Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

2.3K tayangan

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

- Advanced Petrophysics
- NExT 1 Intro Petrophysics
- Core Laboratories - Formation Evaluation and Petrophysics
- Reservoir Petrophysics Class Notes
- Basic Well Log Analysis for Geologist
- Geoscientists Guide to Petrophysics
- Basic Well Log Interpretation
- Crain Book
- Petrophysical Engineering
- Basic Log Interpretation
- Petrophysics P.glover (1)
- B P - Petrophysical Reservoir Evaluation
- Interpretation Log
- Basic Formation Evaluation
- Reservoir Characterization
- Fundamentals of Petrophysics Ch 1-5
- Fundamentals of Basic Reservoir Engineering 2010
- Intro to Petrophysics
- 28848005 Reservoir and Production Fundamentals
- Reservoir_Characterization_with_borehole_Geophysics

Anda di halaman 1dari 1049

Page

1 PETROLEUM RESERVOIR ROCKS ......................................... 1-1

1.1 PETROPHYSICS ............................................................................... 1-1

1.4.1 Igneous Rocks.................................................................... 1-5

1.4.2 Metamorphic Rocks...........................................................1-6

1.4.3 Sedimentary Rocks ............................................................1-6

1.5.1 Clastic Sedimentary Rocks ................................................ 1-7

1.5.2 Chemical Sedimentary Rocks............................................ 1-7

1.5.3 Organic Sedimentary Rocks ..............................................1-8

ROCK) ............................................................................................. 1-10

1.7.1 Pore Space ....................................................................... 1-12

1.7.2 Compaction and Cementation......................................... 1-15

1.7.3 Classification ................................................................... 1-17

DOLOMITES) .................................................................................1-20

1.8.1 Classification ................................................................... 1-21

1.8.2 Pore Space .......................................................................1-22

1.10 RESEVOIR COLUMN.....................................................................1-29

REFRENCES ...................................................................................1-32

2.5.1 Direct Porosity Measurement by Routine

Core Analysis .................................................................... 2-6

2.5.2 Indirect Porosity Measurement by CT Imaging.............. 2-11

2.6 FLUID SATURATIONS ..................................................................2-16

WELL LOGS................................................................................... 2-24

2.7.1 Introduction to Well Logging......................................... 2-24

2.7.2 Mud filtrate Invasion...................................................... 2-25

2.7.3 Porosity Logs .................................................................. 2-32

Density Log .................................................................. 2-32

Sonic Log (Acoustic Log) ............................................. 2-36

Neutron Log .................................................................2-41

Combination Porosity Logs ......................................... 2-45

2.7.4 Resistivity Log ................................................................ 2-46

Electric Log ................................................................. 2-54

Induction-Electric Log ................................................ 2-56

Dual Induction Laterolog ........................................... 2-58

Focused Electric Log (Guard and Laterolog) ............. 2-62

Microresistivity Logs................................................... 2-65

2.7.5 Lithology Logs ................................................................ 2-68

Spontaneous Potential Log (SP) ................................. 2-68

The Gamma Ray Log (GR)...........................................2-73

2.7.6 Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) Logs.................... 2-76

Nuclear Spins in a Magnetic Field .............................. 2-76

The Effect of Radiofrequency Pulses -

Resonance Absorption ............................................... 2-79

Relaxation Processes................................................... 2-80

Molecular Diffusion Effect.......................................... 2-84

NMR Signal and Corresponding T2 Spectrum ........... 2-84

Pore Size Distribution................................................. 2-89

Estimation of Permeability from

NMR Relaxation Times............................................... 2-95

2.7.7 NMR Imaging of Laboratory Cores................................ 2-97

The Effect of Magnetic Field Gradients...................... 2-98

Slice-Selective Excitation............................................ 2-99

Frequency Encoding ................................................. 2-100

Phase Encoding.......................................................... 2-101

Image Reconstruction............................................... 2-102

Three-Dimensional NMR Imaging............................2-103

Signal-to-Noise Ratio and Image Contrast............... 2-104

Example NMR Images of Laboratory Cores..............2-105

2.7.8 A Comparison of Various Porosity

Measurements for Shaly Sand....................................... 2-112

2.8 RESERVE ESTIMATION PROJECT ........................................... 2-113

2.8.1 Reserve Estimation........................................................ 2-114

2.8.2 Economic Evaluation..................................................... 2-115

2.8.3 Simulation Procedure.................................................... 2-116

2.8.4 Sampling Procedure ...................................................... 2-116

2.8.5 Simulation Output.........................................................2-124

NOMENCLATURE .......................................................................2-135

3 PERMEABILITY .....................................................................3-1

3.4.1 Diffusivity Equation for Slightly

Compressible Liquid........................................................ 3-15

3.4.2 Pressure Drawdown Equation ........................................3-19

3.4.3 Pressure Buildup Equation ............................................ 3-22

3.4.4 Diagnostic Plots.............................................................. 3-24

3.4.5 Skin Factor...................................................................... 3-30

3.4.6 Homogenous Reservoir Model with

Wellbore Storage and Skin ............................................. 3-33

3.4.7 Type Curve Matching ......................................................3-37

3.4.8 Radius of Investigation of a Well Test ........................... 3-40

3.4.9 Field Example of Well Test Analysis .............................. 3-40

3.4.10 Welltest Model for Dry Gas Reservoir .......................... 3-52

3.5.1 Compaction..................................................................... 3-56

3.5.2 Pore Size (Grain Size) ..................................................... 3-56

3.5.3 Sorting ............................................................................ 3-60

3.5.4 Cementation ................................................................... 3-60

3.5.5 Layering .......................................................................... 3-60

3.5.6 Clay Swelling....................................................................3-61

3.8.1 Carman-Kozeny Equation .............................................. 3-69

3.8.2 Tortuosity ........................................................................3-75

3.8.3 Calculation of Permeability from Pore

Size Distribution............................................................. 3-79

3.9 STEADY STATE FLOW THROUGH FRACTURES....................... 3-84

3.10 AVERAGING PERMEABILITY DATA .......................................... 3-85

3.14.1 Definition of Homogeneity and Anisotropy ................ 3-106

3.14.2 Darcy’s Law for Homogeneous

and Anisotropic Medium .............................................3-107

3.14.3 Transformation of Permeability Tensor

from One Coordinate system to Another .................... 3-114

3.14.4 Alternative Calculation of the Principal

Values and the Principal Axes of the

Permeability Anisotropy..............................................3-122

3.14.5 Directional Permeability...............................................3-124

3.14.6 Measurement of Transverse Permeability

of a Cylindrical Core .................................................... 3-137

3.15 EXAMPLE APPLICATIONS OF PERMEABILITY.......................3-140

3.15.1 Productivity of Horizontal Well ....................................3-140

Introduction ............................................................... 3-141

Homogeneous and Isotropic Reservoirs ................... 3-141

Homogeneous and Anisotropic Reservoirs ...............3-145

3.15.2 Productivity of a Vertically Fractured Well..................3-152

NOMENCLATURE ....................................................................... 3-155

4.1 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................4-1

VARIABILITY (HETEROGENEITY)............................................... 4-3

4.2.1 Measures of Central Tendency ......................................... 4-3

Mean.............................................................................. 4-3

Geometric Mean............................................................ 4-3

Median .......................................................................... 4-3

Mode.............................................................................. 4-4

4.2.1 Measures of Variability

(Heterogeneity or Spread) ............................................... 4-4

Variance ........................................................................ 4-4

Dykstra-Parsons Coefficient of Variation..................... 4-5

Lorenz Coefficient ......................................................... 4-8

4.3 MEASURES OF SPATIAL CONTINUITY ...................................... 4-11

4.3.1 Variogram ........................................................................4-13

Definition .....................................................................4-13

How to Calculate the Variogram .................................4-16

Physical Meaning of the Variogram............................ 4-27

Variogram Models....................................................... 4-28

Fitting a Theoretical Variogram Model to

an Experimental Variogram ....................................... 4-35

Variogram Anisotropy .................................................4-41

Example Experimental Variograms............................ 4-44

4.3.2 Covariance (Autocovariance) Function...........................4-51

Definition .....................................................................4-51

Physical Meaning of Covariance Function ................. 4-54

4.3.3 Correlation Coefficient Function

(Autocorrelation Function) .............................................4-57

4.4.1 Normal (Gaussian) Distribution .................................... 4-60

4.4.2 Log Normal Distribution................................................ 4-72

4.5.1 Introduction ....................................................................4-75

4.5.2 Ordinary Kriging Equations ........................................... 4-86

Derivation in Terms of the

Covariance Function ................................................... 4-89

Derivation in Terms of the Variogram ....................... 4-94

Solution of the Kriging Equation in terms

of the Covariance Function......................................... 4-98

Solution of the Kriging Equation in terms

of Variogram ..............................................................4-103

4.6.1 Introduction ..................................................................4-132

4.6.2 Sequential Gaussian Simulation ...................................4-132

4.6.3 A Practical Application of Sequential

Gaussian Simulation .....................................................4-136

NOMENCLATURE .......................................................................4-148

5.2 LABORATORY FIRST-CONTACT MISCIBLE

DISPLACEMENTS........................................................................... 5-3

5.3 ORIGIN OF DISPERSION IN POROUS MEDIA .......................... 5-20

5.3.1 Molecular Diffusion.........................................................5-21

5.3.2 Mechanical Dispersion ....................................................5-21

5.4.1 Generalized Equation in Vector Notation...................... 5-23

5.4.2 One Dimensional Convection-Dispersion

Equation ........................................................................ 5-25

5.4.2 Solution of the One-Dimensional

Convection-Dispersion Equation ................................... 5-26

AND DISPERSIVITY ......................................................................5-53

5.6.1 Traditional Laboratory Method with

Breakthrough Curve .......................................................5-53

5.6.2 Laboratory Method of Peters et al. (1996) ..................... 5-56

5.6.3 Field Measurement of Dispersion

Coefficient and Dispersivity ............................................ 5-71

COEFFICENT AND DISPERSIVITY ..............................................5-75

MISCIBLE DISPLACEMENT .........................................................5-79

5.8.1 Introduction ....................................................................5-79

5.8.2 Mathematical Model of First-Contact

Miscible Displacement ....................................................5-79

5.8.3 Numerical Modeling of Laboratory Experiments.......... 5-82

Experiment 1 ................................................................. 5-84

Experiment 2..................................................................5-91

Experiment 3................................................................. 5-99

Experiment 4................................................................5-106

Experiment 5................................................................ 5-116

Experiment 6................................................................ 5-121

NOMENCLATURE .......................................................................5-126

6 INTERFACIAL PHENOMENA AND WETTABILITY ................ 6-1

6.1 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................6-1

6.2 SURFACE AND INTERFACIAL TENSIONS................................... 6-2

6.2.1 Surface Tension ................................................................ 6-2

6.2.2 Interfacial Tension .......................................................... 6-11

6.2.3 Measurement of Surface and

Interfacial Tension......................................................... 6-20

Capillary Rise Experiment ............................................ 6-20

Sessile Drop Method ..................................................... 6-24

Pendant Drop Method .................................................. 6-26

Ring Method.................................................................. 6-27

Spinning Drop Method ................................................. 6-30

6.3 WETTABILITY................................................................................6-31

6.3.1 Definition.........................................................................6-31

6.3.2 Determination of Wettability ......................................... 6-36

Contact Angle Method ................................................. 6-37

Amott Wettability Test.................................................. 6-40

United State Bureau of Mines (USBM)

Wettability Test............................................................. 6-42

6.3.3 Wettability of Petroleum Reservoirs.............................. 6-45

6.3.4 Effect of Wettability on Rock-Fluid Interactions........... 6-46

Microscopic Fluid Distribution at the

Pore Scale ..................................................................... 6-47

Effect of Wettability on Irreducible

Water Saturation .......................................................... 6-47

Effect of Wettability on Electrical

Properties of Rocks ...................................................... 6-48

Effect of Wettability on the Efficiency of an

Immiscible Displacement .............................................6-51

6.4.1 Characterization of Interfacial Tension

as Specific Surface Energy.............................................. 6-64

6.4.2 Characterization of Microscopic Pore Level

Fluid Displacements....................................................... 6-66

Case 1. Displacement of a Nonwetting

Phase by a Wetting Phase ............................................ 6-67

Case 2. Displacement of a Wetting Phase

by a Nonwetting Phase ................................................. 6-69

FOR A POROUS MEDIUM.............................................................. 7-8

7.4 CONVERSION OF LABORATORY CAPILLARY PRESSURE

DATA TO RESERVOIR CONDITIONS .......................................... 7-21

FLUID SATURATIONS BY USE OF DRAINAGE

CAPILLARY PRESSURE CURVE.................................................. 7-28

7.9.1 Capillary End Effect.........................................................7-57

7.9.2 Mathematical Analysis of Capillary End Effect ..............7-59

7.9.3 Mathematical Model of Capillary End Effect

During Steady State Relative Permeability

Measurement.................................................................. 7-68

7.9.4 Experimental Evidence of Capillary End Effect...............7-70

7.10.1 Restored State Method (Porous Plate Method)..............7-76

7.10.2 Mercury Injection Method ............................................. 7-77

7.10.3 Centrifuge Method..........................................................7-81

7.11.1 Introduction.................................................................... 7-96

7.11.2 Pore Volume Distribution .............................................. 7-98

7.11.3 Pore Size Distribution Based on Bundle

of Capillary Tubes Model............................................7-103

7.11.4 Mercury Injection Porosimeter..................................... 7-115

CAPILLARY PRESSURE CURVE................................................. 7-118

7.12.1 Calculation of Absolute Permeability from

Drainage Capillary Pressure Curve............................. 7-118

7.12.2 Calculation of Relative Permeabilities from

Drainage Capillary Pressure Curve............................. 7-132

7.13.1 Brooks-Corey Capillary Pressure Models ..................... 7-133

7.13.2 van Genuchten Capillary Pressure Model .................... 7-143

7.14.1 Pore Doublet Model of Capillary Trapping................... 7-145

7.14.2 Snap-Off Model of Capillary Trapping ......................... 7-152

7.14.3 Mobilization of Residual Non-Wetting Phase.............. 7-155

7.14.4 Oil Migration................................................................. 7-159

TENSION ON CAPILLARY PRESSURE CURVES.......................7-162

NOMENCLATURE .......................................................................7-164

8.1 DEFINITION OF RELATIVE PERMEABILITY...............................8-1

8.2 LABORATORY MEASUREMENT OF TWO-PHASE

RELATIVE PERMEABILITY BY THE STEADY STATE

METHOD ......................................................................................... 8-6

DISPLACEMENT IN A POROUS MEDIUM ..................................8-15

8.3.1 Mathematical Model of Two-Phase

Immiscible Displacement................................................8-15

8.3.2 Buckley-Leverett Approximate Solution of the

Immiscible Displacement Equation................................8-21

8.3.3 Waterflood Performance Calculations from

Buckley-Leverett Theory .................................................8-31

Oil Recovery at any Time ...............................................8-31

Oil Recovery Before Water Breakthrough .....................8-31

Oil Recovery at Water Breakthrough............................ 8-32

Oil Recovery After Water Breakthrough ...................... 8-36

Water Production...........................................................8-41

RELATIVE PERMEABILITY BY THE UNSTEADY STATE

METHOD ........................................................................................8-51

8.5.1 Fluid Saturation.............................................................. 8-65

8.5.2 Saturation History .......................................................... 8-66

8.5.3 Wettability ...................................................................... 8-67

8.5.4 Injection Rate ................................................................. 8-70

8.5.5 Viscosity Ratio ................................................................ 8-73

8.5.6 Interfacial Tension ......................................................... 8-74

8.5.7Pore Structure .................................................................. 8-75

8.5.8 Temperature ................................................................... 8-76

8.5.9 Heterogeneity ................................................................. 8-78

8.6 THREE-PHASE RELATIVE PERMEABILITIES .......................... 8-79

DRAINAGE CAPILLARY PRESSURE CURVE ............................. 8-82

NOMENCLATURE .........................................................................8-91

Introduction ..................................................................................... A-1

Algebraic Theory of Dimensional Analysis...................................... A-2

Transformation of the Dimensionless π Groups ............................. A-9

Example Problem............................................................................. A-9

Procedure ....................................................................................... A-10

Transformation of the Dimensionless π Groups for

Example Problem........................................................................... A-21

Some Practical Considerations ......................................................A-28

Concluding Remarks...................................................................... A-31

Nomenclature ................................................................................ A-31

References ...................................................................................... A-32

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 PETROPHYSICS

with fluids (gases, liquid hydrocarbons and aqueous solutions). Because

petroleum reservoir rocks must have porosity and permeability, we are

most interested in the properties of porous and permeable rocks. The

purpose of this text is to provide a basic understanding of the physical

properties of permeable geologic rocks and the interactions of the various

fluids with their interstitial surfaces. Particular emphasis is placed on

the transport properties of the rocks for single phase and multiphase

flow.

include:

• Porosity

• Absolute permeability

• Water saturation

1-1

• Irreducible water saturation

• Hydrocarbon saturation

• Capillary pressure

• Wettability

• Pore size

• Pore structure

• Mineralogy

• Dispersivity

permeable to permit fluid flow through it. In the presence of

interconnected fluid phases of different density and viscosity, such as

water and hydrocarbons, the movement of the fluids is influenced by

gravity and capillary forces. The fluids separate, therefore, in order of

density when flow through a permeable stratum is arrested by a zone of

low permeability, and, in time, a petroleum reservoir is formed in such a

trap. Porosity and permeability are two fundamental petrophysical

properties of petroleum reservoir rocks.

1-2

Geologically, a petroleum reservoir is a complex of porous and

permeable rock that contains an accumulation of hydrocarbons under a

set of geological conditions that prevent escape by gravitational and

capillary forces. The initial fluid distribution in the reservoir rock, which

is determined by the balance of gravitational and capillary forces, is of

significant interest at the time of discovery.

rock. In general, to be of commercial value, a reservoir rock must have

sufficient thickness, areal extent and pore space to contain a large

volume of hydrocarbons and must yield the contained fluids at a

satisfactory rate when the reservoir is penetrated by a well. Any buried

rock, be it sedimentary, igneous or metamorphic, that meets these

conditions may be used as a reservoir rock by migrating hydrocarbons.

However, most reservoir rocks are sedimentary rocks.

most common reservoir rocks. They contain most of the world’s

petroleum reserves in about equal proportions even though carbonates

make up only about 25% of sedimentary rocks. The reservoir character

of a rock may be primary such as the intergranular porosity of a

sandstone, or secondary, resulting from chemical or physical changes

such as dolomitization, solution and fracturing. Shales frequently form

the impermeable cap rocks for petroleum traps.

The distribution of reservoirs and the trend of pore space are the

end product of numerous natural processes, some depositional and some

post-depositional. Their prediction, and the explanation and prediction of

their performance involve the recognition of the genesis of the ancient

sediments, the interpretation of which depends upon an understanding

of sedimentary and diagenetic processes. Diagenesis is the process of

1-3

physical and chemical changes in sediments after deposition that convert

them to consolidated rock such as compaction, cementation,

recrystallization and perhaps replacement as in the development of

dolomite.

of their mineral composition. A mineral is a naturally occurring

crystalline inorganic material that has specific physical and chemical

properties, which are either constant or vary within certain limits. Rock-

forming minerals of interest in petroleum engineering can be classified

into the following families: silicates, carbonates, oxides, sulfates

(sulphates), sulfides (sulphides) and chorides. These are summarized in

Table 1.1. Silicates are the most abundant rock-forming minerals in the

Earth’s crust.

Name Chemical Formula Specific Gravity

Silicates

Quartz SiO2 2.65

Orthoclase

KAlSi2O8 2.57

Plagioclase

NaAlSi3O8 2.62 - 2.76

Clay CaAl2Si2O8

Al2Si2O5(OH) 2.5

and many more

Carbonates

Calcite CaCO3 2.72

Dolomite CaMg(CO3)2 2.85

Oxides

Magnetite Fe3O4 5.18

Hematite

Fe2O3 4.9 - 5.3

1-4

Sulfates

Anhydrite CaSO4 2.89 - 2.98

Gypsum

CaSO4.2H2O 2.32

Barite

BaSO4 4.5

Sulfide

Pyrite FeS2 5.02

Chloride

Halite NaCl 2.16

1.4 ROCKS

classes of rocks: igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary rocks .

These are rocks formed from molten material (called magma) that

solidified upon cooling either:

basaltic lava flows, volcanic glass and volcanic ash.

or

intrusive rocks, e.g., granites and gabbros.

Igneous rocks are the most abundant rocks on the earth’s crust,

making up about 64.7% of the Earth’s crust.

1-5

1.4.2 Metamorphic Rocks

state, of pre-existing rocks beneath the surface by heat, pressure and

chemically active fluids, e.g., quartz is transformed to quartzite and

limestone plus quartz plus heat gives marble and carbon dioxide.

earth’s crust, making up 27.4% of the Earth’s crust.

organisms and vegetation, e.g., sandstone and limestone.

or

e.g., salt and limestone.

reservoir rock and trap to hold the petroleum in the earth’s crust.

Sedimentary rocks are the least abundant rocks on the earth’s crust,

making up about 7.9% of the earth’s crust. Because most reservoir

rocks are sedimentary rocks, they are of particular interest to us in the

study of petrophysics. Therefore, we will examine sedimentary rocks in

more detail than igneous and metamorphic rocks.

1-6

1.5 CLASSIFICATION OF SEDIMENTARY ROCKS

clastic, chemical or organic. Tables 1.2 to 1.4 show the various rock

types for each class.

any type of pre-existing rock. Clastic sedimentary rocks are usually

classified by grain size as boulder, cobble, gravel, sand, silt and clay.

Figure 1.1 shows such a classification known as the Wentworth scale.

e.g., limestone (CaCO3) and dolomite (CaMg(CO3)2) or as evaporties, e.g.,

gypsum (CaSO4.2H2O), anhydrite (CaSO4) and salt (NaCl).

1-7

1.5.3 Organic Sedimentary Rocks

accumulation of organic (plant and animal) material, e.g., peat, coal,

diatomite and limestone.

1-8

Table 1.3 Chemical Sedimentary Rocks (Precipitates)

1-9

1.6 DISTRIBUTION OF SEDIMENTARY ROCK TYPES

in the earth’s crust. Shales make up over 50% of total sedimentary rock

volume in the earth’s crust.

Type % Earth’s Crust % Sedimentary Rock

Shale 4.2 53

Sandstone 1.7 22

Limestone and 2.0 25

Dolomite

Total 7.9 100

ROCK)

been transported to the site of deposition by water currents and which

have been subjected to varying degrees of wave and current action

during transport and during deposition. Consequently, sandstone

reservoirs vary from clean, well sorted quartz sandstone with well

rounded grains (Figure 1.2a) through more angular feldspathic

sandstone containing varying amounts of clay (Figure 1.2b), to

argillaceous, very poorly sorted sandstone containing varying amounts of

rock fragments (Figure 1.2c) all of which may be affected by varying

degrees of compaction, cementation, solution and replacement.

1-10

Figure 1.2: Examples of sandstone reservoir rocks. (A) clean, well sorted

sandstone, (B) angular, feldspathic sandstone and (C) argillacious, very

poorly sorted sandstone.

1-11

1.7.1 Pore Space

sand grains between which the pore space may or may not contain

interstitial fine material and/or cement (Figure 1.3). The amount of this

intergranular pore space or porosity is controlled primarily by sorting of

the sediment and to a lesser extent by the packing of the grains. Sorting

is a measure of the spread of distribution of grain size on either side of

an average in a sediment. Theoretically, grain size has no effect on

porosity. This is true only for spherical grains of the same size.

However, the arrangement of such spheres has a large effect on the

porosity of the pack.

cement.

1-12

Porosity is at its maximum for spherical grains but becomes

progressively less as the angularity of the grains increases because such

grains pack together more closely. Experimental data from artificial

sands confirm that the grain size essentially has no influence on porosity

for well sorted sand. However, porosities of wet packed sands show a

general decrease as sorting becomes poorer. This is because with a

mixture of sizes, the smaller grains partially fill the interstices between

the larger grains.

transmits fluids, depends primarily upon the size, shapes and extent of

the interconnections between individual pores rather than the size of the

pores themselves. However, since the interconnections are directly

related to the pore size which in turn is related to grain size, there are

relationships between these factors and permeability. Krumbein and

Monk (1942) have shown that permeability varies as the square of the

mean grain diameter and a complex function of sorting (other factors

being equal). Experimental data show a marked decrease in permeability

as grain size decreases and as sorting becomes poorer. Experience has

also shown that the permeability measured normal to the bedding is

usually less than permeability measured parallel to the bedding and that

large variations in permeability occur in different directions in the

bedding plane.

a reservoir very adversely. The amount and kind of clay, as well as

distribution throughout the reservoir rock, has an important bearing on

liquid permeability, whereas a small amount has little effect on porosity.

Figures 1.4 and 1.5 show how the dispersed clay morphology affects the

permeability and capillary pressure of sandstones.

1-13

Figure1.4: Three general types of dispersed clay in sandstone reservoir

rocks and their effects on permeability: (a) discrete particles of kaolinite;

(b) pore lining by chlorite; (c ) pore bridging by illite (from Neasham,

1977).

1-14

Figure1.5: Three general types of dispersed clay in sandstone reservoir

rocks and their effects on capillary pressure (from Neasham, 1977).

certain clays, such as montmorillonite, will swell and plug some of the

pore interconnections, drastically reducing the permeability, whereas

saline water may have no effect.

in ancient rocks by many factors. Compaction and cementation are the

most important of these factors but they in turn are affected by

1-15

composition of the sediment, and the contained fluids and their

pressures. Compaction by the weight of the overburden commences as

soon as a sediment is deposited. It produces reduction of pore space as

a result of:

connected passages.

contact sometimes accompanied by precipitation of silica in the

pore space nearby. Alkaline interstitial water seems to provide

conditions more conducive to dissolution than saline water.

the harder grains thus destroying pore space. The softer grains

may be composed of limestone, shale, siltstone and other rock

fragments, and when the amount of such soft material exceeds 10

to 12%, the permeability may be largely destroyed even though

some porosity usually remains.

will inhibit compaction until the depth of burial exceeds that at which

fracturing of the grains and cement is initiated. Abnormal fluid pressure

in sandstone reservoirs also inhibits compaction because the overburden

is partly supported by the fluid pressure.

compaction of the producing zone by rearrangement of the sand grains.

This can produce serious and expensive subsidence of surface facilities

such as occurred in the Wilmington field in California, Bolivar District

fields in Venezuela and Ekofisk field in the North Sea. This form of

1-16

compaction leads to porosity and permeability reduction which is

irreversible and which may affect the producing characteristics of the

reservoir very adversely.

carbonates and other soluble materials in the pores of clastic rocks. The

most common cementing materials in sandstone reservoirs are silica and

calcite but many others do occur. It is not uncommon to find both silica

and calcite present in the cement and in such cases, the silica in the

form of quartz has precipitated first and the calcite later. Silica cement

usually occurs in the form of quartz and grows in optical continuity with

the sand grains until finally the crystals interfere with one another and

an interlocking network results. Calcite cement is often patchy but may

completely fill the pore space.

before the sands were compacted appreciably, and (2) deposition of silica

predissolved by pressure solution during compaction. In the Eocene

Wilcox sandstones of the Gulf Coast, the distribution of silica cement can

be related to both primary texture and depth of burial. The amount of

silica cement tends to increase in coarser and better sorted sands and, to

a lesser extent, with depth. Much of this cement appears to be early and

unrelated to the compaction process.

1.7.3 Classification

The principal types are: (a) quartz sandstones consisting of over 95%

detrital quartz, (b) feldspathic sandstone consisting of 5 - 25% feldspar,

(c) arkosic sandstone consisting of over 25% feldspar, (d) sublithic

sandstone consisting of 5 - 25% rock fragments and (e) lithic sandstone

consisting of over 25% rock fragments.

1-17

Sandstone grain texture consists of five components: (a) size, (b)

sorting, (c) shape (sphericity), (d) roundness, and (e) packing. Figure 1.7

shows a grain size comparator where some of these qualitative terms are

presented visually. Porosity is independent of grain size for uniform

grains but decreases as sorting gets poorer. Close packing reduces

porosity and permeability. The effects of shape and roundness on

porosity are less definite. Permeability increases with increasing grain

size, but decreases with poorer sorting. Permeability generally increases

with angularity and decreasing sphericity.

1-18

Figure 1.7: Grain size comparator chart (from Stow, 2005).

1-19

1.8 CARBONATE RESERVOIRS (LIMESTONES AND

DOLOMITES)

clay to gravel size that were generally deposited in a marine environment.

However, they differ from terrigenous clastics in that they are deposited

as lime particles which are produced locally, whereas, sandstones are

composed of particles transported from an outside source by water

currents. They differ even more importantly from sandstones by being

subject to more post-depositional diagenesis ranging from simple

cementation of the original particles to complete recrystallization or

replacement by dolomite or chert. In addition, they are susceptible to

solution at any stage in their diagenesis. They are usually more poorly

sorted than clastics.

kinds, (2) lime mud, and (3) carbonate cement precipitated later. There

are several kinds of grains, of which four are the most important. These

are (1) shell fragments, called “bio”, (2) fragments of previously deposited

limestone called “intraclasts”, (3) small round pellets - the excreta of

worms, and (4) ooliths - spheres formed by rolling lime particles along

the bottom. Lime mud consists of clay-sized particles of lime.

deposited at the same time as the grains which would be grain-supported

rock, or the grains may be “floating” in lime mud which would be mud-

supported rock.

1.8.1 Classification

as shown in Figure 1.8. The presence or absence of lime mud and the

1-20

type and abundance of grains form the basis of the classification. A

boundstone consists of original skeletal components bound together

during deposition (Figure 1.9). Grainstones consist of packed carbonate

grains with the texture being grain-supported and very little lime mud

(Figure 1.10). Packstones are grain-supported but contain very

substantial amounts of lime mud. Wackestones have a larger amount of

lime muds, such that the grains effectively “float” in the mud. Mudstones

consist of essentially lime muds only. The presence of lime mud may be

most important in the development of porosity in carbonates because

under the right conditions, lime mud may be preferentially dolomitized

and may also be more readily leached out than the grains.

dolomitization. The largest volume of carbonate petroleum reserves

comes from dolomites. Dolomitization occurs from the substitution of

magnesium for calcium in half of the sites in a carbonate crystal. A

volume loss of 12 to 13% due to dolomitization results in a corresponding

increase in porosity. Due to their larger surface area, mud-size grains

are more easily dolomitized than sand-sized grains. Thus, the best

carbonate reservoirs may have the lowest primary porosity.

Dolomitization also creates planar crystal surfaces and harder crystal

structures. Thus, dolomites retain more of their porosity during

compaction than limestones.

1-21

Figure 1.8: Classification of carbonates by texture.

reservoir rocks are related to both the depositional environment and the

diagenesis of the sediment. They are most commonly of secondary

(diagenetic) origin although residual primary pore space does occur.

complex nature of carbonate constituents and diagenetic features. The

pore structures have been classified by Choquette and Pray, 1970) as

shown in Figure 1.10.

1-22

Figure 1.9: Examples of boundstone.

1-23

Figure 1.9: Examples of grainstones.

1-24

Fabric-selective porosity includes:

•Interparticle porosity.

surfaces.

within, or around fossil material.

with grain size or sorting. Porosity and permeability are controlled

largely by the amount of fines and by diagenesis. Correlation of

petrophysical properties with rock type is thus very difficult.

1-25

Figure 1.10: Classification of pore systems in carbonate rocks (Choquette

and Pray, 1970).

1-26

Table 1.6 shows a comparison of the pore space characteristics of

clastic and carbonate rocks (Choquette and Pray, 1970).

Rocks (Choquette and Pray, 1970).

1-27

1.9 FRACTURED RESERVOIRS

due to such factors as (a) folding, (b) faulting, (c) fluid pressure, (d)

release of lithostatic pressure, (e) pressure solution, (f) dehydration, (g)

weathering, (h) cooling and (i) impact craters. Natural fractures can exist

in essentially any type of rock although they are particularly common in

carbonates.

porosity approach to deal with their properties. The matrix rock

(between fractures) usually has reasonable porosity and extremely low

permeability. Fractures range in size from hair-size to several

millimeters in aperture. Fractures that have not been filled with cement

have very high permeabilities, even though they may be fairly widely-

spaced. However, the fracture system generally contains only a small

fraction of the reservoir pore space. Thus, the matrix contains the bulk

of the reservoir pore volume while the fractures contain the bulk of the

reservoir flow capacity.

idealized dual porosity approximation.

1-28

Figure 1.11: Idealization of naturally fractured reservoir (Warren and

Root, 1963)

total thickness of the reservoir as determined from the spontaneous

potential (SP) log, discussed in Chapter 2, is H. This reservoir contains a

hydrocarbon bearing zone and a water bearing zone at the bottom. The

gross pay thickness, which is the thickness of the hydrocarbon bearing

portion of the reservoir as determined from the resistivity log (see

Chapter 2), is h0 . However, this thickness contains shale breaks which

will not be productive and must be discounted to determine the net pay

to be used in reserves estimation. The net pay for this example is given

by

1-29

i =6

Net pay = h = ∑ hi (1.1)

i =1

i =6

h ∑

hi

Net to gross (NTG) = = i =1

(1.2)

h0 h0

expressed as a percentage, is a number that is less than or equal to

100%. Notice that in this example, there is a gas oil contact (GOC) and

an oil water contact (OWC) in the reservoir. The thickness of the gas zone

is hgas and that of the oil bearing zone is hoil . Of course, not all petroleum

reservoirs have a gas oil contact or an oil water contact. Net pay is used

along with other petrophysical properties of the reservoir to estimate the

hydrocarbon reserve as discussed in Chapter 2.

1-30

Figure 1.12. Reservoir column showing gross and net pay.

1-31

REFERENCES

Bull., Vol. 34, No. 5 (May 1950) 943-961.

Beard, D.C. and Weyl, P.K. : “Influence of Texture on Porosity and

Permeability of Unconsolidated Sand,” AAPG Bull. (Feb. 1973) 57,

349-369.

Choquette, P.W. and Pray, L.C. : “Geologic Nomenclature and

Classification of Porosity in Sedimentary Carbonates,” AAPG Bull.,

Vol. 54, No. 2 (1970) 207-250.

Krumbein, W.C. and Monk, G.D. : “Permeability as a Function of the Size

Parameters of Unconsolidated Sand,” Amer. Int. Mining and Met.

Tech. Pub. 1492, 1942.

Levorsen, A.I. : Geology of Petroleum, W.H. Freeman and Company, San

Francisco, 1967.

Neasham, J.W.: "The Morphology of Dispersed Clay in Sandstone

Reservoirs and Its Effect on Sandstone Shaliness, Pore Space and

Fluid Flow Properties," SPE 6858, Presented at the 52nd Annual

Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum

Engineers, Denver, Oct. 9-12, 1977.

Selley, R.C. : Elements of Petroleum Geology, W.H. Freeman, New York,

1985.

Stoneley, R. : An Introduction to Petroleum Exploration for Non-Geologists,

Oxford University Press, New York, 1995.

Stow, D.A.V. : Sedimentary Rocks in the Field, Elsevier Academic Press,

Burlington, 2005.

1-32

CHAPTER 2

defined as the ratio of the pore volume to the bulk volume of the porous

medium as shown in the following equation:

Vp Vb − Vs

φ= = (2.1)

Vb Vb

porosity accounts for all the pores in the rock (interconnected and

isolated pores) whereas effective porosity only accounts for the

interconnected pores. Therefore, effective porosity will be less than or

equal to total porosity depending on the amount of isolated pores in the

rock. From a reservoir engineering standpoint, it is the effective porosity

that matters, not the total porosity.

2-1

Porosity may also be classified as primary or secondary. Primary

porosity is that which was formed at the time of deposition of the

sediments whereas secondary porosity was developed after deposition

and burial of the formation. Sandstone porosity is practically all primary

porosity whereas carbonate porosity tends to be secondary porosity.

cementation. Packing describes the arrangement of the sand grains

relative to one another. Figures 2.1 shows three idealized types of

packing for spherical sand grains and their theoretical porosities. The

cubic packing has a porosity of 47.6%; the hexagonal packing has a

porostiy of 39.5% and the rhombohedral packing has a porosity of

25.9%. As shown by the geometrical derivations in Figure 2.1, the

porosity of a pack of uniform spheres is independent of the grain size as

the grain diameter cancels out.

same size whereas poorly sorted sandstone consists of grains having a

wide range of different grain sizes. Poor sorting reduces the porosity of

the sandstone as may be seen in Figure 2.2 in which the small grains fit

into the pores created by the large grains, thereby reducing the porosity.

2–2

Figure 2.1. Effect of packing on porosity of uniform spheres.

(B) Idealized spherical grains (from Tiab and Donaldson, 2004).

2-3

Table 2.1 shows experimentally measured porosities of various

artificial sandpacks. Note the general decrease of porosity with poor

sorting for all grain sizes and the approximately constant porosity of the

extremely well sorted sands for all grain sizes.

Beard and Weyl, 1973)

usually by quartz or carbonates. Cementation reduces the porosity of

the sand as shown in Figure 2.3.

2–4

2.3 FACTORS AFFECTING CARBONATE POROSITY

primary porosity. The major sources of secondary porosity are

fracturing, solution and chemical replacement.

fractured formation where the grains are bricks and the fractures

constitute the pore space. Although fracture porosity is generally small,

often 1-2%, the fractures are very useful in allowing fluids to flow more

easily through the rock. Therefore, they greatly enhance the flow

capacity of the rock.

carbon dioxide reacts with calcium carbonate to form calcium

bicarbonate which is soluble. This reaction increases the porosity of the

limestone. The chemical reactions are

2-5

CO2 + H 2O = H 2CO3 (2.2)

ion replaces another with a resulting shrinkage in the size of the new

compound. An example is dolomitization in which some of the calcium

ions in calcium carbonate are replaced by magnesium ions to form

calcium magnesium carbonate (dolomite). This replacement causes a

shrinkage of 12 to 13% in the grain volume, with a corresponding

increase in secondary porosity. The chemical reaction is

with an average of 18%. About 95% of sandstone porosity is effective

porosity. Sandstone porosity is usually mostly intergranular porosity.

Carbonates have porosities that typically range from 3% to 15%, with an

average of about 8%. About 90% of carbonate porosity is effective

porosity. Carbonate porosities are much more difficult to characterize

and may consist of (1) intergranular, (2) intercrystalline, (3) fractures and

fissures, and (4) vugular porosities.

2–6

2.5 LABORATORY MEASUREMENT OF POROSITY

of the three volumes Vb, Vs and Vp. In the laboratory, measurements

are usually performed on extracted cores, which have been cleaned and

dried.

displacement. For well machined samples, the dimensions can be

measured with a caliper, from which the bulk volume can be calculated.

volume. In the first method, fluid that does not easily penetrate the

pores such as mercury is used. The apparatus, which is known as a

pycnometer, measures the volume of mercury displaced by the sample

(Figure 2.5a). Since mercury does not penetrate the pores at

atmospheric pressure, the volume of mercury displaced is equal to the

bulk volume of the sample.

used. The sample is weighed in air, evacuated and then saturated with a

liquid (brine, kerosene, or toluene). The saturated sample is weighed in

air and then weighed fully immersed in the saturating liquid. The loss in

weight of the saturated sample when fully immersed in the saturating

liquid is proportional to the bulk volume of the sample (Archimedes

principle).

gas exapansion using Boyle’s law porosimeter. The loss in weight of the

2-7

dry sample and the sample fully immersed in a liquid is proportional to

the grain volume.

porosimeter for grain volume determination by gas expansion. The

sample, which is confined in a vessel of known volume V1, is pressured

by gas (air, nitrogen or helium) to a pressure P1 (absolute units). The

vessel of volume V1 is connected to a second vessel of known volume V2,

which is initially evacuated. The valve between the two vessels is opened

and the pressure in the two vessels is allowed to stabilize at P2 (absolute

units). By Boyle’s law (PV = constant at a constant temperature),

⎛ P2 ⎞

Vs = V1 − V2 ⎜ ⎟ (2.6)

⎝ P1 − P2 ⎠

Calibration consists of a plot of Vs versus P2/(P1-P2), which should be

linear with a slope, -V2, and an intercept, V1. At least three steel blanks

the calibration. The three data points should fall on the calibration line.

Also, the slope and the intercept should be checked against the known

volumes, V2 and V1. Once the calibration line has been established, it is

2–8

Figure 2.5. Schematics of equipment for measurement of core plug

porosity.(a) Bulk volume pycnometer; (b) Boyle’s law

porosimeter; (c) Bulk and pore volume porosimeter.

2-9

Pore volume can be determined by (1) fluid saturation and (2)

mercury injection. The difference in the weight of the saturated sample

and the dry sample is proportional to the pore volume.

pressure into the pores of the sample using a mercury porosimeter

(Figure 2.5c). Typically, the core is evacuated before mercury injection.

Because any air left in the pores is compressed to a negligibly small

value, the volume of mercury injected is essentially equal to the

connected pore volume of the sample. This is a destructive method

because after the test, the sample is no longer suitable for other

measurements. Mercury porosimetry is also used to determine capillary

pressure and pore size distribution of the sample (see Chapter 6).

the sample. To determine the total porosity, the sample is ground into a

fine powder after bulk volume measurement. The grain volume of the

ground sample can be determined either by liquid displacement or by

assuming an average grain density.

core analysis might generally be expected to yield values of the true

fractional porosity plus or minus 0.005, i.e., a true value of 27% porosity

may be measured between 26.5% and 27.5% porosity.

Core porosities may differ from in-situ porosities for the following

reasons:

2–10

• The core in the laboratory is no longer subjected to the overburden

and lateral stresses that it was subjected to in the reservoir.

representative of the entire reservoir.

• The volume of the core analyzed is small and may not account for

the variability of the porosity in the reservoir.

measurement of porosity. Frequently, the results of core analysis are

used to calibrate well logs.

Example 2.1

An experiment has been performed to determine the porosity of an

irregularly shaped core sample. The cleaned dry sample was weighed in

air. It was then evacuated and fully saturated with an oil with a density

of 0.85 gm/cc and then weighed again in air. Afterwards, the saturated

sample was weighed when it was fully immersed in the oil. Here are the

results of the experiment.

2-11

b. Is there enough information from this experiment to determine the

mineralogy of the sample? If yes, what is it? Please justify your answer

with appropriate arguments.

the sample through the grain density.

28.80)/0.85 = 16.00 cc

2–12

Grain density (ρs) = Wdry/Vs = 42.40/16.00 = 2.65 gms/cc

Table 1.1 lists the specific gravities of common reservoir rock minerals.

From the table, quartz has a specific gravity of 2.65, which is the same

as the specific gravity of the sample matrix. Therefore, based on the

available information, the mineral of the sample is quartz.

systems in research laboratories, it is now possible to measure the

porosity distributions in core samples. Peters and Afzal (1992) have

made such measurements in an artificial sandpack and a Berea

sandstone approximately 60 cm long and 5 cm in diameter. CT imaging

gives rise to a very large data set, over 600,000 porosity values in some

cases. Therefore, it is convenient to present the results of the

measurements as images (Figures 2.7 and 2.8). It should be noted in

Figure 2.7 that a sandpack may not be as uniform as we always assume

it to be. The packing technique used in this test introduced significant

porosity variation into the pack. The packing history is clearly evident in

the image. The dominant feature in the porosity variation of the Berea

sandstone is layering which is clearly visible in Figure 2.8. The porosity

data also can be presented in histograms as shown Figures 2.9 and 2.10.

scanning the sample dry and then scanning it fully saturated with a

wetting fluid such as brine. The x-ray attenuation equations for the two

scans are

2-13

ψ m (1 − φ ) + φψ air = ψ dry (2.7)

each voxel as

ψ wet −ψ dry

φ= (2.9)

ψ brine −ψ air

scanning a sample of the brine in a test tube and the attenuation for air

is assumed to be zero.

2–14

d = 4.8 cm. (a) Cross-sectional slice. (b) Longitudinal vertical slice. (Peters

and Afzal, 1992).

60.2 cm, d = 5.1 cm. (a) Cross-sectional slice. (b) Longitudinal vertical

slice. (Peters and Afzal, 1992).

2-15

Figure 2.9. Porosity histogram for a sandpack from CT imaging. L =

54.2 cm, d = 4.8 cm. Mean = 29.7%, Standard deviation = 2.5%.(Peters

and Afzal, 1992).

2–16

Figure 2.10. Porosity histogram for a Berea sandstone from CT

imaging. L = 60.2 cm, d = 5.1 cm. Mean = 17.3%, Standard

deviation = 2.0%.(Peters and Afzal, 1992).

occupying the pore space. In an oil reservoir, oil and water occupy the

pore space. In a gas reservoir, gas and water occupy the pore space. At a

certain point in the production of an oil reservoir, oil, water and gas

could occupy the pore space. There is a need to keep track of the

quantity of each type of fluid occupying the pore space. The

petrophysical property that describes the amount of each fluid type in

2-17

the pore space is the fluid saturation. It is defined as the fraction of the

pore space occupied by a fluid phase. Thus, in general,

Fluid Volume

Fluid Saturation = (2.10)

Effective Rock Pore Volume

Vp are the volumes of water, oil, gas and pore space, respectively. For an

oil reservoir without a free gas saturation, So + Sw = 1.0. For a gas

in a petroleum reservoir rock. The direct approach is to measure the

fluid saturations from a core cut from the reservoir. The indirect

approach is to measure some other physical property of the rock that can

be related to fluid saturation. The direct approach is discussed here.

The indirect approach such as using electric logs or capillary pressure

measurements to estimate water saturation will be discussed later.

retort method. In this method, a core sample is heated so as to vaporize

the water and oil, which are condensed and collected in a small,

graduated receiving vessel (Figure 2.11). The volumes of oil and water

divided by the pore volume of the core sample give the oil and water

saturations. The gas saturation is obtained indirectly by the requirement

that saturations must sum to one.

2–18

Figure 2.11. Retort distillation apparatus.

determination. In order to remove all the oil, it is necessary to heat the

core to temperatures in the range of 1000 to 1100 °F. At these

2-19

temperatures, the water of crystallization (hydration) of the rock is driven

off, resulting in an estimated water saturation that is higher than the

true interstitial (connate) water saturation. The second disadvantage is

that the oil when heated to high temperatures has a tendency to crack

and coke. This cracking and coking tend to reduce the oil volume

resulting in an oil saturation that is less than the true value.

Corrections can be made to the retort measurements to make them more

accurate.

with a solvent. This is accomplished in a Dean-Stark distillation

apparatus (Figure 2.12). The core is placed in the apparatus in such a

way that the vapor from a solvent (e.g., toluene) rises through the core

and is condensed back over the sample. This process leaches out the oil

and water from the sample. The water and solvent are condensed and

trapped in a graduated receiver. The water settles to the bottom of the

receiver while the solvent refluxes back into the main heating vessel. The

extraction is continued until no more water is collected in the receiving

vessel. The water saturation is calculated directly from the volume of

water expelled from the sample. The oil saturation is calculated

indirectly from the weight of the saturated sample before distillation, the

weight of the dry sample after distillation and the weight of the water

expelled from the sample. Again, the gas saturation is calculated

indirectly from the requirement that the saturations must sum to one.

To ensure that all the oil has been removed from the sample, the

sample may be transferred from the Dean-Stark apparatus to a Soxhlet

extractor for further extraction (Figure 2.13). The Soxhlet extractor is

similar to the Dean-Stark apparatus except that there is no provision for

trapping the extracted liquids.

2–20

The saturations determined by direct measurements on cores

should be treated with caution because they may not represent the in-

situ fluid saturations for several reasons. If the core was cut with a

water-based drilling mud, it would have been flushed by mud filtrate

resulting in a higher water saturation than the original, undisturbed

formation water saturation. The measured oil saturation in this case

would be the residual oil saturation after waterflooding, which is less

than the original in-situ oil saturation. If the core was cut with an oil-

based mud, the water saturation obtained by direct measurement will be

essentially the correct original water saturation, if it was at irreducible

level. If the original in-situ water saturation was not at the irreducible

level, then the oil mud filtrate could potentially displace some of the

water making the laboratory measured water saturation to be too low.

2-21

Figure 2.13. Soxhlet extractor.

the reservoir to the low pressure and temperature of the laboratory,

changes occur in the fluid saturations which can make them

considerably different from the original in-situ saturations. The free gas,

if present, will expand, expelling water and oil in the process. Solution

gas will evolve from the oil, expand and further reduce the oil and water

volumes. The evolution of solution gas causes the oil to "shrink". These

changes cause the saturations determined by core analysis to be

different from the in-situ saturations. In particular, the changes cause

gas saturation to be excessive even when there was no free gas

saturation at the original in-situ conditions.

2–22

Although the saturations determined by direct measurements on

cores may not reflect the true in-situ saturations, they do provide useful

information about the reservoir. The saturation measurements can be

used to approximately locate the gas-oil and water-oil contacts in the

reservoir if they are present.

each fluid type in the pore space. They do not tell us how the fluids are

distributed in the rock. To determine the fluid distribution, we need to

consider the interfacial forces and phenomena that arise when

immiscible fluids are confined in reservoir pores of capillary dimensions.

The important interfacial forces and phenomena include surface tension,

interfacial tension, wettability, capillarity and capillary pressure (see

Chapters 6 and 7).

from a hydrocarbon bearing formation from a depth of 4805.5 to 4851.5

feet. The table shows the depth, core permeability, core porosity, oil

saturation, water saturation and gas saturation as determined in the

laboratory. Although the fluid saturations are not the true in-situ

saturations, nevertheless they provide useful information. Figure 2.14

shows the saturation distributions from the core data. One can easily see

a water bearing zone at the bottom where the measured water saturation

is very high, an oil bearing zone above it, and a gas cap on top of the oil

zone. A gas oil contact exists at 4828.5 ft, and a water oil contact exists

at 4848.5 ft. Note the misleading gas saturation below the gas oil

contact. There was no free gas saturation below the gas oil contact at in-

situ conditions.

2-23

Table 2.2: Core Analysis Data

Depth k φ So Sw Sg

(ft) (md (%) (%) (%) (%)

)

4805.5 0 7.5 0.0 68. 32.

0 0

4806.5 0 12. 0.0 78. 22.

3 0 0

4807.5 2.5 17. 0.0 43. 57.

0 0 0

4808.5 59 20. 0.0 29. 71.

7 0 0

4809.5 221 19. 0.0 31. 68.

1 4 6

4810.5 211 20. 0.0 38. 61.

4 7 3

4811.5 275 23. 0.0 34. 65.

3 7 3

4812.5 384 24. 0.0 26. 73.

0 2 8

4813.5 108 23. 0.0 30. 69.

3 9 1

4814.5 147 16. 0.0 29. 70.

1 2 8

4815.5 290 17. 0.0 34. 65.

2 3 7

4816.5 170 15. 0.0 24. 75.

3 2 8

4817.5 278 15. 0.0 26. 73.

9 4 6

4818.5 238 18. 0.0 39. 60.

6 8 2

4819.5 167 16. 0.0 39. 60.

2 5 5

4820.5 304 20. 0.0 38. 62.

0 0 0

4821.5 98 16. 0.0 34. 65.

9 3 7

4822.5 191 18. 0.0 34. 65.

1 8 2

4823.5 266 20. 0.0 31. 68.

3 1 9

4824.5 40 15. 0.0 22. 77.

3 9 1

4825.5 260 15. 0.0 13. 86.

1 9 1

4826.5 179 14. 0.0 21. 78.

0 4 6

4827.5 312 15. 0.0 28. 71.

6 8 2

2–24

4828.5 272 15. 0.0 34. 65.

5 8 2

4829.5 395 19. 6.2 25. 68.

4 3 5

4830.5 405 17. 13. 25. 61.

5 1 7 2

4831.5 275 16. 17. 22. 59.

4 7 5 8

4832.5 852 17. 19. 19. 61.

2 8 2 0

4833.5 610 15. 21. 21. 56.

5 9 3 8

4834.5 406 20. 16. 22. 61.

2 3 3 4

4835.5 535 18. 19. 24. 55.

3 7 6 7

4836.5 663 19. 19. 16. 64.

6 4 3 3

4837.5 597 17. 17. 19. 62.

7 5 8 7

4838.5 434 20. 14. 27. 58.

0 0 5 5

4839.5 339 16. 20. 19. 59.

8 8 7 5

4840.5 216 13. 18. 23. 58.

3 1 3 6

4841.5 332 18. 15. 15. 68.

0 6 6 8

4842.5 295 16. 19. 15. 65.

1 3 5 2

4843.5 882 15. 19. 21. 59.

1 2 2 6

4844.5 600 18. 20. 22. 57.

0 6 2 2

4845.5 407 15. 15. 13. 71.

7 3 4 3

8 8 6 6

4848.5 0 9.2 14. 8.7 77.

1 2

4849.5 139 20. 0.0 77. 22.

5 1 9

4850.5 135 8.4 0.0 57. 42.

2 8

4851.5 0 1.1 0.0 63. 36.

6 4

2-25

Figure 2.14. Saturation distributions from core analysis data.

analysis data. The low residual oil saturation of about 20% indicates a

light oil reservoir in contrast to a heavy (more viscous) oil reservoir in

which the residual oil saturation would be much higher than 20%. All of

2–26

the measured properties vary with depth, which is an indication that the

reservoir is heterogeneous in nature. The porosity and permeability

distributions are shown in Figure 2.15. Variability of reservoir properties

is pervasive. Not only do the properties vary along the well depth, they

also vary laterally away from the well. The characterization of this

variability and the estimation of the properties at unmeasured locations

are the subjects addressed by geostatistics (see Chapter 4).

LOGS

laboratory. Therefore, only indirect measurements are made through well

logging. These measurements use either sonic energy or some form of

induced or applied radiation. Most log evaluation is concerned primarily

with determining in-situ porosity and water saturation. Neither in-situ

water saturation nor hydrocarbon saturation can be measured directly in

the wellbore. However, it is possible to infer the water saturation if the

porosity is known by measuring the resistivity of the formation.

Therefore, in this section, porosity and resistivity logs are discussed.

porosities, particularly in rocks that have been highly affected by

diagenesis. Logs measure average porosities over a much larger volume

than conventional laboratory core analysis. Also, a laboratory core has

been relieved of the overburden and lateral stresses and because it is an

elastic medium, it will expand. Since the minerals have very low

coefficient of expansion, the increase in volume must be due almost

solely to the increase in porosity. Thus, the porosity measured in the

2-27

laboratory at ambient conditions may be expected to be higher than at in

situ conditions.

data.

2–28

2.7.2 Mud Filtrate Invasion

Well log measurements are made in the borehole after the well has

been drilled. The drilling operation alters the formation characteristics

near the wellbore where the log measurements are made. In order to

interpret the logs, it is necessary to understand the changes that have

occurred in the formation caused by the drilling mud.

(for water-based muds) and suspended solids and various chemicals that

control the mud properties (viscosity, fluid loss, pH and others). Clays

(bentonite) are added to give the mud viscosity and weighting material

(barite) is added to increase the mud density above that of water.

The mud is circulated during drilling to lift the cuttings out of the

borehole. Another important function of the mud is to exert a

backpressure on the formation to prevent the well from "kicking" during

the drilling operations. In general, during drilling, the pressure in the

mud column in the borehole is higher than the formation pressure.

done in mud testing, we can separate the mud into its two main

components: mud filtrate and mudcake. Mud filtrate is a clear liquid

whose salinity varies according to the source of the water used to mix the

mud and the chemical nature of the additives. Usually, the filtrate

salinity is lower than the formation water salinity. Since the filtrate is

clear (no suspended solids), it can invade the formation if the pressure in

the wellbore is greater than the formation pressure, which is the case

during overbalance drilling. The mud filtrate can displace some of the

original formation fluids away from the wellbore into the formation.

2-29

The mudcake seals off the formation from further invasion by the

mud filtrate. The presence of the mudcake can be detected by the logging

tool and will cause the borehole diameter to be smaller than the bit

diameter. It is an indication of invasion and, indirectly, of permeability.

Since the mudcake is a solid, it will not normally invade the formation.

Drilling mud itself usually cannot invade the formation because it

contains a lot of suspended solids. However, whole mud can be lost into

the formation if the formation is inadvertently fractured. This is lost

circulation, which should not be confused with mud filtrate invasion. The

mudcake has a very low permeability and as a result, controls the

volume of filtrate invasion. The depth of invasion is determined by the

porosity of the formation. The depth of invasion will be greater in a low

porosity formation than in a high porosity formation everything else

being equal.

formation and the altered formation after it has been penetrated by the

bit. The left figure shows the undisturbed formation before it was drilled.

Let us assume that this is a sandstone formation bounded above and

below by impermeable shales. The bottom of the sand has water

saturation, Sw, of 100% and the upper section of the sand is at an

irreducible water saturation, Swirr. Irreducible water saturation is that

saturation at which the water cannot be produced during normal

production operations. The water occupies the lower portion of the

formation because it is denser than oil which floats to the top of the

formation. There is a transition zone in which the water saturation

decreases from 100% at the bottom to 25% at the top over a finite length

of the formation. This transition zone is caused by capillarity (see

2–30

Chapter 7). It should be pointed out that not all hydrocarbon bearing

zones contain irreducible water. Some can contain mobile water.

formation is at left and invaded formation is at right.

On the right is the same formation after it has been drilled. Here,

invasion has occurred. Because of the higher pressure in the borehole

than the formation, the formation acts as a mud press and separates the

mud into mudcake which plasters the borehole wall, and mud filtrate,

which invades the formation. In order to invade the formation, the fluids

that were originally there must be displaced. The filtrate flushes or

2-31

displaces the fluids deeper into the formation and takes their place near

the wellbore.

nearly complete because the formation water is being displaced by water

which is different only in salinity and is miscible with it. The salinity of

any formation water left behind will soon reach equilibrium with the

filtrate because of diffusion.

saturation (Soi = 1-Swirr). Although most of the formation water has been

displaced by mud filtrate, residual oil remains in the flushed zone with a

saturation, Sor, because an immiscible displacement can never be

complete.

The filtrate has flushed out all the original fluids that it can flush

out to a certain depth. This depth is called the flushed zone. The flushed

zone water saturation is designated Sxo and the flushed zone diameter is

designated dxo. The resistivity of the water in the flushed zone is Rmf, the

resitivity of the mud filtrate, and the resistivity of the flushed zone

formation is Rxo. If we go a little deeper into the formation, we will find a

transition zone, which contains a mixture of formation fluids and mud

filtrate. The zone, from the borehole wall to the end of the mud filtrate is

the invaded zone and includes the flushed zone. The diameter of the

invaded zone is designated as di, the water saturation is Si, and the

formation resisitivity Ri. Note that in the flushed zone, Si = Sxo and Ri =

Rxo. Since the water between dxo and di is a mixture of formation water

and filtrate, it is not possible to measure a single value for Ri in this zone.

Finally, as we pass the invaded zone, we return to the undisturbed or

uncontaminated formation. This is the virgin zone. The conditions in this

2–32

zone are the same as at the left side of Figure 2.16. The resistivity of this

undisturbed zone is Rt, the true formation resisitivity, which we ideally

would like to measure for estimating the undisturbed water saturation,

Sw.

distributions but in a different format. On the left is a plot of Sw versus

depth for the undisturbed formation. At the bottom, Sw = 100% and is

constant for about 30 ft from the bottom. We then enter the transition

zone, where Sw changes with depth until it reaches an irreducible water

saturation of about 25%. Sw is constant for the last 20 ft or so at Sw =

Swirr. Note that the hydrocarbon saturation, Sh is equal to (1-Sw).

borehole.

2-33

On the right are three sections drawn horizontally through the

formation to show how Sw varies with distance from the borehole at three

depths. At the bottom section, Sxo = Si = Sw = 100%. This is because there

was never any hydrocarbon in this section of the formation and as a

result, Sh = 0.

The depth in the middle section was chosen in the transition zone

where Sw was about 40%. We can see a change in the various water

saturations because oil is present in this zone and some of it has been

displaced by mud filtrate. Because of the residual oil, Sxo is less than

100% (Sxo = 1-Sor). Si will be lower than Sxo because some of the

hydrocarbon that was originally in the flushed zone has been displaced

into this zone, and Sw in the uncontaminated zone will be 40%.

for the undisturbed formation. We see the maximum variation in the

various saturations after invasion. Sxo will be lower than the Sxo in the

transition zone, and (1-Sxo) will be close to the residual oil saturation, Sor.

The water saturation will vary throughout between dxo and di. Beyond di,

Sw = Swirr = 25%. In this uppermost section, we clearly see the flushed

zone diameter, where Sxo is constant, and the end of the invaded zone,

where Sw becomes constant.

many tool configurations are caused by the presence of mud invasion,

usually of unknown depth, in the logging environment. Figure 2.18

shows a schematic diagram of the borehole condition for logging

measurements.

2–34

Figure 2.18. Borehole conditions for well logging (Courtesy of

Schlumberger).

2-35

2.7.3 Porosity Logs

Density, Neutron and Sonic logs. All of these logs provide an indication

of total porosity.

Density Log

The Density log measures the electron density of the formation by

using a pad mounted chemical source of gamma radiation and two

shielded gamma detectors (Figure 2.19). The medium-energy gamma rays

emitted into the formation collide with electrons in the formation. At each

collision, a gamma ray loses some, but not all, of its energy to the

electron and then continues with reduced energy. This type of interaction

is known as Compton scattering. The scattered gamma rays reaching the

detector, at a fixed distance from the source, are counted as an

indication of the formation density.

2–36

The number of Compton scattering collisions is related directly to

the number of electrons in the formation. Therefore, the response of the

density tool is determined essentially by the electron density (the number

of electrons per cubic centimeter) of the formation. Electron density is

related to the true bulk density in gm/cc, which in turn depends on the

density of the rock matrix, the formation porosity and the density of the

pore fluids.

proportional to the electron density is defined as

⎛ 2Z ⎞

ρe = ρb ⎜ ⎟ (2.11)

⎝ A ⎠

atomic number of the element and A is the atomic weight of the element.

For a molecule, the electron density index is given by

⎛ 2∑ Z i ⎞

ρe = ρb ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ (2.12)

⎝ M ⎠

number of electrons per molecule. For most materials encountered in the

formation, the quantities in brackets in Eqs.(2.11) and (2.12) are

approximately equal to unity as shown in Tables 2.3 and 2.4. The density

tool is calibrated in a fresh water filled limestone formation of high purity

to give an apparent density that is related to the electron density index

by

2-37

ρ a = 1.0704 ρe − 0.1883 (2.13)

density read by the tool is practically equal to bulk density of the

formation.

ρb = φρ f + ρ m (1 − φ ) (2.14)

ρ m − ρb

φ= (2.15)

ρm − ρ f

To calculate porosity from Eq.(2.15), the matrix and fluid densities must

be known or assumed. The depth of investigation of the density log is

relatively shallow. Therefore, in most permeable formations, the pore

fluid is the drilling mud filtrate, along with any residual hydrocarbons.

Usually, the fluid density is assumed to be 1.0 gm/cc. When residual

hydrocarbon saturations are fairly high, this can cause the calculated

porosity values to be greater than the true porosity, and should be

corrected for this effect. Table 2.4 gives the densities of various rock

matrices.

shows the Gamma Ray log, which measures the natural gamma

radiation of the formation. Radioactive elements such as uranium,

potassium and thorium tend to occur more in shales than in sands. As a

result, the Gamma Ray log is a lithology log that identifies shales from

sands. The caliper in the same track measures the borehole diameter.

2–38

The formation density and the porosity derived from it are presented in

Tracks 2 and 3. Also shown is the correction or compensation applied to

account for mud cake effect and small borehole irregularities.

⎛ Z⎞

⎜2 ⎟

Elemen A Z ⎝ A⎠

t

H 1.008 1 1.984

1

C 12.01 6 0.999

1 1

O 16.00 8 1.000

0 0

Na 22.99 11 0.956

9

Mg 24.32 12 0.986

8

Al 26.98 13 0.963

7

Si 28.09 14 0.996

8

S 32.07 16 0.997

8

Cl 35.46 17 0.958

8

K 39.10 19 0.971

9

Ca 40.08 20 0.998

0

2-39

Table 2.4: Densities of Rock Formations and Fluids

ρb ⎛ 2∑ Z i ⎞ ρe ρa

⎜⎜ ⎟⎟

Compound Formula (gm/cc) ⎝ M ⎠ (gm/cc) (gm/cc)

Quartz SiO2 2.654 0.9985 2.650 2.648

Calcite CaCO3 2.710 0.9991 2.708 2.710

Dolomite CaMg(CO3)2 2.870 0.9977 2.863 2.876

Anhydrite CaSO4 2.960 0.9990 2.957 2.977

Sylvite KCl 1.984 0.9657 1.916 1.863

Halite NaCl 2.165 0.9581 2.074 2.032

Gypsum CaSO4.H2O 2.320 1.0222 2.372 2.351

Fresh Water H2O 1.000 1.1101 1.110 1.00

Salt Water 200,000 1.146 1.0797 1.237 1.135

ppm

“Oil” N(CH2) 0.850 1.1407 0.970 0.850

Methane CH4 ρmeth 1.247 1.247ρmet 1.335ρmeth-

h 0.188

“Gas” C1.1H4.2 ρgas 1.238 1.238ρgas 1.325ρgas -0.188

2–40

Figure 2.20. Presentation of density log.

2-41

Sonic Log (Acoustic Log)

The Sonic log measures the time, Δt, required for compressional

sound wave to traverse one foot of formation. Known as the interval

transit time, Δt is the reciprocal of the velocity of the compressional

sound wave. To avoid fractions, the interval transit time is scaled by 106

106

Δt = (2.16)

v

wave velocity in ft/s.

2.21). When the transmitter is energized, the sound wave enters the

formation from the mud column, travels through the formation and back

to the receivers through the mud column. The difference between the

arrival times at the two receivers divided by the distance between the

receivers gives the interval transit time. The speed of sound in the tool

and the drilling mud is less than that in the formation. Accordingly, the

first arrival of sound energy at the receivers corresponds to sound travel

paths in the formation near the borehole. The logging tool has circuits to

compensate for hole size changes or any tilting of the tool in the hole.

porosity. In general, the more dense or consolidated a formation, the

lower the interval transit time. An increase in travel time indicates an

increase in porosity. Based on laboratory measurements, Wyllie (1956)

concluded that in clean and consolidated formations with uniformly

2–42

distributed small pores, there is a linear relationship between porosity

and interval transit time as follows:

where Δt is the interval transit time measured by the log, Δtf is the

interval transit time in the pore fluid, Δtm is the interval transit time in

2-43

Eq.(2.17) can be solved for porosity as

Δt − Δtm

φ= (2.18)

Δt f − Δtm

To calculate porosity from Eq.(2.18), the transit times for the rock matrix

and the pore fluid must be known or assumed. Table 2.5 gives the sonic

speeds and interval transit times for common rock matrices. The depth of

investigation of the sonic log is relatively shallow. Thus, the pore fluid is

usually assumed to be mud filtrate with an interval transit time of 189

μsec/ft, corresponding to a fluid velocity of 5300 ft/sec.

porosity is increased by an amount proportional to the bulk volume

fraction of such laminae. The interval transit time is increased because

transit time for shale generally exceeds that of the matrix.

formula still applies. But sometimes, the pore structure and pore size

distribution are significantly different from sandstones. Also, there is

often some secondary porosity such as vugs and fractures with much

larger dimensions than the pores of the primary porosity. In vuggy

formations, according to Wyllie, the velocity of sound depends mostly on

the primary porosity, and the porosity derived from the sonic reading

through the time average formula will tend to be too low by an amount

approaching the secondary porosity.

insufficiently compacted sands gives porosity values that are too high.

When shale transit time exceeds 100 μsec/ft, which is an indication of

2–44

undercompaction, then the compaction correction should be made to

obtain more accurate porosity values. This is accomplished by applying

an empirical correction factor as shown in Eq.(2.19):

⎛ Δt − Δtm ⎞ ⎛ 100 ⎞

φ =⎜ (2.19)

⎜ Δt f − Δtm ⎟⎟ ⎜ Δtsh ⎟

⎝ ⎠⎝ ⎠

where Δtsh is the interval transit time in the adjacent shale. Figure 2.22

Table 2.5: Sonic Speed and Interval Transit Time for Rock Formations

Δtm (μsec/ft)

vm (ft/sec) Δtm (μsec/ft) (commonly used)

Sandstones 18,000 – 19,000 55.5 – 51.0 55.5 or 51.0

Limestones 21,000 – 23,000 47.6 – 43.5 47.5

Dolomites 23,000 43.5 43.5

Anhydrite 20,000 50.0 50.0

Salt 15,000 66.7 67.0

Casing (iron) 17,500 57.0 57.0

2-45

Figure 2.22. Presentation of sonic log.

Neutron Log

The Neutron log measures induced formation radiation produced

by bombarding the formation with fast moving neutrons (Figure 2.23).

2–46

The tool responds primarily to the hydrogen present in the formation.

Thus, in clean formations, whose pores are filled with water or oil, the

neutron log reflects the amount of liquid-filled porosity.

identical to the mass of a hydrogen atom. High-energy (fast) neutrons are

continuously emitted from a radioactive source mounted in the logging

tool. These neutrons collide with the nuclei of the formation materials.

With each collision, a neutron loses some of its energy. The

amount of energy lost per collision depends on the relative mass of the

nucleus with which the neutron collides. The greatest energy loss occurs

when the neutron collides with a nucleus of practically equal mass, i.e.,

2-47

hydrogen. Collisions with heavy nuclei do not slow the neutrons down

very much. Thus, the slowing down of neutrons depends largely on the

amount of hydrogen in the formation.

by successive collisions to thermal velocities, corresponding to energies

of around 0.025 electron volt (eV). They then diffuse randomly, without

losing any more energy, until they are captured by the nuclei of atoms

such as chlorine, hydrogen, silicon and others. The capturing nucleus

becomes intensely excited and emits a high-energy gamma ray of

capture. Depending on the type of Neutron logging tool, either these

capture gamma rays or the slow neutrons themselves are counted by a

detector in the tool.

neutron source is large, most of the neutrons are slowed down and

captured within a short distance from the source. However, if the

hydrogen concentration is small, the neutrons travel farther from the

source before they are captured. Accordingly, the counting rate at the

detector increases for decreased hydrogen concentration and decreases

for increased hydrogen concentration. The porosity based on the neutron

count is given by

N = a − b log φ (2.20)

determined by appropriate calibration and φ is the porosity.

in oil or water, neutron logs measure the liquid filled porosity. A high

2–48

neutron counting rate indicates low porosity and a low neutron counting

rate indicates high porosity. Figure 2.24 shows a typical presentation of

the Neutron log. The neutron count is presented in API (American

Petroleum Institute) units. The porosity is in neutron porosity units

based on calibration with limestone or sandstone.

neutron logs. First, shales and zones containing a significant amount of

shale, will indicate a high neutron porosity due to the bound water

associated with the shale. Secondly, because of the lower concentration

of hydrogen in gas than in oil or water, a zone containing gas will

indicate a neutron porosity that is lower than it should be. These

features are really an advantage since a comparison of the neutron

porosity to cores and other porosity logs provides a convenient method

for determining shale volumes and for distinguishing gas zones from oil

or water zones. In a gas zone, the fluid density is very much lower than

the 1.0 gm/cc used in Eq.(2.15) to calculate the density porosity. As a

result, the density porosity in a gas zone is higher than it should be.

Thus, in a gas zone, the neutron porosity is too low and the density

porosity is too high. When the two porosity logs are superimposed, the

two curves will agree is shales and in liquid zones and will cross over in

gas zones. This cross over of the two logs can be used to identify gas

bearing zones as shown in Figure 2.25.

2-49

Figure 2.24. Presentation of Neutron log.

2–50

Figure 2.25. A comparison of neutron and density porosities. Shaded

areas indicate gas zones.

2-51

Combination Porosity Logs

In many areas, it is common practice to record more than one

porosity log on a well. Common combinations are Density-Neutron,

Density-Sonic and Sonic-Neutron. Sometimes, all three logs are run in

the same well. These logs are usually recorded along with a Gamma Ray

curve and a Caliper.

from gas zones, (2) calculate quantitative values for lithology, and (3)

determine volume of shale in the rock matrix. Figure 2.26 shows a

section of the three porosity logs run in the same well.

in the borehole. Formation resistivity measurements, in conjunction with

porosity and water resistivity, are used to obtain values of water

saturation and consequently, hydrocarbon saturation. They are also

used in conjunction with lithology logs to identify hydrocarbon bearing

intervals and to estimate the net pay thickness.

the flow of electrical current. It is a physical property of the material,

independent of size and shape. In well logging, both resistivity and

conductivity are used frequently. One is the reciprocal of the other. Thus,

1

Resistivity = (2.21)

Conductivity

2–52

Figure 2.26. A comparison of the three porosity logs in the same

formation.

2-53

Low resistivity corresponds to high conductivity and high resistivity

corresponds to low conductivity. The resistivity unit used in well logging

is ohm-meter2/meter, which is usually shortened to ohm-meter.

Electrical conductivity is expressed in mhos per meter. In order to avoid

decimal fractions, in electrical logging, it is expressed in millimhos per

meter.

formation matrix are non-conductors. Also, hydrocarbons such as gas

and oil are non-conductors. Therefore, current flow in sedimentary rocks

is associated with the water in the pore space. Most of the waters

encountered in well logging contain some sodium chloride (NaCl) in

solution. The current then is carried by the ions of the salt, which is

dissolved in the water. Therefore, conductivity is proportional to the salt

concentration (salinity) of the water. Although each ion is capable of

carrying only a definite quantity of charge, as the formation temperature

is increased, these ions are capable of moving faster. This results in

increased conductivity. Figure 2.27 shows the variation of water

resistivity with temperature at various salinities.

to the porosity and, also, affects the formation resistivity. As the volume

of water increases, the capacity for ions increases and the conductivity

increases. Thus, the formation resistivity is affected by (1) salt

concentration in the water (salinity), (2) reservoir temperature, (3) water

volume (porosity) and (4) hydrocarbon content. Thus, although we

cannot directly measure the amount of hydrocarbon in a formation, we

can infer the hydrocarbon content from resistivity measurements.

2–54

Figure 2.27. Variation of water resistivity with temperature and salinity.

resisitivity of the formation saturated 100% by the formation water of

resistivity Rw and Rt be the true resistivity of the formation partially

saturated with water of resistivity Rw and hydrocarbon. Based on

laboratory measurements, Archie (1953) found that Ro was directly

proportional to Rw for clean, consolidated sandstone cores for a fixed

porosity. Thus,

Ro

Ro = FRw or F = (2.22)

Rw

formation resistivity factor. He further found that F could be related to

the porosity of the core by an equation of the form

2-55

a

F= (2.23)

φm

varies from 1.3 for unconsolidated sands to 2.5 for consolidated

sandstones. Thus, for clean sandstone cores of varied porosity,

ln F = ln a − m ln φ (2.24)

Eq.(2.24) suggests that a graph of lnF versus lnφ should be linear. Figure

2.28 shows such a graph for clean sandstone cores. For these data, a =

1.10 and m = 1.73.

1000

Formation Resistivity Factor

-1.7332

y = 1.1016x

2

R = 0.8648

100

10

1

0.01 0.1 1

Porosity

for various water resistivities.

2–56

For the cores used in his measurements, Archie found a to be

approximately 1.0. Therefore, he proposed the following relationship

between formation resistivity factor and porosity

1

F= (2.25)

φm

group in Humble Oil (Now ExxonMobil) performed similar measurements

and found that their data were best fitted by an equation of the form

Ro 0.62

F= = (2.26)

Rw φ 2.15

Eq. (2.26) is known as the Humble formula and is still widely used in the

petroleum industry.

saturated cores to measure Rt at various water saturations, Sw. He

defined formation resistivity index as

Rt

I= (2.27)

Ro

He found that the formation resistivity index, I, was related to the water

saturation by an equation of the form

Rt 1

I= = n (2.28)

Ro S w

2-57

where n is the water saturation exponent. Eq.(2.28) can be solved for the

water saturation as

1 R FRw

Sw = n =n o =n (2.29)

I Rt Rt

Figure 2.29 shows lnI versus lnSw for a Berea sandstone core. For this

sample, n = 2.27. Archie found n to be approximately 2 for the core

samples in his study. The hydrocarbon saturation is given by

Sh = 1 − Sw (2.30)

measurements. This profile is analogous to the water saturation profile of

Figure 2.17.

2–58

Figure 2.29. Resistivity index for Berea sandstone core

2-59

Figure 2.30. Example invasion profile for resistivity logs.

resistivity: Induction tools, focused resistivity tools and unfocused

resistivity tools. These tools can be further subdivided into those that

measure a very small volume of the formation (microresistivity logs) and

those that measure a relatively large volume of the formation. Table 2.6

presents a summary of the various resistivity tools and their limitations.

2–60

Table 2.6: Resistivity Tools

Electric Log

The Electric log was the basic and most frequently used log until

the mid 1950's. This log was invented and developed by two French

brothers, Conrad and Marcel Schlumberger. Figure 2.31 shows the

presentation of an electric log. It consists of a Spontaneous Potential (SP)

curve in Track 1 and a combination of resistivity curves designated as

normal and lateral depending on the electrode arrangements.

a current electrode and a pickup electrode as shown in Figure 2.32.

Resistivity values are measured by recording the voltage drop across

these electrodes. A short normal, with electrode spacing of 18 inches, is

used for correlation to define bed boundaries, and to measure the

2-61

resistivity near the wellbore. Normal curves have a radius of investigation

of approximately twice the electrode spacing.

2–62

The lateral curve is produced by three effective electrodes, one

current and two pickup electrodes (Figure 2.32). The radius of

investigation is approximately equal to the electrode spacing, which is

the distance from the current electrode to the midpoint between the two

pickup electrodes. The spacing is usually in the range of 16 to 19 feet.

Lateral curves are nonsymmetrical and highly distorted by adjacent beds

and thin beds, but are effective in measuring true resistivity in thick

homogeneous formations.

Figure 2.32. Schematic of electric logging tool: (A) Normal curve, (B)

Lateral curve.

2-63

Induction-Electric Log

The Induction-Electric log is a combination of electric log curves

with induction curves. The induction tool was developed to provide a

means of logging wells drilled with oil-based (nonconductive) muds. All

the original electric logging tools used the mud column to conduct the

current into the formation, so they could not be run in nonconductive

muds or air-drilled holes. Although the induction tool was developed to

meet the need for a resistivity tool that could operate in a nonconductive

mud, it soon became recognized that the tool worked better than the

original electric log in freshwater muds. The induction curve was easier

to read than the electric log, and it read close to true formation resistivity

in formations where the resistivity was not over 200 ohm-meter and Rmf

was greater than Rw.

induction. A high-frequency alternating current flows through a

transmitter coil mounted on the logging tool (Figure 2.33). This current

sets up a high-frequency magnetic field around the tool, which extends

into the formation. The alternating magnetic field causes currents to flow

through the formation concentric with the axis of the induction tool. The

currents, called ground loops, are proportional to the conductivity of the

formation. They alternate at the same frequency as the magnetic field

and the transmitter current flowing through the induction coil. The

ground loop currents set up a magnetic field of their own. This secondary

magnetic field causes a current to flow in the receiver coil located in the

logging tool. The amount of current flowing in the receiver coil is

proportional to the ground loop currents and therefore to the

conductivity of the formation. The signal in the receiver coil is detected,

2–64

processed and recorded on the log as either a conductivity measurement

or a resistivity measurement.

practice, bucking coils are used to help focus the effects of the main

transmitter and receiver coils and to remove unwanted signals from the

borehole. One popular induction tool used today has six different coils.

The depth of investigation (the depth from which most of the

measurement is obtained) for a typical deep induction tool is about 10

feet. The vertical resolution (the thinnest bed that the tool will detect) is

40 inches. Both the depth of investigation and the vertical resolution are

affected by the spacing between the main transmitter and receiver coils

as well as by the placement of the focusing coils. By judicious selection of

these parameters, different depths of investigation can be designed into a

tool. Thus, one can measure the resistivity profile through the invaded

zone and correct the deep induction reading to move it close to the true

formation resistivity, Rt.

2-65

Figure 2.34 shows a typical presentation of the induction electric

log (IEL). It includes an SP and/or Gamma Ray curve, 18" normal and

the induction curve on both the resistivity and conductivity scales. An

amplified 18" normal curve is often recorded in areas where low

resistivities are encountered.

For many years, the induction electric log was the most popular

induction tool in high-porosity formations such as in California, along

the US Gulf Coast and in other high-porosity, moderate-resisitivity

formations. A single induction curve with a vertical resolution of about 3

feet and a depth of investigation of about 10 feet was combined with

either a short normal curve or a shallow laterolog curve. Since mud

filtrate invasion is seldom deep in high-porosity formations, these two

curves, corrected for borehole and bed boundary effects, could be used to

determine Rt.

The Dual Induction Laterolog was developed for those areas that

had low porosities and deep invasion. The tool has two induction curves

(ILd and ILm) with a vertical resolution of about 40 inches. However, one

induction curve, the ILd, reads very deeply into the formation, while the

medium induction curve, ILm, reads only half as deep. A shallow-reading

laterolog combined with the two induction curves gives a good

description of the resistivity profile.

2–66

Figure 2.34. Presentation of induction-electric log.

2-67

Figure 2.35 shows a typical presentation of a dual induction

laterolog. An SP and/or Gamma Ray curve and three resistivity curves

having different depths of investigation are recorded. The shallow

laterolog measures the resistivity of the flushed zone, Rxo. The medium

induction curve, ILm, measures the combined resistivity of the flushed

and invaded zones, Ri. The deep induction curve responds primarily to

the resistivity of the uncontaminated zone, Rt. The resistivity curves may

be recorded on logarithmic or linear scales. The logarithmic presentation

permits a greater dynamic range for resistivities and is convenient for

determining ratios since the difference of two logarithms is equal to their

ratio.

are used to determine the diameter of invasion, di, the resistivity of the

flushed zone, Rxo, and the true formation resistivity, Rt. Figure 2.36

shows a typical "tornado chart" (so called because of its distinctive shape)

used to correct the dual induction log to obtain Rt.

2–68

Figure 2.35. Presentation of dual induction laterolog.

2-69

Figure 2.36. Tornado chart used to correct deep induction resistivity to

true resistivity.

2–70

Focused Electric Log (Guard and Laterolog)

In boreholes which contain extremely saline drilling muds or very

high resistivity formations, the current that is emitted from a normal or

lateral electrode is almost entirely confined within the borehole and flows

up and down within the mud column. Very little, if any, of the current

penetrates surrounding resistive material. Under similar borehole

conditions, the induction logging tool is also adversely affected because

too much of the receiver voltage is derived from high conductivity of the

invaded zone. Focused-current logging tools have been designed to

overcome these problems in part.

as the guard and laterolog, in use today (Figure 2.37). In the guard

system, guard electrodes are placed above and below a current electrode

and kept at the same potential to focus the formation current into a thin

disc, which flows perpendicularly to the borehole. The radius of

investigation is approximately three times the length of the guard

electrode.

The guard log defines bed boundaries very well and is affected very

little by adjacent bed resistivities. Shallow guard systems, utilizing short

guard electrodes (approximately 30 inches), are used with tools like the

Dual Induction for measuring the flushed zone resistivity, Rxo, or the

invaded zone resistivity, Ri. The longer guard (5 feet in length) systems

are used for measuring the true resistivity of the uncontaminated

formation, Rt. Figure 2.38 shows an example guard log presentation.

electrode placed symmetrically between three short-circuited pairs of

electrodes. A controlled current is emitted from the short-circuited outer

2-71

pair of electrodes in such a manner that the voltage difference between

the two inner short-circuited pairs of electrodes is essentially zero. As in

the guard system, these electrode arrangements focus the formation

current into a thin disc, which flows perpendicularly to the borehole.

Various laterolog tools have been developed over the years. Among

the most commonly used tools, the dual laterolog is common. This tool,

similar to the dual induction tool, has both deep and shallow measuring

laterologs. It is often run in conjunction with a very shallow reading

laterolog tool, which is mounted on a pad pressed against the borehole.

2–72

This shallow reading curve, called the micro-spherically focused log,

measures the flushed zone resistivity (Rxo). This combination of

measurements can define the resistivity profile from the borehole,

through the invaded zone to the undisturbed formation. Since the

current path for these logs is through the mud to the borehole wall,

through the invaded zone, and then to the uncontaminated zone, the

resistivity readings are a combination of these different zones. However,

mud and the invaded zones affect the tool's resistivity measurement

much less than unfocused tools, a feature which minimizes corrections.

Microresistivity Logs

Microresistivity tools are designed to measure the resistivity of the

flushed zone (Rxo). Since the flushed zone could be only 3 or 4 inches

deep, Rxo tools have very shallow readings, with depths of investigation

approximately 1 to 4 inches. The electrodes are mounted on flexible pads

pressed against the borehole wall, thereby eliminating most of the effects

of the mud on the measurement (Figure 2.39). Microresistivity logs

include the microlog, microlaterologs and microspherically focused logs.

Collectively, these logs can be used to estimate

• Depth of invasion

• Permeability

• Hole diameter

2-73

• Porosity.

2–74

Figure 2.39. Microresitivity logging tools.

2-75

2.7.5 Lithology Logs

Spontaneous Potential (SP) log and the Gamma Ray (GR) log. Both are

recordings of naturally occurring phenomena in the formation.

The SP curve records the electrical potential produced by the

interaction of formation water, conductive drilling mud, and certain ion-

selective rocks such as shale. It is a recording versus depth of the

difference between the electrical potential of a moveable electrode in the

borehole and the electrical potential of a fixed surface electrode. Opposite

shales, the SP curve usually defines a more or less straight line on the

log, called the shale baseline. Opposite permeable formations, the curve

shows deflections from the shale baseline. In thick beds, these

deflections tend to reach an essentially constant deflection defining a

sand line. The deflection may be to the left (negative) or to the right

(positive), depending primarily on the salinities of the formation water

and of the mud filtrate. If the formation water is more saline than the

mud filtrate, the deflection is to the left. If it is less saline than the mud

filtrate, the deflection is to the right.

set by the logging engineer so that the curve deflections remain in the SP

track of the log. The SP is measured in millivolts (mV).

nonconductive muds, such as oil muds or air, because such muds do not

provide electrical continuity between the SP electrode and the formation.

Also, if the resistivities of the mud filtrate and formation water are about

2–76

equal, the SP deflections will be small and the curve will be rather

featureless and useless.

flowing in the mud in the borehole. These currents are caused by

electromotive forces in the formation, which are of electrochemical and

electrokinetic origins. Consider a permeable formation with thick shales

above and below it. Assume that the two electrolytes present, formation

water and mud filtrate, contain sodium chloride (NaCl) only. Because of

the layered clay structure and the charges on the layers, shales are

permeable to the Na+ cations but impermeable to the Cl- anions. Only the

Na+ cations are able to move through the shale from the more saline to

the less saline NaCl solution. This movement of charged ions constitutes

an electric current, and the force causing them to move constitutes a

potential across the shale.

The curve arrow in the upper section of Figure 2.40 shows the

direction of the current corresponding to the flow of Na+ ions through the

adjacent shale from the more saline formation water to the less saline

drilling mud in the borehole. Since shales pass only the cations, shales

resemble ion-selective membranes, and the potential across the shale is

called the membrane potential.

at the edge of the invaded zone where the mud filtrate and formation

water (the electrolytes) are in direct contact. Here Na+ and Cl- can diffuse

from one electrolyte to the other. Since Cl- are more mobile than Na+

ions, the net result of the diffusion is the flow of negative Cl- ions from

the more saline to the less saline electrolyte. This is equivalent to a

conventional current flow in the opposite direction as shown by the

2-77

arrow A in the upper half of Figure 2.40. The current flowing across the

junction between solutions of different salinity is produced by an

electromotive force called liquid-junction potential. The magnitude of the

liquid-junction potential is much smaller than the membrane potential.

electrochemical emf, Ec, corresponding to these two phenomena is given

by

aw

Ec = − K log (2.31)

amf

where aw and awf are the chemical activities of the two solutions at

formation temperature, K is a coefficient proportional to temperature,

and for NaCl formation water and mud filtrate is 71 at 25 ºC (77 ºF). The

chemical activity of a solution is roughly proportional to salinity and

hence to its conductivity. If the solutions contain substantial amounts of

salts other than NaCl, the value of K at 77 ºF may differ from 71. If the

permeable formation is shaly, or contains dispersed clay, the total

electrochemical emf will be reduced since the clay produces an

electrochemical membrane of opposite polarity to that of the adjacent

shale bed.

2–78

Figure 2.40. Schematic representation of potential and current

distribution in and around a permeable bed.

2-79

An electrokinetic potential, Ek (also known as streaming potential

or electrofiltration potential), is produced when an electrolyte flows

through a permeable, nonmetallic, porous medium. The magnitude of the

electrokinetic potential is determined by several factors, among which are

the differential pressure producing the flow and the resistivity of the

electrolyte. In the borehole, an electrokinetic emf, Ekmc, is produced by

the flow of the mud filtrate through the mud cake. An electrokinetic emf,

Eksh, may also be produced across the shale, since it may have sufficient

permeability to permit a tiny amount of filtrate flow from the mud. Each

of these electrokinetic emfs contributes to a more negative SP reading

opposite the permeable bed and opposite the shale. The net contribution

to the SP deflection is, therefore, the difference between Ekmc and Eksh,

which is generally small and negligible.

possible only in formations that have a certain minimum permeability.

However, there is no direct relationship between the magnitude of the SP

deflection and permeability, nor does the SP deflection have any direct

relationship with the porosity.

The lower portion of Figure 2.40 shows how the SP currents flow in

the borehole and formations. The current direction shown corresponds to

the more usual case where the salinity of the formation water is greater

than that of the mud filtrate. Thus, the potential observed over the

permeable bed is negative with respect to the potential opposite the

shale. This negative variation corresponds to an SP curve deflection to

the left of the SP log as shown in the figure.

different media: the borehole (mud), the invaded zone, the noninvaded

2–80

part of the permeable formation, and the surrounding shale. In each

medium, the potential along a line of current flow drops in proportion to

the resistance encountered. The total potential along a line of current

flow is equal to the total emf. The deflections on the SP curve are,

however, a measurement of only the potential drop in the borehole (mud)

resulting from the SP currents. This potential drop represents only a

fraction (although usually the major fraction) of the total emf. If the

currents could be prevented from flowing by means such as the

insulating plugs as shown in the upper part of Figure 2.40, the potential

differences observed in the mud would equal the total emf. The SP curve

recorded in such an idealized condition is called the static SP curve and

is shown in the lower part of Figure 2.40.

shale-free permeable beds of moderate to low resistivity are sharply

defined by the SP curve. High resistivity beds distort the SP currents,

causing a change in the shape of the SP curve at bed boundaries and

thus poor boundary definitions. Also, the SP curve is depressed in

permeable zones that contain shale or hydrocarbon. The shape of the SP

curve is influenced by (1) the thickness (h) and resistivity (Rt) of the

permeable bed, (2) the resistivity (Ri) and the diameter (di) of the invaded

zone, (3) the resistivity (Rs) of the surrounding formation, and (4) the

resistivity of the mud (Rm) and the diameter (d) of the borehole.

2-81

Figure 2.41. Presentation of an SP curve in a sand-shale sequence.

The GR log is a measurement of the natural radioactivity of the

formation. In sedimentary formations, the log normally reflects the shale

content of the formation because the radioactive elements tend to

concentrate in clays and shales. Clean formations usually have a very

low level of radioactivity, unless a radioactive contaminant such as

volcanic ash or granite wash is present or formation waters contain

dissolved radioactive salts.

useful as a correlation curve in completion and workover operations. It is

2–82

frequently used to complement the SP log and as a substitute for the SP

curve in wells drilled with salt mud, air or oil-based muds. In each case,

it is useful for the location of shales and nonshaly beds and, most

importantly, for general correlation.

are emitted spontaneously by some radioactive elements. Nearly all

gamma radiation encountered in the earth is emitted by the radioactive

potassium isotope of atomic weight 40 (K40) and by the radioactive

elements of the uranium and thorium series. These elements emit

gamma rays, the number and energies of which are characteristic of each

element. Figure 2.42 shows the energies of the emitted gamma rays.

Potassium emits gamma rays of a single energy at 1.46 MeV, whereas the

uranium and thorium series emit gamma rays of various energies.

Compton-scattering collisions with atoms of the formation material,

losing energy with each collision. After the gamma ray has lost enough

energy, it is absorbed by means of photoelectric effect, by an atom of the

formation. Thus, natural gamma rays are gradually absorbed and their

energies reduced as they pass through the formation. Two formations

having the same amount of radioactive material per unit volume, but

having different densities, will show different levels of radioactivity. The

less dense formations will appear to be slightly more radioactive than the

more dense formations. The GR log response, after appropriate

corrections, is proportional to the weight concentrations of the

radioactive material in the formation:

GR =

∑ρV A i i i

(2.32)

ρb

2-83

where ρi are the densities of the radioactive minerals, Vi are the bulk

volume factors of the minerals, Ai are proportionality factors

corresponding to the radioactivity of the mineral, and ρb is the bulk

density of the formation. In sedimentary formations, the depth of

investigation of the GR log is about 1 foot.

gamma radiation originating in the volume of formation near the tool.

2–84

Scintillation counters are now generally used for this measurement. They

are much more efficient than the Geiger-Mueller counters used in the

past. Events resulting in gamma rays are random. For this reason,

gamma ray logs have a ragged appearance (see Figure 2.20).

The primary calibration for the gamma ray tools is in the API

(American Petroleum Institute) test facility in Houston. A field calibration

standard is used to normalize each tool to the API standard and the logs

are calibrated in API units. The radioactivities in sedimentary formations

generally range from a few API units in anhydrite or salt to 200 or more

units in shales.

The GR log is particularly useful for defining shale beds when the

SP is distorted (in very resistive formations), when the SP is featureless

(in fresh water-bearing formations or in salty muds, when Rmf = Rw), or

when the SP cannot be recorded (in nonconductive mud, empty or air-

drilled hole, cased holes). The bed boundary is picked at the point

midway between the maximum and minimum deflection of the anomaly.

regions, can be used to quantitatively as a shale indicator. It is also used

for the detection and evaluation of radioactive minerals, such as potash

and uranium ore. The GR log is part of most logging programs in both

open hole and cased hole. It is readily combined with most other logging

tools and permits the accurate correlation of logs made on one trip into

the borehole with those that were made on another trip.

favorable conditions to estimate porosity, irreducible water saturation,

2-85

moveable fluid saturation, fluid viscosity, pore size distribution, surface

to volume ratios and permeability. In this section, the principles of NMR

and its use in petrophysical measurements are presented.

Most atomic nuclei possess a quantum mechanical property called

spin angular momentum. This means that the nucleus spins around an

axis. Since atomic nuclei are charged particles, the spinning motion

causes a magnetic moment that is co-linear with the direction of the spin

axis. The strength of this magnetic moment is a property of the type of

1

nucleus. H nuclei (protons) possess a strong magnetic moment (second

only to radioactive 3H), which, together with the high natural abundance

of hydrogen and prevalence in most fluids, makes it the ideal nucleus for

NMR logging and NMR imaging in radiology.

of an externally applied magnetic field, the individual magnetic moments

have no preferred orientation and the net magnetization of the collection

of spins is zero. However, if an externally supplied magnetic field

(denoted as B0) is imposed, there is a tendency for the magnetic moments

1

to align with the external field. H nuclei with a quantum number of I = 1

2

parallel or anti-parallel to B0 as shown in Figure 2.44. Thus, depending

on their orientation, we can define two groups or populations of spins.

Alignment parallel to B0 is the lower energy orientation and is thus

preferred, while the anti-parallel alignment is the higher energy state.

However, the energy difference between the two states is very small.

Thermal energy alone causes the two states to be almost equally

populated. The remaining population difference results in a net bulk

2–86

magnetization aligned parallel to B0. It is only this net magnetization

arising from a small population difference that is detectable by NMR

techniques.

B0, but at an angle to B0. This is analogous to the case of a spinning top:

the absence of an externally applied magnetic field.

Bo

parallel

antiparrallel

2-87

presence of an externally applied magnetic field (Bo).

the top precesses about the axis defined by the pull of gravity. This

precession defines the surface of a cone. Figure 2.45 shows a model for a

large collection of spins at any given instant. Here, each of the vectors

(arrows) represents an individual spin. The vector M represents the bulk

net magnetization that results from the vector sum of the contributions

from each of the spins.

Bo M

parallel

antiparallel

known as the Larmor frequency, which is determined by the strength of

the magnetic field and the type of nucleus. The Larmor equation gives

this frequency as

ω0 = γ B0 (2.33)

magnetic field strength, and γ is a constant for each nucleus known as

2–88

the gyromagnetic ratio. Eq.(2.33) is the fundamental equation for all

NMR methods. Table 2.7 gives γ values for some NMR active nuclei.

1

From Table 2.7, we can see that H nucleus has the highest

1

relative sensitivity and a high natural abundance. So H nuclei (protons)

possess a strong magnetic moment and are most commonly used in NMR

logging and NMR imaging.

Natural γ Relative

Nucleus Abundance % Hz / Gauss Sensitivity

1

H 99.98 4257 1.0

13

C 1.10 1071 0.016

19

F 100.0 4005 0.830

23

Na 100.0 1126 0.093

31

P 100.0 1723 0.066

In order to detect a signal, a condition of resonance needs to be

established. The term “resonance” implies alternating absorption and

dissipation of energy. Energy absorption is caused by radiofrequency (RF)

perturbation, and energy dissipation is mediated by relaxation processes.

and magnetic field components. We may consider the RF as another

magnetic field of strength B1 perpendicular to B0 as shown in Figure

2.46. At equilibrium, M (=Mo) is stationary and difficult to observe. By

2-89

applying an RF field B1 perpendicular to B0, M can be rotated so that it

has a component transverse to B0. A maximum transverse component is

obtained by applying B1 with an amplitude and duration that rotates M

by 90 degree and into the plane transverse to B0. This is called a 90-

degree pulse. Once in the transverse plane, M precesses (rotates) around

the B0 axis at the Larmor frequency. This rotating magnetization can

induce an alternating current (AC) in a receiver coil, and that current can

be used to record the action of the magnetization in the transverse plane.

The signal that is induced in the receiver coil decays over time. The

signal decay is due to a process known as relaxation.

Relaxation Processes

In resonance absorption, RF energy is absorbed by the nuclei when

it is broadcast at the Larmor frequency. Relaxation is the process by

which the nuclei release this energy and return to their original

configuration. There are two relaxation processes involved: transverse

relaxation and longitudinal relaxation.

Bo

M

B1

Radiofrequency (RF)

2–90

Given that at equilibrium, the net magnetization is longitudinal (B0

direction), the equilibrium magnetization in the transverse plane is zero.

So the signal that is induced in the receiver coil will decay over time and

reach zero some time after the 90º RF pulse is turned off. This decay

process is exponential and the decay envelop can be expressed by the

equation

M transverse = M transverse

0

exp ( −t / T2* ) (2.34)

where M transverse

0

is the initial transverse magnetization immediately after a

after a 90º RF pulse, T2* is the apparent NMR transverse relaxation time

The decay mechanism is that different components of the magnetization

may precess at slightly different rates, a process known as “dephasing”

in the transverse plane. Since the signal recorded is the vector sum of all

the transverse components, sufficient dephasing will lead to complete

cancellation of the signal.

(ΔB0) effects. Spins at different locations are not exposed to exactly the

same B0 field, which in turn yields a range of Larmor frequencies. ΔB0

effects are largely suppressed by correcting the magnetic field uniformity

as much as possible, and by employing NMR “spin-echo” techniques.

largely reversed by following a 90-degree RF pulse with a short delay τ

and a 180-degree “refocusing” pulse. After a second delay τ, the

transverse magnetization M transverse is refocused as an NMR spin-echo. ΔB0

2-91

effects are canceled at the center of the echo, where the dephasing from

ΔB0 is momentarily rephased.

then equation (2.34) can be rewritten as

M transverse = M transverse

0

exp ( −TE / T2 ) (2.35)

NMR transverse relaxation time or spin-spin relaxation time. In Eq.(2.35),

T2* is substituted with T2 upon the correction of ΔB0 effects.

different TE, then fitting the resulting M transverse versus TE curve to

Eq.(2.35). Another more accurate method, and one that is used in NMR

logging, is to employ a multiple-spin-echo sequence, where the NMR

signal is refocused multiple times as shown in Figure 2.47. This method

removes unwanted molecular diffusion effects. In NMR logging, 400 or

more echos are used in the measurements. The exponential curve, which

measures the amplitudes of the decaying echos is the fundamental well

log measurement and is used to compute the T2 spectrum.

2–92

Figure 2.47. Carr-Purcell-Meiboom-Gill spin echo pulse sequence.

magnetization to its equilibrium state after an RF pulse is turned off.

Immediately after a 90º pulse, the net magnetization vector lies in the

transverse plane. Therefore, longitudinal magnetization is zero. However,

as time passes, the longitudinal magnetization will approach the

equilibrium value. This buildup of the longitudinal magnetization is also

exponential in time and can be expressed as

is the longitudinal magnetization at any given time t after a 90º RF

pulse, and T1 is the NMR longitudinal relaxation time or spin-lattice

relaxation time that characterizes the rate of buildup. For any given

system, T1 is greater than or equal to T2. (T1 and T2 of 1H nuclei in water

2-93

in a test tube is about 3 seconds. In a porous medium, the T1 and T2 are

significantly lower than in a test tube and are of the order of

milliseconds). The longitudinal direction or direction of B0, is

conventionally assigned the z direction, i.e., B0=Bz.

successive 90º RF pulses to allow M to achieve equilibrium. This time,

known as the repetition time TR, depends on the sample’s T1. In general,

TR should be greater than 5T1. Substituting TR into Eq.(2.36) gives

after a 90º RF pulse is turned off. Since another 90º RF pulse is applied

immediately at time TR, the M transverse

0

for this subsequent 90º RF pulse

0

M transverse = M 0 ⎡⎣1 − exp ( −TR / T1 ) ⎤⎦ (2.38)

at the time of measurement as

experiment with several different TR values, then fitting the resulting

M transverse versus TR to Eq.(2.38).

2–94

Random thermal motion will affect the NMR signal as spins move

from one part of the sample to another and experience a different

magnetic field strength because of static field inhomogeneities. Variation

in the frequency and phase of these mobile spins introduces a phase

incoherence that causes a reduction in the signal amplitude. This effect

can be expressed by Eq.(2.40) (Hahn, 1950):

⎛ T ⎞ ⎡ 2 Dγ 2G 2 ⎛ TE ⎞3 ⎤

M transverse = M transverse

0

exp ⎜ − E ⎟ exp ⎢− ⎜ ⎟ ⎥ (2.40)

⎝ TR ⎠ ⎢⎣ 3 ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎥⎦

gradient.

The exponential decay curve shown in Figure 2.47 suggests that all

the spins relax at the same T2 relaxation time. This would be applicable

to the spins in a bulk fluid such as the protons in water in a test tube.

However, when the fluids are confined in the pore space of a porous

medium, the protons near the pore wall will relax faster (shorter T2) than

those in the center of the pores. Further, the protons in small pores will

relax faster than those in large pores. As a result, the NMR decay signal

will contain a spectrum of T2 relaxation times. The signal can be

decomposed into its T2 spectrum by using a multi-exponential model as

M ( t ) j =m

= ∑ f j exp ( −t / T2 j ) (2.41)

M0 j =1

2-95

where fj is proportional to the population of protons which have a

relaxation time of T2j. The inversion problem is to find a set if T2

amplitudes, fj, from a set of measurements of echos, gi. Application of

Eq.(2.41) to each echo gives the following system of linear equations in fj

M ( ti ) j = m

gi = = ∑ f j exp ( −ti / T2 j ) + ε i for i = 1, 2,..., n (2.42)

M0 j =1

where gi is the amplitude of the echo measured at time ti, εi is the error

caused by noise in the data and n is the total number of echos. A least

square fit is used to determine the fjs that minimize the sum

2

⎛ m ⎞

⎜ ∑ f j exp ( −ti / T2 j ) − gi ⎟ + α ∑ f j

n m

∑ 2

(2.43)

i =1 ⎝ j =1 ⎠ j =1

Figure 2.48 shows an example log measurement for n = 500, TE =

1.2 milliseconds, with 12 measurements averaged together. Note the

noisy data. The magnitude of the NMR signal at t =0 (M0) is proportional

to the number of hydrogen nuclei in the measurement volume. This

number can be calibrated into the total NMR porosity. Figure 2.49 shows

the corresponding T2 spectrum obtained from the data of Figure 2.48.

2–96

Time (ms)

T2 (ms)

2-97

Based on laboratory measurements in sandstone cores, the NMR

spectrum can be divided into several segments to represent the fluid

distribution in the pore space as shown in Figure 2.50. In this figure, the

area under the spectrum is equal to the total NMR porosity.

Index (FFI) is the percent of the bulk volume occupied by movable fluids

(water + hydrocarbon). In Figure 2.50, this is shown as the fraction of the

2–98

bulk volume for T2 greater than 30 milliseconds. The Free Fluid Index is

also known as Bulk Volume Movable (BVM). The Bulk Volume

Irreducible (BVI) is the percent of the bulk volume containing irreducible

water. The irreducible water consists of two components: (1) Clay Bound

Water (CBW) (T2 from 0.3 to 3 milliseconds), which is the water bound to

the clay minerals and (2) Bulk Volume Capillary (BVC) (T2 from 3 to 30

milliseconds), which is the water trapped by capillary forces. The Bulk

Volume Water (BVW) (T2 from 0.3 to 300 milliseconds) is the percent of

the bulk volume occupied by water (moveable, capillary bound water and

clay bound water). These bulk volumes are related to porosity and

saturations as follows:

Vp

φtotal = (2.44)

Vb

Vi

Si = (2.45)

Vp

φtotal = + (2.47)

Vb Vb

VCBW + VBCV

BVI = (2.48)

Vb

VBVM

BVM = (2.49)

Vb

2-99

φtotal = MPHI (2.51)

Vw S wV p

BVW = = = S wφtotal (2.53)

Vb Vb

VBVC + VBVM

φe = (2.54)

Vp

VBVC + VBVM

φe = (2.55)

φtotalVb

BVC + BMV

φe = (2.56)

φtotal

⎛V + VBVC ⎞ ⎛ V ⎞ BVI

S wirr = ⎜ CBW ⎟⎟ ⎜ b ⎟ = (2.57)

⎜

⎝ Vp ⎠ ⎝ Vb ⎠ φtotal

Figure 2.51 shows an NMR log in which the pore fluids in the

second track have been divided into free fluid (above 30 ms), capillary

bound fluid (3 to 30 ms), small pore bound fluid (0.28 to 3 ms), and very

small pore bound fluid (0.2 to 0.28 ms). The two small pore bound fluids

(0.2 to 3 ms) correspond to clay bound fluid. Also shown in the third

track is the T2 spectrum, with a T2 cutoff of 30 ms for free fluid. Note the

two streaks with free fluid at depths of X163 m and X189 m, where the

2–100

T2 is greater than 30 ms. This example is from a predominantly shaly

formation where the differences in the bound fluids are more apparent.

NMR relaxation measurements have been shown to be a sensitive

probe in the study of the microscopic structure of porous media. The

connection between NMR measurements and pore size is based on the

strong effect that the rock surface has on promoting proton relaxation.

The NMR T1 relaxation behavior of a fluid confined within a pore is

sensitive to both the pore geometry and size, and thus yields much

useful information when related to the pore-size distribution via an

appropriate mathematical model. The simplest and most common model

is the “two-fraction fast-exchange” model (Senturia and Robinson, 1970;

Howard et al., 1990), which assumes that there are two magnetically

distinct phases within the pore: a bulk phase with relaxation

characteristic of the bulk fluid and a surface phase with much faster

relaxation. Assuming that diffusion of the fluid is much faster than the

relaxation process, the observed relaxation rate is given by a single

average T1 value as

1 1 S λ

= + (2.60)

T1 T1bulk V T1surface

where S/V is the pore surface area to volume ratio and λ is the thickness

2-101

Figure 2.51. Example NMR log showing fluid distribution in the pore

space.

2–102

1 ⎛S⎞

= ρ1 ⎜ ⎟ (2.61)

T1 ⎝V ⎠

T1 responds to pore size. Small pores (large S/V ratio) exhibit small

values for T1, and the converse is true for large pores.

and the pore-size distribution. However, in this case, apart from the bulk

effect because of the magnetic field gradient. The relaxation rate equation

is of the form

1 1 S λ 1

= + + (τγ∇B ) D

2

(2.62)

T2 T2bulk V T2 surface 3

where the first two terms on the right side correspond to similar

expressions in Eq.(2.60), while the last term accounts for spin dephasing

protons, and D is the diffusion coefficient. Usually, the first and the last

2-103

terms on the right side of Eq.(2.62)are small and can be neglected. Thus,

1 ⎛S⎞

= ρ2 ⎜ ⎟ (2.63)

T2 ⎝V ⎠

is the distribution of volume-to-surface ratio, (V/S). Since (V/S) has the

dimension of length, then its distribution could be viewed as a “pore-size

distribution.” The ratio (V/S) is not a pore size or a pore diameter. Its

magnitude is markedly affected by the pore shape. The ratio will be a

maximum for a spherical pore (a sphere has the smallest surface area for

a given volume) and will decrease for other pore shapes. If all pores are

geometrically similar, then the T2 spectrum could be viewed qualitatively

as a pore size distribution.

the third track shows an upward increase in the relaxation times, a trend

2–104

which can be explained by an increase in the pore size and, therefore, an

Figure 2.52. Example NMR log showing pore size distribution in a water-

bearing sandstone section.

2-105

Carbonates often have a variety of pore types such as moldic,

intercrystalline and interparticle pores. The relationship between

relaxation times and pore size distribution is therefore more complex in

carbonates than in sandstones. Further, the surface relaxivity of

carbonates is less than that of sandstones, typically 1.7μm/s for

carbonates compared to 5μm/s for sandstones. As a result, the protons

align and relax faster in sandstones than in carbonates. Therefore, the

cut off T2 for free fluid in carbonates is higher than in sandstones,

typically on the order of 100 ms.

The fact that T1 and T2 NMR relaxation times can be used to

estimate permeability stems from the fact that these relaxation times can

be correlated with pore size distribution in water-bearing zones.

Permeability is proportional to the square of some characteristic length of

the porous medium and as such would be proportional to T12 or T22 .

absolute permeability of a porous medium. Wyllie and Rose (1950)

suggested an empirical permeability equation of the form

k = Cφ x S wirr

−y

(2.64)

water saturation and x and y are numerical exponents. Timur developed

a permeability equation in the spirit of Eq.(2.64) of the form

φ 4.5

k = 10 4

2

(2.65)

S wirr

2–106

where the porosity and irreducible water saturation are in fractions and

the permeability is in millidarcy. One version of the Timur/Coates

equation that is widely used to estimate permeability from NMR logs is

given by

⎛φ

4 2

⎞ ⎛ FFI ⎞

k = ⎜ NMR ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ (2.66)

⎝ C ⎠ ⎝ BVI ⎠

cores. In Eq.(2.66) the porosity, FFI and BVI are in porosity units (p.u.)

and the permeability is in millidarcy. BVI and FFI are related to the

irreducible water saturation by Eqs.(2.58) and (2.59).

at Schlumber Doll Research (SDR) is given by

k = aφ 4T22gm (2.67)

defined as

∑f

j =1

j log T2 j

T2 gm = m

(2.68)

∑f

j =1

j

k = C1φNMR

4

T12 (2.69)

and

2-107

k = C2φNMR

4

T22 (2.70)

measurements using Eq.(2.66) with those from core analysis. The

agreement between the two sets of data is good. Also shown is the

comparison of the NMR porosity measurements with those from core

analysis. The agreement also is good.

with measurements from core analysis (from Dunn et al., 2002).

2–108

2.7.7 NMR Imaging of Laboratory Cores

the spatial distribution of NMR observables in core analysis. Thus,

porosity distribution and fluid saturation distribution or solvent

concentration distributions can be imaged in the laboratory.

modified to spatially encode the NMR signals. Figure 3.54 is a typical

2DFT (2-dimensional Fourier Transform) spin-echo NMR imaging

sequence showing (a) radiofrequency pulses, (b) slice-selection gradient,

(c) frequency-encoding gradient, (d) phase-encoding gradient, and (e)

NMR signal (echo). The experiment is repeated with multiple phase-

encoding gradient amplitudes.

For most NMR imaging applications, the B0 field must be made to

vary in a linear fashion with distance. A magnetic field gradient or simply

gradient refers to the spatial variation of the strength of the B0 field.

Magnetic field gradient is a key factor in NMR imaging. A magnetic field

gradient causes the transverse magnetization to precess at a frequency

that is proportional to position along the gradient axis as follows:

ωr = γ ( B0 + rGr ) (2.71)

is the position along the gradient axis. Since we can measure ωr and we

know B0, Gr and γ, the position of the resonating nucleus can be

determined. Gr can be applied concurrently with slice selection,

frequency encoding or independently of other events (phase encoding).

2-109

The magnitude of the gradient, its direction (i.e., along what axis), and

timing need to be controlled.

180o

o

90

a. RF

b. G ss

c. G RO

d. G PE

Echo

e. NMR

TE

Timing

TR p1 tpe pw tro

imaging sequence

2–110

Slice-Selective Excitation

In most NMR imaging applications, it is desirable to generate a

single slice or multislice images. The initial step in generating such an

image is the localization of the RF excitation to a region of space. This is

accomplished by the use of frequency-selective excitation in conjunction

with a slice-selection gradient, Gss, on an axis perpendicular to the

chosen slice plane. A frequency-selective RF pulse has two parts

associated with it, a central frequency and a bandwidth of frequencies

Δωss defined by the shape of the pulse envelope. When such a pulse is

broadcast in the presence of the slice-selection gradient, a narrow region

of the object will achieve the resonance condition and will absorb the RF

energy. The central frequency of the pulse determines the particular

location that is excited by the pulse when the slice-selection gradient is

present. Different slice positions are achieved by changing the central

frequency. The slice thickness is determined by the bandwidth of

frequencies Δωss incorporated into the RF pulse and is given by

where ds1 is the slice thickness. Typically, Δωss is fixed so that the slice

Multislice imaging uses the same Gss for each slice but a unique RF

pulse during excitation. Each RF pulse has the same bandwidth but a

object.

2-111

Frequency Encoding

The next task in the imaging process is encoding the image

information within the excited slice. The image information is actually

the amplitude of the NMR signal arising from the various locations in the

slice. Two distinct processes are used for encoding the two dimensions:

frequency encoding and phase encoding.

of the image. The NMR signal is always detected in the presence of a

frequency encoding gradient in an imaging pulse sequence. After slice-

selective excitation, the frequency encoding gradient, also known as the

readout gradient, GRO, is applied perpendicularly to the slice direction.

Under the influence of this new gradient field, the nuclei within the slice

will precess at different frequencies depending on their positions in the

readout gradient’s direction, in accordance with Eq.(2.71). Each of these

frequencies will be superimposed in the echo. The echo signal is detected

in the presence of GRO and digitized at a chosen sampling interval for

later Fourier transformation. The magnitude of GRO and the frequencies

that are detected enable the positions of the nuclei to be determined.

the frequency encoding, or the readout, direction: the field of view (FOV)

in the readout direction and the number of readout data points in the

matrix, NRO. The pixel size in the readout direction is given by

( FOV ) RO

Δ RO = (2.73)

N RO

and

2–112

BW N RO

( FOV ) RO = = (2.74)

γ GRO 2γ GRO tro

the duration of the frequency encoding gradient.

Phase Encoding

In order to produce a two-dimensional image of the slice, one can

cause a systematic variation in phase that would encode the spatial

information along the one remaining axis of the image plane. This is

accomplished by the use of a phase encoding gradient, GPE. GPE is

perpendicular to both Gss and GRO and is the only gradient that changes

amplitude during the data acquisition loop of a standard two-

dimensional imaging sequence. The NMR imaging information is

obtained by repeating the slice excitation and signal detection many

times (typically 128 or 256 times), each with a different amplitude of GPE

applied before detection. The resulting signals are stored separately for

subsequent processing.

set of projections onto the readout axis. Specifically, the second Fourier

transformation converts signal amplitude at each readout frequency from

a function of GPE to a function of frequency.

two user-selectable parameters, the FOV in the phase encoding direction

and the number of phase encoding steps in the matrix, NPE. The pixel

size in the phase encoding direction is given by

( FOV ) PE

Δ PE = (2.75)

N PE

2-113

and

π N PE

( FOV ) PE = (2.76)

γ GPE t pe

where γ is the gyromagnetic ratio and tpe is the duration of the phase

encoding gradient.

Image Reconstruction

Two types of matrices are used in NMR imaging: raw data and

image data. The raw data matrix is a grid of complex points with the

frequency encoding direction displayed in the horizontal direction and

the phase encoding direction displayed in the vertical direction. All image

information is contained within the raw data matrix.

transformation of the raw data matrix. The first Fourier transformation of

each row of the raw data matrix yields a set of modulated projections of

the slice onto the frequency encoding axis. The second Fourier

transformation of each column of the temporary data matrix converts the

signal magnitude at each readout frequency from a function of GPE to a

function of frequency, resulting in the image. The image matrix is a

spatial map of the nuclei signal intensity. While the Fourier

transformation contains information regarding both the magnitude and

the phase of the measured signals, the phase information is often

discarded so that the normal image matrix contains only the magnitude

information. The image matrix is usually displayed as a rectangular

image with readout in one direction and phase encoding in the other

direction.

2–114

Figure 2.55 shows a graphical representation of how an image is

spatially encoded during 2DFT imaging. In this figure, the frequency

encoding direction is horizontal and the phase encoding direction is

vertical. A set of NMR signals is acquired using the same frequency

encoding gradient but different values of the phase encoding gradient.

Each of these NMR signals is Fourier transformed to provide a frequency

spectrum of each phase encoding step, which constitutes a one-

dimensional projection in the frequency encoding direction. Each column

of the data from the first Fourier Transform projection images is Fourier

transformed again to determine the spatial projection in the vertical

image plane.

Three-dimensional volume imaging technique is, in essence, a

double phase encoding technique. The slice-selective excitation is

replaced with another phase encoding process along that axis. Each RF

pulse excites the entire imaging volume instead of just one slice. The

second phase encoding is applied to partition or subdivide the volume

into individual layers. The number of layers is determined by the number

of phase encode steps. For example, if the number of the second phase

encoding gradient steps is changed from 32 to 128, 3D-FFT of the 3D

data set then yields 32 to 128 image layers in that direction.

2-115

Figure 2.55. Graphical demonstration of 2DFT NMR image data

acquisition and reconstruction.

contiguous layer images can be obtained with minimal interslice

crosstalk. Also, the signal-to-noise ratio is greater than for a comparable

2D-sequential imaging method.

scan time for 3D volume imaging is much longer than for 2D slice or

multislice imaging. In practice, 3D volume imaging is not widely used.

Instead, 2D-multislice imaging is often used as a replacement for 3D

volume imaging.

2–116

Voxel size is a very important factor in increasing the signal-to-

noise ratio (SNR). Voxel size is defined by

⎛ ( FOV ) RO ⎞⎛ ( FOV ) PE ⎞

Δv = d s1 ⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟ (2.77)

⎝ N RO ⎠ ⎝ N PE ⎠

If the voxel volume is large, then there are more spins in each voxel to

contribute to the signal, thus increasing the SNR. But large voxels imply

a low spatial resolution. The converse is also true. Small voxels imply a

low SNR but a high spatial resolution. Therefore, the user-controlled

parameters, slice thickness ds1, FOV, NRO and NPE, are important

parameters that affect the signal-to-noise ratio and the image resolution.

The echo time TE, repetition time TR, longitudinal relaxation time T1

and transverse relaxation time T2 are the important factors that

determine image contrast as defined in Eq.(2.39). Remembering that T2

relaxation describes the rate of decay of the NMR signal in the transverse

plane, a long TE would yield different signal intensity from objects

possessing different T2 values. The long T2 object will contribute more

signal, causing it to appear hyperintense in the NMR image relative to

the short T2 object. This is termed a “T2-weighted image.” Similarly, since

T1 relaxation describes the rate of recovery of the longitudinal

magnetization, a short TR would yield different signal intensity from

objects possessing different T1 values. The object exhibiting a short T1

value will contribute more signal, causing it to appear hyperintense in

the NMR image relative to the long T1 object. This is termed a “T1-

weighted image.”

2-117

In summary, TE controls T2-weighting and TR controls T1-

weighting of an image. Short T2 objects are dark on T2-weighted images,

but short T1 objects are bright on T1-weighted images.

Figures 2.56 and 2.57 show NMR-derived porosity images of a

brine saturated sandstone core. Figure 2.56 shows the images at six

cross sections along the core whereas Figure 2.57 shows the images of

four, longitudinal vertical slices. The layered nature of the core is clearly

apparent from these images. Although the images are not calibrated with

numerical porosity values, nevertheless, the first three slices in Figure

2.56 indicate that the core appears to be less porous at the top than

elsewhere. The core is 10 cm long, 5 cm in diameter, and has a

permeability of 97 md and an average porosity of 15.9 %.

concentration for a first-contact miscible displacement conducted in the

core of Figures 2.56 and 2.57. In this experiment, a more viscous

deuterium oxide (D2O) was used to displace the less viscous brine from

2–118

Figure 2.56. NMR images of transverse slices of a brine saturated

sandstone core.

protons, so the injection of D2O reduces the NMR signal in the voxels

2-119

invaded by the D2O. The reduced NMR signals can be used to image the

progress of the displacement as shown in Figure 2.58. Because the

mobility ratio is favorable, the displacement pattern is controlled entirely

by the permeability variations in the core. Note the chanelling of the

injected solvent due to permeability variation in the core. Clearly, the top

of the core is less permeable than the rest of the core. This correlates well

with the low porosity of the top of the core shown in Figure 2.56. Figure

2.59 shows one-dimensional solvent concentration profiles for the same

displacement. The information is quantitative and can be used to

calibrate a numerical model of the displacement.

saturated sandstone core.

2–120

Figure 2.58. Solvent concentration images of a first-contact miscible

displacement in the sandstone core of Figures 2.55 and 2.56.

2-121

Figure 2.59. Solvent concentration profiles of the first-contact miscible

displacement of Figure 2.57.

layered sandstone core. The permeability for each voxel of the image was

calculated from T1 distributions using Eq.(2.69). Figure 2.61 shows a

comparison of NMR-derived permeability with flow-derived permeability

for five core samples. The agreement between the two sets of permeability

values is reasonable for four of the five measurements.

2–122

Figure 2.60. Permeability images of a layered sandstone core.

2-123

Figure 2.61. A comparison of NMR-derived permeability with flow-derived

permeability of core samples.

Sand

tools along with the porosity from core analysis. This figure shows that

the total porosity measured by a neutron tool is larger than those

measured by the density tool, the NMR tool or the sonic tool. The total

porosity from the sonic tool is less than that of the density tool because

the density tool measures the porosity in isolated pore whereas the sonic

2–124

tool does not. If isolated pores are present, the effective porosity

measured in core analysis will be less than the effective permeability

measured by NMR. Thus, Figure 2.62 could be helpful in reconciling

differences in the porosity measurements from the various methods.

for a shaly sand.

reserve and the anticipated undiscounted net cash flow for a new oilfield

discovery using Monte Carlo Simulation. The petrophysical parameters

that go into the reserve estimation are uncertain and as such should be

2-125

treated as random variables with distinct probability distributions. The

outcome of the simulation will be a range of reserve and net cash flow

estimates with their associated probabilities and uncertainties. This

project gives an example practical application of the petrophysical

properties of porosity and water saturation, which are the main subjects

of this chapter. The project also introduces the important subject of risk

analysis of petroleum development, which should be of interest to all

petroleum engineers.

oil reserve is given by

7758 Ahφ (1 − S w )

Nr = Rf (2.78)

Bo

where

φ = porosity (fraction)

barrel, RB/STB)

2–126

Figure 2.63. Reservoir volume.

of Eq.(2.78) various experts within the company have been requested to

provide their best estimates of these variables based on their professional

judgments. These estimates are shown in Table 2.8 along with their

assumed probability distributions.

Distributio

n

A (acres) 2500 6000 9000 Triangular

h (ft) 200 300 500 Triangular

φ 0.15 0.25 0.35 Triangular

Bo (RB/STB) 1.20 1.30 1.35 Triangular

RF 0.20 0.40 Uniform

Oil Price ($/STB) 25 30 40 Triangular

2-127

Based on preliminary evaluation, the water saturation has been

determined to correlate with porosity as shown in Eq.(2.79).

will be necessary to perform a detailed year-by-year discounted cash flow

projection for the field. However, for the purpose of this project, a

preliminary undiscounted net cash flow analysis will be sufficient. It is

assumed that the petroleum fiscal regime applicable to this field is a

royalty/tax system.

Net Cash Flow (NCF) = (Gross Revenue - Royalty - Costs)(1 - Tax Rate) (2.80)

2–128

2.8.3 Simulation Procedure

from its probability distribution and compute the recoverable reserve and

the net cash flow for each iteration of the simulation. Each variable can

be sampled using a random number generator. A different random

number should be used to sample each variable because the variables

are assumed to be uncorrelated, except for the water saturation, which is

correlated to porosity. Normally, you should perform enough simulation

iterations so that the means and standard deviations of the reserve and

the net cash flow are approximately constant (i.e., they are no longer

sensitive to the number of iterations). This could require several

thousand iterations. For this exercise, you should perform at least 5,000

iterations.

distribution and a uniform distribution using a random number

generator. Figure 2.64 shows the probability density function (pdf) for a

triangular distribution. The first step is to compute the cumulative

distribution function (F) as a function of x. Two cases are examined.

2 ( x − x1 )

f1 ( x) = (2.82)

( x3 − x1 )( x2 − x1 )

2-129

Figure 2.64. Probability density function for a triangular distribution.

is less than or equal to a prescribed value, is obtained by integrating

Eq.(2.82) to obtain

( x − x1 )

2

x

F = ∫ f1 ( x)dx = (2.83)

x 1 ( x3 − x1 )( x2 − x1 )

x = x1 + F ( x3 − x1 )( x2 − x1 ) (2.84)

It turns out that F is uniformly distributed between 0 and 1, just like the

random number generator in spreadsheets or other computer software.

Therefore, to sample from the first part of a triangular distribution,

generate a uniformly distributed random number (Rn) between 0 and 1

and substitute it for F in Eq.(2.84) to obtain the sample value for x as

x = x1 + Rn ( x3 − x1 )( x2 − x1 ) (2.85)

2–130

Case 2. x2≤ x ≤x3

2 ( x3 − x )

f 2 ( x) = (2.86)

( x3 − x1 )( x3 − x2 )

Eqs.(2.82) and (2.86) to obtain

( x3 − x )

2

F = ∫ f1 ( x)dx + ∫ f 2 ( x)dx = 1 −

x2 x

(2.87)

x1 x 2 ( x3 − x1 )( x3 − x2 )

x = x3 − (1 − F )( x3 − x1 )( x3 − x2 ) (2.88)

the random number for F in Eq.(2.88) to obtain

x = x3 − (1 − Rn )( x3 − x1 )( x3 − x2 ) (2.89)

determine if Eq.(2.85) or Eq.(2.89) should be used to calculate x. Such a

test is straightforward. For x = x2, Eq. (2.85) gives the critical value of Rn

as

Rn =

( x2 − x1 ) (2.90)

( x3 − x1 )

2-131

Eq.(2.85) should be used to calculate x if

Rn ≤

( x2 − x1 ) (2.91)

( x3 − x1 )

sampling using the triangular distribution for net pay thickness of Table

2.8. The upper part of the figure shows the probability density function

whereas the lower part shows the cumulative distribution function. Also

shown in the lower part of the figure is the sampled value of 380 ft of net

pay for a random number of 0.760. The data used to construct Figure

2.65 are shown in Table 2.9.

distribution. For this case, the probability density function is given by

1

f ( x) = (2.92)

( x3 − x1 )

Eq.(2.92) to obtain

x

F = ∫ f ( x)dx =

( x − x1 ) (2.93)

x1

( x3 − x1 )

x = x1 + F ( x3 − x1 ) (2.94)

2–132

0.007

0.006

0.005

0.004

f(x)

0.003

0.002

0.001

0.000

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

x (ft)

F

1.000

0.900

0.800

0.700

0.600

F 0.500

0.400

0.300

0.200

0.100

0.000

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

x (ft)

Table 2.9: Data for Monte Carlo Sampling of Net Pay Thickness

x F f(x)

200 0.000 0.0000

0

210 0.003 0.0006

7

220 0.013 0.0013

2-133

3

230 0.030 0.0020

0

240 0.053 0.0026

7

250 0.083 0.0033

3

260 0.120 0.0040

0

270 0.163 0.0046

7

280 0.213 0.0053

3

290 0.270 0.0060

0

300 0.333 0.0066

7

310 0.398 0.0063

3

320 0.460 0.0060

0

330 0.518 0.0056

7

340 0.573 0.0053

3

350 0.625 0.0050

0

360 0.673 0.0046

7

370 0.718 0.0043

3

380 0.760 0.0040

0

390 0.798 0.0036

2–134

7

400 0.833 0.0033

3

410 0.865 0.0030

0

420 0.893 0.0026

7

430 0.918 0.0023

3

440 0.940 0.0020

0

450 0.958 0.0016

7

460 0.973 0.0013

3

470 0.985 0.0010

0

480 0.993 0.0006

7

490 0.998 0.0003

3

500 1.000 0.0000

0

2-135

Figure 2.66. Probability density function for a uniform distribution

for F in Eq.(2.94) to obtain

x = x1 + Rn ( x3 − x1 ) (2.95)

Sampling procedure. It is not a very efficient sampling technique because

there is no guarantee that all parts of the distribution will be sampled

equally. A more efficient and sophisticated stratified sampling procedure,

known as the Latin Hypercube Sampling, is available. This sampling

procedure ensures that all parts of the distribution are sampled equally

and will result in a faster convergence of the simulation to the final

results than the traditional Monte Carlo Sampling Method.

The cumulative distribution function, 0<F<1, for each variable is divided

into n subintervals of equal probability and numbered 0, 1, 2, 3, …, n-1.

2–136

The objective is to sample from each subinterval during the first n

iterations. However, the subinterval to be sampled is selected randomly.

For example, if n = 100, the subintervals will be numbered 0, 1, 2, 3, …,

99. Each subinterval can be selected randomly by generating a random

integer from 0 to 99. The subintervals could be picked at random in

advance and stored in a one-dimensional array of 100 elements. Let’s

look at the array for the Area, A(100), as an example. The contents of this

array after the random selections might look like this:

A(1) = 45

A(2) = 2

A(3) = 7

A(4) = 92

A(5) = 23

A(6) = 0

A(100) = 8

is generated with a new set of random numbers for each of the other

variables. During the first simulation iteration, the area will be sampled

from subinterval 45. To do so, generate a random number (r) between 0

and 1, say 0.263. The random number used to sample subinterval 45 is

computed as

A(1) r 45 0.263

Rn = + = + = 0.45263 (2.96)

100 100 100 100

2-137

In the second iteration, the area will be sampled from subinterval 2 by

generating another random number (r) between 0 and 1, say 0.950 and

computing

A(2) r 2 0.950

Rn = + = + = 0.02950 (2.97)

100 100 100 100

At the end of the first 100 iterations, each of the subintervals has been

sampled once. A similar sampling procedure is applied to the other

variables.

in which the subintervals are sampled is picked randomly. For example,

for the second 100 iterations, the array A may look like this:

A(1) = 3

A(2) = 86

A(3) = 50

A(4) = 14

A(5) = 6

A(6) = 99

A(100) = 72

The sampling for the second 100 iterations then proceeds in the same

manner as for the first 100 iterations. Thus, the entire simulation is

performed in increments of 100 iterations until the planned total number

of iterations is achieved. Figure 2.67 shows qualitatively the effect of

2–138

stratification in Latin Hypercube sampling from a normal distribution for

n = 20. The bands get progressively wider towards the tails of the

distribution as the probability density drops off.

Reserve (Nr) and Net Cash Flow (NCF) estimates:

1. Minimum

2. Maximum

3. Mean

4. Standard deviation

5. Skewness

6. Kurtosis

2-139

7. Mode (most likely value)

8. P90 value (There is a 90% probability that the variable of interest is

equal to or greater than the P90 value – Low Value)

9. P50 value (median)

10. P10 value (There is a 10% probability that the variable of interest

is equal to or greater than the P10 value – High Value)

Note: Based on the above definitions, P10 > P90.

of N)

2. Net Cash Flow (NCF) histograms (Frequency vs NCF, and

Frequency vs natural log of NCF)

3. Cumulative Distribution Function (F) for the reserve (F vs N)

4. Expectation Curve for the reserve ( (1– F) vs N on the same graph

as F vs N)

5. Cumulative Distribution Function (F) for the net cash flow (F vs

NCF)

6. Expectation Curve for the net cash flow ( (1– F) vs NCF on the

same graph as F vs NCF)

7. Histograms for A, h, φ, Sw, Bo, RF and Oil Price based on your

sampling to see how close they are to their theoretical input

probability density functions .

Suggestion:

writing a high level computer program in Fortran, C++ or Matlab. The

choice is yours. Please do not perform the simulation with a commercial

risk analysis software such as @Risk or Crystal Ball because I want you

to experience the simulation first hand rather than using the commercial

software as a black box.

the recoverable gas reserve in the case of a gas reservoir. In this case, the

appropriate equations are as follows:

2–140

43560 Ahφ (1 − S w )

Gr = RF (2.98)

Bg

ZT

Bg = 0.02827 (2.99)

P

where

stress, whereas at the surface, recovered core has been relieved of the

overburden stress. It is not usual to perform routine porosity

measurements under stress approaching reservoir conditions. Because

of this, laboratory-measured porosities are generally expected to be

higher than in situ values. Pore volume compressibility can be used to

correct laboratory-measured porosity to an in situ value and for other

reservoir engineering calculations.

2-141

In general, the isothermal coefficient of compressibility of a

material is defined as

1 ⎛ ∂V ⎞

c=− ⎜ ⎟ (2.100)

V ⎝ ∂P ⎠T

number because when a material is compressed, its volume decreases

⎛ ∂V ⎞

thereby making ⎜ ⎟ a negative quantity. Pore volume compressibility is

⎝ ∂P ⎠T

defined without the negative sign as

1 ⎛ ∂V p ⎞ 1 ⎛ ∂φ ⎞

cf = ⎜ ⎟ = ⎜ ⎟ (2.101)

V p ⎝ ∂P ⎠T φ ⎝ ∂P ⎠T

overburden pressure (external pressure). When the pore pressure

declines during production, the overburden pressure causes the reservoir

to compact. Thus, a decrease in pore pressure causes a decrease in the

⎛ ∂V ⎞ ⎛ ∂φ ⎞

pore volume or porosity thereby making ⎜ ⎟ or ⎜ ⎟ positive.

⎝ ∂P ⎠T ⎝ ∂P ⎠T

For many years, the petroleum industry has relied on Hall’s (1953)

correlation, shown in Figure 2.68, for estimating pore volume

compressibility. This correlation was developed from measurements on

seven consolidated limestone and five consolidated sandstone samples, a

rather small dataset for a universal correlation.

and overburden conditions. Newman (1973) has presented a more

comprehensive pore volume compressibility data based on 256 samples.

2–142

Of the 256 samples, 197 were sandstones from 29 sandstone reservoirs,

and 59 were limestones from 11 limestone reservoirs. Figure 2.69 shows

a correlation of the pore volume compressibilities with initial sample

porosities for all 256 samples. Also shown is Hall's correlation. Viewed

collectively, the data show little or no correlation between pore volume

compressibility and initial sample porosity. The data show considerable

disagreement with Hall's correlation.

2-143

Figure 2.69. Pore volume compressibility at 75% lithostatic pressure

versus initial sample porosity for sandstone and limestone samples

(Newman, 1973).

effort to improve the correlation between pore volume compressibility and

initial porosity. He classified the samples as (1) consolidated limestone,

(2) consolidated sandstone, (3) poorly consolidated (friable) sandstone,

and (4) unconsolidated sandstone. Poorly consolidated or friable

sandstone could be broken by hand whereas consolidated sandstone

2–144

could not. Unconsolidated sandstone would collapse under its own

weight if it is not protected in a sleeve.

along with the correlations from Hall and van der Knaap (1959).

Qualitatively, all three dataset show a general decrease in pore volume

compressibility with an increase in porosity. However, there is

considerable scatter in the data.

versus initial sample porosity for limestone samples (Newman, 1973).

2-145

Figure 2.71 shows the correlation for consolidated sandstones

along with Hall's correlation. Qualitatively, the data show a general

decrease in pore volume compressibility with an increase in porosity with

some scatter. Newman's data decrease more rapidly with an increase in

porosity than Hall's data.

versus initial sample porosity for consolidated sandstone samples

(Newman, 1973).

2–146

Figure 2.72 shows the correlation for poorly consolidated or friable

sandstones along with Hall's correlation. There appears to be no

correlation between pore volume compressibility and porosity for this

class of sandstones.

versus initial sample porosity for poorly consolidated sandstone samples

(Newman, 1973).

2-147

Figure 2.73 shows the correlation for unconsolidated sandstones

along with Hall's correlation. For this class of sandstones, the pore

volume compressibility increases with an increase in porosity, in contrast

to the trend for consolidated samples.

versus initial sample porosity for unconsolidated sandstone samples

(Newman, 1973).

2–148

Newman's data clearly show that there is no universal correlation

for pore volume compressibility and porosity. For detailed analysis, pore

volume compressibility should be measured in the laboratory on core

samples of interest. Figure 2.74 shows a schematic diagram of a typical

device for measuring pore volume compressibility. These measurements

are fairly difficult to make, and must include calibrations for the

compressibilities of the fluids and the equipment.

compressibility (Hall, 1953).

in abnormally pressured reservoirs, it is common to find that pore

volume compressibility at high reservoir pressures is much larger than

2-149

the pore volume compressibility at low pressures. This is due to

compaction effects as the pore pressure declines.

problems. A famous case of this is the subsidence of Ekofisk field in the

Norwegian sector of North Sea. The seafloor subsided about 3 meters

from 1971 to 1984 due to reservoir depletion. Continuous monitoring

indicated subsidence of 33 to 38 cm per year. By 1997, the cumulative

subsidence was 7.8 meters. In 1998, the operator undertook expensive

measures to jack up their platforms by 6 meters. On the other hand,

pore volume compaction provides valuable reservoir drive energy to

increase production from the field.

pressure transient testing and reservoir material balance analysis,

especially above the bubble point pressure of the oil. Total system

compressibility is defined as the combined compressibility of the pore

volume and all the fluids saturating the medium:

ct = So co + S wcw + S g cg + c f (2.102)

NOMENCLATURE

aw = activity coefficient of formation water

A = atomic weight

Bg = gas formation volume factor

Bo = oil formation volume factor

B0 = magnetic field strength

2–150

BVI = bound fluid index

c = isothermal coefficient of compressibility

cf = isothermal coefficient of compressibility of pore volume

cg = isothermal coefficient of compressibility of gas

co = isothermal coefficient of compressibility of oil

cw = isothermal coefficient of compressibility of water

dh = borehole diameter

di = diameter of invaded zone

ds1 = slice thickness

dxo = diameter of flushed zone

D = diffusion coefficient

Ec = electrochemical potential

Ek = electrokinetic potential

Ekmc = electrokinetic potential of mud cake

F = formation resistivity factor

FFI = free fluid index

FOV = field of view

G = gradient

GPE = phase encode gradient

GRO = readout gradient

Gss = slice selection gradient

Gr = recoverable gas reserve

h = net pay thickness

I = formation resistivity index

k = permeability

m = cementation factor

M = net magnetization

Mz = net magnetization in the z direction

n = saturation exponent

Nr = recoverable oil reserve

MNR = nuclear magnetic resonance

2-151

P = pressure

RF = radiofrequency

Rf = recovery factor

Ri = resistivity of invaded zone

Rmf = resistivity of mud filtrate

Rn = random number

Ro = resistivity of water saturated zone

Rs = resistivity of surrounding formation

Rt = true formation resistivity

Rw = resistivity of formation water

Rxo = resistivity of flushed zone

S = surface area of pore

Sh = hydrocarbon saturation

Sg = gas saturation

So = oil saturation

Soi = initial oil saturation

Sor = residual oil saturation

Sxo = water saturation of flushed zone

Sw = water saturation

Swirr = irreducible water saturation

t = time

tpe = duration of phase encoding gradient pulse

tro = duration of frequency encoding gradient pulse

T = temperature

T1 = longitudinal relaxation time or spin-lattice relaxation time

T2 = transverse relaxation time or spin-spin relaxation time

T2gm = geometric mean time

T2* = apparent transverse relaxation time spin-spin relaxation time

T2bulk = transverse relaxation time of bulk fluid

T2surface = transverse relaxation time of surface fluid

TE = echo time

2–152

TR = repetition time

v = compressional wave velocity

V = volume of pore

Vp = pore volume

Vb = bulk volume

Vs = grain volume

Z = atomic number

φ = porosity

φe = effective porosity

φtotal = total porosity

ρ1 = NMR T1 surface relaxivity

ρ2 = NMR T2 surface relaxivity

ρa = apparent density

ρb = bulk density

ρe = electron density

ρf = fluid density

ρm = rock matrix density

ΔB0 = magnetic field inhomogeneity

ΔPE = pixel size in the phase encoding direction

ΔRO = pixel size in the readout direction

Δv = voxel size

Δt = interval transit time

Δtf = fluid interval transit time

Δtm = rock matrix interval transit time

Δtsh = shale interval transit time

∇B = magnetic field gradient

α = regularization constant or smoothing parameter

λ = thickness of surface monolayer

ε(tj) = noise

τ = interpulse spacing time

2-153

ωo = Lamor frequency

ωr = Lamor frequency at position r

γ = gyromagnetic ratio

Amyx, J.W., Bass, D.M., Jr. and Whiting, R.L. : Petroleum Reservoir

Engineering, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1960.

Anderson, G. : Coring and Core Analysis Handbook, Petroleum Publishing

Company, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 1975.

Archer, J.S. and Wall, C.G. : Petroleum Engineering, Graham & Trotman,

London, England, 1986.

Archie, G.E. :“The Electrical Resistivity Log as an Aid in Determining

Some Reservoir Characteristics,” Trans. AIME (1942) 146, 54-62.

Baker Atlas Publication: Introduction to Wireline Log Analysis, 1992.

Bassiouni, Z. : Theory, Measurement, and Interpretation of Well Logs,

SPE Textbook Series, Vol. 4, Society of Petroleum Engineers,

Richardson, TX, 1994.

Beard, D.C. and Weyl, P.K. : “Influence of Texture on Porosity and

Permeability of Unconsolidated Sand,” AAPG Bull. (Feb. 1973) 57,

349-369.

Bradley, H.B. (Editor-in-Chief) : Petroleum Engineering Handbook, SPE,

Richardson, Texas, 1987.

Calhoun, J.C. : Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering, University of

Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma, 1982.

2–154

Carman, P.C. : "Fluid Flow Through A Granular Bed,” Trans. Inst. Chem.

Eng. London (1937) 15, 150-156.

Carman, P.C. : "Determination of the Specific Surface of Powders,” J. Soc.

Chem. Indus (1938) 57, 225-234.

Carpenter, C.B. and Spencer, G.B. : “Measurements of the

Compressibility of Consolidated Oil-Bearing Sandstones,” RI 3540,

USBM (Oct. 1940).

Coats, G.R., Xiao, L. and Prammer, M.G. : NMR Logging: Principles and

Applications, Halliburton Energy Services, Houston, 1999.

Collins, R.E. : Flow of Fluids Through Porous Materials, Research &

Engineering Consultants Inc., 1990.

Core Laboratories Inc. : Special Core Analysis, 1976.

Corey, A.T. : Mechanics of Heterogeneous Fluids in Porous Media, Water

Resources Publications, Fort Collins, Colorado, 1977.

Cosse, R. : Basics of Reservoir Engineering, Editions Technip, Paris,

1993.

Dobrynin, V.M. : "The Effect of Overburden Pressure on Some Properties

of Sandstones,” Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (Dec. 1962) 360-366.

Dunn, K.J., Bergman, D.J. and Latorraca, G.A.: Nuclear Magnetic

Resonance Petrophysical and Logging Applications, Handbook of

Geophysical Exploration, Seismic Exploration Vol. 32, Pergamon,

New York, 2002.

Fatt, I. : “Pore Volume Compressibilities of Sandstone Reservoir Rocks,”

Trans., AIME (1958) 213, 362-364.

Fraser, H.J. and Graton, L.C. : "Systematic Packing of Spheres - With

Particular Relation to Porosity and Permeability,” J. Geol., Vol. 43,

No. 8, Nov. - Dec., 1935, 789-909.

Geertsma, J. : “The Effect of Fluid Pressure Decline on Volumetric

Changes of a Porous Medium,” Trans. AIME (1957) 210, 331-340.

Hall, H.N. : “Compressibility of Reservoir Rocks,” Trans., AIME (1953)

198, 309-311.

Haughey, D.P. and Beveridge, G.S.G. :”Structural Properties of Packed

Beds - A Review,” Can. J. Chem. Eng., Vol. 47 (April 1969) 130-149.

Jennings, H.J. : “How to Handle and Process Soft and Unconsolidated

Cores,” World Oil (June 1965) 116-119.

Jorden, J.R. and Campbell, F.L. : Well Logging I - Rock Properties,

Borehole Environment, Mud and Temperature Logging, Monograph

2-155

Vol. 9, Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME , Richardson,

Texas, 1984, Ch. 2.

Keelan, D.K. : "A Critical Review of Core Analysis Techniques” The Jour.

Can. Pet. Tech. (April-June 1972) 42-55.

Kleinberg, I. : “Probing Oil Wells with NMR,” The Industrial Physicist,

(June/July 1996) 18-21.

Li, Ping: Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Fluid Displacements in

Porous Media, PhD Dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin,

Austin, Texas, August 1997.

Mann, R.L. and Fatt, I. : “Effect of Pore Fluids on the Elastic Properties of

Sandstones,” Geophysics (1960) 25, 433-444.

Mayer-Gurr, A. : Petroleum Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, New York,

1976.

Monicard, R.P. : Properties of Reservoir Rocks, Gulf Publishing Company,

Houston, TX, 1980.

Neasham, J.W.: "The Morphology of Dispersed Clay in Sandstone

Reservoirs and Its Effect on Sandstone Shaliness, Pore Space and

Fluid Flow Properties," SPE 6858, Presented at the 52nd Annual

Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum

Engineers, Denver, Oct. 9-12, 1977.

Newman, G.H. : "Pore-Volume Compressibility of Consolidated, Friable,

and Unconsolidated Reservoir Rocks Under Hydrostatic Loading,”

J. Pet. Tech. (Feb. 1973) 129-134.

Peters, E.J. and Afzal, N. : “Characterization of Heterogeneities in

Permeable Media with Computed Tomography Imaging,” Journal of

Petroleum Science and Engineering, 7, No. 3/4, (May 1992) 283-

296.

Peters, E.J. and Hardham, W.D. : “Visualization of Fluid Displacements

in Porous Media Using Computed Tomography Imaging,” Journal of

Petroleum Science and Engineering, 4, No. 2, (May 1990) 155-168.

Pirson, S.J. : Oil Reservoir Engineering, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.,

New York, 1958.

Ruth, D. and Pohjoisrinne, T. : "The Precision of Grain Volume

Porosimeters” The Log Analyst (Nov.-Dec. 1993) 29-36.

Schlumberger Publication: Log Interpretation Principles/Applications,

Schlumberger Educational Series, 1987.

2–156

Tamari, S. : "Optimum Design of the Constant-Volume Gas Pycnometer

for Determining the Volume of Solid Particles," Meas. Sci.

Tech.,Vol.15, 2004, 549-558.

Tiab, D. and Donaldson, E.C. : Petrophysics, Second Edition, Elsevier,

New York, 2004.

van der Knaap, W. : "Nonlinear Behavior of Elastic Porous Media,” Trans.,

AIME (1959) 216, 179-187.

Vose, D. : Quantitative Risk Analysis: A Guide to Monte Carlo Simulation

Modeling, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1998.

Winsauer, W.O., Shearin, H.M., Jr., Masson, P.H. and Williams, M. :

"Resistivity of Brine-Saturated Sands in Relation to Pore

Geometry," AAPG Bull., Vol. 36, No. 2 (Feb. 1952) 253-277.

Wyllie, M.R.J. and Rose, W.D. : "Some Theoretical Considerations Related

to the Quantitative Evaluation of the Physical Characteristics of

Reservoir Rock from Electrical Log Data,” Trans., AIME (1950)

189, 105-118.

Wyllie, M.R.J. and Spangler, M.B. : "Application of Electrical Resistivity

Measurements to Problems of Fluid Flow in Porous Media,” AAPG

Bull., Vol. 36, No. 2 (Feb. 1952) 359-403.

Wyllie, M.R.J., Gregory, A.R. and Gardner, G.H.F. : "Elastic Wave

Velocities in Heterogeneous and Porous Media” Geophysics, Vol.

21, No. 1 (1956) 41-70.

2-157

CHAPTER 3

PERMEABILITY

3.1 DEFINITION

Permeability gives an indication of the porous medium’s ability to

transmit fluids (i.e., permit fluid flow). It is defined through Darcy’s law. For a

horizontal system, Darcy’s law for single phase flow in differential form is

kA dP

q=− (3.1)

μ dx

shown in Figure 3.1, Darcy’s Law may be integrated to give

kA ( P1 − P2 ) kA ΔP

q= = (3.2)

μ L μ L

3-1

Eq(3.2) can be solved for the absolute permeability of the porous medium as

qμ L

k= (3.3)

AΔP

saturated 100% by a single phase, non-reactive liquid. It is a property of the

porous medium and is independent of the fluid properties.

⎛ μL ⎞

ΔP = ⎜ ⎟q (3.4)

⎝ kA ⎠

permeability of a sample using a non-reactive liquid. If a steady state liquid

flow experiment is performed at several rates, Eq.(3.4) shows that a graph of

ΔP versus q should be linear with a slope, m, given by

μL

m= (3.5)

kA

μL

k= (3.6)

mA

unconsolidated sandpack using Dow Corning mineral oil. The fluid and

sandpack properties were as follows:

μ = 105.363 cp

L = 115.6 cm

d = 4.961 cm

φ = 37.80%

3-2

Table 3.1: Pressure Drop and Flow Rate Data for Steady State Flow

Experiment in a Sandpack (from Peters, 1979).

q ΔP

(cc/s) (atm)

0 0

0.0014 0.0476

0.0556 1.9284

0.0889 3.0573

0.1333 4.5439

0.2222 7.5303

0.3111 10.465

Figure 3.2 shows the graph of ΔP versus q from the experiment. The data plot

as a straight line through the origin, thereby verifying the validity of Darcy's

law for the experiment. The slope of the line is m = 33.658. The permeability

is calculated with Eq.(3.6) as

k=

(105.363)(115.6 ) = 18.72 darcys.

⎡ ⎛ 4.961 ⎞ 2 ⎤

( 33.658) ⎢π ⎜ ⎟ ⎥

⎣⎢ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎦⎥

If the graph of Figure 3.2 were nonlinear, then Darcy's law would not be

valid for the experiment. This situation would occur if the liquid reacted with

the porous medium. An example of such a reaction would occur if the

experiment were performed on a sandstone containing a significant amount of

montmorrillonite-type clays using fresh water. Can you sketch how ΔP would

vary with q in such an experiment?

3-3

Figure 3.2. Graph of ΔP verus q for steady state flow of a non-reactive liquid

through an unconsolidated sandpack.

Table 3.2 compares Darcy units with oilfield units. Using the

information in the table, Eq.(3.2) can be written in oilfield units as

0.001127 kA ΔP

q= (3.7)

μB L

or

1 kA ΔP

q= (3.8)

887.2 μ B L

For radial flow into a wellbore as shown in Figure 3.3, Darcy’s law may

be expressed in radial coordinates in oilfield units as

3-4

0.00708kh ( Pe − Pw )

q= (3.9)

⎛r ⎞

μ B ln ⎜ e ⎟

⎝ rw ⎠

or

1 kh ( Pe − Pw )

q= (3.10)

141.2 ⎛r ⎞

μ B ln ⎜ e ⎟

⎝ rw ⎠

Pressure atm psia

Time second day

Flow rate cm3/s STB/D

Wellbore radius cm ft

Well drainage radius cm ft

Porosity fraction fraction

Permeability darcy millidarcy

Pay thickness cm ft

Fluid viscosity cp cp

Compressibility atm-1 psi-1

3-5

3.2 DIMENSIONS AND UNITS OF PERMEABILITY

Eq.(3.2) can be rearranged to determine the dimensions of permeability

as follows:

[ q ][ μ ][ L ]

[k ] = (3.11)

[ A][ Δp ]

where the square brackets refer to the dimensions of the enclosed variable.

Using mass (M), length (L) and time (T) as the fundamental dimensions, the

dimensions of the variables on the right side of Eq.(3.11) are

L3

[q] =

T

M

[μ ] =

LT

[ L] = L

[ A] = L2

M

[ Δp ] =

LT 2

Thus,

⎛ L3 ⎞ ⎛ M ⎞

⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟ ( L)

⎝ T ⎠ ⎝ LT ⎠

[k ] =

( L2 ) ⎛⎜⎝ LT

M ⎞

2 ⎟

⎠

or

[ k ] = L2 (3.12)

Eq.(3.12) shows that the permeability of a porous medium has the dimensions

of length squared. This means that permeability is proportional to the square

of some characteristic dimension of the porous medium.

3-6

Based on Eq.(3.12), a rational unit for permeability would be foot

squared or centimeter squared. Both units were found to be too large for use

with porous media. Therefore, the petroleum industry adopted the darcy as

the unit of permeability. It can be shown that

Permeability is an empirical parameter, which must be determined by

measuring all the parameters in Darcy’s law. Core permeabilities are usually

measured in the laboratory using dry gas (air, nitrogen or helium) as the

flowing fluid to minimize rock-fluid reaction. In this case, another form of

Darcy’s law for steady-state flow of an ideal gas must be used, recognizing

that the volumetric flow rate of a gas varies with pressure. For an ideal gas at

a constant temperature, Boyle's law can be written for a fixed mass of gas at

two conditions as

where qsc is the gas volumetric flow rate at a reference pressure Psc.

Substituting Eq.(3.14) into (3.1) and rearranging gives

k g A ⎛ 1 dP 2 ⎞

qsc = − ⎜ ⎟ (3.15)

μ Psc ⎝ 2 dx ⎠

to give the working equation for a gas permeameter as

k g A ⎛ P12 − P22 ⎞

qsc = ⎜ ⎟ (3.16)

2 μ Psc ⎝ L ⎠

2qsc μ LPsc

kg = (3.17)

A ( P12 − P22 )

3-7

The permeability to gas determined from Eq.(3.17) at the low pressures

typically used in the laboratory measurement is usually higher than the

absolute permeability of the porous medium because of an electro-kinetic

phenomenon known as the Klinkenberg (1941) effect. Klinkenberg effect is

due to the fact that at low mean pressures, the mean free path of the gas

molecules is about the same size as the pores in the rock. This gives rise to

gas slippage at the wall of the pores. As a result, the permeability to gas at

low pressure is higher than the absolute permeability of the porous medium.

Klinkenberg found that the permeability to gas, kg, is related to the absolute

permeability of the medium, kL, by the equation

⎛ b⎞

k g = k L ⎜1 + ⎟ (3.18)

⎝ P⎠

P1 + P2

P= (3.19)

2

and b is a constant, which depends on the gas used in the measurement. The

absolute permeability (liquid permeability) of the medium can be determined

in the laboratory by measuring permeabilities to gas, kg, at different average

1

core pressures. A graph of kg versus yields a straight line with an

P

intercept equal to kL and a slope equal to kLb as shown in Figure 3.4.

Figue 3.5 shows the Klinkenberg correction plots for a core for gas

permeabilities measured with hydrogen, nitrogen and carbon dioxide. It

should be noted that the degree of gas slippage varies with the nature of the

gas. Hydrogen with the smallest molecules has the most gas slippage and

carbon dioxide with the largest molecules has the least gas slippage. All three

straight lines extrapolate to the absolute permeability of the core at infinite

mean pressure. The Klinkenberg effect is a laboratory scale phenomenon. It

is usually not important at the high mean pressures of a petroleum reservoir.

3-8

Figure 3.4. Klinkenberg permeability correction.

dioxide. Absolute permeability of the core to isooctane = 2.55 md (from

Klinkenberg, 1941).

3-9

Figure 3.6 shows a schematic diagram of a gas permeameter. In this

figure, the gas volumetric flow rate, qsc, is measured at the outlet pressure, P2.

Therefore, in this case, P2 is the reference pressure, Psc.

that is, it is directional. Routine core analyses are usually made on core

plugs drilled horizontally from a core. It is sometimes possible to specify that

plugs be cut along bedding planes. Plugs are sometimes cut vertically if it is

desired to obtain vertical as well as horizontal permeabilities. These plugs are

shown in Figure 3.7.

3-10

Figure 3.7. Possible core plug samples.

permeabilities to different fluids may not always be the same. The

permeability to brine, for example, is often somewhat less than the

Klinkenberg-corrected gas permeability. For this reason, it is usually

beneficial to obtain at least a few brine permeability measurements, especially

if waterflooding is anticipated. These measurements are time-consuming, and

3-11

thus are more costly. Another permeability that is sometimes referenced is

the permeability to oil at irreducible water saturation (kor). This permeability

is known as the effective permeability to oil at irreducible water saturation. Its

value is typically around 80% to 98% of the absolute permeability depending

on the quality of the porous medium. Table 3.3 presents typical values for

clean, unconsolidated sandpacks.

No (cm) (cm) (%) (darcy) (darcy) (%)

1 22.9 4.81 38.98 16.43 15.82 0.96 11.20

2 23.6 4.84 36.37 18.36 17.99 0.98 8.66

3 112.8 4.96 38.38 21.89 18.05 0.82 9.18

4 23.7 4.81 38.94 18.93 18.33 0.97 11.34

5 110.5 4.83 38.91 20.52 18.50 0.90 10.83

6 110.0 4.81 37.61 21.91 19.40 0.89 10.48

7 23.6 4.84 37.49 14.19 11.03 0.78 15.26

8 116.1 4.96 34.66 18.28 15.57 0.85 8.32

9 113.0 4.96 39.62 22.99 19.90 0.87 8.61

10 115.9 4.96 35.86 19.22 15.49 0.81 12.53

11 22.8 4.84 37.52 16.23 15.19 0.94 11.20

12 110.4 4.81 37.46 20.85 18.48 0.89 10.00

13 115.9 4.97 37.80 18.54 15.53 0.84 9.29

14 110.0 4.81 38.11 22.50 18.62 0.83 8.91

15 112.8 4.97 35.48 22.72 20.90 0.92 9.92

16 23.4 4.84 34.61 14.51 9.58 0.66 11.03

17 23.6 4.84 38.60 20.87 18.49 0.89 10.15

18 23.7 4.81 35.44 12.11 11.94 0.99 12.02

3-12

Example 3.1

The permeability of a clean, dry core plug is to be determined. The core is

cylindrical with a diameter of 24 mm and a length of 32 mm. The core was

installed in a gas permeameter and air was flowed through it at an average

(Figure 3.8). The pressure differential across the sample was kept constant at

12 cm of mercury. The upstream gauge pressure (at the inlet of the core) was

76 cm of mercury. The gas viscosity at the test temperature was 0.01808 cp.

The barometric pressure was 76 cm of mercury.

2. Does the permeability calculated in part 1 represent the true absolute

permeability of this core? If yes, why? If no, why not?

3-13

Solution to Example 3.1

d = 24 mm = 2.4 cm

L = 32 mm = 3.2 cm

qsc = 100cm3/(2 minutes 20 seconds) = (100/140) cm3/s

P1 = 76cm of Hg gauge = 76+76 = 152 cm of Hg absolute

= 152/76 = 2 atm absolute

P2 = (P1 - 12) = 152 - 12 = 140 cm of Hg absolute

= 140/76 = 1.842 atm absolute

Psc = 1 atm

μg = 0.0808 cp

Substituting into Eq.(3.17) gives

kg =

( 2 )(100 /140 )( 0.01808)(1)( 3.2 ) = 0.0301 darcy = 30.1 md

π ( 2.4 / 2 ) ( 22 − 1.8422 )

2

No. The calculated permeability to gas of 30.1 md is not the true absolute

permeability of the core because of Klinkenberg effect. It is larger than the

absolute permeability of the core.

Permeability can be determined in the field by use of pressure transient

tests, essentially measuring the permeability of the in-situ reservoir rock on a

large scale. A transient pressure test consists of changing the flow rate of a

well and then recording the bottomhole pressure response as a function of

time. The pressure data can be analyzed to obtain formation permeability and

other reservoir and well parameters. Oil permeability at irreducible water

saturation is normally used for comparison with the permeability from most

pressure transient tests that involve only oil flow.

3-14

3.4.1 Diffusivity Equation for Slightly Compressible Liquid

The partial differential equation that describes the transient pressure

response of a reservoir undergoing single phase flow is obtained by combining

the law of mass conservation, Darcy’s law and an equation of state for the

fluid. The mass conservation equation, also known as the continuity equation,

is

G ∂ (φρ )

∇. ( ρ v ) + =0 (3.20)

∂t

G k

v = − ∇P (3.21)

μ

The equation of state for a slightly compressible liquid such as oil or water is

given by

ρ = ρo ec( P − P )o

(3.22)

can be combined to give

φμ ct ∂P 1 ∂P

∇2 P = = (3.23)

k ∂t α ∂t

k

α= (3.24)

φμ ct

community. Others may recognize it as the diffusion equation or the heat

conduction equation. Thus, Eq.(3.23) is a standard partial differential

equation of mathematical physics. It is a second order, parabolic, linear

partial differential equation. The solutions of this equation for specific initial

3-15

and boundary conditions are used for transient pressure analysis and for

natural water influx calculations.

as

⎛ kh ⎞

⎜μ ⎟

=⎝ ⎠=

k T

α= (3.25)

φμ ct φ hct S

kh

T= (3.26)

μ

S = φ hct (3.27)

storativity (storage capacity) of the reservoir.

pressure analysis is as follows:

∂ 2 P 1 ∂P φμ ct ∂P

+ = (3.28)

∂r 2 r ∂r k ∂t

P ( r, 0 ) = Pi (3.29)

⎛ ∂P ⎞ qsf μ

lim ⎜ r ⎟= (3.30)

r →0

⎝ ∂r ⎠ 2π kh

lim P ( r , t ) = Pi (3.31)

r →∞

condition, which specifies that before production commenced, the pressure in

the reservoir was constant and equal to the initial reservoir pressure, Pi.

3-16

Eq.(3.30) is the internal boundary condition at the wellbore, which specifies a

constant instantaneous sandface rate upon commencement of production.

This instantaneous constant sandface boundary condition is unrealistic

because we expect that when a well is put on production, the sandface rate

should increase from zero to the final constant rate over a finite time.

Eq.(3.29) also specifies a vanishingly small wellbore radius thereby treating

the well as a line source. These two specifications, though unrealistic, have

been made for mathematical expediency because with them, we can obtain a

simple approximate solution to the partial differential equation. Eq.(3.31) is

the external boundary condition, which specifies that far away from the

wellbore, the reservoir is undisturbed and as such, the reservoir pressure will

remain at the initial pressure, Pi. This boundary condition is the infinite

acting reservoir boundary condition.

that describes the transient pressure response of a reservoir that has been

put on instantaneous constant sandface rate production. It is useful to put

these equations in dimensionless forms. This will reduce the number of

variables and also will facilitate the use of existing solutions from other fields

for pressure transient analysis. For example, there is a wealth of solutions of

linear, second order, parabolic partial differential equation in the heat

conduction literature. Casting our model in dimensionless variables allows

the immediate use of these existing solutions from other disciplines for our

purpose.

∂ 2 PD 1 ∂PD ∂PD

+ = (3.32)

∂rD2 rD ∂rD ∂t D

PD ( rD , 0 ) = 0 (3.33)

3-17

⎛ ∂P ⎞

lim ⎜ rD D ⎟ = −1 (3.34)

rD → 0

⎝ ∂rD ⎠

lim PD ( rD , t D ) = 0 (3.35)

rD →∞

Pi − P ( r , t )

PD = (3.36)

⎛ qsf μ ⎞

⎜ ⎟

⎝ 2π kh ⎠

r

rD = (3.37)

rw

and

kt

tD = (3.38)

φμ cr rw2

In oilfield units, the dimensionless pressure and dimensionless time are given

by

Pi − P ( r , t )

PD = (3.39)

⎛ qμ B ⎞

141.2 ⎜ ⎟

⎝ kh ⎠

and

0.0002637 kt

tD = (3.40)

φμ cr rw2

transformation. It can be shown that the solution is of the form

1

PD ( x ) = − Ei (− x) (3.41)

2

3-18

where

rD2

x= (3.42)

4t D

and

∞ e− y

Ei ( − x ) = − ∫ dy (3.43)

x y

handbooks. Table 3.4 gives the Ei function for various values of the argument,

x. The solution given in Eq.(3.41) can be written as

1 ⎛ rD2 ⎞

PD ( rD , t D ) = − Ei ⎜ − ⎟ (3.44)

2 ⎝ 4t D ⎠

1 ⎛ 1 ⎞

PD (1, t D ) = − Ei ⎜ − ⎟ (3.45)

2 ⎝ 4t D ⎠

oilfield units, Eq.(3.44) and (3.45) become

141.2qμ B ⎡ 1 ⎛ 948φμ ct r 2 ⎞ ⎤

P ( r , t ) = Pi − ⎢ − Ei ⎜ − ⎟⎥ (3.46)

kh ⎣ 2 ⎝ kt ⎠⎦

and

Pwf ( t ) = P ( rw , t ) = Pi − ⎢ − Ei ⎜ − ⎟⎥ (3.47)

kh ⎣ 2 ⎝ kt ⎠⎦

For x ≤ 0.01 , the exponential integral function can be accurately

approximated as

3-19

Ei ( − x ) ln x + 0.5772 (3.48)

situations. Using the approximation, the dimensionless solution at the

wellbore, Eq.(3.45), can be written as

1

PD (1, t D ) = ( ln tD + 0.80907 ) for tD ≥ 25 (3.49)

2

⎡ ⎛ k ⎞ ⎤

PD (1, t D ) = 1.1513 ⎢ log t + log ⎜ 2 ⎟

− 3.23⎥ (3.50)

⎣ ⎝ φμ ct rw ⎠ ⎦

162.6qμ B ⎡ ⎛ k ⎞ ⎤

Pwf ( t ) = P ( rw , t ) = Pi − ⎢log t + log ⎜ ⎟ − 3.23 ⎥ (3.51)

⎝ φμ ct rw ⎠

2

kh ⎣ ⎦

Eq.(3.51) provides the theoretical basis for the semilog analysis of drawdown

pressure data. It shows that if the well is produced instantaneously at a

constant sandface rate, then a graph of Pwf versus logt will be linear with a

negative slope given by

162.6qμ B

m=− (3.52)

kh

⎡ ⎛ k ⎞ ⎤

Pint = Pi + m ⎢log ⎜ 2 ⎟

− 3.23⎥ (3.53)

⎣ ⎝ φμ ct rw ⎠ ⎦

The formation permeability can be calculated from the slope of the semilog

line as

162.6qμ B

k =− (3.54)

mh

3-20

Table 3.4: Exponential Integral Function

3-21

and the initial pressure can be calculated from the pressure intercept as

⎡ ⎛ k ⎞ ⎤

Pi = Pint − m ⎢log ⎜ 2 ⎟

− 3.23⎥ (3.55)

⎣ ⎝ φμ ct rw ⎠ ⎦

We wish to solve the diffusivity equation for the case of a well, which

has been producing at a constant instantaneous rate q for a time and then

shut in at time tp as shown in Figure 3.9C. Since the diffusivity equation is a

linear partial differential equation, superposition principle can be used to

construct this solution from the constant rate solution that we already have.

Figure 3.9 shows a graphical construction of how two constant rates can be

used to generate the rate schedule for a pressure buildup test. If the constant

production rate A is added to the constant injection rate B, the outcome will

be the rate in C, which simulates the rate for a pressure buildup test for a

well that had produced for time tp before it was shut in for the buildup test.

3-22

Using Eq.(3.49), the dimensionless pressure for the buildup test can easily be

derived by applying superposition principle as follows:

ln ( t p + Δt ) + 0.80907 ⎤

1⎡

PDA = (3.57)

2⎣ D ⎦

1

PDB = − [ ln ΔtD + 0.80907] (3.58)

2

pressure for the buildup test as

1 ⎛ t p + Δt ⎞

PDBU = PDC = ln ⎜ ⎟ (3.59)

2 ⎝ Δt ⎠

162.6q μ B ⎛ t p + Δt ⎞

Pws ( Δt ) = Pi − log ⎜ ⎟ (3.60)

kh ⎝ Δt ⎠

acting reservoir. It shows that if the sandface rate (qB) can be reduced to zero

instantaneously as shown in Figure 3.8C, then a graph of the buildup

⎛ t + Δt ⎞

bottomhole pressure, Pws(Δt), versus Horner time, ⎜ p ⎟ , will be linear with

⎝ Δt ⎠

a negative slope given by Eq.(3.54) and a pressure intercept equal to Pi. The

formation permeability can be calculated from the slope of the Horner line and

the initial reservoir pressure can be determined by extrapolating the Horner

line to an infinite shut in time. For a bounded reservoir (in contrast to an

infinite acting reservoir), Horner pressure buildup equation takes the form

162.6q μ B ⎛ t p + Δt ⎞

Pws ( Δt ) = P* − log ⎜ ⎟ (3.61)

kh ⎝ Δt ⎠

3-23

where the extrapolated pressure, P*, is less than the initial reservoir pressure,

Pi .

The drawdown equation, Eq.(3.51), was derived using an internal

boundary condition in which the sandface rate increased instantaneously

from zero to a constant value. The buildup equation, Eq.(3.60), was derived

using an internal boundary condition in which the sandface rate decreased

from a constant value to zero instantaneously. Given that the wellbore

contains compressible fluids, when the well is opened for production, the

surface rate may be constant but the sandface rate will increase from zero to

a constant value over a definite period of time as shown in Figure 3.10.

Similarly, when the well is shut in at the wellhead for a pressure buildup test,

the surface rate is zero but the sandface rate will decline from its constant

value to zero over a finite period of time as shown in Figure 3.9. This

phenomenon, whereby the sandface rate lags behind the surface rate, is

known as wellbore unloading during drawdown and afterflow during buildup.

The term wellbore storage is normally used to describe the phenomenon either

during drawdown or during buildup.

Figure 3.10. Idealized and actual sandface rates during drawdown and

buildup.

3-24

The consequence of neglecting the effect of wellbore storage in our

mathematical model is that the very early time pressure data will deviate from

the semilog line of Eq.(3.51) for the drawdown test or from the Horner semilog

line of Eq.(3.60) for the buildup test as shown in Figures 3.11 and 3.12. It is

therefore necessary to perform preliminary diagnostic plots of the pressure

data to identify those data that should be fitted to the semilog lines if any. The

function normally used to diagnose the presence of wellbore storage in the

pressure data is the welltest derivative function defined as

dPD dP

PD' = = tD D (3.62)

d ln t D dt D

Figure 3.11. Semilog plot for pressure drawdown test showing deviation from

semilog line due to wellbore storage effect.

3-25

Figure 3.12. Horner plot for pressure buildiup test showing deviation from

semilog line due to wellbore storage effect.

The welltest derivative function is defined in the manner shown in Eq.(3.62) to

take advantage of the fact that the data that fit the welltest model for a

drawdown test fall on the semilog line of Eq.(3.42). Along this semilog line, the

dimensionless welltest derivative function will be a constant as shown below:

dPD dP 1

PD' = = t D D = = a constant (3.63)

d ln t D dt D 2

d ΔP d ΔP ⎛ qμ B ⎞

ΔP ' = =t = 70.6 ⎜ ⎟ = a constant (3.64)

d ln t dt ⎝ kh ⎠

Thus, after the effect of wellbore storage has subsided, the welltest derivative

function will become constant along the semilog line. It is only the pressure

data that have a constant welltest derivative (making allowance for

fluctuations due to noise) that should be fitted to the drawdown semilog line.

3-26

The diagnostic plots consist of log-log plots of ΔP versus t and ΔP' versus t

superimposed on the same graph. Figure 3.13 shows typical diagnostic plots

for a pressure drawdown test affected by wellbore storage.

Figure 3.13. Diagnostic plots for pressure drawdown data affected by wellbore

storage.

The diagnostic plots can be divided into three time segments. In the first

time segment, ΔP and ΔP' are equal and have a unit slope on the log-log scale.

The data in this time segment are dominated 100% by wellbore storage. They

cannot be used to estimate reservoir properties. They can only be used to

estimate wellbore storage coefficient. In the second time segment, ΔP and ΔP'

separate from each other. The derivative function has a characteristic hump

indicative of wellbore storage. The magnitude of the hump is a measure of the

severity of the wellbore storage problem (and skin damage). The pressure data

3-27

in this time segment are still affected by wellbore storage but to a lesser

degree than in the first time segment. The data in this segment can be

analyzed by type curve matching to estimate approximate formation

properties. In the third time segment, the welltest derivative becomes constant

in accordance with Eq.(3.64). Data in this time segment are no longer affected

by wellbore storage and will plot on the correct semilog line of Eq.(3.51). Note

that the constant value of the welltest derivative function in this time segment

⎛ qμ B ⎞

is equal to 70.6 ⎜ ⎟ as shown in Eq.(3.64). This fact can be used to estimate

⎝ kh ⎠

the formation permeability from the derivative function. If the test ended

during the second time segment, which happens in many tests, such a test

cannot be analyzed with a semilog plot.

Figure 3.14 shows typical diagnostic plots for a pressure buildup test

affected by wellbore storage. In general, the diagnostic plots are similar to

those of a drawdown test. The only difference is that in the third time

segment, when the pressure data are no longer affected by wellbore storage,

the welltest derivative function for a buildup may not be constant but may be

distorted as shown in Figure 3.14. This distortion is caused by the fact that

an approximate ΔP is used to calculate the derivative function for a buildup

test instead of the true ΔP, which is not accessible.

central difference approximation:

⎢⎜ ⎟ ( ti +1 − ti ) + ⎜ ⎟ ( ti − ti −1 ) ⎥

⎛ d ΔP ⎞

ΔP ' = ti ⎜ ⎢ ⎝ ti − ti −1 ⎠ ⎝ ti +1 − ti ⎠ ⎥

⎟ = ti ⎢ (3.65)

⎝ dt ⎠ti ( i i −1 ) ( i +1 i )

t − t + t − t ⎥

⎢ ⎥

⎢⎣ ⎥⎦

3-28

Figure 3.14. Diagnostic plots for pressure buildup data affected by wellbore

storage.

Figure 3.15 shows the pressures used to define ΔP for drawdown and buildup

tests. For drawdown test, ΔP is defined as

ΔP = Pi − Pwf ( t ) (3.66)

approximated by

3-29

ΔP = Pws ( Δt ) − Pwf ( t p ) (3.68)

This approximation could distort the welltest derivative function after the

effect of wellbore storage has subsided. The derivative function for a pressure

buildup test can be calculated with Eq.(3.65) using actual shut in time, Δt, or

⎛ t + Δt ⎞

Horner time, ⎜ p ⎟ , or effective shut in time, Δte, defined as

⎝ Δt ⎠

( Δt ) ( t p )

Δte = (3.69)

Δt + t p

During drilling operations, the near wellbore permeability could be

reduced by formation damage caused by mud filtrate invasion. Also, if the well

is treated by an acid job, the near wellbore permeability could be enhanced

and the well is said to be stimulated. Thus, for a damaged or stimulated well,

3-30

there is a region of altered permeability near the wellbore as shown in Figure

3.16.

The additional pressure change near the wellbore caused by the region

of altered permeability can be incorporated into the welltest model through

the concept of a skin factor. The skin factor, S, is a dimensionless pressure

change at the wellbore given by

ΔPskin

S= (3.70)

⎛ qμ ⎞

⎜ ⎟

⎝ 2π kh ⎠

in Darcy units or

ΔPskin

S= (3.71)

⎛ qμ B ⎞

141.2 ⎜ ⎟

⎝ kh ⎠

for a stimulated well. It can be seen from Figure 3.16 that ΔPskin and hence, S,

is positive for a damaged well and negative for a stimulated well. It can be

shown that the permeability of the altered zone, ks, is related to the true

formation permeability, k, by the equation

⎛k ⎞ ⎛r ⎞

S = ⎜ − 1⎟ ln ⎜ s ⎟ (3.74)

⎝ k s ⎠ ⎝ rw ⎠

Eq.(3.74) contains two unknowns, ks and rs, an as such is not as useful for

estimating the skin factor as it appears to be.

3-31

Figure 3.16. Schematic diagram showing skin.

1

PD (1, t D ) = ( ln tD + 0.80907 ) +S for tD ≥ 25 (3.75)

2

3-32

⎡ ⎛ k ⎞ ⎤

PD (1, t D ) = 1.1513 ⎢ log t + log ⎜ 2 ⎟

− 3.23 + 0.87 S ⎥ (3.76)

⎣ ⎝ φμ ct rw ⎠ ⎦

162.6q μ B ⎡ ⎛ k ⎞ ⎤

Pwf ( t ) = P ( rw , t ) = Pi − ⎢log t + log ⎜ 2 ⎟

− 3.23 + 0.87 S ⎥ (3.77)

kh ⎣ ⎝ φμ ct rw ⎠ ⎦

Eq.(3.77) can be solved for the skin factor from the drawdown semilog line as

⎡ ⎤

⎢ Pwf (1hr ) − Pi ⎛ k ⎞ ⎥

S = 1.1513 ⎢ − log ⎜ ⎟ + 3.23 ⎥ (3.78)

⎢ − ⎛ 162.6qμ B ⎞ ⎝ φμ ct rw ⎠ ⎥

2

⎢⎣ ⎝⎜ ⎟ ⎥⎦

kh ⎠

shown in Figure 3.10. For a buildup test, the skin factor is given by

⎡ ⎤

⎢ Pwf ( t p ) − Pws (1hr ) ⎛ k ⎞ ⎥

S = 1.1513 ⎢ − log ⎜ 2 ⎟

+ 3.23 ⎥ (3.79)

⎢ − ⎛ 162.6qμ B ⎞ ⎝ φμ ct w ⎠

r ⎥

⎢⎣ ⎜⎝ kh

⎟

⎠ ⎥

⎦

shown in Figure 3.12. Thus, the skin factor, S, can be determined from a

drawdown or a buildup test. Note that the presence of a skin factor does not

affect the shape of the welltest derivative function and as such, it can still be

used to perform its diagnostic function.

The welltest model can be reformulated to include wellbore storage and

skin. The resulting initial-boundary value problem to be solved consists of the

following equations in Darcy units

3-33

∂ 2 P 1 ∂P φμ ct ∂P

+ = (3.28)

∂r 2 r ∂r k ∂t

P ( r, 0 ) = Pi (3.29)

lim P ( r , t ) = Pi (3.31)

r →∞

2π kh ⎛ ∂P ⎞ dPwf

⎜r ⎟ −C =q (3.80)

μ ⎝ ∂r ⎠r = rw dt

⎡ ⎛ ∂ΔP ⎞ ⎤

ΔPwf = ⎢ ΔP ( r , t ) − S ⎜ r ⎟⎥ (3.81)

⎣ ⎝ ∂r ⎠ ⎦ r = rw

been replaced by two internal boundary conditions, Eqs.(3.80) and (3.81).

Eq.(3.80) states that the constant surface rate, q, consists of the sum of the

sandface rate, given by the first term on the left side of the equation, and the

wellbore storage rate, given by the second term on the left side of the

equation. The constant, C, is the wellbore storage coefficient defined as

ΔV V − V (t )

C= = i (3.82)

ΔP Pi − Pwf (t )

where

ΔV = change in wellbore fluid volume, reservoir cm3

ΔP = change in bottomhole pressure, atm

V(t) = wellbore fluid volume during unloading, reservoir cm3

3-34

The wellbore storage coefficient, C, is a measure of the severity of the wellbore

storage problem and can be determined from the unit slope line of the first

time segment on the diagnostic plots. The unit slope line in oilfield units is

given by

⎛ qB ⎞

ΔP = ⎜ ⎟t (3.83)

⎝ 24C ⎠

⎛ qB ⎞⎛ t ⎞

C =⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟ (3.84)

⎝ 24 ⎠⎝ ΔP ⎠unit slope line

consists of the sum of the pressure change for the undamaged or

unstimulated well, given by the first term on the right side of the equation,

and ΔPskin, given by the second term on the right side of the equation.

∂ 2 PD 1 ∂PD ∂PD

+ = (3.32)

∂rD2 rD ∂rD ∂t D

PD ( rD , 0 ) = 0 (3.33)

lim PD ( rD , t D ) = 0 (3.35)

rD →∞

dPwD ⎛ ∂PD ⎞

CD − ⎜ rD ⎟ =1 (3.85)

dt D ⎝ ∂rD ⎠r =1

D

⎡ ⎛ ∂P ⎞⎤

PwD = ⎢ PD − S ⎜ rD D ⎟⎥ (3.86)

⎣ ⎝ ∂rD ⎠ ⎦ rD=1

3-35

C

CD = (3.87)

2πφ ct hrw2

in Darcy units or

5.615C

CD = (3.88)

2πφ ct hrw2

in oilfield units. The larger the dimensionless wellbore storage coefficient, the

more severe is the wellbore storage problem.

(3.35), (3.85) and (3.86) can be solved by Laplace transformation. It can be

shown that the dimensionless pressure at the wellbore in Laplace space is

given by

PwD (1, z ) =

Ko ( z)+S zK1 ( z) (3.89)

z 3/ 2 K1 ( z)+ z C 2

D

⎡ Ko

⎣ ( z)+ S zK1 ( z )⎤⎦

where z is the Laplace parameter and Ko and K1 are Bessel functions of the

second kind of order 0 and 1. Eq.(3.89) can easily be inverted numerically, by

say Stehfest algorithm, to obtain the PwD function in the time domain. To

obtain the welltest derivative function, the Calculus derivative with respect to

tD in Laplace space is first obtained, inverted and multiplied by tD. The

Calculus derivative in Laplace space is given by

( )

z ⎡ K o z + S zK1 z ⎤

⎣ ⎦ ( )

P'

(1, z ) = zPwD (1, z ) = (3.90)

( ) ⎡ ( ) ( )

z ⎤

wD

z 3/ 2 K1 z + z CD K o z + S zK1

2

⎣ ⎦

Figure 3.17 shows the solutions and welltest derivative functions for

various values of CDe2S plotted on log-log scales. This family of solutions

constitutes Bourdet et al.'s wellbore storage type curves, which can be used to

analyze transient pressure tests that fit a homogeneous reservoir model with

wellbore storage and skin by type curve matching.

3-36

3.4.7 Type Curve Matching

A type curve is a graph of dimensionless pressure together with the

corresponding welltest derivative function versus dimensionless time, often on

a log-log scale. Such a graph is a convenient way to present the solution to

the diffusivity equation obtained by numerical computations. Figure 3.17 is

an example of type curves obtained by solving the diffusivity equation in the

presence of wellbore storage and skin. From the definitions of PwD, tD and CD,

2S

CDe

100

1060

1050

1040

1030

1020

1015

1010

108

106

10 104

103

102

PwD - PwD'

0.1

0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000

tD/CD

wellbore storage and skin for CDe2S from 102 to 1060.

3-37

⎛ kh ⎞

log PwD = log ΔP + log ⎜ ⎟ (3.91)

⎝ 141.2q μ B ⎠

⎛ tD ⎞ ⎛ 2.951x10−4 kh ⎞

log ⎜ ⎟ = log t + log ⎜ ⎟ (3.92)

⎝ CD ⎠ ⎝ μC ⎠

⎛t ⎞

Eqs.(3.91) and (3.92) show that the graph of log PwD versus log ⎜ D ⎟ is the

⎝ CD ⎠

same as the graph of log ΔP versus log t with the axes shifted by the constants

⎛ kh ⎞ ⎛ 2.951x10−4 kh ⎞

log ⎜ ⎟ and log ⎜ ⎟ . Thus, the ΔP versus t obtained from a

⎝ 141.2q μ B ⎠ ⎝ μC ⎠

transient pressure test can be matched graphically with the appropriate type

curve to estimate the reservoir and well parameters.

The procedure for using the Bourdet et al.'s type curves to analyze a

transient pressure test is as follows:

scale as the type curves. Use only major grid lines on this plot. This is

the field plot.

2. Slide the field plot over the type curves both vertically and horizontally

to obtain the best match of the PD function and the corresponding

welltest derivative function. Trace the matched type curve on the field

plot to obtain a visual record of the best match.

⎛t ⎞

3. Choose a convenient match point and record PDM , ⎜ D ⎟ , tM and

⎝ CD ⎠ M

(C D e2 S ) .

M

k=

(141.2qμ B )( PDM ) (3.93)

( h )( ΔPM )

3-38

5. Calculate the wellbore storage coefficient from the time match as

⎛ 0.0002951kh ⎞

⎜ μ ⎟ ( ΔtM )

C= ⎝ ⎠ (3.94)

⎛ tD ⎞

⎜ ⎟

⎝ CD ⎠ M

1 ⎡ ( CD e ) M ⎤

2S

S = ln ⎢ ⎥ (3.95)

2 ⎢ CD ⎥⎦

⎣

Figure 3.18 shows qualitatively a type match using the Bourdet et al.'s type

curves.

3-39

3.4.8 Radius of Investigation of a WellTest

An approximate equation for estimating the radius investigated by a

welltest is given by

kt

rinv = 0.03248 (3.96)

φμ ct

A pressure buildup test was conducted on a new well in a new reservoir with

the results shown in Table 3.5.

t Δt Pws ( Δt )

(hrs) (hrs) (psia)

15.33000 0.00000 3086.33

15.33417 0.00417 3090.57

15.33833 0.00833 3093.81

15.34250 0.01250 3096.55

15.34667 0.01667 3100.03

15.35083 0.02083 3103.27

15.35500 0.02500 3106.77

15.35917 0.02917 3110.01

15.36333 0.03333 3113.25

15.36750 0.03750 3116.49

15.37583 0.04583 3119.48

15.38000 0.05000 3122.48

15.38833 0.05833 3128.96

15.39667 0.06667 3135.92

15.40500 0.07500 3141.17

15.41333 0.08333 3147.64

15.42583 0.09583 3161.95

15.43833 0.10833 3170.68

15.45083 0.12083 3178.39

15.46333 0.13333 3187.12

15.47583 0.14583 3194.24

15.49250 0.16250 3205.96

15.50917 0.17917 3216.68

15.52583 0.19583 3227.89

15.54250 0.21250 3238.37

15.55917 0.22917 3249.07

15.58000 0.25000 3261.79

3-40

15.62167 0.29167 3287.21

15.66333 0.33333 3310.15

15.70500 0.37500 3334.34

15.74667 0.41667 3356.27

15.78833 0.45833 3374.98

15.83000 0.50000 3394.44

15.87167 0.54167 3413.90

15.91333 0.58333 3433.83

15.95500 0.62500 3448.05

15.99667 0.66667 3466.26

16.03833 0.70833 3481.97

16.08000 0.75000 3493.69

16.14250 0.81250 3518.63

16.20500 0.87500 3537.34

16.26750 0.93750 3553.55

16.33000 1.00000 3571.75

16.39250 1.06250 3586.23

16.45500 1.12500 3602.95

16.51750 1.18750 3617.41

16.58000 1.25000 3631.15

16.64250 1.31250 3640.86

16.70500 1.37500 3652.85

16.76750 1.43750 3664.32

16.83000 1.50000 3673.81

16.95500 1.62500 3692.27

17.08000 1.75000 3705.52

17.20500 1.87500 3719.26

17.33000 2.00000 3732.23

17.58000 2.25000 3749.71

17.70500 2.37500 3757.19

17.83000 2.50000 3763.44

18.08000 2.75000 3774.65

18.33000 3.00000 3785.11

18.58000 3.25000 3794.06

18.83000 3.50000 3799.80

19.08000 3.75000 3809.50

19.33000 4.00000 3815.97

19.58000 4.25000 3820.20

19.83000 4.50000 3821.95

20.08000 4.75000 3823.70

20.33000 5.00000 3826.45

20.58000 5.25000 3829.69

20.83000 5.50000 3832.64

21.08000 5.75000 3834.70

21.33000 6.00000 3837.19

21.58000 6.25000 3838.94

22.08000 6.75000 3838.02

22.58000 7.25000 3840.78

23.08000 7.75000 3843.01

23.58000 8.25000 3844.52

3-41

24.08000 8.75000 3846.27

24.58000 9.25000 3847.51

25.08000 9.75000 3848.52

25.58000 10.25000 3850.01

26.08000 10.75000 3850.75

26.58000 11.25000 3851.76

27.08000 11.75000 3852.50

27.58000 12.25000 3853.51

28.08000 12.75000 3854.25

28.58000 13.25000 3855.07

29.08000 13.75000 3855.50

29.83000 14.50000 3856.50

30.58000 15.25000 3857.25

31.33000 16.00000 3857.99

32.08000 16.75000 3858.74

32.83000 17.50000 3859.48

33.58000 18.25000 3859.99

34.33000 19.00000 3860.73

35.08000 19.75000 3860.99

35.83000 20.50000 3861.49

36.58000 21.25000 3862.24

37.58000 22.25000 3862.74

38.58000 23.25000 3863.22

39.58000 24.25000 3863.48

40.58000 25.25000 3863.99

41.58000 26.25000 3864.49

42.58000 27.25000 3864.73

43.83000 28.50000 3865.23

45.33000 30.00000 3865.74

Production rate before the test = 174 STB/D

Wellbore radius = 0.29 ft

Formation thickness = 107 ft

Porosity = 25 %

Total compressibility = 4.2x10-6 psi-1

Formation volume factor = 1.06 RB/STB

Oil viscosity = 2.5 cp

3-42

a. Screen the pressure data using appropriate diagnostic plots.

b. Analyze the test data and determine the formation permeability, the

total skin factor and the initial reservoir pressure.

wellbore storage and skin. Show the best match graphically by

superimposing the simulated and the test data on the plots of P versus

t, log-log diagnostic plots and the Horner plot. What are the values of k,

S and CD , Pwf(tp) and Pi that gave the best match?

The pertinent data for the diagnostic plots and Horner plot are shown in

Table 3.6.

(hrs) (hrs) (hrs) Time (psia) (psi) (psi) (psi)

15.33000 0.00000 3086.33

15.33417 0.00417 0.00417 3677.26 3090.57 4.24

15.33833 0.00833 0.00833 1841.34 3093.81 7.48 5.98 5.98

15.34250 0.01250 0.01249 1227.40 3096.55 10.22 9.33 9.32

15.34667 0.01667 0.01665 920.62 3100.03 13.70 13.46 13.45

15.35083 0.02083 0.02080 736.96 3103.27 16.94 16.88 16.85

15.35500 0.02500 0.02496 614.20 3106.77 20.44 20.24 20.20

15.35917 0.02917 0.02911 526.54 3110.01 23.68 22.73 22.69

15.36333 0.03333 0.03326 460.95 3113.25 26.92 25.98 25.93

15.36750 0.03750 0.03741 409.80 3116.49 30.16 23.96 23.91

15.37583 0.04583 0.04569 335.50 3119.48 33.15 27.55 27.46

15.38000 0.05000 0.04984 307.60 3122.48 36.15 37.07 36.95

15.38833 0.05833 0.05811 263.82 3128.96 42.63 47.21 47.03

3-43

15.39667 0.06667 0.06638 230.94 3135.92 49.59 49.03 48.82

15.40500 0.07500 0.07463 205.40 3141.17 54.84 53.03 52.76

15.41333 0.08333 0.08288 184.97 3147.64 61.31 77.43 76.99

15.42583 0.09583 0.09523 160.97 3161.95 75.62 88.83 88.32

15.43833 0.10833 0.10757 142.51 3170.68 84.35 71.73 71.24

15.45083 0.12083 0.11989 127.87 3178.39 92.06 80.09 79.46

15.46333 0.13333 0.13218 115.98 3187.12 100.79 85.25 84.53

15.47583 0.14583 0.14446 106.12 3194.24 107.91 92.29 91.40

15.49250 0.16250 0.16080 95.34 3205.96 119.63 110.52 109.37

15.50917 0.17917 0.17710 86.56 3216.68 130.35 119.27 117.89

15.52583 0.19583 0.19336 79.28 3227.89 141.56 129.06 127.44

15.54250 0.21250 0.20959 73.14 3238.37 152.04 136.87 135.00

15.55917 0.22917 0.22579 67.89 3249.07 162.74 146.06 143.92

15.58000 0.25000 0.24599 62.32 3261.79 175.46 155.10 152.61

15.62167 0.29167 0.28622 53.56 3287.21 200.88 172.44 169.27

15.66333 0.33333 0.32624 46.99 3310.15 223.82 192.65 188.52

15.70500 0.37500 0.36605 41.88 3334.34 248.01 212.55 207.52

15.74667 0.41667 0.40564 37.79 3356.27 269.94 208.64 203.21

15.78833 0.45833 0.44502 34.45 3374.98 288.65 216.24 209.94

15.83000 0.50000 0.48421 31.66 3394.44 308.11 241.12 233.50

15.87167 0.54167 0.52318 29.30 3413.90 327.57 265.11 256.05

15.91333 0.58333 0.56195 27.28 3433.83 347.50 247.95 239.07

15.95500 0.62500 0.60052 25.53 3448.05 361.72 253.29 243.21

15.99667 0.66667 0.63889 23.99 3466.26 379.93 283.06 271.37

16.03833 0.70833 0.67705 22.64 3481.97 395.64 243.76 233.17

16.08000 0.75000 0.71502 21.44 3493.69 407.36 258.62 246.28

16.14250 0.81250 0.77160 19.87 3518.63 432.30 298.44 283.73

16.20500 0.87500 0.82775 18.52 3537.34 451.01 258.25 244.44

16.26750 0.93750 0.88347 17.35 3553.55 467.22 273.98 258.07

16.33000 1.00000 0.93876 16.33 3571.75 485.42 278.26 261.44

16.39250 1.06250 0.99363 15.43 3586.23 499.90 283.74 265.20

16.45500 1.12500 1.04809 14.63 3602.95 516.62 301.05 280.62

16.51750 1.18750 1.10213 13.91 3617.41 531.08 288.60 267.90

16.58000 1.25000 1.15576 13.26 3631.15 544.82 253.30 234.50

16.64250 1.31250 1.20899 12.68 3640.86 554.53 247.56 227.85

3-44

16.70500 1.37500 1.26182 12.15 3652.85 566.52 281.16 258.06

16.76750 1.43750 1.31426 11.66 3664.32 577.99 263.46 241.04

16.83000 1.50000 1.36631 11.22 3673.81 587.48 247.74 225.68

16.95500 1.62500 1.46926 10.43 3692.27 605.94 227.42 206.12

17.08000 1.75000 1.57070 9.76 3705.52 619.19 210.56 188.93

17.20500 1.87500 1.67066 9.18 3719.26 632.93 224.74 200.33

17.33000 2.00000 1.76919 8.67 3732.23 645.90 208.37 184.96

17.58000 2.25000 1.96203 7.81 3749.71 663.38 162.84 142.20

17.70500 2.37500 2.05641 7.45 3757.19 670.86 150.46 130.44

17.83000 2.50000 2.14947 7.13 3763.44 677.11 140.26 120.70

18.08000 2.75000 2.33172 6.57 3774.65 688.32 140.46 119.19

18.33000 3.00000 2.50900 6.11 3785.11 698.78 138.98 116.46

18.58000 3.25000 2.68151 5.72 3794.06 707.73 115.07 95.49

18.83000 3.50000 2.84944 5.38 3799.80 713.47 133.68 108.08

19.08000 3.75000 3.01297 5.09 3809.50 723.17 150.18 121.27

19.33000 4.00000 3.17227 4.83 3815.97 729.64 107.37 85.60

19.58000 4.25000 3.32750 4.61 3820.20 733.87 64.24 50.83

19.83000 4.50000 3.47882 4.41 3821.95 735.62 40.75 31.50

20.08000 4.75000 3.62637 4.23 3823.70 737.37 56.31 42.75

20.33000 5.00000 3.77029 4.07 3826.45 740.12 79.61 59.90

20.58000 5.25000 3.91071 3.92 3829.69 743.36 87.17 65.00

20.83000 5.50000 4.04777 3.79 3832.64 746.31 74.57 55.11

21.08000 5.75000 4.18157 3.67 3834.70 748.37 72.12 52.33

21.33000 6.00000 4.31224 3.56 3837.19 750.86 70.51 50.88

21.58000 6.25000 4.43987 3.45 3838.94 752.61 34.46 25.33

22.08000 6.75000 4.68648 3.27 3838.02 751.69 19.52 12.42

22.58000 7.25000 4.92217 3.11 3840.78 754.45 53.06 36.18

23.08000 7.75000 5.14764 2.98 3843.01 756.68 43.29 28.98

23.58000 8.25000 5.36355 2.86 3844.52 758.19 41.52 26.89

24.08000 8.75000 5.57049 2.75 3846.27 759.94 40.82 26.16

24.58000 9.25000 5.76902 2.66 3847.51 761.18 33.25 20.81

25.08000 9.75000 5.95963 2.57 3848.52 762.19 40.20 24.38

25.58000 10.25000 6.14279 2.50 3850.01 763.68 37.65 22.86

26.08000 10.75000 6.31892 2.43 3850.75 764.42 32.21 18.81

26.58000 11.25000 6.48843 2.36 3851.76 765.43 33.95 19.69

3-45

27.08000 11.75000 6.65168 2.30 3852.50 766.17 36.54 20.56

27.58000 12.25000 6.80901 2.25 3853.51 767.18 38.36 21.44

28.08000 12.75000 6.96074 2.20 3854.25 767.92 36.51 19.89

28.58000 13.25000 7.10716 2.16 3855.07 768.74 30.55 16.56

29.08000 13.75000 7.24854 2.11 3855.50 769.17 27.64 14.43

29.83000 14.50000 7.45173 2.06 3856.50 770.17 32.70 16.92

30.58000 15.25000 7.64495 2.01 3857.25 770.92 30.23 15.15

31.33000 16.00000 7.82892 1.96 3857.99 771.66 32.51 15.89

32.08000 16.75000 8.00429 1.92 3858.74 772.41 34.83 16.64

32.83000 17.50000 8.17164 1.88 3859.48 773.15 30.98 14.58

33.58000 18.25000 8.33152 1.84 3859.99 773.66 33.60 15.21

34.33000 19.00000 8.48442 1.81 3860.73 774.40 27.78 12.67

35.08000 19.75000 8.63077 1.78 3860.99 774.66 23.22 10.01

35.83000 20.50000 8.77100 1.75 3861.49 775.16 40.28 17.08

36.58000 21.25000 8.90548 1.72 3862.24 775.91 39.27 16.70

37.58000 22.25000 9.07644 1.69 3862.74 776.41 26.72 10.90

38.58000 23.25000 9.23853 1.66 3863.22 776.89 21.33 8.60

39.58000 24.25000 9.39243 1.63 3863.48 777.15 24.52 9.34

40.58000 25.25000 9.53875 1.61 3863.99 777.66 33.76 12.75

41.58000 26.25000 9.67803 1.58 3864.49 778.16 25.91 9.71

42.58000 27.25000 9.81077 1.56 3864.73 778.40 23.88 8.48

43.83000 28.50000 9.96817 1.54 3865.23 778.90 30.25 10.62

45.33000 30.00000 10.14560 1.51 3865.74 779.41

The diagnostic plots depicted in Figure 3.19 show the classic response of a

homogeneous reservoir model with wellbore storage and skin. From the

welltest derivative function, it would appear that the effect of wellbore storage

had subsided at about 10 hrs, in which case, the pressure data beyond 10 hrs

might be fitted to the Horner semilog line. Notice the noise in the derivative

function. This is not surprising because numerical differentiation is a noisy

process. The wellbore storage coefficient can be calculated from the unit slope

line as

3-46

C=

(174 )(1.06 ) ⎛ 1 ⎞

⎜ ⎟ = 0.0096 RB/psi

24 ⎝ 800 ⎠

CD =

( 5.615)( 0.0096 ) = 9.09 x102

2π ( 0.25 ) ( 4.20 x10−6 ) (107 )( 0.29 )

2

Figure 3.20 shows the Horner plot. The Horner straight line is given by

⎛ 15.33 + Δt ⎞

Pws ( Δt ) = 3880.60 − 78.52 log ⎜ ⎟

⎝ Δt ⎠

3-47

The slope of the Horner line is

k=−

(162.6 )(174 )( 2.5 )(1.06 ) = 8.92 md

( −78.52 )(107 )

3-48

⎧ 3086.33 − 3785.35 ⎡ ⎤ ⎫

⎪⎛ ⎞ ⎢

8.92

⎥ ⎪

S = 1.1513 ⎨⎜ ⎟ − log + 3.23 ⎬

⎝ −78.52 ⎠ ⎢ ( 0.25 )( 2.5 ) ( 4.20 x10 ) ( 0.29 ) ⎥

−6 2

⎩⎪ ⎣ ⎦ ⎪⎭

Pi = P* = 3880.6 psia.

The radius of investigation for the drawdown portion of the test is given by

rinv = 0.03248

(8.92 )(15.33) = 234 ft

( 0.25 )( 2.5 ) ( 4.20 x10−6 )

The radius of investigation for the buildup portion of the test is given by

rinv = 0.03248

(8.92 )( 30 ) = 330 ft

( 0.25 )( 2.5 ) ( 4.20 x10−6 )

The buildup test cannot investigate what the drawdown did not investigate.

Therefore, the radius of investigation of the buildup test test is obtained from

the drawdown portion of the test as 234 ft. The reservoir bulk volume

investigated by the test is given by

V = π rinv

2

h = (π ) ( 2342 ) (107 ) = 18.406 x106 ft 3

reservoir. This is in contrast to the core permeability, which is measured on a

minute portion of the reservoir.

successful simulation of the test, though non-unique, tends to lend credibility

to the results of the analysis. Using the k, S and CD obtained from the semilog

analysis as preliminary estimates, the homogeneous reservoir model with

3-49

wellbore storage and skin can be used to simulate the test by a trial and error

procedure.

test and the field test. Figure 3.21 compares the pressure buildup responses;

Figure 3.22 compares the log-diagnostic plots; and Figure 3.23 compares the

Horner plots. Clearly, the agreement between the simulated test and the field

test is good. The best match was obtained with the following parameters:

k = 9.4 md

S =6

CD = 9 x102

CD e 2 S = 1.46 x108

Pi = 3880.60 psia

Thus, the simulation serves to fine tune the parameters obtained by the

conventional semilog analysis of the test.

buildup response for field example.

3-50

Figure 3.22. A comparison of the simulated and the measured

diagnostic plots for field example.

plots for field example.

3-51

3.4.10 Welltest Model for Dry Gas Reservoir

The diffusivity equation for real gas flow is given by

φμ ct ∂M 1 ∂M

∇2 M = = (3.97)

k ∂t α ∂t

P 2P

M ( P) = ∫ dP (3.98)

Po μZ

the real gas pseudo pressure. Eq.(3.97) is similar in structure to Eq.(3.23)

that formed the basis for the welltest model for oil (and water) reservoirs. This

suggests that all the equations used to analyze transient pressure tests in an

oil reservoir can be adapted to analyze transient pressure tests in a dry gas

reservoir provided the pressure data from the gas well test are first

transformed into the real gas potential, M(P).

The dimensionless pressure for real gas flow in oilfield units is defined

as

M ( Pi ) − M ( Pwf )

PD = (3.99)

⎛ 1422qscT ⎞

⎜ ⎟

⎝ kh ⎠

where

1637qscT ⎡ ⎛ k ⎞ ⎤

M ( Pwf ) = M ( Pi ) − ⎢log t + log ⎜ ⎟ − 3.23 + 0.87 S ⎥ (3.100)

⎝ φμ ct rw ⎠

2

kh ⎣ ⎦

3-52

The gas velocity in the reservoir can be quite high given the low viscosity of

gas. This could lead to non-darcy flow with an additional pressure drop above

that of darcy flow. The effect of non-darcy flow can be expressed as a skin

factor as shown in Section 3.12. As a result, the total skin factor for a gas well

test, S, is normally split into the sum of two skin factors S* and Dqsc, where D

is a non-darcy coefficient and S* is the part of the total skin factor that does

not include the non-darcy effect. With this modification, Eq.(3.100) becomes

⎡ ⎛ k ⎞ ⎤

M ( Pwf ) = M ( Pi ) −

1637qscT

⎢log t + log ⎜ 2 ⎟

− 3.23 + 0.87 S * + 0.87 Dqsc ⎥ (3.101)

kh ⎣ ⎝ φμi cti rw ⎠ ⎦

1637 qscT

m=− (3.102)

kh

from which the formation permeability can be determined. The total skin

factor for drawdown test is given by

⎡ ⎤

⎢ M ( Pwf ) − M ( Pi ) ⎛ k ⎞ ⎥

S = 1.1513 ⎢ 1hr

− log ⎜ ⎟ + 3.23 ⎥ (3.103)

⎢ − ⎛ 1637 qscT ⎞ ⎝ φμi cti rw ⎠ ⎥

2

⎢⎣ ⎜ ⎟ ⎥⎦

⎝ kh ⎠

⎛ t p + Δt ⎞

M ( Pws ) = M ( P* ) −

1637 qscT

log ⎜ ⎟ (3.104)

kh ⎝ Δt ⎠

⎛ t + Δt ⎞

Eq.(3.104) suggests that a graph of M ( Pws ) versus log ⎜ p ⎟ will be linear

⎝ Δt ⎠

with a negative slope, m, given by

1637 qscT

m=− (3.96)

kh

from which the formation permeability can be determined. The total skin

3-53

factor for a buildup test is given by

⎡ ⎤

⎢ M ( Pwf ) − M ( Pws ) ⎛ k ⎞ ⎥

S = 1.1513 ⎢ 1hr

− log ⎜ * * 2 ⎟ + 3.23⎥ (3.105)

⎢ − ⎛ 1637 qscT ⎞ ⎝ φμ ct rw ⎠ ⎥

⎢⎣ ⎜ ⎟ ⎥⎦

⎝ kh ⎠

where M(Pws)1hr is obtained from the semilog straight line or its extrapolation,

and μ * and ct* are obtained at the pressure intercept, P*. Diagnostic plots

should be used to screen the M(P) data for wellbore storage in the manner

described for oil welltests to determine the correct semilog lines if any.

The M(P) function for a dry gas reservoir can be computed in advance

using the gas properties. To do so requires the ability to estimate the gas Z

factor and viscosity as functions of pressure and temperature. Correlations

exist for these functions in the literature. Table 3.7 shows the gas properties

and the M(P) function for a dry gas reservoir with the following properties:

Pseudocritical pressure = 665.0 psia

Pseudocritical temperature = 374.9 ºR

Apparent molecular weight of gas = 18.870 lb mass/lb mole

Apparent molecular weight of air = 28.9625 lb mass/lb mole

Density of fresh water = 62.368 lb mass/cu ft

(psia) Z (psia) (ft3/Mscf) (lbm/ft3) (106/psi) (cp) (psia2/cp)

200 0.986 203 98.120 0.505 5066.65 0.01393 2.8933E+06

400 0.974 411 48.428 1.024 2562.91 0.01413 1.1625E+07

600 0.962 624 31.895 1.554 1725.07 0.01437 2.6130E+07

800 0.951 841 23.656 2.095 1303.13 0.01466 4.6298E+07

1000 0.942 1062 18.736 2.646 1047.10 0.01498 7.1964E+07

3-54

1200 0.934 1285 15.477 3.203 873.69 0.01534 1.0292E+08

1400 0.927 1511 13.169 3.764 747.30 0.01573 1.3890E+08

1600 0.921 1737 11.456 4.327 650.20 0.01616 1.7962E+08

1800 0.917 1962 10.140 4.888 572.64 0.01661 2.2476E+08

2000 0.915 2186 9.102 5.446 508.85 0.01710 2.7397E+08

2200 0.914 2406 8.267 5.996 455.22 0.01760 3.2690E+08

2400 0.915 2623 7.583 6.537 409.42 0.01813 3.8321E+08

2600 0.917 2836 7.015 7.066 369.82 0.01868 4.4254E+08

2800 0.920 3043 6.538 7.582 335.30 0.01924 5.0455E+08

3000 0.925 3244 6.133 8.082 305.01 0.01982 5.6894E+08

3200 0.931 3438 5.786 8.567 278.31 0.02040 6.3540E+08

3400 0.938 3626 5.486 9.036 254.68 0.02100 7.0367E+08

3600 0.945 3808 5.225 9.488 233.71 0.02159 7.7350E+08

3800 0.954 3982 4.995 9.923 215.03 0.02220 8.4466E+08

4000 0.964 4150 4.793 10.341 198.36 0.02280 9.1697E+08

4200 0.974 4312 4.614 10.744 183.45 0.02340 9.9024E+08

4400 0.985 4467 4.454 11.130 170.07 0.02400 1.0643E+09

4600 0.997 4616 4.310 11.501 158.03 0.02460 1.1391E+09

4800 1.009 4759 4.181 11.857 147.19 0.02520 1.2144E+09

5000 1.021 4896 4.063 12.199 137.39 0.02579 1.2901E+09

5200 1.034 5028 3.957 12.528 128.52 0.02637 1.3662E+09

5400 1.048 5154 3.859 12.843 120.47 0.02695 1.4426E+09

5600 1.061 5276 3.770 13.147 113.14 0.02753 1.5192E+09

5800 1.075 5393 3.689 13.439 106.46 0.02810 1.5959E+09

6000 1.090 5506 3.613 13.719 100.37 0.02866 1.6727E+09

6200 1.104 5614 3.543 13.990 94.79 0.02921 1.7496E+09

6400 1.119 5719 3.479 14.250 89.67 0.02976 1.8265E+09

6600 1.134 5820 3.418 14.501 84.96 0.03030 1.9033E+09

6800 1.149 5917 3.362 14.743 80.63 0.03084 1.9801E+09

7000 1.165 6011 3.310 14.977 76.64 0.03137 2.0568E+09

3-55

3.5 FACTORS AFFECTING PERMEABILITY

Permeability is affected by compaction, pore size, sorting, cementation,

layering and clay swelling.

3.5.1 Compaction

Just as compaction reduces porosity, it also reduces permeability. As a

result of compaction, the permeability of rocks tends to decrease with depth of

burial.

In general, for a sand, the permeability is proportional to the square of

the mean pore size. For a well sorted sand, the pore size is proportional to the

grain size. Therefore, for well sorted sands, the permeability is proportional to

the square of the grain size. Thus, a well sorted sand with a larger grain size

will have a higher permeability than a well sorted sand with a smaller grain

size (Table 3.8).

(adapted from Beard and Weyl, 1973)

3-56

To see why grain size affects the permeability of a medium, let us

compare the wetted surface area per unit bulk volume (specific surface area)

for flow through a pipe with no grains and through a porous medium with two

grain sizes. Figure 3.24 shows a cube of each medium of volume L3 meter3.

Let the porous medium consist of uniform spherical sand grains of radius r

meter and porosity φ. The wetted surface area of the pipe per unit bulk

volume (S) is

Surface Area 4 L2 ⎛ 4 ⎞ 2 3

S= = =⎜ ⎟ m /m (3.106)

Bulk Volume L3 ⎝ L ⎠

meter3 of bulk volume is given by

N= = (3.107)

Volume of 1 sand grain ⎛ 4 3 ⎞

⎜ πr ⎟

⎝3 ⎠

3-57

L3 (1 − φ ) 3L3 (1 − φ )

Area = NxArea of 1sand grain = x 4π r =

2

(3.108)

⎛4 3⎞ r

⎜ πr ⎟

⎝3 ⎠

The wetted area per unit bulk volume (specific surface area) is given by

⎡ 3L3 (1 − φ ) ⎤ ⎛ 1 ⎞ 3 (1 − φ ) 2 3

S=⎢ ⎥⎜ 3 ⎟ = m /m (3.109)

⎣ r ⎦⎝ L ⎠ r

Let us examine some numerical values. Let L = 1 meter and let the porous

medium consist of very fine sand with a grain diameter of 100 x10−6 meter (r =

50 x10−6 meter) and a porosity of 28%. Figure 1.1 gives the diameters of the

grains of various clastic rocks. The specific surface area for the pipe flow is

S = 4m 2 / m3

3 (1 − .28 )

S= −6

= 43200 m 2 / m3

50 x10

Thus, the specific surface area of the porous medium is 10,800 times that of

the pipe. Since the fluid velocity is zero at the wetted surface during flow (no

slip condition), it is obvious that much more energy will be required to sustain

the same volumetric flow rate through the porous medium than through the

pipe, everything else being equal. Put another way, it is obvious that the

porous medium is much less permeable than the pipe.

Let us examine the effect of grain size on the specific surface area of the

porous medium, and hence the permeability, by changing the grain size to a

fine silt with a grain diameter of 10 x10−6 meter (r = 5 x10−6 meter). In this case,

the specific surface area is

3 (1 − .28 )

S= −6

= 432000 m 2 / m3

5 x10

3-58

Thus, the specific surface area of the fine silt has increased by a factor of 10

compared to the very fine sand. Using the same argument as before, it is

obvious that the silt will be less permeable than the fine sand. Therefore,

permeability decreases as the grain size decreases.

Example 3.2

An idealized petroleum reservoir consists of an unconsolidated sand of

uniform grain size. The sand grains were deposited in such a way as to give

the closest packing possible with spherical grains. This extremely well-sorted,

homogeneous and isotropic reservoir has the following dimensions:

Length = 3 miles

Width = 2 miles

Thickness = 250 feet

Grain diameter = 1/8 mm (fine sand)

Estimate the following properties for the reservoir:

a. Porosity.

Notes:

1 mile = 5280 ft

1 ft = 30.48 cm

L = 3 miles = (3)(5280)(30.48) = 482803.20 cm

3-59

d = 1/8 mm = 0.0125 cm (fine sand)

3 (1 − 0.259 )

S= = 355.68 cm 2 / cm3

( 0.0125 / 2 )

Wetted Surface Area = SxVb = ( 355.68 )( 482803.20 x321868.80 x7620.00 ) = 4.212 x1017 cm 2

4.212 x1017 cm 2

Wetted Surface Area = = 1.626 x107 square miles.

( 5280 x30.48)

2

( cm 2

/ mile 2

)

It should be observed that the wetted surface area for the idealized

reservoir is enormous and would be considerably more if the grains were of

clay sized particles. This enormous surface area has implications for the

occurrence of surface phenomena in reservoir rocks.

3.5.3 Sorting

Poor sorting reduces the pore size and consequently reduces the

permeability of a medium (Table 3.8).

3.5.4 Cementation

Cementation reduces the pore size and consequently reduces the

permeability of the rock.

3.5.5 Layering

Permeability is a tensor and can therefore be different in different

directions. Because of layering in sedimentary rocks, horizontal permeabilities

in petroleum reservoirs tend to be higher than vertical permeabilities in the

absence of vertical fractures.

3-60

3.5.6 Clay swelling

Many consolidated sandstones contain clay and silt, e.g., arkoses and

graywackes. Since montmorillonite-type clays absorb fresh water and swell,

the permeabilities of such sandstones will be greatly reduced when measured

with fresh water. The addition of salts, such as sodium chloride or potassium

chloride, will in most cases, eliminate the clay swelling.

Reservoir permeabilities vary widely, from 0.001 md for a tight gas sand

in East Texas to 4000 md for an unconsolidated sand in the Niger Delta.

Reservoir permeabilities may be loosely described as follows:

Because of low gas viscosity, gas reservoirs with permeabilities less than 1 md

can still produce at economic rates if the reservoir is hydraulically fractured.

Because of the higher oil viscosities compared to gas viscosities, oil reservoirs

with permeabilities less than 1 md are unlikely to produce at economic rates

even with hydraulic fracturing.

Since permeability depends on the continuity of pore space, there is not

in theory, or in fact, a unique relationship between the porosity of a rock and

its permeability. For unconsolidated sands, it is possible to establish

relationships between porosity and either some measure of apparent pore

3-61

diameter or specific surface area and permeability. However, these have very

limited applications.

sometimes a reasonable relationship between porosity and permeability,

although for a given porosity, permeabilities can vary widely. Figure 3.25

shows a typical permeability-porosity correlation obtained from core analysis.

The figure shows a correlation of permeability versus porosity for 500 samples

from a uniform sandstone reservoir in Pennsylvania. The permeabilities were

measured with gas and corrected for Klinkenberg effect. The porosity was

measured by saturating a well machined core with a wetting liquid. The

scatter in the data is not the result of experimental errors. Apart from

showing the general increase of permeability with an increase in porosity, the

correlation shows the wide spread, or lack of a close relationship, between

porosity and permeability. Nelson (1994) has presented a comprehensive

review of permeability - porosity correlations using data from the open

literature.

an equation of the form:

ln k = aφ + b (3.110)

level. Nevertheless, where it exists, it does provide one method of estimating

permeability from well logs and even possibly from drill cuttings. To test the

strength of the linear relationship between lnk and φ, let us examine the data

from sandstone cores shown in Table 3.9. Figure 3.26 shows the regression

line for the permeability - porosity correlation. The regression line is given by

ln k = 0.327φ − 3.049

with the square of the correlation coefficient (R2) equal to 0.3514. The

correlation is weak.

3-62

Figure 3.25. Permeability-porosity correlation for a sandstone reservoir

(Ryder, 1948).

Cores (from Kenyon et al., 1986)

Sample φ k

No (%) (md)

1 31.2 2719

2 30.4 1382

3 24.8 3.3

4 28.5 215

5 33 151

3-63

6 31 426

7 30.3 1072

8 9.2 0.0012

9 22 32.1

10 22.8 83.2

11 20.4 4.56

12 19 311

13 18.6 7.47

14 20.9 20.5

15 21.7 52.5

16 14.8 4.17

17 17.6 10.9

18 11.3 4.5

19 11 3

20 10.1 2.8

21 10.4 3.4

22 13.7 2.1

23 12.8 1.3

24 12.2 7.3

25 11.7 4.8

26 17.2 91.9

27 16.7 190.4

28 18.6 424.9

29 18.3 270.3

30 18.3 137.3

31 16.3 28.5

32 15.6 200.5

33 17.2 36.5

34 16.4 243.2

35 18.3 337.3

36 18.1 39.9

37 14.9 64.6

38 19.6 669.5

39 18.3 540.5

40 18.8 890.4

3-64

41 17.8 429.8

42 16.1 0.011

43 18 0.52

44 16.6 0.52

45 16.1 0.087

46 17.2 12.1

47 22.5 5.97

48 19.6 1.72

49 12.7 0.063

50 15.2 0.93

51 19.1 20.3

52 14.8 4.72

53 20.5 45

54 20.5 45

55 23.9 663

56 23.8 591

57 22.9 511

58 21.6 478

59 22.2 131

60 22.3 1305

61 16.8 621

62 6.3 10.4

63 24.6 1425

64 24.3 2590

65 20 0.849

66 21.9 6

67 6.3 0.003

68 19.8 0.499

69 31.3 139

70 25.7 12.6

71 14.7 1.68

3-65

Figure 3.26. Permeability-porosity correlation for sandstone cores (from

Kenyon et al., 1986).

was made to classify the grain size of the sandstones. Samples containing

more than 50% of 1-2 mm grain size were classified as very coarse-grained;

0.5-1 mm, coarse-grained; 0.25-0.5 mm, medium-grained; and 0.1-0.25 mm,

fine-grained. Samples containing more than 10% of silt (<0.1 mm) were called

silty, whereas samples with clay (<0.004 mm) content greater than 7% were

classified as clayey. Both the absolute permeabilities and the effective

permeabilities to gas at irreducible water saturations were measured.

Permeabilities also were corrected for Klinkenberg effect. The permeabilities

shown in Figure 3.27 are the effective permeabilities to the nonwetting gas at

irreducible wetting phase saturation. These end point permeabilities are not

functions of the porous medium alone as in the case of the absolute

permeabilities. They are functions of the porous medium and the wetting and

nonwetting fluids. It would appear that accounting for the grain size

3-66

distribution improved the correlation of the end point effective permeabilites

with porosity. The author indicates that the correlations of the absolute

permeabilities with porosity showed the usual scatter regardless of the grain

size classification but the data were not presented.

various sandstones (from Chillingar, 1964).

weaker than for consolidated sandstones. Figure 2.28 shows the correlations

based on the data of Table 3.3 for clean, unconsolidated and well sorted

sandpacks. The data are highly scattered. The R2 for the regression line for

the absolute permeability - porosity correlation is only 0.1742, which is a very

weak correlation. The R2 of 0.2305 for the correlation of the effective

3-67

permeability at irreducible water saturation versus porosity is higher than for

the absolute permeability. Thus, the effective permeability in the presence of

irreducible water saturation correlates better with porosity than the absolute

permeability of the medium. This observation is consistent with the

observation of the author of Figure 3.27.

sandpacks (from Peters, 1979).

3-68

3.8 CAPILLARY TUBE MODELS OF POROUS MEDIA

3.8.1 Carman-Kozeny Equation

Because rock pore space is made up of a network of interconnected,

tortuous, flow conduits, attempts have been made to calculate permeability by

modeling pore-level flow as if through cylindrical capillary tubes. Such

models are sometimes termed “bundle-of-capillary-tubes” models and can

provide some insights into permeability - porosity relationships and the effect

of grain size on permeability. Figure 2.29 shows such a porous medium model

with n cylindrical and tortuous pores (capillary tubes). The Hagen-Poiseuille’s

law for steady flow through a single tortuous, circular capillary tube of radius

r is

π r 4 ( p1 − p2 ) π r 4 Δp

qi = = (3.111)

8μ Le 8μ Le

where

nπ r 4 ( p1 − p2 ) nπ r 4 Δp

qT = = (3.112)

8μ Le 8μ Le

where qT is the total volumetric flow rate for the porous medium. The porosity

of the medium is given by

3-69

Vpnπ r 2 Le

φ= = (3.113)

Vb AT L

tortuous pores.

where AT is the total cross-sectional area and L is the length of the porous

medium. Solving Eq.(3.113) for AT gives

nπ r 2 ⎛ Le ⎞

AT = (3.114)

φ ⎜⎝ L ⎟⎠

The integrated form of Darcy's law for single phase flow through the medium

is given by

kAT ΔP

qT = (3.115)

μ L

bundle of capillary tube model is given by

3-70

nπ r 4 ⎛ L ⎞

k= ⎜ ⎟ (3.116)

8 AT ⎝ Le ⎠

Substituting Eq.(3.114) into (3.116) gives the permeability for the model as

φr2

k= (3.117)

8 ( Le / L )

2

2

⎛L ⎞

τ =⎜ e ⎟ (3.118)

⎝L⎠

φr2

k= (3.119)

8τ

a characteristic dimension of the porous medium. In addition, it shows that

the permeability is also proportional to the porosity of the medium. The

tortuosity, τ, is a parameter that is greater than 1. Note that some authors

define tortuosity as (Le/L) instead of (Le/L)2 as defined here.

medium made of granular material, we introduce specific surface area into the

model. Let Sp be the wetted surface area of the pores per unit pore volume of

the porous medium. For cylindrical pores,

2π nrLe 2

Sp = = (3.120)

π nr 2 Le r

φ

k= (3.121)

2τ S p2

3-71

What if the pore is not circular in cross-section? In that case, the 2 in

Eq.(3.121) can be replaced by an empirical numerical factor, ko , to give

φ

k= (3.122)

koτ S p2

known as the Kozeny constant. Based on laboratory measurements, Carman

suggested that for granular material, the Kozeny constant, koτ, is equal to 5.

Thus, to estimate the permeability of such materials, Eq.(3.122) can be

written as

φ

k= (3.123)

5S p2

converted to darcy or millidarcy using Eq.(3.13).

depending on how the specific surface area is defined. Let S be the wetted

surface area per unit bulk volume of the porous medium. Then

S = φSp (3.124)

the Carman-Kozeny equation:

φ3

k= (3.125)

koτ S 2

Let Ss be the wetted surface area per unit grain volume of the porous

medium. S and Ss are related by

S = (1 − φ ) S s (3.126)

3-72

Substituting Eq.(3.126) into (3.122) gives yet another version of the Carman-

Kozeny equation as

φ3

k= (3.127)

koτ S s2 (1 − φ )

2

(3.127) show that permeability is inversely proportional to the square of the

specific surface area of the grains. Since small grains have a higher specific

surface area than large grains, a medium composed of small grains will have

a lower permeability than one composed of large grains, a conclusion we

arrived at previously. All three versions of the Carman-Kozeny equation will

give the same permeability. Which one to use depends on what information is

on hand.

introducing the concept of hydraulic radius into the model and introducing

the grain diameter in the case of granular material. The hydraulic radius, rH,

is defined as

Volume of Pore 1

rH = = (3.128)

Wetted Surface Area of Pore S p

nπ r 2 Le r

rH = = (3.129)

2π nrLe 2

φ rH2

k= (3.130)

2τ

instead of r.

3-73

For granular material with spherical grains of diameter, Dp,

4π ( D p / 2 )

2

6

Ss = = (3.131)

π ( Dp / 2 ) Dp

4 3

D p2φ 3

k= (3.132)

36koτ (1 − φ )

2

D p2φ 3

k= (3.133)

72τ (1 − φ )

2

grain size, an assertion we have encountered before.

the porosity, specific surface area and the Kozeny constant must be known.

Several techniques have been proposed for the determination of the specific

surface area of porous media. These include (1) a statistical method, (2)

adsorption methods, (3) the heat of wetting method and (4) a method based on

fluid flow developed by Kozeny.

Example 3.3

Estimate the permeability of the idealized petroleum reservoir of Example 3.2.

Since the specific surface area with respect to bulk volume (S) is available

from Example 3.2, Eq.(3.125), which contains S is the most convenient

version of the Carman-Kozeny equation to use for the permeability

esstimation. Substituting numerical values into Eq.(3.125) gives

3-74

( 0.259 )

3

2.7467 x10−8 cm 2

k= = 2.7467 x10−8 cm 2 = = 2.78 darcys

( 5)( 355.68) 9.869 x10−9 ( cm 2 / darcy )

2

3.8.2 Tortuosity

Based on the bundle of capillary tube model, we see that tortuosity is a

geometric property of the porous medium that reflects the length of the flow

path at the pore level as the fluid flows around the grain obstacles relative to

the length of the porous medium. Therefore, the lower the porosity, the higher

the tortuosity should be. Winsauer et al. (1952) have measured the tortuosity

of sandstones along with other properties. The tortuosity was measured

electrically based on the analogy between the flow of electrical current and

fluid flow. Their results are shown in Table 3.10. They defined tortuosity as

(Le/L). Their original data have been squared to obtain the more current

definition of tortuosity.

Table 3.10: Tortuosity and Other Data from Winsauer et al., 1952.

Core φ k Factor τ

No % md F (Le/L) (Le/L)2

1 17.0 90 23.3 2.30 5.29

2 14.7 7 51.0 3.30 10.89

3 6.7 4 67.0 3.20 10.24

4 17.6 220 16.6 2.00 4.00

5 26.3 1920 8.6 1.60 2.56

6 25.6 4400 9.4 1.60 2.56

7 13.9 145 33.0 2.40 5.76

8 18.6 25 22.9 2.30 5.29

9 18.8 410 18.6 2.00 4.00

3-75

10 16.1 3 42.0 3.20 10.24

11 15.0 9 41.0 2.90 8.41

12 22.1 200 13.1 1.90 3.61

13 20.6 36 16.6 2.10 4.41

14 30.7 70 8.4 1.70 2.89

15 16.4 330 21.1 2.10 4.41

16 18.8 98 19.3 2.20 4.84

17 24.8 1560 10.8 1.80 3.24

18 19.1 36 17.2 2.30 5.29

19 29.8 1180 8.4 1.75 3.06

20 27.1 3200 11.7 2.05 4.20

21 28.2 2100 10.9 2.05 4.20

22 19.4 8 24.0 2.50 6.25

23 19.7 18 20.8 2.35 5.52

24 31.5 2200 6.9 1.50 2.25

25 19.3 19 24.4 2.70 7.29

26 27.3 88 12.4 2.20 4.84

27 25.1 370 11.6 1.97 3.88

28 15.0 115 37.3 2.90 8.41

29 18.4 130 19.0 2.00 4.00

30

31 39.5 4.7 1.37 1.88

expected, there is a negative correlation between the two variables. The lower

the porosity, the longer is the length of the flow path that the fluid particles

must take to flow from one end of the porous medium to the other. The longer

the flow path, the larger the tortuosity of the medium.

Figure 3.31 shows the correlation between tortuosity and the formation

resistivity factor. As expected, there is a strong positive correlation between

the two variables. Resistivity factor represents the obstacle to the flow of

electric current in the medium whereas tortuosity represents the obstacle to

the flow of fluid in the medium. Since there is a close relationship between the

3-76

flow path for electric current and for fluid flow, a property that obstructs one

will also obstruct the other. Hence, tortuosity and formation resistivity factor

should be positively correlated.

1952).

3-77

Figure 3.31. Tortuosity-formation resistivity factor correlation (from Winsauer

et al., 1952).

resistivity factor can be derived as follows. Consider the flow of electric

current through a core sample of porosity φ, length L and cross-sectional area

A saturated with water of resistivity Rw. The electrical resistance of the core is

given by

⎛L⎞

ro = Ro ⎜ ⎟ (3.134)

⎝ A⎠

where Ro is the resistivity of the core fully saturated with the water. The

electrical current in the core is conducted by the water alone since the rock

minerals are nonconductors. Let us replace the core with the same volume of

water in a test tube such that the resistance of the water is equal to that of

the saturated core. Since the electrical current in the core follows a tortuous

path in flowing from one end to the other, the length of the equivalent water

3-78

circuit Le will be longer than L. Let Ae be the cross-sectional area of the

equivalent water circuit. Then

Ae Le = φ AL (3.135)

The equivalent water circuit must have the same volume as the water in the

core to maintain the same salinity. The resistance of the equivalent water

circuit is given by

⎛L ⎞

rw = Rw ⎜ e ⎟ (3.136)

⎝ Ae ⎠

⎛ L2 ⎞

rw = Rw ⎜ e ⎟ (3.137)

⎝ φ AL ⎠

Since the equivalent water circuit has the same resistance as the saturated

core, Eqs.(3.134) and (3.137) give

⎛L⎞ ⎛ L2 ⎞

Ro ⎜ ⎟ = Rw ⎜ e ⎟ (3.138)

⎝ A⎠ ⎝ φ AL ⎠

Ro ⎛ Le ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞ τ

2

=⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟= (3.139)

Rw ⎝ L ⎠ ⎝ φ ⎠ φ

resistivity factor is

τ = φF (3.140)

The bundle of capillary tubes model presented in Section 3.7.1 assumed

that the n capillary tubes had the same pore size. Here, we extend the model

to include an arbitrary pore size distribution. Given the probability density

3-79

function (pdf) for the pore size (pore diameter) distribution, we wish to

calculate the permeability of the bundle of capillary tubes model.

as shown in Figure 3.32. The probability density function satisfies

∞

∫ f (δ )dδ = 1

0

(3.141)

Let nδ be the number of pores with diameter between δ and δ+dδ and n be the

total number of pores. Then

nδ = nf (δ ) d δ (3.142)

The cross-sectional area occupied by pores with diameter between δ and δ+dδ

is given by

3-80

⎛δ2 ⎞

dAc = π ⎜ ⎟ nf (δ ) d δ (3.143)

⎝ 4 ⎠

Eq.(3.143) as

πn ∞ π nR 2

Ac = ∫ f (δ )δ 2 dδ = (3.144)

4 0 4

∞

R 2 = ∫ f (δ )δ 2 d δ (3.145)

0

The cross-sectional area occupied by all the pores is related to the cross-

sectional area of the porous medium by the porosity as

Ac = AT φ (3.146)

4 AT φ

n= (3.147)

π R2

The volumetric flow rate for pores with diameter between δ and δ+dδ is

obtained from Hagen-Poiseuille's law as

πδ 4 ΔP

dqT = ⎡ nf (δ ) dδ ⎤⎦ (3.148)

128μ Le ⎣

The total volumetric flow rate for the porous medium is obtained by

integrating Eq.(3.148) as

π nΔP ∞

qT = ∫ f (δ ) δ dδ (3.149)

4

128μ Le 0

3-81

AT φΔP ∞

qT = ∫ f (δ ) δ dδ (3.150)

4

32μ Le R 2 0

permeability of the bundle of capillary tube model as

φ ∞

f (δ ) δ

32 ( L / L ) R ∫

k= 2

4

dδ (3.151)

0

e

φ ∞

k= ∫ f (δ ) δ dδ (3.152)

4

( )

32 τ R 2 0

⎡ ∞ f (δ ) δ 4 d δ ⎤

k=

φ ⎢ ∫0 ⎥ (3.153)

32 ( ) τ ⎢ ∫ f (δ ) δ dδ ⎥⎥

⎢

⎣ 0

∞

2

⎦

Example 3.4

The probability density function for the pore size distribution of a bundle of

capillary tubes model is given by a triangular distribution as shown in Figure

3.33. The porosity of the medium is 15%. If the minimum pore diameter (δ1) =

0 μm, the most likely pore diameter (δ2) = 8 μm and the largest pore diameter

(δ3) = 10 μm, calculate the permeability of the medium. Assume a tortuosity of

1.0.

3-82

Figure 3.33. Probability density function for pore size distribution for Example

The required permeability is given by Eq.(3.153). All we need to do is to

evaluate the two integrals on the right of the equation for the triangular

probability density function. Eq.(3.153) then takes the form

⎡ δ 2 f (δ ) δ 4 d δ + δ 3 f (δ ) δ 4 d δ ⎤

k=

φ ⎢ ∫δ1 1 ∫δ2 2 ⎥ (3.154)

( )

32 τ ∫ f1 (δ ) δ 2 d δ + ∫ f 2 (δ ) δ 2 d δ ⎥

⎢ δ2

⎢⎣ δ1

δ3

δ2 ⎥⎦

2 ( δ − δ1 )

f1 (δ ) = (3.155)

(δ 3 − δ1 )(δ 2 − δ1 )

2 (δ 3 − δ )

f 2 (δ ) = (3.156)

(δ 3 − δ1 )(δ 3 − δ 2 )

integrations gives

3-83

0.15 ⎛ 2.241x103 ⎞ 2.583x10−13 m 2

k= ⎜ 1 ⎟

μ m 2

= = 0.2617 darcy = 261.7md

32 1.0 ⎝ 4.067 x10 ⎠ 9.869 x10−13 m 2 / darcy

To increase the productivities of certain reservoirs, it is often necessary

to hydraulically fracture the reservoirs. Consider the single vertical fracture

shown in Figure 3.34. It can be shown that Hagen-Poiseuille’s law for steady

state flow through the fracture of width w in cgs units is given by

w2 A ΔP

q= (3.157)

12 μ L

Eq.(3.157) with Darcy’s law, Eq.(3.115), shows that the permeability of the

fracture is given by

w2 2

k= cm (3.158)

12

Example 3.5

Calculate the permeability of a fracture of width 2 millimeters.

The fracture permeability is given by Eq.(3.158) as

( 0.20 )

2

cm 2 1

k= x −9

= 3.378 x105 darcys

12 9.869 x10 cm 2 / darcy

The permeability of the fracture is enormous and therein lies the benefit of

fracturing for the improvement of the productivity of a well.

3-84

Figure 3.34. Flow through a fracture (Flow between parallel plates).

Because of heterogeneity, different portions of the same reservoir may

have different permeabilities. It becomes necessary to be able to estimate the

apparent or average permeability of various permeability combinations.

For linear beds in series (Figure 3.35), the volumetric flow rate is the

same for each bed and the total pressure drop is equal to the sum of the

pressure drop across each bed. For n beds in series, the average permeability

is given by

∑L i

L

k = i =1

n

= n

(3.159)

Li Li

∑

i =1 ki

∑

i =1 ki

where L Is total length of the porous medium in the flow direction, Li is the

length of bed i and ki is the permeability of bed i.

3-85

Figure 3.35. Linear beds in series

For radial beds in series (Figure 3.36), the volumetric flow rate is the

same for each bed and the total pressure drop is equal to the sum of the

pressure drop across each bed. For n beds in series, the average permeability

is given by

ln ( re / rw )

k = (3.160)

n

ln ( ri / ri −1 )

∑

i =1 ki

where re is the well's drainage radius and r0 is equal to the wellbore radius, rw

3-86

For linear beds in parallel (Figure 3.37), the total volumetric flow rate is

the sum of the flow rate of each bed and the pressure drop is the same for all

the beds. For n beds in parallel, the average permeability is given by

∑k A i i

k = i =1

n

(3.161)

∑A

i =1

i

where Ai is the area of bed i and ki is the permeability of bed i. If the beds

have the same width, then

∑k h i i

k = i =1

n

(3.162)

∑h

i =1

i

For radial beds in parallel (Figure 3.38), the total volumetric flow rate is

the sum of the flow rate of each bed and the pressure drop is the same for all

the beds. For n beds in parallel, the average permeability is given by

Eq.(3.162).

3-87

Figure 3.38. Radial beds in parallel.

For inclined flow, Darcy's Law in differential form can be written as

kA ⎛ dP ρg dz ⎞

q=− ± (3.163)

μ ⎝ ds 1.0133x10 ds ⎟⎠

⎜ 6

where

q = volumetric flow rate, cm3/s

k = absolute permeability of the porous medium, darcy

A = total area of the medium normal to the flow direction, cm2

μ = fluid viscosity, centipoise

P = absolute pressure, atm

s = distance in the direction of flow and is always positive, cm

dP

= pressure gradient along s, atm/cm

ds

ρ = fluid density, gm/cm3

g = acceleration of gravity, 981 cm/s2

1 atm = 1.0133x106 dynes/cm2

The sign convention for applying Darcy's law for inclined flow is as follows. If

the z direction is positive upwards as shown in Figure 3.39, then the positive

3-88

sign is used in the term in parenthesis in Eq.(3.163) and the equation

becomes

Figure 3.39. Coordinate system for applying Darcy's law for z positive

upwards.

kA ⎛ dP ρg dz ⎞

q=− + (3.164)

μ ⎝ ds 1.0133x10 ds ⎟⎠

⎜ 6

Figure 3.40, then the negative sign is used in the term in parenthesis in

Eq.(3.163) to obtain

kA ⎛ dP ρg dz ⎞

q=− − (3.165)

μ ⎝ ds 1.0133 x10 ds ⎟⎠

⎜ 6

3-89

Figure 3.40. Coordinate system for applying Darcy's law for z positive

downwards.

dz

in Eqs.(3.163) to (3.165) could be written as sinθ, where θ is the angle the

ds

porous medium along s makes with the horizontal plane. Alternatively, it

could be written as cosα, where α is the angle that the porous medium makes

⎛π ⎞

with the upward vertical z axis and is equal to ⎜ − θ ⎟ .

⎝2 ⎠

kA ⎛ dP dz ⎞

q = −0.001127 ⎜ ± 0.433γ ⎟ (3.166)

μ ⎝ ds ds ⎠

where γ is the specific gravity of the fluid and 0.433 is the pressure gradient of

fresh water in psi/ft.

kA d Φ

q=− (3.167)

μ ds

3-90

where the velocity potential is defined by

ρ gz

Φ = P± (3.168)

1.0133x106

in Darcy units or

Φ = P ± 0.433γ z (3.169)

in oilfield units. Eq.(3.167) shows that flow will occur in the direction of

decreasing velocity potential. Note that for inclined systems, flow does not

necessarily occur in the direction of decreasing pressure. For example, for a

static system in which the porous medium is oriented vertically, the pressure

at the top of the medium is less than at the bottom and yet there is no flow.

vs = =− ⎜ ± z⎟ (3.170)

A 1.0133 x10 μ ds ⎝

6

ρg ⎠

velocity can be defined as

vs

vi = (3.171)

φ

and hydraulic or piezometric head, h, as

q dh

vs = = −K (3.172)

A ds

where

kρg

K= (3.173)

1.0133x106 μ

and

3-91

P

h= ±z (3.174)

ρg

community. Note that hydraulic head has dimension of length and the

hydraulic conductivity has dimension of length/time. Possible units of

hydraulic conductivity are cm/s, m/s, m/d, US gal/day ft2 and US gal/min

ft2. Useful conversion factors are as follows:

Table 3.11 shows typical hydraulic conductivity values for various rock types

and soils. Figure 3.41 shows the range of hydraulic conductivity and

permeability for various rock types and soils. Clearly, rocks and soils have a

wide range of permeability and hydraulic conductivity values.

hydraulic head (piezometric head) rather than in terms of pressure. This is

especially true for inclined or vertical flow in which gravity plays a role.

Figure 3.42 shows the definition of the hydraulic head (piezometric head) for a

point O in an inclined porous medium located above a datum level at which z

is zero. The hydraulic head is given by

h =ψ + z (3.178)

3-92

Table 3.11: Typical Hydraulic Conductivity for Various Rock Types

3-93

Figure 3.41. Range of permeability and hydraulic conductivity of various rock

types and soils.

arbitrary datum and ψ is the pressure head. It should be emphasized that z in

Eq.(3.178) is not a cartesian coordinate in the flow direction but rather the

elevation of the point P above or below a reference datum. In a sense, z is a

gravity head that reflects the potential energy of the fluid at O in the earth’s

gravitational field. The datum at which z = 0 is arbitrary and can be selected

anywhere in the system. If the point O is below the datum, then z is negative.

P

ψ= (3.179)

ρg

3-94

It should be observed in Figure 3.42 that the hydraulic head at point O is

given by the elevation of a liquid manometer at point O above (or below) the

arbitrary datum.

head z for a laboratory manometer.

Darcy’s law for 1D flow is given by

dh

q = − KA∇h = − KA (3.180)

ds

the direction of flow. Flow always occurs from a high hydraulic head to a low

hydraulic head. Eq.(3.180) may be integrated to obtain

⎛h −h ⎞

q = − KA ⎜ 2 1 ⎟ (3.181)

⎝ s2 − s1 ⎠

⎛h −h ⎞ ⎛ Δh ⎞

q = KA ⎜ 1 2 ⎟ = KA ⎜ ⎟ (3.182)

⎝ s2 − s1 ⎠ ⎝ ΔL ⎠

3-95

Figure 3.43. Darcy’s experiment for inclined flow.

and ΔL is the positive length of the porous medium between points 1 and 2 in

the flow direction. It should be observed that the elevations of points 1 and 2

(z1 and z2) do not appear explicitly in Eq.(3.182) although they do appear

ΔL cos α = z1 − z2 (3.183)

where α is the angle the porous medium makes with the vertical direction.

Substituting Eq.(3.183) into Eq.(3.182) gives

⎛h −h ⎞

q = KA ⎜ 1 2 ⎟ cos α (3.184)

⎝ z1 − z2 ⎠

3-96

In the special case in which the porous medium is vertical, α is zero, cosα is

⎛ Δh ⎞

q = KA ⎜ ⎟ (3.185)

⎝ ΔL ⎠

inclination. The hydraulic conductivity is related to the permeability of the

porous medium in consistent units by

kρg

K= (3.186)

μ

permeameters normally used to measure permeability in groundwater

hydrology. Figure 3.44 (a) is a constant head permeameter whereas Figure

3.44 (b) is a falling head permeameter. Using the principles of inclined flow

outline above, the working equations for the permeameters can easily be

derived as follows. For the constant head permeameter, Eq.(3.182) gives

h ⎛ kρg ⎞ h

q = KA =⎜ ⎟A (3.187)

L ⎝ μ ⎠ L

For the falling head permeameter, Darcy's law at time t is

h

q = KA (3.188)

L

dh

q = −a (3.189)

dt

into (3.186) gives the differential equation for the falling head, h, as

3-97

Figure 3.44. Schematic diagram of liquid permeameters; (a) constant head

permeameter, (b) falling head permeameter.

dh ⎛ KA ⎞

= −⎜ ⎟h (3.190)

dt ⎝ aL ⎠

h ( 0 ) = ho (3.191)

Eq.(3.190) along with (3.191) can easily be solved to obtain the working

equation for the falling head permeameter as

3-98

⎛h⎞ ⎛ KA ⎞ ⎛ k ρ gA ⎞

ln ⎜ ⎟ = − ⎜ ⎟t = −⎜ ⎟t (3.192)

⎝ ho ⎠ ⎝ aL ⎠ ⎝ μ aL ⎠

in consistent units.

Darcy's law is valid for slow, laminar flow in porous media without

chemical reaction. Figure 3.45 shows the Fanning friction factor versus

Reynolds number for single phase flow in a porous medium. For flow through

porous media, Reynolds number is defined as

vρ Dp

Re = (3.193)

μ

where

Dp = mean grain diameter of the granular porous medium, cm

ρ = fluid density, gm/cm3

μ = fluid viscosity, poise

Figure 3.45. Fanning friction factor factor for flow in porous media (Rose,

1945)

3-99

For laminar flow, in which Darcy's law is valid, the friction factor versus

Reynolds number is given by the line shown in Figure 3.45 having the

equation

1000

f = (3.194)

Re

It can seen in the figure that the experimental data begin to deviate from the

line at a Reynolds number of about 1.0. Thus, Darcy's law is valid for flow in

porous media for Reynolds number up to about 1. At Reynolds numbers

greater than 1, Darcy's law is no longer valid. Therefore, flow at Reynolds

number greater than 1 can be characterized as non-darcy flow.

Based on analogy with flow in pipes, the flow regimes for non-darcy flow

can be classified as shown in Figure 3.46 as transition flow for Reynolds

number in the range 1 to 100, and turbulent flow for Reynolds number

greater than 100.

3-100

3.13 NON-DARCY FLOW

Darcy’s law is inadequate for modeling high velocity flow in porous

media such as high velocity gas flow near the wellbore in a natural gas

reservoir in which the Reynolds number is greater than 1. For this non-darcy

flow, Forchheimer has proposed a flow equation of the form

dP μ v

− = + βρ v 2 (3.195)

dx k

where the variables are in Darcy units. The first term on the right-side of

Eq.(3.195) gives the viscous component of the pressure gradient (Darcy flow)

whereas the second term gives the inertial-turbulent component of the

pressure gradient, which constitutes the non-darcy flow effect. Because the

non-darcy flow effect is most severe near the wellbore, this additional effect is

usually incorporated into the gas flow equation as a rate-dependent skin

factor. The velocity coefficient (β) is a function of the permeability and porosity

of the porous medium and is independent of rate. Figure 3.47 shows a

correlation of the velocity coefficient with permeability from core analysis.

Consider radial steady state flow of a real gas from the reservoir into the

well. For this case, Eq.(3.195) can be written as

dP μ v

= + βρ v 2 (3.196)

dr k

Pe 2P re 2 P μ v re 2 P

∫

Pwf μZ

dP = ∫

rw μZ k

dr + ∫

rw μZ

βρ v 2 dr (3.197)

evaluate the density at standard conditions. The density at reservoir

conditions and at standard conditions are related by the gas formation

volume factor as

3-101

Figure 3.47. Velocity coefficient in Forchheimer equation (Firoozabadi and

Katz, 1979.

ρ sc

ρ= (3.198)

Bg

where Bg is the gas formation volume factor and ρsc is the gas density at

standard conditions. For real gas flow, the gas formation volume factor is

given by

Psc ZT

Bg = (3.199)

Tsc P

3-102

q

v= (3.200)

2π rh

Pq Psc qsc

= (3.201)

ZT Z scT

∫

Po μZ

dP − ∫

Po μ Z

dP = sc sc

π khTsc ∫

rw r ⎝ π khTsc ⎠ ⎝ 2πμ h ⎠ ∫rw r 2

+⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟ (3.202)

Eq.(3.197) has been split into two integrals for convenience. Integration of

Eq.(3.202) gives

M ( Pe ) − M ( Pw ) = ln ⎜ ⎟ + ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ − ⎟ (3.203)

π khTsc ⎝ rw ⎠ ⎝ π khTsc ⎠ ⎜⎝ 2πμ h ⎟⎠ ⎝ rw re ⎠

where M(P) is the real gas potential or real gas pseudo pressure. At field scale,

(1/re) is normally negligibly small compared to (1/rw). With this

approximation, Eq.(3.203) becomes

M ( Pe ) − M ( Pwf ) = ln ⎜ ⎟ + ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ (3.204)

π khTsc ⎝ rw ⎠ ⎝ π khTsc ⎠ ⎜⎝ 2πμ h ⎟⎠ ⎝ rw ⎠

⎛r ⎞

PD = ln ⎜ e ⎟ + Dqsc (3.205)

⎝ rw ⎠

M ( Pe ) − M ( Pwf )

PD = (3.206)

qsc PscT

π khTsc

3-103

and a non-darcy flow coefficient is defined as

βρ sc k

D= (3.207)

2πμ hrw

⎛r ⎞

PD = ln ⎜ e ⎟ + S * + Dqsc (3.208)

⎝ rw ⎠

in Darcy units as

⎡ ⎤

⎢ M P −M P ⎥

qsc =

π khTsc ⎢ ( e ) ( wf ) ⎥ (3.209)

PscT ⎢ ⎛ re ⎞ * ⎥

⎢ ln ⎜ ⎟ + S + Dqsc ⎥

⎣⎢ ⎝ rw ⎠ ⎦⎥

⎡ ⎤

⎢ M P −M P ⎥

qsc =

kh ⎢ ( e) ( wf ) ⎥ (3.210)

1422T ⎢ ⎛ re ⎞ * ⎥

⎢ ln ⎜ ⎟ + S + Dqsc ⎥

⎣⎢ ⎝ rw ⎠ ⎦⎥

It should be noted that the skin factor normally determined from well

test analysis is the total skin factor given by

S = S * + Dqsc (3.211)

Therefore, the total skin factor determined from a gas well test should be

investigated further to determine the contribution of the non-darcy flow

component. The non-darcy flow component of the total skin factor cannot be

eliminated by well stimulation. It can be estimated by conducting drawdown

tests at two different flow rates.

3-104

It can be shown that the additional potential drop due to non-darcy flow

occurs mostly near the wellbore. This additional potential drop at any radius r

can be obtained from Eq.(3.203) as

⎛ q P T ⎞ ⎛ βρ kq ⎞ ⎛ 1 1 ⎞

ΔM ( r ) = ⎜ sc sc ⎟ ⎜ sc sc ⎟ ⎜ − ⎟ (3.212)

⎝ π khTsc ⎠ ⎝ 2πμ h ⎠ ⎝ rw r ⎠

At r =re,

⎛ q P T ⎞ ⎛ βρ kq ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞

ΔM ( re ) = ⎜ sc sc ⎟ ⎜ sc sc ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ (3.213)

⎝ π khTsc ⎠ ⎝ 2πμ h ⎠ ⎝ rw ⎠

ΔM (r ) r

= 1− w (3.214)

ΔM ( re ) r

Eq.(3.214). It can be observed that 90% of the total non-darcy flow potential

drop occurs within r = 10rw. Thus, if rw is 0.3 ft, then 90% of the total non-

darcy flow potential drop occurs within 3 ft of the well. This is the justification

for treating the non-darcy flow effect as a flow-dependent skin factor.

r ΔM (r )

rw ΔM ( re )

1 0

2 0.50

5 0.80

10 0.90

3-105

3.14 DARCY’S LAW FOR ANISOTROPIC POROUS MEDIA

3.14.1 Definition of Homogeneity and Anisotropy

A medium is homogeneous with respect to a certain property if that

property is independent of position within the medium. Otherwise, the

medium is heterogeneous. A medium is isotropic with respect to a certain

property if that property is independent of direction within the medium. If at a

point in the medium, a property of the medium varies with direction, the

medium is said to be anisotropic with respect to that property. Figure 3.48

shows the principal values of permeability anisotropy at two locations (x1, z1)

and (x2, z2) in a vertical cross-section of a porous medium. Although arrows

Cherry, 1979).

3-106

and arrow lengths have been used to indicate the directions and magnitudes

of the principal values of the permeability anisotropy, they should not be

misinterpreted as vectors. Permeability is a tensor, not a vector. The special

form of the permeability tensor shown in the figure is

⎡k 0⎤

k ( x, z ) = ⎢ x (3.215)

⎣0 k z ⎥⎦

and not

⎡k ⎤

k ( x, z ) = ⎢ x ⎥ (3.216)

⎣kz ⎦

For a homogeneous and anisotropic porous medium, Darcy’s Law is

given by

G k

v = − .∇Φ (3.217)

μ

⎡ ∂Φ ⎤

⎢ ⎥

⎡ vx ⎤ ⎡ k xx k xy k xz ⎤ ⎢ ∂x ⎥

⎢v ⎥ = − 1 ⎢ k ⎥ ∂Φ ⎥

k yy k yz ⎥ ⎢⎢ (3.218)

⎢ y⎥ μ ⎢ yx ∂y ⎥

⎢⎣ vz ⎥⎦ ⎢ k zz ⎦⎥ ⎢ ⎥

⎣ k zx k zy

⎢ ∂Φ ⎥

⎢⎣ ∂z ⎥⎦

⎡ k xx k xy k xz ⎤

⎢ ⎥

k ( x, y, z ) = ⎢ k yx k yy k yz ⎥ (3.219)

⎢ k zx k zy k zz ⎥⎦

⎣

3-107

is a second rank tensor with nine elements. The tensor is symmetric and as

such kxy = kyx, kxx = kzx and kyz = kzy. The corresponding equations for 2D flow

are

⎡ ∂Φ ⎤

⎡ vx ⎤ 1 ⎡ k xx k xy ⎤ ⎢ ∂x ⎥

⎢v ⎥ = − ⎢ k ⎢ ⎥ (3.220)

⎣ y⎦ μ ⎣ yx k yy ⎥⎦ ⎢ ∂Φ ⎥

⎢⎣ ∂y ⎥⎦

and

⎡ k xx k xy ⎤

k ( x, y ) = ⎢ (3.221)

⎣ k yx k yy ⎥⎦

hydraulic head as

G

v = − K .∇h (3.222)

permeability tensor are applicable to the hydraulic conductivity tensor.

change of axes, it is possible to transform the full tensor into another tensor

consisting of only diagonal terms with the off-diagonal terms being zero. This

is a considerable simplification. The axes that permit this transformation of

the tensor to diagonal form are called the principal axes of the permeability

anisotropy of the porous medium. These principal axes contain the maximum

and minimum values of the directional permeabilities which are the diagonal

terms of the transformed tensor. When viewed in the coordinates of the

principal axes of anisotropy, the permeability (hydraulic conductivity) tensor

in 3D becomes

3-108

⎡ ku 0 0⎤

k ( u , v ) = ⎢⎢ 0 kv 0 ⎥⎥ (3.223)

⎢⎣ 0 0 k z ⎥⎦

where u, v, w are the coordinates in the directions of the principal axes of the

anisotropy. When viewed in the coordinates of the principal axes of the

anisotropy, Darcy's law for homogeneous and anisotropic media in 3D

simplifies to

⎡ ∂Φ ⎤

⎢ ku ∂u ⎥

⎡ vu ⎤ ⎢ ⎥

⎢ v ⎥ = − 1 ⎢ k ∂Φ ⎥ (3.224)

⎢ v⎥ μ ⎢ v ∂v ⎥

⎣⎢ vw ⎦⎥ ⎢ ⎥

⎢ k w ∂Φ ⎥

⎢⎣ ∂w ⎥⎦

In this special coordinate system, the Darcy velocity vector and the velocity

potential gradient vector are collinear and the equation can be written as

1 ⎛ ∂Φ ∂Φ ∂Φ ⎞

vu i + vv j + vw w = − ⎜ ku i + kv j + kw w⎟ (3.225)

μ ⎝ ∂u ∂v ∂u ⎠

where i, j and w are unit vectors. The corresponding equations for 2D flow are

⎡k 0⎤

k ( u, v ) = ⎢ u (3.226)

⎣0 kv ⎥⎦

⎡ ∂Φ ⎤

k

⎡ x⎤

v 1⎢ u ∂u ⎥

⎢v ⎥ = − ⎢ ⎥ (3.227)

⎣ y⎦ μ⎢ ∂Φ ⎥

kv

⎣⎢ ∂v ⎦⎥

and

1 ⎛ ∂Φ ∂Φ ⎞

vu i + vv j = − ⎜ ku i + kv j⎟ (3.228)

μ ⎝ ∂u ∂v ⎠

3-109

Example 3.5

Steady state flow of a single phase liquid occurs in a horizontal, 2D,

homogeneous and anisotropic reservoir, which has a permeability tensor

given by

–50 750

The pressure in the reservoir has been measured at three observations wells

whose coordinates are given in Table 3.13. The liquid viscosity is 1 cp. Do the

negative entries in the permeability tensor bother you?

Well (ft) (ft) (psia)

1 0 0 2000

2 0 800 1800

3 800 0 1500

1. Calculate the magnitude (in ft/day) and the direction of the Darcy

velocity for the flow. Give the direction in terms of the angle the Darcy

velocity vector makes with the positive x- axis.

2. Sketch two vectors with one pointing in the flow direction and the other

pointing in the direction of the pressure gradient. What is the angle

between the two vectors in degrees?

Figure 3.49 shows the positions of the wells and their bottomhole pressures.

3-110

Figure 3.49. Positions of the observation wells and their bottomhole

pressures.

G k

v = − ( 0.001127 )( 5.615 ) .∇P (3.229)

μ

⎡ ∂P ⎤

⎡ vx ⎤ ( 0.001127 )( 5.615) ⎡ k xx k xy ⎤ ⎢ ∂x ⎥

⎢ ⎥ = − ⎢ ⎢ ⎥ (3.230)

⎣v y ⎦ μ ⎣ k yx k yy ⎦⎥ ⎢ ∂P ⎥

⎢⎣ ∂y ⎥⎦

= = − ⎜ ⎟ psi/ft

∂x 800 ⎝8⎠

= = − ⎜ ⎟ psi/ft

∂y 800 ⎝4⎠

3-111

5 1

∇P = − i − j = −0.625i − 0.250 j

8 4

2 2

Let the pressure gradient make an angle θ with the negative x-axis. Then

( )

( −0.625i − 0.250 j ) . ( −i ) = ( −0.625) + ( −0.250 ) (1) cos θ

2 2

0.625

cos θ = = 0.9285

0.6252 + 0.2502

θ = 21.80D

⎡ 5⎤

−

⎡ vx ⎤ ( 0.001127 )( 5.615 ) ⎡ 200 −50 ⎤ ⎢ 8 ⎥

⎢v ⎥ = − ⎢ −50 750 ⎥ ⎢ 1 ⎥

⎣ y⎦ 1 ⎣ ⎦ ⎢− ⎥

⎢⎣ 4 ⎥⎦

⎡ ⎛5⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞⎤

vx = ( 0.001127 )( 5.615 ) ⎢( 200 ) ⎜ ⎟ − ( 50 ) ⎜ ⎟ ⎥ = 0.7120 ft/D

⎣ ⎝8⎠ ⎝ 4 ⎠⎦

⎡ ⎛5⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞⎤

v y = ( 0.001127 )( 5.615 ) ⎢( −50 ) ⎜ ⎟ + ( 750 ) ⎜ ⎟ ⎥ = 0.9888 ft/D

⎣ ⎝8⎠ ⎝ 4 ⎠⎦

G

v = 0.7120i + 0.9888 j

G

v = ( 0.7120 ) + ( 0.9888 ) = 1.2185 ft/D

2 2

Let the Darcy velocity make an angle α with the positive x-axis.

0.9888

tan α = = 1.3888

0.7120

3-112

α = 54.24D

Figure 3.50 shows the magnitudes and the directions of the darcy velocity and

the pressure gradient vectors. The figure shows that the Darcy velocity and

pressure gradient vectors are not collinear for flow in the anisotropic porous

medium.

gradient vectors for flow in an anisotropic reservoir.

The angle between the Darcy velocity vector and the pressure gradient vector

is 147.56º. This angle can also be calculated directly from vector calculus as

G G

v .∇P = v . ∇P cos β

3-113

where β is the angle between the two vectors. Thus,

cos β =

( 0.7120i + 0.9888 j ) . ( −0.625i − 0.25 j ) = − 0.6922 = −0.8440

(1.2185)( 0.6731) 0.8202

β = 147.56D

Figure 3.51 shows sketches of the flow field and the pressure gradient field.

Figure 3.51. Flow and pressure gradient fields for Example 3.5.

System to Another

The objective is to derive the equations for transforming the

permeability tensor (hydraulic conductivity tensor) for an anisotropic reservoir

from one coordinate system to another coordinate system that makes and

angle θ with the first coordinate system, where θ is considered positive for

3-114

anticlockwise rotation. This can be achieved by first establishing the

geometric relationship between the two coordinate systems and then

transforming Darcy’s Law from the first coordinate system to the second

coordinate system. Such a transformation can be used to (1) determine the

principal values of the permeability anisotropy, (2) determine the principal

axes of the permeability anisotropy and (3) examine the flow field in any

coordinate system.

Figure 3.52 shows the relationship between the two coordinate systems.

It should be emphasized that the (u,v) coordinates shown in Figure 3.52 are

not the principal axes of the permeability anisotropy. The two coordinate

systems are related by the following equations:

⎡ x ⎤ ⎡cos θ − sin θ ⎤ ⎡u ⎤

⎢ y ⎥ = ⎢ sin θ cos θ ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ v ⎥⎦

(3.233)

⎣ ⎦ ⎣

between the two coordinate systems also can be written as

⎡u ⎤ ⎡ cos θ sin θ ⎤ ⎡ x ⎤

⎢ v ⎥ = ⎢ − sin θ cos θ ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ y ⎥⎦

(3.234)

⎣ ⎦ ⎣

3-115

Figure 3.52. Relationship between the two coordinate systems.

⎡ ∂Φ ⎤

⎡ vx ⎤ 1 ⎡ k xx k xy ⎤ ⎢ ∂x ⎥

⎢v ⎥ = − ⎢ k ⎢ ⎥ (3.220)

⎣ y⎦ μ ⎣ yx k yy ⎥⎦ ⎢ ∂Φ ⎥

⎢⎣ ∂y ⎥⎦

The Darcy velocity in the uv coordinate system is related to the Darcy velocity

in the xy coordinate system by Eq.(3.234) as

3-116

⎡ vu ⎤ ⎡ cos θ sin θ ⎤ ⎡ vx ⎤

⎢ v ⎥ = ⎢ − sin θ ⎢ ⎥

cos θ ⎥⎦ ⎣ v y ⎦

(3.235)

⎣ v⎦ ⎣

⎡ ∂Φ ⎤

⎡ vu ⎤ 1 ⎡ cos θ sin θ ⎤ ⎡ k xx k xy ⎤ ⎢ ∂x ⎥

⎢ v ⎥ = − μ ⎢ − sin θ ⎢ ⎢ ⎥ (3.236)

⎣ v⎦ ⎣ cos θ ⎥⎦ ⎣ k yx k yy ⎥⎦ ⎢ ∂Φ ⎥

⎢⎣ ∂y ⎥⎦

The flow potential in the xy coordinate system is related to the flow potential

in the uv coordinate system by Eq.(2.233) as

⎡ ∂Φ ⎤ ⎡ ∂Φ ⎤

⎢ ∂x ⎥ ⎡cos θ − sin θ ⎤ ⎢ ∂u ⎥

⎢ ⎥=⎢ ⎢ ⎥ (3.237)

⎢ ∂Φ ⎥ ⎣ sin θ cos θ ⎥⎦ ⎢ ∂Φ ⎥

⎢⎣ ∂y ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ ∂v ⎥⎦

⎡ ∂Φ ⎤

⎡ vu ⎤ 1 ⎡ cos θ sin θ ⎤ ⎡ k xx k xy ⎤ ⎡cos θ − sin θ ⎤ ⎢ ∂u ⎥

⎢ v ⎥ = − μ ⎢ − sin θ ⎢

cos θ ⎦⎥ ⎣ k yx k yy ⎥⎦ ⎣⎢ sin θ

⎢

cos θ ⎦⎥ ⎢ ∂Φ ⎥

⎥ (3.238)

⎣ v⎦ ⎣

⎢⎣ ∂v ⎥⎦

⎡ ∂Φ ⎤

⎡ vu ⎤ 1 ⎡ kuu kuv ⎤ ⎢ ∂u ⎥

⎢v ⎥ = − ⎢ ⎥ (3.239)

⎣ v⎦ μ ⎢⎣ kvu kvv ⎥⎦ ⎢ ∂Φ ⎥

⎣⎢ ∂v ⎦⎥

the uv coordinate system is related to the tensor in the xy coordinate system

as follows:

= ⎢ (3.240)

⎢k

⎣ vu kvv ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ − sin θ cos θ ⎥⎦ ⎣ k yx k yy ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ sin θ cos θ ⎥⎦

3-117

Carrying out the matrix multiplications on the right side of Eq.(3.240) and

equating the result to the left side matrix gives

From trigonometry,

k xx + k yy k xx − k yy

kuu = + cos 2θ + k xy sin 2θ (3.249)

2 2

3-118

⎛ k xx − k yy ⎞

kuv = kvu = − ⎜ ⎟ sin 2θ + k xy cos 2θ (3.251)

⎝ 2 ⎠

k xx + k yy ⎛ k xx − k yy ⎞

kvv = −⎜ ⎟ cos 2θ − k xy sin 2θ (3.253)

2 ⎝ 2 ⎠

⎛ k xx − k yy ⎞

−⎜ ⎟ sin 2θ + k xy cos 2θ = 0 (3.255)

⎝ 2 ⎠

Eq.(3.255) yields

sin 2θ 2k xy

tan 2θ = = (3.256)

cos 2θ k xx − k yy

or

⎛ 2k xy ⎞

θ = 12 tan −1 ⎜ ⎟⎟ (3.257)

⎜ k xx − k yy

⎝ ⎠

degrees.

Example 3.6

For the flow field of Example 3.5,

3-119

2. Calculate the principal values of the permeability anisotropy. Show the

transformed permeability tensor for the principal coordinate system.

directions of the permeability anisotropy.

One of the principal axes of the permeability anisotropy is given by Eq.(3.257)

as

⎛ 2 ( −50 ) ⎞

tan −1 ( 2θ ) = tan −1 ⎜ ⎟ = tan ( 0.1818 ) = 10.3048

−1 D

⎝ 200 − 750 ⎠

10.3048

θ= = 5.15D

2

and (3.253) as

ku = + cos (10.3048 ) − 50sin (10.3048 )

2 2

ku = 475 − 270.5642 − 8.9443 = 195.49md

kv = −⎜ ⎟ cos (10.3048 ) + 50sin (10.3048 )

2 ⎝ 2 ⎠

⎡k 0 ⎤ ⎡195.5 0 ⎤

k ( u, v ) = ⎢ u ⎥ =⎢ md , where ku and kv are the principal values of

⎣0 kv ⎦ ⎣ 0 754.5⎥⎦

the permeability anisotropy. Figure 3.53 shows that the coordinate system

along the principal axes of the permeability anisotropy (u,v) makes an angle of

+5.15º with the x,y coordinate system.

3-120

Figure 3.53. Relationship between the principal axes of the permeability

anisotropy and the (x,y) coordinates.

Also shown in Figure 3.53 is the Darcy velocity vector in relation to the x,y

and the u,v coordinate systems, where the u,v coordinates are the principal

axes of the permeability anisotropy.

calculated as follows.

The components of the Darcy velocity in the u,v coordinates also can be

calculated from Eq.(3.234) as

3-121

⎡ vu ⎤ ⎡ cos 5.15D sin 5.15D ⎤ ⎡0.7120 ⎤ ⎡ cos 5.15D ⎤ ⎡ sin 5.15D ⎤ ⎡ 0.7980 ⎤

⎢ ⎥=⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ = 0.7120 ⎢ D⎥

+ 0.9888 ⎢ D⎥

=⎢ ⎥

⎣ vv ⎦ ⎣ − sin 5.15 ⎣ − sin 5.15 ⎦

D

cos 5.15D ⎦ ⎣ 0.9888⎦ ⎣ cos 5.15 ⎦ ⎣ 0.9209 ⎦

vu = 0.7980 ft/D

vv = 0.9209 ft/D

These are the results obtained previously. It should be noted that because the

flow is invariant with a rotation of the axes, the magnitude of the Darcy

velocity (1.2185 ft/D) remains the same in the new coordinate system. The

direction of the Darcy velocity also remains the same. Only the components of

the Darcy velocity change in the new coordinate system.

Axes of the Permeability Anisotropy

From linear algebra, the principal values of the permeability tensor are

given by the eigenvalues of the permeability tensor whereas the principal axes

of the permeability anisotropy are given by the eigenvectors of the

permeability tensor. This can be demonstrated by reworking Example 3.6 as

an eigenvalue problem.

Example 3.7

Rework Example 3.6 by calculating the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the

permeability tensor.

Let the eigenvalues of the permeability tensor be λ. The characteristic

equation is given by

⎡ 200 − λ −50 ⎤

det ⎢ =0

⎣ −50 750 − λ ⎥⎦

3-122

λ 2 − 950λ + 147500 = 0

λ= =

2 2

λ1 = 195.5md

λ2 = 754.5md

These principal values are the same as obtained in Example 3.6. For

λ1 = 195.5 , the eigenvector is obtained by solving the following simultaneous

equations:

⎢ =

⎣ −50 750 − 195.5⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ y ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣0 ⎥⎦

⎡ 4.5085 −50 ⎤ ⎡ x ⎤ ⎡0 ⎤

⎢ −50 554.5085⎥ ⎢ y ⎥ = ⎢0 ⎥

⎣ ⎦⎣ ⎦ ⎣ ⎦

4.5085 x − 50 y = 0

−50 x + 554.5085 y = 0

⎡ x ⎤ ⎡11.0902 ⎤

⎢ y⎥ = ⎢ 1 ⎥ y

⎣ ⎦ ⎣ ⎦

The eigenvector is

G ⎡11.0902 ⎤

u=⎢ ⎥

⎣ 1 ⎦

1

tan θ = = 0.0902

11.0902

θ = 5.15D

3-123

For λ2 = 754.5 , the eigenvector is obtained by solving the following

simultaneous equations:

⎢ =

⎣ −50 750 − 754.5⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ y ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣0 ⎥⎦

⎡ −554.5 −50 ⎤ ⎡ x ⎤ ⎡0 ⎤

⎢ −50 =

⎣ 4.5 ⎥⎦ ⎣⎢ y ⎦⎥ ⎣⎢0 ⎦⎥

−554.5 x − 50 y = 0

−50 x − 4.5 y = 0

⎡ x ⎤ ⎡ −0.0902 ⎤

⎢ y⎥ = ⎢ 1 ⎥ y

⎣ ⎦ ⎣ ⎦

The eigenvector is

G ⎡ −0.0902 ⎤

v=⎢ ⎥

⎣ 1 ⎦

GG

u .v = (11.0902 )( −0.0902 ) − 1 = 0

permeability anisotropy. These are the same results obtained in Example 3.6.

For an isotropic medium, the Darcy velocity vector and the velocity

potential gradient vector are collinear as shown in Figure 3.54. Because the

two vectors lie along the same line with an angle of 180º between them, we

ordinarily do not specify whether the permeability is in the direction of flow or

in the direction of the velocity potential gradient. For this case, the

"directional" permeability in the direction of flow (kdf) is equal to the

3-124

"directional" permeability in the direction of the velocity potential gradient

(kdp) and is calculated in Darcy units as

G

μv

kdf = kdp = (3.258)

∇Φ

Figure 3.54. Collinear relationship between the direction of flow and the

direction of the velocity potential gradient for an isotropic medium.

the velocity potential gradient vector are not collinear as shown in Figure

3.55. The concept of directional permeability seeks to extend the definition of

permeability of an isotropic medium expressed in Eq.(3.258) to an anisotropic

medium. Accordingly, the directional permeability in the direction of flow is

defined in Darcy units by the equation

G

μv

kdf = (3.259)

∇Φ cos α

where ∇Φ cos α is the component of the velocity potential gradient vector that

the direction of the velocity potential gradient is defined in Darcy units by the

equation

3-125

G

μ v cos α

kdp = (3.260)

∇Φ

G

where v cos α is the component of the Darcy velocity vector that is collinear

Figure 3.55. Relationship between the direction of flow and the direction of

the velocity potential gradient in an anisotropic porous medium.

Example 3.8

Calculate the directional permeabilities for the flow field of Example 3.5.

The directional permeability in the direction of flow is calculated with

Eq.(3.259) in oilfield units as

G

μv

kdf =

(0.001127(5.615) ∇Φ cos α

=

(1)(1.2185 ) = 338.96 md

(0.001127(5.615) ( 0.6731) cos (180D − 147.56D )

3-126

The directional permeability in the direction of the velocity potential gradient

is calculated with Eq.(3.260) in oilfield units as

G

μ v cos α

kdp =

(0.001127(5.615) ∇Φ

(1)(1.2185) cos (180D − 147.56D )

= = 241.46 md

(0.001127(5.615) ( 0.6731)

and the principal values of the permeability anisotropy. Let kx and ky be the

principal values of the permeability anisotropy where the x,y coordinates are

the principal axes of the anisotropy in a 2D reservoir. Let kdf be the directional

permeability in the direction of flow (in the direction of the Darcy velocity

vector) that makes an angle θ with the positive x-axis as shown in Figure

3.56. The permeability tensor for this medium in the x,y coordinate system is

⎡kx 0⎤

k ( x, y ) = ⎢ (3.261)

⎣0 k y ⎥⎦

Figure 3.56. Darcy velocity vector in the flow direction that makes an

angle θ with the positive x axis.

3-127

Darcy’s law can be written in the x, y and s directions as

k x ∂Φ

vx = − (3.262)

μ ∂x

k y ∂Φ

vy = − (3.263)

μ ∂y

kdf ∂Φ

vs = − (3.264)

μ ∂s

where s is the flow direction. Figure 3.56 shows the relationships between the

Darcy velocity in the flow direction vs and its x and y components vx and vy.

vx = vs cos θ (3.265)

v y = vs sin θ (3.266)

Eqs. (3.362) and (3.263) give the potential gradients in the x and y directions

as

∂Φ μ

= − vs cos θ (3.267)

∂x kx

∂Φ μ

= − vs sin θ (3.268)

∂y ky

∂Φ ∂Φ dx ∂Φ dy

= + (3.269)

∂s ∂x ds ∂x ds

dx

= cos θ (3.270)

ds

3-128

dy

= sin θ (3.271)

ds

directional permeability in the direction of flow as

1 cos 2 θ sin 2 θ

= + (3.272)

kdf kx ky

Given the principal values of the permeability anisotropy (kx, ky) and the

principal coordinate system (x,y), Eq.(3.272) can be used to calculate the

directional permeability in the flow direction that makes an angle θ with the

positive x-axis.

G

Eq.(3.272) can be put in rectangular coordinates by choosing a vector r

in the s direction (flow direction) and noting that

x = r cos θ (3.273)

y = r sin θ (3.274)

x2

cos 2 θ = (3.275)

r2

y2

sin 2 θ = (3.276)

r2

r 2 x2 y 2

= + (3.277)

kdf k x k y

x2 y 2

1= + (3.278)

kx k y

3-129

or

x2 y2

1= + (3.279)

( ) ( )

2 2

kx ky

k x and k y . Thus, by constructing the permeability ellipse as shown in

for any given flow direction.

permeability in the direction of flow.

For flow 3D, the directional permeability in the direction of flow will be given

by the permeability ellipsoid

x2 y2 z2

1= + + (3.280)

( ) ( ) ( )

2 2 2

kx ky kz

3-130

Let the velocity potential gradient vector make an angle α with the

positive x-axis. It can be shown that the directional permeability in the

direction of the gradient vector is given by

1 cos 2 α sin 2 α

= + (3.281)

⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛1⎞ ⎛ 1⎞

⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟

⎝ kdp ⎠ ⎝ x ⎠ ⎝ k y ⎠

k

x2 y2

1= + (3.282)

⎛1⎞ ⎛ 1⎞

⎜ ⎟ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟

⎝ kx ⎠ ⎝ k y ⎠

or

x2 y2

1= 2

+ 2

(3.283)

⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞

⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎜ ⎟

⎝ kx ⎠ ⎜ ky ⎟

⎝ ⎠

(

with semiaxes 1/ k x ) and (1/ )

k y . The permeability ellipsoid in 3D is

x2 y2 y2

1= 2

+ 2

+ 2

(3.284)

⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞

⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜⎜ k ⎟⎟

⎝ kx ⎠ ⎜ ky ⎟ ⎝ z⎠

⎝ ⎠

( ) (

with semiaxes 1/ k x , 1/ k x ) and (1/ kz .)

In an anisotropic medium, the directional permeability in the direction

of the velocity potential gradient is distinct from the directional permeability

in the direction of flow. Thus, there are two distinct definitions of directional

permeability for an anisotropic medium. It should be noted that principal

values of the permeability anisotropy (kx, ky and kz) are the true permeabilities

in the principal directions (x, y and z). They are also the directional

3-131

permeabilities in the direction of flow and the direction of the potential

gradient because in the principal coordinate system, the Darcy velocity and

the velocity potential gradient are collinear.

(1954) for permeabilities measured around a full-sized core. The measured

permeability data appear to fit a complicated curve. However, when the same

1

data are plotted as k and as shown in Figures 3.59 and 3.60, they fit on

k

ellipses. This observation verifies the tensorial nature of permeability. These

data can be used to identify the principal axes and the principal values of the

permeability anisotropy.

(Data from Scheidegger, 1954).

3-132

Figure 3.59. Permeability ellipse for permeability in the direction of flow

for the data of Figure 3.58.

3-133

Figure 3.60. Permeability ellipse for permeability in the direction of the

velocity potential gradient for the data of Figure 3.58.

3-134

Example 3.9

Calculate and plot the permeability ellipses for the flow field of Example 3.5.

The permeability ellipses are given by Eqs.(3.279) for the flow direction and

(3.283) for the potential gradient direction, where x and y are the principal

axes of the permeability anisotropy. These equations can be adapted for our

purpose as follows:

u2 v2 u2 v2

1= + = +

( k) ( k) ( ) ( )

2 2 2 2

u v 195.5 754.5

and

u2 v2 u2 v2

1= 2

+ 2

= 2

+ 2

⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞

⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟

⎝ ku ⎠ ⎝ kv ⎠ ⎝ 195.5 ⎠ ⎝ 754.5 ⎠

3-135

Figure 3.61. Permeability ellipse for permeability in the direction of flow

for Example 3.9.

3-136

Figure 3.62. Permeability ellipse for permeability in the direction of the

velocity potential gradient for Example 3.9.

If the transverse permeabilities around a full-sized core could be

measured, then the permeability anisotropy of the core could be determined.

Figure 3.63 shows a schematic diagram of an apparatus that can be used to

make the measurements. After a permeability measurement, the sleeve is

rotated to a new angle and the measurement is repeated. Using conformal

mapping, Collins (1961) has derived the following equation for calculating the

transverse permeability from a gas flow experiment (in Darcy units):

Pq1 1μ

k= G (α ) (3.285)

⎛ b⎞

2 PL ⎜ 1 + ⎟ ΔP

⎝ P⎠

3-137

Figure 3.63. Apparatus for measuring transverse permeability of a full-sized

cylindrical core.

where P1 is the inlet pressure, q1 is the gas volumetric flow rate measured at

⎛P +P ⎞

P1, P is the mean pressure ⎜ 1 2 ⎟ , ΔP is the pressure drop between the

⎝ 2 ⎠

inlet and the outlet ( P1 − P2 ) , b is the Klinkenberg parameter, L is the height of

the core, G(α) is a geometric correction factor to account for the complex flow

3-138

⎛θ ⎞

geometry of the gas from inlet to outlet and α is equal to ⎜ ⎟ . Figure 3.64

⎝2⎠

shows the plot of G(α) versus α.

Collins, 1961).

permeability can be made as shown in Figure 3.65. Such a plot can be used

to determine the principal values and the principal directions of the

permeability anisotropy. The permeability tensor of the medium can then be

constructed from this information for any coordinate system.

3-139

Figure 3.65. Polar plot of transverse permeabilities around a core (from

Scheidegger, 1954).

Permeability is used in numerical reservoir simulations to predict

reservoir performance. Permeability (absolute and relative permeability) must

be assigned to every one of the approximately one million grid blocks in a full-

field simulation, often with a full tensor representation. The purpose of this

3-140

section is to present simple examples of how permeability could be used to

predict reservoir performance. We examine the productivity indices of a

horizontal well and a hydraulically fractured well with infinite fracture

conductivity. The analysis shows that a horizontal well and a fractured well

are similar in the manner in which they affect reservoir performance.

Introduction

Horizontal wells are increasingly being drilled for petroleum recovery.

One of the major advantages of a horizontal well over a vertical well is the

larger contact area between a horizontal well and the reservoir compared to a

vertical well in the same reservoir. This larger areal contact can significantly

enhance the productivity of a horizontal well compared to a vertical well

draining the same reservoir volume. However, the productivity of a horizontal

well can be affected significantly by the permeability anisotropy of the

reservoir.

The objectives of this section are: (1) to provide a simple formula for

estimating the productivity index of a horizontal well for single phase flow in

terms of the reservoir permeability and other relevant factors, (2) to compare

the productivities of a horizontal well and a vertical well in the same reservoir

to determine if a horizontal well is superior to a vertical well under the

particular circumstance, and (3) to examine how the permeability anisotropy

of the reservoir affects the productivity of a horizontal well.

The steady state productivity index (PI) for a horizontal well in a

homogeneous and isotropic reservoir is given by Giger et al. (1984) as

3-141

⎛ kL ⎞

2π ⎜

⎝ μ B ⎟⎠

PI H = FD (3.286)

⎡ 2 ⎤

⎢1 + 1 − ⎛⎜ L ⎞⎟ ⎥

L ⎢ ⎝ 2re ⎠ ⎥ ⎛ h ⎞

ln ⎢ ⎥ + ln ⎜ ⎟

h ⎢ ⎛ L ⎞ ⎥ ⎝ 2π rw ⎠

⎢ ⎜ ⎟ ⎥

⎢⎣ ⎝ 2re ⎠

⎥⎦

where

pressure drop

k = effective permeability to oil

L = total length of the horizontal well

μ = oil viscosity

B = oil formation volume factor, reservoir volume/surface volume

h = formation thickness

rw = wellbore radius

Figure 3.66 shows the flow geometry. The horizontal well of length L is located

half-way between the top and the bottom of the reservoir of thickness h. L is

assumed to be small relative to 2re. The units conversion constant, FD, is

given in Table 3.14.

3-142

Figure 3.66: Flow geometry for steady state productivity index equation.

Field

Darcy Oilfield Metric

Dimension Units SI Units Units Units

Distance L cm m ft m

Area L2 cm2 m2 ft2 m2

Pressure ML-1T-2 atm Pa psi MPa

Permeability L2 darcy m2 millidarcy μm2

(md)

Fluid ML-1T-1 cp Pa.s cp mPa.s

Viscosity

Liquid Flow L3T-1 cm3/s m3/s B/D m3/D

Rate

FD 1 1 0.001127 86.4

integration of Darcy’s Law as

3-143

⎛ kh ⎞

2π ⎜

⎝ μ B ⎟⎠

PIV = FD (3.287)

⎛r ⎞

ln ⎜ e ⎟

⎝ rw ⎠

well draining the same reservoir volume is obtained from Eqs.(3.286) and

(3.287) as

⎛r ⎞

ln ⎜ e ⎟

PI H

= FD ⎝ rw ⎠ (3.288)

PIV ⎡ ⎛ L ⎞ ⎤⎥

2

⎢1 + 1− ⎜ ⎟

L ⎢ ⎝ 2re ⎠ ⎥ ⎛ h ⎞

ln ⎢ ⎥ + ln ⎜ ⎟

h ⎢ ⎛ L ⎞ ⎥ ⎝ 2π rw ⎠

⎢ ⎜ ⎟ ⎥

⎢⎣ ⎝ 2re ⎠ ⎥⎦

Note that because the right side of Eq.(3.288) involves ratios of lengths,

Eq.(3.288) is valid in any system of units.

Example 3.10

Given the following data for an isotropic reservoir, calculate (a) the

productivity index for a horizontal well, (b) the productivity index for a vertical

well, and (c) the ratio of the productivity indices of the horizontal and the

vertical wells.

Formation thickness (h) = 40 m

3-144

Oil viscosity (μo) = 5 cp

Oil formation volume factor (B)= 1.2 RB/STB

2π ⎜ ⎟

PI H = 0.001127 ⎝ 5 x1.2 ⎠ = 26.02 STB/D/psi

⎡ 2 ⎤

⎢1 + 1 − ⎛⎜ ⎞ ⎥

500

⎟

500 ⎢ ⎝ 2 x1000 ⎠ ⎥ ⎛ 40 ⎞

ln ⎢ ⎥ + ln ⎜ ⎟

40 ⎛ 500 ⎞ ⎝ 2π x0.12 ⎠

⎢ ⎜ ⎟ ⎥

⎢⎣ ⎝ 2 x1000 ⎠ ⎥⎦

Substituting the numerical values into Eq.(3.287) gives the productivity index

for the vertical well as

⎛ 400 x 40 x3.2808 ⎞

2π ⎜ ⎟

PIV = 0.001127 ⎝ ⎠ = 6.86 STB/D/psi

5 x1.2

⎛ 1000 ⎞

ln ⎜ ⎟

⎝ 0.12 ⎠

PI H 26.02

= = 3.8

PIV 6.86

much higher than that of the vertical well.

Many petroleum reservoirs are anisotropic and have different

permeabilities in the different directions. For example, in a layered reservoir,

the vertical permeability is usually much less than the horizontal

permeability. Also, a reservoir that is intersected by a large number of vertical

3-145

fractures will have a higher vertical permeability than the horizontal

permeability. Permeability anisotropy can have a significant effect on the

productivity of a horizontal well. This effect is examined in this section.

permeabilities kH and kV, respectively. These are the principal values of the

permeability anisotropy and x and z are the principal axes of the anisotropy.

The diffusivity equation for steady state single phase flow for the anisotropic

medium is given by

∂P ∂P

kH + kV 2 = 0 (3.289)

∂x 2

∂z

form that describes the flow in an equivalent isotropic medium having a

permeability k * . The required transformation equations are as follows:

k * = k H kV (3.290)

k*

X =x (3.291)

kH

and

k*

Z=z (3.292)

kV

transformations, Eq.(3.289) becomes

⎛ ∂P ∂P ⎞

k* ⎜ 2 + 2 ⎟ = 0 (3.293)

⎝ ∂X ∂Z ⎠

3-146

⎛ ∂P ∂P ⎞

⎜ 2 + 2 ⎟=0 (3.294)

⎝ ∂X ∂Z ⎠

permeability of k * . Eqs.(3.290) to (3.292) can be used in conjunction with

Eq.(3.286) to calculate the productivity index of a horizontal well in an

anisotropic reservoir as shown in the following example.

Example 3.11

Given the following data for an anisotropic reservoir, calculate (a) the

productivity index for a horizontal well, (b) the productivity index for a vertical

well, and (c) the ratio of the productivity indices of the horizontal and the

vertical wells.

Formation thickness (h) = 40 m

Oil formation volume factor (B) = 1.2 RB/STB

From Eq.(3.290),

k * = 400 x 25 = 100 md

From Eq.(3.291),

100

L* = 500 = 250 m

400

3-147

100

re* = 1000 = 500 m

400

From Eq.(3.292),

100

h* = 40 = 80 m

25

index for the horizontal well in the anisotropic reservoir as

2π ⎜ ⎟

PI H = 0.001127 ⎝ 5 x1.2 ⎠ = 8.71 STB/D/psi

⎡ 2 ⎤

⎢1 + 1 − ⎛⎜

250 ⎞

⎟ ⎥

250 ⎢ ⎝ 2 x500 ⎠ ⎥ ⎛ 80 ⎞

ln ⎢ ⎥ + ln ⎜ ⎟

80 ⎛ 250 ⎞ ⎝ 2π x0.12 ⎠

⎢ ⎜ ⎟ ⎥

⎢⎣ ⎝ 2 x500 ⎠ ⎥⎦

The productivity index for the vertical well in the anisotropic reservoir is given

⎛ 400 x 40 x3.2808 ⎞

2π ⎜ ⎟

PIV = 0.001127 ⎝ ⎠ = 6.86 STB/D/psi

5 x1.2

⎛ 1000 ⎞

ln ⎜ ⎟

⎝ 0.12 ⎠

The ratio of the horizontal to the vertical well productivity indices in the

anisotropic medium is

PI H 8.71

= = 1.27

PIV 6.86

in an anisotropic reservoir in which the vertical permeability is significantly

lower than the horizontal permeability.

3-148

In a naturally fractured reservoir, if the azimuth of the horizontal is

such that it intersects the vertical fractures, then the productivity of the well

will enhanced as shown in the following example.

Example 3.12

A horizontal well has intersected a large number of vertical fractures as

shown in Figure 3.67 such that the vertical permeability is larger than the

horizontal permeability. Given the following data for this anisotropic reservoir,

calculate (a) the productivity index for a horizontal well, (b) the productivity

index for a vertical well, and (c) the ratio of the productivity indices of the

horizontal and the vertical wells.

Formation thickness (h) = 40 m

Oil formation volume factor (B) = 1.2 RB/STB

3-149

Figure 3.67. A horizontal well that intersects vertical fractures.

From Eq.(3.290),

From Eq.(3.291),

565.69

L* = 500 = 594.60 m

400

565.69

re* = 1000 = 1189.21 m

400

From Eq.(3.292),

565.69

h* = 40 = 33.64 m

800

index for the horizontal well in the fractured anisotropic reservoir as

3-150

⎛ 565.69 x594.60 x3.2808 ⎞

2π ⎜ ⎟

PI H = 0.001127 ⎝ 5 x1.2 ⎠ = 32.34 STB/D/psi

⎡ 2 ⎤

⎢1 + 1 − ⎛⎜

594.60 ⎞

⎟ ⎥

594.60 ⎢ ⎝ 2 x1189.21 ⎠ ⎥ ⎛ 33.64 ⎞

ln ⎢ ⎥ + ln ⎜ ⎟

33.64 ⎛ 250 ⎞ ⎝ 2π x0.12 ⎠

⎢ ⎜ ⎟ ⎥

⎢⎣ ⎝ 2 x1189.21 ⎠ ⎥⎦

The productivity index for the vertical well in the anisotropic reservoir is given

⎛ 400 x 40 x3.2808 ⎞

2π ⎜ ⎟

PIV = 0.001127 ⎝ ⎠ = 6.86 STB/D/psi

5 x1.2

⎛ 1000 ⎞

ln ⎜ ⎟

⎝ 0.12 ⎠

The ratio of the horizontal to the vertical well productivity indices in the

anisotropic medium with vertical fractures is

PI H 32.34

= = 4.71

PIV 6.86

an anisotropic reservoir compared to a vertical well is apparent from this

example. Note, however, that if the horizontal well was wrongly drilled parallel

to the fractures instead of normal to the fractures as shown in Figure 3.67,

the productivity of the horizontal well will not be enhanced by the fractures.

The horizontal well placement relative to the fracture azimuth is therefore

important to take advantage of the fractures.

transforms the circular wellbore into an elliptical wellbore with the same cross

sectional area as the circular wellbore. This change in the shape of the

wellbore has been neglected in the calculations in Examples 3.11 and 3.12

because its effect is negligibly small.

3-151

There are more elaborate equations for calculating the productivity

index of a horizontal well in the literature. These more complicated equations

and their associated assumptions may be found in the references.

The productivity index of a vertically fractured well with an infinite

fracture conductivity in a homogeneous and isotropic reservoir as shown in

Figure 3.68 is given by Karcher et al. (1986) as

⎛k L⎞

2π ⎜ H ⎟

PI F = FD ⎝ μB ⎠ (3.295)

⎡ ⎛ L ⎞ ⎤⎥

2

⎢1 + 1− ⎜ ⎟

L ⎢ ⎝ 2re ⎠ ⎥

ln ⎢ ⎥

h ⎢ ⎛ L ⎞ ⎥

⎢ ⎜ ⎟ ⎥

⎢⎣ ⎝ e⎠

2 r

⎥⎦

where L is the total length of the fracture. The assumptions underlying the

above equation are:

FC = k f w (3.296)

3-152

kf w

FCD = (3.297)

kH L f

⎛L⎞

where Lf is the fracture half-length ⎜ ⎟ . A hydraulic fracture behaves as if it

⎝2⎠

has an infinite conductivity for

3-153

⎛ L ⎞

If ⎜ ⎟ 1 , then Eq.(3.295) simplifies to

⎝ 2re ⎠

⎛k h⎞

2π ⎜ H ⎟

PIV = FD ⎝ μB ⎠ (3.299)

⎛ 4r ⎞

ln ⎜ e ⎟

⎝ L ⎠

radius given by

L

rw = (3.300)

4

The ratio of the productivity index of the fracture well to the unfractured well

is given by

⎛r ⎞

ln ⎜ e ⎟

PI F

= FD ⎝ rw ⎠ (3.301)

PIV ⎡ ⎛ L ⎞ ⎤⎥

2

⎢1 + 1− ⎜ ⎟

L ⎢ ⎝ 2re ⎠ ⎥

ln ⎢ ⎥

h ⎢ ⎛ L ⎞ ⎥

⎢ ⎜ ⎟ ⎥

⎢⎣ ⎝ e⎠

2 r

⎥⎦

fractured well compared to the unfractured well.

index of a vertical fracture with an infinite conductivity is similar to but

somewhat higher than the productivity index of a horizontal well. The

⎛ h ⎞

horizontal well has a positive pseudo skin represented by the term ln ⎜ ⎟ in

⎝ 2π rw ⎠

Eq.(3.286) compared to the fractured well. The pseudoskin is caused by the

convergence of flow into the horizontal wellbore whereas the flow into the

fracture occurs over the entire fracture face with no convergence of flow. The

3-154

similarity in the productivity index equations for a fracture and a horizontal

well indicates that fracturing a vertical well is an alternative to drilling a

horizontal well.

NOMENCLATURE

A = cross sectional area in the flow direction

Ai = Area of bed i

AT = total area

b = Klinkenberg empirical constant dependent on rock and gas

d = core diameter

B = oil formation volume factor

Bg = gas formation volume factor

cf = compressibility of porous medium

ct = total compressibility

C = wellbore storage coefficient

CD = dimensionless wellbore storage coefficient

D = non-Darcy coefficient

Dp = grain diameter, mean grain diameter

Ei = exponential integral function

f(δ) = probability density function for pore diameter for a bundle of

capillary tubes model

F = formation resisitivity factor

FC = fracture conductivity

FCD= dimensionless fracture conductivity

g = gravitational acceleration

G(α) = geometric factor for calculating transverse permeability of a

cylindrical porous medium

h = pay thickness, hydraulic head

hi = thickness of bed i

K = hydraulic conductivity

k = absolute permeability of the medium

kdf = directional permeability in the direction of flow

3-155

kdp = directional permeability in the direction of the velocity potential

gradient

ki = permeability of bed i

k = permeability tensor, average permeability

kij = individual entries in the permeability tensor

kg = measured gas permeability

kL = permeability to liquid (absolute permeability of medium)

kor = permeability to nonwetting phase at irreducible wetting phase

saturation

koτ = Kozeny constant

kx, ky, kz = principal values of permeability anisotropy where xyz is the

principal coordinate system

ku, kv, kw = principal values of permeability anisotropy where uvw is the

principal coordinate system

L = length

Li = length of bed i

Le = tortuous length of flow path

ln = natural logarithm (log to base e)

log = log to base 10

M = real gas potential or real gas pseudo pressure

P = pressure

PD = dimensionless pressure

PD' = dimensionless welltest derivative function

Pi = initial reservoir pressure

P* = extrapolated pressure from a Horner plot

Psc = reference pressure

Pe = pressure at external radius

Pw = pressure at the wellbore

PwD= dimensionless wellbore pressure

PwD = dimensionless wellbore pressure in Laplace space

'

PwD = Calculus derivative of dimensionless wellbore pressure in Laplace

space

3-156

Pwf = flowing bottomhole pressure

Pws = shut-in bottomhole pressure

P1 = inlet pressure

P2 = outlet pressure

⎛P +P ⎞

P = mean pressure ⎜ 1 2 ⎟

⎝ 2 ⎠

dP

= pressure gradient

ds

PI = productivity index

PIH = productivity index of a horizontal well

PIV = productivity index of a vertical well

q = volumetric flowrate

qsf = sandface rate

qsc = volumetric rate at a reference pressure, Psc

qT = total volumetric flow rate

r = radial distance from the wellbore

rD = dimensionless radius

re = external drainage radius

rH = hydraulic radius

ri = radius of bed i

rinv = radius of investigation of a welltest

ro = resistance of a porous medium fully saturated with water

rw = resistance of water

rw = wellbore radius

Re = Reynolds Number

Ro = resistivity of a porous medium fully saturated with water

Rw = resistivity of water

s = cartesian coordinate in the flow direction.

S = skin factor

S = storativity

S = surface area per unit bulk volume (specific surface area)

3-157

Sp = surface area per unit pore volume (specific surface area)

Ss = surface area per unit grain volume (specific surface area)

Swirr = irreducible wetting phase saturation

S* = mechanical skin facor

t = time

tD = dimensionless time

tp = producing time before shut-in

T = absolute temperature

T = transmissibility

Tsc = reference temperature

G

v = flux vector, Darcy velocity vector

vx, vy, vz = components of Darcy velocity in the xyz Cartesian coordinate

system.

vu, vv, vw = components of Darcy velocity in the uvw Cartesian coordinate

system.

w = fracture width

z = height above (or below) an arbitrary datum

z = Cartesian coordinate in the vertical direction

Z = gas Z-factor

β = non-darcy velocity coefficient

ρ = fluid density.

μ = viscosity

φ = porosity, fraction

τ = tortuosity

γ = liquid specific gravity

Φ = velocity flow potential function

Ψ = pressure head

∇ = gradient operator

ΔP = pressure change

ΔP' = welltest derivative function

Δt = shut-in time

Δte = effective shut-in time

3-158

Δh = positive difference in the hydraulic heads at points 1 and

2.

ΔL = positive length of the porous medium between points 1

and 2 in the flow direction.

REFEREENCES

Amyx, J.W., Bass, D.M., Jr. and Whiting, R.L. : Petroleum Reservoir

Engineering, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1960.

Anderson, G. : Coring and Core Analysis Handbook, Petroleum Publishing

Company, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 1975.

Archer, J.S. and Wall, C.G. : Petroleum Engineering, Graham & Trotman,

London, England, 1986.

Archie, G.E. :“The Electrical Resistivity Log as an Aid in Determining Some

Reservoir Characteristics,” Trans. AIME (1942) 146, 54-62.

Archie, G.E. :“Introduction to Petrophysics of Reservoir Rocks,” AAPG Bull.,

Vol. 34, No. 5 (May 1950) 943-961.

Babu, D.K. and Odeh, A.S. : "Productivity of a Horizontal Well," SPE Reservoir

Engineering (November, 1989) 417-421.

Bear, J. : Dynamics of Fluids in Porous Media, Elsevier, New York, 1972.

Berg, R.R. : “Method for Determining Permeability from Reservoir Rocks,”

Trans., Gulf Coast Assoc. of Geol. Soc., Vol. XX (1970) 303-335.

Bradley, H.B. (Editor-in-Chief) : Petroleum Engineering Handbook, SPE,

Richardson, Texas, 1987.

Butler, R.M. : Horizontal Wells for the Recovery of Oil, Gas and Bitumen,

Petroleum Society, Canadian Inst. Min., Met. and Pet., Calgary, 1994.

Carslaw, H.S. and Jaeger, J.C. : Conduction of Heat in Solids, 2nd edition,

Clarendon Press, Oxford (1959).

Carman, P.C. : "Fluid Flow Through A Granular Bed,” Trans. Inst. Chem. Eng.

London (1937) 15, 150-156.

Carman, P.C. : "Determination of the Specific Surface of Powders,” J. Soc.

Chem. Indus (1938) 57, 225-234.

Carpenter, C.B. and Spencer, G.B. : “Measurements of the Compressibility of

Consolidated Oil-Bearing Sandstones,” RI 3540, USBM (Oct. 1940).

Chilingar, G.V.: “Relationship Between Porosity, Permeability and Grain Size

Distribution of Sands and Sandstones,” Proceedings of the Sixth

International Sedimentological Congress, The Netherlands and Belgium,

3-159

1963, Deltaic and Shallow Marine Deposits, L.M.J.U van Straatan, Ed.,

Elsevier, New York, 72‐75.

Clarke, R.H. :"Reservoir Properties of Conglomerates and Conglomeratic

Sandstones," AAPG Bulletin, Vol. 63 (1979) 799-809.

Collins, R.E. : Flow of Fluids Through Porous Materials, Van Nostrand

Reinhold Company, 1961. Reprinted by the Petroleum Publishing

Company, 1976. Reprinted by Research & Engineering Consultants

Inc., 1990.

Core Laboratories Inc. : Special Core Analysis, 1976.

Corey, A.T. : Mechanics of Heterogeneous Fluids in Porous Media, Water

Resources Publications, Fort Collins, Colorado, 1977.

Cosse, R. : Basics of Reservoir Engineering, Editions Technip, Paris, 1993.

De Boodt, M.F. and Kirkham, D. : "Anisotropy and Measurement of Air

Permeability of Soil Clods," Soil Sci., Vol. 76 (1953) 127-313.

Dobrynin, V.M. : "The Effect of Overburden Pressure on Some Properties of

Sandstones,” Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (Dec. 1962) 360-366.

Dullien, F.A.L. : Porous Media - Fluid Transport and Pore Structure, Academic

Press, New York, 1979.

Firoozabadi, A. and Katz, D.L. : "An Aanlysis of High Velocity Gas Flow

Through Porous Media," JPT (Feb. 1979) 221.

Freeze, R.A. and Cherry, J.A. : Goundwater, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs,

1979.

Giger, F.M., Reiss, L.H. and Jourdan, A.P. : "The Reservoir Engineering

Aspects of Horizontal Wells," paper SPE 13024, presented at the 59th

SPE Annual Technical Meeting, Dallas, Texas, September 16-19, 1984.

Gilman, J.R. and Jargon, J.R. : "Evaluating Horizontal Versus Vertical Well

Performance," World Oil (April, 1992) 67-72.

Gilman, J.R. and Jargon, J.R. : "Evaluating Horizontal Versus Vertical Well

Performance: Part 2," World Oil (June, 1992) 55-60.

Goode, P.A. and Kuchuk, F.J. : "Inflow Performance for Horizontal Wells," SPE

Reservoir Engineering (August, 1991) 319-323.

Hutta, J.J. and Griffiths, : "Directional Permeability of Sandstones: A Test

Technique," Producers Monthly, Nov. 26, Vol.34 and Oct.24, Vol. 31,

1955.

Jennings, H.J. : “How to Handle and Process Soft and Unconsolidated Cores,”

World Oil (June 1965) 116-119.

3-160

Johnson, W.E. and Hughes, R.V.: "Directional Permeability Measurements

and their Significance," Producers Monthly, No. 1, Vol. 18 (November

1948) 17-25.

Joshi, S. D. : "A Review of Horizontal Well and Drainhole Technology," paper

SPE 16868, presented at the 62nd SPE Annual Technical Meeting,

Dallas, Texas, September 27-30, 1987.

Joshi, S. D. : "Production Forecasting Methods for Horizontal Wells," paper

SPE 17580, presented at the SPE International Meeting on Petroleum

Engineering, Tianjin, China, November 1-4, 1988.

Joshi, S. D. : Horizontal Well Technology, PennWell Publishing Co., Tulsa,

1991.

Karcher, B.J., Giger, F.M. and Combe, J. : "Some Practical Formulas to

Predict Horizontal Well Behavior," paper SPE 15430, presented at the

61st SPE Annual Technical Meeting,New Orleans, LA, October 5-8,

1986.

Keelan, D.K. : "A Critical Review of Core Analysis Techniques” The Jour. Can.

Pet. Tech. (April-June 1972) 42-55.

Klinkenberg, L.J. : “The Permeability of Porous Media to Liquids and Gases,”

Drilling and Production Practices, American Petroleum Institute (1941)

200.

Krumbein, W.C. and Monk, G.D. : “Permeability as a Function of the Size

Parameters of Unconsolidated Sand,” Amer. Int. Mining and Met. Tech.

Pub. 1492, 1942.

Kuchuk, F.J., Goode, P.A., Brice, B.W., Sherrard, D.W. and Thambynayagam,

R.K.M.: "Pressure Transient Analysis and Inflow Performance for

Horizontal Wells," paper SPE 18300, presented at the 63rd SPE Annual

Technical Meeting, Houston, Texas, October 2-5, 1988.

Leva, M., Weintraub, M., Grummer, M. Pollchick, M. and Storch, H.H. : "Fluid

Flow Through Packed and Packed and Fluidized Systems," US Bureau

of Mines Bull. No. 504, 1951.

Maasland, M. and Kirkham, D. : "Theory and Measurement of Anisotropic Air

Permeability in Soil Clods," Proc. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer., No. 4, Vol. 19

(1955) 395-400.

Mayer-Gurr, A. : Petroleum Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1976.

Monicard, R.P. : Properties of Reservoir Rocks, Gulf Publishing Company,

Houston, TX, 1980.

Nelson, P.H. :”Permeability-Porosity Relationships in Sedimentary Rocks,” The

Log Analyst (May-June 1994) 38-62.

3-161

Ozkan, E. : "Performance of Horizontal Wells," PhD Dissertation, University of

Tulsa, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 1988.

Peters, E.J. : Stability Theory and Viscous Fingering in Porous Media, PhD

Dissertation, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada,

January 1979.

Peters, E.J. and Afzal, N. : “Characterization of Heterogeneities in Permeable

Media with Computed Tomography Imaging,” Journal of Petroleum

Science and Engineering, 7, No. 3/4, (May 1992) 283-296.

Pirson, S.J. : Oil Reservoir Engineering, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New

York, 1958.

Poston, S.W., Ysreal, S.C., Hossain, A.K.M.S., Montgomery, E.F., III, and

Ramey, H.J., Jr. : “The Effect of Temperature on Irreducible Water

Saturation and Relative Permeability of Unconsolidated Sands,” Soc.

Pet. Eng. J. (June 1970) 171-180; Trans., AIME (1970) 249.

Richardson, J.G. : “Flow Through Porous Media,” Section 16, Handbook of

Fluid Dynamics, Edited by V.I. Streeter, McGraw-Hill Book Company,

Inc., New York, 1961.

Rose, H.E. : “ An Investigation into the the Laws of Flow of Fluids Through

Granular Material,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. (1945) 153, 141-148.

Ryder, H.M. : "Permeability, Absolute, Effective, Measured” World Oil (May

1948) 173-177.

Scheidegger, A.E. : The Physics of Flow Through Porous Media, University of

Toronto Press, Toronto, 1960.

Stehfest, H. : “Algorithm 368, Numerical Inverse of Laplace Transforms,” D-5,

Communications of the ACM, Vol. 13, No.1 (1970) 47- 48.

Vose, D. : Quantitative Risk Analysis: A Guide to Monte Carlo Simulation

Modeling, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1998.

Winsauer, W.O., Shearin, H.M., Jr., Masson, P.H. and Williams, M. :

"Resistivity of Brine-Saturated Sands in Relation to Pore Geometry,"

AAPG Bull., Vol. 36, No. 2 (Feb. 1952) 253-277.

Wyllie, M.R.J. and Spangler, M.B. : "Application of Electrical Resistivity

Measurements to Problems of Fluid Flow in Porous Media,” AAPG Bull.,

Vol. 36, No. 2 (Feb. 1952) 359-403.

Wyllie, M.R.J. and Gregory, A.R.: "Fluid Flow Through Unconsolidated Porous

Aggregates” Industrial and Engineering Chem. Vol. 47 (1955) 1379-1388.

3-162

CHAPTER 4

HETEROGENEITY

4.1 INTRODUCTION

often anisotropic in nature. This means that the petrophysical properties

of interest such as permeability, porosity, fluid saturation, lithology and

others vary in space both vertically and laterally. Evidence of

heterogeneity was seen in the results of the core analysis presented in

Table 2.2. It was found that the permeability, porosity and fluid

saturations varied from top to bottom within the same reservoir.

Variability of rock and fluid properties is a reality that must be dealt with

in petroleum resource assessment and reservoir performance prediction.

through numerical simulation. In the construction of the simulation

model, every one of the nearly one million grid blocks requires the

assignment of porosity, absolute permeability, relative permeability,

capillary pressure and various fluid properties. How can one generate the

values of the rock and fluid properties to be used in the simulation

model? One may assume that the reservoir is homogeneous and use the

same value of each property in every grid block. Such a simulation model

4-1

ignores the geology of the reservoir and will consequently yield

misleading and optimistic results. One may resort to populating the grid

blocks with property values from a random number generator. This

model also ignores the geology of the reservoir and the general

observation that data from nearby locations tend to be similar whereas

data from locations that are far apart tend to be dissimilar. In other

words, petrophysical data tend to be correlated. Of course, some of these

properties can be estimated from core analysis and well logs. However,

because wells sample only a very minute volume of the reservoir, the

properties in the bulk of the reservoir remain unknown and must be

estimated by other means. There is therefore a need to devise a rational

way to estimate the petrophysical properties for the reservoir simulation

model.

measurements have been made can be accomplished with a new type of

statistics known as geostatistics (compare with geochemistry and

geophysics). Geostatistics is the practical applications of the Theory of

Regionalized Variables developed by Georges Matheron in Fontainebleau.

The main difference between ordinary statistics and geostatistics is that

ordinary statistics is typically based on random, independent and

uncorrelated data whereas geostatistics is based on random and spatially

correlated data.

Before estimating the values of the properties of the heterogeneous

reservoir, one must first characterize the heterogeneity from the samples

of the property that have been collected from core analysis, well logs and

other sources. After characterizing the nature of the heterogeneity, an

4–2

estimation is undertaken that honors both the measured data (samples)

and the structure of the heterogeneity observed from the samples.

VARIABILITY (HETEROGENEITY)

Mean

The mean (arithmetic mean) is the best known measure of central

tendency. Given N sample data Φ1 , Φ 2 , Φ 3 ,..., Φ N , the mean (arithmetic

i= N

1

Φ=

N

∑Φ

i =1

i (4.1)

Geometric Mean

The geometric mean is a better measure of central tendency for

data from a log normal distribution than the arithmetic mean. The

geometric mean is defined as

i= N

1

ln Φ geom =

N

∑ ln Φ

i =1

i (4.2)

Median

The median of a sample data set is found by determining that

value of Φ i which has equal number of values above it and below it. To

4-3

descending) order. If the number of data N is odd, then the median is

determined from the sorted data as

If N is even, then the mean of the two most central values is used to

calculate the median as

Φ median =

1

2

(

Φ N / 2 + Φ ( N / 2)+1 ) for N even (4.5)

Mode

The mode of a probability distribution p ( Φ ) is the value of Φ at

primarily when there is a single sharp maximum, in which case the mode

estimates the central value. Sometimes, a distribution is bimodal, with

two relative maxima. In such a case, one may wish to know the two

modes individually. For a bimodal distribution, the mean and median are

not very useful as measures of central tendency.

Variance

The most useful measure of variability around the central value is

the variance defined for sample data as

2

1 i= N

Var ( Φ1...Φ N ) = s = 2

∑ ( Φi − Φ )

N − 1 i =1

(4.6)

The standard deviation is the positive square root of the variance and is

given by

4–4

s ( Φ1...Φ N ) = Var ( Φ1...Φ N ) (4.7)

A measure of permeability variability that is widely used in the

petroleum industry is the Dykstra-Parsons (1950) coefficient of variation,

V. This coefficient of variation is determined based on the assumption

that permeability data are drawn from a log normal distribution. The

calculation of the Dykstra-Parsons coefficient of permeability variation

involves plotting the frequency distribution of the permeability data on a

log-normal probability graph paper. This is done by arranging the

permeability values in descending order and then calculating for each

permeability, the percent of the samples with permeabilities greater than

or equal to that value. Table 4.1 shows an example calculation. Note

that to avoid values of 0 or 100%, which are not present on the

probability scale, the percent greater than or equal to value is normalized

by N+1, where N is the number of samples.

shown in Figure 4.1. Normally, such a plot gives a straight line, at least

when the central portion is used. The midpoint of the permeability

distribution ( % ≥ 50 ) is the median permeability. The Dykstra-Parsons

k50 − k84.1

V= (4.8)

k50

4-5

standard deviation from the mean. For the data of Table 4.1 and Figure

4.1,

N+1 = 20

k50 = 17.8 md

k84.1 = 6.1 md

V= = = 0.66

k50 17.8

(md)

100 1 5

65 2 10

50 3 15

32 4 20

29 5 25

27

27 7 35

23

23 9 45

18 10 50

17

17 12 60

16 13 65

8 14 70

7

7 16 80

6 17 85

4 18 90

1 19 95

4–6

Figure 4.1. Log normal permeability distribution.

that ranges from 0 to 1. A homogeneous reservoir has a coefficient of

permeability variation that approaches 0 whereas an extremely

heterogeneous reservoir has a coefficient of permeability variation that

approaches 1. Petroleum reservoirs typically have Dykstra-Parsons

coefficients of permeability variation between 0.5 and 0.9. Figure 4.2

shows theoretical log normal permeability distributions and their

corresponding Dykstra-Parsons coefficients.

4-7

Figure 4.2. Theoretical log normal permeability distributions and their

corresponding Dykstra-Parsons coefficients (Carlson, 2003).

Lorenz Coefficient

Another measure of heterogeneity used in the petroleum industry

is the Lorenz coefficient . The Lorenz coefficient of variation is obtained

by plotting a graph of cumulative kh versus cumulative φh, sometimes

called a flow capacity plot. Table 4.2 shows an example calculation

whereas Figure 4.3 shows the plot of cumulative kh versus cumulative

φh for determining the Lorenz coefficient. The Lorenz coefficient is

defined from Figure 4.2 as

area ABCA

Lorenz Coefficient = (4.9)

area ADCA

4–8

where ABCA is the cross-hatched area in the figure and ADCA is the

triangle below the cross-hatched area. From Figure 4.2, the Lorenz

coefficient of the data of Table 4.2 is about 0.65.

Unfortunately, the Lorenz coefficient is not a unique measure of reservoir

heterogeneity. Several different permeability distributions can give the

same value of Lorenz coefficient. For log-normal permeability

distribtutions, the Lorenz coefficient is very similar to the Dykstra-

Parsons coefficient of permeability variation.

h

(ft) (md) (fraction) (md-ft) (md-ft) (ft) (ft)

0.000 0.000

8.1 4388 0.22 35542. 35542. 0.399 1.782 1.782 0.062

8 8

2.0 2640 0.22 5280.0 40822. 0.459 0.440 2.222 0.078

8

3.7 2543 0.21 9409.1 50231. 0.564 0.777 2.999 0.105

9

5.0 1579 0.20 7895.0 58126. 0.653 1.000 3.999 0.140

9

4.0 930 0.20 3720.0 61846. 0.695 0.800 4.799 0.168

9

9.6 662 0.19 6355.2 68202. 0.766 1.824 6.623 0.232

1

6.4 441 0.20 2822.4 71024. 0.798 1.280 7.903 0.277

5

2.7 402 0.16 1085.4 72109. 0.810 0.432 8.335 0.292

9

4-9

5.6 401 0.20 2245.6 74355. 0.836 1.120 9.455 0.331

5

8.0 378 0.18 3024.0 77379. 0.870 1.440 10.895 0.381

5

4.0 267 0.21 1068.0 78447. 0.882 0.840 11.735 0.411

5

15.1 250 0.21 3775.0 82222. 0.924 3.171 14.906 0.522

5

5.9 249 0.17 1469.1 83691. 0.940 1.003 15.909 0.557

6

2.8 232 0.22 649.6 84341. 0.948 0.616 16.525 0.578

2

7.4 200 0.17 1480.0 85821. 0.964 1.258 17.783 0.622

2

9.2 136 0.20 1251.2 87072. 0.978 1.840 19.623 0.687

4

7.6 98 0.19 744.8 87817. 0.987 1.444 21.067 0.737

2

10.1 47 0.19 474.7 88291. 0.992 1.919 22.986 0.804

9

9.6 30 0.18 288.0 88579. 0.995 1.728 24.714 0.865

9

3.5 28 0.17 98.0 88677. 0.997 0.595 25.309 0.886

9

6.6 16 0.16 105.6 88783. 0.998 1.056 26.365 0.923

5

15.8 13 0.14 205.4 88988. 1.000 2.212 28.577 1.000

9

Sumkh = 88988. Sumφh = 28.577

9

4–10

Figure 4.3. Flow capacity distribution.

quantitative measures of the permeability variation, they provide no

information on the spatial relationship between the permeability values.

It is well known that permeability and other petrophysical properties of

reservoir rocks are not randomly distributed but are spatially correlated.

There is a need for other measures of heterogeneity that take into

account the spatial correlation of the data.

property, Φ , measured at equally spaced coordinates in two linear

reservoirs A and B. Which of the two reservoirs is more heterogeneous

with respect to the property Φ ? Most professionals will say that reservoir

4-11

A is more heterogeneous than reservoir B. However, a careful

examination of the numerical values of the property shows them to be

the same in both reservoirs. For both reservoirs, the mean of Φ is 5.0,

the variance is 6.67 and the standard deviation is 2.58. Thus, by the

usual measure of ordinary statistics, the degree of heterogeneity of the

two reservoirs is the same. Yet, there is something about the two

reservoirs that leads one to conclude that A is more heterogeneous than

B. It is the spatial arrangement of the values of the property relative to

each that leads one to conclude that A is more heterogeneous than B. In

reservoir A, the property appears to be randomly distributed in space

whereas in reservoir B, it is distributed in an orderly and continuous

fashion. Thus, to fully characterize heterogeneity, the spatial correlation

structure of the property must be taken into account.

spatial continuity of the data from a heterogeneous reservoir. These are

(1) the variogram (semi-variogram), (2) the covariance function and (3)

the correlation coefficient function.

4–12

Figure 4.4. Spatial distribution of a petrophysical property in two linear

reservoirs A and B.

4-13

4.3.1. Variogram

Definition

The variogram is a function obtained by plotting the semivariance

of the differences between the properties at two locations separated by a

distance h versus h. The variogram is defined as

∑ ⎡⎣Φ ( x ) − Φ ( x + h )⎤⎦

2

Var ⎡⎣Φ ( x ) − Φ ( x + h ) ⎤⎦

γ (h) = = (4.10)

2 2Nh

where

γ = semivariance

h = lag distance

with increasing lag distance until a certain distance is reached at which

it levels off and becomes constant. The lag distance at which the

variogram levels off (a in the figure) is defined as the correlation length,

4–14

or the range of influence, and the value of the variogram at this point is

called the sill. The sill is the semivariance of the entire data set. Thus,

hidden in the variogram are the variance and standard deviation of the

data set, the usual measures of heterogeneity of ordinary statistics. If the

correlation length is zero, the spatial distribution of the property is fully

random. With increasing correlation length, the range of influence of one

value on its neighbors increases up to the correlation length. At lag

distances beyond the correlation length, the data are no longer

correlated.

(anisotropy again), and in general, will be different in different directions.

4-15

Sometimes, the variogram has a discontinuity at the origin as shown in

Figure 4.5. The value of the variogram at the discontinuity (Co in the

figure) is known as the nugget effect, a term that originates from the

mining industry which was the first industry to widely apply geostatistics

to estimate ore grade.

effect, a sill or even a correlation length. Variograms come in different

shapes depending on the underlying geological structure of the

heterogeneity. Figure 4.5 was presented as one possible variogram shape

to introduce the general features of the function and the associated

nomenclature.

spatial continuity of the data from a heterogeneous reservoir, let us

compare the variograms for reservoirs A and B as shown in Figure 4.6.

The variogram for reservoir A is cyclical with a constant average value of

about 5.5 for all lag distances. The constant average value can be viewed

as a pure nugget effect, which indicates that the values of the property

are randomly distributed in space as is apparent from Figure 4.4. By

contrast, the variogram for reservoir B is continuous for all lag distances,

an indication of the orderly and continuous spatial distribution of the

property as evident in Figure 4.4. Therefore, the variogram (and later the

covariance and correlation functions) does capture the spatial continuity

of the data.

4–16

Figure 4.6. Comparison of the variograms for reservoirs A and B of Figure

4.4.

Let us consider the simple case of a linear reservoir in which the

property Φ is measured at 10 equally spaced locations with a distance of

Δx between each datum. Let the values of the property at locations 1

through 10 be Φ1 , Φ 2 , Φ 3 ,..., Φ10 . To compute the semivariance at each lag

distance as shown in Table 4.3. Using the entries in the table, the

semivariances can easily be calculated with Eq.(4.10). In fact, the

semivariance for h = 0 can be obtained by inspection as γ(0) = 0. The

4-17

semivariance at h = 0 is always equal to 0 even if the variogram has a

nugget effect.

Sample Data

Nh = 10 Nh = 9 Nh = 8 Nh = 7 Nh = 6 Nh = 5

Φ(x Φ(x Φ(x Φ(x

) Φ (x+h) ) Φ (x+h) ) Φ (x+h) ) Φ (x+h) Φ(x) Φ (x+h) Φ(x) Φ (x+h)

Φ1 Φ1 Φ1 Φ2 Φ1 Φ3 Φ1 Φ4 Φ1 Φ5 Φ1 Φ6

Φ2 Φ2 Φ2 Φ3 Φ2 Φ4 Φ2 Φ5 Φ2 Φ6 Φ2 Φ7

Φ3 Φ3 Φ3 Φ4 Φ3 Φ5 Φ3 Φ6 Φ3 Φ7 Φ3 Φ8

Φ4 Φ4 Φ4 Φ5 Φ4 Φ6 Φ4 Φ7 Φ4 Φ8 Φ4 Φ9

Φ5 Φ5 Φ5 Φ6 Φ5 Φ7 Φ5 Φ8 Φ5 Φ9 Φ5 Φ10

Φ6 Φ6 Φ6 Φ7 Φ6 Φ8 Φ6 Φ9 Φ6 Φ10

Φ7 Φ7 Φ7 Φ8 Φ7 Φ9 Φ7 Φ10

Φ8 Φ8 Φ8 Φ9 Φ8 Φ10

Φ9 Φ9 Φ9 Φ10

Φ10 Φ10

semivariances and the variogram.

typically truncated beyond h = NΔx /2.

4–18

3. The variogram can be computed even for irregularly spaced data.

In this case, a different computational strategy must be used. Here

is one possible algorithm. Consider the non-uniformly distributed

data at ten locations in a linear reservoir as shown in Figure 4.7. If

there are N data points, there will be NC2 data pairs in the set

where NC2 is the combination of N things taken 2 at a time and is

given by

N! N ( N − 1)

C2 = = (4.11)

N

( N − 2 )!2! 2

For 10 data points, there will be 45 data pairs. The first task is to

compute and store the lag distances, hij, and the corresponding

(Φ −Φj)

2

i

values of for all the data pairs. The algorithm is as

2

follows:

number of data pairs. Let these be H(M) and B(M) where M is

the number of data pairs as determined from Eq.(4.11).

following data pairs:

( Φ − Φ1 )

2

x2 − x1 , 2

2

( Φ − Φ1 )

2

x3 − x1 , 3

2

...

( Φ − Φ1 )

2

x10 − x1 , 10

2

4-19

Figure 4.7. Irregularly spaced data.

number is stored in array B.

following data in the arrays

4–20

(Φ − Φ2 )

2

x3 − x2 , 3

2

(Φ − Φ2 )

2

x4 − x2 , 4

2

...

(Φ − Φ2 )

2

x10 − x2 , 10

2

5. Eliminate Φ 2 from the data set to avoid duplication.

location in the manner described above until the last data

pair is added to the array. The last data pair for our example

will be

( Φ − Φ9 )

2

x10 − x9 , 10

2

contains the lag distances, hij, that were computed as

xi − x j . Such a scatter plot is shown in Figure 4.8.

Figure 4.8. For each bin, compute and plot

1 ( Φi − Φ j )

2

1

∑

n n 2

versus ∑ hij

n n

be different for each bin. In constructing the bins, there

should be enough data points in each bin to prevent the

4-21

variogram from fluctuating excessively. Several bin sizes

may be tried to determine the optimum bin sizes.

Figure 4.8.

4–22

4. If there is an underlying trend in the data, the trend should be

subtracted from the data before computing the variogram. For

example, the following data set from a linear reservoir C has an

underlying trend or drift of the form Φ trend = 1 + x :

3 6 9 12 15 15 14 13 12

This data set is presented in Figure 4.9. This trend or drift should

be subtracted from the data before the variogram is computed.

Figure 4.10 compares the variograms for reservoir C with and

without the underlying trend or drift. The variogram with the drift

is an ever increasing function of h because of the underlying trend

and will never reach the sill, whereas after removing the drift, the

resulting variogram is lower and reaches the sill at h = 4 km. This

is the true experimental variogram for reservoir C. In this example,

after subtracting the drift, the resulting distribution is the same as

in reservoir B. Thus, the true variogram for reservoir C is the same

as for reservoir B.

skipped over. Resist the temptation to interpolate and fill in the

missing data. Table 4.4 shows a data set in which data are

missing from location 7. Calculate the semivariance of the

permeability (NOT the natural log of permeability) at lag distances

of 1 foot and 2 feet. Start your calculations from the top of the

reservoir and work your way down.

4-23

Figure 4.9. Spatial distribution of a petrophysical property in a linear

reservoir C with an underlying trend or drift.

Figure 4.10. Variograms for reservoir C with and without the underlying

trend or drift.

4–24

Table 4.4. Porosity and Permeability Distributions with Missing Data.

e y y

Depth

(ft) (%) (md)

1 20 93

2 16.3 18

3 9.7 8.4

4 16.2 21

5 14.9 10

6 12.7 1.7

7

8 5.5 25

9 5.8 17

10 6.5 4.8

11 4.7 22

12 7.3 5.6

computed using the basic method outlined for 1D data. In this

case, the variogram should be computed in several directions to

reveal any anisotropy that may be present. Figure 4.11 shows the

distribution of a petrophysical property in a 2D reservoir. In this

case, variograms should be computed in the following directions:

N-S, E-W, NE-SW and NW-SE.

4-25

Figure 4.11. Distribution of a petrophysical property in a two-

dimensional reservoir.

7. Unless you are already familiar with the variogram, you may not

see what it has to do with spatial correlation of the data. We can

see that the entries in Table 4.3 have a lot to do with spatial

correlation by plotting the scatter diagrams of Φ(x+h) versus Φ(x)

for each value of h. For h = 0, Φ(x+h) and Φ(x) are perfectly

correlated and the data will follow the 45º line on the scatter plot

as shown in Figure 4.12. As h increases, the cloud of data points

scattered about the 45º line increases, indicating less and less

correlation between Φ(x+h) and Φ(x) as shown in Figures 4.13 and

4.14.

4–26

Figure 4.12. Scatter plot of Φ(x+h) versus Φ(x) for h = 0 km for reservoir

B.

Figure 4.13. Scatter plot of Φ(x+h) versus Φ(x) for h = 1 km for reservoir

B.

4-27

Figure 4.14. Scatter plot of Φ(x+h) versus Φ(x) for h = 3 km for reservoir

B.

The scatter plot of Φ(x+h) versus Φ(x) at a fixed h can be used to

derive the physical meaning of the variogram. Consider the scatter plot

shown in Figure 4.15. The distance d from a datum point to the 45º line

is given by

⎡ Φ ( x + h ) − Φ ( x ) ⎤⎦

d = ⎡⎣ Φ ( x + h ) − Φ ( x ) ⎤⎦ cos 45D = ⎣ (4.12)

2

⎡Φ ( x + h ) − Φ ( x ) ⎤⎦

2

d = ⎡⎣ Φ ( x + h ) − Φ ( x ) ⎤⎦ cos 45 = ⎣

2 D

2 2

(4.13)

2

4–28

{ }= ∑ ⎣⎡Φ ( x + h ) − Φ ( x )⎦⎤

2

E ⎡⎣ Φ ( x + h ) − Φ ( x ) ⎤⎦

2

E (d 2 ) = = γ ( h) (4.14)

2 2Nh

Thus, the variogram is the mean of d2 about the 45º line at each lag

distance as a function of the lag distance h.

Variogram Models

The variogram is a means to an end not an end in itself. The

variogram is used to quantify the correlation structure of the variable of

interest for the purpose of estimation and conditional simulation. The

variogram of the sample data is known as the experimental variogram.

After computing the experimental variogram, a smooth theoretical

4-29

variogram model is usually fitted to the experimental variogram and the

model is then used for estimation. As will be shown later, the estimation

process involves the solution of a set of linear simultaneous algebraic

equations, whose coefficients are derived from the variogram. Unless the

variogram is well behaved, the simultaneous equations may not have a

solution. Hence, the need to fit a smooth and well behaved theoretical

model to the rough experimental variogram for the purpose of estimation.

Popular variogram models include (1) the spherical model, (2) the

exponential model, (3) the guassian model, (4) the linear model, (5) the

generalized linear model, (6) the nugget effect model, and (7) the cardinal

sine model (also known as the hole effect model).

⎛3 h 1 h3 ⎞

γ ( h ) = Co + C ⎜ − ⎟ for h < a

⎜ 2 a 2 a3 ⎟ (4.15)

⎝ ⎠

γ ( h ) = Co + C for h ≥ a

present and C is the sill minus Co.

⎛ − ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎞

⎛h⎞

γ ( h ) = Co + C 1 − e ⎝ a ⎠ ⎟

⎜ (4.16)

⎜ ⎟

⎝ ⎠

4–30

Figure 4.16 compares the spherical and the exponential models

with the same range and sill whereas Figure 4.17 compares the

two models with the same initial slope and sill. Note that there is

no nugget effect in these figures.

the same range and sill.

4-31

Figure 4.17. A comparison of the spherical and exponential models with

the same initial slope and sill.

⎛ −⎜ 2 ⎟ ⎞

⎛ h2 ⎞

γ ( h ) = Co + C ⎜⎜1 − e ⎝ ⎠ ⎟⎟

⎜a ⎟

(4.17)

⎜ ⎟

⎝ ⎠

= 10 and a = 4 units.

4–32

Figure 4.18. Example Gaussian model.

γ ( h ) = Co + m h (4.18)

γ ( h ) = Co + m h

α

for 0 < α ≤ 2 (4.19)

4-33

where m is a constant and α is an exponent between 0 and 2.

When α = 1, the model degenerates to the linear model. This model

does not have a sill. Figure 4.19 compares the linear model to the

generalized linear model.

Figure 4.19. The linear model and the generalized linear model.

γ ( 0) = 0

(4.20)

γ ( h ) = Co for h > 0

spatial distribution. It is basically a spherical model with a very

4–34

small range of influence. Figure 4.20 shows an example nugget

effect model.

⎡ sin ( h / a ) ⎤

γ ( h ) = Co + C ⎢1 − ⎥ (4.21)

⎣ h/a ⎦

10 and a = 1 unit. The sinusoidal nature of the variogram is an

indication of the periodic nature of the underlying heterogeneity.

4-35

Figure 4.21. The cardinal sine model (hole effect model).

Variogram

Every experimental variogram can be fitted with a theoretical

variogram model. If one model does not fit the experimental variogram,

several models can be combined or nested to fit the experimental

variogram. The only restriction is that each of the combined models must

be applied to all the lag distances. It is not permissible to apply a model

up to a certain lag distance and then switch to a different model for the

remaining lag distances. The procedure for fitting a theoretical model to

an experimental variogram is a trial and error procedure.

experimental variogram, let us compute the experimental variogram for

the permeability data from the results of the core analysis of Table 2.2

and then fit a theoretical model to it. To keep the magnitude of the

4–36

variogram manageable, we compute the variogram for the natural log of

the permeability rather than the permeability itself. Such a

transformation is frequently done in geostatistics to make the data more

manageable. The transformation affects the magnitude of the variogram

but not its shape. It is not unusual to transform the data, compute the

variogram, fit a theoretical model to the experimental variogram, use the

model to perform estimation and then transform the estimated data back

to its original units. It should be noted that the transformation in this

example does not imply that the permeability data is log normally

distributed. The transformation has been done purely for convenience.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Uncorrecte Correcte γ(h) γ(h)

d d

Depth X- k lnk lnk h (ft) With Drift Without Drift

Coord

4807. 0 2.5 0.916 -3.812 0 0.000 0.000

5

4808. 1 59 4.078 -0.688 1 0.038 0.362

5

4809. 2 221 5.398 0.596 2 0.049 0.488

5

4810. 3 211 5.352 0.512 3 0.051 0.468

5

4811. 4 275 5.617 0.740 4 0.057 0.618

5

4812. 5 384 5.951 1.037 5 0.057 0.591

5

4813. 6 108 4.682 -0.269 6 0.050 0.545

4-37

5

4814. 7 147 4.990 0.002 7 0.054 0.574

5

4815. 8 290 5.670 0.644 8 0.061 0.630

5

4816. 9 170 5.136 0.073 9 0.060 0.623

5

4817. 10 278 5.628 0.528 10 0.065 0.632

5

4818. 11 238 5.472 0.335 11 0.065 0.641

5

4819. 12 167 5.118 -0.057 12 0.068 0.728

5

4820. 13 304 5.717 0.505 13 0.075 0.780

5

4821. 14 98 4.585 -0.664 14 0.064 0.605

5

4822. 15 191 5.252 -0.034 15 0.074 0.684

5

4823. 16 266 5.583 0.260 16 0.077 0.628

5

4824. 17 40 3.689 -1.672 17 0.057 0.485

5

4825. 18 260 5.561 0.163 18 0.084 0.632

5

4826. 19 179 5.187 -0.248 19 0.086 0.642

5

4827. 20 312 5.743 0.271 20 0.097 0.720

5

4828. 21 272 5.606 0.097 21 0.098 0.655

5

4829. 22 395 5.979 0.432 22 0.105 0.769

5

4830. 23 405 6.004 0.420 23 0.115 0.787

4–38

5

4831. 24 275 5.617 -0.004 24 0.109 0.701

5

4832. 25 852 6.748 1.089 25 0.135 0.946

5

4833. 26 610 6.413 0.718 26 0.136 0.830

5

4834. 27 406 6.006 0.274 27 0.132 0.880

5

4835. 28 535 6.282 0.513 28 0.149 0.965

5

4836. 29 663 6.497 0.690 29 0.164 1.170

5

4837. 30 597 6.392 0.548

5

4838. 31 434 6.073 0.192

5

4839. 32 339 5.826 -0.092

5

4840. 33 216 5.375 -0.580

5

4841. 34 332 5.805 -0.188

5

4842. 35 295 5.687 -0.343

5

4843. 36 882 6.782 0.715

5

4844. 37 600 6.397 0.292

5

4845. 38 407 6.009 -0.133

5

5

4-39

4848. 41 0

5

4849. 42 139 4.934 -1.356

5

4850. 43 135 4.905 -1.422

5

4851. 44 0

5

Figure 4.22 shows the experimental variogram for the natural log of

permeability, lnk. The graph is the plot of the data in columns 6 and 7 of

Table 4.5. The ever increasing nature of the variogram indicates an

underlying trend or drift in the permeability data. Before addressing the

problem of the underlying trend, let us fit a theoretical model to the

experimental variogram to demonstrate the procedure.

core analysis data.

4–40

Figure 4.23 shows the fitted theoretical model from trial and error.

The nested model is

⎛3 h 1 h3 ⎞

γ ( h ) = 0.027 + 0.025 ⎜ − ⎟ + 0.000101h 2

⎜ 2 3 2 33 ⎟

⎝ ⎠

variogram of core analysis data.

4-41

Let us now deal with the underlying trend in the permeability data.

Figure 4.24 shows a scatter plot of the log permeability data versus

relative depth together with the regression line. Clearly, there is an

underlying trend or drift in the permeability data. The trend line is

ln k = 0.0372 x + 4.7281

where x is the relative depth. This trend was subtracted from the lnk

data to obtain the corrected lnk data shown in column 5 of Table 4.5.

4–42

Figure 4.25 shows the scatter plot for the corrected permeability data

together with the regression line. Clearly, the underlying trend has been

removed.

model fit after the drift has been removed. The experimental variogram is

the graph of the data in columns 6 and 8 of Table 4.5. We see that after

removing the underlying trend, the experimental variogram can be fitted

with a spherical model of the form

⎛3 h 1 h3 ⎞

γ ( h ) = 0.31 + 0.35 ⎜ − ⎟.

⎜ 2 9 2 93 ⎟

⎝ ⎠

Figure 4.25. Permeability data after the drift has been removed.

4-43

The true variogram of the natural log of permeability has a nugget effect

of 0.31, a sill of 0.66 and a correlation length of 9 ft.

Variogram Anisotropy

Variograms computed in different directions can show anisotropy.

Figure 4.27 shows two such anisotropies. In Figure 4.27a, the sills of the

variograms in the two directions are the same but the correlations

lengths are different. In Figure 4.27b, the slopes of the variograms in the

two directions are different. We can compute the correlation lengths or

the slopes of the variograms in different directions and plot them as

underlying trend.

4–44

shown in Figure 4.28. If the plot turns out to be an ellipse as shown in

the figure, then a simple coordinate transformation can be used to

compute an equivalent isotropic variogram. If γ1(h) is the variogram in

direction 1, then the equivalent isotropic variogram is given by

⎛ ⎛ a1 ⎞ 2 ⎞⎟

2

⎜

γ ( h ) = γ 1 h1 + ⎜ ⎟ h2

2

(4.22)

⎜ ⎝ a2 ⎠ ⎟

⎝ ⎠

⎛ ⎛ ⎞

2 ⎞

slope

γ ( h ) = γ 1 ⎜ h1 + ⎜

2 1

⎟ 2⎟h 2 ⎟

(4.23)

⎜ ⎝ slope2 ⎠

⎝ ⎠

4-45

Figure 4.28. Ellipses showing variogram anisotropy.

least four directions in a 2D data set to reveal possible anisotropy. If the

variograms were computed only in the horizontal and vertical directions,

the anisotropy would be missed because, in the case shown in the figure,

the principal axes of the anisotropy make an angle of 45º with the

vertical and horizontal axes. As a result, the correlation lengths in the

vertical and horizontal directions are the same and would not reveal the

presence of the anisotropy.

in the vertical direction is usually different from that in the horizontal

direction because the degree of heterogeneity normal to the layers is

higher than along the layers. In this case, the variogram can be split into

h12 + h22 + h32 and a

by

γ (h) = γ o ( )

h12 + h22 + h32 + γ v ( h3 ) (4.24)

4–46

Example Experimental Variograms

Presented in this section are the experimental variograms for the

sandpack and Berea sandstone cores whose porosity distributions were

presented in Figures 2.7 to 2.10. Experimental variograms can be

computed for any property that varies in space. Here, we present the

variograms for the CT numbers of the dry scans of the sandpack and the

Berea sandstone. The CT number is proportional to the bulk density of

the sample and is similar to the measurements from a density log. Each

3D image data set consisted of 128x128x50 voxels (volume elements) for

a total of 812,200 data points. For each sample, variograms were

computed in three orthogonal directions (Z, Y and X) as shown in Figure

4.29.

for CT data.

4-47

Figure 4.30 shows CT images for a vertical slice and a typical

cross-sectional slice of the sandpack. The packing method introduced

radial and longitudinal heterogeneities into the sandpack. Figures 4.31

and 4.32 show the experimental variograms for the sandpack in the

transverse and longitudinal directions. Figure 4.31 shows that the

vertical and horizontal variograms are essentially the same, confirming

the radial symmetry observed in the CT images of the sandpack. The

variogram in the longitudinal direction (Figure 4.32) has a wavy or

sinusoidal characteristic. This is caused by the longitudinal

heterogeneity introduced into the sandpack by the packing method. This

characteristic is known as a trend surface.

4–48

Figure 4.30. Vertical and cross-sectional slices of CT image of dry

sandpack (Peters and Afzal, 1992).

directions (Y, Z) (Peters and Afzal, 1992).

4-49

Figure 4.32. Experimental variogram for sandpack in the longitudinal

direction (X) (Peters and Afzal, 1992).

cross-sectional slice of the Berea sandstone. Figures 4.34 and 4.35 show

the experimental variograms for the Berea sandstone in the transverse

and longitudinal directions. Figure 4.34 shows a wavy characteristic in

the vertical direction (Y-direction). This is caused by the layering in that

direction. As expected, the magnitudes of the variograms show that the

medium is more heterogeneous in the Y-direction (across the layers) than

in the Z-direction (along the layers). Figure 4.35 shows that the

correlation length in the longitudinal direction (X-direction) is about 40

cm.

structure of the heterogeneity in the property of interest, in this case, the

x-ray absorption coefficient of a sandpack and a Berea sandstone.

4–50

4-51

Figure 4.33. Vertical and cross-sectional slices of CT image of dry Berea

sandstone (Peters and Afzal, 1992).

transeverse directions (Y, Z) (Peters and Afzal, 1992).

4–52

Figure 4.35. Experimental variogram for Berea sandstone in the

longitudinal direction (X) (Peters and Afzal, 1992).

Definition

For sample data, the covariance function at a lag distance h is

defined as

∑ ⎡Φ

⎣ ( x ) − Φ ( x ) ⎤⎦ ⎡Φ

⎣ ( x + h ) − Φ ( x + h ) ⎤⎦

C (h) = (4.25)

Nh −1

relationship between Φ(x) and Φ (x+h).

variogram function was non-negative.

4-53

3. Because the covariance function depends on the units of

measurement of Φ (x), it is not always possible to tell from the

magnitude of the covariance if the linear correlation is strong or

weak. A better measure of the strength of the linear correlation is

a dimensionless covariance function known as correlation

coefficient to be discussed next.

4. The table of data used to calculate the variogram can also be used

to calculate the covariance function. The algorithm for computing

the covariance function for unequally spaced data is similar to that

for computing the variogram. In this case, three one-dimensional

arrays should be used to store hij, Φ i and Φ j as the locations are

visited.

and the covariance function are related by the equation

γ ( h ) = C ( 0) − C ( h) (4.26)

where C(0) is the covariance at a zero lag distance and is equal the

variance of the data, s2. The fact that C(0) is the variance of the

data set is apparent from the entries in Table 4.3 for h = 0. The

variance of the data is given by

∑ ⎡Φ

⎣ ( x ) − Φ ( x ) ⎦⎤ ⎣⎡Φ ( x ) − Φ ( x ) ⎦⎤ ∑ ⎣⎡Φ ( x ) − Φ ( x ) ⎤⎦

2

C (0) = = = s2 (4.27)

N −1 N −1

Thus, like the variogram, the covariance function also has hidden

in it the usual measure of variability by ordinary statistics.

4–54

Figure 4.36 shows a comparison of the covariance functions for

reservoirs A and B. The covariance function for reservoir A is periodic

indicating the random spatial distribution of the property in reservoir A

whereas the covariance function for reservoir B is smooth and orderly,

indicating the continuous nature of the spatial distribution of the

property in reservoir B. These are the same features observed in the

variograms. In fact, a comparison of Figures 4.36 and 4.6 shows that the

covariance function is roughly the variogram turned up-side-down about

the h-axis in the spirit of Eq.(4.26). This observation is more apparent in

Figures 4.37 and 4.38, which compare the variogram and the covariance

function for each reservoir. Thus, like the variogram, the covariance

function captures the correlation structure of the spatial distribution of

the property of interest and can be used for the purpose of estimation

instead of the variogram.

and B.

4-55

Figure 4.37. A comparison of the variogram and the covariance function

for reservoir A.

4–56

Figure 4.38. A comparison of the variogram and the covariance function

for reservoir B.

The covariance function measures the covariation of Φ(x) and

Φ(x+h) about their respective means. Figure 4.39 shows the scatter plot

⎣ ( x + h ) − Φ ( x + h ) ⎦⎤ versus ⎡Φ

for the covariation of ⎡Φ ⎣ ( x ) − Φ ( x ) ⎤⎦ at a fixed

lag distance h. The sum of the shaded areas divided by (Nh-1) is the

covariance function at that lag distance. Because the areas can be

positive or negative depending on which quadrant the scatter plot data

fall in, the covariance can be positive or negative. If the scatter plots are

concentrated along the axis AB in Figure 4.40, then all the areas will be

positive and the covariance will show a strong positive correlation. If the

scatter plots are concentrated along the axis CD, then all the areas are

negative and the covariance will show a strong negative correlation.

4-57

Figure 4.39. Scatter plot of covariation at a fixed lag distance.

4–58

Figure 4.40. Patterns of covariation at a fixed lag distance.

Figure 4.41 shows the scatter plot of the covariation for reservoir A at a

lag distance of 1 unit. The data are concentrated in the quadrants in

which all the areas are negative. Therefore, the covariance function will

be negative at this lag distance as can be confirmed in Figure 4.36 or

4.37.

4-59

Figure 4.41. Covariation for reservoir A at a lag distance of 1 unit.

variables such as permeability and porosity. In that case, the cross

covariance is defined as

∑ ( k − k ) (φ − φ )

i i

C ( k ,φ ) = (4.28)

N −1

Definition

The correlation coefficient function is the dimensionless version of

the covariance function and is defined as

4–60

C (h)

ρ (h) = (4.29)

sΦ( x ) sΦ( x + h )

deviation of Φ ( x + h ) .

coefficient function.

gives the strength of the linear relationship between Φ(x) and

Φ(x+h).

in value from –1 to +1 as may be seen in Figure 4.42, which shows

the correlation coefficient function for reservoir A.

4-61

3. The magnitude of the correlation coefficient function is a measure

of the strength of the linear relationship between Φ(x) and Φ (x+h).

correlation. If low Φ (x) are paired with low Φ (x+h) or high Φ (x) are

paired with high Φ (x+h), the correlation coefficient will be positive.

If low Φ (x) are paired with high Φ (x+h) or high Φ (x) are paired

with low Φ (x+h), the correlation coefficient will be negative.

coefficient (and the covariance) will be zero.

mean that Φ (x) and Φ (x+h) are independent. They could be related

as a quadratic or other nonlinear function. Remember that the

correlation coefficient is a test for a linear relationship not a

quadratic relationship.

permeability and porosity can be computed as

C ( k ,φ )

ρ ( k ,φ ) = (4.30)

sk sφ

the normal and the log normal distributions are presented in this section

because they are the two distributions most commonly observed in

petrophysical properties. Based on core analyses and field

4–62

measurements, it has been observed that porosity tends to follow a

normal distribution (see Figures 2.9 and 2.10) whereas permeability

tends to follow a log normal distribution.

commonly known as the Gaussian, is given by

1 ⎡ ( x − μ )2 ⎤

P ( x) = exp ⎢ − ⎥ for − ∞ ≤ x ≤ ∞ (4.31)

σ 2π ⎢⎣ 2σ 2 ⎥⎦

is the standard deviation of the distribution. The distribution is

characterized by two parameters, the mean (μ) and the standard

deviation (σ). Figure 4.43 shows a normal distribution with μ = 5 and

standard σ = 4. The distribution is centered on the mean and is

symmetric about the mean. For this distribution, all the measures of the

central tendency of the distribution (mean, median and mode) have the

same numerical value. Note that the distribution extends from −∞ to +∞ .

x−μ

z= (4.32)

σ

1 ⎛ z2 ⎞

P( z) = exp ⎜ − ⎟ for − ∞ ≤ z ≤ +∞ (4.33)

2π ⎝ 2⎠

4-63

where z is a random variable with μ = 0 and σ = 1. Figure 4.44 shows a

standard normal distribution with the horizontal axis calibrated in units

of standard deviation. Also shown are the areas under the curve for

certain ranges of the horizontal axis. For example, about 68% of the data

are contained within one standard deviation below and above the mean.

Thus, for a normal distribution, the following are true

P ( z ≤ σ ) = 0.6826 (4.34)

P ( z ≤ 2σ ) = 0.9544 (4.36)

4–64

P ( z ≤ 3σ ) = 0.9973 (4.37)

P ( −∞ ≤ z ≤ −σ ) = 0.1588 (4.38)

P ( −∞ ≤ z ≤ +σ ) = 0.8413 (4.39)

deviation units.

defined as

1 ⎡ ( x − μ )2 ⎤

F ( x) =

x

⎣ ⎦

4-65

Figure 4.45 shows the cumulative distribution plot on linear graph

paper. When potted on a special probability graph paper, the cumulative

distribution function plots as a straight line as shown in Figure 4.46.

deviation σ.

integration called for in Eq.(4.40) cannot be performed analytically. Only

numerical integration is possible. It is not particularly convenient to

integrate any function numerically from −∞ to +∞ . To overcome this

difficulty, we undertake a transformation that allows the integration of

Eq.(4.40) using the complementary error function, which is tabulated in

mathematical handbooks.

4–66

Figure 4.46. Cumulative normal distribution plotted on probability

paper.

4-67

Let

x−μ

u= (4.41)

σ 2

dx

du = (4.42)

σ 2

distribution function as

1

F (u ) =

u

π ∫

e − u du

2

(4.43)

−∞

e−u

2

π

1 u 1 ∞

π ∫ π ∫

e − u du = 1 − e − u du

2 2

(4.44)

−∞ u

1⎛ 2 ∞ ⎞

F (u ) = ⎜ 2 − ∫ e − u du ⎟

2

(4.45)

2⎝ π u

⎠

1

F (u ) = ⎡ 2 − erfc ( u ) ⎤⎦ (4.46)

2⎣

where

4–68

2 ∞

erfc ( u ) =

π ∫

e− u du

2

(4.47)

u

frequently in the solutions of certain partial differential equations of

mathematical physics such as the diffusivity equation, heat conduction

equation, diffusion equation and convection-dispersion equation. The

error function, erf(u), is defined as

2

erf ( u ) =

u

π ∫

e −u du

2

(4.48)

0

Thus,

Table 4.6 gives the error and the complementary error functions whereas

Figure 4.48 shows graphs of the two functions. Using the information in

Table 4.6, the cumulative distribution function F(x) can be computed

with Eq.(4.46) instead of Eq.(4.40) and plotted against x. Figure 4.48

shows the F(x) obtained from such a computation for the normal

distribution of Figure 4.43.

x erf(x) erfc(x)

0.00 0 1

0.05 0.05637 0.94362

2 8

0.10 0.11246 0.88753 Useful

3 7 relationships

0.15 0.16799 0.83200

4-69

6 4

0.20 0.22270 0.77729 erfc(-x) = 1 + erf(x)

3 7

0.25 0.27632 0.72367

6 4

0.30 0.32862 0.67137 erf(-x) = -erf(x)

7 3

0.35 0.37938 0.62061

2 8

0.40 0.42839 0.57160 erfc(x) = 1 - erf(x)

2 8

0.45 0.47548 0.52451

2 8

0.50 0.52050 0.47950

0 0

0.55 0.56332 0.43667

3 7

0.60 0.60385 0.39614

6 4

0.65 0.64202 0.35797

9 1

0.70 0.67780 0.32219

1 9

0.75 0.71115 0.28884

6 4

0.80 0.74210 0.25789

1 9

0.85 0.77066 0.22933

8 2

0.90 0.79690 0.20309

8 2

0.95 0.82089 0.17910

1 9

1.00 0.84270 0.15729

4–70

1 9

1.10 0.88020 0.11979

5 5

1.20 0.91031 0.08968

4 6

1.30 0.93400 0.06599

8 2

1.40 0.95228 0.04771

5 5

1.50 0.96610 0.03389

5 5

1.60 0.97634 0.02365

8 2

1.70 0.98379 0.01621

0 0

1.80 0.98909 0.01090

1 9

1.90 0.99279 0.00721

0 0

2.00 0.99532 0.00467

2 8

2.10 0.99702 0.00297

1 9

2.20 0.99813 0.00186

7 3

2.30 0.99885 0.00114

7 3

2.40 0.99931 0.00068

1 9

2.50 0.99959 0.00040

3 7

2.60 0.99976 0.00023

4 6

2.70 0.99986 0.00013

4-71

6 4

2.80 0.99992 0.00007

5 5

2.90 0.99995 0.00004

9 1

3.00 0.99997 0.00002

8 2

4–72

Figure 4.48. Cumulative distribution function calculated with the

complementary error function for the normal distribution of Figure 4.43.

Generation of Random Deviates from a Normal (Gaussian)

Distribution

Sometimes, we wish to generate sample data from a normal

distribution. Two methods are presented for generating such data. The

first method is based on the Central Limit Theorem (CLT) and the second

method is the Box Muller method.

numbers drawn randomly from any distribution tends to a normal

(Gaussian) distribution as the number of means increases. Thus, if we

calculate many times the sums of N variates drawn from a uniform

distribution, we should expect the sums to fall into a truncated normal

(Gaussian) distribution bounded by 0 and N, with a mean value of N/2. If

( 0 ≤ ri ≤ 1) and calculate

4-73

N

N

z = ∑ ri − (4.50)

i =1 2

distribution with a mean μ and a standard deviation σ given by

μ =0 (4.51)

N

σ= (4.52)

12

(Gaussian) distribution with a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1.

Such a random variate can be used to draw a random sample, x, from a

normal (Gaussian) distribution of mean μ and standard deviation σ as

x = μ +σ z (4.53)

distribution of r between a and b, the mean or expectation of the

distribution is given by

r a+b

μ = E [r ] = ∫

b

dr = (4.54)

a b−a 2

σ 2 = Var ( r ) = E ⎡( r − E ( r ) ) ⎤ = E ⎡⎣ r 2 ⎤⎦ − ( E [ r ])

2 2

(4.55)

⎣ ⎦

But

4–74

b r2 a 2 + ab + b 2

E ⎡⎣ r 2 ⎤⎦ = ∫ dr = (4.56)

a b−a 3

a 2 + ab + b 2 ( a + b ) (b − a )

2 2

σ = Var ( r ) =

2

− = (4.57)

3 4 12

⎡i=N N⎤ ⎡N ⎤

μ = E [ z ] = E ⎢ ∑ ri − ⎥ = E [ r1 ] + E [ r2 ] + ... + E [ rN ] − E ⎢ ⎥ (4.58)

⎣ i =1 2⎦ ⎣2⎦

substituting this into Eq.(5.58) gives

1 1 1 N N N

μ = E [ z ] = + + ... + − = − =0 (4.59)

2 2 2 2 2 2

⎡ N⎤

σ 2 = Var ( z ) = Var ⎢ r1 + r2 + ... + rN − (4.60)

⎣ 2 ⎥⎦

⎛N⎞

σ 2 = Var ( z ) = Var ( r1 ) + Var ( r2 ) + ... + Var ( rN ) − Var ⎜ ⎟ (4.61)

⎝2⎠

1 1 1 N

σ 2 = Var ( z ) = + + ... + − 0 = (4.62)

12 12 12 12

4-75

The standard deviation for z is

N

σ= (4.63)

12

The method of Box and Muller for generating normal deviates from

a uniform random number generator is as follows. Select two random

z1 = ( )

−2 ln r1 cos 2π r2 (4.64)

z2 = ( )

−2 ln r1 sin 2π r2 (4.65)

The deviates can be used to draw two random variates (x1 and x2) with

x1 = μ + σ z1 (4.66)

x2 = μ + σ z2 (4.67)

given by

4–76

1 1 ⎡ ( ln x − μ )2 ⎤

P ( x) = exp ⎢ − ⎥ (4.68)

σ 2π x ⎢⎣ 2σ 2 ⎥⎦

is the standard deviation of lnx. The mean, τ, and the variance, ω2, of the

log normal distribution are related to the parameters of lnx as

⎛ σ2 ⎞

τ = exp ⎜ μ + ⎟ (4.69)

⎝ 2 ⎠

( )

ω 2 = eσ − 1 exp ( 2μ + σ 2 )

2

(4.70)

It should be noted that x has a log normal distribution whereas lnx has a

normal distribution.

positively skewed with a long tail towards the high values of x. Note that

x is always positive. Because of the high values in the tail, the mean is

larger than the median, which in turn is larger than the mode or

geometric mean. Note that in this case, the geometric mean is a better

measure of central tendency than the mean or the median.

4-77

Figure 4.49. Log normal distribution.

normal distribution plotted on a log normal probability graph paper. On

this scale, the log normal distribution plots as a straight line. Such a plot

was used in Figure 4.1 to determine the Dykstra-Parsons coefficient of

permeability variation on the assumption the data were drawn from a log

normal distribution.

4–78

Figure 4.50. Cumulative log normal distribution plotted on log normal

probability paper.

4.5 ESTIMATION

4.5.1 Introduction

other being conditional simulation. The objective is to estimate the

4-79

variable of interest at a location xo for which no datum has been

space. Suppose you are given some petrophysical data from a linear

reservoir as shown in Figure 4.51 and requested to estimate the values at

locations 3, 5 and 8 at which no measurements were made. What would

you do? Most professionals would construct the diagram shown

in Figure 4.52 to estimate Φ*3 and Φ*5 but would be at a loss about how to

the estimated from the measured values. In fact, some would claim that

there was not enough information to estimate Φ*8 because no data were

4–80

Figure 4.52. Estimation of unmeasured values by linear interpolation.

Let us write the equation for the estimator Φ*3 . From linear

interpolation

⎛x −x ⎞

Φ*3 = Φ 2 + ⎜ 3 2 ⎟ ( Φ 4 − Φ 2 ) (4.71)

⎝ x4 − x2 ⎠

Let

⎛ x3 − x2 ⎞ h23

⎜ ⎟= = λ4 (4.72)

⎝ x4 − x2 ⎠ h42

where hij are lag distances. Substituting Eq.(4.72) into (4.71) and

rearranging gives the estimator as

4-81

Φ*3 = λ2 Φ 2 + λ4 Φ 4 (4.73)

where

λ2 = 1 − λ4 (4.74)

or

λ2 + λ4 = 1 (4.75)

Eq.(4.75) as follows:

i=N

Φ*o = ∑ λi Φ i (4.76)

i =1

∑λ

i =1

i =1 (4.77)

which an estimate is to be made and N could be the entire available data

set or a subset of the available data depending on the structure of the

heterogeneity. Let us now use Eqs.(4.76) and (4.77) to estimate

Φ*3 , Φ*5 and Φ*8 . For Φ*3 , λ2 = λ4 = 0.5 and

Similarly

4–82

Φ*5 = ( 0.50 )( 50 ) + ( 0.50 )( 20 ) = 35

depending on how close the measured value is to the point xo at which

the estimate is to be made. Unfortunately, there is no mathematical

expression for closeness. We can measure how far away each sample is

from the point of estimation but we cannot measure how close it is to the

point of estimation. Let us measure the lag distances of the measured

data from the point of estimation as

xo − x2 = 6Δx

xo − x4 = 4Δx

xo − x6 = 2Δx

Total = 12Δx

Based on the above lag distances, it is clear that Φ 6 should have the most

proportional to the inverse lag distances as follows:

α

λ2 = = 0.1667α

6

α

λ4 = = 0.2500α

4

α

λ6 = = 0.5000α

2

Total = 0.9167α

α = 1.0909. Thus,

4-83

α

λ2 = = 0.1667α = ( 0.1667 )(1.0909 ) = 0.1819

6

α

λ4 = = 0.2500α = ( 0.2500 )(1.0909 ) = 0.2727

4

α

λ6 = = 0.5000α = ( 0.5000 )(1.0909 ) = 0.5455

2

Total = 1.0000

Therefore,

It should be noted that in estimating Φ*3 and Φ*5 , only a subset of the

measured data was used whereas in estimating Φ*8 , all the measured

data were used. However, there was no good reason to use the subset of

the measured data to estimate Φ*3 and Φ*5 . All the measured data could

have been used to estimate Φ*3 and Φ*5 in the manner similar to the

estimation of Φ*8 .

reliability of the estimates? What are the error bounds on the estimates?

Most professionals would give up at this point. This is where geostatistics

can help. Before presenting the geostatistical estimation technique

known as ordinary kriging, it is worthwhile to mention the major

limitation of the estimation undertaken above. It is that the structure of

the heterogeneity as represented by either the variogram, the covariance

function or the correlation coefficient function has not be taken into

account in the estimation.

and in so doing provides estimates that honor the correlation structure of

4–84

the heterogeneity. It also provides quantitative assessment of the

reliability of the estimates. Let us demonstrate a simple geostatistical

estimation using a probabilistic framework. Suppose we wish to estimate

the missing datum in Figure 4.53. Proceeding in the spirit of Eqs.(4.76)

and (4.47), let us use the first "ring" of data around the missing datum

(or rather first "square" of data) to obtain an estimate as

Φ*o = 19λ1 + 18λ2 + 17λ3 + 15λ4 + 18λ5 + 15λ6 + 15λ7 + 18λ8 (4.78)

i =8

eo = Φ*o − Φ o = 19λ1 + 18λ2 + 17λ3 + 15λ4 + 18λ5 + 15λ6 + 15λ7 + 18λ8 − Φ o ∑ λi (4.79)

i =1

(4.80)

+ (18 − Φ o ) λ5 + (15 − Φ o ) λ6 + (15 − Φ o ) λ7 + (18 − Φ o ) λ8

4-85

Figure 4.53. Missing data from a 2D reservoir.

0 and λ1 = 1. This is not the optimum choice of the weights and will not

lead to the best estimate. However, because the weights sum to 1, we

have not violated the estimation model given by Eqs.(4.46) and (4.47) and

as such the estimation is legitimate. With this simplification, our

estimate is

Φ*o = 19 (4.81)

4–86

eo = Φ*o − Φ o = (19 − Φ o ) (4.82)

information in the available data for us to determine its statistics. If we

accept the premise that the error is a function of the lag distance, Δx 2 ,

then we can look at the field of data in the SW-NE direction to find

similar errors and from them determine the statistics of our error. There

are in fact 47 such errors in the data set. They are tabulated in column 4

of Table 4.7.

Table 4.7. Errors in the SW-NE Direction of the Data Set at a Lag

Distance of Δx 2 .

1 2 3 4 5

Error Φ(x) Φ(x+h) Φ(x+h - Φ(x) [Φ(x+h)-Φ(x)]2

#

1 23 22 -1 1

2 22 20 -2 4

3 20 19 -1 1

4 21 17 -4 16

5 17 17 0 0

6 17 14 -3 9

7 19 15 -4 16

8 15 18 3 9

9 18 20 2 4

10 20 16 -4 16

11 18 18 0 0

12 19 14 -5 25

13 14 19 5 25

14 17 16 -1 1

15 16 15 -1 1

16 15 18 3 9

4-87

17 18 18 0 0

18 18 23 5 25

19 23 16 -7 49

20 15 14 -1 1

21 14 10 -4 16

22 10 15 5 25

23 15 20 5 25

24 20 25 5 25

25 25 21 -4 16

26 21 14 -7 49

27 13 10 -3 9

28 10 16 6 36

29 16 18 2 4

30 18 20 2 4

31 20 20 0 0

32 20 17 -3 9

33 11 13 2 4

34 13 14 1 1

35 14 23 9 81

36 23 18 -5 25

37 18 19 1 1

38 10 13 3 9

39 13 18 5 25

40 18 22 4 16

41 22 13 -9 81

42 17 15 -2 4

43 15 20 5 25

44 20 20 0 0

45 16 14 -2 4

46 14 18 4 16

47 15 17 2 4

Mean 0.128

Variance 15.766 15.447

4–88

Std Dev 3.971 3.930

Semivarianc 7.723

e

As shown at the bottom of Table 4.7, the mean, variance and standard

deviation of the error are

μ = 0.128

σ 2 = 15.766 (4.83)

σ = 3.791

confident that the error of our estimation is given by

Thus,

or

true? You bet. Of course, it would have been nice if the 95% confidence

interval was narrower than that given by Eq.(4.87). It would have been

narrower if we had chosen the weights to minimize the variance of the

4-89

error of Eq.(4.80) instead of choosing them arbitrarily as we did to

simplify the calculations. Figure 4.54 shows the histogram of the errors

of Table 4.7, which indicates that the assumption of a normal

distribution of the errors in the calculation of the 95% confidence

interval is reasonable.

the same data needed to calculate the semivariance at a lag distance of

σ2

2

( )

= γ Δx 2 = 7.723 (4.88)

4–90

Thus, geostatistics gives the mean, variance and standard deviation of

the error as

μ = 0.000

σ 2 = 15.447 (4.89)

σ = 3.930

These statistics of the error are very similar to those given in Eq.(4.83).

Applying Eq.(4.89) gives the following 95% confidence interval:

or

Eq.(4.87). Therefore, in geostatistics, the variogram (or the covariance

function) is used to calculate the error variance. Having now

demonstrated a simple geostatistical estimation that gave both the

estimate and the confidence limits for the estimate, we are ready to

formally derive ordinary kriging equations for geostatistical estimation.

which no measurement has been made using the measured data at

locations xi as shown in Figure 4.55. In geostatistical estimation, the

variable of interest is treated as a stationary random function with a

4-91

normal probability distribution. If the measured data do not exhibit a

normal distribution, they must first be transformed into a normal

distribution before proceeding further. Such a transformation can always

be done by using the cumulative distribution function of the data and

the cumulative distribution function of a standard normal distribution

with a mean of zero and a standard deviation of 1.0 as shown

schematically in Figure 4.56. After the estimation, the estimated value is

transformed back to its original distribution by using the same two

cumulative distribution functions in reverse order.

Figure 4.55. Schematic showing the locations sample data and the

location at which an estimation is to be made.

with their probability density functions at four locations, x1, …, x4. The

mean of random function Z A ( x ) is constant throughout the field. As a

4–92

the mean of random function Z B ( x ) is not constant throughout the field.

distribution.

measured data as in Eq.(4.76). The challenge is to determine the weights

λi in such a way as to obtain the best estimate in some sense. The

criteria used in ordinary kriging to obtain the best estimate are (1) the

estimate should be unbiased and (2) the estimation error should have

4-93

minimum variance. Thus, ordinary kriging is a Best Linear Unbiased

Estimator (BLUE).

functions.

4–94

N

Z * ( xo ) = ∑ λi Z ( xi ) (4.93)

i =1

where Z*(xo) is the estimated value at location xo, Z(xi) are the measured

data, Z(x) is the assumed random function model, λi are the weights to

be determined and xi are the locations where the variable of interest has

been measured (i.e., the data). Note that in this model, the Z(xi) are just

stationary random function with a constant mean, m, which is

or 3D.

Let the true but unknown value at xo be Z(xo). The estimation error

is given by

e( xo ) = Z * ( xo ) − Z ( xo ) (4.94)

obtain an unbiased estimate, on average, the mean estimation error

must be zero. Thus, for an unbiased estimate, the expectation of the

error must be zero:

E [ e( xo ) ] = E ⎡⎣ Z * ( xo ) − Z ( xo ) ⎤⎦ = 0 (4.95)

estimators for a petrophysical property whose value is know to μ.

Estimator 1 is unbiased but not very precise. Estimator 2 is unbiased

4-95

and more precise than estimator 1. Estimator 3 is biased and more

precise than estimator 1.

unbiased estimate as

⎡N ⎤

E ⎢ ∑ λi Z ( xi ) − Z ( xo ) ⎥ = 0 (4.96)

⎣ i =1 ⎦

4–96

N

∑ λ E [ Z ( x )] − E [ Z ( x )] = 0

i =1

i i o (4.97)

But the expectations of the random variables, Z(xi) and Z(xo) are equal

stationary random function model used in the estimation. Eq.(4.97) can

now be written as

N

⎛ N

⎞

∑ λ m − m = ⎜⎝ ∑ λ − 1⎟⎠ m = 0

i =1

i

i =1

i (4.98)

∑λ

i =1

i =1 (4.99)

σ e2 = E ⎡⎢( Z * ( xo ) − Z ( xo ) ) ⎤⎥

2

(4.100)

⎣ ⎦

⎡⎛ N ⎞ ⎤

2

σ = E ⎢⎜ ∑ λi Z ( xi ) − Z ( xo ) ⎟ ⎥

2

e (4.101)

⎢⎣⎝ i =1 ⎠ ⎥⎦

Let us add and subtract the mean, m, from the inner bracket in

4-97

⎡⎛ N ⎞ ⎤

2

σ = E ⎢⎜ ∑ λi ( Z ( xi ) − m ) − ( Z ( xo ) − m) ⎟ ⎥

2

e (4.102)

⎢⎣⎝ i =1 ⎠ ⎥⎦

⎡⎛ N ⎞

2 N ⎤

σ = E ⎢⎜ ∑ λi ( Z ( xi ) − m ) ⎟ + ( Z ( xo ) − m ) − 2∑ λi ( Z ( xi ) − m)( Z ( xo ) − m) ⎥ (4.103)

2 2

e

⎣⎢⎝ i =1 ⎠ i =1

⎦⎥

rewritten in terms of a double summation to obtain

⎡ N N N ⎤

σ e2 = E ⎢∑ ∑ λ λ ( Z ( x ) − m)(Z ( x ) − m) + ( Z ( x ) − m ) − 2∑ λi ( Z ( xi ) − m )( Z ( xo ) − m ) ⎥

2

i j i j o

⎣ i =1 j =1 i =1 ⎦

…………….(4.104)

gives

N N

σ e2 = ∑ ∑ λ λ E ⎡⎣(Z ( x ) − m)(Z ( x ) − m) ⎤⎦ + E ⎡⎣( Z ( x ) − m ) ⎤

2

i =1 j =1

i j i j o

⎦

N

(4.105)

− 2∑ λi E ⎡⎣( Z ( xi ) − m )( Z ( xo ) − m ) ⎤⎦

i =1

covariance function as follows:

N N N

σ e2 = ∑ ∑ λi λ j C (hij ) + C (0) − 2∑ λiC (hio ) (4.106)

i =1 j =1 i =1

4–98

where C(hij) is the covariance function, hij is the lag distance between

locations i and j, and hio is the lag distance between locations o and i.

o and the locations of the data to be used in the estimation are at points

i. Eq.(4.106) can be rearranged as

N N N

σ e2 = C (0) + ∑ ∑ λi λ j C (hij ) − 2∑ λiC (hio ) (4.107)

i =1 j =1 i =1

the variance of the data, σ2. Therefore, Eq.(4.107) can be written in the

N N N

σ e2 = σ 2 + ∑ ∑ λ λ C ( h ) − 2∑ λ C ( h

i j ij i io ) (4.108)

i =1 j =1 i =1

classical problem of optimization, which can be solved by the method of

Lagrange multipliers.

Eq.(4.108) can be derived in terms of the variogram instead of the

covariance function. To do so, we first derive the relationship between

the variogram and the covariance function for a stationary random

function, Z(x). By definition, the variogram is given by

γ (h) = 12 E ⎡( Z ( x) − Z ( x + h) ) ⎤

2

(4.109)

⎣ ⎦

4-99

Adding and subtracting the mean of the random function from the inner

bracket of Eq.(4.109) gives

γ (h) = 12 E ⎡⎢( ( Z ( x) − m ) − ( Z ( x + h) − m ) ) ⎤⎥

2

(4.110)

⎣ ⎦

γ (h) = 12 E ⎡( Z ( x) − m ) + ( Z ( x + h) − m ) − 2 ( Z ( x) − m )( Z ( x + h) − m ) ⎤ (4.111)

2 2

⎣ ⎦

(4.112)

− 22 E ⎡⎣( Z ( x + h) − m )( Z ( x) − m ) ⎤⎦

covariance function as follows:

becomes

For a stationary random function, γ(∞) is the sill of the variogram, C(∞) is

0 because there is no more correlation beyond the correlation length and

4–100

C(0) is the variance of the data (σ2) as previously stated. Substituting

Figure 4.59 compares the variogram and the covariance function for a

stationary random function.

for a stationary random function.

terms of the variogram. From Eq.(4.114), we have

4-101

Substituting Eqs.(4.117) and (4.118) into Eq.(4.108) gives the error

variance as

N N N

σ e2 = C (0) + ∑ ∑λ λ j ⎣C (0) − γ ( hij ) ⎦ − 2∑ λi [ C (0) − γ ( hio ) ]

i

⎡ ⎤ (4.119)

i =1 j =1 i =1

N N N N N N

σ e2 = C (0) + C (0)∑ ∑ λ λ − ∑ ∑ λ λ γ (h ) − 2C (0)∑ λ + 2∑ λ γ (h

i j i j ij i i io ) (4.120)

i =1 j =1 i =1 j =1 i =1 i =1

N N N

σ e2 = C (0) + C (0) − ∑ ∑ λ λ γ (h ) − 2C (0) + 2∑ λ γ (h

i j ij i io ) (4.121)

i =1 j =1 i =1

the variogram in final form as

N N N

σ e2 = −∑ ∑ λi λ jγ (hij ) + 2∑ λiγ (hio ) (4.122)

i =1 j =1 i =1

Function

Eq.(4.99). The problem statement is as follows:

N N N

Minimize σ e2 (λi ) = σ 2 + ∑ ∑ λi λ j C (hij ) − 2∑ λiC (hio ) (4.123)

i =1 j =1 i =1

4–102

⎛ N ⎞

Subject to ⎜ ∑ λi − 1⎟ = 0 (4.124)

⎝ i =1 ⎠

solution steps are as follows:

3. Add (or subtract) the resulting constraint equations to the original

objective function to obtain the Lagrangian function, L. This step

relaxes the constraint and converts the constrained optimization to

an unconstrained optimization.

4. Differentiate the Lagrangian function and equate to zero to

determine the stationary points, which constitute the required

solution.

following Lagrangian function:

N N N

⎛ N

⎞

L(λi , μ ) = σ 2 + ∑ ∑ λi λ jC (hij ) − 2∑ λiC (hio ) + 2μ ⎜ ∑ λi − 1⎟ (4.125)

i =1 j =1 i =1 ⎝ i =1 ⎠

+ λ22C (h22 ) − 2λ1C (h10 ) − 2λ2C (h20 ) (4.126)

+ 2λ1μ + 2λ2 μ − 2 μ

linear simultaneous equations:

4-103

∂L

= 2λ1C (h11 ) + λ2C (h12 ) + λ2C (h21 ) − 2C (h10 ) + 2 μ = 0 (4.127)

∂λ1

∂L

= λ1C (h12 ) + λ1C (h21 ) + 2λ2C (h22 ) − 2C (h20 ) + 2 μ = 0 (4.128)

∂λ2

∂L

= 2λ1 + 2λ2 − 2 = 0 (4.129)

∂μ

⎢C ( h ) + C ( h ) 2C ( h22 ) 2 ⎥⎥ ⎢⎢λ2 ⎥⎥ = ⎢⎢ 2C (h20 ) ⎥⎥ (4.130)

⎢ 12 21

⎢⎣ 2 2 0 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ μ ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ 2 ⎥⎦

⎢ 2C (h ) 2C (h ) 2 ⎥ ⎢λ ⎥ = ⎢ 2C (h ) ⎥ (4.131)

⎢ 21 22 ⎥⎢ 2⎥ ⎢ 20 ⎥

⎢⎣ 2 2 0 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ μ ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ 2 ⎥⎦

⎢C ( h ) C ( h ) 1 ⎥ ⎢ λ ⎥ = ⎢C ( h ) ⎥ (4.132)

⎢ 21 22 ⎥⎢ 2⎥ ⎢ 20 ⎥

⎢⎣ 1 1 0 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ μ ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ 1 ⎥⎦

inversion or Gaussian elimination.

4–104

After solving Eq.(4.132), λ1, λ2 and μ can be substituted into

derive an algebraic expression for the minimum error variance.

Expanding Eq.(4.123) for N = 2 gives the error variance as

+ λ22C (h22 ) − 2λ1C (h10 ) − 2λ2C (h20 ) (4.133)

− 2λ1C (h10 ) − 2λ2C (h20 ) (4.134)

(4.135)

and

(4.136)

estimation error variance as

− 2λ1C (h10 ) − 2λ2C (h20 ) (4.137)

4-105

which simplifies to

2

σ e2min = σ 2 − μ − ∑ λi C (hio )

i =1

(4.138)

generalized to any value of N. For example, for N = 4, Eqs.(4.132) and

(4.138) will become

⎢C ( h ) C (h22 ) C (h23 ) C (h24 ) 1 ⎥⎥ ⎢⎢ λ2 ⎥⎥ ⎢⎢C (h20 ) ⎥⎥

⎢ 21

⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥

⎢C (h41 ) C (h42 ) C (h43 ) C (h44 ) 1 ⎥ ⎢ λ4 ⎥ ⎢C (h40 ) ⎥

⎢⎣ 1 1 1 1 0 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ μ ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ 1 ⎥⎦

and

4

σ e2min = σ 2 − μ − ∑ λi C (hio )

i =1

(4.140)

linear simultaneous equations:

∑ λ C (h ) + μ = C (h

j =1

j ij io ) for i = 1, 2, ..., N

N

(4.141)

∑λ

j =1

j =1

4–106

The minimum estimation error variance can be generalized to

N

σ e2min = σ 2 − μ − ∑ λi C (hio )

i =1

(4.142)

model in terms of the covariance function.

must first compute the lag distance matrix, hij. For N = 4, the

⎢h h22 h23 h24 ⎥⎥ ⎢⎢ h21 0 h23 h24 ⎥⎥

⎡⎣ hij ⎤⎦ = ⎢ 21 = (4.143)

⎢ h31 h32 h33 h34 ⎥ ⎢ h31 h32 0 h34 ⎥

⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥

⎣ h41 h42 h43 h44 ⎦ ⎣ h41 h42 h43 0⎦

2. Except for the one zero at the bottom corner, the diagonal

entries of the matrix equation to be solved are given by

3. All the off diagonal entries of the matrix equation are less than

the diagonal entries. Thus, the matrix is diagonally dominant.

This is a desirable structure for solving the system of linear

simultaneous equations.

4. The matrix to be inverted is full. Therefore, a lot of calculations

could be involved, depending on the value of N.

4-107

6. The estimation error variance depends only on the spatial

coordinates of the data and not on the values of the data.

7. Kriging is an exact estimator and will return the measured

value if it is applied to the location for which datum was

measured.

In this case, the problem statement is

N N N

Minimize σ e2 (λi ) = −∑ ∑ λi λ jγ (hij ) + 2∑ λiγ (hio ) (4.145)

i =1 j =1 i =1

⎛ N ⎞

Subject to ⎜ ∑ λi − 1⎟ = 0 (4.146)

⎝ i =1 ⎠

N N N

⎛ n

⎞

L(λi , μ ) = −∑ ∑ λi λ jγ (hij ) + 2∑ λiγ (hio ) + 2μ ⎜ ∑ λi − 1⎟ (4.147)

i =1 j =1 i =1 ⎝ i =1 ⎠

− λ22γ (h22 ) + 2λ1γ (h10 ) + 2λ2γ (h20 ) (4.148)

+ 2λ1μ + 2λ2 μ − 2 μ

Differentiating the Lagrangian and equating to zero will give the following

linear simultaneous equations:

4–108

∂L

= −2λ1γ (h11 ) − λ2γ (h12 ) − λ2γ (h21 ) + 2γ (h10 ) + 2μ = 0 (4.149)

∂λ1

∂L

= −λ1γ (h12 ) − λ1γ (h21 ) − 2λ2γ (h22 ) + 2γ (h20 ) + 2μ = 0 (4.150)

∂λ2

∂L

= 2λ1 + 2λ2 − 2 = 0 (4.151)

∂μ

⎢ ⎥

⎢ − [γ (h12 ) + γ (h21 ) ] −2γ (h22 ) 2 ⎥ ⎢⎢λ2 ⎥⎥ = ⎢⎢ −2γ (h20 ) ⎥⎥ (4.152)

⎢⎣ 2 2 0 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ μ ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ 2 ⎥⎦

rewritten as

⎢γ (h ) γ (h ) −1⎥ ⎢λ ⎥ = ⎢γ (h ) ⎥ (4.153)

⎢ 21 22 ⎥ ⎢ 2 ⎥ ⎢ 20 ⎥

⎢⎣ 1 1 0 ⎥⎦ ⎣⎢ μ ⎥⎦ ⎣⎢ 1 ⎦⎥

derive an algebraic expression for the minimum error variance.

Expanding Eq.(4.145) for N = 2 gives the error variance as

− λ22γ (h22 ) + 2λ1γ (h10 ) + 2λ2γ (h20 ) (4.154)

4-109

Eq.(4.154) can be rearranged as

+ 2λ1γ (h10 ) + 2λ2γ (h20 ) (4.155)

(4.156)

and

(4.157)

estimation error variance as

+ 2λ1γ (h10 ) + 2λ2γ (h20 ) (4.158)

which simplifies to

2

σ e2min = − μ + ∑ λiγ (hio )

i =1

(4.159)

example, for N = 4, Eqs.(4.153) and (4.159) will become

4–110

⎡γ (h11 ) γ (h12 ) γ (h13 ) γ (h14 ) −1⎤ ⎡ λ1 ⎤ ⎡γ (h10 ) ⎤

⎢ −1⎥⎥ ⎢⎢λ2 ⎥⎥ ⎢⎢γ (h20 ) ⎥⎥

⎢γ (h21 ) γ (h22 ) γ (h23 ) γ (h24 )

⎢γ (h31 ) γ (h32 ) γ (h33 ) γ (h34 ) −1⎥ ⎢ λ3 ⎥ = ⎢γ (h30 ) ⎥ (4.160)

⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥

⎢γ (h41 ) γ (h42 ) γ (h43 ) γ (h44 ) −1⎥ ⎢λ4 ⎥ ⎢γ (h40 ) ⎥

⎢⎣ 1 1 1 1 0 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ μ ⎦⎥ ⎢⎣ 1 ⎦⎥

and

4

σ e2min = − μ + ∑ λiγ (hio )

i =1

(4.161)

linear simultaneous equations:

∑ λ γ (h ) − μ = γ (h

j =1

j ij io ) for i = 1, 2, ..., N

N

(4.162)

∑λ j =1

j =1

N

σ e2min = − μ + ∑ λiγ (hio )

i =1

(4.163)

terms of the variogam.

by

4-111

All the diagonal entries of the matrix equation are zero. This is an

undesirable structure for the solution of the system of linear

simultaneous equations. This is why the formulation and solution

of the estimation problem in terms of the covariance function is

usually preferred over the formulation in terms of the variogram.

from the variogram. It is essential that these numbers be

consistent and well behaved for the system of equations to have a

solution. Inconsistent numbers from an experimental variogram

could lead to a system of equations without a solution. This is why

a well behaved theoretical variogram model is usually fitted to the

experimental variogram and the theoretical variogram model is

then used instead of the experimental variogram for the estimation

calculations.

Example 4.1

The porosities at locations 1 and 4 in a linear reservoir have been

measured as shown Figure 4.60. The locations are evenly spaced 10

meters apart. The variogram for the porosity distribution in this reservoir

is shown in Figure 4.61. We are required to estimate the porosity at

location 3 at which no measurement was made.

4–112

Figure 4.60. Measured porosity values and their locations.

the available information and determine the 95% confidence

interval assuming a normal distribution.

Figure 4.60 the covariance function for the porosity distribution for

this reservoir showing important features of your sketch.

4-113

Figure 4.61. Variogram for Example 4.1.

will return the measured value if it is applied at a location

containing a measured value. In other words, if kriging is applied

to estimate the porosity at location 1, it should return a value of

10% with a minimum error variance of 0.

The best estimate of the porosity at location 3 can be obtained using

ordinary kriging. The kriging equations to be solved can be written by

inpection in terms of the covariance function as

⎢C 1 ⎥⎥ ⎢⎢λ2 ⎥⎥ = ⎢⎢C20 ⎥⎥ (4.165)

⎢ 21 C22

⎢⎣ 1 1 0 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ μ ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ 1 ⎥⎦

4–114

Let us adopt the following subscripts: Location 1 = 1, location 3 = 0 and

location 4 = 3. The matrix of lag distances for location 3 is (subscript 0) is

⎢h = (4.166)

h20 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣30 0 10 ⎥⎦

meters

⎣ 21 h22

function are related by Eq.(4.114). Therefore, the covariances needed in

Eq.(4.165) can easily be computed from the variogram. Thus, the matrix

equation to be solved is

⎡ 5 2 1 ⎤ ⎡ λ1 ⎤ ⎡ 3 ⎤

⎢ 2 5 1 ⎥ ⎢λ ⎥ = ⎢ 4 ⎥ (4.167)

⎢ ⎥⎢ 2⎥ ⎢ ⎥

⎢⎣ 1 1 0 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ μ ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ 1 ⎥⎦

1

λ1 =

3

2

λ2 =

3

μ =0

φ0* = φ3* = ⎜ ⎟ Φ1 + ⎜ ⎟ Φ 4 = ⎜ ⎟ (10 ) + ⎜ ⎟ ( 25 ) = 20%

⎝3⎠ ⎝3⎠ ⎝3⎠ ⎝3⎠

2

⎛1 2 ⎞ 4

σ e2min = σ 2 − μ − ∑ λi C (hio ) = 5 − 0 − ⎜ x3 + x 4 ⎟ =

i =1 ⎝3 3 ⎠ 3

4-115

The minimum standard deviation is

4

σ e min = = 1.1547

3

2.26 ≤ ( 20 − φ3 ) ≤ 2.26

or

The problem could also be solved in terms of the variogram. In this case,

the corresponding equations are

⎡ γ 11 γ 12 −1⎤ ⎡ λ1 ⎤ ⎡ γ 10 ⎤

⎢γ −1⎥⎥ ⎢⎢λ2 ⎥⎥ = ⎢⎢γ 20 ⎥⎥

⎢ 21 γ 22 (4.168)

⎢⎣ 1 1 0 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ μ ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ 1 ⎥⎦

⎡ 0 3 −1⎤ ⎡ λ1 ⎤ ⎡ 2 ⎤

⎢ 3 0 −1⎥ ⎢λ ⎥ = ⎢ 1 ⎥ (4.169)

⎢ ⎥⎢ 2⎥ ⎢ ⎥

⎢⎣1 1 0 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ μ ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ 1 ⎥⎦

4–116

1

λ1 =

3

2

λ2 =

3

μ =0

φ0* = φ3* = ⎜ ⎟ Φ1 + ⎜ ⎟ Φ 4 = ⎜ ⎟ (10 ) + ⎜ ⎟ ( 25 ) = 20%

⎝3⎠ ⎝3⎠ ⎝3⎠ ⎝3⎠

2

⎛1 2 ⎞ 4

σ e2min = − μ + ∑ λiγ (hio ) = −0 + ⎜ x 2 + x1⎟ =

i =1 ⎝ 3 3 ⎠ 3

4

σ e min = = 1.1547

3

2.26 ≤ ( 20 − φ3 ) ≤ 2.26

or

4-117

Thus, as expected, the kriging equations based on the covariance

function and the variogram give the same results. The sketch of the

covariance function on Figure 4.61 is left as an exercise for the reader.

kriging equation at location 1, which contains a sample datum. We

should recover the sample value of 10% with an error variance of 0. The

matrix of lag distances is

⎢h = (4.170)

h20 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣30 0 30 ⎥⎦

meters

⎣ 21 h22

be solved as

⎡ 5 2 1 ⎤ ⎡ λ1 ⎤ ⎡ 5 ⎤

⎢ 2 5 1 ⎥ ⎢λ ⎥ = ⎢ 2 ⎥ (4.171)

⎢ ⎥⎢ 2⎥ ⎢ ⎥

⎢⎣ 1 1 0 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ μ ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ 1 ⎥⎦

λ1 = 1

λ2 = 0

μ =0

2

σ e2min = σ 2 − μ − ∑ λi C (hio ) = 5 − 0 − (1x5 + 0 x 2 ) = 0

i =1

4–118

Therefore, kriging is an exact interpolator.

Example 4.2

Estimate the petrophysical property shown in Figure 4.51 at locations 1,

3, 5, 7 and 8 at which no measurements were made. The correlation

structure of the heterogeneous property is given by

To begin the calculations, we must determine the order in which the

estimates will be made. This order is determined by a random drawing.

Using a random number generator for integer values from 1 to 8, it has

been determined that the order for the estimations is 8, 1, 5, 7 and 3.

After estimating Φ*8 , this value is treated as a known sample and is used

along with the measured data for the subsequent estimations. Thus, the

number of equations to be solved increases as the estimation progresses.

generate a compact matrix equation, we renumber the known values as

shown in Figure 4.62. Next, we construct the lag distance matrix for

location 8 as shown in Table 4.8. The entries in Table 4.8 should be read

as follows. The indices 1, 2, 3 represent the locations of the renumbered

known values. The index 0 represents the location at which an estimate

is to be made. The other entries are lag distances. For example, h10 is the

lag distance (6Δx) from the point of estimation to the renumbered sample

1, h20 is the lag distance (4Δx) from the point of estimation to the

renumbered sample 2 and h30 is the lag distance (2Δx) from the point of

estimation to the renumbered sample 3. These are the lag distances

needed to construct the right hand side vector of the system of equations

4-119

to be solved. Therefore, they have been transferred into the last column

of the table under the heading hi0. The other entries in the table should

be self explanatory. For example, h11 is the lag distance between the

renumbered sample 1 and itself, which is zero.

1 2 3

0 6Δx 4Δx 2Δx hi0

1 0Δx 2Δx 4Δx 6Δx

2 2Δx 0Δx 2Δx 4Δx

3 4Δx 2Δx 0Δx 2Δx

4–120

⎡ C11 C12 C13 1 ⎤ ⎡ λ1 ⎤ ⎡ C10 ⎤

⎢C 1 ⎥⎥ ⎢⎢λ2 ⎥⎥ ⎢⎢C20 ⎥⎥

⎢ 21 C22 C23

= (4.173)

⎢C31 C32 C33 1 ⎥ ⎢ λ3 ⎥ ⎢C30 ⎥

⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥

⎣ 1 1 1 0⎦ ⎣ μ ⎦ ⎣ 1 ⎦

4.8 and Eq.(4.172), the entries of the covariance matrix of Eq.(4.173) can

easily be computed. For example, C12 is given by

⎢ 54.8812 100.0000 54.8812 1 ⎥ ⎢ λ ⎥ ⎢30.1194 ⎥

⎢ ⎥⎢ 2⎥ = ⎢ ⎥ (4.174)

⎢ 30.1194 54.8812 100.0000 1 ⎥ ⎢ λ3 ⎥ ⎢54.8812 ⎥

⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥

⎣ 1 1 1 0⎦ ⎣ μ ⎦ ⎣ 1 ⎦

linear simultaneous equations, for example, by matrix inversion. The

inverse matrix for Eq.(4.174) is

⎢ −0.0090 0.0181 −0.0090 0.1841 ⎥

Cij−1 = ⎢ ⎥ (4.175)

⎢ −0.0026 −0.0090 0.0117 0.4080 ⎥

⎢ ⎥

⎣ 0.4080 0.1841 0.4080 −63.1862 ⎦

Multiplying the right hand side of Eq.(4.174) into the inverse matrix of

Eq.(4.175) gives the solution vector as

4-121

⎡ λ1 ⎤ ⎡ 0.1841 ⎤

⎢ λ ⎥ ⎢ 0.0830 ⎥

⎢ 2⎥ = ⎢ ⎥ (4.176)

⎢ λ3 ⎥ ⎢ 0.7329 ⎥

⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥

⎣ μ ⎦ ⎣ −28.5088⎦

Eq.(4.140) as

3

σ e2min = σ 2 − μ − ∑ λi C (hio ) = 100 − ( −28.5089 )

i =1

The estimated value at location 8 is then added to the sample data set in

preparation for the estimation at location 1 as shown in Figure 4.63.

4–122

Figure 4.63. Sample data set for the estimation at location 1.

Next, we visit location 1 and construct the lag distance matrix shown in

Table 4.9.

1 2 3 4

0 1Δx 3Δx 5Δx 7Δx hi0

1 0Δx 2Δx 4Δx 6Δx 1Δx

2 2Δx 0Δx 2Δx 4Δx 3Δx

3 4Δx 2Δx 0Δx 2Δx 5Δx

4 6Δx 4Δx 2Δx 0Δx 7Δx

4-123

The matrix equation to be solved is

⎢C 1 ⎥⎥ ⎢⎢λ2 ⎥⎥ ⎢⎢C20 ⎥⎥

⎢ 21 C22 C23 C24

⎢C31 C32 C33 C34 1 ⎥ ⎢ λ3 ⎥ = ⎢C30 ⎥ (4.177)

⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥

⎢C41 C42 C43 C44 1 ⎥ ⎢λ4 ⎥ ⎢C40 ⎥

⎢⎣ 1 1 1 1 0 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ μ ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ 1 ⎥⎦

Using the matrix of lag distances in Table 4.9 and Eq.(4.170), Eq.(4.177)

becomes

⎢ 54.8812 100.0000 54.8812 30.1194 1 ⎥ ⎢λ ⎥ ⎢ 40.6570 ⎥

⎢ ⎥⎢ 2⎥ ⎢ ⎥

⎢ 30.1194 54.8812 100.0000 54.8812 1 ⎥ ⎢ λ3 ⎥ = ⎢ 22.3130 ⎥ (4.178)

⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥

⎢ 16.5299 30.1194 54.8812 100.0000 1 ⎥ ⎢λ4 ⎥ ⎢12.2456 ⎥

⎢⎣ 1 1 1 1 0 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ μ ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ 1 ⎥⎦

⎢ −0.0089 0.0182 −0.0083 −0.0010 0.1555 ⎥

⎢ ⎥

Cij−1 = ⎢ −0.0010 −0.0083 0.0182 −0.0089 0.1555 ⎥ (4.179)

⎢ ⎥

⎢ −0.0022 −0.0010 −0.0089 0.0121 0.3445 ⎥

⎢⎣ 0.3445 0.1555 0.1555 0.3445 −53.3636 ⎥⎦

Multiplying the right hand side of Eq.(4.178) into the inverse matrix of

Eq.(4.179) gives the solution vector as

⎡ λ1 ⎤ ⎡ 0.8301 ⎤

⎢ λ ⎥ ⎢ 0.0403 ⎥

⎢ 2⎥ ⎢ ⎥

⎢ λ3 ⎥ = ⎢ 0.0403 ⎥ (4.180)

⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥

⎢ λ4 ⎥ ⎢ 0.0893 ⎥

⎢⎣ μ ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ −13.8309 ⎥⎦

4–124

The kriged value is calculated as

3

σ e2min = σ 2 − μ − ∑ λi C (hio ) = 100 − ( −13.8309 )

i =1

The estimated value at location 1 is then added to the sample data set in

preparation for the estimation at location 5 as shown in Figure 4.64.

Next, we visit location 5 and construct the lag distance matrix shown in

Table 4.10.

4-125

Figure 4.64. Sample data set for the estimation at location 5.

1 2 3 4 5

0 3Δx 1Δx 1Δx 3Δx 4Δx hi0

1 0Δx 2Δx 4Δx 6Δx 1Δx 3Δx

2 2Δx 0Δx 2Δx 4Δx 3Δx 1Δx

3 4Δx 2Δx 0Δx 2Δx 5Δx 1Δx

4 6Δx 4Δx 2Δx 0Δx 7Δx 3Δx

5 1Δx 3Δx 5Δx 7Δx 0Δx 4Δx

4–126

The matrix equation to be solved is

⎢C C22 C23 C24 C25 1 ⎥⎥ ⎢⎢λ2 ⎥⎥ ⎢⎢C20 ⎥⎥

⎢ 21

⎢C31 C32 C33 C34 C35 1 ⎥ ⎢ λ3 ⎥ ⎢C30 ⎥

⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ = ⎢ ⎥ (4.181)

⎢C41 C42 C43 C44 C45 1 ⎥ ⎢λ4 ⎥ ⎢C40 ⎥

⎢C51 C52 C53 C54 C55 1 ⎥ ⎢ λ5 ⎥ ⎢C50 ⎥

⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥

⎣ 1 1 1 1 1 0⎦ ⎣ μ ⎦ ⎣ 1 ⎦

Using the matrix of lag distances in Table 4.10 and Eq.(4.170), Eq.(4.181)

becomes

⎢ 54.8812 100.0000 54.8812 30.1194 40.6570 1 ⎥ ⎢λ ⎥ ⎢ 74.0818 ⎥

⎢ ⎥⎢ 2⎥ ⎢ ⎥

⎢ 30.1194 54.8812 100.0000 54.8812 22.3130 1 ⎥ ⎢ λ3 ⎥ ⎢ 74.0818 ⎥

⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ = ⎢ ⎥ (4.182)

⎢ 16.5299 30.1194 54.8812 100.0000 12.2456 1 λ

⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢

4 40.6570 ⎥

⎢ 74.0818 40.6570 22.3130 12.2456 100.0000 1 ⎥ ⎢ λ5 ⎥ ⎢ 30.1194 ⎥

⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥

⎣ 1 1 1 1 1 0⎦ ⎣ μ ⎦ ⎣ 1 ⎦

⎢ −0.0082 0.0182 −0.0083 −0.0009 −0.0008 0.1440 ⎥

⎢ ⎥

⎢ −0.0003 −0.0083 0.0182 −0.0088 −0.0008 0.1440 ⎥

Cij−1 = ⎢ ⎥ (4.183)

⎢ −0.0007 −0.0009 −0.0088 0.0122 −0.0018 0.3192 ⎥

⎢ −0.0170 −0.0008 −0.0008 −0.0018 0.0205 0.2840 ⎥

⎢ ⎥

⎣ 0.1088 0.1440 0.1440 0.3192 0.2840 −49.4359 ⎦

Multiplying the right hand side of Eq.(4.182) into the inverse matrix of

Eq.(4.183) gives the solution vector as

4-127

⎡ λ1 ⎤ ⎡ 0.0047 ⎤

⎢ λ ⎥ ⎢ 0.4846 ⎥

⎢ 2⎥ ⎢ ⎥

⎢ λ3 ⎥ ⎢ 0.4846 ⎥

⎢ ⎥=⎢ ⎥ (4.184)

⎢ λ4 ⎥ ⎢ 0.0138 ⎥

⎢ λ5 ⎥ ⎢ 0.0123 ⎥

⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥

⎣ μ ⎦ ⎣ −2.1441⎦

+ ( 0.0123)( 29.8968 ) = 34.7659

3

σ e2min = σ 2 − μ − ∑ λi C (hio ) = 100

i =1

− ( −2.1441) − ⎜ ⎟ = 29.2243

⎝ +0.0138 x 40.6570 + 0.0123x30.1194 ⎠

The estimated value at location 5 is then added to the sample data set in

preparation for the estimation at location 7 as shown in Figure 4.65.

4–128

Figure 4.65. Sample data set for the estimation at location 7.

Next, we visit location 7 and construct the lag distance matrix shown in

Table 4.11.

1 2 3 4 5 6

0 5Δx 3Δx 1Δx 1Δx 6Δx 2Δx hi0

1 0Δx 2Δx 4Δx 6Δx 1Δx 3Δx 5Δx

2 2Δx 0Δx 2Δx 4Δx 3Δx 1Δx 3Δx

3 4Δx 2Δx 0Δx 2Δx 5Δx 1Δx 1Δx

4 6Δx 4Δx 2Δx 0Δx 7Δx 3Δx 1Δx

5 1Δx 3Δx 5Δx 7Δx 0Δx 4Δx 6Δx

6 2Δx 1Δx 1Δx 3Δx 4Δx 0Δx 2Δx

4-129

The matrix equation to be solved is

⎢C C22 C23 C24 C25 C26 1 ⎥⎥ ⎢⎢ λ2 ⎥⎥ ⎢⎢C20 ⎥⎥

⎢ 21

⎢C31 C32 C33 C34 C35 C36 1 ⎥ ⎢ λ3 ⎥ ⎢C30 ⎥

⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥

⎢C41 C42 C43 C44 C45 C46 1 ⎥ ⎢ λ4 ⎥ = ⎢C40 ⎥ (4.185)

⎢C51 C52 C53 C54 C55 C56 1 ⎥ ⎢ λ5 ⎥ ⎢C50 ⎥

⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥

⎢C61 C62 C63 C64 C65 C66 1 ⎥ ⎢ λ6 ⎥ ⎢C60 ⎥

⎢ 1

⎣ 1 1 1 1 1 0 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ μ ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ 1 ⎥⎦

Using the matrix of lag distances in Table 4.11 and Eq.(4.170), Eq.(4.185)

becomes

⎢ 54.8812 100.0000 54.8812 30.1194 40.6570 74.0818 1 ⎥ ⎢λ ⎥ ⎢ 40.6570 ⎥

⎢ ⎥⎢ 2⎥ ⎢ ⎥

⎢ 30.1194 54.8812 100.0000 54.8812 22.3130 74.0818 1 ⎥ ⎢ λ3 ⎥ ⎢ 74.0818 ⎥

⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥

⎢ 16.5299 30.1194 54.8812 100.0000 12.2456 40.6570 1 ⎥ ⎢λ4 ⎥ = ⎢ 74.0818 ⎥

⎢ 74.0818 40.6570 22.3130 12.2456 100.0000 30.1194 1 ⎥ ⎢ λ5 ⎥ ⎢16.5299 ⎥

⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥

⎢ 54.8812 74.0818 74.0818 40.6570 30.1194 100.0000 1 ⎥ ⎢ λ6 ⎥ ⎢54.8812 ⎥

⎢ 0 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ μ ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ 1 ⎥⎦

⎣ 1 1 1 1 1 1

……... (4.186)

⎢ −0.0023 0.0239 −0.0008 −0.0009 −0.0044 −0.0155 0.1348 ⎥⎥

⎢

⎢ 0.0073 −0.0008 0.0279 −0.0087 −0.0055 −0.0202 0.1320 ⎥

−1 ⎢ ⎥

Cij = ⎢ −0.0006 −0.0009 −0.0087 0.0122 −0.0019 −0.0002 0.3191 ⎥ (4.187)

⎢ −0.0207 −0.0044 −0.0055 −0.0019 0.0228 0.0097 0.2898 ⎥

⎢ ⎥

⎢ −0.0159 −0.0155 −0.0202 −0.0002 0.0097 0.0420 0.0251 ⎥

⎢ 0.0993 0.0251 −49.4209 ⎥⎦

⎣ 0.1348 0.1320 0.3191 0.2898

4–130

Multiplying the right hand side of Eq.(4.186) into the inverse matrix of

Eq.(4.187) gives the solution vector as

⎡ λ1 ⎤ ⎡ 0.0047 ⎤

⎢ λ ⎥ ⎢ 0.0058 ⎥

⎢ 2⎥ ⎢ ⎥

⎢ λ3 ⎥ ⎢ 0.4841 ⎥

⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥

⎢ λ4 ⎥ = ⎢ 0.4921 ⎥ (4.188)

⎢ λ5 ⎥ ⎢ 0.0123 ⎥

⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥

⎢ λ6 ⎥ ⎢ 0.0009 ⎥

⎢ μ ⎥ ⎢ −2.1422 ⎥

⎣ ⎦ ⎣ ⎦

+ ( 0.0123)( 29.8968 ) + ( 0.0009 )( 34.7659 ) = 22.4886

3

σ e2min = σ 2 − μ − ∑ λi C (hio ) = 100

i =1

− ( −2.1422 ) − ⎜ ⎟ = 29.2242

⎝ +0.4921x74.0818 + 0.0123x16.5299 + 0.0009 x54.8812 ⎠

4-131

The estimated value at location 7 is then added to the sample data set in

preparation for the estimation at location 3 as shown in Figure 4.66.

Next, we visit location 3 and construct the lag distance matrix shown in

Table 4.12.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

0 1Δx 1Δx 3Δx 5Δx 2Δx 2Δx 4Δx hi0

1 0Δx 2Δx 4Δx 6Δx 1Δx 3Δx 3Δx 1Δx

2 2Δx 0Δx 2Δx 4Δx 3Δx 1Δx 1Δx 1Δx

3 4Δx 2Δx 0Δx 2Δx 5Δx 1Δx 1Δx 3Δx

4 6Δx 4Δx 2Δx 0Δx 7Δx 3Δx 3Δx 5Δx

5 1Δx 3Δx 5Δx 7Δx 0Δx 4Δx 4Δx 2Δx

6 2Δx 1Δx 1Δx 3Δx 4Δx 0Δx 0Δx 2Δx

7 2Δx 1Δx 1Δx 3Δx 4Δx 0Δx 0Δx 4Δx

4–132

The matrix equation to be solved is

⎢C C22 C23 C24 C25 C26 C27 1 ⎥⎥ ⎢⎢ λ2 ⎥⎥ ⎢⎢C20 ⎥⎥

⎢ 21

⎢C31 C32 C33 C34 C35 C36 C37 1 ⎥ ⎢ λ3 ⎥ ⎢C30 ⎥

⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥

⎢C41 C42 C43 C44 C45 C46 C47 1 ⎥ ⎢ λ4 ⎥ ⎢C40 ⎥

= (4.189)

⎢C51 C52 C53 C54 C55 C56 C57 1 ⎥ ⎢ λ5 ⎥ ⎢C50 ⎥

⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥

⎢C61 C62 C63 C64 C65 C66 C67 1 ⎥ ⎢ λ6 ⎥ ⎢C60 ⎥

⎢C C72 C73 C74 C75 C76 C77 1 ⎥ ⎢λ7 ⎥ ⎢C70 ⎥

⎢ 71 ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥

⎢⎣ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ μ ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ 1 ⎥⎦

Using the matrix of lag distances in Table 4.12 and Eq.(4.170), Eq.(4.189)

becomes

⎢ 54.8812 100.0000 54.8812 30.1194 40.6570 74.0818 40.6570 1 ⎥ ⎢ λ ⎥ ⎢ 74.0818 ⎥

⎢ ⎥⎢ 2⎥ ⎢ ⎥

⎢ 30.1194 54.8812 100.0000 54.8812 22.3130 74.0718 74.0818 1 ⎥ ⎢ λ3 ⎥ ⎢ 40.6570 ⎥

⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥

⎢ 16.5299 30.1194 54.8812 100.0000 12.2456 40.6570 74.0818 1 ⎥ ⎢ λ4 ⎥ = ⎢ 22.3130 ⎥

⎢ 74.0818 40.6570 22.3130 12.2456 100.0000 30.1194 16.5299 1 ⎥ ⎢ λ5 ⎥ ⎢54.8812 ⎥

⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥

⎢ 54.8812 74.0818 74.0818 40.6570 30.1194 100.0000 54.8812 1 ⎥ ⎢ λ6 ⎥ ⎢54.8812 ⎥

⎢ 22.3130 40.6570 74.0818 74.0818 16.5299 54.8812 100.0000 1 ⎥ ⎢λ ⎥ ⎢30.1194 ⎥

⎢ ⎥⎢ 7⎥ ⎢ ⎥

⎢⎣ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ μ ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ 1 ⎥⎦

…… (4.190)

4-133

⎡ 0.0322 −0.0023 0.0074 −0.0006 −0.0207 −0.0159 −0.0001⎤ 0.0990

⎢ −0.0023 0.0239 −0.0007 −0.0008 −0.0044 −0.0155 −0.0002⎥ 0.1343

⎢ ⎥

⎢ 0.0074 −0.0007 0.0359 −0.0006 −0.0053 −0.0202 −0.0166⎥ 0.0965

⎢ ⎥

−0.0006 −0.0008 −0.0006 0.0205 −0.0017 −0.0001 −0.0168 0.2830 ⎥ (4.191)

Cij = ⎢

−1

⎢ −0.0207 −0.0044 −0.0053 −0.0017 0.0228 0.0097 −0.0004 0.2888 ⎥

⎢ ⎥

⎢ −0.0159 −0.0155 −0.0202 −0.0001 0.0097 0.0420 −0.00004 0.0250 ⎥

⎢ −0.0001 −0.0002 −0.0166 −0.0168 −0.0004 −0.00004 0.0342 0.0733 ⎥

⎢ ⎥

⎣⎢ 0.0990 0.1343 0.0965 0.2830 0.2888 −0.2306 0.0733 −49.2637 ⎦⎥

Multiplying the right hand side of Eq.(4.190) into the inverse matrix of

Eq.(4.191) gives the solution vector as

⎡ λ1 ⎤ ⎡ 0.4841 ⎤

⎢ λ ⎥ ⎢ 0.5972 ⎥

⎢ 2⎥ ⎢ ⎥

⎢ λ3 ⎥ ⎢ 0.1170 ⎥

⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥

⎢ λ4 ⎥ = ⎢ 0.0151 ⎥ (4.192)

⎢ λ5 ⎥ ⎢ 0.0151 ⎥

⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥

⎢ λ6 ⎥ ⎢ −0.2325⎥

⎢ λ ⎥ ⎢ 0.0039 ⎥

⎢ 7⎥ ⎢ ⎥

⎢⎣ μ ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ −2.6342 ⎥⎦

+ ( 0.0151)( 29.8968 ) − ( 0.2325 )( 34.7659 ) + ( 0.0039 )( 22.4886 ) = 39.5490

3

σ e2min = σ 2 − μ − ∑ λi C (hio ) = 100 − ( −2.6342 )

i =1

−⎜ ⎟ = 29.2455

⎝ +0.0.0151x 22.3130 + 0.0151x54.8812 − 0.2325 x54.8812 + 0.0039 x30.1194 ⎠

4–134

σ e min = 29.2455 = 5.4079

4.67 shows the estimated values along with the measured values. It

should be noted that kriging gives the estimated values of Φ*3 and Φ*5 that

are essentially the same as those obtained from the linear interpolation

of Figure 4.52.

Location Φi Φ*i σ e2min σ e min 1.96 σ e min Φ*i − 1.96σ e min Φ*i + 1.96σ e min

1 29.90 48.72 6.98 13.68 16.22 43.58

2 30

3 39.55 29.27 5.41 10.60 28.95 50.15

4 50

5 34.77 29.27 5.41 10.60 24.17 45.37

6 20

7 22.49 29.27 5.41 10.60 11.89 33.09

8 24.33 82.81 9.10 17.84 6.49 42.17

4-135

Figure 4.67. Graph of the measured and the kriged values for Example

4.2.

properties for all the grid blocks of our reservoir simulation model that

honor the measured data and the correlation structure of the

heterogeneous properties. Further, we are able to estimate the

uncertainty associated with the estimates at each grid block. We have

made significant progress in dealing with the heterogeneities of our

reservoir rock.

such as simple kriging, universal kriging, block kriging and ordinary

4–136

cokriging. These other types of kriging are usually covered in a

geostastistics course.

4.6.1 Introduction

average of the sample data. Such a weighted average can never be larger

than the largest sample value nor can it be smaller than the smallest

sample value. Thus, kriging eliminates local variability. If such local

variability is important, then it can be incorporated into the estimated

values using conditional simulation. Conditional simulation also is

referred to as stochastic simulation or Monte Carlo simulation is the

other major application of geostatistics. The simulation is conditioned on

the measured data.

estimates obtained from kriging was associated with an uncertainty in

the estimated value measured by the estimation variance or the

estimation standard deviation. Thus, the kriged estimate is a random

variable with a known variance or standard deviation. If the kriged value

comes from a normal distribution, then it is possible to draw a simulated

value from this distribution that is centered on the kriged value and has

a variance that is equal to the estimation variance and a standard

deviation that is equal to the estimation standard deviation.

values of a petrophysical property in a heterogeneous reservoir at

4-137

locations for which no sample data have been measured. The simulated

values should honor the measured sample data and the correlation

structure of the heterogeneity as revealed by the analysis of the sample

data. Further, it should retain the local variability. Here is an algorithm

for performing such a stochastic simulation known as Sequential

Gaussian Simulation (SGS).

along with the estimation variance and the estimation standard

deviation.

equal to the kriged estimate and a standard deviation equal to the

estimation standard deviation at that node. This is the simulated

value at that node. This step can be accomplished by using either

Eq.(4.50, (4.64) or (4.65) to draw a sample from a standard normal

distribution and then applying either Eq.(4.53), (4.66) or (4.67) to

compute the simulated value as

Φ si = Φ*i + σ ei zi (4.193)

moving to a new location, a new zi must be drawn for that

location.

4–138

4. Include the newly simulated value in the set of conditioning data

and use the expanded data set to simulate the value at the next

location.

randomly at the start, and repeat the calculations to simulate the

value at this location.

6. Repeat the calculations until all grid nodes have a simulated value.

can be obtained by repeating the calculations from step 1. To do

so, the order of the simulation is first determined using a random

number generator. This order should be different from all previous

orders. The calculations will then yield a new realization, whose

simulated values will be different from the previous realizations. If

there are N nodes to be simulated, there will be N! (N factorial)

possible realizations.

Example 4.3

Simulate values at the locations 1, 3, 5, 7 and 8 of Figure 4.51 at which

no samples were taken using Sequential Gaussian Simulation.

Let us simulate one realization. The first part of the calculations was

done in Example 4.2 in which kriged estimates were computed in the

following random order: 8, 1, 5, 7 and 3. The estimation variance and

standard deviations also were computed and presented in Table 4.13. To

simulate values at the five nodes, we draw five variates from a standard

normal distribution using Eq.(4.50, (4.64) or (4.65). For example, using

4-139

Eq.(4.64) the following five variates were drawn from a standard normal

distribution:

0.8821

-1.1679

0.6419

2.8546

0.91009

3 as follows:

Figure 4.68 shows the measured values, kriged values and the simulated

values.

4–140

Figure 4.68. A comparison of the measured, kriged and simulated values

for Example 4.3.

the oil recovery curve for a viscous oil reservoir (μo = 100 cp). The

coreflood experiment was performed in an unconsolidated sandpack.

The task at hand is to use the laboratory test in a sandpack to forecast

the oil recovery curve for a heterogeneous reservoir. Figure 4.69 shows

the CT images of the laboratory waterflood at three times just before

water breakthrough. It is shows a fairly uniform displacement of oil by

4-141

the water. Figure 4.70 shows the oil recovery curve from the experiment.

It should observed that even for a fairly uniform sandpack, the oil

recovery after 3 pore volumes of water injection is less than 60% of the

initial oil in place. What will be the oil recovery in a reservoir with

significant permeability heterogeneity?

pore volume injected, (b) 0.10 pore volume injected, ( c) 0.25 pore volume

injected (Gharbi and Peters, 1993)

.

4–142

Figure 4.70. Oil recovery curve for a laboratory waterflood in a sandpack

(Gharbi and Peters, 1993)

.

The problem of forecasting the oil recovery curve in the field based

on a laboratory waterflood boils down to investigating the effect of

permeability heterogeneity on the waterflood performance. To address

this question, we generated twelve synthetic reservoirs with varying

degrees of permeability heterogeneity and correlation structures and then

scaled the laboratory waterflood to the synthetic reservoirs through

numerical simulation. Figure 4.71 shows the twelve heterogeneous, 2D

4-143

permeability fields generated to cover a wide range of Dykstra-Parsons

coefficient and correlation lengths using Sequential Gaussian

Simulation. Permeability fields were generated at Dykstra-Parsons

coefficients (V) of 0.01, 0.55 and 0.87 and dimensionless correlation

lengths of 0, 0.2, 0.7 and 2.0. The correlation length was made

dimensionless by dividing the correlation length by the length of the

reservoir in that direction. A Dykstra-Parsons coefficient of 0.01

represents a nearly homogeneous medium whereas a Dyktra-Parsons

coefficient of 0.89 represents an extremely heterogeneous medium.

Petroleum reservoirs typically have Dykstra-Parsons coefficients that

range from 0.5 to 0.9. A dimensionless correlation length of zero

represents an uncorrelated or random permeability distribution; a

correlation length of 0.2 represents mild correlation; a correlation length

of 2.0 represents extremely strong correlation. Depending on the

depositional environment, petroleum reservoirs can have widely different

correlation lengths. The value of dimensionless correlation length in the

y direction (Ly) was constant at 0.2 for the permeability fields shown in

Figure 4.71.

of Figure 4.71. First, as the correlation length (Lx) increases, the

permeability distributions become more and more stratified. The

number of layers is inversely proportional to Ly. In fact, as Lx

approaches infinity, for Ly = 0.2, the permeability distribution will

consist of exactly five (1/0.2) distinct homogeneous layers. Second, with

increasing Dykstra-Parsons coefficient at a given Lx, the contrast in the

permeability values increases while their spatial arrangements remain

similar. Figure 4.72 shows the permeability histograms, which indicate

that the permeability fields are log-normally distributed in accordance

4–144

with observations in sedimentary rocks. Figure 4.73 shows the

variograms for the twelve permeability fields, which give a visual

impression of the degree of correlation in each permeability field.

1993)

Figure 4.74 shows a comparison of the recovery curve for the waterflood

experiment and the numerical simulation of the experiment. The

agreement between the two recovery curves is good. The simulation was

used to determine the relative permeability curves to be used to scale the

laboratory waterflood to the synthetic heterogeneous reservoirs.

4-145

Figure 4.72. Simulated permeability histograms (Gharbi and Peters,

1993).

4–146

Figure 4.73. Simulated permeability variograms in the x-direction

(Gharbi and Peters, 1993).

4-147

Figure 4.74. A comparison of the oil recovery curves of the experiment

and the numerical simulation of the experiment (Gharbi and Peters,

1993).

Figure 4.75 compares the simulated oil recovery curves for each of

the twelve heterogeneous synthetic reservoirs with that of the laboratory

waterflood experiment. The following observations can be made from

these results. If the heterogeneous reservoir is characterized by low

variability in the permeability distribution (low Dykstra-Parsons

coefficient), the waterflood response will be essentially the same as in the

laboratory sandpack regardless of the correlation structure of the

4–148

heterogeneity. This is indicated by the agreement between the simulated

and the experimental recovery curves in the first column of Fig. 4.75 (V =

0.01). If the heterogeneous reservoir is characterized by a low correlation

length in the permeability distribution (low Lx), the waterflood response

will be essentially the same as in the laboratory sandpack regardless of

the variability in the permeability distribution. This is indicated by the

agreement between the simulated and the experimental recovery curves

in the first row of Figure 4.75 (Lx = 0). If the heterogeneous reservoir is

characterized by high variability and high correlation length in the

permeability distribution, the waterflood response could be significantly

different from that of the laboratory sandpack. This is most clearly

shown by the response in the last permeability field in Figure 4.75 (Lx =

2 and V = 0.87). In this case, the waterflood effeciency is significantly

less in the heterogeneous reservoir than in the laboratory sandpack.

performance between the laboratory waterflood in a relatively

homogeneous sandpack and in certain kinds of heterogeneous reservoirs,

we examine the simulated water saturation maps. Figures 4.76 and 4.77

show the simulated water saturation maps for each of the twelve

heterogeneous reservoirs at 0.10 and 0.25 pore volume injected. We see

that the displacements in the heterogeneous media with high Dykstra-

Parsons coefficient and high correlation length are dominated by

channeling of the injected water due to the permeability stratification.

This results in significant bypassing of the oil in some layers, resulting in

a low oil recovery. These channels provide easy pathways for the water to

flow from the injection well to the producing well, essentially leaving

much of the reservoir unswept. By contrast, the displacements in the

reservoirs with low Dykstra-Parsons coefficients are characterized by

4-149

excellent sweep comparable with that observed in the CT images of the

laboratory waterflood experiment (Figure 4.69). This results in a

displacement performance that is comparable to the laboratory

waterflood experiment in the sandpack.

oil recovery (EOR) displacement in a heterogeneous reservoir could be

significantly lower than in a laboratory experiment depending on the

degree and structure of the heterogeneity of the reservoir. This

conclusion underscores the need for proper scaling when using the

results of laboratory coreflood experiments in relatively homogeneous

porous media to forecast the expected performance of an EOR process in

heterogeneous reservoirs. The methodology developed and presented in

this study can be used to accomplish this scaling and prevent erroneous

performance forecasts.

4–150

Figure 4.75. A comparison of the experimental and simulated oil recovery

curves (Gharbi and Peters, 1993).

4-151

Figure 4.76. Simulated water saturation maps at 0.10 pore volume

injected (Gharbi and Peters, 1993).

injected (Gharbi and Peters, 1993).

NOMENCLATURE

C = covariance function

4–152

C0 = nugget effect

erf = error function

erfc = complementary error function

F = cumulative probability distribution

h = pay thickness

h = lag distance

k = absolute permeability of the medium

ln = natural logarithm (log to base e)

Lx = dimensionless correlation length in the x-direction

Ly = dimensionless correlation length in the y-direction

P = probability density function

s = standard deviation of sample data

s2 = variance of sample data

V = Dykstra-Parsons coefficient of variation

x = linear coordinate

x = random variable

z = variate from a standard normal distribution

ρ = correlation coefficient function

μ = population mean

μ = Lagrange parameter

σ = population standard deviation

σ2 = population variance

φ = porosity, fraction

τ = mean of log normal distribution

γ = variogram

λ = kriging weights

Φ = sample data

Φ = sample mean

ω = standard deviation of a log normal distribution

ω2 = variance of a log normal distribution

4-153

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS

1998.

Caers, J. : Petroleum Geostatistics, Society of Petroleum Engineers,

Richardson, 2005.

Carlson, M.R. : Practical Reservoir Simulation, PennWell, Tulsa, 2003.

Chambers, R.L., Yarus, J.M. and Hird, K.B. : “Petroleum Geostatistics for

Nongeostatisticians – Part 1,” The Leading Edge (May 2000) 474-

479.

Chambers, R.L., Yarus, J.M. and Hird, K.B. : “Petroleum Geostatistics for

Nongeostatisticians – Part 2,” The Leading Edge (June 2000) 592-

599.

Clark, I. : Practical Geostatistics, Applied Science Publishers, London,

1979.

Clark, I. and Harper, W.V. : Practical Geostatistics 2000, Ecosse North

America Llc, Columbus, 2000.

Clark, I. : "Does Geostatistics Work? ", Proc. 16th APCOM, Thomas J

O'Neil, Ed., Society of Mining Engineers of AIME Inc, New York,

1979, 213-225.

Deutsch, C.V.: "What in the Reservoir is Geostatistics Good For ?", Jour.

Cand. Pet. Tech. (April 2006) 14-20.

Deutsch, C.V.: Geostatistical Reservoir Modeling, Oxford University Press,

New York, 2002.

Deutsch, C.V. and Journel, A.G. : GSLIB Geostatistical Software Library

and User’s Guide, Oxford University Press, New York, 1992.

Dykstra, H. and Parsons, R.L. : “The Prediction of Oil Recovery by

Waterflood,” Secondary Recovery of Oil in the United States,

American Petroleum Institute (1950) 160-175.

Gharbi, R. and Peters, E.J. : “Scaling Coreflood Experiments to

Heterogeneous Reservoirs,” Journal of Petroleum Science and

Engineering, 10, (1993) 83-95.

Gharbi, R.: Numerical Modeling of Fluid Displacements in Porous Media

Assisted by Computed Tomography Imaging, PhD Dissertation, The

University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, August 1993.

4–154

Gotway, C.A. and Hergert, G.W. : "Incorporating Spatial Trends and

Anisotropy in Geostatistical Mapping of Soil Properties," Soil

Science of America Journal, Vol. 61 (1977) 298-309.

Hohn, M.E. : Geostatistics and Petroleum Geology, Van Nostrand Reinhold,

New York, 1988.

Hirsche, K., Porter-Hische, J., Mewhort, L. and Davis, R. : "The Use and

Abuse of Geostatistics," The Leading Edge (March 1997) 253-260.

Holbrook, P. : Pore Pressure Through Earth Mechanical Systems, Force

Balanced Petrophysics, 2001.

Isaaks, E.H. and Srivastava, R.M. : An Introduction to Applied

Geostatistics, Oxford University Press, New York, 1989.

Jensen, J.L., Lake, L.W., Corbett, P.W.M. and Goggin, D.J. : Statistics for

Petroleum Engineers and Geoscientists, 2nd Edition, Elsevier, New

York, 2000.

Kerbs, L. : “GEO-Statistics: The Variogram,” Computer Oriented Geological

Society Computer Contributions (August 1986) 2, No. 2, 54-59.

Metheron, G. : "Principles of Geostatistics," Economic Geology, Vol. 58

(1963) 1446-1266.

Peters, E.J., Afzal, N. and Gharbi, R. : “On Scaling Immiscible

Displacements in Permeable Media,” Journal of Petroleum Science

and Engineering, 9, (1993) 183-205.

Peters, E.J. and Gharbi, R. : “Numerical Modeling of Laboratory

Corefloods,” Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 9, (1993)

207-221.

Peters, E.J. and Afzal, N. : “Characterization of Heterogeneities in

Permeable Media with Computed Tomography Imaging,” Journal of

Petroleum Science and Engineering, 7, No. 3/4, (May 1992) 283-

296.

Peters, E.J. and Hardham, W.D. : “Visualization of Fluid Displacements

in Porous Media Using Computed Tomography Imaging,” Journal of

Petroleum Science and Engineering, 4, No. 2, (May 1990) 155-168.

Zirschy, J.H. and Harris, D.J. : "Geostatistical Analysis of Hazardous

Waste Site Data," J. of Environmental Engineering, Vol. 112 (1986)

770784.

4-155

4–156

CHAPTER 5

5.1 INTRODUCTION

displacing fluid tends to mix with the displaced fluid. The result is that a

mixing or transition zone develops at the front in which the

concentration of the injected fluid decreases from one to zero.

Experiment shows that the mixing zone grows as the displacement

progresses. This mixing and spreading of the injected fluid is known as

dispersion.

actual movement of individual tracer particles through pores...".

Essentially, dispersion is the mixing caused by single-phase fluid

movement through a porous medium. What is "mixed" is usually called

a tracer, but can be thought of as a concentration of any chemical

component within a given phase that is transported through the system.

5-1

Dispersion has practical consequences in contaminant transport in

aquifers and in improved oil recovery from petroleum reservoirs. If a

miscible contaminant is accidentally introduced into an aquifer at a site,

dispersion will cause the contaminant to spread to a larger area as it is

being transported by groundwater flow. Even though the concentration

of the contaminant is reduced by dispersion, a much larger area of the

aquifer will become contaminated as a result of dispersion than the

original spill area. Thus, a much larger area than the original spill will

need to be cleaned up by any contaminant remediation measure.

method. Because there is no capillary force to trap the displaced oil, it is

theoretically possible to recover 100% of the oil by miscible displacement.

However, because the injected solvent is usually more expensive than the

oil that is to be displaced, it is usually injected in small quantities as

slugs and chased by a less expensive fluid such as water or gas.

Dispersion will dilute and reduce the effectiveness of the miscible slug as

it is propagated through the reservoir. In this case, dispersion is

detrimental to the recovery process. On the other hand, dispersion

causes a solvent to mix, spread and contact the displaced fluid even after

it had been originally bypassed by the injected solvent. In this case,

dispersion improves the displacement efficiency.

of tracers such as dyes, electrolytes and radioactive isotopes to

characterize reservoir and aquifer properties, (2) development of a

transition zone between salt water and fresh water in coastal aquifers, (3)

radioactive and reclaimed sewage waste disposals into aquifers, (4) use of

reactors packed with granular material in the chemical industry, and (5)

5–2

movement of fertilizers in the soil and the leaching of salts from the soil

in agriculture.

DISPLACEMENTS

media, it is instructive and illuminating to view images of miscible

displacements that show dispersion at work. The images presented in

this section are for first-contact miscible displacements. This means that

the two fluids used in the experiment are fully miscible upon first

contact. This is in contrast to developed miscibility encountered in

certain enhanced oil recovery process in which the injected fluid is not

initially miscible with the displaced fluid. However, after a certain time

has elapsed, mass transfer between the injected and the displaced fluids

causes the two fluids to become miscible. First-contact miscible

displacements are the most efficient type of displacements.

displacement for that matter, is controlled by, among other factors, the

mobility ratio, the effect of gravity, dispersion and the heterogeneity of

the porous medium. Mobility ratio is a dimensionless number that is

characteristic of a displacement. The mobility of a fluid phase in a porous

medium is defined as

k phase

λ phase = (5.1)

μ phase

where k phase is the effective permeability to that phase and μ phase is the

5-3

λdisplacing fluid

M= (5.2)

λdisplaced fluid

as a result, the effective permeability to each fluid is equal to the

absolute permeability of the porous medium. Therefore, for first-contact

miscible displacements, the mobility ratio simplifies to

⎛ k ⎞

⎜⎜ ⎟

⎝ μdisplacing fluid ⎟⎠ μdisplaced fluid

M= = (5.3)

⎛ k ⎞ μdisplacing fluid

⎜⎜ ⎟⎟

⎝ μdisplaced fluid ⎠

viscosity ratio given by the viscosity of the displaced fluid divided by the

viscosity of the displacing fluid. A mobility ratio of 1 or less is favorable

to the displacement efficiency whereas a mobility ratio greater than 1 is

unfavorable to the displacement efficiency. The lower the mobility ratio,

the higher is the displacement efficiency. The higher the mobility ratio,

the lower is the displacement efficiency.

override and gravity underride or tonguing can significantly reduce the

displacement efficiency. However, by careful engineering, gravity override

can be used to enhance the displacement efficiency if the less dense

solvent is injected up dip while the denser displaced fluid is withdrawn

down dip.

If a miscible slug is used in a displacement process to reduce cost,

5–4

dispersion will dilute and degrade the effectiveness of the slug as the

process progresses. On the other hand, mixing caused by dispersion can

allow the injected solvent to spread and contact more of the displaced

fluid than if dispersion was absent. In this case, dispersion is favorable

to the displacement efficiency.

the displacement efficiency for the most part. Because the heterogeneity

has a correlation structure, high permeabilities tend to occur next to

high permeabilities and low permeabilities tend to occur next to low

permeabilities as the porous medium is traversed from one point to

another. These permeability arrangements cause the injected fluid to

channel through the high permeability layers, thereby leaving the low

permeability layers unswept.

displacement in an unconsolidated sandpack at a favorable mobility ratio

of 0.82. In the experiment, a brine containing sodium chloride was used

to displace another brine containing barium chloride, which is an x-ray

doppant. The images show the concentrations of the injected solvent in a

vertical slice of the 3D sandpack at dimensionless times of 0.13, 0.50

and 1.0 pore volume injected. Mixing caused by dispersion is clearly

visible at the displacement front. The mixing zone length, defined as the

distance between the solvent concentrations of 0.90 and 0.10, is slightly

tilted in Figure 5.1B because of a small density difference between the

injected brine and the displaced brine. The injected brine was slightly

less dense that the displaced brine. Thus, the tilt is a small gravity

override. Because of the favorable mobility ratio, the displacement is very

efficient with almost 100% displacement efficiency at 1 pore volume

injected. The displacement efficiency is slightly less than 100% because

5-5

of the small gravity override problem. This experiment shows that a

miscible displacement can be quite susceptible to gravity instability in

the form of gravity override if the injected fluid is less dense than the

displaced fluid and gravity tonguing if the injected fluid is denser than

the displaced fluid.

displacement in a sandpack. A: tD = 0.13, B: tD = 0.50, C: tD = 1.0 pore

volume injected. M = 0.82, φ = 35.26%, k = 15.76 darcies, v = 0.154x10-2

cm/s, BT recovery = 96.53% (Peters and Hardham, 1990).

5–6

Figure 5.2 shows the 1D profiles of the 3D solvent concentration

distributions at the three dimensionless times. The profiles have the

classical shapes predicted by the convection-dispersion model of

dispersion to be presented later in this chapter. The profiles can be used

to characterize the dispersion phenomenon in the direction of flow.

displacement experiment of Figure 5.1 (Peters and Hardham, 1990).

displacement at an unfavorable mobility ratio of 74. Here, brine with an

x-ray doppant was used to displace a mixture of glycerine and brine. The

injected brine was less dense than the displaced fluid. It can be seen that

the density difference results in a significant gravity override. Such an

override is detrimental to the displacement efficiency. Mixing caused by

dispersion is also clearly evident. The transverse or lateral dispersion is

quite orderly as one moves from the pure solvent to the pure displaced

5-7

fluid. There is also viscous instability or viscous fingering caused by the

adverse mobility ratio. At a mobility ratio greater than 1, the displacing

fluid is more mobile than the displaced fluid. As a result, at the interface

between the two fluids, the displacing fluid tends to penetrate the

displaced fluid due to the inevitable imperfections in the porous medium.

These perturbations may grow to form viscous fingers as shown in Figure

5.3B. Figure 5.4 shows the corresponding solvent concentration profiles

for this displacement. The shapes of the profiles are significantly different

from those of Figure 5.2 and cannot be predicted by the idealized

convection-dispersion model. Clearly, this displacement is less efficient

than that of Figure 5.1.

5–8

Figure 5.3. CT images of solvent concentration for a first-contact miscible

displacement in a sandpack. A: tD = 0.13, B: tD = 0.50, C: tD = 1.0 pore

volume injected. M = 74, φ = 35.68%, k = 16.69 darcies, v = 0.014x10-2

cm/s, BT recovery = 31.23% (Peters and Hardham, 1990).

displacement experiment of Figure 5.3 (Peters and Hardham, 1990).

5-9

Figure 5.5 shows the images of a first-contact miscible

displacement at an unfavorable mobility ratio of 54 with gravity override.

The images show that portions of the porous medium that were initially

bypassed by the solvent due to gravity override, were subsequently

displaced with continued solvent injection. This is a testament to the

efficiency of miscible displacements. By contrast, in an immiscible

displacement, portions of the porous medium initially bypassed for

whatever reason typically remain unswept with continued injection.

Figure 5.6 shows the corresponding solvent concentration profiles. Notice

how the disturbances in the profiles propagate in time and space. This is

characteristic of miscible displacements. Such disturbances typically

remain stationary in immiscible displacements.

five-spot pattern at a mobility ratio of 1. Here, dyed water was used to

displace clear water in a thin porous medium consisting of uniform glass

beads. The images were obtained with a home-built imaging system

described by Peters and Reid (1990). As expected, the displacement is

efficient. The mixing zone length caused by dispersion is also visible. The

areal sweep efficiency can easily be measured. The areal sweep efficiency

is the ratio of the area contacted by the injected fluid and the total area

of the pattern. Note that because of the geometry of the displacement

pattern, there are dead spots between the injector and the producing

wells. In a field flood, such dead spots would be potential candidates for

infill drilling. In this experiment, the thin porous medium was oriented

horizontally. As a result, gravity effect was negligibly small.

5–10

Figure 5.5. CT images of solvent concentration for a first-contact miscible

displacement in a sandpack. M = 54, φ = 31.70%, k = 9.5 darcies, v =

0.850x10-2 cm/s, BT recovery = 28.80% (Peters and Afzal, 1992).

5-11

Figure 5.6. Average solvent concentration profiles for the miscible

displacement experiment of Figure 5.5 (Peters and Afzal, 1992).

displacement in a glass bead pack. M = 1(Peters and Reid, 1990).

5–12

Figure 5.8 shows the images of another first-contact miscible

displacement in the same porous medium as in Figure 5.7 at a mobility

ratio of 100. The porous medium was oriented horizontally. There is

significant mixing due to dispersion and viscous fingering due to the

adverse mobility ratio. Clearly, this displacement is less efficient than

that of Figure 5.7.

displacement in a glass bead pack. M = 100 (Peters and Reid, 1990).

5-13

Figure 5.9 shows images of a first-contact miscible displacement in

the same porous medium and at the same mobility ratio as in Figure 5.8

but with the medium oriented vertically to take advantage of the

beneficial effect of gravity override. This experiment was designed to

simulate a horizontal injection well at the top left corner and a horizontal

producing well at the bottom right corner of the medium. With this

arrangement, gravity override is beneficial to the displacement efficiency

in contrast to the displacement of Figure 5.3 in which gravity segregation

was detrimental to the displacement efficiency. It can be seen that here,

miscible displacement experiment in a glass bead pack (Peters and Reid,

1990).

5–14

gravity override delays the solvent breakthrough thereby significantly

enhancing the displacement efficiency compared to the displacement of

Figure 5.8. There is viscous fingering due to the adverse mobility ratio as

well as significant mixing due to dispersion. Clearly, this displacement is

more efficient than that of Figure 5.8.

displacement in the layered sandstone core of Figure 2.57 at a favorable

mobility ratio of 0.84. One can see mixing due to dispersion. However,

the dominate effect is channeling due to the permeability heterogeneity of

the layered medium. It can be concluded from these images that

permeability stratification in a porous medium can have a significant

adverse effect on any displacement, miscible or immiscible. Figure 5.11

shows the corresponding solvent concentration profiles.

sandstone core as in Figure 5.10 but at an unfavorable mobility ratio of

95. Here, the effect of viscous fingering due to the adverse mobility ratio

is superimposed on the channeling due to the heterogeneity of the core.

Notice that the channels created by the injected solvent are thinner than

in Figure 5.10 indicating a less efficient displacement than in Figure

5.10. Figure 5.13 shows the corresponding solvent concentration

profiles.

5-15

Figure 5.10. NMR images of a first-contact miscible displacement in a

layered sandstone core at a mobility ratio of 0.84 (Peters and Li, 1996).

5–16

Figure 5.11. Average solvent concentration profiles for the miscible

displacement of Figure 5.9 (Peters and Li, 1996).

5-17

Figure 5.12. NMR images of a first-contact miscible displacement in a

layered sandstone core at a mobility ratio of 95 (Peters and Li, 1996).

5–18

Figure 5.13.Average solvent concentration profiles of a first-contact

miscible displacement in a layered sandstone core at a mobility ratio of

95 (Peters and Li, 1996).

efficiency of miscible displacements. The figure shows the recovery

curves for miscible displacements in the same layered sandstone core as

in Figure 5.10 for mobility ratios ranging from 0.84 to 95. Clearly,

mobility ratio has a significant impact on the efficiency and the timing of

a miscible displacement. Displacements at adverse mobility ratios suffer

from early solvent breakthroughs and require more pore volumes of

5-19

injection to attain the same displacement efficiency as favorable mobility

ratio displacements.

a layered sandstone core at various mobility ratios (Peters and Li, 1996).

velocity gradients within given pores, (c) locally heterogeneous streamline

lengths and velocities, and (d) mechanical mixing in pore bodies.

5–20

Dispersion can be viewed as consisting of two components: molecular

diffusion and mechanical dispsersion.

chemical potential gradient, which is correlated to the chemical

concentration of the solute being transported. It is mixing caused by

random motions of the fluid particles due to the thermal kinetic energy of

the solute. This motion is known as Brownian motion. Molecular

diffusion is isotropic and occurs equally in all directions. Molecular

diffusion can easily be demonstrated in the laboratory. If a drop of blue

ink is carefully added to a beaker of water and allowed to sit, after

sometime, the water in the beaker will turn blue as a result of molecular

diffusion. Thus, molecular diffusion occurs whether there is flow or not.

Molecular diffusion will contribute to both longitudinal and transverse

dispersions. Molecular diffusion in a porous medium is less than it

would be in the absence of the porous medium. The solid grains hinder

diffusion just as they hindered the flow of electrical current and fluid

flow. Because of the larger molecular spacing, molecular diffusion in a

gas is much larger than in a liquid.

mechanical dispersion. The origins of mechanical dispersion can be seen

in Figure 5.15. The figure shows marked fluid particles at time t and at

time t+Δt. When a fluid flows in a porous medium, its velocity

distribution within a pore is not uniform, due to boundary effects acting

in three different ways as shown in Figure 5.15. In Figure 5.15a, the no

slip condition at the pore wall creates a velocity gradient in the fluid. This

5-21

velocity gradient causes the marked fluid particles to be spread out in

the flow direction. This is longitudinal dispersion in the flow direction. In

Figure 5.15b, the variation in pore dimensions (recall k ∝ r2) causes flow

to occur faster (further) in some pores than in others. This causes the

marked fluid particles to be spread out in the direction of flow. This is

longitudinal dispersion in the direction of flow. In Figure 5.15c, the

streamlines fluctuate with respect to the mean flow direction as the fluid

particles navigate around the solid grains. This effect of the tortuosity of

the porous medium causes the fluid particles to be spread out in the

transverse direction with respect to the mean flow direction. This is

transverse dispersion, perpendicular to the direction of flow. Finally,

there is local mixing of the fluids within the pores as shown in Figure

5.16. This contributes to the mechanical dispersion.

5–22

Figure 5.16.Local mechanical mixing of fluid particles.

transport mechanisms: (a) advection or convection and (b) dispersion.

Advection is mass transport due to the bulk motion of the carrying fluid

and is given by

G G

J a = φ uC (5.4)

G

where J a is the mass flux vector (mass/area/time) of species i due to

G

advection, φ is the porosity of the porous medium, u is the interstitial

velocity vector (Darcy velocity vector/porosity) and C is the concentration

(mass/unit volume of solution) of species i in the solution. The mass flux

due to dispersion is given by

G

J d = −φ D∇C (5.5)

5-23

G

where J d is the mass flux vector (mass/area/time) of species i due to

coefficient tensor characterizes molecular diffusion and mechanical

dispersion and is given by

D = Dd + Dm (5.6)

∂ (φ C ) G

+ ∇.J = 0 (5.7)

∂t

G

where t is time and J is the total mass flux vector of species i due to

advection and dispersion and is given by the vector sum

G G G

J = Ja + Jd (5.8)

Substituting Eqs.(5.4) and (5.5) into (5.7) gives the mass transport

equation for a constant porosity medium as

∂C G

+ ∇. ( uC ) − ∇. ( D∇C ) = 0 (5.9)

∂t

is known by a variety of names such the advection-dispersion equation,

convection-dispersion equation, first-contact miscible displacement

equation, solute transport equation and mass transport equation. It is a

linear, second order, parabolic partial differential equation. It can be

5–24

used to solve a variety of transport problems. If the transport is by pure

convection with no dispersion, then Eq.(5.9) simplifies to

∂C G

+ ∇. ( uC ) = 0 (5.10)

∂t

dispersion. In this case, transport is by molecular diffusion only and

Eq.(5.9) becomes

∂C

− Dd ∇ 2C = 0 (5.11)

∂t

∂C ∂C ∂ 2C

+ ux − DL 2 = 0 (5.12)

∂t ∂x ∂x

principal value of the dispersion coefficient in the x direction known as

the longitudinal dispersion coefficient. In this case, the flow direction is a

principal axis of the dispersion coefficient anisotropy. Eq.(5.12) can be

written in terms of Darcy velocity instead the interstitial velocity as

∂C vx ∂C ∂ 2C

+ − DL 2 = 0 (5.13)

∂t φ ∂x ∂x

5-25

where ux is the Darcy velocity also known as the superficial velocity. It is

possible to extend the mass transport equation to include retardation of

the solute due to adsorption, chemical reaction, biological

transformations or radioactive decay. In the case of retardation due to

adsorption of the chemical species on the surface of the porous medium,

Eq.(5.12) becomes

∂C u x ∂C DL ∂ 2C

+ − =0 (5.14)

∂t R f ∂x R f ∂x 2

equal to 1, there is no adsorption whereas if Rf is greater than 1, there is

adsorption and the transport of the chemical species will be retarded.

This means that in the presence of adsorption, the concentration profiles

of the chemical species will travel at a speed that is lower than if there

was no adsorption. This fact is obvious from Eq.(5.14) in which the speed

of convection has been reduced from vx to vx/Rf. Also, retardation

reduces the effective dispersion coefficient as shown in Eq.(5.14).

Equation

Eq.(5.12) together with appropriate initial and boundary conditions. For

transport in a semi infinite medium, the initial-boundary value problem

consists of the following equations:

∂C ∂C ∂ 2C

+ ux − DL 2 = 0 (5.12)

∂t ∂x ∂x

C ( x, 0 ) = Ci (5.15)

5–26

C ( 0, t ) = C j (5.16)

C ( ∞, t ) = Ci (5.17)

of the injected species in the solution domain at time zero. A convenient

initial concentration in laboratory experiments is Ci equal to zero, which

means there is no injected chemical species in the initial saturating fluid.

Eq.(5.16) is the inlet boundary condition, which specifies the

concentration of the injected species at all times. A convenient inlet

boundary condition is Cj is equal to 1 at all times, although this is

difficult to arrange in an actual laboratory experiment. Eq.(5.17) is the

external boundary condition, which specifies that far away from the inlet,

the concentration of the injected species is equal to its initial value at

time zero. Such a boundary condition was used in the welltest model of

Chapter 3 for an infinite acting reservoir.

follows:

+ − =0 (5.18)

∂t D ∂xD N Pe ∂xD2

C ( xD , 0 ) = 0 (5.19)

CD ( 0, t D ) = 1 (5.20)

C ( ∞, t D ) = 0 (5.21)

5-27

where

C ( x, t ) − Ci

CD = (5.22)

C j − Ci

uxt qt

tD = = (5.23)

L Aφ L

x

xD = (5.24)

L

ux L qL

N Pe = = (5.25)

DL Aφ DL

defines a relevant dimensionless number for the transport known as the

Peclet Number. It is the ratio of the two transport mechanisms involved,

advection and dispersion. In the definition of Peclet Number in Eq.(5.25),

the length of the porous medium, L, has been used as a characteristic

dimension of the system. Of course, in a semi infinite medium, the length

of the porous medium would not be a convenient characteristic

dimension of the system. In general, Peclet Number is defined as

ux Dp

N Pe = (5.26)

DL

convenient characteristic dimension could be the grain diameter in the

case in which the porous medium is composed of granular material.

5–28

Another possible characteristic dimension of a porous medium could be

k

in the spirit of Eq.(3.119).

φ

Eqs.(5.18) through (5.21), can be solved by Laplace transformation.

Ogata and Banks (1961) give the solution of Eqs.(5.12), (5.15), (5.16) and

(5.17) as

C ( x, t ) = i ⎢erfc ⎜ ⎟ + e L erfc ⎜ ⎟⎥ (5.27)

2 ⎢⎣ ⎜2 D t ⎟ ⎜2 D t ⎟⎥

⎝ L ⎠ ⎝ L ⎠⎦

reproduced here for convenience as

2 ∞

erfc ( u ) =

π ∫

e− u du

2

(5.28)

u

The error function and the complementary error function are related by

Also,

5-29

⎡ ⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞⎤

⎢ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟⎥

1⎢ x −t ⎟ + e xD N Pe erfc ⎜ xD + t D ⎟⎥

CD ( xD , t D ) = erfc ⎜ D D (5.32)

2⎢ ⎜ t ⎟ ⎜ t ⎟⎥

⎢ ⎜⎜ 2 D ⎟⎟ ⎜⎜ 2 D ⎟⎟ ⎥

⎣⎢ ⎝ N Pe ⎠ ⎝ N Pe ⎠ ⎦⎥

Ogata and Banks (1961) demonstrated that the second term in the

square bracket of the right hand sides of Eqs.(5.27) and Eq.(5.32) can be

neglected in comparison to the first term. The solution given by Eq.(5.27)

then becomes

Ci ⎡ ⎛ x − uxt ⎞⎤

C ( x, t ) = ⎢erfc ⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎥ (5.33)

⎢⎣ ⎜2 D t

2 ⎝ L ⎠ ⎥⎦

related to the cumulative normal probability distribution with mean vx t ,

form is

⎡⎛ ⎞⎤

⎢⎜ ⎟⎥

x −t

CD ( xD , t D ) = erfc ⎢⎜ D D ⎟⎥

1

(5.34)

2 ⎢⎜ t ⎟⎥

⎢⎜⎜ 2 D ⎟⎟ ⎥

⎢⎣⎝ N Pe ⎠ ⎥⎦

or

1 ⎡ ⎛ x −t ⎞⎤

CD ( xD , t D ) = erfc ⎢ N Pe ⎜ D D ⎟⎟ ⎥ (5.35)

⎢⎣ ⎜ 2 t

2 ⎝ D ⎠ ⎥⎦

5–30

Eq.(5.34) or (5.35) also is related to the cumulative normal probability

2t D 2t D

distribution with mean t D , variance and standard deviation .

N Pe N Pe

Eq.(5.34) or (5.35) for a Peclet Number of 100. It should be observed that

the solution at each dimensionless time is given by

2t D

with mean t D and standard deviation . The shape of the solution is

N Pe

breakthrough time is less than 1 pore volume injected. The concentration

CD = 0.5 travels at the advection speed all times. Although it has not be

stated explicitly, the solution given by Eq.(5.34) or (5.35) is valid for an

idealized system under very restrictive conditions. The conditions are (1)

homogeneous and isotropic porous medium, (2) the injected fluid has the

same density as the displaced fluid, and (3) the injected fluid has the

same viscosity as the displaced fluid. These conditions preclude

channeling due to gross permeability heterogeneity, gravity override or

gravity tonguing and viscous fingering, all of which phenomena are not

included in the convection-dispersion equation. If these restrictions are

met, then Eq.(5.34) or (5.35) gives a good representation of the solvent

concentration profiles observed in laboratory experiments. For example,

although the experiment shown in Figures 5.1 and 5.2 does not quite

meet all the restrictions because of the small gravity override,

nevertheless Eq.(5.34) or (5.35) can be used to approximately reproduce

5-31

the laboratory measured solvent concentration profiles of Figure 5.1.

Figure 5.18 shows the result of a first attempt to reproduce the solvent

concentration profiles of Figure 5.1 using Eq.(5.34). The agreement

between laboratory measured profiles and those predicted by Eq.(5.34) is

good. Of course, the experimental profiles are distorted by the small

gravity override observed in the experiment. As a result, the experimental

profiles and the calculated profiles do not match exactly at the

displacement front. There is also evidence of retardation in the

experiment as the experimental profiles seem to lag behind the

calculated profiles.

volume injected shown in Figure 5.19. Marked on the figure are the

Number of 100.

5–32

Figure 5.18. A comparison of the simulated and the measured solvent

concentration profiles for the miscible displacement of Figure 5.1 and

5.2.

and 0.10 and the dimensionless mixing zone length equal to twice the

standard deviation between CD = 0.8413 and 0.1588. It should be

observed that at tD = 0.5 pore volume injected, the advection front has

traveled exactly half the distance of the porous medium. This is as it

should be because the advection front travels at the advection speed or

at the interstitial velocity. Both the mixing zone length and the length

that represents twice the standard deviation grow in proportion to t D ,

although this is not obvious from looking at the solution at one time. In

5-33

fact, it can be shown that the dimensionless mixing length between CD =

0.90 and CD = 0.10 is given by

tD

ΔxD = 3.625 (5.37)

N Pe

or in dimensional form by

Δx = 3.625 DL t (5.38)

function of time during an experiment, then a graph of Δx versus

Number of 100 at tD = 0.50 pore volume injected.

5–34

Let us replot the solutions of Figure 5.19 as CD versus z, where z is

defined as

xD − t D

z= (5.39)

tD

dimensionless times. They collapse into one dimensionless curve that is

characteristic of the displacement as shown in Figure 5.20. The slope of

this curve reflects the Peclet Number or the longitudinal dispersion

coefficient. The steeper the curve, the higher is the Peclet Number or the

lower is the longitudinal dispersion coefficient. This transformation can

be used to test if the concentration profiles measured in an experiment

obey the complementary error function solution of the convection-

dispersion equation. The transformation was derived from Eq.(5.35),

which shows that CD is a function of the parameter NPe and the

xD − t D

independent variable .

tD

dispersion coefficient on the solutions of the convection-dispersion

equation. At low Peclet Numbers or high longitudinal dispersion

coefficient, the mixing zone length is large whereas at high Peclet

Numbers or low longitudinal dispersion coefficient, the mixing zone

length is small.

5-35

Figure 5.20. Transformation of the solutions at a fixed Peclet Number.

5–36

Figure 5.21. The effect of Peclet Number or longitudinal dispersion

coefficient on the solution of the convection-dispersion equation.

at the outlet end of the porous medium (where xD = 1 ) for the case of a

1 ⎡ ⎛ 1 − tD ⎞⎤

CD (1, t D ) = erfc ⎢ N Pe ⎜ ⎟⎥ (5.40)

2 ⎢⎣ ⎜2 t ⎟⎥

⎝ D ⎠⎦

2 2

and standard deviation . Figure 5.22 shows the breakthrough

N Pe N Pe

mirror image of the solvent concentration profiles. Thus, Eq.(5.40) can be

used in conjunction with the breakthrough curve measured in an

experiment to determine the Peclet Number ( N Pe ) and hence, the

5-37

Figure 5.22. Breakthrough curve.

transformation equation is

1 − tD

z= (5.41)

tD

a linear normal probability graph paper, will be a straight line as shown

in Figure 5.24. Such a plot can be used to fit the breakthrough curve to

the normal distribution for the purpose of determining the Peclet

Number, and hence, the longitudinal dispersion coefficient.

5–38

Figure 5.23. Transformed breakthrough curve.

5-39

Figure 5.24. Transformed breakthrough curve plotted on normal

probability scale.

5–40

In the presence of retardation due to adsorption, the solution given

by Eq.(5.34) can be modified to include the retardation factor as

⎡⎛ t ⎞⎤

⎢ ⎜ xD − D ⎟⎥

⎢ ⎟⎥

CD ( xD , t D ) = erfc ⎢⎜⎜

1 Rf

⎟⎥ (5.42)

2 tD

⎢⎜ 2 ⎟⎥

⎢⎣⎜⎝ R f N Pe ⎟⎥

⎠⎦

coefficient tensor in the xyz coordinate system is given by

⎢ ⎥

D ( x, y, z ) = ⎢ Dyx Dyy Dyz ⎥ (5.43)

⎢ Dzx Dzy Dzz ⎥⎦

⎣

in 3D, and by

⎡ Dxx Dxy ⎤

D ( x, y ) = ⎢ (5.44)

⎣ Dyx Dyy ⎥⎦

conductivity tensor is symmetric. Using the same transformation

equations presented in Chapter 3 for permeability and hydraulic

conductivity, the principal values of the dispersion coefficient tensor and

the principal axes of the dispersion coefficient anisotropy can be

determined. Along the principal coordinates of the anisotropy uvw, the

dispersion coefficient tensor becomes

5-41

⎡ DL 0 0 ⎤

D ( u , v, w ) = ⎢⎢ 0 DT 0 ⎥⎥ (5.45)

⎢⎣ 0 0 DW ⎥⎦

in 3D, and

⎡D 0⎤

D ( u, v ) = ⎢ L (5.46)

⎣0 DT ⎥⎦

of mean flow and DT is the transverse dispersion coefficient in the

direction perpendicular to the mean flow.

the dispersion can be demonstrated qualitatively by the following

experiment. Suppose a tracer is injected at time zero as a point source

into a homogeneous and isotropic reservoir in which there is steady flow

as shown in Figure 5.25. At times t1 and t2, the concentration of the

tracer would be as shown in Figure 5.25. The tracer has spread and the

concentration distribution has become elliptical. There is more spreading

or dispersion in the direction of mean flow than in the direction

perpendicular to it. Thus, the direction of mean flow and the direction

perpendicular to the mean flow are principal axes of the dispersion

coefficient anisotropy. The principal value of the dispersion coefficient

tensor in the direction of mean flow is DL and the one perpendicular to

the direction of mean flow is DT. In general, DL ≥ DT .

5–42

Figure 5.25. Variation in tracer concentration in 2D for a constant

velocity flow system.

coefficients can be written as

where the two terms on the right sides of Eqs.(5.46) and (5.47) represent

the contributions of molecular diffusion and mechanical dispersion to

the dispersion coefficients. Based on experimental observations,

Eqs.(5.47) and (5.48) may be written in dimensionless form as

β

DL ⎛ uD p ⎞

= C1 + C2 ⎜ ⎟ (5.49)

Do ⎝ Do ⎠

β

DT ⎛ uD ⎞

= C1 + C3 ⎜ p ⎟ (5.50)

Do ⎝ Do ⎠

where C1, C2, C3 and β are properties of the porous medium and the flow

regime, Do is the effective binary molecular diffusion coefficient between

the miscible displacing fluid and the displaced fluid, and Dp is the mean

5-43

particle diameter of the porous medium. It has been found also from

experiments that C1 is given by

1 1

C1 = = (5.51)

φF τ

porous medium. Therefore, Eqs.(5.49) and (5.50) can be written as

β

DL 1 ⎛ uD ⎞

= + C2 ⎜ p ⎟ (5.52)

Do τ ⎝ Do ⎠

β

DT 1 ⎛ uD ⎞

= + C3 ⎜ p ⎟ (5.53)

Do τ ⎝ Do ⎠

1.25.

DL D

Figure 5.26 shows the correlations for and T with the Peclet

Do Do

vD p

Number, , for unconsolidated porous media obtained by Perkins and

Do

Johnson (1963). Figure 5.26a shows that at Peclet Numbers less than

0.02, molecular diffusion dominates the longitudinal dispersion

coefficient and the dispersion coefficient is equal to the diffusion

coefficient in the porous medium. In this regime, the mechanical

dispersion term on the right side of Eq.(5.52) is negligible compared to

the molecular diffusion term. In this regime, the dimensionless molecular

term is about 0.67. This means that the diffusion coefficient for a tracer

in a porous medium is less than the diffusion coefficient in the same

5–44

liquid in the absence of the porous medium. This difference is caused by

the tortuosity of the porous medium. In fact, 1/0.67 or 1.5 is an estimate

of the tortuosity of unconsolidated porous media. At the transition Peclet

Numbers between 0.02 and 6, both molecular diffusion and mechanical

dispsersion contribute to the dispersion coefficient. At Peclet Numbers

above 6, the dispersion coefficient is dominated by mechanical dispersion

and the effect of molecular diffusion can be neglected.

dispersion coefficient is similar to that of the dimensionless longitudinal

dispersion coefficient. However, it should be noted that the scale of the

Peclet Number in Figure 5.26b starts at 0.1 compared to 0.001 in Figure

5.26a. This means that the regime dominated by molecular diffusion

occurs over a larger range of Peclet Numbers for transverse dispersion

than for longitudinal dispersion. Thus, molecular diffusion is much more

important to transverse dispersion than to longitudinal dispersion. At

high Peclet Numbers, the longitudinal dispersion coefficient is greater

than the transverse dispersion coefficient. This is clearly evident by

plotting the two correlations for dimensionless dispersion coefficients on

the same scale as shown in Figure 5.27. Other authors have obtained

correlations for longitudinal dispersion coefficient similar to that of

Perkins and Johnston as shown in Figure 5.28.

greater than 6. Also, as pointed out earlier, β is approximately 1. Under

these conditions, molecular diffusion can be neglected and Eqs.(5.52)

and (5.53) can be approximated as

β

⎛ uD ⎞

DL = C2 ⎜ p ⎟ Do ≅ α L u (5.54)

⎝ Do ⎠

5-45

β

⎛ uD ⎞

DT = C3 ⎜ p ⎟ Do ≅ αT u (5.55)

⎝ Do ⎠

be used to estimate the dispersivities if the dispersion coefficients have

been measured independently. In terms of the longitudinal dispersivity,

the Peclet Number defined in Eq.(5.25) becomes

5–46

dispersion coefficients. (a) dimensionless longitudinal dispersion

coefficient, (b) transverse dispersion coefficient (Perkins and Johnston,

1963).

dispersion coefficients plotted on the same scale (Perkins and Johnston,

1963).

5-47

Figure 5.28. Correlation for dimensionless longitudinal dispersion

coefficient by various authors (Pfannkuch, 1963; Saffman, 1960).

L

N Pe = (5.56)

αL

a property of the porous medium. However, dispersivities are highly scale

dependent. Figures 5.29 and 5.30 show values of measured

dispersitivities as functions of the measurement scale. Note the

logarithmic scales. In general, dispersitivities measured at laboratory

scale are much smaller than those measured at field scale. Reservoir

heterogeneity is the cause of this scale effect. In field measurements, the

effect of heterogeneity is to stretch out the solvent concentration profile,

5–48

which is interpreted as a large dispersion coefficient or a large

dispersivity.

5-49

Figure 5.29. Longitudinal dispersivity versus measurement scale (Arya,

1988).

measurement scale (Gelhar, 1986).

5–50

5.6 MEASUREMENT OF DISPERSION COEFFICIENT AND

DISPERSIVITY

longitudinal dispersion coefficient. Figure 5.31 shows a schematic

diagram for such a test. A tracer or solvent is used to displace a miscible

fluid from the porous medium and the solvent concentration of the

effluent at the outlet end of the core is measured as a function of time.

The figure at the upper left of Figure 5.31 shows the injected tracer or

solvent concentration as a function of time whereas the figure at the

upper right shows the concentration of the solvent in the effluent. The

injected solvent concentration is a step function in which pure solvent is

injected throughout the experiment. At the outflow end, initially, the

concentration of the injected solvent will be zero because it has not yet

broken through. After the injected solvent has arrived at the outlet end

ahead of the advection front because of dispersion, its concentration will

increase from zero to 1 over a finite period of time as shown in the

sketch. The curve of concentration versus time at the outlet end of the

core is known as the breakthrough curve and can be fitted to Eq.(5.40) to

estimate the Peclet Number and the longitudinal dispersion coefficient.

5-51

Figure 5.31. Laboratory coreflood experiment for measuring longitudinal

dispersion coefficient.

to satisfy the mathematical model of Eq.(5.34) or (5.35), the restrictions

outlined previously must be implemented in the experiment. The core

should be fairly uniform, the density of the injected solvent and the

displaced fluid must be matched and the viscosity of the injected solvent

and the displaced fluid also must be matched. When these restrictions

are implemented, the breakthrough curve will approximate the

1 − tD

cumulative normal probability distribution. A graph of CD versus

tD

Figure 5.24. The mixing zone length between CD = 0.9 and CD = 0.1 read

from the graph is related to the Peclet Number as

3.625 ⎛ 1 − t D ⎞ ⎛ 1 − tD ⎞

=⎜ ⎟⎟ −⎜ ⎟⎟ (5.57)

N Pe ⎜⎝ t D ⎜

⎠CD =0.9 ⎝ t D ⎠CD =0.1

5–52

Eq.(5.57) can be rearranged to calculate the longitudinal dispersion

coefficient as

2

⎡⎛ 1− t ⎞ ⎛ 1 − tD ⎞ ⎤

⎢⎜ D

⎟⎟ −⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎥

⎜

⎢ ⎝ tD ⎜

⎠CD =0.9 ⎝ t D ⎠CD =0.1 ⎥

DL = uL ⎢ ⎥ (5.58)

⎢ 3.625 ⎥

⎢ ⎥

⎣⎢ ⎦⎥

= 0.16 will be equal to twice the standard deviation of the normal

distribution. Thus,

2 ⎛ 1 − tD ⎞ ⎛ 1 − tD ⎞

2 =⎜ ⎟⎟ −⎜ ⎟⎟ (5.59)

N Pe ⎜⎝ t D ⎜

⎠CD =0.84 ⎝ t D ⎠CD =0.16

coefficient as

uL ⎡⎢⎛ 1 − t D ⎞ ⎛ 1 − tD ⎞ ⎤

⎥

DL = ⎜ ⎟ −⎜ ⎟ (5.60)

8 ⎢⎝⎜ t D ⎟ ⎜

⎠CD =0.84 ⎝ t D

⎟

⎠CD =0.16 ⎥⎦

⎣

experimentally. As a result, there are very few transverse dispersion

coefficient data reported in the literature beside those of Perkins and

Johnson (1963).

longitudinal dispersion coefficient and dispersivity by imaging the

5-53

laboratory tracer test. CT or NMR imaging of the coreflood gives the

solvent concentration profiles in time and space similar to those of Figure

5.17. These profiles can be fitted to the solution of the convection-

dispersion equation, Eq.(5.34) or (5.35), by trial and error to estimate the

Peclet Number and the longitudinal dispersion coefficient. The

longitudinal dispersion coefficient so determined will be the same as that

determined from the breakthrough curve. The dispersivity is calculated

from the dispersion coefficient using Eq.(5.54). Furthermore, the growth

of the mixing zone length with time can easily be calculated from the 3D

image data such that the graph of Δx versus t can be used to calculate

the longitudinal dispersion coefficient. The advantage of this approach is

that the contribution of heterogeneity to the dispersion coefficient also

can be measured.

dispersion coefficient and the longitudinal dispsersivity of the Berea

sandstone core of Figure 4.33 and the unconsolidated sandpack of

Figure 5.30 using these methods.

Berea sandstone core is presented in Table 5.1. Figure 5.32 shows the

CT images of the tracer test in the Berea sandstone. The growth of the

mixing zone is clearly visible. The mixing zone is distorted by

permeability heterogeneity of the core. The lower half of the core is more

permeable than the upper half. This is evident in the permeability image

of the core shown in Figure 5.33. The permeability distribution of the

core was determined by a technique described by Peters and Afzal (1991).

concentration profiles using Eq.(5.34). The slopes of the profiles from

5–54

Eq.(5.34) and the experiment are in good agreement indicating that the

Peclet Number is correct. However, at late dimensionless times, the

profiles obtained from Eq.(5.34) have traveled further than those from

the experiment. This is evidence of retardation caused by adsorption.

Figure 5.35 shows the history match using Eq.(5.42) with a retardation

factor, Rf, of 1.11. The agreement between the two sets of solvent

concentration profiles is good. The parameters that resulted in this

history match are N Pe = 159 , DL = 600 x10−5 cm 2 / s and α L = 0.379cm .These are

would have been obtained from a breakthrough curve. It should be noted

that the effect of the distortion in the mixing zone caused by permeability

heterogeneity is interpreted as increased dispersion coefficient and

increased dispersivity of the porous medium.

Porous Medium Berea Sandstone

Length (cm) 60.2

Diameter (cm) 5.1

Absolute Permeability (md) 160.4

Average Porosity from CT (%) 17.3

Fluids

Displacing Fluid Distilled Water + 10% NaI

Density of Displacing Fluid (g/cm3) 1.078

Viscosity of Displacing Fluid (cp) 1.029

Displaced Fluid Distilled Water+1.4% NaCl + 10% KCl

Density of Displaced Fluid (g/cm3) 1.078

Viscosity of Displaced Fluid (cp) 1.028

Mobility Ratio (Viscosity Ratio) 1.0

Darcy Velocity (cm/s) 2.742x10-3

5-55

Interstitial Velocity (cm/s) 1.714x10-2

0.20; B: tD = 0.50; C: tD = 0.80 (Peters et al., 1996)

5–56

Figure 5.33. Permeability distribution for Berea sandstone core (Peters

and Afzal, 1991).

Figure 5.36 shows the growth of the mixing zone length with time

for the Berea sandstone core. The mixing zone length was obtained for

the 3D CT data by calculating the distances between CD = 0.90 and CD =

0.10 for each dimensionless time. This resulted in several thousand

values of mixing zone length at each dimensionless time. The several

thousand values were then averaged to obtain one mixing zone length for

each time. Each point in Figure 5.36 is the average mixing zone length

plotted against the corresponding time. It can be seen that the mixing

zone length grows as the square root of time as predicted by Eq.(5.38).

The longitudinal dispersion coefficient and longitudinal dispersivity are

calculated from the slope of the straight line of Figure 5.36 as

5-57

DL = 431x10−5 cm 2 / s and α L = 0.272 cm . It should be noted that with this

method, the dispersion coefficient and the dispersivity are less than

calculated previously because the effect of the permeability heterogeneity

was excluded from the calculations.

concentration profiles for Berea sandstone core for Rf = 0 (Peters et al.,

1996).

5–58

Figure 5.35. A comparison of the simulated and experimental solvent

concentration profiles for Berea sandstone core for Rf = 1.11 (Peters et

al., 1996).

5-59

Figure 5.36. Growth of mixing zone length with time for the Berea

sandstone core (Peters et al., 1996).

presented in Table 5.2. Figure 5.37 shows the CT images of the tracer

test in the sandpack. The growth of the mixing zone also is clearly

visible. The mixing zone is distorted by the heterogeneity of the

sandpack. It should be recalled that this sandpack contained radial

heterogeneities based on the packing method that was used in preparing

it. Figure 5.38 shows the permeability distribution for the sandpack.

concentration profiles using Eq.(5.34). The slopes of the profiles from

Eq.(5.34) and the experiment are in good agreement indicating that the

Peclet Number is correct. However, at late dimensionless times, the

profiles obtained from Eq.(5.34) have traveled further than those from

the experiment. There is retardation caused by adsorption in the

sandpack. Figure 5.40 shows the history match using Eq.(5.42) with a

retardation factor of 1.04. The agreement between the two sets of solvent

concentration profiles is good. The parameters that resulted in this

history match are N Pe = 554 , DL = 100 x10−5 cm 2 / s and α L = 0.098 cm .

Figure 5.41 shows the growth of the mixing zone length with time

for the sandpack. The longitudinal dispersion coefficient and longitudinal

dispersivity are calculated from the mixing zone length as

DL = 82 x10−5 cm 2 / s and α L = 0.080 cm .

concentration profiles from the two tracer tests. It can be seen that there

is more dispersion in the Berea sandstone core than in the

5–60

unconsolidated sandpack. The results of the tracer tests for both porous

media are summarized in Table 5.3.

Sandpack

Porous Medium Unconsolidated Sandpack

Length (cm) 54.2

Diameter (cm) 4.8

Absolute Permeability (md) 6400

Average Porosity from CT (%) 29.7

Fluids

Displacing Fluid Distilled Water + 13% NaCl

Density of Displacing Fluid

(g/cm3) 1.089

Viscosity of Displacing Fluid (cp) 1.262

Displaced Fluid Distilled Water + 10% BaCl2

Density of Displaced Fluid (g/cm3) 1.089

Viscosity of Displaced Fluid (cp) 1.127

Mobility Ratio (Viscosity Ratio) 0.9

Darcy Velocity (cm/s) 3.037x10-3

Interstitial Velocity (cm/s) 1.023x10-2

Breakthrough Recovery (%) 95

5-61

Figure 5.37. CT images of a tracer test in unconsolidated sandpack. A: tD

= 0.20; B: tD = 0.50; C: tD = 0.80 (Peters et al., 1996)

5–62

Figure 5.38. Permeability distribution for unconsolidated sandpack

(Peters and Afzal, 1991).

5-63

Figure 5.39. A comparison of the simulated and experimental solvent

concentration profiles for unconsolidated sandpack for Rf = 0 (Peters et

al., 1996).

5–64

Figure 5.40. A comparison of the simulated and experimental solvent

concentration profiles for unconsolidated sandpack for Rf = 1.04 (Peters

et al., 1996).

5-65

Figure 5.41. Growth of mixing zone length with time for unconsolidated

sandpack (Peters et al., 1996).

5–66

Figure 5.42. Similarity transformation of solvent concentration profiles

(Peters et al., 1996).

5-67

Porous Medium Berea Unconsolidated

Sandstone Sandpack

with

Heterogeneity (cm2/s) 600x10-5 100x10-5

Heterogeneity (cm) 0.379 0.098

without Heterogeneity (cm2/s) 431x10-5 82x10-5

Heterogeneity (cm) 0.272 0.080

in the field by tracer tests either in a single well or between two or more

wells. Eq.(5.9) in radial coordinates can be used to calculate the

dispersion coefficient and the dispersitivity from a single-well tracer test.

Eq.(5.9) can be written in radial coordinates as

∂C ∂C ∂ 2C

+ ur − α L ur 2 = 0 (5.61)

∂t ∂r ∂r

Gelhar and Collins (1971) give the solution of Eq.(5.61) with appropriate

initial and boundary conditions for a single-well tracer test as

5–68

⎡ ⎤

⎢ ⎥

⎢ ⎥

CD = erfc ⎢⎢

1 ( tD − tDi ) − 1 ⎥ (5.62)

2 ⎥

1

⎢ ⎧⎪ 16 ⎛ α L ⎞ ⎡ ⎛ t D ⎞ ⎤ 2 ⎛ t D ⎞ ⎫⎪ ⎥

2 1

⎢ ⎨ 3 ⎜ ⎟ ⎢ 2 − ⎜1 − ⎟ ⎥ ⎜1 − ⎟⎬ ⎥

⎢⎣ ⎩⎪ ⎝ R ⎠ ⎣ ⎝ tDi ⎠ ⎦ ⎝ tDi ⎠ ⎭⎪ ⎥⎦

where

qt

R= (5.63)

π hφ

the total pore volume of tracer fluid injected at the beginning of the test.

The longitudinal dispersitivity can be calculated by fitting Eq.(5.62) to the

concentration profile obtained from the tracer test. Figure 5.43 shows the

fit of Eq.(5.62) to two tracer tests in the same well in a water-bearing

aquifer. The aquifer was 8.2 meters thick, with an average hydraulic

conductivity of 1.4x10-2 cm/s and a porosity of 38%. In Test SW1, the

volume of the tracer fluid injected was such that the tracer fluid

extended to a radius of 3.13 meters from the well. In Test SW2, the

volume of tracer fluid was such that the tracer fluid extended to a radius

of 4.99 meters. Thus, the two tests had different measurement scales.

Based on the history match shown in Figure 5.42, the dispersitivity of

the aquifer from the first test was 3.0 cm and that from the second test

was 9.0 cm. The results show the dependence of the dispersivity on the

scale of the measurement. In Test SW1, the scale of measurement was

3.13 meters whereas in Test SW2, it was 4.99 meters. The two scales of

measurement resulted in two different estimates of dispersivity with the

larger measurement scale resulting in a larger dispersitivity than the

smaller measurement scale.

5-69

Figure 5.43. Comparison of tracer concentration and Eq.(5.62)for single-

well injection-withdrawal test (Pickens and Grisak, 1981).

the field. However, in this case, a numerical simulator will be needed to

5–70

interpret the test. Figure 5.44 shows attempts to interpret a two-well

tracer test using a finite element numerical simulator. In the test, a slug

of tracer was injected into one well and chased by water while the tracer

concentration was measured as a function of time at the second well. A

2D homogeneous aquifer model gave a longitudinal dispersitivity of 4.0 m

whereas a 3D heterogeneous aquifer model gave a much smaller

dispersivity of 0.15 m. Of course, the history match of the breakthrough

curve for a heterogeneous aquifer does not give a unique solution to the

problem. Different configurations of the aquifer heterogeneity can result

in good history matches with widely different values of dispersivity.

from a two-well tracer test (Huyakorn et al., 1986).

5-71

5.7 FACTORS THAT COULD AFFECT DISPERSION

COEFFICIENT AND DISPERSIVITY

were requested to name the factors they believed could possibly affect the

dispersion coefficient and the dispersivity of a porous medium. There

were no restrictions. All factors that came to mind were listed. Here are

the factors that were listed, organized into rock characteristics, fluid

properties and process characteristics.

1. Rock Characteristics

Porosity (φ)

Permeability (k)

Heterogeneity

Variogram (γ)

Chemical reaction

Biological transformation

Radioactive decay

5–72

Pore structure

Cementation

Tortuosity

2. Fluid Properties

fluids (Do)

G

Interstitial velocity field ( u )

G

Gravitational acceleration field ( g )

dispersion coefficient is a function of some of these variables and that the

functional relationship is of the form

DL = f1 ( μ s , D p , u, Do , μo , Δρ g ) (5.64)

nature of the function f1. To plan the experimental program, dimensional

5-73

analysis can be used to derive the set of complete and independent

dimensionless groups that can be used in the experimental program to

determine the nature of f1. Upon performing the dimensional analysis as

presented in Appendix A, Eq.(5.64) can be written in dimensionless form

as

DL ⎛ uD p μo D 3p Δρ g ⎞

= f2 ⎜ , , ⎟ (5.65)

Do ⎜ D μ Do μ s ⎟⎠

⎝ o s

laboratory experiments for determining the longitudinal dispersion

coefficient, the viscosity of the injected fluid should be matched with that

⎛μ ⎞

of the displaced fluid. If this is done, the mobility ratio, ⎜ o ⎟ , will be a

⎝ μs ⎠

constant equal to 1 and its effect will be eliminated from the experiment.

Also, the density of the injected fluid should be matched with that of the

⎛ D 3p Δρ g ⎞

displaced fluid. In this case, the dimensionless group, ⎜ , will be a

⎜ D μ ⎟⎟

⎝ o s ⎠

constant equal to zero and it will not be a factor in the experiment. If

these restrictions are implemented in the experiments, then Eq.(5.65)

becomes

DL ⎛ uD p ⎞

= f3 ⎜ ⎟ (5.66)

Do ⎝ Do ⎠

dispersion coefficient as

DT ⎛ uD p ⎞

= f4 ⎜ ⎟ (5.67)

Do ⎝ Do ⎠

5–74

DL D

The experimental program will then consist of measuring and T as

Do Do

uD p

functions of the Peclet Number, , to determine the nature of f3 and f4.

Do

and 5.28.

MISCIBLE DISPLACEMENT

5.8.1 Introduction

to be modeled accurately with a finite difference numerical simulator.

Such a numerical simulator can be used to interpret tracer tests or to

model field processes that can be adequately described as first-contact

miscible processes.

a heterogeneous and anisotropic reservoir consists of the following mass

transport, continuity, flow and mixing equations:

∂ (φ C ) G

+ ∇.(vC ) − ∇.(φ D∇C ) = 0 (5.68)

∂t

∂ (φρ ) G

+ ∇.( ρ v ) = 0 (5.69)

∂t

G k

v = − ∇( P ± ρ gz ) (5.70)

μ

5-75

ρ mixture = ρ s Cs + ρo (1 − Cs ) (5.71)

−4

⎛ C 1− C ⎞

μ mixture = ⎜ 1/s 4 + 1/ 4 s ⎟ (5.72)

⎝ μs μo ⎠

where

⎢ ⎥

D = ⎢ Dyx Dyy Dyz ⎥ (5.73)

⎢ Dzx Dzy Dzz ⎥⎦

⎣

and

⎡ k xx k xy k xz ⎤

⎢ ⎥

k = ⎢ k yx k yy k yz ⎥ (5.74)

⎢ k zx k zy k zz ⎥⎦

⎣

reservoir. It is a modified version of Eq.(5.9), which was for a

homogeneous reservoir with a constant porosity. Note that the advection

term in Eq.(5.68) is in terms of Darcy velocity instead of interstitial

velocity. Eq.(5.69) is the continuity equation for flow. Eq.(5.70) is Darcy's

law for a heterogeneous and anisotropic reservoir. Eq.(5.71) is the mixing

rule for density. It specifies how to calculate the fluid density as a

function of the solvent concentration. It is a linear mixing rule, which

has been verified experimentally. Figure 5.45 compares the linear mixing

rule with experimental density measurements for mixtures of glycerol

and brine. The agreement is good. Eq.(5.72) is the mixing rule for

viscosity. It specifies how the viscosity is to be calculated as a function of

the solvent concentration. It is known as the quarter-power viscosity

5–76

mixing rule. This mixing rule also has been verified in laboratory

measurements as shown in Figure 5.46 for glycerol and brine.

Figure 5.45. Verification of linear density mixing rule for two first-contact

miscible fluids: Fluid 1 is brine; Fluid 2 is glycerol and water.

5-77

Figure 5.46. Verification of quarter-power viscosity mixing rule for two

first-contact miscible fluids: Fluid 1 is brine; Fluid 2 is glycerol and

water.

Eqs.(5.68) through (5.74), can be solved by finite difference using

appropriate initial and boundary conditions. A possible sequence for the

calculations at one time-step is as follows. Substitute Eq.(5.70) into

(5.69) to derive a generalized diffusivity equation for the pressure field.

Solve the pressure equation by finite difference. Use the pressure field

and Eq.(5.70) to calculate the Darcy velocity field. Substitute the Darcy

velocity field into Eq.(5.68) and solve Eq.(5.68) by finite difference to

calculate the solvent concentration distribution. Of course, the

properties of the porous medium and the fluids must be specified in

advance.

5–78

5.8.3 Numerical Modeling of Laboratory Experiments

first-contact miscible displacements experiments based on the numerical

solution of Eqs.(5.68) through (5.74). The porous media used in the

experiments and the solvent concentration distributions in time and

space were imaged by NMR. Each simulation entailed the

characterization of the porous medium by constructing its permeability

distribution using Sequential Gaussian Simulation. The porosity

distribution was obtained directly from by NMR imaging. The pertinent

dimensionless groups for the displacements are mobility ratio (M), the

Peclet Number (NPe) as defined in Eq.(5.25), the gravity or buoyancy

number (Ng), and the density number (Nρ).

The gravity number is the ratio of the gravity force to the viscous

force and is given by

k ( ρ s − ρo ) g

Ng = (5.75)

μo u

The higher the gravity number, the higher the potential for gravity

segregation in the experiment. If the gravity number is negative, the

gravity segregation will be in the form of gravity override, whereas if the it

is positive, the gravity segregation will be in the form of gravity tonguing.

The density number is defined as

ρ s − ρo

Nρ = (5.76)

ρo

5-79

The higher the density number, the higher the potential for gravity

segregation. A negative density number correlates with gravity override

whereas a positive density number correlates with gravity tonguing.

difference chemical flooding simulator developed at The University of

Texas at Austin. A 3D Cartesian coordinate system was used to simulate

the displacements in a cylindrical core. Figure 5.47 shows how the

rectangular grids were adapted to simulate a cylindrical system. All the

simulations were performed with 40x40x20 grid blocks.

Experiment 1

This experiment was conducted in homogeneous Berea sandstone

core at a favorable mobility ratio of 0.84 and a Darcy velocity of 0.00014

5–80

cm/s (0.40 ft/day). Figure 5.48 shows an artist impression of the core

along with the nomenclature used in the core characterization. The core

properties were: L = 10 cm, d = 5 cm, k = 622 md and φ = 24%. Figure

5.49 shows the porosity distribution of the core obtained by NMR

imaging. Figure 5.50 shows the NMR images of the solvent concentration

distributions in time and space. The mixing zone is tilted because of

gravity tonguing. Figure 5.51 shows the solvent concentration profiles for

the experiment.

5-81

Figure 5.49. Porosity distribution for homogeneous Berea sandstone core

(Majors et al., 1997).

5–82

Figure 5.50. Solvent concentration images for Experiment 1. M = 0.84, Ng

= 0.3656, Nρ = 0.0899, NPe = 45.5 (Li, 1997)

5-83

Figure 5.51. Average solvent concentration profiles for Experiment 1. M =

0.84, Ng = 0.3656, Nρ = 0.0899, NPe = 45.5 (Li, 1997)

Figure 5.52 shows the permeability field generated for the Berea

sandstone core and used as the porous medium for the numerical

simulation. The parameters of the log normal permeability field are k =

622 md, φ = 24%, ax = 5.0 cm, ay = 2.5 cm, az = 0.25 cm and V = 0.20.

The experiment was simulated using α L = 0.0975 cm and αT = 0.0031 cm.

concentration distributions. The agreement between the simulation and

the experiment is good. Figure 5.54 compares the simulated and

experimental solvent concentration profiles. The agreement between the

5–84

simulation and the experiment is acceptable. Finally, Figure 5.55 shows

a head to head comparison of the simulated and experimental solvent

concentrations at the same cross-sections of the core. The data are fairly

well distributed about the 45 degree line. Therefore, the agreement

between the simulation and the experiment is reasonable.

core obtained by Sequential Gaussian Simulation. k = 622 md, φ = 24%,

ax = 5.0 cm, ay = 2.5 cm, az = 0.25 cm, V = 0.20 (Shecaira and Peters,

1998).

5-85

Figure 5.53. A comparison of the simulated and experimental solvent

concentration distributions for Experiment 1 (Shecaira and Peters,

1998).

5–86

Figure 5.54. A comparison of the simulated and experimental solvent

concentration profiles for Experiment 1 (Shecaira and Peters, 1998).

concentration at the same cross-sections for Experiment 1 (Shecaira and

Peters, 1998).

5-87

Experiment 2

This experiment was conducted in the same Berea sandstone core

and at the same mobility ratio as Experiment 1. However, the gravity

number was reduced from 0.3656 to 0.0180 by increasing the Darcy

velocity from 0.00014 cm/s (0.40 ft/day) to 0.00294 cm/s (8.33 ft/day)

in an effort to eliminate the gravity tonguing observed in Experiment 1.

Figures 5.57 and 5.58 show the solvent concentration images and the

solvent concentration profiles for the experiment. The images of Figure

5.57 appear to show more tonguing than in Experiment 1.

5–88

Figure 5.57. Solvent concentration images for Experiment 2. M = 0.84, Ng

= 0.0180, Nρ = 0.0899, NPe = 49.5 (Li, 1997)

5-89

Figure 5.58. Average solvent concentration profiles for Experiment 2. M =

0.84, Ng = 0.0180, Nρ = 0.0899, NPe = 49.5 (Li, 1997)

2 with the experiment. The agreement between the simulation and the

experiment is poor. The simulation model is the same as for Experiment

1, except that the injection rate was increased from 0.40 ft/day to 8.33

ft/day. The images from the simulation clearly show that at the gravity

number of 0.0180, there should be no gravity tonguing. Therefore, it can

be safely concluded that the tonguing in Experiment 2 was not caused by

5–90

gravity segregation but rather by a mechanical problem with the

experiment.

solvent concentration distributions for Experiment 2 (Shecaira and

Peters, 1998).

5-91

Figure 5.60. A comparison of the preliminary simulated and experimental

solvent concentration profiles for Experiment 2 (Shecaira and Peters,

1998).

solvent concentration at the same cross-sections for Experiment 2

(Shecaira and Peters, 1998).

5–92

Figure 5.62 shows the end piece of the core holder through which

fluid is injected into the core. Fluid is injected as a point source. Radial

grooves are machined on the face of the end piece to assist in

distributing the injected fluid uniformly over the inlet face of the core. It

would appear that at the injection rate of 0.40 ft/day in Experiment 2,

the grooves were effective in distributing the injected fluid over the inlet

face of the core. However, when the rate was increased to 8.33 ft/day,

the grooves became ineffective in distributing the injected fluid over the

inlet face of the core. As a result, the injected fluid was distributed

unevenly over the inlet face with more fluid being injected at the center of

the core than at the periphery of the core .

Figure 5.62. Schematic diagram of end piece of core holder showing fluid

injection hole and grooves.

condition of the simulation model was modified to inject more fluid at the

center than at the periphery of the core as shown in Figure 5.62. Figures

5.63 to 5.65 show comparisons of the results of the simulation with the

modified inlet boundary condition and the experiment. The agreement

between the simulation and the experiment is excellent. The hypothesis

5-93

about the nonuniform fluid injection appears to be supported by the

simulation.

concentration distributions for Experiment 2 with a modified inlet

boundary condition (Shecaira and Peters, 1998).

5–94

Figure 5.64. A comparison of the simulated and experimental solvent

concentration profiles for Experiment 2 with a modified inlet boundary

condition (Shecaira and Peters, 1998).

concentration at the same cross-sections for Experiment 2 with a

modified inlet boundary condition (Shecaira and Peters, 1998).

5-95

Experiment 3

This experiment was performed in the same Berea sandstone core

as Experiments 1 and 2 but at an adverse mobility ratio of 98 at the high

Darcy velocity of 0.00294 cm/s (8.33 ft/day). The combination of high

mobility ratio and high injection normally result is viscous fingering as is

evident in Figure 5.66, which shows the solvent concentration images for

this experiment. The solvent concentration profiles are shown in Figure

5.67.

simulation with the experiment. There is no agreement between the two.

The preliminary simulation was based on a uniform permeability

distribution in the core and a uniform fluid injection at the core inlet.

The simulation was then refined by the using permeability distribution of

Figure 5.52 and the modified inlet boundary condition. More transverse

dispersion ( αT = 0.0122 cm) was included in the numerical model than in

the results of the refined simulation with the experiment. The agreement

between the simulation and the experiment is excellent.

5–96

Figure 5.66. Solvent concentration images for Experiment 3. M = 98, Ng =

-0.0002, Nρ = -0.097, NPe = 49.5 (Li, 1997)

5-97

Figure 5.67. Average solvent concentration images for Experiment 3. M =

98, Ng = -0.0002, Nρ = -0.097, NPe = 49.5 (Li, 1997)

5–98

Figure 5.68. A comparison of the preliminary simulated and experimental

solvent concentration distributions for Experiment 3 (Shecaira and

Peters, 1998).

5-99

Figure 5.69. A comparison of the preliminary simulated and experimental

solvent concentration profiles for Experiment 3 (Shecaira and Peters,

1998).

solvent concentration at the same cross-sections for Experiment 3

(Shecaira and Peters, 1998).

5–100

Figure 5.71. A comparison of the simulated and experimental solvent

concentration distributions for Experiment 3 after refinement of the

simulation (Shecaira and Peters, 1998).

5-101

Figure 5.72. A comparison of the simulated and experimental solvent

concentration profiles for Experiment 3 after refinement of the simulation

model (Shecaira and Peters, 1998).

concentration at the same cross-sections for Experiment 3 after

refinement of the simulation model (Shecaira and Peters, 1998).

5–102

Experiment 4

This experiment was performed in a layered Antolini sandstone

core at a favorable mobility ratio of 0.81 at a Darcy velocity of 0.00014

cm/s (0.40ft/day). Figure 5.74 shows the porosity images for sandstone

obtained by NMR. Figures 5.75 and 5.76 show the solvent concentration

images and the solvent concentration profiles for the experiment.

distribution was generated for the sandstone core as shown in Figure

5.77. This distribution was used in the initial simulation of Experiment

4. Figures 5.78 to 5.80 compare the results of the simulation based on

the three-layer model with the experiment. The agreement between the

simulation and the experiment is fair. The permeability field was further

refined into a five-layer model as shown in Figure 5.81. Figures 5.82 to

5.84 show comparisons of the results of the simulation with the five-

layer model with the experiment. The agreement between the simulation

and the experiment is excellent.

5-103

Figure 5.74. Porosity images of layered Antolini sandstone core of

Experiment 4 (Li, 1997).

5–104

Figure 5.75. Solvent concentration images for Experiment 4. M = 0.81, Ng

= 0.0649, Nρ = 0.103, NPe = 46.8 (Li, 1997)

5-105

Figure 5.76. Average solvent concentration profiles for Experiment 4. M =

0.81, Ng = 0.0649, Nρ = 0.103, NPe = 46.8 (Li, 1997)

5–106

Figure 5.77. A three-layer model for the Antolini sandstone core of

Experiment 4.

5-107

Figure 5.78. A comparison of the simulated and experimental solvent

concentration distributions for Experiment 4 based on a three-layer

model (Shecaira and Peters, 1998).

5–108

Figure 5.79. A comparison of the simulated and experimental solvent

concentration profiles for Experiment 4 based on a three-layer model

(Shecaira and Peters, 1998).

concentration at the same cross-sections for Experiment 4 based on a

three-layer model (Shecaira and Peters, 1998).

5-109

Figure 5.81. A Five-layer model for the Antolini sandstone core of

Experiment 4.

5–110

Figure 5.82. A comparison of the simulated and experimental solvent

concentration distributions for Experiment 4 based on a five-layer model

(Shecaira and Peters, 1998).

5-111

Figure 5.83. A comparison of the simulated and experimental solvent

concentration profiles for Experiment 4 based on a five-layer model

(Shecaira and Peters, 1998).

concentration at the same cross-sections for Experiment 4 based on a

five-layer model (Shecaira and Peters, 1998).

5–112

Experiment 5

This experiment was performed in the same core as Experiment 4

but at an adverse mobility ratio of 11 and a Darcy velocity of 0.00014

cm/s (0.40 ft/day). Figures 5.85 and 5.86 show the solvent

concentration images and the solvent concentration profiles for the

experiment. The objective of the numerical simulation of this experiment

was to predict the outcome of the experiment instead of history matching

it. Having used the five-layer model to successfully simulate Experiment

4, it was decided to use the same simulation to predict Experiment 5 by

increasing the mobility ratio from 0.81 to 11.

performance and the experiment. Figure 5.87 shows that predicted

solvent concentration images are in qualitative agreement with the

experimental images. However, Figures 5.88 and 5.89 show that the

quantitative prediction is not as good as might be inferred from Figure

5.87. This lack of accurate quantitative prediction is not surprising

because Experiment 5 is an unstable displacement and as such is

unpredictable.

5-113

Figure 5.85. Solvent concentration images for Experiment 5. M = 11, Ng =

-0.0027, Nρ = -0.049, NPe = 46.8 (Li, 1997)

5–114

Figure 5.86. Average solvent concentration profiles for Experiment 5. M =

11, Ng = -0.0027, Nρ = -0.049, NPe = 46.8 (Li, 1997)

5-115

Figure 5.87. A comparison of the predicted and experimental solvent

concentration distributions for Experiment 5 based on a five-layer model

(Shecaira and Peters, 1998).

5–116

Figure 5.88. A comparison of the predicted and experimental solvent

concentration profiles for Experiment 5 based on a five-layer model

(Shecaira and Peters, 1998).

concentration at the same cross-sections for Experiment 5 based on a

five-layer model (Shecaira and Peters, 1998).

5-117

Experiment 6

The purpose of Experiment 6 and the accompanying numerical

simulation was to verify a new method for mapping the porosity and

permeability distributions in a heterogeneous core by NMR (Zuluaga et

al., 2000). A layered Antolini sandstone core was used for this

experiment. The core properties are L = 10 cm, d = 5 cm,

## Lebih dari sekadar dokumen.

Temukan segala yang ditawarkan Scribd, termasuk buku dan buku audio dari penerbit-penerbit terkemuka.

Batalkan kapan saja.