Very high-pressure mercury porosimetry as a tool in reservoir characterization
- 67 Downloads
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.
KeywordsContact Angle Capillary Pressure Reservoir Rock Mercury Porosimetry Reservoir Characterization
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- DULLIEN, F.A.L., 1979, Porous Media. Fluid transport and pore structure. Academic Press, 396 p.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- MICROMERITICS MANUAL, PORE SIZER 9305, 1983, Micromeritics Instrument Corporation, Norcross, Georgia.Google Scholar
- 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
- SCHOWALTER, T.T., 1979, Mechanisms of secondary hydrocarbon migration and entrapment: Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Bull., v. 63, p. 723–760.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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