Correlation of Pore Volume Compressibility with Porosity in One of the Iranian Southern Carbonate Reservoirs

Akhoundzadeh, Hamid; Moghadasi, Jamshid ; Habibnia, Bahram * Corresponding author: Hamid Akhoundzadeh, Petroleum University of Technology (PUT), Abadan, Iran, E-mail: hamid.akhoundzadeh@gmail.com Phone number:

Petroleum University of Technology, Abadan, Iran

Abstract Pore volume compressibility is one of the most important parameters that must be considered in reservoir calculations. Due to the timeconsuming and expensive procedure of laboratory measurements, an accurate estimation of pore volume compressibility is necessary for precise simulation of the reservoir behavior.In the present study, pore volume compressibility data of one of the Iranian southern carbonate reservoirs has been used. A total of fifteen samples from three wells were selected for laboratory measurements. Petrographical analysis was conducted for determination of rock type and pore structure of the samples, then the effects of pressure and porosity on pore compressibility was investigated. The result of this study has shown that pore volume compressibility of the selected samples, which almost were pure limestone, has good correlations with porosity and pressure. Then a new formula for pore volume compressibility versus porosity has presented and has compared with published correlations. Keywords: Pore Volume Compressibility Porosity Correlation Effective Pressure - Carbonate reservoir

Introduction During depletion of fluids from the reservoir rocks, the internal pore pressure decreases and therefore, the effective pressure (difference between overburden and internal pore pressure) increases. This increase causes the changes in the grain, pore, and bulk-volume of the rock. These volume changes tend to reduce the pore space and therefore, the porosity of the rock. The engineering parameter quantifying this volumetric variation is compressibility, which is the fractional change in the volume of the rock per unit change in pressure. Pore volume compressibility is one of the most important and effective parameters of mechanical, seismic and reservoir properties of hydrocarbon reservoirs. Knowledge of the compressibility of reservoir rocks is essential for a better understanding of rock mechanics and aids in the solution of numerous oil wells drilling and production problems (Von Gonten and Choudhary, ). An accurate estimation of pore volume compressibility of reservoir rocks is essential for compaction evaluation, reservoir drive determination, reserve estimates, reservoir pressure maintenance, casing collapse analyses and production forecasting. This information is then used in modeling the reservoir and calculating the economic value of the project. Thus, obtaining credible indications of this value is invaluable (Wolfe et al., ). Due to its importance in reservoir engineering analysis, pore volume compressibility must routinely measure in the laboratory. Pore volume compressibility of a reservoir rock is not a constant but varies with compacting pressure, porosity and temperature. Rock type and pore structures of the samples have effect in pore compressibility. Several authors have attempted to correlate the pore compressibility with various parameters including the porosity. For many years, the petroleum industry has relied on Halls () correlation, for estimating pore volume compressibility. Based on the

measurement on seven consolidated limestone and five consolidated sandstone samples, Hall obtained a relationship of compressibility with porosity of rock (Figure ). Newman () has presented a more comprehensive pore volume compressibility data based on samples, were sandstones from sandstone reservoirs, and were limestones from limestone reservoirs. His data show little or no correlation between pore volume compressibility and initial sample porosity. The data show considerable disagreement with Hall's correlation. Based on extensive measurements of Newman (), Horne () obtained trends of pore volume compressibility versus initial porosity for consolidated limestones, consolidated sandstones and unconsolidated sandstones(Figure ). Jalalh () provide new correlation for pore volume compressibility versus porosity based on the rock compressibility data available in the literature and his laboratory measurements. The main objective of this work is to evaluate and discuss the relationship between pore volume compressibility with pressure and porosity based on experimental compressibility measurement of some carbonate sample in Iranian reservoir rock in a wide-range value and varied types of porosity. Finally, a new general formula for pore volume compressibility versus porosity is presented and obtained results is compared with the published correlations. Test Procedure Compressibility tests were performed under a hydrostatic load by using CMS- equipment, while the stress has changed at or risingintervals. The net stress variation was between to psi, which is compatible with Middle East reservoirs. As the effective confining pressure was increased, the changes in rock pore volume were measured and pore volume compressibilities were calculated at each corresponding pressure intervals.

This measurement is agreed with other published measurements of pore compressibility. Compaction data determined under hydrostatic loading can be corrected to into uniaxialcompactions, which is much more representatives for reservoir conditions,if the Poisson ratio of the rock is known or can be estimated accurately, by using the theoretical formula as described by Teeuw ().A correction factor of . specific for a case study was used in conversion from hydrostatic to uniaxial condition. However, the accurate correction factor must be determined from the field samples under study. For example, figure shows the measured values of pore volume compressibility for the limestone sample taken from a depth of feet, and had an initial porosity of .%. Method Description In the present work for classification of carbonate rocks according to depositional texture, Dunham Classification is used.Dunham () proposed a widely used classification that categorizes carbonate rocks according to the amount and texture of grains and mud.Furthermore, for presenting type of porosity, Choquette and Pray () classification will be applied. In this study, rock typing and detecting pore type is done based on thin section studies. Comprehensive thin-section analysis was performed to obtain rock type, mineralogy, and pore types. The pore volume compressibility values are pressure dependent. To correlate pore compressibility with porosity and compare samples that had been obtained from various depths, which means the samples were subjected to various effective stresses under reservoir conditions, a common effective pressure base of percent of the lithostatic pressure was used. This value was selected as the most probable average effective stress the sample would encounter during reservoir depletion(Jalalh, b). For this purpose, the overburden pressure is assumed to be psi per foot of depth and pore pressure is assumed to be . psi per foot and pressure difference between overburden and

internal pore pressure is referred to as the effective overburden pressure. The values obtained at this pressure can be plotted against the porosity and we can analyze the effects of the porosity and other factors in compressibility of various samples, which acquire from a different depth. For presents a correlation between variables, we used statistical programs for regression analysis by using the least square method. Field Description Compressibility measurement data used in this study werefifteen samples taking from Middle Cretaceous BangestanGroup, which acquired from three wells in one of the Iranian southern carbonate reservoirs. The Middle Cretaceous carbonates in the Persian Gulf region are among the most productive oil-bearing stratigraphic intervals in the world, containing numerous giant fields. Table show the characteristics of the various rock samples used in this study for pore volume compressibility analysis.As shown in table , all samples are pure limestone and are composed of more than % calcite.According to the Dunham classification, samples are graindominate and almost all of them are grainstoneorpackstone to grainstone. Although samples have a wide range of porosity, but they have same porosity type; Vuggy and microfracture which illustrate in figure are the dominant porosity type in these samples.Figure shows the frequency of above properties in well A-. The results for evaluation of pore volume compressibility versus effective stress are presented in figure . Results and Discussion The compaction of rock causes changes in the structure of the pores and grain shapes, and reduces the pore volumes.

As has seen in the above figure, pore compressibility is a function of effective pressure and it increases as effective pressure decreases.A power function in the form of Y = aX usually shows the best fit for compressibility and the net confining pressure relationship.

For instance, figure illustrate power function of pore compressibility versus effective pressure for two samples. Thus, the compressibility data of each sample can be expressed in terms of two fit parameter Aand B, which are defined to the following equation: () Table summarizes the best-fit compressibility parameters A and B for all samples. The value of pore compressibility is dependent on the texture, type and value of porosity. Insomuch in the investigated formation, the samples almost have same rock type and near porosity type (as mentioned earlier), it can be represented, in this reservoir pore compressibility dependonly the value of porosity and it increases as porosity decreases. This fact can be seen in figure which pore volume compressibility curves move down by increasing the initial porosity. This is clear to see that the pore volume compressibility of our limestone samples increase with decreasing porosity. In figure through , porosity value was classified in the three groups and pore compressibility of each group is illustrated on it. It can be seen graph of the sample with near porosity value is close to each other. The values of pore volume compressibility obtained at the reservoir condition (effective pressure) plotted against the initial porosity. In figures and the presented data are compared with widely used Hall and Hornes correlation curves. Both figure and displays clearly poor agreement with Hall and Horne correlation. Therefore, the correlation formulas that are available in the literature (i.e., Halls and Hornes correlations) cannot be applied to estimate the compressibility of these reservoir rocks.

The above discussion supports the necessity for laboratory compressibility measurements in evaluating rock compressibility and establishing the new rock compressibility correlation for a given reservoir. For this purpose, an attempted has been made to find a simple and accurate formula, which gives more precise pore volume compressibility values with considering all of the measured compressibility data in the investigated field.For sophisticated analysis, the data has transferred into one of the professional fitting regression programs. In this program, XY data can be modeled using a toolbox of linear regression models, nonlinear regression models, interpolation, or splines.Over models are built-in, but custom regression models may also be defined by the user. Full-featured graphing capability allows thorough examination of the curve fit. The process of finding the best fit can be automated by letting the program compare my data to each model to choose the best curve. Every possible regression model has examined for the input data set. The best-fitting result is the Reciprocal Logarithm Model (equation ). This model gives the correlation coefficient (R) = .. () Therefore the new limestone compressibility correlation is (where .): () Figure presents newly obtained pore volume compressibility correlation versus porosity in the investigated reservoir. In addition, figure demonstrate graphical comparisons of the Halls and Hornes correlation curves to new correlation curve. It can be seen goodness fit data of new fitting curve.

Conclusions . Pore volume compressibility of reservoir rock is highly pressure dependent and it increases as effective pressure decreases. . For investigated samples, there is a power model correlation between pore volume compressibility and effective pressure. . The value of pore compressibility is dependent on the texture, type and value of porosity. Insomuch in the investigated formation, the samples almost have same rock type and near porosity type, it can be represented in this reservoir pore compressibility depends only the value of porosity and it increases as porosity decreases. . It was found that the pore volume compressibility values reported in this study are in poor agreement with the published compressibility-porosity correlations (Halls and Hornes correlations) and these correlations cannot be used for estimate pore volume compressibility of studied reservoir rocks. Therefore, the laboratory compressibility measurement is necessary for evaluation of pore compressibility for a given reservoir. . Base on laboratory compressibility measurement of studied limestone samples, a new correlation of pore volume compressibility with porosity was presented for one of the Iranian carbonate reservoirs. Acknowledgements: The authors would like to thank the National Iranian Exploration Management Company (Exploration Directorate) for their supports. References . Choqutee, P. W., and Pray, L. C., , Geological Nomenclature and Classification of Porosity in Sedimentary Carbonates: Bull. AAPG, , -. . Dunham, R. J., , Classification of Carbonate Rocks According to Their Depositional Texture, AAPG Memoir I, -. . Hall, H. N., , Compressibility of Reservoir Rocks, Petroleum Transactions ofthe AIME, : -. . Horne, N.R., , Modern Well Test Analysis A Computer-Aided Approach, Petroway Inc.

. Jalalh, A.A., b, Compressibility Measurements of Porous Rocks: Part II. New Relationships, Acta Geophysica, , , . . Newman, G. H., , Pore Volume Compressibility of Consolidated, Friable, and Unconsolidated Reservoir Rocks under Hydrostatic Loading, SPE Journal of Petroleum Technology, (): -. . Teeuw, D., , Prediction of Formation Compaction from Laboratory Compressibility Data, SPE Journal, (): -. . Von Gonten, W.D. and Choudhary, B. K., , The Effect of Pressure and Temperature on Pore Volume Compressibility, Fall Meeting of the Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME (th Annual). . Wolfe, C., Russell, C., Luise, N. Chhajlani, R., , Log Based Pore Volume Compressibility Prediction_A Deepwater GoM Case Study, SPE .

Table : summarizes of data in the presented carbonate reservoir in southern of Iran.

Well No. Sample # 13H 39H A-1 56H 67H 93H 3H 21H A-2 25H 50H 59H 20H 56H A-3 78H 92H 98H Grain density (gr/cm3) 2.72 2.7 2.71 2.71 2.73 2.71 2.71 2.71 2.71 2.72 2.71 2.71 2.71 2.71 2.71 Porosity (% ) 20.7 13.1 8.3 10.9 15.2 17 20.4 17.3 7.4 8.6 18.4 14 11.7 6.9 8.2 Effective stress Compressibility (psi) (1/psi 10^-6) 5851 5939 5980 5998 6042 5594 5629 5635 5677 5693 6402 6466 6524 6578 6598 4.61 6.44 7.38 6.09 5.42 5.52 5.6 5.58 9.27 9.19 4.35 5.52 2.61 10.39 7.32

Table : Best fit compressibility parameters of the samples.

Well No. Sample # 13H 39H A-1 56H 67H 93H 3H 21H A-2 25H 50H 59H 20H 56H A-3 78H 92H 98H Porosity (% ) 20.7 13.1 8.3 10.9 15.2 17 20.4 17.3 7.4 8.6 18.4 14 11.7 6.9 8.2 Fit parameter Fit parameter A B 550.72 4203.4 173915 317730 1014.3 1819.8 1025.1 1265.4 32529 27283 7611.1 2267.5 62749 152799 107112 -0.546 -0.759 -1.169 -1.262 -0.603 -0.679 -0.61 -0.635 -0.953 -0.931 -0.861 -0.705 -1.16 -1.118 -1.117 Correlation coefficient 0.915 0.999 0.978 0.979 0.953 0.999 0.998 0.998 0.996 0.989 0.952 0.999 945 0.988 0.988

Figure : Halls correlations for pore volume compressibility versus porosity (Hall, ).

Figure : Hornes correlation for pore volume compressibility versus porosity (Horne, ).

Figure : Pore volume compressibility of a limestone sample measured by CMS from southern of Iran.

Figure : Vuggy (left) and microfracture (right) as a dominate porosity in the investigated reservoir.

Figure : Geological and petrophysical properties of the samples in well A-.

Figure : Groups of compressibility values of the samples versus effective pressure.

Figure : Power function of pore volume compressibility versus effective pressure in two samples.

Figure : Pore volume compressibility versus effective pressure for porosity range -%.

Figure : Pore volume compressibility versus effective pressure for porosity range -%.

Figure : Pore volume compressibility versus effective pressure for porosity range -%.

Figure : Pore volume compressibility of studied limestone samples versus initial porosity, compared with Halls correlation curve.

Figure : Pore volume compressibility of studied limestone sample versus initial porosity, compared with Hornes correlation curve.

Correlation Coefficient: .

+ .

( )

Figure : New correlation of pore volume compressibility for studied limestone rock samples with porosity.

Figure : graphical comparisons of the Halls and Hornes correlation curves to my new correlation curve.