Advertisement

Journal of Earth Science

, Volume 28, Issue 2, pp 381–390 | Cite as

Tight rock wettability and its relationship to other petrophysical properties: A Montney case study

  • Ali Javaheri
  • Hassan Dehghanpour
  • James M. Wood
Engineering Geology

Abstract

Understanding and modelling the wettability of tight rocks is essential for designing fracturing and treatment fluids. In this paper, we measure and analyze spontaneous imbibition of water and oil into five twin core plugs drilled from the cores of a well drilled in the Montney Formation, an unconventional oil and gas play in the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin. We characterize the samples by measuring the mineralogy using XRD (x-ray diffraction), total organic carbon content, porosity, and permeability. Interestingly, the equilibrated water uptake of the five samples is similar, while, their oil uptake increases by increasing the core porosity and permeability. We define two wetta-bility indices for the oil phase based on the slope and equilibrium values of water and oil imbibition curves. Both indices increase by increasing porosity and permeability, with the slope affinity index showing a stronger correlation. This observation suggests that part of the pore network has a stronger affinity to oil than to water. We also observe that the two indices decrease by increasing neutron porosity and gamma ray parameters measured by wireline logging tools. The samples with higher gamma ray and neutron porosity are expected to have greater clay content, and thus less effective porosity and permeability.

Key Words

spontaneous imbibition wettability petrophysics gamma ray log 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Encana Corporation for providing the rock samples and petrophysical data, and NSERC (Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada) for supporting this work. The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12583-017-0725-9.

References Cited

  1. Aloulou Fawzi, M. F., Meg Coleman, 2014. Tight Oil Production Pushes U.S. Crude Supply to over 10% of World Total.Google Scholar
  2. Amott, E., 1959. Observations Relating to the Wettability of Porous Media. AIME (216): 156–162Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, W., 1986. Wettability Literature Survey-Part 2: Wettability Measurement. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 38(11): 1246–1262. doi: 10.2118/13933-paCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Borysenko, A., Clennell, B., Sedev, R., et al., 2009. Experimental Investigations of the Wettability of Clays and Shales. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 114(B7). doi: 10.1029/2008jb005928Google Scholar
  5. Brown, R. J. S., Fatt, I., 1956. Measurements of Fractional Wettability of Oil Fields' Rocks by the Nuclear Magnetic Relaxation Method. In: Fall Meeting of the Petroleum Branch of AIME. doi: 10.2118/743-gGoogle Scholar
  6. Cai, J., Yu, B., 2011. A Discussion of the Effect of Tortuosity on the Capillary Imbibition in Porous Media. Transport in Porous Media, 89(2): 251–263. doi: 10.1007/s11242-011-9767-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carrier III, W. D., 2003. Goodbye, Hazen; Hello, Kozeny-Carman. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental engineering, 129(11): 1054–1056. doi: 10.1061/(asce)1090-0241(2003)129: 11(1054)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dehghanpour, H., Lan, Q., Saeed, Y., et al., 2013. Spontaneous Imbibition of Brine and Oil in Gas Shales: Effect of Water Adsorption and Resulting Microfractures. Energy & Fuels, 27(6): 3039–3049. doi: 10.1021/ef4002814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Donaldson, E. C., Thomas, R. D., Lorenz, P. B., 1969. Wettability Determination and Its Effect on Recovery Efficiency. Soc. Petrol. Eng. 9(1): 13–20. doi: 10.2118/2338-paCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Freedman, R., Heaton, N., Flaum, M., et al., 2003. Wettability, Saturation, and Viscosity from NMR Measurements. SPE Journal, 8(04): 317–327. doi: 10.2118/87340-paCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ghanbari, E., Dehghanpour, H., 2016. The Fate of Fracturing Water: A Field and Simulation Study. Fuel, 163: 282–294. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2015.09.040CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Habibi, A., Binazadeh, M., Dehghanpour, H., et al., 2015. Advances in Understanding Wettability of Tight Oil Formations. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. 19. doi: 10.2118/175157-msGoogle Scholar
  13. Handy, L., 1960. Determination of effective Capillary Pressures for Porous Media from Imbibition Data. Trans. AIME, 219: 75–80.Google Scholar
  14. Herron, M. M., 1988. Geochemical Classification of Terrigenous Sands and Shales from Core or Log Data. Journal of Sedimentary Research, 58(5). doi: 10.1306/212f8e77-2b24-11d7-8648000102c1865dGoogle Scholar
  15. Jones, S. C., Roszelle, W. O., 1978. Graphical Techniques for Determining Relative Permeability from Displacement Experiments. J. Petrol. Technol. 30(5): 807–817. doi: 10.2118/6045-paCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kai, O., Shidong, 2013. Overview of Nanofluid for EOR and Its Effect on Wettability. NTNU Google Scholar
  17. Kendall, D. R., 1999. Sedimentology and Stratigraphy of the Lower Triassic Montney Formation, Peace River Basin, Subsurface of Northwestern Alberta. University of CalgaryGoogle Scholar
  18. Kwok, D. Y., Neumann, A. W., 1999. Contact Angle Measurement and Contact Angle Interpretation. Advances in colloid and interface science, 81(3): 167–249. doi: 10.1016/s0001-8686(98)00087-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lan, Q., Ghanbari, E., Dehghanpour, H., et al., 2014. Water Loss versus Soaking Time: Spontaneous Imbibition in Tight Rocks. Energy Technology, 2(12): 1033–1039. doi: 10.1002/ente.201402039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lan, Q., Dehghanpour, H., Wood, J., et al., 2015. Wettability of the Montney Tight Gas Formation. SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 18(3): 417–431. doi: 10.2118/171620-paCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Law, B. E., Spencer, C. W., 1993. Gas in Tight Reservoirs——An Emerging Major Source of Energy. United States Geological Survey, Professional Paper, 1570Google Scholar
  22. Morrow, N., Ma, S., Zhou, X., et al., 1994. Characterization of Wettability from Spontaneous Imbibition Measurements. Annual Technical Meeting Google Scholar
  23. Morrow, N. R., 1975. The Effects of Surface Roughness on Contact: Angle with Special Reference to Petroleum Recovery. Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, 14(04): 256–298. doi: 10.2118/94-47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Morrow, N. R., 1990. Wettability and Its Effect on Oil Recovery. J. Petrol. Technol. (42): 1476–1484. doi: 10.2118/21621-paCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nelson, P. H., 2009. Pore-Throat Sizes in Sandstones, Tight Sandstones, and Shales. 93: 329–340. doi: 10.1306/10240808059Google Scholar
  26. Odusina, E. O., Sondergeld, C. H., Rai, C. S., 2011. NMR Study of Shale Wettability. Canadian Unconventional Resources Conference. doi: 10.2118/147371-msGoogle Scholar
  27. Peters, K., 1986. Guidelines for Evaluating Petroleum Source Rock Using Programmed Pyrolysis. AAPG Bulletin, 70(3): 318–329. doi: 10.1306/94885688-1704-11d7-8645000102c1865dGoogle Scholar
  28. Washburn, K. E, Birdwell, J. E., 2013. A New Laboratory Approach to Shale Analysis Using NMR Relaxometry. In: The SPE conference at Unconventional Resources Technology ConferenceCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© China University of Geosciences and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ali Javaheri
    • 1
  • Hassan Dehghanpour
    • 1
  • James M. Wood
    • 2
  1. 1.University of AlbertaEdmontonCanada
  2. 2.Encana CorporationCalgaryCanada

Personalised recommendations