SPE 118026 (Pres y Paper)

SPE 118026
Towards a Characteristic Equation for Permeability
2008 SPE Eastern Regional/AAPG Eastern Section Joint Meeting Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (USA) 11-15 October SPE 118026 Towards a Characteristic Equation for Permeability D. Ilk Texas A&M University (13 October 2008)
Slide 1/40
A.A. Siddiqui, Texas A&M University D. Ilk, Texas A&M University T.A. Blasingame, Texas A&M University Department of Petroleum Engineering Texas A&M University College Station, TX 77843-3116 +1.979.845.2292 t-blasingame@tamu.edu
Permeability Relations) Guidelines for the Application of the CPRs Validation of the CPRs Closure: Conclusions Recommendations
Slide 2/40
(Presentation Outline)
Presentation Outline Rationale For This Work Archie-Type Permeability Models Concept Models for Permeability (Characteristic
SPE 118026
Towards a Characteristic Equation for Permeability Rationale For This Work
Slide 3/40
Rationale For This Work:
Such a formulation is a fundamental extension of the k = f() correlation work by Archie (and others). Many correlations of k, , and other variables can yield inconsistent results (for low permeability rocks).
a. Calculated versus Measured Permeability Model CPR-DxQ (Paluxy, TX).
b. Calculated versus Measured Permeability Model CPR-A (Devonian Limestone, TX).

Slide 4/40
(Rationale)
z Our rationale in considering k = f(,z) is two-fold:

will be increasingly difficult to measure permeability on a routine basis (k<<0.001 md) making the correlation of permeability a priority (using a few key measurements of permeability).
(Rationale)
Slide 5/40
z We believe that for ultra-low permeability samples, it
a. Calculated versus Measured Permeability Model CPR-B (Argentina well).
b. Calculated versus Measured Permeability Model CPR-DxQ (East Tx well).


concept, but rather, to provide "characteristic relations" that can accurately represent a correlation of permeability with other variables.
(Rationale)
Slide 6/40
z Our goal is not to provide a "universal" relation or
a. Calculated versus Measured Permeability All Models (Cargill Well, TX).
b. Calculated versus Measured Permeability All Models (East Tx well).

SPE 118026
Towards a Characteristic Equation for Permeability Archie-Type Permeability Models
Slide 7/40
Archie-Type k-Models: k = c exp[ ]

[From: Archie, G.E.: "Introduction to Petrophysics of Reservoir Rocks," Bull., AAPG (1950) 34, 943-961.]
Archie "Map" of Inter-relations of Petrophysical Properties (1950!)
k = c exp[ ]
Slide 8/40
a. Systematic "mapping" of the inter-relation of petrophysical properties. Note that Archie observed that permeability was "connected" to saturation, porosity, and electrical properties but the relationship was vague, as it remains today.
b. Crossplot of permeability to porosity (average trends) used to imply that porosity and permeability have some type of functional relationship. Obviously, this remains a topic of considerable discussion.
(Archie-Type k-models)
Archie-Type k-Models: k = a b
[From: Archie, G.E.: "Introduction to Petrophysics of Reservoir Rocks," Bull., AAPG (1950) 34, 943-961.]
a. Crossplot of formation (resistivity) factor versus porosity (straight line = power law form).
Porosity Model:
Permeability Model:
Ro a1 F= = Rw b1
a2 b1 k = a1
Ro a2 F= = Rw k b2
1/b2
Equating the models and solving for k:
= a b
Slide 9/40
b. Crossplot of formation (resistivity) factor versus permeability (straight line = power law form).
This exercise suggests that permeability and porosity are related by a power law relation we believe that this is only true for uniform pore systems.
Archie-Type k-Models: Berg Model

[From: Berg, R.R.: "Method for Determining Permeability from Reservoir Rock Properties," GCAGS Trans. (1970) Vol. 20, 303-317.]
b k/d 2 = a p
a. (Berg) Systematic arrangements of uniform spheres, modified from Graton and Fraser.
b. (Berg) Diameters of largest rectilinear pores through unit cells (packings of uniform spheres).
c. Log-log plot of k/d2 versus original Berg trend (slope 5.1) ignores rhombohedral point.
Slide 10/40
Archie-Type k-Models: Beard-Weyl/Morrow et al

[From: Beard, D.C. and Weyl, P.K.: "Influence of Texture on Porosity and Permeability of Unconsolidated Sand," Bull., AAPG (1973) 57, 349-369. Morrow, N.M, Huppler, J.D., and Simmons III, A.B: "Porosity and Permeability of Unconsoli-dated, Upper Miocene Sands From Grain-Size Analysis," J. Sed. Pet. (1969) Vol. 39, No. 1, 312-321.]
Beard and Weyl Data:
b k/d 2 = a p
Morrow Data: (selected)
a. Data from Beard and Weyl, and Morrow et al. These are unconsolidated sand samples.
b. Log-log plot of k/d2 versus revised Berg trend (slope 8) includes rhombohedral point.
Slide 11/40
Archie-Type k-Models: Pape Extension

[From: Pape, H., Riepe, L., Schopper, J.R.: "Theory of Self-similar Network Structuresin Sedimentary and Igneous Rocks and Their Investigation with Microscopical and Physical Methods," Journal of Microscopy (1987), 148, Pt.2, 121-147.]
k = a1 + a2 2 + a3 10
[From: Pape, H., Clauser, C., Iffland, J.: "Permeability Prediction Based on Fractal Pore-Space Geometry," Geophysics (1999) Vol. 64, (September-October 1999), 14471460.]
Slide 12/40
a. Schematic drawing of a sedimentary rock according to the pigeon-hole model [rsite = radius of sites (i.e., the major interstices or pores); reff = effective radius of hydraulic capillaries]. The presumed hydraulic path is also shown relative to the pore structure.
b. Pape concept model based on a fractal pore distribution. Some concern regarding the additive structure of the model.
SPE 118026
Towards a Characteristic Equation for Permeability Concept Models for Permeability
Slide 13/40
Concept Models: Archie "Clean Sand" Model

[From: Wong, P.-z., Koplik, J., and Tomanic, J.P.: "Conductivity and Permeability of Rocks," Phys. Rev. B 30, 6606 (1984).]
Archie "Clean Sand" Model: a1 F=
k = a b
F= a2
b1
or k = b2 F k
1 a2 b2
or k = a b
"Average Trend"
Slide 14/40
a. Formation factor versus porosity correlation (log-log plot) fused glass beads. Note average trend corroborates Archie of a power-law trend for relating formation factor as a function of porosity.
b. Permeability versus formation factor correlation (log-log plot) fused glass beads. Very strong power-law correlation of permeability as a function of formation factor note dependence on the size of fused glass bead (analog for grain size).
(Concept Models)
Concept Models: Archie "Dirty Sand" Model

[From: Katz, D.A., Eberli, G.P., Swart, P.K., and Smith Jr., L.B.: "Katz Tectonichydrothermal brecciation associated with calcite precipitation and permeability destruction in Mississippian carbonate reservoirs, Montana and Wyoming," AAPG Bulletin, v. 90, No. 11 (November 2006), 18031841.] [From: Avila, J.C.: A Petrophysics and Reservoir Performance-Based Reservoir Characterization of Womack Hill (Upper Smackover) Field (Alabama), M.S. Thesis, Texas A&M University (August 2002).]
Archie "Dirty Sand" Model
k = c exp[ ]
Slide 15/40
a. Logarithm of permeability versus porosity and crossplot with scanning electron photomicrographs, Madison Formation (Wyoming and Montana).
b. Example analysis using the log(k) versus transform, note that both and log(k) yield normal distributions.
(Concept Models)
[From: Calhoun, J.C.: Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering, University of Oklahoma Press (1960).]
a. Bruce and Welge correlation modified by Calhoun (average trend constructed as exponential decay).
Slide 16/40
b. Generalized (linear) relations for permeability, water saturation, and porosity. Using the most simple expression, and ignoring porosity, yields the Bruce and Welge model.
[From: Guthrie, R.K., and Greenberger, M.K.: "The Use of Multiple Correlation Analyses for Interpreting Petroleum-Engineering Data," Drilling and Production Practice, API (1955), 130-137.]
k-Swi Model (Bruce and Welge): k
(Concept Models)
Concept Models: k-Swi Behavior
S ] exp[ = wi
CPR-A: Modified "Clean Sand" Model

(Original) Archie "Clean Sand" Model:
k = a
(Modified) Archie "Clean Sand" Model: (c=0 trend is on LEFT)
b k = a ( c)
[c = f ( , z )]
Correction Term: [Note: z=Sw or F (ALL cases in this work)]
c2 c3 c = cmax exp[ c1 z ] (0 c cmax )

Comment: CPR-A Modified "Clean Sand" Model
Slide 17/40
This result is also known as the "Bryant-Finney" model. Care must be taken that (-c) > 0 (i.e., c must be safe-guarded). Correction term is based on intuition and cases used in this work.
(Concept Models)
CPR-B: Modified "Dirty Sand" Model (Power-Law)

(Original) Archie "Dirty Sand" Model:
k = c exp[ ] [c = constant]
(Modified) Archie "Dirty Sand" Model: (c=0 trend is on RIGHT)
b k = a ( + c)
[c = f ( , z )]
c2 c3 c = cmax exp[ c1 z ] (0 c cmax )

Comment: CPR-B Modified "Dirty Sand" Model (Power-Law)
Slide 18/40
c-function causes this model to have a J-shape on left. This is probably the most "flexible" of the basic models (A, B, and C). Correction term is based on intuition and cases used in this work.
(Concept Models)
CPR-C: Modified "Dirty Sand" Model (Exponential)

(Original) Archie "Dirty Sand" Model:
k = c exp[ ] [c = constant]
(Modified) Archie "Dirty Sand" Model: (c=cmax trend is on LEFT)
k = c exp[ ] [c = f ( , z )]
c2 c3 c = cmax exp[c1 z ] (0 c cmax )

Comment: CPR-C Modified "Dirty Sand" Model (Exponential)
however; the c-function is technically on the range cmin < c < cmax.
Slide 19/40
This is the most intuitive of the models presented. Correction term is based on intuition and cases used in this work
(Concept Models)
CPR-D: Weighted Power-Law-Exponential Model

Weighted Power-Law-Exponential Model
k = xa b + (1 x) exp[ ]
Linear Weighting: (DxL)
[0 x 1]
x = exp[ ln(c0 ) + c1 ln( ) + c2 ln( z ) + c3 ln( ) ln( z )]

Quadratic Weighting: (DxQ)
Comment: CPR-D Weighted Power-Law-Exponential Model
ln(c0 ) + c1 ln( ) + c2 ln( z ) + c3 ln( ) ln( z ) 2 2 2 x = exp + c4 ln( ) + c5 ln( z ) + c6 ln( ) ln( z ) 2 2 2 + c7 ln( ) ln( z ) + c8 ln( ) ln( z )
Slide 20/40
This is a "hybrid" formulation that incorporates both Archie models. Very consistent formulation (due to having more parameters?). This formulation is likely to be popular, but physical meaning of x's?
(Concept Models)
SPE 118026
Towards a Characteristic Equation for Permeability Guidelines for the Application of the Characteristic Permeability Relations
Slide 21/40
CPR-A: Modified "Clean Sand" Model

k = a ( c) b
c2 c3 c = cmax exp[ c1 z ]
Steps: 1. Plot log(k) versus log(). 2. Locate the Archie "Clean Sand" trend (left-hand data trend) use graphical (i.e., hand analysis) to establish the a and b parameters. 3. Establish the cmax trend by substitution of cmax values the cmax trend should be just beyond the rightmost body of data. 4. Use regression methods to estimate the c1, c2, and c3 parameters. Comments: 1. Do NOT use regression methods to estimate the a and b parameters. 2. As cmax is subtracted in this model, care must be taken to avoid negative values in the solution. 3. For many cases, the b-parameter is on the order of 8 [suggested from the work of Morrow et al (1969), Berg (1973), Beard and Weyl (1973)].
Slide 22/40
"Clean Sand" Plot (Log-Log Format) Archie "Clean Sand" trend is given by the straight-line trend at the far left of the data (power law model).
(Guidelines for the CPR Models)
CPR-B: "Dirty Sand" Model (Power-Law Basis)

k = a ( + c) b
Steps: 1. Plot log(k) versus log(). 2. Locate the Archie "Dirty Sand" trend (right-hand data trend) use graphical (i.e., hand analysis) to establish the a and b parameters. 3. Establish the cmax trend by substitution of cmax values the cmax trend should be just beyond the leftmost body of data. 4. Use regression methods to estimate the c1, c2, and c3 parameters. Comments: 1. Do NOT use regression methods to estimate the a and b parameters. 2. As cmax is added in this model, you can note the unique "J"-shape of the cmax trend towards the left. 3. A b-parameter of 8 is suggested as a starting point. A "hand fit" of the bparameter should always work well for this model.
Slide 23/40
"Clean Sand" Plot (Log-Log Format) Archie "Dirty Sand" trend is given by the straightline trend at the far right of the data (power law model).
CPR-C: "Dirty Sand" Model (Exponential Basis)

k = c exp[ ]
Steps: 1. Plot log(k) versus . 2. Locate the Archie "Dirty Sand" trend (right-hand data trend) use graphical (i.e., hand analysis) to establish the parameter (i.e., the slope). 3. Establish the cmax (straight-line) trend by substitution of cmax values the cmax trend should be just beyond the leftmost body of data. 4. Use regression methods to estimate the c1, c2, and c3 parameters. Comments: 1. Do NOT use regression methods to estimate the -parameter. 2. cmax simply represents a "shift" of the straight-line (exponential) trend to the left-most portion of the data. 3. An alternate formulation for this case is:
"Clean Sand" Plot (Log-Log Format) Archie "Dirty Sand" trend is given by the curved trend at the far right of the data (exponential model).
Slide 24/40
k = c exp[ ] c = cmin + (cmax cmin ) erf [c1 c2 z c3 ]
CPR-D: Weighted Power Law-Exponential Model

k = xa b + (1 x) exp[ ]
Steps:
[0 x 1]
1. Plot log(k) versus . 2. Locate the Archie "Clean Sand" (left-hand power law data trend) and "Dirty Sand" trend (right-hand exponential data trend) use graphical (i.e., hand analysis) to establish the a, b, , -parameters. 3. Use the following equation to establish the weights directly from the data:
x=
( k exp[ ]) ( a b exp[ ])
4. Use regression methods to estimate the xi parameters. Comments: 1. Other forms can be used to represent the x-variable objective is to "capture" the most significant features of the power law (Archie "clean sand") and the exponential (Archie "dirty sand") models. 2. The power law and exponential relations form an "envelope" around the k- data.
Slide 25/40
"Dirty Sand" Plot Archie "Dirty Sand" trend is given by the straight-line trend at the far right of the data (exponential model). Excellent correlation of the exponential model.
SPE 118026
Towards a Characteristic Equation for Permeability Validation of the Characteristic Permeability Relations
Slide 26/40
Validation: Hazlett Well 103 CPR-A

[Data Source: Hazlett, W.G.: Correlation of Reservoir Rock Properties in Porous Media. Ph.D. Dissertation, Texas A&M U., College Station, TX (1989).]
k = a ( c ) b
c = cmax exp[ c1 c2 F c3 ]
Slide 27/40
a. Model CPR-A: "Clean Sand" Plot (log-log format) Archie "Clean Sand" trend is given by the straight-line trend at the far left of the data (power law model). [Case: Hazlett Well 103]
b. Model CPR-A: "Dirty Sand" Plot (semilog format). Archie "Clean Sand" trend is given by the curved trend at the far left of the data (power law model). [Case: Hazlett Well 103]
(Validation CPR-A)
Validation: Hazlett Well 103 CPR-A

k = a ( c ) b
Slide 28/40
a. Model CPR-A: "Calculated versus measured permeability. [Case: Hazlett Well 103]
b. Model CPR-A: Calculated c-function values versus measured cfunction values. [Case: Hazlett Well 103]
(Validation CPR-A)
Validation: Hazlett Well 103 CPR-B

k = a ( + c ) b
Slide 29/40
a. Model CPR-B: "Clean Sand" Plot (log-log format) Archie "Dirty Sand" trend is given by the straight-line trend at the far right of the data (power law model). [Case: Hazlett Well 103]
b. Model CPR-B: "Dirty Sand" Plot (semilog format) Archie "Dirty Sand" trend is given by the curved trend at the far right of the data (power law model). [Case: Hazlett Well 103]
(Validation CPR-B)
Validation: Hazlett Well 103 CPR-B

k = a ( + c ) b
Slide 30/40
a. Model CPR-B: "Calculated versus measured permeability. [Case: Hazlett Well 103]
b. Model CPR-B: Calculated c-function values versus measured cfunction values. [Case: Hazlett Well 103]
(Validation CPR-B)
Validation: Hazlett Well 103 CPR-C

k = c exp[ ]
c = cmax exp[c1 c2 F c3 ]
Slide 31/40
a. Model CPR-C: "Clean Sand" Plot (log-log format) Archie "Dirty Sand" trend is given by the curved trend at the far right of the data (exponential model). [Case: Hazlett Well 103]
b. Model CPR-C: "Dirty Sand" Plot (semilog format) Archie "Dirty Sand" trend is given by the straight-line trend at the far right of the data (exponential model). [Case: Hazlett Well 103]
(Validation CPR-C)
Validation: Hazlett Well 103 CPR-C

k = c exp[ ]
c = cmax exp[c1 c2 F c3 ]
Slide 32/40
a. Model CPR-C: "Calculated versus measured permeability. [Case: Hazlett Well 103]
b. Model CPR-C: Calculated c-function values versus measured cfunction values. [Case: Hazlett Well 103]
(Validation CPR-C)
Validation: Hazlett Well 103 CPR-D

k = xa b + (1 x) exp[ ]
[0 x 1]
Slide 33/40
a. Model CPR-D: Weighted Power Law-Exponential Model used to correlate permeability (k) and porosity (). "Clean Sand" Plot Archie "Clean Sand" trend is given by the straight-line trend at the far left of the data (power law model). [Case: Hazlett Well 103]
b. Model CPR-D: Weighted Power Law-Exponential Model used to correlate permeability (k) and porosity (). "Dirty Sand" Plot Archie "Dirty Sand" trend is given by the straight-line trend at the far right of the data (exponential model). [Case: Hazlett Well 103]
(Validation CPR-D)

x = exp[ ln(c0 ) + c1 ln( ) + c2 ln( F ) + c3 ln( ) ln( F )]
k = xa b + (1 x) exp[ ]
[0 x 1]
Slide 34/40
a. Model CPR-DxL: "Calculated versus measured permeability. [Case: Hazlett Well 103]
b. Model CPR-DxL: Calculated c-function values versus measured c-function values. [Case: Hazlett Well 103]
(Validation CPR-D)

ln(c0 ) + c1 ln( ) + c2 ln( F ) 2 + c3 ln( ) ln( F ) + c4 ln( ) x = exp 2 2 + c5 ln( F ) + c6 ln( ) ln( F ) 2 2 2 + + ln( ) ln( ) ln( ) ln( ) c F c F 8 7
k = xa b + (1 x) exp[ ]
[0 x 1]
a. Model CPR-DxQ: "Calculated versus measured permeability. [Case: Hazlett Well 103]
b. Model CPR-DxQ: Calculated c-function values versus measured c-function values. [Case: Hazlett Well 103]
Slide 35/40
(Validation CPR-D)
Validation: Hazlett Well 103 All Models

a. k-calculated (CPR-A) vs. k-measured (core data) Hazlett Well 103. This model is very close to GRACE.
b. k-calculated (CPR-B) vs. k-measured (core data) Hazlett Well 103.
c. k-calculated (CPR-C) vs. k-measured (core data) Hazlett Well 103. This model is very close to GRACE.
d. k-calculated (CPR-DxL) vs. k-measured (core data) Hazlett Well 103.
e. k-calculated (CPR-DxQ) vs. k-measured (core data) Hazlett Well 103. This is the best model (statistically).
f. k-calculated (GRACE) vs. k-measured (core data) Hazlett Well 103.
Slide 36/40
(Validation All Models)
SPE 118026
Towards a Characteristic Equation for Permeability Conclusions, and Recommendations
Slide 37/40
We have successfully developed, demonstrated, and validated our concept of a "characteristic permeability relation" for several different models. Each of the "characteristic permeability relations" has a UNIQUE SIGNATURE. Performance of the CPRs depends on the case there is no single best or worst CPR. Correlation of permeability data with other variables (e.g., , Sw, F, Vsh, etc.) can be performed with the systematic application of the CPRs proposed in this work.
Slide 38/40
(Conclusions)
Conclusions, and Recommendations: Conclusions
Application/validation of the CPRs to samples from specific carbonate reservoirs. Application/validation of the CPRs to samples from low to ultra-low permeability reservoirs. Extension of the CPRs to the identification and analysis of "hydraulic flow units." Integration of the CPRs with relations for capillary pressure and relative permeability. Utilization of the CPRs for reservoir scaling (heterogeneity).
Slide 39/40
(Recommendations and Future Work)
Conclusions, and Recommendations: Recommendations for Future Work:
SPE 118026
Towards a Characteristic Equation for Permeability End of Presentation
Slide 40/40
SPE 118026 Towards A Characteristic Equation for Permeability

A.A. Siddiqui, Texas A&M University, D. Ilk, Texas A&M University, and T.A. Blasingame, Texas A&M University
Copyright 2008, Society of Petroleum Engineers This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2008 SPE Eastern Regional/AAPG Eastern Section Joint Meeting held in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, 1115 October 2008. This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.
Abstract The characterization of reservoir permeability (k) remains the elusive challenge in reservoir engineering. This work considers prior developments in an evolutionary sense, and, as with prior work, our goal is the development of a "characteristic permeability relation" (CPR). To this end, we have developed 5 CPR formulations 3 of which could be considered modifications of "historical" models and 2 of which are "weighted" power law-exponential models. In this work, we consider permeability to be only a function of two variables; k = f(,z) porosity () and z. Where, for this work, z is either the water saturation (Sw) or the Archie Formation Factor (F). Our rationale in considering k = f(,z) is twofold first, such a formulation is a fundamental extension of the k = f() correlation work by Archie (and countless others); and second, our validation datasets are limited to literature cases and cases obtained from industry sources none of which would be considered suitable for extension beyond porosity plus another variable. We demonstrate and validate our concept of a characteristic permeability relation (CPR) using various datasets obtained from the literature and from industry sources. In this work we show that each proposed relation has a unique character and performance depending on primarily on the data, rather than the functional form of the permeability relation. Using the characteristic permeability relations developed in this work the proposed permeability relations can be extended to other and other data types. It may also be possible to develop so-called "hydraulic flow unit" methods which can be used to segregate petrophysical data into depositional flow sequences. Objectives The objectives of this work are:
To propose and develop a family of "characteristic permeability relations" specifically, functional forms based on the original observations of Archie (power law and exponential behavior of numerous permeability-porosity data sets). To validate these "characteristic permeability relations" using data from literature and industry sources for consolidated rocks, as well as data for other materials. To provide a general methodology for applying the "characteristic permeability relations" in practice, including methods to distinguish poor data from correlation efforts.
Statement of the Problem There have been exhaustive attempts to correlate permeability with porosity and other variables this is one of the most intractable problems in the petroleum industry. Our goal is not to provide a "universal" relation or concept, but rather, to provide "characteristic relations" that can accurately represent a correlation of permeability with other variables. A typical "characteristic relation" will use either the power law or exponential models proposed by Archie [1950].
k Archie- PLM = a b
("Power Law Model")............................................................................................................. (1)
k Archie- EM = exp[ ] ("Exponential Model")............................................................................................................ (2) Our motivation for this work is derived from our observation that many correlations of permeability, porosity, and other variables can yield inconsistent and/or inaccurate results especially for low permeability rock samples. As we are pursuing opportunities in very low permeability (k<0.01 md) and ultralow permeability (k<0.001) reservoirs, the potential for using such correlations to establish/verify reservoir quality becomes significant. We also believe that for ultra-low permeability samples, it will be increasingly difficult to physically measure permeability on a routine basis making the correlation of permeability a priority (based on a few key measurements of permeability).
A.A. Siddiqui, D. Ilk, and T.A. Blasingame
SPE 118026
Unfortunately (and obviously) there is no single relation written primarily in terms of porosity that can be valid as a permeability estimator across different types of rocks and/or different scales. As part of our literature review, we found similar attempts the most recent of which is a series of articles by Pape et al [1999, 2000] which focus on a fractal-based derivation of permeability from porosity. The Pape et al result is presented as an additive power law relation typically of the form: k = a + b2+ c10. We do not believe that the Pape et al model will find significant utility in the petroleum industry, apart from unconsolidated materials and rocks of very uniform grain structures. We do not wish to diminish the work of Pape et al, rather we just do not see the same behavior in our rock sample data (i.e., extremely well-defined data trends where permeability is essentially only a function of porosity). Another modified power law model written for permeability as a univariate function of porosity is known as the "BryantFinney" model (Finney [1970], Bryant et al [1993a, 1993b], and Bryant et al [1993c]. The "Bryant-Finney" model is given as. k = a( c)b ........................................................................................................................................................................ (3)
We have labeled models such as Eq. 3 to be "modified power-law" formulations, since these models employ a "correction" term in the original power-law formula. As a side note, we also established the "Bryant-Finney" model independently when working on our own modified power-law relations, and we do not consider the c-term to be constant. Regardless of origin, the Bryant-Finney model is one of our characteristic permeability relations. The negative (-) sign in front of the c-term is a minor issue (negative numbers must be avoided in the argument of the power-law formulation). The performance of this model as a correlator is generally average, but we have found several cases where this model performs very well essentially better than any other model. Applying the Bryant-Finney model with the power-law straight line at the leftmost portion of the data, seems to be somewhat limiting as the negative c-term has a profound impact when the (-c) quantity approaches zero (and then negative numbers). We find that when Eq. 3 is recast using (+c), and then the straight-line power-law trend is placed at the rightmost portion of the data, we instead achieve a "J" type of shape in the data function, which seems to mimic the behavior of the Pape et al fractal model. This formulation (in terms of (+c)) is given by:
k = a( + c)b ........................................................................................................................................................................ (4)

However historically, engineers and geoscientists have by far preferred an exponential type relationship to correlate permeability as a function of porosity as given below: k = exp[ ] ....................................................................................................................................................................... (5) Eq. 5 has been used almost exclusively in the correlation of permeability, based primarily on the rationalization that "permeability is a logarithmically-scaled variable." We are concerned that Eq. 5 is uniquely an empirical result as opposed to the generalized power-law scaling of permeability and porosity (Eq. 1), which has had considerable validation by theory and by experimental study primarily with unconsolidated sediments/materials and very uniform pore distributions. We cite references by Beard and Weyl [1973], Berg [1970], and Morrow et al [1969] to support our contention of a powerlaw formulation for the permeability of unconsolidated sediments, and we note (without references) that this characteristic behavior has also been observed in fluidized beds, powders, ceramics, cements, and sintered metals. The power-law scaling of permeability is widely accepted (under specific conditions), but the exponential scaling has, to our knowledge, never been proven theoretically. There are suggestions that the exponential scaling of permeability has to do with the tendency for permeability to be logarithmically distributed, and perhaps this is sufficient as qualitative "validation." We believe that the exponential correlation of permeability and porosity is most likely an empirical representation of a more complex process one where the power-law model is not directly applicable due to "non-ideal" conditions (e.g., shaliness, poor grain sorting, diagenesis, etc.). However; we do employ the exponential model in two of our CPR models. Based on the discussion given above, we presently know (or accept) the following points: 1. Power Law Model for Permeability: Unconsolidated Sediments/Materials Eq. 1 provides the base relation for a power law scaling of permeability using porosity (i.e., k=ab). This formulation is validated in a form that includes the square of grain size by Beard and Weyl [1973] and Morrow et al [1969] for unconsolidated sediments and for (theoretical) packings of perfect spheres (Berg [1970]).
k Berg = a b d 2 p
("Berg Equation" (general form)) ....................................................................... (6)
SPE 118026
Further, variations of the simple power-law formulation have been presented in the literature which include saturation as a correlation variable (Timur [1968] (referencing his own relation) and Ahmed et al [1989] (referencing the Coates-Denoo permeability relation)) these relations are:
c kTimur = a b S w
("Timur Model")..................................................................................................... (7)

2
(1 S w ) kCoates = 100 2 Sw
("Coates-Denoo Model") ........................................................................................ (8)
2. Modified Power Law Model for Permeability: Proposed for Consolidated Sediments Eqs. 3 and 4 are proposed intuitively as "modifications" of the power law model for permeability (i.e., Eq. 1) where these formulations are intended to compensate for non-ideal behavior due to the influence of variables other than porosity. Eqs. 3 and 4 are repeated for clarity in this discussion: (In this work, z = Sw or F as presribed by the given data)
k = a( c)b c = cmax exp[c1 c2 z c3 ] k = a ( + c)b c = cmax exp[c1 c2 z c3 ]
(Bryant-Finney Model (straight-line on left of data)).......................... (3) (Modified Bryant-Finney Model (straight-line on right of data)) ....... (4)
As we do not believe that the Pape et al model (i.e., k = a + b2+ c10) is viable in practice, we mention this model as only as a possible (analytical) solution for relating permeability to porosity in near-ideal situations. 3. Modified Exponential Model for Permeability: Proposed for Consolidated Sediments Eq. 11 is the "basis" formulation for the exponential model, where Eq. 5 is repeated for clarity. k = exp[ ] ("Exponential Model")................................................................................................................... (5) Our contention is that the slope term () is constant, but the intercept term varies from an original value to a maximum value. For convenience, we write this modified exponential form as: k = c( , F , S wih ,Vsh , etc.) exp[ ] ........................................................................................................................... (9) A "cmin to cmax" formulation could be developed using the "error function" (erf[x]), and would be written as:
k = c exp[ ] c = cmin + (cmax cmin ) erf [c1 c2 z c3 ] ........................................................................................ (10)
However, the erf[x] term would be potentially difficult to resolve as the c-function may not be particularly similar to erf[x]. We have found that the following "exponential" form for the c-function is well-behaved and generally provides accurate estimates:
k = c exp[ ]
c = cmax exp[c1 c2 z c3 ] ............................................................................................................. (11)
In addition to the (somewhat) theoretical relations proposed by Eqs. 3-11, we also employ a "hybrid" relationship between the Archie power law and exponential models (Eqs. 1 and 2, respectively). We have labeled this the Weighted Power LawExponential Models, which are defined as:
k = xa b + (1 x) exp[ ] [0 x 1] x = exp[ ln( x0 ) + x1 ln( ) + x2 ln( z ) + x3 ln( ) ln( z )]
k = xa b + (1 x) exp[ ] [0 x 1]
(linear logarithmic weights model)....... (12)
ln( x ) + x ln( ) + x ln( z ) + x ln( ) ln( z ) + x ln( ) 2 (quadratic logarithmic weights model). (13) 0 1 2 3 4 x = exp + x ln( z ) 2 + x ln( ) 2 ln( z ) + x ln( ) ln( z ) 2 + x ln( ) 2 ln( z ) 2 6 7 8 5
Characteristic Behavior
Our next effort considers the "characteristic behavior" of the so-called characteristic permeability relations (CPRs). Our goal is to establish the characteristic or dominant behavior of each relation but not the behavior of the individual "c or xfunctions," these function will be illustrated in the "Validation" section.
SPE 118026
We utilize field examples to illustrate the behavior of the characteristic permeability relations (CPRs) (i.e., Eqs. 3, 4, and 1113) and we attempt to "connect" each relation to an aspect of theory or accepted empirical behavior. Our "historical" characteristic permeability relations were formulated using the work others as follows:
Archie [1950] Logarithm of permeability as a function of porosity (exponential model) and permeability as a function of the Archie Formation Factor, which leads directly to a power law relationship of permeability with porosity (i.e., Eq. 1). According to the data presented by Archie, the power law relationship of permeability with porosity is primarily valid for unconsolidated/weakly consolidated rocks. Correlation of permeability with porosity and grain size for unconsolidated sediments using statistical representations of the grain size distribution. Correlation of permeability with porosity and grain size using theoretical (systematic) packings of perfect spheres. Correlation of permeability with porosity and grain size for unconsolidated sediments using sieved sand samples to represent the influence of both grain size and sorting. Correlation of permeability with porosity using a "multiple power law" model based on fractal theory.
Morrow et al [1969] Berg [1970] Beard and Weyl [1973] Pape et al [1999]
These contributions lead us to the definition of characteristic power-law permeability-porosity relations based on modifications of the Archie "Clean Sand" model (Eq. 1). In particular, relations CPR-A (Eq. 3) and CPR-B (Eq. 4) are direct modifications the Archie "Clean Sand" model. As a coincidence, Bryant [1993a, 1993b, 1993c] and Finney [1970] also proposed the CPR-A formulation (Eq. 3), so we will also refer to the CPR-A model as the "Bryant-Finney" model. We note that Eq. 1 and Eq. 3 are both "clean sand" models, implying that the Archie (clean sand) power-law trend will lie to the left of the data body (see Fig. 1). Also the "cmax" trend is constructed by substitution of a constant value of "cmax" into Eq. 3 until trend lies along the rightmost portion of the data (see Fig. 1). Generally speaking, we strongly recommend against using statistical methods for locating the base trends for all CPR models these trends should be constructed (carefully) by the analyst. Regression can and should be used to estimate the model parameters (e.g., the ci and xi coefficients), but never to locate the base trends (i.e., the power-law or exponential trends). Our rationale behind the CPR-A/Bryant-Finney model is that the Archie "clean sand" trend represents the highest permeability value for a given value of porosity, hence the position of this line to the left of the data body. By induction, any point not lying on the "clean sand" trend must be affected by some factor(s) which mitigate permeability for example: shaliness, poor sorting, diagenesis, etc. In contrast, we define CPR-B (Eq. 4) as the Archie "dirty sand" power-law model and CPR-C (Eq. 11) as the Archie "dirty sand" exponential model. CPR-B implies that the "dirty sand" trend on a log-log plot of permeability versus porosity will lie along the far rightmost trend of data (see Fig. 2). Similarly, CPR-C implies that the "dirty sand" trend on a plot of logarithm of permeability versus porosity will also lie along the far rightmost trend of data (see Fig. 3). Archie [1950] showed some of the first correlations of log(k) versus , and although Archie provided an average trend through the data, we can infer that (perhaps) the exponential trend (k= exp[]) could represent the lowest (i.e., far rightmost) correlation of permeability and porosity on the semilog plot. The "dirty sand" trend illustrated in Fig. 3 is plausible in all of the cases we consider. Our final approach, the Weighted Power Law-Exponential Model is a simple weighting of the historical power-law and exponential trends, the generic form of this "weighted" model is given as:
k = xa b + (1 x) exp[ ]
[0 x 1] ..................................................................................................................... (14)
Our approach has been to define the power-law relation (ab) as the Archie "clean sand" trend (the same as using CPR-A (Eq. 3) on the leftmost portion of the data on a log(k) versus log() plot); and to define the exponential relation (exp[]) as the Archie "dirty sand" trend (the same as in CPR-C (Eq. 11) on the rightmost portion of the data on a log(k) versus plot). Once the trends are defined, and the parameters (a,b,,) are known, we then solve Eq. 14 for the weights (x-values). This process gives us a basis for establishing the weights (somewhat) directly from the data. Obviously, the weights (x-values) then must be correlated with independent variables (e.g., , Sw, F, Vsh, etc.). Solving Eq. 14 for the weights (i.e., the xvalues), we have: (k exp[ ]) x= ................................................................................................................................................... (15) (a b exp[ ]) Our procedure is to estimate the x-function using data, and then to attempt a correlation of x = f(, Sw, F, Vsh, etc.). As such, our best effort to correlate the x-values has led to the following logarithmic polynomial forms: 1. CPR-DxL: (Linear logarithmic weights model) x = exp[ ln( x0 ) + x1 ln( ) + x2 ln( z ) + x3 ln( ) ln( z )] ............................................................................................... (16)
SPE 118026
2. CPR-DxL: (Quadratic logarithmic weights model) ln( x ) + x ln( ) + x ln( z ) + x ln( ) ln( z ) + x ln( ) 2 0 1 2 3 4 .............................................................. (17) x = exp + x ln( z ) 2 + x ln( ) 2 ln( z ) + x ln( ) ln( z ) 2 + x ln( ) 2 ln( z ) 2 6 7 8 5 As noted earlier, the z-variable in this work represents Sw or F, as prescribed by available data. The z-variable could also be Vsh, well log responses, etc. As comment, there are certainly other forms that could be used to represent the x-variable, but for the purposes of this work, we are quite satisfied with the performance of the logarithmic polynomial forms (Eqs. 16 and 17) as correlating functions. Our rationale in creating the Weighted Power Law-Exponential Model was to "capture" the most significant features of the power-law (Archie "clean sand") and the exponential (Archie "dirty sand") models. We recognize that such a "hybrid" model may not have a strong theoretical basis, but our intention is to provide this model as a mechanism to correlate permeability. A graphical presentation of the Weighted Power Law-Exponential Model is illustrated in Fig. 4. We note that the power-law and exponential relations form an "envelope" around the permeability-porosity data (the log-log format is shown in Fig. 4a and the semilog format is shown in Fig. 4b). The construction of the envelope is by design as we wish to capture all of the data (or at least, all of the relevant data). The weighting function (x) is then used to correlate the "interior" behavior of the data envelope. Because of the Cartesian scaling of the porosity axis in Fig. 4b, this figure provides perhaps the best resolution of the power-law and exponential "boundaries" of the data envelope, as well as the selected values of the xfunction, which illustrate the interior correlation.
Validation
In this section we present an example validation in particular, the "Lower Wilcox" Well, located in South Texas (USA), where this is a tight gas reservoir system comprised of shaly (clastic) sediments (Ellis [1989]). The characteristic plots for this case were shown in Figs. 1-4, where "characteristic" implies that we attempted to validate the "power-law" and/or "exponential" nature of the data relative to the characteristic permeability relations (CPRs) A-D. As in every validation case, we apply CPRs A-D (and the Archie "Clean Sand" Model) to the field data, in this case the field data were obtained from the "Lower Wilcox" Well. CPRs A-D are given by: (Not that z = F for this case (i.e., the "Lower Wilcox" Well) Archie "Clean Sand" Model: [log(k) vs. log()] k = a b ...................................................................................................................................................................... (1) CPR-A Modified Archie "Clean Sand" Model: [log(k) vs. log()] k = a ( c)b k = a ( + c )b k = c exp[ ] c = cmax exp[c1 c2 z c3 ] ................................................................................................................ (3) c = cmax exp[c1 c2 z c3 ] ................................................................................................................ (4) c = cmax exp[c1 c2 z c3 ] ............................................................................................................. (11) [0 x 1]
[0 x 1]
CPR-B Modified Archie "Dirty Sand" Model: [log(k) vs. log()] CPR-C Modified Archie "Dirty Sand" Model: [log(k) vs. ] CPR-DxL Linear Weighted Power Law-Exponential Model: [log(k) vs. log() and log(k) vs. ] k = xa b + (1 x) exp[ ]
k = xa b + (1 x ) exp[ ]
x = exp[ ln( x0 ) + x1 ln( ) + x2 ln( z ) + x3 ln( ) ln( z )] ..................... (12)
CPR-DxQ Quadratic Weighted Power Law-Exponential Model: [log(k) vs. log() and log(k) vs. ]
ln( x ) + x ln( ) + x ln( z ) + x ln( ) ln( z ) + x ln( ) 2 ........................................................ (13) 0 1 2 3 4 x = exp + x ln( z ) 2 + x ln( ) 2 ln( z ) + x ln( ) ln( z ) 2 + x ln( ) 2 ln( z ) 2 6 7 8 5 For completeness, we also use a modification of the "Timur" model (Timur [1968]) where this model is optimized to a particular dataset using non-linear regression methods. For this case (i.e., where we have F, but not Sw), the "Modified Timur Model" is defined as: kTimur = a b F c ("Modified Timur Model") .......................................................................................................... (18)
SPE 118026
In this work we also utilize the so-called "Alternating Conditional Expectations" (or ACE) algorithm (Xue et al [1997]) this is a non-parametric regression method referred to in this work as the "GRACE" solution. In Fig. 5 we observe very good behavior of the CPR-A model for this case we clearly note the power-law straight-line trend in Fig. 5a (log-log format), as well as the clarity and uniqueness of the fit in Fig. 5b (semilog format). In Fig. 6 we provide the "error" plots for this case, where measured and computed data are compared systematically. Of particular value is Fig. 6b (GRACE comparison), a very good correlation. We now consider the case of CPR-B the Modified Archie "Dirty Sand" Model (power-law base). In this case the cfunction is added to the power law-relation, and the rightmost data become the basis for the power-law straight-line, and the leftmost data are used to define cmax. The results for this case are presented in Figs. 7 and 8. In Fig. 7a (log-log format) we note a very good "envelope" is formed by the CPR-B model, essentially all of the data on the right and left flanks are wellmatched (i.e., the "dirty sand" power-law relation and its correction function, respectively). Similarly, in Fig. 7b (semilog format), we an excellent distribution of the power-law model across the body of the data. We can also note the "constant cfunction" lines which provide orientation as to the influence of the c-function, as well as the constant "F-function" lines which indicate the behavior of the Formation Factor relative to this correlation and data set. The error analysis for this case is shown in Fig. 8 and all of the component plots suggest that the CPR-B model has given excellent performance with the only significant errors/deviations in the lower permeability values. The CPR-C model the Modified Archie "Dirty Sand" Model (exponential base) is shown in Figs. 9 and 10 and, as with the CPR-B model, we note very good performance of the base function in this case an exponential relation. In particular, Fig. 9b illustrates the excellent conformance of the CPR-C model for this case (again recalling that this model has an exponential relationship with porosity as its basis). In Fig. 10 we review the error analyses plots for this case, and we note good performance (visually) in terms of the correlation of the results using model CPR-C. We do note that in this case, the overall (statistical) error is somewhat high, but we have to remember that we are proposing "characteristic models" in this work, and as such, this case appears (again, based on visual inspections) to have good clustering of the correlated results. Also, the cfunction in this case (see Fig. 10c) is not a correction term, but rather the instantaneous intercept for the exponential basis. Again, we are approaching this work from the perspective that the primary value is the characteristic model, not the statistical "best fit" correlation. We believe that the CPR-C model has performed well for this case, and the plots in Fig. 10 confirm the value of this model as a characteristic relation. We next applied the Weighted Power-Law-Exponential Models Model CPR-DxL (linear weights) and Model CPR-DxQ (quadratic weights). The base results using Models CPR-DxL and CPR-DxQ are presented in Fig. 11 where the powerlaw and exponential basis functions are simply fitted to the appropriate portion of the data. The power-law equation represents the "Archie clean sand" trend and is fitted to the leftmost data as shown in Fig. 11a. In contrast, the exponential equation is thought to represent the "Archie dirty sand" trend and the exponential is fitted to the far rightmost portion of the data (see Fig. 11b). In Figs. 12 and 13 we present the error analysis which includes the weighting functions (Eqs. 12 or 13) as appropriate. In Fig. 12a we note a fairly good correlation of permeability, and in Fig. 12b we note that the results obtained using Model CPR-DxL does "drift" slightly from the GRACE solution, indicating some inconsistency. The computed weight function (x) shown for the CPR-DxL model in Fig. 12c does have more scatter than expected, but the trend is centered on the perfect correlation line. The results obtained using Model CPR-DxQ are presented in Fig. 13, and we note substantially improved behavior over that of Model CPR-DxL. In Fig. 14 we present the results of the "Modified Timur Model" which is essentially just a generalized power function relation in terms of k, , and F. Somewhat surprisingly, as shown in Figs. 14a and 14b, the "Modified Timur Model" provides the best correlation of the data for this case. In Fig. 15 we present the results predicted by the GRACE algorithm, which is a non-parametric regression approach (see Xue et al [1997] for details). In theory, the GRACE algorithm should provide the most unbiased correlation of the data i.e., the GRACE algorithm is designed not "fit the errors" as other regression approaches may. It is our contention that the GRACE algorithm is the statistical standard and any algorithm/approach/model which achieves better regression statistics than the GRACE algorithm is actually "fitting the errors" in the data. The only case which has significantly better regression statistics than the GRACE algorithm is the "Modified Timur Model" hence, we must label this case as "over-fitted" in a statistical sense. Our final graphic, Fig. 16, illustrates all of the models on a single plot of calculated versus measured permeability. We also present a table of all statistical results in Table 1.
SPE 118026
Table 1 Statistical Results for all Models (Lower Wilcox Case, n=62).
Model CPR-A CPR-B CPR-C CPR-DxL CPR-DxQ Modified Timur GRACE Algorithm
Sum of Squared Residuals [log(k)2] 48.89 48.78 57.32 51.74 49.10 47.83 50.47
Variance [log(k)2] 2.08 2.11 2.20 2.36 2.15 2.11 2.17
Standard Deviation [log(k)] 1.44 1.45 1.48 1.54 1.46 1.45 1.47
Absolute Relative Error [percent] 86.39 90.10 99.03 102.77 93.05 84.41 88.14
Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations for Future Work

Summary: We have successfully developed, demonstrated, and validated our concept of a characteristic permeability relation (CPR) for several different models where k = f(, Sw or F). Our goal was not to achieve a "universal" CPR, but to identify the strengths of each of our proposed relations. Perhaps the most important contribution of this work is the systematic evaluation of each CPR in particular, the illustration of the dominant (or characteristic) behavior of each CPR. Conclusions: We present the following conclusions for our characteristic permeability relations (CPRs) (i.e., permeability models): Archie "Clean Sand" Model:
k = a b ......................................................................................................................................................................... (1)
Base Plot: log(k) versus log(). This is the basis relation for all "power-law" CPRs. This CPR is uniquely suited to highly-sorted unconsolidated sediments.
CPR-A Modified Archie "Clean Sand" Model: (Bryant-Finney Model) k = a ( c)b c = cmax exp[c1 c2 z c3 ] .................................................................................................................... (3)
Base Plot: log(k) versus log(). This CPR represents negative deviation from the Archie "Clean Sand" power-law model i.e., the permeability profile is less than the Archie "Clean Sand" CPR. The straight-line power law trend (c=0) must be placed just to the left of the data. This CPR has the potential for negative values in the power-law argument therefore, cmax must be chosen carefully.
CPR-B Modified Archie "Dirty Sand" Model: (Power-Law Basis) k = a ( + c )b c = cmax exp[c1 c2 z c3 ] .................................................................................................................... (4)
Base Plot: log(k) versus log(). This CPR represents positive deviation from a straight-line power law trend (i.e., c=0), placed just beyond the far rightmost portion of the data trend. The straight-line power-law trend (c=0) must be placed just to the right of the data. For our data sets, this CPR was the most "universal" in terms of the proposed "simple" power-law or exponential relations (CPR-DxL and CPR-DxQ were often quite comparable to this relation).
CPR-C Modified Archie "Dirty Sand" Model: (Exponential Basis) k = c exp[ ] c = cmax exp[c1 c2 z c3 ] ................................................................................................................. (11)
Base Plot: log(k) versus . This CPR is initiated with a straight-line placed on the rightmost data trend, and only the intercept (c) changes (as prescribed by Eq. 11). For our data sets, this CPR also performed very well in general.
SPE 118026
CPR-DxL Weighted Power Law-Exponential Model: (Linear logarithmic weights model)
k = xa b + (1 x) exp[ ]
[0 x 1]
x = exp[ ln( x0 ) + x1 ln( ) + x2 ln( z ) + x3 ln( ) ln( z )] ......................... (12)
Base Plots: log(k) versus log() and log(k) versus . This CPR performed well for most cases, the x-function model prescribed in Eq. 12 was, in a few cases, insufficient to model the character of the x-function defined by data.
CPR-DxQ Weighted Power Law-Exponential Model: (Quadratic logarithmic weights model) k = xa b + (1 x) exp[ ] [0 x 1] x = exp[ ln( x0 ) + x1 ln( ) + x2 ln( z ) + x3 ln( ) ln( z )] ......................... (13)
Base Plots: log(k) versus log() and log(k) versus . This CPR performed well for all cases, often providing the best correlation. We have some concern that the flexible character of the x-function model prescribed in Eq. 13 may be "overfitting" the data (i.e., fitting the errors in the data). This should not be a significant issue, but the analyst should be aware of the possibility of this condition.
In addition to the conclusions given above we note the following generic conclusions: The proposed "characteristic permeability relations" each have a unique "signature" and (clearly) some CPRs provide better correlation of data than others this is a data-dependent issue. For the sake of argument, we suggest that there is no single best or worst CPR. The systematic application of the CPRs as proposed and demonstrated in this work should provide the ability to correlate a given set of permeability data with other variables (e.g., porosity, water saturation, Archie Formation Factor, shale fraction, individual well log responses, etc.). As recommendations, this work should be continued as follows: Application/validation of the CPRs to samples from specific carbonate reservoirs. Application/validation of the CPRs to samples from low to ultra-low permeability reservoirs. Extension of the CPRs to the identification and analysis of "hydraulic flow units." Integration of the CPRs with relations for capillary pressure and relative permeability. Utilization of the CPRs for reservoir scaling (heterogeneity).
Nomenclature
a b c dp F k Sw Vsh x z = = = = = = = = = = = = = Constant coefficient in the characteristic permeability relation Constant coefficient in the characteristic permeability relation Function in the characteristic permeability relation Average grain diameter, m (or appropriate consistent units) Archie Formation Factor (dimensionless) Formation Permeability, md (or any consistent units) Water Saturation (fraction) Shale Volume (fraction) Weighting Function Variable (Water saturation or Archie Formation Factor) Constant coefficient in the characteristic permeability relation (CPR-C, CPR-DxL, CPR-DxQ) Constant coefficient in the characteristic permeability relation (CPR-C, CPR-DxL, CPR-DxQ) Porosity, fraction
SPE 118026
References
Ahmed, U., Crary, S.F., and Coates, G.R. 1989. Permeability Estimation: The Various Sources and Their Interrelationship. Paper SPE 19604 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 8-11 October. Archie, G.E. 1942. Electrical Resistivity Log as an Aid in Determining Some Reservoir Characteristics. Trans., AIME 146: 54-62. Archie, G.E. 1950. Introduction to Petrophysics of Reservoir Rocks. Bull. AAPG 34: 943-961. Beard, D.C., and Weyl, P.K. 1973. Influence of Texture on Porosity and Permeability of Unconsolidated Sand. Bull., AAPG 57: 349-69. Berg, R.R. Method for Determining Permeability from Reservoir Rock Properties. 1970. Trans., GCAGS 20: 303-317. Bryant, S., Cade, C., and Mellor, D. 1993a. Permeability Prediction from Geologic Models. Bull., AAPG 77: 1338-1350. Bryant, S., Cade, C., and Mellor, D. 1993b. Physically Representative Network Models of Transport in Porous Media. AIChE 39: 387-396. Bryant, S.C., King, P.R., and Mellor, D.W. 1993c. Network Model Evaluation of Permeability and Spatial Correlation in a Real Random Sphere Packing. Transport in Porous Media 11: 53-70. Coates, G.R., and Denoo, S. 1981. The Producibility Answer Product. Schlumberger Technical Review 29 (2): 55-63. Ellis, K.W. 1987. Extended Correlations of Porosity, Permeability, and Formation Resistivity Factor. MS thesis, Texas A&M U., College Station, Texas. Finney, J. 1970. Random Packings and the Structure of Simple Liquids: I. The Geometry of Random Close Packing. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A-Mathematical & Physical Sciences 319: 479493. Hazlett, W.G. 1989. Correlation of Reservoir Rock Properties in Porous Media. PhD dissertation, Texas A&M U., College Station, Texas. Jennings, J.W., and Lucia, J. 2001. Predicting Permeability from Well Logs in Carbonates with a Link to Geology for Interwell Permeability Mapping. Paper SPE 71336 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, September 30-October 3. Morrow, N.M, Huppler, J.D., and Simmons III, A.B. 1969. Porosity and Permeability of Unconsolidated, Upper Miocene Sands from Grain-Size Analysis. J. Sed. Pet. 39 (1): 312-321. Pape, H., Clauser, C., Iffland, J. 1999. Permeability Prediction Based on Fractal Pore-Space Geometry. Geophysics 64: 1447 1460. Pape, H., Clauser, C., Iffland, J. 2000. Variation of Permeability with Porosity in Sandstone Diagenesis Interpreted with a Fractal Pore Space Model. Pure Applied Geophysics 157: 603619. Siddiqui, A.A. 2008. Towards a Characteristic Equation for Permeability. MS thesis, Texas A&M U., College Station, Texas. Timur, A. An Investigation of Permeability, Porosity, and Residual Water Saturation Relationships. 1968. Trans., SPWLA Symposium Paper I. Travis Peak Formation Core Report Well Howell No. 5, S.A. Holditch, (1986). Travis Peak Formation Core Report Well Cargill No. 15, Mobil Exploration & Production Company, (1989). Xue, G., Datta-Gupta, A., Valko, P., and Blasingame, T.A. 1997. Optimal Transformations for Multiple Regression: Application to Permeability Estimation from Well Logs. SPEFE 12 (2): 85-93.
10
SPE 118026
Model CPR-A: Modified Archie "Clean Sand" Model: (Bryant-Finney Model)
k = a ( c ) b c = c max exp[ c1 c 2 F c 3 ] a b
Steps: 1. Plot log(k) versus log(). 2. Locate the Archie "Clean Sand" trend use graphical (i.e., hand analysis) to establish the a and b parameters. 3. Establish the cmax trend by substitution of cmax values, the cmax trend should be just beyond the rightmost body of data. 4. Use regression methods to estimate the c1, c2, and c3 parameters. Comments: 1. Do NOT use regression methods to estimate the a and b parameters. 2. As cmax is subtracted in this model, care must be taken to avoid negative values in the solution. 3. For many cases, the b-parameter is on the order of 8 (suggested from the work of Morrow et al [1969] and Beard and Weyl [1974]).
= 1 10 8 = 8 ( forced)
c1 =
0 . 03
c 2 = 5 . 71 c 3 = 2 . 06
c max = 0 . 09
Fig. 1 Model CPR-A:
k = a ( c)b ( c = cmax exp[c1 c2 F c3 ])
Log-log correlation of permeability (k) and porosity
(). Archie "clean sand" trend is constructed to the left of the body of data.
SPE 118026
11
Model CPR-B: Modified Archie "Dirty Sand" Model (Power-Law Basis)
k = a( + c)b c = cmax exp[c1 c2 z c3 ] a b

Steps: 1. Plot log(k) versus log(). 2. Locate the Archie "Dirty Sand" trend use graphical (i.e., hand analysis) to establish the a and b parameters. 3. Establish the cmax trend by substitution of cmax values, the cmax trend should be just beyond the leftmost body of data. 4. Use regression methods to estimate the c1, c2, and c3 parameters. Comments: 1. Do NOT use regression methods to estimate the a and b parameters. 2. As cmax is added in this model, you can note the unique "J"-shape of the cmax trend towards the left. 3. For many cases, the b-parameter is on the order of 8 (suggested from the work of Morrow et al [1969] and Beard and Weyl [1974]). While the b-parameter appears to be much higher than 8 for this case, we have forced b=8 for consistency and for illustrative purposes. A best "hand fit" of the b-parameter should always work well.
= 4 105
c1 = 0.09
= 8 (forced) c2 = 3.49 cmax = 0.15 c3 = 2.38
Fig. 2 Model CPR-B:
k = a ( + c)b ( c = cmax exp[c1 c2 z c3 ])
Log-log correlation of permeability (k) and porosity ().
Archie "dirty sand" trend is constructed to the right of the body of data.
12
SPE 118026
Model CPR-C: Modified Archie "Dirty Sand" Model (Exponential Basis)
k = c exp[ ] c = cmax exp[c1 c2 z c3 ]
= 100
c1 = 148.51 c2 = 3.14 c3 = 0.655
cmax = 5 10 5
Steps:
1. Plot log(k) versus . 2. Locate the Archie "Dirty Sand" trend use graphical (i.e., hand analysis) to esta-blish the -parameter (i.e., the slope). 3. Establish the cmax (straight-line) trend by substitution of cmax values, the cmax trend should be just beyond the leftmost body of data. 4. Use regression methods to estimate the c1, c2, and c3 parameters. Comments: 1. Do NOT use regression methods to esti-mate the parameter. 2. As cmax simply represents a "shift" of the straight-line (exponential) trend to the left-most portion of the data. 3. An alternate formulation of this problem could be written as:
k = c exp[ ] c = cmin + (cmax cmin ) erf [c1 c2 z c3 ]

Although we do not believe that such a form will be necessary in practice, it does have certain attractive features (e.g., cmin < c <cmax is explicitly stated).
Fig. 3 Model CPR-C:
k = c exp[ ]
c = cmax exp[c1 c2 z c3 ]
Semilog correlation plot of permeability (k) and
porosity (). Archie "dirty sand" trend is constructed to the right of the body of data.
SPE 118026
13
a. "Clean Sand" Plot Archie "Clean Sand" trend is given by the straight-line trend at the far left of the data (power law model).
Fig. 4 Model CPR-D:
b. "Dirty Sand" Plot Archie "Dirty Sand" trend is given by the straight-line trend at the far right of the data (exponential model).
Weighted Power Law-Exponential Model used to
k = xa b + (1 x) exp[ ] [0 x 1]
correlate permeability (k) and porosity (). Archie "clean sand" trend is constructed to the left of the body of data (power law model). Archie "dirty sand" trend is constructed to the right of the body of data (exponential model).
14
SPE 118026
a. "Clean Sand" Plot (Log-Log Format) Archie "Clean Sand" trend is given by the straight-line trend at the far left of the data (power law model).
b. "Dirty Sand" Plot (Semilog Format) Archie "Clean Sand" trend is given by the curved trend at the far left of the data (power law model). Note the near-parallel behavior of the constant c-function trends on this plot (Model CPR-A).
Lower Wilcox S.TX (USA) Case Log-log and
Fig. 5 Model CPR-A:
k = a ( c)b ( c = cmax exp[c1 c2 F c3 ])
semilog correlations of permeability (k) and porosity (). Archie "clean sand" trend is constructed to the left of the body of data.
SPE 118026
15
a. Calculated Versus Measured Permeability Model CPR-A: Good clustering of data about the perfect correlation line (45degree line).
b. Model CPR-A Calculated Permeability Versus GRACE Calculated Permeability: Very good correla-tion of computed values.
c. Calculated Versus Measured c-function values Model CPR-A: Mostly good clustering of data about the perfect correlation line (45-degree line) good correlation.
Fig. 6 Model CPR-A Error Analysis: Comparison of computed and measured values shows generally good to very good correlation. Suggests that Model CPR-A is a good basis model for this particular case.
16
SPE 118026
a. "Clean Sand" Plot (Log-Log Format) Archie "Dirty Sand" trend is given by the straight-line trend at the far right of the data (power law model).
b. "Dirty Sand" Plot (Semilog Format) Archie "Dirty Sand" trend is given by the curved trend at the far right of the data (power law model). Note the near-parallel behavior of the constant c-function trends on this plot (Model CPR-B).
Lower Wilcox S.TX (USA) Case Log-log and semilog
Fig. 7 Model CPR-B:
k = a ( + c)b
correlations of permeability (k) and porosity (). Archie "dirty sand" trend (power law basis model) is constructed to the right of the body of data.
SPE 118026
17
a. Calculated Versus Measured Permeability Model CPR-B: Good clustering of data about the perfect correlation line (45degree line).
b. Model CPR-B Calculated Permeability Versus GRACE Calculated Permeability: Excellent correla-tion of computed values.
c. Calculated Versus Measured c-function values Model CPR-B: Mostly good clustering of data about the perfect correlation line (45-degree line) a few outlying points.
Fig. 8 Model CPR-B Error Analysis: Comparison of computed and measured values shows generally very good to excellent correlation (somewhat better than model CPR-A). Suggests that Model CPR-B is a very good basis model for this particular case.
18
SPE 118026
a. "Clean Sand" Plot (Log-Log Format) Archie "Dirty Sand" trend is given by the curved trend at the far right of the data (exponential model).
b. "Dirty Sand" Plot (Semilog Format) Archie "Dirty Sand" trend is given by the straight-line trend at the far right of the data (exponential model). Excellent correlation using model CPR-C, note parallel nature of the exponential straight-line correlation.
Lower Wilcox S.TX (USA) Case Log-log and semilog
Fig. 9 Model CPR-C:
k = c exp[ ]
correlations of permeability (k) and porosity (). Archie "dirty sand" trend (exponential basis model) is constructed to the right of the body of data.
SPE 118026
19
a. Calculated Versus Measured Permeability Model CPR-C: Also has good clustering of data about the perfect correlation line (45-degree line).
b. Model CPR-C Calculated Permeability Versus GRACE Calculated Permeability: Excellent to out-standing correlation of computed values.
c. Calculated Versus Measured c-function values Model CPR-C: c-function in this case is the intercept on the semilog plot not a "correction" term (this model does not have a correction term). Excellent clustering and correlation with the perfect correlation line (45-degree line).
Fig. 10 Model CPR-C Error Analysis: Exceptional performance for model CPR-C, very strong correlation across all plots/views simplicity of the model may account for the excellent correlation of this model with this particular data set.
20
SPE 118026
a. "Clean Sand" Plot Archie "Clean Sand" trend is given by the straight-line trend at the far left of the data (power law model). Very good correlation of the power law model (left side of data).
Fig. 11 Model CPR-D:
b. "Dirty Sand" Plot Archie "Dirty Sand" trend is given by the straight-line trend at the far right of the data (exponential model). Excellent correlation of the exponential model (right side of data).
Weighted Power Law-Exponential Model used to
k = xa b + (1 x) exp[ ] [0 x 1]
correlate permeability (k) and porosity (). Archie "clean sand" trend is constructed to the left of the body of data (power law model). Archie "dirty sand" trend is constructed to the right of the body of data (exponential model). Although an empirical weighting scheme, this relation yields exceptional correlation of permeability and porosity the Formation Factor and porosity are used to correlate the interior points i.e., the points lying inside the "envelope" created by the power law and exponential models.
SPE 118026
21
a. Calculated Versus Measured Permeability Model CPR-DxL: Good data clustering about the perfect correlation line (45degree line) (minor outliers).
b. Model CPR-DxL Calculated Permeability Versus GRACE Calculated Permeability: Good correlation of computed values, weaker at lowest values of perme-ability.
c. Calculated Versus Measured x-function values Model CPR-DxL: The xfunction in this case is the "weights function" that "balances" the power law and exponential basis models. Fair to good clustering and correlation with the perfect correlation line (45-degree line).
Fig. 12 Model CPR-DxL Error Analysis: This model (CPR-DxL) has the more simple weighting formula, and as such the interior correlation may be less accurate than the more complex weighting formula (CPR-DxL). Statistically, the CPRDxL model is the weakest of those applied for this case, but the results are still quite acceptable.
22
SPE 118026
a. Calculated Versus Measured Permeability Model CPR-DxQ: Very good clustering of data about the perfect correlation line (45-degree line).
b. Model CPR-DxQ Calculated Permeability Versus GRACE Calculated Permeability: Excellent correlation of computed values, as with model CPR-DxL the worst performance is at the lowest values of permeability.
c. Calculated Versus Measured x-function values Model CPR-DxQ: The xfunction in this case is the "weights func-tion" that "balances" the power law and exponential basis models. Good clustering and correlation with the perfect correlation line (45-degree line) somewhat better than the CPR-DxL model.
Fig. 13 Model CPR-DxQ Error Analysis: This model (CPR-DxQ) has the more complex weighting formula and statistically, the CPR-DxQ model is one of the strongest of the models applied for this case the results are comparable to the best performers (i.e., the Modified Timur Model, Model CPR-B, and Model CPR-A).
SPE 118026
23
Fig. 14a Calculated Versus Measured Permeability "Modified Timur Model:" Good data clustering about the per-fect correlation line (45-degree line).
Fig. 14b "Modified Timur Model" Calculated Permeability Versus GRACE Calculated Permeability: Outstanding correlation of computed values.
Fig. 15 Calculated Versus Measured Permeability GRACE Model: Very tight clustering of data about the perfect correlation line (45-degree line). (statistical best case scenario)
Fig. 16 Calculated Versus Measured Permeability All Models excellent correlations for all models, Model CPRC appears to have the broadest spread of errors .

SPE 118026 (Pres y Paper)

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

SPE 118026 (Pres y Paper)

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

SPE 118026

Towards a Characteristic Equation for Permeability

Rationale For This Work:

a. Calculated versus Measured Permeability Model CPR-DxQ (Paluxy, TX).

b. Calculated versus Measured Permeability Model CPR-A (Devonian Limestone, TX).

z Our rationale in considering k = f(,z) is two-fold:

Rationale For This Work:

z We believe that for ultra-low permeability samples, it

a. Calculated versus Measured Permeability Model CPR-B (Argentina well).

b. Calculated versus Measured Permeability Model CPR-DxQ (East Tx well).

Rationale For This Work:

z Our goal is not to provide a "universal" relation or

a. Calculated versus Measured Permeability All Models (Cargill Well, TX).

b. Calculated versus Measured Permeability All Models (East Tx well).

Archie-Type k-Models: k = c exp[ ]

Archie "Map" of Inter-relations of Petrophysical Properties (1950!)

Equating the models and solving for k:

Archie-Type k-Models: Berg Model

Archie-Type k-Models: Beard-Weyl/Morrow et al

Beard and Weyl Data:

Morrow Data: (selected)

Archie-Type k-Models: Pape Extension

Concept Models: Archie "Clean Sand" Model

Archie "Clean Sand" Model: a1 F=

Concept Models: Archie "Dirty Sand" Model

Archie "Dirty Sand" Model

k-Swi Model (Bruce and Welge): k

Concept Models: k-Swi Behavior

CPR-A: Modified "Clean Sand" Model

(Modified) Archie "Clean Sand" Model: (c=0 trend is on LEFT)

Correction Term: [Note: z=Sw or F (ALL cases in this work)]

c2 c3 c = cmax exp[ c1 z ] (0 c cmax )

CPR-B: Modified "Dirty Sand" Model (Power-Law)

Correction Term: [Note: z=Sw or F (ALL cases in this work)]

c2 c3 c = cmax exp[ c1 z ] (0 c cmax )

CPR-C: Modified "Dirty Sand" Model (Exponential)

c2 c3 c = cmax exp[c1 z ] (0 c cmax )

CPR-D: Weighted Power-Law-Exponential Model

x = exp[ ln(c0 ) + c1 ln( ) + c2 ln( z ) + c3 ln( ) ln( z )]

Comment: CPR-D Weighted Power-Law-Exponential Model

CPR-A: Modified "Clean Sand" Model

(Guidelines for the CPR Models)

CPR-B: "Dirty Sand" Model (Power-Law Basis)

(Guidelines for the CPR Models)

CPR-C: "Dirty Sand" Model (Exponential Basis)

k = c exp[ ] c = cmin + (cmax cmin ) erf [c1 c2 z c3 ]

(Guidelines for the CPR Models)

CPR-D: Weighted Power Law-Exponential Model

(Guidelines for the CPR Models)

Validation: Hazlett Well 103 CPR-A

Validation: Hazlett Well 103 CPR-A

Validation: Hazlett Well 103 CPR-B

Validation: Hazlett Well 103 CPR-B

Validation: Hazlett Well 103 CPR-C

Validation: Hazlett Well 103 CPR-C

Validation: Hazlett Well 103 CPR-D

Validation: Hazlett Well 103 CPR-D

Validation: Hazlett Well 103 CPR-D

Validation: Hazlett Well 103 All Models

b. k-calculated (CPR-B) vs. k-measured (core data) Hazlett Well 103.

d. k-calculated (CPR-DxL) vs. k-measured (core data) Hazlett Well 103.

f. k-calculated (GRACE) vs. k-measured (core data) Hazlett Well 103.

(Validation All Models)

Conclusions, and Recommendations: Conclusions