See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/320407540

Evaluation and Accurate Estimation from Petrophysical Parameters of a

Reservoir

Article · January 2016

CITATIONS READS

0 121

2 authors:

Olusegun Olalekan Alabi Samuel Omosule Sedara

Osun State University Adekunle Ajasin University
29 PUBLICATIONS   26 CITATIONS    17 PUBLICATIONS   4 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Petrophysical Research View project

Ground Magnetic Survey View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Samuel Omosule Sedara on 15 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

American Journal of Environmental Engineering and Science
2016; 3(2): 68-74
http://www.aascit.org/journal/ajees
ISSN: 2381-1153 (Print); ISSN: 2381-1161 (Online)

Evaluation and Accurate Estimation

from Petrophysical Parameters of a
Reservoir
Alabi O. O.1, Sedara S. O.2, *
1
Department of Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Osun State University, Osogbo, Osun State,
Nigeria
2
Department of Physics and Electronics, Adekunle Ajasin University, Akungba-Akoko, Ondo
State, Nigeria

Email address
geosciencealabi@yahoo.com (Alabi O. O.), bigsamzone@yahoo.com (Sedara S. O.)
*
Corresponding author
Keywords
Reservoir, Citation
Porosity, Alabi O. O., Sedara S. O. Evaluation and Accurate Estimation from Petrophysical Parameters of a
Hydrocarbon Saturation, Reservoir. American Journal of Environmental Engineering and Science.
Relative Factor, Vol. 3, No. 2, 2016, pp. 68-74.
Hydrocarbon Volume
Abstract
The accuracy of the resource estimation of a reservoir depends on the correct
computation of the reservoir properties from a well log data. The results for water
Received: November 10, 2015 saturation Sw, and effective porosity Νeff, can be combined to predict hydrocarbon
Accepted: February 19, 2016 volume. Hydrocarbon volume estimates are obtained by integrating the hydrocarbon
Published: March 24, 2016 pore volume over the volume of interest. Inaccurate estimation of hydrocarbon water
saturation vis-à-vis hydrocarbon saturation could lead to predictions deviation in field
resources appraisal. The main aim of the paper is to examine the possible error in
evaluating hydrocarbon in place by volumetric method and its magnitude. The accepted
formula for computation of Petrophysical parameters is tagged the Correct Estimation
(CE) formula while the unaccepted formula is tagged Incorrect Estimation (ICE)
formula. These formulae were used to compute the average porosity, water saturation
and hydrocarbon saturation. The ICE formula always gives higher estimation than the
CE formula. The ratio of the result obtained by ICE to CE is refers as Relative Factor
(RF). The Relative Factor (RF) is the measure of the magnitude of error in estimation for
each parameter. It is concluded that that the relative factor (RF) which is the measure of
the magnitude of the possible error increases with increasing number of zones in a
reservoir well and these errors are more associated with the computation of hydrocarbon
saturation and could have a significant cost effect in the estimation of resources.

1. Introduction
A reservoir is a subsurface rock that has effective porosity and permeability which
usually contains commercially exploitable quantity of hydrocarbon. Reservoir
characterization is undertaken to determine its capability to both store and transmit fluid.
Hence, characterization deals with the determination of reservoir properties/parameters
such as porosity (Φ), permeability (K), fluid saturation, and Net Pay thickness.
Permeability is one of the fundamental properties of every oil reservoir rock. The oil in a
reservoir can be extracted through core only if the rock is permeable, that is to say if the
pores are interconnected. Permeability is the capacity of a reservoir rock to permit fluid
flow. It is a function of interconnectivity of the porevolume; therefore, a rock is
permeable if it has an effective porosity. The fluid saturation is the proportion of thepore
space that is occupied by the particular fluid. A reservoir can either be water saturated
 American Journal of Environmental Engineering and Science 2016; 3(2): 68-74
(Sw) or hydrocarbonsaturated (1-Sw) depending on the type of
fluid it contains. Saturation is a relative measurement and
commonly expressed in decimal/fractional units or else as a
percentage. A good reservoir is one that is commercially
productive; it produces enough oil or gas to pay back its
investors for the cost of drilling and leaves a profit. Porosity
which is a measure of reservoir storage capacity is defined as
the proportion of the total rock volume that is void and filled
with fluids. Porosity is a relative measurement and
commonly expressed in decimal/fractional units or else as a
percentage [2, 3, 4].
It is worthy to note that the understanding of the
depositional setting of a field is fundamentally important in
the determination of reserves and in the design of optimum
reservoir management procedures. Sands deposited in
different depositional environments are characterized by
different sand body trend, shape, size, and heterogeneity.
This tends to show that the physical characteristics of
reservoir rocks reflect the response of a complex interplay of
processes operating in depositional environments. Hence, the
reconstruction of depositional environments in successions
provides optimum framework for describing and predicting
reservoir quality distribution. Also, knowledge of
depositional environment of reservoirs through accurate
description/interpretation of wire line logs and core data
allows for a better understanding of reservoir characteristics
and hence its quality foroptimal utilization of the embedded
resources [2, 3, 9, 11].
Water saturation (Sw) determination is the most challenging
of petrophysical calculations and is used to quantify its more
important complement, the hydrocarbon saturation (1 – Sw).
Complexities arise because there are a number of
independent approaches that can be used to calculate Sw. The
complication is that often, if not typically, these different
approaches lead to somewhat different Sw values that may
equate to considerable differences in the original oil in place
(OOIP) or original gas in place (OGIP) volumes. The
challenge to the technical team is to resolve and to
understand the differences among the Sw values obtained
using the different procedures, and to arrive at the best
calculation of Sw and its distribution throughout the reservoir
vertically and aerially. In OOIP and OGIP calculations, it is
important to remember the relative importance of porosity
and Sw. A 10% pore volume (PV) change in Sw has the same
impact as a 2% bulk volume (BV) change in porosity (in a
20% BV porosity reservoir).
Well log is one of the most fundamental methods for
reservoir characterization, in oil and gas industry, it is an
essential method for geoscientist to acquire more knowledge
about the condition below the surface by using physical
properties of rocks [2, 7, 9]. This method is very useful to
detect hydrocarbon bearing zone, calculate the hydrocarbon
volume, and many others. Some approaches are needed to
characterize reservoir, by using well log data, the user may
be able to calculate: shale volume (Vsh), water saturation (Sw),
porosity (φ), permeability (k), elasticity (σ, AI, SI, etc.),
69
reflectivity coefficient (R) and other data that the user needs.
The interpretation of well log data must be done in several
steps and it is not recommended for the user to analyze them
randomly because, the result might be a total error. Basically,
there are two types of properties that will be used in reservoir
characterization; they are petrophysics (shale volume, water
saturation, permeability, etc.) which are more geology-like
and rock physics (elasticity, wave velocity, etc.) which are
more geophysics-like. There are many techniques to find a
hydrocarbon bearing zone, such as the RHOB-NPHI cross
over (with some corrections), reflectivity coefficient (just like
in seismic interpretation), AI anomaly, etc. Every method has
its weaknesses, so it is best to use every method to acquire
the right result [7, 11].
2. Theoretical Background
The migration of small solid materials (‘fines’) within
porous media has long been recognized as a source of
potentially severe permeability impairment in reservoirs. This
impairment has a strong effect on the flow capability (relative
permeability) of the reservoir rock. Fines migration occurs
when loosely attached particles are mobilized by fluid drag
forces caused by the motion of fluid within the pore space.
One of the primary factors that determine the migration of clay
particles is the brine composition. Laboratory studies have
shown that brine salinity, composition and pH can have a large
effect on the microscopic displacement efficiency of oil
recovery by water flooding and imbibitions. Several
experiments have shown that injection of brine can improve oil
recovery from nature core (or reservoir). This is possible
because increase in salinity of water in core pores increases
permeability of the core and this, increase oil recovery. Data
from experiment on Berea cores by [3, 5, 8] shows that oil
recovery via imbibitions increase significantly with increasing
salinity of connate brine.
[6, 10], in their study of permeability damage via fines
migration in extracted core material, concluded that
permeability and oil recovery were nearly independent of
brine composition. Contrarily, other experimental studies,
suggested that changes in brine composition could have a
large effect on oil recovery. [8] proposed that additional oil
recovery is the consequence of clay/clay interaction
weakening in the porous medium [especially kaolinite] when
low salinity brine is injected. They consider that the
expansion of clay layers leads to detachment from the rock
surface of mixed-wet clay particles that are able to transport
adsorbed oil droplets. This mechanism suggests a
permeability reduction due to pore constrictions and/or fines
production and evolution to a more water wet system. Oil
deposits do not only contain oil, salt water, and often also
free gas, is always present, too. Consequently, there are
within the porous rocks at least two, possibly even three, not
into one another soluble phase, each of them influencing the
flow capacity of the other. The permeability for each phase is
called the effective permeability. It is quite obvious that the
70 Alabi O. O. and Sedara S. O: Evaluation and Accurate Estimation from Petrophysical Parameters of a Reservoir

effective permeability is no mere rock property any longer. It 4. Results and Discussion
is affected not only by the rock, but also by the quantitative
proportion of phases in the rock pores [1, 7, 10]. The following data are given from an oil well where Table
1 shows the petrophysical parameters obtained from the
quantitative analysis of seismic data using well log
3. Materials and Methods information. The data for water saturation ( SW ), porosity
The petrophysical data were obtained from the quantitative (ϕ) and thickness ( h ) are presented for five (5) zones in the
analysis of seismic data using well log information. The data well.
for porosity (ϕ) , water saturation ( SW ) and thickness ( h ) Table 1. Well 1 petrophysical parameters obtain from the reservoir.
were obtained from three (3) wells in the same oil field. The
wells are tagged well 1, well 2 and well 3. Well 1 has five (5) Zone SW ϕ h ϕ⋅h SW ⋅ ϕ ⋅ h
zones while well 2 and well 3 has three (3) zones each.
A 0.104 0.347 10 3.470 0.360
3.1. Computation of Correct and Incorrect B 0.110 0.323 8 2.584 0.284
Estimation and Relative Factor
C 0.113 0.318 2 0.636 0.071
The accepted formula for computation of Petrophysical D 0.272 0.345 24 8.280 2.252
parameter is tagged the Correct Estimation (CE) formula
while the unaccepted formula is tagged Incorrect Estimation E 0.324 0.306 4 1.224 0.396
(ICE) formula. These formulae were used to compute the
average porosity, water saturation and hydrocarbon The computation of the average porosity, water saturation
saturation. The ICE formula always gives higher estimation and hydrocarbon saturation by the correct formulae as done
than the CE formula. The ratio of the result obtained by ICE by equations 8, 11, and 14 respectively. Also these same
to CE is refers as Relative Factor (RF). The Relative Factor parameters were computed by another formula (Incorrect
(RF) is the measure of the magnitude of error in estimation Formula) which are equations 9, 12, and 15. The Relative
for each parameter. Factor (RF) is obtained by the ratio of the incorrect
estimation (ICE) to correct estimation (CE) i.e (ICE/CE). It is
3.2. Computation of Petrophysical Properties the measure of the magnitude of error in each parameter.
The correct estimation (CE) formula for computation of 4.1. Computation of Porosity
the petrophysical parameters are;
Thickness ( h ) = Bottom – Top (1) CE: Average porosity (ϕ) =
∑ ϕ⋅ h (8)
∑h
SW =
∑ S ⋅ ϕ⋅ h
W
(2) 16 ⋅194
∑ ϕ⋅ h =
48
= 0.337
Aveϕ =
∑ ϕ⋅ h (3)
∑h ϕ⋅h
ICE: Average porosity (ϕ) = ∑ (9)
h
H c _ sat =
∑ ϕ⋅ h − ∑ S W ⋅ ϕ⋅ h
(4)
3.470
Α= = 0.347
∑ ϕ⋅ h 10
2.584
Where; SW is the Water saturation, ϕ is the Porosity, Β= = 0.323
8
H c _ sat is the Hydrocarbon saturation and h is the Thickness. 0.638
The incorrect estimation (ICE) formula for computation of C= = 0.318
2
the petrophysical parameters are; 8.280
D= = 0.345
SW ⋅ ϕ ⋅ h 24
Average SW = ∑ (5) 1.224
ϕ⋅h E= = 0.306
4
ϕ⋅h =A+B+C+D+E
Average (φ ) = ∑ (6) =0.347+0.323+0.318+0.345+0.306
h
=1.639
ϕ ⋅ h − SW ⋅ ϕ ⋅ h
Average H c _ sat = ∑ (7) ICE
ϕ⋅h So, (RF)= (10)
CE
 American Journal of Environmental Engineering and Science 2016; 3(2): 68-74 71

1.639 1.224 − 0.396

= E= = 0.676
0.337 1.224
= 4.864 =A+B+C+D+E
=0.896+0.890+0.889+0.728+0.676 =4.079
4.2. Computation of Water Saturation
ICE
CE: Average SW =
∑ S ⋅ ϕ⋅ h
W
(11)
So, (RF)=
CE
(16)

∑ ϕ⋅ h 3.454
= =10.249
0.337
3.363
=
16.194 Table 2 shows the results for petrophysical parameters
= 0.208 obtained by correct estimation (CE) formula and incorrect
estimation (ICE) formula and the relative factor vis-a-vis the
SW ⋅ ϕ ⋅ h magnitude of error obtained in each parameter. The results
ICE: Average SW = ∑ (12)
ϕ⋅h are obtained from five (5) zones (Table 1) from the well. The
0.360 result shows that the magnitude of error in the computation
Α= = 0.104 of hydrocarbon saturation is higher than other petrophysical
3.470
parameters.
0.284
Β= = 0.110
2.584 Table 2. Summary of the petrophysical parameter and relative factor (well 1).
0.071 Parameters CE ICE RF
C= = 0.112 Ave ϕ 0.337 1.639 4.864
0.636
Ave SW 0.208 0.922 3.329
2.252
D= = 0.272 Ave Hc _ sat 0.792 4.079 10.249
8.280
0.396
E= = 0.324 Table 3 shows the petrophysical parameters obtained from
1.224 the quantitative analysis of seismic data using well log
=A+B+C+D+E information. The data for water saturation ( SW ), porosity
=0.104+0.110+0.112+0.272+0.324 (ϕ) and thickness ( h ) are presented for three (3) zones in
=0.922 the well.
ICE Table 3. Well 2 petrophysical parameters obtain from the reservoir.
So, (RF) = (13)
CE SW ϕ ϕ⋅h SW ⋅ ϕ ⋅ h
Zone h
0.922
= = 3.329 A 0.090 0.327 5 1.635 0.147
0.277 B 0.096 0.306 7 2.142 0.206
C 0.290 15 4.350 0.000
4.3. Computation of Hydrocarbon Saturation
The computation of the average porosity, water saturation

CE: Average H c _ sat =

∑ ϕ⋅ h − ∑ SW ⋅ ϕ⋅ h (14)
and hydrocarbon saturation by the correct formula is done by
equations 17, 21 and 23 respectively. Also these same
∑ ϕ⋅ h parameters were computed by another formula (Incorrect
16.194 − 3.363 Formula) which are equations 18, 21 and 24. The Relative
=
16.194 Factor (RF) is obtained by the ratio of the incorrect
=0.792 estimation (ICE) to correct estimation (CE) i.e (ICE/CE). It is
the measure of the magnitude of error in each parameter.
ϕ ⋅ h − SW ⋅ ϕ ⋅ h
ICE: Average H =∑ (15)
c _ sat ϕ⋅h 4.4. Computation of Porosity
3.470 − 0.360
Α= = 0.896
CE: Average porosity (ϕ) =
∑ ϕ⋅ h (17)
3.470
2.584 − 0.284
∑h
Β= = 0.890 8 ⋅127
2.584 =
27
0.636 − 0.071
C= = 0.889 =0.301
0.636
8.280 − 2.252 ϕ⋅h
D= = 0.728 ICE: Average ϕ = ∑ (18)
8.280 h
72 Alabi O. O. and Sedara S. O: Evaluation and Accurate Estimation from Petrophysical Parameters of a Reservoir

1.635 1.635 − 0.147

Α= = 0.327 Α= = 0.910
5 1.635
2.142 2.142 − 0.206
Β= = 0.306 B= = 0.904
7 2.142
4.350 4.350 − 0
C= = 0.290 C= =1
15 4.350
=A+B+C =A+B+C
=0.327+0.306+0.290 =0.910+0.904+1
=2.814
=0.923
ICE
ICE So, (RF) = (25)
So, (RF)= (19) CE
CE
2.813
0.923 = =2.936
= =3.066 0.957
0.301
Table 4 shows the results for petrophysical parameters
4.5. Computation of Water Saturation obtained by correct estimation (CE) formula and incorrect
estimation (ICE) formula and the relative factor vis-a-vis the
CE: Average SW =
∑ S ⋅ ϕ⋅ h
W
(20) magnitude of error obtained in each parameter. The results
∑ ϕ⋅ h are obtained from three (3) zones (Table 3) from the well.
0.353 The result shows that the magnitude of error in the
= computation of water saturation is higher than other
8.127
petrophysical parameters.
=0.043
Table 4. Summary of the petrophysical parameters and relative factor (well 2).
S ⋅ϕ⋅h
ICE: Average SW = ∑ W (21) Parameters CE ICE RF
ϕ⋅h Ave ϕ 0.301 0.923 3.066
Ave SW 0.043 0.186 4.326
0.147
Α= = 0.090 Ave Hc _ sat 0.957 2.813 2.936
1.635
0.206 Table 5 shows the petrophysical parameters obtained from
Β= = 0.096 the quantitative analysis of seismic data using well log
2.142
information. The data for water saturation ( SW ), porosity
0
C= =0 (ϕ) and thickness ( h ) are presented for three (3) zones in
4.350 the well.
=A+B+C
=0.090+0.096+0 Table 5. Well 3 petrophysical parameters obtain from the reservoir.
=0.186
Zone SW ϕ h ϕ⋅h SW ⋅ ϕ ⋅ h
ICE A 0.28 0.26 9 2.340 0.655
So, (RF)= (22) B 0.22 0.30 38 11.401 2.508
CE Water 0.36 35 12.60
0.186
= =4.326 4.7. Computation of Porosity
0.043

4.6. Computation of Hydrocarbon Saturation

CE: Average porosity (ϕ) =
∑ ϕ⋅ h (26)
∑h
CE: Average H c _ sat =
∑ ϕ⋅ h − ∑ S W ⋅ ϕ⋅ h
(23) 26 ⋅ 340
∑ ϕ⋅ h =
82
8.127 − 0.353 =0.321
=
8.127
ϕ⋅h
=0.957 ICE: Average ϕ = ∑ (27)
h
ϕ ⋅ h − SW ⋅ ϕ ⋅ h 2.340
ICE: Average H c _ sat = ∑ (24) Α= = 0.260
ϕ⋅h 9
 American Journal of Environmental Engineering and Science 2016; 3(2): 68-74 73

11.401 12.600 − 0
Β= = 0.300 C= =1
38 12.600
12.602 =A+B+C
C= = 0.360 =0.720+0.780+1
35
=2.500
=A+B+C
=0.260+0.300+0.360 ICE
=0.920 So, (RF) = (34)
CE
ICE 2.500
So, (RF)= (28) =
CE 0.880
0.920 =2.841
= =2.866
0.321 Table 6 shows the results for petrophysical parameters
obtained by correct estimation (CE) formula and incorrect
4.8. Computation of Water Saturation
estimation (ICE) formula and the relative factor vis-a-vis the

CE: Average SW =
∑ S ⋅ ϕ⋅ h
W
(29)
magnitude of error obtained in each parameter. The results
are obtained from three (3) zones (Table 3) from the well.
∑ ϕ⋅ h The result shows that the magnitude of error in the
3.163 computation of water saturation is higher than other
=
26.340 petrophysical parameters.
=0.120
Table 6. Summary of the petrophysical parameters and relative factor (well 3).
SW ⋅ ϕ ⋅ h Parameters CE ICE RF
ICE: Average SW = ∑ (30) Ave ϕ
ϕ⋅h 0.321 0.920 2.866
Ave SW 0.120 0.499 4.166
0.655
Α= = 0.280 Ave Hc _ sat 0.880 2.500 2.841
2.340
2.508
Β= = 0.220
11.402 5. Conclusion
0
C= =0 We have applied a new concept of computational analysis to
12.608 examine the possible error in estimation of resources
=A+B+C (hydrocarbon) in a reservoir. The accuracy of the resource
=0.280+0.220+0 estimation depends on the correct computation of the reservoir
=0.499 properties from the well log data. We have considered two sets
of formulae for computation of the most important reservoir
ICE properties (parameters) for resources (hydrocarbon)
So, (RF) = (31)
CE estimation. For the same set of data from the same well in the
0.499 same oil field, the results from the formulae demonstrate a
= =4.166
0.120 significant deviation from each other. It is observed that the
magnitude of the error increase with increase in number of
4.9. Computation of Hydrocarbon Saturation zones in the well, Moreover the result shows that in a well with
higher number of zones, the error is more associated with the
CE: Average H c _ sat =
∑ ϕ⋅ h − ∑ S W ⋅ ϕ⋅ h
(32)
computation of hydrocarbon saturation, and this could have a
∑ ϕ⋅ h significant cost effect in the estimation of resources.
26.340 − 3.163
= References
26.340
=0.880 [1] Alabi, O. O and Adeleke, A. E. (2014) The effect of water
salinity on permeability of oil reservoir. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on
ϕ ⋅ h − SW ⋅ ϕ ⋅ h Research in Sci., Engr. and Tech. March 21-22, 2014, Dubai,
ICE: Average H c _ sat = ∑ (33)
ϕ⋅h pp. 77-79.

2.340 − 0.655 [2] Asquith, G. B. and Krygowski, D. (2004), Basic Well Log
Α= = 0.720 Analysis for Geologists. AAPG Methods in Exploration.
2.340 Tulsa, Oklahoma, No. 16. Pp. 12–135.
11.400 − 2.508
Β= = 0.780 [3] Asquith, G. B. (1991). Log Evaluation of Shaly Sandstone
11.400 Reservoirs: A Practical Guide: AAPG Course Notes Series,
74 Alabi O. O. and Sedara S. O: Evaluation and Accurate Estimation from Petrophysical Parameters of a Reservoir
no. 31, 59 p.
[4] Eshimokhai, S. and Akhirevbulu, O. E; (2012) Reservoir
characterization using seismic and well logs data (a case study
of Niger delta) Ethiopian Journal of Environmental Studies
and Management. Vol. 5 no. 4 (Suppl. 2): 597-603.
[5] Johnston, N. and Beeson, C. M. (1945) Water permeability of
reservoir sands: Trans. A. I. M. E. 160, 43.
[6] Kwan, M. Y., Cullen, M. P., Jamieson, P. R. and Fortier, R. A.
(1989), “A Laboratory Study of Permeability Damage to Cold
Lake Tar Sands Cores”, Journal of Canadian Petroleum
Technology, Vol. 28 (1): 56-62.
[7] Muslime, B. M., and Moses. A. O. (2011), Reservoir
Characterization and Paleo-Stratigraphic imaging over Okari
Field, Niger Delta using neutral networks; The Leading Edge,
1(6), 650-655.
View publication stats
[8] Rider M.; (1986). The Geological Interpretation of Well Logs.
Blackie, Glasgow, Pp. 151-165.
[9] Schlumberger, (1989), Log Interpretation, Principle and
Application: Schlumberger Wireline and Testing, Houston
Texas, pp. 21–89.
[10] Tang, G. Q. and Morrow, N. R. (1999). Influence of brine
composition and fines migration on crude oil/ brine /rock
interactions and oil recovery. Journal of petroleum science &
engineering.24: 99-111.
[11] Wan Qin, (1995), Reservoir Delineation using 3-D Seismic
Data of the Ping Hu Field, East China, Unpublished MSc
thesis, University of Colorado Boulder pp 6-8.