Capillary Pressure, Saturation, Permeability and NMR: Malay Basin Example

Capillary Pressure, Saturation,
Permeability and NMR: Malay

Basin Example
Andrew Logan – Talisman Malaysia Limited
FESM November 2008

Summary
• Compare methods of modeling capillary pressure

(Saturation Height Functions) and demonstrate similarity
of Sw results in generic models for the Malay Basin.
– Parameters for J-Function, Power Function, Lambda Functions
and Thomeer Method are derived and results compared.
• Use Capillary Pressure data to derive a generic
permeability equation based on porosity and irreducible
water saturation
– Coates Parameters are derived from capillary pressure data.
• Application of NMR in the above models
– Some preliminary results
• These three closely related topics gain from being

discussed together rather than individually.
Review of Capillary Pressure
Well XXXXXX
Fluids Air-Water
Method HS Centrifuge 8
NOB 800 psi
Klinkenberg Capillary End face 7

Sample Depth Permeability Porosity Pressure Sw
No. (m) (mD) (frac) (psi) (frac)
XXXX XXXX.XX 1050.00 0.2550 0.00 1.00

6
1.00 0.57
2.00 0.44
5.00 0.33
10.00 0.26 5
25.00 0.23
P re s s u re , b a r
50.00 0.20
100.00 0.20
200.00 0.18 4
500.00 0.16
750.00 0.16
3
• Wetting fluid (usually water) is held in the pore
space by capillary forces.
• The wetting fluid is displaced only when the 2
capillary forces are exceeded. Pc arises from
density difference between water and hydrocarbon.
• Sw may be estimated by computing the pressure
difference due to the “height-above-free water” 1
combined with knowledge of the capillary pressure
curve.
– Suitable conversions for fluid types must be 0
applied. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
• Fluid contact (i.e. the height above free water) is a Water Saturation, % pore volume
key parameter since it impacts Pc.
Fluid System Conversion
• It is necessary to make a conversion between Laboratory Conditions,

(fluids used for Pc measurement) and Reservoir conditions with
different fluids. Different fluids have different wettability (surface
tension) properties.
• Typical values for usual reservoir fluids are shown in the table below.
System σ θ θ)
cos(θ σcos(θ
θ)
Air/Water/Solid 72 0º 1 72
σ cos(θ LAB )
PcLAB = PcRES LAB
σ RES cos(θ RES ) Air/Mercury/Solid 480 140º -0.755 -370
Oil/Water/Solid 30 30º 0.866 26

Capillary Pressure and Saturation Height Functions
• In the reservoir, the 100
capillary pressure may 90
be estimated by
80
computing the pressure
difference due to 70
H eig h t A b o v e F re e W a te r (m )
different fluid densities
60
and the “height-above-
free-water”, h. 50
40
30
20
10
Pc = ( ρ brine − ρ oil )h 0
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0
Water Saturation ( % PV)

Capillary Pressure Modeling
Lambda C
S w − S wirr =
Function Pcλ
0.2166 Pc k
J-Function S w = I + S * log( J ) : J =
σ cos θ φ
Power a
Sw = b
Function Pc
 −  

G
P
S w = 1 − e  Pd  
Thomeer log  c 
Parameters  
 
Modeling Capillary Pressure Data
• Capillary pressure curves usually have differing relationships

between Pc and Sw.
– Usually one Cap-pressure curve does not adequately describe a
reservoir.
• Several methods are available to describe Capillary Pressure
Measurements
– J-Function
– Lambda Function
– Thomeer Parameters
– Power Function
• All methods are based on curve fitting with little or no physical
modeling behind them.
– Relationships hint at some underlying physical principles.
• Each may be used to describe capillary pressure, but differ in
implementation.
Fitting of Capillary Pressure Models
Well XXXXXX Lab Sigma 72 Sum of all fitting error 0.74478
Fluids Air-Water Lab Theta 0
Method HS Centrifuge Norm Sigma 72
NOB 800 psi Norm Theta 0 Normalized Normalized Normalized Normalized
Scaling 1 J-Function Parms. Lambda Function Parms. Thomeer Parms Power Function Parms.
Lambda 0.410836781
Normalized J-Slope -0.20243357 C 0.416837169 G 1.252286835 a 0.500002723
Klinkenberg Capillary End face Capillary J-Function J-Inter -1.02527047 Swirr 0.122185501 Pd 0.223069737 b 0.202254711
Sample Depth Permeability Porosity Pressure Sw Pressure
No. (m) (mD) (frac) (psi) (frac) (psi)
XXXX XXXX.XX 1050.00 0.2550 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 J(Sw) J-Error Lam(Sw) Lam Error BV Thom(BV) Thom(Sw) Thom. Err PF(Sw) PF. Error
1.00 0.57 1.00 0.19 0.5004 0.0656 0.53902267 0.0270 0.1107 0.1107 0.5660 0.0000 0.5000 0.0660
RQI 64.17 2.00 0.44 2.00 0.39 0.4349 0.0001 0.435724988 0.0007 0.1441 0.1441 0.4350 0.0000 0.4346 0.0004
5.00 0.33 5.00 0.97 0.3613 0.0363 0.337366466 0.0124 0.1721 0.1705 0.3315 0.0065 0.3611 0.0361
10.00 0.26 10.00 1.93 0.3140 0.0550 0.284041819 0.0250 0.1890 0.1835 0.2806 0.0216 0.3138 0.0548
25.00 0.23 25.00 4.83 0.2608 0.0328 0.23326688 0.0053 0.1969 0.1956 0.2331 0.0051 0.2608 0.0328
50.00 0.20 50.00 9.65 0.2267 0.0237 0.205739467 0.0027 0.2032 0.2023 0.2066 0.0036 0.2266 0.0236
100.00 0.20 100.00 19.30 0.1970 0.0000 0.185033705 0.0120 0.2048 0.2077 0.1854 0.0116 0.1970 0.0000
200.00 0.18 200.00 38.61 0.1712 0.0108 0.169459101 0.0125 0.2086 0.2121 0.1682 0.0138 0.1712 0.0108
500.00 0.16 500.00 96.52 0.1422 0.0208 0.154629194 0.0084 0.2134 0.2168 0.1498 0.0132 0.1423 0.0207
750.00 0.16 750.00 144.78 0.1310 0.0260 0.149650875 0.0073 0.2150 0.2186 0.1429 0.0141 0.1311 0.0259
Parameters
a,b,λ,C etc. Error 0.27098 Error 0.11334 Error 0.08928 Error 0.271172469
Air-Brine Capillary Pressure Air-Brine Capillary Pressure J-Function - Water Saturation
800.00 1000.00 10000.00
700.00
1000.00
600.00 100.00
Air Brine Capillary Pressure (Psi)
500.00
100.00
Measured
Measured
J-Function
J-Function
Lam bda J-Function
400.00 Lam bda 10.00
Thom eer J(Sw )
Thom eer
Pow er Function
Pow er Function
10.00
300.00
200.00 1.00
1.00
100.00
0.00 0.10 0.10

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 0.10 1.00 0.10 1.00
Water Saturation Water Saturation Water Saturation

Table of Fitting Results
Lambda Function Parameters

Well Sample Depth Lab Sigma Lab Theta Porosity Permeability Swirr C Lamda At 50 psi BVI Error
XXXXXX XXXX XXXX.XX 72 0 0.2160 46.00 0.21 0.78557 0.410837 0.371895 0.080329 0.2029
J-Function Model
• The J-Function is one of the

oldest, and a standard method 0.2166 Pc k 0.2166 Pc
J= = RQI
of implementing Capillary σ cos(θ ) φ σ cos(θ )
Pressure measurements into
reservoir modeling. The use of
the Reservoir Quality Indicator
(RQI) is intended to Sw Saturation
accommodate variable rock
types. Pc Capillary pressure from FWL
– convert to/from
Air/Brine
σ Interfacial tension
θ Contact Angle
k Permeability
φ Porosity
J-Function
• For each J-Function, a fit J-Function - Water Saturation
may be computed between 10000.00
the J-Function and Sw.

Where the slope and
intercept can be used to 1000.00
describe Sw as a function of
J.
100.00
J-Function
J-Function
J(Sw )
S w = Intercept + Slope * log( J ) 10.00
1.00
0.10
0.10 1.00
Water Saturation
J-Function Slope and Intercepts
as Functions of Permeability
• Best fit of ln(k) to J-Function Slope and Intercept - Permeability
parameters compared Permeability (mD)

to least squares fit of Sw 0.10 10.00 1000.00
prediction. -2
-1.9
-1.8
• Parameters between -1.7
-1.6
two methods are close -1.5
but not exactly the
J-Function Slope and Intercept

-1.4
same. -1.3
-1.2 J-Function Intercept

-1.1 J-Function Slope
• Since the objective is to -1

Model Intercept
Model Slope
predict Sw, the least -0.9 Best Fit Intercept
squares approach is -0.8 Best Fit Slope
-0.7
preferred. -0.6
-0.5
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
Parameter = const + slope * ln(k ) -0.1
0
Least Squares Fit on all Capillary Pressure Data
to Optimize Model fit – J-Function
• Optimize 4 J-Function Measured Sw vs. Modeled Sw
Parameters over the 1.00
entire Capillary
0.90
Pressure data set.
0.80
• Average Error = 0.069 0.70
Capillary Pressure Sw
0.60
0.50 J-Function
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0.0000 0.1000 0.2000 0.3000 0.4000 0.5000 0.6000 0.7000 0.8000 0.9000 1.0000
Permeability Predicted Sw
Power Function Model
• The Power Function is a very

simple model (few parameters)
a
which is similar to the Lambda
Function
Sw = b
Pc
• Fitting is done to laboratory
conditions conversions must
be done from Pc at reservoir
conditions to Pc at laboratory Sw Saturation
conditions.
Pc Capillary pressure from
FWL – convert to/from
Air/Brine
b Fitting exponent
a Fitting Constant
Power Function Parameters
• Best fit of ln(k) to Power Function a,b - Permeability
parameters compared 1.5

to least squares fit of Sw 1.4
prediction.
1.3
1.2
• Parameters between 1.1
two methods are close 1
but not exactly the
Power Function a, b
0.9
same. Power Function a
Power Function b
0.8
Model a
Model b
0.7
• Since the objective is to Best fit a
Best fit b
0.6
predict Sw, the least
0.5
squares approach is
preferred. 0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
Parameter = const + slope * ln(k ) 0.10 10.00

Permeability (mD)
1000.00
to Optimize Model fit – Power Function
• Optimize 4 Power- Measured Sw vs. Modeled Sw
Function Parameters 1.00
over the entire Capillary

0.90
Pressure data set.
0.80
0.60
0.50 Power Function
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0.0000 0.1000 0.2000 0.3000 0.4000 0.5000 0.6000 0.7000 0.8000 0.9000 1.0000
Thomeer Parameter Model
• The Thomeer Equation was

developed for the analysis of
Mercury Injection data to − G
 P 
very high pressures. Sb∞ is log  c 
the maximum pore volume
that can be injected at
S b = S b∞ e  Pd 
extremely high pressures

(e.g. 60,000 psi) and
represents the total
interconnected pore space.
In these spreadsheets it is Sb Bulk Volume occupied by Hg at pressure Pc
assumed that the measured Sb Bulk Volume occupied by Hg at infinite pressure or
porosity is equal to Sb∞. As ∞ the total interconnected pore volume
such the methods used here Pc Air mercury capillary pressure
are suitable for clastics but Pd Air-mercury extrapolated Displacement pressure
not for carbonates which G Pore Geometrical factor – or shape of the cap
may have unconnected pressure curve
vugs.
Thomeer Parameter Model
• Expressing in terms of Sw
and assuming Sb∞ = φe
 −

G
 P 
S w = 1 − e 
log  c 
 Pd 
conditions conversions must  
be done from Pc at reservoir  
conditions to Pc at laboratory
conditions.
Sw Saturation
Pc Capillary pressure from FWL –

convert to/from Air/Brine
Pd Parameter to correlate to logs
G Parameter to correlate to logs
Assume Sb∞= φe
Thomeer Parameters
• Best fit of ln(k) to Thomeer Pd - Permeability
parameters compared 5
to least squares fit of Sw
prediction. 4.5
4
• Parameters between
two methods are close 3.5
but not exactly the

same. 3
Thom eer G
Thomeer G, Pd
Thom eer PD
Model G
2.5
Model Pd
• Since the objective is to Best Fit G

Best Fit Pd
predict Sw, the least 2
squares approach is 1.5

preferred.
1
0.5
0
Parameter = const + slope * ln(k ) 0.10 10.00 1000.00
Permeability (mD)
to Optimize Model fit – Thomeer Parameters
• Optimize 4 J-Function Measured Sw vs. Modeled Sw
Parameters over the 1.00
entire Capillary
0.90
Pressure data set.
0.80
– Fitting error low in part
due to limits put on 0.60
computation at high 0.50 Thomeer

permeabilies to
remove irrational 0.40
results.
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0.0000 0.1000 0.2000 0.3000 0.4000 0.5000 0.6000 0.7000 0.8000 0.9000 1.0000
Lambda-Function Model
• The Lambda function is similar

to the Power Function except C
that it is controlled S w − S wirr = λ
asymptotically to the Swirr
Pc

conditions conversions must Sw Saturation
be done from Pc at reservoir
conditions to Pc at laboratory Pc Capillary pressure from
conditions. FWL – convert to/from
Air/Brine
λ Fitting exponent
C Fitting Constant
• Best fit of ln(k) to Lambda Swirr,C
parameters compared 1.5

to least squares fit of Sw 1.4
prediction.
1.3
1.2
• Parameters between 1.1
two methods are close 1
Lambda Parameters (Swirr, C)

but not exactly the
0.9
same. Lamda Swirr
Lamda C
0.8
Modeled Swirr
Modeled C
0.7
• Since the objective is to Best Fit Swirr
Best Fit C
0.6
predict Sw, the least
0.5
squares approach is
preferred. 0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.10 10.00 1000.00
Parameter = const + slope * ln(k ) Permeability (mD)
to Optimize Model fit – Lambda Function
• Optimize 5 Lambda Measured Sw vs. Modeled Sw
Function Parameters 1.00
over the entire Capillary

0.90
Pressure data set.
0.80
0.60
0.50 Lambda Function
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0.0000 0.1000 0.2000 0.3000 0.4000 0.5000 0.6000 0.7000 0.8000 0.9000 1.0000
Saturation Height Functions
Malay Basin Core Calibrated Models
λ = 0.41084
Lambda S w − S wirr
C
= λ C = 1.0645 − 0.07664 ln(k )
Function Pc
S wirr = 0.306447 − 0.03302 ln(k )
Intercept = −0.63807 − 0.06043 ln(k )

J-Function S w = Intercept + Slope * log( J )
Slope = −0.15885 − 0.02357 ln(k )
Power a a = 1.275117 − 0.10018 ln(k )

Sw = b
Function Pc b = 0.192164 − 0.015192 ln(k )
 −  

G
Pd = 1.048778 − 0.10612 ln(k )

P
S w = 1 − e  Pd  
Thomeer log  c 
Parameters   G = 2.751447 − 0.24418 ln(k )

 
Model Comparison – Prediction of Sw
• Fitting error comparable Measured Sw vs. Modeled Sw

between methods
1.00
• Thomeer and Lambda have 0.90
physical interpretation (Swirr

and Entry Pressure) 0.80
• J-Function is a variation on a
“standard” method 0.70
0.60
• Thomeer and Power have J-Function
problems at low and high 0.50
Lambda Function
Thomeer
permeabilities in poorly Power Function
calibrated models. 0.40
• J-Function is conservative at
high permeabilities 0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0.0000 0.1000 0.2000 0.3000 0.4000 0.5000 0.6000 0.7000 0.8000 0.9000 1.0000
Model Comparison
• Comparison of methods Swirr vs. Permeability (50psi)
as function of 1.0000
Permeability.
0.9000
• Lambda and Thomeer 0.8000

have physical
interpretation (Swirr and 0.7000
Entry Pressure, Pd)

0.6000
• J-Function is a variation Measured
J-Function
on a “standard” method
Swirr
0.5000 Lambda Model
Thomeer
Power Function
0.4000
• Thomeer and Power
have problems at low 0.3000
and high permeabilities

in poorly calibrated 0.2000
models.
0.1000
• J-Function is
conservative at high 0.0000
0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00 10000.00
permeabilities Permeability
Example Comparing Different Methods.
2353.7 2303.5
2360 2310
2365
2315
2370
2320
2375
2325
2380
2330
2385
2335
2390
2340
2395
2400.0 2345.4
Clastic Permeability Review
• Permeability is a complex phenomena in rocks.

• Permeability is closely related to pore throat size.
• In clastics there is a loose relationship between pore
throat size and grain size.
• There is a loose relationship between grain size and
sorting.
• There is a loose relationship between porosity, sorting
and grain size.
• Logs measure bulk properties and have little response to
grain size and texture.
• These simplifications may be appropriate for clastics, but

do not always work and are not necessarily applicable to
carbonates or fractured reservoirs
Porosity - Permeability Relationships in Clastics
(Chilingar, 1969)
10-11 104
10-12 103
K in m2
K in md
10-13 102 1 - coarse & very

coarse grained
2 - coarse & medium
coarse grained
3 - fine grained
4 - silty
5 - clayey
10-14 101
(after Chilingar, 1969)

10-15 100
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 φ
Porosity - Permeability Relationships in Clastics
Observations
(Chilingar, 1969)
10-11 104
Permeability does not increase infinitely
with porosity.
10-12 103
K in m2
K in md
Permeability decreases with decreasing

grain size.
10-13 102 1 - coarse & very

coarse grained
2 - coarse & medium
coarse grained
3 - fine grained
4 - silty
5 - clayey
10-14 101
Permeability increases with increasing

porosity. (after Chilingar, 1969)
10-15 100
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 φ
Permeability and Grain Size
k = 212 mD k = 2301 mD
φ = 23.1% φ = 24.9%
10.16 mm 10.16 mm
Common Permeability Models
No standard values for the parameters. User derives parameters from

Log - Fit k = 10 a +bφ an appropriate fit of the core data.
φn Timur derived this equation in the 1960’s and assigned nominal

Timur k =C m
values. The user may adjust the fitting parameters to their data
S wirr Standard Values C = 0.136, n = 4.4, m = 2
Coates created this variation of the Timur equation, using

m Bulk Volume of Immovable (BVI) fluid instead of Swirr for
n
 100*φe   φe − BVI  use with NMR data. The model premise is that since
Coates k =     immovable water (Swirr) does not contribute to flow, there
 C   φe 
should be a permeability control based on BVI.
Standard Values C = 10, n = 4, m = 2

Malay Basin Core Data – Log Fit
Malay Basic Core Data
22 wells
• Log-fit typical method often 0
990
5
1091
selected to “engineer” a good 96
solution in a short period of time. 100000

• Requires sufficient core for each 10000
reservoir or facies to be
modeled to a desired accuracy. 1000
• Simple (empirical) fits have
CORE.KAIR (MD)
minimal interpretive meaning. 100
• Single parameter input limits 10

use when permeability is more
complex. 1
• Tend to be limited to a certain

porosity range. 0.1
0.01 0.000
0.400
0.050
0.100
0.150
0.200
0.250
0.300
0.350
k = 10 −2.70+ 21.8φ 1
CORE.PHI (V/V)
14
Color: FREQUENCY
Basic Inputs for Coates Equation

Well Sample Depth Lab Sigma Lab Theta Porosity Permeability Swirr C Lamda At 50 psi BVI Error
BVI from Capillary Pressure
Well XXXXXX
Fluids Air-Water
Method HS Centrifuge Air-Brine Capillary Pressure
NOB 800 psi
800.00
Klinkenberg Capillary End face
Sample Depth Permeability Porosity Pressure Sw
No. (m) (mD) (frac) (psi) (frac)
XXXX XXXX.XX 1050.00 0.2550 0.00 1.00 700.00

1.00 0.57
2.00 0.44
5.00 0.33
600.00
10.00 0.26

25.00 0.23
50.00 0.20
100.00 0.20 500.00
200.00 0.18
500.00 0.16
750.00 0.16
400.00
• Capillary Pressure data can be 300.00
used to estimate BVI via Swirr

of the Lambda fitting. 200.00
100.00
BVI = φS wirr 0.00

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Water Saturation
Coates Equation Fit of Malay Basin Capillary
Pressure Data
• Create Least squares

fit of Capillary
Pressure/Core Data Core Air Permeability - Modeled Pemeability
Capillary Pressure Data Only
(Swirr, φ k) to Coates 10000.00
Parameters using
capillary pressure 59 1000.00
samples.
Core Air Permeability (mD)

100.00
Coates
Unity
10.00
1.00
0.10
6.58 3.57
 100 * φe   φe − 0.036  0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
k =    Modeled Permeability
 9.23   φ e 
Coates Equation Fit of Malay Basin Capillary Pressure
• Fit of Coates model for Coates: Permeability - Porosity

BVI = 0.01, 0.036 and Capillary Pressure Data Only
0.07 for coarse

10000.00
grained, medium
grained and fine
grained (increasing
surface to volume ratio 1000.00
resulting in increasing
BVI.

• Model behaves as we 100.00
would expect rocks to Poro-Perm
behave (i.e. BVI=0.01
BVI=0.036
decreasing BVI=0.07
permeability with 10.00
increasing bound
water.
• Similar behavior to 1.00
known rock behavior
0.10
0.0000 0.0500 0.1000 0.1500 0.2000 0.2500 0.3000 0.3500
Core Porosity
Core Calibrated Coates Model
Core Air Permeability vs. Core Porosity
• Core calibrated Coates Malay Basin Core Data
18 Wells
model with constant BVI 0

846
1
0.000
0.050
0.100
0.150
0.200
0.250
0.300
0.350
0.400
943
96
of 0.01, 0.036 and 0.07. 20000

10000
20000
10000
• Coates model seeks to

model permeability 1000 1000

variations with grain- 100 100
size though surface to

volume relationships. 10 10
1 1
0.1 0.1
0.01 0.01
0.000
0.400
0.050
0.100
0.150
0.200
0.250
0.300
0.350
Core Porosity
1 12
Color: FREQUENCY
Permeability As a Function of
Porosity and Grain Size
10-11 104
10-12 103
K in m2
K in md
1 - coarse & very

10-13 102 coarse grained
2 - coarse & medium
coarse grained
3 - fine grained
4 - silty
5 - clayey
10-14 101
(after Chilingar, 1969)

10-15 100
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 φ
Core Calibrated Coates Model
Core Air Permeability vs. Core Porosity
• Core calibrated Coates Malay Basin Core Data
18 Wells
model with constant BVI 0

846
1
0.000
0.050
0.100
0.150
0.200
0.250
0.300
0.350
0.400
943
96
of 0.01, 0.036 and 0.07. 20000

10000
20000
10000
• Note how average BVI

of 0.036 does not fit 1000 1000

well over the entire 100 100
range of porosity.
• This is because BVI 10 10
changes with porosity 1 1
(probably sorting of
grains) 0.1 0.1
0.01 0.01
0.000
0.400
0.050
0.100
0.150
0.200
0.250
0.300
0.350
Core Porosity
1 12
Color: FREQUENCY
Variation of BVI with Porosity
• Simple model of Capilliary Pressure BVI vs. Core Porosity
BVI vs. φ to 0.1400
capture variable
of BVI due to 0.1200
rock quality. 0.1000
Capilliary Pressure BVI

0.0800
BVI
Fit
0.0600
0.0400
BVI = 0.10 − 0.29φ

0.01 ≤ BVI ≤ φ 0.0200
0.0000
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45
Core Porosity
Core Calibrated Coates Model with Variable
BVM – Generic Malay Basin Model
• Final Coates Model with Core Air Permeability vs. Core Porosity
Malay Basin Core Data
variable BVI achieves 18 Wells
0
846
better fit with all the core
1
0.000
0.050
0.100
0.150
0.200
0.250
0.300
0.350
0.400
943
96
data. 20000 20000

10000 10000
• Honors core calibration
parameters.
1000 1000
• If BVI data is available from

NMR or other sources it 100 100
may be used in place of the
Simple BVI to φ
10 10
relationship.
1 1
BVI = 0.10 − 0.29φ

0.01 ≤ BVI ≤ φ 0.1 0.1
0.01 0.01
0.000
0.400
0.050
0.100
0.150
0.200
0.250
0.300
0.350
6.58 3.57
 100 * φe   φe − BVI 
k =    Core Porosity
 9.23   φe  1 12
Color: FREQUENCY
Comparison of Core Permeability to Log based model
Core Air Permeability vs. Log Estimated Permeability

Malay Basin Core Data
• Core Air Permeability 18 Wells
0
compared to Log 697
238
10000
20000
0
944
1000
0.01
100
102
0.1
10
1
Estimated Permeability 20000
10000
20000
10000
– Demonstrates good
relationship. 1000 1000
– Data scatter in part due to

depth matching and 100 100
measurement resolution
differences. 10 10
1 1
0.1 0.1
0.01 0.01
0.01
20000
1
10
0.1
100
1000
10000
Log Estimated Permeabiltlity (mD)
1 14
Pore Volume Definition Review
φt Total Porosity
φe Effective Porosity
CBW Clay Bound Water – water hydrated on clay surface.
BVI Bound Water Irreducible – also known as Capillary bound

Water
BVM Bulk Volume Movable
φt = φe + CBW
Clay Bound Water

Capillary Bound
Movable (BVM)
φe = BVM + BVI
Bulk Volume
Water (BVI)
Clay
Humidity dried core is expected to relate to
Silt
Effective Porosity, φe, since humidity drying
cannot remove the Clay Bound Water.
When relating to logs and log derived effective

porosity there are some differences which
become more pronounced as shaliness
increases because log analysis tends to define
capillary bound water in shale as CBW. While it
Vq Vsh φe
is non-effective, technically it is not the water of
hydration.
NMR Basics
ECHO TRAIN T2 SPECTRUM

25
NMR Porosity T2 Cutoffs
Incremental Porosity (pu)

20 4.00 4.00
Echo Amplitude
15
T2 Decay 3.00 3.00
10
Transform 2.00 2.00
CBW BVI BVM

5 1.00 1.00
0.00 0.00
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Time (ms) T2 Decay (ms)
Dry Clay- Capillary Mobile

Matrix Clay Bound Bound Water Hydrocarbon
Water Water
Simple (Undisturbed) Reservoir States
Bound
Hydrocarbon
Water (BVI)
Clay Bound
Above the transition zone, pressure difference due to the density difference
Water
Clay
between hydrocarbon and water force water to drain from the reservoir. This
Silt
Capillary
volume of hydrocarbon can be approximated by Swirr or BVI
5
4
ressure, bar
3
P
Within the transition zone pressure is insufficient to displace all the water and
2 “free” water may be produced. The length of the transition zone is determined by
Bound
the fluid density differences and the capillary properties. In general high
Water (BVI)
Clay Bound
Transition
permeability means short transition zones.

Water
Clay
Silt
Capillary
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
W a te r Sa tura tion, % pore volume

Bound
Below the OWC the formation is 100% wet.

Water (BVI)
Clay Bound
Water
Clay
Wet
Silt
Capillary
Rule of “Thumb” reservoir

is either “wet” or near Swirr.
I-Gas Sand Analysis using Generic Models
2080
2050
I80 I80
2085 14.9 2055 14.9
2060
2090
2090.9 2090.9
I90 2093.1 I90
2093.1
2095 2065
2100 2070
I90 SAND
2105 2075 I90 SAND
25.9 25.9
2110 2080
2115 2085
2120
2119.0 2119.0
2090
I90 SHALE
2125 I90 SHALE
13.1 2095 13.1
2130
2100
2132.1 2132.1
2135
2105
2140
2110
2145
I100 I100
25.0 25.0
2115
I-Gas Sand with NMR data
2080
2050
I80 I80
2085 14.9 2055 14.9
2060
2090
2090.9 2090.9
I90 2093.1 I90
2093.1
2095 2065
2100 2070
I90 SAND
2105 2075 I90 SAND
25.9 25.9
2110 2080
2115 2085
2120
2119.0 2119.0
2090
I90 SHALE
2125 I90 SHALE
13.1 2095 13.1
2130
2100
2132.1 2132.1
2135
2105
2140
2110
2145
I100 I100
25.0 25.0
2115
J-Sand Standard Analysis
2280
2330
2331.7 2331.7
2285
2335
J50 J50
9.1 9.1
2290
2340
2340.9 2340.9
2295
2345
J50 SHALE J50 SHALE
12.8 12.8
2350 2300
2353.7 2353.7
2355 2305
2360
2310
J55 J55
2365
18.6 18.6
2315
2370
2320
2372.3 2372.3
2375
2325
2380
2330
2385
J60 J60
27.7 27.7
2335
2390
2340
2395
2345
2400 2400.0 2400.0
2405 2350
2410
J70 2355 J70
23.2 23.2
2415
2360
2420
2365
2423.2 2423.2
2425
2370
2430
2375
2435
K5 K5
20.1 20.1
2380
J-Sand with NMR Data
2280
2330
2331.7 2331.7
2285
2335
J50 J50
9.1 9.1
2290
2340
2340.9 2340.9
2295
2345
J50 SHALE J50 SHALE
12.8 12.8
2350 2300
2353.7 2353.7
2355 2305
2360
2310
J55 J55
2365
18.6 18.6
2315
2370
2320
2372.3 2372.3
2375
2325
2380
2330
2385
J60 J60
27.7 27.7
2335
2390
2340
2395
2345
2400 2400.0 2400.0
2405 2350
2410
J70 2355 J70
23.2 23.2
2415
2360
2420
2365
2423.2 2423.2
2425
2370
2430
2375
2435
K5 K5
20.1 20.1
2380
J-Sand SHF Analysis
2280
2330
2331.7 2331.7
2285
2335
J50 J50
9.1 9.1
2290
2340
2340.9 2340.9
2295
2345
J50 SHALE J50 SHALE
12.8 12.8
2350 2300
2353.7 2353.7
2355 2305
2360
2310
J55 J55
2365
18.6 18.6
2315
2370
2320
2372.3 2372.3
2375
2325
2380
2330
2385
J60 J60
27.7 27.7
2335
2390
2340
2395
2345
2400 2400.0 2400.0
2405 2350
2410
J70 2355 J70
23.2 23.2
2415
2360
2420
2365
2423.2 2423.2
2425
2370
2430
2375
2435
K5 K5
20.1 20.1
2380
J-Sand SHF Analysis using NMR BVI
2280
2330
2331.7 2331.7
2285
2335
J50 J50
9.1 9.1
2290
2340
2340.9 2340.9
2295
2345
J50 SHALE J50 SHALE
12.8 12.8
2350 2300
2353.7 2353.7
2355 2305
2360
2310
J55 J55
2365
18.6 18.6
2315
2370
2320
2372.3 2372.3
2375
2325
2380
2330
2385
J60 J60
27.7 27.7
2335
2390
2340
2395
2345
2400 2400.0 2400.0
2405 2350
2410
J70 2355 J70
23.2 23.2
2415
2360
2420
2365
2423.2 2423.2
2425
2370
2430
2375
2435
K5 K5
20.1 20.1
2380
I-Sand Example
Permeability estimate
both with and without
NMR BVI have good
agreement. Also fair
Good match at the top. agreement with RCI
Indications of potential free mobilities
water at the bottom.
-Possible shoulder bed
effect.
-Possible near GWC
-NOT due to decreasing
reservoir quality.
Hydrocarbon volume
matches BVI in the
interval because above
transition. Good match
indicates resistivity
modeling is robust
Hydrocarbon volume
increases in the
Resistivity model does transition zone to
not match NMR data. match BVI at the top.
Almost certainly due to
should bed effects. Can
reliably upgrade
hydrocarbon volumes.
J-Sands with NMR
Fair match of
resistivity with BVI.
Suggests slightly
pessimistic resistivity
Sw model
BVI of J20 is higher

than J18 indicating
poorer quality
reservoir.
I Sands – Resistivity Mismatch?
Poor match between Resistivity

model and NMR BVI. Highlights poor
understanding we have of some
potential reservoirs, but NMR helps
by improving our assessment of
reservoir quality and potential.
Log Based Permeability Estimate
Compared to Measured Mobility
Without NMR With NMR

10000 10000
1000 1000
RCI Mobility
100 100
10 10
1 1
0.1 0.1 0.1
10000
0.1
10000
1
1
10
10
100
100
1000
1000
Log Derived Permeability

Impact of NMR on Analysis during Pilot
Program
High Medium Low Total

Res. Qual. Res. Qual. Res. Qual.
Number 26 / 35% 29 / 39% 20 / 27% 75
High 23 % 24 % 15 % 21%
Change
Medium 23 % 21 % 10 % 19 %
Change
Low 15 % 21 % 45 % 25 %
Change
No 38 % 34 % 30 % 35 %
Change
45% of high and medium quality reservoir had significant changes of interpretation
NMR Application
• Three Principle Observations

– Confirmation of Core based permeability and saturation height
models. This confirmation is good over the formations to which
the core data is biased but start to deviate where core data has
been sparse.
– Highlights deviations from BVI correlations
• SHF and permeability models still appear to apply but fail due
to assumptions about BVI.
– Highlights where resistivity based saturation is struggling by
imposing more reasonable bounds and values for Sw through
reasonable height functions.
• Cautions
– Interpreted BVI from NMR does not necessarily match
definitions derived from core
– Signal to noise of in-situ NMR may not be robust enough for fluid
classification at an accuracy required for computation.
Separation of BVI and BVM may not be accurate enough
Conclusions
• Several different Saturation Height functions give similar

results when implemented as correlations to permeability
– Use which ever model you feel comfortable with or that fits your
modeling work flow.
• Capillary pressure may be used to derive the parameters
of the Coates equation providing a non-log and non-
NMR method of verifying/calibrating the Coates
permeability model.
• Used appropriately, NMR BVI measurements are
compatible with the methods above and provide
guidance on permeability and saturation.
– Caution must be exercised in the interpretation of the NMR data.
• Using these methods, log derived permeability achieves
greater consistency with mobility from pressure
measurements.
Acknowledgements
For permission to present the data

and results I would like to thank:
PETRONAS
PETRONAS – Carigali
Petro-Vietnam Production Corporation
PVEP

Capillary Pressure, Saturation, Permeability and NMR: Malay Basin Example

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Capillary Pressure, Saturation, Permeability and NMR: Malay Basin Example

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Capillary Pressure, Saturation,

Permeability and NMR: Malay

Andrew Logan – Talisman Malaysia Limited

FESM November 2008

• Compare methods of modeling capillary pressure

• These three closely related topics gain from being

Klinkenberg Capillary End face 7

XXXX XXXX.XX 1050.00 0.2550 0.00 1.00

• It is necessary to make a conversion between Laboratory Conditions,

Oil/Water/Solid 30 30º 0.866 26

• In the reservoir, the 100

capillary pressure may 90

Water Saturation ( % PV)

• Capillary pressure curves usually have differing relationships

Air-Brine Capillary Pressure Air-Brine Capillary Pressure J-Function - Water Saturation

800.00 1000.00 10000.00

Air Brine Capillary Pressure (Psi)

0.00 0.10 0.10

Water Saturation Water Saturation Water Saturation

Lambda Function Parameters

• The J-Function is one of the

• For each J-Function, a fit J-Function - Water Saturation

may be computed between 10000.00

the J-Function and Sw.

S w = Intercept + Slope * log( J ) 10.00

• Best fit of ln(k) to J-Function Slope and Intercept - Permeability

parameters compared Permeability (mD)

• Parameters between -1.7

J-Function Slope and Intercept

-1.2 J-Function Intercept

• Since the objective is to -1

squares approach is -0.8 Best Fit Slope

Parameter = const + slope * ln(k ) -0.1

• Optimize 4 J-Function Measured Sw vs. Modeled Sw

Parameters over the 1.00

• Average Error = 0.069 0.70

• The Power Function is a very

• Best fit of ln(k) to Power Function a,b - Permeability

parameters compared 1.5

Parameter = const + slope * ln(k ) 0.10 10.00

• Optimize 4 Power- Measured Sw vs. Modeled Sw

Function Parameters 1.00

over the entire Capillary

• Average Error = 0.069 0.70

0.50 Power Function

• The Thomeer Equation was

extremely high pressures

Pc Capillary pressure from FWL –

G Parameter to correlate to logs

• Best fit of ln(k) to Thomeer Pd - Permeability

but not exactly the

• Since the objective is to Best Fit G

squares approach is 1.5

• Optimize 4 J-Function Measured Sw vs. Modeled Sw

Parameters over the 1.00

• Average Error = 0.062 0.70

– Fitting error low in part

computation at high 0.50 Thomeer

• The Lambda function is similar

• Fitting is done to laboratory

• Best fit of ln(k) to Lambda Swirr,C

parameters compared 1.5

Lambda Parameters (Swirr, C)