Pore-Compressibility Study of Arabian

Carbonate Reservoir Rocks

Zaki Harari, SPE, Shu-Teh Wang, and Salih Saner, SPE, King Fahd U. of Petroleum and Minerals
Summary
In the laboratory, we determined the pore-compressibility charac-
teristics of some limestone samples obtained from a Saudi Arabian
petroleum reservoir. The samples were saturated with water and
subjected to confining pressure, Pc, and pore pressure, PP' in a core
holder, and the resulting reduction in PV was measured. We used
differential pressure, Pc-Pp, ranging from 0 to 4,500 psi. Differential
pressure was increased incrementally by reducing the internal
(pore) pressure while maintaining a constant hydrostatic confining
pressure on the rock samples.
We present the experimental data here in the form of relative po-
rosity and hydrostatic pore-compressibility values as functions of
differential pressure. We analyzed the test results after grouping the
rock samples on the basis of their lithological description. Four
groups of limestone samples consisting of grainstones, packstones,
wackestones, and mudstones were studied. Also, Berea sandstone
was tcsted for comparison with limestone. The results show linear
negative correlations on a log-log scale between pore compressibili-
ty and differential pressure for all the tested samples. Consequently,
we computed the pore compressibility vs. differential-pressure
power-fit parameters (referred to here as parameters Ac and Be). We
found that parameters Ac and Be are correlated with initial porosity
for the tested samples and inter-related within the same lithologic
group. Mathematical expressions for predicting pore compressibili-
ty and porosity as functions of differential pressure are given for the
tested samples.
Introduction
Petroleum reservoirs can be regarded as complex rock/oiVwater/gas
interaction systems that permit the storage and flow of petroleum
fluids and formation brines. A typical reservoir formation would con-
sist of a more or less porous rock mass with varying amounts of oil,
gas, and formation brine occupying the pore spaces. At depth, reser-
voir rocks are subjected to in-situ stresses arising from the combined
effects of overburden (or litho static ) pressure, which is exerted by the
weight of overlying rocks; tectonic stresses that are generated by
large-scale movements in the Earth's crust; and pore pressure that is
exerted by the fluids present in the rock pores. On the basis of their
mode of action, these stresses can be further decomposed into two
parts: external stress and internal pressure. Further, effective stress,
which depicts the stress carried by the rigid rock skeleton, is defined
as the algebraic difference between the external stress and internal
pressure. When effective stress is compressive, its action attempts to
bring about a reduction in the volume of the rock, whereas the internal
(pore) pressure (also known as formation pressure) acts to reduce the
effective stress, thereby providing internal support that opposcs thc
"crushing" effect of the effective stress.
Under some in-situ conditions, external pressures can be almost
entirely caused by overburden pressure. In these cases, net overbur-
den pressure, Pno, is defined as the difference between the overbur-
den pressure, Po, and the pp. In a reservoir, the magnitude of Po can
in theory be computed from a knowledge of the depth of the reser-
voir and the average density of the overlying rock formations. How-
ever, it is more practical to use a known (or estimated) overburden
pressure gradient (normally assumed to be 1 psi/ft) to compute the
Po at a given depth. Likewise, the pore pressure (formation pressure)
gradient is normally assumcd to bc 0.46 psi!ft. Thus, the implied Pno
gradient is approximately 0.54 psi!ft.
Copyright 1995 Society of Petroleum Engineers
Original SPE manuscript received for review Sept. 24, 1993. Revised manuscript received
May 16. 1995. Paper (SPE 27625) peer approved June 23.1995.
SPE Formation Evaluation, December 1995
Because formation-fluid pressure in a producing petroleum reser-
voir is expected to decrease with continued oil production,Pno is ex-
pected to increase as a consequence. This Pno increase results in the
compression of the pore space in the reservoir rock. Thus, the term
compressibility is defined as the relative decrease in the volume
(i.e., volume decrease divided by original volume) ofthe rock when
it is subjected to a unit increase in hydrostatic net overburden pres-
sure (i.e., net overburden pressure that is equal in magnitude in all
directions ).
Geerstma J states the three types of compressibility for a reservoir
rock: (1) rock-matrix compressibility, (2) bulk compressibility, and
(3) pore compressibility. Rock-matrix compressibility is defined as
the relative change in the volume of the solid rock particles (without
the pore spaces) per unit increase in Pno, whereas rock-bulk com-
pressibility refers to the corresponding change in the bulk (external)
volume of the rock, and pore compressibility refers to the corre-
sponding change in the PV ofthe rock. Hall
2
pointed out the impor-
tance of pore compressibility in calculating the hydrocarbon vol-
ume of a reservoir. Neglect of pore compressibility may result in
significant errors, particularly for low-porosity reservoir rocks.
Pore-compressibility measurements are usually carried out in the
laboratory by placing reservoir core plugs (small cylindrical rock
samples with diameters of 1, 1.5,2 in., etc.) in special core holders
and measuring the reduction of their PV while subjecting them to
confining pressure for simulating the in-situ overburden pressure.
Laboratory measurements of pore compressibility that are reported
in the literature are usually carried out either by varying the confin-
ing pressure (overburden pressure) while the internal pressure (pore
pressure) is kept constant, or by varying internal pressure while con-
fining pressure is kept constant. Jaeger and Cook
3
give a general
background on the subject of compressibility testing and offer vari-
ous precautions concerning sample preparation.
Newman
4
studied the pore compressibility of consolidated, fri-
able, and unconsolidated reservoir rocks. The results showed that
correlation of pore compressibility with porosity for consolidated
sandstones differed greatly from limestones, friable sandstone, and
unconsolidated sands. Also, the data suggest that similar correla-
tions might exist for well-consolidated limestones.
Fatt
5
studied the effect of net overburden pressure on the pore
compressibility of consolidated sandstone rock samples and uncon-
solidated sand and reported experimental results for several sand-
stone reservoir rocks. In his experiments, the confining pressure, Pc,
was maintained at 12,000 psi, and the pore pressure was varied from
o to 10,000 psi in increments of I ,000 psi. He defined the net confin-
ing pressure, Pcn, as PCIl - Pc - (J.Pp, with (J. = 0.85. He chose the val-
ue of 0.85 to account for the internal pressure being not fully reacted
against the confining pressure. However, he showed no solid physi-
cal argument or analytical derivation for his assumption except that
he thought it should be between 0.75 and I for his tests. Van der
Knaap6 used (J. = 1 for his measurements on limestone and sand-
stone reservoir rocks. If the value of (J. is not known, it is more accu-
rate to refer to the value of Pc - Pp as the "differential pressure" or
the "effective stress."7 Using the results of tests conducted on Boise,
Berea, and Bandera sandstone, Zimmerman et alJ,g demonstrated
that pore compressibility is a function of effective confining pres-
sure that is expressed as pc - mp Pp in which the factor m
p
' effective
stress coefficient, is approximately equal to I (actually between
1.02 and 1.06)
HaJl2 measured the pore compressibilities of limestone and sand-
stone at a fixed Pc of 3,000 psi and varied internal pressure, Pi, from
o to 1,500 psi. He published correlations for both limestone and
sandstone that were subsequently used in petroleum engineering
calculations. Redman
9
carried out porosity measurements on vari-
207
ous sandstones at constant pore pressure (at atmospheric pressure)
while increasing overburden pressure up to 20,000 psi. Permanent
damage to the samples occurred at different Pc's, as evidenced by a
break in the slope of the compressibility vs. confining pressure plot.
The pressure at which this break occurred varied with the type of
sandstone.
The most extensive measurements are those of Newman,4 who
ran tests on 256 cores of limestone and sandstone from 40 reservoir
rocks having porosities of between I and 35%. He also compared
the results reported by other researchers. However, because New-
man's compressibility values were computed at 75% lithostatic
pressure (on the basis of the depth from which his samples were ob-
tained), the comparison with the data from other researchers may
not be accurate.
Zimmerman et al. 8 derived relationships between compressibili-
ty and effective stress and reported test results for several sandstone
samples. Zheng et at.
l 0
measured compressibility by use of the con-
ventional hydrostatic method and the dynamic method, under simu-
lated in-situ production conditions on sandstone samples. He found
that the difference in measured compressibility from the two meth-
ods can be as much as a factor of two.
The objectives of this work are to study the pore compressibility
of carbonate reservoir rocks under elevated net confining pressure
conditions and to investigate correlations between pore-compress-
ibility parameters and initial porosity within the lithologically
grouped samples.
Lithological Description
The reservoir formation from which we took the tested rock samples
is a limestone carbonate sequence found at a depth of approximately
6,500 ft below the surface. The rocks are mainly bioclastic, intra-
clastic, pelletoidal, or oolitic grainstones; packstones, wackestones,
and dolomitic mudstones at some intervals (Fig. 1). The bioclastic
grains consist mainly of milliolids, Textularia, echinoids, stromato-
poroids, and calcareous algae. The bioclasts are mainly 500 Jlm,
with the maximum being 0.4 in. in diameter. Intraclasts also vary
from 150 Jlm to 0.4 in. and are commonly 600 Jlm. Pelletoids are
rounded grains larger than 150 Jlm and without internal structure.
Oolites with concentric internal structures are 500 Jlm in diameter.
Bioclastic mudstones and wacke stones are mud-supported rocks
consisting of 90% mud with various amounts of scattered bioclastic
grains and/or well-developed dolomite crystals (200 to 300 Jlm).
Mud-supported lithofacies are generally of low porosity (average
7%). The porosity slightly increases with the abundance of small
vugs (50 to 150 Jlm in diameter), which may reach up to 0.4 in.
Pore geometry is controlled by grain size, shape, sorting, and sec-
ondary alteration processes. Interparticle porosity is the most domi-
nant porosity in the granular rocks. Intraparticle porosity, vuggy po-
rosity, and intercrystalline porosity are the other pore types. In the
case of a well-sorted bioclastic oolite grainstone, which is about 500
Jlm in diameter, interparticle pores are uniform in shape and have a
limited pore size that ranges from 200 to 300 pm. In some poorly
sorted intraclast grainstones (with grain sizes ranging from 150 to
1,000 Jlm), pore sizes are also poorly sorted in a wider-size range.
Pores are plugged by carbonate mud in some samples, which re-
duces porosity. The pore pattern is also reduced and complicated by
diagenesis processes, such as drusy isopachous calcite-cement pre-
cipitation and dolomitization.
Experimental Procedures
The compressibility apparatus (Fig. 2) consists of three major com-
ponents: core holder, oven, and control panel. The core holder can
withstand confining pressures of up to 10,000 psi and internal pres-
sures of up to 9,800 psi. Liquid pressure surrounding the jacketed
Fig. 1-Petrographic thin-section photomicrographs of four different Arabian carbonate rock types: (a) grainstone, displaying bio-
clastic and pelletoid particles, inter and intraparticle pores, and isopachous sparry-calcite cement coating the particles; (b) pack-
stone, displaying pelletoid, ooid, and bioclastic particles bound by carbonate-mud matrix; (c) wackestone, consisting of some bio-
clasts in carbonate mud and displaying some small vugs and intraparticle pores; (d) dolomitic mudstone with some small vugs. All
photomicrographs were taken with cross-polarized light.
208 SPE Formation Evaluation, December 1995
OVERBURDEN
BLEED
PRESSURE
SUPPL Y
INTERNAL
PRESSURE
SUPPLY
OV[R8lf![)[N
PR[SSUR[
RElD
I
OVERBURDEN
PRESSURE
IfI.[T
Z
OVERBIJU N
\ JRESSUR[
.-' CONTRCl
CVERBURDEN PRESSURE
CUSH ION BOTTL[
I
L-.J _ _
CO
_
R
_
E
. _HO_LD_E_ R -I J
-{><}-
OONNS1R[AH1M
OVEN INTERIOR
Fig. 2-Schematic diagram of compressibility test apparatus.
sample provides the confining pressure, whereas a separate liquid
pressure line is used to generate the internal pressure. The core hold-
er is housed inside the oven, which has a thermostatically controlled
heating element for regulating the ambient temperature.
The hydrostatic core holder consists of a hardened stainless steel
hollow cylinder into which the core plug (rock sample) is inserted.
The core holder can be used with core plugs that have diameters of
I or 1.5 in., and lengths of up to 3 in. In this work, we conducted all
the compressibility studies on rock samples with diameters of I in.
and lengths of 2 in.
Before testing, we dried each rock sample at a temperature of
221F for 24 hours. When the sample cooled, we measured its dry
weight and determined its porosity by use of a standard helium po-
rosimeter. The sample is then vacuumed at 15 in. vacuum pressure
for 24 hours and saturated with de aerated distilled water for another
24 hours by use of a saturation back pressure of 2,000 psi . We re-
weighed the sample to determine its saturation porosity, which is
compared with the helium porosity to ensure that adequate pore sat-
uration has been attained. Finally, the saturated specimen is
wrapped with thin nylon film, then jacketed in heat-shrinkable Te-
flon tubing.
The jacketed rock sample is fitted into the thick rubber sleeve of
the core holder, and the ends of the core holder are assembled. The
thick rubber sleeve separates the confining pressure liquid from the
internal pressure system. Before beginning the test, we applied aPe
of approximately 500 psi to the test sample. While this Pc is main-
tained, several PV's of de aerated distilled water are flowed through
the sample at a low flow pressure. Then, the valve at the downstream
end of the internal pressure line is closed. The sample is now ready
for compressibility testing.
Some of the core plugs that we selected for compressibility test-
ing contained vugular pores exposed at their surfaces. Such exposed
surface pores would allow intrusion of the jacketing rubber sleeve
when confining pressure is applied to it. Such undesirable rubber in-
trusions manifest themselves as an exaggerated pore-compressibili-
ty value, especially at the lower Pen range. I I Such rubber-sleeve in-
trusion effects were eliminated by repairing the vugular surfaces of
some of the core plugs before testing. We considered several meth-
ods of surface repair, including using materials such as epoxy resins,
SPE Formation Evaluation, December 1995
lead, neat Portland cement paste, and Portland cement paste with
powdered rock additives. The criteria for filler material suitability
were defined as: (1) the filler and filling procedure must not signifi-
cantly alter the measured physical properties of the host rock, and
(2) bonding between the filler material and rock surface must be sat-
isfactory. Thus, fillers such as lead, which must necessarily be ap-
plied in the molten state, were not suitable. We also found most
epoxy-based filler materials to be unsuitable because of their ten-
dency to strengthen the rock, thereby potentially reducing its com-
pressibility. We found HPC (hardened Portland cement) paste to re-
quire a relatively long curing time and to have significantly more
strength than most of the rocks tested. Additives to HPC, such as the
powder of the host rock, seemed to be promising at first, but were
abandoned because of difficulties in mix formulation and poor
bonding.
After extensive trials, the strength properties of plaster of Paris
paste and its excellent bonding characteristics were found most suit-
able. A plaster paste prepared by mixing three parts of plaster pow-
der with one part of distilled water hardened to approximately the
same strength as the tested rocks. This paste was easy to apply and
it cured sufficiently fast so that rocks repaired in this fashion were
ready for saturation in 24 hours. The ability of the hardened plaster
paste to withstand pressurization without significant compression
was successfully tested up to a differential pressure of 7,000 psi by
use of Berea sandstone plugs whose surfaces were artificially "dam-
aged" by grooving and subsequently repaired with the plaster mix.
These tests showed that use of the plaster surface repair technique
on damaged samples did not affect the accuracy of their measured
pore compressibility.
Before the rock samples could be tested, the compressibility ap-
paratus needed to be calibrated to determine the equipment correc-
tion curve. The equipment correction is defined as the PV correction
necessary at each internal pressure level to offset the expansion of
the equipment's internal volume, which is caused by the expansion
of pipes and valves. The calibration procedure involves using a hol-
low steel plug of known PV (and same diameter as the rock sample
to be tested) in the core holder and back-calculating the volume
corrections needed to yield a compressibility of zero for the steel
plug at all internal pressures up to the maximum intended to be used
in a regular experiment. Because the compressibility of the rock
samples was measured to an accuracy of between 3 x 10-
6
and
1 x 10-
5
l/psi, the compressibility of the steel plug is not expected
to have a significant influence on the accuracy of the measurements.
However, the equipment correction curve may need to be updated
from time to time, especially if any modifications that alter the vol-
ume of the internal pressure system (such as pipe and valve-fitting
alterations) are done.
Another correction that is required before computing the pore
compressibility of the rock samples is accounting for the compress-
ibility of the liquid saturant (water) used in the internal pressure sys-
tem. For this correction, we obtained the volume factor of distilled
water at different pressures from the Steam Tables
12
and incorpo-
rated it into the pore-compressibility computation procedure. Be-
cause the volume factors are sensitive to variations in temperature,
we carried out all the compressibility tests under a controlled
constant temperature of 77 1F.
To start the compressibility testing procedure, we place the rock
sample in the core holder and slowly increase the confining and in-
ternal pressures while maintaining a difference of 200 psi between
them. A confining pressure of 4,700 psi and a pore pressure of
4,500 psi are taken as the starting values (i.e .. differential pressure
is initially 200 psi). Then, differential pressure is increased by low-
ering the internal pressure while maintaining a constant confining
pressure. A piston device consisting of a precision-bore cylinder
containing a movable piston is used to increase the internal fluid
volume of the system, thereby decreasing the internal pressure as
needed. The piston is withdrawn gradually (by use of a precision
vernier screw mechanism) until the internal pressure falls enough to
yield the desired net-confining pressure. The corresponding in-
crease in the volume of fluid in the piston device can be read from
the vernier scale that is attached to the piston device. The rock PV
reduction (a result of the increased differential pressure) is then cal-
209
culated as the difference between the volume increase in the piston
device and the volume decrease that was observed during the cal-
ibration stage where a steel plug was used instead of the rock. Pore
compressibility, c
P
' is calculated using the following equation:
L1Vp
cp = VpdPcn' .................................... (I)
If the pore compressibilty has been determined under constant
confining pressure, Pc, and variable pore pressure, it is notated as c
pp
and defined as follows:
Cpp = - J
p
. .. .......................... (2)
Pc
In Eq. 1, tl Vp is the PV reduction, and Vp is the PV of the rock sam-
ple immediately before increasing the differential pressure by an
amount tl(pcpp)' The unit of compressibility is l/psi.
In Eq. 1, initial PV is computed using the saturation porosity de-
scribed earlier. It is noted that because the saturant in the compress-
ibility apparatus is de aerated distilled water, it would be incorrect to
use the helium porosity value as the initial porosity in the pore-com-
pressibility calculations. The helium porosimetry value was only
used as a reference to attain the maximum possible water saturation.
Results and Discussion
We conducted pore-compressibility studies on 19 limestone rock
samples obtained from an oil-producing reservoir at a depth of
approximately 6,500 ft below the surface. Some more tests were
conducted on Berea sandstone, and the results have been reported
here solely for comparison purposes.
The hydrostatic pore-compressibility data for all the tested sam-
ples are shown in Fig. 3 for grainstones, in Fig. 4 for packstone, in
Fig. 5 for wackestones, and in Fig. 6 for mudstones. In practically
all the samples that were tested, it was possible to subject the sam-
ples to differential pressure of up to 3,500 psi without any evidence
of significant permanent damage (or failure) to the rock. In almost
all such cases, it was possible to repeat the compressibility testing
on the same sample after unloading and obtain practically identical
results.
In Figs. 3 to Fig. 6, the solid curves depict the average compress-
ibility curves for each of the four lithologic groups tested. For the
grainstone, packstone, and wackestone samples taken together, we
found their average pore compressibility to be approximately
3 x 10-5 I/psi at Pc - Pp of200 psi. However, their average compress-
ibility dropped to 0.5 x 10-5 at Pc - Pp of 4,500 psi. On average, the
Q.
U

::J

(f)
(f)
UJ
0::
a.
::z:
o
u
UJ
0::
o
a.
SE-S
4E-S
3E-S
2E-S
1E-S
-e-
BEREA SANDSTONE
GRAINSTONE

0.00 2000.00 4000.00 6000.00 8000.00
DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE, 8: - Pp (psi)
Fig. 3-Effect of confining pressure on the pore compressibili-
ty of grainstone samples, in comparison to the pore compress-
ibility of Berea sandstone.
210
pore compressibility of all the tested limestone samples was found to
be less than that of Berea sandstone, up to Pc - Pp of 4,000 psi.
It is of interest to interpret the experimental results from the point
of view of the mechanism of rock deformation. The pore compress-
ibility of a rock is controlled directly by the elastic properties and
strength of the rock matrix and also depends on the shape of the
pores. Thus, for the same initial porosity, a rock that is composed of
a stiffer and strong matrix will be expected to have a lower com-
pressibility than a rock that is made up of a weak material. However,
in the event that the stresses are not high enough to induce failure
in the matrix, the parameters that are normally used to determine
whether an elastic material is able to resist deformation or not are
the elastic properties, such as Young's modulus, shear modulus, and
bulk modulus. The bulk modulus (the reciprocal of bulk compress-
ibility) is defined as the hydrostatic pressure required to compress
the rock (matrix plus pores) by a unit volumetric strain. It is clear,
then, that bulk compressibility includes matrix compressibility and
pore compressibility. Matrix compressibility at the differential pres-
sure levels prevalent in the oil wells under study were not expected
to be significant in comparison to pore compressibility. This fact is
especially true for rocks composed of individual grains of rock ma-
terial cemented to one another where interparticle porosity is likely
to be predominant. Petrographic (thin-section and SEM) studies
conducted in parallel with this work have shown that the most sig-
nificant lithology from the reservoir potential point of view falls
within this category. Thus, in this study, the compressibility of inter-
est was entirely pore compressibility.
The compressibility data were analyzed in the following steps:
I. We first classified all compressibility data into four lithologic
groups of grainstone, packstone, wackestone, and mudstone.
2. For each tested sample, we analyzed the compressibility vs.
differential pressure data in an attempt to obtain correlations be-
tween compressibility and some of the independent parameters,
such as porosity, depth, and lithology.
During a preliminary analysis of the compressibility data, it was
observed that there was an almost linear relationship between pore
compressibility and differential pressure on a log-log scale. The lin-
earity was found to apply well for all the grainstones, packstones,
wackestones, and the Berea sandstone samples. Thus, the average
hydrostatic pore-compressibility data for the tested samples were
replotted on a log-log scale as a function of differential pressure
shown in Fig. 7. In this figure, grainstones, packstones, and wacke-
stones (and Berea sandstone) show well-correlated negatively
sloped linear trends, whereas the corresponding correlation for
mudstones is relatively poor. The figure also shows that grainstones,
packstones, and wackestones have almost identical c
pp
vs. fit
1/1
C.
-..
..-


o

::J
CO
(f)
(f)
UJ
0::
a.

o
u
UJ
0::
o
a.
SE-S

4E-S
I
3E-S
j
2E-S
1E-S j
I
"1


PACKSTONE
I
-e-
o --- -,-----'
I I
0.00 2000.00 4000.00 6000.00 8000.00
DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE, P - P (psi)
c p
Fig. 4-Effect of confining pressure on the pore compressibility
of packstone samples, in comparison to the pore compressibility
of Berea sandstone.
SPE Formation Evaluation, December 1995
SE-5
--.
I 'Ii) III
l
.e-
.....
LEGEND

&
-Er
BEREA SANDSTONE
i
u

WACKESTONE
I -e-
::J
3E-5
OJ
en
C/)
W
2E-5
0:::
a.
:E
0
()
W
1E-5
0:::
0
a.

0 I
I
0.00 2000.00 4000.00 6000.00 8000.00
DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE, - Pp (psi)
Fig. 5-Effect of confining pressure on the pore compressibility
of wackestone samples, in comparison to the pore compressibil-
ity of Berea sandstone.
lines, whereas the fit line for mudstones is different and indicates
that mudstones have significantly less compressibility than the oth-
er lithologic types tested. Finally, in comparison with Berea sand-
stone, the pore compressibility of grainstone, packstone, wacke-
stone, and mudstone is smaller in magnitude and seems to be
influenced less by increases in differential pressure.
Another approach to analyzing the compressibility test data is to
compute the individual best-fit curves having the form of a power
expression, such as Eq. 3, to the compressibility data of each tested
sample. The c
pp
of a sample can now be expressed in terms of two-fit
parameters A" and Be, which are defined according to the following
equation:
( )
BC
c
pp
= Ac Pc - Pp . . ........................ (3)
Table 1 summarizes the best-fit compressibility parameters Ac and
Be for all the tested samples within the four lithologic groups (and
Berea sandstone).
--.
'Ii)
Q.
-
.....

8:
u

-I
1E-5
CO
(/)
(/)
UJ
c::
0...
:E
0
()
w
0:::
0
a.
1E-6
BEREA SANDSTONE
// 'I ---L-EG-E-ND-
I LJ BEREA SANDSTONE I
1l
:J GRAINSTONE I.
(> PACKSTONE :
C3J WACKESTONE ;
$

1 0\
J:;oo, .
---l

I
I
'1-'--, 'I 'I 'I TI-----,----r-TI -'--1 TI--'--" T
100.00 1000.00
DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE,
10000.00
P - P (psi)
c p
Fig. 7-Average pore compressibilities and best power fit lines
of pore compressibility vs. differential pressure for the tested
samples.
SPE Formation Evaluation. December 1995
5E-5
]
--.
'Ii)
Q.
I=:
I - LEGEND
4E-S
I
8:
BEREA SANDSTONE
U

MUDSTONE (AVERAGE)
MUDSTONE
I
--
::::i
3E-5
CO
-:
CiS
(/)
UJ
c::
2E-5
0...
:E
0
i
()
1E-5
I
UJ

c::
0
0...
0
'1
0.00 2000.00 4000.00 6000.00 8000.00
DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE, Pc - Pp (psi)
Fig. 6-Effect of confining pressure on the pore compressibility
of mudstone samples, in comparison to the pore compressibility
of Berea sandstone.
Fig. 8 shows the relationship between parameters Ac and Be for
the rock types that were tested. In this figure, each data point repre-
sents the best-fit A" and Be values for one complete compressibility
test for a rock sample of the indicated type. It is possible to recon-
struct the entire hydrostatic pore compressibility vs. PCPI' curve by
use of the A" and Be parameter pairs for a particular sample. Fig. 8
shows that the data points for grainstone, packstone, and wacke-
stone are tightly grouped along a straight line on the semi-log Be vs.
Ac plot. This type of lithologic grouping of Be vs. A" parameters
makes it possible to predict the entire compressibility curve from
prior knowledge of the rock type and the value of the initial pore
compressibility (at Pe - PI' = 0 psi). In other words, because the pa-
rameter A" is in fact equal to the initial pore compressibility, it would
be possible to determine the value of parameter Be from plots, such
as shown in Fig. 8, once the rock type is known.
We also explored correlations of the compressibility parameters
Ac and Be with independent variables such as depth, porosity, grain
density, average grain size, sorting, dolomite content, vugginess,
lithology sub grouping, etc. Some significant correlations were dis-
covered with respect to depth and porosity for each lithologic group.
Figs. 9 and Fig. 10 show the relationship between initial sample
porosity and parameters Ac and Be, respectively. These figures show
data for grainstones, packstones, and wackestones only. There was
not enough porosity diversity in the mudstones and Berea sandstone
to permit a similar plot. Fig. 9 seems to indicate that for low porosi-
ties (i.e., less than about 12%), the parameter Ac seems to increase
as a function of initial porosity for wackestones, whereas Fig. 10
shows that parameter Be decreases as a function of initial porosity.
At porosities of more than about 12%, the value of parameter A" de-
creases as a function of porosity, and parameter Be increases with
porosity, for all the rock types that were tested. Thus, higher porosity
samples exhibit lower initial compressibilities and higher rates of
compressibility decrease with increasing differential pressure.
Because one of the underlying objectives of this study was to deter-
mine the correct porosity at various net overburden pressure conditions,
plots of porosity vs. PC-PI' of different lithology groups are of interest.
To present data from various samples of different porosities on a single
plot, relative porosities were computed by dividing all porosity values
for a particular sample by the initial porosity (at Pc -PI' = 0 psi) of the
same sample. Such a plot of relative porosity vs. Pe - PI' is shown in
Fig. 11 for all the tested samples. The correlations of relative porosity
vs. H'-PI' resulted in the following relationships:
For grainstones : = [1.06(Pc - pJ'OOIOSS]O' ....... (4)
Coefficient of determination (R2) = 0.983.
211
TABLE 1-INITIAL POROSITIES AND BEST FIT COMPRESSIBILITY
PARAMETERS OF THE TESTED SAMPLES.
Sample
Rock Type Number
Ac
Grainstone 13A 1.83x 10.
4
Grainstone 13B 3.75x10-
4
Grainstone 115A 4.97x10-
4
Grainstone 29A 3.20x 10-
4
Grainstone 29B 2.21 x 10-
3
Grainstone 29C 2.55 x 10-
3
Grainstone 47A 3.64x-
3
Packstone 94A 1.78 x 10-
3
Packstone 94B 6.32 x 10-
3
Packstone 52B 2.96x 10-
3
Packstone 43A 2.48 x 10.
3
Packstone 43B 4.82 x 10-
3
Packstone 107A 1.41 x 10-
4
Packstone 5 9.72x 10-
4
Packstone 112A 6.69 x 10-
4
Packstone 112B 4.05 x 10-
4
Packstone 111A 4.07x 10-
4
Packstone 111 B 3.66x10-
4
Packstone 108 7.90x 10-
5
Packstone 110A 1.19x 10-
4
Packstone 109A 5.58x10-
4
Wackestone 75A 7.81 x 10-
4
Wackestone 75B 2.59x 10-
4
Wackestone 106A 1.53 x 10-
3
Wackestone 106B 2.23x 10-
3
Wackestone 34 1.18 x 10-
3
Wackestone 34B 2.96x10-
3
Wackestone 69 4.66x 10-
4
Wackestone 63 7.89x 10-
4
Mudstone 91A 3.66x 10-
5
Mudstone 91B 1.70 x 10-
4
Mudstone 91C 2.40 x 10-
4
Berea Sand- 02B 0.0302
stone
For packstones : 1> = 1.05(pc - pp) 1>0 .
[
-0.00946]
. . . . . .. (5)
Coefficient of determination (R2) = 0.977.
For wackestones : 1> = 1.06(pc - pp) 1>0 .
[
-0.00999]
. . . . .. (6)
Coefficient of determination (R2) = 0.978.
[
( )
-0.00329]
For mudstones: 1> = 1.02 Pc - PI' 1>0 . . ...... (7)
Coefficient of determination (R2) = 0.958.
For Berea sandstone: 1> = [1.09(Pc - pp)-O0152 ]1>0'
Coefficient of determination (R2) = 0.998.
... (8)
In the above expressions, 1> is porosity at a given Pc - Pp value, and
1>0 is the initial porosity under ambient conditions (at Pc = 0, and
Pp =0 psi).
General expressions for hydrostatic c
pp
in terms of Pc _Pp can be
derived by curve-fitting the average experimental compressibility
data (such as Fig. 3) for each lithologic group, as follows:
212
Coefficient of Porosity
Be
Determination (%)
-0.428 0.978 27.8
-0.548 0.940 27.8
-0.544 0.989 24.4
-0.458 0.985 23.1
-0.770 0.961 23.1
-0.778 0.969 23.1
-0.803 0.940 24.0
-0.757 0.920 11.8
-0.941 0.986 11.8
-0.822 0.975 15.4
-0.761 0.983 19.9
-0.881 0.967 19.9
-0.331 0.988 25.1
-0.622 0.974 25.5
-0.573 0.977 26.3
-0.517 0.979 26.3
-0.519 0.763 27.5
-0.475 0.951 27.5
-0.284 0.858 27.7
-0.329 0.835 27.8
-0.582 0.989 28.7
-0.645 0.956 5.3
-0.467 0.927 5.3
-0.687 0.926 8.4
-0.759 0.977 8.4
-0.697 0.964 11.2
-0.833 0.970 11.2
-0.544 0.941 17.2
-0.585 0.978 18.7
-0.353 0.589
-0.582 0.756
-0.587 0.686
-1.033 0.991 20.6
( )
-0.632
For grainstones : c
pp
= 0.00107 Pc - PI' . ........ (9)
Coefficient of determination (R2) = 0.977.
-0.608
For packstones : cpp = 0.000837 (Pc - pp) ....... (10)
Coefficient of determination (R 2) = 0.962.
-0.644
For wackestones : cpp = 0.000953(pc - pp) .. .... (11)
Coefficient of determination (R2) = 0.995.
( )
-0.505
For mudstones: c
pp
= 0.000114pc - PI' .... . ... (12)
Coefficient of determination (R2) = 0.747.
-0.998
For Berea sandstone: c
pp
= 0.0236(pc - PJ ..... (13)
Coefficient of determination (R2) = 0.987.
The above expressions are applicable for PcPp in the range from
300 to 4,500 psi.
SPE Formation Evaluation, December 1995
0.00 l
0
CD
0::
!JJ
-
f-
W
~
~ .
-0.40
'" ~
0::

~ a..
~
~
;!
-
CD
I
C/') -0.80
LEGEND
C/')
I
o BEREA SANDSTONE
'\
W t- GRAlNSTOfIIE
0:::
i
0
PACKSTOt
a..
~
:zJ
WACKSTONE
:::J
0
Ell
MUDSTONE
()
~
-1.20
111111 11I1 I mml"TlTrTl
1E-5 1E-4 1E-3 0.01 0.1
COMPRESSIBILITY PARAMETER Ac
Fig. 8-Relationship between compressibility parameters Ae
and Be for the tested samples.
0
I 0
LEGEND ~
CD !
0::
~
I
W
GRAINSTONE I
f-
0
PACKSTONE
W
I
I
0
~
~
[8J WACKSTONE
J 0
~
-0.4
+
+

j
3l 0
a..
0
+ 0 c;.
~
0
o c
;>J
0
-I 0
0
CD
0 0 0
i+
C/') -O.B
[') 0
C/')
I
0
W
0:::
1
0
0..
~
0
I ()
I
-1.2
I
I
..
0 10 20 30
POROSITY (%)
Fig. 1O-Relationship between compressibility parameter Be
and initial porosity for the tested samples.
Conclusions
On the basis of the compressibility study conducted on the grain-
stone, packstone, wackestone, and mudstone samples, it is possible
to arrive at the following conclusions:
I. For the tested samples, we found the pore-compressibility pa-
rameters to be dependent upon the lithologic characteristics of the
samples.
2. Grouping the rock samples as grains tones, packstones, wacke-
stones, and mudstones shows that the compressibility parameters
can be correlated with independent variables, such as porosity with-
in each group.
3. For all the samples that we tested, there is a linear correlation
of hydrostatic pore compressibility with Pc - Pp on a log-log scale.
4. Among the tested samples, grainstones had porosities of be-
tween 23% and 28%, packs tones between 12% and 29%, and
wackestones between 5% and 19%. For these samples, there is a
nonlinear correlation between the compressibility parameters Ac
and Be and initial porosity. At porosities greater than about 12%, the
SPE Formation Evaluation, December 1995
BE-3
0

0::
W
f-
W
~
~
LEGEND
I t- GRAINSTONE
.') PACKSTONE
I
[l WACKSTONE
... 1

C
a.
~
4E-3 -
::J
CD
~
(/)
(/)
W
0:::
a.
~
0
()
0
0 0
0
+
0 +
0
18
@
0 r'1
0
o 0
0
+ - Q _ ~ L
[;]
,-
0 10 20 30
POROSITY (%)
Fig. 9-Relationship between compressibility parameter Ac and
initial porosity for the tested samples.
>-
I-
U5
1-
0
0.98
I "GEND
-e- SERE'" SANDSTONE
0:::
0
I ~ GRAINSTONE
a..
~ PACKSTONE
W
-8- WACKESTONE
>
! MUDSTONE
J
i=
:5
0.96
J
W
0:::
I
0.94
I
, - - - - - J ~ ~ - - - - ,
I
0.00 2000.00 4000.00 6000.00 BOOO.OO
DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE, Pc - Pp (psi)
Fig. 11-Effect of confining pressure on the relative porosity of
the tested samples, compared to the relative porosity of Berea
sandstone.
value of parameter Ac decreases as a function of porosity and param-
eter Be increases with porosity. Thus, within the same lithologic
group, higher porosity samples exhibited lower initial compressibil-
ities and higher rates of compressibility reduction with increasing
differential pressure.
5. For all the samples that were tested, there is a linear correlation
of porosity with Pc - Pp on a log-log scale. Percentage reduction in
porosity because of hydrostatic compression from 0 psi to 4,500 psi
was 3.20% for grainstones, 2.98% forpackstones, 3.10% for wacke-
stones, 0.98% for mudstones, and 4.43% for Berea sandstone sam-
ples that were tested. Thus, the tested granular carbonates (grain-
stone, packstone, and wackestone) have practically the same
compressibility parameters.
Nomenclature
= core compressibility, Lt2/m, l/psi
= pore compressibility determined under variable
pore pressure, I/psi, Lt2/m
213
Pp = pore pressure, mlLt
2
, l/psi
Po = overburden pressure, mlLt
2
, psi
Pi = internal pressure, mlLt
2
, psi
Pc = confining pressure, mlLt
2
, psi
Pno = net overburden pressure, mlLt
2
, psi
Pcn = net confining pressure, mlLt
2
, psi
Vp = PV, L3, in
3
f1Vp = PV reduction, 0, in
3
Ac = compressibility parameter
Bc = compressibility parameter
1> = porosity, %
1>0 = initial porosity, %
Acknowledgments
We acknowledge the support of Saudi Aramco for this work under
KFUPMIRI Project No.2l 059. Thanks are also due Hasan Okaygun
and Mahamadu Sumani of the Research Inst., King Fahd U. of Pe-
troleum and Minerals, for their assistance in the preparation of the
test samples.
References
I. Geertsma, J.: "The Effect of Fluid Pressure Decline on Volume Changes
of Porous Rocks," Trans., AIME (1957) 210, 331.
2. Hall, H.N.: "Compressibility of Reservoir Rocks," Trails., AIME
(1953) 198,309.
3. Jaeger, 1.D. and Cook, N.G.W.: Fundamentals of Rock Mechanics, third
edition, Chapman & Hall, London (1979).
4. Newman, G.H.: "Pore Volume Compressibility of Consolidated, Fri-
able, and Unconsolidated Reservoir Rocks Under Hydrostatic Load-
ing," JPT (1973) 25, 29.
5. Fait, I.: "Pore Volume Compressibilities of Sandstone Reservoir
Rocks," Trans., AIME (1958) 213, 362.
6. Van der Knaap, W.: "Nonlinear Behaviour of Elastic Porous Media,"
Trans., AIME (1959) 216, 179.
7. Zimmerman, R.W., Somerton, W.H., and King, M.S.: "Compressibility
of Porous Rocks," J. of Geophysical Research (1986) 91, No. B 12, 12,
765-777.
8. Zimmerman, R.W., Haraden, J.L. and Somerton, W.H.: 'The Effects of
Pore Pressure and Confining Pressure on Pore and Bulk Volume Com-
pressibilities of Consolidated Sandstones," Measurement of Rock Prop-
erties at Elevated Pressures and Temperatures, H.J. Pincus and E.R. Ho-
skins (eds.), American Soc. for Testing and Materials, Pa. (1985),
ASTMSP 869.
9. Redman, J.C.: "Effects of Simulated Overburden Pressure on Some Se-
lected Sandstones," paper SPE 10548 available from SPE, Richardson,
TX (1982).
214
10. Zheng, Z .. McLennan, J., and Jones, A.: "Pore Volume Compressibili-
ties Under Different Stress Conditions." Proc. 1990, SCA 1990 Annual
Technical Conference, Paper No. 9005.
II. Unalmiser, S. and Stewart, R.W.: "Boundary Effect on Porosity Mea-
surements and Its Resolution by Method and Mathematical Means." The
Log Analyst (March-April 1989) 30, 85.
12. Haar, L., Gallegher, J.S .. and Kelly, G.S.: Steam Tables, Hemisphere
Publishing Corp. (1984).
SI Metric Conversion Factors
'F CF-32)/1.8
ft x 3.048*
in. x 2.54*
psi x 6.894 757
Conversion factor is exact.
='C
E-Ol =m
E+OO =cm
E+OO =kPa
SPEFE
Zaki Y. Harari is an associate professor and department chair-
man in the Earth Sciences Dept. of King Fahd U. of Petroleum
and Minerals (KFUPM). Previously, he worked in the fields of rock
mechanics, rock physics, and applied geophysics (seismic and
ground penetrating radar). He holds BS and MS degrees in min-
ing engineering from Middle East Technical U., Turkey. He holds
a PhD degree from Columbia U" New York, where he special-
ized in applied geophysics. Shu-Teh Wang is a research engi-
neer in the Research Inst. of KFUPM. Previously, he was a senior
simulation scientist with the Petroleum Recovery Inst. in Calgary,
where he worked on waterflood history matching, composi-
tional modeling, and computer model development. He has
also worked at the Technical U. of Nova Scotia. He holds a PhD
in physics from the U. of Manitoba. A photograph is unavailable.
Salih Saner is a research scientist in the Research Inst. of KFUPM
and leads the geology and well-logging group in the petroleum
engineering section. Previously, he was an exploration geolo-
gist in the Turkish Petroleum Corp. He holds a PhD in geology
from the U. of Istanbul.
Harari Saner
SPE Formation Evaluation. December 1995