Water infux

© All Rights Reserved

5 views

Water infux

© All Rights Reserved

- An Integrated Approach to Volume of Shale Analysis
- Solution Manual for Modern Business Statistics With Microsoft Excel 6th Edition by Anderson
- How to Compute Petrophysicals Cutoffs With GeolOil
- UT Dallas Syllabus for poec5316.001 06s taught by Wenhua Di (wxd041000)
- 1
- Statistics Practical Solutions - Correlations and Regression
- Does School Quality Matter
- Final Test
- Seg_04c
- Petrophysics 14resistivitylogs 131129070508 Phpapp01
- Fluid substitution without S-wave velocity information in hydrocarbon saturated reservoirs.pdf
- Petro Geothermal0802.1931
- ex1
- Ndx Forrest
- heckman02
- Practice Regression Final Key
- kk2_Final
- Petrophysical Analysis Marcellus Cs
- Syllabus.0405322.E.statistics
- statment of purpose

You are on page 1of 12

. I

Ki!!! m

. .

Society of PetroleumEngineers

.

SPE 28244

J.M. Hawkins, Petromation

SPE Member

. .

Copyright 1994, Solkaty of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.

Th,< paper was prepared for presentation at Ihe SPE Petmle.~ Computer Conference held In Dallas, Texas, u.s.A., 31 July* Augus! 1994.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of information contained In an abs!racl submitted by tha author(s). Contents of the paper,

as presented, have M been reviewed by tho society of Petm!etIm Egteers and ma subjmt to correction by the authorfs], The material, as pmmuad, does mat necessarily rel[ed

ay position O! me Society of Petro!ewn Enginoem, its officers, or members. Papera presented at SPE meetings ar.s subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of tha society

of Petroleum Engineers. Permission to copy is restrided to an abstfad of not more than 300 words. Illudrdlons may not be copied. The abdrad should COfltaln COn@CUOUS acknowied9ment

of where and by whom the pnper Is presented, Write IJbrarlan, SPE, P.O, Sax =3836, Richardson, TX 75083-3S36, U.SA, Telex, 163245 SPEUT.

-. ..-. 7- -= 4. Complete synthetic capillaty pressure

curves for each depth level,

A comprehensive formation evaluation method is 5. Relative permeability curves (drainage)

presented which integrates log, core and well test generated from the capillary pressure

data on a reservoir using regression amiiysis. The curves, and

method employs a capillay pressure curve model 6. Estimated effective permeability to

correlating four reservoir variables: porosi~, hydrocarbons and to water opposite the

water saturation, permeability and capillary wellbore.

pressure. Porosity and saturation are estimated by

conventional log analysis, permeability is obtained These results are then integrated with well test

from emptilcal correlations with logs (usually data by comparing effective permeabilities from 6.

porosity) and capillary pressure is directly related above with the test results. U there is a mismatch,

to height above the water level. it may be necessary to rerun the regression in

order to honor all of the datasets.

Depth profiles of the four variables are adjusted by

regression analysis constrained by the capilkuy The method is illustrated with log, core and test

pressure curve model. Results of the regression data from an offshore Gulf of Mexico- well.

include :

INTRODUCTION

1. An estimate of the water level,

2. Improved profiles of the four variables There are three classic methods for esttiating

which are consistent with both log analysis water saturation in a reservoin log analysis, capil-

and capillary pressure theory, lary pressure curves and oil-base coring. By far,

3. Adjusted log analysis parameters, the most common method in use-today is evaJu-

.ationby log analysis alone. A pe~ophysical model

based on some variation of Archies equation is

References and illustrations at end of paper selected, electrical properties such as a, m and n

Z15

.

a

are determined and logs for each well in the Ml of the above problems stem from the fact that

reservoir are processed to generate depth profdes petrophysical models are underdetermined

of porosity and water saturation. Net pay cutoffs systems, that is, there arent enough equations to

are picked and average values for porosity and define all the variables of interest. An K

water saturation are tabulated along with total net determined system can be created by combining

pay in each well. the equations of the petrophysical model with the

equations of a capillary pressure curve model.

Reliance on log analysis alone creates a number of Capillary pressure curve models provide an inde-

problems. To begin with, what is the appropriate pendent method for computing Sw and explicitly

petiophysical model to use for a given reservoir? include permeabili~ in the equations in some

For sandstones, which will be the focus for the cases. These models also include a parameter of

remainder of the paper, there is a profusion of great interest in defining reservoir limits, the free

choices, with hydrocarbons-in-place often varying water level. Another benefit is the generation of

signiilcantly between models, and there exists no relative perrneab~lty curves from the capillay

accepted set of guidelines or rules by which to pressure curve, as will be discussed below.

make a choice.

Whh an overdetermined system, regression analy-

Once the model is selected, there is the problem of sis provides a statistical framework for addressing

determining the parameters, particuku-ly the the problems mentioned above. Choosing the best

electrical properties a, m and n. Sometimes these petrophysical model can be materially aided, even

are measured in a laboratory with cores but more formalized, by the statistical procedure known as

often not. Although it is possible to derive a and m hypothesis testing. Determination of model para-

from crossplotting log data, n cannot be so meters such as the electrical properties and the

determined. free water level are a fwidamental feature of

regression analysis. Error bars for the parameters

Another problem is assessing the accuracy of the and for the variables (such as SW] are readily

calculated water saturation at any given point on computed.

a log. Without an independent estimate of Sw the

potential error at each depth is unknown. CAPILLARYPRESSURE CURVE MODELS

Finally, porosi~ and water saturation by them- Capillaxy pressure curve models correlate porosi~,

selves only allow the evaluation of hydrocarbon permeabfilty, water saturation and capillary

volume and do not address the key issue of pressure measured on cores. The earliest such

producibility and hence the determination of net model was the J-function proposed by Leveretd,

pay, except in a gross sense. There is no physical which has found utility in many reservoirs,

reason why an Sw cutoff of 70 percent, for although in some cases it does not produce a satis-

example, should differentiate between pay and factory correlation of the data. Another drawback

nonpay. On the other hand, producibdity is is that since there is no universal J-function

directly related to effective permeability, which is comelation, laboratory measurements are required

the product of permeabili~ and relative perme- to apply the method. In spite of these difficulties,

ability. An evaluation method which does not the J-function could serve as the capillary pressure

include effective permeability should be con- curve model within the overall evaluation scheme

sidered incomplete. proposed in this paper, particukdy in those reser-

voirs (thought to be numerous) where it does cor-

relate the data.

214

SPE 28244 JOSEPH M HAWKINS 3

Another potential model was proposed by Hawkins however, permeabili~ will be derived from logs.

et aL2, based on Thomeers equation in which the Numerous papers5b78have proposed methods for

Thomeer parameters were derived as functions of estimating perrneab@ from logs, augmented by

porosity and permeability. An advantage to thk core data. Perhaps the simplest method is estima-

model is that a global correlation (for sandstones) ting permeability from porosity based on crossplot

was presented whkh could be used in the absence of core data, which will be used in the example

of laboratory data. However, the model has no well. Nuclear Magnetic Resonance logs offer &e

minimum water satiation and can predict unreal- promise of a logging measurement with a slrong

istically low saturations (c 10OA)at moderate to correlation with permeability.

high capill~ pressures. Fumherrnore, the absence

of a minimum or irreducible saturation and the AU methods of obtaining permeability from logs

general formulation of the model do not readily are at least partly empirical and therefore have

allow the computation of relative permeability. parameters which can be considered adjustable in

the regression analysis.

The model illustrated with the example well below

is based on Coreys3 capillaty pressure curve CAPILLARY PRESSURE

equation,

The capillary pressure profde is simply the product

se=(Pe/Pc)~ . . . . . . . . ...(1) of height above the flee water level (FWL) and a

conversion factor2. Reference 4 (page 19)

where S.=(SW-S, )/ (l-S,) . ..(2) discusses deriving the conversion factor from pub-

lished correlations involving pressure, temperature

is the effective saturation, - normalized with the and. fluid properties such as oil or gas gravity,

residual water saturation, S,. The Corey p=a- GOR and water salinity.

meters, S,, P, (entry pressure) arid L (a Iithologic

factor ) have been derived as functions of If the FWL is not known in advance, it can be

porosity and permeability in a global correlation solved for in the regression analysis as one of the

for sandstones called UNILOG4. If laboratory adjustable parameters.

capillary pressure measurements are available,

the model can be adjusted to fit the data. REGRESSION ANALYSIS

In order to apply regression analysis to UNILOG, Since capillary pressure ~eory meats a reservoir as

or another suitable model, it is necessary to a unit, it becomes possible to relate all log and

generate depth profiles of the basic varjables core measurements taken in the reservoir within a

correlated by the model: porosi~, water satura- unii3ed set of equations based on the capillary

tion, permeability and capilkq pressure- pressure curve model. Thk is in cormast to pemo-

Porosity and water saturation can be derived physical models, which consider measurements

from direct core measurements (in oil base mud) taken at a given depth unrelated to those taken at

or from log analysis. Permeability and capillary other depths.

pressure are discussed below.

At each point in a reservoir, the four basic vari-

PERMEABILIIY ables (porosi~, water saturation, permeability and

capillary pressure), all of which have been derived

Preferably, permeability profdes should be taken fi-om log/core measurements, are related by the

from conventional core data. In the usual case, capillary pressure curve model (a combination. of

215

equations 1, 2 and the equations relating Coreys models (hypotheses) could be used in diiYerent

parameters to porosi~and permeability4). Further- regression runs. The one having the smallest SS

more, saturations at all points in the reservoir are would be the favored model. Statistical tests

related by a family of capillary pressure curves involving the SS can determine if one model is

having a coinmon free water level. signiilcantly better than another. It is not recom-

mended, however, that statistics be the sole

In the case of data from a <igle well, thk means measure of choosing the pemophysical model, or

that the depth profiles of the four basic variables any other model, for that matter. Other physical

are related in a single set of equations, one factors may overrule the purely statistical choice.

equation for each depth. Such a system may be

heated statistically by regression analysis. Another major reason for using regression analysis

is parameter determination. For example, for a

Regression analysis relates a set of observations given petrophysical model it is possible to solve for

through a model defined in terms of the observa- the values of a, m and n which minimize SS.

tions and certain constant parameters. Staying L&eWise, the parameters defining the permeability

with the case of a single well for illustration, the model may be adjusted. And, of course, the FWL

observations are the log/core measurements and is often an unknown parameter. In practice, the

the model is the capillary pressure curve model. dataset may instilcient to allow the solution for

Actually, the capilkuy pressure curve model relates all these parameters. It may be necessaxy to f~

the basic variables which are in turn derived from certain parameters within narrow ranges and solve

subsidiary models, one for each variable. There is for the others.

a model for porosi~, for saturation (the petro-

physical model), for permeability and for capillary The upshot of all this is that regression analysis

pressure, each model w@ its own set of constant can aid in selecting the models and p=ameters

parameters. In the case of the petrophysical which generate improved profiles of the basic

model, for example, the parameters include the variables.

electrical properties, a, m and n, and pahaps

some shaliness factors, depending on which satur- RELATIVE PERMEABILITY

ation equation is chosen.

In 1952, Burdlne formulated relative permeabil-

Regression analysis computes a measure of the ity equations based on factors from capillary

statistical vaEdity of the system of equations called pressure curves which he validated with laboratory

the error sum of squares (SS). At each depth in experiments. Corey showed that simple solutions

the well, the basic variables are considered subject for Burdines equations could be obtained from the

to error, which is computed in the regression. A Corey capillary pressure curve-fitting parameters

weighted sum of the squares of the errors is (reference 3, page 95).

compiled for each depth and a grand sum is tabu-

lated for all depths. l%is grand sum, S_S, is a For wetting phase relative permeability we have

measure of how far the totalhy of observations

depart from the model. ~=s: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(3)-

TM statistic, SS, along with others computed in where e=(2+3A )/A . . . . . ...(4).

the regression, protides a means of addressing the

problems noted in the Introduction through hypo- For non-wetting phase relative permeability, the

thesis testing. For example, different petrophysical equation is

216

.

.

where y=(2+A )/A . . . . . . ...(6). In the first pass at the problem, it is useful to

adopt a simple petrophysical model and then go to

These relative perrneabilities are valid for a more complicated models as required. Accordingly,

water-wet reservoir on a primary drainage capil- porosi~ was calculated from the density log and

lary pressure curve. crossplotted with resistivity in the water sand as

shown in Figure No._2, from which an& of .025

EXAMPLE WELL ,:-- .. . and an m of 1.87 were derived. Assigning n the

same value as m allows us to compute= water

The evaluation scheme will be. illush-ated with saturation (SWLog in figure 1) from Archles

data from an offshore Gulf of Mexico well equation.

published in a guidebook on low-resistivity

producing sandsll. The well is located in West Permeability

Delta Block 88, offshore Louisiana. In Figure

No. 1, a computed log, the upper P sand was In Figure No. 3, a good correlation is seen

perforated and flowed clean oil wit-l. resistivities between sidewall core porosity and permeability,

less than one ohm. so we will derive permeability from density poro-

sity using the line shown. Since these data are

Below the perforations a more conventional high from sidewalls, the line will only be regarded as

resistivity section is seen -just below a shaly tentative, subject to adjustment.

break which may separate the two zones into

separate reservoirs. Resistivities in this zone & from the Capillarv pressure Curve Model .

have been enhanced with a forward modeling

program*2. At the bottom of the figure, In Figtue No. 1, SWPCis water saturation calculated

resistivity declines to an appment water contact. from the global capillary pressure curve model

Sidewall cores were sampled extensively based on density porosi~, permeability (derived

throughout the sand above the contact and all from porosi~) and capillary pressure in a recon-

have oil shows. Logs below the plotted interval naissance pass. Capillary pressure was computed

reveal a thick clean water sand with resistivities from a FWL at 1.1120, which was determined from

around .2 ohms. regression analysis. Data from the entire sand was

entered in the regression, excluding porosity less

If this had been a discovery well, the following than 20%, SWgreater than 80% and permeability

qtiestions might have been posed prior. to the less than 1 md. The only parameter adjusted was

well tes~ the FWL, which turns out very close to the appar-

ent contact on the log, a very satisfjhg result.

1- k the upper P stid productive?

2. What is kh for the upper P? The saturation overlay in Figure No. 1 provides a

3. Are the upper and lower swds in the same visual assessment of how well the model fits the

reservoir? data and is useful in detecting anomalies. Agree-

4. What are the volumetric factors (porosi~, ment in the lower P sand (high resistivi~) is good

saturation, net pay)? except for the shdler intervals. This means that

the log analysis and the capillay pressm-e curve

These questions are addressable by the proposed model are .in harmony, except perhaps for some

evaluation method as follows. fme tuning.

217

6 INTEGRATED FORMATION EVALUATION WITH REGRESSION ANALYSIS SPE 28244

On the other hand, SWPCis generally much less Case No. 2 is the same as Case No. 1 except that

than SWLogin the upper P sand, calliig for further the FWL was adjusted. This brought the standard

evaluation. There are a number of possibilities to error down significantly, but it also increased the

investigate. It could be that the global capillary kh to water to the point where a large water cut

pressure curve model does not apply in the upper is predicted. Results from the well tests rule this

P, even though it works well in the lower P. The possibility out.

only way to resolve thk issue is to obtain labora-

tory capillary pressure curves on cores. Prior to In Case No. 3, the original FWL was fixed while

the test, we might have entertained the idea that the electrical properties and the permeability

the upper P is not productive, that is, the oil transform were adjusted. Although the dataset

shows are residual. Although we will be able to did not have a wide enough range of porosities to

make some inferences about thk from the other adequately define the formation factor relation, it

possibilities examined, the test is the only became apparent that the Humble formula would

deftitive answer. improve the fit, so this was adopted and n was

adjusted along with the permeability parameters,

Several other possibilities for explaining the resulting in a highly signiilcant improvement in

saturation discrepancy in the upper P can be the standard error. Both n and perrneabdity came

examined with regression analysis. These include down, which seems reasonable given the shaliness

testing other petrophysical models, testing whether of the sand in comparison ro the lower P.

the FWL in the upper P is different fkom the lower

P and testing the hypothesis that the In Case No. 4, a laminated shaly sand petrophys-

porositypermeability transform is different in the ical model was tested. Consideration was given to

upper P. This requires at least one regression run using the Waxman-Smits formula, but this was

for each possibility. rejected because trial calculations indicated only

minor impact on the saturations. Instead, the

Regression Runs. . . . . .. ,. .- ._ . ..-Thomas-Stieber13 model, developed specitlcally for

South Louisiana, was adopted because a number

In all, four regression runs were made wi& data of the sidewall cores in the upper P were

from the upper P sand (11020 -11075 ), each described as laminated. The model seeks to esti-

testing a dfierent case. Results are shown in Table mate the porosity and resistivity in the sand

No. 1. The standard error, a dimensionless Iaminae by correcting density porosity and induc-

number computed from the error sum of squares tion resistivity for the effects of the shale laminaej

in the regression, is a measure of goodness of fit, resulting in higher porosity and resistivity than is

with smaller values representing better fits. HPV seen on the logs. A parallel conductivity mode114)15

is hydrocarbon pore volume in feet. The kh was assumed for the induction log response.

en~ies are cumulative permeability-feet computed

from the corrected permeabilities determined in As in Case No. 3, n and the permeability para-

the regression. Kh to water and to oil are the meters were adjusted, again resulting in a lower n

cumulative product of permeability and the respec- and a different permeability transform. FQure No.

tive relative permeabili~ (equations 3 and 5). 4 shows that the new transform predicts a lower

., permeability for the same porosity as compared to

Case No. 1 was-inn under the same assumptions the original transform derived from sidewall cores.

as the original reconnaissance pass shown in ~is is a plot of regression corrected porosity

FQure No. 1. Note the relatively large standard versus permeability. Total kh has increased

error. because the sand laminaeporosity from the model

218

.

is higher than the density porosity used in the As for kh to water, only Case No. 2 is in serious

other cases. error.

than for Case No. 3, the dtiference is not statis-

tically signii3cant, meaning that either model is Returning to the hypothetical questions posed

acceptable. Ot&r considerations must dictate the earlier, the answers can be formulated from the

choice between the models. results of Table No: 1. Prior to the well test, a

realistic assessment of producibility might have

Figure No. 5 shows the results of the model used been that the most likely results would be Case

in Case No. 4. For uniformity, the laminated No. 3 or 4, but there was a risk of water cut by

model was also applied in the lower P. The virtue of Case No. 2. After the test, Case No. 2

volume of shale fraction (Vsh) shown is not the would be ruled out, so the FWL for both the upper

total shale fraction, but only the laminated and lower P are the same, which may imply a

portion, which is in qualitative agreement with the common reservoir, although thk is not deftitive.

core descriptions. Likewise, the porosity, resis- (In a fding with the Minerals Management Service,

tivity, water saturation qnd permeability shown the operator indicated a common water level for

represent the values estimated for the sand the two sands.) The best estimate of volumetric

Iaminae. factors are from Case-No. 3 or 4 with a slight edge

to 4.

Excellent agreement ii now seen in the saturatio-n

overlay in the upper P and improved agreement is CONCLUSIONS .

evident in rhe lower P. This is a much improved

interpretation over that in Figure No. 1. A comprehensive forrnarion evaluation method has

been presented and illustrated with data ffom an

Integration T&th Well Tests _ . . offshore Gulf of Mexico well. The essence of the

method is in the combination of log analysis and

Permeabilky-feet (@ was estimated with the capillary pressure theory in a unilled model. Thk

radial flow equation from two well tests by pro- combination of two separate methods for estima-

jecting the sand face flowing pressure from the ting water saturation allows the use of regression

reported flowing tubing pressure, resultjng in 43 analysis in interpreting the log and core data on a

rnd-ft for a six hour test and 31 md-ft for a later reservoir. A benefit of this approach is that the

MO hour test. No pressure buildup survey was best model for evaluating the reservoir may be

run. selected with the aid of statistical testing and the

attendant model parameters determined in the

In Table No. 1, kh to oil from all of the regression process. &other benefit is the determination of

runs shows fair to good agreement with I& from permeability and relative permeability consistent

well tests. Although Case No. 4 kh is much higher with capillary pressure curve theory. Effective

t$an the well test kh, it actually maybe closer to permeability detefined in the method can then

the reservoir kh because the well test results do be inte~ated with well test results to improve the

not account for formation d~age. Subsequent evaluation.

performance of the well shows a better flow rate

than in the tests, which may have resulted from

cleaning up the darnage. -

219

.

. ,.-.

relationship Manual, Petromation, Houston, TX, 1993, p.30

. free water level

k = permeability, md. 5. Timur, A., An Investigation of Permeability,

= relative permeability to wetting phase Porosity, and Residual Water Saturation Rela-

k

. relative permeability to non-wetting tionships, Trans., SPWIA, (1968) 9, Sec. K

k.

phase

kh . permeability-feet, md.-ft. 6. Tootle, J., The Prediction of Well Productivity

m . porosity exponent from Wireliie Logs, McAllen Ranch Field,

n =

saturation exponent Trans., SPWLA,(1979), paper H

P= . capillary pressure, psi

Pe . ent@ capillaty pressure, psi 7. Lewis, D., and Perrin, J., Wilcox Formation

. water resistivity Ev@ation: Improved Procedures forTlght-Gas

%

se . effective water saturation -Sand Evaluation, JPT ( June, 1992 ), p. 724

s, . residual water saturation

SW . water saturation 8. Amaefule, J. et al., Enhanced Reservoir

Ss . error sti of squares Description Using Core and Log Data to Iden-

E = wetting phase relative permeability tify Hydraulic (Flow) Units and Predict

exponent Permeability in Uncored Intervals/Wells, 68th

Y . non-wetting phase relative permeability Annual Technical Conference and ExMbition

exponent of SPE, (1993) SPE paper no. 26436

1 . lithologic ~ponent

9. Coates, G., Peveraro, R., HardWick, A;, and

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .. . .. . .. Roberts, D., The Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Log Characterized by Comparison With Petro-

The author is grateful to Charles Harrison of AGIP physical Properties and Laboratory Core Data,

PeEoleum Company for providing information on 66th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibi-

the example we~. Ljkewise, thanks are extended tion of SPE (1991), SPE paper no. 22723

to Rich Hq-dman for the use ,of hk fo~~d

modeling code. 10. Burdine, N., Relative Permeability Calcula-

tions from Pore-size Distribution Data, Trans.

REFERENCE S . .. . . . . . . -- AIME (1952), VO1.198, p.71

1. Leverettj M.C.,Capillary Behaviour in Porous 11. Productive Low Resistivity Well Logs of the

Solids, Trans. AIME, Vol. 142, 1941, p.lsi Offshore Guy of Mexico, New Orleans and

Houston Geological Societies, New Orleans, LA

2. Hawkins, J., Luffel, D.Y and Harris, T., and Houston, TX (1993) p. D-115

Capill~ pressure Model Predicts Distance to

Gas/Waterj Oi~ater Contact, Od ~d Gas 12. Haxdman, R., 6FF40 Modeling Software

Journd, Jan. 18, 1993, p.39

13. Thomas, E., and Stieber, S.,The Distribution

3. Corey, A.T., Mechanics of Immiscible Fluids in of Shale in Sandstones and its Effect upon

Porous Media, Water Resources Publications, Porosity, Trans. SPWLA (1975), paper T

220

>

.

Induction Interpretation Problems Using

Computer Modeling, The Log Analyst, Sep.:

Oct. 1986, p.60

Saturations in the Sands of Thinly Laminated.

Dipping Sand/Shale Sequen~es, Tram:

SPWLA (1991), paper O

TABLE NO. 1

GEOLOGIC AND

ENGINEERING

DATA

OPERATOR

FWL (MD) 11120 11091 11120 1112 11110 LOGOWC-,

ST. ERROR 1.42 0.76 0.34 0.2 SEVERAL

WELLS

k==

HPV (ft)

% Increase

1.49

o

1.49

0

1.79

20

2.1

4

KH-WTR (md-fl) 2 17 2: O WELL

KH-OIL (md-ff) 40 64 32 & 31-43 TESTS

CUMULATIVE

PRODUCTION

(ONE YEAR)

158,000 BO

NET PAY CUTOFFS 150,000 MCFG

346 BW

PHI (%) 20

Sw (%) 80 AVERAGE

K (red] 1 434 BOPD

221

SPE28244

WATER SANDS F/w = .025

mm, FEW % w,

(1 ,.0 ,, ()

,M o 0

10

100

FIGURE 2

;~ ~:e

20 25 30 35 40 ~

[,

POROSIN l.?!

I m

~

,1

REGRESSION RESIJL~ ;,

r:.

,,

$,

10000 h:!

LINE FR(XVICORES

g 1000

~.;,

\

3 ,lo~.

%

u

I& 10 ..{:

, :

Llh E FROM REGRkSSION

, 1

,

flGURE I 20 25 30 35 40 ,

c.

. POROSITY

FIGURE 4 ~;> ~ .

i

I ,,

.,

~pE28244

,. _... .. . .g. .

PERM

VSH --

= 1

KLOG

[1 Iwm

Do (1 10V

11C60

4 lCW

11100

223

- An Integrated Approach to Volume of Shale AnalysisUploaded byArdimas Iriyanto P
- Solution Manual for Modern Business Statistics With Microsoft Excel 6th Edition by AndersonUploaded bya222170614
- How to Compute Petrophysicals Cutoffs With GeolOilUploaded bygorle
- UT Dallas Syllabus for poec5316.001 06s taught by Wenhua Di (wxd041000)Uploaded byUT Dallas Provost's Technology Group
- 1Uploaded byRajesh Vernekar
- Statistics Practical Solutions - Correlations and RegressionUploaded byAtiqah Ismail
- Does School Quality MatterUploaded byEniola Adeoye
- Final TestUploaded byAlex Bamford
- Seg_04cUploaded byNagaraju Jalla
- Petrophysics 14resistivitylogs 131129070508 Phpapp01Uploaded byMiguel Gomez
- Fluid substitution without S-wave velocity information in hydrocarbon saturated reservoirs.pdfUploaded byMahmoud Eloribi
- Petro Geothermal0802.1931Uploaded byElok Galih Karuniawati
- ex1Uploaded byJAY B
- Ndx ForrestUploaded byRicky Chiu
- heckman02Uploaded byBabelHardy
- Practice Regression Final KeyUploaded byKe Syukuran Ku
- kk2_FinalUploaded byKritika Kashyap
- Petrophysical Analysis Marcellus CsUploaded bySaad Khan
- Syllabus.0405322.E.statisticsUploaded bymarwan
- statment of purposeUploaded byapi-356029006
- wwwUploaded byrabkali
- An Integrated and Quantitative Approach to Petrophysical HeterogeneityUploaded bysaifulislam9442
- ECLIPSE.pdfUploaded byBeto Chavez
- 9. Paradigm Shift Genap 2014-2015 TPUploaded byEmil Isnan
- Slides Class 1Uploaded byShyam Polaconda
- 3082163_B.-Com.-Hons.pdfUploaded byWord
- Role of Operations researchUploaded byKevin Ndemo
- Business Strategy, Over- (Under)-.docxUploaded byChandra Aditya
- Characteristics of Patients Receiving Pharmaceutical Samples and Association Between Sample Receipt and Out-of-Pocket Prescription CostsUploaded byN
- geo20Uploaded byHcene Hcen

- Disfunción Ejecutiva en La Enfermedad de HuntingtonUploaded byKaren Tolorza
- Apple CaseUploaded byTajalli Fatima
- Physical Science Midterm Study GuideUploaded byeherrerahghs
- Is It Necessary to Get Afraid of Sade SatiUploaded byraj sharma
- Direct Measurement of Electron Density in Microdischarge at Atmospheric Pressure by Stark BroadeningUploaded bySantiago Silva
- Final Investigatory Project for KyleUploaded byRommel Pápica
- 21825fUploaded byestions
- w5-1 Gen Man d5.1.5 Manual on WsudUploaded byAnonymous d6vkxJ
- A-600-9017 _Principles of Exercise Fitness and Health_ Mock PaperUploaded byLeonSylvester
- ADSB MarApr2017.pdfUploaded byn z
- VAF BinderUploaded byCarlosJosePerezCardona
- GARCH on CommoditiesUploaded bytty933298
- NUTS 2.0 Tank Combat Flow ChartUploaded byJohn Cunningham
- E4tech 2009 ReportUploaded byMR X
- AIX 5L Jumpstart for UNIX Professionals Unit 1Uploaded bymrniceguy2120
- MB8006 Assignment 2 W14Uploaded byJarrett Xu
- FACTORY VISIT ~ anisUploaded byAyah Ayob
- Energy Sec Msp ElecUploaded byJan
- Day 3-4 Impt Considerations in Design of Struct Perf FoundationUploaded byMIHDI PALAPUZ
- jurnal hiponatremiaUploaded byPandu Anggoro
- Exam Set 09Uploaded byallovid
- Pressure-Temp Ratings of Flanges-graphUploaded byBaha Eddine Gharbi
- Gluteal and Posterior Thigh RegionsUploaded byjsdlzj
- Flagstaff Visitor GuideUploaded byspcdaly
- Asmanex Hfa PiUploaded bysarfu_sk2005
- Dashwood & Abbots, 1990Uploaded byEdwin Malliquinga
- CPeT-IT manual.pdfUploaded byJorge Ordóñez
- Slide GateUploaded by陈淀
- Nokia FPH800 IntroductionUploaded byReza RTwo
- Fittings and Standards for Water ServiceUploaded bySelva Kumar Selva Kumar