A Practical Recommendation for Permeability Measurement in Tight-Sand and Shale Reservoirs*

Albert X. Cui1 and Ken Glover1

Search and Discovery Article #41407 (2014)**

Posted August 11, 2014

*Adapted from oral presentation given at 2014 AAPG Annual Convention and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, April 6-9, 2014
**AAPG © 2014 Serial rights given by author. For all other rights contact author directly.
1
Trican Geological Solutions, Calgary, Alberta, Canada (acui@trican.ca)

Abstract

Permeability is one of the critical parameters for evaluating and developing tight-sand and shale reservoirs. It is well known that
unconventional shale and tight-sand reservoirs are highly heterogeneous in mineralogy, fabric and pore structure. Pore-throats of
unconventional formations commonly have a wide range of sizes from hundreds to just several nanometers. Due to the
nanometer-size pores, gas transport in tight-sand and gas shale has a significant component of diffusion, consequently resulting
in strong pore-pressure-dependent gas permeability. Different approaches for a Klinkenberg diffusion correction to gas
permeability have been discussed theoretically by recent studies with limited experimental data. With nanometer-size pores, the
intrinsic or liquid permeability corrected from gas permeability also changes with different test gases. Furthermore, permeability
of unconventional rock depends on in-situ confining stress that also changes as the reservoir pressure depletes during
production. Therefore, for rigorous evaluation and development of an unconventional reservoir, it becomes necessary to
understand how intrinsic permeability changes with in-situ stress and the pore-pressure and stress-dependence of gas diffusivity,
which are difficult and time-consuming to determine separately in the laboratory. However, in present practice,
most engineering calculations and reservoir simulation software packages do not take the diffusivity as an input.

In this study, a simple but rigorous approach is suggested to practically determine the in-situ permeability (combined intrinsic
permeability and diffusivity) with consideration of the effects of pore pressure and in-situ confining stress. The permeability is
measured under conditions that closely simulate the in-situ stress path of a producing reservoir and can be simply represented as
a function of reservoir pressure and therefore be readily usable for various engineering calculations and reservoir simulations.
Discussions on various aspects of the permeability measurements of unconventional reservoirs are presented and applications of
the measured permeability are illustrated.

References Cited

Brezoveki, R., and A. Cui, 2013, Laboratory permeability measurements of unconventional reservoirs: Useless of full of
information? A Montney example from the Western Canadian sedimentary basin: OnePetro, SPE 167047, 12 p.

Cui, L., and S. He, 2009, Study on production formula for horizontal wells in reservoirs with bottom water: Journal of Oil and
Gas Technology, v. 31/3, p. 110-114.

Faraj, B., and M. Brown, 2010, Key attributes of Canadian and U.S. productive shales: Scales and variability: AAPG Search
and Discovery Article #110129, 25 p. Website accessed July 21, 2014.
http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/pdfz/documents/2010/110129faraj/ndx_faraj.pdf.html
 Slide 1

A practical recommendation on
permeability measurement for
tight-sand and shale reservoirs
Albert Cui and Ken Glover
Trican Geological Solutions
Calgary, Alberta CANADA | Woodland, Texas USA
Email: acui@trican.ca

Paper # • Paper Title • Presenter’s Name

 Slide 2

Outline

• Introduction
• GRI or pressure-decay technique
• Pressure pulse-decay technique
• Pressure and stress dependence
of in-situ permeability
• Recommendations & conclusions

Paper # • Paper Title • Presenter’s Name

 Slide 3

Fracture vs. matrix permeability

 For shale gas and oil reservoirs, if there are no
fractures, there will be no economical
hydrocarbon productions.
 Permeability of intact matrix rock is
also important, and critical for optimal well
stimulations.

 Matrix permeability should be properly

determined in lab (and in field).
Paper # • Paper Title • Presenter’s Name
 Slide 4

Fracture vs. matrix permeability

Complex
fractures!

Photo Curtsey: Woodford Shale

Paper # • Paper Title • Presenter’s Name
(TRICANI ...-9- (£)AAPG
 Slide 5

Fracture vs. matrix permeability

Montney Shale at Williston Lake, BC

Complex
fractures!

(Photo
PaperCurtsey: Faraj
# • Paper Title and Brown,
• Presenter’s Name 2010)
 Slide 6

Matrix permeability is important

10mdm
 A 300m-long cemented &
perforated horizontal well. 1mdm

  = 0.06, Sw=0.15, T= 115C, 533m

Pi=25 MPa
 Formation permeability varies
from 1e-3md to 1e-4md.
 Fracture network consists of 1000 days

 3 primary hydraulic fractures

(half length, Xf = 150m, Cf =
10md-m, 120m spacing) 400m
 Orthogonal secondary
fractures networks with Cf =
1md-m 42.5 m

Paper # • Paper Title • Presenter’s Name

 Slide 7

Controls of Km on drainage pattern

File: case_Mixed_19-22-24-1e-4md.irf File: case_Mixed_19-22-24-1e-4m d.irf
User: cui -100 0 100 User: cui 200 300 400
-100 0 100 200 300 -100400 0 500 100 200 300 400 500
Date: 02/04/2011

0
Date: 02/04/2011

0
Pressure (kPa) 2011-03-21.1589658 K layer: 1 Pressure
Scale: 1:3988 (kPa) 2011-06-15 K layer: 1 Pressure (kPa) 2014-03-30
Scale: 1:3988 K layer: 1
kPa kPa Y/X: 1.00:1
Axis Units: m
kPa Y/X: 1.00:1
Axis Units: m
25,000 25,000 25,000

-1 0 0
-1 0 0

-1 0 0
-1 0 0
-1 0 0

23,263 22,968 22,765

21,527 20,937 20,530

19,790 18,905 18,295

-2 0 0
-2 0 0
-2 0 0

-2 0 0
-2 0 0

16,873 16,060
Km= 18,053

14,842 13,825
16,316
0.0001 md

-3 0 0
-3 0 0

-3 0 0
-3 0 0
-3 0 0

12,810 11,591
14,580

10,778 9,356
12,843

8,747 7,121

-4 0 0
-4 0 0
11,106

-4 0 0
-4 0 0
-4 0 0

6,715 4,886 0.00 255.00 510.00 feet

9,370 0.00 255.00 510.00 feet
0.00 80.00 160.00 m eters
0.00 80.00 160.00 meters
4,684 2,651
7,633

-5 0 0
-5 0 0

-5 0 0
100 days

-5 0 0
1000 days
-5 0 0

10 days -100 0 100 200 300 400 500

-100 0 100 200 300 400
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500

File: case_Mixed_19-22-24-1e-3md.irf
File: case_Mixed_19-22-24-1e-3md.irf

0
User: cui

0
-100 0 100
User: cui 200 300 400
-100 0500 100 200 300 400
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 Date: 02/04/2011
kPa kPa Date: 02/04/2011
Scale:Pressure (kPa) 2011-06-15 K layer: 1 kPa Pressure
Scale: 1:3773 (kPa) 2014-03-30 K layer: 1
Pressure (kPa) 2011-03-21.1589658 K layer: 1 1:3773
Y/X: 1.00:1
25,000 Y/X: 1.00:1
25,000 25,000 Axis Units: m
Axis Units: m

23,223

-1 0 0
22,858
-1 0 0

23,581

-1 0 0
-1 0 0

-1 0 0
22,162 21,446 20,716

20,744 19,669 18,574

-2 0 0
-2 0 0

-2 0 0
-2 0 0

-2 0 0
19,325 17,893 16,432

Km= 17,906 16,116 14,290

16,487 14,339 12,148

0.001 md

-3 0 0
-3 0 0
-3 0 0

-3 0 0
-3 0 0

15,068 12,562 10,006

13,650 10,785 7,864

-4 0 0
-4 0 0
-4 0 0
-4 0 0
-4 0 0

12,231 9,008 5,722

10,812 7,231 0.00 245.00 490.00 feet 0.00 245.00 490.00 feet
3,580
0.00 75.00 150.00 meters 0.00 75.00 150.00 meters

10 days
-5 0 0

100 days
-5 0 0

-5 0 0
-100 0 100 200 300 -100 400 0 500 100 200 300 400
-100 0500 100
1000 days 200 300 400

Paper # • Paper Title • Presenter’s Name

 Slide 8

Controls of Km on production
-100 0 100
10 Years 200 300 400 500

Pressure (kPa) 2021-03-30 K layer: 1

kPa
25,000

160 80

-1 0 0
22,698

140
Cumulative production 70
20,396

18,094

k=1e-3md

-2 0 0
Cummulative Production (106 m3)
Daily Production Rate (103 m3/d)

15,792

120 60 13,490

-3 0 0
11,189

100 50 8,887

k=1e-4md 6,585

-4 0 0
4,283 0.00
80 40 0.00
1,981

-5 0 0
60 30 -100 0 100
0.0001 md 200 300 400 500

-100 0 100 200 300 400 500

kPa Pressure (kPa) 2021-03-30 K layer: 1

40 20 25,000

Daily production 22,712

-1 0 0
20 10
k=1e-3md k=1e-4md
20,425

18,137

-2 0 0
0 0 15,850

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 13,562

Time (day) 11,274

-3 0 0

8,987

6,699
-4 0 0

4,412

2,124 0.00

0.00
-5 0 0

0.001 md
Paper # • Paper Title • Presenter’s Name -100 0 100 200 300 400 500
 Slide 9

Techniques for permeability measurement

 GRI or pressure-decay or pressure-fall-off technique

 Crushed samples or core plugs
 Confined or unconfined but commonly unconfined
 Low gas pressure
 Approximate
 Pressure-Pulse decay (PPD) technique
 Core plugs
 Confined to in-situ stress with high or low fluid pressure (Pf)
 Steady-state technique
 Air/N2 permeability
 Commonly under low confining stress and low Pf
 Other techniques

Paper # • Paper Title • Presenter’s Name

 GRII pressure-decay I falloff permeability
• Gas fills up pore space from all directions with
cross-bedding transfer

(Cui et al., 2009)

Gas Flow Pattern

~-~ . --,'
Hj~h Perm> Fracture (k,) - Cross-bedding
: (k~) liliriin~ : __ Along-bedding

Presenter’s Notes: Different methods measure different permeability. Permeability is direction dependent.
 GRI permeability - continued 1
• Average permeability value in all directions

Hydraulic Fracture
xm ,

Horizontal Wellbore

Presenter’s Notes: Different methods measure different permeability. Permeability is direction dependent.
 GRI permeability - continued 2
• Average permeability for different pore-throat sizes
• Not good for highly heterogeneous samples
i"o rmalizl."t1
Infremenla l
Pore Volume
- H· 1-----t--tfH
(%j ----#4\ -----1-+1+-1
1

Presenter’s Notes: Different methods measure different permeability. Permeability is direction dependent.
 GRI permeability - continued 3

• Strong dependence of sample size

10-' .....,
IE-I -

~ -, • I-- .~
'"E 10 - ~ _~ c.((\
,
~

0
~

""e
IE-2
- --------
••
3
- . 10-
"0 C I-- -~- +

• ••
~
E ] IE-3
Q
::: 10
-4 ""e
I ... . #3 1-A
r..~
.0
<0
0)
E
...
0) 10- 5
•• "
0..
I E-4
. #31-C
. #32-A
. #32-C ~ ~"'a.on
---
.-c
\
0-
• • •• SH- 12 . #4 1

10-6 • SH-05
,
IE-5
0
fII Crushed

2
\
4
';:"'---
6 8 10
10-' 10° 10 ' 10- Helium Porosity (%)
Partic le rad ius (mm )
(Cui et al., 2009) (c ui et aI., 2013)

TRICAN l.
Presenter’s Notes: Different methods measure different permeability. Permeability is direction dependent.
 GRI permeability - continued 4
• No consideration of effective in-situ stress
• Low gas pressure - diffusion dominated
• Not good for production analysis
• Valid reservoir quality index (porosity & pore size)
I E-I -=~------~~'h

••

o
10 100 10000 100000 1 E-5 ~~~=~~:::===:===1
Pore Db.mete r (nm) o 2 4 6 8 10
(Cui et aI., 2013) Helium Po rosity (%j

Presenter’s Notes: Different methods measure different permeability. Permeability is direction dependent.
 Slide 15

Pressure-pulse decay (PPD) permeability

• Gas transfers from left to right mainly through fracture/high
permeability lamina

P(=Pu-Pd)
Time
(Cui et al., 2009)
Gas Flow Pattern
ky kz Low Perm High Perm Fracture (kF) Cross-bedding
(kL) Lamina (kH) Lamina Along-bedding
kx
Paper # • Paper Title • Presenter’s Name
 Slide 16

Directional PPD permeability

• Horizontal or vertical permeability can be
measured separately on core plugs with
different orientations

Vertical

Horizontal

Paper # •&Paper
SPE 167047  Laboratory Permeability Title • Measurements
Diffusivity Presenter’s Name  Albert Cui
 Slide 17

Rigorously-defined (PPD) permeability

 No ambiguity for permeability interpretation
5 1
Normalized Sample 32
GRI permeability:

Dimensionless Pressure
Incremental 4 ambiguous interpretation
Pore Volume
(%) 3
0.1
2

1
-
20 Pore Diameter (nm) 500 20 1500
0 0.01
DP 2 20 200 2000
0 20 40 60 80
DP Time (s)
DP (psi)

Pp (psi)

DP (psi)

Pp (psi)
Pf=395 psi Pf=1420 psi
2 400 2 1400

Pc=3000 psi Pc=6800 psi

0.2 300 0.2 1300
2:24 PM 7:12 PM 12:00 AM 4:48 AM 2:24 PM 4:48 PM 7:12 PM 9:36 PM
Time Time
Paper # • Paper Title • Presenter’s Name
(TRICANI ...-9- (£)AAPG
 Slide 18

Pf- and Pc-dependences of permeability

5
Normalized
Incremental 4

• Pf: diffusion or Klinkenberg effects

Pore Volume
(%) 3

• Pc: confining stress effects

2

1
Pore Diameter (nm)
0
2 20 200 2000

k a  k ( PC  Pf ) [1  b0 ( PC  Pf )
ck cb
/ Pf ]
Paper # •&Paper
SPE 167047  Laboratory Permeability Title •(Cui
Diffusivity et al,Name
Presenter’s
Measurements 2013, SPE167047)
 Albert Cui
 Slide 19
In-situ permeability along the stress-
path of a producing reservoirs

5 1.E-2 8000
Normalized
Incremental Air Perm
4
Pore Volume
(%) 3

Effective Stress (psi)

Permeability (md)
2

1
Pore Diameter (nm)
0 Diffusion Included Effective Stress (psi)
2 20 200 2000 1.E-3 5000

1E-1

1E-2 plug Diffusion Excluded

Permeability (md)

1E-3 GRI Perm

1.E-4 2000
#31-A 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
#31-C
1E-4 #32-A crushed
#32-C
Pore Pressure (psi)
#41
Crushed
1E-5
0 2 4 6 8 10
Helium Porosity (%)
(cui et al., 2013)

Paper # •&Paper
SPE 167047  Laboratory Permeability Title • Measurements
Diffusivity Presenter’s Name  Albert Cui
 Slide 20
Using correct permeability for
production analyses
30 100 1.E-2 8000
Air Perm
Air perm
,,

Effective Stress (psi)

Permeability (md)
k=5e-3 md
Cumulative Gas (m3)

, Effective Stress (psi)

Daily Gas Rate (m3/d)

Diffusion Included
1.E-3 5000
20 \ , 10

k=2e-4 md Diffusion Excluded

10
---.... ...,;....~ 1
1.E-4
0 1000 2000 3000
Pore Pressure (psi)
4000 5000
2000

kPa
0 0.1
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Time (day)
5
Normalized
Incremental 4
Pore Volume
(%) 3

1
Pore Diameter (nm)
0
Paper # • Paper Title
SPE 167047 2 Laboratory20Permeability • Presenter’s Name
2000 Measurements  Albert Cui
200 & Diffusivity (£)AAPG
 Slide 21

Practical permeability measurement

1.E-2 8000
8000  For practical purpose,
Air Perm
permeability measured
in laboratory should

(psi)
Effective Stress (psi)
Permeability (md)

include viscous flow

Effective Stress (psi)
and diffusion, and be
Diffusion Included
1.E-3 5000
5000 specific to the actual
reservoir’s stress-path.

Diffusion Excluded

1.E-4 2000
2000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
5000
Pore Pressure (psi)
Pore

k a  k ( PC  Pf )ck [1  b0 ( PC  Pf )cb / Pf ]

Paper # •&Paper
SPE 167047  Laboratory Permeability Title • Measurements
Diffusivity Presenter’s Name  Albert Cui
 Slide 22

Conclusions
 GRI permeability is an approximation and should
not be used for engineering analyses of
production. But it is a good index for reservoir
quality evaluation.
 Directional permeability including diffusion and
viscous flow, and effects of effective stress should
be determined using the PPD or other similar
techniques.
 Permeability along the stress-path of a producing
reservoir can be determined in laboratory without
separating viscous flow and diffusion.
Paper # •&Paper
SPE 167047  Laboratory Permeability Title • Measurements
Diffusivity Presenter’s Name  Albert Cui
 Slide 23

Acknowledgements
 Trican Geological Solutions

Thank You!

Paper # • Paper Title • Presenter’s Name