SPE 142836

Comparison Of Core/Log And Well Test Permeabilities – A Closer Look

“Sawan Tight Sands”
Amir Riaz Ahmed1, Mansoor Ahmad1, Attique ur Rehman1
1
OMV (Pakistan), Islamabad

Copyright 2010, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE/PAPG Annual Technical Conference held in Islamabad, Pakistan, 10-11 November 2010.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract Desert, 80 km to the South East of Sukkur in the Sindh

Permeability values are available through many sources
e.g. cores, logs and well testing. It is a usual practice to
condition log data with core, but integration of well test
data is usually left for later stages when building 3D
reservoir models. It is often observed that core/log
results do not agree with well test results. This becomes
usually very prominent in tight sand wells. The usual
suspect is formation damage during drilling and
completion operations, but the real cause may only be
revealed by an in-depth analysis of the available data.
Core/log results usually give absolute permeabilities,
whereas well tests provide effective permeabilities for
the fluid under consideration. The role of cut-offs is very
important when core/log permeabilities are calculated
e.g. porosity, water saturation, clay volume etc. To
compare with Well test permeabilities, the effect of over
burden pressure, the gas slippage effect and relative
permeability effect should be considered.
The noticeable difference in core/log permeabilities
and well test permeabilities is analyzed in this paper and
compared with other industry reported cases.
INTRODUCTION
The oil industry in Pakistan is used to developing
conventional resources and much expertise is needed to
understand the behavior of tight sands.
Core and log permeability values represent a smaller
depth of investigation than a wireline test, which on the
other hand has a smaller range of measurement
compared to a welltest. The welltest interpretation gives
an average global value of effective permeability to that
particular fluid in consideration, while core and most
logs give absolute values. Uncertainties exist in all
calculations, and the knowledge and expertise of the
interpreters is very critical.
Sawan is a large approximately 2 tcf gas field
discovered in 1997 in the Middle Indus Gas Basin of
Pakistan. The Sawan gas field is located in the Thar
province (Figure 1). The field discovery well was
spudded on October 17, 1997 and encountered a 103 m
thick gas-bearing sand in the Lower Goru Formation at
depth of around 3250m MD. In 2010 Sawan has 14
producing wells.
Sawan South is separated from the Northern part by a
wrench fault. It has three producing wells and a fourth
well considered uneconomical to tie-in under current
conditions. Two wells are below 1 mD and one less than
0.001 mD.
There exists a visible difference in the results of core/log
permeabilities and the possible reasons are discussed in
this paper. Sawan South Well-1 (SSW-1) results are used
as a sample case.
Routine Core Analysis
In routine core analysis, porosity and permeability, both
relative and absolute, are measured on rock samples at
ambient conditions which are not under net overburden
(NOB) or confining stress. While making geocellular
models which are then used for dynamic simulation
models generally log results are corrected to these values
to predict porosity and permeability which can lead to
serious errors since all reservoirs are under net over
burden pressure. This effect is more prominent in tight
sands.
Underground reservoirs are under considerable
compressive stress as a result of the weight of overlying
rocks, offset somewhat by the internal-fluid pressure. The
resulting effects on the physical properties of the reservoir
rock have been studied [2-5]. Calculate the strain-
equivalent hydrostatic (lab) stress by a simplified mean
stress equation [1]:
((POB – PRES) / 3) x ((1+v) / (1-v)) (1)
These corrections are usually done using special core
analysis (SCAL) and SCAL results should be used for
correcting log values.
2 SPE 142836
Overburden pressure causes only a small decrease in
porosity, which can usually be ignored [6]. The effect of
overburden pressure on permeability, however, is
appreciable and varies considerably for different reservoir
rocks [2, 3].
Log Analysis
Conventional log analysis fails to adequately
characterize tight gas sands. A number of geologically
dependent interpretation problems related to complex
depositional, diagentic, and structural histories of tight gas
sands exist.
Critical log interpretation parameters include porosity,
matrix, clay volume, formation water resistivity, water
saturation, and permeability.
Interpretation of permeability from logs is often
attempted in conventional reservoirs. The general
approach is to relate permeability to porosity and
irreducible water saturation (Swi).
Porosity interpretation is complicated by variable
matrix parameters and incomplete fluid invasion into the
formation. Complex lithologies preclude the use of a
static grain density which is commonly assumed in the
standard density-porosity equation. The low permeability
of tight gas sands creates a variable invasion profile
which has a dramatic effect on density and neutron tool
response and on the interpretation of porosity and water
saturation. Most equations and models assume filtrate
invasion to at least the depth of investigation of the
porosity tools; however, this may not always be true in
tight gas sands.
Clays adversely affect porosity interpretation and
resistivity tool response. Volume clay determination in
tight gas sands is difficult. Conventional density/neutron
techniques are limited because of the variable invasion
profile. The gama ray technique is highly dependent on
depth of burial clay type and is not always reliable.
Formation water resistivities (Rw) are not always a
constant parameter and may be highly variable. Rw is
difficult to calculate because apparent water resistivity
techniques are ineffective due to the absence of gas-water
contacts in very tight gas sand reservoirs. Spontaneous
potential (SP) interpretation techniques are ineffective in
tight gas sands due to variable invasion profiles and the
related failure of the electrochemical component of the
SP to be developed to its full potential. Produced water
samples can be contaminated by drilling fluid and frac
fluid.
Water saturation (Sw) is difficult to determine in tight
gas sands. Porosity, Rw, and clay corrections are critical
parameters controlling accurate Sw calculations.
Equations relating irreducible water saturation and
porosity to permeability are not effective.
All of the above problems complicate log
interpretation. On top of this when these results are
corrected using routine core analysis data which is not
corrected to NOB the results are far from what the
production data shows.
Although Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) gives
better results for absolute permeability, it still needs to be
calibrated for relative permeability effects.
Modular Formation Dynamics Tester (MDTTM)
In wireline formation testing, a probe is set in the
wellbore and a short test, called a pretest, is conducted
to measure formation pressure [7] [8]. Up to 20 cc of
fluid may be withdrawn from the formation during the
pretest. Both drawdown and buildup pressure data are
acquired for each pretest. During the pretest, the
formation fluid is withdrawn through the probe into the
pretest chamber. This generates a localized flow in the
formation that has a pattern essentially spherical in
character. The drawdown pressure depends on the
mobility, k/m, of the flowing fluid, which is usually mud
filtrate from the invaded zone. At the end of the
drawdown period, the pretest chamber is full and the
buildup period starts. The time required for this buildup
is a function of the formation fluid mobility and
producing time. During the drawdown, most of the fluid
movement takes place in a small volume immediately
surrounding the probe. In tight sands this region is even
smaller; this result in a comparable difference with well
tests results if much heterogeneity is present.
Well Tests
For low permeability gas reservoirs, the main purpose
for a well test is to determine if the formation can
produce at commercial flow rates; however, due to low
permeability, the well test results can sometimes be
misleading. The accuracy of the DST results can be
influenced by both gas and water relative permeability in
the zone being tested, the pressure differential during
drilling due to an overbalanced mud column, and the
properties of the filter cake. It has long been suspected
that the invasion of mud filtrate into low permeability
formation can significantly alter the formation response
during a well test [9].
Other factors which should also be considered are the
magnitude of the overbalance pressure and the filter cake
permeability. For a fixed value of absolute permeability,
the gas relative permeability, the gas relative
permeability most affects the cleanup behavior. Although
a low gas permeability reduces the amount of mud
filtrate imbibition, it also restricts the ability of the
formation to cleanup, causing a longer cleanup period for
a given formation permeability. The effectiveness of a
well test can be increased by using a high pressure
drawdown to remove as much mud filtrate as possible
during the flow period [10].
Although the production of formation water is not
expected in tight formations, the well test interpreter
should be very careful; a slight water production will
result in incorrect prediction of effective gas
permeabilities if only single phase is considered during
well test interpretation.
Sawan South Well-1 (SSW-1)
SSW-1 was drilled in 2003 and the routine core
analysis (RCA) gave a permeability of around 2.9 mD
SPE 142836
while the well test interpretation gave an approximation
of 0.99 mD. The log interpretation was done by Elemental
Analysis (ELAN - KINT). ELAN- KINT uses the
geochemical algorithm and computes the weight percent
of the minerals in dry rock based on volumetric
distribution. It then estimates a permeability exponent for
each mineral and computes from this permeability based
on the total porosity, water saturation and lithology; in
short these results cannot be directly compared with
effective permeability without adjustments. NMR log was
not available for this well. The well log results were
calibrated with (RCA) and hence had similar
interpretation. It is understood that the well test results
give us effective permeability for that phase whereas
routine core analysis gives us an absolute permeability for
that formation. Therefore Special Core Analysis (SCAL)
data should be used for correcting log values.
The SCAL data which showed relationship of change
in permeability with net overburden was used to
understand these differences.
On SSW-1 the SCAL data included measurement of
permeabilities calculated considering ambient and NOB
conditions plus the relative permeability effect and the
Klinkenberg effect.
A simple relationship was developed to see the change
in permeabilities with Klinkenberg effect, net over
burden effect and effect of gas relative permeability to
absolute permeability (Table-1 -2) and (Figure 2).
The results were compared with the results of routine
core analysis. After correcting the RCA values to that of
SCAL the permeability values dropped significantly by
more than 40%, but were still higher then well test
values. It was seen that if two high perm streaks which
were considered in the core analysis were just very thin
hairline fractures were probably drilling induced. When
the effect of these fractures was removed the results of
the routine core analysis became very similar to those
interpreted by the well test analysis.
Industry Reported Cases
A lot of research is available in the industry on the
effect of net over burden on Petrophysical parameters. It
is also seen that the tight sand wells initially start at
higher rates but these rates decrease rapidly once the
production starts. The reason is the increase in Net
overburden as the gas pressure off setting the
overburden decreases. This should be properly tested
during SCAL analysis.
Stephen A. Holditch in his article in JPT reported
similar results with reduction in permeabilities upto ten
times with just effect of NOB [11].
Ahmed M. Al-Hamadah showed similar results for
Saudi Aramco in his presentation “Impact of Cutoffs on
Tight Gas Reservoir Simualtion” for SPE distinguished
lecturer program.
3
RECOMMENDATIONS
• Great emphasis should be placed on Special Core
Analysis and all data should be requested that includes
Klinkenberg, Net Overburden and effective gas permeability
effects. The effect of increase in Net Overburden as gas is
produced and permeabilities decreased with time should also
be tested using SCAL
• The Log interpretation should be calibrated with
SCAL results rather than RCA results.
• Maximum effort should be made to remove any
invaded fluid during production testing.
• Well tests should be designed with the knowledge
of precautions required for tight sands.
• Numerical simulation models should be built to
simulate well test results to have a better understanding of
formation permeabilities
NOMENCLATURE
POB = Pressure from overlying sediments, psi; typically 1
psi/ft
PRES = Reservoir (pore) pressure, psi; if normally pressured,
~0.45 psi/ft
v = Poisson’s Ratio is a rock mechanics terms (where v =
ΔD:Doriginal/ΔL:Loriginal; D=diameter, L=length). Average
value for cemented rocks is ~0.26. Typical values for poorly
cemented rocks range from 0.3 to 0.4.
REFERENCES
[1] Core Laboratories, Using core data in formation
evaluation, Stress effects on routine properties 9-5.
[2] Fatt, I. and Davis, T. H.: “The Reduction in Permeability
with Overburden Pressure,” Trans., AIME (1952) 195, 329.
[3] McLatchie, L, S., Hemstock, R. A. and Young, J. W.:
“Effective Compressibility of Reservoir Rocks and its effects
on Permeability;’ Trans., AIME (1958) 213, 386-388.
[4] Vairogs, Juris, Hearn, C. L., Dareing, D. W. and Rhoades,
V. W.: “Effect of Rock Stress on Gas Production from Low-
Permeability Reservoirs” J. Pet. Tech. (Sept., 1971) 1161-
1167.
[5] Wilson, J. W.: “Determination of Relative Permeability
under Simulated Reservoir Conditions,” AIChE Jour. (1956)
2,94.
[6] Fatt, I.: “The Effect of Overburden Pressure on Relative
Permeability,” Trans., AIME (1953) 198, 325-326.
[7] MDT, Schlumberger Publication, 1995.
[8] Wireline Formation Testing and Sampling, Schlumberger
Publication, 1996.
[9] Holditch, S. A., Lee, W. J., Lancaster, D. E., and Davis,
T. B.: “Effect of Mud Filtrate Invasion on Apparent
Productivity in Drillstem Tests in Low-Permeability Gas
Formations, “J. Pet. Tech. (Feb. 1983) 299 – 305
[10] S. K. Peterson, Marietta C., and S.A. Holditch.:
“Analysis of Factors Affecting Drillstem Tests in Low-
Permeability Reservoirs”, SPE 14501. (1985)
[11] S.A. Holditch.: “Tight Gas Sands”, JPT (June
2006).
4 SPE 142836

Table-1

K, Percent
K, K, after K, Effective K % reduction
Sample Depth K air reduction
Method Klinkenberg NOB % reduction to Gas from
ID (m) (mD) after
(mD) (mD) after NOB (mD) absolute K
Klinkenberg
27 Centrifuge 3242.17 25 22 12.00%
52 Centrifuge 3249.67 3.2 2.5 21.88%
86 Centrifuge 3263.74 19 17 10.53%
102 Centrifuge 3268.63 1.3 1 23.08%

28 Electrical Analysis 3242.47 3.4 2.6 23.53% 3 11.76%

84 Electrical Analysis 3263.14 78 72 7.69% 78 0.00%
105 Electrical Analysis 3269.53 1 0.8 20.00% 1 0.00%

41 Mercury Injection 3246.35 2.6 2 23.08% 1.56 40.00%

66 Mercury Injection 3253.9 5.8 4.7 18.97% 5.47 5.69%

Table-2
Summary
Reduction due to Klinkenberg
If
K < 1.3 23.08%
1.3 < K < 3.2 21.88%
3.2 < K < 19 10.53%
19 < K 0.00%

Reduction due to NOB

If
K < 3.4 11.76%
K > 3.4 0.00%

Reduction from absolute

If
K < 2.6 40.00%
2.6 < K < 5.8 5.69%
K > 5.8 0.00%
SPE 142836 5

Figure 1: Location of the Sawan Gas Field

Permeability (mD)

10.00
9.00
Gas Permeability corrected

8.00
Significant effect Moderate effect No effect
7.00
6.00

5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00
Absolute Permeability (RCA)

Permeability (mD)
Figure 2: Change in permeabilities with Klinkenberg effect, net over burden effect and effect of gas relative
permeability to absolute permeability
6 SPE 142836
About the Authors
Amir Riaz Ahmed
Amir is a Lead Reservoir Engineer at OMV (Pakistan)
Exploration GmbH since 2006. He graduated in Petroleum
and Natural Gas Engineering from Middle East Technical
University (Ankara, Turkey). He started his oil career in
2001 and previously worked for Landmark Resources and
Roxar Ltd (Dubai). He has worked internationally on
projects from USA, Pakistan, UAE, Qatar and Egypt. His
areas of interest include reservoir modeling & simulation
and integration of engineering & geosciences data. He is
an Active member of SPE and the Petroleum Society.
Attique ur Rehman
Attique is a Geophysicist by profession. He did his M.Sc.
in Geophysics from Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad
in 2000 with distinction and started his professional carrier
with Schlumberger (Pakistan) in 2001 as Support
Engineer. In 2007 he Joined OMV as Senior Geophysicist.
Currently he is working as Lead Geophysicist in OMV.
Major responsibilities include seismic inversion
evaluation, special attributes interpretation, neural network
analysis, prospect evaluation and geocellular modeling.
Mansoor Ahmad
Mansoor Ahmad is working as Acting Chief Reservoir
Engineer with OMV (Pakistan) Exploration & Production.
He joined OMV in September 2008. Prior to joining
OMV, he worked for BP Pakistan E & P (formerly Union
Texas Pakistan) for over 11 years in different capacities,
mostly in reservoir engineering domain.
He also worked for 2 years with BP Exploration UK
(2003-2005), providing technical support to BP Sharjah on
their field re-development project, using multilateral
horizontal wells. Mansoor was involved in developing
simulation models to predict long term performance and
recoveries from these multilaterals. He was also involved
in post well performance and transient analysis of these
wells.
His areas of interest include: operational reservoir
engineering, analytical reservoir evaluations, production
forecasting, reserves evaluation, well test interpretation,
surveillance, reservoir management and 3-D reservoir
simulation.
Mr. Mansoor holds a Bachelors degree in Petroleum
Engineering from University of Engineering and
Technology, Lahore, Pakistan.