A Fast and Less Expensive Test to Determine Permeability-Related Parameters on Well’s Drilled Cuttings

  • Marco Ludovico-MarquesEmail author
Part of the Advances in Science, Technology & Innovation book series (ASTI)


This paper intends to contribute to a better understanding of the Statfjord Formation in the North Sea, based on the study of some lithotypes of the Lourinhã Formation analog. A mineralogical and physical characterization was performed. A Fast RILEM water absorption test is herein proposed to carry out on sandstone drilled cuttings and cores that were cut into specimens, to assess permeability-related parameters. Results in a faster way on rocks with porosity values higher than 15% are given by this test in comparison to traditional laboratory methods. A correlation factor of 4–5 was obtained between permeability (mD) and water absorption coefficient (lb/ft2√h).


Sandstones Fast Permeability Karsten pipe 


  1. 1.
    Ludovico-Marques, M., Chastre, C.: Effect of artificial accelerated salt weathering on physical and mechanical behaviour of sandstone samples from surface reservoirs. In: Hamdy Makhlouf, A.S., Aliofkhazraei, M. (eds.) Handbook of Materials Failure Analysis With Case Studies from the Oil and Gas Industry, pp. 215–233. Elsevier, New York City (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nnaemeka, E.: Petroleum Reservoir Engineering Practice, p. 770. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jobe, T.D.: Non-traditional techniques for microporosity evaluation in a low-permeability carbonate reservoir from a giant reservoir offshore Abu Dhabi, U.A.E. In: AAPG 2013 Annual Convention and Exhibition (2013)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    EN 12407: Natural stone test methods—petrographic examination. Eur stand2000 (2000)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    RILEM: Recommended tests to measure the deterioration of stone and to assess the effectiveness of treatment methods. Mater Constr., Bourdais-Dunoud 13(75), 175–253 (1980)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    EN 1936: Natural stone test method-determination of real density and apparent density, and of total and open porosity. Eur. Stand. (1999)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pellerin, F.: La porosimetrie au mercure appliquee a l´ etude geotechnique des sols et des roches. Bull Liais Lab Ponts Chausse´s 106:105–116 (1980)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Katz, A., Thompson, A.: Quantitative prediction of permeability in porous rock. Phys. Rev. Online Arch. B34, 8179–8181 (1986)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Folk, R.: Petrology of Sedimentary Rocks. Hemphill Publishing, Austin, TX (1974)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ehrenberg, S., Nadeau, P.: Sandstone versus carbonate petroleum reservoirs: a global perspective on porosity-depth and porosity-permeability relationships. AAPG Bull. 8(4), 435–445 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Filomena, C.M., Hornung, J., Stollhofen, H.: Assessing accuracy of gas-driven permeability measurements: a comparative study of diverse Hassler-cell and probe permeameter devices. Solid Earth 5(1), 1–11 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Polytechnic Institute of SetúbalLavradioPortugal

Personalised recommendations