SPE

SPE 14207 Estimation of the Coefficient of Inertial Resistance in High-Rate Gas Wells
by R. Noman, /mperia/ C.; N. Shrimanker, British Gas Corp.; and J.S. Archer, /mperia/ C.

SPE Members

Copyright This paper Vegas,

19S5, Society was prepared

of Petroleum

Engineers at the SOth Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers held in Laa

for vreaantatkm 1985.

NV September

22-25,

This paper waa selected for presentation by an SPE Program Comminee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, aa presented, have not been reviewad by the Society of Petroleum Engineera and are subject 10 correction by the author(e). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any pesifion of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its onlcera, or members. Papars presented at SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. Permission to copy ia reetriofad to an abstract of not more thsn 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abetracf should contain conapicuoua acknowledgment of whera and by whom the paper is presented. Write Publications Manager, SPE, PO. eox 833S36, Richardson, TX 750S3-3S36. Telex, 730989 SPEDAL.

ABSTRACT

The pressure drop due to non-Dsrcy flow in a gas weii producing at high rates can be determined from analysis of multi-rate pressure test data. In the absence of such data calculation of the non-Darcy term requires a knowle~e of the coefficient of inertiai resistance. This paper presents correlations for estimating the coefficient of inertial resistance from reservoir porosity, permeability and gas saturation. These correlations were derived from analysis of multi-rate pressure tests conducted in over one hundred gas walis and are supported by experimental data using core plugs. They are found to be better than other published relationships in predicting observed performance. INTRODUCTION It is well known that deviation from Darcy% isw occurs for fluid flow through porous media at high velocity. This phenomena is especially significant in the region surrounding the wellbore of a gas well producing at high rate. In this situation the Forchheimer equationl CM provide a better description of flow than Darcyts law. The Forchheimer equation may be represented by * = a pv+ dL /3Pv2

ihe value of p can be estimated from laboratory measurements on core piugs and from mliiti-~at~ pressure tests conducted in a well. Correlations published in the literature have all rmde use of the first method, and are often found to predict flow behaviour with unacceptable accuracy. In this work the second method has been used to calculate P and experimental measurements on core plugs were also carried out for comparison. The ~-factors obtained have then been correlated with available reservoir parameters. The empirical correlations obtained by this method could be used in predicting the non-lhrcy pressure drop for other wells where, due to reservoir or operational constraints it may be difficult to conduct any extended nmlti-rate flow test. -IALAK)~~ In the early literature it was supposed that fluid flowi~ at high velocity through porous media would behave like a fluid flowing through a conduit and The suffer energy loss from turbulence. often termed coefficient p was therefore turbulence factor . More recently it has becane clear that turbulence does not play any significant part on flow behaviour of interest in reservoir ~inaering, and that the deviation from Darcys law is the result of: a) the convective acceleration and deceleration of fluid particles as they travel through the pores2, and the displacement of fluid particles from a straight line due to the tortuous path in a porous media3.

(1)

where a is the coefficient of viscous flow resistance (=1/k). The term P is generall # known as the coefficient of inertial resistance although other names have been proposed in the literature. l%e second term in this equation represents the- extra-pressure drop caused by the high flow rate. References and illustrations at endof paper.

b)

Inertial

Coefficient

in High Rate Gas Wells

SPE 14207

NKKlU3AlWD~ICN~) Dimensional consideration of Eqn 1 shcxvs that a , the viscous coefficient has dimension of [L2] and P, the inertial coefficient has dimension [L-ll. ~ese two coefficients are independent of the fluid properties and since both have the dimensions of length they are expected to contribute to the characterisation of the structure of the porous mediun. Numerous attempts have been made in the literature to derive the Forchheimer equation fran theoretical considerations, and attribute significance to the coefficients. l%ese shmv that P canbe related in various ways to porosity, permeability, tortuosity, specific surface area, size distribution of grains and pores, surface-~eughness etc. It would seem that each of these attenpts are valid only for the specific conditions for which they were derived and no universally applicable relationship has emerged. Green and Duwez5 for /3 might represent a example mention that resistance equivalent to a certain number of contractions and expansions per unit length of the path. Mny Qf the cQrrelatioIM proposed in the literature which express ~ in terms of permeability and porosity are dimensionally incorrect, and require the units to be specified. Geertsme2 proposed adimensionally correct relationship between # , k and P . The arguments used in proposing this relationship are valid for unconsolidated sands. For consolidated rocks such relationships are not necessarily valid and the application of Geertsmats equation has been found to give very erroneous results in many instances. In the present study we have also sought to relate # from well tests to porosity and permeability and have obtained correlations which give results better than other known relations. of necessity some of these relations are also dimensionally inhanogenous. Fractional dimensions in the description of however may be reasonable porous media6. Until the true nature of the ~-factor is better understood it will be necessary to rely on these empirical correlations, since they are adequate for most engineering calculations.

units A=-

by IA99 T kh i h ( ~ e - rw 4 \
+s )

(3)

In Eqn. 2, B is the non-Darcy term and can be found fran 3.161x10-12 PTP B= ~ h2

k-k)

4)
(5)

Since, in general, I/re is negligible l/rw, I@ 4may be simplified to 3.161x10-12 /3Tv B= ~h2 rw

ccnpared to

Fran a multi-rate pressure test, the apparent skin S can be calculated for each rate of production. lhe apparant skinS is related to the flowrate by
S1 = S+@

(6) (7)

where D= Bkh 1422T

A plot of S against Qfrunndti-rate drawdmvn can be.used to Obtfin the value of S as the intercept end D as the gradient, according to Eqn.6. me value of B can therefore be found from Eqn.7 since D is already known, and hence the value of P can be evaluated from Eqn. 5 for the particular well. Excepting for a few cases, ~.t. .~me.f~ ----CZ.Q1-F . .., hm~~ pseudo pressure and--~~~E&d
WtWP rmalv~ed

all

the pressure test real gas of superposition7.

USing the

ixrr

us

WMxREmmm

/3 Fmdmnsrs the as inflow

Using the real gas pseudo pressure, equation for a gas well rmy be written m(p) - m(~f)

Data from wireline logs and isochronal or flmv-on-flow tests follavedby en extended build-up in 105 gas wells were available to us. l%ese wells are spread across 5 major sandstone gas reservoirs of the southern North Sea. The fields are referred to as A, B, C, DandE in Table 1. The values of kh were calculated frun the buildup test and the apparent skin, St, and hence /3 were calculated fran the drawdowns. The net formation thickness h at a well was estimated fran wireline logs. The net reservoir thickness in these reservoirs was not considered to change significantly fran that indicated at a well. The values for porosity and gas saturation are the thickness weighted averages for the cross section
-f . ~~~ #n.rnmtinn ....1-.... fmInA *-.. fpnm . . ... tha . ... l-~g~ f~~ ~h~

AQ+BQ2

(2)

where A is the Darcy coefficient and for a semi steady state flow may be represented in oil field

individual well. Many of the southern North Sea gas reservoirs are characterised byahigh liquid saturation which is inmobile. for The values perforated intervals are subject to some uncertainty since production logs were available for less than one thirdof all the wells. For the rest, original well canpletion records were used.

SPE 14207

R Nanan , N Shrimanker

, J S Archer

In some cases the perforated thickness he was found to be greater than h where the wells were highly deviated. The relevant data for the five fields Plots of permeability are given in Table 1. against porosity for all the wells are shown in Fig 1 and the distribution of data are shown in Fig 2 to 4.

Frana plot of the left hand side against (w/AP)~ the value of P can be obtained as the gradient of the line and permeability as the inverse of the intercept. A number of correlations proposed in the literature have used the laboratory measured values of porosity, permeability and p-factors for core plugs. One of the more reliable empirical relationships given by Tek et alll is of the form 5.5 x 109 kI.25 In the presence this equation p= 90.75 of an imnobile could bewritten12 5.5 x 109 kl.25 ( q Sg)0.75 (ha) liquid as (11) saturation

uawsuWiCXS

Several different statistical models were tested to fit the observed field data. Both single and multiple regression methods were used to correlate p to other variables as described below. (a)
Linear Regression

p.

The best correlations were obtained when power curve regression models were used. These are of the form y=cfl i%eywere linearised logy= by taking lcgaritixns (9) (8)

mlogx+c~

inconsistent. By Equation lla is dimensionally plotting ? against fl{k, Geertsmaz was able to obtain a straight line from which he proposed a dimensionally consistent relation. P = 48512 kt).5 9505 (in field units) (12)

Standard techniques of regressing y on x or alternatively x on y are not applicable in this situation since errors -are inherent in the ~=~~~~~~~~~ of ~~! ~~~ ~~~~Q~~~~= USe of such standard methods can lead to erroneous results and can sanethnes even fail ccnpieteiy. An alternative method of minimising the distance perpendicular from the data point to the regression line8 was adopted in the present work. Some of the results found by using the above method are shmvn in Table 2 along with their correlation coefficient and standard errors of estimate. (b) f&iitipie iieg~l?ilshl

In our work measimanents on core plugs were carried out by flowing gases at increasingly high rates. were calculated fran Klinkenberg he permeabilities correction plots when the flow rates were low enough for any inertial effect to be significant. Results of the measurements on 24 core plugs are given inTsble 3.

Using a straight line regression it is possible to treat only one independent variable at a time. A standardized multiple regression technique was therefore used to include more significant variables. Power curve models were again linearised for the purpose of regression by taking ~ n~er of logarithms. were tested and the best shuwn in hble 2, Eqn. 19. ~~ Measurements were carried out in the laboratory on a marber of core plugs fran the study fields-and also from other adjoining fields. The usual procedure for determining the coefficient of inertial resistance is to use an integrated form of Eqn 1: which can be expressed10 as M (p12 -p22 2zRTpL(w/A) ) x
w P+ ;

Some of the results obtained from regression are presented in Figures 5 to 11. The results indicate that an acceptable and useful correlation can be obtained by relating /3 directly to permeability as shown in Fig 5. l%e lot also shows lines obtained fran Katzs equationl E for ~0~ VQ~U~S as well as the line -.n~ 9nx CL,, -- pcrog~ty obtained from Geertsmafs relation (Eqn. 12) assuni~ that the porosity is i5%o Iii both eeses it is clear that the existing correlations are unable to predict the observed values with acceptable accuracy. The best fitting straight line is given by ~n. 14. Aplot according to i%n. 15 is shown in Fig 6. The best relationship was obtained when /3 was related to {(k/?.Sg)as shown in Fig 7. This may suggest that p is directly related to pore geanetry throughq. The termf(k/q)has been used widely in ALfihn~fpterisitw . . . ...= . .. . ., . . Ine lltehwr~ tiS = ieiiith p~~=~.=. a porous media, eg in Leveretts J-function13 and this relationship is being explored further by us. According to Eqn. 13, the relationship is also dimensionally hancgeneous. fhegas saturation term is included since the presence ef a ii~iiid
,,.-A..+-*

(lo)

-,

Inertial

Coefficient

in High Rate Gas Wells

SPE 14207

saturation will reduce the effective porosity. In the present study it has been assumed that the liquid phase present is immobile for all the wells. The liquid production in all cases hardly ever exceeded 3-4 bbl/Mvlacf and this is most likely due to the pressure and temperature change from wellbore to the surface separators. l%e experimental results have been plotted in Fig 8 using P and k as the axes. The line according to Eqn 14 is shown as well as the line of best fit given by the dashed line. It can be seen that Eqn.14 can predict the values of pfar better than The experimental results existing relations. obtained in our laboratory therefore supports the correlation derived from field data. Further, the experimental results show that for l@v permeability values of ~ may rocks (ie, 0.1 < k < 1.0 md) the be at least an order of magnitude higher than those predicted by existing correlations. Plots according to Geertsmas2 procedure are shown in Fig 9 and 10. A plot of 9 againstp can aiso be used to obtain a very good straight line (Fig 11). However correlations formed fran such plots may be unreliable since the range of porosity data fran producing gas fields are far too narrow to form any valid relationship. It has been suggested14 that the perforated interval, he, should be used in Eqn. 5 instead of the net formation thickness h. his suggestion is based on the assumption that non-Darcy flow is significant only very near to the wellbore. Also implicit is the assumption that the flow is In this study it was found that completely radial. correlation coefficients for equations 13 to 19 improved considerably when hwes used instead of ~ in calculating p from Eqn. 5. The correlations were also tested for all the data where he WaS less then h. It was found that the correlations again improved by similar mgnitude. l%is suggests that inertial effects may be significant at large distances away from the wellbore so that it would be more appropriate to uae h instead of ~. Sane uncertainty is also attached to the values of . In this study production logs were not availab ? e for most of the wells and evan when available their interpretation was ambiguous. In contrast, the net formation thickness can be evaluated with nwchnmre reliability fran wireline logs. The net formation thickness h therefore provides a more reliable parameter to use than hp. For this and the tiove mentioned reason only h was used in Eqn. 5 for calculating P as shown in Table 1. lTie reported 1 ratios betweefi he afid h cue Uiao ShmTl :- %hla --- L1l aa.= A. lhe permeability near the wellbore is almost always different from the bulk formation permeability due tonmd filtrate invasion, acidising etc. This is also the region where the non-Darcy effects are thought that It was therefore nmst significant. the correlations could be inproved further if )was An equation related to the altered permeability. for calculating ka, the permeability of the altered zone has been given by Hawkina15 as k =_ s -lln~ (20) rw () ka

This equation is however not particularly useful since ra, the radius of zone of the altered permeability is also unknown. By analogy with the concept of effective wellbore radius14 we can relate the two pemneabilities.
ka=

kexp

(-nS)

where n is a constant to be found by trial and error. A negative skin would thus increase the value of ka and a positive skin would have the opposite effect. Using this method Eqns. 14 and 19 were modified The improvement in the first (see Table 2). equation was small although in the second case was significant. The bulk formation permeability therefore seems to be adequate in formulating the correlations especially since inertial effects may be present at sane distance away fran the wellbore. ine major imitation of the various clorreiati~fi~ proposed in this work and by others in the literature is that only porosity and permeability have been taken as the independent variables However, porosity controlling inertial effects. and permeability alone cannot truly characterise the geanetry of a porous medium surrounding a particular well. From experimental work we have also observed that two core plugs having similar permeabilities can often have markedly different values of the p-factor. It may well be that although permeability is controlled by the narrmv pore throats, the pore sizes or shapes are sufficiently different that the inertial losses at increasing flmv rates are also quite different.

almlma

1.

Data from over one hundred gas wells were analysed to obtain the coefficient of inertial resistance. The coefficients were These correlated with reservoir parameters. correlations, which are supported by experimental measurements using core plugs, are shown to be better than existing relations in predicting~. The best
;::::e:o($;;o%)

2.

correlation

canbe
0.50 This

formed when p is
is b~ause the

is a good estimate of the mean characteristic iength of a porous media. The relation (Eqn. 13) is dimensionally hanogeneoua. 3. Correlations according to Geertsmas method give unreliable results since the porosity range in producing sandstone reservoir rocks is generally narrow. Laboratory measurements of I show that for lav permeability (ie k < 1 md) sandstones, the value of$..can be at leaat an order of magnitude higher than those predicted by existirg correlations.

4.

SPE 14X17

RNanan , N Wn%nanker , J S Archer

Correlations were found to be much improved if p was calculated using the net formation thickness. This is thought to be due to non-Darcy effects existing at some distance away from the wellbQre, we thus find it preferable to use the net formation thickness rather than the perforated interval thickness in Eqn 5. .A~th~@ it might ha hnttn~ ----the permeability of the altered wellbore, the bulk formation appears to be adequate for use the value of/3
to ~~~=?~ ~ ~~

The authors would like to thank British Gas Corporation (Exploration Department) for making all the data available to carry out this study and also for permission to publish the results. One of the authors (R.N) would like to thank 13X for financial support.

zone near the permeability in predicting

1 2

Forchheimer, P: Leipzig (1914), Chap 15, Sec 116-l!18

end Berlin

No uniaue correlation could be found for predicting P fran k and p alone which would fit the data perfectly. This is becausep is also a function of other properties of a porous mediun for which k and P alone provide inadequate description.

Geertsma, J: Estimating the ~efficient of Inertial Resistance in Fluid Flow Through Porous Media. ~ (Ott 1974), No 5, 445. Firoozabadi, A and Katz, D: An Analysis of High Velocity Gas Flow l%rough Porous Median. ~ (Feb. 1979), 211 Cornell, Through ~(Ckt. D and Katz, D: Flow of Gases Consolidated Porous Media, 1953)S, 2145 Fluid Flow Ihrough (1951) la, 39 (1982) Board:

NOMENCLATURE

4 A= A= B= cross sectional area, ft2 Darcy coefficient in gas inflow equation, psia21cp/Mscf/d non-Dercy coefficient in gas inflow equation,
DSia2/CD/(MSCf/d)2

5 6 7

Green L and Duwez, P J: Porous Metalsn. ~

non-b;cy constant in rate dependent skin, l/Mscf/d D= h = net formation thickness, ft perforated interval thickness, ft ~= = bulk formation permeability, md ke = permeability of the altered zone near wellbore, md length of the flow path, ft L= M= molecular weight of gas, lb/lb mole m(p)= real gas pseudo pressure, psia2/cp pressure, psia P= gas flow rate, Macf/d Q= universal gas constant, ft lbf/lb-mol R R= ra = radius of the altered zone near wellbore, ft re = external boundary radius, ft rw = wellbore radius, ft mechanical skin factor s= rate dependent skin s = Sg . gas saturation T= absolute temperature, R v= fluid velocity, ft/sec mass flow rate, lb/see w= gas compressibility factor z= e= coefficient of viscous flow resistance (=1/k), ft2 = coefficient of inertial flow resistance, l/ft L! Y = specific gravity of gas (air=l.0) P = density of fluid, lb/cu ft v = porosity gas viscosity, cp P=

Mandlebrot, BEk ~LI!l. WHFretmum&Cb, San Francisco

Alberta Energy Resource Conservation ... . . rv . . . m. Amert, @naaa (i975)o

8 9 IQ

Dorn, W S and McCrakin, D D: bletbr@ J Wiley & Sons, New York (1972) 357. . . Davis, J C: ~ GgdrgY, J Wiley and Sons, New York (1973) . ~, (1959).
Knt.z ..---, ~

af

ml: Hanrlhook of Natural Gas McGraw Hill Book Co, New York

11

Tek, M R., Coats, K H and Katz, D Ix The Effect of Turbulence on Flow of Natural Gas Through Porous Reservoirs, LEAJl@h (July 1962) 799 Ramey, H J: Non-Darcy Flow and Wellbore Storage Effects in Pressure Buildup and Drawdown of Gas Wells, JJ?&ldI, (Feb 1965) 223 Leverett, M C: Capillary Solids, ~,(1941)14i% Dake, L P: ~, Elsevier Amsterdam (1978) Hawkins, ~(Dec Behaviour in Porous 153 Publish Co,

12

13 14

Scientific

15

M F: A Note on the Skin Effect, 1956), 65

TABLE Field

1 Data

Mel 1
720. (L)
XIO3

hp/h (J) (% (;7

Wel 1
No.

/9
(ft-1)

k
(ad)

0
(x) (3

hplh

1 2 3 4 5 6

0.09 2.15 4.38 3.05 0.58 22.86

63.0 118.0 48.0 7.0 .90.0 2.5

?2tL0 11.0 11.7 10.9 12.1 12.9 11.4

A 45.0 63.0 52.0 SO.o 52.0 53.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 -4.2 -5.0 -0.6 -3.5 -4.0 -5.0 56 53 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71

X109 16.299 514.858 55.896 294.007 204.241 96.287 131.867 295.680 1183.455 89.435 305.615 78.726 381.026 275.941 259.516 192.393 399.592 341.779 71.00 .10 4.30 .35 1.20 .23 6.80 .26 .06 6.90 1.23 6.90 .%! 1.10 .60 1.49 .48 .38 F2EL0 D 12.3 13.6 13.0 11.4 13.7 12.0 14.6 13.2 13.3 12.1 15.5 13.9 14.2 13.8 15.6 13.9 13.3 11.3 ?IELO Iv. 14.8 14.6 12.9 14.7 11.4 15.4 12.1 14.1 16.6 17.9 14.4 12.4 12.1 10.6 16.6 16.9 17.3 20.2 17.9 13.7 14.8 16.6 15.9 15.8 13.6 14.0 15.6 16.5 11.8 13.4 10.2 16.0 15.0 15.8 54.0 61.0 61.0 64.0 58.0 56.0 62.0 41.0 60.0 61.0 62.0 63.0 48.0 48.0 43.0 43.0 48.0 49.0 .660 .597 .471 .610 .507 .614 .456 .375 .287 .446 .632 .376 .367 .399 .408 .339 .266 .328 .01 -1.80 -4.00 -1.00 .80 - .80 .01 - .20 -1.20 .01 -2.30 -2.10 - .60 .01 -4.10 .01 -2.60 4.00

? .9 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41
42

43 64 4s

10.451 1.116 171.153 16.207 107.833 4.093 3.o76 4.635 9.678 2.123 2.877 4.676 8.118 2.203 5.427 1.943 12.389 2.564 6.676 2.207 2.073 1.443 2.172 67.728 3.096 7.869 1.903 3.134 5.793 .745 2.494 1.420 .233 1.134 1.677 8.600 .256 .916 .276

13.10 64.20 .88 16.20 .96 12.10 22.60 25.20 12.90 27.10 68.00 8.77 6.60 21.80 42.30 202.00 6.50 121.00 3.31 23.60 28.10 28.40 22.60 .74 10.50 2.68 14.40 65.50 51.70 89.20 24.20 174.00 418.WJ 104.00 68.60 42.60 112.00 134.00 59.10

FX72L0 B 14.1 12.5 12.2 13.1 14.8 12.3 14.1 13.9 14.0 14.4 19.5 16.4 15.7 13.2 16.0 17.9 15.8 19.1 17.0 15.6 16.0 15.7 15.3 14.6 13.4 11.8 14.9 17.6 16.9 14.9 10.1 18.2 19.5 17.0 17.3 14.8 16.0 15.7 14.7
nmo c

74.0 69.0 65.0 70.0 71.0 70.0 73.0 72.0 71.0 72.0 68.0 73.0 68.0 71.0 65.0 72.o 63.0 66.0 55.0 ?5.0 74.0 72.0 70.0 60.0 74.0 50.0 73.0 77.0 79.0 76.0 63.0 77.0 75.0 73.0 73.0 64.0 74.0 75.0 70.0

.423 .67o .553 .456 .606 .652 .942 .891 .437 .758 .983 .750 .864 .558 .781 .776 .520 .790 .474 .805 1.195 1.183 .861 1.151 .682 .986 .687 .969 .765 .777 .632 .884 .439 .378 .518 .500 .500 .500 .500

0.2 -3.7 -1.4 -3.6 -4.0 -. 7 11.9 -5.0 -2.0 -3.8 6.6 -2.3 -4.7 6.2 1.8 -6.8 -4.4 -. 8 -2.4 -1.4 4.7 -2.5 -3.2 -6.3 .9 -2.8 -3.3 -5.0 -1.4 .9 - .4 8.1 2.7 -5.0 -5.0 22.0 4.9 3.4 9.2

46 47 48 69 50 51 52 53

80.020 5.774 14.508 2.231 27.839 .122 2.92o .686

8.47 64.30 40.00 42.50 19.70 606.00 68.00 82.00

12.7 12.6 13.1 10.9 14.6 17.3 16.9 15.5

60.0 67. o 60.0 53.0 59.0 55.0 71.0 36.0

1.043 1.047 1.059 1.052 .809 1.110 ..913 .474

-1.8 5.2 11.9 -. 9 1.8 4.2 2.0 .9

72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 Iw 101 102 103 106 105

71.410 201.840 408.320 182.800 229.900 12.410 24.270 397.420 39.090 4.050 .92.810 52.230 773.62o 1739.690 12.180 56.760 158.740 12.120 34.180 7.370 87.710 13.220 18.510 25.220 19.940 20.640 42.090 7.340 102.040 149.510 32.170 1.250 3.160 6.970

.91 .88 .28 .52 .52 25.80 .54 .73 3.o2 5.13 2.36 2.16 .50 .23 4.20 1.70 .88 2.55 3.32 2.57 1.51 6.70 4.10 2.80 4.56 1.23 .93 1.70 .54 .65 1.31 12.61 17.60 6.98

57.5 68.0 59.9 56.7 60.0 63.4 54.4 58.4 53.8 62.1 57.5 58.6 56.6 34.9 59.9 61.0 58.5 65.9 65.0 45.6 60.8 66.3 31.5 57.3 45.6 53.2 58.9 60.6 48.2 55.8 33.1 57.7 49.2 57.6

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

- .16 -3.80 -3.50 -2.71 -3.27 - .30 -1.70 -2.60 -2.96 .44 -1.37 -6.40 .13 .15 -1.60 -4.60 -3.6o -4,30 .90 -1.70 .39 -2.10 -3.40 -2.40 -3.10 -3.50 -2.50 -2.30 -3.90 -3.50 -1.00 - .70 -2.70 -3.20

.,

TAPLE 8SCRESSION

2 EQUATIONS

Correlation 13qn. 13 log Refyesslon P - m 10S n 14 2.4388, Squation (k/

C

Coeff Error (S)

(R)

Standard + c
R -

?. S8)-0-5
-

0.9821

-2.4071
R -

logp-mlo~k+c n = -1.0609, C 11.0495

0.8883

14a

logp-mlogka+c m - -1.0805, kak.

R C -

0.8903

11.0756

exp(-o.03s) ?)+c C 10.1544 S C -0.6068 S c Sg)

C -

15

logp-mlo~(k. m -1.0356,

R -

O.889S

16

Iosq-mloap+c m - -0.0233, 10s P{k-mlo89+c m -30.0799, m 10s (P.

0.0628

17

i.i9i8

-21.7707 +
C

18

log/3~k
n

S = 1.4922

-13.4639, hO

-10.7036

19

P
bO bl 52 19a kbl. (?. Sg) X Io10 4.7543 0.9212

b2
R -

0.6787

= 0.2429
bo

P kbl.(p.so)bz
bO hl b2 1.$633 0.8804 0.7770 exp(-O.19S)
X lillo

R -

0.7262

ka = k.

TABLE LABORATORY

3 OATA

Sample No. (f t-1.! lo%

k (d)

J)
20.76 13.82 10.19 12.74 12.17 16.92 1.4.90 5.87 9.96 15.17 7.43 6.83 11.39 12.31 11.50 10.01 11.00 21.00 20.50 20.90 23.9o 25.60 19.60 19.01

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 M 19 20 21 22 23 24

0.368 14.90 119.0 179.0 17.30 2.021 7.380 7930 1130 0.766 803.0 31310 1140 42470 17400 865.0 726. o 0.519 1.170 2.010 1.080 0.263 0.636 0.816

59.0 2.18 0.98 1.23 2.21 17.0 5.90 0.14 0.23 99.5 0.41 .041 .260 .064 .102 .460 .515 33.0 15.2 10.5 13.0 32.5 28.4 20.8

SPE

J 4207

25,

.
. . .. ..

.
:C r-n

.%. :..

* .,

. %:.s .. . . . .. . . ..8. .. . .
e . . .

15

,.. .

.
10

.
. *.

..* . ..
q

..

s . . s

. .

l-l

10

Is

20

25

3
li!uM&K PERMEA81LITY

[mall

Pis. 2-P91mwUflt%

db2rlbuOon of Mn mnP19 set

I
20 I

SPE
.

1420-7

10

34 ! I 1 1 1 T

10:

-J

10;

10
Q

~
10
w . u .=
al 0

109

108

10

Permeability Fb. ~

k (red)

Permeability Fb, -

Porosity

k~

(red)

d @wllh ~MKty.

u=wdlv

to Sq. 15.

102 lo 10
10

1 ~

10 10

15

14

r
u u

1
~ \ G m -E ,! u .s al :
i5 .= b =

I 09 r

13

,2 10 10
10 10

m ..-U : al 0

z
u

I 08 r

10 106

1
1 1

109

05 102

108

103

104
-0.s

10s
(l/cm)
to Sq. !3.

106

10

102

16

10
Permeability

10
k (red)

102

103

104

(k/@.Sg)
Fig.7-PM Scm-dng

Fig. s4Ummlm

0fpflJr*xp9rin18nm dma

SPE

1420-7

1
162 102 , i , I , i ,

103

104 (3.dk

105

106

Fig. S-Carelatlon

bdween

q, p, and k.

,.

~JJ
102

103
.

104 /3.dk

105

106

Fig. 10-Conelatlon

between r.du~

PCWOSW. i% ad

k.

t
-1

,~~
107 108 109
Inertial Fig. 11-c03mlati0n coefficient betwnn

,,
100
@

10
( 1 /ft) cwltlclant.

1012

10

portmny qnd Inwtid

.SPE 1.4207