Page
1 PETROLEUM RESERVOIR ROCKS ......................................... 1-1
1.1 PETROPHYSICS ............................................................................... 1-1
REFRENCES ...................................................................................1-32
NOMENCLATURE .......................................................................2-135
3 PERMEABILITY .....................................................................3-1
4.1 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................4-1
NOMENCLATURE .......................................................................4-148
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
NOMENCLATURE .......................................................................7-164
NOMENCLATURE .........................................................................8-91
INTRODUCTION
1.1 PETROPHYSICS
• Porosity
• Absolute permeability
• Water saturation
1-1
• Irreducible water saturation
• Hydrocarbon saturation
• Capillary pressure
• Wettability
• Pore size
• Pore structure
• Mineralogy
• Dispersivity
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.
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.
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
These are rocks formed from molten material (called magma) that
solidified upon cooling either:
or
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
or
1-6
1.5 CLASSIFICATION OF SEDIMENTARY ROCKS
1-7
1.5.3 Organic Sedimentary Rocks
1-8
Table 1.3 Chemical Sedimentary Rocks (Precipitates)
1-9
1.6 DISTRIBUTION OF SEDIMENTARY ROCK TYPES
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
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.
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).
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:
1-16
compaction leads to porosity and permeability reduction which is
irreversible and which may affect the producing characteristics of the
reservoir very adversely.
1.7.3 Classification
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)
1.8.1 Classification
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.
1-21
Figure 1.8: Classification of carbonates by texture.
1-22
Figure 1.9: Examples of boundstone.
1-23
Figure 1.9: Examples of grainstones.
1-24
Fabric-selective porosity includes:
•Interparticle porosity.
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).
1-27
1.9 FRACTURED RESERVOIRS
1-28
Figure 1.11: Idealization of naturally fractured reservoir (Warren and
Root, 1963)
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
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
1-32
CHAPTER 2
Vp Vb − Vs
φ= = (2.1)
Vb Vb
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.
2–2
Figure 2.1. Effect of packing on porosity of uniform spheres.
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.
2–4
2.3 FACTORS AFFECTING CARBONATE POROSITY
2-5
CO2 + H 2O = H 2CO3 (2.2)
2–6
2.5 LABORATORY MEASUREMENT OF POROSITY
2-7
dry sample and the sample fully immersed in a liquid is proportional to
the grain volume.
⎛ P2 ⎞
Vs = V1 − V2 ⎜ ⎟ (2.6)
⎝ P1 − P2 ⎠
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.
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.
• The volume of the core analyzed is small and may not account for
the variability of the porosity in the reservoir.
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.
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.
2-13
ψ m (1 − φ ) + φψ air = ψ dry (2.7)
ψ wet −ψ dry
φ= (2.9)
ψ brine −ψ air
2–14
d = 4.8 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).
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
2–18
Figure 2.11. Retort distillation apparatus.
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.
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.
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).
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
2-25
Figure 2.14. Saturation distributions from core analysis data.
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).
2-27
laboratory at ambient conditions may be expected to be higher than at in
situ conditions.
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.
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.
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.
2–30
Chapter 7). It should be pointed out that not all hydrocarbon bearing
zones contain irreducible water. Some can contain mobile water.
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.
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.
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%.
2–34
Figure 2.18. Borehole conditions for well logging (Courtesy of
Schlumberger).
2-35
2.7.3 Porosity Logs
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.
⎛ 2Z ⎞
ρe = ρb ⎜ ⎟ (2.11)
⎝ A ⎠
⎛ 2∑ Z i ⎞
ρe = ρb ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ (2.12)
⎝ M ⎠
2-37
ρ a = 1.0704 ρe − 0.1883 (2.13)
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
N = a − b log φ (2.20)
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.
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.
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.
2–54
Figure 2.27. Variation of water resistivity with temperature and salinity.
Ro
Ro = FRw or F = (2.22)
Rw
2-55
a
F= (2.23)
φm
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
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
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.
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)
2–58
Figure 2.29. Resistivity index for Berea sandstone core
2-59
Figure 2.30. Example invasion profile for resistivity logs.
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.
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.
2–64
processed and recorded on the log as either a conductivity measurement
or a resistivity measurement.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
2–76
equal, the SP deflections will be small and the curve will be rather
featureless and useless.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
2-81
Figure 2.41. Presentation of an SP curve in a sand-shale sequence.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
ω0 = γ B0 (2.33)
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
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
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
2-91
effects are canceled at the center of the echo, where the dephasing from
ΔB0 is momentarily rephased.
M transverse = M transverse
0
exp ( −TE / T2 ) (2.35)
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.
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.
0
M transverse = M 0 ⎡⎣1 − exp ( −TR / T1 ) ⎤⎦ (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 ⎠ ⎥⎦
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
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.
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
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.
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 ⎠
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.
k = Cφ x S wirr
−y
(2.64)
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 ⎠
k = aφ 4T22gm (2.67)
∑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)
2–108
2.7.7 NMR Imaging of Laboratory Cores
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
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.
( FOV ) RO
Δ RO = (2.73)
N RO
and
2–112
BW N RO
( FOV ) RO = = (2.74)
γ GRO 2γ GRO tro
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.
( 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.
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.
2-115
Figure 2.55. Graphical demonstration of 2DFT NMR image data
acquisition and reconstruction.
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.
2–118
Figure 2.56. NMR images of transverse slices of a brine saturated
sandstone core.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
7758 Ahφ (1 − S w )
Nr = Rf (2.78)
Bo
where
φ = porosity (fraction)
2–126
Figure 2.63. Reservoir volume.
2-127
Based on preliminary evaluation, the water saturation has been
determined to correlate with porosity as shown in Eq.(2.79).
Net Cash Flow (NCF) = (Gross Revenue - Royalty - Costs)(1 - Tax Rate) (2.80)
2–128
2.8.3 Simulation Procedure
2 ( x − x1 )
f1 ( x) = (2.82)
( x3 − x1 )( x2 − x1 )
2-129
Figure 2.64. Probability density function for a triangular distribution.
( 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 )
( 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)
x = x3 − (1 − Rn )( x3 − x1 )( x3 − x2 ) (2.89)
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 )
1
f ( x) = (2.92)
( x3 − x1 )
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
x = x1 + Rn ( x3 − x1 ) (2.95)
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
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.
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.
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.
2–140
43560 Ahφ (1 − S w )
Gr = RF (2.98)
Bg
ZT
Bg = 0.02827 (2.99)
P
where
2-141
In general, the isothermal coefficient of compressibility of a
material is defined as
1 ⎛ ∂V ⎞
c=− ⎜ ⎟ (2.100)
V ⎝ ∂P ⎠T
1 ⎛ ∂V p ⎞ 1 ⎛ ∂φ ⎞
cf = ⎜ ⎟ = ⎜ ⎟ (2.101)
V p ⎝ ∂P ⎠T φ ⎝ ∂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.
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).
2–144
could not. Unconsolidated sandstone would collapse under its own
weight if it is not protected in a sleeve.
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.
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.
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.
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.
2-149
the pore volume compressibility at low pressures. This is due to
compaction effects as the pore pressure declines.
ct = So co + S wcw + S g cg + c f (2.102)
NOMENCLATURE
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
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
⎛ μL ⎞
ΔP = ⎜ ⎟q (3.4)
⎝ kA ⎠
μL
m= (3.5)
kA
μL
k= (3.6)
mA
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 ⎠
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
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 ⎠
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.
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.
3-10
Figure 3.7. Possible core plug samples.
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.
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
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.
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)
φμ ct ∂P 1 ∂P
∇2 P = = (3.23)
k ∂t α ∂t
k
α= (3.24)
φμ ct
3-15
and boundary conditions are used for transient pressure analysis and for
natural water influx calculations.
⎛ kh ⎞
⎜μ ⎟
=⎝ ⎠=
k T
α= (3.25)
φμ ct φ hct S
kh
T= (3.26)
μ
S = φ hct (3.27)
∂ 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 →∞
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.
∂ 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
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
1 ⎛ rD2 ⎞
PD ( rD , t D ) = − Ei ⎜ − ⎟ (3.44)
2 ⎝ 4t D ⎠
1 ⎛ 1 ⎞
PD (1, t D ) = − Ei ⎜ − ⎟ (3.45)
2 ⎝ 4t D ⎠
141.2qμ B ⎡ 1 ⎛ 948φμ ct r 2 ⎞ ⎤
P ( r , t ) = Pi − ⎢ − Ei ⎜ − ⎟⎥ (3.46)
kh ⎣ 2 ⎝ kt ⎠⎦
and
3-19
Ei ( − x ) ln x + 0.5772 (3.48)
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 ⎠ ⎦
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
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 ⎠
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 .
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.
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)
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
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.
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
ΔV V − V (t )
C= = i (3.82)
ΔP Pi − Pwf (t )
where
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
∂ 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.
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,
1020
1015
1010
108
106
10 104
103
102
PwD - PwD'
0.1
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
tD/CD
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:
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
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
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.
The pertinent data for the diagnostic plots and Horner plot are shown in
Table 3.6.
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
3-49
wellbore storage and skin can be used to simulate the test by a trial and error
procedure.
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.
3-50
Figure 3.22. A comparison of the simulated and the measured
diagnostic 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 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:
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.
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 ⎠
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
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.
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.
3-61
diameter or specific surface area and permeability. However, these have very
limited applications.
ln k = aφ + b (3.110)
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).
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).
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
φ
k= (3.123)
5S p2
S = φSp (3.124)
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
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
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
Example 3.3
Estimate the permeability of the idealized petroleum reservoir of Example 3.2.
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.
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
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.
3-77
Figure 3.31. Tortuosity-formation resistivity factor correlation (from Winsauer
et al., 1952).
⎛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
τ = φF (3.140)
3-79
function (pdf) for the pore size (pore diameter) distribution, we wish to
calculate the permeability of the bundle of capillary tubes model.
∞
∫ 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 ⎠
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
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
⎡ 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 )
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
w2 A ΔP
q= (3.157)
12 μ L
w2 2
k= cm (3.158)
12
Example 3.5
Calculate the permeability of a fracture of width 2 millimeters.
( 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).
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.
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
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
vi = (3.171)
φ
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
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.
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.
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.
dh
q = − KA∇h = − KA (3.180)
ds
⎛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.
(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 ⎠
kρg
K= (3.186)
μ
h ⎛ kρg ⎞ h
q = KA =⎜ ⎟A (3.187)
L ⎝ μ ⎠ L
h
q = KA (3.188)
L
dh
q = −a (3.189)
dt
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.
vρ Dp
Re = (3.193)
μ
where
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)
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
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
⎛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 ⎠
⎡ ⎤
⎢ 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
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
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 ⎦
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 ⎥⎦
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
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?
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?
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 ⎥⎦
3-111
5 1
∇P = − i − j = −0.625i − 0.250 j
8 4
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 = ( 0.7120 ) + ( 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.
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.
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)
⎣ ⎦ ⎣
⎡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 ⎦⎥
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
⎝ ⎠
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.
⎛ 2 ( −50 ) ⎞
tan −1 ( 2θ ) = tan −1 ⎜ ⎟ = tan ( 0.1818 ) = 10.3048
−1 D
⎝ 200 − 750 ⎠
10.3048
θ= = 5.15D
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.
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.
Example 3.7
Rework Example 3.6 by calculating the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the
permeability tensor.
⎡ 200 − λ −50 ⎤
det ⎢ =0
⎣ −50 750 − λ ⎥⎦
3-122
λ 2 − 950λ + 147500 = 0
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:
⎡ 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:
⎡ −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 ⎦
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.
where ∇Φ cos α is the component of the velocity potential gradient vector that
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.
=
(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)
⎡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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
3-139
Figure 3.65. Polar plot of transverse permeabilities around a core (from
Scheidegger, 1954).
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.
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.
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
rw = wellbore radius
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
3-143
⎛ kh ⎞
2π ⎜
⎝ μ B ⎟⎠
PIV = FD (3.287)
⎛r ⎞
ln ⎜ e ⎟
⎝ rw ⎠
⎛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.
3-144
Oil viscosity (μo) = 5 cp
Oil formation volume factor (B)= 1.2 RB/STB
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
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
k * = k H kV (3.290)
k*
X =x (3.291)
kH
and
k*
Z=z (3.292)
kV
⎛ ∂P ∂P ⎞
k* ⎜ 2 + 2 ⎟ = 0 (3.293)
⎝ ∂X ∂Z ⎠
3-146
⎛ ∂P ∂P ⎞
⎜ 2 + 2 ⎟=0 (3.294)
⎝ ∂X ∂Z ⎠
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.
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
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
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.
3-149
Figure 3.67. A horizontal well that intersects vertical fractures.
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
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
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.
⎛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 ⎠
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
⎥⎦
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
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.
4–2
estimation is undertaken that honors both the measured data (samples)
and the structure of the heterogeneity observed from the samples.
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
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)
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
4–6
Figure 4.1. Log normal permeability distribution.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
4–16
Figure 4.6. Comparison of the variograms for reservoirs A and B of Figure
4.4.
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.
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:
( 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.
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.
( Φ − Φ9 )
2
x10 − x9 , 10
2
1 ( Φi − Φ j )
2
1
∑
n n 2
versus ∑ hij
n n
4-21
variogram from fluctuating excessively. Several bin sizes
may be tried to determine the optimum bin sizes.
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.
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.
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.
⎡ 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
⎛ − ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎞
⎛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.
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)
⎜ ⎟
⎝ ⎠
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
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 ⎦
4-35
Figure 4.21. The cardinal sine model (hole effect model).
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
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.
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 ⎟
⎝ ⎠
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.
⎛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
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.
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.
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).
4-49
Figure 4.32. Experimental variogram for sandpack in the longitudinal
direction (X) (Peters and Afzal, 1992).
4–50
4-51
Figure 4.33. Vertical and cross-sectional slices of CT image of dry Berea
sandstone (Peters and Afzal, 1992).
4–52
Figure 4.35. Experimental variogram for Berea sandstone in the
longitudinal direction (X) (Peters and Afzal, 1992).
∑ ⎡Φ
⎣ ( x ) − Φ ( x ) ⎤⎦ ⎡Φ
⎣ ( x + h ) − Φ ( x + h ) ⎤⎦
C (h) = (4.25)
Nh −1
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.
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.
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.
⎣ ( 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.
∑ ( k − k ) (φ − φ )
i i
C ( k ,φ ) = (4.28)
N −1
4–60
C (h)
ρ (h) = (4.29)
sΦ( x ) sΦ( x + h )
deviation of Φ ( x + h ) .
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).
C ( k ,φ )
ρ ( k ,φ ) = (4.30)
sk sφ
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.
1 ⎡ ( x − μ )2 ⎤
P ( x) = exp ⎢ − ⎥ for − ∞ ≤ x ≤ ∞ (4.31)
σ 2π ⎢⎣ 2σ 2 ⎥⎦
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)
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.
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
1
F (u ) =
u
π ∫
e − u du
2
(4.43)
−∞
e−u
2
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
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.
( 0 ≤ ri ≤ 1) and calculate
4-73
N
N
z = ∑ ri − (4.50)
i =1 2
μ =0 (4.51)
N
σ= (4.52)
12
x = μ +σ z (4.53)
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⎦
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)
4–76
1 1 ⎡ ( ln x − μ )2 ⎤
P ( x) = exp ⎢ − ⎥ (4.68)
σ 2π x ⎢⎣ 2σ 2 ⎥⎦
⎛ 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.
4-77
Figure 4.49. 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
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)
i=N
Φ*o = ∑ λi Φ i (4.76)
i =1
∑λ
i =1
i =1 (4.77)
Similarly
4–82
Φ*5 = ( 0.50 )( 50 ) + ( 0.50 )( 20 ) = 35
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
α
λ2 = = 0.1667α
6
α
λ4 = = 0.2500α
4
α
λ6 = = 0.5000α
2
Total = 0.9167α
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 .
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
4-85
Figure 4.53. Missing data from a 2D reservoir.
Φ*o = 19 (4.81)
4–86
eo = Φ*o − Φ o = (19 − Φ o ) (4.82)
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
Thus,
or
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.
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
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.
4-93
minimum variance. Thus, ordinary kriging is a Best Linear Unbiased
Estimator (BLUE).
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
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)
E [ e( xo ) ] = E ⎡⎣ Z * ( xo ) − Z ( xo ) ⎤⎦ = 0 (4.95)
4-95
and more precise than estimator 1. Estimator 3 is biased and more
precise than estimator 1.
⎡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
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
⎦⎥
⎡ 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)
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
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.
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
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
⎣ ⎦
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.
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
N N N
σ e2 = −∑ ∑ λi λ jγ (hij ) + 2∑ λiγ (hio ) (4.122)
i =1 j =1 i =1
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 ⎠
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 ⎠
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
⎢⎣ 2 2 0 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ μ ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ 2 ⎥⎦
⎢⎣ 2 2 0 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ μ ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ 2 ⎥⎦
⎢⎣ 1 1 0 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ μ ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ 1 ⎥⎦
4–104
After solving Eq.(4.132), λ1, λ2 and μ can be substituted into
and
4-105
which simplifies to
2
σ e2min = σ 2 − μ − ∑ λi C (hio )
i =1
(4.138)
and
4
σ e2min = σ 2 − μ − ∑ λi C (hio )
i =1
(4.140)
∑ 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)
must first compute the lag distance matrix, hij. For N = 4, the
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.
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 ⎠
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
rewritten as
4-109
Eq.(4.154) can be rearranged as
and
which simplifies to
2
σ e2min = − μ + ∑ λiγ (hio )
i =1
(4.159)
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)
∑ 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)
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.
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.
4-113
Figure 4.61. Variogram for Example 4.1.
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
⎡ 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
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
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.
⎡ 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
along with the measured data for the subsequent estimations. Thus, the
number of equations to be solved increases as the estimation progresses.
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 ⎦
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⎦
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
Using the matrix of lag distances in Table 4.9 and Eq.(4.170), Eq.(4.177)
becomes
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
Using the matrix of lag distances in Table 4.10 and Eq.(4.170), Eq.(4.181)
becomes
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⎦
3
σ e2min = σ 2 − μ − ∑ λi C (hio ) = 100
i =1
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
Using the matrix of lag distances in Table 4.11 and Eq.(4.170), Eq.(4.185)
becomes
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 ⎥
⎣ ⎦ ⎣ ⎦
3
σ e2min = σ 2 − μ − ∑ λi C (hio ) = 100
i =1
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
Using the matrix of lag distances in Table 4.12 and Eq.(4.170), Eq.(4.189)
becomes
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 ⎥⎦
3
σ e2min = σ 2 − μ − ∑ λi C (hio ) = 100 − ( −2.6342 )
i =1
4–134
σ e min = 29.2455 = 5.4079
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.
4–136
cokriging. These other types of kriging are usually covered in a
geostastistics course.
4.6.1 Introduction
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).
Φ si = Φ*i + σ ei zi (4.193)
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.
6. Repeat the calculations until all grid nodes have a simulated value.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
NOMENCLATURE
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
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
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.
5–2
movement of fertilizers in the soil and the leaching of salts from the soil
in agriculture.
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
⎛ k ⎞
⎜⎜ ⎟
⎝ μdisplacing fluid ⎟⎠ μdisplaced fluid
M= = (5.3)
⎛ k ⎞ μdisplacing fluid
⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎝ μdisplaced fluid ⎠
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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).
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.
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,
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.
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).
5-19
injection to attain the same displacement efficiency as favorable mobility
ratio displacements.
5–20
Dispersion can be viewed as consisting of two components: molecular
diffusion and mechanical dispsersion.
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.
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
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
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
∂C
− Dd ∇ 2C = 0 (5.11)
∂t
∂C ∂C ∂ 2C
+ ux − DL 2 = 0 (5.12)
∂t ∂x ∂x
∂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
∂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)
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
ux Dp
N Pe = (5.26)
DL
5–28
Another possible characteristic dimension of a porous medium could be
k
in the spirit of Eq.(3.119).
φ
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 ⎠ ⎥⎦
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
2t D
with mean t D and standard deviation . The shape of the solution is
N Pe
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.
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.
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)
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
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.
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
5-37
Figure 5.22. Breakthrough curve.
1 − tD
z= (5.41)
tD
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 ⎟⎥
⎠⎦
in 3D, and by
⎡ Dxx Dxy ⎤
D ( x, y ) = ⎢ (5.44)
⎣ Dyx Dyy ⎥⎦
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 ⎥⎦
5–42
Figure 5.25. Variation in tracer concentration in 2D for a constant
velocity flow system.
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
β
DL 1 ⎛ uD ⎞
= + C2 ⎜ p ⎟ (5.52)
Do τ ⎝ Do ⎠
β
DT 1 ⎛ uD ⎞
= + C3 ⎜ p ⎟ (5.53)
Do τ ⎝ Do ⎠
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.
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 ⎠
5–46
dispersion coefficients. (a) dimensionless longitudinal dispersion
coefficient, (b) transverse dispersion coefficient (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
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).
5–50
5.6 MEASUREMENT OF DISPERSION COEFFICIENT AND
DISPERSIVITY
5-51
Figure 5.31. Laboratory coreflood experiment for measuring longitudinal
dispersion coefficient.
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 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎣⎢ ⎦⎥
2 ⎛ 1 − tD ⎞ ⎛ 1 − tD ⎞
2 =⎜ ⎟⎟ −⎜ ⎟⎟ (5.59)
N Pe ⎜⎝ t D ⎜
⎠CD =0.84 ⎝ t D ⎠CD =0.16
uL ⎡⎢⎛ 1 − t D ⎞ ⎛ 1 − tD ⎞ ⎤
⎥
DL = ⎜ ⎟ −⎜ ⎟ (5.60)
8 ⎢⎝⎜ t D ⎟ ⎜
⎠CD =0.84 ⎝ t D
⎟
⎠CD =0.16 ⎥⎦
⎣
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.
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
5-55
Interstitial Velocity (cm/s) 1.714x10-2
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.
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).
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 .
5–60
unconsolidated sandpack. The results of the tracer tests for both porous
media are summarized in Table 5.3.
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
∂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).
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.
5-71
5.7 FACTORS THAT COULD AFFECT DISPERSION
COEFFICIENT AND DISPERSIVITY
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
DL = f1 ( μ s , D p , u, Do , μo , Δρ g ) (5.64)
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
DL ⎛ uD p ⎞
= f3 ⎜ ⎟ (5.66)
Do ⎝ Do ⎠
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
5.8.1 Introduction
∂ (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
and
⎡ k xx k xy k xz ⎤
⎢ ⎥
k = ⎢ k yx k yy k yz ⎥ (5.74)
⎢ k zx k zy k zz ⎥⎦
⎣
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.
5–78
5.8.3 Numerical Modeling of Laboratory Experiments
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.
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.
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.
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).
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)
5–90
gravity segregation but rather by a mechanical problem with the
experiment.
5-91
Figure 5.60. A comparison of the preliminary simulated and experimental
solvent concentration profiles 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.
5-93
about the nonuniform fluid injection appears to be supported by the
simulation.
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).
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.
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).
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).
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.
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).
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).
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.
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).
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, φ = 12.8% and
k = 114 md. A technique was developed to map the 3D porosity and
permeability distributions in the core by NMR imaging. A technique was
developed to map the T1 distribution in a core. Permeability distribution
was calculated using the empirical equation of Kenyon et al. presented in
Chapter 2 as Eq.(2.69) and reproduced here for convenience as
k = C1φNMR
4
T12 (2.69)
k = 180φNMR
4
T12 (5.77)
Figure 5.90 shows a high resolution porosity image of the core. Dipping
layers are clearly visible in the image. Figure 5.91 shows the porosity
distribution after upscaling the high resolution porosity data
(512x512x512 voxels) to the low resolution numerical simulation grid of
40x40x40. The upscaling makes the porosity distribution somewhat
fuzzy. Figure 5.92 shows the upscaled permeability distribution. A high
permeability streak is clearly visible in the center of the core.
5–118
After measuring the porosity and permeability distributions, a
first-contact miscible displacement was conducted in the Antolini core at
a favorable mobility ratio of 0.81 at a Darcy velocity of 0.000692 cm/s
(1.96 ft/day). In an effort to verify the validity of the porosity and
permeability distributions derived by NMR, the displacement was
simulated using the NMR-derived porosity and permeability distributions
as the input data for the core description. No attempt was made to adjust
the porosity and permeability data to history-match the experiment.
Rather the porosity and permeability distributions were used as is in
order to verify their validity.
5-119
Figure 5.91. Upscaled porosity distribution from NMR imaging (Zuluaga
et al., 2000)
5–120
Figure 5.93 shows a comparison of the solvent concentration
distribution from the experiment and the simulation. The agreement
between the simulation and the experiment is excellent thereby verifying
the validity of the porosity and permeability distributions obtained by
NMR imaging. Figure 5.94 shows the head to head comparison of the
experimental and simulated solvent concentration distributions at the
same cross-sections. The agreement between the experiment and the
simulation is good. The NMR-derived porosity and permeability
distributions are verified.
5-121
Figure 5.93. A comparison of the experimental and simulated solvent
concentration distribution for Experiment 6 using NMR-derived porosity
and permeability distributions. M= 0.81, Ng = 0.0160, Nρ = 0.1027, NPe =
133 (Zuluaga et al., 2000).
5–122
Figure 5.94. A comparison of the experimental and simulated solvent
concentration at the same cross-sections for Experiment 6 using NMR-
derived porosity and permeability distributions. M= 0.81, Ng = 0.0160, Nρ
= 0.1027, NPe = 133 (Zuluaga et al., 2000).
NOMENCLATURE
5-123
Dd = molecular diffusion coefficient
DL = longitudinal dispersion coefficient
Do = binary diffusion coefficient between the solvent and oil
Dp = mean grain diameter of the porous medium
erf = error function
erfc = complementary error function
F = formation resistivity factor
g = gravitational acceleration
G
J = total mass flux
G
Ja = mass flux vector due to advection
G
Jd = mass flux vector due to dispersion
k = permeability
L = length of porous medium
M = mobility ratio
Ng = gravity number
NPe = Peclet number
Nρ = density number
q = volumetric injection rate
Rf = retardation factor
S = specific surface area
t = time
tD = dimensionless time
G
u = interstitial velocity vector
G
v = Darcy velocity vector
V = Dykstra-Parson’s coefficient of permeability variation
xD = dimensionless distance
αL = longitudinal dispersivity
αT = transverse dispersivity
5–124
φ = porosity
λ = fluid mobility
τ = tortuosity
ρo = density of displaced fluid
ρs = density of displacing fluid
Δx = mixing zone length
Δρ = density difference
∇ = gradient operator
5-125
Boersma, L., F.T. Lindstrom and M.A. Barlaz: “Dispersion at the Field
Scale Resulting from Spatial Variability of the Hydraulic
Conductivity Field,” J. Hydrol., 159, No. 3 (1974) 145-67.
Bond, W.J.: “Velocity-Dependent Hydrodynamic Dispersion During
Steady, Unsaturated Soil Water Flow: Experiments,” Water
Resources Res., 22 , No. 13, (1986) 1881-89.
Bond, W.J. and D.E. Smiles: “Influence of Velocity on Hydrodynamic
Dispersion During Unsteady Soil Water Flow,” Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.,
47, No. 3, (1983) 438-41.
Bosma, W.J. and S.E.A.T.M. van der Dee: “Dispersion of Continuously
Injected, Non Linearly Adsorbing Solute in Chemically or Physically
Heterogeneous Porous Formations,” J. Contam. Hydrol., 18 , No. 3
(1995) 181-98.
Bresler, E. and Dagan, G.: “Solute Transport in Unsaturated
Heterogeneous Soils at Field Scale, II, Applications,” Soil Sci. Soc.
Am. J., 43, No. 1 (1979) 467- 72.
Broman, W. H., Jr.: Experimental Verification of A Stability Theory for
Miscible Displacements, MS Thesis, University of Texas at Austin,
December 1985.
Butters, G.L., W.A. Jury and F.F. Ernst: “Field Scale Transport of
Bromide in an Unsaturated Soil, 1, Experimental Methodology and
Results,” Water Resources Res., 25, No. 7 (1989) 1575-81.
Carslaw, H.S. and Jaeger, J.C. : Conduction of Heat in Solids, 2nd edition,
Clarendon Press, Oxford (1959).
Cavalero, S.: Visualization of Viscous Fingering in Miscible and Immiscible
Displacements, MS Thesis, University of Texas at Austin, May
1990.
Clark, J.N., Shearin, H.M., Schultz, W.P., Garms, K. and Moore, J.L. :
"Miscible Drive - It’s Theory and Application," JPT (June 1958) 11-
20.
Collins, R.E.: Flow of Fluids Through Porous Materials, Research &
Engineering Consultants Inc. (1990).
Crank, J.: The Mathematics of Diffusion, 2nd ed., Clarendon, Oxford,
England (1979).
Cushman, J.H.: “On Diffusion in Fractal Porous Media,” Water
Resources Res., 27, No. 4 (1991) 643-44.
Cushman, J.H. and R.T. Ginn: “On Dispersion in Fractal Porous Media,”
Water Resources Res., 29, No. 10 (1993) 3513-15.
5–126
Dagan, G.: “Solute Transport in Heterogeneous Porous Formation,” J.
Fluid Mech., 145 (1984) 151-77.
Dagan, G. and E. Bresler: “Solute Transport in Unsaturated
Heterogeneous Soils at Field Scale, I, Theory,” Soil Sci. Am. J., 43,
No. 1 (1979) 461-67.
Domenico, P.A. and Schwartz, F.W. : Physical and Chemical
Hydrogeology, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1990.
Dullien, F.A.L.: Porous Media - Fluid Transport and Pore Structure,
Academic Press, New York, (1979).
Ellsworth, T.R. and W.A. Jury: “A Three-Dimensional Field Study of
Solute Transport through Unsaturated Layers, Porous Media, 2,
Characterization of Vertical Dispersion,” Water Resour. Res., 27 No.
5, 967-81 (1991).
Fetter, C.W. : Contaminant Hydrogeology, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle
River, New Jersey, 1993.
Freeze, R.A. and Cherry, J.A. : Groundwater, Prentice Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey, 1979.
Freyberg, D.L.: “A Natural Gradient Experiment on Solute Transport in a
San Aquifer, 2, Spatial Moments and the Advection and Dispersion
of Non reactive Tracers,” Water Resour. Res., 22, No. 1, 2030-46
(1986).
Fried, J.J. and Combarnous, M.A. :”Dispersion in Porous Media,”
Advances in Hydroscience, Vol. 7 (1971) 169–282.
Frisch, H.L., T.T. Wang and T.K. Kwei: “Diffusion in Glassy Polymers, II”,
J. Polymer Sci., Part A, 2, No. 7, 879-87 (1969).
Furtado, F., J. Glimm, B. Lindquist, F. Pereira and Q. Zhang: “Time
Dependent Anomalous Diffusion for Flow in Multi-Fractal Porous
Media,” Rep. SUNYSB-AMS-91-06, Dept. of Appl. Math. and Stat.,
State University of New York at Stony Brook (1991).
Furtado, F., J. Glimm, B. Lindquist, F. Pereira and Q. Zhang: “Flow in
Multi-Fractal and Partially Layered Porous Media,” Report, 7 pp,
Dept. of Appl. Math. and Stat., State University of New York at
Stony Brook (19 91).
Gelhar, L.W. and Collins, M.A.: "General Analysis of Longitudinal
Dispersion in Nonuniform Flow," Water Resources Research, 7,
No.6 (1971) 1511-1521.
5-127
Gelhar, L.W. : " Stochastic Subsurface Hydrology From Theory to
Application," Water Resources Research 22, No. 9 (1986) 135S-
145S.
Gelhar, L.W. and C.L. Axness: “Three-Dimensional Stochastic Analysis
of Macro dispersion in Aquifers,” Water Resour. Res., 19, No. 1,
161-80 (1983).
Gelhar, L.W., C. Welty and K.R. Rehfeldt: “A Critical Review of Data on
Field-Scale Dispersion in Aquifers,” Water Resour. Res., 28, No. 7,
1955-74 (1992).
Gharbi, R., Peters, E.J., and Elkamel, A.: "Scaling Miscible Flood
Displacements in Porous Media," Energy & Fuels, Vol. 12, No. 4,
1998, 801-811.
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.
Giona, M.: “First Order Reaction-Diffusion Kinetics in Complex Fractal
Media,” Chem Eng. Sci., 47, No. 6, 1503-15 (1992).
Guven, O., F.J. Molz and J.G. Melville: “An Analysis of Dispersion in a
Stratified Aquifer,” Water Resour. Res., 20, No. 10, 1337-54 (1984).
Hardham, W. D.: Computerized Tomography Applied to the Visualization
of Fluid Displacements, MS Thesis, University of Texas at Austin,
December 1988.
Harleman, D.R.F. and R.R. Rumer: “Longitudinal and Lateral Dispersion
in an Isotropic Porous Medium,” J. Fluid Mech., 16, No. 3, 385-
94 (1963).
Hill, J.M. and J.N. Dewynne: Heat Conduction, Blackwell Sci.,
Cambridge, Mass. (1987).
Hoopes, J.A. and Harleman, D.R.F. : "Dispersion in Radial Flow From a
Recharge Well," Jour. of Geophysical Research, 72, No. 14 (1967)
3595-3607.
Huyakorn, P., Andersen, P.F., Molz, F.J., Guven, O. and Melville, J.G. :
“A Curvilinear Finite Element Model for Simulating Two-Well
Tracer Tests and Transport in Stratified Aquifers at the Chalk River
and Mobile Sites” Water Resources Research, Vol. 22, No. 7 (1986)
1016-1030.
5–128
Javandel, I., C. Doughty and C.F. Tsang: “Groundwater Transport:
Handbook of Mathematical Models,” Water Resour. Monogr. Ser.,
10, AGU, Washington, DC. (1984).
Jost, W.: Diffusion in Solids, Liquids, Gases, San Diego, Calif., (1952).
Kasap, E.: Numerical Simulation of Unstable Miscible Displacements by a
Modified Finite Element Method, MS Thesis, University of Texas at
Austin, December 1986.
Khataniar, S.: A Numerical Study of the Performance of Unstable
Displacements in Heterogeneous Media, Ph.D. Dissertation,
University of Texas at Austin, August 1991.
Khataniar, S. and E. J. Peters: “The Effect of Heterogeneity on the
Performance of Unstable Displacements,” Journal of Petroleum
Science and Engineering, 7, No. 3/4 (May 1992) 263-81.
Khataniar, S. and E. J. Peters: “A Comparison of the Finite Difference
and Finite Element Methods for Simulating Unstable
Displacements,” Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 5,
(1991) 205-218.
Knight, J. H.: Solute Transport and Dispersion: Commentary, in Flow and
Transport in the Natural Environment: Advances and Applications,
ed. W.L. Steffen and O.T. Denmead, pp 17-29, Springer-Verlag,
New York (1988).
Knight, J. H. and J.R. Philip: “Exact Solution in Nonlinear Diffusion,” J.
Eng. Math, 8, 219-27 (1992).
Korvin, G.: Fractal Models in the Earth Sciences, Elsevier, New York
(1992).
Lake, L.W. : Enhanced Oil Recovery, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey, 1989.
Lau, L.K., W.J. Kaufman and D.K. Todd: “Dispersion of a Water Tracer
in a Radial, Laminar Flow through Homogeneous Porous Media,”
Progr. Rep. 5, Canal Seepage Eng. Res. Lab., Univ. of Calif.,
Berkeley (July 1959).
Li, Ping: Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Fluid Displacements in
Porous Media, PhD Dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin,
Austin, Texas, August 1997.
Majors, P.D., Li, P. and Peters, E.J. :”NMR Imaging of Immiscible
Displacements in Porous Media,” Society of Petroleum Engineers
Formation Evaluation (September 1997) 164-169.
5-129
Marle, C.M.: Multiphase Flow in Porous Media, Gulf Publishing Company,
Houston, Texas, (1981).
Mercado, A.A.: “A Note on Micro and Macrodispersion,” Ground Water,
22, No. 6, 790-91 (1984).
Molz, F.J., O. Guven and J.G. Melville, “An Examination of Scale-
Dependent Dispersion Coefficients,” Ground Water, 21, No. 6, 715-
25 (1983).
Muralidhar, R. and D. Ramkrishhna: “Diffusion in Pore Fractals: A
Review of Linear Response Models,” Transp. Porous Media, 1, 79-95
(1993).
Neuman, S.P.: “Universal Scaling of Hydraulic Conductivities and
Dispersivities in Geologic Media,” Water Resour. Res., 26, No. 8,
1749-58 (1990).
O’ Shaughnessy, B. and I. Procaccia: “Analytical Solutions for Diffusion
on Fractal Objects,” Phys. Rev. Lett., 54, No. 5, 455-58 (1995).
Perkins, T.K. and Johnston, O.C. : “A Review of Diffusion and Dispersion
in Porous Media,” Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (March 1963) 70-84.
Peters, E. J., J. A. Broman and W. H. Broman, Jr.: “Computer Image
Processing: A New Tool for Studying Viscous Fingering in
Corefloods,” SPE Reservoir Engineering (November 1987) 720-28.
Peters, E. J. and E. Kasap: “Simulation of Unstable Miscible
Displacements by Finite Element Method,” SPE 15597, Proceedings
of the 61st Annual Technical Conference of the Society of Petroleum
Engineers (October 1986) New Orleans.
Peters, E. J. and W. D. Hardham: “A Comparison of Unstable Miscible
and Immiscible Displacements,” SPE 19640, Proceedings of the
64th Annual Technical Conference of the Society of Petroleum
Engineers (October 1989) San Antonio.
Peters, E.J., Gharbi, R. and Afzal, N. : “A Look at Dispersion in Porous
Media Through Computed Tomography Imaging,” Journal of
Petroleum Science and Engineering, 15 (1996) 23-31.
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.
5–130
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.
Peters, E.J. and Reid, C.A. : “A Microcomputer-Based Imaging System for
the Visualization of Fluid Displacements,” J. Pet. Tech. (May 1990)
558-563.
Philip, J.R.: “Sorption and Infiltration in Heterogeneous Media,” Aust. J.
Soil Res., 5, 1-10 (1967).
Philip, J.R.: “Issues in Flow and Transport in Heterogeneous Porous
Media,” Transp. Porous Media, 1, 319-38 (1986).
Pickens, J. F. and G.E. Grisak: “Scale-Dependent Dispersion in a
Stratified Granular Aquifer,” Water Resour. Res., 17, No. 4, 1191-
1211 (1981).
Pickens, J. F. and G.E. Grisak: “Modeling of Scale-Dependent Dispersion
in Hydrogeologic Systems,” Water Resour. Res., 17, No. 6, 1701-11
(1981).
Reid, C.: Development of an Image Processing Workstation for the
Quantitative Analysis of Fluid Displacements, MS Thesis, University
of Texas at Austin, August 1988.
Saffman, P.G.: “A Theory of Dispersion in a Porous Medium,” J. Fluid
Mech, 6, 321-49 (1959).
Saffman, P.G.: “Dispersion Due to Molecular Diffusion and Macroscopic
Mixing in Flow Through a Network of Capillaries,” J. Fluid Mech., 7,
194-208 (1960).
Sahimi, M.: “Fractal and Superdiffusive Transport and Hydrodynamic
Dispersion in Heterogeneous Porous Media, Transp. Porous Media,
13, 3-40 (1993).
Sauty, J.-P.: “An Analysis of Hydrodispersive Transfer in Aquifers,”
Water Resour. Res., 16, No. 1, 145-58 (1980).
Scheidegger, A.E.: “General Theory of Dispersion in Porous Media,” J.
Geophys. Res., 66, No. 10, 3273-78 (1961).
Scheidegger, A.E.: The Physics of Flow Through Porous Media, University
of Toronto Press, Toronto, Canada (1960).
Shecaira, F.S. and Peters, E.J. : "Numerical Modeling of Miscible
Displacements in Permeable Media Monitored by Imaging
Techniques," Paper submitted to Computational Geosciences,
1998.
5-131
Shecaira, F.S.: Numerical Modeling of Miscible Displacements in
Permeable Media Monitored by Imaging Techniques, PhD
Dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, May
1998.
Schulin, R., M.T. van Genuchten, H. Fluhler and P. Ferlin: “An
Experimental Study of Solute Transport in a Stony Field Soil,”
Water Resour. Res., 2, No. 9, 1785-95 (1987).
Schwartz, F.W.: “Macrodispersion in Porous Media: The Controlling
Factors,” Water Resour. Res., 1, No. 4, 743-52 (1977).
Shouse, P.J., T.R. Ellsworth and J.A. Jobes: “Steady-State Infiltration as
a function of Measurement Scale,” Soil Sci., 157, No. 3, 129-36
(1994).
Tang, D.H., E.O. Frind and E.A. Sudicky: “Contaminant Transport in
Fractured Porous Media: Analytical Solutions for a Single
Fracture,” Water Resour. Res., 17, No. 3, 555-64 (1981).
Taylor, G.: “Diffusion by Continuous Movements,” Proc. London Math
Soc., 20, 196-211 (1981).
Taylor, G.: “Dispersion of Soluble Matter in Solvent Flowing Slowly
Through a Tube,” Proc. R. Soc. London A, 219, 186-203 (1953).
Tyler, S.W. and S.W. Wheatcraft: “Reply to Comment by J.R. Philip on
‘An Explanation of Scale-Dependent Dispersivity in Heterogeneous
Aquifers Using Concepts of Fractal Geometry,’” by S.W. Wheatcraft
and S.W. Tyler, Water Resour. Res., 28, No. 5, 1487-90 (1992).
van Genuchten, M.T. and W.J. Alves: “Analytical Solutions of the One-
Dimensional Convective-Dispersive Solute Transport Equation,”
Tech. Bull. U.S. Dep. Agric., 1661 (1992).
van Wesenbeeck, J. and R.G. Kachanoski: “Spatial Scale Dependence of
In Situ Solute Transport,” Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 55, No. 1, 3-7
(1991).
Wang, T.T., T.K. Kwei and H.L. Frisch: “Diffusion in Glassy Polymers,
III,” J. Polymer Sci., Part A 2, 7, 2019-28 (1969).
Wheatcraft, S.W. and S.W. Tyler: “An Explanation of Scale-Dependent
Dispersivity in Heterogeneous Aquifers Using Concepts of Fractal
Geometry,” Water Resour. Res., 24, No. 4, 566-78 (1988).
Yeh, G.T.: “A Lagrangean-Eulerian Method with Zoomable Hidden Fine-
Mesh Approach to Solving Advection-Dispersion Equations,” Water
Resour. Res., 26, No. 6, 1133-44 (1990).
5–132
Zuluaga, E.: A Simulation Approach to Validate Petrophysical Data from
Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging, MS Thesis, University of
Texas at Austin, August 1999.
Zuluaga, E., Majors, P.D. and Peters, E.J.: "A Simulation Approach to
Validate Petrophysical Data from Nuclear Magnetic Resonance
Imaging," SPE Journal, March 2002, 35-39.
5-133
PROBLEMS
5.1. A laboratory core, which is 6 cm in diameter and 40 cm in length,
has a porosity of 0.35. The core is initially saturated with water. A
tracer is then injected continuously into the core at the rate of 1000
cm3/hour. The effluent data shown in Table 5.4 were recorded at
the outlet end of the core. C/Co is the relative tracer concentration.
Determine the dispersion coefficient of the core.
Table 5.4. Effluent Data for Tracer Test of Problem 5.1.
Time
(hour) C/Co
0.35 0.075
0.37 0.215
0.385 0.37
0.396 0.5
0.41 0.65
0.43 0.83
0.44 0.89
0.46 0.96
5.2. Table 5.5 gives the data for a one-dimensional core tracer test.
Determine the Peclet number for the tracer test.
Table 5.5. Data for Problem 5.2.
PV
Injected 1 − tD
(tD) tD CD
0.60 0.516 0.010
0.65 0.434 0.015
0.70 0.359 0.037
0.80 0.224 0.066
0.90 0.105 0.300
1.00 0.000 0.502
5–134
1.10 -0.095 0.685
1.20 -0.183 0.820
1.30 -0.263 0.906
1.40 -0.338 0.988
1.50 -0.408 0.997
(cm) (%)
48.2 0.8
49.7 2.2
51.5 3.5
53.6 9.5
55.4 21.7
57.2 50.3
59.3 78.0
61.3 94.5
63.2 94.5
65.4 98.7
68.2 98.7
73.4 100
The average interstitial velocity of flow was 1.6 cm/minute.
a. How long after the initiation of flow were these readings taken?
b. Determine the dispersion coefficient and the dispersivity of the
sandpack.
5-135
5.5. A tracer test is conducted in a relatively homogeneous cylindrical
sandpack using continuous injection of a nonreactive tracer. The
injected tracer and the displaced liquid have the same density and
viscosity. The relative concentration C/Co of 0.75 was observed to
arrive at the outlet end of the core after 0.9 hour from the start of
injection. Other data about the test are:
Length of sandpack = 30 cm
Diameter of sandpack = 10 cm
Volumetric injection rate = 1000 cm3/hour
Porosity of the sandpack = 35%
Hydraulic gradient = 0.1
Fluid viscosity = 1.0 cp
Fluid density = 1.0 gm/cm3
Gravitational acceleration = 981cm/s2
1 atmosphere = 1.0133x106 dynes/cm2
a. Calculate the dispersivity of the porous medium and state its
units.
b. Calculate the permeability of the porous medium and state its
units.
Problem 3 (15 points)
A tracer test was conducted in a long core to determine the dispersivity of
a porous medium using a tracer that had the same density and the same
viscosity as the displaced liquid. The tracer test was imaged by CT at t =
50 minutes from the beginning of the test. The interstitial velocity for the
test was 1.6 cm/minute. Figure 3 shows the 0.9 and 0.1 tracer
concentration contours inside the porous medium obtained by imaging.
5–136
Figure 3. Tracer concentration contours at t = 50 minutes.
Problem 3 (20 points)
5-137
ends of the core to monitor and report the solvent concentrations as
functions of time during the entire experiment.
a. Sketch the solvent concentration profile you would expect to see from the CT
scanning after injecting 0.5 pore volume of the solvent. Show the inlet and outlet
ends of the core on your sketch as well as the critical values of solvent concentration.
Do your sketch on Figure 2.
b. Sketch the graphs of solvent concentration versus dimensionless time you expect
from the probes at the inlet and outlet ends of the core. Superimpose the two graphs
so that one can make a qualitative comparison of the two. Please label your graphs
with inlet and outlet. Do your sketches on Figure 3.
c. Other than the absolute permeability, what transport property of the porous medium
and fluids can be estimated from this experiment?
d. Predict the solvent concentration at the outlet end of the core at t = 108 minutes,
given:
L = 30 cm
3
q = 50 cm /hour
2
A = 20 cm
φ = 0.15
–5 2
DL = 400x10 cm /s
liquid have the same density and viscosity. The relative concentration C/Co of 0.75
5–138
was observed to arrive at the outlet end of the core after 0.9 hour from the start of
injection. Other data about the test are:
Length of sandpack = 30 cm
Diameter of sandpack = 10 cm
3
Volumetric injection rate = 1000 cm /hour
3
Fluid density = 1.0 gm/cm
2
Gravitational acceleration = 981cm/s
6 2
1 atmosphere = 1.0133x10 dynes/cm
a. Calculate the dispersivity of the porous medium. Please state the units of your
answer.
5-139
b. Calculate the permeability of the porous medium. Please state the units of
your answer.
(a) Calculate the dispersivity of the porous medium and state its
units.
5–140
Figure 2. Tracer concentration contours at t = 50 minutes.
5-141
CHAPTER 6
6.1 INTRODUCTION
When more than one fluid occupies the pore space of a porous medium,
new set of problems arise. Fluid saturations must be tracked. Interfacial
forces (surface forces) between the immiscible fluids and between the fluids
and the rock surface come into play. Because the pores are of capillary
dimensions, capillarity plays a role. Interfaces separate the fluids within the
pores giving rise to differences in fluid pressure between the phases (capillary
pressure) and differences in the flow capacity (relative permeability) of the
rock and fluids. Capillarity also ensures that an immiscible displacement can
never be complete. There is always a residual saturation of the displaced fluid
that is trapped by capillarity. Further, the rock surface can show a marked
affinity for one of the fluids. Such an affinity is characterized by the concept of
wettability. Interfacial phenomena and wettability are presented in this
6-1
chapter. Capillary pressure and relative permeability are presented in
subsequent chapters.
6-2
only be created if work is done. It can be shown (e.g., by soap film
experiment) that the reversible work required to create a new interface is given
by
δ W = −σ da (6.1)
6-3
⎛ ∂σ ⎞
Ss = −⎜ ⎟ (6.2)
⎝ ∂T ⎠ P
6-4
Figure 6.2. Variation of surface tensions of hydrocarbons with temperature.
6-5
of water at 20° C will be increased by addition of sodium chloride from
72.8 dynes/cm to 80 dynes/cm at a concentration of 5 moles of sodium
chloride per liter of solution.
Mσ 4
1
Λ= (6.3)
ρL − ρg
g/cm3 and ρg is the saturated vapor density in g/cm3. Parachor has definite
values for specific atoms and structures. Parachors are predicted from the
structure of the molecules or can be calculated for pure substances and
mixtures from surface tension measurements at atmospheric pressure. The
parachors for pure substances are given in Table 6.2. Correlations for
parachors with molecular weight are shown in Figures 6.3 and 6.4. The
saturated liquid and vapor densities for various liquids are given in Figure
6.5. Equation (3.4) can be rearranged to calculate the surface tension as
6-6
4
⎡ ⎛ ρ − ρg ⎞⎤
σ = ⎢Λ ⎜ L ⎟⎥ (6.4)
⎣ ⎝ M ⎠⎦
Table 4.2. Parachors for Computing Surface and Interfacial Tensions (Katz et
al., 1959)
Constituent Parachor
Methane 77.0
Ethane 108.0
Propane 150.3
i-Butane 181.5
n-Butane 181.5
i-Pentane 225.0
n-Pentane 231.5
n-Hexane 271.0
n-Heptane 312.5
n-Octane 351.5
Hydrogen 34 (approx)
Nitrogen 41 (approx)
Carbon dioxide 78
6-7
Figure 6.3. Parachors for computing interfacial tension of normal paraffin
hydrocarbons (Katz et al., 1959).
6-8
Figure 6.4. Parachors of heavy fractions for computing interfacial tension of
reservoir liquids (Firoozabadi et al., 1988).
6-9
Figure 6.5: Saturated liquid and vapor densities of various substances.
6-10
6.2.2 Interfacial Tension
Interfacial tension is the contractile force per unit length that exists at
the interface of two immiscible fluids such as oil and water (Figure 6.6). The
forces acting on the surface molecules are similar to those in the liquid-vapor
system, but the mutual attraction of unlike molecules across the interface
becomes important. The free energy required to create a fresh interface is
referred to as the excess interfacial free energy. The specific excess interfacial
free energy is dimensionally equivalent and is numerically equal to the
interfacial tension. Like surface tension, the unit of measurement of
2
interfacial tension is dynes/cm (or ergs/cm ).
6-11
thereby reducing the interfacial tension between the water and the iso-
pentanol. When 25% by weight of ethanol is added, the interfacial tension is
reduced to zero. The system then becomes miscible and forms a single phase.
6-12
n-Octanol 20 8.5
n-Hexanol 25 6.8
Aniline 20 5.85
n-Pentanol 25 4.4
Ethyl acetate 30 2.9
Isobutanol 20 2.1
n-Butanol 20 1.8
n-Butanol 25 1.6
σ = σo − Π (6.5)
tension and Π is the spreading pressure. Surfactants are often used to reduce
the interfacial tension between oil and water in order to improve oil recovery.
The interfacial tensions between reservoir water and crude oils have
been measured for a number of reservoirs and found to range from 15 to 35
dynes/cm at 70 °F, 8 to 25 dynes/cm at 100 °F, and 8 to 19 dynes/cm at 130
°F. Table 6.4 presents the results of interfacial tension measurements for
some fluid pairs.
The interfacial tension between reservoir oil and gas can be estimated
using parachors as
6-13
4
⎡i=N ⎛ ρ ρ ⎞⎤
σ = ⎢ ∑ Λ i ⎜ xi L − yi g ⎟ ⎥ (6.6)
⎜ M g ⎟⎠ ⎥⎦
⎣⎢ i =1 ⎝ M L
where σ is the interfacial tension between oil and gas in dynes/cm, Λi is the
Table 6.4. Typical Interfacial Tensions and Contact Angles for Fluid Pairs
(Archer and Wall, 1986)
6-14
The residual oil saturation for an immiscible displacement in a porous
medium is a function of the interfacial tension between the fluids, the
wettability, the fluid viscosities and the displacement rate. Therefore, we can
write
⎡σ cos θ ⎤ ⎡ x1 ⎤ ⎡ 0 ⎤ ⎡ −1⎤
⎢ μ ⎥ ⎢ x ⎥ ⎢ −1⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ nw ⎥ ⎢ 2 ⎥ = ⎢ ⎥ x3 + ⎢ 1 ⎥ x4 (6.8)
⎢ μ w ⎥ ⎢ x3 ⎥ ⎢ 1 ⎥ ⎢0⎥
⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎣ v ⎦ ⎣ x4 ⎦ ⎣ 0 ⎦ ⎣1⎦
μnw
π1 = (6.9)
μw
μwv
π2 = (6.10)
σ cos θ
μwv μwv
The dimensionless group in Eq.(6.10), or in the case of perfect
σ cos θ σ
wetting, is known as the capillary number. It is the ratio of the viscous to the
capillary force. Thus,
6-15
μwv μwv
Nc = or (6.11)
σ cos θ σ
The functional relationship between the residual oil saturation and the two
dimensionless groups can be written as
⎛μ μ v ⎞
Sor = f 2 ⎜ nw , w ⎟ (6.12)
⎝ μ w σ cos θ ⎠
⎛ μ v ⎞
Sor = f 3 ⎜ w ⎟ (6.13)
⎝ σ cos θ ⎠
1 − Sor − S wi ⎛ μwv ⎞
R= = f4 ⎜ ⎟ (6.14)
1 − S wi ⎝ σ cos θ ⎠
6-16
lowering the interfacial tension between the wetting and nonwetting phases
with a surfactant. Interfacial tensions less that 0.1 dyne/cm can be achieved.
In the limit, if the interfacial tension could be lowered to zero, the fluids would
become miscible and no residual saturation would be left behind. Of course,
in a practical process, the interfacial tension cannot be reduced to zero except
in a miscible process.
6-17
Figure 6.7. Typical correlations of residual nonwetting and wetting phase
saturations with capillary number (Lake, 1989).
6-18
Figure 6.8. Capillary desaturation data (Abrams, 1975).
Figure 6.9. Capillary desaturation data with the effect of viscosity ratio
included (Abrams, 1975).
6-19
6.2.3 Measurements of Surface and Interfacial Tensions
6-20
The equilibrium height is determined by the balance between the capillary
suction force and the pull of gravity. The capillary force acts upward and for a
circular capillary tube is given by
The downward force also can be expressed in terms of the pressures on the
opposite sides of the meniscus as
2σ cos θ
= h ( ρ w − ρ nw ) g (6.18)
r
rh ( ρ w − ρ nw ) g
σ= (6.19)
2 cos θ
6-21
rh ρ w g
σ= (6.20)
2
σ rh
κ −1 = = (6.21)
ρw g 2
72
κ −1 = = 0.2709 cm or 2.71 mm.
1x981
The significance of the capillary length is that when dealing with a system
with the characteristic length scale δ < κ −1 , the effect of gravity is negligible
and capillary effect dominates the process. For example, at the pore scale
where the characteristic length is of the order of microns, capillary effect
dominates gravity effect.
2σ
a2 = (6.22)
ρw g
The constant a2 is a property of the wetting fluid only. For water at 25 ºC, a2 =
0.1468 cm2. Eq.(6.20) can be written as
a 2 = rh (6.23)
6-22
Some famous scientists have studied the capillary rise experiment and have
proposed more elaborate equations to describe the capillary rise than
Eq.(6.23). Jurin (1718) gives the capillary rise equation as
⎛ r⎞
a2 = r ⎜ h + ⎟ (6.24)
⎝ 3⎠
r
where the corrects for the volume of the liquid in the spherical meniscus.
3
Hagen and Desains (19xx) proposed
⎛ r 0.1111r 2 0.0741r 3 ⎞
a 2 = rh ⎜ 1 + − + ⎟ (6.25)
⎝ 3h h2 h3 ⎠
where the last two terms on the right hand side correct for deviations of the
meniscus from sphericity. Rayleigh (1915) further refined Eq.(6.25) as
⎛ r 0.1288r 2 0.1312r 3 ⎞
a 2 = rh ⎜ 1 + − + ⎟ (6.26)
⎝ 3h h2 h3 ⎠
For our purpose, we will use the simple version of the capillary rise equation,
Eq.(6.23).
2σ cos θ
Pnw − Pw = = h ( ρ w − ρ nw ) g (6.27)
r
Eq.(6.27) gives the excess pressure, (Pnw - Pw), across the curved interface
between the wetting and nonwetting phases in terms of the pertinent
variables of the capillary rise experiment. This excess pressure is known as
the capillary pressure (Pc) and will be the subject of Chapter 7. As shown in
6-23
Eq.(6.27), the excess pressure for the capillary rise experiment is positive,
which means that the pressure in the nonwetting phase is higher than that in
the wetting phase. Eq.(6.27) can now be written as
2σ cos θ
Pc = Pnw − Pw = = h ( ρ w − ρ nw ) g (6.28)
r
Wideal = 2π rσ (6.29)
where Wideal is the weight of the drop that should fall, r is the external
radius of the tube and σ is the surface tension. Figure 6.12 shows the
sequence of shapes for a drop that detaches from a tip. The detached drop
leaves behind some liquid residue. Thus, the actual weight of the drop which
is what is measured is less than the ideal weight. To account for this,
Eq.(6.29) is modified as
6-24
r
where f is a correction factor which can be expressed as a function of 1 ,
V3
where V is the volume of the drop. Table 6.5 shows the correction factors for
r
various 1 .
V3
6-25
Table 6.5. Correction Factors for Sessile Drop Method (Adamson, 1982).
gd e2 ( ρ L − ρ g )
σ= (6.31)
H
the density of the liquid, ρg is the density of the vapor, H is a constant that is
de
a function of and g is the gravitational acceleration. The constant H is
ds
tabulated as a function of de/ds. The pendant drop method can be used to
measure surface tension or interfacial tension. It can also be adapted for
measurements at elevated temperature and pressure.
6-26
Figure 6.13. Surface tension by pendant drop method.
Ring Method
The ring method of determining surface or interfacial tension depends
on measuring the force required to pull the ring free of the interface as shown
in Figure 6.14. Theoretically, the surface or interfacial tension is given by
F
σ= (6.32)
2L
where σ is the surface or interfacial tension, F is the force required to pull the
ring free of the interface and L is the circumference of the ring. The factor of 2
accounts for the fact that there are two surfaces around the ring. In practice,
corrections are needed to account for the mass of liquid lifted by the ring in
breaking through the interface as shown in Figure 6.15. Such corrections are
made available with the instrument. Figure 6.16 shows a typical instrument,
known as the du Nouy tensiometer, that employs the ring method for surface
or interfacial tension determination.
6-27
Figure 6.14. Surface tension by ring method.
6-28
Figure 6.15. Condition of liquid surface film at breaking point.
6-29
Figure 6.16. du Nouy tensiometer.
6-30
cylindrical shape as shown in Figure 6.17. A strobe light is used to visualize
the deformed drop. A microscope is used to measure the diameter of the
drop. The interfacial tension is given by
1
σ = Δρω 2 r 3 (6.33)
4
6.3 WETTABILITY
6.3.1 Definition
6-31
Figure 3.17. Cylindrical liquid drops in a spinning drop apparatus. (A)
benzene-water system at 20,000 RPM, (B) octane-surfactant system at 6,000
RPM (Cayias et al., 1975).
6-32
Figure 6.18. Schematic of spinning drop tensiometer (Cayias et al., 1975).
interfacial tension, σow is the oil-water interfacial tension and σws is the
water-solid interfacial tension. The angle θ is known as the contact angle and
is measured through the water (the more dense fluid). The contact angle is a
measure of the wettability of the solid.
σ os − σ ws = σ ow cos θ (6.34)
6-33
The free surface energies for the oil-solid and water-solid interfaces
cannot be measured readily. However, their difference can be determined by
measuring the oil-water interfacial tension and the contact angle. This
difference controls the movement of the interface before equilibrium is
achieved. The following may be deduced from Eq. (6.32):
1. If the free surface energies for the oil-solid (σos) and the water-solid
(σws) interfaces are equal, the left side of Eq.(6.34) is zero. Since the
2. If σws < σos , then θ < 90°. The solid is said to be preferentially water
wet. When the oil, water and solid are first brought in contact, water
will advance and spread on the solid surface, displacing the oil until an
equilibrium contact angle is attained according Eq.(6.34). During
6-34
spreading of the water, the free energy of the system is reduced since
σws < σos. The difference (σos − σws) is known as the adhesion tension.
3. If σws > σos , then θ > 90°. The solid is said to be preferentially oil wet.
4. Complete spreading of the oil on the surface takes place if θ = 180° and
complete spreading of water on the surface takes place if θ = 0°.
Complete spreading of crude oil or water on a surface has never been
observed with reservoir fluids.
Figure 6.20 shows the equilibrium contact angles for four wettability states.
In Figure 6.20a, the surface is preferentially oil wet; in Figure 6.20b, the
surface is of neutral wettability; in Figure 6.20c, the surface is water wet; and
in Figure 6.20d, the surface is totally water wet.
6-35
Figure 6.20. Equilibrium contact angles showing four wettability states.
6-36
Contact Angle Method
Contact angle is one of the earliest and still most widely used
measurement to evaluate reservoir wettability. The contact angle
measurement essentially seeks to establish whether or not the reservoir oil
contains surface active agents that could make an originally preferentially
water wet mineral surface become preferentially oil wet over time.
Accordingly, the contact angle test uses reservoir oil and brine and a pure,
clean mineral surface which is known to be preferentially water wet at the
outset. In the absence of reservoir brine, synthetic brine is used in the test
since the surface active fluid is the oil and not in the brine. The solids
normally used in the test to represent reservoir rock are pure quartz (silica)
for a sandstone reservoir, pure calcite for a limestone reservoir and pure
dolomite crystal for a dolomite reservoir. These pure minerals are known to
be preferentially water wet initially. If the oil contains surface active agents,
then these will adsorb on the mineral surface over time and increase the
degree of oil wetness. This change in the wettability of the surface can be
observed and quantified by measuring the contact angle over time until an
equilibrium contact angle is obtained. It is reasonable to assume that a
similar wetting equilibrium will be approached in the reservoir.
6-37
Figure 6.21. Contact angle cell.
Two contact angles are normally measured: the advancing and receding
contact angles. The advancing contact angle (θA) is the contact angle
obtained when water comes into equilibrium with a surface previously in
contact with oil as shown Figure 6.22. The receding contact angle (θR) is the
contact angle obtained when oil comes into equilibrium with a surface
previously in contact with water. The advancing contact angle is always
greater than the receding contact angle. Normally, it is the advancing contact
angle that is reported as the contact angle in a wettability test.
6-38
time passed, the degree of water wetness diminished. Eventually, after
adsorption equilibrium was achieved the solid was found to be preferentially
oil wet. Had the contact angle test been terminated prematurely, the
wettability assessment would have been wrong. Note that for this test, over
30 days of aging were needed to establish adsorption equilibrium.
6-39
The major advantages of contact angle measurements are the reliability
of the results and the relative ease of obtaining uncontaminated reservoir
fluid samples compared to uncontaminated reservoir rock samples. The
following disadvantages should be noted. (1) Contact angle is measured on a
flat, clean, homogeneous mineral surface. Such a surface does not exist in the
reservoir. (2) Pure minerals are used in the test to simulate sandstone,
limestone and dolomite reservoir rocks. Pure minerals may not be
representative of actual reservoir mineralogy. (3) The test can be very long and
requires extreme cleanliness and inertness of the test system. (4) There is
evidence that the contact angle is affected by which fluid was first in contact
with the solid.
1. The core is immersed in oil (e.g., kerosene) and the volume of brine
displaced by the imbibition of oil is measured after 20 hours in an
imbibition cell as shown in Figure 6.24.
3. The core is immersed in brine and the volume of oil displaced by the
imbibition of brine is measured after 20 hours.
4. The core is centrifuged under brine and the additional oil displaced by
centrifuging is measured.
6-40
Figure 6.24. Imbibition cell.
The wettability indices of water (WIw) and oil (WIo) are calculated as follows:
The Amott wettability indices and dimensionless numbers that range from 0
to 1. If the rock is preferentially water-wet, WIo will be 0 and WIw > 0. The
greater the degree of water wetness, the closer will WIw be to 1. Similarly, if
6-41
the rock is preferentially oil wet, WIw will be 0 and WIo > 0. The greater the
degree of oil wetness, the closer will WIo be to 1. For a rock of intermediate or
neutral wettability, WIw and WIo will be 0 or close to 0. Sometimes, the
⎛A ⎞
USBM Wettability Index = I w = log10 ⎜ 1 ⎟ (6.37)
⎝ A2 ⎠
6-42
where A1 and A2 are the areas under the capillary pressure curves shown in
each figure.
Figure 6.26 compares the USBM wettability index and the Amott
wettability index, (WI w − WI o ) , of forty three outcrop rock samples and three
6-43
Figure 6.25. Determination of USBM wettability index (Donaldson et al.,
1969).
6-44
Figure 6.26. A comparison of the USBM wettability index with Amott
wettability index for several core samples (Donaldson et al., 1969).
6-45
intermediate wettability and those with contact angles from 105 to 180° were
classified as preferentially oil wet.
The results showed that 27% of the reservoirs tested were preferentially
water wet, 66% were preferentially oil wet and the remaining 7% were of
intermediate wettability. It was found that 43% of the sandstones were
preferentially water wet, 50% were preferentially oil wet and 7% were of
intermediate wettability. On the other hand, 84% of the carbonate reservoirs
were preferentially oil wet, 8% were preferentially water wet and 8% were of
intermediate wettability. It would appear from the results of this study that
carbonates are more likely to be preferentially oil wet than preferentially water
wet. However, this assertion cannot be generalized because the 55 reservoirs
used in this study were not obtained by random sampling. A random sample
of reservoirs would be needed if the results of the wettability tests are to be
given statistical significance.
6-46
Wettability determines the microscopic fluid distribution in a porous
medium at the pore scale. The wetting fluid occupies the small pores, coats
the surface of the solid grains and occupies the corners of the grain contacts.
The wetting phase occupies the small pores, which have high specific surface
areas (S=3(1-φ)/r) in order to minimize the specific surface free energy of the
system. The nonwetting phase occupies the large pores and are located at the
center of the pores. These pore scale fluid distributions are shown
schematically in Figure 6.27 for water wet and oil wet porous media. For the
water wet medium, at the initial state, water being the wetting phase coats the
grain surface and occupy the nooks and crannies of the medium. Oil, being
the nonwetting phase occupies the center of the pores and is surrounded by
water. After waterfooding, the residual oil globules occupy the center of the
pores. For the oil wet medium, oil being the wetting phase coats the grain
surface and occupy the nooks and crannies of the medium. The water, being
the nonwetting phase occupies the center of the pores and is surrounded by
oil. After waterflooding, the water occupies the center of the pores and the
residual oil wets the grain surface and occupies the nooks and crannies of the
medium. These microscopic fluid arrangements have implications for the
nature of the end point relative permeabilities of a water wet rock and an oil
wet rock.
6-47
Figure 6.27. Fluid distributions as a function of wettability (adapted from
Pirson, 1958).
6-48
Table 6.6. Archie Saturation Exponent in Oil Wet Rocks (Mungan and Moore,
1968).
6-49
Figure 6.28. Effect of wettability on the resistivity index of carbonate cores
(Sweeney and Jennings, 1960).
6-50
Effect of Wettability on the Efficiency of an Immiscible Displacement
Wettability has a significant effect on the efficiency of an immiscible
displacement in a porous medium. Figure 6.29 shows schematically the
microscopic displacement of oil from a water wet medium and an oil wet
medium at the pore scale. In the water wet medium, the injected water is
imbibed into the medium along the pore walls in a manner that enhances the
oil displacement efficiency. The residual oil is trapped at the center of the
large pores. In the oil wet medium, the injected water channels through the
large pores leaving behind considerable residual oil in the small pores, at the
solid contacts and as coatings on the solid grains. From this pore level
picture, it is easy to see that the waterflood efficiency will be higher in the
water wet medium than in the oil wet medium everything else being equal.
The higher waterflood efficiency of the water wet rock compared to the
oil wet rock seen at the pore scale manifests itself at the macroscopic scale
(core scale) as well. Owens and Archer (1971) performed waterflood
experiments in core plugs (1.9 cm diameter and 4.4 cm length) at various
wettability conditions. The core plugs were rendered progressively oil wet by
dissolving a sulfonate in the oil phase. Figure 6.30 shows the oil recovery
curves for the waterfloods as a function of the wettability of the core. The
decline in the oil recovery efficiency with increasing oil wetness is obvious.
6-51
Figure 6.29. Microscopic displacement of oil from a pore during a waterflood:
(a) strongly water wet medium, (b) strongly oil wet medium (Raza et al., 1968).
6-52
Figure 6.30. Effect of wettability on waterflood performance at an oil-water
viscosity ratio of 5 (Archer and Owens, 1971).
6-53
first saturated with the same viscous silicon-based oil and the oil was then
displaced by the same brine to simulate a waterflood at the same unfavorable
mobility ratio as in Experiment 1. Although the wettabilities of the sandpacks
were not measured directly, it is believed that the first sandpack would
behave as a water wet system whereas the second sandpack would behave as
an oil wet system over the short time scale of the experiments. Both
waterfloods were imaged by X-ray CT to visualize the insitu fluid saturations
in time and space.
The oil recovery curves for the two waterflood experiments are shown in
Figure 6.31. They show the displacement in the water wet sandpack to be
more efficient than in the oil wet sandpack . These results are in agreement
with those of Archer and Owens. The low water breakthrough recoveries in
this study are due to the high oil-water viscosity ratio of 85.
Figures 6.32 and 6.33 show the water saturation images for the two
waterfloods at several pore volumes injected. The images for the water wet
sandpack show a relatively uniform and efficient displacement of the oil by
the water, with relatively high water saturations. In contrast, the images for
the oil wet sandpack show a chaotic, fragmented and inefficient displacement,
with relatively low water saturations. These images clearly show the important
role of wettability in determining the efficiency of waterfloods at the
macroscopic scale. Figures 6.34 and 6.35 show the water saturation profiles
for the experiments. They confirm the higher displacement efficiency of
Experiment 1 compared to Experiment 2.
6-54
Figure 6.31. Effect of wettability on waterflood performance at an oil-water
viscosity ratio of 91 (Peters and Hardham, 1989).
6-55
6-56
6-57
Figure 6.32. Water saturation images for a waterflood in a water wet
sandpack at a viscosity ratio of 91. (A) tD = 0.05, (B) tD = 0.10, (C ) tD = 0.25,
(D) tD = 0.50, (E) tD = 1.0, (F) tD = 2.0, (G) tD = 3.0 (Peters and Hardham,
1989).
6-58
6-59
6-60
6-61
Figure 6.33. Water saturation images for a waterflood in an oil wet sandpack
at a viscosity ratio of 91: (A) tD = 0.05, (B) tD = 0.10, (C ) tD = 0.25, (D) tD =
0.50, (E) tD = 1.0, (F) tD = 2.0, (G) tD = 3.0 (Peters and Hardham, 1989).
6-62
Figure 6.34. Water saturation profiles for a waterflood in a water wet
sandpack.
Figure 6.35. Water saturation profiles for a waterflood in an oil wet sandpack.
6-63
6.4 THERMODYNAMICS OF INTERFACES
dU = dQ − dW (6.38)
where dU is the change in total internal energy of the system, dQ is the heat
input into the system and dW is the work done by the system. For an
equilibrium system, infinitesimal changes are reversible so that the reversible
work is given by
dW = PdV − σ da (6.39)
dQ = TdS (6.40)
Substitution of Eqs.(6.39) and (6.40) into Eq.(6.38) gives for a closed system,
i= N
dU = TdS − PdV + σ da + ∑ μi dni (6.42)
i =1
6-64
number of components in the system. At equilibrium, μi is the same in the
bulk fluid and at the interface.
⎛ ∂U ⎞
σ =⎜ ⎟ (6.43)
⎝ ∂a ⎠ S ,V ,n i
A = U − TS (6.44)
i= N
dA = − SdT − PdV + σ da + ∑ μi dni (6.46)
i =1
We may obtain the interfacial tension from Eq.(6.46) in terms of the Helmholtz
free energy of the system as
⎛ ∂A ⎞
σ =⎜ ⎟ (6.47)
⎝ ∂a ⎠T ,V ,ni
G = A + PV = U − TS + PV = H − TS (6.48)
6-65
where H is the enthalpy of the system. Differentiating Eq.(6.48) gives
i=N
dG = VdP − SdT + σ da + ∑ μi dni (6.50)
i =1
We may obtain the interfacial tension from Eq.(6.50) in terms of Gibbs free
energy of the system as
⎛ ∂G ⎞
σ =⎜ ⎟ (6.51)
⎝ ∂a ⎠T , P ,n
i
6-66
Consider the displacement of a nonwetting phase by a wetting phase,
such as water displacing oil in a water wet medium, at the pore level as
shown in Figure 6.36. The interfacial forces and interfacial areas at an instant
are also shown in Figure 6.36. The Helmholtz free energy of the system is a
function of the interfacial areas. Thus,
Let the interface move to the right by a small distance dx. The change in the
Helmholtz free energy of the system as the interfacial areas change is given by
∂A ∂A ∂A
dA = dasw + daso + dawo (6.53)
∂asw ∂aso ∂awo
6-67
dawo = 0 (6.54)
where r is the radius of the pore. The interfacial forces are given in terms of
the Helmholtz free energy by Eq.(6.47). Substituting Eqs.(6.47), (6.54), (6.55)
and (6.56) into Eq.(6.53) gives the change in Helmholtz free energy of the
system as
dA
= −2π r (σ so − σ sw ) (6.57)
dx
The right side of Eq.(5.59) is a positive number. The left side of Eq.(6.59) is
larger than this positive number. When these facts are applied to Eq.(6.57),
we see that the change in the Helmholtz free energy during the displacement
is negative. This means that the Helmholtz free energy will decrease as the
nonwetting phase is displaced by the wetting phase. This is a favored
displacement. In fact, the displacement will occur spontaneously if given the
opportunity to do so. This is the origin of spontaneous imbibition, which
6-68
explains the spontaneous imbibition of a wetting fluid in the capillary tube
experiment. We can calculate an effective displacing force as
dA
Feffective = − >0 (6.60)
dx
dasw = 0 (6.61)
daso = 0 (6.62)
6-69
Figure 6.37. Displacement of a wetting phase by a nonwetting phase at the
pore scale.
where r* is the radius from the center of the pore to the thin wetting phase
film on the surface of the pore. Substituting Eqs.(6.47), (6.61), (6.62) and
(6.63) into Eq.(6.53) gives the change in the Helmholtz free energy of the
system as
dA
= +2π rσ wo (6.64)
dx
Eq.(6.64) shows that the Helmholtz free energy of the system increases during
the displacement. This is not a favored displacement. Thus, the displacement
will not occur spontaneously. It must be forced by pumping. The effective
displacement force in this case is given by
dA
Feffective = − <0 (6.65)
dx
6-70
pressure is required in order to initiate a drainage capillary pressure
measurement.
NOMENCLATURE
a = interfacial area
A = Helmholtz free energy
F = force
g = gravitational acceleration
G = Gibbs free energy
h = equilibrium height in a capillary rise experiment
H = enthalpy
M = molecular weight
Mg = apparent molecular weight of gas
ML = apparent molecular weight of liquid
ni = moles of component i
N = total number of components in the mixture
Nc = capillary number
P = pressure
Pc = capillary pressure
Pnw = pressure in the nonwetting phase
Pw = pressure in the wetting phase
r = radius of capillary tube, pore radius, radius of spinning drop
Q = heat
6-71
R = oil recovery
S = entropy
Ss = surface entropy
Sor = residual oil saturation
T = temperature
U = internal energy
v = Darcy velocity
V = volume
W = work
xi = mole fraction of component i in the liquid
yi = mole fraction of component i in the gas
σ = surface or interfacial tension
σ os = oil solid interfacial tension (oil solid specific surface energy)
θ = contact angle
θA = advancing contact angle
θR = receding contact angle
ρL = saturated liquid density
6-72
REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS
6-73
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.
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.
Craig, F.F., Jr. : The Reservoir Engineering Aspects of Waterflooding, SPE
Monograph Vol. 3, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Richardson, Texas,
1971.
Cuiec, L.E. : “Study of Problems Related to the Restoration of Natural State of
Core Samples,” J. Canadian Pet. Tech (Oct. - Dec. 1977) 68-80.
de Gennes, P.G. and Quere, D. : Capillarity and Wetting Phenomena, Springer
Science and Business Media, Inc., 2004.
Denekas, M.O., Mattax, C.C. and Davis, G.T. : “Effects of Crude Oil
Components on Rock Wettability,” Trans., AIME (1959) 216, 330-333.
Donaldson, E.C., Thomas, R.D. and Lorenz, P.B. : “Wettability Determination
and Its Effect on Recovery Efficiency,” Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (March 1969)
13-20.
Donaldson, E.C., Kendall, R.F., Pavelka, E.A. and Crocker, M.E. : “Equipment
and Procedures for Fluid Flow and Wettability Tests of Geological
Materials,” DOE/BETC/IC-79/5, Nat. Tech. Info. Sv, Springfield, VA
2216, 1980.
Garnes, J.M., Mathisen, A.M., Scheie, A. and Skauge, A. : "Capillary Number
Relations for Some North Sea Reservoir Sandstones," SPE/DOE 20264,
Presented at the SPE/DOE Seventh Symposium on Enhanced Oil
Recovery, Tulsa, April 22-25, 1990.
Howard, J.J. : "Wettability and Fluid Saturations Determined From NMR T1
Distribution," Magnetic Resonance Imaging, " Vol. 12, No. 2 (1994) 197-
200.
Jennings, H.Y. : “Surface Properties of Natural and Synthetic Porous Media,”
Producers Monthly (March 1957) 20-24.
Lake, L.W. : Enhanced Oil Recovery, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey, 1989.
Marle, C.M. : Multiphase Flow in Porous Media, Gulf Publishing Company,
Houston, Texas, 1981.
Melrose, J.C. : "Interfacial Phenomena as Related to Oil Recovery
Mechanisms," Cnd J. Chem. Eng., Vol. 48 (Dec. 1970) 638-644.
Morrow, N.R. : “Wettability and Its Effect on Oil Recovery,” J. Pet. Tech.
(December 1990) 1476-1484.
6-74
Morrow, N.R., Cram, P.J. and McCaffery, F.G. : "Displacement Studies in
Dolomite With Wettability Control by Octanoic Acid," SPEJ (August
1973) 221-232.
Mungan, N. : “Enhanced Oil Recovery Using Water as a Driving Fluid; Part 2 -
Interfacial Phenomena and Oil Recovery: Wettability,” World Oil (March
1981) 77-83.
Mungan, N. : “Enhanced Oil Recovery Using Water as a Driving Fluid; Part 3 -
Interfacial Phenomena and Oil Recovery: Capillarity,” World Oil (May
1981) 149-158.
Mungan, N. and Moore, E.J. : "Certain Wettability Effects on Electrical
Resisitivity in Porous Media," J. Cdn. Pet. Tech. (Jan.-March 1968) 7,
No.1, 20-25.
Owens, W.W. and Archer, D.L. : “The Effect of Rock Wettability on Oil-Water
Relative Permeability Relationships,” J. Pet. Tech. (July 1971) 873-878.
Peters, E. J. and W. D. Hardham: “A Comparison of Unstable Miscible and
Immiscible Displacements,” SPE 19640, Proceedings of the 64th Annual
Technical Conference of the Society of Petroleum Engineers (October
1989) San Antonio.
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.
Raza, S.H., Treiber, L.E. and Archer, D.L. : “Wettability of Reservoir Rocks and
Its Evaluation,” Producers Monthly (April 1968) 2-7.
Rowlinson, J.S. and Widom, B. : Molecular Theory of Capillarity, Dover
Publications, Inc., Mineola, New York, 1982.
Sweeny, S.A. and Jennings, H.Y. : "Effect of Wettability on the Electrical
Resistivity of Carbonate Rock from a Petroleum Reservoir," J. Phy.
Chem. (May 1960) 64, 551-553.
Tiab, D. and Donaldson, E.C. : Petrophysics, Second Edition, Elsevier, New
York, 2004.
Treiber, L.E., Archer, D.L. and Owens, W.W. : “A Laboratory Evaluation of the
Wettability of Fifty Oil-Producing Reservoirs,” Soc. Pet. Eng. J.
(December 1972) 531-540.
Wagner, O.R. and Leach, R.O. : “Improving Oil Displacement Efficiency by
Wettability Adjustment,” Trans., AIME (1959) 216, 65-72.
6-75
Welge, H.J. and Bruce, W.A. : “A Restored-State Method for Determination of
Oil in Place and Connate Water,” API Drilling and Production Practice
(1947) 161-165.
Willhite, G. P. : Waterflooding, SPE Textbook Series Vol. 3, Society of
Petroleum Engineers, Richardson, Texas, 1986.
6-76
CHAPTER 7
CAPILLARY PRESSURE
⎛1 1⎞
Pc = P2 − P1 = σ ⎜ + ⎟ (7.1)
⎝ r1 r2 ⎠
7-1
⎛1 1⎞
Curvature = ⎜ + ⎟ (7.2)
⎝ r1 r2 ⎠
7-2
Laplace equation can be derived by considering the mechanical
equilibrium of the interface or by energy considerations. We derive it here by
energy considerations. Let the interface be expanded by a small amount in the
xyz directions, where z is vertically upward. The increase is surface area of the
interface is given by
δ W = ( P2 − P1 ) xydz (7.5)
x + dx x
= (7.7)
r1 + dz r1
y + dy y
= (7.8)
r2 + dz r2
7-3
⎛1 1⎞
Pc = P2 − P1 = σ ⎜ + ⎟ (7.1)
⎝ r1 r2 ⎠
1 1⎛ 1 1 ⎞
= ⎜ + ⎟ (7.9)
rm 2 ⎝ r1 r2 ⎠
2σ
Pc = (7.10)
rm
Figure 7.2. Fluid interface in the planes of the principal radii of curvature.
7-4
Laplace equation is the fundamental equation of capillarity. Several
special cases of Laplace equation are of interest. For a spherical liquid drop,
r1 = r2 = r, the radius of the drop. The capillary pressure or the excess
pressure of the drop is given by
2σ
Pc = (7.11)
r
For a soap bubble in air, r1 = r2 = r, the radius of the bubble. The capillary
pressure or excess pressure is given by
4σ
Pc = (7.12)
r
where a factor of 2 has been incorporated to account for the two gas-liquid
interfaces of a soap bubble. For a flat interface, r1 = r2 = ∞. In this case, the
capillary pressure is zero. If the two immiscible fluids are in contact with a
solid surface, the interface will intersect the solid at an equilibrium contact
angle θ given by the Young-Dupre equation. Such an interface is shown in
Figure 7.3 for the capillary rise experiment. Laplace equation holds at the
interface. Assuming the interface lies on a sphere as shown in the figure, then
r1 = r2 = r/cosθ, where r is the radius of the capillary tube. The capillary
pressure is given by
7-5
Figure 7.3. Interface for capillary rise experiment.
⎛1 1⎞
Pc = σ cos θ ⎜ − ⎟ (7.14)
⎝ r1 r2 ⎠
7-6
In this case, the principal radii of curvature are on opposite sides of the
interface. By sign convention, one radius will be positive and the other will be
negative.
If the wetting fluid saturation in the pendular ring is reduced, r1 and r2 will be
reduced. However, r1 will be reduced more than r2 as the wetting phase
recedes into the corners of the contact of the grains. As a result, the capillary
pressure will increase. If the wetting fluid saturation is increased, r1 and r2
will increase and the capillary pressure will decrease. Therefore, an inverse
relationship exists between the capillary pressure and the wetting phase
saturation for a porous medium. Low wetting phase saturation corresponds
7-7
to high capillary pressure and high wetting phase saturation corresponds to
low capillary pressure.
2σ cos θ 0.1468
z= = cm (7.15)
r ρw g r
2σ cos θ 144
Pc = = dynes / cm 2 (7.16)
r r
7-8
Figure 7.5. Capillary rise experiment for a bundle of capillary tubes medium.
Table 7.1. Capillary Pressure versus Wetting Phase Saturation for Bundle of
Capillary Tubes Model.
7-9
0.0254
Figures 7.6 and 7.7 show the capillary pressure versus wetting phase
saturation for this idealized medium. In Figure 7.6, the capillary pressure is
presented as height in cm above the free water level whereas in Figure 7.7,
the capillary pressure is given in psi. Both presentations are valid and can be
used for different purposes. The presentation in Figure 7.6 gives the water
saturation distribution as a function of the height above the free water level.
This type of presentation can be used to determine the water saturation
distribution in a petroleum reservoir starting from the free water level at or
below the oil water contact to the top of the reservoir. The presentation in
Figure 7.7 is useful for calculating pore size distribution.
7-10
Figure 7.6. Capillary pressure expressed as height of water above the free
water level versus wetting phase saturation for a bundle of capillary tubes
medium.
Figure 7.7. Capillary pressure in psi versus wetting phase saturation for a
bundle of capillary tubes medium.
7-11
Figure 7.8 shows capillary rise experiments for two porous media
having different grain sizes (pore sizes). The wetting phase will rise higher in
the finer grain porous medium than in the courser grain medium. Such
experiments are widely used in soil science to determine the capillary
pressure curve (referred to as water retention curve or matric suction head in
soil science) for unconsolidated soils. The soil, which is packed in a tube is
dipped into water and allowed to sit for several days or weeks to achieve
capillary equilibrium. The tube often is instrumented to measure the
resistivity of the medium in order to calculate the water saturation along the
column by Archie's equation. The capillary pressure is calculated as height of
water above the free water level as was done in the bundle of capillary tube
model.
Figure 7.8. Capillary rise experiments for two porous media of different grain
sizes.
7-12
In an actual porous medium, such as reservoir rock, the complexity of
the pore structure and the fluid interface arrangements preclude the use of
Laplace equation to calculate the capillary pressure. Further, this complexity
also precludes the calculation of the wetting phase saturation from the fluid
interface arrangements as was done for the bundle of capillary tubes
experiment. Instead, the capillary pressure versus wetting phase saturation
relationship is measured experimentally. We demonstrate one possible way of
making this measurement for a porous medium using the idealized porous
medium and the experimental set up shown in Figure 7.9. Let water be the
wetting phase and air the non-wetting phase in the experiment. The porous
medium consists of one pore, which is a capillary tube with three radii as
shown in the figure. The radius and length of each segment of the pore are
shown in Table 7.2. The medium, which is strongly water wet (θ = 0º), is
initially saturated with water. The medium rests on a semi-permeable plate at
the bottom of the apparatus. This semi-permeable plate is manufactured such
that it has very fine and uniform pores. It is strongly water wet and is fully
saturated with water. It will permit water to flow through it but because of its
fine pores will prevent the air from flowing through it. Initially, the apparatus
is open to the atmosphere so that the water in the core, the semi-permeable
plate and the connecting vessel below the semi-permeable plate is at
atmospheric pressure. Gas is admitted into the apparatus at a low pressure of
Pg. If Pg is less than 2σcosθ/r1, nothing will happen. The gas pressure is not
high enough for the gas to displace the water from the largest pore. The gas
pressure is then increased to Pg1 until it is equal to 2σcosθ/r1 and the segment
of the pore with radius r1 will be drained of water. The water drainage will
stop after draining the largest pore because Pg1 is not high enough to drain
the pore with radius r2. Next, the gas pressure is increased to Pg2 equal to
2σcosθ/r2 and the segment of the pore with radius r2 will be drained.
Eventually, the pressure of the gas is increased to Pg3 equal to 2σcosθ/r3 and
the segment of the pore with radius r3 will be drained. The volume of water
7-13
drained at each capillary pressure is measured and is used to calculate the
water saturation in the medium corresponding to that capillary pressure. The
graph of Pgi versus water saturation gives the capillary pressure curve of the
porous medium. For this simple porous medium, the capillary pressure curve
can be calculated using Laplace equation and the dimensions of the pore and
is presented in Figure 7.10. Note how the shape of the capillary pressure
curve reflects the pore size distribution of the porous medium. This is the
basis for estimating the pore size distribution of a porous medium from its
drainage capillary pressure curve.
7-14
Figure 7.9. Capillary pressure measurement for an idealized porous medium.
7-15
Figure 7.10. Capillary pressure curve for an idealized porous medium.
7-16
Figure 7.11. Effect of wettability on the capillary pressure curve for an
idealized porous medium.
7-17
saturation is a function of the grain size (pore size), the wettability of the
medium and the interfacial tension between the wetting and non-wetting
fluids.
What information does the capillary pressure curve for a reservoir rock
provide about the rock? If one reservoir rock has a higher permeability than
another, we know that the higher permeability rock will permit faster fluid
flow through it, everything else being equal, than the lower permeability rock.
Thus, the higher permeability rock is more desirable than the lower
permeability rock as a petroleum reservoir rock. If one reservoir rock has a
higher porosity than another, we know that the higher porosity rock will store
more reserves than the lower porosity rock. Therefore, the higher porosity
7-18
rock is a more desirable reservoir rock than the lower porosity rock. If one
rock has a higher capillary pressure at the same wetting phase saturation
than another, what can we say about the rocks? Is the rock with the higher
capillary pressure curve more desirable or less desirable as a petroleum
reservoir rock than the rock with the lower capillary pressure curve?
Figure 7.13 shows the drainage capillary pressure curves for four rocks:
A, B, C and D. Rock A has the least displacement pressure. Therefore, it has
the largest pores connected to the surface. Its capillary pressure curve
remains essentially flat as the wetting phase saturation is decreased from
100% to 60%. This means that many of the pores are invaded by the non-
wetting fluid at essentially the same capillary pressure. This indicates that A
has uniform pores or is well sorted. Rock A also has the least irreducible
wetting phase saturation, indicating that it has relatively larger grains and
pores than the other rocks. Rock B has a higher displacement pressure than
A. Therefore, it has smaller pores than A. The capillary pressure curve at the
high wetting phase saturations is relatively flat, indicating good sorting. Rock
B has a higher irreducible wetting phase saturation than A, which is
consistent with its finer grains and pores. Rock C is even more fine grained
than B because of its higher displacement pressure. The shape of its capillary
pressure curve shows that a higher capillary pressure is required at each
wetting phase saturation to desaturate the rock. This means that C has a
wider pore size distribution than A and B. Therefore, C is poorly sorted. It
has a higher irreducible water saturation than B, which is consistent with its
finer grains and pores. Rock D is extremely fine grained, extremely poorly
sorted and would be a very poor reservoir rock. This observation is based on
its very high displacement pressure, very steep capillary pressure curve and
very high irreducible wetting phase saturation. Without being told, one can
easily infer that this rock is essentially made of clay.
7-19
Since permeability is proportional to the square of the mean grain size
(pore size), it is easy to see that Rock A has the highest permeability, followed
by B, C and D in that order. From this discussion, we conclude that the rock
with the higher capillary pressure curve is a less desirable reservoir rock than
the one with the lower capillary pressure curve.
7-20
7.4 CONVERSION OF LABORATORY CAPILLARY PRESSURE
DATA TO RESERVOIR CONDITIONS
2 (σ cos θ )lab
( Pc )lab = (7.17)
rm
2 (σ cos θ )reservoir
( Pc )reservoir = (7.18)
rm
(σ cos θ )reservoir
( Pc )reservoir = ( Pc )lab (7.19)
(σ cos θ )lab
The capillary pressure curves for rock samples from the same reservoir
having different permeabilities will be different. It is often necessary to
average the capillary pressure data for cores from the same reservoir believed
7-21
to have the same pore structure in order to obtain one capillary pressure
curve that can be used for reservoir performance analysis. This averaging can
be done using the Leverett J-function, which is a dimensionless capillary
pressure function (Leverett, 1941).
⎛ k ⎞
Pc = f ⎜ S w , Γ, σ cos θ , , ( ρ w − ρ nw ) g ⎟ (7.20)
⎝ φ ⎠
x2
⎛k⎞
(σ cos θ ) ⎜ ⎟ ⎡⎣( ρ w − ρ nw ) g ⎤⎦ Pc = dimensionless constant
x1 x3 x4
(7.21)
⎝φ ⎠
Carrying out the dimensional analysis yields the following solution to the
dimensional analysis problem:
7-22
⎡ σ cos θ ⎤
⎢ ⎥ ⎡ x1 ⎤ ⎡ −1⎤ ⎡ −1⎤
⎢ k ⎢
⎥ x2 ⎥ ⎢ 1⎥⎥ ⎢1⎥
⎢ φ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ = ⎢ x3 + ⎢ 2 ⎥ x4 (7.22)
⎢ ρ − ρ g⎥ 3 ⎢ x ⎥ ⎢ 1 ⎥ ⎢0⎥
⎢ ( w nw ) ⎢
⎥ x ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢⎣ Pc ⎥⎦ ⎣ 4⎦ ⎣ 0⎦ ⎣1⎦
π1 =
( ρ w − ρnw ) g ( k / φ ) (7.23)
σ cos θ
Pc k / φ
π2 = (7.24)
σ cos θ
Pc k / φ ⎛ ( ρ − ρnw ) g ( k / φ ) ⎞
= f1 ⎜ S w , Γ, w (7.25)
⎟
σ cos θ ⎝ σ cos θ ⎠
7-23
Pc k / φ
= f 2 ( Sw , Γ ) = J ( Sw , Γ ) (7.26)
σ cos θ
Leverett J-function. Eq.(7.26) suggests that porous media that have the same
pore structure but different permeability and porosity will have the same
Leverett J-function. Therefore, if the different capillary pressure curves of the
porous media are rescaled as a Leverett J-function, they should plot as one
curve. This curve provides the means to average capillary pressure data.
7-24
Figure 7.14. Leverett J function for unconsolidated sands (Leverett, 1941).
7-25
Figure 7.15. Leverett J-functions for a carbonate reservoir; (a) all cores; (b)
limestone cores; (c) dolomite cores; (d) microgranular limestone cores; (e)
coarse-grained limestone cores (Brown, 1951).
7-26
Figure 7.16. Leverett J-functions for different rock types (Rose and Bruce,
1949).
7-27
7.6 DETERMINATION OF THE INITIAL STATIC RESERVOIR
FLUID SATURATIONS BY USE OF DRAINAGE CAPILLARY
PRESSURE CURVE
Initially, the petroleum reservoir was saturated with water before oil
migrated into the reservoir and displaced the water. This displacement of a
wetting phase by a non-wetting phase is simulated in the laboratory
measurement of the drainage capillary pressure curve. The final fluid
distribution in the reservoir is determined by the equilibrium between
capillary and gravitational forces.
Consider the static equilibrium for the water and oil. From
hydrostatics, for the water,
dPw
= − ρw g (7.27)
dz
dPo
= − ρo g (7.28)
dz
Pw ( z ) = Pw ( 0 ) − ρ w gz (7.29)
and
Po ( z ) = Po ( 0 ) − ρ o gz (7.30)
7-28
Pc ( z ) = Pc ( 0 ) + ( ρ w − ρo ) gz (7.31)
We select as datum the free water level at which the capillary pressure is zero.
With this choice of datum, Eq.(7.31) becomes
Pc ( z ) = ( ρ w − ρ o ) gz = Δρ gz (7.32)
where Δρ is the density of water minus the density of oil. It is remarkable that
Eq.(7.32) is the same as Eq.(6.26) for the capillary rise experiment. The free
water level occurs at a depth do below the oil-water contact given by
Pd
do = (7.33)
Δρ g
Pc − Pd
h= (7.34)
Δρ g
If the displacement pressure of the capillary pressure curve is 0, then the free
water level and the oil-water contact will be the same. However, this is a
special case. In general, the free water level and the oil-water contact are not
the same.
7-29
of the wettability of the rock, the oil-water density contrast, the oil-water
interfacial tension, the grain size (pore size) and sorting, which determine the
permeability of the rock.
7-30
It should be noted that the capillary pressure in the reservoir is highest
at the top of the reservoir. In order to prevent escape of the hydrocarbon from
the reservoir, the cap rock must have a displacement pressure that is higher
than the maximum capillary pressure labeled Pcap in the figure. Shales
typically form the cap rock in many reservoirs. Shales are fine grained and
have very high displacement pressures. The shale, which is saturated with
water, will prevent the oil from penetrating it because its displacement
pressure is higher than the maximum capillary pressure in the reservoir. Of
course, some may think that the oil does not penetrate the shale because it
has a low permeability. However, the correct analysis is that the shale
prevents the oil from penetrating it because its displacement pressure is
much higher than the pressure in the oil phase. This is a capillary
phenomenon not a Darcy law phenomenon.
7-31
Figure 7.18. Initial static fluid distribution in an actual petroleum reservoir.
7-32
In a layered reservoir in which the layers have different capillary
pressure curves, the layers are in capillary equilibrium. As a result,
saturation discontinuities will occur. However, there will be only one free
water level. Figure 7.19 shows the water saturation distribution for a well
that has penetrated a layered reservoir. Given the capillary pressure curve for
each layer, it is a simple matter to apply Eqs.(7.32) and (7.33) to calculate the
water saturation distribution from the free water level to the top of the
reservoir. The steps for calculating the water saturation distribution in such a
heterogeneous reservoir is as follows.
1. Using the displacement pressure of the bottom layer, calculate the free
water level using Eq.(7.33).
5. Using the capillary pressure curve for the layer in which z occurs, read
or calculate the water saturation for the value of capillary pressure from
step 3.
7 Increase the value of z and repeat steps 3 through 6 until z reaches the
top of the reservoir.
7-33
This is how the saturation distribution in Figure 7.18c was calculated. If you
look closely at Figure 7.18b in which the four layers have been identified and
their capillary pressure curves have been plotted as height above the free
water level, you can mentally sketch the water saturation distribution over the
entire column of the well.
Figure 7.18. Fluid distribution for a layered reservoir; (a) well penetrating a
layered reservoir; (b) capillary pressure curves for the layers; (c) water
staturation profile observed at the well (Archer and Wall, 1986).
7-34
Example 7.1
Table 7.3 gives the properties of an idealized oil reservoir consisting of four
layers with distinct petrophysical properties. The top of the reservoir is at
8000 ft below the surface and the oil water contact is at 8185 ft. Table 7.4
gives the drainage oil-water capillary pressure curve for Layer 1. All the layers
have the same pore structure but different permeabilities and porosities.
Pc1
Sw (psi)
1.000 1.973
0.950 2.377
0.900 2.840
0.850 3.377
0.800 4.008
0.750 4.757
0.700 5.663
0.650 6.781
0.600 8.195
0.550 10.039
0.500 12.547
0.450 16.154
0.400 21.787
0.350 31.817
0.300 54.691
0.278 78.408
7-35
Other properties for the reservoir are as follows:
ρ w = 1.036 g/cm3
ρo = 0.822 g/cm3
σ = 35 dynes/cm
θ = 0D
1. Calculate and plot the graph of the Leverett J-function for the reservoir.
2. Calculate and plot the capillary pressure curves for Layers 2, 3 and 4,
together with that of Layer 1.
3. Calculate the depth of the free water level for the reservoir.
4. Calculate and plot graphs of the initial water and oil saturations in the
reservoir from 8000 ft to the free water level assuming the reservoir is in
capillary equilibrium.
5. Calculate and plot graphs of the water and oil pressures at the initial
reservoir conditions.
6. A well drilled into the reservoir has been perforated from 8090 to 8110
ft. Determine the type of reservoir fluid that will be produced initially.
7-36
dynes/cm2, k in cm2 and σ in dynes/cm. For example, at S w = 0.278 ,
7-37
Figure 7.19. Leverett J-function for the reservoir of Example 7.1.
2. Since all the layers have the same pore structure, they share the same
Leverett J-function. Thus, Eq.(7.26) can be solved for Pc using the
known J-function from Layer 1. However, for this example, the capillary
pressure curve for Layer j can be calculated from the data for Layer 1 as
⎛ k ⎞⎛ φ ⎞
Pcj = Pc1 ⎜ 1 ⎟ ⎜ j ⎟⎟
⎜
⎝ φ1 ⎠ ⎝ k j ⎠
⎛ 144 ⎞ ⎛ 20 ⎞
Pc 2 = 78.408 ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ = 122.755 psi
⎝ 23.5 ⎠ ⎝ 50 ⎠
7-38
The calculated capillary pressure curves are presented in Table 7.5 and
Figure 7.20.
Figure 7.20. Capillary pressure curves for all the layers for the reservoir of
Example 7.1.
7-39
Eq.(7.33) can also be written in oilfield units as
Pc [ psi ] Pc [ psi ]
d o [ ft ] = = 144
Δρ ⎡⎣lb / ft 3 ⎤⎦ Δρ ⎡⎣lb / ft 3 ⎤⎦
144
do =
(144 )(1.6919 ) = 18.24 ft
(1.036 )( 62.4 ) − ( 0.822 )( 62.4 )
4. The capillary pressure is zero at the free water level and increases as a
linear function of height above the free water level for incompressible
liquids. The height of any point in the reservoir above the free water
level is designated as z in Eq.(7.32) and can be used to calculate the
capillary pressure at that point in the reservoir. Clearly, at any depth D,
z is given by
z = FWL − D
7-40
⎛ 9.574 − 9.432 ⎞
S w = 0.900 + ⎜ ⎟ ( 0.850 − 0.900 ) = 0.896
⎝ 11.215 − 9.432 ⎠
Depth z Pc Sw So Pw Po
ft ft psi
8000 203.24 18.847 0.426 0.574 3688.95 3670.10
8005 198.24 18.383 0.430 0.570 3689.15 3670.77
8010 193.24 17.920 0.434 0.566 3689.36 3671.44
8015 188.24 17.456 0.438 0.562 3689.57 3672.12
8020 183.24 16.992 0.443 0.557 3689.78 3672.79
Layer 1 8025 178.24 16.529 0.447 0.553 3689.99 3673.46
8030 173.24 16.065 0.451 0.549 3690.20 3674.13
8035 168.24 15.601 0.458 0.542 3690.40 3674.80
8040 163.24 15.138 0.464 0.536 3690.61 3675.47
8045 158.24 14.674 0.471 0.529 3690.82 3676.15
8050 153.24 14.210 0.477 0.523 3691.03 3676.82
8050 153.24 14.210 0.576 0.424 3691.03 3676.82
8055 148.24 13.747 0.584 0.416 3691.24 3677.49
Layer 2 8060 143.24 13.283 0.592 0.408 3691.44 3678.16
8065 138.24 12.819 0.600 0.400 3691.65 3678.83
8070 133.24 12.356 0.611 0.389 3691.86 3679.51
8070 133.24 12.356 0.823 0.177 3691.86 3679.51
8075 128.24 11.892 0.834 0.166 3692.07 3680.18
8080 123.24 11.428 0.845 0.155 3692.28 3680.85
8085 118.24 10.965 0.857 0.143 3692.49 3681.52
8090 113.24 10.501 0.870 0.130 3692.69 3682.19
7-41
Layer 3 8095 108.24 10.037 0.883 0.117 3692.90 3682.86
8100 103.24 9.574 0.896 0.104 3693.11 3683.54
8105 98.24 9.110 0.910 0.090 3693.32 3684.21
8110 93.24 8.646 0.926 0.074 3693.53 3684.88
8115 88.24 8.183 0.941 0.059 3693.73 3685.55
8120 83.24 7.719 0.957 0.043 3693.94 3686.22
8125 78.24 7.255 0.974 0.026 3694.15 3686.90
8125 78.24 7.255 0.593 0.407 3694.15 3686.90
8130 73.24 6.792 0.610 0.390 3694.36 3687.57
8135 68.24 6.328 0.629 0.371 3694.57 3688.24
8140 63.24 5.864 0.648 0.352 3694.78 3688.91
8145 58.24 5.401 0.672 0.328 3694.98 3689.58
8150 53.24 4.937 0.696 0.304 3695.19 3690.25
Layer 4 8155 48.24 4.473 0.725 0.275 3695.40 3690.93
8160 43.24 4.010 0.755 0.245 3695.61 3691.60
8165 38.24 3.546 0.791 0.209 3695.82 3692.27
8170 33.24 3.082 0.833 0.167 3696.02 3692.94
8175 28.24 2.619 0.880 0.120 3696.23 3693.61
8180 23.24 2.155 0.935 0.065 3696.44 3694.29
WOC 8185 18.24 1.691 1.000 0.000 3696.65 3694.96
Aquifer 8185 18.24 1.691 1.000 0.000 3696.65 3694.96
8190 13.24 1.228 1.000 0.000 3696.86 3695.63
8195 8.24 0.764 1.000 0.000 3697.06 3696.30
FWL 8203.24 0.00 0.000 1.000 0.000 3697.41 3697.41
7-42
Figure 7.21. Fluid saturation distribution for the reservoir of Example 7.1.
ρw z
Pw ( z ) = Pw ( 0 ) −
144
7-43
where Pw ( 0 ) is the water pressure at the free water level. The water
Pw ( 0 ) = Patm +
( ρ w )( FWL ) = 14.7 + (1.036 )( 62.4 )(8203.24 ) = 3697.41 psia
144 144
At D = 8100 ft,
Pw (103.24 ) = 3697.40 −
(1.036 )( 62.4 )
(103.24 ) = 3651.06 psia
144
At the free water level, the pressure in the oil phase is equal to the
pressure in the water phase because the free water level is the reference
depth at which the capillary is zero. Thus,
Po ( 0 ) = Pw ( 0 ) = 3697.41 psia
Of course, there is no oil in the reservoir below the water oil contact.
Therefore, there can be no oil pressure below the water oil contact. The
oil pressure starts at the water contact. However, if the oil pressure is
extrapolated to the free water level, its value will be equal to the water
pressure of 3697.41 psia. It should be noted that the difference between
the water oil pressure and the water pressure at the water oil contact is
equal to the displacement pressure of Layer 4 of 1.692 psi.
The calculated phase pressures are presented in Table 7.6 and Figure
7.22.
7-44
Figure 7.22. Water and oil phase pressures for Example 7.1.
7-45
capillary pressure curves for the same porous medium. At any wetting phase
saturation, the drainage capillary pressure is higher than the imbibition
capillary pressure. At a capillary pressure of zero, the spontaneous imbibition
curve terminates at a wetting phase saturation that may or may not
correspond to the true residual non-wetting phase saturation depending on
the wettability of the rock. If the rock has a strong preference for the wetting
phase, then the wetting phase saturation at which the imbibition curve
terminates will be close to the true residual non-wetting phase saturation, Sor,
which is equal to (1-Swro). This is the case shown in Figure 7.23. If the rock
does not have a strong preference for the wetting phase, then the wetting
phase saturation at zero capillary pressure on the imbibition curve will not
correspond to the true residual non-wetting phase saturation. This means
that (1-Swro) will be larger than Sor. Additional oil can be displaced from the
rock, say be centrifuging the sample in water. This is the case shown in
Figure 7.24. The branch of the imbibition curve labeled 3 on the figure is the
forced imbition capillary pressure curve of the rock. Note that this branch
constitutes a negative capillary pressure. Note also that the true residual non-
wetting saturation (Sor) in this case can only by determined by forced
displacement not by spontaneous imbibition.
7-46
loop known as a scanning curve. Note that the area under the secondary
drainage curve was one of the areas used to define the USBM wettability
index.
Figure 7.23. Drainage and imbibition capillary pressure curves. (1) drainage
curve, (2) spontaneous imbibition curve (Killins et al., 1953).
7-47
displaced at that capillary pressure, the capillary pressure on the drainage
cycle will be greater than on the imbibition cycle to displace the same volume
of fluid.
Figure 7.24. Drainage and imbibition capillary pressure curves. (1) drainage
curve, (2) spontaneous imbibition curve, (3) forced imbibition curve (Killins et
al., 1953).
7-48
Contact angle hysteresis plays a part in the capillary pressure
hysteresis. During drainage, the wetting phase recedes from the porous
medium and the contact angle is the receding contact angle, θR. During
imbibition, the wetting phase advances into the porous medium and the
contact angle is the advancing contact angle, θA. Since θR is less than θA,
2σcosθR /rm, the drainage capillary pressure, is larger than 2σcosθA /rm, the
imbibition capillary pressure at the same saturation state.
7-49
The very nature of immiscible displacement plays a role in the capillary
pressure hysteresis. When the capillary pressure experiment is reversed to
measure the spontaneous imbibition curve, the pressure in the non-wetting
phase is reduced to allow the wetting phase to be imbibed. As the wetting
phase is imbibed into the rock, some non-wetting phase will be trapped in
certain pores. This trapping causes the wetting phase saturation on the
imbibition curve to be less than on the drainage curve at the same capillary
pressure.
The pore structure also plays a role in the capillary pressure hysteresis.
Consider the capillary pressure versus wetting phase saturation relationship
for the idealized pore shown in Figure 7.26 during drainage and imbibition.
During drainage, the pore is initially full of the wetting fluid at a capillary
pressure given by Laplace equation as shown in Figure 7.26a. Next, the
capillary pressure is increased to a higher value to drain some of the wetting
fluid as shown in Figure 7.26b. The higher capillary pressure versus the
wetting phase saturation is a point on the drainage capillary pressure curve.
Next, we consider the imbibition process as shown in Figures 7.26c and d. At
c, the capillary pressure is high at a wetting phase saturation of nearly zero.
After the wetting fluid has been imbibed to the equilibrium level shown in
Figure 7.26c, the imbibition capillary pressure will be approximately the same
as the drainage capillary pressure of Figure 7.26b because the mean
curvature of the interfaces at c and d are about the same. However, the
wetting phase saturation at d is considerably lower than at b. Thus, at the
same capillary pressure, the wetting phase saturation for imbibition is less
than for drainage. This is hysteresis.
7-50
Figure 7.26. Drainage and imbibition capillary pressures versus saturation for
an idealized pore.
4σ cos θ
Pcdr1 = (7.35)
De1
However, this capillary pressure is not sufficient to drain the entire pore
because neck De2 is smaller than De1. The interface will stop at De2. To
continue with the drainage, the applied capillary pressure must be increased
to Pcdr2 given by
7-51
4σ cos θ
Pcdr 2 = (7.36)
De2
Looking at the remaining necks of the pore, we see that Pcdr2 is large enough
to drain the remaining portion of the pore. Now, let us reduce the capillary
pressure to start the imbibition process. When the capillary pressure is
reduced to Pcibm1 given by
4σ cos θ
Pcimb1 = (7.37)
D1
the first pore will be emptied of the non-wetting phase and the interface will
come to equilibrium at the location marked Imb1. To drain the non-wetting
phase further, the capillary pressure must be further reduced to Pcimb2 given
by
4σ cos θ
Pcimb 2 = (7.38)
D2
Looking at the remaining necks of the pore, we see that Pcimb2 is low enough to
empty the remaining portion of the pore of the non-wetting phase. Figure
7.27b shows the drainage and imbibition capillary pressure curves for the
experiment just described. We see capillary pressure hysteresis.
Figure 7.28 shows how the imbibition capillary pressure curve can be
used along with the drainage curve to determine the type of fluid that will be
produced at various depths in a reservoir. If the well is perforated above the
transition zone, only clean oil (water free oil) will be produced initially. If the
well is perforated in the upper part of the transition zone, both oil and water
will be produced from day one. If the well is perforated in the bottom part of
the transition zone, only water will be produced even though the zone has oil
saturation. The oil saturation in this zone is residual oil saturation.
7-52
Figure 7.27. Capillary pressure hysteresis in for an idealized pore (Dullien,
1992).
7-53
Figure 7.28. Drainage and imbibition capillary pressure curves showing the
depth of water free oil production (Archer and Wall, 1986).
7-54
waterflooding the two layers. The injected water will advance further into the
more permeable layer (Figure 7.29 (c)). The oil and water pressures are
continuous across the boundary between the two layers. Thus, at the
boundary,
Po1 = Po 2 (7.39)
and
Pw1 = Pw 2 (7.40)
Pc1 = Pc 2 (7.41)
Thus, at equilibrium, the capillary pressures in the two porous media will be
equal at their boundary.
7-55
Figure 7.29. Capillary imbibition; (a) reservoir before waterflooding; (b)
capillary pressure curves for the layers; (c) reservoir after waterflooding.
7-56
7.9 CAPILLARY END EFFECT IN A LABORATORY CORE
7-57
Therefore, the breakthrough recovery is usually taken to be a good measure of
the displacement efficiency. In the presence of capillary end effect, the
breakthrough recovery will be too large and will give a false sense of the
displacement efficiency. Also, in the unsteady state method for relative
permeability measurement described in Chapter 8, the fractional flow of the
wetting phase versus the wetting phase saturation at the outlet end of the
core is used to calculate relative permeabilities on the assumption that there
is no capillary end effect. Therefore, if there is capillary end effect in the
experiment, the calculated relative permeabilities will be wrong.
Figure 7.30. Capillary end effect; (a) coreflood; (b) spontaneous imbibition
capillary pressure curve; (c) wetting phase saturation profiles; (d) relative
permeabililty curves.
7-58
7.9.2 Mathematical Analysis of Capillary End Effect
kw A ∂Pw
qw = − (7.42)
μ w ∂x
and
knw A ∂Pnw
qnw = − (7.43)
μnw ∂x
where kw and knw are the effective permeabilities to the wetting and non-
wetting phases. Let us define the relative permeabilities of the wetting and
non-wetting phases as
kw
krw = (7.44)
k
and
knw
krnw = (7.45)
k
kkrw A ∂Pw
qw = − (7.46)
μ w ∂x
and
7-59
kkrnw A ∂Pnw
qnw = − (7.47)
μnw ∂x
Pnw − Pw = Pc ( S w ) (7.48)
q = qw + qnw (7.49)
∂S w ∂qw
φA + =0 (7.50)
∂t ∂x
S w + Snw = 1 (7.51)
7-60
kkrnw A ∂Pc
1+
qw q μnw ∂x
= (7.53)
q k μ
1 + rnw w
krw μnw
qw
fw = (7.54)
q
1
Fw = (7.55)
k μ
1 + rnw w
krw μnw
The approximate fractional flow of the wetting phase also can be defined as a
function of the mobility ratio as
1
Fw = (7.56)
1
1+
M
⎛ kk A ∂Pc ⎞
f w = Fw ⎜1 + rnw ⎟ (7.57)
⎝ q μnw ∂x ⎠
x
xD = (7.58)
L
7-61
Let the spontaneous imbibition capillary pressure curve be given in terms of
its Leverett J-function as
σ cos θ
Pc ( S w ) = J ( Sw , Γ ) (7.59)
k /φ
Substituting Eqs.(7.58) and (7.59) into (7.57) gives the true fractional flow of
the wetting phase as
⎡ ⎛ Aσ cos θ kφ ⎞ ∂J ⎤
f w = Fw ⎢1 + ⎜ ⎟ krnw ⎥ (7.60)
⎜ q μnw L ⎟ ∂
⎢⎣ ⎝ ⎠ x D ⎥
⎦
The term in the inner bracket on the right side of Eq.(7.60) is a dimensionless
number that gives the ratio of the capillary to viscous forces in the
displacement. Let this dimensionless number be defined as
Aσ cos θ kφ
N cap = (7.61)
q μnw L
⎡ ∂J ⎤
f w = Fw ⎢1 + N cap krnw ⎥ (7.62)
⎣ ∂xD ⎦
qt
tD = (7.63)
Aφ L
Substituting Eq.(7.63) into (7.50) gives the continuity equation for the wetting
phase as
7-62
∂S w ∂f w
+ =0 (7.64)
∂t D ∂xD
∂S w ⎛ dFw ⎞ ∂S w ∂ ⎛ ∂J ⎞
+⎜ ⎟ + N cap ⎜ Fw krnw ⎟=0 (7.65)
∂t D ⎝ dS w ⎠ ∂xD ∂xD ⎝ ∂xD ⎠
∂S w ⎛ dFw ⎞ ∂S w ∂ ⎛ dJ ∂S w ⎞
+⎜ ⎟ + N cap ⎜ Fw krnw ⎟=0 (7.66)
∂t D ⎝ dS w ⎠ ∂xD ∂xD ⎝ dS w ∂xD ⎠
Eq.(7.66) is the final form of the partial differential equation for the
wetting phase saturation for two phase immiscible displacement in a linear
porous medium. When supplemented with appropriate initial and boundary
conditions together with the rock and fluid properties, its solution can be
used to calculate the performance of the immiscible displacement such as a
waterflood or a gas flood. The solution of this equation is deferred to Chapter
8. Our concern here is the capillary end effect, not the prediction of the overall
displacement performance.
Let us examine in detail the fractional flow of the wetting phase at the
outlet end of the core. Applied to the outlet end of the core, Eq.(7.62) can be
written as
⎡ ⎛ J − − J + ⎞⎤
f w = Fw ⎢1 + N cap krnw ⎜ ⎟⎥ (7.67)
⎣ ⎝ δ xD ⎠ ⎦
7-63
∂J ⎛ J − − J + ⎞
⎜ ⎟ (7.68)
∂xD ⎝ δ xD ⎠
⎡ J+ ⎤
f w = Fw ⎢1 − N cap krnw (7.69)
⎣ δ xD ⎥⎦
Depending on the values of N cap , krnw , and J + , it is possible for the following
J+
1 − N cap krnw ≤0 (7.70)
δ xD
Figure 7.31. Initial capillary barrier at the outlet end of the core.
7-64
If
J+
1 − N cap krnw =0 (7.71)
δ xD
then
fw = 0 (7.72)
at the outlet end of the core. Because the fractional flow of the wetting phase
is zero at the outlet end of the core, the wetting phase cannot flow out of the
core but instead will accumulate there raising the wetting phase saturation to
an abnormal level. This is the capillary end effect phenomenon at work. If
J+
1 − N cap krnw <0 (7.73)
δ xD
the wetting phase cannot flow out of the core either but will accumulate at the
end as before, raising the wetting saturation there to an abnormal level.
Although the inequality given by Eq.(7.73) appears to indicate that the wetting
phase will flow backwards into the core, this will not happen because there is
no supply of the wetting phase outside the outlet end of the core for it to be
imbibed into the core. Therefore, Eq.(7.70) gives the condition for capillary end
effect to occur in an immiscible displacement.
Let us now examine the physics of the displacement before and after
wetting phase breakthrough. Before the arrival of the wetting phase at the
outlet end of the core, only the non-wetting phase will be produced. The
wetting phase saturation profiles will be as shown in Figure 7.30a at t1 and t2.
At time ta , the wetting phase arrives at the outlet end of the core. At this time,
7-65
saturation. If the values of N cap , krnw and J + are such that Eq.(7.70) holds,
then capillary end effect will occur and the wetting phase begins to
accumulate at the outlet end of the core resulting in the increase of the
wetting saturation, S w ( L, t ) . As the wetting phase saturation increases, J +
f w = Fw > 0 (7.74)
and the wetting phase flows out of the core and is produced along with the
non-wetting phase. The wetting phase saturation profile at breakthrough is
shown in Figure 7.30c at tbt . After breakthrough, both phases will be
produced until residual non-wetting phase is achieved in the core after many
pore volumes of wetting phase injection. The wetting phase saturation profile
will be as shown in Figure 7.30c at t∞ . Beyond this time, only the wetting
phase will be produced.
How can capillary end effect be eliminated from the experiment? The
condition for eliminating the capillary end effect is obtained from Eq.(7.69) as
J+
1 − N cap krnw >0 (7.75)
δ xD
or
δ xD
N cap < (7.76)
krnw J +
7-66
Thus, N cap should be as small as possible in the experiment to eliminate
δ xD
N capcritical = (7.77)
krnw J +
For N cap below the critical value, capillary end effect will be eliminated. Above
the critical value, capillary end effect will occur in the displacement.
How can the value of N cap be controlled in the experiment? The only
Examination of Eq.(7.61) shows that N cap can be made small by the use of a
high injection rate in the experiment. Substituting Eq.(7.61) into (7.76) gives
the condition for the injection rate to eliminate capillary end effect as
Akrnw J +σ cos θ kφ
q> (7.78)
μnw Lδ xD
Akrnw J +σ cos θ kφ
qcritical = (7.79)
μnw Lδ xD
For injection rates below the critical value, capillary end effect will occur. For
rates above the critical, capillary end effect will be eliminated. In terms of
Darcy velocity, Eqs.(7.78) and (7.79) become
q krnw J +σ cos θ kφ
v= > (7.80)
A μnw Lδ xD
7-67
krnw J +σ cos θ kφ
vcritical = (7.81)
μnw Lδ xD
⎡ dJ dS w ⎤
f w = Fw ⎢1 + N cap krnw ⎥ (7.82)
⎣ dS w dxD ⎦
⎛ fw ⎞
⎜ − 1⎟
dS w
= ⎝ Fw ⎠
(7.83)
dxD N k dJ
cap rnw
dS w
7-68
Figure 7.32. Steady state experiment.
Eq.(7.83) is the partial differential equation for the steady state wetting phase
saturation. It is a first order nonlinear equation that can easily be integrated
to obtain the steady state saturation profile. The appropriate boundary
condition for the equation is
Figure 7.33 shows the steady state saturation profile obtained by solving
Eqs.(7.83) with the boundary condition given by Eq.(7.84).
7-69
Figure 7.33. Steady state wetting phase saturation profile in the presence of
capillary end effect.
Perkins (1957) has presented experimental data that show capillary end
effect at work. He conducted waterfloods in laboratory cores at two rates, one
below the critical rate for capillary end effect and one above the critical rate.
The core was 12 inches in length and 1.25 inches in diameter. The oil and
water viscosities were 1.8 and 0.9 cp. The low injection rate was 2.4 ft/day
whereas the high injection rate was 36 ft/day. The injected water was 0.1
normal sodium chloride solution. The core was instrumented with two current
electrodes and nineteen potential electrodes distributed along its length.
These electrodes enabled the resistivity of the core to be measured along the
length of the core, from which the water saturation profiles were calculated
using Archie's equation.
7-70
Figure 7.34 shows the water saturation profiles for the low rate flood.
The water arrived at the outlet end of the core at tD = 0.41 pore volume
injected. However, no water was produced from the core until tD = 0.60 pore
volume injected. Thus, the flood was affected by capillary end effect. The water
saturation profile at tD = 0.60 clearly shows the capillary end effect.
Figure 7.35 shows the water saturation profiles for the high rate flood.
The water arrived at the outlet end of the core at tD = 0.60 pore volume
injected and got produced shortly thereafter at tD = 0.65 pore volume injected.
Thus, the capillary end effect was significantly reduced in the high rate
displacement compared to the low rate displacement.
Figure 7.34. Wetting phase saturation profiles at low injection rate (Perkins,
1957).
7-71
Figure 7.35. Wetting phase saturation profiles at high injection rate (Perkins,
1957).
7-72
Figure 7.36. Segmented core used in steady state experiments (Richardson et
al., 1953).
Figures 7.37 to 7.39 show the measured and calculated wetting phase
saturation profiles at steady state for successively higher total injection rates.
The theoretical saturation profiles were calculated with Eqs.(7.83) and (7.84)
using the drainage relative permeability curves and drainage capillary
pressure curves shown in Figure 7.40. Capillary end effect occurred in the
three experiments shown in Figures 7.37 to 7.39. However, it can be seen that
the capillary end effect was reduced as the total injection rate was increased.
The lesson from these examples is that capillary end effect could
dominate laboratory scale immiscible displacements. Since such
displacements are normally used to determine relative permeability curves in
7-73
the laboratory, it is imperative that steps be taken to eliminate or at least
minimize capillary end effect in these experiments. Failure to do so will result
in the relative permeability curves so derived being wrong.
7-74
Figure 7.37. Capillary end effect in a steady state experiment. qw = 0.264
cm3/s, qnw = 0.0022 cm3/s (Richardson et al., 1953).
7-75
Figure 7.39. Drainage relative permeability curves and capillary pressure
curve for Berea sandstone (Richardson et al., 1953).
7-76
plate is a graduated tube which allows the volume of the wetting phase
displaced to be measured as shown in Figure 7.41. With the sample in place,
the pressure of the non-wetting fluid is increased in steps and the system is
allowed to achieve equilibrium after each pressure change. The volume of
wetting phase displaced at each pressure is measured. The capillary pressure
is the non-wetting phase pressure minus the wetting phase pressure at each
step. The wetting phase saturation of the sample is determined from the
volume of wetting phase displaced at each pressure to obtain the capillary
pressure versus saturation relationship.
7-77
Figure 7.41. Porous plate capillary pressure apparatus (Welge and Bruce,
1947).
mercury is injected to maintain the mercury level with the graduation on the
capillary. From the volume of the cell and the volume of mercury required to
fill the cell with the sample before mercury injection into the sample, the bulk
volume of the sample can be determined. The mercury-air capillary pressure
versus saturation relationship is calculated from the volume of mercury
forced into the sample pore space as a function of the applied nitrogen
pressure.
7-78
Figure 7.38. Capillary pressure cell for mercury injection (Purcell, 1949).
The mercury injection method is very fast. The capillary pressure curve
can be obtained in a matter of hours. The imbibition curve can be obtained
very easily by decreasing the nitrogen pressure and withdrawing mercury
from the system. Figure 7.43 shows typical capillary pressure curves
obtained by mercury injection, mercury withdrawal and mercury re-injection.
7-79
Figure 7.43. Mercury-air capillary pressure curves.
Brown (1951) has shown that the mercury injection method can give
essentially the same capillary pressure curve as the restored state method
except for a scaling factor. Figures 7.44 and 7.45 compare capillary pressure
curves obtained by mercury injection and the restored state method for a
sandstone and a limestone core, respectively. The results show good
agreement between the two methods. The scaling factors for the sandstone
and limestone were 7.5 and 5.5, respectively. These are different from the
7-80
scaling factor of 5.2 suggested by Purcell (1949) based on the ratio of σcosθ of
mercury-air and water-air systems.
The major disadvantage of the mercury injection method is that the core
can no longer be used for other tests after mercury injection. The method
also cannot be used to determine the irreducible wetting phase saturation.
dPw
= − ρ wω 2 r (7.85)
dr
dPo
= − ρ oω 2 r (7.86)
dr
7-81
Figure 7.44. A comparison of water-nitrogen and mercury-air capillary
pressure curves for a sandstone core (Brown, 1951). Note the different
capillary pressure scales for the two sets of data.
7-82
Figure 7.45. A comparison of water-nitrogen and mercury-air capillary
pressure curves for a limestone core (Brown, 1951). Note the different
capillary pressure scales for the two sets of data.
7-83
Figure 7.46. Positions of core and graduated tube in a centrifuge for
measurement of oil-displacing-water capillary pressure curve (Donaldson et
al., 1980).
7-84
Figure 7.47. Positions of core and graduated tube in a centrifuge for
measurement of water-displacing-oil capillary pressure curve (Donaldson et
al., 1980).
dPc
= − ( ρ w − ρo ) ω 2 r = −Δρω 2 r (7.87)
dr
7-85
Integration of Eq. 7.87 gives the capillary pressure at radius r as
Δρω 2 r
Pc = − +C (7.88)
2
Δρω 2 2 2
Pc =
2
( r2 − r ) (7.89)
where r2 is the outlet face of the core measured from the center of rotation. At
any stage of the centrifuge experiment, the highest capillary pressure occurs
at r1, the inlet face of the core measured from the center of rotation. At the
inlet face, the capillary pressure is given by
Δρω 2 2 2
Pc1 =
2
( r2 − r1 ) (7.90)
outlet, r2. Since the capillary pressure at the core inlet can be calculated
from Eq.(7.90), it is only necessary to estimate the water saturation at the
core inlet in order to obtain the required capillary pressure versus saturation
relationship. The water saturation at the core inlet can be estimated from the
average water saturation determined from the amount of water displaced at
each speed. The average water saturation in the core is given by
r2
S wav =
∫
r1
S w dr
(7.91)
r2 − r1
7-86
Multiplying Eq.(7.91) by Δρω2r1 and rearranging gives
r2
Δρω 2 Lr1S wav = ∫ S w Δρω 2 r1dr (7.92)
r1
2
where L is the length of the core. Noting that Δρω Lr1 is approximately equal
d ( Pc1S wav )
S w1 = (7.94)
dPc1
or
⎛ dS ⎞
S w1 = S wav + Pc1 ⎜ wav ⎟ (7.95)
⎝ dPc1 ⎠
7-87
Hassler and Brunner (1945). Although the capillary pressure curve from
centrifuge measurement is somewhat higher than from the restored state
method, the agreement between the two sets of data is reasonable. In this
figure, the open circles are data obtained by the use of Eq.(7.94) and the open
squares are data obtained by the use of Eq.(7.95) to compute the inlet water
saturation. It should be observed that both equations give somewhat different
results for the water saturations. Figure 7.49 shows comparisons of the
capillary pressure curves for the same cores measured by the restored state
method (diaphram), mercury injection and centrifuge experiments. The
agreement between the three methods is excellent.
7-88
Figure 7.48. A comparison of capillary pressure obtained by centrifuge and by
the restored state method (Hassler and Brunner, 1945).
7-89
Figure 7.49. A comparison of capillary pressure curves obtained by centrifuge,
mercury injection and by the restored state method (Hermansen et al., 1991).
Example 7.2
Table 7.7 shows the data obtained in a centrifuge experiment for determining
the air-water capillary pressure curve of a core sample. Other data from the
experiment are as follows:
7-90
Centrifuge arm (r2) = 8.6 cm
r2 = 8.6 cm
1. Calculate the capillary pressure curves for the sample using Eq.(7.94)
(method 1) and Eq. (7.95) (method 2) for the inlet water saturation.
2. Compare the capillary pressure curves obtained from the two methods.
7-91
Solution to Example 7.2
The results of the calculations are summarized in Table 7.8.
Pc1 =
( 281362.40 )(14.696 ) = 4.08 psi
1.0133 x106
Figure 7.50 shows the graph of S wav Pc1 versus Pc1 . The regression
equation is
−0.3783
d ( S wav Pc1 ) ⎡ ( 281362.40 )(14.696 ) ⎤
S w1 = = ( 0.6217 )(1.3563) ⎢ ⎥ = 0.495
dPc1 ⎣ 1.0133 x106 ⎦
7-92
Table 7.8. Calculated Results for Example 7.2.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Centrifug Method Method 2
e 1(Eq.7.94) (Eq.7.95)
Speed Vw Swav ω Pc1 Pc1 Pc1 SwavPc1 Sw1 dS wav Sw1
dPc1
RPM cc radians/ dynes/cm2 atm psi psi psi-1 psi
s
1300 0.30 0.827 136.14 281362.40 0.28 4.08 3.37 0.495 -0.0739 0.525
1410 0.40 0.769 147.65 330992.07 0.33 4.80 3.69 0.466 -0.0590 0.485
1550 0.50 0.711 162.32 399984.12 0.39 5.80 4.12 0.434 -0.0455 0.447
1700 0.60 0.653 178.02 481146.36 0.47 6.98 4.56 0.404 -0.0353 0.407
1840 0.70 0.595 192.68 563657.13 0.56 8.17 4.87 0.381 -0.0283 0.364
2010 0.75 0.566 210.49 672622.63 0.66 9.76 5.53 0.356 -0.0222 0.350
2200 0.80 0.538 230.38 805795.28 0.80 11.69 6.28 0.333 -0.0173 0.335
2500 0.90 0.480 261.80 1040541.4 1.03 15.09 7.24 0.302 -0.0122 0.296
3
2740 1.00 0.422 286.93 1249915.0 1.23 18.13 7.65 0.282 -0.0095 0.251
1
3120 1.05 0.393 326.73 1620647.4 1.60 23.50 9.24 0.255 -0.0066 0.238
3
3810 1.10 0.364 398.98 2416736.5 2.39 35.05 12.76 0.220 -0.0038 0.231
4
4510 1.20 0.306 472.29 3386354.6 3.34 49.11 15.05 0.193 -0.0024 0.189
6
5690 1.25 0.277 595.86 5390187.7 5.32 78.17 21.69 0.162 -0.0013 0.179
2
Figure 7.51 shows the graph of S wav versus Pc1 . The regression equation
is
S wav = 1.3563Pc−10.3783
7-93
−1.3783
dS wav ⎡ ( 281362.40 )(14.696 ) ⎤
= ( −0.3783)(1.3563) ⎢ ⎥ = −0.0739
dPc1 ⎣ 1.0133x106 ⎦
Figure 7.50. Graph of S wav Pc1 versus Pc1 for Example 7.2.
7-94
Figure 7.51. Graph of S wav versus Pc1 for Example 7.2.
3. The acceleration imposed at the inlet end of the core at the centrifuge
speed of 5690 RPM is given by
⎡ 2π ( 5690 ) ⎤
2
⎛ 2π N ⎞
2
⎝ 60 ⎠ ⎣ 60 ⎦
7-95
Figure 7.52. Comparison of the capillary pressure curves derived from
Eqs.7.94 and 7.95 for Example 7.1.
7.11.1 Introduction
7-96
injection porosimetry is widely used in the petroleum and material science
industries to determine the pore size distribution of porous materials.
2σ cos θ
Pc = (7.96)
R
7-97
pressure. This is the raw data obtained from the experiment. Note that the
cumulative volume of mercury injected expressed as a fraction of the pore
volume is the non-wetting phase saturation, Snw. Shown on the capillary
pressure axis is the corresponding pore throat size obtained from Eq.(7.96) as
2σ cos θ
R= (7.97)
Pc
Also shown on the figure is the wetting phase saturation versus capillary
pressure obtained from
S w = 1 − Snw (7.98)
7-98
It should be noted that the pore throat radius, R, decreases from left to right
in the figure. Let us replot the saturations versus pore throat size such that
the pore throat size increases from left to right as shown in Figure 7.54. It
should be observed that the Sw versus R curve now represents the cumulative
probability distribution function for the pore volume distribution whereas the
Snw versus R curve represents the expectation curve for the pore volume
distribution. At any value of R, Sw is the fraction of the pore volume occupied
by pores having pore throat size equal to R or less. If the probability density
function for the pore volume distribution is f (R), then
f ( R ) dR
R
Sw = ∫ (7.99)
R final
where
f ( R ) dR = 1
R0
∫R final
(7.100)
dS w
f ( R) = (7.101)
dR
dS nw
f ( R) = − (7.102)
dR
7-99
Pc R = 2σ cos θ = a constant (7.103)
Pc dR + RdPc = 0 (7.104)
Figure 7.54. Saturations versus pore throat size from mercury injection.
Substituting Eqs.(7.96) and (7.104) into Eqs.(7.101) and (7.102) gives the
following alternative expressions for the probability density function for the
pore volume distribution:
dS w P dS 2σ cos θ dS w
f ( R) = =− c w =− (7.105)
dR R dPc R2 dPc
7-100
dS nw Pc dS w 2σ cos θ dS nw
f ( R) = − = = (7.106)
dR R dPc R2 dPc
Thus, differentiating the saturation versus the pore throat radius curve from
the experiment leads directly to the probability density function for the pore
volume distribution of the rock. Further, a plot of the incremental pore
volume of mercury injected versus pore throat size also is a measure of the
pore volume distribution.
7-101
Figure 7.55. Computational template for calculating the first derivative using
Akima's method (Akima, 1970).
⎛ dy ⎞ m4 − m3 m2 + m2 − m1 m3
⎜ ⎟ = (7.107)
⎝ dx ⎠ x3 m4 − m3 + m2 − m1
where
y5 − y4
m4 = (7.108)
x5 − x4
y4 − y3
m3 = (7.109)
x4 − x3
y3 − y2
m2 = (7.110)
x3 − x2
7-102
y2 − y1
m1 = (7.111)
x2 − x1
Let the probability density function for the pore size distribution be
δ ( R) , where R is the pore throat radius. Then, for the porous medium,
∫ δ ( R)dR = 1
0
(7.112)
The fractional number of pores with radii between R and R+dR is δ ( R)dR . The
number of pores with radii between R and R+dR is Nδ ( R)dR , where N is the
total number of pores (capillary tubes) making up the porous medium. The
cross-sectional area of the pores with radii between R and R+dR is given by
∞
Ac = AT φ = π N ∫ R 2δ ( R)dR (7.114)
0
where AT is the total cross-sectional area of the porous medium and φ is the
7-103
∞
R 2 = ∫ R 2δ ( R)dR = a constant (7.115)
0
Ac = AT φ = π NR 2 (7.116)
∞
V p = AT φ L = π NL ∫ R 2δ ( R)dR = π NLR 2 (7.117)
0
At capillary equilibrium, the wetting phase occupies all the pores with radii
less than R corresponding to the capillary pressure given by
2σ cos θ
Pc ( S w ) = (7.118)
R
R
Vw = π NL ∫ R 2δ ( R)dR (7.119)
0
R R
∫ R δ ( R)dR ∫ R δ ( R)dR
2 2
Vw
Sw = = 0
∞
= 0
(7.120)
Vp R2
∫ R δ ( R)dR
2
7-104
R R
R 2 S w = ∫ R 2δ ( R)dR = ∫ r 2δ (r )dr (7.121)
0 0
R
dS w d
= ∫ r 2δ (r )dr (7.122)
2
R
dR dR 0
The right side of Eq.(7.122) can be evaluated using Leibnitz’s rule for
differentiating a definite integral as follows:
d
R
dR d0
R
∂ ⎡⎣ r 2δ (r ) ⎤⎦
dR ∫0 dR ∫0
r δ (r )dr = R δ ( R)
2 2
− 0δ (0) + dr (7.123)
dR ∂R
The integrand of the integral on the right side of Eq.(7.123) is zero. Therefore,
Eq.(7.123) simplifies to
R
d
dR ∫0
r 2δ (r )dr = R 2δ ( R) (7.124)
dS w
R2 = R 2δ ( R) (7.125)
dR
dPc ( S w ) 2σ cos θ
=− (7.126)
dR R2
7-105
Dividing Eq.(7.126) by Eq.(7.125) gives
dPc ( S w ) 2σ cos θ R 2
=− (7.127)
dS w R 4δ ( R)
The probability density function for the pore size distribution can be obtained
from Eq.(7.127) as
δ ( R) 2σ cos θ
=− (7.128)
R 2
4⎡ dP ( S ) ⎤
R ⎢ c w ⎥
⎣ dS w ⎦
δ ( R) Pc ( S w )
=− (7.129)
R 2
⎡ dP ( S ) ⎤
R3 ⎢ c w ⎥
⎣ dS w ⎦
Eqs.(7.118) and (7.129) can be used to calculate the pore size distribution
from a drainage capillary pressure curve as follows:
the wetting phase saturation at the value of the Pc(Sw) in step 1. Note
7-106
5. Pick lower values of Pc(Sw) and repeat steps 2 through 4 until the entire
capillary pressure curve has been used in the pore size distribution
calculation.
6. Plot the graph of δ ( R) / R 2 versus R. Calculate the area under the graph,
R 2 dS w
δ ( R) = (7.130)
R 2 dR
or
R 2 dS nw
δ ( R) = − (7.131)
R 2 dR
7-107
Figure 7.56. Pore size distributions of sedimentary rocks based on the bundle
of capillary tubes model of the rock (Crocker, 1983).
7-108
Example 7.3
The first three columns of Table 7.9 give the mercury injection data for a low
permeability sandstone sample with k = 0.048 md and φ = 5.6%. Calculate
and plot the following graphs:
Table 7.9. Mercury Injection Data and Calculated Pore Size Distributions for
Example 7.3.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Pore Volume Pore Radius
Distribution Distribution
dS w R 2 dS w
Pc Pc ΔSnw R R f ( R) = δ ( R) =
dR R 2 dR
Snw Sw (psi) (dynes/cm2 (cm) (μm) (1/μm) (1/μm)
)
7-109
0.229 0.771 300.12 2.069E+07 0.0613 3.554E- 0.355 0.928 0.024
1 05 4
0.330 0.670 400.20 2.759E+07 0.1011 2.665E- 0.266 1.385 0.064
0 05 5
0.428 0.572 499.51 3.444E+07 0.0981 2.135E- 0.213 2.310 0.166
5 05 5
0.513 0.487 599.28 4.132E+07 0.0847 1.780E- 0.178 2.499 0.259
8 05 0
0.577 0.423 699.36 4.822E+07 0.0637 1.525E- 0.152 2.507 0.354
2 05 5
0.625 0.375 799.13 5.510E+07 0.0478 1.335E- 0.133 2.501 0.461
7 05 5
0.660 0.340 899.29 6.201E+07 0.0351 1.186E- 0.118 2.289 0.534
3 05 6
0.686 0.314 999.18 6.889E+07 0.0264 1.067E- 0.106 2.268 0.654
7 05 7
0.709 0.291 1098.89 7.577E+07 0.0227 9.706E- 0.097 2.636 0.919
2 06 1
0.730 0.270 1198.44 8.263E+07 0.0212 8.900E- 0.089 2.637 1.094
7 06 0
0.748 0.252 1298.50 8.953E+07 0.0180 8.214E- 0.082 2.638 1.284
9 06 1
0.765 0.235 1398.24 9.641E+07 0.0165 7.628E- 0.076 2.875 1.623
3 06 3
0.780 0.220 1498.24 1.033E+08 0.0149 7.119E- 0.071 3.042 1.971
6 06 2
0.794 0.206 1598.66 1.102E+08 0.0141 6.672E- 0.066 3.245 2.394
0 06 7
0.806 0.194 1695.09 1.169E+08 0.0124 6.292E- 0.062 3.255 2.700
5 06 9
0.818 0.182 1797.32 1.239E+08 0.0114 5.934E- 0.059 3.268 3.048
5 06 3
0.829 0.171 1895.87 1.307E+08 0.0107 5.626E- 0.056 3.390 3.518
6 06 3
7-110
0.838 0.162 2000.98 1.380E+08 0.0095 5.330E- 0.053 3.539 4.091
6 06 3
0.856 0.144 2196.94 1.515E+08 0.0175 4.855E- 0.048 3.800 5.295
7 06 5
0.871 0.129 2396.98 1.653E+08 0.0154 4.450E- 0.044 3.866 6.413
9 06 5
0.885 0.115 2597.89 1.791E+08 0.0135 4.105E- 0.041 4.010 7.812
1 06 1
0.897 0.103 2799.03 1.930E+08 0.0121 3.810E- 0.038 4.038 9.133
2 06 1
0.907 0.093 2997.38 2.067E+08 0.0100 3.558E- 0.035 4.054 10.514
5 06 6
0.918 0.082 3248.15 2.240E+08 0.0113 3.284E- 0.032 4.196 12.778
2 06 8
0.928 0.072 3495.86 2.410E+08 0.0098 3.051E- 0.030 4.253 15.004
7 06 5
0.937 0.063 3744.60 2.582E+08 0.0087 2.848E- 0.028 4.213 17.054
5 06 5
0.944 0.056 3996.64 2.756E+08 0.0065 2.669E- 0.026 4.068 18.757
9 06 7
0.950 0.050 4246.84 2.928E+08 0.0064 2.511E- 0.025 4.068 21.180
0 06 1
0.956 0.044 4494.10 3.099E+08 0.0056 2.373E- 0.023 4.041 23.561
2 06 7
0.960 0.040 4745.57 3.272E+08 0.0047 2.247E- 0.022 3.725 24.214
7 06 5
0.965 0.035 4997.24 3.446E+08 0.0041 2.134E- 0.021 3.675 26.495
9 06 3
0.968 0.032 5245.84 3.617E+08 0.0036 2.033E- 0.020 3.645 28.956
7 06 3
0.972 0.028 5496.45 3.790E+08 0.0035 1.940E- 0.019 3.958 34.517
1 06 4
0.975 0.025 5746.20 3.962E+08 0.0036 1.856E- 0.018 4.128 39.346
5 06 6
7-111
0.978 0.022 5994.05 4.133E+08 0.0030 1.779E- 0.017 3.692 38.296
6 06 8
0.981 0.019 6246.10 4.307E+08 0.0025 1.708E- 0.017 3.509 39.516
8 06 1
0.983 0.017 6497.47 4.480E+08 0.0022 1.642E- 0.016 3.491 42.548
9 06 4
0.985 0.015 6744.53 4.650E+08 0.0022 1.581E- 0.015 3.308 43.446
2 06 8
0.987 0.013 6996.48 4.824E+08 0.0016 1.524E- 0.015 2.964 41.879
0 06 2
0.990 0.010 7497.19 5.169E+08 0.0031 1.423E- 0.014 2.913 47.272
6 06 2
0.992 0.008 7997.18 5.514E+08 0.0020 1.334E- 0.013 2.862 52.840
4 06 3
0.995 0.005 8494.95 5.857E+08 0.0025 1.256E- 0.012 2.734 56.951
4 06 6
0.997 0.003 8995.38 6.202E+08 0.0018 1.186E- 0.011 2.661 62.153
8 06 9
0.998 0.002 9495.55 6.547E+08 0.0016 1.123E- 0.011 2.452 63.825
3 06 2
0.999 0.001 9996.48 6.893E+08 0.0009 1.067E- 0.010 1.491 43.010
4 06 7
1.000 0.000 10496.0 7.237E+08 0.0006 1.016E- 0.010 0.524 16.671
0 5 06 2
1.000 0.000 10997.0 7.583E+08 0.0000 9.699E- 0.009 0.000 0.000
3 8 07 7
1.000 0.000 11495.5 7.926E+08 0.0000 9.278E- 0.009 0.000 0.000
6 0 07 3
1.000 0.000 11996.4 8.272E+08 0.0000 8.891E- 0.008 0.000
7 0 07 9
1.000 0.000 12495.5 8.616E+08 0.0000 8.536E- 0.008 0.000
4 0 07 5
1.000 0.000 12996.0 8.961E+08 0.0000 8.207E- 0.008 0.000
7 0 07 2
7-112
1.000 0.000 13495.1 9.305E+08 0.0000 7.903E- 0.007 0.000
1 0 07 9
1.000 0.000 13995.9 9.650E+08 0.0000 7.621E- 0.007 0.000
0 0 07 6
1.000 0.000 14495.6 9.995E+08 0.0000 7.358E- 0.007 0.000
8 0 07 4
1.000 0.000 14996.2 1.034E+09 0.0000 7.112E- 0.007 0.000
0 0 07 1
1.000 0.000 15495.9 1.068E+09 0.0000 6.883E- 0.006 0.000
8 0 07 9
1.000 0.000 15995.1 1.103E+09 0.0000 6.668E- 0.006 0.000
3 0 07 7
1.000 0.000 16495.5 1.137E+09 0.0000 6.466E- 0.006 0.000
2 0 07 5
1.000 0.000 16995.2 1.172E+09 0.0000 6.276E- 0.006 0.000
8 0 07 3
1.000 0.000 17495.3 1.206E+09 0.0000 6.096E- 0.006 0.000
3 0 07 1
1.000 0.000 17995.5 1.241E+09 0.0000 5.927E- 0.005 0.000
0 0 07 9
1.000 0.000 18495.9 1.275E+09 0.0000 5.766E- 0.005 0.000
5 0 07 8
1.000 0.000 18996.3 1.310E+09 0.0000 5.615E- 0.005 0.000
7 0 07 6
1.000 0.000 19495.3 1.344E+09 0.0000 5.471E- 0.005 0.000
3 0 07 5
1.000 0.000 19995.7 1.379E+09 0.0000 5.334E- 0.005 0.000
3 0 07 3
1.000 0.000 20995.3 1.448E+09 0.0000 5.080E- 0.005 0.000
1 0 07 1
1.000 0.000 21995.7 1.517E+09 0.0000 4.849E- 0.004 0.000
9 0 07 8
1.000 0.000 22995.6 1.586E+09 0.0000 4.638E- 0.004 0.000
4 0 07 6
7-113
1.000 0.000 23995.7 1.655E+09 0.0000 4.445E- 0.004 0.000
2 0 07 4
1.000 0.000 24996.3 1.724E+09 0.0000 4.267E- 0.004 0.000
4 0 07 3
1.000 0.000 25994.9 1.792E+09 0.0000 4.103E- 0.004 0.000
6 0 07 1
1.000 0.000 26995.6 1.861E+09 0.0000 3.951E- 0.004 0.000
5 0 07 0
1.000 0.000 27995.6 1.930E+09 0.0000 3.810E- 0.003 0.000
6 0 07 8
1.000 0.000 28996.0 1.999E+09 0.0000 3.678E- 0.003 0.000
8 0 07 7
1.000 0.000 29995.4 2.068E+09 0.0000 3.556E- 0.003 0.000
9 0 07 6
1.000 0.000 30996.2 2.137E+09 0.0000 3.441E- 0.003 0.000
1 0 07 4
1.000 0.000 31995.5 2.206E+09 0.0000 3.333E- 0.003 0.000
3 0 07 3
1.000 0.000 32996.2 2.275E+09 0.0000 3.232E- 0.003 0.000
0 0 07 2
1.000 0.000 33996.5 2.344E+09 0.0000 3.137E- 0.003 0.000
7 0 07 1
1.000 0.000 34996.1 2.413E+09 0.0000 3.048E- 0.003 0.000
7 0 07 0
1.000 0.000 35996.3 2.482E+09 0.0000 2.963E- 0.003 0.000
2 0 07 0
1.000 0.000 36995.5 2.551E+09 0.0000 2.883E- 0.002 0.000
3 0 07 9
1.000 0.000 37996.3 2.620E+09 0.0000 2.807E- 0.002 0.000
9 0 07 8
1.000 0.000 38996.3 2.689E+09 0.0000 2.735E- 0.002 0.000
8 0 07 7
1.000 0.000 39995.7 2.758E+09 0.0000 2.667E- 0.002 0.000
5 0 07 7
7-114
1.000 0.000 41995.3 2.896E+09 0.0000 2.540E- 0.002 0.000
9 0 07 5
1.000 0.000 43995.2 3.034E+09 0.0000 2.424E- 0.002 0.000
2 0 07 4
1.000 0.000 45993.7 3.171E+09 0.0000 2.319E- 0.002 0.000
9 0 07 3
1.000 0.000 47991.1 3.309E+09 0.0000 2.222E- 0.002 0.000
8 0 07 2
1.000 0.000 49990.5 3.447E+09 0.0000 2.134E- 0.002 0.000
5 0 07 1
1.000 0.000 51989.8 3.585E+09 0.0000 2.051E- 0.002 0.000
4 0 07 1
1.000 0.000 53989.7 3.723E+09 0.0000 1.975E- 0.002 0.000
5 0 07 0
1.000 0.000 55989.4 3.861E+09 0.0000 1.905E- 0.001 0.000
0 0 07 9
1.000 0.000 57988.7 3.998E+09 0.0000 1.839E- 0.001 0.000
6 0 07 8
7-115
Figure 7.57. Graphs of Snw, Sw and ΔSnw versus pore throat radius for
Example 7.3.
Columns 8 and 9 of Table 7.9 show the probability density functions for the
pore volume and pore throat radius distributions calculated with the 5-point
central difference formula of Akima. For the pore radius distribution, R 2 was
found to be 0.003284. Figures 7.58 and 7.59 show the graphs of the
probability density functions for pore volume and pore radius distributions.
7-116
Figure 7.58. Probability density function for pore volume distribution for
Example 7.3.
Figure 7.59. Probability density function for pore throat radius distribution
assuming a bundle of capillary tubes model for the sample of Example 7.3.
7-117
7.11.4 Mercury Injection Porosimeter
7-118
Figure 7.60. Autopore IV 9520 mercury injection porosimeter (from
Micromeritics).
7-119
Figure 7.61. Penetrometer for the Autopore IV 9520 mercury injection
porosimeter (from Micromeritics).
7-120
7.12 CALCULATION OF PERMEABILITY FROM DRAINAGE
CAPILLARY PRESSURE CURVE
Let the probability density function for the pore throat radius be δ ( R ) ,
where R is the pore throat radius. Then, for the porous medium,
∫ δ ( R)dR = 1
0
(7.132)
The fractional number of pores with radii between R and R+dR is δ ( R)dR . The
number of pores with radii between R and R+dR is N δ ( R)dR , where N is the
total number of pores making up the porous medium. The cross-sectional
area of the pores with radii between R and R+dR is given by
∞
Ac = AT φ = π N ∫ R 2δ ( R)dR (7.134)
0
7-121
where AT is the total cross-sectional area of the porous medium and φ is the
porosity of the porous medium. Let
∞
R 2 = ∫ R 2δ ( R)dR = a constant (7.135)
0
Ac = AT φ = π NR 2 (7.136)
The volumetric flow rate for pores with radii between R and R+dR is
given by Hagen-Poiseuille’s law as
1 ⎡ R2 ⎤ ΔP
dq = ⎥ (π R N δ ( R)dR ) (7.137)
2
⎢
μ ⎣ 8τ ( R) ⎦ L
where τ ( R) is the tortuosity of the porous medium and L is the length of the
medium. Note that the tortuosity is a function of the pore throat size, R. The
wetting phase occupies the pores with radii less than R. The volumetric flow
rate of the wetting phase is obtained by integrating Eq.(7.137) as
π N ΔP R R 4δ ( R )
8μ w L ∫0 τ ( R)
qw = dR (7.138)
qw μ w L π N R
R 4δ ( R)
kw = =
AT ΔP 8 AT ∫0 τ ( R) dR (7.139)
7-122
∞
V p = AT φ L = π NL ∫ R 2δ ( R)dR = π NLR 2 (7.140)
0
At capillary equilibrium, the wetting phase occupies all the pores with radii
less than R corresponding to the capillary pressure given by
2σ cos θ
Pc ( S w ) = (7.141)
R
R
Vw = π NL ∫ R 2δ ( R)dR (7.142)
0
R R
∫ R δ ( R)dR ∫ R δ ( R)dR
2 2
V
Sw = w = 0
∞
= 0
(7.143)
Vp R2
∫ R δ ( R)dR
2
R R
R S w = ∫ R δ ( R)dR = ∫ r 2δ (r )dr
2 2
(7.144)
0 0
R
dS w d
dR dR ∫0
R2 = r 2δ (r )dr (7.145)
7-123
The right side of Eq.(7.145) can be evaluated using Leibnitz’s rule for
differentiating a definite integral as follows:
d
R
dR d0
R
∂ ⎡⎣ r 2δ (r ) ⎤⎦
dR ∫0 dR ∫0
r δ (r )dr = R δ ( R)
2 2
− 0δ (0) + dr (7.146)
dR ∂R
The integrand of the integral on the right side of Eq.(7.146) is zero. Therefore,
Eq.(7.146) simplifies to
R
d
∫
dR 0
r 2δ (r )dr = R 2δ ( R) (7.147)
R 2δ ( R)dR
dS w = (7.148)
R2
φ
Sw
R2
8 ∫0 τ ( R)
kw = dS w (7.149)
The R in Eq.(7.149) is the largest pore size filled with the wetting phase. This
can be obtained from the capillary pressure curve as
2 σ cos θ
R= (7.150)
Pc ( S w )
7-124
a
τ ( R) = (7.151)
Rα
( 2σ cos θ )
2 +α Sw
dS w
kw = φ∫ (7.152)
8a 0
Pc 2+α
( 2σ cos θ )
2 +α
1
dS w
k = φ∫ (7.153)
8a 0
Pc 2+α
Let α = 0 and 1/a = F1. Substituting these values into Eq.(7.153) gives the
absolute permeability of the porous medium as
( 2σ cosθ )
2
1
dS w
k= F1φ ∫ (7.154)
8 0
Pc 2
1
k = 10.6566 (σ cos θ )
dS w
F1φ ∫
2
(7.155)
0
Pc 2
7-125
In the case of mercury injection, σ = 480 dynes/cm and θ = 140º. Substituting
these values into Eq.(7.155) gives the permeability as
1
dS w
k = 1.441x106 F1φ ∫ (7.156)
0
Pc 2
Table 7.10. Lithology factors for various core samples (Purcell, 1949).
7-126
Lithology Calculated
Permeability
Sample Permeability Factor Using F1 = 0.216
No (md) (md)
1 1.2 0.085 3.04
2 12 0.122 21.2
3 13.4 0.168 17.3
4 36.9 0.149 53.5
5 57.4 0.200 61.9
6 70.3 0.165 91.6
7 110 0.257 92.3
8 116 0.256 97.5
9 144 0.191 163
10 336 0.107 680
11 430 0.216 430
12 439 0.273 348
13 496 0.276 388
14 772 0.185 902
15 1070 0.282 816
16 1459 0.363 865
17 0.003
18 0.1
19 35.7 0.182 42.2
20 40.2 0.158 54.9
21 184 0.231 172
22 235 0.276 183
23 307 0.215 308
24 320 0.163 422
25 506 0.284 383
26 634 0.272 502
27 1150 0.338 734
7-127
Figure 7.62. Correlation between lithology factor and permeability (Purcell,
1949).
7-128
Figure 7.64. A comparison of measured permeability and calculated
permeability using the average lithology factor of 0.216 plotted on linear
scales (Purcell, 1949).
Example 7.4
Estimate the permeability of the sample of Example 7.3 using the mercury
injection capillary pressure data of Table 7.9.
1
and versus S w . The integration called for in Eq.(7.156) was performed with
Pc2
the trapezoidal rule to obtain
dS w
∫
1
2
= 8.355 x10−6 1/ psi 2
0 Pc
7-129
Using the average lithology factor of 0.216 in Eq.(7.156) gives
k = 1.441x106 ( 0.216 )( 0.056 ) ( 8.355 x10−6 ) = 0.146 md, compared to the measured
k = 1.441x106 ( 0.085 )( 0.056 ) ( 8.355 x10−6 ) = 0.057 md, compared to the measured
value of 0.048 md. Thus, the low lithology factor of 0.085 gives a better
estimate of the permeability than the average value of 0.216 for this tight
sample.
τ = −27.35φ + 10.987
For the sample with a porosity of 0.056, the tortuosity predicted by the
regression line is 9.4554. Therefore, the lithology factor (1/τ) predicted by the
correlation is 0.1058. Using the this value of the lithology factor in Eq.(7.156)
gives the estimated permeability as
k = 1.441x106 ( 0.1058 )( 0.056 ) ( 8.355 x10−6 ) = 0.071 md, compared to the measured
permeability of 0.048 md. This estimate also is better than that based on the
average lithology factor of 0.216.
7-130
Pc 1 Sw dS w
Pc2 ∫ 1 Pc2
Sw psi (1/ psi ) (1/ psi )
2 2
7-131
07
0.235 1398.241 5.115E- 8.311E-06
07
0.220 1498.239 4.455E- 8.318E-06
07
0.206 1598.665 3.913E- 8.324E-06
07
0.194 1695.092 3.480E- 8.328E-06
07
0.182 1797.317 3.096E- 8.332E-06
07
0.171 1895.866 2.782E- 8.335E-06
07
0.162 2000.983 2.498E- 8.338E-06
07
0.144 2196.945 2.072E- 8.342E-06
07
0.129 2396.980 1.740E- 8.345E-06
07
0.115 2597.892 1.482E- 8.347E-06
07
0.103 2799.027 1.276E- 8.349E-06
07
0.093 2997.379 1.113E- 8.350E-06
07
0.082 3248.154 9.478E- 8.351E-06
08
0.072 3495.865 8.183E- 8.352E-06
08
0.063 3744.603 7.132E- 8.353E-06
08
0.056 3996.642 6.261E- 8.353E-06
08
0.050 4246.843 5.545E- 8.353E-06
7-132
08
0.044 4494.100 4.951E- 8.354E-06
08
0.040 4745.567 4.440E- 8.354E-06
08
0.035 4997.241 4.004E- 8.354E-06
08
0.032 5245.841 3.634E- 8.354E-06
08
0.028 5496.453 3.310E- 8.354E-06
08
0.025 5746.203 3.029E- 8.354E-06
08
0.022 5994.055 2.783E- 8.355E-06
08
0.019 6246.104 2.563E- 8.355E-06
08
0.017 6497.474 2.369E- 8.355E-06
08
0.015 6744.532 2.198E- 8.355E-06
08
0.013 6996.476 2.043E- 8.355E-06
08
0.010 7497.188 1.779E- 8.355E-06
08
0.008 7997.178 1.564E- 8.355E-06
08
0.005 8494.954 1.386E- 8.355E-06
08
0.003 8995.378 1.236E- 8.355E-06
08
0.002 9495.550 1.109E- 8.355E-06
08
0.001 9996.479 1.001E- 8.355E-06
7-133
08
0.000 10496.00 9.077E- 8.355E-06
0 09
0.000 10997.02 8.269E- 8.355E-06
9 09
0.000 11495.55 7.567E- 8.355E-06
9 09
0.000 11996.47 6.949E- 8.355E-06
0 09
0.000 12495.53 6.405E- 8.355E-06
8 09
0.000 12996.07 5.921E- 8.355E-06
4 09
0.000 13495.10 5.491E- 8.355E-06
8 09
0.000 13995.90 5.105E- 8.355E-06
2 09
0.000 14495.68 4.759E- 8.355E-06
0 09
0.000 14996.19 4.447E- 8.355E-06
5 09
0.000 15495.97 4.164E- 8.355E-06
6 09
0.000 15995.13 3.909E- 8.355E-06
0 09
0.000 16495.52 3.675E- 8.355E-06
0 09
0.000 16995.27 3.462E- 8.355E-06
7 09
0.000 17495.33 3.267E- 8.355E-06
2 09
0.000 17995.50 3.088E- 8.355E-06
4 09
0.000 18495.94 2.923E- 8.355E-06
7-134
7 09
0.000 18996.36 2.771E- 8.355E-06
5 09
0.000 19495.32 2.631E- 8.355E-06
6 09
0.000 19995.73 2.501E- 8.355E-06
2 09
0.000 20995.31 2.269E- 8.355E-06
3 09
0.000 21995.79 2.067E- 8.355E-06
1 09
0.000 22995.64 1.891E- 8.355E-06
3 09
0.000 23995.72 1.737E- 8.355E-06
1 09
0.000 24996.34 1.600E- 8.355E-06
4 09
0.000 25994.96 1.480E- 8.355E-06
3 09
0.000 26995.65 1.372E- 8.355E-06
4 09
0.000 27995.66 1.276E- 8.355E-06
0 09
0.000 28996.07 1.189E- 8.355E-06
8 09
0.000 29995.49 1.111E- 8.355E-06
4 09
0.000 30996.21 1.041E- 8.355E-06
1 09
0.000 31995.52 9.768E- 8.355E-06
7 10
0.000 32996.19 9.185E- 8.355E-06
9 10
0.000 33996.57 8.652E- 8.355E-06
7-135
4 10
0.000 34996.16 8.165E- 8.355E-06
8 10
0.000 35996.32 7.718E- 8.355E-06
0 10
0.000 36995.53 7.306E- 8.355E-06
1 10
0.000 37996.39 6.927E- 8.355E-06
1 10
0.000 38996.37 6.576E- 8.355E-06
9 10
0.000 39995.75 6.251E- 8.355E-06
4 10
0.000 41995.39 5.670E- 8.355E-06
1 10
0.000 43995.21 5.166E- 8.355E-06
9 10
0.000 45993.78 4.727E- 8.355E-06
5 10
0.000 47991.17 4.342E- 8.355E-06
6 10
0.000 49990.55 4.002E- 8.355E-06
5 10
0.000 51989.83 3.700E- 8.355E-06
6 10
0.000 53989.75 3.431E- 8.355E-06
4 10
0.000 55989.39 3.190E- 8.355E-06
8 10
0.000 57988.76 2.974E- 8.355E-06
2 10
0.000 59988.26 2.779E- 8.355E-06
6 10
7-136
1
Figure 7.65. Pc and versus S w for Example 7.4.
Pc2
7-137
Sw
dS w
kw ∫P 2 +α
krw ( S w ) = = 0
1
c
(7.157)
k dS
∫0 Pc 2+wα
1
dS w
knw
∫P 2 +α
krnw ( S w ) = =
c
(7.158)
Sw
1
k dS
∫0 Pc 2+wα
Sw
dS w
kw ∫ Pc 2
krw ( S w ) = = 0
1
(7.159)
k dS
∫0 Pc 2w
and
1
dS w
knw
∫ Pc 2
krnw ( S w ) = = (7.160)
Sw
1
k dS
∫0 Pc 2w
7-138
porous medium has been neglected. In fact, the tortuosity of the medium in
the presence of multiphase fluids is a function of saturation. Furthermore, the
models do not allow for residual saturations of the wetting and non-wetting
phases. These defects of the models will be corrected in Chapter 8 to derive
more realistic relative permeability curves from drainage capillary pressure
curves.
ln S w* = −λ ln Pc + λ ln Pe (7.161)
or
7-139
1
ln Pc = − ln S w* + ln Pe (7.162)
λ
S w − S wirr
S w* = (7.163)
1 − S wirr
straight lines at S w* = 1, and λ is the pore size distribution index obtained from
the slopes of the straight lines. It should be observed from Eq.(7.162) that λ
controls the slope of the linear capillary pressure plot. A large value of λ gives
a small slope, which corresponds to the capillary pressure curve with a
narrow pore size distribution whereas a small value of λ gives a large slope,
which corresponds to the capillary pressure curve for a wide pore size
distribution. Thus, small values of λ indicate a wide pore size distribution
whereas large values of λ indicate a narrow pore size distribution. A porous
medium with a uniform pore size corresponds to λ = ∞ . In view of these
observations, Brooks and Corey called λ the pore size distribution index.
Eqs.(7.161) and (7.162) give a drainage capillary pressure model of the form
1
Pc = Pe ( S w* )
−
λ (7.164)
Brooks and Corey also proposed an imbibition capillary pressure model of the
form
⎡ 1
⎤
Pc = Pe ⎢( Se ) λ − 1⎥
−
(7.165)
⎣ ⎦
7-140
where Se is the effective wetting phase saturation defined by
S w − S wirr
Se = (7.166)
1 − S wirr − Snwr
where Snwr is the residual non-wetting phase saturation. To fit this model to
ln S w* . If the plot is nonlinear, then S wirr is adjusted until the plot is linear. Pe is
determined from the linear log-log plot at S w* = 1 and λ is determined from the
slope of the straight line. The two parameters are then substituted into
Eqs.(7.164) and (7.165) to calculate the drainage and imbibition capillary
pressure curves.
Example 7.5
1. Fit the Brooks-Corey model to the air-water drainage capillary pressure
data given in Table 7.12 and compare the result of the model to the
original data.
Table 7.12. Air-Water Drainage Capillary Pressure Data for Example 7.5.
Drainag
e
7-141
Pc
Sw psi
1.000 1.973
0.950 2.377
0.900 2.840
0.850 3.377
0.800 4.008
0.750 4.757
0.700 5.663
0.650 6.781
0.600 8.195
0.550 10.039
0.500 12.547
0.450 16.154
0.400 21.787
0.350 31.817
0.300 54.691
0.278 78.408
7-142
Figure 7.66.Log-log plot of S w* versus Pc for S wirr = 0.278 for Example 7.5.
Figure 7.67. Log-log plot of S w* versus Pc for S wirr = 0.100 for Example 7.5.
7-143
Figure 7.68. Log-log plot of Pc versus S w* for S wirr = 0.100 for Example 7.5.
ln Pc = −2.1443ln S w* + ln 2.2238
Therefore,
1
− = −2.1443
λ
λ = 0.4664
Pe = 2.2238
7-144
The Brooks-Corey drainage capillary pressure equation for this example
is
1
Pc = Pe ( S w* ) = 2.2238 ( S w* )
− −2.1443
λ
7-145
Figure 7.70. A comparison of the Brooks-Corey drainage capillary pressure
curve with the measured data on an enlarged capillary pressure scale for
Example 7.5.
capillary pressure curves for Snwr = 0.25 for the sample of Example 7.5.
Table 7.13 shows the original capillary pressure data along with the
calculated results with the Brooks-Corey model.
7-146
Figure 7.71. A comparison of the Brooks-Corey drainage and imbibition
capillary pressure curves for the sample of Example 7.5.
Table 7.13. Calculated Results with the Brooks-Corey Model for Example 7.5.
Original
Data Brooks-Corey Model
Drainage Drainage Imbibition
Pc Pc Pc
Sw psi S w* psi Se psi
1.000 1.973 1.000 2.224
0.950 2.377 0.944 2.514
0.900 2.840 0.889 2.863
0.850 3.377 0.833 3.288
0.800 4.008 0.778 3.812
0.750 4.757 0.722 4.468 1.000 0.000
0.700 5.663 0.667 5.305 0.923 0.416
7-147
0.650 6.781 0.611 6.393 0.846 0.958
0.600 8.195 0.556 7.843 0.769 1.679
0.550 10.039 0.500 9.831 0.692 2.669
0.500 12.547 0.444 12.656 0.615 4.075
0.450 16.154 0.389 16.851 0.538 6.163
0.400 21.787 0.333 23.452 0.462 9.448
0.350 31.817 0.278 34.672 0.385 15.032
0.300 54.691 0.222 55.947 0.308 25.620
0.278 78.408 0.198 71.829 0.274 33.524
0.250 0.167 103.678 0.231 49.374
0.200 0.111 247.331 0.154 120.867
0.150 0.056 1093.394 0.077 541.933
0.100 0.000 0.000
7-148
7.13.2 van Genuchten Capillary Pressure Model
m
⎡ 1 ⎤
S =⎢
*
n ⎥
(7.167)
⎣⎢1 + (α Pc ) ⎦⎥
w
Example 7.6
Fit the van Genuchten model to the air-water drainage capillary pressure data
given in Table 7.14 and compare the result of the model to the original data.
α = 0.018
m = 45
n=6
Figure 7.72 compares the van Genuchten model with the measured data. The
agreement is good especially at high values of the wetting phase saturation. It
should be observed that this model can match capillary pressure curves with
inflections, unlike the Brooks-Corey model. It can also match a capillary
pressure curve with a hyperbolic shape.
7-149
Table 7.14. Calculated Results for van Genuchten model.
van Genuchten
Measured Data Model
Pc
Sw (psi) S w* S w* Sw
0.20 50.0 0.000 0.000 0.200
0.24 39.0 0.050 0.006 0.205
0.25 38.0 0.063 0.012 0.210
0.28 35.0 0.100 0.065 0.252
0.30 34.0 0.125 0.100 0.280
0.35 32.0 0.188 0.199 0.359
0.40 30.0 0.250 0.332 0.466
0.50 28.5 0.375 0.444 0.555
0.56 28.0 0.450 0.481 0.585
0.60 27.8 0.500 0.496 0.597
0.68 27.0 0.600 0.555 0.644
0.70 26.8 0.625 0.569 0.655
0.70 26.8 0.625 0.569 0.655
0.75 26.0 0.688 0.625 0.700
0.80 24.8 0.750 0.701 0.761
0.85 23.0 0.813 0.798 0.838
0.90 21.0 0.875 0.877 0.902
0.95 18.0 0.938 0.949 0.959
1.00 13.5 1.000 0.991 0.993
7-150
Figure 7.72. A comparison of van Genuchten model with measured capillary
pressure data for Example 7.6.
Figure 7.73 shows the pore doublet model, which consists of two pores
that are joined at the inlet and outlet ends, with one pore larger than the
other. The pore doublet is initially filled with a non-wetting phase. A wetting
phase is then injected at a rate q to displace the non-wetting phase from both
7-151
branches of the pore doublet. The problem is to determine which of the two
interfaces in the capillary tubes will arrive at the outlet first (Point B). We will
assume that once the interface in one of the capillary tubes has arrived at B,
the non-wetting phase in the other tube will be trapped. To determine which
interface will arrive at B first, we need to derive the expressions for the
velocities of the interfaces as a function of the relevant parameters of the
model. Although it is not necessary to do so, let us assume that the wetting
and non-wetting phases have the same viscosity to simplify the analysis.
Figure 7.73. Pore doublet model. (a) in a porous medium; (b) capillary tubes
approximation.
7-152
PA − PB = PA − Pw + Pw − Pnw + Pnw − PB (7.168)
where Pw and Pnw are the pressures on either side of the interface. From
Hagen-Poisseuille's law,
π r14 ( PA − Pw )
q1 = (7.169)
8μ L1
π r14 ( Pnw − PB )
q1 = (7.170)
8μ ( L − L1 )
where L1 is the distance of the interface from the inlet end and L is the total
length of the pore doublet from A to B. Substituting Eqs.(7.169) and (7.170)
into Eq.(7.168) and noting that (Pnw - Pw) is the capillary pressure gives
8q1μ L
PA − PB = − Pc1 (7.171)
π r14
8q2 μ L
PA − PB = − Pc 2 (7.172)
π r24
⎛ 8μ L ⎞ ⎛ 8μ L ⎞ ⎛1 1⎞
− ⎜ 4 ⎟ q1 + ⎜ 4 ⎟ q2 = ( Pc 2 − Pc1 ) = 2σ cos θ ⎜ − ⎟ (7.173)
⎝ π r1 ⎠ ⎝ π r2 ⎠ ⎝ r2 r1 ⎠
where the Laplace equation has been used to replace the capillary pressures.
Assuming incompressible fluids,
q1 + q2 = q (7.174)
7-153
Eqs.(7.173) and (7.174) are two linear simultaneous equations in q1 in q2,
which can easily solved to obtain
⎛ 8μ L ⎞ ⎛1 1⎞
⎜ 4 ⎟ q − 2σ cos θ ⎜ − ⎟
πr
q1 = ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ r2 r1 ⎠ (7.175)
⎛ 8μ L ⎞ ⎛ 8μ L ⎞
⎜ 4 ⎟+⎜ 4 ⎟
⎝ π r1 ⎠ ⎝ π r2 ⎠
⎛ 8μ L ⎞ ⎛1 1⎞
⎜ 4 ⎟ q + 2σ cos θ ⎜ − ⎟
πr
q2 = ⎝ 1 ⎠ ⎝ r2 r1 ⎠ (7.176)
⎛ 8 μ L ⎞ ⎛ 8μ L ⎞
⎜ 4 ⎟+⎜ 4 ⎟
⎝ π r1 ⎠ ⎝ π r2 ⎠
4
⎛ r2 ⎞ π r24σ cos θ ⎛ 1 1 ⎞
⎜ ⎟ q + ⎜ − ⎟
q2 ⎝ r1 ⎠ 4 μ L ⎝ r2 r1 ⎠
= (7.177)
q1 π r 4σ cos θ ⎛ 1 1 ⎞
q− 2 ⎜ − ⎟
4 μ L ⎝ r2 r1 ⎠
q1
v1 = (7.178)
π r12
q2
v2 = (7.179)
π r22
Let
⎛ r2 ⎞
β =⎜ ⎟ (7.180)
⎝ r1 ⎠
7-154
qμ L
N vcap = (7.181)
π r σ cos θ
1
3
Substituting Eqs.(7.178) through (7.181) into (7.177) gives the ratio of the
interface velocities as
⎛1 ⎞
4 N vcap + ⎜ − 1⎟
v2
= ⎝β ⎠ (7.182)
v1 4 N vcap ⎛1 ⎞
− β 2 ⎜ − 1⎟
β 2
⎝β ⎠
v2
>1 (7.183)
v1
β ( β 2 + 1)
N vcap > (7.184)
4 ( β + 1)
If
v2
<1 (7.185)
v1
7-155
β ( β 2 + 1)
N vcap < (7.186)
4 ( β + 1)
β ( β 2 + 1)
N vcapcritical = (7.187)
4 ( β + 1)
For fixed values of r1, r2, σcosθ, μ and L, N vcap will depend on the rate q. If q is
low, the displacement will be dominated by capillary forces and the non-
wetting phase will be trapped in the larger pore resulting in a low
displacement efficiency. If q is high, the displacement will be dominated by
the viscous forces and the non-wetting phase will be trapped in the smaller
pore resulting in a high displacement efficiency. These observations are in
qualitative agreement with macroscopic observations in corefloods. Figure
7.74 shows the breakthrough oil recovery as a function of vμL obtained by
Rapoport and Leas (1953). The breakthrough oil recovery here is the oil
recovery at the time of water arrival at the outlet end of the core. As such, it is
a measure of the displacement efficiency. It should be observed that vμL is
directly proportional to the macroscopic version of N vcap . Clearly, the
7-156
Figure 7.74. Breakthrough oil recovery versus Rapaport and Leas scaling
coefficient, vμL (Rapoport and Leas, 1953).
If
v2
<0 (7.188)
v1
the domination of the displacement by the capillary forces will be strong that
the interface in the larger pore will retract resulting in the trapping of the
non-wetting phase in the larger pore and low displacement efficiency.
Substituting Eq.(7.182) into (7.188) gives the condition for this to happen as
7-157
1⎛ 1 ⎞
N vcap < ⎜1 − ⎟ (7.189)
4⎝ β ⎠
1 qμ L
= (7.190)
N cap Aσ cos θ kφ
ratio of capillary to viscous forces at the macroscopic scale whereas N vcap gives
the ratio of the viscous to capillary forces at the pore scale. Once again, we
see the competition between viscous and capillary forces that pervades
immiscible displacements in porous media.
Chatzis and Dullien (1983) and Laidlaw and Wardlaw (1983) provide
more detailed theoretical analyses of the pore doublet model along with
experimental verifications.
7-158
D1
Aspect Ratio = (7.191)
D2
where D1 and D2 are the pore body diameter and the pore throat diameter,
respectively. In Figure 7.75a, the aspect ratio is low and the oil is displaced
through the pore without trapping. In Figure 7.75b, the aspect ratio is high
and the oil suffers capillary instability and snaps off at the pore throat and be
trapped.
7-159
Figure 7.76 shows a drop of non-wetting fluid passing through a pore
constriction is a uniform pack of spheres. The drop will become unstable and
breakup when the capillary pressure at the pore neck exceeds the capillary
pressure at the leading edge of the drop. The condition for snap-off is given by
⎛ 1 1 ⎞ 2σ
Pcn = σ ⎜ − ⎟ > (7.192)
⎝ rn rt ⎠ rf
7-160
Figure 7.77 shows a sequence of mercury injection and withdrawal into
a pore system. Figure 7.77A shows the capillary pressure hysteresis loops
whereas Figure 7.77B shows mercury trapping by snap-off corresponding to
the hysteresis loops.
2σ cos θ
PB' − PB ≥ (7.193)
r1
2σ cos θ
PA' − PA = (7.194)
r2
⎛1 1⎞
(P B
'
− PB ) − ( PA' − PA ) ≥ 2σ cos θ ⎜ − ⎟ (7.195)
⎝ r1 r2 ⎠
7-161
Figure 7.77. Snap-off in mercury injection-withdrawal experiment. A: capillary
pressure scanning curves; B: corresponding mercury trapping by snap-off
(Stegemeier, 1976).
7-162
or
⎛1 1⎞
( PA − PB ) + ( PB' − PA' ) ≥ 2σ cos θ ⎜ − ⎟ (7.196)
⎝ r1 r2 ⎠
⎛1 1⎞
( PA − PB ) ≥ 2σ cos θ ⎜ − ⎟ (7.197)
⎝ r1 r2 ⎠
( PA − PB ) ≥ 2σ cos θ ⎛ 1 − 1 ⎞ (7.198)
⎜ ⎟
L L ⎝ r1 r2 ⎠
r1 = 10μ m
7-163
r2 = 50μ m
L = 50μ m
σ = 30 dynes / cm
θ = 0D
k w = 500 md
μ w = 1 cp
vw = 1 ft / day
PA − PB ( 2 )( 30 ) ⎡⎢ 1 1 ⎤⎛ 1 ⎞
6 ⎟(
≥ − ⎥ ⎜ 14.696 )( 30.48 ) psi / ft
L ( 50 x10 ) (100 ) ⎢⎣ (10 x10 ) (100 ) ( 50 x10 ) (100 ) ⎥⎦ ⎝ 1.0133x10 ⎠
−6 −6 −6
or
PA − PB
≥ 4243.73 psi / ft
L
ΔP
=
(1)(1) = 0.32 psi / ft
L ( 0.001127 )( 5.615 )( 500 )
We see that the pressure gradient generated by the waterflood is not sufficient
to mobilize the oil droplet. Therefore, it will remain trapped.
7-164
7.14.4 Oil Migration
Figure 7.79 shows an upward migrating oil bubble from a source rock
into a reservoir initially fully saturated with water. The migrating bubble has
encountered a restriction at a pore throat of radius rH. Obviously, in order for
migration to continue, the leading end of the bubble (A) must squeeze through
the pore throat. Assuming that ends A and B of the bubble are hemispherical
with B having a radius rB, one can calculate the length of the oil blob required
for the blob to pass through the restriction and continue its upward
migration. To pass through the restriction, the capillary pressure at the
leading edge of the blob must exceed the displacement pressure of the
restriction. Therefore, the condition for upward migration through the
restriction is
2σ
( PoA − PwA ) > (7.199)
rH
2σ
( PoB − PwB ) = (7.200)
rB
7-165
Figure 7.79. Migrating oil filament.
7-166
From hydrostatics through the oil,
2σ
( PoA − PwA ) = ( ρ w − ρo ) gh + (7.204)
rB
Substituting Eq.(7.204) into (7.199) gives the condition for upward migration
as
2σ 2σ
( ρ w − ρo ) gh + > (7.205)
rB rH
or
2σ ⎛ 1 1⎞
h> − (7.206)
( ρ w − ρo ) g ⎜⎝ rH rB ⎟⎠
Let
rH = 10μ m
rB = 50 μ m
σ = 30 dynes / cm
ρw = 1.00 g/cm3
7-167
ρo = 0.70 g/cm3
The minimum length of the blob to continue its upward migration is given by
h>
( 2 )( 30 ) ⎡⎢ 1
−
1 ⎤
⎥ = 163.1 cm
(1 − 0.70 )( 981) ⎢⎣ (10 x10−6 ) (100 ) ( 50 x10−6 ) (100 ) ⎥⎦
7-168
Figure 7.80. Effect of wettability on capillary pressure curve.
7-169
Figure 7.81. Effect of interfacial tension on capillary pressure curve.
NOMENCLATURE
7-170
fo = fractional flow of oil
f(R) = probability density function for pore volume distribution
Fw = approximate fractional flow of wetting phase
F1 = lithology factor
g = gravitational acceleration
h = height above water oil contact
J = Leverett J-function
k = absolute permeability of the medium
ko = effective permeability to oil
kw = effective permeability to wetting phase
knw = effective permeability to non-wetting phase
kwr = end-point relative permeability to wetting phase
kg = effective permeability to gas
kro = relative permeability to oil
krw = relative permeability to water
krg = relative permeability to gas
krw = relative permeability to wetting phase
krnw= relative permeability to non-wetting phase
knwr= end-point relative permeability to non-wetting phase
L = length
M = mobility ratio
ME = end-point mobility ratio
N = centrifuge speed in revolutions per minute
NpD = dimensionless cumulative production
Ncap = dimensionless capillary to viscous force ratio
P = pressure
Pc = capillary pressure
Pc1 = capillary pressure at the inlet end of core in a centrifuge
Pd = displacement pressure
Pe = displacement pressure for Brooks-Corey model
7-171
Pg = pressure in the gas phase
Pnw= pressure in the non-wetting phase
Po = pressure in the oil phase
Pw = pressure in the water phase
Pw = pressure in the wetting phase
q = total volumetric injection rate
qo = volumetric flow rate of oil
qg = volumetric flow rate of gas
qnw= volumetric flow rate of non-wetting phase
qw = volumetric flow rate of water
qw = volumetric flow rate of wetting phase
r = radius of capillary tube
rm = mean radius of curvature of an interface
r1 , r2 = distance of inlet end and outlet end of core from the center of
rotation in a centrifuge
R = pore throat radius
Se = effective wetting phase saturation
Sg = gas saturation
So = oil saturation
Sor = residual oil saturation
Sw = water saturation
Sw = wetting phase saturation
Swirr = irreducible wetting phase saturation
Swro = wetting phase saturation at which the imbibition capillary
pressure is zero
Sw1 = wetting phase saturation at the inlet end of porous medium in a
centrifuge
Snw= non-wetting phase saturation
Snwr = residual non-wetting phase saturation
7-172
Swav = average wetting phase saturation
Swav = average water saturation
Swf = frontal saturation
S w* = normalized wetting phase saturation
t = time
tD = dimensionless time
G
v = flux vector, Darcy velocity vector
vw = Darcy velocity for the wetting phase
vnw = Darcy velocity for the non-wetting phase
x = distance in the direction of flow
xD = dimensionless distance
z = height above free water level
ρw = density of water
σ = interfacial tension
θ = contact angle
λ = pore size distribution index
μ = viscosity
μg = gas viscosity
μο = oil viscosity
μw = water viscosity
μw = wetting phase viscosity
μnw= non-wetting phase viscosity
δ(R) = probability density function for pore throat size distribution based
on bundle of capillary tubes model of porous medium
φ = porosity, fraction
τ = tortuosity
γ = liquid specific gravity
7-173
ω = angular velocity of centrifuge
ΔP = pressure drop
ΔPw = pressure drop in the wetting phase
ΔPnw = pressure drop in the non-wetting phase
Γ = pore structure
7-174
Brown, H.W : “Capillary Pressure Investigations,” Trans., AIME (1951) 192,
67-74.
Buckley, S.E. and Leverett, M.C. : “Mechanism of Fluid Displacement in
Sands,” J. Pet. Tech. (May 1941) 107-116.
Burdine, N.T., Gournay, L.S. and Reichertz, P.P. : “Pore Size Distribution of
Petroleum Reservoir Rocks,” Trans., AIME (1950) 198, 195-204.
Campbell, G.S. : "A Simple Method for Determining Unsaturated Conductivity
from Moisture Retention Data," Soil Sci., Vol. 117, No. 6 (1974) 311-
314.
Campbell, G.S. and Gee, G.W. : "Water Potential: Miscellaneous Methods," in
American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI (1986) 619-633.
Charbeneau, R.J. and Daniel, D.E. : "Contaminant Transport in Unsaturated
Flow," Chapter 15, in Handbook of Hydrology, D.R. Maidment (Ed.),
McGraw-Hill Inc., New York, 1993.
Chatzis, I., Morrow, N.R. and Lim, H.T. : “Magnitude and Detailed Structure of
Residual Oil Saturation,” Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (April 1983) 311-326.
Chatzis, I. and Dullien, F.A.L. : “Dynamic Immiscible Displacement
Mechanisms in Pore Doublets: Theory versus Experiment,” Jour. Colloid
and Interface Science , vol. 91, No. 1 (Jan. 1983) 199-222.
Chatzis, I. and Morrow, N.R. : “Correlation of Capillary Number Relationships
for Sandstones,” SPEJ (Oct. 1984) 555-562.
Collins, R.E. and Cooke, C.E.: "Fundamental Basis for the Contact Angle and
Capillary Pressure," Trans. Faraday Soc., 55 (1959) 1602-1606.
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.
Craig, F.F., Jr. : The Reservoir Engineering Aspects of Waterflooding, SPE
Monograph Vol. 3, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Richardson, Texas,
1971.
Cuiec, L.E. : “Study of Problems Related to the Restoration of Natural State of
Core Samples,” J. Canadian Pet. Tech (Oct. - Dec. 1977) 68-80.
de Gennes, P.G. and Quere, D. : Capillarity and Wetting Phenomena, Springer
Science and Business Media, Inc., 2004.
Donaldson, E.C., Kendall, R.F., Pavelka, E.A. and Crocker, M.E. : “Equipment
and Procedures for Fluid Flow and Wettability Tests of Geological
7-175
Materials,” DOE/BETC/IC-79/5, Nat. Tech. Info. Sv, Springfield, VA
2216, 1980.
Douglas, J., Jr., Blair, P.M. and Wagner, R.J. : “Calculation of Linear
Waterflood Behavior Including the Effects of Capillary Pressure,” Trans.,
AIME (1958) 213, 96-102.
Dullien, F.A.L. : “Effects of Pore Structure on Capillary and Flow Phenomena
in Sandstones,” J. Cnd. Pet. Tech. (July-Sept. 1975) 48-55.
Dullien, F.A.L. : Porous Media - Fluid Transport and Pore Structure, Academic
Press, New York, 1979.
Forbes, P., Chardaire-Riviere, C., Deflandre, F. and Flcury, M. : “Local
Saturation Measurement While Centrifuging (MWC) for Improving
Centrifuge Capillary-Pressure Curve Determination,” SCA Conference
Paper Number 9215 (1992).
Gardescu, I.I. : “Behavior of Gas Bubbles in Capillary Spaces,” Trans., AIME
(1930) 351-370.
Gharbi, R. and Peters, E.J. : “Scaling Coreflood Experiments to Heterogeneous
Reservoirs,” Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 10, (1993)
83-95.
Garnes, J.M., Mathisen, A.M., Scheie, A. and Skauge, A. : "Capillary Number
Relations for Some North Sea Reservoir Sandstones," SPE/DOE 20264,
Presented at the SPE/DOE Seventh Symposium on Enhanced Oil
Recovery, Tulsa, April 22-25, 1990.
Graue, A., Kolltvelt, K., Lien, J.R. and Skauge, A. : "Imaging Fluid Saturation
Development in Long-Core Flood Displacements," SPE Formation
Evaluation (December 1990) 406-412.
Hassler, G.L. and Brunner, E. : “Measurement of Capillary Pressures in Small
Core Samples,” Trans., AIME (1945) 160, 114-123.
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.
Hermansen, H., Eliassen, O., Guo, Y. and Skjaeveland, S.M. : "Capillary
Pressure From Centrifuge - A New Direct Method," Advance in Core
Evaluation II, EuroCAS, London, May 20-22, 1991.
Jennings, H.Y. : “Surface Properties of Natural and Synthetic Porous Media,”
Producers Monthly (March 1957) 20-24.
Jennings, H.J. : “How to Handle and Process Soft and Unconsolidated Cores,”
World Oil (June 1965) 116-119.
Keelan, D.K. : "A Critical Review of Core Analysis Techniques” The Jour. Can.
Pet. Tech. (April-June 1972) 42-55.
7-176
Killins, C.R., Nielsen, R.F. and Calhoun, J.C., Jr.: “Capillary Desaturation and
Imbibition in Rocks,” Producers Monthly (February 1953) 18, No. 2, 30-
39.
Klute, A. : "Water Retention: Laboratory Methods," Methods of Soil Analysis,
Part 1, A. Klute (Ed.), American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI
(1986) 635-686.
Klute, A. : "Hydraulic Conductivity and Diffusivity: Laboratory Methods,"
Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 1, A. Klute (Ed.), American Society of
Agronomy, Madison, WI (1986) 687-734.
Kyte, J.R. and Rapoport, L.A. : “Linear Waterflood Behavior and End Effects in
Water-Wet Porous Media,” Trans., AIME (1958) 213, 423-426.
Laidlaw, W.G. and Wardlaw, N.C. : "A Theoretical and Experimental
Investigation of Trapping in Pore Doublets," Canadian J. Chemical
Engineering, Vol. 61 (October 1983) 719-727.
Lake, L.W. : Enhanced Oil Recovery, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey, 1989.
Land, C.S. : "Calculation of Imbibition Relative Permeability for Two- and
Three-Phase Flow From Rock Properties,” SPEJ (June 1968) 149-156.
Leij, F.J., Russell, W.B. and Lesch, S.M. : “Closed-Form Expressions for Water
Retention and Conductivity Data,” Ground Water Vol. 35, No. 5 (1997)
848-858.
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.
Leverett, M.C. : “Flow of Oil-Water Mixtures through Unconsolidated Sands,”
Trans., AIME (1939) 140, xxx-xxx.
Leverett, M.C. : “Capillary Behavior in Porous Solids,” Trans., AIME (1941)
142, 152-169.
Majors, P.D., Li, P. and Peters, E.J. : "NMR Imaging of Immiscible
Displacements in Porous Media,” Society of Petroleum Engineers
Formation Evaluation (September 1997) 164-169.
Marle, C.M. : Multiphase Flow in Porous Media, Gulf Publishing Company,
Houston, Texas, 1981.
Melrose, J.C. : “Role of Capillary Forces in Determining Microscopic
Displacement Efficiency for Oil Recovery by Waterflooding,” J. Cnd Pet.
Tech. (Oct.-Dec. 1974) 54-62.
Melrose, J.C. : “Interpretation of Centrifuge Capillary Pressure Data,” The Log
Analyst (January-February 1988) 40-47.
7-177
Melrose, J.C. : "Interfacial Phenomena as Related to Oil Recovery
Mechanisms," Cnd J. Chem. Eng., Vol. 48 (Dec. 1970) 638-644.
Mohanty, K.K., Davis, H.T. and Scriven, L.E. : "Physics of Oil Entrapment in
Water-Wet Rock," SPE 9406 Presented at the 55th Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers of
AIME, Dallas, September 21-24, 1980.
Monicard, R.P. : Properties of Reservoir Rocks, Gulf Publishing Company,
Houston, TX, 1980.
Morrow, N.R. : "Capillary Equilibrium in Porous Media," Soc. Pet. Eng. J.
(March 1965) 15-24.
Morrow, N.R. : "Capillary Pressure Correlations For Uniformly Wetted Porous
Media," J. Cnd Pet. Tech. (Oct.-Dec. 1976)) 49-69.
Morrow, N.R. : "Physics and Thermodynamics of Capillary," Ind. Eng. Chem.
Vol. 62 (1970) 32.
Mungan, N. : “Enhanced Oil Recovery Using Water as a Driving Fluid; Part 2 -
Interfacial Phenomena and Oil Recovery: Wettability,” World Oil (March
1981) 77-83.
Mungan, N. : “Enhanced Oil Recovery Using Water as a Driving Fluid; Part 3 -
Interfacial Phenomena and Oil Recovery: Capillarity,” World Oil (May
1981) 149-158.
Perkins, F.M. : "An Investigation of the Role of Capillary Forces in Laboratory
Water Floods," Trans. AIME (1957) Vol. 210, 409-411.
Purcell, W.R. : “Capillary Pressures - Their Measurement Using Mercury and
the Calculation of Permeability There From,” Trans., AIME (1949) 186,
39-48.
Purcell, W.R. : “Interpretation of Capillary Pressure Data” Trans., AIME (1950)
189, 369-371.
Rajan, R.R. : “Theoretically Correct Analytical Solution for Calculating
Capillary Pressure-Saturation from Centrifuge Experiments,” SPWLA
Trans., 27th Annual Logging Symposium, Paper J, Houston, Tx, June
9-13, 1986.
Rapoport, L.A. and Leas, W.J. : “Properties of Linear Waterfloods,” Trans.,
AIME (1953) 198, 139-148.
Ritter, L.C. and Drake, R.L. : “Pore Size Distribution in Porous Materials,” Ind.
Eng. Chem., An. Ed. (1945) 17, 782-786.
Ritter, L.C. and Drake, R.L. : “Macropore-Size Distributions in Some Typical
Porous Substances,” Ind. Eng. Chem., An. Ed. (1945) 17, 787-791.
Rose, H.E. : “ An Investigation into the the Laws of Flow of Fluids Through
Granular Material,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. (1945) 153, 141-148.
7-178
Rowlinson, J.S. and Widom, B. : Molecular Theory of Capillarity, Dover
Publications, Inc., Mineola, New York, 1982.
Scheidegger, A.E. : The Physics of Flow Through Porous Media, University of
Toronto Press, Toronto, 1960.
Slobod, R.L., Chambers, A. and Prehn, W.L., Jr. : “Use of Centrifuge for
Determining Connate Water, Residual Oil, and Capillary Pressure
Curves of Small Core Samples,” Trans., AIME (1951) 192, 127-134.
Stegemeier, G.L. : “Mechanisms of Entrapment and Mobilization of Oil in
Porous Media,” Presented at the 81st National Meeting of AIChE, Kansas
City, April 12-14, 1976.
Stegemeier, G.L. : “Relationship of Trapped Oil Saturation to Petrophysical
Properties of Porous Media,” SPE 4754 Presented at the Improved Oil
Recovery Symposium of the Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME ,
Tulsa, April 22-24, 1974.
Taber, J.J. : "Dynamic and Static Forces Required to Remove a Discontinuous
Oil Phase From Porous Media Containing Both Oil and Water," SPEJ
(March 1969) 3-12.
Tiab, D. and Donaldson, E.C. : Petrophysics, Second Edition, Elsevier, New
York, 2004.
Topp, G.C. and Miller, E.E. : "Hysterisis Moisture Characteristics and
Hydraulic Conductivities for Glass-Bead Media," Soil Sci. Soc. Am.
Proc., Vol. 30 (1966) 156-162.
Topp, G.C., Klute, A. and Peters, D.B. : "Comparison of Water Content-
Pressure Head Data Obtained by Equilibrium, Steady State, and
Unsteady State Methods," Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc., Vol. 31 (1967) 312-
314.
Topp, G.C. and Davis, J.L. : "Measurement of Soil Water Using Time-Domain
Reflectometry (TDR): Field Evaluation," Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc., Vol. 49
(1985) 19-24.
Topp, G.C., Davis, J.L. and Annan, A.P. : "Electromagnetic Determination of
Soil Water Content: Measurements In Coaxial Transmission Lines,"
Water Resources Research, Vol. 16 (19805) 574-582.
van Genuchten, M.T. : "A Closed-Form Equation for Predicting the Hydraulic
Conductivity of Unsaturated Soils," Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., Vol. 44 (1980)
892-898.
Welge, H.J. and Bruce, W.A. : “A Restored-State Method for Determination of
Oil in Place and Connate Water,” API Drilling and Production Practice
(1947) 161-165.
Willhite, G. P. : Waterflooding, SPE Textbook Series Vol. 3, Society of
Petroleum Engineers, Richardson, Texas, 1986.
7-179
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.
7-180
7-181
CHAPTER 8
RELATIVE PERMEABILITY
ko A ⎛ ∂Po ⎞
qo = − ⎜ ∂x + ρo g sin α ⎟ (8.1)
μo ⎝ ⎠
k w A ⎛ ∂Pw ⎞
qw = − ⎜ + ρ w g sin α ⎟ (8.2)
μ w ⎝ ∂x ⎠
8-1
k g A ⎛ ∂Pg ⎞
qg = − ⎜ + ρ g g sin α ⎟ (8.3)
μ g ⎝ ∂x ⎠
where α is the angle of inclination with the horizontal. Eqs.(8.1) to (8.3) show
that using the concept of an effective permeability, Darcy’s Law is applied to
each phase as if the other phases did not exist. Capillary equilibrium between
the phases gives
Po − Pw = Pc / ow ( S w ) (8.4)
Pg − Po = Pc / go ( So ) (8.5)
Pc / ow + Pc / go = Pc / gw (8.6)
ko
kro = (8.7)
k
kw
krw = (8.8)
k
kg
krg = (8.9)
k
kkro A ⎛ ∂Po ⎞
qo = − ⎜ + ρ o g sin α ⎟ (8.10)
μo ⎝ ∂x ⎠
8-2
kkrw A ⎛ ∂Pw ⎞
qw = − ⎜ + ρ w g sin α ⎟ (8.11)
μ w ⎝ ∂x ⎠
kkrg A ⎛ ∂Pg ⎞
qg = − ⎜ + ρ g g sin α ⎟ (8.12)
μ g ⎝ ∂x ⎠
8-3
permeability to the wetting phase attains a maximum end point value
(kwr).
5. The relative permeability curves are not defined in the saturation ranges
given by (1 − S nwr ) < S w < 1 and 0 < S w < S wirr .
6. Two phase flow occurs over the saturation range S wirr < S w < (1 − S nwr ) .
8-4
• Natural water influx calculations in a water wet reservoir in which water
displaces oil and/or gas.
• Oil displaces gas, which occurs when oil is forced into a gas cap.
8-5
Figure 8.2. Typical drainage relative permeability curves.
8-6
the injection rate of each phase are measured. The relative permeabilities are
calculated with the integrated forms of Darcy's law for two phase flow as
shown later. The saturations are usually calculated by material balance.
At steady state, the continuity equations for the wetting and non-
wetting phases for horizontal flow are
∂vw
=0 (8.13)
∂x
∂vnw
=0 (8.14)
∂x
k w ∂Pw
vw = − = a constant (8.15)
μ w ∂x
knw ∂Pnw
vnw = − = a constant (8.16)
μnw ∂x
Pnw − Pw = Pc ( S w ) (8.17)
μ w vw L μ w qw L
kw = = (8.18)
ΔPw AΔPw
Since Pc ( S w ) is uniform, ΔPw and ΔPnw are equal and the pressure drop across
the core can be measured in either phase and used to calculate the effective
8-7
permeabilities with Eqs.(8.18) and (8.19). The steady state saturation
distribution in the core can be calculated with Eq.(7.83), which is reproduced
here for convenience:
⎛ fw ⎞
⎜ − 1⎟
dS w
= ⎝ Fw ⎠
(7.83)
dxD N k dJ
cap rnw
dS w
with a specified inlet boundary condition. Of course, to do so, krw , krnw and
Pc ( S w ) must be known.
Figure 8.3 shows an apparatus that can be used for the steady state
experiment. A typical sequence of steps for obtaining the imbibition relative
permeability curves might be as follows:
1. Install the clean, dry core sample in the Hassler apparatus as shown in
Figure 8.3. Evacuate the core and saturate with the wetting phase.
Determine the absolute permeability of the core by wetting phase flow.
2. Displace the wetting phase with the non-wetting phase until no more
wetting phase flows from the core. Calculate the irreducible wetting
phase saturation and the initial non-wetting phase saturation.
Measure the steady state pressure drop and the non-wetting phase
8-8
injection rate and calculate the relative permeability to the non-wetting
phase at the irreducible wetting phase saturation by use of Eq.(8.19) as
μnw qnw L
krnw = (8.20)
kAΔPnw
3. Inject a mixture of the wetting and non-wetting phases at rates qnw and
qw such that the ratio, qw/qnw, is very much less than 1 until steady
4. Measure the pressure drop and calculate the wetting phase saturation
by material balance. Calculate the relative permeabilities to the non-
wetting and wetting phases at the latest wetting phase saturation using
Eq.(8.20) and (8.18) as
μ w qw L
krw = (8.21)
kAΔPw
5. Increase the ratio qw/qnw and repeat steps 3 and 4 to calculate the
6. Finally, inject only the wetting phase until no more non-wetting phase
flows from the core. Calculate the residual non-wetting phase
saturation. Measure the steady state pressure drop and the wetting
phase injection rate and calculate the relative permeability to the
wetting phase at residual non-wetting phase saturation. This completes
the relative permeability measurements.
8-9
Figure 8.3. Hassler’s apparatus for relative permeability measurement (Osoba
et al., 1951).
8-10
The various steady state methods such as the Penn State method,
single core dynamic method, dispersed feed method, Hafford method and
Hassler method differ primarily in the techniques used to minimize or
eliminate capillary end effect (Richardson et al., 1952). When capillary end
effect has been eliminated, all the steady state methods give the same results
as shown in Figures 8.6 and 8.7.
Figure 8.4. Steady state oil and gas pressure profiles at a relatively low
injection rate (Richardson et al., 1952).
8-11
Figure 8.5. Steady state oil and gas pressure profiles at a relatively high
injection rate (Richardson et al., 1952).
8-12
Figure 8.6. Relative permeability curves from six steady state methods, short
core section (Richardson et al., 1952).
8-13
Figure 8.7. Relative permeability curves from six steady state methods, long
core section (Richardson et al., 1952).
The major problem with the steady state method for relative
permeability measurements is that it takes too long to complete. It is not
unusual for a steady state experiment to take several weeks to complete. An
alternative and much faster technique is the unsteady state method or the
dynamic displacement method based on immiscible displacement theory.
Because the calculation of relative permeabilities from unsteady state
experiment is based on the solution of two-phase immiscible displacement
equation, we must first solve the two-phase immiscible displacement problem
before we can discuss the unsteady state relative permeability measurements.
8-14
8.3 THEORY OF ONE DIMENSIONAL IMMISCIBLE
DISPLACEMENT IN A POROUS MEDIUM
8.3.1 Mathematical Model of Two-Phase Immiscible Displacement
Consider the displacement of a non-wetting phase by a wetting phase in
a linear inclined core as shown in Figure 8.8. Darcy’s Law applied to each
phase gives
kkrnw A ⎛ ∂Pnw ⎞
qnw = − ⎜ + ρ nw g sin α ⎟ (8.22)
μnw ⎝ ∂x ⎠
kkrw A ⎛ ∂Pw ⎞
qw = − ⎜ + ρ w g sin α ⎟ (8.23)
μ w ⎝ ∂x ⎠
Pnw − Pw = Pc ( S w ) (8.17)
q = qw + qnw (8.24)
The true fractional flows of the wetting and non-wetting phases are defined as
follows:
qw qw
fw = = (8.25)
q qw + qnw
qnw qnw
f nw = = = 1 − fw (8.26)
q qw + qnw
∂S w ∂qw
φA + =0 (8.27)
∂t ∂x
8-15
Figure 8.8. Displacement of a non-wetting phase by a wetting phase in an
inclined core.
S w + Snw = 1 (8.28)
8-16
Substituting Eqs.(8.17) and (8.24) into (8.29) gives upon rearrangement
kkrnw A ⎡ ∂Pc ⎤
1+ ⎢ − ( ρ w − ρ nw ) g sin α ⎥
qw q μnw ⎣ ∂x ⎦
= (8.30)
q k μ
1 + rnw w
krw μnw
1
Fw = (8.31)
k μ
1 + rnw w
krw μnw
Substituting Eqs.(8.30) and (8.31) into (8.25) gives the true fractional flow of
the wetting phase as
⎧ kk A ⎡ ∂P ⎤⎫
f w = Fw ⎨1 + rnw ⎢ c − ( ρ w − ρ nw ) g sin α ⎥ ⎬ (8.32)
⎩ q μ nw ⎣ ∂x ⎦⎭
x
xD = (8.33)
L
σ cos θ
Pc ( S w ) = J ( Sw , Γ ) (8.34)
k /φ
Substituting Eqs.(8.83) and (8.34) into (8.32) gives the true fractional flow of
the wetting phase as
⎡ ⎛ Aσ cos θ kφ ⎞ ∂J ⎛ kA ( ρ w − ρ nw ) g sin α ⎞ ⎤
f w = Fw ⎢1 + ⎜ ⎟ krnw − krnw ⎜ ⎟⎥ (8.35)
⎜ q μnw L ⎟ ∂xD q μnw
⎢⎣ ⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠ ⎥⎦
8-17
⎡ ∂J ⎤
f w = Fw ⎢1 + N cap krnw − krnw N g ⎥ (8.36)
⎣ ∂xD ⎦
Aσ cos θ kφ
N cap = (7.61)
q μnw L
and N g is given by
kA ( ρ w − ρ nw ) g sin α
Ng = (8.37)
qμnw
capillary end effect. It represents the ratio of capillary to viscous forces in the
displacement. N g is a new dimensionless number, which represents the ratio
krw μnw
M ( Sw ) = (8.38)
krnw μ w
kwr μnw
ME = (8.39)
knwr μ w
where kwr and knwr are the end-point relative permeabilities for the wetting and
8-18
∂J
1 + N cap krnw − krnw N g
∂xD
fw = (8.40)
⎛ 1 ⎞
⎜1 + ⎟
⎝ M⎠
1
Fw = (8.41)
⎛ 1 ⎞
⎜1 + ⎟
⎝ M⎠
8-19
of the wetting phase (the injected fluid) by use of a polymer. This is the
basis for polymer flooding as an improved oil recovery technique.
There are additional facts about the immiscible displacement that are
not apparent from the fractional flow equation. The fractional flow equation
indicates that the displacement efficiency can be improved by injecting the
wetting phase at a high enough rate to minimize capillary smearing of the
displacement front. This is generally true for a favorable mobility ratio
displacement. If the mobility ratio is unfavorable, an increase in rate can
result in viscous instability which reduces the displacement efficiency. The
fractional flow equation suggests that the effect of gravity will be eliminated if
the porous medium is horizontal. This is misleading because, in practice, if
there is a density contrast between the fluids, the injection rate is sufficiently
low and the core has a vertical dimension (which it does), gravity segregation
will occur even in a horizontal medium. In this case, the one dimensional
displacement model is inadequate to describe the displacement. A
multidimensional model is needed to correctly describe the gravity-dominated
displacement. The only fail proof way to eliminate the effect of gravity is to
eliminate the density contrast between the fluids or perform the displacement
in outer space. One can create a gravity number for displacement in a
horizontal core by replacing sin α in Eq.(8.37) by the aspect ratio (d/L).
The partial differential equation for the wetting phase saturation can be
derived as follows. Let
Ψ ( S w ) = Fw − krnw N g (8.42)
dJ
Ω ( S w ) = krnw (8.43)
dS w
8-20
∂S w
f w ( S w ) = Ψ ( S w ) + N cap Ω ( S w ) (8.44)
∂xD
∂S w ∂f w
+ =0 (8.45)
∂t D ∂xD
where t D is given by
qt
tD = (7.63)
Aφ L
Substituting Eq.(8.44) into (8.45) gives the partial differential equation for the
wetting phase saturation as
∂S w d Ψ ∂S w ∂ ⎡ ∂S w ⎤
+ + N cap ⎢Ω ( S w ) ⎥=0 (8.46)
∂t D dS w ∂xD ∂xD ⎣ ∂xD ⎦
∂S w df w ∂S w
+ =0 (8.47)
∂t D dS w ∂xD
where the true fractional flow of the wetting phase for horizontal
displacement is given by
8-21
dJ ∂S w
1 + N cap krnw
dS w ∂xD
fw = (8.48)
⎛ 1 ⎞
⎜1 + ⎟
⎝ M⎠
∂S w
It should be observed that the true fractional flow function contains ,
∂xD
which is unknown. Buckley and Leverett (1941) obtained an approximate
solution to Eq.(8.47) by making a key simplifying assumption. They dropped
the capillary pressure term from Eq.(8.48) and as a result, they approximated
the fractional flow of the wetting phase as
f w Fw (8.49)
Substituting Eq.(8.49) into (8.47) gives the partial differential equation for the
wetting phase saturation as
∂S w dFw ∂S w
+ =0 (8.50)
∂t D dS w ∂xD
∂S w ⎛ dxD ⎞ ∂S w dS w
+⎜ ⎟ = (8.51)
∂t D ⎝ dt D ⎠ ∂xD dt D
8-22
Subtracting Eq.(8.50) from (8.51) gives
⎛ dxD dFw ⎞ ∂S w dS w
⎜ − ⎟ = (8.52)
⎝ dt D dS w ⎠ ∂x D dt D
dxD dFw
− =0 (8.53)
dt D dS w
dS w
=0 (8.54)
dt D
Eq.(8.53) gives the characteristic path for the hyperbolic partial differential
equation given by Eq(8.54). Eq.(8.54) shows that along the characteristic
path given by Eq.(8.53), the saturation is a constant.
dFw
xDSw ( tD ) − xDSw ( 0) = ( t D − t D 0 ) (8.55)
dS w
If there was no prior injection, t D 0 will be zero and all the saturations from Swi
to (1 - Snwr) will be located at the inlet end of the system, making xDSw ( 0) equal
dFw
xDSw ( tD ) = t D (8.56)
dS w
dFw
xD = t D (8.57)
dS w
8-23
where xD is the dimensionless distance traveled by a given saturation at time
Qi ( t ) dFw
x= (8.58)
φ A dS w
⎛ dF ⎞
xD = t D ⎜ w ⎟ (8.59)
⎝ dS w ⎠ Sw1
xD dFw df w
z= = = (8.60)
t D dS w dS w
xD
versus , all the saturation profiles will collapse into one curve. If the
tD
saturation profiles in an immiscible displacement are imaged say by CT or by
NMR, then Eq.(8.60) can be used to calculate the true fractional flow curve,
including the effect of capillarity, as
xD
f w ( Sw ) = ∫
Sw
dS w (8.61)
S wirr tD
Given the relative permeability curves and the viscosity ratio, the
approximate fractional flow function and its derivative can be computed and
8-24
plotted as shown in Figure 8.9. In this figure, the S-shaped curve ADBC is
the approximate fractional flow curve (Fw) obtained from the relative
permeability curves and the viscosity ratio. The curve AFE is the derivative of
⎛ dF ⎞
this function ⎜ w ⎟ . Using Eq.(8.59) and this derivative function, the distance
⎝ dS w ⎠
traveled by each wetting phase saturation between Swirr and (1-Snwr) at a
given time t D can be computed. Figure 8.10 shows the saturation profile that
capillary pressure gradient is high and should not have been neglected.
front has traveled a distance x f into the medium. A volumetric balance of the
Qi ( t ) = ∫ φ A ( S w − S wirr )dx
xf
(8.62)
0
Qi ( t ) = φ Ax f ( S wf − S wirr ) − Qi ∫
S wf dFw
dS w (8.63)
1− Snwr dS w
8-25
Figure 8.9. Approximate fractional flow function and its first derivative. Note
the tangent construction.
8-26
Fw ( S wf )
φ Ax f = Qi ( t ) (8.64)
S wf − S wirr
From the Buckley-Leverett frontal advance equation, Eq.(8.58), one can also
obtain
⎛ dFw ⎞
φ Ax f = Qi ( t ) ⎜ ⎟ (8.65)
⎝ dS w ⎠ S wf
⎛ dFw ⎞ Fw ( S wf )
⎜ ⎟ = (8.66)
⎝ dS w ⎠ Swf S wf − S wirr
The saturation distribution in Figure 8.10 will be single valued if all the
saturations between Swirr and the frontal saturation, Swf, are eliminated.
Eq.(8.66) shows that the frontal saturation (Swf) is the saturation at which the
straight line passing through the point Sw = Swirr and Fw = 0 is tangent to the
approximate fractional flow curve, Fw. This line is shown in Figure 8.9 as AB.
This tangent construction was first suggested by Welge (1952). The effect of
the tangent construction is to correct the approximate fractional flow curve Fw
for the capillary term that was neglected to obtain the true fractional flow
curve fw. Such a correction is needed at the front (low wetting phase
saturation) where the capillary pressure gradient is high and should not have
been neglected. With the tangent construction correction in place, the true
fractional flow curve, fw, is now given by the curve ABC (Fig. 8.9) thereby
eliminating the S-shaped lower portion of Fw, which led to the tripple-valued
saturation solution of Figure 8.10. With this correction, the derivative of the
⎛ df ⎞
true fractional flow curve ⎜ w ⎟ used in the solution is given by the curve
⎝ dS w ⎠
EFG (Fig. 8.9). After the tangent construction, the true fractional flow curve
and its derivative are given by
8-27
Figure 8.11. Similarity transformation for an immiscible displacement.
8-28
⎧⎛ S − S ⎞ ⎛ dFw ⎞
⎪⎜
⎪
w wirr
⎟ F ( S ) = ( S − S ) ⎜ ⎟ for S wirr ≤ S w ≤ S wf
f w ( S w ) = ⎨⎜⎝ S wf − S wirr ⎟⎠
w wf w wf
⎝ w ⎠ Swf
dS (8.67)
⎪
⎪⎩ Fw ( S w ) for S wf ≤ S w ≤ 1.0
and
⎧⎛ dFw ⎞
⎪⎜ ⎟ = a constant for S wirr ≤ S w ≤ S wf
df w ⎪⎝ w ⎠ Swf
dS
=⎨ (8.68)
dS w ⎪⎛ dF ⎞
⎪⎜ dS ⎟ for S wf ≤ S w ≤ 1.0
w
⎩⎝ w ⎠ Sw
We now show that the intersection of the tangent line with the line Fw =
1 (point J in Fig. 8.9) gives the constant average wetting phase saturation
behind the front before and at wetting phase breakthrough. The slope of the
tangent line can be written as
⎛ dFw ⎞ 1 − Fw ( S wf )
⎜ ⎟ = (8.69)
⎝ dS w ⎠ Swf S wav − S wf
1 − Fw ( S wf )
S wav = S wf + (8.70)
⎛ dFw ⎞
⎜ ⎟
⎝ dS w ⎠ Swf
Before breakthrough, the average wetting phase saturation behind the front is
given by
8-29
1− Snwr
S wav =
∫
0
φ AxdS w
(8.71)
φ Ax f
Substituting Eq.(8.58) into (8.71) and integrating gives the average wetting
phase saturation behind the front as
1 − Fw ( S wf )
S wav = S wf + (8.72)
⎛ dFw ⎞
⎜ ⎟
⎝ dS w ⎠ Swf
8-30
8.3.3 Waterflood Performance Calculations from Buckley–Leverett
Theory
We now apply Buckley-Leverett theory to calculate a waterflood
performance from beginning to end. It is assumed that the true fractional flow
curve and its derivative have been computed using the relative permeability
curves, the viscosity ratio and the Welge tangent construction. Therefore, the
equations in this section are written in terms of the true fractional flow curve.
The methodology presented also applies to the calculation of the performance
of a gas flood using gas-oil drainage relative permeability curves.
S wav − S wirr
R= (8.73)
1 − S wirr
where R is the oil recovery as a fraction of the initial oil in place, Swav is the
average water saturation in the porous medium at the time of interest and
Swirr is the initial water saturation in the porous medium before water
8-31
qBwt = Qi ( t ) = Qo ( t ) (8.74)
where q is the constant water injection rate, in surface units, Bw is the water
the cumulative oil produced at time t in reservoir units. The cumulative oil
produced at surface conditions is
qBwt Qi ( t ) Qo ( t )
Cumulative Oil Produced = = = (8.75)
Bo Bo Bo
where Bo is the current oil formation volume factor. The oil recovery as a
qBwt Qi ( t ) Wi
R= = = (8.76)
φ AL (1 − S wirr ) φ AL (1 − S wirr ) (1 − S wirr )
qBwt ⎛ df w ⎞ Qi ( t ) ⎛ df w ⎞
x= ⎜ ⎟ = ⎜ ⎟ (8.77)
φ A ⎝ dS w ⎠ S φ A ⎝ dS w ⎠ S
w w
qBwt ⎛ df w ⎞ Qi ( t ) ⎛ df w ⎞
xf = ⎜ ⎟ = ⎜ ⎟ (8.78)
φ A ⎝ dS w ⎠ S φ A ⎝ dS w ⎠ S
wf wf
8-32
qBwt ⎛ df w ⎞ Qi ( t ) ⎛ df w ⎞
L= ⎜ ⎟ = ⎜ ⎟ (8.79)
φ A ⎝ dS w ⎠ S φ A ⎝ dS w ⎠ S
wf wf
qBwt Qi ( t ) 1
Wi = = = (8.80)
φ AL φ AL ⎛ df w ⎞
⎜ ⎟
⎝ dS w ⎠ Swf
where Wi is the pore volume of water injected. The cumulative oil recovery at
Wi qBwt Qi ( t ) 1
R= = = = (8.81)
1 − S wi φ AL (1 − S wi ) φ AL (1 − S wi ) ⎛ df ⎞
(1 − S wi ) ⎜ w ⎟
⎝ dS w ⎠ S wf
φ AL
tbt = (8.82)
⎛ df ⎞
qBw ⎜ w ⎟
⎝ dS w ⎠ Swf
or in dimensionless form as
1
t Dbt = (8.83)
⎛ df w ⎞
⎜ ⎟
⎝ dS w ⎠ Swf
The average water saturation in the porous medium behind the displacement
front before and at water breakthrough is given by
1− Sor
S wav =
∫ 0
φ AxdS w
(8.71)
φ Ax f
8-33
Figure 8.13 shows a typical water saturation distribution at time t before
breakthrough. From Figure 8.13, we see that the integral (area under the
curve) in Eq.(8.71) can be split into two parts as follows:
1− Sor
φ AS wf x f + ∫ φ AxdS w
S wf
S wav = (8.84)
φ Ax f
1− Sor
Qi ( t ) ∫ dFw
S wf
S wav = S wf + (8.85)
φ Ax f
Qi ( t ) ⎡⎣ f w (1 − Sor ) − f w ( S wf ) ⎤⎦
S wav = S wf + (8.86)
φ Ax f
Qi ( t ) ⎡⎣1 − f w ( S wf ) ⎤⎦
S wav = S wf + (8.87)
φ Ax f
Substituting Eq.(8.78) into (8.87) gives the average water saturation behind
the front as
⎡1 − f w ( S wf ) ⎤
S wav = S wf + ⎣ ⎦ (8.72)
⎛ df w ⎞
⎜ ⎟
⎝ dS w ⎠ S wf
It should be observed in Figure 8.9 that the average water saturation behind
the front up until water breakthrough as given in Eq.(8.72) is the same as the
water saturation at which the tangent to the fractional flow curve intersects
the Fw = 1 axis. Thus, the average water saturation in the porous medium at
8-34
saturation can then be substituted into Eq.(8.73) to calculate the oil recovery
at water breakthrough. We can easily show that the result obtained by this
approach will be the same as that obtained by Eq.(8.81). Substituting
Eq.(8.72) into Eq.(8.73) gives
8-35
⎡1 − f w ( S wf ) ⎤
S wf + ⎣ ⎦ −S
⎛ df w ⎞
wirr
⎜ ⎟
⎝ dS w ⎠ S
R= wf
(8.88)
1 − S wirr
From the equation of the tangent line in Figure 8.9, we find that
⎛ df w ⎞ f w ( S wf )
⎜ ⎟ = (8.66)
⎝ dS w ⎠ Swf S wf − S wirr
Substituting Eq.(8.66) into (8.88) gives the oil recovery at water breakthrough
as
1
R= (8.89)
⎛ df ⎞
(1 − S wi ) ⎜ w ⎟
⎝ dS w ⎠ S wf
qBwt ⎛ df w ⎞ Qi ( t ) ⎛ df w ⎞
L= ⎜ ⎟ = ⎜ ⎟ (8.90)
φ A ⎝ dS w ⎠ S φ A ⎝ dS w ⎠ S
w2 w2
where Sw2 is the water saturation at the outlet end of the porous medium
which now lies between Swf and (1 – Sor). Rearrangement of Eq.(8.90) gives
qBwt Qi ( t ) 1
Wi = = = (8.91)
φ AL φ AL ⎛ df w ⎞
⎜ ⎟
⎝ dS w ⎠ Sw 2
8-36
where Wi is the pore volumes of water injected since the initiation of water
Qi ( t ) − ∫ φ A ( S w − S wirr )dx = Qw ( t )
L
(8.92)
0
{
Qi ( t ) − ⎡⎣φ A ( S w − S wirr ) x ⎤⎦ 0 − ∫
L
Sw 2
1− Sor
φ AxdS w = Qw ( t ) } (8.93)
{
Qi ( t ) − φ AL ( S w 2 − S wirr ) − ∫
1− Sor
Sw 2 }
φ AxdS w = Qw ( t ) (8.94)
{
Qi ( t ) − φ AL ( S w 2 − S wirr ) − Qi ( t ) ∫
1− Sor
Sw 2 }
df w = Qw ( t ) (8.95)
{ }
Qi ( t ) − φ AL ( S w 2 − S wirr ) − Qi ( t ) ⎡⎣ f w (1 − Sor ) − f w ( S w 2 ) ⎤⎦ = Qw ( t ) (8.96)
or
{
Qi ( t ) − φ AL ( S w 2 − S wirr ) − Qi ( t ) ⎡⎣1 − f w ( S w 2 ) ⎤⎦ = Qw ( t ) } (8.97)
Qi ( t ) − Qw ( t ) Qi ( t )
S w 2 = S wirr + − ⎡1 − f w ( S w 2 ) ⎤⎦ (8.98)
φ AL φ AL ⎣
8-37
S w 2 = S wirr + N pD − Wi ⎡⎣1 − f w ( S w 2 ) ⎤⎦ (8.99)
N pD = S w 2 − S wi + Wi ⎡⎣1 − f w ( S w 2 ) ⎤⎦ (8.100)
where NpD is the oil recovery as a fraction of the total pore volume. We observe
that the sum of the first two terms on the right hand side of Eq.(8.99) is the
average water saturation in the porous medium after water breakthrough.
Thus, Eq.(8.99) can be rewritten as
Substituting Eq.(8.91) into (8.101) and rearranging gives the average water
saturation in the porous medium after water breakthrough as
⎡1 − f w ( S w 2 ) ⎤⎦
S wav = S w 2 + ⎣ (8.102)
⎛ df w ⎞
⎜ ⎟
⎝ dS w ⎠ S w2
fractional flow curve at the outlet water saturation intersects the Fw = 1 axis.
1− Sor
φ AS w 2 L + ∫ φ AxdS w
S wav = (8.103)
Sw 2
φ AL
8-38
1− Sor
Qi ( t ) ∫ df w
S wav = S w 2 + (8.104)
Sw 2
φ AL
Qi ( t ) ⎡⎣ f w (1 − Sor ) − f w ( S w 2 ) ⎤⎦
S wav = S w 2 + (8.105)
φ AL
8-39
Figure 8.15. Typical water saturation profile at time t after water
breakthrough.
Qi ( t ) ⎡⎣1 − f w ( S w 2 ) ⎤⎦
S wav = S w 2 + (8.106)
φ AL
Substituting Eq.(8.90) into (8.106) gives the average water saturation after
water breakthrough as
⎡1 − Fw ( S w 2 ) ⎤⎦
S wav = S w 2 + ⎣ (8.107)
⎛ dFw ⎞
⎜ ⎟
⎝ dS w ⎠ S w2
8-40
which is identical to Eq.(8.102).
Water Production
There is no water production before water breakthrough. After water
breakthrough, the water oil ratio is given by
⎛ fw ⎞
⎜ ⎟
qw ⎝ Bw ⎠ Bo ⎛ Fw ⎞
WOR = = = ⎜ ⎟ (8.108)
qo ⎛ f o ⎞ Bw ⎝ 1 − Fw ⎠
⎜ ⎟
⎝ Bo ⎠
The pore volumes of water produced is given by material balance on the water
as
Substituting Eq.(8.91) into (8.110) gives the pore volumes of water produced
as
1
Wp = − ( S wav − S wi ) (8.111)
⎛ df w ⎞
⎜ ⎟
⎝ dS w ⎠ Sw 2
Example 8.1
A waterflood is to be performed in a linear reservoir. The relative permeability
curves for the reservoir are adequately described by the following analytical
models:
8-41
krnw = knwr (1 − Se )
2
(8.113)
where Se is defined as
S w − S wirr
Se = (8.114)
1 − S wirr − Snwr
S wirr = 0.20
S nwr = 0.30
knwr = 0.95
k wr = 0.35
μnw = μo = 10 cp
μ w = 1 cp
Bo = 1.20 RB/STB
Bw = 1.0 RB/STB
breakthrough ( Swav ) and the true fractional flow curve ( fw ) and its
⎛ df ⎞
derivative ⎜ w ⎟ .
⎝ dS w ⎠
8-42
4. Plot the graphs of the true fractional flow curve and its derivative.
9. Calculate and plot the graph of oil recovery versus pore volume of water
injected before and after water breakthrough.
10. Calculate and plot the graph of water oil ratio versus oil recovery.
2. Figure 8.17 shows the approximate fractional flow curve calculated with
Eq.(8.41) and its derivative calculated by differentiating Fw with respect
to Sw analytically.
tD tD tD
0.20 0.30 1.00
Sw krw krnw Fw dFw fw df w xD xD xD Wi R WOR
dS w dS w
0.200 0.00000 0.950 0.00000 0.000 0.000 2.775 0.555 0.833 2.775 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.210 0.00000 0.912 0.00003 0.009 0.028 2.775 0.555 0.833 2.775 0.008 0.023 0.000
0.220 0.00002 0.876 0.00026 0.039 0.056 2.775 0.555 0.833 2.775 0.016 0.045 0.000
0.230 0.00008 0.839 0.00090 0.094 0.083 2.775 0.555 0.833 2.775 0.025 0.068 0.000
0.240 0.00018 0.804 0.00222 0.176 0.111 2.775 0.555 0.833 2.775 0.033 0.091 0.000
8-43
0.250 0.00035 0.770 0.00453 0.290 0.139 2.775 0.555 0.833 2.775 0.041 0.113 0.000
0.260 0.00060 0.736 0.00815 0.441 0.167 2.775 0.555 0.833 2.775 0.049 0.136 0.000
0.270 0.00096 0.703 0.01348 0.632 0.194 2.775 0.555 0.833 2.775 0.057 0.158 0.000
0.280 0.00143 0.670 0.02094 0.866 0.222 2.775 0.555 0.833 2.775 0.066 0.180 0.000
0.290 0.00204 0.639 0.03097 1.147 0.250 2.775 0.555 0.833 2.775 0.074 0.202 0.000
0.300 0.00280 0.608 0.04403 1.473 0.278 2.775 0.555 0.833 2.775 0.082 0.223 0.000
0.310 0.00373 0.578 0.06057 1.844 0.305 2.775 0.555 0.833 2.775 0.090 0.243 0.000
0.320 0.00484 0.549 0.08103 2.254 0.333 2.775 0.555 0.833 2.775 0.098 0.263 0.000
0.330 0.00615 0.520 0.10575 2.693 0.361 2.775 0.555 0.833 2.775 0.106 0.281 0.000
0.340 0.00768 0.492 0.13496 3.150 0.389 2.775 0.555 0.833 2.775 0.115 0.299 0.000
0.350 0.00945 0.466 0.16875 3.607 0.416 2.775 0.555 0.833 2.775 0.123 0.315 0.000
0.360 0.01147 0.439 0.20703 4.044 0.444 2.775 0.555 0.833 2.775 0.131 0.330 0.000
0.370 0.01376 0.414 0.24949 4.439 0.472 2.775 0.555 0.833 2.775 0.139 0.343 0.000
0.380 0.01633 0.389 0.29560 4.772 0.500 2.775 0.555 0.833 2.775 0.147 0.355 0.000
0.390 0.01921 0.365 0.34465 5.024 0.527 2.775 0.555 0.833 2.775 0.156 0.365 0.000
0.400 0.02240 0.342 0.39576 5.181 0.555 2.775 0.555 0.833 2.775 0.164 0.374 0.000
0.410 0.02593 0.320 0.44794 5.238 0.583 2.775 0.555 0.833 2.775 0.172 0.381 0.000
0.420 0.02981 0.298 0.50019 5.195 0.611 2.775 0.555 0.833 2.775 0.180 0.388 0.000
0.430 0.03407 0.277 0.55153 5.058 0.638 2.775 0.555 0.833 2.775 0.188 0.393 0.000
0.440 0.03871 0.257 0.60109 4.842 0.666 2.775 0.555 0.833 2.775 0.197 0.398 0.000
0.450 0.04375 0.238 0.64815 4.561 0.694 2.775 0.555 0.833 2.775 0.205 0.403 0.000
0.460 0.04921 0.219 0.69216 4.234 0.722 2.775 0.555 0.833 2.775 0.213 0.407 0.000
0.470 0.05511 0.201 0.73274 3.879 0.749 2.775 0.555 0.833 2.775 0.221 0.411 0.000
0.480 0.06147 0.184 0.76969 3.511 0.777 2.775 0.555 0.833 2.775 0.229 0.416 0.000
0.490 0.06829 0.168 0.80296 3.144 0.805 2.775 0.555 0.833 2.775 0.237 0.421 0.000
0.491 0.06900 0.166 0.80608 3.107 0.808 2.775 0.555 0.833 2.775 0.246 0.423 0.000
0.492 0.06971 0.164 0.80917 3.071 0.810 2.775 0.555 0.833 2.775 0.254 0.426 0.000
0.493 0.07043 0.163 0.81222 3.035 0.813 2.775 0.555 0.833 2.775 0.262 0.428 0.000
0.494 0.07115 0.161 0.81524 2.999 0.816 2.775 0.555 0.833 2.775 0.270 0.430 0.000
0.495 0.07188 0.160 0.81822 2.964 0.819 2.775 0.555 0.833 2.775 0.278 0.432 0.000
0.496 0.07262 0.158 0.82117 2.928 0.822 2.775 0.555 0.833 2.775 0.287 0.434 0.000
0.497 0.07335 0.157 0.82408 2.893 0.824 2.775 0.555 0.833 2.775 0.295 0.436 0.000
0.498 0.07410 0.155 0.82695 2.857 0.827 2.775 0.555 0.833 2.775 0.303 0.438 0.000
0.499 0.07485 0.154 0.82979 2.822 0.830 2.775 0.555 0.833 2.775 0.311 0.440 0.000
0.500 0.07560 0.152 0.83260 2.788 0.833 2.775 0.555 0.833 2.775 0.319 0.442 0.000
8-44
0.500 0.07568 0.152 0.83288 2.784 0.833 2.775 0.555 0.833 2.775 0.328 0.444 0.000
0.500 0.07575 0.152 0.83316 2.781 0.833 2.775 0.555 0.833 2.775 0.336 0.445 0.000
0.500 0.07583 0.152 0.83343 2.777 0.833 2.775 0.555 0.833 2.775 0.344 0.447 0.000
0.500 0.07583 0.152 0.83343 2.777 0.833 2.775 0.555 0.833 2.775 0.352 0.449 0.000
0.500 0.07586 0.151 0.83357 2.775 0.834 2.775 0.555 0.833 2.775 0.360 0.450 6.010
0.501 0.07636 0.150 0.83537 2.753 0.835 2.753 0.551 0.826 2.753 0.363 0.451 6.089
0.502 0.07712 0.149 0.83810 2.718 0.838 2.718 0.544 0.816 2.718 0.368 0.452 6.212
0.503 0.07789 0.147 0.84081 2.684 0.841 2.684 0.537 0.805 2.684 0.373 0.453 6.338
0.504 0.07866 0.146 0.84347 2.650 0.843 2.650 0.530 0.795 2.650 0.377 0.454 6.466
0.505 0.07944 0.144 0.84611 2.616 0.846 2.616 0.523 0.785 2.616 0.382 0.455 6.598
0.506 0.08023 0.143 0.84871 2.583 0.849 2.583 0.517 0.775 2.583 0.387 0.456 6.732
0.507 0.08102 0.142 0.85127 2.549 0.851 2.549 0.510 0.765 2.549 0.392 0.457 6.868
0.508 0.08181 0.140 0.85380 2.516 0.854 2.516 0.503 0.755 2.516 0.397 0.458 7.008
0.509 0.08261 0.139 0.85630 2.483 0.856 2.483 0.497 0.745 2.483 0.403 0.459 7.151
0.510 0.08341 0.137 0.85877 2.450 0.859 2.450 0.490 0.735 2.450 0.408 0.460 7.297
0.520 0.09175 0.123 0.88169 2.137 0.882 2.137 0.427 0.641 2.137 0.468 0.469 8.943
0.530 0.10062 0.110 0.90160 1.850 0.902 1.850 0.370 0.555 1.850 0.540 0.479 10.995
0.540 0.11005 0.097 0.91878 1.591 0.919 1.591 0.318 0.477 1.591 0.628 0.489 13.575
0.550 0.12005 0.086 0.93351 1.360 0.934 1.360 0.272 0.408 1.360 0.736 0.499 16.849
0.560 0.13064 0.074 0.94606 1.154 0.946 1.154 0.231 0.346 1.154 0.866 0.508 21.048
0.570 0.14183 0.064 0.95668 0.974 0.957 0.974 0.195 0.292 0.974 1.027 0.518 26.502
0.580 0.15364 0.055 0.96561 0.816 0.966 0.816 0.163 0.245 0.816 1.226 0.528 33.693
0.590 0.16609 0.046 0.97306 0.678 0.973 0.678 0.136 0.203 0.678 1.474 0.537 43.348
0.600 0.17920 0.038 0.97923 0.559 0.979 0.559 0.112 0.168 0.559 1.788 0.546 56.589
0.610 0.19298 0.031 0.98430 0.456 0.984 0.456 0.091 0.137 0.456 2.191 0.555 75.235
0.620 0.20745 0.024 0.98841 0.368 0.988 0.368 0.074 0.110 0.368 2.716 0.564 102.358
0.630 0.22262 0.019 0.99171 0.292 0.992 0.292 0.058 0.088 0.292 3.420 0.573 143.471
0.640 0.23852 0.014 0.99430 0.228 0.994 0.228 0.046 0.068 0.228 4.392 0.581 209.224
0.650 0.25515 0.009 0.99629 0.172 0.996 0.172 0.034 0.052 0.172 5.798 0.589 322.295
0.660 0.27254 0.006 0.99777 0.126 0.998 0.126 0.025 0.038 0.126 7.966 0.597 537.909
0.670 0.29070 0.003 0.99882 0.086 0.999 0.086 0.017 0.026 0.086 11.663 0.605 1020.015
0.680 0.30966 0.002 0.99951 0.052 1.000 0.052 0.010 0.016 0.052 19.193 0.612 2444.665
0.690 0.32942 0.000 0.99988 0.024 1.000 0.024 0.005 0.007 0.024 42.067 0.619 10402.648
0.700 0.35000 0.000 1.00000 0.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
8-45
Figure 8.16. Relative permeability curves for Example 8.1.
8-46
Figure 8.17. Approximate fractional flow curve and its derivative for Example
8.1.
S wf = 0.500035
⎛ df w ⎞
⎜ ⎟ = 2.775
⎝ dS w ⎠ Swf
S wav = 0.5603
4. The true fractional flow curve and its derivative obtained from the
tangent construction are shown in Figure 8.18.
8-47
Figure 8.18. True fractional flow curve and its derivative for Example 8.1.
8-48
Figure 8.19. Water saturation profiles for Example 8.1.
1 1
t Dbt = = = 0.460 pore volume injected.
⎛ df w ⎞ 2.775
⎜ ⎟
⎝ dS w ⎠ Swf
1 1
Rbt = = = 0.450
⎛ df w ⎞ (1 − 0.20 )( 2.775 )
(1 − S wirr ) ⎜ ⎟
⎝ dS w ⎠ Swf
8-49
breakthrough, the oil recovery is calculated with Eq.(8.100) as
N pD
R= .
1 − S wirr
10. The producing water oil ratio is zero before water breakthrough. After
water breakthrough, the producing water oil water ratio is calculated
with Eq.(8.108). After breakthrough, the producing water oil ratio
increases rapidly as shown in Figure 8.21.
8-50
Figure 8.21. Producing water oil ratio for Example 8.1.
8-51
By measuring the produced fractions of the wetting and non-wetting
phases at the outlet end of the core and the pressure drop across the core
versus time, the relative permeability curves can be calculated from the
production and pressure data using the theory of immiscible displacement in
porous media. This method is much faster than the steady state method,
usually requiring a few hours to complete compared to several weeks for the
steady state method. If adequate precautions are taken, the dynamic
displacement method will give relative permeability curves that are
comparable to those obtained by the steady state method.
Figure 8.22 shows the experimental setup and the measured data.
Because the point of observation is the outlet end of the core, it is necessary
that capillary end effect be minimized otherwise the calculated relative
permeability-saturation relationship will be wrong. It should be noted that
relative permeability curves can only be obtained over the saturation range Swf
to 1-Snwr. Therefore, it is necessary to choose the fluid viscosities that will give
the widest possible saturation window. This is obtained by using performing
and adverse mobility ratio displacement. A favorable mobility ratio
displacement will be unsuitable because for such a displacement, Swf is equal
to (1-Snwr) and there is no saturation window for calculating the relative
permeability curves. The relative permeability to the wetting phase below Swf
can only be obtained by extrapolating the data above Swf.
1
f nw 2 = (8.115)
k μ
1 + rw nw
krnw μ w
8-52
Figure 8.22. Unsteady state method for determining two-phase relative
permeability curves; (a) coreflood; (b) measured data.
It should be noted that for saturations above Swf, Eq.(8.115) gives the true
fractional flow of the non-wetting phase because above Swf, the true fractional
flow and the approximate fractional curves are equal. Eq.(8.115) can be
rearranged to calculate the wetting-non-wetting phase relative permeability
ratio as
krw μ ⎛ 1 ⎞
= w ⎜ − 1⎟ (8.116)
krnw μ nw ⎝ f nw 2 ⎠
The fractional flow of the non-wetting phase at the outlet end of the core is
also given by
8-53
qnw dQnw ( t ) dN pD
f nw 2 = = = (8.117)
q dQi ( t ) dWi
where Qnw(t) and Qi(t) are the cumulative non-wetting phase produced and
the cumulative wetting phase injected and N pD and Wi are their dimensionless
S w 2 = S wirr + N pD − Wi f nw 2 (8.118)
krw
Using Eqs.(8.116) and (8.118), versus S w 2 can be computed.
krnw
8-54
L ∂P
ΔP = − ∫ dx (8.119)
0 ∂x
kkrnw A ∂P
qnw = − (8.120)
μnw ∂x
∂P ⎛ q μnw ⎞
= −⎜ ⎟ f nw (8.121)
∂x ⎝ kkrnw A ⎠
⎛ qμ ⎞ L f
ΔP = ⎜ nw ⎟ ∫ nw dx (8.122)
⎝ kA ⎠ 0 krnw
Qi ( t ) ⎛ df w ⎞
L= ⎜ ⎟ (8.90)
φ A ⎝ dS w ⎠ S
w2
x f'
= w' (8.123)
L f w2
where f w' and f w' 2 are the derivatives of the fractional flow functions at any
L
dx = '
df w' (8.124)
f w2
8-55
Substituting Eq.(8.124) into (8.122) and rearranging gives
Let
⎛ q ⎞ kA
⎜ ⎟ = = a constant (8.126)
⎝ ΔP ⎠ s μ nw L
⎛ q ⎞ '
⎜ ⎟ f w2
f w' 2 f nw ⎝ ΔP ⎠ s
∫ df w = (8.127)
'
0 krnw ⎛ q ⎞
⎜ ⎟
⎝ ΔP ⎠
⎛ q ⎞
⎜ ⎟
ΔP ⎠
Ir = ⎝ (8.128)
⎛ q ⎞
⎜ ⎟
⎝ ΔP ⎠ s
f nw 2 d ⎛ f' ⎞
= ' ⎜ w2 ⎟ (8.130)
krnw df w 2 ⎝ I r ⎠
f nw 2 d ⎛ 1 ⎞
= ⎜ ⎟ (8.131)
krnw ⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎝ Wi I r ⎠
d⎜ ⎟
⎝ Wi ⎠
8-56
Eq.(8.131) can be used to calculate the relative permeability of the non-
wetting phase as
f nw 2
krnw = (8.132)
d ⎛ 1 ⎞
⎜ ⎟
⎛ 1 ⎞ WI
d⎜ ⎟⎝ i r ⎠
⎝ Wi ⎠
μw ⎛ 1 ⎞
krw = ⎜ − 1⎟ krnw (8.133)
μnw ⎝ f nw 2 ⎠
The advantage of the unsteady method over the steady state method of
relative permeability measurement is that it is considerably faster. Because
the method is based on the Buckley-Leverett displacement model, the
unsteady state method can only be used to calculate relative permeability
curves between Swf and the wetting phase saturation at the residual
the case of a favorable mobility ratio displacement, then much of the relative
permeability curves cannot be obtained because one is limited to a very small
saturation observation window. To solve this problem, unfavorable mobility
ratio displacements are typically used to determine relative permeability
curves by the unsteady state method. Further, in order to minimize capillary
end effect, high displacement rates are also typically used. The combination
of high rate and adverse mobility ratio can lead to viscous instability that will
make the displacement performance to be rate sensitive. If this happens, the
relative permeability curves obtained by the unsteady state method will be
rate sensitive and can be quite different from the relative permeability curves
of the same porous medium obtained by the steady state method (Peters and
Khataniar, 1987).
8-57
Eqs.(8.117) and (8.132) call for differentiating the measured
experimental data. The challenge in calculating the relative permeability
curves from these equations is to ensure that the curves are smooth. Any type
of finite difference approximation of the derivatives will result in numerical
noise leading to noisy relative permeability curves. The best way to process
the experimental data is by fitting well behaved functions to the experimental
data and then differentiating the functions. Peters and Khataniar (1987) have
suggested the following curve fits, which they have shown to work well.
N pD = A1 + A2 ( ln Wi ) + A3 ( ln Wi )
2
(8.134)
2
⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎡ ⎛ 1 ⎞⎤
ln ⎜ ⎟ = B1 + B2 ln ⎜ ⎟ + B3 ⎢ln ⎜ ⎟ ⎥ (8.135)
⎝ Wi I r ⎠ ⎝ Wi ⎠ ⎣ ⎝ Wi ⎠ ⎦
Example 8.2
Table 8.2 gives the experimental data for an unsteady state relative
permeability measurement for a sandpack. In the experiment, water was used
to displace a viscous oil at a constant injection rate. The pore volume of water
injected (Wi), the cumulative oil produced (Qo) and the pressure drop across
the sandpack (ΔP) were measured as functions of time.
Wi Qo ΔP
PV %IOIP psi
0.339 38.28 9.02
0.351 38.95 8.30
0.395 40.10 6.91
0.439 40.91 6.07
0.502 41.92 5.42
0.587 42.95 4.87
8-58
0.670 43.77 4.55
0.840 45.11 4.00
1.137 46.55 3.32
1.604 47.96 2.78
2.029 48.96 2.52
2.624 50.08 2.42
3.225 50.78 2.30
4.346 51.78 2.13
5.719 52.67 1.99
7.092 53.23 1.90
8.464 53.67 1.83
10.516 54.16 1.79
11.203 54.34 1.75
12.578 54.60 1.74
13.271 54.71 1.70
14.644 54.82 1.70
16.016 54.90 1.70
8-59
Effective permeability to oil at irreducible water saturation = 3.16
Darcies
Oil recovery at water breakthrough = 38.28 % IOIP
Final oil recovery at termination of experiment = 54.9 % IOIP
5. Plot the graph of the true fractional flow curve measured in the
experiment.
2. Figures 8.24 and 8.25 show the curve fits of N pD versus ln Wi and
⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞
ln ⎜ ⎟ versus ln ⎜ ⎟ . The curve fit equations are
⎝ Wi I r ⎠ ⎝ Wi ⎠
2
⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎡ ⎛ 1 ⎞⎤
ln ⎜ ⎟ = −2.3600 + 1.5798ln ⎜ ⎟ + 0.1130 ⎢ln ⎜ ⎟ ⎥
⎝ Wi I r ⎠ ⎝ Wi ⎠ ⎣ ⎝ Wi ⎠ ⎦
8-60
dN pD 0.0474 − ( 2 )( 0.0066 ) ln Wi
f nw 2 = =
dWi Wi
⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎡ ⎛ 1 ⎞⎤ ⎛
d⎜ ⎟ ⎢ ( 2 )( 0.1130 ) ln ⎜ 2⎞
⎟ ⎥ ⎜⎜ −2.3600+1.5798ln ⎛⎜ W1 ⎞⎟ + 0.1130 ⎡⎢ln ⎛⎜ W1 ⎞⎟⎤⎥ ⎟⎟
= ⎝ i r ⎠=⎢ ⎝ Wi ⎠ ⎥ e⎝
f nw 2 WI 1.5798 ⎝ i⎠ ⎢⎣ ⎝ i ⎠ ⎥⎦
+ ⎠
krnw ⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎢⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎥
d⎜ ⎟ ⎢ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎥
⎝ Wi ⎠ ⎢⎣ ⎝ Wi ⎠ ⎝ Wi ⎠ ⎦⎥
Wi NpD ΔP
PV PV psi ln(Wi) ⎛ 1⎞ fnw2 Sw2 Ir 1 ⎛ 1 ⎞ f nw 2 krnw krw
ln ⎜ ⎟ ln ⎜ ⎟
⎝ Wi ⎠ Wi I r ⎝ Wi I r ⎠ k rnw
0.339 0.337 9.02 -1.082 1.082 0.182 0.395 4.335 0.680 -0.385 0.368 0.494 0.021
0.351 0.343 8.30 -1.047 1.047 0.174 0.401 4.711 0.605 -0.503 0.356 0.490 0.022
0.395 0.353 6.91 -0.929 0.929 0.151 0.413 5.659 0.447 -0.804 0.319 0.473 0.025
0.439 0.360 6.07 -0.823 0.823 0.133 0.421 6.442 0.354 -1.040 0.290 0.457 0.028
0.502 0.369 5.42 -0.689 0.689 0.113 0.432 7.214 0.276 -1.287 0.258 0.436 0.032
0.587 0.378 4.87 -0.533 0.533 0.093 0.443 8.029 0.212 -1.550 0.226 0.411 0.037
0.67 0.386 4.55 -0.400 0.400 0.079 0.452 8.594 0.174 -1.751 0.203 0.388 0.042
0.84 0.397 4.00 -0.174 0.174 0.059 0.467 9.775 0.122 -2.106 0.170 0.349 0.052
1.137 0.410 3.32 0.128 -0.128 0.040 0.483 11.778 0.075 -2.595 0.136 0.295 0.066
1.604 0.423 2.78 0.473 -0.473 0.026 0.500 14.065 0.044 -3.116 0.108 0.237 0.084
2.029 0.431 2.52 0.708 -0.708 0.019 0.512 15.517 0.032 -3.449 0.094 0.199 0.097
2.624 0.441 2.42 0.965 -0.965 0.013 0.526 16.158 0.024 -3.747 0.082 0.162 0.113
3.225 0.447 2.30 1.171 -1.171 0.010 0.534 17.001 0.018 -4.004 0.074 0.135 0.125
4.346 0.456 2.13 1.469 -1.469 0.006 0.547 18.358 0.013 -4.379 0.064 0.100 0.144
5.719 0.464 1.99 1.744 -1.744 0.004 0.559 19.649 0.009 -4.722 0.057 0.074 0.162
7.092 0.469 1.90 1.959 -1.959 0.003 0.566 20.580 0.007 -4.983 0.053 0.057 0.175
8.464 0.473 1.83 2.136 -2.136 0.002 0.573 21.367 0.006 -5.198 0.050 0.045 0.185
10.516 0.477 1.79 2.353 -2.353 0.002 0.580 21.844 0.004 -5.437 0.047 0.033 0.197
11.203 0.479 1.75 2.416 -2.416 0.001 0.582 22.344 0.004 -5.523 0.047 0.030 0.200
12.578 0.481 1.74 2.532 -2.532 0.001 0.586 22.472 0.004 -5.644 0.045 0.025 0.206
8-61
13.271 0.482 1.70 2.586 -2.586 0.001 0.588 23.001 0.003 -5.721 0.045 0.022 0.208
14.644 0.483 1.70 2.684 -2.684 0.001 0.590 23.001 0.003 -5.820 0.044 0.019 0.213
16.016 0.484 1.70 2.774 -2.774 0.001 0.592 23.001 0.003 -5.909 0.043 0.016 0.217
Figure 8.23. Raw experimental data for the unsteady state relative
permeability measurements of Example 8.2.
8-62
Figure 8.24. Curve fit of N pD versus ln Wi for Example 8.2.
⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞
Figure 8.25. Curve fit of ln ⎜ ⎟ versus ln ⎜ ⎟ for Example 8.2.
⎝ Wi I r ⎠ ⎝ Wi ⎠
4. Figure 8.26 shows the oil-water relative permeability curves from the
unsteady state experiment. It should be noted that the relative
permeability curves are obtained over the limited saturation range of
0.395 ≤ S w ≤ 0.592 . The relative permeability curves between S wirr = 0.119
and S wf = 0.395 cannot be obtained from the experiment. They can only
8-63
experiment predicts a residual oil saturation of 40% in this
homogeneous high permeability sand.
8-64
Figure 8.27. True fractional flow curve measured in the unsteady state
experiment of Example 8.2.
8-65
8.5.2 Saturation History
Like capillary pressure curves, relative permeability curves show
saturation hysteresis. Figure 8.28 shows typical relative permeability curves
for drainage and imbibition. The imbibition non-wetting phase relative
permeability curve is generally lower than the drainage curve at the same
saturations. The imbibition wetting phase relative permeability curve is
slightly greater than the drainage curve. These differences can easily be
explained. During drainage, the non-wetting phase flows through the large
pores displacing the wetting phase along the way. The thin film of wetting
phase that coats the grain surface acts as a lubricant for the flow of the non-
wetting phase. Therefore, the relative permeability to the non-wetting phase
will be high during drainage. That of the wetting phase also will be high
because it starts from 1 and decreases as the non-wetting phase begins to
occupy some of the pores that were previously occupied by the wetting phase.
During imbibition, some of the non-wetting phase will be trapped in the large
pores. This capillary trapping reduces the amount of non-wetting phase
available to flow during imbibition compared to during drainage. It also
reduces the cross-sectional area of the medium occupied by the connected
non-wetting phase. As a result, the imbibition relative permeability to the
non-wetting phase is reduced compared to that during drainage. Because of
capillary trapping of the non-wetting phase during imbibition, the wetting
phase is forced to occupy and flow through pore sizes that are larger than it
would otherwise have flowed if there was no trapping of the non-wetting
phase. This forcing of the wetting phase to flow through larger pores than it
would otherwise have done in the absence of trapping enhances the relative
permeability of the wetting phase on the imbibition cycle compared to the
drainage cycle. These observations are in accord with the experimental results
shown in Figure 8.28.
8-66
Figure 8.28. Relative permeability hysteresis (Osoba et al., 1951).
8.5.3 Wettability
Relative permeability curves are markedly affected by the wettability of
the medium. Jennings (1957) measured steady state oil water relative
permeability curves on a core that was initially strongly water wet. He then
treated the core with a surface active agent (organo chlorosilane) that
rendered the core oil wet and repeated the relative permeability
measurements. The results are shown Figure 8.29. In general, the relative
permeability to oil decreases while the relative permeability to water increases
as the medium changes from a strongly water wet to a strongly oil wet
8-67
medium. It is interesting to replot the relative permeability curves of Figure
8.29 as functions of wetting phase saturation instead of water saturation. The
replotted curves are shown in Figure 8.30. We see that when plotted against
the wetting phase saturation, the relative permeability curves for the oil wet
core and the water wet core are close to each other. They are not identical
because the degree of wettability preference in the two experiments may be
different. However, the relative permeability curves for the wetting phase and
the non-wetting phase from the two experiments are essentially the same.
8-68
Figure 8.29. Effect of strong preferential wettability on steady state relative
permeability curves (Jennings, 1957).
8-69
At a given saturation, the relative permeability for a phase is higher
when that phase is the non-wetting phase than when it is the wetting phase.
This is observation can be seen in Figure 8.29. At any water saturation, the
relative permeability to water is higher when the water was the non-wetting
phase than when it was the wetting phase. Similarly, at any water saturation,
the relative permeability to oil is higher when the oil was the non-wetting
phase than when it was the wetting phase.
8-70
increased. The water curve increases and the oil curve decreases away from
the steady state curves as the degree of instability of the displacement
experiment increases.
8-71
Figure 8.32. Effect of stability number on unsteady state relative permeability
curves for oil wet sandpacks (Peters and Khataniar, 1987).
8-72
Figure 8.33. Effect of stability number on unsteady state relative permeability
curves for water wet sandpacks (Peters and Khataniar, 1987).
8-73
Figure 8.34. Effect of viscosity ratio on relative permeability curves obtained
by the steady state method (Leverett, 1939).
8-74
increased as the interfacial tension decreased. The residual fluid saturations
decreased as the interfacial tension decreased as expected from the effect of
capillary number on residual fluid saturations. In the limit, at ultra-low
interfacial tensions, the relative permeability curves were approximately
straight lines. These general trends in the effect of interfacial tensions on
relative permeability curves have been confirmed by Amaefule and Handy
(1981).
8-75
space available for multiphase flow. Therefore, for such rocks, end point
relative permeabilities are high and a large saturation change may occur
during two phase flow. By contrast, rocks with small pores have larger
specific surface areas and larger irreducible water saturations that leave less
room for multiphase flow. As a result, the end point relative permeabilities
are lower and the saturation range for two phase flow is smaller than in rocks
with large pores. Finally, rocks having some relatively large pores connected
by small pores have a large surface area, resulting in high irreducible water
saturation and relative permeability behavior that is similar to rocks with
small pores only. These observations are summarized in Figure 8.36.
8.5.8 Temperature
There are data in the literature that suggest that relative permeability
curves are affected by temperature. Poston et al., (1970) found that
temperature causes residual oil saturation to decrease and irreducible water
saturation to increase, with corresponding increases in relative permeability
curves (Figure 8.37). On the other hand, there are data in the literature that
also show that relative permeabilities are not temperature dependent (Miller
and Ramey, 1985). Apparently, the effect of temperature on relative
permeabilities is still and open question. This situation is understandable
because temperature can affect rock and fluid properties which in turn can
affect relative permeability curves. For example, high temperature can change
the wettability of the rock which affects relative permeabilities. It can also
reduce interfacial tensions, which can affect relative permeabilities and the
irreducible saturations. Because of the effect of temperature on the other
properties of the system that can affect relative permeabilities, it is difficult to
categorically determine the effect of temperature on relative permeabilities.
8-76
Figure 8.36. Effect of pore structure on relative permeability curves; (a)
sandstone with large, well-connected pores with k = 1314 md; (b) sandstone
with small, well-connected pores with k = 20 md; (c) sandstone with a few
large pores connected with small pores with k = 36 md (Morgan and Gordon,
1970).
8-77
Figure 8.37. Effect of temperature on relative permeability curves (Poston et
al., 1970).
8.5.9 Heterogeneity
Relative permeabilities are typically measured on homogeneous core
samples. These curves are then used in numerical simulators to model the
performance of heterogeneous reservoirs. It is often necessary to adjust the
laboratory measured relative permeability curves in order to successfully
history match the performance of the heterogeneous reservoirs. Gharbi and
Peters (1993) simulated the waterflood performance of a heterogeneous
reservoir using a set of input relative permeability curves and then used the
simulated oil recovery versus pore volumes of water injected and the
simulated pressure drop to calculate the equivalent relative permeability
curves for the heterogeneous medium by the JBN method. Figure 8.38
8-78
compares the input relative permeabilities with the computed equivalent
relative permeabilities for the heterogeneous medium. The effect of the
heterogeneity is to shift the oil and water relative permeabilities to low water
saturations thereby increasing the water relative permeability curve and
decreasing the oil relative permeability curve. Thus, the relative
permeabilities for the heterogeneous medium are similar to the relative
permeabilities for a strongly oil wet medium.
8-79
saturation diagram, the approximate regions of single phase flow, two phase
flow and three phase flow in an oil, water and gas system ( Leverett and Lewis,
1941). It can be seen that the three phase flow region is small compared to
single phase and two phase flow regions. Figures 8.40, 8.41 and 8.42 show
the three phase water, oil and gas relative permeabilities measured by
Leverett and Lewis (1941). They found that the relative permeability to water
was only a function of the water saturation. However, the relative
permeabilities to oil and gas were functions of all three fluid saturations.
Figure 8.39. Approximate limits of saturations giving 5 per cent or more of all
components in flow stream for the flow of nitrogen, kerosene and brine.
Arrows point to increasing fraction of respective components in stream
(Leverett and Lewis, 1941).
8-80
Figure 8.40. Three phase relative permeability to water (Leverett and Lewis,
1941).
Figure 8.41. Three phase relative permeability to oil (Leverett and Lewis,
1941).
8-81
Figure 8.42. Three phase relative permeability to gas (Leverett and Lewis,
1941).
8-82
Sw
dS w
kw ∫ Pc 2
krw ( S w ) = = 0
1
(7.159)
k dS
∫0 Pc 2w
and
1
dS w
knw
∫ Pc 2
krnw ( S w ) = = (7.160)
Sw
1
k dS
∫0 Pc 2w
We found that these models were defective in two respects: (1) they do not
include trapped residual saturations and (2) the sum of the relative
permeabilities is equal to 1, which is contrary to experimental observations.
These deficiencies result from the fact that the models neglect certain facts
about the nature of two phase flow in porous media. First, the cross-sectional
area open to the flow of the wetting phase is not a constant as assumed in the
models but is a function of the wetting phase saturation. Second, the
tortuosity for the flow of the wetting phase, which was neglected in the
models, is also a function of the wetting phase saturation. Burdine (1953)
proposed the following normalized drainage relative permeability models,
which account for these saturation dependencies in the cross-sectional area
and the tortuosity for two phase flow:
S w*
1
* ∫P 2
dS w*
= ( S w* )
kw ( S ) 2
krw ( S w* ) = w 0 c
(8.136)
k w ( S w = 1)
* 1
1
∫0 Pc2 dSw
*
1
1
* ∫P 2
dS w*
= (1 − S w* )
knw ( S ) 2 S w* c
krnw ( S w* ) = w
(8.137)
knw ( S w = 0)
* 1
1
∫0 Pc2 dSw
*
8-83
where S w* is the normalized wetting phase saturation given by
S w − S wirr
S w* = (8.138)
1 − S wirr
In Eqs.(8.136) and (8.137), the ratios of the integrals on the right side
account for the cross-sectional area changes with saturations and the terms
(S )
* 2
w and (1 − S )
* 2
w account for the tortuosity changes with saturations. It
should be noted that the base permeability used in Eq.(8.136) to define the
normalized relative permeability to the wetting phase is equal to the absolute
permeability of the medium, whereas the base permeability used to define the
normalized relative permeability to the non-wetting phase in Eq.(8.137) is
equal to the effective permeability to the non-wetting phase at the irreducible
wetting phase saturation. Thus, the normalized wetting phase relative
permeability given by Eq.(8.136) is also the true relative permeability to the
wetting phase. However, the normalized non-wetting phase relative
permeability given by Eq.(8.137) must be multiplied by the end point relative
permeability to the non-wetting phase (knwr) in order to obtain the true non-
8-84
pressure curve and then integrate the resulting linear function. As discussed
in Section 7.13.1, the Brooks-Corey drainage capillary pressure model is given
by
ln S w* = −λ ln Pc + λ ln Pe (7.161)
or
1
ln Pc = − ln S w* + ln Pe (7.162)
λ
and
1
Pc = Pe ( S w* )
−
λ (7.164)
where λ is the pore size distribution index obtained from the straight line
given by Eq.(7.161) or (7.162). Substituting Eq.(7.164) into Eqs.(8.136) and
(8.137) and performing the integrations gives the normalized drainage relative
permeability curves as
2 + 3λ
krw ( S w ) = ( S w* ) λ (8.139)
and
2+λ
2 ⎡ ⎤
krnw ( S w ) = (1 − S w* ) ⎢1 − ( S w* ) λ ⎥ (8.140)
⎣ ⎦
A critical saturation can be introduced into the relative permeability model for
the non-wetting phase as
2
⎛ S − S wirr ⎞ ⎡ 2+ λ
⎤
krnw ( S w ) = ⎜ 1 − w ⎟ ⎢ ( w) λ ⎥
− (8.141)
*
1 S
⎝ Sm − S wirr ⎠ ⎣ ⎦
8-85
where Sm is the wetting phase saturation corresponding to the critical non-
wetting phase saturation. Finally, the true relative permeability curve for the
wetting and non-wetting phases are given by
2 + 3λ
krw ( S w ) = ( S w* ) λ (8.142)
2
⎛ S − S wi ⎞ ⎡ 2+λ
⎤
krnw ( S w ) = knwr ⎜ 1 − w ⎟ ⎢1 − ( S *
) λ
⎥ (8.143)
⎝ Sm − S wi ⎠ ⎣
w
⎦
Example 8.3
Use the air-water capillary pressure data of Table 8.4 to calculate the
drainage relative permeability curves by the method of Brooks and Corey for a
core sample.
8-86
0.300 54.691
0.278 78.408
ln Pc = −2.1443ln S w* + ln 2.2238
Therefore,
1
− = −2.1443
λ
λ = 0.4664
Pe = 2.2238
*
Figure 8.44 shows the graph of lnS w versus lnPc for Swi = 0.10. It also is
linear and could have been used for the subsequent calculations. The Brooks-
Corey drainage capillary pressure equation is given by
1
Pc = Pe ( S )
* −λ
= 2.2238 ( S w* )
−2.1443
w
relative permeability curves for Sm = 0.95 and knwr = 0.961. The results of the
8-87
*
Figure 8.43. Log-log graph of Pc versus S w for Example 8.3.
*
Figure 8.44. Log-log graph of S w versus Pc for Example 8.3.
8-88
Figure 8.45. Normalized drainage relative permeability curves for Example
8.3.
Figure 8.46. True drainage relative permeability curves for Example 8.3.
8-89
Table 8.5. Results of Drainage Relative Permeability Calculations for Example
8.3
Brooks-Corey
Original Data Model Drainage Relative Permeability Curves
Pc Pc
Sw psi S *
w psi krw ( S w ) krnw ( S w ) krw krnw
1.000 1.973 1.000 2.224 1.000 0.000 1.000 0.000
0.950 2.377 0.944 2.514 0.659 0.001 0.659 0.000
0.900 2.840 0.889 2.863 0.424 0.006 0.424 0.002
0.850 3.377 0.833 3.288 0.265 0.017 0.265 0.008
0.800 4.008 0.778 3.812 0.160 0.036 0.160 0.022
0.750 4.757 0.722 4.468 0.093 0.063 0.093 0.044
0.700 5.663 0.667 5.305 0.052 0.098 0.052 0.073
0.650 6.781 0.611 6.393 0.028 0.140 0.028 0.111
0.600 8.195 0.556 7.843 0.014 0.189 0.014 0.156
0.550 10.039 0.500 9.831 0.006 0.244 0.006 0.208
0.500 12.547 0.444 12.656 0.003 0.304 0.003 0.266
0.450 16.154 0.389 16.851 0.001 0.371 0.001 0.331
0.400 21.787 0.333 23.452 0.000 0.443 0.000 0.401
0.350 31.817 0.278 34.672 0.000 0.521 0.000 0.479
0.300 54.691 0.222 55.947 0.000 0.605 0.000 0.562
0.278 78.408 0.198 71.829 0.000 0.643 0.000 0.601
0.250 0.167 103.678 0.000 0.694 0.000 0.652
0.200 0.111 247.331 0.000 0.790 0.000 0.749
0.150 0.056 1093.394 0.000 0.892 0.000 0.852
0.100 0.000 0.000 1.000 0.000 0.962
8-90
NOMENCLATURE
A = cross sectional area in the flow direction
Bo = oil formation volume factor
Bw = water formation volume factor
fw = fractional flow of wetting phase
fw = fractional flow of water
fnw = fractional flow of non-wetting phase
fnw2 = fractional flow of non-wetting phase at the outlet end of porous
medium
fo = fractional flow of oil
Fw = approximate fractional flow of wetting phase
g = gravitational acceleration
Ir = relative injectivity
J = Leverett J-function
k = absolute permeability of the medium
ko = effective permeability to oil
kw = effective permeability to water
kwr = end-point relative permeability to wetting phase
kg = effective permeability to gas
kro = relative permeability to oil
krw = relative permeability to water
krg = relative permeability to gas
krw = relative permeability to wetting phase
krnw= relative permeability to non-wetting phase
knwr= end-point relative permeability to non-wetting phase
L = length
M = mobility ratio
ME = end-point mobility ratio
Ncap = dimensionless capillary to viscous force ratio
Ng = gravity number
NpD = dimensionless cumulative production
8-91
Nvcap = capillary number
P = pressure
Pc = capillary pressure
Pe = displacement pressure for Brooks-Corey model
Pg = pressure in the gas phase
Pnw= pressure in the non-wetting phase
Po = pressure in the oil phase
Pc/ow = oil-water capillary pressure curve
Pc/go = gas-oil capillary pressure curve
Pc/gw = gas-water capillary pressure curve
Pw = pressure in the water phase
Pw = pressure in the wetting phase
q = total volumetric injection rate
qo = volumetric flow rate of oil
qg = volumetric flow rate of gas
qnw= volumetric flow rate of non-wetting phase
qw = volumetric flow rate of water
qw = volumetric flow rate of wetting phase
Qi = cumulative injection
Qnw = cumulative non-wetting phase produced
Qo = cumulative oil produced
R = oil recovery as a fraction of initial oil in place
Se = effective wetting phase saturation
Sg = gas saturation
So = oil saturation
Sor = residual oil saturation
Sw = water saturation
Sw = wetting phase saturation
Swirr = irreducible wetting phase saturation
8-92
Swro= wetting phase saturation at which imbibition capillary pressure is
zero
Sw2 = wetting phase saturation at the outlet end of porous medium
Snw= non-wetting phase saturation
Snwr = residual non-wetting phase saturation
Swav = average wetting phase saturation
Swav = average water saturation
Swf = frontal saturation
S w* = normalized wetting phase saturation
t = time
tbt = breakthrough time
tD = dimensionless time
G
v = flux vector, Darcy velocity vector
vw = Darcy velocity for the wetting phase
vnw = Darcy velocity for the non-wetting phase
x = distance in the direction of flow
xf = distance to the displacement front
xD = dimensionless distance
xDf = dimensionless distance to the displacement front
ρo = density of oil
ρw = density of water
ρw = density of wetting phase
σ = interfacial tension
8-93
θ = contact angle
λ = pore size distribution index
μ = viscosity
μg = gas viscosity
μο = oil viscosity
μw = water viscosity
μw = wetting phase viscosity
μnw= non-wetting phase viscosity
φ = porosity, fraction
τ = tortuosity
γ = liquid specific gravity
ω = angular velocity of centrifuge
ΔP = pressure drop
ΔPw = pressure drop in the wetting phase
ΔPnw = pressure drop in the non-wetting phase
Γ = pore structure
8-94
Brutsaert, W. : "Some Methods of Calculating Unsaturated Permeability,"
Trans. of the Amer. Soc. of Agricultural Engineers, Vol. 10 (1967) 400-
404.
Buckley, S.E. and Leverett, M.C. : “Mechanism of Fluid Displacement in
Sands,” J. Pet. Tech. (May 1941) 107-116.
Burdine, N.T. : “Relative Permeability Calculations From Pore Size
Distribution Data,” Trans., AIME (1953) 71-78.
Campbell, G.S. : "A Simple Method for Determining Unsaturated Conductivity
from Moisture Retention Data," Soil Sci., Vol. 117, No. 6 (1974) 311-
314.
Charbeneau, R.J. and Daniel, D.E. : "Contaminant Transport in Unsaturated
Flow," Chapter 15, in Handbook of Hydrology, D.R. Maidment (Ed.),
McGraw-Hill Inc., New York, 1993.
Collins, R.E. : Flow of Fluids Through Porous Materials, Research &
Engineering Consultants Inc., 1990.
Corey, A.T. : Mechanics of Heterogeneous Fluids in Porous Media, Water
Resources Publications, Fort Collins, Colorado, 1977.
Craig, F.F., Jr. : The Reservoir Engineering Aspects of Waterflooding, SPE
Monograph Vol. 3, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Richardson, Texas,
1971.
Daniel, D.E. : "Permeability Test for Unconsolidated Soil," Geotechnical
Testing Journal., Vol. 6, No. 2 (1983) 81-86.
Daniel, D.E., Trautwein, S.J., Boyton, S.S. and Foreman, D.E. : "Permeability
Testing with Flexible-Wall Permeabilities for Unconsolidated Soil,"
Geotechnical Testing Journal., Vol. 7, No. 3 (1984) 113-122.
Delshad, M. and Pope, G.A. : “Comparison of the Three-Phase Oil Relative
Permeability Models,” Transport in Porous Media 4 (1989) 59-83.
Douglas, J., Jr., Blair, P.M. and Wagner, R.J. : “Calculation of Linear
Waterflood Behavior Including the Effects of Capillary Pressure,” Trans.,
AIME (1958) 213, 96-102.
Dullien, F.A.L. : Porous Media - Fluid Transport and Pore Structure, Academic
Press, New York, 1979.
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.
8-95
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.
Graue, A., Kolltvelt, K., Lien, J.R. and Skauge, A. : "Imaging Fluid Saturation
Development in Long-Core Flood Displacements," SPE Formation
Evaluation (December 1990) 406-412.
Hardham, W. D.: Computerized Tomography Applied to the Visualization of
Fluid Displacements, MS Thesis, University of Texas at Austin,
December 1988.
Honarpour, M., Koederitz, L. and Harvey, A.H. : Relative Permeability of
Petroleum Reservoirs, CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, Florida, 1986.
Jennings, H.Y. : “Surface Properties of Natural and Synthetic Porous Media,”
Producers Monthly (March 1957) 20-24.
Jennings, H.J. : “How to Handle and Process Soft and Unconsolidated Cores,”
World Oil (June 1965) 116-119.
Johnson, E.F., Bossler, D.P. and Naumann, V.O. : “Calculation of Relative
Permeability from Displacement Experiments,” Trans., AIME (1959)
216, 370-372.
Jones, S.C. and Roszelle, W.O. : “Graphical Techniques for Determining
Relative Permeability from Displacement Experiments,” J. Pet. Tech.
(May 1978) 807-817.
Keelan, D.K. : "A Critical Review of Core Analysis Techniques” The Jour. Can.
Pet. Tech. (April-June 1972) 42-55.
Khataniar, S. and E. J. Peters: “The Effect of Heterogeneity on the
Performance of Unstable Displacements,” Journal of Petroleum Science
and Engineering, 7, No. 3/4 (May 1992) 263-81.
Khataniar, S. and E. J. Peters: “A Comparison of the Finite Difference and
Finite Element Methods for Simulating Unstable Displacements,”
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 5, (1991) 205-218.
Khataniar, S. : An Experimental Study of the Effect of Instability on Dynamic
Displacement Relative Permeability Measurements, MS Thesis,
University of Texas, Austin, Tx, August 1985.
Khataniar, S.: A Numerical Study of the Performance of Unstable
Displacements in Heterogeneous Media, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of
Texas at Austin, August 1991.
Killins, C.R., Nielsen, R.F. and Calhoun, J.C., Jr.: “Capillary Desaturation and
Imbibition in Rocks,” Producers Monthly (February 1953) 18, No. 2, 30-
39.
8-96
Klute, A. : "Water Retention: Laboratory Methods," Methods of Soil Analysis,
Part 1, A. Klute (Ed.), American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI
(1986) 635-686.
Klute, A. : "Hydraulic Conductivity and Diffusivity: Laboratory Methods,"
Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 1, A. Klute (Ed.), American Society of
Agronomy, Madison, WI (1986) 687-734.
Kyte, J.R. and Rapoport, L.A. : “Linear Waterflood Behavior and End Effects in
Water-Wet Porous Media,” Trans., AIME (1958) 213, 423-426.
Lake, L.W. : Enhanced Oil Recovery, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey, 1989.
Land, C.S. : "Calculation of Imbibition Relative Permeability for Two- and
Three-Phase Flow From Rock Properties,” SPEJ (June 1968) 149-156.
Land, C.S. : "Comparison of Calculated with Experimental Imbibition Relative
Permeability,” SPEJ (Dec. 1971) 419-425.
Lefebvre du Prey, E.J. : “Factors Affecting Liquid-Liquid Relative
Permeabilities of a Consolidated Porous Medium,” Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (Feb.
1973) 39-47.
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.
Leverett, M.C. : “Flow of Oil-Water Mixtures through Unconsolidated Sands,”
Trans., AIME (1939) 140, xxx-xxx.
Leverett, M.C. : “Capillary Behavior in Porous Solids,” Trans., AIME (1941)
142, 152-169.
Li, Ping: Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Fluid Displacements in
Porous Media, PhD Dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin,
Austin, Texas, August 1997.
Majors, P.D., Li, P. and Peters, E.J. :”NMR Imaging of Immiscible
Displacements in Porous Media,” Society of Petroleum Engineers
Formation Evaluation (September 1997) 164-169.
Marle, C.M. : Multiphase Flow in Porous Media, Gulf Publishing Company,
Houston, Texas, 1981.
Miller, M.A. and Ramey, H.J., Jr. : “Effect of Temperature on Oil/Water
Relative Permeability of Unconsolidated and Consolidated Sands,” Soc.
Pet. Eng. J. (Dec. 1985) 945-953.
Morrow, N.R., Cram, P.J. and McCaffery, F.G. : "Displacement Studies in
Dolomite With Wettability Control by Octanoic Acid," SPEJ (August
1973) 221-232.
8-97
Morgan, J.T. and Gordon, D.T. : “Influence of Pore Geometry on Water-Oil
Relative Permeability,” J. Pet. Tech. (October 1970) 1199-1208.
Mungan, N. : “Enhanced Oil Recovery Using Water as a Driving Fluid; Part 2 -
Interfacial Phenomena and Oil Recovery: Wettability,” World Oil (March
1981) 77-83.
Mungan, N. : “Enhanced Oil Recovery Using Water as a Driving Fluid; Part 3 -
Interfacial Phenomena and Oil Recovery: Capillarity,” World Oil (May
1981) 149-158.
Mungan, N. and Moore, E.J. : "Certain Wettability Effects on Electrical
Resisitivity in Porous Media," J. Cdn. Pet. Tech. (Jan.-March 1968) 7,
No.1, 20-25.
Muqeem, M.A., Bentsen, R.G. and Maini, B.B. : “Effect of Temperature on
Three-phase Water-oil-gas Relative Permeabilities of Unconsolidated
Sand,” J. Canadian Pet. Tech. (March 1995) 34-41.
Osoba, J.S., Richardson, J.G., Kerver, J.K., Hafford, J.A. and Blair, P.M. :
“Laboratory Measurements of Relative Permeability,” Trans., AIME
(1951) 192, 47-56.
Perkins, F.M. : "An Investigation of the Role of Capillary Forces in Laboratory
Water Floods," Trans. AIME (1957) Vol. 210, 409-411.
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 Flock, D.L. : “The Onset of Instability During Two-Phase
Immiscible Displacement in Porous Media,” Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (April 1981)
249-258; Trans., AIME (1981) 271.
Peters, E. J., J. A. Broman and W. H. Broman, Jr.: “Computer Image
Processing: A New Tool for Studying Viscous Fingering in Corefloods,”
SPE Reservoir Engineering (November 1987) 720-28
Peters, E. J. and W. D. Hardham: “A Comparison of Unstable Miscible and
Immiscible Displacements,” SPE 19640, Proceedings of the 64th Annual
Technical Conference of the Society of Petroleum Engineers (October
1989) San Antonio.
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.
8-98
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.
Peters, E.J. and Khataniar, S. : “The Effect of Instability on Relative
Permeability Curves Obtained by the Dynamic-Displacement Method,”
SPEFE (Dec. 1987) 469-474.
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.
Purcell, W.R. : “Capillary Pressures - Their Measurement Using Mercury and
the Calculation of Permeability There From,” Trans., AIME (1949) 186,
39-48.
Rapoport, L.A. and Leas, W.J. : “Properties of Linear Waterfloods,” Trans.,
AIME (1953) 198, 139-148.
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.
Richardson, J.G., Kerver, J.K., Hafford, J.A. and Osoba, J.S. : “Laboratory
Determination of Relative Permeability,” Trans., AIME (1952) 195, 187-
196.
Rose, H.E. : “ An Investigation into the the Laws of Flow of Fluids Through
Granular Material,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. (1945) 153, 141-148.
Scheidegger, A.E. : The Physics of Flow Through Porous Media, University of
Toronto Press, Toronto, 1960.
Stiles, W.E : “Use of Permeability Distributions in Water Flood Calculations,”
Trans., AIME (1949) 186, 9-13.
van Genuchten, M.T. : "A Closed-Form Equation for Predicting the Hydraulic
Conductivity of Unsaturated Soils," Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., Vol. 44 (1980)
892-898.
Vauclin, M. : "Flow of Water and Air: Theoretical and Experimental Aspects,"
in Unsaturated Flow in Hydrologic Modeling: Theory and Practice, H.J.
Morel-Seytoux (Ed.), NATO ASI Series C: Mathematical and Physical
Sciences, Vol. 275, 1989.
Welge, H.J. : “A Simplified Method for Computing Oil Recovery by Gas or
Water Drive,” Trans., AIME (1952) 195, 91-98.
8-99
Willhite, G. P. : Waterflooding, SPE Textbook Series Vol. 3, Society of
Petroleum Engineers, Richardson, Texas, 1986.
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 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.
8-100
APPENDIX A
Summary
Introduction
Dimensional analysis is a powerful tool for solving engineering
problems. It can be used to design cost effective experimental programs,
organize presentations of experimental as well as numerical simulation
results, and to scale the results of model experiments to predict the
performance of a large scale system, the prototype system.
A-1
deriving the dimensionless groups. Perhaps, because of this cursory
treatment, most engineers have failed to appreciate the power of the
technique and have therefore not taken advantage of it in their work.
[ui ] = M a Lb T ci i i
(A.1)
power product u1x1 u2x2 ...unxn is dimensionless; that is, has the dimensions of
M0L0T0.
⎡⎣u1x1 u2x2 ...unxn ⎤⎦ = M ( a1x1 + a2 x2 +...+ an xn ) L( b1x1 +b2 x2 +...+bn xn )T ( c1x1 + c2 x2 +...+ cn xn ) (A.2)
A-2
a1 x1 + a2 x2 + ... + an xn = 0 (A.3)
b1 x1 + b2 x2 + ... + bn xn = 0 (A.4)
c1 x1 + c2 x2 + ... + cn xn = 0 (A.5)
Eqs. (A.3) to (A.5) are derived from Eq.(A.2) by setting the dimensions of
mass (M), length (L) and time (T) to zero, respectively. Eqs.(A.3) to (A.5)
constitute a homogeneous system of linear algebraic equations for the n
unknowns x1 , x2 ,..., xn . The system of equations is homogeneous because
⎡ x1 ⎤
⎢x ⎥
⎡ a1 a2 a3 a4 ... an ⎤ ⎢ 2 ⎥ ⎡0 ⎤
⎢x ⎥
⎢b
⎢ 1 b2 b3 b4 ... bn ⎥⎥ ⎢ 3 ⎥ = ⎢⎢0 ⎥⎥ (A.6)
x
⎢⎣ c1 c2 c3 c4 ... cn ⎥⎦ ⎢ 4 ⎥ ⎢⎣0 ⎥⎦
⎢ ... ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢⎣ xn ⎥⎦
or
G
Ax = 0 (A.7)
⎡ a1 a2 a3 a4 ... an ⎤
A = ⎢⎢ b1 b2 b3 b4 ... bn ⎥⎥ (A.8)
⎢⎣ c1 c2 c3 c4 ... cn ⎥⎦
A-3
G
and x is the vector of the unknowns. In general, because there are more
unknowns than equations, the dimensional matrix is usually an
mxn matrix in which m < n . A homogeneous system of linear algebraic
equations with more unknowns than equations usually has an infinite
number of nontrivial solutions. It is these nontrivial solutions that give
rise to the dimensionless π groups we seek.
A-4
⎡ x1 ⎤
⎢x ⎥
⎢ 2⎥
⎡1 0 0 a14 a15 ... a1n ⎤ ⎢ x3 ⎥ ⎡0 ⎤
⎢ ⎥
⎢0 1 0 a
⎢ 24 a25 ... a2 n ⎥⎥ ⎢ x4 ⎥ = ⎢⎢0 ⎥⎥ (A.9)
⎢⎣ 0 0 1 a34 a35 ... a3n ⎥⎦ ⎢ x5 ⎥ ⎢⎣0 ⎥⎦
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ... ⎥
⎢x ⎥
⎣ n⎦
x5 = x5 (A.14)
...
xn = xn (A.15)
A-5
Eqs.(A.10) to (A.15), which constitute the required solution to the
dimensional analysis problem, can be rearranged as a linear combination
of ( n − r ) vectors as follows:
Eq.(A.16) as
A-6
eigenvectors are the bases vectors for the null space of the dimensional
matrix, their linear combinations can be used to access every part of the
vector space thereby allowing us to derive other (n − r ) complete and
Eq.(A.16) becomes
⎡ x1 ⎤ ⎡ − a14 ⎤
⎢x ⎥ ⎢ −a ⎥
⎢ 2⎥ ⎢ 24 ⎥
⎢ x3 ⎥ ⎢ − a34 ⎥
⎢ ⎥ G ⎢ ⎥
⎢ x4 ⎥ = e1 = ⎢ 1 ⎥ (A.18)
⎢ x5 ⎥ ⎢ 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ ... ⎥ ⎢ ... ⎥
⎢x ⎥ ⎢ 0 ⎥
⎣ n⎦ ⎣ ⎦
A-7
π 1 = u1− a u2− a u3− a u14u50 ...un0
14 24 34
becomes
⎡ x1 ⎤ ⎡ −a15 ⎤
⎢x ⎥ ⎢ −a ⎥
⎢ 2⎥ ⎢ 25 ⎥
⎢ x3 ⎥ ⎢ − a35 ⎥
⎢ ⎥ G ⎢ ⎥
⎢ x4 ⎥ = e2 = ⎢ 0 ⎥ (A.19)
⎢ x5 ⎥ ⎢ 1 ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ ... ⎥ ⎢ ... ⎥
⎢x ⎥ ⎢ 0 ⎥
⎣ n⎦ ⎣ ⎦
⎡ x1 ⎤ ⎡ −a1n ⎤
⎢x ⎥ ⎢ −a ⎥
⎢ 2⎥ ⎢ 2n ⎥
⎢ x3 ⎥ ⎢ − a3n ⎥
⎢ ⎥ G ⎢ ⎥
⎢ x4 ⎥ = en − r = ⎢ 0 ⎥ (A.20)
⎢ x5 ⎥ ⎢ 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ ... ⎥ ⎢ ... ⎥
⎢x ⎥ ⎢ 1 ⎥
⎣ n⎦ ⎣ ⎦
A-8
Transformations of the Dimensionless π Groups
The π groups π1, π2, ..., πn–r are complete and independent. However,
they are not unique. By appropriate choice of the values for x4, x5, ..., xn,
other complete and independent dimensionless π groups can be derived.
However, these new complete sets will be found to be transformations of
π1, π2, ..., πn–r. To ensure that the new set of π groups is complete, we
must derive (n − r ) of them. To ensure that the new π groups are
Example Problem
DL = f1 ( μ s , D p , u , Do , μo , ρ s , ρ o , g ) (A.21)
A-9
The objective is to derive a complete and independent set of
dimensionless π groups that affect the longitudinal dispersion coefficient
by dimensional analysis.
Procedure
Step 1.
Step 2.
Next, we form the power product of all the variables involved in the
problem to obtain
Step 3.
Step 4.
(i.e., has dimensions of M0L0T0). This step gives rise to the following
A-10
system of linear homogeneous algebraic equations for the powers x1, x2,
x3, x4, x5, x6 and x7:
x1 + x5 + x6 = 0 (A.23)
− x1 + x2 + x3 + 2 x4 − x5 − 2 x6 + 2 x7 = 0 (A.24)
− x1 − x3 − x4 − x5 − 2 x6 − x7 = 0 (A.25)
Eq.(A.23) comes from insisting that the power product have a mass
from T0. Let us organize Eqs.(A.23), (A.24) and (A.25) into a matrix
equation as follows:
A-11
⎡ x1 ⎤
⎢x ⎥
⎢ 2⎥
⎡ 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 ⎤ ⎢ x3 ⎥ ⎡ 0 ⎤
⎢ −1 1 1 2 −1 −2 2 ⎥ ⎢ x ⎥ = ⎢0 ⎥ (A.26)
⎢ ⎥⎢ 4⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢⎣ −1 0 −1 −1 −1 −2 −1⎥⎦ ⎢ x5 ⎥ ⎢⎣ 0 ⎥⎦
⎢ ⎥
⎢ x6 ⎥
⎢x ⎥
⎣ n⎦
⎡1 0 0 0 1 1 0⎤
A = ⎢⎢ −1 1 1 2 −1 −2 2 ⎥⎥ (A.27)
⎢⎣ −1 0 −1 −1 −1 −2 −1⎥⎦
Step 3 (revised).
x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 x6 x7
μs Dp u Do μo Δρg DL
M 1 0 0 0 1 1 0
L –1 1 1 2 –1 –2 2
T –1 0 –1 –1 –1 –2 –1
A-12
It should be noted that the first row of the dimensional matrix is the
power of M in each variable, the second row is the power of L and the
third row is the power of T. This is what the first column of Table 2 is
designed to show. It should also be noted that the variables and their
powers in Eq.(A.2) have been placed on top of the dimensional matrix to
remind us of the relationship between the variables and the entries in
the dimensional matrix.
Step 4 (revised).
A-13
complete and independent dimensionless π groups in advance by
determining the rank of the dimensional matrix without actually solving
the system of equations.
1 0 0
1 1
determinant −1 1 1 = 1xdeterminant = −1 (A.28)
0 −1
−1 0 −1
A-14
of equations. Our initial objective in the solution process is to perform
the elimination to the point that the first 3x3 submatrix of A is
transformed into a unit matrix of the form
1 0 0
0 1 0 (28)
0 0 1
Table 3
x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 x6 x7
μs k u Do μo Δρg DL
M 1 0 0 0 1 1 0
L 0 1 1 2 0 –1 2
T –1 0 –1 –1 –1 –2 –1
Add rows 1 and 3 of Table 3 and place the outcome in row 3. The result
is shown in Table 4.
Table 4
x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 x6 x7
μs k u Do μo Δρg DL
A-15
M 1 0 0 0 1 1 0
L 0 1 1 2 0 –1 2
T 0 0 –1 –1 0 –1 –1
Add rows 2 and 3 of Table 4 and place the outcome in row 2. The result
is shown in Table 5.
Table 5
x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 x6 x7
μs k u Do μo Δρg DL
M 1 0 0 0 1 1 0
L 0 1 0 1 0 –2 1
T 0 0 –1 –1 0 –1 –1
Multiply row 3 of Table 5 by –1 and place the outcome in row 3. The
result is shown in Table 6.
Table 6
x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 x6 x7
μs k u Do μo Δρg DL
M 1 0 0 0 1 1 0
L 0 1 0 1 0 –2 1
T 0 0 1 1 0 1 1
A-16
dimensional matrix A. With the right hand side of Eq.(A.26) brought into
the picture, we can now solve for the 7 unknowns as follows:
x1 = − x5 − x6 (A.29)
x2 = − x4 + 2 x6 − x7 (A.30)
x3 = − x4 − x6 − x7 (A.31)
x4 = x4 (A.32)
x5 = x5 (A.33)
x6 = x6 (A.34)
x7 = x7 (A.35)
The variables associated with the solution have been placed in column 1
of Eq.(A.36) for orientation purposes. We can readily identify the (n–r)
eigenvectors of the null space of A in Eq.(A.36) as
A-17
⎡0⎤ ⎡ −1⎤ ⎡ −1⎤ ⎡0⎤
⎢ −1⎥ ⎢0⎥ ⎢2⎥ ⎢ −1⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ −1⎥ ⎢0⎥ ⎢ −1⎥ ⎢ −1⎥
G ⎢ ⎥ G ⎢ ⎥ G ⎢ ⎥ G ⎢ ⎥
e1 = ⎢ 1 ⎥ , e2 = ⎢ 0 ⎥ , e3 = ⎢ 0 ⎥ , e4 = ⎢ 0 ⎥ (A.37)
⎢0⎥ ⎢1⎥ ⎢0⎥ ⎢0⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢0⎥ ⎢0⎥ ⎢1⎥ ⎢0⎥
⎢0⎥ ⎢0⎥ ⎢0⎥ ⎢1⎥
⎣ ⎦ ⎣ ⎦ ⎣ ⎦ ⎣ ⎦
Step 5.
⎡ μ s ⎤ ⎡ x1 ⎤ ⎡0⎤
⎢ D ⎥ ⎢x ⎥ ⎢ −1⎥
⎢ p ⎥⎢ 2⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ u ⎥ ⎢ x3 ⎥ ⎢ −1⎥
⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ G ⎢ ⎥
⎢ Do ⎥ ⎢ x4 ⎥ = e1 = ⎢ 1 ⎥ (A.38)
⎢ μo ⎥ ⎢ x5 ⎥ ⎢0⎥
⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ Δρ g ⎥ ⎢ x6 ⎥ ⎢0⎥
⎢ D ⎥ ⎢x ⎥ ⎢0⎥
⎣ L ⎦⎣ 7⎦ ⎣ ⎦
D0
π 1 = μ s0 D p−1u −1 D01 μo0 ( Δρ g ) DL0 =
0
(A.39)
uD p
A-18
The dimensionless π group could have been obtained directly by
inspection of Eq.(A.38). The first column of Eq.(A.38) contains the
variables and the last column contains the powers of the variables in the
D0
dimensionless π group. Therefore, π 1 = could have been written down
uD p
⎡ μ s ⎤ ⎡ x1 ⎤ ⎡ −1⎤
⎢ D ⎥ ⎢x ⎥ ⎢0⎥
⎢ p ⎥⎢ 2⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ u ⎥ ⎢ x3 ⎥ ⎢0⎥
⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ G ⎢ ⎥
⎢ Do ⎥ ⎢ x4 ⎥ = e2 = ⎢ 0 ⎥ (A.40)
⎢ μo ⎥ ⎢ x5 ⎥ ⎢1⎥
⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ Δρ g ⎥ ⎢ x6 ⎥ ⎢0⎥
⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢0⎥
⎣ DL ⎦ ⎣ x7 ⎦ ⎣ ⎦
μ0
π 2 = μ s−1 D p0u 0 D00 μo1 ( Δρ g ) DL0 =
0
(A.41)
μs
⎡ μ s ⎤ ⎡ x1 ⎤ ⎡ −1⎤
⎢ D ⎥ ⎢x ⎥ ⎢2⎥
⎢ p ⎥⎢ 2⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ u ⎥ ⎢ x3 ⎥ ⎢ −1⎥
⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ G ⎢ ⎥
⎢ Do ⎥ ⎢ x4 ⎥ = e3 = ⎢ 0 ⎥ (A.42)
⎢ μo ⎥ ⎢ x5 ⎥ ⎢0⎥
⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ Δρ g ⎥ ⎢ x6 ⎥ ⎢1⎥
⎢ D ⎥ ⎢x ⎥ ⎢0⎥
⎣ L ⎦⎣ 7⎦ ⎣ ⎦
A-19
D p2 Δρ g
π 3 = μ D u D μ ( Δρ g ) D =
−1 −1 1
2 0 0 0
(A.43)
uμs
s p 0 o L
⎡ μ s ⎤ ⎡ x1 ⎤ ⎡0⎤
⎢ D ⎥ ⎢x ⎥ ⎢ −1⎥
⎢ p ⎥⎢ 2⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ u ⎥ ⎢ x3 ⎥ ⎢ −1⎥
⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ G ⎢ ⎥
⎢ Do ⎥ ⎢ x4 ⎥ = e4 = ⎢ 0 ⎥ (A.44)
⎢ μo ⎥ ⎢ x5 ⎥ ⎢0⎥
⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ Δρ g ⎥ ⎢ x6 ⎥ ⎢0⎥
⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢1⎥
⎣ DL ⎦ ⎣ x7 ⎦ ⎣ ⎦
DL
π 4 = μ s0 D p−1u −1 D00 μo0 ( Δρ g ) DL1 =
0
(A.45)
uD p
A-20
manipulate π2, π3 and π4 to get π1. A similar reasoning establishes the
independence of π2, π3 and π4.
π 4 = f 2 (π 1 , π 2 , π 3 ) (A.46)
or
DL ⎛ D μ D 2 Δρ g ⎞
= f2 ⎜ o , o , p ⎟⎟ (A.47)
uD p ⎜ uD p μ s u μ
⎝ s ⎠
A-21
For a given fluid pair and porous medium, μo, μs, Do, Δρ, D p and of
A-22
x6 and x7 in the following manner. Let us choose x4 = –1, x5 = 0, x6 = 0
and x7 = 0. The solution given by Eq.(A.36) becomes
⎡ μ s ⎤ ⎡ x1 ⎤ ⎡0⎤
⎢ D ⎥ ⎢x ⎥ ⎢1⎥
⎢ p ⎥⎢ 2⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ u ⎥ ⎢ x3 ⎥ ⎢1⎥
⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ G ⎢ ⎥
⎢ Do ⎥ ⎢ x4 ⎥ = −e1 = ⎢ −1⎥ (A.48)
⎢ μo ⎥ ⎢ x5 ⎥ ⎢0⎥
⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ Δρ g ⎥ ⎢ x6 ⎥ ⎢0⎥
⎢ D ⎥ ⎢x ⎥ ⎢0⎥
⎣ L ⎦⎣ 7⎦ ⎣ ⎦
uD p 1
Π1 = μ s0 D1p u1 D0−1μo0 ( Δρ g ) DL0 = =
0
(A.49)
D0 π1
⎡ μ s ⎤ ⎡ x1 ⎤ ⎡ −1⎤
⎢ D ⎥ ⎢x ⎥ ⎢0⎥
⎢ p ⎥⎢ 2⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ u ⎥ ⎢ x3 ⎥ ⎢0⎥
⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ G ⎢ ⎥
⎢ Do ⎥ ⎢ x4 ⎥ = e2 = ⎢ 0 ⎥ (A.50)
⎢ μo ⎥ ⎢ x5 ⎥ ⎢1⎥
⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ Δρ g ⎥ ⎢ x6 ⎥ ⎢0⎥
⎢ D ⎥ ⎢x ⎥ ⎢0⎥
⎣ L ⎦⎣ 7⎦ ⎣ ⎦
μ0
Π 2 = μ s−1 D p0 u 0 D00 μo1 ( Δρ g ) DL0 = = π2
0
(A.51)
μs
A-23
⎡ μ s ⎤ ⎡ x1 ⎤ ⎡ −1⎤
⎢ D ⎥ ⎢x ⎥ ⎢3⎥
⎢ p ⎥⎢ 2⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ u ⎥ ⎢ x3 ⎥ ⎢0⎥
⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ G G ⎢ ⎥
⎢ Do ⎥ ⎢ x4 ⎥ = −e1 + e3 = ⎢ −1⎥ (A.52)
⎢ μo ⎥ ⎢ x5 ⎥ ⎢0⎥
⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ Δρ g ⎥ ⎢ x6 ⎥ ⎢1⎥
⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢0⎥
⎣ DL ⎦ ⎣ x7 ⎦ ⎣ ⎦
D 3p Δρ g π3
Π 3 = μ s−1 D 3p u 0 D0−1μo0 ( Δρ g ) DL0 = =
1
(A.53)
Do μ s π1
⎡ μ s ⎤ ⎡ x1 ⎤ ⎡0⎤
⎢ D ⎥ ⎢x ⎥ ⎢0⎥
⎢ p ⎥⎢ 2⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ u ⎥ ⎢ x3 ⎥ ⎢0⎥
⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ G G ⎢ ⎥
⎢ Do ⎥ ⎢ x4 ⎥ = −e1 + e4 = ⎢ −1⎥ (A.54)
⎢ μo ⎥ ⎢ x5 ⎥ ⎢0⎥
⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ Δρ g ⎥ ⎢ x6 ⎥ ⎢0⎥
⎢ D ⎥ ⎢x ⎥ ⎢1⎥
⎣ L ⎦⎣ 7⎦ ⎣ ⎦
DL π 4
Π 4 = μ s0 D p0 u 0 D0−1μo0 ( Δρ g ) DL1 = =
0
(A.55)
Do π 1
A-24
as a linear combination of the eigenvectors. To ensure that the π groups
are complete, we formed the theoretically required (n–r) new groups. To
ensure that the groups are linearly independent, we used a different
G
eigenvector to form the different π groups. We used e1 to form Π1, we
G G G
used e2 to form Π2, we used e3 (in combination with e1 ) to form Π3, and
G G
we used e4 (in combination with e1 ) to form Π4. These choices of
Π 4 = f 3 ( Π1 , Π 2 , Π 3 ) (A.56)
or
DL ⎛ uD μ D 3 Δρ g ⎞
= f3 ⎜ p , o , p ⎟⎟ (A.57)
Do ⎜ D μ D μ
⎝ o s o s ⎠
A-25
Also, the density of the injected solvent must be matched with that of the
⎛ D 3p Δρ g ⎞
displaced fluid. Therefore, the dimensionless group ⎜ is a
⎜ D μ ⎟⎟
⎝ o s ⎠
constant equal to zero. Its effect is eliminated from the experiment. With
these restrictions imposed on the experiments, Eq.(A.57) becomes
DL ⎛ uD ⎞
= f4 ⎜ p ⎟ (A.58)
Do ⎝ Do ⎠
DT ⎛ uD ⎞
= f5 ⎜ p ⎟ (A.59)
Do ⎝ Do ⎠
A-26
dispersion coefficients plotted on the same scale (Perkins and Johnson,
1963).
A-27
matrix is equal to the number of equations. In the example
problem, the rank of the dimensional matrix was determined in
advance to be equal to 3. This is confirmed by the fact that upon
reduction to row echelon form (Table 6), none of the rows became
zero. Thus, the rank of the dimensional matrix in this case is equal
to the number of equations. If one of the rows had become zero
during the reduction to row echelon form, then the rank of the
dimensionless matrix would have been 3-1 or 2. A row will become
zero during the row operations if that row is a linear combination
of the other rows. In such a case, no new information is contained
in the extra row. These are important considerations because
according to Buckingham’s π-theorem, the number of independent
dimensionless groups is equal to the number of variables minus
the rank of the dimensional matrix.
A-28
On the other hand, the variables whose powers are given by the r
variables solved for can appear in more than one dimensionless
group.
A-29
Concluding Remarks
Nomenclature
A-30
μs = solvent viscosity
ρo = density of the displaced fluid
ρs = solvent density
π = initial set of dimensionless groups (has nothing to do with 3.141..)
Π = transformed set of dimensionless groups
References
A-31
Luchsinger, W.: “Dimensional Analysis,” Brown Boveri Rev., pp. 175-180,
1940.
Marle, C.M.: Multiphase Flow in Porous Media, Gulf Publishing
Company, 1981.
Moon, P. and Spencer, D.E.: “A Modern Approach to Dimensions,” J.
Franklin Inst., Vol. 248, pp. 495-521, 1949.
Pankhurst, R.C.: Dimensional Analysis and Scale Factors, Chapman and
Hall Ltd., London, 1964.
Schmidt, R. and Housen, K.: “Problem Solving with Dimensional
Analysis,” The Industrial Physicist, 1995, 21–24.
Rayleigh, J.W.S., Lord: “On the Stability of the Flow of Fluids,” Phil.
Mag., 34, 59, 1892.
Rayleigh, J.W.S., Lord: “The Principle of Similitude,” Nature, 95, 66,
1915.
Ruark, A.E.: “Inspectional Analysis: A Method Which Supplements
Dimensional Analysis,” J. Elisha Mitchell Sci. Soc., 51, 127
(1935).
Sedov, L.I.: Similarity and Dimensional Methods in Mechanics, New York,
Academic Press, 1959.
Silberberg, I.H. and McKetta, J.J., Jr.: “Learning to Use Dimensional
Analysis, Part I. Which Dimensional System Should You Use?”
Petroleum Refiner, Vol. 32, No. 3, 179-183, April 1953.
Silberberg, I.H. and McKetta, J.J., Jr.: “Learning to Use Dimensional
Analysis, Part II. The Correct Use of Dimensional Systems”
Petroleum Refiner, Vol. 32, No. 3, 147-150, May 1953.
Silberberg, I.H. and McKetta, J.J., Jr.: “Learning to Use Dimensional
Analysis, Part III. The Rayleigh Method?” Petroleum Refiner, Vol.
32, No. ??, 101-103, June 1953.
Silberberg, I.H. and McKetta, J.J., Jr.: “Learning to Use Dimensional
Analysis, Part IV. The Buckingham Pi Theorem” Petroleum Refiner,
Vol. 32, No. 3, 179-183???, July 1953.
Shook, M., Li, D. and Lake, L.W.: “Scaling Immiscible Flow Through
Permeable Media by Inspectional Analysis,” In Situ (1992) 16, No.
4, 311-349.
Sloan, A.D. and Happ, W.W.: “Literature Search: Dimensional Analysis,”
NASA Rept. ERC/CQD 68-631, Aug. 1968.
Sloan, A.D. and Happ, W.W.: “Matrix Methods of Dimensional Analysis,”
NASA Rept. ERC/CQD 68-6231, Sept. 1968.
A-32
Sloan, A.D. and Happ, W.W.: “Computer Program for Dimensional
Analysis,” NASA Rept. ERC/CQD 68-621, Aug. 1968.
Van Driest, E.R.: “On Dimensional Analysis and the Presentation of Data
in Fluid Flow Problems,” J. Appl. Mech., Vol. 68, A-34 (March
1946) pp. A-34-A40.
Zlokarnik, Marko: Dimensional Analysis and Scale–up in Chemical
Engineering, Springer–Verlag, New York, 1991.
A-33