Sneider, R.M., J.S. Sneider, G.W. Bolger, and J.W.

Neasham, 1997, Comparison of seal capacity

determinations: conventional cores vs. cuttings, in
R.C. Surdam, ed., Seals, traps, and the petroleum
system: AAPG Memoir 67, p. 112.

Chapter 1

Comparison of Seal Capacity Determinations:

Conventional Cores vs. Cuttings
Robert M. Sneider
John S. Sneider
Robert M. Sneider Exploration, Inc.
Houston, Texas, U.S.A.

George W. Bolger
John W. Neasham1
PetroTech Associates
Houston, Texas, U.S.A.

ABSTRACT
Comparison of hydrocarbon column heights (HCHs) calculated from seals
recovered in conventional cores with HCHs calculated by using cuttings
from the same interval indicates that mercury/air capillary pressure measurements of cuttings can be extremely useful to estimate seal capacity. An
empirical adjustment factor (EAF), expressed in psi, needs to be added to the
capillary pressure value determined on cuttings to approximate that measured with mercury/air capillary pressure of conventional cores.
For top and lateral seals that are the result of lithologic changes (as
opposed to fault seals), good to excellent agreement is found between the
hydrocarbons actually trapped in fields and the HCH calculated from mercury/air capillary pressure curves of vertical plugs cut perpendicular to the
sealing surface. The plugs are sealed with epoxy so that mercury can enter
only from the top and base of the plug. The mercury/air capillary pressure
curves are generated using a system that can inject mercury at pressures up
to 60,000 psi [8703 kPa] (equivalent to a hydrocarbon column of >10,000 ft
for 35 API gravity oil and normal saline water).
Depending upon seal type, high-pressure mercury/air injection curves
(HPMIC) of cuttings can be used to approximate those of samples from conventional cores. Injection pressures for cuttings are usually lower than those
from equivalent cores for a particular percent pore volume occupied by mercury. Empirical adjustment factors (EAFs), expressed in psi, for different seal
types are derived from comparisons of HPMIC on epoxy-sealed vertical
conventional core plugs with cuttings or simulated cuttings of the same
seal interval. The EAF values are added to the capillary pressure measurement of cuttings to obtain the approximate value of mercury/air capillary
1Now

with Poro Technology, Houston, Texas

Sneider et al.

pressure of a vertical plug. The EAF vary from ~1900 psi (mercury/air) for
type A seals to ~25 psi for type D seals, using 7.5% mercury pore volume saturation as the reference saturation.
Careful sample preparation and accurate closure corrections are critical to
obtaining accurate HPMIC measurements and corresponding EAF values for
HCH calculations.

INTRODUCTION
This paper addresses the question: How useful are
cuttings of seals to estimate the hydrocarbon column
heights? This is an important question because cuttings of seal lithologies are very common, but cores of
seals are rare.
During the past 25 yr, we have been coring seals and
collecting cuttings while coring or crushing seal cores
to produce simulated cuttings. Figure 1 is an example of a cored sealreservoir interface. A comparison of
high-pressure mercury/air injection capillary pressure
curves (HPMICs) of both the cores and associated cuttings or simulated cuttings shows that it is possible to
estimate the capillary pressure equivalent to a vertical
seal lithology from HPMICs of cuttings by adding an
empirically derived adjustment factor (EAF) in psi.
This paper reviews some principles of hydrocarbon
entrapment, discusses sample preparation, and presents examples of empirical relationships between
HPMICs of core samples and associated cuttings.

HYDROCARBON ENTRAPMENT
Schowalters 1979 paper on seals reviews the principles of hydrocarbon entrapment/accumulation. A
brief review of the key principles is presented to
explain the entrapment/accumulation processes and
how mercury/air measurements relate to hydrocarbon/water capillary pressure and, in turn, to hydrocarbon column height (HCH) trapped against seals.
Figure 2 is a schematic of a stratigraphically
trapped reservoir with its adjacent seals. Hydrocarbons entering the reservoir are driven by the buoyancy
force or pressure (Pb), which is the difference in density of the hydrocarbons and formation water the
hydrocarbon column height (h) 0.433, the gradient
of fresh water. Hydrocarbons entering the reservoir
must enter the pores and displace the pore water. The
equation of this resistive force (Pc, a rocks capillary
pressure) is shown in Figure 2. Hydrocarbons will
continue to fill the reservoir and be trapped against the
seals until the buoyancy pressure due to the hydrocarbonwater system in the reservoir exceeds the capillary entry pressure (Pe) of the weakest seal rock. In
water-wet or mostly water-wet systems, hydrocarbons
will continue to leak into the seals until a balance or
equilibrium is reached between the seal entry pressure
and the pressure within the reservoir system.

We have estimated the HCHs in more than 200

reservoirs where low-permeability lithologies (not
faults) are the seals. We observe that the estimated
HCHs of hydrocarbon-bearing reservoirs correspond
to the mercury/air capillary pressure between ~5%
and 10% nonwetting phase saturation. We have used
Pc at 7.5% nonwetting phase saturation to indicate the
saturation at which the seal actually leaks hydrocarbons through its pore network. This saturation is
called breakthrough or leakage saturation.
Figure 3 shows capillary pressure vs. nonwetting
phase curves for the mercury/air system for seals A
and D. Using the assumed densities of oil, gas, and
water given and interfacial tensions (in dynes/cm) of
30, 70, and 480 for oil/water, gas/water, and mercury/air systems, mercury capillary pressures are converted to oil/water and gas/water systems. If the seal
capillary pressure (Pc) for leakage is taken at 7.5% nonwetting phase saturation, the A seal will hold ~1200
ft of oil or 520 ft of gas before leakage through the seals
occurs. The D seal will hold ~120 ft of oil or ~50 ft of
gas before leakage through the seal. The equations to
convert mercury/air capillary pressure to oil/water
and gas/water capillary pressure and to HCH are outlined in Appendix 1.
It is important to remember that when mercury
injection capillary pressure (MICP) data are converted
to reservoir conditions, the values of oil/gas/water
densities and interfacial tensions must be corrected for
reservoir temperature and pressure.

SEAL TYPES
Sneider et al. (1991) studied several hundred seal lithologies and presented an arbitrary classification of seals based
on the hydrocarbon column held. The seal types and
hydrocarbon columns held are shown in Table 1.
The study used mercury/air capillary pressure
curves, which were converted to an oil/water capillary
system assuming 35 API gravity oil and normal saline
water. The oil/water capillary system was converted
into the hydrocarbon column height (HCH) held
before leakage through the seal. Leakage is assumed to
be where Pc equals 7.5% nonwetting phase saturation
based on a comparison of HCH observed in the field
and the column height calculated from the
mercury/air capillary pressure curve when the saturation is 7.5%. In Figure 3, the mercury/air capillary
pressure at P c = 7.5% nonwetting phase saturation

Seal Capacity from Cores vs. Cuttings

RESERVOIRSEAL COUPLET
LITHOLOGY

SEAL TYPE
(OIL)

Pc @ 7.5% Hg
Saturation (psi)

ANHYDRITE

>50,000

CHICKEN WIRE
ANHYDRITE

809 2395

TIGHT DOLOMITE
PARTIALLY
REPLACED BY
ANHYDRITE

DE

65 130

RESERVOIR
ROCK

10 80

DOLOMITE

converts to an oil/water capillary pressure for A and

D seals of 113 psi and 11.4 psi, respectively, which in
turn converts to a HCH held of ~1200 and 120 ft,
respectively, for the A and D seals. In other words,
the A seal will hold a HCH of ~1200 ft if the oil is 35
API and the pore water is normal saline water. If more
oil enters the reservoir, hydrocarbons will leak through
the seal. The hydrocarbon column held by a seal is a
function of its capillary pressure curve (i.e., pore throat
size distribution) and the density of the hydrocarbons
and pore water. For other oil, gas, and water densities,
the hydrocarbon column held can be determined by
the equations in Appendix 1.

TOP SEAL

Conventional core samples are cut perpendicular to

bedding or perpendicular to the potential sealing surface (Figure 4). Core samples and cuttings are
extracted to remove all hydrocarbons and are dried at
approximately 60C for at least 24 hr; the dry weight of
the samples is then measured. The sides of the conventional core plug are coated with epoxy so that mercury
can enter only at the top and bottom of the plug.

LATERAL
SEAL

Pe
Pe

Pb = h ( w - hc) 0.433, psi

2 cos
r

Figure 1. Core of an
anhydrite top seal on a
dolomite reservoir, San
Andres Formation, New
Mexico.

SAMPLE PREPARATION AND

CAPILLARY PRESSURE
MEASUREMENTS

Pe

Pc =

dynes/cm2

Pe = seal capillary entry pressure (psi)

BOTTOM
SEAL

Figure 2. Schematic of a
stratigraphic trap showing
the forces (pressures) controlling hydrocarbon entrapment. Pb = buoyancy
pressure in psi or the driving
force; Pc = capillary pressure
in psi or the resistive force; Pc
at 7.5% nonwetting saturation is assumed to be the seal
leakage saturation; h =
hydrocarbon column height
in feet; = interfacial tension
between water and hydrocarbon in dynes; = contact or
wetting angle, in degrees; r =
radius of the capillary tube
(or pore throat) in cm.

Sneider et al.

MERCURY-AIR

Pc = 7.5% Sat.

3000

APPROXIMATE
OIL-WATER
GAS-WATER
Pc (psi) h (ft)
Pc (psi) h (ft)
o/w = 30 dynes/cm

g/w = 70 dynes/cm

A
D
1000

113

1,189

232

521

HYDROCARBON
COLUMN HELD
A SEAL

11.4

120

23.5

53

HYDROCARBON
COLUMN HELD
D SEAL

500
300

Figure 3. Mercury/air
capillary pressure curves
of A and D seals.
Breakthrough pressure or
leakage of hydrocarbons
through the seal is assumed
to be at 7.5% nonwetting
phase saturation. The
approximate oil/water
and gas/water capillary
pressures and hydrocarbon
column height for oil and
gas are shown.

100

50

OIL

GAS

30

A
D
10

CLAY-RICH SHALE
SANDY SILTSTONE

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
NONWETTING PHASE SATURATION (%)

The core plug or cuttings are sealed in a glass penetrometer (Figure 5a) that is placed into a lowpressure port of a porosimeter. A vacuum of 1020 is
drawn on the rock sample, and the penetrometer is filled
with mercury at a filling pressure of 1.5 psia. This is
called the low-pressure mercury injection stage.
In the low-pressure stage, the injection pressure is
increased incrementally over a series of pressure
steps up to 25.0 psia. Equilibrium condition is established at each pressure point (step) when mercury
intrusion ceases, as indicated by the lack of any pressure drop at the end of a 20-sec waiting period. At the
end of the low-pressure injection stage, the holder
with the sample is removed from the porosimeter,
weighed, and then loaded into the high-pressure cell.
The injection pressure is returned to both the same
pressure point and respective amount of mercury
intrusion that existed at the last low-pressure point.
The pressure is then increased incrementally to

60,000 psia. Equilibrium at each high-pressure step is

determined as in the low-pressure stage; however, a
60-sec waiting period is used. Computer hardware/
software controls, monitors, and records test results.
Data are corrected for any artifacts by applying calibration data obtained by running blanks.
More than 100 pressure steps or measurements are
made during both the low- and high-pressure stages.
At the conclusion of each MICP sample analysis, the
test results are printed out for examination and evaluation. A pressure vs. volume of mercury plot is shown
in Figure 5b. These data are placed on a disk for processing and final data reduction.

VERTICAL
PLUG CUT

SIDES OF VERTICAL
PLUG COATED AND
SEALED WITH EPOXY

Table 1. Seal Types and Hydrocarbon Columns.

Seal-Flow Barrier
Type
A*
A
B
C
D
E
F
1Poor-quality,

hydrocarbons.

35 API Oil Column Held

(m)
(ft)
1500
5000
300 <1500
1000 <5000
150 <300
500 <1000
30 <150
100 <500
15 <30
50 <100
<15
<50
Waste Zone Rocks1

low-permeability rocks that contain appreciable

1 INCH

3/4 INCH

Figure 4. Schematic diagram shows orientation of

vertical seal plug that is coated with epoxy. Mercury
enters the sample only at the top and bottom.

Seal Capacity from Cores vs. Cuttings

AUTOPORE

POROSIMETER

(PRESSURE VS. VOLUME MEASURED)

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
100 50

10

1 0.5

0.10.05

0.01

DIAMETER ( m)

PRESSURE
GENERATOR

Figure 5. (a) Penetrometer with sample surrounded with mercury in the porosimeter pressure chamber. (b) Plot
of cumulative pressure vs. mercury intrusion volume. (After Micromeritics, 1995.)
A key aspect for each HPMIC test is the determination of closure pressure. Closure pressure is that
pressure at which mercury first enters the sample pore
space (i.e., initial pore entry pressure) as opposed to
mercury closing or conforming around the sample to
fill sample surface irregularities that are not part of the
sample pore volume. The more irregular the sample
surface(s) (i.e., cuttings), the higher the closure. The
closure or apparent mercury intrusion must be determined from examination of the plots of pressure vs.
mercury volume injected. The closure must be subtracted prior to the calculation of capillary pressure vs.
percent of pore space (pore volume) occupied. These
calculations were made for all the HPMIC curves measured in our studies.
Figure 6 is a portion of two capillary pressure curves
that have been corrected for closure. One curve is of an
epoxy-sealed vertical plug, and the other is of simulated cuttings prepared from the rock surrounding
where the plug was cut. The capillary entry pressure
(Pe) is 26 psi for the simulated cuttings and 91 psi for
the plug. The pressure vs. mercury saturation values
for the simulated cuttings and epoxy-coated vertical

plug approach one another as the pressure increases.

The difference in capillary pressure (in psia) at Pc =
7.5% mercury (nonwetting phase) saturation is defined
as the empirical adjustment factor (EAF). In this example, 179 psi 170 psi = 9 psi; 9 psi would be added to
the capillary pressure value of the cuttings to approximate the capillary pressure of the epoxy-sealed vertical
plug. The EAF is 9 psi.
Figure 7 illustrates the mercury saturation in a vertical plug in which mercury can enter only at the ends
(Figure 7A). At the entry capillary pressure of Pe = 0%
mercury (Figure 7B), the nonwetting phase begins to
enter or surround the pore system at the end of the
plug. As pressure increases, mercury enters the
pores. At a mercury saturation of about 7.5%, we
visualize that one or more continuous filaments or
pathways of mercury connect from one end of the
plug to the other (Figure 7C). We believe that this is
at or near the breakthrough saturation (when the
nonwetting phase leaks through the seal). It is possible that the breakthrough saturation may vary for
different seals, but 7.5% mercury saturation is consistent with our empirical observations.

Sneider et al.
200

Pe10% = 191 psi

Pe10% = 187 psi

180

160

Pe
core = 179 psi
7.5%
EAF
Pe
cuttings = 170 psi
7.5%
Empirical
Adjustment Factor (EAF) =

Pe5% =
161 psi

9 psi

(psi)

140

Pe5% = 130 psi

120

100

Pe = 91 psi
0%
80
SIMULATED CUTTING
SEALED VERTICAL PLUG

60

40

Pe0% = 26 psi

20

= 7.9%, ka = 0.02 md
0
30

25

20

15

10

MERCURY SATURATION (% PORE VOLUME)

Figure 6. A portion of high-pressure capillary pressure curves of a sealed

vertical plug and simulated cuttings of the rock from which the plug was cut.
Note the capillary pressures at Pe = 0% (initial mercury entry) and at 5%, 7.5%,
and 10% nonwetting phase saturation. Ka = air permeability.

TYPICAL HIGH-PRESSURE
MERCURY/AIR CAPILLARY
INJECTION CURVES
Figure 8 shows high-pressure mercury/air injection capillary pressure curves (HPMIC) for four typical seals. In each graph, the curve with black squares
is a vertical plug epoxy sealed on its sides, and the
other curve (open squares) is of simulated cuttings
from the same piece of rock from which the core plug
was cut. At lower values of capillary pressure and

pore space occupied by the nonwetting phase mercury, the cuttings curves are below the plug curves.
The cuttings have all sides of the sample fragments
exposed, and mercury will first enter the larger pore
throat sizes and the partial pores exposed on the surface of the sample. Although not illustrated in this
paper, nonsealed horizontal plugs of seals have capillary pressure curves very similar to simulated cuttings. The HPMIC curves show the entry pressure
and the capillary pressure at 5% and 10% nonwetting
phase saturation, expressed as pore space occupied
by mercury. A 7.5% nonwetting phase saturation

Seal Capacity from Cores vs. Cuttings

MERCURY INJECTION AT TOP

MERCURY INJECTION AT TOP

SEALED SAMPLE
WITH EPOXY COATING
ON SIDES

MERCURY INJECTION AT BOTTOM

MERCURY INJECTION
AT BOTTOM
Pc @ 0% Hg Saturation

MERCURY INJECTION

Pc @ 7.5% Hg Saturation

Figure 7. Schematic diagram illustrating the distribution of mercury at Pe = 0% and Pc = 7.5% mercury saturation. Mercury is black. Note the continuous filaments of mercury through the sample.
(A) The mercury injection sample. (B) Pc at 0% mercury (Hg) saturation. Mercury fills and conforms
with the outer grain surfaces. (C) Pc at 7.5% mercury (Hg) saturation. Mercury fills many pores, and
numerous mercury-filled pathways are continuous from the top to the bottom of the plug. Pc at 7.5%
mercury saturation is assumed to be the breakthrough or leakage pressure of the sample. (After
Micromeritics, 1995.)

Sneider et al.
Mercury Injection Capillary Pressure (Pore Volume)

Mercury Injection Capillary Pressure (Pore Volume)

100000

100000

10000

10000

Plug

Plug

Cuttings

1000

1000
Cuttings

100

10

90

80

Por. = 9.4%
Perm. = 0.031 md.

10

Pc@ Plug Cuttings

Entry 130
5% 1600
10% 3600

1
100

100

Por. = 3.9%
Perm. = 0.005 md.

Pc@

100
700
2500

70
60
50
40
30
Pore Space Occupied (%)

Plug Cuttings

Entry 400
5% 1000
10% 1300

20

10

1
100

90

80

160
450
800

70
60
50
40
30
Pore Space Occupied (%)

"A" SEAL

20

10

"B" SEAL

Mercury Injection Capillary Pressure (Pore Volume)

Mercury Injection Capillary Pressure (Pore Volume)

100000

100000

10000

10000

Cuttings

1000

1000
Plug

100

Por. = 13.1%
Perm. = 0.43 md.

10

Cuttings

100

90

80

60
265
300

Por. = 19.0%
Perm. = 0.43 md.

10

Pc@ Plug Cuttings

Entry
5%
10%

1
100

Plug

Pc@ Plug Cuttings

Entry 30
5% 105
10% 135

25
122
225

70
60
50
40
30
Pore Space Occupied (%)

"C" SEAL

20

10

1
100

90

80

22
85
125

70
60
50
40
30
Pore Space Occupied (%)

20

10

"D" SEAL

Figure 8. Examples of high-pressure mercury/air injection curves for seal types A, B, C, and D. Curves
for the vertical plug are designated with black squares; the cuttings curves (open squares) are of simulated cuttings from rock adjacent to the vertical plug.

"A" SEAL

"B" SEAL

"C" SEAL

10

1000 X

"D" SEAL

Figure 9. SEM photomicrograph of seal types A, B, C, and D illustrated in Figure 8.

Note the 10 scale. A SealPredominant clay fabric with limited grain support. Clay particles are compacted and have only a slight recrystallized diagenetic appearance.
Intercrystalline pore volume is low. B SealRock fabric shows some grain support and
has common intergranular detrital clay. Clay particles are generally compacted and exhibit
limited diagenetic character. Minor intercrystalline pore space, largely concentrated in intergranular areas where clay is less compacted. C SealRock fabric shows grain support.
Intergranular clay particles have a more random orientation, which corresponds to an
increase in intercrystalline pore volume. Clay morphology shows more pronounced diagenetic character. D SealGrain-supported fabric with development of quartz overgrowth
cement. Clay minerals consist of diagenetic grain-coating/pore-filling chlorite and kaolinite
with common intercrystalline pore space. Partial preservation of intergranular pores, with
apertures restricted by diagenetic phases.

10

Sneider et al.

Table 2. Empirical Adjustment Factors (EAFs) to Estimate Air/Mercury (Air/Hg) Capillary Pressures of
Vertical, Epoxy-Coated Plugs from Air/Mercury Capillary Pressure of Cuttings.
EAF Values Added to Cuttings Air/Hg Capillary
Pressure (psia) at 7.5% Mercury Saturation
Seal Type

Number
of Samples

Average

Min.

Max.

6
72
79
48
27

2315
1810
455
140
30

1402
923
423
22
27

3120
4009
1040
363
91

A*
A
B
C
D

correlates best with the hydrocarbon column heights

(HCH) found in reservoirs.
The air permeabilities of the seals measured under
stress are low to very low. Scanning electron microscope (SEM) photomicrographs (Figure 9) show the
poor interconnection of pores in the A and B seals.
For the C and D seals, pore size and interconnection increase.

EMPIRICAL ADJUSTMENT FACTORS

The empirical adjustment factor (EAF) is the difference expressed in pressure (psi) between the capillary
pressure at a specific mercury saturation measured on a
vertical plug of a seal cut perpendicular to the sealing
surface (i.e., usually a vertical plug cut perpendicular to
a bedding surface) and that measured on simulated

1554

14

140

"D"
SEALS 1564

N = 905

1574
12

120

1584
1594

100

(psi)

(psi)

7.5%
1604

10

1614
80

1624

IC, ID-II
60

1634

IB

1644
1654

IA-B
40

1664

1674

IA
20

IAA

1684
1694

FIELD OOWC
0

0
100

80

60

40

20

MERCURY AND OIL SATURATION (% PORE VOLUME)

1700
1704

Figure 10. Mercury/air and

oil/water capillary pressure
curves of reservoir and seal
rocks from the Tar Springs
Formation, Benton Field,
Illinois. The field column
height is about 90 ft, which
corresponds to the oil
column held by the weakest
D seal. Leakage is
assumed to be at 7.5% oil
saturation. IAA =
>10005200 md, well-sorted,
lower medium-grained
sandstone; IA = 2001000
md, very well sorted, upper
very fine grained sandstone; IA-B = 50200 md,
well-sorted, lower and
upper very fine grained
sandstone; IB = 1050 md,
moderate to well sorted,
lower very fine grained
sandstone and siltstone;
and IC, ID-II = 0.110 md,
moderately sorted siltstone.
OOWC = original oil/water
contact.

Seal Capacity from Cores vs. Cuttings

cuttings of the same seal rock type. The saturation values chosen for EAF usually are determined at 5%, 7.5%,
or 10% nonwetting phase saturation. In this paper, 7.5%
nonwetting phase (mercury) saturation is used.
From hundreds of pairs of HPMIC curves like those
in Figure 8, EAFs are derived by averaging pressure values between the plug and cuttings values determined at
7.5% nonwetting phase saturation. The EAFs, in psi, are
the average values that need to be added to an HPMIC
curve of cuttings to approximate the capillary pressure
that would be measured on the vertical plug in which
the sides are coated and sealed with epoxy. We have
standardized on deriving the EAFs at 7.5% mercury saturation. This is based on empirical data that show an
equivalence between column heights held in reservoirs
and the estimated seal capacity derived from HPMIC
data of the capping seals.
The most up-to-date data sets on EAFs are shown in
Table 2. These data are based on more than 230 seals.
As we continually add additional pairs of vertical
plugs and cuttings or simulated cuttings, the EAFs
might be modified, but we expect that future values
will not be significantly changed.
Figure 10 shows mercury/air capillary pressure
curves based on 905 samples of reservoirs and seals
from the Lower Carboniferous sandstone in the Benton
Field in Illinois. The trap is a simple, four-way closed
anticline. The 24 seals measured are D type. The mercury/air capillary pressure curves of the reservoir and
seals are converted to the oil/water system, and then the
height of hydrocarbon column held by the weakest D
seal is calculated. The field HCH of ~90 ft agrees closely
with the hydrocarbon column predicted for the seal
capacity using the capillary pressure value at 7.5% nonwetting phase saturation.

CONCLUSIONS
1. Vertical plugs cut perpendicular to sealing surfaces and epoxy-coated on the sides are the most
reliable sample type to obtain high-pressure mercury/air capillary pressure curves on seals.
2. High-pressure mercury injection curves (HPMIC)
of cuttings from seals at low mercury saturation
values give capillary pressure curves whose pressure values for seal capacity (i.e., hydrocarbon column heights held) are lower than those of the
vertical plugs.
3. Empirical adjustment factors (EAFs) added to the
capillary pressure curves of the cuttings can be
used to approximate the capillary pressure of
vertical plugs.
4. The EAF values are picked at a nonwetting phase
saturation of 7.5%. The capillary pressure at 7.5%
saturation corresponds best with the heights of
hydrocarbon columns measured in many fields.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors are grateful to Dr. C.L. Vavra of ARCO
E & P Technology, Plano, Texas, and an unknown

11

reviewer for their editorial comments. We owe special

thanks to Florence Rollins for drafting assistance and
to Ramona Sneider for preparing the manuscript.

APPENDIX 1
Equations to Convert Mercury/Air Capillary
Pressure to Oil/Water and Gas/Water Capillary
Pressure and HCH
The hydrocarbon column held is a function of the
buoyancy pressure, generated by the difference
between the hydrocarbon and water density, necessary
to overcome the capillary pressure of the seal rock at a
given nonwetting phase saturation (e.g., 0%, 5%, 7.5%).
The following equation illustrates this relationship:
Pc

h/w (psi)

h (ft) =

= h( w h )0.433
Pc

(1)

h/w

( w h )0.433

The following values are commonly used for the

above calculation: water density (w) = 1.110 g/cc; oil
density (h) = 0.8498 g/cc (35 API); and gas density
(h) = 0.050 g/cc.
The calculation of seal capacity and hydrocarbon
column held for a given rock type is based on the
air/mercury (a/Hg) capillary pressure data and its
conversion to an equivalent hydrocarbon/water
(h/w) capillary pressure system using the following
equations:

Pc

h/w

Pc

a/Hg

2 h/w cos h/w

r
=
2 a/Hg cos a/Hg

and

Pc

h/w

h/w cos h/w

a/Hg cos a/Hg

(2)

= Pc

a/Hg

h/w cos h/w

a/Hg cos a/Hg

where a/Hg = air/mercury/solid/system, h/w =

hydrocarbon/water/solid/system, o/w = oil/water/
solid system, and g/w = gas/water/solid system.
The following values are commonly used air/mercury contact angle ( ) = 140; oil/water contact angle
( ) = 0; gas/water contact angle ( ) = 0; air/mercury interfacial tension ( ) = 480 dynes/cm;
oil/water interfacial tension () = 30 dynes/cm; and
gas/water surface tension () = 70 dynes/cm. These
values are for surface or near-surface conditions.
When using equations 1 and 2 for reservoir conditions, the values of fluid densities and interfacial tensions must be corrected for reservoir temperature
and pressure.

12

Sneider et al.

Incorporating the values into equation 2 yields the

following conversions:
Pc o/w = 0.082 Pc a/Hg
Pc g/w = 0.190 Pc a/Hg

(3)

By incorporating the values for water, oil, and gas

density into equations 1 and 3, the hydrocarbon column heights (h) for oil and gas yields:
For oil : h(ft) = 0.728 Pc a/Hg
For gas : h(ft) = 0.414 Pc a/Hg

(4)

These equations are used to calculate the HCH by

substituting the appropriate air/mercury capillary
pressures at 0%, 5%, 7.5%, or 10% mercury saturation.

REFERENCES CITED
Micromeritics, 1995, Operators manual AutoPore III:
Norcross, Georgia, 258 p.
Schowalter, T.T., 1979, Mechanics of secondary hydrocarbon migration and entrapment: AAPG Bulletin,
v. 63, no. 5, p. 723760.
Sneider, R.M., K.K. Stolper, and J.S. Sneider, 1991,
Petrophysical properties of seals (abs.): AAPG Bulletin, v. 75, no. 3, p. 673674.