Fractional Flow, Relative

Permeability & Capillarity:

real example of basic
concepts
 Publicado el 26 de mayo de 2017
 RecomendarFractional Flow, Relative Permeability & Capillarity : real example of basic concepts

573
 Comentar

25
 CompartirCompartir Fractional Flow, Relative Permeability & Capillarity : real example of basic concepts

111
Francisco Caycedo
Regional Director Canada at Cayros Group

This brief post illustrates a common example of how basic concepts

like capillary pressure, relative permeability and fractional flow,
were used to explain the production behaviour in a well drilled and
completed in a Mesozoic carbonates field.

Introduction
In my opinion, a very important part of the petrophysical learning
process consists in going back, after a well has been completed and
tested, and reviewing the analysis and the consistency of the
expected results with the actual outcome.

Well-1, displayed in the picture below, was completed in two

different intervals. The first interval (deeper) produced water with
some oil traces (2%); the second interval (shallower) produced
100% oil.

Prior to the completion, a detailed petrophysical analysis was

performed in the well (integrating all the available data, including
well logs, core measurements, drilling cuttings descriptions, etc.).
Interestingly, in the deeper interval that tested water, the computed
water saturation was between 40 and 45%. In addition, the core and
drilling cuttings presented significant oil staining and fluorescence.
In the fist track of the picture above are presented the completed
intervals, the second track displays the mineralogy (blue is
limestone, magenta is dolomite). Track 6 displays resistivity curves,
track 7 permeability and track 8 shows water saturation (Sw)
computed from well logs. The last track (9) displays again the Sw
from log analysis (blue) and the Sw computed from a saturation-
height model (red). The dashed blue line that crosses all the tracks
is the estimated Free Water Level (FWL) required in the saturation-
height model to match the Sw from logs.

Saturation-Height Model
There are several saturation-height methods available in the
literature, some of them are capillary pressure-based and others
wireline-log based. The SPE-71326 paper from B. Harrison and
X.D. Jing (2001) describe some of them:

 Capillary pressure-based method from Leverett (1941)

 Capillary pressure-based method from Johnson (1987)
 Log-based method from Cuddy et al. (1993)
 Capillary pressure and Log-based method from Skelt-Harrison
& Skelt (1995, 1996)

Other interesting and very comprehensive source of saturation-

height functions can be found in the document written by
Worthington, P.F., 2002 (Application of saturation-height functions
in integrated reservoir description, in M. Lovell and N. Parkinson,
eds., Geological applications of well logs: AAPG Methods in
Exploration No. 13, p. 75–89).

In the specific example presented in this post, no capillary pressure

data was available and a log-based method was used. The non-linear
Porosity versus Height function, relating log water saturation to
height-above-FWL (applied to each different rock type) was:
Sw = [a + b.Log(h) + c.Log(h)^2 + d. Log(h)^3 ] / [ϕ^f]

h = Height above FWL

ϕ = Porosity

Based on the water saturation-height functions a conceptual model

of fluid distribution was built (picture below). Well-1 is displayed
with the computed water saturation curve and the FWL is showed as
a dashed blue line. The reservoir was divided in 4 main zones:

1. The upper one has the best rock properties: good porosity,
good permeability, and good capillary pressure profile.
Transition zone is short and the Oil-Water contact (OWC) is
close to the FWL.
2. The second zone is tight with high capillary forces resulting in
a long transition zone.
3. Third zone has moderate porosity and permeability values.
Capillary forces produce a transition zone longer than the one
in the first zone with better rock properties.
4. Deeper zone is similar to the second zone.
Relative Permeability and Fractional Flow
The picture below illustrates the correlation between capillary
pressure, relative permeability, fractional flow, the conceptual fluid
distribution within the reservoir, and the expected initial production
behaviour.

In the upper part of the picture, the relative permeability of

Oil (Kro) is presented as a green curve, relative permeability of
water (Krw) is the blue curve, and the fractional flow (Fw) is the
magenta curve. The lower part of the picture shows the capillary
pressure curve in red.
At water saturations lower than the Critical (Swc) or equal to the
Irreducible (Swirr) the relative permeability of the water is zero
(there is no free or mobile water) and a clean oil production is
expected.

As the water saturation increases, the relative permeability of oil

gradually decreases and becomes zero at the residual oil saturation
(Sor). At this point, only water is expected to be produced. In the
reservoir, this corresponds to the water-oil contact (WOC).
At water saturations higher than Swc and lower than 1-Sor, oil and
water production is expected and in the reservoir this corresponds to
the transition zone. The fraction of water and oil flowing is given by
the fractional flow curve, and not only depends on the porous media
properties but also on the fluids properties. The main fluid property
affecting the flow is the viscosity. For example, if gas and oil have
the same relative permeability, more gas than oil will flow because
of the significant difference in viscosity.

The fractional flow equation for the simplest case of horizontal flow
with negligible capillary pressure gradient is:

Fw = 1 / [ 1 + (Kro* μo) / (Krw* μw) ]

The picture below shows the relative permeability and fractional

flow curves modeling for the reservoir presented in this example. It
uses the correlation presented by Mohamad Ibraim-Koederitz
(2000), and takes into account the wettability, lithology, porosity,
permeability, critical water saturation, residual oil saturation, oil and
water viscosity, and oil and water formation volume factors.
In this picture are presented two fractional flow curves in magenta.
One is computed using an oil viscosity of 1.5 cp and the other using
42 cp. The purpose of displaying the two cases is to highlight the
impact of the oil viscosity in the production behaviour.

The deeper interval that tested water in the Well-1 has a water
saturation of about 45%. In addition, the actual oil viscosity of the
reservoir is 42 cp. Using the proper fractional flow curve in the
picture above, the expected water cut (water fraction) is about 97%,
which is very close to test results.

Other relative permeability correlations were used to compare the

results. Some of them are presented in the picture below:
As a final check, the analysis of the water salinity and its chemical
composition confirmed that the water produced in the test was
formation water.