HOPE MEYERS Rock and Fluid Laboratory Absolute and Effective Porosity Sieve Analysis Absolute Permeability Gas

Permeability and Klinkenberg Effect Energy and Mineral Engineering Department The Pennsylvania State University March 4, 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS Effective Summary2 Introduction4 Results and Discussion6 Conclusion.....17 Sample Calculations..18 Nomenclature18 References.19

Executive Summary
In the Absolute and Effective Porosity lab the objective was to illustrate the concept of porosity and to determine the absolute and effective porosity of porous media. I also had to estimate error in the porosity calculations from the errors associated to each parameter measured. There were three parts to this experiment. In part one: The Marble Experiment, I had to fill a beaker with several marbles, and then fill the beaker to the top with water in order to measure the porosity. With the measurements of the weight of the marbles, the size of the marbles, and the volume of water used, the porosity could be determined. In part two: The Helium Porosimeter, I obtained a core sample and vacuumed all the air out of the sample, and filled the pore space with helium gas. Using the measurements of the core sample, as well as initial and final pressures of the gas, I could determine the porosity. In part three: The Barnes Method, a core sample was used and all the air from it was removed. After the air was removed, water was introduced to the sample and the water filled up all the empty pore space. Using the weights of the unsaturated and saturated core, the weight of the fluid absorbed, and the volume of the fluid absorbed, I could calculate the effective porosity. In the Sieve Analysis lab the objective was to conduct a standard grain size analysis test and determine the relative proportions of different grain sizes. A sieve set was used, and 250 grams of sand was poured into the sieve. The sieve was then placed in the sieve shaker for 10 to 15 minutes. Afterwards, the sand was separated and weighed. This process was repeated four times. This lab helped in seeing different grain sizes, and how they are distributed in sand samples. In the Absolute Permeability lab the objective was to determine absolute permeability of an unconsolidated pack using fundamental laboratory equipment and procedures, and to compare results for different grain size distributions and generalize the effect of grain size distribution on porosity and permeability. I connected the sample to a valve which was connected to a beaker of water. I opened the valve to saturate the sample and then weighed the saturated core. Then I let the water run through the sample and out the other side in order to measure the flow rate. Using core measurements, viscosity and density of water, and the flow rate I could calculate the false pore volume, calculated pore volume, calculated bulk volume, and porosity. In the Gas Permeability and Klinkenberg Effect lab the objective was to determine the apparent permeability of a 2

reservoir rock using a gas permeameter, demonstrate and measure the dependence of permeability to gas at varying pressures, and then predict the absolute permeability to liquid using Klinkenbergs correction, and exercise the use of the radial form of Darcys flow equation. I used a Ruska Permeameter in order to determine gas permeability of a core sample. As opposed to the previous labs, gas was used as the measurement fluid in this lab.

Introduction
Porosity is the backbone of the first experiment, Absolute and Effective Porosity. Porosity is defined as, a measure of the storage capacity [in a rock] that is capable of holding fluids (Ahmed, 32). There are two different types of porosity because in rocks fluids can be stored in two different types of areas. Some areas are interconnected to each other, while other areas are completely isolated (Ahmed, 32). The absolute porosity is the ratio of the total pore space in the rock to that of the bulk volume (Ahmed, 32). This means that all of the pore space, interconnected and isolated, is included. Effective porosity is the percentage of interconnected pore space with respect to bulk volume (Ahmed, 33). Porosity is important because the spaces in the rocks where fluids can reside are where petroleum engineers can find oil. The porosity of the rock can determine how easy or how difficult is would be to extract the oil. The effective porosity is the value that is used in all reservoir engineering calculations because it represents all the interconnected pore space that contains the recoverable hydrocarbon fluids (Ahmed, 33). In the experiment titled Sieve Analysis, grain size was the main component. A sieve is defined as a utensil consisting of a circular frame with a finely meshed or perforated bottom used to separate the coarser from the finer particles of any loose material (OED Online). The sieve was used to separate various grains of a sand sample. Sieve analysis is important because grain size determines the porosity and permeability of a rock sample. Permeability is the degree to which a solid allows the passage through it of liquid or gas (OED Online). A larger grain size will have a higher permeability while a smaller grain size will have a lower permeability. In the Absolute Permeability lab the permeability of various grain sizes were tested using water. As stated before in the Sieve Analysis lab, the permeability of a sample is how well a liquid flows through it. Permeability is important because it determines how easily a liquid or gas will flow through a rock sample, which is how petroleum engineers know how easy or hard it will be do extract oil from rock. Rocks that have larger grain sizes have greater permeability because they have more pore space between the grains. Rocks that have smaller grain sizes have less permeability because they have smaller pore spaces between the grains.

In the Gas Permeability and Klinkenberg Effect lab, the permeability of a core sample was tested by using gas. Since gas is a compressible substance its volume and flow rate vary with the pressure that it is measured at. Liquids are not compressible, so they can be measured more easily as they were in the previous experiment. The Klinkenberg Effect is the dependence of the permeability of the reservoir rock to gas on the mean pressure. When a gas behaves more like a liquid, it has permeability close to that of a liquid but when a gas behaves more like a gas, it can give false readings of permeability. This is what we call the Klinkenberg Effect.

Results and Discussion

There were a total of four labs conducted over the course of a four week period, and each lab built upon the ideas and concepts of the ones before. Overall, the labs coincided with one another in the realm of porosity and permeability of gases and liquids. Porosity was found to have an effect on permeability, because the higher the porosity a substance, the greater the permeability. This is because if there is more pore space in a material, a liquid or gas can flow through larger pore spaces more easily. Also, when gas was used to determine permeability, the Klinkenberg Effect was evident as shown by lab findings. Absolute and Effective Porosity Lab In the Absolute and Effective Porosity lab the results were very clear. The first part was an activity where the porosity was measured by using marbles and water. By finding the weight of all the marbles, the beaker, and the water, the bulk volume and the pore volume could be calculated. The following table shows the values calculated for the weights and volumes needed to determine pore volume by volume and by weight. Average marble volume Weight of empty beaker (W1) Weight of all marbles and beaker (W2) Bulk Volume (V1) Pore Volume (V2) Number of marbles (Nm) Grain Volume (V3) Bulk Volume 1.73 cc 107.3 g 373.13 g 489.06 cc 116 mL 51 88.23 cc 204.23

The pore volume was then determined in two different ways in order to calculate the porosity. In the first way, it was determined volumetrically where the porosity was calculated by dividing the pore volume by the bulk volume. The second way the pore volume was determined was by the waters weight. The following table shows the data from the experiment used to calculate the different porosities.

Porosity (volume determined volumetrically) Final weight of water in beaker (W4) Volume of water in pore space (V4) Porosity (volume determined by weight)

0.57

115.93 g 115.93 cc 0.515

By using different methods to find the pore volume, the porosity changed. Although both porosities were relatively close in value, if the pore volume is determined by volume or by weight, the results will differ. These values show that there is high porosity in a group of marbles. Just by looking at the marbles in the beaker, it was clear that there was a lot of pore space in between them. Also, only absolute porosity was measured in this experiment. This part of the experiment was important in order to instill a basic idea of the topic of porosity. There were multiple errors that may have occurred in this experiment. Measuring the diameter of the marbles may have been skewed, because they were very small. With their size, the measurements may have been slightly off. If the diameter of the marbles was not accurate, then the volume of the marbles may have been slightly inaccurate as well, which in turn would have affected the grain volume, and the bulk volume. In the second part of the Absolute and Effective Porosity lab, a core sample was used and the air was evacuated from the core, and the pore spaces were then filled with helium gas in order to determine the porosity. The following table lists the values calculated from the experiment in order to determine porosity. Volume of reference chamber Volume of sample chamber Core length Core diameter Bulk volume (Vbulk) Solid sleeve volume (VSolid Sleeve) Reference chamber pressure, after stabilization (pi1) 33.17 cc 141.57 cc 3.1 cm 2.4 cm 14.02 cc 3.2 cc 56.11 psia

Vacuumed sample chamber initial pressure (pi2) Final pressure (pf) Rock volume (Vrock) Porosity

0 psia

11.66 psia 11.92 cc 0.1498

In this case, the porosity was very small compared to the porosity of the marbles in the beaker. This is because the grain size of the core was much smaller than the marbles, which means there was much less pore space between the grains in the core sample. Also, because helium was used to determine the porosity, this calculation was more accurate than the marble experiment because gas has smaller molecules than liquid, which means the molecules can fit into more pore spaces than liquid could. The porosimeter gave us information to calculate absolute porosity, not effective porosity. One source of error that may have occurred was the measurements of the core. If the measurements were not accurate, then the bulk volume would have been inaccurate. The initial pressure in the vacuumed sample chamber of the porosimeter was taken to be zero psia. Considering this porosimeter was very old and took multiple days to start up, the vacuum may not work as efficiently as it used to. If the initial pressure of the vacuumed sample chamber was more than one, this would have affected the results of the rock volume. The valves on the porosimeter needed to be opened and closed often in this experiment, so if the valves were not completely closed when needed, this could have affected the pressure values. Because the porosimeter used in the experiment was very old and outdated, I think a more recent version of a porosimeter could have been useful in data gathering. In the third part of the experiment, the Barnes Method was used to find the effective porosity of the core sample. All of the air from the sample was evacuated, and then the sample was introduced to water which filled all the pore spaces in the core. Because water was used as the fluid, this made it easier to calculate the effective porosity because the density of water is 1 g/cc. The following table contains the values calculated in order to determine the effective porosity.

Fluid density Weight of unsaturated core Weight of saturated core Weight of fluid absorbed Volume of fluid absorbed Effective porosity

1.00 g/cc 33.29 g 36.69 g 3.4 g 3.4 cc 0.243

The absolute porosity was not found during this part of the experiment. One source of error could have been when the saturated core was weighed. The excess water on the core sample was removed as much as possible, but there may still have been some excess water which would have made a difference in the weight of the saturated core, and the weight of the fluid absorbed. Also, while letting the water into the vacuumed chamber, it was very important to let the water in through the stop cock extremely slowly. While this was done as efficiently as possible, some air could have gone into the vacuumed chamber which would have caused a difference in the amount of water that entered the core sample. Sieve Analysis Lab In the Sieve Analysis experiment samples of sand was sorted into different variables of fineness using a sieve. The sand was very fine and was sorted into five different grain sizes. The sieving process was conducted four times in order to sieve a total amount of 1000 g of sand. The following table shows how the sand was sorted in each trial. Sieve # Sieve size (in) 50 70 100 120 140 Bottom 0.0117 0.0083 0.0059 0.0049 0.0041 100 g 3g 81 g 33 g 30 g 3g 87 g 1g 82 g 51 g 23 g 4g 79 g 3g 84 g 48 g 35 g 4g 82 g 2g 81 g 55 g 25 g 4g 1st Trial 2nd Trial 3rd Trial 4th Trial Total weight 348 g 9g 328 g 187 g 113 g 15 g

Total Sand

250 g

248 g

253 g

249 g

This particular sample of sand is important to sieve because the grain distribution can determine the porosity and permeability of a sedimentary rock made by this type of sand. Although sieving the sand took a lot of time, the way it was completed with a sieve shaker was the most effective way to properly sort the sand particles. One source of error in this experiment was that most of the sieves had left over sand particles stuck in the holes that could not be brushed out. This could have added some weight to the final numbers if the sand fell out into the samples. Also, when weighing the sand some of the sand particles did not come out of the holes of the sieve by brushing them, and some of the sand did not fall exactly on the paper towel used to weigh the sand, which means small portions of sand may not have been measured. Absolute Permeability Lab In the Absolute Permeability experiment the absolute permeability of three different particle sizes was found using various laboratory equipments. For each grain size, there was a core filled with that specific grain size that had been vacuumed in order to evacuate all the air. Each core was measured in order to find the volume of the core. The bulk volume was the volume of the core holder, which was the same value for all groups because the core holders were all the same size. The following table shows the values calculated for the core filled with fine grains. Core diameter Core cross sectional area Core length Unsaturated core and tubing weight Saturated core and tubing weight Viscosity of saturation fluid Density of saturation fluid False pore volume Calculated pore volume 2.9 cm 6.61 cm2 64.14 cm 2022.1 g 2206.1 g 1.0020 cp 1.00 g/cc 184 cc 73.93 cc

10

Calculated bulk volume Porosity Sand volume

423.7 cc 17.5 % 350 mL

Flow rate was also measured for each grain type, and the following chart shows the flow rate data for the fine grain sample. Trial 1 2 3 4 5 Flow rate (mL/min) 7.8 6.8 6.0 5.6 4.4 Height of beaker (in) 19.25 17.5 15.5 14.0 11.25

The following table shows the data found for the coarse grain sample. Core diameter Core cross sectional area Core length Unsaturated core and tubing weight Saturated core and tubing weight Viscosity of saturation fluid Density of saturation fluid False pore volume Calculated pore volume Calculated bulk volume Porosity Sand volume 2.9 cm 6.61 cm2 64.14 cm 2035.2 g 2179.3 g 1.0020 cp 1.00 g/cc 144.1 cc 77.3 cc 423.7 cc 18 % 350 mL

The following table shows the flow rates of the coarse grains. Trial 1 Flow rate (mL/min) 12 Height (in) 19

11

2 3 4 5

11 9 6.5 4.5

17.9 15.6 12.5 7.5

The following table shows the values measured and calculated for the mixed grains core sample. Core diameter Core cross sectional area Core length Unsaturated core and tubing weight Saturated core and tubing weight Viscosity of saturation fluid Density of saturation fluid False pore volume Calculated pore volume Calculated bulk volume Porosity Sand Volume 2.9 cm 6.61 cm2 64.1 cm 2035.6 g 2175.5 g 1.0020 cp 1.00 g/cc 139.9 cc 96.7 cc 423.4 cc 23 % 326.7 mL

This table shows the flow rates calculated for mixed grains. Trial 1 2 3 4 5 Flow rate (mL/min) 8.8 8.5 7.2 6.6 4.6 Height (in) 19.15 16.5 13.5 12 7.9

From this data, it is easy to see that the porosity of the samples increased as the sample grain size increased. This means that the smaller the grain size, the less pore space there is available for fluid to be contained, and the larger the grain size, the more 12

pore space there is. An interesting point to note in the data collection is that the flow rate of the fine grains was significantly slower than the flow rates of the coarse and mixed grains. The flow rate was slower because the grains were smaller, which makes it harder for water to flow through such small spaces. Since the flow rate was slow, this means that the core sample was less permeable than the other samples. For the coarse grains, the flow rate was much faster than the fine and mixed grains at the greater heights, but then the flow rates became about the same as the mixed grains at the lesser heights. The coarse grain sample had minimal flow rates at the greater heights, which is unusual considering the porosity was so much greater than the coarse and fine grain samples. I have included a graph for the flow rates for each of the grain sizes, in order to easily visualize the concept.
25 20 15 10 5 0 0

Height (in)

Height vs Flow Rate (Fine Grains)

Series1 5 Flow Rate (mL/min) 10

20 15 10 5 0 0 25 Flow Rate (mL/min) 5 10 15 Series1

Height (in)

Height vs Flow Rate (Coarse Grains)

Height (in)

20 15 10 5 0 0

Height vs Flow Rate (Mixed Grains)

Series1

10

Flow Rate (mL/min)

13

With the increase in height of the beaker to the core sample, there was greater pressure, and when the height was closer to the core sample there was less pressure. Although pressure measurements were not taken during this experiment, it is evident that with an increase in pressure, there is an increase in flow rate. Ultimately, a sample with larger grains would have higher porosity and greater permeability because of the more spaces in between the grains that allows fluids to flow more easily. Because of the difference in flow rate, there may have been some errors in the experiment. When measuring the flow rate, the volume of the water in the beaker needed to remain fairly constant in order to be accurate. If the volume was not constant and was not being filled as the water was running through the sample, this may have cause discrepancies in the flow rate. The height from the water level to the core sample during the flow rate estimation was difficult to measure accurately because the apparatus used was abstract and hard to measure with the measuring tape. The measurements for this were eyeballed. Also human error caused the false and calculated pore volume to have discrepancies. The false pore volumes should have been less than the calculated pore volume because the false pore volume is the weight of the water added to the core, and the calculated pore volume is the calculated volume of the tube and the volume of the sand that was added to fill the core tube. Although, the sand that was added to the core tube was not densely packed, which could also be why the false pore volume was more than calculated pore volume. One way to improve the data was to make the saturation of the core sample more effective. When the water was connected to the core sample with a long tube, there were often large bubbles that got in the way of the water flowing into the vacuumed core. It took a long time for the water to go through the sample and at a point the water completely stopped flowing and a vacuum had to be used to suck the water through the rest of the sample in order to saturate it. Gas Permeability and Klinkenberg Effect Lab In the Gas Permeability and Klinkenberg Effect lab the apparent permeability and absolute permeability of a sample was found using gas. Using the Ruska Permeameter and a core sample the permeability of the sample could be found. Measuring all of the core samples measurements, and watching the dials on the Ruska Permeameter, the

14

permeability could be found. The following data table shows the measurements used to obtain the permeability of the core. Trial 1 2 3 Tube Size Large Medium Small Tube height (cm) 2.3 8.6 3.8 Pressure (atm) 1.39 1.33 1.29

Core diameter Core length Barometric pressure Temperature Average (Large) tube height qdown at average tube height air at 23 degrees C Core area Permeability of core A

3.4 cm 3.2 cm 1.00 atm 23 degrees C 2.3 cm 9.75 cc/sec 0.0176 cp 9.08 cm2 0.157 mD

The gas that was used in the Ruska Permeameter to determine the permeability of the core was nitrogen. Using formulas that were provided, the permeability was found. Because gas was used in this experiment to determine permeability, the Klinkenberg Effect needed to be tested in order to see how it affects the outcome of permeability. The radial flow experiment showed the Klinkenberg Effect. The following data sheet includes all of the data found when using the Radial Permeameter. Inside core diameter Outside core diameter Core height Barometric pressure Temperature Ln(rout/rin) 3.015 cm 6.025 cm 5.012 cm 0.95 atm 28 degrees C 0.692

15

Pressure Upstream Trial Vg (ft3, L) 1 2 3 4 3 3 3 3 5 6 7 8 t(sec) qdown (cc/sec) 600 500 428.57 375 1.7 2.7 3.7 4.7 6.613 10.503 14.393 18.283 mV psi

Pressure differential mV psi

0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6

1.608 1.608 1.608 1.608

When the data above is calculated into permeability, the Klinkenberg Effect is evident when graphed in relation to the inverse of the mean pressure of the system.
0.8 0.7 0.6 kg(Darcy) 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 0.5 1 1/pmean 1.5 (atm-1) 2 2.5 Series1 Linear (Series1)

Klinkenberg Effect

This graph on the Klinkenberg Effect shows that as a gas behaves more like a liquid, it tends to have a permeability of liquid quality. So, if the gas is at high pressure, the permeability is more accurate. If the gas is at low pressure and behaves more like a gas, it can skew the values when measuring permeability. One possible source of error for this experiment could be the efficiency of the Ruska Permeameter. The one that my group used had a pressure gauge that was off, so we had to compensate our values for the incorrect readings that it would give us. Also, our lab group did not have a chance to conduct the Radial Permeameter portion of the experiment, and only the values from another experiment were available. I think being able to conduct the entire lab would have made the experience worthwhile. Not being 16

able to visualize what happened during the experiment made it difficult to interpret what was really going on.

Conclusion
All of these experiments were conducted in order to give a greater understanding of porosity, permeability, and how the two can be tested and relate to one another. The experiments progressed in an effective manner, starting very simply with the subject of porosity. Porosity, as shown by the first lab, increases with the size of the grains because there are more spaces in between the grains for water or gas to flow. The second lab also dealt with porosity, because the larger grains that were sieved would have had a greater porosity than the smallest grains that were sieved. Also, the sand that we sieved in that experiment was used to create the core samples for the third experiment. In the third experiment, permeability and porosity came together to show that the greater the porosity, the greater the permeability. The fine grains had slower flow rates, which mean the permeability was less than the permeability of the coarse and mixed grains. Finally, the permeability was tested using gas. Because gas is highly compressible, it sometimes gives false readings of permeability, which we tested for using the Radial Permeameter. The Klinkenberg Effect was proven correct, and by using the Ruska Permeameter the permeability of a core sample using Nitrogen gas was found.

17

Sample Calculations
1. = V2/V1 = 116 mL/204.23 mL = 0.57 2. Vrock = Vreference chamber (p1i-pf) / (p2i-pf) + Vsample chamber Vsolid sleeve Vrock = 33.17cc (56.11psia 11.66psia) / (0psia 11.66psia) + 141.57cc 3.2cc Vrock = 11.92 cc 3. = 1 Vrock / Vbulk = 1 11.92cc / 14.02cc = 0.1498 4. effective = Vi / Vbulk = 3.4cc / 14.02cc = 0.243 5. pdownqdown = pupqup 1.14atm(qdown) = 1.39atm(8cc/s) qdown=9.75cc/sec 6. kg = [2Lqdownpdown] / [A(pup2 pdown2)] = [2(0.0176cp)(2.3cm)(9.75cc/sec)(1.14atm)] / [9.08cm2(1.392 1.142)] kg = 0.157mD 7. qmean = [qdownpdown] / pmean = [600cc/sec(1.302atm)] / 1.351atm = 578 cc/sec 8. kg = [qdownpdownln(ro / ri)] / [h(pup2 pdown2)] = [600cc/sec(1.302atm)(0.0176cp)ln(6.025cm/3.015cm)] / [(5.012cm)(1.42 1.3022)] kg = 2.28 Darcies

Nomenclature
1. Absolute porosity V2Pore volume (mL) V1Bulk volume (mL) 2. VrockRock volume (cc) Vreference chamberReference chamber volume (cc) p1i Pressure in reference chamber after stabilization (psia) p2i Initial pressure in vacuumed sample chamber (psia) Vsample chamber Volume of sample chamber (cc) Vsolid sleeve Volume of solid sleeve (cc) 3. Vbulk = Bulk Volume (cc) 4. effective = Effective porosity ViInterconnected pore volume 5. pdowndownstream pressure (atm) pupupstream pressure (atm) qdowndownstream flow rate qupupstream flow rate 6. kg apparent permeability (Darcy) viscosity (cp) Ltube height (cm) A core area (cm2) 7. qmeanmean flow rate (cc/sec) pmeanmean pressure (atm) 8. rooutside core diameter (cm) riinside core diameter (cm) hcore height(cm) 18

References
Ahmed, Tarek. Working Guide to Reservoir Rock Properties and Fluid Flow. Burlington: Elsevier Science & Technology, 2009. Print. OED Online. November 2010. Oxford University Press. 28 February 2011 <http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/179420?rskey=u1NU7h&result=1&isAdvanced =false>.

19