Petroleum Engincering 306 Reservoir Rock Properties Lesson 5 - Subsurface Measurement of Porosity and Compressibility of Porous Rocks September 11, 1991 Quote du Jour: [On physics] A dog can't get struck by lightning. You know why? Cause he's 100 close to the ground. See, lightning strikes tall things. Now, if they were giraffes out there in that field, now then we'd be in trouble. But you sure don't have to worry about dogs. - Bamey Fife (The Andy Griffith Show) Objectives: (things you should know and/or be able to do) rom last lecture - Be able to derive and apply the porosity relations for the density and sonic logs. = KNOW (memorize) the table of travel times (Atm) and matrix densities (pm) for sandstone, limestone, dolomite, anhydrite, salt, and water. - Be able to determine the porosity of a particular interval by calculation using the density and sonic log. Be able to determine the porosity of a particular interval by reading the neutron log. From today's lecture - Be familiar with the effect of saturation on the density and neutron log responses. - Be able to estimate the lithology by comparison of porosities computed from the density, sonic, and neutron logs. Also, be able to recognize the effects of different lithologies on the porosities computed assuming a particular lithology. For example, Figs. 8-43 and 8-44 in the supplemental notes (one is a schematic, the other a real log). In these figures, the density and neutron log porosities are computed assuming a limestone lithology, where the log encounters limestone, sandstone, dolomite, anhydrite, salt, and an "average" shale. - KNOW (memorize) the generalized definition of compressibility. = Be able to express the force and pressure balances for the pore space, rock matrix, and overburden. - Be familiar with the 3 types of compressibilities considered in subsurface reservoirs. Know ranges of values for each and what each term is used for in reservoir studies. - Be able to compute pore volume compressibility from lab data. = Be familiar with the correlations which can be used to estimate pore volume compressibility. Lecture Outline: ~ Continue review of materials for Subsurface Measurement of Porosity. Specifically, analysis of sonic, density, and neutron log responses. - Review of materials for Compressibility of Porous Rocks. Reading Assignment: Introduction to Permeability - ABW: 64-71 ~ PETE 306 Course Notes: VII-1 to VII-5 - Paper Review: Newman, G.H.: "Pore-Volume Compressibility of Consolidated, Friable, and Unconsolidated Reservoir Rocks Under Hydrostatic Loading," JPT (Feb. 1973), 129-134,Petroleum Engineering 306 Reservoir Rock Properties Lesson 5 - Additional Notes on Compressibility of Porous Rocks September 11, 1991 Outline: 1. Definition of Compressibility ~ General definition 1a °p 2, Overburden Pressure in Normal Pressured Reservoirs a. Pressure Gradients = Pauid = (8/8) (62.4 Ib /ft3)/(144 in?/ft2) = 0.433 psi/ft = Poverburden = [(1 - #) Pmatcix + > Pwater] * 0.433 psi/ft. Assume that ¢= 0.2, Prattix = 2.65 B/C, aNd Prater = 1.0 glee overburden = [(1 ~ 0.2) (2.65) + (0.2) (1.0)] * 0.433 psi/ft = 1.005 psi/ft ~ 1.0 psifft b. Force Balance ~ overburden ~ Pmatrix + Pid . - From this relation we note that if Povepurden is constant, then any change in Pavia must be accounted for by a change in the rock stress, Pmatix- - Mathematically, this relation is given as mawix =~ APrtvi c. Definitions of Compressibilities, - General definition lw V ap - Bulk volume compressibility (which is based on the matrix stress, Pmatiid avy Vb @Pmatrix - Matrix volume compressibility (which is based on the matrix stress, Pratrx) 1 _Vn 'm OP matcix p= 1 om however, since the matrix grains do not deform under sess eae 4| Pmnacix then Cy = 0.Petroleum Engineering 306 Reservoir Rock Properties ‘Lesson 5 - Additional Notes on Compressibility of Porous Rocks September 11, 1991 - Pore volume compressibility (Which is based on the matrix stress, pmatrix) 1 Vp Wy pore volume (or frmation) = Of 5 Sag where this is the standard definition of formation compressibility, cf. Additional notes for Subsurface Measurement of Porosity are attachedDensity SS Porosity 7 20 7 GR API Units 0 100) wz Case 1 High Porosity Gas, No Invasion Case 1 Low Porosity Gas, No Invasion Case 2 ph > .70, No Invasion = 3 High Porosity Gas, Invad tnvaded casea_t , Low to Moderate Porosity : “Gas, Invaded iz Case 5 eur Shaly Gas Sand ia r i Water o ' t Shale : Fig. 8-41. ldealized comparison of differing saturation effects on CNL and density. Permission to publish by the Society of Professional Well Log Analysts.3420 ae Seen Short Normal | Density SS Porosity] 0 10)45, 30 15 0 Cal Induction CNL SS Porosit poueeetig| 21/0 ‘oP 40145. 30 2 Fig. 8-42. Gas effect shown on CNL-density combination run in Gulf Coast well. Permission to publish by the Society of Pro- fessional Well Log Analysts.34GR API UNITS 200] DENSITY LIMESTONE POROSITY 30. 8 ° las. a5] CNL LIMESTONE POROSITY x s jas, -15] a a ieee oo 1 SANDSTONE LIMESTONE. coLomite | LL ANHYORITE, “AVERAGE " SHALE Fig. 8-43. Idealized CNL-density responses in common lithologies. Permission to publish by the Society of Profes- sional Well Log Analysts.5*GR API UNITS DENSITY LIMESTONE POROSITY 100] 30 20 “10. es) 15 CALIPER CNL LIMESTONE POROSITY Shale Limestone t Anhydrite Dolomite Limestone Dotomite Limestone Fig. 8-44, Lithology indications from CNL-density combina- tion run in North Rocky Mountain well. Permission to publish by the Society of Professional Well Log Analysts.Pore-Volume Compressibility of Consolidated, Friable, and Unconsolidated Reservoir Rocks Under Hydrostatic Loading G.H. Newman, SPE-AIME, Chevron Oil Field Research Co Introduction The use of pore-volume compressibility-porosity cor relations in engineering calculations is well known, The correlations developed by Hall' for both sand- stones and limestones have been widely distributed. Van der Knaap® published a similar correlation using limestone samples from a single well and also corre- lated the data with net pressure Such correlations are attractive because of the simple relationship established. However, those cor- relations were intended only for well consolidated samples; correlations for friable or unconsolidated samples have not been published. ‘This study compares our laboratory data with the published correlations of consolidated samples as well as with values for friable and unconsolidated sandstones. Compressibility values are presented for 256 rock samples from 40 reservoirs — 197 samples from 29 sandstone reservoirs and 59 samples from IT limestone reservoirs. Porosities ranged from less than 1 percent to 35 percent. Compressibility values from the literature" for 79 samples are added, includ- ing Halls and Van der Knaap's. The Experiments Sampling To obtain a representative sample of a formation for testing, one must avoid grain rearrangement. This problem is unlikely to occur with consolidated sam- ples or friable samples containing some cementation, although the effect of removing the overburden is still unknown, Unconsolidated samples, on the other hand, present a much more complex problem, in that srain rearrangement is very likely during either coring or subsequent handling. The advent of the rubber sleeve core barrel much improved tke chances of ob- taining representative samples. We have some dence that, if carefully handled, rubber-sleeve cores will provide reasonably undisturbed samples. How- ever, even if the sand is captured undisturbed in the rubber sleeve, internal gas can expand the core during the trip to the surface, The history of all the samples used in this study is not complete, but most of the unconsolidated samples were obtained from rubber-sleeve cores. Preparing the Samples The consolidated and friable samples used in this study were generally plugs I in, in diameter and 3 in, long, and their condition ranged from well preserved to dry and weathered. The core plugs were extracted jn solvent to remove water and hydrocarbons, put into a flexible jacket, and saturated with a refined oil The unconsolidated samples of about the same dimensions were generally cored from rubber-sleeve cores that had been frozen in liquid nitrogen and for which liquid nitrogen had been used as a drilling fiuid.* The frozen samples were placed in a Teflon sleeve and allowed to thaw. End plates and screens were then placed on the ends of the samples. At this point the bulk volume of the sample was determined The pore-volume compressibilities and porosities presented here were derived from 256 samples of sandstone and limestone representing 40 reservoirs. These and previously | published data are in poor agreement with compressibility-porosity correlations in the literature. The salient conclusion is that fo evaluate rock compressibility for a given [reservoir it is necessary to measure compressibility in the laboratory. FEBRUARY, 1973, 129from linear dimensions and the sample was placed in the test cell. A hydrostatic overburden pressure of about 50 psi was exerted on the samples before they were cleaned with solvents and resaturated with a refined oil, The change in the bulk volume at about 50 psi was recorded. At the end of the compressibility test the sample was extracted in toluene and the sand- grain volume was determined. The sand-grain vol- jume was subtracted from the initial bulk volume to obtain a pore volume (porosity) at zero effective pres- sure. This porosity value at zero pressure was chosen to compare with pore-volume compressibility because the zero pressure porosity is normally what the reser- voir engincer has available from routine core analy- sis data. Measu ing Porosity With the exception of the unconsolidated sandstone porosities previously discussed, initial porosities were determined by API-approved methods,” which con- sisted of determining the pore volume by resaturation and the bulk volume by either displacement or caliber ‘measurement. Applying Stress Overburden Pressure. All of our data were obtained from samples under uniform hydrostatic stress. This ‘was accomplished by transmitting the overburden pressure to the jacketed test sample with hydraulic uid. The tests were conducted under either constant or varying overburden pressure. Pore Pressure. The pore pressure was controlled through the sample jacket wall and could be varied independently of the overburden pressure during tests. The tests were conducted with either constant or varying pore pressures. Effective Pressure, The ability to vary the overburden and pore pressures independently made it necessary to express the data at a common stress condition. This was established as a function of the effective pressure, defined as the difference between the over- burden (lithostatic) and pore pressures. Determining Volume Changes ‘The change in sample pore volume as a function of effective stress was obtained by various laboratory methods." *" These included (1) direct measurement of fluids expelled from the samples, and (2) inferred pore-volume changes determined by measuring di- ‘mensional changes of the samples. The values were obtained during both increasing and decreasing effec- tive stress. A pore-volume vs effective-stress relation- ship was found for each sample by increasing the effective stress in about 500-psi increments to an effective stress equal to or greater than lithostatic pressure based on individual sample depths. Litho- static pressure was assumed to be I psi/ft. Calculating Pore-Volume Compressibility ‘The compressibility values shown in Fig. 1 were obtained by graphically differentiating the pore ‘volume:effective-pressure relationships by means of 130 the following: y ite o Vy dpa * pore volume compressibility, vol/vol/psi = pore volume of the sample at a given effective pressure incremental change in pore volume re- sulting from an incremental change in effective pressure dae = incremental change in effective pressure. Eq. 1 contains the assumption that most of the pore- volume change results from effective pressure differ- ence. This is a valid approximation for higher- porosity samples, A more comprehensive discussion hhas been given by Geertsia.?® Effects of Cycling, Time, and Temperature Cyeting Cycling is defined as a repeated application of the stress cycle. In other words, the sample is placed in the test cell and the effective pressure is increased to some predetermined value. (This value is sometimes higher than any stress the sample will ever be sub- jected to during reservoir depletion.) The pressure is then released and a second, third, or even fourth cycle can be performed, Except for the case of ex- ceedingly high-strength elastic rocks, each cycle pro- i 3 Fig. 1—Porevolume compressibility at 75 percent Iithestatie pressure vs initial sample. porosity for both sandstone and limestone samples. JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGYvides a lower compressibility value as a result of an irreversible change in the rock’s intemal structure. Some investigators’ found it necessary to cycle the samples in order to form a copper jacket around the test sample, This was done so thet the pore volumes expelled during subsequent loading were not affected by the penetration of the copper jacket into the an- niular space between the jacket and the sample, as well as into the surface pores. Other investigators, including King,* have cycled the samples until they exhibit elastic behavior; that is, until there is no addi- tional pore-volume hysteresis between cycles. Cycling, for either reason, can result in lower compressibility values on a rock that has failed internally, and the resulting condition is certainly not the condition of the sample as it is received in the laboratory. This internal failure is easily exposed with scanning elec- tron micrographs, with thin-sections, or in the case of unconsolidated sands, with grain-size analysis be- fore and after cycling. An exception to this would be in a compacting reservoir that had failed in situ dur- ing pressure depletion or a highly fractured reservoir that had failed as a result of tectonic forces during its history. The effects of cycling can be even more serious on friable or unconsolidated sands because of their inelastic behavior. ‘We have only one example where cycling may lead to a closer approximation of in-situ compressibility, ‘and that is in testing highly disturbed unconsolidated sands, when grains have been rearranged during cor- ing. Rearrangement of grains from that in-situ condi- tion generally tends to provide a looser packing, which results in a higher pore-volume compressibility value during the laboratory tests. We have demon- strated this by taking sets of adjacent samples from a carefully handled and preserved rubber-sleeve core. One set of samples was carefully handled and the other set was purposely rearranged. The results have shown that the disturbed samples had much higher compressibilities, Cycling the disturbed samples re- tumed them more closely to the in-situ packing con- dition, but significant internal failure occurred. The values of pore-volume compressibility in this study were obtained by methods that did not require cycling. In addition, the reported compressibility values were obtained during the initial application of effective pressure. Time Our pore-volume compressibility values presented here were obtained from pore-volume:effective-stress relationships that had been obtained using pressure increments of about 30 minutes (30 min/S00 psi) This time was generally sufficient to reach a practical stress equilibrium for most samples. We are aware that true stress equilibrium cannot be obtained in the laboratory in any practical time, However, the most significant volume changes take place in the first few minutes of applied stress. It is not within the scope of this report to investigate these time-effects; we only point out that they exist. ‘Temperature Of the compressibility values presented in Fig. 1, 81 FEBRUARY, 1973 percent were measured at 74°F; the remainder were measured between 130° and 275°F. While we have not made a systematic study of the effect of tempera- ture, a statistical analysis of pore-volume compressi- bility conducted on a suite of sandstone and lime- stone samples at various temperatures within the fated temperature range showed no significant temperature effects. The results, however, were not conclusive, since the scatter of the compressibility data at any one temperature was as great as any ‘observable temperature effects, or greater. Von Gon- ten and Choudhary,’ in discussing the effects of tem- perature on compressibility, show increases as high fas 12 percent at 400°F, We recommend, therefore, that all compressibility measurements be made at reservoir temperature, Presentation of Data ‘The pore-volume compressibility values shown in this study are, in most cases, pressure dependent. To compare samples that had been obtained from various depths, which means the samples were subjected to various effective stresses under reservoir conditions, a common effective pressure base of 75 percent of the lithostatic pressure was used. This value was selected as the most probable average effective stress the sample would encounter during reservoir deple- tion, The lithostatic pressure was assumed to be 1 psi_per foot of depth, The values obtained at this pressure base, plotted against the initial sample porosity, are shown on F 1, along with Hall’s correlation. Compressibility: porosity values obtained from the literature, for both sandstones and limestones, are shown on Fig. 2. Analysis of Data Limestones The limestone values shown on Fig. 1 are compared with both Hall’s and Van der Knaap's correlations con Fig. 3. No attempt was made to separate the lime- stone samples by geography or lithology. Sandstones To analyze further the porosity and pore-volume compressibility of the sandstone samples shown in Fig. 1, we used a qualitative rock-typing system. The samples were grouped as consolidated, friable, or unconsolidated: 1. Consolidated samples consisted of “hard” rocks (thin edges could not be broken off by hand). 2. Friable samples could be cut into cylinders, but the edges could be broken off by hand, 3. Unconsolidated samples would fall apart under their own weight unless they had undergone special treatment such as freezing, Each rock type was replotted under this crude classification system (Figs. 4 through 6). Hall's cor- relation and his sandstone data points are also shown. The results of this classification system are com- pared in Fig. 7 by “class averaging” the compressi bility values from Fig. 1 and Figs, 3 through 6 in porosity increments of 5 percent. For example, the compressibilities for each rock type having between 0 and 5 percent porosity were averaged and plotted BL‘at 2.5 percent porosity. Hall's correlation is also shown. “These class-averaging curves are intended for in- ternal comparison of the data only. They are not for correlation, because of the wide variations in the compressibility values. This wide variation can be seen on Fig. 8, which shows the range of the data points making up the class average for the consoli- dated sandstones. Discussion Fig. 1 shows that our lower-porosity limestone and sandstone samples follow the general trend obtained by Hall: the pore-volume compressibility values in- crease with decreasing porosity. This is more pro- nounced on Fig. 3, where only the consolidated limestone data are compared with Halls and Van der Knaap’s correlations, and on Fig. 4, where only the consolidated sandstones are compared with Hall’s data, The individual compressibility curves for these consolidated samples showed substantially elastic be- havior; most of the volume was recovered when the pressure was released The samples with the higher porosity in Fig. 1 tend to be unconsolidated, and behave contrary to Hall's general trend; compressibility tends to increase with 00 — —— T © bau davsrones fe nat Cerrone Yow comen sop caummane? oncner © @ Cane a0 sence arenes +hpeoo 08: Cae i fol, (ot o% i 2 Pp. 7 Ke Oe age we 2 84 mus] OSS _o a ror wl poy ri ee Fig, 2—Pore-volume compressibility vs initial sample porosity obtained from iRerature source as indented. 132 porosity. This is evident on Fig. 6 as well. The un consolidated samples also show significant inelastic behavior (permanent volume reduction with pressur- ization, resulting from internal grain failure, ‘The friable samples in Figs. 1 and 5 also show this inelastic behavior, but there is apparently very little correlation between compressibility and initial sam- ple porosity Besides showing wide variations in compressibility as a function of porosity and rock type, our results are in poor agreement with Hall’s correlation. Litera- ture values of compressibility for 79 samples (in- cluding Hall's data), shown in Fig. 2, support our results and have about the same scatter. Van der Knaap obtained a good correlation for 23 limestone samples taken from a single well; but his values are also in poor agreement with Halls ‘We believe the poor agreement between our data ‘and Hall's is in part because Hall’s are based on only 12 samples — 7 limestones and 5 sandstones in the poresity range of 2 t0 26 percent. Our data are based ‘on 256 samples, 194 in the same porosity range as Hall's Conclusions 1. The pore-volume compressibility-Sorosity val- tues obtained in this study are in poor agreement with ° | ! | z a et i 8 . g . wl Fig, 3—Pore-volume compressibility at 75 percent ihostatie pressure ve inital sample porosity for mestones. JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGYfone vovume conn x0“ 75-1 8 94 UTETANE MRESIRE Sse 5 Fig. 4—Pore-volume compressbilty at 75 percent Ithostatie pressure vs initial sample porosity for ‘consolidated sandstones. % i 5G i © go a 2 eo, if e Bok eo FI ome z el 2 Pas. ee 2 3 [sano Se é 5 5 Fig. 6—Pore-volume compressibility at 75 percent Ithostatic pressure vs intial sample porosity for Uinconsolidated sandstones. FEBRUARY, 1973, % i : i & my T T T T T T oo 9 Bee wm Pe og wo Fig. —Porevolume compressiity at 75 percent Weodiace cresure lat aamle pore ithe senstones SL \ yy a al ah ZL a ee eee eee a Fig. 7—class averages of pore-volume compressibility Ys intial sample porosity. 133pscanoe \ ) a 14 eee ese Fig. 8—Class average of porewolume compressibility vs initial sample poresity for consolidated sandstones. published compressibility-porosity correlations. This is also supported by values in the literature. There is a need, therefore, for laboratory compressibility ‘measurements in evaluating rock compressibility for a given reservoir. 2. Pore-volume compressibilities for a given po- rosity can vary widely according to rock type. 3. Attempts to correlate the data showed that consolidated sandstones differed greatly from lime- stones and friable and unconsolidated sands, but the data are too widely scattered for correlations to be reliable, Well defined trends were found only in the consolidated sandstones and limestones and in the unconsolidated sands, whereas the compressibility of the friable samples showed little or no relationship 134 to initial sample porosity. ‘These data suggest that correlations might be ob- tained for both well consolidated limestones and sandstones with similar lithologies. That is, correla- tions may be obtained from samples within @ given reservoir, provided lithologic variations are small. This would be similar to Van der Knaap’s correlation for limestones from a single well, Much the same approach is recommended for the friable and uncon- solidated samples, but here the pore-Volume com- pressibility is not merely porosity dependent; other stress parameters need to be investigated. References L-Hall, HN “Compressbilty of Reservoir Rocks,” Trans, AIME (1955) 198, 309-311 2. Van der Knaap, W.: "Nonlinear Behavior of Elastic Po- four Media Prone, AIME (1959) 216, 179-187 3.Fatt, [2 “Pore Volume Compressibilities of Sandstone Reservoir Rocks,” Trans, AIME (1958) 213, 362-364, 4. King, M. S.: "Wave Velocities ia Rocks as a Function (of Chanter in Overburden Pressure and Pore Fluid Satu ration." Geophysics (1966) 31, No. | 5. Dobrynin, V. M.: “Effect of Overburden. Pressure on Some Properties of Sandstones,” Sac. Pet. Eng. J. (Dee 1962) 360-366, 6.Koblhsas, C, A. and Miller, F. G.: “Rock-Compaction nd Pressure-Transient Analysis with Pressure Dependent Rock Properties paper SPE 2563 presented at SPE 4th Annual Fall Meeting, Denver, Calo. Sept. 28-0. 1, 1969. 7. Von Gonten, W. D. and Choudhary, B. K.: "The Eiect of Pressure’ and Temperature. on. Pore-Velume Con Dressbiity.” paper SPE 2526 presented at SPE 4th An- ‘ual Fall Meeting, Denver, Colo., Sept. 28-Oct. 1, 198. 8. Carpenter, C. B. and Spencer, G. B.: "Measurements of Compressibilty of Consolidated Oil-Bearing Sandstones,” RI'3540, USBM (Oct, 1940), 9. Jennings, H. Y.: "How to Handle and Process Soft and Unconsolidsied Cores,” World Oif (une, 1968) 116-119. 10, API Reconimended Practice for Core-Analysis Procedure, ‘API Rba0, Te ed, New York (Aug, 1960) 11. Mann, RL. and Fatt, L: "Effect of Pore Fluids on the Elastic Properties of Sandstone,” Geopiysics (1960) 25, aaptad, 12, Geertsma, Ju: “The Effect of Fluid Pressure Decline on Volume Changes of Porous Rocks," Trans, AIME (987) 210, 31-339. wer Pe ee ag eo JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY