You are on page 1of 105

57

Chapter 3
CAPILLARY PRESSURE AND RELATIVE PERMEABILITY
BEHAVIOR OF THE J1 AND J2 RESERVOIRS AT
BULLWINKLE
Capillary pressure and relative permeability behavior of unconsolidated sands are
documented (Honarpour et al., 1986; Reynolds, 2000).

Reynolds (2000) observed

capillary pressure behavior of deepwater turbidites and described differences present in


six facies. Honarpour et al. (1986) discussed several models for estimating relative
permeability between end-point measurements and documented empirical exponents used
by other workers to describe flow behavior associated with unconsolidated sands. Kikani
and Smith (1996) stated that Coreys (1954) relative permeability model was used in
reservoir simulation to mimic production behavior for the unconsolidated J-sands at
Bullwinkle.
In this chapter, capillary pressure and relative permeability behavior of
unconsolidated sands of the J1 and J2 reservoirs at Bullwinkle are characterized and
modeled.

Mercury injection data, collected using whole-core samples, are used to

evaluate in-situ fluid capillary behavior. End-point relative permeability and saturation
data from whole core samples, constrain the movement of fluids at these end-points.
Between these end-point values, Coreys (1954) two-phase model is used to simulate the
relative permeability characteristics. Finally, core analysis, log-based petrophysical data
(Comisky, 2002), and capillary data from another deepwater field are combined to define
the hydraulic properties of six different Flow Units present in the J1 and J2 sands.

58

Characterization of The Hydraulic Behavior Present in Three


Flow Units Using Whole Core Data
Capillary Pressure Behavior
Capillary pressure experiments were performed on sixteen whole-core plug
samples, by Shell Oil Co., from three Flow Units sampled by the 65-1-ST and A-32-BP
wells in the J1 and J2 sands (Figs. 3-1, 3-2, Tables 3-1, 3-2).

Capillary pressure

measurements were obtained by mercury injection tests using a methodology similar to


that described by Purcell (1949) (Figs. 3-3, 3-4, 3-5, Tables 3-3, 3-4, 3-5). Comisky
(2002) described six Flow Units for the J1 and J2 sands (analogous to facies) that were
interpreted from well log and core data.
Fifteen of the sixteen whole-core samples have mercury-air capillary entry
pressures between 7 and 9 psi, irreducible air saturation (wetting phase) of 1% to 10%,
and transition pressures (transition zone) that range from 13 psi to 285 psi (Figs. 3-3, 3-4,
3-5, Tables 3-3, 3-4, 3-5). The sixteenth sample, #3 from Flow Unit 2 in the 65-1-ST
(Figure 3-4), has higher entry pressure (41 psi) and a lower porosity than other samples
(Tables 3-1, 3-2).
The capillary behavior of the fifteen samples is similar to that documented by
Reynolds (2000) for the Mars Field (Mississippi Canyon Block 807), a deepwater
reservoir located in the Gulf of Mexico. He documented capillary pressure for six facies,
each having equal entry and transition pressures while recording different irreducible
wetting phase saturations. The saturation differences were attributed to differences in
grain size and clay content, where smaller grain sizes and higher clay content result in
higher irreducible wetting phase saturations.

59
BLK 64

BLK 65
Permeability
Barriers

RA

12000

Flow
Unit 2

Flow Unit 3
12000

11500

11000

Flow Unit 3

RB

Flow Unit 5

12500

Flow Unit 2
130

00

Flow Unit 6
BLK 108 BLK 109

C.I. = 100

1 Mile
A-32-BP Penetration

Figure 3-1: J1-sand Flow Unit map overlain by structure contours. Whole core samples were
obtained from the A-32-BP well located in reservoir B (RB). The A-32-BP whole core was extracted
from hydrocarbon bearing sands in the J1-RB (11,931 ft. to 11,975 ft., SSTVD) and J2-RB (Figure 32) reservoirs. The Flow Unit interpretation was performed by Comisky (2002).

60

BLK 64

BLK 65

RA

12500

Flow Unit 1

1200
0

RB

Permeability
Barriers

Flow Unit 2

0
50
11
0
00
11

Flow Unit 6

00
130

12500

1 Mile
C.I. = 100

BLK 108 BLK 109

Flow Unit 4

A-32-BP Penetration
65-1-ST Penetration

Figure 3-2: J2-sand Flow Unit map overlain by structure contours. Two whole cores were obtained
from the J2-sand, the A-32-BP (#1) in reservoir B (RB), and the 65-1-ST1 (#2) in reservoir A (RA).
The A-32-BP whole core was extracted from hydrocarbon bearing sands in the J1-RB (Figure 3-1)
and the J2-RB (11,987 ft. to 12,065 ft. SSTVD). The 65-1-ST whole core (12,420 ft. to 12,480,
SSTVD) was extracted from the water leg of the J2-RA. The Flow Unit interpretation was
performed by Comisky (2002).

61

Mercury-Air Capillary Pressure (psi)

100

0.8

Mercury and Gas Saturation


0.6
0.4

0.2
Sample 35
Sample 36

1.0

0.1

100

Sample 43

1000

10.0

0.0

Sample 53A
Sample 54
Sample 55

10.0

Sample 60

100

1.0

10
0.1

0.0
0.0

0.2
0.2

0.4
0.6
0.4
0.6
Water Saturation

0.8
0.8

Oil-Water Capillary Pressure (psi)

Gas-Oil Capillary Pressure (psi)

10000

1.0

1.0
1.0

Figure 3-3: A-32-BP capillary pressure data for J2 sand whole core plug samples (Shell Petrophysical
Services, 1990). Data shown are from core plug samples 35 (core depth = 12868.5 ft., SSTVD =
11992.6 ft.), 36 (core depth = 12869.0 ft., SSTVD = 11993.0 ft.), 43 (core depth = 12872.8 ft., SSTVD =
11996.3 ft.), 53A (core depth = 12901.8, SSTVD = 12021.4 ft.), 54 (core depth = 12907.5 ft., SSTVD =
12026.3 ft.), 55 (core depth = 12924.8 ft., SSTVD = 12040.6 ft.), 60 (core depth = 12952.6 ft., SSTVD =
12064.7 ft.). Samples are from Flow Unit #1 (Comisky, 2002). Sample properties are found in Tables
3-1 and 3-2. Data for sample 53A is shown in Table 3-3.

62

10.0

1.0

0.1

Mercury-Air Capillary Pressure (psi)

Gas-Oil Capillary Pressure (psi)

100

1.0

0.8

0.2

0.0
Sample 1
Sample 2

100

Sample 3

1000

Sample 6
Sample 4

10.0

100
1.0

10
0.1

0.0
0.0

0.2
0.2

0.4
0.6
0.4
0.6
Water Saturation

0.8
0.8

Oil-Water Capillary Pressure (psi)

10000

Mercury and Gas Saturation


0.6
0.4

1.0
1.0

Figure 3-4: 65-1-ST capillary pressure data (Shell Petrophysical Services, 1987). Data shown are
from whole core samples 1 (core depth = 13086.8 ft., SSTVD = 12468.8 ft.), 2 (core depth = 13089.5
ft., SSTVD = 12471.5 ft.), 3 (core depth = 13095.5 ft., SSTVD = 12477.5 ft.), 6 (core depth = 13101.5,
SSTVD = 12483.5 ft.), and 4 (core depth = 13108.4, SSTVD = 12490.4 ft.) from the J2-RA aquifer.
Samples are from Flow Unit #2 (Comisky, 2002). Sample properties are found in Tables 3-1 and 3-2.
Data for sample 2 is shown in Table 3-4.

63

Mercury-Air Capillary Pressure (psi)

Gas-Oil Capillary Pressure (psi)

100

0.8

Mercury and Gas Saturation


0.6
0.4

0.2

Sample 13
Sample 14
Sample 20

1000

10.0

1.0

0.1

0.0

100

Sample 30

10.0

100
1.0

10
0.1

0.0
0.0

0.2
0.2

0.4
0.6
0.4
0.6
Water Saturation

0.8
0.8

Oil-Water Capillary Pressure (psi)

10000

1.0

1.0
1.0

Figure 3-5: A-32-BP capillary pressure data for J1 sand whole core plug samples (Shell Petrophysical
Services, 1990). Data shown are from whole core plug samples 13 (core depth = 12808.2 ft., SSTVD =
11938.5 ft.), 14 (core depth = 12813.2 ft., SSTVD = 11942.8 ft.), 20 (core depth = 12819.2 ft., SSTVD =
11947.9 ft.), and 30 (core depth = 12845.7 ft. SSTVD = 11973.2 ft.). Samples are from Flow Unit #3
(Comisky, 2002). Sample properties are found in Tables 3-1 and 3-2. Data from sample 20 is shown
in Table 3-5.

64
Table 3-1: Atmospheric properties of whole core samples used for mercury injection test (Shell
Petrophysical Services, 1987, 1990). Flow Units determined by Comisky (2002).
Whole
Core
A-32-BP
A-32-BP
A-32-BP
A-32-BP
A-32-BP
A-32-BP
A-32-BP
A-32-BP
A-32-BP
A-32-BP
A-32-BP
65-1-ST
65-1-ST
65-1-ST
65-1-ST
65-1-ST

Sample
13
14
20
30
35
36
43
53A
54
55
60
1
2
3
6
4

Flow
Unit
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2

Sand
J1
J1
J1
J1
J2
J2
J2
J2
J2
J2
J2
J2
J2
J2
J2
J2

Core Depth
(ft.)
12808.2
12813.2
12819.2
12845.7
12868.5
12869.0
12872.8
12901.8
12907.5
12924.8
12952.6
13086.8
13089.5
13095.5
13101.5
13108.4

SSTVD
(ft.)
11938.5
11942.8
11947.9
11973.2
11992.6
11993.0
11996.3
12021.4
12026.3
12040.6
12064.7
12468.8
12471.5
12477.5
12483.5
12490.4

Porosity
0.347
0.388
0.396
0.369
0.367
0.342
0.383
0.382
0.340
0.373
0.382
0.427
0.47
0.328
0.399
0.399

Table 3-2: Stressed properties of whole core samples used for mercury injection test (Shell
Petrophysical Services, 1987, 1990). Flow Units determined by Comisky (2002).
Whole
Core
A-32-BP
A-32-BP
A-32-BP
A-32-BP
A-32-BP
A-32-BP
A-32-BP
A-32-BP
A-32-BP
A-32-BP
A-32-BP
65-1-ST
65-1-ST
65-1-ST
65-1-ST
65-1-ST

Sample Flow Unit


13
14
20
30
35
36
43
53A
54
55
60
1
2
3
6
4

3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2

Sand
J1
J1
J1
J1
J2
J2
J2
J2
J2
J2
J2
J2
J2
J2
J2
J2

Vertical
Effective
Stress (psi)
2100
2100
2100
2100
2100
2100
2100
2100
2100
2100
2100
2000
2000
2000
2000
2100

Porosity
0.296
0.310
0.324
0.293
0.295
0.282
0.320
0.322
0.295
0.323
0.334
0.306
0.347
0.261
0.32
0.332

Air
Permeability
(mD)
1196
1866
1997
1097
1728
1150
1945
1602
496
1724
1347
-

65
Table 3-3: Mercury-air (Shell Petrophysical Services, 1990), calculated oil-water and gas-oil capillary
pressure data for sample 53A (A-32-BP, J2 sand). Data is from Flow Unit 1 (Comisky, 2002).
Mercury-air Capillary
Pressure - Pcma
(psi)
7.0
8.0
9.0
11.0
13.0
15.0
17.0
21.0
26.0
31.0
41.0
51.0
76.0
101.0
131.0
161.0
201.0
251.0
301.0
401.0
601.0
801.0
1001.0
1501.0
2001.0

SHg
0.004
0.377
0.543
0.642
0.693
0.717
0.734
0.762
0.783
0.799
0.823
0.835
0.856
0.868
0.875
0.882
0.887
0.891
0.895
0.900
0.907
0.912
0.917
0.922
0.924

Oil-water Capillary
Pressure - Pcow
(psi)
0.245
0.280
0.315
0.385
0.455
0.525
0.595
0.735
0.910
1.085
1.435
1.785
2.661
3.536
4.586
5.636
7.037
8.787
10.537
14.038
21.040
28.041
35.043
52.546
70.050

Sw
0.996
0.624
0.458
0.358
0.307
0.283
0.266
0.239
0.217
0.201
0.177
0.165
0.144
0.132
0.125
0.118
0.113
0.109
0.105
0.101
0.093
0.088
0.083
0.078
0.076

Gas-oil Capillary
Pressure - Pcgo
(psi)
0.147
0.168
0.189
0.231
0.273
0.315
0.357
0.441
0.546
0.651
0.861
1.0712
1.596
2.121
2.752
3.382
4.222
5.272
6.322
8.423
12.624
16.825
21.026
31.528
42.030

Sg
0.004
0.377
0.543
0.642
0.693
0.717
0.734
0.762
0.783
0.799
0.823
0.835
0.856
0.868
0.875
0.882
0.887
0.891
0.895
0.900
0.907
0.912
0.917
0.922
0.924

66
Table 3-4: Mercury-air (Shell Petrophysical Services, 1987), calculated oil-water and gas-oil capillary
pressure data for sample 2 (65-1-ST, J2 sand). Data is from Flow Unit 2 (Comisky, 2002).
Mercury-air Capillary
Pressure - Pcma
(psi)
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
11.0
13.0
15.0
17.0
21.0
26.0
31.0
41.0
51.0
76.0
101.0
131.0
161.0
201.0
251.0
301.0
401.0
601.0
801.0
1001.0
1501.0
2001.0

SHg
0.276
0.385
0.512
0.574
0.620
0.645
0.695
0.723
0.745
0.778
0.805
0.824
0.850
0.868
0.894
0.908
0.920
0.928
0.935
0.941
0.946
0.954
0.963
0.968
0.972
0.978
0.980

Oil-water Capillary
Pressure - Pcow
(psi)
0.210
0.245
0.280
0.315
0.350
0.385
0.455
0.525
0.595
0.735
0.910
1.085
1.435
1.785
2.661
3.536
4.586
5.636
7.037
8.787
10.537
14.038
21.040
28.041
35.043
52.546
70.050

Sw
0.724
0.615
0.488
0.426
0.380
0.355
0.305
0.277
0.255
0.222
0.195
0.176
0.150
0.132
0.106
0.092
0.080
0.072
0.065
0.059
0.054
0.046
0.037
0.032
0.028
0.022
0.020

Gas-oil Capillary
Pressure - Pcgo
(psi)
0.126
0.147
0.168
0.189
0.210
0.231
0.273
0.315
0.357
0.441
0.546
0.651
0.861
1.071
1.596
2.121
2.752
3.382
4.222
5.272
6.322
8.423
12.62
16.825
21.026
31.528
42.030

Sg
0.276
0.385
0.512
0.574
0.620
0.645
0.695
0.723
0.745
0.778
0.805
0.824
0.850
0.868
0.894
0.908
0.920
0.928
0.935
0.941
0.946
0.954
0.963
0.968
0.972
0.978
0.980

67
Table 3-5: Mercury-air (Shell Petrophysical Services, 1990), calculated oil-water and gas-oil capillary
pressure data for sample 20 (A-32-BP, J1 sand). Data is from Flow Unit 3 (Comisky, 2002).
Mercury-air Capillary
Pressure - Pcma
(psi)
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
11.0
13.0
15.0
17.0
21.0
26.0
31.0
41.0
51.0
76.0
101.0
131.0
161.0
201.0
251.0
301.0
401.0
601.0
801.0
1001.0
1501.0
2001.0

SHg
0.036
0.418
0.587
0.658
0.703
0.733
0.771
0.794
0.810
0.829
0.846
0.858
0.873
0.883
0.897
0.906
0.911
0.917
0.922
0.925
0.928
0.932
0.940
0.944
0.949
0.954
0.959

Oil-water Capillary
Pressure - Pcow
(psi)
0.210
0.245
0.280
0.315
0.350
0.385
0.455
0.525
0.595
0.735
0.910
1.085
1.435
1.785
2.661
3.536
4.586
5.636
7.037
8.787
10.537
14.038
21.040
28.041
35.043
52.546
70.050

Sw
0.964
0.582
0.413
0.342
0.297
0.267
0.229
0.206
0.191
0.171
0.154
0.142
0.127
0.117
0.103
0.094
0.089
0.083
0.078
0.075
0.072
0.068
0.060
0.056
0.051
0.046
0.041

Gas-oil Capillary
Pressure - Pcgo
(psi)
0.126
0.147
0.168
0.189
0.210
0.231
0.273
0.315
0.357
0.441
0.546
0.651
0.861
1.071
1.596
2.121
2.752
3.382
4.222
5.272
6.322
8.423
12.624
16.825
21.026
31.528
42.030

Sg
0.036
0.418
0.587
0.658
0.703
0.733
0.771
0.794
0.810
0.829
0.846
0.858
0.873
0.883
0.897
0.906
0.911
0.917
0.922
0.925
0.928
0.932
0.940
0.944
0.949
0.954
0.959

68
Amyx et al. (1960) also showed capillary behavior of equal-entry and transition pressures
for sandstones having permeabilities of 200 mD and higher. Comisky (2002) documents
mean permeabilities for each Flow Unit that range from 460 mD to 2250 mD.
Oil-water Capillary Pressure
Mercury injection test data are converted from laboratory mercury-air conditions
to reservoir oil-water conditions using Purcells (1949) relation (Figs. 3-3, 3-4, 3-5,
Tables 3-3, 3-4, 3-5),
cos( ow )
Pc ow = Pc ma ow
.
ma cos( ma )

(3-1)

Pcow is the oil-water capillary pressure and Pcma is the mercury-air capillary pressure.
The oil-water interfacial tension (ow) is 15 dynes/cm based on a reservoir
temperature of 165oF (Livingston, 1938) (Table 3-6). We assume the water phase wets
the grains completely and set the oil-water contact angle (ow) to zero (Schlowalter, 1976)
(Table 3-6). The reported mercury-air interfacial tension (ma) is 484 dynes/cm and
contact angle is (ma) 130o (Shell Petrophysical Services, 1987) (Table 3-6). Oil-water
capillary pressure is calculated as 3.5% of the mercury-air capillary pressure (Figs. 3-3,
3-4, 3-5, Tables 3-3, 3-4, 3-5).
Fifteen samples have oil-water entry pressures ranging from 0.20 to 0.25 psi and
transition zone pressures from 0.5 to 10.0 psi. These same samples display the same
irreducible saturations (1% to 10%) as observed in the mercury-air data, as expected.
The sixteenth sample, #3, has a calculated oil-water entry pressure of 1.44 psi.

69
Table 3-6: Two-phase interfacial tension and contact angles.
Fluid
Interaction
Mercury-Air
Oil-Water
Gas-Water
Gas-Oil

Interfacial
Tension
(Dynes/cm)
484
15
25
10

Contact
Angle
(Degrees)
130
0
-

70
Gas-oil Capillary Pressure
The spreading coefficient (S) relates gas-oil capillary pressure to oil-water
capillary pressure (Kalaydjian et al., 1995) through interfacial tensions. The spreading
coefficient is the balance of the three interfacial tensions,

S = gw ( ow + go ) ,

(3-2)

acting on the gas/oil/water contact and is zero when the liquid phases are in the presence
of a common vapor phase (Kalaydjian et al., 1995). We assume the spreading coefficient
is zero for this system and calculate the gas-oil interfacial tension (go = 10 dynes/cm)
using a gas-water interfacial tension (gw) of 25 dynes/cm (Hough et al., 1951) and
Equation 3-2 (Table 3-6).
Gas-oil capillary pressure (Pcgo) is calculated from a simplified version of
Purcells (1949) relation (Amyx et al., 1960; Firoozabadi et al., 1988),
go
Pc go = Pcow
.

ow

(3-3)

Equation 3-1 reduces to Equation 3-3 by assuming that the gas-oil contact angle is equal
to the oil-water contact angle.
The ratio of the gas-oil to oil-water interfacial tension is 60%, which constrains
the calculated values of gas-oil capillary pressure (Figs. 3-3, 3-4, 3-5, Tables 3-3, 3-4, 35). Fifteen samples have oil-water entry pressures ranging from 0.12 to 0.15 psi and
transition zone pressures from 0.3 to 6.0 psi. These same samples display irreducible
saturations ranging from 1% to 10%, as observed in the mercury-air and oil-water data.
The sixteenth sample, #3, has a calculated gas-oil entry pressure of 0.86 psi.

71

Relative Permeability Behavior

In the absence of experimental three-phase relative permeability data, two-phase


relative permeability behavior is characterized from end-point saturation and
permeability data.

Later, this two-phase relative permeability behavior is used to

calculate three-phase oil relative permeability in the presence of oil, water and gas using
Stones Model II (1973).
End-point saturation (Swirr, Sor) and permeability (ko, kw) data were obtained
from 11 whole core samples (Tables 3-7, 3-8) using a procedure outlined by Thomas et
al. (1979). Measurements were conducted on stressed samples (Figs. 3-6, 3-7, Table 3-8)
using a laboratory brine (Table 3-7) and oil (o = 0.86 gm/cc).
Residual oil saturation (Sor) decreases with increasing irreducible water
saturation (Swirr) (Figure 3-6, Tables 3-7, 3-8). This trend had been observed by other
workers in high permeability sandstone cores (Wardlaw et al., 1979; Maldal et al., 1999).
Maldal et al. (1999) stated that higher oil saturation could result in larger initial oil
volumes being snapped off in the waterflood displacement process resulting in higher
Sor. Maldal et al. (1999) also observed that Sor is dependent on the waterflood rate,
where lower rates result in lower Sor (higher oil recovery).
End-point oil and water relative permeability are calculated (Figure 3-7, Tables 38, 3-9) from:
k row =

and

ko
k brine

(3-4)

72

k rw =

kw
.
k brine

(3-5)

ko is the effective permeability to oil flow in the presence of Swirr, kw is the effective
permeability associated with brine in the presence of Sor, kbrine is the permeability
associated with brine, krow is the oil relative permeability, and krw is the brine relative
permeability.
Calculated end-point relative permeabilities, from measured data, are related to
end-point saturations. Eleven samples have end-point krow values that range from 0.6 to
1.1 for Swirr values between 0.38 and 0.19 (Figure 3-7, Tables 3-8, 3-9). Sample 3
records higher krow (1.35), higher Swirr (0.718), and significantly lower permeability (2.6
mD) than the other samples (permeability range from 450 to 1656 mD) (Table 3-8). We
average krow (0.866) of the core data, neglecting the anomalous sample 3, because no
apparent trend is evident.

End-point krw values range from 0.49 to 0.19, which

correspond to Sor values of 0.18 to 0.32 (Figure 3-7, Table 3-8, 3-9). Here, sample 3
records a lower krw (0.07) and Sor (0.14), which is expected because 71.8% of the pore
volume is filled by irreducible water. These end-point krw values increase linearly with
increasing Sor (Figure 3-7).
Calculated relative permeability greater than 1.0 is not uncommon.

Other

workers report this behavior associated with water and brine in low permeability sands
(Jones and Owens, 1980; Ward and Morrow, 1987). Theoretically, this result is counterintuitive. Relative permeability is referenced to a specific permeability measured at
100% saturation and should be equal to or less than 1.0. The phenomenon is attributed to
hydration, plugging, and bound water (Jones and Owens, 1980).

73

Residual Oil Saturation (Sor)

0.35

Flow unit 1 (J2: A-32-BP)


Flow unit 2 (J2: 65-1-ST)

0.30

Flow unit 3 (J1: A-32-BP)

0.25
0.20
0.15
Sam ple 3

0.10
0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Irreducible Water Saturation (Swirr)


Figure 3-6: Residual oil saturation (Sor) versus irreducible water saturation (Swirr) from end-point
relative permeability core data (Table 3-8) (Shell Petrophysical Services, 1987, 1990). The data show
a decrease in Sor for higher values of Swirr. Samples were measured at near-insitu stress conditions
(Table 3-8). Sample 3 records lower permeability (2.6 mD) than the other samples (460 to 1656 mD).

Relative Permeability

1.4
Sam ple 3

1.2

krow (Unit 1)
krw (Unit 1)
krow (Unit 2)

1.0

krw (Unit 2)

0.8

krow (Unit 3)
krw (Unit 3)

0.6
0.4
0.2

Sam ple 3

0.0
0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Sw
Figure 3-7: Calculated end point relative permeabilities for Flow Units 1, 2, and 3 (Tables 3-8, 3-9).
Data shows that krw decreases as Sw increases, where Sw = 1-Sor. krow values show no trend. Sample
3 records lower permeability (2.6 mD) than the other samples (460 to 1656 mD).

74
Table 3-7: End-point relative permeability test sample data at atmospheric conditions (Atm.) and
stressed conditions (Stress) (Shell Petrophysical Services, 1987, 1990).
Stress
NaCl
Whole
Flow
Core
SSTVD Atm. Stress Stress
Sample Sand
Permeability
(ppm)
Core
Unit Depth (ft.) (ft.) Porosity (psi) Porosity
(mD)
J1
A-32-BP 18
3 12813'7" 11943.1 0.375
200
0.344
1540
210000
J1
A-32-BP 34
3 12849'0" 11976.1 0.333
200
0.311
1005
210000
J2
A-32-BP 50
1 12884'10" 12006.7 0.385
200
0.352
2265
210000
J2
A-32-BP 57
1 12938'6" 12052.5 0.382
200
0.363
2035
210000
J2
65-1-ST
1
2 13086'11" 12468.8 0.401 2000 0.325
1160
220000
J2
65-1-ST
2
2 13089'8" 12471.6 0.435 2000 0.340
1060
220000
J2
65-1-ST
3
2 13095'6" 12477.5 0.317 2000 0.256
3
220000
J2
65-1-ST
4
2 13108'4" 12490.3 0.385 2000 0.328
1050
220000
J2
65-1-ST
6
2 13101'6.5" 12483.5 0.384 2000 0.317
450
220000
J2
65-1-ST
10
2 13092'5" 12474.5
2200 0.306
1150
230000
J2
65-1-ST
14
2 13107'8" 12489.6
2200 0.329
1592
230000
Table 3-8: End-point relative permeability data from stressed whole core samples (Shell
Petrophysical Services, 1987, 1990).
Whole
Core
A-32-BP
A-32-BP
A-32-BP
A-32-BP
65-1-ST
65-1-ST
65-1-ST
65-1-ST
65-1-ST
65-1-ST
65-1-ST

Sample Sand
18
34
50
57
1
2
3
4
6
10
14

J1
J1
J2
J2
J2
J2
J2
J2
J2
J2
J2

Flow Stress
Unit (psi)
3
3
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

2100
2100
2100
2100
2000
2000
2000
2000
2200
2200
2200

kbrine

Pcow
(psi)

ko

Swirr

kw

Sor

1136
776
1536
1656
1160
1060
2.6
1050
450
1150
1592

16.0
17.0
9.4
8.2
36.0
48.0
205.0
46.0
94.0
43.6
37.2

1213
638
1295
1250
1190
920
3.5
930
470
730
1265

0.189
0.206
0.216
0.192
0.228
0.238
0.718
0.221
0.346
0.218
0.297

558
328
610
542
440
370
0.2
340
85
373
378

0.292
0.316
0.240
0.260
0.175
0.183
0.139
0.186
0.181
0.264
0.251

75
Comparison of Mercury Injection Data with End-Point Saturation Data

Estimation of the wetting phase saturation using mercury injection test data
results in lower values than observed in other determination methods (Longeron et al.,
1995). Measured end-point water saturations are 10% to 25% greater than determined by
mercury injection (Figure 3-8, Tables 3-3, 3-4, 3-5, 3-7, 3-8). Amyx et al. (1960)
displayed comparisons of water-air and mercury-air capillary pressure measurements that
show similar behavior. The deviation of wetting phase saturation, observed here, is most
likely due to use of different fluids (mercury-air and oil-water) in the two experimental
methods.

Here, we interpret that air does not effectively replicate the wetting

characteristics of water for these samples.


Coreys Two-Phase Relative Permeability Model

Two-phase relative permeability is simulated for the range of saturations present


between constrained end-point values. Coreys (1954) model is used for this purpose
based on its simplicity and limited input data requirements (Swirr and Sor). The model is
derived from capillary pressure concepts and is widely accepted to be fairly accurate for
consolidated porous media experiencing drainage (Honarpour et al., 1986). The model
has also been proposed for unconsolidated sands using different empirical exponents
(Honarpour et al., 1986).
Coreys equations for wetting and non-wetting relative permeability between
constrained end-points is as follows:
k rw t = a( Sw* ) b ,
And

(3-6)

76
(a)

Oil-water Capillary
Pressure (psi)

100.0

100
Sample 53A
Flow Unit 1

10.0

10

1.0

0.1

0
0.0

0.2

0.4

Oil-water Capillary
Pressure (psi)

0.8

1.0

(b)

100.0

100
Sample 2
Flow Unit 2

10.0

10

1.0

0.1

0.1
0.0

0.2

0.4

Sw

0.6

0.8

1.0

(c)

100.0

Oil-water Capillary
Pressure (psi)

Sw

0.6

100
Sample 20
Flow Unit 3

10.0

10

1.0

0.1

0.1
0.0

0.2

0.4

Sw

0.6

0.8

1.0

Figure 3-8: Comparison of mercury injection test data with end-point relative permeability data.
Converted oil-water capillary pressure curves are for samples (a) 53A, (b) 2, and (c) 20 (Tables 3-4,
3-5, 3-6). End-point relative permeability data are for (a) samples 50, 57, (b) samples 1, 2, 4, 6, 10,
14, and (c) samples 18, 34 (Table 3-8). Saturations differences are due to different wetting phase
characteristics of the fluids used in the two experiments (mercury-air, and oil-water).

77
k rnwt = c(1 Sw* ) 2 (1 ( Sw* ) d ) .

(3-7)

krwt and krnwt are the wetting and non-wetting phase relative permeabilities, respectively.
a, b, c, d are empirical constants. Sw* is the effective wetting phase saturation, defined
as:
Sw* =

( Swt Swir )
.
(1 Swirr Sor )

(3-8)

Swt and Swir are the wetting phase saturation and the respective irreducible saturation.
Corey coefficients (a and c) constrain relative permeability at end-point
saturations (Swirr and Sor). Sw* collapses to 1.0 when the wetting phase saturation is
equal to one minus the irreducible non-wetting phase saturation (ie. Sw = 1-Sor). Sw* is
0.0 when the wetting phase is equal to the irreducible wetting phase (ie. Sw = Swirr).
Thus, a is equal to krwt when Sw* is 1.0 and b is equal to krnwt when Sw* is 0.0.
Relative permeability, between constrained end-points, is controlled by the Corey
exponents b and d. Oil-water Corey exponents of 3.0 and 3.5 have been proposed for
unconsolidated sands (Honarpour et al., 1986). Lower exponent values result in a more
concave relative permeability curve (lower relative permeability, thus more
heterogeneous sand), while higher exponent values result in a less concave curve (more
homogeneous sand). These exponents are reservoir, if not sand, specific and are adjusted
based on simulation results.
Coreys Model: Oil-Water Relative Permeability

Oil-water

relative

permeability

is

modeled

using

endpoint

saturation

measurements (Figure 3-7, Table 3-10). For each sampled Flow Unit, the measured end-

78
point saturations and relative permeabilities are averaged and then modeled (Figs. 3-9, 310, 3-11, Table 3-11). We assume the wetting phase is water and non-wetting phase is
oil and use oil-water Corey exponents (b=2.5, d=3.0) reported by Kikani and Smith
(1996) for the Bullwinkle J-sands. The Corey coefficients (a and c) are constrained by
the average end-point relative permeability values (Table 3-10).
Modeled oil-water relative permeability values, for the range of saturations
between constrained end-points, form a concave shape (Figs. 3-9, 3-10, 3-11, 3-12). For
each Flow Unit, average krow values are constrained at Swirr (Table 3-10) and decrease to
0.0 at Sor and modeled krw is 0.0 at Swirr and increase to krw at Sor (Tables 3-10, 3-11).
krow, in Flow Unit 3, is higher at Swirr (krow = 0.95) and distributed over a smaller range
of saturations (Sw = 0.499) than Flow Units 1 (Sw = 0.546) and 2 (Sw = 0.535), thus
krow decreases to Sor faster (Figure 3-12, Table 3-11). Similarly, krw, in Unit 3, is higher
(krw = 0.46) at Sor and decreases to Swirr over a smaller range of saturations (Sw =
0.499) (Figure 3-12, Table 3-11).
Coreys Model: Gas-Oil Relative Permeability

Coreys model (1954) (Equations 3-6 through 3-8) is used to simulate gas-oil
relative permeability (Figure 3-13, Tables 3-10, 3-12) using the average Swirr and Sor
values from the oil-water system. The wetting phase saturation (Sliq) is the sum of Swirr
and oil saturation (So) and the non-wetting phase saturation is gas (Sg). We use gas-oil
Corey exponents (b=4.0 and d=1.5) reported by Kikani and Smith (1996). Endpoint
relative permeability data for a gas-oil system were not collected, but krog should equal
krow at Sg equal to zero. The Corey gas exponent (c)is set to 1.0.

79

0.0000

0.2000

0.4000

0.6000

Relative Permeability

1.0

0.8000

1.0000
1.0

krw
krow

0.8

krow @ Swirr
krw @ Sor

0.6

0.8
0.6

0.4

0.4

0.2

0.2

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Sw
Figure 3-9: Modeled oil-water relative permeability for Flow Unit 1 (A-32-BP, J2 sand) (Table 3-12).
Model is based on average end-point saturations and relative permeabilities from samples 50 and 57
(Tables 3-8, 3-9, 3-10), and oil-water Corey exponents from Kikani and Smith (1996).

Relative Permeability

0.0000

0.2000

0.4000

0.6000

0.8000

1.0000

krw

1.0

krow

0.8

krow @ Swirr

krw @ Sor

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

0
0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Sw
Figure 3-10: Modeled oil-water relative permeability for Flow Unit 2 (65-1-ST, J2 sand) (Table 3-12).
Model is based on average end-point saturations and relative permeabilities from samples 1, 2, 4, 6,
10, and 14 (Tables 3-8, 3-9, 3-10), and oil-water Corey exponents from Kikani and Smith (1996).

80

Relative Permeability

1.0

1
1

krw
krow

0.8

krow @ Swirr

krw @ Sor

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

0
0.0

0.2

0.4

Sw

0.6

0.8

1.0

Figure 3-11: Modeled oil-water relative permeability for Flow Unit 3 (A-32-BP, J1 sand) (Table 312). Model is based on average end-point saturations and relative permeabilities from samples 18, 34
(Tables 3-8, 3-9, 3-10), and oil-water Corey exponents from Kikani and Smith (1996).

Oil-Water Relative Permeability

81

1.0

krw (Flow
Unit 1)

0.8

krow (Flow
Unit 1)

0.6

krw (Flow
Unit 2)

0.4

krow (Flow
Unit 2)
krw (Flow
Unit 3)

0.2
0.0
0.00

krow (Flow
Unit 3)

0.25

0.50
Sw

0.75

1.00

Gas-Oil Relative Permeability

Figure 3-12: Comparison of modeled oil-water relative permeability curves for Flow Units 1, 2, and 3
(Table 3-12). Model is based on average end-point saturations and relative permeabilities for each
Flow Unit (Table 3-10), and oil-water Corey exponents from Kikani and Smith (1996).

1.0

krg (Flow
Unit 1)

0.8

krog (Flow
Unit 1)

0.6

krg (Flow
Unit 2)
krog (Flow
Unit 2)

0.4

krg (Flow
Unit 3)

0.2
0.0
0.00

krog (Flow
Unit 3)

0.25

0.50
Sg

0.75

1.00

Figure 3-13: Modeled gas-oil relative permeability curves for Flow Units 1, 2, and 3 (Table 3-13).
Model is based on average end-point saturations for each Flow Unit (Table 3-10), and gas-oil Corey
exponents from Kikani and Smith (1996).

82
Table 3-9: Calculated end-point relative permeability values.
Whole
Core
A-32-BP
A-32-BP
A-32-BP
A-32-BP
65-1-ST
65-1-ST
65-1-ST
65-1-ST
65-1-ST
65-1-ST
65-1-ST

Sample

Sand

Flow Unit

krow @ Swirr

krw @ Sor

18
34
50
57
1
2
3
4
6
10
14

J1
J1
J2
J2
J2
J2
J2
J2
J2
J2
J2

3
3
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

1.07
0.82
0.84
0.75
1.03
0.87
1.35
0.89
1.04
0.63
0.79

0.49
0.42
0.40
0.33
0.38
0.35
0.07
0.32
0.19
0.32
0.24

Table 3-10: Average oil-water end-point saturation and relative permeabilities from whole core data
for Flow Units 1, 2 and 3. End-point relative permeabilities are equal to the Corey coefficients a and
c.
Whole
Core
A-32-BP
65-1-ST
A-32-BP

Sand
J2
J2
J1

Flow
Unit
1
2
3

Swirr
0.204
0.258
0.197

krow
(a)
0.800
0.849
0.950

Sor
0.250
0.207
0.304

krw
(c)
0.360
0.300
0.460

83
Table 3-11: Modeled oil-water relative permeability for Flow Units 1, 2, and 3 from whole core data.
Flow Unit 1
(A-32-BP, J2 sand)
Sw
krw
krow
0.2040
0.0000
0.8000
0.2500
0.0002
0.6688
0.3000
0.0020
0.5357
0.3500
0.0069
0.4128
0.4000
0.0167
0.3028
0.4500
0.0330
0.2081
0.5000
0.0575
0.1310
0.5500
0.0919
0.0727
0.6000
0.1377
0.0331
0.6500
0.1967
0.0106
0.7000
0.2704
0.0014
0.7500
0.3600
0.0000

Flow Unit 2
(65-1-ST, J2 sand)
Sw
krw
krow
0.2580
0.0000 0.8490
0.3000
0.0001 0.7197
0.3500
0.0015 0.5750
0.4000
0.0056 0.4415
0.4500
0.0139 0.3220
0.5000
0.0278 0.2196
0.5500
0.0488 0.1366
0.6000
0.0784 0.0744
0.6500
0.1180 0.0328
0.7000
0.1692 0.0097
0.7500
0.2333 0.0010
0.7930
0.3000 0.0000

Flow Unit 3
(A-32-BP, J1 sand)
Sw
krw
krow
0.1970
0.0000
0.9500
0.2500
0.0006
0.7561
0.3000
0.0040
0.5867
0.3500
0.0133
0.4330
0.4000
0.0310
0.2990
0.4500
0.0600
0.1886
0.5000
0.1030
0.1045
0.5500
0.1628
0.0471
0.6000
0.2423
0.0146
0.6500
0.3442
0.0017
0.6960
0.4600
0.0000

Table 3-12: Modeled gas-oil relative permeability for Flow Units 1, 2, and 3 from whole core data.
Flow Unit 1
(A-32-BP, J2 sand)
Sg
krg
krog
0.0000
0.8000
0.0000
0.0500
0.5448
0.0011
0.1000
0.3561
0.0088
0.1500
0.2213
0.0289
0.2000
0.1290
0.0665
0.2500
0.0691
0.1260
0.3000
0.0329
0.2107
0.3500
0.0133
0.3227
0.4000
0.0041
0.4627
0.4500
0.0008
0.6295
0.5000
0.0000
0.8185
0.5460
0.0000
1.0000
0.7960
1.0000
0.0000

Flow Unit 2
(65-1-ST, J2 sand)
Sg
krg
krog
0.0000
0.0000 0.8490
0.0500
0.0012 0.5734
0.1000
0.0093 0.3711
0.1500
0.0306 0.2277
0.2000
0.0705 0.1305
0.2500
0.1335 0.0684
0.3000
0.2229 0.0316
0.3500
0.3410 0.0121
0.4000
0.4881 0.0034
0.4500
0.6627 0.0005
0.5000
0.8588 0.0000
0.5350
1.0000 0.0000
0.7420
1.0000 0.0000

Flow Unit 3
(A-32-BP, J1 sand)
Sg
krg
krog
0.0000
0.9500
0.0000
0.0500
0.6227
0.0015
0.1000
0.3883
0.0114
0.1500
0.2273
0.0375
0.2000
0.1225
0.0861
0.2500
0.0589
0.1625
0.3000
0.0240
0.2704
0.3500
0.0076
0.4117
0.4000
0.0015
0.5858
0.4500
0.0001
0.7882
0.4990
0.0000
1.0000
0.8030
1.0000
0.0000

84
Differences in the gas-oil relative permeability concave behavior, for the three
Flow Units, are due to different residual Sliq (Sg = 1-Sliq) (Figure 3-13, Table 3-12).
Flow Unit 3 has the highest residual Sliq (0.499) followed by Flow Units 2 (0.535) and 1
(0.545) (Table 3-12). The end-point values of krg are 1.0 at the residual Sliq and decrease
to zero at Sg equal to 0.0, while krog is equal to the end-point value of krow at Sg equal 0.0
and decrease to 0.0 at the residual Sliq.
Predictability of Relative Permeability: A Comparison Using Other Models

Many workers have proposed predictive models of two-phase oil-water and gasoil relative permeability. Relative permeability behavior have also been modeled using
Brooks & Coreys (1964) model and a neural network model (Silpngarmlers et al., 1996)
to highlight differences in model behavior (Figure 3-14). Curves modeled using Brooks
& Coreys (1964) model are constrained using oil-water capillary pressure data (Sample
53A), end-point saturations, and relative permeability (Table 3-13). Neural network
curves are based on rock (permeability, porosity, irreducible water saturation, residual oil
saturation) and fluid properties (viscosity, density) (Table 3-14).
The predicted relative permeability behaviors from the three models are different.
Both the Brooks & Coreys and neural network models predict higher water relative
permeabilities (krw) and lower oil relative permeabilities (krow) for the range of saturations
between end-points. Both Coreys (1954) and Brooks & Coreys (1964) models are
constrained by end-point data, while the neural network model is not. The three sets of
relative permeability curves will result in significantly different simulated saturation
behavior. Specifically, Coreys model will predict the least water flow for increases in

85

Relative Permeability

1.0

krw (ANN)

0.8

krow (ANN)

0.6

krw (Corey)
krow (Corey)

0.4

krw (Brooks
& Corey)

0.2
0.0
0.00

krow (Brooks
& Corey)

0.25

0.50
Sw

0.75

1.00

Figure 3-14: A comparison of modeled oil-water relative permeability using Coreys (1954), Brooks
& Coreys (1964), and a neural network (Silpngarmlers et al., 1996) two-phase models (Tables 3-11,
3-13, 3-14). The comparisons are based on whole core (A-32-BP) end-point saturation data and
average fluid properties from Flow Unit 1.

86
Table 3-13: Modeled oil-water relative permeability using Brooks and Coreys two-phase model
(1964). Model inputs are oil-water capillary pressure (Sample 53A) and average whole core endpoint
data for Flow Units 1.
Sw
0.204
0.217
0.239
0.266
0.283
0.307
0.358
0.458
0.624
0.750

krw
0.0000
0.0006
0.0018
0.0053
0.0102
0.0215
0.0513
0.1458
0.2693
0.3600

krow
0.8162
0.7267
0.6000
0.4565
0.3652
0.2594
0.1434
0.0389
0.0078
0.0000

Table 3-14: Modeled oil-water relative permeability using a neural network two-phase model
(Silpngarmlers et al., 1996). Values are based on average rock and fluid properties for Flow Units 1.
Sw
0.160
0.200
0.250
0.300
0.350
0.400
0.450
0.500
0.550
0.600
0.650
0.700
0.747

krw
0.0000
0.0070
0.0270
0.0570
0.1013
0.1585
0.2280
0.3075
0.3938
0.4833
0.5724
0.6582
0.7339

krow
0.6770
0.6110
0.5230
0.4330
0.3440
0.2610
0.1880
0.1250
0.0760
0.0380
0.0140
0.0020
0.0000

87
water saturation followed by Brooks & Coreys (1964) and the neural network curves,
respectively. Coreys (1954) model is used here because of its proven effectiveness by
Kikani and Smith (1996) on the Bullwinkle J-sands.
Conclusions

Capillary pressure and relative permeability behavior observed in J1 and J2 sand


core data are consistent with homogeneous type sands having low irreducible water
saturation and residual oil saturation.
Capillary pressure behavior is consistent with documented behavior of
unconsolidated sands in other deepwater reservoirs. Entry and transition pressures show
little deviation for all but one sample, while the irreducible wetting phase saturation
varies from 1% to 10%. Wetting phase saturation differences have been attributed to
differences in grain size and clay content, data that are not available here.
Experimental end-point data highlight trends for rock and fluid properties. Endpoint saturations indicate that Sor increases with decreasing Swirr, a phenomenon
observed and explained by other workers (Maldal et al., 1999). Swirr data are 10 to 25%
greater than determined from mercury injection test data, suggesting that air does not
replicate the wetting phase characteristics of water. End-point krw values linearly increase
with increasing Sor, while no trend is evident for end-point krow.
Modeled two-phase relative permeability behavior, between constrained endpoints, is a function of the end-point saturations, end-point relative permeabilities, and
empirical constants.

Coreys (1954) model collapses to the end-point relative

permeability values (Corey coefficients) at end-point saturations.

Between these

constrained end-points the Corey exponents control the value of relative permeability.

88

Modeling Hydraulic Behavior of the Six Flow Units


The hydraulic behavior of J1 and J2 sands are modeled for six different Flow
Units defined by Comisky (2002). The behavior is interpreted from the limited core data,
described previously, and log-derived petrophysical properties.

Specifically,

petrophysically based end-point water and oil saturations are used to model this behavior.
Constraining End-point Water and Oil Saturations of the Six Flow Units

Log-derived initial water saturation values (Swi) are interpreted to be the


irreducible water saturation (Swirr) based on the calculated capillary pressures at each
well. The oil-water capillary pressure is calculated (OConner, 2000),
Pcow = ( w o ) gH ,

(3-10)

for wells of height H above the free water level (Figs. 3-1, 3-2, Tables 3-15 through 320), where g is the acceleration due to gravity, w is the density of brine (1.16 gm/cm3)
(Comisky, 2002), and o is the average density of oil (0.72 gm/cm3) (Chapter 2). Data
from 18 wells show that Pcow range from 13.5 psi (well A-4-BP, J1 sand) to 249.6 psi
(well A-33, J2 sand) in the J1 and J2 sands (Tables 3-15 through 3-20). These capillary
pressures are greater than the interpreted transition zone pressures (0.5 to 10.0 psi) from
core data, thus log-based Swi values are interpreted to approximate Swirr.
An empirical relation of the whole-core end-point saturation data, described in the
previous section, is used to approximate the residual oil saturation (Sor) for the six Flow
Units. Whole core Sor and Swirr are empirically related using a linear least-squares
regression (Figure 3-6, Table 3-8):
Sor = 0.2256 Swirr + 0.2890 .

(3-9)

89
Then, Sor is calculated for each Flow Unit by substituting the log-based Swi values
(Comisky, 2002) in Equation 3-9 (Table 3-21). The calculated Sor values range from
0.23 to 0.26 for values of Swi between 0.25 and 0.14 (Table 3-21).
Modeling Capillary Pressure in the Six Flow Units

Capillary pressure curves are modeled for six Flow Units (Figs. 3-15 through 322, Tables 3-23 through 3-28). Average log-based Swi values (Table 3-21) define the
irreducible water saturation for each Flow Unit. The oil-water capillary pressure (Pcow)
for each Flow Unit is modeled with an entry pressure of 0.2 psi and transition pressures
from 0.5 to 10.0 psi as implied by the whole core data (Figs. 3-3, 3-4, 3-5). The gas-oil
capillary pressure (Pcgo) is calculated as described previously (Equation 3-3).
The capillary pressure curves are used to establish the initial oil, water, and gas
saturations present above the original oil-water contact (OOWC) in the J1 and J2 sand
reservoirs (Figs. 3-15 through 3-22, Tables 3-23 through 3-28). The Swirr values in each
capillary curve specify the initial saturation differences for each Flow Unit. Further,
these curves predict the transition of saturations (transition zone) from a fluid contact
(100% Sw or Sliq) to Swirr at in-situ equilibrium conditions. The transition of water is
75.8 ft. above the OOWC and for oil is 26.9 ft. above the OGOC.

90

Capillary Pressure (psi)

1000.0

1000
Syn Pcow (Sw)
Syn Pcgo (Sg)
Pcow (Sw)

100.0

10.0

100

10

1.0

0.1

0.0

0.2

0.4
0.6
0.8
Saturation (Sw and Sg)

1.0

Figure 3-15: Modeled oil-water and gas-oil capillary pressure curves for Flow Unit 1 (Table 3-21).
Triangles represent oil-water capillary pressures associated with wells in Flow Unit 1 located in the
J1 sand (A-32-BP, A-38, A-4-BP) (Table 3-14).

Capillary Pressure (psi)

1000.0

1000
Pcow (Sw)
Syn Pcow (Sw)
Syn Pcgo (Sg)

100.0

10.0

100

10

1.0

0.1

0.0

0.2

0.4
0.6
0.8
Saturation (Sw and Sg)

1.0

Figure 3-16: Modeled oil-water and gas-oil capillary pressure curves for Flow Unit 2 (Table 3-22).
Triangles represent oil-water capillary pressures associated with the 65-1 well in Flow Unit 2 (J1 and
J2 sands) (Table 3-15).

91

Capillary Pressure (psi)

1000.0

1000
Pcow (Sw)
Syn Pcow (Sw)
Syn Pcgo (Sg)

100.0

100

10.0

10

1.0

0.1

0.0

0.2

0.4
0.6
0.8
Saturation (Sw and Sg)

1.0

Figure 3-17: Modeled oil-water and gas-oil capillary pressure curves for Flow Unit 3 (Table 3-23).
Triangles represent oil-water capillary pressures associated with wells in Flow Unit 3 located in the
J1 sand (109-1ST, A-32-BP, A-38, A-4-BP) (Table 3-16).

Capillary Pressure (psi)

1000.0

Pcow (Sw)

1000

Syn Pcow (Sw)


Syn Pcgo (Sg)

100.0

10.0

100

10

1.0

0.1

0.0

0.2

0.4
0.6
0.8
Saturation (Sw and Sg)

1.0

Figure 3-18: Modeled oil-water and gas-oil capillary pressure curves for Flow Unit 4 (Table 3-24).
Triangles represent oil-water capillary pressures associated with wells in Flow Unit 4 located in the
J2 sand (109-1, A-1, A-2-BP, A-34, A-35, A-37, A-3-BP, A-5-BP) (Table 3-17).

92

Capillary Pressure (psi)

1000.0

1000
Pcow (Sw)
Syn Pcow (Sw)

100.0

Syn Pcgo (Sg)

100

10.0

10

1.0

0.1

0.0

0.2

0.4
0.6
0.8
Saturation (Sw and Sg)

1.0

Figure 3-19: Modeled oil-water and gas-oil capillary pressure curves for Flow Unit 5 (Table 3-25).
Triangles represent oil-water capillary pressures associated with wells in Flow Unit 5 located in the
J1 sand (A-1, A-11-BP, A-35, A-37, A-3-BP, A-41) (Table 3-18).

Capillary Pressure (psi)

1000.0

1000

Pcow (Sw)
Syn Pcow (Sw)
Syn Pcgo (Sg)

100.0

100

10.0

10

1.0

0.1

0.0

0.2

0.4
0.6
Saturation (Sw and Sg)

0.8

1.0

Figure 3-20: Modeled oil-water and gas-oil capillary pressure curves for Flow Unit 6 (Table 3-26).
Triangles represent oil-water capillary pressures associated with wells in Flow Unit 6 located in the
J2 sand (109-1ST, A-11-BP) and both J1 and J2 sands (A-33) (Table 3-19).

Oil-Water Capillary Pressure (psi)

93

1000.0

1000
Flow Unit 1
Flow Unit 2
Flow Unit 3

100.0

100

Flow Unit 4
Flow Unit 5

10.0

Flow Unit 6

10

1.0

0.1

0.1

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Sw

Gas-Oil Capillary Pressure (psi)

Figure 3-21: Comparison of modeled oil-water capillary pressure (Pcow) curves for the six Flow Units
(Tables 3-21 through 3-26).

100.0

100
Flow Unit 1
Flow Unit 2
Flow Unit 3

10.0

Flow Unit 4

10

Flow Unit 5
Flow Unit 6

1.0

0.1

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Sg
Figure 3-22: Comparison of modeled gas-oil capillary pressure (Pcgo) curves for six Flow Units
(Tables 3-21 through 3-26).

94
Table 3-15: Rock properties for wells in Flow Unit 1. Water saturation values are from Comisky
(2002).
Flow Unit

Sand

Well

1
1
1

J2
J2
J2

A-32-BP
A-38
A-4-BP

SSTVD
(ft)
12022
12218
12337

Pcow
(psi)
74.87
37.53
14.86

Swi
0.16
0.14
0.18

Table 3-16: Rock properties for wells in Flow Unit 2. Water saturation values are from Comisky
(2002).
Flow Unit

Sand

Well

2
2
2
2
2

J1
J2
J1
J2
J2

65-1-ST
65-1-ST
65-1
65-1
A-36

SSTVD
(ft)
12361
12454
12120
12185
12621

Pcow
(psi)
38.10
43.82
-

Swi
1.00
1.00
0.19
0.20
1.00

Table 3-17: Rock properties for wells in Flow Unit 3. Water saturation values are from Comisky
(2002).
Flow Unit

Sand

Well

3
3
3
3

J1
J1
J1
J1

109-1ST
A-32-BP
A-38
A-4-BP

SSTVD
(ft)
11315
11931
12122
12249

Pcow
(psi)
191.47
74.11
37.72
13.53

Swi
0.10
0.23
0.21
0.22

Table 3-18: Rock properties for wells in Flow Unit 4. Water saturation values are from Comisky
(2002).
Flow Unit

Sand

Well

4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4

J2
J2
J2
J2
J2
J2
J2
J2

109-1
A-1
A-2-BP
A-34
A-35
A-37
A-3-BP
A-5-BP

SSTVD
(ft)
12028
11677
11928
11817
11419
11573
11467
12119

Pcow
(psi)
73.73
140.60
92.78
113.93
189.76
160.42
180.61
56.39

Swi
0.11
0.08
0.18
0.12
0.11
0.18
0.19
0.14

95
Table 3-19: Rock properties for wells in Flow Unit 5. Water saturation values are from Comisky
(2002).
Flow Unit

Sand

Well

5
5
5
5
5
5

J1
J1
J1
J1
J1
J1

A-1
A-11-BP
A-35
A-37
A-3-BP
A-41

SSTVD
(ft)
11562
11498
11297
11455
11363
11373

Pcow
(psi)
144.41
156.61
194.90
164.80
182.33
180.42

Swi
0.14
0.14
0.20
0.22
0.16
0.13

Table 3-20: Rock properties for wells in Flow Unit 6. Water saturation values are from Comisky
(2002).
Flow Unit

Sand

Well

6
6
6
6

J2
J2
J1
J2

109-1ST
A-11-BP
A-33
A-33

SSTVD
(ft)
12185
11493
11017
11105

Pcow
(psi)
43.82
175.66
248.25
249.58

Swi
0.21
0.20
0.35
0.25

Table 3-21: Average porosity and initial water saturation (Comisky, 2002) with estimated residual oil
saturation.
Flow Unit
1
2
3
4
5
6

Sand
J2
J1 & J2
J1
J2
J1
J1 & J2

0.33
0.31
0.32
0.32
0.33
0.28

Swi
0.160
0.200
0.190
0.140
0.170
0.250

Sor
0.253
0.244
0.246
0.257
0.251
0.233

96
Modeling Relative Permeability in Six Flow Units

Oil-water and gas-oil relative permeability are modeled for six Flow Units using
Coreys two-phase model (1954) (Figs. 3-23 through 3-36, Tables 3-23 through 3-28).
Model inputs for each Flow Unit are the log-based Swi values and empirically related Sor
values (Table 3-21). The Corey exponents reported by Kikani and Smith (1996) are used.
The Corey water coefficient (a), which is equal to the end-point water relative
permeability (krw), is related to Sor using a linear least square regression fit to a cross-plot
of whole core Sor and end-point krw (Figure 3-37, Tables 3-10, 3-22):
a = 1.658Sor 0.0472 .

(3-11)

The Corey oil coefficient (c = 0.866) is an average of calculated end-point oil relative
permeability (krow) values from whole core data (Table 3-10). The end-point values of
krog are set equal to endpoint krow and endpoint krw is set at 1.0.
The modeled relative permeability behavior, for the six Flow Units, is similar due
to small differences in residual oil saturations (Figs. 3-23 through 3-36). These small
differences are due to a lack of whole core data. Therefore, the two-phase relative
permeability behavior is considered an unconstrained property. Additionally, this twophase behavior is used to predict three-phase relative permeability behavior using Stones
Model II (1973).

97

1.0
Relative Permeability

krw

0.8

krow

0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Sw
Figure 3-23: Modeled oil-water relative permeability curves for Flow Unit 1 (Table 3-21). The thick
line is the relative permeability of water in the presence of oil (krw) and the thin line is the relative
permeability of oil in the presence of water (krow). The average initial water saturation (Swi), based
on log data, is 0.160 and the estimated residual oil saturation (Sor) is 0.253 (Table 3-13).

1.0
Relative Permeability

krg
krog

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Sg
Figure 3-24: Modeled gas-oil relative permeability curves for Flow Unit 1 (Table 3-21). The thick
line is the relative permeability of gas in the presence of liquid (oil and water) (krg) and the thin line is
the relative permeability of oil in the presence of gas and irreducible water (krog). The average initial
water saturation (Swi), based on log data, is 0.160 and the estimated residual oil saturation (Sor) is
0.253 (Table 3-13).

98

1.0
Relative Permeability

krw

0.8

krow

0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Sw
Figure 3-25: Modeled oil-water relative permeability curves for Flow Unit 2 (Table 3-22). The thick
line is the relative permeability of water in the presence of oil (krw) and the thin line is the relative
permeability of oil in the presence of water (krow). The average initial water saturation (Swi), based
on log data, is 0.200 and the estimated residual oil saturation (Sor) is 0.244 (Table 3-13).

1.0
Relative Permeability

krg
krog

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Sg
Figure 3-26: Modeled gas-oil relative permeability curves for Flow Unit 2 (Table 3-22). The thick
line is the relative permeability of gas in the presence of liquid (oil and water) (krg) and the thin line is
the relative permeability of oil in the presence of gas and irreducible water (krog). The average initial
water saturation (Swi), based on log data, is 0.200 and the estimated residual oil saturation (Sor) is
0.244 (Table 3-13).

99

1.0
Relative Permeability

krw

0.8

krow

0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Sw
Figure 3-27: Modeled oil-water relative permeability curves for Flow Unit 3 (Table 3-23). The thick
line is the relative permeability of water in the presence of oil (krw) and the thin line is the relative
permeability of oil in the presence of water (krow). The average initial water saturation (Swi), based
on log data, is 0.190 and the estimated residual oil saturation (Sor) is 0.246 (Table3-13).

1.0
Relative Permeability

krg
krog

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Sg
Figure 3-28: Modeled gas-oil relative permeability curves for Flow Unit 3 (Table 3-23). The thick
line is the relative permeability of gas in the presence of liquid (oil and water) (krg) and the thin line is
the relative permeability of oil in the presence of gas and irreducible water (krog). The average initial
water saturation (Swi), based on log data, is 0.190 and the estimated residual oil saturation (Sor) is
0.246 (Table 3-13).

100

1.0
Relative Permeability

krw

0.8

krow

0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Sw
Figure 3-29: Modeled oil-water relative permeability curves for Flow Unit 4 (Table 3-24). The thick
line is the relative permeability of water in the presence of oil (krw) and the thin line is the relative
permeability of oil in the presence of water (krow). The average initial water saturation (Swi), based
on log data, is 0.140 and the estimated residual oil saturation (Sor) is 0.257 (Table 3-13).

1.0
Relative Permeability

krg
krog

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Sg
Figure 3-30: Modeled gas-oil relative permeability curves for Flow Unit 4 (Table 3-24). The thick
line is the relative permeability of gas in the presence of liquid (oil and water) (krg) and the thin line is
the relative permeability of oil in the presence of gas and irreducible water (krog). The average initial
water saturation (Swi), based on log data, is 0.140 and the estimated residual oil saturation (Sor) is
0.257 (Table 3-13).

101

1.0
Relative Permeability

krw

0.8

krow

0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Sw
Figure 3-31: Modeled oil-water relative permeability curves for Flow Unit 5 (Table 3-25). The thick
line is the relative permeability of water in the presence of oil (krw) and the thin line is the relative
permeability of oil in the presence of water (krow). The average initial water saturation (Swi), based
on log data, is 0.170 and the estimated residual oil saturation (Sor) is 0.251 (Table 3-13).

1.0
Relative Permeability

krg
krog

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Sg
Figure 3-32: Modeled gas-oil relative permeability curves for Flow Unit 5 (Table 3-25). The thick
line is the relative permeability of gas in the presence of liquid (oil and water) (krg) and the thin line is
the relative permeability of oil in the presence of gas and irreducible water (krog). The average initial
water saturation (Swi), based on log data, is 0.170 and the estimated residual oil saturation (Sor) is
0.251 (Table 3-13).

102

1.0
Relative Permeability

krw

0.8

krow

0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Sw
Figure 3-33: Modeled oil-water relative permeability curves for Flow Unit 6 (Table 3-26). The thick
line is the relative permeability of water in the presence of oil (krw) and the thin line is the relative
permeability of oil in the presence of water (krow). The average initial water saturation (Swi), based
on log data, is 0.250 and the estimated residual oil saturation (Sor) is 0.233 (Table 3-13).

1.0
Relative Permeability

krg
krog

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Sg
Figure 3-34: Modeled gas-oil relative permeability curves for Flow Unit 6 (Table 3-26). The thick
line is the relative permeability of gas in the presence of liquid (oil and water) (krg) and the thin line is
the relative permeability of oil in the presence of gas and irreducible water (krog). The average initial
water saturation (Swi), based on log data, is 0.250 and the estimated residual oil saturation (Sor) is
0.233 (Table 3-13).

Oil-Water Relative Permeability

103

1.0

krw (Unit 1)
krow (Unit 1)

0.8

krw (Unit 2)
krow (Unit 2)
krw (Unit 3)

0.6

krow (Unit 3)
krw (Unit 4)

0.4

krow (Unit 4)
krw (Unit 5)
krow (Unit 5)

0.2

krw (Unit 6)

0.0
0.00

krow (Unit 6)

0.25

0.50
Sw

0.75

1.00

Gas-Oil Relative Permeability

Figure 3-35: Comparison of modeled oil-water relative permeability curves for six Flow Units
(Tables 3-21 through 3-26).

1.0

krg (Unit 1)
krog (Unit 1)

0.8

krg (Unit 2)
krog (Unit 2)
krg (Unit 3)

0.6

krog (Unit 3)
krg (Unit 4)

0.4

krog (Unit 4)
krg (Unit 5)
krog (Unit 5)

0.2
0.0
0.00

krg (Unit 6)
krog (Unit 6)

0.25

0.50
Sg

0.75

1.00

Figure 3-36: Comparison of modeled gas-oil relative permeability curves for six Flow Units (Tables
3-21through 3-26).

104

Corey Coefficient (a)

0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20

0.23

0.26

0.29

0.32

Residual Oil Saturation (Sor)


Figure 3-37: Corey coefficient a versus average residual oil saturation from core data (Tables 3-10).
Trend line is a linear least squares fit to the data. The value of a is equal to end-point krw at Sor and
is used to determine a for each of the six Flow Units.

105
Table 3-22: Oil-water Corey coefficient a and c values used to model oil-water relative permeability
for the six Flow Units described by Comisky (2002). Values of a are linearly related to Sor and c is
an average value derived from core data (Tables 3-10, 3-11)
Flow Unit
1
2
3
4
5
6

Sand
J2
J1 & J2
J1
J2
J1
J1 & J2

Sor
0.253
0.244
0.246
0.257
0.251
0.233

a
0.372
0.357
0.361
0.379
0.369
0.339

c
0.866
0.866
0.866
0.866
0.866
0.866

106
Table 3-23: Modeled oil-water and gas-oil relative permeability and capillary pressure for Flow Unit
1 (J2 sand).
Sw
0.160
0.200
0.250
0.300
0.350
0.400
0.450
0.500
0.550
0.600
0.650
0.700
0.747

Oil-water
krw
krow
0.0000
0.8490
0.0001
0.7363
0.0013
0.6030
0.0051
0.4786
0.0126
0.3652
0.0254
0.2650
0.0449
0.1801
0.0723
0.1119
0.1092
0.0612
0.1568
0.0273
0.2165
0.0084
0.2898
0.0010
0.3723
0.0000

Pcow (psi)
20.000
2.4000
1.1000
0.7500
0.5400
0.4100
0.3400
0.3000
0.2900
0.2800
0.2700
0.2600
0.2510

Sg
0.000
0.050
0.100
0.150
0.200
0.253
0.300
0.350
0.400
0.450
0.500
0.550
0.587
0.840

Gas-oil
krg
krog
0.0000 0.8490
0.0009 0.5946
0.0071 0.4022
0.0234 0.2608
0.0539 0.1604
0.1060 0.0890
0.1719 0.0485
0.2643 0.0226
0.3809 0.0087
0.5214 0.0025
0.6841 0.0004
0.8640 0.0000
1.0000 0.0000
1.0000 0.0000

Pcgo (psi)
0.1333
0.1400
0.1467
0.1533
0.1600
0.1670
0.1733
0.1800
0.1867
0.1933
0.2000
0.2267
0.2550
13.333

Table 3-24: Modeled oil-water and gas-oil relative permeability and capillary pressure for Flow Unit
2 (J1 and J2 sands).
Sw
0.200
0.250
0.300
0.350
0.400
0.450
0.500
0.550
0.600
0.650
0.700
0.756

Oil-water
krw
krow
0.0000
0.8490
0.0003
0.7015
0.0021
0.5632
0.0070
0.4356
0.0166
0.3211
0.0325
0.2223
0.0561
0.1415
0.0891
0.0799
0.1331
0.0375
0.1895
0.0127
0.2599
0.0020
0.3574
0.0000

Pcow (psi)
20.000
1.6000
0.8500
0.5600
0.4300
0.3500
0.3000
0.2900
0.2800
0.2700
0.2600
0.2490

Sg
0.000
0.050
0.100
0.150
0.200
0.244
0.300
0.350
0.400
0.450
0.500
0.556
0.800

Gas-oil
krg
krog
0.0000 0.8490
0.0011 0.5824
0.0083 0.3841
0.0274 0.2414
0.0631 0.1427
0.1116 0.0842
0.2002 0.0382
0.3069 0.0160
0.4407 0.0053
0.6005 0.0011
0.7829 0.0001
1.0000 0.0000
1.0000 0.0000

Pcgo (psi)
0.1333
0.1400
0.1467
0.1533
0.1600
0.1670
0.1733
0.1800
0.1867
0.1933
0.2000
0.2375
13.333

107
Table 3-25: Modeled oil-water and gas-oil relative permeability and capillary pressure for Flow Unit
3 (J1 sand).
Oil-water
Sw
0.190
0.250
0.300
0.350
0.400
0.450
0.500
0.550
0.600
0.650
0.700
0.754

krw
0.0000
0.0004
0.0027
0.0082
0.0186
0.0353
0.0599
0.0938
0.1386
0.1957
0.2667
0.3607

krow
0.8490
0.6755
0.5409
0.4170
0.3062
0.2111
0.1336
0.0749
0.0348
0.0115
0.0017
0.0000

Pcow (psi)
20.000
1.4000
0.7900
0.5500
0.4100
0.3400
0.3000
0.2900
0.2800
0.2700
0.2600
0.2490

Sg
0.000
0.050
0.100
0.150
0.200
0.246
0.300
0.350
0.400
0.450
0.500
0.564
0.810

Gas-oil
krg
krog
0.0000
0.8490
0.0010
0.5857
0.0080
0.3889
0.0262
0.2465
0.0606
0.1473
0.1097
0.0858
0.1923
0.0408
0.2951
0.0176
0.4241
0.0061
0.5787
0.0014
0.7559
0.0001
1.0000
0.0000
1.0000
0.0000

Pcgo (psi)
0.1333
0.1400
0.1467
0.1533
0.1600
0.1670
0.1733
0.1800
0.1867
0.1933
0.2000
0.2275
13.333

Table 3-26: Modeled oil-water and gas-oil relative permeability and capillary pressure for Flow Unit
4 (J2 sand).
Oil-water
Sw
0.140
0.200
0.250
0.300
0.350
0.400
0.450
0.500
0.550
0.600
0.650
0.700
0.743

krw
0.0000
0.0004
0.0023
0.0071
0.0160
0.0304
0.0515
0.0806
0.1191
0.1682
0.2292
0.3035
0.3789

krow
0.8490
0.6863
0.5594
0.4416
0.3348
0.2412
0.1625
0.0999
0.0538
0.0235
0.0069
0.0007
0.0000

Pcow (psi)
20.000
2.0000
1.0000
0.7000
0.5000
0.3900
0.3400
0.3000
0.2900
0.2800
0.2700
0.2600
0.2520

Sg
0.000
0.050
0.100
0.150
0.200
0.257
0.300
0.350
0.400
0.450
0.500
0.550
0.603
0.860

Gas-oil
krg
krog
0.0000
0.8490
0.0008
0.6005
0.0065
0.4111
0.0216
0.2704
0.0499
0.1694
0.1027
0.0920
0.1594
0.0541
0.2453
0.0263
0.3541
0.0109
0.4857
0.0035
0.6390
0.0007
0.8103
0.0001
1.0000
0.0000
1.0000
0.0000

Pcgo (psi)
0.1333
0.1400
0.1467
0.1533
0.1600
0.1670
0.1733
0.1800
0.1867
0.1933
0.2000
0.2267
0.2605
13.333

108
Table 3-27: Modeled oil-water and gas-oil relative permeability and capillary pressure for Flow Unit
5 (J1 sand).
Sw
0.170
0.200
0.250
0.300
0.350
0.400
0.450
0.500
0.550
0.600
0.650
0.700
0.749

Oil-water
krw
krow
0.0000
0.8490
0.0001
0.7628
0.0010
0.6261
0.0042
0.4984
0.0111
0.3815
0.0231
0.2778
0.0417
0.1896
0.0683
0.1185
0.1043
0.0653
0.1511
0.0295
0.2102
0.0093
0.2830
0.0012
0.3690
0.0000

Gas-oil
Pcow (psi)
20.000
2.5000
1.2000
0.8000
0.5500
0.4100
0.3400
0.3000
0.2900
0.2800
0.2700
0.2600
0.2500

Sg
0.000
0.050
0.100
0.150
0.200
0.251
0.300
0.350
0.400
0.450
0.500
0.579
0.830

krg
0.0000
0.0009
0.0074
0.0243
0.0561
0.1078
0.1787
0.2745
0.3952
0.5405
0.7081
1.0000
1.0000

krog
0.8490
0.5916
0.3977
0.2559
0.1559
0.0874
0.0458
0.0208
0.0078
0.0021
0.0003
0.0000
0.0000

Pcgo (psi)
0.1333
0.1400
0.1467
0.1533
0.1600
0.1670
0.1733
0.1800
0.1867
0.1933
0.2000
0.2500
13.333

Table 3-28: Modeled oil-water and gas-oil relative permeability and capillary pressure for Flow Unit
6 (J1 and J2 sand).
Sw
0.250
0.300
0.350
0.400
0.450
0.500
0.550
0.600
0.650
0.700
0.767

Oil-water
krw
krow
0.0000
0.8490
0.0003
0.6907
0.0025
0.5432
0.0083
0.4084
0.0196
0.2895
0.0383
0.1896
0.0663
0.1112
0.1052
0.0552
0.1571
0.0206
0.2236
0.0042
0.3391
0.0000

Pcow (psi)
20.0000
3.0000
1.2000
0.6300
0.4700
0.3600
0.3200
0.2900
0.2700
0.2600
0.2470

Sg
0.000
0.050
0.100
0.150
0.200
0.233
0.300
0.350
0.400
0.450
0.517
0.750

Gas-oil
krg
krog
0.0000
0.8490
0.0013
0.5652
0.0103
0.3593
0.0338
0.2156
0.0778
0.1200
0.1204
0.0773
0.2452
0.0264
0.3742
0.0092
0.5342
0.0022
0.7223
0.0002
1.0000
0.0000
1.0000
0.0000

Pcgo (psi)
0.1333
0.1400
0.1467
0.1533
0.1600
0.1640
0.1733
0.1800
0.1933
0.2133
0.2550
13.3333

109

Conclusions
Capillary pressure and relative permeability are modeled to establish initial fluid
saturations and multiphase fluid behavior for reservoir simulation of the J1 and J2 sand
reservoirs.
The capillary and relative permeability behavior of the J1 and J2 sand reservoirs
are characterized. Mercury injection data mimic behavior observed in other deepwater
turbidite sands. End-point permeability and saturation data document decreases in Sor
that correspond to increases in Swirr and decreases in krw. These characteristics are
incorporated into the model using empirical relationships.
Modeled capillary pressure behavior of the six Flow Units mimics whole core
data and compare to data documented at Mars. Capillary differences exit in the wetting
phase irreducible saturation only. The resultant curves are used in reservoir simulation to
establish the initial saturation conditions above the OOWC for each of the six Flow
Units.
Modeled two-phase relative permeability approximates the multiphase flow
characteristics of six Flow Units in the J1 and J2 sands. Empirical correlations between
end-point saturations and the water end-point relative permeability are based on limited
whole core data.

Coreys (1954) two-phase model is used to predict the relative

permeability between these constrained end-point values.

These two-phase relative

permeability curves are used to predict three-phase relative permeability using Stones
Model II (1973).

110

Chapter 4
ROCK COMPACTION EFFECTS ON POROSITY AND
PERMEABILITY OF THE UNCONSOLIDATED J-SANDS
AT BULLWINKLE
Reservoir sands in unconsolidated systems are highly compressible (Merle et al.,
1976; Yale et al., 1993; Ostermeier, 1993, 1996, 2001; Davies and Davies, 1999;
Flemings et al., 2001). The compressibility versus effective stress for the Bullwinkle J2
sand has been documented (Flemings et al., 2001). Ostermeier (1993, 1996, 2001)
documented porosity and permeability effects due to changes in compressibility for
increases in vertical effective stress of unconsolidated turbidite sands from the Gulf of
Mexico. Kikani and Smith (1996) reported non-linear compaction effects on porosity
and permeability, for the J-sands at Bullwinkle. These effects correspond to non-linear
compressibility behavior documented by Ostermeier (1993, 1996, 2001). Davies and
Davies (1999) described stress-dependent permeability as a function of rock type for
unconsolidated turbidites (from a Plio-Pleistocene deepwater field in the Gulf of Mexico
and the Pliocene Wilmington Field in California) and addressed implications for
production associated with the observed behavior.
In this chapter, stress dependent porosity and permeability behavior of the J1 and
J2 sands at Bullwinkle are characterized and modeled. A Fetkovich (1971) material
balance model, constrained by historical production and pressure data, is used to calculate
pore compressibility behavior. The inferred compressibility behavior is consistent with
uniaxial deformation data. This model of pore compressibility is used to calculate the
reduction in porosity due to increases in vertical effective stress during production.

111
Permeability reductions corresponding to changes in porosity are grain size dependent
and empirically modeled based on deformation data.

Whole Core Data


Uniaxial deformation experiments were run on whole core samples, by Shell Oil
Co., located in three different Flow Units, described by Comisky (2002), in the J1 and J2
sand (Chapter 3: Figs. 3-1, 3-2). Three experiments were run on 65-1-ST samples
(Tables 4-1, 4-2, 4-3) and seven on the A-32-BP (Tables 4-4 through 4-10) using a
protocol outlined by Ostermeier (1996). The 65-1-ST samples are from Flow Unit 2
(Tables 4-1, 4-2, 4-3) in the J2 sand, while samples from the A-32-BP are from separate
Flow Units in the J1 and J2 sands (3 and 1, respectively) (Tables 4-4 through 4-10)
(Comisky, 2002).

Initial In-situ Vertical Effective Stress


Vertical effective stress (v ) can be approximated as,

v = S v Pp ,

(4-1)

where Sv is the overburden stress and Pp is the pore pressure. The overburden stress (Sv)
is calculated from the bulk density log. Lupa et al. (2002) approximated it as a linear
function of depth over the J-sand interval;
psi
* z ( ft.) .
S v = 0.88
ft

(4-2)

In the J-sands prior to production, the vertical effective stress (v) increases by 1515 psi
from 1050 psi at the crest to 2565 psi at the base of the J2 sand (Figure 4-1).

112

Pressure (psi)
7000
10000
10500

8000

9000

10000

SSTVD (ft.)

12000

Overburden
Stress

v =1050 psi
Crest J2-RB

Oil Pressure

11000

Water
Pressure

11500
12000

11000

Gas
Pressure

Crest J2-RA

12500
13000

J2 sand base

v =2565 psi

13500
Figure 4-1: Pressure vs. depth in the J2 sand at initial conditions. Pressures are based on a measured
reference pressure of 8550 psi at 12070 ft., SSTVD and the assumption that the system is at steady
state (no potential gradients). Overburden stress (Sv) calculation is from Equation 4-2. Brine, oil,
and water densities are assumed to be constant and 1.16 gm/cc, 0.75 gm/cc, 0.34 gm/cc, respectively
(see Chapter 2). Values use to construct this plot are in Table 4-11.

113
Table 4-1: Deformation data from the 65-1-ST whole core, sample 10 (13092.3 ft., measured depth;
12486.3 ft., SSTVD) located in the J2 sand (Shell Petrophysical Services, 1987). Pore compressibility
values (cp) are calculated from Equation 4-3. Sample is from Flow Unit #2 (Comisky, 2002). Bold
values are close to the initial in-situ vertical effective stress (2309.8 psi).
v
(psi)
200
750
1250
1750
2200
2700
3200
3700
4700
5700
6700
7700
8700
9700

0.3214
0.3118
0.3072
0.3035
0.3009
0.2974
0.2951
0.2928
0.2878
0.2825
0.2749
0.2663
0.2579
0.2501

k
(mD)
1293
1268
1184
1153
1142
1099
1034
987
926
824
703
529
391
296

cp
(10-6 psi-1)
80.0
42.9
34.8
27.3
33.3
22.0
22.1
24.1
25.9
37.5
43.1
43.0
40.8
-

Table 4-2: Deformation data from the 65-1-ST whole core, sample 14 (13107.3 ft., measured depth;
12497.3 ft., SSTVD) located in the J2 sand (Shell Petrophysical Services, 1987). Pore compressibility
values (cp) are calculated from Equation 4-3. Sample is from Flow Unit #2 (Comisky, 2002). Bold
values are close to the initial in-situ vertical effective stress (2315.0 psi).
v
(psi)
200
750
1250
1750
2200
2700
3200
3700
4700
5700
6700
7700
8700
9700

0.3713
0.3625
0.3552
0.3487
0.3426
0.3348
0.3277
0.3198
0.3106
0.2979
0.2918
0.2844
0.279
0.2721

k
(mD)
1528
1344
1241
1123
1022
937
814
701
526
340
239
152
114
84.6

cp
(10-6 psi-1)
68.5
63.2
56.8
59.7
69.3
63.8
71.7
42.3
59.3
29.2
35.8
26.5
34.3
-

114
Table 4-3: Deformation data from the 65-1-ST whole core, sample 22 (13139.0 ft., measured depth;
12527.0 ft., SSTVD) located in the J2 sand (Shell Petrophysical Services, 1987). Pore compressibility
values (cp) are calculated from Equation 4-3. Sample is from Flow Unit #2 (Comisky, 2002). Bold
values are close to the initial in-situ vertical effective stress (2329.3 psi).
v
(psi)
200
750
1250
1750
2200
2700
3200
3700
4700
5700
6700
7700
8700
9700

0.3102
0.3042
0.3004
0.2968
0.2931
0.2897
0.2868
0.2833
0.2722
0.2567
0.2425
0.2319
0.2225
0.2132

k
(mD)
30.9
21.8
19.4
16.8
14.9
14.5
12.2
10.7
7.18
3.14
1.89
1.12
0.751
0.673

cp
(10-6 psi-1)
51.0
35.9
34.3
39.4
32.8
28.2
34.2
54.7
78.2
74.4
57.7
52.8
53.8
-

Table 4-4: Deformation data from the A-32-BP whole core, sample 16 (12823.4 ft., measured depth;
11943.0 ft., SSTVD) located in the J1 sand (Shell Petrophysical Services, 1990). Pore compressibility
values (cp) are calculated from Equation 4-3. Sample is from Flow Unit #4 (Comisky, 2002). Bold
values are close to the initial in-situ vertical effective stress (1979.1 psi).
v
(psi)
200
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000

0.3174
0.2966
0.2895
0.2772
0.2697
0.258
0.2479
0.2346
0.2301

k
(mD)
3296
2420
2039
1708
1384
957
659
390
308

cp
(10-6 psi-1)
53.3
34.0
59.8
37.4
59.4
52.8
71.3
25.1
-

115
Table 4-5: Deformation data from the A-32-BP whole core, sample 19 (12829.0 ft., measured depth;
11947.8 ft., SSTVD) located in the J1 sand (Shell Petrophysical Services, 1990). Pore compressibility
values (cp) are calculated from Equation 4-3. Sample is from Flow Unit #4 (Comisky, 2002). Bold
values are close to the initial in-situ vertical effective stress (1982.2 psi).
v
(psi)
200
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000

0.3544
0.3267
0.3164
0.306
0.2903
0.2758
0.2673
0.2555
0.2461

k
(mD)
4533
2611
1996
1495
929
561
405
250
154

cp
(10-6 psi-1)
67.3
46.8
48.1
73.9
70.4
42.6
60.2
49.4
-

Table 4-6: Deformation data from the A-32-BP whole core, sample 21 (12832.3 ft., measured depth;
11950.7 ft., SSTVD) located in the J1 sand (Shell Petrophysical Services, 1990). Pore compressibility
values (cp) are calculated from Equation 4-3. Sample is from Flow Unit #4 (Comisky, 2002). Bold
values are close to the initial in-situ vertical effective stress (1983.6 psi).
v
(psi)
200
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000

0.3358
0.3082
0.2977
0.2906
0.2779
0.2641
0.2545
0.2462
0.2385

k
(mD)
4166
2583
2037
1697
1188
770
572
399
263

cp
(10-6 psi-1)
68.7
49.2
34.0
61.6
68.8
49.4
43.7
41.5
-

Table 4-7: Deformation data from the A-32-BP whole core, sample 33 (12861.4 ft., measured depth;
11976.0 ft., SSTVD) located in the J2 sand (Shell Petrophysical Services, 1990). Pore compressibility
values (cp) are calculated from Equation 4-3. Sample is from Flow Unit #1 (Comisky, 2002). Bold
values are close to the initial in-situ vertical effective stress (2000.5 psi).
v
(psi)
200
2000
3000
4000
4500
5000

0.3203
0.3062
0.2995
0.2953
0.2905
0.2839

k
(mD)
1137
913
818
696
612
497

cp
(10-6 psi-1)
36.0
31.5
20.0
46.1
64.0
-

116
Table 4-8: Deformation data from the A-32-BP whole core, sample 46 (12885.2 ft., measured depth;
11996.6 ft., SSTVD) located in the J2 sand (Shell Petrophysical Services, 1990). Pore compressibility
values (cp) are calculated from Equation 4-3. Sample is from Flow Unit #1 (Comisky, 2002). Bold
values are close to the initial in-situ vertical effective stress (2013.9 psi).
v
(psi)
200
2000
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000

0.3501
0.3336
0.3276
0.3253
0.3218
0.3174
0.3132

k
(mD)
3341
2372
2279
1988
1776
1526
1300

cp
(10-6 psi-1)
40.3
27.0
20.9
31.9
40.3
38.8
-

Table 4-9: Deformation data from the A-32-BP whole core, sample 51 (12913.4 ft., measured depth;
12021.1 ft., SSTVD) located in the J2 sand (Shell Petrophysical Services, 1990). Pore compressibility
values (cp) are calculated from Equation 4-3. Sample is from Flow Unit #1 (Comisky, 2002). Bold
values are close to the initial in-situ vertical effective stress (2029.8 psi).
v
(psi)
200
2000
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000

0.3426
0.3181
0.3042
0.2994
0.2949
0.2904
0.2855

k
(mD)
3136
2095
1717
1556
1428
1264
1149

cp
(10-6 psi-1)
60.4
64.1
45.4
42.9
43.3
47.6
-

Table 4-10: Deformation data from the A-32-BP whole core, sample 56 (12949.4 ft., measured depth;
12052.4 ft., SSTVD) located in the J2 sand (Shell Petrophysical Services, 1990). Pore compressibility
values (cp) are calculated from Equation 4-3. Sample is from Flow Unit #1 (Comisky, 2002). Bold
values are close to the initial in-situ vertical effective stress (2050.1 psi).
v
(psi)
200
2000
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000

0.3585
0.3411
0.3333
0.3289
0.3233
0.3166
0.3078

k
(mD)
3589
2716
2353
2109
1906
1508
1142

cp
(10-6 psi-1)
42.0
34.7
39.6
50.7
61.2
81.3
-

117
Table 4-11: Pressure versus depth in the J2 sand at initial conditions. Pressures are based on a
measure value of 8550 psi at 12070 ft, SSTVD and the assumption that th esystem is at steady state.
Overburden stress (Sv) is calculated from Eq. 4-2. Brine, oil, and water densities are assumed
constant at 1.16 gm/cc, 0.75 gm/cc, and 0.34 gm/cc, respectively.
Depth
SSTVD
(ft.)
10500
10600
10700
10800
10900
11000
11100
11200
11300
11400
11500
11600
11700
11800
11900
12000
12100
12200
12300
12400
12500
12600
12700
12800
12900
13000

Sv
(psi)
9091
9187
9283
9380
9476
9573
9670
9766
9863
9960
10057
10154
10251
10349
10446
10543
10641
10738
10836
10934
11032
11130
11228
11326
11424
11522

Oil Phase
Pressure
(psi)
8040
8072
8105
8137
8170
8202
8235
8267
8300
8332
8365
8397
8430
8462
8495
8527
8560
8592
8625
8657
-

Water Phase Gas Phase


Pressure
Pressure
(psi)
(psi)
8523
8537
8552
8567
8581
8655
8705
8755
8806
8856
8906
8956
-

Minimum
v
(psi)
1050
1115
1178
1242
1306
1371
1435
1499
1563
1628
1578
1661
1743
1826
1909
1991
2074
2157
2211
2279
2326
2374
2422
2470
2518
2566

118

Pore Compressibility
Pore compressibility (cp) is defined as (Flemings et al., 2001) (derivation in
Appendix C),

cp =

1 V p
1
=
,
(1 ) v
V p v

(4-3)

where Vp is the pore volume and is the porosity. The cp of the whole core samples is
calculated from deformation data (Figs 4-2, 4-3, Tables 4-1 through 4-10). In two of the
three samples, from the 65-1-ST well, cp increases with increasing vertical effective stress
over the range of stresses present during production (Figure 4-2, Tables 4-1, 4-2, 4-3). In
the A-32-BP, all seven samples record this same behavior (Figure 4-3, Tables 4-4
through 4-10). In sample 14, from the 65-1-ST, cp decreases with increasing stress, in
contrast to the other samples.
Ostermeier (1993, 1996, 2001) examined the compressibility for four different
deepwater Gulf of Mexico turbidite reservoirs and showed similar behavior.

In

deformation experiments, Ostermeier (1993, 1996, 2001) showed that compressibility


often increased (strain softening) and then decreased (strain hardening) with increasing
vertical effective stress. Ostermeier (2001) suggested that at initial conditions ductile
grains were load-supporting. With increased effective stress, the yield strength of these
grains was reached and the compressibility increased.

Compaction Effects On Permeability


Permeability decreases with increasing stress (Figs. 4-4, 4-5, Tables 4-1 through
4-10). The J1 samples, from the A-32-BP, record higher permeability than samples from
the J2 in the A-32-BP and 65-1-ST (Figure 4-6). In the J1 sand, permeability measured

119
100
80
cp (10-6 psi-1)

#10 (J2)

60
#14 (J2)

40
#22 (J2)

20

v
(initial)

v
(12/99)

0
0

2000

4000

6000

8000

v (psi)
Figure 4-2: Pore compressibility (cp) vs. vertical effective stress (v) for 65-1-ST whole core samples
(Tables 4-1, 4-2, 4-3). These samples are from the J2 sand. The initial in-situ vertical effective stress
(vi) is approximately 2319 psi (range = 2309 psi to 2329 psi) and in Dec., 1999 v is 4800 psi
(Appendix A: Figure A.14).

100
#16 (J1)

cp (10-6 psi-1)

80

#19 (J1)

#21 (J1)

60

#33 (J2)

40

#46 (J2)

20

v
(initial)

#51 (J2)

v
(12/99)

#56 (J2)

0
0

2000

4000
v (psi)

6000

8000

Figure 4-3: Pore compressibility (cp) vs. vertical effective stress (v) for A-32-BP whole core samples
(Tables 4-4 through 4-10). These samples were extracted from both the J1 and J2 sand. The vi is
approximately 2014 psi (range = 1979 psi to 2050 psi) and in Dec., 1999 v is 4500 psi (Appendix A:
Figure A.14).

120
5000
#10 (J2)

4000

#14 (J2)

k (mD)

#22 (J2)

3000
2000
1000
0
0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

Figure 4-4: Permeability (k) vs. porosity () data for the 65-1-ST whole core samples (Tables 4-1, 4-2,
4-3).

5000
4000

#16 (J1)
#19 (J1)
#21 (J1)

k (mD)

#33 (J2)

3000
2000

#46 (J2)
#51 (J2)
#56 (J2)

1000
0
0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

Figure 4-5: Permeability (k) vs. porosity () data for the A-32-BP whole core samples (Tables 4-4
through 4-10).

121
on stressed samples (2000 psi) ranged from 2611 mD to 2420 mD with a mean value of
2538 mD (Tables 4-4, 4-5, 4-6). Permeability measured on stressed samples (2000 psi)
in the J2 sand range from 2716 mD to 913 mD with a mean value of 2024 mD (Tables 47, 4-8, 4-9, 4-10). The 65-1-ST samples (samples 10, 14), stressed at 2200 psi, record
permeabilities ranging from 1142 mD to 1022 mD with a mean value of 1082 mD
(Tables 4-1, 4-2).
Permeabilities at a given porosity are lower for finer grained samples (Figure 4-6,
Table 4-12). For example, the minimum and maximum median grain sizes in the A-32BP well (J2 sand) are 135 m and 174 m, respectively, and the average of these median
values is 152 m (Figure 4-6). In contrast at the 65-1-ST well (J2 sand) the average
median grain size is 121 m with a range of 54 m to 166 m (Figure 4-6). No grain
size data were collected in the J1 sand.
Davies and Davies (1999) described compaction as stress-related physical
changes due to grain slippage, grain rotation, ductile changes in grain shape, and grain
fracturing. These compaction processes results in a decrease in pore volume (lower
porosity) and decrease in pore throat radius (lower permeability). In the J1 and J2 sands,
it is assumed that compaction is due to grain slippage and rotation.
The observed cp behavior may be explained by Ostermeiers (2001) hypothesis,
presented earlier, or by physical changes in the matrix material. The early time cp
behavior may be explained by grains that are initially slightly cemented (friable sand).
For a certain increase in effective stress, the cementing material may break or crack,
breaking the bond between grains. For further increases in vertical effective stress the
grains slip, rotate and reorient. This grain slippage and rotation corresponds to increases

122

5000

k (mD)

4000

65-1-ST (J2): Flow Unit #2 - Dm = 121 um


A-32-BP (J1): Flow Unit #3 - ?
A-32-BP (J2): Flow Unit #1 - Dm = 152 um

3000
2000
1000
0
0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

Figure 4-6: Permeability (k) vs. porosity () data for the A-32-BP and 65-1-ST samples. The data
are separated by Flow Unit (Tables 4-1 through 4-10). Differences correspond to grain size (Table 412) and in-situ permeability. Data are shown separately in Figures 4-4 and 4-5. Dm is the median
grain size as reported by core analyses.

5000

k (mD)

4000
3000

fine upper - Dm = 200 um


fine lower - Dm = 150 um
very-fine upper - Dm = 100 um
65-1-ST (J2) - Dm = 121 um
A-32-BP (J1) - ?
A-32-BP (J2) - Dm = 152 um

2000
1000
0
0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

Figure 4-7: Permeability-porosity relationships using the Carman-Kozeny model (Table 4-13).
Deformation data is from the 65-1-ST and A-32-BP samples (Tables 4-1 through 4-10). Dm is the
median grain size of whole core samples. Modeled permeability-porosity relationships are for grain
sizes of Dm=100 m (very-fine upper), Dm=150 m (fine lower), and Dm=200 m (fine-upper) (Table
4-13).

123
Table 4-12: Average rock properties from whole core samples for sampled Flow Units 1, 2, and 3
(Table 4-1 through 4-10). Average properties are at approximate intial in-situ v (A-32-BP = 2000
psi, 65-1-ST = 2200 psi).
Whole
Core
A-32-BP
65-1-ST
A-32-BP

Flow
Unit
1
2
3

Sand

k (mD)

J2
J2
J1

2024
1082
2538

0.311
0.325
0.322

Dm
(m)
152
121
-

Table 4-13: Permeability-porosity relations for three different grain sizes (Dm) using the CarmanKozeny model.

0.20
0.22
0.24
0.26
0.28
0.30
0.32
0.34
0.36
0.38

k
k
(mD)
(mD)
Dm = 200 m Dm = 150 m
639.6
359.8
895.6
503.8
1224.7
688.9
1642.4
923.9
2166.9
1218.9
2819.7
1586.1
3626.3
2039.8
4617.2
2597.2
5828.8
3278.7
7304.6
4108.9

k
(mD)
Dm = 100 m
159.9
223.9
306.2
410.6
541.7
704.9
906.6
1154.3
1457.2
1826.2

124
in cp with increasing vertical effective stress. Then, at higher vertical effective stresses
the grains may orient themselves such that slippage and rotation can no longer occur.
With further increases in stress, cp decreases rapidly because the matrix material has
compacted.
Relating Permeability to Porosity Using The Carman-Kozeny Model

The coupled porosity () -permeability behavior is simulated with the CarmanKozeny (CK) model (Figure 4-7, Table 4-13), where permeability (k) is defined as,
k=

Dm 2 3
72 * * (1 ) 2

(4-4)

T is the flow tortuosity, Dm is grain diameter, and the constant 72.0 (dimensionless) is
related to pore geometry (Panda et al., 1994). Grain size diameters of 100 m (very-fine
upper), 150 m (fine lower), and 200 m (fine upper) are modeled (Figure 4-7, Table 413). The Bullwinkle data (Figure 4-7, Table 4-13) could be simulated with a tortuosity
factor (T) equal to 11.0.

Pore Compressibility Behavior Derived From A Material Balance


Model
Fetkovichs (1971) approach is used to model the pore compressibility behavior
in the J1 and J2 sands. Fetkovichs (1971) approach is a time-incremental approach that
solves for the pressure in the reservoir and at the mid point in the aquifer (Figure 4-8). It
is a box model with constant rock and fluid properties. The change in pressure at each
time step is a function of fluid injected and produced and changes in pore
compressibility.

125
Model Geometry and Rock and Fluid Property Inputs

It is assumed that the J1, J2, J3, J4 and the Rocky reservoirs are connected by a
common aquifer (Figure 4-9) based on the observation that there is pressure
communication between them (Holman and Robertson, 1994). Reservoir and aquifer
volumes for these sands are listed in Table 4-14. These volumes are constrained by
seismic and log data (Swanston, 2001; Comisky, 2002).
The entire J1, J2, J3, J4, and Rocky sand system is modeled as a single
rectangular system of width (b), height (h), reservoir length (l), and aquifer length (L)
(Figure 4-8). The total volume of the aquifer is set equal to the mapped value of
1.154X109 barrels, while the hydrocarbon volume is set equal to the combined J1 and J2
mapped value of 2.134X108 barrels (Table 4-15). Only the oil present in the J1 and J2 is
considered for the material balance model. Hydrocarbons in the Rocky, J3 and J4 sands
are ignored.
The height, h, was set equal to the average sand thickness of the J2 sand, 45 ft.
The width, b, is set equal to the length of the J2 oil-water contact, 10,000 ft. The aquifer
and reservoir lengths (L and l, respectively) are calculated based on the assumption that
the total volume is fixed by the mapped volumes (Tables 4-14, 4-15).
Values of porosity and water saturation (Swi) are averaged from the six Flow
Units present in the J1 and J2 sands (Comisky, 2002) (Table 4-15) (Chapter 3: Figs. 3-1,
3-2). The permeability in the aquifer is specified at 1060 mD based on the permeability
of Flow Unit 2, which is located in the aquifer of both sands (Comisky, 2002) (Table 415).

126

Np
Winj

Wp
Reservoir

h
Aquifer

Pres

Paq

Figure 4-8: Schematic of Fetkovick material balance model. Dimensions are reservoir length (l),
aquifer length (L), reservoir and aquifer width (b) and thickness (h). Dimensions shown are not to
scale. Actual model dimensions are found in Table 4-15. Constant rock and fluid properties are
based on rock and fluid samples. Np is the produced volume of oil, Wp is the produced volume of
water, and Winj is the injected volume of water. Paq is the average aquifer pressure and Pres is the
aquifer-reservoir interface pressure.

J1+J2
J3

Rocky

J4
Figure 4-9: J-sand and Rocky sand connectivity model. The J1 and J2 are interpreted to be
connected in the hydrocarbon column while the J3, J4, and Rocky sands are interpreted to connect to
the J2 sand in the aquifer.

127
Table 4-14: Reservoir and aquifer volumes for J-sands and Rocky (Swanston, 2001). Fluid volumes
are based on seismic limits and average sand thickness as recorded by well logs. Equivalent aquifer
volume is used for sizing of the aquifer for material balance calculations.
Sand
J1
J2
J3
J4
Rocky
Total

Estimated Oil Estimated Free Gas Estimated Aquifer Equivalent Aquifer


Volume (MRB) Volume (MRB)
Volume (MRB)
Volume (MRB)
53,743
0
94,855
94,855
159,576
0
300,576
300,576
20,759
10,560
194,056
225,375
24,546
0
332,668
357,214
20,450
5,016
151,411
176,877
279,074
15,576
1,073,566
1,154,897

Table 4-15: Input properties for Fetkovich material balance model (Figure 4-9).
Width of reservoir and aquifer b (ft)
Average height (J1+J2) of sand h (ft)
Length of reservoir l (ft)
Length of aquifer - L (ft)
Average porosity -
Average Initial oil saturation in reservoir Soi
Average Initial water saturation in reservoir Swi
Average Oil formation volume factor Boi (res Bbl/STB)
Brine formation volume factor Bw (res. Bbl/STB)
Oil compressibility co (psi-1)
Water compressibility cw (psi-1)
Estimated brine viscosity - w (cp)
Average permeability in the aquifer kw (mD)
Initial pressure at 12,070 ft. datum - Pi (psi)
J1 and J2 Reservoir oil volume - OOIP (MRB)
J1, J2, J3, J4, and Rocky water volume OWIP (MRB)

10,000
45
10,150
45,000
0.32
0.82
0.18
1.55
1.0002
1.00E-05
3.00E-06
0.5
1060
8550
213,448
1,154,051

128
Constant fluid properties are specified. Hydrocarbon properties (o, Boi, co) are
taken from a mid-dip location (12,070 ft., SSTVD) based on the J-RB equation of state
fluid model developed in Chapter 2 (Table 4-15). Correlations for aquifer properties of
viscosity (w) (McCain, 1988), formation volume factor (Bwi) (McCain, 1988), and
compressibility (cw) (Osif, 1984) are based on a reservoir temperature of 165oF, a brine
density of 1.16 gm/cc (Comisky, 2002) and average aquifer pressure of 8750 psi at
12,700 ft., SSTVD (Table 4-15).
The Fetkovich Model Cumulative and Incremental Models

The Fetkovich (1971) model is used to calculate the average and instantaneous
system behavior of the J1 and J2 sands. The average behavior is calculated using a
cumulative model (as presented by Fetkovich, 1971), which references the initial
condition at each time step and calculates pressure based on an average change in system
conditions. This cumulative model is modified to calculate the instantaneous behavior
using an incremental model that assumes the system is at hydrostatic equilibrium at each
time step. The instantaneous behavior is calculated using the same set of equations, but
the initial aquifer pressure (Piaq) and reservoir pressure (Pires) are set to the pressures
calculated in the previous time step, the volume of oil produced is subtracted from the
original oil in place (N), and the volume of water influx (We(n)) is calculated at each timestep.
Both the cumulative and incremental approaches suffer limitations.

The

cumulative approach calculates only the average compressibility that must be present to
achieve the pressure between any two points in time. Thus, the change in compressibility
at each incremental change in effective stress cannot be captured.

In contrast, the

129
incremental approach calculates the instantaneous compressibility. However, it violates a
basic assumption of the Fetkovich (1971) model: namely that there are no potential
gradients at the start of each timestep.
The average aquifer pressure (Paq(n)) for each time-step (n) is calculated,
Pi aq
( We( n ) Winj ) ,
Paq ( n ) = Piaq

Wei

(4-5)

Where Winj is the water injected, and


Wei =

b * h * L * * ctw * Piaq

(4-6)

5.615

is the maximum encroachable water. The constant 5.615 converts cubic feet to reservoir
barrels.

The total compressibility, ctw, in the aquifer is the sum of the water

compressibility (cw) and pore compressibility. The mobile volume of water influencing
the reservoir per time-step (We(n)) is calculated,
We( n )

qwi

t n
Pres ( n 1) Pres ( n )
Wei
Wei

1
P
e

aq ( n 1)
2
2
Pi

(4-7)

where tn is the time-step size (calendar month). The maximum water flow rate into the
reservoir (qwi), otherwise known as the productivity index (P.I.),

q wi

k *b*h* P
w
iaq
= (1.127 E 03)
L

(4-8)

is a function of permeability (kw), viscosity of brine (w), and aquifer length (L), where
the constant 1.127X10-3 converts millidarcy-feet per centipoise to reservoir barrels per
day. The aquifer-reservoir interface pressure (Pres(n)), for a time-step, is based on the
undersaturated oil material balance equation,

130

Pres ( n ) =

Np * Boi Wp * Bwi + We( n 1) + Pires ( N * ce Np * c o )Boi


qwi

Wei

t n

(N * ce Np * co )Boi + 1 e Wei / 2
Piaq

.
(4-9)

Np and Wp are the total monthly volumes of oil and water produced, respectively. The
initial oil and water formation volume factors are Boi and Bwi, respectively. The total
compressibility in the reservoir (ce) is the sum of the pore compressibility and
compressibility of saturation weighted oil (co) and water; ce = cp + Soi*co + Swi*cw. The
original oil in place (N) is calculated from:

N=

b * h * l * * Soi
,
5.615 * Boi

(4-10)

where Soi is the average initial oil saturation in the reservoir.


Model Results

The average and instantaneous pore compressibility behavior is calculated from


both the cumulative and incremental models that successfully match the observed
pressures (Figs. 4-10, 4-11, 4-12). A striking observation is that in order to match the
pressure in the reservoir, an increase in compressibility with time is necessary for both
models (Figure 4-10). Modeled pore compressibility is calculated to be 10 X 10-6 psi-1 at
the in-situ initial vertical effective stress (2062 psi at 12070 ft., SSTVD) for both models.
The average cp behavior increases to 120 X 10-6 psi-1 for a 2450 psi increase in stress in
the reservoir, while the instantaneous cp behavior increases to 150 X 10-6 psi-1 for the
same increase in stress (Figure 4-10, Tables 4-16, 4-17).

131

160
1996

Average
Instantaneous

-6

1994

80

1991

1989

Sample 56

-1

cp (10 psi )

120

40
0
1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

v (psi)

v (ksi)

cp (10-6 psi-1)

160
120
80
Average

40

Instantaneous
Sample 56

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

1993

1992

1991

1990

1989

0
Date

Figure 4-10: Calculated average (Table 4-16) and instantaneous (Table 4-17) pore compressibility
(cp) vs. vertical effective stress (v) and time for a material balance match of historical reservoir
pressure (Figs. 4-11, 4-12). Deformation data is from whole core sample 56 from the A-32-BP whole
core (Table 4-10). The initial average in-situ vertical effective stress is 2062 psi at 12070 ft., SSTVD.
All compressibility values are calculated for a depth of 12070 ft., SSTVD.

132
9000

1612
Modeled Reservoir Pressure

8000

2612

Historical Reservoir Pressure

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

1993

1992

4612
1991

6000
1990

3612

1989

7000

(psi)

Pressure (psi)

Modeled Aquifer Pressure

Date
Figure 4-11: Modeled reservoir and aquifer pressures using the Fetkovich (1971) cumulative
(average) material balance model (Table 4-18). Pressure match is based on the calculated average
pore compressibility behavior shown in Figure 4-10 (Table 4-16). Pressure and stress values are
referenced to a 12,070 ft., SSTVD datum depth. Observed pressure data is found in Appendix A.

9000

1612

Modeled Reservoir Pressure

Historical Reservoir Pressure

8000

2612
v

2000

1999

1998

1997

Date

1996

1995

1994

1993

1992

4612
1991

6000
1990

3612

1989

7000

(psi)

Pressure (psi)

Modeled Aquifer Pressure

Figure 4-12: Modeled reservoir and aquifer pressures using the Fetkovich (1971) incremental
(instantaneous) material balance model (Table 4-19). Pressure match is based on the calculated
instantaneous pore compressibility behavior shown in Figure 4-10 (Table 4-17). Pressure and stress
values are referenced to a 12,070 ft., SSTVD datum depth. Observed pressure data is found in
Appendix A.

133
Table 4-16: Derived average cp values using the cumulative Fetkovich material balance model.
Values were calculated for a match in reservoir pressure (Figure 4-10, 4-11).
cp
(10-6 psi-1)
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
11.3
12.6
14.0
15.3
16.6
18.0
19.3
20.0
22.2
26.8
31.3
35.9
40.4
45.0
54.4
63.8
73.2
82.6
85.0
92.0
101.3
110.6
120.0
132.0
144.0
150.0
152.2
156.6
161.1
165.5

Average v
(psi)
1562
1662
1762
1862
1962
2062
2162
2262
2362
2462
2562
2662
2762
2862
2962
3062
3162
3262
3362
3462
3562
3662
3762
3862
3962
4062
4162
4262
4362
4462
4562
4662
4762
4862
4962
5062
5162

Average Reservoir
Pressure (psi)
9050
8950
8850
8750
8650
8550
8450
8350
8250
8150
8050
7950
7850
7750
7650
7550
7450
7350
7250
7150
7050
6950
6850
6750
6650
6550
6450
6350
6250
6150
6050
5950
5850
5750
5650
5550
5450

134
Table 4-17: Derived cp values using the incremental Fetkovich material balance model. Values were
calculated for a match in reservoir pressure (Figure 4-10, 4-12).
cp
(10-6 psi-1)
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
14.5
19.0
23.6
28.1
32.6
37.2
41.7
44.0
51.8
67.4
83.0
98.7
114.3
130.0
134.7
139.4
144.1
148.8
150.0
150.0
150.0
150.0
150.0
150.0
150.0
150.0
150.0
150.0
150.0
150.0

Average v
(psi)
1562
1662
1762
1862
1962
2062
2162
2262
2362
2462
2562
2662
2762
2862
2962
3062
3162
3262
3362
3462
3562
3662
3762
3862
3962
4062
4162
4262
4362
4462
4562
4662
4762
4862
4962
5062
5162

Average Reservoir
Pressure (psi)
9050
8950
8850
8750
8650
8550
8450
8350
8250
8150
8050
7950
7850
7750
7650
7550
7450
7350
7250
7150
7050
6950
6850
6750
6650
6550
6450
6350
6250
6150
6050
5950
5850
5750
5650
5550
5450

135
Table 4-18: Modeled reservoir and aquifer pressure for calculated average pore compressibility
results (Table 4-16). Initial pressure is 8550 psi, which is referenced to 12,070 ft. SSTVD datum.
Date
Jul-89
Aug-89
Sep-89
Oct-89
Nov-89
Dec-89
Jan-90
Feb-90
Mar-90
Apr-90
May-90
Jun-90
Jul-90
Aug-90
Sep-90
Oct-90
Nov-90
Dec-90
Jan-91
Feb-91
Mar-91
Apr-91
May-91
Jun-91
Jul-91
Aug-91
Sep-91
Oct-91
Nov-91
Dec-91
Jan-92
Feb-92
Mar-92
Apr-92
May-92
Jun-92
Jul-92
Aug-92
Sep-92
Oct-92

Reservoir Aquifer
Pressure Pressure
(psi)
(psi)
8547
8550
8514
8547
8481
8540
8446
8530
8413
8516
8394
8501
8361
8485
8327
8466
8309
8446
8233
8422
8191
8394
8140
8363
8110
8330
8077
8298
8067
8267
8020
8237
7946
8202
7920
8164
7858
8129
7805
8088
7855
8053
7930
8031
7967
8020
7987
8014
7997
8011
7828
7997
7676
8018
7577
7969
7481
7907
7439
7955
7461
7897
7371
7833
7272
7762
7186
7679
7240
7678
7149
7616
7061
7602
7028
7529
6988
7452
6894
7384

Date
Nov-92
Dec-92
Jan-93
Feb-93
Mar-93
Apr-93
May-93
Jun-93
Jul-93
Aug-93
Sep-93
Oct-93
Nov-93
Dec-93
Jan-94
Feb-94
Mar-94
Apr-94
May-94
Jun-94
Jul-94
Aug-94
Sep-94
Oct-94
Nov-94
Dec-94
Jan-95
Feb-95
Mar-95
Apr-95
May-95
Jun-95
Jul-95
Aug-95
Sep-95
Oct-95
Nov-95
Dec-95
Jan-96
Feb-96

Reservoir Aquifer
Pressure Pressure
(psi)
(psi)
6981
7403
7030
7352
7043
7314
6945
7351
6854
7302
6779
7234
6697
7156
6622
7257
6858
7190
6766
7123
6663
7054
6807
6996
6890
7199
6793
7156
6699
7115
6635
7070
6562
7022
6501
6962
6439
6912
6386
6854
6332
6800
6511
6755
6446
6957
6399
6909
6357
6861
6312
6816
6321
6777
6283
6735
6396
6700
6347
6891
6316
6857
6486
6833
6444
6811
6408
6788
6373
6766
6346
6747
6319
6726
6295
6899
6288
6874
6289
6848

Date
Mar-96
Apr-96
May-96
Jun-96
Jul-96
Aug-96
Sep-96
Oct-96
Nov-96
Dec-96
Jan-97
Feb-97
Mar-97
Apr-97
May-97
Jun-97
Jul-97
Oct-97
Nov-97
Dec-97
Jan-98
Feb-98
Mar-98
Apr-98
May-98
Jun-98
Jul-98
Aug-98
Sep-98
Oct-98
Nov-98
Dec-98
Jan-99
Feb-99
Mar-99
Apr-99
May-99
Jun-99
Jul-99
Aug-99
Sep-99

Reservoir Aquifer
Pressure Pressure
(psi)
(psi)
6283
6824
6280
6800
6274
6778
6272
6756
6271
6735
6265
6715
6265
6695
6263
6677
6263
6658
6269
6641
6270
6626
6271
6611
6267
6596
6263
6582
6266
6568
6269
6744
6384
6695
6402
6684
6411
6673
6415
6662
6412
6653
6418
6644
6417
6635
6415
6626
6411
6618
6415
6610
6420
6602
6420
6595
6427
6589
6427
6582
6430
6576
6434
6570
6436
6566
6438
6560
6438
6556
6437
6551
6436
6547
6430
6542
6427
6538
6424
6533
6421
6529

136
Table 4-19: Modeled reservoir and aquifer pressure for calculated incremental pore compressibility
results (Table 4-17). Initial pressure is 8550 psi, which is referenced to 12,070 ft. SSTVD datum.
Date
Jul-89
Aug-89
Sep-89
Oct-89
Nov-89
Dec-89
Jan-90
Feb-90
Mar-90
Apr-90
May-90
Jun-90
Jul-90
Aug-90
Sep-90
Oct-90
Nov-90
Dec-90
Jan-91
Feb-91
Mar-91
Apr-91
May-91
Jun-91
Jul-91
Aug-91
Sep-91
Oct-91
Nov-91
Dec-91
Jan-92
Feb-92
Mar-92
Apr-92
May-92
Jun-92
Jul-92
Aug-92
Sep-92
Oct-92

Reservoir Aquifer
Pressure Pressure
(psi)
(psi)
8547
8550
8514
8547
8481
8540
8446
8530
8413
8516
8394
8501
8362
8485
8327
8466
8309
8446
8233
8422
8192
8394
8140
8363
8111
8330
8077
8298
8067
8267
7996
8236
7931
8198
7876
8158
7825
8119
7784
8076
7832
8040
7903
8016
7942
8009
7965
8005
7979
8002
7830
7994
7647
7974
7502
7943
7408
7907
7337
7867
7268
7829
7239
7792
7212
7759
7187
7733
7157
7703
7131
7669
7103
7654
7091
7637
7080
7622
7049
7603

Date
Nov-92
Dec-92
Jan-93
Feb-93
Mar-93
Apr-93
May-93
Jun-93
Jul-93
Aug-93
Sep-93
Oct-93
Nov-93
Dec-93
Jan-94
Feb-94
Mar-94
Apr-94
May-94
Jun-94
Jul-94
Aug-94
Sep-94
Oct-94
Nov-94
Dec-94
Jan-95
Feb-95
Mar-95
Apr-95
May-95
Jun-95
Jul-95
Aug-95
Sep-95
Oct-95
Nov-95
Dec-95
Jan-96
Feb-96

Reservoir Aquifer
Pressure Pressure
(psi)
(psi)
7024
7581
6996
7559
6961
7537
6939
7510
6907
7486
6881
7471
6853
7463
6830
7446
6806
7432
6778
7427
6745
7419
6712
7408
6678
7389
6645
7367
6607
7344
6590
7317
6562
7293
6542
7277
6521
7254
6505
7236
6490
7214
6474
7193
6464
7180
6444
7168
6429
7154
6412
7138
6390
7124
6383
7107
6368
7091
6362
7072
6348
7052
6346
7028
6334
7007
6325
6987
6316
6965
6311
6942
6305
6920
6300
6898
6291
6878
6866
6293

Date
Mar-96
Apr-96
May-96
Jun-96
Jul-96
Aug-96
Sep-96
Oct-96
Nov-96
Dec-96
Jan-97
Feb-97
Mar-97
Apr-97
May-97
Jun-97
Jul-97
Oct-97
Nov-97
Dec-97
Jan-98
Feb-98
Mar-98
Apr-98
May-98
Jun-98
Jul-98
Aug-98
Sep-98
Oct-98
Nov-98
Dec-98
Jan-99
Feb-99
Mar-99
Apr-99
May-99
Jun-99
Jul-99
Aug-99
Sep-99

Reservoir Aquifer
Pressure Pressure
(psi)
(psi)
6289
6855
6290
6844
6287
6834
6290
6823
6295
6813
6295
6803
6303
6793
6309
6784
6317
6775
6334
6766
6342
6759
6352
6751
6354
6743
6357
6736
6368
6729
6381
6722
6489
6706
6501
6702
6504
6698
6500
6694
6491
6690
6493
6687
6488
6683
6483
6679
6476
6675
6480
6671
6487
6668
6488
6664
6497
6661
6498
6658
6503
6655
6511
6652
6514
6650
6517
6647
6518
6645
6518
6642
6518
6640
6512
6637
6509
6635
6508
6632
6506
6630

137
Comparison of Deformation and Material Balance cp Behavior

Pore compressibility as observed in deformation experiments and material


balance models increase with increases in vertical effective stress (Figure 4-10). The
pore compressibility values from whole core sample #56 (Table 4-10) are higher than
both modeled average and instantaneous cp values at the in-situ vertical effective stress
(2064 psi). At the maximum stress historically encountered in the reservoir (4500 psi)
the core cp is lower. Both whole core data and the modeled results are of the same order
of magnitude and have similar shape to cp behavior reported by Ostermeier (1993, 1996,
2001).
Parameter Sensitivity Analysis Using the Instantaneous cp Behavior

Additional pressure support is required after 1992 to approximate the historical


pressure behavior. Using a constant compressibility (cp = 10 X10-6 psi-1) the simulated
pressure response is too low after 1992 (Figure 4-13). It is interpreted that an increase in
pore compressibility, as observed in core data, is required for pressure support.
The modeled pressure response, for the instantaneous pore compressibility
behavior (Table 4-17), is sensitive to the permeability of the rock in the aquifer (Figure 415). The simulated pressure response for the high permeability case (k = 1500 mD) show
lower pressure differences between the aquifer and reservoir than for the low
permeability case (k = 500 mD) (Figure 4-14). This is an expected result because high
permeability sands equilibrate faster.
The effect of the cross-sectional flow area (b * h) on simulated pressure is
evaluated using the instantaneous pore compressibility behavior (Table 4-17).
sensitivity cases are presented, where the system width (b), reservoir length (l), and

Two

1612

8000

2612

7000

3612

6000

4612

5000

5612

4000

6612

Modeled Reservoir Pressure


Modeled Aquifer Pressure
Historical Reservoir Pressure

3000

(psi)

9000

Pressure (psi)

138

7612

2000
2000

1999

1998

1997

Date

1996

1995

1994

1993

1992

1991

1990

1989

8612

Figure 4-13: Modeled reservoir pressures using the Fetkovich (1971) incremental material balance
model with a constant pore compressibility of 10 X10-6 psi-1 in the reservoir and aquifer. Pressure
and stress values are referenced to a 12,070 ft., SSTVD datum depth. Observed pressure data is
found in Appendix A.

139
k = 500 mD

8000

2612

2000

1999

1998

1997

Date

1996

1995

1994

1993

5612
1992

5000
1991

4612

1990

6000

1989

3612

(psi)

7000

k = 1500 mD

9000

1612

Modeled res. pres.


Modeled aquifer pres
Historical res. pres.

8000

2612

2000

1999

1998

1997

Date

1996

1995

1994

1993

5612

1992

5000
1991

4612

1990

6000

1989

3612

(psi)

7000

Pressure (psi)

1612

Modeled res. pres.


Modeled aquifer pres.
Historical res. pres.

Pressure (psi)

9000

Figure 4-14: Modeled reservoir pressures using the Fetkovich (1971) incremental material balance
model with permeabilities in the aquifer of 500 mD and 1500 mD. Results are compared with the
reference permeability case (1060 mD) in Figure 4-12. Pressure match is based on the calculated
instantaneous pore compressibility behavior shown in Figure 4-10 (Table 4-17). Pressure and stress
values are referenced to a 12,070 ft., SSTVD datum depth. Observed pressure data is found in
Appendix A.

140
b=5,000 ft.
Modeled res. pres.
Modeled aquifer pres.
Historical res. pres.

8000

1612
2612
v

2000

1999

1998

1997

Date

1996

1995

1994

5612
1993

5000
1992

4612

1991

6000

1990

3612

1989

7000

(psi)

Pressure (psi)

9000

b=15,000 ft.

1612

Modeled res. pres.


Modeled aquifer pres.
Historical res. pres.

8000

2612
v

2000

1999

1998

1997

Date

1996

1995

1994

5612
1993

5000
1992

4612

1991

6000

1990

3612

1989

7000

(psi)

Pressure (psi)

9000

Figure 4-15: Modeled reservoir pressures using the Fetkovich (1971) incremental material balance
model with widths (b) of 5000 ft. (L=90,000 ft., l=20,300 ft.) and 15000 ft. (L=6767 ft., l=30,000 ft.).
Results are compared with the reference case (b = 10,000 ft., L=45,000 ft, l=10,150 ft.) in Figure 4-12.
Pressure match is based on the calculated instantaneous pore compressibility behavior shown in
Figure 4-10 (Table 4-17). Pressure and stress values are referenced to a 12,070 ft., SSTVD datum
depth. Observed pressure data is found in Appendix A.

141
aquifer length (L) are varied (h is constant), such that the reservoir and aquifer volumes
are honored (Table 4-15). A decrease in the cross-sectional flow area (b = 5000 ft.)
results in lower reservoir pressures at early time, followed by a late time pressure
rebound (Figure 4-15, top). In the small cross-sectional flow area case the aquifer is
further away from the reservoir, requiring greater time for higher pressures in the aquifer
to reach the reservoir. This explains the modeled late time pressure rebound. A large
cross-sectional flow area (b = 15,000 ft) results in reservoir and aquifer pressures that are
nearly equal with time (Figure 4-15, bottom). The increase in cross-sectional flow area
places the aquifer closer to the reservoir, which allows the system to equilibrate faster.
The modeled pressure response, associated with the instantaneous pore
compressibility behavior, is sensitive to the size of the aquifer volume. The simulated
reservoir and aquifer pressures through time are lower for an aquifer having half the
reference volume (641,139 MRB, L=25,000 ft.) than for an aquifer that is twice the
reference volume (2,564,560 MRB, L=100,000) (Figure 4-16). For the small aquifer
case, both simulated pressures (aquifer and reservoir) drop below the historical reservoir
pressure. This suggests either the aquifer must be larger or cp must increase (Figure 416, top).

For the larger aquifer, the simulated reservoir pressure approximates the

historical data through 1997 and is too high thereafter (Figure 4-16, bottom). The
pressure rebound that follows results from a higher pressure in the aquifer. This suggests
either cp must decrease, or the permeability in the aquifer must be greater than assumed.

142
L=25,000 ft.

9000

1612

Modeled aquifer pres.

8000

2612

Historical res. pres.

2000

1999

1998

1997

Date

1996

1995

1994

5612
1993

5000
1992

4612

1991

6000

1990

3612

1989

7000

(psi)

Pressure (psi)

Modeled res. pres.

1612

8000

2612

7000

3612

Modeled res. pres.


Modeled aquifer pres.

6000

4612

2000

1999

1998

1997

Date

1996

1995

5612

1994

1993

1992

1990

1989

1991

Historical res. pres.

5000

(psi)

Pressure (psi)

L=100,000 ft.

9000

Figure 4-16: Modeled reservoir pressures using the Fetkovich (1971) incremental material balance
model with aquifer volumes of 641,139 MRB (L=25,000 ft.) and 2,564,560 MRB (L=100,000 ft.).
Results are compared with the reference case (L=45,000 ft.) in Figure 4-12. Pressure match is based
on the calculated instantaneous pore compressibility behavior shown in Figure 4-10 (Table 4-17).
Pressure and stress values are referenced to a 12,070 ft., SSTVD datum depth. Observed pressure
data is found in Appendix A.

143

Model of Compaction Effects


For the purposes of reservoir simulation (Chapter 5), the modeled instantaneous
pore compressibility (cp) behavior (Figure 4-10, Table 4-17) is assumed to be equal for
all six Flow Units. This cp behavior is simulated through the use of a lookup table of
porosity and permeability reduction multipliers (PVMULT and TAMULT, respectively),
which are referenced to grid block pressure. This compaction model is constructed based
on an assumed initial porosity (ref = 32%) and reference vertical effective stress (ref =
2062 psi) at 12,070 ft., SSTVD.
The data clearly suggests the reduction of bulk volume due to pore collapse.
However, the simulation equations assume constant bulk volume. To simulate the loss of
volume associated with pore volume reduction, the volume loss is modeled as an increase
in the volume of the solid grains (Figure 4-17). A mathematical comparison of the
calculation of pore compressibility for geomechanics and simulation is,

(V

V p V g )geomechanics = (Vb V p V g )simulation = 0 ,

(4-11)

where Vg (change in grain volume) in geo-mechanics is assumed to be zero and Vb


(change in bulk volume) in simulation is zero. From this, it is assumed that,

(V )

p geomechanics

= (V p )simulation .

(4-12)

thus,

(Vb )geomechanics = ( V g )simulation .

(4-13)

An additional assumption in using the simulation compaction model is that changes in


bulk volume have little influence on saturation changes and multiphase flow behavior.

144

Initial
Condition
GeoMechanics

Compaction

vgi = 0
Vbi = Vpi + Vgi

Simulation

Vbf = Vpf + Vgi

vbi = 0
Vbi = Vpi + Vgi

Vbi = Vpf + Vgf

Figure 4-17: Unconsolidated sands, such as are present at Bullwinkle, undergo a bulk volume
reduction during pressure decrease as grains reorganize their packing structure. The change in solid
volume is small (top). The reservoir simulation model assumes bulk volume is conserved (bottom).
To simulate the effect of pore volume loss, the solid grains are assumed to increase in volume, by the
same amount that the pore volume decreases. The terms are: Vbi = initial bulk volume, Vbf =
compacted bulk volume, Vpi = initial pore volume, Vpf = compacted pore volume, Vgi = initial grain
volume, Vgf = compacted (enlarged) grain volume. Green represents the oil filled pore volume, blue
is the initial water saturation, and orange circles are the grains.

145

Porosity Reduction

The change in porosity due to an incremental change in vertical effective stress is


calculated,
= c p ( (1 )) eff ,

(4-14)

for the range of stresses present during production (Table 4-17). The fractional change in
porosity (porosity reduction multiplier) is calculated,
PVMULT =

new
,
ref

(4-15)

based on calculated porosity values (new) for these stresses and the reference porosity
(ref = 0.32) (Figs. 4-18, 4-19, Table 4-20).
Permeability Reduction

An empirical model is constructed based on the deformation data to relate


permeability to porosity,
21.0
k = m e
,

(4-16)

to predict for the full range of porosity values present in the J1 and J2 sands (Figure 4-20,
Table 4-21). The empirical exponent 21.0 is an average value based on a least square
regression fit to each set of deformation data (Table 4-22). The empirical constant m is
proportional to the grain size diameter term (Dm) (Table 4-22) and is based on a least
squares regression fit to the deformation data using the curvature exponent of 21.0.

146

5612
1.2

v (psi)
3612
2612

4612

1612

612

9000

10000

Permeability Mult.
Porosity Mult.

0.8

0.2
5000

6000

1989

1991

0.4

1994

0.6

1996

Multiplier

1.0

7000
8000
Reservoir Pressure (psi)

Figure 4-18: Simulation multipliers of porosity () and permeability (k) (Tables 4-20, 4-23) versus
reservoir pressure. The average initial in-situ reservoir pressure is 8550 psi (12,070 ft., SSTVD
datum) and in Dec., 1999 is 6100 psi (Appendix A).

147

Reservoir Pressure (psi)


9612
2000

8612

7612

6612

5612

4612
0.325

Permeability

0.300

1000

0.275

500
1000

2000

3000

1996

1994

1991

1989

k (mD)

1500

= 32%

Porosity

4000
v (psi)

5000

0.250
6000

Figure 4-19: Modeled porosity () and permeability (k) (Tables 4-20, 4-23) versus vertical effective
stress (v) calculated using the calculated incremental pore compressibility behavior. Values are
calculated as a function Ref (32%) and reservoir pressure (8550 psi at a 12,070 ft., SSTVD datum).
The porosity reduces to 28.2% by 1996. The permeability reduces to 819 mD by 1996 based on an
initial in-situ permeability of 1825 mD.

148
Table 4-20: Reservoir compaction effects on porosity (). Bold values represent the reference
datum (12,070 ft., SSTVD) values.
Reservoir
Pressure
(psi)
9050
8950
8850
8750
8650
8550
8450
8350
8250
8150
8050
7950
7850
7750
7650
7550
7450
7350
7250
7150
7050
6950
6850
6750
6650
6550
6450
6350
6250
6150
6050
5950
5850
5750
5650
5550
5450

Average v
(psi)

1562
1662
1762
1862
1962
2062
2162
2262
2362
2462
2562
2662
2762
2862
2962
3062
3162
3262
3362
3462
3562
3662
3762
3862
3962
4062
4162
4262
4362
4462
4562
4662
4762
4862
4962
5062
5162

0.3211
0.3209
0.3207
0.3204
0.3202
0.3200
0.3198
0.3196
0.3193
0.3191
0.3189
0.3186
0.3182
0.3177
0.3171
0.3164
0.3155
0.3146
0.3135
0.3121
0.3103
0.3082
0.3057
0.3030
0.3001
0.2972
0.2942
0.2911
0.2880
0.2849
0.2819
0.2788
0.2758
0.2728
0.2698
0.2669
0.2640

Fractional
Change in
(PVMULT)
1.0050
1.0040
1.0030
1.0020
1.0010
1.0000
0.9990
0.9980
0.9970
0.9960
0.9950
0.9936
0.9917
0.9893
0.9865
0.9833
0.9797
0.9755
0.9704
0.9639
0.9559
0.9464
0.9356
0.9235
0.9110
0.8983
0.8854
0.8722
0.8591
0.8462
0.8335
0.8210
0.8087
0.7966
0.7847
0.7729
0.7613

149
This empirical model is used to calculate the fractional change in permeability
(permeability reduction multiplier),
TAMULT =

21.0( new ref )


k new
=e
,
k ref

(4-17)

for the range of stresses present during production (Figs. 4-18, 4-19, Table 4-23).
TAMULT is independent of permeability and the grain size related constant m. This
allows us to use the same set of multipliers in all six Flow Units present in the J1 and J2
sands regardless of permeability.
Porosity and Permeability Reduction Results

Porosity and permeability decrease non-linearly with increasing vertical effective


stress (Figure 4-19, Tables 4-20, 4-23). This is an expected result because they are
derived from the non-linear instantaneous pore compressibility behavior (Figure 4-10).
Further, this compaction behavior is nearly identical to compaction behavior documented
by Kikani and Smith (1996) for the Bullwinkle J-sands. Ostermeier (2001) documented
this compaction behavior for two deepwater turbidite sands.
Simulation of Compaction Behavior Using Compaction Regions

The compaction model developed here is a gross simplification of the initial


vertical effective stress behavior present in the J1 and J2 sands. The J1 and J2 sands span
a vertical distance of 2400 ft. that correspond to a range of in-situ vertical effective stress
of 1115.0 psi updip (10,600 ft., SSTVD) to 2565.0 psi downdip (13,000 ft., SSTVD).
The compaction model developed thus far is for a vertical effective stress of 2062 psi at a
12,070 ft., SSTVD, datum.

150
5000

k (mD)

4000
3000

m = 2.90
m = 2.10
m = 1.06
65-1-ST (J2)
A-32-BP (J1)
A-32-BP (J2)

2000
1000
0
0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

Figure 4-20: Permeability (k) vs. porosity () using an empirical model (Table 4-19) compared with
deformation data (Tables 4-1 through 4-10). Modeled permeability-porosity relationships are fit
with a least squares regression to the deformation data using curvature coefficient of 21.0 (Equation
4-16).

151
Table 4-21: Permeability-porosity model results for different m values.

0.20
0.22
0.24
0.26
0.28
0.30
0.32
0.34
0.36
0.37

k
(mD)
m = 2.90
193.4
294.3
448.0
681.8
1037.68
1579.3
2403.6
3658.1
5567.6
6868.6

k
(mD)
m = 2.10
140.0
213.1
324.4
493.7
751. 4
1143.6
1740.5
2649.0
4031.7
4973.8

k
(mD)
m = 1.06
70.7
107.6
163.7
249.2
379.3
577.2
878.5
1337.1
2035.0
2510.6

Table 4-22: Empirical constant m value and curvature exponents for the permeability-porosity
model.
Whole
Core
A-32-BP
A-32-BP
65-1-ST

Sand
J1
J2
J2

m
2.90
2.10
1.06
Average

Curvature
25.3
22.3
15.3
21.0

152
Table 4-23: Reservoir compaction effects on permeability (k). Bold values represent the reference
datum (12,070 ft., SSTVD) vertical effective stress (v). k values calculated using Equation 4-16.
Reservoir
Pressure
(psi)
9050
8950
8850
8750
8650
8550
8450
8350
8250
8150
8050
7950
7850
7750
7650
7550
7450
7350
7250
7150
7050
6950
6850
6750
6650
6550
6450
6350
6250
6150
6050
5950
5850
5750
5650
5550
5450

Average v
(psi)

k (mD)

1562
1662
1762
1862
1962
2062
2162
2262
2362
2462
2562
2662
2762
2862
2962
3062
3162
3262
3362
3462
3562
3662
3762
3862
3962
4062
4162
4262
4362
4462
4562
4662
4762
4862
4962
5062
5162

0.3211
0.3209
0.3207
0.3204
0.3202
0.3200
0.3198
0.3196
0.3193
0.3191
0.3189
0.3186
0.3182
0.3177
0.3171
0.3164
0.3155
0.3146
0.3135
0.3121
0.3103
0.3082
0.3057
0.3030
0.3001
0.2972
0.2942
0.2911
0.2880
0.2849
0.2819
0.2788
0.2758
0.2728
0.2698
0.2669
0.2640

1865
1857
1848
1840
1831
1825
1815
1806
1798
1790
1782
1770
1755
1736
1714
1689
1660
1628
1590
1543
1486
1421
1351
1275
1201
1129
1060
993
931
872
818
768
720
677
635
597
561

Fractional
Change in k
(TAMULT)
1.0231
1.0185
1.0138
1.0092
1.0046
1.0000
0.9954
0.9909
0.9864
0.9819
0.9774
0.9710
0.9626
0.9523
0.9402
0.9263
0.9108
0.8933
0.8725
0.8463
0.8152
0.7798
0.7410
0.6993
0.6587
0.6195
0.5816
0.5450
0.5107
0.4788
0.4490
0.4213
0.3954
0.3713
0.3488
0.3278
0.3082

153
Compaction behavior is non-linear (Figs. 4-18, 4-21; Tables 4-20, 4-23).
Modeled downdip initial vertical effective stress (1562 psi) is less than updip (2562 psi)
(Table 4-17). Updip of the reference location (12,070 ft.) the non-linear compaction
effects are experienced for less increase in vertical effective stress than downdip (Figure
4-22, Tables 4-20, 4-23). The implications of this modeled behavior are higher initial
vertical effective stress updip and lower downdip. Thus, at initial conditions the values
of porosity and permeability are decreased updip (compaction) and increased downdip
(decompaction). The initial values of porosity deviate from 0% to 1% and permeability
from 0% to 3% based on the compaction multipliers (Figure 4-22, Tables 4-20, 4-23).
To reduce these compaction and decompaction effects the reservoir is divided into
five reservoir pressure intervals of 200 psi (Figs. 4-23, 4-24, Table 4-24). The average
reservoir pressure of each interval is specified as the reference pressure. The porosity and
permeability multipliers are shifted, such that the reference pressure corresponds to a
multiplier of 1.0 (Tables 4-23, 4-24, 4-27). The porosity (PVMULT) and permeability
reduction multipliers (TAMULT) are set to 1.0 for the 200 psi interval to honor the initial
porosity and permeability input values (Tables 4-23, 4-24, 4-27).

Conclusions
The pore compressibility of the J1 and J2 sands at Bullwinkle increase with
increases in vertical effective stress.

This observed behavior is documented by

deformation data from whole core samples and modeled results using a material balance
approach. Further, other workers have documented this type of behavior for deepwater
Gulf of Mexico turbidites.

154

cp (10-6 psi-1)

160
120
80
Model
downdip
v

40
0
1000

Model
updip
v

2000

3000

4000

5000

v (psi)

Figure 4-21: Modeled incremental pore compressibility (cp) vs. vertical effective stress (v) at initial
conditions as established by the simulation model using a single compaction table (Table 4-17).
Actual initial vertical effective stress in the J1 and J2 sands range updip to downdip, from 1050 psi to
2565 psi. The compaction model focuses on the time dependent compaction effects and does not
account for the presence of initial vertical variation in stress state within a reservoir. Modeled values
are referenced to a 12,070 ft., SSTVD, datum (Initial in-situ vertical effective stress = 2062 psi).

5612
1.2

Multiplier

1.0

v (psi)
3612
2612

4612

1612

612

Permeability Mult.
Porosity Mult.
Downdip
Compaction

0.8

Updip
Compaction

0.6
0.4
0.2
5000

6000

7000
8000
9000
Reservoir Pressure (psi)

10000

Figure 4-22: Simulation initialization effects on input maps of porosity () and permeability (k) using
a single compaction table (Tables 4-20, 4-23). Updip reservoir pressure at 10,600 ft, SSTVD is 8072
psi. Downdip pressure is 8956 psi at 13,000 ft., SSTVD (Table 4-11).

155
BLK 64

BLK 65
Permeability
Barriers

RA

12000

11000

BLK 108 BLK 109

12500

12000

11500

RB

1 Mile
Oil Producer

C.I. = 100

Water Injector

Figure 4-23: J1 sand compaction table region map overlain by structure contours. The five regions
are specified by 200 psi reservoir pressure intervals (Table 4-24). Black dots are production wells
and white dots are injection wells. Reservoir pressures range from 8072 psi updip to 8956 psi
downdip. Geologic barriers and connections are discussed in Chapter 5.

156

BLK 64

RA

Permeability
Barriers

BLK 65

12500

RB
2

0
50
11

1200
0

4
5

0
00
11

00
130

12500

BLK 108 BLK 109

Oil Producer
Water Injector

1 Mile

C.I. = 100

Figure 4-24: J2 sand compaction region map overlain by structure contours. The five regions are
specified by 200 psi reservoir pressure intervals (Table 4-24). Black dots are production wells and
white dots are injection wells. Reservoir pressures range from 8072 psi updip to 8956 psi downdip.
Geologic barriers and connections are discussed in Chapter 5.

157
Table 4-24: J1 and J2 sand compaction regions by fluid type. The oil phase pressure gradient is
0.325 psi/ft., gas phase pressure gradient is 0.146 psi/ft., and the water phase pressure gradient is
0.466 psi/ft.
Oil Phase - J1 and J2
Reservoir
Compaction
Pressure
Region
Range (psi)
1
8000 to 8200
2
8200 to 8400
3
8400 to 8600
4
8600 to 8800
5
8800 to 9000

Average
Reservoir
Pressure (psi)
10525 to 11050
8100
11050 to 11600
8300
11600 to 12135
8500
12135 to OOWC
8700
8900
Depth
Range (ft.)

Gas Phase - J1-RA and J2-RA


Average
Reservoir
Depth
Compaction
Reservoir
Pressure
Range (ft.)
Region
Pressure (psi)
Range (psi)
1
8000 to 8200
8100
2
8200 to 8400
8300
3
8400 to 8600 11000 to OGOC
8500
4
8600 to 8800
8700
5
8800 to 9000
8900
Water Phase - J1 and J2
Average
Reservoir
Depth
Compaction
Reservoir
Pressure
Range (ft.)
Region
Pressure (psi)
Range (psi)
1
8000 to 8200
8100
2
8200 to 8400
8300
3
8400 to 8600
8500
4
8600 to 8800 OOWC to 12600
8700
5
8800 to 9000 12600 to 13030
8900

Average
v (psi)

Average
Depth (ft.)

1234
1579
1925
2270
2432

10790
11330
11865
12405
12820

Average
v (psi)

Average
Depth (ft.)

1234
1579
1925
2270
2432

10790
11330
11865
12405
12820

Average
v (psi)

Average
Depth (ft.)

1234
1579
1925
2270
2432

10790
11330
11865
12405
12820

158
Table 4-25: Simulation model compaction region input tables for compaction regions 1 (8000 psi to
8200 psi) and 2 (8200 psi to 8400 psi). Reservoir compaction effects on porosity () and permeability
(k) are the same for each Flow Unit.
Compaction Region 1
Reservoir
v
Pressure
(psi)
(psi)
8200
1134
8100
1234
8000
1334
7900
1434
7800
1534
7700
1634
7600
1834
7500
1934
7400
2034
7300
2134
7200
2234
7100
2334
7000
2434
6900
2534
6800
2634
6700
2734
6600
2834
6500
2934
6400
3034
6300
3134
6200
3234
6100
3334
6000
3434
5900
3534
5800
3634
5700
3734
5600
3834
5500
3934
5400
4034
5300
4134
5200
4234
5100
4334
5000
4434

Compaction Region 2
Reservoir
v
Pressure
(psi)
(psi)
8400
1479
8300
1579
8200
1679
8100
1779
8000
1879
7900
1979
7800
2079
7700
2179
7600
2279
7500
2379
7400
2479
7300
2579
7200
2679
7100
2779
7000
2879
6900
2979
6800
3079
6700
3179
6600
3279
6500
3379
6400
3479
6300
3579
6200
3679
6100
3779
6000
3879
5900
3979
5800
4079
5700
4179
5600
4279
5500
4379
5400
4479
5300
4579
5200
4679

PVMULT

TAMULT

1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
0.9980
0.9970
0.9960
0.9950
0.9936
0.9917
0.9893
0.9865
0.9833
0.9797
0.9755
0.9704
0.9639
0.9559
0.9464
0.9356
0.9235
0.9110
0.8983
0.8854
0.8722
0.8591
0.8462
0.8335
0.8210
0.8087
0.7966
0.7847
0.7729
0.7613

1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
0.9909
0.9864
0.9819
0.9774
0.9710
0.9626
0.9523
0.9402
0.9263
0.9108
0.8933
0.8725
0.8463
0.8152
0.7798
0.7410
0.6993
0.6587
0.6195
0.5816
0.5450
0.5107
0.4788
0.4490
0.4213
0.3954
0.3713
0.3488
0.3278
0.3082

159
Table 4-26: Simulation model compaction region input tables for compaction regions 3 (8400 psi to
8600 psi) and 4 (8600 psi to 8800 psi). Reservoir compaction effects on porosity () and permeability
(k) are the same for each Flow Unit.
Compaction Region 3
Reservoir
v
Pressure
(psi)
(psi)
8600
1825
8500
1925
8400
2025
8300
2125
8200
2225
8100
2325
8000
2425
7900
2525
7800
2625
7700
2725
7600
2825
7500
2925
7400
3025
7300
3125
7200
3225
7100
3325
7000
3425
6900
3525
6800
3625
6700
3725
6600
3825
6500
3925
6400
4025
6300
4125
6200
4225
6100
4325
6000
4425
5900
4525
5800
4625
5700
4725
5600
4825
5500
4925
5400
5025

Compaction Region 4
Reservoir
v
Pressure
(psi)
(psi)
8800
2170
8700
2270
8600
2370
8500
2470
8400
2570
8300
2670
8200
2770
8100
2870
8000
2970
7900
3070
7800
3170
7700
3270
7600
3370
7500
3470
7400
3570
7300
3670
7200
3770
7100
3870
7000
3970
6900
4070
6800
4170
6700
4270
6600
4370
6500
4470
6400
4570
6300
4670
6200
4770
6100
4870
6000
4970
5900
5070
5800
5170
5700
5270
5600
5370

PVMULT

TAMULT

1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
0.9980
0.9970
0.9960
0.9950
0.9936
0.9917
0.9893
0.9865
0.9833
0.9797
0.9755
0.9704
0.9639
0.9559
0.9464
0.9356
0.9235
0.9110
0.8983
0.8854
0.8722
0.8591
0.8462
0.8335
0.8210
0.8087
0.7966
0.7847
0.7729
0.7613

1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
0.9909
0.9864
0.9819
0.9774
0.9710
0.9626
0.9523
0.9402
0.9263
0.9108
0.8933
0.8725
0.8463
0.8152
0.7798
0.7410
0.6993
0.6587
0.6195
0.5816
0.5450
0.5107
0.4788
0.4490
0.4213
0.3954
0.3713
0.3488
0.3278
0.3082

160
Table 4-27: Simulation model compaction region input table for compaction region 5 (8800 psi to
9000 psi). Reservoir compaction effects on porosity () and permeability (k) are the same for each
Flow Unit.
Reservoir
Pressure
(psi)
9000
8900
8800
8700
8600
8500
8400
8300
8200
8100
8000
7900
7800
7700
7600
7500
7400
7300
7200
7100
7000
6900
6800
6700
6600
6500
6400
6300
6200
6100
6000
5900
5800

v
(psi)

PVMULT

TAMULT

2332
2432
2532
2632
2732
2832
2932
3032
3132
3232
3332
3432
3532
3632
3732
3832
3932
4032
4132
4232
4332
4432
4532
4632
4732
4832
4932
5032
5132
5232
5332
5432
5532

1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
0.9980
0.9970
0.9960
0.9950
0.9936
0.9917
0.9893
0.9865
0.9833
0.9797
0.9755
0.9704
0.9639
0.9559
0.9464
0.9356
0.9235
0.9110
0.8983
0.8854
0.8722
0.8591
0.8462
0.8335
0.8210
0.8087
0.7966
0.7847
0.7729
0.7613

1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
0.9909
0.9864
0.9819
0.9774
0.9710
0.9626
0.9523
0.9402
0.9263
0.9108
0.8933
0.8725
0.8463
0.8152
0.7798
0.7410
0.6993
0.6587
0.6195
0.5816
0.5450
0.5107
0.4788
0.4490
0.4213
0.3954
0.3713
0.3488
0.3278
0.3082

161
Permeability-porosity relationships are grain size dependent.

Whole core

deformation data document that samples with larger grain sizes have higher
permeabilities for a specific porosity.

This observation is supported with modeled

permeability-porosity relationships using the Carmen-Kozeny model.


Material balance derived pore compressibility is highly sensitive to the strength of
the aquifer. The Fetkovich material balance approach indicates that higher permeability
in the aquifer and higher cross-sectional flow area increases the flow potential of the
aquifer (strong aquifer). This additional aquifer strength reduces the need for pore
compressibility to match reservoir pressure.
The instantaneous pore compressibility behavior is used to model the compaction
effects on porosity and permeability for use in reservoir simulation. The compaction
behavior is assumed to be equal in all six Flow Units. The sands are partitioned into five
pressure (compaction) regions of 200 psi each and the compaction model is applied to
each of these regions to establish equal initial pore compressibility for all depth.

You might also like