Advertisement

Carbonates and Evaporites

, Volume 3, Issue 1, pp 53–64 | Cite as

Very high-pressure mercury porosimetry as a tool in reservoir characterization

  • David C. Kopaska-Merkel
  • Joachim E. Amthor
Petrophysics of Carbonate Reservoirs

Abstract

Three methodological considerations critical to the use of mercury porosimetry for reservoir characterization are the analytical pressure ranges which should be covered, sampling density, and the effects of variation in sample weight. Of these, the analytical pressure range is most likely to be inappropriately scaled. Mercury porosimetry analyses should be carried out to very high pressures for two reasons: first, although mercury-air capillary pressure corresponding to subsurface conditions at a given depth varies greatly depending on fluid densities, viscosities, and interfacial tensions, and on rock wettability, hydrostatic gradients yield capillary pressures equivalent to 10,000 PSIA (Hg-air) at 4,600 feet (1.4 km) or less. To evaluate the range of conditions likely to be encountered at subsurface depths where hydrocarbon production is economically feasible, mercury porosimetry should attain pressures of at least 10,000 PSIA. Second, substantial amounts of mercury intrusion occur at capillary pressures greater than 10,000 PSIA (Hg-air): up to 41% in the studied samples.

Sampling density required for reservoir characterization depends upon reservoir heterogeneity; it may not be sufficient to sample only the best and worst zones unless a reservoir is quite homogeneous. No biasing effects of sample weight variation were found, but caution is urged when a variety of lithologies are sampled.

Keywords

Contact Angle Capillary Pressure Reservoir Rock Mercury Porosimetry Reservoir Characterization 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. AMSDEN, T.A., 1960, Hunton stratigraphy, part 6 of Stratigraphy and Paleontology of the Hunton Group in the Arbuckle Mountains region: Oklahoma Geol. Surv. Bull., v. 84, 311 p.Google Scholar
  2. AMSDEN, T.A., 1967, Chimneyhill limestone sequence (Silurian), Hunton Group, Oklahoma, revised: Am. Assoc. of Petroleum Geologists Bull., v. 51, p. 942–945.Google Scholar
  3. AMSDEN, T.A., 1975, Hunton Group (Late Ordovician, Silurian, and Early Devonian) in the Anadarko Basin of Oklahoma: Oklahoma Geol. Surv. Bull., v. 121, 214 p.Google Scholar
  4. AMSDEN, T.A., 1980, Hunton Group (Late Ordovician, Silurian, and Early Devonian) in the Arkoma Basin of Oklahoma: Oklahoma Geol. Surv. Bull., v. 129, 136 p.Google Scholar
  5. AMTHOR, J.E. and KOPASKA-MERKEL, D.C., 1988, Reservoir characterization, porosity, and recovery efficiency of deeply-buried Paleozoic carbonates: examples from Oklahoma, Texas and New Mexico: Carbonates and Evaporites, v. 3.Google Scholar
  6. CHOQUETTE, P.W. and JAMES, N.P., 1987, Diagenesis in Limestones — 3. The deep burial environment: Geoscience Canada, v. 14, p. 3–35.Google Scholar
  7. DULLIEN, F.A.L., 1979, Porous Media. Fluid transport and pore structure. Academic Press, 396 p.Google Scholar
  8. GHOSH, S.K., URSCHEL, S.F., FRIEDMAN, G.M., 1987, Substitution of simulated wellcuttings for core plugs in the petrophysical analysis of dolostones: Permian San Andres Formation, Texas: Carbonates and Evaporites, v. 2, p. 95–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. GOOD, R.J. and MIKHAIL, R.SH., 1981, The contact angle in mercury intrusion porosimetry: Powder Technology, v. 29, p. 53–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. JENNINGS, J.B., 1987, Capillary pressure techniques: application to exploration and development geology: Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Bull., v. 71, p. 1196–1209.Google Scholar
  11. KOPASKA-MERKEL, David C., 1987, Microporosity and production potential in ooids: Mesozoic and Paleozoic of Texas: Carbonates and Evaporites, v. 2, p. 125–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. KOPASKA-MERKEL, D.C., AMTHOR, J.E., and FRIEDMAN, G.M., 1987, Notes on the use of a mercury porosimeter (Micromeritics Pore Sizer 9305), Northeastern Science Foundation Technical Report No. 1. Troy, Northeastern Science Foundation, 12 p.Google Scholar
  13. MICROMERITICS MANUAL, PORE SIZER 9305, 1983, Micromeritics Instrument Corporation, Norcross, Georgia.Google Scholar
  14. PURCELL, W.R., 1949, Capillary-pressures — their measurement using mercury and the calculation of permeability therefrom: Petroleum Transactions, American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, v. 186, p. 39–48.Google Scholar
  15. SCHOWALTER, T.T., 1979, Mechanisms of secondary hydrocarbon migration and entrapment: Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Bull., v. 63, p. 723–760.Google Scholar
  16. SMITH, D.A., 1966, Theoretical considerations of sealing and non-sealing faults: Am. Assoc. of Petroleum Geologists Bull., v. 50, p. 363–374.Google Scholar
  17. VAN BRAKEL, J., MODRY, S. and SVATA, M., 1981, Mercury porosimetry: the state of the art: Powder Technology, v. 29, p. 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. WARDLAW, N.C., 1976, Pore geometry of carbonate rocks as revealed by pore casts and capillary pressure: Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Bull., v. 60, p. 245–257.Google Scholar
  19. WARDLAW, N.C. and MCKELLAR, M., 1981, Mercury porosimetry and the interpretation of pore geometry in sedimentary rocks and artificial models: Powder Technology, v. 29, p. 127–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. WARDLAW, N.C., MCKELLAR, M., and YU, L., 1988, Pore and throat size distribution determined by mercury porosimetry and by direct observation: Carbonates and Evaporites, v. 3.Google Scholar
  21. WARDLAW, N.C. and TAYLOR, R.P., 1976, Mercury capillary pressure curves and the interpretation of pore structure and capillary behaviour in reservoir rocks: Bull. Can. Pet. Geol., v. 24, p. 225–262.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • David C. Kopaska-Merkel
    • 1
    • 2
  • Joachim E. Amthor
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Northeastern Science FoundationRensselaer Center of Applied Geology affiliated with Brooklyn College of the City University of New YorkTroy
  2. 2.Department of Geology, Brooklyn CollegeCUNYBrooklyn
  3. 3.Brooklyn CollegeCity University of New York Graduate SchoolTroy

Personalised recommendations