Measurement Uncertainty in The Laboratory

Core Analysis Uncertainty and
Rock Typing
SPWLA Carbonate Workshop
Abu Dhabi
February, 2010
Gary Potter
Houston
Is Rock Typing the Same as

Facies?
Facies are a body of rock with specified
characteristics (from Wikipedia)
Is Rock Typing the Same as

Facies?
Facies are a body of rock with specified
characteristics (from Wikipedia)
Types of facies
Lithofacies - based on lithology (sandstones,
siltstones etc)
Microfacies - based on micro fabric
Ichnofacies - based on burrow forms
Electrofacies - based on electric log responses
Seismicfacies - based on velocity response
Rock Type
Rock types that have been classified according to
their petrophysical properties, especially properties
that pertain to fluid behavior within the rock, such as
porosity, capillary pressure, permeabilities, irreducible
saturations or saturations. (from Schlumberger Oilfield Glossary)
Rock Type
Rock types that have been classified according to
their petrophysical properties, especially properties
that pertain to fluid behavior within the rock, such as
porosity, capillary pressure, permeabilities, irreducible
saturations or saturations. (from Schlumberger Oilfield Glossary)
Rock Types are categorized by properties

important to HC storage and flow.
Scale
Pore
Scale
Heterogeneous
Rock Fabric
(after Worthington)
Core Plug
Scale
Homogeneous
Rock Fabric
Stratum
Scale
Heterogeneous
Stratum
Bedding
Scale
Well
Log
Homogeneous
Stratum
Pore Scale Controls
How are Rock Types Determined

Porosity and Permeability
Considers pore throat size

Capillary Pressure
Considers interconnection and distribution of
pore throats with storage

Capillary Pressure
Considers interconnection and distribution of
pore throats with storage
Relative Permeability
Includes wettability
K-Phi Cross Plot
Air Permeability, md
Rock Types by Porosity and

Permeability
1000.00
100.00
10.00
1.00
0.10
0.01
0
10
20
Core Porosity, %
K-Phi Cross Plot

Winland

Permeability
1000.00
100.00
10.00
1.00
0.10
0.01
0
10
20
Core Porosity, %
Log (R35) = .732+ .588Log(K) - .864Log()
K-Phi Cross Plot

Winland

Permeability
1000.00
100.00
10.00
1.00
0.10
0.01
0
10
20
Core Porosity, %
Log (R35) = .732+ .588Log(K) - .864Log()
Pittman
Pittman Log (R10) = .459 + .500Log(K) - .385Log(f)

Pittman Log (R35 )= .255 + .565Log(K) - .523Log(f)
Pittman Log (R50) = .778 + .626Log(K) 1.205Log(f)
K-Phi Cross Plot

Winland

Permeability
1000.00
100.00
10.00
1.00
0.10
0.01
0
10
20
Core Porosity, %
Log (R35) = .732+ .588Log(K) - .864Log()
Pittman

Rock Quality Index
RQI 0.0314
k
e
K-Phi Cross Plot

Winland

Permeability
1000.00
100.00
10.00
1.00
0.10
0.01
0
10
20
Core Porosity, %
Log (R35) = .732+ .588Log(K) - .864Log()
Pittman

Rock Quality Index
RQI 0.0314
k
e
All from equating Poiseuilles and Darcys equation
Poiseuille`s/Darcy`s equation
relates Pore Throat to K & Phi
Poiseuilles Equation for a tube

r 2 P
q A
L
8
Poiseuilles Equation for a fracture

d 2 P
A
q
L
12

r 2 P
q A
L
8
Darcys Equation
k A P
q
L

r 2 P
q A
L
8
Darcys Equation
k A P
q
L
Combined
2
r
k
8

r 2 P
q A
L
8
Darcys Equation
k A P
q
L
Combined
2
r
k
8
with porosity
r2
k
8
Poiseuille`s/Darcy`s Equation
Relates Pore Throat to K & Phi
Solve for radius
8k
r
Solve for radius
8k
r
Similar to RQI
RQI 0.0314
k
e
Solve for radius
Similar to RQI
8k
r
RQI 0.0314
k
e
Logrithm
log r 0.452 0.5 log k 0.5 log
Solve for radius
Similar to RQI
8k
r
RQI 0.0314
k
e
Logrithm
log r 0.452 0.5 log k 0.5 log

Compare to Winland and Pittman equations
Winland Log (R35) = .732+ .588Log(K) - .864Log()

Lab Performance in Measuring K

and Phi
Internal Core Lab Quality Assurance Program

Twenty- three (23) locations
Some 3200 total points of data for evaluation
Over 2 year(s) involved in each data series
Updated program as existed for 8 years
RCAL QA/QC Plugs - materials &

plan
Twenty-four (24) total samples
Twelve (12) 1.0 diameter

Twelve (12) 1.5 diameter
Porosity Ranges: 2.0 23.0%

Kinf Ranges: 0.0001 1050 mD
Grain Den. Ranges: 2.599 2.858 g/cc
QA/QC Results - assessment

criteria
Table 1: Maximum acceptable deviation in standard core plug analysis
Measurement
Porosity
Grain density
Air permeability:
0.01 - 0.1 md
0.1 - 1.0 md
1.0 - 50 md
50 md - 1 darcy
Experiencebased
+/-0.5 Por%
3
+/-0.01 g/cm
+/-30%
+/-25%
+/-15%
+/-15%
Statistically1
derived
Mean
coefficient
of
variance, %
+/-0.23%
3
+/-0.0093 g/cm
0.67
0.13
+/-21%
+/-21%
+/-13%
+/-8%
8.0
8.0
5.0
3.0
A single measurement made on the same sample that falls outside

the specified limit is 99% likely to be in error, assuming that both tests
are performed with the same standard deviation
Taken from:
Thomas, D.C. and Pugh, V.J.: "A Statistical Analysis of the Accuracy
and Reproducibility of Standard Core Analysis", The Log Analyst,
March-April, 1989, 71-77. (journal version of SCA 8701)
Experiencedbased acceptable
deviations of
Thomas & Pugh
used for
performance
assessments
Prelim results
compared to
mean of limited
standard
measurements
Core Labs` QA Experience
Internal Core
Lab QA
0.50 Por%
0.20 Por%
Permeability
<0.001 md
--
26%
0.01 - 0.1 md
30%
12%
0.1-1.0 md
25%
1.0-50 md
15%
50 md- 1 darcy
15%
3 StdDev, Por%
Porosity
Thomas & Pugh

Experience Error
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
Porosity, %
100
3 Rel Std Dev, %
Measurement
Measurement Error vs
Porosity
1.4
Measurement Error vs
Permeability
80
60
40
20
0
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
Permeability, md
10
100
1000
Impact on K&Phi Crossplot

100000.000
Porosity
Internal Core
Lab QA
0.50 Por%
0.20 Por%
Permeability
<0.001 md
--
26%
0.01 - 0.1 md
30%
12%
0.1-1.0 md
25%
1.0-50 md
15%
50 md- 1 darcy
15%
Permeability, md
Measurement
Thomas & Pugh

Experience Error
10000.000
Permeability, md
Series1
10.000
Expon.
(Series1)
0.100
Series2
1.000
Series3
0.100
100000.000
1000.000
1.000
10.000
20.00
30.00
Error Low Perm vs Hi Porosity

y = 0.0194e0.4433x
y = 0.016e0.4447x
Series1
100.000
10.000
Series2
1.000
Series3
0.100
0.001
0.001
30.00
10.00
1000.000
0.010
10.00
Porosity,20.00
%
Expon. (Series3)
10000.000
0.010
0.00
Expon. (Series1)
Porosity, %
0.0194e0.4433x
100.000
100.000
0.001
0.00
Permeability, md
y=
y = 0.0232e0.4422x
y = 0.0194e0.4433x
Series1
1000.000
0.010
Porosity-Perm Cross Plot

10000.000
Error Hi Perm vs Low Porosity
0.00
Expon. (Series1)
Expon. (Series2)
10.00
20.00
Porosity, %
30.00
Impact in Pitman/Winland curves
Winland R35 Type Curves
Permeability, md
10000
1000
150mm
100
20mm
10
3mm
0.3mm
0.1
0.02mm
0.01
0.001
10
20
Porosity, %
30
40
Permeability, md
10000
1000
3mm
Perm*0.92
100
Perm*1.08
10
1
0.1
0.01
0.001
10
20
Porosity, %
30
40
Permeability, md
100
3mm
Perm*0.92
10
Perm*1.08
0.1
10
20
Porosity, %
30
40
Using Leverett J-Function

J-Function used to normalize capillary pressure
for different K and f within a rock type
J-Function data that does not group indicates
different rock type
J-Function
2 cos J cos
Pc
r
k
Leverett J-Function
J-Function used to normalize capillary pressure
for different K and f within a rock type
J-Function data that does not group indicates
different rock type
J-Function
2 cos J cos
Pc
r
k
k
0.2166 Pc
J
cos
Leverett J Function vs Sw*

10
Laboratory Pc vs Sw
data for 6 samples.
Sw converted to Sw*
1
J = 0.08691(Sw*)
J
Sw* = (0.08691/J)
-1.11195
(-1/-1.11195)
0.1
0.01
0.01
Sw* at Pc max (140 psi) = 0, therefore not plotted on log scale

Correlate Sw @ Pc max vs Rock Quality parameter (e.g., RQI)
Determine J from interval K, f, Pc (or Height above FWL); Predict Sw*
Predict Swir (140) for Rock Quality of interest; de-normalize Sw*
0.1
Sw*, (Sw-Swir)/(1-Swir)
Swir = Sw at max Pc
of test; in this example,
max Pc = 140 psi
Leverett J Function vs Sw*

10
Laboratory Pc vs Sw
data for 6 samples.
Sw converted to Sw*
1
J = 0.08691(Sw*)
J
Sw* = (0.08691/J)
-1.11195
(-1/-1.11195)
0.1
0.01
0.01
Sw* at Pc max (140 psi) = 0, therefore not plotted on log scale

Correlate Sw @ Pc max vs Rock Quality parameter (e.g., RQI)
Determine J from interval K, f, Pc (or Height above FWL); Predict Sw*
Predict Swir (140) for Rock Quality of interest; de-normalize Sw*
0.1
Sw*, (Sw-Swir)/(1-Swir)
Swir = Sw at max Pc
of test; in this example,
max Pc = 140 psi
Lab Measurement error in Capillary

pressure
CENTRIFUGE GAS/WATER Pc
Repeatability Testing
450
Original
test
1st
Recheck
400
350
300
Pc, psi
250
200
150
100
50
0
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
Sw, fraction
1.00
Lab Measurement error in Capillary

pressure
CENTRIFUGE GAS/WATER Pc
Repeatability Testing
Pc COMPARISON
Unconfined Centrifuge
gas/water
450
Original
test
1st
Recheck
400
350
250
CoreLab IF
200
Capillary Pressure, psi
300
Average Sw
150
Pc, psi
250
200
100
150
100
Note, these data were

re-evaluated 1-20-10
using Forbes (TblCrv
50
50
0.0
0
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
Sw, fraction
1.00
0.1
0.2
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

Water Saturation, fraction
0.9
1.0
Relative Permeability includes

Wettability
Relative Permeability, fraction
0.1
Contact Angle
0.01
0 WW
47
90
138
180 OW
Same core plug (Torpedo Sand; Ka = 571 md)

Swi = 0.20 for all tests
Steady-State (Penn State) method
Oil treated to change wettability
0.001
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Sw
0.8
1
After Owens & Archer, JPT, July 1971
Unsteady-State Relative
Permeability Error
Pore volume major factor
In JBN analysis
Smoothness of data critical
Knowing dead volumes and detecting
breakthrough very important
Experience indicates
Effective Perm +/- 5% of value
Saturation +/- 10% saturation unit
Variability decreases as floodout is approached
Steady-State Relative
Permeability Error
X-ray saturation data
+/- 1.2% saturation % units
At least 1 million photons used (Poissons
statistics)
Effective permeability data

Typically +/- 2% of value
Low flow rate, +/-10 50% of value
Error bounds on Relative

Permeability
1
Relative Permeability, fraction
Krw Water
Increasing
Kro Water Increasing
Water Kr LCL
0.1
Water Kr UCL
0.01
0.001
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Water Saturation, fraction
0.8
Conclusion
Rock type is used to group rocks that have
common storage and flow properties
Rock typing is mostly based on pore size
Rock properties measurement variabilities
have no impact on rock typing
Rock typing uses porosity, permeability,
capillary pressure, and relative permeability

Measurement Uncertainty in The Laboratory

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Measurement Uncertainty in The Laboratory

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Core Analysis Uncertainty and

Is Rock Typing the Same as

Is Rock Typing the Same as

Rock Types are categorized by properties

Pore Scale Controls

How are Rock Types Determined

How are Rock Types Determined

How are Rock Types Determined

K-Phi Cross Plot

Rock Types by Porosity and

K-Phi Cross Plot

Rock Types by Porosity and

Log (R35) = .732+ .588Log(K) - .864Log()

K-Phi Cross Plot

Rock Types by Porosity and

Log (R35) = .732+ .588Log(K) - .864Log()

Pittman Log (R10) = .459 + .500Log(K) - .385Log(f)

K-Phi Cross Plot

Rock Types by Porosity and

Log (R35) = .732+ .588Log(K) - .864Log()

Pittman Log (R10) = .459 + .500Log(K) - .385Log(f)

Rock Quality Index

K-Phi Cross Plot

Rock Types by Porosity and

Log (R35) = .732+ .588Log(K) - .864Log()

Pittman Log (R10) = .459 + .500Log(K) - .385Log(f)

Rock Quality Index

All from equating Poiseuilles and Darcys equation

Poiseuilles Equation for a tube

Poiseuilles Equation for a fracture

Poiseuilles Equation for a tube

Poiseuilles Equation for a tube

Poiseuilles Equation for a tube

log r 0.452 0.5 log k 0.5 log

log r 0.452 0.5 log k 0.5 log

Winland Log (R35) = .732+ .588Log(K) - .864Log()

Lab Performance in Measuring K

Internal Core Lab Quality Assurance Program

RCAL QA/QC Plugs - materials &

Twenty-four (24) total samples

Twelve (12) 1.0 diameter

Porosity Ranges: 2.0 23.0%

QA/QC Results - assessment

A single measurement made on the same sample that falls outside

Core Labs` QA Experience

Thomas & Pugh

Impact on K&Phi Crossplot

Thomas & Pugh

Error Low Perm vs Hi Porosity

Porosity-Perm Cross Plot

Error Hi Perm vs Low Porosity

Impact in Pitman/Winland curves

Winland R35 Type Curves

Impact in Pitman/Winland curves

Winland R35 Type Curves

Impact in Pitman/Winland curves

Winland R35 Type Curves

Using Leverett J-Function

Leverett J Function vs Sw*

Sw* at Pc max (140 psi) = 0, therefore not plotted on log scale

Leverett J Function vs Sw*

Sw* at Pc max (140 psi) = 0, therefore not plotted on log scale