Improved Prediction of Reservoir Behavior

Through Integration of Quantitative

Geological and Petrophysical Data
D. K. Davies, SPE, R. K. Vessell, and J. B. Auman, David K. Davies & Assocs. Inc.
Summary
This paper presents a cost effective, quantitative methodology for
reservoir characterization that results in improved prediction of
permeability, production and injection behavior during primary
and enhanced recovery operations. The method is based fundamentally on the identification of rock types ~intervals of rock with
unique pore geometry!. This approach uses image analysis of core
material to quantitatively identify various pore geometries. When
combined with more traditional petrophysical measurements, such
as porosity, permeability and capillary pressure, intervals of rock
with various pore geometries ~rock types! can be recognized from
conventional wireline logs in noncored wells or intervals. This
allows for calculation of rock type and improved estimation of
permeability and saturation. Based on geological input, the reservoirs can then be divided into flow units ~hydrodynamically continuous layers! and grid blocks for simulation. Results are presented of detailed studies in two, distinctly different, complex
reservoirs: a low porosity carbonate reservoir and a high porosity
sandstone reservoir. When combined with production data, the
improved characterization and predictability of performance obtained using this unique technique have provided a means of targeting the highest quality development drilling locations, improving pattern design, rapidly recognizing conformance and
formation damage problems, identifying bypassed pay intervals,
and improving assessments of present and future value.

Introduction
This paper presents a technique for improved prediction of permeability and flow unit distribution that can be used in reservoirs
of widely differing lithologies and differing porosity characteristics. The technique focuses on the use and integration of pore
geometrical data and wireline log data to predict permeability and
define hydraulic flow units in complex reservoirs. The two studies
presented here include a low porosity, complex carbonate reservoir and a high porosity, heterogeneous sandstone reservoir.
These reservoir classes represent end-members in the spectrum of
hydrocarbon reservoirs. Additionally, these reservoirs are often
difficult to characterize ~due to their geological complexity! and
frequently contain significant volumes of remaining reserves.1
The two reservoir studies are funded by the U.S. Department of
Energy as part of the Class II and Class III Oil Programs for
shallow shelf carbonate ~SSC! reservoirs and slope/basin clastic
~SBC! reservoirs.
The technique described in this paper has also been used to
characterize a wide range of other carbonate and sandstone reservoirs including tight gas sands ~Wilcox, Vicksburg, and Cotton
Valley Formations, Texas!, moderate porosity sandstones ~Middle
Magdalena Valley, Colombia and San Jorge Basin, Argentina!,
Copyright 1999 Society of Petroleum Engineers
Original manuscript received for review 7 October 1997. Revised manuscript received 8
December 1998. Paper peer approved 4 January 1999. Paper (SPE 55881) was revised
for publication from paper SPE 38914, first presented at the 1997 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 58 October.

SPE Reservoir Eval. & Eng. 2 ~2!, April 1999

and high porosity reservoirs ~Offshore Gulf Coast and Middle

East!.
The techniques used for reservoir description in this paper meet
three basic requirements that are important in mature, heterogeneous fields.
1. The reservoir descriptions are log-based. Flow units are
identified using wireline logs because few wells have cores. Integration of data from analysis of cores is an essential component of
the log models.
2. Accurate values of permeability are derived from logs. In
complex reservoirs, values of porosity and saturation derived from
routine log analysis often do not accurately identify productivity.
It is therefore necessary to develop a log model that will allow the
prediction of another producibility parameter. In these studies we
have derived foot-by-foot values of permeability for cored and
non-cored intervals in all wells with suitable wireline logs.
3. Use only the existing databases. No new wells will be
drilled to aid reservoir description.

Methodology
Techniques of reservoir description used in these studies are based
on the identification of rock types ~intervals of rock with unique
petrophysical properties!. Rock types are identified on the basis of
measured pore geometrical characteristics, principally pore body
size ~average diameter!, pore body shape, aspect ratio ~size of
pore body: size of pore throat! and coordination number ~number
of throats per pore!. This involves the detailed analysis of small
rock samples taken from existing cores ~conventional cores and
sidewall cores!. The rock type information is used to develop the
vertical layering profile in cored intervals. Integration of rock type
data with wireline log data allows field-wide extrapolation of the
reservoir model from cored to non-cored wells.
Emphasis is placed on measurement of pore geometrical characteristics using a scanning electron microscope specially
equipped for automated image analysis procedures.24 A knowledge of pore geometrical characteristics is of fundamental importance to reservoir characterization because the displacement of
hydrocarbons is controlled at the pore level; the petrophysical
properties of rocks are controlled by the pore geometry.58
The specific procedure includes the following steps.
1. Routine measurement of porosity and permeability.
2. Detailed macroscopic core description to identify vertical
changes in texture and lithology for all cores.
3. Detailed thin section and scanning electron microscope
analyses ~secondary electron imaging mode! of 100 to 150 small
rock samples taken from the same locations as the plugs used in
routine core analysis. In the SBC reservoir, x-ray diffraction
analysis is also used. The combination of thin section and x-ray
analyses provides direct measurement of the shale volume, clay
volume, grain size, sorting and mineral composition for the core
samples analyzed.
4. Rock types are identified for each rock sample using measured data on pore body size, pore throat size and pore interconnectivity ~coordination number and pore arrangement!.
1094-6470/99/2~2!/149/12/$3.5010.15

149

5. Algorithms that relate porosity to permeability for each rock

type in cored wells are developed.
6. Log analysis is performed using normalized and environmentally corrected logs. The log shale indicators are calibrated to
data from petrographic analysis, specifically, shale volume derived from thin section analysis, to allow improved accuracy in
the determination of porosity.
7. Identification of rock types using log responses in cored
intervals, and comparison with core data.
8. Extension of the rock-log model to all wells with sufficient
logs in the field. Specific algorithms are developed on a field-byfield basis that allow the identification of rock types from log data.
9. Prediction of permeability, foot-by-foot, in all wells using
algorithms that relate porosity to permeability by rock type.
10. Field-wide correlation of rock types and identification of
flow units for reservoir simulation.
Pore Geometry Modeling. Analysis of pore geometry and integration of this data with wireline log data allow field-wide reservoir characterization to be pore system oriented. Pore geometry
analysis involves identification of pore types and rock types. Procedures for the measurement of pore geometry parameters have
been documented in geological and engineering literature and are
briefly discussed below.
Pore Types. The determination of pore types in a reservoir requires the use of rock samples ~conventional core, rotary sidewall
cores, and cuttings samples in favorable circumstances!. In this
study, analysis is based on 1 in. plugs removed from conventional
cores. Individual pore types are classified in terms of the following parameters.
Pore Body Size and Shape. Determined using scanning electron microscope ~SEM! image analysis of the pore system.2
Pore Throat Size. Determined through capillary pressure
analysis, SEM analysis of pore casts and direct measurement in
the SEM.4,7
Aspect Ratio. The ratio of pore body to pore throat size: a
fundamental control of hydrocarbon displacement.7,9
Coordination Number. The number of pore throats that intersect each pore, determined from SEM analysis of pore casts.10
Pore Arrangement. The detailed distribution of pores in each
sample as determined in thin section and SEM analyses.10
These parameters are combined to yield a classification of the
various pore types in these rocks. Pore types are identified in each
core sample. A complex core sample may contain several different pore types. It is therefore necessary to group pore types into
rock types. A rock type is an interval of rock characterized by a
unique pore structure11 ~not necessarily a unique pore type!. Each
rock type is characterized by a particular assemblage ~suite! of
pore types. For each sample, the volume proportion of each pore
type is determined using SEM-based image analysis.3 This procedure for rock type identification offers the following advantages.
d It has long been known that rock types, classified on the basis
of pore geometry, directly control hydrocarbon displacement efficiency ~aspect ratio, coordination number, and pore
arrangement!.7,9,11
d The classification procedure presented here assumes that no
fixed relation exists between the size of pore bodies and pore
throats. In this regard, we accept the well known premise of the
independence of pore body and pore throat size.12
d Rock types are identified independent of measured values of
porosity and permeability. Predictions of permeability are based
on a knowledge of porosity and rock type. This avoids the circularity evident in classification schemes that use porosity and permeability data to identify rock types and, in turn, use the rock
types to predict permeability.
150

Davies, Vessell, and Auman: Reservoir Behavior

d Because throat size is known for each pore type, it is possible

to develop a pseudo-capillary pressure curve for each sample using the well known relationship:13
Pc5214/d.
~1!
Different rock types have different pseudo-capillary pressure
curves.
d The validity of the geologically determined rock types is
evaluated through mercury capillary pressure analysis of selected
samples. Results reveal differences between the rock types in
terms of measured capillary characteristics. Such cross checks allow independent validation of the pore geometrical classification
of rock types. The mercury capillary pressure data are also used to
aid in the determination of pore throat sizes.

Low Porosity, Shallow Shelf Carbonate Reservoir

Background. Shallow shelf carbonate reservoirs in the U.S. originally contained .68 BBO ~about one-seventh of all the oil discovered in the lower 48 states!. Recovery efficiency is low; some
20 BBO have been produced and current technology may only
yield an additional 4 BBO.1 The problem of low recovery efficiency in SSC reservoirs is not restricted to the U.S.it is a
worldwide phenomenon. SSC reservoirs share a number of common characteristics, including the following.
d A high degree of areal and vertical heterogeneity, relatively
low porosity and relatively low permeability.
d Reservoir compartmentalization, resulting in poor vertical and
lateral continuity of the reservoir flow units and poor sweep efficiency.
d Poor balancing of rates of injection and production, and early
water breakthrough in certain areas of the reservoir. This indicates
poor pressure and fluid communication and limited repressuring.
d Porosity and saturation as determined from analysis of wireline logs do not accurately reflect reservoir quality and performance.
d Many injection and production wells are not optimally completed with regard to placement of perforations, and the stimulation treatment can be inadequate for optimal production and injection practices.
The North Robertson Clearfork Unit exhibits all of these characteristics. The North Robertson Unit ~NRU! was the single largest waterflood installed in the onshore, lower 48 states of the U.S.
during the 1980s. The unit covers 5,633 acres, has 259 wells and
uses a 40 acre 5-spot waterflood pattern with 20 acre nominal well
spacing. The field was on primary production from 1954 to 1987;
the secondary waterflood has been in place since 1987. Currently,
the field has 144 active producing wells, 109 active injection wells
and 6 water supply wells. An objective of this current study is to
identify the areas of the Unit with the best potential for additional
in-fill drilling ~planned for 10 acre spacing!.
The original oil in place is estimated at 260 MMSTB with an
estimated ultimate recovery factor of 13.5% ~primary recovery
57.5%, secondary recovery56%! based on the current production and workover schedule. Current Unit production is approximately 3,000 STB/D and 11,000 BWPD at a water injection rate
of 20,000 BWIPD.
The NRU is located in Gaines County, West Texas, on the
northeastern margin of the central basin platform ~Fig. 1!. Production is from the Lower Permian Glorieta and Clear Fork Carbonates. The reservoir interval is thick (gross interval51400 ft).
More than 90% of the interval has uniform lithology ~dolostone!,
but is characterized by a complex pore structure that results in
extensive vertical layering ~see rock type distribution, Fig. 2!. The
reservoir is characterized by discontinuous pay intervals and high
residual oil saturations ~35% to 60%, based on steady state measurements of relative permeability!. The most important immediSPE Reservoir Eval. & Eng., Vol. 2, No. 2, April 1999

Fig. 1Location map of some of the major carbonate fields in

West Texas that have been characterized with the methodology
described in this paper.

ate problem in the field is that values of porosity and saturation

determined from wireline logs do not accurately reflect reservoir
quality and performance. Intervals with relatively low porosity
and high water saturation frequently produce oil at higher rates
than intervals with relatively high values of porosity and low values of water saturation.

Fig. 2Log response profiles and vertical distribution of rock

types, NRU.
Davies, Vessell, and Auman: Reservoir Behavior

Depositional/Diagenetic Model. Permian carbonates in the NRU

were deposited in several environments related to a low relief
shoreline and shallow marine shelf. Small ~a few feet! vertical
fluctuations in sea level caused significant lateral migration of
facies due to lack of vertical relief ~,0.5 ft/mile!. This resulted in
rapid vertical stacking and alternation of deposits of different environments ~facies!. Post-depositional ~diagenetic! dolomitization
resulted in significant blurring of facies boundaries, but this
did not totally eradicate the facies-related layering profile established at the time of deposition: reduction of the original porosity
and permeability and modification of the original pore geometry.
Because of the diagenetic modification of pore structure, there
is no obvious relationship between porosity and permeability ~Fig.
3!. It is not possible to predict permeability with any acceptable
degree of accuracy from knowledge of the porosity. Hence log
identification of potential pay intervals is difficult. Such complex
relationships between porosity and permeability are not confined
to the NRU: they are common in most carbonate reservoirs worldwide because most carbonate rocks have undergone significant
diagenesis.
A method used in many reservoir studies to resolve this dilemma is to relate porosity and permeability to depositional environment. In the NRU, there is no relationship among porosity,
permeability and depositional environment ~Fig. 3!. Different environments have similar ranges of porosity and permeability. This
is not surprising. The carbonates have undergone significant diagenetic alteration of pore geometry in all environments thus there
is no fundamental relationship between depositional environment
and permeability. This problem is common in many diagenetically
altered reservoirs ~sandstones and carbonates!.
Most geological reservoir characterizations are rock oriented:
they stress environments of deposition and lithology. However,
useful models of the reservoir are pore system dependent. Therefore in rocks with complex pore structure, it is necessary to describe the reservoir in terms of pore geometry rather than in terms
of the characteristics of the solid components of the reservoir
~based on environments or lithology!.
Porosity/Permeability Relationship. In the NRU, eight rock
types are identified based on the relative volumetric abundance of
each pore type. While each rock sample normally contains more
than one pore type, most rock types are characterized by one
dominant pore type. For example, rock type 1 is dominated by
pore type A and lacks pore type B; rock type 2 is dominated by
pore types B and C; rock type 8 contains only pore type 8 ~Fig. 4,
Table 1!. Identification of rock types is fundamentally important
because porosity and permeability are related within a specific
pore structure.12
The basic relationship between porosity and permeability exhibits a considerable degree of scatter in the NRU ~up to four
orders of magnitude variation in permeability for a given value of
porosity!. However, porosity and permeability are closely related
for each rock type ~RT! ~Fig. 5!. The rock type relationship with
permeability has an error range of less than one-half decade for
most samples. Regression equations are developed for each rock
type to quantitatively define each relationship ~using log-log plots
to avoid zero porosity intercepts!. These equations are used in the
field-wide prediction of permeability ~permeability being a function of porosity and rock type!.
The slope of the individual regression lines varies among rock
types. This demonstrates the well known independence of pore
body and pore throat size.12 Some methods of flow unit classification assume a constant relationship between pore body and pore
throat size.14,15 This is unfortunate because, in such classification
schemes, the slopes of the porosity-permeability regression lines
SPE Reservoir Eval. & Eng., Vol. 2, No. 2, April 1999

151

Fig. 3Core-derived values of porosity and permeability for principal depositional environments, NRU.

are identical for each rock type. This means that pore bodies and
pore throats increase in size at identical rates in all rock types: an
improbable characteristic of rocks with complex pore systems.
Average values of porosity and permeability are given for each
rock type in Table 2. Rocks with the highest porosity in the NRU
do not have the highest permeability. The principal pay rocks in
the field are rock types 1 and 2. They have significantly lower
values of porosity but higher values of permeability than rock type
4. This has important implications in terms of selecting zones to
perforate. Obviously, zones with the highest porosity should not
152

Davies, Vessell, and Auman: Reservoir Behavior

be the principal targets in this field. Accurate prediction of permeability from wireline logs is therefore of fundamental importance.
Rock/Log Model. The existing database consists of conventional
cores from 8 wells and 120 wells with a relatively complete modern log suite that includes the gamma ray ~GR!, photoelectric
factor ~PEF!, bulk density ~RHoB!, neutron porosity ~PHIN! and
dual laterolog ~Ll!. Pore geometry analysis reveals that eight rock
types occur in the NRU. Six of the rock types are dolostone, one
SPE Reservoir Eval. & Eng., Vol. 2, No. 2, April 1999

Fig. 4Volumetric proportions of

pore types in each rock type.

is limestone ~non-pay: structurally low and wet in this field!, one

is shale ~Table 2!. Individual rock types can be recognized using
specific cut-off values based on analysis of environmentally corrected and normalized log responses and comparison with corebased determination of rock type. The combinations of log responses used to discriminate among rock types in the NRU are the
following.
d Apparent matrix density ~Rhomaa! versus apparent matrix
volumetric photoelectric factor ~Umaa! with gamma ray: allows
discrimination of dolostone ~rock types 1 through 4!, limestone
~rock type 5!, anhydritic dolostone ~rock type 6!, siltstone ~rock
type 7! and shale ~rock type 8! ~Fig. 6!.
d Laterolog shallow ~Lls!, laterolog deep ~Lld! and porosity:
allows discrimination among dolostones and rock types 1 through
4 ~Fig. 7!.
The rock-log model was first developed for five cored wells
only. Subsequently the model was extended to the three remaining
cored wells. Evaluation of cored intervals reveals successful discrimination ~.80%! of each of the principal rock types ~rock
types 1 through 4! despite the fact that the wells were logged by
different companies at different times. Misidentification of rock
type 1 results in identification of rock type 2, while misidentification of rock type 2 results in identification of rock type 1, thus,
there is no significant misidentification of the dominant rock types
by logs over the cored intervals. Much of the misidentification is
due to the fact that eight rock types are identified using five independent log responses, together with normally calculated porosity
and water saturation. The rock type model is extended to all wells
with sufficient log suites in the field ~120 wells in the NRU!.
Specific algorithms allow rock type identification on a foot-by-

foot basis in each well. As has been shown previously ~Fig. 5!,
permeability is a function of rock type and porosity. Rock type
and porosity can be determined from well log responses alone.
Therefore, permeability can be predicted using well log information. This allows the development of a vertical layering profile
based on rock type and permeability in cored and non-cored wells
~Fig. 2!. The resulting reservoir model is numeric, log-based and
suitable for simulation input.
Hydraulic Flow Units. Individual hydraulic flow units ~HFUs!
are identified based on integration of data regarding the distribution of rock types and petrophysical properties ~particularly permeability and fluid content!. Evaluation of these data for 120
wells reveals that rock types are not randomly distributed. The
principal reservoir rocks ~rock types 1 and 2! generally occur in
close association, and they alternate with lower quality rocks
~rock types 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8!. Correlation of rock types between
wells reveals an obvious layering profile in which 12 distinct layers, hydraulic flow units, are distinguished in the NRU.
Maps were prepared for each of the HFUs to illustrate the
distribution of important petrophysical parameters. The distribution of the principal rock types for each HFU was also mapped.
This allows rapid identification of areas of the field dominated by
either high quality or low quality rock. Examples of these maps
and cross sections of hydrodynamic flow units are presented
elsewhere.16
There is a general tendency in the NRU for the higher quality
rocks ~rock types 1 and 2! to occur in discrete belts on the northeast edge of the Unit while lower quality rocks ~rock types 3 and
4! occur in southwest portions of the Unit. Within this general

TABLE 1 PORE TYPE CLASSIFICATION, NRU

Pore Type

Size
(mm)

Shape

Coordination

Aspect Ratio

Pore Arrangement

Geological Description

A
B
C
D
E
F
G

30100
60120
3060
1530
515
35
,3

Triangular
Irregular
Irregular
Polyhedral
Polyhedral
Tetrahedral
Sheet/slot

36
,3
,3
6
6
6
1

50100:1
200:1
100:1
,50:1
,30:1
,20:1
1:1

Interconnected
Isolated
Isolated
Interconnected
Interconnected
Interconnected
Interconnected

Primary interparticle
Shell molds and vugs
Shell molds and vugs
Intercrystalline
Intercrystalline
Intercrystalline
Interboundary sheet and
intercrystalline pores

Davies, Vessell, and Auman: Reservoir Behavior

SPE Reservoir Eval. & Eng., Vol. 2, No. 2, April 1999

153

Fig. 5Core porosity and permeability for dolostone rock types RT 1 through 4, NRU.

trend, perturbations exist in the distribution of permeability. These

perturbations are important because they result in compartmentalization of the reservoir. There are no faults in the NRU. Compartmentalization is entirely stratigraphic. It is the result of areal
variations in the distribution of individual rock types.
Specific log shapes are not unique to each rock type. Thus flow
units cannot be chosen and traced through clusters of wells in the
NRU using a log signature. This is a common problem in most

SSC reservoirs, worldwide. Hence the need to use rock type distribution to determine reservoir quality and to assist in the definition of flow unit continuity.
It is obvious that uniform in-fill drilling is neither prudent nor
warranted due to the stratigraphic compartmentalization and irregular permeability distribution of this reservoir. In-fill drilling
should be restricted to
d areas of the field where rock types 1 and 2 are dominant and

TABLE 2 POROSITY, PERMEABILITY AND LITHOLOGY BY ROCK TYPE, NRU

Rock Type

Median Porosity
(%)

1
2
3
4
5*
6
7
8

5.0
5.6
4.5
7.5
5.8
1.0
2.3

Median Permeability
(md)
1.5
0.2
0.08
0.02
0.40
,0.01
,0.01

Lithology
Dolostone
Dolostone
Dolostone
Dolostone
Limestone
Dolostone (anhydritic)
Siltstone, dolomitic
Shale and argillaceous dolostone

*Structurally low and water-bearing in the NRU.

154

Davies, Vessell, and Auman: Reservoir Behavior

SPE Reservoir Eval. & Eng., Vol. 2, No. 2, April 1999

Fig. 6Differentiating potential pay from non-pay reservoir

rock, NRU.

to areas that have good permeability and hydrocarbon pore volume ~HPVH! characteristics, high primary and secondary recovery, and
d areas of poor reservoir continuity with acceptable porosity
and permeability values, significant abundance of rock types 1, 2
or 3, and good primary but poor secondary recovery.
Application and Results. Comparison of the geological model
with historical production performance data for the NRU reveals
that the producing characteristics of individual wells are a direct
function of local rock type distribution. The reservoir depletes and
re-pressures as a function of rock type throughout all areas of the
Unit.16 Therefore rock type distribution and rock type thickness
per flow unit are important variables that allow us to understand
and to predict reservoir behavior on well-by-well and field-wide
scales.
Maps of historical production characteristics ~contacted oil in
place, estimated ultimate recovery and reservoir pressure! were
compared to maps of rock type distribution, permeability thickness, and hydrocarbon pore volume to identify areas of the Unit
for in-fill drilling. Specific areas targeted for new in-fill wells in
the NRU were areas of the field with a significant thickness of
undrained rock type 3, characterized by relatively low porosity
and low permeability.
Eighteen new wells ~14 producers and 4 injection wells! were
drilled in 1996 on the basis of this integrated geologicalengineering work. These are 10 acre in-fill wells. Initial produc-

Fig. 7Differentiating between pay rock types, NRU.

tion and average production of each well are higher than the historic well average for the field. Field-wide production has
increased by 25% with an increase of only 7% in the total number
of wells in the field.
High Porosity, Slope/Basin Clastic Reservoir
Background. The SBC reservoir study concentrates on the Tar
Zone of Fault Block IIA in Wilmington Field, California ~Fig. 8!.
Wilmington Field was discovered in 1936. It is the third largest oil
field in the U.S. based on total reserves. Approximately 2.4 BBO
have been produced to date from an OOIP of 8.8 BBO. In the Tar
Zone, the oil has a gravity of 14API and a viscosity of 360 cp
and Fault Block IIA is on steamflood. The production history is
summarized in Table 3. Fault Block IIA is developed using a
7-spot pattern with a well spacing of 7.5 acres and currently has
39 injection and 57 production wells. Steam is supplied at the rate
of 395 mmBtu/hr, 1250 psig at 80% steam quality ~25,500 bbl/d
cold water equivalent!. Reservoir pressures are maintained at 700
to 900 psi to prevent surface subsidence. Temperatures in the
steam chest reach 500 to 540F.
Depositional/Diagenetic Model. The Tar Zone produces oil from
two, unconsolidated, fine grained, lithologically complex ~arkosic!
sands in the Pliocene Repetto Formation ~T and D Sand Intervals,
Fig. 9!. The sands in these Intervals were deposited in heterogeneous, turbidite reservoirs. Internal reservoir compartmentalization is common ~both vertical and areal! due to the deposition of

Fig. 8Location map, Wilmington Field.

Davies, Vessell, and Auman: Reservoir Behavior

SPE Reservoir Eval. & Eng., Vol. 2, No. 2, April 1999

155

TABLE 3 SUMMARY OF PRODUCTION HISTORY,

FAULT BLOCK IIA, TAR ZONE
Production Mode Time Period
Primary
Waterflood
Steamflood
Total

19371960
19601982
19821/1/96
19371/1/96

Oil Recovery Recovery Factor

(mbbls)
(%)
15,201
8,299
8,422
31,922

15.4
8.4
8.4
32.2

individual sand beds by successive turbidites. Individual sand

beds range in thickness from 1 to 20 ft, with most beds being less
than 10 ft thick. Very thick ~.3 ft! sand beds are the result of
amalgamation of the deposits of successive turbidites. Individual
sand beds experienced different transport histories, i.e., different
hydrodynamic regimes established during deposition. Changes in
the hydrodynamic regime, such as changes in flow characteristics
~turbulent or laminar!, flow velocities, and internal sediment concentration, significantly influence the vertical and lateral distribution of important rock parameters, such as grain size, sorting and
grain compositionall of which act as significant, fundamental
controls of the permeability.
Sandstones of the Tar Zone have values of porosity that range
between 30% and 40% and values of permeability that range from
400 to 8,000 md, with a weighted average of 1000 md. Formation
evaluation is complicated by the fact that the permeability of potentially productive sand intervals ranges over several orders of
magnitude for any value of porosity ~Fig. 10!. Log-based formation evaluation is complicated by the fact that stratigraphically
equivalent intervals in different wells can have the same porosity
but significantly different values of permeability.
Porosity/Permeability Relationship. It is generally recognized
that the relationship between porosity and permeability is
asymptotic when plotted arithmetically. For values of porosity
between 0% to 65%, the rate of permeability increase is low ~the
least squares line has a low slope!. For porosity values between
65 and 25%, the rate of permeability increase is relatively high
~the least squares line has a high slope!. Above 625% porosity,
the rate of permeability increase is low ~the least squares line has
a low slope!.

Routine core analysis data from the Tar Zone reveal that all
rock samples have high values of porosity ~generally .25%, Fig.
10!. Image analysis of porosity in the scanning electron microscope confirms the core measured values for rock samples. This is
also confirmed by log analysis. The relationship between porosity
and permeability reveals the following.
d Between values of 25% and 40% porosity, values of permeability increase slowly ~as predicted from general theory!.
d The basic relationship exhibits a considerable degree of scatter ~more than three orders of magnitude variation in permeability
for a given value of porosity, Fig. 10!.
Five rock types have been quantitatively identified in the Tar
Zone on the basis of a combination of lithology ~from macroscopic core analysis! and image analysis of pore body and pore
throat size ~Table 4!. Rock types 1, 2 and 3 ~shale-free, arkosic
sandstones, high quality reservoir rocks! are differentiated solely
on the basis of measured pore geometrical characteristics ~size of
pore bodies and pore throats!. There is no compositional or grain
size difference among each of these rock types. Rock types 4 and
5 are differentiated lithologically, specifically by using the volume
of shale ~rock type 4, V shale 5% to 40%: Rock Type 5, V shale
.40%!.
The wide dispersion of porosity/permeability data ~Fig. 10! reflects changes in the distribution of pore types ~pores with bodies
and throats of varying size! within the Tar Zone. Virtually all
pores ~.95%! in the sandstones are of primary intergranular origin. The coordination number ~number of pore throats per pore! is
uniform for all pore types ~66!. The difference in the pore types
is the pore body size and the size of the pore throats that interconnect the adjacent pores ~Table 4!. Pore body and pore throat
size are fundamentally controlled by sorting ~range of grain sizes!
of the sand grains.
Permeability varies largely as a function of rock type in the Tar
Zone. Intervals with identical values of porosity have significantly
different values of permeability. While there is some degree of
overlap between rock types 1 and 2, it can be seen that porosity
and permeability are closely related within each rock type ~Fig.
10!. This confirms the early work of Calhoun who pointed out that
there is a close relationship between porosity and permeability
within rocks with a specified pore geometry.12
Algorithms have been developed that relate porosity to permeability for the four sandstone rock types with routine core analysis

Fig. 9Characteristic log response profiles and

vertical distribution of rock types, Well
UP901B, Wilmington Field.

156

Davies, Vessell, and Auman: Reservoir Behavior

SPE Reservoir Eval. & Eng., Vol. 2, No. 2, April 1999

Fig. 10Core porosity and permeability by rock type, Tar zone, Wilmington Field.

measurements ~rock types 1 through 4, Table 5!. Porosity/

permeability algorithms for values of porosity .25% are based on
the measured core data. No data exist for low porosity rock in this
area. Simple linear extrapolation of these algorithms to values of
low porosity results in calculation of excessively high values of
permeability. This is obviously incorrect. Thus, we have extrapolated the porosity/permeability relationship for each rock type
from values of 25% porosity though an intercept at 0% porosity
and 0.1 md permeability.
No petrophysical measurements exist for rock type 5 ~shale!.
The permeability has been estimated as ,0.01 md based on measurement of pore throat size ~from direct scanning electron microscope analysis!.
Davies, Vessell, and Auman: Reservoir Behavior

Rock Type Identification. Individual rock types can be identified

using specific cut-off values based on analysis of environmentally corrected and normalized well log responses and using the
comparison of the core-based determination of rock type. Rock
types 1 through 4 are identified using a cross plot of apparent
grain density versus the logarithm of the absolute value of the
separation between the resistivity of the flushed zone ~Rxo! and
the resistivity of the uninvaded zone ~Rt! ~Figs. 11 and 12!. Rock
type 5 ~shale! is identified using the gamma ray log ~.37 API
units of gamma ray5shale lithology based on the macroscopic
core description!. Rock types can thereby be identified, foot-byfoot, in all wells with a sufficient logging suite.
SPE Reservoir Eval. & Eng., Vol. 2, No. 2, April 1999

157

TABLE 4 ROCK TYPE CHARACTERISTICS, TAR ZONE

Rock Type

Median Porosity
(%)

Median Permeability
(md)

1
2
3
4

32
33
35
33

2000
1100
300
7

Lithology
Clean sandstone*
Clean sandstone*
Clean sandstone*
Shaly siltstone/
sandstone**
Shale***

Pore Diameter
(mm)

Pore Throat Radius

(mm)

50150
2050
1020
,5

510
25
,2
,1

*Less than 5% Vshale.

**10% to 40% Vshale.
***More than 40% Vshale (based on petrographic analysis).

Shale Volume Calculation. Log shale indicators have been calibrated to actual values of measured shale from petrographic
analysis; see the log track labeled Rock Calibrated ~Fig. 9!.
This is a very important analytical procedure in the petrophysical
interpretation of these sands ~and any sand with complex
mineralogy/lithology! because wireline logs are affected by nonshale components: radioactive sand grains such as orthoclase feldspar, mica and metamorphic rock fragments; heavy minerals such
as siderite, pyrite; and grains with high hydrogen content, such as
altered metamorphic and igneous rock fragments. Traditional
techniques of shale volume calculation using gamma ray, neutrondensity separation or apparent matrix density ~Rhomaa! incorrectly calculate these structural ~framework! components as shale.
One of the biggest problems in the Tar Zone is that traditional
log interpretation techniques yield an average shale volume ~V
shale! of 17% in the productive sandstones ~see log track headed
Scaled in Fig. 9!. This is a significant error because the clean
sands ~rock types 1, 2 and 3! contain ,1% V shale, based on
direct measurement of rock samples. Production experience during waterflood and steamflood operations reveals no shale-related
problems in this field.
For this study we have calibrated all wireline log shale indicators to the results of petrographic analysis in cored wells. These
indicators include the gamma ray, Rhomaa, PHIN and neutrondensity separation. A composite algorithm is developed for logbased, shale volume determination ~track labeled Rock Calibrated, Fig. 9!. The shale volume correction algorithm,
developed in the cored wells, is applied to all wells in the field

TABLE 5 RELATIONSHIP OF POROSITY TO

PERMEABILITY, TAR ZONE
Rock
Type
1

158

because the non-shale, radioactive sand grains occur throughout

the reservoir interval. In addition, we have corrected for thin bed
effects using macroscopic core descriptions and the logarithm of
the absolute values of separation between Rxo and Rt versus fractional neutron porosity ~Fig. 13!.
Permeability Prediction. Log derived values of porosity are derived using shale-corrected neutron and density porosity values
with appropriate corrections for the zones that have been steamed.
In a clean, non-steamed sand, the density and neutron curves
stack. The presence of steam in the near well bore region significantly affects the neutron response. The neutron porosity log in
this field reads several porosity units lower than the density log
where there is steam. The effect on the density log is negligible.
Steam corrections have been made through reconstruction of the
neutron porosity curve by regressing RHoB and PHIN data.
As was shown earlier ~Fig. 10!, permeability is a function of
porosity and rock type. Since rock type and porosity can be determined from well log response, permeability can be predicted
using well log responses only. This enables a vertical layering
profile based on rock type and permeability in cored and noncored wells to be developed ~Fig. 9!.
Hydraulic Flow Units. Individual hydraulic flow units are identified based on rock type distribution ~each rock type represents a
different flow unit!. Evaluation of these data reveals that the rock
types are not randomly distributed. The principal rock types ~rock
types 1 and 2! occur in close association and alternate with one
another. Lower quality rocks ~rock types 3, 4 and 5! tend to occur
together and alternate with one another. There is a direct relationship between rock type and potential producibility. The highest
quality sand in Wilmington Field ~D sand, Fig. 8! consists predominantly of rock type 1 with a lesser net footage of rock type 2.

Porosity-Permeability Algorithm
If porosity>0.25
then K 510
@ (1.100* porosity)12.940#
If porosity>0.25
then K 510
@ (2.2474* porosity)12.227#
If porosity>0.25
then K 510
@ (1.697* porosity)11.840#
If porosity>0.25
then K 510
@ (0.746* porosity)10.526#
If rock type 5 then
K 50.01

If porosity,0.25
then K 510
@ (16.8* porosity)21 #
If porosity,0.25
then K 510
@ (15.2* porosity)21 #
If porosity,0.25
then K 510
@ (12.8* porosity)21 #
If porosity,0.25
then K 510
@ (6.8* porosity)21 #

Davies, Vessell, and Auman: Reservoir Behavior

Fig. 11Rock type identification plot: Discrimination of rock

types 1 and 2 from 3 and 4.
SPE Reservoir Eval. & Eng., Vol. 2, No. 2, April 1999

quality. It allows identification of areas of the reservoir characterized by ~i! high values of porosity, permeability, and HPVH, ~ii!
thick sequences of potentially productive rock, and ~iii! compartmentalization.
6. The technique uses existing data and can eliminate the need
for evaluation wells. In some reservoirs it can reduce the number of required well tests, thereby minimizing the loss of production that occurs when wells are shut in for testing purposes. These
DOE-sponsored studies reveal that comprehensive analysis, interpretation and prediction of well and field performance can be
completed quickly ~on the order of weeks or months for complex
fields with large numbers of wells!, at minimal cost.
Fig. 12Discrimination of rock types 3 and 4.

The lower quality, highly compartmentalized T sand consists predominantly of rock type 2 with a significant net footage of rock
types 3, 4 and 5.
The net footage of each rock type is determined for each well
and each zone. This allows rapid, computer based mapping of the
distribution of each rock type throughout the Field.
In Wilmington Field, the relative rate of fluid recovery was
correctly predicted for two DOE-sponsored field development areas ~an in-fill area and a step-out area! using the permeability
model developed here. Thus permeability modeling is of value in
the planning of field development programs in unconsolidated
rocks with high values of porosity.
Conclusions
1. Measurement of pore geometrical parameters allows an improved prediction of permeability and permeability distribution
from wireline logs in partially cored intervals, and in adjacent
uncored intervals and adjacent uncored wells. It improves the prediction of reservoir quality in non-cored intervals for improved
completions and for EOR decisions.
2. Detailed pore geometrical attributes allow a definition of
hydraulic flow units to be made. These attributes can be related to
log response, thus allowing the development of a field-wide, logbased reservoir model.
3. Existing logs and cores can be used to develop a pore
geometry-based, predictive model of permeability and well behavior for in-fill and step-out wells. This allows optimum planning of
field development projects.
4. Uniform well spacing patterns in heterogeneous reservoirs
are not prudent because of the existence of significant areal variations in permeability. In-fill drill patterns should be based on the
distribution of kH and HPVH.
5. The reservoir characterization methodology used in this
study can be used in reservoirs of widely differing lithologies and

Fig. 13Lithology determination numbers5V shale%.

Davies, Vessell, and Auman: Reservoir Behavior

Nomenclature
214 5 constant ~Ref. 13!
d 5 diameter of pore throat ~mm!
cp 5 centipoise
Acknowledgments
We gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the US Department of Energy, Class II and Class III Oil Programs, Fina Oil
and Chemical Company and Tidelands Oil Production Company.
References
1. Pande, P.K.: The NRU-DOE Prospectus, Fina Oil and Chemical
Co., Midland, Texas ~1995!, p. 8.
2. Clelland, W.D. and Fens, T.W.: Automated Rock Characterization
With SEM/Image-Analysis Techniques, SPE Formation Eval. 6,
437 ~1991!; Trans., AIME 291.
3. Ehrlich, R. and Davies, D.K.: Image Analysis of Pore Geometry:
Relationship to Reservoir Engineering and Modeling, Paper SPE
19054, Presented at the 1989 SPE Gas Technology Symposium, Dallas, 79 June.
4. Wardlaw, N.C.: Pore Geometry of Carbonate Rocks As Revealed by
Pore Casts and Capillary Pressure, AAPG Bull. 60, 245257 ~1976!.
5. Muskat, M.: Flow of Homogeneous Fluids Through Porous Media,
McGrawHill, New York ~1937!, p. 763.
6. Leverett, M.C., Flow of Oil Water Mixtures Through Unconsolidated Sands, Trans., AIME 15 ~1941!.
7. Wardlaw, N.C.: The Effects of Pore Structure on Displacement Efficiency in Reservoir Rocks and in Glass Micromodels, Paper SPE
8843, Presented at the 1980 SPE/DOE Symposium on Enhanced Oil
Recovery, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 2023 April.
8. Myers, M.T.: Pore Combination Modeling: a Technique for Modeling the Permeability and Resistivity Properties of Complex Pore Systems, Paper SPE 22662, Presented at the 1991 SPE Ann. Tech.
Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, 69 October.
9. Li, Y. and Wardlaw, N.C.: The Influence of Wettability and Critical
Pore-Throat Size Ratio on Snap-Off, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 109,
461472 ~1986!.
10. Wardlaw, N.C. and Cassan, J.P.: Estimation of Recovery Efficiency
by Visual Observation of Pore Systems in Reservoir Rocks, Bull.
Can. Pet. Geol. 26, 572585 ~1978!.
11. Archer, J.S. and Wall, C.G.: Petroleum Engineering Principles and
Practice, Graham and Trotman, Ltd., London ~1986! p. 362.
12. Calhoun, J.C.: Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering, Univ. Oklahoma Press, Norman ~1960! p. 426.
13. Washburn, E.W.: Note on a Method of Determining the Distribution
of Pore Sizes in a Porous Material, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 7,
115116 ~1921!.
14. Amaefule, J.O. et al.: Enhanced Reservoir Description: Using Core
and Log Data To Identify Hydraulic ~Flow! Units and Predict Permeability in Uncored Wells, paper SPE 26436, Presented at the 1993
SPE Ann. Tech. Conference and Exhibition, Houston, 36 October.
15. Martin, A.J., Solomon, S.T., and Hartman, D.J.: Characterization of
Petrophysical Flow Units in Carbonate Reservoirs, AAPG Bull. 81,
734759 ~1997!.
16. Davies, D.K., Vessell, R.K., Doublet, L.E., and Blasingame, T.A.:
Improved Characterization of Reservoir Behavior by Integration of
Reservoir Performance Data and Rock Type Distributions, ProceedSPE Reservoir Eval. & Eng., Vol. 2, No. 2, April 1999

159

ings of the 4th International Reservoir Characterization Conference,

U.S. Dept. of Energy and AAPG, Houston, 1997.

SI Metric Conversion Factors

acre 3 4.046 873
API 141.5/~131.51API!
bbl 3 1.589 874
Btu 3 1.055 056
cp 3 1.0*
ft 3 3.048*
F ~F232!/1.8
mile 3 1.609 344*
psi 3 6.894 757

E103 5
5
E201 5
E100 5
E203 5
E201 5
5
E100 5
E100 5

*Conversion factor is exact.

m2
g/cm3
m3
kJ
Pa-s
m
C
km
kPa
SPEREE

David K. Davies is president of David K. Davies and

Assocs. Inc. in Houston. He can be reached at
dkdavies@earthlink.net. He has been involved in the integrated analysis, evaluation and characterization of hydrocarbon reservoirs for more than 35 years. His current interests in--

160

Davies, Vessell, and Auman: Reservoir Behavior

clude the detailed analysis of reservoir pore systems, the development of quantitative geological reservoir models, and
integration of geological and engineering data in complex,
fractured reservoirs. He holds BS, PhD, and DSc degrees in geology from the U. of Wales, Swansea, and an MS degree in
geology from Louisiana State U. Davies is past SPE Distinguished Lecturer on clays and formation damage. Richard K.
Vessell is Vice President of Operations for David K. Davies and
Assocs. Inc. He can be reached at dkdavies@earthlink.net. His
current areas of interest include integration of quantitative
geological and petrophysical data for improved reservoir
characterization and evaluation. He holds BS degree from U.
of Southern Illinois, an MS degree from U. of Missouri-Columbia,
and a PhD from Texas Tech U., all in geology. John B. Auman
is senior petrophysical engineer for David K. Davies and Assocs. Inc., where he directs the Advanced Petrophysical
Laboratory and is involved in evaluation of petrophysical and
engineering data for reservoir description and evaluation. He
can be reached at dkdavies@earthlink.net. He holds a BS degree from U. of Missouri-Rolla in petroleum engineering.

SPE Reservoir Eval. & Eng., Vol. 2, No. 2, April 1999