We didnt carry out this experiment but experimental data were given for pressure drop and flow

rates for two fluids; oil and water at different saturations. Here the two fluids were injected

simultaneously in the cylinder of the sand sample which was assumed to be the same sample

used in part one.

ii EXPERIMENT TWO

This type of permeability is absolute. For this experiment, the bed heights were varied at

different flowrates. In this case, the sand samples were poured into a measuring cylinder to

various heights (125mm, 215mm and 305m), with known density of the fluid (water) the

difference in fluid pressures were calculated from h1 h2.

In both cases, it was observed that the differential pressure increased with increase in flowrate

which is in agreement with Darcys law.

1.5 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND CALCULATIONS:

The experimental results and calculated results shown in tables below.

Table1. Experimental results for absolute permeability determination

No of

Flow rate

P1 (mmH2O)

P2 (mmH2O)

P (mmH2O)

Runs

(cm3/min)

1

50

245

268

23

2

100

230

286

56

3

150

214

305

91

4

200

194

327

112

5

250

183

340

140

6

300

163

364

201

7

350

148

383

236

8

400

125

407

282

9

450

101

436

335

10

500

83

459

376

Length of the bed (cm)

Diameter of the bed (cm)

Area of the bed (cm2)

Average temperature (C)

Pressure at zero flow rate (mmH2O)

Permeability (Darcy)

Gradient of graph

31.5

3.8

11.34

22.5

P1 = 248

P2 = 268

0.591D

4.74 *10-3 atm/cm3/s

No of run

Flow rate

P1

P2

P

K

pg. 7

(cm3/s)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

(* 10-3 atm)

(* 10-3 atm)

(*10-3 atm)

0.83

23.71

25.38

1.67

1.66

1.67

22.26

27.68

5.42

0.51

2.5

20.71

29.51

8.8

0.32

3.33

18.78

31.65

12.87

0.22

4.17

17.71

32.9

15.19

0.18

15.78

35.22

19.44

0.14

5.83

14.32

37.06

22.74

0.12

6.67

12.09

39.39

27.3

0.102

7.5

9.77

42.19

32.42

0.086

8.33

8.03

44.42

36.39

0.076

(Darcy)

45

40

35

30

25

15

10

5

0

0

Figure 2: Graph of pressure gradient against flow rate

CALCULATIONS:

pg. 8

(a)

(i)

graph above

Change in pressure P: When P1 = 245 mmH2O and P2 = 268 mmH2O

Therefore,

Therefore 23mmH2O can be written as

P .g.h

(ii)

1000 9.81 23 10 3

22.56 10 3 atm

100000

cm 3 / sec

100cm3 / min

Q

1.67cm3 / sec

60 sec/ min

Gradient =

(iii)

Change flow rate(c m3 /seconds)

( P)

Q

( 32.428.8 )103

7.552.5

K=

L

A P

Where:

= 1 cP, Length of bed (L) = 315 mm = 31.5cm, Diameter of bed (d) = 38mm = 3.8cm Area

d 2 3.14 (3.8) 2

11.34cm 2

4

4

of bed,

L

L

K

A P A Gradient

1

31.5

11.34 4.7 10 3

591millidarcy

= 0.59 Darcy

Table 4. Calculated results for relative permeability determination using Coreys law.

Case

Qw(cc/s)

Qo(cc.s)

P (atm)

kw

krw

ko

kro

80%W, 20% O

0.03

189.12

0.316

2.36

0.004

60% W, 40% O

0.05

37.23

0.063

114.65

0.197

40%W, 60% O

0.06

2.36

0.004

301.41

0.51

20% W,80% O

0.08

591

pg. 9

1.2

No oil

flows

No

water

flows

0.8

0.6

krw

Kro

0.4

Residual

oil

saturati

0.2

0

10

Irreduc

ible

water

saturati

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Figure 3: Relative permeability curve for oil and water using Coreys law

(b)(i) Test 2; Sample calculations for Relative permeability using Coreys law; table and

graph are shown above

Equation for relative permeability of oil,

1Sw 4

Kro = 1Swc

10.8

Kro = ( 10.2

= 0.004

4

Effective permeability of oil Ko = Kro *K

Where Kro = 0.004, K= 591mD

0.004*591= 2.364

Equation for relative permeability of water , Krw=

pg. 10

SwSwc

1Swc

Krw =

0.80.2 4

=0.32

10.2

Where Krw = 0.32, K= 591mD

0.32*591= 189.12

Case

Qw(cc/s)

Qo(cc.s)

P (atm)

kw

krw

ko

kro

80%W, 20% O

0.03

463.0

0.78

463.0

0.78

60% W, 40% O

0.05

0.71

40%W, 60% O

0.06

0.78

20% W,80% O

0.08

0.73

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.4

Krw

0.3

kro

0.2

0.1

0

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Figure 4: Relative permeability curve for oil and water using Darcys law

pg. 11

(b)(ii) Relative permeability using Darcys law as shown in the table and graph above

Kkri A Pi

Equation for Qi =

i

L

( )

Transposing for

Kri=

Qi i L

K A P

5 1 31.5

=0.78

591 11.34 0.03

Kw = Krw K

Kw = 0.78 591 =463mD

Permeability of oil p h ase for run 1, Kro=

2 2.5 31.5

=0.78

591 11.34 0.03

Kw = Krw K

Kw = 0.78 591 = 463mD

L (mm)

125

P1 (mmH2O)

P2 (mmH2O)

P (mmH2O)

80

68

12

72

58

15

Flowrate

(cm3/min)

80

100

120

65

55

20

215

70

50

20

80

82

59

23

100

96

66

30

120

305

79

47

32

80

75

36

35

100

64

25

39

120

Table 7, calculated results for absolute permeability determination for second permeability

experiment

pg. 12

L

H1

H2

P

Flowrate

P

K

K

P(m)

3

(cm) (cmH2O) (cmH2O) (cmH2O) (cm /sec)

(atm) (mD) (Darcy)

12.

5

80

68

12

1.33

0.12

0.01

2

94.5

8

0.0946

75.6

7

0.0757

12.

5

72

58

15

1.66

0.15

0.01

5

12.

5

65

55

20

0.20

0.01

9

56.7

5

0.0567

21.

5

70

50

20

1.33

0.20

0.01

9

97.6

1

0.098

0.23

0.02

2

84.8

8

0.085

65.0

7

0.065

0.086

21.

5

82

59

23

1.66

21.

5

96

66

30

0.30

0.02

9

30.

5

79

47

32

1.33

0.32

0.03

1

86.5

4

0.03

4

0.03

8

79.1

3

71.0

1

30.

5

30.

5

75

36

35

1.66

0.35

64

25

39

0.39

0.079

0.071

(i)

Calculation of difference in fluid pressure:

Density of the fluid (1000kg/m3), pressure gradient can be calculated from

Where

(ii)

P .g.h

= 1000kg/m3,

g = 9.81m/s2 h = h1 h2 = (80 68)cm = 12cm = 0.12m

10009.810.12

P=

=12103 atm

100000

Absolute permeability: Using equation 2:

K=

L

A P

Where:

= 1 cP, Length of bed (L) = 125mm = 12.5cm, Diameter of bed (d) = 38mm = 3.8cm and

gradient for L=12.5 is 0.0116 as displayed in figure 5

pg. 13

d 2 3.14 (3.8) 2

11.34cm 2

4

4

Area of bed,

L

L

K

A P A Gradient

1

12.5

11.34 11.6 10 3

95.03 millidarcy

= 0.0953 Darcy

In figure 1, as the flow rate increases, there was corresponding increase in the pressure gradient

as observed, one can deduce a direct correlation and relationship between flow rate and pressure

difference. This can also be seen from table 3 when the flow rate was 0.83 cm 3/sec (50 cm3/min),

the pressure gradient was 1.67 atm. (23 mm H 2O), also when the flow rate was increased to 1.67

cm3/s (100 cm3/min), pressure gradient increased to 5.42 atm.(56 mmH 2O) which was

consistence throughout the experiment, pressure gradient increased to 5.42 atm. (56 mm H2O)

giving rise to a straight line plot of pressure gradient against flow as shown in figure 1.

In table 3 and 7, as the pressure gradient increases, there was a reduction in permeability. This is

in support of the assumption on absolute permeability of porous medium is independent of the

fluid used. It must be noted, that this assumption will only be true, if viscous flow prevail. That is

the rate of the flowing fluid is sufficiently low to be directly proportional to the potential gradient

(Honarpour and Mahmood, 1988).

function of saturation of the phases present in the medium unlike the case of absolute

permeability where the pores of the medium are 100% saturated with a particular type of fluid.

It can be seen from the relative permeability curve in figure 3 that the relative permeability of the

sand medium to water was sharply decreasing when the water saturation was reduced. This could

be due to the occupation of the larger pores or flow paths by the oil phase; that is the water phase

has been displaced by the oil phase.

When this happens, it is said that a wet fluid has been displaced by a non-wetting fluid, and this

process is called drainage. The relative permeability in figure 3 curve also shows that the

relative permeability of the oil phase approaches unity whereas that for the water phase is

restricted. Thus at the same saturation, the value of the oil phase relative permeability was

greater than that of the water phase.

pg. 14

Referring to figure 4, a relative permeability curve was plotted for the values of the relative

permeabilities of oil and water versus water saturation calculated using Darcys law. It can be

seen that there was a similar sort of behaviour for the water phase but not for the oil phase, this

infers that Darcys law is not suitable when the flow is not a single phase flow.

For the second experiment where the bed heights were varied, at a particular flowrate with

varying bed height, there was an increase in the differential pressure (P), this can be seen in

table 7, when the flowrate was 1.33cm3/s at a bed height of 12.50cm, the differential pressure

was 0.012atm compared to when the flowrate was still 1.33cm3/s with a bed height of 21. 50cm

where the differential pressure was 0.019atm. This follows through when the flowrate remained

the same but at a bed height of 30.50cm where the differential pressure increased to 0.031atm.

At a particular bed height with increased flowrate, the differential pressure also increased

accordingly too. In terms of the permeability, comparing both permeabilities obtained from both

experiments; the one in the first experiment were the bed height was constant was higher than

the second experiment were the bed heights were varied. The reason for this could be that the

first experiment could be likened to highly compacted sandstones while the second one could be

likened to low compacted sandstone sandstones,

From the experiment, the absolute permeability of the sand porous media for the first experiment

(when the bed height was kept constant) was estimated to be 591millidarcy. When the bed

heights were varied, the estimated absolute permeability carried accordingly. For bed height of

12.5 cm, the absolute permeability was 95.02millidarcy, for bed height of 21.5cm, the absolute

permeability was 130.75 millidarcy, for bed height of 30.5cm, and the absolute permeability was

263.69millidarcy. In addition, it was found that the values of permeability for the second

experiment were smaller than those ones for the first experiment.

It was also found that using Coreys law, a relative permeability curve can be drawn for fluids

(oil and water) flowing through a porous media. Based on the curve, it was found that relative

permeability is saturation dependent. The proportional relationship between the flow rate,

viscosity, length of rock bed sample, permeability, cross sectional area of the rock bed sample

and the pressure was observed.

1.7 ERROR ANALYSIS:

The following errors could have arosen in this experiment;

(1) Systematic error: The packed sand bed may not be representative of the reservoir rock

because reservoir rocks are not homogeneous rather they are heterogeneous.

(2) Human and random error: There may be a temptation to select the best parts of the sand

medium for testing and also inability to take accurate reading on the manometer

(3) Systematic error; The permeability of the sand medium may be altered probably when they

were gotten from the original sample, or even when they were cleaned and packed

1.8 CONCLUSION:

At the end of this experiment, the following conclusions can be drawn:

(i)

For absolute permeability determination, the medium must be 100% saturated with a

particular type of fluid.

pg. 15

(ii)

The higher the permeability, the easier it will be for fluids to flow and, hence the higher the

production rate from a particular well (OPITO, 2011). The permeable material that was

(iii)

Absolute permeability does not depend on the properties of the flowing fluid; it only

depends on the properties of the medium.

(iv)

The quality of a reservoir as determined by permeability in millidarcy (mD) may be judged as poor

if k < 1, fair if 1< k < 10, moderate if 10 < k < 50, good if 50 < k < 250 and very good if k > 250

mD. Since there was a permeability of 50mD and above for sand samples from the experiment, it

will make a good reservoir

(v)

During the flow of fluid through a porous medium, there is proportional relationship

between the flow rate and the pressure gradient.

Relative permeability is dependent on the saturation of the different phases in the medium.

There is a proportional relationship between flow rate, viscosity, length of rock bed

sample, permeability, cross sectional area of the rock bed sample and pressure gradient.

(vi)

(vii)

1.9 REFERENCES

Honarpour, M and Mahmood, S.M. (1988) Relative-Permeability Measurements: an Overview.

Journal of Petroleum Technology. Vol.40, No. 8. Texas: Society of Petroleum Engineers.

pp 963-966

Aristodemu, E. (2014) lab notes for permeability measurement.

Ekwere, J.P (2012) Advanced petrophysics ; geology, porosity, absolute permeability,

Heterogeneity and geostatistics. Vol 3 1st ed. Live Oak Book Company. Chapter three

Tarek, A. (2010) Reservoir Engineering Handbook. 4th ed. Oxford: Elsevier Inc. Chapter 4 & 5.

Tiab, D and Donaldson, E.C. (2012) Petrophysics: theory and practice of measuring reservoir

rock and fluid transport properties. 3rd ed. Oxford: Gulf Professional Publishing. Chapter 3.

OPITO (2011) Oil Well Drilling Technology Workbook: Petroleum Open Learning. Aberden:

OPITO.

pg. 16

pg. 17

2.0

POROSITY MEASURMENT

The main objective of this laboratory work was to estimate some porosity data (bulk volume and

pore volume) and ultimately used them to calculate the porosity for the different samples

provided, using three core samples that were given and calculating the porosity employing the

method of direct measurement and using the buoyancy method by applying Archimedes

principle.

2.2 EXPERIMENTAL EQUIPMENT AND FUNCTIONS

The following equipment were used in carrying out the experiment:

Vernier Caliper: to measure the length and diameter of the plug sample, calibrated in inches

and millimetres

Electronic balance: to weigh the samples, samples were taken in grammes

Beaker containing distilled water to saturate core samples

Clamp: to aid the immersing of samples into beaker containing distilled water (the mass of

the beaker, water, and metal wire was subtracted by using the balance tare)

Vacuum chamber accelerator: to displace air in the samples

Saturated cloth or tissue: to dry any excess fluid from the saturated sample before being

weighed

dessicator

Vacuum chamber

Fig.3 Picture of vaccum chamber connected to dessicator

pg. 18

2.49cm

2.49cm

0.248c

EXPERIMEN

K = 50mD

2.3

5.03cm

5.07 cm

5.19cm

K = 100mD

K = 500mD

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES AND OBSERVATION

The diameter and length of the three (3) cylindrical core samples (K = 50mD, K = 100mD, K =

500mD) were taken using a Vernier calliper which was calibrated in inches. The values gotten

were then converted to centimeters (cm) using the relationship below

1 inch = 2.54 cm

For instance, the diameter recorded for K50 was 0.981inch, conversion to cm equal 0.981*2.54=

2.49cm, this was applicable for all the length measurements.

The volume of the core samples was calculated using the volume of a cylinder given below

2

Volume of core sample = r h

Where r = radius of the core sample = diameter /2

h = height (in this case, it is the length of core sample)

= 3.14

pg. 19

The three (3) core dry samples were each weighed using a digital mass spectrometer to

determine their masses, the masses were recorded in gramme as dry sample mass after which

they were then saturated with distilled water. This was done by placing the core samples in a

beaker containing distilled water; the beaker was then placed in a vacuum chamber so as to

accelerate the displacement of the air in the rock by water, this is called imbitions. After

saturation, the core samples were again weighed to determine the saturated sample mass.

The mass of water in the pore was then calculated using the formula below:

Mass of water porethe pore volume , M w=Saturated sample mass dry sample mass

While the pore volume was calculated using the relationship below:

Pore volume = Mass of water porethe pore volume

density of water

Where density of water, = 1.0g/cm3

The porosity of each of the samples was also determined using equation 1.

Estimation of the bulk volume by buoyancy

In this method, A metal wire was suspended from a clamp and placed in a beaker containing

water, then both beaker and suspended wire was placed on the mass spectrometer. The

combined mass of the beaker and the wire was zeroed using the balance tare. Each of the

samples was then placed on the suspended wire and their individual masses recorded. While

doing this, it was ensured that the core samples do not touch the body of the beaker as this could

affect the readings. The bulk volume of each of the sample was then computed by dividing their

masses by the density of water (density of water, = 1.0g/cm3).

2.4 RESULTS AND CALCULATIONS

SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

i Geometrical Estimate of the Bulk Volume, (Vb) as shown in table 1 below

To calculate the volume of the three (3) core cylindrical samples, the formula for the volume of a

cylinder is used. This is given below

2

Volume of a cylinder = r h

Where:

Where r = radius = diameter/2

h = height (in this case length)

For the K = 50mD, the bulk volume, (Vb (k50)), was calculated as

2.49 2

V b ( k 50 )=3.142

5.07

2

( )

= 25.49cm3

Same procedure was repeated for the other two samples

Table 1: Geometrical Estimation of the Bulk Volume

Sample

Diameter

Diameter

Length

Length

pg. 20

Volume

(inches)

(cm)

(inches)

(cm)

(cm3)

50mD

0.981

2.49

2.0461

5.19

25.49

100mD

1.0131

2.57

1.998

5.07

26.52

500mD

0.981

2.49

1.979

5.03

24.70

.

iiEstimation of the Pore Volume, (Vp) as ahown in table 2

To do this, the mass of water (Mw) in the pore volume was first calculated, is calculated using the

formula below:

M w=Saturated sample mass Dry sample mass

For sample K = 50,

Mw = 56.91g 52.70 = 3.72g

Same procedure was repeated for the other two samples

To

calculate

for

the

volume

of

the

pore

(Vp)

the mass of water the pore volume /density of water = 3.72g/1.0g cm-3 = 3.72cm3

Then porosity was estimated as

,=V p /V b

Where Vb = bulk volume for sample

For example, for sample K = 50,

= 3.72cm3/25.49.52 cm3

= 0.164 or 16.4%

Same procedure was repeated for the other two samples

Table 2: Estimation of the Pore Volume

Sample

Dry sample Saturated

mass (g)

sample mass

(g)

50mD

52.70

56.42

100mD

52.22

55.91

500mD

48.60

52.83

Mass

of Volume of Porosity

water (g)

water (cm3)

3.72

3.69

4.23

3.72

3.69

4.23

0.146

0.139

0.171

iii

Estimation of the bulk volume by Buoyancy as shown in table 3

The bulk volume (Vb) from the buoyancy mass of displaced water was calculated using

V b=buoyancy mass of displaced water /density of water

Where density of water, = 1.0g cm-3

For sample K = 50mD

Vb = 24.93g/1.0g cm-3 = 24.93cm3

pg. 21

Porosity ,=volume of pore/volume of bulk

For sample K = 50

= 3.72cm3/24.93cm3

= 0.149 or 14.9%

Same procedure was repeated for the other two samples.

Table 3: Estimation of the Bulk Volume by Buoyancy

Sample

Bouyancy mass of Bulk volume (cm3)

displaced water (g)

Porosity

50 md

24.93

24.93

0.149

100 md

24.76

24.76

0.149

500 md

24.17

24.17

0.175

2.5 DISCUSSION

From calculations done in the experiment carried out, it was observed that the bulk volumes of

the core samples estimated using the two methods that is calculations using direct core

measurements and the buoyancy method are not exactly the same, for K= 50mD and K=500mD

the differences in their measurements are of negligible values while K= 100mD has a difference

of 1.76cm3 as shown in table 4 below

Table 4: Comparing bulk volumes estimated by different methods

Sample

Bulk volume Estimated By Bulk volume Estimated by

Direct Measurement (cm3)

Buoyancy (cm3)

K = 50mD

25.49

24.93

K = 100mD

26.52

24.76

K = 500mD

24.70

24.17

The inconsistency in the result could be due to experimental errors. From theory, porosity

experiments require that the sample are saturated in vacuum desiccator for up to an hour, for this

experiment however the saturation period lasted for only 20minutes.

Despite discrepancies with bulk volume figures, the extrapolated porosity from both

experimental methods are approximately the same for the three samples using the buoyancy

method. This can be seen table 5 as shown below

pg. 22

Sample

Porosity Estimated By Porosity Estimated

Direct Measurement (%)

Buoyancy (%)

K = 50mD

14.6

14.9

K = 100mD

13.9

14.9

K = 500mD

17.1

17.5

by

On a theoretical basis, sample K = 500mD has an average porosity of 0.173, K = 100mD (0.144)

and K= 50 (0.148), the reduction of porosity of these samples could be as result of compaction,

the cementation of the rock sample and the degree of saturation.

Theoretically, another reason for the discrepancy in the values of the porosity obtained by direct

measurement and that obtained by the buoyancy method is because the buoyancy method

measures effective or connected porosity as it depends on the saturation of the rock samples with

a fluid.

In practical situations, the buoyancy (Archimedes) method of estimating bulk volume could be

accurate in better quality rocks if effective pore spaces can be completely saturated. On the other

hand, in poorer quality rocks, it could be difficult to completely saturate the sample. In addition,

saturating fluid may react with minerals in the core (e.g. swelling clays).

Variations in grain packing could lead core samples not to have the type of regular shape that

may give more accuracy to the direct measurement method.

2.6 CONCLUSIONS

At the end of the experiment, the following conclusions can be drawn:

Geometric method of bulk volume estimation for porosity determination can be

effectively applied for regularly shaped cores.

Comparing the direct measurement (geometric) method and the buoyancy method, it can

be concluded that the buoyancy method could be more accurate. This is because, the

direct measurement or geometric method can only be effectively applied for regularly

shaped cores or core plugs, and this does not paint a true picture of the shapes of the

various core samples that can be encountered in the Field or lab in real life.

For the gravimetric or buoyancy method, it could be more accurate in better quality rocks

if effective pore spaces can be completely saturated. Otherwise, in poorer quality rocks, it

could be difficult to completely saturate the samples.

The inconsistency between both methods of bulk volume estimation can be negligible

since they are not too much.

Even though the 500mD sample had a higher porosity than the 50mD and 100mD, there

is still lack of correspondence between these two important reservoir properties; porosity

and permeability.

pg. 23

The porosity data obtained in this experiment varied as a result of factors such as

cementation, particle shape and sizes which made the 500mD sample had a higher

porosity than 50mD and 100mD samples.

The 500mD sample with a porosity value of 17.1% (for volumetric estimate) and 17.5.

3% (for the buoyancy method) has a higher capacity to store or contain fluids (oil, gas,

and water) than the 50mD and 100mD samples.

2.7 SUMMARY

Porosity data are very important to Petroleum Engineers as they are used to classify reservoirs

and to estimate the potential volume of hydrocarbons in a reservoir. Thus reservoirs with high

porosity indicate abundant fluids in their pore spaces while those with low porosity indicates low

capacity to hold fluids.

From the experiment, it was found that Sample K = 500mD has a porosity of 0.173 K = 100mD

and K= 50mD has almost same porosity; 0.148 and 0.144 respectively. This shows K= 500mD

has the capacity to store fluids than the others. After a careful laboratory study of these samples,

it can be concluded that sample K = 500mD is more porous than the other samples.

Also the 500mD sample had a higher porosity than the 50mD and 100mD samples, there is

actually no specifically defined relationship between porosity and permeability, although there

could be a qualitative relationship between both properties but not quantitative.

According to Diab and Donaldson (2012), it is possible to have a very high porosity without

having any permeability at all, as in the case of pumice stone (where the effective porosity is

nearly zero), and also in clays and shales

2.8 REFERENCES

Aristodemu, E. (2014) lab notes for porosity measurement.

Cone, M. P., and Kersey, D. G. (1992) Porosity: Part 5. Laboratoy Methods. AAPG. [Online]

Available from: http://archives.datapages.com/data/specpubs/

Ekwere, J.P (2012) Advanced petrophysics ; geology, porosity, absolute permeability,

Heterogeneity and geostatistics. Vol 3 1st ed. Live Oak Book Company. Chapter three

Schlumberger

Oil

Field

Glossary

(2012).

[Online]

Available

from:

http://www.glossary.oilfield.slb.com/en/Terms/p/porosity.aspx

[accessed 4th

November 2014]. Tiab, D., and Donaldson, E.C. (2012) Petrophysics: theory and practice of

measuring reservoir rock and fluid transport properties. 3rd ed. Oxford: Gulf Professional

Publishing.

pg. 24

pg. 25

pg. 26

pg. 27

pg. 28

pg. 29

- Constant & Falling Head Permeability TestUploaded byEngr. Ikhwan Z.
- Falling Head Permeability Test lab reportUploaded byshahrolhazrien
- The Boys Gas CalorimeterUploaded byPaul Miller
- Lab Report-Permeability TestUploaded byOchini Chandrasena
- Introduction to PorosityUploaded byMubin Ashraf Sheikh
- Laboratory Manual for Porosity MeasurementUploaded byCasey Combs
- Permeability Test Lab ReportUploaded bySaleem Anas
- Lab Report##3Uploaded byShaffaq Zaman
- Boys Gas CalorimeterUploaded byPraneeth Weerathunga
- GFM Lab ReportUploaded byÁlvaroDeLaGarza
- GAS METER CALIBRATIONUploaded byMimi Hashim
- LAB REPORT GEOLOGYUploaded bySidharth Therroth
- MUD VISCOCITIES AND OTHER RHEOLOGICAL PROPERTIESUploaded byMuhammad Naqiuddin Bin Zahid
- TECHNIQUES FOR RELATIVE PERMEABILITY CALCULATIONS : A CLOSER LOOKUploaded byari_si
- Properties of Gas and Liquid Experiment ReportUploaded byFadh At-Tarf
- ICP Determination of Metal in Waste WaterUploaded byNorshafiza Mohd Rosli
- Porosity.pdfUploaded byChecolink
- Lab Mud solid content determinationUploaded byIngenieur Khairuddin Ngah
- Field Development Project Group 2 Final ReportUploaded byHasnain
- -Lab Experiment 1 Repaired)Uploaded byAmirul Hakim
- Experiment 2 (Free and Forced Vortex)Uploaded bypaan
- porosity_2011Uploaded byAchau Chau
- Reservoir Lab Manual 2015-16Uploaded byAbhinav Sharma
- Lab 1 Boys CalorimeterUploaded byHafizszul Feyzul
- Heriot-Watt University - Reservoir SimulationUploaded byTabassum Vahora
- Formation ResistivityUploaded byMaclean Jacob Eneotu
- Permeability ReportUploaded byMaclean Jacob Eneotu
- Lab Report permeabilityUploaded byAhmad Fakhri
- UV VIS & FTIRUploaded byVannessa Shallomy
- 5 Porosity & PermeabilityUploaded byNaser Khan

- grid fins 3Uploaded byaerospacian704
- s ProcessUploaded byPraveen Vs
- Design AssssUploaded byetayhailu
- Paper ICESRED.docxUploaded byHiroko Takano
- PPT:-Components of Ship ResistanceUploaded byaimri_cochin
- Organic Chemistry Melting Point LabUploaded byIKINEMATICI
- Viscosity Compensation of Helical Turbine Metrs 2480.1Uploaded byCRT Services
- Thermal-II-Lab-Manual.docUploaded bytagoreboopathy
- 345086059 PIP STE03350 Vertical Vessel Foundation Design Guide 12 2008 Last Upd PDFUploaded byayman ammar
- Thermodynamic Properties of Fluids3Uploaded byAhmedOM
- htUploaded byapi-279049687
- flipped lesson plan 2 regina newcome 1Uploaded byapi-368587833
- aitc_119-96 American Institute of Timber Construction.pdfUploaded byECC
- tut22Uploaded byAndre Oliveira
- TribologyUploaded byDaryl Khoo Tiong Jinn
- Recommended Schedule - RevisedUploaded bydeathbuddy_87
- 7_EN 1992_Shrinkage & Creep EstimationUploaded byjrandeep
- Microstructures prepared via inkjet printing and embossing techniquesUploaded byflo ngo
- Intumescent Epoxy Coating.pdfUploaded bycountershadow_14
- Crystallization WhitepaperUploaded byIrvan Key Rizky
- PDMS_microfluidicUploaded bygpaiv
- ghoufi2016Uploaded byjorge
- 0_von Mises Yield CriterionUploaded bysilillo
- Analytical Model of Radiative Heat Transfer in Electric Arc FurnaceUploaded byRocio Pamela Quilla Abarca
- Easy Pol PdsUploaded bysultanbona99
- InTech-Organic Inorganic Mesoporous Silica Nanotube Hybrid Anodic Alumina Membranes for Ultrafine Filtration of Noble Metal NanoparticlesUploaded bymaxlogan007
- 13252548 From Polymers to Plastics Van Der Vegt aK VSSD 2002Uploaded byggudayakumar
- memory gold matthew tiszenkelUploaded byapi-365738535
- Institute.of.HydromechanicsUploaded bymyas100
- Specific Heat CapacityUploaded byMehak Ayoub

## Much more than documents.

Discover everything Scribd has to offer, including books and audiobooks from major publishers.

Cancel anytime.