Perm Relativas PDF

57
Chapter 3
CAPILLARY PRESSURE AND RELATIVE PERMEABILITY

BEHAVIOR OF THE J1 AND J2 RESERVOIRS AT
BULLWINKLE
Capillary pressure and relative permeability behavior of unconsolidated sands are
documented (Honarpour et al., 1986; Reynolds, 2000). Reynolds (2000) observed
capillary pressure behavior of deepwater turbidites and described differences present in
six facies. Honarpour et al. (1986) discussed several models for estimating relative
permeability between end-point measurements and documented empirical exponents used
by other workers to describe flow behavior associated with unconsolidated sands. Kikani
and Smith (1996) stated that Corey’s (1954) relative permeability model was used in
reservoir simulation to mimic production behavior for the unconsolidated J-sands at
Bullwinkle.
In this chapter, capillary pressure and relative permeability behavior of
unconsolidated sands of the J1 and J2 reservoirs at Bullwinkle are characterized and
modeled. Mercury injection data, collected using whole-core samples, are used to
evaluate in-situ fluid capillary behavior. End-point relative permeability and saturation
data from whole core samples, constrain the movement of fluids at these end-points.
Between these end-point values, Corey’s (1954) two-phase model is used to simulate the
relative permeability characteristics. Finally, core analysis, log-based petrophysical data
(Comisky, 2002), and capillary data from another deepwater field are combined to define
the hydraulic properties of six different Flow Units present in the J1 and J2 sands.
58
Characterization of The Hydraulic Behavior Present in Three

Flow Units Using Whole Core Data
Capillary Pressure Behavior
Capillary pressure experiments were performed on sixteen whole-core plug
samples, by Shell Oil Co., from three Flow Units sampled by the 65-1-ST and A-32-BP
wells in the J1 and J2 sands (Figs. 3-1, 3-2, Tables 3-1, 3-2). Capillary pressure
measurements were obtained by mercury injection tests using a methodology similar to
that described by Purcell (1949) (Figs. 3-3, 3-4, 3-5, Tables 3-3, 3-4, 3-5). Comisky
(2002) described six Flow Units for the J1 and J2 sands (analogous to facies) that were
interpreted from well log and core data.
Fifteen of the sixteen whole-core samples have mercury-air capillary entry
pressures between 7 and 9 psi, irreducible air saturation (wetting phase) of 1% to 10%,
and transition pressures (transition zone) that range from 13 psi to 285 psi (Figs. 3-3, 3-4,
3-5, Tables 3-3, 3-4, 3-5). The sixteenth sample, #3 from Flow Unit 2 in the 65-1-ST
(Figure 3-4), has higher entry pressure (41 psi) and a lower porosity than other samples
(Tables 3-1, 3-2).
The capillary behavior of the fifteen samples is similar to that documented by
Reynolds (2000) for the Mars Field (Mississippi Canyon Block 807), a deepwater
reservoir located in the Gulf of Mexico. He documented capillary pressure for six facies,
each having equal entry and transition pressures while recording different irreducible
wetting phase saturations. The saturation differences were attributed to differences in
grain size and clay content, where smaller grain sizes and higher clay content result in
higher irreducible wetting phase saturations.

59
BLK 64 BLK 65
Permeability
Barriers RA
12000
Flow Unit 3
Flow Unit 3 RB 12500
12000
11500
Flow Unit 2
11000
Flow Flow Unit 5 130

00
Unit 2
Flow Unit 6
BLK 108 BLK 109

1 Mile
C.I. = 100’ A-32-BP Penetration
Figure 3-1: J1-sand Flow Unit map overlain by structure contours. Whole core samples were
obtained from the A-32-BP well located in reservoir B (RB). The A-32-BP whole core was extracted
from hydrocarbon bearing sands in the J1-RB (11,931 ft. to 11,975 ft., SSTVD) and J2-RB (Figure 3-
2) reservoirs. The Flow Unit interpretation was performed by Comisky (2002).
60
BLK 64 BLK 65
Permeability
Barriers
RA
12500
Flow Unit 1
RB
0
1200
Flow Unit 2
11
Flow Unit 6
50
00
130
0
11
00
0
12500
1 Mile
C.I. = 100’
BLK 108 BLK 109

Flow Unit 4
A-32-BP Penetration
65-1-ST Penetration
Figure 3-2: J2-sand Flow Unit map overlain by structure contours. Two whole cores were obtained
from the J2-sand, the A-32-BP (#1) in reservoir B (RB), and the 65-1-ST1 (#2) in reservoir A (RA).
The A-32-BP whole core was extracted from hydrocarbon bearing sands in the J1-RB (Figure 3-1)
and the J2-RB (11,987 ft. to 12,065 ft. SSTVD). The 65-1-ST whole core (12,420 ft. to 12,480,
SSTVD) was extracted from the water leg of the J2-RA. The Flow Unit interpretation was
performed by Comisky (2002).
61
Mercury and Gas Saturation

1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0
10000
Oil-Water Capillary Pressure (psi)

Sample 35
Mercury-Air Capillary Pressure (psi)

Gas-Oil Capillary Pressure (psi)
Sample 36
100 100
Sample 43
1000 Sample 53A
Sample 54
10.0 Sample 55
10.0
100 Sample 60
1.0 1.0
10
0.1 0.1
1
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Water Saturation
Figure 3-3: A-32-BP capillary pressure data for J2 sand whole core plug samples (Shell Petrophysical
Services, 1990). Data shown are from core plug samples 35 (core depth = 12868.5 ft., SSTVD =
11992.6 ft.), 36 (core depth = 12869.0 ft., SSTVD = 11993.0 ft.), 43 (core depth = 12872.8 ft., SSTVD =
11996.3 ft.), 53A (core depth = 12901.8, SSTVD = 12021.4 ft.), 54 (core depth = 12907.5 ft., SSTVD =
12064.7 ft.). Samples are from Flow Unit #1 (Comisky, 2002). Sample properties are found in Tables
3-1 and 3-2. Data for sample 53A is shown in Table 3-3.
62

1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0
10000

Gas-Oil Capillary Pressure (psi) Sample 1
100 Sample 2 100

Sample 3
1000
Sample 6
Sample 4 10.0
10.0
100
1.0 1.0
10
0.1 0.1
1
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Water Saturation
Figure 3-4: 65-1-ST capillary pressure data (Shell Petrophysical Services, 1987). Data shown are
from whole core samples 1 (core depth = 13086.8 ft., SSTVD = 12468.8 ft.), 2 (core depth = 13089.5
ft., SSTVD = 12471.5 ft.), 3 (core depth = 13095.5 ft., SSTVD = 12477.5 ft.), 6 (core depth = 13101.5,
SSTVD = 12483.5 ft.), and 4 (core depth = 13108.4, SSTVD = 12490.4 ft.) from the J2-RA aquifer.
Samples are from Flow Unit #2 (Comisky, 2002). Sample properties are found in Tables 3-1 and 3-2.
Data for sample 2 is shown in Table 3-4.
63

1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0
10000

Sample 13

Sample 14
100 100
Sample 20
1000 Sample 30
10.0 10.0
100
1.0 1.0
10
0.1 0.1
1
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Water Saturation
Figure 3-5: A-32-BP capillary pressure data for J1 sand whole core plug samples (Shell Petrophysical
Services, 1990). Data shown are from whole core plug samples 13 (core depth = 12808.2 ft., SSTVD =
11947.9 ft.), and 30 (core depth = 12845.7 ft. SSTVD = 11973.2 ft.). Samples are from Flow Unit #3
(Comisky, 2002). Sample properties are found in Tables 3-1 and 3-2. Data from sample 20 is shown
in Table 3-5.
64
Table 3-1: Atmospheric properties of whole core samples used for mercury injection test (Shell
Petrophysical Services, 1987, 1990). Flow Units determined by Comisky (2002).
Whole Flow Core Depth SSTVD
Sample Sand Porosity
Core Unit (ft.) (ft.)
A-32-BP 13 3 J1 12808.2 11938.5 0.347
A-32-BP 14 3 J1 12813.2 11942.8 0.388
A-32-BP 20 3 J1 12819.2 11947.9 0.396
A-32-BP 30 3 J1 12845.7 11973.2 0.369
A-32-BP 35 1 J2 12868.5 11992.6 0.367
A-32-BP 36 1 J2 12869.0 11993.0 0.342
A-32-BP 43 1 J2 12872.8 11996.3 0.383
A-32-BP 53A 1 J2 12901.8 12021.4 0.382
A-32-BP 54 1 J2 12907.5 12026.3 0.340
A-32-BP 55 1 J2 12924.8 12040.6 0.373
A-32-BP 60 1 J2 12952.6 12064.7 0.382
65-1-ST 1 2 J2 13086.8 12468.8 0.427
65-1-ST 2 2 J2 13089.5 12471.5 0.47
65-1-ST 3 2 J2 13095.5 12477.5 0.328
65-1-ST 6 2 J2 13101.5 12483.5 0.399
65-1-ST 4 2 J2 13108.4 12490.4 0.399
Table 3-2: Stressed properties of whole core samples used for mercury injection test (Shell
Petrophysical Services, 1987, 1990). Flow Units determined by Comisky (2002).
Vertical Air
Whole
Sample Flow Unit Sand Effective Porosity Permeability
Core
Stress (psi) (mD)
A-32-BP 13 3 J1 2100 0.296 1196
A-32-BP 14 3 J1 2100 0.310 1866
A-32-BP 20 3 J1 2100 0.324 1997
A-32-BP 30 3 J1 2100 0.293 1097
A-32-BP 35 1 J2 2100 0.295 1728
A-32-BP 36 1 J2 2100 0.282 1150
A-32-BP 43 1 J2 2100 0.320 1945
A-32-BP 53A 1 J2 2100 0.322 1602
A-32-BP 54 1 J2 2100 0.295 496
A-32-BP 55 1 J2 2100 0.323 1724
A-32-BP 60 1 J2 2100 0.334 1347
65-1-ST 1 2 J2 2000 0.306 -
65-1-ST 2 2 J2 2000 0.347 -
65-1-ST 3 2 J2 2000 0.261 -
65-1-ST 6 2 J2 2000 0.32 -
65-1-ST 4 2 J2 2100 0.332 -
65
Table 3-3: Mercury-air (Shell Petrophysical Services, 1990), calculated oil-water and gas-oil capillary
pressure data for sample 53A (A-32-BP, J2 sand). Data is from Flow Unit 1 (Comisky, 2002).
Mercury-air Capillary Oil-water Capillary Gas-oil Capillary
Pressure - Pcma SHg Pressure - Pcow Sw Pressure - Pcgo Sg
(psi) (psi) (psi)
7.0 0.004 0.245 0.996 0.147 0.004
8.0 0.377 0.280 0.624 0.168 0.377
9.0 0.543 0.315 0.458 0.189 0.543
11.0 0.642 0.385 0.358 0.231 0.642
13.0 0.693 0.455 0.307 0.273 0.693
15.0 0.717 0.525 0.283 0.315 0.717
17.0 0.734 0.595 0.266 0.357 0.734
21.0 0.762 0.735 0.239 0.441 0.762
26.0 0.783 0.910 0.217 0.546 0.783
31.0 0.799 1.085 0.201 0.651 0.799
41.0 0.823 1.435 0.177 0.861 0.823
51.0 0.835 1.785 0.165 1.0712 0.835
76.0 0.856 2.661 0.144 1.596 0.856
101.0 0.868 3.536 0.132 2.121 0.868
131.0 0.875 4.586 0.125 2.752 0.875
161.0 0.882 5.636 0.118 3.382 0.882
201.0 0.887 7.037 0.113 4.222 0.887
251.0 0.891 8.787 0.109 5.272 0.891
301.0 0.895 10.537 0.105 6.322 0.895
401.0 0.900 14.038 0.101 8.423 0.900
601.0 0.907 21.040 0.093 12.624 0.907
801.0 0.912 28.041 0.088 16.825 0.912
1001.0 0.917 35.043 0.083 21.026 0.917
1501.0 0.922 52.546 0.078 31.528 0.922
2001.0 0.924 70.050 0.076 42.030 0.924
66
pressure data for sample 2 (65-1-ST, J2 sand). Data is from Flow Unit 2 (Comisky, 2002).
(psi) (psi) (psi)
6.0 0.276 0.210 0.724 0.126 0.276
7.0 0.385 0.245 0.615 0.147 0.385
8.0 0.512 0.280 0.488 0.168 0.512
9.0 0.574 0.315 0.426 0.189 0.574
10.0 0.620 0.350 0.380 0.210 0.620
11.0 0.645 0.385 0.355 0.231 0.645
13.0 0.695 0.455 0.305 0.273 0.695
15.0 0.723 0.525 0.277 0.315 0.723
17.0 0.745 0.595 0.255 0.357 0.745
21.0 0.778 0.735 0.222 0.441 0.778
26.0 0.805 0.910 0.195 0.546 0.805
31.0 0.824 1.085 0.176 0.651 0.824
41.0 0.850 1.435 0.150 0.861 0.850
51.0 0.868 1.785 0.132 1.071 0.868
76.0 0.894 2.661 0.106 1.596 0.894
101.0 0.908 3.536 0.092 2.121 0.908
131.0 0.920 4.586 0.080 2.752 0.920
161.0 0.928 5.636 0.072 3.382 0.928
201.0 0.935 7.037 0.065 4.222 0.935
251.0 0.941 8.787 0.059 5.272 0.941
301.0 0.946 10.537 0.054 6.322 0.946
401.0 0.954 14.038 0.046 8.423 0.954
601.0 0.963 21.040 0.037 12.62 0.963
801.0 0.968 28.041 0.032 16.825 0.968
1001.0 0.972 35.043 0.028 21.026 0.972
1501.0 0.978 52.546 0.022 31.528 0.978
2001.0 0.980 70.050 0.020 42.030 0.980
67
pressure data for sample 20 (A-32-BP, J1 sand). Data is from Flow Unit 3 (Comisky, 2002).
(psi) (psi) (psi)
6.0 0.036 0.210 0.964 0.126 0.036
7.0 0.418 0.245 0.582 0.147 0.418
8.0 0.587 0.280 0.413 0.168 0.587
9.0 0.658 0.315 0.342 0.189 0.658
10.0 0.703 0.350 0.297 0.210 0.703
11.0 0.733 0.385 0.267 0.231 0.733
13.0 0.771 0.455 0.229 0.273 0.771
15.0 0.794 0.525 0.206 0.315 0.794
17.0 0.810 0.595 0.191 0.357 0.810
21.0 0.829 0.735 0.171 0.441 0.829
26.0 0.846 0.910 0.154 0.546 0.846
31.0 0.858 1.085 0.142 0.651 0.858
41.0 0.873 1.435 0.127 0.861 0.873
51.0 0.883 1.785 0.117 1.071 0.883
76.0 0.897 2.661 0.103 1.596 0.897
101.0 0.906 3.536 0.094 2.121 0.906
131.0 0.911 4.586 0.089 2.752 0.911
161.0 0.917 5.636 0.083 3.382 0.917
201.0 0.922 7.037 0.078 4.222 0.922
251.0 0.925 8.787 0.075 5.272 0.925
301.0 0.928 10.537 0.072 6.322 0.928
401.0 0.932 14.038 0.068 8.423 0.932
601.0 0.940 21.040 0.060 12.624 0.940
801.0 0.944 28.041 0.056 16.825 0.944
1001.0 0.949 35.043 0.051 21.026 0.949
1501.0 0.954 52.546 0.046 31.528 0.954
2001.0 0.959 70.050 0.041 42.030 0.959
68
Amyx et al. (1960) also showed capillary behavior of equal-entry and transition pressures
for sandstones having permeabilities of 200 mD and higher. Comisky (2002) documents
mean permeabilities for each Flow Unit that range from 460 mD to 2250 mD.
Oil-water Capillary Pressure
Mercury injection test data are converted from laboratory mercury-air conditions
to reservoir oil-water conditions using Purcell’s (1949) relation (Figs. 3-3, 3-4, 3-5,
Tables 3-3, 3-4, 3-5),
 σ cos(θ ow ) 
Pc ow = Pc ma  ow . (3-1)
σ ma cos(θ ma ) 
Pcow is the oil-water capillary pressure and Pcma is the mercury-air capillary pressure.
The oil-water interfacial tension (σow) is 15 dynes/cm based on a reservoir
temperature of 165oF (Livingston, 1938) (Table 3-6). We assume the water phase wets
the grains completely and set the oil-water contact angle (θow) to zero (Schlowalter, 1976)
(Table 3-6). The reported mercury-air interfacial tension (σma) is 484 dynes/cm and
contact angle is (θma) 130o (Shell Petrophysical Services, 1987) (Table 3-6). Oil-water
capillary pressure is calculated as 3.5% of the mercury-air capillary pressure (Figs. 3-3,
3-4, 3-5, Tables 3-3, 3-4, 3-5).
Fifteen samples have oil-water entry pressures ranging from 0.20 to 0.25 psi and
transition zone pressures from 0.5 to 10.0 psi. These same samples display the same
irreducible saturations (1% to 10%) as observed in the mercury-air data, as expected.
The sixteenth sample, #3, has a calculated oil-water entry pressure of 1.44 psi.
69
Table 3-6: Two-phase interfacial tension and contact angles.

Interfacial Contact
Fluid
Tension Angle
Interaction
(Dynes/cm) (Degrees)
Mercury-Air 484 130
Oil-Water 15 0
Gas-Water 25 -
Gas-Oil 10 -
70
Gas-oil Capillary Pressure
The spreading coefficient (S) relates gas-oil capillary pressure to oil-water
capillary pressure (Kalaydjian et al., 1995) through interfacial tensions. The spreading
coefficient is the balance of the three interfacial tensions,
S = σ gw − (σ ow + σ go ) , (3-2)
acting on the gas/oil/water contact and is zero when the liquid phases are in the presence
of a common vapor phase (Kalaydjian et al., 1995). We assume the spreading coefficient
is zero for this system and calculate the gas-oil interfacial tension (σgo = 10 dynes/cm)
using a gas-water interfacial tension (σgw) of 25 dynes/cm (Hough et al., 1951) and
Equation 3-2 (Table 3-6).
Gas-oil capillary pressure (Pcgo) is calculated from a simplified version of
Purcell’s (1949) relation (Amyx et al., 1960; Firoozabadi et al., 1988),
 σ go 
Pc go = Pcow  . (3-3)
σ
 ow 
Equation 3-1 reduces to Equation 3-3 by assuming that the gas-oil contact angle is equal
to the oil-water contact angle.
The ratio of the gas-oil to oil-water interfacial tension is 60%, which constrains
the calculated values of gas-oil capillary pressure (Figs. 3-3, 3-4, 3-5, Tables 3-3, 3-4, 3-
5). Fifteen samples have oil-water entry pressures ranging from 0.12 to 0.15 psi and
transition zone pressures from 0.3 to 6.0 psi. These same samples display irreducible
saturations ranging from 1% to 10%, as observed in the mercury-air and oil-water data.
The sixteenth sample, #3, has a calculated gas-oil entry pressure of 0.86 psi.
71
Relative Permeability Behavior
In the absence of experimental three-phase relative permeability data, two-phase
relative permeability behavior is characterized from end-point saturation and
permeability data. Later, this two-phase relative permeability behavior is used to
calculate three-phase oil relative permeability in the presence of oil, water and gas using
Stone’s Model II (1973).
End-point saturation (Swirr, Sor) and permeability (ko, kw) data were obtained
from 11 whole core samples (Tables 3-7, 3-8) using a procedure outlined by Thomas et
al. (1979). Measurements were conducted on stressed samples (Figs. 3-6, 3-7, Table 3-8)
using a laboratory brine (Table 3-7) and oil (ρo = 0.86 gm/cc).
Residual oil saturation (Sor) decreases with increasing irreducible water
saturation (Swirr) (Figure 3-6, Tables 3-7, 3-8). This trend had been observed by other
workers in high permeability sandstone cores (Wardlaw et al., 1979; Maldal et al., 1999).
Maldal et al. (1999) stated that higher oil saturation could result in larger initial oil
volumes being snapped off in the waterflood displacement process resulting in higher
Sor. Maldal et al. (1999) also observed that Sor is dependent on the waterflood rate,
where lower rates result in lower Sor (higher oil recovery).
End-point oil and water relative permeability are calculated (Figure 3-7, Tables 3-
8, 3-9) from:
ko
k row = (3-4)
k brine
and
72
kw
k rw = . (3-5)
k brine
ko is the effective permeability to oil flow in the presence of Swirr, kw is the effective
permeability associated with brine in the presence of Sor, kbrine is the permeability
associated with brine, krow is the oil relative permeability, and krw is the brine relative
permeability.
Calculated end-point relative permeabilities, from measured data, are related to
end-point saturations. Eleven samples have end-point krow values that range from 0.6 to
1.1 for Swirr values between 0.38 and 0.19 (Figure 3-7, Tables 3-8, 3-9). Sample 3
records higher krow (1.35), higher Swirr (0.718), and significantly lower permeability (2.6
mD) than the other samples (permeability range from 450 to 1656 mD) (Table 3-8). We
average krow (0.866) of the core data, neglecting the anomalous sample 3, because no
apparent trend is evident. End-point krw values range from 0.49 to 0.19, which
correspond to Sor values of 0.18 to 0.32 (Figure 3-7, Table 3-8, 3-9). Here, sample 3
records a lower krw (0.07) and Sor (0.14), which is expected because 71.8% of the pore
volume is filled by irreducible water. These end-point krw values increase linearly with
increasing Sor (Figure 3-7).
Calculated relative permeability greater than 1.0 is not uncommon. Other
workers report this behavior associated with water and brine in low permeability sands
(Jones and Owens, 1980; Ward and Morrow, 1987). Theoretically, this result is counter-
intuitive. Relative permeability is referenced to a specific permeability measured at
100% saturation and should be equal to or less than 1.0. The phenomenon is attributed to
hydration, plugging, and bound water (Jones and Owens, 1980).

73
0.35
Flow unit 1 (J2: A-32-BP)
Residual Oil Saturation (Sor)

Flow unit 2 (J2: 65-1-ST)
0.30 Flow unit 3 (J1: A-32-BP)
0.25
0.20
0.15
Sam ple 3
0.10
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Irreducible Water Saturation (Swirr)
Figure 3-6: Residual oil saturation (Sor) versus irreducible water saturation (Swirr) from end-point
relative permeability core data (Table 3-8) (Shell Petrophysical Services, 1987, 1990). The data show
a decrease in Sor for higher values of Swirr. Samples were measured at near-insitu stress conditions
(Table 3-8). Sample 3 records lower permeability (2.6 mD) than the other samples (460 to 1656 mD).
1.4
Sam ple 3 krow (Unit 1)
1.2 krw (Unit 1)
Relative Permeability
krow (Unit 2)
1.0
krw (Unit 2)
0.8 krow (Unit 3)
krw (Unit 3)
0.6
0.4
0.2
Sam ple 3
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Sw
Figure 3-7: Calculated end point relative permeabilities for Flow Units 1, 2, and 3 (Tables 3-8, 3-9).
Data shows that krw decreases as Sw increases, where Sw = 1-Sor. krow values show no trend. Sample
3 records lower permeability (2.6 mD) than the other samples (460 to 1656 mD).
74
Table 3-7: End-point relative permeability test sample data at atmospheric conditions (Atm.) and
stressed conditions (Stress) (Shell Petrophysical Services, 1987, 1990).
Stress
Whole Flow Core SSTVD Atm. Stress Stress NaCl
Sample Sand Permeability
Core Unit Depth (ft.) (ft.) Porosity (psi) Porosity (ppm)
(mD)
A-32-BP 18 J1 3 12813'7" 11943.1 0.375 200 0.344 1540 210000
A-32-BP 34 J1 3 12849'0" 11976.1 0.333 200 0.311 1005 210000
A-32-BP 50 J2 1 12884'10" 12006.7 0.385 200 0.352 2265 210000
A-32-BP 57 J2 1 12938'6" 12052.5 0.382 200 0.363 2035 210000
65-1-ST 1 J2 2 13086'11" 12468.8 0.401 2000 0.325 1160 220000
65-1-ST 2 J2 2 13089'8" 12471.6 0.435 2000 0.340 1060 220000
65-1-ST 3 J2 2 13095'6" 12477.5 0.317 2000 0.256 3 220000
65-1-ST 4 J2 2 13108'4" 12490.3 0.385 2000 0.328 1050 220000
65-1-ST 6 J2 2 13101'6.5" 12483.5 0.384 2000 0.317 450 220000
65-1-ST 10 J2 2 13092'5" 12474.5 - 2200 0.306 1150 230000
65-1-ST 14 J2 2 13107'8" 12489.6 - 2200 0.329 1592 230000
Table 3-8: End-point relative permeability data from stressed whole core samples (Shell
Petrophysical Services, 1987, 1990).
Whole Flow Stress Pcow

Sample Sand kbrine ko Swirr kw Sor
Core Unit (psi) (psi)
A-32-BP 18 J1 3 2100 1136 16.0 1213 0.189 558 0.292
A-32-BP 34 J1 3 2100 776 17.0 638 0.206 328 0.316
A-32-BP 50 J2 1 2100 1536 9.4 1295 0.216 610 0.240
A-32-BP 57 J2 1 2100 1656 8.2 1250 0.192 542 0.260
65-1-ST 1 J2 2 2000 1160 36.0 1190 0.228 440 0.175
65-1-ST 2 J2 2 2000 1060 48.0 920 0.238 370 0.183
65-1-ST 3 J2 2 2000 2.6 205.0 3.5 0.718 0.2 0.139
65-1-ST 4 J2 2 2000 1050 46.0 930 0.221 340 0.186
65-1-ST 6 J2 2 2200 450 94.0 470 0.346 85 0.181
65-1-ST 10 J2 2 2200 1150 43.6 730 0.218 373 0.264
65-1-ST 14 J2 2 2200 1592 37.2 1265 0.297 378 0.251
75
Comparison of Mercury Injection Data with End-Point Saturation Data
Estimation of the wetting phase saturation using mercury injection test data
results in lower values than observed in other determination methods (Longeron et al.,
1995). Measured end-point water saturations are 10% to 25% greater than determined by
mercury injection (Figure 3-8, Tables 3-3, 3-4, 3-5, 3-7, 3-8). Amyx et al. (1960)
displayed comparisons of water-air and mercury-air capillary pressure measurements that
show similar behavior. The deviation of wetting phase saturation, observed here, is most
likely due to use of different fluids (mercury-air and oil-water) in the two experimental
methods. Here, we interpret that air does not effectively replicate the wetting
characteristics of water for these samples.
Corey’s Two-Phase Relative Permeability Model
Two-phase relative permeability is simulated for the range of saturations present
between constrained end-point values. Corey’s (1954) model is used for this purpose
based on its simplicity and limited input data requirements (Swirr and Sor). The model is
derived from capillary pressure concepts and is widely accepted to be fairly accurate for
consolidated porous media experiencing drainage (Honarpour et al., 1986). The model
has also been proposed for unconsolidated sands using different empirical exponents
(Honarpour et al., 1986).
Corey’s equations for wetting and non-wetting relative permeability between
constrained end-points is as follows:
k rw t = a( Sw* ) b , (3-6)
And
76
(a)
100.0 100
Sample 53A
Oil-water Capillary
Flow Unit 1
Pressure (psi)
10.0 10
1.0 1
0.1 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Sw
(b)
100.0 100
Sample 2
Oil-water Capillary
Flow Unit 2
Pressure (psi)
10.0 10
1.0 1
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Sw
(c)
100.0 100
Sample 20
Oil-water Capillary
Flow Unit 3
Pressure (psi)
10.0 10
1.0 1
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Sw
Figure 3-8: Comparison of mercury injection test data with end-point relative permeability data.
Converted oil-water capillary pressure curves are for samples (a) 53A, (b) 2, and (c) 20 (Tables 3-4,
3-5, 3-6). End-point relative permeability data are for (a) samples 50, 57, (b) samples 1, 2, 4, 6, 10,
14, and (c) samples 18, 34 (Table 3-8). Saturations differences are due to different wetting phase
characteristics of the fluids used in the two experiments (mercury-air, and oil-water).
77
k rnwt = c(1 − Sw* ) 2 (1 − ( Sw* ) d ) . (3-7)
krwt and krnwt are the wetting and non-wetting phase relative permeabilities, respectively.
a, b, c, d are empirical constants. Sw* is the effective wetting phase saturation, defined
as:
( Swt − Swir )
Sw* = . (3-8)
(1 − Swirr − Sor )
Swt and Swir are the wetting phase saturation and the respective irreducible saturation.
Corey coefficients (a and c) constrain relative permeability at end-point
saturations (Swirr and Sor). Sw* collapses to 1.0 when the wetting phase saturation is
equal to one minus the irreducible non-wetting phase saturation (ie. Sw = 1-Sor). Sw* is
0.0 when the wetting phase is equal to the irreducible wetting phase (ie. Sw = Swirr).
Thus, a is equal to krwt when Sw* is 1.0 and b is equal to krnwt when Sw* is 0.0.
Relative permeability, between constrained end-points, is controlled by the Corey
exponents b and d. Oil-water Corey exponents of 3.0 and 3.5 have been proposed for
unconsolidated sands (Honarpour et al., 1986). Lower exponent values result in a more
concave relative permeability curve (lower relative permeability, thus more
heterogeneous sand), while higher exponent values result in a less concave curve (more
homogeneous sand). These exponents are reservoir, if not sand, specific and are adjusted
based on simulation results.
Corey’s Model: Oil-Water Relative Permeability
Oil-water relative permeability is modeled using endpoint saturation
measurements (Figure 3-7, Table 3-10). For each sampled Flow Unit, the measured end-
78
point saturations and relative permeabilities are averaged and then modeled (Figs. 3-9, 3-
10, 3-11, Table 3-11). We assume the wetting phase is water and non-wetting phase is
oil and use oil-water Corey exponents (b=2.5, d=3.0) reported by Kikani and Smith
(1996) for the Bullwinkle J-sands. The Corey coefficients (a and c) are constrained by
the average end-point relative permeability values (Table 3-10).
Modeled oil-water relative permeability values, for the range of saturations
between constrained end-points, form a concave shape (Figs. 3-9, 3-10, 3-11, 3-12). For
each Flow Unit, average krow values are constrained at Swirr (Table 3-10) and decrease to
0.0 at Sor and modeled krw is 0.0 at Swirr and increase to krw at Sor (Tables 3-10, 3-11).
krow, in Flow Unit 3, is higher at Swirr (krow = 0.95) and distributed over a smaller range
of saturations (∆Sw = 0.499) than Flow Units 1 (∆Sw = 0.546) and 2 (∆Sw = 0.535), thus
krow decreases to Sor faster (Figure 3-12, Table 3-11). Similarly, krw, in Unit 3, is higher
(krw = 0.46) at Sor and decreases to Swirr over a smaller range of saturations (∆Sw =
0.499) (Figure 3-12, Table 3-11).
Corey’s Model: Gas-Oil Relative Permeability
Corey’s model (1954) (Equations 3-6 through 3-8) is used to simulate gas-oil
relative permeability (Figure 3-13, Tables 3-10, 3-12) using the average Swirr and Sor
values from the oil-water system. The wetting phase saturation (Sliq) is the sum of Swirr
and oil saturation (So) and the non-wetting phase saturation is gas (Sg). We use gas-oil
Corey exponents (b=4.0 and d=1.5) reported by Kikani and Smith (1996). Endpoint
relative permeability data for a gas-oil system were not collected, but krog should equal
krow at Sg equal to zero. The Corey gas exponent (c)is set to 1.0.
79
0.0000 0.2000 0.4000 0.6000 0.8000 1.0000

1.0 1.0
krw
krow
0.8 0.8
krow @ Swirr
krw @ Sor
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Sw
Figure 3-9: Modeled oil-water relative permeability for Flow Unit 1 (A-32-BP, J2 sand) (Table 3-12).
Model is based on average end-point saturations and relative permeabilities from samples 50 and 57
(Tables 3-8, 3-9, 3-10), and oil-water Corey exponents from Kikani and Smith (1996).
0.0000 0.2000 0.4000 0.6000 0.8000 1.0000
1.0 krw 1
krow
0.8 krow @ Swirr 1
krw @ Sor
0.6 1
0.4 0
0.2 0
0.0 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Sw
Figure 3-10: Modeled oil-water relative permeability for Flow Unit 2 (65-1-ST, J2 sand) (Table 3-12).
Model is based on average end-point saturations and relative permeabilities from samples 1, 2, 4, 6,
10, and 14 (Tables 3-8, 3-9, 3-10), and oil-water Corey exponents from Kikani and Smith (1996).
80
0 0 0 1 1 1
1.0 krw 1
krow
0.8 krow @ Swirr 1
krw @ Sor
0.6 1
0.4 0
0.2 0
0.0 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Sw
Figure 3-11: Modeled oil-water relative permeability for Flow Unit 3 (A-32-BP, J1 sand) (Table 3-
12). Model is based on average end-point saturations and relative permeabilities from samples 18, 34
(Tables 3-8, 3-9, 3-10), and oil-water Corey exponents from Kikani and Smith (1996).
81
1.0
Oil-Water Relative Permeability

krw (Flow
Unit 1)
0.8 krow (Flow
Unit 1)
0.6 krw (Flow

Unit 2)
krow (Flow
0.4 Unit 2)
krw (Flow
Unit 3)
0.2
krow (Flow
Unit 3)
0.0
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00
Sw
Figure 3-12: Comparison of modeled oil-water relative permeability curves for Flow Units 1, 2, and 3
(Table 3-12). Model is based on average end-point saturations and relative permeabilities for each
Flow Unit (Table 3-10), and oil-water Corey exponents from Kikani and Smith (1996).
1.0
krg (Flow
Gas-Oil Relative Permeability
Unit 1)
0.8 krog (Flow
Unit 1)
krg (Flow
0.6
Unit 2)
krog (Flow
0.4 Unit 2)
krg (Flow
Unit 3)
0.2
krog (Flow
Unit 3)
0.0
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00
Sg
Figure 3-13: Modeled gas-oil relative permeability curves for Flow Units 1, 2, and 3 (Table 3-13).
Model is based on average end-point saturations for each Flow Unit (Table 3-10), and gas-oil Corey
exponents from Kikani and Smith (1996).
82
Table 3-9: Calculated end-point relative permeability values.

Whole
Sample Sand Flow Unit krow @ Swirr krw @ Sor
Core
A-32-BP 18 J1 3 1.07 0.49
A-32-BP 34 J1 3 0.82 0.42
A-32-BP 50 J2 1 0.84 0.40
A-32-BP 57 J2 1 0.75 0.33
65-1-ST 1 J2 2 1.03 0.38
65-1-ST 2 J2 2 0.87 0.35
65-1-ST 3 J2 2 1.35 0.07
65-1-ST 4 J2 2 0.89 0.32
65-1-ST 6 J2 2 1.04 0.19
65-1-ST 10 J2 2 0.63 0.32
65-1-ST 14 J2 2 0.79 0.24
Table 3-10: Average oil-water end-point saturation and relative permeabilities from whole core data
for Flow Units 1, 2 and 3. End-point relative permeabilities are equal to the Corey coefficients a and
c.
Whole Flow krow krw
Sand Swirr Sor
Core Unit (a) (c)
A-32-BP J2 1 0.204 0.800 0.250 0.360
65-1-ST J2 2 0.258 0.849 0.207 0.300
A-32-BP J1 3 0.197 0.950 0.304 0.460
83
Table 3-11: Modeled oil-water relative permeability for Flow Units 1, 2, and 3 from whole core data.
Flow Unit 1 Flow Unit 2 Flow Unit 3
(A-32-BP, J2 sand) (65-1-ST, J2 sand) (A-32-BP, J1 sand)
Sw krw krow Sw krw krow Sw krw krow
0.2040 0.0000 0.8000 0.2580 0.0000 0.8490 0.1970 0.0000 0.9500
0.2500 0.0002 0.6688 0.3000 0.0001 0.7197 0.2500 0.0006 0.7561
0.3000 0.0020 0.5357 0.3500 0.0015 0.5750 0.3000 0.0040 0.5867
0.3500 0.0069 0.4128 0.4000 0.0056 0.4415 0.3500 0.0133 0.4330
0.4000 0.0167 0.3028 0.4500 0.0139 0.3220 0.4000 0.0310 0.2990
0.4500 0.0330 0.2081 0.5000 0.0278 0.2196 0.4500 0.0600 0.1886
0.5000 0.0575 0.1310 0.5500 0.0488 0.1366 0.5000 0.1030 0.1045
0.5500 0.0919 0.0727 0.6000 0.0784 0.0744 0.5500 0.1628 0.0471
0.6000 0.1377 0.0331 0.6500 0.1180 0.0328 0.6000 0.2423 0.0146
0.6500 0.1967 0.0106 0.7000 0.1692 0.0097 0.6500 0.3442 0.0017
0.7000 0.2704 0.0014 0.7500 0.2333 0.0010 0.6960 0.4600 0.0000
0.7500 0.3600 0.0000 0.7930 0.3000 0.0000
Table 3-12: Modeled gas-oil relative permeability for Flow Units 1, 2, and 3 from whole core data.
Flow Unit 1 Flow Unit 2 Flow Unit 3
(A-32-BP, J2 sand) (65-1-ST, J2 sand) (A-32-BP, J1 sand)
Sg krg krog Sg krg krog Sg krg krog
0.0000 0.0000 0.8000 0.0000 0.0000 0.8490 0.0000 0.0000 0.9500
0.0500 0.0011 0.5448 0.0500 0.0012 0.5734 0.0500 0.0015 0.6227
0.1000 0.0088 0.3561 0.1000 0.0093 0.3711 0.1000 0.0114 0.3883
0.1500 0.0289 0.2213 0.1500 0.0306 0.2277 0.1500 0.0375 0.2273
0.2000 0.0665 0.1290 0.2000 0.0705 0.1305 0.2000 0.0861 0.1225
0.2500 0.1260 0.0691 0.2500 0.1335 0.0684 0.2500 0.1625 0.0589
0.3000 0.2107 0.0329 0.3000 0.2229 0.0316 0.3000 0.2704 0.0240
0.3500 0.3227 0.0133 0.3500 0.3410 0.0121 0.3500 0.4117 0.0076
0.4000 0.4627 0.0041 0.4000 0.4881 0.0034 0.4000 0.5858 0.0015
0.4500 0.6295 0.0008 0.4500 0.6627 0.0005 0.4500 0.7882 0.0001
0.5000 0.8185 0.0000 0.5000 0.8588 0.0000 0.4990 1.0000 0.0000
0.5460 1.0000 0.0000 0.5350 1.0000 0.0000 0.8030 1.0000 0.0000
0.7960 1.0000 0.0000 0.7420 1.0000 0.0000
84
Differences in the gas-oil relative permeability concave behavior, for the three
Flow Units, are due to different residual Sliq (Sg = 1-Sliq) (Figure 3-13, Table 3-12).
Flow Unit 3 has the highest residual Sliq (0.499) followed by Flow Units 2 (0.535) and 1
(0.545) (Table 3-12). The end-point values of krg are 1.0 at the residual Sliq and decrease
to zero at Sg equal to 0.0, while krog is equal to the end-point value of krow at Sg equal 0.0
and decrease to 0.0 at the residual Sliq.
Predictability of Relative Permeability: A Comparison Using Other Models
Many workers have proposed predictive models of two-phase oil-water and gas-
oil relative permeability. Relative permeability behavior have also been modeled using
Brooks & Corey’s (1964) model and a neural network model (Silpngarmlers et al., 1996)
to highlight differences in model behavior (Figure 3-14). Curves modeled using Brooks
& Corey’s (1964) model are constrained using oil-water capillary pressure data (Sample
53A), end-point saturations, and relative permeability (Table 3-13). Neural network
curves are based on rock (permeability, porosity, irreducible water saturation, residual oil
saturation) and fluid properties (viscosity, density) (Table 3-14).
The predicted relative permeability behaviors from the three models are different.
Both the Brooks & Corey’s and neural network models predict higher water relative
permeabilities (krw) and lower oil relative permeabilities (krow) for the range of saturations
between end-points. Both Corey’s (1954) and Brooks & Corey’s (1964) models are
constrained by end-point data, while the neural network model is not. The three sets of
relative permeability curves will result in significantly different simulated saturation
behavior. Specifically, Corey’s model will predict the least water flow for increases in
85
1.0
krw (ANN)
Relative Permeability 0.8 krow (ANN)
krw (Corey)
0.6
krow (Corey)
0.4
krw (Brooks
& Corey)
0.2
krow (Brooks
& Corey)
0.0
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00
Sw
Figure 3-14: A comparison of modeled oil-water relative permeability using Corey’s (1954), Brooks
& Corey’s (1964), and a neural network (Silpngarmlers et al., 1996) two-phase models (Tables 3-11,
3-13, 3-14). The comparisons are based on whole core (A-32-BP) end-point saturation data and
average fluid properties from Flow Unit 1.
86
Table 3-13: Modeled oil-water relative permeability using Brooks and Corey’s two-phase model
(1964). Model inputs are oil-water capillary pressure (Sample 53A) and average whole core endpoint
data for Flow Units 1.
Sw krw krow
0.204 0.0000 0.8162
0.217 0.0006 0.7267
0.239 0.0018 0.6000
0.266 0.0053 0.4565
0.283 0.0102 0.3652
0.307 0.0215 0.2594
0.358 0.0513 0.1434
0.458 0.1458 0.0389
0.624 0.2693 0.0078
0.750 0.3600 0.0000
Table 3-14: Modeled oil-water relative permeability using a neural network two-phase model
(Silpngarmlers et al., 1996). Values are based on average rock and fluid properties for Flow Units 1.
Sw krw krow
0.160 0.0000 0.6770
0.200 0.0070 0.6110
0.250 0.0270 0.5230
0.300 0.0570 0.4330
0.350 0.1013 0.3440
0.400 0.1585 0.2610
0.450 0.2280 0.1880
0.500 0.3075 0.1250
0.550 0.3938 0.0760
0.600 0.4833 0.0380
0.650 0.5724 0.0140
0.700 0.6582 0.0020
0.747 0.7339 0.0000
87
water saturation followed by Brooks & Corey’s (1964) and the neural network curves,
respectively. Corey’s (1954) model is used here because of its proven effectiveness by
Kikani and Smith (1996) on the Bullwinkle J-sands.
Conclusions
Capillary pressure and relative permeability behavior observed in J1 and J2 sand
core data are consistent with homogeneous type sands having low irreducible water
saturation and residual oil saturation.
Capillary pressure behavior is consistent with documented behavior of
unconsolidated sands in other deepwater reservoirs. Entry and transition pressures show
little deviation for all but one sample, while the irreducible wetting phase saturation
varies from 1% to 10%. Wetting phase saturation differences have been attributed to
differences in grain size and clay content, data that are not available here.
Experimental end-point data highlight trends for rock and fluid properties. End-
point saturations indicate that Sor increases with decreasing Swirr, a phenomenon
observed and explained by other workers (Maldal et al., 1999). Swirr data are 10 to 25%
greater than determined from mercury injection test data, suggesting that air does not
replicate the wetting phase characteristics of water. End-point krw values linearly increase
with increasing Sor, while no trend is evident for end-point krow.
Modeled two-phase relative permeability behavior, between constrained end-
points, is a function of the end-point saturations, end-point relative permeabilities, and
empirical constants. Corey’s (1954) model collapses to the end-point relative
permeability values (Corey coefficients) at end-point saturations. Between these
constrained end-points the Corey exponents control the value of relative permeability.
88
Modeling Hydraulic Behavior of the Six Flow Units
The hydraulic behavior of J1 and J2 sands are modeled for six different Flow
Units defined by Comisky (2002). The behavior is interpreted from the limited core data,
described previously, and log-derived petrophysical properties. Specifically,
petrophysically based end-point water and oil saturations are used to model this behavior.
Constraining End-point Water and Oil Saturations of the Six Flow Units
Log-derived initial water saturation values (Swi) are interpreted to be the
irreducible water saturation (Swirr) based on the calculated capillary pressures at each
well. The oil-water capillary pressure is calculated (O’Conner, 2000),
Pcow = ( ρ w − ρ o ) gH , (3-10)
for wells of height H above the free water level (Figs. 3-1, 3-2, Tables 3-15 through 3-
20), where g is the acceleration due to gravity, ρw is the density of brine (1.16 gm/cm3)
(Comisky, 2002), and ρo is the average density of oil (0.72 gm/cm3) (Chapter 2). Data
from 18 wells show that Pcow range from 13.5 psi (well A-4-BP, J1 sand) to 249.6 psi
(well A-33, J2 sand) in the J1 and J2 sands (Tables 3-15 through 3-20). These capillary
pressures are greater than the interpreted transition zone pressures (0.5 to 10.0 psi) from
core data, thus log-based Swi values are interpreted to approximate Swirr.
An empirical relation of the whole-core end-point saturation data, described in the
previous section, is used to approximate the residual oil saturation (Sor) for the six Flow
Units. Whole core Sor and Swirr are empirically related using a linear least-squares
regression (Figure 3-6, Table 3-8):
Sor = −0.2256 Swirr + 0.2890 . (3-9)

89
Then, Sor is calculated for each Flow Unit by substituting the log-based Swi values
(Comisky, 2002) in Equation 3-9 (Table 3-21). The calculated Sor values range from
0.23 to 0.26 for values of Swi between 0.25 and 0.14 (Table 3-21).
Modeling Capillary Pressure in the Six Flow Units
Capillary pressure curves are modeled for six Flow Units (Figs. 3-15 through 3-
22, Tables 3-23 through 3-28). Average log-based Swi values (Table 3-21) define the
irreducible water saturation for each Flow Unit. The oil-water capillary pressure (Pcow)
for each Flow Unit is modeled with an entry pressure of 0.2 psi and transition pressures
from 0.5 to 10.0 psi as implied by the whole core data (Figs. 3-3, 3-4, 3-5). The gas-oil
capillary pressure (Pcgo) is calculated as described previously (Equation 3-3).
The capillary pressure curves are used to establish the initial oil, water, and gas
saturations present above the original oil-water contact (OOWC) in the J1 and J2 sand
reservoirs (Figs. 3-15 through 3-22, Tables 3-23 through 3-28). The Swirr values in each
capillary curve specify the initial saturation differences for each Flow Unit. Further,
these curves predict the transition of saturations (transition zone) from a fluid contact
(100% Sw or Sliq) to Swirr at in-situ equilibrium conditions. The transition of water is
75.8 ft. above the OOWC and for oil is 26.9 ft. above the OGOC.
90
1000.0 1000
Syn Pcow (Sw)
Syn Pcgo (Sg)
Capillary Pressure (psi) 100.0 Pcow (Sw) 100
10.0 10
1.0 1
0.1 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Saturation (Sw and Sg)
Figure 3-15: Modeled oil-water and gas-oil capillary pressure curves for Flow Unit 1 (Table 3-21).
Triangles represent oil-water capillary pressures associated with wells in Flow Unit 1 located in the
J1 sand (A-32-BP, A-38, A-4-BP) (Table 3-14).
1000.0 1000
Pcow (Sw)
Syn Pcow (Sw)
Capillary Pressure (psi)
Syn Pcgo (Sg)

100.0 100
10.0 10
1.0 1
0.1 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Triangles represent oil-water capillary pressures associated with the 65-1 well in Flow Unit 2 (J1 and
J2 sands) (Table 3-15).
91
1000.0 1000
Pcow (Sw)

Syn Pcow (Sw)
100.0 Syn Pcgo (Sg) 100
10.0 10
1.0 1
0.1 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
J1 sand (109-1ST, A-32-BP, A-38, A-4-BP) (Table 3-16).
1000.0 1000
Pcow (Sw)
Syn Pcow (Sw)
Syn Pcgo (Sg)

100.0 100
10.0 10
1.0 1
0.1 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
J2 sand (109-1, A-1, A-2-BP, A-34, A-35, A-37, A-3-BP, A-5-BP) (Table 3-17).
92
1000.0 1000
Pcow (Sw)

Syn Pcow (Sw)
100.0 Syn Pcgo (Sg) 100
10.0 10
1.0 1
0.1 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
J1 sand (A-1, A-11-BP, A-35, A-37, A-3-BP, A-41) (Table 3-18).
1000.0 1000
Pcow (Sw)
Syn Pcow (Sw)
100.0 Syn Pcgo (Sg) 100
10.0 10
1.0 1
0.1 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
J2 sand (109-1ST, A-11-BP) and both J1 and J2 sands (A-33) (Table 3-19).
93
1000.0

1000
Flow Unit 1
Flow Unit 2
100.0 Flow Unit 3 100

Flow Unit 4
Flow Unit 5
10.0 Flow Unit 6 10
1.0 1
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Sw
Figure 3-21: Comparison of modeled oil-water capillary pressure (Pcow) curves for the six Flow Units
(Tables 3-21 through 3-26).
100.0 100
Flow Unit 1
Flow Unit 2
Flow Unit 3
10.0 Flow Unit 4 10
Flow Unit 5
Flow Unit 6
1.0 1
0.1 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Sg
Figure 3-22: Comparison of modeled gas-oil capillary pressure (Pcgo) curves for six Flow Units
94
Table 3-15: Rock properties for wells in Flow Unit 1. Water saturation values are from Comisky
(2002).
SSTVD Pcow
Flow Unit Sand Well Swi
(ft) (psi)
1 J2 A-32-BP 12022 74.87 0.16
1 J2 A-38 12218 37.53 0.14
1 J2 A-4-BP 12337 14.86 0.18
(2002).
SSTVD Pcow
(ft) (psi)
2 J1 65-1-ST 12361 - 1.00
2 J2 65-1-ST 12454 - 1.00
2 J1 65-1 12120 38.10 0.19
2 J2 65-1 12185 43.82 0.20
2 J2 A-36 12621 - 1.00
(2002).
SSTVD Pcow
(ft) (psi)
3 J1 109-1ST 11315 191.47 0.10
3 J1 A-32-BP 11931 74.11 0.23
3 J1 A-38 12122 37.72 0.21
3 J1 A-4-BP 12249 13.53 0.22
(2002).
SSTVD Pcow
(ft) (psi)
4 J2 109-1 12028 73.73 0.11
4 J2 A-1 11677 140.60 0.08
4 J2 A-2-BP 11928 92.78 0.18
4 J2 A-34 11817 113.93 0.12
4 J2 A-35 11419 189.76 0.11
4 J2 A-37 11573 160.42 0.18
4 J2 A-3-BP 11467 180.61 0.19
4 J2 A-5-BP 12119 56.39 0.14
95
(2002).
SSTVD Pcow
(ft) (psi)
5 J1 A-1 11562 144.41 0.14
5 J1 A-11-BP 11498 156.61 0.14
5 J1 A-35 11297 194.90 0.20
5 J1 A-37 11455 164.80 0.22
5 J1 A-3-BP 11363 182.33 0.16
5 J1 A-41 11373 180.42 0.13
(2002).
SSTVD Pcow
(ft) (psi)
6 J2 109-1ST 12185 43.82 0.21
6 J2 A-11-BP 11493 175.66 0.20
6 J1 A-33 11017 248.25 0.35
6 J2 A-33 11105 249.58 0.25
Table 3-21: Average porosity and initial water saturation (Comisky, 2002) with estimated residual oil
saturation.
Flow Unit Sand Φ Swi Sor

1 J2 0.33 0.160 0.253
2 J1 & J2 0.31 0.200 0.244
3 J1 0.32 0.190 0.246
4 J2 0.32 0.140 0.257
5 J1 0.33 0.170 0.251
6 J1 & J2 0.28 0.250 0.233
96
Modeling Relative Permeability in Six Flow Units
Oil-water and gas-oil relative permeability are modeled for six Flow Units using
Corey’s two-phase model (1954) (Figs. 3-23 through 3-36, Tables 3-23 through 3-28).
Model inputs for each Flow Unit are the log-based Swi values and empirically related Sor
values (Table 3-21). The Corey exponents reported by Kikani and Smith (1996) are used.
The Corey water coefficient (a), which is equal to the end-point water relative
permeability (krw), is related to Sor using a linear least square regression fit to a cross-plot
of whole core Sor and end-point krw (Figure 3-37, Tables 3-10, 3-22):
a = 1.658Sor − 0.0472 . (3-11)
The Corey oil coefficient (c = 0.866) is an average of calculated end-point oil relative
permeability (krow) values from whole core data (Table 3-10). The end-point values of
krog are set equal to endpoint krow and endpoint krw is set at 1.0.
The modeled relative permeability behavior, for the six Flow Units, is similar due
to small differences in residual oil saturations (Figs. 3-23 through 3-36). These small
differences are due to a lack of whole core data. Therefore, the two-phase relative
permeability behavior is considered an unconstrained property. Additionally, this two-
phase behavior is used to predict three-phase relative permeability behavior using Stone’s
Model II (1973).
97
1.0
krw
0.8 krow
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Sw
Figure 3-23: Modeled oil-water relative permeability curves for Flow Unit 1 (Table 3-21). The thick
line is the relative permeability of water in the presence of oil (krw) and the thin line is the relative
permeability of oil in the presence of water (krow). The average initial water saturation (Swi), based
on log data, is 0.160 and the estimated residual oil saturation (Sor) is 0.253 (Table 3-13).
1.0
krg
0.8 krog
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Sg
Figure 3-24: Modeled gas-oil relative permeability curves for Flow Unit 1 (Table 3-21). The thick
line is the relative permeability of gas in the presence of liquid (oil and water) (krg) and the thin line is
the relative permeability of oil in the presence of gas and irreducible water (krog). The average initial
water saturation (Swi), based on log data, is 0.160 and the estimated residual oil saturation (Sor) is
0.253 (Table 3-13).
98
1.0
krw
0.8 krow
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Sw
1.0
krg
0.8 krog
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Sg
0.244 (Table 3-13).
99
1.0
krw
0.8 krow
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Sw
on log data, is 0.190 and the estimated residual oil saturation (Sor) is 0.246 (Table3-13).
1.0
krg
0.8 krog
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Sg
0.246 (Table 3-13).
100
1.0
krw
0.8 krow
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Sw
1.0
krg
0.8 krog
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Sg
0.257 (Table 3-13).
101
1.0
krw
0.8 krow
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Sw
1.0
krg
0.8 krog
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Sg
0.251 (Table 3-13).
102
1.0
krw
0.8 krow
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Sw
1.0
krg
0.8 krog
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Sg
0.233 (Table 3-13).
103
1.0
Oil-Water Relative Permeability

krw (Unit 1)
krow (Unit 1)
0.8 krw (Unit 2)
krow (Unit 2)
krw (Unit 3)
0.6
krow (Unit 3)
krw (Unit 4)
0.4 krow (Unit 4)
krw (Unit 5)
0.2 krow (Unit 5)

krw (Unit 6)
krow (Unit 6)
0.0
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00
Sw
Figure 3-35: Comparison of modeled oil-water relative permeability curves for six Flow Units
1.0
krg (Unit 1)
Gas-Oil Relative Permeability
krog (Unit 1)
0.8 krg (Unit 2)
krog (Unit 2)
krg (Unit 3)
0.6
krog (Unit 3)
krg (Unit 4)
0.4 krog (Unit 4)
krg (Unit 5)
krog (Unit 5)
0.2
krg (Unit 6)
krog (Unit 6)
0.0
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00
Sg
Figure 3-36: Comparison of modeled gas-oil relative permeability curves for six Flow Units (Tables
3-21through 3-26).
104
0.50
Corey Coefficient (a)

0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20 0.23 0.26 0.29 0.32
Residual Oil Saturation (Sor)
Figure 3-37: Corey coefficient a versus average residual oil saturation from core data (Tables 3-10).
Trend line is a linear least squares fit to the data. The value of a is equal to end-point krw at Sor and
is used to determine a for each of the six Flow Units.
105
Table 3-22: Oil-water Corey coefficient a and c values used to model oil-water relative permeability
for the six Flow Units described by Comisky (2002). Values of a are linearly related to Sor and c is
an average value derived from core data (Tables 3-10, 3-11)
Flow Unit Sand Sor a c
1 J2 0.253 0.372 0.866
2 J1 & J2 0.244 0.357 0.866
3 J1 0.246 0.361 0.866
4 J2 0.257 0.379 0.866
5 J1 0.251 0.369 0.866
6 J1 & J2 0.233 0.339 0.866
106
Table 3-23: Modeled oil-water and gas-oil relative permeability and capillary pressure for Flow Unit
1 (J2 sand).
Oil-water Gas-oil
Sw krw krow Pcow (psi) Sg krg krog Pcgo (psi)
0.160 0.0000 0.8490 20.000 0.000 0.0000 0.8490 0.1333
0.200 0.0001 0.7363 2.4000 0.050 0.0009 0.5946 0.1400
0.250 0.0013 0.6030 1.1000 0.100 0.0071 0.4022 0.1467
0.300 0.0051 0.4786 0.7500 0.150 0.0234 0.2608 0.1533
0.350 0.0126 0.3652 0.5400 0.200 0.0539 0.1604 0.1600
0.400 0.0254 0.2650 0.4100 0.253 0.1060 0.0890 0.1670
0.450 0.0449 0.1801 0.3400 0.300 0.1719 0.0485 0.1733
0.500 0.0723 0.1119 0.3000 0.350 0.2643 0.0226 0.1800
0.550 0.1092 0.0612 0.2900 0.400 0.3809 0.0087 0.1867
0.600 0.1568 0.0273 0.2800 0.450 0.5214 0.0025 0.1933
0.650 0.2165 0.0084 0.2700 0.500 0.6841 0.0004 0.2000
0.700 0.2898 0.0010 0.2600 0.550 0.8640 0.0000 0.2267
0.747 0.3723 0.0000 0.2510 0.587 1.0000 0.0000 0.2550
0.840 1.0000 0.0000 13.333
2 (J1 and J2 sands).
Oil-water Gas-oil
0.200 0.0000 0.8490 20.000 0.000 0.0000 0.8490 0.1333
0.250 0.0003 0.7015 1.6000 0.050 0.0011 0.5824 0.1400
0.300 0.0021 0.5632 0.8500 0.100 0.0083 0.3841 0.1467
0.350 0.0070 0.4356 0.5600 0.150 0.0274 0.2414 0.1533
0.400 0.0166 0.3211 0.4300 0.200 0.0631 0.1427 0.1600
0.450 0.0325 0.2223 0.3500 0.244 0.1116 0.0842 0.1670
0.500 0.0561 0.1415 0.3000 0.300 0.2002 0.0382 0.1733
0.550 0.0891 0.0799 0.2900 0.350 0.3069 0.0160 0.1800
0.600 0.1331 0.0375 0.2800 0.400 0.4407 0.0053 0.1867
0.650 0.1895 0.0127 0.2700 0.450 0.6005 0.0011 0.1933
0.700 0.2599 0.0020 0.2600 0.500 0.7829 0.0001 0.2000
0.756 0.3574 0.0000 0.2490 0.556 1.0000 0.0000 0.2375
0.800 1.0000 0.0000 13.333
107
3 (J1 sand).
Oil-water Gas-oil
0.190 0.0000 0.8490 20.000 0.000 0.0000 0.8490 0.1333
0.250 0.0004 0.6755 1.4000 0.050 0.0010 0.5857 0.1400
0.300 0.0027 0.5409 0.7900 0.100 0.0080 0.3889 0.1467
0.350 0.0082 0.4170 0.5500 0.150 0.0262 0.2465 0.1533
0.400 0.0186 0.3062 0.4100 0.200 0.0606 0.1473 0.1600
0.450 0.0353 0.2111 0.3400 0.246 0.1097 0.0858 0.1670
0.500 0.0599 0.1336 0.3000 0.300 0.1923 0.0408 0.1733
0.550 0.0938 0.0749 0.2900 0.350 0.2951 0.0176 0.1800
0.600 0.1386 0.0348 0.2800 0.400 0.4241 0.0061 0.1867
0.650 0.1957 0.0115 0.2700 0.450 0.5787 0.0014 0.1933
0.700 0.2667 0.0017 0.2600 0.500 0.7559 0.0001 0.2000
0.754 0.3607 0.0000 0.2490 0.564 1.0000 0.0000 0.2275
0.810 1.0000 0.0000 13.333
4 (J2 sand).
Oil-water Gas-oil
0.140 0.0000 0.8490 20.000 0.000 0.0000 0.8490 0.1333
0.200 0.0004 0.6863 2.0000 0.050 0.0008 0.6005 0.1400
0.250 0.0023 0.5594 1.0000 0.100 0.0065 0.4111 0.1467
0.300 0.0071 0.4416 0.7000 0.150 0.0216 0.2704 0.1533
0.350 0.0160 0.3348 0.5000 0.200 0.0499 0.1694 0.1600
0.400 0.0304 0.2412 0.3900 0.257 0.1027 0.0920 0.1670
0.450 0.0515 0.1625 0.3400 0.300 0.1594 0.0541 0.1733
0.500 0.0806 0.0999 0.3000 0.350 0.2453 0.0263 0.1800
0.550 0.1191 0.0538 0.2900 0.400 0.3541 0.0109 0.1867
0.600 0.1682 0.0235 0.2800 0.450 0.4857 0.0035 0.1933
0.650 0.2292 0.0069 0.2700 0.500 0.6390 0.0007 0.2000
0.700 0.3035 0.0007 0.2600 0.550 0.8103 0.0001 0.2267
0.743 0.3789 0.0000 0.2520 0.603 1.0000 0.0000 0.2605
0.860 1.0000 0.0000 13.333
108
5 (J1 sand).
Oil-water Gas-oil
0.170 0.0000 0.8490 20.000 0.000 0.0000 0.8490 0.1333
0.200 0.0001 0.7628 2.5000 0.050 0.0009 0.5916 0.1400
0.250 0.0010 0.6261 1.2000 0.100 0.0074 0.3977 0.1467
0.300 0.0042 0.4984 0.8000 0.150 0.0243 0.2559 0.1533
0.350 0.0111 0.3815 0.5500 0.200 0.0561 0.1559 0.1600
0.400 0.0231 0.2778 0.4100 0.251 0.1078 0.0874 0.1670
0.450 0.0417 0.1896 0.3400 0.300 0.1787 0.0458 0.1733
0.500 0.0683 0.1185 0.3000 0.350 0.2745 0.0208 0.1800
0.550 0.1043 0.0653 0.2900 0.400 0.3952 0.0078 0.1867
0.600 0.1511 0.0295 0.2800 0.450 0.5405 0.0021 0.1933
0.650 0.2102 0.0093 0.2700 0.500 0.7081 0.0003 0.2000
0.700 0.2830 0.0012 0.2600 0.579 1.0000 0.0000 0.2500
0.749 0.3690 0.0000 0.2500 0.830 1.0000 0.0000 13.333
6 (J1 and J2 sand).
Oil-water Gas-oil
0.250 0.0000 0.8490 20.0000 0.000 0.0000 0.8490 0.1333
0.300 0.0003 0.6907 3.0000 0.050 0.0013 0.5652 0.1400
0.350 0.0025 0.5432 1.2000 0.100 0.0103 0.3593 0.1467
0.400 0.0083 0.4084 0.6300 0.150 0.0338 0.2156 0.1533
0.450 0.0196 0.2895 0.4700 0.200 0.0778 0.1200 0.1600
0.500 0.0383 0.1896 0.3600 0.233 0.1204 0.0773 0.1640
0.550 0.0663 0.1112 0.3200 0.300 0.2452 0.0264 0.1733
0.600 0.1052 0.0552 0.2900 0.350 0.3742 0.0092 0.1800
0.650 0.1571 0.0206 0.2700 0.400 0.5342 0.0022 0.1933
0.700 0.2236 0.0042 0.2600 0.450 0.7223 0.0002 0.2133
0.767 0.3391 0.0000 0.2470 0.517 1.0000 0.0000 0.2550
0.750 1.0000 0.0000 13.3333
109
Conclusions
Capillary pressure and relative permeability are modeled to establish initial fluid
saturations and multiphase fluid behavior for reservoir simulation of the J1 and J2 sand
reservoirs.
The capillary and relative permeability behavior of the J1 and J2 sand reservoirs
are characterized. Mercury injection data mimic behavior observed in other deepwater
turbidite sands. End-point permeability and saturation data document decreases in Sor
that correspond to increases in Swirr and decreases in krw. These characteristics are
incorporated into the model using empirical relationships.
Modeled capillary pressure behavior of the six Flow Units mimics whole core
data and compare to data documented at Mars. Capillary differences exit in the wetting
phase irreducible saturation only. The resultant curves are used in reservoir simulation to
establish the initial saturation conditions above the OOWC for each of the six Flow
Units.
Modeled two-phase relative permeability approximates the multiphase flow
characteristics of six Flow Units in the J1 and J2 sands. Empirical correlations between
end-point saturations and the water end-point relative permeability are based on limited
whole core data. Corey’s (1954) two-phase model is used to predict the relative
permeability between these constrained end-point values. These two-phase relative
permeability curves are used to predict three-phase relative permeability using Stone’s
Model II (1973).
110
Chapter 4
ROCK COMPACTION EFFECTS ON POROSITY AND

PERMEABILITY OF THE UNCONSOLIDATED J-SANDS
AT BULLWINKLE
Reservoir sands in unconsolidated systems are highly compressible (Merle et al.,
1976; Yale et al., 1993; Ostermeier, 1993, 1996, 2001; Davies and Davies, 1999;
Flemings et al., 2001). The compressibility versus effective stress for the Bullwinkle J2
sand has been documented (Flemings et al., 2001). Ostermeier (1993, 1996, 2001)
documented porosity and permeability effects due to changes in compressibility for
increases in vertical effective stress of unconsolidated turbidite sands from the Gulf of
Mexico. Kikani and Smith (1996) reported non-linear compaction effects on porosity
and permeability, for the J-sands at Bullwinkle. These effects correspond to non-linear
compressibility behavior documented by Ostermeier (1993, 1996, 2001). Davies and
Davies (1999) described stress-dependent permeability as a function of rock type for
unconsolidated turbidites (from a Plio-Pleistocene deepwater field in the Gulf of Mexico
and the Pliocene Wilmington Field in California) and addressed implications for
production associated with the observed behavior.
In this chapter, stress dependent porosity and permeability behavior of the J1 and
J2 sands at Bullwinkle are characterized and modeled. A Fetkovich (1971) material
balance model, constrained by historical production and pressure data, is used to calculate
pore compressibility behavior. The inferred compressibility behavior is consistent with
uniaxial deformation data. This model of pore compressibility is used to calculate the
reduction in porosity due to increases in vertical effective stress during production.

111
Permeability reductions corresponding to changes in porosity are grain size dependent
and empirically modeled based on deformation data.
Whole Core Data
Uniaxial deformation experiments were run on whole core samples, by Shell Oil
Co., located in three different Flow Units, described by Comisky (2002), in the J1 and J2
sand (Chapter 3: Figs. 3-1, 3-2). Three experiments were run on 65-1-ST samples
(Tables 4-1, 4-2, 4-3) and seven on the A-32-BP (Tables 4-4 through 4-10) using a
protocol outlined by Ostermeier (1996). The 65-1-ST samples are from Flow Unit 2
(Tables 4-1, 4-2, 4-3) in the J2 sand, while samples from the A-32-BP are from separate
Flow Units in the J1 and J2 sands (3 and 1, respectively) (Tables 4-4 through 4-10)
(Comisky, 2002).
Initial In-situ Vertical Effective Stress
Vertical effective stress (σv ) can be approximated as,
σ v = S v − Pp , (4-1)
where Sv is the overburden stress and Pp is the pore pressure. The overburden stress (Sv)
is calculated from the bulk density log. Lupa et al. (2002) approximated it as a linear
function of depth over the J-sand interval;
 psi 
S v = 0.88  * z ( ft.) . (4-2)
 ft 
In the J-sands prior to production, the vertical effective stress (σv) increases by 1515 psi
from 1050 psi at the crest to 2565 psi at the base of the J2 sand (Figure 4-1).
112
Pressure (psi)
7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000
10000
Overburden
σv =1050 psi Stress
10500 Crest J2-RB
Oil Pressure
11000
Water
SSTVD (ft.)
Pressure
11500 Gas
Crest J2-RA Pressure
12000
12500
13000 J2 sand base

σv =2565 psi
13500
Figure 4-1: Pressure vs. depth in the J2 sand at initial conditions. Pressures are based on a measured
reference pressure of 8550 psi at 12070 ft., SSTVD and the assumption that the system is at steady
state (no potential gradients). Overburden stress (Sv) calculation is from Equation 4-2. Brine, oil,
and water densities are assumed to be constant and 1.16 gm/cc, 0.75 gm/cc, 0.34 gm/cc, respectively
(see Chapter 2). Values use to construct this plot are in Table 4-11.
113
Table 4-1: Deformation data from the 65-1-ST whole core, sample 10 (13092.3 ft., measured depth;
12486.3 ft., SSTVD) located in the J2 sand (Shell Petrophysical Services, 1987). Pore compressibility
values (cp) are calculated from Equation 4-3. Sample is from Flow Unit #2 (Comisky, 2002). Bold
values are close to the initial in-situ vertical effective stress (2309.8 psi).
σv k cp
Φ
(psi) (mD) (10-6 psi-1)
200 0.3214 1293 80.0
750 0.3118 1268 42.9
1250 0.3072 1184 34.8
1750 0.3035 1153 27.3
2200 0.3009 1142 33.3
2700 0.2974 1099 22.0
3200 0.2951 1034 22.1
3700 0.2928 987 24.1
4700 0.2878 926 25.9
5700 0.2825 824 37.5
6700 0.2749 703 43.1
7700 0.2663 529 43.0
8700 0.2579 391 40.8
9700 0.2501 296 -
σv k cp
Φ
(psi) (mD) (10-6 psi-1)
200 0.3713 1528 68.5
750 0.3625 1344 63.2
1250 0.3552 1241 56.8
1750 0.3487 1123 59.7
2200 0.3426 1022 69.3
2700 0.3348 937 63.8
3200 0.3277 814 71.7
3700 0.3198 701 42.3
4700 0.3106 526 59.3
5700 0.2979 340 29.2
6700 0.2918 239 35.8
7700 0.2844 152 26.5
8700 0.279 114 34.3
9700 0.2721 84.6 -
114
σv k cp
Φ
(psi) (mD) (10-6 psi-1)
200 0.3102 30.9 51.0
750 0.3042 21.8 35.9
1250 0.3004 19.4 34.3
1750 0.2968 16.8 39.4
2200 0.2931 14.9 32.8
2700 0.2897 14.5 28.2
3200 0.2868 12.2 34.2
3700 0.2833 10.7 54.7
4700 0.2722 7.18 78.2
5700 0.2567 3.14 74.4
6700 0.2425 1.89 57.7
7700 0.2319 1.12 52.8
8700 0.2225 0.751 53.8
9700 0.2132 0.673 -
Table 4-4: Deformation data from the A-32-BP whole core, sample 16 (12823.4 ft., measured depth;
σv k cp
Φ
(psi) (mD) (10-6 psi-1)
200 0.3174 3296 53.3
2000 0.2966 2420 34.0
3000 0.2895 2039 59.8
4000 0.2772 1708 37.4
5000 0.2697 1384 59.4
6000 0.258 957 52.8
7000 0.2479 659 71.3
8000 0.2346 390 25.1
9000 0.2301 308 -
115
σv k cp
Φ
(psi) (mD) (10-6 psi-1)
200 0.3544 4533 67.3
2000 0.3267 2611 46.8
3000 0.3164 1996 48.1
4000 0.306 1495 73.9
5000 0.2903 929 70.4
6000 0.2758 561 42.6
7000 0.2673 405 60.2
8000 0.2555 250 49.4
9000 0.2461 154 -
σv k cp
Φ
(psi) (mD) (10-6 psi-1)
200 0.3358 4166 68.7
2000 0.3082 2583 49.2
3000 0.2977 2037 34.0
4000 0.2906 1697 61.6
5000 0.2779 1188 68.8
6000 0.2641 770 49.4
7000 0.2545 572 43.7
8000 0.2462 399 41.5
9000 0.2385 263 -
σv k cp
Φ
(psi) (mD) (10-6 psi-1)
200 0.3203 1137 36.0
2000 0.3062 913 31.5
3000 0.2995 818 20.0
4000 0.2953 696 46.1
4500 0.2905 612 64.0
5000 0.2839 497 -
116
σv k cp
Φ
(psi) (mD) (10-6 psi-1)
200 0.3501 3341 40.3
2000 0.3336 2372 27.0
3000 0.3276 2279 20.9
3500 0.3253 1988 31.9
4000 0.3218 1776 40.3
4500 0.3174 1526 38.8
5000 0.3132 1300 -
σv k cp
Φ
(psi) (mD) (10-6 psi-1)
200 0.3426 3136 60.4
2000 0.3181 2095 64.1
3000 0.3042 1717 45.4
3500 0.2994 1556 42.9
4000 0.2949 1428 43.3
4500 0.2904 1264 47.6
5000 0.2855 1149 -
σv k cp
Φ
(psi) (mD) (10-6 psi-1)
200 0.3585 3589 42.0
2000 0.3411 2716 34.7
3000 0.3333 2353 39.6
3500 0.3289 2109 50.7
4000 0.3233 1906 61.2
4500 0.3166 1508 81.3
5000 0.3078 1142 -
117
Table 4-11: Pressure versus depth in the J2 sand at initial conditions. Pressures are based on a
measure value of 8550 psi at 12070 ft, SSTVD and the assumption that th esystem is at steady state.
Overburden stress (Sv) is calculated from Eq. 4-2. Brine, oil, and water densities are assumed
constant at 1.16 gm/cc, 0.75 gm/cc, and 0.34 gm/cc, respectively.
Depth Oil Phase Water Phase Gas Phase Minimum
Sv
SSTVD Pressure Pressure Pressure σv
(psi)
(ft.) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi)
10500 9091 8040 - - 1050
10600 9187 8072 - - 1115
10700 9283 8105 - - 1178
10800 9380 8137 - - 1242
10900 9476 8170 - - 1306
11000 9573 8202 - - 1371
11100 9670 8235 - - 1435
11200 9766 8267 - - 1499
11300 9863 8300 - - 1563
11400 9960 8332 - - 1628
11500 10057 8365 - - 1578
11600 10154 8397 - - 1661
11700 10251 8430 - - 1743
11800 10349 8462 - 8523 1826
11900 10446 8495 - 8537 1909
12000 10543 8527 - 8552 1991
12100 10641 8560 - 8567 2074
12200 10738 8592 - 8581 2157
12300 10836 8625 - - 2211
12400 10934 8657 8655 - 2279
12500 11032 - 8705 - 2326
12600 11130 - 8755 - 2374
12700 11228 - 8806 - 2422
12800 11326 - 8856 - 2470
12900 11424 - 8906 - 2518
13000 11522 - 8956 - 2566
118
Pore Compressibility
Pore compressibility (cp) is defined as (Flemings et al., 2001) (derivation in
Appendix C),
1 ∂V p 1 ∂Φ
cp = − =− , (4-3)
V p ∂σ v Φ(1 − Φ ) ∂σ v
where Vp is the pore volume and Φ is the porosity. The cp of the whole core samples is
calculated from deformation data (Figs 4-2, 4-3, Tables 4-1 through 4-10). In two of the
three samples, from the 65-1-ST well, cp increases with increasing vertical effective stress
over the range of stresses present during production (Figure 4-2, Tables 4-1, 4-2, 4-3). In
the A-32-BP, all seven samples record this same behavior (Figure 4-3, Tables 4-4
through 4-10). In sample 14, from the 65-1-ST, cp decreases with increasing stress, in
contrast to the other samples.
Ostermeier (1993, 1996, 2001) examined the compressibility for four different
deepwater Gulf of Mexico turbidite reservoirs and showed similar behavior. In
deformation experiments, Ostermeier (1993, 1996, 2001) showed that compressibility
often increased (strain softening) and then decreased (strain hardening) with increasing
vertical effective stress. Ostermeier (2001) suggested that at initial conditions ductile
grains were load-supporting. With increased effective stress, the yield strength of these
grains was reached and the compressibility increased.
Compaction Effects On Permeability
Permeability decreases with increasing stress (Figs. 4-4, 4-5, Tables 4-1 through
4-10). The J1 samples, from the A-32-BP, record higher permeability than samples from
the J2 in the A-32-BP and 65-1-ST (Figure 4-6). In the J1 sand, permeability measured
119
100
80
#10 (J2)
cp (10-6 psi-1)
60
#14 (J2)
40
#22 (J2)
20 σv σv
(initial) (12/99)
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
σv (psi)
Figure 4-2: Pore compressibility (cp) vs. vertical effective stress (σv) for 65-1-ST whole core samples
(Tables 4-1, 4-2, 4-3). These samples are from the J2 sand. The initial in-situ vertical effective stress
(σvi) is approximately 2319 psi (range = 2309 psi to 2329 psi) and in Dec., 1999 σv is 4800 psi
(Appendix A: Figure A.14).
100
#16 (J1)
80 #19 (J1)
cp (10-6 psi-1)
#21 (J1)
60
#33 (J2)
40
#46 (J2)
20 σv
σv #51 (J2)
(12/99)
(initial)
#56 (J2)
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
σv (psi)
Figure 4-3: Pore compressibility (cp) vs. vertical effective stress (σv) for A-32-BP whole core samples
(Tables 4-4 through 4-10). These samples were extracted from both the J1 and J2 sand. The σvi is
approximately 2014 psi (range = 1979 psi to 2050 psi) and in Dec., 1999 σv is 4500 psi (Appendix A:
Figure A.14).
120
5000
#10 (J2)
4000 #14 (J2)
#22 (J2)
3000
k (mD)
2000
1000
0
0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40
Φ
Figure 4-4: Permeability (k) vs. porosity (Φ) data for the 65-1-ST whole core samples (Tables 4-1, 4-2,
4-3).
5000
#16 (J1)
#19 (J1)
4000 #21 (J1)
#33 (J2)
#46 (J2)
3000
k (mD)
#51 (J2)
#56 (J2)
2000
1000
0
0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40
Φ
Figure 4-5: Permeability (k) vs. porosity (Φ) data for the A-32-BP whole core samples (Tables 4-4
through 4-10).
121
on stressed samples (2000 psi) ranged from 2611 mD to 2420 mD with a mean value of
2538 mD (Tables 4-4, 4-5, 4-6). Permeability measured on stressed samples (2000 psi)
in the J2 sand range from 2716 mD to 913 mD with a mean value of 2024 mD (Tables 4-
7, 4-8, 4-9, 4-10). The 65-1-ST samples (samples 10, 14), stressed at 2200 psi, record
permeabilities ranging from 1142 mD to 1022 mD with a mean value of 1082 mD
(Tables 4-1, 4-2).
Permeabilities at a given porosity are lower for finer grained samples (Figure 4-6,
Table 4-12). For example, the minimum and maximum median grain sizes in the A-32-
BP well (J2 sand) are 135 µm and 174 µm, respectively, and the average of these median
values is 152 µm (Figure 4-6). In contrast at the 65-1-ST well (J2 sand) the average
median grain size is 121 µm with a range of 54 µm to 166 µm (Figure 4-6). No grain
size data were collected in the J1 sand.
Davies and Davies (1999) described compaction as stress-related physical
changes due to grain slippage, grain rotation, ductile changes in grain shape, and grain
fracturing. These compaction processes results in a decrease in pore volume (lower
porosity) and decrease in pore throat radius (lower permeability). In the J1 and J2 sands,
it is assumed that compaction is due to grain slippage and rotation.
The observed cp behavior may be explained by Ostermeier’s (2001) hypothesis,
presented earlier, or by physical changes in the matrix material. The early time cp
behavior may be explained by grains that are initially slightly cemented (friable sand).
For a certain increase in effective stress, the cementing material may break or crack,
breaking the bond between grains. For further increases in vertical effective stress the
grains slip, rotate and reorient. This grain slippage and rotation corresponds to increases
122
5000
65-1-ST (J2): Flow Unit #2 - Dm = 121 um
A-32-BP (J1): Flow Unit #3 - ?
4000 A-32-BP (J2): Flow Unit #1 - Dm = 152 um
3000
k (mD)
2000
1000
0
0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40
Φ
Figure 4-6: Permeability (k) vs. porosity (Φ) data for the A-32-BP and 65-1-ST samples. The data
are separated by Flow Unit (Tables 4-1 through 4-10). Differences correspond to grain size (Table 4-
12) and in-situ permeability. Data are shown separately in Figures 4-4 and 4-5. Dm is the median
grain size as reported by core analyses.
5000
fine upper - Dm = 200 um
fine lower - Dm = 150 um
4000 very-fine upper - Dm = 100 um
65-1-ST (J2) - Dm = 121 um
A-32-BP (J1) - ?
3000
k (mD)
A-32-BP (J2) - Dm = 152 um
2000
1000
0
0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40
Φ
Figure 4-7: Permeability-porosity relationships using the Carman-Kozeny model (Table 4-13).
Deformation data is from the 65-1-ST and A-32-BP samples (Tables 4-1 through 4-10). Dm is the
median grain size of whole core samples. Modeled permeability-porosity relationships are for grain
sizes of Dm=100 µm (very-fine upper), Dm=150 µm (fine lower), and Dm=200 µm (fine-upper) (Table
4-13).
123
Table 4-12: Average rock properties from whole core samples for sampled Flow Units 1, 2, and 3
(Table 4-1 through 4-10). Average properties are at approximate intial in-situ σv (A-32-BP = 2000
psi, 65-1-ST = 2200 psi).
Whole Flow Dm
Sand k (mD) Φ
Core Unit (µm)
A-32-BP 1 J2 2024 0.311 152
65-1-ST 2 J2 1082 0.325 121
A-32-BP 3 J1 2538 0.322 -
Table 4-13: Permeability-porosity relations for three different grain sizes (Dm) using the Carman-
Kozeny model.
k k k
Φ (mD) (mD) (mD)
Dm = 200 µm Dm = 150 µm Dm = 100 µm
0.20 639.6 359.8 159.9
0.22 895.6 503.8 223.9
0.24 1224.7 688.9 306.2
0.26 1642.4 923.9 410.6
0.28 2166.9 1218.9 541.7
0.30 2819.7 1586.1 704.9
0.32 3626.3 2039.8 906.6
0.34 4617.2 2597.2 1154.3
0.36 5828.8 3278.7 1457.2
0.38 7304.6 4108.9 1826.2
124
in cp with increasing vertical effective stress. Then, at higher vertical effective stresses
the grains may orient themselves such that slippage and rotation can no longer occur.
With further increases in stress, cp decreases rapidly because the matrix material has
compacted.
Relating Permeability to Porosity Using The Carman-Kozeny Model
The coupled porosity (Φ) -permeability behavior is simulated with the Carman-
Kozeny (CK) model (Figure 4-7, Table 4-13), where permeability (k) is defined as,
Dm 2 Φ 3
k= . (4-4)
72 * Τ * (1 − Φ ) 2
T is the flow tortuosity, Dm is grain diameter, and the constant 72.0 (dimensionless) is
related to pore geometry (Panda et al., 1994). Grain size diameters of 100 µm (very-fine
upper), 150 µm (fine lower), and 200 µm (fine upper) are modeled (Figure 4-7, Table 4-
13). The Bullwinkle data (Figure 4-7, Table 4-13) could be simulated with a tortuosity
factor (T) equal to 11.0.
Pore Compressibility Behavior Derived From A Material Balance

Model
Fetkovich’s (1971) approach is used to model the pore compressibility behavior
in the J1 and J2 sands. Fetkovich’s (1971) approach is a time-incremental approach that
solves for the pressure in the reservoir and at the mid point in the aquifer (Figure 4-8). It
is a box model with constant rock and fluid properties. The change in pressure at each
time step is a function of fluid injected and produced and changes in pore
compressibility.
125
Model Geometry and Rock and Fluid Property Inputs
It is assumed that the J1, J2, J3, J4 and the Rocky reservoirs are connected by a
common aquifer (Figure 4-9) based on the observation that there is pressure
communication between them (Holman and Robertson, 1994). Reservoir and aquifer
volumes for these sands are listed in Table 4-14. These volumes are constrained by
seismic and log data (Swanston, 2001; Comisky, 2002).
The entire J1, J2, J3, J4, and Rocky sand system is modeled as a single
rectangular system of width (b), height (h), reservoir length (l), and aquifer length (L)
(Figure 4-8). The total volume of the aquifer is set equal to the mapped value of
1.154X109 barrels, while the hydrocarbon volume is set equal to the combined J1 and J2
mapped value of 2.134X108 barrels (Table 4-15). Only the oil present in the J1 and J2 is
considered for the material balance model. Hydrocarbons in the Rocky, J3 and J4 sands
are ignored.
The height, h, was set equal to the average sand thickness of the J2 sand, 45 ft.
The width, b, is set equal to the length of the J2 oil-water contact, 10,000 ft. The aquifer
and reservoir lengths (L and l, respectively) are calculated based on the assumption that
the total volume is fixed by the mapped volumes (Tables 4-14, 4-15).
Values of porosity and water saturation (Swi) are averaged from the six Flow
Units present in the J1 and J2 sands (Comisky, 2002) (Table 4-15) (Chapter 3: Figs. 3-1,
3-2). The permeability in the aquifer is specified at 1060 mD based on the permeability
of Flow Unit 2, which is located in the aquifer of both sands (Comisky, 2002) (Table 4-
15).
126
Np
Wp Winj
Reservoir h
Aquifer
Pres b
Paq
l
L
Figure 4-8: Schematic of Fetkovick material balance model. Dimensions are reservoir length (l),
aquifer length (L), reservoir and aquifer width (b) and thickness (h). Dimensions shown are not to
scale. Actual model dimensions are found in Table 4-15. Constant rock and fluid properties are
based on rock and fluid samples. Np is the produced volume of oil, Wp is the produced volume of
water, and Winj is the injected volume of water. Paq is the average aquifer pressure and Pres is the
aquifer-reservoir interface pressure.
J1+J2
Rocky
J3
J4
Figure 4-9: J-sand and Rocky sand connectivity model. The J1 and J2 are interpreted to be
connected in the hydrocarbon column while the J3, J4, and Rocky sands are interpreted to connect to
the J2 sand in the aquifer.
127
Table 4-14: Reservoir and aquifer volumes for J-sands and Rocky (Swanston, 2001). Fluid volumes
are based on seismic limits and average sand thickness as recorded by well logs. Equivalent aquifer
volume is used for sizing of the aquifer for material balance calculations.
Estimated Oil Estimated Free Gas Estimated Aquifer Equivalent Aquifer
Sand
Volume (MRB) Volume (MRB) Volume (MRB) Volume (MRB)
J1 53,743 0 94,855 94,855
J2 159,576 0 300,576 300,576
J3 20,759 10,560 194,056 225,375
J4 24,546 0 332,668 357,214
Rocky 20,450 5,016 151,411 176,877
Total 279,074 15,576 1,073,566 1,154,897
Table 4-15: Input properties for Fetkovich material balance model (Figure 4-9).
Width of reservoir and aquifer – b (ft) 10,000
Average height (J1+J2) of sand – h (ft) 45
Length of reservoir – l (ft) 10,150
Length of aquifer - L (ft) 45,000
Average porosity - Φ 0.32
Average Initial oil saturation in reservoir – Soi 0.82
Average Initial water saturation in reservoir – Swi 0.18
Average Oil formation volume factor – Boi (res Bbl/STB) 1.55
Brine formation volume factor – Bw (res. Bbl/STB) 1.0002
Oil compressibility – co (psi-1) 1.00E-05
Water compressibility – cw (psi-1) 3.00E-06
Estimated brine viscosity - µw (cp) 0.5
Average permeability in the aquifer – kw (mD) 1060
Initial pressure at 12,070 ft. datum - Pi (psi) 8550
J1 and J2 Reservoir oil volume - OOIP (MRB) 213,448
J1, J2, J3, J4, and Rocky water volume – OWIP (MRB) 1,154,051
128
Constant fluid properties are specified. Hydrocarbon properties (µo, Boi, co) are
taken from a mid-dip location (12,070 ft., SSTVD) based on the J-RB equation of state
fluid model developed in Chapter 2 (Table 4-15). Correlations for aquifer properties of
viscosity (µw) (McCain, 1988), formation volume factor (Bwi) (McCain, 1988), and
compressibility (cw) (Osif, 1984) are based on a reservoir temperature of 165oF, a brine
density of 1.16 gm/cc (Comisky, 2002) and average aquifer pressure of 8750 psi at
12,700 ft., SSTVD (Table 4-15).
The Fetkovich Model – Cumulative and Incremental Models
The Fetkovich (1971) model is used to calculate the average and instantaneous
system behavior of the J1 and J2 sands. The average behavior is calculated using a
cumulative model (as presented by Fetkovich, 1971), which references the initial
condition at each time step and calculates pressure based on an average change in system
conditions. This cumulative model is modified to calculate the instantaneous behavior
using an incremental model that assumes the system is at hydrostatic equilibrium at each
time step. The instantaneous behavior is calculated using the same set of equations, but
the initial aquifer pressure (Piaq) and reservoir pressure (Pires) are set to the pressures
calculated in the previous time step, the volume of oil produced is subtracted from the
original oil in place (N), and the volume of water influx (We(n)) is calculated at each time-
step.
Both the cumulative and incremental approaches suffer limitations. The
cumulative approach calculates only the average compressibility that must be present to
achieve the pressure between any two points in time. Thus, the change in compressibility
at each incremental change in effective stress cannot be captured. In contrast, the

129
incremental approach calculates the instantaneous compressibility. However, it violates a
basic assumption of the Fetkovich (1971) model: namely that there are no potential
gradients at the start of each timestep.
The average aquifer pressure (Paq(n)) for each time-step (n) is calculated,
 Pi aq 
Paq ( n ) = Piaq −  (∑ We( n ) − Winj ) , (4-5)
Wei 
 
Where Winj is the water injected, and
b * h * L * Φ * ctw * Piaq
Wei = (4-6)
5.615
is the maximum encroachable water. The constant 5.615 converts cubic feet to reservoir
barrels. The total compressibility, ctw, in the aquifer is the sum of the water
compressibility (cw) and pore compressibility. The mobile volume of water influencing
the reservoir per time-step (We(n)) is calculated,
Wei  Pres ( n −1) Pres ( n )    ∆t n 

 qwi 
−
We( n ) = P
 aq ( n −1) − −  1 − e  Wei 
, (4-7)
Pi  2 2   
where ∆tn is the time-step size (calendar month). The maximum water flow rate into the
reservoir (qwi), otherwise known as the productivity index (P.I.),
 
 k *b*h* P 
= (1.127 E − 03) ,
w iaq
q wi (4-8)
 L 
 µw 
 3 
is a function of permeability (kw), viscosity of brine (µw), and aquifer length (L), where
the constant 1.127X10-3 converts millidarcy-feet per centipoise to reservoir barrels per
day. The aquifer-reservoir interface pressure (Pres(n)), for a time-step, is based on the
undersaturated oil material balance equation,

130
− Np * Boi − Wp * Bwi + ∑ We( n −1) + Pires ( N * ce − Np * c o )Boi

Pres ( n ) = .
Wei   qwi
− ∆t n   

(4-9)
(N * ce − Np * co )Boi +  1 − e  Wei   / 2

 Piaq  
Np and Wp are the total monthly volumes of oil and water produced, respectively. The
initial oil and water formation volume factors are Boi and Bwi, respectively. The total
compressibility in the reservoir (ce) is the sum of the pore compressibility and
compressibility of saturation weighted oil (co) and water; ce = cp + Soi*co + Swi*cw. The
original oil in place (N) is calculated from:
b * h * l * Φ * Soi
N= , (4-10)
5.615 * Boi
where Soi is the average initial oil saturation in the reservoir.
Model Results
The average and instantaneous pore compressibility behavior is calculated from
both the cumulative and incremental models that successfully match the observed
pressures (Figs. 4-10, 4-11, 4-12). A striking observation is that in order to match the
pressure in the reservoir, an increase in compressibility with time is necessary for both
models (Figure 4-10). Modeled pore compressibility is calculated to be 10 X 10-6 psi-1 at
the in-situ initial vertical effective stress (2062 psi at 12070 ft., SSTVD) for both models.
The average cp behavior increases to 120 X 10-6 psi-1 for a 2450 psi increase in stress in
the reservoir, while the instantaneous cp behavior increases to 150 X 10-6 psi-1 for the
same increase in stress (Figure 4-10, Tables 4-16, 4-17).

131
160
Average
1996
Instantaneous
120 Sample 56
cp (10 psi )
1989
1991
1994
-1
80
-6
40
0
1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
σv (psi)
σv (ksi)
160
120
cp (10-6 psi-1)
80
Average
40
Instantaneous
Sample 56
0
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Date
Figure 4-10: Calculated average (Table 4-16) and instantaneous (Table 4-17) pore compressibility
(cp) vs. vertical effective stress (σv) and time for a material balance match of historical reservoir
pressure (Figs. 4-11, 4-12). Deformation data is from whole core sample 56 from the A-32-BP whole
core (Table 4-10). The initial average in-situ vertical effective stress is 2062 psi at 12070 ft., SSTVD.
All compressibility values are calculated for a depth of 12070 ft., SSTVD.
132
9000 1612
Modeled Reservoir Pressure
Modeled Aquifer Pressure
Pressure (psi) 8000 Historical Reservoir Pressure 2612
v
(psi)
7000 3612
6000 4612
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Date
Figure 4-11: Modeled reservoir and aquifer pressures using the Fetkovich (1971) cumulative
(average) material balance model (Table 4-18). Pressure match is based on the calculated average
pore compressibility behavior shown in Figure 4-10 (Table 4-16). Pressure and stress values are
referenced to a 12,070 ft., SSTVD datum depth. Observed pressure data is found in Appendix A.
9000 1612
Modeled Reservoir Pressure
Modeled Aquifer Pressure
Pressure (psi)
Historical Reservoir Pressure

8000 2612
v
(psi)
7000 3612
6000 4612
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Date
Figure 4-12: Modeled reservoir and aquifer pressures using the Fetkovich (1971) incremental
(instantaneous) material balance model (Table 4-19). Pressure match is based on the calculated
instantaneous pore compressibility behavior shown in Figure 4-10 (Table 4-17). Pressure and stress
values are referenced to a 12,070 ft., SSTVD datum depth. Observed pressure data is found in
Appendix A.
133
Table 4-16: Derived average cp values using the cumulative Fetkovich material balance model.
Values were calculated for a match in reservoir pressure (Figure 4-10, 4-11).
cp Average σv Average Reservoir
(10-6 psi-1) (psi) Pressure (psi)
10.0 1562 9050
10.0 1662 8950
10.0 1762 8850
10.0 1862 8750
10.0 1962 8650
10.0 2062 8550
10.0 2162 8450
11.3 2262 8350
12.6 2362 8250
14.0 2462 8150
15.3 2562 8050
16.6 2662 7950
18.0 2762 7850
19.3 2862 7750
20.0 2962 7650
22.2 3062 7550
26.8 3162 7450
31.3 3262 7350
35.9 3362 7250
40.4 3462 7150
45.0 3562 7050
54.4 3662 6950
63.8 3762 6850
73.2 3862 6750
82.6 3962 6650
85.0 4062 6550
92.0 4162 6450
101.3 4262 6350
110.6 4362 6250
120.0 4462 6150
132.0 4562 6050
144.0 4662 5950
150.0 4762 5850
152.2 4862 5750
156.6 4962 5650
161.1 5062 5550
165.5 5162 5450
134
Table 4-17: Derived cp values using the incremental Fetkovich material balance model. Values were
calculated for a match in reservoir pressure (Figure 4-10, 4-12).
cp Average σv Average Reservoir
(10-6 psi-1) (psi) Pressure (psi)
10.0 1562 9050
10.0 1662 8950
10.0 1762 8850
10.0 1862 8750
10.0 1962 8650
10.0 2062 8550
10.0 2162 8450
14.5 2262 8350
19.0 2362 8250
23.6 2462 8150
28.1 2562 8050
32.6 2662 7950
37.2 2762 7850
41.7 2862 7750
44.0 2962 7650
51.8 3062 7550
67.4 3162 7450
83.0 3262 7350
98.7 3362 7250
114.3 3462 7150
130.0 3562 7050
134.7 3662 6950
139.4 3762 6850
144.1 3862 6750
148.8 3962 6650
150.0 4062 6550
150.0 4162 6450
150.0 4262 6350
150.0 4362 6250
150.0 4462 6150
150.0 4562 6050
150.0 4662 5950
150.0 4762 5850
150.0 4862 5750
150.0 4962 5650
150.0 5062 5550
150.0 5162 5450
135
Table 4-18: Modeled reservoir and aquifer pressure for calculated average pore compressibility
results (Table 4-16). Initial pressure is 8550 psi, which is referenced to 12,070 ft. SSTVD datum.
Reservoir Aquifer Reservoir Aquifer Reservoir Aquifer
Date Pressure Pressure Date Pressure Pressure Date Pressure Pressure
(psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi)
Jul-89 8547 8550 Nov-92 6981 7403 Mar-96 6283 6824
Aug-89 8514 8547 Dec-92 7030 7352 Apr-96 6280 6800
Sep-89 8481 8540 Jan-93 7043 7314 May-96 6274 6778
Oct-89 8446 8530 Feb-93 6945 7351 Jun-96 6272 6756
Nov-89 8413 8516 Mar-93 6854 7302 Jul-96 6271 6735
Dec-89 8394 8501 Apr-93 6779 7234 Aug-96 6265 6715
Jan-90 8361 8485 May-93 6697 7156 Sep-96 6265 6695
Feb-90 8327 8466 Jun-93 6622 7257 Oct-96 6263 6677
Mar-90 8309 8446 Jul-93 6858 7190 Nov-96 6263 6658
Apr-90 8233 8422 Aug-93 6766 7123 Dec-96 6269 6641
May-90 8191 8394 Sep-93 6663 7054 Jan-97 6270 6626
Jun-90 8140 8363 Oct-93 6807 6996 Feb-97 6271 6611
Jul-90 8110 8330 Nov-93 6890 7199 Mar-97 6267 6596
Aug-90 8077 8298 Dec-93 6793 7156 Apr-97 6263 6582
Sep-90 8067 8267 Jan-94 6699 7115 May-97 6266 6568
Oct-90 8020 8237 Feb-94 6635 7070 Jun-97 6269 6744
Nov-90 7946 8202 Mar-94 6562 7022 Jul-97 6384 6695
Dec-90 7920 8164 Apr-94 6501 6962 Oct-97 6402 6684
Jan-91 7858 8129 May-94 6439 6912 Nov-97 6411 6673
Feb-91 7805 8088 Jun-94 6386 6854 Dec-97 6415 6662
Mar-91 7855 8053 Jul-94 6332 6800 Jan-98 6412 6653
Apr-91 7930 8031 Aug-94 6511 6755 Feb-98 6418 6644
May-91 7967 8020 Sep-94 6446 6957 Mar-98 6417 6635
Jun-91 7987 8014 Oct-94 6399 6909 Apr-98 6415 6626
Jul-91 7997 8011 Nov-94 6357 6861 May-98 6411 6618
Aug-91 7828 7997 Dec-94 6312 6816 Jun-98 6415 6610
Sep-91 7676 8018 Jan-95 6321 6777 Jul-98 6420 6602
Oct-91 7577 7969 Feb-95 6283 6735 Aug-98 6420 6595
Nov-91 7481 7907 Mar-95 6396 6700 Sep-98 6427 6589
Dec-91 7439 7955 Apr-95 6347 6891 Oct-98 6427 6582
Jan-92 7461 7897 May-95 6316 6857 Nov-98 6430 6576
Feb-92 7371 7833 Jun-95 6486 6833 Dec-98 6434 6570
Mar-92 7272 7762 Jul-95 6444 6811 Jan-99 6436 6566
Apr-92 7186 7679 Aug-95 6408 6788 Feb-99 6438 6560
May-92 7240 7678 Sep-95 6373 6766 Mar-99 6438 6556
Jun-92 7149 7616 Oct-95 6346 6747 Apr-99 6437 6551
Jul-92 7061 7602 Nov-95 6319 6726 May-99 6436 6547
Aug-92 7028 7529 Dec-95 6295 6899 Jun-99 6430 6542
Sep-92 6988 7452 Jan-96 6288 6874 Jul-99 6427 6538
Oct-92 6894 7384 Feb-96 6289 6848 Aug-99 6424 6533
Sep-99 6421 6529
136
Table 4-19: Modeled reservoir and aquifer pressure for calculated incremental pore compressibility
results (Table 4-17). Initial pressure is 8550 psi, which is referenced to 12,070 ft. SSTVD datum.
Reservoir Aquifer Reservoir Aquifer Reservoir Aquifer
Date Pressure Pressure Date Pressure Pressure Date Pressure Pressure
(psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi)
Jul-89 8547 8550 Nov-92 7024 7581 Mar-96 6289 6855
Aug-89 8514 8547 Dec-92 6996 7559 Apr-96 6290 6844
Sep-89 8481 8540 Jan-93 6961 7537 May-96 6287 6834
Oct-89 8446 8530 Feb-93 6939 7510 Jun-96 6290 6823
Nov-89 8413 8516 Mar-93 6907 7486 Jul-96 6295 6813
Dec-89 8394 8501 Apr-93 6881 7471 Aug-96 6295 6803
Jan-90 8362 8485 May-93 6853 7463 Sep-96 6303 6793
Feb-90 8327 8466 Jun-93 6830 7446 Oct-96 6309 6784
Mar-90 8309 8446 Jul-93 6806 7432 Nov-96 6317 6775
Apr-90 8233 8422 Aug-93 6778 7427 Dec-96 6334 6766
May-90 8192 8394 Sep-93 6745 7419 Jan-97 6342 6759
Jun-90 8140 8363 Oct-93 6712 7408 Feb-97 6352 6751
Jul-90 8111 8330 Nov-93 6678 7389 Mar-97 6354 6743
Aug-90 8077 8298 Dec-93 6645 7367 Apr-97 6357 6736
Sep-90 8067 8267 Jan-94 6607 7344 May-97 6368 6729
Oct-90 7996 8236 Feb-94 6590 7317 Jun-97 6381 6722
Nov-90 7931 8198 Mar-94 6562 7293 Jul-97 6489 6706
Dec-90 7876 8158 Apr-94 6542 7277 Oct-97 6501 6702
Jan-91 7825 8119 May-94 6521 7254 Nov-97 6504 6698
Feb-91 7784 8076 Jun-94 6505 7236 Dec-97 6500 6694
Mar-91 7832 8040 Jul-94 6490 7214 Jan-98 6491 6690
Apr-91 7903 8016 Aug-94 6474 7193 Feb-98 6493 6687
May-91 7942 8009 Sep-94 6464 7180 Mar-98 6488 6683
Jun-91 7965 8005 Oct-94 6444 7168 Apr-98 6483 6679
Jul-91 7979 8002 Nov-94 6429 7154 May-98 6476 6675
Aug-91 7830 7994 Dec-94 6412 7138 Jun-98 6480 6671
Sep-91 7647 7974 Jan-95 6390 7124 Jul-98 6487 6668
Oct-91 7502 7943 Feb-95 6383 7107 Aug-98 6488 6664
Nov-91 7408 7907 Mar-95 6368 7091 Sep-98 6497 6661
Dec-91 7337 7867 Apr-95 6362 7072 Oct-98 6498 6658
Jan-92 7268 7829 May-95 6348 7052 Nov-98 6503 6655
Feb-92 7239 7792 Jun-95 6346 7028 Dec-98 6511 6652
Mar-92 7212 7759 Jul-95 6334 7007 Jan-99 6514 6650
Apr-92 7187 7733 Aug-95 6325 6987 Feb-99 6517 6647
May-92 7157 7703 Sep-95 6316 6965 Mar-99 6518 6645
Jun-92 7131 7669 Oct-95 6311 6942 Apr-99 6518 6642
Jul-92 7103 7654 Nov-95 6305 6920 May-99 6518 6640
Aug-92 7091 7637 Dec-95 6300 6898 Jun-99 6512 6637
Sep-92 7080 7622 Jan-96 6291 6878 Jul-99 6509 6635
Oct-92 7049 7603 Feb-96 6293 6866 Aug-99 6508 6632
Sep-99 6506 6630
137
Comparison of Deformation and Material Balance cp Behavior
Pore compressibility as observed in deformation experiments and material
balance models increase with increases in vertical effective stress (Figure 4-10). The
pore compressibility values from whole core sample #56 (Table 4-10) are higher than
both modeled average and instantaneous cp values at the in-situ vertical effective stress
(2064 psi). At the maximum stress historically encountered in the reservoir (4500 psi)
the core cp is lower. Both whole core data and the modeled results are of the same order
of magnitude and have similar shape to cp behavior reported by Ostermeier (1993, 1996,
2001).
Parameter Sensitivity Analysis Using the Instantaneous cp Behavior
Additional pressure support is required after 1992 to approximate the historical
pressure behavior. Using a constant compressibility (cp = 10 X10-6 psi-1) the simulated
pressure response is too low after 1992 (Figure 4-13). It is interpreted that an increase in
pore compressibility, as observed in core data, is required for pressure support.
The modeled pressure response, for the instantaneous pore compressibility
behavior (Table 4-17), is sensitive to the permeability of the rock in the aquifer (Figure 4-
15). The simulated pressure response for the high permeability case (k = 1500 mD) show
lower pressure differences between the aquifer and reservoir than for the low
permeability case (k = 500 mD) (Figure 4-14). This is an expected result because high
permeability sands equilibrate faster.
The effect of the cross-sectional flow area (b * h) on simulated pressure is
evaluated using the instantaneous pore compressibility behavior (Table 4-17). Two
sensitivity cases are presented, where the system width (b), reservoir length (l), and
138
9000 1612
8000 2612
Pressure (psi) 7000 3612

6000 4612
v
(psi)
5000 5612
4000 Modeled Reservoir Pressure 6612
3000 Modeled Aquifer Pressure 7612
Historical Reservoir Pressure
2000 8612
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Date
Figure 4-13: Modeled reservoir pressures using the Fetkovich (1971) incremental material balance
model with a constant pore compressibility of 10 X10-6 psi-1 in the reservoir and aquifer. Pressure
and stress values are referenced to a 12,070 ft., SSTVD datum depth. Observed pressure data is
found in Appendix A.
139
k = 500 mD
9000 1612
Modeled res. pres.
Modeled aquifer pres.
8000 Historical res. pres. 2612
Pressure (psi)
v
7000 3612
(psi)
6000 4612
5000 5612
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Date
k = 1500 mD
9000 1612
Modeled res. pres.
Modeled aquifer pres
8000 2612
Pressure (psi)
Historical res. pres.
v
7000 3612
(psi)
6000 4612
5000 5612
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Date
model with permeabilities in the aquifer of 500 mD and 1500 mD. Results are compared with the
reference permeability case (1060 mD) in Figure 4-12. Pressure match is based on the calculated
instantaneous pore compressibility behavior shown in Figure 4-10 (Table 4-17). Pressure and stress
values are referenced to a 12,070 ft., SSTVD datum depth. Observed pressure data is found in
Appendix A.
140
b=5,000 ft.
9000 1612
Modeled res. pres.
Pressure (psi) 8000 2612
v
(psi)
7000 3612
6000 4612
5000 5612
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Date
b=15,000 ft.
9000 1612
Modeled res. pres.
8000 2612
Pressure (psi)
v
(psi)
7000 3612
6000 4612
5000 5612
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Date
model with widths (b) of 5000 ft. (L=90,000 ft., l=20,300 ft.) and 15000 ft. (L=6767 ft., l=30,000 ft.).
Results are compared with the reference case (b = 10,000 ft., L=45,000 ft, l=10,150 ft.) in Figure 4-12.
Pressure match is based on the calculated instantaneous pore compressibility behavior shown in
Figure 4-10 (Table 4-17). Pressure and stress values are referenced to a 12,070 ft., SSTVD datum
depth. Observed pressure data is found in Appendix A.
141
aquifer length (L) are varied (h is constant), such that the reservoir and aquifer volumes
are honored (Table 4-15). A decrease in the cross-sectional flow area (b = 5000 ft.)
results in lower reservoir pressures at early time, followed by a late time pressure
rebound (Figure 4-15, top). In the small cross-sectional flow area case the aquifer is
further away from the reservoir, requiring greater time for higher pressures in the aquifer
to reach the reservoir. This explains the modeled late time pressure rebound. A large
cross-sectional flow area (b = 15,000 ft) results in reservoir and aquifer pressures that are
nearly equal with time (Figure 4-15, bottom). The increase in cross-sectional flow area
places the aquifer closer to the reservoir, which allows the system to equilibrate faster.
The modeled pressure response, associated with the instantaneous pore
compressibility behavior, is sensitive to the size of the aquifer volume. The simulated
reservoir and aquifer pressures through time are lower for an aquifer having half the
reference volume (641,139 MRB, L=25,000 ft.) than for an aquifer that is twice the
reference volume (2,564,560 MRB, L=100,000) (Figure 4-16). For the small aquifer
case, both simulated pressures (aquifer and reservoir) drop below the historical reservoir
pressure. This suggests either the aquifer must be larger or cp must increase (Figure 4-
16, top). For the larger aquifer, the simulated reservoir pressure approximates the
historical data through 1997 and is too high thereafter (Figure 4-16, bottom). The
pressure rebound that follows results from a higher pressure in the aquifer. This suggests
either cp must decrease, or the permeability in the aquifer must be greater than assumed.
142
L=25,000 ft.
9000 1612
Modeled res. pres.
8000 2612
Pressure (psi)
v
7000 3612
(psi)
6000 4612
5000 5612
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Date
L=100,000 ft.
9000 1612
8000 2612
Pressure (psi)
v
(psi)
7000 3612
6000 Modeled res. pres. 4612

5000 5612
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Date
model with aquifer volumes of 641,139 MRB (L=25,000 ft.) and 2,564,560 MRB (L=100,000 ft.).
Results are compared with the reference case (L=45,000 ft.) in Figure 4-12. Pressure match is based
on the calculated instantaneous pore compressibility behavior shown in Figure 4-10 (Table 4-17).
Pressure and stress values are referenced to a 12,070 ft., SSTVD datum depth. Observed pressure
data is found in Appendix A.
143
Model of Compaction Effects
For the purposes of reservoir simulation (Chapter 5), the modeled instantaneous
pore compressibility (cp) behavior (Figure 4-10, Table 4-17) is assumed to be equal for
all six Flow Units. This cp behavior is simulated through the use of a lookup table of
porosity and permeability reduction multipliers (PVMULT and TAMULT, respectively),
which are referenced to grid block pressure. This compaction model is constructed based
on an assumed initial porosity (Φref = 32%) and reference vertical effective stress (σref =
2062 psi) at 12,070 ft., SSTVD.
The data clearly suggests the reduction of bulk volume due to pore collapse.
However, the simulation equations assume constant bulk volume. To simulate the loss of
volume associated with pore volume reduction, the volume loss is modeled as an increase
in the volume of the solid grains (Figure 4-17). A mathematical comparison of the
calculation of pore compressibility for geomechanics and simulation is,
(∆V b − ∆V p − ∆V g )geomechanics = (∆Vb − ∆V p − ∆V g )simulation = 0 , (4-11)
where ∆Vg (change in grain volume) in geo-mechanics is assumed to be zero and ∆Vb
(change in bulk volume) in simulation is zero. From this, it is assumed that,
(∆V )p geomechanics = (∆V p )simulation . (4-12)
thus,
(∆Vb )geomechanics = (− ∆V g )simulation . (4-13)
An additional assumption in using the simulation compaction model is that changes in
bulk volume have little influence on saturation changes and multiphase flow behavior.
144
Initial
Condition Compaction
Geo-
Mechanics ∆vgi = 0
Vbi = Vpi + Vgi Vbf = Vpf + Vgi
Simulation
∆vbi = 0
Vbi = Vpi + Vgi Vbi = Vpf + Vgf
Figure 4-17: Unconsolidated sands, such as are present at Bullwinkle, undergo a bulk volume
reduction during pressure decrease as grains reorganize their packing structure. The change in solid
volume is small (top). The reservoir simulation model assumes bulk volume is conserved (bottom).
To simulate the effect of pore volume loss, the solid grains are assumed to increase in volume, by the
same amount that the pore volume decreases. The terms are: Vbi = initial bulk volume, Vbf =
compacted bulk volume, Vpi = initial pore volume, Vpf = compacted pore volume, Vgi = initial grain
volume, Vgf = compacted (enlarged) grain volume. Green represents the oil filled pore volume, blue
is the initial water saturation, and orange circles are the grains.
145
Porosity Reduction
The change in porosity due to an incremental change in vertical effective stress is
calculated,
∆Φ = −c p (Φ (1 − Φ ))∆σ eff , (4-14)
for the range of stresses present during production (Table 4-17). The fractional change in
porosity (porosity reduction multiplier) is calculated,
Φ new
PVMULT = , (4-15)
Φ ref
based on calculated porosity values (Φnew) for these stresses and the reference porosity
(Φref = 0.32) (Figs. 4-18, 4-19, Table 4-20).
Permeability Reduction
An empirical model is constructed based on the deformation data to relate
permeability to porosity,
  21.0Φ  
k = m e  , (4-16)
 
to predict for the full range of porosity values present in the J1 and J2 sands (Figure 4-20,
Table 4-21). The empirical exponent 21.0 is an average value based on a least square
regression fit to each set of deformation data (Table 4-22). The empirical constant m is
proportional to the grain size diameter term (Dm) (Table 4-22) and is based on a least
squares regression fit to the deformation data using the curvature exponent of 21.0.
146
σv (psi)
5612 4612 3612 2612 1612 612
1.2
Permeability Mult.
Porosity Mult.
1.0
0.8
Multiplier
0.6
0.4
1996
1994
1991
1989
0.2
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
Reservoir Pressure (psi)
Figure 4-18: Simulation multipliers of porosity (Φ) and permeability (k) (Tables 4-20, 4-23) versus
reservoir pressure. The average initial in-situ reservoir pressure is 8550 psi (12,070 ft., SSTVD
datum) and in Dec., 1999 is 6100 psi (Appendix A).
147

9612 8612 7612 6612 5612 4612
2000 0.325
Permeability
Porosity
1500 0.300
= 32%
k (mD)
o
1000 0.275
1989
1991
1994
1996
500 0.250
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
σv (psi)
Figure 4-19: Modeled porosity (Φ) and permeability (k) (Tables 4-20, 4-23) versus vertical effective
stress (σv) calculated using the calculated incremental pore compressibility behavior. Values are
calculated as a function ΦRef (32%) and reservoir pressure (8550 psi at a 12,070 ft., SSTVD datum).
The porosity reduces to 28.2% by 1996. The permeability reduces to 819 mD by 1996 based on an
initial in-situ permeability of 1825 mD.
148
Table 4-20: Reservoir compaction effects on porosity (Φ). Bold values represent the reference
datum (12,070 ft., SSTVD) values.
Reservoir Fractional
Average σv
Pressure Φ Change in Φ
(psi)
(psi) (PVMULT)
9050 1562 0.3211 1.0050
8950 1662 0.3209 1.0040
8850 1762 0.3207 1.0030
8750 1862 0.3204 1.0020
8650 1962 0.3202 1.0010
8550 2062 0.3200 1.0000
8450 2162 0.3198 0.9990
8350 2262 0.3196 0.9980
8250 2362 0.3193 0.9970
8150 2462 0.3191 0.9960
8050 2562 0.3189 0.9950
7950 2662 0.3186 0.9936
7850 2762 0.3182 0.9917
7750 2862 0.3177 0.9893
7650 2962 0.3171 0.9865
7550 3062 0.3164 0.9833
7450 3162 0.3155 0.9797
7350 3262 0.3146 0.9755
7250 3362 0.3135 0.9704
7150 3462 0.3121 0.9639
7050 3562 0.3103 0.9559
6950 3662 0.3082 0.9464
6850 3762 0.3057 0.9356
6750 3862 0.3030 0.9235
6650 3962 0.3001 0.9110
6550 4062 0.2972 0.8983
6450 4162 0.2942 0.8854
6350 4262 0.2911 0.8722
6250 4362 0.2880 0.8591
6150 4462 0.2849 0.8462
6050 4562 0.2819 0.8335
5950 4662 0.2788 0.8210
5850 4762 0.2758 0.8087
5750 4862 0.2728 0.7966
5650 4962 0.2698 0.7847
5550 5062 0.2669 0.7729
5450 5162 0.2640 0.7613
149
This empirical model is used to calculate the fractional change in permeability
(permeability reduction multiplier),
k new 21.0(Φ new − Φ ref )

TAMULT = =e , (4-17)
k ref
for the range of stresses present during production (Figs. 4-18, 4-19, Table 4-23).
TAMULT is independent of permeability and the grain size related constant m. This
allows us to use the same set of multipliers in all six Flow Units present in the J1 and J2
sands regardless of permeability.
Porosity and Permeability Reduction Results
Porosity and permeability decrease non-linearly with increasing vertical effective
stress (Figure 4-19, Tables 4-20, 4-23). This is an expected result because they are
derived from the non-linear instantaneous pore compressibility behavior (Figure 4-10).
Further, this compaction behavior is nearly identical to compaction behavior documented
by Kikani and Smith (1996) for the Bullwinkle J-sands. Ostermeier (2001) documented
this compaction behavior for two deepwater turbidite sands.
Simulation of Compaction Behavior Using Compaction Regions
The compaction model developed here is a gross simplification of the initial
vertical effective stress behavior present in the J1 and J2 sands. The J1 and J2 sands span
a vertical distance of 2400 ft. that correspond to a range of in-situ vertical effective stress
of 1115.0 psi updip (10,600 ft., SSTVD) to 2565.0 psi downdip (13,000 ft., SSTVD).
The compaction model developed thus far is for a vertical effective stress of 2062 psi at a
12,070 ft., SSTVD, datum.

150
5000
m = 2.90
m = 2.10
4000 m = 1.06
65-1-ST (J2)
A-32-BP (J1)
3000
k (mD)
A-32-BP (J2)
2000
1000
0
0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40
Φ
Figure 4-20: Permeability (k) vs. porosity (Φ) using an empirical model (Table 4-19) compared with
deformation data (Tables 4-1 through 4-10). Modeled permeability-porosity relationships are fit
with a least squares regression to the deformation data using curvature coefficient of 21.0 (Equation
4-16).
151
Table 4-21: Permeability-porosity model results for different “m” values.

k k k
Φ (mD) (mD) (mD)
m = 2.90 m = 2.10 m = 1.06
0.20 193.4 140.0 70.7
0.22 294.3 213.1 107.6
0.24 448.0 324.4 163.7
0.26 681.8 493.7 249.2
0.28 1037.68 751. 4 379.3
0.30 1579.3 1143.6 577.2
0.32 2403.6 1740.5 878.5
0.34 3658.1 2649.0 1337.1
0.36 5567.6 4031.7 2035.0
0.37 6868.6 4973.8 2510.6
Table 4-22: Empirical constant m value and curvature exponents for the permeability-porosity
model.
Whole
Sand m Curvature
Core
A-32-BP J1 2.90 25.3
A-32-BP J2 2.10 22.3
65-1-ST J2 1.06 15.3
Average 21.0
152
Table 4-23: Reservoir compaction effects on permeability (k). Bold values represent the reference
datum (12,070 ft., SSTVD) vertical effective stress (σv). k values calculated using Equation 4-16.
Reservoir Fractional
Average σv
Pressure Φ k (mD) Change in k
(psi)
(psi) (TAMULT)
9050 1562 0.3211 1865 1.0231
8950 1662 0.3209 1857 1.0185
8850 1762 0.3207 1848 1.0138
8750 1862 0.3204 1840 1.0092
8650 1962 0.3202 1831 1.0046
8550 2062 0.3200 1825 1.0000
8450 2162 0.3198 1815 0.9954
8350 2262 0.3196 1806 0.9909
8250 2362 0.3193 1798 0.9864
8150 2462 0.3191 1790 0.9819
8050 2562 0.3189 1782 0.9774
7950 2662 0.3186 1770 0.9710
7850 2762 0.3182 1755 0.9626
7750 2862 0.3177 1736 0.9523
7650 2962 0.3171 1714 0.9402
7550 3062 0.3164 1689 0.9263
7450 3162 0.3155 1660 0.9108
7350 3262 0.3146 1628 0.8933
7250 3362 0.3135 1590 0.8725
7150 3462 0.3121 1543 0.8463
7050 3562 0.3103 1486 0.8152
6950 3662 0.3082 1421 0.7798
6850 3762 0.3057 1351 0.7410
6750 3862 0.3030 1275 0.6993
6650 3962 0.3001 1201 0.6587
6550 4062 0.2972 1129 0.6195
6450 4162 0.2942 1060 0.5816
6350 4262 0.2911 993 0.5450
6250 4362 0.2880 931 0.5107
6150 4462 0.2849 872 0.4788
6050 4562 0.2819 818 0.4490
5950 4662 0.2788 768 0.4213
5850 4762 0.2758 720 0.3954
5750 4862 0.2728 677 0.3713
5650 4962 0.2698 635 0.3488
5550 5062 0.2669 597 0.3278
5450 5162 0.2640 561 0.3082
153
Compaction behavior is non-linear (Figs. 4-18, 4-21; Tables 4-20, 4-23).
Modeled downdip initial vertical effective stress (1562 psi) is less than updip (2562 psi)
(Table 4-17). Updip of the reference location (12,070 ft.) the non-linear compaction
effects are experienced for less increase in vertical effective stress than downdip (Figure
4-22, Tables 4-20, 4-23). The implications of this modeled behavior are higher initial
vertical effective stress updip and lower downdip. Thus, at initial conditions the values
of porosity and permeability are decreased updip (compaction) and increased downdip
(decompaction). The initial values of porosity deviate from 0% to 1% and permeability
from 0% to 3% based on the compaction multipliers (Figure 4-22, Tables 4-20, 4-23).
To reduce these compaction and decompaction effects the reservoir is divided into
five reservoir pressure intervals of 200 psi (Figs. 4-23, 4-24, Table 4-24). The average
reservoir pressure of each interval is specified as the reference pressure. The porosity and
permeability multipliers are shifted, such that the reference pressure corresponds to a
multiplier of 1.0 (Tables 4-23, 4-24, 4-27). The porosity (PVMULT) and permeability
reduction multipliers (TAMULT) are set to 1.0 for the 200 psi interval to honor the initial
porosity and permeability input values (Tables 4-23, 4-24, 4-27).
Conclusions
The pore compressibility of the J1 and J2 sands at Bullwinkle increase with
increases in vertical effective stress. This observed behavior is documented by
deformation data from whole core samples and modeled results using a material balance
approach. Further, other workers have documented this type of behavior for deepwater
Gulf of Mexico turbidites.

154
160
120
cp (10-6 psi-1) 80
Model
40 Model
downdip updip
σv σv
0
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
σv (psi)
Figure 4-21: Modeled incremental pore compressibility (cp) vs. vertical effective stress (σv) at initial
conditions as established by the simulation model using a single compaction table (Table 4-17).
Actual initial vertical effective stress in the J1 and J2 sands range updip to downdip, from 1050 psi to
2565 psi. The compaction model focuses on the time dependent compaction effects and does not
account for the presence of initial vertical variation in stress state within a reservoir. Modeled values
are referenced to a 12,070 ft., SSTVD, datum (Initial in-situ vertical effective stress = 2062 psi).
σv (psi)
5612 4612 3612 2612 1612 612
1.2
Permeability Mult.
Porosity Mult.
1.0
Downdip
Multiplier
Compaction
0.8 Updip
Compaction
0.6
0.4
0.2
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
Figure 4-22: Simulation initialization effects on input maps of porosity (Φ) and permeability (k) using
a single compaction table (Tables 4-20, 4-23). Updip reservoir pressure at 10,600 ft, SSTVD is 8072
psi. Downdip pressure is 8956 psi at 13,000 ft., SSTVD (Table 4-11).
155
BLK 64 BLK 65
Permeability
Barriers RA
12000
RB 3 4
12500
12000
2
11500
11000
5
1
BLK 108 BLK 109 1 Mile
Oil Producer
C.I. = 100’ Water Injector
Figure 4-23: J1 sand compaction table region map overlain by structure contours. The five regions
are specified by 200 psi reservoir pressure intervals (Table 4-24). Black dots are production wells
and white dots are injection wells. Reservoir pressures range from 8072 psi updip to 8956 psi
downdip. Geologic barriers and connections are discussed in Chapter 5.
156
BLK 64 BLK 65
Permeability
Barriers
RA
12500
RB
4
2
0
1200
5
3
11
1
50
00
130
0
11
00
0
12500
BLK 108 BLK 109
Oil Producer
1 Mile C.I. = 100’
Water Injector
Figure 4-24: J2 sand compaction region map overlain by structure contours. The five regions are
specified by 200 psi reservoir pressure intervals (Table 4-24). Black dots are production wells and
white dots are injection wells. Reservoir pressures range from 8072 psi updip to 8956 psi downdip.
Geologic barriers and connections are discussed in Chapter 5.
157
Table 4-24: J1 and J2 sand compaction regions by fluid type. The oil phase pressure gradient is
0.325 psi/ft., gas phase pressure gradient is 0.146 psi/ft., and the water phase pressure gradient is
0.466 psi/ft.
Oil Phase - J1 and J2
Reservoir Average
Compaction Depth Average Average
Pressure Reservoir
Region Range (ft.) σv (psi) Depth (ft.)
Range (psi) Pressure (psi)
1 8000 to 8200 10525 to 11050 8100 1234 10790
2 8200 to 8400 11050 to 11600 8300 1579 11330
3 8400 to 8600 11600 to 12135 8500 1925 11865
4 8600 to 8800 12135 to OOWC 8700 2270 12405
5 8800 to 9000 - 8900 2432 12820
Gas Phase - J1-RA and J2-RA

Reservoir Average
Pressure Reservoir
1 8000 to 8200 - 8100 1234 10790
2 8200 to 8400 - 8300 1579 11330
3 8400 to 8600 11000 to OGOC 8500 1925 11865
4 8600 to 8800 - 8700 2270 12405
5 8800 to 9000 - 8900 2432 12820
Water Phase - J1 and J2

Reservoir Average
Pressure Reservoir
1 8000 to 8200 - 8100 1234 10790
2 8200 to 8400 - 8300 1579 11330
3 8400 to 8600 - 8500 1925 11865
4 8600 to 8800 OOWC to 12600 8700 2270 12405
5 8800 to 9000 12600 to 13030 8900 2432 12820
158
Table 4-25: Simulation model compaction region input tables for compaction regions 1 (8000 psi to
8200 psi) and 2 (8200 psi to 8400 psi). Reservoir compaction effects on porosity (Φ) and permeability
(k) are the same for each Flow Unit.
Compaction Region 1 Compaction Region 2
Reservoir Reservoir
σv σv
Pressure Pressure PVMULT TAMULT
(psi) (psi)
(psi) (psi)
8200 1134 8400 1479 1.0000 1.0000
8100 1234 8300 1579 1.0000 1.0000
8000 1334 8200 1679 1.0000 1.0000
7900 1434 8100 1779 0.9980 0.9909
7800 1534 8000 1879 0.9970 0.9864
7700 1634 7900 1979 0.9960 0.9819
7600 1834 7800 2079 0.9950 0.9774
7500 1934 7700 2179 0.9936 0.9710
7400 2034 7600 2279 0.9917 0.9626
7300 2134 7500 2379 0.9893 0.9523
7200 2234 7400 2479 0.9865 0.9402
7100 2334 7300 2579 0.9833 0.9263
7000 2434 7200 2679 0.9797 0.9108
6900 2534 7100 2779 0.9755 0.8933
6800 2634 7000 2879 0.9704 0.8725
6700 2734 6900 2979 0.9639 0.8463
6600 2834 6800 3079 0.9559 0.8152
6500 2934 6700 3179 0.9464 0.7798
6400 3034 6600 3279 0.9356 0.7410
6300 3134 6500 3379 0.9235 0.6993
6200 3234 6400 3479 0.9110 0.6587
6100 3334 6300 3579 0.8983 0.6195
6000 3434 6200 3679 0.8854 0.5816
5900 3534 6100 3779 0.8722 0.5450
5800 3634 6000 3879 0.8591 0.5107
5700 3734 5900 3979 0.8462 0.4788
5600 3834 5800 4079 0.8335 0.4490
5500 3934 5700 4179 0.8210 0.4213
5400 4034 5600 4279 0.8087 0.3954
5300 4134 5500 4379 0.7966 0.3713
5200 4234 5400 4479 0.7847 0.3488
5100 4334 5300 4579 0.7729 0.3278
5000 4434 5200 4679 0.7613 0.3082
159
Table 4-26: Simulation model compaction region input tables for compaction regions 3 (8400 psi to
8600 psi) and 4 (8600 psi to 8800 psi). Reservoir compaction effects on porosity (Φ) and permeability
(k) are the same for each Flow Unit.
Compaction Region 3 Compaction Region 4
Reservoir Reservoir
σv σv
Pressure Pressure PVMULT TAMULT
(psi) (psi)
(psi) (psi)
8600 1825 8800 2170 1.0000 1.0000
8500 1925 8700 2270 1.0000 1.0000
8400 2025 8600 2370 1.0000 1.0000
8300 2125 8500 2470 0.9980 0.9909
8200 2225 8400 2570 0.9970 0.9864
8100 2325 8300 2670 0.9960 0.9819
8000 2425 8200 2770 0.9950 0.9774
7900 2525 8100 2870 0.9936 0.9710
7800 2625 8000 2970 0.9917 0.9626
7700 2725 7900 3070 0.9893 0.9523
7600 2825 7800 3170 0.9865 0.9402
7500 2925 7700 3270 0.9833 0.9263
7400 3025 7600 3370 0.9797 0.9108
7300 3125 7500 3470 0.9755 0.8933
7200 3225 7400 3570 0.9704 0.8725
7100 3325 7300 3670 0.9639 0.8463
7000 3425 7200 3770 0.9559 0.8152
6900 3525 7100 3870 0.9464 0.7798
6800 3625 7000 3970 0.9356 0.7410
6700 3725 6900 4070 0.9235 0.6993
6600 3825 6800 4170 0.9110 0.6587
6500 3925 6700 4270 0.8983 0.6195
6400 4025 6600 4370 0.8854 0.5816
6300 4125 6500 4470 0.8722 0.5450
6200 4225 6400 4570 0.8591 0.5107
6100 4325 6300 4670 0.8462 0.4788
6000 4425 6200 4770 0.8335 0.4490
5900 4525 6100 4870 0.8210 0.4213
5800 4625 6000 4970 0.8087 0.3954
5700 4725 5900 5070 0.7966 0.3713
5600 4825 5800 5170 0.7847 0.3488
5500 4925 5700 5270 0.7729 0.3278
5400 5025 5600 5370 0.7613 0.3082
160
Table 4-27: Simulation model compaction region input table for compaction region 5 (8800 psi to
9000 psi). Reservoir compaction effects on porosity (Φ) and permeability (k) are the same for each
Flow Unit.
Reservoir
σv
Pressure PVMULT TAMULT
(psi)
(psi)
9000 2332 1.0000 1.0000
8900 2432 1.0000 1.0000
8800 2532 1.0000 1.0000
8700 2632 0.9980 0.9909
8600 2732 0.9970 0.9864
8500 2832 0.9960 0.9819
8400 2932 0.9950 0.9774
8300 3032 0.9936 0.9710
8200 3132 0.9917 0.9626
8100 3232 0.9893 0.9523
8000 3332 0.9865 0.9402
7900 3432 0.9833 0.9263
7800 3532 0.9797 0.9108
7700 3632 0.9755 0.8933
7600 3732 0.9704 0.8725
7500 3832 0.9639 0.8463
7400 3932 0.9559 0.8152
7300 4032 0.9464 0.7798
7200 4132 0.9356 0.7410
7100 4232 0.9235 0.6993
7000 4332 0.9110 0.6587
6900 4432 0.8983 0.6195
6800 4532 0.8854 0.5816
6700 4632 0.8722 0.5450
6600 4732 0.8591 0.5107
6500 4832 0.8462 0.4788
6400 4932 0.8335 0.4490
6300 5032 0.8210 0.4213
6200 5132 0.8087 0.3954
6100 5232 0.7966 0.3713
6000 5332 0.7847 0.3488
5900 5432 0.7729 0.3278
5800 5532 0.7613 0.3082
161
Permeability-porosity relationships are grain size dependent. Whole core
deformation data document that samples with larger grain sizes have higher
permeabilities for a specific porosity. This observation is supported with modeled
permeability-porosity relationships using the Carmen-Kozeny model.
Material balance derived pore compressibility is highly sensitive to the strength of
the aquifer. The Fetkovich material balance approach indicates that higher permeability
in the aquifer and higher cross-sectional flow area increases the flow potential of the
aquifer (strong aquifer). This additional aquifer strength reduces the need for pore
compressibility to match reservoir pressure.
The instantaneous pore compressibility behavior is used to model the compaction
effects on porosity and permeability for use in reservoir simulation. The compaction
behavior is assumed to be equal in all six Flow Units. The sands are partitioned into five
pressure (compaction) regions of 200 psi each and the compaction model is applied to
each of these regions to establish equal initial pore compressibility for all depth.

Perm Relativas PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Perm Relativas PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

57

CAPILLARY PRESSURE AND RELATIVE PERMEABILITY

documented (Honarpour et al., 1986; Reynolds, 2000). Reynolds (2000) observed

capillary pressure behavior of deepwater turbidites and described differences present in

permeability between end-point measurements and documented empirical exponents used

reservoir simulation to mimic production behavior for the unconsolidated J-sands at

In this chapter, capillary pressure and relative permeability behavior of

unconsolidated sands of the J1 and J2 reservoirs at Bullwinkle are characterized and

relative permeability characteristics. Finally, core analysis, log-based petrophysical data

Characterization of The Hydraulic Behavior Present in Three

Capillary Pressure Behavior

Capillary pressure experiments were performed on sixteen whole-core plug

measurements were obtained by mercury injection tests using a methodology similar to

interpreted from well log and core data.

Fifteen of the sixteen whole-core samples have mercury-air capillary entry

(Tables 3-1, 3-2).

The capillary behavior of the fifteen samples is similar to that documented by

wetting phase saturations. The saturation differences were attributed to differences in

higher irreducible wetting phase saturations.

Flow Flow Unit 5 130

BLK 108 BLK 109

BLK 108 BLK 109

Mercury and Gas Saturation

Oil-Water Capillary Pressure (psi)

Mercury-Air Capillary Pressure (psi)

Mercury and Gas Saturation

Oil-Water Capillary Pressure (psi)

100 Sample 2 100

Mercury and Gas Saturation

Oil-Water Capillary Pressure (psi)

Mercury-Air Capillary Pressure (psi)

Oil-water Capillary Pressure

Tables 3-3, 3-4, 3-5),

The oil-water interfacial tension (σow) is 15 dynes/cm based on a reservoir

3-4, 3-5, Tables 3-3, 3-4, 3-5).

irreducible saturations (1% to 10%) as observed in the mercury-air data, as expected.

Table 3-6: Two-phase interfacial tension and contact angles.

Gas-oil Capillary Pressure

The spreading coefficient (S) relates gas-oil capillary pressure to oil-water

coefficient is the balance of the three interfacial tensions,

Equation 3-2 (Table 3-6).

Gas-oil capillary pressure (Pcgo) is calculated from a simplified version of

Purcell’s (1949) relation (Amyx et al., 1960; Firoozabadi et al., 1988),

to the oil-water contact angle.

Relative Permeability Behavior

In the absence of experimental three-phase relative permeability data, two-phase

relative permeability behavior is characterized from end-point saturation and

permeability data. Later, this two-phase relative permeability behavior is used to

Stone’s Model II (1973).

Residual oil saturation (Sor) decreases with increasing irreducible water

where lower rates result in lower Sor (higher oil recovery).

Calculated end-point relative permeabilities, from measured data, are related to

increasing Sor (Figure 3-7).

Calculated relative permeability greater than 1.0 is not uncommon. Other

intuitive. Relative permeability is referenced to a specific permeability measured at

hydration, plugging, and bound water (Jones and Owens, 1980).

Residual Oil Saturation (Sor)

Whole Flow Stress Pcow

Comparison of Mercury Injection Data with End-Point Saturation Data

displayed comparisons of water-air and mercury-air capillary pressure measurements that

characteristics of water for these samples.

Corey’s Two-Phase Relative Permeability Model

Two-phase relative permeability is simulated for the range of saturations present