SPE!

DOE
%elaty of petroleum Engineers U.S. Department of Enaroy

SPEIDOE 13879 Capillary Pressure and Permeability Relationships in Tight Gas Sands
by J.D. Wells and J.O. Amaefule, Petrophyskd Services
SPE Members

~PYri9h! 198S, Society of Petroleum Engineers rhis paper was presented at the SPE/DOE 1985 Low PermeaMtii Gas Reservoirshefdin Osnnr, Colorado, May 19-22, 19S5. The material is subm to mrractiin by the author. Permission to copy ia rsstrictsdto an abatmot of not more than S00 words. Write SPE, P.O. Box 6SS8S6, Rkhardaon, Texss ~508S.3836. Telex: 7S0989 SPE DAL. pressure curves to air-brine or oilmercury capillary brine data. Almost concurrently with Purcells paper, An improved technique for determination of the Rose and Bruce2 presented a derivation of both absolute Swanson Petrophysical parameter, (Sb/Pc)A for correla- and relative permeability from capillary pressure ting permeability wi h capillary pressure data has been curves. Burdine3 also presented relationships between ieveloped. (pc/Sb)152 as a function of Sb, yields a relative permeability and capillary pressure. Jell defined minimum which corresponds to the values of n oranhical method. The k- cwsttenno Most recently, correlations between absolute --r--- ~c ~~~~% f~~= t..=-------improved technique leads to ease of computer deterpermeability and capillary pressure behavior have been nination of the parameter. The relationships developed presented by Thomeer4 and Swanson5 for sandstones and by Swanson for correlating permeability with capillary carbonates from conventional oil and gas reservoirs. pressure work well for samples with pentteabilitiea Also, refinements to the earlier capillary pressuregreater than 10 microdarcies. A new relationship relative permeability equations have been presented by between the Swanson parameter and permeability has been Brooka and Corey6. These techniques are very attracclevelopedfor tight gas sands which leads to a more tive becauae of their ease of use and because capil.-....--4. - tJcLutGa*. p~~di~~i~~ belQv 10 microdarcies. lary pressure curves, particularly from mercury injecllccuLaLG ---....=-k~li~y tion, are relatively easy to obtain. Mercury capillary pressure data at wetting phase saturations higher than 50% are approximately a factor However, all of the above correlations and equa~f 10 greater than centrifuge air-brine capillary tions were developed and/or tested using sandstone pressure for tight gas aands. This contrasts with the samples with permeabilities generally greater than Bore commonly assumed value of 5. Consequently gas10 mD. We have extended the Swanson relationship for aater relative permeabilities computed from mercury clean sands to include ssmplea less than 1 microdarcy. ,.__...-_- -.*71 . . .. -A21** W+ll ~esult in In so doing we will present an improved method for LItJeCLMU +.JALLCH7 y.~~t?tl= --------calculating the Swanson parameter, (Sb/pc)A,Hg. predictions of higher water-gas ratios than the airbrine data. Optimistic cleanup times for tight gas We have measured the air-brine and mercury injecwells completed in water-base fluids would, therefore, tion capillary curves for several samples and will show be deduced from the mercury injection data. hg~ the twQ differ in some typical cases. A new relationship is given for permeability versus (Sb/pc)A INTRODUCTION from air-brine capillary pressure. As a final exercise we will ahow how the relative permeability curves, as Tight gas sands are characterized by amsll pore calculated from the Brooks-Corey equations, are throats and crack-like interconnections between pores. These microscopic features result in some characteris- affected by using mercury data instead of air-brine data. tic macroscopic features such as high capillary < pressures, low porosity, high irreducible wetting phase SAMPLE CHARACTERIZATION saturation, and low permeability. The intent of this paper is to examine the effects of these microstrucOf the 35 tight gas sand samples examined here, tural features on air-brine capillary pressure, mercury numbers 1 through 18 are Cretaceous Falher sandstone capillary pressure, absolute permeability, and calculated relative permeability. of Western Alberta and 19 through 35 are from the LoweI . Of &3st Texas. Sample ?reczeeoitis TZ=Vi~ ?ssk s=!x!stofie A relationship between capillary pressureland depths range from 6,000 ft to 8,000 ft. Even though sbsolute permeability waa developed by Purcell in his the mineralogical compositions of these two formations paper which introduced the mercury injection method to are quite different, they are fairly similar in porosity and permeability. As it would be impractical the petroleum industry. In a response to this paper, Rose pointed out some possible problems in equating to list the mineralogical compositions of all of the sqmples, we have calculated the average bulk mineralog> from thin-section and X-ray diffraction for the FaJher References and illustrations at end of paper. -.

kBSTUCT

CAPILLARY PRESSURE AND PERMEABILITY RELATIONSHIPS IN TIGHT GAS SANDS where Pc pd

SPE 13879

samples and the average bulk mineralogy for the Travis Peak samples7. This data ia shown in Table 1, The principal clay in the Falher samples is authegenic kaolinite with small amounts of illite occasionally observed. Travis Peak clays consist of mostly illite but with a significant chlorite content. We have measured gas permeability on plug samples which were either 1 inch (2.54 cm) or 2 inches (5.08 cm) in diameter and 1 inch (2.54 cm) to 3 inches (7.62 cm) long. Mercury injection and air-brine capillary pressure was measured on 1 inch diameter plug samples of about 20 cm3 volume. Core plugs were cut, trimmed, and vacuum dried at 60C. However some samples containing traces of residual fluids were also extracted with chloroform-methanol before drying and testing.
uvDm3T&fmuT&T

= mercuryjair capillary pressure, psia = mercury/air extrapolated displacement pressure

= mercury saturation fraction bulk volume

s~

Sb@ = mercury saturation at infinite pressure C2 = curve shape factor which is reflective of pore geometry

DA.u.. .-...-

TIvl@lTO~l~~

----. . .

meters,

Capillary Pressure Mercury injection capillary pressure has been ~ea~=red to ~o,~o~ Psi (~07 &lPa)on all samples. This method was described by Purcelll. In addition airbrine capillary pressure data were measured on 20 of the samples. These measurements were made in a highspeed centrifuge capable of producing capillary pressures to about 1,000 psi (69 MPa). This procedure is discussed by Hassler and Brunner8.

Each sample can then be characterized by the paraPd, Sbm, and C2. However, the procedure for the PC - S~ getting these parameters iiF.lGl.W2S @~Chill~ curve of interest with a curve in the family of computed capillary pressure curves with defined Pd, Sbcc., and C2.

Because of the somewhat tedious nature of the Thomeer procedure, Swanaon5 later developed an alter~native procedure for obtaining a correlation parameter, e~~i~h~~ ~~*SSC~e \(Sb/Pc)A between UIerCU~Y h~e~~iea land permeability data. Swansons procedure also requires that a log-log plot of mercury injection :capillary pressure, Pc versus mercury saturation (% bulk volume), Sb be made and a tangent drawn at the Gas Permeability Measurement ~point of intersection of the hyperbola with a 45 line The permeability of the samples was measured using {passing through the origin of the hyperbola axis. lFigure 1 illustrates this procedure and shows that the a transient flow method with nitrogen as the mobile :point of tangency, A, on the curve is peculiar to each fluid. This method is described in detail elsewhere, sample and defines the point where the ratio (Sb/Pc) is so only a brief description of the experimental setup will be given here. The system is an automated, five- maximum. sample apparatus in which confining stress and pore Though this procedure is an improvement over pressure are independently controlled. This allows Thomeers, it is also time consuming and requires the measurement of permeability at in-situ stress condiconstruction of two perpendicular lines that intersect tions which is of utmost importance when working with tight gas sands. Permeability is measured by introduc- the Pc - Sb curve in order to define (Sb/pc)A. ing a small step change in pore pressure to one end of Attempting to generate (Sb/pc)A automatically using a computer routine is made difficult by the aforementhe sample and monitoring the r$sultant pressure tioned problems. We have developed a less laborious gradient versus time with a differential transducer. procedure for ease of computer generation of the paraSince one end of the sample is connected to a small known volume and the other end is connected to a large, meter (Sb/pc)A. l%is new technique is an extension of essentially infinite volume, the pressure pulse decay both the Thomeer and Swanson procedures. can be used to calculate the gas flow rate versus time =cd he~cei the permeability can be obtained. This As discussed by Thomeer4, if the hyperbolic Equation 1 is differentiate~ with respect to Fc siiti Ed method has the advantages of speed and accuracy over is eliminated through combination of the resulting the more usual steady-state gas flow method. All measurements were made at pore pressures around differential equation with Equation 1, the following 2,000 psi (13.8 MPa) so they will be equivalent to iinear equation results: Klinkenberg-corrected and liquid permeabilities. DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION Determination of Swanson Parameter (Sb/pc)A for Correlating Capillary Pressure With Permeability
10g Sb - 10g Sb = c [(pc&,) (dS@pc)]l2

(2!

We have observed that a plot of (pc/Sb)l2 verSuS log Sb results in a well defined minimum. This minimum (pc/Sb)l/2 ia a unique petrophysical parameter fOr a In a pioneering paper, Thomeer4 showed that when measured values of mercury capillary pressure, Pc and given sample. l%is parameter, which we will call YHg, is related to the Swanson parameter by yHg = mercury saturation (fraction bulk volume), Sb, for Figure 2 shows a typical various rock samples were plotted on a log-log plot, [( Sb/pc)A ]-1/2. a family of curves are obtained that can be adequately plot of (P;7! b) 112 versus log Sb for some of the represented by the equation of a rectangular hyperbola samples presented in Table 2. Notice the well defined of (Sb/pc)A (KY = a) as shown below: minimum (YH ) for all the samples. vdUeS determined %y the yHg technique were found to correspond exactly with values determined by the Swanson (1) method. The main advantage of this procedure is the (log Pc - log Pd) (log Sb - log SW) = -C2

SPE 13879

J. D. Walls & J. O. Amaefule p= Hg pc air-brine where OHg U a-b = 480 dynes/cm = 70 dynes/cm . UHg COS9HR

3 (51 I?a-bCOSea-b

eaae with which YHg can be determined even in samples with ill-defined curvatures. No constructions or nomographs are needed because YHg can be easily picked from a tabular presentation of (Pc/Sb)l/2 and Sb data. Permeability - (Sb/p~)A Relationship for Tight Gss Sands Swanaon developed several correlations for predicting permeability from mercury injection capillary pressure data. Tinesecorrelations wers bzsed cm the power law least squares fit of gas permeability, k with the parameter (Sb/pc)A. The samplea used in fhese correlations were of medium to high permeability values. As a matter of fact, Swanson pointed out the greater deviation between predicted and observed valuea of permeability using his correlations especially in low-permeability regions.

~ e:b

= 14QC = o

Using the above values, Purcell concluded that the ratio of pc H 0 c a-b was about 5. He showed several examp fes of mercury and air-brine curves plotted for samples ranging from 23 mD to 1,150 mD and We have, therefore, reviewed the Swanson relation- with,porosities from 16% to 26%. Figure 4 ia an example of these curves where the Pc Hg scale is ship to check its applicability in tight gas sands. Figure 3 shows the absolute permeability of our samples expanded by X5. His conclusion was that the curves were sufficiently similar to allow the uae of mercury plotted againSt (Sb/pc)A. As mentioned earlier, our and air-brine data interchangeably. gas permeabilities were measured at in-situ conditions of overburden atress ranging from 5,000 psi (21 MPa) to Following a similar scaling procedure we have 6,000 psi (28 MPa) and pore pressures of 2,000 psi -~-.+a.l----.4-_k*~rIn~e~.trif~ge~urveS and mercury pLu.1.Guu. uA.-..A..(138 MPa). These values wouid, therefore, be cOm@ainjection curves for four samples. Figures 5 through rable to Klinkenberg-corrected gas permeabilities or 8 are typical of the tight gas sanda we tested. The equivalent liquid permeabilities at overburden stress. curves for these samples have several.features in common. At high wettfng phase saturations, the airThe permeability values predicted using Swansons empirical relationship at 1,000 psi (6.9 MPa) confining brine capillary pressure curves are considerably lower than those for mercury, even with the factor of five stress for clean sandstones are shown in Figure 3 aa scaling difference. Different threshold entry presdashed lines and are defined by: sures and calculated pore throat radii at high Sw, will therefore result from the two methods. = 431 (Sb/pc)2109 (3) k@D) Mercury and air-brine capillary pressures appear to be proportional by a factor of five in the region of where Sb is percent bulk saturation of mercury and Pc lower Sw and higher capillary pressure, and tend to is in psi. give similar residual wetting phase saturations, SW. The solid line is the least square fit to our data set (25 samples) defined by: Reexamining Purcells data, we find that his lower permeability samples behave in the same manner as ours. Figure k for a 23 mD sample shows the same &isagreemeiit at high Sw and close match at low ~ as the four tight (4) gas samples.

kg (mD) = 30.5 (Sb/pc)A,Hg 1.56 with a correlation coefficient, R2 = 0.93.

Our curves all show that the ratio of five for mercury and air-brine data as stated by Purcell is not applicable to these tight sands. The reason for this Although a least square fit of the points produces discrepancy is not completely clear, but of the four a line with considerably different slope and intercept variables in Equation 5, the contact angle for the airfrom Swansons, it is noteworthy that Swansons line water system would be the most likely suspect. Our passes through our higher permeability data with almost data shows that the ratio of Pc H /Pc a-b is actually equal number of points above and below it. Therefore, closer to 10 at high ~. When th$ s scaling factor is if our data set were added to Swanaona, the equation inserted into Equation 5 and the equation solved for of the line would not be greatly affected. Note that es-b, a value of about 60 resulta. Whether this value the two lines intersect at about 0.02 mD. The is representative of the larger body of tight sands or relationship in Equation 4 will, however, provide a ia dependent upon sample preparation, etc. will have to better estimate of permeability for tight gas sands be established by further testing. (k< O.ol@). Many other reasons may be advanced to explain why Comparison of Centrifuge Air-Brine Versus Mercury the mercury capillary pressure data may not be directly Injection Capillary Pressure Data For Tight Gas Sands proportional to the air-brine data. These include sample size conaiderationa and rates of mercury injecThe mercury injection method for obtaining capiltion aa discussed by Wardlaw and TaylorlO. Since the Iary pressure curves waa int educed to the petroleum air-brine capillary pressure data are not simply engineering field by Purcell 1 . He observed that the related to the mercury injection data by a factor of pressure required to force mercury into the evacuated five for tight gas sands, it is essential to uae the pores of rock could be related to the air-brine capil- mercury injection data with caution. lary pressure by taking tnto account the differences in contact angle and surface tension. This relation With this in mind we calculated Y for each sample was expressed as: from the air-brine centrifuge data to check whether a *r-= =

CAPILLARY PRESSURE AND PERMEABILITY RELATIONSHIPS IN TIGHT GAS SANDS

SPE 13879

relationship can also be established between ya-b and permeability. An example of the behavior of (Pc/Sb)l/2 ?ersus Sb for air-brine ia shown for four samples in Pigure 9. Aa with the mercury capillary pressure data, minim~rn which is defined aa it is V-EiYe=sy +.- -4*L ~-b- +ho ...-----~a-b. Using ya-b to calculate the air-brine Swanaon ~arameter, we plotted in-situ permeability, k, veraua (Sb/p=)A ~-b for the samples which had air-brine data availabl~ (Figure 10). A least squares best fit to this data (19 samplea) ia given by: k(mD) = 1.22 (Sb/pc)A,a-b 1.61

mder the assumption that the data can be scaled to eservoir behavior. In view of the differences :urrently observed between mercury and air-brine capil.ary pressure data for tight gas sands, we have commted gaa-water relative permeabilities to understand :he resultant effect of the aforementioned diff~i~iie~~ m gas recovery. Log-log plots of G versus pc for our mercurY and Lir-brine capillary pressure data were made as sug;eated by Brooks and Corey. The lesst square fit for a :ypical tight gaa sample is given in Table 3. The corresponding (krg/kN) ratios for both techniques are llSO presented in this table. The relative gas and rater permeabilities computed from mercury and airmine capillary pressure data for this sample are shown in Figure 11. Note that the relative permeability calculated 3 ..4,.-.....41 1s- p~~~~,u~~. c~rve iiiJeCLWLl ~-p--+-.= ~rom t-hemerCUry .eada to predictions of higher water-gas ratios at any ~aturation. In turn, these higher ratios lead to expectations of faster cleanup times for gas wells :ompleted or fractured with water baae fluids. The :entrifuge air-brine capillary preseure datawould, :herefore, be recommended for gas recovery predictions .n tight gas sands. CONCLUSIONS
G

(6)

aith a correlation coefficient (R2) of 0.91. Here, Sb ia non-wetting phaae saturation percent bulk volume and Pc ia in psi. ~is data is listed in Table 2. Sas-Water Relative Permeability Calculations For right Gas Sands Relative permeability data for tight gaa sands are extremely difficult to obtain by the conventional steady state or dynamic displacement techniques. In gas reservoir engineering calculations where these data are needed as input parameter for hydraulic fracturing predictions or completion strategies, gaa-water relative permeabilities have been computed from capillary pressure curves. The computational technique frequently employed is based on the Brooka and Corey

1A km and =

t
(7)
G

An improved method for finding the Swanson paramet$$O(Sb/pc)A has been presented. aS a fUnCtiOn Of Sb haS b~ea fOiifid (pc/Sb)l to yield a minimum value that corresponds to the value of Pc and Sb at A given by SwanaonS graphical method. The least square fit to our data given by k(mD) = 30.5 (Sb/pc)A,Hg1.56 IS preferable fol tight gaa sanda with permeabilities below

[1

S$

0.01 MD.
&w=[l-g]2 (8)
G

where $

= Sw - ~ 1 - Sw
G

(sbfpc)A a-b fr~ centrifuge air-brine capillar~ preaaure also correlated strongly with the gas permeability as given by k(mD) = 1.22 (Sb/pc)A,a-b161.
Mercury capillary preasurea at higher wetting phase aaturationa (~ > 50%) are approximatel~ a factor of 10 greater than the centrifuge air-brine capillary pressures for tight gas sands. This contrasts with zhe iaaze emmofiljj used value of 5. Air-brine and mercury data indicate very similar residual wetting phase saturations, Sm. Gas-water relative permeabilities computed s --~Luu mercury i=j~~ti~~ capillary preaaure data would lead to predictions of higher water-gas .*4A -la nratios than air-brine data. ---JWpkLUAnkAL ~4=a.. up times for gas wells completed in water base fluids would therefore result from the mercury injection data.

km

wetting phase relative permeability

k rnw = non-wetting phaae relative permeability

Brooks and Corey observed that a log-log plot of S$ against Pc results in a straight line with a slope A which is characteristic of the pore structure. pd, the p$r~ ~try pressure is obtained from the intercept at -w A.

Mercury injection capillary pressure data have traditionally been used for the above computations

SPE 13879 NOMENCLATURE k= Pc pb s~ permeability = capillary pressure = entry pressure

J. Il.Walls & J. O. Amaefule references 1. Purcell, W.R., Capillary pressures-their measurement using mercury and the calculation of permeability therefrom, Petroleum Transactions, AIME, February 1949, pp. 39-48. Rose, Walter and W.A. Bruce, Evaluation of capillary character fn petroleum reservoir 1949, rOCk, ?~tr~leiifi pp. 127-142.
T~~IN3aCtiO?W, AIMEj MS~

2. = saturation of non-wetting phase in percent of bulk volume wetting phase saturation, percent pore volume = non-wetting phase saturation, percent pore volume 4. Swr=
s; =

s= Y

2 d.

s nw

~Jr<i=e, ~*~= j Relative permeability calculations from pore size distribution data, Petroleum Transactions, AI-ME,Vol. 1%, i95~, pp. 71-78. Thomeer, J.H.M., Introduction of a pore geometrical factor defined by the capillary pressure curve, .7PT,March 1960, pp. 73-77. Swanson, B,F., A simple correlation between permeabilities and mercury capillary pressures, JPT, December 1981, pp. 2498-2504. Brooks, R.H. and A.T. Corey, Properties of porous 1. t T nf u. L Tn4Pction -..J--- and media affecting ffiiidf..b, Drainage Div., Proc. of ASCE (1966), 92, No. IR2, 61. Dutton, S.P. and R.J. Finley, The Travis Peak (Hosston) formation: geologic framework, core studies, and engineering field analysia, Univ. of Texaa, BEG, Topical Report prepared for Gas Research Institute under contract 5082-211-0708, pp. 75-123. Hassler, G.L. and E. Brunner, Measurement of capillary pressures in small core samplea, Trana. AIME, 160, (1945), pp. 114-123. Walla, J.D., A.M. Nur, and T. Bourbie, Effects of pressure and partial water saturation on gas permeability in tight sands, JPT, April 1982, pp. 930-936.

residual wetting phase saturation %-SW l-swr 5.

curve

A=

point on the log p= versus kg Sb which a 45 line becomes tangent

at 6.

Y= XJBSCRIPTS Hg a-b

@@b)

minimum

= mercury = air-brine

7.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authora thank Canadian Hunter Exploration, Ltd :or providing samples for this study and the Gas Lesearch Institute who provided samples and funding aa lart of GRI contract no. 5083-211-0313. Wealso !xpress our grstitude to Lynne Welte for manuscript reparation and Terri Knight, Stephen Carter, and lalph Perez for data plotting. Penniasion to publish :his work was granted by Canadian Hunter Exploration, td; the Gas Research Institute; and Litton etrophysical Services. !ETRIC CONVERSION FACTORS 1 inch 1 psi = 2.54 cm = 0.006897 MPa

8.

9.

10. Wardlaw, N.C. and R.P. Taylor, Mercury capillary pressure curves and the interpretation of pore structure and capillary behavior in reservoir rock, Bull. Can. Pet. Geol., Vol. 24, No. 2, June 1976, pp. 225-262.

1 Darcy = 0.9869 pm2

i -

TABLE 1. AVERAGE BULS MINERALOGYOF SAMPLES STUDIED (%)

Falher Format ion Quart z Qwrtz o.G. Ca:[cfte 001omite Feldspar Chert Heavy Minerals DefritalGrains Rock Fragments Organic Material Clay and Clay Matrix PO,rOsity* 37.8 12.5

Travis Peak Formation 56.B 20. B 0.0 TABLE 2. POROSITY , PERMEABILITY, AND SWANSONPARAMETERFOR MSRCUKY AND AIR-BRINEDATA

0.9
11.2 0.4 16.8 5.0

0.0
3.0 0.4 0.6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Sample Number

Porosity % S.6 8.1 6.9 7.7 5,5 7.2 4.0 6.0 4.6 6.6 10.0 8.4 6.9 7.6 5.1 6.0 9.4 9.4 B.5 15.0 1.5 4.0 4.3 8.0 9.8 2.8 11.4 15.9 7.7 6.0 11.5 14.5 8.4 7.5 5.6

In-Situ Gas Perm k(pd) 10.30 1.41 5.37 7.24 1.23 7.11 2.o4 2.3S 3.B9 4.B5 74.90 11.80 14.40 14.00 2.00 0.56 19.80 13.60 238.00 1,870.00 3.20 0.14 0.02 2.20

Swan eon

Parameter (sb/pc)A, Hg 5.516 X .$.433 x 6.595 X 7.365 X 2.037 X 5.641 X 1.970 x 4.137 x 2.832 X 1.970 x 5.909 x .4.875 X 4.833 X 4.s33 x 1.300 x 1.660 x 6.S00 X 5.600 X 5.900 x 2.570 X 1.700 x 2.480 X 2.170 X 3.690 x 3.020 X 1.540 x 4.438 X 1.627 X 5.550 x -----10:: 10-3 10-3 10-3 10-3 10-3 10-3 10-3 10-3 10-3 10-3 10-3 10_3 lo_3 10-3 10-3 10-3 10-2

Petrophysical Parameter (Sb/pc)A, a-b --------------2 1.19 x 10-2 1.49 x 10-2 5.65 X 10-2 4.66 X 10-1 6.94 X 100 3.10 x 10-2 6.09 X 10_3 2.13 X 10_3 1.00 x 10-2 2.87 X 10-1 4.25 X 10 -3.77 x 10;2 1.42 X 10-2 3.77 x 10-2 2.21 x 10-1 5.44 x 100 2.14 x 10-2 1.37 x 10-2 2.24 X 10-2 1.70 x 10

7.5 0.0 2.1 5.8

2.6 1.6 6.1 S.1

*Porositymeasured by Hellum Boyles Law method.

--

10-1
10-3 10-4 10-4 10-3 10-2 10_5 10-3 10-1 10-3 10

TASLE 3. CAPILLARYPIRESSURS , RELATIVEPERMSABILITT , ANO SATURATIONRS2A.TIONSHIPS FOR A TTFICAL TIGHT GAS SAND Sample 17 kgi - 19.8 pd; d - 9.4% Irreducible Wetting Phase Saturation,Siw %

100.00
0.02 18.70 6,400.00 4.70 1.50 5,930.00 67,900.00 0.49 2.00 1.80

capillary Pressure Technique

Mercury

Reduced Saturation 4

COrrelat ion Cmefficient ~z

.A

Entry Pressure Pd (p6i)

Inject ion Data Centrifuge Air-Brine Data

30

5,491.80PC-1-4992

0.9895

1.4992

312.2

30

44.64 Pc-l.1060

0.9808

1.1060

31.0

G
kg
~;

(Mercury Injection)-

8,194.oe--l5.167%; R2 - 0.9985

(centrifuge

Air-Brine)- 15,296. 3e-15.570~; R2 - 0.9990

A-Io

30 _

25 :

--

Z* 7-...

kt

Ffg. l-Mannerofdefining Swanson parameter fromthe caplllery preeeure curve (Ref. 5).

FIs. 2-(PJSL.)W WAS~ (bulkduration) mercury fmr fourFalhef eempfee.

A-tc14

// / / /

I ~.

1 I ,-1

()
>

,?CA

WE 13879

o 0 0
1 0

0
0,

n o x n n
1 0

s x

o o
II

x
K. 0-

o
1

s
0

-;-,

Al-I=

CIP1-

TevAL w

*GI

Oux-n

m -

IERMYCA?IURV

~ ?-3=-

a
X 1

Fig. 4-Air-brine

and mercury oapillary pressure curves for a 23-mD sarnpk (Ref. 1). m
i 1 30 t 40 a I m I

s
*

i=
(%)

PHASE SATURATI~ UETTING

Fig. &Air.brine

-,. m, L.u p,.

and mercury cApillatY PH~

CUIWS for *m@e

15 (5.1 ~ ~r~i~.

0 9

0 0 0 0

3
,0 0 0 x

1
0

1
Xg xx
Xa 8 I I I I

o o G

20

40

t 20

I 40

I 50

1 30

# 100

WETTING PHA3E SATURATION (X) UETTING PHASE SATURATION CO

FIo. S-Air-briw and mercw 19.8 MD). capillw pfusum CUIWS for 3aIII@ 17 (9.4% -W,

~. 7-AiFbrine andmercury oapillaty Pf0a9ure curves for Sample 18(9.4% W~W, 13.6 PD).

1
0

.9
X 0

G 8

.4

x
1

.2
x a

s.

 

aoa~m
SRI)E SATURATION ~ and mercury capillary preaeure Cuww for Sam@ 25 (9.~~ W@tiS

Fig. O-Air-brine 100 IQ).

Iu

!
Q

,, , ,
0

II*

4 .

r x
I
1 1