Three Statistical Pitfalls of Phi-K Transforms

Pierre Delfiner, SPE, TOTAL S.A.

Summary
Phi-k transforms are used widely to predict permeability. Some of
the difficulties of this exercise are well identified, such as the
homogeneity of the population (rock typing), the matching of cores
and logs (especially depth matching), and the problem of permeability upscaling. Not so well-known, however, are the pitfalls
of a statistical and geostatistical nature that may create significant biasesalways in the same directionan underestimation
of permeability.
The passage from Phi to k is performed in three steps: (1) in
cored wells, an exponential regression equation is established between core porosity and core permeability k; (2) in uncored wells,
log porosity is used instead as input to predict permeability; and
(3) the same equation is sometimes used again to populate the cells
of a dynamic reservoir model in 3D, where input porosity values
are obtained by interpolation.
The core-scale regression equation generally underestimates
permeability by at least a factor of 2. The origin of the bias lies in
the reverse transformation from logarithmic to arithmetic scale. To
avoid this pitfall, a new permeability estimator is proposed, based on
the quantile curves of the Phi-k crossplot. This estimator is data driven
and does not assume a priori any particular functional relationship
between Phi and k, such as an exponential-regression function.
One of the simplest diagnostic tools to check the agreement
between log and core porosity is a crossplot of one against the
other. In the absence of bias, the points are expected to be distributed along the yx line. In reality, they either are or they are not,
according to which variable is plotted along the x-axis. This apparent paradox is elucidated by bivariate regression theory and
related to the difference of investigated volume between core and
log data.
Direct input of upscaled cell porosity into an exponential corescale permeability transform amounts to forcing geometric permeability averaging, which may again lead to serious underestimation
of the true upscaled permeability when heterogeneity is significant.
Introduction
Porosity-permeability correlations are often used to predict permeability and to populate the cells of a dynamic reservoir model. The
passage from Phi to k typically involves three steps:
1. In cored wells, a regression equation, or transform, is established between core porosity and core permeability, or more exactly, between core porosity and the logarithm of permeability.
2. In uncored wells, log-derived porosity is used as input to this
equation to predict permeability.
3. The same equation is sometimes used again to distribute
permeability in 3D at the scale of the cells of a reservoir model,
where input porosity values are now obtained by interpolation
because most cells are not traversed by a well.
Each step has its own complexities and pitfalls. This paper will
mention just a few.
In cored wells, it is important to ensure that the core measurements are representative and reliable and will not bias the Phi-k
law (k and K denote point and block permeabilities, respectively).
Plugs with microfissures enhancing permeability should be removed. Likewise, oven drying may cause clay collapse and per-

Copyright 2007 Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper (SPE 102093) was accepted for presentation at the 2006 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 24-27 September, and revised for publication. Original manuscript received for review 28 June 2006. Revised manuscript received
for review 11 July 2007. Paper peer approved 26 August 2007.

December 2007 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

meability increases by a factor of 5 to 30 (Soeder 1986). [Scanning-electron-microscope (SEM) images show how clay fibers can
be smashed against the pore walls (Pallat et al. 1984)]. On the
other hand, very-high permeability data may be missing because of
poor core recovery in unconsolidated sands. All these biases
should be removed from the analysis. Of course, the porositypermeability correlation should be established only in reservoir
sections, and is generally improved by working rock type by rock
type (i.e., rocks that have a similar porous network resulting from
a common geological history). As k ranges over several orders of
magnitude, porosity-permeability data are usually plotted in semilog scale, which, as we will see, is not without consequences.
In uncored wells, a Phi log is usually available and is substituted for Phi core in the porosity-permeability equation. This is
valid if, for the rock type considered, the two measurements are
consistent, which cannot be taken for granted. The porosity measured in the laboratory on core samples depends on the process of
core cleaning and drying, but is closest to total porosity. Log
analysis provides both total and effective porosity (i.e., excluding
clay-bound water in shaly formations). When comparing logderived porosity with core porosity, one must make sure to use
total porosity. Another source of discrepancy is the difference
between the volume measured by a core plug and the volume
investigated by logs.
Finally, when comparing core and log data, be it porosity or
permeability, correct depth matching is critical because minimal
differences in depths may modify the correspondence between log
and core measurements drastically and lead to erroneous conclusions.
The final step is to populate the cells of a dynamic reservoir
model with petrophysical data. Because most of the cells (say,
99.8% of them) are not traversed by a well, sophisticated geostatistical techniques are used to interpolate porosity from well
data, guided by geological trends and combined, if possible, with
seismic attributes. Porosity is a key parameter controlling volume
in place and is generally validated by different disciplines, whereas
permeability belongs to reservoir engineers. A correlation established at the scale of a 11-in. cylindrical core plug may not be
used for a 10010010-m grid cell. Direct use of the core-scale
Phi-k transform leads to a permeability field that can be significantly pessimistic. It amounts to geometric averaging, which
generally is not the correct upscaling method in 3D. In the
presence of strong permeability contrasts, the bias between the
correct upscaled permeability and the geometric mean can be quite
large. The same is true for the arithmetic mean, which is even
more sensitive to permeability dispersion. In this paper, much is
made of the need to get the arithmetic mean correct, not because
it is necessarily the correct averaging technique, but to avoid estimation bias. Permeability estimation and upscaling are two different problems.
In the above, we have discussed core only as the source of
permeability data. Wireline formation testing (WFT) also provides
dynamic information in the form of mobility data. An example will
show that the methods presented here also apply. The dynamic
data that reservoir engineers seek, however, are those of well
tests because they are more representative of the reservoir scale.
Phi-k transforms also remain useful in this case to redistribute the
global permeability value provided by the test vertically over the
tested interval.
Phi-k Transform
Bias in the Standard Transform. A Phi log k crossplot based on
261 plug measurements from a reference well is shown in Fig. 1.
The linear regression explains 41 % of the variance of log k, which
609

Fig. 1Porosity-permeability crossplot with linear fit by least

squares in semilog scale.

Fig. 2No structure left in the residuals.

corresponds to a correlation coefficient of 0.64. Engineers would

tend to agree that this is a reasonably good linear fit, given that all
samples have been thrown into the plot without consideration of
rock types and that permeabilities range more than four orders of
magnitude. The quality of the fit is further confirmed by inspection
of the residuals in Fig. 2, which are the differences between the
logarithms of actual and predicted ks. When plotted in logarithmic
scale, these residuals represent ratios of actual-to-predicted k. They
are symmetrically distributed around 1 and show no evidence of
any remaining structure in the data. The regression has squeezed
the data almost dry.
The plot of actual-vs.-predicted k in Fig. 3 is another presentation of the same information, showing the consistency of permeability estimates.
As the value of interest is k rather than its logarithm, the standard practice is to exponentiate the equation for log k:

A graphical way to look at this bias is to cumulate kh values from

the well, bottom up (Fig. 4). The cumulative kh corresponds to the
transmissivity of the interval and is representative of the flow
profile if the skin effect is constant vertically. We observe that the
profile constructed with predicted k values is approximately half
that obtained with actual k values.

k = 0.3187 exp0.2291 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1)

Origin of the Bias. As shown in Fig. 3, no bias occurs in the

logarithmic scale because a least-squares fit passes through the
middle of the data (when the intercept is left free). So the predicted
and the actual log k have the same mean, and, therefore, the geometric means of k and of kpredicted coincide. (Recall that the geometric mean of n positive numbers is equal to the nth root of the
product of the numbers.) Arithmetic means (sums divided by
counts), however, are related by
mean kpredicted mean k. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2)

This is the solution provided by Excel when an exponential

trend line is selected. To our surprise, however, the k values predicted by this equation underestimate permeability by a factor of
approximately 2, as shown by arithmetic means:
mean k = 99.61md

Mean kpredicted = 51.19md.

Fig. 3Actual and predicted k agree in logarithmic scale.

610

Fig. 4Pseudoflow profiles: the actual, that predicted by exponential regression, and that predicted by Swansons formula.
December 2007 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

To explain this inequality, consider the regression model

log k = a + b + , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3)
where a+b is the true regression function of log k (natural log)
and is a random error with zero mean and constant variance. If
a and b are estimated with good accuracy (so that the estimated
and true regression functions coincide), the exponential trend line
gives kpredictedexp (a+b ) and
k = kpredicted exp, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4)
where exp () is a multiplicative factor that creates a bias because
its mean value is greater than 1. Indeed, the mean of the exponential of a random variable is always greater than the exponential of
the mean (Jensens inequality). This property results from the convexity of the graph of the exponential function and is illustrated
graphically in Fig. 5. Each chord linking two points on the plotted
line lies above the line itself. For example, consider two equiprobable values 2 and 2; their mean is 0 and exp (0)1. But
the mean of exp () lies on the chord linking exp (2) and exp (2)
and is greater than 1.
It is possible to evaluate the bias if we assume the error to be
normally distributed with mean 0 and variance 2 [i.e., exp ()
is lognormal]
Eexp = exp2 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5)
This shows that the bias is directly related to the dispersion of log
k about the regression line: If there were no dispersion (i.e., a
perfect functional relationship between Phi and log k), taking the
exponential would cause no bias. With data from Fig. 1, the residual variance is found to be 22.438 and the bias factor is
equal to 3.38. This is more than the ratio of 2 that we have observed. A log normal correction of the bias is not appropriate in
this case.
A Nonparametric Estimator. The bias is caused by the fact that
applying a nonlinear transformation and taking the mean are not
interchangeable operations. The solution proposed here is to use a
permeability estimator based on quantiles. Unlike the mean, the
quantiles of a random variable are preserved under increasing
transformations, such as logarithm or exponential. For example, if
X10 is the 10% quantile of X (i.e., 10% of the values are less than
X10), then log(X10) is the 10% quantile of log (X). A formula from
Pearson-Tukey (1965) allows the estimation of the mean of a
distribution by a weighted average of the 5, 50, and 95% quantiles:
Pearson-Tukeys mean = 0.185 X5 + 0.63 X50 + 0.185 X95.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6)
This formula requires no assumption on the underlying distribution
and works remarkably well for all cases of practical interest. Another estimate of the mean can be obtained by the so-called Swansons rule (Brown et al. 2000)

Fig. 5The exponential of the expected value is less than the

expected value of the exponential.
December 2007 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

Swansons mean = 0.3 X10 + 0.4 X50 + 0.3 X90. . . . . . . . . . . . (7)

This formula is calibrated for the log normal distribution but works
under more general conditions.
The Pearson-Tukey formula is more accurate than Swansons,
but it is more difficult to estimate X5 and X95 reliably than X10 and
X90 because they are more extreme. In the petroleum industry,
Swansons formula is popular because of the special role played by
X10 (P90) and X90 (P10) with regard to the definition of
proved and possible reserves.
In both formulas, the Xs are conditional quantiles, that is, the
quantiles of the conditional distribution of k given Phi. When Phi
varies, they define quantile curves.
Fig. 6 shows the X10, X50, and X90 quantile curves obtained
directly from the core porosity and permeability data without any
prespecified model. The plot is divided into vertical slices with
5-p.u. width, and in each slice the 10, 50, and 90% quantiles are
computed. A 50% overlap is left between consecutive slices for
better smoothness. The width of the slice results from a tradeoff
between the stability of quantile estimates and the ability to see
detail. The more extreme the quantile, the more data are needed.
For example, to estimate the 10% quantile, it is reasonable to
require at least two points below X10, which translates into a minimum of 20 data points in each slice. Estimating X5 requires at least
40 points.
These quantile estimates are then combined by Swansons formula to obtain unbiased permeability estimates (squares in Fig. 6).
Finally a trend line is fitted to these points to provide an equation
to compute k for any Phi in the fitted range. In practice, it is
advantageous to do the fitting of log k against Phi in arithmetic
scale because it gives us the option of using polynomial trend functions. When this porosity-permeability transform is used, the mean
predicted value is in line with the sample mean. The bias is gone.
mean k = 99.61md

mean kpredicted = 97.44md

The Swanson curve in Fig. 4 shows the improvement in the predicted pseudoflow profile.
It is interesting to superimpose the straight-line fit of Fig. 1
(exponential regression function) on the quantile curves of Fig. 6.
We observe that it is close to the X50 curve. As linear-regression
estimates the mean of log k given Phi (conditional distribution), we
conclude that the mean and the median of log k are close, which
would suggest that log k given Phi has a symmetric distribution,
such as a normal one (i.e., k log normal). But if this were true, the
X50 curve should be halfway between X10 and X90, which is not the
caseX50 being closer to X90, especially for larger values of Phi.
We also observe that the X90 curve levels off, indicating a kind of
capping of permeability. As noted earlier, the log normal model is
not appropriate for the present data setthis is not a problem

Fig. 6Estimated quantiles X10, X50, X90, Swansons mean

(black squares), and exponential-regression function.
611

Fig. 7Mobility data from wireline formation testing. Estimated

quantiles X10, X50, X90 (squares), fitted curves, and Swansons
mean. RDTTM (Halliburton, Houston, 2007) is 396 points; RFTTM
(Schlumberger, Paris, 2007) is 653 points; and MDTTM (Schlumberger, Houston, 2007) is 634 points.

because we do not need a distribution model to compute Swansons mean.

Mobility Data. In Fig. 7, mobility data (k/) from three different
wireline tools have been placed into a plot against vertically averaged reservoir porosity (to avoid depth mismatch between formation tester and porosity logs). The first use of formation testers
is to measure pressure. Mobility is estimated with drawdown and
provides a good qualitative indicator, but quantitative results are
much affected by wellbore conditions and thin-scale heterogeneities.
With such dispersion, a statistical approach to data is required.
The same procedure as before is applied, using vertical slices of
1-p.u. width and no overlap, and considering only porosity data in
the 6 to 20 p.u. interval. This time, however, trend lines are fitted
first to the X10, X50, and X90 quantile curves and then Swansons
mean is computed. Linear trend lines provide good fits in semilog
scale. The overall linear-regression curve coincides with the X50
curve. The X10 and the X90 curves are located symmetrically on
either side of the X50 curve, which would be consistent with a log
normal distribution of mobility, though with a dispersion increasing with porosity. Considering only the data in the 6 to 20 p.u.
interval, the following mobility means are obtained:
Actual = 60.84. Exp regression = 11.18.

Fig. 8Ratio of Swansons mean to exponential-regression estimates as functions of porosity.

Statistically this estimator is nonparametric in the sense that it

avoids having to specify a priori a particular functional relationship between Phi and k, such as an exponential regression. The
data are allowed to speak for themselves. For example, curvilinear
relationships may be fitted between Phi and log k, as in Fig. 6. The
only significant assumption is the validity of Swansons formula
for the mean.
Core Porosity vs. Log Porosity
We now have an improved equation to predict core permeability
from core porosity. Can it be used with log porosity?
Phi-core-Phi-log Regression. One idea that comes to mind is to
cross plot log porosity against core porosity to check if they are in
agreement. We expect the points to be distributed along the yx
line. Fig. 9 shows such a plot with 943 points and its associated
linear trend line. The regression explains a fraction of variance
equal to R20.8433, corresponding to a correlation coefficient of
0.918 between core and log porosity. This can be considered as
very good agreement.

Swanson = 41.47.

The actual mean is the largest because it is affected by a few large

outliers. For example, if the top 1% of mobility values are removed
(16 values), the actual mean decreases by 35% to 39.73. The
exponential regression is clearly underestimating mobility. Swansons mean provides a better description of the data.
Discussion. The proposed procedure differs from a straight multiplicative correction equalizing the means of actual and predicted
values. Fig. 8 shows the hypothetical multiplier to apply to the
exponential-regression estimate to get Swansons mean: It is far
from a constant. It is an increasing function of porosity in the case
of the mobility data and a bell-shaped function varying between 1
and 3.4 in the case of core data. A constant multiplier is found in
the special case of proportional quantiles, meaning quantile curves
that are parallel when plotted in logarithmic scale. This occurs, for
example, in the constant-variance log normal error model of Eq.
5but in both examples presented, the variance did depend on Phi.
It would not be a good idea to attempt to match the sample
mean permeability because it may be dominated by a few high
permeabilities. The sample mean is nonrobust. Likewise, a direct
determination of the regression function by computing permeability arithmetic means in porosity slices is not a good idea. By
contrast, the median and other quantiles, if not too extreme, are
robust against the presence of a few outliers. Our proposed estimator inherits this robustness.
612

Fig. 9Log porosity vs. core porosity.

December 2007 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

(the line through the contacts of horizontal tangents). These two

regression lines are different. Their slopes are not reciprocal to
each other, but their product is equal to the square of the correlation coefficient:
0.824 1.0235 = 0.8433.
Therefore, if one of the regression lines has a slope of 1, the other
regression line necessarily has a slope less than 1. As we will see
next, the difference of scale between cores and logs explains the
different slopes. Both plots are correct, but the one to use is Phicore against Phi-log because it allows us to check the agreement
between porosities. If they agree, the regression is yx, so that the
best estimate of Phi-core to be entered into the core-scale permeability equation is Phi-log itself.
Fig. 10Core porosity vs. log porosity.

However, this regression line y0.824 x+1.61 is not the one

we expect. We may be tempted to find explanations for this
apparent bias, perhaps faulty laboratory procedures (such as
core cleaning), or interpretation issues (e.g., bulk-density interpretation parameters).
Now look at Fig. 10. It is exactly the same plot as that shown
in Fig. 9 except that the x- and y-axes have been interchanged. R2
is the same, but the equation of the regression line is different and
now has a slope of about 1. No correction is needed.
What happened? What is the physical meaning of having two
different answers with the same data set? Which one is correct?
The Two Regression Lines. First, we observe in Table 1 that core
and log porosities have the same mean value of approximately 9.4
p.u. There is no overall bias. Core data, however, display a greater
dispersion than log data.
To explain the existence of two different regression lines, we
appeal to bivariate regression first principles, which are illustrated
graphically in Fig. 11 for a bivariate normal distribution. The
ellipse represents the shape of the scatter plot, and also of probability contours. From this cloud of data points, we can define two
regression lines, one giving the mean of all y values for a fixed x
(the line through the points of contact of the vertical tangents to the
ellipse), and the other giving the mean of all x value for a fixed y

Fig. 11Bivariate regression: the two regression lines.

December 2007 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

A Simple Geostatistical Model. We now propose a simple geostatistical model explaining the regression equations. It is based on
the notion of support, which is the rock volume over which a
physical quantity is measured or defined (Chils and Delfiner
1999). It is difficult to specify exactly the volume investigated by
porosity logs; moreover, it depends on the logging tool and on the
formation properties themselves. Surely this volume is much larger
than the volume of a plug (say 1,000 times). A larger support
means a smaller dispersion, which explains why Phi-log has a
lower standard deviation than Phi-core (Table 1). We may regard
the log measurement as a spatial average of plug measurements, or
equivalently, we may regard the measured plug as a random
sample from the population of all the plugs that can be taken
within the volume seen by the logs. The mean value of Phi-core
over all these possible locations is equal to Phi-log.
E -core | -log) = -log. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (8)
This theoretical model (slope1, intercept0) is consistent with
the experimental regression parameters (slope1.023, intercept 0.175). Furthermore, Eq. 8 implies the following additive model:

-core = -log + , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (9)

where is a random component, independent of Phi-log and
with mean equal to 0. It represents the effect of small-scale heterogeneities that can affect plug measurements and is completely
unpredictable from Phi-log alone. If Eq. 9 is correct, the difference
Phi-corePhi-log should be distributed symmetrically about 0, be
uncorrelated with Phi-log, and be positively correlated with Phicore. This is exactly what we observe in Figs. 12 and 13.
The notion that Phi-log is a spatial average of Phi-core provides
a physical background to the regression of Fig. 9 that surprised us.
A slope less than one pulls log-porosity estimates toward the
mean: Estimated Phi-log is lower than Phi-core for core porosities
greater than the mean, and greater than Phi-core for core porosities
less than the mean. This regression effect reproduces the averaging effect of the logs.
Data Screening. The difference of support may not matter in
massive beds but cannot be overlooked in the presence of heterogeneities. We have to be sure that a core sample used to establish
the transform is statistically representative of a thick enough homogeneous formation for the logs to read the same porosity as the
cores. A simple procedure to clean the data set is to keep only the
samples for which Phi-core and Phi-log are in agreement within a
given tolerance, to be taken as narrow as possible without eliminating too many data points. Experience shows that this improves
the porosity-permeability correlation.
613

bias between the correct upscaled permeability and the geometric

average can be quite large.
To illustrate this point, let us consider three intervals in an
actual sandstone reservoir. These intervals are vertically stratified,
and the flow is assumed to be parallel to the stratification, so that
arithmetic permeability averaging is the correct upscaling method.
The intervals are discretized in 20 points, and permeability is
computed point by point from porosity by the exponential formula
k = 0.0409 exp0.4203 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (11)

Fig. 12Histogram of -core -log.

Alternatively, procedures have been proposed to scale up core

data so that they can be represented as a pseudowell log, and regression equations are established at well-log scale (Worthington 2004).
Upscaling to Reservoir Scale
The grid used to build a numerical model of the flow in the reservoir is relatively coarse. The permeability K to be assigned to
each cell of this coarse grid is a complicated function of the permeabilities k defined at a smaller scale. How to best define this
function is the upscaling problem. It is a difficult problem with a
huge literature (Noetinger and Zargar 2004, Renard and de Marsily
1997). The purpose of this last section is just to emphasize the
danger of applying the core-scale Phi-k law on upscaled Phi to
evaluate the reservoir-scale K.
Examples of Upscaling Bias. The porosity assigned to a grid node
of a reservoir model, usually obtained by interpolation, may be
construed to represent the average cell porosity. If we plug this
upscaled cell porosity in Eq. 3 to calculate an upscaled cell permeability K we get
log K = a + b ave = ave log k. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (10)
Therefore, entering an upscaled porosity in a core-scale exponentialregression function amounts to geometric permeability averaging.
Matheron (1967) proved that, in a macroscopically isotropic
porous medium, geometric averaging cannot be the correct upscaling method in 3D. In the case of high permeability contrasts, the

We wish to compare the value obtained by arithmetic averaging

along the vertical with the result obtained by entering upscaled
porosity in Eq. 11, that is, the geometric average. The ratio of these
two values represents the multiplicative correction factor to be
applied for history matching if permeability is derived from upscaled porosity. For the homogeneous interval in Fig. 14 (porosity11.5 p.u.), the correction factor is 1.12 (5.75/5.14). In Fig. 15,
the interval is heterogeneous (porosity 11.85 p.u.) and the correction factor climbs to 5.2 (31/5.9). Fig. 16 shows a strong porosity
trend. The porosity is 14.8 p.u. and the correction factor ratio reaches
8.1 (166/20.5). The bias in these last two cases is significant.
One may object that Eq. 11 is an exponential-regression formula, and we have seen that these are biased. Would the upscaling
bias disappear with a nonparametric permeability estimator? The
answer is no. The upscaling bias is of another nature. Indeed,
consider the special case of a multiplicative correction for Eq. 11,
when quantile curves are parallel. Then all permeabilities are multiplied by a constant, and this does not change the arithmetic-togeometric permeability ratio.
A simple and common remedy to the effect of vertical heterogeneity is to subdivide the interval, thus reducing permeability
contrasts. For example, if we divide the interval of Fig. 16 into just
two layers, the upper five samples and the lower five, and compute
layer permeabilities from layer porosities by Eq. 11, we find an
average K115.2 md and the correction factor falls from 8.1 to 1.44.
These examples do not imply that arithmetic permeability
averaging is the correct solution to upscaling, but certainly geometric averaging is not. Using upscaled porosity as input to a
core-scale Phi-k transform may result in severe underestimation of
block permeability.
Power Averaging. An upscaling formula often used in 3D is
power averaging,
KV =

1
|V|

kx dx

, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (12)

where V is the upscaled domain of volume | V | and is an

averaging exponent between 1 and 1. The values 1, 0,
and 1 correspond to harmonic, geometric, and arithmetic averaging, respectively. Theoretical calculations justify the value
1/3 for a 3D homogeneous and isotropic porous medium with
log-normally distributed permeabilities (Matheron 1967, Noet-

Fig. 13Phi-core/Phi-log is uncorrelated with -log, and positively correlated with -core.
614

December 2007 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

Fig. 14Homogeneous interval, (a) estimate from upscaled Phi and (b) arithmetic permeability averaging.

Fig. 15Heterogeneous interval, (a) estimate from upscaled Phi and (b) arithmetic permeability averaging.

Fig. 16Porosity and permeability trend, (a) estimate from upscaled Phi and (b) arithmetic permeability averaging.
December 2007 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

615

inger and Haas 1996). The averaging exponent may be related to

a global anisotropy ratio (Noetinger and Haas 1996) involving the
vertical-to-horizontal permeability ratio kv/kh and the correlation
lengths ratio Lv/Lh. Given the stratified nature of sedimentary geology, the exponent is probably closer to 0.7 than to 0.33.
In order to compute the integral (Eq. 12), we may divide the
cell V into N small cells, each with porosity i, and proceed in
three steps as follows:
i ki ki KV. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (13)
At first sight, it seems obvious that a more accurate result will be
obtained by starting from the unbiased permeability estimates (ki)
computed by Swansons formula as per Eq. 7. A closer look,
however, reveals that the unbiased quantity should be k rather
than k itself. A better procedure is therefore
i ki KV. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (14)
It turns out that a direct estimation of k is no more difficult
than the estimation of k itself. Indeed, the power function is orderpreserving so that the nth quantile of X is the th power of the
nth quantile of X. Therefore, Swansons estimate of the mean of X
is given by
Swanson mean X 0.3 X10 + 0.4 X50
+ 0.3 X90. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (15)
In order to get an appreciation for the numerical difference
between the results of the two procedures, we have applied them
to the permeability and the mobility data of Section 1, with values
of ranging from 0 to 1. The power average is computed in three
different ways: directly from the data, from Swansons mean estimate raised to the power , and from Swansons direct estimate

616

of k as in Eq. 15. If we interpret the permeability data as those of

small cells in a large block, the data average is the upscaled block
permeability, and we can use it as a reference (the true value) to
gauge the other estimates. The results are presented in Tables 2
and 3.
These tables show that a direct estimation of k is clearly
preferable from both a bias and an accuracy point of view. Starting
with an unbiased estimate of k leads to possibly serious overestimation of the block average. For example, when 0.5, the overestimation is 32% in Table 2 and 67% in Table 3 (Ratio 1). The
bias increases with decreasing . In terms of accuracy the direct
estimator is generally within 10% of the true value (Ratio 2).
It should be mentioned that before computing Table 3, we have
removed the 16 largest mobility data from the data set of 1,598
values because these, as noted earlier, have a disproportionate
influence on data averages. Robustness is always an issue with
permeability data, and from this point of view, it is advantageous
to work with quantiles.
Conclusions
Despite their apparent simplicity, Phi-k transforms have pitfalls of
a statistical nature that may cause a serious underestimation of
permeability. These sources of bias have been analyzed and solutions have been proposed to avoid them.
The first source of bias is the core-scale equation to compute
permeability from core-plug porosity. Permeability is usually plotted in logarithmic scale, and the fit obtained is transformed back to
arithmetic scale by taking the exponential of the fit. In the examples presented, this back transformation generates a bias of a
factor of two or five. The solution proposed is to estimate permeability in each porosity class by a linear combination of quantiles,
such as in Swansons formula. Unlike the mean, this estimator is

December 2007 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

robust against outliers. Furthermore, it does not assume any prior

functional relationship between Phi and k; the structure of the
scatter plot determines the shape of the transform function.
The difference between porosity measured on plugs and that
computed from logs is a second source of bias. We have discussed
one aspect, the difference of investigated volume between logs and
plugs, and have shown how it can explain finding a slope of the
Phi-core against Phi-log regression less than unity, without involving any bias. A recommendation is to select permeability measurements that are representative of an interval thick enough to have a
good match with logs.
Finally, the upscaling of permeability to reservoir scale has
been discussed to warn against entering an upscaled porosity into
the Phi-k transform, because this usually leads to serious underestimation of block permeability. The proposed quantile-based estimator can also be used to improve permeability power averaging.
There are, of course, more sophisticated ways of estimating
permeability than Phi-k transforms. Typically, an electrofacies database is established from logs, including electrical images and
derived textural features, using statistical techniques (e.g. clustering, neural networks, and k-nearest neighbors) and driven by core
description (Knecht et al. 2004). This database is used as a lookup
table to fetch the relevant permeability measurements. Phi-k transforms, however, continue to be used.
Nomenclature
E(X)
E (k | )
k
(ki)
(k)i
K
Xn

2
i

expected value of Xpopulation mean

conditional expectation of k given Phi
point permeability
estimate of k at small cell i
estimate of k at small cell i
block permeability
n-th percentile of the distribution of X
random error (mean 0 and constant variance)
viscosity
variance of e
porosity at small cell i
exponent of permeability power averaging

Acknowledgments
The author is indebted to Martin Santacoloma and Bernard Lebon
for providing examples and insight, to Bruno Lalanne for reviewing the manuscript, and to Grard Massonnat for fruitful discussions on upscaling. Thanks go to the management of Total for
permission to publish this paper.

December 2007 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

References
Brown, G.C., Hurst, A., and Swanson, R.I. 2000. Swansons 304030
Rule. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin 84
(12): 18831891.
Chils, J.P. and Delfiner, P. 1999. Geostatistics: Modeling Spatial Uncertainty, New York City: John Wiley & Sons.
Knecht, L., Mathis, B., Leduc, J.P., Vandenabeele, T., and Di Cuia, R.
2004. Electrofacies and Permeability Modeling in Carbonate Reservoirs using Image Texture Analysis and Clustering Tools. Petrophysics
45 (1): 2737.
Matheron, G. 1967. Elments Pour une Thorie des Milieux Poreux. Paris:
Masson.
Noetinger, B. and Haas, A. 1996. Permeability Averaging for Well Tests in
3D Stochastic Reservoir Models. Paper SPE 36653 presented at the
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, 69 October. DOI: 10.2118/36653-MS.
Noetinger, B. and Zargar, G. 2004. Multiscale Description and Upscaling
of Fluid Flow in Subsurface Reservoirs. Oil & Gas Science and TechnologyRev. IFP 59 (2): 119140.
Pallat, N., Wilson, J., and McHardy, W.J. 1984. The Relationship Between
Permeability and the Morphology of Diagenetic Illite in Reservoir
Rocks. JPT 36 (12): 22252227. SPE-12978-PA. DOI: 10.2118/12978PA.
Pearson, E.S. and Tukey, J.W. 1965. Approximate Means and Standard
Deviations Based on Distances Between Percentage Points of Frequency Curves. Biometrika 52 (34): 533546.
Renard, P. and de Marsily, G. 1997. Calculating Equivalent Permeability:
a Review. Advances in Water Resources 20 (56): 253278.
Soeder, D.J. 1986. Laboratory Drying Procedures and the Permeability of
Tight Sandstone Core. SPEFE 1 (1): 16. SPE-11622-PA. DOI:
10.2118/11622-PA.
Worthington, P.F. 2004. The Effect of Scale on the Petrophysical Estimation of Intergranular Permeability. Petrophysics 45 (1): 5972.
Pierre Delfiner is scientific advisor to the director of geosciences of Total in Paris. E-mail: pierre.delfiner@total.com. He
specializes in decision and risk analysis, probabilistic reserves
estimation, and geostatistical modeling. Delfiners recent work
includes prospect evaluation methodology, appraisal of
blocks with multiple objectives, aggregation of gas resources
for LNG projects, and assessments of the value of information
of 4D seismic for reservoir monitoring. He served as a Review
Chair for SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering. Previously,
Delfiner was with Schlumberger Wireline, in charge of processing and interpretation software development, notably formation imaging. Before that, he was research associate in Professor G. Matherons team at the Center for Geostatistics of the
Ecole des Mines de Paris, developing Kriging and stochastic
modeling methods for the petroleum industry. Delfiner holds an
engineering degree from the Ecole des Mines and a PhD degree in statistics from Princeton University.

617