PfEFFER Concepts

Table of Contents

General

• Resistivity
• Porosity
• Shale Volume

Archie Computational Equations

• Evaluation of Water Saturation when either or both the Formation Water Resistivity
and Constants of the Archie Equation are Known or Unknown
• When both water resistivity and Archie equation constants are known
• When water resistivity is unknown, but Archie constants are known
• When water resistivity is known, but the Archie constants are unknown
• When both water resistivity and the Archie constants are unknown

Pickett Plot

• Fundamentals of the Pickett Plot

• The Hough Transform Crossplot Method

Productivity

• Productivity
• Plotting Bulk Volume Water (BVW) lines on the Pickett plot

Pay

• Pay Determination
• Z-Plot: The Third Dimension

Permeability Prediction

• Permeability Prediction from Wireline Logs

• Addition of predicted permeability contours to the Pickett plot

Capillary Pressure

• Capillary Pressure Applications

• Mapping of capillary pressure contours onto the Pickett plot
Log Analysis Models for Shaly Sandstones

Movable Hydrocarbon Calculations

Compositional Analysis

• Rock Compositional Analysis

• The RHOmaa - Umaa crossplot and composition profile

General compositional solutions

Hydraulic Flow

• Hydraulic Flow Units in Oil and Gas Reservoirs

• Definition of flow units in PFEFFER by depth-constrained cluster analysis

References
Resistivity (Rt)

In most cases, either a deep-reading resistivity log or a computed estimate (corrected for
invasion characteristics) of true formation resistivity, Rt, should be used, so that saturations
are good estimates of those in the undisturbed reservoir. However, shallow-reading
resistivity devices (such as microresistivity tools) can also be used, but their saturations will
reflect those of the flushed zone, close to the borehole wall. This information can be useful,
particularly when compared with deep-resistivity saturation data, as a quantitative indicator
of moveable hydrocarbons.

In PfEFFER, the Rt selection button is the site of the user-selected resistivity log. Values in
these cells are combined with porosity values in the adjacent PHI column to automatically
generate water saturation and other variables, through application of the Archie equations
and parameter values in the PARAMETER tab. The choice of resistivity log dictates the
meaning of the computed fluid saturations. For a resistivity tool whose depth of
investigation reaches beyond the invasion front, the reading will be an estimate of Rt, the
undisturbed formation resistivity. If a shallow-focused tool such as a microresistivity device
is selected, then the saturations in the flushed zone are estimated. However, in this case,
remember to substitute a mud filtrate resistivity value (at formation temperature) in the RW
parameter cell. PfEFFER also provides a movable hydrocarbon option for users who wish
to evaluate residual, movable, and total hydrocarbon saturation simultaneously.

Porosity

The porosity of any zone can be estimated either from a single "porosity log" (sonic,
density, neutron, or magnetic resonance log) or a combination of porosity logs, in order to
correct for variable lithology effects in complex reservoirs. When using a single porosity
log, the true porosity is calculated from interpolation between the values for the matrix
mineral and the pore fluid (usually equated with mud filtrate, because of the shallow
investigation of the porosity tools). So, if a bulk density log is used, then porosity is
calculated from the relationship:

where ρb is the bulk density, φ is the porosity, ρma is the matrix density, and ρf is the pore
fluid density. If a sonic log is used for porosity estimation, the equivalent relationship is:

where ∆t is the zone transit time, φ is the porosity, ∆tma is the matrix transit time, and ∆tf is
the pore fluid transit time. Modern neutron logs are recorded in apparent porosity units
with respect to a given mineralogy. Calcite is commonly chosen as a default mineral, in
which case the porosity values will be true porosities in limestone zones. Where zones are
not limestone, the limestone-equivalent neutron log should be rescaled to the zone matrix
mineral or combined with a density limestone-equivalent porosity in an estimate of the true
porosity.

The combination of density and neutron logs is now used commonly as a means to
determine porosity that is free of lithology effects. Each individual log records an apparent
porosity that is only true when the zone lithology matches that used by the logging engineer
to scale the log. The true porosity may be estimated either by taking an average of the two
log readings or by applying the equation:

where φn and φd are neutron and density porosities.

The alternative options of calculating porosity from sonic, density, neutron, or the
density/neutron log combination are provided by PfEFFER and the results are stored in the
PHI column of the Computation section. In some situations, users may want to
differentiate between "primary" porosity (intergranular and intercrystalline) and
"secondary" porosity (vugs and fractures). It is widely perceived that the sonic log is
sensitive only to the primary porosity, while the neutron and density logs reflect total
porosity. PfEFFER provides a secondary porosity option to apply this concept for
interested users.

The calculations presented for porosity estimation from a single log assume that shale
effects are not significant or that they can be disregarded. The correction for shale involves
an expansion of the porosity estimation equations to:

for density

for sonic

for neutron log

where Vsh is the fraction of shale estimated from log(s) and ρsh, ∆tsh, and φnsh are
readings of representative shales on the density, sonic, or neutron log.
Shale volume

There are a number of methods to estimate the proportion of shale, Vsh, from wireline logs.
When using a single log (typically a gamma-ray or SP), Vsh of a zone is estimated by
interpolating the zone log reading, L, between the extremes of a log reading of a "clean"
(shale-free) formation, C, and a reading of a typical shale, S. The equation is then:

This estimate is often known as the "gamma-ray index" and represents the proportion by
weight of radioactive material calibrated to the reference shale. Some log analysts apply
one of a variety of functions to estimate the volume of clay, Vcl. This relationship varies
with the stratigraphic age and sedimentary facies of the shale and so is not included in
PfEFFER. However, it has been reported in the literature (e.g. Yaalon, 1962) that the
"average" shale contains approximately 60% clay minerals. Therefore, as a first
approximation: as suggested by Bhuyan and Passey (1994).

The spontaneous potential log can be used in the place of the gamma-ray log in this
estimation procedure. However, there is not a linear relationship between shale content and
the SP response (Griffiths, 1952), and calculated values are almost always overestimates.

If two logs are used (most commonly the neutron and density logs) and are calibrated to the
clean reservoir lithology, then the estimate is given by the equation:

The analyst provides the boundary values from an inspection of the section itself because of
the extreme variability of shale properties both laterally and with depth.

The estimate of Vsh is a pragmatic measure and it is common for several alternative
measures to be computed together. Field experience has suggested that log measures of
shale tend to be overestimates, so it is common practice to select the lowest figure as the
best estimate. The values are stored in the VSH column of the Computation section.
Archie Computational Equations

Fifty years after it was introduced, the Archie equation remains the keystone of log analysis
for the solution of water saturation of potential oil and gas zones:

The equation is actually made up of two separate equations. The first describes the
relationship of the ratio of the resistivity of a water saturated rock, Ro, to its formation
water resistivity, Rw, to the fractional porosity, Φ:

This resistivity ratio is also known as the “formation factor”, F. The second equation relates
the ratio of the observed formation resistivity, Rt, to its expected resistivity, Ro, if it was
completely saturated with water, to the fractional water saturation, Sw:

The equations are universally applied to reservoir fluid calculations from wireline logs in
“clean” (shale-free) formations. Even when specialized equations are applied to clastic
reservoirs that are markedly shaley, these same equations are adaptations of the Archie
equation that accommodate shale effects.

The application of the Archie equations presuppose a knowledge of the parameters, or at

least reasonable estimates of them, in order to calculate acceptable water saturations.
Formation water resistivity can usually be established from field measurements and/or log
analysis estimations. However, the quantities of a, m (the “cementation factor”), and n (the
saturation exponent) are usually unknown and their values are given as a matter of
experience. The range of values for m and their relationship with rock texture has been the
subject of much measurement and discussion. By contrast, the variability of n is less well
understood, but is generally taken to be the number 2 (at least, in water-wet zones). The
problem is further compounded by the realization that these “constants” are only likely to
remain so in relatively homogeneous reservoirs, where rock texture and pore geometry
remain fairly uniform. Continuing advances in theory and measurement demonstrate that
simple models may be poor (and puzzling) representations, or even downright misleading
in heterogeneous and complex reservoirs that are the targets of many of today’s energy
companies.
Evaluation of Water Saturation when either or both the Formation Water
Resistivity and Constants of the Archie Equation are Known or Unknown

A direct solution for water saturation is predicated on a knowledge of both the formation
water resistivity and the constants of the Archie equation. There are many occasions when
either or both of these quantities are unknown. There will also be situations where, for
example, the Humble form of the Archie equation will not be deemed a satisfactory
approximation for evaluation of relatively tight sandstones, or the "limestone" form of the
equation adequate for certain carbonates. However, both water resistivity and an
appropriate form of the Archie equation may be deduced from logs provided that some
zones with 100% water saturation occur in the unit of interest. This is not usually a difficult
stipulation to meet since many productive units will have a hydrocarbon/water contact
separating the reservoir from a lower, water-saturated section. Failing this, an adjacent
water-saturated unit of similar lithology and (hopefully) with similar water resistivity may
be used as a surrogate for the critical zones. These critical water zones do not have to be
recognized initially, but will manifest their presence (or absence) in the methods of analysis
described in the following pages.

The zone readings of porosity and resistivity of the hypothetical “Rottweiler Sandstone”
(Figure 1) can be used to demonstrate log analysis procedures for varying degrees of
uncertainty, and how these techniques are enhanced considerably when used in PfEFFER
within GEMINI.

When both water resistivity and Archie equation constants are known

If the Archie equation constants in Rottweiler Sandstone samples were determined as a=1
and m=1.8, n=2, while the formation water resistivity in the formation was 0.10 ohm-m at
formation temperature, then:

Applied to the zone readings:

φ%
Zone Rt Sw Sh

A 39 24 0.18 0.82
B 31 10 0.45 0.55
C 36 20 0.22 0.78
D 30 20 0.25 0.75
E 19 22 0.28 0.72
 F 9 18 0.49 0.51
G 2 19 1.00 0.00
H 1.5 23 0.97 0.03
I 4.0 12 1.07 -0.07
J 7 10 0.95 0.05

When water resistivity is unknown, but Archie constants are known

The reconnaissance water resistivity (Rwa) technique is the most widely used method under
these conditions.

Now, F = a/φm ( the Archie equation) and F = Ro/Rw (by definition)

Therefore, Rw = Ro φm/a

By analogy, Rwa = Rt φm/a

Note that for any zone: when Sw = 1, Rwa = Rw

and when Sw < 1, Rwa > Rw

If the Archie equation constants are known, Rwa values may be calculated from the
resistivity and porosity log readings. Within the oil or gas reservoir section, these values
will be high and will fluctuate in sympathy with variations in water saturation. Below the
hydrocarbon/water contact or in adjacent , similar water-wet units, the values will tend to
stabilize at a lower limiting value which corresponds to an estimate of the true formation
water resistivity, Rw.

In the Rottweiler Sandstone example, F=1/Φ1.8 and so the equation for Rwa is:

So the zone values of Rt and F can be transformed into Rwa values:

Rwa
Zone Rt φ%

A 39 24 2.988
B 31 10 0.491
 C 36 20 1.987
D 30 20 1.656
E 19 22 1.245
F 9 18 0.411
G 2 19 0.101
H 1.5 23 0.106
I 4 12 0.088
J 7 10 0.111

It is fairly obvious that the water zones are G, H, I and J. A representative value can be
picked out by eye and would be a value of about 0.1 ohm-m.

In PfEFFER, the reconnaissance water resistivity values are stored in column RWA of the
Computational section. When the user has selected an Rwa value that appears to be a
reasonable estimate of the actual formation water resistivity, Rw, this number should be
typed into the RW cell in the PARAMETERS box. Water saturations and other quantities
will then be recomputed automatically in the Home Area.

When water resistivity is known, but the Archie constants are unknown

The reconnaissance cementation exponent (ma) method can be used, and has conceptual
similarities with the Rwa technique.

Now, F = a/φm ( the Archie equation)

and F = Ro/Rw (by definition)

If the formation water resistivity, Rw, is known and the Archie equation constant, a is
assumed to be of unit value ( a = 1), then:

m = log(Rw/Ro) /log (φ)

By analogy, ma = log(Rw/Rt) /log (φ)

Note that for any zone: when Sw = 1, ma = m

and when Sw < 1, ma > m

In the Rottweiler Sandstone example, the formation water resistivity, Rw = 0.1

So the zone values of Rt and Φ can be transformed into ma values:

 φ%
Zone Rt ma

A 39 24 4.18
B 31 10 2.49
C 36 20 3.66
D 30 20 3.54
E 19 22 3.47
F 9 18 2.62
G 2 19 1.80
H 1.5 23 1.84
I 4 12 1.74
J 7 10 1.85

In PfEFFER, the reconnaissance cementation exponent values are stored in column MA of

the Computational section. When the user has chosen an MA value that appears to be a
reasonable estimate of the Archie equation cementation exponent (based on BOTH the
calculated values AND expectations for the reservoir rock type), this number should be
typed into the M cell in the PARAMETERS section.

When both water resistivity and the Archie constants are unknown

It would be rare for the log analyst to be confronted by a situation where the Archie
equation parameters and formation water resistivity were completely unknown. However, it
is very common that the parameters are known to either a lesser or greater degree of
uncertainty, particularly as the Archie "constants" will show some degree of variability in
even mildly heterogeneous formations. In the next two sections, we discuss the use of the
Pickett resistivity-porosity crossplot as a powerful graphical method of analysis and an
application of the Hough transform in an approach that combines the reconnaissance water
resistivity (Rwa) and reconnaissance cementation exponent (Ma) simultaneously.
Fundamentals of the Pickett Plot

When Dick Pickett introduced his plot he emphasized that it should not merely be used as a
graphical substitute for calculations that could be done with a slide rule. Instead, it was to
be a means for pattern recognition, so that trends and discriminations within the clouds of
crossplotted points could be related to pay zone evaluation and reservoir structure. Even
today, the same plots are displayed on computer monitor screens as a reconnaissance device
to recognize reservoir patterns and to validate the values of parameters used in log analysis
equations. Newer concepts of textural controls on productivity can be evaluated
immediately on these plots and used in the distinction of potential pay and assessment of
likely water cut. Contour lines of bulk volume water may be plotted directly as cut-off
boundaries for immediate decisions concerning testing or abandonment. Some
interpretations of permeability are also possible in favorable situations.

These more perceptive uses of crossplots reflect a clearer understanding of the role of pore
size and geometry in the determination of reservoir characteristics. This knowledge has
come from geological studies of the relation between rock textures and the depositional and
diagenetic history of the rock, as well as engineering studies of productivity as related to
porosity, water saturation, and rock type. New insights have gone a long way to the
explanation as to why some zones that appear to be wet have significant production, while
other, supposedly good pay zones, produce only water.

The principles of the Pickett plot will be illustrated with the hypothetical data set of
resistivity and porosity values logged in the Rottweiler Sandstone described earlier, with
“Archie rock” properties and a simple reservoir profile (Figure 1). The example consists of
a pay section at irreducible water saturation (zones A-E), a transition zone (Zone F), above
a water leg (zones G-J). The sandstone has been logged in the hypothetical wildcat , Toto
Rottweiler #1. We will suppose that the log analyst has no idea whatsoever concerning
either the formation water resistivity or any of the other parameter values that he or she
would need to solve the Archie equations. However, the log analyst is very familiar with
the Pickett plot and sets to work to evaluate the section.
Figure 1: Gamma ray, porosity and resistivity logs of a section of Rottweiler Formation
(Triassic), a hypothetical oil-productive sandstone

The Pickett plot is made on conventional double logarithmic (to base ten) scale graph
paper. An examination of a crossplot of the porosity and resistivity values of the ten zones
(Figure 4) shows a pattern that is easy to interpret. Zones A to E have much higher
resistivities than zones H to J, even though they have similar porosities, and suggests that
these zones may have appreciable hydrocarbon content. Zone F is intermediate between
these two clusters, and its depth relationship to them indicates that it may be in a transition
zone. The zone H-J trend of a systematic decline in resistivity with porosity also favors
their interpretation as possible water zones.

These qualitative generalizations can be made considerably more specific, using the
mathematical properties of the graph form and its ability to represent many useful
petrophysical relationships. The basic method for the plot that bears his name was
described by Pickett (1966). In a later paper, Pickett (1973) described in detail the pattern
recognition properties of the plot which made it a particularly powerful method for log
interpretation. The mathematics of the Pickett plot are simpler than those of the Hingle plot
(Hingle, 1959), and is another transformation of the Archie equation:

Rearranging the Archie equation and substituting the resistivity index, I, gives :

Taking logarithms, the equation becomes:

which describes a family of parallel lines for different resistivity index values whose slope
is the negative of the cementation exponent (-m). When the resistivity index, I is unity, the
line is the water line with an intercept equal to a*Rw. Other resistivity lines are displaced to
the northeast and are drawn easily as lines parallel to the water line and with resistivities
which are the water line resistivities multiplied by the index at common values of porosity.

In common with most visual methods, these concepts are more obvious when sketched out
graphically, as in figures 5 to 7. The water line can be established by eye, or numerically,
by stipulating the formation water resistivity, Rw, and the Archie constants of a and m
(Figure 5). Many log analysts prefer to work with the value of a held at a value of unity.
Using this convention, the intercept is equated directly with Rw, and the slope of m
becomes an average estimate of cementation factor within the reservoir. If a trend of
(relatively) low resistivity points is suspected to sketch out a water line, then the exact
position can be established through the selection of water resistivity and Archie constants
that are most compatible with preexisting knowledge while simultaneously honoring the
graphed data points in a convincing manner. (The use of an interactive graphics computer
program is most effective for this type of operation.)

In our hypothetical example, the intercept of the water line predicts a formation water
resistivity of 0.10 ohm-m and a cementation factor, m, of 1.8 (assuming the a constant to be
one). In a real analysis, these numbers would have local implications that could be assessed
for credibility. The cementation factor of the “Rottweiler sandstone” implies that the
sandstone is moderately cemented; the formation water resistivity would be compared with
available measurements of Rottweiler water resistivities in the immediate area.

Figure 4: Plotting zones on a Pickett Plot

Figure 5: Location of the "water line"

 Figure 6: Location of the 50% saturation water line

Figure 7: Location of the 20% water saturation line

The location of other water saturation lines will be on the higher resistivity side of the water
line (which is the 100% water saturation line). They all have the same slope of -m, and so
are parallel. The resistivity index, I, for any given water saturation determines the value of
Rt on the associated line at any porosity as a multiple of Ro on the water line at the same
porosity. This concept is explained graphically on figures 6 and 7.

Crossplotted points that lie above the water line have water saturations of less than 100%
and complementary hydrocarbon saturations. However, their location on the plot does not
immediately answer the question concerning the fluids the zones will produce when either
tested or perforated. Water free hydrocarbons, water-cut hydrocarbons or water alone are
all possibilities. The product of porosity and water saturation is the bulk volume of water
(BVW) which can give important clues to producibility when related to pore character and
reservoir type.

As an additional feature, each pair of contiguous zones on Pickett plots generated by

PfEFFER are linked by a straight line segment. Taken collectively, the lines sketch out a
trace that is the reservoir "trajectory" in the depth dimension of the covariation of resistivity
and porosity. Trends, deviations, cut-backs and other features of the trajectory give
important clues regarding hydrocarbon column structure, reservoir heterogeneity, cyclic
repetition, and changes in pore size.

The Hough Transform Crossplot Method

Although the Pickett plot has many useful properties for pattern recognition, there is still
room for improvement. When fitting either the water line or a line of irreducible saturation,
the resulting values of cementation and saturation exponents are not immediately obvious,
but must be calculated from the slopes. The normal range of porosities also means that
there is often a fair degree of uncertainty in the estimate of water resistivity when
extrapolating to the intercept at 100% porosity. An alternative approach to this problem is
through the use of the Hough transform, by plotting the data directly in parameter space.

The Hough transform was introduced by Hough (1962) as a means to detect patterns of
points in binary image data. The basic concept is very simple, which is an immediate
recommendation of its power. When searching for trends such as straight lines in a plot of
X–Y coordinate data, the original points can be considered to be represented in "image
space," although the purpose of the analysis is to extract the parameters of any systematic
features. If parameters are the goal, then the problem can be simplified by replotting the
data in "parameter space." The basic idea can be clarified by referring to Figure 8. Here the
task is to locate any linear trend through the set of points plotted in X–Y Cartesian space. A
line is specified by the equation:

Y=a+Bx

where is the intercept and is the slope. The objective of the Hough transform then becomes
to replot the data in parameter space, rather than X–Y image space. Any single X–Y
coordinate pair can be "back-projected" as a line on an plot which gives the slopes and
intercepts of all possible lines that could pass through this point. The equation for this line
is found easily by rearranging the Cartesian space equation as:

a=Y-bX

where X and Y are now fixed and the intercept a and the slope b are variables. Each point
in Cartesian space is now a line in parameter space and the intersections of lines mark
slopes and intercept values of lines that pass through two or more points in Cartesian space.
Therefore, a linear trend through a subset of data on a Cartesian plot will be marked by a
bundle of lines whose intersections are clustered in the area of a representative common
slope and intercept.

Now that the basic concept of the Hough transform has been explained, we will follow its
application to the Rottweiler Sandstone data. The parameters of the water line are the water
resistivity intercept (assuming the constant " " to be unity) and the cementation exponent
slope. We can combine the concepts of the reconnaissance water resistivity (Rwa) and the
reconnaissance cementation exponent in a single equation:

log(Rt) = log(Rwa) - ma*log(φ)

This equation describes every possible line that could be drawn through the resistivity-
porosity coordinates of either a water zone or a hydrocarbon zone. When mapped into the
parameter space of water resistivity and cementation exponent, each zone that plots as a
point on the Pickett plot becomes a line on the Hough transform. Water zones should be
recognized as a bundle of sub-parallel lines with lower Rw and m values than other zones.
Ideally, the water zone lines would have a mutual intersection at the coordinates that locate
the true formation water resistivity and cementation exponent. In reality, the ragged trend
that characterizes most water lines results in a range of possibilities which is an accurate
reflection of the spread of alternative lines that could be drawn as possible water line on the
original Pickett plot. The advantage of the Hough transform is that it immediately gives the
values of all possible combinations of Rw and m and, since both of these have
petrophysical meaning, this aids the analyst in his/her selection of the most likely pair. This
discussion can be understood by thoughtful examination of the Hough transform of the
Rottweiler Sandstone data shown in Figure 9.

Although the Hough transform is a pattern recognition method in its own right, its
application to the Pickett plot as described here can equally be considered as a "universal
Rwa plot" in which all possible values of cementation exponent within a petrophysically
reasonable range are applied successively in the computation of corresponding Rwa values
from zone resistivity-porosity log values. This is the spirit in which the Hough transform
option is implemented in PfEFFER in which the cells of a grid of Rw (rows) and m
(columns) are filled with frequencies of occurrence of values generated when mapping
logged zones into the parameter space. As a result, the Hough transform lines are sampled
discretely and individual cells will tend to have higher counts at parameter value
combinations where several lines converge or intersect. However, as stated already, the
interpretation of these plots should be made with reference to what is known and/or what is
reasonable concerning the reservoir formation's cementation exponent and water resistivity.

Figure 8: Simple example of a Hough transform applied to the projection of points in Cartesian "image
space" into a parameter space of slope and intercept.
Figure 9: Hough transform of the Rottweiler Sandstone resistivity-porosity
data into the parameter space of formation water resistivity (Rw) and Archie
equation cementation exponent, m.
Productivity

Calculations of water saturation from either the Archie equations or the Pickett plot when
combined with porosity gives values which describe the volume of water and hydrocarbon
as a fraction of either pore space or the total rock. However, this knowledge is not sufficient
in of itself to determine whether a zone will produce hydrocarbons, water, or hydrocarbon-
cut water. Even if hydrocarbons are produced on test, will they prove to be economic?
Although local rules-of-thumb are often quite satisfactory, there are numerous instances of
zones with high water saturations that produce water-free hydrocarbons and others with low
water saturations that produce high water cuts. The missing element to be considered is the
relative size of the pore bodies and pore throats. In this section we will see how the bulk
volume water (BVW) is a useful measure that is controlled by both pore size and possible
position in the hydrocarbon column, and how this information can improve predictions
concerning a zone's likely fluid productivity.

The idealized reservoir profile in Figure 10 shows the expected fluid production as a
function of water saturation, porosity and height in a homogeneous petrofacies. The
relationships reflect buoyancy pressure of the hydrocarbons that penetrate progressively
smaller pore throats at greater column heights and a tendency for larger pore throats in
higher porosity zones. High in the reservoir, the water saturations of zones will approach an
“irreducible” water saturation that is determined by their pore geometry. Sometimes this
saturation is called “immobile” or “ineffective”, because high-pressure laboratory tests
show that these saturations are not absolutely irreducible. However, the “irreducible” water
saturation generally marks a point at which hydrocarbons have permeated the entire
macropore system and are subject to Darcian fluid flow and most of the remaining water is
held either at grain surfaces or within micropores by capillary forces.

The plot of porosity against water saturation (Fig. 10) shows the hyperbolic trend at
“irreducible” saturation that is typical of many reservoirs. The hyperbola is approximated
by the function:

This general inverse relationship between irreducible water saturation and porosity that was
noted by several early authors, including Archie (1952). They correctly attributed
differences in the curvilinear trends to differences in reservoir pore sizes. This is because
irreducible water saturation is controlled by surface tension at the internal surfaces and
capillary pressure. While zones at irreducible water saturation in a moderately
homogeneous reservoir should lie on a common curve, transition zones will be displaced to
higher values of bulk water volume (F*Swi). The distinction is important, because it
determines which zones should produce water-free oil or gas, and which should produce
water or water-cut hydrocarbon. Computations of bulk volume water are therefore a critical
additional step in log analysis for the assessment of producibility, as pointed out by Morris
and Biggs (1967), Asquith (1985 ) and others.
Figure 10: Generalized reservoir profile with matched water saturation-height plot and
porosity-water saturation crossplot.

Buckles (1965) made an extensive numerical analysis of reservoir measurements and

concluded that the quadrilateral hyperbolic function:
was a good first-order approximation to real field data. Low values of c reflected large
average pore sizes, high values were linked with finer pores, as a direct consequence of a
control by internal surface area. The critical hyperbolae that match different values of c can
be drawn on a water saturation -porosity plot (often known as a “Buckles plot”) either on
arithmetic scale or (less commonly) on a logarithmic scale (Figure 11). An advantage of the
log scale format is that the hyperbolic curves plot as straight lines.

The quantity c, is simply the irreducible bulk volume water (BVWi) which will be
effectively a constant, provided that there is a limited range in pore size. Zones with
comparable pore size that have higher values of bulk water volume should be water-cut or
totally water-bearing. When computed for a field or reservoir, the characteristic value is
often known as the "Buckles number".

The zones from the hypothetical Rottweiler Sandstone example are plotted on these
variants of the Buckles plot in Figure 11. If this was a real data set, then the hyperbolic
trend of zones A-E, coupled with their low Buckles number of about 0.05, would be highly
suggestive of zones at irreducible saturation. Water-free production would be expected for
these zones, in contrast with Zone F which should produce mostly water with little or no
hydrocarbons. (Obviously, no hydrocarbons would be expected from zones G-J.)

What are the values of c that should be expected for any given reservoir? The answer may
be given either with respect to the type of reservoir rock or in terms of the values that have
been reported from nearby fields that have produced from the same formation. So, for
example, Asquith (1985) suggests rule-of-thumb numbers for carbonates keyed to pore
type. Alternatively, expectations may be linked with geological formation, such as shown
in the guide of critical BVWs reported by Bill Guy (Fig. 12), based on his extensive log
analysis experience of Kansas fields.

Rather than tying our estimates to unique values of critical BVW, we can expand our
consideration to ranges observed in field data. Reservoir values of c are shown plotted as
cumulative frequency curves in the upper part of Figure 13 for carbonate reservoirs with
vugular and intercrystalline/intergranular porosities (based on data from Chilingar et al,
1972 ) and for sandstones (using data from Bond, 1978 ). The data show systematic trends
that reflect distinctions in internal surface area, and provide values that are useful in the
following analysis. In the lower part of Figure 13, an example is shown of cumulative
frequency curves plotted from data of well-known Texas carbonate reservoirs.
Figure 11: Rottweiler Sandstone zones located on Buckles plots -
arithmetically scaled (above); logarithmically scaled (below)
Figure 12: Typical values of critical bulk volume water (or Buckles number) for
reservoirs in Kansas. These "rules-of-thumb" ranges were developed on the basis of
extensive field experience.
Figure 13: Cumulative frequency plots of irreducible bulk volume water for
reservoirs by pore type (above) and by Texas carbonate formation (below).
Plotting Bulk Volume Water (BVW) lines on the Pickett plot

Pickett (1973) had recognized that reservoir zones at irreducible water saturation should
tend to lie on a steeper linear trend, whose intercept with the water line reflected the grain-
or pore-size. This observation reflects the fact that the hyperbolic relationship of:

can be linearized to :

Substituting the Archie equation solution for water saturation and rearranging, the
relationship becomes:

which describes a line on the Pickett plot with a slope of (n-m) and an intersection with the
water line at a porosity corresponding to the water line .

Greengold (1986) was the first to describe the systematic graphic properties of the
irreducible bulk volume water on the Pickett plot. When the cementation and saturation
exponents are equal, zones at irreducible water saturation should follow a line parallel to
the porosity axis (Figure 14). Otherwise, the line will be inclined according to whether the
saturation exponent is greater or less than the cementation exponent. Notice that any
Buckles number line will intersect the water line at a porosity value equal to the Buckles
number value. It will also cross the 100% porosity limit at a water saturation value equal to
the Buckles number value.

The parameters that determine the line give a powerful new means to extend the function of
the Pickett plot beyond its traditional roles of cementation exponent and formation water
resistivity. If the irreducibly saturated zones form a coherent trend, then the saturation
exponent can be estimated directly from the plot for water saturation calculations, while the
producibility will be indicated for any zone.

Bulk volume water contour lines are plotted for the Rottweiler sandstone on the Pickett plot
used earlier (Figure 15). As observed before, zones A to E tend to follow a Buckles number
value of about 0.05. The linear trend reflects a matching hyperbolic trend if the zones were
plotted in a linear porosity - water saturation scaled graph (as seen in Figure 11). In fact,
this adaptation of the Pickett plot represents the incorporation of the “Buckles plot”.
Figure 14: Location of irreducible bulk volume water (Buckles number) trend
on Pickett plot.

Figure 15: Location of Buckles lines on the Pickett plot of Rottweiler

Sandstone data.
Pay Determination

Reservoir intervals that will contribute to reservoir production are known as "pay".
Intervals that are accepted or eliminated from consideration as pay are done so on the basis
of their fluid saturation content, porosity, permeability, and shaliness. The recognition of
pay zones is an essential part of reservoir evaluation both as a guide to perforation depths
and in the computation of field reserves. The terminology of pay determination is rather
loose, but the criteria defined below are consistent with common usage. In the example
shown, a sandstone-shale reservoir interval is subdivided into a hierarchy of sub-intervals
according to cut-offs applied to logs and curves calculated from logs. The definitions are:

1. Gross reservoir interval: the unit between the top and base of the reservoir that
includes both reservoir and non-reservoir intervals;
2. Gross sandstone (or limestone, dolomite, carbonate): the summed thickness of
intervals that are determined to be sandstone, usually determined by a Vsh cut-off;
3. Net sandstone (or limestone, dolomite, carbonate): the summed thickness of gross
sandstone zones that have effective porosity and permeability, usually determined
by a porosity cut-off;
4. Gross pay: the summed thickness of net sandstone zones that has hydrocarbon
saturation considered sufficient for economic production, usually determined by a
water-saturation cut-off;
5. Net pay: the summed thickness of gross pay zones that should yield water-free
production, usually determined by an irreducible bulk volume water cut-off.

Figure 16: Pay determination hierarchy

The hierarchy of pay cut-off criteria are implemented on the Home Area of a PfEFFER
worksheet as a method that colors the cells of a zone according to whether the log values
are greater than or less than CUT-OFF values set by the user in the PARAMETERS
column. The cut-off criteria are: fraction of shale (Vsh), porosity ( φ ), water saturation
(Sw), and bulk volume water (BVW). Cells in the VSH, PHI, SW, and BVW columns are
colored by the criteria applied individually, and cells in a PAY column are colored if the
log values of the zone satisfy all the cut-off criteria. The method may be applied to the
evaluation of a reservoir when the cut-offs are known from field experience. Alternatively,
the option can be used in the reverse sense to establish appropriate cut-off criteria based on
the reservoir profile implicit on the worksheet and interpretation and/or knowledge of
production characteristics.

The cut-offs of porosity, water saturation, and "critical" bulk volume water can all be
plotted on a Pickett plot as straight lines. An example is shown for the zones in the
hypothetical Rottweiler Sandstone, where the cut-off boundaries collectively isolate zones
that should produce water-free hydrocarbon. Pay cut-offs used throughout industry are
typically "rules-of-thumb" based either on generalized experience or (preferably) drawn
from the production history of the field or the play. Notice that when the cut-offs are
already known for the reservoir prior to logging, the cut-off boundaries can be drawn on the
Pickett plot and used immediately to draw conclusions of the productivity of logged zones
(Figure 17). In cases where cut-offs are unknown or rather vague, then the Pickett plot can
be used as a tool to determine appropriate values that differentiate pay from non-pay zones.

Figure 17: Pay cut-off criteria for porosity, water saturation, and bulk volume water
located as boundary lines on a Pickett plot.
Z-Plot: The Third Dimension

Z-plots have been used for many years in log analysis as a means to plot a third log variable
("Z") on a conventional log crossplot (log axes "X" and "Y"). The most common example
is the use of the gamma ray log on a density-neutron porosity crossplot. The density and
neutron porosity values of a zone determine its coordinate location on the crossplot, and its
position is marked with the gamma ray value rather than a geometrical symbol. The value
can be considered as a "distance" in the vertical dimension. As an additional improvement,
a color symbol is often substituted for the number scaling. The use of color provides an
immediate perception of third axis location as opposed to the confusion of a mass of
numbers in a conventional Z-plot.

The color Z-plot convention is used in PfEFFER to colorize points on the Pickett plot
according to values selected from one of ten ATTRIBUTE columns. A common choice for
the colored Z-variable is depth, so that the reservoir structure can be seen more readily,
particularly in complex successions where the depth-link lines become entangled. However,
shale proportion, photoelectric factor, and other log or core measurements have also proved
extremely useful in the discrimination of geological or engineering characteristics.
Permeability Prediction from Wireline Logs

The most simple quantitative methods to predict permeability from logs have been keyed to
empirical equations of the type:

where P and Q are constants determined from core measurements, and applied to log
measurements of porosity (Φ) to generate predictions of permeability (K). The relationship
is linearized if the equation is logarithmically transformed to:

When applied to special cases of homogeneous sandstones, the results may be adequate, but
prediction errors are often large in typical sandstones, and the errors in predicted
permeability commonly range across orders of magnitude when applied to carbonates. The
reason for this is that permeability is not exclusively determined by pore volume, but is also
controlled by internal surface area, pore network tortuosity, pore throat geometry and other
variables.

If a usable relationship can be developed between permeability and porosity, then the
results can be plotted directly on the Pickett plot as permeability contours that track directly
on their associated porosity value. This simple equivalence results because the equation
gives a unique permeability prediction value for each porosity value. The predictions from
these lines will only hold true in situations where the grain/pore size does not vary much.

Changes in pore size will influence permeability because they are accompanied by
corresponding changes in internal surface area. Smaller pore sizes generate larger surface
area and a matching reduction in permeability; larger pore sizes are linked with higher
permeabilities. The interrelationships are contained in the classic Kozeny-Carman equation:

which incorporates the specific surface area, S, as an additional variable to estimate

permeability.

The specific surface area is the ratio of surface area to volume of framework solid and is
difficult to measure directly by conventional methods. However, the specific surface area is
inextricably linked with pore size, which in turn controls irreducible water saturation.
Wyllie and Rose (1950) proposed a modification of the Carman-Kozeny equation that
substituted irreducible water saturation for the specific surface area term:
The irreducible water saturation term in the modified equation functions as a powerful
surrogate variable for specific surface area, and this accounts for the improvement in
permeability estimates when incorporated with porosity.

The Wyllie-Rose relationship is a generalized equation that requires the determination of

values for the constants P, Q, and R to be calibrated from core measurements. Probably the
most widely-used version of this equation is the “Timur equation” for sandstones. Timur
(1968) developed an equation which linked permeability with both porosity and irreducible
water saturation Swi in sandstones, based on laboratory measurements of core. The results
showed a considerable improvement in permeability estimation over those based on
porosity values alone. However, notice that the use of irreducible water saturation as an
input variable restricts the predictions to hydrocarbon reservoir zones.

Addition of predicted permeability contours to the Pickett plot

Solutions to equations of the Wyllie-Rose type can be plotted as predicted permeability

lines directly on the Pickett plot, because a logarithmic transformation of the equation leads
to:

As an example, contours of permeability as predicted by the Timur equation are drawn on

the Rottweiler Sandstone Pickett plot in Figure 18. If zones A to E are at irreducible water
saturation, then their predicted permeabilities can be read directly from interpolation
between the permeability contours. If zone F is a transition zone with the same pore
structure as the reservoir zones, then its permeability will be found by moving along the
porosity line to the irreducible trend and reading the matching permeability value. If,
however, Zone F is not a transition zone but is at irreducible saturation, then the
permeability can be read directly. The permeability will be lower than in the first
alternative, because its relatively higher water saturation would imply that the pore size was
finer.

In PfEFFER, the Timur equation values are entered as default values of P, Q, and R. Unless
the default values are modified, permeability prediction lines will be drawn based on this
equation. It should always be remembered that the Timur relationship was developed for
sandstones. An equivalent general formula for carbonates is unrealistic because of the high
variability of carbonate pore geometries. However, equivalent relationships for specific
carbonate pore types should be feasible, based on the analysis of core measurements.
Figure 18: Permeability contours drawn on Pickett plot of Rottwieler
Sandstone data, using a Wyllie-Rose releationship with both porosity and
irreducible water saturation. The contours honor the Timur equation form
which was developed for sandstones.
Capillary Pressure Applications

The use of critical bulk volume water (BVWi) is an empirical application of relationships
that are actually controlled by capillary pressure, height of hydrocarbon column, density
difference between hydrocarbon and formation water, and other physical properties of a
mixed fluid/solid system. Critical BVW concepts are highly effective as aids in assessing
productivity but ultimately are simple rules-of-thumb based on field experience. Because
bulk volume water is the product of porosity and water saturation, BVW contours are
constrained to be straight lines on Pickett plots. As such, the contours can only be trend
approximations of real relationships in reservoirs. The laboratory measurement of capillary
pressure data on representative reservoir core samples gives explicit information on
reservoir properties that reflect pore throat sizes and their control on hydrocarbon saturation
and its variation with height in a hydrocarbon column. This information can be mapped
directly onto the Pickett plot as discussed below.

Laboratory measurements of capillary pressure reflect the size of pore-throats and their
distribution in the rock sample. The procedure most commonly injects mercury under
increasing pressure and tracks the change in mercury saturation at each increment of
pressure increase. The relationship between the radius of a pore-throat accessible in the
mercury/air system and the pressure is given by:

Conversion from the capillary pressures of the laboratory mercury/air system to those of the
hydrocarbon/water system within the reservoir utilizes equations that require values for
contact angles and interfacial tensions of the components. However, more commonly,
laboratory capillary pressures are converted directly into the equivalent height of
hydrocarbon that would exert the same buoyancy pressure. This additional step calls on
density values for the hydrocarbon and formation because their difference controls
buoyancy pressure. Values for all these parameters can be estimated for conversions that
are tailor-made for specific reservoirs. Alternatively, “average” values can be compounded
into a single conversion constant that is an approximate, but reasonable first order
relationship to transform P, the capillary pressure in a mercury/air system to h, the height of
hydrocarbon column. For a “typical” oil, a usable relationship is:

h=0.7xP

and for gas:

h = 0.35 x P

A schematic picture of capillary pressure curves is shown in the upper part of Figure 19,
where changes in fluid saturation are graphed against capillary pressure and its equivalent
height of hydrocarbon column for three hypothetical core plugs. The three plugs have
different porosities but are from a single petrofacies where samples with higher porosities
have lower “irreducible” water saturations. The curves are shown in their convention
format of saturation-pressure axes. However, the same information may be remapped onto
a crossplot with porosity and water saturation axes, as shown in the lower part of Figure 19.
This form of presentation is less common, but has been used since at least the fifties when
Stewart (1957) reported its application to pay estimation in carbonate reservoirs. The
linkage of the remapped points with lines represents the same result that would be obtained
by interpolating between the original capillary pressure curves. Interpolation is appropriate
when the samples are considered to be from the same petrofacies.
Figure 19: Mapping capillary pressures(or height of hydrocarbon column) to
a porosity - water saturation crossplot.
Notice that the crossplot has the same axes as the “Buckles plot” and that the capillary
pressure contours conform approximately with hyperbolae that track with constant bulk
volume water values. This shows that the productivity/pore size concepts of critical BVW
are simply empirical expressions of phenomena controlled by pore throat distributions,
capillary pressure, and hydrocarbon column. Notice also that although the capillary
pressures are sampled at equal intervals of height, their mapping on the crossplot shows a
rapid convergence on a stable boundary where BVW changes only gradually over relative
large values of reservoir height.

Mapping of capillary pressure contours onto the Pickett plot

If capillary pressure data can be mapped in porosity -water saturation space, then they can
be mapped on the Pickett plot where the water saturation axis is oblique to the porosity axis
(Figure 20). For a perfect “Buckles rock”, the pressure contours would follow BVW lines
exactly. Otherwise, the contours will follow curved paths that reflect the overall changes in
pore-throat distributions with volume of porosity. If samples from radically different
petrofacies are mapped collectively, the result will show abrupt changes and disruptions in
the contour trends. Essentially, the breaks make the point that the interpolations are invalid
and that the samples should be subdivided between sets that produce more harmonious
pressure trends. The subdivisions constitute different petrofacies but they are a direct
reflection of flow unit types since the differences are controlled by pore-throat
distributions. Therefore, mapping of capillary pressure data onto a Pickett plot may be an
immediate “answer” to productivity and permeability when the reservoir unit consists of a
single petrofacies. However, the method becomes a valuable tool in its own right as a
means to differentiate multiple petrofacies/flow units in a heterogeneous reservoir.
Figure 20: Alternative mappings of capillary pressure in porosity - water saturation space:
orthogonal axes (above); oblique Pickett plot axes (below).
Log Analysis Models for Shaly Sandstones

Shales have moderately low resistivities, as can be seen on any resistivity log, and their
presence as a component of shaly sandstones introduces a conductivity contribution that
should be included together with the conductivity of the pore formation water in detailed
reservoir analysis. As a general statement, if uncorrected resistivities are used in a
conventional clean reservoir calculation of a shaly sand zone, the result will be an
overestimation of water saturation, since the resistivities have been reduced below their true
values by the conductivity of the shale component.

Two model families of shaly sandstone equations have been developed as expansions of the
Archie equation to accommodate the conductivity effects of clay minerals and compute
more accurate water saturations (Worthington, 1985). The older model considered the shale
as a homogeneous conductive medium and developed resistivity equations keyed to Vsh,
the volumetric fraction of shale in the rock. Although the physical basis of the model is
incorrect, the equations often provide reasonable approximate solutions to water saturation,
especially when the equation parameters are adjusted so that the results conform with local
water saturation data measured from cores or production tests. Some of these equations are
still widely used for this reason and also because of their relative simplicity and limited
demands on additional input parameters. One of the most commonly used equations of this
type is the "Simandoux equation", introduced by Simandoux (1963), which is incorporated
(in its modified form) as a shaly sandstone option in PfEFFER. The Simandoux equation is:

where Rt is the formation resistivity, Rw is the formation water resistivity, Rsh is the shale
resistivity, Φ is the porosity, a, m, and n are the Archie equation constants, Vsh is the
fraction of shale, and Sw is the water saturation.

The second, and more recent, model is based on the ionic double-layer observed in shaly
sandstones. In reality, the conductivity of the shale component is a function of cation
exchange capacities of the various types and abundances of clay minerals which are
present. Since the cations are exchanged primarily at broken bonds on the edges of flakes or
by lattice substitutions on cleavage surfaces, the phenomenon tends to be surface-area
dependent rather than controlled simply by the volume of clay minerals. This implies that a
fine grained clay has a higher exchange capacity than a coarser grained form of the same
clay volume, and this observation is confirmed by experimental data. Since all the shale
indicators estimate (at best) the volume of the shale component, no explicit assessment is
made of the grain size or clay mineralogical variation. Although these factors are widely
known among log analysts, it is difficult to design log analysis procedures to accommodate
them, in the absence of a tool that measures cation exchange capacity directly.
Consequently, the model equations that use cation-exchange data have been modified to
variants that substitute quantities that can be measured on logs as surrogate variables. The
most widely known of these is the "dual-water model" introduced by Clavier et al. (1977)
which, when generalized, takes the form of:

Where

and

Where

and the additional terms: Rb is bound water resistivity, Sb is bound-water saturation, Swt is
total water saturation (including Sb), Φtsh is shaleporosity (some weighted average of the
neutron and density porosities of shale), Φe is effective porosity, Φt is total porosity
(including shale porosity term). The Dual-water equation is used as an alternate option for
shaly sandstone water saturation estimation within PfEFFER.

Although the Simandoux and Dual-water equations were developed from different models,
they do have a number of features in common (and with many other shaly sandstone
equations). These are the characteristics that:

1. at zero shale content, the equations collapse to the Archie equation

2. the equation forms are polynomial functions of water saturation (and solved as such
in PfEFFER, although often approximated by quadratics in other programs),
3. theinput shale properties are typically drawn from shales between the reservoir units
which may not be representative of clays within the reservoir zones.

The implementation of the two shaly sandstone models within PfEFFER was made to
honor two important criteria:

1. Archie equation constants can be modified interactively but, more importantly, the
shale parameters of resistivity, porosity, or the means of computing shale volume
can be evaluated in totally water-saturated sections , so that shale calibrations
become keyed to clay mineral properties of the reservoir itself, rather than shales
outside the reservoir. We term this process "internal calibration" as distinct from
"external calibration" which would be tied to values of "external shales".
 2. To allow Pickett plots to be made in which the conductivity effects of clays had
been eliminated, and so allow petrofacies pattern recognition to be conducted free
of disruptive shale effects. This concept was introduced by Aguilera (1990). If the
shaly sandstone equation model designed by the user is successful, then a
"corrected" resistivity can be computed that predicts the resistivity the rock would
have if the clays had no conductivity effects. On the Pickett plot, the crossplot of
effective porosity (porosity corrected for shale effects) and shale-corrected
resistivity allows the evaluation of patterns and trends in terms of pore-sizes,
geometries, fluid saturations, capillary pressure, hydrocarbon column, etc. from a
similar perspective to shale-free sections.

The "shale effect" can be seen more clearly by showing the expected Pickett plot for a
hypothetical sequence of shaly sandstones with water saturations of 100%, where the
reduction in resistivity is predicted by application of the Simandoux equation. The
magnitude of the increase in theoretical water saturation can be seen to be a function of
both increasing shale content and decreasing porosity. A similar effect can be seen when
using the dual-water model.

The PfEFFER implementation of the shaly sandstone models has a variety of powerful
features. The models can be called consecutively or run in combination with continuous
updating that responds to changes made in the shale volume, and porosity columns, as well
as the parameter cell values. It should always be remembered that the Simandoux and Dual-
Water solutions are only models, but the immediate interactivity and graphic displays of
PfEFFER allow the user tremendous latitude in adjusting inputs to the analysis, so that the
limitations of the model can be overcome to some extent by customizing the equation
parameters to match local reservoir conditions.
Movable Hydrocarbon Calculations

Shallow-reading resistivity logs are strongly influenced by fluid saturations in the flushed
zone immediately adjacent to the borehole wall. A comparison between hydrocarbon
saturations in the flushed zone and the undisturbed formation contrasts "residual
hydrocarbon saturation" (flushed-zone hydrocarbons) and "movable hydrocarbons" (the
difference in hydrocarbon saturations between the undisturbed formation and the flushed
zone).

The computation of fluid saturation in the flushed zone uses the standard Archie equation,
but substitutes the resistivity of the mud filtrate, Rmf, and a resistivity reading of the
flushed zone, Rxo (typically from a microresistivity device), to compute the filtrate
saturation in the flushed zone, Sxo:

The relationship of saturations in the undisturbed formation and the flushed zone is
commonly presented graphically as a "movable hydrocarbon plot" to aid interpretations of
producibility and the internal structure of a reservoir section.

Figure 21: Schematic movable hydrocarbon plot

Rock Compositional Analysis

The mineralogy of reservoir zones is often tied closely to permeability and productivity in
complex lithology reservoirs where differences in petrofacies mirror lithofacies changes. A
variety of logs can now be used to characterize mineralogy either in graphic crossplots or
by direct computation. A particularly powerful combination for this purpose is provided by
the photoelectric index, neutron and density porosity logs. In this first section we will
describe their application in the RHOmaa-UMaa crossplot for mineral identification and
lithofacies recognition and the further use of RHOmaa and Umaa in the generation of a
compositional profile. In the following section, the theory and practice of general
compositional solutions are outlined that use input logs and components as specified by the
user.

The RHOmaa - Umaa crossplot and composition profile

The interpretation of simple minerals and lithologies is generally straightforward from a

visual inspection of the photoelectric index curve with the neutron/ density overlay. In
cases of mixed lithologies or mysterious minerals, a crossplot of a zone log responses can
be helpful both for purposes of identification and for semi-quantitative estimations of
volumetric proportions.

The RHOmaa - Umaa crossplot was introduced to utilize measurements of the photoelectric
index, neutron porosity, and bulk density for matrix mineral evaluation. The two
dimensions of the crossplot require the three log variables to be condensed in some manner.
This is done with a similar approach to the M-N plot methodology, through the suppression
of porosity as a variable and calculation of the apparent properties of the rock matrix. The
log variables that are needed for the calculation are shown diagramatically in Figure 22 .

Now, because:

then:

f is the true porosity and must be estimated by calculation or crossplot. The grain density is
therefore estimated and is:

The photoelectric absorption index (Pe) is measured in units of barns per electron. In order
to linearize its relation with composition, the variable must be converted to a volumetric
photoelectric absorption index (U) with units of barns per cc by:
and approximated by:

Figure 22 : Source of log measurements for estimation of RHOmaa (apparent

grain density) and Umaa (apparent volumetric matrix photoelectric
absorption).

This is the volumetric photoelectric absorption coefficient of the zone (matrix plus fluid).
The hypothetical volumetric photoelectric absorption coefficient of the matrix is UMAA.
By analogy with the derivation of RHOMAA:

Because the volumetric photoelectric absorption index of water is very small, the formula is
sometimes approximated by:
The values can then be located on a RHOMAA-UMAA crossplot (Figure 23) for the
solution of compositions within calcite-dolomite-quartz mixtures, as well as the recognition
of evaporites, clay minerals, and other components.

The RHOMAA and UMAA values used to locate zones on the crossplot may also be used
to compute rock composition as the proportions of three minerals. The quartz-calcite-
dolomite triangle on the RHOMAA-UMAA crossplot of Figure 23 is a graphic presentation
of a common (but not unique) three mineral system that could be used. Any zone within the
triangle can be resolved as proportions of the three end-members by a graphic scaled
subdivision of the triangle. Alternative composition systems can be proposed as dictated by
the geology of the reservoir, such as calcite-dolomite-anhydrite. In each case, a unique
solution is possible provided that three components are chosen to make a determined
system with the two input variables of RHOMAA and UMAA. The two inputs are
sufficient, because the component proportions collectively form a closed system.
 Figure 23: Framework of RHOmaa - Umaa crossplot marked with some common
reference minerals and a quartz-calcite-dolomite composition triangle.

Alternatively, the composition of any zone may be solved by algebra once the mineral
components are specified and presented as a compositional profile scaled to depth. These
operations are easily coded in computer software as described in the following section.
When used to solve compositions in a succession of zones, the results may be shown as a
continuous compositional profile with depth (Figure 24).
Figure 24: RHOmaa-Umaa plot, compositional computations, and compositional
profile of dolomite, quartz, and calcite in a Krider Limestone(Permian Chase Group)
section from south-west Kansas.
General compositional solutions

The mineral compositions of zones can be seen on log plots such as the density-neutron
porosity crossplot when zones are referenced to specific mineral points and lithology lines.
Unfortunately, the depth information of the log overlay is lost in the crossplot, but this loss
is offset by the ability to make semiquantitative estimates of mineral and porosity
proportions. On a crossplot the log data are plotted in a Cartesian space, where the
measurement logs are orthogonal reference axes. If reference minerals are located in this
log space, then the plotted zones can be remapped into a "composition space". Their
coordinates in composition space are estimates of the proportions of the reference minerals.

Crossplots are methods of geometry, but the compositional proportions can be calculated
from simple algebra. The composition of any zone in terms of volume of pore fluid (Φ),
and proportions of two minerals, J and K, given two log readings signified by L1 and L2
can be solved from the equations:

Notice that the three unknown proportions are solved uniquely from only two logs, because
the composition space is a closed system. The third ("given") unity equation states that the
sum of all the proportions must total one. The closed system also explains why a coordinate
location in two-log space can be remapped into a three component composition space (see
Figure 57).

The set of equations could be solved by simple algebra. However, a more efficient
approach is to use matrix algebra (especially when we move from this toy domain to some
realistic applications). In matrix algebra terms the three equations above could be
represented as:

CV=L

where C is a matrix of the log responses of the components, V is a vector of the component
proportions, and L is a vector of the log readings for the zone of interest . The unknowns of
the vector V, are solved by:

where -1 is the inverse of the C-matrix.

When coded in a computer program, this little algorithm solves the problem neatly and
efficiently. In most lithologic units, the set of descriptive minerals does not change as
quickly as the log data. So, once the minerals are defined, the matrix, C can be constructed
from their logging responses, using information such as supplied in the table in the
appendix. The matrix is then inverted to compute the matrix, C-1. Volumetric proportions of
mineral components can then be generated on a production line principle, by input of each
successive zone reading, and multiplication by the inverse matrix to generate a string of
volumetric proportions ordered with depth.

Figure 25: Different ways of plotting two log responses, L1 and L2: as a log
overlay, “log space” crossplot, and “composition space” with three
components (two minerals J and K, and a pore fluid component, Φ.

How does this procedure work out in practice? Some ideas can be gained by making the
concept more concrete. Let us identify the two logs as density and neutron porosity
measurements, and the mineral components J and K to be calcite and dolomite. The fluid
component is the pore space that is filled with mud filtrate. The component of water should
not be considered differently from other mineral components. As far as the logging tools
are concerned it is the mineral of hydrogen oxide. Links between the three components of
calcite, dolomite, and water now define the boundaries of all limestones, dolomite, and
dolomitic limestones that are physically possible and impossible. The log responses of any
zone that plot within this composition triangle can be transformed into compositional
proportions.

What are the possible explanations for any zones that lie outside the composition triangle?
Zone A is close to the triangle, and could be a pure limestone whose logging responses
have small errors. Alternatively, it could reflect the presence of quartz or some other lighter
mineral that has not been use in the solution. How does the algebraic solution resolve this
anomaly? The algorithm would predict a small negative proportion of dolomite for this
zone, and the proportions of the other two components would be inflated slightly to
maintain the proportional sum of unity. Clearly, this is impossible, but then the model
decrees that all possible solutions must lie within the composition triangle. However, the
solution has some useful and important consequences. The algorithm does not break down
when confronted with “impossible” logging data, and the erroneous solution may contain
clues to a correct composition.

Zone B is clearly a major problem and would be caused either by gross errors in logging
tool readings or the presence of significant residual gas in the pore space. The solution
would be a large negative dolomite proportion and an impossibly high calcite proportion
(greater than a equivalent 100%). Zone C could be a dolomite with perfect log readings, but
has a negative proportion of calcite, because the dolomite line is modeled by the algebra as
a straight line rather than the curve of the real response. Zone D will generate a higher
proportion of negative calcite and could be caused by a shale or some dense mineral.
Finally, Zone E will not be a problem zone in the sense of generating an impossible
solution. However, it could be flat wrong. For example, these log responses would be
equally consistent for a zone of cherty dolomite.
 Figure 26: A generalized neutron-density crossplot marked with some
hypothetical “problem zones” (A-E)

All these examples lead to conclusions that match common sense. The user defines a
system of components to be solved by the algorithm in a computer program. The computer
dutifully provides a solution in terms of that system. The overlay and crossplot methods
described in the last section are therefore an important first step to the identification of
mineral components to be used in the model. If strange solutions are generated by the
algorithm, then crossplots of the log data will be the natural medium to detect the source of
the problem.

As a log example of this same procedure, we can analyze the composition of a Viola
Limestone section, using a matrix algebra representation. The Viola is a compositional
mixture of dolomite, quartz (chert) and calcite. In cases where a lithodensity-neutron log
suite was run through the Viola, it is possible to link three logging measurements with four
unknowns as a set of simultaneous equations. The four unknown components are :
dolomite, chert, calcite and porosity. The porosity component is the fluid in the pore space
of the flushed zone, which is primarily mud filtrate. It can be considered to be a mineral
called "water".

Although there are four unknowns, only three logging measurements are required, because
the unknowns are proportions which collectively form a closed system. The three
measurements are neutron porosity, density, and volumetric photoelectric absorption. Note
that neutron porosity can be entered in either percentage or proportional units ; density can
be expressed in units of grams/cc (as used here) or in porosity units. However, the units
must be CONSISTENT throughout. So, if the density properties of the components are
entered as grams/cc, then the density log readings used in the calculations must ALSO be in
grams/cc, NOT porosity units. The photoelectric index, Pe, is converted to the volumetric
photoelectric measurement, U, in barns/cc. from the multiplication of the photoelectric
index by the bulk density :

because the density closely approximates the electron density, which has units of
electrons/cc. The equations that link the unknown component proportions multiplied by
their physical properties with the log responses measured at any depth zone are:

Neutron:
Density:
UPhoto:
Unity:

Rewritten as matrices:

The inverse matrix, C-1, of the coefficient matrix is found and the solution for the vector of
unknown proportions is then:
The proportional composition of any zone in the sequence can be found immediately by
pre-multiplying a column vector of the zone log readings and a unity value by the inverse
of the coefficient matrix.

This simple compositional algorithm is coded as an option in PfEFFER. In all cases, n

components will require (n-1) logs for an explicit solution. Typically, these logs will be
drawn from either/and/or the neutron, density, lithodensity and sonic logs, coupled with the
gamma ray. When resolving reservoir lithologies, pore fluid is a distinct component that is
identified primarily as mud filtrate because the investigation depth of most of the tools used
is limited to the flushed zone. As far as the logging tool is concerned, water is a mineral in
its own right and its liquid nature is immaterial. Logging properties of common minerals
can be found in logging service company manuals and log analysis texts.. The quantitative
evaluation of shale is a different problem, because its properties are a function both of its
composition and degree of compaction. When used as a component, the coefficients of
shale should be drawn from the analytical section itself, through the use of crossplots and
log trace segments which are indicated to be typical shales by the gamma ray log.

In reviewing the results of a compositional solution, recall that the computed proportions of
components are constrained to sum to unity, but there may be cases where individual
proportions are negative. Although these may be physically impossible, they are not only
mathematically possible, but even give valuable feedback information! The proportions
will always sum to unity and, when all are positive, will lie within the space defined by the
component coefficients. When one or more are negative or exceed unity, then the point lies
outside the composition space. Small negative quantities signify minor errors and can be
ignored. Larger values are diagnostic of systematic factors in addition to the components
used for the solution. In the first cut, the log readings should be verified to see that they are
both correct and have units which are consistent with the component log coefficients which
were entered. The coefficients should also be checked to see if they are reasonable. This
last point should be examined carefully when "shale" is selected as a component. Washouts
usually produce outrageous values, but can be recognized either by their excessive log
readings or on the caliper log.

If these initial tests are passed, then the indications are that an additional component is
present. The identity of the "negative component" is usually a useful hint as to the nature of
the extra component, as can be understood in this example by reference to the RHOmaa -
Umaa crossplot. The quartz - calcite - dolomite triangle can be thought of as the base of a
tetrahedron in log space, where the missing vertex is the fluid point. The presence of gas
results in a decrease in neutron porosity and increase in density porosity which shifts the
zone outside the triangle into "negative dolomite space". The clay mineral content of shales
will draw zones in the opposite direction into "negative calcite space". In Permian
sequences, zones plotting in "negative quartz space" will often signify the occurrence of
anhydrite.

In the graphic compositional profile generated by PfEFFER, all negative components are
made zero, and the proportions then recalculated to sum to one.
Figure 27: Location of “impossible solution” fields for the quartz-calcite-
dolomite system on a RHOmaa-Umaa plot. Negative fields are indicated for calcite (C),
quartz (Q), and dolomite (D).
Hydraulic Flow Units in Oil and Gas Reservoirs

Homogeneous reservoirs are the exception, rather than the rule. Most reservoirs are
heterogeneous and can be subdivided into layers that are internally homogeneous (from an
operational standpoint), but are distinct from adjacent layers. Reservoir characterization is a
cooperative project that is shared by the petroleum geologist and the reservoir engineer.
The criteria for subdivision used by the geologist are those of facies recognition that
identify rocks in terms of genesis. In many cases, the genetic units defined by the geologist
are useful operational units for the engineer in reservoir work because the unit boundaries
commonly coincide with distinctive changes in hydraulic behavior. However, this
coincidence is not always the case and if the purpose of the reservoir subdivision is for
engineering, then it is best to focus on the critical hydraulic properties.

This geology/engineering distinction has been recognized since the 80's when the hydraulic
flow unit concept was introduced. The flow unit is defined as a reservoir zone with lateral
continuity, whose geological properties that control fluid flow are internally consistent and
different from adjacent flow units. The controls on fluid flow are ultimately the pore-throat
size, so that the flow unit is a zone with relatively uniform dominant pore throat radius,
resulting in a consistent flow behavior. Flow units can be recognized most completely from
capillary pressure curves measured from core samples. They can also be defined quite well
from the recognition of distinctive clusters of r35 dominant pore throat radius estimations
from core porosity and permeability measurements, or their approximations by the
permeability/porosity ratio in non-granular rocks.

Within the water-free reservoir unit itself, subdivision between flow units will also be seen
in abrupt changes in (irreducible) water saturation that reflect matching changes in pore
throat size. Notice that adjacent flow units are in hydraulic communication, but that their
distinction is important because they show the most and least productive zones in primary
recovery and their lateral and vertical geometry also affects sweep efficiency in secondary
operations. As such, the flow unit is distinct from a compartment that is not hydraulically
connected to other compartments, So, the flow units within a compartment will be subject
to a common Free Water Level, but the separate compartments will have different FWLs as
shown by pressure analysis from drill-stem tests (DSTs) of repeat formation tests (RFTs).

Access to capillary pressure measurements and other pore and pore-throat data is the rare
exception, rather than the rule, so that flow unit subdivision is usually made on the basis of
wireline logs (and core measurements where available). The choice of logs should be
dictated those properties that control hydraulic flow in the reservoir under consideration.
Shale content as given by the gamma-ray or other shale-sensitive log(s) is often an
important control in clastic reservoirs, but may be less important in carbonate reservoirs
where sometimes the distinction between limestone and dolomite units made by the
photoelectric factor could be a key discriminator. The subdivision of flow units will be a
multivariate problem when the process requires several logs and a popular method for this
task is that of cluster analysis.
Definition of flow units in PFEFFER by depth-constrained cluster analysis

Cluster analysis is the name given to a wide variety of mathematical techniques designed
for classification. The techniques all have a common goal—to group objects that are similar
and to distinguish them from other dissimilar objects on the basis of their measured
characteristics. On the basis of everyday experience it should be obvious that individual
objects can be grouped or distinguished in different ways according to various criteria we
may choose to apply. Since it is the purpose of the FLOW classification in PfEFFER to
zone the reservoir into consistent flow units, log variables and log transforms should be
chosen that are significantly related to hydraulic properties, either explicitly (such as
porosity) or implicitly (such as lithology changes that are associated with changes in pore
type). In some types of reservoir, the link may not be so obvious, thus the choice of logs
will be more serendipitous. In this event, the results should be evaluated by interpretation or
reference to external information or criteria.

The most common class of clustering methods used in geology and other sciences is that of
hierarchical analysis (Romesburg, 1984). First, a database of attribute measurements is
compiled for the objects to be clustered. Then a matrix of similarities or statistical distances
between the objects is computed on the basis of the collective treatment of the attributes.
The clustering algorithm is applied to the similarity matrix as an iterative process. The pairs
of objects with the highest similarities are merged, the matrix is recomputed, and the
procedure repeats. Ultimately all the objects will be linked together as a hierarchy, which is
most commonly shown as a dendrogram. At this point, the objects are in one giant cluster.
Some decision must now be made concerning where to cut the tree diagram into branches
that coincide with distinctive groupings. The choice may be based either on visual
inspection, a mathematical criterion that appears to reveal a natural breaking point, or
(preferably) some measure that can be used to check potential clusters against some
external standard.

In many applications of cluster analysis there are no relationships between objects other
than the similarities implied by their attributes. Zones from logs have an additional
property: they are ordered along the dimension of depth. This constraint can be used to
limit the analysis to the consideration of stratigraphically neighboring units, thus only
vertically adjacent zones and clusters may be merged into larger clusters. The method is
extremely efficient in computer usage. It is an adaptation of a conventional agglomerative
and hierarchical cluster analysis, but has the additional adjacency constraint. The procedure
also incorporates the algorithm of incremental sums of squares introduced by Ward (1963).
Clusters are defined so that the sum of the variances within the clusters is the minimum
possible. By using Ward's method and the adjacency constraint, the succession of zones is
replaced by a stratified sequence of partitions that merge into coarser units at higher ranks.
The methodology is illustrated by the exceedingly simplified flow-diagram of Figure 28 .
Figure 28: Stages of cluster analysis of log data: (a) multivariate database of zones ; (b)
dendrogram of zones according to hierarchical clustering of the zones based on their
similarities; (c) classification of zones related to input logs and plotted in order of depth.

This depth-constrained variation on clustering was introduced by Grimm (1987), who wrote
a computer program for stratigraphic zonation of palynological data. An interesting case-
study application of the technique is to stratigraphic zonation of logging data is also
described by Gill et al. (1993) who compared the results of stratigraphic subdivision with
those of conventional lithostratigraphy drawn from drill cuttings. Notice also that if only
one log variable is used as the basis for clustering, then the method becomes a log blocking
technique. By the same token, depth-constrained cluster analysis is equivalent to the
operation of multivariate blocking.
References

Aguilera, R., 1990, Extensions of Pickett plots for the analysis of shaly formations by well
logs: The Log Analyst, v. 31, no. 6, p. 304-313

Archie, G.E., 1952, Classification of reservoir rocks and petrophysical considerations :

AAPG Bull., v. 36, no. 2, p. 278-298.

Asquith,G.B., 1985, Handbook of Log Evaluation Techniques for Carbonate Reservoirs :

Methods in Exploration Series No. 5, AAPG, Tulsa, Okla, 47 pp.

Beck, G.F., 1995, Forward Modeling of Deep Resistivity response in Norphlet wells:
SPWLA 36th Annual Logging Symposium, Paper HHH. 12 pp.

Bhuyan, K., and Passey, Q.R., 1994, Clay estimation from GR and neutron - density
porosity logs: Trans. SPWLA 35th Annual Logging Symposium, Paper DDD, 15 pp.

Bond, D.C., 1978, Determination of Residual Oil Saturation : Interstate Oil Compact
Commission Rept., Oklahoma City, 217 pp.

Buckles, R.S., 1965, Correlating and averaging connate water saturation data : Jour. Can.
Petroleum Technology, p. 42-52.

Chilingar, G.V., Mannon,R.W., and Rieke,H.H.,III, (Eds.), 1972, Oil and Gas Production
from Carbonate Rocks : American Elsevier, New York, 408 pp.

Clavier, C., Coates, G., and Dumanoir, J., 1977, The theotretical and experimental bases for
the "dual water" model for the interpretation of shaly sands: SPE Paper No. 6859.

Doveton, J.H., 1994, Geological Log Analysis Using Computer Methods: AAPG Computer
Applications in Geology, No. 2, AAPG,Tulsa, 169 pp.

Gill, D., A. Shomrony, and H. Fligelman, 1993, Numerical zonation of log suites by
adjacency-constrained multivariate clustering: AAPG Bulletin, in press.

Greengold,G.E., 1986, The graphical representation of bulk volume water on the Pickett
crossplot : The Log Analyst, v. 27, no. 3, p. 21-25.

Griffiths, J.C., 1952, Grain-size distribution and reservoir rock characteristics: AAPG Bull.,
v. 36, no. 2, p. 205 -229.

Grimm, E. C., 1987, CONISS: A FORTRAN 77 program for stratigraphically constrained

cluster analysis by the method of incremental sum of squares: Computers & Geosciences,
v. 13, no. 1, p. 13-35.
Hingle, A.T., 1959, The use of logs in exploration problems : SEG 29th Annual Meeting.

Hough, P. V. C., 1962, A method and means for recognizing complex patterns: U. S. Patent
3, 069, 654.

Morris, R.L., and Biggs, W.P., 1967, Using log-derived values of water saturation and
porosity : Trans. SPWLA 8th Annual Logging Symposium, Paper X, 26 pp.

Pickett, G.R., 1968, A review of current techniques for determination of water saturation
from logs : Jour. Pet. Tech., p. 1425-33.

Pickett, G.R., 1973, Pattern recognition as a means of formation evaluation : The Log
Analyst, v. 14, no. 4, p. 3-11.

Pittman, E.D., 1992, Relationship of porosity and permeability to various parameters

derived from mercury injection - capillary pressure curves for sandstone: AAPG Bull., v.
76, no. 2, p. 191-198.
Romesburg, H. C., 1984, Cluster analysis for researchers: Belmont, CA, Lifetime Learning
Publications, 334 p.

Simandoux, P., 1963, Dielectric measurements of porous media: application to

measurement of water saturations, study of the behavior of argillaceous formations: Revue
de L'Institut Français du Petrole 1B, Supplementary Issue, p. 193 - 215.

Stewart, R.E., 1957, Figuring net pay in carbonate reservoirs: Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 23,
1957.

Struyk, C., Lamborn, R., Gray, G., Jonkers, J., Peterson, G., Tulle, G., and Drebit, G., 1993,
The Log Analyst, v. 34, no. 2, p. 60 -66.

Timur, A., 1968, An investigation of permeability, porosity, and residual water saturation
relationships: Transactions of the SPWLA 9th Annual Logging Symposium, Paper J, 18 p.

Ward, J. H., Jr., 1963, Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function: Journal of
the American Statistical Association, v. 38, no. 301, p. 236-244.

Wyllie, M.R.J., and Rose, W.D., 1950, Some theoretical considerations related to the
quantitative evaluation of the physical characteristics of reservoir rock from electrical log
data: J.Pet. Tech., p.189.

Worthington, P.F., 1985, The evolution of shaly-sand concepts in reservoir evaluation: The
Log Analyst, v. XXVI, no.1, p. 23-40.

Yaalon, D.H., 1962, Mineral composition of average shale: Clay Minerals Bull., v. 5, no.
27, p. 31 -36.