Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A Modified Purcell/Burdine Model for Estimating Absolute Permeability From MercuryInjection Capillary Pressure Data
C.C. Huet, SPE, Texas A&M U.; J.A. Rushing, SPE, Anadarko Petroleum Corp.; K.E. Newsham, SPE, Apache Corp.; and
T.A. Blasingame, SPE, Texas A&M U.
Abstract
This paper presents the development and validation of a new
semi-analytical, statistically-derived model for estimating
absolute permeability from mercury-injection capillary
pressure data. The foundations of our new model are the
classic Purcell1 and Burdine2 equations which relate absolute
permeability to capillary-pressure/wetting-phase-saturation
properties. We also incorporate characteristic capillary pressure behavior using the Brooks-Corey3 power-law model.
The final form of our proposed model allows us to compute
absolute permeability as a function of effective porosity, irreducible wetting phase saturation, displacement or threshold
pressure, and basic pore size characteristics. We tested and
correlated our model using 89 sets of mercury-injection (Hgair) capillary pressure data including core samples from
both carbonate and sandstone lithologies. In summary, we
found that our model consistently yields accurate results for a
wide range of rock properties.
Introduction
The fundamental relationships between pore size/geometry
and basic rock properties (e.g., effective porosity, absolute
permeability, etc.) are well-documented in the petroleum and
petrophysics literature. Moreover, the literature is replete with
models for estimating or predicting permeability from basic
rock properties. Nelson4 has developed a comprehensive review of the literature, and he has identified five major
categories of permeability models based on the physical rock
attributes used in the model development: The five major
model categories specified by Nelson are:
1. Petrophysical models,
2. Models based on grain size and mineralogy,
3. Models based on surface area and water saturation,
4. Well log models, and
5. Models based on basic rock pore dimensions.
pc
cos
k/ ..................................................... (1)
Where:
k
IPTC 10994
J(Sw) =
=
Sw =
pc =
k/ =
11
0 p
2
c
dS w .....................(2)
where:
k
= permeability, md
10.66 = units conversion constant, md-(psia)2/(dynes/cm)2
FP = Purcell lithology factor, dimensionless
Hg-air = mercury-air interfacial tension, dynes/cm
1
pd2
[J ( S w )1.0 ]2 (cos ) 2
....................................... (3)
where:
k
=
J(Sw)1.0 =
=
Sw =
pd =
Vi R i
2
i = 0 X i Ri
...................................................... (4)
where:
k
126
Vi
Ri
Ri
Xi
Li
Ltot
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
We note that the Burdine et al relation is fundamentally similar (in derivation) to the Purcell relation the interested
reader is also directed to an additional reference article (ref. 8)
by Burdine et al where additional detail and clarity of nomenclature are provided for Eq. 4.
Wyllie-Spangler Permeability Relation: (ref. 9)
In 1952, Wyllie and Spangler9 developed a model using the
Purcell/Burdine concept, but Wyllie and Spangler used electric
log properties to determine the tortuosity factor (specifically,
this is given in terms of the formation factor which is defined
as the ratio of the resistivity of the formation at 100 percent
wetting phase saturation to the resistivity of the formation
brine).
The Wyllie-Spangler equation, which relates absolute permeability to mercury-injection capillary-pressure curve properties, is given by
k = 10.66 ( Hg air cos ) 2
FWS F 2
1 1
0 p
2
c
dS w ......... (5)
IPTC 10994
Ro
..................................................................(6)
Rw
where:
k
= permeability, md
10.66 = units conversion constant, md-(psia)2/(dynes/cm)2
FWS = Wyllie-Spangler shape factor, dimensionless
Sb
F / [log( pc /pd )]
=e g
...................................................(7)
Sb
where:
k
pc
pd
Sb
Sb
Fg
carbonate samples, Thomeer13 formulated the following equation that relates absolute permeability to effective porosity,
capillary displacement or threshold pressure, and the pore geometric factor:
=
=
=
=
=
=
permeability, md
capillary pressure, psia
capillary displacement pressure, psia
Hg saturation, fraction of bulk volume
Hg saturation at pc = , fraction of bulk volume
pore geometrical factor, dimensionless
Sb
k = 3.8068 Fg 1.3334 ......................................... (8)
pd
Swanson Permeability Relation: (ref. 14)
As a follow-up effort to Thomeer,12,13 Swanson14 developed an
equation to compute absolute permeability based on specific
capillary pressure curve characteristics. The form of Swanson's equation is: (using the same nomenclature as Thomeer)
a
S 2
k = a1 b .................................................................. (9)
pc A
where:
k
= permeability, md
The subscript "A" (or apex) refers to the maximum ratio of the
mercury saturation to the capillary pressure. Swanson
hypothesized that the maximum ratio occurs at the point at
which all of the major connected pore space is filled with
mercury. Further, the capillary pressure at the apex reflects
the dominant inter-connected pores and pore throats controlling most of the fluid flow characteristics.
The constants a1 and a2 in Eq. 9 represent various rock
lithologies and fluid types, respectively, in the system.
Swanson used regression analysis and correlated the constants
in Eq. 9 with properties from 203 sandstone samples from 41
formations and 116 carbonate samples from 330 formations.
The best fit of the air permeability data was obtained with
1.691
S
k = 389 b
pc A
.......................................................... (10)
S
................................................ (11a)
k = 30.5 b
pc A,Hg air
IPTC 10994
1.61
S
.............................................(11b)
k = 1.22 b
pc A,brineair
where:
=
=
=
[Sb/pc]A =
A =
k
pc
Sb
permeability, md
capillary pressure, psia
non-wetting saturation, fraction of bulk volume
non-wetting saturation/cap. pressure "apex," fraction/psia
"apex" point on log(pc) vs. log(Sb) curve at which a 45o
line becomes tangent
where:
k
R35
= permeability, md
= porosity, fraction of pore volume
= pore throat radius at an Hg saturation of 35 percent, m
The final form of the Nakornthap and Evans result, solved for
formation permeability, is given as:
k = 10.66
1
n 2
( Hg air cos ) 2 (1 S wi ) 3 3
1 1
dS *w
2
0 pc
......................................................................................... (13)
where: (written for an Hg-air system (i.e., Sw=Sair)
k
= permeability, md
10.66 = units conversion constant, md-(psia)2/(dynes/cm)2
= pore throat "impedance" factor, dimensionless
n = number of entrances/exits in a pore, dimensionless
Hg-air = mercury-air interfacial tension, dynes/cm
S S wi
................................................ (15)
pc = p d w
1 S wi
=
=
=
=
( Hg air cos ) 2 (1 S wi ) 3 3
(16)
p2 + 2
d
IPTC 10994
=
n=
..............................................................................(17)
1
..................................................................(18)
(1 S wi )
cos ) 2 (1 S
4 2 1 .(19)
wi )
pd2 + 2
k = a1
1
a2 + 2
( pd )
a3
(1 S wi ) a4 a5 ........................(20)
where a1, a2, a3, a4, and a5 are correlation constants coefficient a1 incorporates all of the "constant" terms (i.e., 10.66,
/n, and (Hg-aircos())2).
The form of Eq. 20 (or a simplified modification) permits us to
create other relations specifically, we can make model substitutions for other parameters (in our case, pd and ) and
create a "universal" (albeit simplified) model for permeability
based solely on porosity () and irreducible wetting phase
saturation (Swi). This effort is presented in Appendix B.
md
(fraction)
(fraction)
psia
<
<
<
<
k <
<
Swi <
pd <
8340
0.34
0.33
2176
md
(fraction)
(fraction)
psia
IPTC 10994
Optimized Value
1017003.2395 (md)
1.7846
1.6575
0.5475
1.6498
Value
2.8534 ln(md)2
275036.1525 md2
524.4389 md
30.4243 percent
1
1.6575(1 S )0.5475 1.6498
wi
( pd )1.7846 + 2
......................................................................................... (23)
We believe that this "separate" calibration of the pc(Sw) datamodel is appropriate, and we note that the majority of the
effort in our correlation work focused on this particular task.
Estimation of k, pd, and Using Regression:
The regression setup for Eqs. 20-22 is fairly straightforward,
as we used the Solver Module in Microsoft Excel22 to perform
our regression work. We formulated each regression problem
in terms of the sum-of-squared residuals (SSQ), sum-ofabsolute relative error (ARE) and depending on the case
these regressions were performed using the residual or
absolute relative error based on the logarithm of a particular
variable. A summary of our results for the k, pd, and regressions is given in Table 1.
Table 1 Overall regression statistics for k, pd, power
law models.
Case
Fig.
SSQ*
(ln(unit)2)
2.8534 ln(md)2
30.4243
pd
1.5476 ln(psia)2
24.9406
0.8367
ARE
(percent)
17.7197
We note that Eq. 23 was used to calculate the entire permeability range from low permeability (tight gas sands) to unconsolidated sands. From our perspective, the generalized
permeability relation (Eq. 20) has theoretical rigor (see
Appendix A) and may be a "universal" permeability model
valid for different lithologies, pore systems, and pore structures.
We recommend that the generalized form (Eq. 20) continue to
be tested systematically. We will (again) note that care must
be taken in assessing pc(Sw) suitable for such correlations. We
have elected to consider Hg-air systems only for simplicity
extensions to other systems must continue systematically, with
diligent data screening and a "simplest" model first mentality.
We also correlate the capillary displacement pressure with per-
IPTC 10994
Optimized Value
640.0538 (psia)
0.8210
-0.5285
0.8486
Value
1.5473 ln(psia)2
110928.0679 psia2
333.0587 psia
24.8721 percent
Optimized Value
0.00980
-0.6341
0.3792
-0.6835
0.6698
Value
0.8367
0.0395
0.1988
17.7197 percent
Fig. 4 Pore geometric factor () correlation based on mercury capillary pressure data (Eq. 22 used for regression).
IPTC 10994
Summary:
Using the relations of Purcell,1 Burdine,2 Brooks and Corey,3
Wyllie and Spangler,9,20 and Nakornthap and Evans19 we have
developed a base model to correlate permeability from mercury capillary pressure data. Our base model for permeability
is given by Eq. 16:
k = 10.66
( Hg air cos ) 2 (1 S wi ) 3 3
1
.(16)
pd2 + 2
1
a2 + 2
( pd )
a3
(1 S wi ) a4 a5 ........................(20)
It is relevant to note that Eq. 16 suggests (under the assumptions of a "bundle of capillary tubes," Darcy's law, and other
constraints which are related to how the capillaries are connected) that we can consider permeability to be a power law
function of , Swi, pd, and . We recognize this simplicity, but
we also suggest that Eq. 16 (or Eq. 20) should be a good
starting point for the correlation of permeability.
Summarizing, we achieved the following power law correlations in this work:
k = f(, Swi, pd, and ): Fig. 2
k = 1017003.2395
1
1.6575(1 S )0.5475 1.6498
wi
( pd )1.7846 + 2
......................................................................................... (23)
pd = f(, k, and Swi): Fig. 3
IPTC 10994
Acknowledgements
= air
= mercury
References
1. Purcell, W.R.: "Capillary Pressures-Their Measurement Using
Mercury and the Calculation of Permeability Therefrom," Trans.
AIME, 186 (1949), 39-48.
2. Burdine, N.T.: "Relative Permeability Calculations from Pore
Size Distribution Data", Trans. AIME, (1953), 198, 71-78.
3. Brooks, R.H., and Corey, A.T.: "Properties of Porous Media
Affecting Fluid Flow." J. Irrig. and Drain. Div. ASCE (1966)
92: 61-88.
4. Nelson, P.H.: "Permeability-Porosity Relationships in Sedimentary Rock," The Log Analyst (May-June 1994), 38-62.
5. Leverett, M.C.: "Capillary Behavior in Porous Solids," Trans,
AIME 142 (1941), 341-358.
6. Rose, W. and Bruce, W.A.: "Evaluation of Capillary Character
in Petroleum Reservoir Rock," Trans. AIME, vol. 186 (1949),
pp 127-142.
7. Calhoun, J.C., Lewis, M. and Newman, R.C.: "Experiments on
the Capillary Properties of Porous Solids," Trans., AIME (1949)
186, 189-196.
8. Burdine, N.T., Gournay, L.S., and Reichertz, P.P.: "Pore Size
Distribution of Petroleum Reservoir Rocks", Trans. AIME,
(1950), 189, 195-204.
9. Wyllie M.R. and Spangler M. B.: "The Application of Electrical
Resistivity Measurements to the Problem of Fluid Flow in
Porous Media," Research Project 4-G-1 Geology Division
Report No. 15 (March 1951) Gulf Research and Development
Company.
10. Archie, G.E.: "Electrical Resistivity Log as an Aid in Determining Some Reservoir Characteristics," Trans. AIME (1942) 146,
54-62
11. Archie, G.E.: "Introduction to Petrophysics of Reservoir Rocks,"
Bull., AAPG (1950) 34, 943-961.
12. Thomeer, J.H.M.: "Introduction of a Pore Geometrical Factor
Defined by the Capillary Pressure Curve," Trans., AIME (1960)
213, 354-358.
13. Thomeer, J.H.M.: "Air Permeability as a Function of Three
Pore-Network Parameters," JPT (April 1983), 809-814.
14. Swanson, B.F.: "A Simple Correlation between Permeabilities
and Mercury Capillary Pressures," JPT, (Dec. 1981), 24882504.
15. Wells, J.D. and Amaefule, J.O.: "Capillary Pressure and Permeability Relationships in Tight Gas Sands," paper SPE 13879
presented at the 1985 Low Permeability Gas Reservoir held in
Denver, CO, May 19-22.
16. Kolodzie, S., Jr.: "Analysis of Pore Throat Size and Use of the
Waxman-Smits Equation to Determine OOIP in Spindle Field,
Colorado," paper SPE 9382 presented at the 1980 Annual Fall
Technical Conference of Society of Petroleum Engineers, Sept.
21-24, 1980.
17. Pittman, E.D.: "Relationship of Porosity and Permeability to
Various Parameters Derived from Mercury Injection-Capillary
10
IPTC 10994
Input Data
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
k
(fraction)
(md)
0.125
0.187
0.162
0.184
0.129
0.020
0.068
0.004
0.104
0.012
0.108
0.025
0.084
0.014
0.062
0.006
0.089
0.024
0.085
0.013
0.117
0.057
0.111
0.036
0.079
0.028
0.123
0.018
0.073
0.019
0.166
0.046
0.050
0.005
0.084
0.127
0.166
0.166
0.083
0.041
0.075
0.016
0.071
0.006
0.066
0.017
0.069
0.007
0.086
0.068
0.066
0.031
0.086
0.029
0.071
0.018
0.095
0.080
0.076
0.087
0.258
814.000
0.207
434.000
0.204
82.300
0.214
303.000
0.209
210.000
0.265 8340.000
0.235
438.000
0.320
868.000
0.335 4570.000
0.272
296.000
0.266
250.000
0.287
640.000
0.046
0.019
0.092
0.061
0.067
0.054
0.106
0.339
0.051
0.076
0.071
0.070
0.075
0.128
0.077
0.089
Swi
pd
(dim-less)
(fraction)
(psia)
0.010
123.28
0.534
0.008
435.11
0.850
0.020
580.15
0.600
0.007
1667.93
0.679
0.010
725.19
0.689
0.010
725.19
0.689
0.010
725.19
0.935
0.010
696.18
0.982
0.010
696.18
0.738
0.010
1174.81
0.896
0.020
391.60
0.680
0.017
435.11
0.575
0.020
522.14
0.754
0.008
1015.26
0.661
0.020
638.17
0.815
0.008
797.71
0.960
0.060
942.75
0.914
0.020
319.08
1.359
0.020
275.57
1.189
0.020
435.11
0.906
0.010
580.15
0.704
0.010
1667.93
1.625
0.010
652.67
1.116
0.010
1232.82
1.238
0.010
406.11
1.165
0.010
478.62
1.175
0.010
725.19
1.341
0.010
797.71
1.570
0.010
435.11
1.194
0.020
319.08
1.120
0.070
7.25
1.280
0.200
5.80
0.800
0.030
7.25
0.424
0.080
9.43
0.980
0.091
10.15
0.800
0.030
2.90
1.511
0.080
8.70
1.130
0.150
8.70
1.718
0.090
5.08
1.637
0.120
14.50
1.050
0.120
8.70
0.610
0.140
7.25
1.659
0.010
435.11
0.958
0.010
377.10
0.736
0.010
391.60
1.170
0.015
145.04
0.798
0.010
174.05
0.750
0.010
290.08
0.860
0.010
188.55
0.636
0.010
246.56
0.830
Input Data
No.
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
k
(fraction)
(md)
0.056
0.054
0.088
0.069
0.116
0.178
0.127
0.191
0.089
0.085
0.056
0.070
0.091
0.037
0.083
0.042
0.069
0.033
0.103
0.057
0.043
0.046
0.044
0.089
0.039
0.057
0.115
0.016
0.167
0.027
0.371
14.600
0.265
11.500
0.247
3.800
0.220
116.000
0.133
48.000
0.132
467.000
0.125
174.000
0.110
351.000
0.148
117.000
0.109
16.600
0.136
72.200
0.126
16.500
0.153
209.000
0.260
170.000
0.250
950.000
0.137
0.027
0.123
0.014
0.039
0.013
0.057
0.015
0.126
0.272
0.159
0.469
0.126
0.326
0.133
0.352
0.126
0.112
Swi
pd
(fraction) (fraction) (dim-less)
0.010
290.08
1.003
0.010
333.59
0.760
0.010
246.56
0.848
0.010
246.56
0.850
0.010
319.08
0.903
0.010
224.81
0.897
0.010
435.11
0.748
0.010
435.11
0.920
0.010
507.63
0.943
0.010
362.59
0.750
0.010
261.07
0.945
0.010
188.55
0.890
0.010
217.56
1.212
0.010
1276.33
0.848
0.010
2175.57
1.050
0.090
52.21
0.759
0.050
72.52
1.400
0.190
75.76
1.011
0.330
14.50
1.500
0.030
8.70
0.707
0.030
2.90
0.753
0.050
7.25
1.400
0.030
2.32
0.587
0.060
14.50
1.061
0.020
18.85
0.982
0.020
8.70
0.844
0.020
23.21
1.015
0.020
13.05
1.200
0.320
11.17
1.159
0.290
4.64
0.816
0.060
725.19
0.913
0.020
1377.86
0.959
0.010
652.67
0.459
0.050
710.68
0.585
0.010
319.08
0.653
0.020
159.54
0.528
0.010
145.04
0.521
0.010
145.04
0.536
0.020
188.55
0.556
IPTC 10994
11
B
C
S wi
............................................................(B-1)
Eq. B-1 can be evaluated in terms of the statistically determined parameters A, B, and C. Timur applied a reduced major
axis method of regression analysis to data obtained by
laboratory measurements conducted on 155 sandstone samples
from three different oil fields from North America. Based
both on the highest correlation coefficient and on the lowest
standard deviation, Timur chose the following result for permeability.
kTimur = 0.136
4.4
2
S wi
.....................................................(B-2)
Derivation of Timur's formulation using models of permeability, capillary displacement pressure, and the index of poresize distribution:
Our approach to the derivation of Timur's base relation (Eq. B1) is to note that in a general form, Timur's base relation can
be written as:
kTimur = S wi
....................................................... (B-3a)
where , , are generalized constants. Our goal in this particular proof is to provide a specific combination of relations
that, upon combination, yield the form given by Eq. B-3a (or
at least a result that is an identical form).
The model based model for permeability for this work is given
in the form of a generalized correlation as:
k = a1
1
a2 + 2
( pd )
a3
(1 S wi ) a4 a5 ........................(20)
k = a1 ( pd ) a2 a3 (1 S wi ) a4 a5 ................................. (B-4)
As discussed in the body of this work, the generalized correlation proposed for the capillary displacement pressure (pd) is
given by:
= c1 c2 k c3 (1 S wi ) c4 pd5
c5
= c1 c2 k c3 (1 S wi ) c4 b1 b2 k b3 (1 S wi ) b4
k = a1 ( pd ) a2 a3 (1 S wi ) a4 a5
a
2
= a1 b1 b2 k b3 (1 S wi )b4 a3 (1 S wi ) a4 a5
a3
12
IPTC 10994
3 5
(a + a b ) (a c + a b c )
x 5 2 2 3 2 3 2 5
...................................................................................... (B-11)
In this work we have tuned Eqs. B-4, 21, 22, and B-7 to our
database, and the results of this tuning exercise yields:
[a1b1a +a c c1a ]
2
3 5
(a b + a c + a b c + a )
x (1 S wi ) 2 4 3 4 3 4 5 4
(
a
b
+
a
c
+
a
b
c +a )
x (1 S wi ) 2 4 3 4 3 4 5 4
This exercise proves that the Timur formulation can be derived from a fundamental formulation, albeit the relation must
be tuned to a particular dataset.
k = (1 S wi ) .......................................................(B-7)
where:
1
1-( a2b3 + a3c3 + a3b3c5 )
...................(B-8)
................................(B-9)
..............................(B-10)