Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
201500010
Introduction
Existing Models
2
rmh
2t2
Sgv 1
726
3
1
k
1 2 FS t2 S2gv
Since both the Equation (1) and Equation (2) have been
written for a circular capillary, therefore the shape factor FS
is introduced to account for non-circular capillary tubes. For
the specific case of circular tube FS is equal to 2.
Amaefule et al.[1] used Equation (3) to develop the wellknown RQI/FZI model as:
LogRQI Log
LogFZI
1
where RQI and FZI, both presented in mm, are defined as:
RQI 0:0314
r
k
a
m
2m1
1
1 2 FS a2 S2gv
m
LogRQI Log
LogFZINH
1
t FRf
10
1
p
aSgv FS
11
m
LogRQIIG Log
1 Swc 2
1
LogFZI
12
RQIIG 0:0314
r
k p
1 Swc
13
in which permeability is in mD. In this case the FZI was defined as:
FZI
r
0:0314
1
k
1 Swc 1:5
14
727
versus 1 1 Swc 2.
Since, the RQI/FZI models proposed by Nooruddin and
Hussain[2] and Izadi and Ghalambor[3] use the same general
methodology as Amaefule et al.[1] in derivation of their modified models, the same problem also exists in using these
models. Besides, the FZINH index proposed by Nooruddin
and Hussain[2] does not consider the tortuosity properly in
determination of flow units. In fact, substituting the tortuosity in the general KC equation and removing the factors that
control the texture of the rock from the FZI index, not only
does not enhance the characterization of HFUs, but causes
less accurate determination of HFUs than the original RQI/
FZI model. It should also be noted that Nooruddin and Hussain model is more complicated than the original FZI approach due to the need for the cementation factor (m),
which is usually measured during SCAL experiments and is
unknown from the results of RCAL tests. In addition, the
connate water saturation which is a function of wettability
has adverse effect on the HFU determination approach developed by Izadi and Ghalambor.[3] It means that by using
the Izadi and Ghalambor approach, the rocks with the same
pore structure but different wettability lie on two different
HFUs.
Log
p
p
r
k log
Log pmh
t FS
15
16
17
p
p
Hence, on the log-log plot of 0.0314 k versus , all samples with similar FZI* values will lie on a straight line with
unit slope. In reservoir characterization studies the numerical
value of FZI* for each plug can be determined using
q
k
FZI 0:0314 .
Energy Technol. 2015, 3, 726 733
Model verification
Our developed model was used to identify the HFUs in the
Bangestan oil reservoir in Ahvaz field which is located in the
south west of Iran. This reservoir is mainly composed of
limestone with occasional dolomitized limestone intervals.
Due to the complex nature of pores system, the more heterogeneous and anisotropic a reservoir is, the more complicated
the identification of the HFUs.[11] A high degree of heterogeneity in this reservoir is indicated by computing the value of
0.9 for Lorenz coefficient. The existing HFU identification
techniques failed to determine the HFUs in such a heterogeneous reservoir. Extensive sets of RCAL and SCAL data
from the reservoir are available which enhances the validation of the new model. RCAL data of vertical (501 samples)
and horizontal (1680 samples) plugs from five wells are used.
The oilwater capillary pressure (OWCP) and mercury injection capillary pressure (MICP) data of vertical and horizontal plugs are available for checking different HFU identification methods.
Figure 1 and Figure 2 show the HFUs identified by FZI
and FZI* methods based on DRT and probability plot clustering techniques for, respectively, vertical and horizontal
plugs. The summary of the analyses shown in these figures is
presented in Table 1. For each case, the number of clusters
and in each cluster the number of samples and the corresponding range of FZI, FZI*, permeability, and porosity
values are also included. As summarized in this table, the
numbers and the characteristics of HFUs predicted by FZI
and FZI* differ significantly. Furthermore, the HFU classification result is severely affected by the choice of the clustering scheme. A critical question arises here that must be answered: which of the classifying methods (FZI or FZI*) and
clustering techniques (DRT or probability plot) lead to the
best classification of the samples into HFUs? The only way
to check the reliability of each model is by analyzing the capillary pressure of the plugs as a dynamic parameter affecting the fluid flow in the reservoir. The rock samples classified
as a HFU should have similar capillary curves as they have
similar dynamic behavior. In other words, the capillary pressure curves for the samples in each predicted HFU are expected to stay together and make a clear separation from
other HFUs.
Only limited and selected number of plugs undergo SCAL
tests because these experiments are time consuming and expensive. This is the reason that in the preceding capillary
pressure plots only some of the identified HFUs may be observed. Figure 3 and Figure 4 show the available measured
OWCP data for, respectively the vertical and horizontal
plugs based on the FZI and FZI* methods by using different
728
Figure 1. Use of the different HFU identification methods when undergoing different clustering techniques for the vertical plugs. a) FZI and DRT analysis, b)
FZI* and DRT analysis, c) FZI and probability plot analysis, d) FZI* and probability plot analysis.
Figure 2. Use of the different HFU identification methods when undergoing different clustering techniques for the horizontal plugs. a) FZI and DRT analysis, b)
FZI* and DRT analysis, c) FZI and probability plot analysis, d) FZI* and probability plot analysis.
729
FZI*
FZI
11
351
859
394
60
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
Vertical
Horizontal 6
17
179
232
69
4
1
2
3
4
5
Horizontal 9
20
275
143
45
12
5
1
5
702
543
231
125
60
11
2
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Vertical
Method Direction
0.010.02
0.020.08
0.080.27
0.250.79
0.802.48
2.493.74
0.010.02
0.030.08
0.080.25
0.250.69
0.81.87
0.110.22
0.260.79
0.82.48
2.527.87
7.9624.93
25.277.92
81.9205.08
262.41393.78
909.69
0.10.25
0.250.79
0.82.49
2.557.34
9.1522.01
29.174.17
84.24
FZI or FZI*
range [mm]
0.0070.051
0.011.209
0.02620.238
0.346164.12
1.234955.539
36.053
2068.959
0.0050.091
0.0091.326
0.0614.115
0.729109.397
86.877880.200
0.0460.558
0.00920.238
0.007173.634
0.0182068.959
0.022955.539
0.094255.315
0.34675.418
6.354133.548
3.514
0.0050.577
0.00623.185
0.006109.397
0.009880.2
0.0282.166
0.0686.877
2.297
Permeability
range [mD]
0.0140.092
0.0050.281
0.0030.288
0.0030.331
0.0020.285
0.0090.294
0.0190.187
0.0050.216
0.0040.272
0.0070.314
0.0250.251
0.0920.281
0.0280.288
0.0140.331
0.0090.294
0.0040.207
0.0030.048
0.0030.02
0.0040.009
0.002
0.0460.201
0.0290.314
0.0150.271
0.0070.251
0.0050.02
0.0040.025
0.007
Porosity range
(fraction)
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
40
215
672
462
227
64
41
81
273
80
26
24
743
415
316
143
39
33
315
81
52
20
Cluster No. of
data
Table 1. The summary of the analyses using both FZI and FZI* methods based on DRT and probability plot techniques for the vertical and horizontal plugs.
0.010.03
0.030.06
0.060.16
0.160.34
0.350.79
0.793.74
0.010.04
0.040.06
0.060.18
0.180.4
0.410.84
0.110.3
0.30.86
0.862.05
2.078.6
8.7141.38
42.96909.69
0.130.28
0.281.11
1.112.24
2.286.91
7.2184.24
FZI or FZI*
range [mm]
0.0070.118
0.0180.75
0.0266.498
0.09628.278
0.491164.12
3.5142068.959
0.0050.225
0.020.577
0.0287.041
0.56830.354
2.231173.541
0.0462.849
0.00935.772
0.007164.12
0.0182068.959
0.022651.92
0.096255.315
0.0052.159
0.00626.422
0.016109.397
0.009880.2
0.02886.877
Permeability
range [mD]
0.0140.139
0.0050.281
0.0040.284
0.0030.288
0.0040.331
0.0020.294
0.0070.187
0.0090.201
0.0040.272
0.0070.314
0.0070.271
0.0810.281
0.0280.292
0.0140.331
0.0090.294
0.0040.167
0.0020.040
0.0420.25
0.0190.314
0.0150.271
0.0070.251
0.0040.025
Porosity range
(fraction)
730
Figure 3. The OWCP data for vertical plugs based on different methods. a) FZI and DRT analysis, b) FZI* and DRT analysis, c) FZI and probability plot analysis,
d) FZI* and probability plot analysis.
Figure 4. The OWCP data for horizontal plugs based on different methods. a) FZI and DRT analysis, b) FZI* and DRT analysis, c) FZI and probability plot analysis, d) FZI* and probability plot analysis.
731
Figure 5. The MICP data for vertical plugs based on different methods. a) FZI and DRT analysis, b) FZI* and DRT analysis, c) FZI and probability plot analysis,
d) FZI* and probability plot analysis.
Figure 6. The MICP data for horizontal plugs based on different methods. a) FZI and DRT analysis, b) FZI* and DRT analysis, c) FZI and probability plot analysis, d) FZI* and probability plot analysis.
732
with the formation water for about two weeks before the
measurement of the OWCP curves in order to simulate initial wettability state of the reservoir before migration of the
oil. As described above, not giving enough time for the aging
can be a source of error for validation of the new model with
the OWCP data. Fifth, since the MICP tests were performed
under very high injection pressures to fill almost all of pores
of the samples, loss of the original texture is a possibility.
Thus, seeing some deviations from the expected trend, particularly at high mercury saturations, can be attributed to the
destruction of the original pore structures at very high injection pressures.
Conclusions
In this work, a modified FZI method was presented using
the base form of the KC equation. The new model was verified using abundant capillary pressure data from a carbonated
reservoir. The following conclusions can be drawn from this
work:
* The base form of the KC equation, which includes the
mean hydraulic radius term can be used to develop a more
reliable method for identification of HFUs.
* The literature methods of identifying HFUs developed
using the general form of the KC equation do not use the
concept of mean hydraulic radius in a consistent way. Each
HFU identified by the existing methods may contain the
samples with different pore structures, and further the samples with similar pore geometrical attributes may be distributed in more than one HFU.
* Identification of HFUs is significantly impacted by the
choice of different clustering methods. The probability plot
clustering technique gives better results than the famous
DRT method.
* Employing the FZI* method along with the probability
plot clustering technique leads to much more satisfactory
identification of HFUs.
Future works
In this work, we used only two clustering techniques of DRT
and probability plot analysis. Other available clustering techniques may also be used. In particular, artificial intelligence
techniques can be considered as efficient clustering methods.
The new rock typing method presented in this study can further be verified using more SCAL data from other reservoirs.
Acknowledgements
The first and second authors thank National Iranian South
Oil Company (NISOC) and National Iranian Oil Company
(NIOC) for permission to publish this work.
733