10,323
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 6:
Line 6: − + − + Line 22:
Line 22: − + Line 103:
Line 103: +
added Category:Treatise Handbook 3 using HotCat
| part = Predicting the occurrence of oil and gas traps
| part = Predicting the occurrence of oil and gas traps
| chapter = Predicting reservoir system quality and performance
| chapter = Predicting reservoir system quality and performance
| frompg = 9-1
| frompg = 9-29
| topg = 9-156
| topg = 9-33
| author = Dan J. Hartmann, Edward A. Beaumont
| author = Dan J. Hartmann, Edward A. Beaumont
| link = http://archives.datapages.com/data/specpubs/beaumont/ch09/ch09.htm
| link = http://archives.datapages.com/data/specpubs/beaumont/ch09/ch09.htm
[[file:predicting-reservoir-system-quality-and-performance_fig9-16.png|300px|thumb|{{figure number|1}}SEM microphotographs.]]
[[file:predicting-reservoir-system-quality-and-performance_fig9-16.png|300px|thumb|{{figure number|1}}SEM microphotographs.]]
Using K<sub>a</sub> and Φ data separately to characterize reservoir rock quality is misleading. Consider the rocks shown in the SEM microphotographs in [[:file:predicting-reservoir-system-quality-and-performance_fig9-16.png|Figure 1]]. Flow unit 1 is a [[Wikipedia:Mesoporous material|mesoporous]], sucrosic dolomite. Its average Φ is 30% and average K<sub>a</sub> is 10 md. Flow unit 2 is a macroporous, oolitic limestone. Its average Φ is 10% and average K<sub>a</sub> is 10 md.
Using K<sub>a</sub> and Φ data separately to characterize reservoir rock quality is misleading. Consider the rocks shown in the SEM microphotographs in [[:file:predicting-reservoir-system-quality-and-performance_fig9-16.png|Figure 1]]. Flow unit 1 is a [[Wikipedia:Mesoporous material|mesoporous]], sucrosic [[dolomite]]. Its average Φ is 30% and average K<sub>a</sub> is 10 md. Flow unit 2 is a macroporous, oolitic [[limestone]]. Its average Φ is 10% and average K<sub>a</sub> is 10 md.
Initially, we might think that flow unit 1 is higher quality because it has three times more porosity and the same permeability as flow unit 2. However, in terms of fluid flow efficiency and storage, as shown by the K<sub>a</sub>/Φ ratio or r<sub>35</sub>, flow unit 2 is actually the better rock.
Initially, we might think that flow unit 1 is higher quality because it has three times more porosity and the same permeability as flow unit 2. However, in terms of fluid flow efficiency and storage, as shown by the K<sub>a</sub>/Φ ratio or r<sub>35</sub>, flow unit 2 is actually the better rock.
[[Category:Predicting the occurrence of oil and gas traps]]
[[Category:Predicting the occurrence of oil and gas traps]]
[[Category:Predicting reservoir system quality and performance]]
[[Category:Predicting reservoir system quality and performance]]
[[Category:Treatise Handbook 3]]