SPE 151628

Quantification of Hydrocarbon Volume: An Example Using Rock Typing

Methodology Applied in Cerro Negro Field, Eastern Venezuela Basin

C. Moya, PDVSA; G.W. Gunter, NExT-Schlumberger; J. Mahadevan, University of Tulsa*, K.M.

Wolgemuth, NExT Consultant

Copyright 2012, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference held in Mexico City, Mexico, 16–18 April 2012.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper 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 acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract

For many years, geologists and engineers have used volumetric methods to quantify or estimate hydrocarbon volume
contained in reservoirs. The economic producibility of the reservoirs, also depend on the flow characteristics. The overall level
of uncertainty of the estimation depends on the uncertainty of the parameters that determine the oil volume such as porosity
and the reservoir characteristics such as pay thickness. However, uncertainty of estimation increases when estimating
hydrocarbon in place for complex fluids systems (i.e. heavy oil) since mobility can have an adverse effect on fluid movement.
Determination of net pay cut-offs should be based on parameters that include flow and storage capacity.
Considering the requirement to establish a relationship between petrophysical cut-offs and rock types to estimate
hydrocarbon in place, five different cases were used to quantify net pay parameters of the reservoir in the Cerro Negro field,
Venezuela. The workflow that was applied:
1. Identification of petrophysical rock types (PRT) from porosity and permeability data using core-based and log-derived
petrophysical analysis,
2. Definition of the relationship between PRT and facies
3. Determination of pay cut-offs for reservoir and each PRT using conventional and contemporary methodologies,
4. Comparison of the conventional and contemporary methodologies results,
5. Estimation of pay cut-offs impact on the prediction of rock types and reservoir petrophysical properties in the estimation
of volumetric.
This study demonstrates that the definition of PRT distribution is controlled by pore throat size instead of facies. From the six
rock types defined in the field just three rock types (1, 2, and 3) are oil producing rock reservoir. The OOIP results vary
significantly over a range of 500 MMstb, depending on which of the parameters are used as pay cut-offs.
In conclusion, estimating OOIP by applying petrophysical rock typing is an improved way to decrease uncertainty than OOIP
estimation by reservoir unit. The results demonstrated that the choice of good pay cut-offs was the key to reduce the
uncertainty in the estimation of the OOIP in the Cerro Negro field.

Introduction

Hydrocarbon volume estimation is a principal goal in the petroleum industry because it is a fundamental parameter to evaluate
the economic feasibility of a project. In this way, geoscientists have introduced the petrophysical cut-off concept with the
objective to remove non-producing reservoir that does not contribute to hydrocarbon production. Unfortunately, there is no
universally accepted petrophysical cut-off methodology that can be applied in any reservoir. In order to do the best
characterization and quantify the economically recoverable hydrocarbon, this paper presents a petrophysical rock-typing
workflow using core and log data that allows defining a realistic petrophysical cut-off adjusted to Cerro Negro field
conditions.
The cut-off methodology plays an important role in the OOIP calculation; consequently, the choice of a good pay cut-off
2 SPE 151628

methodology is key in contemporary integrated reservoir studies. The petrophysical cut-offs used in Cerro Negro field
included a petrophysical formation evaluation adjusted to field conditions, and also petrophysical rock typing of the reservoir.

Characteristics of the reservoir

Cerro Negro field is an important reservoir that is located in the Orinoco Belt in Eastern Venezuela Basin (Fig 1). It has been
produced by horizontal and vertical wells (about 550 wells) since the early 1980s. This study used data from three stratigraphic
wells with routine and special core analysis, as well as a complete set of modern log suites available in Morichal member (Fig
2). Among the characteristics of the reservoir are (1) extra-heavy oil, (2) thick, non-consolidated sands, and (3) excellent
reservoir quality with superior permeability of >10,000 mD. Thin section examination showed sediments of quartz and wacke
sands. Eighteen facies were identified in the three wells where a fluvial environment predominates in the lower part, while a
deltaic environment predominates in upper part of the Morichal member. The fluid present in the reservoir is characterized as
heavy oil (8 °API and 5,000 cp) and movable water.

Concepts Overview

Facies12 was defined by Bates and Jackson (1987) as the aspect appearance, and characteristic of a rock unit usually reflecting
the condition of its origin; especially as differentiating the unit from adjacent or associated units.

Petrophysical Rock Type: Gunter (1997)1,8 defines a petrophysical rock type as a rock deposited under similar conditions
which experienced similar diagenetic processes resulting in a unique porosity-permeability relationship, capillary pressure
profile, and water saturation for a given height above the free water in a reservoir.

Winland R35 Method4: This method is based on approximately 300 samples analyzed from a Colorado field. Winland found
that the empirical equation, (Eq. 1), represented the best match with aperture radius at the 35th percentile of mercury saturation
in a mercury intrusion lab test. Winland R35 equation can be estimated with porosity and permeability data; and, is
approximately the modal class of pore throat size where the pore network becomes interconnected forming a continuous fluid
path through the sample.

Log R35 = 0.732 + 0.588*Log (Kair) – 0.864*Log (φ) (Equation 1)

Capillary Pressure is the difference in pressure between the non-wetting and wetting phases which is affected by the pore
geometry, pore size distribution, interfacial tension and rock wettability (Amyx, 1960)4; and, it can be defined as:

2σ cos θ
Pc = (Equation 2)
r
Leverett J-Funtion8: This is an empirical equation based on experimental data. Leverett (1941) developed a dimensionless
function of water saturation which includes porosity, permeability, capillary pressure, fluid interfacial tension, and rock-fluid
contact angle:

J (S w ) =
Pc k
(Equation 3)
σ cos θ φ

Lorenz Methodology13: This was developed by M.O. Lorenz (1905) as an economic analysis tool. For reservoir
characterization, this method was modified (Schmalz et al., 1950) by constructing a graph of flow capacity versus storage
capacity sorted by permeability values, from the highest to the lowest values, and each change of slope indicates a change of
rock type.

Petrophysical Cut-offs14 are physical parameter limits that eliminate rock volume that does not significantly contribute to the
reservoir production.

Uncertainty9 is the range of possible outcomes in an estimate (i.e. the potential error in the estimate).

Original Oil-in-Place9 is the total hydrocarbon content in a reservoir; often it abbreviated as OOIP and can be estimated using
static properties.
SPE 151628 3

7758 * A * h * φ * (1 − S wi )
OOIP = (Equation 4)
Boi

Methodology

Core Data
Core analysis data is available from three wells. A methodology developed by G. Gunter (2001, SCA) known as Coherent
plug13 analysis is extremely useful in a petrophysical rock type study (Fig 3). Each plug cut from the core includes analysis of
8-10 properties, to maximize confidence in the integration of the results. The core analysis these Cerro Negro wells consists of
more 600 plugs with RCA and 70 plugs with SCAL (HPMI analysis, centrifuge capillary pressure, and formation factor).
In this study, eighteen lithofacies as determined in a previous sedimentology study were compared to petrophysical rock types
(Table. 1).

Formation Evaluation
The workflow applied for petrophysical formation evaluation of all three wells included environment corrections, core-log
depth shift, shale volume and porosity estimation, porosity adjustment, adjusted water saturation, and log predicted
permeability.
Often a depth shift is required between the drilling depth and logging depth as they may not coincide. Depth shifts were based
on gamma ray, porosity, and pseudo-density (Pseudo-Density = (RHOMA*(1-PHI))+PHI).
Volume of shale was determined using various techniques and Vsh indicators such as GR, RHOB, NPHI, and deep resistivity
were determined and compared in an attempt to reduce the degree of uncertainty in the Vsh calculation. Log porosity
estimation started with the application of density and density-neutron models. Stress corrections to core porosity were applied
to account for the appropriate sub-surface reservoir conditions; as a result computed log porosity is much to core data. The
SCAL data available allowed calibrating Archie and Waxman-Smits models according to Cerro Negro behavior. A modified
Waxman-Smits equation using SCAL data and the Rsh trend curve was required for providing a more reliable water saturation
curve which was calibrated with a clean porous aquifer zone in the lowest Morichal Member. Three correlation techniques for
predicting log permeability were calculated using shale volume, porosity, and water saturation. Both core and log permeability
values are compared to get the method with the highest correlation coefficient.

Petrophysical Rock Type (PRT)

Petrophysical Rock Types (PRT) are important as they are often useful in understanding what controls the vertical distribution
of initial hydrocarbon and water saturations. PRT classifications are defined based on pore geometry measurements from core
properties (capillary pressure, thin-sections and/or SEM analysis). There are several graphical classification methods
(Winland, Pittman, Hartmann, FZI etc). Initial core characterization is used to investigate if pore throat radius, porosity and
permeability are directly related to geologic parameters including lithology type, facies or any other descriptive characteristic.
Intrinsic core properties must be cross calibrated to the wellbore logs (lithology, total porosity, absolute permeability and pore
throat radius). It is important to establish if there is a relationship between pore throat radius and log computed water
saturation in the hydrocarbon column. The resulting core-log relationships are then applied to all un-cored wells within a local
area of confidence. The final product of the formation evaluation should include synthetic cross calibrated curves for lithology,
PHIT, PHIE, Swt, Sw, pore throat radius, absolute permeability, petrophysical rock type and net pay indicator.
Winland semi-log porosity-permeability plot (Fig 4) includes both core and log data in order to identify the PRTs present in
the reservoir. The Classic Lorenz methodology was applied as an alternative methodology to confirm PRT. Additionally,
capillary pressure analysis was used to refine PRT grouping parameters according to HPMI intrusion and semi-log profile
plots. The 70 Coherent core analysis plugs were grouped according to behavior of pore throat distribution. Winland predicted
pore throat radius was compared to lab derived pore throat size at 35% non-wetting phase saturation. This process was then
applied to all non-cored wells within a “reasonable area” and results for each well were interpreted using PRT, R35, porosity-
permeability relationship, and water saturation.

Petrophysical cut-offs
Many methodologies have been developed to quantify petrophysical cut-offs in the oil industry. In this study several methods
were compared to evaluate effects of net pay cutoffs on original oil-in-place.
The methods were divided into two groups: conventional and contemporary. The cases are described briefly following:

Conventional Methodology
• Base Case: The current petrophysical cut-offs applied in the Cerro Negro field are used.
4 SPE 151628

• Case 1: the limiting parameter for each PRT was estimated based on Sw-kr-lim (water saturation that represents the
maximum amount of water that can be produced) Once defined Sw-kr-lim cut-off, is used to determine porosity and Vsh
cutoffs by via cross plots.

To use water saturation as a limiting factor from relative permeability curve in oil-water system, it was necessary to use
relative permeability analysis from a neighboring field with similar rock types and fluid properties, because such data was not
available from the Morichal member. Table 2 has the water saturation cut-offs for each rock type based on relative
permeability curves. After defining the water saturation cut-offs and petrophysical properties, porosity and shale volume cut-
offs were estimated by cross-plots of porosity and shale volume versus water saturation. Figure 5 shows an example of the
procedure followed.

Contemporary Methodology
• Case 2: This case considers storage and flow capacity as well as water saturation cut-offs for each rock type. The same
cut-offs are applied for water saturation and porosity from Case 1. A permeability cut-off was applied for this Case 2 and
Vsh was not included (Table 3).
• Case 3: This case maintains water saturation and porosity cut-offs used in previous cases, but it includes R35 as an
additional parameter, which varied according to quality of each rock type.
• Case 4: For this case, the petrophysical cut-offs applied were water saturation, clay volume, and pore throat size (R35)
and the cut-off values were taken from preceding cases.
• Case 5: In this case the cumulative curves of properties versus properties were used to define the porosity, permeability,
and water saturation cut-offs required to guarantee the production of 95% of original hydrocarbon in place. It requires the
cumulative plots of porosity, permeability, and hydrocarbon saturation from the three wells. The same procedure was
following to estimate the different petrophysical cut-offs for the reservoir as well as for each rock type analyzed. Figure 6
displays an example of the procedure followed to define porosity cut-offs. The same method was used for the rest of the
properties for each well.

Once the cut-off parameters were estimated, the net pay was calculated for each case in order to calculate OOIP for the
reservoir, as well as for petrophysical rock types. Table 3 shows a summary of all the petrophysical cut-offs used for each
case, and Table 4 shows the summary of net pay and petrophysical properties required for reservoir and rock type OOIP.

Oil Volumetric calculation

During primary production stages, hydrocarbon volume in place (OOIP) can be roughly calculated using static volumetric
method (equation 4). Almost all parameters are from log data, except drainage area and initial oil formation volumetric factor,
which are derived from PVT data. The result from each case is compared with the outcome by average property reservoir in
order to estimate the uncertainty for the original oil in place calculation.

Result and Discussion

Core Petrophysical Rock Typing

Six petrophysical rock types (PRTs) were defined using the dominant pore throat radius at 35 percent of the non-wetting phase
saturation (mercury). Cut-offs for each petrophysical rock type were 65, 40, 20, 10, 7, 3.5, and 1 microns. The Winland semi-
log porosity-permeability plot shows that permeability values which represented the critical property to define each rock type
because porosity value is similar in some rock types (Fig 7 and 8). Petrophysical rock type 2 is the dominant one in all wells.
From Figure 9, petrophysical rock type 2 presents a wide variation in capillary behavior; but it has the same cluster of porosity
and permeability values. Depositional environment and/or cleaning of plugs could cause this difference. However, in this study
all of them were considered as a same rock type group based on porosity, permeability, and pore throat size. Capillary pressure
confirmed the rock type interpretation by Winland plot; nevertheless, rock type 6 does not have capillary pressure
measurement. Classic Lorenz plot results also confirm the rock type interpretation by Winland methodology showing five
different rock types and flow units on well A while six on wells B and C (Fig 10).
For comparison purpose between rock type and lithofacies, we can see that each rock type is associated at two or more
lithofacies. It is justified because rock type is controlled by pore throat size; in contrast, lithofacies indicate a certain
depositional environment with a distribution trend and dimension. The rock type distribution is not necessarily controlled by
lithofacies as is observed on Figure 11. In this way, properties average by lithofacies would be influenced by lower and/or
higher values including uncertainty over calculation.

Petrophysical Formation Evaluation

Shale Volume (Vsh), porosity, and water saturation are principal outputs from formation evaluation because they allow
defining zones that contain hydrocarbon. In this study those parameters was calculated successfully to achieve calibration of
SPE 151628 5

core-log data. Density and neutron curves were corrected for washout and mud cake effects. It was necessary to apply a core to
log depth shift of 3.5 to 10 feet.
Computed log porosities from standard methods were much lower than core porosities after applying stress corrections (Table
5), indicating additional corrections were required. It is not appropriate to change “log response values” arbitrarily. The
following process was applied and the final core-log porosity results are shown in Fig.12:
1. Core porosities were stress corrected and verified from lab to subsurface conditions.
2. The proper borehole correctins were applied to porosity logs.
3. Fluid corrections were applied for mud filtrate.
4. Lithology corrections (Vsh) were applied to both the density and neutron logs.
Storage capacity and flow capacity in the reservoir determine the flow potential of individual zones. Furthermore, water
saturation is the controlling factor for hydrocarbon present in the reservoir (Sh=1-Sw). From resistivity index and formation
factor from special core analysis, the parameters for Archie’s equation were determined. The values were: cementation
exponent, m = 2.33; saturation exponent, n = 1.81. Archie’s equation with SCAL values was applied for these fluvial sands
because of a low shale volume. Archie’s equation is not as suitable for deltaic sands due to typical high shale volume.
Consequently, it was appropriate to apply other correlations that consider shale volume to estimate the amount of water present
in the pore space. The modified Waxman-Smits correlation matched very well on brine-saturated intervals, as well as capillary
pressure and Dean Stark water saturation in all wells. This empirical technique applied reasonably, and reduced the uncertainty
of water saturation (Fig 13).
For the permeability prediction from logs, the best match to core data was obtained from the multi-linear regression method,
using both shale volume and log porosity. An attempt was also made using the Timur permeability prediction, however the
regression results were of reasonable quality in the clean zones, but of lower quality in the shaly zones (Fig 14). A key factor
when comparing core and log permeability is that only limited number of plug samples are availale with low permeabilities
less than 100 mD. The log permeability correlation from Well B was applied on the other wells (A and C) to compare the
correlation between core and log permeability of all three wells. The correlation coefficients were very close to the highest
achieved with all methodologies (see Fig 14). Therefore, it is recommended to use equation 5 to estimate log permeability in
the Morichal member.

LogK = 7.9985*PorLogC_Ov - 1.2042*VCL + 0.5915 (Equation 5)

Log-based Petrophysical Rock Type Prediction

Once the R35 cut-offs were determined for each petrophysical rock type derived from core data, then these R35 cut-offs were
applied to uncored intervals. Log-derived porosity and permeability data were used as the anchor points for petrophysical rock
type prediction. As a result, we can see on Figure 15 that rock type 1 is the rock with best properties, while the most abundant
is petrophysical rock type 2. Rock types 5 and 6 have good porosity and permeability values but high water saturation.
Petrophysical rock types 1 and 2 will control the hydrocarbon production because of their excellent flow characteristics and
these will be depleted faster than the other petrophsical rock types.
Flow capacity and storage capacity were calculated from log data in order to make a Classic Lorenz plot (flow capacity versus
storage capacity). The Classic Lorenz plot was made in the same way as for core data, and the results indicated six
petrophysical rock types.

Petrophysical cut-offs
The main cut-off parameter is water saturation because from it affect all other cut-offs. The values varied between 50% and
70% because it varies according to quality of rock. The average water saturation cutoff value used for the reservoir was 60%.
The quality of rock and hydrocarbon properties did not allow estimating a relative permeability curve for PRT 6, a non-pay
portion of he reservoir. Water saturation of PRT 5 is higher than the better rock types since water flows faster through better
quality rocks. This means it is a big mistake to use an average water saturation cut-off to estimate net pay, because of
overestimating net pay and underestimating average water saturation. Porosity cut-offs were approximately 35% for the
average reservoir as well as for each rock type due to homogenous characteristics of porosity throughout the reservoir. Shale
volume, pore throat size, and permeability cut-offs varied according to rock type, but they do not show significant variation
between them.
The Base Case and Case 5 resulted in very similar total net pay and average values despite the fact that both had different
petrophysical cut-offs applied. This indicates the impact of petrophysical cut-offs on net pay, and the resulting hydrocarbon
volume calculation. In Case 5, permeability was included, a dynamic property, whereas the Base Case incorporated only static
rock properties.
Although petrophysical rock type 1 has the best quality, rock type 2 is the most abundant in the reservoir, even after applying
petrophysical cut-offs. In all cases, PRT 2 has greater than 450 feet of net pay (Table 4) and the greatest hydrocarbon pore
volume. Based on Table 4, rock type 3 has less hydrocarbon than rock types 1 and 2. Petrophysical rock types 4, 5, and 6 are
non-producing due to their lower porosity and high water saturation.
In summary, the outcome of Cases 1, 2, 3, and 4 all resulted in reasonable estimates of hydrocarbon volume. For this study,
Case 4 is the most accurate petrophproved to be the most effective at eliminating non-producing intervals.
6 SPE 151628

Original Oil in Place (OOIP)

In Cerro Negro field, the average of properties such as porosity, water saturation/hydrocarbon saturation, and thickness lead to
difference between OOIP derived from average reservoir properties compared to the petrophysical rock typing method. In the
majority of the cases, OOIP from average reservoir properties are greater than OOIP calculated from applying petrophysical
rock typing methods. Each case showed a different OOIP value, although the calculation was done with net pay and
petrophysical properties from similar petrophysical cut-off values. It indicates that the average of properties required for static
volumetric methods include uncertainty by over-estimating OOIP depending on the petrophysical cut-off methodology used
(Fig 17). OOIP estimation by average reservoir properties contains significant uncertainty up to 500 MMstb of difference
among the methods. The original oil in place from average rock types was around 11,500 MMstb in all cases, except in the
Base Case. Consequently, estimating OOIP by petrophysical rock typing leads to the best results in this study.
Both methods from Case 4 showed similar original oil in place, confirming that the petrophysical cut-offs utilized in Case 4
give the lowest uncertainty in comparison with the rest of the cases.

Conclusions

1. Petrophysical rock typing (PRT) provides an effective method to integrate core and log data.
2. Six PRTs were identified using three different methods in cored intervals as well as uncored intervals.
3. In Cerro Negro field, the permeability and capillary pressure data were identified as critical properties to define each rock
type.
4. Rock types 1 and 2 control the hydrocarbon production on Morichal member but they may deplete faster than the other
petrophysical rock types due to higher quality reservoir rock dominated by larger pore throats and lower water saturations.
5. The multi-linear regression correlation for permeability from well B gave the best correlation, and was applied to the
Morichal member.
6. PRT and Facies did not show a well defined relationship.
7. Intrinsic properties based on facies often add uncertainty in reservoir characterization due to average properties computed
from facies. This occurs because a facies may include multiple petrophysical rock types and the resulting averages are
typically lower than when applying petrophysical rock types.
8. Reservoirs that are very heterogeneous result in an OOIP estimate that typically includes a large uncertainty.
Petrophysical rock typing improves our confidence in the results of volumetric determination of OOIP because each PRT
has a limited range of capillary pressure responses and associated water saturation distribution.
9. Petrophysical cutoffs impact the average reservoir properties, and hence the final volumes of OOIP.
10. The PRT approach is to make appropriate OOIP calculations which result in reduced uncertainty, because of a better
description of the heterogeneities that impact water saturation.
11. Case 4 gives the minimum uncertainty compared to the rest of the cases.

Nomenclature
R35: pore throat radius at 35% mercury saturation (μm)
Kair: permeability (mD)
φ: porosity (percentage or fraction)
Pc: capillary pressure (Psi)
σ: interfacial tension (dynes/cm)
θ: contact angle (degrees)
r: pore throat radius
J(Sw): Leverett dimensionless J-function
K: permeability (mD)
OOIP: original oil in place (STB oil)
A: area of oil zone (acres)
h: thickness / gross, oil zone (feet)
Swi: initial water saturation (percentage or fraction)
Boi: initial oil formation volume factor (SCF of solution
gas per STB oil)
Log(K): Log Permeability predicted (mD)
PorLogC_Ov: Log porosity (Dec)
VSH: Shale volume (Dec)

Acknowledgments
The authors thank PDVSA for permission to publish this paper and Nubia Santiago for your technical help during this paper. I
appreciate the support that William Bryant provided for the formation evaluation and core-log integration. I also express my
thanks to Ken Wolgemuth for his guidance during the project and in getting this paper prepared.
SPE 151628 7

Reference

1. Gunter G et al, “Saturation Modeling at the Well Log Scale using Petrophysical Rock Types and a Classic Non-Resistivity Based
Method” paper presented at the 1999 SPWLA 40th Annual Logging Symposium May30-June 3.
2. Hamon G. “Two Phase Flow Rock Typing: Another perspective”. SPE 84035, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition
held in Denver, Colorado, USA, 5-8 October 2003.
3. Chautru J. M. “An Integrated RRT Prediction Method Combining Thin Sections, Sequences Stratigraphy and Logs”. SPE 93563,
14th SPE Middle East Oil & Gas show and Conference held in Bahrain International Exhibition Centre, Behrain, 12-15 March
2005.
4. Abedini A. “Statical Evaluation of Reservoir Rock Type in a Carbonate Reservoir”. Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science,
University of Regina. SPE 152359-STU.
5. Hamon G. and Bennes M. “ Two-Phase Flow Rock Typing: Another Approach”. This paper was presented on Petrophysics, Vol.
45, No 5 (September-Octuber 2004); P 433-444.
6. Varavur S et al. “Reservoir Rock Typing in a Giant Carbonate”. SPE 93477, 14th SPE Middle East Oil & Gas show and
Conference held in Bahrain International Exhibition Centre, Behrain, 12-15 March 2005.
7. Guo G. et al “Rock Typing as an Effective tool for Permeability and Water- saturation modeling: A Case Study in a Clastic
reservoir in the Oriente Basin”. SPE 97033. 2005 SPE Annual Technical Conference and exhibition held in Dallas, Texas, USA, 9-
12 October 2005.
8. Rodriguez L. et al. “Elimination of Bias in Core – Log Correlation: A Case Study in a Clastic Reservoir, Orinoco Heavy Oil Belt”.
SPE-WVS-115. 2011 South American Oil and Gas Congress held in Maracaibo, Venezuela, 18-21 October 2011.
9. Ross J. G. “The Philosophy of Reserve Estimation”. SPE, Gaffney, Cline & Associates. SPE 37960. This paper was prepared for
presentation at the 1997 SPE Hydrocarbon Economics and Evaluation Symposium, held in Dallas, Texas, 16-18 March 1997.
10. Demirmen F. “Reserves Estimation: The Challenge for Industry” SPE, petroleum consultant. JPT May 2007.
11. Ling K and Shen Z. “Effects of Fluid and Rock Properties on Reserve Estimation”. SPE, Texas A&M University. SPE 148717.
SPE Eastem Regional Meeting held in Columbus, Ohio, USA, 17-19 August 2011.
12. Catuneanu, O., “ Principle of Sequence Stratigraphy”, Deparment of earth and atmospheric sequences of the University of Alberta,
Canada (2006)
13. Gunter G. NExT-2007, Course Note Integrated Reservoir Analysis.
14. Chen Yao, F., Moya, C., Regardiz, K., and Rodriguez L. ”Reservoir Characterization and Subsurface Integration of M-19, O-16,
and J-20 Areas, Caracbobo Block, Orinoco Belt”, Technical report presented by PDVSA-NExT in PDVSA Conference,
Maracaibo-Venezuela. 2007.
15. Ali-Nandalal J. and Gunter G. “Characterizing Reservoir for the Mahogany 20 Gas Sand Based on Petrophysical Rock Typing
Methods”. SPE 81048, SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference held in Port-of-Spain, Trinidad,
West Indies, 27-30 April 2003.

Author Biographies

Carelis Moya is a petrophysicist with Offshore Exploration Management (PDVSA). She earned a BS of Petroleum
Engineering at Universidad de Oriente-Venezuela as well as a Master of Science degree in Petrophysics from the University of
Tulsa-USA. She has participated in multidisciplinary teams for 8 years and works in reservoir characterization. Her
responsibilities include wellbore petrophysics and interpretation of well-logs, interpretation of RCA and SCAL for developing
petrophysical models.

Gary W. Gunter is director of Petrophysics and Subsurface Integration for Network of Excellence in Training (NExT-
Schluberger). Mr. Gunter also is an adjunct professor of Petroleum Engineering and Geosciences at the University of Tulsa.
He has over 33 years of industry experience and authored or co-authored approximately 20 industry papers.

Jagannathan Mahadevan holds a BS degree in Chemical Engineering from Central Electrochemical Research Institute, India
and MS, PhD degrees in Chemical Engineering from The University of Texas at Austin. He received the John and Mary
Booker graduate fellowship at The University of Texas. His research interests are in prediction and optimization of well
performance of unconventional reservoirs such as tight gas sands, shale gas and heavy oils. He has over 5 years of petroleum
engineering teaching experience. He is a member of the Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), American Chemical Society,
and the American Institute of Chemical Engineers. He serves as a technical editor for the SPE Reservoir Engineering &
Evaluation and the SPE Journals. He has also been elected to serve as an Associate Editor of the SPE Journal.

Kenneth M. Wolgemuth is a petroleum consultant teaching short courses on petrophysics and geology for NExT-
Schlumberger and The University of Tulsa. He has a Ph.D. in geochemistry from Columbia University and is an adjunct
professor of geosciences at The University of Tulsa. He has over 40 years of experience in the energy industry specializing in
formation evaluation and geology.
8 SPE 151628

Appendix (Figures and Tables)

Well A
0-16
0-16 Cerro Negro Field
CIB-6E CIB-7E
Well B Well C
M-19

J-20

Orinoco Heavy Oil Belt

Basin of Venezuela

Fig. 1: Cerro Negro field geographic location.

Porosity
THIN Permeability XRD or ELEMENTAL
HPMI or LPS
SECTION SEM &
Grain Density FTIR
LOCAL STRATIGRAPHIC COLUMN NMR

STRATIGRAPHIC COLUMN
MARU FIELD
Mesa Fig 3: Coherent Plug Methodology. It shows distribution for each
Pleistocene

Formation LOG TYPE

core analysis.
Plicoene

Las Piedras Well: D ELEV: 248 KB

Formation
Miocene
Middle

Freites
Table 1
Formation Facies used during study. Random number was assigned
MFSP
arbitrarily to each facie.
PILON MEMBER
Number
Facies Names S
Early to MiddleMiocene

Assigned
OficinaFormation

JOBO MEMBER
Tidal Bar 1 TB
Tidal Bar (Local Paleosol) 2 TB(PS)
YABO MEMBER 3 FCA
Zone-1 Abandoned Channels
Fluvial Channels 4 FC
MORICHAL MEMBER

Zone-2
Zone-3 Fluvial Channels with Tide Effects 5 FC(T)
Zone-4 Storm Beds 6 OSS
Zone-5 Tansgressive Deposits 7 TL
Zone-6 Offshore Interdistributary 8 OS/ID
Zone-7 Lower Shoreface 9 LSF
Zone-8 Low-Middle Shoreface 10 L-MSF
Zone-9 Middle Shoreface 11 MSF
Basement Zone 10 Paleosol Sequence 12 PS
Transitional Offshore 13 OST
Fluvial Channels (Local Paleosols) 14 FC(PS)
Tidal Channels (Local Paleosol) 15 FC(T-PS)
Fig 2: Geological Column. Modified from Rosina Pittelli and Crevasse Splay 16 CS
Gerardp Giffuni, 1998. Zona de mar abierto transicional 17
Depósito residual de transgresión 18

Number was assigned arbritarily

SPE 151628 9

H*Porosity Cumulative vs. Porosity - Well A

Winland Plot - All Wells RT 1 Well A
RT 2
100000 100
RT 3
90
RT 4

H*Porosity Cumulative (%)

80
10000
RT 5
70
RT 6
60
1 Microns
3.5 Microns 50
Permeability (mD)

1000 7 Microns
10 Microns 40
20 Microns
40 Microns 30
65 Microns
100 Well A 20
Well B
Well C 10

0
10 50 40 30 20 10 0
Porosity (%)

1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Porosity (%) Fig 6: Porosity cumulative plot used to estimate porosity cut-offs
whose shows that porosity cut-off according to well A data resulted
Fig 4: Winland semi-log plot of porosity and permeability from core equal to 15%.
data. The six petrophysical rock types (PRT) are shown as areas,
with PRT 1 defined as the largest pore throats (highest
permeabilities and highest porosities) to PRT 6 defined as the
smallest pore throats.

Table 2
Outcome of water saturation cut-offs from relative permeability
Relative Permability Curve data.
Kro (RT1) Kro (RT2) Kro (RT3) Kro (RT4) Kro (RT5)
Sw
Krw (RT1) Krw (RT2) Krw (RT3) Kro (RT4) Krw (RT5)
RT
1
Cut-off, %
0.9
Reservoir 60
Relative Permeability (mD)

0.8
0.7
RT1 50
0.6
RT2 54
0.5 RT3 62
Swc = 50% Swc = 70%
0.4 RT4 67
0.3 RT5 70
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Water Saturation (%)

Water saturation vs Porosity

60

50

40
Porosity (%)

30

20

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Sw (% )

Fig 5: Schematic relative permeability curve (left) and water

saturation versus porosity plot (right). It displays the procedure to
define petrophysical cut-off from water saturation cut-off.
 10 SPE 151628

Table 3
Summary of petrophysical cut-off defined and used for net pay
estimation.
Petrophysical cut-offs
# Case RT
Sw, % Porosity, % Vsh, % K, mD R35, Microns Core Rock Type of Well C Core Permeability Average for each Rock Type of Well C

Reservoir 50 25 35 --- ---

RT1 50 25 35 --- --- 178
9% 1% 8% 28
3% 964 377
RT2 50 25 35 --- ---
Base 15%
RT3 50 25 35 --- ---
7841
RT4 50 25 35 --- --- 4330

RT5 50 25 35 --- --- 64%

Reservoir 60 35 22 --- ---

RT1 50 36 20 --- --- RT1 RT2 RT3 RT4 RT5 RT6
RT1 RT2 RT3 RT4 RT5 RT6
RT2 54 36 21 --- ---
1
RT3 62 35 25 --- ---
RT4 67 34 27 --- --- Core Porosity Average for each Rock Type of Well C

RT5 70 33 27 --- ---

Reservoir 60 35 --- 1200 ---
RT1 50 36 --- 1500 ---
RT2 54 36 --- 1400 --- 22
2 37
RT3 62 35 --- 1250 --- 30
RT4 67 34 --- 1000 ---
RT5 70 33 --- 900 ---
Reservoir 60 35 --- --- 22 38
RT1 50 36 --- --- 24 30
RT2 54 36 --- --- 22 34
3
RT3 62 35 --- --- 20
RT4 67 34 --- --- 19
RT5 70 33 --- --- 17 RT1 RT2 RT3 RT4 RT5 RT6
Reservoir 60 --- 22 --- 25
RT1 50 --- 20 --- 24
RT2 54 --- 21 --- 22
4 Fig 7: Rock type from core data by Winland plot for well C.
RT3 62 --- 25 --- 20
RT4 67 --- 27 --- 19
RT5 70 --- 27 --- 17
Well A 75 15 --- 1200 ---
Well B 75 30 --- 1300 ---
5
Well C 75 18 --- 1200 ---
Reservoir 75 21 --- 1233 --- Permeability behavior for each rock type

9000

8000

7000
Table 4
Permeability (mD)

6000

Summary of net pay and petrophysical properties for reservoir and 5000 Well A

rock type. 4000

Well B
Well C
3000
Case Properties Reservoir RT1 RT2 RT3 RT4 RT5 RT6 2000
Porosity behavior for each rock type
Net Pay, ft 904 247 541 115 0 0 0
1000 45
PHI, Dec 0.39 0.43 0.39 0.34 0 0 0
Base
SW, Dec
0 40
0.25 0.09 0.27 0.52 0 0 0 RT1 RT2 RT3 RT4 RT5 RT6
HCPV, ft 265 97 154 19 0 0 0 Rock Type
35

Net Pay, ft 751 245 471 10 0 0 -- 30

Porosity (%)

PHI, Dec 0.40 0.43 0.39 0.36 0 0 -- Well A

1 25
SW, Dec 0.19 0.08 0.24 0.36 0 0 -- 20
Well B

HCPV, ft 245 96 140 2 0 0 -- Well C

15
Net Pay, ft 795 245 471 28 0 0 --
PHI, Dec 0.40 0.43 0.39 0.36 0 0 -- 10

2
SW, Dec 0.21 0.08 0.24 0.51 0 0 -- 5

HCPV, ft 254 96 140 5 0 0 -- 0

Net Pay, ft 758 245 454 23 0 0 -- RT1 RT2 RT3 RT4 RT5 RT6
Rock Type
PHI, Dec 0.40 0.43 0.39 0.36 0 0 --
3
SW, Dec 0.20 0.08 0.24 0.48 0 0 --
HCPV, ft 245 96 137 4 0 0 --
Net Pay, ft 757 245 466 32 0 0 -- Fig 8: Behavior of porosity and permeability for each rock type. It
PHI, Dec 0.40 0.43 0.39 0.35 0 0 -- evidences that permeability values government of rock type
4
SW, Dec 0.20 0.08 0.23 0.52 0 0 -- distribution.
HCPV, ft 243 96 140 5 0 0 --
Net Pay, ft 904 -- -- -- -- -- --
PHI, Dec 0.40 -- -- -- -- -- --
5
SW, Dec 0.25 -- -- -- -- -- --
HCPV, ft 268 -- -- -- -- -- --
SPE 151628 11

1 Microns
Winland Plot - Core with Capillary Pressure Analysis 3.5 Microns

100000
7 Microns
10 Microns
20 Microns
40 Microns
Facies vs Rock Type of the Well B
RT1 65 Microns
1H-A
13H-A

RT2 34H-A
Tidal Bar
160
71H-A
10000
81H-A

RT3 99H-A
115H-A
Tidal Bar (LP)
145H-A
171H-A
RT4 233H-A
140 Abandoned Channels
Permeability (mD)

1000 2H-B
17H-B

RT5 27H-B
34H-B Fluvial Channels
46H-B
54H-B
62H-B 120 Fluvial Channels/Tide
100 79H-B
95H-B
120H-B
5H-C Storm Beds
14H-C
100
28H-C
Transgessive Deposit

% Facies
43H-C
10
65H-C
94H-C
125H-C Offshore Interdistributary
166H-C
185H-C
80
1
208H-C
Lower Shoreface
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Porosity (%)
60 Low-Middle Shoreface
Middle Shoreface
Capillary Pressure vs. Water Saturation (Drainage Cycle) 99H-A_RT1 40 Paleosol Sequence
62H-B_RT1
14H-C_RT1 Transitional Offshore
10000.0
34H-A_RT2 20 Fluvial Channels (LP)
115H-A_RT2
171H-A_RT2
17H-B_RT2
Tidal Channels (LP)
0
34H-B_RT2
RT1 RT2 RT3 RT4 RT5 RT6
Crevasse Splay
1000.0 166H-C_RT2
120H-B_RT2
Rock Type Zona
208H-C_RT2
Mercury Capillary Pressure (psia)

145H-A_RT2 Deposito
27H-B_RT2
100.0

Fig 11: Distribution of lithofacies by rock type for well B. Shows

54H-B_RT2
95H-B_RT2
35% non- 94H-C_RT2
wetting phase 185H-C_RT2 that lithofacies do not control rock type distribution.
10.0
71H-A_RT2
79H-B_RT2
65H-C_RT2
1H-A_RT2
13H-A_RT2
1.0 233H-A_RT2 Table 5
28H-C_RT2
81H-A_RT3 Means and mean difference between core and log porosity for
5H-C_RT3

0.1
46H-B_RT3 three wells
125H-C_RT3
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
2H-B_RT4
Water Saturation (frac)
43H-C_RT5 Mean of Core Mean of PorLog Difference Mean of PHIT_P Difference
Well Porosity Porosity Core/PorLog Porosity Core/PHIT_P
Fig 9: Capillary pressure behavior of all plugs analyzed (left) and
(Dec) (Dec) (Dec) (Dec) (Dec)
Winland plot of plugs with capillary pressure analysis (right).
Well A 0.37 0.31 0.06 N/A N/A
Well B 0.37 0.31 0.07 0.30 0.08
Well C 0.36 0.30 0.06 0.28 0.08

Classic Lorenz Plot- Well A

5
100

90
Well A 4
80
3
70
Flow Capacity

60

50

40
2
30

20

10
1
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Storage Capacity

Fig 10: Classic Lorenz plot for well A. Five rock types were
identified assuring accuracy in the rock type characterization.

Fig 12: Outcome of porosity adjustment for well A. It shows the

best adjust was achieve after to apply mean difference at porosity
log. The result is great correlation between them.
12 SPE 151628

Fig 13: Water saturation result of the well C. It shows a good correlation even in shaly sands.

R square (%)
Permeability Methodology
Well A Well B Well C
Timur Correlation 20 37 46
Linear Rgression 27 56 56
Shale Volume Rescale 33 30 52
MultiLinear Regression 35 63 61
MultiLinear Regression From Well B 34 63 60

Fig 14: Permeability panel for well C. It displays the match between log and core data even in shaly sands.
SPE 151628 13

Log Rock Type of Well A Log Permeability Average for each Rock Type of Well A

319 122
1042
9% 4355 8
24%

34%

7%
5%
21%
10006

RT1 RT2 RT3 RT4 RT5 RT6 RT1 RT2 RT3 RT4 RT5 RT6

Log Porosity Average for each Rock Type of Well A Log water saturation Average for each Rock Type
of Well A

25 15
43
9 29
100
76

30 39 88

32 99

RT1 RT2 RT3 RT4 RT5 RT6 RT1 RT2 RT3 RT4 RT5 RT6

Fig 15: Rock types, permeability, porosity, and water saturation log distribution for well A. It presents the distribution of each property by rock
type.

Classic Lorenz Plot- Well A (Log Data)

Comparison of OOIP obtained
100
5
Well A 4 Reservoir Rock Type
90
3
80
13000
70
Flow Capacity (%)

60
2 12500
50

40
OOIP, MMstb

30 12000

20
1
10 11500
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Storage Capacity(%) 11000

Fig 16: Classic Lorenz plot for well A. It shows five flow units 10500
according to change of slope in the curve. Base 1 2 3 4

Cases

Fig 17: Comparison of OOIP obtained by reservoir and rock types.