SPE 123561

Net Pay: What is it? What does it do? How do we quantify it?
How do we use it?
Paul F. Worthington, SPE, Gaffney, Cline & Associates
Copyright 2009, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2009 SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition held in Jakarta, Indonesia, 46 August 2009.

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
A knowledge of Net Pay is important in the volumetric estimation of hydrocarbon Resources, a practice that underpins the
value of the petroleum industry. Yet, there is no universal definition of Net Pay, there is no general acceptance of its role in
integrated reservoir studies, there is no recognized method for evaluating it, and there are disparate views on how to make use
of it. Partly for these reasons, Net-to-Gross Pay constitutes a major source of uncertainty in volumetric Resources estimates,
second only to gross rock volume. With the aim of improving this unsatisfactory state of affairs, this presentation charts a
critical path of Net-Pay understanding and application by exploding some of the unhelpful myths that abound within the
industry and replacing them with a defensible rationale to guide the quantification of Net Pay (thickness). Central to this
process is the identification of Net-Pay cut-offs, themselves the subject of much controversy over the years. The approach is
data-driven, in that it uses what we know, and also fit-for-purpose, in that it takes account of reservoir conditions. The
outcome is a sounder basis for incorporating Net Pay into volumetric estimates of ultimate recovery and thence petroleum
Resources.

Introduction
Net Pay is a key parameter in reservoir evaluation, because it identifies those penetrated geological sections that have
sufficient reservoir quality and interstitial hydrocarbon volume to function as significant producing intervals. It contributes
to the estimation of a meaningful in-place volume against which recovery efficiency can be usefully assessed. Thus, Net Pay
is central to the static volumetric method of estimating ultimate recovery. Moreover, it demonstrably facilitates reservoir
simulation, because non-reservoir rock does not need to be characterized for inclusion. Yet, there are no industry-standard
definitions of Net Pay and no generally-accepted protocols for its incorporation into reservoir models as a basis for resource
estimation. These matters were articulated by Caldwell & Heather (2001).

Despite net pay being a fundamental input into not only volumetric reserves calculations, but also well test analysis and
predictive calculations, there is surprisingly little in the way of insightful guidelines on different computational methods and
their strengths and weaknesses.

This paper examines where we are in terms of quantifying Net Pay using determined formation properties and it promotes an
improved methodology that does not have the drawbacks of traditional approaches. These matters are especially important
during the early stages of field life, when uncertainty in estimated petroleum Resources is greatest.

Petroleum Resources
A subsurface petroleum discovery is confirmation through drilling and downhole measurements of sufficient movable
hydrocarbon volumes to be of potential interest as an exploitable resource. Historically, the terms resources or total
resources have been taken to include all hydrocarbon volumes in the subsurface: discovered and undiscovered; recoverable
and unrecoverable; remaining and produced; economic and uneconomic; commercial and non-commercial. However, here
the definitive term Resources is used, pursuant to the Petroleum Resources Management System (Society of Petroleum
Engineers et al. 2007).
There are three classes of Resources, and all of these relate to recoverable hydrocarbon volumes. The term Prospective
Resources applies to the exploration stage in that it admits undiscovered recoverable volumes. The term Contingent
Resources notionally relates to the appraisal stage by including only discovered recoverable volumes, but these may be
2 SPE 123561
economic or uneconomic. The term Reserves relates to the development stage. It includes only those volumes that are
discovered, remaining (in the subsurface), recoverable, and commercial. Commerciality means that the hydrocarbon volumes
are economically exploitable and that there is a commitment to produce. The commitment is manifested through a
development plan. Progression through the classes is governed by project maturity. To progress from Prospective Resources
to Contingent Resources requires a discovery. To progress from economic Contingent Resources to Reserves requires a
commitment to develop in real time.
The estimation of discovered petroleum Resources is summarized in Table 1. Geology-based methods can contribute to
estimates of Contingent Resources or Reserves, according to project maturity. By their very nature, production-based
methods lead to estimates of Reserves. This paper is set within the context of geology-based methods, in particular the
widely-used static volumetric approach.

Formation Thicknesses
The total thickness of a designated evaluation interval either along hole or in true vertical space is termed Gross Thickness.
The term net thickness indicates that some of the Gross Thickness has been removed. There are three types of net
thickness: Net Sand; Net Reservoir; and Net Pay. Their interrelationship is summarized in Fig. 1. It can be seen that Net Pay
is a subinterval of Net Reservoir, which is, in turn, a subinterval of Net Sand. These thicknesses are used along hole for
completions purposes and in true vertical space for volumetric computations.
This classical terminology is rooted in the onshore history of the oil industry. It is in widespread use, but it is inexact.
Net Sand would be better described as Net Potential Reservoir, a term that encompasses, for example, carbonates and
fractured basement. Net Reservoir intervals contain rocks that have been identified as having a useful capability to store
fluids and allow them to flow. In this respect, the term static volumetrics is potentially misleading. Net Pay is a descriptor
that originates in single-well completions onshore, where technical and economic decisions are contemporaneous. Where
economic decisions are made on a field scale, a better term might be Net Hydrocarbons.
Terminology issues will merely be noted here and placed in abeyance. Note, however, that other conventions have been
proposed. Some of these were collated and compared by Worthington & Cosentino (2005), who adopted the convention of
Fig. 1 as their reference. This adoption has subsequently been endorsed by Ringrose (2008). This paper will also adopt the
convention of Fig. 1.
In terms of the adopted convention, the ratio net-to-gross thickness takes three forms: Net-to-Gross Sand; Net-to-Gross
Reservoir; Net-to-Gross Pay. It is not appropriate to use the term net-to-gross without qualifying what it is.

What is Net Pay?
Net Pay is a thickness with units of length. Net Pay can only be measured at a well. It is a subinterval within the Gross
Thickness. It comprises Net Reservoir rock containing a significant volume of hydrocarbons in place. There is no standard
definition of Net Pay, even in a semiquantitative sense (Worthington & Cosentino 2005). Net-Pay subintervals are often
aggregated to give a total Net Pay and thence, by ratio to Gross Thickness, Net-to-Gross Pay. The quantification of Net-to-
Gross Pay lies on the critical path to the estimation of ultimate recovery through the static volumetric method. However,
for engineering purposes, an aggregated Net-to-Gross Pay is not useful in itself: an inventory needs to be kept of exactly
where the pay intervals are located. Moreover, historically Net Pay has been a major source of uncertainty in geology-based
methods of estimating ultimate recovery.
There is a body of opinion that the evaluation of Net Pay is based on somewhat arbitrary criteria and that Net-to-Gross
Pay, and therefore Net-to-Gross Reservoir, should be fixed at unity regardless of the nature of the geological succession and
the fluids they contain. It is further argued that an analysis of reservoir dynamics through a simulator will be sufficient to
quantify realistic recoverable volumes. Although it is true that some of the earlier methodologies have been arbitrary, a more
incisive response can be gleaned from the answers to the following key questions.

Do we believe that all rocks that host a given hydrocarbon accumulation are functional reservoir rocks?
Do we believe that all hydrocarbon volumes in an accumulation contribute significantly to the energy of the reservoir
system?
Do we believe that all hydrocarbon volumes in an accumulation are potentially recoverable to a significant degree?

If the answer to one or more of these three questions is No, the identification of Net Pay has to be an integral part of any
formation-evaluation exercise.

What does Net Pay do?
There is no universal perception of the role of Net Pay in geology-based reservoir studies. In essence, the Net Pay concept
leads to the identification of those sections of a reservoir that will contribute to reservoir performance. It excludes the rest.
Thus, Net Pay allows recovery efficiency to be evaluated meaningfully against an initial hydrocarbon volume that is
contained within reservoir rock. Otherwise, estimates of recovery efficiency can be distorted by the inclusion of non-
contributing volumes that will not be produced.
SPE 123561 3
Net Pay, in conjunction with Net Reservoir, allows petrophysical algorithms to be established over those very same
intervals to which they are to be applied. Otherwise data from non-reservoir intervals might influence the establishment of
interpretative algorithms and thence degrade their application over Net Pay. Moreover, if there is no separation of Net
Reservoir and Net Pay from the Gross Thickness, it will be necessary to characterize the non-reservoir rock to the same
degree as the reservoir rock. Given that core analysis of poor quality rock is more expensive than for conventional reservoir
rock, it is a challenge to envisage this happening as part of the evaluation of conventional reservoirs in any cost-conscious
culture.
The identification of Net Pay and the associated elimination of non-reservoir rock form the basis for a more meaningful
initialization of a reservoir simulator. Although there is a point of view that simulation is a catch-all that can account for
non-reservoir rock as well as reservoir rock, recent experience has confirmed that if Net Pay is systematically quantified, the
performance of reservoir models is demonstrably improved in terms of more readily attainable history matches. Of course,
there are other factors that contribute to a sound initialization of a simulator, not least an integral geoscience model, taking
account of rock types, and honoring (grid-height) scale when establishing permeability predictors.
The Net-Pay concept has been challenged specifically in the case of tight gas layers that release hydrocarbons into
adjacent beds when a sufficiently large pressure differential has been established through primary depletion. Since those
tight gas sands may not be incorporated within Net Pay at the well bore, it has been argued that late onset recovery from these
sands renders a Net Pay protocol meaningless. The rebuttal to this argument calls for a return to basics. Net Pay can only be
measured at a well bore. It is a measure of the thickness of hydrocarbon-bearing reservoir rocks whose constituent fluids
express themselves significantly at the well bore. Late-onset recovery is initiated away from the well bore and the depleted
permeable layers provide a conduit to the well. Thus, a permeable layer can show an inflated recovery factor, in some cases
above 100%, but this does not negate the Net-Pay concept, provided that the underlying recovery mechanism has been
recognized.

How is Net Pay Quantified?
The earlier literature alluded to the picking of Net Pay with a view to a particular application, so that the intended use
influenced how Net Pay was identified (e.g. Snyder 1971). Today, this exercise is largely automated with the possible
exception of single-well completions in real time. Net Pay is quantified through the use of petrophysical cut-offs that are
applied to well logs. Cut-offs are limiting values of formation parameters that remove non-contributing intervals. The role
and application of cut-offs in integrated reservoir studies have been discussed previously (Worthington & Cosentino 2005;
Worthington 2008). Traditionally, a shale volume fraction, V
sh
, cut-off is used to identify Net Sand, a porosity, , cut-off is
additionally used to delineate Net Reservoir, and a water saturation, S
w
, cut-off is further used to define Net Pay.
Perhaps the biggest argument that has been made against the introduction of cut-offs is the arbitrary nature of historical
approaches. It is true that there is no generally accepted method of identifying cut-offs. It is also true that certain rules of
thumb have existed in the petroleum industry for over 50 years and that some authors have even advocated generally-
applicable cut-offs for clastics, on the one hand, and for carbonates, on the other (Desbrandes 1981). However, more recent
applications have been data-driven, and these have formed the basis for an improved protocol by avoiding the use of industry
defaults and generic specifications. Further guidance can be gleaned from the answers to the following key questions.

Do we believe that a reservoir can be characterized solely in terms of its ability to store hydrocarbons?
Yes we can use static Net-Pay cut-offs.
No we must use Net-Pay cut-offs that also take account of reservoir dynamics.

Do we believe that all rocks have the same physicochemical character?
Yes we can use generic Net-Pay cut-offs.
No we must establish Net-Pay cut-offs for each identified rock type.

Do we believe that all reservoirs are produced in the same way?
Yes we can use a universal approach to the generation of Net-Pay cut-offs.
No we must condition our Net-Pay cut-offs to the production mechanism.

If the answers to these three questions is No, the identification of Net Pay has to be dynamically conditioned and fit for
purpose, i.e. it must take account of flow criteria, rock type and depletion mechanism.
The application of these principles to quantify Net Pay calls for an examination of porosity and permeability as
represented within a conventional core dataset in the light of the recovery mechanism and with appropriate honoring of scale.
This approach has been described more fully by Worthington & Cosentino (2005). In essence, there are ten key stages:

Specify an evaluation interval in a well.
Select a reference parameter, such as a reservoir quality indicator (k/)
0.5
for primary depletion or end-point relative
permeability k
ro
(S
wirr
) for waterflood depletion.
4 SPE 123561
Establish any data partitioning.
Identify a value of the reference parameter that corresponds to the lower limit of hydraulic behavior of the rock over a
partitioned fraction of the evaluation interval. If in doubt, select the most all-encompassing lower limit that is
compatible with the principle. Adopt this limiting value as a reference cut-off.
For each partitioned dataset, relate the reference cut-off to a corresponding value of a conventional core analysis
parameter such as porosity or Klinkenberg-corrected air permeability taking due account of scale where feasible.
Adopt this corresponding value as a dynamically-conditioned cut-off.
Using the principle of synergic cut-offs (Cosentino 2001), relate the dynamically-conditioned cut-off to corresponding
cut-offs of log-derived porosity (where required), shale volume fraction, and water saturation.
Apply the cut-offs simultaneously to obtain Net Pay within the partitioned dataset: if the lower depth limit of the
evaluation interval is a sharply-defined hydrocarbon-water contact or a hydrocarbons-down-to level, and there is no
perched water, the resulting Net Reservoir and Net Pay will be very similar.
Obtain average log-derived porosity and (porosity-weighted) water saturation over the Net Pay thickness(es) of each
partitioned interval.
Integrate the data from all partitioned intervals.
Repeat the process for all wells in the project database.

This process is illustrated schematically for conventional reservoirs in Fig. 2. Tangible examples have been provided by
Worthington (2008). The process has also been tracked by Egbele et al. (2005), albeit with different cut-off parameters for
identifying Net Pay.
If the available core data include special core analysis, there are other approaches that can be adopted. For example,
capillary pressure measurements can be used in conjunction with conventional porosity and permeability data to ascertain the
critical porosity and permeability values for which the pore throats are too small to allow hydrocarbons to enter the rock
during migration. This analysis defines Net Reservoir, not Net Pay, because it is concerned with the issue of reservoir
potential and not reservoir fluid content. Again, if both Dean-Stark extracted water saturations and relative permeability
measurements are available, these can be used to identify the critical saturation at which water flows in preference to
hydrocarbons. It is also possible to use composite cut-off parameters such as bulk volume water (the product of porosity and
water saturation). If there are no core data available, recourse has to be made to a static analysis of cut-offs (e.g. Joshi &
Lahiri 1998) or to an informed use of analog discriminators. Having said that, neither of these approaches should be viewed
as satisfactory.
The above methods have to be varied for certain types of reservoir. These include laminated reservoirs, discrete stacked
reservoirs, naturally fractured reservoirs, tight gas reservoirs, and coal-bed methane reservoirs.

Laminated Reservoirs. Sand-shale sequences constitute the biggest cause of overlooked pay in the world today. The
problem is rooted in the inability of standard logging tools to resolve individual sand laminae. A partial solution is to use an
electrical micro-imager to identify the laminae and a tensor resistivity tool to quantify the resistivity of the sands. The
evaluation of sand porosity can be problematic because of inadequate spatial resolution of porosity tools and uncertainty
associated with the application of shale corrections to porosity logs. Where core has been recovered, and the thickness of the
sand laminations is greater than the diameter of horizontal core plugs, the evaluation of sand porosity can be groundtruthed
by judicious selection of core-plug locations. Otherwise, it is usually necessary to draw upon some kind of volumetric model
for shaly sands (e.g. Thomas & Stieber 1976). A noteworthy exception has been the use of minipermeametry to estimate the
permeability of the sand laminae and a conventional porosity vs. permeability transform to estimate laminar porosity
therefrom (Fllo et al. 1998). This approach reverses the usual practice of estimating permeability from porosity. A further
complication is whether a minimum sand thickness is required to qualify as (recoverable) pay: this is especially important
when considering floodable pay, because a flood front might not be able to sweep layers of subcritical thickness.

Discrete Stacked Reservoirs. Where multiple stacked reservoirs are separated by mudstones or shales of equivalent
thickness and the depositional system has rendered the succession congenital, the determination of Net Pay can use a single
set of (dynamically-conditioned) cut-offs and be referred to an overall Gross Thickness. However, the concept of a gross
evaluation interval breaks down where stacked reservoir units are separated by very thick mudstones or other impermeable
sediments, perhaps more than an order of magnitude thicker than the reservoir units themselves, because Net-to-Gross Pay
will be misleadingly low. Instead, each unit should be regarded as a separate reservoir zone and Net-to-Gross Pay should be
evaluated for each zone at each well. Different sets of cut-offs may be needed if the reservoir units are not congenital. In any
case, the reservoir units should be mapped separately.

Naturally Fractured Reservoirs. Natural fractures are hydraulically different from drilling-induced fractures. The latter act
as localized extensions of the borehole wall. As such, their presence leads to a better well efficiency over the affected
intervals. On the other hand, natural fractures can serve as regional conduits that transmit fluids from an intergranular
hinterland to the well bore. The key parameter is the ratio of intergranular transmissibility to fracture transmissibility for a
SPE 123561 5
hydraulic unit. Where this ratio is high, the fractures augment the intergranular flow, and the Net-Pay concepts, as outlined
above, are applicable. In other words, the well-log scale is appropriate for Net-Pay evaluation. Where the transmissibility
ratio is low, the reservoir cannot function without the fractures, which dominate fluid flow. Here, reservoir performance is
governed by the effective scale of the fracture network, and this can be much greater than the well-log scale. Therefore, what
can be measured at the well bore provides only a partial insight into reservoir performance. On this basis, such a naturally
fractured reservoir is better analyzed at the reservoir scale through simulation. Downhole activity reduces to the imaging of
fracture occurrence in conjunction with inflow analysis based on production logs, and it is beneficial in guiding completions.
Of course, many reservoirs lie between these two extremes. In such cases, dynamically-conditioned Net-Pay concepts should
be used alongside fracture identification: Net Pay will include intervals that show good intergranular character with and
without fractures (cf. Aguilera 2003). In general, a static volumetric approach is likely to be inadequate as a stand-alone
approach to Resource estimation where fracture flow is significant. Special care should be taken where natural fractures have
been blocked through mineralization, because the sealed fractures can compartmentalize the reservoir with considerable
reductions in recovery.

Tight Gas Reservoirs. It has long been recognized that traditional methods of reservoir evaluation can break down in tight
sands (e.g. Brown et al. 1981). There are four aspects that impact the quantification of Net Pay. The first is whether
conventional core analysis can be undertaken in tight gas sands with the same accuracy is in conventional reservoir rocks
and, if so, whether the data are as useful. For example, in poor quality rock, conventional air permeability can be orders of
magnitude greater than the true effective permeability to gas at minimal water saturation. The second question is whether
logging tools are capable of delivering accurate parametric values of physical properties that are known to be related to
reservoir properties. In other words, does the tightness of the formation take standard well logs beyond their calibration
limits? The third issue is whether log-analysis models are appropriate to tight formations, which are often characterized by
high capillarity and a high pore surface area. Finally, there is the matter of cut-off selection and whether these allow all
potentially recoverable volumes to be represented, given that tight reservoirs can be markedly heterogeneous and
consequently recovery factors can be highly variable. The key is to approach data acquisition and analysis in a fit-for-
purpose manner (e.g. Bennion et al. 2000).

Coal-bed Methane Reservoirs. The identification of Net Pay in coal-bed methane (CBM) reservoirs is in its infancy. A
CBM reservoir is unusual in the sense that it constitutes both the source rock and the reservoir rock. Coal seams can be
recognized with standard logging tools as having a low gamma ray response, low density, high neutron porosity and high
resistivity, even though they are often water-wet. Gas is adsorbed onto the internal structure of the coal and this phenomenon
allows substantial quantities to be stored. The gas can only be released when the reservoir pressure has dropped to a critical
desorption pressure, which is attained through water production. CBM reservoirs often have comparatively low matrix
permeability. Gas is transmitted to natural fractures through a cleat network, which is usually a system of orthogonal joints.
The key to characterizing CBM reservoirs is to identify the effectiveness of the cleat network for, without a well-developed
cleat system, coal seams are unlikely to produce gas at economic rates, even through a fracture network enhanced by
stimulation. Dipole sonic logs have discerned the development of a fracture network but they do not deliver quantitative
information about potential producibility. That information can only come from formation tests of pressure, produced fluids
and effective permeability (e.g. Schlachter 2007). However, it is likely that the optimum exploitation strategy will be based
on multi-lateral wells (Maricic et al. 2008), and this means that Net-Pay concepts will have to be modified in a horizontal
well setting (see below).

How is Net Pay Used?
Historically, the main reason for determining Net Pay has been to obtain a value of Net-to-Gross Pay for the calculation of
hydrocarbons-in-place. It has long been recognized that the distribution of resources in a reservoir is better understood if Net
Pay is analyzed for each depositional unit in turn (e.g. Finley, 1985). This is not equivalent to saying that Net Pay should be
quantified by using rock-type-specific cut-offs. It is more concerned with how to interpolate Net Pay at the field scale after it
has been quantified at discrete wells. Net Pay appears as a Net-to-Gross term in the following volumetric equation for
estimating hydrocarbons in place and thence ultimate recovery under primary depletion:

EUR = [(GRV x N/G
1
x
1
x
h
S
1
) / B] RF (1)

where

EUR = estimated ultimate recovery (standard conditions)
GRV = gross rock volume (reservoir conditions)
N/G
1
= Net-to-Gross Pay fraction (reservoir conditions)

1
= average porosity over Net-Pay interval(s) (reservoir conditions)
6 SPE 123561
h
S
1
= average porosity-weighted hydrocarbon saturation over Net-Pay interval(s) (reservoir conditions)
B = formation volume factor (reservoir conditions/standard conditions)
RF = recovery factor (fraction) to economic limit (standard conditions)

The use of this equation is rooted within the culture of geological unit correlation and layer averages. It is most commonly
applied during the early stages in the life of a field, although it does persist in Reserve audits and related quick-look
evaluations.
The advent of geocellular models has changed this culture. Grid cells are populated with Net-to-Gross Reservoir and
porosity data, with water saturation being assigned through a saturation-height function that ideally has been established at
the vertical grid-cell scale using Net-Reservoir inputs. Net Pay can only be computed after this has been done. Volumetrics
are addressed by grid cell and then aggregated for each reservoir unit. For an oil reservoir unit, the volumetric algorithm can
be written:

STOIIP = (BRV x N/G
2
x
2
x
h
S
2
) / B (2)

where:

STOIIP = oil initially in place (standard conditions)

and, for each grid cell:

BRV = bulk rock volume of a cell (reservoir conditions)
N/G
2
= Net-to-Gross Reservoir fraction (reservoir conditions)

2
= average porosity over Net-Reservoir interval(s) (reservoir conditions)
h
S
2
= computed hydrocarbon saturation over Net-Reservoir interval(s)
(reservoir conditions)
B = formation volume factor (reservoir conditions/standard conditions)

In computing BRV, a cell is truncated at a fluid contact where present. Recovery factor would be derived from simulation
based on the geocellular model. The benefits of using synergic cut-offs, which reduce the disparity between Net-to-Gross
Reservoir and Net-to-Gross Pay, are evident from a comparison of equations (1) and (2).
Contemporary methods of 3D reservoir modeling can accommodate a greater degree of reservoir complexity in the form
of Net-to-Gross Reservoir and porosity distributions, and also saturation versus height variability. Reservoir modeling can
also be done using a facies-based approach governed by admissible Net-Reservoir and non-Net-Reservoir proportions of
facies over the evaluation interval: this approach is not pursued here.
Several key stages can be identified in the context of integrated reservoir studies. An approach to using Net Pay is
described below for a deterministic application, although it can be easily adapted for geostatistical models. It assumes that
Net Pay has initially been established using core data. As always, Net-Pay concepts are intertwined with those of Net
Reservoir. For simplicity, the following description assumes that all wells are vertical. Special procedures are required for
deviated wells and these are programmed into commercial software packages.

Once Net Reservoir has been identified using cut-offs established at the core scale, (re-)establish petrophysical
algorithms over the admitted intervals, taking due account of rock typing issues. These algorithms include the Archie
equations or shaly-sand variations and also porosity versus permeability relationships.
Scale up these relationships to the well-log scale where feasible.
Apply these relationships to logs over Net-Reservoir intervals. Evaluate porosity and water saturation and (thence)
estimate permeability.
(Re-)establish the criteria for Net-Reservoir delineation at the well-log scale.
Average the interpreted data over the Net-Reservoir fraction of each grid cell along every well.
Establish saturation versus height function(s) at the grid-cell scale.
Populate the geocellular model with Net-to-Gross Reservoir, porosity and permeability, taking due account of any
reservoir zonation.
Apply the saturation-height function(s) to the cells with a Net-Reservoir fraction.
Identify Net Pay.
Compute hydrocarbon pore volumes by grid-cell aggregation and by reservoir zone if appropriate.
Transpose to surface conditions using (cell-specific) formation volume factor(s).
SPE 123561 7
Undertake dynamic sensitivity studies to investigate ranges of uncertainty.
Estimate petroleum Resources either through analog recovery factors or reservoir simulation.
Iterate as more data become available.

This process is illustrated schematically for conventional reservoirs in Fig. 3.
Other uses of Net Pay are to evaluate infill-drilling potential (Yeager et al. 1996), to target zones for formation
stimulation (Kessler et al. 2000), to identify perforation intervals (Grieser et al. 2001), to aid in the interpretation of well-test
data (Spivey & Pursell 1998), to guide the design of fluid-injection programs (Hunter et al. 1990), to initialize reservoir
simulators more effectively (Schoeling & Mark 2000), to sharpen Reserve estimates (Holtz & Hamilton 1998), to reduce risk
in highly complex reservoirs (Martin et al. 1999), and in equity redetermination, which is often based on in-place volumes
and for which the procedures are usually proprietary.

Discussion
Abuses of Net Pay. The literature contains numerous abuses of Net Pay as a component of reservoir evaluation. For
example, the practice of correlating Net Pay with permeability mixes Net-Pay and Net-Reservoir criteria. The identification
of net thickness using cut-offs based on porosity-permeability character, fluid injection profiles and pore throat size actually
delivers Net Reservoir but it is sometimes described as Net Pay. Again, the concept of a Gross Pay with Net Pay as a
subset has little logical foundation. Moving on to volumetrics, there is still considerable usage within the industry of the rule-
of thumb Net-Reservoir cut-offs (sometimes erroneously called Net-Pay cut-offs) of 0.1 mD for gas reservoirs and 1.0 mD
for oil reservoirs: these need to be superseded by a data-guided culture for improved reservoir description. Yet again, the
volumetrics equation (1) is sometimes presented as containing Net-to-Gross Pay but with porosity and hydrocarbon
saturation averaged over Net-to-Gross Reservoir, another example of mixing concepts. At the most basic level,
distinguishing reservoir from non-reservoir has been equated to identifying sand and shale, which actually constitute Net
Sand and non-sand, respectively.

Dynamic Conditioning of Cut-offs. The process of dynamic conditioning merits further comment. Permeability is pivotal
to this process. In many field databases, the permeability data are air permeabilities that may or may not have been corrected
for gas slippage effects through a Klinkenberg correction. If no correction has been applied, the data are arbitrary because
they depend on the average of the upstream and downstream flowline pressures used in the laboratory. There have been
many cases where these pressures have not been reported. Therefore, where several contractors have been used and these
pressures vary between laboratories, the data cannot be integrated. The Klinkenberg correction avoids these problems, but it
remains an air permeability based on flow across the entire pore cross-sectional area. This measurement condition is not
prohibitive provided that the hydraulic character of an oil-bearing water-wet rock can be diagnosed meaningfully through
Klinkenberg-corrected air permeability. If this is the case, the use of an air permeability term as a composite reference
parameter can be accommodated. However, the industry should be encouraged to move towards effective permeability,
specifically the (end-point) permeability to hydrocarbons at irreducible water saturation. The implications have been
exemplified by Cobb & Marek (1998). At the very least, a subset of preserved samples should be measured for effective
permeability so that correction factors can be investigated for converting conventional air permeability to pseudo effective
permeability.

Horizontal Wells. For simplicity this discussion assumes horizontal beds. Along-hole Net Pay is the thickness measured in
the well bore of those reservoir rocks containing a supracritical volume of hydrocarbons that can express itself at the borehole
face. Horizontal wells often target Net-Pay zones that have been pre-identified in vertical wells. Therefore the concept of
Net Pay in vertical wells is not directly transposable to horizontal wells. For this reason, some authors have distinguished
between vertical-well Net Pay and horizontal-well Net Pay (e.g. Lemos et al. 2006). This distinction is appropriate, not least
because the criteria for accepting an interval as Net Pay will change with rotation from vertical to horizontal well bores
because of formation anisotropy. Moreover, there is the assumption that a vertical-well completion will tap a laterally
extensive Net-Pay unit of given thickness with consistent hydraulic properties. This perception has to be changed for
horizontal wells, where the along-hole Net-Pay length is no longer geologically constrained, but rather it becomes a
function of borehole reach. In other words, Net Pay can be increased simply by drilling further. The key limitation is now
drilling technology. Of course, the down side is that the extent of the target Net-Pay volume away from a horizontal well
bore is constrained, e.g. by overlying and underlying seals, and it is far less likely to possess consistent hydraulic properties
in a plane orthogonal to the well-bore axis. Putting these matters together, in vertical wells Net Pay (thickness) is constrained
by geology but the expressive hydrocarbon volume per unit along-hole thickness extends far from the well bore. On the
other hand, in horizontal wells, Net Pay (length) is larger but the expressive hydrocarbon volume per unit along-hole length is
geologically constrained to be closer to the borehole. Therefore, horizontal-well Net Pay should not be handled in the same
way as vertical-well Net Pay. In general, the horizontal criteria for Net Pay are simpler, based on length counts derived from
logging-while-drilling. However, it should never be forgotten that horizontal wells provide an opportunity for reservoir
description between vertical wells.
8 SPE 123561
Estimation of Hydrocarbon Volumes. Equations (1) and (2) can be used deterministically or through a combination of
probabilistic/stochastic methods. The former approach uses best estimates of the different input parameters to deliver a
single value of hydrocarbons in place and thence recoverable volumes: these estimates relate to a particular perception of the
reservoir geology. The latter approach sets up a range of values for each input parameter, described by a probability
distribution, and then samples each distribution at random, with the sampled values being used to compute a realized estimate
of hydrocarbon volumes. The process is repeated many times to extract a median estimate, for which it is not possible to
identify a geological reality. Of course, with 3D geocellular models, the differences between the methods are rooted in how
the grid cells are populated, through deterministic algorithms or by geostatistics. The adoption of a geostatistical approach
has implications for reservoir simulation. To honor statistical theory, many realizations would have to be simulated and a
median recoverable volume identified.

Conclusions
The concepts of Net Pay and Net Reservoir are strongly interrelated, with the former thickness a subinterval of the latter. The
nature and role of Net Pay have been clarified on the basis of host rock character and how a hydrocarbon accumulation is to
be modeled. In so doing, it is noted that the term Net Pay would more appropriately be designated Net Hydrocarbons,
because economic decisions extend beyond single-well completions.
In the absence of an industry-wide protocol for quantifying Net Pay, an iterative data-driven approach has been proposed
for the identification of Net-Pay cut-offs. This approach takes account of rock type and reservoir depletion mechanism, and it
honors scale of measurement. The cut-offs should be dynamically conditioned to reflect reservoir quality more completely.
The outcomes are more exact petrophysical interpretation of hydrocarbon-bearing intervals and more meaningful reservoir
models.
Putting these matters together, it has been possible to formulate a less subjective methodology for the identification of net
hydrocarbon-bearing intervals, as a basis for resource estimation and economic analysis. This is important, because
historically-different approaches to the quantification of Net Pay have furnished very different estimates. The proposed
protocols are appropriate to the conjunctive use of deterministic and geostatistical approaches to volumetric studies. The
overall benefit is a more meaningful characterization of the reservoir with a better synergy between the static and dynamic
reservoir models. Thus, the estimation of Reserves through geology-based methods is given a stronger procedural foundation
with a commensurate reduction in uncertainty, so that an energy company can more fully realize asset value.

Acknowledgements
The author thanks Vivian Bust and Ian Firth for helpful comments during the preparation of the manuscript.

References
Aguilera, R. 2003. Net pay in naturally fractured reservoirs. CSPG Reservoir 30(6), 28.
Bennion, D.B., Thomas, F.B., Imer, D. & Ma, T. 2000. Low permeability gas reservoirs and formation damage tricks and traps. SPE
Paper 59753, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Richardson, Texas.
Brown, C.A., Erbe, C.B. & Crafton, J.W. 1981. A comprehensive reservoir model of the low permeability Lewis Sands in the Hay
Reservoir area, Sweetwater County, Wyoming. SPE Paper 10198, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Richardson, Texas.
Caldwell, R.H. & Heather, D.I. 2001. Characterizing uncertainty in oil and gas evaluations. SPE Paper 68592, Society of Petroleum
Engineers, Richardson, Texas.
Cobb, W.M. & Marek, F.J. 1998. Net pay determination for primary and waterflood depletion mechanisms. SPE Paper 48952, Society of
Petroleum Engineers, Richardson, Texas.
Cosentino, L. 2001. Integrated Reservoir Studies. Editions Technip, Paris.
Desbrandes, R. Encyclopedia of Well Logging, Editions Technip, Paris.
Egbele, E., Ezuka, I. & Onyekonwu, M. 2005. Net-To-Gross ratios: Implications in integrated reservoir management studies. SPE Paper
98808, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Richardson, Texas.
Finley, R.J. 1985. Reservoir properties and gas productivity of the Corcoran and Cozzette tight sandstones, Colorado. SPE/DOE Paper
13852, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Richardson, Texas.
Fllo, L.H., Menard, W.P., Weissenburger, K.W., Kjrefjord, J.M. & Arnesen, D.M. 1998. Revealing the petrophysical properties of a
thin-bedded rock in a Norwegian Sea reservoir by the use of logs, core and miniperm data. SPE Paper 49326, Society of Petroleum
Engineers, Richardson, Texas.
Grieser, B., Brinska, J. & Stout, R. 2001. Zone selection and production prediction using advanced logging technology. SPE Paper
67198, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Richardson, Texas.
Holtz, M.H. & Hamilton, D.S. 1998. Reservoir characterization methodology to identify reserve growth potential. SPE Paper 39867,
Society of Petroleum Engineers, Richardson, Texas.
Hunter, C.D., Kilgo, W.M. & Hickman, T.S. 1990. The development of a marginal Clearfork waterflood prospect. SPE Paper 20128,
Society of Petroleum Engineers, Richardson, Texas.
Joshi, S. & Lahiri, G. 1998. Integrated reservoir characterization of Neelam Field. SPE Paper 39742, Society of Petroleum Engineers,
Richardson, Texas.
Kessler, C., Frisch, G., Hyden, R. & Stegent, N. 2000. New petrophysical process improves reservoir optimization by linking stimulation
design, reservoir modeling, and economic evaluation. SPE Paper 62544, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Richardson, Texas.
Lemos, W.P., Balo de Castro, M.R., Soares, C.M., Rosalba, J.F. & Meira, A.A.G. 2006. Albacora Leste field development: reservoir
aspects and development strategy. OTC Paper 18056, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Richardson, Texas.
SPE 123561 9
Maricic, N., Mohaghegh, S.D. & Artun, E. 2008. A parametric study on the benefits of drilling horizontal and multilateral wells in
coalbed methane reservoirs. SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, 11(6), 976-983.
Martin, F.D., Murphy, M.B., Stubbs, B.A., Uszynski, B.J., Hardage, B.A., Kendall, R.P., Whitney, E.M. & Weiss, W.W. 1999. SPE
Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, 2(2), 169-179.
Ringrose, P.S. 2008. Total porosity modelling: dispelling the net-to-gross myth. SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, 11(5), 866-
873.
Schlachter, G. 2007. Using wireline formation evaluation tools to characterize coalbed methane formations. SPE Paper 111213, Society
of Petroleum Engineers, Richardson, Texas.
Schoeling, L.G. & Mark, S. 2000. Improved reservoir management/characterization for independent operators in mature basins, a case
study: South Slattery Field, Powder River Basin, Wyoming. SPE Paper 59299, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Richardson, Texas.
Snyder, R.H. 1971. A review of the concepts and methodology of determining 'net pay'. SPE Paper 3609, Society of Petroleum Engineers,
Richardson, Texas.
Society of Petroleum Engineers, World Petroleum Council, American Association
of Petroleum Geologists & Society of Petroleum Evaluation Engineers. 2007. Petroleum Resources Management System. Society of
Petroleum Engineers, Richardson, Texas.
Spivey, J.P. & Pursell, D.A. 1998. Errors in input data and the effect on well-test interpretation results. SPE Paper 39773, Society of
Petroleum Engineers, Richardson, Texas.
Thomas, E. C., and Stieber, S. J. 1975. The distribution of shale in sandstones and its effect upon porosity. Transactions SPWLA 16th
Annual Logging Symposium, Paper T, Society of Petrophysicists and Well Log Analysts, Houston, Texas.
Worthington, P.F. 2008. The application of cut-offs in integrated reservoir studies. SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, 11(6), 968-
975.
Worthington, P.F. & Cosentino, L. 2005. The role of cut-offs in integrated reservoir studies. SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering,
8(4), 276-290.
Yeager, D.L., Frantz, J.H., Jr., Moody, M.A. & Neese, M.A. 1996. Evaluation of infill drilling potential of the Beekmantown Formation,
Bakersville Field, Coshocton County, Ohio. SPE Paper 37335, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Richardson, Texas.



Table 1 Estimation of Discovered Petroleum Resources

Foundation Methodology Class of Resource

Geology-based Static volumetrics
Reservoir simulation
(uncalibrated)
Contingent Resources/
Reserves

Production-based Reservoir simulation
(history-matched)
Material balance
Decline-curve analysis
Reserves

Fig. 1 Interrelationship of Formation Thicknesses











Sub Sub- -critical critical
poroperm poroperm
Supra Supra- -critical critical
porosity and porosity and
permeability permeability
character character
Net Reservoir Net Reservoir Net Pay Net Pay Net Sand Net Sand Gross Gross
Rock Rock
e.g. e.g.
evaporites evaporites, ,
mudstone, mudstone,
unfractured unfractured
basement basement
Potential Potential
reservoir reservoir
Supra Supra- -critical critical
amounts of amounts of
hydrocarbons hydrocarbons
Total Total
Evaluation Evaluation
Interval Interval
Sub Sub- -critical critical
poroperm poroperm
Supra Supra- -critical critical
porosity and porosity and
permeability permeability
character character
Net Reservoir Net Reservoir Net Pay Net Pay Net Sand Net Sand Gross Gross
Rock Rock
e.g. e.g.
evaporites evaporites, ,
mudstone, mudstone,
unfractured unfractured
basement basement
Potential Potential
reservoir reservoir
Supra Supra- -critical critical
amounts of amounts of
hydrocarbons hydrocarbons
Total Total
Evaluation Evaluation
Interval Interval
Sub Sub- -critical HC critical HC
OUT OUT
OUT OUT
10 SPE 123561
Fig. 2 Quantification of Net Pay Conventional
Reservoirs
















































Fig. 3 Uses of Net Reservoir and Net Pay Conventional
Reservoirs





















Define rock types
Establish Net Reservoir using core data
(Re-)establish petrophysical algorithms
Scale-up relationships to well-log scale
Apply relationships to logs over Net-Reservoir intervals
Evaluate porosity, Sw and permeability
(Re-)establish criteria for Net Reservoir at well-log scale
Average interpreted data over Net-Reservoir fraction of each grid cell
Populate geocellular model with Net-to-Gross Reservoir, porosity and permeability
Establish saturation versus height function(s) at grid-cell scale
Apply saturation-height function(s) to cells with a Net-Reservoir fraction
Identify Net Pay
Compute hydrocarbon pore volumes by grid-cell aggregation and by reservoir zone
Transpose to surface conditions using (cell-specific) formation volume factor(s)
Undertake dynamic sensitivity studies
Estimate Resources
Iterate as more data become available
Specify evaluation interval
Synergically relate Xc to conventional cut-offs Yc and Zc
Select reference parameter U
Partition into datasets
Identify critical value of reference parameter Uc
For each dataset, relate Uc to conventional cut-off Xc
Apply Xc, Yc and Zc simultaneously for Net Pay
Average porosity and Sw over Net-Pay thickness(es)
Integrate data from all partitioned intervals
Repeat for all wells in the project database