SPE 165880

Saturation Height Function in a Field Under Imbibition: A Case Study

K. Seth, V. Beales, A. Kawasaki, T. Namba : Inpex Operations Australia Pty Ltd

Copyright 2013, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition held in Jakarta, Indonesia, 22–24 October 2013.

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
This paper presents a case study on the reconciliation of the water saturation computed using electrical logs and a saturation
height function when the field is under imbibition. It is noted that wireline log evaluations suggest that the reservoir system
cannot be adequately described using primary drainage capillary pressure in the field, and structure restoration study supports
that the reservoir is under the imbibition process.
Gas in place (GIIP) has the largest impact on the development planning of this offshore gas field. GIIP is computed using the
gas saturation, area and thickness of the reservoir making gas saturation a critical evaluation parameter. To compute the gas
saturation accurately, typically, two sources of data, wireline logs and core measurements are integrated and reconciled.
Wireline log based saturation is computed by using density, neutron porosity, resistivity as well as dedicated electrical core
measurements, Archie’s exponents m and n. In addition, core based saturation is computed using saturation height functions
established from capillary pressure measurements acquired using various techniques: Mercury Injection, Centrifuge and
Porous Plate experiments. For imbibition conditions, special spontaneous and forced imbibition measurements were acquired
on the core samples. These data sets represent two independent evaluations of the gas saturations.
In this paper, an imbibition function is computed from drainage capillary pressure data from core measurements and
reconciled with wireline log estimates in a systematic workflow. This workflow has been applied to the Ichthys field, Browse
Basin, on the NW shelf of Australia for generating the pre-development drilling base case model.
Overall, a good match is obtained between the saturation computed by the imbibition function and the wireline log
interpretations, however mismatch is observed across some zones. Methods are proposed to clarify the origin of the mismatch
and validate the resultant saturation whilst also serving as a guide for establishing a robust workflow to achieve these results.

Introduction
The Ichthys field is located approximately 200 km offshore on the NW shelf of Australia in water depths of 260-280 m1. The
reservoir is a thick sequence of clean, high NTG sands, which are interpreted to have been deposited by poorly confined, sand
rich, mid-slope grain flows or high density turbidity currents in a deep water ramp setting. Two thick sandstones are
separated by a field wide mudstone interval of varying thickness. This mudstone is named as the Mudstone Break with the
sands below and above named the Lower Sandstone and Upper Sandstone respectively. Associated with the sandstones are
thin, interbedded mudstones deposited by the waning energy portion of the turbidity currents and subsequent hemipelagic
sedimentation. These and the paucity of ichnological features – particularly those indicative of shallow water are considered
evidence of deeper water depositional environment. The Brewster Member represents an extensive submarine lobe complex
which prograded from the east and southeast across the field area. The sequence thins and pinches out to the west and
northwest. The sediment is interpreted to be supplied by slumping and reworking from the more proximal shallow marine
Yampi Shelf. The Brewster trap is a broad drape feature, 41km by 18km, with a structural crest at a depth of about 3900m. It
is mainly dip closed except to the north where there is a minor fault component. The trap contains a wet gas column of about
200m, and is interpreted to be full to spill.
The reservoir quality of these high net to gross (NTG) sandstones, ~95%+/-, is variable due to a complex diagenetic over-
print, quartz overgrowths being a particular feature which significantly alters the primary porosity and permeability both
laterally but more importantly vertically as regards to the saturation profile. Furthermore, due to the high NTG and associated
low clay volumes bound water volumes are small. Similarly the difference between total porosity and effective porosity is
interpreted to be very little. Irreducible water volumes (Swirr) are consistent with analogous reservoirs (which may be
classified as the clean low permeability reservoirs) and are quite low compared to standard shaly-sand reservoirs due to the
2 SPE 165880

lower clay bound water volume. Figure 1-1 is taken from SPE 603042 which shows that even at permeabilities of 0.001 mD,
water saturation of the order of 50-60% are expected in Medina and Mesaverde-Frontier tight gas sands.

Figure 1-1 Behavior of water saturation in a clean tight gas reservoir (taken from SPE-60304).

Log Based Water Saturation

Nine wells were drilled into this formation within the field. As a minimum, triple combo wireline logs were acquired in the
wells, with gamma spectroscopy in many wells along with NMR in one well. Extensive conventional core was cut with 759
m recovered and over 2100 routine core analysis plugs analyzed. Given this extensive data set, it is believed that the core is
representative of the formation.
A multi-mineral10, simultaneous solver approach was adopted to evaluate the reservoir. Response equations are defined
which predict each measurement in the logging suite as a function of all the volumes of minerals and fluids influencing that
sensor from a defined mineral reference composition. The mineral composition volumes were adjusted to give the optimum
match of the measured and predicted readings across the suite of measurements being modeled. In this approach volumes of
minerals and fluids are derived simultaneously as opposed to sequentially in deterministic evaluations. Mainly linear
equations were used except for the resistivity where the Dual Water7 non-linear equation was employed. In case of poor hole
conditions, the density/neutron logs were dropped from the solver, hence the main driver for porosity was the sonic log 9 .
The following static parameters also affect the evaluation of saturation.
Connate Water Salinity: A ramp profile was finally used in the evaluation with values ranging from 13,000 ppm, at the top, to
8,000 ppm NaCl equivalent, at the base of the reservoir respectively. This was based on a fluid inclusion salinity study, the
results of which validated with those measured from Dean Stark extraction of water from gas bearing zones as well as water
isotope analysis.
Archie cementation exponent "m": A simple regression based method of estimating “m” from permeability was established.
The regression was for the Upper and Lower Sandstone separately based on core data as illustrated in Figure 1-2. Continuous
permeability estimates have been generated using a clustering technique independent of the porosity and fluid saturations.
SPE 165880 3

“m” v/s Permeability

Figure 1-2 Regression between permeability and “m” for the Upper and Lower sandstones

Archie cementation exponent “n”: No trend of “n” with core porosity or permeability was evident. This is a Gas-Water
system, there is little expectation of wettability alteration and corresponding change in "n" through the reservoir, hence an
average value of “n” based on the core measurements was assigned for the Upper and Lower Sandstone respectively.

Log Based Evaluation Results

As expected, high gas saturations are generally observed high above the Free Water Level (FWL). However there are a
number of observations of interest:
A clear gas bearing zone was present immediately below the FWL in some of the wells, but not all the wells. The FWL was
established by extensive pressure tests recorded in all the wells in the field. In clean zones, which lay on a single water
gradient (seen on the formation pressure plot), significant gas saturations are interpreted. This is illustrated in Figure 1-3
where the input logs and interpreted results of two nearby wells are presented. The thick blue line is the FWL, as defined by
the formation pressure gradients intercept.
Well A

Well B

Figure 1-3 Input wireline logs and interpreted results on two nearby wells. The thick blue line is the Free Water Level (FWL) as
4 SPE 165880

interpreted from formation pressure data.

No clear water zone/transition zone is visible in Well A (drilled with Water based muds). Conversely a clear water bearing
zone and transition is visible in Well B (drilled with Oil based muds). In both the wells, the core porosity and permeability
match well with the log interpreted porosity and permeability validating the interpretation, further Dean Stark measurements
were acquired in Well B (plotted as red dots on the Saturation track) which match well with the log interpreted saturations.
However, the FWL interpreted from the formations pressures is 25m TVD higher than where calculated gas saturations
approach zero.
A conventional drill stem test was run below the FWL in Well A, which did not flow any fluids or gas, whereas the second
test in the same well above the free water level produced gas.
Imbibition Concept
As already outlined, the phenomenon of high gas saturations below the FWL occurs in a few of the wells in the field. This
discrepancy cannot be explained by a drainage process. One of the possible explanations for this is the fact that the field was
filled to a deeper spill point and there has been a breach or some structural movement post primary migration. Either
mechanism could put areas of the reservoir in imbibition as gas re-migrated to re-establish equilibrium.
The North West Shelf of Australia has been tectonically active; with the Australia Plate colliding with the Eurasian Plate
along the edge of Timor and Indonesia. This is a well-documented process, active since the Cretaceous, resulting in
downward tilting to the NW4. This process has been prior thought responsible to explain residual hydrocarbon columns in
reservoirs3. A structure restoration study was performed to investigate this concept and concluded this was a possible
mechanism. From this and other studies, a Paleo-Free Water Level (PFWL) was established, deeper than the present FWL
across the field with a dip consistent with above described processes

Core Based Drainage Modeling

In order to model drainage in the reservoir extensive centrifuge and mercury injection experiments were conducted on core
plugs. In total there are 84 capillary pressure experiments available. Of the 84 measurements, 48 have been acquired using
the centrifuge with Air-Brine fluids, whereas the remainder have been acquired using the Mercury-Air fluids. Three forced
imbibition measurements using the centrifuge were acquired using Decane-Brine fluids. All measurements were conducted at
ambient conditions.
The lab data requires corrections for various effects to be compatible and comparable with the reservoir and these corrections
can be classified by measurement type.

Mercury Injection Capillary Pressure Data (MICP): In general the MICP data requires three corrections to be done in an
additive manner on the lab measurement. First are the closure corrections, usually done by the service provider, which
correct for the false increase in mercury saturation while it conforms to the surface of the sample. Incorrectly corrected data
can be identified by an abrupt change in slope of the capillary pressure curve.

The high surface tension of mercury causes it to destroy fine clay structures as it invades pore spaces in the core sample.
These clay structures often control the pore throat diameters and hence their destruction can significantly impact
permeability. The destruction of these fine clay structures would be result in lower irreducible water saturation in the core
measurement as compared to the reservoir. All these affects are compensated by applying the Clay Bound water correction
based on the work of Hill et. al.5(1979) after applying the closure corrections.

Finally, the stress corrections need to be applied in order to convert the measurement from lab conditions to the reservoir
conditions. This is also based on the work of Hill et. al.5(1979).

The impact of these additive corrections is illustrated in Figure 1-4 where the blue curve is the lab measurement, the pink
curve is closure corrected, the green curve is closure and clay bound corrected and the purple curve is stress (at net
overburden pressure NOBP), clay bound and closure corrected data. Note that every correction increases the water saturation
with respect to capillary pressure.
SPE 165880 5

2500.000

2000.000
Uncorrected Sw and Pc (0.048 mD @NOBP)
Closure corrected Sw and Pc (0.048 mD @NOBP)
Closure & Clay-bound water corrected (0.048 mD @NOBP)
Stress, Closure & Clay-bound water corrected (0.048 mD @NOBP)

1500.000
Pc

1000.000

500.000

0.000
0.000 0.200 0.400 Swt 0.600 0.800 1.000

Figure 1-4 Plot illustrating the impact of closure, clay-bound water and stress corrections on the MICP measurements

After applying corrections, this data needs to be converted into Height above Free Water Level (HaFWL) to facilitate
comparison with the reservoir or any other capillary pressure measurements, which is done via Equation 1. At this stage lab
interfacial tension measurements are required.

σ cos θ res
h=( ) /( ∆wat − ∆gas ) ---- Equation 1
σ cos θ la b
Where:
h is the Height above Free Water level
(σcosӨ)res is the surface tension multiplied by the appropriate contact angle for the reservoir conditions.
(σcosӨ)lab is the surface tension multiplied by the appropriate contact angle for the lab conditions.
Δwat is the water gradient (psi/m)
Δgas is the gas gradient (psi/m)

Centrifuge Capillary Pressure Data: The centrifuge data require only stress corrections to be comparable to the reservoir
conditions. These corrections are the same as the ones applied to the MICP data and are based on the work of Hill et.
al.5(1979). The impact of this correction is illustrated in Figure 1-5 where the blue curve is the lab measurement and the pink
curve is stress corrected.

Subsequently, the data needs to be converted into height above free water level which is done, as above, via Equation 1 using
the appropriate parameters.
6 SPE 165880

900

800

Uncorrected Swt and Pc (274 mD KINF@NOBP)

700 Stress corrected Swt and Pc (274 mD KINF@NOBP)

600

500
Pc

400

300

200

100

0
0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900 1.000
Swt

Figure 1-5 Impact of stress correction on the centrifuge data

Comparing MICP and Centrifuge Data: Twelve co-located measurements of Centrifuge and MICP data were available in
the data set. After applying the relevant corrections outlined above, both the data sets have common measurement
denominators, HaFWL and Swt at reservoir conditions; and hence are comparable. A plot of a reduced set of four of the
twelve measurements is presented in Figure 1-6 in order to enhance clarity of the comparison. From the plot it is observed
that the two measurements form different clusters rather than a single group and the MICP measurements have lower
irreducible water saturation as well as a different shape, when compared to the centrifuge measurements. It was concluded
that the MICP analysis was not as reliable as the centrifuge analysis for the following reasons:
• Clay bound water correction was based on Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) measured on pulverized core plug trim
ends. Pulverizing the core often over-emphasizes the clay impact.
• MICP was conducted on core chips which are physically small and may not be as representative as a 1 ½” core plug
used in the centrifuge experiment.
• And finally, in MICP, the wetting phase saturation trends to zero at high pressures.

500

450
Air-Brine1.58
Hg-Air1.58
400 Air-Brine4.83
Hg-Air4.83
350 Air-Brine8.75
Hg-Air8.75
Air-Brine225
300
Hg-Air225
HaFWL

250

200

150

100

50

0
0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 Swt 0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900 1.000

Figure 1-6 Comparison of MICP and Centrifuge data. Measurement type and permeability is reflected in the curve name
SPE 165880 7

Quality Control: This essential process was carried out with the aid of two sets of plots. Two sets of plots are required
because both permeability and HaFWL impact the water saturation independently. In the first set of plots the permeability is
fixed by grouping the data in classes, and in the second set of plots the HaFWL is fixed. This way, consistent behavior of the
input data can be checked with each variable separately.

In the first set of plots, the measurements were grouped into various permeability classes and plotted together to identify any
obvious outliers. These plots are presented in Figure 1-7. If the data is “well behaved” and self-consistent, the curves should
not cross each other (within measurement error) and the water saturation should be inversely proportional to the permeability
across all the permeability classes. Two measurements, marked a & b, appear to be out of trend with respect to permeability
from the plots in Figure 1-7.
500.00 500.00 500.00

0.01 md>Perm 0.1 md>Perm>0.01 md 1 md>Perm>0.1 md

450.00 450.00 450.00

400.00 0.1 400.00

400.00
0.075

0.00797 0.074 0.918

350.00 350.00 350.00
0.00583 0.065 0.767
0.00397 0.0558 a 0.429
300.00 0.055 300.00 0.339
300.00 0.00385
0.0479 0.33
0.00336

HaFWL
HaFWL
HaFWL

0.0369 0.321
0.00265 250.00 250.00
250.00 0.0356
0.00161 0.117
0.034 0.321 (ID)
0.001
200.00 0.027 200.00
200.00
0.0218

150.00 150.00
150.00

100.00 100.00
100.00

50.00 50.00
50.00

0.00 0.00
0.00 0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900 1.000 0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900 1.000
0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900 1.000
Sw Sw (Uncorrected)
Sw
500.00 500.00 500.00

10 md>Perm>1 md 100 md>Perm>10 md Perm>100 md

450.00 450.00 450.00
b

400.00 400.00 400.00

9.83
8.75
350.00 8.26 350.00 350.00
8.07 274
97.7
300.00 5.46 300.00 300.00 249
93.2
4.83 234
32.9
HaFWL

HaFWL

HaFWL
3.99 225
250.00 250.00 12.1 250.00
3.28 155
2.62
200.00 1.66 200.00 200.00
1.58

150.00 150.00 150.00

100.00 100.00 100.00

50.00 50.00 50.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900 1.000 0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900 1.000 0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900 1.000
Sw Sw Sw

Figure 1-7 Plots of the corrected centrifuge drainage measurements grouped by permeability classes

In the second set of plots, permeability verses saturation at constant HaFWL were plotted. These plots are presented in Figure
1-8 at multiple HaFWL. If the data is “well behaved” and self-consistent, then the saturation and permeability should be
proportional and behave in a monotonic way. From this set of plots it is easy to establish that point a has questionable
quality; however point b is masked. Hence both sets of plots are essential to perform a diligent quality control of the input
data.
8 SPE 165880

1.000 1.000 1.000

0.900 0.900 0.900

HaFWL= 1 m HaFWL= 3 m HaFWL= 10 m

0.800 Pow er (HaFWL= 1 m) 0.800 Pow er (HaFWL= 3 m) 0.800 Pow er (HaFWL= 10 m)

0.700 0.700 0.700

Sw (linear interpolated)
Sw (linear interpolated)

Sw (linear interpolated)
0.600 0.600 0.600

0.500 0.500 0.500

0.400 0.400 0.400

0.300 0.300 b 0.300

0.200 0.200 0.200

0.100 0.100 0.100 b

0.000 0.000 0.000
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Perm Perm Perm

1.000 1.000 1.000

0.900 0.900 0.900

HaFWL= 30 m HaFWL= 100 m HaFWL= 250 m
0.800 Pow er (HaFWL= 30 m) Pow er (HaFWL= 100 m) 0.800 Pow er (HaFWL= 250 m)
0.800

0.700 0.700 0.700

Sw (linear interpolated)

Sw (linear interpolated)
Sw (linear interpolated)

0.600 0.600 0.600

a
0.500 0.500 0.500 a
0.400 0.400 0.400

0.300 0.300 0.300

0.200 0.200 0.200

0.100 0.100 0.100

0.000 0.000 0.000

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Perm Perm Perm

Figure 1-8 Centrifuge saturation vs permeability plots at multiple HaFWL.

Using these quality control plots, both the points a and b were identified as inconsistent with the rest of the data. They were
removed from the data set for computing a drainage curve using the Lambda function11 (Equation 2). Quality control plots of
the Lambda function are presented in Figure 1-9. These plots were used to check firstly that all the input data was honored
and secondly that the function behaved in a logical manner, viz. both permeability and HaFWL are inversely proportional to
the water saturation.

Sw = a * HaFWL− λ + b …… Equation 2

Where:
a, b & λ are a fitting functions computed from permeability

1 300

0.9

250 0.01
0.8
0.1
1
0.7 10
200 100
0.6 1000
Sw Reservoir

HaFWL

0.5 150

0.4

100
0.3

0.2
50

0.1

0 0
0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900 1.000 0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900 1.000
Sw Lam da Sw

Figure1-9 Quality check plots of the Lambda drainage function. The plot on the left checks that all the input data is honored by the
function and the plot on the right checks that the function conforms to expected behavior of decreasing saturations with increasing
permeability.
SPE 165880 9

Comparison of Drainage Function with Log Evaluation Saturation

In the reservoir, high gas volumes are interpreted below the FWL as seen in Figure 1-3. The presence of a smaller than
expected transition zone is observed in Figure 1-10 where a comparison of the drainage function based water saturation and
log based water saturation is presented from Well-B. In this well, core based Dean Stark measurements were also acquired to
confirm the log interpreted water saturations and have been plotted on the saturation track as red dots. They line up with the
log based water saturations confirming the shorter than expected transition zone as well as the presence of substantial gas
saturations below the FWL.

In Figure 1-10 it can be seen that the log-evaluation based gas saturations are much higher than the Sw-Lambda function
based gas saturations in zone a. This zone has been cored and the log evaluation based gas saturations compare well with the
Dean Stark saturations (red dots on the saturation track) measured on the core plugs. Gas is also seen below the FWL in zone
b. This gas saturation is also confirmed from the Dean Stark measurements taken on core plugs. This phenomenon can be
explained by the reservoir being in imbibition. As noted earlier, this phenomenon has been observed in various fields in the
NW shelf of Australia. Hence an imbibition capillary pressure function needs to be derived from the core data in order to be
compatible with the observed log based saturations.

a
Sharp build-up of multimin
gas saturation (red shaded
area ) when compared
with the sw-lamda function

FWL

Gas below FWL b

Figure 1-10 Illustration of the sharp buildup of Gas saturations and gas below the FWL in Well – B.

Modeling Imbibition on the Core Data

Imbibition is a complicated process as imbibition saturation curves are not only a function of the HaFWL and permeability
(akin to the drainage curve) but also a function of the Height above the Paleo-FWL (HaPFWL). Thus the same rock taken to
a different HaPFWL will exhibit different imbibition saturation curves as illustrated in Figure 1-11. In this figure, the water
10 SPE 165880

saturations from the same rock are plotted with different HaPFWL and they exhibit different imbibition functions (SwI10,
SwI20, etc.) originating from different starting points from the same drainage function (SwD).

Figure 1-11 Illustration of various imbibition functions originating from the same rock

For the imbibition modeling on the core data, the Adams Imbibition From Drainage (IFD) method was selected6. In this
method, the imbibition function is derived from the drainage functions after calibrating the results of the drainage to log
based saturations on an aggregate basis. The Adams IFD method is an accepted technique honoring all the log data in an
aggregate manner and the resultant imbibition function can be checked for consistent and reasonable behavior. However, the
technique has the limitation of been selectively calibrated to the well logs; viz. well log based saturations beyond the
drainage function curves (from FWL and PFWL) results in the imbibition function being clipped to the maximum and
minimum drainage saturations respectively.

The Imbibition function takes the form:

SwI = SwD − ∆Sw
∆Sw = s * SwD + int ---- Equation-3

int = a + b log 10( k ) + cSwD min

Where:
a, b, c, and s are fitting variables
K is permeability
SwI is the imbibition saturation
SwD is the drainage saturation at that HaFWL
SwDmin is the minimum drainage saturation observed using the HaPFWL

Adams IFD Saturation Height Function Quality Check

As implied by the number of fitting parameters, the function is a non-unique solution and many results can be generated from
the single data set. Hence it is imperative that the imbibition function selected be checked for expected behavior. However, as
there are 3 variables, this visualization can be achieved by fixing one of the three variables to a constant value and then
plotting and checking the relationship between the other two for any inconsistencies.

In the left hand plot of Figure 1-12, the permeability is fixed and the HaFWL is varied along with the HaPFWL. These
heights are related by 120 m, which is the average difference between these heights at the well locations. When permeability
is less than 1 mD, the imbibition function has an impact only when HaFWL is less than 50 m, otherwise the imbibition
function traces the drainage function. However, at high permeability (>10 mD) the imbibition function preserves more gas in
the rock than the drainage function even at low values of HaFWLs. Hence the imbibition function is similar to an ideal
function depicted in Figure 1-10. The plot on the right confirms monotonicity of the function by ensuring that the family of
curves do not cross each other.
SPE 165880 11

1.2

Swi_LamdaHaFWL0.5

1 Swi_LamdaHaFWL25
Swi_LamdaHaFWL50
Swi_LamdaHaFWL75
Swi_LamdaHaFWL100
0.8 Swi_LamdaHaFWL150
Swi_LamdaHaFWL200
Swi_LamdaHaFWL250

Swt_Imb
0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Perm

Figure 1-12 Visualization of the imbibition saturation function with HaFWL.

A further quality check was to compare the resultant saturations with imbibition saturations from other techniques. A limited
number of counter current imbibition measurements as well as forced imbibition measurements were conducted on core
plugs. The counter current measurements were conducted using toluene and the forced imbibition measurements were
conducted using the Mercury-Air system. These measurements are comparable to the imbibition function at spontaneous
conditions. The plot of predicted fluid saturation (computed at 0.5 m HaFWL) and the spontaneous measurements are
presented in Figure 1-13. Most of the data is close to the 1:1 line on the plot; however there are a few outliers which are the
measurements with high permeability.

In the reservoir, low permeability is typically seen close to the FWL; hence high permeability is not encountered in the log
data set which was used to compute the imbibition saturation function. Hence, these points are not expected to be on the 1:1
line.
1.000

0.900

0.800

0.700

0.600
Swt_imb_measured

0.500
0.041
80.1
0.400
51.5
2.3
0.300 1:1
0.061
103.3
0.200
67.7
4.4
0.100

0.000
0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900 1.000
Sw t_im b_m odel

Figure 1-13 Predicted imbibition saturation plotted against spontaneous imbibition measurements obtained from Counter Current
and MICP tests.

Comparison between the Imbibition Function and Log Based Evaluation

The imbibition function was calibrated to the log evaluation saturation in an aggregate manner while developing it, as the
purpose of the exercise was to reconcile both methods satisfactorily to build realistic static and dynamic reservoir models.
12 SPE 165880

Although minor differences remain in the saturation values calculated using the two methods, and within the uncertainty of
the measurements, it is critical to investigate these to aid in understanding the limitations of the respective methods. A
comparison plot between the log based saturation, the drainage saturation and the imbibition saturations is presented in
Figure 1-14.

Well C

Well A
Zone 1
Interpreted Permeability , Log and Log and
Porosity, & Mobility & Drainage Imbibition
Core Data Core Data Saturation Saturation

Well B

FWL
Figure 1-14 Comparison of the log based saturations with drainage and imbibition saturations in three wells.

Well A: In this well, there is a good match between the drainage saturations and the log based saturations above the
Mudstome Break. Below the shale break the drainage saturations go through a transition zone which is not seen on the logs.
The imbibition saturations do not have a transition zone and match the log based saturations well.

Well B: The drainage saturations do not match the log based and Dean-Stark saturations both above and below the free water
level whereas the imbibition saturations match the log based and Dean Stark saturations well.

Well C: This well presents an interesting case. The FWL is below the bottom of the reservoir sand. Hence the drainage
saturations are quite comparable to the imbibition saturations. However there is a discrepancy at Zone 1 where the drainage
saturations read much higher gas volume than the log based saturations. This discrepancy can be resolved considering the
uncertainties in the log based saturation. As illustrated in Table 1-1 a porosity difference of 1% (0.01 p.u.) results in a
saturation change of 17%, and a change of m from 2 to 2.2, impacts the saturation by 24%.
SPE 165880 13

Table 1-1 Impact of the Archie parameters and porosity on computed Sw using the Archie equation.

Rt PHIT m n Rw Sw Comment
116 0.05 2.2 2 0.132 91.0% Baseline
116 0.05 2 2 0.132 67.5% m changed
116 0.06 2.2 2 0.132 74.5% PHIT changed
116 0.06 2.2 1.8 0.132 72.1% n changed

Validation of the Imbibition Saturation

In total 173 Dean stark measurements are available in the field. Of these, 48 samples are with an ambient-air permeability of
less than 1 mD and confirm that very low permeability rock has a Sw, at ambient conditions, in the order of 45%. Further
validation of the imbibition saturation function can be obtained by comparing the trend of the log, imbibition and the core
based saturations (Figure 1-15). These plots are overlaid by an identical hand drawn trend. It must be noted that even though
all the plots follow the same trend; strictly speaking, these plots do not account for the variable HaFWL hence making this
comparison a gross comparison only.

Log interpreted Saturation Imbibition Saturation Core Dean

BM Dean Stark
Stark Sw NOBP
100

90

80
S
w
70

(
N 60
O
S S S
B 50
w w w P

)
40

(
v
30
/
v
20
)

10

0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000

Log based Perm Log based Perm Kinf (800psi) (mD)

Core Perm
Figure 1-15 Comparison of the trend of log, imbibition and the core based saturations.

Conclusions
Mercury capillary pressure data was not found compatible with the centrifuge data despite applying all relevant corrections.
As a result, the MICP data was not used in preference to the centrifuge data to estimate a saturation height drainage function.
The mismatch between the log evaluation and the drainage saturation height function; and the observation of significant gas
saturations below the FWL indicates that the field is in imbibition. Adopting the imbibition function improved the log to
function correlation but discrepancies still persist in certain intervals. Such discrepancies can be explained by the
computation uncertainty in the log based evaluation.
The imbibition function was validated using Dean Stark measurements in the field.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank all the JV partners of the Ichthys Project for the permission to publish the data; viz. Inpex,
Total, Tokyo Gas, Osaka Gas, Chubu Electric Power and Toho Gas. Also, the authors would like to acknowledge all the
personnel in the subsurface department of Inpex whose constant encouragement and critical review made this project
possible.

References
1. Ban, S. & Pitt, G. : The Ichthys Giant Gas Condensate Field, AAPG 2006, Perth, Australia

2. Byrnes, A.P. & Castle, J W. 2000: Comparison of Core Petrophysical Properties Between Low-Permeability
Sandstone Reservoirs: Eastern U.S. Medina Group and Western U.S. Mesaverde Group and Frontier Formation,
SPE-60304, Rocky Mountain Regional/Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium and Exhibition (Denver,
14 SPE 165880

Colorado)

3. Beales, V. & Howell, E.A. 1992. Tanami-1 Oil Discovery: Barrow Sub-Basin. Australian Petroleum Exploration
Association Ltd. Journal 32 part 1, 86-93.

4. Bradshaw, M.T., Yeates, A.N., Beynon, R.M., Brakel, A.T., Langford, R.P., Totterdale, J.M., and Yeung, M. 1988.
Palaeogeographic Evolution of the North West Shelf Region. In Purcell, P.G. & R.R. (Eds), The North West Shelf,
Australia, Proceedings of Petroleum Exploration Society of Australia Symposium, Perth, W.A., 1988: 29-54.

5. Hill, H.J., Shirley, O.J., Klein, G.E. 1979. Bound water in Shaly sands-its relation to Qv and other formation
properties. Log Analyst

6. Adams, S.J. 2003, Modeling Imbibition Capillary Pressure Curves, SPE 84298, Denver, Colorado.

7. Clavier, C, Coates, G & Dumanoir, J. 1977 : Theoretical and experimental bases for dual water model for
interpretation of shaley sands. SPE-6895, Society of Petroleum Engineers, 52nd Annual meeting (Denver)

8. Juhasz, I 1986: Assessment of the distribution of shale, porosity and hydrocarbon saturation in shaley sands. Paper
AA, in the 10th European formation evaluation symposium transactions, Society of Professional Well Log Analyst,
Aberdeen chapter.

9. Raymer, L.L. , Hunt, E.R. & Gardner, J.S. 1980: An improved sonic transit time to porosity transform.

10. Schlumberger, 1991: Log interpretation Principles/Applications, Schlumberger Educational Services

11. Corey, A.T, 1954: The Interrelation between Gas and Oil Relative Permeabilities.