0 penilaian0% menganggap dokumen ini bermanfaat (0 suara)

6 tayangan43 halamanPenentuan Permeabilitas

Mar 11, 2019

6.Permeability Determination 1

© © All Rights Reserved

0 penilaian0% menganggap dokumen ini bermanfaat (0 suara)

6 tayangan43 halaman6.Permeability Determination 1

Anda di halaman 1dari 43

2017

Permeability Determination

core samples and to determine permeability with the methods

outlined in API RP 40. All other techniques are calibrated back to

core measurements. However, because core measurements sample

such a minute part of the reservoir, we must rely on techniques that

can be applied in a widespread fashion across the reservoir.

1.Sidewall samples

2.Correlation to wireline logging responses

3.Interpretation of nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) logs,

4.Wireline formation tester pressure responses

5.Drillstem tests.

Measurement approaches

Sidewall samples

This technique is valid for slightly to

unconsolidated sandstone rock types. Carbonate

rock types are generally too heterogeneous for

small samples to provide any meaningful

reservoir-wide value for permeability. Sidewall

samples of sandstone rock types are inherently

contaminated with drilling mud particles and are

of little use for direct measurement of

permeability. However, we can inspect the rock

sample with a binocular microscope to estimate

median grain size, sorting, and degree of

consolidation, and to characterize pore fills. With

these data, we can develop correlations to

permeability on the basis of whole core

measurements. An alternative is to disaggregate

the sample and determine a grain size analysis

with laser light scattering, which can then be

correlated to permeability on the basis of whole

core analysis.

Wireline logging correlations

measurements taken in the cored borehole. At various times and

places, almost every wireline log has been used to correlate to

permeability. The porosity-permeability crossplot is, perhaps, the

most used; however, it is subject to considerable error. In select

basins, the GR log response can be used to correlate to permeability

while, in other basins, the neutron log or acoustic log seems to

provide the correlation with least statistical scatter.

NMR logs

Interpretation of NMR logging responses provides a volumetric

distribution of pore sizes. If the pores are assumed to be spherical in

shape, a value for permeability can be computed. These size-

dependent data have been coupled with NMR pore volumes and NMR

fluid saturations to produce an NMR permeability log. The chapter on

NMR logging in this section of the Handbook shows examples of these

techniques.

Wireline formation testers

that take the drawdown and buildup pressure vs.

time responses and compute mobility. Mobility can

be converted into permeability if a value of fluid

viscosity is assumed. This permeability must be

used with some caution. First, the pressure

measurements are made on the borehole wall that

has suffered possible drilling damage and pore

throat plugging from mud solids. Second, one must

take note if the measurement is in an invaded zone

with two phases and, hence, the permeability

determined is an effective permeability, not an

absolute permeability. Depending on rock type and

fluid saturations, the effective permeability may be

an order of magnitude too small. The chapter on

fluid sampling in the General Engineering section

of this Handbook presents examples of wireline

formation tester responses and derived

permeability and the use of these pressure

measurements to determine fluid gradients.

Pressure-controlled DST string.

hardware used for the temporary completion

of a well. DSTs provide a safe and efficient

method to control flow while gathering

essential reservoir data in the exploration,

appraisal, and development phases of a

reservoir or to perform preconditioning or

treatment services before permanent well

completion. Fig. 1 shows a typical DST string

with its essential components. In exploration

well testing in particular, the DST string usually

includes tubing-conveyed perforating (TCP)

guns, which are shot underbalanced (i.e.,

wellbore pressure is less than reservoir

pressure) at the initial well completion.

Fig. 1

DST strings include gauge carriers, which are collars that normally contain up

to four pressure gauges bundled together, affording redundancy in long tests

in which one or more gauges are likely to fail. These gauges perform only DHR

measurements.

Most modern DST strings are fullbore strings, which means they have a flush

opening running completely through the string of tools. The opening enables

running pressure gauges and other slim tools (typically 1 11/16 in.) in SRO mode.

The DataLatch system is a DST string component that combines the

advantages of DHR (typically during flow periods) with the advantages of SRO

(typically during shut-in periods). Pressure data are recorded in the tool’s

memory boards. In suitable conditions, a latched inductive coupling (LINC) tool

is run with an electric cable and latched into the DataLatch mandrel. This

combination is used to read out the memories, reprogram the gauge

acquisition schedule if necessary, and monitor the test in real time.

The DataLatch system is unique for bottomhole pressure measurement

applications. It allows simultaneous and continuous acquisition of three

different measurements during the course of a DST test:

Rathole or reservoir pressure

Cushion or tubing pressure

Annulus pressure

Wireline pressure testing is conducted using tools

Openhole wireline pressure testing lowered on an electric cable or coiled tubing in

deviated wells. The tools consist of function-

specific modules selected for a specific operation.

Fig. 2 shows the modular arrangement of a

modern wireline pressure tester.[2] In a complete

configuration, the tools may include a single-

probe module for basic pressure testing and

sampling, a dual-probe module for permeability

applications, a flow-control module for flexible

schedule testing, a fluid analyzer module for

optical fluid properties monitoring in real time,

multisample module for representative fluid

sampling at reservoir pressure-volume-

temperature (PVT) conditions, sample modules

for large-volume fluid sampling, a pumpout

module that can recirculate mud filtrate and

other unrepresentative fluids out of the tool flow

system before representative sampling, and a

dual-packer module for very large area sampling,

Fig. 2

interference testing, and DST emulation.

Determining permeability

Point-by-point permeability values are needed over the reservoir interval

at the wellbores for several purposes.

First, the distribution and variation of the permeabilities are needed by

the engineers to develop completion strategies.

Second, this same information is needed as input to the geocellular

model and dynamic-flow calculations (e.g., numerical reservoir-

simulation models). For both of these, the first consideration is the

location of shales and other low-permeability layers that can act as

barriers or baffles to vertical flow.

A second consideration is the nature of the permeability variation (i.e.,

whether the high-permeability rock intervals occur in specific layers and

the low-permeability intervals occur in other layers, or that there is so

much heterogeneity that the high- and low-permeability intervals are

intimately interbedded with each other).

When good-quality core data are not available, estimates of permeability

can be made from empirical equations. Permeability is controlled by such

factors as pore size and pore-throat geometry, as well as porosity. To take

some account of these factors, the widely used Timur equation [1] relates

permeability to irreducible Sw and porosity, and therefore can be applied

only in hydrocarbon-bearing zones.

This form of his equation[1] applies to a medium-gravity oil zone:

porosity as a bulk volume fraction, and Sw = effective water saturation

above the transition zone as a fraction of PV. Estimates that are based

only on porosity are likely to have large prediction errors, especially in

carbonate reservoirs.

are useful particularly in sandstones:

and k and ϕe are as defined following Eq. 1. They should be adjusted

according to local knowledge.

In field evaluation, the starting point for calculations of permeability is the

routine-core-analysis data.

porosity as a function of overburden stress, are input to calculations to

develop permeability values at reservoir conditions and the permeability

vs. porosity correlation.

but usually with a steeper slope at low-porosity values. Figs. 1 and 2

demonstrate the characteristics of these relationships. Fig. 1 presents a

typical permeability vs. porosity relationship from routine-core-analysis

data (the scatter in these data increases at the lower-porosity levels). Fig. 2

shows the permeability ratio (stressed permeability divided by unstressed

permeability) vs. unstressed permeability.

value of 1.0 for the high-permeability values.

Fig. 1 Core permeability vs. core porosity crossplot;

data from an Asian gas field.

Crossplots of core

permeability at stressed vs.

surface conditions and core

permeability ratio vs. core

permeability at surface

conditions; data from an

Asian gas field. “Stressed”

refers to the rock being

subjected to simulated

overburden pressure of

approximately 4,500 psia.

The permeability correction

is larger at low

permeabilities.

Fig. 2

In developing the permeability vs. porosity relationships, the technical

team needs to identify the extent to which the reservoir interval needs to

be subdivided into zones or layers.

The subdividing of the core data over the reservoir interval should be into

logical subdivisions that are strongly influenced by the geologists’

understanding of the depositional environment.

This will naturally account for major differences in grain size, sorting, and

key mineralogical factors. Alternatively, a sufficiently thick reservoir

interval can be subdivided into layers of 50 to 100 ft each. A superior

petrophysical methodology will be developed if a thick reservoir is

appropriately subdivided, compared with treating the full reservoir

interval with a single permeability vs. porosity correlation.

different depositional environments can lead to underprediction of

permeability by an order of magnitude in an interval of better-sorted

rocks compared with poorly sorted rocks (see Fig. 3). Identifying the

location and correct values of highest-permeability rocks is very

important for reservoir flow modeling.

Fig. 3 Typical reservoir permeability vs. Sw crossplot;

data from an Asian gas field.

The result of modeling the relationship with the least-squares

regression method is that the range of predicted permeability values

is smaller than that of the original routine-core permeability data. This

loss of range is made worse when the logarithm of permeability is

used as the y -variable because the logarithmic model is a predictor of

the geometric-average permeability. While the permeability vs.

porosity relationship is developed from the routine and SCAL core-

analysis data, the application to the point-by-point well-log database

requires the use of porosity values calculated from the logs. It is

preferable to model the prediction equation directly with core

permeability and the basic log values (see Fig. 4 and the calibration

line-fitting on the core/log calculation approaches page). The y-on-x

(dashed) line-fit in Fig. 4 follows a curved trend on the logarithmic-

linear plot and uses an arctangent function as the transformation. The

solid line gives arithmetic average permeabilities at various bulk-

density values. The arithmetic averages, which may be more

appropriate in some reservoirs, are 2 to 3 times larger than the

geometric averages. Alternative predictions of permeability may also

be estimated using two-log or multiple regression analysis methods.

Nonlinear regression relationships for core permeability and

bulk density log (South Morecambe gas field, offshore U.K.).

After Woodhouse. The two lines illustrate the significant

difference between geometric and arithmetic averages

After the permeability values have been calculated point-by-point

over the reservoir interval from the various wells’ logs, these

permeability values need to be compared with those derived at each

well from the pressure-transient analysis (PTA) of the pressure-

buildup (PBU) or falloff data. The PBU permeability values are average

values for the interval open to flow into the wellbore.

in between) to use with the point-by-point permeability values

depends on the nature of the depositional environment and whether

the perforated intervals are a small fraction of the full reservoir

interval.

permeability values, then the technical team needs to determine the

likely cause of the differences—small-scale fractures, relative

permeability effects, or some other geological factors. The point-by-

point permeability values may need to be adjusted on the basis of the

technical teams’ conclusions.

Estimating permeability based on surface area

and water saturation

models considering different rock characteristics. This page discusses

methods for estimating permeability considering surface area and

water saturation.

Kozeny-Carman equations

developments: the dependence of k on a power of porosity and on the

inverse square of surface area. The various forms of Eq. 1 have been used

as a starting point for predicting permeability from well log data by

assuming that residual water saturation is proportional to specific surface

area, Σ.

Basic equation:

Granberry and Keelan’s chart

Granberry and Keelan published a set of curves relating permeability,

porosity, and "critical water" saturation (Sciw) for Gulf Coast Tertiary

sands that frequently are poorly consolidated.

with porosity as a parameter, is transposed into log(k)-Φ coordinates in

Fig. 1. The Sciw parameter is taken from the "knee" of a

capillary pressure curve and is greater than irreducible water

saturation, Swi. It is said that if the water saturation in the formation is

less than this critical value, the well will produce water free.

of the size of interconnected pores. Fig. 1 cannot be used to estimate

permeability from porosity and water saturation as determined from

well logs because it reflects only the critical water saturation. It was

determined from reservoirs in which oil viscosity was approximately

twice that of water and requires adjustment for low- or high-gravity

oils.

Empirical chart relating permeability to

porosity with critical interstitial water Sciw as a

parameter, after Granberry and Keelan

Timur’s model

Timur used a database of 155 sandstone samples from three oil fields

(Fig. 2) . The three sandstones exhibit varying degrees of sorting,

consolidation, and ranges of porosity. Timur measured irreducible

water saturation (Swi) using a centrifuge and then held k proportional

to Swi−2 in the general power-law relationship,

results show that the exponent b can range between 3 and 5 and still

give reasonable results. Results for b=4.4 produced a fit somewhat

better than other values; it was obtained by taking the logarithm of

both sides of Eq. 3 and testing the correlation coefficient with respect

to Φb/Swi2. For b=4.4, the value of a is 0.136 if Φ and Swi are in percent

and 8,581 if Φ and Swi are fractional values. There is no theoretical

basis for the substitution of Swi for specific surface area Σ, so although

the form of Eq. 2 is similar to that of Eq. 1, it is strictly an empirical

relationship. The effectiveness of Eq. 2 as a predictor of permeability

is shown in Fig. 3, and its form on a log10(k)-Φ plot is shown in Fig. 4.

Permeability data from three US oil fields as a

function of ϕ4.4/Swi2, after Timur.

Two bounding lines represent the standard error

band that includes 68% of the sample points.

US oil fields by Timur.

Permeability/porosity relationship with irreducible water

saturation as a parameter, after Timur

It is not easy to apply Eq. 2, which is based totally on core data, to

an oil reservoir. The Swi core data used to establish Eq. 2 were

obtained for a fixed value of capillary pressure (Pc).

In a reservoir, Pc varies with height, and because Swi varies with Pc, it

is necessary to assume a functional dependence of Swi on Pc.

coefficients a and b in a reservoir in which the oil/water contact

cuts across lithologies because of regional dip or structure.

irreducible (Swi); the remainder is movable. Thus, a log-based

estimate of saturation immediately above the oil/water contact will

overestimate Swi.

Dual water model

An algorithm discussed by Ahmed et al. is attributed to Coates.

An extension of Eq. 2 and Fig. 4, it assumes that permeability

declines to zero as S wi increases to fill the entire pore space:

based on the dual water model. It requires log-based estimates of the

total porosity (Φt) and either effective porosity (Φe) or bound water

saturation (Sbw). Effective porosity is defined as Φe=Φt(1-Sbw). The

fractional volume of bound water, Vbw=SbwΦt, is computed, and an

estimate of a parameter Vbi=SwiΦt called the (fractional) bulk volume

irreducible water in clean wet rock must also be provided.

The algorithm of Eqs. 5 and 6 uses a pair of parameters, Vbi and Vbw, which in

effect sweep out a broad region of the log(k)-Φ crossplot (Fig. 5).

For the solid curves, Vbw has been set to 0.0 as if the rock were entirely clay free.

As irreducible water Vbi increases, the curves shift downward and to the right,

into the regime populated by fine-grained rock.

The dashed curve is drawn for Vbw and Vbi each equal to 0.05, thereby

representing one of a second family of curves for a fine-grained dirty sandstone.

Note how Sbw increases with decreasing Φ.

Fig. 5 –

Permeability/porosity

relationship based on the

dual-water model

incorporating irreducible (Vbi

) and bound water (Vbw) as

parameters. Four solid

curves show effect of

increasing Vbi with Vbw = 0.0.

Two dashed curves show

effect of increasing Vbw with

Vbi = 0.05.

chosen judiciously. One difficulty is choosing a value for Vbi in coarse-

grained and gravel-bearing sandstones.

"Tight" sandstones

formations with small grain size and an abundance of clay

minerals.

reservoirs" (see example in Fig. 6).

values much too high in such formations and establish some

predictive equations that decrease the porosity by multiplying

Φ by 1-Vcl, where Vcl is the clay fraction.

important in these high-clay rocks. Although their predictive

equation is a welcome improvement, the scatter shows the

difficulty in dealing with such low-porosity systems.

Fig. 6 – Permeability/porosity plot showing newly deposited

beach sands and three sample suites from wells in oil and gas

fields. Permeability scale ranges from 1,000 darcies to 0.1 μd.

Nuclear magnetic resonance

Eq. 1a indicates that other measures of specific surface area could

be correlated with permeability.

samples on exchange cation molarity (Qv), nuclear magnetic

resonance (NMR) longitudinal decay time (t1), and pore-surface-

area-to-pore-volume ratio (Σp) from the gas adsorption method.

studies include measurements of k, Φ, and formation factor (F) on

their samples.

formations, so the log(k)-Φ plots exhibit scatter, as shown by Fig. 7.

Permeability/porosity data from Sen et al. Inserts show log (k) plotted

agains log (ϕm/Σp) and against log(ϕmt1).

Both groups of experimenters found that k correlated best with

measures of specific surface when it formed a product with Φm or Φ2.

with (Φm/Σp)2.08, with (Φmt1)2.15, and with (Φm/Qv)2.11.

Two of these correlations are shown as insets in Fig. 7. Borgia et al. did

not incorporate m into their regression equations but found k to be best

correlated with (Φ4/Σp2)0.76 and with (Φ4t12)0.72.

porosity, is plotted in Fig. 8.

Timur (see Estimating permeability considering mineralogy), the curves

in Fig. 8 are quite similar to those in Fig. 4.

Empirical relationship among permeability, porosity,

and t1 from NMR measurement by Sen et al.

Later work showed that the transverse decay time t2, which is a more

practical parameter to detect with a logging tool than t1, could also be used

to estimate permeability

where:

k is in millidarcies

t2gm is the geometric mean of t2 in milliseconds

c= 4.5 in sandstones and 0.1 in carbonates.

The value of k obtained from Eq. 1 is referred to as kSDR. Better results are

obtained if a cutoff can be selected for t2L so that only the pores

contributing to permeability are included.

pore size, whereas permeability depends on pore throat size. He suggests

that the experimentally determined Φ4 dependence somehow accounts

for the way in which the ratio (pore throat size to pore size) varies with

porosity.

The Coates equation for estimating permeability is

where:

k is in millidarcies

Vbvi is the bulk volume irreducible fluid fraction

Vf is the free fluid fraction and is equal to Φ-Vbvi

Porosity Φ is taken from the NMR tool.

saturation; Vbvi is computed from the portion of the t2 spectrum with the

smallest times.

Except for the porosity term Φ4, there is little obvious resemblance between

Eqs. 8 and 9. However, Sigal argues that a t2 cutoff time is implicit in Eq. 9 and

that its value is incorporated in the constant c.

Even so, the two equations are not equivalent because the two choices of t2

result in different weightings of the pore size distribution spectrum. Sigal relates

the two choices of t2, one explicit in Eq. 8 and the other implicit in Eq. 9, for

different distributions of t2 and for several experimental data sets.

As Sigal points out, the problem of selecting a value of t2 from NMR

data is analogous to the problem of selecting a value of R from

capillary pressure data (See

Estimating permeability based on pore dimension) : One must capture

the length scale appropriate to the estimation of permeability.

Summary

Timur’s equation and its corresponding chart offer a viable method

of permeability estimation in which porosity and irreducible water

saturation can be estimated.

extensive transition zone. The dual water predictor is an interesting

embellishment that can include a clay content parameter.

Laboratory data show that, when combined with Φm, the following

all correlate well with k:

Specific surface area

Cation exchange molarity

NMR decay time

Nomenclature Subscripts

f = shape factor e = effective

F = formation factor l = liquid

g = gravitational acceleration o = oil

k = permeability t = total

m = Archie cementation exponent w = water

p = pressure

rh = hydraulic radius

Sbw = bound water saturation

Swi = irreducible water saturation

t1 = NMR longitudinal decay time

t2 = NMR transverse decay time

Vffi = free fluid fraction

Vbw = volume of bound water, fraction

Vbi = bulk volume irreducible water, fraction

Σp = ratio of pore surface area to pore volume

Σ = specific surface area

τ = tortuosity

Φ = porosity

Φt = total porosity

Φe = effective porosity

## Lebih dari sekadar dokumen.

Temukan segala yang ditawarkan Scribd, termasuk buku dan buku audio dari penerbit-penerbit terkemuka.

Batalkan kapan saja.