Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 8

DOI: 10.1002/ente.

201500010

Improved Method to Identify Hydraulic Flow Units for


Reservoir Characterization
Abouzar Mirzaei-Paiaman,*[a] Hadi Saboorian-Jooybari,[a] and Peyman Pourafshary[b]
Identification of hydraulic flow units (HFUs) is an important
part of reservoir characterization. Rock samples within
a given HFU are expected to have the same mean hydraulic
radius. We show that the famous reservoir quality index-flow
zone indicator (RQI/FZI) technique and its recent modifications do not use the concept of mean hydraulic radius. Each
predicted HFU by these methods may contain the samples
with different pore structures, and further the rocks with similar structures may be distributed in more than one HFU.

This makes the reservoir characterization very complicated


and sometimes an erroneous process. An improved method,
referred to as FZI star method (FZI*), is presented here
using the base form of the KozenyCarmen (KC) equation,
opposed to RQI/FZI method which relies on the generalized
form of the KC equation, by proper consideration of the
mean hydraulic radius concept. The presented method is
verified using a large set of capillary pressure measurements.

Introduction

Existing Models

Identification of hydraulic flow units (HFUs) is a key step in


reservoir characterization and is usually performed using
routine core analysis (RCAL) data. Rock samples within
a given HFU are expected to have the similar pore structure
(i.e., the same mean hydraulic radius). The reservoir quality
index-flow zone indicator (RQI/FZI) method[1] has been
widely used for study of HFUs. This method and its recent
modifications[2, 3] are derived from the generalized form of
the Kozeny-Carmen (K-C) equation.[4, 5] As will be shown
later, the methods that are derived from the generalized
form of the K-C equation do not use the concept of mean
hydraulic radius.[6] The consequence would be inaccurate
classification of HFUs, with different extents depending on
the complexity of the rock pore structure. For example, each
HFU identified by these methods may contain samples with
different pore structures, and further the samples with similar
pore geometrical attributes may be distributed in more than
one HFU. The main contribution of this work is to present
an improved method for identification of HFUs by proper
consideration of the mean hydraulic radius concept. We develop a modified FZI method (here referred to as FZI* or
FZI star) with a better resolution which ensures that each
HFU only contains the samples with almost identical pore
geometrical characteristics. FZI* is derived using the base
form of the KC equation with consideration of all available
pore geometrical attributes that KC equation provides. In
derivation of the FZI* method, we emphasize that the effective or mean hydraulic radius should be the same within
a HFU but different among distinct HFUs. Furthermore, the
FZI expression should contain the tortuosity term. Generally,
the FZI should only contain pore geometrical parameters
and should not contain any parameter controlled by wettability of system.

Kozeny[4] and Carmen[5] considered the porous medium to be


composed of a bundle of capillary tubes. They applied Poissoulles and Darcys laws and invoked the concept of the
mean hydraulic unit radius[6] to derive a basic relationship
between porosity and permeability, given by Equation (1). In
this study this equation is referred to as the base form of
the KC equation.

Energy Technol. 2015, 3, 726 733

2
rmh
2t2

in which k is the permeability, f is the effective porosity, rmh


is the effective or mean hydraulic unit radius (defined as the
ratio of cross sectional area to wetted perimeter), and t is
the tortuosity.
The relationship between the mean hydraulic radius, rmh,
and the surface area per unit grain volume, Sgv, and porosity
can be expressed as:[4, 5]
rmh

Sgv 1

Using Equation (2) and substituting for rmh in Equation (1)


gives the generalized form of the KC equation as:
[a] Dr. A. Mirzaei-Paiaman, H. Saboorian-Jooybari
Department of Petroleum Engineering
National Iranian South Oil Company (NISOC)
Ahvaz (Iran)
E-mail: Mirzaei1986@gmail.com
[b] Dr. P. Pourafshary
Department of Petroleum and Chemical Engineering
Sultan Qaboos University
Muscat (Oman)

2015 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim

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

The FR can be estimated using Archies equation as:[10]


FR

a
m

in which a is the lithology factor and m is the cementation


exponent. Inserting Equation (8) in Equation (7) and using
the general KC equation gives:
k

2m1
1
1 2 FS a2 S2gv

Nooruddin and Hossain[2] used Equation (9) to write:

m
LogRQI Log
LogFZINH
1

Graphically speaking, based on Equation (4), on a loglog

plot of RQI versus 1 all samples with similar FZI values


will lie on a straight line with unit slope and constitutes an
individual HFU. In reservoir characterization studies where
macroscopic properties exist in the form of RCAL data the
numerical value of FZI for each plug can be determined
q
1
k
using FZI 0:0314
.
Although there should exist one single FZI value for each
HFU, in real field-case practice, a distribution for each FZI
around its true mean is encountered. When multiple HFUs
exist, the overall distribution of FZI is a superposition of the
individual distributions around their mean FZIs.[7] Identification of each mean FZI value or the corresponding HFU requires decomposition of the overall FZI distribution into its
constituting elements which can be performed using cluster
analysis techniques like discrete rock type (DRT) and probability plots. These clustering methods have been discussed in
details elsewhere.[7, 8]
Based on the concept of HFUs, each pore geometrical
family is expected to have similar mean hydraulic radius
(rmh). The approach which is used by Amaefule et al.[1] to develop the RQI/FZI model (i.e., substituting for rmh in Equation (1) by a combination of Sgv and f and then forming
groups in Equation (3) by differentiating between micro
(e.g., Sgv) and macroscopic (e.g., f) rock properties) means
that systems with similar Sgv but with different f (i.e., different rmh values) are identified wrongly as a single HFU. This
flaw in the RQI/FZI model causes inaccurate classification
of HFUs, to different extents depending on the complexity
of rock structures.
Energy Technol. 2015, 3, 726 733

t FRf

in which permeability is in millidarcy and f is unitless.


1
FZI p
FS tSgv

Nooruddin and Hossain[2] developed a modified FZI


model. The relationship between tortuosity, formation resistivity factor FR, and porosity can be written as:[9]

10

in which FZINH is the modified FZI expression expressed in


mm defined by Nooruddin and Hossain as:[2]
FZINH

1
p
aSgv FS

11
m

Hence, on loglog plot of RQI versus 1, all samples with


similar FZINH values will lie on a straight line with slope of
unity. Samples that lie on the same straight line claimed to
have similar pore throat attributes constituting an individual
HFU.
Izadi and Ghalambor[3] coupled the Poiseuilles flow equation and Darcys law, taking into account the irreducible (or
connate) water saturation SWC in the porous medium which
was considered as a bundle of tortuous capillary tubes. They
derived the following:

LogRQIIG Log
1 Swc 2
1

LogFZI

12

in which FZI is defined in Equation (14) and expressed in


mm. Furthermore, RQIIG is the modified RQI given in mm by
Izadi and Ghalambor as:[3]

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

2015 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim

14

727

Similarly, all samples with similar FZI values will lie on


a straight line with unit slope on a on loglog plot of RQIIG

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.

Development of an improved method to identify


HFU
It is clear that the samples of the same HFU must have the
similar effective or mean hydraulic radiuses. Hence, we suggest using the base form of the KC equation, which includes
the pure form of the mean hydraulic unit radius to develop
the model for HFU. By taking the square root followed by
a logarithm of both sides of Equation (1), this equation can
be re-written as:

Log

p
p
r
k log
Log pmh
t FS

15

and if presenting the permeability in mD:


p
p
Log0:0314 k log LogFZI *

16

in which, FZI* is the modified FZI in mm defined as:


r
FZI* pmh
t FS

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

FZI* takes into account all the pore related parameters


that the KC equation provides. This FZI* model considers
the effects of the mean hydraulic radius and tortuosity and
does not include any additional parameter controlled by the
wetting conditions, which improves the performance of the
proposed model.

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

2015 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim

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.

Energy Technol. 2015, 3, 726 733

2015 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim

729

Energy Technol. 2015, 3, 726 733

2015 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim

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

No. of clusters (DRT Cluster No. of


analysis)
data

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)

No. of clusters (probability


plot analysis)

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)

clustering schemes. In both cases


of clustering using either DRT or
probability plot analysis, the FZI*
method yields a better classification of HFUs than the FZI
method. In addition, when using
the FZI* method the clustering
using probability plot analysis
gives a significantly better classification of HFUs than the DRT
technique.
Figure 5 and Figure 6 show the
MICP data for, respectively the
vertical and horizontal plugs
based on the FZI and FZI* methods undergoing DRT and probability plot clustering schemes.
Likewise the OWCP data, in both
cases of clustering, the FZI*
method provides a better classification of HFUs than the FZI
method. When applying the FZI*
method the probability plot clustering Scheme gives a significantly
better classification of HFUs than
the DRT technique.
Concerning the aforementioned
analyses shown in Figures 3 to 6,
it should be noted that even in
the case of using the FZI*
method, it is observed that some
curves do not obey the expected
orders. On the other hand, some
little overlapping is observed between the capillary pressure
curves of different HFUs. There
might be several reasons for such
unexpected deviations from the
model. The first and the most important one is that the new
method presented here is based
on the KC equation. Some simplifications made by this equation
may be the main source of inaccuracy in the analysis, in particular when studying heterogeneous
carbonated rocks.[1215] Second, it
is possible that the deviations
have been caused by errors in experimental measurements and
laboratory calculations. Third, the
tests must be done on unfractured
samples. In other words, some of
the observed deviations might be
because of existence of microfractures in the samples. Fourth, the
samples were saturated and aged

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.

Energy Technol. 2015, 3, 726 733

2015 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim

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.

Energy Technol. 2015, 3, 726 733

2015 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim

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.

Energy Technol. 2015, 3, 726 733

In other hand, the classical equations presented in this


work may also be modified by introducing the fractal theory
to obtain novel results. For example, Cai and Yu[15] modified
the classical LucasWashburn (LW) equation by introducing
the fractal dimension for tortuous capillaries representing
the heterogeneity of flow in porous media. The modified LW
equation may be called LW-CAI equation.

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.

Keywords: capillary pressure FZI star hydraulic flow


unit kozenycarmen equation mean hydraulic radius
[1] J. O. Amaefule, M. Altunbay, D. Tiab, D. G. Kersey, D. K. Keelan,
Enhanced reservoir description using core and log data to identify hydraulic flow units and predict permeability in uncored intervals/wells
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 3 6 October,
1993, Houston, Texas.
[2] H. Nooruddinn, M. Hossain, J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2011, 80, 107 115.
[3] M. Izadi, A. Ghalambor, SPE Reservoir Eval. Eng. 2013, 16, 257
264.
[4] J. Kozeny, ber kapillare Leitung des Wassers im Boden, Sitzungsberichte. Royal Academy of Science Vienna, Proc. Class I, 1927, 136,
271 306.
[5] P. C. Carmen, Trans. AIChE 1937, 15, 150 166.
[6] R. B. Bird, W. E. Steware, E. N. Lightfoot, Transport Phenomena,
Wiley, New York, 1960.
[7] M. Abbaszadeh, H. Fujii, F. Fujimoto, SPE Formation Evaluation
1996, 11, 263 271.
[8] M. S. El Sharawy, J. Appl. Sci. Res. 2013, 9, 4271 4287.
[9] M. R. J. Wyllie, W. D. Rose, J. Pet. Technol. 1950, 2, 105 118.
[10] G. E. Archie, Trans. AIME 1942, 146, 54 62.
[11] H. Saboorian-Jooybari, G. H. Mowazi, S. R. Jaberi, A new approach
for rock typing used in one of the Iranian carbonate reservoir (a case
study). Paper SPE 131915 presented at the International Oil and Gas
Conference and Exhibition, Beijing, China, 8 10 June 2010. DOI:
10.2118/131915-MS.
[12] J. Cai, B. Yu, M. Zou, L. Luo, Energy Fuels 2010, 24, 1860 1867.
[13] J. Cai, E. Perfect, C. L. Cheng, X. Hu, Langmuir 2014, 30, 5142
5151.
[14] R. Masoodi, E. Languri, A. Ostadhossein, J. Colloid Interface Sci.
2013, 389, 268 272.
[15] J. Cai, B. Yu, Transp. Porous Media 2011, 89, 251 263.
Received: January 11, 2015
Revised: February 13, 2015
Published online on April 15, 2015

2015 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim

733

Вам также может понравиться