SPE 107142
Estimation of Saturation Height Function Using Capillary Pressure by Different
Approaches
Mahmound Jamiolahmady, Mehran Sohrabi and Mohammed Tafat, Inst. of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt U.
Copyright 2007, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Europec/EAGE Annual Conference and
Exhibition held in London, United Kingdom, 11–14 June 2007.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than
300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, Texas 75083-3836 U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
The saturation-height function greatly impacts reserve
calculations and is used by geologists or reservoir engineers to
predict the saturation in the reservoir for a given height above
the free water level. If cores are preserved, the water saturation
information can be obtained directly. However, cores are often
subject to changes from their original state before brought to
laboratories. Hence, capillary pressure (Pc) curves measured
on different core samples of a heterogeneous formation are
usually correlated to porosity, permeability, and/or rock type
using various techniques to generate field wide saturation
height function.
This paper evaluates performance of six saturation-height
methods (i.e., Leverret-J[1], Cap-Log[2], Johnson[3], Cuddy et
al. [4], Skelt-Harrison[5] and Sodena[6] methods) employed in
the oil industry.
Measured capillary pressure data and core properties for a well
in one of the North Sea reservoirs were used with rock
permeability varying from less than 1 mD to over 1000 mD.
We have reviewed advantages and disadvantages of each
method while comparing the output of each method with
saturation obtained from the log data. The results indicated
that Skelt-Harson method with coefficient independent of core
properties, a simple average Pc function, could be the best
option and complicating the functional form by including the
porosity and/or permeability data might inversely impact the
predictions. Furthermore, modifying Cap-Log Cuddy et al. and
kelt-Harison by including the core permeability data in the
mutli-regressione exercise resulted in higher errors confirming
that increasing the degree of freedom does not necessarily
mean a better performance.
.
INTRODUCTION
Original reservoir fluid saturations are often determined
through a combination of well log and core analysis data. Key
core-analysis information is capillary pressure measurement,
which captures the static volumetric behavior of reservoir
fluids in the rock. When capillary pressure is available and
when the free water level (FWL) is known, original reservoir
water saturation can be reconstructed. The water saturation
distribution above the FWL in an oil reservoir is controlled by
the balance of capillary and gravity forces. The pressure
gradient between the nonwetting (oil) and wetting (water)
phases, Pc, is determined by the difference in fluid densities at
the given height from FWL. Hence, the reservoir Pc (in psi) is
related to height (in meter) using Equation 1.
h=0.7035Pc/∆ρ (1)
where ∆ρ is the density difference between formation water
and hydrocarbon in (gr/cc) and is equal to 0.29 for the data in
this study.
Therefore, by knowing the Pc function, water saturation at any
given height is known. This dictates that an accurate
estimation of Pc function of the reservoir rock is crucial and
greatly affects reserves estimation.
Capillary pressure reflects the interaction of rock and fluids
and is affected by the pore geometry, pore size distribution,
interfacial tension and wettability. Equation 2, which relates
the capillary pressure for an immiscible fluid pair in a circular
cross section pore with radius r, can be used to show how Pc
relates to rock and fluid properties.
Pc=2σcos(θ)/r, (2)
where σ is interfacial tension and θ is the contact angle.
The capillary pressure measured in the laboratory can be
adjusted for the effect of fluid properties and wettability
compared to reservoir conditions using Equation 3.
(σ cos θ )res
(P c )res = (Pc )lab . (3)
(σCosθ )lab
In this study the values of σresCosφres and σlabCosφlab are 26
2 SPE 107142
and 42 dyne/cm respectively.
The impact of pore geometry and pore size distribution
reflected by the term (2/r) in Equation 2 should also be
accounted for when extending the use of laboratory data to
field data. This is not a straightforward task. That is, the
reservoir rocks are often heterogeneous and there are not
enough Pc measurements to reflect all the variation of rocks
properties. Normal procedure is that they are scaled to the
petrophyscal properties of the rocks. This allows the extension
of a limited number of core measurements to the entire
reservoir.
Levert in 1941[1] proposed the use of (k/φ)0.5, which has the
dimension of mean pore radius, in Equation 2 to reflect the
change in petrophysical properties of rocks. Hence, he scaled
the Pc function of different rock types through the use of
dimensionless J-Function defined by Equation 4.
Pc
J (S w ) = k /φ . (4)
σCosθ
He reached to this equation by considering a sand pack as a
bundle of capillary tubes with different pore radii. Therefore,
Equation 4 accounts for changes of permeability, porosity and
wettability of the reservoir as long as the general pore
geometry remains constant. However, it is often unsatisfactory
and different types of rocks exhibit different J function
correlations.
Since early work of Levert[1] numerous methods [1-8] have been
proposed by researchers to overcome the shortcoming of this
simple, but easy to use, method. In this work we evaluate the
performance of some of the most common methods (i.e.,
Leverret-J[1], Johnson[2], Cap-Log[3], Cuddy et al. [4], Skelt-
Harrison[5] and Sodena[6] methods) used in the oil industry.
The measured capillary pressure data and core properties for a
well in one of the North Sea reservoirs were used. The well
98/6-3 has a set of capillary pressure measurement from
conventional core analysis and a number of logs, (GR, LLD,
Sonic and CNL). The evaluation of the performance of each
method was made in comparison with saturation information
obtained from logs, which is assumed to be reliable.
Reservoir Rock
Capillary pressure data measured for 18 core plugs from this
single well were used for this study, Figure 1. Table 1 contains
the petrophysical properties of these core samples. These 1.5''
diameter core samples had been drilled from the whole cores
obtained from the well 98/6-3 between depth of -1573.0m and
-1638.7 m BRT. Core samples were cleaned using the mild
miscible cleaning technique. Having cleaned the core samples,
they were saturated with brine with no intermediate drying.
Water /Oil permabilities were measured using high and low
rate unsteady waterfloods. Air/brine capillary pressure
characteristics were determined using the porous plate
capillary. The test sequence used involved de-saturating the
plugs at each seven pressures between 1 and 64 psi. The plugs
were removed from the capillary pressure cells and weighted
after a period of three weeks at each pressure stage. They were
returned to the cell and the pressure was raised to the next de-
saturation pressure and the process repeated.
Saturation Height Method Used
1- Leverret-J[1]
In this method, initially the capillary pressure vs. saturation
data for all core samples is converted to a single J function
using Equation 4. Then a least square regression analysis is
made using J value as the independent variable. The best
correlation is often obtained using a power law equation of the
form:
J=A(Sw)B, (5)
where A and B are constants.
Figure 2 shows the corresponding dimensionless J-function
versus saturation for the data of Figure 1 together with the
best-fit power curve. The reservoir Sw values can now be
obtained by first converting the height above the free water
level (h) to Pc using Equation 1. Then J function is calculated
by Equation 4 and the corresponding Sw value is obtained
from Equation 5 with A=0.0737 and B=-2.6558.
2- Cap-Log[2]
Aufricht and Keopf[7] were first to relate Pc and Sw from core
measurements to other rock properties by a family of
parametric curves. Permeability was usually chosen as the
rock parameter but porosity was sometimes preferable.
Heseldin[8] modified Aufricht and Keopf method by relating
the porosity to hydrocarbon bulk volume (Vbh) instead of Sw
with a family of parametric curves of constant Pc. Vbh is
related to water saturation and porosity through the following
relationship:
Vbh = φ (1-Sw) (6)
Alger et al.[2] modified Heseldin’s method by proposing a
multi linear regression to relate Pc to porosity and/or
permeability and used the term Caplog method. They
proposed the following general function to describe the
dependency of Vbh to Pc and rock properties.
Vbh=A+B*Log(h)+C* φ +D*log(k), (7)
where A, B, C and D are constants and h (height) is related to
Pc through Equation 1.
However, they have stated that as k is not normally available
from log data D is usually assumed zero. In this exercise, since
we had log permeability data, Figure 3 both cases of with and
without permeability data were studied. The values of the
constants of Equation 7 for these two scenarios were
A=-0.2173, B=0.0568, C=1.2669,
SPE 107142
where height and porosity are in meter (m) and fraction of
pore volume, respectively.
The corresponding values, when permeability data were
included, are:
A=-0.1736, B=0.0565, C=0.9311, D=0.0170,
where permeability is in mD (milli-Darcy).
3- Johnson[3]
This technique relates water saturation derived from standard
laboratory capillary pressure measurements to permeability
and capillary pressure as described by Equation 8.
Log(Sw)=A*log(k)+ B*PcC, (8)
where A, B and C are constants.
This averaging technique involves the generation of a number
of cross plots.
First on the log-log plot a series of straight lines is fitted to the
permeabilities and water saturation data for each of the
laboratory capillary pressures (at the same Pc). That is, it is
assumed that for a given capillary pressure, the saturation will
vary from sample to sample depending on the petrophysical
properties of the rock with better quality reservoir rock having
typically lower wetting phase saturation.
The slope of the lines, A in Equation 8, is then averaged to
give a constant value. Then lines of constant slope were then
fitted through each data set to generate a new intercept B`. On
the log-log scale a linear relationship between B` and the
capillary pressure Pc is fitted, which is then converted to a
power law functional form to give the first term of the right
hand side of Equation 8.
Following the above procedure for our data we obtained the
following values for the constants of Equation 8:
A=-0.1669, B=2.2092, C=-0.0682,
where water saturation is expressed as percentage and
capillary pressure is in psi.
4 Cuddy et al. [4]
A simple function was developed by Cuddy that relates the
product of porosity and water saturation to the height above
the free water level as expressed by Equation 9.
-log(φ.Sw) = A*log(h)+B. (9)
This correlation has been developed based on the data of gas
reservoirs in southern North Sea whereby, above transition
zone, one observes an increase in porosity as water saturation
decreases and vice versa. Hence, it takes no account of
lithology and is biased towards fitting the water saturation data
in the better quality sand.
3
In our study we also included the effect of permeability in the
above equation in the following form:
-log(φ.Sw) = A*log(h)+B+C*log(k), (10)
where A, B and C are constants.
For the present study, the values of the constants of Equations
9 and 10 were obtained as:
A=0.2798, B=0.7676, C=0,
and
A=0.2902, B=0.6113, C=0.0705,
respectively.
It should be noted that when using these values h (height), and
k (permeability) are in (m) and (mD), respectively, and
porosity, water saturation are in fraction of pore volume.
5- Skelt-Harrison[5]
Skelt Harrison proposed the following function relating water
saturation to the height (h) above the free water level is:
Sw=1-A exp(-[B/(h+D)]C) (11)
where A, B, C, D are constants. The corresponding values for
our data set were obtained by curve fitting as:
A=0.8491, B=2.5378, C=0.6104, D=1.7121,
where h in (m) and sw is in fraction of pore volume.
We also considered relating the coefficients of Equation 11 to
permeability. Here it was noted that D merely shift the curves
in the vertical direction, hence were kept constant. In a
multiregression exercise it was observed that B is the most
sensitive parameter to variation permeability for the core
samples under study. A power laws function described the
dependency of B to core permeabilities as follows:
B=30.8610(k)-0.5086, (12)
where k is in (mD). The mean values of the A and C were
0.9047 and 0.5482, respectively.
6- Sodena[6]
In this method water saturation is related to capillary pressure
and permeability through the following Equation:
Sw= A*PcC+B* PcD*log(k) (13)
This averaging technique, similarly to Johnston method,
involves the generation of a number of cross plots. Water
saturation is first plotted versus the logarithm of permeability
at constant values of capillary pressure. A straight line is fitted
to the data for each value of capillary pressure. Then the slope
and the intercept values are plotted against capillary pressure
4 SPE 107142
and the coefficients of Equation 13 are found by curve fitting
procedure.
Following the above procedure for our data we obtained the
following values for the constants of Equation 13:
A=0.2832, B=1.3473, C=-0.2431, D=-0.2701,
where water saturation is in fraction of pore volume,
permeability in (mD) and capillary pressure is in (psi).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OF THE DIFFERENT
METHODS
The saturation height function from a single well 98/6-3 has
been determined by six methods, each model was compared
with the water saturation profile obtained from logging as a
base case. The results are shown in Figures 4-9 for these six
methods, respectively. Here we elaborate on their accuracy by
looking at some statistical error indicator to supplement the
eye balling error base analysis observed in these Figures. Two
criteria have been made to quantify the accuracy of each
method compared to saturation obtained from logging.
i) Average absolute percentage deviation, AAD%, which is
calculated using the following equation:
n (Sw )core − (S w ) Logging
∑
j =1 (S w ) Logging
AAD% = *100 (14)
n However, the predicted water saturation values resulted in
ii) The Standard error of estimate calculated by
n
∑
j =1
[(S )
w core ]
− (S w ) Logging
2 not necessarily mean a better performance.
SEE = (15)
n −1
Subscripts (logging) and (core) denote the values obtained
from log and cores analysis.
The results of this error exercise are found in Table 2.
The Levert method, Figure 4, which is based on the bundle of
capillary tube models, gives the highest error. Eyeballing the
data of Figures 5-9 shows that, with the exception of Skelt-
Harrison, there are not significant differences between the
trends of saturation data predicted by the remaining five
different methods.
In the case of Johnston (Figure 7) and Sodena (Figure 9)
methods there is a significant deviation for the first 10 meters
above the free water level. Excluding their predictions for this
part has significantly reduced AAD% from 43.8 and 42.0 to
34.8 and 37.0% respectively, Table 2. This is mainly due to
the presence of a power law function in Equations 8 and 13,
respectively. That is, for these functions towards the low Pc
values, a small deviation in Pc values would results in a
significant variation in the predicted water saturation. In the
case of Sodena the presence of two power law functions
exaggerates this effect.
The difference between Caplog and Cuddy et al. methods is
that the former is based on ratio of hydrocarbon volume to the
bulk volume whilst the latter is based on the volume of water
to the bulk volume. As it was mentioned earlier Cuddy et al.
method was proposed based on the data of the North Sea
reservoirs, which favour our North Sea well data giving lower
error values compared to Cap-Log method, Table 2. It should
be noted that similarly to Cuddy et al. method, Cap-Log
method is biased towards fitting the water saturation data in
the better quality sand. This has resulted in significantly
overestimating the water saturation for the low permeability
zones in both methods. This observation can be made by
looking at the permeability data from logging, Figure 3, and
the corresponding predictions by Cap-Log and Cuddy et al.
methods, Figures 5 and 6, respectively.
Skelt-Harson method with constant coefficients (with AAD%
of around 30) has the best performance. This suggests that a
simple average Pc function, Figure 8, independent of core
properties could be the best option for the case under study
and complicating the functional form by including the porosity
and/or permeability data might inversely impact the quality of
predictions.
It was also noted that including the core permeability data
resulted in a lower error for the functions defined by Equations
7 (Cap-log method), 9 (Cuddy et al.) and 12 (Skelt-Harrison).
higher error values for all these three methods, Table 2. This
indicates that including more parameters to the multi-
regression exercise increase the degree of freedom but does
CONCLUSIONS
Several saturation height functions models were investigated
in the generation of the saturation height function algorithm.
These functions calculate water saturation based on one or
more parameters like, porosity, height above free water level,
and permeability.
Based on the limited data available we have noted that:
1) The Levert method, which is based on the bundle of
capillary tube models, gives the highest error.
2) The performance of Johnston and Sodena methods is poor
at low Pc values (small distance form FWL) due to the
presence of power law function, which dictates a significant
variation in waster saturation for a small variation in Pc in this
domain.
3) Cuddy et al. and Cap-Log methods, which have similar
structure, are biased towards fitting the water saturation data in
the better quality sand. Furthermore, as Cuddy et al. method,
which has been proposed based on the data of the North Sea
reservoirs, favour our North Sea well data it gives lower error
values compared to Cap-Log method.
SPE 107142 5

4) Skelt-Harrison method with constant coefficients, which is Table 1-Depth, permeability and porosity of cores
a simple average Pc function independent of core properties is samples from well 98/6-3.
the most suitable method. Sample Depth k Φ
No. /m /mD %
However, it should be added that all these methods are 12 1573.10 22 15.9
empirical and the robustness of each algorithm makes it a
17 1582.23 9.3 20.6
feasible alternative in a special area.
9 1582.87 20 21.0
REFERENCES
1. Leverett, M.C.: ‘‘Capillary Behavior in Porous Solids”, 4 1585.93 83 20.6
Transactions of AIME 142, pp. 151-69, 1941.
14 1586.09 64 22.4
2. Johnson, A.: “Permeability averaged capillary data: a
supplement to log analysis in field studies”, Proc. of 1987 2 1590.30 --- 23.5
SPWLA, 28th Annual Logging Symposium, 29 June - 2 July.
3. Alger, R.P., Luffel, D.L. and Truman, R.B.: “New Unified 35 1594.05 468 26.5
method of integrating core capillary pressure data with well
22 1603.07 361 27.5
logs”, SPE Formation Evaluation, June, 1989.
4. Cuddy, S., Allinson, G. and Steele, R.: “A simple, 21 1609.09 395 27.3
convincing model for calculating water saturations in Southern
North Sea gas fields”, Proc. of 1993 SPWLA, 34th Annual 28 1610.58 289 23.6
Logging Symposium, 13-16 June. 32 1610.91 1421 27.2
5. Skelt C. and Harrison, R.:”An integrated approach to
saturation height analysis”, Proc. of 1995 SPWLA, 36th 26 1612.93 922 26.8
Annual Logging Symposium, 26-29 June.
6. Forthinggton and Chardaire-Riviere C.: “ Advances in core 39 1619.68 781 29.6
evaluation III”. 51 1619.89 0.5 15.3
7. Aufricht, W.R. and Koepf, E.H.,: “Interpretation of
capillary pressure from carbonated reservoirs”, Trans. AIME 53 1624.81 1051 26.8
210, 1957, pp. 402-05.
42 1625.50 24 16.8
8. Heseldine, G.M.: “A Method of averaging capillary
pressure curves”, Proc. of 1974 SPWLA Annual Logging 45 1631.25 --- 22.1
Symposium 2-5 June.
9. Harisson, B., Jing, X.D.: “Saturation height function 56 1631.36 966 24.4
methods and their impact on hydrocarbon in place estimates”
SPE71326, Proc. of SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, 30 September - 3 Table 2-Average Absolute Deviation and Standard
October, 2001. Error of Estimates between the calculated water
saturations from the core data, using different
methods, with those obtained from Log.
AAD% SEE
Method AAD% SEE
(*) (*)
Leverrett 48.9 0.224 43.4 0.195

Cap-Log 39.0 0.178 37.6 0.171

Cap-Log- k 41.0 0.182 40.5 0.181

Cuddy 36.6 0.168 32.9 0.148

Cuddy-k 39.3 0.177 36.3 0.162

Johnson 42.0 0.198 34.8 0.151

Skelt-Harison 32.2 0.150 29.4 0.137

Skelt-Harison-k 40.7 0.178 39.9 0.176

Sodina 43.8 0.190 37.0 0.156

(*) refers to the values exclusing the first 10 m from the FWL
contact.
6 SPE 107142

70 70
Core No.
12
60 17
9
4
50 14
Capillary Pressure /psi

2
35 60
40
22
21
30 28
32
26
20 39
51 50
53
10
42
45
0 56
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Height from Free Water Level /m

Wetting Phase Saturation /PV
40
Fig. 1-Capillary pressure curves for core samples of well 98/6-3
obtained from laboratory measuremnts.

40 30

35
y = 0.0737x-2.6558
30 R2 = 0.8179

25
20
J (Sw)

20

15

10
10
5

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Wetting Phase Saturation /PV

Fig. 2-J function vs. saturation for core samples of well 98/6-3
0
obtained from laboratory measuremnts. 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Permeability (mD)

Fig. 3- Permeability vs. height from FWL obtained from logging.

SPE 107142 7

70 70
Logging Logging
Levert Cap-Log
Cap-Log-k

60 60

50 50

Height from Free Water Level /m

Height from Free Water Level /m

40 40

30 30

20 20

10 10

0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Water Saturation /PV Water Saturation /PV

Fig. 5-Water saturation vs. height from FWL obtained from

Fig. 4-Water saturation vs. height from FWL obtained from logging and Cap-Log method and mdofied Caplog method
including permeability (k).
logging and J function method.
8 SPE 107142

70 70
Logging Logging
Cuddy et al. Johnson
Cuddy et al.-k

60 60

50 50
Height from Free Water Level /m

Height from Free Water Level /m

40 40

30 30

20 20

10 10

0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Water Saturation /PV Water Saturation /PV

Fig. 6-Water saturation vs. height from FWL obtained from Fig. 7-Water saturation vs. height from FWL obtained from
logging and Cuddy et al. method and mdofied Cuddy et al. logging and Johnson method.
method including permeability (k).
SPE 107142 9

70 70
Logging Logging
Skelt-Harrison
Skelt-Harrison-k Sodena

60 60

50 50
Height from Free Water Level /m

Height from Free Water Level /m

40 40

30 30

20 20

10 10

0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Water Saturation /PV Water Saturation /PV

Fig. 8-Water saturation vs. height from FWL obtained from Fig. 9-Water saturation vs. height from FWL obtained from
logging and Skelt-Harison method. logging and Sodena method.