Core-Log Transformations
Nagel 1
and Porosity-Permeability
Relationships
CORE-LOG TRANSFORMATIONS
Core and wireline log analysis provide the means for
evaluation of reservoir potential. Proper core-to-log
transformations are required to ensure that parameters used
for quantitative log analysis are reasonable and that data from
both sources are mutually supportive.
Depth Control
Agreement between log depth and core depth is essential.
Generally, core depths are adjusted relative to log depths.
Core gamma ray is commonly used for depth control and can
be of great assistance only if there is sufficient gamma ray
activity in the core to provide precise boundaries. Should
closely spaced core porosity measurements be available, a
graphical approach can be taken. Figure 1 shows a technique
in which measured core porosity is plotted together with the
bulk density log. Core porosity is shown in a spiked form,
with bulk density overlain as the continuous curve. The
13700
13800
Figure 1. Plot showing unshifted core porosity in spiked format,
together with bulk density log.
Retired.
Walter A.
Keith A. Byerley
Marathon Oil Company
Littleton, Colorado, U.S.A.
intervening no-data points have zero values. This spiked
presentation offers a ragged edge that can be registered to the
bulk density curve. The ragged edge offers more coherency
to the eye than discrete points.
Figure 2 shows the same information after depth
adjustments have been made. Depth registration to sharp
lithology breaks, which are reflected in both log responses
and core, should be used to confirm the shifts as previously
determined. In addition, borehole image logs can provide
excellent control for core depth and orientation. (For more on
core-log depth adjustment, see the chapter on "Preprocessing
of Logging Data" in Part 4.)
Spatial Resolution
The spatial resolution of core information must be
considered relative to that of the formation itself and to the
vertical resolution and depth of investigation of the logging
responses to be used in the analysis. Core has physical
dimensions that can be discretely measured. Should the
13700
13800
Figure 2. Plot showing shifted core porosity, together with bulk
density log.
224
 Core-Log Transformations and Porosity-Permeability Relationships
Figure 3. Comparison of the volume of formation measured by
the bulk density tool relative to that obtained from a core plug.
formation possess attributes that exceed these dimensions,
precise prediction of those attributes cannot be expected. An
example would be porosity obtained from l-in.-diameter core
plugs taken from a conglomeratic reservoir, where the clast
size can exceed 6 in. or more. Any attempt to determine an
average porosity from conventional core analysis would need
to consider the sampling problem. In this case, it may be
more appropriate to use information contained in the log
responses for obtaining a true measure of porosity.
If one considers the zone of investigation of the formation
density tool in an 8-in. borehole (Figure 3), the volume of rock
seen by the tool encompasses roughly one quadrant, with a
nominal penetration depth of 4 in. and a thickness of 24 in.
This equates to more than 900 in.3 of material measured.
When this is compared to a 1-in. core plug 3 in. long, the log
measures almost 400 times the volume measured by the plug.
Core samples will offer a sound representation of the
formation when features of the rock are contained in the
sample, as would be the case for a homogeneous sandstone.
Even then, however, corrections may need to be applied to
the core data, such as accounting for net overburden
conditions.
When relating core information to log responses, one
should be aware of the scale of measurement being used. It
may be that independently derived log results are more
accurate than either core analyses alone or transformations
developed through core-to-log relationships.
215
10000
0 10 20
4>,%
Figure 4. Air permeability versus helium porosity from North Sea
sandstone, conglomerate, and shale.
Interpolation and Filtering
Since core measurements are usually taken at irregular
spacings, comparisons to regularly spaced log data require
some scheme for infilling. This is usually accomplished
through linear interpolation of porosity, density, and
logarithm of permeability data. Decisions must be made
regarding the distance that the interpreter is willing to accept
for bridging no-data intervals, with data variability dictating
the choice.
Once interpolated, the vertical resolution of the log and
core measurements must be made comparable. Filtering the
fine resolution of the core data to the coarser resolution of the
log response is normally the route taken. The type of core
sample—whether plug, sidewall, or whole core—must be
balanced with the log measurement, each with its own
vertical resolution. Filtering suppresses the detailed
information available from core analyses. However, the
objective is to move from small sample physical
measurements (core) to relatively large sample remote
measurements (logs) so as to make meaningful comparisons
between the two data sources.
Core-to-Log Comparisons
Comparison of log results with those from core can take
several forms, with overlay plots versus depth, crossplots,
and histograms used most typically. Garner (1985) and
Wilson and Hensel (1978) give several examples of overlay
plots.
POROSITY-PERMEABILITY RELATIONSHIPS
Porosity-Permeability Crossplots
Attempts are often made at finding a relationship between
permeability (fc) and porosity (<|)) by making a semilog plot of
226 PART 5—LABORATORY METHODS
1000
• cgl plugs
O cgl+ss 8
lf
• egl +ss
x
cgl+ss
& ss plugs
i uniformly cemented nonvuggy rocks. (Taken from Lucia, 1983.)
Figure 5. Slip-corrected permeability (run under stress) versus
helium porosity from McArthur River Field, Alaska.
these data from core (Figure 4). Such a relationship can
permit permeability estimation over intervals where only core
porosity or log porosity information is available. Such
estimates of permeability based on regression against porosity
alone can be extremely tenuous due to large scatter in the
data. The method ignores other rock properties that also
influence permeability. For carbonate reservoirs that may
contain vugs and fractures, there is often no recognizable
relationship.
Sometimes distinct k-ty trends can be hidden when rocks
with different properties are lumped together. If it is possible
to isolate core samples that have similar rock properties, apart
from porosity, then k-§ relationships can be more readily
observed (Figure 5). Often these statistical relationships are
used to establish productive intervals via a porosity cutoff.
For data in Figure 5, a minimum permeability of 1 md
corresponds to a porosity cutoff of 5.3% in conglomerate and
10.7% in sandstone.
It should be pointed out that there is no theoretical
justification for expecting a linear trend on semilog plots of k
versus (|>. In fact, the often-cited Kozeny equation
(appropriate for describing porous media, such as filter packs,
in which the grains are spherical, uniform in size, and
unconsolidated) suggests that a log-log plot of k versus §
would be more appropriate.
In general, for a given porosity, the larger the grain size,
the higher the permeability. This is illustrated in Figure 6,
where porosity and permeability data from nonvuggy
lOOOir
AVERAGE PARTICLE
SIZE /
< > lOO^t /
o 20 - 100/i. /
100 . < 20^1 /
/
/
O-'i" 10 20
INTERPARTICLE POROSITY, %
Figure 6. Permeability versus porosity for various size groups in
carbonate rocks have been segregated according to grain size.
When using porosity from core and logs, differences in
these measurements must be taken into account. In theory,
core measurements provide effective porosity because clay-
bound water and nonconnected pores should be excluded in
helium flow measurements. However, in practice, core
heating (and even air drying) can collapse clays, resulting in a
porosity that is higher than the effective porosity. Conversely,
porosity obtained from neutron and density logs is total
porosity, which includes bound water associated with clays,
microporosity, and porosity from fractures and isolated vugs.
Differences in these two porosity sources must be reconciled
and accounted for when using porosity from logs and k-fy
relationships based on core. (For more on porosity types and
measurements, see the chapter on "Porosity" in Part 5.)
Permeability measured under simulated formation stress
using formation brine is usually best. Routine air
permeability data are almost always optimistic, particularly at
low permeability. Correction for slip, net confining stress,
and any rock-fluid interaction (should it exist) is necessary.
The resulting permeability is the so-called absolute permeability,
which applies to a single fluid occupying the pore space.
When making comparisons with permeability derived from
drill stem tests, where usually more than one fluid is present,
relative permeability effects need to be considered. (For more
on permeability factors and measurements, see the chapter on
"Permeability" in Part 5.)
Multiple Regression
In view of the previous discussion, it should be clear that
porosity is just one of several rock properties that have an
influence on permeability. To the extent that some of these
other properties are contained in well log measurements, it
 Core-Log Transformations and Porosity-Permeability Relationships
seems reasonable to perform a multiple regression against all
logs that may have permeability information associated with
them. Wendt et al. (1986) and Allen (1979) have used multiple
regression, together with log and core data, to predict
permeability. It is important to realize that these empirical
equations for permeability prediction should always be
considered as local in nature. They should only be applied
when rock characteristics match those of the control region.
217
Uncertainty in Predictions
Prediction of permeability from well logs is far from an
exact science. This is aggravated by the fact that ground truth
is normally assumed to be core measurement—the accuracy
of which varies significantly depending on procedure and
how well samples represent the actual formation. To put the
uncertainty in perspective, prediction of permeability within a
factor of two of the true value is considered very good.