Anda di halaman 1dari 1049

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
1 PETROLEUM RESERVOIR ROCKS ......................................... 1-1
1.1 PETROPHYSICS ............................................................................... 1-1

1.2 PETROLEUM RESERVOIR ROCKS ................................................1-2

1.3 MINERAL CONSTITUENTS OF ROCKS—A REVIEW ...................1-4

1.4 ROCKS............................................................................................... 1-5


1.4.1 Igneous Rocks.................................................................... 1-5
1.4.2 Metamorphic Rocks...........................................................1-6
1.4.3 Sedimentary Rocks ............................................................1-6

1.5 CLASSIFICATION OF SEDIMENTARY ROCKS ............................. 1-7


1.5.1 Clastic Sedimentary Rocks ................................................ 1-7
1.5.2 Chemical Sedimentary Rocks............................................ 1-7
1.5.3 Organic Sedimentary Rocks ..............................................1-8

1.6 DISTRIBUTION OF SEDIMENTARY ROCK TYPES .................... 1-10

1.7 SANDSTONE RESERVOIRS (CLASTIC SEDIMENTARY


ROCK) ............................................................................................. 1-10
1.7.1 Pore Space ....................................................................... 1-12
1.7.2 Compaction and Cementation......................................... 1-15
1.7.3 Classification ................................................................... 1-17

1.8 CARBONATE RESERVOIRS (LIMESTONES AND


DOLOMITES) .................................................................................1-20
1.8.1 Classification ................................................................... 1-21
1.8.2 Pore Space .......................................................................1-22

1.9 FRACTURED RESERVOIRS ..........................................................1-28


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

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

2 POROSITY AND FLUID SATURATIONS..................................2-1

2.1 DEFINITION OF POROSITY ...........................................................2-1

2.2 FACTORS AFFECTING SANDSTONE POROSITY ........................ 2-2

2.3 FACTORS AFFECTING CARBONATE POROSITY ........................ 2-4

2.4 TYPICAL RESERVOIR POROSITY VALUES.................................. 2-5

2.5 LABORATORY MEASUREMENT OF POROSITY.......................... 2-6


2.5.1 Direct Porosity Measurement by Routine
Core Analysis .................................................................... 2-6
2.5.2 Indirect Porosity Measurement by CT Imaging.............. 2-11
2.6 FLUID SATURATIONS ..................................................................2-16

2.7 INDIRECT POROSITY MEASUREMENTS FROM


WELL LOGS................................................................................... 2-24
2.7.1 Introduction to Well Logging......................................... 2-24
2.7.2 Mud filtrate Invasion...................................................... 2-25
2.7.3 Porosity Logs .................................................................. 2-32
Density Log .................................................................. 2-32
Sonic Log (Acoustic Log) ............................................. 2-36
Neutron Log .................................................................2-41
Combination Porosity Logs ......................................... 2-45
2.7.4 Resistivity Log ................................................................ 2-46
Electric Log ................................................................. 2-54
Induction-Electric Log ................................................ 2-56
Dual Induction Laterolog ........................................... 2-58
Focused Electric Log (Guard and Laterolog) ............. 2-62
Microresistivity Logs................................................... 2-65
2.7.5 Lithology Logs ................................................................ 2-68
Spontaneous Potential Log (SP) ................................. 2-68
The Gamma Ray Log (GR)...........................................2-73
2.7.6 Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) Logs.................... 2-76
Nuclear Spins in a Magnetic Field .............................. 2-76
The Effect of Radiofrequency Pulses -
Resonance Absorption ............................................... 2-79
Relaxation Processes................................................... 2-80
Molecular Diffusion Effect.......................................... 2-84
NMR Signal and Corresponding T2 Spectrum ........... 2-84
Pore Size Distribution................................................. 2-89
Estimation of Permeability from
NMR Relaxation Times............................................... 2-95
2.7.7 NMR Imaging of Laboratory Cores................................ 2-97
The Effect of Magnetic Field Gradients...................... 2-98
Slice-Selective Excitation............................................ 2-99
Frequency Encoding ................................................. 2-100
Phase Encoding.......................................................... 2-101
Image Reconstruction............................................... 2-102
Three-Dimensional NMR Imaging............................2-103
Signal-to-Noise Ratio and Image Contrast............... 2-104
Example NMR Images of Laboratory Cores..............2-105
2.7.8 A Comparison of Various Porosity
Measurements for Shaly Sand....................................... 2-112
2.8 RESERVE ESTIMATION PROJECT ........................................... 2-113
2.8.1 Reserve Estimation........................................................ 2-114
2.8.2 Economic Evaluation..................................................... 2-115
2.8.3 Simulation Procedure.................................................... 2-116
2.8.4 Sampling Procedure ...................................................... 2-116
2.8.5 Simulation Output.........................................................2-124

2.9 PORE VOLUME COMPRESIBILITY............................................2-126

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

REFRENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS.............................2-138

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

3.1 DEFINITION ....................................................................................3-1

3.2 DIMENSIONS AND UNIT OF PERMEABILITY ............................ 3-6

3.3 LABORATORY DETERMINATION OF PERMEABILITY...............3-7

3.4 FIELD DETERMINATION OF PERMEABILITY ..........................3-14


3.4.1 Diffusivity Equation for Slightly
Compressible Liquid........................................................ 3-15
3.4.2 Pressure Drawdown Equation ........................................3-19
3.4.3 Pressure Buildup Equation ............................................ 3-22
3.4.4 Diagnostic Plots.............................................................. 3-24
3.4.5 Skin Factor...................................................................... 3-30
3.4.6 Homogenous Reservoir Model with
Wellbore Storage and Skin ............................................. 3-33
3.4.7 Type Curve Matching ......................................................3-37
3.4.8 Radius of Investigation of a Well Test ........................... 3-40
3.4.9 Field Example of Well Test Analysis .............................. 3-40
3.4.10 Welltest Model for Dry Gas Reservoir .......................... 3-52

3.5 FACTORS AFFECTING PERMEABILITY..................................... 3-56


3.5.1 Compaction..................................................................... 3-56
3.5.2 Pore Size (Grain Size) ..................................................... 3-56
3.5.3 Sorting ............................................................................ 3-60
3.5.4 Cementation ................................................................... 3-60
3.5.5 Layering .......................................................................... 3-60
3.5.6 Clay Swelling....................................................................3-61

3.6 TYPICAL RESERVOIR PERMEABILITY VALUES .......................3-61

3.7 PERMEABILITY-POROSITY CORRELATIONS............................3-61

3.8 CAPILLARY TUBE MODELS OF POROUS MEDIA..................... 3-69


3.8.1 Carman-Kozeny Equation .............................................. 3-69
3.8.2 Tortuosity ........................................................................3-75
3.8.3 Calculation of Permeability from Pore
Size Distribution............................................................. 3-79
3.9 STEADY STATE FLOW THROUGH FRACTURES....................... 3-84
3.10 AVERAGING PERMEABILITY DATA .......................................... 3-85

3.11 DARCY’S LAW FOR INCLINED FLOW........................................ 3-88

3.12 VALIDITY OF DARCY’S LAW ....................................................... 3-99

3.13 NON-DARCY FLOW..................................................................... 3-101

3.14 DARCY’S LAW FOR ANISOTROPIC POROUS MEDIA ............. 3-106


3.14.1 Definition of Homogeneity and Anisotropy ................ 3-106
3.14.2 Darcy’s Law for Homogeneous
and Anisotropic Medium .............................................3-107
3.14.3 Transformation of Permeability Tensor
from One Coordinate system to Another .................... 3-114
3.14.4 Alternative Calculation of the Principal
Values and the Principal Axes of the
Permeability Anisotropy..............................................3-122
3.14.5 Directional Permeability...............................................3-124
3.14.6 Measurement of Transverse Permeability
of a Cylindrical Core .................................................... 3-137
3.15 EXAMPLE APPLICATIONS OF PERMEABILITY.......................3-140
3.15.1 Productivity of Horizontal Well ....................................3-140
Introduction ............................................................... 3-141
Homogeneous and Isotropic Reservoirs ................... 3-141
Homogeneous and Anisotropic Reservoirs ...............3-145
3.15.2 Productivity of a Vertically Fractured Well..................3-152
NOMENCLATURE ....................................................................... 3-155

REFRENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS.............................3-159

4 HETEROGENEITY ................................................................ 4-1

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

4.2 MEASURES OF CENTRAL TENDENCY AND


VARIABILITY (HETEROGENEITY)............................................... 4-3
4.2.1 Measures of Central Tendency ......................................... 4-3
Mean.............................................................................. 4-3
Geometric Mean............................................................ 4-3
Median .......................................................................... 4-3
Mode.............................................................................. 4-4
4.2.1 Measures of Variability
(Heterogeneity or Spread) ............................................... 4-4
Variance ........................................................................ 4-4
Dykstra-Parsons Coefficient of Variation..................... 4-5
Lorenz Coefficient ......................................................... 4-8
4.3 MEASURES OF SPATIAL CONTINUITY ...................................... 4-11
4.3.1 Variogram ........................................................................4-13
Definition .....................................................................4-13
How to Calculate the Variogram .................................4-16
Physical Meaning of the Variogram............................ 4-27
Variogram Models....................................................... 4-28
Fitting a Theoretical Variogram Model to
an Experimental Variogram ....................................... 4-35
Variogram Anisotropy .................................................4-41
Example Experimental Variograms............................ 4-44
4.3.2 Covariance (Autocovariance) Function...........................4-51
Definition .....................................................................4-51
Physical Meaning of Covariance Function ................. 4-54
4.3.3 Correlation Coefficient Function
(Autocorrelation Function) .............................................4-57

4.4 PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTIONS ................................................. 4-59


4.4.1 Normal (Gaussian) Distribution .................................... 4-60
4.4.2 Log Normal Distribution................................................ 4-72

4.5 ESTIMATION .................................................................................4-75


4.5.1 Introduction ....................................................................4-75
4.5.2 Ordinary Kriging Equations ........................................... 4-86
Derivation in Terms of the
Covariance Function ................................................... 4-89
Derivation in Terms of the Variogram ....................... 4-94
Solution of the Kriging Equation in terms
of the Covariance Function......................................... 4-98
Solution of the Kriging Equation in terms
of Variogram ..............................................................4-103

4.6 CONDITIONAL SIMULATION ....................................................4-132


4.6.1 Introduction ..................................................................4-132
4.6.2 Sequential Gaussian Simulation ...................................4-132
4.6.3 A Practical Application of Sequential
Gaussian Simulation .....................................................4-136

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

REFRENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS.............................4-149

5 DISPERSION IN POROUS MEDIA ..........................................5-1

5.1 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................. 5-1


5.2 LABORATORY FIRST-CONTACT MISCIBLE
DISPLACEMENTS........................................................................... 5-3
5.3 ORIGIN OF DISPERSION IN POROUS MEDIA .......................... 5-20
5.3.1 Molecular Diffusion.........................................................5-21
5.3.2 Mechanical Dispersion ....................................................5-21

5.4 CONVECTION-DISPERSION EQUATION................................... 5-23


5.4.1 Generalized Equation in Vector Notation...................... 5-23
5.4.2 One Dimensional Convection-Dispersion
Equation ........................................................................ 5-25
5.4.2 Solution of the One-Dimensional
Convection-Dispersion Equation ................................... 5-26

5.5 DISPERSION COEFFICENT AND DISPERSIVITY ..................... 5-42

5.6 MEASURMENT OF DISPERSION COEFFICENT


AND DISPERSIVITY ......................................................................5-53
5.6.1 Traditional Laboratory Method with
Breakthrough Curve .......................................................5-53
5.6.2 Laboratory Method of Peters et al. (1996) ..................... 5-56
5.6.3 Field Measurement of Dispersion
Coefficient and Dispersivity ............................................ 5-71

5.7 FACTORS THAT COULD AFFECT DISPERSION


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

5.8 NUMERICAL MODELING OF FIRST-CONTACT


MISCIBLE DISPLACEMENT .........................................................5-79
5.8.1 Introduction ....................................................................5-79
5.8.2 Mathematical Model of First-Contact
Miscible Displacement ....................................................5-79
5.8.3 Numerical Modeling of Laboratory Experiments.......... 5-82
Experiment 1 ................................................................. 5-84
Experiment 2..................................................................5-91
Experiment 3................................................................. 5-99
Experiment 4................................................................5-106
Experiment 5................................................................ 5-116
Experiment 6................................................................ 5-121
NOMENCLATURE .......................................................................5-126

REFRENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS.............................5-128


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

6.1 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................6-1
6.2 SURFACE AND INTERFACIAL TENSIONS................................... 6-2
6.2.1 Surface Tension ................................................................ 6-2
6.2.2 Interfacial Tension .......................................................... 6-11
6.2.3 Measurement of Surface and
Interfacial Tension......................................................... 6-20
Capillary Rise Experiment ............................................ 6-20
Sessile Drop Method ..................................................... 6-24
Pendant Drop Method .................................................. 6-26
Ring Method.................................................................. 6-27
Spinning Drop Method ................................................. 6-30

6.3 WETTABILITY................................................................................6-31
6.3.1 Definition.........................................................................6-31
6.3.2 Determination of Wettability ......................................... 6-36
Contact Angle Method ................................................. 6-37
Amott Wettability Test.................................................. 6-40
United State Bureau of Mines (USBM)
Wettability Test............................................................. 6-42
6.3.3 Wettability of Petroleum Reservoirs.............................. 6-45
6.3.4 Effect of Wettability on Rock-Fluid Interactions........... 6-46
Microscopic Fluid Distribution at the
Pore Scale ..................................................................... 6-47
Effect of Wettability on Irreducible
Water Saturation .......................................................... 6-47
Effect of Wettability on Electrical
Properties of Rocks ...................................................... 6-48
Effect of Wettability on the Efficiency of an
Immiscible Displacement .............................................6-51

6.3 THERMODYMAMICS OF INTERFACES ..................................... 6-64


6.4.1 Characterization of Interfacial Tension
as Specific Surface Energy.............................................. 6-64
6.4.2 Characterization of Microscopic Pore Level
Fluid Displacements....................................................... 6-66
Case 1. Displacement of a Nonwetting
Phase by a Wetting Phase ............................................ 6-67
Case 2. Displacement of a Wetting Phase
by a Nonwetting Phase ................................................. 6-69

NOMENCLATURE ......................................................................... 6-71

REFRENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS .............................. 6-73

7 CAPILLARY PRESSURE .........................................................7-1

7.1 DEFINITION OF CAPILLARY PRESSURE ..................................... 7-1

7.2 CAPILLARY PRESSURE-SATURATION RELATIONSHIP


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

7.3 DRAINAGE CAPILLARY PRESSURE CURVE .............................. 7-17


7.4 CONVERSION OF LABORATORY CAPILLARY PRESSURE
DATA TO RESERVOIR CONDITIONS .......................................... 7-21

7.5 AVERAGING CAPILLARY PRESSURE DATA .............................. 7-21

7.6 DETERMINATION OF INITIAL STATIC RESERVOIR


FLUID SATURATIONS BY USE OF DRAINAGE
CAPILLARY PRESSURE CURVE.................................................. 7-28

7.7 CAPILLARY PRESSURE HYSTERESIS.........................................7-45

7.8 CAPILLARY IMBIBITION..............................................................7-54

7.9 CAPILLARY END EFFECT IN A LABORATORY CORE ...............7-57


7.9.1 Capillary End Effect.........................................................7-57
7.9.2 Mathematical Analysis of Capillary End Effect ..............7-59
7.9.3 Mathematical Model of Capillary End Effect
During Steady State Relative Permeability
Measurement.................................................................. 7-68
7.9.4 Experimental Evidence of Capillary End Effect...............7-70

7.10 CAPILLARY PRESSURE MEASUREMENTS ................................7-76


7.10.1 Restored State Method (Porous Plate Method)..............7-76
7.10.2 Mercury Injection Method ............................................. 7-77
7.10.3 Centrifuge Method..........................................................7-81

7.11 PORE SIZE DISTRIBUTION......................................................... 7-96


7.11.1 Introduction.................................................................... 7-96
7.11.2 Pore Volume Distribution .............................................. 7-98
7.11.3 Pore Size Distribution Based on Bundle
of Capillary Tubes Model............................................7-103
7.11.4 Mercury Injection Porosimeter..................................... 7-115

7.12 CALCULATION OF PERMEABILITY FROM DRAINAGE


CAPILLARY PRESSURE CURVE................................................. 7-118
7.12.1 Calculation of Absolute Permeability from
Drainage Capillary Pressure Curve............................. 7-118
7.12.2 Calculation of Relative Permeabilities from
Drainage Capillary Pressure Curve............................. 7-132

7.13 EMPIRICAL CAPILLARY PRESSURE MODELS ........................ 7-133


7.13.1 Brooks-Corey Capillary Pressure Models ..................... 7-133
7.13.2 van Genuchten Capillary Pressure Model .................... 7-143

7.14 CAPILLARY TRAPPING IN POROUS MEDIA ........................... 7- 145


7.14.1 Pore Doublet Model of Capillary Trapping................... 7-145
7.14.2 Snap-Off Model of Capillary Trapping ......................... 7-152
7.14.3 Mobilization of Residual Non-Wetting Phase.............. 7-155
7.14.4 Oil Migration................................................................. 7-159

7.15 EFFECTS OF WETTABILITY AND INTERFACIAL


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

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

REFRENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS ............................ 7-168

8 RELATIVE PERMEABILITY................................................... 8-1


8.1 DEFINITION OF RELATIVE PERMEABILITY...............................8-1
8.2 LABORATORY MEASUREMENT OF TWO-PHASE
RELATIVE PERMEABILITY BY THE STEADY STATE
METHOD ......................................................................................... 8-6

8.3 THEORY OF ONE DIMENSIONAL IMMISCIBLE


DISPLACEMENT IN A POROUS MEDIUM ..................................8-15
8.3.1 Mathematical Model of Two-Phase
Immiscible Displacement................................................8-15
8.3.2 Buckley-Leverett Approximate Solution of the
Immiscible Displacement Equation................................8-21
8.3.3 Waterflood Performance Calculations from
Buckley-Leverett Theory .................................................8-31
Oil Recovery at any Time ...............................................8-31
Oil Recovery Before Water Breakthrough .....................8-31
Oil Recovery at Water Breakthrough............................ 8-32
Oil Recovery After Water Breakthrough ...................... 8-36
Water Production...........................................................8-41

8.4 LABORATORY MEASUREMENT OF TWO-PHASE


RELATIVE PERMEABILITY BY THE UNSTEADY STATE
METHOD ........................................................................................8-51

8.5 FACTORS AFFECTING RELATIVE PERMEABILITIES.............. 8-65


8.5.1 Fluid Saturation.............................................................. 8-65
8.5.2 Saturation History .......................................................... 8-66
8.5.3 Wettability ...................................................................... 8-67
8.5.4 Injection Rate ................................................................. 8-70
8.5.5 Viscosity Ratio ................................................................ 8-73
8.5.6 Interfacial Tension ......................................................... 8-74
8.5.7Pore Structure .................................................................. 8-75
8.5.8 Temperature ................................................................... 8-76
8.5.9 Heterogeneity ................................................................. 8-78
8.6 THREE-PHASE RELATIVE PERMEABILITIES .......................... 8-79

8.4 CALCULATION OF RELATIVE PERMEABILITIES FROM


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

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

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS ............................ 8-94

APPENDIX A: A Systematic Approach To Dimensional Analysis .. A-1

Summary .......................................................................................... A-1


Introduction ..................................................................................... A-1
Algebraic Theory of Dimensional Analysis...................................... A-2
Transformation of the Dimensionless π Groups ............................. A-9
Example Problem............................................................................. A-9
Procedure ....................................................................................... A-10
Transformation of the Dimensionless π Groups for
Example Problem........................................................................... A-21
Some Practical Considerations ......................................................A-28
Concluding Remarks...................................................................... A-31
Nomenclature ................................................................................ A-31
References ...................................................................................... A-32
CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 PETROPHYSICS

Petrophysics is the study of rock properties and their interactions


with fluids (gases, liquid hydrocarbons and aqueous solutions). Because
petroleum reservoir rocks must have porosity and permeability, we are
most interested in the properties of porous and permeable rocks. The
purpose of this text is to provide a basic understanding of the physical
properties of permeable geologic rocks and the interactions of the various
fluids with their interstitial surfaces. Particular emphasis is placed on
the transport properties of the rocks for single phase and multiphase
flow.

The petrophysical properties that are discussed in this text


include:

• Porosity

• Absolute permeability

• Effective and relative permeabilities

• Water saturation

1-1
• Irreducible water saturation

• Hydrocarbon saturation

• Residual oil saturation

• Capillary pressure

• Wettability

• Pore size

• Pore size distribution

• Pore structure

• Net pay thickness

• Isothermal coefficient of compressibility

• Mineralogy

• Specific pore surface area

• Dispersivity

1.2 PETROLEUM RESERVOIR ROCKS

A petroleum reservoir rock is a porous medium that is sufficiently


permeable to permit fluid flow through it. In the presence of
interconnected fluid phases of different density and viscosity, such as
water and hydrocarbons, the movement of the fluids is influenced by
gravity and capillary forces. The fluids separate, therefore, in order of
density when flow through a permeable stratum is arrested by a zone of
low permeability, and, in time, a petroleum reservoir is formed in such a
trap. Porosity and permeability are two fundamental petrophysical
properties of petroleum reservoir rocks.

1-2
Geologically, a petroleum reservoir is a complex of porous and
permeable rock that contains an accumulation of hydrocarbons under a
set of geological conditions that prevent escape by gravitational and
capillary forces. The initial fluid distribution in the reservoir rock, which
is determined by the balance of gravitational and capillary forces, is of
significant interest at the time of discovery.

A rock capable of producing oil, gas and water is called a reservoir


rock. In general, to be of commercial value, a reservoir rock must have
sufficient thickness, areal extent and pore space to contain a large
volume of hydrocarbons and must yield the contained fluids at a
satisfactory rate when the reservoir is penetrated by a well. Any buried
rock, be it sedimentary, igneous or metamorphic, that meets these
conditions may be used as a reservoir rock by migrating hydrocarbons.
However, most reservoir rocks are sedimentary rocks.

Sandstones and carbonates (limestones and dolomites) are the


most common reservoir rocks. They contain most of the world’s
petroleum reserves in about equal proportions even though carbonates
make up only about 25% of sedimentary rocks. The reservoir character
of a rock may be primary such as the intergranular porosity of a
sandstone, or secondary, resulting from chemical or physical changes
such as dolomitization, solution and fracturing. Shales frequently form
the impermeable cap rocks for petroleum traps.

The distribution of reservoirs and the trend of pore space are the
end product of numerous natural processes, some depositional and some
post-depositional. Their prediction, and the explanation and prediction of
their performance involve the recognition of the genesis of the ancient
sediments, the interpretation of which depends upon an understanding
of sedimentary and diagenetic processes. Diagenesis is the process of

1-3
physical and chemical changes in sediments after deposition that convert
them to consolidated rock such as compaction, cementation,
recrystallization and perhaps replacement as in the development of
dolomite.

1.3 MINERAL CONSTITUENTS OF ROCKS - A REVIEW

The physical and chemical properties of rocks are the consequence


of their mineral composition. A mineral is a naturally occurring
crystalline inorganic material that has specific physical and chemical
properties, which are either constant or vary within certain limits. Rock-
forming minerals of interest in petroleum engineering can be classified
into the following families: silicates, carbonates, oxides, sulfates
(sulphates), sulfides (sulphides) and chorides. These are summarized in
Table 1.1. Silicates are the most abundant rock-forming minerals in the
Earth’s crust.

Table 1.1 Rock - Forming Minerals


Name Chemical Formula Specific Gravity
Silicates
Quartz SiO2 2.65
Orthoclase
KAlSi2O8 2.57
Plagioclase
NaAlSi3O8 2.62 - 2.76
Clay CaAl2Si2O8
Al2Si2O5(OH) 2.5
and many more
Carbonates
Calcite CaCO3 2.72
Dolomite CaMg(CO3)2 2.85
Oxides
Magnetite Fe3O4 5.18
Hematite
Fe2O3 4.9 - 5.3

1-4
Sulfates
Anhydrite CaSO4 2.89 - 2.98
Gypsum
CaSO4.2H2O 2.32
Barite
BaSO4 4.5
Sulfide
Pyrite FeS2 5.02
Chloride
Halite NaCl 2.16

1.4 ROCKS

A rock is an aggregate of one or more minerals. There are three


classes of rocks: igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary rocks .

1.4.1 Igneous Rocks

These are rocks formed from molten material (called magma) that
solidified upon cooling either:

1. At the earth’s surface to form volcanic or extrusive rocks, e.g.,


basaltic lava flows, volcanic glass and volcanic ash.

or

2. Below the surface, usually at great depths, to form plutonic or


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

Igneous rocks are the most abundant rocks on the earth’s crust,
making up about 64.7% of the Earth’s crust.

1-5
1.4.2 Metamorphic Rocks

These are rocks formed by transformation, generally in the solid


state, of pre-existing rocks beneath the surface by heat, pressure and
chemically active fluids, e.g., quartz is transformed to quartzite and
limestone plus quartz plus heat gives marble and carbon dioxide.

Metamorphic rocks are the second most abundant rocks on the


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

1.4.3 Sedimentary Rocks

These are rocks formed at the surface of the earth either by

1. Accumulation and consolidation of minerals, rocks and/or


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

or

2. Precipitation from solution such as sea water or surface water,


e.g., salt and limestone.

Sedimentary rocks are the source of petroleum and provide the


reservoir rock and trap to hold the petroleum in the earth’s crust.
Sedimentary rocks are the least abundant rocks on the earth’s crust,
making up about 7.9% of the earth’s crust. Because most reservoir
rocks are sedimentary rocks, they are of particular interest to us in the
study of petrophysics. Therefore, we will examine sedimentary rocks in
more detail than igneous and metamorphic rocks.

1-6
1.5 CLASSIFICATION OF SEDIMENTARY ROCKS

Sedimentary rocks may be classified by origin and composition as


clastic, chemical or organic. Tables 1.2 to 1.4 show the various rock
types for each class.

1.5.1 Clastic Sedimentary Rocks

These rocks are composed of fragments or minerals broken from


any type of pre-existing rock. Clastic sedimentary rocks are usually
classified by grain size as boulder, cobble, gravel, sand, silt and clay.
Figure 1.1 shows such a classification known as the Wentworth scale.

Table 1.2 Clastic Sedimentary Rocks

1.5.2 Chemical Sedimentary Rocks

These rocks are formed by chemical precipitation as carbonates,


e.g., limestone (CaCO3) and dolomite (CaMg(CO3)2) or as evaporties, e.g.,
gypsum (CaSO4.2H2O), anhydrite (CaSO4) and salt (NaCl).

1-7
1.5.3 Organic Sedimentary Rocks

These rocks are formed by biologic precipitation and by


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

Figure 1.1 Classification of clastic rocks according to texture.

1-8
Table 1.3 Chemical Sedimentary Rocks (Precipitates)

Table 1.4 Organic Sedimentary Rocks

1-9
1.6 DISTRIBUTION OF SEDIMENTARY ROCK TYPES

Table 1.5 shows the approximate distribution of sedimentary rocks


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

Table 1.5 Distribution of Sedimentary Rocks


Type % Earth’s Crust % Sedimentary Rock
Shale 4.2 53
Sandstone 1.7 22
Limestone and 2.0 25
Dolomite
Total 7.9 100

1.7 SANDSTONE RESERVOIRS (CLASTIC SEDIMENTARY


ROCK)

Sandstones are composed of fragmented materials, which have


been transported to the site of deposition by water currents and which
have been subjected to varying degrees of wave and current action
during transport and during deposition. Consequently, sandstone
reservoirs vary from clean, well sorted quartz sandstone with well
rounded grains (Figure 1.2a) through more angular feldspathic
sandstone containing varying amounts of clay (Figure 1.2b), to
argillaceous, very poorly sorted sandstone containing varying amounts of
rock fragments (Figure 1.2c) all of which may be affected by varying
degrees of compaction, cementation, solution and replacement.

1-10
Figure 1.2: Examples of sandstone reservoir rocks. (A) clean, well sorted
sandstone, (B) angular, feldspathic sandstone and (C) argillacious, very
poorly sorted sandstone.

1-11
1.7.1 Pore Space

The basic framework of a sandstone reservoir is formed by the


sand grains between which the pore space may or may not contain
interstitial fine material and/or cement (Figure 1.3). The amount of this
intergranular pore space or porosity is controlled primarily by sorting of
the sediment and to a lesser extent by the packing of the grains. Sorting
is a measure of the spread of distribution of grain size on either side of
an average in a sediment. Theoretically, grain size has no effect on
porosity. This is true only for spherical grains of the same size.
However, the arrangement of such spheres has a large effect on the
porosity of the pack.

Figure 1.3: Framework of reservoir sand with interstitial clay and


cement.

1-12
Porosity is at its maximum for spherical grains but becomes
progressively less as the angularity of the grains increases because such
grains pack together more closely. Experimental data from artificial
sands confirm that the grain size essentially has no influence on porosity
for well sorted sand. However, porosities of wet packed sands show a
general decrease as sorting becomes poorer. This is because with a
mixture of sizes, the smaller grains partially fill the interstices between
the larger grains.

Permeability, being a measure of the ease with which a material


transmits fluids, depends primarily upon the size, shapes and extent of
the interconnections between individual pores rather than the size of the
pores themselves. However, since the interconnections are directly
related to the pore size which in turn is related to grain size, there are
relationships between these factors and permeability. Krumbein and
Monk (1942) have shown that permeability varies as the square of the
mean grain diameter and a complex function of sorting (other factors
being equal). Experimental data show a marked decrease in permeability
as grain size decreases and as sorting becomes poorer. Experience has
also shown that the permeability measured normal to the bedding is
usually less than permeability measured parallel to the bedding and that
large variations in permeability occur in different directions in the
bedding plane.

Clay in the pore space of a reservoir may affect the performance of


a reservoir very adversely. The amount and kind of clay, as well as
distribution throughout the reservoir rock, has an important bearing on
liquid permeability, whereas a small amount has little effect on porosity.
Figures 1.4 and 1.5 show how the dispersed clay morphology affects the
permeability and capillary pressure of sandstones.

1-13
Figure1.4: Three general types of dispersed clay in sandstone reservoir
rocks and their effects on permeability: (a) discrete particles of kaolinite;
(b) pore lining by chlorite; (c ) pore bridging by illite (from Neasham,
1977).

1-14
Figure1.5: Three general types of dispersed clay in sandstone reservoir
rocks and their effects on capillary pressure (from Neasham, 1977).

If fresh water, for example drilling fluid filtrate, invades a reservoir,


certain clays, such as montmorillonite, will swell and plug some of the
pore interconnections, drastically reducing the permeability, whereas
saline water may have no effect.

1.7.2 Compaction and Cementation

The pore space of the original unconsolidated sediment is reduced


in ancient rocks by many factors. Compaction and cementation are the
most important of these factors but they in turn are affected by

1-15
composition of the sediment, and the contained fluids and their
pressures. Compaction by the weight of the overburden commences as
soon as a sediment is deposited. It produces reduction of pore space as
a result of:

1. Closer packing of the grains which causes smaller pores and


connected passages.

2. Crushing and fracturing of grains, and dissolution at points of


contact sometimes accompanied by precipitation of silica in the
pore space nearby. Alkaline interstitial water seems to provide
conditions more conducive to dissolution than saline water.

3. Plastic deformation of the softer grains which tend to mold around


the harder grains thus destroying pore space. The softer grains
may be composed of limestone, shale, siltstone and other rock
fragments, and when the amount of such soft material exceeds 10
to 12%, the permeability may be largely destroyed even though
some porosity usually remains.

Early cementation of sand may produce a rigid framework which


will inhibit compaction until the depth of burial exceeds that at which
fracturing of the grains and cement is initiated. Abnormal fluid pressure
in sandstone reservoirs also inhibits compaction because the overburden
is partly supported by the fluid pressure.

Reduction of reservoir pressure by production of fluid can lead to


compaction of the producing zone by rearrangement of the sand grains.
This can produce serious and expensive subsidence of surface facilities
such as occurred in the Wilmington field in California, Bolivar District
fields in Venezuela and Ekofisk field in the North Sea. This form of

1-16
compaction leads to porosity and permeability reduction which is
irreversible and which may affect the producing characteristics of the
reservoir very adversely.

Cementation is the result of recrystallization from solution of silica,


carbonates and other soluble materials in the pores of clastic rocks. The
most common cementing materials in sandstone reservoirs are silica and
calcite but many others do occur. It is not uncommon to find both silica
and calcite present in the cement and in such cases, the silica in the
form of quartz has precipitated first and the calcite later. Silica cement
usually occurs in the form of quartz and grows in optical continuity with
the sand grains until finally the crystals interfere with one another and
an interlocking network results. Calcite cement is often patchy but may
completely fill the pore space.

Silica cement appears to have two origins: (1) early cementation


before the sands were compacted appreciably, and (2) deposition of silica
predissolved by pressure solution during compaction. In the Eocene
Wilcox sandstones of the Gulf Coast, the distribution of silica cement can
be related to both primary texture and depth of burial. The amount of
silica cement tends to increase in coarser and better sorted sands and, to
a lesser extent, with depth. Much of this cement appears to be early and
unrelated to the compaction process.

1.7.3 Classification

Sandstones may be classified by mineral composition (Figure 1.6).


The principal types are: (a) quartz sandstones consisting of over 95%
detrital quartz, (b) feldspathic sandstone consisting of 5 - 25% feldspar,
(c) arkosic sandstone consisting of over 25% feldspar, (d) sublithic
sandstone consisting of 5 - 25% rock fragments and (e) lithic sandstone
consisting of over 25% rock fragments.

1-17
Sandstone grain texture consists of five components: (a) size, (b)
sorting, (c) shape (sphericity), (d) roundness, and (e) packing. Figure 1.7
shows a grain size comparator where some of these qualitative terms are
presented visually. Porosity is independent of grain size for uniform
grains but decreases as sorting gets poorer. Close packing reduces
porosity and permeability. The effects of shape and roundness on
porosity are less definite. Permeability increases with increasing grain
size, but decreases with poorer sorting. Permeability generally increases
with angularity and decreasing sphericity.

Figure 1.6: Classification of sandstones by composition.

1-18
Figure 1.7: Grain size comparator chart (from Stow, 2005).

1-19
1.8 CARBONATE RESERVOIRS (LIMESTONES AND
DOLOMITES)

Most carbonate rocks, like clastics, are composed of particles of


clay to gravel size that were generally deposited in a marine environment.
However, they differ from terrigenous clastics in that they are deposited
as lime particles which are produced locally, whereas, sandstones are
composed of particles transported from an outside source by water
currents. They differ even more importantly from sandstones by being
subject to more post-depositional diagenesis ranging from simple
cementation of the original particles to complete recrystallization or
replacement by dolomite or chert. In addition, they are susceptible to
solution at any stage in their diagenesis. They are usually more poorly
sorted than clastics.

Components of carbonate rocks are usually (1) grains of various


kinds, (2) lime mud, and (3) carbonate cement precipitated later. There
are several kinds of grains, of which four are the most important. These
are (1) shell fragments, called “bio”, (2) fragments of previously deposited
limestone called “intraclasts”, (3) small round pellets - the excreta of
worms, and (4) ooliths - spheres formed by rolling lime particles along
the bottom. Lime mud consists of clay-sized particles of lime.

The material between the grains may be primary lime mud


deposited at the same time as the grains which would be grain-supported
rock, or the grains may be “floating” in lime mud which would be mud-
supported rock.

1.8.1 Classification

Carbonates are usually classified according to depositional texture


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

1-20
type and abundance of grains form the basis of the classification. A
boundstone consists of original skeletal components bound together
during deposition (Figure 1.9). Grainstones consist of packed carbonate
grains with the texture being grain-supported and very little lime mud
(Figure 1.10). Packstones are grain-supported but contain very
substantial amounts of lime mud. Wackestones have a larger amount of
lime muds, such that the grains effectively “float” in the mud. Mudstones
consist of essentially lime muds only. The presence of lime mud may be
most important in the development of porosity in carbonates because
under the right conditions, lime mud may be preferentially dolomitized
and may also be more readily leached out than the grains.

Good porosity in carbonate reservoirs is usually due to


dolomitization. The largest volume of carbonate petroleum reserves
comes from dolomites. Dolomitization occurs from the substitution of
magnesium for calcium in half of the sites in a carbonate crystal. A
volume loss of 12 to 13% due to dolomitization results in a corresponding
increase in porosity. Due to their larger surface area, mud-size grains
are more easily dolomitized than sand-sized grains. Thus, the best
carbonate reservoirs may have the lowest primary porosity.
Dolomitization also creates planar crystal surfaces and harder crystal
structures. Thus, dolomites retain more of their porosity during
compaction than limestones.

1-21
Figure 1.8: Classification of carbonates by texture.

1.8.2 Pore Space

The porosity, permeability and pore space distribution in carbonate


reservoir rocks are related to both the depositional environment and the
diagenesis of the sediment. They are most commonly of secondary
(diagenetic) origin although residual primary pore space does occur.

Carbonates have a large range of pore structures due to the


complex nature of carbonate constituents and diagenetic features. The
pore structures have been classified by Choquette and Pray, 1970) as
shown in Figure 1.10.

1-22
Figure 1.9: Examples of boundstone.

1-23
Figure 1.9: Examples of grainstones.

1-24
Fabric-selective porosity includes:

•Interparticle porosity.

•Intercrystalline porosity - typical of dolomites.

•Fenestral porosity - by solution along bedding planes or joint


surfaces.

•Skeletal, framework, molding, or shelter porosity - selective solution of,


within, or around fossil material.

•Oomoldic porosity - selective solution of ooliths.

•Non fabric-selective porosity includes:

•Fracture porosity - by stress or shrinkage.

•Channel porosity - widening and coalescence of fractures.

•Vuggy or cavernous porosity.

•Bioturbation porosity - from boring and burrowing.

•Breccia porosity - in some cases, really high fracture porosity.

In carbonates, porosity and permeability are not well-correlated


with grain size or sorting. Porosity and permeability are controlled
largely by the amount of fines and by diagenesis. Correlation of
petrophysical properties with rock type is thus very difficult.

1-25
Figure 1.10: Classification of pore systems in carbonate rocks (Choquette
and Pray, 1970).

1-26
Table 1.6 shows a comparison of the pore space characteristics of
clastic and carbonate rocks (Choquette and Pray, 1970).

Table 1.6. Comparison of Pore-space Properties in Clastic and Carbonate


Rocks (Choquette and Pray, 1970).

1-27
1.9 FRACTURED RESERVOIRS

Natural reservoir fractures are caused by brittle failure, usually


due to such factors as (a) folding, (b) faulting, (c) fluid pressure, (d)
release of lithostatic pressure, (e) pressure solution, (f) dehydration, (g)
weathering, (h) cooling and (i) impact craters. Natural fractures can exist
in essentially any type of rock although they are particularly common in
carbonates.

Naturally fractured reservoirs are usually treated by a dual


porosity approach to deal with their properties. The matrix rock
(between fractures) usually has reasonable porosity and extremely low
permeability. Fractures range in size from hair-size to several
millimeters in aperture. Fractures that have not been filled with cement
have very high permeabilities, even though they may be fairly widely-
spaced. However, the fracture system generally contains only a small
fraction of the reservoir pore space. Thus, the matrix contains the bulk
of the reservoir pore volume while the fractures contain the bulk of the
reservoir flow capacity.

Figure 1.11 shows a naturally fractured rock together with its


idealized dual porosity approximation.

1-28
Figure 1.11: Idealization of naturally fractured reservoir (Warren and
Root, 1963)

1.10 RESERVOIR COLUMN

Figure 1.12 shows a reservoir column penetrated by a well. The


total thickness of the reservoir as determined from the spontaneous
potential (SP) log, discussed in Chapter 2, is H. This reservoir contains a
hydrocarbon bearing zone and a water bearing zone at the bottom. The
gross pay thickness, which is the thickness of the hydrocarbon bearing
portion of the reservoir as determined from the resistivity log (see
Chapter 2), is h0 . However, this thickness contains shale breaks which
will not be productive and must be discounted to determine the net pay
to be used in reserves estimation. The net pay for this example is given
by

1-29
i =6
Net pay = h = ∑ hi (1.1)
i =1

The net to gross (NTG) pay is defined as

i =6

h ∑
hi
Net to gross (NTG) = = i =1
(1.2)
h0 h0

The net to gross is a number that is less than or equal to 1 or if


expressed as a percentage, is a number that is less than or equal to
100%. Notice that in this example, there is a gas oil contact (GOC) and
an oil water contact (OWC) in the reservoir. The thickness of the gas zone
is hgas and that of the oil bearing zone is hoil . Of course, not all petroleum

reservoirs have a gas oil contact or an oil water contact. Net pay is used
along with other petrophysical properties of the reservoir to estimate the
hydrocarbon reserve as discussed in Chapter 2.

1-30
Figure 1.12. Reservoir column showing gross and net pay.

1-31
REFERENCES

Archie, G.E. :“Introduction to Petrophysics of Reservoir Rocks,” AAPG


Bull., Vol. 34, No. 5 (May 1950) 943-961.
Beard, D.C. and Weyl, P.K. : “Influence of Texture on Porosity and
Permeability of Unconsolidated Sand,” AAPG Bull. (Feb. 1973) 57,
349-369.
Choquette, P.W. and Pray, L.C. : “Geologic Nomenclature and
Classification of Porosity in Sedimentary Carbonates,” AAPG Bull.,
Vol. 54, No. 2 (1970) 207-250.
Krumbein, W.C. and Monk, G.D. : “Permeability as a Function of the Size
Parameters of Unconsolidated Sand,” Amer. Int. Mining and Met.
Tech. Pub. 1492, 1942.
Levorsen, A.I. : Geology of Petroleum, W.H. Freeman and Company, San
Francisco, 1967.
Neasham, J.W.: "The Morphology of Dispersed Clay in Sandstone
Reservoirs and Its Effect on Sandstone Shaliness, Pore Space and
Fluid Flow Properties," SPE 6858, Presented at the 52nd Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum
Engineers, Denver, Oct. 9-12, 1977.
Selley, R.C. : Elements of Petroleum Geology, W.H. Freeman, New York,
1985.
Stoneley, R. : An Introduction to Petroleum Exploration for Non-Geologists,
Oxford University Press, New York, 1995.
Stow, D.A.V. : Sedimentary Rocks in the Field, Elsevier Academic Press,
Burlington, 2005.

1-32
CHAPTER 2

POROSITY AND FLUID SATURATIONS

2.1 DEFINITION OF POROSITY

Porosity gives an indication of the rock’s ability to store fluids. It is


defined as the ratio of the pore volume to the bulk volume of the porous
medium as shown in the following equation:

Vp Vb − Vs
φ= = (2.1)
Vb Vb

Porosity may be classified as total or effective porosity. Total


porosity accounts for all the pores in the rock (interconnected and
isolated pores) whereas effective porosity only accounts for the
interconnected pores. Therefore, effective porosity will be less than or
equal to total porosity depending on the amount of isolated pores in the
rock. From a reservoir engineering standpoint, it is the effective porosity
that matters, not the total porosity.

2-1
Porosity may also be classified as primary or secondary. Primary
porosity is that which was formed at the time of deposition of the
sediments whereas secondary porosity was developed after deposition
and burial of the formation. Sandstone porosity is practically all primary
porosity whereas carbonate porosity tends to be secondary porosity.

2.2 FACTORS AFFECTING SANDSTONE POROSITY

Sandstone porosity is affected by packing, sorting and


cementation. Packing describes the arrangement of the sand grains
relative to one another. Figures 2.1 shows three idealized types of
packing for spherical sand grains and their theoretical porosities. The
cubic packing has a porosity of 47.6%; the hexagonal packing has a
porostiy of 39.5% and the rhombohedral packing has a porosity of
25.9%. As shown by the geometrical derivations in Figure 2.1, the
porosity of a pack of uniform spheres is independent of the grain size as
the grain diameter cancels out.

Well sorted sandstone consists of grains having approximately the


same size whereas poorly sorted sandstone consists of grains having a
wide range of different grain sizes. Poor sorting reduces the porosity of
the sandstone as may be seen in Figure 2.2 in which the small grains fit
into the pores created by the large grains, thereby reducing the porosity.

2–2
Figure 2.1. Effect of packing on porosity of uniform spheres.

Figure 2.2. Effect of sorting on porosity. (A) Irregular grains,


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

2-3
Table 2.1 shows experimentally measured porosities of various
artificial sandpacks. Note the general decrease of porosity with poor
sorting for all grain sizes and the approximately constant porosity of the
extremely well sorted sands for all grain sizes.

Table 2.1 Measured Porosities of Artificial Sandpacks (adapted from


Beard and Weyl, 1973)

In consolidated rocks, the sand grains are cemented together


usually by quartz or carbonates. Cementation reduces the porosity of
the sand as shown in Figure 2.3.

Figure 2.3. Effect of cementation on porosity.

2–4
2.3 FACTORS AFFECTING CARBONATE POROSITY

In carbonates, secondary porosity is usually more important than


primary porosity. The major sources of secondary porosity are
fracturing, solution and chemical replacement.

Fractures are cracks in the rock. Figure 2.4 shows an idealized


fractured formation where the grains are bricks and the fractures
constitute the pore space. Although fracture porosity is generally small,
often 1-2%, the fractures are very useful in allowing fluids to flow more
easily through the rock. Therefore, they greatly enhance the flow
capacity of the rock.

Figure 2.4. Idealized fractured rock with low fracture porosity.

Solution is a chemical reaction in which water with dissolved


carbon dioxide reacts with calcium carbonate to form calcium
bicarbonate which is soluble. This reaction increases the porosity of the
limestone. The chemical reactions are

2-5
CO2 + H 2O = H 2CO3 (2.2)

H 2CO3 + CaCO3 = Ca ( HCO3 )2 (2.3)

Chemical Replacement is a chemical reaction in which one type of


ion replaces another with a resulting shrinkage in the size of the new
compound. An example is dolomitization in which some of the calcium
ions in calcium carbonate are replaced by magnesium ions to form
calcium magnesium carbonate (dolomite). This replacement causes a
shrinkage of 12 to 13% in the grain volume, with a corresponding
increase in secondary porosity. The chemical reaction is

2CaCO3 + MgCl2 = CaMg ( CO3 )2 + CaCl2 (2.4)

2.4 TYPICAL RESERVOIR POROSITY VALUES

Sandstones have porosities that typically range from 8% to 38%,


with an average of 18%. About 95% of sandstone porosity is effective
porosity. Sandstone porosity is usually mostly intergranular porosity.
Carbonates have porosities that typically range from 3% to 15%, with an
average of about 8%. About 90% of carbonate porosity is effective
porosity. Carbonate porosities are much more difficult to characterize
and may consist of (1) intergranular, (2) intercrystalline, (3) fractures and
fissures, and (4) vugular porosities.

2–6
2.5 LABORATORY MEASUREMENT OF POROSITY

2.5.1 Direct Porosity Measurement by Routine Core Analysis

Direct measurement of porosity requires the measurements of two


of the three volumes Vb, Vs and Vp. In the laboratory, measurements
are usually performed on extracted cores, which have been cleaned and
dried.

Bulk volume can be determined by (1) caliper and (2) fluid


displacement. For well machined samples, the dimensions can be
measured with a caliper, from which the bulk volume can be calculated.

Two types of fluid displacements can be used to determine bulk


volume. In the first method, fluid that does not easily penetrate the
pores such as mercury is used. The apparatus, which is known as a
pycnometer, measures the volume of mercury displaced by the sample
(Figure 2.5a). Since mercury does not penetrate the pores at
atmospheric pressure, the volume of mercury displaced is equal to the
bulk volume of the sample.

In the second method, fluid which easily saturates the sample is


used. The sample is weighed in air, evacuated and then saturated with a
liquid (brine, kerosene, or toluene). The saturated sample is weighed in
air and then weighed fully immersed in the saturating liquid. The loss in
weight of the saturated sample when fully immersed in the saturating
liquid is proportional to the bulk volume of the sample (Archimedes
principle).

Grain volume can be determined by (1) fluid displacement and (2)


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

2-7
dry sample and the sample fully immersed in a liquid is proportional to
the grain volume.

Figure 2.5b shows a schematic diagram of a Boyle’s law


porosimeter for grain volume determination by gas expansion. The
sample, which is confined in a vessel of known volume V1, is pressured
by gas (air, nitrogen or helium) to a pressure P1 (absolute units). The
vessel of volume V1 is connected to a second vessel of known volume V2,
which is initially evacuated. The valve between the two vessels is opened
and the pressure in the two vessels is allowed to stabilize at P2 (absolute
units). By Boyle’s law (PV = constant at a constant temperature),

(V1 − Vs ) P1 = (V1 − Vs + V2 ) P2 (2.5)

Eq.(2.5) can be solved for the grain volume as

⎛ P2 ⎞
Vs = V1 − V2 ⎜ ⎟ (2.6)
⎝ P1 − P2 ⎠

The instrument can be calibrated with steel blanks of known volume.


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

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

of different sizes should be used in the calibration to ensure reliability of

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

used to convert the measurements from core samples to grain volume.

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.

Mercury injection consists of forcing mercury under relatively high


pressure into the pores of the sample using a mercury porosimeter
(Figure 2.5c). Typically, the core is evacuated before mercury injection.
Because any air left in the pores is compressed to a negligibly small
value, the volume of mercury injected is essentially equal to the
connected pore volume of the sample. This is a destructive method
because after the test, the sample is no longer suitable for other
measurements. Mercury porosimetry is also used to determine capillary
pressure and pore size distribution of the sample (see Chapter 6).

The methods so far described determine the effective porosity of


the sample. To determine the total porosity, the sample is ground into a
fine powder after bulk volume measurement. The grain volume of the
ground sample can be determined either by liquid displacement or by
assuming an average grain density.

The measurement of porosity on consolidated samples in routine


core analysis might generally be expected to yield values of the true
fractional porosity plus or minus 0.005, i.e., a true value of 27% porosity
may be measured between 26.5% and 27.5% porosity.

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

• The core may be altered during recovery.

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 porosities are measured on small plugs, which may not be


representative of the entire reservoir.

• The volume of the core analyzed is small and may not account for
the variability of the porosity in the reservoir.

Despite these limitations, core analysis provides the only direct


measurement of porosity. Frequently, the results of core analysis are
used to calibrate well logs.

Example 2.1
An experiment has been performed to determine the porosity of an
irregularly shaped core sample. The cleaned dry sample was weighed in
air. It was then evacuated and fully saturated with an oil with a density
of 0.85 gm/cc and then weighed again in air. Afterwards, the saturated
sample was weighed when it was fully immersed in the oil. Here are the
results of the experiment.

Weight of dry sample in air = 42.40 gm

Weight of the saturated sample in air = 45.49 gm

Weight of the saturated sample immersed in the oil = 28.80 gm

a. Calculate the porosity of the core.

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.

Solution to Example 2.1

Wt of dry sample (Wdry) = 42.40 gm

Wt of saturated sample (Wsat) = 45.49 gm

Wt of sample immersed in oil (Wi) = 28.80 gm

Density of saturating oil (ρL) = 0.85 gm/cc

a. Required to calculate the porosity of the sample.

Pore volume (Vp) = (Wsat – Wdry)/ρL = (45.49–42.40)/0.85 = 3.64 cc

Bulk volume (Vb) = (Wsat – Wi)/ρL = (45.49–28.80)/0.85 = 19.64 cc

Porosity (φ) = Vp/Vb = 3.64/19.64 = 0.185 or 18.5%

b. Yes. There is enough information to determine the mineralogy of


the sample through the grain density.

Grain volume (Vs) = Vb–Vp =19.64–3.64 = 16.00 cc

Alternatively, Grain volume (Vs) = (Wdry–Wi)/ρL = (42.40–

28.80)/0.85 = 16.00 cc

2–12
Grain density (ρs) = Wdry/Vs = 42.40/16.00 = 2.65 gms/cc

Specific gravity of mineral (γm) = ρs /ρw = 2.65/1.00 = 2.65

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.

2.5.2 Indirect Porosity Measurement by CT Imaging

With the availability of X-ray computed tomography (CT) imaging


systems in research laboratories, it is now possible to measure the
porosity distributions in core samples. Peters and Afzal (1992) have
made such measurements in an artificial sandpack and a Berea
sandstone approximately 60 cm long and 5 cm in diameter. CT imaging
gives rise to a very large data set, over 600,000 porosity values in some
cases. Therefore, it is convenient to present the results of the
measurements as images (Figures 2.7 and 2.8). It should be noted in
Figure 2.7 that a sandpack may not be as uniform as we always assume
it to be. The packing technique used in this test introduced significant
porosity variation into the pack. The packing history is clearly evident in
the image. The dominant feature in the porosity variation of the Berea
sandstone is layering which is clearly visible in Figure 2.8. The porosity
data also can be presented in histograms as shown Figures 2.9 and 2.10.

The porosity in each voxel (volume element) was obtained by


scanning the sample dry and then scanning it fully saturated with a
wetting fluid such as brine. The x-ray attenuation equations for the two
scans are

2-13
ψ m (1 − φ ) + φψ air = ψ dry (2.7)

ψ m (1 − φ ) + φψ brine = ψ wet (2.8)

Eqs.(2.7) and (2.8) can be solved simultaneously to obtain the porosity in


each voxel as

ψ wet −ψ dry
φ= (2.9)
ψ brine −ψ air

The x-ray attenuation coefficient of the brine in Eq.(2.9) is obtained by


scanning a sample of the brine in a test tube and the attenuation for air
is assumed to be zero.

Figure 2.7. Porosity image of a sandpack from CT imaging. L = 54.2 cm,

2–14
d = 4.8 cm. (a) Cross-sectional slice. (b) Longitudinal vertical slice. (Peters
and Afzal, 1992).

Figure 2.8. Porosity image of a Berea sandstone from CT imaging. L =


60.2 cm, d = 5.1 cm. (a) Cross-sectional slice. (b) Longitudinal vertical
slice. (Peters and Afzal, 1992).

2-15
Figure 2.9. Porosity histogram for a sandpack from CT imaging. L =
54.2 cm, d = 4.8 cm. Mean = 29.7%, Standard deviation = 2.5%.(Peters
and Afzal, 1992).

2–16
Figure 2.10. Porosity histogram for a Berea sandstone from CT
imaging. L = 60.2 cm, d = 5.1 cm. Mean = 17.3%, Standard
deviation = 2.0%.(Peters and Afzal, 1992).

2.6 FLUID SATURATIONS

In a petroleum reservoir, there is always more than one fluid phase


occupying the pore space. In an oil reservoir, oil and water occupy the
pore space. In a gas reservoir, gas and water occupy the pore space. At a
certain point in the production of an oil reservoir, oil, water and gas
could occupy the pore space. There is a need to keep track of the
quantity of each type of fluid occupying the pore space. The
petrophysical property that describes the amount of each fluid type in

2-17
the pore space is the fluid saturation. It is defined as the fraction of the
pore space occupied by a fluid phase. Thus, in general,

Fluid Volume
Fluid Saturation = (2.10)
Effective Rock Pore Volume

If Sw = water saturation, So = oil saturation and Sg = gas saturation,

then Sw = Vw/Vp, So = Vo/Vp, and Sg = Vg/Vp, where Vw, Vo, Vg and

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

reservoir without a liquid hydrocarbon saturation, Sg + Sw = 1.0. For an

oil reservoir with a free gas saturation, So + Sw + Sg = 1.0. Fluid

saturation may also be expressed in %.

There are two methods of determining the in-situ fluid saturations


in a petroleum reservoir rock. The direct approach is to measure the
fluid saturations from a core cut from the reservoir. The indirect
approach is to measure some other physical property of the rock that can
be related to fluid saturation. The direct approach is discussed here.
The indirect approach such as using electric logs or capillary pressure
measurements to estimate water saturation will be discussed later.

One method of direct measurement of fluid saturations is the


retort method. In this method, a core sample is heated so as to vaporize
the water and oil, which are condensed and collected in a small,
graduated receiving vessel (Figure 2.11). The volumes of oil and water
divided by the pore volume of the core sample give the oil and water
saturations. The gas saturation is obtained indirectly by the requirement
that saturations must sum to one.

2–18
Figure 2.11. Retort distillation apparatus.

There are two disadvantages to the retort method of saturation


determination. In order to remove all the oil, it is necessary to heat the
core to temperatures in the range of 1000 to 1100 °F. At these

2-19
temperatures, the water of crystallization (hydration) of the rock is driven
off, resulting in an estimated water saturation that is higher than the
true interstitial (connate) water saturation. The second disadvantage is
that the oil when heated to high temperatures has a tendency to crack
and coke. This cracking and coking tend to reduce the oil volume
resulting in an oil saturation that is less than the true value.
Corrections can be made to the retort measurements to make them more
accurate.

Another method of direct saturation measurement is by extraction


with a solvent. This is accomplished in a Dean-Stark distillation
apparatus (Figure 2.12). The core is placed in the apparatus in such a
way that the vapor from a solvent (e.g., toluene) rises through the core
and is condensed back over the sample. This process leaches out the oil
and water from the sample. The water and solvent are condensed and
trapped in a graduated receiver. The water settles to the bottom of the
receiver while the solvent refluxes back into the main heating vessel. The
extraction is continued until no more water is collected in the receiving
vessel. The water saturation is calculated directly from the volume of
water expelled from the sample. The oil saturation is calculated
indirectly from the weight of the saturated sample before distillation, the
weight of the dry sample after distillation and the weight of the water
expelled from the sample. Again, the gas saturation is calculated
indirectly from the requirement that the saturations must sum to one.

To ensure that all the oil has been removed from the sample, the
sample may be transferred from the Dean-Stark apparatus to a Soxhlet
extractor for further extraction (Figure 2.13). The Soxhlet extractor is
similar to the Dean-Stark apparatus except that there is no provision for
trapping the extracted liquids.

2–20
The saturations determined by direct measurements on cores
should be treated with caution because they may not represent the in-
situ fluid saturations for several reasons. If the core was cut with a
water-based drilling mud, it would have been flushed by mud filtrate
resulting in a higher water saturation than the original, undisturbed
formation water saturation. The measured oil saturation in this case
would be the residual oil saturation after waterflooding, which is less
than the original in-situ oil saturation. If the core was cut with an oil-
based mud, the water saturation obtained by direct measurement will be
essentially the correct original water saturation, if it was at irreducible
level. If the original in-situ water saturation was not at the irreducible
level, then the oil mud filtrate could potentially displace some of the
water making the laboratory measured water saturation to be too low.

Figure 2.12. Dean-Stark apparatus.

2-21
Figure 2.13. Soxhlet extractor.

As the core is brought from the high pressure and temperature of


the reservoir to the low pressure and temperature of the laboratory,
changes occur in the fluid saturations which can make them
considerably different from the original in-situ saturations. The free gas,
if present, will expand, expelling water and oil in the process. Solution
gas will evolve from the oil, expand and further reduce the oil and water
volumes. The evolution of solution gas causes the oil to "shrink". These
changes cause the saturations determined by core analysis to be
different from the in-situ saturations. In particular, the changes cause
gas saturation to be excessive even when there was no free gas
saturation at the original in-situ conditions.

2–22
Although the saturations determined by direct measurements on
cores may not reflect the true in-situ saturations, they do provide useful
information about the reservoir. The saturation measurements can be
used to approximately locate the gas-oil and water-oil contacts in the
reservoir if they are present.

Fluid saturations, So, Sw and Sg, only tell us the proportion of

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).

Table 2.2 shows the data obtained in an example core analysis


from a hydrocarbon bearing formation from a depth of 4805.5 to 4851.5
feet. The table shows the depth, core permeability, core porosity, oil
saturation, water saturation and gas saturation as determined in the
laboratory. Although the fluid saturations are not the true in-situ
saturations, nevertheless they provide useful information. Figure 2.14
shows the saturation distributions from the core data. One can easily see
a water bearing zone at the bottom where the measured water saturation
is very high, an oil bearing zone above it, and a gas cap on top of the oil
zone. A gas oil contact exists at 4828.5 ft, and a water oil contact exists
at 4848.5 ft. Note the misleading gas saturation below the gas oil
contact. There was no free gas saturation below the gas oil contact at in-
situ conditions.

2-23
Table 2.2: Core Analysis Data

Depth k φ So Sw Sg
(ft) (md (%) (%) (%) (%)
)
4805.5 0 7.5 0.0 68. 32.
0 0
4806.5 0 12. 0.0 78. 22.
3 0 0
4807.5 2.5 17. 0.0 43. 57.
0 0 0
4808.5 59 20. 0.0 29. 71.
7 0 0
4809.5 221 19. 0.0 31. 68.
1 4 6
4810.5 211 20. 0.0 38. 61.
4 7 3
4811.5 275 23. 0.0 34. 65.
3 7 3
4812.5 384 24. 0.0 26. 73.
0 2 8
4813.5 108 23. 0.0 30. 69.
3 9 1
4814.5 147 16. 0.0 29. 70.
1 2 8
4815.5 290 17. 0.0 34. 65.
2 3 7
4816.5 170 15. 0.0 24. 75.
3 2 8
4817.5 278 15. 0.0 26. 73.
9 4 6
4818.5 238 18. 0.0 39. 60.
6 8 2
4819.5 167 16. 0.0 39. 60.
2 5 5
4820.5 304 20. 0.0 38. 62.
0 0 0
4821.5 98 16. 0.0 34. 65.
9 3 7
4822.5 191 18. 0.0 34. 65.
1 8 2
4823.5 266 20. 0.0 31. 68.
3 1 9
4824.5 40 15. 0.0 22. 77.
3 9 1
4825.5 260 15. 0.0 13. 86.
1 9 1
4826.5 179 14. 0.0 21. 78.
0 4 6
4827.5 312 15. 0.0 28. 71.
6 8 2

2–24
4828.5 272 15. 0.0 34. 65.
5 8 2
4829.5 395 19. 6.2 25. 68.
4 3 5
4830.5 405 17. 13. 25. 61.
5 1 7 2
4831.5 275 16. 17. 22. 59.
4 7 5 8
4832.5 852 17. 19. 19. 61.
2 8 2 0
4833.5 610 15. 21. 21. 56.
5 9 3 8
4834.5 406 20. 16. 22. 61.
2 3 3 4
4835.5 535 18. 19. 24. 55.
3 7 6 7
4836.5 663 19. 19. 16. 64.
6 4 3 3
4837.5 597 17. 17. 19. 62.
7 5 8 7
4838.5 434 20. 14. 27. 58.
0 0 5 5
4839.5 339 16. 20. 19. 59.
8 8 7 5
4840.5 216 13. 18. 23. 58.
3 1 3 6
4841.5 332 18. 15. 15. 68.
0 6 6 8
4842.5 295 16. 19. 15. 65.
1 3 5 2
4843.5 882 15. 19. 21. 59.
1 2 2 6
4844.5 600 18. 20. 22. 57.
0 6 2 2
4845.5 407 15. 15. 13. 71.
7 3 4 3

4847.5 479 17. 20. 14. 64.


8 8 6 6
4848.5 0 9.2 14. 8.7 77.
1 2
4849.5 139 20. 0.0 77. 22.
5 1 9
4850.5 135 8.4 0.0 57. 42.
2 8
4851.5 0 1.1 0.0 63. 36.
6 4

2-25
Figure 2.14. Saturation distributions from core analysis data.

Other useful observations can be made from the core


analysis data. The low residual oil saturation of about 20% indicates a
light oil reservoir in contrast to a heavy (more viscous) oil reservoir in
which the residual oil saturation would be much higher than 20%. All of

2–26
the measured properties vary with depth, which is an indication that the
reservoir is heterogeneous in nature. The porosity and permeability
distributions are shown in Figure 2.15. Variability of reservoir properties
is pervasive. Not only do the properties vary along the well depth, they
also vary laterally away from the well. The characterization of this
variability and the estimation of the properties at unmeasured locations
are the subjects addressed by geostatistics (see Chapter 4).

2.7 INDIRECT POROSITY MEASUREMENT FROM WELL


LOGS

2.7.1 Introduction to Well Logging

In-situ porosity cannot be measured directly in the field as in the


laboratory. Therefore, only indirect measurements are made through well
logging. These measurements use either sonic energy or some form of
induced or applied radiation. Most log evaluation is concerned primarily
with determining in-situ porosity and water saturation. Neither in-situ
water saturation nor hydrocarbon saturation can be measured directly in
the wellbore. However, it is possible to infer the water saturation if the
porosity is known by measuring the resistivity of the formation.
Therefore, in this section, porosity and resistivity logs are discussed.

Care should always be taken in comparing core versus log-derived


porosities, particularly in rocks that have been highly affected by
diagenesis. Logs measure average porosities over a much larger volume
than conventional laboratory core analysis. Also, a laboratory core has
been relieved of the overburden and lateral stresses and because it is an
elastic medium, it will expand. Since the minerals have very low
coefficient of expansion, the increase in volume must be due almost
solely to the increase in porosity. Thus, the porosity measured in the

2-27
laboratory at ambient conditions may be expected to be higher than at in
situ conditions.

Figure 2.15. Porosity and permeability distributions from core analysis


data.

2–28
2.7.2 Mud Filtrate Invasion

Well log measurements are made in the borehole after the well has
been drilled. The drilling operation alters the formation characteristics
near the wellbore where the log measurements are made. In order to
interpret the logs, it is necessary to understand the changes that have
occurred in the formation caused by the drilling mud.

Drilling mud is a complex liquid usually composed of mainly water


(for water-based muds) and suspended solids and various chemicals that
control the mud properties (viscosity, fluid loss, pH and others). Clays
(bentonite) are added to give the mud viscosity and weighting material
(barite) is added to increase the mud density above that of water.

The mud is circulated during drilling to lift the cuttings out of the
borehole. Another important function of the mud is to exert a
backpressure on the formation to prevent the well from "kicking" during
the drilling operations. In general, during drilling, the pressure in the
mud column in the borehole is higher than the formation pressure.

If we take a mud sample and place it in a mud press as is typically


done in mud testing, we can separate the mud into its two main
components: mud filtrate and mudcake. Mud filtrate is a clear liquid
whose salinity varies according to the source of the water used to mix the
mud and the chemical nature of the additives. Usually, the filtrate
salinity is lower than the formation water salinity. Since the filtrate is
clear (no suspended solids), it can invade the formation if the pressure in
the wellbore is greater than the formation pressure, which is the case
during overbalance drilling. The mud filtrate can displace some of the
original formation fluids away from the wellbore into the formation.

2-29
The mudcake seals off the formation from further invasion by the
mud filtrate. The presence of the mudcake can be detected by the logging
tool and will cause the borehole diameter to be smaller than the bit
diameter. It is an indication of invasion and, indirectly, of permeability.
Since the mudcake is a solid, it will not normally invade the formation.
Drilling mud itself usually cannot invade the formation because it
contains a lot of suspended solids. However, whole mud can be lost into
the formation if the formation is inadvertently fractured. This is lost
circulation, which should not be confused with mud filtrate invasion. The
mudcake has a very low permeability and as a result, controls the
volume of filtrate invasion. The depth of invasion is determined by the
porosity of the formation. The depth of invasion will be greater in a low
porosity formation than in a high porosity formation everything else
being equal.

Figure 2.16 shows a schematic diagram of the undisturbed


formation and the altered formation after it has been penetrated by the
bit. The left figure shows the undisturbed formation before it was drilled.
Let us assume that this is a sandstone formation bounded above and
below by impermeable shales. The bottom of the sand has water
saturation, Sw, of 100% and the upper section of the sand is at an
irreducible water saturation, Swirr. Irreducible water saturation is that
saturation at which the water cannot be produced during normal
production operations. The water occupies the lower portion of the
formation because it is denser than oil which floats to the top of the
formation. There is a transition zone in which the water saturation
decreases from 100% at the bottom to 25% at the top over a finite length
of the formation. This transition zone is caused by capillarity (see

2–30
Chapter 7). It should be pointed out that not all hydrocarbon bearing
zones contain irreducible water. Some can contain mobile water.

Figure 2.16. Schematic diagram of mud filtrate invasion. Undisturbed


formation is at left and invaded formation is at right.

On the right is the same formation after it has been drilled. Here,
invasion has occurred. Because of the higher pressure in the borehole
than the formation, the formation acts as a mud press and separates the
mud into mudcake which plasters the borehole wall, and mud filtrate,
which invades the formation. In order to invade the formation, the fluids
that were originally there must be displaced. The filtrate flushes or

2-31
displaces the fluids deeper into the formation and takes their place near
the wellbore.

In the bottom of the formation where Sw = 100%, the flushing is


nearly complete because the formation water is being displaced by water
which is different only in salinity and is miscible with it. The salinity of
any formation water left behind will soon reach equilibrium with the
filtrate because of diffusion.

In the upper part of the formation, we had an initially large oil


saturation (Soi = 1-Swirr). Although most of the formation water has been
displaced by mud filtrate, residual oil remains in the flushed zone with a
saturation, Sor, because an immiscible displacement can never be
complete.

The filtrate has flushed out all the original fluids that it can flush
out to a certain depth. This depth is called the flushed zone. The flushed
zone water saturation is designated Sxo and the flushed zone diameter is
designated dxo. The resistivity of the water in the flushed zone is Rmf, the
resitivity of the mud filtrate, and the resistivity of the flushed zone
formation is Rxo. If we go a little deeper into the formation, we will find a
transition zone, which contains a mixture of formation fluids and mud
filtrate. The zone, from the borehole wall to the end of the mud filtrate is
the invaded zone and includes the flushed zone. The diameter of the
invaded zone is designated as di, the water saturation is Si, and the
formation resisitivity Ri. Note that in the flushed zone, Si = Sxo and Ri =
Rxo. Since the water between dxo and di is a mixture of formation water
and filtrate, it is not possible to measure a single value for Ri in this zone.
Finally, as we pass the invaded zone, we return to the undisturbed or
uncontaminated formation. This is the virgin zone. The conditions in this

2–32
zone are the same as at the left side of Figure 2.16. The resistivity of this
undisturbed zone is Rt, the true formation resisitivity, which we ideally
would like to measure for estimating the undisturbed water saturation,
Sw.

Figure 2.17 gives the same information about the fluid


distributions but in a different format. On the left is a plot of Sw versus
depth for the undisturbed formation. At the bottom, Sw = 100% and is
constant for about 30 ft from the bottom. We then enter the transition
zone, where Sw changes with depth until it reaches an irreducible water
saturation of about 25%. Sw is constant for the last 20 ft or so at Sw =
Swirr. Note that the hydrocarbon saturation, Sh is equal to (1-Sw).

Figure 2.17. Variation of water saturation with distance from the


borehole.

2-33
On the right are three sections drawn horizontally through the
formation to show how Sw varies with distance from the borehole at three
depths. At the bottom section, Sxo = Si = Sw = 100%. This is because there
was never any hydrocarbon in this section of the formation and as a
result, Sh = 0.

The depth in the middle section was chosen in the transition zone
where Sw was about 40%. We can see a change in the various water
saturations because oil is present in this zone and some of it has been
displaced by mud filtrate. Because of the residual oil, Sxo is less than
100% (Sxo = 1-Sor). Si will be lower than Sxo because some of the
hydrocarbon that was originally in the flushed zone has been displaced
into this zone, and Sw in the uncontaminated zone will be 40%.

In the uppermost section, Sw is at its irreducible saturation value


for the undisturbed formation. We see the maximum variation in the
various saturations after invasion. Sxo will be lower than the Sxo in the
transition zone, and (1-Sxo) will be close to the residual oil saturation, Sor.
The water saturation will vary throughout between dxo and di. Beyond di,
Sw = Swirr = 25%. In this uppermost section, we clearly see the flushed
zone diameter, where Sxo is constant, and the end of the invaded zone,
where Sw becomes constant.

Most of the difficulties in log evaluation and the proliferation of


many tool configurations are caused by the presence of mud invasion,
usually of unknown depth, in the logging environment. Figure 2.18
shows a schematic diagram of the borehole condition for logging
measurements.

2–34
Figure 2.18. Borehole conditions for well logging (Courtesy of
Schlumberger).

2-35
2.7.3 Porosity Logs

Conventional logging techniques for measuring porosity are the


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

Density Log
The Density log measures the electron density of the formation by
using a pad mounted chemical source of gamma radiation and two
shielded gamma detectors (Figure 2.19). The medium-energy gamma rays
emitted into the formation collide with electrons in the formation. At each
collision, a gamma ray loses some, but not all, of its energy to the
electron and then continues with reduced energy. This type of interaction
is known as Compton scattering. The scattered gamma rays reaching the
detector, at a fixed distance from the source, are counted as an
indication of the formation density.

Figure 2.19. Schematic of density logging tool.

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.

For a pure element, the electron density index, which is


proportional to the electron density is defined as

⎛ 2Z ⎞
ρe = ρb ⎜ ⎟ (2.11)
⎝ A ⎠

where ρe is the electron density index, ρb is the bulk density, Z is the


atomic number of the element and A is the atomic weight of the element.
For a molecule, the electron density index is given by

⎛ 2∑ Z i ⎞
ρe = ρb ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ (2.12)
⎝ M ⎠

where M is the molecular weight and ∑Z i is the sum of the atomic

numbers of the atoms making up the molecule, which is equal to the


number of electrons per molecule. For most materials encountered in the
formation, the quantities in brackets in Eqs.(2.11) and (2.12) are
approximately equal to unity as shown in Tables 2.3 and 2.4. The density
tool is calibrated in a fresh water filled limestone formation of high purity
to give an apparent density that is related to the electron density index
by

2-37
ρ a = 1.0704 ρe − 0.1883 (2.13)

For liquid filled sandstones, limestones and dolomites, the apparent


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

The bulk density of a clean formation is given by

ρb = φρ f + ρ m (1 − φ ) (2.14)

Eq.(2.14) can be solved for the porosity as

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.

Figure 2.20 shows a typical presentation of a density log. Track 1


shows the Gamma Ray log, which measures the natural gamma
radiation of the formation. Radioactive elements such as uranium,
potassium and thorium tend to occur more in shales than in sands. As a
result, the Gamma Ray log is a lithology log that identifies shales from
sands. The caliper in the same track measures the borehole diameter.

2–38
The formation density and the porosity derived from it are presented in
Tracks 2 and 3. Also shown is the correction or compensation applied to
account for mud cake effect and small borehole irregularities.

Table 2.3: Atomic Properties of Common Elements in the Formation


⎛ Z⎞
⎜2 ⎟
Elemen A Z ⎝ A⎠
t
H 1.008 1 1.984
1
C 12.01 6 0.999
1 1
O 16.00 8 1.000
0 0
Na 22.99 11 0.956
9
Mg 24.32 12 0.986
8
Al 26.98 13 0.963
7
Si 28.09 14 0.996
8
S 32.07 16 0.997
8
Cl 35.46 17 0.958
8
K 39.10 19 0.971
9
Ca 40.08 20 0.998
0

2-39
Table 2.4: Densities of Rock Formations and Fluids
ρb ⎛ 2∑ Z i ⎞ ρe ρa
⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
Compound Formula (gm/cc) ⎝ M ⎠ (gm/cc) (gm/cc)
Quartz SiO2 2.654 0.9985 2.650 2.648
Calcite CaCO3 2.710 0.9991 2.708 2.710
Dolomite CaMg(CO3)2 2.870 0.9977 2.863 2.876
Anhydrite CaSO4 2.960 0.9990 2.957 2.977
Sylvite KCl 1.984 0.9657 1.916 1.863
Halite NaCl 2.165 0.9581 2.074 2.032
Gypsum CaSO4.H2O 2.320 1.0222 2.372 2.351
Fresh Water H2O 1.000 1.1101 1.110 1.00
Salt Water 200,000 1.146 1.0797 1.237 1.135
ppm
“Oil” N(CH2) 0.850 1.1407 0.970 0.850
Methane CH4 ρmeth 1.247 1.247ρmet 1.335ρmeth-
h 0.188
“Gas” C1.1H4.2 ρgas 1.238 1.238ρgas 1.325ρgas -0.188

2–40
Figure 2.20. Presentation of density log.

2-41
Sonic Log (Acoustic Log)
The Sonic log measures the time, Δt, required for compressional
sound wave to traverse one foot of formation. Known as the interval
transit time, Δt is the reciprocal of the velocity of the compressional

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

and reported in micro-seconds per ft (μsec/ft). Thus,

106
Δt = (2.16)
v

where Δt is the interval transit time in μsec/ft and v is the compressional


wave velocity in ft/s.

The sonic tool contains a transmitter and two receivers (Figure


2.21). When the transmitter is energized, the sound wave enters the
formation from the mud column, travels through the formation and back
to the receivers through the mud column. The difference between the
arrival times at the two receivers divided by the distance between the
receivers gives the interval transit time. The speed of sound in the tool
and the drilling mud is less than that in the formation. Accordingly, the
first arrival of sound energy at the receivers corresponds to sound travel
paths in the formation near the borehole. The logging tool has circuits to
compensate for hole size changes or any tilting of the tool in the hole.

The interval transit time in a formation depends upon lithology and


porosity. In general, the more dense or consolidated a formation, the
lower the interval transit time. An increase in travel time indicates an
increase in porosity. Based on laboratory measurements, Wyllie (1956)
concluded that in clean and consolidated formations with uniformly

2–42
distributed small pores, there is a linear relationship between porosity
and interval transit time as follows:

Δt = φΔt f + (1 − φ ) Δtm (2.17)

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

the rock matrix, and φ is the formation porosity.

Figure 2.21. Schematic of sonic logging tool.

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.

If any shale laminae exist in the sandstone, the apparent sonic


porosity is increased by an amount proportional to the bulk volume
fraction of such laminae. The interval transit time is increased because
transit time for shale generally exceeds that of the matrix.

In carbonates having intergranular porosity, Wyllie’s average


formula still applies. But sometimes, the pore structure and pore size
distribution are significantly different from sandstones. Also, there is
often some secondary porosity such as vugs and fractures with much
larger dimensions than the pores of the primary porosity. In vuggy
formations, according to Wyllie, the velocity of sound depends mostly on
the primary porosity, and the porosity derived from the sonic reading
through the time average formula will tend to be too low by an amount
approaching the secondary porosity.

Direct application of the Wyllie formula to unconsolidated and


insufficiently compacted sands gives porosity values that are too high.
When shale transit time exceeds 100 μsec/ft, which is an indication of

2–44
undercompaction, then the compaction correction should be made to
obtain more accurate porosity values. This is accomplished by applying
an empirical correction factor as shown in Eq.(2.19):

⎛ Δt − Δtm ⎞ ⎛ 100 ⎞
φ =⎜ (2.19)
⎜ Δt f − Δtm ⎟⎟ ⎜ Δtsh ⎟
⎝ ⎠⎝ ⎠

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

shows a typical presentation of the sonic log.

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.

Neutrons are electrically neutral particles with a mass almost


identical to the mass of a hydrogen atom. High-energy (fast) neutrons are
continuously emitted from a radioactive source mounted in the logging
tool. These neutrons collide with the nuclei of the formation materials.
With each collision, a neutron loses some of its energy. The

Figure 2.23. Schematic of neutron logging tool.

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.

Within a few microseconds, the neutrons have been slowed down


by successive collisions to thermal velocities, corresponding to energies
of around 0.025 electron volt (eV). They then diffuse randomly, without
losing any more energy, until they are captured by the nuclei of atoms
such as chlorine, hydrogen, silicon and others. The capturing nucleus
becomes intensely excited and emits a high-energy gamma ray of
capture. Depending on the type of Neutron logging tool, either these
capture gamma rays or the slow neutrons themselves are counted by a
detector in the tool.

When the hydrogen concentration of the material surrounding the


neutron source is large, most of the neutrons are slowed down and
captured within a short distance from the source. However, if the
hydrogen concentration is small, the neutrons travel farther from the
source before they are captured. Accordingly, the counting rate at the
detector increases for decreased hydrogen concentration and decreases
for increased hydrogen concentration. The porosity based on the neutron
count is given by

N = a − b log φ (2.20)

where N is the slow neutrons counted, a and b are empirical constants


determined by appropriate calibration and φ is the porosity.

Since there is very little difference in the concentration of hydrogen


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

2–48
neutron counting rate indicates low porosity and a low neutron counting
rate indicates high porosity. Figure 2.24 shows a typical presentation of
the Neutron log. The neutron count is presented in API (American
Petroleum Institute) units. The porosity is in neutron porosity units
based on calibration with limestone or sandstone.

Two additional factors should be considered in the interpretation of


neutron logs. First, shales and zones containing a significant amount of
shale, will indicate a high neutron porosity due to the bound water
associated with the shale. Secondly, because of the lower concentration
of hydrogen in gas than in oil or water, a zone containing gas will
indicate a neutron porosity that is lower than it should be. These
features are really an advantage since a comparison of the neutron
porosity to cores and other porosity logs provides a convenient method
for determining shale volumes and for distinguishing gas zones from oil
or water zones. In a gas zone, the fluid density is very much lower than
the 1.0 gm/cc used in Eq.(2.15) to calculate the density porosity. As a
result, the density porosity in a gas zone is higher than it should be.
Thus, in a gas zone, the neutron porosity is too low and the density
porosity is too high. When the two porosity logs are superimposed, the
two curves will agree is shales and in liquid zones and will cross over in
gas zones. This cross over of the two logs can be used to identify gas
bearing zones as shown in Figure 2.25.

2-49
Figure 2.24. Presentation of Neutron log.

2–50
Figure 2.25. A comparison of neutron and density porosities. Shaded
areas indicate gas zones.

2-51
Combination Porosity Logs
In many areas, it is common practice to record more than one
porosity log on a well. Common combinations are Density-Neutron,
Density-Sonic and Sonic-Neutron. Sometimes, all three logs are run in
the same well. These logs are usually recorded along with a Gamma Ray
curve and a Caliper.

Combination porosity logs are used to (1) differentiate oil or water


from gas zones, (2) calculate quantitative values for lithology, and (3)
determine volume of shale in the rock matrix. Figure 2.26 shows a
section of the three porosity logs run in the same well.

2.7.4 Resistivity Log

Resistivity is one of the most useful physical properties measured


in the borehole. Formation resistivity measurements, in conjunction with
porosity and water resistivity, are used to obtain values of water
saturation and consequently, hydrocarbon saturation. They are also
used in conjunction with lithology logs to identify hydrocarbon bearing
intervals and to estimate the net pay thickness.

Resistivity is the degree to which a substance “resists” or impedes


the flow of electrical current. It is a physical property of the material,
independent of size and shape. In well logging, both resistivity and
conductivity are used frequently. One is the reciprocal of the other. Thus,

1
Resistivity = (2.21)
Conductivity

2–52
Figure 2.26. A comparison of the three porosity logs in the same
formation.

2-53
Low resistivity corresponds to high conductivity and high resistivity
corresponds to low conductivity. The resistivity unit used in well logging
is ohm-meter2/meter, which is usually shortened to ohm-meter.
Electrical conductivity is expressed in mhos per meter. In order to avoid
decimal fractions, in electrical logging, it is expressed in millimhos per
meter.

In reservoir rocks, the sedimentary minerals that make up the


formation matrix are non-conductors. Also, hydrocarbons such as gas
and oil are non-conductors. Therefore, current flow in sedimentary rocks
is associated with the water in the pore space. Most of the waters
encountered in well logging contain some sodium chloride (NaCl) in
solution. The current then is carried by the ions of the salt, which is
dissolved in the water. Therefore, conductivity is proportional to the salt
concentration (salinity) of the water. Although each ion is capable of
carrying only a definite quantity of charge, as the formation temperature
is increased, these ions are capable of moving faster. This results in
increased conductivity. Figure 2.27 shows the variation of water
resistivity with temperature at various salinities.

The amount of water contained in the formation is directly related


to the porosity and, also, affects the formation resistivity. As the volume
of water increases, the capacity for ions increases and the conductivity
increases. Thus, the formation resistivity is affected by (1) salt
concentration in the water (salinity), (2) reservoir temperature, (3) water
volume (porosity) and (4) hydrocarbon content. Thus, although we
cannot directly measure the amount of hydrocarbon in a formation, we
can infer the hydrocarbon content from resistivity measurements.

2–54
Figure 2.27. Variation of water resistivity with temperature and salinity.

Let Rw be the resistivity of the formation water, Ro be the


resisitivity of the formation saturated 100% by the formation water of
resistivity Rw and Rt be the true resistivity of the formation partially
saturated with water of resistivity Rw and hydrocarbon. Based on
laboratory measurements, Archie (1953) found that Ro was directly
proportional to Rw for clean, consolidated sandstone cores for a fixed
porosity. Thus,

Ro
Ro = FRw or F = (2.22)
Rw

where F is a constant of proportionality at a given porosity known as the


formation resistivity factor. He further found that F could be related to
the porosity of the core by an equation of the form

2-55
a
F= (2.23)
φm

where a is an empirical constant and m is a cementation factor that


varies from 1.3 for unconsolidated sands to 2.5 for consolidated
sandstones. Thus, for clean sandstone cores of varied porosity,

ln F = ln a − m ln φ (2.24)

Eq.(2.24) suggests that a graph of lnF versus lnφ should be linear. Figure
2.28 shows such a graph for clean sandstone cores. For these data, a =
1.10 and m = 1.73.

1000
Formation Resistivity Factor

-1.7332
y = 1.1016x
2
R = 0.8648
100

10

1
0.01 0.1 1
Porosity

Figure 2.28. Log-Log graph of formation resistivity factor versus porosity


for various water resistivities.

2–56
For the cores used in his measurements, Archie found a to be
approximately 1.0. Therefore, he proposed the following relationship
between formation resistivity factor and porosity

1
F= (2.25)
φm

Others performed similar measurements using their own core samples. A


group in Humble Oil (Now ExxonMobil) performed similar measurements
and found that their data were best fitted by an equation of the form

Ro 0.62
F= = (2.26)
Rw φ 2.15

Eq. (2.26) is known as the Humble formula and is still widely used in the
petroleum industry.

Archie also conducted resistivity measurements in partially


saturated cores to measure Rt at various water saturations, Sw. He
defined formation resistivity index as

Rt
I= (2.27)
Ro

He found that the formation resistivity index, I, was related to the water
saturation by an equation of the form

Rt 1
I= = n (2.28)
Ro S w

2-57
where n is the water saturation exponent. Eq.(2.28) can be solved for the
water saturation as

1 R FRw
Sw = n =n o =n (2.29)
I Rt Rt

Figure 2.29 shows lnI versus lnSw for a Berea sandstone core. For this
sample, n = 2.27. Archie found n to be approximately 2 for the core
samples in his study. The hydrocarbon saturation is given by

Sh = 1 − Sw (2.30)

Figure 2.30 shows an example invasion profile for resistivity


measurements. This profile is analogous to the water saturation profile of
Figure 2.17.

2–58
Figure 2.29. Resistivity index for Berea sandstone core

2-59
Figure 2.30. Example invasion profile for resistivity logs.

Three types of logging tools are used to measure formation


resistivity: Induction tools, focused resistivity tools and unfocused
resistivity tools. These tools can be further subdivided into those that
measure a very small volume of the formation (microresistivity logs) and
those that measure a relatively large volume of the formation. Table 2.6
presents a summary of the various resistivity tools and their limitations.

2–60
Table 2.6: Resistivity Tools

Electric Log
The Electric log was the basic and most frequently used log until
the mid 1950's. This log was invented and developed by two French
brothers, Conrad and Marcel Schlumberger. Figure 2.31 shows the
presentation of an electric log. It consists of a Spontaneous Potential (SP)
curve in Track 1 and a combination of resistivity curves designated as
normal and lateral depending on the electrode arrangements.

The normal curve is produced by two effective electrodes downhole,


a current electrode and a pickup electrode as shown in Figure 2.32.
Resistivity values are measured by recording the voltage drop across
these electrodes. A short normal, with electrode spacing of 18 inches, is
used for correlation to define bed boundaries, and to measure the

2-61
resistivity near the wellbore. Normal curves have a radius of investigation
of approximately twice the electrode spacing.

Figure 2.31. Presentation of an electric log.

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.

The induction tool works by the principle of electromagnetic


induction. A high-frequency alternating current flows through a
transmitter coil mounted on the logging tool (Figure 2.33). This current
sets up a high-frequency magnetic field around the tool, which extends
into the formation. The alternating magnetic field causes currents to flow
through the formation concentric with the axis of the induction tool. The
currents, called ground loops, are proportional to the conductivity of the
formation. They alternate at the same frequency as the magnetic field
and the transmitter current flowing through the induction coil. The
ground loop currents set up a magnetic field of their own. This secondary
magnetic field causes a current to flow in the receiver coil located in the
logging tool. The amount of current flowing in the receiver coil is
proportional to the ground loop currents and therefore to the
conductivity of the formation. The signal in the receiver coil is detected,

2–64
processed and recorded on the log as either a conductivity measurement
or a resistivity measurement.

The tool illustrated in Figure 2.33 is a simple two-coil device. In


practice, bucking coils are used to help focus the effects of the main
transmitter and receiver coils and to remove unwanted signals from the
borehole. One popular induction tool used today has six different coils.
The depth of investigation (the depth from which most of the
measurement is obtained) for a typical deep induction tool is about 10
feet. The vertical resolution (the thinnest bed that the tool will detect) is
40 inches. Both the depth of investigation and the vertical resolution are
affected by the spacing between the main transmitter and receiver coils
as well as by the placement of the focusing coils. By judicious selection of
these parameters, different depths of investigation can be designed into a
tool. Thus, one can measure the resistivity profile through the invaded
zone and correct the deep induction reading to move it close to the true
formation resistivity, Rt.

Figure 2.33. Schematic of induction logging tool.

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.

Dual Induction Laterolog


The Dual Induction Laterolog was developed for those areas that
had low porosities and deep invasion. The tool has two induction curves
(ILd and ILm) with a vertical resolution of about 40 inches. However, one
induction curve, the ILd, reads very deeply into the formation, while the
medium induction curve, ILm, reads only half as deep. A shallow-reading
laterolog combined with the two induction curves gives a good
description of the resistivity profile.

2–66
Figure 2.34. Presentation of induction-electric log.

2-67
Figure 2.35 shows a typical presentation of a dual induction
laterolog. An SP and/or Gamma Ray curve and three resistivity curves
having different depths of investigation are recorded. The shallow
laterolog measures the resistivity of the flushed zone, Rxo. The medium
induction curve, ILm, measures the combined resistivity of the flushed
and invaded zones, Ri. The deep induction curve responds primarily to
the resistivity of the uncontaminated zone, Rt. The resistivity curves may
be recorded on logarithmic or linear scales. The logarithmic presentation
permits a greater dynamic range for resistivities and is convenient for
determining ratios since the difference of two logarithms is equal to their
ratio.

The ratios of shallow to deep curves and medium to deep curves


are used to determine the diameter of invasion, di, the resistivity of the
flushed zone, Rxo, and the true formation resistivity, Rt. Figure 2.36
shows a typical "tornado chart" (so called because of its distinctive shape)
used to correct the dual induction log to obtain Rt.

2–68
Figure 2.35. Presentation of dual induction laterolog.

2-69
Figure 2.36. Tornado chart used to correct deep induction resistivity to
true resistivity.

2–70
Focused Electric Log (Guard and Laterolog)
In boreholes which contain extremely saline drilling muds or very
high resistivity formations, the current that is emitted from a normal or
lateral electrode is almost entirely confined within the borehole and flows
up and down within the mud column. Very little, if any, of the current
penetrates surrounding resistive material. Under similar borehole
conditions, the induction logging tool is also adversely affected because
too much of the receiver voltage is derived from high conductivity of the
invaded zone. Focused-current logging tools have been designed to
overcome these problems in part.

There are two different focused-current logging systems, referred to


as the guard and laterolog, in use today (Figure 2.37). In the guard
system, guard electrodes are placed above and below a current electrode
and kept at the same potential to focus the formation current into a thin
disc, which flows perpendicularly to the borehole. The radius of
investigation is approximately three times the length of the guard
electrode.

The guard log defines bed boundaries very well and is affected very
little by adjacent bed resistivities. Shallow guard systems, utilizing short
guard electrodes (approximately 30 inches), are used with tools like the
Dual Induction for measuring the flushed zone resistivity, Rxo, or the
invaded zone resistivity, Ri. The longer guard (5 feet in length) systems
are used for measuring the true resistivity of the uncontaminated
formation, Rt. Figure 2.38 shows an example guard log presentation.

The laterolog electrode arrangement consists of a center current


electrode placed symmetrically between three short-circuited pairs of
electrodes. A controlled current is emitted from the short-circuited outer

2-71
pair of electrodes in such a manner that the voltage difference between
the two inner short-circuited pairs of electrodes is essentially zero. As in
the guard system, these electrode arrangements focus the formation
current into a thin disc, which flows perpendicularly to the borehole.

Figure 2.37. Focused-current electrode arrangements.

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

• Flushed zone water saturation (Sxo)

• Moveable hydrocarbon saturation (Sxo-Sw)

• Corrections for deep induction and laterologs

• Permeability

• Hole diameter

• Pay zone thickness

2-73
• Porosity.

Figure 2.38. Presentation of a guard log.

2–74
Figure 2.39. Microresitivity logging tools.

2-75
2.7.5 Lithology Logs

Two lithology logs are commonly used in formation evaluation, the


Spontaneous Potential (SP) log and the Gamma Ray (GR) log. Both are
recordings of naturally occurring phenomena in the formation.

Spontaneous Potential Log (SP)


The SP curve records the electrical potential produced by the
interaction of formation water, conductive drilling mud, and certain ion-
selective rocks such as shale. It is a recording versus depth of the
difference between the electrical potential of a moveable electrode in the
borehole and the electrical potential of a fixed surface electrode. Opposite
shales, the SP curve usually defines a more or less straight line on the
log, called the shale baseline. Opposite permeable formations, the curve
shows deflections from the shale baseline. In thick beds, these
deflections tend to reach an essentially constant deflection defining a
sand line. The deflection may be to the left (negative) or to the right
(positive), depending primarily on the salinities of the formation water
and of the mud filtrate. If the formation water is more saline than the
mud filtrate, the deflection is to the left. If it is less saline than the mud
filtrate, the deflection is to the right.

The position of the shale baseline on the SP log is arbitrary as it is


set by the logging engineer so that the curve deflections remain in the SP
track of the log. The SP is measured in millivolts (mV).

An SP curve cannot be recorded in boreholes filled with


nonconductive muds, such as oil muds or air, because such muds do not
provide electrical continuity between the SP electrode and the formation.
Also, if the resistivities of the mud filtrate and formation water are about

2–76
equal, the SP deflections will be small and the curve will be rather
featureless and useless.

The deflections on the SP curve result from electric currents


flowing in the mud in the borehole. These currents are caused by
electromotive forces in the formation, which are of electrochemical and
electrokinetic origins. Consider a permeable formation with thick shales
above and below it. Assume that the two electrolytes present, formation
water and mud filtrate, contain sodium chloride (NaCl) only. Because of
the layered clay structure and the charges on the layers, shales are
permeable to the Na+ cations but impermeable to the Cl- anions. Only the
Na+ cations are able to move through the shale from the more saline to
the less saline NaCl solution. This movement of charged ions constitutes
an electric current, and the force causing them to move constitutes a
potential across the shale.

The curve arrow in the upper section of Figure 2.40 shows the
direction of the current corresponding to the flow of Na+ ions through the
adjacent shale from the more saline formation water to the less saline
drilling mud in the borehole. Since shales pass only the cations, shales
resemble ion-selective membranes, and the potential across the shale is
called the membrane potential.

A second component of the electrochemical potential is produced


at the edge of the invaded zone where the mud filtrate and formation
water (the electrolytes) are in direct contact. Here Na+ and Cl- can diffuse
from one electrolyte to the other. Since Cl- are more mobile than Na+
ions, the net result of the diffusion is the flow of negative Cl- ions from
the more saline to the less saline electrolyte. This is equivalent to a
conventional current flow in the opposite direction as shown by the

2-77
arrow A in the upper half of Figure 2.40. The current flowing across the
junction between solutions of different salinity is produced by an
electromotive force called liquid-junction potential. The magnitude of the
liquid-junction potential is much smaller than the membrane potential.

If the permeable formation is clean (not shaly), the total


electrochemical emf, Ec, corresponding to these two phenomena is given
by

aw
Ec = − K log (2.31)
amf

where aw and awf are the chemical activities of the two solutions at
formation temperature, K is a coefficient proportional to temperature,
and for NaCl formation water and mud filtrate is 71 at 25 ºC (77 ºF). The
chemical activity of a solution is roughly proportional to salinity and
hence to its conductivity. If the solutions contain substantial amounts of
salts other than NaCl, the value of K at 77 ºF may differ from 71. If the
permeable formation is shaly, or contains dispersed clay, the total
electrochemical emf will be reduced since the clay produces an
electrochemical membrane of opposite polarity to that of the adjacent
shale bed.

2–78
Figure 2.40. Schematic representation of potential and current
distribution in and around a permeable bed.

2-79
An electrokinetic potential, Ek (also known as streaming potential
or electrofiltration potential), is produced when an electrolyte flows
through a permeable, nonmetallic, porous medium. The magnitude of the
electrokinetic potential is determined by several factors, among which are
the differential pressure producing the flow and the resistivity of the
electrolyte. In the borehole, an electrokinetic emf, Ekmc, is produced by
the flow of the mud filtrate through the mud cake. An electrokinetic emf,
Eksh, may also be produced across the shale, since it may have sufficient
permeability to permit a tiny amount of filtrate flow from the mud. Each
of these electrokinetic emfs contributes to a more negative SP reading
opposite the permeable bed and opposite the shale. The net contribution
to the SP deflection is, therefore, the difference between Ekmc and Eksh,
which is generally small and negligible.

The movement of ions, which causes the SP phenomenon, is


possible only in formations that have a certain minimum permeability.
However, there is no direct relationship between the magnitude of the SP
deflection and permeability, nor does the SP deflection have any direct
relationship with the porosity.

The lower portion of Figure 2.40 shows how the SP currents flow in
the borehole and formations. The current direction shown corresponds to
the more usual case where the salinity of the formation water is greater
than that of the mud filtrate. Thus, the potential observed over the
permeable bed is negative with respect to the potential opposite the
shale. This negative variation corresponds to an SP curve deflection to
the left of the SP log as shown in the figure.

As shown in Figure 2.40, the SP currents flow through four


different media: the borehole (mud), the invaded zone, the noninvaded

2–80
part of the permeable formation, and the surrounding shale. In each
medium, the potential along a line of current flow drops in proportion to
the resistance encountered. The total potential along a line of current
flow is equal to the total emf. The deflections on the SP curve are,
however, a measurement of only the potential drop in the borehole (mud)
resulting from the SP currents. This potential drop represents only a
fraction (although usually the major fraction) of the total emf. If the
currents could be prevented from flowing by means such as the
insulating plugs as shown in the upper part of Figure 2.40, the potential
differences observed in the mud would equal the total emf. The SP curve
recorded in such an idealized condition is called the static SP curve and
is shown in the lower part of Figure 2.40.

Figure 2.41 shows the presentation of an SP curve. In general,


shale-free permeable beds of moderate to low resistivity are sharply
defined by the SP curve. High resistivity beds distort the SP currents,
causing a change in the shape of the SP curve at bed boundaries and
thus poor boundary definitions. Also, the SP curve is depressed in
permeable zones that contain shale or hydrocarbon. The shape of the SP
curve is influenced by (1) the thickness (h) and resistivity (Rt) of the
permeable bed, (2) the resistivity (Ri) and the diameter (di) of the invaded
zone, (3) the resistivity (Rs) of the surrounding formation, and (4) the
resistivity of the mud (Rm) and the diameter (d) of the borehole.

2-81
Figure 2.41. Presentation of an SP curve in a sand-shale sequence.

The Gamma Ray Log (GR)


The GR log is a measurement of the natural radioactivity of the
formation. In sedimentary formations, the log normally reflects the shale
content of the formation because the radioactive elements tend to
concentrate in clays and shales. Clean formations usually have a very
low level of radioactivity, unless a radioactive contaminant such as
volcanic ash or granite wash is present or formation waters contain
dissolved radioactive salts.

The GR log can be recorded in cased holes, which makes it very


useful as a correlation curve in completion and workover operations. It is

2–82
frequently used to complement the SP log and as a substitute for the SP
curve in wells drilled with salt mud, air or oil-based muds. In each case,
it is useful for the location of shales and nonshaly beds and, most
importantly, for general correlation.

Gamma rays are bursts of high-energy electromagnetic waves that


are emitted spontaneously by some radioactive elements. Nearly all
gamma radiation encountered in the earth is emitted by the radioactive
potassium isotope of atomic weight 40 (K40) and by the radioactive
elements of the uranium and thorium series. These elements emit
gamma rays, the number and energies of which are characteristic of each
element. Figure 2.42 shows the energies of the emitted gamma rays.
Potassium emits gamma rays of a single energy at 1.46 MeV, whereas the
uranium and thorium series emit gamma rays of various energies.

In passing through matter, gamma rays experience successive


Compton-scattering collisions with atoms of the formation material,
losing energy with each collision. After the gamma ray has lost enough
energy, it is absorbed by means of photoelectric effect, by an atom of the
formation. Thus, natural gamma rays are gradually absorbed and their
energies reduced as they pass through the formation. Two formations
having the same amount of radioactive material per unit volume, but
having different densities, will show different levels of radioactivity. The
less dense formations will appear to be slightly more radioactive than the
more dense formations. The GR log response, after appropriate
corrections, is proportional to the weight concentrations of the
radioactive material in the formation:

GR =
∑ρV A i i i
(2.32)
ρb

2-83
where ρi are the densities of the radioactive minerals, Vi are the bulk
volume factors of the minerals, Ai are proportionality factors
corresponding to the radioactivity of the mineral, and ρb is the bulk
density of the formation. In sedimentary formations, the depth of
investigation of the GR log is about 1 foot.

Figure 2.42. Gamma ray emission spectra of radioactive minerals.

The gamma ray logging tool contains a detector to measure the


gamma radiation originating in the volume of formation near the tool.

2–84
Scintillation counters are now generally used for this measurement. They
are much more efficient than the Geiger-Mueller counters used in the
past. Events resulting in gamma rays are random. For this reason,
gamma ray logs have a ragged appearance (see Figure 2.20).

The primary calibration for the gamma ray tools is in the API
(American Petroleum Institute) test facility in Houston. A field calibration
standard is used to normalize each tool to the API standard and the logs
are calibrated in API units. The radioactivities in sedimentary formations
generally range from a few API units in anhydrite or salt to 200 or more
units in shales.

The GR log is particularly useful for defining shale beds when the
SP is distorted (in very resistive formations), when the SP is featureless
(in fresh water-bearing formations or in salty muds, when Rmf = Rw), or
when the SP cannot be recorded (in nonconductive mud, empty or air-
drilled hole, cased holes). The bed boundary is picked at the point
midway between the maximum and minimum deflection of the anomaly.

The gamma ray reflects the proportion of shale and, in many


regions, can be used to quantitatively as a shale indicator. It is also used
for the detection and evaluation of radioactive minerals, such as potash
and uranium ore. The GR log is part of most logging programs in both
open hole and cased hole. It is readily combined with most other logging
tools and permits the accurate correlation of logs made on one trip into
the borehole with those that were made on another trip.

2.7.6 Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) Logs

NMR measurements of fluids in porous media can be used under


favorable conditions to estimate porosity, irreducible water saturation,

2-85
moveable fluid saturation, fluid viscosity, pore size distribution, surface
to volume ratios and permeability. In this section, the principles of NMR
and its use in petrophysical measurements are presented.

Nuclear Spins in a Magnetic Field


Most atomic nuclei possess a quantum mechanical property called
spin angular momentum. This means that the nucleus spins around an
axis. Since atomic nuclei are charged particles, the spinning motion
causes a magnetic moment that is co-linear with the direction of the spin
axis. The strength of this magnetic moment is a property of the type of
1
nucleus. H nuclei (protons) possess a strong magnetic moment (second

only to radioactive 3H), which, together with the high natural abundance
of hydrogen and prevalence in most fluids, makes it the ideal nucleus for
NMR logging and NMR imaging in radiology.

Consider a collection of 1H nuclei as in Figure 2.43. In the absence


of an externally applied magnetic field, the individual magnetic moments
have no preferred orientation and the net magnetization of the collection
of spins is zero. However, if an externally supplied magnetic field
(denoted as B0) is imposed, there is a tendency for the magnetic moments
1
to align with the external field. H nuclei with a quantum number of I = 1
2

in this situation may adopt one of two possible orientations: alignment


parallel or anti-parallel to B0 as shown in Figure 2.44. Thus, depending
on their orientation, we can define two groups or populations of spins.
Alignment parallel to B0 is the lower energy orientation and is thus
preferred, while the anti-parallel alignment is the higher energy state.
However, the energy difference between the two states is very small.
Thermal energy alone causes the two states to be almost equally
populated. The remaining population difference results in a net bulk

2–86
magnetization aligned parallel to B0. It is only this net magnetization
arising from a small population difference that is detectable by NMR
techniques.

The individual spins do not align exactly parallel or anti-parallel to


B0, but at an angle to B0. This is analogous to the case of a spinning top:

Figure 2.43. Random orientations of the nuclear magnetic moments in


the absence of an externally applied magnetic field.

Bo

parallel

antiparrallel

Figure 2.44. Two orientations of the nuclear magnetic moments in the

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

Figure 2.45. The bulk net magnetization M

The individual magnetic moments precess at a certain frequency,


known as the Larmor frequency, which is determined by the strength of
the magnetic field and the type of nucleus. The Larmor equation gives
this frequency as

ω0 = γ B0 (2.33)

where ω0 is the Larmor frequency (in radians per second), Bo is the


magnetic field strength, and γ is a constant for each nucleus known as

2–88
the gyromagnetic ratio. Eq.(2.33) is the fundamental equation for all
NMR methods. Table 2.7 gives γ values for some NMR active nuclei.

1
From Table 2.7, we can see that H nucleus has the highest
1
relative sensitivity and a high natural abundance. So H nuclei (protons)
possess a strong magnetic moment and are most commonly used in NMR
logging and NMR imaging.

Table 2.7: Magnetic Resonance Properties of Some Important Nuclei

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

The Effect of Radiofrequency Pulses - Resonance Absorption


In order to detect a signal, a condition of resonance needs to be
established. The term “resonance” implies alternating absorption and
dissipation of energy. Energy absorption is caused by radiofrequency (RF)
perturbation, and energy dissipation is mediated by relaxation processes.

RF radiation, like all electromagnetic radiation, possesses electric


and magnetic field components. We may consider the RF as another
magnetic field of strength B1 perpendicular to B0 as shown in Figure
2.46. At equilibrium, M (=Mo) is stationary and difficult to observe. By

2-89
applying an RF field B1 perpendicular to B0, M can be rotated so that it
has a component transverse to B0. A maximum transverse component is
obtained by applying B1 with an amplitude and duration that rotates M
by 90 degree and into the plane transverse to B0. This is called a 90-
degree pulse. Once in the transverse plane, M precesses (rotates) around
the B0 axis at the Larmor frequency. This rotating magnetization can
induce an alternating current (AC) in a receiver coil, and that current can
be used to record the action of the magnetization in the transverse plane.
The signal that is induced in the receiver coil decays over time. The
signal decay is due to a process known as relaxation.

Relaxation Processes
In resonance absorption, RF energy is absorbed by the nuclei when
it is broadcast at the Larmor frequency. Relaxation is the process by
which the nuclei release this energy and return to their original
configuration. There are two relaxation processes involved: transverse
relaxation and longitudinal relaxation.

Bo
M

B1

Figure 2.46. A second magnetic field B1 generated by


Radiofrequency (RF)

2–90
Given that at equilibrium, the net magnetization is longitudinal (B0
direction), the equilibrium magnetization in the transverse plane is zero.
So the signal that is induced in the receiver coil will decay over time and
reach zero some time after the 90º RF pulse is turned off. This decay
process is exponential and the decay envelop can be expressed by the
equation

M transverse = M transverse
0
exp ( −t / T2* ) (2.34)

where M transverse
0
is the initial transverse magnetization immediately after a

90º RF pulse, M transverse is the transverse magnetization at any given time t

after a 90º RF pulse, T2* is the apparent NMR transverse relaxation time

or spin-spin relaxation time, which characterizes the rate of signal decay.


The decay mechanism is that different components of the magnetization
may precess at slightly different rates, a process known as “dephasing”
in the transverse plane. Since the signal recorded is the vector sum of all
the transverse components, sufficient dephasing will lead to complete
cancellation of the signal.

One of the major causes of this dephasing is B0 inhomogeneity


(ΔB0) effects. Spins at different locations are not exposed to exactly the
same B0 field, which in turn yields a range of Larmor frequencies. ΔB0
effects are largely suppressed by correcting the magnetic field uniformity
as much as possible, and by employing NMR “spin-echo” techniques.

In spin-echo NMR (Hahn, 1950), the dephasing ΔB0 effects are


largely reversed by following a 90-degree RF pulse with a short delay τ
and a 180-degree “refocusing” pulse. After a second delay τ, the
transverse magnetization M transverse is refocused as an NMR spin-echo. ΔB0

2-91
effects are canceled at the center of the echo, where the dephasing from
ΔB0 is momentarily rephased.

If the induced signal is measured at time TE after a 90º RF pulse,


then equation (2.34) can be rewritten as

M transverse = M transverse
0
exp ( −TE / T2 ) (2.35)

where TE=n2τ and n is the number of 180-degree pulses. T2 is the true


NMR transverse relaxation time or spin-spin relaxation time. In Eq.(2.35),
T2* is substituted with T2 upon the correction of ΔB0 effects.

T2 can be measured by repeating the spin-echo experiment with


different TE, then fitting the resulting M transverse versus TE curve to

Eq.(2.35). Another more accurate method, and one that is used in NMR
logging, is to employ a multiple-spin-echo sequence, where the NMR
signal is refocused multiple times as shown in Figure 2.47. This method
removes unwanted molecular diffusion effects. In NMR logging, 400 or
more echos are used in the measurements. The exponential curve, which
measures the amplitudes of the decaying echos is the fundamental well
log measurement and is used to compute the T2 spectrum.

2–92
Figure 2.47. Carr-Purcell-Meiboom-Gill spin echo pulse sequence.

Longitudinal relaxation is a process that restores the longitudinal


magnetization to its equilibrium state after an RF pulse is turned off.
Immediately after a 90º pulse, the net magnetization vector lies in the
transverse plane. Therefore, longitudinal magnetization is zero. However,
as time passes, the longitudinal magnetization will approach the
equilibrium value. This buildup of the longitudinal magnetization is also
exponential in time and can be expressed as

M z ( t ) = M 0 ⎡⎣1 − exp ( −t / T1 ) ⎤⎦ (2.36)

where M0 is the equilibrium value of the longitudinal magnetization, Mz(t)


is the longitudinal magnetization at any given time t after a 90º RF
pulse, and T1 is the NMR longitudinal relaxation time or spin-lattice
relaxation time that characterizes the rate of buildup. For any given
system, T1 is greater than or equal to T2. (T1 and T2 of 1H nuclei in water

2-93
in a test tube is about 3 seconds. In a porous medium, the T1 and T2 are
significantly lower than in a test tube and are of the order of
milliseconds). The longitudinal direction or direction of B0, is
conventionally assigned the z direction, i.e., B0=Bz.

In an NMR experiment, sufficient time must elapse between


successive 90º RF pulses to allow M to achieve equilibrium. This time,
known as the repetition time TR, depends on the sample’s T1. In general,
TR should be greater than 5T1. Substituting TR into Eq.(2.36) gives

M z (TR ) = M 0 ⎡⎣1 − exp ( −TR / T1 ) ⎤⎦ (2.37)

where Mz(TR) is the longitudinal magnetization at the repetition time TR


after a 90º RF pulse is turned off. Since another 90º RF pulse is applied
immediately at time TR, the M transverse
0
for this subsequent 90º RF pulse

should be equal to Mz(TR)) of Eq.(2.37). Thus,

0
M transverse = M 0 ⎡⎣1 − exp ( −TR / T1 ) ⎤⎦ (2.38)

Substituting Eq.(2.38) into Eq.(2.35) gives the transverse magnetization


at the time of measurement as

M transverse = M 0 ⎡⎣1 − exp ( −TR / T1 ) ⎤⎦ exp ( −TE / T2 ) (2.39)

As Eq.(2.38) implies, T1 can be measured by repeating an NMR


experiment with several different TR values, then fitting the resulting
M transverse versus TR to Eq.(2.38).

Molecular Diffusion Effect

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 ⎠ ⎥⎦

where D is the diffusion coefficient and G (∝ΔB0) is the magnetic field


gradient.

NMR Signal and Corresponding T2 Spectrum


The exponential decay curve shown in Figure 2.47 suggests that all
the spins relax at the same T2 relaxation time. This would be applicable
to the spins in a bulk fluid such as the protons in water in a test tube.
However, when the fluids are confined in the pore space of a porous
medium, the protons near the pore wall will relax faster (shorter T2) than
those in the center of the pores. Further, the protons in small pores will
relax faster than those in large pores. As a result, the NMR decay signal
will contain a spectrum of T2 relaxation times. The signal can be
decomposed into its T2 spectrum by using a multi-exponential model as

M ( t ) j =m
= ∑ f j exp ( −t / T2 j ) (2.41)
M0 j =1

2-95
where fj is proportional to the population of protons which have a
relaxation time of T2j. The inversion problem is to find a set if T2
amplitudes, fj, from a set of measurements of echos, gi. Application of
Eq.(2.41) to each echo gives the following system of linear equations in fj

M ( ti ) j = m
gi = = ∑ f j exp ( −ti / T2 j ) + ε i for i = 1, 2,..., n (2.42)
M0 j =1

where gi is the amplitude of the echo measured at time ti, εi is the error
caused by noise in the data and n is the total number of echos. A least
square fit is used to determine the fjs that minimize the sum

2
⎛ m ⎞
⎜ ∑ f j exp ( −ti / T2 j ) − gi ⎟ + α ∑ f j
n m

∑ 2
(2.43)
i =1 ⎝ j =1 ⎠ j =1

where αi is a regularization constant or smoothing parameter.


Figure 2.48 shows an example log measurement for n = 500, TE =
1.2 milliseconds, with 12 measurements averaged together. Note the
noisy data. The magnitude of the NMR signal at t =0 (M0) is proportional
to the number of hydrogen nuclei in the measurement volume. This
number can be calibrated into the total NMR porosity. Figure 2.49 shows
the corresponding T2 spectrum obtained from the data of Figure 2.48.

2–96
Time (ms)

Figure 2.48. Carr-Purcell-Meiboom-Gill spin echo measurements.

T2 (ms)

Figure 2.49. T2 spectrum of the data of Figure 2.49.

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.

Figure 2.50. T2 spectrum and fluid distribution in the pore space.

The nomenclature for Figure 2.50 is as follows. The Free Fluid


Index (FFI) is the percent of the bulk volume occupied by movable fluids
(water + hydrocarbon). In Figure 2.50, this is shown as the fraction of the

2–98
bulk volume for T2 greater than 30 milliseconds. The Free Fluid Index is
also known as Bulk Volume Movable (BVM). The Bulk Volume
Irreducible (BVI) is the percent of the bulk volume containing irreducible
water. The irreducible water consists of two components: (1) Clay Bound
Water (CBW) (T2 from 0.3 to 3 milliseconds), which is the water bound to
the clay minerals and (2) Bulk Volume Capillary (BVC) (T2 from 3 to 30
milliseconds), which is the water trapped by capillary forces. The Bulk
Volume Water (BVW) (T2 from 0.3 to 300 milliseconds) is the percent of
the bulk volume occupied by water (moveable, capillary bound water and
clay bound water). These bulk volumes are related to porosity and
saturations as follows:

Vp
φtotal = (2.44)
Vb

Vi
Si = (2.45)
Vp

V p = VCBW + VBVC + VBVM (2.46)

VCBW + VBCV VBVM


φtotal = + (2.47)
Vb Vb

VCBW + VBCV
BVI = (2.48)
Vb

VBVM
BVM = (2.49)
Vb

φtotal = BVI + BVM (2.50)

2-99
φtotal = MPHI (2.51)

BVM = φtotal − BVI = MPHI − BVI = FFI (2.52)

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

BVI = φtotal S wirr (2.58)

FFI = φtotal (1 − S wirr ) (2.59)

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.

Pore Size Distribution


NMR relaxation measurements have been shown to be a sensitive
probe in the study of the microscopic structure of porous media. The
connection between NMR measurements and pore size is based on the
strong effect that the rock surface has on promoting proton relaxation.
The NMR T1 relaxation behavior of a fluid confined within a pore is
sensitive to both the pore geometry and size, and thus yields much
useful information when related to the pore-size distribution via an
appropriate mathematical model. The simplest and most common model
is the “two-fraction fast-exchange” model (Senturia and Robinson, 1970;
Howard et al., 1990), which assumes that there are two magnetically
distinct phases within the pore: a bulk phase with relaxation
characteristic of the bulk fluid and a surface phase with much faster
relaxation. Assuming that diffusion of the fluid is much faster than the
relaxation process, the observed relaxation rate is given by a single
average T1 value as

1 1 S λ
= + (2.60)
T1 T1bulk V T1surface

where S/V is the pore surface area to volume ratio and λ is the thickness

of the surface monolayer. The T1 technique basically determines the

surface/volume ratio as a characteristic pore-size parameter. Usually,

T1bulk>>T1surface, so Eq.(2.60) can be simplified as

2-101
Figure 2.51. Example NMR log showing fluid distribution in the pore
space.

2–102
1 ⎛S⎞
= ρ1 ⎜ ⎟ (2.61)
T1 ⎝V ⎠

where ρ1 = λ/T1surface is the NMR surface relaxivity, which is a measure of

the ability of the surface to cause relaxation of proton magnetization. The

surface relaxivity ρ1 has dimensions of length/time. Eq.(2.61) shows that

T1 responds to pore size. Small pores (large S/V ratio) exhibit small

values for T1, and the converse is true for large pores.

Since transverse relaxation time T2 is closely related to T1, it is

expected that a similar relationship exists between the distribution of T2

and the pore-size distribution. However, in this case, apart from the bulk

relaxation process, which can often be neglected, the T2 relaxation is also

controlled by a surface relaxation mechanism as well as the diffusion

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

because of restricted diffusion in a magnetic field gradient ∇B. τ is the

pulse spacing (pulse-to-echo delay), γ is the gyromagnetic ratio for

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 ⎠

where ρ2 = λ/T2surface is the NMR T2 surface relaxivity. Eq.(2.63) shows

that T2 also responds to pore-size. Thus, in a water bearing zone without

the complications of hydrocarbons, the T2 spectrum such as shown in

Figure 2.49 could be viewed as a pore-size distribution.

It should be emphasized that what is measured by NMR relaxation


is the distribution of volume-to-surface ratio, (V/S). Since (V/S) has the
dimension of length, then its distribution could be viewed as a “pore-size
distribution.” The ratio (V/S) is not a pore size or a pore diameter. Its
magnitude is markedly affected by the pore shape. The ratio will be a
maximum for a spherical pore (a sphere has the smallest surface area for
a given volume) and will decrease for other pore shapes. If all pores are
geometrically similar, then the T2 spectrum could be viewed qualitatively
as a pore size distribution.

Figure 2.52 shows a clastic sequence with shales overlying a

sandstone in a water zone. The volumetric calculations in the first track

indicate an upward decreasing clay in the sandstone interval. Geological

analysis suggests that this corresponds to a coarsening-upward

sequence. While this assertion is based on inference, the T2 spectrum in

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

increase in the grain size.

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.

Estimation of Permeability from NMR Relaxation Times


The fact that T1 and T2 NMR relaxation times can be used to
estimate permeability stems from the fact that these relaxation times can
be correlated with pore size distribution in water-bearing zones.
Permeability is proportional to the square of some characteristic length of
the porous medium and as such would be proportional to T12 or T22 .

Various empirical equations have been proposed for estimating the


absolute permeability of a porous medium. Wyllie and Rose (1950)
suggested an empirical permeability equation of the form

k = Cφ x S wirr
−y
(2.64)

where C is an empirical constant, φ is the porosity, Swirr is the irreducible


water saturation and x and y are numerical exponents. Timur developed
a permeability equation in the spirit of Eq.(2.64) of the form

φ 4.5
k = 10 4
2
(2.65)
S wirr

2–106
where the porosity and irreducible water saturation are in fractions and
the permeability is in millidarcy. One version of the Timur/Coates
equation that is widely used to estimate permeability from NMR logs is
given by

⎛φ
4 2
⎞ ⎛ FFI ⎞
k = ⎜ NMR ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ (2.66)
⎝ C ⎠ ⎝ BVI ⎠

where C=10 or can be determined from laboratory measurements on


cores. In Eq.(2.66) the porosity, FFI and BVI are in porosity units (p.u.)
and the permeability is in millidarcy. BVI and FFI are related to the
irreducible water saturation by Eqs.(2.58) and (2.59).

Another permeability equation based on laboratory measurements


at Schlumber Doll Research (SDR) is given by

k = aφ 4T22gm (2.67)

where T2gm is the logarithmic (geometric) mean of the T2 spectrum


defined as

∑f
j =1
j log T2 j
T2 gm = m
(2.68)
∑f
j =1
j

Other equations proposed by Kenyon et al. are

k = C1φNMR
4
T12 (2.69)

and

2-107
k = C2φNMR
4
T22 (2.70)

Figure 2.53 shows a comparison of the permeability from NMR


measurements using Eq.(2.66) with those from core analysis. The
agreement between the two sets of data is good. Also shown is the
comparison of the NMR porosity measurements with those from core
analysis. The agreement also is good.

Figure 2.53. A comparison of NMR-derived permeability and porosity


with measurements from core analysis (from Dunn et al., 2002).

2–108
2.7.7 NMR Imaging of Laboratory Cores

Nuclear magnetic resonance imaging (NMRI) can be used to map


the spatial distribution of NMR observables in core analysis. Thus,
porosity distribution and fluid saturation distribution or solvent
concentration distributions can be imaged in the laboratory.

In order to create an image, the NMR experiments must be


modified to spatially encode the NMR signals. Figure 3.54 is a typical
2DFT (2-dimensional Fourier Transform) spin-echo NMR imaging
sequence showing (a) radiofrequency pulses, (b) slice-selection gradient,
(c) frequency-encoding gradient, (d) phase-encoding gradient, and (e)
NMR signal (echo). The experiment is repeated with multiple phase-
encoding gradient amplitudes.

The Effect of Magnetic Field Gradients


For most NMR imaging applications, the B0 field must be made to
vary in a linear fashion with distance. A magnetic field gradient or simply
gradient refers to the spatial variation of the strength of the B0 field.
Magnetic field gradient is a key factor in NMR imaging. A magnetic field
gradient causes the transverse magnetization to precess at a frequency
that is proportional to position along the gradient axis as follows:

ωr = γ ( B0 + rGr ) (2.71)

where ωr is the Larmor frequency at position r, Gr is the gradient, and r

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

Figure 2.54. Simplified timing diagram for a 2DFT spin-echo NMR


imaging sequence

2–110
Slice-Selective Excitation
In most NMR imaging applications, it is desirable to generate a
single slice or multislice images. The initial step in generating such an
image is the localization of the RF excitation to a region of space. This is
accomplished by the use of frequency-selective excitation in conjunction
with a slice-selection gradient, Gss, on an axis perpendicular to the
chosen slice plane. A frequency-selective RF pulse has two parts
associated with it, a central frequency and a bandwidth of frequencies
Δωss defined by the shape of the pulse envelope. When such a pulse is
broadcast in the presence of the slice-selection gradient, a narrow region
of the object will achieve the resonance condition and will absorb the RF
energy. The central frequency of the pulse determines the particular
location that is excited by the pulse when the slice-selection gradient is
present. Different slice positions are achieved by changing the central
frequency. The slice thickness is determined by the bandwidth of
frequencies Δωss incorporated into the RF pulse and is given by

Δωss = γ Gss d s1 (2.72)

where ds1 is the slice thickness. Typically, Δωss is fixed so that the slice

thickness is changed by changing the amplitude of Gss. Thinner slices

require larger Gss. Once Gss is determined, the central frequency ωr is

calculated using Eq.(2.71) to bring the desired location into resonance.

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

different central frequency, thereby exciting a different region of the

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.

The frequency encoding provides one of the two visual dimensions


of the image. The NMR signal is always detected in the presence of a
frequency encoding gradient in an imaging pulse sequence. After slice-
selective excitation, the frequency encoding gradient, also known as the
readout gradient, GRO, is applied perpendicularly to the slice direction.
Under the influence of this new gradient field, the nuclei within the slice
will precess at different frequencies depending on their positions in the
readout gradient’s direction, in accordance with Eq.(2.71). Each of these
frequencies will be superimposed in the echo. The echo signal is detected
in the presence of GRO and digitized at a chosen sampling interval for
later Fourier transformation. The magnitude of GRO and the frequencies
that are detected enable the positions of the nuclei to be determined.

Two user-selectable parameters determine the image resolution in


the frequency encoding, or the readout, direction: the field of view (FOV)
in the readout direction and the number of readout data points in the
matrix, NRO. The pixel size in the readout direction is given by

( FOV ) RO
Δ RO = (2.73)
N RO

and

2–112
BW N RO
( FOV ) RO = = (2.74)
γ GRO 2γ GRO tro

where BW is the receiver bandwidth, γ is the gyromagnetic ratio and tro is


the duration of the frequency encoding gradient.

Phase Encoding
In order to produce a two-dimensional image of the slice, one can
cause a systematic variation in phase that would encode the spatial
information along the one remaining axis of the image plane. This is
accomplished by the use of a phase encoding gradient, GPE. GPE is
perpendicular to both Gss and GRO and is the only gradient that changes
amplitude during the data acquisition loop of a standard two-
dimensional imaging sequence. The NMR imaging information is
obtained by repeating the slice excitation and signal detection many
times (typically 128 or 256 times), each with a different amplitude of GPE
applied before detection. The resulting signals are stored separately for
subsequent processing.

Separate Fourier transformation of each of these data sets yields a


set of projections onto the readout axis. Specifically, the second Fourier
transformation converts signal amplitude at each readout frequency from
a function of GPE to a function of frequency.

The image resolution in the phase encoding direction depends on


two user-selectable parameters, the FOV in the phase encoding direction
and the number of phase encoding steps in the matrix, NPE. The pixel
size in the phase encoding direction is given by

( FOV ) PE
Δ PE = (2.75)
N PE

2-113
and

π N PE
( FOV ) PE = (2.76)
γ GPE t pe

where γ is the gyromagnetic ratio and tpe is the duration of the phase
encoding gradient.

Image Reconstruction
Two types of matrices are used in NMR imaging: raw data and
image data. The raw data matrix is a grid of complex points with the
frequency encoding direction displayed in the horizontal direction and
the phase encoding direction displayed in the vertical direction. All image
information is contained within the raw data matrix.

The image data matrix is obtained by a two-dimensional Fourier


transformation of the raw data matrix. The first Fourier transformation of
each row of the raw data matrix yields a set of modulated projections of
the slice onto the frequency encoding axis. The second Fourier
transformation of each column of the temporary data matrix converts the
signal magnitude at each readout frequency from a function of GPE to a
function of frequency, resulting in the image. The image matrix is a
spatial map of the nuclei signal intensity. While the Fourier
transformation contains information regarding both the magnitude and
the phase of the measured signals, the phase information is often
discarded so that the normal image matrix contains only the magnitude
information. The image matrix is usually displayed as a rectangular
image with readout in one direction and phase encoding in the other
direction.

2–114
Figure 2.55 shows a graphical representation of how an image is
spatially encoded during 2DFT imaging. In this figure, the frequency
encoding direction is horizontal and the phase encoding direction is
vertical. A set of NMR signals is acquired using the same frequency
encoding gradient but different values of the phase encoding gradient.
Each of these NMR signals is Fourier transformed to provide a frequency
spectrum of each phase encoding step, which constitutes a one-
dimensional projection in the frequency encoding direction. Each column
of the data from the first Fourier Transform projection images is Fourier
transformed again to determine the spatial projection in the vertical
image plane.

Three-Dimensional NMR Imaging


Three-dimensional volume imaging technique is, in essence, a
double phase encoding technique. The slice-selective excitation is
replaced with another phase encoding process along that axis. Each RF
pulse excites the entire imaging volume instead of just one slice. The
second phase encoding is applied to partition or subdivide the volume
into individual layers. The number of layers is determined by the number
of phase encode steps. For example, if the number of the second phase
encoding gradient steps is changed from 32 to 128, 3D-FFT of the 3D
data set then yields 32 to 128 image layers in that direction.

2-115
Figure 2.55. Graphical demonstration of 2DFT NMR image data
acquisition and reconstruction.

The advantage of the 3D-imaging technique is that very thin


contiguous layer images can be obtained with minimal interslice
crosstalk. Also, the signal-to-noise ratio is greater than for a comparable
2D-sequential imaging method.

The disadvantage of the technique is the time required. The total


scan time for 3D volume imaging is much longer than for 2D slice or
multislice imaging. In practice, 3D volume imaging is not widely used.
Instead, 2D-multislice imaging is often used as a replacement for 3D
volume imaging.

Signal-to-Noise Ratio and Image Contrast

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.

Example NMR Images of Laboratory Cores


Figures 2.56 and 2.57 show NMR-derived porosity images of a
brine saturated sandstone core. Figure 2.56 shows the images at six
cross sections along the core whereas Figure 2.57 shows the images of
four, longitudinal vertical slices. The layered nature of the core is clearly
apparent from these images. Although the images are not calibrated with
numerical porosity values, nevertheless, the first three slices in Figure
2.56 indicate that the core appears to be less porous at the top than
elsewhere. The core is 10 cm long, 5 cm in diameter, and has a
permeability of 97 md and an average porosity of 15.9 %.

Figure 2.58 shows NMR-derived images of the solvent


concentration for a first-contact miscible displacement conducted in the
core of Figures 2.56 and 2.57. In this experiment, a more viscous
deuterium oxide (D2O) was used to displace the less viscous brine from

2–118
Figure 2.56. NMR images of transverse slices of a brine saturated
sandstone core.

the core at a favorable mobility ratio of 0.84. D2O is practically devoid of


protons, so the injection of D2O reduces the NMR signal in the voxels

2-119
invaded by the D2O. The reduced NMR signals can be used to image the
progress of the displacement as shown in Figure 2.58. Because the
mobility ratio is favorable, the displacement pattern is controlled entirely
by the permeability variations in the core. Note the chanelling of the
injected solvent due to permeability variation in the core. Clearly, the top
of the core is less permeable than the rest of the core. This correlates well
with the low porosity of the top of the core shown in Figure 2.56. Figure
2.59 shows one-dimensional solvent concentration profiles for the same
displacement. The information is quantitative and can be used to
calibrate a numerical model of the displacement.

Figure 2.57. NMR images of longitudinal, vertical slices of a brine


saturated sandstone core.

2–120
Figure 2.58. Solvent concentration images of a first-contact miscible
displacement in the sandstone core of Figures 2.55 and 2.56.

2-121
Figure 2.59. Solvent concentration profiles of the first-contact miscible
displacement of Figure 2.57.

Figure 2.60 shows NMR-derived permeability images of another


layered sandstone core. The permeability for each voxel of the image was
calculated from T1 distributions using Eq.(2.69). Figure 2.61 shows a
comparison of NMR-derived permeability with flow-derived permeability
for five core samples. The agreement between the two sets of permeability
values is reasonable for four of the five measurements.

2–122
Figure 2.60. Permeability images of a layered sandstone core.

2-123
Figure 2.61. A comparison of NMR-derived permeability with flow-derived
permeability of core samples.

2.7.8 A Comparison of Various Porosity Measurements for Shaly


Sand

Figure 2.62 shows the porosities measured by the various logging


tools along with the porosity from core analysis. This figure shows that
the total porosity measured by a neutron tool is larger than those
measured by the density tool, the NMR tool or the sonic tool. The total
porosity from the sonic tool is less than that of the density tool because
the density tool measures the porosity in isolated pore whereas the sonic

2–124
tool does not. If isolated pores are present, the effective porosity
measured in core analysis will be less than the effective permeability
measured by NMR. Thus, Figure 2.62 could be helpful in reconciling
differences in the porosity measurements from the various methods.

Figure 2.62. A comparison of porosity measurements by various methods


for a shaly sand.

2.8 RESERVE ESTIMATION PROJECT

The objective of this project is to compute the recoverable oil


reserve and the anticipated undiscounted net cash flow for a new oilfield
discovery using Monte Carlo Simulation. The petrophysical parameters
that go into the reserve estimation are uncertain and as such should be

2-125
treated as random variables with distinct probability distributions. The
outcome of the simulation will be a range of reserve and net cash flow
estimates with their associated probabilities and uncertainties. This
project gives an example practical application of the petrophysical
properties of porosity and water saturation, which are the main subjects
of this chapter. The project also introduces the important subject of risk
analysis of petroleum development, which should be of interest to all
petroleum engineers.

2.8.1 Reserve Estimation

Based on volumetric considerations (Figure 2.63), the recoverable


oil reserve is given by

7758 Ahφ (1 − S w )
Nr = Rf (2.78)
Bo

where

Nr = recoverable oil reserve (stock tank barrels, STB)

A = area of the reservoir (acres)

h = net pay thickness (feet)

φ = porosity (fraction)

Sw = average water saturation (fraction)

Rf = recovery factor (fraction)

Bo = oil formation volume factor (reservoir barrels/stock tank


barrel, RB/STB)

7758 = conversion constant (barrels/acre-foot)

2–126
Figure 2.63. Reservoir volume.

To account for the uncertainties in the variables on the right side


of Eq.(2.78) various experts within the company have been requested to
provide their best estimates of these variables based on their professional
judgments. These estimates are shown in Table 2.8 along with their
assumed probability distributions.

Table 2.8 Reservoir parameter estimates from experts.

Property Minimum (x1) Most Likely (x2) Maximum (x3) Probability


Distributio
n
A (acres) 2500 6000 9000 Triangular
h (ft) 200 300 500 Triangular
φ 0.15 0.25 0.35 Triangular
Bo (RB/STB) 1.20 1.30 1.35 Triangular
RF 0.20 0.40 Uniform
Oil Price ($/STB) 25 30 40 Triangular

2-127
Based on preliminary evaluation, the water saturation has been
determined to correlate with porosity as shown in Eq.(2.79).

S w = 0.325 − 0.500φ (2.79)

2.8.2 Economic Evaluation

In order to assess the profitability of the proposed development, it


will be necessary to perform a detailed year-by-year discounted cash flow
projection for the field. However, for the purpose of this project, a
preliminary undiscounted net cash flow analysis will be sufficient. It is
assumed that the petroleum fiscal regime applicable to this field is a
royalty/tax system.

The undiscounted net cash flow is given by

Net Cash Flow (NCF) = (Gross Revenue - Royalty - Costs)(1 - Tax Rate) (2.80)

Gross Revenue = Reserve x Price (2.81)

For this project, assume the following:

Royalty = 12.5% of Gross Revenue

Costs (CAPEX + OPEX) = 38% of Gross Revenue

(CAPEX = capital expenditures, OPEX = operating expenses)

Tax Rate = 40%

2–128
2.8.3 Simulation Procedure

You should draw a random sample for each variable of interest


from its probability distribution and compute the recoverable reserve and
the net cash flow for each iteration of the simulation. Each variable can
be sampled using a random number generator. A different random
number should be used to sample each variable because the variables
are assumed to be uncorrelated, except for the water saturation, which is
correlated to porosity. Normally, you should perform enough simulation
iterations so that the means and standard deviations of the reserve and
the net cash flow are approximately constant (i.e., they are no longer
sensitive to the number of iterations). This could require several
thousand iterations. For this exercise, you should perform at least 5,000
iterations.

2.8.4 Sampling Procedure

Presented herein is the procedure for sampling from a triangular


distribution and a uniform distribution using a random number
generator. Figure 2.64 shows the probability density function (pdf) for a
triangular distribution. The first step is to compute the cumulative
distribution function (F) as a function of x. Two cases are examined.

Case 1. x1≤ x ≤x2

For this case, the probability density function is given by

2 ( x − x1 )
f1 ( x) = (2.82)
( x3 − x1 )( x2 − x1 )

2-129
Figure 2.64. Probability density function for a triangular distribution.

The cumulative distribution function (F), which is the probability that x


is less than or equal to a prescribed value, is obtained by integrating
Eq.(2.82) to obtain

( x − x1 )
2
x
F = ∫ f1 ( x)dx = (2.83)
x 1 ( x3 − x1 )( x2 − x1 )

Solving Eq.(2.83) for x gives

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

For this case, the probability density function is given by

2 ( x3 − x )
f 2 ( x) = (2.86)
( x3 − x1 )( x3 − x2 )

The cumulative distribution function (F) is obtained by integrating


Eqs.(2.82) and (2.86) to obtain

( x3 − x )
2

F = ∫ f1 ( x)dx + ∫ f 2 ( x)dx = 1 −
x2 x
(2.87)
x1 x 2 ( x3 − x1 )( x3 − x2 )

Solving Eq.(2.87) for x gives

x = x3 − (1 − F )( x3 − x1 )( x3 − x2 ) (2.88)

To sample from the second part of the triangular distribution, substitute


the random number for F in Eq.(2.88) to obtain

x = x3 − (1 − Rn )( x3 − x1 )( x3 − x2 ) (2.89)

For each iteration, it is necessary to test the random number to


determine if Eq.(2.85) or Eq.(2.89) should be used to calculate x. Such a

test is straightforward. For x = x2, Eq. (2.85) gives the critical value of Rn

as

Rn =
( x2 − x1 ) (2.90)
( x3 − x1 )

2-131
Eq.(2.85) should be used to calculate x if

Rn ≤
( x2 − x1 ) (2.91)
( x3 − x1 )

Otherwise, Eq.(2.89) should be used to calculate x.

Figure 2.65 shows a graphical demonstration of Monte Carlo


sampling using the triangular distribution for net pay thickness of Table
2.8. The upper part of the figure shows the probability density function
whereas the lower part shows the cumulative distribution function. Also
shown in the lower part of the figure is the sampled value of 380 ft of net
pay for a random number of 0.760. The data used to construct Figure
2.65 are shown in Table 2.9.

Figure 2.66 shows the probability density function for a uniform


distribution. For this case, the probability density function is given by

1
f ( x) = (2.92)
( x3 − x1 )

The cumulative distribution function (F) is obtained by integrating


Eq.(2.92) to obtain

x
F = ∫ f ( x)dx =
( x − x1 ) (2.93)
x1
( x3 − x1 )

Solving Eq.(2.93) for x gives

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)

Figure 2.65. Graphical demonstration of Monte Carlo sampling

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

To sample from a uniform distribution, substitute the random number


for F in Eq.(2.94) to obtain

x = x1 + Rn ( x3 − x1 ) (2.95)

The sampling procedure outlined above is the basic Monte Carlo


Sampling procedure. It is not a very efficient sampling technique because
there is no guarantee that all parts of the distribution will be sampled
equally. A more efficient and sophisticated stratified sampling procedure,
known as the Latin Hypercube Sampling, is available. This sampling
procedure ensures that all parts of the distribution are sampled equally
and will result in a faster convergence of the simulation to the final
results than the traditional Monte Carlo Sampling Method.

A brief description of the Latin Hypercube Sampling is as follows.


The cumulative distribution function, 0<F<1, for each variable is divided
into n subintervals of equal probability and numbered 0, 1, 2, 3, …, n-1.

2–136
The objective is to sample from each subinterval during the first n
iterations. However, the subinterval to be sampled is selected randomly.
For example, if n = 100, the subintervals will be numbered 0, 1, 2, 3, …,
99. Each subinterval can be selected randomly by generating a random
integer from 0 to 99. The subintervals could be picked at random in
advance and stored in a one-dimensional array of 100 elements. Let’s
look at the array for the Area, A(100), as an example. The contents of this
array after the random selections might look like this:

A(1) = 45

A(2) = 2

A(3) = 7

A(4) = 92

A(5) = 23

A(6) = 0

A(100) = 8

Make sure every subinterval is represented in the array. A similar array


is generated with a new set of random numbers for each of the other
variables. During the first simulation iteration, the area will be sampled
from subinterval 45. To do so, generate a random number (r) between 0
and 1, say 0.263. The random number used to sample subinterval 45 is
computed as

A(1) r 45 0.263
Rn = + = + = 0.45263 (2.96)
100 100 100 100

2-137
In the second iteration, the area will be sampled from subinterval 2 by
generating another random number (r) between 0 and 1, say 0.950 and
computing

A(2) r 2 0.950
Rn = + = + = 0.02950 (2.97)
100 100 100 100

At the end of the first 100 iterations, each of the subintervals has been
sampled once. A similar sampling procedure is applied to the other
variables.

To perform the next 100 iterations of the simulation, the sequence


in which the subintervals are sampled is picked randomly. For example,
for the second 100 iterations, the array A may look like this:

A(1) = 3

A(2) = 86

A(3) = 50

A(4) = 14

A(5) = 6

A(6) = 99

A(100) = 72

The sampling for the second 100 iterations then proceeds in the same
manner as for the first 100 iterations. Thus, the entire simulation is
performed in increments of 100 iterations until the planned total number
of iterations is achieved. Figure 2.67 shows qualitatively the effect of

2–138
stratification in Latin Hypercube sampling from a normal distribution for
n = 20. The bands get progressively wider towards the tails of the
distribution as the probability density drops off.

Figure 2.67. Effect of stratification in Latin Hypercube sampling.

2.8.5 Simulation Output

Based on your simulation results, calculate the following for the


Reserve (Nr) and Net Cash Flow (NCF) estimates:

1. Minimum
2. Maximum
3. Mean
4. Standard deviation
5. Skewness
6. Kurtosis

2-139
7. Mode (most likely value)
8. P90 value (There is a 90% probability that the variable of interest is
equal to or greater than the P90 value – Low Value)
9. P50 value (median)
10. P10 value (There is a 10% probability that the variable of interest
is equal to or greater than the P10 value – High Value)
Note: Based on the above definitions, P10 > P90.

Plot the following graphs:

1. Reserve histograms (Frequency vs N, and Frequency vs natural log


of N)
2. Net Cash Flow (NCF) histograms (Frequency vs NCF, and
Frequency vs natural log of NCF)
3. Cumulative Distribution Function (F) for the reserve (F vs N)
4. Expectation Curve for the reserve ( (1– F) vs N on the same graph
as F vs N)
5. Cumulative Distribution Function (F) for the net cash flow (F vs
NCF)
6. Expectation Curve for the net cash flow ( (1– F) vs NCF on the
same graph as F vs NCF)
7. Histograms for A, h, φ, Sw, Bo, RF and Oil Price based on your
sampling to see how close they are to their theoretical input
probability density functions .
Suggestion:

You can easily perform this simulation in Excel with VBA or by


writing a high level computer program in Fortran, C++ or Matlab. The
choice is yours. Please do not perform the simulation with a commercial
risk analysis software such as @Risk or Crystal Ball because I want you
to experience the simulation first hand rather than using the commercial
software as a black box.

Note that a similar simulation approach can be used to compute


the recoverable gas reserve in the case of a gas reservoir. In this case, the
appropriate equations are as follows:

2–140
43560 Ahφ (1 − S w )
Gr = RF (2.98)
Bg

ZT
Bg = 0.02827 (2.99)
P

where

Gr = recoverable gas reserve (standard cubic feet, scf)

Bg = gas formation volume factor (reservoir cubic feet/scf)

Z = gas compressibility factor (dimensionless)

T = absolute reservoir temperature (ºRankine)

P = reservoir pressure (psia)

43560 = conversion constant (ft2/acre)

2.9 PORE VOLUME COMPRESSIBILITY

Reservoir rock at in situ conditions is subjected to overburden


stress, whereas at the surface, recovered core has been relieved of the
overburden stress. It is not usual to perform routine porosity
measurements under stress approaching reservoir conditions. Because
of this, laboratory-measured porosities are generally expected to be
higher than in situ values. Pore volume compressibility can be used to
correct laboratory-measured porosity to an in situ value and for other
reservoir engineering calculations.

2-141
In general, the isothermal coefficient of compressibility of a
material is defined as

1 ⎛ ∂V ⎞
c=− ⎜ ⎟ (2.100)
V ⎝ ∂P ⎠T

where the negative sign convention is used to ensure that c is a positive


number because when a material is compressed, its volume decreases
⎛ ∂V ⎞
thereby making ⎜ ⎟ a negative quantity. Pore volume compressibility is
⎝ ∂P ⎠T
defined without the negative sign as

1 ⎛ ∂V p ⎞ 1 ⎛ ∂φ ⎞
cf = ⎜ ⎟ = ⎜ ⎟ (2.101)
V p ⎝ ∂P ⎠T φ ⎝ ∂P ⎠T

where P is the pore pressure (internal pressure) rather than the


overburden pressure (external pressure). When the pore pressure
declines during production, the overburden pressure causes the reservoir
to compact. Thus, a decrease in pore pressure causes a decrease in the
⎛ ∂V ⎞ ⎛ ∂φ ⎞
pore volume or porosity thereby making ⎜ ⎟ or ⎜ ⎟ positive.
⎝ ∂P ⎠T ⎝ ∂P ⎠T

For many years, the petroleum industry has relied on Hall’s (1953)
correlation, shown in Figure 2.68, for estimating pore volume
compressibility. This correlation was developed from measurements on
seven consolidated limestone and five consolidated sandstone samples, a
rather small dataset for a universal correlation.

Compressibilities, however, are highly affected by reservoir type


and overburden conditions. Newman (1973) has presented a more
comprehensive pore volume compressibility data based on 256 samples.

2–142
Of the 256 samples, 197 were sandstones from 29 sandstone reservoirs,
and 59 were limestones from 11 limestone reservoirs. Figure 2.69 shows
a correlation of the pore volume compressibilities with initial sample
porosities for all 256 samples. Also shown is Hall's correlation. Viewed
collectively, the data show little or no correlation between pore volume
compressibility and initial sample porosity. The data show considerable
disagreement with Hall's correlation.

Figure 2.68. Pore volume compressibility versus porosity (Hall, 1953).

2-143
Figure 2.69. Pore volume compressibility at 75% lithostatic pressure
versus initial sample porosity for sandstone and limestone samples
(Newman, 1973).

Newman divided his data into four qualitative classifications in an


effort to improve the correlation between pore volume compressibility and
initial porosity. He classified the samples as (1) consolidated limestone,
(2) consolidated sandstone, (3) poorly consolidated (friable) sandstone,
and (4) unconsolidated sandstone. Poorly consolidated or friable
sandstone could be broken by hand whereas consolidated sandstone

2–144
could not. Unconsolidated sandstone would collapse under its own
weight if it is not protected in a sleeve.

Figure 2.70 shows the correlation for consolidated limestones


along with the correlations from Hall and van der Knaap (1959).
Qualitatively, all three dataset show a general decrease in pore volume
compressibility with an increase in porosity. However, there is
considerable scatter in the data.

Figure 2.70. Pore volume compressibility at 75% lithostatic pressure


versus initial sample porosity for limestone samples (Newman, 1973).

2-145
Figure 2.71 shows the correlation for consolidated sandstones
along with Hall's correlation. Qualitatively, the data show a general
decrease in pore volume compressibility with an increase in porosity with
some scatter. Newman's data decrease more rapidly with an increase in
porosity than Hall's data.

Figure 2.71. Pore volume compressibility at 75% lithostatic pressure


versus initial sample porosity for consolidated sandstone samples
(Newman, 1973).

2–146
Figure 2.72 shows the correlation for poorly consolidated or friable
sandstones along with Hall's correlation. There appears to be no
correlation between pore volume compressibility and porosity for this
class of sandstones.

Figure 2.72. Pore volume compressibility at 75% lithostatic pressure


versus initial sample porosity for poorly consolidated sandstone samples
(Newman, 1973).

2-147
Figure 2.73 shows the correlation for unconsolidated sandstones
along with Hall's correlation. For this class of sandstones, the pore
volume compressibility increases with an increase in porosity, in contrast
to the trend for consolidated samples.

Figure 2.73. Pore volume compressibility at 75% lithostatic pressure


versus initial sample porosity for unconsolidated sandstone samples
(Newman, 1973).

2–148
Newman's data clearly show that there is no universal correlation
for pore volume compressibility and porosity. For detailed analysis, pore
volume compressibility should be measured in the laboratory on core
samples of interest. Figure 2.74 shows a schematic diagram of a typical
device for measuring pore volume compressibility. These measurements
are fairly difficult to make, and must include calibrations for the
compressibilities of the fluids and the equipment.

Figure 2.74. Typical apparatus for measuring pore volume


compressibility (Hall, 1953).

Pore volume compressibility is not always constant. For example,


in abnormally pressured reservoirs, it is common to find that pore
volume compressibility at high reservoir pressures is much larger than

2-149
the pore volume compressibility at low pressures. This is due to
compaction effects as the pore pressure declines.

Pore volume compaction can lead to undesirable operational


problems. A famous case of this is the subsidence of Ekofisk field in the
Norwegian sector of North Sea. The seafloor subsided about 3 meters
from 1971 to 1984 due to reservoir depletion. Continuous monitoring
indicated subsidence of 33 to 38 cm per year. By 1997, the cumulative
subsidence was 7.8 meters. In 1998, the operator undertook expensive
measures to jack up their platforms by 6 meters. On the other hand,
pore volume compaction provides valuable reservoir drive energy to
increase production from the field.

Total system compressibility is a parameter of importance in


pressure transient testing and reservoir material balance analysis,
especially above the bubble point pressure of the oil. Total system
compressibility is defined as the combined compressibility of the pore
volume and all the fluids saturating the medium:

ct = So co + S wcw + S g cg + c f (2.102)

NOMENCLATURE

amf = activity coefficient of mud filtrate


aw = activity coefficient of formation water
A = atomic weight
Bg = gas formation volume factor
Bo = oil formation volume factor
B0 = magnetic field strength

2–150
BVI = bound fluid index
c = isothermal coefficient of compressibility
cf = isothermal coefficient of compressibility of pore volume
cg = isothermal coefficient of compressibility of gas
co = isothermal coefficient of compressibility of oil
cw = isothermal coefficient of compressibility of water
dh = borehole diameter
di = diameter of invaded zone
ds1 = slice thickness
dxo = diameter of flushed zone
D = diffusion coefficient
Ec = electrochemical potential
Ek = electrokinetic potential
Ekmc = electrokinetic potential of mud cake
F = formation resistivity factor
FFI = free fluid index
FOV = field of view
G = gradient
GPE = phase encode gradient
GRO = readout gradient
Gss = slice selection gradient
Gr = recoverable gas reserve
h = net pay thickness
I = formation resistivity index
k = permeability
m = cementation factor
M = net magnetization
Mz = net magnetization in the z direction
n = saturation exponent
Nr = recoverable oil reserve
MNR = nuclear magnetic resonance

2-151
P = pressure
RF = radiofrequency
Rf = recovery factor
Ri = resistivity of invaded zone
Rmf = resistivity of mud filtrate
Rn = random number
Ro = resistivity of water saturated zone
Rs = resistivity of surrounding formation
Rt = true formation resistivity
Rw = resistivity of formation water
Rxo = resistivity of flushed zone
S = surface area of pore
Sh = hydrocarbon saturation
Sg = gas saturation
So = oil saturation
Soi = initial oil saturation
Sor = residual oil saturation
Sxo = water saturation of flushed zone
Sw = water saturation
Swirr = irreducible water saturation
t = time
tpe = duration of phase encoding gradient pulse
tro = duration of frequency encoding gradient pulse
T = temperature
T1 = longitudinal relaxation time or spin-lattice relaxation time
T2 = transverse relaxation time or spin-spin relaxation time
T2gm = geometric mean time
T2* = apparent transverse relaxation time spin-spin relaxation time
T2bulk = transverse relaxation time of bulk fluid
T2surface = transverse relaxation time of surface fluid
TE = echo time

2–152
TR = repetition time
v = compressional wave velocity
V = volume of pore
Vp = pore volume
Vb = bulk volume
Vs = grain volume
Z = atomic number
φ = porosity
φe = effective porosity
φtotal = total porosity
ρ1 = NMR T1 surface relaxivity
ρ2 = NMR T2 surface relaxivity
ρa = apparent density
ρb = bulk density
ρe = electron density
ρf = fluid density
ρm = rock matrix density
ΔB0 = magnetic field inhomogeneity
ΔPE = pixel size in the phase encoding direction
ΔRO = pixel size in the readout direction
Δv = voxel size
Δt = interval transit time
Δtf = fluid interval transit time
Δtm = rock matrix interval transit time
Δtsh = shale interval transit time
∇B = magnetic field gradient
α = regularization constant or smoothing parameter
λ = thickness of surface monolayer
ε(tj) = noise
τ = interpulse spacing time

2-153
ωo = Lamor frequency
ωr = Lamor frequency at position r
γ = gyromagnetic ratio

Ψair = x-ray attenuation coefficient of air (= 0)

Ψbrine = x-ray attenuation coefficient of brine

Ψdry = x-ray attenuation coefficient of dry sample

Ψm = x-ray attenuation coefficient of rock matrix

Ψwet = x-ray attenuation coefficient of brine saturated sample

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS

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

For steady-state linear flow of a single phase liquid in a horizontal medium as


shown in Figure 3.1, Darcy’s Law may be integrated to give

kA ( P1 − P2 ) kA ΔP
q= = (3.2)
μ L μ L

Figure 3.1. Linear flow geometry.

3-1
Eq(3.2) can be solved for the absolute permeability of the porous medium as

qμ L
k= (3.3)
AΔP

The absolute permeability is the permeability of the medium when it is


saturated 100% by a single phase, non-reactive liquid. It is a property of the
porous medium and is independent of the fluid properties.

Eq.(3.2) can be written as

⎛ μL ⎞
ΔP = ⎜ ⎟q (3.4)
⎝ kA ⎠

Eq.(3.4) is useful for processing laboratory data to determine the absolute


permeability of a sample using a non-reactive liquid. If a steady state liquid
flow experiment is performed at several rates, Eq.(3.4) shows that a graph of
ΔP versus q should be linear with a slope, m, given by

μL
m= (3.5)
kA

from which the absolute permeability can be calculated as

μL
k= (3.6)
mA

Table 3.1 shows the data from such an experiment performed on an


unconsolidated sandpack using Dow Corning mineral oil. The fluid and
sandpack properties were as follows:

μ = 105.363 cp
L = 115.6 cm
d = 4.961 cm
φ = 37.80%

3-2
Table 3.1: Pressure Drop and Flow Rate Data for Steady State Flow
Experiment in a Sandpack (from Peters, 1979).
q ΔP
(cc/s) (atm)
0 0
0.0014 0.0476
0.0556 1.9284
0.0889 3.0573
0.1333 4.5439
0.2222 7.5303
0.3111 10.465

Figure 3.2 shows the graph of ΔP versus q from the experiment. The data plot
as a straight line through the origin, thereby verifying the validity of Darcy's
law for the experiment. The slope of the line is m = 33.658. The permeability
is calculated with Eq.(3.6) as

k=
(105.363)(115.6 ) = 18.72 darcys.
⎡ ⎛ 4.961 ⎞ 2 ⎤
( 33.658) ⎢π ⎜ ⎟ ⎥
⎣⎢ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎦⎥

If the graph of Figure 3.2 were nonlinear, then Darcy's law would not be
valid for the experiment. This situation would occur if the liquid reacted with
the porous medium. An example of such a reaction would occur if the
experiment were performed on a sandstone containing a significant amount of
montmorrillonite-type clays using fresh water. Can you sketch how ΔP would
vary with q in such an experiment?

3-3
Figure 3.2. Graph of ΔP verus q for steady state flow of a non-reactive liquid
through an unconsolidated sandpack.

Table 3.2 compares Darcy units with oilfield units. Using the
information in the table, Eq.(3.2) can be written in oilfield units as

0.001127 kA ΔP
q= (3.7)
μB L

or

1 kA ΔP
q= (3.8)
887.2 μ B L

For radial flow into a wellbore as shown in Figure 3.3, Darcy’s law may
be expressed in radial coordinates in oilfield units as

3-4
0.00708kh ( Pe − Pw )
q= (3.9)
⎛r ⎞
μ B ln ⎜ e ⎟
⎝ rw ⎠

or

1 kh ( Pe − Pw )
q= (3.10)
141.2 ⎛r ⎞
μ B ln ⎜ e ⎟
⎝ rw ⎠

Table 3.2 Comparison of Darcy and Oilfield Units

Variable Darcy Unit Oilfield Unit


Pressure atm psia
Time second day
Flow rate cm3/s STB/D
Wellbore radius cm ft
Well drainage radius cm ft
Porosity fraction fraction
Permeability darcy millidarcy
Pay thickness cm ft
Fluid viscosity cp cp
Compressibility atm-1 psi-1

Figure 3.3. Radial flow into a wellbore.

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

1darcy = 9.869 x10−9 cm 2 = 9.869 x10−13 m 2 = 1.062 x10−11 ft 2 (3.13)

3.3 LABORATORY DETERMINATION OF PERMEABILITY


Permeability is an empirical parameter, which must be determined by
measuring all the parameters in Darcy’s law. Core permeabilities are usually
measured in the laboratory using dry gas (air, nitrogen or helium) as the
flowing fluid to minimize rock-fluid reaction. In this case, another form of
Darcy’s law for steady-state flow of an ideal gas must be used, recognizing
that the volumetric flow rate of a gas varies with pressure. For an ideal gas at
a constant temperature, Boyle's law can be written for a fixed mass of gas at
two conditions as

qP = qsc Psc (3.14)

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 ⎠

where kg is the permeability to gas of the medium. Eq.(3.15) can be integrated


to give the working equation for a gas permeameter as

k g A ⎛ P12 − P22 ⎞
qsc = ⎜ ⎟ (3.16)
2 μ Psc ⎝ L ⎠

which can be used to calculate the permeability to gas as

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⎠

where P is the mean gas pressure given by

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.

Figure 3.5. Permeability of a core sample to hydrogen, nitrogen and carbon


dioxide. Absolute permeability of the core to isooctane = 2.55 md (from
Klinkenberg, 1941).

3-9
Figure 3.6 shows a schematic diagram of a gas permeameter. In this
figure, the gas volumetric flow rate, qsc, is measured at the outlet pressure, P2.
Therefore, in this case, P2 is the reference pressure, Psc.

Figure 3.6. Schematic diagram of a gas permeameter.

In general, permeability is an anisotropic property of a porous medium,


that is, it is directional. Routine core analyses are usually made on core
plugs drilled horizontally from a core. It is sometimes possible to specify that
plugs be cut along bedding planes. Plugs are sometimes cut vertically if it is
desired to obtain vertical as well as horizontal permeabilities. These plugs are
shown in Figure 3.7.

3-10
Figure 3.7. Possible core plug samples.

Because of interactions of fluids with reservoir rocks, absolute


permeabilities to different fluids may not always be the same. The
permeability to brine, for example, is often somewhat less than the
Klinkenberg-corrected gas permeability. For this reason, it is usually
beneficial to obtain at least a few brine permeability measurements, especially
if waterflooding is anticipated. These measurements are time-consuming, and

3-11
thus are more costly. Another permeability that is sometimes referenced is
the permeability to oil at irreducible water saturation (kor). This permeability
is known as the effective permeability to oil at irreducible water saturation. Its
value is typically around 80% to 98% of the absolute permeability depending
on the quality of the porous medium. Table 3.3 presents typical values for
clean, unconsolidated sandpacks.

Table 3.3: Petrophysical Data of Sandpacks (from Peters, 1979)

Sample L d φ k kor kor/k Swirr


No (cm) (cm) (%) (darcy) (darcy) (%)
1 22.9 4.81 38.98 16.43 15.82 0.96 11.20
2 23.6 4.84 36.37 18.36 17.99 0.98 8.66
3 112.8 4.96 38.38 21.89 18.05 0.82 9.18
4 23.7 4.81 38.94 18.93 18.33 0.97 11.34
5 110.5 4.83 38.91 20.52 18.50 0.90 10.83
6 110.0 4.81 37.61 21.91 19.40 0.89 10.48
7 23.6 4.84 37.49 14.19 11.03 0.78 15.26
8 116.1 4.96 34.66 18.28 15.57 0.85 8.32
9 113.0 4.96 39.62 22.99 19.90 0.87 8.61
10 115.9 4.96 35.86 19.22 15.49 0.81 12.53
11 22.8 4.84 37.52 16.23 15.19 0.94 11.20
12 110.4 4.81 37.46 20.85 18.48 0.89 10.00
13 115.9 4.97 37.80 18.54 15.53 0.84 9.29
14 110.0 4.81 38.11 22.50 18.62 0.83 8.91
15 112.8 4.97 35.48 22.72 20.90 0.92 9.92
16 23.4 4.84 34.61 14.51 9.58 0.66 11.03
17 23.6 4.84 38.60 20.87 18.49 0.89 10.15
18 23.7 4.81 35.44 12.11 11.94 0.99 12.02

3-12
Example 3.1
The permeability of a clean, dry core plug is to be determined. The core is
cylindrical with a diameter of 24 mm and a length of 32 mm. The core was
installed in a gas permeameter and air was flowed through it at an average

rate of 100 cm3 in 2 minutes 20 seconds, measured at atmospheric pressure


(Figure 3.8). The pressure differential across the sample was kept constant at
12 cm of mercury. The upstream gauge pressure (at the inlet of the core) was
76 cm of mercury. The gas viscosity at the test temperature was 0.01808 cp.
The barometric pressure was 76 cm of mercury.

Figure 3.8. Gas permeameter for Example 3.1.

1. Calculate the permeability to air at the test conditions.


2. Does the permeability calculated in part 1 represent the true absolute
permeability of this core? If yes, why? If no, why not?

3-13
Solution to Example 3.1
d = 24 mm = 2.4 cm
L = 32 mm = 3.2 cm
qsc = 100cm3/(2 minutes 20 seconds) = (100/140) cm3/s
P1 = 76cm of Hg gauge = 76+76 = 152 cm of Hg absolute
= 152/76 = 2 atm absolute
P2 = (P1 - 12) = 152 - 12 = 140 cm of Hg absolute
= 140/76 = 1.842 atm absolute
Psc = 1 atm
μg = 0.0808 cp
Substituting into Eq.(3.17) gives

kg =
( 2 )(100 /140 )( 0.01808)(1)( 3.2 ) = 0.0301 darcy = 30.1 md
π ( 2.4 / 2 ) ( 22 − 1.8422 )
2

No. The calculated permeability to gas of 30.1 md is not the true absolute
permeability of the core because of Klinkenberg effect. It is larger than the
absolute permeability of the core.

3.4 FIELD DETERMINATION OF PERMEABILITY


Permeability can be determined in the field by use of pressure transient
tests, essentially measuring the permeability of the in-situ reservoir rock on a
large scale. A transient pressure test consists of changing the flow rate of a
well and then recording the bottomhole pressure response as a function of
time. The pressure data can be analyzed to obtain formation permeability and
other reservoir and well parameters. Oil permeability at irreducible water
saturation is normally used for comparison with the permeability from most
pressure transient tests that involve only oil flow.

3-14
3.4.1 Diffusivity Equation for Slightly Compressible Liquid
The partial differential equation that describes the transient pressure
response of a reservoir undergoing single phase flow is obtained by combining
the law of mass conservation, Darcy’s law and an equation of state for the
fluid. The mass conservation equation, also known as the continuity equation,
is

G ∂ (φρ )
∇. ( ρ v ) + =0 (3.20)
∂t

Darcy's law is given by

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)

where ρo is the density at a reference pressure Po. Eqs.(3.20) through (3.22)


can be combined to give

φμ ct ∂P 1 ∂P
∇2 P = = (3.23)
k ∂t α ∂t

where α is a constant and is given by

k
α= (3.24)
φμ ct

Eq. 3.23 is known as the diffusivity equation in the petroleum engineering


community. Others may recognize it as the diffusion equation or the heat
conduction equation. Thus, Eq.(3.23) is a standard partial differential
equation of mathematical physics. It is a second order, parabolic, linear
partial differential equation. The solutions of this equation for specific initial

3-15
and boundary conditions are used for transient pressure analysis and for
natural water influx calculations.

The constant, α, is known as the diffusivity constant and can be written


as

⎛ kh ⎞
⎜μ ⎟
=⎝ ⎠=
k T
α= (3.25)
φμ ct φ hct S

where T is the transmissibility of the reservoir given by

kh
T= (3.26)
μ

and S is the storativity of the reservoir given by

S = φ hct (3.27)

Thus, the diffusivity constant is the ratio of the transmissibility to the


storativity (storage capacity) of the reservoir.

The mathematical model (initial-boundary value problem) for transient


pressure analysis is as follows:

∂ 2 P 1 ∂P φμ ct ∂P
+ = (3.28)
∂r 2 r ∂r k ∂t

P ( r, 0 ) = Pi (3.29)

⎛ ∂P ⎞ qsf μ
lim ⎜ r ⎟= (3.30)
r →0
⎝ ∂r ⎠ 2π kh

lim P ( r , t ) = Pi (3.31)
r →∞

Eq.(3.28) is Eq.(3.23) for one-dimensional radial flow. Eq.(3.29) is the initial


condition, which specifies that before production commenced, the pressure in
the reservoir was constant and equal to the initial reservoir pressure, Pi.

3-16
Eq.(3.30) is the internal boundary condition at the wellbore, which specifies a
constant instantaneous sandface rate upon commencement of production.
This instantaneous constant sandface boundary condition is unrealistic
because we expect that when a well is put on production, the sandface rate
should increase from zero to the final constant rate over a finite time.
Eq.(3.29) also specifies a vanishingly small wellbore radius thereby treating
the well as a line source. These two specifications, though unrealistic, have
been made for mathematical expediency because with them, we can obtain a
simple approximate solution to the partial differential equation. Eq.(3.31) is
the external boundary condition, which specifies that far away from the
wellbore, the reservoir is undisturbed and as such, the reservoir pressure will
remain at the initial pressure, Pi. This boundary condition is the infinite
acting reservoir boundary condition.

Eqs.(3.28) through (3.31) constitute the initial-boundary value problem


that describes the transient pressure response of a reservoir that has been
put on instantaneous constant sandface rate production. It is useful to put
these equations in dimensionless forms. This will reduce the number of
variables and also will facilitate the use of existing solutions from other fields
for pressure transient analysis. For example, there is a wealth of solutions of
linear, second order, parabolic partial differential equation in the heat
conduction literature. Casting our model in dimensionless variables allows
the immediate use of these existing solutions from other disciplines for our
purpose.

In dimensionless forms, Eqs.(3.28) through (3.31) become

∂ 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 →∞

where the dimensionless variables are defined as

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

In Eq.(3.39), q is surface rate and qB is the sandface rate.

Eqs.(3.32) through (3.35) can be solved, for example, by Laplace


transformation. It can be shown that the solution is of the form

1
PD ( x ) = − Ei (− x) (3.41)
2

3-18
where

rD2
x= (3.42)
4t D

and

∞ e− y
Ei ( − x ) = − ∫ dy (3.43)
x y

Ei(-x) is the exponential integral function, which is tabulated in mathematical


handbooks. Table 3.4 gives the Ei function for various values of the argument,
x. The solution given in Eq.(3.41) can be written as

1 ⎛ rD2 ⎞
PD ( rD , t D ) = − Ei ⎜ − ⎟ (3.44)
2 ⎝ 4t D ⎠

at any dimensionless radius and time, and

1 ⎛ 1 ⎞
PD (1, t D ) = − Ei ⎜ − ⎟ (3.45)
2 ⎝ 4t D ⎠

at the wellbore, where rD = 1. In terms of actual pressure, radius and time in


oilfield units, Eq.(3.44) and (3.45) become

141.2qμ B ⎡ 1 ⎛ 948φμ ct r 2 ⎞ ⎤
P ( r , t ) = Pi − ⎢ − Ei ⎜ − ⎟⎥ (3.46)
kh ⎣ 2 ⎝ kt ⎠⎦

and

141.2qμ B ⎡ 1 ⎛ 948φμ ct rw2 ⎞ ⎤


Pwf ( t ) = P ( rw , t ) = Pi − ⎢ − Ei ⎜ − ⎟⎥ (3.47)
kh ⎣ 2 ⎝ kt ⎠⎦

3.4.2 Pressure Drawdown Equation


For x ≤ 0.01 , the exponential integral function can be accurately
approximated as

3-19
Ei ( − x )  ln x + 0.5772 (3.48)

This approximation is usually valid at the wellbore in all well testing


situations. Using the approximation, the dimensionless solution at the
wellbore, Eq.(3.45), can be written as

1
PD (1, t D ) = ( ln tD + 0.80907 ) for tD ≥ 25 (3.49)
2

Eq.(3.49) can be written in terms of log to base 10 as

⎡ ⎛ k ⎞ ⎤
PD (1, t D ) = 1.1513 ⎢ log t + log ⎜ 2 ⎟
− 3.23⎥ (3.50)
⎣ ⎝ φμ ct rw ⎠ ⎦

Eq.(3.50) gives the flowing bottomhole pressure as

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

and a pressure intercept at logt = 0 given by

⎡ ⎛ 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 ⎠ ⎦

3.4.3 Pressure Buildup Equation


We wish to solve the diffusivity equation for the case of a well, which
has been producing at a constant instantaneous rate q for a time and then
shut in at time tp as shown in Figure 3.9C. Since the diffusivity equation is a
linear partial differential equation, superposition principle can be used to
construct this solution from the constant rate solution that we already have.
Figure 3.9 shows a graphical construction of how two constant rates can be
used to generate the rate schedule for a pressure buildup test. If the constant
production rate A is added to the constant injection rate B, the outcome will
be the rate in C, which simulates the rate for a pressure buildup test for a
well that had produced for time tp before it was shut in for the buildup test.

Figure 3.9. Rate schedule for pressure buildup test.

3-22
Using Eq.(3.49), the dimensionless pressure for the buildup test can easily be
derived by applying superposition principle as follows:

PDC = PDA + PDB (3.56)

ln ( t p + Δt ) + 0.80907 ⎤
1⎡
PDA = (3.57)
2⎣ D ⎦

1
PDB = − [ ln ΔtD + 0.80907] (3.58)
2

Substituting Eqs.(3.57) and (3.58) into Eq.(3.56) gives the dimensionless


pressure for the buildup test as

1 ⎛ t p + Δt ⎞
PDBU = PDC = ln ⎜ ⎟ (3.59)
2 ⎝ Δt ⎠

Eq.(3.59) gives the following pressure buildup equation

162.6q μ B ⎛ t p + Δt ⎞
Pws ( Δt ) = Pi − log ⎜ ⎟ (3.60)
kh ⎝ Δt ⎠

Eq.(3.60) is known as the Horner pressure buildup equation for an infinite


acting reservoir. It shows that if the sandface rate (qB) can be reduced to zero
instantaneously as shown in Figure 3.8C, then a graph of the buildup
⎛ t + Δt ⎞
bottomhole pressure, Pws(Δt), versus Horner time, ⎜ p ⎟ , will be linear with
⎝ Δt ⎠
a negative slope given by Eq.(3.54) and a pressure intercept equal to Pi. The
formation permeability can be calculated from the slope of the Horner line and
the initial reservoir pressure can be determined by extrapolating the Horner
line to an infinite shut in time. For a bounded reservoir (in contrast to an
infinite acting reservoir), Horner pressure buildup equation takes the form

162.6q μ B ⎛ t p + Δt ⎞
Pws ( Δt ) = P* − log ⎜ ⎟ (3.61)
kh ⎝ Δt ⎠

3-23
where the extrapolated pressure, P*, is less than the initial reservoir pressure,
Pi .

3.4.4 Diagnostic Plots


The drawdown equation, Eq.(3.51), was derived using an internal
boundary condition in which the sandface rate increased instantaneously
from zero to a constant value. The buildup equation, Eq.(3.60), was derived
using an internal boundary condition in which the sandface rate decreased
from a constant value to zero instantaneously. Given that the wellbore
contains compressible fluids, when the well is opened for production, the
surface rate may be constant but the sandface rate will increase from zero to
a constant value over a definite period of time as shown in Figure 3.10.
Similarly, when the well is shut in at the wellhead for a pressure buildup test,
the surface rate is zero but the sandface rate will decline from its constant
value to zero over a finite period of time as shown in Figure 3.9. This
phenomenon, whereby the sandface rate lags behind the surface rate, is
known as wellbore unloading during drawdown and afterflow during buildup.
The term wellbore storage is normally used to describe the phenomenon either
during drawdown or during buildup.

Figure 3.10. Idealized and actual sandface rates during drawdown and
buildup.

3-24
The consequence of neglecting the effect of wellbore storage in our
mathematical model is that the very early time pressure data will deviate from
the semilog line of Eq.(3.51) for the drawdown test or from the Horner semilog
line of Eq.(3.60) for the buildup test as shown in Figures 3.11 and 3.12. It is
therefore necessary to perform preliminary diagnostic plots of the pressure
data to identify those data that should be fitted to the semilog lines if any. The
function normally used to diagnose the presence of wellbore storage in the
pressure data is the welltest derivative function defined as

dPD dP
PD' = = tD D (3.62)
d ln t D dt D

Figure 3.11. Semilog plot for pressure drawdown test showing deviation from
semilog line due to wellbore storage effect.

3-25
Figure 3.12. Horner plot for pressure buildiup test showing deviation from
semilog line due to wellbore storage effect.
The welltest derivative function is defined in the manner shown in Eq.(3.62) to
take advantage of the fact that the data that fit the welltest model for a
drawdown test fall on the semilog line of Eq.(3.42). Along this semilog line, the
dimensionless welltest derivative function will be a constant as shown below:

dPD dP 1
PD' = = t D D = = a constant (3.63)
d ln t D dt D 2

In actual variables, the welltest derivative function becomes

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.

The welltest derivative function can be calculated with the following


central difference approximation:

⎡ ⎛ ΔPi − ΔPi −1 ⎞ ⎛ ΔPi +1 − ΔPi ⎞ ⎤


⎢⎜ ⎟ ( ti +1 − ti ) + ⎜ ⎟ ( ti − ti −1 ) ⎥
⎛ d ΔP ⎞
ΔP ' = ti ⎜ ⎢ ⎝ ti − ti −1 ⎠ ⎝ ti +1 − ti ⎠ ⎥
⎟ = ti ⎢ (3.65)
⎝ dt ⎠ti ( i i −1 ) ( i +1 i )
t − t + t − t ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢⎣ ⎥⎦

3-28
Figure 3.14. Diagnostic plots for pressure buildup data affected by wellbore
storage.

Figure 3.15 shows the pressures used to define ΔP for drawdown and buildup
tests. For drawdown test, ΔP is defined as

ΔP = Pi − Pwf ( t ) (3.66)

For buildup test, ΔP should be defined as

ΔP = Pws ( Δt ) − Pwf ( t p + Δt ) (3.67)

However, because Pwf(tp+Δt) is not available, ΔP for buildup test is


approximated by

3-29
ΔP = Pws ( Δt ) − Pwf ( t p ) (3.68)

This approximation could distort the welltest derivative function after the
effect of wellbore storage has subsided. The derivative function for a pressure
buildup test can be calculated with Eq.(3.65) using actual shut in time, Δt, or
⎛ t + Δt ⎞
Horner time, ⎜ p ⎟ , or effective shut in time, Δte, defined as
⎝ Δt ⎠

( Δt ) ( t p )
Δte = (3.69)
Δt + t p

Figure 3.15. Pressures used to define ΔP for drawdown and buildup.

3.4.5 Skin Factor


During drilling operations, the near wellbore permeability could be
reduced by formation damage caused by mud filtrate invasion. Also, if the well
is treated by an acid job, the near wellbore permeability could be enhanced
and the well is said to be stimulated. Thus, for a damaged or stimulated well,

3-30
there is a region of altered permeability near the wellbore as shown in Figure
3.16.

The additional pressure change near the wellbore caused by the region
of altered permeability can be incorporated into the welltest model through
the concept of a skin factor. The skin factor, S, is a dimensionless pressure
change at the wellbore given by

ΔPskin
S= (3.70)
⎛ qμ ⎞
⎜ ⎟
⎝ 2π kh ⎠

in Darcy units or

ΔPskin
S= (3.71)
⎛ qμ B ⎞
141.2 ⎜ ⎟
⎝ kh ⎠

in oilfield units where ΔPskin is defined as

ΔPskin = Pwfundamaged − Pwfdamaged (3.72)

for a damaged well or

ΔPskin = Pwfundamaged − Pwfstimulated (3.73)

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.

Skin factor can be incorporated into the welltest model as

1
PD (1, t D ) = ( ln tD + 0.80907 ) +S for tD ≥ 25 (3.75)
2

Eq.(3.75) can be written in terms of log to base 10 as

3-32
⎡ ⎛ k ⎞ ⎤
PD (1, t D ) = 1.1513 ⎢ log t + log ⎜ 2 ⎟
− 3.23 + 0.87 S ⎥ (3.76)
⎣ ⎝ φμ ct rw ⎠ ⎦

Eq.(3.76) gives the flowing bottomhole pressure in the presence of a skin as

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 ⎠

where Pwf(1hr) is read on the semilog straight line or its extrapolation as

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

⎠ ⎥

where Pws(1hr) is read on the Horner straight line or its extrapolation as

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.

3.4.6 Homogeneous Reservoir Model with Wellbore Storage and Skin


The welltest model can be reformulated to include wellbore storage and
skin. The resulting initial-boundary value problem to be solved consists of the
following equations in Darcy units

3-33
∂ 2 P 1 ∂P φμ ct ∂P
+ = (3.28)
∂r 2 r ∂r k ∂t

P ( r, 0 ) = Pi (3.29)

lim P ( r , t ) = Pi (3.31)
r →∞

2π kh ⎛ ∂P ⎞ dPwf
⎜r ⎟ −C =q (3.80)
μ ⎝ ∂r ⎠r = rw dt

⎡ ⎛ ∂ΔP ⎞ ⎤
ΔPwf = ⎢ ΔP ( r , t ) − S ⎜ r ⎟⎥ (3.81)
⎣ ⎝ ∂r ⎠ ⎦ r = rw

The previous single internal boundary condition, Eq.(3.30), has now


been replaced by two internal boundary conditions, Eqs.(3.80) and (3.81).
Eq.(3.80) states that the constant surface rate, q, consists of the sum of the
sandface rate, given by the first term on the left side of the equation, and the
wellbore storage rate, given by the second term on the left side of the
equation. The constant, C, is the wellbore storage coefficient defined as

ΔV V − V (t )
C= = i (3.82)
ΔP Pi − Pwf (t )

where

C = wellbore storage coefficient, reservoir cm3/atm


ΔV = change in wellbore fluid volume, reservoir cm3
ΔP = change in bottomhole pressure, atm

Vi = initial wellbore fluid volume before unloading, reservoir cm3


V(t) = wellbore fluid volume during unloading, reservoir cm3

Pi = initial wellbore pressure before unloading, atm

Pwf(t) = wellbore pressure during unloading, atm

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 ⎠

from which C can be calculated in RB/psi as

⎛ qB ⎞⎛ t ⎞
C =⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟ (3.84)
⎝ 24 ⎠⎝ ΔP ⎠unit slope line

Eq.(3.81) states that the pressure change at the wellbore, (Pi-Pwf),


consists of the sum of the pressure change for the undamaged or
unstimulated well, given by the first term on the right side of the equation,
and ΔPskin, given by the second term on the right side of the equation.

The initial-boundary value problem can be put in dimensionless form as

∂ 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

where the dimensionless wellbore storage coefficient is defined as

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.

The initial-boundary value problem represented by Eqs.(3.32), (3.33),


(3.35), (3.85) and (3.86) can be solved by Laplace transformation. It can be
shown that the dimensionless pressure at the wellbore in Laplace space is
given by

PwD (1, z ) =
Ko ( z)+S zK1 ( z) (3.89)
z 3/ 2 K1 ( z)+ z C 2
D
⎡ Ko
⎣ ( z)+ S zK1 ( z )⎤⎦
where z is the Laplace parameter and Ko and K1 are Bessel functions of the
second kind of order 0 and 1. Eq.(3.89) can easily be inverted numerically, by
say Stehfest algorithm, to obtain the PwD function in the time domain. To
obtain the welltest derivative function, the Calculus derivative with respect to
tD in Laplace space is first obtained, inverted and multiplied by tD. The
Calculus derivative in Laplace space is given by

( )
z ⎡ K o z + S zK1 z ⎤
⎣ ⎦ ( )
P'
(1, z ) = zPwD (1, z ) = (3.90)
( ) ⎡ ( ) ( )
z ⎤
wD
z 3/ 2 K1 z + z CD K o z + S zK1
2
⎣ ⎦

Figure 3.17 shows the solutions and welltest derivative functions for
various values of CDe2S plotted on log-log scales. This family of solutions
constitutes Bourdet et al.'s wellbore storage type curves, which can be used to
analyze transient pressure tests that fit a homogeneous reservoir model with
wellbore storage and skin by type curve matching.

3-36
3.4.7 Type Curve Matching
A type curve is a graph of dimensionless pressure together with the
corresponding welltest derivative function versus dimensionless time, often on
a log-log scale. Such a graph is a convenient way to present the solution to
the diffusivity equation obtained by numerical computations. Figure 3.17 is
an example of type curves obtained by solving the diffusivity equation in the
presence of wellbore storage and skin. From the definitions of PwD, tD and CD,

BOURDET TYPE CURVES


2S
CDe
100
1060
1050
1040
1030

1020
1015
1010
108
106
10 104
103
102
PwD - PwD'

0.1
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
tD/CD

Figure 3.17. Bourdet et al type curves for a homogeneous reservoir with


wellbore storage and skin for CDe2S from 102 to 1060.

3-37
⎛ kh ⎞
log PwD = log ΔP + log ⎜ ⎟ (3.91)
⎝ 141.2q μ B ⎠

⎛ tD ⎞ ⎛ 2.951x10−4 kh ⎞
log ⎜ ⎟ = log t + log ⎜ ⎟ (3.92)
⎝ CD ⎠ ⎝ μC ⎠

⎛t ⎞
Eqs.(3.91) and (3.92) show that the graph of log PwD versus log ⎜ D ⎟ is the
⎝ CD ⎠
same as the graph of log ΔP versus log t with the axes shifted by the constants

⎛ kh ⎞ ⎛ 2.951x10−4 kh ⎞
log ⎜ ⎟ and log ⎜ ⎟ . Thus, the ΔP versus t obtained from a
⎝ 141.2q μ B ⎠ ⎝ μC ⎠
transient pressure test can be matched graphically with the appropriate type
curve to estimate the reservoir and well parameters.

The procedure for using the Bourdet et al.'s type curves to analyze a
transient pressure test is as follows:

1. Prepare a log-log plot of ΔP versus t on tracing paper using the same


scale as the type curves. Use only major grid lines on this plot. This is
the field plot.

2. Slide the field plot over the type curves both vertically and horizontally
to obtain the best match of the PD function and the corresponding
welltest derivative function. Trace the matched type curve on the field
plot to obtain a visual record of the best match.

⎛t ⎞
3. Choose a convenient match point and record PDM , ⎜ D ⎟ , tM and
⎝ CD ⎠ M

(C D e2 S ) .
M

4. Calculate the formation permeability from the pressure match as

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

6. Calculate the dimensionless wellbore storage coefficient.

7. Calculate the skin factor as

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.

Figure 3.18. Example type curve match.

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

where the variables are in oilfield units.

3.4.9 Field Example of a Well Test Analysis


A pressure buildup test was conducted on a new well in a new reservoir with
the results shown in Table 3.5.

Table 3.5: Pressure Buildup Data for Field Example

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

Other pertinent data are as follows:

Producing time before the test = 15.33 hours


Production rate before the test = 174 STB/D
Wellbore radius = 0.29 ft
Formation thickness = 107 ft
Porosity = 25 %
Total compressibility = 4.2x10-6 psi-1
Formation volume factor = 1.06 RB/STB
Oil viscosity = 2.5 cp

3-42
a. Screen the pressure data using appropriate diagnostic plots.

b. Analyze the test data and determine the formation permeability, the
total skin factor and the initial reservoir pressure.

c. Calculate the radius of investigation of the test.

d. Simulate the buildup test assuming a homogeneous reservoir with


wellbore storage and skin. Show the best match graphically by
superimposing the simulated and the test data on the plots of P versus
t, log-log diagnostic plots and the Horner plot. What are the values of k,
S and CD , Pwf(tp) and Pi that gave the best match?

The pertinent data for the diagnostic plots and Horner plot are shown in
Table 3.6.

Table 3.6: Calculated Values of ΔP and ΔP'

t Δt Δte Horner Pws ( Δt ) ΔP ΔP ' wrt Δte ΔP ' wrt Δt


(hrs) (hrs) (hrs) Time (psia) (psi) (psi) (psi)
15.33000 0.00000 3086.33
15.33417 0.00417 0.00417 3677.26 3090.57 4.24
15.33833 0.00833 0.00833 1841.34 3093.81 7.48 5.98 5.98
15.34250 0.01250 0.01249 1227.40 3096.55 10.22 9.33 9.32
15.34667 0.01667 0.01665 920.62 3100.03 13.70 13.46 13.45
15.35083 0.02083 0.02080 736.96 3103.27 16.94 16.88 16.85
15.35500 0.02500 0.02496 614.20 3106.77 20.44 20.24 20.20
15.35917 0.02917 0.02911 526.54 3110.01 23.68 22.73 22.69
15.36333 0.03333 0.03326 460.95 3113.25 26.92 25.98 25.93
15.36750 0.03750 0.03741 409.80 3116.49 30.16 23.96 23.91
15.37583 0.04583 0.04569 335.50 3119.48 33.15 27.55 27.46
15.38000 0.05000 0.04984 307.60 3122.48 36.15 37.07 36.95
15.38833 0.05833 0.05811 263.82 3128.96 42.63 47.21 47.03

3-43
15.39667 0.06667 0.06638 230.94 3135.92 49.59 49.03 48.82
15.40500 0.07500 0.07463 205.40 3141.17 54.84 53.03 52.76
15.41333 0.08333 0.08288 184.97 3147.64 61.31 77.43 76.99
15.42583 0.09583 0.09523 160.97 3161.95 75.62 88.83 88.32
15.43833 0.10833 0.10757 142.51 3170.68 84.35 71.73 71.24
15.45083 0.12083 0.11989 127.87 3178.39 92.06 80.09 79.46
15.46333 0.13333 0.13218 115.98 3187.12 100.79 85.25 84.53
15.47583 0.14583 0.14446 106.12 3194.24 107.91 92.29 91.40
15.49250 0.16250 0.16080 95.34 3205.96 119.63 110.52 109.37
15.50917 0.17917 0.17710 86.56 3216.68 130.35 119.27 117.89
15.52583 0.19583 0.19336 79.28 3227.89 141.56 129.06 127.44
15.54250 0.21250 0.20959 73.14 3238.37 152.04 136.87 135.00
15.55917 0.22917 0.22579 67.89 3249.07 162.74 146.06 143.92
15.58000 0.25000 0.24599 62.32 3261.79 175.46 155.10 152.61
15.62167 0.29167 0.28622 53.56 3287.21 200.88 172.44 169.27
15.66333 0.33333 0.32624 46.99 3310.15 223.82 192.65 188.52
15.70500 0.37500 0.36605 41.88 3334.34 248.01 212.55 207.52
15.74667 0.41667 0.40564 37.79 3356.27 269.94 208.64 203.21
15.78833 0.45833 0.44502 34.45 3374.98 288.65 216.24 209.94
15.83000 0.50000 0.48421 31.66 3394.44 308.11 241.12 233.50
15.87167 0.54167 0.52318 29.30 3413.90 327.57 265.11 256.05
15.91333 0.58333 0.56195 27.28 3433.83 347.50 247.95 239.07
15.95500 0.62500 0.60052 25.53 3448.05 361.72 253.29 243.21
15.99667 0.66667 0.63889 23.99 3466.26 379.93 283.06 271.37
16.03833 0.70833 0.67705 22.64 3481.97 395.64 243.76 233.17
16.08000 0.75000 0.71502 21.44 3493.69 407.36 258.62 246.28
16.14250 0.81250 0.77160 19.87 3518.63 432.30 298.44 283.73
16.20500 0.87500 0.82775 18.52 3537.34 451.01 258.25 244.44
16.26750 0.93750 0.88347 17.35 3553.55 467.22 273.98 258.07
16.33000 1.00000 0.93876 16.33 3571.75 485.42 278.26 261.44
16.39250 1.06250 0.99363 15.43 3586.23 499.90 283.74 265.20
16.45500 1.12500 1.04809 14.63 3602.95 516.62 301.05 280.62
16.51750 1.18750 1.10213 13.91 3617.41 531.08 288.60 267.90
16.58000 1.25000 1.15576 13.26 3631.15 544.82 253.30 234.50
16.64250 1.31250 1.20899 12.68 3640.86 554.53 247.56 227.85

3-44
16.70500 1.37500 1.26182 12.15 3652.85 566.52 281.16 258.06
16.76750 1.43750 1.31426 11.66 3664.32 577.99 263.46 241.04
16.83000 1.50000 1.36631 11.22 3673.81 587.48 247.74 225.68
16.95500 1.62500 1.46926 10.43 3692.27 605.94 227.42 206.12
17.08000 1.75000 1.57070 9.76 3705.52 619.19 210.56 188.93
17.20500 1.87500 1.67066 9.18 3719.26 632.93 224.74 200.33
17.33000 2.00000 1.76919 8.67 3732.23 645.90 208.37 184.96
17.58000 2.25000 1.96203 7.81 3749.71 663.38 162.84 142.20
17.70500 2.37500 2.05641 7.45 3757.19 670.86 150.46 130.44
17.83000 2.50000 2.14947 7.13 3763.44 677.11 140.26 120.70
18.08000 2.75000 2.33172 6.57 3774.65 688.32 140.46 119.19
18.33000 3.00000 2.50900 6.11 3785.11 698.78 138.98 116.46
18.58000 3.25000 2.68151 5.72 3794.06 707.73 115.07 95.49
18.83000 3.50000 2.84944 5.38 3799.80 713.47 133.68 108.08
19.08000 3.75000 3.01297 5.09 3809.50 723.17 150.18 121.27
19.33000 4.00000 3.17227 4.83 3815.97 729.64 107.37 85.60
19.58000 4.25000 3.32750 4.61 3820.20 733.87 64.24 50.83
19.83000 4.50000 3.47882 4.41 3821.95 735.62 40.75 31.50
20.08000 4.75000 3.62637 4.23 3823.70 737.37 56.31 42.75
20.33000 5.00000 3.77029 4.07 3826.45 740.12 79.61 59.90
20.58000 5.25000 3.91071 3.92 3829.69 743.36 87.17 65.00
20.83000 5.50000 4.04777 3.79 3832.64 746.31 74.57 55.11
21.08000 5.75000 4.18157 3.67 3834.70 748.37 72.12 52.33
21.33000 6.00000 4.31224 3.56 3837.19 750.86 70.51 50.88
21.58000 6.25000 4.43987 3.45 3838.94 752.61 34.46 25.33
22.08000 6.75000 4.68648 3.27 3838.02 751.69 19.52 12.42
22.58000 7.25000 4.92217 3.11 3840.78 754.45 53.06 36.18
23.08000 7.75000 5.14764 2.98 3843.01 756.68 43.29 28.98
23.58000 8.25000 5.36355 2.86 3844.52 758.19 41.52 26.89
24.08000 8.75000 5.57049 2.75 3846.27 759.94 40.82 26.16
24.58000 9.25000 5.76902 2.66 3847.51 761.18 33.25 20.81
25.08000 9.75000 5.95963 2.57 3848.52 762.19 40.20 24.38
25.58000 10.25000 6.14279 2.50 3850.01 763.68 37.65 22.86
26.08000 10.75000 6.31892 2.43 3850.75 764.42 32.21 18.81
26.58000 11.25000 6.48843 2.36 3851.76 765.43 33.95 19.69

3-45
27.08000 11.75000 6.65168 2.30 3852.50 766.17 36.54 20.56
27.58000 12.25000 6.80901 2.25 3853.51 767.18 38.36 21.44
28.08000 12.75000 6.96074 2.20 3854.25 767.92 36.51 19.89
28.58000 13.25000 7.10716 2.16 3855.07 768.74 30.55 16.56
29.08000 13.75000 7.24854 2.11 3855.50 769.17 27.64 14.43
29.83000 14.50000 7.45173 2.06 3856.50 770.17 32.70 16.92
30.58000 15.25000 7.64495 2.01 3857.25 770.92 30.23 15.15
31.33000 16.00000 7.82892 1.96 3857.99 771.66 32.51 15.89
32.08000 16.75000 8.00429 1.92 3858.74 772.41 34.83 16.64
32.83000 17.50000 8.17164 1.88 3859.48 773.15 30.98 14.58
33.58000 18.25000 8.33152 1.84 3859.99 773.66 33.60 15.21
34.33000 19.00000 8.48442 1.81 3860.73 774.40 27.78 12.67
35.08000 19.75000 8.63077 1.78 3860.99 774.66 23.22 10.01
35.83000 20.50000 8.77100 1.75 3861.49 775.16 40.28 17.08
36.58000 21.25000 8.90548 1.72 3862.24 775.91 39.27 16.70
37.58000 22.25000 9.07644 1.69 3862.74 776.41 26.72 10.90
38.58000 23.25000 9.23853 1.66 3863.22 776.89 21.33 8.60
39.58000 24.25000 9.39243 1.63 3863.48 777.15 24.52 9.34
40.58000 25.25000 9.53875 1.61 3863.99 777.66 33.76 12.75
41.58000 26.25000 9.67803 1.58 3864.49 778.16 25.91 9.71
42.58000 27.25000 9.81077 1.56 3864.73 778.40 23.88 8.48
43.83000 28.50000 9.96817 1.54 3865.23 778.90 30.25 10.62
45.33000 30.00000 10.14560 1.51 3865.74 779.41

The diagnostic plots depicted in Figure 3.19 show the classic response of a
homogeneous reservoir model with wellbore storage and skin. From the
welltest derivative function, it would appear that the effect of wellbore storage
had subsided at about 10 hrs, in which case, the pressure data beyond 10 hrs
might be fitted to the Horner semilog line. Notice the noise in the derivative
function. This is not surprising because numerical differentiation is a noisy
process. The wellbore storage coefficient can be calculated from the unit slope
line as

3-46
C=
(174 )(1.06 ) ⎛ 1 ⎞
⎜ ⎟ = 0.0096 RB/psi
24 ⎝ 800 ⎠

The dimensionless wellbore storage coefficient is given by

CD =
( 5.615)( 0.0096 ) = 9.09 x102
2π ( 0.25 ) ( 4.20 x10−6 ) (107 )( 0.29 )
2

Figure 3.19. Diagnostic plots for field example.

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

m = −78.52 psi/log cycle

from which the permeability is calculated as

k=−
(162.6 )(174 )( 2.5 )(1.06 ) = 8.92 md
( −78.52 )(107 )

Figure 3.20. Horner plot for field example.

From the Horner line,

Pws (1hr ) = 3785.35 psia

The skin factor can be calculated as

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
⎩⎪ ⎣ ⎦ ⎪⎭

S = 1.1513 ( 8.90 − 7.61 + 3.23) = 5.21

Thus, the well is damaged. The initial reservoir pressure is given by

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

The estimated permeability of 8.92 md can be assigned to this volume of the


reservoir. This is in contrast to the core permeability, which is measured on a
minute portion of the reservoir.

The last step in a pressure transient analysis is to simulate the test. A


successful simulation of the test, though non-unique, tends to lend credibility
to the results of the analysis. Using the k, S and CD obtained from the semilog
analysis as preliminary estimates, the homogeneous reservoir model with

3-49
wellbore storage and skin can be used to simulate the test by a trial and error
procedure.

Figures 3.21 through 3.23 show graphical comparisons of the simulated


test and the field test. Figure 3.21 compares the pressure buildup responses;
Figure 3.22 compares the log-diagnostic plots; and Figure 3.23 compares the
Horner plots. Clearly, the agreement between the simulated test and the field
test is good. The best match was obtained with the following parameters:

k = 9.4 md
S =6

CD = 9 x102

CD e 2 S = 1.46 x108

Pwf ( t p ) = 3089.46 psia

Pi = 3880.60 psia

Thus, the simulation serves to fine tune the parameters obtained by the
conventional semilog analysis of the test.

Figure 3.21. A comparison of the simulated and the measured pressure


buildup response for field example.

3-50
Figure 3.22. A comparison of the simulated and the measured
diagnostic plots for field example.

Figure 3.23. A comparison of the simulated and the measured Horner


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

The dependent variable in Eq.(3.97), M(P), is defined as

P 2P
M ( P) = ∫ dP (3.98)
Po μZ

where Po is a reference pressure. M(P) is known as the real gas potential or


the real gas pseudo pressure. Eq.(3.97) is similar in structure to Eq.(3.23)
that formed the basis for the welltest model for oil (and water) reservoirs. This
suggests that all the equations used to analyze transient pressure tests in an
oil reservoir can be adapted to analyze transient pressure tests in a dry gas
reservoir provided the pressure data from the gas well test are first
transformed into the real gas potential, M(P).

The dimensionless pressure for real gas flow in oilfield units is defined
as

M ( Pi ) − M ( Pwf )
PD = (3.99)
⎛ 1422qscT ⎞
⎜ ⎟
⎝ kh ⎠

where

qsc = gas production rate, Mscf/D

T = absolute temperature of the reservoir, ºRankine (ºR = ºF+460)

The semilog drawdown line is given

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 ⎠ ⎦

The slope of the semilog line is given by

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 ⎠

Horner's buildup equation is given by

⎛ 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:

Reservoir temperature = 246 ºF + 459.67 = 705.67 ºR


Pseudocritical pressure = 665.0 psia
Pseudocritical temperature = 374.9 ºR
Apparent molecular weight of gas = 18.870 lb mass/lb mole
Apparent molecular weight of air = 28.9625 lb mass/lb mole
Density of fresh water = 62.368 lb mass/cu ft

Table 3.7: Variation of Gas Properties with Pressure

Pressure P/Z Bg ρg cg μg M(P)


(psia) Z (psia) (ft3/Mscf) (lbm/ft3) (106/psi) (cp) (psia2/cp)
200 0.986 203 98.120 0.505 5066.65 0.01393 2.8933E+06
400 0.974 411 48.428 1.024 2562.91 0.01413 1.1625E+07
600 0.962 624 31.895 1.554 1725.07 0.01437 2.6130E+07
800 0.951 841 23.656 2.095 1303.13 0.01466 4.6298E+07
1000 0.942 1062 18.736 2.646 1047.10 0.01498 7.1964E+07

3-54
1200 0.934 1285 15.477 3.203 873.69 0.01534 1.0292E+08
1400 0.927 1511 13.169 3.764 747.30 0.01573 1.3890E+08
1600 0.921 1737 11.456 4.327 650.20 0.01616 1.7962E+08
1800 0.917 1962 10.140 4.888 572.64 0.01661 2.2476E+08
2000 0.915 2186 9.102 5.446 508.85 0.01710 2.7397E+08
2200 0.914 2406 8.267 5.996 455.22 0.01760 3.2690E+08
2400 0.915 2623 7.583 6.537 409.42 0.01813 3.8321E+08
2600 0.917 2836 7.015 7.066 369.82 0.01868 4.4254E+08
2800 0.920 3043 6.538 7.582 335.30 0.01924 5.0455E+08
3000 0.925 3244 6.133 8.082 305.01 0.01982 5.6894E+08
3200 0.931 3438 5.786 8.567 278.31 0.02040 6.3540E+08
3400 0.938 3626 5.486 9.036 254.68 0.02100 7.0367E+08
3600 0.945 3808 5.225 9.488 233.71 0.02159 7.7350E+08
3800 0.954 3982 4.995 9.923 215.03 0.02220 8.4466E+08
4000 0.964 4150 4.793 10.341 198.36 0.02280 9.1697E+08
4200 0.974 4312 4.614 10.744 183.45 0.02340 9.9024E+08
4400 0.985 4467 4.454 11.130 170.07 0.02400 1.0643E+09
4600 0.997 4616 4.310 11.501 158.03 0.02460 1.1391E+09
4800 1.009 4759 4.181 11.857 147.19 0.02520 1.2144E+09
5000 1.021 4896 4.063 12.199 137.39 0.02579 1.2901E+09
5200 1.034 5028 3.957 12.528 128.52 0.02637 1.3662E+09
5400 1.048 5154 3.859 12.843 120.47 0.02695 1.4426E+09
5600 1.061 5276 3.770 13.147 113.14 0.02753 1.5192E+09
5800 1.075 5393 3.689 13.439 106.46 0.02810 1.5959E+09
6000 1.090 5506 3.613 13.719 100.37 0.02866 1.6727E+09
6200 1.104 5614 3.543 13.990 94.79 0.02921 1.7496E+09
6400 1.119 5719 3.479 14.250 89.67 0.02976 1.8265E+09
6600 1.134 5820 3.418 14.501 84.96 0.03030 1.9033E+09
6800 1.149 5917 3.362 14.743 80.63 0.03084 1.9801E+09
7000 1.165 6011 3.310 14.977 76.64 0.03137 2.0568E+09

3-55
3.5 FACTORS AFFECTING PERMEABILITY
Permeability is affected by compaction, pore size, sorting, cementation,
layering and clay swelling.

3.5.1 Compaction
Just as compaction reduces porosity, it also reduces permeability. As a
result of compaction, the permeability of rocks tends to decrease with depth of
burial.

3.5.2 Pore Size (Grain Size)


In general, for a sand, the permeability is proportional to the square of
the mean pore size. For a well sorted sand, the pore size is proportional to the
grain size. Therefore, for well sorted sands, the permeability is proportional to
the square of the grain size. Thus, a well sorted sand with a larger grain size
will have a higher permeability than a well sorted sand with a smaller grain
size (Table 3.8).

Table 3.8: Measured Porosities and Permeabilities of Artificial Sandpacks


(adapted from Beard and Weyl, 1973)

3-56
To see why grain size affects the permeability of a medium, let us
compare the wetted surface area per unit bulk volume (specific surface area)
for flow through a pipe with no grains and through a porous medium with two
grain sizes. Figure 3.24 shows a cube of each medium of volume L3 meter3.
Let the porous medium consist of uniform spherical sand grains of radius r
meter and porosity φ. The wetted surface area of the pipe per unit bulk
volume (S) is

Surface Area 4 L2 ⎛ 4 ⎞ 2 3
S= = =⎜ ⎟ m /m (3.106)
Bulk Volume L3 ⎝ L ⎠

Figure 3.24. Comparison of flow in a pipe with flow in a porous medium.

For the porous medium, the number of grains, N, contained in the L3


meter3 of bulk volume is given by

Total Solid Volume L3 (1 − φ )


N= = (3.107)
Volume of 1 sand grain ⎛ 4 3 ⎞
⎜ πr ⎟
⎝3 ⎠

The wetted surface area is given by

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

The specific surface area for the porous medium is

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.

b. Surface area per unit bulk volume (specific surface area).

c. Wetted surface area of the sand grains in square miles.

Notes:
1 mile = 5280 ft
1 ft = 30.48 cm

Solution to Example 3.2


L = 3 miles = (3)(5280)(30.48) = 482803.20 cm

W = 2 miles = (2)(5280)(30.48) = 321868.80 cm

h = 250 ft = (250)(30.48) = 7620.00 cm

3-59
d = 1/8 mm = 0.0125 cm (fine sand)

Rhombohedral packing with a porosity of 25.9% is the closest packing.

The specific surface area based on bulk volume is given by Eq.(3.109) as

3 (1 − 0.259 )
S= = 355.68 cm 2 / cm3
( 0.0125 / 2 )

The wetted surface are is given by

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.

3.6 TYPICAL RESERVOIR PERMEABILITY VALUES


Reservoir permeabilities vary widely, from 0.001 md for a tight gas sand
in East Texas to 4000 md for an unconsolidated sand in the Niger Delta.
Reservoir permeabilities may be loosely described as follows:

Very low: k < 1md

Low: 1md < k < 10 md

Fair: 10 md < k < 50 md

Average: 50 md < k < 200 md

Good: 200 md < k < 500 md

Excellent: k > 500 md

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.

3.7 PERMEABILITY-POROSITY CORRELATIONS


Since permeability depends on the continuity of pore space, there is not
in theory, or in fact, a unique relationship between the porosity of a rock and
its permeability. For unconsolidated sands, it is possible to establish
relationships between porosity and either some measure of apparent pore

3-61
diameter or specific surface area and permeability. However, these have very
limited applications.

In the same depositional and diagenetic environment, there is


sometimes a reasonable relationship between porosity and permeability,
although for a given porosity, permeabilities can vary widely. Figure 3.25
shows a typical permeability-porosity correlation obtained from core analysis.
The figure shows a correlation of permeability versus porosity for 500 samples
from a uniform sandstone reservoir in Pennsylvania. The permeabilities were
measured with gas and corrected for Klinkenberg effect. The porosity was
measured by saturating a well machined core with a wetting liquid. The
scatter in the data is not the result of experimental errors. Apart from
showing the general increase of permeability with an increase in porosity, the
correlation shows the wide spread, or lack of a close relationship, between
porosity and permeability. Nelson (1994) has presented a comprehensive
review of permeability - porosity correlations using data from the open
literature.

Attempts have been made to correlate permeability and porosity using


an equation of the form:

ln k = aφ + b (3.110)

where a and b are constants. This relationship is at best applicable at a local


level. Nevertheless, where it exists, it does provide one method of estimating
permeability from well logs and even possibly from drill cuttings. To test the
strength of the linear relationship between lnk and φ, let us examine the data
from sandstone cores shown in Table 3.9. Figure 3.26 shows the regression
line for the permeability - porosity correlation. The regression line is given by

ln k = 0.327φ − 3.049

with the square of the correlation coefficient (R2) equal to 0.3514. The
correlation is weak.

3-62
Figure 3.25. Permeability-porosity correlation for a sandstone reservoir
(Ryder, 1948).

Table 3.9: Permeability - Porosity Data for Sandstone


Cores (from Kenyon et al., 1986)
Sample φ k
No (%) (md)
1 31.2 2719
2 30.4 1382
3 24.8 3.3
4 28.5 215
5 33 151

3-63
6 31 426
7 30.3 1072
8 9.2 0.0012
9 22 32.1
10 22.8 83.2
11 20.4 4.56
12 19 311
13 18.6 7.47
14 20.9 20.5
15 21.7 52.5
16 14.8 4.17
17 17.6 10.9
18 11.3 4.5
19 11 3
20 10.1 2.8
21 10.4 3.4
22 13.7 2.1
23 12.8 1.3
24 12.2 7.3
25 11.7 4.8
26 17.2 91.9
27 16.7 190.4
28 18.6 424.9
29 18.3 270.3
30 18.3 137.3
31 16.3 28.5
32 15.6 200.5
33 17.2 36.5
34 16.4 243.2
35 18.3 337.3
36 18.1 39.9
37 14.9 64.6
38 19.6 669.5
39 18.3 540.5
40 18.8 890.4

3-64
41 17.8 429.8
42 16.1 0.011
43 18 0.52
44 16.6 0.52
45 16.1 0.087
46 17.2 12.1
47 22.5 5.97
48 19.6 1.72
49 12.7 0.063
50 15.2 0.93
51 19.1 20.3
52 14.8 4.72
53 20.5 45
54 20.5 45
55 23.9 663
56 23.8 591
57 22.9 511
58 21.6 478
59 22.2 131
60 22.3 1305
61 16.8 621
62 6.3 10.4
63 24.6 1425
64 24.3 2590
65 20 0.849
66 21.9 6
67 6.3 0.003
68 19.8 0.499
69 31.3 139
70 25.7 12.6
71 14.7 1.68

3-65
Figure 3.26. Permeability-porosity correlation for sandstone cores (from
Kenyon et al., 1986).

Figure 3.27 shows permeability - porosity correlations in which an effort


was made to classify the grain size of the sandstones. Samples containing
more than 50% of 1-2 mm grain size were classified as very coarse-grained;
0.5-1 mm, coarse-grained; 0.25-0.5 mm, medium-grained; and 0.1-0.25 mm,
fine-grained. Samples containing more than 10% of silt (<0.1 mm) were called
silty, whereas samples with clay (<0.004 mm) content greater than 7% were
classified as clayey. Both the absolute permeabilities and the effective
permeabilities to gas at irreducible water saturations were measured.
Permeabilities also were corrected for Klinkenberg effect. The permeabilities
shown in Figure 3.27 are the effective permeabilities to the nonwetting gas at
irreducible wetting phase saturation. These end point permeabilities are not
functions of the porous medium alone as in the case of the absolute
permeabilities. They are functions of the porous medium and the wetting and
nonwetting fluids. It would appear that accounting for the grain size

3-66
distribution improved the correlation of the end point effective permeabilites
with porosity. The author indicates that the correlations of the absolute
permeabilities with porosity showed the usual scatter regardless of the grain
size classification but the data were not presented.

Figure 3.27. Effect of grain size on the permeability-porosity correlations for


various sandstones (from Chillingar, 1964).

The permeability - porosity correlation for unconsolidated sands is even


weaker than for consolidated sandstones. Figure 2.28 shows the correlations
based on the data of Table 3.3 for clean, unconsolidated and well sorted
sandpacks. The data are highly scattered. The R2 for the regression line for
the absolute permeability - porosity correlation is only 0.1742, which is a very
weak correlation. The R2 of 0.2305 for the correlation of the effective

3-67
permeability at irreducible water saturation versus porosity is higher than for
the absolute permeability. Thus, the effective permeability in the presence of
irreducible water saturation correlates better with porosity than the absolute
permeability of the medium. This observation is consistent with the
observation of the author of Figure 3.27.

Figure 3.28. Permeability - porosity correlations for unconsolidated


sandpacks (from Peters, 1979).

3-68
3.8 CAPILLARY TUBE MODELS OF POROUS MEDIA
3.8.1 Carman-Kozeny Equation
Because rock pore space is made up of a network of interconnected,
tortuous, flow conduits, attempts have been made to calculate permeability by
modeling pore-level flow as if through cylindrical capillary tubes. Such
models are sometimes termed “bundle-of-capillary-tubes” models and can
provide some insights into permeability - porosity relationships and the effect
of grain size on permeability. Figure 2.29 shows such a porous medium model
with n cylindrical and tortuous pores (capillary tubes). The Hagen-Poiseuille’s
law for steady flow through a single tortuous, circular capillary tube of radius
r is

π r 4 ( p1 − p2 ) π r 4 Δp
qi = = (3.111)
8μ Le 8μ Le

where

q1 = volumetric flow rate for a single capillary tube, cm3/s

r = the radius of the capillary tubes, cm

ΔP = pressure drop across the medium, dynes/cm2

μ = fluid viscosity, poise

Le = tortuous length of the capillary tube, cm

For n capillary tubes,

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

Figure 3.29. Bundle of capillary tubes model of a porous medium with


tortuous pores.

where AT is the total cross-sectional area and L is the length of the porous
medium. Solving Eq.(3.113) for AT gives

nπ r 2 ⎛ Le ⎞
AT = (3.114)
φ ⎜⎝ L ⎟⎠

The integrated form of Darcy's law for single phase flow through the medium
is given by

kAT ΔP
qT = (3.115)
μ L

A comparison of Eq.(3.115) with Eq.(3.112) shows that the permeability of the


bundle of capillary tube model is given by

3-70
nπ r 4 ⎛ L ⎞
k= ⎜ ⎟ (3.116)
8 AT ⎝ Le ⎠

Substituting Eq.(3.114) into (3.116) gives the permeability for the model as

φr2
k= (3.117)
8 ( Le / L )
2

The tortuosity of the porous medium is defined as

2
⎛L ⎞
τ =⎜ e ⎟ (3.118)
⎝L⎠

Thus, the permeability is given by

φr2
k= (3.119)

Eq.(3.119) shows once again that permeability is proportional to the square of


a characteristic dimension of the porous medium. In addition, it shows that
the permeability is also proportional to the porosity of the medium. The
tortuosity, τ, is a parameter that is greater than 1. Note that some authors
define tortuosity as (Le/L) instead of (Le/L)2 as defined here.

To enable the bundle of capillary tubes model to describe a porous


medium made of granular material, we introduce specific surface area into the
model. Let Sp be the wetted surface area of the pores per unit pore volume of
the porous medium. For cylindrical pores,

2π nrLe 2
Sp = = (3.120)
π nr 2 Le r

Substituting for r in Eq.(3.119) using Eq.(3.120) gives

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

Eq.(3.122) is one version of the Carman-Kozeny equation. The factor, koτ, is


known as the Kozeny constant. Based on laboratory measurements, Carman
suggested that for granular material, the Kozeny constant, koτ, is equal to 5.
Thus, to estimate the permeability of such materials, Eq.(3.122) can be
written as

φ
k= (3.123)
5S p2

The permeability in Eq.(3.123) is in units of length squared. It can be easily


converted to darcy or millidarcy using Eq.(3.13).

Other versions of the Carman-Kozeny equation can be obtained


depending on how the specific surface area is defined. Let S be the wetted
surface area per unit bulk volume of the porous medium. Then

S = φSp (3.124)

Substituting Eq.(3.124) into (3.122) gives the following alternative version of


the Carman-Kozeny equation:

φ3
k= (3.125)
koτ S 2

Eq.(3.125) shows that the permeability is proportional to the porosity cubed.

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

The three versions of the Carman-Kozeny equation, Eqs.(3.122), (3.125) and


(3.127) show that permeability is inversely proportional to the square of the
specific surface area of the grains. Since small grains have a higher specific
surface area than large grains, a medium composed of small grains will have
a lower permeability than one composed of large grains, a conclusion we
arrived at previously. All three versions of the Carman-Kozeny equation will
give the same permeability. Which one to use depends on what information is
on hand.

Two more versions of the Carman-Kozeny equation can be obtained by


introducing the concept of hydraulic radius into the model and introducing
the grain diameter in the case of granular material. The hydraulic radius, rH,
is defined as

Volume of Pore 1
rH = = (3.128)
Wetted Surface Area of Pore S p

For cylindrical pores,

nπ r 2 Le r
rH = = (3.129)
2π nrLe 2

Substituting Eq.(3.129) into (3.119) gives

φ rH2
k= (3.130)

It is unfortunate that the hydraulic radius of a circular pore is equal to (r/2)


instead of r.

3-73
For granular material with spherical grains of diameter, Dp,

4π ( D p / 2 )
2
6
Ss = = (3.131)
π ( Dp / 2 ) Dp
4 3

Substituting Eq.(3.131) into (3.127) gives

D p2φ 3
k= (3.132)
36koτ (1 − φ )
2

If ko = 2 is substituted into Eq.(3.132), then

D p2φ 3
k= (3.133)
72τ (1 − φ )
2

Eq.(3.133) suggests that permeability is proportional to the square of the


grain size, an assertion we have encountered before.

To apply any of the Carman-Kozeny equations to estimate permeability,


the porosity, specific surface area and the Kozeny constant must be known.
Several techniques have been proposed for the determination of the specific
surface area of porous media. These include (1) a statistical method, (2)
adsorption methods, (3) the heat of wetting method and (4) a method based on
fluid flow developed by Kozeny.

Example 3.3
Estimate the permeability of the idealized petroleum reservoir of Example 3.2.

Solution to Example 3.3


Since the specific surface area with respect to bulk volume (S) is available
from Example 3.2, Eq.(3.125), which contains S is the most convenient
version of the Carman-Kozeny equation to use for the permeability
esstimation. Substituting numerical values into Eq.(3.125) gives

3-74
( 0.259 )
3
2.7467 x10−8 cm 2
k= = 2.7467 x10−8 cm 2 = = 2.78 darcys
( 5)( 355.68) 9.869 x10−9 ( cm 2 / darcy )
2

where the Kozeny constant of 5 has been used.

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.

Porosity Permeability Resistivity Tortuosity


Core φ k Factor τ
No % md F (Le/L) (Le/L)2
1 17.0 90 23.3 2.30 5.29
2 14.7 7 51.0 3.30 10.89
3 6.7 4 67.0 3.20 10.24
4 17.6 220 16.6 2.00 4.00
5 26.3 1920 8.6 1.60 2.56
6 25.6 4400 9.4 1.60 2.56
7 13.9 145 33.0 2.40 5.76
8 18.6 25 22.9 2.30 5.29
9 18.8 410 18.6 2.00 4.00

3-75
10 16.1 3 42.0 3.20 10.24
11 15.0 9 41.0 2.90 8.41
12 22.1 200 13.1 1.90 3.61
13 20.6 36 16.6 2.10 4.41
14 30.7 70 8.4 1.70 2.89
15 16.4 330 21.1 2.10 4.41
16 18.8 98 19.3 2.20 4.84
17 24.8 1560 10.8 1.80 3.24
18 19.1 36 17.2 2.30 5.29
19 29.8 1180 8.4 1.75 3.06
20 27.1 3200 11.7 2.05 4.20
21 28.2 2100 10.9 2.05 4.20
22 19.4 8 24.0 2.50 6.25
23 19.7 18 20.8 2.35 5.52
24 31.5 2200 6.9 1.50 2.25
25 19.3 19 24.4 2.70 7.29
26 27.3 88 12.4 2.20 4.84
27 25.1 370 11.6 1.97 3.88
28 15.0 115 37.3 2.90 8.41
29 18.4 130 19.0 2.00 4.00
30
31 39.5 4.7 1.37 1.88

Figure 3.30 shows the correlation between tortuosity and porosity. As


expected, there is a negative correlation between the two variables. The lower
the porosity, the longer is the length of the flow path that the fluid particles
must take to flow from one end of the porous medium to the other. The longer
the flow path, the larger the tortuosity of the medium.

Figure 3.31 shows the correlation between tortuosity and the formation
resistivity factor. As expected, there is a strong positive correlation between
the two variables. Resistivity factor represents the obstacle to the flow of
electric current in the medium whereas tortuosity represents the obstacle to
the flow of fluid in the medium. Since there is a close relationship between the

3-76
flow path for electric current and for fluid flow, a property that obstructs one
will also obstruct the other. Hence, tortuosity and formation resistivity factor
should be positively correlated.

Figure 3.30. Tortuosity-porosity correlation (from Winsauer et al.,


1952).

3-77
Figure 3.31. Tortuosity-formation resistivity factor correlation (from Winsauer
et al., 1952).

An approximate relationship between tortuosity and formation


resistivity factor can be derived as follows. Consider the flow of electric
current through a core sample of porosity φ, length L and cross-sectional area
A saturated with water of resistivity Rw. The electrical resistance of the core is
given by

⎛L⎞
ro = Ro ⎜ ⎟ (3.134)
⎝ A⎠

where Ro is the resistivity of the core fully saturated with the water. The
electrical current in the core is conducted by the water alone since the rock
minerals are nonconductors. Let us replace the core with the same volume of
water in a test tube such that the resistance of the water is equal to that of
the saturated core. Since the electrical current in the core follows a tortuous
path in flowing from one end to the other, the length of the equivalent water

3-78
circuit Le will be longer than L. Let Ae be the cross-sectional area of the
equivalent water circuit. Then

Ae Le = φ AL (3.135)

The equivalent water circuit must have the same volume as the water in the
core to maintain the same salinity. The resistance of the equivalent water
circuit is given by

⎛L ⎞
rw = Rw ⎜ e ⎟ (3.136)
⎝ Ae ⎠

Substituting Eq.(3.135) into (3.136) gives

⎛ 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 ⎠

Eq.(3.138) can be rearranged as

Ro ⎛ Le ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞ τ
2

=⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟= (3.139)
Rw ⎝ L ⎠ ⎝ φ ⎠ φ

Thus, an approximate relationship between turtuosity and the formation


resistivity factor is

τ = φF (3.140)

3.8.3 Calculation of Permeability from Pore Size Distribution


The bundle of capillary tubes model presented in Section 3.7.1 assumed
that the n capillary tubes had the same pore size. Here, we extend the model
to include an arbitrary pore size distribution. Given the probability density

3-79
function (pdf) for the pore size (pore diameter) distribution, we wish to
calculate the permeability of the bundle of capillary tubes model.

Consider the probability density function for pore diameter distribution


as shown in Figure 3.32. The probability density function satisfies


∫ f (δ )dδ = 1
0
(3.141)

Let nδ be the number of pores with diameter between δ and δ+dδ and n be the
total number of pores. Then

nδ = nf (δ ) d δ (3.142)

Figure 3.32. Probability density function for pore size distribution.

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 ⎠

The cross-sectional area occupied by all the pores is obtained by integrating


Eq.(3.143) as

πn ∞ π nR 2
Ac = ∫ f (δ )δ 2 dδ = (3.144)
4 0 4

where R 2 is a constant defined as


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)

Substituting Eq.(3.144) into (3.146) and solving for n, one obtains

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

Substituting Eq.(3.147) into (3.149) gives

3-81
AT φΔP ∞
qT = ∫ f (δ ) δ dδ (3.150)
4

32μ Le R 2 0

A comparison of Eq.(3.150) with Darcy's law, Eq.(3.115), gives the


permeability of the bundle of capillary tube model as

φ ∞
f (δ ) δ
32 ( L / L ) R ∫
k= 2
4
dδ (3.151)
0
e

Substituting Eq.(3.118) into (3.151) gives

φ ∞
k= ∫ f (δ ) δ dδ (3.152)
4

( )
32 τ R 2 0

Substituting Eq.(3.145) into (3.152) gives the final result

⎡ ∞ 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

Solution to Example 3.4


The required permeability is given by Eq.(3.153). All we need to do is to
evaluate the two integrals on the right of the equation for the triangular
probability density function. Eq.(3.153) then takes the form

⎡ δ 2 f (δ ) δ 4 d δ + δ 3 f (δ ) δ 4 d δ ⎤
k=
φ ⎢ ∫δ1 1 ∫δ2 2 ⎥ (3.154)
( )
32 τ ∫ f1 (δ ) δ 2 d δ + ∫ f 2 (δ ) δ 2 d δ ⎥
⎢ δ2
⎢⎣ δ1
δ3

δ2 ⎥⎦

Eqs.(2.82) and (2.86) give

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 )

Substituting Eqs.(3.155) and (3.156) into Eq.(3.154) and performing the


integrations gives

3-83
0.15 ⎛ 2.241x103 ⎞ 2.583x10−13 m 2
k= ⎜ 1 ⎟
μ m 2
= = 0.2617 darcy = 261.7md
32 1.0 ⎝ 4.067 x10 ⎠ 9.869 x10−13 m 2 / darcy

3.9 STEADY STATE FLOW THROUGH FRACTURES


To increase the productivities of certain reservoirs, it is often necessary
to hydraulically fracture the reservoirs. Consider the single vertical fracture
shown in Figure 3.34. It can be shown that Hagen-Poiseuille’s law for steady
state flow through the fracture of width w in cgs units is given by

w2 A ΔP
q= (3.157)
12 μ L

where A = wh is the cross-sectional area of the fracture. A comparison of


Eq.(3.157) with Darcy’s law, Eq.(3.115), shows that the permeability of the
fracture is given by

w2 2
k= cm (3.158)
12

Example 3.5
Calculate the permeability of a fracture of width 2 millimeters.

Solution to Example 3.5


The fracture permeability is given by Eq.(3.158) as

( 0.20 )
2
cm 2 1
k= x −9
= 3.378 x105 darcys
12 9.869 x10 cm 2 / darcy

The permeability of the fracture is enormous and therein lies the benefit of
fracturing for the improvement of the productivity of a well.

3-84
Figure 3.34. Flow through a fracture (Flow between parallel plates).

3.10 AVERAGING PERMEABILITY DATA


Because of heterogeneity, different portions of the same reservoir may
have different permeabilities. It becomes necessary to be able to estimate the
apparent or average permeability of various permeability combinations.

For linear beds in series (Figure 3.35), the volumetric flow rate is the
same for each bed and the total pressure drop is equal to the sum of the
pressure drop across each bed. For n beds in series, the average permeability
is given by

∑L i
L
k = i =1
n
= n
(3.159)
Li Li

i =1 ki

i =1 ki

where L Is total length of the porous medium in the flow direction, Li is the
length of bed i and ki is the permeability of bed i.

3-85
Figure 3.35. Linear beds in series
For radial beds in series (Figure 3.36), the volumetric flow rate is the
same for each bed and the total pressure drop is equal to the sum of the
pressure drop across each bed. For n beds in series, the average permeability
is given by

ln ( re / rw )
k = (3.160)
n
ln ( ri / ri −1 )

i =1 ki

where re is the well's drainage radius and r0 is equal to the wellbore radius, rw

Figure 3.36. Radial beds in series

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

Figure 3.37. Linear beds in parallel.

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.

3.11 DARCY'S LAW FOR INCLINED FLOW


For inclined flow, Darcy's Law in differential form can be written as

kA ⎛ dP ρg dz ⎞
q=− ± (3.163)
μ ⎝ ds 1.0133x10 ds ⎟⎠
⎜ 6

where
q = volumetric flow rate, cm3/s
k = absolute permeability of the porous medium, darcy
A = total area of the medium normal to the flow direction, cm2
μ = fluid viscosity, centipoise
P = absolute pressure, atm
s = distance in the direction of flow and is always positive, cm
dP
= pressure gradient along s, atm/cm
ds
ρ = fluid density, gm/cm3
g = acceleration of gravity, 981 cm/s2
1 atm = 1.0133x106 dynes/cm2
The sign convention for applying Darcy's law for inclined flow is as follows. If
the z direction is positive upwards as shown in Figure 3.39, then the positive

3-88
sign is used in the term in parenthesis in Eq.(3.163) and the equation
becomes

Figure 3.39. Coordinate system for applying Darcy's law for z positive
upwards.
kA ⎛ dP ρg dz ⎞
q=− + (3.164)
μ ⎝ ds 1.0133x10 ds ⎟⎠
⎜ 6

On the other hand, if the z coordinate is positive downwards as shown in


Figure 3.40, then the negative sign is used in the term in parenthesis in
Eq.(3.163) to obtain

kA ⎛ dP ρg dz ⎞
q=− − (3.165)
μ ⎝ ds 1.0133 x10 ds ⎟⎠
⎜ 6

3-89
Figure 3.40. Coordinate system for applying Darcy's law for z positive
downwards.

dz
in Eqs.(3.163) to (3.165) could be written as sinθ, where θ is the angle the
ds
porous medium along s makes with the horizontal plane. Alternatively, it
could be written as cosα, where α is the angle that the porous medium makes
⎛π ⎞
with the upward vertical z axis and is equal to ⎜ − θ ⎟ .
⎝2 ⎠

Eq.(3.163) can be written in oilfield units as

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.

Eq.(3.163) also can be written in terms of a velocity potential as

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.

Eq.(3.156) may also be written as

q kρg d ⎛ 1.0133 x106 P ⎞


vs = =− ⎜ ± z⎟ (3.170)
A 1.0133 x10 μ ds ⎝
6
ρg ⎠

where vs is known as the Darcy velocity or superficial velocity. An interstitial


velocity can be defined as

vs
vi = (3.171)
φ

Eq.(3.170) can be further written in terms of the hydraulic conductivity, K,


and hydraulic or piezometric head, h, as

q dh
vs = = −K (3.172)
A ds

where

kρg
K= (3.173)
1.0133x106 μ

and

3-91
P
h= ±z (3.174)
ρg

Eq.(3.172) is the form of Darcy's law normally used in the groundwater


community. Note that hydraulic head has dimension of length and the
hydraulic conductivity has dimension of length/time. Possible units of
hydraulic conductivity are cm/s, m/s, m/d, US gal/day ft2 and US gal/min
ft2. Useful conversion factors are as follows:

1US gal/day ft 2 = 4.75 x10−5 cm/s = 4.08 x10−2 m / d (3.175)

1 darcy = 9.613x10−4 cm/s (for water at 20 DC ) (3.176)

1 darcy = 1.4156 x10−2US gal/min ft 2 (for water at 20 DC ) (3.177)

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.

Sometimes, it is easier to solve single phase flow problems in terms of


hydraulic head (piezometric head) rather than in terms of pressure. This is
especially true for inclined or vertical flow in which gravity plays a role.
Figure 3.42 shows the definition of the hydraulic head (piezometric head) for a
point O in an inclined porous medium located above a datum level at which z
is zero. The hydraulic head is given by

h =ψ + z (3.178)

3-92
Table 3.11: Typical Hydraulic Conductivity for Various Rock Types

3-93
Figure 3.41. Range of permeability and hydraulic conductivity of various rock
types and soils.

where h is the hydraulic head, z is the height of O above (or below) an


arbitrary datum and ψ is the pressure head. It should be emphasized that z in
Eq.(3.178) is not a cartesian coordinate in the flow direction but rather the
elevation of the point P above or below a reference datum. In a sense, z is a
gravity head that reflects the potential energy of the fluid at O in the earth’s
gravitational field. The datum at which z = 0 is arbitrary and can be selected
anywhere in the system. If the point O is below the datum, then z is negative.

The pressure head is given by

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.

Figure 3.42. Definition of hydraulic head h, pressure head Ψ and elevation


head z for a laboratory manometer.

Consider the flow in an inclined porous medium shown in Figure 3.43.


Darcy’s law for 1D flow is given by

dh
q = − KA∇h = − KA (3.180)
ds

Examination of the manometer levels (hydraulic heads) immediately shows


the direction of flow. Flow always occurs from a high hydraulic head to a low
hydraulic head. Eq.(3.180) may be integrated to obtain

⎛h −h ⎞
q = − KA ⎜ 2 1 ⎟ (3.181)
⎝ s2 − s1 ⎠

Eq.(3.174) can be rewritten as

⎛h −h ⎞ ⎛ Δh ⎞
q = KA ⎜ 1 2 ⎟ = KA ⎜ ⎟ (3.182)
⎝ s2 − s1 ⎠ ⎝ ΔL ⎠

3-95
Figure 3.43. Darcy’s experiment for inclined flow.

where Δh is the positive difference in the hydraulic heads at points 1 and 2


and ΔL is the positive length of the porous medium between points 1 and 2 in
the flow direction. It should be observed that the elevations of points 1 and 2

(z1 and z2) do not appear explicitly in Eq.(3.182) although they do appear

implicitly in the hydraulic heads. However, Eq.(3.182) can be rewritten such

that z1 and z2 appear explicitly as follows. From Figure 3.43,

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

1.0 and z1 – z2 = ΔL. Substituting these values into Eq.(3.184) gives

⎛ Δh ⎞
q = KA ⎜ ⎟ (3.185)
⎝ ΔL ⎠

which is identical to Eq.(3.182). Thus, Eq.(3.182) applies for all angles of


inclination. The hydraulic conductivity is related to the permeability of the
porous medium in consistent units by

kρg
K= (3.186)
μ

Figure 3.44 shows schematic diagrams of two types of liquid


permeameters normally used to measure permeability in groundwater
hydrology. Figure 3.44 (a) is a constant head permeameter whereas Figure
3.44 (b) is a falling head permeameter. Using the principles of inclined flow
outline above, the working equations for the permeameters can easily be
derived as follows. For the constant head permeameter, Eq.(3.182) gives

h ⎛ kρg ⎞ h
q = KA =⎜ ⎟A (3.187)
L ⎝ μ ⎠ L

in consistent units, where A is the cross-sectional area of the porous medium.


For the falling head permeameter, Darcy's law at time t is

h
q = KA (3.188)
L

The volumetric balance for flow in the manometer gives

dh
q = −a (3.189)
dt

where a is the cross-sectional area of the manometer. Substituting Eq.(3.187)


into (3.186) gives the differential equation for the falling head, h, as

3-97
Figure 3.44. Schematic diagram of liquid permeameters; (a) constant head
permeameter, (b) falling head permeameter.

dh ⎛ KA ⎞
= −⎜ ⎟h (3.190)
dt ⎝ aL ⎠

with the initial condition

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.

3.12 VALIDITY OF DARCY'S LAW


Darcy's law is valid for slow, laminar flow in porous media without
chemical reaction. Figure 3.45 shows the Fanning friction factor versus
Reynolds number for single phase flow in a porous medium. For flow through
porous media, Reynolds number is defined as

vρ Dp
Re = (3.193)
μ

where

v = Darcy velocity, cm/s


Dp = mean grain diameter of the granular porous medium, cm
ρ = fluid density, gm/cm3
μ = fluid viscosity, poise

Figure 3.45. Fanning friction factor factor for flow in porous media (Rose,
1945)

3-99
For laminar flow, in which Darcy's law is valid, the friction factor versus
Reynolds number is given by the line shown in Figure 3.45 having the
equation

1000
f = (3.194)
Re

It can seen in the figure that the experimental data begin to deviate from the
line at a Reynolds number of about 1.0. Thus, Darcy's law is valid for flow in
porous media for Reynolds number up to about 1. At Reynolds numbers
greater than 1, Darcy's law is no longer valid. Therefore, flow at Reynolds
number greater than 1 can be characterized as non-darcy flow.

Based on analogy with flow in pipes, the flow regimes for non-darcy flow
can be classified as shown in Figure 3.46 as transition flow for Reynolds
number in the range 1 to 100, and turbulent flow for Reynolds number
greater than 100.

Figure 3.46. Classification of flow in porous media.

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

Let us multiply Eq.(3.196) by (2p/μZ) and integrate to get

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)

The gas density in Eq.(3.197) is at reservoir conditions. We would like to


evaluate the density at standard conditions. The density at reservoir
conditions and at standard conditions are related by the gas formation
volume factor as

3-101
Figure 3.47. Velocity coefficient in Forchheimer equation (Firoozabadi and
Katz, 1979.

ρ sc
ρ= (3.198)
Bg

where Bg is the gas formation volume factor and ρsc is the gas density at

standard conditions. For real gas flow, the gas formation volume factor is
given by

Psc ZT
Bg = (3.199)
Tsc P

The Darcy velocity at radius r is given by

3-102
q
v= (3.200)
2π rh

The equation of state for real gas flow is given by

Pq Psc qsc
= (3.201)
ZT Z scT

Substituting Eqs.(3.198) to (3.201) into (3.197) gives

Pe 2P Pwf 2 P q PT re dr ⎛ qsc PscT ⎞ ⎛ βρ sc kqsc ⎞ re dr



Po μZ
dP − ∫
Po μ Z
dP = sc sc
π khTsc ∫
rw r ⎝ π khTsc ⎠ ⎝ 2πμ h ⎠ ∫rw r 2
+⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟ (3.202)

where Po is an arbitrary base pressure. In Eq.(3.202), the left–hand side of


Eq.(3.197) has been split into two integrals for convenience. Integration of
Eq.(3.202) gives

qsc PscT ⎛ re ⎞ ⎛ qsc PscT ⎞ ⎛ βρ sc kqsc ⎞ ⎛ 1 1 ⎞


M ( Pe ) − M ( Pw ) = ln ⎜ ⎟ + ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ − ⎟ (3.203)
π khTsc ⎝ rw ⎠ ⎝ π khTsc ⎠ ⎜⎝ 2πμ h ⎟⎠ ⎝ rw re ⎠

where M(P) is the real gas potential or real gas pseudo pressure. At field scale,
(1/re) is normally negligibly small compared to (1/rw). With this
approximation, Eq.(3.203) becomes

qsc PscT ⎛ re ⎞ ⎛ qsc PscT ⎞ ⎛ βρ sc kqsc ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞


M ( Pe ) − M ( Pwf ) = ln ⎜ ⎟ + ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ (3.204)
π khTsc ⎝ rw ⎠ ⎝ π khTsc ⎠ ⎜⎝ 2πμ h ⎟⎠ ⎝ rw ⎠

Eq.(3.204) can be written in dimensionless form as

⎛r ⎞
PD = ln ⎜ e ⎟ + Dqsc (3.205)
⎝ rw ⎠

where the dimensionless pressure in terms of M(P) is defined as

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

Eq.(3.205) can be modified to include the mechanical skin factor S* to give

⎛r ⎞
PD = ln ⎜ e ⎟ + S * + Dqsc (3.208)
⎝ rw ⎠

Eq.(3.208) can be rewritten in the form of an inflow performance relationship


in Darcy units as

⎡ ⎤
⎢ M P −M P ⎥
qsc =
π khTsc ⎢ ( e ) ( wf ) ⎥ (3.209)
PscT ⎢ ⎛ re ⎞ * ⎥
⎢ ln ⎜ ⎟ + S + Dqsc ⎥
⎣⎢ ⎝ rw ⎠ ⎦⎥

In oilfield units, Eq.(3.209) becomes

⎡ ⎤
⎢ 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 ⎠

where (1/re) is negligibly small compared to (1/rw). Thus,

ΔM (r ) r
= 1− w (3.214)
ΔM ( re ) r

Table 3.12 shows the variation of Δm(r)/Δm(re) with r as calculated from


Eq.(3.214). It can be observed that 90% of the total non-darcy flow potential

drop occurs within r = 10rw. Thus, if rw is 0.3 ft, then 90% of the total non-

darcy flow potential drop occurs within 3 ft of the well. This is the justification
for treating the non-darcy flow effect as a flow-dependent skin factor.

Table 3.12: Non-Darcy Potential Drop

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

Figure 3.48. Diagrams showing heterogeneity and anisotropy (Freeze and


Cherry, 1979).

3-106
and arrow lengths have been used to indicate the directions and magnitudes
of the principal values of the permeability anisotropy, they should not be
misinterpreted as vectors. Permeability is a tensor, not a vector. The special
form of the permeability tensor shown in the figure is

⎡k 0⎤
k ( x, z ) = ⎢ x (3.215)
⎣0 k z ⎥⎦

and not

⎡k ⎤
k ( x, z ) = ⎢ x ⎥ (3.216)
⎣kz ⎦

3.14.2 Darcy's Law for Homogeneous and Anisotropic Medium


For a homogeneous and anisotropic porous medium, Darcy’s Law is
given by

G k
v = − .∇Φ (3.217)
μ

Eq.(3.217) can be expanded in 3D Cartesian coordinates as

⎡ ∂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 ⎥⎦

The permeability tensor given by

⎡ 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 ⎥⎦

Darcy's law can also be written in terms of hydraulic conductivity and


hydraulic head as
G
v = − K .∇h (3.222)

where K is the hydraulic conductivity tensor. All the properties of the


permeability tensor are applicable to the hydraulic conductivity tensor.

An important property of a symmetric tensor is that by a suitable


change of axes, it is possible to transform the full tensor into another tensor
consisting of only diagonal terms with the off-diagonal terms being zero. This
is a considerable simplification. The axes that permit this transformation of
the tensor to diagonal form are called the principal axes of the permeability
anisotropy of the porous medium. These principal axes contain the maximum
and minimum values of the directional permeabilities which are the diagonal
terms of the transformed tensor. When viewed in the coordinates of the
principal axes of anisotropy, the permeability (hydraulic conductivity) tensor
in 3D becomes

3-108
⎡ ku 0 0⎤
k ( u , v ) = ⎢⎢ 0 kv 0 ⎥⎥ (3.223)
⎢⎣ 0 0 k z ⎥⎦

where u, v, w are the coordinates in the directions of the principal axes of the
anisotropy. When viewed in the coordinates of the principal axes of the
anisotropy, Darcy's law for homogeneous and anisotropic media in 3D
simplifies to

⎡ ∂Φ ⎤
⎢ ku ∂u ⎥
⎡ vu ⎤ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ v ⎥ = − 1 ⎢ k ∂Φ ⎥ (3.224)
⎢ v⎥ μ ⎢ v ∂v ⎥
⎣⎢ vw ⎦⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ k w ∂Φ ⎥
⎢⎣ ∂w ⎥⎦

In this special coordinate system, the Darcy velocity vector and the velocity
potential gradient vector are collinear and the equation can be written as

1 ⎛ ∂Φ ∂Φ ∂Φ ⎞
vu i + vv j + vw w = − ⎜ ku i + kv j + kw w⎟ (3.225)
μ ⎝ ∂u ∂v ∂u ⎠

where i, j and w are unit vectors. The corresponding equations for 2D flow are

⎡k 0⎤
k ( u, v ) = ⎢ u (3.226)
⎣0 kv ⎥⎦

⎡ ∂Φ ⎤
k
⎡ x⎤
v 1⎢ u ∂u ⎥
⎢v ⎥ = − ⎢ ⎥ (3.227)
⎣ y⎦ μ⎢ ∂Φ ⎥
kv
⎣⎢ ∂v ⎦⎥

and

1 ⎛ ∂Φ ∂Φ ⎞
vu i + vv j = − ⎜ ku i + kv j⎟ (3.228)
μ ⎝ ∂u ∂v ⎠

3-109
Example 3.5
Steady state flow of a single phase liquid occurs in a horizontal, 2D,
homogeneous and anisotropic reservoir, which has a permeability tensor
given by

k(x,y)= 200 –50 md


–50 750

The pressure in the reservoir has been measured at three observations wells
whose coordinates are given in Table 3.13. The liquid viscosity is 1 cp. Do the
negative entries in the permeability tensor bother you?

Table 3.13: Data from Observation Wells

Observation x – Coordinate y – Coordinate Pressure


Well (ft) (ft) (psia)
1 0 0 2000
2 0 800 1800
3 800 0 1500

1. Calculate the magnitude (in ft/day) and the direction of the Darcy
velocity for the flow. Give the direction in terms of the angle the Darcy
velocity vector makes with the positive x- axis.

2. Sketch two vectors with one pointing in the flow direction and the other
pointing in the direction of the pressure gradient. What is the angle
between the two vectors in degrees?

3. Sketch the flow field and the pressure gradient field.

Solution to Example 3.5


Figure 3.49 shows the positions of the wells and their bottomhole pressures.

3-110
Figure 3.49. Positions of the observation wells and their bottomhole
pressures.

We apply Eq.(3.217) in oilfield units to obtain

G k
v = − ( 0.001127 )( 5.615 ) .∇P (3.229)
μ

For the 2D flow, Eq.(3.229) can be expanded to give

⎡ ∂P ⎤
⎡ vx ⎤ ( 0.001127 )( 5.615) ⎡ k xx k xy ⎤ ⎢ ∂x ⎥
⎢ ⎥ = − ⎢ ⎢ ⎥ (3.230)
⎣v y ⎦ μ ⎣ k yx k yy ⎦⎥ ⎢ ∂P ⎥
⎢⎣ ∂y ⎥⎦

From the given data,

∂P 1500 − 2000 ⎛5⎞


= = − ⎜ ⎟ psi/ft
∂x 800 ⎝8⎠

∂P 1800 − 2000 ⎛1⎞


= = − ⎜ ⎟ psi/ft
∂y 800 ⎝4⎠

3-111
5 1
∇P = − i − j = −0.625i − 0.250 j
8 4

∇P = ( −0.625) + ( −0.250 ) = 0.6731 psi/ft


2 2

Let the pressure gradient make an angle θ with the negative x-axis. Then

( )
( −0.625i − 0.250 j ) . ( −i ) = ( −0.625) + ( −0.250 ) (1) cos θ
2 2

0.625
cos θ = = 0.9285
0.6252 + 0.2502

θ = 21.80D

The components of the Darcy velocity are given by

⎡ 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 ⎠⎦

The Darcy velocity vector is


G
v = 0.7120i + 0.9888 j

G
v = ( 0.7120 ) + ( 0.9888 ) = 1.2185 ft/D
2 2

Let the Darcy velocity make an angle α with the positive x-axis.

0.9888
tan α = = 1.3888
0.7120

3-112
α = 54.24D

Figure 3.50 shows the magnitudes and the directions of the darcy velocity and
the pressure gradient vectors. The figure shows that the Darcy velocity and
pressure gradient vectors are not collinear for flow in the anisotropic porous
medium.

Figure 3.50. Directions and magnitudes of Darcy velocity and pressure


gradient vectors for flow in an anisotropic reservoir.
The angle between the Darcy velocity vector and the pressure gradient vector
is 147.56º. This angle can also be calculated directly from vector calculus as
G G
v .∇P = v . ∇P cos β

3-113
where β is the angle between the two vectors. Thus,

cos β =
( 0.7120i + 0.9888 j ) . ( −0.625i − 0.25 j ) = − 0.6922 = −0.8440
(1.2185)( 0.6731) 0.8202

β = 147.56D

Figure 3.51 shows sketches of the flow field and the pressure gradient field.

Figure 3.51. Flow and pressure gradient fields for Example 3.5.

3.14.3 Transformation of Permeability Tensor from one Coordinate


System to Another
The objective is to derive the equations for transforming the
permeability tensor (hydraulic conductivity tensor) for an anisotropic reservoir
from one coordinate system to another coordinate system that makes and
angle θ with the first coordinate system, where θ is considered positive for

3-114
anticlockwise rotation. This can be achieved by first establishing the
geometric relationship between the two coordinate systems and then
transforming Darcy’s Law from the first coordinate system to the second
coordinate system. Such a transformation can be used to (1) determine the
principal values of the permeability anisotropy, (2) determine the principal
axes of the permeability anisotropy and (3) examine the flow field in any
coordinate system.

Figure 3.52 shows the relationship between the two coordinate systems.
It should be emphasized that the (u,v) coordinates shown in Figure 3.52 are
not the principal axes of the permeability anisotropy. The two coordinate
systems are related by the following equations:

x = u cos θ − v sin θ (3.231)

y = u sin θ + v cos θ (3.232)

Eqs.(3.231) and (3.232) can be written in matrix form as

⎡ x ⎤ ⎡cos θ − sin θ ⎤ ⎡u ⎤
⎢ y ⎥ = ⎢ sin θ cos θ ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ v ⎥⎦
(3.233)
⎣ ⎦ ⎣

Using the inverse of the rotation matrix of Eq.(3.233), the relationship


between the two coordinate systems also can be written as

⎡u ⎤ ⎡ cos θ sin θ ⎤ ⎡ x ⎤
⎢ v ⎥ = ⎢ − sin θ cos θ ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ y ⎥⎦
(3.234)
⎣ ⎦ ⎣

Darcy’s law in the xy coordinate system is given by

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⎦ ⎣

Substituting Eq.(3.220) into (3.235) gives

⎡ ∂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 ⎥⎦

Substituting Eq.(3.237) into (3.236) gives

⎡ ∂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 ⎥⎦

Eq.(3.238) is Darcy’s law in the uv coordinate system and is of the form

⎡ ∂Φ ⎤
⎡ vu ⎤ 1 ⎡ kuu kuv ⎤ ⎢ ∂u ⎥
⎢v ⎥ = − ⎢ ⎥ (3.239)
⎣ v⎦ μ ⎢⎣ kvu kvv ⎥⎦ ⎢ ∂Φ ⎥
⎣⎢ ∂v ⎦⎥

A comparison of Eqs.(3.238) and (3.239) shows that the permeability tensor in


the uv coordinate system is related to the tensor in the xy coordinate system
as follows:

⎡ kuu kuv ⎤ ⎡ cos θ sin θ ⎤ ⎡ k xx k xy ⎤ ⎡cos θ − sin θ ⎤


= ⎢ (3.240)
⎢k
⎣ vu kvv ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ − sin θ cos θ ⎥⎦ ⎣ k yx k yy ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ sin θ cos θ ⎥⎦

3-117
Carrying out the matrix multiplications on the right side of Eq.(3.240) and
equating the result to the left side matrix gives

kuu = k xx cos 2 θ + k yx sin θ cos θ + k xy sin θ cos θ + k yy sin 2 θ (3.241)

kuv = − k xx sin θ cos θ − k yx sin 2 θ + k xy cos 2 θ + k yy sin θ cos θ (3.242)

kvu = − k xx sin θ cos θ + k yx cos 2 θ − k xy sin 2 θ + k yy sin θ cos θ (3.243)

kvv = k xx sin 2 θ − k yx sin θ cos θ − k xy sin θ cos θ + k yy cos 2 θ (3.244)

From trigonometry,

cos 2 θ = 12 (1 + cos 2θ ) (3.245)

sin 2 θ = 12 (1 − cos 2θ ) (3.246)

sin θ cos θ = 12 sin 2θ (3.247)

Substituting Eqs.(3.245) to (3.247) into Eq.(3.241) gives

kuu = 12 (1 + cos 2θ )k xx + 12 sin 2θ k yx + 12 sin 2θ k xy + 12 (1 − cos 2θ )k yy (3.248)

Since kxy = kyx, Eq.(3.248) can be simplified to

k xx + k yy k xx − k yy
kuu = + cos 2θ + k xy sin 2θ (3.249)
2 2

A comparison of Eqs.(3.242) and (3.243) shows that kuv = kvu. Substituting

Eqs. Eqs.(3.245) to (3.247) into Eq.(3.242) gives

kuv = − 12 sin 2θ k xx − 12 (1 − cos 2θ )k yx + 12 (1 + cos 2θ )k xy + 12 sin 2θ k yy (3.250)

….Since kxy = kyx and kuv = kvu, Eq.(3.250) can be simplified to

3-118
⎛ k xx − k yy ⎞
kuv = kvu = − ⎜ ⎟ sin 2θ + k xy cos 2θ (3.251)
⎝ 2 ⎠

Substituting Eqs.(3.245) to (3.247) into Eq.(3.244) gives

kvv = 12 (1 − sin 2θ )k xx − 12 sin 2θ k yx − 12 sin 2θ k xy + 12 (1 + cos 2θ )k yy (3.252)

which can be simplified to

k xx + k yy ⎛ k xx − k yy ⎞
kvv = −⎜ ⎟ cos 2θ − k xy sin 2θ (3.253)
2 ⎝ 2 ⎠

One of the principal axes of the permeability anisotropy is obtained from

kuv = kvu = 0 (3.254)

Substituting Eq.(3.254) into Eq.(3.251) gives

⎛ 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
⎝ ⎠

The other principal axis of the permeability anisotropy is given by (θ +90)


degrees.

Example 3.6
For the flow field of Example 3.5,

1. Calculate the principal axes of the permeability anisotropy.

3-119
2. Calculate the principal values of the permeability anisotropy. Show the
transformed permeability tensor for the principal coordinate system.

3. Calculate the components of the Darcy velocity vector in the principal


directions of the permeability anisotropy.

Solution to Example 3.6


One of the principal axes of the permeability anisotropy is given by Eq.(3.257)
as

⎛ 2 ( −50 ) ⎞
tan −1 ( 2θ ) = tan −1 ⎜ ⎟ = tan ( 0.1818 ) = 10.3048
−1 D

⎝ 200 − 750 ⎠

10.3048
θ= = 5.15D
2

The principal values of the permeability anisotropy are given by Eqs.(3.249)


and (3.253) as

200 + 750 200 − 750


ku = + cos (10.3048 ) − 50sin (10.3048 )
2 2
ku = 475 − 270.5642 − 8.9443 = 195.49md

200 + 750 ⎛ 200 − 750 ⎞


kv = −⎜ ⎟ cos (10.3048 ) + 50sin (10.3048 )
2 ⎝ 2 ⎠

kv = 475 + 270.5642 + 8.9443 = 754.51md

The transformed permeability tensor is given by

⎡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 can be


calculated as follows.

vu = 1.2185cos(54.24D − 5.15D ) = 1.2185cos 49.09D = 0.7980 ft/D

vv = 1.2185sin ( 54.24D − 5.15D ) = 1.2185sin 49.09D = 0.9209 ft/D

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.

3.14.4 Alternative Calculation of the Principal Values and the Principal


Axes of the Permeability Anisotropy
From linear algebra, the principal values of the permeability tensor are
given by the eigenvalues of the permeability tensor whereas the principal axes
of the permeability anisotropy are given by the eigenvectors of the
permeability tensor. This can be demonstrated by reworking Example 3.6 as
an eigenvalue problem.

Example 3.7
Rework Example 3.6 by calculating the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the
permeability tensor.

Solution to Example 3.7


Let the eigenvalues of the permeability tensor be λ. The characteristic
equation is given by

⎡ 200 − λ −50 ⎤
det ⎢ =0
⎣ −50 750 − λ ⎥⎦

( 200 − λ )( 750 − λ ) − ( −50 )( −50 ) = 0

3-122
λ 2 − 950λ + 147500 = 0

950 ± 9502 − ( 4 )(1)(147500 ) 950 ± 559.0170


λ= =
2 2

λ1 = 195.5md

λ2 = 754.5md

These principal values are the same as obtained in Example 3.6. For
λ1 = 195.5 , the eigenvector is obtained by solving the following simultaneous
equations:

⎡ 200 − 195.5 −50 ⎤ ⎡ x ⎤ ⎡0 ⎤


⎢ =
⎣ −50 750 − 195.5⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ y ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣0 ⎥⎦

⎡ 4.5085 −50 ⎤ ⎡ x ⎤ ⎡0 ⎤
⎢ −50 554.5085⎥ ⎢ y ⎥ = ⎢0 ⎥
⎣ ⎦⎣ ⎦ ⎣ ⎦

4.5085 x − 50 y = 0

−50 x + 554.5085 y = 0

⎡ x ⎤ ⎡11.0902 ⎤
⎢ y⎥ = ⎢ 1 ⎥ y
⎣ ⎦ ⎣ ⎦

The eigenvector is

G ⎡11.0902 ⎤
u=⎢ ⎥
⎣ 1 ⎦

This eigenvector makes an angle θ with the positive x-axis given by

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:

⎡ 200 − 754.5 −50 ⎤ ⎡ x ⎤ ⎡0 ⎤


⎢ =
⎣ −50 750 − 754.5⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ y ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣0 ⎥⎦

⎡ −554.5 −50 ⎤ ⎡ x ⎤ ⎡0 ⎤
⎢ −50 =
⎣ 4.5 ⎥⎦ ⎣⎢ y ⎦⎥ ⎣⎢0 ⎦⎥

−554.5 x − 50 y = 0

−50 x − 4.5 y = 0

⎡ x ⎤ ⎡ −0.0902 ⎤
⎢ y⎥ = ⎢ 1 ⎥ y
⎣ ⎦ ⎣ ⎦

The eigenvector is

G ⎡ −0.0902 ⎤
v=⎢ ⎥
⎣ 1 ⎦

We can easily show that the two eigenvectors are orthogonal.


GG
u .v = (11.0902 )( −0.0902 ) − 1 = 0

The eigenvectors point in the directions of the principal axes of the


permeability anisotropy. These are the same results obtained in Example 3.6.

3.14.5 Directional Permeability


For an isotropic medium, the Darcy velocity vector and the velocity
potential gradient vector are collinear as shown in Figure 3.54. Because the
two vectors lie along the same line with an angle of 180º between them, we
ordinarily do not specify whether the permeability is in the direction of flow or
in the direction of the velocity potential gradient. For this case, the
"directional" permeability in the direction of flow (kdf) is equal to the

3-124
"directional" permeability in the direction of the velocity potential gradient
(kdp) and is calculated in Darcy units as
G
μv
kdf = kdp = (3.258)
∇Φ

Figure 3.54. Collinear relationship between the direction of flow and the
direction of the velocity potential gradient for an isotropic medium.

For an anisotropic medium, in general, the Darcy velocity vector and


the velocity potential gradient vector are not collinear as shown in Figure
3.55. The concept of directional permeability seeks to extend the definition of
permeability of an isotropic medium expressed in Eq.(3.258) to an anisotropic
medium. Accordingly, the directional permeability in the direction of flow is
defined in Darcy units by the equation
G
μv
kdf = (3.259)
∇Φ cos α

where ∇Φ cos α is the component of the velocity potential gradient vector that

is collinear with the Darcy velocity. Similarly, the directional permeability in


the direction of the velocity potential gradient is defined in Darcy units by the
equation

3-125
G
μ v cos α
kdp = (3.260)
∇Φ

G
where v cos α is the component of the Darcy velocity vector that is collinear

with the velocity potential gradient vector.

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.

Solution to Example 3.8


The directional permeability in the direction of flow is calculated with
Eq.(3.259) in oilfield units as
G
μv
kdf =
(0.001127(5.615) ∇Φ cos α

=
(1)(1.2185 ) = 338.96 md
(0.001127(5.615) ( 0.6731) cos (180D − 147.56D )

3-126
The directional permeability in the direction of the velocity potential gradient
is calculated with Eq.(3.260) in oilfield units as
G
μ v cos α
kdp =
(0.001127(5.615) ∇Φ
(1)(1.2185) cos (180D − 147.56D )
= = 241.46 md
(0.001127(5.615) ( 0.6731)

We now derive the relationship between the directional permeabilities


and the principal values of the permeability anisotropy. Let kx and ky be the
principal values of the permeability anisotropy where the x,y coordinates are
the principal axes of the anisotropy in a 2D reservoir. Let kdf be the directional
permeability in the direction of flow (in the direction of the Darcy velocity
vector) that makes an angle θ with the positive x-axis as shown in Figure
3.56. The permeability tensor for this medium in the x,y coordinate system is

⎡kx 0⎤
k ( x, y ) = ⎢ (3.261)
⎣0 k y ⎥⎦

Figure 3.56. Darcy velocity vector in the flow direction that makes an
angle θ with the positive x axis.

3-127
Darcy’s law can be written in the x, y and s directions as

k x ∂Φ
vx = − (3.262)
μ ∂x

k y ∂Φ
vy = − (3.263)
μ ∂y

kdf ∂Φ
vs = − (3.264)
μ ∂s

where s is the flow direction. Figure 3.56 shows the relationships between the

Darcy velocity in the flow direction vs and its x and y components vx and vy.

From Figure 3.56, we find

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

Because Φ = Φ(x,y), from Calculus,

∂Φ ∂Φ dx ∂Φ dy
= + (3.269)
∂s ∂x ds ∂x ds

From Figure 3.56,

dx
= cos θ (3.270)
ds

3-128
dy
= sin θ (3.271)
ds

Substituting Eqs.(3.267) to (3.271) into Eq.(3.264) and rearranging gives the


directional permeability in the direction of flow as

1 cos 2 θ sin 2 θ
= + (3.272)
kdf kx ky

Given the principal values of the permeability anisotropy (kx, ky) and the
principal coordinate system (x,y), Eq.(3.272) can be used to calculate the
directional permeability in the flow direction that makes an angle θ with the
positive x-axis.
G
Eq.(3.272) can be put in rectangular coordinates by choosing a vector r
in the s direction (flow direction) and noting that

x = r cos θ (3.273)

y = r sin θ (3.274)

x2
cos 2 θ = (3.275)
r2

y2
sin 2 θ = (3.276)
r2

Substituting Eqs.(3.275) and (3.276) into (3.272) gives

r 2 x2 y 2
= + (3.277)
kdf k x k y

If we make the magnitude of the vector r = kdf , then Eq.(3.277) becomes

x2 y 2
1= + (3.278)
kx k y

3-129
or

x2 y2
1= + (3.279)
( ) ( )
2 2
kx ky

Eq.(3.279) is the cannonical equation of an ellipse with major semiaxes


k x and k y . Thus, by constructing the permeability ellipse as shown in

Figure 3.57, the directional permeability can easily be determined graphically


for any given flow direction.

Figure 3.57. Permeability ellipse for calculating the directional


permeability in the direction of flow.

For flow 3D, the directional permeability in the direction of flow will be given
by the permeability ellipsoid

x2 y2 z2
1= + + (3.280)
( ) ( ) ( )
2 2 2
kx ky kz

with semiaxes k x , k y and 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

The permeability ellipse in 2D is

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.

Figures 3.58 shows a polar plot of permeability data from Scheidegger


(1954) for permeabilities measured around a full-sized core. The measured
permeability data appear to fit a complicated curve. However, when the same
1
data are plotted as k and as shown in Figures 3.59 and 3.60, they fit on
k
ellipses. This observation verifies the tensorial nature of permeability. These
data can be used to identify the principal axes and the principal values of the
permeability anisotropy.

Figure 3.58. Permeability data measured around a cylindrical core


(Data from Scheidegger, 1954).

3-132
Figure 3.59. Permeability ellipse for permeability in the direction of flow
for the data of Figure 3.58.

3-133
Figure 3.60. Permeability ellipse for permeability in the direction of the
velocity potential gradient for the data of Figure 3.58.

3-134
Example 3.9
Calculate and plot the permeability ellipses for the flow field of Example 3.5.

Solution to Example 3.9


The permeability ellipses are given by Eqs.(3.279) for the flow direction and
(3.283) for the potential gradient direction, where x and y are the principal
axes of the permeability anisotropy. These equations can be adapted for our
purpose as follows:

u2 v2 u2 v2
1= + = +
( k) ( k) ( ) ( )
2 2 2 2
u v 195.5 754.5

and

u2 v2 u2 v2
1= 2
+ 2
= 2
+ 2
⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞
⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
⎝ ku ⎠ ⎝ kv ⎠ ⎝ 195.5 ⎠ ⎝ 754.5 ⎠

These ellipses are plotted in Figures 3.61 and 3.62.

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.

3.14.6 Measurement of Transverse Permeability of a Cylindrical Core


If the transverse permeabilities around a full-sized core could be
measured, then the permeability anisotropy of the core could be determined.
Figure 3.63 shows a schematic diagram of an apparatus that can be used to
make the measurements. After a permeability measurement, the sleeve is
rotated to a new angle and the measurement is repeated. Using conformal
mapping, Collins (1961) has derived the following equation for calculating the
transverse permeability from a gas flow experiment (in Darcy units):

Pq1 1μ
k= G (α ) (3.285)
⎛ b⎞
2 PL ⎜ 1 + ⎟ ΔP
⎝ P⎠

3-137
Figure 3.63. Apparatus for measuring transverse permeability of a full-sized
cylindrical core.

where P1 is the inlet pressure, q1 is the gas volumetric flow rate measured at
⎛P +P ⎞
P1, P is the mean pressure ⎜ 1 2 ⎟ , ΔP is the pressure drop between the
⎝ 2 ⎠
inlet and the outlet ( P1 − P2 ) , b is the Klinkenberg parameter, L is the height of

the core, G(α) is a geometric correction factor to account for the complex flow

3-138
⎛θ ⎞
geometry of the gas from inlet to outlet and α is equal to ⎜ ⎟ . Figure 3.64
⎝2⎠
shows the plot of G(α) versus α.

Figure 3.64. Geometric factor for transverse permeability calculation (from


Collins, 1961).

By making such measurements around the core, a polar plot of the


permeability can be made as shown in Figure 3.65. Such a plot can be used
to determine the principal values and the principal directions of the
permeability anisotropy. The permeability tensor of the medium can then be
constructed from this information for any coordinate system.

3-139
Figure 3.65. Polar plot of transverse permeabilities around a core (from
Scheidegger, 1954).

3.15 EXAMPLE APPLICATIONS OF PERMEABILITY


Permeability is used in numerical reservoir simulations to predict
reservoir performance. Permeability (absolute and relative permeability) must
be assigned to every one of the approximately one million grid blocks in a full-
field simulation, often with a full tensor representation. The purpose of this

3-140
section is to present simple examples of how permeability could be used to
predict reservoir performance. We examine the productivity indices of a
horizontal well and a hydraulically fractured well with infinite fracture
conductivity. The analysis shows that a horizontal well and a fractured well
are similar in the manner in which they affect reservoir performance.

3.15.1 Productivity of a Horizontal Well


Introduction
Horizontal wells are increasingly being drilled for petroleum recovery.
One of the major advantages of a horizontal well over a vertical well is the
larger contact area between a horizontal well and the reservoir compared to a
vertical well in the same reservoir. This larger areal contact can significantly
enhance the productivity of a horizontal well compared to a vertical well
draining the same reservoir volume. However, the productivity of a horizontal
well can be affected significantly by the permeability anisotropy of the
reservoir.

The objectives of this section are: (1) to provide a simple formula for
estimating the productivity index of a horizontal well for single phase flow in
terms of the reservoir permeability and other relevant factors, (2) to compare
the productivities of a horizontal well and a vertical well in the same reservoir
to determine if a horizontal well is superior to a vertical well under the
particular circumstance, and (3) to examine how the permeability anisotropy
of the reservoir affects the productivity of a horizontal well.

Homogeneous and Isotropic Reservoirs


The steady state productivity index (PI) for a horizontal well in a
homogeneous and isotropic reservoir is given by Giger et al. (1984) as

3-141
⎛ kL ⎞
2π ⎜
⎝ μ B ⎟⎠
PI H = FD (3.286)
⎡ 2 ⎤
⎢1 + 1 − ⎛⎜ L ⎞⎟ ⎥
L ⎢ ⎝ 2re ⎠ ⎥ ⎛ h ⎞
ln ⎢ ⎥ + ln ⎜ ⎟
h ⎢ ⎛ L ⎞ ⎥ ⎝ 2π rw ⎠
⎢ ⎜ ⎟ ⎥
⎢⎣ ⎝ 2re ⎠
⎥⎦

where

PIH = productivity index of a horizontal well, surface rate/unit


pressure drop

FD = units conversion constant


k = effective permeability to oil
L = total length of the horizontal well
μ = oil viscosity
B = oil formation volume factor, reservoir volume/surface volume
h = formation thickness

rw = wellbore radius

re = well drainage radius


Figure 3.66 shows the flow geometry. The horizontal well of length L is located
half-way between the top and the bottom of the reservoir of thickness h. L is
assumed to be small relative to 2re. The units conversion constant, FD, is
given in Table 3.14.

3-142
Figure 3.66: Flow geometry for steady state productivity index equation.

Table 3.14: Units and Dimensions

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

The steady state productivity index of a vertical well can be obtained by


integration of Darcy’s Law as

3-143
⎛ kh ⎞
2π ⎜
⎝ μ B ⎟⎠
PIV = FD (3.287)
⎛r ⎞
ln ⎜ e ⎟
⎝ rw ⎠

Therefore, the ratio of the productivity index of a horizontal well to a vertical


well draining the same reservoir volume is obtained from Eqs.(3.286) and
(3.287) as

⎛r ⎞
ln ⎜ e ⎟
PI H
= FD ⎝ rw ⎠ (3.288)
PIV ⎡ ⎛ L ⎞ ⎤⎥
2
⎢1 + 1− ⎜ ⎟
L ⎢ ⎝ 2re ⎠ ⎥ ⎛ h ⎞
ln ⎢ ⎥ + ln ⎜ ⎟
h ⎢ ⎛ L ⎞ ⎥ ⎝ 2π rw ⎠
⎢ ⎜ ⎟ ⎥
⎢⎣ ⎝ 2re ⎠ ⎥⎦

Note that because the right side of Eq.(3.288) involves ratios of lengths,
Eq.(3.288) is valid in any system of units.

Example 3.10
Given the following data for an isotropic reservoir, calculate (a) the
productivity index for a horizontal well, (b) the productivity index for a vertical
well, and (c) the ratio of the productivity indices of the horizontal and the
vertical wells.

Length of horizontal well (L) = 500 m


Formation thickness (h) = 40 m

Drainage radius (re) = 1000 m

Wellbore radius (rw) = 0.12 m

Horizontal permeability (kH) = 400 md

Vertical permeability (kV) = 400 md

3-144
Oil viscosity (μo) = 5 cp
Oil formation volume factor (B)= 1.2 RB/STB

Solution to Example 3.10

In oilfield units, FD = 0.001127. Substituting the numerical values into

Eq.(3.286) gives the productivity index for the horizontal well as

⎛ 400 x500 x3.2808 ⎞


2π ⎜ ⎟
PI H = 0.001127 ⎝ 5 x1.2 ⎠ = 26.02 STB/D/psi
⎡ 2 ⎤
⎢1 + 1 − ⎛⎜ ⎞ ⎥
500

500 ⎢ ⎝ 2 x1000 ⎠ ⎥ ⎛ 40 ⎞
ln ⎢ ⎥ + ln ⎜ ⎟
40 ⎛ 500 ⎞ ⎝ 2π x0.12 ⎠
⎢ ⎜ ⎟ ⎥
⎢⎣ ⎝ 2 x1000 ⎠ ⎥⎦

Substituting the numerical values into Eq.(3.287) gives the productivity index
for the vertical well as

⎛ 400 x 40 x3.2808 ⎞
2π ⎜ ⎟
PIV = 0.001127 ⎝ ⎠ = 6.86 STB/D/psi
5 x1.2
⎛ 1000 ⎞
ln ⎜ ⎟
⎝ 0.12 ⎠

The ratio of the horizontal to vertical well productivity indices is

PI H 26.02
= = 3.8
PIV 6.86

Clearly, in this isotropic reservoir, the productivity of the horizontal well is


much higher than that of the vertical well.

Homogeneous and Anisotropic Reservoirs


Many petroleum reservoirs are anisotropic and have different
permeabilities in the different directions. For example, in a layered reservoir,
the vertical permeability is usually much less than the horizontal
permeability. Also, a reservoir that is intersected by a large number of vertical

3-145
fractures will have a higher vertical permeability than the horizontal
permeability. Permeability anisotropy can have a significant effect on the
productivity of a horizontal well. This effect is examined in this section.

Consider an anisotropic reservoir with horizontal and vertical

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

By a suitable change of coordinates, Eq.(3.289) can be transformed into a


form that describes the flow in an equivalent isotropic medium having a
permeability k * . The required transformation equations are as follows:

k * = k H kV (3.290)

k*
X =x (3.291)
kH

and

k*
Z=z (3.292)
kV

where X and Z are the transformed spatial coordinates. With these


transformations, Eq.(3.289) becomes

⎛ ∂P ∂P ⎞
k* ⎜ 2 + 2 ⎟ = 0 (3.293)
⎝ ∂X ∂Z ⎠

Since k * is nonzero, Eq.(3.293) yields

3-146
⎛ ∂P ∂P ⎞
⎜ 2 + 2 ⎟=0 (3.294)
⎝ ∂X ∂Z ⎠

which is the diffusivity equation for an equivalent isotropic medium with a


permeability of k * . Eqs.(3.290) to (3.292) can be used in conjunction with
Eq.(3.286) to calculate the productivity index of a horizontal well in an
anisotropic reservoir as shown in the following example.

Example 3.11
Given the following data for an anisotropic reservoir, calculate (a) the
productivity index for a horizontal well, (b) the productivity index for a vertical
well, and (c) the ratio of the productivity indices of the horizontal and the
vertical wells.

Length of horizontal well (L) = 500 m


Formation thickness (h) = 40 m

Drainage radius (re) = 1000 m

Wellbore radius (rw) = 0.12 m

Horizontal permeability (kH) = 400 md

Vertical permeability (kV) = 25 md

Oil viscosity (μo) = 5 cp


Oil formation volume factor (B) = 1.2 RB/STB

Solution to Example 3.11


From Eq.(3.290),

k * = 400 x 25 = 100 md

From Eq.(3.291),

100
L* = 500 = 250 m
400

3-147
100
re* = 1000 = 500 m
400

From Eq.(3.292),

100
h* = 40 = 80 m
25

Substituting these numerical values into Eq.(3.286) gives the productivity


index for the horizontal well in the anisotropic reservoir as

⎛ 100 x 250 x3.2808 ⎞


2π ⎜ ⎟
PI H = 0.001127 ⎝ 5 x1.2 ⎠ = 8.71 STB/D/psi
⎡ 2 ⎤
⎢1 + 1 − ⎛⎜
250 ⎞
⎟ ⎥
250 ⎢ ⎝ 2 x500 ⎠ ⎥ ⎛ 80 ⎞
ln ⎢ ⎥ + ln ⎜ ⎟
80 ⎛ 250 ⎞ ⎝ 2π x0.12 ⎠
⎢ ⎜ ⎟ ⎥
⎢⎣ ⎝ 2 x500 ⎠ ⎥⎦

The productivity index for the vertical well in the anisotropic reservoir is given

by Eq.(3.287) with k = kH. Thus, for the vertical well,

⎛ 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

Thus, the productivity advantage of a horizontal well is reduced considerably


in an anisotropic reservoir in which the vertical permeability is significantly
lower than the horizontal permeability.

3-148
In a naturally fractured reservoir, if the azimuth of the horizontal is
such that it intersects the vertical fractures, then the productivity of the well
will enhanced as shown in the following example.

Example 3.12
A horizontal well has intersected a large number of vertical fractures as
shown in Figure 3.67 such that the vertical permeability is larger than the
horizontal permeability. Given the following data for this anisotropic reservoir,
calculate (a) the productivity index for a horizontal well, (b) the productivity
index for a vertical well, and (c) the ratio of the productivity indices of the
horizontal and the vertical wells.

Length of horizontal well (L) = 500 m


Formation thickness (h) = 40 m

Drainage radius (re) = 1000 m

Wellbore radius (rw) = 0.12 m

Horizontal permeability (kH) = 400 md

Vertical permeability (kV) = 800 md (Due to the vertical fractures)

Oil viscosity (μo) = 5 cp


Oil formation volume factor (B) = 1.2 RB/STB

3-149
Figure 3.67. A horizontal well that intersects vertical fractures.

Solution to Example 3.12


From Eq.(3.290),

k * = 400 x800 = 565.69 md

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

Substituting these numerical values into Eq.(3.286) gives the productivity


index for the horizontal well in the fractured anisotropic reservoir as

3-150
⎛ 565.69 x594.60 x3.2808 ⎞
2π ⎜ ⎟
PI H = 0.001127 ⎝ 5 x1.2 ⎠ = 32.34 STB/D/psi
⎡ 2 ⎤
⎢1 + 1 − ⎛⎜
594.60 ⎞
⎟ ⎥
594.60 ⎢ ⎝ 2 x1189.21 ⎠ ⎥ ⎛ 33.64 ⎞
ln ⎢ ⎥ + ln ⎜ ⎟
33.64 ⎛ 250 ⎞ ⎝ 2π x0.12 ⎠
⎢ ⎜ ⎟ ⎥
⎢⎣ ⎝ 2 x1189.21 ⎠ ⎥⎦

The productivity index for the vertical well in the anisotropic reservoir is given

by Eq.(3.286) with k = kH. Thus, for the vertical well,

⎛ 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

Clearly, the advantage of a horizontal well that intersects vertical fractures in


an anisotropic reservoir compared to a vertical well is apparent from this
example. Note, however, that if the horizontal well was wrongly drilled parallel
to the fractures instead of normal to the fractures as shown in Figure 3.67,
the productivity of the horizontal well will not be enhanced by the fractures.
The horizontal well placement relative to the fracture azimuth is therefore
important to take advantage of the fractures.

The change in coordinates given by Eqs.(3.290) to (3.292) also


transforms the circular wellbore into an elliptical wellbore with the same cross
sectional area as the circular wellbore. This change in the shape of the
wellbore has been neglected in the calculations in Examples 3.11 and 3.12
because its effect is negligibly small.

3-151
There are more elaborate equations for calculating the productivity
index of a horizontal well in the literature. These more complicated equations
and their associated assumptions may be found in the references.

3.14.2 Productivity of a Vertically Fractured Well


The productivity index of a vertically fractured well with an infinite
fracture conductivity in a homogeneous and isotropic reservoir as shown in
Figure 3.68 is given by Karcher et al. (1986) as

⎛k L⎞
2π ⎜ H ⎟
PI F = FD ⎝ μB ⎠ (3.295)
⎡ ⎛ L ⎞ ⎤⎥
2
⎢1 + 1− ⎜ ⎟
L ⎢ ⎝ 2re ⎠ ⎥
ln ⎢ ⎥
h ⎢ ⎛ L ⎞ ⎥
⎢ ⎜ ⎟ ⎥
⎢⎣ ⎝ e⎠
2 r
⎥⎦

where L is the total length of the fracture. The assumptions underlying the
above equation are:

• Fracture height is equal to the reservoir pay thickness

• The fracture is plane and is centered on the well

• The well drainage radius is large compared to the fracture length

• The fracture has infinite conductivity

The fracture conductivity is defined as

FC = k f w (3.296)

where kf is the fracture permeability and w is the fracture width. A

dimensioless fracture conductivity is defined as

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

FCD ≥ 300 (3.298)

Figure 3.68. Vertically fractured well.

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 ⎠

which is the productivity index of a vertical well with an equivalent wellbore


radius given by

L
rw = (3.300)
4

The ratio of the productivity index of the fracture well to the unfractured well
is given by

⎛r ⎞
ln ⎜ e ⎟
PI F
= FD ⎝ rw ⎠ (3.301)
PIV ⎡ ⎛ L ⎞ ⎤⎥
2
⎢1 + 1− ⎜ ⎟
L ⎢ ⎝ 2re ⎠ ⎥
ln ⎢ ⎥
h ⎢ ⎛ L ⎞ ⎥
⎢ ⎜ ⎟ ⎥
⎢⎣ ⎝ e⎠
2 r
⎥⎦

Eq.(3.301) can be used to demonstrate the increased productivity of a


fractured well compared to the unfractured well.

A comparison of Eqs.(3.295) and (3.286) shows that the productivity


index of a vertical fracture with an infinite conductivity is similar to but
somewhat higher than the productivity index of a horizontal well. The
⎛ h ⎞
horizontal well has a positive pseudo skin represented by the term ln ⎜ ⎟ in
⎝ 2π rw ⎠
Eq.(3.286) compared to the fractured well. The pseudoskin is caused by the
convergence of flow into the horizontal wellbore whereas the flow into the
fracture occurs over the entire fracture face with no convergence of flow. The

3-154
similarity in the productivity index equations for a fracture and a horizontal
well indicates that fracturing a vertical well is an alternative to drilling a
horizontal well.

NOMENCLATURE
A = cross sectional area in the flow direction
Ai = Area of bed i
AT = total area
b = Klinkenberg empirical constant dependent on rock and gas
d = core diameter
B = oil formation volume factor
Bg = gas formation volume factor
cf = compressibility of porous medium
ct = total compressibility
C = wellbore storage coefficient
CD = dimensionless wellbore storage coefficient
D = non-Darcy coefficient
Dp = grain diameter, mean grain diameter
Ei = exponential integral function
f(δ) = probability density function for pore diameter for a bundle of
capillary tubes model
F = formation resisitivity factor
FC = fracture conductivity
FCD= dimensionless fracture conductivity
g = gravitational acceleration
G(α) = geometric factor for calculating transverse permeability of a
cylindrical porous medium
h = pay thickness, hydraulic head
hi = thickness of bed i
K = hydraulic conductivity
k = absolute permeability of the medium
kdf = directional permeability in the direction of flow

3-155
kdp = directional permeability in the direction of the velocity potential
gradient
ki = permeability of bed i
k = permeability tensor, average permeability
kij = individual entries in the permeability tensor
kg = measured gas permeability
kL = permeability to liquid (absolute permeability of medium)
kor = permeability to nonwetting phase at irreducible wetting phase
saturation
koτ = Kozeny constant
kx, ky, kz = principal values of permeability anisotropy where xyz is the
principal coordinate system
ku, kv, kw = principal values of permeability anisotropy where uvw is the
principal coordinate system
L = length
Li = length of bed i
Le = tortuous length of flow path
ln = natural logarithm (log to base e)
log = log to base 10
M = real gas potential or real gas pseudo pressure
P = pressure
PD = dimensionless pressure
PD' = dimensionless welltest derivative function
Pi = initial reservoir pressure
P* = extrapolated pressure from a Horner plot
Psc = reference pressure
Pe = pressure at external radius
Pw = pressure at the wellbore
PwD= dimensionless wellbore pressure
PwD = dimensionless wellbore pressure in Laplace space
'
PwD = Calculus derivative of dimensionless wellbore pressure in Laplace
space

3-156
Pwf = flowing bottomhole pressure
Pws = shut-in bottomhole pressure
P1 = inlet pressure
P2 = outlet pressure

⎛P +P ⎞
P = mean pressure ⎜ 1 2 ⎟
⎝ 2 ⎠
dP
= pressure gradient
ds
PI = productivity index
PIH = productivity index of a horizontal well
PIV = productivity index of a vertical well
q = volumetric flowrate
qsf = sandface rate
qsc = volumetric rate at a reference pressure, Psc
qT = total volumetric flow rate
r = radial distance from the wellbore
rD = dimensionless radius
re = external drainage radius
rH = hydraulic radius
ri = radius of bed i
rinv = radius of investigation of a welltest
ro = resistance of a porous medium fully saturated with water
rw = resistance of water
rw = wellbore radius
Re = Reynolds Number
Ro = resistivity of a porous medium fully saturated with water
Rw = resistivity of water
s = cartesian coordinate in the flow direction.
S = skin factor
S = storativity
S = surface area per unit bulk volume (specific surface area)

3-157
Sp = surface area per unit pore volume (specific surface area)
Ss = surface area per unit grain volume (specific surface area)
Swirr = irreducible wetting phase saturation
S* = mechanical skin facor
t = time
tD = dimensionless time
tp = producing time before shut-in
T = absolute temperature
T = transmissibility
Tsc = reference temperature
G
v = flux vector, Darcy velocity vector
vx, vy, vz = components of Darcy velocity in the xyz Cartesian coordinate
system.
vu, vv, vw = components of Darcy velocity in the uvw Cartesian coordinate
system.
w = fracture width
z = height above (or below) an arbitrary datum
z = Cartesian coordinate in the vertical direction
Z = gas Z-factor
β = non-darcy velocity coefficient
ρ = fluid density.
μ = viscosity
φ = porosity, fraction
τ = tortuosity
γ = liquid specific gravity
Φ = velocity flow potential function
Ψ = pressure head
∇ = gradient operator
ΔP = pressure change
ΔP' = welltest derivative function
Δt = shut-in time
Δte = effective shut-in time

3-158
Δh = positive difference in the hydraulic heads at points 1 and
2.
ΔL = positive length of the porous medium between points 1
and 2 in the flow direction.

REFEREENCES
Amyx, J.W., Bass, D.M., Jr. and Whiting, R.L. : Petroleum Reservoir
Engineering, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1960.
Anderson, G. : Coring and Core Analysis Handbook, Petroleum Publishing
Company, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 1975.
Archer, J.S. and Wall, C.G. : Petroleum Engineering, Graham & Trotman,
London, England, 1986.
Archie, G.E. :“The Electrical Resistivity Log as an Aid in Determining Some
Reservoir Characteristics,” Trans. AIME (1942) 146, 54-62.
Archie, G.E. :“Introduction to Petrophysics of Reservoir Rocks,” AAPG Bull.,
Vol. 34, No. 5 (May 1950) 943-961.
Babu, D.K. and Odeh, A.S. : "Productivity of a Horizontal Well," SPE Reservoir
Engineering (November, 1989) 417-421.
Bear, J. : Dynamics of Fluids in Porous Media, Elsevier, New York, 1972.
Berg, R.R. : “Method for Determining Permeability from Reservoir Rocks,”
Trans., Gulf Coast Assoc. of Geol. Soc., Vol. XX (1970) 303-335.
Bradley, H.B. (Editor-in-Chief) : Petroleum Engineering Handbook, SPE,
Richardson, Texas, 1987.
Butler, R.M. : Horizontal Wells for the Recovery of Oil, Gas and Bitumen,
Petroleum Society, Canadian Inst. Min., Met. and Pet., Calgary, 1994.
Carslaw, H.S. and Jaeger, J.C. : Conduction of Heat in Solids, 2nd edition,
Clarendon Press, Oxford (1959).
Carman, P.C. : "Fluid Flow Through A Granular Bed,” Trans. Inst. Chem. Eng.
London (1937) 15, 150-156.
Carman, P.C. : "Determination of the Specific Surface of Powders,” J. Soc.
Chem. Indus (1938) 57, 225-234.
Carpenter, C.B. and Spencer, G.B. : “Measurements of the Compressibility of
Consolidated Oil-Bearing Sandstones,” RI 3540, USBM (Oct. 1940).
Chilingar, G.V.: “Relationship Between Porosity, Permeability and Grain Size
Distribution of Sands and Sandstones,” Proceedings of the Sixth
International Sedimentological Congress, The Netherlands and Belgium,

3-159
1963, Deltaic  and  Shallow  Marine  Deposits,  L.M.J.U  van  Straatan,  Ed., 
Elsevier, New York, 72‐75. 
Clarke, R.H. :"Reservoir Properties of Conglomerates and Conglomeratic
Sandstones," AAPG Bulletin, Vol. 63 (1979) 799-809.
Collins, R.E. : Flow of Fluids Through Porous Materials, Van Nostrand
Reinhold Company, 1961. Reprinted by the Petroleum Publishing
Company, 1976. Reprinted by Research & Engineering Consultants
Inc., 1990.
Core Laboratories Inc. : Special Core Analysis, 1976.
Corey, A.T. : Mechanics of Heterogeneous Fluids in Porous Media, Water
Resources Publications, Fort Collins, Colorado, 1977.
Cosse, R. : Basics of Reservoir Engineering, Editions Technip, Paris, 1993.
De Boodt, M.F. and Kirkham, D. : "Anisotropy and Measurement of Air
Permeability of Soil Clods," Soil Sci., Vol. 76 (1953) 127-313.
Dobrynin, V.M. : "The Effect of Overburden Pressure on Some Properties of
Sandstones,” Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (Dec. 1962) 360-366.
Dullien, F.A.L. : Porous Media - Fluid Transport and Pore Structure, Academic
Press, New York, 1979.
Firoozabadi, A. and Katz, D.L. : "An Aanlysis of High Velocity Gas Flow
Through Porous Media," JPT (Feb. 1979) 221.
Freeze, R.A. and Cherry, J.A. : Goundwater, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
1979.
Giger, F.M., Reiss, L.H. and Jourdan, A.P. : "The Reservoir Engineering
Aspects of Horizontal Wells," paper SPE 13024, presented at the 59th
SPE Annual Technical Meeting, Dallas, Texas, September 16-19, 1984.
Gilman, J.R. and Jargon, J.R. : "Evaluating Horizontal Versus Vertical Well
Performance," World Oil (April, 1992) 67-72.
Gilman, J.R. and Jargon, J.R. : "Evaluating Horizontal Versus Vertical Well
Performance: Part 2," World Oil (June, 1992) 55-60.
Goode, P.A. and Kuchuk, F.J. : "Inflow Performance for Horizontal Wells," SPE
Reservoir Engineering (August, 1991) 319-323.
Hutta, J.J. and Griffiths, : "Directional Permeability of Sandstones: A Test
Technique," Producers Monthly, Nov. 26, Vol.34 and Oct.24, Vol. 31,
1955.
Jennings, H.J. : “How to Handle and Process Soft and Unconsolidated Cores,”
World Oil (June 1965) 116-119.

3-160
Johnson, W.E. and Hughes, R.V.: "Directional Permeability Measurements
and their Significance," Producers Monthly, No. 1, Vol. 18 (November
1948) 17-25.
Joshi, S. D. : "A Review of Horizontal Well and Drainhole Technology," paper
SPE 16868, presented at the 62nd SPE Annual Technical Meeting,
Dallas, Texas, September 27-30, 1987.
Joshi, S. D. : "Production Forecasting Methods for Horizontal Wells," paper
SPE 17580, presented at the SPE International Meeting on Petroleum
Engineering, Tianjin, China, November 1-4, 1988.
Joshi, S. D. : Horizontal Well Technology, PennWell Publishing Co., Tulsa,
1991.
Karcher, B.J., Giger, F.M. and Combe, J. : "Some Practical Formulas to
Predict Horizontal Well Behavior," paper SPE 15430, presented at the
61st SPE Annual Technical Meeting,New Orleans, LA, October 5-8,
1986.
Keelan, D.K. : "A Critical Review of Core Analysis Techniques” The Jour. Can.
Pet. Tech. (April-June 1972) 42-55.
Klinkenberg, L.J. : “The Permeability of Porous Media to Liquids and Gases,”
Drilling and Production Practices, American Petroleum Institute (1941)
200.
Krumbein, W.C. and Monk, G.D. : “Permeability as a Function of the Size
Parameters of Unconsolidated Sand,” Amer. Int. Mining and Met. Tech.
Pub. 1492, 1942.
Kuchuk, F.J., Goode, P.A., Brice, B.W., Sherrard, D.W. and Thambynayagam,
R.K.M.: "Pressure Transient Analysis and Inflow Performance for
Horizontal Wells," paper SPE 18300, presented at the 63rd SPE Annual
Technical Meeting, Houston, Texas, October 2-5, 1988.
Leva, M., Weintraub, M., Grummer, M. Pollchick, M. and Storch, H.H. : "Fluid
Flow Through Packed and Packed and Fluidized Systems," US Bureau
of Mines Bull. No. 504, 1951.
Maasland, M. and Kirkham, D. : "Theory and Measurement of Anisotropic Air
Permeability in Soil Clods," Proc. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer., No. 4, Vol. 19
(1955) 395-400.
Mayer-Gurr, A. : Petroleum Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1976.
Monicard, R.P. : Properties of Reservoir Rocks, Gulf Publishing Company,
Houston, TX, 1980.
Nelson, P.H. :”Permeability-Porosity Relationships in Sedimentary Rocks,” The
Log Analyst (May-June 1994) 38-62.

3-161
Ozkan, E. : "Performance of Horizontal Wells," PhD Dissertation, University of
Tulsa, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 1988.

Peters, E.J. : Stability Theory and Viscous Fingering in Porous Media, PhD
Dissertation, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada,
January 1979.
Peters, E.J. and Afzal, N. : “Characterization of Heterogeneities in Permeable
Media with Computed Tomography Imaging,” Journal of Petroleum
Science and Engineering, 7, No. 3/4, (May 1992) 283-296.
Pirson, S.J. : Oil Reservoir Engineering, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New
York, 1958.
Poston, S.W., Ysreal, S.C., Hossain, A.K.M.S., Montgomery, E.F., III, and
Ramey, H.J., Jr. : “The Effect of Temperature on Irreducible Water
Saturation and Relative Permeability of Unconsolidated Sands,” Soc.
Pet. Eng. J. (June 1970) 171-180; Trans., AIME (1970) 249.
Richardson, J.G. : “Flow Through Porous Media,” Section 16, Handbook of
Fluid Dynamics, Edited by V.I. Streeter, McGraw-Hill Book Company,
Inc., New York, 1961.
Rose, H.E. : “ An Investigation into the the Laws of Flow of Fluids Through
Granular Material,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. (1945) 153, 141-148.
Ryder, H.M. : "Permeability, Absolute, Effective, Measured” World Oil (May
1948) 173-177.
Scheidegger, A.E. : The Physics of Flow Through Porous Media, University of
Toronto Press, Toronto, 1960.
Stehfest, H. : “Algorithm 368, Numerical Inverse of Laplace Transforms,” D-5,
Communications of the ACM, Vol. 13, No.1 (1970) 47- 48.
Vose, D. : Quantitative Risk Analysis: A Guide to Monte Carlo Simulation
Modeling, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1998.
Winsauer, W.O., Shearin, H.M., Jr., Masson, P.H. and Williams, M. :
"Resistivity of Brine-Saturated Sands in Relation to Pore Geometry,"
AAPG Bull., Vol. 36, No. 2 (Feb. 1952) 253-277.
Wyllie, M.R.J. and Spangler, M.B. : "Application of Electrical Resistivity
Measurements to Problems of Fluid Flow in Porous Media,” AAPG Bull.,
Vol. 36, No. 2 (Feb. 1952) 359-403.
Wyllie, M.R.J. and Gregory, A.R.: "Fluid Flow Through Unconsolidated Porous
Aggregates” Industrial and Engineering Chem. Vol. 47 (1955) 1379-1388.

3-162
CHAPTER 4

HETEROGENEITY

4.1 INTRODUCTION

Petroleum reservoir rocks are, in general, heterogeneous and very


often anisotropic in nature. This means that the petrophysical properties
of interest such as permeability, porosity, fluid saturation, lithology and
others vary in space both vertically and laterally. Evidence of
heterogeneity was seen in the results of the core analysis presented in
Table 2.2. It was found that the permeability, porosity and fluid
saturations varied from top to bottom within the same reservoir.
Variability of rock and fluid properties is a reality that must be dealt with
in petroleum resource assessment and reservoir performance prediction.

Suppose it has been decided to model reservoir performance


through numerical simulation. In the construction of the simulation
model, every one of the nearly one million grid blocks requires the
assignment of porosity, absolute permeability, relative permeability,
capillary pressure and various fluid properties. How can one generate the
values of the rock and fluid properties to be used in the simulation
model? One may assume that the reservoir is homogeneous and use the
same value of each property in every grid block. Such a simulation model

4-1
ignores the geology of the reservoir and will consequently yield
misleading and optimistic results. One may resort to populating the grid
blocks with property values from a random number generator. This
model also ignores the geology of the reservoir and the general
observation that data from nearby locations tend to be similar whereas
data from locations that are far apart tend to be dissimilar. In other
words, petrophysical data tend to be correlated. Of course, some of these
properties can be estimated from core analysis and well logs. However,
because wells sample only a very minute volume of the reservoir, the
properties in the bulk of the reservoir remain unknown and must be
estimated by other means. There is therefore a need to devise a rational
way to estimate the petrophysical properties for the reservoir simulation
model.

The estimation of reservoir properties at locations for which no


measurements have been made can be accomplished with a new type of
statistics known as geostatistics (compare with geochemistry and
geophysics). Geostatistics is the practical applications of the Theory of
Regionalized Variables developed by Georges Matheron in Fontainebleau.
The main difference between ordinary statistics and geostatistics is that
ordinary statistics is typically based on random, independent and
uncorrelated data whereas geostatistics is based on random and spatially
correlated data.

The basic concepts of geostatistics are presented in this chapter.


Before estimating the values of the properties of the heterogeneous
reservoir, one must first characterize the heterogeneity from the samples
of the property that have been collected from core analysis, well logs and
other sources. After characterizing the nature of the heterogeneity, an

4–2
estimation is undertaken that honors both the measured data (samples)
and the structure of the heterogeneity observed from the samples.

4.2 MEASURES OF CENTRAL TENDENCY AND


VARIABILITY (HETEROGENEITY)

4.2.1 Measures of central tendency


Mean
The mean (arithmetic mean) is the best known measure of central
tendency. Given N sample data Φ1 , Φ 2 , Φ 3 ,..., Φ N , the mean (arithmetic

mean) of the sample data is defined as

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)

Taking antilog in Eq.(4.2) gives the geometric mean as

Φ geom = N Φ1Φ 2 Φ 3 ...Φ N (4.3)

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

determine the median, the data are arranged in ascending (or

4-3
descending) order. If the number of data N is odd, then the median is
determined from the sorted data as

Φ median = Φ ( N +1) / 2 for N odd (4.4)

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

which the probability distribution is a maximum. The mode is useful


primarily when there is a single sharp maximum, in which case the mode
estimates the central value. Sometimes, a distribution is bimodal, with
two relative maxima. In such a case, one may wish to know the two
modes individually. For a bimodal distribution, the mean and median are
not very useful as measures of central tendency.

4.2.2 Measures of Variability (Heterogeneity or Spread)


Variance
The most useful measure of variability around the central value is
the variance defined for sample data as

2
1 i= N
Var ( Φ1...Φ N ) = s = 2
∑ ( Φi − Φ )
N − 1 i =1
(4.6)

The standard deviation is the positive square root of the variance and is
given by

4–4
s ( Φ1...Φ N ) = Var ( Φ1...Φ N ) (4.7)

Dykstra-Parsons Coefficient of Variation


A measure of permeability variability that is widely used in the
petroleum industry is the Dykstra-Parsons (1950) coefficient of variation,
V. This coefficient of variation is determined based on the assumption
that permeability data are drawn from a log normal distribution. The
calculation of the Dykstra-Parsons coefficient of permeability variation
involves plotting the frequency distribution of the permeability data on a
log-normal probability graph paper. This is done by arranging the
permeability values in descending order and then calculating for each
permeability, the percent of the samples with permeabilities greater than
or equal to that value. Table 4.1 shows an example calculation. Note
that to avoid values of 0 or 100%, which are not present on the
probability scale, the percent greater than or equal to value is normalized
by N+1, where N is the number of samples.

The data are plotted on a log-normal probability graph paper as


shown in Figure 4.1. Normally, such a plot gives a straight line, at least
when the central portion is used. The midpoint of the permeability
distribution ( % ≥ 50 ) is the median permeability. The Dykstra-Parsons

coefficient of permeability variation, V, is defined as

k50 − k84.1
V= (4.8)
k50

where k50 is the permeability value at ( % ≥ 50 ) , which is the log mean

permeability and k84.1 is the permeability value at ( % ≥ 84.1) , which is one

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

k50 − k84.1 17.8 − 6.1


V= = = 0.66
k50 17.8

Table 4.1. Calculation of Dykstra-Parsons Coefficient of Variation (V)

k No of Samples >= k % >= k


(md)
100 1 5
65 2 10
50 3 15
32 4 20
29 5 25
27
27 7 35
23
23 9 45
18 10 50
17
17 12 60
16 13 65
8 14 70
7
7 16 80
6 17 85
4 18 90
1 19 95

4–6
Figure 4.1. Log normal permeability distribution.

Dykstra-Parsons coefficient of variation is a dimensionless number


that ranges from 0 to 1. A homogeneous reservoir has a coefficient of
permeability variation that approaches 0 whereas an extremely
heterogeneous reservoir has a coefficient of permeability variation that
approaches 1. Petroleum reservoirs typically have Dykstra-Parsons
coefficients of permeability variation between 0.5 and 0.9. Figure 4.2
shows theoretical log normal permeability distributions and their
corresponding Dykstra-Parsons coefficients.

4-7
Figure 4.2. Theoretical log normal permeability distributions and their
corresponding Dykstra-Parsons coefficients (Carlson, 2003).

Lorenz Coefficient
Another measure of heterogeneity used in the petroleum industry
is the Lorenz coefficient . The Lorenz coefficient of variation is obtained
by plotting a graph of cumulative kh versus cumulative φh, sometimes
called a flow capacity plot. Table 4.2 shows an example calculation
whereas Figure 4.3 shows the plot of cumulative kh versus cumulative
φh for determining the Lorenz coefficient. The Lorenz coefficient is
defined from Figure 4.2 as

area ABCA
Lorenz Coefficient = (4.9)
area ADCA

4–8
where ABCA is the cross-hatched area in the figure and ADCA is the
triangle below the cross-hatched area. From Figure 4.2, the Lorenz
coefficient of the data of Table 4.2 is about 0.65.

The Lorenz coefficient of variation also varies from 0 to 1.


Unfortunately, the Lorenz coefficient is not a unique measure of reservoir
heterogeneity. Several different permeability distributions can give the
same value of Lorenz coefficient. For log-normal permeability
distribtutions, the Lorenz coefficient is very similar to the Dykstra-
Parsons coefficient of permeability variation.

Table 4.2 . Calculation of Lorenz Coefficient of Variation

h k φ kh Σkh Σkh/Sumk φh Σφh Σφh/Sumφh


h
(ft) (md) (fraction) (md-ft) (md-ft) (ft) (ft)
0.000 0.000
8.1 4388 0.22 35542. 35542. 0.399 1.782 1.782 0.062
8 8
2.0 2640 0.22 5280.0 40822. 0.459 0.440 2.222 0.078
8
3.7 2543 0.21 9409.1 50231. 0.564 0.777 2.999 0.105
9
5.0 1579 0.20 7895.0 58126. 0.653 1.000 3.999 0.140
9
4.0 930 0.20 3720.0 61846. 0.695 0.800 4.799 0.168
9
9.6 662 0.19 6355.2 68202. 0.766 1.824 6.623 0.232
1
6.4 441 0.20 2822.4 71024. 0.798 1.280 7.903 0.277
5
2.7 402 0.16 1085.4 72109. 0.810 0.432 8.335 0.292
9

4-9
5.6 401 0.20 2245.6 74355. 0.836 1.120 9.455 0.331
5
8.0 378 0.18 3024.0 77379. 0.870 1.440 10.895 0.381
5
4.0 267 0.21 1068.0 78447. 0.882 0.840 11.735 0.411
5
15.1 250 0.21 3775.0 82222. 0.924 3.171 14.906 0.522
5
5.9 249 0.17 1469.1 83691. 0.940 1.003 15.909 0.557
6
2.8 232 0.22 649.6 84341. 0.948 0.616 16.525 0.578
2
7.4 200 0.17 1480.0 85821. 0.964 1.258 17.783 0.622
2
9.2 136 0.20 1251.2 87072. 0.978 1.840 19.623 0.687
4
7.6 98 0.19 744.8 87817. 0.987 1.444 21.067 0.737
2
10.1 47 0.19 474.7 88291. 0.992 1.919 22.986 0.804
9
9.6 30 0.18 288.0 88579. 0.995 1.728 24.714 0.865
9
3.5 28 0.17 98.0 88677. 0.997 0.595 25.309 0.886
9
6.6 16 0.16 105.6 88783. 0.998 1.056 26.365 0.923
5
15.8 13 0.14 205.4 88988. 1.000 2.212 28.577 1.000
9
Sumkh = 88988. Sumφh = 28.577
9

4–10
Figure 4.3. Flow capacity distribution.

While the Dykstra-Parsons and Lorenz coefficients give


quantitative measures of the permeability variation, they provide no
information on the spatial relationship between the permeability values.
It is well known that permeability and other petrophysical properties of
reservoir rocks are not randomly distributed but are spatially correlated.
There is a need for other measures of heterogeneity that take into
account the spatial correlation of the data.

4.3 MEASURES OF SPATIAL CONTINUITY

Figure 4.4 shows the spatial distributions of a petrophysical


property, Φ , measured at equally spaced coordinates in two linear
reservoirs A and B. Which of the two reservoirs is more heterogeneous
with respect to the property Φ ? Most professionals will say that reservoir

4-11
A is more heterogeneous than reservoir B. However, a careful
examination of the numerical values of the property shows them to be
the same in both reservoirs. For both reservoirs, the mean of Φ is 5.0,
the variance is 6.67 and the standard deviation is 2.58. Thus, by the
usual measure of ordinary statistics, the degree of heterogeneity of the
two reservoirs is the same. Yet, there is something about the two
reservoirs that leads one to conclude that A is more heterogeneous than
B. It is the spatial arrangement of the values of the property relative to
each that leads one to conclude that A is more heterogeneous than B. In
reservoir A, the property appears to be randomly distributed in space
whereas in reservoir B, it is distributed in an orderly and continuous
fashion. Thus, to fully characterize heterogeneity, the spatial correlation
structure of the property must be taken into account.

Three related functions are normally used to characterize the


spatial continuity of the data from a heterogeneous reservoir. These are
(1) the variogram (semi-variogram), (2) the covariance function and (3)
the correlation coefficient function.

4–12
Figure 4.4. Spatial distribution of a petrophysical property in two linear
reservoirs A and B.

4-13
4.3.1. Variogram
Definition
The variogram is a function obtained by plotting the semivariance
of the differences between the properties at two locations separated by a
distance h versus h. The variogram is defined as

∑ ⎡⎣Φ ( x ) − Φ ( x + h )⎤⎦
2

Var ⎡⎣Φ ( x ) − Φ ( x + h ) ⎤⎦
γ (h) = = (4.10)
2 2Nh

where

γ = semivariance

h = lag distance

Φ ( x) = value of property at location x

Φ ( x + h) = value of property at location x+h

Nh = number of data pairs separated by the distance h.

Examination of Eq.(4.10) shows that each numerical value of γ is the

variance of ⎡⎣ Φ ( x ) − Φ ( x + h ) ⎤⎦ divided by 2, where the mean of

⎡⎣ Φ ( x ) − Φ ( x + h ) ⎤⎦ is normally assumed to be zero. Thus, each numerical

value of γ is the semivariance of ⎡⎣Φ ( x ) − Φ ( x + h ) ⎤⎦ for a lag distance h and

the function γ (h) is the variogram or semivariogram.

Figure 4.5 shows an ideal variogram. It starts at zero and increases


with increasing lag distance until a certain distance is reached at which
it levels off and becomes constant. The lag distance at which the
variogram levels off (a in the figure) is defined as the correlation length,

4–14
or the range of influence, and the value of the variogram at this point is
called the sill. The sill is the semivariance of the entire data set. Thus,

Figure 4.5. Typical variogram

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.

The variogram and correlation length are directional quantities


(anisotropy again), and in general, will be different in different directions.

4-15
Sometimes, the variogram has a discontinuity at the origin as shown in
Figure 4.5. The value of the variogram at the discontinuity (Co in the
figure) is known as the nugget effect, a term that originates from the
mining industry which was the first industry to widely apply geostatistics
to estimate ore grade.

It should be emphasized that not all variograms have a nugget


effect, a sill or even a correlation length. Variograms come in different
shapes depending on the underlying geological structure of the
heterogeneity. Figure 4.5 was presented as one possible variogram shape
to introduce the general features of the function and the associated
nomenclature.

In order to demonstrate that the variogram does capture the


spatial continuity of the data from a heterogeneous reservoir, let us
compare the variograms for reservoirs A and B as shown in Figure 4.6.
The variogram for reservoir A is cyclical with a constant average value of
about 5.5 for all lag distances. The constant average value can be viewed
as a pure nugget effect, which indicates that the values of the property
are randomly distributed in space as is apparent from Figure 4.4. By
contrast, the variogram for reservoir B is continuous for all lag distances,
an indication of the orderly and continuous spatial distribution of the
property as evident in Figure 4.4. Therefore, the variogram (and later the
covariance and correlation functions) does capture the spatial continuity
of the data.

4–16
Figure 4.6. Comparison of the variograms for reservoirs A and B of Figure
4.4.

How to Calculate the Variogram


Let us consider the simple case of a linear reservoir in which the
property Φ is measured at 10 equally spaced locations with a distance of
Δx between each datum. Let the values of the property at locations 1
through 10 be Φ1 , Φ 2 , Φ 3 ,..., Φ10 . To compute the semivariance at each lag

distance, one can generate a table of Φ ( x ) and Φ ( x + h ) for each lag

distance as shown in Table 4.3. Using the entries in the table, the
semivariances can easily be calculated with Eq.(4.10). In fact, the
semivariance for h = 0 can be obtained by inspection as γ(0) = 0. The

4-17
semivariance at h = 0 is always equal to 0 even if the variogram has a
nugget effect.

Table 4.3. Table of Φ(x) and Φ(x+h) for Computing Semivariances of


Sample Data

h=0 h = Δx h = 2Δx h = 3Δx h = 4Δx h = 5Δx


Nh = 10 Nh = 9 Nh = 8 Nh = 7 Nh = 6 Nh = 5
Φ(x Φ(x Φ(x Φ(x
) Φ (x+h) ) Φ (x+h) ) Φ (x+h) ) Φ (x+h) Φ(x) Φ (x+h) Φ(x) Φ (x+h)
Φ1 Φ1 Φ1 Φ2 Φ1 Φ3 Φ1 Φ4 Φ1 Φ5 Φ1 Φ6
Φ2 Φ2 Φ2 Φ3 Φ2 Φ4 Φ2 Φ5 Φ2 Φ6 Φ2 Φ7
Φ3 Φ3 Φ3 Φ4 Φ3 Φ5 Φ3 Φ6 Φ3 Φ7 Φ3 Φ8
Φ4 Φ4 Φ4 Φ5 Φ4 Φ6 Φ4 Φ7 Φ4 Φ8 Φ4 Φ9
Φ5 Φ5 Φ5 Φ6 Φ5 Φ7 Φ5 Φ8 Φ5 Φ9 Φ5 Φ10
Φ6 Φ6 Φ6 Φ7 Φ6 Φ8 Φ6 Φ9 Φ6 Φ10
Φ7 Φ7 Φ7 Φ8 Φ7 Φ9 Φ7 Φ10
Φ8 Φ8 Φ8 Φ9 Φ8 Φ10
Φ9 Φ9 Φ9 Φ10
Φ10 Φ10

The following observations can be made about the calculation of


semivariances and the variogram.

1. The number of data pairs, Nh, decreases as h increases. Beyond h

= NΔx/2, the reduction in Nh causes the variogram to fluctuate

excessively and unmeaningfully. Therefore, the variogram is


typically truncated beyond h = NΔx /2.

2. The variogram is a non-negative function.

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:

1. Create two one-dimensional arrays of size equal to the


number of data pairs. Let these be H(M) and B(M) where M is
the number of data pairs as determined from Eq.(4.11).

2. Visit location 1, compute and store sequentially, the


following data pairs:

( Φ − Φ1 )
2

x2 − x1 , 2
2
( Φ − Φ1 )
2

x3 − x1 , 3
2
...
( Φ − Φ1 )
2

x10 − x1 , 10
2

4-19
Figure 4.7. Irregularly spaced data.

where the first number is stored in array H and the second


number is stored in array B.

3. Eliminate Φ1 from the data set to prevent duplication.

4. Move to location 2 and continue to compute and store the


following data in the arrays

4–20
(Φ − Φ2 )
2

x3 − x2 , 3
2
(Φ − Φ2 )
2

x4 − x2 , 4
2
...
(Φ − Φ2 )
2

x10 − x2 , 10
2
5. Eliminate Φ 2 from the data set to avoid duplication.

6. Continue to compute and fill the arrays by visiting each


location in the manner described above until the last data
pair is added to the array. The last data pair for our example
will be

( Φ − Φ9 )
2

x10 − x9 , 10
2

7. Perform a scatter plot of B(i) versus H(i), where array H now


contains the lag distances, hij, that were computed as
xi − x j . Such a scatter plot is shown in Figure 4.8.

8. Divide the data in the scatter diagram into bins as shown in


Figure 4.8. For each bin, compute and plot

1 ( Φi − Φ j )
2
1

n n 2
versus ∑ hij
n n

where n is the number of data points in the bin, which can


be different for each bin. In constructing the bins, there
should be enough data points in each bin to prevent the

4-21
variogram from fluctuating excessively. Several bin sizes
may be tried to determine the optimum bin sizes.

9. The plot in step 8 is the experimental variogram as shown in


Figure 4.8.

Figure 4.8. Scatter plot for computing experimental variogram.

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.

5. If data are missing from some locations, those locations should be


skipped over. Resist the temptation to interpolate and fill in the
missing data. Table 4.4 shows a data set in which data are
missing from location 7. Calculate the semivariance of the
permeability (NOT the natural log of permeability) at lag distances
of 1 foot and 2 feet. Start your calculations from the top of the
reservoir and work your way down.

4-23
Figure 4.9. Spatial distribution of a petrophysical property in a linear
reservoir C with an underlying trend or drift.

Figure 4.10. Variograms for reservoir C with and without the underlying
trend or drift.

4–24
Table 4.4. Porosity and Permeability Distributions with Missing Data.

Relativ Porosit Permeabilit


e y y
Depth
(ft) (%) (md)
1 20 93
2 16.3 18
3 9.7 8.4
4 16.2 21
5 14.9 10
6 12.7 1.7
7
8 5.5 25
9 5.8 17
10 6.5 4.8
11 4.7 22
12 7.3 5.6

6. If the data are distributed in 2D or 3D, the variogram can still be


computed using the basic method outlined for 1D data. In this
case, the variogram should be computed in several directions to
reveal any anisotropy that may be present. Figure 4.11 shows the
distribution of a petrophysical property in a 2D reservoir. In this
case, variograms should be computed in the following directions:
N-S, E-W, NE-SW and NW-SE.

4-25
Figure 4.11. Distribution of a petrophysical property in a two-
dimensional reservoir.

7. Unless you are already familiar with the variogram, you may not
see what it has to do with spatial correlation of the data. We can
see that the entries in Table 4.3 have a lot to do with spatial
correlation by plotting the scatter diagrams of Φ(x+h) versus Φ(x)
for each value of h. For h = 0, Φ(x+h) and Φ(x) are perfectly
correlated and the data will follow the 45º line on the scatter plot
as shown in Figure 4.12. As h increases, the cloud of data points
scattered about the 45º line increases, indicating less and less
correlation between Φ(x+h) and Φ(x) as shown in Figures 4.13 and
4.14.

4–26
Figure 4.12. Scatter plot of Φ(x+h) versus Φ(x) for h = 0 km for reservoir
B.

Figure 4.13. Scatter plot of Φ(x+h) versus Φ(x) for h = 1 km for reservoir
B.

4-27
Figure 4.14. Scatter plot of Φ(x+h) versus Φ(x) for h = 3 km for reservoir
B.

Physical Meaning of the Variogram


The scatter plot of Φ(x+h) versus Φ(x) at a fixed h can be used to
derive the physical meaning of the variogram. Consider the scatter plot
shown in Figure 4.15. The distance d from a datum point to the 45º line
is given by

⎡ Φ ( x + h ) − Φ ( x ) ⎤⎦
d = ⎡⎣ Φ ( x + h ) − Φ ( x ) ⎤⎦ cos 45D = ⎣ (4.12)
2

⎡Φ ( x + h ) − Φ ( x ) ⎤⎦
2

d = ⎡⎣ Φ ( x + h ) − Φ ( x ) ⎤⎦ cos 45 = ⎣
2 D
2 2
(4.13)
2

From statistics, the expectation of d2 is given by

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.

Figure 4.15. The h-scatter plot.

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).

1. The Spherical Model

The spherical model is given by

⎛3 h 1 h3 ⎞
γ ( h ) = Co + C ⎜ − ⎟ for h < a
⎜ 2 a 2 a3 ⎟ (4.15)
⎝ ⎠
γ ( h ) = Co + C for h ≥ a

where a is the correlation length or range, Co is the nugget effect if


present and C is the sill minus Co.

2. The Exponential Model

The exponential model is given by

⎛ − ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎞
⎛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.

Figure 4.16. A comparison of the spherical and exponential models with


the same range and sill.

4-31
Figure 4.17. A comparison of the spherical and exponential models with
the same initial slope and sill.

3. The Gaussian Model

The Gaussian model is given by

⎛ −⎜ 2 ⎟ ⎞
⎛ h2 ⎞

γ ( h ) = Co + C ⎜⎜1 − e ⎝ ⎠ ⎟⎟
⎜a ⎟
(4.17)
⎜ ⎟
⎝ ⎠

Figure 4.18 shows an example of a Gaussian model with Co = 0, C


= 10 and a = 4 units.

4–32
Figure 4.18. Example Gaussian model.

4. The Linear Model

The linear model is given by

γ ( h ) = Co + m h (4.18)

where m is the slope. This model does not have a sill.

5. The Generalized Linear Model

The generalized linear model is given by

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.

5. The Nugget Effect Model

The nugget effect model is given by

γ ( 0) = 0
(4.20)
γ ( h ) = Co for h > 0

This model gives the variogram of a property that has a random


spatial distribution. It is basically a spherical model with a very

4–34
small range of influence. Figure 4.20 shows an example nugget
effect model.

Figure 4.20. The nugget effect model.

6. The Cardinal Sine Model (Hole Effect Model)

The cardinal sine model or hole effect model is given by

⎡ sin ( h / a ) ⎤
γ ( h ) = Co + C ⎢1 − ⎥ (4.21)
⎣ h/a ⎦

Figure 4.21 shows an example cardinal sine model with Co = 0, C =


10 and a = 1 unit. The sinusoidal nature of the variogram is an
indication of the periodic nature of the underlying heterogeneity.

4-35
Figure 4.21. The cardinal sine model (hole effect model).

Fitting a Theoretical Variogram Model to an Experimental


Variogram
Every experimental variogram can be fitted with a theoretical
variogram model. If one model does not fit the experimental variogram,
several models can be combined or nested to fit the experimental
variogram. The only restriction is that each of the combined models must
be applied to all the lag distances. It is not permissible to apply a model
up to a certain lag distance and then switch to a different model for the
remaining lag distances. The procedure for fitting a theoretical model to
an experimental variogram is a trial and error procedure.

To demonstrate the procedure for fitting a theoretical model to an


experimental variogram, let us compute the experimental variogram for
the permeability data from the results of the core analysis of Table 2.2
and then fit a theoretical model to it. To keep the magnitude of the

4–36
variogram manageable, we compute the variogram for the natural log of
the permeability rather than the permeability itself. Such a
transformation is frequently done in geostatistics to make the data more
manageable. The transformation affects the magnitude of the variogram
but not its shape. It is not unusual to transform the data, compute the
variogram, fit a theoretical model to the experimental variogram, use the
model to perform estimation and then transform the estimated data back
to its original units. It should be noted that the transformation in this
example does not imply that the permeability data is log normally
distributed. The transformation has been done purely for convenience.

The results of the calculations are summarized in Table 4.5.

Table 4.5. Variograms for Permeability Data of Table 2.2.

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

4847. 40 479 6.172 -0.044


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.

Figure 4.22. Experimental variogram for natural log of permeability for


core analysis data.

4–40
Figure 4.23 shows the fitted theoretical model from trial and error.
The nested model is

⎛3 h 1 h3 ⎞
γ ( h ) = 0.027 + 0.025 ⎜ − ⎟ + 0.000101h 2
⎜ 2 3 2 33 ⎟
⎝ ⎠

The nested model is of the form

γ ( h ) = Spherical Model + Generalized Linear Model

Figure 4.23. Theoretical variogram model fit to the experimental


variogram of core analysis data.

4-41
Let us now deal with the underlying trend in the permeability data.
Figure 4.24 shows a scatter plot of the log permeability data versus
relative depth together with the regression line. Clearly, there is an
underlying trend or drift in the permeability data. The trend line is

ln k = 0.0372 x + 4.7281

where x is the relative depth. This trend was subtracted from the lnk
data to obtain the corrected lnk data shown in column 5 of Table 4.5.

Figure 4.24. Permeability data showing underlying trend or drift.

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.

Figure 4.26 shows the experimental variogram and the theoretical


model fit after the drift has been removed. The experimental variogram is
the graph of the data in columns 6 and 8 of Table 4.5. We see that after
removing the underlying trend, the experimental variogram can be fitted
with a spherical model of the form

⎛3 h 1 h3 ⎞
γ ( h ) = 0.31 + 0.35 ⎜ − ⎟.
⎜ 2 9 2 93 ⎟
⎝ ⎠

Figure 4.25. Permeability data after the drift has been removed.

4-43
The true variogram of the natural log of permeability has a nugget effect
of 0.31, a sill of 0.66 and a correlation length of 9 ft.

Variogram Anisotropy
Variograms computed in different directions can show anisotropy.
Figure 4.27 shows two such anisotropies. In Figure 4.27a, the sills of the
variograms in the two directions are the same but the correlations
lengths are different. In Figure 4.27b, the slopes of the variograms in the
two directions are different. We can compute the correlation lengths or
the slopes of the variograms in different directions and plot them as

Figure 4.26. Variogram of natural log of permeability after removing the


underlying trend.

4–44
shown in Figure 4.28. If the plot turns out to be an ellipse as shown in
the figure, then a simple coordinate transformation can be used to
compute an equivalent isotropic variogram. If γ1(h) is the variogram in
direction 1, then the equivalent isotropic variogram is given by

⎛ ⎛ a1 ⎞ 2 ⎞⎟
2

γ ( h ) = γ 1 h1 + ⎜ ⎟ h2
2
(4.22)
⎜ ⎝ a2 ⎠ ⎟
⎝ ⎠

for the case of the correlation length anisotropy and

⎛ ⎛ ⎞
2 ⎞
slope
γ ( h ) = γ 1 ⎜ h1 + ⎜
2 1
⎟ 2⎟h 2 ⎟
(4.23)
⎜ ⎝ slope2 ⎠
⎝ ⎠

for the case of the slope anisotropy.

Figure 4.27. Geometric anisotropy.

4-45
Figure 4.28. Ellipses showing variogram anisotropy.

Figure 4.28b shows the importance of computing the variograms in at


least four directions in a 2D data set to reveal possible anisotropy. If the
variograms were computed only in the horizontal and vertical directions,
the anisotropy would be missed because, in the case shown in the figure,
the principal axes of the anisotropy make an angle of 45º with the
vertical and horizontal axes. As a result, the correlation lengths in the
vertical and horizontal directions are the same and would not reveal the
presence of the anisotropy.

In sedimentary rocks, because of layering, the sill of the variogram


in the vertical direction is usually different from that in the horizontal
direction because the degree of heterogeneity normal to the layers is
higher than along the layers. In this case, the variogram can be split into

two components, an isotropic component given by γ o ( )


h12 + h22 + h32 and a

vertical component given by γ v ( h3 ) . The overall variogram is then given

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.

Figure 4.29. Orthogonal directions in which variograms were computed


for CT data.

4-47
Figure 4.30 shows CT images for a vertical slice and a typical
cross-sectional slice of the sandpack. The packing method introduced
radial and longitudinal heterogeneities into the sandpack. Figures 4.31
and 4.32 show the experimental variograms for the sandpack in the
transverse and longitudinal directions. Figure 4.31 shows that the
vertical and horizontal variograms are essentially the same, confirming
the radial symmetry observed in the CT images of the sandpack. The
variogram in the longitudinal direction (Figure 4.32) has a wavy or
sinusoidal characteristic. This is caused by the longitudinal
heterogeneity introduced into the sandpack by the packing method. This
characteristic is known as a trend surface.

4–48
Figure 4.30. Vertical and cross-sectional slices of CT image of dry
sandpack (Peters and Afzal, 1992).

Figure 4.31. Experimental variograms for sandpack in the transeverse


directions (Y, Z) (Peters and Afzal, 1992).

4-49
Figure 4.32. Experimental variogram for sandpack in the longitudinal
direction (X) (Peters and Afzal, 1992).

Figure 4.33 shows CT images for a vertical slice and a typical


cross-sectional slice of the Berea sandstone. Figures 4.34 and 4.35 show
the experimental variograms for the Berea sandstone in the transverse
and longitudinal directions. Figure 4.34 shows a wavy characteristic in
the vertical direction (Y-direction). This is caused by the layering in that
direction. As expected, the magnitudes of the variograms show that the
medium is more heterogeneous in the Y-direction (across the layers) than
in the Z-direction (along the layers). Figure 4.35 shows that the
correlation length in the longitudinal direction (X-direction) is about 40
cm.

Clearly, the variograms are able to characterize the spatial


structure of the heterogeneity in the property of interest, in this case, the
x-ray absorption coefficient of a sandpack and a Berea sandstone.

4–50
4-51
Figure 4.33. Vertical and cross-sectional slices of CT image of dry Berea
sandstone (Peters and Afzal, 1992).

Figure 4.34. Experimental variograms for Berea sandstone in the


transeverse directions (Y, Z) (Peters and Afzal, 1992).

4–52
Figure 4.35. Experimental variogram for Berea sandstone in the
longitudinal direction (X) (Peters and Afzal, 1992).

4.3.2. Covariance (Autocovariance) Function


Definition
For sample data, the covariance function at a lag distance h is
defined as

∑ ⎡Φ
⎣ ( x ) − Φ ( x ) ⎤⎦ ⎡Φ
⎣ ( x + h ) − Φ ( x + h ) ⎤⎦
C (h) = (4.25)
Nh −1

The following observations can be made about the covariance function:

1. The covariance function gives the strength of the linear


relationship between Φ(x) and Φ (x+h).

2. The covariance function can be positive or negative. Recall that the


variogram function was non-negative.

4-53
3. Because the covariance function depends on the units of
measurement of Φ (x), it is not always possible to tell from the
magnitude of the covariance if the linear correlation is strong or
weak. A better measure of the strength of the linear correlation is
a dimensionless covariance function known as correlation
coefficient to be discussed next.

4. The table of data used to calculate the variogram can also be used
to calculate the covariance function. The algorithm for computing
the covariance function for unequally spaced data is similar to that
for computing the variogram. In this case, three one-dimensional
arrays should be used to store hij, Φ i and Φ j as the locations are

visited.

5. It will be shown that for a stationary random field, the variogram


and the covariance function are related by the equation

γ ( h ) = C ( 0) − C ( h) (4.26)

where C(0) is the covariance at a zero lag distance and is equal the
variance of the data, s2. The fact that C(0) is the variance of the
data set is apparent from the entries in Table 4.3 for h = 0. The
variance of the data is given by

∑ ⎡Φ
⎣ ( x ) − Φ ( x ) ⎦⎤ ⎣⎡Φ ( x ) − Φ ( x ) ⎦⎤ ∑ ⎣⎡Φ ( x ) − Φ ( x ) ⎤⎦
2

C (0) = = = s2 (4.27)
N −1 N −1

Thus, like the variogram, the covariance function also has hidden
in it the usual measure of variability by ordinary statistics.

4–54
Figure 4.36 shows a comparison of the covariance functions for
reservoirs A and B. The covariance function for reservoir A is periodic
indicating the random spatial distribution of the property in reservoir A
whereas the covariance function for reservoir B is smooth and orderly,
indicating the continuous nature of the spatial distribution of the
property in reservoir B. These are the same features observed in the
variograms. In fact, a comparison of Figures 4.36 and 4.6 shows that the
covariance function is roughly the variogram turned up-side-down about
the h-axis in the spirit of Eq.(4.26). This observation is more apparent in
Figures 4.37 and 4.38, which compare the variogram and the covariance
function for each reservoir. Thus, like the variogram, the covariance
function captures the correlation structure of the spatial distribution of
the property of interest and can be used for the purpose of estimation
instead of the variogram.

Figure 4.36. A comparison of the covariance functions for reservoirs A


and B.

4-55
Figure 4.37. A comparison of the variogram and the covariance function
for reservoir A.

4–56
Figure 4.38. A comparison of the variogram and the covariance function
for reservoir B.

Physical Meaning of Covariance Function


The covariance function measures the covariation of Φ(x) and
Φ(x+h) about their respective means. Figure 4.39 shows the scatter plot

⎣ ( x + h ) − Φ ( x + h ) ⎦⎤ versus ⎡Φ
for the covariation of ⎡Φ ⎣ ( x ) − Φ ( x ) ⎤⎦ at a fixed
lag distance h. The sum of the shaded areas divided by (Nh-1) is the
covariance function at that lag distance. Because the areas can be
positive or negative depending on which quadrant the scatter plot data
fall in, the covariance can be positive or negative. If the scatter plots are
concentrated along the axis AB in Figure 4.40, then all the areas will be
positive and the covariance will show a strong positive correlation. If the
scatter plots are concentrated along the axis CD, then all the areas are
negative and the covariance will show a strong negative correlation.

4-57
Figure 4.39. Scatter plot of covariation at a fixed lag distance.

4–58
Figure 4.40. Patterns of covariation at a fixed lag distance.

Figure 4.41 shows the scatter plot of the covariation for reservoir A at a
lag distance of 1 unit. The data are concentrated in the quadrants in
which all the areas are negative. Therefore, the covariance function will
be negative at this lag distance as can be confirmed in Figure 4.36 or
4.37.

4-59
Figure 4.41. Covariation for reservoir A at a lag distance of 1 unit.

A cross covariance function can be computed between two different


variables such as permeability and porosity. In that case, the cross
covariance is defined as

∑ ( k − k ) (φ − φ )
i i
C ( k ,φ ) = (4.28)
N −1

4.3.3. Correlation Coefficient Function (Autocorrelation Function)


Definition
The correlation coefficient function is the dimensionless version of
the covariance function and is defined as

4–60
C (h)
ρ (h) = (4.29)
sΦ( x ) sΦ( x + h )

where sΦ( x ) is the standard deviation of Φ ( x ) and sΦ( x + h ) is the standard

deviation of Φ ( x + h ) .

The following observations can be made about the correlation


coefficient function.

1. Like the covariance function, the correlation coefficient function


gives the strength of the linear relationship between Φ(x) and
Φ(x+h).

2. The correlation coefficient function is dimensionless and can vary


in value from –1 to +1 as may be seen in Figure 4.42, which shows
the correlation coefficient function for reservoir A.

Figure 4.42. Correlation coefficient function for reservoir A.

4-61
3. The magnitude of the correlation coefficient function is a measure
of the strength of the linear relationship between Φ(x) and Φ (x+h).

4. The sign of the correlation coefficient indicates the nature of the


correlation. If low Φ (x) are paired with low Φ (x+h) or high Φ (x) are
paired with high Φ (x+h), the correlation coefficient will be positive.
If low Φ (x) are paired with high Φ (x+h) or high Φ (x) are paired
with low Φ (x+h), the correlation coefficient will be negative.

5. If Φ (x) and Φ (x+h) are independent, then the correlation


coefficient (and the covariance) will be zero.

6. A zero correlation coefficient (or covariance) does not necessarily


mean that Φ (x) and Φ (x+h) are independent. They could be related
as a quadratic or other nonlinear function. Remember that the
correlation coefficient is a test for a linear relationship not a
quadratic relationship.

A cross correlation function between two variables such as


permeability and porosity can be computed as

C ( k ,φ )
ρ ( k ,φ ) = (4.30)
sk sφ

4.4 PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTIONS

There are several probability distributions in statistics, but only


the normal and the log normal distributions are presented in this section
because they are the two distributions most commonly observed in
petrophysical properties. Based on core analyses and field

4–62
measurements, it has been observed that porosity tends to follow a
normal distribution (see Figures 2.9 and 2.10) whereas permeability
tends to follow a log normal distribution.

4.4.1 Normal (Gaussian) Distribution

The probability density function for a normal distribution, also


commonly known as the Gaussian, is given by

1 ⎡ ( x − μ )2 ⎤
P ( x) = exp ⎢ − ⎥ for − ∞ ≤ x ≤ ∞ (4.31)
σ 2π ⎢⎣ 2σ 2 ⎥⎦

where x is a random variable and μ is the mean, σ2 is the variance and σ


is the standard deviation of the distribution. The distribution is
characterized by two parameters, the mean (μ) and the standard
deviation (σ). Figure 4.43 shows a normal distribution with μ = 5 and
standard σ = 4. The distribution is centered on the mean and is
symmetric about the mean. For this distribution, all the measures of the
central tendency of the distribution (mean, median and mode) have the
same numerical value. Note that the distribution extends from −∞ to +∞ .

Using the transformation

x−μ
z= (4.32)
σ

all normal distributions can be can standardized as

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

Figure 4.43. Normal (Gaussian) distribution with μ = 5 and σ = 4.

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 ≤ 1.96σ ) = 0.9500 (4.35)

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)

Figure 4.44. Standard normal distribution with baseline in standard


deviation units.

The cumulative distribution function for a normal distribution is


defined as

1 ⎡ ( x − μ )2 ⎤
F ( x) =
x

σ 2π ∫−∞ exp ⎢⎢ − 2σ 2 ⎥⎥ dx (4.40)


⎣ ⎦

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.

Figure 4.45. Cumulative normal distribution, mean μ and standard


deviation σ.

The cumulative distribution function is difficult to compute because the


integration called for in Eq.(4.40) cannot be performed analytically. Only
numerical integration is possible. It is not particularly convenient to
integrate any function numerically from −∞ to +∞ . To overcome this
difficulty, we undertake a transformation that allows the integration of
Eq.(4.40) using the complementary error function, which is tabulated in
mathematical handbooks.

4–66
Figure 4.46. Cumulative normal distribution plotted on probability
paper.

4-67
Let

x−μ
u= (4.41)
σ 2

dx
du = (4.42)
σ 2

Substituting Eqs.(4.41) and (4.42) into (4.40) gives the cumulative


distribution function as

1
F (u ) =
u

π ∫
e − u du
2
(4.43)
−∞

e−u
2

The function is symmetric about u = 0. Therefore,


π

1 u 1 ∞

π ∫ π ∫
e − u du = 1 − e − u du
2 2
(4.44)
−∞ u

Substituting Eq.(4.44) into (4.43) and rearranging gives

1⎛ 2 ∞ ⎞
F (u ) = ⎜ 2 − ∫ e − u du ⎟
2
(4.45)
2⎝ π u

Eq.(4.45) can be written as

1
F (u ) = ⎡ 2 − erfc ( u ) ⎤⎦ (4.46)
2⎣

where

4–68
2 ∞
erfc ( u ) =
π ∫
e− u du
2
(4.47)
u

The function, erfc(u), is the complementary error function, which arises


frequently in the solutions of certain partial differential equations of
mathematical physics such as the diffusivity equation, heat conduction
equation, diffusion equation and convection-dispersion equation. The
error function, erf(u), is defined as

2
erf ( u ) =
u

π ∫
e −u du
2
(4.48)
0

Thus,

erf ( u ) = 1 − erfc ( u ) (4.49)

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.

Table 4.6. Error and Complementary Error Functions

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

Figure 4.47. Graphs of error and complementary error functions.

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.

The Central Limit Theorem shows that the mean of a group of


numbers drawn randomly from any distribution tends to a normal
(Gaussian) distribution as the number of means increases. Thus, if we
calculate many times the sums of N variates drawn from a uniform
distribution, we should expect the sums to fall into a truncated normal
(Gaussian) distribution bounded by 0 and N, with a mean value of N/2. If

we generate N values of a random number ri from a uniform distribution

( 0 ≤ ri ≤ 1) and calculate

4-73
N
N
z = ∑ ri − (4.50)
i =1 2

the random variable z will be drawn from an approximately Gaussian


distribution with a mean μ and a standard deviation σ given by

μ =0 (4.51)

N
σ= (4.52)
12

The choice of N = 12 is particularly convenient because z will be a normal


(Gaussian) distribution with a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1.
Such a random variate can be used to draw a random sample, x, from a
normal (Gaussian) distribution of mean μ and standard deviation σ as

x = μ +σ z (4.53)

Eqs.(4.51) and (4.52) can be proved as follows. For a uniform


distribution of r between a and b, the mean or expectation of the
distribution is given by

r a+b
μ = E [r ] = ∫
b
dr = (4.54)
a b−a 2

The variance or second moment is given by

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

Substituting Eqs.(4.54) and (4.56) into (4.55) gives

a 2 + ab + b 2 ( a + b ) (b − a )
2 2

σ = Var ( r ) =
2
− = (4.57)
3 4 12

The mean of the variable z is given by

⎡i=N N⎤ ⎡N ⎤
μ = E [ z ] = E ⎢ ∑ ri − ⎥ = E [ r1 ] + E [ r2 ] + ... + E [ rN ] − E ⎢ ⎥ (4.58)
⎣ i =1 2⎦ ⎣2⎦

For the case of a = 0 and b = 1, Eq.(4.54) gives E[r]=1/2. Thus,


substituting this into Eq.(5.58) gives

1 1 1 N N N
μ = E [ z ] = + + ... + − = − =0 (4.59)
2 2 2 2 2 2

The variance of z is given by

⎡ N⎤
σ 2 = Var ( z ) = Var ⎢ r1 + r2 + ... + rN − (4.60)
⎣ 2 ⎥⎦

Since r1, r2, …, rN are independent, then

⎛N⎞
σ 2 = Var ( z ) = Var ( r1 ) + Var ( r2 ) + ... + Var ( rN ) − Var ⎜ ⎟ (4.61)
⎝2⎠

Substituting Eq.(4.57) with a = 0 and b = 1 into Eq.(4.61) gives

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

Eqs.(4.59) and (4.63) are the same as Eqs.(4.51) and (4.52).

The method of Box and Muller for generating normal deviates from
a uniform random number generator is as follows. Select two random

numbers r1 and r2 from a uniform distribution ( 0 ≤ ri ≤ 1) . Calculate

z1 = ( )
−2 ln r1 cos 2π r2 (4.64)

z2 = ( )
−2 ln r1 sin 2π r2 (4.65)

It can be shown that z1 and z2 are random deviates from a normal

(Gaussian) distribution with a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1.

The deviates can be used to draw two random variates (x1 and x2) with

mean μ and standard deviation σ as

x1 = μ + σ z1 (4.66)

x2 = μ + σ z2 (4.67)

4.4.2 Log Normal Distribution

The probability density function for a log normal distribution is


given by

4–76
1 1 ⎡ ( ln x − μ )2 ⎤
P ( x) = exp ⎢ − ⎥ (4.68)
σ 2π x ⎢⎣ 2σ 2 ⎥⎦

where x is a random variable and μ is the mean, σ2 is the variance and σ


is the standard deviation of lnx. The mean, τ, and the variance, ω2, of the
log normal distribution are related to the parameters of lnx as

⎛ σ2 ⎞
τ = exp ⎜ μ + ⎟ (4.69)
⎝ 2 ⎠

( )
ω 2 = eσ − 1 exp ( 2μ + σ 2 )
2
(4.70)

It should be noted that x has a log normal distribution whereas lnx has a
normal distribution.

Figure 4.49 shows a log normal distribution. The distribution is


positively skewed with a long tail towards the high values of x. Note that
x is always positive. Because of the high values in the tail, the mean is
larger than the median, which in turn is larger than the mode or
geometric mean. Note that in this case, the geometric mean is a better
measure of central tendency than the mean or the median.

4-77
Figure 4.49. Log normal distribution.

Figure 4.50 shows the cumulative distribution function for a log


normal distribution plotted on a log normal probability graph paper. On
this scale, the log normal distribution plots as a straight line. Such a plot
was used in Figure 4.1 to determine the Dykstra-Parsons coefficient of
permeability variation on the assumption the data were drawn from a log
normal distribution.

4–78
Figure 4.50. Cumulative log normal distribution plotted on log normal
probability paper.

4.5 ESTIMATION

4.5.1 Introduction

Estimation is one of the major applications of geostatistics, the


other being conditional simulation. The objective is to estimate the

4-79
variable of interest at a location xo for which no datum has been

measured, using the data measured at other locations xi distributed in

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

Figure 4.51. Sample data from a linear reservoir.

in Figure 4.52 to estimate Φ*3 and Φ*5 but would be at a loss about how to

estimate Φ*8 , where the asterisk is used in the symbols to distinguish

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

measured beyond location 8.

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)

We can easily generalize the estimator of Eq.(4.73) and the constraint of


Eq.(4.75) as follows:

i=N
Φ*o = ∑ λi Φ i (4.76)
i =1

subject to the constraint

∑λ
i =1
i =1 (4.77)

In Eq.(4.76), the subscript o has been used to indicate the location at


which an estimate is to be made and N could be the entire available data
set or a subset of the available data depending on the structure of the
heterogeneity. Let us now use Eqs.(4.76) and (4.77) to estimate
Φ*3 , Φ*5 and Φ*8 . For Φ*3 , λ2 = λ4 = 0.5 and

Φ*3 = ( 0.50 )( 30 ) + ( 0.50 )( 50 ) = 40

Similarly

4–82
Φ*5 = ( 0.50 )( 50 ) + ( 0.50 )( 20 ) = 35

To estimate Φ*8 , we proceed as follows. The weights, λi, in Eq.(4.76)

should be assigned to each measured value used in the estimation


depending on how close the measured value is to the point xo at which
the estimate is to be made. Unfortunately, there is no mathematical
expression for closeness. We can measure how far away each sample is
from the point of estimation but we cannot measure how close it is to the
point of estimation. Let us measure the lag distances of the measured
data from the point of estimation as

xo − x2 = 6Δx
xo − x4 = 4Δx
xo − x6 = 2Δx
Total = 12Δx

Based on the above lag distances, it is clear that Φ 6 should have the most

weight, followed by Φ 4 and Φ 2 . We can adopt several different strategies

to accomplish this. Here is one strategy. Let us make the weights


proportional to the inverse lag distances as follows:

α
λ2 = = 0.1667α
6
α
λ4 = = 0.2500α
4
α
λ6 = = 0.5000α
2
Total = 0.9167α

where α is to be chosen to satisfy the constraint of Eq.(4.77). In this case,


α = 1.0909. Thus,

4-83
α
λ2 = = 0.1667α = ( 0.1667 )(1.0909 ) = 0.1819
6
α
λ4 = = 0.2500α = ( 0.2500 )(1.0909 ) = 0.2727
4
α
λ6 = = 0.5000α = ( 0.5000 )(1.0909 ) = 0.5455
2
Total = 1.0000

Therefore,

Φ*8 = ( 0.1819 )( 30 ) + ( 0.2727 )( 50 ) + ( 0.5455 )( 20 ) = 30

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 .

Having completed the estimation, the next question is what is the


reliability of the estimates? What are the error bounds on the estimates?
Most professionals would give up at this point. This is where geostatistics
can help. Before presenting the geostatistical estimation technique
known as ordinary kriging, it is worthwhile to mention the major
limitation of the estimation undertaken above. It is that the structure of
the heterogeneity as represented by either the variogram, the covariance
function or the correlation coefficient function has not be taken into
account in the estimation.

Geostatistics uses a probabilistic framework to make estimations


and in so doing provides estimates that honor the correlation structure of

4–84
the heterogeneity. It also provides quantitative assessment of the
reliability of the estimates. Let us demonstrate a simple geostatistical
estimation using a probabilistic framework. Suppose we wish to estimate
the missing datum in Figure 4.53. Proceeding in the spirit of Eqs.(4.76)
and (4.47), let us use the first "ring" of data around the missing datum
(or rather first "square" of data) to obtain an estimate as

Φ*o = 19λ1 + 18λ2 + 17λ3 + 15λ4 + 18λ5 + 15λ6 + 15λ7 + 18λ8 (4.78)

The error of the estimation, which is unknown, is given by

i =8
eo = Φ*o − Φ o = 19λ1 + 18λ2 + 17λ3 + 15λ4 + 18λ5 + 15λ6 + 15λ7 + 18λ8 − Φ o ∑ λi (4.79)
i =1

where Φ o is the unknown missing datum. Notice that the constraint of

Eq.(4.47) has been used in Eq.(4.79). The error can be expanded as

eo = Φ*o − Φ o = (19 − Φ o ) λ1 + (18 − Φ o ) λ2 + (17 − Φ o ) λ3 + (15 − Φ o ) λ4


(4.80)
+ (18 − Φ o ) λ5 + (15 − Φ o ) λ6 + (15 − Φ o ) λ7 + (18 − Φ o ) λ8

4-85
Figure 4.53. Missing data from a 2D reservoir.

To simplify the calculations, let us choose λ2 = λ3 = λ4 = λ5 = λ6 = λ7 = λ8 =


0 and λ1 = 1. This is not the optimum choice of the weights and will not
lead to the best estimate. However, because the weights sum to 1, we
have not violated the estimation model given by Eqs.(4.46) and (4.47) and
as such the estimation is legitimate. With this simplification, our
estimate is

Φ*o = 19 (4.81)

and the error is now given by

4–86
eo = Φ*o − Φ o = (19 − Φ o ) (4.82)

Although the error given by Eq.(4.82) is unknown, there is enough


information in the available data for us to determine its statistics. If we
accept the premise that the error is a function of the lag distance, Δx 2 ,
then we can look at the field of data in the SW-NE direction to find
similar errors and from them determine the statistics of our error. There
are in fact 47 such errors in the data set. They are tabulated in column 4
of Table 4.7.

Table 4.7. Errors in the SW-NE Direction of the Data Set at a Lag
Distance of Δx 2 .

1 2 3 4 5
Error Φ(x) Φ(x+h) Φ(x+h - Φ(x) [Φ(x+h)-Φ(x)]2
#
1 23 22 -1 1
2 22 20 -2 4
3 20 19 -1 1
4 21 17 -4 16
5 17 17 0 0
6 17 14 -3 9
7 19 15 -4 16
8 15 18 3 9
9 18 20 2 4
10 20 16 -4 16
11 18 18 0 0
12 19 14 -5 25
13 14 19 5 25
14 17 16 -1 1
15 16 15 -1 1
16 15 18 3 9

4-87
17 18 18 0 0
18 18 23 5 25
19 23 16 -7 49
20 15 14 -1 1
21 14 10 -4 16
22 10 15 5 25
23 15 20 5 25
24 20 25 5 25
25 25 21 -4 16
26 21 14 -7 49
27 13 10 -3 9
28 10 16 6 36
29 16 18 2 4
30 18 20 2 4
31 20 20 0 0
32 20 17 -3 9
33 11 13 2 4
34 13 14 1 1
35 14 23 9 81
36 23 18 -5 25
37 18 19 1 1
38 10 13 3 9
39 13 18 5 25
40 18 22 4 16
41 22 13 -9 81
42 17 15 -2 4
43 15 20 5 25
44 20 20 0 0
45 16 14 -2 4
46 14 18 4 16
47 15 17 2 4

Mean 0.128
Variance 15.766 15.447

4–88
Std Dev 3.971 3.930
Semivarianc 7.723
e

As shown at the bottom of Table 4.7, the mean, variance and standard
deviation of the error are

μ = 0.128
σ 2 = 15.766 (4.83)
σ = 3.791

If we assume that the error is normally distributed, then we are 95%


confident that the error of our estimation is given by

μ − 1.96σ ≤ eo ≤ μ + 1.96σ (4.84)

Thus,

0.128 − 1.96 ( 3.791) ≤ (19 − Φ o ) ≤ 0.128 + 1.96 ( 3.791) (4.85)

−7.272 ≤ (19 − Φ o ) ≤ 7.558 (4.86)

or

11.442 ≤ Φ o ≤ 26.272 (4.87)

Given our knowledge of the missing datum, is the statement of Eq.(4.87)


true? You bet. Of course, it would have been nice if the 95% confidence
interval was narrower than that given by Eq.(4.87). It would have been
narrower if we had chosen the weights to minimize the variance of the

4-89
error of Eq.(4.80) instead of choosing them arbitrarily as we did to
simplify the calculations. Figure 4.54 shows the histogram of the errors
of Table 4.7, which indicates that the assumption of a normal
distribution of the errors in the calculation of the 95% confidence
interval is reasonable.

Figure 4.54. Histogram of errors in the SW-NE direction at h = Δx 2 .

It should be noted that the data in columns 2 to 5 of Table 4.7 are


the same data needed to calculate the semivariance at a lag distance of

h= ( 2 ) Δx in the SW-NE direction. From the calculations, we have

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:

0.000 − 1.96 ( 3.930 ) ≤ (19 − Φ o ) ≤ 0.000 + 1.96 ( 3.930 ) (4.90)

−7.703 ≤ (19 − Φ o ) ≤ 7.703 (4.91)

or

11.297 ≤ Φ o ≤ 26.703 (4.92)

The result given in Eq.(4.92) is essentially the same as that given by


Eq.(4.87). Therefore, in geostatistics, the variogram (or the covariance
function) is used to calculate the error variance. Having now
demonstrated a simple geostatistical estimation that gave both the
estimate and the confidence limits for the estimate, we are ready to
formally derive ordinary kriging equations for geostatistical estimation.

4.5.2 Ordinary Kriging Equations

The objective is to estimate an unknown variable at the location x0 at


which no measurement has been made using the measured data at
locations xi as shown in Figure 4.55. In geostatistical estimation, the
variable of interest is treated as a stationary random function with a

4-91
normal probability distribution. If the measured data do not exhibit a
normal distribution, they must first be transformed into a normal
distribution before proceeding further. Such a transformation can always
be done by using the cumulative distribution function of the data and
the cumulative distribution function of a standard normal distribution
with a mean of zero and a standard deviation of 1.0 as shown
schematically in Figure 4.56. After the estimation, the estimated value is
transformed back to its original distribution by using the same two
cumulative distribution functions in reverse order.

Figure 4.55. Schematic showing the locations sample data and the
location at which an estimation is to be made.

Figure 4.57 shows two random functions Z A ( x ) and Z B ( x ) together

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

result, Z A ( x ) is described as a stationary random function. By contrast,

4–92
the mean of random function Z B ( x ) is not constant throughout the field.

In fact, it increases as x increases. As a result, random function Z B ( x ) is

described as a non-stationary random function.

Figure 4.56. Transformation of sample data to a standard normal


distribution.

The kriging estimate is calculated as the weighted average of the


measured data as in Eq.(4.76). The challenge is to determine the weights
λi in such a way as to obtain the best estimate in some sense. The
criteria used in ordinary kriging to obtain the best estimate are (1) the
estimate should be unbiased and (2) the estimation error should have

4-93
minimum variance. Thus, ordinary kriging is a Best Linear Unbiased
Estimator (BLUE).

Figure 4.57. Stationary ( Z A ( x ) ) and non-stationary ( Z B ( x ) ) random


functions.

Derivation in Terms of the Covariance Function

The estimated value at the unsampled location xo is given by

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

samples drawn from the random function Z(x). Moreover, Z(x) is a


stationary random function with a constant mean, m, which is

independent of the locations xo and xi. Also, Eq.(4.93) is valid in 1D, 2D

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)

This error is a random variable with a probability distribution. In order to


obtain an unbiased estimate, on average, the mean estimation error
must be zero. Thus, for an unbiased estimate, the expectation of the
error must be zero:

E [ e( xo ) ] = E ⎡⎣ Z * ( xo ) − Z ( xo ) ⎤⎦ = 0 (4.95)

What is an unbiased or biased estimator? Figure 4.58 shows three


estimators for a petrophysical property whose value is know to μ.
Estimator 1 is unbiased but not very precise. Estimator 2 is unbiased

4-95
and more precise than estimator 1. Estimator 3 is biased and more
precise than estimator 1.

Figure 4.58. Biased and unbiased estimators.

Substituting Eq.(4.93) into Eq.(4.94) gives the condition for an


unbiased estimate as

⎡N ⎤
E ⎢ ∑ λi Z ( xi ) − Z ( xo ) ⎥ = 0 (4.96)
⎣ i =1 ⎦

Changing the order of the summation and the expectation gives

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

and is given by the mean of Z(x), m, which is a constant for the


stationary random function model used in the estimation. Eq.(4.97) can
now be written as

N
⎛ N

∑ λ m − m = ⎜⎝ ∑ λ − 1⎟⎠ m = 0
i =1
i
i =1
i (4.98)

The condition for an unbiased estimate is therefore given by

∑λ
i =1
i =1 (4.99)

which is the same as Eq.(4.77).

The error variance is given by

σ e2 = E ⎡⎢( Z * ( xo ) − Z ( xo ) ) ⎤⎥
2
(4.100)
⎣ ⎦

Substituting Eq.(4.93) into Eq.(4.100) gives the error variance as

⎡⎛ 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

Eq.(4.101) and make use of Eq.(4.99) (∑λi = 1) to obtain

4-97
⎡⎛ N ⎞ ⎤
2

σ = E ⎢⎜ ∑ λi ( Z ( xi ) − m ) − ( Z ( xo ) − m) ⎟ ⎥
2
e (4.102)
⎢⎣⎝ i =1 ⎠ ⎥⎦

Expanding the right side of Eq.(4.102) gives the estimation variance as

⎡⎛ 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
⎦⎥

Algebraically, the square of the simple summation in Eq.(4.103) can be


rewritten in terms of a double summation to obtain

⎡ N N N ⎤
σ e2 = E ⎢∑ ∑ λ λ ( Z ( x ) − m)(Z ( x ) − m) + ( Z ( x ) − m ) − 2∑ λi ( Z ( xi ) − m )( Z ( xo ) − m ) ⎥
2
i j i j o
⎣ i =1 j =1 i =1 ⎦

…………….(4.104)

Changing the order of the summation and the expectation in Eq.(4.104)


gives

N N
σ e2 = ∑ ∑ λ λ E ⎡⎣(Z ( x ) − m)(Z ( x ) − m) ⎤⎦ + E ⎡⎣( Z ( x ) − m ) ⎤
2

i =1 j =1
i j i j o

N
(4.105)
− 2∑ λi E ⎡⎣( Z ( xi ) − m )( Z ( xo ) − m ) ⎤⎦
i =1

The expectations in Eq.(4.105) can be expressed in terms of the


covariance function as follows:

N N N
σ e2 = ∑ ∑ λi λ j C (hij ) + C (0) − 2∑ λiC (hio ) (4.106)
i =1 j =1 i =1

4–98
where C(hij) is the covariance function, hij is the lag distance between

locations i and j, and hio is the lag distance between locations o and i.

Recall that the location of the point at which an estimate is to be made is


o and the locations of the data to be used in the estimation are at points
i. Eq.(4.106) can be rearranged as

N N N
σ e2 = C (0) + ∑ ∑ λi λ j C (hij ) − 2∑ λiC (hio ) (4.107)
i =1 j =1 i =1

But C(0), the covariance function at a lag distance of 0, is the same as

the variance of the data, σ2. Therefore, Eq.(4.107) can be written in the

following final form:

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

The estimation problem now boils down to determining the values

of λi, which will minimize the estimation variance given by Eq.(4.108)

subject to the unbiasedness constraint given by Eq.(4.99). This is a


classical problem of optimization, which can be solved by the method of
Lagrange multipliers.

Derivation in Terms of the Variogram


Eq.(4.108) can be derived in terms of the variogram instead of the
covariance function. To do so, we first derive the relationship between
the variogram and the covariance function for a stationary random
function, Z(x). By definition, the variogram is given by

γ (h) = 12 E ⎡( Z ( x) − Z ( x + h) ) ⎤
2
(4.109)
⎣ ⎦

4-99
Adding and subtracting the mean of the random function from the inner
bracket of Eq.(4.109) gives

γ (h) = 12 E ⎡⎢( ( Z ( x) − m ) − ( Z ( x + h) − m ) ) ⎤⎥
2
(4.110)
⎣ ⎦

Expanding the right side of Eq.(4.110) gives

γ (h) = 12 E ⎡( Z ( x) − m ) + ( Z ( x + h) − m ) − 2 ( Z ( x) − m )( Z ( x + h) − m ) ⎤ (4.111)
2 2

⎣ ⎦

Eq.(4.111) can be rewritten as

γ (h) = 12 E ⎡⎣( Z ( x) − m )( Z ( x) − m ) ⎤⎦ + 12 E ⎡⎣( Z ( x + h) − m )( Z ( x + h) − m ) ⎤⎦


(4.112)
− 22 E ⎡⎣( Z ( x + h) − m )( Z ( x) − m ) ⎤⎦

The expectations in Eq.(4.112) can be expressed in terms of the


covariance function as follows:

γ (h) = 12 C (0) + 12 C (0) − C (h) (4.113)

Finally, Eq.(4.113) yields the required relationship as

γ (h) = C (0) − C (h) (4.114)

which is the same as Eq.(4.26). For large lag distances, Eq.(4.114)


becomes

γ (∞) = C (0) − C (∞) (4.115)

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

these facts into Eq.(4.115) gives

γ (∞) = C (0) = σ 2 = sill of the variogram (4.116)

Figure 4.59 compares the variogram and the covariance function for a
stationary random function.

Figure 4.59. A comparison of the variogram and the covariance function


for a stationary random function.

We are now ready to rewrite the error variance equation, Eq.(4.108), in


terms of the variogram. From Eq.(4.114), we have

C (hij ) = C (0) − γ (hij ) (4.117)

C (hio ) = C (0) − γ (hio ) (4.118)

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

Eq.(4.119) can be rearranged as

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

Eq.(4.120) can be simplified to

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

Further simplification of Eq.(4.121) gives the error variance in terms of


the variogram in final form as

N N N
σ e2 = −∑ ∑ λi λ jγ (hij ) + 2∑ λiγ (hio ) (4.122)
i =1 j =1 i =1

Solution of the Kriging Equations in terms of the Covariance


Function

The problem to be solved is to choose the weights (λi) to minimize

the error variance given by Eq.(4.108) subject to the constraint given by


Eq.(4.99). The problem statement is as follows:

N N N
Minimize σ e2 (λi ) = σ 2 + ∑ ∑ λi λ j C (hij ) − 2∑ λiC (hio ) (4.123)
i =1 j =1 i =1

4–102
⎛ N ⎞
Subject to ⎜ ∑ λi − 1⎟ = 0 (4.124)
⎝ i =1 ⎠

This problem can be solved by the method of Lagrange multipliers. The


solution steps are as follows:

1. Convert all constraints into equality constraints.

2. Multiply each equality constraint by a new variable μi, where μi is

the Lagrange multiplier for the ith constraint.


3. Add (or subtract) the resulting constraint equations to the original
objective function to obtain the Lagrangian function, L. This step
relaxes the constraint and converts the constrained optimization to
an unconstrained optimization.
4. Differentiate the Lagrangian function and equate to zero to
determine the stationary points, which constitute the required
solution.

Applications of steps 1 to 3 to the problem at hand will result in the


following Lagrangian function:

N N N
⎛ N

L(λi , μ ) = σ 2 + ∑ ∑ λi λ jC (hij ) − 2∑ λiC (hio ) + 2μ ⎜ ∑ λi − 1⎟ (4.125)
i =1 j =1 i =1 ⎝ i =1 ⎠

Consider the case for N = 2. The Lagrangian can be expanded to obtain

L(λ1 , λ2 , μ ) = σ 2 + λ12C (h11 ) + λ1λ2C (h12 ) + λ2 λ1C (h21 )


+ λ22C (h22 ) − 2λ1C (h10 ) − 2λ2C (h20 ) (4.126)
+ 2λ1μ + 2λ2 μ − 2 μ

Differentiating Eq.(4.126) and equating to zero will give the following


linear simultaneous equations:

4-103
∂L
= 2λ1C (h11 ) + λ2C (h12 ) + λ2C (h21 ) − 2C (h10 ) + 2 μ = 0 (4.127)
∂λ1

∂L
= λ1C (h12 ) + λ1C (h21 ) + 2λ2C (h22 ) − 2C (h20 ) + 2 μ = 0 (4.128)
∂λ2

∂L
= 2λ1 + 2λ2 − 2 = 0 (4.129)
∂μ

Eqs.(4.127) to (4.129) can be rewritten in matrix form as

⎡ 2C (h11 ) C (h12 ) + C (h21 ) 2 ⎤ ⎡ λ1 ⎤ ⎡ 2C (h10 ) ⎤


⎢C ( h ) + C ( h ) 2C ( h22 ) 2 ⎥⎥ ⎢⎢λ2 ⎥⎥ = ⎢⎢ 2C (h20 ) ⎥⎥ (4.130)
⎢ 12 21

⎢⎣ 2 2 0 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ μ ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ 2 ⎥⎦

Because C(h12) = C(h21), Eq.(4.130) can be rewritten as

⎡ 2C (h11 ) 2C (h12 ) 2 ⎤ ⎡ λ1 ⎤ ⎡ 2C (h10 ) ⎤


⎢ 2C (h ) 2C (h ) 2 ⎥ ⎢λ ⎥ = ⎢ 2C (h ) ⎥ (4.131)
⎢ 21 22 ⎥⎢ 2⎥ ⎢ 20 ⎥

⎢⎣ 2 2 0 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ μ ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ 2 ⎥⎦

Upon dividing by 2, Eq.(4.131) simplifies to

⎡ C (h11 ) C (h12 ) 1 ⎤ ⎡ λ1 ⎤ ⎡ C (h10 ) ⎤


⎢C ( h ) C ( h ) 1 ⎥ ⎢ λ ⎥ = ⎢C ( h ) ⎥ (4.132)
⎢ 21 22 ⎥⎢ 2⎥ ⎢ 20 ⎥

⎢⎣ 1 1 0 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ μ ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ 1 ⎥⎦

Eq.(4.132) can be solved by standard techniques such as matrix


inversion or Gaussian elimination.

4–104
After solving Eq.(4.132), λ1, λ2 and μ can be substituted into

Eq.(4.123) to calculate the minimum estimation error variance. Let us


derive an algebraic expression for the minimum error variance.
Expanding Eq.(4.123) for N = 2 gives the error variance as

σ e2 (λ1 , λ2 , μ ) = σ 2 + λ12C (h11 ) + λ1λ2C (h12 ) + λ2 λ1C (h21 )


+ λ22C (h22 ) − 2λ1C (h10 ) − 2λ2C (h20 ) (4.133)

Eq.(4.133) can be rearranged as

σ e2 (λ1 , λ2 , μ ) = σ 2 + λ1 ⎡⎣λ1 C (h11 ) + λ2C (h12 ) ⎤⎦ + λ2 ⎡⎣λ1C (h21 ) + λ2 C (h22 ) ⎤⎦


− 2λ1C (h10 ) − 2λ2C (h20 ) (4.134)

From Eq.(4.132), it can be seen that

λ1 C (h11 ) + λ2C (h12 ) = C (h10 ) − μ


(4.135)

and

λ2 C (h21 ) + λ2C (h22 ) = C (h20 ) − μ


(4.136)

Substituting Eqs.(4.135) and (4.136) into Eq.(4.134) gives the minimum


estimation error variance as

σ e2min = σ 2 + λ1 ( C (h10 ) − μ ) + λ2 ( C (h20 ) − μ )


− 2λ1C (h10 ) − 2λ2C (h20 ) (4.137)

4-105
which simplifies to

2
σ e2min = σ 2 − μ − ∑ λi C (hio )
i =1
(4.138)

Eq.(4.138) can be used to calculate the minimum error variance directly

instead of substituting λ1, λ2 and μ into Eq.(4.123) to calculate the

minimum estimation error variance. Eq.(4.132) and (4.138) can easily be


generalized to any value of N. For example, for N = 4, Eqs.(4.132) and
(4.138) will become

⎡ C (h11 ) C (h12 ) C (h13 ) C (h14 ) 1 ⎤ ⎡ λ1 ⎤ ⎡ C (h10 ) ⎤


⎢C ( h ) C (h22 ) C (h23 ) C (h24 ) 1 ⎥⎥ ⎢⎢ λ2 ⎥⎥ ⎢⎢C (h20 ) ⎥⎥
⎢ 21

⎢C (h31 ) C (h32 ) C (h33 ) C (h34 ) 1 ⎥ ⎢ λ3 ⎥ = ⎢C (h30 ) ⎥ (4.139)


⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢C (h41 ) C (h42 ) C (h43 ) C (h44 ) 1 ⎥ ⎢ λ4 ⎥ ⎢C (h40 ) ⎥
⎢⎣ 1 1 1 1 0 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ μ ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ 1 ⎥⎦

and

4
σ e2min = σ 2 − μ − ∑ λi C (hio )
i =1
(4.140)

For any value of N, Eq.(4.132) can be generalized to the following N+1


linear simultaneous equations:

∑ λ C (h ) + μ = C (h
j =1
j ij io ) for i = 1, 2, ..., N

N
(4.141)
∑λ
j =1
j =1

4–106
The minimum estimation error variance can be generalized to

N
σ e2min = σ 2 − μ − ∑ λi C (hio )
i =1
(4.142)

The following observations can be made about the ordinary kriging


model in terms of the covariance function.

1. In order to set up the simultaneous equations to be solved, one

must first compute the lag distance matrix, hij. For N = 4, the

lag distance matrix will look like this:

⎡ h11 h12 h13 h14 ⎤ ⎡ 0 h12 h13 h14 ⎤


⎢h h22 h23 h24 ⎥⎥ ⎢⎢ h21 0 h23 h24 ⎥⎥
⎡⎣ hij ⎤⎦ = ⎢ 21 = (4.143)
⎢ h31 h32 h33 h34 ⎥ ⎢ h31 h32 0 h34 ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎣ h41 h42 h43 h44 ⎦ ⎣ h41 h42 h43 0⎦

2. Except for the one zero at the bottom corner, the diagonal
entries of the matrix equation to be solved are given by

C (h11 ) = C (h22 ) = ... C (hNN ) = C (0) = σ 2 (4.144)

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.

5. The solution λ1, λ2, …, λN and μ depends only on the spatial

coordinates of the data and not on the values of the data.

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.

Solution of the Kriging Equations in terms of the Variogram


In this case, the problem statement is

N N N
Minimize σ e2 (λi ) = −∑ ∑ λi λ jγ (hij ) + 2∑ λiγ (hio ) (4.145)
i =1 j =1 i =1

⎛ N ⎞
Subject to ⎜ ∑ λi − 1⎟ = 0 (4.146)
⎝ i =1 ⎠

The Lagrangian is given by

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 ⎠

For the case of N = 2, the Lagrangian can be expanded to obtain

L(λ1 , λ2 , μ ) = −λ12γ (h11 ) − λ1λ2γ (h12 ) − λ2λ1γ (h21 )


− λ22γ (h22 ) + 2λ1γ (h10 ) + 2λ2γ (h20 ) (4.148)
+ 2λ1μ + 2λ2 μ − 2 μ

Differentiating the Lagrangian and equating to zero will give the following
linear simultaneous equations:

4–108
∂L
= −2λ1γ (h11 ) − λ2γ (h12 ) − λ2γ (h21 ) + 2γ (h10 ) + 2μ = 0 (4.149)
∂λ1

∂L
= −λ1γ (h12 ) − λ1γ (h21 ) − 2λ2γ (h22 ) + 2γ (h20 ) + 2μ = 0 (4.150)
∂λ2

∂L
= 2λ1 + 2λ2 − 2 = 0 (4.151)
∂μ

Eqs.(4.149) to (4.151) can be rewritten in matrix form as

⎡ −2γ (h11 ) − [γ (h12 ) + γ (h21 ) ] 2 ⎤ ⎡ λ1 ⎤ ⎡ −2γ (h10 ) ⎤


⎢ ⎥
⎢ − [γ (h12 ) + γ (h21 ) ] −2γ (h22 ) 2 ⎥ ⎢⎢λ2 ⎥⎥ = ⎢⎢ −2γ (h20 ) ⎥⎥ (4.152)
⎢⎣ 2 2 0 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ μ ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ 2 ⎥⎦

Upon dividing by 2 and noting that γ(h12) = γ(h21), Eq.(4.152) can be

rewritten as

⎡γ (h11 ) γ (h12 ) −1⎤ ⎡ λ1 ⎤ ⎡γ (h10 ) ⎤


⎢γ (h ) γ (h ) −1⎥ ⎢λ ⎥ = ⎢γ (h ) ⎥ (4.153)
⎢ 21 22 ⎥ ⎢ 2 ⎥ ⎢ 20 ⎥
⎢⎣ 1 1 0 ⎥⎦ ⎣⎢ μ ⎥⎦ ⎣⎢ 1 ⎦⎥

After solving Eq.(4.153), λ1, λ2 and μ can be substituted into

Eq.(4.145) to calculate the minimum estimation error variance. Let us


derive an algebraic expression for the minimum error variance.
Expanding Eq.(4.145) for N = 2 gives the error variance as

σ e2 (λ1 , λ2 , μ ) = −λ12γ (h11 ) − λ1λ2γ (h12 ) − λ2 λ1γ (h21 )


− λ22γ (h22 ) + 2λ1γ (h10 ) + 2λ2γ (h20 ) (4.154)

4-109
Eq.(4.154) can be rearranged as

σ e2 (λ1 , λ2 , μ ) = −λ1 ⎡⎣λ1 γ (h11 ) + λ2γ (h12 ) ⎤⎦ − λ2 ⎡⎣λ1γ (h21 ) + λ2 γ (h22 ) ⎤⎦


+ 2λ1γ (h10 ) + 2λ2γ (h20 ) (4.155)

From Eq.(4.153), it can be seen that

λ1 γ (h11 ) + λ2γ (h12 ) = γ (h10 ) + μ


(4.156)

and

λ2 γ (h21 ) + λ2γ (h22 ) = γ (h20 ) + μ


(4.157)

Substituting Eqs.(4.156) and (4.157) into Eq.(4.155) gives the minimum


estimation error variance as

σ e2min = −λ1 (γ (h10 ) + μ ) − λ2 (γ (h20 ) + μ )


+ 2λ1γ (h10 ) + 2λ2γ (h20 ) (4.158)

which simplifies to

2
σ e2min = − μ + ∑ λiγ (hio )
i =1
(4.159)

Eqs.(4.153) and (4.159) can easily be generalized to any value of N. For


example, for N = 4, Eqs.(4.153) and (4.159) will become

4–110
⎡γ (h11 ) γ (h12 ) γ (h13 ) γ (h14 ) −1⎤ ⎡ λ1 ⎤ ⎡γ (h10 ) ⎤
⎢ −1⎥⎥ ⎢⎢λ2 ⎥⎥ ⎢⎢γ (h20 ) ⎥⎥
⎢γ (h21 ) γ (h22 ) γ (h23 ) γ (h24 )
⎢γ (h31 ) γ (h32 ) γ (h33 ) γ (h34 ) −1⎥ ⎢ λ3 ⎥ = ⎢γ (h30 ) ⎥ (4.160)
⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢γ (h41 ) γ (h42 ) γ (h43 ) γ (h44 ) −1⎥ ⎢λ4 ⎥ ⎢γ (h40 ) ⎥
⎢⎣ 1 1 1 1 0 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ μ ⎦⎥ ⎢⎣ 1 ⎦⎥

and

4
σ e2min = − μ + ∑ λiγ (hio )
i =1
(4.161)

For any value of N, Eq.(4.153) can be generalized to the following N+1


linear simultaneous equations:

∑ λ γ (h ) − μ = γ (h
j =1
j ij io ) for i = 1, 2, ..., N

N
(4.162)
∑λ j =1
j =1

The minimum estimation error variance can be generalized to

N
σ e2min = − μ + ∑ λiγ (hio )
i =1
(4.163)

The following observations can be made about the kriging model in


terms of the variogam.

1. The diagonal entries of the matrix equation to be solved are given


by

γ (h11 ) = γ (h22 ) = ... γ (hNN ) = 0 (4.164)

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.

2. Most of the entries in the matrix equation are numbers computed


from the variogram. It is essential that these numbers be
consistent and well behaved for the system of equations to have a
solution. Inconsistent numbers from an experimental variogram
could lead to a system of equations without a solution. This is why
a well behaved theoretical variogram model is usually fitted to the
experimental variogram and the theoretical variogram model is
then used instead of the experimental variogram for the estimation
calculations.

Example 4.1
The porosities at locations 1 and 4 in a linear reservoir have been
measured as shown Figure 4.60. The locations are evenly spaced 10
meters apart. The variogram for the porosity distribution in this reservoir
is shown in Figure 4.61. We are required to estimate the porosity at
location 3 at which no measurement was made.

4–112
Figure 4.60. Measured porosity values and their locations.

1. Calculate the best estimate of the porosity at location 3 based on


the available information and determine the 95% confidence
interval assuming a normal distribution.

2. Assuming a stationary random function model, carefully sketch on


Figure 4.60 the covariance function for the porosity distribution for
this reservoir showing important features of your sketch.

4-113
Figure 4.61. Variogram for Example 4.1.

3. Show that kriging is an exact interpolator. An exact interpolator


will return the measured value if it is applied at a location
containing a measured value. In other words, if kriging is applied
to estimate the porosity at location 1, it should return a value of
10% with a minimum error variance of 0.

Solution to Example 4.1


The best estimate of the porosity at location 3 can be obtained using
ordinary kriging. The kriging equations to be solved can be written by
inpection in terms of the covariance function as

⎡ C11 C12 1 ⎤ ⎡ λ1 ⎤ ⎡ C10 ⎤


⎢C 1 ⎥⎥ ⎢⎢λ2 ⎥⎥ = ⎢⎢C20 ⎥⎥ (4.165)
⎢ 21 C22
⎢⎣ 1 1 0 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ μ ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ 1 ⎥⎦

4–114
Let us adopt the following subscripts: Location 1 = 1, location 3 = 0 and
location 4 = 3. The matrix of lag distances for location 3 is (subscript 0) is

⎡ h11 h12 h10 ⎤ ⎡ 0 30 20 ⎤


⎢h = (4.166)
h20 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣30 0 10 ⎥⎦
meters
⎣ 21 h22

For a stationary random function, the variogram and the covariance


function are related by Eq.(4.114). Therefore, the covariances needed in
Eq.(4.165) can easily be computed from the variogram. Thus, the matrix
equation to be solved is

⎡ 5 2 1 ⎤ ⎡ λ1 ⎤ ⎡ 3 ⎤
⎢ 2 5 1 ⎥ ⎢λ ⎥ = ⎢ 4 ⎥ (4.167)
⎢ ⎥⎢ 2⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢⎣ 1 1 0 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ μ ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ 1 ⎥⎦

Eq.(4.167) can easily be solved by elimination to obtain

1
λ1 =
3
2
λ2 =
3
μ =0

The estimated porosity is given by

⎛1⎞ ⎛2⎞ ⎛1⎞ ⎛2⎞


φ0* = φ3* = ⎜ ⎟ Φ1 + ⎜ ⎟ Φ 4 = ⎜ ⎟ (10 ) + ⎜ ⎟ ( 25 ) = 20%
⎝3⎠ ⎝3⎠ ⎝3⎠ ⎝3⎠

The minimum error variance is computed from Eq.(4.140) as

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

The 95% confidence interval is given by

0 + (1.96 )(1.1547 ) ≤ ( 20 − φ3 ) ≤ 0 + (1.96 )(1.1547 )

2.26 ≤ ( 20 − φ3 ) ≤ 2.26

or

17.74 ≤ φ3 ≤ 22.26 or 20% ± 2.26%

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 ⎥⎦

The solution of Eq.(4.169) gives

4–116
1
λ1 =
3
2
λ2 =
3
μ =0

The estimated porosity is given by

⎛1⎞ ⎛2⎞ ⎛1⎞ ⎛2⎞


φ0* = φ3* = ⎜ ⎟ Φ1 + ⎜ ⎟ Φ 4 = ⎜ ⎟ (10 ) + ⎜ ⎟ ( 25 ) = 20%
⎝3⎠ ⎝3⎠ ⎝3⎠ ⎝3⎠

The minimum error variance is obtained from Eq.(4.159) as

2
⎛1 2 ⎞ 4
σ e2min = − μ + ∑ λiγ (hio ) = −0 + ⎜ x 2 + x1⎟ =
i =1 ⎝ 3 3 ⎠ 3

The minimum standard deviation is

4
σ e min = = 1.1547
3

The 95% confidence interval is given by

0 + (1.96 )(1.1547 ) ≤ ( 20 − φ3 ) ≤ 0 + (1.96 )(1.1547 )

2.26 ≤ ( 20 − φ3 ) ≤ 2.26

or

17.74 ≤ φ3 ≤ 22.26 or 20% ± 2.26%

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.

To demonstrate that kriging is an exact interpolator, we solve the


kriging equation at location 1, which contains a sample datum. We
should recover the sample value of 10% with an error variance of 0. The
matrix of lag distances is

⎡ h11 h12 h10 ⎤ ⎡ 0 30 0 ⎤


⎢h = (4.170)
h20 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣30 0 30 ⎥⎦
meters
⎣ 21 h22

Substituting these numbers into Eq.(4.165) gives the matrix equation to


be solved as

⎡ 5 2 1 ⎤ ⎡ λ1 ⎤ ⎡ 5 ⎤
⎢ 2 5 1 ⎥ ⎢λ ⎥ = ⎢ 2 ⎥ (4.171)
⎢ ⎥⎢ 2⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢⎣ 1 1 0 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ μ ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ 1 ⎥⎦

Eq.(4.171) can be solved to obtain

λ1 = 1
λ2 = 0
μ =0

φ0* = φ1* = (1) Φ1 + ( 0 ) Φ 4 = (1)(10 ) + ( 0 )( 25 ) = 10%

The minimum error variance is computed from Eq.(4.140) as

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

C ( h ) = 100e −0.3 h (4.172)

Solution to Example 4.2


To begin the calculations, we must determine the order in which the
estimates will be made. This order is determined by a random drawing.
Using a random number generator for integer values from 1 to 8, it has
been determined that the order for the estimations is 8, 1, 5, 7 and 3.
After estimating Φ*8 , this value is treated as a known sample and is used

along with the measured data for the subsequent estimations. Thus, the
number of equations to be solved increases as the estimation progresses.

We begin the calculations by visiting location (node) 8. In order to


generate a compact matrix equation, we renumber the known values as
shown in Figure 4.62. Next, we construct the lag distance matrix for
location 8 as shown in Table 4.8. The entries in Table 4.8 should be read
as follows. The indices 1, 2, 3 represent the locations of the renumbered
known values. The index 0 represents the location at which an estimate
is to be made. The other entries are lag distances. For example, h10 is the
lag distance (6Δx) from the point of estimation to the renumbered sample
1, h20 is the lag distance (4Δx) from the point of estimation to the
renumbered sample 2 and h30 is the lag distance (2Δx) from the point of
estimation to the renumbered sample 3. These are the lag distances
needed to construct the right hand side vector of the system of equations

4-119
to be solved. Therefore, they have been transferred into the last column
of the table under the heading hi0. The other entries in the table should
be self explanatory. For example, h11 is the lag distance between the
renumbered sample 1 and itself, which is zero.

Figure 4.62. Renumbered sample values for the estimation at location 8.

Table 4.8. Lag Distance Matrix hij for Location 8

1 2 3
0 6Δx 4Δx 2Δx hi0
1 0Δx 2Δx 4Δx 6Δx
2 2Δx 0Δx 2Δx 4Δx
3 4Δx 2Δx 0Δx 2Δx

The matrix equation to be solved is

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 ⎦

In this problem, Δx = 1 unit. Using the matrix of lag distances in Table


4.8 and Eq.(4.172), the entries of the covariance matrix of Eq.(4.173) can
easily be computed. For example, C12 is given by

C12 ( h12 ) = C ( 2 ) = 100e −0.3 2 = 54.8812

The results of the other calculations are shown in Eq.(4.174).

⎡100.0000 54.8812 30.1194 1 ⎤ ⎡ λ1 ⎤ ⎡16.5299 ⎤


⎢ 54.8812 100.0000 54.8812 1 ⎥ ⎢ λ ⎥ ⎢30.1194 ⎥
⎢ ⎥⎢ 2⎥ = ⎢ ⎥ (4.174)
⎢ 30.1194 54.8812 100.0000 1 ⎥ ⎢ λ3 ⎥ ⎢54.8812 ⎥
⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎣ 1 1 1 0⎦ ⎣ μ ⎦ ⎣ 1 ⎦

Eq.(4.174) can be solved by any standard method of solving a system of


linear simultaneous equations, for example, by matrix inversion. The
inverse matrix for Eq.(4.174) is

⎡ 0.0117 −0.0090 −0.0026 0.4080 ⎤


⎢ −0.0090 0.0181 −0.0090 0.1841 ⎥
Cij−1 = ⎢ ⎥ (4.175)
⎢ −0.0026 −0.0090 0.0117 0.4080 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎣ 0.4080 0.1841 0.4080 −63.1862 ⎦

Multiplying the right hand side of Eq.(4.174) into the inverse matrix of
Eq.(4.175) gives the solution vector as

4-121
⎡ λ1 ⎤ ⎡ 0.1841 ⎤
⎢ λ ⎥ ⎢ 0.0830 ⎥
⎢ 2⎥ = ⎢ ⎥ (4.176)
⎢ λ3 ⎥ ⎢ 0.7329 ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎣ μ ⎦ ⎣ −28.5088⎦

The kriged value is calculated as

Φ*0 = Φ*8 = ( 0.1841)( 30 ) + ( 0.0830 )( 50 ) + ( 0.7329 )( 20 ) = 24.3321

The minimum error variance (estimation variance) is computed from


Eq.(4.140) as

3
σ e2min = σ 2 − μ − ∑ λi C (hio ) = 100 − ( −28.5089 )
i =1

− ( 0.1841x16.5299 + 0.0830 x30.1194 + 0.7329 x54.8812 ) = 82.7434

The minimum standard deviation (estimation standard deviation) is

σ e min = 82.7435 = 9.0963

The 95% confidence interval is given by

Φ*8 = 24.3321 ± (1.96 )( 9.0963) = 24.33 ± 17.83

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.

Table 4.9. Lag Distance Matrix hij for Location 1

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

⎡ C11 C12 C13 C14 1 ⎤ ⎡ λ1 ⎤ ⎡ C10 ⎤


⎢C 1 ⎥⎥ ⎢⎢λ2 ⎥⎥ ⎢⎢C20 ⎥⎥
⎢ 21 C22 C23 C24
⎢C31 C32 C33 C34 1 ⎥ ⎢ λ3 ⎥ = ⎢C30 ⎥ (4.177)
⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢C41 C42 C43 C44 1 ⎥ ⎢λ4 ⎥ ⎢C40 ⎥
⎢⎣ 1 1 1 1 0 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ μ ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ 1 ⎥⎦

Using the matrix of lag distances in Table 4.9 and Eq.(4.170), Eq.(4.177)
becomes

⎡100.0000 54.8812 30.1194 16.5299 1 ⎤ ⎡ λ1 ⎤ ⎡ 74.0818 ⎤


⎢ 54.8812 100.0000 54.8812 30.1194 1 ⎥ ⎢λ ⎥ ⎢ 40.6570 ⎥
⎢ ⎥⎢ 2⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ 30.1194 54.8812 100.0000 54.8812 1 ⎥ ⎢ λ3 ⎥ = ⎢ 22.3130 ⎥ (4.178)
⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ 16.5299 30.1194 54.8812 100.0000 1 ⎥ ⎢λ4 ⎥ ⎢12.2456 ⎥
⎢⎣ 1 1 1 1 0 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ μ ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ 1 ⎥⎦

The inverse matrix for Eq.(4.178) is

⎡ 0.0121 −0.0089 −0.0010 −0.0022 0.3445 ⎤


⎢ −0.0089 0.0182 −0.0083 −0.0010 0.1555 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
Cij−1 = ⎢ −0.0010 −0.0083 0.0182 −0.0089 0.1555 ⎥ (4.179)
⎢ ⎥
⎢ −0.0022 −0.0010 −0.0089 0.0121 0.3445 ⎥
⎢⎣ 0.3445 0.1555 0.1555 0.3445 −53.3636 ⎥⎦

Multiplying the right hand side of Eq.(4.178) into the inverse matrix of
Eq.(4.179) gives the solution vector as

⎡ λ1 ⎤ ⎡ 0.8301 ⎤
⎢ λ ⎥ ⎢ 0.0403 ⎥
⎢ 2⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ λ3 ⎥ = ⎢ 0.0403 ⎥ (4.180)
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ λ4 ⎥ ⎢ 0.0893 ⎥
⎢⎣ μ ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ −13.8309 ⎥⎦

4–124
The kriged value is calculated as

Φ*0 = Φ1* = ( 0.8301)( 30 ) + ( 0.0403)( 50 ) + ( 0.0403)( 20 ) + ( 0.0893)( 24.3321) = 29.8968

The estimation variance is computed from Eq.(4.140) as

3
σ e2min = σ 2 − μ − ∑ λi C (hio ) = 100 − ( −13.8309 )
i =1

− ( 0.8301x74.0819 + 0.0403 x 40.6570 + 0.0403 x 22.3130 + 0.0893x12.2456 ) = 48.7035

The estimation standard deviation is

σ e min = 48.7035 = 6.9788

The 95% confidence interval is given by

Φ*8 = 29.8968 ± (1.96 )( 6.9788 ) = 29.99 ± 13.68

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.

Table 4.10. Lag Distance Matrix hij for 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

⎡ C11 C12 C13 C14 C15 1 ⎤ ⎡ λ1 ⎤ ⎡ C10 ⎤


⎢C C22 C23 C24 C25 1 ⎥⎥ ⎢⎢λ2 ⎥⎥ ⎢⎢C20 ⎥⎥
⎢ 21
⎢C31 C32 C33 C34 C35 1 ⎥ ⎢ λ3 ⎥ ⎢C30 ⎥
⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ = ⎢ ⎥ (4.181)
⎢C41 C42 C43 C44 C45 1 ⎥ ⎢λ4 ⎥ ⎢C40 ⎥
⎢C51 C52 C53 C54 C55 1 ⎥ ⎢ λ5 ⎥ ⎢C50 ⎥
⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎣ 1 1 1 1 1 0⎦ ⎣ μ ⎦ ⎣ 1 ⎦

Using the matrix of lag distances in Table 4.10 and Eq.(4.170), Eq.(4.181)
becomes

⎡100.0000 54.8812 30.1194 16.5299 74.0818 1 ⎤ ⎡ λ1 ⎤ ⎡ 40.6570 ⎤


⎢ 54.8812 100.0000 54.8812 30.1194 40.6570 1 ⎥ ⎢λ ⎥ ⎢ 74.0818 ⎥
⎢ ⎥⎢ 2⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ 30.1194 54.8812 100.0000 54.8812 22.3130 1 ⎥ ⎢ λ3 ⎥ ⎢ 74.0818 ⎥
⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ = ⎢ ⎥ (4.182)
⎢ 16.5299 30.1194 54.8812 100.0000 12.2456 1 λ
⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢
4 40.6570 ⎥
⎢ 74.0818 40.6570 22.3130 12.2456 100.0000 1 ⎥ ⎢ λ5 ⎥ ⎢ 30.1194 ⎥
⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎣ 1 1 1 1 1 0⎦ ⎣ μ ⎦ ⎣ 1 ⎦

The inverse matrix for Eq.(4.182) is

⎡ 0.0262 −0.0082 −0.0003 −0.0007 −0.0170 0.1088 ⎤


⎢ −0.0082 0.0182 −0.0083 −0.0009 −0.0008 0.1440 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ −0.0003 −0.0083 0.0182 −0.0088 −0.0008 0.1440 ⎥
Cij−1 = ⎢ ⎥ (4.183)
⎢ −0.0007 −0.0009 −0.0088 0.0122 −0.0018 0.3192 ⎥
⎢ −0.0170 −0.0008 −0.0008 −0.0018 0.0205 0.2840 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎣ 0.1088 0.1440 0.1440 0.3192 0.2840 −49.4359 ⎦

Multiplying the right hand side of Eq.(4.182) into the inverse matrix of
Eq.(4.183) gives the solution vector as

4-127
⎡ λ1 ⎤ ⎡ 0.0047 ⎤
⎢ λ ⎥ ⎢ 0.4846 ⎥
⎢ 2⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ λ3 ⎥ ⎢ 0.4846 ⎥
⎢ ⎥=⎢ ⎥ (4.184)
⎢ λ4 ⎥ ⎢ 0.0138 ⎥
⎢ λ5 ⎥ ⎢ 0.0123 ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎣ μ ⎦ ⎣ −2.1441⎦

The kriged value is calculated as

Φ*0 = Φ*5 = ( 0.0047 )( 30 ) + ( 0.4846 )( 50 ) + ( 0.4846 )( 20 ) + ( 0.0138 )( 24.3321)


+ ( 0.0123)( 29.8968 ) = 34.7659

The estimator variance is computed from Eq.(4.140) as

3
σ e2min = σ 2 − μ − ∑ λi C (hio ) = 100
i =1

⎛ 0.0047 x 40.6570 + 0.4846 x74.0818 + 0.4846 x74.0818 ⎞


− ( −2.1441) − ⎜ ⎟ = 29.2243
⎝ +0.0138 x 40.6570 + 0.0123x30.1194 ⎠

The estimator standard deviation is

σ e min = 29.2243 = 5.4059

The 95% confidence interval is given by

Φ*8 = 34.7659 ± (1.96 )( 5.4059 ) = 34.77 ± 10.60

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.

Table 4.11. Lag Distance Matrix hij for Location 7

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

⎡ C11 C12 C13 C14 C15 C16 1 ⎤ ⎡ λ1 ⎤ ⎡ C10 ⎤


⎢C C22 C23 C24 C25 C26 1 ⎥⎥ ⎢⎢ λ2 ⎥⎥ ⎢⎢C20 ⎥⎥
⎢ 21
⎢C31 C32 C33 C34 C35 C36 1 ⎥ ⎢ λ3 ⎥ ⎢C30 ⎥
⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢C41 C42 C43 C44 C45 C46 1 ⎥ ⎢ λ4 ⎥ = ⎢C40 ⎥ (4.185)
⎢C51 C52 C53 C54 C55 C56 1 ⎥ ⎢ λ5 ⎥ ⎢C50 ⎥
⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢C61 C62 C63 C64 C65 C66 1 ⎥ ⎢ λ6 ⎥ ⎢C60 ⎥
⎢ 1
⎣ 1 1 1 1 1 0 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ μ ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ 1 ⎥⎦

Using the matrix of lag distances in Table 4.11 and Eq.(4.170), Eq.(4.185)
becomes

⎡100.0000 54.8812 30.1194 16.5299 74.0818 40.6570 1 ⎤ ⎡ λ1 ⎤ ⎡ 22.3130 ⎤


⎢ 54.8812 100.0000 54.8812 30.1194 40.6570 74.0818 1 ⎥ ⎢λ ⎥ ⎢ 40.6570 ⎥
⎢ ⎥⎢ 2⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ 30.1194 54.8812 100.0000 54.8812 22.3130 74.0818 1 ⎥ ⎢ λ3 ⎥ ⎢ 74.0818 ⎥
⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ 16.5299 30.1194 54.8812 100.0000 12.2456 40.6570 1 ⎥ ⎢λ4 ⎥ = ⎢ 74.0818 ⎥
⎢ 74.0818 40.6570 22.3130 12.2456 100.0000 30.1194 1 ⎥ ⎢ λ5 ⎥ ⎢16.5299 ⎥
⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ 54.8812 74.0818 74.0818 40.6570 30.1194 100.0000 1 ⎥ ⎢ λ6 ⎥ ⎢54.8812 ⎥
⎢ 0 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ μ ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ 1 ⎥⎦
⎣ 1 1 1 1 1 1
……... (4.186)

The inverse matrix for Eq.(4.186) is

⎡ 0.0322 −0.0023 0.0073 −0.0006 −0.0207 −0.0159 0.0993 ⎤


⎢ −0.0023 0.0239 −0.0008 −0.0009 −0.0044 −0.0155 0.1348 ⎥⎥

⎢ 0.0073 −0.0008 0.0279 −0.0087 −0.0055 −0.0202 0.1320 ⎥
−1 ⎢ ⎥
Cij = ⎢ −0.0006 −0.0009 −0.0087 0.0122 −0.0019 −0.0002 0.3191 ⎥ (4.187)
⎢ −0.0207 −0.0044 −0.0055 −0.0019 0.0228 0.0097 0.2898 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ −0.0159 −0.0155 −0.0202 −0.0002 0.0097 0.0420 0.0251 ⎥
⎢ 0.0993 0.0251 −49.4209 ⎥⎦
⎣ 0.1348 0.1320 0.3191 0.2898

4–130
Multiplying the right hand side of Eq.(4.186) into the inverse matrix of
Eq.(4.187) gives the solution vector as

⎡ λ1 ⎤ ⎡ 0.0047 ⎤
⎢ λ ⎥ ⎢ 0.0058 ⎥
⎢ 2⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ λ3 ⎥ ⎢ 0.4841 ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ λ4 ⎥ = ⎢ 0.4921 ⎥ (4.188)
⎢ λ5 ⎥ ⎢ 0.0123 ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ λ6 ⎥ ⎢ 0.0009 ⎥
⎢ μ ⎥ ⎢ −2.1422 ⎥
⎣ ⎦ ⎣ ⎦

The kriged value is calculated as

Φ*0 = Φ*7 = ( 0.0047 )( 30 ) + ( 0.0058 )( 50 ) + ( 0.4841)( 20 ) + ( 0.4921)( 24.3321)


+ ( 0.0123)( 29.8968 ) + ( 0.0009 )( 34.7659 ) = 22.4886

The estimation variance is computed from Eq.(4.140) as

3
σ e2min = σ 2 − μ − ∑ λi C (hio ) = 100
i =1

⎛ 0.0047 x 22.3130 + 0.0058 x 40.6570 + 0.4841x74.0818 ⎞


− ( −2.1422 ) − ⎜ ⎟ = 29.2242
⎝ +0.4921x74.0818 + 0.0123x16.5299 + 0.0009 x54.8812 ⎠

The estimation standard deviation is

σ e min = 29.2242 = 5.4059

The 95% confidence interval is given by

Φ*7 = 22.4886 ± (1.96 )( 5.4059 ) = 22.4886 ± 10.60

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.

Figure 4.66. Sample data set for the estimation at location 3.

Next, we visit location 3 and construct the lag distance matrix shown in
Table 4.12.

Table 4.12. Lag Distance Matrix hij for Location 3

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

⎡ C11 C12 C13 C14 C15 C16 C17 1 ⎤ ⎡ λ1 ⎤ ⎡ C10 ⎤


⎢C C22 C23 C24 C25 C26 C27 1 ⎥⎥ ⎢⎢ λ2 ⎥⎥ ⎢⎢C20 ⎥⎥
⎢ 21
⎢C31 C32 C33 C34 C35 C36 C37 1 ⎥ ⎢ λ3 ⎥ ⎢C30 ⎥
⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢C41 C42 C43 C44 C45 C46 C47 1 ⎥ ⎢ λ4 ⎥ ⎢C40 ⎥
= (4.189)
⎢C51 C52 C53 C54 C55 C56 C57 1 ⎥ ⎢ λ5 ⎥ ⎢C50 ⎥
⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢C61 C62 C63 C64 C65 C66 C67 1 ⎥ ⎢ λ6 ⎥ ⎢C60 ⎥
⎢C C72 C73 C74 C75 C76 C77 1 ⎥ ⎢λ7 ⎥ ⎢C70 ⎥
⎢ 71 ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢⎣ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ μ ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ 1 ⎥⎦

Using the matrix of lag distances in Table 4.12 and Eq.(4.170), Eq.(4.189)
becomes

⎡100.0000 54.8812 30.1194 16.5299 74.0818 40.6570 22.3130 1 ⎤ ⎡ λ1 ⎤ ⎡ 74.0818 ⎤


⎢ 54.8812 100.0000 54.8812 30.1194 40.6570 74.0818 40.6570 1 ⎥ ⎢ λ ⎥ ⎢ 74.0818 ⎥
⎢ ⎥⎢ 2⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ 30.1194 54.8812 100.0000 54.8812 22.3130 74.0718 74.0818 1 ⎥ ⎢ λ3 ⎥ ⎢ 40.6570 ⎥
⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ 16.5299 30.1194 54.8812 100.0000 12.2456 40.6570 74.0818 1 ⎥ ⎢ λ4 ⎥ = ⎢ 22.3130 ⎥
⎢ 74.0818 40.6570 22.3130 12.2456 100.0000 30.1194 16.5299 1 ⎥ ⎢ λ5 ⎥ ⎢54.8812 ⎥
⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ 54.8812 74.0818 74.0818 40.6570 30.1194 100.0000 54.8812 1 ⎥ ⎢ λ6 ⎥ ⎢54.8812 ⎥
⎢ 22.3130 40.6570 74.0818 74.0818 16.5299 54.8812 100.0000 1 ⎥ ⎢λ ⎥ ⎢30.1194 ⎥
⎢ ⎥⎢ 7⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢⎣ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ μ ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ 1 ⎥⎦
…… (4.190)

The inverse matrix for Eq.(4.190) is

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 ⎥⎦

The kriged value is calculated as

Φ*0 = Φ*3 = ( 0.4841)( 30 ) + ( 0.5972 )( 50 ) + ( 0.1170 )( 20 ) + ( 0.0151)( 24.3321)


+ ( 0.0151)( 29.8968 ) − ( 0.2325 )( 34.7659 ) + ( 0.0039 )( 22.4886 ) = 39.5490

The estimation variance is computed from Eq.(4.140) as

3
σ e2min = σ 2 − μ − ∑ λi C (hio ) = 100 − ( −2.6342 )
i =1

⎛ 0.4841x74.0818 + 0.5972 x74.0818 + 0.1170 x 40.6570 ⎞


−⎜ ⎟ = 29.2455
⎝ +0.0.0151x 22.3130 + 0.0151x54.8812 − 0.2325 x54.8812 + 0.0039 x30.1194 ⎠

The estimation standard deviation is

4–134
σ e min = 29.2455 = 5.4079

The 95% confidence interval is given by

Φ*7 = 39.5490 ± (1.96 )( 5.4079 ) = 39.55 ± 10.60

Table 4.13 presents a summary of the results of the estimation. Figure


4.67 shows the estimated values along with the measured values. It
should be noted that kriging gives the estimated values of Φ*3 and Φ*5 that

are essentially the same as those obtained from the linear interpolation
of Figure 4.52.

Table 4.13. Results of Estimations for Example 4.2.

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.

Using kriging, we are now able to estimate the petrophysical


properties for all the grid blocks of our reservoir simulation model that
honor the measured data and the correlation structure of the
heterogeneous properties. Further, we are able to estimate the
uncertainty associated with the estimates at each grid block. We have
made significant progress in dealing with the heterogeneities of our
reservoir rock.

We have studied ordinary kriging. There are other types of kriging


such as simple kriging, universal kriging, block kriging and ordinary

4–136
cokriging. These other types of kriging are usually covered in a
geostastistics course.

4.6 CONDITIONAL SIMULATION

4.6.1 Introduction

Kriging gives a smooth estimate because the estimate is a weighted


average of the sample data. Such a weighted average can never be larger
than the largest sample value nor can it be smaller than the smallest
sample value. Thus, kriging eliminates local variability. If such local
variability is important, then it can be incorporated into the estimated
values using conditional simulation. Conditional simulation also is
referred to as stochastic simulation or Monte Carlo simulation is the
other major application of geostatistics. The simulation is conditioned on
the measured data.

The idea behind conditional simulation is as follows. Each of the


estimates obtained from kriging was associated with an uncertainty in
the estimated value measured by the estimation variance or the
estimation standard deviation. Thus, the kriged estimate is a random
variable with a known variance or standard deviation. If the kriged value
comes from a normal distribution, then it is possible to draw a simulated
value from this distribution that is centered on the kriged value and has
a variance that is equal to the estimation variance and a standard
deviation that is equal to the estimation standard deviation.

4.6.2 Sequential Gaussian Simulation

The objective is to perform a stochastic simulation to estimate the


values of a petrophysical property in a heterogeneous reservoir at

4-137
locations for which no sample data have been measured. The simulated
values should honor the measured sample data and the correlation
structure of the heterogeneity as revealed by the analysis of the sample
data. Further, it should retain the local variability. Here is an algorithm
for performing such a stochastic simulation known as Sequential
Gaussian Simulation (SGS).

1. Select at random a location or node not yet simulated in the grid.

2. Use ordinary kriging to compute the local estimate at the node


along with the estimation variance and the estimation standard
deviation.

3. Draw a random value from a normal distribution with a mean


equal to the kriged estimate and a standard deviation equal to the
estimation standard deviation at that node. This is the simulated
value at that node. This step can be accomplished by using either
Eq.(4.50, (4.64) or (4.65) to draw a sample from a standard normal
distribution and then applying either Eq.(4.53), (4.66) or (4.67) to
compute the simulated value as

Φ si = Φ*i + σ ei zi (4.193)

where Φ si is the simulated value at location i, Φ*i is the kriged value

at location i, σ ei is the standard deviation or the square root of the

estimation variance at location i and zi is a standard normal

variate with μ = 0 and σ = 1 drawn for location i. Note that upon


moving to a new location, a new zi must be drawn for that

location.

4–138
4. Include the newly simulated value in the set of conditioning data
and use the expanded data set to simulate the value at the next
location.

5. Proceed to the next location, which of course was selected


randomly at the start, and repeat the calculations to simulate the
value at this location.

6. Repeat the calculations until all grid nodes have a simulated value.

7. This completes one realization of the simulation. Other realizations


can be obtained by repeating the calculations from step 1. To do
so, the order of the simulation is first determined using a random
number generator. This order should be different from all previous
orders. The calculations will then yield a new realization, whose
simulated values will be different from the previous realizations. If
there are N nodes to be simulated, there will be N! (N factorial)
possible realizations.

Example 4.3
Simulate values at the locations 1, 3, 5, 7 and 8 of Figure 4.51 at which
no samples were taken using Sequential Gaussian Simulation.

Solution to Example 4.3.


Let us simulate one realization. The first part of the calculations was
done in Example 4.2 in which kriged estimates were computed in the
following random order: 8, 1, 5, 7 and 3. The estimation variance and
standard deviations also were computed and presented in Table 4.13. To
simulate values at the five nodes, we draw five variates from a standard
normal distribution using Eq.(4.50, (4.64) or (4.65). For example, using

4-139
Eq.(4.64) the following five variates were drawn from a standard normal
distribution:

0.8821
-1.1679
0.6419
2.8546
0.91009

Using these numbers, we can simulate the values at nodes 8, 1, 5, 7 and


3 as follows:

Φ*s 8 = Φ*8 + σ e8 z8 = 24.33 + ( 9.10 )( 0.8821) = 32.36

Φ*s1 = Φ1* + σ e1 z1 = 29.90 + ( 6.98 )( −1.1679 ) = 21.75

Φ*s 5 = Φ*5 + σ e5 z5 = 34.77 + ( 5.41)( 0.6419 ) = 38.24

Φ*s 7 = Φ*7 + σ e 7 z7 = 22.49 + ( 5.41)( 2.8546 ) = 37.92

Φ*s 3 = Φ*3 + σ e 3 z3 = 39.55 + ( 5.41)( 0.9009 ) = 44.42

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.

4.6.3 A Practical Application of Sequential Gaussian Simulation

A laboratory waterflood experiment was conducted to determine


the oil recovery curve for a viscous oil reservoir (μo = 100 cp). The
coreflood experiment was performed in an unconsolidated sandpack.
The task at hand is to use the laboratory test in a sandpack to forecast
the oil recovery curve for a heterogeneous reservoir. Figure 4.69 shows
the CT images of the laboratory waterflood at three times just before
water breakthrough. It is shows a fairly uniform displacement of oil by

4-141
the water. Figure 4.70 shows the oil recovery curve from the experiment.
It should observed that even for a fairly uniform sandpack, the oil
recovery after 3 pore volumes of water injection is less than 60% of the
initial oil in place. What will be the oil recovery in a reservoir with
significant permeability heterogeneity?

Figure 4.69. CT images of a laboratory waterflood in a sandpack: (a) 0.05


pore volume injected, (b) 0.10 pore volume injected, ( c) 0.25 pore volume
injected (Gharbi and Peters, 1993)
.

4–142
Figure 4.70. Oil recovery curve for a laboratory waterflood in a sandpack
(Gharbi and Peters, 1993)
.

The problem of forecasting the oil recovery curve in the field based
on a laboratory waterflood boils down to investigating the effect of
permeability heterogeneity on the waterflood performance. To address
this question, we generated twelve synthetic reservoirs with varying
degrees of permeability heterogeneity and correlation structures and then
scaled the laboratory waterflood to the synthetic reservoirs through
numerical simulation. Figure 4.71 shows the twelve heterogeneous, 2D

4-143
permeability fields generated to cover a wide range of Dykstra-Parsons
coefficient and correlation lengths using Sequential Gaussian
Simulation. Permeability fields were generated at Dykstra-Parsons
coefficients (V) of 0.01, 0.55 and 0.87 and dimensionless correlation
lengths of 0, 0.2, 0.7 and 2.0. The correlation length was made
dimensionless by dividing the correlation length by the length of the
reservoir in that direction. A Dykstra-Parsons coefficient of 0.01
represents a nearly homogeneous medium whereas a Dyktra-Parsons
coefficient of 0.89 represents an extremely heterogeneous medium.
Petroleum reservoirs typically have Dykstra-Parsons coefficients that
range from 0.5 to 0.9. A dimensionless correlation length of zero
represents an uncorrelated or random permeability distribution; a
correlation length of 0.2 represents mild correlation; a correlation length
of 2.0 represents extremely strong correlation. Depending on the
depositional environment, petroleum reservoirs can have widely different
correlation lengths. The value of dimensionless correlation length in the
y direction (Ly) was constant at 0.2 for the permeability fields shown in
Figure 4.71.

Two observations can be made from the permeability distributions


of Figure 4.71. First, as the correlation length (Lx) increases, the
permeability distributions become more and more stratified. The
number of layers is inversely proportional to Ly. In fact, as Lx
approaches infinity, for Ly = 0.2, the permeability distribution will
consist of exactly five (1/0.2) distinct homogeneous layers. Second, with
increasing Dykstra-Parsons coefficient at a given Lx, the contrast in the
permeability values increases while their spatial arrangements remain
similar. Figure 4.72 shows the permeability histograms, which indicate
that the permeability fields are log-normally distributed in accordance

4–144
with observations in sedimentary rocks. Figure 4.73 shows the
variograms for the twelve permeability fields, which give a visual
impression of the degree of correlation in each permeability field.

Figure 4.71. Simulated permeability distributions (Gharbi and Peters,


1993)

Figure 4.74 shows a comparison of the recovery curve for the waterflood
experiment and the numerical simulation of the experiment. The
agreement between the two recovery curves is good. The simulation was
used to determine the relative permeability curves to be used to scale the
laboratory waterflood to the synthetic heterogeneous reservoirs.

4-145
Figure 4.72. Simulated permeability histograms (Gharbi and Peters,
1993).

4–146
Figure 4.73. Simulated permeability variograms in the x-direction
(Gharbi and Peters, 1993).

4-147
Figure 4.74. A comparison of the oil recovery curves of the experiment
and the numerical simulation of the experiment (Gharbi and Peters,
1993).

Figure 4.75 compares the simulated oil recovery curves for each of
the twelve heterogeneous synthetic reservoirs with that of the laboratory
waterflood experiment. The following observations can be made from
these results. If the heterogeneous reservoir is characterized by low
variability in the permeability distribution (low Dykstra-Parsons
coefficient), the waterflood response will be essentially the same as in the
laboratory sandpack regardless of the correlation structure of the

4–148
heterogeneity. This is indicated by the agreement between the simulated
and the experimental recovery curves in the first column of Fig. 4.75 (V =
0.01). If the heterogeneous reservoir is characterized by a low correlation
length in the permeability distribution (low Lx), the waterflood response
will be essentially the same as in the laboratory sandpack regardless of
the variability in the permeability distribution. This is indicated by the
agreement between the simulated and the experimental recovery curves
in the first row of Figure 4.75 (Lx = 0). If the heterogeneous reservoir is
characterized by high variability and high correlation length in the
permeability distribution, the waterflood response could be significantly
different from that of the laboratory sandpack. This is most clearly
shown by the response in the last permeability field in Figure 4.75 (Lx =
2 and V = 0.87). In this case, the waterflood effeciency is significantly
less in the heterogeneous reservoir than in the laboratory sandpack.

To investigate the reason for the significant disparity in


performance between the laboratory waterflood in a relatively
homogeneous sandpack and in certain kinds of heterogeneous reservoirs,
we examine the simulated water saturation maps. Figures 4.76 and 4.77
show the simulated water saturation maps for each of the twelve
heterogeneous reservoirs at 0.10 and 0.25 pore volume injected. We see
that the displacements in the heterogeneous media with high Dykstra-
Parsons coefficient and high correlation length are dominated by
channeling of the injected water due to the permeability stratification.
This results in significant bypassing of the oil in some layers, resulting in
a low oil recovery. These channels provide easy pathways for the water to
flow from the injection well to the producing well, essentially leaving
much of the reservoir unswept. By contrast, the displacements in the
reservoirs with low Dykstra-Parsons coefficients are characterized by

4-149
excellent sweep comparable with that observed in the CT images of the
laboratory waterflood experiment (Figure 4.69). This results in a
displacement performance that is comparable to the laboratory
waterflood experiment in the sandpack.

We conclude from this study that the performance of an enhanced


oil recovery (EOR) displacement in a heterogeneous reservoir could be
significantly lower than in a laboratory experiment depending on the
degree and structure of the heterogeneity of the reservoir. This
conclusion underscores the need for proper scaling when using the
results of laboratory coreflood experiments in relatively homogeneous
porous media to forecast the expected performance of an EOR process in
heterogeneous reservoirs. The methodology developed and presented in
this study can be used to accomplish this scaling and prevent erroneous
performance forecasts.

4–150
Figure 4.75. A comparison of the experimental and simulated oil recovery
curves (Gharbi and Peters, 1993).

4-151
Figure 4.76. Simulated water saturation maps at 0.10 pore volume
injected (Gharbi and Peters, 1993).

Figure 4.77. Simulated water saturation maps at 0.25 pore volume


injected (Gharbi and Peters, 1993).

NOMENCLATURE

a = correlation length (range of influence)


C = covariance function

4–152
C0 = nugget effect
erf = error function
erfc = complementary error function
F = cumulative probability distribution
h = pay thickness
h = lag distance
k = absolute permeability of the medium
ln = natural logarithm (log to base e)
Lx = dimensionless correlation length in the x-direction
Ly = dimensionless correlation length in the y-direction
P = probability density function
s = standard deviation of sample data
s2 = variance of sample data
V = Dykstra-Parsons coefficient of variation
x = linear coordinate
x = random variable
z = variate from a standard normal distribution
ρ = correlation coefficient function
μ = population mean
μ = Lagrange parameter
σ = population standard deviation
σ2 = population variance
φ = porosity, fraction
τ = mean of log normal distribution
γ = variogram
λ = kriging weights
Φ = sample data
Φ = sample mean
ω = standard deviation of a log normal distribution
ω2 = variance of a log normal distribution

4-153
REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS

Armstrong, M. : Basic Linear Geostatistics, Springer-Verlag, New York,


1998.
Caers, J. : Petroleum Geostatistics, Society of Petroleum Engineers,
Richardson, 2005.
Carlson, M.R. : Practical Reservoir Simulation, PennWell, Tulsa, 2003.
Chambers, R.L., Yarus, J.M. and Hird, K.B. : “Petroleum Geostatistics for
Nongeostatisticians – Part 1,” The Leading Edge (May 2000) 474-
479.
Chambers, R.L., Yarus, J.M. and Hird, K.B. : “Petroleum Geostatistics for
Nongeostatisticians – Part 2,” The Leading Edge (June 2000) 592-
599.
Clark, I. : Practical Geostatistics, Applied Science Publishers, London,
1979.
Clark, I. and Harper, W.V. : Practical Geostatistics 2000, Ecosse North
America Llc, Columbus, 2000.
Clark, I. : "Does Geostatistics Work? ", Proc. 16th APCOM, Thomas J
O'Neil, Ed., Society of Mining Engineers of AIME Inc, New York,
1979, 213-225.
Deutsch, C.V.: "What in the Reservoir is Geostatistics Good For ?", Jour.
Cand. Pet. Tech. (April 2006) 14-20.
Deutsch, C.V.: Geostatistical Reservoir Modeling, Oxford University Press,
New York, 2002.
Deutsch, C.V. and Journel, A.G. : GSLIB Geostatistical Software Library
and User’s Guide, Oxford University Press, New York, 1992.
Dykstra, H. and Parsons, R.L. : “The Prediction of Oil Recovery by
Waterflood,” Secondary Recovery of Oil in the United States,
American Petroleum Institute (1950) 160-175.
Gharbi, R. and Peters, E.J. : “Scaling Coreflood Experiments to
Heterogeneous Reservoirs,” Journal of Petroleum Science and
Engineering, 10, (1993) 83-95.
Gharbi, R.: Numerical Modeling of Fluid Displacements in Porous Media
Assisted by Computed Tomography Imaging, PhD Dissertation, The
University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, August 1993.

4–154
Gotway, C.A. and Hergert, G.W. : "Incorporating Spatial Trends and
Anisotropy in Geostatistical Mapping of Soil Properties," Soil
Science of America Journal, Vol. 61 (1977) 298-309.
Hohn, M.E. : Geostatistics and Petroleum Geology, Van Nostrand Reinhold,
New York, 1988.
Hirsche, K., Porter-Hische, J., Mewhort, L. and Davis, R. : "The Use and
Abuse of Geostatistics," The Leading Edge (March 1997) 253-260.
Holbrook, P. : Pore Pressure Through Earth Mechanical Systems, Force
Balanced Petrophysics, 2001.
Isaaks, E.H. and Srivastava, R.M. : An Introduction to Applied
Geostatistics, Oxford University Press, New York, 1989.
Jensen, J.L., Lake, L.W., Corbett, P.W.M. and Goggin, D.J. : Statistics for
Petroleum Engineers and Geoscientists, 2nd Edition, Elsevier, New
York, 2000.
Kerbs, L. : “GEO-Statistics: The Variogram,” Computer Oriented Geological
Society Computer Contributions (August 1986) 2, No. 2, 54-59.
Metheron, G. : "Principles of Geostatistics," Economic Geology, Vol. 58
(1963) 1446-1266.
Peters, E.J., Afzal, N. and Gharbi, R. : “On Scaling Immiscible
Displacements in Permeable Media,” Journal of Petroleum Science
and Engineering, 9, (1993) 183-205.
Peters, E.J. and Gharbi, R. : “Numerical Modeling of Laboratory
Corefloods,” Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 9, (1993)
207-221.
Peters, E.J. and Afzal, N. : “Characterization of Heterogeneities in
Permeable Media with Computed Tomography Imaging,” Journal of
Petroleum Science and Engineering, 7, No. 3/4, (May 1992) 283-
296.
Peters, E.J. and Hardham, W.D. : “Visualization of Fluid Displacements
in Porous Media Using Computed Tomography Imaging,” Journal of
Petroleum Science and Engineering, 4, No. 2, (May 1990) 155-168.
Zirschy, J.H. and Harris, D.J. : "Geostatistical Analysis of Hazardous
Waste Site Data," J. of Environmental Engineering, Vol. 112 (1986)
770784.

4-155
4–156
CHAPTER 5

DISPERSION IN POROUS MEDIA

5.1 INTRODUCTION

When a miscible fluid displaces another in a porous medium, the


displacing fluid tends to mix with the displaced fluid. The result is that a
mixing or transition zone develops at the front in which the
concentration of the injected fluid decreases from one to zero.
Experiment shows that the mixing zone grows as the displacement
progresses. This mixing and spreading of the injected fluid is known as
dispersion.

Bear (1972) describes dispersion as the "macroscopic outcome of


actual movement of individual tracer particles through pores...".
Essentially, dispersion is the mixing caused by single-phase fluid
movement through a porous medium. What is "mixed" is usually called
a tracer, but can be thought of as a concentration of any chemical
component within a given phase that is transported through the system.

5-1
Dispersion has practical consequences in contaminant transport in
aquifers and in improved oil recovery from petroleum reservoirs. If a
miscible contaminant is accidentally introduced into an aquifer at a site,
dispersion will cause the contaminant to spread to a larger area as it is
being transported by groundwater flow. Even though the concentration
of the contaminant is reduced by dispersion, a much larger area of the
aquifer will become contaminated as a result of dispersion than the
original spill area. Thus, a much larger area than the original spill will
need to be cleaned up by any contaminant remediation measure.

Miscible displacement is the most efficient improved oil recovery


method. Because there is no capillary force to trap the displaced oil, it is
theoretically possible to recover 100% of the oil by miscible displacement.
However, because the injected solvent is usually more expensive than the
oil that is to be displaced, it is usually injected in small quantities as
slugs and chased by a less expensive fluid such as water or gas.
Dispersion will dilute and reduce the effectiveness of the miscible slug as
it is propagated through the reservoir. In this case, dispersion is
detrimental to the recovery process. On the other hand, dispersion
causes a solvent to mix, spread and contact the displaced fluid even after
it had been originally bypassed by the injected solvent. In this case,
dispersion improves the displacement efficiency.

Other industrial processes that involve dispersion include (1) use


of tracers such as dyes, electrolytes and radioactive isotopes to
characterize reservoir and aquifer properties, (2) development of a
transition zone between salt water and fresh water in coastal aquifers, (3)
radioactive and reclaimed sewage waste disposals into aquifers, (4) use of
reactors packed with granular material in the chemical industry, and (5)

5–2
movement of fertilizers in the soil and the leaching of salts from the soil
in agriculture.

5.2 LABORATORY FIRST-CONTACT MISCIBLE


DISPLACEMENTS

Before embarking on the mathematics of dispersion in porous


media, it is instructive and illuminating to view images of miscible
displacements that show dispersion at work. The images presented in
this section are for first-contact miscible displacements. This means that
the two fluids used in the experiment are fully miscible upon first
contact. This is in contrast to developed miscibility encountered in
certain enhanced oil recovery process in which the injected fluid is not
initially miscible with the displaced fluid. However, after a certain time
has elapsed, mass transfer between the injected and the displaced fluids
causes the two fluids to become miscible. First-contact miscible
displacements are the most efficient type of displacements.

The efficiency of a miscible displacement or an immiscible


displacement for that matter, is controlled by, among other factors, the
mobility ratio, the effect of gravity, dispersion and the heterogeneity of
the porous medium. Mobility ratio is a dimensionless number that is
characteristic of a displacement. The mobility of a fluid phase in a porous
medium is defined as

k phase
λ phase = (5.1)
μ phase

where k phase is the effective permeability to that phase and μ phase is the

viscosity of that phase. Mobility ratio is defined as

5-3
λdisplacing fluid
M= (5.2)
λdisplaced fluid

For a first-contact miscible displacement, we have single phase flow and


as a result, the effective permeability to each fluid is equal to the
absolute permeability of the porous medium. Therefore, for first-contact
miscible displacements, the mobility ratio simplifies to

⎛ k ⎞
⎜⎜ ⎟
⎝ μdisplacing fluid ⎟⎠ μdisplaced fluid
M= = (5.3)
⎛ k ⎞ μdisplacing fluid
⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎝ μdisplaced fluid ⎠

Thus, for a first-contact miscible displacement, the mobility ratio is the


viscosity ratio given by the viscosity of the displaced fluid divided by the
viscosity of the displacing fluid. A mobility ratio of 1 or less is favorable
to the displacement efficiency whereas a mobility ratio greater than 1 is
unfavorable to the displacement efficiency. The lower the mobility ratio,
the higher is the displacement efficiency. The higher the mobility ratio,
the lower is the displacement efficiency.

Gravity can be as a double-edged sword in displacements. Gravity


override and gravity underride or tonguing can significantly reduce the
displacement efficiency. However, by careful engineering, gravity override
can be used to enhance the displacement efficiency if the less dense
solvent is injected up dip while the denser displaced fluid is withdrawn
down dip.

Dispersion can also be as a double-edged sword in displacements.


If a miscible slug is used in a displacement process to reduce cost,

5–4
dispersion will dilute and degrade the effectiveness of the slug as the
process progresses. On the other hand, mixing caused by dispersion can
allow the injected solvent to spread and contact more of the displaced
fluid than if dispersion was absent. In this case, dispersion is favorable
to the displacement efficiency.

Permeability heterogeneity of the porous medium tends to reduce


the displacement efficiency for the most part. Because the heterogeneity
has a correlation structure, high permeabilities tend to occur next to
high permeabilities and low permeabilities tend to occur next to low
permeabilities as the porous medium is traversed from one point to
another. These permeability arrangements cause the injected fluid to
channel through the high permeability layers, thereby leaving the low
permeability layers unswept.

Figure 5.1 shows CT images of a first-contact miscible


displacement in an unconsolidated sandpack at a favorable mobility ratio
of 0.82. In the experiment, a brine containing sodium chloride was used
to displace another brine containing barium chloride, which is an x-ray
doppant. The images show the concentrations of the injected solvent in a
vertical slice of the 3D sandpack at dimensionless times of 0.13, 0.50
and 1.0 pore volume injected. Mixing caused by dispersion is clearly
visible at the displacement front. The mixing zone length, defined as the
distance between the solvent concentrations of 0.90 and 0.10, is slightly
tilted in Figure 5.1B because of a small density difference between the
injected brine and the displaced brine. The injected brine was slightly
less dense that the displaced brine. Thus, the tilt is a small gravity
override. Because of the favorable mobility ratio, the displacement is very
efficient with almost 100% displacement efficiency at 1 pore volume
injected. The displacement efficiency is slightly less than 100% because

5-5
of the small gravity override problem. This experiment shows that a
miscible displacement can be quite susceptible to gravity instability in
the form of gravity override if the injected fluid is less dense than the
displaced fluid and gravity tonguing if the injected fluid is denser than
the displaced fluid.

Figure 5.1. 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 = 0.82, φ = 35.26%, k = 15.76 darcies, v = 0.154x10-2
cm/s, BT recovery = 96.53% (Peters and Hardham, 1990).

5–6
Figure 5.2 shows the 1D profiles of the 3D solvent concentration
distributions at the three dimensionless times. The profiles have the
classical shapes predicted by the convection-dispersion model of
dispersion to be presented later in this chapter. The profiles can be used
to characterize the dispersion phenomenon in the direction of flow.

Figure 5.2. Average solvent concentration profiles for the miscible


displacement experiment of Figure 5.1 (Peters and Hardham, 1990).

Figure 5.3 shows the images of a first-contact miscible


displacement at an unfavorable mobility ratio of 74. Here, brine with an
x-ray doppant was used to displace a mixture of glycerine and brine. The
injected brine was less dense than the displaced fluid. It can be seen that
the density difference results in a significant gravity override. Such an
override is detrimental to the displacement efficiency. Mixing caused by
dispersion is also clearly evident. The transverse or lateral dispersion is
quite orderly as one moves from the pure solvent to the pure displaced

5-7
fluid. There is also viscous instability or viscous fingering caused by the
adverse mobility ratio. At a mobility ratio greater than 1, the displacing
fluid is more mobile than the displaced fluid. As a result, at the interface
between the two fluids, the displacing fluid tends to penetrate the
displaced fluid due to the inevitable imperfections in the porous medium.
These perturbations may grow to form viscous fingers as shown in Figure
5.3B. Figure 5.4 shows the corresponding solvent concentration profiles
for this displacement. The shapes of the profiles are significantly different
from those of Figure 5.2 and cannot be predicted by the idealized
convection-dispersion model. Clearly, this displacement is less efficient
than that of Figure 5.1.

5–8
Figure 5.3. CT images of solvent concentration for a first-contact miscible
displacement in a sandpack. A: tD = 0.13, B: tD = 0.50, C: tD = 1.0 pore
volume injected. M = 74, φ = 35.68%, k = 16.69 darcies, v = 0.014x10-2
cm/s, BT recovery = 31.23% (Peters and Hardham, 1990).

Figure 5.4. Average solvent concentration profiles for the miscible


displacement experiment of Figure 5.3 (Peters and Hardham, 1990).

5-9
Figure 5.5 shows the images of a first-contact miscible
displacement at an unfavorable mobility ratio of 54 with gravity override.
The images show that portions of the porous medium that were initially
bypassed by the solvent due to gravity override, were subsequently
displaced with continued solvent injection. This is a testament to the
efficiency of miscible displacements. By contrast, in an immiscible
displacement, portions of the porous medium initially bypassed for
whatever reason typically remain unswept with continued injection.
Figure 5.6 shows the corresponding solvent concentration profiles. Notice
how the disturbances in the profiles propagate in time and space. This is
characteristic of miscible displacements. Such disturbances typically
remain stationary in immiscible displacements.

Figure 5.7 shows a first-contact miscible displacement in a quarter


five-spot pattern at a mobility ratio of 1. Here, dyed water was used to
displace clear water in a thin porous medium consisting of uniform glass
beads. The images were obtained with a home-built imaging system
described by Peters and Reid (1990). As expected, the displacement is
efficient. The mixing zone length caused by dispersion is also visible. The
areal sweep efficiency can easily be measured. The areal sweep efficiency
is the ratio of the area contacted by the injected fluid and the total area
of the pattern. Note that because of the geometry of the displacement
pattern, there are dead spots between the injector and the producing
wells. In a field flood, such dead spots would be potential candidates for
infill drilling. In this experiment, the thin porous medium was oriented
horizontally. As a result, gravity effect was negligibly small.

5–10
Figure 5.5. CT images of solvent concentration for a first-contact miscible
displacement in a sandpack. M = 54, φ = 31.70%, k = 9.5 darcies, v =
0.850x10-2 cm/s, BT recovery = 28.80% (Peters and Afzal, 1992).

5-11
Figure 5.6. Average solvent concentration profiles for the miscible
displacement experiment of Figure 5.5 (Peters and Afzal, 1992).

Figure 5.7. Video images of solvent concentration in a miscible


displacement in a glass bead pack. M = 1(Peters and Reid, 1990).

5–12
Figure 5.8 shows the images of another first-contact miscible
displacement in the same porous medium as in Figure 5.7 at a mobility
ratio of 100. The porous medium was oriented horizontally. There is
significant mixing due to dispersion and viscous fingering due to the
adverse mobility ratio. Clearly, this displacement is less efficient than
that of Figure 5.7.

Figure 5.8. Video images of solvent concentration in a miscible


displacement in a glass bead pack. M = 100 (Peters and Reid, 1990).

5-13
Figure 5.9 shows images of a first-contact miscible displacement in
the same porous medium and at the same mobility ratio as in Figure 5.8
but with the medium oriented vertically to take advantage of the
beneficial effect of gravity override. This experiment was designed to
simulate a horizontal injection well at the top left corner and a horizontal
producing well at the bottom right corner of the medium. With this
arrangement, gravity override is beneficial to the displacement efficiency
in contrast to the displacement of Figure 5.3 in which gravity segregation
was detrimental to the displacement efficiency. It can be seen that here,

Figure 5.9. Video images of solvent concentration in a gravity-assisted


miscible displacement experiment in a glass bead pack (Peters and Reid,
1990).

5–14
gravity override delays the solvent breakthrough thereby significantly
enhancing the displacement efficiency compared to the displacement of
Figure 5.8. There is viscous fingering due to the adverse mobility ratio as
well as significant mixing due to dispersion. Clearly, this displacement is
more efficient than that of Figure 5.8.

Figure 5.10 shows NMR images of a first-contact miscible


displacement in the layered sandstone core of Figure 2.57 at a favorable
mobility ratio of 0.84. One can see mixing due to dispersion. However,
the dominate effect is channeling due to the permeability heterogeneity of
the layered medium. It can be concluded from these images that
permeability stratification in a porous medium can have a significant
adverse effect on any displacement, miscible or immiscible. Figure 5.11
shows the corresponding solvent concentration profiles.

Figure 5.12 shows a miscible displacement is the same layered


sandstone core as in Figure 5.10 but at an unfavorable mobility ratio of
95. Here, the effect of viscous fingering due to the adverse mobility ratio
is superimposed on the channeling due to the heterogeneity of the core.
Notice that the channels created by the injected solvent are thinner than
in Figure 5.10 indicating a less efficient displacement than in Figure
5.10. Figure 5.13 shows the corresponding solvent concentration
profiles.

5-15
Figure 5.10. NMR images of a first-contact miscible displacement in a
layered sandstone core at a mobility ratio of 0.84 (Peters and Li, 1996).

5–16
Figure 5.11. Average solvent concentration profiles for the miscible
displacement of Figure 5.9 (Peters and Li, 1996).

5-17
Figure 5.12. NMR images of a first-contact miscible displacement in a
layered sandstone core at a mobility ratio of 95 (Peters and Li, 1996).

5–18
Figure 5.13.Average solvent concentration profiles of a first-contact
miscible displacement in a layered sandstone core at a mobility ratio of
95 (Peters and Li, 1996).

Finally, Figure 5.14 shows the effect of mobility ratio on the


efficiency of miscible displacements. The figure shows the recovery
curves for miscible displacements in the same layered sandstone core as
in Figure 5.10 for mobility ratios ranging from 0.84 to 95. Clearly,
mobility ratio has a significant impact on the efficiency and the timing of
a miscible displacement. Displacements at adverse mobility ratios suffer
from early solvent breakthroughs and require more pore volumes of

5-19
injection to attain the same displacement efficiency as favorable mobility
ratio displacements.

Figure 5.14. Recovery curves for a first-contact miscible displacement in


a layered sandstone core at various mobility ratios (Peters and Li, 1996).

5.3 ORIGINS OF DISPERSION IN POROUS MEDIA

Dispersion is the net result of (a) molecular diffusion, (b) local


velocity gradients within given pores, (c) locally heterogeneous streamline
lengths and velocities, and (d) mechanical mixing in pore bodies.

5–20
Dispersion can be viewed as consisting of two components: molecular
diffusion and mechanical dispsersion.

5.3.1 Molecular Diffusion.

Molecular diffusion is a physiochemical dispersion caused by


chemical potential gradient, which is correlated to the chemical
concentration of the solute being transported. It is mixing caused by
random motions of the fluid particles due to the thermal kinetic energy of
the solute. This motion is known as Brownian motion. Molecular
diffusion is isotropic and occurs equally in all directions. Molecular
diffusion can easily be demonstrated in the laboratory. If a drop of blue
ink is carefully added to a beaker of water and allowed to sit, after
sometime, the water in the beaker will turn blue as a result of molecular
diffusion. Thus, molecular diffusion occurs whether there is flow or not.
Molecular diffusion will contribute to both longitudinal and transverse
dispersions. Molecular diffusion in a porous medium is less than it
would be in the absence of the porous medium. The solid grains hinder
diffusion just as they hindered the flow of electrical current and fluid
flow. Because of the larger molecular spacing, molecular diffusion in a
gas is much larger than in a liquid.

5.3.2 Mechanical Dispersion.

The second component of dispersion may be described as


mechanical dispersion. The origins of mechanical dispersion can be seen
in Figure 5.15. The figure shows marked fluid particles at time t and at
time t+Δt. When a fluid flows in a porous medium, its velocity
distribution within a pore is not uniform, due to boundary effects acting
in three different ways as shown in Figure 5.15. In Figure 5.15a, the no
slip condition at the pore wall creates a velocity gradient in the fluid. This

5-21
velocity gradient causes the marked fluid particles to be spread out in
the flow direction. This is longitudinal dispersion in the flow direction. In
Figure 5.15b, the variation in pore dimensions (recall k ∝ r2) causes flow
to occur faster (further) in some pores than in others. This causes the
marked fluid particles to be spread out in the direction of flow. This is
longitudinal dispersion in the direction of flow. In Figure 5.15c, the
streamlines fluctuate with respect to the mean flow direction as the fluid
particles navigate around the solid grains. This effect of the tortuosity of
the porous medium causes the fluid particles to be spread out in the
transverse direction with respect to the mean flow direction. This is
transverse dispersion, perpendicular to the direction of flow. Finally,
there is local mixing of the fluids within the pores as shown in Figure
5.16. This contributes to the mechanical dispersion.

Figure 5.15.Origins of mechanical dispersion.

5–22
Figure 5.16.Local mechanical mixing of fluid particles.

5.4 CONVECTION-DISPERSION EQUATION

5.4.1 Generalized Equation in Vector Notation

Chemical species are transported in a flowing system by two


transport mechanisms: (a) advection or convection and (b) dispersion.
Advection is mass transport due to the bulk motion of the carrying fluid
and is given by

G G
J a = φ uC (5.4)

G
where J a is the mass flux vector (mass/area/time) of species i due to
G
advection, φ is the porosity of the porous medium, u is the interstitial
velocity vector (Darcy velocity vector/porosity) and C is the concentration
(mass/unit volume of solution) of species i in the solution. The mass flux
due to dispersion is given by

G
J d = −φ D∇C (5.5)

5-23
G
where J d is the mass flux vector (mass/area/time) of species i due to

dispersion and D is the dispersion coefficient tensor. The dispersion


coefficient tensor characterizes molecular diffusion and mechanical
dispersion and is given by

D = Dd + Dm (5.6)

where Dd is the molecular diffusion coefficient and Dm is the mechanical

dispersion tensor. The continuity equation for mass transport is given by

∂ (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

Eq.(5.9) is a well known equation of mathematical physics, which


is known by a variety of names such the advection-dispersion equation,
convection-dispersion equation, first-contact miscible displacement
equation, solute transport equation and mass transport equation. It is a
linear, second order, parabolic partial differential equation. It can be

5–24
used to solve a variety of transport problems. If the transport is by pure
convection with no dispersion, then Eq.(5.9) simplifies to

∂C G
+ ∇. ( uC ) = 0 (5.10)
∂t

If there is no convection (static fluid), then there will be no mechanical


dispersion. In this case, transport is by molecular diffusion only and
Eq.(5.9) becomes

∂C
− Dd ∇ 2C = 0 (5.11)
∂t

which is the diffusion or diffusivity equation.

5.4.2 One-Dimensional Convection-Dispersion Equation

For 1D transport in the x direction, Eq.(5.9) becomes

∂C ∂C ∂ 2C
+ ux − DL 2 = 0 (5.12)
∂t ∂x ∂x

where vx is the interstitial velocity in the x direction and DL is the


principal value of the dispersion coefficient in the x direction known as
the longitudinal dispersion coefficient. In this case, the flow direction is a
principal axis of the dispersion coefficient anisotropy. Eq.(5.12) can be
written in terms of Darcy velocity instead the interstitial velocity as

∂C vx ∂C ∂ 2C
+ − DL 2 = 0 (5.13)
∂t φ ∂x ∂x

5-25
where ux is the Darcy velocity also known as the superficial velocity. It is
possible to extend the mass transport equation to include retardation of
the solute due to adsorption, chemical reaction, biological
transformations or radioactive decay. In the case of retardation due to
adsorption of the chemical species on the surface of the porous medium,
Eq.(5.12) becomes

∂C u x ∂C DL ∂ 2C
+ − =0 (5.14)
∂t R f ∂x R f ∂x 2

where Rf is a retardation factor that accounts for adsorption. If Rf is


equal to 1, there is no adsorption whereas if Rf is greater than 1, there is
adsorption and the transport of the chemical species will be retarded.
This means that in the presence of adsorption, the concentration profiles
of the chemical species will travel at a speed that is lower than if there
was no adsorption. This fact is obvious from Eq.(5.14) in which the speed
of convection has been reduced from vx to vx/Rf. Also, retardation
reduces the effective dispersion coefficient as shown in Eq.(5.14).

5.4.3 Solution of the One-Dimensional Convection-Dispersion


Equation

The initial-boundary value problem for 1D transport consists of


Eq.(5.12) together with appropriate initial and boundary conditions. For
transport in a semi infinite medium, the initial-boundary value problem
consists of the following equations:

∂C ∂C ∂ 2C
+ ux − DL 2 = 0 (5.12)
∂t ∂x ∂x

C ( x, 0 ) = Ci (5.15)

5–26
C ( 0, t ) = C j (5.16)

C ( ∞, t ) = Ci (5.17)

Eq.(5.15) is the initial condition, which specifies the initial concentration


of the injected species in the solution domain at time zero. A convenient
initial concentration in laboratory experiments is Ci equal to zero, which
means there is no injected chemical species in the initial saturating fluid.
Eq.(5.16) is the inlet boundary condition, which specifies the
concentration of the injected species at all times. A convenient inlet
boundary condition is Cj is equal to 1 at all times, although this is
difficult to arrange in an actual laboratory experiment. Eq.(5.17) is the
external boundary condition, which specifies that far away from the inlet,
the concentration of the injected species is equal to its initial value at
time zero. Such a boundary condition was used in the welltest model of
Chapter 3 for an infinite acting reservoir.

The initial-value problem can be put in dimensionless form as


follows:

∂CD ∂CD 1 ∂ 2CD


+ − =0 (5.18)
∂t D ∂xD N Pe ∂xD2

C ( xD , 0 ) = 0 (5.19)

CD ( 0, t D ) = 1 (5.20)

C ( ∞, t D ) = 0 (5.21)

5-27
where

C ( x, t ) − Ci
CD = (5.22)
C j − Ci

uxt qt
tD = = (5.23)
L Aφ L

x
xD = (5.24)
L

ux L qL
N Pe = = (5.25)
DL Aφ DL

Eq.(5.23) gives the dimensionless time in pore volumes injected. Eq.(5.25)


defines a relevant dimensionless number for the transport known as the
Peclet Number. It is the ratio of the two transport mechanisms involved,
advection and dispersion. In the definition of Peclet Number in Eq.(5.25),
the length of the porous medium, L, has been used as a characteristic
dimension of the system. Of course, in a semi infinite medium, the length
of the porous medium would not be a convenient characteristic
dimension of the system. In general, Peclet Number is defined as

ux Dp
N Pe = (5.26)
DL

where Dp is a characteristic dimension of the porous medium. A


convenient characteristic dimension could be the grain diameter in the
case in which the porous medium is composed of granular material.

5–28
Another possible characteristic dimension of a porous medium could be

k
in the spirit of Eq.(3.119).
φ

Eqs.(5.12), (5.15), (5.16) and (5.17) or their dimensionless versions,


Eqs.(5.18) through (5.21), can be solved by Laplace transformation.
Ogata and Banks (1961) give the solution of Eqs.(5.12), (5.15), (5.16) and
(5.17) as

C ⎡ ⎛ x − uxt ⎞ vDx x ⎛ x + uxt ⎞⎤


C ( x, t ) = i ⎢erfc ⎜ ⎟ + e L erfc ⎜ ⎟⎥ (5.27)
2 ⎢⎣ ⎜2 D t ⎟ ⎜2 D t ⎟⎥
⎝ L ⎠ ⎝ L ⎠⎦

where erfc is the complementary error function defined by Eq.(4.47) and


reproduced here for convenience as

2 ∞
erfc ( u ) =
π ∫
e− u du
2
(5.28)
u

The error function and the complementary error function are related by

erf ( u ) + erfc ( u ) = 1 (5.29)

erfc ( −u ) = 1 + erf ( u ) (5.30)

Also,

erf ( −u ) = −erf ( u ) (5.31)

The solution given by Eq.(5.27) can be written in dimensionless form as

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 ⎠ ⎥⎦

A careful examination of the solution given by Eq.(5.33) shows that it is


related to the cumulative normal probability distribution with mean vx t ,

variance 2 DLt and standard deviation 2 DLt . Eq.(5.33) in dimensionless

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

Figure 5.17 shows the evolution of the solution predicted by


Eq.(5.34) or (5.35) for a Peclet Number of 100. It should be observed that
the solution at each dimensionless time is given by

CD ( xD , t D ) = 1 − Cumulative Normal Pr obability Distribution (5.36)

2t D
with mean t D and standard deviation . The shape of the solution is
N Pe

that of an inverted S. Note also that because of dispersion, the


breakthrough time is less than 1 pore volume injected. The concentration
CD = 0.5 travels at the advection speed all times. Although it has not be
stated explicitly, the solution given by Eq.(5.34) or (5.35) is valid for an
idealized system under very restrictive conditions. The conditions are (1)
homogeneous and isotropic porous medium, (2) the injected fluid has the
same density as the displaced fluid, and (3) the injected fluid has the
same viscosity as the displaced fluid. These conditions preclude
channeling due to gross permeability heterogeneity, gravity override or
gravity tonguing and viscous fingering, all of which phenomena are not
included in the convection-dispersion equation. If these restrictions are
met, then Eq.(5.34) or (5.35) gives a good representation of the solvent
concentration profiles observed in laboratory experiments. For example,
although the experiment shown in Figures 5.1 and 5.2 does not quite
meet all the restrictions because of the small gravity override,
nevertheless Eq.(5.34) or (5.35) can be used to approximately reproduce

5-31
the laboratory measured solvent concentration profiles of Figure 5.1.
Figure 5.18 shows the result of a first attempt to reproduce the solvent
concentration profiles of Figure 5.1 using Eq.(5.34). The agreement
between laboratory measured profiles and those predicted by Eq.(5.34) is
good. Of course, the experimental profiles are distorted by the small
gravity override observed in the experiment. As a result, the experimental
profiles and the calculated profiles do not match exactly at the
displacement front. There is also evidence of retardation in the
experiment as the experimental profiles seem to lag behind the
calculated profiles.

Let us focus on the solution at a dimensionless time of 0.50 pore


volume injected shown in Figure 5.19. Marked on the figure are the

Figure 5.17. Solutions of the convection-dispersion equation for a Peclet


Number of 100.

5–32
Figure 5.18. A comparison of the simulated and the measured solvent
concentration profiles for the miscible displacement of Figure 5.1 and
5.2.

advection front, the dimensionless mixing zone length between CD = 0.90


and 0.10 and the dimensionless mixing zone length equal to twice the
standard deviation between CD = 0.8413 and 0.1588. It should be
observed that at tD = 0.5 pore volume injected, the advection front has
traveled exactly half the distance of the porous medium. This is as it
should be because the advection front travels at the advection speed or
at the interstitial velocity. Both the mixing zone length and the length
that represents twice the standard deviation grow in proportion to t D ,

although this is not obvious from looking at the solution at one time. In

5-33
fact, it can be shown that the dimensionless mixing length between CD =
0.90 and CD = 0.10 is given by

tD
ΔxD = 3.625 (5.37)
N Pe

or in dimensional form by

Δx = 3.625 DL t (5.38)

Eq.(5.38) shows that if the mixing zone length can be measured as a


function of time during an experiment, then a graph of Δx versus

t could be used to determine the longitudinal dispersion coefficient.

Figure 5.19. Solution of the convection-dispersion equation for a Peclet


Number of 100 at tD = 0.50 pore volume injected.

5–34
Let us replot the solutions of Figure 5.19 as CD versus z, where z is
defined as

xD − t D
z= (5.39)
tD

A remarkable thing happens to the solutions at the various


dimensionless times. They collapse into one dimensionless curve that is
characteristic of the displacement as shown in Figure 5.20. The slope of
this curve reflects the Peclet Number or the longitudinal dispersion
coefficient. The steeper the curve, the higher is the Peclet Number or the
lower is the longitudinal dispersion coefficient. This transformation can
be used to test if the concentration profiles measured in an experiment
obey the complementary error function solution of the convection-
dispersion equation. The transformation was derived from Eq.(5.35),
which shows that CD is a function of the parameter NPe and the
xD − t D
independent variable .
tD

Figure 5.21 shows the effect of Peclet Number or longitudinal


dispersion coefficient on the solutions of the convection-dispersion
equation. At low Peclet Numbers or high longitudinal dispersion
coefficient, the mixing zone length is large whereas at high Peclet
Numbers or low longitudinal dispersion coefficient, the mixing zone
length is small.

5-35
Figure 5.20. Transformation of the solutions at a fixed Peclet Number.

5–36
Figure 5.21. The effect of Peclet Number or longitudinal dispersion
coefficient on the solution of the convection-dispersion equation.

The breakthrough curve obtained by observing the concentration


at the outlet end of the porous medium (where xD = 1 ) for the case of a

finite length medium is given by

1 ⎡ ⎛ 1 − tD ⎞⎤
CD (1, t D ) = erfc ⎢ N Pe ⎜ ⎟⎥ (5.40)
2 ⎢⎣ ⎜2 t ⎟⎥
⎝ D ⎠⎦

Eq.(5.40) is the cumulative normal distribution with mean 1, variance

2 2
and standard deviation . Figure 5.22 shows the breakthrough
N Pe N Pe

curve given by Eq.(5.40) for a Peclet Number of 100. It is S-shaped and a


mirror image of the solvent concentration profiles. Thus, Eq.(5.40) can be
used in conjunction with the breakthrough curve measured in an
experiment to determine the Peclet Number ( N Pe ) and hence, the

longitudinal dispersion coefficient ( DL ) .

5-37
Figure 5.22. Breakthrough curve.

Figure 5.23 shows the transformed breakthrough curve, where the


transformation equation is

1 − tD
z= (5.41)
tD

It is similar to the solvent concentration profiles. This curve, if plotted on


a linear normal probability graph paper, will be a straight line as shown
in Figure 5.24. Such a plot can be used to fit the breakthrough curve to
the normal distribution for the purpose of determining the Peclet
Number, and hence, the longitudinal dispersion coefficient.

5–38
Figure 5.23. Transformed breakthrough curve.

5-39
Figure 5.24. Transformed breakthrough curve plotted on normal
probability scale.

5–40
In the presence of retardation due to adsorption, the solution given
by Eq.(5.34) can be modified to include the retardation factor as

⎡⎛ t ⎞⎤
⎢ ⎜ xD − D ⎟⎥
⎢ ⎟⎥
CD ( xD , t D ) = erfc ⎢⎜⎜
1 Rf
⎟⎥ (5.42)
2 tD
⎢⎜ 2 ⎟⎥
⎢⎣⎜⎝ R f N Pe ⎟⎥
⎠⎦

5.5 DISPERSION COEFFICIENT AND DISPERSIVITY

The dispersion coefficient is a second rank tensor. The dispersion


coefficient tensor in the xyz coordinate system is given by

⎡ Dxx Dxy Dxz ⎤


⎢ ⎥
D ( x, y, z ) = ⎢ Dyx Dyy Dyz ⎥ (5.43)
⎢ Dzx Dzy Dzz ⎥⎦

in 3D, and by

⎡ Dxx Dxy ⎤
D ( x, y ) = ⎢ (5.44)
⎣ Dyx Dyy ⎥⎦

in 2D. The dispersion coefficient tensor like the permeability or hydraulic


conductivity tensor is symmetric. Using the same transformation
equations presented in Chapter 3 for permeability and hydraulic
conductivity, the principal values of the dispersion coefficient tensor and
the principal axes of the dispersion coefficient anisotropy can be
determined. Along the principal coordinates of the anisotropy uvw, the
dispersion coefficient tensor becomes

5-41
⎡ DL 0 0 ⎤
D ( u , v, w ) = ⎢⎢ 0 DT 0 ⎥⎥ (5.45)
⎢⎣ 0 0 DW ⎥⎦

in 3D, and

⎡D 0⎤
D ( u, v ) = ⎢ L (5.46)
⎣0 DT ⎥⎦

in 2D, where DL is the longitudinal dispersion coefficient in the direction


of mean flow and DT is the transverse dispersion coefficient in the
direction perpendicular to the mean flow.

The relative magnitudes of DL and DT and the tensorial nature of


the dispersion can be demonstrated qualitatively by the following
experiment. Suppose a tracer is injected at time zero as a point source
into a homogeneous and isotropic reservoir in which there is steady flow
as shown in Figure 5.25. At times t1 and t2, the concentration of the
tracer would be as shown in Figure 5.25. The tracer has spread and the
concentration distribution has become elliptical. There is more spreading
or dispersion in the direction of mean flow than in the direction
perpendicular to it. Thus, the direction of mean flow and the direction
perpendicular to the mean flow are principal axes of the dispersion
coefficient anisotropy. The principal value of the dispersion coefficient
tensor in the direction of mean flow is DL and the one perpendicular to
the direction of mean flow is DT. In general, DL ≥ DT .

5–42
Figure 5.25. Variation in tracer concentration in 2D for a constant
velocity flow system.

Using Eq.(5.6), the longitudinal and transverse dispersion


coefficients can be written as

DL = DLd + DLm (5.47)

DT = DTd + DTm (5.48)

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

where F is the formation resistivity factor and τ is the tortuosity of the


porous medium. Therefore, Eqs.(5.49) and (5.50) can be written as

β
DL 1 ⎛ uD ⎞
= + C2 ⎜ p ⎟ (5.52)
Do τ ⎝ Do ⎠

β
DT 1 ⎛ uD ⎞
= + C3 ⎜ p ⎟ (5.53)
Do τ ⎝ Do ⎠

Perkins and Johnson (1963) have shown that β is of the order of 1 to


1.25.

DL D
Figure 5.26 shows the correlations for and T with the Peclet
Do Do

vD p
Number, , for unconsolidated porous media obtained by Perkins and
Do

Johnson (1963). Figure 5.26a shows that at Peclet Numbers less than
0.02, molecular diffusion dominates the longitudinal dispersion
coefficient and the dispersion coefficient is equal to the diffusion
coefficient in the porous medium. In this regime, the mechanical
dispersion term on the right side of Eq.(5.52) is negligible compared to
the molecular diffusion term. In this regime, the dimensionless molecular
term is about 0.67. This means that the diffusion coefficient for a tracer
in a porous medium is less than the diffusion coefficient in the same

5–44
liquid in the absence of the porous medium. This difference is caused by
the tortuosity of the porous medium. In fact, 1/0.67 or 1.5 is an estimate
of the tortuosity of unconsolidated porous media. At the transition Peclet
Numbers between 0.02 and 6, both molecular diffusion and mechanical
dispsersion contribute to the dispersion coefficient. At Peclet Numbers
above 6, the dispersion coefficient is dominated by mechanical dispersion
and the effect of molecular diffusion can be neglected.

The shape of the correlation for the dimensionless transverse


dispersion coefficient is similar to that of the dimensionless longitudinal
dispersion coefficient. However, it should be noted that the scale of the
Peclet Number in Figure 5.26b starts at 0.1 compared to 0.001 in Figure
5.26a. This means that the regime dominated by molecular diffusion
occurs over a larger range of Peclet Numbers for transverse dispersion
than for longitudinal dispersion. Thus, molecular diffusion is much more
important to transverse dispersion than to longitudinal dispersion. At
high Peclet Numbers, the longitudinal dispersion coefficient is greater
than the transverse dispersion coefficient. This is clearly evident by
plotting the two correlations for dimensionless dispersion coefficients on
the same scale as shown in Figure 5.27. Other authors have obtained
correlations for longitudinal dispersion coefficient similar to that of
Perkins and Johnston as shown in Figure 5.28.

At normal reservoir velocities, the Peclet Number is normally


greater than 6. Also, as pointed out earlier, β is approximately 1. Under
these conditions, molecular diffusion can be neglected and Eqs.(5.52)
and (5.53) can be approximated as

β
⎛ uD ⎞
DL = C2 ⎜ p ⎟ Do ≅ α L u (5.54)
⎝ Do ⎠

5-45
β
⎛ uD ⎞
DT = C3 ⎜ p ⎟ Do ≅ αT u (5.55)
⎝ Do ⎠

where α L is known as the longitudinal dispersivity and αT is the

transverse dispersivity of the porous medium. Eqs.(5.54) and (5.55) can


be used to estimate the dispersivities if the dispersion coefficients have
been measured independently. In terms of the longitudinal dispersivity,
the Peclet Number defined in Eq.(5.25) becomes

Figure 5.26. Correlations for dimensionless longitudinal and transverse

5–46
dispersion coefficients. (a) dimensionless longitudinal dispersion
coefficient, (b) transverse dispersion coefficient (Perkins and Johnston,
1963).

Figure 5.27. Correlations for dimensionless longitudinal and transverse


dispersion coefficients plotted on the same scale (Perkins and Johnston,
1963).

5-47
Figure 5.28. Correlation for dimensionless longitudinal dispersion
coefficient by various authors (Pfannkuch, 1963; Saffman, 1960).

L
N Pe = (5.56)
αL

Dispersivity is, in general, not a function of fluid velocity, making it


a property of the porous medium. However, dispersivities are highly scale
dependent. Figures 5.29 and 5.30 show values of measured
dispersitivities as functions of the measurement scale. Note the
logarithmic scales. In general, dispersitivities measured at laboratory
scale are much smaller than those measured at field scale. Reservoir
heterogeneity is the cause of this scale effect. In field measurements, the
effect of heterogeneity is to stretch out the solvent concentration profile,

5–48
which is interpreted as a large dispersion coefficient or a large
dispersivity.

5-49
Figure 5.29. Longitudinal dispersivity versus measurement scale (Arya,
1988).

Figure 5.30. Field measured longitudinal dispersivity versus


measurement scale (Gelhar, 1986).

5–50
5.6 MEASUREMENT OF DISPERSION COEFFICIENT AND
DISPERSIVITY

5.6.1 Traditional Laboratory Method with Breakthrough Curve

A laboratory coreflood experiment can be used to measure the


longitudinal dispersion coefficient. Figure 5.31 shows a schematic
diagram for such a test. A tracer or solvent is used to displace a miscible
fluid from the porous medium and the solvent concentration of the
effluent at the outlet end of the core is measured as a function of time.
The figure at the upper left of Figure 5.31 shows the injected tracer or
solvent concentration as a function of time whereas the figure at the
upper right shows the concentration of the solvent in the effluent. The
injected solvent concentration is a step function in which pure solvent is
injected throughout the experiment. At the outflow end, initially, the
concentration of the injected solvent will be zero because it has not yet
broken through. After the injected solvent has arrived at the outlet end
ahead of the advection front because of dispersion, its concentration will
increase from zero to 1 over a finite period of time as shown in the
sketch. The curve of concentration versus time at the outlet end of the
core is known as the breakthrough curve and can be fitted to Eq.(5.40) to
estimate the Peclet Number and the longitudinal dispersion coefficient.

5-51
Figure 5.31. Laboratory coreflood experiment for measuring longitudinal
dispersion coefficient.

In order for the solvent concentration distribution in the coreflood


to satisfy the mathematical model of Eq.(5.34) or (5.35), the restrictions
outlined previously must be implemented in the experiment. The core
should be fairly uniform, the density of the injected solvent and the
displaced fluid must be matched and the viscosity of the injected solvent
and the displaced fluid also must be matched. When these restrictions
are implemented, the breakthrough curve will approximate the
1 − tD
cumulative normal probability distribution. A graph of CD versus
tD

on a linear probability graph paper will be a straight line as shown in


Figure 5.24. The mixing zone length between CD = 0.9 and CD = 0.1 read
from the graph is related to the Peclet Number as

3.625 ⎛ 1 − t D ⎞ ⎛ 1 − tD ⎞
=⎜ ⎟⎟ −⎜ ⎟⎟ (5.57)
N Pe ⎜⎝ t D ⎜
⎠CD =0.9 ⎝ t D ⎠CD =0.1

5–52
Eq.(5.57) can be rearranged to calculate the longitudinal dispersion
coefficient as

2
⎡⎛ 1− t ⎞ ⎛ 1 − tD ⎞ ⎤
⎢⎜ D
⎟⎟ −⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎥

⎢ ⎝ tD ⎜
⎠CD =0.9 ⎝ t D ⎠CD =0.1 ⎥
DL = uL ⎢ ⎥ (5.58)
⎢ 3.625 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎣⎢ ⎦⎥

Alternatively, the mixing zone length corresponding to CD = 0.84 and CD


= 0.16 will be equal to twice the standard deviation of the normal
distribution. Thus,

2 ⎛ 1 − tD ⎞ ⎛ 1 − tD ⎞
2 =⎜ ⎟⎟ −⎜ ⎟⎟ (5.59)
N Pe ⎜⎝ t D ⎜
⎠CD =0.84 ⎝ t D ⎠CD =0.16

Eq.(5.59) can be rearranged to calculate the longitudinal dispersion


coefficient as

uL ⎡⎢⎛ 1 − t D ⎞ ⎛ 1 − tD ⎞ ⎤

DL = ⎜ ⎟ −⎜ ⎟ (5.60)
8 ⎢⎝⎜ t D ⎟ ⎜
⎠CD =0.84 ⎝ t D

⎠CD =0.16 ⎥⎦

It is much more difficult to measure transverse dispersion coefficient


experimentally. As a result, there are very few transverse dispersion
coefficient data reported in the literature beside those of Perkins and
Johnson (1963).

5.6.2 Laboratory Method of Peters et al. (1996)

Peters et al. (1996) have presented a method for measuring


longitudinal dispersion coefficient and dispersivity by imaging the

5-53
laboratory tracer test. CT or NMR imaging of the coreflood gives the
solvent concentration profiles in time and space similar to those of Figure
5.17. These profiles can be fitted to the solution of the convection-
dispersion equation, Eq.(5.34) or (5.35), by trial and error to estimate the
Peclet Number and the longitudinal dispersion coefficient. The
longitudinal dispersion coefficient so determined will be the same as that
determined from the breakthrough curve. The dispersivity is calculated
from the dispersion coefficient using Eq.(5.54). Furthermore, the growth
of the mixing zone length with time can easily be calculated from the 3D
image data such that the graph of Δx versus t can be used to calculate
the longitudinal dispersion coefficient. The advantage of this approach is
that the contribution of heterogeneity to the dispersion coefficient also
can be measured.

To demonstrate the methods, we measured the longitudinal


dispersion coefficient and the longitudinal dispsersivity of the Berea
sandstone core of Figure 4.33 and the unconsolidated sandpack of
Figure 5.30 using these methods.

A summary of the experimental conditions for the tracer test in the


Berea sandstone core is presented in Table 5.1. Figure 5.32 shows the
CT images of the tracer test in the Berea sandstone. The growth of the
mixing zone is clearly visible. The mixing zone is distorted by
permeability heterogeneity of the core. The lower half of the core is more
permeable than the upper half. This is evident in the permeability image
of the core shown in Figure 5.33. The permeability distribution of the
core was determined by a technique described by Peters and Afzal (1991).

Figure 5.34 shows a preliminary history match of the solvent


concentration profiles using Eq.(5.34). The slopes of the profiles from

5–54
Eq.(5.34) and the experiment are in good agreement indicating that the
Peclet Number is correct. However, at late dimensionless times, the
profiles obtained from Eq.(5.34) have traveled further than those from
the experiment. This is evidence of retardation caused by adsorption.
Figure 5.35 shows the history match using Eq.(5.42) with a retardation
factor, Rf, of 1.11. The agreement between the two sets of solvent
concentration profiles is good. The parameters that resulted in this
history match are N Pe = 159 , DL = 600 x10−5 cm 2 / s and α L = 0.379cm .These are

the longitudinal dispersion coefficient and longitudinal dispersivity that


would have been obtained from a breakthrough curve. It should be noted
that the effect of the distortion in the mixing zone caused by permeability
heterogeneity is interpreted as increased dispersion coefficient and
increased dispersivity of the porous medium.

Table 5.1. Experimental Conditions for Tracer Test in Berea Sandstone

Type of Displacement First-Contact Miscible


Porous Medium Berea Sandstone
Length (cm) 60.2
Diameter (cm) 5.1
Absolute Permeability (md) 160.4
Average Porosity from CT (%) 17.3
Fluids
Displacing Fluid Distilled Water + 10% NaI
Density of Displacing Fluid (g/cm3) 1.078
Viscosity of Displacing Fluid (cp) 1.029
Displaced Fluid Distilled Water+1.4% NaCl + 10% KCl
Density of Displaced Fluid (g/cm3) 1.078
Viscosity of Displaced Fluid (cp) 1.028
Mobility Ratio (Viscosity Ratio) 1.0
Darcy Velocity (cm/s) 2.742x10-3

5-55
Interstitial Velocity (cm/s) 1.714x10-2

Figure 5.32. CT images of a tracer test in a Berea sandstone core. A: tD =


0.20; B: tD = 0.50; C: tD = 0.80 (Peters et al., 1996)

5–56
Figure 5.33. Permeability distribution for Berea sandstone core (Peters
and Afzal, 1991).

Figure 5.36 shows the growth of the mixing zone length with time
for the Berea sandstone core. The mixing zone length was obtained for
the 3D CT data by calculating the distances between CD = 0.90 and CD =
0.10 for each dimensionless time. This resulted in several thousand
values of mixing zone length at each dimensionless time. The several
thousand values were then averaged to obtain one mixing zone length for
each time. Each point in Figure 5.36 is the average mixing zone length
plotted against the corresponding time. It can be seen that the mixing
zone length grows as the square root of time as predicted by Eq.(5.38).
The longitudinal dispersion coefficient and longitudinal dispersivity are
calculated from the slope of the straight line of Figure 5.36 as

5-57
DL = 431x10−5 cm 2 / s and α L = 0.272 cm . It should be noted that with this

method, the dispersion coefficient and the dispersivity are less than
calculated previously because the effect of the permeability heterogeneity
was excluded from the calculations.

Figure 5.34. A comparison of the simulated and experimental solvent


concentration profiles for Berea sandstone core for Rf = 0 (Peters et al.,
1996).

5–58
Figure 5.35. A comparison of the simulated and experimental solvent
concentration profiles for Berea sandstone core for Rf = 1.11 (Peters et
al., 1996).

5-59
Figure 5.36. Growth of mixing zone length with time for the Berea
sandstone core (Peters et al., 1996).

A summary of the experiment for the unconsolidated sandpack is


presented in Table 5.2. Figure 5.37 shows the CT images of the tracer
test in the sandpack. The growth of the mixing zone also is clearly
visible. The mixing zone is distorted by the heterogeneity of the
sandpack. It should be recalled that this sandpack contained radial
heterogeneities based on the packing method that was used in preparing
it. Figure 5.38 shows the permeability distribution for the sandpack.

Figure 5.39 shows a preliminary history match of the solvent


concentration profiles using Eq.(5.34). The slopes of the profiles from
Eq.(5.34) and the experiment are in good agreement indicating that the
Peclet Number is correct. However, at late dimensionless times, the
profiles obtained from Eq.(5.34) have traveled further than those from
the experiment. There is retardation caused by adsorption in the
sandpack. Figure 5.40 shows the history match using Eq.(5.42) with a
retardation factor of 1.04. The agreement between the two sets of solvent
concentration profiles is good. The parameters that resulted in this
history match are N Pe = 554 , DL = 100 x10−5 cm 2 / s and α L = 0.098 cm .

Figure 5.41 shows the growth of the mixing zone length with time
for the sandpack. The longitudinal dispersion coefficient and longitudinal
dispersivity are calculated from the mixing zone length as
DL = 82 x10−5 cm 2 / s and α L = 0.080 cm .

Figure 5.42 shows the similarity transformations of the solvent


concentration profiles from the two tracer tests. It can be seen that there
is more dispersion in the Berea sandstone core than in the

5–60
unconsolidated sandpack. The results of the tracer tests for both porous
media are summarized in Table 5.3.

Table 5.2. Experimental Conditions for Tracer Test in Unconsolidated


Sandpack

Type of Displacement First-Contact Miscible


Porous Medium Unconsolidated Sandpack
Length (cm) 54.2
Diameter (cm) 4.8
Absolute Permeability (md) 6400
Average Porosity from CT (%) 29.7
Fluids
Displacing Fluid Distilled Water + 13% NaCl
Density of Displacing Fluid
(g/cm3) 1.089
Viscosity of Displacing Fluid (cp) 1.262
Displaced Fluid Distilled Water + 10% BaCl2
Density of Displaced Fluid (g/cm3) 1.089
Viscosity of Displaced Fluid (cp) 1.127
Mobility Ratio (Viscosity Ratio) 0.9
Darcy Velocity (cm/s) 3.037x10-3
Interstitial Velocity (cm/s) 1.023x10-2
Breakthrough Recovery (%) 95

5-61
Figure 5.37. CT images of a tracer test in unconsolidated sandpack. A: tD
= 0.20; B: tD = 0.50; C: tD = 0.80 (Peters et al., 1996)

5–62
Figure 5.38. Permeability distribution for unconsolidated sandpack
(Peters and Afzal, 1991).

5-63
Figure 5.39. A comparison of the simulated and experimental solvent
concentration profiles for unconsolidated sandpack for Rf = 0 (Peters et
al., 1996).

5–64
Figure 5.40. A comparison of the simulated and experimental solvent
concentration profiles for unconsolidated sandpack for Rf = 1.04 (Peters
et al., 1996).

5-65
Figure 5.41. Growth of mixing zone length with time for unconsolidated
sandpack (Peters et al., 1996).

5–66
Figure 5.42. Similarity transformation of solvent concentration profiles
(Peters et al., 1996).

Table 5.3. Summary of Results

5-67
Porous Medium Berea Unconsolidated
Sandstone Sandpack

Longitudinal Dispersion Coefficient


with
Heterogeneity (cm2/s) 600x10-5 100x10-5

Longitudinal Dispersivity with


Heterogeneity (cm) 0.379 0.098

Longitudinal Dispersion Coefficient


without Heterogeneity (cm2/s) 431x10-5 82x10-5

Longitudinal Dispersivity without


Heterogeneity (cm) 0.272 0.080

Retardation Factor 1.11 1.04

Peclet Number 159 554

5.6.3 Field Measurement of Dispersion Coefficient and Dispersivity

Longitudinal dispersion coefficient and dispersivity are measured


in the field by tracer tests either in a single well or between two or more
wells. Eq.(5.9) in radial coordinates can be used to calculate the
dispersion coefficient and the dispersitivity from a single-well tracer test.
Eq.(5.9) can be written in radial coordinates as

∂C ∂C ∂ 2C
+ ur − α L ur 2 = 0 (5.61)
∂t ∂r ∂r

Gelhar and Collins (1971) give the solution of Eq.(5.61) with appropriate
initial and boundary conditions for a single-well tracer test as

5–68
⎡ ⎤
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
CD = erfc ⎢⎢
1 ( tD − tDi ) − 1 ⎥ (5.62)
2 ⎥
1

⎢ ⎧⎪ 16 ⎛ α L ⎞ ⎡ ⎛ t D ⎞ ⎤ 2 ⎛ t D ⎞ ⎫⎪ ⎥
2 1

⎢ ⎨ 3 ⎜ ⎟ ⎢ 2 − ⎜1 − ⎟ ⎥ ⎜1 − ⎟⎬ ⎥
⎢⎣ ⎩⎪ ⎝ R ⎠ ⎣ ⎝ tDi ⎠ ⎦ ⎝ tDi ⎠ ⎭⎪ ⎥⎦

where

qt
R= (5.63)
π hφ

In Eq.(5.62), t D is the pore volume of fluid produced at various times, t Di is

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).

A multi-well tracer test also can be used to estimate dispersivity in


the field. However, in this case, a numerical simulator will be needed to

5–70
interpret the test. Figure 5.44 shows attempts to interpret a two-well
tracer test using a finite element numerical simulator. In the test, a slug
of tracer was injected into one well and chased by water while the tracer
concentration was measured as a function of time at the second well. A
2D homogeneous aquifer model gave a longitudinal dispersitivity of 4.0 m
whereas a 3D heterogeneous aquifer model gave a much smaller
dispersivity of 0.15 m. Of course, the history match of the breakthrough
curve for a heterogeneous aquifer does not give a unique solution to the
problem. Different configurations of the aquifer heterogeneity can result
in good history matches with widely different values of dispersivity.

Figure 5.44. A comparison of three model fits to the breakthrough data


from a two-well tracer test (Huyakorn et al., 1986).

5-71
5.7 FACTORS THAT COULD AFFECT DISPERSION
COEFFICIENT AND DISPERSIVITY

A poll was taken in a previous class in which the students present


were requested to name the factors they believed could possibly affect the
dispersion coefficient and the dispersivity of a porous medium. There
were no restrictions. All factors that came to mind were listed. Here are
the factors that were listed, organized into rock characteristics, fluid
properties and process characteristics.

1. Rock Characteristics

Porosity (φ)

Permeability (k)

Pore size (δ)

Pore size distribution (frequency)

Heterogeneity

Dykstra–Parsons coefficient (V)

Variogram (γ)

Correlation length (range of influence, a)

Chemical reaction

Adsorption (retardation factor, Rf)

Biological transformation

Radioactive decay

Morphology of the porous medium (Γ)

5–72
Pore structure

Cementation

Dead end pores

Tortuosity

Mean grain diameter (Dp)

Specific surface area (S)

2. Fluid Properties

Viscosity of the displaced fluid (μo)

Viscosity of the displacing fluid (μs)

Density of the displaced fluid (ρo)

Density of the displacing fluid (ρs)

Binary diffusion coefficient between the displaced and displacing


fluids (Do)

3. Process (Displacement) Characteristics


G
Interstitial velocity field ( u )
G
Gravitational acceleration field ( g )

After extensive discussion, it was decided that the longitudinal


dispersion coefficient is a function of some of these variables and that the
functional relationship is of the form

DL = f1 ( μ s , D p , u, Do , μo , Δρ g ) (5.64)

The objective is to design an experimental program to determine the


nature of the function f1. To plan the experimental program, dimensional

5-73
analysis can be used to derive the set of complete and independent
dimensionless groups that can be used in the experimental program to
determine the nature of f1. Upon performing the dimensional analysis as
presented in Appendix A, Eq.(5.64) can be written in dimensionless form
as

DL ⎛ uD p μo D 3p Δρ g ⎞
= f2 ⎜ , , ⎟ (5.65)
Do ⎜ D μ Do μ s ⎟⎠
⎝ o s

where f2 is a new function to be determined from experiments. In the


laboratory experiments for determining the longitudinal dispersion
coefficient, the viscosity of the injected fluid should be matched with that
⎛μ ⎞
of the displaced fluid. If this is done, the mobility ratio, ⎜ o ⎟ , will be a
⎝ μs ⎠
constant equal to 1 and its effect will be eliminated from the experiment.
Also, the density of the injected fluid should be matched with that of the
⎛ D 3p Δρ g ⎞
displaced fluid. In this case, the dimensionless group, ⎜ , will be a
⎜ D μ ⎟⎟
⎝ o s ⎠
constant equal to zero and it will not be a factor in the experiment. If
these restrictions are implemented in the experiments, then Eq.(5.65)
becomes

DL ⎛ uD p ⎞
= f3 ⎜ ⎟ (5.66)
Do ⎝ Do ⎠

A similar analysis gives the functional relationship for the transverse


dispersion coefficient as

DT ⎛ uD p ⎞
= f4 ⎜ ⎟ (5.67)
Do ⎝ Do ⎠

5–74
DL D
The experimental program will then consist of measuring and T as
Do Do

uD p
functions of the Peclet Number, , to determine the nature of f3 and f4.
Do

The results of such an experimental program are shown in Figures 5.27


and 5.28.

5.8 NUMERICAL MODELING OF FIRST-CONTACT


MISCIBLE DISPLACEMENT

5.8.1 Introduction

First-contact miscible displacement is sufficiently well understood


to be modeled accurately with a finite difference numerical simulator.
Such a numerical simulator can be used to interpret tracer tests or to
model field processes that can be adequately described as first-contact
miscible processes.

5.8.2 Mathematical Model of First-Contact Miscible Displacement

The mathematical model for first-contact miscible displacement in


a heterogeneous and anisotropic reservoir consists of the following mass
transport, continuity, flow and mixing equations:

∂ (φ C ) G
+ ∇.(vC ) − ∇.(φ D∇C ) = 0 (5.68)
∂t

∂ (φρ ) G
+ ∇.( ρ v ) = 0 (5.69)
∂t

G k
v = − ∇( P ± ρ gz ) (5.70)
μ

5-75
ρ mixture = ρ s Cs + ρo (1 − Cs ) (5.71)

−4
⎛ C 1− C ⎞
μ mixture = ⎜ 1/s 4 + 1/ 4 s ⎟ (5.72)
⎝ μs μo ⎠

where

⎡ Dxx Dxy Dxz ⎤


⎢ ⎥
D = ⎢ Dyx Dyy Dyz ⎥ (5.73)
⎢ Dzx Dzy Dzz ⎥⎦

and

⎡ k xx k xy k xz ⎤
⎢ ⎥
k = ⎢ k yx k yy k yz ⎥ (5.74)
⎢ k zx k zy k zz ⎥⎦

Eq.(5.68) is the convection-dispersion equation for a heterogeneous


reservoir. It is a modified version of Eq.(5.9), which was for a
homogeneous reservoir with a constant porosity. Note that the advection
term in Eq.(5.68) is in terms of Darcy velocity instead of interstitial
velocity. Eq.(5.69) is the continuity equation for flow. Eq.(5.70) is Darcy's
law for a heterogeneous and anisotropic reservoir. Eq.(5.71) is the mixing
rule for density. It specifies how to calculate the fluid density as a
function of the solvent concentration. It is a linear mixing rule, which
has been verified experimentally. Figure 5.45 compares the linear mixing
rule with experimental density measurements for mixtures of glycerol
and brine. The agreement is good. Eq.(5.72) is the mixing rule for
viscosity. It specifies how the viscosity is to be calculated as a function of
the solvent concentration. It is known as the quarter-power viscosity

5–76
mixing rule. This mixing rule also has been verified in laboratory
measurements as shown in Figure 5.46 for glycerol and brine.

Figure 5.45. Verification of linear density mixing rule for two first-contact
miscible fluids: Fluid 1 is brine; Fluid 2 is glycerol and water.

5-77
Figure 5.46. Verification of quarter-power viscosity mixing rule for two
first-contact miscible fluids: Fluid 1 is brine; Fluid 2 is glycerol and
water.

The mathematical model for first-contact miscible displacement,


Eqs.(5.68) through (5.74), can be solved by finite difference using
appropriate initial and boundary conditions. A possible sequence for the
calculations at one time-step is as follows. Substitute Eq.(5.70) into
(5.69) to derive a generalized diffusivity equation for the pressure field.
Solve the pressure equation by finite difference. Use the pressure field
and Eq.(5.70) to calculate the Darcy velocity field. Substitute the Darcy
velocity field into Eq.(5.68) and solve Eq.(5.68) by finite difference to
calculate the solvent concentration distribution. Of course, the
properties of the porous medium and the fluids must be specified in
advance.

5–78
5.8.3 Numerical Modeling of Laboratory Experiments

In this section, we present the results of numerical simulations of


first-contact miscible displacements experiments based on the numerical
solution of Eqs.(5.68) through (5.74). The porous media used in the
experiments and the solvent concentration distributions in time and
space were imaged by NMR. Each simulation entailed the
characterization of the porous medium by constructing its permeability
distribution using Sequential Gaussian Simulation. The porosity
distribution was obtained directly from by NMR imaging. The pertinent
dimensionless groups for the displacements are mobility ratio (M), the
Peclet Number (NPe) as defined in Eq.(5.25), the gravity or buoyancy
number (Ng), and the density number (Nρ).

The gravity number is the ratio of the gravity force to the viscous
force and is given by

k ( ρ s − ρo ) g
Ng = (5.75)
μo u

The higher the gravity number, the higher the potential for gravity
segregation in the experiment. If the gravity number is negative, the
gravity segregation will be in the form of gravity override, whereas if the it
is positive, the gravity segregation will be in the form of gravity tonguing.
The density number is defined as

ρ s − ρo
Nρ = (5.76)
ρo

5-79
The higher the density number, the higher the potential for gravity
segregation. A negative density number correlates with gravity override
whereas a positive density number correlates with gravity tonguing.

All the simulations were performed with UTCHEM, a finite


difference chemical flooding simulator developed at The University of
Texas at Austin. A 3D Cartesian coordinate system was used to simulate
the displacements in a cylindrical core. Figure 5.47 shows how the
rectangular grids were adapted to simulate a cylindrical system. All the
simulations were performed with 40x40x20 grid blocks.

Figure 5.47. Three-dimensional simulation grids.

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.

Figure 5.48. Artist impression of homogeneous Berea sandstone core.

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.

Figure 5.53 compares the simulated and the experimental solvent


concentration distributions. The agreement between the simulation and
the experiment is good. Figure 5.54 compares the simulated and
experimental solvent concentration profiles. The agreement between the

5–84
simulation and the experiment is acceptable. Finally, Figure 5.55 shows
a head to head comparison of the simulated and experimental solvent
concentrations at the same cross-sections of the core. The data are fairly
well distributed about the 45 degree line. Therefore, the agreement
between the simulation and the experiment is reasonable.

Figure 5.52. Permeability distribution for homogeneous Berea sandstone


core obtained by Sequential Gaussian Simulation. k = 622 md, φ = 24%,
ax = 5.0 cm, ay = 2.5 cm, az = 0.25 cm, V = 0.20 (Shecaira and Peters,
1998).

5-85
Figure 5.53. A comparison of the simulated and experimental solvent
concentration distributions for Experiment 1 (Shecaira and Peters,
1998).

5–86
Figure 5.54. A comparison of the simulated and experimental solvent
concentration profiles for Experiment 1 (Shecaira and Peters, 1998).

Figure 5.56. A comparison of the simulated and experimental solvent


concentration at the same cross-sections for Experiment 1 (Shecaira and
Peters, 1998).

5-87
Experiment 2
This experiment was conducted in the same Berea sandstone core
and at the same mobility ratio as Experiment 1. However, the gravity
number was reduced from 0.3656 to 0.0180 by increasing the Darcy
velocity from 0.00014 cm/s (0.40 ft/day) to 0.00294 cm/s (8.33 ft/day)
in an effort to eliminate the gravity tonguing observed in Experiment 1.
Figures 5.57 and 5.58 show the solvent concentration images and the
solvent concentration profiles for the experiment. The images of Figure
5.57 appear to show more tonguing than in Experiment 1.

5–88
Figure 5.57. Solvent concentration images for Experiment 2. M = 0.84, Ng
= 0.0180, Nρ = 0.0899, NPe = 49.5 (Li, 1997)

5-89
Figure 5.58. Average solvent concentration profiles for Experiment 2. M =
0.84, Ng = 0.0180, Nρ = 0.0899, NPe = 49.5 (Li, 1997)

Figures 5.59 to 5.61 compare the initial simulation of Experiment


2 with the experiment. The agreement between the simulation and the
experiment is poor. The simulation model is the same as for Experiment
1, except that the injection rate was increased from 0.40 ft/day to 8.33
ft/day. The images from the simulation clearly show that at the gravity
number of 0.0180, there should be no gravity tonguing. Therefore, it can
be safely concluded that the tonguing in Experiment 2 was not caused by

5–90
gravity segregation but rather by a mechanical problem with the
experiment.

Figure 5.59. A comparison of the preliminary simulated and experimental


solvent concentration distributions for Experiment 2 (Shecaira and
Peters, 1998).

5-91
Figure 5.60. A comparison of the preliminary simulated and experimental
solvent concentration profiles for Experiment 2 (Shecaira and Peters,
1998).

Figure 5.61. A comparison of the preliminary simulated and experimental


solvent concentration at the same cross-sections for Experiment 2
(Shecaira and Peters, 1998).

5–92
Figure 5.62 shows the end piece of the core holder through which
fluid is injected into the core. Fluid is injected as a point source. Radial
grooves are machined on the face of the end piece to assist in
distributing the injected fluid uniformly over the inlet face of the core. It
would appear that at the injection rate of 0.40 ft/day in Experiment 2,
the grooves were effective in distributing the injected fluid over the inlet
face of the core. However, when the rate was increased to 8.33 ft/day,
the grooves became ineffective in distributing the injected fluid over the
inlet face of the core. As a result, the injected fluid was distributed
unevenly over the inlet face with more fluid being injected at the center of
the core than at the periphery of the core .

Figure 5.62. Schematic diagram of end piece of core holder showing fluid
injection hole and grooves.

In order to test the fluid injection hypothesis, the inlet boundary


condition of the simulation model was modified to inject more fluid at the
center than at the periphery of the core as shown in Figure 5.62. Figures
5.63 to 5.65 show comparisons of the results of the simulation with the
modified inlet boundary condition and the experiment. The agreement
between the simulation and the experiment is excellent. The hypothesis

5-93
about the nonuniform fluid injection appears to be supported by the
simulation.

Figure 5.63. A comparison of the simulated and experimental solvent


concentration distributions for Experiment 2 with a modified inlet
boundary condition (Shecaira and Peters, 1998).

5–94
Figure 5.64. A comparison of the simulated and experimental solvent
concentration profiles for Experiment 2 with a modified inlet boundary
condition (Shecaira and Peters, 1998).

Figure 5.65. A comparison of the simulated and experimental solvent


concentration at the same cross-sections for Experiment 2 with a
modified inlet boundary condition (Shecaira and Peters, 1998).

5-95
Experiment 3
This experiment was performed in the same Berea sandstone core
as Experiments 1 and 2 but at an adverse mobility ratio of 98 at the high
Darcy velocity of 0.00294 cm/s (8.33 ft/day). The combination of high
mobility ratio and high injection normally result is viscous fingering as is
evident in Figure 5.66, which shows the solvent concentration images for
this experiment. The solvent concentration profiles are shown in Figure
5.67.

Figures 5.68 to 5.70 compare the results of a preliminary


simulation with the experiment. There is no agreement between the two.
The preliminary simulation was based on a uniform permeability
distribution in the core and a uniform fluid injection at the core inlet.
The simulation was then refined by the using permeability distribution of
Figure 5.52 and the modified inlet boundary condition. More transverse
dispersion ( αT = 0.0122 cm) was included in the numerical model than in

the simulations of Experiments 1 and 2. Figures 5.71 to 5.73 compare


the results of the refined simulation with the experiment. The agreement
between the simulation and the experiment is excellent.

5–96
Figure 5.66. Solvent concentration images for Experiment 3. M = 98, Ng =
-0.0002, Nρ = -0.097, NPe = 49.5 (Li, 1997)

5-97
Figure 5.67. Average solvent concentration images for Experiment 3. M =
98, Ng = -0.0002, Nρ = -0.097, NPe = 49.5 (Li, 1997)

5–98
Figure 5.68. A comparison of the preliminary simulated and experimental
solvent concentration distributions for Experiment 3 (Shecaira and
Peters, 1998).

5-99
Figure 5.69. A comparison of the preliminary simulated and experimental
solvent concentration profiles for Experiment 3 (Shecaira and Peters,
1998).

Figure 5.70. A comparison of the preliminary simulated and experimental


solvent concentration at the same cross-sections for Experiment 3
(Shecaira and Peters, 1998).

5–100
Figure 5.71. A comparison of the simulated and experimental solvent
concentration distributions for Experiment 3 after refinement of the
simulation (Shecaira and Peters, 1998).

5-101
Figure 5.72. A comparison of the simulated and experimental solvent
concentration profiles for Experiment 3 after refinement of the simulation
model (Shecaira and Peters, 1998).

Figure 5.73. A comparison of the simulated and experimental solvent


concentration at the same cross-sections for Experiment 3 after
refinement of the simulation model (Shecaira and Peters, 1998).

5–102
Experiment 4
This experiment was performed in a layered Antolini sandstone
core at a favorable mobility ratio of 0.81 at a Darcy velocity of 0.00014
cm/s (0.40ft/day). Figure 5.74 shows the porosity images for sandstone
obtained by NMR. Figures 5.75 and 5.76 show the solvent concentration
images and the solvent concentration profiles for the experiment.

Using the porosity images as guidance, a three-layer permeability


distribution was generated for the sandstone core as shown in Figure
5.77. This distribution was used in the initial simulation of Experiment
4. Figures 5.78 to 5.80 compare the results of the simulation based on
the three-layer model with the experiment. The agreement between the
simulation and the experiment is fair. The permeability field was further
refined into a five-layer model as shown in Figure 5.81. Figures 5.82 to
5.84 show comparisons of the results of the simulation with the five-
layer model with the experiment. The agreement between the simulation
and the experiment is excellent.

5-103
Figure 5.74. Porosity images of layered Antolini sandstone core of
Experiment 4 (Li, 1997).

5–104
Figure 5.75. Solvent concentration images for Experiment 4. M = 0.81, Ng
= 0.0649, Nρ = 0.103, NPe = 46.8 (Li, 1997)

5-105
Figure 5.76. Average solvent concentration profiles for Experiment 4. M =
0.81, Ng = 0.0649, Nρ = 0.103, NPe = 46.8 (Li, 1997)

5–106
Figure 5.77. A three-layer model for the Antolini sandstone core of
Experiment 4.

5-107
Figure 5.78. A comparison of the simulated and experimental solvent
concentration distributions for Experiment 4 based on a three-layer
model (Shecaira and Peters, 1998).

5–108
Figure 5.79. A comparison of the simulated and experimental solvent
concentration profiles for Experiment 4 based on a three-layer model
(Shecaira and Peters, 1998).

Figure 5.80. A comparison of the simulated and experimental solvent


concentration at the same cross-sections for Experiment 4 based on a
three-layer model (Shecaira and Peters, 1998).

5-109
Figure 5.81. A Five-layer model for the Antolini sandstone core of
Experiment 4.

5–110
Figure 5.82. A comparison of the simulated and experimental solvent
concentration distributions for Experiment 4 based on a five-layer model
(Shecaira and Peters, 1998).

5-111
Figure 5.83. A comparison of the simulated and experimental solvent
concentration profiles for Experiment 4 based on a five-layer model
(Shecaira and Peters, 1998).

Figure 5.84. A comparison of the simulated and experimental solvent


concentration at the same cross-sections for Experiment 4 based on a
five-layer model (Shecaira and Peters, 1998).

5–112
Experiment 5
This experiment was performed in the same core as Experiment 4
but at an adverse mobility ratio of 11 and a Darcy velocity of 0.00014
cm/s (0.40 ft/day). Figures 5.85 and 5.86 show the solvent
concentration images and the solvent concentration profiles for the
experiment. The objective of the numerical simulation of this experiment
was to predict the outcome of the experiment instead of history matching
it. Having used the five-layer model to successfully simulate Experiment
4, it was decided to use the same simulation to predict Experiment 5 by
increasing the mobility ratio from 0.81 to 11.

Figures 5.87 to 5.89 show comparisons of the predicted


performance and the experiment. Figure 5.87 shows that predicted
solvent concentration images are in qualitative agreement with the
experimental images. However, Figures 5.88 and 5.89 show that the
quantitative prediction is not as good as might be inferred from Figure
5.87. This lack of accurate quantitative prediction is not surprising
because Experiment 5 is an unstable displacement and as such is
unpredictable.

5-113
Figure 5.85. Solvent concentration images for Experiment 5. M = 11, Ng =
-0.0027, Nρ = -0.049, NPe = 46.8 (Li, 1997)

5–114
Figure 5.86. Average solvent concentration profiles for Experiment 5. M =
11, Ng = -0.0027, Nρ = -0.049, NPe = 46.8 (Li, 1997)

5-115
Figure 5.87. A comparison of the predicted and experimental solvent
concentration distributions for Experiment 5 based on a five-layer model
(Shecaira and Peters, 1998).

5–116
Figure 5.88. A comparison of the predicted and experimental solvent
concentration profiles for Experiment 5 based on a five-layer model
(Shecaira and Peters, 1998).

Figure 5.89. A comparison of the predicted and experimental solvent


concentration at the same cross-sections for Experiment 5 based on a
five-layer model (Shecaira and Peters, 1998).

5-117
Experiment 6
The purpose of Experiment 6 and the accompanying numerical
simulation was to verify a new method for mapping the porosity and
permeability distributions in a heterogeneous core by NMR (Zuluaga et
al., 2000). A layered Antolini sandstone core was used for this
experiment. The core properties are L = 10 cm, d = 5 cm,