An Alternative to the Capillary Suction Time Test

Abstract

Abstract The oil and gas industry has adopted several methods to obtain insight as to how a fluid may affect reservoir material. The Capillary Suction Time (CST) test has become a de facto standard test method, largely due to its simplicity and speed. The most obvious shortcoming of the CST test is that it introduces a medium (paper) that is far different from anything found in an actual reservoir; in fact, one may argue that the CST test is essentially a measure of the interaction of the test fluid with the paper. The lack of theoretical foundation of the CST test precludes reproduceable results or proper estimation of errors in measurement. We present a new test method that observes only intrinsic properties of the formation in contact with a test fluid, bolstered by a strong theoretical basis, in stark contrast to the CST test. Our method preserves the desirable attributes of the CST test, but replaces imbibition into paper with imbibition into reservoir material. The method uses a comminuted sample, and the results from the imbibition step are used to determine formation wettability in the form of the advancing contact angle. The results from a subsequent drainage test are used to determine the receding contact angle, and the capillary pressure versus saturation curve. Prior to performing the drainage test, test fluid is placed on top of the saturated pack and the permeability of the pack to the test fluid is determined. The permeability of the pack to liquid is then compared to the pretest permeability of the pack determined using nitrogen. Use of this pack as a testing environment allows the technique to be applied to formation samples of virtually any permeability and porosity. We have found that there is no correlation between CST test data and the permeability data obtained using the new method presented here. We present several cases in which a positive result from a CST test is inconsistent with the results obtained from the new test method. We maintain that the discrepancies cast serious doubts on the general applicability of the CST test as a tool for studying rock/fluid interactions. In summary, there is a great need to standardize testing that investigates rock/fluid interactions. The widely used CST method introduces a foreign material and it does not offer sufficient resolution, reproducibility, or estimation of error. Even if the CST method were adequate, the lack of standardization in testing and analysis methodologies makes comparisons of published results difficult. Our method provides superior results. The strong theoretical foundation of the new method allows rigorous analysis making comparisons between treating fluid options far more trustworthy.