The Small-Drillhole Minipermeameter Probe for In-Situ Permeability Measurement
- Cynthia L. Dinwiddie (Southwest Research Institute)
- Document ID
- Society of Petroleum Engineers
- SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
- Publication Date
- December 2005
- Document Type
- Journal Paper
- 491 - 501
- 2005. Society of Petroleum Engineers
- 2.4.3 Sand/Solids Control, 5.1 Reservoir Characterisation, 5.4.2 Gas Injection Methods, 1.5 Drill Bits, 5.7.2 Recovery Factors, 5.1.3 Sedimentology, 5.5.2 Core Analysis, 1.14 Casing and Cementing, 1.2.3 Rock properties, 5.8.5 Oil Sand, Oil Shale, Bitumen, 4.1.5 Processing Equipment, 1.6.9 Coring, Fishing, 5.1.2 Faults and Fracture Characterisation, 5.6.2 Core Analysis, 5.1.5 Geologic Modeling, 4.3.4 Scale, 4.1.2 Separation and Treating, 1.6 Drilling Operations, 5.6.4 Drillstem/Well Testing
- 2 in the last 30 days
- 420 since 2007
- Show more detail
- View rights & permissions
|SPE Member Price:||USD 5.00|
|SPE Non-Member Price:||USD 35.00|
Laboratory measurement of permeability using a Hassler cell is the industrystandard; however, consistently removing undisturbed rock samples from friableoutcrops is difficult. Although various conventional surface-sealingmini-permeameters are developed as an alternative for permeability measurement,these devices generally suffer from difficulties in maintaining optimal forceson the tip seal when dealing with outcrop irregularities in the field; outcropweathering is also problematic. Because a reliable field method is needed forstudies of friable geological units, this paper presents an innovativetechnique for measuring permeability in situ. The design of the small-drillholeminipermeameter probe is discussed, as well as the accompanying analyticaltechnique and the size and shape of the instrument's averaging volume.Small-diameter holes [i.e., 1.8 cm (0.7 in.)] are drilled into an outcrop witha masonry drill, followed by drillhole vacuuming, probe insertion, sealexpansion, gas injection, and calculation of the intrinsic permeability throughmeasurement of the injection pressure, gas-flow rate, and knowledge of thesystem geometry. Advantages of this approach include access to a nonweatheredsurface, an operator-independent sealing mechanism around the air-injectionzone, and the potential for permeability measurement at multiple depths belowan outcrop surface. To date, data have been collected from four diverse porousmedia: upper and lower shoreface sandstone (Escalante, Utah), saprolitic soils(Clemson, South Carolina), nonwelded and sintered ignimbrite (Bishop,California), and fluvially reworked tuffaceous sedimentary rock (Bishop,California). The probe has proved durable and robust, with a single probesufficient for making thousands of measurements in a variety of environments.Data quality supports the conclusion that the drillhole probe is a practicalfield instrument.
Small-scale permeability heterogeneity plays a substantial role in petroleummigration and reservoir performance; this parameter commonly ranges over manyorders of magnitude (e.g., 0.01 to more than 10,000 md). Permeabilityheterogeneities on the meter-to-micrometer scale associated with beds, laminae,internal sedimentary structures, and variations in pore morphology are thesource of most retrieval difficulties during enhanced-oil-recovery operations,thus negatively affecting reservoir recovery efficiency.
Considerable heterogeneity is evident when permeability measurements aremade on small scales, either in the field or on field samples in a laboratorysetting. Traditionally, small-scale permeability measurements are made byinducing 1D gas flow through a cylindrical core plug in a Hassler sleeve orcell. Recently, such measurements also are made by inducing multidimensionalgas flow through a sample with various configurations of the conventionalsurface-sealing gas minipermeameter.
Cylindrical plugs generally are extracted from continuous core at 30-cmintervals for Hassler-cell permeability measurement, preserving a majority ofthe core while minimizing associated costs. Except for relatively homogeneousformations, this scale of permeability measurement is in an ill-definedgeologic region, falling within the range of laminae and lamina sets.Furthermore, core-plug samples tend to be biased toward the more consolidated,less permeable, and less friable core sections. As an example, the effect ofthis arbitrary sampling density on Hassler-sleeve measurements for the case oftight gas sands is that magnitudes of permeability less than 100 md frequentlyresult, even when coarser-grained beds that would operate as preferential flowchannels or "thief zones" are clearly present. Currently, the scale ofsedimentary heterogeneity is best resolved by use of the minipermeameter, whichallows investigation of permeability heterogeneity at much greater (andstatistically significant) sampling densities and on much smaller scales thanis possible with the traditional technique.
The literature documents use of the conventional surface-sealingminipermeameter probe for measurements made on outcrop surfaces, core plugs,slabbed cores, or large-cut blocks. One motivation for using cores, plugs, orblocks of rock is that natural weathering processes may greatly affectpermeability values obtained from exposed outcrop surfaces. The weatheringeffect has been shown to extend up to several inches below the rock surface.Beyond the issue of weathering, there are other rationales for discouraging useof the conventional surface-sealing minipermeameter probe in a field setting.When applying this probe geometry to natural rock outcroppings in the field, asopposed to cut specimens in an automated laboratory setting, seal-qualityproblems are often encountered because of irregular, rough surfaces anddifficulties associated with manually holding the probe stationary whileapplying a uniform normal force of the optimal magnitude on the tip seal.
To enable in-situ measurements of friable geologic units and to overcomeweathering and seal-quality problems, a new minipermeameter probe has beendeveloped that is specifically intended for application inside a small drilledhole. The design of the small-drillhole minipermeameter probe is discussed inwhat follows, as well as the accompanying analytical technique and the size andshape of the instrument's averaging volume. This article concludes with briefreviews of data collected using the technique.
|File Size||1 MB||Number of Pages||11|
1. Norris, R.J. and Lewis, J.J.M.: "The Geological Modeling of EffectivePermeability in Complex Heterolithic Facies," paper SPE 22692 presented atthe 1991 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, 6?9October.
2. Weber, K.J.: "Influence ofCommon Sedimentary Structures on Fluid Flow in Reservoir Models ,"JPT (March 1982) 665.
3. Weber, K.J.: "How Heterogeneity Affects Oil Recovery," ReservoirCharacterization, L.W. Lake and H.B. Carrol Jr. (eds.), Academic Press,Orlando, Florida, U.S.A. (1986) 487.
4. Hurst, A. and Rosvoll, K.J.: "Permeability Variations in Sandstones andTheir Relationship to Sedimentary Structures," Reservoir CharacterizationII, L.W. Lake, H.B. Carroll Jr., and T.C. Wesson (eds.), Academic Press,Orlando, Florida, U.S.A. (1991) 166.
5. Ali, M.: "Small Scale Heterogeneities in Permeability—A Correlative Studyof Permeability and Corresponding Pore Morphologies Using Minipermeameter andPetrographic Analysis," MS thesis, New Mexico Inst. of Mining and Technology,Soccoro, New Mexico, U.S.A. (1993).
6. Pickup, G.E. et al.: "Geology, Geometry and Effective Flow," PetroleumGeoscience (1995) 1, 37.
7. RP 40, Recommended Practice for Core Analysis Procedure, first edition,API, Washington, DC (1960).
8. Hassler, G.: "Method and Apparatus for Permeability Measurements," U.S.Patent No. 2,345,935 (1944) www.uspto.gov.
9. RP 40, Recommended Practices for Core Analysis, second edition, API,Washington, DC (1998).
10. Clelland, W.: "Measurement and Analysis of Small Scale PermeabilityDistributions in Sandstones," PhD dissertation, Heriot-Watt U., Edinburgh,Scotland (1984).
11. Dubrule, O. and Haldorsen, H.H.: "Geostatistics for PermeabilityEstimation," Reservoir Characterization, L.W. Lake and H.B. Carroll Jr.(eds.), Academic Press, Orlando, Florida, U.S.A. (1986) 223.
12. Goggin, D.J., Thrasher, R.L., and Lake, L.W.: "A Theoretical andExperimental Analysis of Minipermeameter Response, Including Gas Slippage andHigh Velocity Flow Effects," In Situ (1988) 12, No. 1 and 2, 79.
13. Robertson, G.M. and McPhee, C.A.: "High-Resolution Probe Permeability:An Aid to Reservoir Description," Proc., First Soc. of Core AnalysisSymposium on Advances in Core Evaluation, Accuracy and Precision in ReservesEstimation, Gordon and Breach, Amsterdam (1990) 495.
14. Corbett, P.W.M. and Jensen, J.L.: "Variation of Reservoir StatisticsAccording to Sample Spacing and Measurement Type for Some Intervals in theLower Brent Group," The Log Analyst (1992a) 33, No.1, 22.
15. Corbett, P.W.M. and Jensen, J.L.: "Estimating the Mean Permeability: HowMany Measurements Do You Need?" First Break (1992b) 10, No. 3, 89.
16. Allen, D.: "Probing for Permeability: An Introduction to Measurements,"Tech. Review (1988) 36, No. 1, 6.
17. Jensen, J.L., Glasbey, C.A., and Corbett, P.W.M.: "On the Interaction ofGeology, Measurement, and Statistical Analysis of Small-Scale PermeabilityMeasurements," Terra Nova (1994) 6, 397.
18. Hurst, A., Halvorsen, C., and Siring, E.: "A Rationale for RoutineLaboratory Probe Permeametry," The Log Analyst (1995) 36, No. 5, 10.
19. Hurst, A.: "Sedimentary Flow Units in Hydrocarbon Reservoirs: SomeShortcomings and a Case for High-Resolution Permeability Data," TheGeological Modelling of Hydrocarbon Reservoirs and Outcrop Analogues, S.Flint and I.D. Bryant (eds.), Intl. Assn. of Sedimentologists SpecialPublication 15, Blackwell Scientific Publishers, Oxford, U.K. (1993)191-204.
20. Zheng, S. et al.: "Uncertainty in Well Test and Core PermeabilityAnalysis: A Case Study in Fluvial Channel Reservoirs, Northern North Sea,Norway," AAPG Bull. (2000) 84, No. 12, 1929.
21. Jensen, J.L.: "A Model forSmall-Scale Permeability Measurement With Applications to ReservoirCharacterization," paper SPE/DOE 20265 presented at the 1990 SPE/DOEEnhanced Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, 22?25 April.
22. Bourke, L.T.: "Core Permeability Imaging: Its Relevance to ConventionalCore Characterization and Potential Application to Wireline Measurement,"Marine and Petroleum Geology (1993) 10, No. 4, 318.
23. Halvorsen, C.: "Probe Permeametry Applied to a Highly LaminatedSandstone Reservoir," Marine and Petroleum Geology (1993) 10, No. 4,347.
24. Kara, B., Kasap, E., and Tillman, R.W.: "Quantitative Description of MuddySandstone: Geostatistical Parameters, Automated Facies Generations, andMeasurement Methodologies," paper SPE 26488 presented at the 1993 SPEAnnual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, 3?6 October.
25. Hurst, A. and Goggin, D.: "Probe Permeametry: An Overview andBibliography," AAPG Bull. (1995) 79, No. 3, 463.
26. Tidwell, V.C. and Wilson, J.L.: "Laboratory Method for InvestigatingPermeability Upscaling," Water Resources Research (1997) 33, No. 7,1607.
27. Forster, C.B. et al.: "3-D Fluid Flow Simulation in a Clastic ReservoirAnalog: Based on Integrated 3-D GPR and Outcrop Data From the Ferron Sandstoneat Coyote Basin, Utah," The Fluvial-Deltaic Ferron Sandstone: Regional toWellbore Scale Outcrop Analog Studies and Reservoir Modeling, T.C. ChidseyJr., R.D. Adams, and T.H. Morris (eds.), AAPG Memoir, Tulsa (2003).
28. Dinwiddie, C.L.: "A New Small Drillhole Minipermeameter Probe for InSitu Permeability Measurement: Design, Theoretical Analysis, Operation, andPerformance Characteristics," PhD dissertation, Clemson U., Clemson, SouthCarolina, U.S.A. (2001).
29. Molz, F.J. III et al.: "Small drill-hole, gas, mini-permeameter probe,"U.S. Statutory Invention Registration No. H2052 (2002) www.uspto.gov.
30. Castle, J.W. et al.: "Quantitative Methods for ReservoirCharacterization and Improved Recovery: Application to Heavy Oil Sands," annualreport, Contract No. DE-AC26-98BC15119, U.S. Dept. of Energy, Washington, DC(October 2000).
31. Garrison, J.R. Jr. et? al.: "Electronic Flow Rate-Controlled ProbePermeametry: Theory, Instrumentation, Accuracy, Precision, Limitations, andApplication," In Situ (1996) 20, No. 2, 161.
32. Chandler, M.A. et al.: "Electronic Field Permeameter," U.S. Patent No.4,864,845 (1989) www.uspto.gov.
33. Halvorsen, C. and Hurst, A. "Principles, Practice and Applications ofLaboratory Minipermeametry," Advances in Core Evaluation, Accuracy andPrecision in Reserves Estimation, P.F. Worthington (ed.), Gordon andBreach, Amsterdam (1990) 521.
34. Jensen, J.L. and Corbett, P.W.M.: "A Stochastic Model for ComparingProbe Permeameter and Core Plug Measurements," Reservoir CharacterizationIII, W. Linville (ed.), PennWell Books, Tulsa (1992) 2.
35. Jones, S.C.: "A New, Fast,Accurate Pressure-Decay Probe Permeameter," SPEFE (September 1994)193.
36. Goggin, D.J.: "Probe Permeametry: Is it Worth the Effort?" Marine andPetroleum Geology (1993) 10, No. 4, 299.
37. Sharp, J.M. et al.: "An Electronic Minipermeameter for Use in the Fieldand Laboratory," Ground Water (1994) 32, No. 1, 41.
38. Dinwiddie, C.L., Molz, F.J. III, and Castle, J.W.: "A New Small DrillHole Minipermeameter Probe for In Situ Permeability Measurement: FluidMechanics and Geometrical Factors," Water Resources Research (2003) 39,No. 7, 1178, DOI:10.1029/2001WR001179.
39. Suboor, M.A. and Heller, J.P.: "Minipermeameter Characteristics Criticalto Its Use," In Situ (1995) 19, No. 3, 225.
40. Meyer, R. and Krause, F.F.: "A Comparison of Plug-Derived andProbe-Derived Permeability in Cross-Bedded Sandstones of the Virgelle Member,Alberta, Canada: The Influence of Flow Directions on Probe Permeametry,"AAPG Bull. (2001) 85, No. 3, 477.
41. Chen, Z.: "Mathematical Basis for Permeability and Porosity Measurementsby Minipermeameter," MS thesis, New Mexico Inst. of Mining and Technology,Socorro, New Mexico, U.S.A. (1992).
42. Manrique, J.F.: "A Detailed Study of Geometric Factors for ProbePermeameter Measurements on Heterogeneous and Isotropic Rocks," PhDdissertation, U. of Tulsa (1993).
43. Manrique, J.F., Kasap, E., and Georgi, D.T.: "Geometric Factors forProbe Permeameter Measurements on Heterogeneous Rocks," paper SPE 27650presented at the 1994 SPE Permian Basin Oil and Gas Recovery Conference,Midland, Texas, U.S.A., 16-18 March.
44. Manrique, J.F., Kasap, E., and Georgi, D.: "Effects of Heterogeneity andAnisotropy on Probe Measured Permeabilities," SPEJ (March 1997)16.
45. Winterbottom, F.A.: "Numerical Modelling of a Minipermeameter," MEngrthesis, Heriot-Watt U., Edinburgh, Scotland (1990).
46. Baveye, P. and Sposito, G.: "The Operational Significance of theContinuum Hypothesis in the Theory of Water Movement Through Soils andAquifers," Water Resources Research (1984) 20, No. 5, 521.
47. Cushman, J.H.: "Fourier Interpretation of Multiphase Averaging Theory,"Advances in Water Resources (1984a) 7, No. 9, 126.
48. Cushman, J.H.: "On Unifying the Concepts of Scale, Instrumentation andStochastics in the Development of Multiphase Transport Theory," WaterResources Research (1984b) 20, No. 11, 1668.
49. Cushman, J.H.: "On Measurement, Scale, and Scaling," Water ResourcesResearch (1986) 22, No. 2, 129.
50. Molz, F.J. III, Dinwiddie, C.L., and Wilson, J.L.: "A Physical Basis forCalculating Instrument Spatial Weighting Functions in Homogeneous Systems,"Water Resources Research (2003) 39, No. 4, 1096,DOI:10.1029/2001WR001220.
51. Aronson, E.C.: "Modeling Investigations on Gas Permeameters: SpatialWeighting Functions and Layered Systems," MS special project report, New MexicoInst. of Mining and Technology, Socorro, New Mexico, U.S.A. (1999).
52. Tidwell, V.C., Gutjahr, A.L., and Wilson, J.L.: "What Does an InstrumentMeasure? Empirical Spatial Weighting Functions Calculated from PermeabilityData Sets Measured on Multiple Sample Supports," Water ResourcesResearch (1999) 35, No. 1, 43.
53. Tartakovsky, D.M., Moulton, J.D, and Zlotnik, V.A.: "Kinematic Structureof Mini-permeameter Flow," Water Resources Research (2000) 36, No. 9,2433.
54. Molz, F.J., Guan, J., and Wang, J.: "Spatial Weighting Functions:Transient Hydraulic Tests and Heterogeneous Media," Ground Water (2005)43, No. 2, 215.
55. Knight, J.H.: "Sensitivity of Time Domain Reflectometry Measurements toLateral Variations in Soil Water Content," Water Resources Research(1992) 28, No. 9, 2345.
56. Ferré, P.A. et al.: "The Sample Areas of Conventional and AlternativeTime Domain Reflectometry Probes," Water Resources Research (1998) 34,No. 11, 2971.
57. Ferré, P.A. et al.: "A Numerically Based Analysis of the Sensitivity ofConventional and Alternative Time Domain Reflectometry Probes," WaterResources Research (2000) 36, No. 9, 2461.
58. Lu, S. et al.: "Combining Stochastic Facies and Fractal Models forRepresenting Natural Heterogeneity," Hydrogeology J. (2002) 10, No. 4,475.
59. Hettinger, R.D. et al.: "Preliminary Investigations of the Distributionand Resources of Coal in the Kaiparowits Plateau, Southern Utah," U.S.Geological Survey Open-File Report 96-539 (1996).
60. Current, C.L.: "Characterization of Geologic Controls on Permeabilityand Their Incorporation into a Three-Dimensional Geologic Model of the TemblorFormation, Coalinga, California," MS thesis, Clemson U., Clemson, SouthCarolina, U.S.A. (2001).
61. Castle, J.W. et al.: "Sedimentology and Fractal-Based Analyses ofPermeability Data, John Henry Member, Straight Cliffs Formation (UpperCretaceous), Utah, U.S.A.," J. of Sedimentary Research (2004) 74, No. 2,270.
62. Dinwiddie, C.L. and McGinnis, R.N.: "Heavy Oil Reservoir Outcrop AnalogNear Escalante, Utah: Analysis of a Gas Permeability Data Set for Non-DarcyFlow Effects," paper presented at the 2003 Geological Soc. of America AnnualMeeting, Seattle, Washington, 2-5 November.
63. Drumm, D.: "Permeability Measurements in Soil with a New DrillholeMinipermeameter," semester report, Dept. of Environmental Engineering &Science, Clemson U., Clemson, South Carolina, U.S.A. (2000).
64. Dinwiddie, C.L. et al.: "Heterogeneous Permeability Induced by FaultZone Deformation in Nonwelded Ignimbrite: Chalk Cove Fault, Bishop Tuff,Bishop, California," paper presented at the 2004 Geological Soc. of AmericaAnnual Meeting, Denver, 7-10 November.