TM 6009

ALIRAN DALAM MEDIA BERPORI

HW#3

Nama : Babas Samudera Hafwandi

NIM : 22220003

Dosen : Prof. Ir. Asep Kurnia Permadi, M.Sc., Ph.D.

.
Tanggal Penyerahan : 7 Oktober 2020

PROGRAM STUDI TEKNIK PERMINYAKAN

FAKULTAS TEKNIK PERTAMBANGAN DAN PERMINYAKAN
INSTITUT TEKNOLOGI BANDUNG
2020
 Homework/Assignment #3
Module 2 – Petrophysical Properties_ Porosity-Permeability
Delivery Data: 23 September 2020
Due Date: Within 2 Weeks

1. (Reading Assignment) Read the following paper:

C.T. Gomez, J. Dvorkin, T. Vanorio: Laboratory Measurements of Porosity, Permeability, Resistivity,
and Velocity on Fontainebleau Sandstones, Geophysics, Vol.75, No. 6, 2010.
2. Prepare Reading Summary of the paper on 1-page A4 size sheet, hand writing (preferable), write down
the points or main ideas and/or things discussed by the authors. These include:
— Title and Authors as well as the publication type (journal or conference identification) of the paper
just as you write a citation.
— Your Name and Student ID
— Problem Statement: things they tried to solve
— Objectives of the paper
— Methodology: ways and/or approach they used to solve the problem
— Results and Discussion of their work: make sure you understand
— Use of the Method: explain the way how the proposed method work.
— Critics: this is your own thoughts and/or comments about the paper such as plus/minus or
strengths/weaknesses of the method they proposed/discussed.

3. Use petrophysics data (Φ, k, Swi , F) in the paper by Gomez, et al [2010] in Table 1, p. E193.

a. Plot the data in the following form:

● log(kmeas) versus log(Φ)
● log(F) versus log(kmeas).
● log(F) versus Φ.
● log(kmeas) versus Swi.
b. Prepare a summary containing your explanation/discussion as well as your conclusions as the results of
your observation on the plots you obtain in Part 3.a.

4. Do "fitting" using the following correlation model (Eq. 1) against the data in the paper by Gomez, et al:

k = a( − c)b (c = cmax exp[−c1 c2 F c 3 Swi c4 ])....................................................................................... (1)

a. Determine the coefficient “c” that is required to do the fitting of Eq. 1 against the data in Table 1 of
the paper by Gomez, et al. Hint: The value of cmax must be < 0.16.
b. Generate the following plots:
● log(kcalc) versus log(kmeas). (include the 45-degree "perfect correlation" line)
● log(ccalc) versus log(kmeas).
● log(ccalc) versus log(Φ)
● log(ccalc) versus F.
● log(ccalc) versus Swi.
c. Prepare a summary containing your explanation/discussion as well as your conclusions as the results of
your observation on the plots you obtain in Part 4.b.
5. Do "fitting" using the following correlation model (Eq. 2) against the data in the paper by Gomez, et al:

k =  exp[ ] ( =  max exp[−12 F  3 S wi 4 ]) ................................................................................ (2)

a. Determine the coefficient “α” that is required to do the fitting of Eq. 2 against the data in Table 1 of
the paper by Gomez, et al.
b. Generate the following plots:
● log(kcalc) versus log(kmeas). (include the 45-degree "perfect correlation" line)
● log(αcalc) versus log(kmeas).
● log(αcalc) versus Φ.
● Log(αcalc) versus F.
● log(αcalc) versus Swi.
c. Prepare a summary containing your explanation/discussion as well as your conclusions as the results of
your observation on the plots you obtain in Part 5.b.

Note:

The plots you are going to generate must be in "publication quality". If your plots are in bad quality, I will ask
you to redo this HW. It may be repeated until your work is acceptable.

Reference:

1. Gomez, C.T., Dvorkin, J. and Vanorio, T.: Laboratory measurements of porosity, permeability,
resistivity, and velocity on Fontainebleau sandstones, Geophysics, Vol. 75, Issue 6, Nov-Dec. 2010 (p.
E191-E204).
3. Use petrophysics data (Φ, k, Swi , F) in the paper by Gomez, et al [2010] in Table 1, p. E193.

a. Plot the data in the following form:

● log(kmeas) versus log(Φ)
● log(F) versus log(kmeas).
● log(F) versus Φ.
● log(kmeas) versus Swi.
b. Prepare a summary containing your explanation/discussion as well as your conclusions as the
results of your observation on the plots you obtain in Part 3.a.

a. Petrophysical data required obtained from Table 1 of Gomez, C.T., Dvorkin, J. and Vanorio, T.:
Laboratory measurements of porosity, permeability, resistivity, and velocity on Fontainebleau
sandstones paper.

Table. 3.1. Petrophysical Data Required

Sample ∅ k (mD) Swi R (Ω m) F

A11 0.07 10 0.8 29.81 112.94

A16 0.07 6 0.7 37.44 108.01
A33 0.07 12 0.8 24.99 94.95
A82 0.08 7 0.65 88.29 216.49
A87 0.1 50 0.76 19.34 65.67
A89 0.08 26 0.82 32.08 126.43
A117 0.11 103 0.75 23.47 76.76
B31 0.11 107 0.85 14.91 63.47
B86 0.09 78 0.85 25.02 106.07
B101 0.11 121 0.84 18.23 76.54
B102 0.1 157 0.9 11.28 54.23
B108 0.08 29 0.83 44.69 179.5
F510 0.15 592 0.9 9.24 44.28
GT3 0.17 704 0.91 5.47 26.79
GW18 0.16 637 0.91 6.7 32.98
GW19 0.18 912 0.92 6.91 34.19
GW23 0.18 965 0.92 3.55 17.56
GW28 0.18 896 0.86 3.94 17.32
H27 0.25 3630 0.89 1.76 8.24
H42 0.24 2894 0.88 1.87 8.59
H74 0.24 3079 0.85 2.38 10.18
F410 0.06 1 0.7 51.24 147.38
F570 0.1 32 0.71 17.4 51.88

From data obtained, then plot the scatter graph of log(kmeas) versus log(Φ), log(F) versus
log(kmeas), log(F) versus Φ and log(kmeas) versus Swi. The plotted graph can be shown below
 10000

1000

Log (k Meassured)
100

10

1
0.01 0.1 1
Log (∅)

Figure 3.1. Graph Log (k Meassured) vs Log (∅)

1000

100
Log (F)

10

1
1 10 100 1000 10000
Log (k Meassured)

Gambar 3.2. Graph Log (F) vs Log (k Meassured)

 1

Log (F)
0.1

0.01
0 100 200 300
(∅)

Figure 3.3. Graph log(F) vs Φ

10000

1000
Log (k meassured)

100

10

1
0 0.5 1
Swi

Figure 3.4. Graph log (k Meassured) vs Swi

b. Data Analysis
In Figure 3.1, the log-log plot graph between permeability and porosity from the petrophysical data of
Gomez, et al. [2010] from the plot of the data graph shows a different linear trend for each lower and
higher porosity value. According to Gomez this is because at low porosity values, some parts of the
pore do not contribute to permeability, or are not connected to each other, this porosity is called
percolation porosity.

In Figure 3.2 the log-log plot between the formation factor and permeability, we can observe a linear
trend which is inversely proportional to each other. This trend is increasingly diffused for the higher
formation factor values. Gomez et al [2010] illustrate this relationship with the following equation
which yields an R-squared of 0.7128 but a residual of 174.35 mD, so it needs to be used with caution.
1⁄
702 0.5
𝑘=( )
𝐹

In Figure 3.3 the semi-log plot between formation factor and porosity, a trend can be observed
following the Archie equation [1942] with cementation factor values m ranging from 1.6 to 2.1.

𝑎
𝐹=
∅𝑚

In Figure 3.4 the semi-log plot between permeability and water saturation, a trend that resembles the
trend between permeability logs and formation factor can be observed. This can be explained because
of the relationship between formation factors and water saturation.

𝑅0
𝐹∝ = (𝑆𝑤𝑖 )𝑛
𝑅𝑡
4. Do "fitting" using the following correlation model (Eq. 1) against the data in the paper by Gomez, et
al:

k = a( − c)b (c = cmax exp[−c1 c2 F c 3 Swi c4 ]).................................................(1)

a. Determine the coefficient “c” that is required to do the fitting of Eq. 1 against the data in Table 1
of the paper by Gomez, et al. Hint: The value of cmax must be < 0.16.
b. Generate the following plots:
● log(kcalc) versus log(kmeas). (include the 45-degree "perfect correlation" line)
● log(ccalc) versus log(kmeas).
● log(ccalc) versus log(Φ)
● log(ccalc) versus F.
● log(ccalc) versus Swi.
c. Prepare a summary containing your explanation/discussion as well as your conclusions as the
results of your observation on the plots you obtain in Part 4.b.

a. Matching Coefficient Determination

From data obtained, matching is done using Solver utility on the Microsoft Excel. A constraint is
determined that c max should be less than 0.06 because we obtained the lowest porosity value is 0.06
and if c max> 0.06, then the permeability model result will be negative. After the 25th iteration, the
successfully resolved in a convergent results with the lowest possible error rate of 2.484441%. The
coefficient values are obtained as in the table below.

Table 4.1. Results of Matching Coefficient Determination

a b c-max c1 c2 c3 c4
432160.429 3.531070 0.042658 26.083067 0.747382 0.043138 7.942102

Table 4.2. Results of Matching Model

k R (Ohm Permeability
Sample Porosity Sw F error
(mD) m) Model
A11 0.07 10 0.8 29.81 112.94 10.81 0.0066
A16 0.07 6 0.7 37.44 108.01 3.81 0.1333
A33 0.07 12 0.8 24.99 94.95 10.72 0.0113
A82 0.08 7 0.65 88.29 216.49 6.87 0.0004
A87 0.1 50 0.76 19.34 65.67 51.32 0.0007
A89 0.08 26 0.82 32.08 126.43 26.91 0.0012
A117 0.11 103 0.75 23.47 76.76 77.62 0.0607
B31 0.11 107 0.85 14.91 63.47 135.48 0.0708
B86 0.09 78 0.85 25.02 106.07 57.86 0.0666
B101 0.11 121 0.84 18.23 76.54 129.96 0.0055
B102 0.1 157 0.9 11.28 54.23 110.69 0.0870
B108 0.08 29 0.83 44.69 179.5 29.57 0.0004
F510 0.15 592 0.9 9.24 44.28 511.55 0.0185
GT3 0.17 704 0.91 5.47 26.79 811.90 0.0235
GW18 0.16 637 0.91 6.7 32.98 652.56 0.0006
GW19 0.18 912 0.92 6.91 34.19 1002.89 0.0099
GW23 0.18 965 0.92 3.55 17.56 1001.47 0.0014
GW28 0.18 896 0.86 3.94 17.32 943.97 0.0029
H27 0.25 3630 0.89 1.76 8.24 3198.98 0.0141
H42 0.24 2894 0.88 1.87 8.59 2750.57 0.0025
H74 0.24 3079 0.85 2.38 10.18 2686.79 0.0162
 F410 0.06 1 0.7 51.24 147.38 1.12 0.0150
F570 0.1 32 0.71 17.4 51.88 36.79 0.0224

b. Generate the graph plots

1.E+04

Perm Model Perfect Correlation Line

1.E+03

1.E+02
Log (k calculated)

1.E+01

1.E+00

1.E-01

1.E-02
1.E-02

1.E-01

1.E+00

1.E+01

1.E+02

1.E+03

1.E+04

Log (k measured)

Figure 4.1. Graph log(kcalc) versus log(kmeas)

 1.E+00

1.E-01

Log (c calculated)

1.E-02

1.E-03

1.E-04

1.E+03
1.E+00

1.E+01

1.E+02

1.E+04
Log (k measured)

Figure 4.2. Graph log(ccalc) versus log(kmeas).

1.E+00

1.E-01
Log (c calculated)

1.E-02

1.E-03

1.E-04
0.01

0.10

1.00

Log (∅)

Figure 4.3. Graph log(ccalc) versus log().

 1.E+00

1.E-01

Log (c calculated)

1.E-02

1.E-03

1.E-04
100.00

200.00

300.00
0.00

Figure 4.4. Graph log(ccalc) versus F.

1.E+00

1.E-01
Log (c calculated)

1.E-02

1.E-03

1.E-04
0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

Swi

Figure 4.5. Graph log(ccalc) versus Swi.

c. Data Analysis
From Figure 4.1, can be concluded that this model provides a good correlation to the data. In this case,
according to Gomez's paper, a straight linear trend will be obtained if the porosity value is reduced by
the percolation porosity of the plot against permeability.

The value of c calculated in this model illustrates the behavior of the percolation porosity. Based on the
Figure 4.3, the nature of c is getting bigger according to the lower porosity value, in accordance with the
characteristic of percolation porosity which dominates at low porosity values. In general, from the plot
of c values for various variables it can be concluded that c is inversely proportional to permeability and
porosity, while the formation and saturation factors of water are directly proportional. Especially for the
water saturation plot, trends can be observed well, while for the variable formation factor, porosity and
permeability, the observed patterns are quite scattered. From these observations it can be concluded that
this model can be used properly to predict permeability, but it should be noted that if the formation
factor value of the analyzed rock formation varies in value it needs to be used with caution.

From Matching Coefficient Determination, obtained the representative model for the data :
0.747382 𝐹 0.043138 𝑆 7.942102
𝑘 = 432160.429(∅ − 0.042658𝑒 −26.083067∅ 𝑤𝑖 )
5. Do "fitting" using the following correlation model (Eq. 2) against the data in the paper by Gomez, et
al:

k =  exp[ ] ( =  max exp[−1 2 F  3 Swi 4 ]) ....................................................... (2)

a. Determine the coefficient “α” that is required to do the fitting of Eq. 2 against the data in Table 1
of the paper by Gomez, et al.
b. Generate the following plots:
● log(kcalc) versus log(kmeas). (include the 45-degree "perfect correlation" line)
● log(αcalc) versus log(kmeas).
● log(αcalc) versus Φ.
● Log(αcalc) versus F.
● log(αcalc) versus Swi.
c. Prepare a summary containing your explanation/discussion as well as your conclusions as the
results of your observation on the plots you obtain in Part 5.b.

a. Matching Coefficient Determination

From data obtained, matching is done using Solver utility on the Microsoft Excel. A constraint is
determined that the α max coefficient must be more than 0 because, if α max <0, then the permeability
model result will be negative. After the 27th iteration, After the 25th iteration, the successfully
resolved in a convergent results with the lowest possible error rate of 2.3808%. The coefficient values
are obtained as in the table below.

.
Table 5.1. Results of Matching Coefficient Determination

αmax β α1 α2 α3 α4
120.3591 15.61995 0.058385 -1.4830847 -0.0616654 -1.968226

Table 5.2. Results of Matching Model

k Permeability
Sample Porosity Sw R (Ohm m) F error
(mD) Model
A11 0.07 10 0.8 29.81 112.94 10.916 0.0084
A16 0.07 6 0.7 37.44 108.01 3.772 0.1379
A33 0.07 12 0.8 24.99 94.95 10.514 0.0153
A82 0.08 7 0.65 88.29 216.49 6.666 0.0023
A87 0.1 50 0.76 19.34 65.67 54.485 0.0080
A89 0.08 26 0.82 32.08 126.43 27.911 0.0054
A117 0.11 103 0.75 23.47 76.76 83.982 0.0341
B31 0.11 107 0.85 14.91 63.47 129.696 0.0450
B86 0.09 78 0.85 25.02 106.07 57.518 0.0690
B101 0.11 121 0.84 18.23 76.54 127.202 0.0026
B102 0.1 157 0.9 11.28 54.23 104.000 0.1140
B108 0.08 29 0.83 44.69 179.5 31.486 0.0073
F510 0.15 592 0.9 9.24 44.28 485.674 0.0323
GT3 0.17 704 0.91 5.47 26.79 773.732 0.0098
GW18 0.16 637 0.91 6.7 32.98 621.007 0.0006
GW19 0.18 912 0.92 6.91 34.19 990.505 0.0074
GW23 0.18 965 0.92 3.55 17.56 961.690 0.0000
GW28 0.18 896 0.86 3.94 17.32 865.993 0.0011
H27 0.25 3630 0.89 1.76 8.24 3610.391 0.0000
 H42 0.24 2894 0.88 1.87 8.59 2961.008 0.0005
H74 0.24 3079 0.85 2.38 10.18 2866.363 0.0048
F410 0.06 1 0.7 51.24 147.38 1.116 0.0135
F570 0.1 32 0.71 17.4 51.88 37.376 0.0282

b. Generate the Graph Plots

1.E+04

Perm. Model Perfect Correlation Line

1.E+03

1.E+02
Log (k calculated)

1.E+01

1.E+00

1.E-01

1.E-02
1.E-02

1.E-01

1.E+03
1.E+00

1.E+01

1.E+02

1.E+04

Log (k measured)

Figure 5.1. Graph log(kcalc) versus log(kmeas).

 1.E+02

1.E+01

Log (𝞪 calculated)

1.E+00

1.E-01

1.E+04
1.E+00

1.E+01

1.E+02

1.E+03
Log (k measured)

Figure 5.2. Graph log(calc) versus log(kmeas).

1.E+02

1.E+01
Log (𝞪 calculated)

1.E+00

1.E-01
0.3
0.0

0.1

0.2

Figure 5.3. Graph log(calc) versus ∅

 1.E+02

1.E+01

Log (𝞪 calculated)

1.E+00

1.E-01
100

150

200

250
50
0

Figure 5.4. Graph log(calc) versus F

1.E+02

1.E+01
Log (𝞪 calculated)

1.E+00

1.E-01
0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Swi

Figure 5.4. Graph log(calc) versus Swi

c. Data Analysis

Figure 5.1 shows that this model also provides a good correlation to the data.

In general, from the plot of α values for various variables, it can be concluded that α is directly
proportional to the permeability, porosity and water saturation, while the formation factor is
inversely proportional. For the permeability and porosity plots, trends can be well observed, while
for the variable formation factor and water saturation the observed trends are quite spread out. To
plot the porosity two different trends were observed. From these observations it can be concluded
that this model can be used properly to predict permeability, but it should be noted that if the
formation factor and water saturation values of the analyzed formations vary in value it should be
used with caution.

From Matching Coefficient Determination, obtained the representative model for the data :
−1.4830847 𝐹 −0.0616654 𝑆 −1.968226
𝑘 = (120.3591𝑒 −0.058385∅ 𝑤𝑖 )𝑒 15.61995∅