Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Petrophysical Properties
of Mesaverde Tight-Gas
Sandstones in Western
U.S. Basins:
a short course
Alan P. Byrnes
formerly Kansas Geological Surveynow Chesapeake Energy
Robert M. Cluff
John C. Webb
Daniel A. Krygowski
Stefani D. Whittaker
The Discovery Group, Inc
Denver, Colorado
10:0010
10:00
00-10:15
10 15 b
break
eak
10:1510:15-noon
Porosity & permeability of Mesaverde
tight gas sands, Alan Byrnes
noon--1:00p lunch
noon
1:00--2:30
1:00
Pc, resistivity, and relative
perm of Mesaverde, Alan Byrnes
2:30--2:45
2:30
break
2:452:45-4:15
Log evaluation of the Mesaverde,
Mesaverde Dan
Krygowski, Stefani Whittaker,
& Bob Cluff
4:15--4:30
4:15
discussion, Q&A period
1 of 217
Project title:
website: http://www.kgs.ku.edu/mesaverde
AAPG ACE 2009: Denver Colorado
Project overview
Kansas Geological Survey and The Discovery Group, cocoparticipating research contractors
2 of 217
Team Members
University of Kansas
Kansas--Kansas Geological Survey
Alan P. Byrnes (Principal Investigator)
Support Team Members:
John Victorine, Ken Stalder, Daniel S. Osburn,
Andrew Knoderer, Owen Metheny, Troy
Hommertzheim, Joshua P. Byrnes
The Discovery Group, Inc.
Robert M. Cluff (co(co-Principal Investigator)
John C. Webb, Daniel A. Krygowski, Stefani Whittaker
3 of 217
Date
AAPG ACE 2009: Denver Colorado
4 of 217
Tcf
Kmv
99,167 Bcf
24,429 Bcf
123,596 Bcf
63,273 Bcf
186,869 Bcf
10
5 of 217
11
Project objectives
z
z
z
z
gas flow,
flow critical gas saturation
saturation, Sgc=f
Sgc=
Sgc f (lithofacies,
(lithofacies
Pc, architecture)
capillary pressure, Pc=f
Pc=f (P), Pc=f
Pc=f (lithofacies, k, ,
architecture)
electrical properties, m* & n*
facies and upscaling issues
wireline log interpretation algorithms
providing a webweb-accessible database of advanced
rock properties.
12
6 of 217
13
Tasks
Subtask 6
6.1.
1 Compare log and core properties
Subtask 6.2. Evaluate results and determine loglog-analysis algorithm inputs
Subtask 5.1. Compile published and measured data into Oracle database
Subtask 5.2. Modify existing webweb-based software to provide GUI data access
Subtask 4.1. Measure basic properties (k, , GD) and select advanced population
Subtask 4.4. Measure critical gas saturation
Subtask 4.3. Measure inin-situ and routine capillary pressure
Subtask 4.4. Measure electrical properties
Subtask 4.5. Measure geologic and petrologic properties
Subtask 4.6. Perform standard logs analysis
14
7 of 217
Research strategy
15
Sampling
44 wells in 6
basins
described
7000 ft core
(digital)
2200 core
samples
120
120--400
advanced
properties
ti
samples
Powder
River
Wind River
Wyoming
Green River
N
Washakie
Utah
Colorado
Uinta
Piceance
16
8 of 217
12
10
Industry-contribution
USGS Core Library
8
6
4
2
Wind Riverr
Washakie
(Sand
Wash)
Washakie
Uinta
Powder
River
Piceance
Green
n
River
Basin
17
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
Powderr
River
Wind R iverr
Piceance
e
Uinta
a
Washakie
e
Greater
Green Riverr
Basin
18
9 of 217
Sampling by depth
0.20
0.18
0 16
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0 02
0.02
0.00
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
11000
12000
13000
14000
15000
16000
17000
Fraction
Depth Histogram
Depth (ft)
19
All
Green River
Piceance
Powder River
Sand Wash
Uintah
Wind River
Washakie
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
10-100
100-1,000
1-10
0.1-1
0.01-0.1
0.001-0.01
0.0001-0.001
0
1E-5 - 1E-4
Petrophysical property
distributions are generally
normal or loglog-normal
SubS b-distributions
Sub
di t ib ti
=f
(basin, lithofacies,
marine/non--marine, etc.)
marine/non
45
1E-6 - 1E-5
50
1E-7 - 1E-6
Property
distributions
Green River
Piceance
Powder River
Uintah
Wind River
Washakie
Sand Wash
50
40
30
20
10
0
40
Percent of Popu
ulation (%)
All
Green River
Piceance
Powder River
Sand Wash
Uintah
Wind River
Washakie
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
22-24
20-22
18-20
16-18
2.722.74
14-16
2.702.72
12-14
2.682.70
10-12
2.662.68
8-10
2.642.66
6-8
2.622.64
4-6
2.602.62
2-4
2.582.60
0-2
Percent of Bas
sin Population
60
20
10 of 217
Core description
21
P
Property
t continuum
ti
- nott
mnemonic or substitution
cipher
Similar to system used in
our 1994 and subsequent
studies
22
11 of 217
Petrography
40X
~150 advanced
properties smpls were
petrographically
characterized
representative photos at
several magnifications
point counts
100X
23
24
12 of 217
200
200--4000 psi NCS
Klinkenberg correction
stress dependent porosity
stress
t
dependent
d
d t permeability
bilit
25
Prior work
In
n situ Klinkenberg Perrmeability
(md)
100
10
Council Grove
Mesaverde/Frontier
1
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.0001
0.00001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
Routine Air Permeability (md)
100
26
13 of 217
SCAL work
27
350
1 md
0.1 md
300
0.01 md
0.001 md
250
200
150
100
50
0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
28
14 of 217
Pc hysteresis
4
Non-wetting residual
Nonsaturation to
imbibition Snwr = f
(Snwi)
this was a freebie
added to the project
plan
Drainage-Imbibition
Cycles
3
2
1
Midale Dol
= 23%
29
SCAL work
30
15 of 217
P = 1.7
Sgc = f (kik)
0.1
P = f (kik)
Sgc = 10%
0.01
0.001
0.0001
0.00001
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Water Saturation
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Critical Saturation at Breakthrough (%)
32
16 of 217
SCAL work
33
1000
m= 3
100
m= 1
10
0.1
log F = -m log
34
17 of 217
Products
35
18 of 217
Webb:Lithofacies andReservoirQuality
Denver, Colorado
Outline
19 of 217
Webb:Lithofacies andReservoirQuality
Acknowledgements
Industry Partners:
Bill Barrett Corporation - Steve Cumella
EnCana USA, Piceance Teams - Brendan Curran,
Mike Dempsey, Danielle Strickler
ExxonMobil, Piceance Basin Team
Don Yurewicz,
Yurewicz, Hollie Kelleher
Williams Production - Lesley Evans
Acknowledgements
Contractors and Government:
Elitigraphics Peter Hutson
Triple O Slabbing - Butch Oliver
USGS Personnel - Phil Nelson, Mark Kirschbaum
USGS Core
C
Research
R
h Center
C t
Tom Michalski, Betty Adrian (current director)
Jeannine Honey, John Rhodes, Josh Hicks,
Terri Huber, Richard Nunn, Devon Connely
4
20 of 217
Webb:Lithofacies andReservoirQuality
21 of 217
Webb:Lithofacies andReservoirQuality
Digital Core
Description
Sampling designed to
sample across all
lithofacies
5 digit system
z
z
z
z
z
22 of 217
Webb:Lithofacies andReservoirQuality
Visible porosity
10xxx
11xxx
12xxx
xx0xx
xx1xx
xx2xx
2
xx3xx
xx4xx
xx5xx
xx6xx
xx7xx
xx8xx
19xxx
Shale
Silty shale
V shaly sandstone,
sandstone
siltstone
Shaly sandstone
VF sandstone
F sandstone
M sandstone
C sandstone
VC/Matrix
supported
pp
cgl.
g
Conglomerate
05000
2xxxx
30000
Volcanic ash
Limestone
Coal
13xxx
14xxx
15xxx
16xxx
17xxx
18xxx
xx9xx
0-2%, unfractured
0-2% fractured
3 10% unfracd
3-10%,
f d
3-10%, fracd
3-10%, highly frac
>10%, unfracd
>10%, fracd
>10%, unfracd
V high, weak
consolidation
Unconsolidated
Cement
xxxx0 Pyrite
xxxx1
1 Siderite
Sid i
xxxx2 Phosphate
xxxx3 Anhydrite
xxxx4 Dolomite
xxxx5 Calcite
xxxx6 Quartz
xxxx7 Authigenic clay
xxxx8 Carbonaceous
xxxx9 No pore filling
Density/ Resistivity/ PE logs
10
23 of 217
Webb:Lithofacies andReservoirQuality
11
12
24 of 217
Webb:Lithofacies andReservoirQuality
13
14
25 of 217
Webb:Lithofacies andReservoirQuality
50
40
30
20
10
0
2.582.60
2.602.62
2.622.64
2.642.66
2.662.68
2.682.70
2.702.72
2.722.74
26 of 217
Webb:Lithofacies andReservoirQuality
17
Detrital composition
z
z
z
Cements
z
Provenance
Radioactive components for GR match
Bulk density of constituent grains
Bulk density of constituent cement (calcite,
dolomite, pyrite, clay)
Distribution of clay
z
18
27 of 217
Webb:Lithofacies andReservoirQuality
Diagenesis
z
Porosity distribution
z
Fractures
z
z
approx 80 mya
approx 73 mya
approx 70 mya
20
28 of 217
Webb:Lithofacies andReservoirQuality
Core analysis:
z
L analysis:
Log
l i
z
22
29 of 217
Webb:Lithofacies andReservoirQuality
W Fuels 21011-5
Moon Lake
RulisonMamm Creek
Grand Valley
Chevron 33-34
Parachute MWX-2 BBC LD 43C-3-792
USGS BC 1
Wms PA 424-34
23
3,500 ft
4,600 ft
5700 ft
10,500 ft
USGS Coal
Resources,
#1 Book
Cliffs
outcrop core
250 ft
6,500 ft
6,600 ft
8200 ft 6,300 ft
8,100 ft
24
30 of 217
Webb:Lithofacies andReservoirQuality
25
26
31 of 217
Webb:Lithofacies andReservoirQuality
27
Amb
bient Permeability, in mD
100
10
11XXX
12XXX
13XXX
0.1
14XXX
15XXX
0.01
16XXX
17XXX
0.001
0.0001
0
10
15
20
32 of 217
Webb:Lithofacies andReservoirQuality
Ambient Permeability, in m
mD
10
0.1
11XXX
0.01
0.001
0.0001
0
10
15
20
Ambient Permeability, in m
mD
10
0.1
12XXX
0.01
0.001
0.0001
0
10
15
20
33 of 217
Webb:Lithofacies andReservoirQuality
Ambient Permeability, in m
mD
10
0.1
13XXX
0.01
0.001
0.0001
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
Ambient Permeability, in m
mD
10
0.1
14XXX
0.01
0.001
0.0001
0
10
15
20
34 of 217
Webb:Lithofacies andReservoirQuality
Ambient Permeability, in m
mD
10
0.1
15XXX
0.01
0.001
0.0001
0
10
15
20
Ambient Permeability, in m
mD
10
0.1
16XXX
17XXX
0.01
0.001
0.0001
0
10
15
20
35 of 217
Webb:Lithofacies andReservoirQuality
Ambient Permeability, in m
mD
10
0.1
16XXX
17XXX
0.01
0.001
0.0001
0
10
15
20
Amb
bientPermeability,inmD
100
10
250 3999ft
4000 6999ft
7000 10,000ft
0.1
0.01
0.001
0
10
15
20
25
AmbientPorosity,percent
36
36 of 217
Webb:Lithofacies andReservoirQuality
100
AmbientPermea
ability,inmD
10
250 3999ft
4000 6999ft
7000 10,000ft
0.1
0.01
0.001
0
10
15
20
25
AmbientPorosity,percent
37
38
37 of 217
Webb:Lithofacies andReservoirQuality
39
40
38 of 217
Webb:Lithofacies andReservoirQuality
41
42
39 of 217
Webb:Lithofacies andReservoirQuality
43
DetritalComposition,BarrettLastDance43C
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
WilliamsForkFm
3544.9
3555.4
3577.6
4004.3
4013.3
TopGas4363ft
4393.6
4416.6
5715.4
6042.4
CameoCoalzone
6337.1
Quartz
Feldspar
Lithic
44
40 of 217
Webb:Lithofacies andReservoirQuality
DetritalComposition,MWX2
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
WilliamsForkFm
5734.1
5838.6
5852.3
6536.3
6542.2
6550.3
7085.5
7133.5
7264.5
7272.8
7276.2
Cozette Ss
CozetteSs
7851.3
7877.5
7880.1
CorcoranSs
8106.9
8117.9
Quartz
Feldspar
Lithic
45
46
41 of 217
Webb:Lithofacies andReservoirQuality
LithicPopulation,BarrettLastDance43C
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
WilliamsForkFm
3544.9
3555.4
3577.6
4004.3
4013.3
TopGas4363ft
4393.6
4416.6
5715.4
6042.4
CameoCoalzone
6337.1
Chert
Shale
Dolostone
Volcanic
47
LithicPopulation,MWX2
0
WilliamsForkFm
10
15
20
25
5734.1
5838.6
5852.3
6536.3
6542.2
6550.3
7085.5
7133.5
7264.5
7272.8
7276.2
Cozette Ss
7851.3
7877.5
7880.1
Corcoran Ss
8106.9
8117.9
Chert
Shale
Limestone
Dolostone
Volcanic
48
42 of 217
Webb:Lithofacies andReservoirQuality
Pore--filling cements
Pore
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
Siderite (trace)
Pyrite (trace to sparse)
Non--ferroan calcite (sparse)
Non
Quartz overgrowth (trace to abundant)
Ferroan calcite and ferroan dolomite (sparse to common)
Albite (grain replacement and moldmold-filling)
Kaolinite (sparse in one sample in Book Cliff outcrop)
49
CementTypes,BarrettLastDance43C
0
10
15
20
25
WilliamsForkFm
3544.9
3555.4
3577.6
4004.3
4013.3
TopGas4363ft
4393.6
4416.6
5715.4
6042.4
CameoCoalzone
6337.1
QuartzOg
FeCalcite
ChloriteandML/IS
50
43 of 217
Webb:Lithofacies andReservoirQuality
CementTypes,MWX2
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
WilliamsForkFm
5734.1
5838.6
5852.3
6536.3
6542.2
6550.3
7085.5
7133.5
7264.5
7272.8
7276.2
Cozette Ss
7851.3
7877.5
7880.1
Corcoran Ss
8106.9
8117.9
QuartzOg
FeCalcite
ChloriteandML/IS
51
Mesoporosity
z
z
z
Microporosity
z
z
z
52
44 of 217
Webb:Lithofacies andReservoirQuality
Nanoporosity
z
z
Fractures
z
z
Macroscopic
Microscopic (primarily crushed feldspars or chert, partings
or separations at quartz overgrowth boundaries)
53
54
45 of 217
Webb:Lithofacies andReservoirQuality
PorosityDistribution,BarrettLastDance43C
0
10
15
20
25
WilliamsForkFm
3544.9
3555.4
3577.6
4004.3
4013.3
TopGas4363ft
4393.6
4416.6
5715.4
6042.4
CameoCoalzone
6337.1
BP
sBP
Mo
clfBP
55
PorosityDistribution,MWX2
0
10
12
WilliamsForkFm
5734.1
5838.6
5852.3
6536.3
6542.2
6550.3
7085.5
7133.5
7264.5
7272.8
7276.2
Cozette Ss
7851.3
7877.5
7880.1
Corcoran Ss
8106.9
8117.9
BP
sBP
Mo
clfBP
56
46 of 217
Webb:Lithofacies andReservoirQuality
57
z
z
z
Type
z
z
z
z
II
58
47 of 217
Webb:Lithofacies andReservoirQuality
z
z
z
Type
z
z
z
z
III
IV
z
z
60
48 of 217
Webb:Lithofacies andReservoirQuality
100X
40X
100X
49 of 217
Webb:Lithofacies andReservoirQuality
Type II
Porosity consists of poorly to
moderately connected moldic and
secondary intergranular mesopores
with traces of pore-lining ML/IS(?)
clay, containing microporosity.
40X
100X
Type III
Porosity consists of clay-lined
intergranular pores, pore throats
are occluded by clay cement,
causing elevated Swi, reduced
relative permeability and
i
increased
dP
Pc entry
t pressure.
40X
100X
64
50 of 217
Webb:Lithofacies andReservoirQuality
Type III
Porosity consists of clay-lined
intergranular pores, pore throats
are occluded by clay cement,
which causes elevated
Swi, reduced relative permeability
and
d iincreased
dP
Pc entry
t pressure
400X
400X, XP
Type IV
Porosity consists almost entirely of
sparse, poorly connected, clay-filled
intergranular microporosity.
Quartz cement is prominent
prominent,
ferroan calcite is sparse.
40X
66
51 of 217
Webb:Lithofacies andReservoirQuality
Type V
Porosity consists entirely of
sparse, poorly connected
microporosity within interparticle
voids of mudstone and shale matrix.
64X
160X
P
Permeability,ambient,in
nmD
Porositytypes,Mesaverde,Piceancebasin
100
10
TypeI
TypeII
TypeIII
TypeIV
0.1
TypeV
0.01
0.001
0
10
15
20
25
Porosity,ambient,inpercent
68
52 of 217
Webb:Lithofacies andReservoirQuality
Pe
ermeability,ambient,inm
mD
Porositytypes,Mesaverde,Piceancebasin
250 3999ftminimumburial
100
10
TypeI
TypeII
TypeIII
TypeIV
0.1
TypeV
0.01
0.001
0
10
15
20
25
Porosity,ambient,inpercent
69
Pe
ermeability,ambient,inm
mD
Porositytypes,MesaverdeGroup,Piceancebasin
4,000 6,999ftminimumburial
100
10
TypeI
TypeII
TypeIII
TypeIV
0.1
TypeV
0.01
0.001
0
10
15
20
25
Porosity,ambient,inpercent
70
53 of 217
Webb:Lithofacies andReservoirQuality
Pe
ermeability,ambient,inm
mD
Porositytypes,MesaverdeGroup,Piceancebasin
7,000 10,000ftminimumburial
100
10
TypeI
TypeII
TypeIII
TypeIV
0.1
TypeV
0.01
0.001
0
10
15
20
25
Porosity,ambient,inpercent
71
72
54 of 217
Webb:Lithofacies andReservoirQuality
73
74
55 of 217
Webb:Lithofacies andReservoirQuality
75
76
56 of 217
Webb:Lithofacies andReservoirQuality
77
78
57 of 217
Webb:Lithofacies andReservoirQuality
79
80
58 of 217
Webb:Lithofacies andReservoirQuality
59 of 217
Webb:Lithofacies andReservoirQuality
83
84
60 of 217
Webb:Lithofacies andReservoirQuality
85
86
61 of 217
Webb:Lithofacies andReservoirQuality
87
88
62 of 217
Webb:Lithofacies andReservoirQuality
90
63 of 217
Webb:Lithofacies andReservoirQuality
91
92
64 of 217
Webb:Lithofacies andReservoirQuality
93
94
65 of 217
Webb:Lithofacies andReservoirQuality
Conclusions
Conclusions, continued
Log
g analysis
y
is complicated
p
by
y the p
presence
of chlorite clay cement (more on that later)
96
66 of 217
Webb:Lithofacies andReservoirQuality
97
67 of 217
http://www.kgs.ku.edu/mesaverde
US DOE # DE-FC26-05NT42660
Core Analysis
Permeability
Routine Air
Klinkenberg
Crack & Capillary
Liquid
In situ
Effective & Relative
Fluid Sensitivity
Vp & Vs
Rock Mechanics
68 of 217
PVTXt
All petrophysical
properties are
physical-chemical in
nature and dependent
on:
P Pressure
Confining/pore
V- Volume/Scale
T Temperature
t time/history
(hysteresis)
X - Composition (broad
definition)
Classification (sandstone,
limestone, etc.)
Compositional (mineralogy)
Textural (sorting-grain size
distribution, roundness,
angularity)
Sedimentologic (bedding,
heterogeneity, architecture)
Porosity/ pore size
distribution
Fluid
Porosity
69 of 217
Core Analysis
Porosity
Classification
Lithologic & other controls
Routine helium
In situ
Pore volume
l
compressibility
ibili
Wireline-log Analysis
Permeability
Routine Air
Klinkenberg
Crack & Capillary
Liquid
In situ
Effective & Relative
Fluid Sensitivity
Vp & Vs
Rock Mechanics
70 of 217
Intraparticle
Vuggy
Secondary
Transparticle
F t
Fracture
Nano <0.1 m
Micro 01.-0.5 m
Meso 0.5-2 m
Macro 2-10 m
Mega 10-100 m
Micro
Ineffective
Interparticle
Primary
Effective
Porosity Definition
Porosity, n. The ratio of void space to the bulk volume of rock
containing that void space
= Vp/(Vp+Vg)
Isolated (minor)
Connected
micro
i=isolated
c=connected = cmicro+cmacro+bound
cmacro= connected,
d >0.5m
0
cmicro= connected, <0.5m, not bound
bound-
= connected, bound to clay or
water bound
surface, water of hydration
71 of 217
(after Bear , 19
72 of 217
Porosity Measurement
Core Analysis
Helium Boyles law - Dry sample, measure bulk volume, injected gas measures
grain volume - measures c, does not measure i and may not measure some bound
Summation of Fluids two pieces of native core, one is weighed, crushed, retorted
for oil&water content, and weighed; second has bulk volume measured and mercury
injected into gas pore space, fluid saturations and porosity calculated for combined
volumes measures combination of t and c
Wireline Logs
73 of 217
Xmean
std dev
Xmean
std dev
Xmean
std dev
1-inch diameter
1.5 -inch diameter
Porosity (%)
Porosity (%)
Permeability
Permeability
to air, md Ambient Overburden
to air, md Ambient Overburden
Berea Sandstone Samples
248
19.0
18.5
261
18.7
18.2
24
0.5
0.4
22
0.4
0.1
Alundum Samples
111
18.9
18.6
120
19.1
19.2
24
0.8
0.6
22
0.8
0.4
Bedford Limestone Samples
3.2
14.0
13.8
3
13.8
13.7
0.9
0.6
0.5
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.18
Fraction of Popula
ation
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
0-2
2-4
4-6
6-8
74 of 217
0.45
Fraction of Popula
ation
0.40
0.35
0 30
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0-2
2-4
4-6
6-8
7.1
6.2
5.1
0.0
24.9
0.7
1.0
2209
Greater
Green
River
7.3
3
4.6
6.4
0.0
23.6
-0.4
1.0
568
Wind Powder
Washakie Uinta Piceance River River
9.5
9
5
8.7
5.4
0.0
23.8
-0.4
0.5
395
6.1
6
5.9
4.2
0.0
22.2
1.1
0.9
539
6.1
6
6.1
3.8
0.0
24.9
4.5
1.4
596
5.8
5
8
5.5
3.3
0.0
13.2
-0.8
0.1
83
13.2
3
15.1
4.5
2.6
16.9
1.0
-1.5
28
75 of 217
1.0
0.45
0.40
0.9
0.8
0.35
0.30
0.7
0.6
0.25
0.5
0.20
0.15
0.4
0.3
0.10
0.05
0.2
0.1
0.00
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
Fraction of Popula
ation
0.50
Grain Density
Grain Density Histogram
Fraction of Popullation
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
<2.56
2.562.58
2.582.60
2.602.62
2.622.64
2.64266
2.662.68
2.682.70
2.702.72
> 2.72
76 of 217
2.653
2.654
0 040
0.040
2.30
2.84
15.1
-2.00
2184
Greater
Green Washakie
River
2.648
2.660
2.645
2.662
0 029
0.029
0 034
0.034
2.50
2.47
2.77
2.79
2.6
3.7
0.28
-0.18
566
393
Uinta
Piceance
Wind
River
Powder
River
2.639
2.649
0 052
0.052
2.30
2.80
13.2
-2.82
532
2.660
2.661
0 038
0.038
2.35
2.84
14.0
-1.19
583
2.673
2.673
0 029
0.029
2.51
2.73
10.2
-1.87
82
2.679
2.674
0 026
0.026
2.60
2.75
3.9
-0.28
28
Fraction of Popullation
0.60
0.50
All Basins
Greater Green River
Washakie
Uinta
Piceance
Wind River
Powder River
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
<2.56
2.562.58
2.582.60
2.602.62
2.622.64
2.64266
2.662.68
2.682.70
2.702.72
> 2.72
77 of 217
Crack Compressibility
Crack porosity is far more
compressible than normal
intergranular porosity
Walsh & Grosenbaugh (1979)
developed a model for fracture
compressibility
ibili that
h matches
h ddata well
ll
and can be expressed, as shown by
Ostersen for low-k sandstones, by a
linear porosity change with
logarithmic change in stress
78 of 217
Stress-Dependence of Porosity
Fraction of Iinitial Porrosity
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
10
100
1000
Net Confining Pressure (psi)
10000
Crossplot of fraction of initial pore volume versus net confining stress for 113
Mesaverde samples. Every sample exhibits a log-linear relationship though
slopes and intercepts differ.
Cformation = Vpore/Vpore
p
Stress field defined by x, y, z
Effective stress equation:
K1
0.85
0.90
0.95
0.85
K2
0.80
0.90
0.95
0.85
K3
0.45
0.60
0.75
0.55
79 of 217
Pore Volum
me Compressibility
(psi/10^6)
A
B
C
D
Cf = A(-B)C + D
=K1Pover-K2Pi+K3(Pi-P)
60
50
Unconsolidated
Friable
Consolidated
40
30
20
10
0
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
-0.05
-0.10
-0.15
-0.20
-0.25
-0.30
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
80 of 217
1.35
1.30
1.25
1.20
1.15
1.10
1.05
1.00
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
log10 = C log10 Pe + D
The slope and intercept of the pore volume
compressibility relations can be predicted using:
C = -1.035 + 0.106/0.5
D = 4.857 -0.038
81 of 217
-0.95
-0.96
-0.97
-0.98
-0.99
-1.00
-1.01
-1.02
0
10
15
20
25
4.80
4.75
4.70
4.65
4.60
4.55
4.50
4.45
4.40
4.35
4.30
4.25
0
10
15
20
25
log10 = C log10 Pe + D
Where:
C = -1.035 + 0.106/0.5
D = 4.857 -0.038
100
10
1
100
= 21%
= 18%
= 15%
= 12%
= 8%
= 6%
= 4%
= 2%
1000
Net Effective Confining Stress (psi)
10000
=10^[(-1.035+0.106/0.5)*log10 Pe+(4.857-0.038)]
82 of 217
Where:
i = porosity at defined effective in situ stress Pe,
o = reference initial porosity
Pe = effective confining stress
A and B are empirical constants that vary with rock
properties
i
Porosity at Pe = 4,0
000 psi (%)
Mesaverde Study
T ravis Peak
Mesaverde/Frontier
Clinton/Medina
Linear (Mesaverde Study)
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
i = A routine + B
i = 0.96 routine 0.73
Travis Peak:
Mesavrd/Frontier
Clinton/Medina:
A>
B>
Routine Porosity
2.0
24.0
Travis
Mesaverde/ Clinton/ Mesaverde
Medina
Study
Peak
Frontier
0.950
0.998
0.966
0.960
-0.300
-0.800
0.020
-0.734
In situ Porosity (%)
1.6
1.2
2.0
1.2
22.5
23.2
23.2
22.3
83 of 217
Permeability
84 of 217
Core Analysis
Porosity & Grain Density
Permeability
Routine Air
Klinkenberg
Crack & Capillary
Liquid
In situ
Effective & Relative
Fluid Sensitivity
Vp & Vs
Rock Mechanics
1 A dV
d
dx
dQ = KH A dT
dx
85 of 217
86 of 217
Liquid Permeability
Q = k A dP
dL
(liquid)
Q = k A (P12-P22)
2PbzdL
(gas)
87 of 217
Permeability Definitions
Absolute Permeability (k) Permeability of rock 100%
saturated with fluid of interest
Effective Permeability (keg, keo, kew) Permeability to fluid
of interest when other fluids are also present in pore space
Relative Permeability (krg, kro, krw) ke/k, Ratio of effective
to absolute permeability (reference for absolute may be
effective at some condition, e.g. keo,Sw/keo,Swi)
In situ under reservoir conditions
Klinkenberg Corrected for low pressure gas slippage
effects
Air Permeabilityy to air uncorrected for Klinkenbergg
effect
Routine Air permeability, generally measured with a
confining stress of less than ~500 psi
Permeability Determination
Full-diameter
Influenced by microfractures
Averages response of
individual beds
Possible drilling mud invasion
Less biased
Plug
Precisely accurate
Possible sampling bias
May
ay miss
ss important
po ta t beds
Drilled Sidewall
Greater sampling uncertainty
Similar to plug
Probe mini-permeability
Fast
Allows high sampling
densityy
Accurate for k > 1md
Chip
Low accuracy
Severe sampling bias
Percussion Sidewall
Shattered
Under- and over-estimates
properties
Cuttings
Rarely used
Surface-to volume issues
Sever sampling bias
88 of 217
Gas
measurable fluid velocity at wall
Where;
Liquid
c = proportionality factor ~ 1
l = mean free path at P
r = radius of capillary
b = proportionality constant
=f(r,l,kliq)
( )
P = ppressure (atm)
Since b is a function of pore radius,
mean free path at P, and liquid
permeability it can vary from one
low k sample to another but values
are generally consistent with the
Heid et al (1950) graph shown
10
b = 0.777 kliq0.39
0.1
b = 0.867 kliq-0.33
0.01
1E-04 0.001 0.01
0.1
10
100
1000
Klink
kenberg b factor (psi)
10
b = 0.777 kliq-0.39
0 .1
0.33
b = 0.867
0 867 kliq-0.33
0 .0 1
1 E -0 4 0 .0 0 1 0 .0 1
0 .1
10
100
1000
89 of 217
1000
100
10
0.1
1E-08
1E-07
1E-06
0.01
0.1
10
100
1000
kgas = kliquid (1 + 4
4cL/r)
L/ ) = kliquid (1+b/P)
Gas
90 of 217
100
Sandstone
10
Carbonate
1
0.1
0.01
kik =0.685kia
2
R = 0.98
0.001
0.0001
0.0001
1.12
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
In situ Air Permeability (md)
100
Comparison of Klinkenberg
Prediction Models
1
Klinkenberg Permeability (m
md)
Byrnes, 2003
Jones & Owens, 1981
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.0001
0.00001
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
91 of 217
End-member models
Series Flow
Parallel Flow
Random Flow
Vertical flow constraint
Permeability is
frequently scale
dependent
92 of 217
Permeability Architecture
End Members
Series
Flow
No vertical cross-flow
Vertical crossflow
kv=0, kv=Ckh
Parallel
Flow
Heterogeneous
Flow
93 of 217
0.01 md
100 md
100 ft
Karith = 1.010 md
Kgeom = 0.011 md
100 md
1 ft
Karith = 99.000 md
Kgeom = 91.201 md
0.01 md
0.01 md
100 md
100 md
0.01 md
100 md
0.01 md
100 md
Kharm = 0.010 md
Kgeom = 0.011 md
0.01 md
Flow
Kharm = 0.990 md
Kgeom = 91.201 md
Bedding
Planes
A - Unsuitable
B Possibly
suitable
94 of 217
0.3
Upper
Base
Porosity
Upper
Base
Average Permeability
Measured
Ratio
Layer
Layer Difference
Layer
Layer
Porosity for Average Permeability Measured/
Porosity Porosity
Permeability Permeability
Porosity
Composite
(%)
(%)
(%)
(md)
(md)
(%)
(md)
(md)
Permeability
0
14
14
0.0000365
0.497
9.8
0.0286
0.348
12.2
2
14
12
0.000142
0.497
10.4
0.0430
0.348
8.1
4
14
10
0.000554
0.497
11.0
0.0646
0.348
5.4
6
14
8
0.00216
0.497
11.6
0.0972
0.349
3.6
8
14
6
0.00841
0.497
12.2
0.146
0.350
2.4
10
14
4
0.0327
0.497
12.8
0.220
0.358
1.6
12
14
2
0.128
0.497
13.4
0.331
0.386
1.2
14
14
0
0.497
0.497
14.0
0.497
0.497
1.0
16
14
-2
1.94
0.497
14.6
0.747
0.929
1.2
18
14
-4
7.54
0.497
15.2
1.124
2.61
2.3
20
14
-6
29.4
0.497
15.8
1.690
9.16
5.4
21
14
-7
58.0
0.497
16.1
2.072
17.7
8.6
22
14
-8
114
0.497
16.4
2.541
34.7
13.6
23
14
-9
226
0.497
16.7
3.116
68.1
21.9
24
14
-10
446
0.497
17.0
3.821
134.1
35.1
Measured or Calc
culated
Permeability (md)
40
35
Ratio Kmeas/Kcalc
Upper Bed Porosity
10
30
25
20
15
0.1
10
5
40
35
30
25
20
0.1
15
0.01
10
5
0.001
Measured or Calculate
ed
Permeability (md)
10
100
0.01
0
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
0
7
10
11
12
13
95 of 217
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
02
0.2
0.1
0.0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
96 of 217
97 of 217
Model
Capillary tube
Gangi, grain, 1978
Jones &Owens, 1980
Brower & Morrow, 1983
Gangi, bed of nails, 1978
Walsh, exp. dist., 1981
Ostensen, Gauss.,1983
Equation
.
k/ki = (1-2s/E)4
k/ki = {1-2{3p(1-n2)s/4E}2/3}4
k/ki = {1-Slog(Pk/1000)}3
k/ki = {1-(16(1-n2)cLc)/(9(1-2n)pwi)s}3
k/ki = {1-(s/lE)e}3
k = Ls3/12 {ln[(nE(prcs3)1/2)/(2(1-n2)s)]}3
k = 0.76Ls3/12 {ln[(2.48E(s/rc)1/2)/(3p1.5(1-n2)s)]}2
Fluorescent epoxy
8,275 ft, k = 0.007 md; SFE Well 2, Waskom Field, Harrison Co., TX
98 of 217
Pore
e Size Freque
ency
(%)
High P
20
Low P
15
10
5
0
0.01
0.1
1
Pore Throat Diameter (um)
100
10
Council Grove
Mesaverde/Frontier
1
0.1
0.01
logkik = 0.0588 (logkair)3
0.187 (logkair)2
+1.154 logkair - 0.159
0 001
0.001
0.0001
0.00001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
Routine Air Permeability (md)
100
99 of 217
log
g In situ Klinkenberg Permeability (mD)
Stress dependence of
permeability
3
y = -0.0088x3 - 0.0716x2 + 1.3661x - 0.4574
R2 = 0.9262
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
-7
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
2
3
log Routine Air Permeability Ppore = 100 psi (mD)
Permeablity Distribution
Fraction of Pop
pulation
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
100-1
1000
10--100
1-10
1
0.1-1
0
0.01
1-0.1
0.001-0
0.01
0.00
0010.0
001
0.000
0010.00
001
0.0000
0010.000
001
0.00000
0010.0000
001
0.00
100 of 217
Fraction of Pop
pulation
0.60
All Basins
Greater Green River
Washakie
Uinta
Piceance
Wind River
Powder River
0.50
0 40
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
100--1000
10
0-100
1-10
0.1-1
0.0
01-0.1
0.001-0.01
0.0
00010.001
0
0.00
00010.0
0001
0.000
00010.00
0001
0.0000
00010.000
0001
0.00
Permeability Statistics
All
Basins
Greater
Green Washakie Uinta
River
Mean logk
-2.60
-2.49
-2.03
-2.66
Median logk
-2.93
-3.15
-2.46
-2.86
St Dev log
1.58
1.94
1.78
1.36
Minimum logk
-6.19
-6.19
-5.66
-5.33
Maximum logk
2.31
2.31
2.08
1.88
Kurtosis
0.62
-0.54
-0.39
0.17
Skewness
1.05
0.79
0.76
0.74
Count
2143
555
373
529
Mean
0.0025 0.0032 0.0094 0.0022
Median
0.0012 0.0007 0.0035 0.0014
St Dev
37.9
87.4
59.9
23.0
Minimum
0.000001 0.000001 0.000002 0.000005
a
u
206.0
06 0
206.0
06 0
121.0
0
76.2
6
Maximum
Kurtosis
0.62
-0.54
-0.39
0.17
Skewness
1.05
0.79
0.76
0.74
Count
2143
555
373
529
Piceance
Wind
River
Powder
River
-2.95
-3.44
-1.88
-3.03
-3.36
-2.21
1.13
0.69
1.39
-5.23
-5.11
-4.29
2.05
-1.98
0.55
4.02
-0.49
-0.38
1.48
-0.01
0.50
577
81
28
0.0011 0.0004 0.0133
0.0009 0.0004 0.0062
13.4
4.9
24.5
0.000006 0.000008 0.000051
112.2
0.010
0
0 0
3.53
3
53
4.02
-0.49
-0.38
1.48
-0.01
0.50
577
81
28
101 of 217
Permeability Histogram
1.0
0.18
0.9
0.16
0.8
0 14
0.14
07
0.7
0.12
0.6
0.10
0.5
0.08
0.4
0.06
0.3
0.04
0.02
0.2
0.1
0 00
0.00
00
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
>6
0.20
Permeability vs Porosity
Permeability a function of:
Grain size
Shale bed architecture
Pore-throat size
Porosity
g
alteration ((includingg cementation))
Diagenetic
102 of 217
Permeability as a Function of
Grain Size and Sorting
103 of 217
1000
100
10
1
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.0001
X(4-9)XXX
0.00001
X3XXX
0.000001
X(0-2)XXX
0.0000001
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
Discrete Particle
Kaolinite
Pore-Lining
Chlorite
Montmorillonite
Pore-Bridging
Illite
Mixed-Layer
104 of 217
Influence of
Clay types on
Permeability
Discrete-particle, porelining and porebridging Kaolinite,
Chlorite, and Illite
can each result in
permeability
decrease by a factor
of 1-0.03, 0.2-0.01,
and 0.06-0.003,
respectively
(after Wilson, 1981)
105 of 217
Mixed-Layer Illite-Smectite
Chlorite
American Hunter
Old Road 5490 ft
(courtesy John Webb)
106 of 217
Permeability vs Porosity
Generalized trend kik = 10[0.3i-4.75] with 10X error
Different k- trends among basins due to lithologic variation
Beyond common k with grain size, lithologic influence changes with porosity nonlinear
Klinkenberg Perrmeability (4,000 psi, mD)
1000
100
10
1
0.1
Green River
Piceance
Powder River
Uintah
Washakie
Wind River
logK=0.3Phi-3.7
logK=0.3Phi-5.7
0.01
0.001
0.0001
0.00001
0.000001
0.0000001
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
1000
100
10
X9XXX
X8XXX
X7XXX
X6XXX
X5XXX
X4XXX
X3XXX
X2XXX
X1XXX
1
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.0001
0.00001
0.000001
1000
0.0000001
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
1000
100
10
1
Permeability vs Porosity
100
10
1
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.0001
0.00001
0.00001
0.1
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
10
100
1000
0.01
1XX9X
1XX8X
1XX7X
1XX6X
1XX5X
1XX4X
1XX3X
1XX2X
1XX1X
1XX0X
0.001
0.0001
0.00001
0.000001
0.0000001
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
hidden layer: 1
Hidden layer nodes: 10
Mean>
8.239
4.280
6.294 hidden layerStd Dev>
5.260
1.335
2.527 to-output
Input-to-hidden layer weights
weights
Node
Constant Phii
RC2
RC4
Constant
-0.388
1
-0.760
2.946
-2.027
-6.438
-0.885
2
-2.155
4.637
1.279
0.895
2.323
3
-4.999
7.901
0.957
3.167
-2.583
4
-1.484
-0.307
-1.695
6.175
-0.154
5
-4.597
4.582
1.568
0.730
4.022
6
-2.609
0.320
-2.201
-2.257
-2.495
7
-1.765
-1.843
-1.122
0.145
-3.859
8
2.839
-3.146
-9.237
0.264
0.789
9
-1.566
1.029
-1.588
-3.390
2.400
10
2.951
0.778
3.316
0.179
-2.136
107 of 217
Permeability vs Porosity
Overall trend allows prediction of Kik from porosity with 10X error
Multivariate linear equations using: 1) porosity, 2) rock class (1
(1--3), and for each of three
porosity classes separately (0(0-12%, 1212-18%, >18%), performed separately for each
basin, exhibit an average standard error of prediction of: 00-12%: 3.6+
3.6+2.4X; 12
12--18%:
3.3+
3.3
+3.6X; >18%: 3.1X (for all basins undifferentiated for this high porosity class);
where the range of error for each standard error of prediction indicates the range of
standard error among basins
Beyond common k
k with grain size, lithologic influence changes are complex and
nonlinear
Klinkenberg Permeab
bility (4,000 psi, mD)
1000
100
10
1
0.1
Green River
Piceance
Powder River
Uintah
Washakie
Wind River
logK=0.3Phi-3.7
logK=0.3Phi-5.7
0 01
0.01
0.001
0.0001
0.00001
0.000001
0.0000001
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
Berea
Cotton Valley
Chacra
Cleveland
Wilcox
Travis
Peak
Canyon
Frontier-Moxa
Comparison
of Tight Gas
Sand k-f
Trends
108 of 217
100
logki = 0.32+0.10 i - 5.05+1.48
10
1
0.1
Berea
Cotton Valley
Canyon
Frontier-Moxa Arch
Wilcox
Chacra
Cleveland
Travis Peak
Mesaverde-GGRB
Medina
Mesaverde-Uinta
0.01
0.001
0.0001
0
10
15
20
25
109 of 217
Calculating Directional
Permeability in Festoon
Cross-Bed Sets
110 of 217
Conclusions
Grain density, porosity, and permeability measured on ~1500
unique samples and 700 duplicates (5X original proposal)
Core plugs obtained from 44 wells representing approximately
7,000 feet of described core
Average grain density for 2200 samples is 2.654+0.033 g/cc
(1sd)
but grain density distributions differ slightly among basins &
lithofacies..
lithofacies
Porosity variance with 11--2 inches (2.5
(2.5--5 cm) = +10% (1sd)
Pore volume compressibility shows a loglog-linear relationship
characteristic of sheet like pores and cracks
0.5
D = 4.857 -0.038
Conclusions
Klinkenberg slip term b consistent with prior trends to 1 D
Geometric mean permeability = 0.0025 mD,
mD, median = 0.0012 mD
Stress dependence of permeability is consistent with prior work
((Byrnes,
y
1997))
PorosityPorosity-permeability data exhibit two subtrends with
permeability prediction approaching 5X within each
Adding rock types or using an ANN model improves perm
prediction to 3.3X 4X
Multivariate linear equations using: 1) porosity, 2) rock class (1
(1-3), and for each of three porosity classes separately (0(0-12%, 12
12-18%, >18%), performed separately for each basin, exhibit an
average standard error of prediction of: 00-12%: 3.6
3.6+
+2.4X; 121218%: 3.3+
3.3+3.6X; >18%: 3.1X (for all basins undifferentiated for
this high porosity class); where the range of error for each
standard error of prediction indicates the range of standard error
among basins
111 of 217
Saturation &
Capillary
Pressure
Water Saturation
Water saturations in reservoir determined
using three basic methods
Wireline
Wi li logs
l
Electric logs
NMR logs
Routine core
p g core
Sponge
High-pressure core
Oil- & low-invasion and water-based mud
112 of 217
Saturation is a scalar
but is dimensionless
Sw should not be
Swaverage
averaged
BVW is averaged and
then converted back to
Sw
i=1
Swi i hi
i=n
h
i=1
113 of 217
100
MWX-1
MWX-2
MWX-3
Buckles 600
Buckles 300
Buckles 240
Buckles 180
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
10
11
12
13
Trendlines shown represent Sw = A-1.1 where A = 180. 240. and 300, respectively.
Differences in trends can be postulated to be due to differences in grainsize
and/or clay type/content.
100
480 0-4 935
547 5-5 485
570 0-5 845
90
80
70
60
Buckle s 78 52 -7 86 3
Buckle s 78 48 -7 87 7
Buckle 78 73 -788 6
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
10
11
12
13
Routine core analysis porosity versus water saturation for the Piceance Basin MWX-2well.
Saturation versus porosity trends exhibit commonly observed Buckles power-law relationship.
Trendlines for depth intervals 7852-7886 shown represent Sw = A-1.1 where A = 180. 240. and
300, respectively. Differences in trends can be postulated to be due to differences in grainsize
and/or clay type/content.
114 of 217
P1
P2
Forceout = r2 P
Forcein = 2 r
At equilibrium:
Fout=Fin
r2 P = 2 r
rearranging
P = 2/r
Where :
=interfacial tension (dyne/cm)
r = radius (cm)
Capillary Pressure
rcap
Pnw rliq
Pw
rliq = rcap/cos
Pc = Pnw-Pw
Pnw Pw
= 2/rliq
= 2cos/rcap
115 of 217
Pc = 2 cos/r
Pc = capillary pressure
= interfacial tension
= contact angle
r = pore radius
Capillary Rise
Pnw
r
Pnw
Pw
Pnw
h
Pw
Pw
Pw*
Pw*
Free
Water
Level
Pnw=Pw
Pw*
Water
Pw-Pnw = (w-nw) h g
116 of 217
Pc = 2 cos/r
where:
Where:
H = height above free water level
Pcres = reservoir capillary pressure
Pcair-Hg = air-mercury Pc
brine = specific density of brine (g/cc)
oil,gas = specific density of oil or gas (g/cc)
0.433 = conversion from density (g/cc)
to pressure gradient (psi/ft)
Pc = capillary
P
ill
pressure
= interfacial tension
= contact angle
r = pore radius
Pcres
.
(brine-oil,gas) x 0.433
cosair-hg
water
P H
Pw
r = 2 cos/Pc
PhH
oil
PhB
PwB
rH
H
rB
H=
Pcres
.
(brine-oil,gas) x 0.433
Pcres = Pcair-Hg
air Hg cosres
cosair-hg
117 of 217
Depth
Porous Plate
Centrifuge
Air-mercury
Air-brine
Oil-brine
Gas-oil
Drainage
Imbibition
118 of 217
high-P fluid
Drainageg
imbibition
(n=37)
Drainage only
(n=90)
NES = 4000 psi
hi h -P
high
P
core holder
electric
insulator
Pressure
transducer
Core Plug
Core Plug
Unconfined
(n=150)
In situ
Resistance
Reference
Cell
Three different
air-Hg
i H
measurements
hi h -P
high
P
core holder
Pressure
transducer
mercury in
mercury in
119 of 217
10000
Unconfined
Capillary
Pressure
9000
8000
6000
5000
4000
3000
7
7000
C
Capillary
ill
Pressure
P
Varies with
Lithofacies and
associated pore size
distribution and
permeability
2000
1000
0
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
Capillary
Pressure Varies
with Lithofacies
and associated
pore size
distribution
Me
ercury Injection Pres
ssure (psia)
10000
1000
0.00025md
0.00049md
0.0012md
0.0017md
0.0018md
0.0030md
0.0040md
0.0057md
0.0085md
0.012md
0.013md
0.032md
0.046md
0.085md
0.25md
0.41md
0.56md
0.84md
2.24md
100
10
0
10
20
30
40
50 60
70
80
90 100
120 of 217
Leverett J function
J(Sw) = CPc (k/)0.5/cos
= porosity (fraction)
121 of 217
Sw = -Alog10J + B
J = J* Swe(1/)
122 of 217
0.00049md
0.0012md
0 0017md
0.0017md
Leverett J Function
J function
works poorly
for mixed
lithofacies and
between basins
Does work OK
for single
lithofacies in a
small area
0.0018md
0.0030md
0.0040md
0.0057md
0.0085md
0.012md
0.013md
0.032md
0.046md
0.085md
0 25md
0.25md
0.41md
0.56md
0.84md
2.24md
0
0
10
20 30
40
50
60
70 80
90 100
Normalized Brooks-Corey
Brooks and Corey (1966) showed that a log-log
plot of Pc versus Swe often exhibits a linear trend
with slope,
slope ,
and intercept equal to the threshold
entry pressure
logSwe = -logPc + logPce for Pc>Pce
Pc=capillary pressure
Pce = threshold entry pressure
Swe = (Sw-Swi)/(1-Swi)
= slope of log-log plot
123 of 217
10000
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90 100
10000
Air-Hg Capillary
y Pressure (psia)
10000
1000
-2.05
Pc = 1.54E+07Sw
2
R = 0.997
Pce
1000
100
100
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
10
100
=0.03861-0.0003331T+5.943*10-5P-4.287*10-9P2+1.226*10-13P3
0.32
0.30
0.28
0.26
0.24
0.22
0.20
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.10
0 08
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
Pressure (psia)
12000
11000
10000
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
90
100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230
Temperature (deg F)
124 of 217
De
ensity (g/cc)
1.30
65 F, 15 psi
1.25
65 F 1000 psi
1.20
65 F, 10000 psi
1.15
1.10
w =
w/Bw
65 F, 5000 psi
100 F, 15 psi
100 F, 5000 psi
200 F, 15 psi
200 F, 1000 psi
1.05
1.00
300 F, 15 psi
300 F, 1000 psi
0.95
0.90
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
80
J&N M
Modeled IFT (dyne/cm)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
125 of 217
100
0 445
y = 2.61x0.445
R = 0.9259
10
0.1
Ss lithic
Ss arkosic
Ss quartzose
Ls interparticle
Ls chalk
Ls moldic
Ls oomoldic
0.01
0.001
0.000001 0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
10
100
1000
10000
100
10
Dp = 7.17(k/)0.49
R2 = 0.83
0.1
Lithology
Ss lithic
Ss arkosic
Ss quartzose
Ls interparticle
Ls chalk
Ls moldic
Ls oomoldic
0.01
0.001
0.000001
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
10
100
1000
126 of 217
100
Dp = 7.17(k/)0.49
R2 = 0.83
10
Lithology
Ss lithic
Ss arkosic
Ss quartzose
Ls interparticle
0.1
Ls chalk
Ls moldic
Ls oomoldic
Mesaverde Hi
0.01
Mesaverde Lo
Power (Lithology)
0.001
0.000001
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
10
100
1000
10000
kak
kmk
kik
1000
100
10
-0.44
y = 64.66x
2
R = 0.82
1
1E-06 0.00001 0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
10
100
127 of 217
1000
100
10
R091
255.9 ft
0
k = 113 m D
= 24.5%
113 mD
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
100
10
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
100
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
8 mD
90
100
0.2 mD
100
10
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1000
100
10
B029 1
11460.6 ft
k = 0.02550mD 10
= 4.4%
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.02 mD
1000
100
10
PA424 1
4606.5 ft
0 m D10
k = 0.00107
= 12.7%
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1000
100
10
B029 1
13672.5 ft
0 m D10
k = 0.000065
= 2.6%
20
30
40
50
60
70
no significant
difference in high-low
pairs at high K
increasing Pce
separation with
decreasing K
merging of curves at
35-50% Sw
smaller pores are in
protected pore space
10000
10000
10
1000
LD43C 1
4013.25 ft
0
k = 0.190 mD
= 12.9%
1000
E946 1
6530.3 ft
k = 0.04160mD 10
= 9.5%
0.001 mD
10
10000
10000
0.04 mD
100
10000
1000
E946 1
6486.4 ft
0
k = 0.637 mD
= 12.2%
1000
R780 1
2729.9 ft
0
k = 7.96 mD
= 19.2%
10000
0.6 mD
Stress effect on Pc
10000
10000
80
90
100
0.00007 mD
Thresho
old Entry Pore Diame ter
( m)
100
0.50
y = 11.77x
2
R = 0.77
10
1
y = 11.28x0.50
R2 = 0.93
01
0.1
0.01
1E-06 0.00001 0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
10
100
10000
1000
y = 6.75x
6 75x-0.50
R2 = 0.93
100
10
1
1E-06
y = 6.48x-0.50
2
R = 0.77
0.01
0.1
10
threshold entry
pressure is
predictable from
K/ at any
confining
pressure
correct
unconfined Pce
to insitu Pce
based on perm
change with
stress
100
128 of 217
100
Stress effect on Pc
1000
100
10
R091 1
255.9 ft
0
k = 113 mD
= 24.5%
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.6 mD
100
10
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90 100
100
10
E946 1
6530.3 ft
k = 0.04160mD 10
= 9.5%
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
8 mD
0.01
1E-06 0.00001 0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
10
100
100
10
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.2 mD
1000
100
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1000
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.02 mD
90
100
0.00007 mD
1000
100
10
B029 1
13672.5 ft
0 mD10
k = 0.000065
= 2.6%
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
y = 6.48x-0.50
10
10
y = 6.75x-0.50
R2 = 0.93
100
100
10000
1000
PA424 1
4606.5 ft
0 mD10
k = 0.00107
= 12.7%
10000
1000
B029 1
11460.6 ft
k = 0.02550mD 10
= 4.4%
10
LD43C 1
4013.25 ft
0
k = 0.190 mD
= 12.9%
1000
10000
0.001 mD
100
10000
10000
0.04 mD
y = 11.28x0.50
R2 = 0.93
10000
1000
E946 1
6486.4 ft
0
k = 0.637 mD
= 12.2%
0.1
R780 1
2729.9 ft
0
k = 7.96 mD
= 19.2%
10000
1000
113 mD
10000
10000
0.50
y = 11.77x
2
R = 0.77
10
R = 0.77
1
1E 06
1E-06
1E 05 0.0001
1E-05
0 0001 0.001
0 001
0 01
0.01
01
0.1
10
100
Brooks-Corey Slope
Leverett J(Sw) =
Pc (k/)0.5/cos
Brooks-C
Corey Capillary
Pressure Slope
Implicitly assumes
Pcslope = Constant
in situ
unconfined
y = -0.0304Ln(x) + 1.87
2
R = 0.0216
y = -0.037Ln(x) + 1.256
2
R = 0.052
0
1E-05 0.0001 0.001
0.01
0.1
10
100
1000
129 of 217
Height a
above free water (ft)
Modeled Pc curves
1000
900
Modeled Pc
Curves
k=0.0001 mD
k=0.001 mD
800
700
600
k=0.01 mD
k=0.1 mD
k=1 mD
k=10 mD
500
400
300
200
100
0
Modeled Pc curves
Pc properties evolve
over time as
diagenesis changes
porosity and pore
architecture
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1000
100
k=0.0001 mD
k=0.001 mD
k=0.01 mD
10
k=0.1 mD
k=1 mD
k=10 mD
1
0.0
0.1
1.0
Hysteresis of
Capillary
Pressure
Non-wetting
residual
saturation to
imbibition
S
Snwr
= f(Snwi)
f(S i)
Drainage-Imbibition
Cycles
3
2
1
Midale Dol
= 23%
130 of 217
Drainge-Imbibition
what is the residual trapped gas when a reservoir
leaks or along a gas migration path?
Approx. Height above Free Waterr
Level (ft)
10000
0000
Primary Drainage
First Imbibition
Secondary Drainage
Second Imbibition
Tertiary Drainage
Third Imbibition
1000
100
10
0.1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
131 of 217
10000
10000
Primary Drainage
First Imbibition
Secondary Drainage
Second Imbibition
Tertiary Drainage
Third Imbibition
kik
1000
100
10
E393
7001.1ft
= 17.4%
= 28.9 mD
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
100
10
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
100
10
100
10
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1000
100
10
1
S685
6991.2 ft (B)0
= 8.6%
= 0.0063 mD
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
10000
10000
Primary Drainage
Primary Imbibition
Second Drainage
Second Imbibition
Third Drainage
Third Imbibition
1000
20
10000
Primary Drainage
Primary Imbibition
Second Drainage
Second Imbibition
Third Drainage
Third Imbibition
1000
100
10
E458
6404.8 ft (A) 0
= 9.5%
= 0.0019 mD
10
1000
1
R829
5618.3 ft (B)0
= 9.2%
= 0.287 mD
10000
B646
8294.4 ft (B) 0
= 7.6%
= 0.022 mD
10
10000
Primary Drainage
Primary Imbibition
Second Drainage
Second Imbibition
Third Drainage
Third Imbibition
1000
1
E393
7027.2 ft
0
= 15.0%
= 1.93 mD
100
1
B049
9072.1 ft (A) 0
= 12.3%
= 6.74 mD
10000
Primary Drainage
Primary Imbibition
Second Drainage
Second Imbibition
Third Drainage
Third Imbibition
1000
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Primary Drainage
Primary Imbibition
Second Drainage
Second Imbibition
Third Drainage
Third Imbibition
1000
100
10
KM360 1
8185.7 ft (B)0
= 5.9%
= 0.00070 mD
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Capillary
Pressure
Hysteresis
Composite primary
drainage trend
consistent with
single--cycle drainage
single
Imibition curves
exhibit
hibi high
hi h trapping
i
Trapped saturation
increases with
increasing initial
saturation
132 of 217
Residual Non-wetting
Phase Saturation
Residual N
Nonwetting Phase Saturation (S
Snwr)
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
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
all
unconfined
hysteresis
confined
all
unconfined
hysteresis
confined
all
unconfined
hysteresis
confined
Swirr
definition
Swirr = 1-Snwmax
Swirr = 1-Snwmax
Swirr = 1-Snwmax
Swirr = 1-Snwmax
Swirr = 0
Swirr = 0
Swirr = 0
Swirr = 0
Swirr = 0, Snwi<70%
Swirr = 0, Snwi<70%
Swirr = 0, Snwi<70%
Swirr = 0, Snwi<70%
Land C
C
Land C
Snwr
Snwr
Average Standard Minimum Standard Std Error
Error
Error
Error
C=0.55
0.57
0.329
0.53
0.077
0.077
0.61
0.294
0.59
0.087
0.088
0.61
0.383
0.51
0.056
0.057
0.44
0.249
0.45
0.088
0.085
0.73
0.443
0.63
0.073
0.073
0.78
0.360
0.71
0.080
0.081
0.75
0.562
0.59
0.057
0.057
0.61
0.316
0.54
0.078
0.078
0.70
0.054
0.053
0.83
0.062
0.061
0.70
0.052
0.051
0.50
0.038
0.039
Residual Nonwetting
g Phase Saturation (Snwr)
1.0
Sample
Condition
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
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
133 of 217
Residual
Saturation
C = 1/[(Snwr-Swi)-1/(Snwi-Swi)]
Snwr = 1/[C + 1/Snwi]
C = 0.55 (min ); Swi = 0
Residual Non
nwetting Phase Saturation (Snwr)
1.0
unconfined
0.9
confined
Land C=0.66, Swi=0
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
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
Primary Drainage
First Imbibition
Secondary Drainage
Second Imbibition
Tertiary Drainage
Third Imbibition
1000
100
10
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
100
10
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
100
10
Air-Hg
g Capilla ry Pressure (psia)
Air-Hg
g Capillary Pressure (psia)
100
10
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1.0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1000
100
10
1
S685
6991.2 ft (B)0
= 8.6%
= 0.0063 mD
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
10000
10000
Primary Drainage
Primary Imbibition
Second Drainage
Second Imbibition
Third Drainage
Third Imbibition
1000
20
10000
Primary Drainage
Primary Imbibition
Second Drainage
Second Imbibition
Third Drainage
Third Imbibition
1000
100
10
1
E458
6404.8 ft (A) 0
= 9.5%
= 0.0019 mD
10
1000
1
R829
5618.3 ft (B)0
= 9.2%
= 0.287 mD
10000
1
B646
8294.4 ft (B) 0
= 7.6%
= 0.022 mD
10
10000
Primary Drainage
Primary Imbibition
Second Drainage
Second Imbibition
Third Drainage
Third Imbibition
1000
1
E393
7027.2 ft
0
= 15.0%
= 1.93 mD
100
1
B049
9072.1 ft (A) 0
= 12.3%
= 6.74 mD
10000
Primary Drainage
Primary Imbibition
Second Drainage
Second Imbibition
Third Drainage
Third Imbibition
1000
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Primary Drainage
Primary Imbibition
Second Drainage
Second Imbibition
Third Drainage
Third Imbibition
1000
100
unconfined
0.9
confined
Land C=0.66, Swi=0
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
10
KM360 1
8185.7 ft (B)0
= 5.9%
= 0.00070 mD
E393
7001.1ft
= 17.4%
= 28.9 mD
Residual Gas
Saturation
10000
10000
kik
0.0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
134 of 217
Trapping
constant, C
consistent
with
cemented
sandstone
1.0
Complete trapping, C=0
Vuggy, isolated moldic, C=0.3
Mesaverde high C =0.35
Mesaverde Ss, C=0.55
Mesaverde low, C=0.9
Cemented Ss, C=0.7
Berea, C=1.7
Unconsolidated sucrosic
Unconsolidated,
sucrosic, oolitic
oolitic, C=3
C 3
0.9
Residu
ual Nonwetting Phase Saturattion (Snwr)
Residual
gas
saturation
0.8
07
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Electrical
Properties
135 of 217
Wireline log
analysis tools
unkn
1000
Timur : Constant Exponent
0.001
MD
1000
Timur : Variable Exponent
0.001
md
1000
1:240 MD in F
Permeability - 1
Core
0.001
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0
Reservoir Components
Porosity
V/V
PHIX
V/V
Oil
V/V
Water
V/V
Shale
V/V
Permeability - 2
Core
0
0.0
0
0.001
0.001
0.001
unkn
Timur : Sw-Sw(Density)
unkn
Timur : Sw/Sw(Density)
1000
unkn
1000
1000
0
2
CPHI
0
unkn
Water
Oil
6400
0
6425
6450
Lithofacies identification
Accurate porosity
calculation
Water saturation
calculations
Gas
6475
6500
6525
6550
MWX2
Porosity
1
()
Resistivity
Rw
(Ro)
The formation factor (F) is defined as the ratio Ro/Rw
8
F = 1/
AAPG ACE Short Course 1: 06.06.2009
136 of 217
F = 1/
Ro
I = 1/Sw
AAPG ACE Short Course 1: 06.06.2009
137 of 217
Ro
Rw
Rt
Ro
Rw
m
=
Sw * R t
1
n
Sw
1/n
A ro Rw
138 of 217
m= 3
0.1
m= 2
m= 1
0.01
1
10
100
1000
139 of 217
m in sandstones
Archie (1942) observed the range in value of
m in sandstones:
1.3
unconsolidated sandstones
1.4 - 1.5
1.6 - 1.7
slightly cemented
1.8 - 1.9
moderately cemented
2.0 - 2.2
g y cemented
highly
m variability
Core measurements of
formation factor and
porosity in a Cherokee
sandstone sample, with
a computed value of
cementation exponent m
for each core sample
from:
F = 1/
140 of 217
35
30
Mesaverde Frontier
Mesaverde-Frontier
25
20
Medina
15
10
2.1-2.2
2.0-2.1
1.9-2.0
1.8-1.9
1.7-1.8
1.6-1.7
1.5-1.6
1.4-1.5
5
1.3-1.4
Percent of Populatio
on (%)
40
Archie
Simandoux
Fertl
Dual-Water
Waxman-Smits
141 of 217
Simandoux
Developed theoretically primarily for
Gulf Coast application
Where
= effective porosity
Rw = water resistivity
Rt = formation true resistivity
Rsh = shale or clay resistivity
Vsh = volume of shale
Fertl
Developed for shaly sandstones in Rocky Mountains
Where
= effective porosity
Rw = water resistivity
Rt = formation true resistivity
Vsh = volume of shale
A = Constant
142 of 217
Dual-Water/Waxman-Smits
(Clavier, Coats, and Dumanoir, 1984)
Swt - Swb
Sw =
1 - Swb
Where
t = total porosity
Rwf = formation water resistivity
Rt = formation true resistivity
Rwb = bound water resistivity (Rwa in shales)
Swt = total water saturation
Swb = bound water saturation (various methods for determination
e.g., Swb = vq Qv; vq = 0.28 cc/meq25oC, (XNaCl) 1
Cation Exchange
Morphology
Specific Surface
Pure Clay Clay in Sandstone Capacity (Meq/100g)
Kaolinite
15-18
0.05-0.20
3-15
Books
Fans
Smectite
85-100
0.5-2.0
80-150
Honeycomb
Illite
90-115
1.5-10
10-40
SmectiteIllite
(mixedlayer)
85-115
0.5-10
10-150
Chlorite
40-60
0.5-2.0
10-40
Cardhouse, rosette
(after Grim, 1968; Gaida et al, 1973)
143 of 217
F*/F = (1 + BQv/Cw)
Waxman-Smits
Water Saturation Calculations
Sw = [(F*Rw) Rt(1+ RwBQv/Sw)]1/n*
Qv CEC(1-)
( )ma/100
144 of 217
Waxman-Smits-Thomas
Sw = n *
a*
m *
Rw
R
BQ
w
v
Rt 1+
Sw
p
; free of excess conductivityy
Intrinsic cementation exponent;
n*
Rw
Qv
Qv Lab Methods
Wet Chemistry
Utilizes crushed rock with high surface area
Requires sample porosity & grain density to
compute Qv
Crushing can improperly exposes Qv sites not
present in native pores
145 of 217
Multiple-salinity Analysis
Core Conductivity (CO), 1/Ro
Bmax Q v
F*
CO =
Cw B Qv
+
F*
F*
Clay-rich sandstone
Excess conductivity
CO =
Clean sandstone
1
C
CW = W
F
F
BmaxQv
Porosity dependence of m
Empirical:
m = 0.234 ln + 1.33
Dual porosity: m = log[(
log[(-2)m1 + 2m2]/log
= bulk porosity
2 = fracture porosity
m1 = matrix
cementation
exponent
m2 = fracture
cementation
exponent
In situ Archie C
Cementaiton Exponent
(m, a=1, X brrine=40KppmNaCl)
2.2
2.1
2.0
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
15
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
146 of 217
= bulk porosity
2 = fracture or
touching vug
porosity
m1 = matrix
cementation
exponent
m2 = fracture or
touching vug
cementation
exponent
2.4
2.3
2.2
2.1
2.0
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
m1 = 2.1,
2 1 2 = 0.0005
0 0005
m1 = 2.0, 2 = 0.001
m1 = 1.8, 2 = 0.002
m2 = 1
High:
Int:
Low:
15
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
0
0.1
Porosity (fraction)
Core C
Conductivity (mho/m)
0.9
n=335
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
147 of 217
2.3
2.2
2.1
2.0
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.01
0.1
Multi-salinity Archie m
Archie
e Cementaiton Expo
onent (m,
a=1)
2.4
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
200K
1.2
80K
40K
1.0
20K
0.8
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
148 of 217
Slopem-logRwvs Porosity
Each core exhibits a highly linear
m vs logRw
Mean value for all cores:
0.2
0.1
0.0
-0.1
-0.2
standard deviations)
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
-0.6
y = 0.0118x - 0.3551
R2 = 0.1198
-0.7
-0.8
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
Estimation of Archie m
Each core exhibits a highly linear m vs logRw
Mean value for all cores:
Average Slopem-Rw = -0.27+0.32 (2 standard deviations)
where
h Slope
Sl m-Rw = slope
l
off mRw versus logRw.
l R
<14%
>14%
where mx = m at salinity X
m40 = m at 40K ppm NaCl, log RwX = log10 of resistivity of brine at salinity X
logRw40K = log10 of resistivity of 40K ppm NaCl = 0.758
149 of 217
Salinity dependence of m
20Kppm
2.50
y=0.2267Ln(x)+2.2979
2
R =0.6619
AxisTitle
2 00
2.00
1.50
Series1
Log.(Series1)
1.00
40Kppm
0.50
3.00
0.00
0.000
y=0.2328Ln(x)+2.409
0.050
0.100
0.150
0.200
R =0.6547
2.50
0.250
m = a ln + b
a, b = f (salinity)
low porosity rocks hold
more gas than we
thought
insituporosity(%)
AxisTitle
2.00
Series1
1.50
80Kppm
Log.(Series1)
1.00
3.00
y=0.2149Ln(x)+2.4354
0.50
R =0.5132
2.50
0.050
0.100
0.150
insituporosity(%)
0.200
0.250
2.00
AxisTitle
0.00
0.000
200Kppm
Series1
1.50
Log.(Series1)
3.00
1.00
y=0.1621Ln(x)+2.3222
2
R =0.3633
2.50
0.50
2.00
0.050
0.100
0.150
insituporosity(%)
0.200
0.250
AxisTitle
0.00
0.000
Series1
1.50
Log.(Series1)
1.00
0.50
0.00
0.000
0.050
0.100
0.150
0.200
0.250
insituporosity(%)
Critical Gas
Saturation
150 of 217
Overview
Ga
as Relative Permeability
0.1
0.01
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Water Saturation
1
Western Sandstones
g-10 md
w -10 md
g-1 md
w -1 md
g-0.1 md
w -0.1 md
g-0.01 md
w -0.01 md
g-0.001 md
w -0.001 md
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.0001
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Swc>Swi
0
0
Swi
krg
krw
Swc
Sgc 1
0
0
gas-only
production
Pc
drainage
curve
ater
water-only gas&wa
production production
Rela
ative Permeability
Capillarry Pressure
Relative Permeability
and Capillary Pressure
Sgc
Transition
zone
1
Water Saturation
151 of 217
Relative Perm
meability
Logarithmic
1
0.1
0.01
0
0
0.001
0.0001
0.00001
0.000001
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
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
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Water Saturation
Water Saturation
A
As saturations
t ti
approachh the
th critical
iti l saturation
t ti for
f eachh phase
h
the
th
relative permeability for that phase changes by orders of
magnitude
At saturations above critical saturations the relative
permeability to the remaining flowing phase changes less than
an order of magnitude
152 of 217
Relative Perm
meability
1
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.0001
0.00001
0.000001
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
kref = kwater
Water Saturation
10
Relative Perme
eability
kreference = kwater
kref = keg,Swc
results in krg > 1 at Sw < Swc
Relativ
ve Permeability
10
0.1
0.01
0
0
0.001
0.0001
0.00001
0.000001
1
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.0001
0.00001
0.000001
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
kref = kklink
Water Saturation
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
kref = keg,Swc
Water Saturation
153 of 217
154 of 217
Gas Relative
Permeability is
Similar using
different
techniques to
obtain water
saturation
155 of 217
156 of 217
Bounding curves
consistent with
single-point data
0.1
0.01
0
10
n=43
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Water Saturation
157 of 217
Gas R
Relative Permeab
bility
1.0
1-10 md
0.1-1 md
0.05-0.1 md
0 01 0 05 md
0.01-0.05
d
0.005-0.01 md
0.001-0.005 md
0.0001-0.001 md
1 md
0.1 md
0.01 md
0.001 md
0.0001 md
0.9
08
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Relative Permeability
1.0
0.8
Krg/4000
Byrnes
data
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
158 of 217
Gas R
Relative Permeab
bility
0.1
1-10 md
0.1-1 md
0.05-0.1 md
0.01-0.05 md
0.005-0.01 md
0.001-0.005 md
0.0001-0.001 md
1 md
0.1 md
0.01 md
0.001 md
0.0001 md
0.01
0.001
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
krw = [(Sw-Swc)/(1-Swc)]2
Tortuosity Term
Gates and Lietz (1950)
krg = [1-(Sw-Swc)/(1-Sgc-Swc)]2
dSw
Pc2
dSw
Pc2
Mean Hydraulic
Radius Term
Burdine (1953)
dSw
Pc2
dSw
Pc2
159 of 217
(1- 1-S
krg =
gc-Swc
Sw-S
Swc
1-Swc
krw =
Sw-Swc 2
) (1- ( 1-S ) )
wc
krg =
(1- 1-S
)( (
))
1-10 md
0.1-1 md
0.05-0.1 md
0.01-0.05 md
0.005-0.01 md
0.001-0.005 md
0.0001-0.001 md
1 md
d
0.1 md
0.01 md
0.001 md
0.0001 md
0.001
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
(where<0 then 0)
0.1
0.01
70
80
90
100
Sgc
Sgc increases with decreasing ki
160 of 217
0.1
1-10 md
0.1-1 md
0.05-0.1 md
0.01-0.05 md
0.005-0.01 md
0.001-0.005 md
0.0001-0.001 md
1 md
d
0.1 md
0.01 md
0.001 md
0.0001 md
0.01
0.001
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Sgc
Sgc increases with decreasing ki
P = 1.7
Sgc = f (kik)
0.1
0.01
P=f (kik)
Sgc = 10%
0.001
0.0001
0.00001
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Water Saturation
161 of 217
Definitions
Critical-gas saturation has been defined variously as
minimum gas saturation at which the gas phase flows freely
(Firoozabadi et al., 1989)
maximum gas saturation before any gas flow occurs (Moulo
and Longeron, 1989)
gas saturation at which gas freely flows to the top of a
reservoir (Kortekaas and Poelgeest, 1989)
gas saturation at which gas is produced at the outlet of a core
(Li and Yortsos, 1991)
Li andd Yortsos
Y
(1993) appropriately
i l clarified
l ifi d a robust
b
definition as the gas saturation at which the gas forms a
system-spanning cluster (and consequently flows freely). This
definition is consistent with the critical percolation threshold
at which the gas is connected to all parts of the system and not
just flowing in a subset of the system.
Measured Sgc
0.006 < Sgc < 0.38
Solution-gas laboratory-measured (Hunt and Berry, 1956; Handy, 1958; Moulu and
Longeron, 1989; Kortekaas and Poelgeest, 1989; Firoozabadi et al., 1989; and
Kamath and Boyer, 1993)
Sgc=0.01
k = 0.10 mD, Colton sandstone sample, Kamath and Boyer (1993)
Sgc = 0.10
solution gas drive, k = 0.10 mD, Colton sandstone sample, Kamath and Boyer
(1993)
Sgc=0.02
Torpedo sandstone, k = 413 mD, Closmann (1987)
162 of 217
1.00000
0 10000
0.10000
0.01000
Thomas & Ward, 1972
Byrnes et al, 1979
Jones & Owens, 1980
Sampath & Keighin, 1981
Walls, 1981
Chowdiah, 1990
Morrow et al, 1991
Byrnes, 1992
Byrnes, 1997
Byrnes & Castle, 2000
0.00100
0.00010
0.00001
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90 100
Percolation threshold of Hg
detected by resistivity drop of
>200x105 to <5 ohm
Able to determine Pc
equilibrium saturation after
non-equilibrium
q
breakthrough
g
Determine pore throat size
difference between entry
threshold and percolation
threshold
Hg in
Core
oil
High P Vessel
Pnetconfining = 4,000 psi
163 of 217
0.22
0.20
MICP-inflection
0.18
Electrical Resistance
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0 02
0.02
0.00
0.00001 0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
10
100
1000
N2 in
micropipette
gas bubble
Core
oil
High P Vessel
Pconfining = 4,000 psi
164 of 217
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Sgc Histogram
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
00
0.0
04
0.0
08
0.12
0.16
20
0.2
0.2
24
0.2
28
0.3
32
0.3
36
0.4
40
0.4
44
0.4
48
Frequency
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0
00
0.0001 0.001
0.01
0.1
10
100
165 of 217
Gas-Water Capillary P
Pressure (psi)
140
0.1 md
0.01 md
0.001 md
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Sgc=5%
1
1
Sgc=5%
Sgc=75%
Sgc=75%
Sgc vs
bedding
166 of 217
Invasion direction
L is network dimension
A is a numerical constant (for
simple cubic network A = 0.65)
D is the mass fractal dimension
of the percolation cluster
E is the Euclidean dimension
As L Sgc 0
1000
0.001 md
900
0.1 md
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Water Saturation
Sgc and
percolation theory
Invasion direction
1000
0.001 md
900
0.1 md
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0.0 0.1 0.2
Water Saturation
167 of 217
Prediction of Sgc
percolation (Np)
parallel (N//)
series (N)
discontinuous series (Nd)
CMG IMEX
Single 1-ft thick HighPermeability Layered
Reservoir Simulation Model
168 of 217
1.E+09
1.E+08
1.E+07
1.E+06
J-01
J-02
J-03
J-04
Time (m-yr)
J-05
J-06
1.E+10
1.E+09
1.E+08
1.E+07
J-01
J-02
J-03
J-04
Time (m-yr)
J-05
J-06
169 of 217
170 of 217
Bioturbation
Lenticular bedded
isolated lenses
Lenticular bedded
thick connected lenses
Wavy bedded
Shaly Sandstone
core
Core through
g non-bioturbated interval would indicate ggood k in lenses
Series flow indicates long-range permeability would be reduced to
permeability of shale k < 1d
Bioturbation decreases k of lenses by 5-10X but preserves average k
Beneficial effect of bioturbation decreases with increasing sand:shale
ratio but amount of k decrease also decreases
Plug
Permeability Scales
DST-Well Test
Wireline- log
Establish role of
Heterogeneities
& Fractures
Lease-Reservoir
Establish role of
Heterogeneities
& Fractures
F t
FullDiameter
Core
171 of 217
Conclusions
Drainage capillary pressure (Pc) can be modeled using
equations for threshold entry pressure (Pte) and Brooks-Corey
slopes.
Capillary pressure (Pc) exhibits a log-log threshold entry
pressure (Pte)
(Pt ) versus kik/i trend
t d andd variable
i bl Brooks-Corey
B k C
slopes.
Snwr with Snwi Land-type relation: 1/Snwr-1/Snwi = 0.55
Capillary pressure (Pc) is stress sensitive as expected
threshold entry pressure is predictable from K/ at any
confining pressure
g ppores consistent with
Confiningg ppressure decreases largest
permeability decrease but has little influence on smaller pores
(pores largely protected by matrix)
Residual gas saturation increases with increasing initial gas
saturation
Land
Land--type relation: (1/Snwr
(1/Snwr))-(1/
(1/Snwi
Snwi)) = 0.55
Conclusions
Multi-salinity measurements of Archie cementation exponent, m, have
been completed on 408 samples at various salinities for each sample
20,000 ppm NaCl, 40,000 ppm, 80,000 ppm, and 200,000 ppm
Three times the number proposed
Nearly all core exhibit some dependence of conductivity and
cementation exponent on salinity
The salinity dependence of m is weakly negatively correlated with
porosity
Using equations developed the Archie cementation exponent can be
predicted for any given porosity and formation brine salinity
Archie cementation exponent (m) decreases with decreasing porosity
below approximately 6%
Can
C be
b modeledd l d empirical
i i l or by
b a duald l porosity
it model
d l
172 of 217
Conclusions
Analysis suggests that Sgc is scale- and bedding-architecture dependent in
cores and in the field.
Sgc is likely to be very low in cores with laminae and laminated reservoirs
( //)) andd low
(N
l ((e.g., Sgc < 0.03-0.07
0 03 0 0 at core scale
l andd Sgc < 0.02
0 02 at reservoir
i
scale) in massive-bedded sandstones of any permeability (Np)
In cross-bedded lithologies exhibiting series network properties (N), Sgc
approaches a constant reflecting the capillary pressure property differences
and relative pore volumes among the beds in series. For these networks Sgc
can range widely but can reach high values (e.g., Sgc < 0.6)
Discontinuous series networks, representing lithologies exhibiting series
network
t
k properties
ti but
b t for
f which
hi h th
the restrictive
t i ti beds
b d are nott samplel
spanning (Nd), exhibit Sgc intermediate between Np and N networks.
173 of 217
Denver, Colorado
Complicated lithology/mineralogy
z
z
Quartz
Mixture of clays
clays, maybe diagenetic products
(Vcl/Vsh)
Low porosity, <15%
(Phi)
Fluids
z
z
z
Quantities
of interest
Permeability
z
(Sw)
((Rw))
(Swirr)
(k)
174 of 217
A Mesaverde
example
2.65
ExxonMobil
Willow Ridge T63X-2G
Rio Blanco county, CO
Piceance Basin
Complicated lithology/mineralogy
z
Presence of clay
Ga
Gamma
a ray,
ay, SP:
S decreased
dec eased response
espo se as co
compared
pa ed to
nearby shales.
z GR may also be affected by radioactive KK-feldspar.
Porosity measurements
z Density porosity: slightly lower
z Neutron porosity: higher
z Sonic porosity: higher
Resistivity: lower, from additional clay conductivity.
z May make water saturation calculations higher
than actual saturations.
175 of 217
Environmental effects II
Fluids
z
Gas
Permeability
z
z An example: Timur:
KT = 62500
Sw 2
irr
176 of 217
Clay/shale volume
z
SP: hydrocarbon
effects will make
Vsh too high.
Gamma ray:
probably
p
y the best.
Use linear unless
other data indicates
otherwise.
BakerAtlas, 1984
Porosity, Phi
z
PHID =
RHOma RHOB
RHOma RHOfl
PHIS =
DT DTma
2 DT DTma
or = *
DTfl DTma
3
DT
177 of 217
PHIE =
saturation, Sw
Water resistivity, Rw
Produced waters yield Rw values that are much too
fresh (water of condensation in the gas).
NOT SP!
Rwa vs GR
Pickett plot or Rwa,
150
apparent water resistivity GRshale
Rwb
125
Archie parameters, a,
m (variable), n
Local knowledge; Pickett
plot
100
GR
75
50
data
25
GRclean
0
0.1
Rw, Rwf
1
10
100
Rwa
178 of 217
Rw, Rwf
11
BVWirr can
also be
estimated
from a log
plot.
Rw
Porosity
decrreasing Sw
Pickett plot
data
0.1
Sw = 1
0.01
1
10
100
1000
Resistivity
AAPG ACE 2009: Denver Colorado
12
179 of 217
BVW = 0.1
06
0.6
04
0.4
02
0.2
0.04
0.05
BVWirr
= 0.026
From slope,
cementation exponent, m = 1.85
13
Archie
1
2
a Rw
Sw =
Phi m Rt
In conductivity space
(Ct = 1000/Rt):
Ct = a Sw n Phi m Cw
Dual Water
Swb
Ct = Sw n Phi m 1
Cwb
Cwf +
Sw
Sw
14
180 of 217
Mesaverde
data again
16
181 of 217
But we can
cantt determine the production volumes
volumes.
If BVW > 0.05, theres a good chance that the
well will produce no fluids at all.
Pore throats are blocked by water.
17
Mesaverde
with
permeability
and BVW
182 of 217
Conclusions
19
183 of 217
Denver, Colorado
OUTLINE
DATA PREPARATION
z
z
z
z
z
184 of 217
CALCULATION:
z
z
z
z
z
z
Calculate Vsh
Total and Effective Porosities
Calculate Sw
Look at a Pickett Plot
Calculate SWI
Calculate perm
Required Curves
Depth
p Matching
g
Tool Pick
Pick--up
Normalization
185 of 217
Calculating In
In--situ Core Data
Klinkenberg Corrected
Porosity
Importing Data
1)
2)
3)
186 of 217
VANHCMT_TS
VCCMT_TS
VCO3CMT_TS
VKSP_TS
VKVRF_TS
VOSRF_TS
VOVRF_TS
VPLAG_TS
VQTZ_TS
VQTZ TS
VQTZCMT_TS
VRAD_TS
VSSRF_TS
VVISPOR_TS
187 of 217
1
1.
2.
GR
Porosity
Induction
6.
Set up Parameters
Calculate Vshale
Calculate Porosity (Total, Effective, Cross
Cross--Plot)
Calculate Water Saturation
Calculate Bulk Volume Water and
Bulk Volume Water Irreducible
and Calculate Irreducible Water Saturation
Calculate Permeability
10
188 of 217
Deep Resistivity
Rt = Rdeep
Rho Matrix
Neutron Matrix
Vshale Model
Linear using GR
BVW Model
Effective Porosity
Permeability Model
Timur Model
Calculate Vsh
V sh =
GR log GR clean
GR sh GR clean
12
189 of 217
Total Porosity
Total Porosity
z PHIN = Converted from LS units to
desired output lithology units.
z
PHID =
PHIS =
RHOMA RHOB
RHOMA RHOFL
(Wyllie Time
Average Equation)
t log DTMA
DTF DTMA
13
Cross-Plot Porosities
Take RHOB and Neutron and cross plot them to get a PHIDN
PROS:
-Corrects for grain density
-Eliminates most of the gas
effect
CONS:
-Requires a good NPHI log
190 of 217
Effective Porosity
Total
Diminishes
1. Grain Density Differences
2. Gas Effect
3. Shale Volume
191 of 217
Calculate Sw
Archies Water Saturation equation
z
z
z
z
Sw = n
aRw
m Rt
17
BVWT = PHIX * S w
BVWe = PHIE * S w
Then look at a consistently flat part on the BVW and
visually pick the BVWI
18
192 of 217
Pickett Plot
Iso BVW lines
BVWI
193 of 217
Calculate Permeability
K coef = 62500
K KPHIEXP ~ 5.0 9.25
(Determined by zone)
(Determined by zone)
K log = K coef
PHIX KPHIEXP
SWI KSWIEXP
21
Piceance Basin
Error introduced =
Vshale
, m&n
, SWI
Kexp.
194 of 217
Washakie Basin
195 of 217
Uinta Basin
196 of 217
Denver, Colorado
Outline
rock typing
variable m model for Sw
permeability modeling
197 of 217
Winland equation
macroports = 22-10 m
mesoports
p
= 0.5 2 m
microports = 0.1 0.5 m
nanoports < 0.1 m
198 of 217
in-situ Klin
nkenberg gas permeability (MD
D)
1000
R35
macroports
100
2
10
0.5
microports
0.1
0.1
nanoport
0.01
0.02
0.001
0.0001
0.00001
0.000001
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
K/
K/
ratio isoiso-lines
K/phi ratio = Ka (mD) / (v/v)
1000
K/phi
100
50
10
0.5
0.1
0.01
0.05
0.005
0.001
0.0001
0.00001
0.000001
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
199 of 217
K/phi methods
200 of 217
201 of 217
GR vs Rock number
Why is that?
z
z
12
202 of 217
203 of 217
16
204 of 217
Saturation model
basic model assumes Archie with TGS
average m, n values
Shaly sand models (e
(e.g.
g Dual Water) all
yield similar results because fm. waters are
saline and shales are not highly conductive
core data suggests m varies as a function of
both porosity and average salinity
17
m= 2
m= 3
100
m= 1
F
10
1
0.01
0.1
log F = -m log
18
205 of 217
Salinity dependence of m
tested plugs with 20K, 40K, 80K, and 200K ppm brines
Nearly all cores exhibit some salinity dependence
1.0
In situ Arc
chie Cementation Exponent,
(m, A=1)
2.3
0.9
Core
e Conductivity (mho/m)
n=335
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
22
2.2
2.1
2.0
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.01
0.1
19
2.40
2.20
2.00
1.80
1.60
1.40
1.20
200K
80K
1.00
40K
20K
0.80
0
10 12 14 16 18 20 22
In situ Porosity (% )
AAPG ACE 2009: Denver Colorado
20
206 of 217
Salinity dependence of m
20Kppm
2.50
y=0.2267Ln(x)+2.2979
2
R =0.6619
AxisTitle
2.00
1.50
Series1
Log.(Series1)
1.00
40Kppm
0.50
0.00
0.000
3.00 0.100
0.050
0.150
0.200
m = a log + b
intercept b drops with
decreasing salinity
slope is ~ constant
0.250
insituporosity(%)
y=0.2328Ln(x)+2.409
2
R =0.6547
2.50
AxisTitle
2.00
Series1
1.50
Log.(Series1)
1.00
80Kppm
200Kppm
0.50
3.00
0.00
0.000
3.00
y=0.2149Ln(x)+2.4354
0.050
0.100
0.150
2.50
0.200
y =0.1621Ln(x)+2.3222
y
0.1621Ln(x) + 2.3222
R =0.5132
0.250
R =0.3633
2.50
insituporosity(%)
2.00
Series1
1.50
Log.(Series1)
AxisTitle
AxisTitle
2.00
Log.(Series1)
1.00
0.50
0.50
0.00
0.000
0.050
0.100
0.150
insituporosity(%)
0.200
0.250
Series1
1.50
1.00
0.00
0.000
0.050
0.100
0.150
0.200
0.250
insituporosity(%)
21
determine Rw @ Tf conventionally
z
z
z
convert Rw to 75
75F by chart lookup or Arps
equation
22
207 of 217
Rw = 0.306
Williams PA 424424-34
Piceance basin
Kmv above top gas
208 of 217
25
Practical impact
Nominally, most of us use an m close to 2,
but usually slightly less, for tight gas sand
evaluations (e.g.
(e.g. 1.85, 1.90)
Variable m that DECREASES with
decreasing porosity leads to lower Sws
Therefore, there is more gas in the tight
rocks than we thought.
Above 10% porosity there is very little
difference
26
209 of 217
210 of 217
211 of 217
no change
Sw summary
335 Kmv samples run at multiple salinities
Archie porosity exponent m varies with
z
z
porosity
salinity
m as porosity
m as salinity
32
212 of 217
m=1
>2
33
TableCurve 2D v5.01
213 of 217
BVWirr is typically 3
3--5%
no longer calculate Sws >> 1
Sw = 1 at low validates Rw
35
Permeability
permeability has historically been a problem
to estimate from log data
dynamic property that we are trying to
correlate with static properties
so, we fudge....
g
36
214 of 217
Porosity--permeability cross
Porosity
cross--plots
z
37
Klinkenb
berg Permeability (4,000 ps
si, mD)
1000
100
10
1
0.1
Green River
Piceance
Powder River
Uintah
Washakie
Wind River
logK=0.3Phi-3.7
logK=0.3Phi-5.7
0.01
0.001
0.0001
0 00001
0.00001
0.000001
0.0000001
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
38
215 of 217
Kozeny equation
K = A * 3 / S2,
where S = surface area/bulk volume
39
216 of 217
41
Thank you!
42
217 of 217