SPE 132097

Combined Capillary Pressure and Resistivity Index Measurements in Tight

Gas Sands Using Vapor Desorption Method
M.R. Dernaika, SPE, Weatherford Laboratories
Copyright 2010, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Deep Gas Conference and Exhibition held in Manama, Bahrain, 2426 January 2010.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
This paper presents work on laboratory advances that have been developed to measure capillary pressure and electrical
property measurements under low water saturation conditions. The paper discusses in some detail the various capillary
pressure techniques utilized in the oil and gas industry and gives some insights on the Kelvin equations applicability in tight
gas sands. Detailed comparisons are shown between vapor desorption capillary pressure and mercury injection data a
saturation offset that could be attributed to the non-wetting nature of the fluids and possible rock matrix alteration. The
proposed calibration of the mercury data on tight sands is then considered for tight gas carbonate reservoirs.
Introduction
Capillary pressure as with resistivity index (PcRI), provides essential information for formation evaluation and reservoir
engineering. Laboratory based electrical property analyses and resistivity log responses are integrated through the work of
Archie (1942) to provide water (oil/gas) saturations present within a given reservoir. In a related manner, capillary pressure
analyses provides estimates of how much water (oil/gas) should be in place within the reservoir as a function of column height
and rock type. In addition, capillary forces as reflected by capillary pressure curves (Pc) affect the recovery efficiency of oil
and gas displaced by immiscible fluids and are thus needed for performing reservoir simulation studies of oil and gas recovery
processes.
Established experimental methods are documented in the literature for the acquisition of capillary pressure data. Among those
methods are mercury injection, centrifuge and porous plate for combined capillary pressure and resistivity index. However,
none of those methods can be used alone to describe and characterize fluid flow behavior that occurs in the reservoir. For
example, the mercury injection technique is often used to determine primary drainage capillary pressure curves but the
generated data has to be converted to a representative reservoir fluid system by using interfacial tension and contact angle
information specific to that reservoir. Centrifuge and porous plate methods can be used to determine both drainage and
imbibition capillary pressure curves but their application could be limited by the maximum capillary pressure value required
for analysis in tight gas sands as well as tight carbonates. Therefore, the continued development of laboratory methods is
required to help characterize and understand challenging reservoir behaviors. The focus of this paper will be on introducing a
special technique known as the vapor desorption method which has proved to be a reliable tool in tight gas sands and which
seems promising in its capability to establish reliable capillary pressure (and resistivity index measurements) in tight gas
carbonate reservoirs. The need for the vapor desorption measurements is based on the fact that none of the proposed laboratory
methods above can investigate petrophysical properties such as the Pc or RI data in tight reservoirs which are usually
characterized with abnormal high capillary pressures and ultra-low water saturations.
Carbonates and Tight Gas Sands
Both tight gas sands and tight carbonates offer significant gas reserves to the oil and gas industry. Most sandstone reservoirs
are typically single-porosity systems (i.e., inter-particle pores) of relative uniform (homogeneous) nature. On the other hand,
most carbonate reservoirs are commonly characterized by multiple-porosity systems that impart petrophysical heterogeneity to
the gross of reservoir interval (Mazzullo and Chilingarian, 1992). Hence, the specific types and relative percentages of pores
present, and their distribution within the rocks, exert strong control on the production and stimulation characteristics of
carbonate reservoirs (e.g., Jodry, 1992; Chilingarian et al., 1992; Honarpour et al., 1992; Hendrickson et al., 1992; Wardlaw,
1996).

SPE 132097

Tight gas sands can be classified into two categories. One which exhibits conventional capillary pressure-based water
saturation distributions and one that exhibits sub-capillary equilibrium water saturation distributions. The tight gas sands
which exhibit sub-capillary equilibrium water saturation distributions would be characterized by ultra-low or sub-saturated
wetting phase distributions (Newsham, 2003). This reservoir phenomenon could well apply to tight gas carbonates as well
which imposes real challenges in establishing petrophysical properties that truly represent the reservoir flow behavior.
Capillarity in Porous Media
Capillarity in porous media can be viewed as the thermodynamic conditions for equilibrium that apply to fluid-fluid and fluidsolid interfaces at the microscopic level (Morrow and Melrose). The capillary phenomenon occurs within the pores of
reservoir rocks for immiscible fluids such as gas and water. Such fluids exhibit highly curved interfaces due to the interfacial
energy of the interface. These curved interfaces or curvatures govern the pressure difference between the fluids in the pore
space. Water, however, is retained in a gravitational field within the reservoir porous rock as a capillary-held liquid and as an
adsorbed surface film in equilibrium with the gas phase. Figure 1 and Figure 2 illustrate the two states of water respectively.

Grain

Gas phase

Grain

Adsorbed water
film

Bulk water in
the pore

Fig. 1 Bulk water as capillary-held liquid

Fig. 2 Water as an adsorbed surface film

For the bulk water case (Fig. 1), the capillary pressure is fixed by its height above free water level with the following equation

Pc = gh

(1)

Where Pc is the capillary pressure, the density difference of water and gas, g the gravitational acceleration and h the
height above the free water level.
The capillary pressure is related to the surface curvature by the following expression which is known as the Laplace equation
and which was derived in 1805 (Laplace)

1
1

Pc = gw +
R
R
2
1
Where,

gw

(2)

is the gas-water surface tension and R1 and R2 are the principle radii of curvature at any point in the rock surface.

This equation is general and applies equally well to geometrical bodies with radii of curvature that are constant over the entire
surface or to more intricate shapes for which R1 and R2 change along the surface. One could of course represent equation (2)
by the following simpler form which considers spherical surfaces, where R1 = R2 = R .

Pc =

2
R

(3)

This equation could further be represented by the known Young-Laplace equation to express capillary pressure in terms of
contact angle ( ) and pore radius ( r ).

SPE 132097

Pc =

2 cos
r

(4)

Equations (1) through (4) express the aspects of both capillary and gravitational forces. It is important to understand that
equation (4) is an equilibrium-state function that assumes the presence of a continuous liquid phase coating the rock surface.
For most hydrocarbon reservoirs, this assumption is valid and the Laplace equation is applicable. However, for some tight
reservoirs characterized by ultra-low water saturations in which the wetting phase may not be continuous at the sub-irreducible
water saturations, the Young-Laplace equation may not be appropriate for computing capillary pressures (Newsham, 2002,
2003).
The Kelvin Equation. The Laplace equation demonstrates capillarity as the essence of the association of pressure to surface
curvature. In addition to capillarity, however, there is another consequence of this association which has an effect on the
thermodynamic activity of fluids and more specifically on the vapor-liquid equilibria.
Derivation of the Kelvin equation by thermodynamics
If there is no curvature between liquid and vapor then the capillary pressure is zero and the pressure will simply be p0 , the
normal vapor pressure (State 1 in figure 3). This applies for flat surfaces. For liquid-vapor equilibrium at a spherical
interface, both the liquid and the vapor must be brought to higher pressures (Pl for liquid and Pv for vapor) and the system
should gain energy (State 2 in figure 3). Spreading of the fluid over the surface is opposite to this and the system is
required to lose energy to the surrounding (as it goes from state 2 to state 1 in figure 3). For the case of increase in fluid
pressure, there will be an effect on the Gibbs free energy for the liquid and the vapor phases. See Figure 3.
For the liquid phase, the change (energy gain) in the Gibbs free energy ( G )
pl

G = Vm dp = Vm p

(5)

p0

Where, Vm is the molar volume of the liquid. From equation (3),

G = Vm P = Vm

2
R

For the vapor phase (energy gain), assuming ideal gas (i.e. Vv =

G =

(6)

RT
),
pv

pv

p
RT
dp =RT ln v
p
p0
p0

(7)

If liquid and vapor are at equilibrium, then the two values of G are equal, and this yields the Kelvin equation below,

Vm p = Vm

p
2
= RT ln v
R
p0

(8)

In this derivation, the radius R is measured in the liquid drop. For a gas bubble in a liquid, the radius is measured on the
opposite side of the surface and hence a minus sign enters equation (8) when it is applied to gas bubbles.

SPE 132097

State 1 (No curvature)

State 2 (curvature)
(Energy gain)

vapor

p0
p0

(Energy loss)

liquid

pv

p0 < pv < pl

pl R

solid
Fig. 3 Free energy change from a flat liquid-vapor surface to spherical interface.

As stated in Newsham (2003), the work by various investigators (Melrose 1987, Collins 1976 and Calhoun 1949) related
capillary pressure to vapor pressure for a pore system containing water in equilibrium with its vapor. The Kelvin equation was
then modified to express capillary pressure in terms of partial pressures as follows,

p RT
Pc = ln 1
p2 Vm

(9)

Where,
Pc = capillary pressure, Pa or N/m2
P1= partial vapor pressure for brine within pores
P2= partial vapor pressure for equilibrating salt solution
R = universal gas constant, 8.314 J/K/mol
T = absolute temperature, K
Vm = molar volume of water (molecular weight/density), m3/mol
Percent relative humidity (RH) is

p1
100 . Therefore, equation (9) can be expressed as
p2

RH RT
Pc = ln

100 Vm

(10)

As stated in Newsham (2003), Melroses work confirmed the validity of using equations (9) and (10) in reservoirs
characterized by low water saturations. In addition, it was related that by controlling the relative humidity, not only were
moderate A/B capillary pressures obtainable, but that capillary pressures in excess of those developed within the mercury
injection method were achieved through the use of an electronically controlled humidity chamber.
The Kelvin equation is most applicable in the low water saturation range. From equation (8), it is realized that the interfacial
tension

is divided by the radius of the spherical particle

p
R and therefore the term, ln becomes more important as
p0

R decreases. For water at 20C, the Kelvin equation predicts values of p/p0 for water drops and gas bubbles as a function of
R as shown in Table 1. These calculations show that the effect of surface curvature, while relatively unimportant even for

particles in the micrometer range, becomes appreciable for very small particles. This, in turn, confirms the superiority of the
capillary pressure concept by the Kelvin equation in the sub-saturation intervals for gas-water fluid systems.
Table 1 Values of p/p0 as a function of R
R (meter)
p/p0 for water drops
p/p0 for gas bubbles

10-6
1.0011
0.9989

10-7
1.0184
0.9893

10-8
1.1139
0.8976

10-9
2.94
0.339

SPE 132097

A Review of Capillary Pressure Measurement Methods

In the oil and gas industry there have been advances in the improvement of the laboratory procedures for the measurements of
capillary pressure and resistivity index curves. However, those laboratory procedures might not all be necessarily
representative or even applicable to every testing condition or every type of reservoir rock.
Great caution should be made when comparing petrophysical properties established in a reservoir rock sample to those in the
reservoir. The laboratory-established fluid distributions governed by flow principles should match those established in the
reservoir. Therefore, the key success in obtaining representative rock-property response in the lab is based on mimicking the
same fluid flow behavior that occurred underground. It is imperative to understand the fundamental principles underlying each
experimental method to judge its ability on providing reliable data as well as to investigate its applicability range and
limitations.
Porous Plate Method. The method can be used for water/oil, gas/oil or water/gas fluid systems. The experimental setup can
be made such that all capillary pressure cycles are measured without changing setup or experimental conditions: primary
drainage, spontaneous imbibition, forced imbibition, spontaneous re-drainage and secondary drainage curves. The capillary
pressure displacements can easily be combined with resistivity index measurements at all stages of the experiment. Wettability
index calculations, by ratioing the areas under the capillary pressure curves, are possible when drainage and imbibition cycles
are measured using appropriate fluids and conditions. Hysteresis cycles on drainage or imbibition curves can be performed by
decreasing or increasing relevant fluid pressures around rock sample. The test can run at ambient or reservoir conditions using
dead crude oil. It is also possible to run the test at full reservoir conditions using live fluids and monitoring in-situ water
saturations by gamma rays (or x-rays).
The basic component of the method is a porous material which has a very fine pore structure and very water wet or oil wet
(depending on pressure cycle) behavior such that the displacing fluid will not penetrate the porous plate at a given maximum
pressure. The porous plate is basically made of ceramic but can be replaced with membranes to provide higher threshold
pressures. For the primary drainage cycle, the rock sample is mounted with 100% saturated water wet porous plate (in series
with the rock like a composite) in a core holder and contact is maintained between the rock sample and the porous
plate/membrane. A constant displacement pressure is applied to the invading fluid (oil or gas for drainage) in a series of
increasing capillary pressure steps. At each step, the pressure is maintained while the displaced water production and
increasing resistivity readings are recorded. Once water production and resistivity readings stabilize at a given capillary
pressure, fluid pressure is increased to next step to invade smaller pores and throats. Capillary pressures are calculated from
the pressure increases of the invading fluid at each pressure step in the test. Fluid saturations are computed from water
production readings in an outlet separator and from the knowledge of water saturation at the start of the test (typically 100%
Sw) and sample pore volume. For tests involving live fluids, where fluids may not be seen in outlet separators due to high pore
(fluid) pressures, in situ saturation monitoring is implemented thru gamma or x rays. Resistivity index values are calculated
using Archie equation. The basic equations used in this method are as follows,
For capillary pressure
For water saturation (drainage)
For resistivity index
Where Rt is the rock resistivity
saturation exponent.

Capillary pressure = Pressure(invading fluid) Pressure(displaced fluid)

Water saturation (Sw) = 1 produced water volume/sample pore volume
Resistivity index = Rt/Ro = Sw-n
when partially saturated with water and Ro when fully saturated with water.

(11)
(12)
(13)
n is the

Advantages of the porous plate method

Ability to test porous material using native fluids and fresh rocks. This is important where solvent cleaning should
be prevented due to the risk of either changing in-situ wettability or altering rock properties (e.g. clays and shale).
Matches very closely the dynamics of displacement in reservoir rocks which generally produces uniform saturation
profiles for representative resistivity index measurements.
Minimizes the effects of evaporation and handling which adversely impacts precise water saturation determination
and constancy of the known internal brine salinity
Data analysis is simple.
Ability to perform tests at all experimental conditions (i.e. temperature and pressure) and all fluid systems, in addition
to the ability to measure all capillary pressure curves both spontaneous and forced.
Disadvantages of the porous plate method
Long equilibration time at each capillary pressure step.
Most typical laboratory systems are limited in the highest capillary pressure that can be achieved. This in turn limits
the use of the technique in tight reservoir rocks. (The use of a 1000 psi A/B membrane helps mitigate this issue in
many applications.

SPE 132097

Centrifuge Method. This method can be used for water/oil, gas/oil or water/gas fluid systems. The experimental setup can
only give forced capillary pressure cycles (spontaneous measurements cannot be made directly): primary drainage, forced
imbibition and secondary drainage curves. Wettability index calculations, obtained from the areas under the Pc-Sw curves, are
possible and the inclusion of spontaneous fluid displacement can be made from Amott tests. Hysteresis cycles on drainage or
imbibition curves can be performed by controlling rotational speeds and flow directions. The test can run at ambient and some
elevated temperature and pressure (reservoir conditions using live fluids are not possible). Note that the centrifugal process
should not be combined with resistivity index measurements because of the non-uniform nature of the water saturation profile
and due to possible evaporation of the brine in A/B systems.
The basic principle upon which the centrifuge method is based is the fact that if gravitational acceleration could be increased
then the height response predicted by equation (1) could be modeled. As the name implies the centrifuge method imposes large
centrifugal forces on saturation fluids by spinning a rock sample at high speeds. These centrifugal forces are experimentally
equivalent to gravitational forces. Therefore, at sufficiently high rotational speeds, it is possible to shrink the entire transition
zone (of the reservoir) into the length of the rock sample. For drainage, the sample is loaded in a core holder and surrounded
with the non-wetting fluid (oil or gas). The bottom of the core holder is connected to a receiver tube or bucket where the
produced water is collected. Within this system, the water is the denser wetting fluid saturating the rock sample. As the sample
is spun, capillary forces will attempt to hold water in the pores and throats, while the centrifugal forces will attempt to force
the denser fluid from the pore structure, replacing it with the less dense fluid (oil or gas). The sample is spun at a predetermined set of rotational speeds and the sample is held at each speed until fluid production stops. Often, the centrifuge
equipment is fitted with a stroboscope light to illuminate the receiver bucket and stop the motion of the rotor so the amount of
produced water can be read. Increasingly, centrifuges today are operated with a digital camera to automatically read and record
captured images (as calibrated pixels) of the produced fluid and generates transient data of fluid production versus time and
versus rotational speeds. The basic equations used in this method are as follows,
For capillary pressure

Pc = ( w nw )

2
2

(ro r 2 )

(14)

Where

Pc

= capillary pressure

w
nw
2

= density of wetting fluid

ro
r

= density of non-wetting fluid

= angular velocity
= distance from axis of rotation to the outer face of the sample
= distance from axis of rotation to any position along the length of the sample

From equation (14), the capillary pressure at any location in the core (along the length of the sample) may be determined
knowing only the physical dimensions of the centrifuge, the densities of the fluids and the angular velocity. However, in order
to calculate a capillary pressure curve, the saturation and the capillary pressure must be linked. Typically the average wetting
phase saturation is normalized to the maximum face capillary pressure. This is most often done using one of the methods
presented in the literature (e.g. Hassler Brunner or Forbes).
Advantages of the centrifuge method
Ability to test porous material using native fluids and fresh rocks.
Ability to obtain capillary pressure data very quickly compared to the porous plate method.
Ability to perform tests using all fluid systems at ambient and elevated temperature and pressure using dead fluids.
Disadvantages of the centrifuge method
Uncertainty in the wetting fluid distribution (capillary end effects)
Limitation on the highest capillary pressure that can be achieved which in turn limits the use of this technique in tight
reservoir rocks.
Complex data analysis which is based on a model
Does not provide uniform brine saturations for reliable resistivity index measurements. In addition, the true brine
salinity often varies and cannot be determined due to evaporation in A/B systems. This is exacerbated in low porosity
materials.

SPE 132097

High Pressure Mercury Injection Method (MICP). This method can be used, as the name implies, for mercury/air fluid
system. The experimental setup is basically made to give primary drainage curve where gas is the wetting phase. Imbibition
can be determined by mercury withdrawal from high pressure to ambient pressure. Mercury injection capillary pressure
obviously cannot be combined with resistivity index measurements. Additional hysteresis cycles (drainage or spontaneous
imbibition) can be performed by sequentially controlling the direction of mercury flow in the rock sample. The test can run at
ambient and elevated pressures, but using high confining stress around the sample limits the mercury injection pressure to
approximately 5000 to 7000 psi A/Hg. At ambient confining stress condition, which is more widely used in the oil and gas
industry, the mercury injection pressure can go as high as 60,000 psi. Mercury is used primarily because of its high interfacial
tension (485 mN/m) and high contact angle (140 measured through mercury) which make mercury almost spherical in shape.
When mercury invades a porous medium it is then possible to calculate the pore throat radius of the sample by using the
pressure drop across a spherical interface as demonstrated in equation (4).
With the 60,000 psi system, mercury is injected into a cleaned, dried and evacuated core sample placed in a calibrated
penetrometer. The injection follows a stepwise fashion and is controlled by a predefined set of injection pressure table up to
60,000psi. The mercury/gas saturation corresponding to each pressure step is collected by determining the volume of mercury
remaining in the penetrometer stem. As the pressure increases, mercury invades into the pore structure, vacating the stem. The
volume of the mercury in the penetrometer is measured by determining the penetrometers electrical capacitance.
Advantages of the MICP method
Very fast technique
Excellent tool for quantifying a rocks pore throat sizes and distribution
Because of the high injection pressure it can provide coverage of the entire saturation range which could be
applicable in tight gas reservoirs.
Disadvantages of the MICP method
There is a lack of a true wetting phase during testing.
There is a lack of unifying standards to correct the apparatus for system compressibility at high pressures and for void
space entry pressures which may introduce saturation measurement error
Use of the contact angle and surface tension scaling parameters may not be appropriate for rocks with ultra-low water
saturations and high capillary pressures such as tight gas reservoirs.
The extraction, drying and mercury intrusion processes damage sensitive rock fabric yielding capillary pressure cures
which are too optimistic in all but shales.
Cannot provide resistivity index data
Vapor Desorption Method. Newsham (2003), summarized the basics of vapor desorption capillary pressure where: the
vapor pressure above a liquids curved surface is a function of the liquid surface curvature and the capillary pressure is a
function of the liquid surface curvature. On balance, within a porous medium, the capillary pressure and the vapor pressure
lowering are both functions of the liquid saturation. Historically relative humidity was controlled using various wet chemistry
methods and achieved only moderate capillary pressures of approximately 2250 psi A/B (eg. Melrose 1987). The A/B capillary
pressure regime was increased to values higher than that obtained using 60,000 psi A/Hg methodology by the use of an
electronically controlled constant relative humidity chamber (Newsham 2003). Within the environmental chamber, the
capillary pressure is set and controlled by maintaining a constant high relative humidity at a constant temperature.
The vapor desorption method is a monitored evaporation of water inside a rock samples pore structure conducted in a
stepwise fashion down to low irreducible water saturation. In general, the evaporation at each capillary pressure point is driven
by three factors: heat, humidity and air movement. In this test method the heat and the air movement are stable inside a closed
humidity chamber while maintaining a constant temperature environment around 30C. The water evaporation from the brine
is initiated by the stepwise lowering of the relative humidity in the oven from 90% to 60%. The evaporation process is
opposed/offset within each sample by the pore geometry affinity for the brine. This combined process yields an equilibrium
brine saturation unique for each sample at each capillary pressure/relative humidity point.
This process will allow the calculation of the capillary pressure increases by the use of equation (10). At every relative
humidity step the subsequent water saturation in the sample is evaluated by weight measurements. In our tests we have
reached air/water capillary pressures in excess of 12,000 psi and pore water saturations of approximately 1%. The technique
could be combined with resistivity index measurements because of the uniform water saturation distribution along the length
of the rock sample and the known brine salinity. (Salts remain in solution and the changing Rw for each sample is calculated
as a function of the weight and saturation changes). In a practical manner (as is true of other capillary pressure tests) water is
removed sequentially from the largest pores down through the smallest pores.

SPE 132097

Advantages of the vapor desorption method

It is suited for reservoir systems characterized by ultra-low water saturations and abnormally high capillary pressures
like some of the gas sand reservoirs.
Can be combined with resistivity index measurements
The process is non-damaging unlike the preparation necessary for mercury injection tests. In addition the samples are
not damaged as a function of the analysis.
Vapor desorption can also be performed on as-received core material as long as only water and gas phases are
present.
Drainage and imbibition cycles can be conducted.
Can be used to normalize mercury injection capillary pressure data.
Disadvantages of the vapor desorption method
The test cannot be conducted at very high relative humidity (>98%) which limits the lower part of the capillary
pressure curve to a value of about 400 psi. Therefore, the method cannot measure capillary pressures at the highest
water saturations.
Similar to the porous plate method, it requires relatively long stabilization times which typically require about 7 days
per capillary pressure point.
Quick Review of Vapor Desorption Measurements in Tight Gas Sands
The use of vapor desorption capillary pressure has been documented by many investigators starting in the early 1900s as was
cited by Melrose (1987). More recently, as was previously mentioned, Melrose adapted the process to provide very stable
relative humidity environments but still limited in the capillary pressure level that was achieved. Comparisons were also made
between the porous plate, high speed centrifuge and vapor desorption which all gave concordant results when properly used.
Further capillary pressure work (Melrose et al 1994) was performed using different methods in low saturation range (i.e.
<20%). It was found that in low saturations, data obtained by the mercury injection method were significantly lower than
saturations obtained by other standard methods.
In a more recent work (Newsham et al, 2003 and 2004), capillary pressure characteristics (by the use of the vapor desorption
method, centrifuge, porous plate and MICP) were obtained on Bossier tight gas sand samples. The capillary pressures obtained
by the vapor desorption were measured as high as 10,000 psi and the corresponding water saturations as low as 1%. Excellent
capillary pressure continuity (on over 30 core samples) between the high water saturation data (obtained by porous plate and
centrifuge) and the low water saturations (by vapor desorption) gave more confidence in the vapor desorption method as a
reliable technique in representing non-conventional high capillary pressure reservoir systems with ultra-low water saturations.
When the composite curves (constructed from porous plate/vapor desorption and centrifuge/vapor desorption) were compared
with the MICP data on parallel samples, significant saturation differences were observed. The MICP Pc tests generated
saturation distributions that were consistently lower than that determined by the composite (preserved structure) vapor
desorption curves. It was discussed that the one likely source of these differences could be the non-wetting nature of the fluids
used in the mercury injecting test where air (or vacuum) is assumed to be the wetting fluid and mercury the non-wetting fluid
while, in fact, both air and mercury are non-wetting. In addition, the destruction of sensitive clay fabric could also impact the
sample response yielding water saturations that are too low.
By examining the described work above, one could easily come to the conclusion that the vapor desorption method is indeed a
reliable tool in obtaining accurate low water saturations at high capillary pressures in tight gas sands. Such a conclusion is
based on the great number of laboratory experiments performed on various types of tight gas sands where the vapor desorption
curve was assembled with the other standard Pc curves (i.e. porous plate and centrifuge) and gave excellent continuity in the
composite curves. However, comparisons of the same composite curves to the mercury injection data decreased the confidence
in the MICP method alone as a reliable test in tight gas sands.
In a later work (Lasswell, 2005), new advances have been developed to combine resistivity index measurements and vapor
desorption capillary pressure data. The electrical response was first obtained at high water saturation range by
membrane/porous plate and then extended to ultra-low saturations by vapor desorption. The linearity and continuity of the
resistivity response along the entire saturation range reinforced the linkage between vapor desorption and porous plate
methods and indicated that the vapor desorption desaturation process was uniform, continuous and rock dependant without
hysteresis effects. The data of a representative tight gas sand sample (4% porosity and 0.0055 md gas permeability) is
presented in figures 4 and 5.

SPE 132097

1000

12000

Gas / Water Capillary Pressure, psi

10000

Resis tiv ity Index

100

10

Gas/Water Capillary Pressure

8000

6000

4000

y = x -1.63
2000

1
0.01

0.10
Water Saturation, fraction pore space

Fig. 4 Electrical Properties Data

1.00

0.0

0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Water Saturation, fraction pore space

1.0

Fig. 5 Porous Plate and Vapor Desorption Data

Core Material and Procedures

Presented is one data set from air-water capillary pressure determined on tight gas sands by the vapor desorption method. The
main aim was to quantify low water saturations and to investigate the reported discrepancies between this method and the
mercury injection method. (Selected samples should have dry weights of at least 50 grams and pore volumes of at least 1 ml.
Smaller samples may not yield sufficient quality data.) Two tight gas sand samples (2 & 9) were used in this study. The
samples were cool solvent extracted and dried to stable weights. Dry weights, pore volumes and grain volumes were measured
repeatedly. Weights were recorded to 0.001g and volumetrics were calculated from these weights throughout the analysis
program. Sample 2 has 8% Helium porosity and air permeability (Kg) of 0.08 mD, while sample 9 has 4% Helium porosity
and air permeability (Kg) of 0.007 mD. Corresponding trims from each sample were measured for capillary pressure using the
MICP method. It was clear, from the mercury data, that the samples were characterized by low water saturations. Centrifuge or
porous plate alone cannot achieve lower water saturations than 20% on those samples (as indicated from the mercury injection
curve at maximum 1000 psi Pc) and hence it was important to run the vapor desorption method to validate the mercury
injection data.
Both samples were saturated with a 50g/L representative brine solution. The brine salinity was selected such that during the
water evaporation and water concentration, the final brine salinity would not produce a salt saturated solution. Air-brine
primary drainage capillary pressure was initiated on the samples in hydrostatic core holders using 1000 psi plate/membrane.
The desaturation process was carried out in a stepwise fashion from 20 psi till 1000psi using humidified nitrogen gas as the
displacing fluid. Stability criterion was no more water production at each capillary pressure step for three days. Upon reaching
stability at the maximum 1000 psi capillary pressure, the samples were dismounted from the core holders and immediately
weighed.
The samples were then placed in an electronically controlled humidity oven at 30C and approximately 85% relative humidity
which roughly translates to 3000 psi capillary pressure. Each sample desaturated in the humidity oven by water evaporation
from the brine. Evaporation continued for each sample until equilibrium brine saturation was reached within each sample at
the given capillary pressure step as evidenced by weight stability. The stability criteria was checked by plotting gravimetric
saturations with time of the vapor desorption test. Upon attaining stable weights, the samples were placed back in the humidity
chamber at 75% relative humidity and 30C. The process was repeated as for the 85% RH step. This was again repeated for
65% and 55% RH steps. At the end of the tests the samples were weighed and extracted in Dean-Stark with toluene for final
water saturation verification. (Samples with high clay contents should not be subjected to the Dean-Stark process and salts are
backed out of the final weights.)

10

SPE 132097

100,000

12,000

2 HgPc

2 HgPc
10,000

9 HgPc

9 HgPc

10,000

2 Plate Pc

8,000

9 Plate Pc
2 Vap Desorp Pc

6,000

9 Vap Desorp Pc

4,000

Capillary pressure, psia

Capillary pressure, psia

2 Plate Pc

9 Plate Pc
2 Vap Desorp Pc
1,000

9 Vap Desorp Pc

100
2,000

10

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

0.00

1.00

0.20

Fig. 6 Cartesian plot comparing mercury Pc to composite

vapor desorption/porous plate Pc, tight gas sand
12,000

0.40

0.60

100,000

2 adj HgPc
9 adj HgPc

9 adj HgPc

2 Plate Pc

2 Plate Pc
10,000

9 Plate Pc

8,000

2 Vap Desorp Pc
9 Vap Desorp Pc

6,000

4,000

Capillary pressure, psia

9 Plate Pc
Capillary pressure, psia

1.00

Fig. 7 Semilog of plot 6

2 adj HgPc

10,000

0.80

Water saturation, fraction

Water saturation, fraction

2 Vap Desorp Pc
9 Vap Desorp Pc
1,000

100

2,000

10

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

0.00

0.20

Fig. 8 Cartesian plot comparing best curve match at low

saturation between composite curve and MICP data

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

Water saturation, fraction

Water saturation, fraction

Fig. 9 Semilog of plot 8

Results
Figures 6 and 7 compares Cartesian and Semilog plots, respectively, between MICP and the composite vapor
desorption/porous plate data for the two samples from the tight gas sand reservoir. There is a significant offset between
MICP and the composite curve MICP exhibited higher displacement entry pressures and predicted lower water
saturations than the composite curve for a given capillary pressure. Such a similar behavior has been observed in previous
work (Newsham et al, 2004). The composite curves were measured by using true wetting and non-wetting fluids (i.e. water
and air). The porous plate method is considered very accurate and reliable in obtaining capillary pressure curves.
Therefore, the composite Pc data is considered to be more accurate and representative of the reservoir than the MICP data.
The differences observed within the MICP data and the composite curves may be directly influenced by the fluids used to
generate the data and the potential alteration of sensitive rock fabric. In MICP, air is viewed as the wetting fluid and
mercury as the non-wetting fluid. In fact, neither air nor mercury is a true rock wetting fluid under any condition. Since
MICP is a frequently used technique to characterize Pc curves especially in gas sands, the vapor desorption data supports
the work by Newsham (2004) which proposed calibration of the MICP curves by the vapor desorption data. As in
Newshams work, the basis of calibration (i.e. scaling) is to decrease the term cos for air-mercury system until the
mercury curves match the vapor desorption curves. Constant adjustment factors were used in common for both samples.
The matching process is shown in figure 8 (Cartesian plot) and figure 9 (Semilog plot) on both samples. This calibration
process is meant to give accurate predictions from mercury injection at the low water saturations and not at the higher
water saturations.

SPE 132097

11

Possible Vapor Desorption Measurements in Tight Gas Carbonates

It is now clear that there are two experimental methods in the oil and gas industry which have the capability to investigate into
high capillary pressures and ultra-low water saturations. The first method is the vapor desorption which could also combine
resistivity index measurements with the obtained data. The second method is the high pressure mercury injection which uses
non-representative fluids and which seems to be inadequate in measuring accurate capillary pressure curves in tight gas sands
especially in ultra-low saturation ranges. However, the MICP method has been extensively used in carbonates and has been
shown to be an excellent tool in quantifying primary drainage capillary pressure curves if the comparisons are employed
correctly (Masalmeh and Jing, 2006). In their work, samples had porosities which ranged from 16.4% to 31.6% and gas
permeabilities that varied between 0.6 mD and 1010 mD. Obviously, this is completely different rock nature to what is found
in tight gas sands or even in tight gas carbonates, where porosity and permeability ranges are significantly lower than the
reported figures in this carbonate publication. Below are figures 10 (Cartesian plot) and figure 11 (Semilog plot) showing
mercury injection capillary pressure data from tight gas carbonate in the Middle East.

14000

24
106
44
91
164
196

31
14
60
117
172

100000

79
35
69
134
188

10000

Capillary pressure, psia

Capillary pressure, psia

12000

27
7
51
99
169
204

8000

6000

24
106
44
91
164
196

27
7
51
99
169
204

31
14
60
117
172

79
35
69
134
188

10000

1000

4000

2000

100

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Water Saturation, fraction)

Fig. 10 Cartesian plot of MICP curves in tight gas carbonate

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Water Saturation, fraction

Fig. 11 Semilog of plot 10

These rock samples exhibit high capillary pressure characteristics with low water saturations. One should be careful when
using this mercury data in a tight reservoir as there is strong evidence in the literature (as discussed above) about the
inadequacy of mercury data in tight gas sands. It will be of great interest for future applications to investigate into the
comparison between vapor desorption and this mercury data in carbonates to find out if the data will show any match at the
high or the low water saturation ranges.
Conclusions
Based on the discussions and observations in this paper, the following conclusions can be made:
1.

Standard capillary pressure and resistivity index methods are not capable of determining petrophysical properties for
reservoir rocks characterized with abnormal high capillary pressures and ultra low saturations.

2.

The vapor desorption technique provides an alternative method for measuring tight reservoir rocks (Pc curves) by the
use of the Kelvin equation.

3.

It has been shown (Lasswell et al, 2005) that the vapor desorption method models electrical response into the lowest
of saturation ranges observed in tight rocks.

4.

For the measured samples in this work, in addition to previous work (Newsham et al 2003 & 2004 and Lasswell et al
2005), a very clear and obvious continuity trend was observed between the porous plate and the vapor desorption data
which gives confidence in the vapor desorption technique.

5.

There is a significant offset between MICP and the composite porous plate/vapor desorption curve MICP exhibited
higher displacement entry pressures and predicted lower water saturations than the composite curve for a given
capillary pressure. These differences could be attributed to the non-representative nature of fluids used to generate the
MICP data and the potential alteration of sensitive rock fabric in mercury injection measurements.

12

SPE 132097

6.

The porous plate method is considered very accurate and reliable in obtaining capillary pressure curves. Therefore,
the composite Pc data is considered to be more accurate and representative of the reservoir than the MICP data.

7.

Based on Newshams work (Nesham et al 2004) MICP is calibrated by the vapor desorption data. This calibration
process is meant to give accurate predictions from mercury injection at the low water saturations.

8.

Further work should be carried out to investigate the vapor desorption technique in tight gas carbonates which seem
to represent similar challenges to tight gas sands.

Acknowledgement
A special thanks to P. M. Lasswell, Weatherford Laboratories, for the use of provided data sets and continued support in Tight
Gas Sands and Vapor Desorption investigations.
References
Archie, G.E., 1942, The Electrical Resistivity Log as an Aid in Determining Some Reservoir Characteristics, Petroleum
Transactions of the AIME 146
Calhoun, J.C., Jr., et al. Experiments on the Capillary Properties of Porous Solids, Trans. AIME, vol. 186 (1949), pp
189-196.
Chilingarian, G.V., Torabzadeh, J., Rieke, H.H., Metghalchi, M., and Mazzullo, S.J., 1992, Interrelationships among surface area,
permeability, porosity, pore size, and residual water saturation, in G.V. Chilingarian, S.J. Mazzullo, and H.H. Rieke, eds., Carbonate
Reservoir Characterization: A Geologic-Engineering Analysis, Part I: Elsevier Publ. Co., Amsterdam, Developments in Petroleum
Science 30, p. 379-397.
Collins, R.E.: Flow of Fluids Through Porous Materials, The Petroleum Publishing Co., Tulsa, OK (1976), pp 33-36.
Forbes, P., 1994, Simple and Accurate Methods for Converting Centrifuge Data Into Drainage and Imbibition Capillary
Pressure Curves, The Log Analyst July-August 1994, pp 31-52.
Hassler, G.L. and Brunner, E., Measurement of Capillary Pressures in Small Core Samples, Trans. AIME (1945) 160, pp 114123.
Hendrickson, A.R., Thomas, R.L., and Economides, M.J., 1992, Stimulation of carbonate reservoirs, in G.V. Chilingarian, S.J. Mazzullo,
and H.H. Rieke, eds., Carbonate Reservoir Characterization: A Geologic-Engineering Analysis, Part I: Elsevier Publ. Co., Amsterdam,
Developments in Petroleum Science 30, p. 589-625 .
Honarpour, M.M., Chilingarian, G.V., and Mazzullo, S.J., 1992, Permeability and relative permeability of carbonate reservoirs, in G.V.
Chilingarian, S.J. Mazzullo, and H.H. Rieke, eds., Carbonate Reservoir Characterization: A Geologic-Engineering Analysis, Part I:
Elsevier Publ. Co., Amsterdam, Developments in Petroleum Science 30, p. 399-416.
Jodry, R.L., 1992, Pore geometry of carbonate rocks and capillary pressure curves (basic geologic concepts), in G.V. Chilingarian, S.J.
Mazzullo, and H.H. Rieke, eds., Carbonate Reservoir Characterization: A Geologic-Engineering Analysis, Part I: Elsevier Publ. Co.,
Amsterdam, Developments in Petroleum Science 30, p. 331-377.
Lasswell, P.M., Newsham, K.E. and Rushing, J.A., 2005, Laboratory Analysis of Electrical Rock Properties and Capillary Pressure in Tight
Gas Sands with Low Water Saturations, CWLS InSite Issue 2, Volume 24, June 2005, pp16-25.
Masalmeh, S.K. and Jing, X.D. Capillary pressure Characteristics of Carbonate Reservoirs: Relationship between Drainage and Imbibition
Curves SCA 2006-16, Reviewed Proc. International Symposium of the Society of Core Analysts, Trondheim, Norway, 12-16
September, (2006).
Mazzullo, S.J., and Chilingarian, G.V., 1992, Diagenesis and origin of porosity, in G.V. Chilingarian, S.J. Mazzullo, and H.H. Rieke, eds.,
Carbonate Reservoir Characterization: A Geologic-Engineering Analysis, Part I: Elsevier Publ. Co., Amsterdam, Developments in
Petroleum Science 30, p. 199-270.
Melrose, J.C.: Use of Water Vapor Desorption Data in the Determination of Capillary Pressure, paper SPE 16286
presented at the 1987 SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, San Antonio, TX, Feb. 4-6
Melrose, J.C., Dixon, J.R., and Mallinson, J.E.: Comparison of Different Techniques for Obtaining Capillary Pressure Data in the LowSaturation Region, SPE Formation Evaluation, September 1994. Paper (SPE 22690) first presented at the 1991 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition in Dallas, Oct. 6-9.
Newsham, K.E., Rushing, J.A and Lasswell, P.M., 2003, Use of Vapor desorption Data to Characterize High Capillary Pressures in a BasinCentered Gas Accumulation with Ultra-Low Connate Water Saturations, paper SPE 84596 presented at the 2003 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Denver, CO, Oct 5-8.
Newsham, K.E., Rushing, J.A and Lasswell, P.M., 2004, A Comparative Study of Laboratory Techniques for Measuring Capillary Pressures
in Tight Gas Sands, paper SPE 89866 presented at the 2004 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, TX, Sept 2629.
Wardlaw, N.C., 1996, Factors affecting oil recovery from carbonate reservoirs and prediction of recovery, in G. V. Chilingarian, S.J.
Mazzullo, and H.H. Rieke, eds., Carbonate Reservoir Characterization: A Geologic-Engineering Analysis, Part II: Elsevier Publ. Co.,
Amsterdam, Developments in Petroleum Science 44, p. 867-903 .