SPE 168183

Calculating Pore Size Distribution by Using Capillary Pressure

Kegang Ling, University of North Dakota, Guoqing Han, China University of Petroleum, Zheng Shen,
Weatherford, Ali Ghalambor, Oil Center Research International, Jun He, Peng Pei, University of North Dakota

Copyright 2014, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE International Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control held in Lafayette, Louisiana, USA, 26–28 February 2014.

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 P etroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without t he 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 mus t contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract

Pore size distribution is an important parameter in quantifying reservoir heterogeneity. A thorough understanding of different
pore sizes in the rock provides a solid base for reservoir development plan and makes an accurate estimation of volumetric
sweep efficiency possible. For instance, more certainty in determining pore size distribution can be valuable in accurately
predicting the hydraulic flow units which in-turn affects building more reliable geological and petrophysical models for
reservoirs. Conventional rock porosity estimation from core and well log only provides porosity without pore size
distribution. Therefore methods used to estimate percentages of different pore size are highly desired. Our novel approach is
engineered to address this issue.

Starting from the capillary pressure data obtained in special core analysis, we developed a correlation in which capillary
pressure is expressed as a function of pore size, water saturation, and other petrophysical parameters, which are readily
obtained from well log interpretation. Through this correlation each pore size is corresponding to a unique capillary pressure
and water saturation. Therefore, the calculation of percentage of each pore size can be accomplished.

The pore size distribution from our method is not only vital for two and multiphase flows in reservoirs such as water drive oil
and gas drive reservoirs, but also crucial in estimating the percentage of reservoir volume that can be depleted at the
abandonment reservoir pressure. Thus a reliable estimated ultimate recovery can be achieved without adding much cost and
time since capillary pressure and well log data that are used as inputs for calculation are readily available. Therefore, the
proposed method fills the big gap in reservoir characterization and is a useful tool to supplement other methods in reserve
evaluation.

Introduction

Pores in the rock are the space to store reservoir fluids. The percentage of pore space is an indication of the storability of
rocks. Undoubtedly, pores are not in a uniform size due to the nature of geological processes. The variation in pore size leads
to the heterogeneous permeability and is the main cause of existence of transition zones. It is an important parameter in
quantifying reservoir heterogeneity. A thorough understanding of different pore sizes in the rock provides a solid base for
reservoir development plan and makes an accurate estimation of volumetric sweep efficiency possible. Many studies have
been focused on pore size characterization, and/or utilizing such data for the multipurpose reservoir and petrophysical
studies.

Burdine et al. (1950) investigated equivalent pore entry radii with both theoretical and experimental studies. Klinkenberg
(1957) interpreted miscible displacement curve in terms of pore size distribution. Pickell et al. (1966) applied air-mercury
and oil-mercury capillary pressure data to study pore structure and fluid distribution. Dullien (1969) characterized pore
structure from mercury porosimetry measurement data. Yuan and Swanson (1989) identified pore from pore throat with rate-
controlled porosimetry (intrusion) experiments with Apparatus for Pore Examination (APEX). Tomutsa et al. (1990) used x-
ray computed tomography (CT), thin-section analysis, and rock-slab micromodels to determine the spatial variations of rock
properties and fluid distributions. Ao and Xie (1991) proposed an analytical way to statistically describe pore size distribution
with capillary pressure. Toledo et al. (1994) applied Monte Carlo simulation of APEX mercury injection to find the optimum
2 SPE 168183

size of specimen for examining pore space of given properties. By the same means they investigated additional kinds of
experiments that extend the capabilities of APEX mercury injection, namely withdrawal experiments, withdrawal after partial
reinjection and full scanning loops. Beiranvand (2003) quantitatively characterize of pore systems by mercury- injection
method and image analysis for carbonate reservoir. Han et al. (2006) combined image analysis and mercury porosimetry to
characterize multi-scale pore structure. Dong et al. (2007) used X-ray microtomography (micro-CT) to image rock cuttings of
poorly consolidated sandstone and vuggy carbonate from Saudi Arabian oil and gas fields. A maximal ball algorithm is used
to extract a topologically equivalent pore network to predict macroscopic properties such as relative permeability and
capillary pressure. Martin et al. (2007) extended the standard use of the centrifuge in determining capillary pressure to
determining the pore-throat size distribution. Minagawa et al. (2009) developed a semi-empirical correlation to relate
permeability to porosity based on the Kozeny-Carman equation. Ling (2012) proposed a correlation to calculate the
equivalent capillary tube radius for pore system using rock permeability and formation resistivity factor. In a recent study,
Izadi and Ghalambor (2013) developed a new approach to determine Permeability and Hydraulic Flow Units (HFU) by
utilizing pore volume and pore size values to determine a better distribution of reservoir properties such as
permeability/porosity relationships.

Although numerous studies have tried to determine pore size distribution, to the best of our knowledge, none of them
considers the irreducible wetting phase saturation left in the capillary tube after nonwetting phase displaces wetting phase.
The ignoring of this portion of wetting phase can lead to significant error. Our study attempts to remove this error.

Derivation of the Theoretical Model

The concept of capillary tube to represent the connected pores contributing to flow through porous media was first proposed
by Kozeny (1927) and later modified by Carmen (1937). It is based on fundamental flow principles by considering the porous
media as a bundle of capillary tubes with the spaces between filled with a non-porous cementing material. Figure 1 is a
schematic representation of the capillary tube model consisting of tubes with different radii.

Figure 1. A schematic representation of the capillary tube model with different sizes of tubes.

The capillary pressure can be derived assuming nonwetting phase displaces wetting phase through these capillary tubes with
different radii as shown in Figure 1. In this study, drainage curve from the capillary pressure test is used to estimate pore size
distribution. For simplicity we study one portion of rock that can represent the reservoir. The rock is considered as an
assembly of a certain number of capillary tubes. When nonwetting phase displaces wetting phase, which originally occupies
the tubes, the entry pressure can be obtained by force balance analysis. Figure 2 shows the schematic of fluid displacement in
a circular tube with radius R and length L. Force balance in the horizontal direction gives
Fd cos  pnwt A  pwt A ........................................................................................................................................ (1)
where
A = cross-sectional area of tube, which is equal to R2
R = radius of tube
pnwt = nonwetting phase pressure, or displacing fluid pressure in this case
SPE 168183 3

pwt = wetting phase pressure, or displaced fluid pressure in this case

Fd = the drag force on the wall of tube due to the interfacial tension between nonwetting and wetting phases
L = length of the tube, is equivalent to length of core in capillary pressure test
 = contact angle
where
Fd  2 R nwt wt .. ................................................................................................................................................. (2)
where
σnwt-wt = interfacial tension between nonwetting and wetting phases

Fd



r pwt R

pnwt

Fd
L

Figure 2. Force balance when nonwetting phase enters a capillary tube to displace wetting phase

Substituting Equation (2) and A   R2 into Equation (1) yields

2 nwt wt cos   R  pnwt  pwt  .. ........................................................................................................................... (3)
Introducing the concept of capillary pressure, Pc  pnwt  pwt , Equation (3) can be expressed as
2 nwt wt cos   RPc
or
2 nwt  wt cos 
R .. ................................................................................................................................................... (4)
Pc
where
Pc = capillary pressure

Equation (4) gives the pore size in which nonwetting phase displacing wetting phase occurs in drainage process. At the
beginning of drainage process, nonwetting phase displaces wetting phase in the largest tube because of the smallest resistance
existing in the tube requires lowest displacing pressure, or Pc in this case. This occurs when the pressure difference is higher
enough to overcome the capillary pressure. As the displacing pressure increases, wetting phase in smaller tubes will be
displaced. It should be noted that not all wetting phase in the tube will be displaced because of the adherent force between
rock and wetting phase. Figure 3 shows the wetting and nonwetting phase distributions in the tube during the displacement.
4 SPE 168183

Fd



r R
Rnwt

p1 p2

Fd
L

Figure 3. Schematic of nonwetting phase displacing wetting phase in a capillary tube

After the nonwetting phase breakthrough, further increasing the pressure difference will reduce the wetting phase saturation
by drag force at the interface between nonwetting phase and wetting phase. The wetting phase can be considered as stationary
before it is mobilized by nonwetting phase. The drag forces resulting from the nonwetting phase flow needs to overcome the
adherent force due the interfacial tension. The drag force can be calculated by shear stress acting on the nonwetting phase-
wetting phase interface (Taitel et al., 1994).
nwt  unwt  uwt 
2

 interface  fi .. .............................................................................................................................. (5)

2
With uwt = 0, Equation (5) collapses to
nwt unwt
2
 interface  fi .. ............................................................................................................................................. (6)
2
where
fi = friction factor
nwt = nonwetting phase density
unwt = nonwetting phase velocity at interface
uwt = wetting phase velocity
 interface = shear stress of nonwetting phase acting on nonwetting phase- wetting phase interface

Taitel et al. (1994) used fi = 0.014 for the interfacial gas-oil shear stress and interfacial oil-water shear stress. Now we analyze
the velocity distribution of nonwetting phase in the tube. Force balance on a controlled fluid volume (Figure 4) with a width
of w and a thickness of y is analyzed. The force equilibrium in horizontal direction is given

F1  F3  F2  F4 ........................................................................................................................................................ (7)

where
F1  p1wy .. .......................................................................................................................................................... (8)
 dp f 
F2  p2 wy   p1  L  wy .. ..................................................................................................................... (9)
 dL 
F3   y wL .. ....................................................................................................................................................... (10)
SPE 168183 5

 d 
F4   y y wL   y  y  wL .. .................................................................................................................... (11)
 dy 
where
p1 = upstream pressure
p2 = downstream pressure
L = length of controlled fluid volume
y = shear stress at y
 y y = shear stress at y+y
dp f
= frictional pressure gradient in tube
dL
d = shear stress gradient in y direction
dy
w = width of the controlled fluid volume
y = thickness of the controlled fluid volume.

y L
F4
y=Rnwt w
wt-nwt =nwt-wt y
Nonwetting F2
phase y=0 unwt
F1 p1 p2
Rnwt F3
R

Wetting phase
Tube wall

Figure 4. Velocity distribution of nonwetting phase when displacing wetting phase in a capillary tube

Substituting Equations (8) through (11) into Equation (7) we have

 dp f   d 
p1 wy   y wL   p1  L wy   y  y wL ......................................................................................... (12)
 dL   dy 

Expanding and canceling out the same terms on both sides, we obtain

d dp
ywL  f Lwy .. .................................................................................................................................. (13)
dy dL

Dividing Equation (13) by ywL yields

d dp f .. .............................................................................................................................................................. (14)

dy dL

Because dpf/dL is not a function of y, Equation (14) can be integrated with respect to y. Separating variables and integrating
Equation (14) gives

dp f
y   i .. ....................................................................................................................................................... (15)
dL
6 SPE 168183

where i is the shear stress at the boundary condition at interface at y = Rnwt and y = -Rnwt, which is  interface .
i = the first constant of integration that corresponds to the shear stress at interface at y = Rnwt and y = -Rnwt.

The drag force at the interface of nonwetting phase-wetting phase interface is given by
nwt unwt
2

 interface  2 Rnwt L   fi ,interface

 2 Rnwt L   2 Rnwt nwt wt cos .. ............................................................. (16)
2
where
Rnwt = nonwetting phase radius
unwt = nonwetting phase velocity

The definition of shear rate,  , is given as

du . ................................................................................................................................................................ (17)
 
dy

Introducing the definition of viscosity and combining Equations (15) and (17) for Newtonian fluid give

du dp f
  nwt    nwt y   i .. .............................................................................................................................. (18)
dy dL

where
nwt = nonwetting phase viscosity
u = velocity
 = shear rate

Again, separating variable, the integrating yields

y 2 dp f  i y
u   ui .. .................................................................................................................................. (19)
2nwt dL nwt

where ui is the velocity at the boundary condition at interface at y = Rnwt and y = -Rnwt, which is unwt ,interface .
ui = the second constant of integration that corresponds to the fluid velocity at interface at y = Rnwt and y = -Rnwt.

Applying the boundary condition at y = Rnwt and y = -Rnwt,

 nwt  wt cos 
 i   interface  .. ................................................................................................................................. (20)
L
and
2 nwt  wt cos  .. .............................................................................................................................. (21)
ui  unwt ,interface 
fi nwt L
we have
y 2 dp f  nwt  wt cos  y 2 nwt  wt cos  .. .............................................................................................. (22)
u  
2nwt dL nwt L fi nwt L

The flow rate q is given by

Rnwt Rnwt
 y 2 dp f  nwt  wt cos  y 2 nwt  wt cos  
q  udA        2 ydy ............................................................... (23)
0 0  2nwt dL nwt L fi nwt L 
Integrating this equation yields
 Rnwt
2
dp f 2 Rnwt nwt  wt cos  2 nwt  wt cos  
q   Rnwt
2
     .. ........................................................................... (24)
 4nwt dL 3nwt L fi nwt L 
SPE 168183 7

Expressing the flow rate in terms of the mean flow velocity we obtain
2
Rnwt dp f 2 Rnwt nwt  wt cos  2 nwt  wt cos  .. ......................................................................................... (25)
u   
4nwt dL 3nwt L fi nwt L
where
u = average velocity
dp f
For the capillary pressure measurement, can be approximated by the pressure drop over the core length, which is
dL
dp f p1  p2 p ............................................................................................................................................... (26)
 
dL L L
where
p = pressure drop across core
Substituting Equation (26) into Equation (25) gives
8Rnwt nwt  wt cos  4nwt L  2 nwt wt cos  
2
Rnwt     u   0 .. ................................................................................ (27)
3p p  fi nwt L 
Solving Equation (27) for Rnwt we have

 wt  cos    L  2 nwt  wt cos 

4 nwt 
2
4 cos 
2

Rnwt   nwt  wt 2  nwt   u  .. ............................................................... (28)

3p 9p 2
p  fi nwt L 


Equation (28) is the governing equation to calculate the portion of pore occupied by nonwetting phase during the drainage
displacement. Combination of Equations (4) and (28) provides a way to estimate the pore size distribution if the flow rates
of nonwetting and wetting phases, pressure drop, contact angle, interfacial tension, and nonwetting phase viscosity are
available when conducting drainage on core sample. It is notes that the minimum (the meaningful minimum pore size is the
one that nonwetting phase can enter the pore at fracturing pressure) and maximum pore sizes in drainage process can be
calculated from capillary pressure at fracturing pressure and entry pressure, which are
2 nwt wt cos 
Rmin  ................................................................................................................................................ (29)
p fra
and
2 nwt wt cos 
Rmax  .. .............................................................................................................................................. (30)
pentry
where
pentry = entry pressure in drainage displacement
pfra = capillary pressure at rock fracturing pressure
Rmin = minimum pore radius
Rmax = maximum pore radius

For practical purposes, we divide pore sizes between meaningful minimum (nonwetting phase can enter the pores) and
maximum sizes into n intervals. The average pore size of each interval is used to represent that interval. According to the
capillary pressure curve obtained from drainage displacement as shown in Figure 5, the pore size with radius of Rj can be
calculated from corresponding capillary pressure, Pj, using Equation (4). At this stage, we have related capillary pressure to
pore size (Figure 6).
8 SPE 168183

pfra
Pc

Drainage capillary pressure

pentry
Swtirr
0 0.2
w 0.4 Swt 0.6 0.8 1.0

Figure 5. Capillary pressure curves – drainage process

pfra
Pc

pentry
0 Rmin Rmax
Rj

Figure 6. Capillary tube radii corresponding to different capillary pressures

Now we assume the number of tube (or pore) with radius of Rj is mj; the number of tube with maximum radius is mR max ,
which is corresponding to entry pressure, or minimum capillary pressure; and the number of tube with minimum radius is
mR min , which is corresponding to fracturing pressure. Wetting phase saturation is calculated by
Rj Rj

m R j
2
nwt , j L m R j
2
nwt , j

S wt , j  1   1
Rmax Rmax
.. .................................................................................................... (31)
 Rcore
2
L  Rcore
2

where
mj = number of the tubes with radius of Rj, which is corresponding to capillary pressure Pj
Rnwt,j = radius of nonwetting in the tubes with radius of Rj when nonwetting phase displaces wetting phase
Rcore = radius of core sample
Rj = radius of tube j, or pore size j, which is corresponding to capillary pressure Pj
Swt,j = wetting phase saturation at capillary pressure Pj, or pore size j,
 = porosity

Equation (31) is used to calculate mj, the number of the tube with radius of Rj. Wetting phase saturation at capillary pressure
Pj, can be read from the capillary pressure curve. The radius of the pore can be calculated from capillary pressure using
Equation (4). The nonwetting phase radius and the number of the tube with radius of Rj can be calculated by solving
Equations (28) and (31) simultaneously, where ∆p is the capillary pressure read from the drainage curve. It should be noted
SPE 168183 9

q
that the average velocity in Equation (28) is a function of number of the tube with radius of Rj, or u Rj
.

m R
Rmax
j
2
nwt , j

Calculation Procedure

Following procedure should be used to calculate pore size, numbers of different pore sizes:

1) Calculate the maximum and minimum pore sizes using minimum and maximum pressure from capillary pressure
curve with Equation (4),
2) Divide pore size between minimum and maximum sizes into n intervals,
3) Use average pore size of each interval to represent that interval.
4) Calculate corresponding capillary pressure for each pore size
5) Calculate mR max , the number of the largest tube, or pore, and the nonwetting phase radius by solving Equations
(28) and (31) simultaneously,
6) Calculate msecond largest, the number of the second largest tube, and the nonwetting phase radius by solving Equations
(28) and (31) simultaneously,
7) Calculate mj, the number of the pore size j, and the nonwetting phase radius by solving Equations (28) and (31)
simultaneously,
8) Continue the calculation until the number of the minimum tube, or pore, is calculated,
9) With the numbers of all pore sizes are calculated, the pore size distribution can be calculated.

The frequency of pore size j can be calculated by

mj
f pore, j  n
100% .. ...................................................................................................................................... (32)
m
1
j

where
fpore,j = frequency of pore size j.

Case Study

A case study was conducted to illustrate the calculation of pore size and pore-size distribution from capillary pressure
experiment. The rock and fluid properties are shown in Table 1. Figure 7 is the capillary pressures measured at different
wetting phase saturations in drainage process.

Table 1. Rock and fluid properties in capillary pressure experiment

Contact angle 35 degree
Interfacial tension 50 dynes/cm
Nonwetting phase viscosity 2 cp
Friction factor at interface between nonwetting and wetting phase 0.15 dimensionless
Nonwetting phase density 50 lbm/ft3
Core length 2 in.
Core diameter 1 in.
Core porosity 0.25 dimensionless
10 SPE 168183

Figure 7. Drainage capillary pressure curve used in case study

Figure 8 shows the minimum radius of pore that nonwetting phase can enter at corresponding capillary pressure. Nonwetting
phase is able to flow into pore sizes that are larger than this value; pore sizes smaller than this value are still completely
occupied by wetting phase.

Figure 8. Radius of pore that nonwetting phase can enter at corresponding capillary pressure in Figure 7

Figure 9 shows the pore size distribution calculated from Figure 7. It should be noted that total pore-size number used here
is the sum of all pores between the minimum pore size calculated from maximum capillary pressure and maximum pore size
calculated from minimum capillary pressure in Figure 8.
SPE 168183 11

Figure 9. Pore size distribution calculated from capillary pressure data in Figure 7

Figure 10 depicts the relation between cumulative nonwetting phase saturation and pore size during drainage process.

Figure 10. Cumulative nonwetting phase saturation vs. pore size in drainage process

Conclusions

The following conclusions are drawn based on the foregoing study:

1. The developed model is capable to calculate the pore size using the drainage curve in capillary pressure
experiments.

2. The nonwetting phase diameter in the capillary tube can be calculated, provided the availability of other parameters
such as the flow rates of nonwetting and wetting phases, pressure drop, contact angle, interfacial tension, and
nonwetting phase viscosity.

3. Pore size distribution can be estimated from capillary pressure experiment.

12 SPE 168183

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to The Petroleum Engineering Department in University of North Dakota. This research is
supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) under award number DE-FC26-08NT0005643 and North Dakota
EPSCoR Program under award number EPS-0814442.

Nomenclature

A = cross-sectional area of tube, which is equal to R2

Fd = the drag force on the wall of tube due to the interfacial tension between nonwetting and wetting phases
fi = friction factor at interface
fpore,j = frequency of pore size j
L = length of the tube, is equivalent to length of core in capillary pressure test
mj = number of the tubes with radius of Rj, which is corresponding to capillary pressure Pj
Pc = capillary pressure
p1 = upstream pressure
p2 = downstream pressure
pnwt = nonwetting phase pressure, or displacing fluid pressure in this case
pwt = wetting phase pressure, or displaced fluid pressure in this case
pentry = entry pressure in drainage displacement
pfra = capillary pressure at rock fracturing pressure
R = radius of tube
Rmin = minimum pore radius
Rmax = maximum pore radius
Rnwt = nonwetting phase radius
Rnwt,j = radius of nonwetting in the tubes with radius of Rj when nonwetting phase displaces wetting phase
Rcore = radius of core sample
Rj = radius of tube j, or pore size j, which is corresponding to capillary pressure Pj
Swt,j = wetting phase saturation at capillary pressure Pj, or pore size j,
u = velocity
ui = the second constant of integration that corresponds to the fluid velocity at interface at y = Rnwt and y = -
Rnwt, which is unwt ,interface
unwt,interface = nonwetting phase velocity at interface
unwt = nonwetting phase velocity
uwt = wetting phase velocity
u = average velocity
 = contact angle
σnwt-wt = interfacial tension between nonwetting and wetting phases
nwt = nonwetting phase density
 = shear stress
i = the first constant of integration that corresponds to the shear stress at interface at y = Rnwt and y = -Rnwt,
which is interface
interface = shear stress of nonwetting phase acting on nonwetting phase- wetting phase interface
y = shear stress at y
 y y = shear stress at y+y
 = porosity
nwt = nonwetting phase viscosity
 = shear rate
L = length of controlled fluid volume
w = width of the controlled fluid volume
y = thickness of the controlled fluid volume.
p = pressure drop across core
dp f
= frictional pressure gradient in tube
dL
d = shear stress gradient in y direction
dy
SPE 168183 13

References

Ao, S.C. and Xie, X. 1991. A Formulation for the Capillary Pressure Relationship and a Statistical Description of Pore Size
Distribution, SPE 21890

Beiranvand, B. 2003. Quantitative Characterization of Carbonate Pore Systems by Mercury- Injection Method and Image
Analysis in a Homogeneous Reservoir, SPE 81479, Middle East Oil Show, 9-12 June 2003, Bahrain

Burdine, N.T., Gournay, L.S., and Reichertz, P.P. 1950. Pore Size Distribution of Petroleum Reservoir Rocks, Journal of
Petroleum Technology, Vol. 2, No. 7, p.195-204

Carman, P.C. 1937. Fluid flow through granular beds: Transactions IChemE, Vol. 15, p. S32-S44.

Dong, H., Mustafa Touati, M., and Blunt, M.J. 2007. Pore Network Modeling: Analysis of Pore Size Distribution of Arabian
Core Samples, SPE 105156, SPE Middle East Oil and Gas Show and Conference, 11-14 March 2007, Kingdom of Bahrain

Dullien, F.A.L. 1969. Determination of Pore Accessibilities - An Approach, Journal of Petroleum Technology, Vol. 21, No.
1, p. 14-15

Han, H., Ioannidis, M., Dusseault, M.B., and Xu, B. 2006. Multiscale Pore Structure Characterization By Combining Image
Analysis And Mercury Porosimetry, SPE 100353, SPE Europec/EAGE Annual Conference and Exhibition, 12-15 June 2006,
Vienna, Austria

Izadi, M., and Ghalambor, A., 2013, A New Approach in permeability and Hydraulic-Flow-Unit Determination, SPE
Reservoir Engineering & Evaluation Journal August 2013, pp 257-264 .

Klinkenberg, L.J. 1957. Pore Size Distribution of Porous Media and Displacement Experiments with Miscible Liquids,
Journal of Petroleum Technology, Vol. 9, No. 4, p. 63-66

Kozeny, J. 1927. Ueber kapillare leitung des wassers im boden: Sitzungsberichte der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien,
v. 136, p. 271-306.

Ling, K. 2012. Correlation between Rock Permeability and Formation Resistivity Factor-A Rigorous and Theoretical
Derivation, SPE 152724, SPE Middle East Unconventional Gas Conference and Exhibition, 23-25 January 2012, Abu Dhabi,
UAE

Martin, C.A., Ramia, M.E., and Barberis, L. 2007. The Centrifuge as a Tool To Determine the Pore-Throat Size Distribution
in Plugs, SPE 107781, Latin American & Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, 15-18 April 2007, Buenos Aires,
Argentina

Minagawa, H., Sakamoto, Y., Komai, T., Narita, H., Mizutani, K., Ohga, K., Takahara, N., and Yamaguchi, T. 2009.
Proceedings of the Nineteenth (2009) International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Osaka, Japan, June 21-26,
2009

Pickell, J.J., Swanson, B.F., and Hickman, W.B. 1966. Application of Air-Mercury and Oil-Air Capillary Pressure Data In
the Study of Pore Structure and Fluid Distribution, SPE Journal, Vol. 6, No. 1, p. 55-61

Taitel, Y., Barnea, D., and Brill, J. P. 1994. Stratified Three Phase Flow in Pipes, Int. J. Multiphase Flow, Vol. 21, No. 1, p.
53-60.

Toledo, P. G., Scriven, L.E., and Davis, H. T. 1994. Pore-Space Statistics and Capillary Pressure Curves From Volume-
Controlled Porosimetry, SPE Formation Evaluation, Vol. 9, No. 1, p. 46-54

Tomutsa, L., Mahmood, S.M., Brinkmeyer, A., Honarpour, M. 1990. Application of Integrated Pore-to-Core Image Analysis
To Study Fluid Distribution in Reservoir Rocks, SPE 20478, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 23-26
September 1990, New Orleans, Louisiana

Yuan, H.H. and Swanson, B.F. 1989. Resolving Pore-Space Characteristics by Rate-Controlled Porosimetry, SPE Formation
Evaluation, Vol. 4, No. 1, p. 17-24