REVIEW OF ROCK PROPERTIES AND FLUID FLOW An understanding of the basic rock and fluid properties which control

flow in a porous medium is a prerequisite to understanding how a waterflow performs and how a waterflood and how a waterflood should be designed, implemented, and managed. The purpose of this section is not to teach the fundamentals of rock and fluid properties a basic knowledge of this is assumed. However, certain multiphase flow properties will be discussed as they apply to waterflood systems. I. WETTABILITY A. Definition In a rock/oil/brine system, wettability can be defined as the tendency of a fluid to preferentially adhere to, or wet, the surface of a rock in the presence of other inmiscible fluids. In the case of a waterflood, the wetting phases can be oil or water; gas will often be present, but will not wet the rock. When the rock is water-wet, water occupies the small pores and contacts the rock surface in the large pores. The oil is located in the middle of the large pores. In an oil-wet system, the location of the two fluids is partly reserved from the water-wet case. Water usually continues to fill the very small pores but oil contacts the majority of the rock surface in the large pores. The water present in the large pores in the oil wet rock is located in the middle of the pore, does not contact the large pore throat surface, and is usually present in small amounts. Water fills the smallest pores even in the oil-wet system because oil never enters the small pore system due to capillary forces and consequently, the wettability of the small pores is not expected to change. Wettability concepts and the location of oil and connate water in the layer pores can be illustrated with a simple diagram. Consider the largepore in Figure 2-1 which contains both oil and water.

GRAFICO
It is important to note, however, that the term wettability is used for the wetting preference of the rock and does not necessarily refer to the fluid that is in contact with the rock at any given time. For example, consider a clean sandstone core that is satured with a refined oil. Even though the rock surface is coated with oil, the sandstone core is still preferentially water-wet. Wettability is not a parameter that is used directly in the computation of waterfllod performance. However, wettability can have a significant impact on such parameters as relative permeability, connate water saturation, residual oil saturation, and capillary pressure which directly effect waterflood performance. Anderson published a series of excellent papers which discuss wettability and its impact on rock, saturation, and fluid flow behavior. B. Importance

The performance of a waterflood is controlled to a large extent by wettability reasons for this are: 1. The wettability of the rock fluid system is important because it is a major factor controlling the location, flow, and distribution of fluids in a reservoir. In general, one of the fluids in a porous medium of uniform wettability that contains at least two immiscible fluids will be the wetting fluid. When the system is in equilibrium, the wetting fluid will completely occupy the smallest pores and be on contact with a majority of the rock surface (assuming, of course, that the saturation of the wetting fluid is sufficiently high). The nonwetting fluid will occupy the centers of the larger pores and form globules that extend over several pores. Since wettability controls tha relative position of fluid within the rock matrix, it controls their relative ability to flow. The wetting fluid, because of its attraction to the rock surface, is in an unfavorable position to flow. Furthermore, the saturation of the wetting fluid cannot be reduced below some irreductible value when flooded with another immiscible fluid. With all other things equal, a waterflood in a water-wet reservoir wil yield a higher oil recovery at a lower water-oil ratio (WOR) than an oil-wet reservoir. 2. Wettability affects the capillary pressure and relative permeability data used to describe a particular waterflood system. It is found, in measuring multiphase flow properties, that the direction of saturation change (saturation history) affects the measured properties. If measurements are made on a core while increasing the saturation of the wetting phase, this is referred to as the imbibition direction. Conversely, when the wetting phase saturation is decreased during a test, it is referred to as the drainage direction. Different capillary pressure and relative permeability curves are obtained depending upon the direction of saturation change used in the laboratory to make measurements. The direction of saturation change used to determine multiphase flow properties should correspond to the saturation history of the waterflood. Thus, it is necessary to know the wettability of the reservoir. For example, a waterflood in a water-wet reservoir is an imbibition process; where as in an oil-wet reservoir, it would be a drainage process. Different data would apply to these two situations. C. Determination Historically, all petroleum reservoirs werw believed to be strongly water-wet. This was based on two major facts. First, most clean sedimentary rocks are strongly water-wet. Second, most reservoirs were deposited in aqueous environments into which oil later migrated. It was assumed that the connate water would prevent the oil from touching the rock surfaces.

Reservoir rock can change from its original, strongly water-wet condition by adsorption of polar compounds and/or the deposition of organic matter originally in the crude oil. Some crude oils make a rock oil-wet by deposition a thick organic film on the mineral surfaces. Other crude oils contain polar compounds that can be adsorbed to make the rock more oil-wet. Some of these compounds are sufficiently water soluble to pass through the aqueous phase to the rock. The realization that rock wettability can be altered by adsorbable crude oil components led to the idea that heterogeneous forms of wettability exist in reservoir rock. Generally, the internal surface of reservoir rock is composed of many minerals with diferent surface chemistry and adsorption properties, which may lead to variations in wettability. Fractional wettability is also called heterogeneous, spotted, or dalmation wettability. In fractional wettability, crude oil components are strongly adsorbed in certain areas of the rock, so a portion of the rock strongly oil-wet, while the rest is strongly water-wet. Note that this is conceptually different from intermediate wettability assumes all portions of the rock surface have a slight but equal preference to being wetted by water or oil. Several methods are available to determine the wettability of reservoir rock. These methods have been detailed in the literature and will not be discussed here. They are: Contact angle ImbibitionDisplacement core tests Capillary pressure tests Relative permeability tests Others

D. Factors affecting reservoir wettability The original strong water-wetness of most reservoir minerals can be altered by the adsorption of polar compounds and/or the deposition of organic matter that was originally in the crude oil. The surface-active agents in the oil are generally believed to be polar compunds that contain oxygen, nitrogen, and/or sulfur. These compounds contain both a polar and a hydrocarbon end. The polar end adsorbs on the rock surface, exposing the hydrocarbon end and making the surface more oil-wet. Experiments have shown that some of these natural surfactants are sufficiently soluble in water to adsorb onto the rock surface after passing through a thin layer of water. In addition to the oil composition, the degree to which the wettability is altered by these surfactants is also determined by the pressure, temperature, mineral surface and brine chemistry, including ionic composition and pH.

E. Sandstone and carbotanes The types of mineral surfaces in a reservoir are also important in determining wettability. Studies show that carbonate reservoirs are tipically more oil-wet the sandstone reservoirs. Laboratory experiments show that the mineral surface interacts with the crude oil composition to determination wettability. F. Native-state, cleaned, and restored-state cores Cores in three different states of preservation are used in core analysis: native state, cleaned, and restored state. Anderson indicates the best results for miultiphase-type flow analysis are obtained with native-state cores, where alterations to the wettability of the undisturbed reservoir rock are minimized. Andersons work defines the term native-state as being any core that was obtained and stored by methods that preserve the wettability of the reservoir. No distinction is made between cores taken with oil or water-based fluids, as long as the native wettability is maintained. Be aware, however, that some papers distinguish on the basis of drilling fluid. Anderson further defined native-state to be cores taken with a suitable oil-filtrate-type drilling mud, which maintains the original connate water saturation. Fresh-state refers to a core with unaltered wettability that was taken with a water-base drilling mud that contains no compounds that can alter core wettability. The second type of core is the cleaned core, where an attemp is made to remove all the fluids and adsorbed organic material by flowing solvents through the cores. Cleaned cores are usually strongly ater-wet and should be used only for such measurements as porosity and air permeability where the wettability will not affects the results. The third type of core is the restored-state core in which the native wettability is restored bya three-step process. The core is clened and then satured with brine followed by reservoir temperature for about 1000 hours. The methods used to obtain the three different types cores are discussed in more detail in refereces 1 through 6. II. CAPILLARY PRESSURE

A. Definition Capillary pressure can be qualitatively expressed as the difference in pressure existing across the interface separating two immiscible fluids. Conceptually, it is perhaps easier to think of it as the suction capacity of a rock for a fluid that wets the rock, or the capacity of a rock to repel a non-wetting fluid.

Quantitatively, capillary pressure will be defined in this text as the difference between pressure in the oil phase and pressure in the water phase. For example:

B. Importance 1. Capillary forces, along with gravity forces, control the vertical distribution of fluids in a reservoir. Capillary pressure data can be used to predict the vertical connate water distribution in a water-wet system. 2. Capillary pressure data are needed to describe waterflood behavior in more complex prediction models and in naturally fractured reservoirs. 3. Capillary forces influence the movement of a waterflood front and, consequently, the ultimate displacement efficiency. 4. Capillary pressure data are used to determine irreductible (immobile) water saturation. 5. Capillary pressure data provide an indication of the pore size distribution in a reservoir. C. Sources of data Unfortunately, capillary pressure data are not available for most reservoirs, especially older reservoirs developed with no though of subsequent enhanced recovery projects. The only reliable sources of data are laboratory measurements made on reservoir core samples. These measurements are seldom made due to the time and expense of obtaining unaltered core samples and conducting necessary tests. The laboratory tests most commonly used are: Restored state (porous diaphagm) method Centrifuge method Mercury injection methods Most laboratory measurements are made using either air-brine or air-mercury systems. Consequently, the resulting data must be converted to actual reservoir conditions, taking into account the dicfrence between interfacial tensions of laboratory and reservoir fluids and the difference in wettability effects of the fluids. The conversion can be made using the relationship:

Where:

Capillary pressure data from another reservoir having similar rock-fluid characteristics can also be used but is not generally recommended. When this is necessary, a correlating function such as the J-function(to be discussed later) is generally used. D. Effect of reservoir variables 1. Fluid saturation Capillary pressure varies with the fluid saturation of a rock, increasing as the wetting phase saturation decreases. Accordingly, capillary pressure data are generally presented as a function of wetting phase saturation. A typical capillary pressure curve for a water-wet system is illustrated in figure 2-2.

GRAFICO
2. Saturation history As noted previously, the direction in which the fluid saturation of a rock is changed during measurement of multiphase flow properties has a significant affect on measured properties. This hysteresis effect is obvious in Figure 2-2. The direction of saturation change used in the laboratory, or in other models, must match the direction of saturation change in the reservoir to which the data will be applied. 3. Pore geometry Other factors being equal, capillary pressure is inversely proportional to the radius of the pores containing the fluids. If all pores were the same size in a rock, the capillary pressure curve would ideally be described by curve 1 in Figure 2-3. However, all rocks exhibit a range of pore sizes which causes a variation in capillary pressure with saturation. In general, the slope of the capillary pressure curve will increase with increasing pore size heterogeneity. This is illustrated by curves 2, 3, and 4 on Figure 2-3 which represent a homogeneous, moderately heterogeneous, and very heterogeneous reservoir, respectively.

GRAFICO
E. Averaging of data Even when good capillary pressure data are available, it is generaly found that each core sample tested from a reservoir gives a different capillary pressure curve than every other core sample. Thus, an obvious question arises. How do we determine which curve represent the average behavior of the reservoir to be waterflood? Two methods are commonly used to resolve this problem: (1) the J-Function and (2) correlation with permeability.

1. J-function This function was developed by M. C. Leverett in an attemp to develop a universal capillary pressure curve. The dimensionless J-function relates capillary pressure to reservoir rock and fluid properties according to the relationship.

( ) Where:

This equation was developed with the idea that, at a given saturation, the value of J (Sw) would be the same for all rocks regardless of their individual characteristics. For example, suposse the capillary pressure is measured for a rock with permeability porosity , using fluids with interfacial tension , and the wettability function is . The capillary pressurefor the rock will be some value at . Now suposse we measure the capillary pressure in a second rock with properties and . At sturation (same as for core 1), a value of capillary pressure will be obtained. If the J-function correkation works, the J-function for cores 1 and 2, at saturation , will be equal even though the values of capillary pressure are different. For example:

Further, this relationship would be true at all saturations so a plot of J versus Sw should be the same for all rocks, as depicted by the Figure 2-4.

GRAFICO
Ideally then, it would be necessary to know the interfacial tension, average porosity, and average permeability of the reservoir to be flooded to obtain the proper capillary pressure curve for any reservoir. Unfortunately, the method does not work universally, i.e., capillary pressure for all cores, or reservoirs, will not plot on a common curve. This is due primarily to the difference in pore size distributions and rock

wettability between cores. Rock samples of different permeability and porosity characteristics generally would not be expected to have equivalent pore size distributions. Further, because oh handling, cleaning, and in situ variationin wettability, it is simply not adequate to assume in Eq. 2.4 that . However, for a given reservoir, or for a group of reservoirs with similar lithology, this plotting technique is often satisfactory for smoothing capillary pressure data and determining the capillary pressure curve that applies at average reservoir conditions. Consequently, this method is probably used more commonly than other techniques for averaging data. 2. Correlate with permeability This method is based on the following empirical observation. If capillary pressure is determined for several cores from the same reservoir (so that and remain relatively constant) and the logarithm of permeability is plotted as a function of permeability for fixed values of capillary pressure, then straight lines or smooth curves result. This is illustrated by Figure 2-5. If the average effective permeability of the reservoir is known, the correct average capilary pressure curve can be obtained by simply entering the subject graph with the average permeability to read values of capillary pressure as a function of saturation.

GRAFICO
EXAMPLE 2:1 Capillary pressure data measured on five cores from a sandstone reservoir are presented below. Water Saturation for Constant Capillary Pressure, percent K, md 75 psi 50 psi 25 psi 10 psi 5 psi 470.0 18.5 22.0 29.0 39.0 49.5 300.0 22.5 25.5 34.0 45.5 56.0 115.0 30.0 34.0 41.0 53.5 65.0 50.0 36.0 40.5 51.0 64.0 77.0 27.0 41.0 44.0 55.0 69.0 81.5 The geometric mean permeability of the reservoir, based on 43 core samples, is 155 md. The interfacial tension, , of the air-brine system used to measure capillary pressure, is 71 Dynes/cm. the reservoir oil-water system has an interfacial tension , equal to 33 Dynes/cm. find a capillary pressure curve that will apply to average reservoir conditions, i.e., the geometric mean permeability. SOLUTION

Figure 2-6 shows that capillary pressure data can be correlated with permeability. The laboratory values of capillary pressure versus saturation, corresponding to k= 155 md, are shown in the following table. The values of capillary pressure, converted to reservoir conditions, are also tabulated.

27.2 31.5 39.2 51.0 62.8

75 50 25 10 5

34.9 23.2 11.6 4.6 2.3

GRAFICO
III. RELATIVE PERMEABILITY A. Definition Before engaging in a discussion of relative permeability, a brief review of the different permeability terms which frequently appear in technical reports or as part of technical conversations in in order. The different permeability terms are: Air permeability, md Absolute permeabilty, md Effective permeability, md Relative permeability, md

1. Air permeability the routine permeability measured on a core sample. This measurement is conducted using a gas, such as nitrogen or natural gas, and does not usually take into account the klinkenberg effect. Air permeabilities are frequently used as estimates of absolute permeability, however, unless the kilnkenberg correction is performed, air permeability can overstate the absolute permeability by a factor of 1.5 or more. 2. Absolute permeability the permeability of a core sample when filled with a single liquid such a water or oil. Absolute permeability is independent of the fluid but is dependent on the pore throat sizes. Absolute permeability is most applicable in aquifer studies because the aquifer usually contains a single fluid, water. 3. Effective permability the permeability to water, oil, or gas ( ) when more than one phase is present. Effective permeability of a phase is dependent on fluid saturation. Application of Darcys Law for determination

of production or injection rates utilize effective permeability. Effective permeability to oil and water are most commonly used in waterflood analysis. 4. Relative permeability the ratio of effective permeability to some base permeability, usually the effective permeability to oil measured at the immobile (irreducible) connate water saturation, { ,{ }

}. Since the effective permeability of a rock depends on the

fluid saturation, it follows that relative permeability is also a function of fluid saturation. When the base permeability is , then the relative permeability to oil at the immobile connate water saturation, , is 1.0. In relative permeability measurements prepared prior to about 1975, laboratories frequently used the uncorrected air permemability as the base permeability. The net effect is to cause the value to be less than 1.0, usually in the range of 0.6 to 0.8. B. Importance As the name implies, relative permeability data indicate the relative ability of oil and water to flow simultaneously in a porous medium. These data express the effects of wettability, fluid saturation, saturation history, pore geometry, and fluid distribution on the behavior of a reservoir system. Accordingly, this is probably the single, most important flow property which affects the behavior of a waterflood. When using as the base permeability, the relative permeability to oil and water ranges between 0.0 and 1.0 when plotted versus water saturation. This scale allows for easy comparison of one set of relative permeability versus another set from a different core sample. The comparison is made by asimple overlay. C. Sources of data 1. Laboratory measurement on representative core samples pssessing appropriate reservoir wettability a. Steady-state method b. Unsteady-state method 2. 3. 4. 5. Use data from similar reservoir Mathematical models History matching Calculate from capillary pressure data

D. Effect of reservoir variables 1. Saturation history Figure 2-7 shows the effect of saturation history on a set of relative permeability data. It is noted that the direction of flow has no effect on the flow behavior of the wetting phase. However, a significant difference exists between the drainage and imbibition curves for the non-wetting phase. This again points out the need for knowing wettability. For a water-wet system, we would choose the imbibition data; whereas, drainage data would be needed to correctly predict the performance of an oil-wet reservoir.

GRAFICO
2. Wettability Wettability affects the fluid distribution within a rock and, consequently, has a very important effect on relative permeability data. This is indicated on Figure 2-8 which compares data for water-wet and oil-wet system.

GRAFICO
Several important differences between oil-wet curves and water-wet curves are generally noted. a. The water saturation at which oil and water permeabilities are equal (intersection point of curves) will generally be greater than 50 percent for water-wet systems and less than 50 percent for oil-wet systems. b. The connate water saturation for a water-set system will generally be greater than 20 percent; whereas, for oil-set systems, it will normally be less than 15 percent. c. The relative permeability to water at maximun water saturation (residual oil saturation) will be less than about 0.3 for water-wet systems but will be grater than 0.5 for oil-wet systems. These observation may not hold true for intermediate wettability rocks. Further, for high permeability values { }, these findings may not be true. For example, water-wet rocks with large pore throats (high permeability) sometimes exhibit immobile connate water saturation of less than 10 to 15 percent. Nevertheless, Figure 2-8 indicates the shapes and magnitude of relative permeability curves can give an indication of the wettability preference of a reservoir for moderate to low levels of permeability; i.e., .

E. End-point values Summary water-oil relative permeability test are frequently conducted on core sampes. These summary test are often referred to as end-point tests because they reflect and . Results of these tests are less expensive than normal realtive permeability tests, but they can provide useful iformation on reservoir characteristics. Listed below are end-point test data for three sandstone cores.

Water-oil End-Point Relative Permeability Tests * Initial Conditions Terminal Conditions 9.4 3.7 18.0 14.5 15.8 13.8 27.5 37.6 24.7 6.4 2.4 13.0 35.4 34.2 38.3 1.8 0.8 4.6 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.28 0.33 0.35

*Tests conducted at confining overburden pressure

F. Averaging of data 1. Data averaging methods Again, we often face the problem of having several permeability curves for a particular formation, all of which are different. It is desirable to select one set of curves which will apply at average reservoir conditions, i.e., at the average formation permeability. Methods to accomplish this are: a. Determine the saturation at different values of or for each of the

different sets of data (use same values of permeability or permemability ratio in obtaining saturations from the different permeability curves). This is probably done most often using . The saturations obtained at equal values of permeability are arithmetically averaged to define the average set of permeability data. b. In some cases, a plot of versus water saturation for each core will yield a correlation with permeability as shown in Figure 2-9. However, smooth curves rather than straight lines will often result. If the effective average permeability is known, an average permeability curve can be determined from the correlation.

GRAFICO
2. Adjust average data to account for different irreductible water saturations

This is not necessary for oil-set systems, but in the case of water-wet systems, the situation often occurs where the accepted value of irreductible water saturation does not agree with the average relative permeability data chosen to represent the reservoir. The procedure for converting the data to a different irreductible water saturation is: a. From the average relative permeability curves, read values of and at different values of oil saturation. b. Multiply each of the saturation from step (a) versus the normalized saturations from step (b). c. Using the normalized curve obtained from step ( c), the permeability data can be placed back on a total pore volume basis, using any desired value of initial water saturation, by multiplying the normalized saturations by . It also possible to normalized the relative permeability data before the data are averaged. EXAMPLE 2:2 Relative permeability curves measured on three cores from the Levelland field, San Andres Formation, in Texas are shown in Figure 2-10. The average initial water saturation of this reservoir is believed to be 15 percent. Find the average oil and water relative permeability curves for this reservoir and adjust the curves to the average connate water saturation.

GRAFICO
SOLUTION The calculations necessary to average, normalize, and adjust the curves to a new saturation basis are presented in the following tables for the oil and water data. The average permeability curves, adjusted to 15 percent irreductible water saturation, are presented in Figure 2-11.

TABLAS GRAFICO
3. Default relative permeability relationships The most reliable source of relative permeability data is from laboratory measurements perfomed on cores obtained from the reservoir of interest. For the measurements to be meaningful, considerable care and effort must be expended to ensure that the in situ reservoir wettablility is preserved during coring, surfacing, storage, and measurement operations. Failure to preserve native wettability will cause the measured relative permeability values to be of little use for reservoir analysis.

Unfortunately, many reservoirs considered for waterflooding are characterized by the absence of relative permeability or, at best, by unreliable data. In these situation, it may be necessary to use certain default relative permeability models for data. Several authors have presented mathematical models which can be used to describe relative permeability relationships for the simultaneous flow of oil and water. The relationships are restricted to reservoirs in which flow is through the matrix. Consequently, those results are not applicable for flow through reservoirs possessing significant vugs or natural fractures. Corey has suggested that for a drainage process (waterflood of an oil-wet rock):

Where:

With:

And:

Where there is simultaneous flow of oil and water in a water-wet system during an imbibition process, Smith suggest that:

( And: [ Where:

More recently, Hirasaki summarized certain relative data compiled by the 1984 National Petroleum Council (NPC). As part of a national enhanced oil recovery study, it was necessary to forecast remaining waterflood recovery

in many reservoirs throughout the United States. In many unstances, reservoir data such as rock wettability and relative permeability were not available. Consequently, an NPC technical committee recommended default relative permeability relationships similar to those presented by Molina. These relationships are listed below. ( And: ( Where: EXW = water relative permeability exponet EXO = oil relative permeability exponet (Kro)Swir = relative permeability to oil at the irreductible water saturation (usually 1.0) (Krw)Sor = relative permeability to water at the waterflood residual oil saturation (usually about 0.25 to 0.4 depending on wettability) Sor = residual waterflood oil saturation, fraction Sw = water saturation, fraction Swir = irreductible waterb saturation, fraction ) )

In addition to Eq. 2.10 and Eq. 2.11, the NPC also provided certain other default data which are listed below. Parameter Oil relative permeability end-point Water relative permeability end-point Oil relative permeability exponet Water relative permeability exponent Residual oil saturation, percent Sandstone 1.0 0.25 2 2 25 Carbonate 1.0 0.40 2 2 37

A comparison of these default end-point values with the statements listed on page 20 of craig suggest a possible conclusion that carbonate reservoirs behave as if they are oil-wet. This observation should not be interpreted as an indication of rock wettability but the result of attempting to averagea large amount of data.

Finally, Honapur provides a thorough reviwe of the empirical equations used to compute two phase (oil/water or gas/oil) and three phase (gas/oil/water) relative permeability. EXAMPLE 2:3 A carbonate oil reservoir is being considered for waterflooding. At the present time, the immobile (irreducible) water saturation is estimated to be 25 percent. Compute a pair of oil and water relative permeability curves that could be used in the evaluation of the waterflood. SOLUTION In the absence of specific data, the default relative permeability relationships described by Eq. 2.11 will be utilized. The following data are estimated from analog fields or from the NPC default values.

EXO = 2.0 (1984 NPC) EXW = 2.0 (1984 NPC) ( ( Substituting: ( And: ( ) ) ) )

Finally, Krw and Kro can be computed and plotted as a function of water saturation.

TABLA GRAFICO