The Pressure Dependence of Permeability
R. F. Sigal'
ABSTRACT
The dependence of matrix periiieability with pressure
can be niodeled by applying elasticity theory to a modified
Katz-Thompson relationship for permeability. I n tlic
mod i t i ccl Ka tz-Tli o m pso ti re 13t i o rish i p pcrmcab i I it y is
p roport i ona 1 to t li e prod tic t of t lie c liaract cr i s t i c pore
throat size squared and porosity raised to the power ofthe
cementation coefficicnt. The pressure dependencc of per-
meability can then be estimated from tlic changes with
press it re of t lie porosity and the charact cr i st i c pore throat
size. Tlie change i n porosity with net effective confining
pressure is easily calculated from the static bulk mudulus.
The calculntioii of the pressurc tlependencc of the charac-
teristic pore throat size requires an assumption on porc
throat shape. The pressure dependence depends on both
I NTRO D1JCT ION
Significant decreases in pernieability have important
cotiseqiiences for reservoir modeling and reservoir manage-
ment. I t is well known that an increase in net confining prcs-
sure can sonictinies lead to a dramatic dccrcasc i n
permeability-in some cases by an order of magnitude. This
kind of decrease can occitr in both soft and hard rocks. Tlie
loss in pernieability is c1e;irIy due to the decrease in the
cross-sectional area ofthe fluid flow paths as net confining
prcss~ireis increased. Fluid flow paths are of two principal
types: connected crack systems, and connected pore sys-
tems. For this work, cracks are defined as high nspcct ratio
voids: and pores ;is low aspect ratio voids. Significant loss
of permeability i n hard rocks is generally diic to closure of
crack systems; while i n soft, high-porosity rocks, tlie per-
meability loss is doniinated by physical compaction. Physi-
cal compaction decreases porosity atid closes pore throats.
Mantiscript rcccivcd by the i'ditor J u l y 12. 2000; revised iiiiiiiiiscript
' Amoco Rcscurch. Tulsa. Oklahoma: currently Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, t luuston. Tesas LISA
Society of Profcssioiial Well Log .Aiinlysts. All rights reserved.
~~'12002
92 PE:'TROPH\ SIC'S
tlic static bulk modulus and the static Poisson's ratio.
along with a numerical constant Iiwd by the shape. In this
work the pore throat shape is taken a s a cuspcd hypotroi-
cho i da 1.
The pressure dcpenclcnce for fracture permeability has
been found to be lit very well by Walsli's iiiodel for the
closure of ;irough crack. This functional depcnclence on
prcssiire produced by this model I S very different than that
in tlic cquattons developed for the Imssure dependence of
matrix petmcability. Conscclucntly. the determination of
which oftlie two theories best tits observation providcs mi
cuccllent way to distinguish fracture permeability from
tiiatriu pernieability.
Wnlsli ( 198 I ) atid Gnngi ( I 978) proposed similar tlico-
ries for the loss of permeability dire to crack closure. Gangi
also pro~msed,in tlic same paper. a theory for loss o f i i i h x
permeability with increase i n net confining pressure. It W H S
based on a spherical grain model.
At Amoco i n recent years, we applied Walsli's theory to
the permeability loss in several hard rock cases and fotuid ;in
extraordinarily good fit. For matrix permeability ii new tlic-
ory was developed that LISCS measured elastic constants to
calculate the loss in niatris permeability due to physical
compression of the pore space. Tlie theory has been tested
0 1 1 two soft rock data sets and on Cllle hard rock set and pro-
vides a very good tit to available data. The variation ofpcr-
meability as a function of net confining prcssurc differs in
the crack and tlie matrix cascs so that these data arc iliagnos-
tic of the tlominant type of permeability pathway.
received Octobcr 200 I .
March-April 2002
 The Pressure Dependence of Permeability
The pressure dependence of matrix permeability will be
first discussed in detail in the next sections, and then the
crack case will be briefly reviewed.
MATRIX PERMEABILITY
The matrix permeability k of a rock sample with porosity
@ can be expressed in terms of a modified Katz-Thompson
relationship (Hagiwara, 1984; Thompson et al., 1987) as
k = Are; $ I n (1)
where veffis the pore throat size which controls access to the
primary flow network, rn is the cementation factor, and A is a
shape factor that is close to a constant over a wide range of
rock litliologies. Agood estimate of r,f/-isthe pore throat size
on a high-pressure mercury injection curve at which the
maximum injection rate occurs. For the data presented here
reJrwas taken to correspond to the pressure at which the
incremental intrusion curve had a maximum value. Intnision
3 can change in cross-sectional area, then finding permeabil-
2 log k
- F
R2=.961 I
1 . -
0
-1
-2
-3
-5 -4 -3 -2 -I 0 I 2
FIG. 1 Permeability versus 4&/F (where l/F=@'")for a
worldwide data set. The members of the data set are
consolidatedsandstones. The effective pore throat size reffwas
determined from high-pressure mercury injection. It is the radius
that corresponds to the pressure at which the maximum
injection rate occurred. When there was more than one
maximum in the injection rate curve, the one at the lowest
pressure was used.
March-April 2002 PETROPHYSICS
was measured at 40 equally spaced pressure points per dec-
ade, so this is essentially the point where the derivative of
the cumulative intrusion curve attains a maximum. The
cementation factor for well-connected pore spaces generally
ranges from about 1.7 for poorly consolidated sediments to
about 2.1 for consolidated sediments. It is controlled by the
physical tortuosity, the ratio of pore throat to pore body size,
and the interconnectivity of the pore space. When a rock is
compressed, there should be vety minor changes in the
shapes of pore throats. The tortuosity should not change
much, and the ratio of pore throat to pore body should not
change a great deal. Combined with the typically small
dynamic range of A and m,these anticipated minor changes
suggest that-for the purpose of estimating the effect of
changing confining pressure on permeability-A and m can
be treated as constants. Figure 1 illustrates the quality of the
fit of equation (1) for a general data set. Figure 2 shows the
improvement that can be achieved when a single rock type is
examined. In the figures, ref was estimated from mercuiy
injection.
If A and m are taken as constant, and if it is assumed that
the primary flow paths are neither created nor destroyed but
ity as a function of pressure reduces to finding the changes
- -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2
t-
FIG. 2 Permeability versus 4r2eff/F for single rock formation
subset of the data set in Figure 1. The stars are the measured
value and the pluses the estimated value from the regression.
93
 Sigal

in rclland @ as net confining pressure is varied. The varia-
tion of porosity with pressure can be obtained from the bulk
modulus. By detinition of the bulk modulus, K
The bulk nioduli of most rocks are much smaller than tlie
bulk moduli of tlie pure minerals making L I the
~ grains.
Consequently, under compression. I, can-to a first
al’proxiiiiation~~betaken as constant and all tlie voluine
loss can be taken to bc i n 1;). Then

where I’ is the total volume of the rock and is the pressure. (7)
Integrating ( 3 )gives

and from equation ( 3 )

( 31

Now
or

and

r ;, To tlie extent 1,’ is not n constant, that is the grains are

@=- compressed, equation ( 9 ) will overestimate tlie porosity
losb under compression and thus will also overestiiiiatr: the
where I;, is the pore volume and I, is the grain volume. It permeability loss. If the grain compressibility is also hnown
follows from ( 3 )and ( 5 ) that equation (9) could be modified to take the change i n into
account (Zimmcrinan, 199 1 ).
The reduction i n rc,//under increase i n net confining pres-
siire is more difficult to calculate but the solution is pro-
vided i n a paper by Zimmermaii ( 1986).Zimnicrman inves-
tigated the change i n area of two-dimensional cavities under
compression. For the pui-poses of equation ( 1 ) this variation
is equivalent to the change in r://.Fro111Zimmeiman’s worh
7 - ’ -L {,, (L’? -19 I
>
//,: - /i:,/j t’ (10)

where is the compressibility of the cavity. For the case of

plane strain, which is appropriate for the tlow tube modcl
used here,

where G is the shear modulus and v is Poisson’s ratio. The

FIG.3 Compressibility of a four-sided hypotrochoidal hole
normalized with respect to that of a circular hole.
first term in equation ( 1 1 ). 2( 1 - I ) ) I’ G, is the compressibil-
ity ofa circular cavity. The second term ci stands for the ratio
of two intinite series. Zinimerinan ( 1986) investigated its
range of values.
A particularly interesting case is the value of a for a
hypotrochoidal hole (see Figure 3 ) . The limiting case where
the hole has a cusped shape is tlie shape of a pore throat for a
packing of spherical grains. For this case CI = 3. For inort‘
general shapes. Zimmerman ( 1986) was able to show from
nunierical investigations that

94 PETROPHl’SICS March-April 2002

 The Pressure Dependence of Permeability

2(1-v) s' Three samples were available for which permeability

cpc =--
G 4nA was measured as a function of stress, elastic constants were
measured, and porosity at an appropriate starting pressure
where A is the area of the hole and S is the perimeter. could be estimated. The reported permeability was oil per-
For an ellipse meability on uncleaned samples that had been vacuum dried
and then saturated with lab oil. The reported permeability is
S2 substantially less than the expected air permeability for
these types of rocks. The porosity was estimated from the
unstressed porosity and the percent length change in the
where M and b are lengths of the major and minor axis. As uniaxial stress tests. Since the samples were unconsoli-
expected, large aspect ratio cavities are much more com- dated, m in equation (1) was taken as 1.7. Figure 4 from the
pressive than those that are close to circular. It is important analysis done by Zhang and his co-workers shows perme-
to realize that cpcshould not be used in rocks when the aspect ability as a fiinction of increased net confining pressure for
ratio is large (i.e., for cracks) because it does not take rough- the three samples. For the first two samples (with the excep-
ness into account, and it is essential to model cracks in rocks tion of the first point or two), the permeability variation
as rough. with pressure appears as a relatively smooth decay. The
The quantity c,, can be written in terms of K by using the third sample is clearly not so smooth. In fact the anoma-
relationship lously low permeability at just over 3,000 psi was measured
1-2v
G=3K-
2+v a P.mrabllHyPornmpb BDU

m
which holds for linear elastic isotropic media. Then 7 0 . I I I I I I

c,, =---4 a 1 - v 2
1
3 1-2~K' 1;s q
%"
%--
I

10
I .
I
I
I

I
I
I

I +
I
+I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Equations (l), (9), (1O), and (15) provide the necessary I I I

relationships to estimate the change in matrix permeability

with change in net confining pressure for a linear elastic iso-
tropic media. The elastic constants K and v used are static
PemaUlHy for ample 11110
moduli and may differ significantly from the dynamic b
moduli that control velocity, but it is often possible to build .so, I I I I I I I

correlations between them. The most poorly determined I I I I I I

parameter is a . For pore throats, it should be between 1 and T"
'== I I I I I I

2. In the examples that follow it is taken as 2 (the cusped I I I I I

I * r d
hypotrochiod hole). This value seems to provide a good I

match to the data. For soft rocks, the assumption that their
behavior is linear elastic is a crude approximation, but the
effective elastic constants seem to describe permeability
variation very well. P~rmubllltybr rmpla 121W
C
80
EXAMPLES OF MATRIX PERMEABILITY in I I I I I I

Gulf of Mexico - I
The Gulf of Mexico - I samples are high porosity, mod-
erate permeability (as measured by TerraTek) unconsoli-
dated sandstones. The measurements were done for Amoco
by TerraTek and the results were analyzed at Amoco by J.
Zhang, Z. Moschovidies, and L. Britt. The TerraTek meas- FIG. 4 Permeability versus effective confining pressure
urements were done under uniaxial strain and converted to calculated from the uniaxial strain tests (performed by
effective confining pressure. TerraTek).

March-April 2002 PETROPHYSICS 95

 formula for linear isotropic

E
1-2v)'

vas 0.326, which gives a bulk

Jermeabilities were estimated
ility the value at 1,244 psi net
;stressed porosity was 35%,
porosity of 43.5%. For this
:ability slightly overestimates
neral there is good agreement
:oretical values.
also shows good agreement.
rmeability slightly underesti-
r this case the measured for v
us was 26,700 psi, and the
37.8%.
less smooth pressure depend-
ig stressed porosity was esti-
I was measured as 0.335; and

ut twice as large a bulk modu-

;amples. The permeability at
ting point for the calculation.
and estimated values for per-
:t confining stress. The esti-
follows a trend that passes
.e points and the one at 5,000
nation, and overestimates the
Id 5,500 psi somewhat more.
ving very non-linear elastic
re. This is also shown by the
hich was measured after the
had been reached. This value
rmeability curve through the
sing pressure would predict.
show very good agreement
ase in permeability and the
from the theoretical model
-ed on the rocks. Considering
ediments are only roughly
lastic media and that the
cia1 stress measurements
; stress case, it is perhaps
t is so good.

were measured as a function

plugs from the South Eastern
to measure their elastic con-

March-April 2002
 The Pressure Dependence of Permeability
stants were unsuccessful (Mike Staines, 1997, pers.
comm.). In order to examine how well the theory works on
these plugs, equation (8) was used to calculate an effective
bulk modulus K from the porosity variation as a function of
pressure. Using this bulk modulus, the pressure dependence
for a range of reasonable Poisson's ratios was calculated
and compared to the experimental values. An alternative
approach would have been to do a formal least squares
inversion to deteimine the optimal K and v values to fit the
porosity and permeability data.
Figures 6a and 6b show the permeability and porosity
variation as a function of pressure for sample 71 53. Figure 7
plots the bulk modulus K calculated from equation (8) using
the difference in porosity at adjacent pressure points. K is
plotted at the pressure corresponding to the higher of the
two pressures. It is seen to be quite variable. Part of this
variability may be due to the fact that these porosity
changes as a function of pressure are not much larger than
the errors associated with the porosity measurement. In part
though, they probably do represent nonlinear behavior.
Because of this variation, the effective bulk modulus was
taken as the bulk modulus needed to produce the change in
porosity when pressure was changed from 400 psi to 2,800
psi. This choice for bulk modulus gives a value of 52,400
Penneabiliivs preasuro 7163
FIG. 6a Permeability versus effective confining pressure for
sample 7153.
p#oolly 7163
*I I I I I I I
FIG. 6b Porosity versus effective confining pressure for sam-
ple 7153.
March-April 2002
psi, which is in the same range as the Gulf of Mexico - I
example. The last two points were excluded as it appears
that the sample has become less compressible. Equations
(l), (9), (lo), and (15), witha set to 2 and m = 1.7. can now
be used to calculate estimated permeability k,,, as a function
of pressure for a range of values of values of 1). Figure 8
shows the fit for I' = 0.29. This value is about 15% smaller
than the Gulf of Mexico - I values. Except for the highest
two pressures, the fit is extremely good.
For the highest two pressures, k,,, shows a smaller esti-
tnated permeability than the measured permeability. This is
consistent with the observed data on the elastic constants.
The bulk modulus calculated from the porosity changes at
the highest pressures is more than twice the effective bulk
modulus used for the calculation. That is, the rock is less
compressible at the higher pressures so the permeability
decrease should be less than the prediction based on the
elastic constant appropriate for lower pressures.
The data from the second plug, 7 199, was analyzed in a
similar way. Figures 9a and 9b show permeability and
porosity as a hnction of pressure. Figure 10 shows the bulk
Bulk Modulus 7153
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Pressure (psi)
FIG. 7 Variation of bulk modulus with pressure for sample
7153. The bulk modulus was calculated from the pressure
dependence of porosity.
Permeability vs Pressure 7153
I
0 1000 2000 3ocO 4000
k = 52000
v = .29
Pressure (psi)
FIG. 8 Match of estimated permeability to measured using a
Poisson's ratio of 0.29 for sample 7153.
PETROPHYSICS 97
 Sigal

TABLE1 Permeability loss estimated from elastic data for Gulf of Mexico - II samples.

Mcasured Bulk Estimated

Sample Pressure Porosity Pernieability Modulus Poisson‘s Pcrmeabi lity
(psi) (uI) ( md ) (psi) Ratio (md)

14958 800 21.7 76

14958 7500 20.8 65 5.86 x 10’ 0.145 67
13967 800 23.5 67
14967 7500 22.6 52 5.73 x 10’ 0 154 59
I4972 800 20.9 74
14971 7500 19.9 64 5.33 x l o 5 0.145 bl
I4977 800 19.5 7. I
14977 7500 1 S.6 5.1 6.03 x 1 o5 0.l45 6.I

motlulus K calculated from equation (9). Again it is quite
variable. An effective bulk i i i o d ~ l of30,OOO
~i~ psi was cal-
culated from tlie porosity change produced by the pressure
change from 400 psi to 3.600 psi.
Figure 1 I shows the estimated change in pernieability for
Poisson’s ratios of0.34, 0.36, and 0.38. A value of 1’ = 0.38
scems to provide a good t i t to the lower pressure points
while 0.34 provides a good fit to the higher pressure points.
A value of I’ = 0.36 provides a reasonable tit to the meas-
ured values over the whole range. It is clear. though, that in
fact both the bulk modulus and Poisson‘s ratio are pressure
dependent for these soft rocks. I t is also clear that, despite
this variability, effective moduli reproduce the pernieability
loss with pressure to a good degree.
Gulf of Mexico - I1
These rocks provide a data set on hard, consolidated
sandstones. Data on porosity, permeability and velocity as a
Permabllny vs Pressure7199
function of pressure were taken from an internal Amoco
report by A. L. Brown. The data from four rock samples
were chosen for examination. Again. the bulk i i i o d d ~ was
i~
estimated from the change i n porosity with pressure using
equation (9).Thc static Poisson’s ratio I’ was not available
but velocity measurements were used to estimate an aver-
age Poisson’s ratio. For this case, the results are relatively
insensitive to v.
Table 1 shows the measured porosity and pcrnicnbility at
800 psi and 7.500 psi along with the estimated bulk modu-
lus K. the value of Poisson’s ratio used in tlie calculation and
tlie estiniated permeability at 7.500 psi. net confining pres-
sure. The value for permeability was estimated using equa-
tions (9). ( 10) and ( IS), and tlie permeability measured at
800 psi. In equation ( IS) ( x was again taken as 2. The loss i n
porosity was about one porosity unit, which is only slightly
better than the measurement accuracy. The calculated bulk
moduli are within f 10?6 of the average value. Unlike the
soft rocks previously examined in which the loss in perme-
ability was a factor oftwo to three, the riieasiircd loss in per-
meability here was in the range of 1440-28 percent. This
decrease in permeability was well predicted by the elastic

2500.

Porosity 7199

0 41
0.40
.- 0.39
8 0.38
p“ 0.37
036
0.35 1 14
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
0 50U IMU 1500 2000 2500 IUM 35M 4000
P,CSYJ,C Pressure (psi)

FIG. 9a Permeability versus effective confining pressure for FIG. 9b Porosity versus effective confining pressure for
sample 71 99. sample 71 99.

98 PETROPHYSICS hlarch-April 2002

 The Pressure Dependence of Permeability

model, so the theory seems capable of handling the changes

in matrix permeability in both soft and hard rocks. For this TABLE2 Sensitivity of estimated permeability to Poisson’s
Ratio for sample 14958.
case, the value of Poisson’s ratio used was the average of
dynamic Poisson’s ratios calculated from the compressional
Poisson’s Permeability Estimated
and shear velocity measured at 6,000 psi net confining pres- Ratio at 7500 psi
sure. There is no general agreement on the relationship -
between the static and dynamic value. 0.1 67.2
Table 2 shows how the estimated permeability for sam- 0.12 67.1
ple 14958 would vary as v is changed from 0.1 to 0.2. The 0.146 66.9
estimated permeability is reasonably insensitive to the 0.16 66.8
value of v in this range. In fact, to two significant figures, all 0.18 66.7
0.2 66.5
values are the same.

CRACK SYSTEMS
No attempt was made to test others of these as Walsh’s
Examination of equations (9), (lo), and (15) shows that
model worked so well.
for v and K values typical of hard rocks, only a small pres-
In Walsh’s model, the cracks in a rock are considered as a
sure dependence on permeability can be expected and that
rough surface with the surface roughness described by a
any pressure dependent permeability must be correlated
height distribution with a root mean square value referred to
with a change in porosity. On the other hand, some hard
as h. At any given pressure, the crack has a half-aperture a,
rocks exhibit an order of magnitude change in permeability which determines how much of the opposing rough surfaces
with changes in net confining pressure smaller than that of a fracture are in contact. As pressure is increased, the
applied to the Gulf of Mexico I1 rocks. Such a large change
aperture closes. More points of contact are established so
could be accommodated by the matrix porosity model only
that the “permeability” is decreased and the crack becomes
by having values of Q in the hundreds. For such a value the stiffer. For a given crack the fluid conductance k is given by
void space is really a smooth-walled crack, and the previous
theory is not appropriate for crack systems. In studies done
over the last several years, we have examined a number of
hard rock samples with significant pressure dependence in
the permeability. This pressure dependence was described
very well by Walsh’s (198 1) model for fracture permeabil- where k is the conductance, a. is the half-aperture at a refer-
ity. There is a rich literature on modeling flow through frac- ence pressure po and p is the effective pressure. Ostensen
ture systems and also the pressure dependence of this flow. (1983) derived using assumptions slightly different than

Sample 7199

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4WO 0 5w 1Mo 1500 m 2m 3Mo 3Mo 4Mo
Effective Confining Pressure (psi) PrnS“rs(pai)

FIG. 10 Variation of bulk modulus with effective confining FIG. 11 Match of permeability versus effective confining
pressure (calculated from the variation of porosity with pressure data for three different values of Poisson’s ratio for
pressure) for sample 7199. sample 7199.

March-April 2002 PETROPHYSICS 99

 Sigal
Walsli'b an cquation similar to equation ( 17) in which the li3
power is replaced by a variable which takes a value bctween
0.45 and 0.5. I t is possible that an elliptical crack niodel with
;i distribution of aspcct ratios could also be ~iscdto derive a11
equation ofthe form ofequation ( 1 7). Walsh's model is only
for flow through H single rough crack. It must still be rclatcd
to the measured permeability of the macroscopic rock.
For a roch with multiple cracks, the siniplcst model is to
assume they act in parallel so that the fluid conductances
add and the rock pertlieability IS given by
where .4 is tlie area of rock face. and there are n cracks inter-
sccting the area .4. As a function of pressure, equation ( 1 8)
bccomcs
As it stands, equation ( 18) is very complicated. I t can be
significantly sitiiplitied by recognizing that ,+f(p) is esseti-
tially a constant for hard rocks.
Secondly. i t is reasonable to assLitiie that hitr is aii intrin-
6 7 8 9
Natural Log of Pressure
FIG. 12 Permeability versus effective confining pressure for
plug 9959.7 from North Sea volcanic zone.
I00 PETROPH\'SICS
sic property of the rock and docs not vary tiiLich from crack
to crack. With these assumptions.
(70)
or
whcrc .4 and B arc constants. Equation (21) has provided an
cscellcnt tit for the Iiertneabilities of hard rocks where thc
Iicrmeability varies considerably with pressure. Note that
this very good tit validates that hit/ is a property ofthe rock.
Bascd on observcd data an cquation in tlic form of(21 ) had
been published by Jones (1975) and Jones and Owens
( 1980). Figures 12 through I5 show tlie periiieability-
versus-presslire relationships for scveral hard rocks. Figures
12 throiigh I4 are for samples from a volcanic formation in
the North Sea. Each samplc is from ii different zone repre-
senting different types ofvolcanic rock. Figure I5 shows the
pressure dependence for SIX samples from a North Sca fault
seal. These samples are closely spaced but the m i c is quitc
heterogeneous. All the samples have large decreases in pcr-
mcability as a fiiiiction of pressure, and d l tit the stmight
line relationship, equation ( 2 1 ). to a dcgree that is almost
unseen with petrophysical data.
A good tit to equation ( 2 1 ovcr a wide prcssure mngc
Natural Log of Pressure 10049
FIG. 13 Permeability versus effective confining pressure for
plug 10049 from North Sea volcanic zone.
hlarch-April 2002
 The Pressure Dependence of Permeability

provides excellent evidence that the dominant permeability narrow pressure range, over the whole range the data clearly
pathway is from fractures. Synthetic data generated using do not fall on a straight line.
the theory for the loss of matrix permeability does not fit
equation (2 1). Figures 16 and 17 show the data from south CONCLUSIONS
eastern Caribbean samples 7199 and 7153 plotted as h-”p
versus lnp. Although the data could be taken as linear over a The variation of matrix permeability with net confining
pressure can be very well described by combining elasticity
theory with a modified Katz-Thompson expression for per-
meability. This new theory was tested on two soft rock sam-
ples sets and one hard rock sample set. These samples con-
tained permeability variations ranging from as little as 20%
to as much as 200%. This new theory, in conjunction with
estimates of reasonable values of the static Poisson’s ratio
0.6 and bulk modulus, could be used to provide limits on the
ti variation of matrix permeability with pressure.
L
0
n
2
r
0
C

-P 0.5
Em
a!
E
n
0.4

0.3
6 7 8 9
Natural Log of Pressure 9959.7

FIG. 14 Permeability versus effective confining pressure for

FIG. 16 Natural log of effective confining pressure versus

permeabilityto the 113 power. Eastern Caribbeansample 7199.

* lc2
t- ICl

V lb3
+ Ibl
0 lb2
0 Id3

6 7 8 9
Natural Log of Pressure
FIG. 17 Natural log of effective confining pressure versus
FIG. 15 Permeability versus effective confining pressure. permeability to the 1/3 power. Eastern Caribbean data, sample
North Sea fault seals. 7153.

March-April 2002 PETROPHYSICS 101

 Sigal

Walsh’s theoretical model relating the effect of pressure ABOUT THE AUTHOR
on the permeability of fractures has a fundamentally differ- Richard Sigal joined Anadarko as part of a new engineering
ent functional relationship on pressure than the theory technology group in May of 2001. Before joining Anadarko he
developed here for the loss of permeability due to matrix spent 21 years at Amoco mostly in their Tulsa Technology Center.
compression. This difference provides a clear way to use the After retiring from Amoco he worked for two years at Halliburton
pressure dependence of permeability to distinguish fracture in Houston. At Anadarko his primary responsibilities are in the
from matrix permeability, and thus to decide the dominant technologies used in reservoir description. During the last 15 years
tlow pathway. much of his time was spent on understanding permeability and the
technologies used to characterize and estimate it. He worked in
petrophysics and core measurements at Amoco and supervised the
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS development of petrophysical applications at Halliburton. Among
his areas of special expertise are NMR and Hg capillary pressure
The author would like to thank the reviewers for useful measurements.
suggestions, Amoco for permitting the publication of this Richard was trained in mathematics and physics. His PhD the-
work. and Halliburton and Anadarko for support in produc- ses was in general relativity. Since then he has metamorphosed
ing the final manuscript. several times and now carries the title of engineer. His first meta-
morphosis, made at the University of Alberta. was into the area of
surface electrical measurements. This led to employment in the oil
REFERENCES industry with Amoco. While at Amoco he gradually became
Gangi, A. F., 1978. Variation of whole and fractured porous rock involved with reservoir characterization, core measurements and
permeability with confining pressure: International Jozrrtiul oj petrophysics. Part of this process was taking Amoco’s one-year
Rock Mechanics. Mitirral Scier1c.e tind G r o m r c h ~ i n i r ~ petrophysics training program.
Abstracts. VOI. 15, pp. 249-257. Richard may be contacted at richard-sigalc$anadarko.com
Hagiwara, T.. 1984. Archie’s rn for permeability, paper I3 100, in
59th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Soci-
ety of Petroleum Engineers. 9 p.
Jones, F. O., 1975, A laboratory study of the effects of confining
pressure on fracture flow and storage capacity in carbonate
rocks: Jozrrrial of Petideirrn Technolog?: pp. 2 1-27.
Jones, F. O., 1979, A laboratory study of low permeability gas
sands, paper 7551, in Symposium on Low Permeability Gas
Reserviors Transactions: Society of Petroleum Engineers, 10 p.
Ostensen, R. W., 1983, Microcrack permeability in tight gas sand-
stone: SPE Joirrnal, December, pp. 9 19-927.
Thompson, A,. Katz, A. J., and Krohn. C. E., 1987, The microgeo-
metry and transport properties of sedimentary rock: A d ~ w ~ ~ e s
in Pliysics, vol. 36, pp. 625-694.
Walsh, J. B.. 198 I , Effect of pore pressure and confining pressure
on fracture permeability: In/ertiotionul Jouixal qf Rock
Mechtinics, Mineral Science and Geomechanics.4 bstracts, vol.
18, pp. 4 2 9 4 3 5 .
Zimmernian, R. W.. 1986, Compressibility of two-dimensional
cavities of various shapes: Joirrnal of dpplied Mechanics, vol.
108, pp. 500-504.
Zimmerman. R. W., 199 1 Compressibilih, qf’sandstones,Elsevier,
p 38.

I02 PETROPHYSICS March-April 2002