SPE
International
SPE 98808
Net-To-Gross Ratios: Implications in Integrated Reservoir Management
Studies.
Emmanuel Egbele, Ifeanyi Ezuka*, Laser Engineering and Resources Consultants, Port Harcourt
Michael Onyekonwu, PTDF Research Group, University of Port Harcourt
Copyright 2005, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 29th Annual SPE International
Technical Conference and Exhibition in Abuja, Nigeria August 1-3 2005
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee
following review of the information contained in an abstract submitted by the
author(s). The materials as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position
of the society of petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented
at SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the
Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for
commercial purposes 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 acknowledgement of where and by whom the
paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson., TX
75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Geoscientists and reservoir engineers are very well
acquainted with the terms “net-to-gross (NTG)” and
“petrophysical cut-offs” or just “cut-offs”. The
significance of these terms is ultimately to define
productive zones in the reservoir for hydrocarbon
exploitation. However, there has been marked
misunderstanding surrounding the usage of the term,
net-to-gross and implicitly, the derivation of cut-offs
which are limiting values used in expressing the net-
to-gross ratio. While the geologist may be concerned
with the pay for evaluating hydrocarbon-in-place and
the ultimately the estimation of economically
producible reserves, the simulation engineer is more
concerned with fluid flow for pressure support in the
reservoir1.
The significance of this paper is to consider the
different cut-offs selection methods, the varying
interpretation of net-to-gross ratios and the
implications inherent in such methods. A case study
from a field in the Niger Delta is also carried out to
reveal the impact of such selection criteria especially
in rocks with congenital weak hydraulic properties
which cannot be excluded at geologic correlation
stage2. The effect of cut-off parameters on oil-
initially-in-place (OIIP) calculation was also
investigated and a sensitivity analysis carried out on
the petrophysical parameters to reveal the impact of
the dynamically conditioned cut-offs selection on the
petrofacies. Multiple Monte Carlo realizations were
also employed to obtain probabilistic OIIP estimates
rather than a single deterministic result.
Introduction
* Now with Subsurface Assets, Lagos
Society of Petroleum Engineers
Over the decades, the term net-to-gross and by
extension, cut-offs have been extensively used in the
oil industry especially by petrophysicists, reservoir
geologists, and reservoir/simulation engineers. It is a
basic reservoir parameter used for solving various
problems ranging from OIIP calculations to reservoir
flow simulation as one among several other variables
to determine and predict reservoir performance.
However there has been a great deal of confusion
arising from the ways these parameters are defined,
derived, and used. The fact actually is that it actually
depends on the professionals involved, the
circumstance of their usage, and the intended
deliverables. Therefore, there have been no clear-cut
definitions for these terms since most investigators do
not explain the methodology involved in arriving at
their own results.
These have led to errors in areas of volumetric
calculations, recovery factor calculations, welltest
interpretations, stimulation design, and equity
determination among others3.
Different Concepts
There are no definite set rules or universally accepted
definitions for all the several net-to-gross
relationships except that they are aimed at describing
reservoir ability to store and transmit fluids. Literally,
cut-offs are simply limiting values above or below
which values can be accepted or rejected – a sort of
threshold. Net-to-gross is expressed in fractions
resulting from the application of cut-offs or limiting
values. The values range from 0 to 1.0. Some
pertinent questions must be asked at this point: What
gross parameter is to be “netted”? What are the
intended deliverables? Against which of the
“grosses” should the net parameter be applied?
This becomes expedient in the light of the several
terms used by different investigators such as gross
thickness, gross reservoir, gross pay and their net
equivalents. The answers eventually border on the
intended purpose and the professional involved.
The main question to be asked is “what is the
meaning of “net-to-gross”? Actually it means
2 Net-To-Gross Ratios: Implications in Integrated Reservoir Management Studies.
anything close to nothing if not expatiated upon.
There are different answers to this question
depending on the perspective from which one views
and understand it. To be quite explicit when reporting
on net-to-gross ratios, one should explicitly say “net-
to-gross reservoir”, “net-to-gross pay” or whatever
suffixes that might suffice. Here another problem
arises. Does net-to-gross reservoir mean net-
reservoir-to-gross-thickness or net-reservoir-to-gross-
reservoir? Likewise, does net-to-gross pay mean net-
pay-to-gross-reservoir or net-pay-to-gross-pay? Are
we really comparing apples to apples?
In their work, Worthington & Cosentino, 2003
compiled cut-offs selection by different investigators.
They revealed several cut-off parameters ranging
from Shale Volume, porosity, permeability, Water
Saturation, Deep Resistivity, Movable Hydrocarbon
Index among others. The cumulative application of
all the parameters delivers the net pay or other
variations of it. However some of the definitions of
net pay may not even coincide with each other. The
most common parameters that run across most of the
investigators choice are φ, Vsh, Sw, and k.
Several investigators have defined different and
sometimes overlapping classifications as a result of
applying petrophysical cut-off parameters at different
stages in a field study. A comparison of a few of the
classification is made against the adopted ones in this
paper (Table 1).
The most common features among all the
classifications are ‘net reservoir’ and ‘net pay’.
Essentially, reservoir means any rock volume capable
of flowing any fluid, including water, under ideal
conditions while pay means the portion that
‘contains’ hydrocarbon1. Net reservoir and net pay
are subset of the reservoir and pay respectively and
are determined by application of various cut-offs as
would have been previously defined.
Exclusive fit-for-purpose Net-To-Gross Ratio
Net-to-gross usage should be guided by the purpose
of its intended use. There are two main instances
where net-to-gross ratios are adopted. One of the
most common usages is for dynamic flow simulation.
The NTG ratio of preference to the simulation
engineer is the NTG reservoir which is used in
reservoir flow simulators to determine the rock
volume holding mobile fluids such as gas, oil, or
water. Here the cut-offs applied are intended to
define a net-to-gross ratio that is a measure of the
continuity of the reservoir1.
On the other hand, volumetric calculation i.e OIIP
estimation is another avenue of NTG ratio usage. In
this case the NTG pay is adopted. This is where more
controversy abounds regarding the differing
definitions among industry professionals. An SPE
Applied Technology Workshop opined that “the
SPE 98808
petrophysical/geology view is that net pay represents
that portion of the rock that ‘contains’ hydrocarbons,
whereas the reservoir engineer views net pay as being
that portion of the rock that ‘contains and produces’
hydrocarbons”3. Also the net pay is dependent on the
reservoir drive mechanism and stage of depletion. It
was also agreed that cut-off be related to the recovery
factor. Invariably, by the rule of thumb, the greater
the admitted thickness, the greater the OIIP due to a
less stringent cut-off selection, therefore the lower
the recovery factor will be. However, it is necessary
to state that recovery factor depends on other factors
such as
Reservoir characteristics (Column thickness,
presence of gas, aquifer, So, permeability/profile,
pressure)
Hydrocarbon characteristics (Viscosity, density,
GOR)
Recovery method (Primary, Artificial lift,
Secondary, Tertiary)
Economics (Location, price)
Operating conditions (Government /
Environment laws, operational expenses)
From the above, it is quite obvious that recovery
factor calculation is a function of many variables and
not just the net-to-gross pay ratio. It is therefore
ambiguous to talk about the net pay in terms of
producibility of hydrocarbon. The recovery factor is a
ratio of produced oil to oil-originally-in-place and
will vary according to the well spacing, reservoir
permeability, fluid viscosity, and the effectiveness of
the drive mechanism. Some authors have even
documented a recovery factor of 30% or more for
sands and 10-20% for carbonates4,5. The issue of
recovery factor as it affects cut-offs selection is out of
the scope of this study. We will therefore want to
emphasis on the net pay that is likely to flow, hence
not being overly optimistic in the estimation of OIIP.
This is where we consider the term dynamically
conditioned cut-off. Here static cut-off parameters
like Vsh, φ, and Sw tied back to a dynamic parameter
like permeability, pore geometry factor (k/φ)0.5, or
mobility (k/µ, where µ is fluid viscosity) depending
on the reservoir depletion mechanism and stage of
depletion2. Also the static parameters are tied to each
other reflecting a trend rather than the more
subjective isolated cut-offs selection.
Case Study
All the principles and theories enunciated in this
study were implemented in a real-life situation with
sample data from a heterogeneous Formation in the
Niger Delta Province in Southern Nigeria. The
onshore field is located some 80km North-west of
Port Harcourt and was discovered in 1975 (Fig. 1).
The field is 7.5 km long and 3.5 km wide with a
SPE 98808 Egbele, E., Ezuka, I., Onyekonwu, M.
major east-west trending fault. There are other minor
synthetic faults hading southwards towards the coast.
On the whole, eight hydrocarbon-bearing levels were
discovered in the field, but the major one of interest
is the E5, an oil bearing reservoir which is an
amalgamated sand series encompassing three distinct
petrofacies observed in most of the well logs.
Data Availability
There were a total of nine wells available for this
study. They are 11101, 11102, 11104, 11105, 11106,
11107, 11109, 11111, and 11112. They are all
straight holes. A conventional core analysis data was
obtained for only Well 11105. The conventional
Lithology, Resistivity, and porosity logs were run in
all the wells (Table 2). The wells all have an average
well-to-well spacing of 1km thereby making the
interval of interest (E5) very correlatable.
Petrophysical Evaluation
The well logs were initially corrected for any
environmental effects and tool malfunction in the
course of logging. These processes are all part of the
data preparation stage to ensure accuracy and
precision of the sampled data points.
The true Formation Resistivity (Rt) was obtained
from the Deep Laterolog Log (LLD) with the
accompanying Microspherically Focused Log
(MSFL) for the flushed-zone resistivity measurement.
The formation water resistivity (Rw) of 0.125Ωm was
obtained from salinity measurements and was
thereafter temperature and depth corrections were
carried out for all the nine wells.
The normalized Volume of Shale (Vsh) in the
reservoir was calculated from the Gamma Ray logs in
all the wells using the gamma index, IGR.
Porosity was one of the measured core parameters.
However since the entire reservoir depth was not
cored, a core porosity-bulk density transform was
generated. This proved particularly useful in
obtaining the entire reservoir core porosity with a
high R2 of 0.674. The porosity obtained from core
data was further correlated with porosity calculated
from log using the formation density log. The
average grain density of 2.65g/cc obtained from core
measurements was used and a fluid density of
1.00g/cc was chosen. The correlation of
determination obtained was 0.839 (Fig. 2)6.
The modified Simandoux equation was used to
calculate water saturation. This is to account for the
heterogeneous nature of the reservoir due to shale
intercalations. In addition to the true formation
resistivity and formation water resistivity, the two
other main inputs into the equations are the Archie
parameters m and n i.e. the cementation factor and
saturation exponent respectively. These parameters
3
are exponentials and hence are sensitive to the water
saturation calculations. Since the exponents are
reservoir-sensitive, we used our core data to plot the
Archie equation:
a
F= .............................................................(1)
φm
This was transformed to give the straight line
equation given as:
Log F = log a – m log φ ......................................(2)
where F is the formation factor and φ is the measured
core porosity. a is the tortuosity factor, m is the
cementation factor
A log-log plot of F vs. φ resulted in 1.60 for a and
1.87 for m (Fig. 3). A value of 2.00 was assigned to n
as published in literature from experiments carried
out4,5,6. The m value was consistent with the Niger
Delta Province sands which are moderately cemented
(Fig. 4)5. Since the exponents m and n contribute
significantly to the water saturation results, a
sensitivity test was performed on them to ensure
accurate results.
Only the Well 11105 was cored and measured
permeability values provided. The well log data were
tied to the permeability measured from the log to
enable us select the curves which implicitly affects
formation permeability. Finally, gamma ray, deep
resistivity and bulk density logs were chosen since
they measure rock properties that determine
permeability7,8. A display of the curves shows this
relationship (Fig. 5). This is against the classical
porosity-permeability relationship which is more
reliable in only homogenous facies with similar pore
throat geometry9,10. Research has shown that porosity
is not the only factor that affects permeability which
produces a linear trend line but rather they are related
by a complex non-linear relationships7,8,10.
The E5 sand was then subdivided into the three
earlier mentioned petrofacies units. This is because
the flow regime of these units will differ markedly
and therefore need to be treated separately. The
multiple regression technique was chosen to estimate
permeability for the other uncored wells7,8. This has
proved to be more accurate than empirical models
obtainable from literature12,13. The results obtained
from the multiple regression models are shown in
Table 3. The measured and predicted permeability
values reveal a very good relationship (Fig. 6)
indicating the applicability of the model. These
equations are then applied to other wells which have
been hitherto correlated.
Systematic/Synergic Cut-offs Definitions
As stated earlier, the mode of cut-offs selection is
instrumental to its intended deliverable. Therefore a
4 Net-To-Gross Ratios: Implications in Integrated Reservoir Management Studies.
systematic approach is adopted in this study. The
terms used in this study include:
(a) Gross Reservoir: This is the total interval of
reservoir from the top to the bottom including tight
rocks and shaly or silty components. No cut-off
whatsoever is applied here.
(b) Net Reservoir: This is the total thickness of the
reservoir component referred to as having reservoir
quality rock. Here the tight rock and shaly
components inhibiting flow are filtered off. The Vsh
and φ are applied here.
(c) Gross Pay: This is the interval that will contain
and may flow hydrocarbons but will also include
substantial quantities of water. This is a subset of the
net reservoir and considers only the portion already
demarcated. The interval is defined by including Sw
cut-off and eliminating the depths below the Oil-
Water-Contact (OWC). This classification follows a
hierarchical approach as against Etris and Stewart
classification that filters a portion to define the net
reservoir but includes it in the gross pay.
(d) Net Pay: This is the total thickness the reservoir
quality rock that allows flow of not just hydrocarbon
but rather “water-free” hydrocarbon. This is where
the bulk volume water (BVW) cut-off is applied. This
parameter is quite important in the light of the fact
that there have been numerous instances where zones
with high water saturation have produced water-free
hydrocarbons and others with low saturation has
produced high water-cuts14. This is because of the
pore throat size which controls fluid flow and
contributes to hydrocarbon productivity. This is
particularly applicable to wells that encounter an Oil-
Water-Contact thereby introducing a transitional
zone. The plot of porosity against water saturation
commonly known as the “Buckles plot” serves as the
tool to determine this parameter. This shows the
inverse relationship of porosity and water saturation
represented by hyperbolae at different saturations
(arithmetically) or by straight lines (logarithmically).
In effect, the cut-off parameters taken into
consideration include Vsh, φ, Sw, OWC, and BVW
(Fig. 6). In other to ensure that they are
systematically implemented, porosity is tied to
permeability and then tied to the other parameters
showing the trend of the data points.
Application of Principles
In other to get the best of this approach, it is
expedient that each well is treated distinctly since the
reservoir is heterogeneous and will therefore not
reveal the same hydraulic properties across the entire
field and even in the same petrofacies. However, due
to the large number of wells being investigated, this
may prove tedious. Hence we adopted the Well
11105 as our “type” or “marker” well due to its
SPE 98808
position relative to others and a fairly high degree of
correlation among all the wells. Figs. 8-10 shows the
different plots used to select cut-off values for the
different parameters in Well 11105. As can be
observed from the plots, rather than tie any traditional
permeability cut-off values to porosity, each
petrofacies plot is allowed to produce its own unique
φ-log (k) cut-off values. Thereafter the porosity is
tied to Vsh and Sw. Each selection of φ and Sw are
subsequently used to obtain the BVW cut-off from
the Buckles plot. It can also be observed from the
plots that two best fit lines are drawn representing the
reservoir quality and non-reservoir quality portion of
the reservoir.
In addition, rather than having just a value as the
result of the intended deliverable, we decided to use
the probabilistic approach by having some scenarios
with one acting as the base case then at one extreme
we have the most optimistic option and at the other
end, we have the most pessimistic option. Using this
approach, we arrived at a set of cut-off values for the
three petrofacies (Table 4).
Implications in Integrated Field Studies
The impact of exclusive cut-offs selection and by
implication the net-to-gross ratio has its attendant and
far-reaching effect in integrated field study. One of
the most common usages of the net-to-gross ratio is
the net pay thickness which is necessary in
volumetric computations especially of OIIP. In static
modelling, cells are assigned their petrofacies-
controlled net pay values and the volumetric
computation is a direct summation of the contribution
of individual cells, for each of which hydrocarbon
saturation has been calculated. In our case study, the
log-derivable cut-offs has been tied to a dynamic
parameter – i.e. permeability thereby delivering the
“dynamic or producible hydrocarbon in place”2.
The second common usage of net-to-gross ratio is the
net reservoir thickness which is used in flow
simulation. This is important because it “can provide
useful projections of the volume of the reservoir that
is connected for different cut-off
scenarios/realizations” the flow simulators require
flowing water as much as hydrocarbons since it
provides the much needed aquifer support. The actual
volumetric computation is then achieved by inputting
capillary pressure and relative permeability functions
into the simulator while taking into account the oil-
water-contact.
Results and Discussion
After applying the cut-off criteria shown in Table 4 to
the wells, the net pay parameters were used to
calculate the OIIP for the different petrofacies and
scenarios. This is a sensitivity analysis to investigate
the effect of the parameters on the OIIP values. The
plot of relative OIIP against porosity cut-off is shown
SPE 98808 Egbele, E., Ezuka, I., Onyekonwu, M. 5

in Fig. 11. Furthermore, multiple realizations using So Oil Saturation

Monte Carlo simulation was carried by inputting rock
parameters with particular distributions (Tables 5). It
yielded probabilistic OIIP results with P10, P50, P90,
and mean values. The fairly low deviation shows a
narrow spread that the selected parameters will not
alter the STOIIP result considerably (Fig. 12 and
Table 6).
Conclusion
There are no universally accepted definitions for the
different net-to-gross parameters and the cut-off
criteria by which they are obtained. The next
alternative will be the need for geologists
Petrophysicists or other professionals involved in
using the net-to-gross ratios to define what they mean
and the yardstick used to arrive at such decisions.
This will reduce the guessing game and ambiguity
surrounding the usage of these terms. Also there is
need to adopt a systematic and synergic approach to
achieving the desired deliverables. A good cut-off
selection procedure will serve as a very useful input
in an integrated field management study. The
following suggestions are proposed in this paper.
1. Using explicit definitions and explanation of the
net-to-gross terms will enhance the
understanding and better application of the ratios
2. Adopting an algorithm for discriminating parts
of a reservoir with congenitally weak hydraulic
properties will avoid overestimation of
volumetrics.
3. Defining different sets of cut-off values for the
different petrofacies in a reservoir with similar
flow paths is necessary as their pore-throat
geometries are very dissimilar.
4. Tying of petrophysical cut-off parameters to
dynamic parameters like permeability so as to
delineate intervals of commercial producibility.
5. Adopting a probabilistic approach by using a
range of values for cut-off parameters rather than
a single value to account for heterogeneity in
different parts of the reservoir which will in turn
produce different reservoir model scenarios.
The essence of all these is to achieve a more realistic
reservoir characterization study where the geologic
(static) models are more consistent with the dynamic
models. This will form a strong basis for history
matching and enhance production prediction and
forecasting thereby increasing the life the reservoir
and improving its asset value3.
Nomenclature
NTG Net-To-Ratio
φ Porosity
Vsh Shale volume
Sw Water Saturation
k Permeability
GOR Gas-Oil Ratio
BD Bulk Density
Rd Deep Resistivity
GR Gamma Ray
µ Fluid Viscosity
IGR Gamma Ray Index
OIIP Oil-Initially-In-Place
Acknowledgement
We wish to express our gratitude to the management
and our colleagues at Laser Engineering and
Resources Consultants for their invaluable support
and co-operation throughout the course of this work.
We also thank Mr. Solomon Imie for his constructive
criticism and assistance.
References
1. Etris, N. & Stewart, B., “Net-to-Gross Ratio,”
Core Lab Reservoir Technologies Division,
Calgary.
2. Worthington, P. F., & Cosentino, L., “The Role
of Cut-offs in Integrated Reservoir Studies,” SPE
Paper 84378 (2003) 16 p.
3. Applied Technology Workshop (ATW), “Net
Pay Determination,” Society of Petroleum
Engineers (2000) 28-29 Sept., Dallas, Texas
4. Selley, R. C., “Elements of Petroleum Geology 2
ed.,” pp. 292, Academic Press, (1998).
5. North, F. K., “Petroleum Geology,” pp. 156, 474
– 477, Allen and Unwin Inc. (1985)
6. Dutton, S. P., Asquith, G. B., Flanders, W. A.,
Guzman, J. I., Zirczy, H. H., “New Techniques
For Using Old Geophysical Logs in Reservoir
Characterization: Examples from Bell Canyon
Sandstones, Ford Geraldine and East Ford Units,
Delaware Basin, Texas,” Research Report DE-
FC22-95BC14936 NPTO, USDOE
7. Balan, B., Mohaghegh, S., Ameri, S., “State-Of-
The-Art in Permeability Determination from
Well Log Data: Part 1 – A Comparative Study,
Model Development,” SPE Paper 30978 (1995)
10 p.
8. Balan, B., Mohaghegh, S., Ameri, S., “State-Of-
The-Art in Permeability Determination from
Well Log Data: Part 2 – Verifiable, Accurate
Permeability Predictions, the Touchstone of All
Models,” SPE Paper 30979 (1995) 5 p.
9. Amaefule, J. O., Altunbay, M., Tiab, D.,
“Enhanced Reservoir Description: Using core
and Log Data to identify Hydraulic (Flow) units
and Predict Permeability in Uncored
Intervals/Wells,” SPE Paper 26436 (1993).
6 Net-To-Gross Ratios: Implications in Integrated Reservoir Management Studies. SPE 98808

10. Saner, S., Kissami, M., Nufaili, S., “Estimation relationships for sandstone reservoirs,” The Log
of permeability from Well Logs Using Analyst, July-August.
Resistivity and Saturation Data,” SPE Paper
13. Ahmed, U., Crary, S. F., Coates, G. R.,
26277 (1993).
“Permeability Estimation: Their Various Sources
11. Ameri, S., Molnar, S., Aminian, K., and Their Interrelationships,” SPE Paper 19604
“Permeability Evaluation in Heterogeneous (1989).
Formations using Geophysical Well Logs and
14. Pfeffer-theory Help topics: Productivity.
Geological Imterpretation,” SPE Paper (1993).
HTTP://www.kgs.ku.edu/Gemini/Pfeffer-
12. Timur, A., “An investigation of permeability, theory5.html
porosity, and residual water saturation

Table 1: Some classification schemes adopted by different investigators

This Paper Etris & Stewart Worthington & Pfeffer Theory
Consentino
Gross Thickness2
None1
Gross Reservoir Gross Reservoir Gross Rock
None None None
Net Reservoir Net Reservoir3 Net Sand Gross Sandstone
Vsh & φ V sh V sh Vsh
Gross Pay Gross Pay Net Reservoir Net Sandstone4
Sw & OWC OWC φ φ
Net Pay Net Pay Net Pay Gross Pay
BVW5 Sw Sw Sw
Net Pay
BVW
Note
1. The italicized texts are the cut-off criteria implemented.
2. The gross thickness interval represents the Formation Top and Formation base which are regional
chronostratigraphic surfaces and do not correspond to the top and base of sands of reservoir quality rocks.
3. The net reservoir obtained by removing non-reservoir quality rocks applies the Vsh cut-off but implicitly the
φ cut-off is also applied.
4. The term net sandstone is synonymous with net reservoir as observed in other classifications.
5. BVW means Bulk Volume Water
SPE 98808 Egbele, E., Ezuka, I., Onyekonwu, M. 7

Table 2: Wells and suite of logs available for the Study

WELL No.

RHOB

MSFL
NPHI
CAL

LLD
LLS
GR

DT

SP
11101
11102
11104
11105
11106
11107
11109
11111
11112

Table 3: Regression equations for the three petrofacies units with high coefficient of determination
Petrofacies Regression Equation R2
Petrofacies 1 Log (k) = 11.0434 – 0.0127GR + 0.6358Log (Rd) – 3.9798BD 0.72
Petrofacies 2 Log (k) = -6.4307 – 0.0221GR + 0.9597Log (Rd) + 3.3901BD 0.73
Petrofacies 3 Log (k) = 6.0543 – 0.0009GR + 0.2446Log (Rd) – 1.5684BD 0.77

Table 4: Different sets of cut-off values for the three petrofacies

Petrofacies Log k (dec.) Phi (%) Vsh (%) Sw (%) BVW (dec.)
Petrofacies 1 1.0 8 75 65 0.56
1.3 10 60 50 0.56
1.6 12 50 45 0.56

Petrofacies 2 0.4 8 90 65 0.54

0.8 10 75 50 0.54
1.2 12 60 45 0.54

Petrofacies 3 1.3 8 65 70 0.66

1.4 10 60 60 0.66
1.55 12 50 50 0.66

Table 5: Parameters for probabilistic Oil-Initially-In-Place calculations using Monte Carlo simulation.
Distribution Minimum Mean Maximum SD (σ)
Petrofacies 1
Area (acres) Uniform 2973 4402
Average height (ft) Uniform 108 121
Porosity (dec.) Normal 0.185 0.0027
Water Saturation (dec.) Log Normal 0.270 0.024
Petrofacies 2
Area (acres) Uniform 2973 4402
Average height (ft) Uniform 72 85
Porosity (dec.) Normal 0.174 0.0027
Water Saturation (dec.) Log Normal 0.209 0.026
Petrofacies 3
Area (acres) Uniform 2973 4402
Average height (ft) Uniform 52 62
Porosity (dec.) Normal 0.178 0.0082
Water Saturation (dec.) Log Normal 0.163 0.024

Table 6: Results of OIIP estimation with the P10, P50, P90, and Mean volumes and their Standard Deviations
8 Net-To-Gross Ratios: Implications in Integrated Reservoir Management Studies. SPE 98808

OIIP Estimates Petrofacies 1 Petrofacies 2 Petrofacies 3

P10 (MMSTB) 69.1315 62.1976 59.0749
P50 (MMSTB) 59.1954 52.7758 49.5644
P90 (MMSTB) 50.1525 44.5697 41.2944
Mean (MMSTB) 59.5054 53.2072 50.0829
SD (σ) 7.18295 6.70688 6.92751

• Study Area

Fig. 1: Niger Delta Province showing the Study Area

40
R2 = 0.8386
35
30
25
Core Phi

20
15
10
5
0
0 5 10 15 20phi
Log 25 30 35 40

Fig. 2: Correlation between core and log porosities both from the only cored well – Well 11105
SPE 98808 Egbele, E., Ezuka, I., Onyekonwu, M. 9

FRF vs. phi

100
y = -31.813(lnx) - 39.526
R2 = 0.9046
FRF

10

1
0.1 phi 1

Fig. 3: Log-log plot of F vs. φ resulting in 1.60 for a and 1.87 for m

Fig. 4: Scale showing degree of cementation factor, m (after Pirson, 1958)

10 Net-To-Gross Ratios: Implications in Integrated Reservoir Management Studies. SPE 98808

0 50 100 150 1 10 100 1000 1.8 2.3 1 10 100 1000

3350 3350 3350 3350
GR RDEEP RhoB Hperm
3360 3360 3360 3360

3370 3370 3370 3370

3380 3380 3380 3380

3390 3390 3390 3390

Depth

Depth

Depth

Depth
3400 3400 3400 3400

3410 3410 3410 3410

3420 3420 3420 3420

3430 3430 3430 3430

3440 3440 3440 3440

3450 3450 3450 3450

Fig. 5: Log plots of measured permeability, k (from core) and gamma ray (GR), deep resistivity (Rd) and bulk
density (BD) logs showing their similar deflection patterns between k and Rd; and GR and BD.

1.E+5
Core_k
Predicted_k
1.E+4

1.E+3
Perm

1.E+2

1.E+1

1.E+0
3360
3370
3372
3379
3381

3382
3384
3386

3389
3390

3392
3394
3396

3398
3400
3402

3404
3408

3411
3415
3418

3420
3422
3424
3428
3430

3434
3442

Depth

Fig. 6: Plot of measured and predicted permeabilities values using the multiple regression technique showing a very
good relationship
SPE 98808 Egbele, E., Ezuka, I., Onyekonwu, M. 11

Gross Reservoir Net Reservoir Gross Pay Net Pay

Top Reservoir Vsh and phi Sw and OWC BVW
Cut-offs Cut-offs Cut-off

GP1 NP1
Sand NR1

Shale

GP2 NP2
Sand NR2

Tight Sand

GP3 NP3
NR3

GP4 NP4
NR4
Oil Water Contact Transitional
Zone
Free Water Level

Base Reservoir

Fig. 7: Schematic illustration of the application of the cut-off parameters used sequentially in this paper.
(Note: NTG Reservoir = ΣNRi/Gross Reservoir, NTG Pay = ΣNPi/ΣGPi)

3.5 100
90
3.0
80
2.5 70
2.0 60
log k

Vsh

50
1.5 40
1.0 30
20
0.5
10
0.0 0
0 5 10 phi15 20 25 30 0 5 10 phi 15 20 25 30

(a) (b)
2.0

1.5
p o r o s ity
log Sw

1.0

0.5

0.0
phi
0 10 20 30
S w

(c) (d)
Fig. 8: Dynamically conditioned sets of cut-offs criteria for petrofacies 1(a) log k vs. phi (b) Vsh vs. phi (c) log
Sw vs. phi (d) logarithmic Buckles’ plot (for determining BVW cut-off)
12 Net-To-Gross Ratios: Implications in Integrated Reservoir Management Studies. SPE 98808

3.5 100
3.0
80
2.5
2.0 60
log k

Vsh
1.5 40
1.0
20
0.5
0.0 0
0 5 10 phi 15 20 25 0 5 10 phi 15 20 25

(a) (b)
2.0
1.8
1.6

p o r o s ity
1.4
1.2
log Sw

1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 5 10 phi 15 20 25
Sw

(c) (d)
Fig. 9: Dynamically conditioned sets of cut-offs criteria for petrofacies 2 (a) log k vs. phi (b) Vsh vs. phi (c) log
Sw vs. phi (d) logarithmic Buckles’ plot (for determining BVW cut-off)

\
3.0 100
90
2.5 80
2.0 70
60
log k

Vsh

1.5 50
40
1.0 30
0.5 20
10
0.0 0
0 10 phi 20 30 40 0 10 phi20 30 40

(a) (b)
2.0

1.5
p o r o s ity
logSw

1.0

0.5

0.0
0 5 10 15 phi 20 25 30 35 40
Sw

(c) (d)
Fig. 10: Dynamically conditioned sets of cut-offs criteria for petrofacies 3 (a) log k vs. phi (b) Vsh vs. phi (c) log
Sw vs. phi (d) logarithmic Buckles’ plot (for determining BVW cut-off)
SPE 98808 Egbele, E., Ezuka, I., Onyekonwu, M. 13

0.8
Relative OIIP

0.6

0.4

0.2 Facie 1 Facie 2 Facie 3

0
12% phi cut-off 10% 8%

Fig. 11: Sensitivity plot of relative oil-initially-in-place and dynamically conditioned porosity cut-offs

MonteCarlo MonteCarlo MonteCarlo

1 0.1 1 0.1 1 0.1

0.75 0.075 0.75 0.075 0.75 0.075

Expectation Oil (fraction)

Expectation Oil (fraction)

Expectation Oil (fraction)

Rel. Freq. Oil (fraction)

Rel. Freq. Oil (fraction)

Rel. Freq. Oil (fraction)
0.5 0.05 0.5 0.05 0.5 0.05

0.25 0.025 0.25 0.025 0.25 0.025

0 0 0 0 0 0
30 45 60 75 90 30 45 60 75 90 30 45 60 75 90

Oil in Place (MMSTB) Oil in Place (MMSTB) Oil in Place (MMSTB)

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 12 (a) – (c): Monte Carlo simulation of 500 realizations for OIIP estimation for the three petrofacies.