SPE 88788
Porosity Heterogeneity Analysis Using Geostatistics
A. Gyllensten, Abu Dhabi Company for Onshore Operations; P. Tilke, Schlumberger-Doll Research; M. Al-Raisi and
D. Allen, Schlumberger
Copyright 2004, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 11th Abu Dhabi International Petroleum
Exhibition and Conference held in Abu Dhabi, U.A.E., 10–13 October 2004.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in a proposal 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 a proposal of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
High levels of heterogeneity in many carbonate fields have
raised concerns about the validity and relevance of small-scale
measurements from core plugs and high-resolution logs.
Although the measurements may be precise, they may not
accurately describe average formation properties. A related
question is one of reconciling the variability observed in small
volume-of-investigation data (e.g., core plug), with the
variability in relatively large volume-of-investigation
measurements (e.g., wireline logs).
In a recent study of early Cretaceous carbonate reservoirs
in Abu Dhabi, we developed a technique to address this issue
using high-resolution borehole imaging logs. The resistivity
image is first transformed into a porosity image using Archie’s
equation. The resulting porosity variability is then analyzed
using geostatistics. This analysis allows us to extract
geostatistical parameters (range and sill) at the scale of the
borehole image measurements (0.1 in.) that provide a
heterogeneity index for the rock.
We found that the scale of the heterogeneity is sufficiently
small (typically less than 1 in.), such that significant
heterogeneity will be observed at the core plug and smaller
scales of measurement, while the impact on larger-volume
logging tool response is minimal.
The fact that standard wireline logs are insensitive to most
of the “heterogeneity” in these formations explains the
difficulties in determining reservoir rock types (RRTs) from
standard logs, because the properties distinguishing the RRTs
from one another (macrofossils and molds) are present at a
scale below the sensitivity of standard logs. In contrast,
properties measured by the logs can be expected to reflect the
larger-scale reservoir properties around the well.
These findings have significant impact on how we
calibrate logs using core data and how we should upscale
reservoir properties derived from core and log data in our 3D
earth models.
The findings support our recommendation to use core
plugs larger than the conventional 1-in. plugs in carbonate
formations to ensure that the small-scale heterogeneities are
captured within the core plug itself.
Introduction
One challenge in carbonate petrophysics is to determine the
reliability of relatively small-scale properties measured by log
or core (e.g., porosity) and their relevance to the large-scale,
reservoir properties. Published studies have emphasized the
widespread impact of heterogeneity on reservoir properties in
the early Cretaceous carbonate reservoirs in Abu Dhabi,1 and
raised the concern that local measurements may not reflect the
true average reservoir property in the vicinity of the well. The
greatest concern is that the data are not representative and the
property is undersampled. While the measurements
themselves may be precise, they may not be an accurate
representation of the mean formation property.
A related question is one of reconciling the variability
observed in high-resolution, small-volume measurements
(e.g., core plug) with the variability observed in relatively low-
resolution, large volume-of-investigation measurements (e.g.,
wireline logs).
The work presented here was performed as part of a joint
study on a well from a giant carbonate field in Abu Dhabi. The
field has been under development for many years and has
several hundred wells, most of which have density, neutron,
gamma, and resistivity log data. Some wells have sonic logs,
but few other logs are available.
The geology of the field suggests a buildup of higher-
energy facies is developed toward its center, with lower-
energy lagoonal facies in the more shoreward direction, and
clinoform deposition in the more seaward direction. Thus, the
field encompasses a variety of carbonate environments
covering a wide range of depositional energy. A rock
classification scheme has been developed consisting of 17
RRTs with average permeability ranging from < 0.1 md for
the dense rock, to > 1 Darcy for the best reservoir-quality rock
at the crest.
The study well is located near the crest of the field and
comprises a wide range of permeability and rock types.
Textures encountered range from a caprinid floatstone
(permeability > 1000 md) to a chalky wackestone (0.01 to 0.1
md permeability).
2 SPE 88788
This study concluded that the scale of the heterogeneity
was small (averaging slightly less than 1 in.), producing
significant heterogeneity at the scale of the core plug, but
having little impact on the response from the logging tool.
This has significant implications for other aspects of
carbonate petrophysics:
• Comparison of core and log properties such as porosity
and permeability must be done with care, because the
impact of heterogeneity is variable from zone to zone.
This work predicts the relative impact of heterogeneity
on core plugs, minipermeameter points, and logs.
• The fact that standard wireline logs are insensitive to
most of the heterogeneity in these formations explains
the difficulties in determining RRTs from standard logs,
because the properties distinguishing the RRTs from
one another (macrofossils and molds) are below the
resolution of standard logs.
This analysis was performed in one dimension directly
around the wellbore. It was assumed that the heterogeneity is
at least locally isotropic in three dimensions; in particular, that
there is no vertical variation in formation properties over the
scale of an inch or two. This assumption fails in the presence
of bed boundaries that do not intersect the wellbore at an angle
of precisely 90°. Those cases are characterized by locally large
heterogeneity indices and a large correlation length.
Fortunately, this is not a common occurrence in the data of
this study.
The effect of heterogeneity on standard 1-in. core-plug
measurements may be understood by considering the porosity
readings that would be obtained from a large number of plugs
taken from the formation at a single depth, from all sides of
the hole using a wireline core driller. In a heterogeneous
formation, the porosity measured in each plug will vary
considerably, whereas a relatively homogeneous formation
will yield a narrow range of measured porosity.
Log measurements often yield relatively smoothly varying
values even over intervals in which the core indicates
significant heterogeneity. If the measurement volume of these
different observations is correctly accounted for, then the
heterogeneity index analysis introduced here allows us to
quantitatively reconcile these two seemingly inconsistent
observations.
Heterogeneity Index vs. Measurement Uncertainty
Uncertainty is defined as a “Parameter, associated with the
result of a measurement that characterizes the dispersion of the
values that could reasonably be attributed to the measurand.”2
In petrophysics the measurand is the sensor(s) (such as
radiation detectors or electronics in a porosity-logging tool;
helium pycnometer or calipers in a core laboratory). The
uncertainty associated with the measurement is caused entirely
by inherent dispersion, whether random (nuclear counting
statistics, for instance) or systematic (imperfect calibration, a
design defect, or wear and tear), in the sensor. For clarity in
this document, we call this source of uncertainty the
“measurement error.”
Although all porous rock samples are heterogeneous at
some scale (e.g., at the scale of grains and pores), when
determining the uncertainty of a petrophysical measurement,
heterogeneity is explicitly ignored.
To address the sample-to-sample dispersion caused by
heterogeneity, we introduce the “heterogeneity index,”
defined as a “Parameter, associated with the result of a
measurement that characterizes the dispersion of the values
that could reasonably be attributed to the measurand in
response to different volumes within some larger reference
volume.”
The heterogeneity index is intrinsically scale-dependent. It
is related to the measurement volume, the spatial variability of
the property, and the size of the reference volume. Thus, the
overall uncertainty in the mean value of the reference volume
is a combination of the measurement error and the
heterogeneity index.
For example, if a density logging tool with a measurement
volume of 12 in. vertically and 3 × 4 in. horizontally, with a
measurement error of one porosity unit (p.u.), records a
measurement of 15 p.u. when straddling the boundary between
a 10-p.u. bed and a 20-p.u. bed, the measurement error is still
1 p.u., but the heterogeneity index will be 5 p.u. The
uncertainty in the formation porosity measured at the bed
boundary will then be ± 5 p.u. ( 1 + 5 ), and will drop to
2 2
1 p.u. when the center of the sensor is more than 6 in. from the
bed boundary.
Thus, given a porosity measurement with volume of
investigation v , the heterogeneity index is defined as:
σ hi (v) ; .......................................................................... (1)
and a porosity measurement tool with volume of
investigation v and inherent measurement error of σ me (where
σ denotes ±2 standard deviations), will then have an overall
uncertainty of measurement in the reference volume given by:
σ Φ (v) = σ me
2
(v) + σ hi2 (v) ....................................... (2)
Porosity logs for a particular tool (e.g., density porosity),
or porosity measurements (e.g., core plug) can then be
expressed with heterogeneity index envelopes, which are
discussed in the next section.
The heterogeneity index is useful when comparing the
porosity measured by two sensors with different volumes of
investigation; e.g., a core plug (small volume) and a porosity
log (larger volume). The volume investigated by the porosity
log is taken as the reference volume and the range of potential
core porosity values measured by a hypothetical set of plugs
taken from within that volume is estimated and displayed.
Note that the “normalized heterogeneity index” is defined
as:
σ hi (v)
σ hi (v) = ........................................................... (3)
Φ
where Φ is the mean porosity.
The remainder of this paper will cover a more detailed
analysis of the results of applying this technique to a particular
well in a Cretaceous carbonate reservoir in Abu Dhabi: Well
AD-1.
SPE 88788
Quantitative Heterogeneity Analysis from Image Data
To understand heterogeneity, the technique presented here
takes advantage of the high-resolution data provided by
resistivity imaging tools within the borehole. However,
because we are interested in understanding the heterogeneity
observed in porosity variability, we must transform the
resistivity image to a porosity image.
The recognition that borehole images can be mapped to
petrophysical properties is well understood.3–4 Perhaps the best
established transformation is that from resistivity to porosity
space using the Archie saturation equation.5
aRmf
S wn = , …………………………………………(4)
Φ m Rxo
where S w is the saturation of the wetting phase (0.00 to 1.00),
n is the saturation exponent, a depends on the tortuosity
(0.35 to 4.78), Rmf is the resistivity of the mud filtrate, Φ is
the porosity (0.00 to 1.00), m is the cementation exponent
(1.14 to 2.52), and Rxo is the resistivity of the flushed zone.
This relationship can be rearranged as follows:
1 approaches.
⎛ aR ⎞ m 8. The upscaled geostatistical model parameters can
Φ = ⎜ n mf ⎟
⎝ S w Rxo ⎠ ..........................................................(5)
A carbonate porosity solution application transforms the
resistivity image data into porosity ( Φ ) using Eq. 5, in which
the remaining parameters are either input by the user or
derived from other logs. Applying a 1.2-in. vertical window to
these data generates and analyzes a porosity distribution
histogram for every depth (0.1-in. vertical spacing).4 This
technique has proven very powerful in identifying some
aspects of porosity distribution such as dual porosity. Note,
however, that this technique effectively collapses the image
data into a histogram, discarding spatial information (other
than depth). It does not consider the 3D geometry of the
electrical image sensors in the borehole.
In the technique presented here, borehole images are
treated as 3D measurements of the geological and
petrophysical properties of the rock. The technique then uses
the established approaches of geostatistics6 to model the 3D
geological and petrophysical heterogeneity of the rock in the
region of the borehole.
These geostatistical parameters, which represent the
statistical variability at the scale of the borehole image
measurements, are then used to model the statistical variability
at measurement scales representing larger volumes of
investigation (e.g., core plug, porosity log, and resistivity log).
These modeled parameters can then be used to describe the
impact of heterogeneity on these larger-scale measurements in
representing the mean formation properties and differences
expected between them caused by their differing volumes of
investigation.
As discussed above, one product of this analysis is a series
of single-channel logs describing the geological and
petrophysical heterogeneity of the borehole.
3
Generation of the heterogeneity logs involves the
following steps7:
1. Begin with a borehole image—a 2D array of pixels
on the borehole wall.
2. Compute the 3D Cartesian coordinates of each pixel
from hole geometry, tool geometry, and tool
orientation.
3. For a given frame (depth), identify all possible two-
point pairs of pixels and the chord lengths between
them (lags).
4. Assign pixel pairs to bins representing similar lags.
5. For each frame, compute the experimental
semivariogram by computing the Φ variance for
each lag bin.
6. Derive a model semivariogram from the
experimental semivariogram for each frame, thereby
determining the modeled geostatistical parameters
and making them available for further processing or
display.
7. Using the geostatistical parameters that have been
modeled at the scale of the input measurement,
compute the same parameters for measurement with
larger volumes of investigation using upscaling
then be used to generate heterogeneity index logs for
corresponding core and logging measurements.
Examples of semivariograms generated for different
intervals in the well are illustrated in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2. In
addition to borehole microimaging and core-plug
measurement volumes, in this analysis we also considered two
logging tool measurement volumes: the high-resolution and
low-resolution porosity tools. The modeled dimensions of
these various measurement volumes are listed in Table 1, and
conceptually illustrated in Fig. 3.
Heterogeneity Index Logs for Porosity Measurements
In the model semivariogram, the total sill for the porosity
measurement volume v is equal to the sample porosity
variance ( σ v ) (see Clark8); namely:
2
σ v2 = Cv0 + Cv . .............................................................. (6)
From this, the standard deviation ( σ v ) of the porosity
measurement related to the heterogeneity of the porosity is
given by:
σ v = Cv0 + Cv ............................................................ (7)
Hence, the heterogeneity index (Eq. 1) is defined as:
σ hi ( v ) = 2σ v . .............................................................. (8)
Eq. 8 can then be combined with Eq. 2 to generate
heterogeneity index logs of the porosity measured by the
porosity logging tool ( Φ ); namely,
Φ ± σ Φ ( v ) ................................................................ (9)
4 SPE 88788
Heterogeneity Analysis Results for Well AD-1
The computations of heterogeneity index were performed on a
study well from Abu Dhabi. The results are summarized in
Figs. 4 and 5. The measured heterogeneity at the electrical
image scale is in the range of 4 to 6 p.u.—in excess of 20% of
the porosity—for a large number of depths. Higher values are
also observed, some of which are errors in the data sampling
caused by bed-boundary effects in which data in the analysis
are from different beds. The histogram of the correlation
lengths shows that the vast majority of the correlation lengths
are below 1 in. The upscaled histograms of the heterogeneity
index show significant variability at the scale of core plugs
and very little impact on the wireline log volume. This reflects
a correlation length that is close to the size of the core plug but
much smaller than the logging tool’s volume of investigation.
Track 3 of Fig. 4 contains the porosity log (red) and the
modeled heterogeneity index (blue). The heterogeneity index
is combined with the porosity log to generate a heterogeneity
envelope (grey region) for the log porosity. In contrast, at the
scale of the core plugs (Track 2), the heterogeneity index
(blue) is much larger, and mirrors the greater “scatter” in the
core plug measurements (magenta circles and black diamonds
in Track 1).
The plot in Fig. 6 combines the core-plug scale
heterogeneity index with the log-scale heterogeneity index to
predict the maximum expected scatter in plug porosity values.
Statistically, 95% of the core-plug measurements will fall
within this envelope if the deviation of plug porosity from log
porosity is caused only by heterogeneity. Fig. 6 illustrates the
transition between a homogeneous carbonate and the most
heterogeneous interval in the well—a rudist debris rock type
(RRT 8). Note how the heterogeneity envelope precisely
reconciles the scatter of the core-plug measurements with the
smoothly varying log measurements.
Analysis of the geostatistical parameters becomes very
interesting when the data are classified by reservoir rock type.1
Figs. 7 to 9 illustrate the range in mean porosity and
heterogeneity index for the RRTs encountered in the study
well. The variation in the heterogeneity index between
different rock types hints at a potential application for this
technique as a new input to RRT classification.
Heterogeneity in Permeability
Minipermeameter measurements were performed on selected
core slabs from the subject well.9 The measurements were
performed on a 1-cm grid on 4-in.-wide core slabs that were 6
to 12 in. long. We computed experimental variograms for
these data and compared the results with the porosity
variograms from the image log over the same intervals
(Fig. 10). The two are related because the length scale is the
same and the sill values correlate.
Hassall et al.9 propose an equation to compute permeability:
k = 0.5 Φ2 (ρ T2LM)2 (Φ / (Φ - Vmacro)) 2 ........................(10)
in which:
k = permeability (md)
Φ =Porosity (fraction)
Vmacro = Volume of macroporosity (fraction)
ρ = Surface relaxivity (µm/sec)
T2LM = Log mean average of T2 distribution (msec).
We can use the computed porosity heterogeneity envelope
to compute a heterogeneity envelope for permeability. The
minimum permeability is computed by substituting porosity
minus the porosity heterogeneity index for porosity. The
maximum permeability is the same, using porosity plus the
porosity heterogeneity index. The other terms in Eq. 10 are
held at their nominal value for the depth. Since these
parameters may vary as well, this computation yields a lower
limit of the heterogeneity index of the permeability. In Fig. 11
we used the heterogeneity index for porosity at the image scale
to compute a range of permeabilities within which we expect
the minipermeameter readings (taken every inch) to fall if they
are consistent with the log-derived permeability.
Conclusions
We have demonstrated that geostatistical analysis can be
applied to borehole image data to generate an improved
understanding of formation porosity heterogeneity.
Specifically, we have demonstrated how to:
• Generate an experimental variogram from high-resolution
borehole images.
• Extract model parameters from experimental variograms.
• Upscale the geostatistical model parameters to larger-
measurement volumes.
• Transform the borehole resistivity images into porosity
values.
This technique can be applied to complex carbonate
reservoirs to:
• Characterize different intervals in terms of their
heterogeneity.
• Explain apparent differences between porosity
measurements derived from core plugs and logs.
To contain small-scale formation heterogeneities within
the core-plug volume, we recommend using larger-diameter,
1 1/2-in. core plugs to measure petrophysical parameters in the
study reservoir.
References
1. Russell, S.D., Akbar, M., Vissapragada, B. and Walkden, G.M.,
“Rock types and permeability prediction from dipmeter and
image logs: Shuaiba reservoir (Aptian), Abu Dhabi,” AAPG
Bulletin (2002) 86, 1709.
2. ISO/IEC/OIML/BIPM. "Guide to the expression of uncertainty in
measurement," 1992. 1-91.
3. Delhomme, J.P., Bedford, J., Colley, N.M., Kennedy, M.C.:
“Permeability and Porosity Upscaling in the Near-Wellbore
Domain: The Contribution of Borehole Electrical Images,”
(1996) paper SPE 36822.
4. Newberry, B.M., Grace, L.M., Stief, D.D.: “Analysis of Carbonate
Dual Porosity Systems from Borehole Electrical Images,” (1996)
SPE 35158.
5. Fanchi, J.R.: “Shared Earth Modeling,” (2002) Elsevier 306pp.
6. Bloomfield, P.: “Fourier Analysis of Time Series: An
Introduction,” 2nd Edition (2000) Wiley 261pp.
7. Tilke, P., Allen, D., Gyllensten, A.: ”Quantitative Analysis of
Porosity Heterogeneity: Application of Geostatistics to Borehole
Images”, Mathematical Geology (in press)
8. Clark, I.: “Practical Geostatistics,” (1984) Elsevier 129pp
9. Hassall, J.K.; Ferraris, P., Al-Raisi, M., Hurley, N., Boyd, A., Allen,
D.F: “Comparison of Permeability Predictors from NMR,
Formation Image and other Logs in a Carbonate Reservoir,” paper
SPE 88683 to be presented at the 2004 Abu Dhabi International
Petroleum Exhibition & Conference, October 10–13.
SPE 88788 5

Measurement Width (in) Height (in) Depth (in)

Electical Image Sensor 0.1 0.1 0.1
Core Plug 1.0 1.0 1.0
High Resolution Tool 3.0 3.0 3.0
Low Resolution Tool 3.0 12.0 4.0

TABLE 1 DIMENSIONS OF MODELED RECTANGULAR PRISM VOLUMES FOR

THE ELECTRICAL IMAGE SENSOR, HIGH RESOLUTION LOGGING TOOL AND
LOW RESLUTION LOGGING TOOL AND THE MODELED CYLINDER OF THE
CORE PLUG.

Fig. 1 Horizontal semi-variogram for middle of interval

displayed above. Superimposed on the experimental data
obtained from the porosity image, are model variograms for the
FMI, Core Plug, High Resolution Tool, and Low Resolution
Tool (see Table 1). In the experimental data, note the sill with
φ2 = 0:00077 (φ = 2:8%) reached at a lag of approximately
2 inches.

*
6 SPE 88788

Fig. 2 Horizontal semi-variogram for middle of interval

displayed above. Note the FMI scale sill with
φ2 = 0:00029 (φ = 1:7%) reached at a lag of
approximately 1 in. Also note the very low upscaled
sills e.g. φ2core plug = 0:000036 (φ = 0:6%) resulting from
the effect of the relatively low range.

FMI Button FMI Button

Core Plug Core Plug

Φ = 50%
Φ =11% Φ = 22%
Core Plug

Core Plug
Wellbore

Density
Log

Fig. 3 Conceptual diagram illustrating the relative volumes of

the electrical image button (or minipermeameter)
measurement and the low resolution logging tool (a density
tool, for instance) compared to the diameter of the wellbore
and the volume of the core plugs.
SPE 88788 7

Heterogeneity Envelope (v/v) Heterogeneity Envelope (v/v)

Length Scale (in.)

Heterogeneity
0.4 Core Plug Scale 0.0 0.4 Low Resolution Log Scale 0.0
Core Plug Porosity (v/v) Heterogeneity Index (v/v) Heterogeneity Index (v/v)
0.4 Core Plug Log Scale 0.0 0.4 Low Resolution Log Scale 0.0
Core Plug
0.4 0.0 Core Plug Porosity (v/v) Log Porosity (v/v)
Tw in Core Plug
0.4 0.0 0 5 0.4 0.0

Fig. 4 Depth log display of the computed heterogeneity index (blue lines) and heterogeneity envelope (grey areas) for
measurements with the volume of a 1” core plug (center track) and the low resolution logging sensor (table 1) in the
right track. Core plug porosity measured every foot is plotted in the left track so that its scatter may be compared with
the prediction in the center track. The correlation length at the scale of the electrical image is shown in the depth track.
The colored band on the right differentiates two different reservoir rock types, the one at the top, above 155 ft., (red) is a
rudist debris and is more heterogeneous.
8 SPE 88788

Electrical Electrical
image image

0 5 10 15 0 1 2 3 4
Fig. 5a Histogram of Heterogeneity Index at Fig. 5b Histogram of the correlation length at
electrical image scale for the 700’ zone of the electrical image scale for the 700’ zone of
interest in well AD-1. (2 x standard deviation) interest in well AD-1. In inches
p.u.

Core Plug
Density
Log

0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
Fig. 5b Histogram of Heterogeneity Index at Fig. 5d Histogram of Heterogeneity Index at
core plug scale for the 700’ zone of interest in low resolution log (density) scale for the 700’
well AD-1. (2 x standard deviation) p.u. zone of interest in well AD-1. (2 x standard
deviation) p.u.
SPE 88788 9

0.4
Core Plug Porosity (v/v)
0.35
Core Plug
0.3
0.4 Tw in Core Plug 0.0
0.25

Porosity (%)
Heterogeneity Envelope (v/v)
0.2

0.15

0.4 Log Plus Core Plug Scale 0.0 0.1

Log Porosity (v/v) 0.05

0.4 0.0 0
RRT RRT RRT RRT RRT RRT RRT RRT RRT RRT RRT RRT RRT
1 1a 2 2s 3 4 5 5a 8 11 12 13 17
RRT

Fig. 7 Mean porosity (black dots) and heterogeneity

index (red bars) for the different reservoir rock types in
well AD-1.

0.9

0.8

Normalized Heterogeneity Index

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
RRT RRT RRT RRT RRT RRT RRT RRT RRT RRT RRT RRT RRT
1 1a 2 2s 3 4 5 5a 8 11 12 13 17

Fig. 8 Normalized heterogeneity index for the different

reservoir rock types in well AD-1.

2.5

2
Range (in)

1.5

0.5

0
RRT RRT RRT RRT RRT RRT RRT RRT RRT RRT RRT RRT RRT
1 1a 2 2s 3 4 5 5a 8 11 12 13 17
RRT

Fig. 9 Mean range (black dots) and distribution of range

Fig. 6 Comparison of log derived porosity (red line) with core
(2 sigma) (red bars) for the different reservoir rock types
plug porosity (magenta circles) Porosity measured from
in well AD-1.
twinned core points are the red diamonds. The grey shading is
the predicted envelop within which the core plug porosity
values should fall if the only difference between the two
measurements is the volume of investigation. Note increased
scatter in the core porosity points in the upper interval, where
the predcted scatter is highest.
10 SPE 88788

Perm eability Variogram Porosity Variogram

3 0.002

) 0.0016
2

) )
Variance (k
K)

2
2

Variance ( (Φ
10

2
0.0012
Variance (log

Variance
1 0.0008

0.0004

0
0 2 4 6 8 0
Lag (in) 0 2 4 6 8
Lag (in)
0.002
3

0.0016

) )
(k2)

2
Variance (log K )

Variance ( (Φ
2

2
0.0012
10
Variance

Variance
0.0008
1

0.0004

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8
Lag (in) Lag (in)

3 0.002

0.0016
Variance K(k) 2)

) )
2
2

Variance ( (Φ

2
2
10

0.0012
Variance (log

Variance

0.0008
1

0.0004

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8

Lag (in) Lag (in)

3 0.002

0.0016
(k2)
Variance (log K )

))
2

2
2
10

Variance(Φ

0.0012
Variance

Variance (

0.0008
1

0.0004

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8

Lag (in) Lag (in)

3
0.002
Variance (k2)

0.0016
)
Variance (log 10K2)

2
Variance ( (Φ

2
2
)

0.0012
Variance

1 0.0008

0.0004

0
0
0 2 4 6 8
0 2 4 6 8
Lag (in)
Lag (in)

Fig. 10 Comparison of permeability variograms from 1 cm. spaced minipermeameter grids

measured on core slabs (left column) with porosity variograms from electrical image data (right
column) from five depths in well AD-1.
SPE 88788 11

Core Perm eability (m d)

Core Plug
1.0 M iniperm eam eter 1000
Heterogeneity Envelope (m d)

1.0 Range ofexpected 1000

Core perm eability readings

Fig. 11 Predicted core permeability range based on the heterogeneity in porosity compared with core plug
(black) and minipermeameter (red) measurements from well AD-1.