Chapter 3: Defining Net-to-

Gross of Hydrocarbon
Reservoirs
Matthew Meyer
Product Geoscientist, PDS Group

Petrotechnical Data Systems Ltd., Chester House, 81-83 Fulham High Street, London, SW6 3JA, United
Kingdom

matthew.meyer@pds.group

© Petrotechnical Data Systems: Public v.2019.7

Contents
3.1. Defining the Net-to-Gross Ratio ............................................................................................... 1
3.1.1. Calculating VSHALE from Gamma Ray Logs ......................................................................... 1
3.1.2. Calculating VSHALE from Combined Density-Neutron Logs ............................................... 4
3.1.3. Determining Formation Permeability from a Porosity Log ............................................. 6
References ........................................................................................................................................... 7

© Petrotechnical Data Systems: Public v.2019.7

 P a g e |1

3.1. Defining the Net-to-Gross Ratio

The net-to-gross ratio (NtG) of a reservoir is, in a broad sense, a measure of the quality and
economic viability of the reservoir. It is the fraction of clean, permeable reservoir rock to the gross
rock volume of reservoir. The NtG calculation effectively eliminates the non-productive rock
intervals from the hydrocarbon volume calculation, leaving behind just the rock considered to be
of economic importance. In order to determine the NtG a series of cut-offs are applied to several
calculated reservoir properties:
• Shale volume (Vshale) (calculated typical from the gamma ray log, but can also be
determined using the combined density-neutron log), using a maximum (max.) value
between 0.25 and 0.45;
• Porosity (Φ), minimum (min.) between 0.03 and 0.16;
• Water saturation (Sw), max. between 0.30 and 0.70; and
• Permeability (k) (calculated from formation porosity), min. between 0.01 and 5.0 mD
(millidarcy).

3.1.1. Calculating VSHALE from Gamma Ray Logs

Gamma ray logs measure the natural radioactivity of a formation from the radioactive decay of
predominantly potassium (K), thorium (Th) and uranium (U) (increasing in radioactive
significance respectively) (Asquith & Gibson, 1983; Rider, 2002; Bigelow, 2002; Bjørlykke, 2010).
The relative contributions of each to the total radiation recorded when logging is such that
approximately 1 ppm uranium equals 3.65 ppm thorium and 2.70% potassium (Bjørlykke, 2010).
Shale (i.e. a non-reservoir rock) typically contains a greater abundance of these radioactive
elements and, therefore, gives significantly higher readings than sandstone (i.e. a reservoir rocks)
during gamma ray logging (e.g. Asquith & Gibson, 1983; et al.). Consequently, the gamma ray log
effectively distinguishes between these lithologies giving the sand/shale ratio from which the Vshale
can be calculated. See Figure 3.1 for characteristic gamma ray log responses.

© Petrotechnical Data Systems: Public v.2019.7

 P a g e |2

Figure 3.1: Typical gamma ray log responses for a variety of common reservoir/non-reservoir formations
(after Rider, 2002).

To calculate the Vshale, the gamma ray index (IGR) must first be determined by (e.g. Asquith & Gibson,
1983; Rider, 2002; Bigelow, 2002):

𝐆𝐑 𝐥𝐨𝐠 − 𝐆𝐑 𝐦𝐢𝐧
𝐈𝐆𝐑 =
𝐆𝐑 𝐦𝐚𝐱 − 𝐆𝐑 𝐦𝐢𝐧
Where;
GRlog = gamma ray reading of the formation at the depth of interest (i.e. the log reading)
(gAPI)
GRmin = min. gamma ray reading in a clean ‘reservoir’ sand (gAPI)
GRmax = max. gamma ray value in the ‘non-reservoir’ shales (gAPI)

© Petrotechnical Data Systems: Public v.2019.7

 P a g e |3

The Vshale value (i.e. the “shaliness” percentage) can then be determined by referring to Figure 3.2,
as it is typically assumed that the relationship between IGR and Vshale is linear (see red line Figure
3.2) (e.g. Asquith & Gibson, 1983; et al.).

Figure 3.2: Relationship between the gamma ray index (IGR) and the volume of shale (Vshale). For example, a
gamma ray index (IGR) of 0.7 would give a Vshale value of just over 0.4 when using Larionov method for
Tertiary rocks (after Bigelow, 2002).

However, in certain circumstances the linear method may overestimate the shale content within
a reservoir, therefore, other methods should always be considered (Asquith & Gibson, 1983; Rider,
2002; Bigelow, 2002). Alternative, non-linear relationships to calculate Vshale include the methods
of Larionov, Clavier et al. and Steiber (Figure 3.2 and Table 3.1) that cover a range of different
formations and geological settings (e.g. Asquith & Gibson, 1983; Rider, 2002; Bigelow, 2002).

© Petrotechnical Data Systems: Public v.2019.7

 P a g e |4

Method Vshale equation

Larionov (1969) for Tertiary rocks:
Steiber (1970):

Clavier et al. (1971):

Larionov (1969) for older rocks:
Table 3.1: Common equations for non-linear IGR - Vshale relationships (Asquith & Gibson, 1983; Rider, 2002;
Bigelow, 2002).

In general, as well distinguishing between sandstone and shale and the calculation of V shale,
gamma ray logs are used (with reference to other logs) to discriminate between common
lithologies typically encountered during drilling (e.g. Asquith & Gibson, 1983; et al.).

3.1.2. Calculating VSHALE from Combined Density-Neutron Logs

As the name suggests the combined density-neutron log uses data from both the density and
neutron logs. Separately, both logs are used to calculate the porosity of formations. When
examined together the neutron-density log (when plotted on the appropriate scales) becomes an
extremely powerful tool for lithological and hydrocarbon identification (Asquith & Gibson, 1983;
Rider, 2002; Bigelow, 2002).
Typically, the density log is scaled to 1.95 to 2.95 g/cm 3, while the neutron log is presented in
limestone porosity units of -15 to 45% (Asquith & Gibson, 1983; Rider, 2002; Bigelow, 2002). The
apparent limestone neutron porosity and density curves will, therefore, overlie one another when
pure clean limestone has been logged (Figure 3.3) (Asquith & Gibson, 1983; Rider, 2002; Bigelow,
2002).
When logging other formations, however, characteristic separations of the two curves occurs;
either a negative (-ve) separation, when both neutron porosity and bulk density decrease, or a
positive (+ve) separation, when neutron porosity and density values increase, with respect to
density-neutron value of limestone (Asquith & Gibson, 1983; Rider, 2002; Bigelow, 2002). Clean
sandstones display a small -ve (negative) separation, while shale produces a characteristically
large +ve (positive) separation due to the significant bound water contained within clay minerals
(Figure 3.3) (Asquith & Gibson, 1983; Rider, 2002; Bigelow, 2002).

© Petrotechnical Data Systems: Public v.2019.7

 P a g e |5

Figure 3.3: Typical responses of the combined neutron-density log for a selection of common
reservoir/non-reservoir formations (after Rider, 2002).

© Petrotechnical Data Systems: Public v.2019.7

 P a g e |6

The neutron-density log can also be used identify hydrocarbon vs. water-bearing zones; when
hydrocarbons (either oil or gas) are present a negative separation is observed (Asquith & Gibson,
1983; Rider, 2002; Bigelow, 2002). The scale of the separation can then be used to discriminate
between oil and gas; a small negative separation suggests oil, while a large negative separation is
indicative of gas (Asquith & Gibson, 1983; Rider, 2002; Bigelow, 2002).
The neutron-density Vshale calculation utilises the separation (e.g. Bigelow, 2002):

Ω𝐥𝐨𝐠 − Ω𝐬𝐚𝐧𝐝
𝐕𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐞 =
Ω𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐞 − Ω𝐬𝐚𝐧𝐝

Where;
Ωlog = the neutron-density separation at the depth of interest
Ωsand = the neutron-density separation in 100% sandstone
Ωshale = the neutron-density separation in 100% shale

3.1.3. Determining Formation Permeability from a Porosity Log

Permeability (k) is a measure of the ease with which formation fluid(s) (either water, oil or gas)
flow through a rock and governs the producibility of a reservoir (e.g. Asquith & Gibson, 1983;
Bigelow, 2002). Permeability is dependent upon (e.g. Asquith & Gibson, 1983; Bigelow, 2002):
• The size of pore throats (i.e. the connecting passages between pore spaces);
• The degree of pore connectivity; and
• The degree and type of cement.
Typically, permeability will increase with porosity, but this is not always the case and is most
accurately determined through core analysis (e.g. Asquith & Gibson, 1983; Bigelow, 2002).
Although, permeability can be estimated from porosity log data using this simple regression
(Darling, 2005):

𝐤 = 𝟏𝟎(𝐤𝐚 + 𝚽𝐚 ∗ 𝚽𝐥𝐨𝐠)

Where;
ka = the permeability constant (typically between 10 – 50 depending upon grain size
with higher values coarser grained formations and very high values for fractured or
vuggy formations)
Φa = the porosity exponent (typically -3.0 for sandstones and -2.5 for carbonates)
Φlog = the porosity at the depth of interest (i.e. the porosity log reading)

© Petrotechnical Data Systems: Public v.2019.7

 P a g e |7

However, this is the effective permeability, not the absolute permeability (Darling, 2005). Absolute
permeability is the ability of a rock to allow a single fluid at 100% saturation to flow, while effective
permeability is the ability of the rock to allow a fluid to flow in the presence of another fluid, when
the two fluids are immiscible (e.g. water and oil) (Asquith & Gibson, 1983; Bigelow, 2002).

References
Asquith, G. and Gibson, C., 1983, 2nd Ed., Basic Well Log Analysis for Geologists, Methods in
Exploration Series, The American Association of Petroleum Geologists. pp216.
Bigelow, E.L., 2002, Introduction to Wireline Log Analysis, Baker Hughes. pp312.
Bjørlykke, K., 2010, Petroleum Geoscience: From Sedimentary Environments to Rock Physics,
Springer. pp508.
Darling, T., 2005, Well Logging and Formation Evaluation. Elsevier. pp326.
Rider, M., 2002, 2nd Ed., The Geological Interpretation of Well Logs, Whittles Publishing. pp280.

© Petrotechnical Data Systems: Public v.2019.7