ROCK PROPERTIES PROBLEM 3

BUILDING A RESERVOIR DESCRIPTION

Your team is evaluating development of the West Sparkle field. A new well WS-2 penetrated 30 meters of the
target X sand. A summary of the log calculations on 3 meter intervals are attached. Several rotary sidewall
core plugs were cut. Routine porosity and permeability measurements were made as well as air-brine
capillary pressures.

1. What are the appropriate average values for thickness, porosity, water saturation and permeability for
the X sand in the WS-2 well?

2. Determine, if you can, how many rock types are present and their location

3. What layering scheme might you suggest for reservoir simulation?

Note: Production tests from the WS-2 have yielded only dry gas. Therefore all calculated water saturations can be
assumed to be at irreducible values
d 30 meters of the
al rotary sidewall
as air-brine

ermeability for

water saturations can be

 Log Calculations Core Data
Water Ambient Liquid
Depth Interval, Meters of Porosity, Saturation, Depth, m Porosity, Permeability, Capillary
m ss Net Sand fraction fraction subsea frac md Pressure Comments
2950-53 2.7 0.200 0.39 2952 0.213 55
2953-56 3 0.240 0.32 2955 0.253 110 x
2956-59 3 0.265 0.29 2958 0.279 160
2959-62 0 All shale
2962-65 3 0.261 0.17 2964 0.275 420 x
2965-68 3 0.210 0.20
2968-71 3 0.196 0.22 2969 0.208 157 x
2971-74 3 0.165 0.26 2972 0.174 70 x
2974-77 2.5 0.137 0.30 2977 0.147 38 x
2977-80 2 0.110 0.39
CAPILLARY PRESSURE DATA

Water Saturation (%)

Sample Depth, m ss: 2955 2964 2969 2972 2977

Pc (psia)

10 32.00 17.00 22.00 25.50 29.20

8 35.00 17.86 22.50 26.00 31.10
6 38.00 19.20 23.20 28.40 35.00
4 49.00 20.50 27.80 36.20 45.80
3 60.00 24.10 31.50 42.30 57.50
2 85.00 31.40 38.60 62.90 100.00
1.5 100.00 37.70 46.00 100.00 100.00
1 100.00 47.30 77.90 100.00 100.00
0.5 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

Threshold Pc, psia 1.55 0.55 0.91 1.61 2.09

Liquid Permeability, md 110 420 157 70 38

Ambient porosity, fraction 0.253 0.275 0.208 0.174 0.147

Laboratory Conditions: Tests used air-water.

Interfacial tension = 72 dynes/cm
Contact angle = 0
Calculation of Average Properties and Rock Types

25.2 meters of the X sand appears to be hydrocarbon bearing. So the net to gross ratio is 25.2/30 or 0.84
The average porosity is obtained by thickness weighting the log zonal porosities.
The average water saturation is obtained by weighting the zonal water saturations by their coresponding phi*h

Average permeability must assume some direction to flow and can be calculated by arithmetic, geometric or harmoni
averages. But, there is a problem. Not all of the intervals in the X sand had a sidewall plug cut. We must find some
method for estimating permeability in the uncored intervals.

So we need to make a cross-plot of porosity and permeability. This should be done on data at reservoir conditions.
If we plot the measured log porosities versus the corresponding ambient core porosities, we see that there is a good
relationship with only a minor correction from ambient core to reservoir condition log. So we have some confidence
in substituting the log porosities in place of the core porosities. The plug permeability data is at ambient conditions
but no corresponding permeabilities were obtained at reservoir stresses. So we will have to work with the ambient
data and recognize that subsequent well test permeabilities may be lower than the ambient core data.

A plot of core permeability versus log porosity shows that the upper three intervals have lower permeabilities
at comparable porosities when compared to the lower samples. This trend is also evident when we examine
a plot of log porosity versus log water saturations. The upper three zones have higher water saturations
Multiple rock types are suspected. The Amaefule RQI plot indeed shows that the upper 9 meters
appears to be a separate rock type. So now if we fit permeability trend lines through the interval 2950-2959 as Flow
Unit 1 and 2962-2980 as Flow Unit 2, we can reliably estimate permeability for the missing intervals of Flow Unit 2.
Average permeabilities for the two flow units can now be calculated by the various averages. Note that to be
precise, the geometric mean should be corrected for the varying thicknesses of the intervals.

Layering For Reservoir Simulation

The number of layers required for simulation will vary with the reservoir process being studied
Since we have identified 2 rock types, it makes sense to represent each rock type with its own layer.
Some decision needs to be made about the shale from 2957-62 meters.
If it is laterally continuous over the well spacing, then it will nee to be accounted for as a
no-flow barrier. If it is believed to be somewhat discontinuous, then we may represent it as a reduction in
vertical permeability. If it is localized around the WS-2 then it may corect to neglect it.

The two-layer description is appropriate for single-phase flow under depletion conditions. However, if we
are simulating a mutiple-phase process where gravity effects may be important, then we may need to divide each
Flow Unit into several layers to allow for more accurate calculations. Initial water saturations may be distributed
in these layers through the use of a Leverett J function approach. The J function may also be helpful in assigning
the proper water saturations to areas away from well control.
Note that a separate J function must be applied to eack rock type.
5.2/30 or 0.84

coresponding phi*h

tic, geometric or harmonic

cut. We must find some

at reservoir conditions.
e see that there is a good
we have some confidence
is at ambient conditions
o work with the ambient

wer permeabilities
when we examine
r saturations

erval 2950-2959 as Flow

ntervals of Flow Unit 2.
s. Note that to be

a reduction in

However, if we
y need to divide each
ns may be distributed
be helpful in assigning
 Problem 2-3 Core Vs Log Porosity
0.300

f(x) = 0.9647395589x - 0.0043402252

R² = 0.9997225037
0.250

0.200
Log Porosity, frac

0.150

0.100

0.050

0.000
0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28 0.3

Core Porosity, fraction

 Problem 2-3 Log Porosity Vs Core Permeability
1000

100
Core Permeability, md

Interval 2950-2959

10

1
0.120 0.140 0.160 0.180 0.200 0.220 0.240 0.260 0.280 0.300

Log Porosity, Fraction

 Problem 2-3 Log Water Saturation Vs Log Porosity
0.45

Interval 2950-2959
0.40

0.35

0.30
Water Saturation, Fraction

0.25

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00
0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250 0.300

Log Porosity, Fraction

 Problem 2-3 RQI Vs Phiz
10.000

1.000 2962-2980
RQI

2950-2959

0.100
0.010 0.100 1.000

Phiz
 Problem 2-3 Log Porosity Vs Core Permeability
1000

f(x) = 69903.0337232836 x^3.7910577989

R² = 0.9960376131

f(x) = 24740.7201787735 x^3.7954696577

R² = 0.9999980936
100
Core Permeability, md

2962-2980
Power (2962-2980)
2950-2959
Power (2950-2959)

10

1
0.120 0.140 0.160 0.180 0.200 0.220 0.240 0.260 0.280 0.300

Log Porosity, Fraction

 Problem 2-3 Capillary Pressure Data
12

10
Air-Brine Capillary Pressure, psi

2964
2969
6
2972
2977
2955

0
10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 100.00 110.00

Water Saturation, Percent

CAPILLARY PRESSURE DATA 1

Water Saturation (%)

Sample Depth, m ss: 2955 J-2955 2964 J-2964 2969

Pc (psia)

10 32.00 208.51 17.00 390.80 22.00

8 35.00 166.81 17.86 312.64 22.50
6 38.00 125.11 19.20 234.48 23.20
4 49.00 83.41 20.50 156.32 27.80
3 60.00 62.55 24.10 117.24 31.50
2 85.00 41.70 31.40 78.16 38.60
1.5 100.00 31.28 37.70 58.62 46.00
1 100.00 20.85 47.30 39.08 77.90
0.5 100.00 10.43 100.00 19.54 100.00

Threshold Pc, psia 1.55 0.55 0.91

Liquid Permeability, md 110 420 157

Ambient porosity, fraction 0.253 0.275 0.208

Laboratory Conditions: Tests used air-water.

Interfacial tension = 72 dynes/cm
Contact angle = 0
J-2964 2972 J-2972 2977 J-2977

274.74 25.50 200.57 29.20 160.78

219.79 26.00 160.46 31.10 128.62
164.84 28.40 120.34 35.00 96.47
109.90 36.20 80.23 45.80 64.31
82.42 42.30 60.17 57.50 48.23
54.95 62.90 40.11 100.00 32.16
41.21 100.00 30.09 100.00 24.12
27.47 100.00 20.06 100.00 16.08
13.74 100.00 10.03 100.00 8.04

1.61 2.09

70 38

0.174 0.147
 Problem 2-3 Capillary Pressure Data
450.00

400.00

350.00

300.00

2964
250.00
J Function

2969
2972
200.00 2977
2955

150.00

100.00

50.00

0.00
10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 100.00 110.00

Water Saturation, Percent

 Log Calculations Core Data
Water Ambient Liquid
Meters of Porosity, Saturation, Depth, m Porosity, Permeability, k*h,
Depth Interval, m ss Net Sand fraction fraction Phi*h Phi*h*Sw subsea frac md md-m
2950-53 2.7 0.200 0.39 0.540 0.211 2952 0.213 55 149
2953-56 3 0.240 0.32 0.720 0.230 2955 0.253 110 330
2956-59 3 0.265 0.29 0.795 0.231 2958 0.279 160 480
2959-62 0 0.000
2962-65 3 0.261 0.17 0.783 0.133 2964 0.275 420 1260
2965-68 3 0.210 0.20 0.630 0.126 188 565
2968-71 3 0.196 0.22 0.588 0.129 2969 0.208 157 471
2971-74 3 0.165 0.26 0.495 0.129 2972 0.174 70 210
2974-77 2.5 0.137 0.30 0.343 0.103 2977 0.147 38 95
2977-80 2 0.110 0.39 0.220 0.086 16 32

Averages 2950-59 2962-80 Full Well

Sum h 8.7 16.5 25.2
Sum Phi*h 2.055 3.059 5.114
Sum Phi*h*Sw 0.672 0.706 1.377
Avg Phi 0.236 0.185 0.203
Avg Sw 0.33 0.23 0.27
Average Permeability, md
Arithmetic 110 160 143
Geometric 99 90 93
Harmonic 91 60 71
Capillary
Pressure Comments RQI Phiz
0.521 0.250
x 0.672 0.316
0.772 0.361
All shale
x 1.260 0.353

x 0.889 0.244
x 0.647 0.198
x 0.523 0.159