Egy. J. Appl. Geophys., Vol. 12, No. 1, March 2013, 41-67.

THE OPTIMUM MODEL FOR PERMEABILITY

PREDICTION FROM MERCURY INJECTION
CAPILLARY PRESSURE DATA:
A CASE STUDY OF THE NUBIA SANDSTONE,
GULF OF SUEZ, EGYPT.
Mohamed S. El Sharawy
Geophysical Sciences Dept., National Research Centre, Dokki, Cairo, Egypt

Abstract
Permeability is one of the most important parameters that must be determined in a
reservoir evaluation. In a homogenous reservoir containing a simple pore system,
porosity can be possibly correlated with permeability. However, in a heterogeneous
reservoir with other than a simple pore system, parameters other than porosity are
needed to predict permeability such as pore throat size. In this work, several published
permeability models were reviewed for utility in the prediction of permeability, using
inputs obtained from the characteristics of the capillary pressure curve of the pore
system. We review these models and select the best one to apply in the Pre –
Cenomanian Nubia Sandstone reservoir, Gulf of Suez, Egypt. The Nubia Sandstone is
considered as one of the most prolific oil reservoirs in the Gulf of Suez. The Pre –
Cenomanian deposits consist mainly of sandstone with intercalations of shale belonging
to different depositional environments. The sand section thickness generally decreases
southward along the Gulf of Suez. This sandstone reservoir is considered to be
extremely heterogeneous based on the Dykstra-Parsons coefficient.
Among several permeability models evaluated; Timur, Thomeer, Kozeny -
Carman, Swanson, Jennings, Kamath, MRA, Hagiwara and Purcell, the study indicated
that the Thomeer model yielded the best results as indicated from the statistical
variables to validated core data. Other three models yielded close results, which are
Hagiwara, multiple regression analysis (MRA) and Kamath. However, the most
applicable model is the Timur equation. This work investigates the variations in the
quality of the model results, generates hypotheses for the varying permeability
prediction quality proposes. New equations to describe the relation between the
parameters used to estimate permeability and the petrophysical variables, such as
porosity are introduced.

1- Introduction: core geological material. Of course,

Permeability is the key reservoir cores are always rare, costly to measure
parameter, as it describes the flow of and sometimes suffering from
fluids in the formations and therefore, uncertainties. Furthermore, the
the deliverability of the accumulated measured cores are usually carried out
hydrocarbons. Permeability on a small scale that represents a part
measurements can only be obtained of the whole reservoir. So, the need to
using expensive and hard – to – obtain predict permeability is extremely

41
42 Mohamed S. El Sharawy
necessary. Nevertheless, permeability
prediction is probably the most
challenging issue facing geologists,
petrophysicists and reservoir engineers.
There have been several attempts to
correlate permeability with porosity.
However, in the heterogeneous
reservoirs, as the studied reservoir,
such attempts will result in poor
correlations. So, the need to other
parameters other than porosity is
arisen. In this paper, we use the
mercury injection capillary pressure
data obtained from core plugs to
estimate permeability, using several
mercury injection capillary pressure –
based empirical models in the prolific
Pre – Cenomanian Nubia Sandstone oil
reservoir, Gulf of Suez, Egypt.
The Nubia sandstone of the
Gulf of Suez Egypt is Pre- Cenomanian
age consolidated sandstone generally
considered to be continental to shallow
marine with a wide range of grain sizes
and with low to high clay content.
Commonly, the Nubia Sandstone
experiences various types of diagenesis
and cementation. With this
heterogeneity, the Nubia Sandstone
exhibits monomodal, bimodal and
trimodal pore systems. The Nubia
Sandstone has been prolific with about
one-fifth of the Gulf of Suez oil
production
2- Study area and the data:
The Pre – Cenomanian Nubia
Sandstone is considered as one of the
most prolific oil reservoirs in the Gulf
of Suez, Egypt. It produces oil from
many fields throughout the Gulf of
Suez (Fig.1). The Pre – Cenomanian
deposits consist mainly of sandstone
with intercalations of shale deposited in
fluvial braided system graded to
aeolian environment. The section
thickness generally decreases
southward along the Gulf of Suez. This
sandstone reservoir, according to
Gameel and Darwish, 1994, is ranged
from poor to high quality reservoir
rock, based on the attributes of
petrographic and petrophysical
investigation of the Nubia section of
the Sidki oilfield. Applying Dykstra-
Parsons (1950) coefficient (Vk),
indicated extremely heterogeneous
reservoir with Vk more than 0.88 (Fig.
2). Furthermore, the trimodal pore size
distribution systems are the
predominant with some samples of
mono and bimodal (Fig. 3).
The profound economic
importance of the Nubia Sandstone
leads to drive to improve the Nubian
reservoir permeability characterization.
In well A, two core plugs covering the
lowermost third part of the Nubia
section (about 80 ft) were analyzed
with 100 % recovery, using the
conventional fiber glass coring type.
The cored interval indicates that
permeability ranges from 0.07 to 177
md with average value of 14 md. In
this well, special core analysis (SCAL)
was performed on 15 core samples,
providing us with 15 mercury injection
capillary pressure curves. The lithology
of the samples are gray sand, very fine
to fine grained, with silt cement as well
as traces of pyrite and anhydrite in
some samples. In well B, routine core
analysis was carried out on three core
plugs, which covered the whole Nubia
section. About 119 ft thick of mainly
sandstone were encountered in well B.
The cored interval indicates that the
permeability ranges from 0.004 to 1610
md, with average value of 169 md.
SCAL was performed on six core
 THE OPTIMUM MODEL FOR PERMEABILITY 43

Fig. (1): Location map of the Gulf of Suez showing producing oilfields from
the Nubia sandstone and the studied well (modified after Alsharhan, and
Salah, 1997).
 44 Mohamed S. El Sharawy

10000

Vk = k50-k84.1/k50
1000 Vk = 10.2-1.2/10.2 = 0.88

100
Permeability, md.

10

0.1

0.01

0.0010 .002 0.005 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.95 0.98 0.99 0 .995 0.998

Cumulative frequency data

Fig. (2): Dykstra-Parsons Coefficient on a Log-normal probability graph for

well C showing a heterogeneous reservoir.
Vk = Dykstra-Parsons Coefficient.
k50 =permeability at 50% cumulative frequency.
k84.1 =permeability at 84.1% cumulative frequency.

samples, giving six mercury injection encountered in this well. The cored
capillary pressure curves (Fig. 4). In interval ranges from poor to good
well C, routine core analysis was reservoir quality. The recovery was
carried out on 13 cores plugs. These varied from 29% to 100%, using
core plugs covered the lower 600 ft conventional fiber glass coring type.
thick of 713 ft total thickness The cored interval indicates that
 THE OPTIMUM MODEL FOR PERMEABILITY 45

(a)
10000 0.01

N ano-
Mercury capillary pressure, psi

1000 0.1

3
M icro-

100 1
M es o-

M acro-
10 10
1

M ega -

1 100
Pore throat
16 12 8 4 0 radius, microns
Incremental pore volume entered by mercury in %.

(b) (c)
10000 0.01 10000 0.01
Mercury capillary pressure, psi
Mercury capillary pressure, psi

1000 0.1 1000 0.1

100 1 100 1

10 10 10 10

1 100 1 100

20 16 12 8 4 0 20 16 12 8 4 0
Incremental pore volume entered by mercury in %.
Incremental pore volume entered by mercury in %.

Fig. (3): Pore size distribution system as illustrated from plotting of pore
throat size against incremental volume of mercury injection.
a) Trimodal pore size distribution system
b) Bimodal pore size distribution system
c) Monomodal pore size distribution system

permeability ranges from 0.01 to 11050 samples in well C, in which the air
md, with average value of 69 md. permeability, porosity and water
SCAL was performed on ten core saturation were measured.
46 Mohamed S. El Sharawy
The core analyses were
carried out based on the following
procedure: The core plugs used for
tests were drilled, using a mineral oil as
the bit coolant. The one – inch –
diameter samples (well B), 2 5/8 inches
(well C) and 5– inches in (well A) for
the routine core analysis were then
placed in Dean – Stark type toluene
distillation apparatus to determine the
core liquid saturation. The samples
were then placed in a toluene
extraction apparatus for extended
cleaning. Following cleaning, many of
the samples appeared to be oil stained.
These samples were then cleaned with
chloroform and in a Co2/ toluene
cleaner neither of these methods
removed the oil staining. After drying,
air permeability and helium porosity of
the samples were measured. For MICP
test, the samples were cleaned with
toluene and alcohol to remove
hydrocarbons and salts. Air
permeability and porosity were
measured on the cleaned and dried core
plugs. Mercury was then injected into
the cores, using pressure ranging from
1 to 2000 psi. Pore size distributions
were calculated from these tests.
The cored intervals had well
logs and well logging data for the three
wells in the Southern Gulf of Suez that
were utilized to examine the
permeability prediction models. The
well log data include Gamma ray,
spectral gamma ray, sonic, density,
neutron and resistivity. The routine
core analyses indicated that the Nubia
Sandstone reservoir permeability
ranges from poor to very good; from
0.01 to 1610 md, with average value of
77 md. The porosity ranges from 0.012
to 0.22, with average value of 0.131
and grain density ranges from 2.55 to
2.77 g/cc, with average value of 2.65
g/cc. Mineralogy was dominantly
quartz with traces of feldspar with 1%
heavy minerals represented mainly by
zircon, tourmaline and pyrite. The
sandstones are mainly quartzarenite
grading to lithicarenite at the
lowermost part of well A. At this part,
volcanic rock fragments, chert and iron
oxides are forming the main
constituents of the rock. Consequently,
permeability is reduced below 1 md.
The sandstone is usually light to dark
gray, fine to medium grains, poorly to
well – sorted with siliceous cement.
Such composition resulted in the
dominated bi and trimodal pore size
distributions. Clay content is generally
low, grading to be high in some
intervals, especially at the base of the
Nubia section (Fig. 5). This is due to
the effect of authigenic kaolinite,
which formed as a result of alteration
of feldspars. The clays are mainly
kaolinite with rare illite, chlorite and
iron oxides. Figure (6) indicates that
kaolinite represents the main clay
minerals, with a low percentage of
heavy thorium – bearing minerals.
Geological review (Gameel and
Darwish, 1994) tended to indicate the
porosity variation arises from siliceous
cement and the permeability variation
resulted from the filling of
intergranular spaces by clays. These
are highly inversely correlated. Above
10% clay content, low permeabilities
(k<1 md) have been occurred (Fig. 7).
The problem resulting from
the occurrence of kaolinite is related to
its structure. Patches of kaolinite are
loosely attached to sand grains.
Because of the large size of these
patches, they can block the large pore
throats, resulting in a permanent,
 THE OPTIMUM MODEL FOR PERMEABILITY 47

10000

1000
Mercury injection capillary pressure, psi

100

10
K = 853 PHI = 19.3
K = 318 PHI = 17.9
K = 342 PHI = 20.8
K = 120 PHI = 15.3
K = 0.462 PHI = 9.5
K = 174 PHI = 17.9
1

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
Mercury saturation, %

Fig. (4): Mercury injection capillary pressure curves for six samples in well B.

irreversible damage to the formation. According to Tiab and

permeability. The problem increased Donaldson (2004), the dispersed clays
with the dispersed mode of clay contain more bounded water and in
distribution, as in the study reservoir, core analysis, much of this bounded
which evolved from the in - situ water is lost during the drying process,
alteration and precipitation of various which results in an overestimation of
clay minerals. These authigenic clays the porosity of the core sample.
may adhere and coat the sand grains, or Relation between the core
they may partially fill the pore spaces porosity and core permeability for all
resulted in considerably reducing measured samples in the three wells
permeability and porosity of the indicates fair correlation with a
48 Mohamed S. El Sharawy

Fig. (5): Litho – saturation crossplot of well A showing increase of shale content
downward due to the effect of authigenic kaolinite.
 THE OPTIMUM MODEL FOR PERMEABILITY 49

Fig. (6): Crossplot of thorium (ppm) versus potassium (%) in well C to

determine clay type. It showed that the clay is mostly kaolinite with rare illite
and the uppermost points indicate heavy thorium – bearing minerals.

coefficient of determination (r2) = 2009). Following is a review for the

0.548 (Fig. 8). So, permeability is
controlled by parameters other than
porosity. Investigation of such
parameters is a subject of the following
sections. In this study, we examine the
permeability data above 0.1 md
exclusively.
3- Capillary pressure models for
permeability prediction:
Several classic models put in Thomeer
and Swanson references, here were
developed to correlate permeability
with the characteristics of the capillary
pressure curve. Recently, efforts to
revive these early attempts have been
revisited and improved (e.g. Huet et al.,
2005; Glover et al., 2006 and Clerke,
most common models:
3-1- kozeny – Carman (1937) model:
The most fundamental and popular
correlation that relating permeability as
a function of porosity and capillary
pressure tube radius is the Kozeny –
Carman equation, which has the
following form:
Φr 2
K= ……………………….(1)
8
Where: K is permeability in cm2, Ф is
the porosity in fraction and r is the
capillary tube radius in cm. If the
capillary tubes are tortuous, the above
equation can be written as the
following:
50 Mohamed S. El Sharawy

Φr 2
K= ……………………….(2)
8τ
Where: τ is the tortuosity, which can be
defined as (Tiab and Donaldson, 2004):
τ = ΦF ……………………………(3)
Where: F is the formation resistivity
factor that equals (Archie, 1942):
F = Φ − m ……….………………(4)
Where: m is the cementation exponent.
So, the Kozeny – Carman equation can
be taken the following form:
r2
K= ………………………..(5)
8F
With taking into consideration the
effect of surface area, the Kozeny –
Carman equation can be written as
follows:
Φ3
k= ……………(6)
2τ (1 − Φ ) Sg 2
Where: Sg is the surface area per grain
volume and can be expressed using the
following equation:
2Φ
r= …………………..(7)
(1 − Φ ) Sg
Amaefule et al. (1993) used the
Kozeny-Carman (1937) model and
developed an expression for the mean
hydraulic radius to construct a
graphical technique for isolating the
flow units. The Kozeny-Carman
equation was re-arranged to yield:
k Φ 1
=( )( ) …...(8)
Φ 1− Φ FsτSg
Where: K is permeability (10-12 m2), Φ
is the effective porosity, Fs is the shape
Fig. (7): Crossplot of clay content
factor, usually ranged between 2 and 3
versus core permeability in well C. It
(Carman, 1956), τ is the tortuosity and
can be noted that at clay content
Sg is the surface area per unit grain
above 10 %, permeability begins to
volume in micron. The authors then
reduce.
 THE OPTIMUM MODEL FOR PERMEABILITY 51

Fig. (8): Crossplot of horizontal permeability versus core porosity showing

fair relation as indicated from coefficient of determination.

defined the flow zone indicator as tortuosity, low surface area and high
follows: FZI. The surface area per unit grain
1 volume can be expressed as follows:
FZI = ………….……..(9) Φ 2Φ
FsτSg Sg = Sp = …(10)
The flow zone indicator (FZl) is a (1 − Φ ) r (1 − Φ )
unique parameter that includes the Where: Sp is the surface area per unit
geologic attributes of the texture and pore volume, and:
mineralogy in the structure of distinct τ = ΦF
pore geometrical facies (Tiab and Then, permeability in md can be
Donaldson, 2004). Poorly sorted sands formulated, from the previous four
tend to exhibit high tortuosity, high equations as follows:
surface area and low FZI, while well –
sorted sands tend to exhibit low
52 Mohamed S. El Sharawy

Φ3 dimensionless pore radius distribution

K=1014(FZI)2 ( ) ……(11) (pore throat impedance) and the
(1 − Φ ) 2
coordination number of the pore throats
Where: 1014 is the conversion factor per pore body, respectively.
for permeability that ranged between Blasingame and Ali (1995, unpublished
m2 and md. It is clear that equation (5) work presented in Wu, 2004) indicated
is the simple form of the equations 6 & that:
11. ω (1 − Swir )
=α ……………….(14)
n Φ
3- 2- Purcell (1949) model: Where: α is an empirical adjustment
Purcell (1949) introduced a semi – constant that is typically set equal to 1.
empirical equation for permeability, as Se is the normalized water saturation,
a function of porosity, non - wetting which according to Brooks and Corey
phase and capillary pressure. The (1966), equals:
equation was expressed as follows: −1
dSnw Sw − Swir Pc
K=10.66(σHg,Acosθ)2FpФ ∫ …
1
Se = = ( ) λ …….(15)
0 Pc 2 1 − Swir Pd
…………………………..……….(12) Where: Pd is the displacement pressure
in psi and λ is the pore throat size
Where: K is permeability in md, σHg,A
is the mercury-air interfacial tension in distribution index. According to
dynes/cm (480 dynes/cm), cosθ is the Brooks and Corey (1966), the porous
media having narrow pore throat size
contact angle of mercury in air (140ο) ,
Ф is the porosity in fraction, Snw is the distributions (well sorted) tend to have
non - wetting phase saturation in large values of λ, while porous media
having wide pore throat size
fraction, Pc is the capillary pressure in
psi and Fp is the Purcell lithology distributions (poorly-sorted) tend to
have small values of λ. Incorporating
factor, which represents the tortuosity
of the system. According to Calhoun et the previous three equations,
al. (1949), the Purcell lithology factor, Blasingame and Ali (1995) derived the
following equation:
Fp, was inversely related to the
formation tortuosity (τ). An empirical K = 10.66(σHg . A cos θ ) 2
value of 0.216 was found for it, in
Φ 2 λ .…....(16)
clean sandstone (Wu, 2004). Based on (1 − Swir ) 4 ( ) ( )
Purcell (1949) and Brooks and Corey Pd λ + 2
(1966), Nakornthap and Evans (1986)
derived the following equation: 3- 3- Timur (1968) model:
K = 10.66(σHg . A cos θ ) 2 Timur (1968) investigated the
permeability prediction for sandstone
ω 1 dSe ……...(13) reservoirs, using indirect in-situ
[Φ (1 − Swir ) ∫ Pc
3
2 measurements of porosity and residual
n 0 water saturation, using an early version
Where: Swir is the irreducible wetting of the nuclear magnetic resonance
phase, ω and n are the empirical pore (NMR) tool. Timur developed an
geometry terms that account for the empirical relation for the permeability
 THE OPTIMUM MODEL FOR PERMEABILITY
in terms of porosity and irreducible
water saturation, Swir, using the core
and well log data for 155 sandstone
samples. The Timur equation has the
following form:
Φb
K =a …………………..(17)
Swir c
Where: K is the permeability in md; Ф
and Swir are in %. He found that a =
0.136, b = 4.4 and c = 2.
3- 4- Winland (1980) equation:
Winland developed an empirical
relationship between porosity,
permeability and pore size
corresponding to a mercury saturation
of 35% (r35), based on multiple
regression analysis (MRA). The
Winland equation was published by
Kolodzie in1980. It has the following
form:
Log r35 = 0.732 +0.588 log K – 0.864
logФ………………………………(18)
Where: r35 is the pore aperture radius
corresponding to the 35th percentile in
micron, K is the permeability in md
and Ф is the porosity in %. In 1992,
Pittman carried out several analyses
and found that the best fit between the
three parameters occurred at r36. Using
the permeability as a dependent
variable, Pittman derived the following
empirical relationships:
Log K = -1.221 + 1.415 log Ф + 1.512
log r25………………….……….…(19)
Log K = -0.861 + 1.185 Log Ф +
1.627 Log rapex ……..………...…(20)
Where: r25 is the pore aperture radius
corresponding to the 25th percentile in
micron, rapex is the pore radius
corresponding to the apex (µm), k is
the permeability in md and Ф is the
porosity in %.
53
3- 5-Swanson (1981) model:
Swanson (1981) developed an equation
for the permeability as a function of the
capillary pressure curve characteristics.
The general form of the equation is:
Vb b
K = a( ) apex ………………...(21)
Pc
Where: K is the permeability (md), Vb
is the bulk volume mercury saturation
(%) and Pc is the capillary pressure
(psi) corresponding to the apex of a
hyperbolic log-log mercury injection
plot. The coefficients a and b are
determined from regression. The
Vb
( ) apex term is the inflection point
Pc
of the capillary pressure curve. The Pc
apex reflects the dominant
interconnected pores and pore throats
controlling most of the fluid flow.
Swanson best fit equation, based on
319 clean sandstone and carbonate
samples, is:
Vb 1.691
K = 339( ) apex …………(22)
Pc
3- 6- Thomeer (1983) model:
Thomeer (1983) developed an equation
for the permeability as a function of
three parameters, pore geometrical
factor (Fg), displacement pressure (Pd)
and the fractional bulk volume
occupied by mercury at infinite
pressure (Vb ∞ , assumed equal to the
porosity). Thomeer’s (1960 and 1983)
pore geometrical factor (Fg) is a widely
used parameter to delineate the pore
throat distribution. According to
Thomeer (1960), well-sorted pore
throats tend to have smaller Fg values,
while poorly-sorted pore throats tend to
54 Mohamed S. El Sharawy

have larger Fg values. The Thomeer 3- 8- Jennings (1987) model:

equation has the following form: Jennings (1987) found that the second
Vb∞ 2 quartile capillary pressure was well
K = 3.8068 Fg −1.3334 ( ) …..(23) correlated with permeability for the
Pd
well – sorted core samples, in which
Assuming, Vb ∞ = Ф, so
the permeability can be calculated by
100Φ 2 the following expression:
K = 3.8068Fg −1.3334 ( ) …
Pd K = exp(-2.5 ln(P2) + 11.9)………(29)
……………………….…………(24) Where: P2 is the second quartile
In shaly sand, Wu and Berg (2003) capillary pressure in psi. The second
assumed that: quartile non – wetting phase saturation
Vb ∞ = Ф (1-Swir)……………….(25) can be calculated as follows:
Therefore, SnwQ2 = 0.5 (1-Swir) ………….…..(30)
Φ (1 − Swir ) 2 Where: SnwQ2 is the second – quartile
K = 3.8068Fg −1.3334 ( ) non – wetting phase saturation. Then,
Pd the P2 can be read off the capillary
…………………………………….(26) pressure at mercury saturation equals
Exponent (2) can be treated as the SnwQ2.
cementation exponent "m", according
to Wu (2004) and therefore, 3- 9 -Kamath et al. (1992) model:
permeability can be calculated as Kamath et al. (1992) performed a
follows: comparison between the previous
Φ (1 − Swir ) m models and concluded that the best
K = 3.8068Fg −1.3334 ( ) result is obtained with new
Pd correlations, based on the Swanson
…………………………………….(27)
Vb
(1981) characteristic length ( ) apex .
3- 7 -Hagiwara (1984) model: Pc
In 1984, Hagiwara developed a semi- They proposed two power law
empirical correlation for the correlations, according to the
permeability as a function of porosity, permeability range:
cementation factor and the average K = 413 Lmax
1.85
if K <1 md
pore throat radius. Using 24 sandstone
samples, the best least-squares line fit …………………………………….(31)
1.6
for the air permeability was obtained
using the following expression: K = 347 Lmax if K >1 md
K = 19.8 Φ rm 2 …………………………………….(32)
avg . ……………….(28)
Where: Lmax is the characteristic length
Where: K is the permeability in µm2, Φ defined as follows:
is the porosity in fraction and ravg is the
ΦSnw Φλ (100 − Swir )
average pore throat radius in µm. Lmax= ( ) max = 1
Hagiwara stated that “the constant Pc +1
multiplier (19.8 for these data) pd (1 + λ ) λ
accounted for the effects of tortuosity …………………………………….(33)
and other pore geometrical factors”. The main contribution of the Kamath et
al. model is providing a formulation to
 THE OPTIMUM MODEL FOR PERMEABILITY
predict the low permeability rocks ( k <
1 md). Determination of the parameters
Vb
(such as reff, ravg, λ, Fg, Pd, ( ) apex
Pc
and Swir) used in the previous
mentioned models was well explained
in several works e.g. Jennings, 1987;
Pittman, 1992; Doublet, 2001; Holmes,
2002 and Wu, 2004.
4- Prediction of the parameters used
to estimate permeability:
The predicted permeability models
contain several parameters that need to
determine. In this section, we will try
to correlate these parameters with a
known one, such as porosity, as well as
flow zone indicator (FZI). The
incorporated parameters usually are
Swir, reff, ravg, Pd, λ, Fg, Lmax, (Vb/Pc)A
and P2. Table (1) summarized such
relations with the corresponding
coefficient of determination (r2) for
each one. From this Table, we can
conclude that there is no correlation
between Swir and Φ. The relation
improved dramatically with FZI, which
yielded r2 = 0.628 (Fig. 9A). The
relation is given as:
Swir = 0.1186( FZI ) −0..791 ….……(34)
Slightly good relation exists between
the effective and average pore throat
radii and porosity, which yielded r2 =
0.71 and 0.715, respectively. The
relations can be expressed as the
following:
reff = 6091.6 Ф3.64 r2 = 0.71
…………………………………….(35)
ravg = 3659.2 Ф3.63 r2 = 0.715
…………………..………..………(36)
Good relation exists between
the porosity and the displacement
pressure, Pd. On the other hand, an
excellent relation can be obtained when
55
Pd is correlated with FZI. This relation
yielded r2 = 0.924 (Fig. 9C). The
relations can be formulated as follow:
Pd = 0.065 Ф-2.62 r2 = 0.625
…………………………………….(37)
Pd = 17.085(FZI) −0.324 r2 = 0.924
…………………………………..(38)
Pore geometrical factor (Fg) that was
determined from Wu (2004) method,
yielded weak relations with porosity.
This relation is improved somehow,
when correlated with FZI (Fig. 9D&E).
The relations are given as:
Fg = −0.4623 ln(Φ ) − 0.557
r2 = 0.481 ………………………..(39)
Fg = −0.1267 ln(FZI) + 0.4119
r2 = 0.578 ………………………..(40)
The term Lmax contains four parameters
that mostly determine the properties of
the rock pore system. It gives a good
correlation with porosity and strong
one with FZI (Fig. 9F). The relations
take the following forms:
Lmax = 2365.37 Ф4.895 r2 = 0.784
…………………………………..(41)
Lmax = 0.0804 FZI1.285 r2 = 0.925
………………………...…………(42)
The pore throat size
distribution index (λ) gives so weak
relation, especially with that extracted
from the type curve. The correlation is
improved somehow with (λ) derived
from plotting Pc vs. Se, which yielded
r2 = 0.4, when correlated with porosity.
The relation still weak when FZI is
used in correlation with r2 = 0.43. So, it
can be concluded that, the pore throat
size distribution index is not reflecting
the physical properties of the rock. On
the other hand, Swanson's term
Vb
( ) apex yielded good correlation
Pc
with porosity, and improved strongly
56 Mohamed S. El Sharawy
Table (1): Correlation of the parameters used to predict permeability with
porosity, formation resistivity factor and flow zone indicator (T.C = type curve).
when correlated with FZI (Fig. 9G&H).
The relations can be formulated as
follow:
Vb
( ) apex = 1478.55 (Φ)4.79 r2 = 0.81
Pc
… ……………………………….(43)
Vb
( ) apex = 0.0637 (FZI)1.231
Pc
r2 = 0.913 …………….………….(44)
Correlation of the second quartile
capillary pressure (P2) with porosity
yielded r2 = 0.665. The relation has the
following form:
P2 = 0.04 Φ-3.68 …………………(45)
The relation becomes strong, when
correlated with FZI (Fig. 9I). It yielded
r2 = 0.917 and has the following form:
P2 = 91.49 FZI-1.082 …………….(46)
So, it can be concluded that, there are
good relations between porosity and reff
and ravg, and strong relation
Vb
with ( ) apex . However, both (Fg)
Pc
and (λ) give weak correlations with
porosity and FZI. The parameters,
interrelations and the corresponding
statistical variables are summarized in
Table 2 and graphically represented in
Figure (10). From this Table, it can be
Vb
concluded that ravg and ( ) apex may
Pc
reflect the same criteria on the capillary
pressure curve.
5- Results and discussions:
Twenty one core samples, obtained
from wells A and B were used to
evaluate the permeability prediction
models, based on mercury injection
capillary pressure characteristics. In
addition to ten samples, from well C,
were used to evaluate Timur model.
Table (3) listed the core porosity, air
permeability and the predicted
permeabilities, based on the different
discussed models. To evaluate the
goodness of fit and the qualify
performance of the discussed models,
log - log correlation plots were used
specifically for the perfect correlation
(1:1 trend) and 2.5 – factor trends. The
ranking of the permeability prediction
models was based on the accumulative
rank of some statistical variables
(Table 4). These statistical variables
include the sum of squared error (SSE),
residual mean square (MRE),
coefficient of determination (r2), F –
test and the standard error (σe).
Four forms for the Kozeny –
Carman model were discussed (Eqs. 1,
5, 6 & 11). Figure (11) indicated that
 THE OPTIMUM MODEL FOR PERMEABILITY 57

Fig. (9): Collection chart showing the interrelations among the parameters
used to predict air permeability from mercury injection capillary pressure –
based models.

Equations (1, 5 and 6) give over – estimated predicted values were

estimated permeability, especially for
Equation 1, where the error reached
two orders of magnitude. The
correlation is improved by using
Equation (11). However, under –
obtained for permeability below 10 md.
The Purcell model with (λ) calculated
from mercury injection capillary
pressure versus normalized water
saturation (Se) yielded good correlation
58 Mohamed S. El Sharawy

Table (2): showing the relations among the terms involved in the permeability
prediction models and corresponding r2.

No. Equation r2 SSE RMS

1 reff =96.78 Pd-1.237 0.902 1.681 0.0885
2 reff = 24.81 (Vb/Pc)0.759 0.935 1.107 0.0583
3 reff = 19.27 Lmax0.759 0.942 0.998 0.052
-0.8372
4 reff = 141.475 P2 0.764 4.033 0.212
5 ravg = 15.475 (Vb/Pc)0.7927 0.969 0.524 0.0276
6 ravg = 11.56 Lmax0.745 0.92 2.241 0.118
0.892
7 ravg = 11.105 exp (-0.093 Pd) 1.824 0.096
0.853
8 ravg = 101.781 P2-0.8783 2.48 0.1305

9 (Vb/Pc)A = 0.61 exp (-0.1113 Pd) 0.827 4.49 0.2363

10 (Vb/Pc)A = 0.6566 Lmax0.9075 0.885 2.985 0.157
11 (Vb/Pc)A = 11.05 P2-1.1147 0.891 2.827 0.1488
12 Pd = 0.09762 P2 – 5.3 0.753 429 22.58

(Fig. 12). The strength of the relation
decreases when using λ derived from
other sources.
Timur equation contains two
parameters to predict the permeability.
In this study, the Timur equation takes
the following form, with r2 = 0.779:
Φ 6.65
k = 0.0000013 ….……(47)
Swir 0.43
Applying the multiple regression
analysis (MRA) yielded the best
relation with r20, as an effective pore
size, when using the permeability as a
dependent variable. The relation has
the following form with r2 = 0.906:
Log K = 1.953 log Φ + 1.432 log r20 -
1.8806 ……………………………(48)
Using rapex instead of r20 yielded, the
following relation with r2 = 0.837:
Log k = 4.184 log Φ + 1.262 log rapex -
4.124 …………………………….(49)
Using the displacement pressure (Pd)
and the porosity as independent
variables and permeability as a
dependent variable, the following
relation is obtained with r2 = 0.894:
Log k = 3.022 log Ф – 1.582 log Pd +
5.571 …………….………………(50)
Applying the Swanson (1981) model
gives r2 = 0.86 with the following
form:
Vb 1.445
K = 457.5 ( ) apex ………….…..(51)
pc
 THE OPTIMUM MODEL FOR PERMEABILITY 59

Fig.(10): Comparison between measured and predicted permeabilities using

different models.
60 Mohamed S. El Sharawy

Table (3): Showing the study data listing of core porosity, air permeability and
the predicted permeabilities using various mercury injection capillary pressure –
based models.

Table (4): Ranking for the capillary pressure estimation models.

Thomeer (1983) model (Eq. 24) gives a
good correlation, when using (Fg), that
derived from the type curve. Using
(Fg) derived from Wu (2004) method,
the relation is improved considerably
and recorded the highest correlation
among the used models (Table 3). The
porosity can be used instead of the
fractional bulk volume occupied by
mercury at infinite pressure (Vb ∞ )
with no real effect on the results.
Using the second quartile
capillary pressure, as defined by
 THE OPTIMUM MODEL FOR PERMEABILITY 61

Fig. (11): Comparison between measured and predicted permeabilities

using different forms of Kozeny – Carman equation.

Jennings (1987), the following relation Kamath (1992) model depending on

has been obtained:
K = exp (-1.58 ln (P2) + 9.485)
……….……………...…...…….….(52)
Applying the average pore throat radius
and the porosity powered to
cementation exponent (m), as
introduced by Hagiwara (1984),
yielded the following equation:
k = 170.776 Φm r1.45avg ………..….(53)
the Swanson approach gives good
correlation based on (λ) calculated
from the mercury injection capillary
pressure versus normalized water
saturation (Se). The relation takes the
following form:
K = 302.5 Lmax1.43 for k> 0.1 md
……..……….…………………….(54)
Consequently, nine mercury
injection capillary pressure – based
62 Mohamed S. El Sharawy

Fig. (12): Collection chart showing correlation of porosity and flow zone
indicator versus different parameters used to permeability prediction.

models were reviewed to predict controlled by three parameters; Fg, Pd

permeability. All the models contain
porosity, except for Swanson and
Jennings models (Table 5). Another
important parameter is the pore throat
size, which incorporates in some
models either the effective or average.
According to the cumulative ranking,
Thomeer (1983) model gives the
highest rank (Table 3). Other three
models give good results. These
models are Hagiwara, MRA and
Kamath.
Thomeer (1983) model gives
the best correlation, but being
and Vb∞ will weakness the end results.
The latter parameter can be replaced by
porosity, but Pd gives moderate
relation with porosity (Eq. 37).
Furthermore, being Pd powered to
negative exponent, will increase the
effect of uncertainty. Additionally, Fg
gives weak correlation with porosity
and moderate correlation with FZI.
Elimination of Fg from the Thomeer
model and correlation, the term (Ф/Pd)
with permeability yielded a result, as
similar to Equation (50).
 THE OPTIMUM MODEL FOR PERMEABILITY 63

Table (5): showing the used parameters in the permeability predictions models.

No. Model Used parameters

Modified kozeny –
1 Ф ,reff, τ, F, Sg, FZI, Fs
Carman (Eq. 11)

2 Purcell Ф , Pd , Swir, λ, σ, θ

3 Timur Ф, Swir

4 MRA Ф, reff, rapex, rPd

5 Swanson (Vb/Pc)A

6 Thomeer Ф , Pd, Vb ∞ , Fg

7 Hagiwara Ф, ravg, m

8 Jennings P2

9 Kamath et al. Ф, Pd, Swir, λ

Hagiwara et al. (1984) model gives 35 as a function of porosity, although

strong correlation, depending on the
porosity powered to cementation
exponent and the average pore throat
radius. The former parameter can be
easily obtained from a routine core
analysis or well logging tools, such as
neutron and density, when calibrated
with the core data. The average pore
throat size is the parameter needed to
predict. This can be done using the
porosity as indicated in Equation (36).
Using the MRA, two parameters are
needed; Ф and reff. The effective pore
throat size can be predicted using Eq.
the relation is not strong. Kamath et al.,
model based on the Lmax term gives
good and strong relations with Ф and
FZI, respectively. This is due to Lmax
term involved Ф and reff. So, Hagiwara,
MRA and Kamath models can be
applied to predict the air permeability
in uncored interval for the Nubia
Sandstone reservoir.
The strong correlation
between FZI and Swanson term
Vb
( ) apex urges to develop a relation
Pc
64 Mohamed S. El Sharawy

Fig. (13): Comparison between measured and predicted permeabilities

using Thomeer and Timur models, when no capillary pressure is available.

Vb model, based on equation (47). The

with replaced ( ) apex by FZI. So, a
Pc
new improved relation can be obtained.
It has the following form with r2 =
0.892:
K = 8.6925 (FZI)1.7788 ……..…….(55)
Also, improving Jennings
(1987) model can be made through
replacing P2 by FZI. The new form of
the relation yielded r2 = 0.892. It can be
written as the following:
K = exp (2.705 ln (FZI) +0.61)
……………………..……………(56)
To explain the applicability of
such models in a reservoir has no
capillary pressure tests, we used a
Nubian sandstone interval containing
air permeability, porosity and water
saturation. We tested the first four rank
models; Thomeer, Hagiwara, MRA and
Kamath as well as Timur model. The
Thomeer model gives the best results,
based on equations 26, 37 and 39. The
second best result was with the Timur
goodness of the Timur model is close
to the Thomeer model (Fig. 13). Such
closeness makes the Timur equation
the most applicable model in the study
area with the least required parameters.
6- CONCLUSIONS:
• Thomeer model gives the best
results to predict the air permeability
for the Nubia Sandstone reservoir in
the Gulf of Suez, Egypt, based on the
mercury injection capillary pressure
analysis. As well as, Hagiwara, MRA
and Kamath models give reasonable
results. However, Timur equation can
be considered the most applicable
model to predict the air permeability in
an uncored interval for the Nubia
Sandstone reservoir.
• The Thomeer (Fg) and the
Brooks and Corey (λ) can't be
considered as indicators of the change
of pore system properties of the rock,
where they have weak correlations with
 THE OPTIMUM MODEL FOR PERMEABILITY
porosity. In contrast, reff, ravg, P2 and
Vb
( ) apex are good indicators of the
Pc
change of the physical rock properties.
• Beside porosity, the effective
pore throat size can be considered the
main key in controlling permeability,
which determines the magnitude of
some parameters on the capillary
pressure curve, such as the
displacement pressure and pore
geometrical factor.
• The best relation controlled
the tortuous nature of the pores must be
determined in order to obtain more
accurate FZI.
• New modified forms for the
Swanson and Jennings models are
Vb
introduced by replacing ( ) apex and
Pc
P2 by FZI. Such modifications resulted
in an improvement of the permeability
prediction results for the two models.
Acknowledgements
The Author is grateful to the Egyptian
General Petroleum Corporation
(EGPC) and the Gulf of Suez
Petroleum Company (GUPCO) for
providing the data.
References:
Alsharhan A.S. and Salah M.G., 1997.
Lithostratigraphy, sedimentology
and hydrocarbon habitat of the
Pre-Cenomanian Nubian
Sandstone in the Gulf of Suez oil
Province, Egypt. GeoArabia, 2,
no. 4, 385-400.
Amaefule J. O., Altunbay M. H., Tiab
D., Kersey D. G. and Keelan D. K.
1993. Enhanced Reservoir
Description Using Core and Log
Data to Identify Hydraulic Flow
65
Units and Predict Permeability in
Uncored Intervals/Wells. SOC.
Petrol. Eng. Paper No. 26436.
Archie G. E. 1942. The theoretical
resistivity log as an aid in
determining some reservoir
characteristics. American Institute
of Mining and Metallurgical
Engineers, Transactions146, 54-
61.
Brooks R. H. and Corey A. T. 1966.
Properties of porous media
affecting fluid flow. Journal of
Irrigation and Drainage Division,
Proceedings of the American
Society of Civil Engineers 92, No.
IR 2, 61-88.
Calhoun J.C., Lewis M. and Newman
R.C 1949. Experiments on the
Capillary Properties of Porous
Solids. Trans., AIME 186, 189-
196.
Carman P. C. 1956. Flow of gases
through porous media,
Butterworth's Scientific
Publications, London, 128 p.
Carman P.C. 1937. Fluid flow through
granular beds. American Institute
of Chemistrical Engineers
Transactions 15, 150-166.
Clerke E.A. 2009. Permeability,
relative permeability, microscopic
displacement efficiency, and pore
geometry of M_1 bimodal pore
systems in Arab D Limestone. SPE
Journal, no. 105259, 8 p.
Doublet L.E. 2001. An integrated
geologic and engineering reservoir
characterization of the North
Robertson (Clear Folk) Unit,
Gaines County, Texas. PhD
Dissertation, Texas A&M
University, v. I, pp. 327.
Dykstra, H. and Parsons, R. L. 1950.
The prediction of oil recovery in
66 Mohamed S. El Sharawy
waterflood. Secondary Recovery
of Oil in the United States, 2nd ed.
American Petroleum Institute
(API), 1950, 160-174.
Gameel M. and Darwish M. 1994.
Reservoir behavior of the Pre-
Turonian sandstones in south Gulf
of Suez province (Sidki field –
case history). 12th EGPC
Exploration and Production
Conference 2, 449-471.
Glover P. W. J., Zadjali I. and Frew K.
A. 2006. Permeability prediction
from MICP and NMR data using
an electrokinetic approach.
Geophysics 71, F49–F60.
Hagiwara T. 1984. Archie’s m for
permeability. SPE paper 13100,
Proceedings of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers 59th Annual
Technical Conference and
Exhibition, 9p.
Holmes M. 2002. System for
evaluating fluid distributions of
subsurface reservoirs. US Patent,
no. 6,484,102B1, 17P.
Huet C.C., Rushing J.A., Newsham
K.E. and Blasingame T.A. 2005. A
modified Purcell/ Burdine model
for estimating absolute
permeability from mercury-
injection capillary pressure data.
IPTC, no. 10994,12 p.
Jennings J. B. 1987. Capillary pressure
techniques: application to
exploration and development
geology. AAPG Bulletin 71, 1196-
1209.
Kamath J., Boyer R. E. and Nakagawa
F. M. 1992. Characterization of
Core-scale Heterogeneities using
Laboratory Pressure Transients.
SPE Formation Evaluation,
September, 219-227.
Kolodzie S. Jr. 1980. Analysis of pore
throat size and use of the
Waxman-Smits equation to
determine OOIP in Spindle Field,
Colorado. Society of Petroleum
Engineers, 55th Annual Fall
Technical Conference, Paper SPE-
9382, 10 p.
Nakornthap K. and Evans R. D. 1986.
Temperature-dependent relative
permeability and its effect on oil
displacement by thermal methods.
SPE Reservoir Engineering, May,
230-242.
Pittman E. D. 1992. Relationship of
porosity and permeability to
various parameters derived from
mercury injection-capillary
pressure curves for sandstone.
AAPG Bulletin 76, 191-198.
Purcell W. R. 1949. Capillary
pressures--their measurement
using mercury and the calculation
of permeability therefrom.
American Institute of Mechanical
Engineers, Petroleum
Transactions, Feb., 39-48.
Schlumberger, 1982. Essentials of
NGS interpretation.
Swanson B. F. 1981. A simple
correlation between permeabilities
and mercury capillary pressures.
Journal of Petroleum Technology,
Dec., 2488-2504.
Thomeer J. H. M. 1960. Introduction of
a pore geometrical factor defined
by the capillary pressure curve.
Journal Petroleum Technology,
March, 73-77.
Thomeer J. H. M. 1983. Air
permeability as a function of three
pore network parameters. Journal
of Petroleum Technology, 809-
814.
 THE OPTIMUM MODEL FOR PERMEABILITY 67

Tiab D. and Donaldson E.C. 2004.

Petrophysics. 2nd edition, Gulf
Professional Publishing.
Timur A. 1968. An investigation of
permeability, porosity, and
residual water saturation
relationships for sandstone
reservoirs. The Log Analyst 9, 8-
17.
Wu T. 2004. permeability prediction
and drainage capillary Pressure
simulation in sandstone reservoirs,
PhD Dissertation, Texas A&M
University, pp. 168.
Wu T. and Berg R. R. 2003. A method
for synthesizing and averaging
capillary pressure curves. AAPG
Annual Meeting, Salt Late City,
Extended Abstract, 3 p.