MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY

DEPARTMENT OF PETROLEUM & NATURAL GAS ENGINEERING

PETE 343

DR. SERHAT AKIN (Z-05)

STUDY SET #1

1. Consider a tank (V1) containing Helium at a pressure of 300 psig. The tank is
connected to another closed, empty vessel (V2) as shown in the following
figure:

Pressure Gauge
V1 V2

Isothermal conditions are assumed for the duration of the measurements.

a. The valve is opened and He is allowed to enter into the second vessel, V2. The
pressure (as recorded in the gauge) is allowed to equilibrate and the
equilibrium pressure is 150 psig. Assuming that the dead volume of the piping
and valve is 1% (and that the dead volume is associated with the portion
downstream of the valve) of the vessel volume V2, develop an expression for
the volume of the vessel, V2. Assume that He behaves as an ideal gas over the
range of pressures reported.

If the tank volume V1 = 98.70 cm3, what is the volume of the vessel V2 ?

b. The valve is again closed and the gas in vessel V2 is drained. A cylindrical,
sandstone core sample is placed inside the vessel V2. The dimensions of the
core sample are as follows:
Length = 8 cm.
Diameter = 2.5 cm

The tank V1 is refilled with Helium so that the pressure goes back to 300 psig.
The valve is again opened with the core inside V2. Pressure is allowed to
equilibrate in the two vessels and the final equilibrium pressure is 180 psig?
Again assuming that the dead volume associated with the piping and valve
downstream of the valve is 1% of V2, develop an expression for the grain
volume of the rock sample.

c. What is the porosity of the rock sample measured using the above procedure?

Comment on whether the calculated volumes etc appear reasonable

considering the other data given in this problem.
d. In a second experiment, a longer core sample from the same formation of
interest was introduced into the same vessel V2. This core sample measured 16
cm in length and had the same radius. When the valve connecting the tank V1
to the vessel V2 was opened, the equilibrium pressure in this case was 236
psig. What is the porosity of this longer core sample?

Explain the result that you obtained in part d compared to the result in c.

Remark: This problem requires repetitive calculations using the same basic
equations. You will be better off setting up a spreadsheet for the calculations.
Please provide a detailed explanation of the calculations performed using the
spreadsheet and the development of any equations used.

2. The following electrical resistivity profile was observed for a formation of

interest. The thick blue line represents the microresistivity measurement while
the thick red line represents the deep induction log measurement (DIL). The
microresistivity measurement is for the region immediately surrounding the
borehole (the mud-cake zone), while the DIL measures the virgin formation
resistivity. The resistivity values obtained by these measurements at a few
depths are tabulated.

Resistivity Profile

Resistivity
0.1 1 10 100
1200

1300

1400
Depth

1500

1600

1700

1800

Depth (m) Microresistivity (ohm- DIL (ohm-m)

m)
1250 2.0 3.8
1300 2.3 9.4
1325 3.1 26.0
1350 3.5 31.0
 1400 5.0 33.0
1450 4.1 20.0
1475 3.75 15.0
1500 3.5 9.0
1550 3.7 5.0
1600 3.25 3.4
1650 3.0 3.2
1700 2.9 3.0
1750 4.1 3.8
a. Considering that the saturation of the mud filtrate in the area around the
wellbore (Sxo) is a function of the mud filtrate resistivity (Rmf) and the
resistivity of the formation 100% saturated with the mud filtrate (Rxo), and
considering the saturation exponent n=2.0 for both the mud infiltration zone as
well as the virgin formation, compute the saturation of water in the formation
1
(Sw) as a function of depth. Assume that S xo (S w ) 5 . The following
additional data is given:
Resistivity of formation water (Rw) = 0.20 ohm m
Resistivity of mud filtrate (Rmf) = 0.23 ohm m

Comment on the computed water saturation values. Do they appear consistent

with what you expect.

1
b. Assuming Archies relation F = compute the variation in porosity as a
2
function of depth. Do the computed porosities reflect the value calculated in
Problem 1 c). Can the value computed in 1 d) be explained using the values
calculated from the electrical resistivities.

3. Consider the following experiment for determining the absolute permeability

of a rock core sample.

P1 P2

Core holder
with sample Gas Flowmeter, Qo

The following measurements of the gas flow-rate as a function of inlet and

outlet pressures was made:

Pressure P1 (psi) Pressure P2 (psi) Flowrate at outlet, Qo (cc/sec)

36.75 14.70 6.16
73.50 14.70 17.50
 117.60 14.70 31.97
132.30 14.70 35.54
169.05 14.70 41.68

The following additional data is available:

Length of the core = 4 cm

Core Diameter = 1 inch
Viscosity of the gas = 0.02 cps

a. Calculate the equivalent liquid permeability of the core after applying

Klinkenbergs correction. Does the calculated permeability appear consistent
with the previous porosity value in Problem 1.

b. Consider a cube of the formation from which the above core has been
retrieved. The sides of the cube are 1 m long. The cube consists of layers of
two types of rocks as shown in the accompanying figure (layers A and B).
Layer A has the permeability that you determined in part (a). Layer B has a
permeability of 10 md.

Assume that the layers extend throughout the entire width of the cube. Also
assume that all the layers have the same thickness and that the length of the
permeability objects A is 0.6 m.

B
A B
B
B A
B
A B
B

Compute the pressure drop (in psi) that would be required to low water at a
rate of 10 barrel/day (1 barrel = 5.615 ft3) across the cube in the direction
parallel to the layering.

What would be the pressure drop that would be required to maintain the same
flow-rate in the direction perpendicular to the layering?

c. Consider the Carmen-Kozeny relationship. Assuming a Kozeny constant of

5.0, what is the calculated specific surface M, corresponding to the
permeability calculated in part a) and porosity in Problem 1 c. What is the
value of M, when K is 100 md. Comment on the results.