PEGN 308 – Reservoir Rock Properties
Air Permeability
Chuxuan, Sun
Team members: Razan, Almohammedali; Camille, Lewis; Ali, Baqer; Lily, Clark; Keely, Grosvenor; Mohammed, Aleid
Department of Petroleum Engineering, Colorado School of Mines, Golden
This report was prepared for PEGN 308 – Rock Properties laboratory In the experiment, the absolute permeability was
class (Spring Semester 2017). The experiment was carried out on
February, 6 2018 under the supervision of Nick Rosenhagen.
Abstract
The main objectives of the experiment were to know
what permeability is and learn how to calculate it in a
quick procedure, to learn the Klinkenberg effect, and to
learn the effect of high velocities on Darcy’s Law. The
equipment used to do so was a Air Permeameter and a
Ruska Gas permeameter. The permeability calculated
for core 1-1 ranged from 0.0158darcy to 0.0203darcy,
0.38darcy to 0.62darcy for core 1-3, 0.0345darcy to
0.0442darcy for core 1-5, 0.0127darcy to 0.014darcy for
core 1-6, 0.0281darcy to 0.0295darcy for core 1-7, and
0.0322darcy to 0.0465darcy for core 1-8. One source of
errors was the written ID numbers on the cores, blocking
the poros of the cores for air to pass.
Introduction
The experiment has three main objectives. First it is to
know what permeability is and learn how to calculate it
in a quick procedure. To do so, the experimenters used
Ruska Gas Permeameter to measure the flowmeter
readings and along with other known information such
as the length and cross-sectional area of the core, air
viscosity, and flow rate to calculate the permeability. It is
important to know what permeability is and how to
calculate it because permeability is an important factor
in industrial production since it is an indicator of how
well certain fluids will flow throughout rocks and rock
formations (Schlumberger, 2017). And this indicator can
help engineers to determine whether it is worthy to drill
on the reservoir as high permeability indicates that the
fluids can be easily extracted from the reservoir and low
permeability indicates it is more difficult and maybe
costlier to extract the same amount of fluids out of the
reservoir. The second objective was to learn the
Klinkenberg effect. Understanding the Klinkenberg effect
has a significance on reservoir engineering calculations
because it is a correction for gas slippage which is
related to the heterogenesis in the reservoir
permeability, which will be explained in detail in the
background section. The third objective was to learn the
effect of high velocities on Darcy’s Law. This is important
because the permeability calculated deviates the true
permeability when the velocity of the fluid is high and
hence needed corrections for such deviations.
Background
calculated using the equation (1). Absolute permeability
is the ability of a reservoir rock to allow fluids to flow
through its pores. It indicates the flow capacity of
formation. It is an important rock property because it is
used to analyze the formation rock. Through the
combination of permeability data with pore pressure,
porosity and other parameters it is possible to estimate
the productivity of the formations. The formations of the
rocks give valuable information to engineers, helping
them to decide what properly sized equipment to use
under the specific formation will be the most efficient
and hence lead to economic efficiency (PetroPedia,
2012). This experiment also accounted the pressure
slippage, also known as Klinkenberg Effect. It is a
phenomenon in which natural gas from a reservoir
bypasses crude oil and water that is released from the
capillary openings of porous oil reservoir formations and
approaches to the mean free path of the natural gas. In
simple terms, slippage can also be defined as the gas
movement through liquid phase of the reservoir front.
This phenomenon also helps the liquid to move forward
to the low pressure zones. It is important for this air
permeability experiment to explore on the pressure
slippage because as the average pressure was low, the
permeability calculated was high and there was a great
error in the calculated permeability because many gas
bypassed the capillary openings of the core but was
stilled counted as the permeability. Nevertheless,
Klinkenberg came up with a correction that by plotting
the calculated permeability and reciprocal of the
average pressure, as the reciprocal of the average
pressure approaches 0, the gas behaves like a liquid
and that corresponding permeability is the absolute
permeability. And the calculated average pressure was
using the equation (2). The experiment also explored on
the effect of velocity on Darcy’s Law. The velocity of the
liquid was calculated using equation (3). And when fluid
flowing at a lower rate with elements of the fluid flowing
in fixed streamlines, it is called laminar flow. On the
other hand, turbulent flow is the non laminar flow,
meaning that at this velocity of flow the Darcy’s Law is
no longer accurate. However, Forchheimer came up
with a correction for high velocities Darcy’s Law so the
permeability can be calculated even with fluids in high
velocities. Equations mentioned from above:
(1):
Chuxuan, Sun PEGN 308: RESERVOIR ROCK PROPERTIES – AIR PERMEABILITY
(2):
(3):
Where,
k=Permeability of the core sample to the gas used,
Darcy
Q=Gas flow rate, cm 3/s
µ=Viscosity of the gas used, cp
L=Length of the cores sample, cm
A=Cross-sectional area of the core sample, cm 2
D=Diameter of the core sample, cm
ΔP=Average pressure drop across the core sample, atm
Pi,atm = Inlet Pressure (atm)
Po,atm = outlet Pressure (atm)
Q=Flow Rate, cm 3/s
A=Area, cm 2
Materials, methods and Procedure
The experiment was devided into two parts. For Part A,
the experimenters first pushed a core in a rubber
stopper which had a hole size equals to the core.
Inserted the stopper into the holder sleeve, thinner end
at the bottom. Tightened the clamp and back up ¼ turn
to prevent galling. Second, closed the bleed value and
the pressure regulating valve (counter-clockwise).
Turned on the air supply to “large”, and opened the
pressure regulating value (clockwise) slowly until the
gage reads 0.25 atm. While adjusting the pressure, the
experimenters tapped the pressure gage glass and
waited for a relative equilibrium state. Third, only when
the float rose above 20 subdivisions, the reading was
taken with the large tube. Otherwise, the selector valve
was switched to the “Medium” to see if the reading was
in the preferred range. If the float still failed to rise, the
selector was turned to “small”. When determined the
proper flowmeter tube, recorded “small”, “medium” or
“large” with the float’s positions, based on the center of
the float. Fourth, the regulating valve was switched for
other two pressures at least, 0.5 and 1.0 atm were used.
Recorded the corresponding float positions (mm).cm3.
Fifth, backed out the regulating valve to reduce the
pressure to zero, then opened the bleed valve.
Removed the core out and took it out of the rubber
sleeve. Sixth, started from step ‘2’ to ‘5’ with all the core
plugs. Seventh, when the last one core was tested, the
air supply valve was turned off and the lab stations were
cleaned off. The experimenters also wore the safety
goggles and gloves all time when handleing the
equipment and the cores. For Part B, th experimenters
first pushed the core sample AE1-8 into a rubber stopper
which suited the core plugs. Then inserted the rubber
into the core holder sleeve and placed the core holder in
its designated housing, and tightened the clamp, then
backed up ¼ turn to prevent galling. Second, the
experimenters turned off (counter-clockwise) the
pressure regulating valve and waited until the gage
shows zero psig. The core holder was connected to the
wet test meter, then the air supply valve was turned on.
Third, the experimenters turned the regulating valve
until the pressure reaches 30psig slowly, meanwhile
February 13th, Page 2
tapped the pressure gage glass lightly. If the flowmeter
moved so fast or if the test meter showed a deflection of
more than 5 inches, it was turned to a lower pressure.
When the pressure stabilized, the stopwatch was used
to record the time for flowing three liter. Fourth, the
experimenters adjusted the regulating valve to 21, 18,
15, 12, 9psig to gain 5 corresponding flow rates. Fifth,
when finished, the air supply was turned off, the
regulating valve was turned on to release the pressure,
and the core holder was released.
Results
Table 1 displayed the room conditions at the time of the
experiment such as temperature and pressure. Table
2,3, and 4 displayed measurements to calculate
permeability of the core AE1-7, 1-1, 1-8, 1-3, 1-5, and 1-
6 respectively, by using the Ruska Gas Permeameter.
For every core, the gauge pressure used was 0.25atm,
0.5atm, and 1atm, the air viscosity was at a constant of
0.01798cp, the average pressure was at a constant of
13.65psia, 15.49psia, and 19.16psia for each gauge
pressure respectively. For core 1-7, the flowmeter
readings varied from 46mm small tube size to 27mm
medium tube size, the flow rate varied from 0.31 cm 3/s
to 1.3cm 3/s, the length and the area of the core was
3.39cm and 2.69 cm 2, respectively, and the permeability
varied from 0.0263darcy to 0.0295 darcy. For core 1-1,
the flowmeter readings varied from 29mm small tube
size to 20mm medium tube size, the flow rate varied
from 0.21 cm 3/s to 0.98cm 3/s, the length and the area of
the core was 3.21cm and 2.78 cm 2, respectively, and the
permeability varied from 0.0158darcy to 0.0203darcy.
For core 1-8, the flowmeter readings varied from 56mm
small tube size to 31mm medium tube size, the flow rate
varied from 0.38 cm 3/s to 1.6cm 3/s, the length and the
area of the core was 3.2cm and 2.72 cm 2, respectively,
and the permeability varied from 0.0322darcy to
0.0465darcy. For core 1-3, the flowmeter readings
varied from 22mm large tube size to 43mm large tube
size, the flow rate varied from 7 cm 3/s to 17cm3/s, the
length and the area of the core was 3.2cm and 2.57 cm 2,
respectively, and the permeability varied from
0.3806darcy to 0.6269darcy. For core 1-5, the flowmeter
readings varied from 58mm small tube size to 34mm
medium tube size, the flow rate varied from 0.39 cm 3/s
to 1.75cm 3/s, the length and the area of the core was
3.31cm and 2.69 cm 2, respectively, and the permeability
varied from 0.0345darcy to 0.0442darcy. For core 1-6,
the flowmeter readings varied from 19mm small tube
size to 73mm small tube size, the flow rate varied from
0.15 cm 3/s to 0.43cm 3/s, the length and the area of the
core was 3.20cm and 2.72 cm 2, respectively, and the
permeability varied from 0.0089darcy to 0.0.14darcy.
Table 5 displayed the measurements to calculate
permeability for core 1-8 using the Air Permeameter.
The inlet pressure was 21psia, 18psia,15psia,12psia,
and 9psia. The outlet pressure was 0.8atm for each inlet
pressure. The pressure drop varied from -0.199atm to
0.629atm. The time it took the fluid to flow for 3L under
each pressure varied from 6.16s to 10.22s. The flow rate
varied from 293.54cm 3/s to 487.01cm 3/s, and the
permeability varied from -33.071darcy to 503.478darcy.
Figure 1 to 6 displayed the relationship between
Chuxuan, Sun PEGN 308: RESERVOIR ROCK PROPERTIES – AIR PERMEABILITY
reciprocal average pressure and the permeability of the
cores. All figure 1,2,3, and 5 displayed a negative
slopped trendline and only 4 and 6 displayed positive
slopped trendline. For figure 7 and 8, the relationship
between air velocity and pressure gradient was
displayed. Both figures displayed a positive slopped
trendline and the turbulent flow wasn’t shown for both
figures because all three data points were in a linear
trend which contributed to the laminar flow. And all the
calculations for each table were shown on sample
calculation sheet.
Discussion and Recommendations
From figure 4 and 6, the relationship between the
average pressure drop across the core sample and the
permeability was reasonable as the higher the pressure,
the lower the permeability, hence both figures displayed
a positive slopped trendline. Nevertheless, there was
still an error in figure 6 that at 0.065psia-1, reciprocal of
average pressure, the permeability was higher than that
of 0.73psia-1. Furthermore, the data for figure 1,2,3, and
5 was not reasonable neither. The error was significant
in this experiment that most of the figures were not
consisted of a positive slopped trendline as expected.
The error was suspected to exist even during the
experiment because the air permeameters were not
functioning well, causing inaccuracy, and experimenters
had to redo and use another permeameter twice for data
on Table 5. And only one core was tested for Table 5 due
to the malfunctioning of the equipment. Besides the
equipment factor in the inaccurate data collection, the
tightness between the rober stoppers and the cores was
also a reason why the error existed. Even though the
experimenters tried to make the the fit as possible, the
stoppers still didn’t fit very well with the cores, this error
caused the permeability to be higher than actual
because air escaped from the gap between the walls of
the core and the stopper. The labeled IDs on the cores
were another source of error. The markers on the cores
blocked the poros of the cores, causing the permeability
to be lower. To minimize those errors, it was
recommended to label the cores using another method,
such as putting one core in a smaller container with a
label on the container instead of writing on the cores.
The equipment should be adjusted before the actual
experiment, so the results could be more accurate and
reliable. There were more different sizes of robber
stoppers in the lab, but only the ones on the table near
the experimenters were used, so for the best fit, it would
be ideal for experimenters to explore the lab a little
more and find the ideal size of the robber stoppers.
Even though the figure 7 and 8 didn’t show the
deviations from the laminar flow because there were
only three data points and the velocities were 0.588cm/s
maximum which was not very high. So as the velocity
increased, it was expected for the slop of the line to be
non-linear. The non-linear slop indicates that the Darcy’s
law no longer applies because the relationship of the
veclotity and pressure gradient is not as its equation
indicated to be linear. And this was the third objective, to
learn about the effect of high velocity on Darcy’s Law. It
is important to know the effect of high velocity on
Darcy’s Law because in the industry the engineers often
February 13th, Page3
use Darcy’s Law to determine permeability, and in some
cases the fluid velocities in a reservoir is high and
Darcy’s Law will not give accurate permeability.
Engineers have to be able to know when to use Darcy’s
Law and when to use its correction modified because of
the high velocity. The experiment used air flow rate as a
factor to calculate permeability of the cores, as the
figures 1 to 6 showed, each core had an absolute
permeability value. The absolute permeability value was
calculated when the reciprocal of the average pressure
was zero. This was the case because it was when the
pressure approached infinity, indicating that the gas
behaved like a liquid flowed through the cores. This had
to be done because there existed the Klinkenberg effect
when using the air as a factor to calculate permeability,
that the air moleculars could escape using the capillary
poros of the cores to the surface of the cores. This was
the second objective of the experiment. This is
important because the engineers have to know the error
that exists in calculating the permeability using the air
permeameter method, and how to correct the error to
obtain the accurate and reliable permeability.
References
OilfieldGlossary, (n.d.), Turbulent Flow
http://www.glossary.oilfield.slb.com/Terms/t/turbulent_flo
w.aspx
-[Accessed:13-Feb-2018].
OilfieldGlossary, (n.d.), Laminar Flow
http://www.glossary.oilfield.slb.com/Terms/l/laminar_flow.
aspx
-[Accessed:13-Feb-2018].
PetroPedia, (n.d.), Slippage
https://www.petropedia.com/definition/9226/slippage
-[Accessed:13-Feb-2018].
Supplementary Material
The following material is attached to the report: Figures,
Tables, Sample calculation, Original Data Sheet, Data
Reduction Sheet, Quiz.