Correlation of Pore Volume Compressibility with Porosity

in One of the Iranian Southern Carbonate Reservoirs

Akhoundzadeh, Hamid; Moghadasi, Jamshid ; Habibnia, Bahram
* Corresponding author: Hamid Akhoundzadeh,
Petroleum University of Technology (PUT), Abadan, Iran,
E-mail: hamid.akhoundzadeh@gmail.com
Phone number:

Petroleum University of Technology, Abadan, Iran

Abstract
Pore volume compressibility is one of the most important parameters
that must be considered in reservoir calculations. Due to the timeconsuming and expensive procedure of laboratory measurements, an
accurate estimation of pore volume compressibility is necessary for
precise simulation of the reservoir behavior.In the present study, pore
volume compressibility data of one of the Iranian southern carbonate
reservoirs has been used. A total of fifteen samples from three wells
were selected for laboratory measurements. Petrographical analysis was
conducted for determination of rock type and pore structure of the
samples, then the effects of pressure and porosity on pore
compressibility was investigated. The result of this study has shown that
pore volume compressibility of the selected samples, which almost were
pure limestone, has good correlations with porosity and pressure. Then
a new formula for pore volume compressibility versus porosity has
presented and has compared with published correlations.
Keywords: Pore Volume Compressibility Porosity Correlation Effective Pressure - Carbonate reservoir

Introduction
During depletion of fluids from the reservoir rocks, the internal pore
pressure decreases and therefore, the effective pressure (difference
between overburden and internal pore pressure) increases. This
increase causes the changes in the grain, pore, and bulk-volume of the
rock. These volume changes tend to reduce the pore space and
therefore, the porosity of the rock.
The engineering parameter quantifying this volumetric variation is
compressibility, which is the fractional change in the volume of the rock
per unit change in pressure.
Pore volume compressibility is one of the most important and effective
parameters of mechanical, seismic and reservoir properties of
hydrocarbon reservoirs.
Knowledge of the compressibility of reservoir rocks is essential for a
better understanding of rock mechanics and aids in the solution of
numerous oil wells drilling and production problems (Von Gonten and
Choudhary, ).
An accurate estimation of pore volume compressibility of reservoir
rocks is essential for compaction evaluation, reservoir drive
determination, reserve estimates, reservoir pressure maintenance,
casing collapse analyses and production forecasting. This information is
then used in modeling the reservoir and calculating the economic value
of the project. Thus, obtaining credible indications of this value is
invaluable (Wolfe et al., ).
Due to its importance in reservoir engineering analysis, pore volume
compressibility must routinely measure in the laboratory.
Pore volume compressibility of a reservoir rock is not a constant
but varies with compacting pressure, porosity and temperature. Rock
type and pore structures of the samples have effect in pore
compressibility.
Several authors have attempted to correlate the pore
compressibility with various parameters including the porosity.
For many years, the petroleum industry has relied on Halls ()
correlation, for estimating pore volume compressibility. Based on the

measurement on seven consolidated limestone and five consolidated

sandstone samples, Hall obtained a relationship of compressibility
with porosity of rock (Figure ).
Newman () has presented a more comprehensive pore
volume compressibility data based on samples, were
sandstones from sandstone reservoirs, and were limestones
from limestone reservoirs.
His data show little or no correlation between pore volume
compressibility and initial sample porosity. The data show
considerable disagreement with Hall's correlation.
Based on extensive measurements of Newman (), Horne
() obtained trends of pore volume compressibility versus initial
porosity for consolidated limestones, consolidated sandstones and
unconsolidated sandstones(Figure ).
Jalalh () provide new correlation for pore volume
compressibility versus porosity based on the rock compressibility data
available in the literature and his laboratory measurements.
The main objective of this work is to evaluate and discuss the
relationship between pore volume compressibility with pressure and
porosity based on experimental compressibility measurement of some
carbonate sample in Iranian reservoir rock in a wide-range value and
varied types of porosity. Finally, a new general formula for pore volume
compressibility versus porosity is presented and obtained results is
compared with the published correlations.
Test Procedure
Compressibility tests were performed under a hydrostatic load by
using CMS- equipment, while the stress has changed at or
risingintervals. The net stress variation was between to psi, which
is compatible with Middle East reservoirs. As the effective confining
pressure was increased, the changes in rock pore volume were
measured and pore volume compressibilities were calculated at each
corresponding pressure intervals.

This measurement is agreed with other published measurements of pore

compressibility.
Compaction data determined under hydrostatic loading can be
corrected to into uniaxialcompactions, which is much more
representatives for reservoir conditions,if the Poisson ratio of the rock is
known or can be estimated accurately, by using the theoretical formula
as described by Teeuw ().A correction factor of . specific for a
case study was used in conversion from hydrostatic to uniaxial condition.
However, the accurate correction factor must be determined from the
field samples under study.
For example, figure shows the measured values of pore volume
compressibility for the limestone sample taken from a depth of feet,
and had an initial porosity of .%.
Method Description
In the present work for classification of carbonate rocks according to
depositional texture, Dunham Classification is used.Dunham ()
proposed a widely used classification that categorizes carbonate rocks
according to the amount and texture of grains and mud.Furthermore, for
presenting type of porosity, Choquette and Pray () classification will
be applied.
In this study, rock typing and detecting pore type is done based on thin
section studies. Comprehensive thin-section analysis was performed to
obtain rock type, mineralogy, and pore types.
The pore volume compressibility values are pressure dependent. To
correlate pore compressibility with porosity and compare samples that
had been obtained from various depths, which means the samples were
subjected to various effective stresses under reservoir conditions, a
common effective pressure base of percent of the lithostatic
pressure was used. This value was selected as the most probable
average effective stress the sample would encounter during reservoir
depletion(Jalalh, b). For this purpose, the overburden pressure is
assumed to be psi per foot of depth and pore pressure is assumed to
be . psi per foot and pressure difference between overburden and

internal pore pressure is referred to as the effective overburden

pressure.
The values obtained at this pressure can be plotted against the porosity
and we can analyze the effects of the porosity and other factors in
compressibility of various samples, which acquire from a different depth.
For presents a correlation between variables, we used statistical
programs for regression analysis by using the least square method.
Field Description
Compressibility measurement data used in this study werefifteen
samples taking from Middle Cretaceous BangestanGroup, which
acquired from three wells in one of the Iranian southern carbonate
reservoirs.
The Middle Cretaceous carbonates in the Persian Gulf region are among
the most productive oil-bearing stratigraphic intervals in the world,
containing numerous giant fields.
Table show the characteristics of the various rock samples used in this
study for pore volume compressibility analysis.As shown in table , all
samples are pure limestone and are composed of more than %
calcite.According to the Dunham classification, samples are graindominate and almost all of them are grainstoneorpackstone to
grainstone.
Although samples have a wide range of porosity, but they have same
porosity type; Vuggy and microfracture which illustrate in figure are the
dominant porosity type in these samples.Figure shows the frequency
of above properties in well A-.
The results for evaluation of pore volume compressibility versus effective
stress are presented in figure .
Results and Discussion
The compaction of rock causes changes in the structure of the
pores and grain shapes, and reduces the pore volumes.

As has seen in the above figure, pore compressibility is a function of

effective pressure and it increases as effective pressure decreases.A
power function in the form of Y = aX usually shows the best fit for
compressibility and the net confining pressure relationship.

For instance, figure illustrate power function of pore compressibility

versus effective pressure for two samples.
Thus, the compressibility data of each sample can be expressed in
terms of two fit parameter Aand B, which are defined to the following
equation:
()
Table summarizes the best-fit compressibility parameters A and B for
all samples.
The value of pore compressibility is dependent on the texture, type and
value of porosity. Insomuch in the investigated formation, the samples
almost have same rock type and near porosity type (as mentioned
earlier), it can be represented, in this reservoir pore compressibility
dependonly the value of porosity and it increases as porosity decreases.
This fact can be seen in figure which pore volume compressibility
curves move down by increasing the initial porosity. This is clear to see
that the pore volume compressibility of our limestone samples increase
with decreasing porosity.
In figure through , porosity value was classified in the three groups
and pore compressibility of each group is illustrated on it. It can be seen
graph of the sample with near porosity value is close to each other.
The values of pore volume compressibility obtained at the reservoir
condition (effective pressure) plotted against the initial porosity. In
figures and the presented data are compared with widely used Hall
and Hornes correlation curves.
Both figure and displays clearly poor agreement with Hall and
Horne correlation. Therefore, the correlation formulas that are available
in the literature (i.e., Halls and Hornes correlations) cannot be applied
to estimate the compressibility of these reservoir rocks.

The above discussion supports the necessity for laboratory

compressibility measurements in evaluating rock compressibility and
establishing the new rock compressibility correlation for a given
reservoir.
For this purpose, an attempted has been made to find a simple and
accurate formula, which gives more precise pore volume compressibility
values with considering all of the measured compressibility data in the
investigated field.For sophisticated analysis, the data has transferred
into one of the professional fitting regression programs.
In this program, XY data can be modeled using a toolbox of linear
regression models, nonlinear regression models, interpolation, or
splines.Over models are built-in, but custom regression models may
also be defined by the user. Full-featured graphing capability allows
thorough examination of the curve fit. The process of finding the best fit
can be automated by letting the program compare my data to each
model to choose the best curve.
Every possible regression model has examined for the input data set.
The best-fitting result is the Reciprocal Logarithm Model (equation ).
This model gives the correlation coefficient (R) = ..
()
Therefore the new limestone compressibility correlation is (where
.):
()
Figure presents newly obtained pore volume compressibility
correlation versus porosity in the investigated reservoir.
In addition, figure demonstrate graphical comparisons of the Halls
and Hornes correlation curves to new correlation curve. It can be seen
goodness fit data of new fitting curve.

Conclusions
. Pore volume compressibility of reservoir rock is highly pressure
dependent and it increases as effective pressure decreases.
. For investigated samples, there is a power model correlation
between pore volume compressibility and effective pressure.
. The value of pore compressibility is dependent on the texture, type
and value of porosity. Insomuch in the investigated formation, the
samples almost have same rock type and near porosity type, it can
be represented in this reservoir pore compressibility depends only
the value of porosity and it increases as porosity decreases.
. It was found that the pore volume compressibility values reported
in this study are in poor agreement with the published
compressibility-porosity
correlations
(Halls
and
Hornes
correlations) and these correlations cannot be used for estimate
pore volume compressibility of studied reservoir rocks. Therefore,
the laboratory compressibility measurement is necessary for
evaluation of pore compressibility for a given reservoir.
. Base on laboratory compressibility measurement of studied
limestone samples, a new correlation of pore volume
compressibility with porosity was presented for one of the Iranian
carbonate reservoirs.
Acknowledgements:
The authors would like to thank the National Iranian Exploration
Management Company (Exploration Directorate) for their supports.
References
. Choqutee, P. W., and Pray, L. C., , Geological Nomenclature
and Classification of Porosity in Sedimentary Carbonates: Bull.
AAPG, , -.
. Dunham, R. J., , Classification of Carbonate Rocks According
to Their Depositional Texture, AAPG Memoir I, -.
. Hall, H. N., , Compressibility of Reservoir Rocks, Petroleum
Transactions ofthe AIME, : -.
. Horne, N.R., , Modern Well Test Analysis A Computer-Aided
Approach, Petroway Inc.

. Jalalh, A.A., b, Compressibility Measurements of Porous

Rocks: Part II. New Relationships, Acta Geophysica, , , .
. Newman, G. H., , Pore Volume Compressibility of
Consolidated, Friable, and Unconsolidated Reservoir Rocks under
Hydrostatic Loading, SPE Journal of Petroleum Technology, ():
-.
. Teeuw, D., , Prediction of Formation Compaction from
Laboratory Compressibility Data, SPE Journal, (): -.
. Von Gonten, W.D. and Choudhary, B. K., , The Effect of
Pressure and Temperature on Pore Volume Compressibility, Fall
Meeting of the Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME (th
Annual).
. Wolfe, C., Russell, C., Luise, N. Chhajlani, R., , Log Based
Pore Volume Compressibility Prediction_A Deepwater GoM Case
Study, SPE .

Table : summarizes of data in the presented carbonate reservoir in southern of

Iran.
Well
No.

A-1

A-2

A-3

Sample
#

Grain density
(gr/cm3)

Porosity
(%)

Effective stress Compressibility

(psi)
(1/psi 10^-6)

13H

2.72

20.7

5851

4.61

39H

2.7

13.1

5939

6.44

56H

2.71

8.3

5980

7.38

67H

2.71

10.9

5998

6.09

93H

2.73

15.2

6042

5.42

3H

2.71

17

5594

5.52

21H

2.71

20.4

5629

5.6

25H

2.71

17.3

5635

5.58

50H

2.71

7.4

5677

9.27

59H

2.72

8.6

5693

9.19

20H

2.71

18.4

6402

4.35

56H

2.71

14

6466

5.52

78H

2.71

11.7

6524

2.61

92H

2.71

6.9

6578

10.39

98H

2.71

8.2

6598

7.32

Table : Best fit compressibility parameters of the samples.

Well
No.

A-1

A-2

A-3

Sample
#

Porosity
(%)

Fit parameter Fit parameter

A
B

Correlation
coefficient

13H

20.7

550.72

-0.546

0.915

39H

13.1

4203.4

-0.759

0.999

56H

8.3

173915

-1.169

0.978

67H

10.9

317730

-1.262

0.979

93H

15.2

1014.3

-0.603

0.953

3H

17

1819.8

-0.679

0.999

21H

20.4

1025.1

-0.61

0.998

25H

17.3

1265.4

-0.635

0.998

50H

7.4

32529

-0.953

0.996

59H

8.6

27283

-0.931

0.989

20H

18.4

7611.1

-0.861

0.952

56H

14

2267.5

-0.705

0.999

78H

11.7

62749

-1.16

945

92H

6.9

152799

-1.118

0.988

98H

8.2

107112

-1.117

0.988

Figure : Halls correlations for

pore volume compressibility versus
porosity (Hall, ).

Figure : Hornes correlation for

pore volume compressibility versus
porosity (Horne, ).

Figure : Pore volume compressibility of a limestone sample measured by CMS from southern of Iran.

Figure : Vuggy (left) and microfracture (right) as a dominate porosity in the

investigated reservoir.

Figure : Geological and petrophysical properties of the samples in well A-.

Figure : Groups of compressibility values of the samples versus effective

pressure.

Figure : Power function of pore volume compressibility versus effective pressure

in two samples.

Figure : Pore volume compressibility versus effective pressure for porosity range
-%.

Figure : Pore volume compressibility versus effective pressure for porosity range
-%.

Figure : Pore volume compressibility versus effective pressure for porosity

range -%.

Figure : Pore volume compressibility of studied limestone samples versus

initial porosity, compared with Halls correlation curve.

Figure : Pore volume compressibility of studied limestone sample versus initial

porosity, compared with Hornes correlation curve.

+ .

Correlation Coefficient:

( )

Figure : New correlation of pore volume compressibility for studied limestone

rock samples with porosity.

Figure : graphical comparisons of the Halls and Hornes correlation curves to

my new correlation curve.