HOPE MEYERS Rock and Fluid Laboratory Fluid Saturations Relative Permeability Gas Compressibility Factor Energy and

Mineral Engineering Department The Pennsylvania State University April 14, 2011

Table of Contents

Executive Summary
There were a total of three experiments conducted in this final section of the lab. They all coincided with each other because they all dealt with fluid factors, and how fluids affected saturation, permeability, and compressibility. Because fluids can act in different ways, we studied how gases compared with liquids deviated from normal behavior. In experiment five, titled Fluid Saturations, we determined the amount of oil and water in a sandstone sample by solvent extraction method, and by the retort method. In the solvent extraction method the volume of water in the core is determined by vaporizing and condensing the water. The water is then received by a graduated receiver. The oil is taken out of the core with a solvent. From the solvent extraction method, very little water was condensed and the core sample was mostly saturated by oil. There was very minimal gas saturation that was calculated after all the values were obtained. In the retort method the liquids from the core sample were vaporized and then condensed. The core is placed in a retort holder, heated, and the liquids are collected in a small graduated cylinder so the oil and water can be read. From the retort method, there was more water saturation than in the solvent extraction method. The gas saturation was very small, and the oil saturation was the largest. In experiment six, titled Relative Permeability, we measured the relative permeabilities of oil and water in a core sample. Core samples from previous experiments that were saturated with water were used. We used a method called drainage, in which oil was injected into the sample until the whole sample was completely saturated with oil and all the water was evacuated. We also used imbibition, in which water was injected into the sample until all the oil was evacuated. Using these two methods, we could determine the permeability of the sample with respect to water, and oil. In experiment seven, titled Gas Compressibility Factor, we observed and quantified the pressure, volume, and temperature nature of an imperfect gas through measurements of the Z factor as a function of pressure, at a specific temperature. The Z factor is a correction factor that accounts for the non-ideality of a gas. So, instead of the ideal gas equation PV=nRT, the equation becomes PV=ZnRT. Through this experiment, we found that the Z factor is evident in non-ideal gases.

Introduction
In the Fluid Saturations experiment, a sandstone sample that was saturated with oil and water was used in order to conduct two methods of fluid extraction known as solvent extraction, and retort method. These methods can both be used to determine the amount of saturation of a specific fluid. The solvent extraction method is where the volume of water is obtained by vaporizing the water, and then the water condenses into a water trap to be measured. The oil is extracted from the sample using a solvent, in this case, toluene. Using initial measurements and calculations through the experiment, the saturations of oil, water, and gas can be found. In the retort method a saturated core sample is placed in a retort holder, which is then heated at a high temperature. The fluids that saturated the sample are driven off the sample by the heat, and collected in a graduated cylinder that is placed under the retort holder. Since the oil and water are collected together, they will separate in the graduated cylinder and the measurements can be read. These are important methods because when reservoirs are found, they usually do not only contain oil. They usually contain water, oil, and gas because hydrocarbons go from source rocks into porous reservoir rocks. If there is a highly permeable and highly porous rock, it is imperative to be able to determine how much oil, or if there is oil at all in the rock. If there is a substantial amount of oil available in a rock, then it would be beneficial to extract it. This is why being able to know the saturation of different rocks is especially important to petroleum engineers. If we did not know how to do this, we would be undoubtedly performing wasteful tasks in order to extract oil. In the Relative Permeability experiment, the relative permeabilities of oil and water in a core sample were measured. Permeability is a quality of the rock, and not of the fluid that is flowing through the rock. Permeability is the ease with which a fluid can flow through the pores of a rock. What makes this experiment important is that we are dealing with oil and water flowing through a rock sample, which can alter the permeability of the rock. When more than one fluid is present in a rock, it makes the flow characteristics different and we have to account for that difference. This is where effective permeability is used, which is when a porous material conducts a fluid when the saturation of that fluid is not at 100%. Relative permeability is the effective permeability of a fluid with respect to the permeability of the fluid at 100% saturation. To determine the various permeabilities of the rock sample, we conducted drainage, which is oil injection into the rock, as well as

imbibition, which is water injection into the rock. Using both of these methods aided in finding permeabilities. In the Gas Compressibility Factor experiment, the pressure, volume, and temperature nature of an imperfect gas was observed and quantified through measurements of the compressibility factor, Z, as a function of pressure, as a specific temperature. High and low pressure vessels were used, as well as heated and cooled vessels in which to submerse the high pressure vessels. The ideal gas law, PV=nRT, works for ideal gases, meaning gases that are at low pressure and high temperature. When gases are not at ideal conditions, the ideal gas law does not give correct calculations and a correction factor needs to be in place in order to give us accurate results. The correction factor in this case is known as the compressibility factor, Z. The compressibility factor is used when gases are not ideal, or at high pressures and low temperatures. Z compensates for the non-ideal characteristics that are in place, so the real gas law is used as PV=ZnRT. This factor is very important because using the ideal gas law for a non-ideal gas would give completely miscalculated errors that would lead to misconstrued ideals for gases.

Results and Discussion

Fluid Saturation Lab In the Fluid Saturations lab, a saturated core sample was measured, and the fluids were extracted for measurement. In the first concept used, which was the solvent extraction method, a solvent was used in order to aid the extraction process. The water that condensed was measured, while the volume of the oil had to be calculated using the change in weights, and the properties of water and oil densities. With the volume of the oil and water known, as well as the pore volume, the saturations of the water, oil, and gas could be found. The following tables show the measurements and calculations that were found using the solvent extraction method.
Porosity Weight of saturated simple Density of oil Density of water Volume of water collected Weight of dry sample Original weight of fluids (Wt) Bulk volume Volume of oil Pore volume Oil saturation Water saturation Gas saturation 0.234 42.28 g 0.81 g/cc 1.00 g/cc 0.1 cc 39.3 g 2.98 g 15.61 cc 3.56 cc 3.66 cc 0.973 0.027 0.000

The second method that was used, the retort method, involved a retort holder which heated the saturated core sample in order to extract the liquids. When the core sample was heated, a small graduated cylinder was placed under the retort holder to catch the oil and water mixture that fell from the core. After waiting for a substantial amount of time, all the liquids were removed and were separated in the cylinder. The values could be read directly, and the measurements and calculated volumes are shown in the following tables. Porosity Weight of saturated sample Volume of oil collected Corrected oil volume Volume of water collected Weight of dry sample 0.257 35.94 g 2.4 cc 3 cc 0.6 cc 33.2 g

Bulk volume Pore volume Oil saturation Water saturation Gas saturation

14.02 cc 3.6 cc 0.833 0.166 0.001

In this experiment, the solvent extraction method and retort method were both effective. The solvent extraction method gave values for the core sample which had the most oil saturation, very little water saturation, and no gas saturation. The retort method gave values for the core sample which had significant oil saturation, small water saturation, and very minimal gas saturation. These methods are effective in finding the saturations of different fluids in a core sample, but the process takes a lot of time. Considering we live in a fast paced society, these methods are useful, but very time consuming. Although these values were calculated for the core samples, both samples that were used for the two methods were different. I think the findings for this experiment would have been more successful if the core samples were exactly the same, and saturated with the same fluids for the same amount of time. This way, we would be able to see which method worked the best in finding the saturations of fluids. Some errors that could have occurred in this experiment were the time that we used to conduct the experiment. In the lab manual, it says that for the solvent extraction method the system should be left in place for two hours in order to have the best results. We left our system in place for less than two hours, which definitely could have caused some error. For the retort method, the cooling process of the core sample was supposed to be over night, where as we came back a few hours after the experiment to take measurements of our sample. Relative Permeability Lab In the Relative Permeability lab, the relative permeabilities of oil and water were measured in a core sample. First, drainage was used which is oil injection. The core sample was already saturated with water from a previous experiment, and the oil was placed in a beaker at a height of 25.7 inches and the oil gradually pushed the water out of the sample. The sample became fully saturated by oil. The following data table shows the values that were used to conduct the drainage method.

Time interval (s) 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120

Cum. Time (s) 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560 1680 1800 1920 2040 2160 2280 2400 2520 2640 2760 2880

Produced Vwater (cm3) 14 12 10 9 7 6 6 5 4.6 4.2 4 3.8 3.6 3.4 3.2 3.2 3 2.8 2.6 2 1 0.6 0.4 0

Cum. Vwater (cm3) 14 26 36 45 52 58 64 69 73.6 77.8 81.8 85.6 89.2 92.6 95.8 99 102 104.8 107.4 109.4 110.4 111 111.4 111.4

Produced Voil (cm3) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.6 1 2.2 3 3.2 3.8

Sw (%)

So (%)

89.2 80 72.3 65.4 60 55.4 50.8 46.9 43.4 40.2 37.1 34.2 31.4 28.8 26.3 23.8 21.5 19.4 17.4 15.8 15.1 14.6 14.3 14.3

10.8 20 27.7 34.6 40 44.6 49.2 53.1 56.6 59.8 62.9 65.8 68.6 71.2 73.7 76.2 78.5 80.6 82.6 84.2 84.9 85.4 85.7 85.7

The following graph shows the saturation of water with respect to time, when the drainage method was used. In the beginning, the saturation of water was very high, but as the oil was gradually injected into the sample, the saturation of water decreased.
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Saturation of Water VS Time (Drainage)

Saturation (%)

Series1

1000

2000 Time (s)

3000

4000

The following chart shows the flow rate of water with respect to the water saturation. When the flow rate is low, the water saturation is low as well and when the flow rate is high, the water saturation is high. This is true because when the oil is injected, the flow rate of water decreased, and the saturation of the water decreased as well since the sample was becoming more saturated with oil.
8 7 Flow Rate (cc/min) 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Saturation (%) Series1

Flow Rate VS Water Saturation

Imbibition was the next method used, which is water injection. When the sample became fully saturated with oil, we then repeated the same process except this time we used water to push all the oil out of the system. We placed the beaker higher up this time, at a height of 44.35 inches. The height was increased to speed up the rate of the experiment. The following table shows the values that were used and found while conducting the imbibition.

Time interval (s) 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120

Cum. Time (s) 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560

Produced Vwater (cm3) 0 2.2 1.6 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 4.0 18.5 21.0 22.5 21.8 23.0

Cum. Vwater (cm3) 0 2.2 3.8 4.6 5.2 5.6 5.8 9.8 28.3 49.3 71.8 93.6 116.6

Produced Voil (cm3) 5.6 9.8 9.4 9.2 11.4 12.6 14.8 12 3.5 1.0 0.5 0.2 0

Cum. Voil (cm3) 5.6 15.4 24.8 34 45.4 58 72.8 86.8 90.3 91.3 91.8 92 92

Sw (%)

So (%)

2.5 11.8 19.1 26.2 34.9 44.6 56 66.8 69.5 70.2 70.6 70.8 70.8

95.7 88.2 80.9 73.8 65.1 55.4 44 33.2 30.5 29.8 29.4 29.2 29.2

The following graph shows the saturation of water with respect to time for the imbibition method. Since the sample was almost completely saturated with oil at the beginning, the saturation of water was minimal. As the water was injected into the system the saturation of water increased.
80 70 Saturation (%) 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 500 1000 Time (s) 1500 2000 Series1

Saturation of Water VS Time (Imbibition)

The following graph shows the flow rate of the water coming out of the sample with respect to the water saturation. The flow rates that we recorded were not very consistent, which is visible in the graph. If we had more regular flow rates, the graph would show that as the flow rate increased, the water saturation would increase as well.
1.2 Flow Rate (cc/min) 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 20 40 Saturation (%) 60 80 Series1

Flow Rate VS Water Saturation

The saturation percentages of the water and oil were found by using the pore volume of the core sample, the water produced, as well as the oil produced. When I looked back at the previous lab to find the pore volume of the core sample, it was 73.93 cc. By looking at the values recorded in the previous tables, it is easy to see that this value was incorrectly calculated. Professor Karpyn and I discussed the values that were found in this lab, and collectively

estimated a new pore volume for this experiment which was estimated to be 130 cc. This value proved to be efficient in the data process, and gave sufficient results. This section is very important because many times oil is not the only fluid that is present in a rock. Water and gas are usually present as well, and the saturations of these fluids determine whether one should drill to extract oil or not. Some possible errors in this experiment were the saturations of the samples. Initially, they were saturated with water but the saturation may not have been sufficient. Also, during drainage and imbibition not all of the previous fluid was pushed out of the system, causing some error in the relative permeabilities. Using a beaker and essentially gravity as means of drainage and imbibition made the experiment long and tedious, and probably not completely accurate. Gas Compressibility Factor (Z) In the Gas Compressibility Factor experiment, the nature of gas was observed while at non-ideal temperatures and pressures. When a gas is at high pressure and low temperature, the conditions are not ideal which means a compressibility factor, denoted as Z, must be used to compensate for the non-ideal nature of the gas. The Z factor was tested at hot and cold temperatures using methane gas. The following chart shows the initial factors that were used in the experiment to help calculate the Z factor, as well as the moles in the experiment. The temperature of these values was the hot temperature. Test Gas Room Temperature Room Pressure Volume of large tank Volume of small tank Fittings volume Cell temperature Methane 60 degrees C 1 atm 511.85 cc 151.3 cc 5.2 cc 78 degrees F

With the previous values listed in the table, as well as findings during the experiment, the following table was created showing the moles bled off from the small tank to the large tank, the cumulative number of moles, and the number of moles remaining in the small tank as well as the Z factor. These values were calculated from the high temperature experiment.

Pressure small tank (psig) 490 455 417 385 350 275 240 205 167 130 90 52 12 0

Pressure large tank (psig)

N moles bled off

Cumulative n moles bled

N remaining in small tank

Z factor

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.02 0.02 0.017 0.019 0.035 0.017 0.017 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.016 0.016 0.018 0.005

0.02 0.04 0.057 0.076 0.111 0.128 0.145 0.163 0.181 0.199 0.215 0.233 0.238 0.238

0.244 0.224 0.204 0.187 0.168 0.133 0.116 0.099 0.081 0.063 0.045 0.029 0.011 0.006

0.87 0.88 0.89 0.9 0.91 0.915 0.92 0.93 0.94 0.96 0.97 0.98 0.99 1

The following table shows the initial values that were given or read at the beginning of the experiment. These values coincide with the cold temperature that was tested for the Z factor. Test Gas Room temperature Room Pressure Volume of large tank Volume of small tank Fittings Volume Cell temperature Methane 60 degrees F 1 atm 506.7 cc 151.3 cc 5.2 64 degrees F

The following table shows the values given, read, and calculated from the cold temperature experiment section. The pressure of the small tank was charged so that it had high pressure, and a low temperature. The pressure of the small tank and the large tank were then

equalized, while moles bled from the small tank to the large tank. These values were calculated using PV=nRT and the Standing and Katz factor chart. Pressure small tank (psig) 590 555 520 485 450 415 380 345 310 275 245 210 175 140 100 65 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.022 0.021 0.02 0.021 0.018 0.019 0.021 0.018 0.019 0.015 0.017 0.018 0.016 0.018 0.016 0.018 0.011 0 0.022 0.043 0.063 0.084 0.102 0.121 0.142 0.16 0.179 0.194 0.211 0.229 0.245 0.263 0.279 0.297 0.308 0.308 0.314 0.292 0.271 0.251 0.230 0.212 0.193 0.172 0.154 0.135 0.120 0.103 0.085 0.069 0.051 0.035 0.017 0.006 0.83 0.84 0.85 0.86 0.87 0.875 0.88 0.9 0.91 0.925 0.93 0.94 0.96 0.965 0.97 0.98 0.99 1 Pressure large tank (psig) N moles bled off Cumulative n moles bled N remaining in small tank Z factor