4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

Intercept Method-A Novel Technique To Correct Steady-State Relative Permeability Data for Capillary End Effects

期刊

SPE RESERVOIR EVALUATION & ENGINEERING
卷 19, 期 2, 页码 316-330

出版社

SOC PETROLEUM ENG
DOI: 10.2118/171797-PA

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In laboratory measurements of relative permeability, capillary discontinuities at sample ends give rise to capillary end effects (CEEs). End effects affect fluid flow and retention. If end-effect artifacts are not minimized by test design and data interpretation, relative permeability results may be significantly erroneous. This is a well-known issue in unsteady-state tests, but even steady-state relative permeability results are influenced by end-effect artifacts. This work describes the intercept method, a novel modified steady-state approach in which corrections for end-effect artifacts are applied as data are measured. The intercept method requires running a steady-state relative permeability test with several different flow rates for each fractional flow. Obtaining multiple (three or four) sets of rates (Q), pressure drops (Delta P), and saturation data allows for assessment of CEE artifacts. With Darcy flow, a plot of pressure drop vs. total flow rate is typically linear. A nonzero intercept or offset is an end-effect artifact. To correct for the effect, the offset is subtracted from measured pressure drops. Corrected pressure drops are used in permeability calculations. The set of saturations from measurements at the target fractional flow is used to calculate a corrected final saturation. Because corrections for end effects are made during the test rather than after the test is complete, any discrepancies can be resolved by additional measurements before moving on to the next fractional flow. Rates are then adjusted to yield the next target fractional-flow condition, and the same protocol is repeated for each subsequent steady-state measurement. The method is validated by theory and is easy to apply.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据