The Role of Cutoffs in Integrated
Reservoir Studies
Paul F. Worthington, SPE, Gaffney, Cline & Assocs., and Luca Cosentino, SPE, Eni E&P Div.
Summary
There have been many different approaches to quantifying cutoffs,
with no single method emerging as the definitive basis for delin-
eating net pay. Yet each of these approaches yields a different
reservoir model, so it is imperative that cutoffs be fit for purpose
(i.e., they are compatible with the reservoir mechanism and with a
systematic methodology for the evaluation of hydrocarbons in
place and the estimation of ultimate hydrocarbon recovery). These
different requirements are accommodated by basing the quantifi-
cation of cutoffs on reservoir-specific criteria that govern the stor-
age and flow of hydrocarbons. In so doing, particular attention is
paid to the relationships between the identification of cutoffs and
key elements of the contemporary systemic practice of integrated
reservoir studies. The outcome is a structured approach to the use
of cutoffs in the estimation of ultimate hydrocarbon recovery. The
principal benefits of a properly conditioned set of petrophysical
cutoffs are a more exact characterization of the reservoir with a
better synergy between the static and dynamic reservoir models, so
that an energy company can more fully realize the asset value.
Introduction
In a literal sense, cutoffs are simply limiting values. In the context
of integrated reservoir studies, they become limiting values of
formation parameters. Their purpose is to eliminate those rock
volumes that do not contribute significantly to the reservoir evalu-
ation product. Typically, they have been specified in terms of the
physical character of a reservoir. If used properly, cutoffs allow the
best possible description and characterization of a reservoir as a
basis for simulation. Yet, although physical cutoffs have been used
for more than 50 years, there is still no rationalized procedure for
identifying and applying them. The situation is compounded by the
diverse approaches to reservoir evaluation that have been taken
over that period, so that even the role of cutoffs has been unclear.
These matters assume an even greater poignancy in contemporary
integrated reservoir studies, which are systemic rather than parallel
or sequential in nature, so that all components of the evaluation
process are interlinked and, therefore, the execution of any one of
these tasks has ramifications for the others (Fig. 1). A particular
aspect of the systemic approach is the provision for iteration as the
reservoir knowledge-base advances. For example, simulation may
be used in development studies to identify the most appropriate
reservoir-depletion mechanism, but, once the development plan
has been formulated, the dynamic model is retuned and progres-
sively updated as development gets under way.
The principal use of cutoffs is to delineate net pay, which can
be described broadly as the summation of those depth intervals
through which hydrocarbons are (economically) producible. In the
context of integrated reservoir studies, net pay has an important
role to play both directly and through a net-to-gross pay ratio. Net
pay demarcates those intervals around a well that are the focus of
the reservoir study. It defines an effective thickness that is perti-
nent to the identification of hydrocarbon flow units, that identifies
target intervals for well completions and stimulation programs, and
that is needed to estimate permeability through the analysis of
Copyright © 2005 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 84387) was first presented at the 2003 SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Denver, 5–8 October, and revised for publication. Original manuscript re-
ceived for review 5 April 2004. Revised manuscript received 6 May 2005. Paper peer
approved 31 May 2005.
276
well-test data. The net-to-gross pay ratio is input directly to volu-
metric computations of hydrocarbons in place and thence to
“static” estimates of ultimate hydrocarbon recovery; it is a key
indicator of hydrocarbon connectivity, and it contributes to the
initializing of a reservoir simulator and thence to “dynamic” esti-
mates of ultimate hydrocarbon recovery.
Unfortunately, there is no universal definition of net pay, nor is
there general agreement on how it should be delineated. For this
reason, net pay has been incorporated within integrated reservoir
studies in many different ways that have not always been fit for
purpose. In particular, there is no generally accepted method for
quantifying net-pay cutoffs, without which net pay cannot be de-
lineated. In an attempt to redress some of these shortcomings, this
paper is directed at building a systematic foundation for the defi-
nition and role of cutoffs in integrated reservoir studies. It tracks
the origins of physical cutoffs from both geoscience and engineer-
ing perspectives in both the Western and Eastern hemispheres. It
outlines what they are and why we need them, describes how they
should be quantified, and proposes a structured method for incor-
porating them within integrated reservoir studies for the evaluation
of hydrocarbons in place and the estimation of ultimate hydrocar-
bon recovery. The starting point is some basic terminology.
Basic Terminology
Definitions. Although there is no universal set of definitions of
those terms that describe the ability of a rock to store and transmit
fluids, there are seven fundamental descriptive terms that are in
fairly widespread use. They are grounded in the volumetric analy-
sis of siliciclastics using core and log data, and they may or may
not be based on a tieback to permeability. They all define thick-
nesses or thickness ratios, and they are interrelated (Fig. 2).
Gross rock comprises all rocks within the evaluation interval.
Net sand comprises those rocks that might have useful reser-
voir properties. The word sand is a generic oilfield term that his-
torically equates to lithologically clean sedimentary rock. Net sand
is usually defined as the summation of those intervals for which
the sand content is greater than or equal to a limiting value. This
criterion is usually expressed in terms of a shale volume fraction
Vsh being less than a limiting value Vshc (the shale cutoff). The
term shale includes clays and silts (size indicators), clay minerals
(compositional indicators, mostly within the clay fraction), and
other detritus, usually of a poorly sorted nature. The parameter Vsh
is log-derived; it cannot be measured directly in the laboratory.
Net reservoir comprises those net-sand intervals that do have
useful reservoir properties. This condition is usually expressed in
terms of the log-derived fractional porosity ␾ being greater than or
equal to a limiting value ␾c (the porosity cutoff). Porosity can be
measured downhole and in the laboratory. It is often tied back to
core permeability so that the net-reservoir criterion effectively be-
comes one of a sufficiently porous and permeable rock that is
capable of storing and transmitting hydrocarbons.
Net pay comprises those net-reservoir intervals that do contain
significant hydrocarbons. This requirement has been reduced to the
log-derived, fractional hydrocarbon saturation Sh being greater
than or equal to a limiting value. This condition is tantamount to
stating that the water saturation Sw (⳱1–Sh) is less than a limiting
value Swc (the water-saturation cutoff). This second option is more
commonly used. The parameter Sw can be measured downhole and
also in the laboratory if native-state core is available, but reliable
core measurements of Sw remain comparatively rare, even though
the technology has been around for several decades. Where net
reservoir is tied back to permeability, net pay describes those
August 2005 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
 Fig. 1—(a) Traditional and (b) contemporary approaches to reservoir studies.
net-reservoir intervals that contain producible hydrocarbons. In a
clear link to reserves, the definition of net pay has evolved into
those hydrocarbon-bearing reservoir intervals that can be produced
economically using a particular recovery method.1 The term net
pay is therefore not merely a descriptor of rock type.
Net-to-gross is a generic term that encompasses three defini-
tions, all derived from the above. Generally, it is the ratio of net
thickness to gross thickness. Net-to-gross can be based on net
sand, net reservoir, or net pay and expressed as net-to-gross sand,
net-to-gross reservoir, or net-to-gross pay, respectively. It is im-
portant that the basis for the net criteria be defined. Unfortunately,
many investigators merely refer to net-to-gross without giving
any explanation.
This set of definitions is not unique. Table 1 indicates the
correspondence between the more widespread classification that is
adopted here and some others that have been proposed elsewhere.2–5
Adoption of Definitions. The full adoption of these definitions
calls for three coexisting physical cutoffs: Vshc, ␾c, and Swc. Many
investigators have adopted the above scheme, usually in one of
several different ways. For example, it can be used in true “static”
Fig. 2—Schematic interrelationship of net parameters with cutoffs applied sequentially.
August 2005 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
or “volumetric” mode, where the cutoffs are used to evaluate hy-
drocarbons in place, possibly with the subsequent application of a
recovery factor to estimate ultimate hydrocarbon recovery.6 Alter-
natively, it can be used in “dynamically conditioned” mode,
whereby the static cutoffs are tied back to another parameter such
as (relative) permeability, which is sometimes included explicitly
in the definition of net reservoir. In these cases, the cutoffs become
indicators of flow capability as well as of volumes. They are more
immediately appropriate to the dynamic estimation of ultimate
hydrocarbon recovery through simulation, which also delivers a
recovery factor.7 These two approaches will furnish different val-
ues of net pay and have different recovery factors, although the
product of these two parameters can turn out to be similar. Some
have gone so far as to propose typical values of Vshc, ␾c, and Swc
for clastic reservoirs and then modify these for carbonate reser-
voirs (Table 2).8
It is worth noting that the definition of cutoffs is intrinsically
related to the adopted approach to petrophysical evaluation (i.e.,
the effective or total porosity model or some variation on these).9
Note that the adjectives “effective” and “total” refer, respectively,
to the exclusion from or inclusion within the reservoir porosity of
277
any electrochemically bound waters; these terms are used here in
the petrophysical sense rather than the engineering sense, which
(in a water-wet system) excludes from the effective pore volume
those formation waters that are subject to capillary retention. The
net-sand definition is couched in terms of the effective porosity
model, which uses a log-derived value of Vsh. In contrast, the
traditional use of the total porosity model calls only for porosity
and water-saturation cutoffs within the above scheme because
there is no Vsh evaluation within that model, although there are
some hybrid models that use Vsh in a total-porosity setting. This
paper is set within the context of the effective porosity approach to
petrophysical evaluation.
Traditional Methodologies
Cutoffs usually have been generated and applied at the petrophysi-
cal stage of an evaluation exercise, but, with certain exceptions,
their primary impact has been at the reservoir engineering stage.
This separation has been exacerbated by the historical practice of
departmentalized reservoir evaluation.7 The consequential lack of
uniformity has been compounded by the coexistence of different
sets of definitions (e.g., of net pay vs. net exploitable sand; see
Table 1).
Western Culture. The Western petroleum industry has tradition-
ally adopted rules of thumb as cutoffs for the evaluation of net pay
from well logs. The arbitrary nature of those cutoffs has long been
recognized.10 For the most part, they have been fixed permeability
cutoffs, kc, nominally 0.1 md for gas reservoirs11–13 and 1.0 md for
oil reservoirs.14–16 For example, those intervals within a gas col-
umn for which permeability kⱖ0.1 md are admitted as net pay.
These nominal cutoffs are still being used.17,18 Because perme-
ability is not measured by well logs, the practice has been to relate
core permeability to porosity and/or some other log-derivable pa-
rameter(s). Those log responses and/or interpreted values of res-
ervoir parameters that correspond to an adopted permeability cut-
off are then used as pseudo-permeability cutoffs. Although the
rule-of-thumb cutoffs have been founded on experience, they are
arbitrary in the sense that they do not take specific account of
reservoir characteristics and the reservoir-depletion mechanism.
278
The rules of thumb are further degraded by the lack of a speci-
fied procedure for applying them. For example, because conven-
tional core permeability is usually an absolute permeability to gas,
an air permeability of 1.0 md has sometimes been taken as the
limiting permeability for pay in an oil column.9 This implies that
the rule-of-thumb cutoffs are expressed in terms of absolute air
permeability at ambient conditions, but this concept has rarely
been articulated categorically, even though its impact may be con-
siderable. For example, the 1.0 md (air) permeability cutoff might
be appropriate for medium-gravity oils, but it would be meaning-
less in the case of higher-viscosity, heavy oils. A further twist was
provided by George and Stiles19 and Hall,20 who cited a core
permeability net-pay cutoff of 0.1 md as appropriate to west Texas
Permian carbonate reservoirs that contain low-viscosity oils. How-
ever, although the fluid used to measure the core permeability was
not mentioned, “it would appear the 0.1 md value is an air per-
meability rather than an oil permeability . . . .”21 The same labo-
ratory air permeability cutoff of 0.1 md has been applied to the
Cambrian sandstones of the Hassi Messaoud field in Algeria; this
field, too, contains low-viscosity oil.22 This discussion demon-
strates that the application of rule-of-thumb cutoffs can be ambiguous.
Examples from the earlier literature indicate a tortuous path in
the evolution of cutoff concepts beyond the rules of thumb for
permeability. Pirson23 presented the “coregraph” method of using
three independent cutoffs for permeability, porosity, and water
saturation. It was assumed that unless each limiting value was
satisfied, no hydrocarbons would be produced. Permeability was
promoted as the controlling parameter. In bringing together core
and log analysis, Keener24 described three net-pay cutoffs, for
shale “factor,” porosity, and water saturation, and then went on to
discuss net pay in a volumetric sense. Yet, in an example from the
Eocene Wilcox Sand in Texas, he did tie back to core permeability
and capillary pressure data. Jeffries25 generated a sonic-log cutoff
that was tied back to arbitrary core porosity and permeability cut-
offs for an oil-bearing Devonian limestone; this information was
used to enhance quantitatively the classical recognition of net pay
using the caliper log and microlog separation.26
In a move toward the modern concept of reserves, Brown and
Salisch27 cited a porosity cutoff below which there was no “com-
mercial permeability.” Walters28 proposed a neutron porosity cut-
off to define “net permeable pay” in a limestone sequence, thereby
implying that “net pay” was a volumetric or static concept. Quint
and Grosmangin29 used porosity, water saturation, and permeabil-
ity cutoffs in computations of hydrocarbons in place and movable
oil; the deliverables were presented as “reserves.” Ritch and
Kozik30 applied porosity, water saturation, and self-potential (SP)
log cutoffs, the last one being a quasi-shale cutoff, to an overpres-
sured gas sand in the Frio Vicksburg Trend, Texas. For net-pay
classification, they additionally required a mudcake, noting that
mudcake development occurred in this formation where kⱖ0.1
md. Interestingly, this observation is in accord with the earlier
rules of thumb for a limiting gas-sand permeability. Randolph31
tied porosity back to a critical water saturation in establishing net
August 2005 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
pay on the basis of a single porosity cutoff for the tight gas sands
of the Pinedale Unit, Wyoming. In an excellent paper, MacKen-
zie32 recognized productive and nonproductive rock types on the
basis of effective pore-throat size, which he correlated with the
ratio k/␾, for the Cretaceous Cardium Sandstone in the Pembina oil
field of south-central Alberta; a cutoff of k/␾ⱖ0.05 (with per-
meability in md and porosity in percent) was then used to distin-
guish net pay.
In a reversal of this trend, McCoy and Burge33 adopted gamma
ray (shale), porosity, and water-saturation cutoffs for “pay” iden-
tification in the Lower Cretaceous Wabiscaw Sand in the Marten
Hills Field, Alberta, but without reference to permeability. In a
neat shift of logic, Schultz34 adopted a single cutoff for porosity
derived using the density log; this cutoff was used to compute from
porosity and irreducible water saturation a well-by-well net per-
meability-foot indicator of producibility.
These examples illustrate the different perceptions of the role
of cutoffs in determining net pay that prevailed prior to 1980, the
point at which the industry started to benefit from the revolution in
the acquisition, processing, and storage of digital data.
Eastern Culture. There is much less published information avail-
able in English concerning the application of cutoffs to determine
“effective oil-saturated thickness” in the Russian system. Tradi-
tionally, there has been a high reliance on rules of thumb, some-
times in the form of simple resistivity cutoffs, as noted by Moss
and Stocks.35 These same authors cite Itenberg36 as listing critical
values of resistivity index to define the hydrocarbon potential in
different geographical regions and as identifying critical water
saturations to distinguish hydrocarbon productive zones for differ-
ent formation types (e.g., clean sandstones and shaly carbonates).
The analysis of porosity vs. permeability relationships is often
used to identify a limiting porosity below which a reservoir will
not flow. This limiting porosity is refined on the basis of well tests.
It is therefore reservoir- or region-specific.37 Where there are no
data available from the reservoir under study, analogies are drawn
with lithologically equivalent reservoirs in the same region.
Contemporary Methodologies
For present purposes, the contemporary period is designated as 1980
onward. It is characterized more by improved data-acquisition tech-
nology than by a quantum leap in interpretation philosophy. Table 3
summarizes the case histories of cutoff adoption that have been pub-
lished during this period.3–6,8,11,12,16–18,20,38–57 The list is not com-
plete because some approaches have gone beyond the procedural
limitations imposed by the design of Table 3. However, several
observations can be made. First, Table 3 does not indicate a pre-
dominant or preferred methodology, although the selection of
some or all of Vshc, ␾c, kc, and Swc seems to encompass a most
common approach. Second, where permeability is not included
explicitly in Table 3, it is often present implicitly through a tying
back to permeability of one or more of the other parameters and
thence their dynamically-conditioned cutoffs. Notwithstanding
this comment, permeability occurs less as an explicit cutoff than
the other three parameters of this subset. Third, there has been no
clear convergence with time toward an industry-preferred group-
ing of cutoffs. The nonconvergence is substantiated by the follow-
ing specific examples that do not fit into the scheme of Table 3.
At the most basic level, cutoffs have been used for distinguish-
ing between sands and shales, especially in laminated sand/shale
sequences. This approach has often used resistivity logs, perhaps
in conjunction with a minimum admissible layer thickness.3 How-
ever, where layer thickness is generally small, the approach has
benefited from a higher log-data-sampling rate and from the
sharper spatial resolution of microresistivity logs or electromag-
netic propagation logs.58 More recently, the evaluation of net pay
in laminated reservoirs has drawn upon microresistivity imaging
tools to distinguish between sands and shales in cases where con-
ventional log resolution is not sufficiently sharp.46
In an interesting treatment of fractured carbonates, Jiyu59 noted
that a porosity cutoff would satisfactorily distinguish net pay be-
cause porosity correlated well with matrix (intergranular) perme-
August 2005 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
ability and water saturation, and it was therefore indicative of both
flow and storage properties. A porosity cutoff was established to
correspond to an arbitrary limiting water saturation of 0.5. How-
ever, the height dependence of water saturation led to a porosity
cutoff that was itself a function of height above free water level.
Berruin and Barlai38 avoided the specification of arbitrary cut-
offs by applying pattern-recognition techniques to the evaluation
of shaly sands. They gave a movable oil index (MOI) a dynamic
meaning by defining a primary production index (PPI) as the prod-
uct of MOI and a function of the ratio k/␾ normalized to its
maximum value (k/␾)max in the field or in a reservoir subdivision.
The PPI was crossplotted with a lithologic factor, itself a geologi-
cally conditioned function of k/␾. Pattern recognition was applied
to the crossplotted data to identify a productive/nonproductive di-
viding line. Although this work used nonstandard parameters, it
was significant in that the reservoir data themselves were used to
define the cutoffs. Thompson et al.49 also used a movable hydro-
carbon index as a more realistic pay indicator than the three dis-
crete cutoffs, Vshc, ␾c, and Swc.
Kolodzie60 used pore-throat size as a net-pay indicator for the
Spindle field, Colorado. The key step was to recognize from earlier
work that the trap on the updip side of Spindle was due to the
pore-throat size dropping below 0.5 microns. A modified Winland
equation was established for calculating pore-throat size from log-
derived porosity and permeability. A net-pay cutoff of 0.5 microns
was then applied to the log-derived pore-throat-size data. This
example was significant because it used the characteristics of the
trapping rock as a basis for setting up a net-pay criterion. This
philosophy has recently been re-emphasized.21
Teti and Krug61 used not only porosity and water-saturation
cutoffs but also a bulk-volume-water (␾Sw) cutoff for oil-bearing
carbonates of the Williston basin in eastern Montana. The deter-
mination of net pay additionally used a resistivity-ratio cutoff.
Essentially, this involved a comparison of pseudo formation resis-
tivity factors in the form of R1⳱Rt/Rw (where Rt is the formation
resistivity of the undisturbed zone and Rw is the resistivity of the
formation water) and R2⳱Rxo/Rmf (where Rxo is the formation
resistivity of the flushed zone and Rmf is the resistivity of the mud
filtrate). The cutoff was defined in terms of a lower limiting value
of R1/R2. The method is not appropriate to shaly formations.
Vavra et al.1 used mercury injection capillary pressure to iden-
tify net reservoir and net pay. The cutoffs were established em-
pirically using a global database. Although the cutoffs were not
reservoir-specific, there were limits to their applicability. For ex-
ample, the net-reservoir cutoffs may not be appropriate to tight
gas sands, whereas the net-pay cutoffs may not apply where there
are special circumstances affecting commerciality (e.g., deep-
water reservoirs).
In a paper reminiscent of the rule-of-thumb cutoffs, Bennion
et al.62 noted that little or no flow is observed in a tight gas
reservoir in which k<0.1 md, provided that the reservoir is in its
normally saturated state (i.e., it is “in free contact and capillary
equilibrium with mobile water and is at a normal level of capillary
saturation for the specific geometry of the porous media under
consideration”). Under these conditions, the initial water saturation
is often too high for gas flow to occur. Tight gas reservoirs can
produce where the reservoir has not been in contact with a free
water surface so that there is no equilibrium transition zone.
Read in conjunction with Table 3, these examples confirm that
there is still no established or unambiguous methodology for de-
fining cutoffs for incorporation within integrated reservoir studies.
Different investigators have different perceptions of the role of
cutoffs and how these contribute to a net deliverable. Different
cutoffs result in different net pay (Fig. 3). There are evidently
static and dynamic components of the process according to wheth-
er it is driven by the geologist or the engineer, respectively. There
are different perceptions of what net pay is and how it should be
used. The geological perception is that net pay is the portion of a
rock that contains hydrocarbons. The engineering perception is one
of a rock that contains and produces hydrocarbons. All this points
to the need for a definitive standard approach. This paper sets out
to clarify the basis for such a code of practice.
279
Why Cutoffs Are Needed in Integrated
Reservoir Studies
Cutoffs are needed in any reservoir study for which the reservoir
system includes constituent rocks of weak hydraulic properties that
cannot be excluded at the geological correlation stage. Those rocks
form part of the reservoir succession in a geological sense, but they
do not contribute significantly to the evaluation of hydrocarbons in
place or to the estimation of ultimate hydrocarbon recovery. There
280
are two principal reasons why it is unwise to include those rocks
within the evaluation of hydraulic storage and flow units. These
considerations are set within the context of a petrofacies classifi-
cation scheme.63
First, the predictive algorithms for porosity, permeability, and
hydrocarbon saturation that form part of the reservoir evaluation
exercise must be established using data measured for the rocks that
determine reservoir character. The inclusion of nonreservoir rocks
August 2005 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

Fig. 3—Examples of net-pay identification using two different
sets of Vsh, ␾, and Sw cutoffs. Pay 1 (cutoffs identified by solid
lines): Vsh<0.20, ␾≥0.07, Sw<0.5; Pay 2 (cutoffs identified
by dashed lines): Vsh<0.35, ␾≥0.06, Sw<0.6 (data from Pekot
et al.52).
at the outset usually distorts the predictive algorithms and thereby
lessens their accuracy and weakens their precision if these same
algorithms are then adopted throughout. This means that for prac-
tical purposes, the numerical relationships between the pertinent
parameters have to be established twice. Initially, they are ana-
lyzed for the identification of cutoffs when all data have to be
considered; this exercise is essentially concerned with the quanti-
fication of trends. Then, when the cutoffs have been accepted, they
are re-established for all intervals that satisfy the cutoffs; this
exercise is undertaken for purposes of predictive applications.
Fig. 4 shows an example of a linear fit to a bilogarithmic porosity
vs. permeability data distribution before and after the application
of a net-reservoir cutoff. These core data have not been sorted into
petrofacies units, and they typically show a dispersion of approxi-
Fig. 4—Bilogarithmic crossplots of porosity vs. permeability with linear data fits for a sandstone reservoir: (a) for all data, (b) for
net reservoir only. The reservoir has not been subdivided into petrofacies units.
August 2005 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
mately plus/minus one order of magnitude. The inclusion of data
for which k<1 md has a large influence upon the (Y on X)
regression fit, even though these nonreservoir data account for less
than 20% of the sample population. For this field example, the
principal effect of including nonreservoir rock in the establishment
of the algorithm would have been to underestimate permeability by
up to half an order of magnitude over the lower-porosity part of the
net-reservoir interval.
Second, it makes sense to construct the simplest dynamic
model that is compatible with the static model. To do this, the
reservoir-characterization process should draw upon cutoffs in
such a way that upscaled properties and predictive algorithms re-
late only to those intervals that will flow. Not only is this approach
computationally efficient, but it also focuses any post-initialization
tuning of the dynamic model on those aspects or elements of the
model that control or contribute directly to reservoir productivity.
The benefits include a more readily achieved history match.
There are two cases in which cutoffs might theoretically be
avoided. The first of these is where an evaluation exercise is con-
cerned only with hydrocarbons in place (e.g., in equity redetermi-
nation according to agreed procedures) and the predictive algo-
rithms show no significant improvements in accuracy and preci-
sion when they are re-established after the application of cutoffs.
The second case is a simulation study in which no upscaling is
applied. Here, one could evaluate reservoir properties (porosity,
permeability, saturation-height parameters) for every petrofacies
occurrence and let the simulator do the calculations of estimated
ultimate recovery. This scenario is unrealistic; upscaling is nearly
always applied to reduce the computational load.
Why Cutoffs Should Be Fit for Purpose
Cutoffs should be fit for purpose on several counts. First, they
should relate to the intended deliverable. Usually, this will be the
estimation of ultimate hydrocarbon recovery, but in some cases
there may be a statutory requirement for stopping the exercise at
hydrocarbons in place (e.g., in equity redetermination). Second,
cutoffs should take account of the flow regime (i.e., intergranular
flow, fracture flow, or some combination of these). Third, the
establishment of cutoffs should be conditioned by the reservoir
recovery mechanism and the stage of depletion (e.g., primary-
depletion reservoirs in which the pressure declines or waterflood-
depletion reservoirs in which pressure is maintained by injection).
In all cases, the process for defining cutoffs should be guided by
the nature of the available data. Cutoffs should therefore take
account of the hydraulic character of a reservoir and not be se-
lected arbitrarily. This character is indicated primarily by porosity,
absolute and relative permeability, and capillary pressure.
281
Intended Deliverable. The need for fit-for-purpose cutoffs was
identified by Snyder,2 who noted that “the intended use of the net
pay often determines how net pay is ‘picked’.” He saw net pay as
being determined by “porosity and/or permeability cutoff values,”
thereby implying that the approach could be static or dynamic in
nature. This duality was also flagged by Berruin and Barlai,38 who
saw a twofold approach based on static reserves, where perme-
ability had not been taken into account in establishing the cutoffs,
and dynamic reserves, where it had. The use of an MOI merely
defined static reserves, as suggested by the descriptive term net oil
sand, although Berruin and Barlai did call their final deliverable
net pay. In general, cutoffs should be dynamically conditioned.
Reservoir Connectivity. Here, the cutoffs are intended to define
a net-to-gross ratio that is a measure of the continuity of a reser-
voir. The well data are samples of the connectivity. They are also
control points because if connectivity is inferred from a net-to-
gross ratio, the latter can be measured only at a well. In terms of
our adopted definitions, we require net-reservoir thickness as the
input parameter to a net-to-gross ratio. This indicates the fraction
of gross rock that is sufficiently clean and porous to be a potential
hydrocarbon reservoir. If Vshc and ␾c have been tied back to (rela-
tive) permeability, there is the added assurance that continuous
net-reservoir rock will allow the reservoir fluids to flow. This
assurance is one of the strongest arguments against independent,
static definitions of Vshc, ␾c, and Swc. It can be visualized through
a 3D geocellular model in which the distribution of “good cells”
is highlighted.7
Volumetric Analysis. This method might be directed at a hy-
drocarbons-in-place figure, as an end in itself, or it might be tar-
geted at the estimation of ultimate hydrocarbon recovery, in which
case a recovery factor will be applied.
In the context of estimating hydrocarbons in place, there has
been some debate about whether cutoffs are needed at all. If one
seeks a gross number, and nothing more, the argument for no
cutoffs can be accepted for volumetric calculations (but not in
establishing reservoir-specific interpretative algorithms, which are
degraded by the inclusion of nonreservoir rock). Having said that,
it is difficult, if not impossible, to conceive of a situation in which
an estimate of hydrocarbons in place would be made without any
intention of using it. To this end, we take the view that accessible
hydrocarbons are contained in reservoir rock, which is character-
ized by a supracritical capability for the storage and transmission
of fluids. Therefore, if an estimate of hydrocarbons in place is to
have any pragmatic meaning, it has to relate to host rocks that are
of reservoir quality. This philosophy is key to the generation of
estimates of hydrocarbons in place using dynamically conditioned
cutoff parameters (i.e., scalar quantities that are tied back to some
function of permeability).
Of course, as noted earlier, some investigators have determined
independent static cutoffs for the parameters Vsh, ␾, and Sw with-
out reference to permeability. In contrast, there have been other
cases in which scalar cutoffs have been tied back to a (sometimes
arbitrary) permeability cutoff even where the volumetrics are to be
subjected to a recovery factor. In this respect, it is essential to note
that recovery factor is intertwined with net pay. The latter is a
thickness and the greater the admitted thickness (i.e., the less strin-
gent the cutoffs), the lower the recovery factor will be. The inde-
pendent generation of net-pay thickness and recovery factor is,
therefore, not appropriate. Moreover, the interrelationship of net
pay and recovery factor does not preclude volumetric cutoffs from
being defined dynamically (i.e., with reference to permeability).
It is recommended that the dynamically conditioned approach be
the standard.
Dynamic Reservoir Model. The intended deliverable is the es-
timation of ultimate hydrocarbon recovery. Cutoffs should be dy-
namic in nature. They are needed because there is no point in
accounting for in-place hydrocarbons that will not form some part
of the recovery process. Hydrocarbon volumes that do not con-
tribute to the energy balance (e.g., do not experience pressure
decline) during the course of the recovery process should not be
counted in the initial in-place volumes upon which the efficiency
of the recovery process (i.e., the recovery factor) is based.
282
Cutoffs should be tied back to a hydraulic parameter, which
might be absolute permeability; equivalent circular pore diameter,
(k/␾)0.5; mobility, k/␮, where ␮ is fluid viscosity; capillary pres-
sure; residual water saturation; or extrapolated endpoint relative
permeability; depending on the reservoir-depletion mechanism.
Here, there is a stronger case for the synergic application of static
cutoffs that are all tied back to the same (petrofacies-specific)
limiting value of the same hydraulic parameter.7 Note, however,
that this approach is applicable only over a predefined hydrocar-
bon leg. The great advantage of synergic cutoffs is that the entire
process of determining net pay has a dynamic foundation. The
recovery factor delivered by the simulator will be conditioned by
the input net-to-gross pay.
Flow Regime. Most of the published case histories of the appli-
cation of cutoffs relate to reservoirs within which intergranular
(sometimes called “matrix”) flow predominates. In fractured res-
ervoirs, a different approach is called for. At the limit, where the
intergranular flow is negligible and the fractures form a network of
regional conduits, some kind of fracture indicator is needed with a
limiting value above which flow is commercially exploitable.
More generally, the fractures are fed by an intergranular rock that
can also allow flow into a well; here, the relative importance of the
two flow mechanisms will determine whether to use a fracture
indicator, intergranular cutoffs, or some combination of these. It is
important to distinguish between fractures that act as conduits
throughout the volume drained by a well and those that are drill-
ing-induced and, therefore, irregular extensions of the borehole
wall. Both contribute to well productivity, but to different degrees.
An example of cutoffs for commercial hydrocarbon recovery in a
naturally fractured reservoir was provided by Schafer.64 Where
fracture stimulation is applied, the cutoffs need to take account of
this as part of the recovery mechanism.
Reservoir Recovery Mechanism and Stage of Depletion. Dy-
namic cutoffs are necessarily founded on Darcy’s law. In addition
to the effective thickness of the flowing interval, the key factors
influencing producibility are mobility, fluid pressure gradient, wet-
tability, viscous/capillary forces ratio, and wellbore skin factor.
These factors are impacted by the reservoir recovery mechanism
and the stage of depletion. Sensible cutoffs are needed so that the
efficiency of the recovery mechanism can be assessed. Cutoffs are
therefore established in the light of an assumed recovery mecha-
nism. The following comments develop this point.
As noted earlier, contemporary reservoir studies are both inte-
grated and iterative in nature. Where the optimum recovery mecha-
nism has not been established, cutoffs will have a markedly itera-
tive role in integrated reservoir studies because they will be reap-
plied through various scenarios. However, in many cases, the
recovery mechanism actually will be known or can be assumed.
Where a field has a significant production history, the available
pressure and production data are used to infer reservoir drives but,
even here, the opportunities to use material-balance and perhaps
decline-curve analyses retain a dependence on cutoffs because
recovery efficiency still has to be assessed. In development stud-
ies, reservoir behavior has to be understood reasonably well be-
cause it forms the basis for a development plan (e.g., a decision on
whether or not to implement waterflooding). Here, a drive mecha-
nism is assumed on the basis of rock and fluid properties, analog
reservoirs in the area, and regional information concerning aquifer
strength and permeability. This assumption allows the prevalent
reservoir mechanism to be inferred (e.g., diffusion or convection).
It is a prerequisite for generating the economics of a proposed
development project.
Most fundamentally, George and Stiles19 drew a distinction
between continuous net pay and floodable net pay. They observed
that all net pay is not necessarily floodable, even if it is laterally
continuous. These observations were developed by Cobb and
Marek,21 who noted that lower-permeability rocks that contributed
to production during primary depletion might not be injectable
during waterflooding and thence become nonpay.
August 2005 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
 Primary Depletion. To accommodate both oil and gas reser-
voirs within the same framework, it is proposed that cutoffs should
be tied to a limiting value of mobility. The viscosity of a gas is at
least an order of magnitude less than that of a light oil, and the
magnitude of this disparity probably accounts for the difference
between the traditional permeability cutoff values of 0.1 md for
gas and 1.0 md for oil. The need to tie viscosity to temperature and
pressure emphasizes that permeability must also be at reservoir
conditions, which will change as the reservoir is produced. In this
respect, cutoffs assume a time dependence, primarily through the
closure of pore throats. The limiting mobility is determined
through the analysis of data that pertain to a given petrofacies unit
and a given fluid type.
Waterflood Depletion. The key permeability parameter is hy-
drocarbon permeability at irreducible water saturation. To make
full use of the conventional core database, an additional linkage
between absolute and relative permeability is needed. If reservoir-
fluid pressure is maintained, the complication of pressure-induced
reductions in permeability is avoided. However, there is the op-
posite problem of thermal fracturing of the reservoir along the
flood front; this will have some impact on the sweep mechanism.
Analytical waterflooding calculations for the establishment of a
permeability cutoff have been outlined by Cobb and Marek.21
Factors Relating to the Specification of Cutoffs
Scale Effects. A most important requirement is that core perme-
ability be used in a manner that does not introduce any transgres-
sions of scale. Because cutoffs often relate to log responses, the
core data need to be reconstructed at a scale that is compatible with
the spatial resolution of logging tools before being correlated with
log-derived parameters in order to tie the net-pay cutoffs to a
reference permeability value. This exercise should be undertaken
separately for each petrophysical rock type and by using a consis-
tent approach to petrophysical evaluation. In this way, data scatter
is reduced, and the resulting cutoffs are therefore more definitive.
This objective has been partially achieved by defining a limit-
ing value of a reference parameter at the core scale and then
relating the reference parameter to a log-derived cutoff parameter
to establish a crude cross-scale correspondence between the lim-
iting value and the cutoff value. The implication here is that the
algorithm accommodates scale differences. This procedure can be
improved by investigating relationships between core-derived pa-
rameters at a pseudo-log scale, where the latter is attained through
the application of (weighted) running means to regularly spaced
conventional core data.65 Alternatively, the combined use of core
data and micro-imaging logs, the latter as a pseudo-measure of
porosity and thence perhaps permeability, has allowed the con-
Fig. 5—Bilogarithmic crossplots of porosity vs. permeability for a sandstone reservoir (a) at the core scale and (b) at the simulator
grid-cell scale, showing the different porosity cutoffs ␾c that correspond to a fixed (air) permeability cutoff of 1.0 md (adapted
from Worthington65).
August 2005 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
struction of variograms to guide the weighting of core-plug data
adjacent to each log-sampling level. This weighting has allowed
the core data to be reconstructed at the (axial) log scale.66
It is important to note that because cutoffs are usually derived
empirically from an inspection of data, they are intrinsically con-
ditioned by the scale of measurement of those data. Cutoffs should
only be applied to data that relate to that same scale. This funda-
mental law of scale applies to the whole of engineering geoscience.
It is commonly abused. An illustration of the effects of ignoring
scale in the establishment of cutoffs is shown in Fig. 5.
Minimum Net-Pay Thickness. Net pay is conditioned by the spa-
tial resolution of well logs because the cutoffs ultimately will be
applied to log data. The conventional log-sampling interval is 0.15
m, so each log data point notionally relates to a sublayer of 0.15 m
thickness. Resolution describes the minimum layer thickness for
which a log will record a correct parametric value for that layer
after appropriate environmental corrections. This is nominally
about 0.60 m, but it does vary from log to log, with downhole
conditions, and with the type of log-data processing that has been
applied. Below this limit, the log merely detects a layer, and all the
data points are apparent values. Partly for this reason, there has
often been a minimum thickness for a net-pay interval to be ad-
missible. This thickness has ranged from 0.25 m to 1.0 m, but
sometimes it has been greater. A further reason for this spatial limit
is that an overcomplex reservoir model is difficult to use, espe-
cially at the simulation stage.
Rock Typing. Where a reservoir is heterogeneous, a subdivision
of the geological succession might be needed. Traditionally, this
subdivision has been based on facies (associations), so that a fa-
cies-by-facies set of cutoffs is established.67 More recently, it has
been proposed that a reservoir should be partitioned in a manner
that is fit for purpose.68 The geological architecture is retained for
volumetric computations. However, the establishment of cutoffs,
which is essentially a petrophysical and engineering exercise,
should be undertaken on the basis of physical criteria. Because the
determination of cutoffs uses relationships between physical prop-
erties, a reservoir should be subdivided separately into petrophysi-
cal units that are distinguished not by their data envelopes of
physical properties but by the quantitative forms of the predictive
algorithms that are needed to evaluate them.63 Each of these petro-
facies units can have an exclusive set of different cutoffs. Here, it
might be possible to use a single reference value of mobility or of
a (relative) permeability term as a limiting value for the whole
reservoir system. However, there might still be significantly dif-
ferent (petrofacies-specific) relationships between the reference
283
parameter and the cutoff parameters to be used in log analysis.
These relationships can be described through discrete crossplots
of, for example, mobility or (relative) permeability vs. Vsh, ␾, and
Sw for each petrofacies. Therefore, the resulting values of Vshc, ␾c,
and Swc will be distinct for each petrofacies unit (Fig. 6).
The situation is different where the petrofacies are markedly
distinct texturally and/or differ from the standpoint of the stress
response of the reference parameter(s). This means that at condi-
tions of effective reservoir stress, the rock types can be addition-
ally distinguished by the ranges of values of the pertinent param-
eters. Here, it might not be possible to identify a single limiting
value of mobility or of a (relative) permeability term that is ap-
propriate to all petrofacies. In effect, there will be different starting
points for developing the cutoffs to be used in log analysis. Once
again, the resulting values of Vshc, ␾c, and Swc will be different for
each rock type.
It is worth reiterating that once the cutoffs have been identified
and applied, the interpretative algorithms should be re-established
for each petrofacies unit so that they relate solely to the admitted
net intervals. Where a reservoir comprises a single petrophysical
rock type, there still may be a need for different cutoffs in different
parts of the reservoir (e.g., because of the different mobilities
associated with a gas cap and an oil rim). The same is true for a
reservoir that has a large structural closure and for which the
hydrocarbon properties vary significantly with depth.
Relationship of Permeability to Other Parameters. The perme-
ability that is most appropriate to a reservoir situation is unlikely
to be the absolute gas permeability. Yet this is what is usually
available from conventional core analysis. The analysis of a mo-
bility or a (relative) permeability cutoff must be guided by the
nature of the data and the intended application. However, in all
Fig. 6—Porosity vs. permeability relationships for four rock types, showing the different porosity cutoffs ␾c that correspond to
a fixed permeability cutoff of 0.1 md. The permeability cutoff is presumed to be tied to a reference parameter cutoff (adapted
from Cosentino7).
284
cases the aim is to identify a crossover point from inadmissible to
admissible levels of producibility that can be expressed in terms of
a cutoff value for a permeability or mobility parameter. That per-
meability parameter should be appropriate to the task in hand. It
might be relative permeability to gas or oil at conditions of irre-
ducible water saturation, perhaps expressed in units of mobility.
These data are usually far more limited than conventional gas-
permeability measurements. When a (relative) permeability cutoff
has been determined, it must then be related to absolute perme-
ability for wider application. This philosophy is in accord with the
key well concept of calibrating interpretative methods at well-
studied localities.
Once a (relative) permeability or mobility cutoff has been iden-
tified, it can be related to Vshc, ␾c, and perhaps Swc. The cutoffs
therefore share three characteristics. First, through this process,
they are dynamically conditioned. This is the primary justification
for this approach. Second, they are synergistic rather than sequen-
tial. Although the values of Vshc, ␾c, and Swc notionally relate to
the net-sand, net-reservoir, and net-pay classifications, respec-
tively, they no longer have the nested impact of Fig. 2. Indeed, by
tying each of them back to the same limiting (relative) permeabil-
ity or mobility (Fig. 7), we introduce a strongly overlapping effect,
so that the third cutoff, whichever that may be, has comparatively
little additional impact when it is applied over the hydrocarbon leg
(Fig. 8). A similar observation was made by Pirson,23 who in-
cluded a permeability cutoff, although his three cutoff parameters
appeared to have been established independently. Third, the cut-
offs are rendered log-derivable. This means that a log-derived
parameter has to be correlated with core permeability, and this
requirement has rock-type and scale implications (see above). Al-
though Vsh, ␾, and Sw can all be tied back in this way, the rela-
tionship of porosity to permeability is the most critical.69
August 2005 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
Fig. 7—Schematic generation of synergic cutoffs ␾c, Vshc, and Swc for primary reservoir depletion, where mobility and water
saturation are log-normally distributed (adapted from Cosentino7).
Implications for Integrated Reservoir Studies
The foregoing constitutes a defensible foundation for quantifying
net-pay cutoffs. Because this foundation has been placed within
the context of integrated reservoir studies, the geological setting,
interstitial fluids, and field database are all pertinent to the way in
which cutoffs are selected.
Formulation of Cutoff Criteria. Although there are still differ-
ences of perception between geologists and engineers concerning
the role of net pay, it is becoming increasingly accepted that this
term and its defining cutoffs must have a dynamic significance. In
other words, cutoffs are mostly used to delineate those net-pay
intervals “through which hydrocarbons will flow and hence . . . be
produced,” and they are therefore “a function of the permeability
distribution.”70 Some have introduced the further requirement that
net-pay cutoffs should delineate intervals of commercial produc-
ibility.1,10,21 The difficulty here is how to make this expanded
definition workable at the reservoir evaluation stage. Whatever the
precise definition of net pay, the cutoff exercise reduces to one of
quantifying a limiting permeability term that can be expressed in
terms of an absolute air permeability as measured by conventional
core analysis. In this way, log-derivable cutoffs can be tied back
to a (scale-compatible) core-derived permeability that is more
abundant than any permeability deliverable from special core
analysis. The underlying problem, which has long been recog-
Fig. 8—Schematic similarity of net reservoir and net pay, where dynamically conditioned cutoffs are applied synergically to the
hydrocarbon leg.
August 2005 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
nized, is that it is “difficult to select with assurance a permeability
cutoff value.”23
Fig. 9 provides a schematic description of the role of cutoffs in
integrated reservoir studies. By adopting a structured procedure
that is fit-for-purpose, the arbitrary nature of rules of thumb is
avoided. Although described in terms of a set of tasks, the enact-
ment of these procedures has to be undertaken systemically within
the overall field study. Fig. 9 is intended to form a basis for the
pragmatic application of cutoffs in integrated reservoir studies, an
exercise that is to be the subject of a follow-up paper.
In Fig. 9, the definition of the reference mobility or the refer-
ence relative permeability at irreducible water saturation Swirr is by
far the most critical step in the whole procedure. A stepwise ap-
proach has been suggested, so that the process will be consistent.
The following notes supplement Fig. 9.
Identification of Data Sources. These include all the data that
can provide information about the hydrocarbon presence and mo-
bility or multiphase fluid flow [e.g., laboratory measurements on
cores (conventional and special), raw log data and log-analysis
deliverables such as NMR movable hydrocarbon index, dynamic
data (DST and well-test results, production data), etc.]. The entire
process of cutoff selection should be driven by the available data
rather than by imported concepts.
Data Integration. The integration of diverse data is impacted
by variations in saturation, pressure, and temperature. This is es-
285
 Fig. 9—Flow chart describing the role of cutoffs in integrated reservoir studies.

pecially important in the case of viscosity. Cutoff selection is
specific to a reservoir, to its depletion mechanism, and to the stage
of depletion.
Correlation With Petrophysical Parameters. Once the refer-
ence mobility or endpoint relative permeability value has been
selected, it should be correlated with standard rock parameters
delivered by the petrophysical evaluation. This process should be
performed independently for each petrofacies. Cutoff selection
uses all the data, including those that obviously are going to be
classified as nonreservoir.

286 August 2005 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

 Sensitivity Studies. Volumetric computations should be per-
formed using different sets of (dynamically conditioned) cutoffs in
order to understand the impact on the final results. One example of
this sensitivity analysis is illustrated in Fig. 10.
Reconciliation of Different Reservoir Subdivisions. In deter-
ministic field studies, where a correlative reservoir architecture has
been defined stratigraphically, the interpreted reservoir properties
for each petrofacies unit are recombined into stratigraphic zonal
data at each grid node for purposes of computing volumetrics.
Net-reservoir cutoffs are applied before mapping; the saturation-
height function is generated using net-reservoir data. Because
these cutoffs are petrofacies-specific, they have to be applied be-
fore recombination. In geostatistical field studies, where each cell
is assigned a petrofacies classification as part of the populating
exercise, the volumetric computation is a direct summation of the
contributions of the individual cells, for each of which a hydro-
carbon saturation has been calculated. Depending on cell thickness
and the scale at which the net-reservoir cutoffs are established, the
net-reservoir cutoffs can be applied to point data or to cellular
averages of, for example, porosity. However, given that the satu-
ration-height function has to be applied at the cellular scale, the
adoption of this scale for the establishment of all cutoffs would be
consistent. Of course, an integrated reservoir study can draw upon
both deterministic and geostatistical approaches. By tying back the
cutoffs to dynamic parameters so that the cutoffs determine wheth-
er or not hydrocarbons will flow, the volumetrics will relate to
producible hydrocarbons. If this tieback is not done, the volumetric
computation delivers strictly static hydrocarbons in place rather
than dynamically conditioned or producible hydrocarbons in place.
In the latter case, the recovery factor can be significantly higher.
The dynamic conditioning forms a much sounder basis for the
subsequent identification of flow units.
Relationship Between Cutoffs and the Results of Simula-
tion. From a theoretical standpoint, cutoffs are not strictly neces-
sary in a 3D numerical simulation study. In fact, each petrofacies
(or petrophysical rock type) in the geological model could be
characterized with specific capillary pressure and relative perme-
ability functions in the simulator, and these functions unequivo-
cally determine the ability of the fluid to flow under all possible
circumstances. In reality, however, the identification and the ap-
plication of cutoffs at the geological modeling stage is beneficial to
the dynamic modeling because it avoids time-consuming flow
computations between cells with very poor characteristics. Indeed,
Fig. 10—Illustration of the sensitivity of original oil in place to the porosity cutoff, which can be dynamically conditioned.
August 2005 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
it is well known that the numerical performance of the simulator
improves significantly when low-volume cells of poor reservoir
character are eliminated. Thus, from a practical standpoint, the
application of net-pay cutoffs as described above does reinforce
the synergy between the static and the dynamic models. This state-
ment is substantiated by the incorporation of net-to-gross reservoir
within preliminary sensitivity studies, which can provide useful
projections of the volume of reservoir that is connected for differ-
ent cutoff scenarios.
One further noteworthy issue is how to accommodate tight
gas-bearing intervals that do not satisfy net-reservoir criteria as
applied at wells, but which contribute to production through cross-
flow away from the wellbore as pressure differentials arise be-
tween permeable and tight beds. These contributions take the form
of enhancements to recovery as critical depletion levels are at-
tained. If no cutoffs are applied to the dynamic model, simulation
at a sufficiently fine grid scale may result in a recovery factor in
excess of 100% for the more permeable intervals. If cutoffs are
applied, some late-onset gas will be excluded. A decision to apply
cutoffs at a particular scale will be governed by projections of
differential pressure decline and flow response. This dichotomy
reinforces the need for a depletion scenario before decisions can be
made on how and where cutoffs are to be applied. It also re-
emphasizes the iterative nature of integrated reservoir studies. Yet
again, this example links to the commercial nature of cutoffs. If,
for example, gas prices were low, the reservoir might have to be
abandoned before depleting the tight gas intervals. If, on the other
hand, gas prices were high, additional compression would be cost-
effective, and this would allow the reservoir to be produced to a
lower pressure, which would, in turn, lead to a higher gas recovery
from the tight intervals.
Conclusions
There is no generally accepted method for the identification of
petrophysical cutoffs and, thence, net pay. Yet, it has been dem-
onstrated that without the systematic quantification of cutoffs,
there can be a highly significant degradation of those petrophysical
algorithms that are a primary vehicle for evaluating reservoir prop-
erties. Moreover, examples confirm that different approaches to
defining cutoffs yield different reservoir models, so it is imperative
that cutoffs be fit for purpose [i.e., they are compatible (1) with the
approach taken for the evaluation of hydrocarbons in place or for
the estimation of ultimate hydrocarbon recovery and (2) with the
intended reservoir-depletion mechanism]. A structured methodol-
ogy has been developed to accommodate these different require-
287
ments by basing cutoff definitions on reservoir-specific criteria
that take account of the storage and flow of hydrocarbons. This
methodology draws upon physical rock typing, a proper reconcili-
ation of petrophysical partitioning where this does not correspond
to the geological architecture, upscaling of algorithms to the simu-
lator scale, and the relationship between cutoffs and the results of
numerical simulation.
Key benefits of a properly conditioned set of petrophysical
cutoffs include a more exact characterization of a reservoir and,
thence, a better synergy with the dynamic reservoir model, mani-
fested through a more efficient attainment of a functional history
match. Thus, the model more successfully predicts the behavior of
the reservoir, thereby providing an energy company with the op-
portunity to optimize the value of the asset.
Nomenclature
k ⳱ permeability, md
Rmf ⳱ mud-filtrate resistivity, ⍀m
Rt ⳱ formation resistivity, ⍀m
Rw ⳱ formation-water resistivity, ⍀m
Rxo ⳱ flushed-zone resistivity, ⍀m
R1 ⳱ pseudo formation resistivity factor (undisturbed zone)
R2 ⳱ pseudo formation resistivity factor (flushed zone)
Sh ⳱ hydrocarbon saturation
Sw ⳱ water saturation
Swirr ⳱ irreducible water saturation
Vsh ⳱ shale volume fraction
␾ ⳱ porosity
␮ ⳱ viscosity, cp
Subscripts
c ⳱ parametric cutoff
Acknowledgments
The authors are obliged to Ian Beck for his helpful review of
the manuscript.
References
1. Vavra, C.L., Kaldi, J.G., and Sneider, R.M.: “Geological Applications
of Capillary Pressure: A Review,” American Assn. of Petroleum Ge-
ologists Bull. (1992) 76, 840.
2. Snyder, R.H.: “A Review of the Concepts and Methodology of Deter-
mining ‘Net Pay’,” paper SPE 3609 presented at the 1971 SPE Annual
Meeting, New Orleans, 3–6 October.
3. Bailey, B.H. and De Crespo, M.: “Computer Sand Counting and Square
Counting,” Trans., SPWLA 22nd Annual Logging Symposium,
Mexico City (1981) J1-49.
4. Márquez, L.J. et al.: “Improved Reservoir Characterization of a Mature
Field Through an Integrated Multi-Disciplinary Approach. LL-04 Res-
ervoir, Tia Juana Field, Venezuela,” paper SPE 71355 presented at the
2001 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans,
30 September–3 October.
5. Cheatwood, C.J. and Guzman, A.E.: “Comparison of Reservoir Prop-
erties and Development History: Spraberry Trend Field, West Texas,
and Chicontepec Field, Mexico,” paper SPE 74407 presented at the
2002 SPE International Petroleum Conference and Exhibition in
Mexico, Villahermosa, Mexico, 10–12 February.
6. Martin, F.D. et al.: “Reservoir Characterization as a Risk-Reduction
Tool at the Nash Draw Pool,” SPEREE (April 1999) 169.
7. Cosentino, L.: Integrated Reservoir Studies, Editions Technip, Paris
(2001).
8. Desbrandes, R.: Encyclopedia of Well Logging, Editions Technip, Paris
(1985).
9. Boyle, K. Jing, X.D., and Worthington, P.F.: “Petrophysics,” Modern
Petroleum Technology, Volume 1—Upstream, R.A. Dawe (ed.), John
Wiley & Sons, New York City (2000) 131–206.
10. Calhoun, J.C. Jr.: Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering, U. of Okla-
homa Press, Norman, Oklahoma (1960).
288
11. Moinard, L.L., Jones, R.L., and Gawick, D.J.: “Evaluation of the Milk
River Sand in the Suffield Block,” Trans., SPWLA 24th Annual Log-
ging Symposium, Calgary (1983) HH1-17.
12. Deakin, M. and Manan, W.: “The Integration of Petrophysical Data for
the Evaluation of Low Contrast Pay,” paper SPE 39761 presented at the
1998 SPE Asia Pacific Conference on Integrated Modelling for Asset
Management, Kuala Lumpur, 23–24 March.
13. Balbinski, E.F., Masters, J., and Makin, J.: “A New Flow-Based Cut-
Off Criterion for Permeability in Dry Gas Reservoirs,” Trans., SPWLA
European Symposium on Reservoir Characterization, London Petro-
physical Society, London (2002) T2B 1-8.
14. Jeffries, F.S. and Kemp, E.M.: “Computer Reconciliation of Sonic Log
and Core Analyses in the Boundary Lake Field,” Trans., SPWLA 4th
Annual Logging Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (1963) IV1-
18.
15. Cordell, J.C. and Ebert, C.K.: “A Case History—Comparison of Pre-
dicted and Actual Performance of a Reservoir Producing Volatile
Crude Oil,” JPT (November 1965) 1291.
16. Boyer, R.C.: “Geologic Description of East Velma West Block, Sims
Sand Unit, for an Enhanced Oil Recovery Project,” JPT (August 1985)
1420.
17. Coskuner, G. and Lutes, B.: “Optimizing Field Development Through
Infill Drilling Coupled With Surface Network: A Case Study of Low
Permeability Gas Reservoir,” paper SPE 36705 presented at the 1996
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, 6–9 Octo-
ber.
18. Doane, R.D. et al.: “Successful Drilling of an Underbalanced Horizon-
tal Well in the Rigel Halfway Pool—Laboratory Screening and Field
Results,” paper SPE 37065 presented at the 1996 SPE International
Conference on Horizontal Well Technology, Calgary, 18–20 Novem-
ber.
19. George, C.J. and Stiles, L.H.: “Improved Techniques for Evaluating
Carbonate Waterfloods in West Texas,” JPT (November 1978) 1547.
20. Hall, J.E.: “The Importance of a Complete Suite of Logs in an Old
Reservoir,” JPT (June 1983) 1178.
21. Cobb, W.M. and Marek, F.J.: “Net Pay Determination for Primary and
Waterflood Depletion Mechanisms,” paper SPE 48952 prepared for
presentation at the 1998 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhi-
bition, New Orleans, 27–30 September.
22. Meisch, E.P. and Khelil, C.: “Application of Material Balance Tech-
niques in Matching and Predicting Performance of the Heterogeneous
Multilayer Hassi Messaoud Field,” paper SPE 4431 presented at the
1973 SPE Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada, 30 September–3 Oc-
tober.
23. Pirson, S.J.: Oil Reservoir Engineering, McGraw-Hill, New York City
(1958).
24. Keener, M.H.L.: “Computer Coordinated Core and Log Interpretation,”
Trans., SPWLA 6th Annual Logging Symposium, Dallas (1965) 2,
G1-16.
25. Jeffries, F.: “Reservoir Volume Calculations With a Well Data Sys-
tem,” Trans., SPWLA 8th Annual Logging Symposium, Denver (1967)
A1-17.
26. Baba, T., Chinju, J., and Masastoshi, S.: “The Development of Minami-
Aga Oil Field,” paper SPE 4294 presented at the 1972 Joint AIME-
MMJ Meeting, Tokyo, 25–27 May.
27. Brown, H.D. and Salisch, H.A.: “Logging Programs in Northeastern
South America,” Trans., SPWLA 8th Annual Logging Symposium,
Denver (1967) H1-27.
28. Walters, E.J.: “Statistical Study of Neutron Logs for Correlation Stud-
ies,” Trans., SPWLA 9th Annual Logging Symposium, New Orleans
(1968) F1-15.
29. Quint, M. and Grosmangin, M.: “Economics of Computer Utilization in
Formation Evaluation,” Trans., SPWLA 10th Annual Logging Sym-
posium, Houston (1969) V1-40.
30. Ritch, H.J. and Kozik, H.G.: “Petrophysical Study of Overpressured
Sandstone Reservoirs, Vicksburg Formation, McAllen Ranch Field,
Hidalgo County, Texas,” Trans., SPWLA 12th Annual Logging Sym-
posium, Dallas (1971) BB1-14.
31. Randolph, P.L.: “Project Wagon Wheel—Reservoir, Production, and
Economic Considerations,” paper SPE 4399 presented at the 1973 SPE
Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting, Casper, Wyoming, 15–16 May.
August 2005 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
32. MacKenzie, W.T.: “Petrophysical Study of the Cardium Sand in the
Pembina Field,” paper SPE 5541 presented at the 1975 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, 28 September–1 Octo-
ber.
33. McCoy, J.T. and Burge, E.J.: “Petrophysical Mapping of the Wabiscaw
Sand, Marten Hills Area, Alberta,” Trans., SPWLA 17th Annual Log-
ging Symposium, Denver (1976) W1-14.
34. Schultz, A.L.: “Estimating Production of Prospective New Wells With
Log Derived Permeability Feet (Kh) Maps,” Trans., SPWLA 17th An-
nual Logging Symposium, Denver (1976) B1-20.
35. Moss, B. and Stocks, A.: “Log Interpretation Methods in Use in the
Former Soviet Union,” Russian-Style Formation Evaluation, B. Harri-
son (ed.), The London Petrophysical Society and The Geological So-
ciety of London (1985) 175–182.
36. Itenberg, S.S.: Study of Oil and Gas Series From Well Logs, Mir
Publishers, Moscow (1971).
37. Lencioni, L.C., Johnston, B.G., and Hagemann, S.G.: “Categorization
and Auditing of Reserve Estimates in a Series of Kazakhstan Oil and
Gas Fields, Including a Probabilistic Analysis,” paper SPE 36635 pre-
sented at the 1996 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Denver, 6–9 October.
38. Berruin, N.A. and Barlai, Z.: “Pattern Recognition Schemes for Dis-
tinguishing Net Pay Zones From Non-Permeable and/or Water-
Producing Intervals in Shaly Sandstones,” Trans., SPWLA 21st Annual
Logging Symposium, Lafayette, Louisiana (1980) F1-18.
39. Wilson, D.A. and Hensel, W.M.: “The Cotton Valley Sandstones of
East Texas: a Log-Core Study,” Trans., SPWLA 23rd Annual Logging
Symposium, Corpus Christi, Texas (1982) R1-27.
40. Sallee, J.E. and Wood, B.R.: “Use of Microresistivity From the Dip-
meter To Improve Formation Evaluation in Thin Sands, Northeast Kali-
mantan, Indonesia,” JPT (September 1984) 1535.
41. Finley, R.J.: “Reservoir Properties and Gas Productivity of the Con-
coran and Cozzette Tight Gas Sandstones, Colorado,” paper SPE 13852
presented at the 1985 SPE/DOE Low Permeability Gas Reservoirs
Symposium, Denver, 19–22 May.
42. Bigelow, E.L.: “Integrating the Earth Sciences,” Trans., SPWLA 27th
Annual Logging Symposium, Houston (1986) S1-11.
43. Hunter, C.D., Kilgo, W.M., and Hickman, T.S.: “The Development of
a Marginal Clearfork Waterflood Prospect,” paper SPE 20128 pre-
sented at the 1990 SPE Permian Basin Oil and Gas Recovery Confer-
ence, Midland, Texas, 8–9 March.
44. Craft, J.R., Waddell, S.P., and McFatridge, D.G.: “CO2-Foam Fractur-
ing With Methanol Successfully Stimulates Canyon Gas Sand,” SPEPE
(May 1992) 219.
45. Howell, E.P., Gutberlet, S.S., and Glossa, J.M.: “North Riley: Inte-
grated Evaluation of a Heterogeneous Reservoir,” paper SPE 23964
presented at the 1992 SPE Permian Basin Oil and Gas Recovery Con-
ference, Midland, Texas, 18–20 March.
46. Coll, C., Rondon, L., and Cortiula, B.: “Accurate Reservoir Evaluation
From Borehole Imaging Techniques and Thin Bed Analysis. Case
Studies in Shaly Sands and Complex Lithologies in Lower Eocene
Sands, Block III, Lake Maracaibo, Venezuela,” paper SPE 36150 pre-
sented at the 1996 SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Ex-
hibition and Conference, Port-of-Spain, Trinidad, 23–26 April.
47. Joshi, S. and Lahiri, G.: “Integrated Reservoir Characterization of
Neelam Field,” paper SPE 39742 presented at the 1998 SPE Asia
Pacific Conference and Integrated Modelling for Asset Management,
Kuala Lumpur, 23–24 March.
48. Mohan, H. et al.: “Evaluating Waterflood Potential in a Morrow Sand-
stone Reservoir,” paper SPE 35386 presented at the 1996 SPE/DOE
Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, 21–24 April.
49. Thompson, R.S. et al.: “Incremental Benefits of a Team Approach to
Reservoir Management,” paper SPE 36771 presented at the 1996 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, 6–9 October.
50. Burch, D.N. and Cluff, R.M.: “A Volumetric Analysis of Almond
Formation (Cretaceous, Mesaverde Group) Gas Production in the Coal
Gulch-Echo Springs Standard Draw Field Complex, Washakie Basin,
Southwest Wyoming,” SPEREE (August 1998) 328.
51. Flølo, L.H. et al.: “Revealing the Petrophysical Properties of a Thin-
Bedded Rock in a Norwegian Sea Reservoir by the Use of Logs, Core,
and Miniperm Data,” paper SPE 49326 prepared for presentation at the
August 2005 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
1998 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans,
27–30 September.
52. Pekot, L.J., Wozniak, D.A., and Martin, J.P.: “Tight Sand Evaluation
Applied to the Medina Group of Chautauqua County, NY,” paper SPE
57440 presented at the 1999 SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Charles-
ton, West Virginia, 21–22 October.
53. Kessler, C. et al.: “New Petrophysical Process Improves Reservoir
Optimization by Linking Stimulation Design, Reservoir Modeling, and
Economic Evaluation,” paper SPE 62544 presented at the 2000 SPE/
AAPG Western Regional Meeting, Long Beach, California, 19–22
June.
54. Schoeling, L.G. and Mark, S.: “Improved Reservoir Management/
Characterization for Independent Operators in Mature Basins, a Case
Study: South Slattery Field, Powder River Basin, Wyoming,” paper
SPE 59299 presented at the 2000 SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery
Symposium, Tulsa, 3–5 April.
55. Kopper, R. et al.: “Reservoir Characterization of the Orinoco Heavy
Oil Belt: Miocene Oficina Formation, Zuata Field, Eastern Venezuela
Basin,” paper SPE 69697 presented at the 2001 SPE International
Thermal Operations and Heavy Oil Symposium, Margarita Island,
Venezuela, 12–14 March.
56. Frorup, M. et al.: “Capturing and Preserving Sandbody Connectivity
for Reservoir Simulation: Insights From Studies in the Dacion Field,
Eastern Venezuela,” paper SPE 77593 presented at the 2002 SPE An-
nual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 29
September–2 October.
57. Sakurai, S. et al.: “Petrophysical Evaluation of Miocene-Pliocene
Gas Reservoirs: Veracruz and Macuspana Basins, Mexico,” Trans.,
SPWLA 43rd Annual Logging Symposium, Oiso, Japan (2002) MM1-14.
58. Suau, J. et al.: “Interpretation of Very Thin Gas Sands in Italy,” Trans.,
SPWLA 25th Annual Logging Symposium, New Orleans (1984) A1-
22.
59. Jiyu, W.: “A Study of Gas Reserve Estimation by Conventional Log-
ging for Fracture-Porosity Carbonate Reservoir in Sichuan Basin,”
Trans., SPWLA 23rd Annual Logging Symposium, Corpus Christi,
Texas (1982) KK1-28.
60. Kolodzie, S. Jr.: “Analysis of Pore Throat Size and Use of the Wax-
man-Smits Equation To Determine OOIP in Spindle Field, Colorado,”
paper SPE 9382 presented at the 1980 SPE Annual Technical Confer-
ence and Exhibition, Dallas, 21–24 September.
61. Teti, M.J. and Krug, J.A.: “Log Analysis Methods and Empirical Data
Derivation of Net Pay Parameters for Carbonate Reservoirs in the
Eastern Montana Part of the Williston Basin,” The Log Analyst (1987)
28, No. 3, 259.
62. Bennion, D.B. et al.: “Low Permeability Gas Reservoirs and Formation
Damage—Tricks and Traps,” paper SPE 59753 presented at the 2000
SPE/CERI Gas Technology Symposium, Calgary, 3–5 April.
63. Worthington, P.F.: “A Validation Criterion to Optimize Core Sampling
for the Characterization of Petrophysical Facies,” Petrophysics (2002)
43, No. 6, 477.
64. Schafer, J.N.: “A Practical Method of Well Evaluation and Acreage
Development for the Naturally Fractured Austin Chalk Formation,”
Trans., SPWLA 20th Annual Logging Symposium, Tulsa (1979) U1-
27.
65. Worthington, P.F.: “The Effect of Scale on the Petrophysical Estima-
tion of Intergranular Permeability,” Petrophysics (2004) 45, No. 1, 59.
66. Delhomme, J.P. et al.: “Permeability and Porosity Upscaling in the
Near-Wellbore Domain: The Contribution of Borehole Electrical Im-
ages,” paper SPE 36822 presented at the 1996 SPE European Petro-
leum Conference, Milan, Italy, 22–24 October.
67. Holtz, M.H. and Hamilton, D.S.: “Reservoir Characterization Method-
ology To Identify Reserve Growth Potential,” paper SPE 39867 pre-
sented at the 1998 SPE International Petroleum Conference and Exhi-
bition of Mexico, Villahermosa, Mexico, 3–5 March.
68. Worthington, P.F.: “Scale Effects on the Application of Saturation-
Height Functions to Reservoir Petrofacies Units,” SPEREE (October
2001) 430.
69. Caldwell, R.H. and Heather, D.I.: “Characterizing Uncertainty in Oil
and Gas Evaluations,” paper SPE 68592 presented at the 2001 SPE
Hydrocarbon Economics and Evaluation Symposium, Dallas, 2–3
April.
289
70. Fosvold, L. et al.: “Volumes Before and After Exploration Drilling:
Results From the Project: Evaluation of Norwegian Wildcat Wells,”
Improving the Exploration Process by Learning from the Past, K.
Ofstad, J.E. Kittilsen, and P. Alexander-Marrack (eds.), Norwegian
Petroleum Society, Special Publication No. 9, Elsevier, Amsterdam
(2000) 33–46.
SI Metric Conversion Factors
cp × 1.0* E–03 ⳱ Pa·s
ft × 3.048* E–01 ⳱ m
*Conversion factor is exact.
Paul F. Worthington is a senior technical manager with
Gaffney, Cline & Assocs. and a visiting professor in petroleum
geoscience and engineering at Imperial College, U. of Lon-
don. His principal interests are integrated reservoir studies for
the estimation of reserves, for equity determination, and for
reservoir management. Worthington holds doctorates in engi-
290
neering geophysics and applied geology and has published
more than 80 technical papers in the field of engineering geo-
science. He is a past president of the Soc. of Petrophysicists
and Well Log Analysts (SPWLA) and has twice served as a Dis-
tinguished Lecturer for SPE and as Chair of the SPE Formation
Evaluation Committee. Worthington is Editor of Petrophysics
and a Deputy Editor of Petroleum Geoscience. He is a char-
tered geologist and a chartered engineer in the United King-
dom. Luca Cosentino is currently Manager of the Reservoir
Modeling & Characterization Dept. of Eni, Milan, Italy. Previ-
ously, he was in charge of the Reservoir Studies Dept. at Eni
headquarters, Milan, and before that was a project manager
with Beicip-Franlab. His main interests are related to the devel-
opment and deployment of new technologies for geological
modeling and reservoir simulation. He has published more than
20 technical papers in the areas of reservoir characterization
and simulation, geostatistics, and fractured reservoirs, as well
as a book on integrated reservoir studies, published by Editions
Technip, Paris. He has served on the Steering and Program
Committees of several SPE, European Assn. of Geoscientists
and Engineers (EAGE), and American Assn. of Petroleum Ge-
ologists (AAPG) Annual Meetings, and he has also served as a
Technical Editor for SPE.
August 2005 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering