3 Aufrufe

Hochgeladen von Hussain Haidari

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

- Pal is Tine
- UTS Well.pdf
- SPSS Presentation1
- L16_200314
- 01b- QL Interpretation
- Oral Presentation
- Data Camp - Correlation and Regression
- Multi Regression Using SPSS [sample]
- Two-phase flow in structured packing
- SPWLA-1994-A
- Correction of the Effective Thermal Conductivity of Two Phase System using Resister Model with Cylindrical Inclusions
- JPhysChemB103(7654ulrich1999)
- R Notes for Data Analysis and Statistical Inference
- GSR Poster
- fractured reservoir
- alteration porosity.pdf
- A PIV STUDY OF FLUID FLOW THROUGH PARALLEL COMMUNICATING LAYERS OF POROUS MEDIA
- Website Design and Usage Behaviour.pdf
- Degree of hydration.pdf
- 2. ConsolidatedGeology 05-07.pdf

Sie sind auf Seite 1von 7

com

www.elsevier.com/locate/petrol

carbonate reservoir rocks

Javid Hassanzadeh Azar a , Abdolrahim Javaherian b,,

Mahmoud Reza Pishvaie a , Majid Nabi-Bidhendi b

a

b

Institute of Geophysics, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

Received 24 August 2006; accepted 5 May 2007

Abstract

Tortuosity and cementation factor are two critical parameters that significantly affect estimates of reservoir properties.

Tortuosity factor can be used to estimate permeability using the CarmanKozeny equation and is an important parameter for

formation resistivity factor calculation using a modified version of Archie's formula. It is also used to predict water saturation of

reservoir rocks. Tortuosity as an input parameter in Biot's equation can be used to estimate velocity dispersion.

In this work, based on the Generalized Archie Equation Curve Fitting (GAECF), tortuosity and cementation factor are

determined for selected intervals in a carbonate reservoir. Formation resistivity factor (FRF) analysis was carried out on both core

samples and on well log data. The analyses were carried out separately on porous and recognized tight intervals. The intervals

selected were fracture-free and include both matrix porosity and somewhat vuggy porosity. FRF analysis on well log data indicates

that the carbonate intervals examined follow the GAECF well. However, unreasonable values for the tortuosity parameter, a, and

cementation factor, m, were obtained. To overcome this, the average minimum apparent tortuosity value was calculated for these

intervals. Approximate values for tortuosity factor from both core samples and well log data lie close to each other (for porous

intervals, zones S1, S7 and S11). This indicates that the results obtained from FRF analysis on well log data can be effectively and

reliably used as an alternative to FRF studies on core samples.

2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Tortuosity; Cementation factor; Formation resistivity factor; Carbonate reservoirs; Generalized Archie equation curve fitting

From the theoretical point of view, for a dispersive

system of insulating spheres and spheroids within a

conducting medium (such as an electrolyte), Maxwell

(1891) and Fricke (1924) found relationships between

Corresponding author. P.O. Box 14155-6466, Institute of Geophysics, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.

E-mail addresses: javidazar@mehr.sharif.edu (J. Hassanzadeh Azar),

javaheri@ut.ac.ir (A. Javaherian), pishvaie@sharif.ir (M.R. Pishvaie),

mnbhendi@ut.ac.ir (M. Nabi-Bidhendi).

0920-4105/$ - see front matter 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.petrol.2007.05.010

follows:

Maxwell, 1891:

FR 1 1:5u1 1

Fricke, 1924:

FR 1 1 x1 u1 1

the axial ratio of the spheroid. These two equations seem

126

J. Hassanzadeh Azar et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 60 (2008) 125131

to make a simple generalized form referenced by PerezRosales and Luna (2004) as follows:

Generalized form:

generalized form:

Generalized Archie's formula:

FR 1 Cu1 1

FR Cum

An important point is the existence of stagnation

regions (no-flow singularities due to possible electrical

vortices) around insulating materials. In the case of

dispersive systems, the stagnation regions are very

small, while in the case of continuous systems (real

rocks or particle packing models) they become more and

more important as the porosity decreases. Therefore, to

extend the generalized Maxwell and Fricke formulae to

a continuous medium and, because these regions behave

like part of a solid insulating material, the total porosity,

, should be substituted by the flowing porosity, 2.

However, as it is not possible to measure the flowing

porosity, it is necessary to establish a relationship

between total porosity and flowing porosity. PerezRosales (1982) used a simple relationship between total

porosity and flowing porosity that gave excellent

results:

u2 um

unity and, in practice, is normally less than 2. Therefore,

by substituting Eqs. (4) into (3) we have:

FR 1 Cum 1:

Archie (1942) obtained a famous empirical relationship between formation resistivity factor and porosity

for clean reservoir rocks by studying the electrical

resistivity of a great number of brine-saturated sandstone samples. Archie's law is expressed as follows:

FR um

porosity plotted using loglog coordinates. It is

important to notice that this relationship emphasizes

that in plotting formation resistivity factor against

porosity on loglog coordinates, at the FR intercept

(fractional porosity = 1.0), the formation resistivity

factor although unreasonable in a theoretical

sense is equal to 1.0. However, based on experimental

evidence, many researchers have published other

relationships that differ somewhat from Archie's

formula (Kamel and Mabrouk, 2002, Saner et al.,

derivations found in some of the early literature.

Generally, each derivation requires a simplified model

of a porous medium using geometric shapes for the

pores, pore throats, length and cross-sectional area of the

conductivity path. A general derivation published by

Amyx et al. (1960) yields:

FR La =L=Aa =A a=u

length of a cube, L, compared with the ratio of the

apparent cross-sectional area, Aa, to the cross-sectional

area of the cube, A. Here, a is a tortuosity factor that

will be defined later. Note that, in the Amyx's

derivation, m is not defined (i.e. porosity has a

power of 1, so m = 1). Other derivations using different

models were obtained by several authors (Wyllie and

Spangler, 1952, Cornell and Katz, 1953) and the same

results were obtained by Amyx et al. (1960). Based on a

statistical method and using a specific porous model, of

Wyllie and Spangler (1952), Wyllie and Gardner (1958)

demonstrated that the porosity should have an exponent

greater than one (FR = a / 2). Finally, comparing the

Generalized Archie's formula with Eq. (5), it was

concluded that when C N 1 then Cm NN 1 C and

therefore Eq. (5) becomes the same as the Generalized

Archie's formula.

1.1. The tortuosity concept

Tortuosity, , is the ratio of actual passage length to

the theoretical bulk length of a sample or porous

material ( = La / L), note that it is not its square, as shown

in Fig. 1 (in the literature, tortuosity is sometimes

La/L.

J. Hassanzadeh Azar et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 60 (2008) 125131

tortuosity factor, a, and tortuosity, , are equivalent.

The tortuosity factor is not an independent value. It

varies with many parameters such as porosity, the

geometry of porous media, the amount of fine grains,

formation resistivity factor, consolidation pressure and

cementation factor (Attia, 2005). Theoretically, it is

impossible to have a tortuosity factor of less than 1.0

(based on definition, the minimum value of La is L), and

should only approach 1.0 for a nearly linear ionic flow

path through the porous media (a fracture plane may be

close to this). On the other hand, Carman (1939), as

referenced by Perkins and Johnston (1963) showed that

the microscopic flow path through a porous media is

approximately at 45 with respect to the direction of the

bulk ionic current through a saturated, unconsolidated

material. Adisoemarta et al. (2000) concluded that the

value of a has a theoretical minimum value of 1 and a

reasonable maximum of 1.4.

In most laboratory experiments, the product of the

formation resistivity factor and the porosity is related to

the tortuosity by the following correlation (Amyx et al.,

1960):

FR ux s

varies from 0.5 to 1.5 based on the theoretical arguments

and experiments. A simple physical model gives x = 1.

In practice, the value of x is intended to be equal to 2,

while the product (FR) is usually greater than unity.

The minimum value of tortuosity based on Eq. (9) is

approached when the exponent x is equal to 0.5. In this

equation, the role of the porosity is critical. The apparent

tortuosity can be estimated if the porosity used in this

formula is an expression of the total porosity. If the

porosity used in this formula is an expression of the

flowing porosity, the real tortuosity can be estimated.

Therefore:

FR um x sR

10

tortuosity cannot be determined from the input data,

the apparent tortuosity should be calculated initially.

Perez-Rosales and Luna (2004, 2005) applied lower and

upper boundary limits for the value of the apparent

tortuosity in vuggy fractured media, as follows:

1:5bsA b4:0

11

the conductivity of the matrix blocks is much smaller

127

Thus, the matrix porosity can be associated with the

stagnant porosity, rather than with the flowing porosity.

2. Methodology

Generalized Archie equation curve fitting (GAECF)

is the most conventional method used to determine the

tortuosity and the cementation factor. It is used to fit the

formation resistivity factor and the porosity data through

a linear curve using loglog coordinates. Therefore,

intercept a and gradient m are determined as the

tortuosity and the cementation factor, respectively. FRF

analysis can be used to determine formation resistivity

factor for either core samples or well log data.

FRF analysis often applies on core samples, despite

this, even when GAECF data sets are available for core

samples, its comparison with results from well log data

can be useful for quality control. GAECF studies on

well log data can be used to fill gaps within core data

sets. It can be used as an alternative to expensive

GAECF study on the core samples.

2.1. FRF and GAECF studies on core samples

FRF analysis is often applied to core samples and it is

usually undertaken at reservoir conditions (connate

water salinity, temperature and pressure). The comparison of FRF analysis results for core samples with

results obtained for well log data leads to less uncertainty and greater accuracy.

In this paper, data were obtained from 6 wells in one of

the oil fields in southern Iran. FRF analysis was carried out

on 9 core samples extracted from the carbonate formation.

These core samples are from 2 different wells (Well #1 and

Well #3). There were insufficient core samples to allow

robust GAECF and Archie Equation Curve Fitting

(AECF), so we applied GAECF and AECF techniques

to well log data so that we could evaluate the quality of our

data and fill the gaps recognized in the core intervals. The

nine core samples were fracture-free and showed

somewhat vuggy matrix porosity. The FRF analysis on

these core samples requires that two critical assumptions

to be made: firstly, all samples are clay free and, secondly,

that all samples are fully saturated with brine.

The core samples were divided into two groups,

those with high porosity (greater than 5%) and tight

samples (porosity less than 5%). The high porosity and

high permeability samples have low values of tortuosity

and cementation factor, while the lower porosity and

lower permeability samples showed higher tortuosity

and higher cementation factor values. GAECF and AECF

128

J. Hassanzadeh Azar et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 60 (2008) 125131

there were insufficient tight samples (only 3) to allow

reliable curve fitting. Therefore, empirical formulae were

used to determine the cementation factor and the tortuosity for the three tight samples. GAECF and AECF techniques were applied to well log data to allow a comparison

with results calculated using the empirical formulae.

Table 1 shows some information obtained from FRF

analysis on porous core samples. To evaluate the effect

of the porosity value on the results obtained, two

carbonate core samples (13H, 63H) were added to this

study. Sample 13H is a porous sample while sample 63H

is somewhat tight. Both these samples are fracture-free

and extracted from another carbonate zone in Well #1.

Table 2 shows the results obtained from GAECF (free

fitting) and AECF (forced fitting) studies on the samples

shown in Table 1. In the forced fitting method, it is

assumed that the parameter a is constant and equal to

one. This value is usually appropriate when the flowing

flow system is related to cracks and/or fractures. Table 2

shows the results of GAECF and AECF analyses on the

samples. These analyses were carried out in three stages:

1. using only the more porous samples (1H, 8H, 6V

C6, 6VC7);

2. using the more porous samples plus sample 13H

(porous carbonate core); and

3. using the more porous samples plus sample 63H

(tight carbonate core).

Eq. (9) was used to calculate the average of the

minimum tortuosity values for all samples at each stage.

The important point in Table 2 is the values obtained

for the tortuosity factor. According to the definition of

tortuosity, the parameter a obtained from GAECF is an

unreasonable value as it should be greater than unity.

Therefore, the minimum tortuosity for each sample

was calculated using Eq. (9). The average value of the

minimum tortuosity for porous samples was calculated

as being equal to 2.31. AECF analysis of the more

porous samples gave a value for the cementation factor

equal to 1.99.

Table 1

Some information obtained from FRF analysis on porous core samples

Well

Zone

Sample

Porosity, %

FRF

Well #3

Well #3

Well #1

Well #1

Well #1

Well #1

S1

S1

S7

S7

I2

I2

1H

8H

6V-C6

6V-C7

13H

63H

17.0

19.2

20.6

16.7

21.3

8.7

33.2

24.7

21.2

40.9

23.7

95.0

Table 2

The results obtained from GAECF (free fitting) and AECF (forced

fitting) studies on porous core samples

The samples used in

correlation

tortuosity

m, a

m

= (F)0.5

2.86, 0.23

1H, 8H, 6V-C6, 6V-C7, 13H 2.28, 0.62

1H, 8H, 6V-C6, 6V-C7, 63H 1.64, 1.78

1.99

2.00

1.96

2.31

2.30

2.40

significant changes to the reservoir parameters (cementation factor and average minimum tortuosity). However, significant changes were found in the reservoir

parameters and also to the statistical parameters when

the sample 63H was added. In this case, the residual

error increased significantly although the correlation

coefficient increased (Table 3 shows the changes in the

statistical parameters, residual error and correlation

coefficient). This demonstrates that the samples used

in individual analyses should have similar porosity

values. Therefore, before analysis can proceed, the

samples should be grouped according to the parameters

of interest (in this case formation resistivity factor and/or

porosity). Grouping the samples in this way will help to

reduce the creation of significant residual errors.

Figs. 2 and 3 show the two different data curve fitting

methods (GAECF and AECF) applied to porous core

samples. Fig. 2 is derived from column 2 on row 2 of

Table 2 which included sample 13H. Fig. 2 shows that

the equation of the regression line has a multiplier and

power of 0.62 and 2.28, respectively. Fig. 3 is derived

from row 2 on column 3 of Table 2.

As mentioned earlier, there were only 3 tight core

samples. Since the number of tight samples was

insufficient to allow robust curve fitting, Shell's

empirical formula (Schlumberger, 1994) was used to

estimate the cementation factor as follows:

m 1:87 0:019 u

12

formula is an acceptable evaluating formula for low

Table 3

Statistical parameters related to Table 2

The samples used in

correlation

1H, 8H, 6V-C6, 6V-C7, 13H

1H, 8H, 6V-C6, 6V-C7, 63H

Residual error

Free

fitting

Forced

fitting

Free

fitting

Forced

fitting

17.65

34.79

78.05

41.47

42.22

648.29

0.95

0.86

0.96

0.86

0.85

0.92

J. Hassanzadeh Azar et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 60 (2008) 125131

Fig. 2. GAECF (free fitting) applied to the porous core sample data

(1H, 8H, 6V-C6, 6V-C7, 13H).

The average tortuosity factor estimated from Eq. (9) is

equal to 3.

2.2. FRF and GAECF studies on well log data

If there are insufficient core samples for robust FRF

analysis, well log data may be used instead. Well log

data have good resolution and the advantage that the

measurements were undertaken at reservoir conditions.

To evaluate the results obtained from FRF and

GAECF studies on core samples (especially on the tight

samples due to the lack of core data), we carried out our

study on well log data from the carbonate intervals of

interest. Data from all 6 wells (Well #1, Well #2, and

Well #6) were studied. To satisfy the assumptions of

Archie's formula, this study was applied to layers

having a clay mineral content of less than 5%. To

determine which zones were clay free, we used

129

log (estimated by processing the composite well logs).

Care was taken to ensure that data were taken from

carbonate intervals which were fully saturated.

Archie (1942) defined the ratio of Ro (resistivity of a

fully water saturated formation) to Rw (resistivity of

formation water) as the formation resistivity factor

(FR = Ro / Rw). In the wet zone, the value of Ro is equal to

Rt (true resistivity of reservoir rock) which can be

obtained from LLD (Deep Resistivity Laterolog) or ILD

(Deep Resistivity Induction Log) logs. Therefore, we

used the LLD resistivity log for the wet zones of interest

to determine Ro. Rw was calculated from its relationship

between formation water salinity and temperature

(Schlumberger, 1994, Chart Gen-9). This was found to

be 0.015 m.

GAECF analysis was undertaken on well log data for

the selected intervals. The intervals which showed

correlation coefficients (R2) higher than 0.80 were

studied in detail (Archie rocks). It should be mentioned

that only a few intervals fell into the realm of nonArchie rocks. Table 4 shows some details about FRF and

GAECF studies on the selected intervals. In Table 4,

zones S10 and S11 are described as tight and porous

zones, respectively.

Thin section observations on rock samples from

zones S10 and S11 indicated that the porosity type was

somewhat vuggy matrix porosity, similar to zones S1

and S7 (used in the FRF study on core samples). As

shown in Table 4, some values obtained for a and m

using the GAECF procedure were unreasonable or out

of the expected range. For instance, referring to index

8 in Table 4, the value 10.67 appears to be too high for

tortuosity. Likewise, the value 0.82 is lower than the

theoretical minimum value for cementation factor.

Table 4

The results obtained by applying FRF and GAECF studies to well log

data

Index Well

GAECF

Corr. Ave. min.

(free fitting) coeff. app.

tortuosity

a

Fig. 3. AECF (forced fitting) applied to the porous core sample data

(1H, 8H, 6V-C6, 6V-C7, 13H).

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Well #3

Well #5

Well #5

Well #6

Well #6

Well #6

Well #3

Well #5

S10

S10

S10

S10A

S10B

S10C

S11

S11

R2

32343254 15.92 1.03 0.96

32893299 3.53 1.42 0.78

30783080 7.23 1.37 0.99

30783080 1.6 1.95 0.98

30783080 3.08 1.65 0.99

32813285 1.77 1.67 0.88

33243330 10.67 0.82 0.92

=

(F)0.5

3.94

4.25

3.76

4.7

3.63

4.1

2.55

2.71

130

J. Hassanzadeh Azar et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 60 (2008) 125131

Fig. 4. Plots of formation resistivity factor versus total porosity (PHIT) in two tight intervals from Well #3 (left) and Well #5 (right).

be necessary to filter or to make some modifications

using the apparent tortuosity factor concept. However,

filtering was not applicable because all the values of the

apparent tortuosity in all the intervals were out of range

(A N 4.0). This may mean that the estimation of

formation resistivity factor on log data should be

calibrated. Another possibility is that the range of

apparent tortuosity should be changed in carbonate

rocks, to exclude vuggy/fractured media. This means

that a more detailed, integrated study on both core and

well log data should be done to update this range.

As seen in Table 4, the average minimum apparent

tortuosity value for the two porous carbonate intervals

(indexes 7 and 8) is equal to 2.55 and 2.71. As

mentioned in Section 1.1, when the porosity used in Eq.

(9) is the expression of the total porosity, it can be used

as an estimation of the apparent tortuosity. From the

comparison point of view, Tables 2 and 4 show that FRF

analyses on core and well log data yield similar values

This demonstrates the suitability of applying FRF

analysis to well log data rather than carrying out

expensive tests on core data.

Fig. 4 shows plots of formation resistivity factor

versus total porosity in two tight intervals related to Well

#3 and Well #5. The high correlation coefficient values

obtained by using GAECF indicate that these carbonate

intervals follow Archie's formula well. However, the

values of Archie's parameters cannot be directly used to

determine the tortuosity and the cementation factor.

Therefore, to obtain applicable results, the average

minimum apparent tortuosity value was used. We

calculated that the average minimum apparent tortuosity

values for these log intervals are 3.94 and 4.25. Fig. 5

shows the plots of formation resistivity factor versus

total porosity in two porous intervals from Well #3 and

Well #5. Again the high correlation coefficient values

obtained by GAECF indicate that these porous carbonate intervals follow Archie's formula well. The

Fig. 5. Plots of formation resistivity factor versus total porosity (PHIT) in two porous intervals from Well #3 (left) and Well #5 (right).

J. Hassanzadeh Azar et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 60 (2008) 125131

131

(indexes 7 and 8). However, the values of Archie's

parameters should be calibrated to determine the

tortuosity and the cementation factor.

A

x

3. Conclusions

Acknowledgments

GAECF studies (see Table 4) indicate that, low

porosity carbonate intervals (S10) follow Archie's

formula. It should be noted that the porosity of these

intervals is matrix porosity and free from fractures

and cracks.

2. Unreasonable values for tortuosity parameter, a and

cementation factor, m means that a more detailed,

integrated study on both core and well log data

should be done to calibrate and update reasonable

ranges for a and m. On the other hand, the concept

of Archie's parameters should be modified when

carbonate rocks are to be studied. FRF analysis can

be recommended if several different synthetic models

compatible with carbonate rocks having different

kinds of porosity are used.

3. A comparison between Tables 2 and 4 shows that the

approximated values for tortuosity factor from both

core samples and well log data are close to each other

(for the selected porous intervals, zones S1, S7 and

S11). This indicates that the results obtained from

FRF analysis on well log data can be effectively used

as an alternative for FRF studies on core samples.

4. According to the results obtained from FRF studies

on well log data (see Table 4) the tortuosity factor

values of our porous carbonate intervals are lower

than those of tight carbonate intervals as expected.

Thus, separate studies on porous and tight rock

samples are required.

Petroleum Industry (RIPI) of the National Iranian Oil

Company (NIOC) and Sharif University of Technology

for their support. We are grateful to Mr. Jeremy Sothcott

for reviewing and editing the paper. Also we thank Mr.

Ali Mohammad Bagheri, Mrs. Ziba Zamani and Mr.

Ebrahim Hassanzadeh from RIPI.

Nomenclature

Aa

Apparent cross-sectional area

A

Cross-sectional area

C

Geometrical parameter

FR

Formation resistivity factor

La

Apparent flow path

L

Length of the cube

m

Cementation factor

Rw

Water resistivity ( m)

Rt

True rock resistivity ( m)

Ro

Formation resistivity when 100% saturated

with brine ( m)

Sw

Brine saturation

, a

Tortuosity

R

Real tortuosity

Apparent tortuosity

Geometrical parameter

Total porosity

Flowing porosity

References

Adisoemarta, P.S., Anderson, G.A., Frailey, S.M., Asquith, G.B.,

2000. Historical use of m and a in well log interpretation: is

conventional wisdom backwards? SPE 59699.

Amyx, J.W., Bass Jr., D.M., Whiting, R.L., 1960. Petroleum Reservoir

Engineering. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York.

Archie, G.E., 1942. The electrical resistivity log as an aid in determining

some reservoir characteristics. Trans. AIME 146, 5462.

Attia, M.A., 2005. Effects of petrophysical rock properties on

tortuosity factor. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 48, 185198.

Carman, P.C., 1939. Permeability of saturated sands, soils and clays.

J. Agri. Sci. 20, 262.

Cornell, D., Katz, D.L., 1953. Flow of gases through consolidated

porous media. Ind. Eng. Chem. 45, 2145.

Fricke, H., 1924. A mathematical treatment of the electric conductivity

and capacity of disperse systems. Phys. Rev. 24, 575587.

Kamel, M.H., Mabrouk, W.M., 2002. An equation for estimating

water saturation in clean formations utilizing resistivity and

sonic logs: theory and application. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 36,

159168.

Maxwell, J.C., 1891. A treatise on electricity and magnetism, Third

Edition, Clarendon Press. Republished by Dover Publications,

Inc., New York (1954) 1, 440.

Perez-Rosales, C., 1982. On the relationship between formation

resistivity factor and porosity. J. Pet. Technol. 531536.

Perez-Rosales, C., Luna, E., 2004. Characterization of vuggy fractured

media: a practical approach. SPE 91863.

Perez-Rosales, C., Luna, E., 2005. Naturally fractured reservoirs: how

to estimate secondary porosity. SPE 94525.

Perkins, T.K., Johnston, O.C., 1963. A review of diffusion and

dispersion in porous media. Trans. AIME 228, 7084.

Schlumberger, 1994. Log Interpretation Chart Book.

Saner, S., Al-Harthi, A., Htay, M.T., 1996. Use of tortuosity for

discriminating electro-facies to interpret the electrical parameters

of carbonate reservoir rocks. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 16, 237249.

Wyllie, M.R.J., Gardner, G.H.F., 1958. The Generalized Kozeny

Carman equation, a novel approach to problems of fluid flow.

World Oil Prod. Sect. 146, 210228.

Wyllie, M.R.J., Spangler, M.B., 1952. Application of electrical

resistivity measurements to problem of fluid flow in porous

media. Bull. AAPG 36, 359403.

- Pal is TineHochgeladen vonrizjan
- UTS Well.pdfHochgeladen vonAtom Inside
- SPSS Presentation1Hochgeladen vonArifa Hossain
- L16_200314Hochgeladen vonSrikanth Batna
- 01b- QL InterpretationHochgeladen vonAbdelrahman Mossaad
- Oral PresentationHochgeladen vonViktor Stark
- Data Camp - Correlation and RegressionHochgeladen vonRahulChaudhary
- Multi Regression Using SPSS [sample]Hochgeladen vonPlasticinaX
- Two-phase flow in structured packingHochgeladen voncypiii
- SPWLA-1994-AHochgeladen vonsaeed65
- Correction of the Effective Thermal Conductivity of Two Phase System using Resister Model with Cylindrical InclusionsHochgeladen vonAnonymous vQrJlEN
- JPhysChemB103(7654ulrich1999)Hochgeladen vonSimoZayan
- R Notes for Data Analysis and Statistical InferenceHochgeladen vonrgardnercook
- GSR PosterHochgeladen vonshimymb
- fractured reservoirHochgeladen vonMiqdad Nik Abdul Hafeizh
- alteration porosity.pdfHochgeladen vonJamhur St
- A PIV STUDY OF FLUID FLOW THROUGH PARALLEL COMMUNICATING LAYERS OF POROUS MEDIAHochgeladen vonari_si
- Website Design and Usage Behaviour.pdfHochgeladen vonkhalil21
- Degree of hydration.pdfHochgeladen vonKintu Joel
- 2. ConsolidatedGeology 05-07.pdfHochgeladen vonFigueiredo Marcos
- Cuoetal2006_FEM22481-94DHSVMinPangKhum.pdfHochgeladen vonKholil Java
- Multiple Regression_Statistical Method for PsychologyHochgeladen vonderafik
- SAS Commands and ProceduresHochgeladen vonradha_preetam
- CP-1205-Tips for Effective and Safe Handling of Solids.pdfHochgeladen von설동하
- The Impact of Some Economic Factors on Imports in JordanHochgeladen vonAlexander Decker
- TLE_2003.pdfHochgeladen vonDio pangulu
- Beta ratioHochgeladen vonSachin Singh
- Final 1Hochgeladen vonKhurram Jamil Siddiqi
- quicklook_aapgHochgeladen vonDomain Cassisso
- Updating the Lang Factor and Testing Its Accuracy, Reliability and Precision as a Stochastic Cost Estimating MethodHochgeladen vonAnonymous 19hUyem

- 1504.pdfHochgeladen vonHussain Haidari
- 123Hochgeladen vonHussain Haidari
- 101016@jpetrol200705010Hochgeladen vonHussain Haidari
- SPE-2829-MSHochgeladen vonHussain Haidari
- SPE-2829-MSHochgeladen vonHussain Haidari
- SPE-177145-MS.pdfHochgeladen vonHussain Haidari
- 1 Amicus Curiae 1Hochgeladen vonHussain Haidari
- librarian 2.0Hochgeladen vonHussain Haidari
- PhysRevLett.13.138Hochgeladen vonHussain Haidari
- SPE-169652-MSHochgeladen vonHussain Haidari
- SPE-169652-MSHochgeladen vonHussain Haidari
- Content ServerHochgeladen vonHussain Haidari
- The Performance of Mesoporous Magnetite Zeolite Nanocomposite in Removing Dimethyl Phthalate From Aquatic EnvironmentsHochgeladen vonHussain Haidari
- FIDIC Guidance Memorandum 1 April 2013Hochgeladen vonSuraj Sirinaga
- IPTC-16416-MSHochgeladen vonHussain Haidari
- 10.1002@prep.19840090304Hochgeladen vonHussain Haidari
- 6284801Hochgeladen vonHussain Haidari
- AL-Manhal User GuideHochgeladen vonHussain Haidari
- 2015-01-0917Hochgeladen vonHussain Haidari
- بوم-جستجو2.0Hochgeladen vonHussain Haidari
- IJEMCP-1351Hochgeladen vonHussain Haidari
- 6%2E1966-680Hochgeladen vonHussain Haidari
- 1-s2.0-S0021967301932340-mainHochgeladen vonHussain Haidari
- Ssm 12130Hochgeladen vonHussain Haidari
- Ssm 12130Hochgeladen vonHussain Haidari
- 48967_02Hochgeladen vonHussain Haidari
- 314.fullHochgeladen vonHussain Haidari
- 314.fullHochgeladen vonHussain Haidari
- YaBeSH2016Hochgeladen vonHussain Haidari

- Master Regional Planning Final PaperHochgeladen vonVeronica Davis
- Perceived Service Quality and Customer LoyaltyHochgeladen vonRanka Babic
- Multiple CorrelationHochgeladen vonRajendra Kumar
- Spatial Statistics & Geostatistics - Yongwan Chun, Daniel a GriffithHochgeladen vonJavier Sánchez
- Barbosa&2003Hochgeladen vonTamara Pérez
- Class9 NotesHochgeladen vonDinesh Kc
- Non-Inferiority Tests for Two Means in a Cluster-Randomized DesignHochgeladen vonscjofyWFawlroa2r06YFVabfbaj
- Regression TutorialHochgeladen vonJustus Frantz
- Exam_July_2012_EN_solutions20140306122756Hochgeladen vonSunny Deol
- Issues & Challenges in Mobile Banking in IndiaHochgeladen vonmanojmis2010
- Beta calculation and quarterly returns relations with GDPHochgeladen vonleoatcit
- ASEBA Brief Problem Monitor ManualHochgeladen vonMasa Jovanovic
- Stat Refractive IndexHochgeladen vonThesis Group- Coronado Reyes Zapata UST ChE
- Empirical analysis of the problems and prospects of export marketing of non oil agricultural product in Nigeria.pdfHochgeladen vonAlexander Decker
- hand ball 3Hochgeladen vontgnordiana
- Tire Contact SurfaceHochgeladen vondhairyashil
- 009.pdfHochgeladen vonLuis Horacio Martínez Martínez
- IS4241 - RevisionHochgeladen vonjiebo
- LSS Cheat SheetsHochgeladen vonAhmad Almusa
- Whitened Channel EstimationHochgeladen vonYasser Naguib
- r CommandsHochgeladen vonVikas Singh
- CS105 - Final ProjectHochgeladen vonrockstarlive
- Confidence Limits in StatisticsHochgeladen vonaassmmrr
- Population Projection AssignmentHochgeladen vonjpv90
- TO FIND OUT PREVALENCE OF MUSCULOSKELETAL PAIN BY CARRYING HEAVY HANDBAGS AMONG COLLEGE GIRLS AND ITS RELATION WITH THEIR BMI.Hochgeladen vonIJAR Journal
- The Craft Effect Size Statistics WebinarHochgeladen vonodie99
- Bca Apr2010Hochgeladen vonlalitmunawat
- difference between inrush and fault current.pdfHochgeladen vonkaushikray06
- Use of Sample LP ThesisHochgeladen vonantoinnejamison
- PERIODICAL-TEST-2nd-garding-quantitative-for-printing.docxHochgeladen vonJay-Ar Mario