Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Overview
Description of commercial core analysis protocols in relation to
measurements at OU
Porosity, Grain Volume, and Saturations
CoreLab MR Shale i.e. NMR porosity in core plugs
200 300 g
Assumes that no residual fluids such as water are left in the sample.
This is rarely the case in tight samples so 2 types of measurements are done
As Received: Residual fluids (mostly water, or some residual oil if in a liquid rich
system) are left in the rock
In dry gas systems where only water is left, this is considered the Bulk Volume
Gas
In liquid rich systems the AR measurement doesnt mean as much
7
Cleaned and Dried: All fluids have been removed including clay bound water so it is
BV Measurement HG immersion
Total immersion 3 7 mm
Kg * cm3/Kg = Kg
P1*V1 = P2*V2
Open
Closed
Closed
VR*P1 = (VC-VG+VR)*P2
VG = VC-VR(P1/P2 -1)
Closed
Open
Closed
VG
9
Grain Volume
Sieve size
10
Crushed vs Plugs
Montney Example
Crushed vs. Plug
11
Weight 1
and Vbb
m= Weight loss
from crushing and
transfer
Weight 2
Crush Sample
& collect in
LPP cell
Vacuum oven
@ 100 degC
for 16 hrs
Boyles Law
LPP for Vgg and
gg of Crushed
Sample
13
Dean-Stark Extraction
14
Dean-Stark Extraction
Equations
*This is the only direct
measurement of the fluids.
The volumetric (i.e.
reading the water level in
the burette) and
gravimetric methods
should be within 5%
15
Example Report
16
Summation of Fluids
Equations
Matrix
Gas (Air)
Dead Oil
Free and
Capillary
Bound Water
Clay Bound
Water
Blue = GRI
Red = MR Shale
CoreLab MR Sats
Moveable
Hydrocarb
on
Anadarko
Rocket Unit EB 2H
Eaglebine
File No:
Date:
Analyst(s):
Total
(ambient)
Porosity
Sample
Depth,
Total
Pore Volume,
Number
ft
cm3
1-1H
1-2H
1-3H
1-4H
1-5H
1-6H
1-7H
1-8H
1-9H
1-10H
1-11H
1-12H
7701.00
7710.50
7720.00
7730.00
7740.00
7750.00
7760.00
7770.00
7780.00
7790.00
7800.00
7810.00
0.877
0.886
0.938
0.922
0.856
1.041
0.729
0.672
0.852
0.844
1.011
0.582
9.6
9.1
10.4
10.6
10.6
9.9
11.7
10.3
9.4
8.7
10.8
8.7
Saturation
Oil
Water
Bulk
Density,
g/cm3
% PV
TR
TR
5.2
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
5.5
HOU-130958
11-Nov-2013
TV
82.3
90.0
76.7
77.1
82.3
81.1
83.5
76.8
74.7
89.9
80.1
74.0
2.540
2.560
2.554
2.533
2.536
2.549
2.540
2.557
2.561
2.567
2.551
2.574
Description
Sh,
Sh,
Sh,
Sh,
Sh,
Sh,
Sh,
Sh,
Sh,
Sh,
Sh,
Sh,
gry,
gry,
gry,
gry,
gry,
gry,
gry,
gry,
gry,
gry,
gry,
gry,
calc,
calc,
calc,
calc,
calc,
calc,
calc,
calc,
calc,
calc,
calc,
calc,
slty,
slty,
slty,
slty,
slty,
slty,
slty,
slty,
slty,
slty,
slty,
slty,
tr fluor, pr cut
tr fluor, pr cut
tr fluor, pr cut
tr fluor, pr cut
tr fluor, pr cut
tr fluor, pr cut
lam, tr fluor, pr cut
tr fluor, pr cut
tr fluor, pr cut
lam, tr fluor, pr cut
lam, tr fluor, pr cut
lam, tr fluor, pr cut
2 p.u.
API RP40
Native State
Tinni
5%
3%
1.5%
0.2%
Porosity studies
Tinni and Gannaway, 2014 OU Shale Consortium
29
Porosity studies
Tinni and Gannaway, 2014 OU Shale Consortium
30
Dielectric Permittivity
Permittivity is:
a physical quantity that
describes how an electric field
affects, and is affected by a
dielectric medium,
and is determined by the ability
of a material to polarize in
response to the field,
and thereby reduce the total electric field inside the
material. Thus, permittivity relates to a material's
ability to transmit (or "permit") an electric field.
SP 100
GR 150 Oil
Hydrocarbon
1 Micro-Resistivity
1000 50DS Water Porosity 0
Salini
Caliper160 Sw 1
0ty 30 6
1 Deep Resistivity
1000 50 X-plot Porosity
X100
Fresh Water
Dielectric water
filled porosity
overlays with
total porosity
Heavy oil
X200
X300
X400
X500
X600
Water zone
X700
X800
Sw Relatively Constant
BVW (from Dielectric)
and PHIT from NMR are
1:1 (Sw = 1)
o g
g w
Gas Swirr
*Connate
Water not
moveable
Reservoir
Mobile
Total
Swirr
Reservoi Water
rOil
Theloy, 2014
Vertical Barrier between Upper and
Lower Three Forks
Rh - Archie
Rv/Rh
Thin BedDielectric
)
)
)
)
Fluids Analysis
Retort porosity = (Free Water + Free Oil)/BV or (Free Water + Free Oil + CBW
NMR porosity = MR Shale total liquids
DS porosity = (Total Water Volume from DS + Calculated Oil Volume)/BV
What porosity is used for subsequent saturation calculations?
Porosity Comparison
MR Shale Total Fluids
(Y-axis) vs Total Oil and
Water Recovered from
DS (X-axis)
Not bad.
Date:
5/30/2014
CAS14-0504
% of Effective PV
A-R
Sam ple
Depth,
ID
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
A-R
Bulk
Bulk Volumes
Dry
Grain
Porosity,
Water
Gas
Mobile Oil
Gas Filled
Expandable
Clay
Bound
Hydrocarbon
Saturation,
Saturation,
Saturation,
Porosity,
Water,
Saturation,
Water,
Bound Clay
Density,
Density,
Density,
feet
gm s/cc
gm s/cc
gm s/cc
% of BV
% of PV
% of PV
% of PV
% of BV
% of BV
% of BV
% of BV
10200.0
10236.0
10265.0
10285.0
10323.0
10345.0
10368.0
10430.0
10470.0
10480.0
10524.0
10820.0
10905.0
2.594
2.246
2.482
2.310
2.413
2.553
2.473
2.396
2.503
2.456
2.499
2.560
2.505
2.637
2.276
2.487
2.313
2.426
2.579
2.493
2.412
2.530
2.468
2.507
2.571
2.539
2.682
2.309
2.514
2.344
2.457
2.613
2.522
2.451
2.568
2.505
2.538
2.592
2.564
4.3
4.0
2.1
2.6
2.8
3.2
2.3
3.4
3.5
3.0
2.2
1.8
3.0
54.0
29.1
49.0
38.1
43.8
48.0
25.3
50.8
52.6
53.5
59.8
51.1
36.9
38.1
32.2
11.0
5.4
19.0
31.8
29.0
19.4
29.8
15.9
14.5
22.8
45.2
8.0
38.7
40.0
56.5
37.2
20.2
45.8
29.8
17.6
30.6
25.7
26.1
17.9
1.6
1.3
0.2
0.1
0.5
1.0
0.8
0.7
1.1
0.5
0.3
0.4
1.4
1.1
1.3
1.3
0.9
1.6
1.5
0.7
1.9
1.5
1.8
2.1
0.8
1.7
0.7
14.4
7.6
14.5
9.5
3.5
6.9
8.5
3.6
5.7
4.5
1.4
2.8
3.9
3.2
4.3
2.7
4.2
5.7
2.2
4.3
5.1
5.0
5.1
3.1
4.9
Wood, 2015
Reasonable agreement between FD and crushed GRI considering scale
GRI Sw too low due to desiccation
Wood, 2015
Conclusions
Core-Based saturation
measurements are very dependent
on the downhole coring and invasion
conditions
Sw extraction (whether from retort or
DS) is only meaningful in relation to the
unaltered reservoir when OBM is used in
the presence of a non-mobile water
phase throughout the reservoir.
This is not the case the Lwr. Three Forks.
Not sure yet about the Middle Bakken
Conclusions
MR Shale predicts GRI-equivalent total
porosity within 2 p.u.
OU variation gets within 1 p.u.
Meant as a quicklook technique, in my
opinion it works as advertised
Not a precise replacement for GRI
Conclusions
Total Porosity Is it what we claim in
tight mudstones? NMR evidence
says No
Does it matter? we can get good
correlation between GRI porosity and
log-based NMR.
HPV between consistent porosity
HPV total = HPV effective
systems should be equal: i.e.
Conclusions
Dielectric logging is a resistivity
independent method for obtaining
Sw.
Need to parameterize the matrix
properties and water salinity to get a
proper water-filled porosity
Sw is optimistic when a movable water
zone is flushed with OBM
Log interpretations for Sw with ADT
inconsistent in the Bakken between two
case studies. Need to verify with HESS
Conclusions
Are core-based Sw estimates in the HESS Bakken
optimistic?
General Answer Yes, because of OBM invasion
TGA FID Gas Chromatography from native state Bakken cores will
help in answering reservoir vs. filtrate oil.
Need a vertical profile to define compartments
Conclusions
Oil and Water Saturations not clear
in the HESS SCA paper.
Value will be dependent on the base
total porosity used. What did HESS use?
Not worth anything more until we verify
this
Conclusions
Encana Montney Study
Full Diameter vs. GRI crushed total porosity
estimate sometimes agree, and sometimes not.
Function of rock type
References
API RP 40, Recommended Practices for Core Analysis, second edition, 1998. Washington,
DC: API.
Schmitt, D.P., et al., 2013, Revisiting Dielectric Logging in Saudi Arabia: Recent
Experiences and Applications in
Development and Exploration Wells. SPE 149131.
Simpson, G.A. and Fishman, N.S., 2015, Unconventional Tight Oil Reservoirs: A Call for
New Standardized Core Analysis Workflows and Research. SCA 2015 Paper 022.
Simpson, G., et al., 2015, Using Advanced Logging Measurements to Develop a Robust
Petrophysical Model for the Bakken Petroleum System
Theloy, C., 2014, Integration of geological and technological factors influencing
production in the Bakken play,
Williston Basin. Ph.D Thesis, Colorado School of
Mines.
https://dspace.library.colostate.edu/handle/11124/233
Wood, J.M., 2015, Crushed Rock Vs. Full Diameter Core Samples for Water Saturation
Determination in a Tight Gas Siltstone Play. SPE Reservoir Engineering and Evaluation.