You are on page 1of 12


. I

Ki!!! m
. .

Society of PetroleumEngineers

SPE 28244

Integrated Formation Evaluation With Regression Analysis

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.

ABsTRAcr - .:-_-:-. . --.-=.

-. ..-. 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 :
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



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.


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
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



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



lqw=(l-se)(l-se~) . ...(5) Log Analysis

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.


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



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

Although the Case No. 4 standard error is lower Results

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. -


. ,.-.


NOMENCLATURE _____ . . . .. .. Littleton, CO (1990) p.46

a = emptilcal constant in formation factor 4. Hawkins, J., U.NILOG School/Workshop

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



14. Andersonj B.,The Analysis of Some Unsolved

Induction Interpretation Problems Using
Computer Modeling, The Log Analyst, Sep.:
Oct. 1986, p.60

15. Fylling, A.,Estimating Conductivity and

Saturations in the Sands of Thinly Laminated.
Dipping Sand/Shale Sequen~es, Tram:
SPWLA (1991), paper O



FWL (MD) 11120 11091 11120 1112 11110 LOGOWC-,
ST. ERROR 1.42 0.76 0.34 0.2 SEVERAL

HPV (ft)
% Increase

KH (md-ft) 156 365 124 22

KH-WTR (md-fl) 2 17 2: O WELL
KH-OIL (md-ff) 40 64 32 & 31-43 TESTS

158,000 BO
346 BW
PHI (%) 20
Sw (%) 80 AVERAGE
K (red] 1 434 BOPD

WATER SANDS F/w = .025

mm, FEW % w,
(1 ,.0 ,, ()

,M o 0




;~ ~:e
20 25 30 35 40 ~
I m


10000 h:!
g 1000
3 ,lo~.
I& 10 ..{:
, :
, 1
flGURE I 20 25 30 35 40 ,

FIGURE 4 ~;> ~ .
I ,,

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

VSH --
= 1
[1 Iwm

Do (1 10V


4 lCW