PETROPHYSICS, VOL. 45, NO. 2 (MARCH-APRIL 2004); P.

157–166; 10 FIGURES, 1 TABLE

A Triple Porosity Model for Petrophysical

Analysis of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs

Roberto F. Aguilera1 and Roberto Aguilera1

ABSTRACT
The analysis of vuggy and fractured reservoirs has
been an area of significant interest in the past few years.
Several researchers have studied the characterization of
these reservoirs using dual porosity models and have
looked for means of estimating values of the dual porosity
exponent m for use in calculations of water saturation.
There are instances where the reservoir is composed
mainly of matrix, fractures and non-connected vugs. In
these cases a triple porosity model appears more suitable
for petrophysical evaluation of the reservoir. A new tech-
nique is presented for these types of reservoirs that is
shown to hold for all combinations of matrix, fracture, and
non-connected vug porosities. At low porosities, the frac-
tures dominate and the m values of the composite system
tend to be smaller than the porosity exponent of the matrix
(mb). As the total porosity increases, however, the effect
of the non-connected vugs becomes more important and
m of the triple porosity system can become larger than mb.
To the best of our knowledge a solution to the problem
associated with the triple porosity exponent has not been
addressed previously in the petrophysical literature. This
research is inspired by the availability of modern mag-
netic resonance, micro-resistivity and sonic image tools
that permit reasonable characterization of complex reser-
voirs. The use of the triple porosity model is illustrated
with an example.

INTRODUCTION Rasmus (1983) and Draxler and Edwards (1984) pre-

sented dual porosity models that included potential changes
The petrophysical analysis of fractured and vuggy reser-
in fracture tortuosity and the porosity exponent (mf) of the
voirs has been an area of abundant interest in the oil and gas
fractures. The models are useful but must be treated care-
industry. In 1962, Towle gave consideration to some
fully as they result incorrectly in values of m > mb as the
assumed pore geometries as well as tortuosity, and noticed a
total porosity increases (Aguilera, 1995, p. 238).
variation in the porosity exponent m in Archie’s (1942)
Serra et al. (1989) developed a graph of the porosity
equation ranging from 2.67 to 7.3+ for vuggy reservoirs and
exponent m versus total porosity for both fractured reser-
values much smaller than 2 for fractured reservoirs. Matrix
voirs and reservoirs with non-connected vugs. The graph is
porosity in Towle’s models was equal to zero.
useful but must be employed carefully as it can lead to sig-
Aguilera (1976) introduced a dual porosity model capable
nificant errors for certain combinations of matrix and
of handling matrix and fracture porosity. That research con-
non-connected vug porosities (Aguilera and Aguilera,
sidered 3 different values of Archie’s (1942) porosity expo-
2003). The main problem with the graph is that Serra’s
nent: One for the matrix (mb), one for the fractures (mf = 1),
matrix porosity is attached to the bulk volume of the “com-
and one for the composite system (m). It was found that as
posite system.” More appropriate equations should include
the amount of fracturing increased, the value of m became
matrix porosity (fb) that is attached to the bulk volume of
smaller.
the “matrix system” (Aguilera, 1995, p.233).

Manuscript received by the Editor April 11, 2003; revised manuscript received January 8, 2004.
1
Servipetrol Ltd., Calgary, Canada.
©2004 Society of Petrophysicists and Well Log Analysts. All rights reserved.

March-April 2004 PETROPHYSICS 157

 Aguilera et al.
Aguilera and Aguilera (2003) published rigorous equa-
tions for dual porosity systems that were shown to be valid
for all combinations of matrix and fractures or matrix and
non-connected vugs. The non-connected vugs and matrix
equations were validated using core data published by
Lucia (1983). The fractures and matrix equations were vali-
dated originally with data from the Altamont trend in Utah
and the Big Horn Basin in Wyoming (Aguilera, 1976). Sub-
sequently, Aguilera (2003a) illustrated the use of these
equations with core data from Abu Dhabi limestones and
dolomites (Borai, 1985), and carbonates from various loca-
tions in the USA and the Middle East (Ragland, 2002,
Aguilera, 2003b).
This paper addresses instances where the reservoir is
composed mainly of matrix, fractures and non-connected
vugs, which are sometimes observed in cores, or deduced
from, magnetic resonance, micro-resistivity and/or sonic
images. In these cases a triple porosity model is more suit-
able for petrophysical evaluation of the reservoir. A new
technique is presented for these types of reservoirs that is
shown to hold for all combinations of matrix, fracture, and
non-connected vug porosities. At low porosities the frac-
tures dominate and the m values of the composite system
tend to be smaller than the porosity exponent of the matrix
(mb). As porosity increases, however, the effect of the
non-connected vugs becomes more important and m of the
composite system gets to be larger than mb.
TRIPLE POROSITY MODEL
In this study, a model is developed for calculating the
porosity exponent m in reservoirs with non-connected (sep-
arate or non-touching) vugs, natural fractures and matrix
porosity. Four different values of porosity are considered in
this model. The first is matrix porosity (fb), which is equal
to void space in the matrix divided by bulk volume of the
matrix system. The second is matrix porosity (fm) that is
equal to void space in the matrix divided by bulk volume of
the triple porosity system. The third is fracture porosity
(f2), which is equal to void space of the fractures divided by
bulk volume of the triple porosity system. The fourth is
porosity of the non-connected vugs (fnc) that is equal to the
void space of the non-connected vugs divided by bulk vol-
ume of the triple porosity system. The triple porosity system
is also referred to as the composite system in this paper. As
is always the case the reader must be cautious when using
the model because the way in which the current is con-
ducted depends on many factors including fracture dip and
measurement direction of the resistivity tool.
158 PETROPHYSICS
RESERVOIRS WITH MATRIX,
FRACTURES AND NON-CONNECTED VUGS
A triple porosity reservoir can be modeled as a parallel
resistance network for matrix and fractures and a series
resistance network for the non-connected vugs and the
matrix/fractures combination. The theoretical and
hard-data justification for this assumption was presented by
Aguilera and Aguilera (2003) for the case of a dual porosity
model made out of matrix and non-connected vugs (series
resistance network), and for the case of a dual porosity
model made out matrix and fractures (parallel resistance
network). It follows that a reservoir interval composed at
the same time of matrix, fractures and non-connected vugs
can be handled by a suitable combination of parallel and
series resistance networks as shown in this paper. If the
model is valid, it should provide consistent results for those
intervals where there is only matrix, or only matrix plus
fractures, or only matrix plus non-connected vugs, or only
fractures, or only fractures and non-connected vugs, or the
complete combination of matrix plus fractures plus
non-connected vugs. The triple porosity model developed
in this paper meets that criterion. Other authors have also
used parallel and series resistance networks for dual poros-
ity evaluations in fractured and vuggy reservoirs, most
notably Rasmus (1983), Draxler and Edwards (1984), and
Serra (1989). The equation representing the triple porosity
model can be written as
(1- nnc f )
f -m = nnc f + . (1)
nf + (1- nf ) / f -b mb
Development of equation (1) and schematic diagrams of
the model are presented in detail in Appendix A. The total
porosity of the composite system is represented by f. The
vug porosity ratio (nnc) is equal to the non-connected vug
porosity divided by total porosity, and the partitioning coef-
ficient (n) is equal to fracture porosity divided by total
porosity. The equation for the total porosity is
f = f m + f 2 + f nc = f b (1- f 2 - f nc ) + f 2 + f nc . (2)
When m is isolated the re-arranged equation appears as
follows
é (1- nnc f ) ù
- logê nnc f + - mb ú
ë nf + (1- nf ) / f b û
m= (3)
log f
The model is consistent and applies equally to single,
dual and triple porosity reservoirs.
March-April 2004
 A Triple Porosity Model for Petrophysical Analysis of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs

Only Matrix and Fracture Porosities f -m =1 / f (7)

If we have a reservoir with only matrix and fracture
porosities and no vugs, then non-connected vug porosity
(fnc) will be equal to zero, which means the vug porosity
ratio (nnc) in equation (1) will also be equal to zero. In this
case, equation (1) becomes equal to
1
f -m = . (4)
nf + (1- nf ) / f -b mb
This is the same equation validated by Aguilera and
Aguilera (2003) for dual porosity systems made out of
matrix and fractures. The morphology of the fracture can be
open, partially mineralized or made out of diagenetic chan-
nels by touching vugs (vuggy fractures).
Only Matrix Porosity and Non-Connected Vugs
If we have a reservoir with matrix porosity and non-con-
nected vugs, but no natural fractures, then fracture porosity
(f2) will be equal to zero, which means that the partitioning
coefficient (n) in equation (1) will also be equal to zero. In
this case, equation (1) becomes equal to
This indicates that the porosity exponent calculated from
the triple porosity model would be equal to 1.0 when only
fractures are present. This implies the presence of open and
vuggy fractures, and fractures with partial secondary miner-
alization.
Only Fractures and Non-Connected Vugs
If we assume a reservoir with only fractures and
non-connected vugs, then the matrix porosity (fb) is equal
to zero, and the total porosity (f) is equal to the summation
of fracture porosity plus non-connected vug porosity
(f = f2 + fnc). In this case equation (1) becomes
æ 1- f nc ö
- logç
ç f nc + ÷
÷
è f2 ø
m= . (8)
log( fnc + f 2 )
The porosity exponent of the matrix (mb) does not play a
role in this case since the matrix porosity is equal to zero.
Equations (4) to (8) show that the triple porosity model pre-

f -m = nnc f + (1- nnc f )f -b mb (5)

This is the same equation validated by Aguilera and

Aguilera (2003) for dual porosity systems made out of
matrix and non-connected vugs. Equations (4) and (5) were
used by Aguilera and Aguilera (2003) to generate Figure 1
assuming mb = 2.0 and mf = 1.0. The left hand side of the
graph applies to matrix and fractures. The right hand side
applies to matrix and non-connected vugs.

Only Matrix Porosity

If we assume that there is a reservoir with no vugs and no
fractures, then the vug porosity ratio (nnc) and the partition-
ing coefficient (n) will both be equal to zero. In this case,
equation (1) becomes equal to

f -m = f -b mb (6)

This shows that the total porosity (f) is equal to the

matrix porosity (fb) and that m is equal to mb. So the m calcu-
lated from the triple porosity equation would also apply in those
parts of the reservoir where only matrix porosity is present.

Only Fractures
If we assume a reservoir with only fractures, then the vug
porosity ratio (nnc) and the matrix porosity (fb) will both be
equal to zero. In this case, equation (1) becomes equal to
FIG. 1 Chart for evaluating dual porosity systems from logs
(After Aguilera and Aguilera, 2003).

March-April 2004 PETROPHYSICS 159

 Aguilera et al.
sented in this paper holds true for all combinations of sin-
gle, dual or triple porosity systems.
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
Figure 2 shows a crossplot of the porosity or cementation
exponent m versus total porosity generated by the triple
porosity model (equation (1)), under the assumption that
the porosity exponent of the matrix (mb) is equal to 2.0. The
dashed line corresponds to fracture porosity (f2) equal to
0.01 and non-connected vug porosity (fnc) equal to zero. As
such, it is identical to the 0.01 fracture porosity line shown
on the left hand side of Figure 1. In the case of Figure 2,
however, the line was generated with the triple porosity
model (equation (1)).
The black continuous solid lines on Figure 2 are for
non-connected vug porosities (fnc) equal to 0.01, 0.05 and
0.10. These lines were developed with the triple porosity
model assuming that there are no fractures (f2 = n = zero)
and reproduce exactly the lines shown on Figure 1, which
were generated with a dual porosity model by Aguilera and
Aguilera (2003).
The squares on Figure 2 correspond to a triple porosity
system with both fracture porosity (f2) and non-connected
FIG. 2 Chart for evaluating triple porosity reservoirs from well
logs (mb = 2.0).
160 PETROPHYSICS
vug porosity (fnc) equal to 0.01. The squares-line is very
close to the dashed line where fnc equals zero, which indi-
cates that for very small non-connected vug porosities, the
fractures dominate the triple porosity system. For a larger
non-connected vug porosity (fnc = 0.05), represented by
the line made out of triangles, the cementation exponent of
the triple porosity system is initially smaller than mb (2.0)
but at a total porosity of approximately 0.13 it becomes
larger than 2.0 and eventually it goes back to 2.0 at f = 1.0.
For an even larger non-connected vug porosity of 0.10, rep-
resented by diamonds in Figure 2, the initial m of the triple
porosity system is already larger than 2.0. It reaches a maxi-
mum of about 2.35 at a total porosity of approximately 0.22
and then goes back to 2.0.
Similar results are obtained for other values of mb (1.6,
1.8, 2.2 and 2.4) as shown on Figures 3 to 6.
Figure 2 to 6 show that for small total porosities the frac-
tures have the larger influence on the m of the triple porosity
system. On the other hand, for larger values of total poros-
ity, the non-connected vugs have the bigger effect on the m
of the triple porosity system. This last statement is true pro-
vided that the fracture porosity is small with respect to the
non-connected vug porosity. However, if the porosities of
the fractures and non-connected vugs are of the same order
FIG. 3 Chart for evaluating triple porosity reservoirs from well
logs (mb = 1.6).
March-April 2004
 A Triple Porosity Model for Petrophysical Analysis of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs

of magnitude, it is the fractures that have the largest early

influence on m as shown on Figure 7.
Figure 8 displays values of the cementation exponent m
for those cases where the reservoir is composed by fractures
and non-connected vugs. In this case the matrix porosity is
equal to zero, and the total porosity is equal to fnc + f2.
Since matrix porosity is zero, the matrix porosity exponent,
mb, does not play a role in the calculations as shown by
equation (8) and m of the composite system grows continu-
ously with porosity.

EXAMPLE
The research conducted to develop means of calculating
m for triple porosity reservoirs presented in this paper is
inspired by the availability of modern tools (e.g.
micro-resistivity imaging logs, nuclear magnetic resonance
logs, improved array of resistivity logs and a variety of
sonic imaging tools) that permit reasonable estimates of
some rock properties in complex reservoirs. Discussion of
quantification of rock properties from these tools is beyond
the scope of this study and can be found in the literature of
the various service companies. When results from these
FIG. 5 Chart for evaluating triple porosity reservoirs from well
logs (mb = 2.2)

FIG. 4 Chart for evaluating triple porosity reservoirs from well FIG. 6 Chart for evaluating triple porosity reservoirs from well
logs (mb = 1.8). logs (mb = 2.4).

March-April 2004 PETROPHYSICS 161

 Aguilera et al.

TABLE 1 Example of application using triple porosity model.

Rmf = 0.1 mf = 1 Rw = 0.017 mb = 2 n=2 Swf = 0 Swnc = 0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Zone Rt Rshallow f f2 fb fnc fm v vnc m Sw Swb
1 11 11 0.125 0.000 0.125 0.000 0.125 0.000 0.000 2.000 0.3145 0.3145
2 9 9 0.131 0.000 0.100 0.034 0.097 0.000 0.263 2.249 0.4271 0.6002
3 4 2.5 0.134 0.015 0.090 0.033 0.086 0.112 0.249 1.861 0.4230 0.6954
4 3.8 2.26 0.120 0.018 0.075 0.031 0.071 0.149 0.256 1.756 0.4301 0.7604
5 4.2 3.05 0.137 0.009 0.099 0.033 0.095 0.066 0.242 1.985 0.4577 0.6904
6 5.8 5.8 0.142 0.000 0.142 0.000 0.142 0.000 0.000 2.000 0.3813 0.3813
7 7.4 4.65 0.075 0.008 0.040 0.028 0.039 0.107 0.380 1.783 0.4828 0.9750
8 3.2 2.16 0.107 0.015 0.063 0.032 0.060 0.141 0.298 1.760 0.5210 0.9743
9 4.5 4.5 0.132 0.000 0.095 0.041 0.091 0.000 0.310 2.304 0.6337 0.9572
10 2.9 2.2 0.122 0.011 0.078 0.037 0.074 0.090 0.301 1.920 0.5767 0.9947

tools are substantiated with core data, the petrophysical matrix (f m ) was also calculated from equation (2)
analysis become more meaningful. Columns 1 to 5 in Table re-arranged to give
1 show data available from some of these tools for the eval-
uation. Matrix porosity (fb) from cores (unfractured plugs) f m = f - f 2 - fnc . (10)
is in column 6. Porosity of non-connected vugs (fnc) was
calculated in Column 7 rearranging equation (2) as follows
f - fb + fb f 2 - f 2
fnc = (9)
1- fb

For example, for the case of zone 3, fb = 0.09 from col-

umn 6, f2 = 0.015 from column 5, and f = 0.134 from col-
umn 4. This leads to a porosity of the non-connected vugs,
fnc, equal to 0.033 shown on Column 7. Porosity of the

FIG. 7 Triple porosity exponent assuming mb = 2.0. Fracture FIG. 8 Chart for evaluating reservoirs with fractures and
and non-connected vug porosities are equal. non-connected vugs from well logs.

162 PETROPHYSICS March-April 2004

 A Triple Porosity Model for Petrophysical Analysis of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs
For example, for the case of zone 3, the matrix porosity,
fm, is equal to 0.086. Note that fm is matrix porosity
attached to bulk volume of the composite system (including
the volume of fractures and non-connected vugs). On the
other hand fb is matrix porosity attached to bulk properties
of the matrix system (excluding the volume of fractures and
non-connected vugs), i.e., fb is equivalent to matrix poros-
ity from unfractured plugs. Column 9 shows the partition-
ing coefficient (n), i.e., fracture porosity (f2) divided by
total porosity. Column 10 is the non-connected vug porosity
ratio (nnc), i.e., non-connected vug porosity divided by total
porosity defined originally by Lucia (1983). Column 11 is
the triple porosity m calculated from equation (3). All the
input data required in equation (3) has been already calcu-
lated in the previous columns. The porosity exponent of the
matrix (mb) should be obtained preferentially in the labora-
tory from the analysis of unfractured plugs. If cores are not
available mb is estimated based on the rock lithology. In this
example mb is equal to 2.0. Column 12 is water saturation of
the composite system (Sw) calculated from Archie’s equa-
tion.
æ R t ö-1 n
S w =ç
ç ÷
÷ (11)
è R w f -m ø
For example Sw is calculated to be 0.423 for zone 3, using
Rt = 4, Rw = 0.017, f = 0.134, n = 2.0, and m of the triple
porosity equal to 1.861 from column 11.
Column 13 is water saturation of the matrix blocks (Swb)
calculated from
Sw - n × Swf - nnc × Swnc
Swb = . (12)
(1- n - nnc )(1- nf - nnc f )
The water saturation of the matrix blocks (Swb) is scaled
in such a way that it can be compared with water saturation
from capillary pressure measurements in unfractured plugs.
Zone 1 in Table 1 analyzes an interval with f2 = fnc =
zero. For this case m calculated from equation 3 is equal to
2.0, which is the mb of the matrix. Since there is only matrix
porosity the calculated fm is equal to the input core porosity
fb. When core porosity is not available the sonic log gives
sometimes reasonable values of matrix porosity. Columns
12 and 13 show that Sw is equal to Swb since only matrix
porosity is present in zone 1. The same type of analysis can
be done for zone 6.
Zone 2 has zero fracture porosity and fnc = 0.034 calcu-
lated from equation (9). In this case the calculated value of
m (column 11) is 2.249, i.e., it is bigger than mb, because
zone 2 only has matrix and non-connected vug porosity. In
this case Swb is larger than Sw. The same type of analysis can
be done for zone 9.
March-April 2004 PETROPHYSICS
Zone 3 has the complete triple porosity system (f2 =
0.015, fb = 0.09, fnc = 0.033). In this case the triple poros-
ity m = 1.861 is smaller than mb of the matrix, and Swb is
larger than Sw. The same type of analysis can be done for
zones 4, 5, 7, 8 and 10.
For other cases, the equations can be re-written based on
the unknowns and available input data. For example, there
are cases where the non-connected vug porosity is known
but the fracture porosity is unknown. But the general proce-
dure for calculating m would be the same. Figure 9 shows
logs of the input and calculated data for the example prob-
lem.
CONCLUSIONS
A triple-porosity model, not considered previously in the
petrophysical literature, has been developed for evaluation
of reservoirs made out of matrix, natural fractures and
non-connected vug porosities. The model can also be used
for different combinations of these porosities. For instance,
it will work for a zone made out of matrix and non-con-
nected vugs, an interval made out of matrix and natural
fractures, a zone made out of fractures and non-connected
vugs or a system made out of only matrix.
NOMENCLATURE
F Formation factor of the matrix = F = f -b mb
Ft Formation factor of the composite system
= Ft = f - m
m Porosity exponent (cementation factor) of triple
porosity reservoir given by equation (3)
mb Porosity exponent (cementation factor) of the
matrix block from unfractured plugs (or based
on lithology)
mf Porosity exponent (cementation factor) of the
natural fractures (assumed to be equal to 1.0 in
this paper)
n Water saturation exponent
Rfnco Resistivity of the composite (triple porosity)
system at reservoir temperature when it is 100%
saturated with water of resistivity Rw (ohm-m)
Rfo Resistivity of the system made out of matrix and
fractures at reservoir temperature when it is
100% saturated with water of resistivity
Rw (ohm-m)
Ro Resistivity of the matrix system at reservoir
temperature when it is 100% saturated with
water of resistivity Rw (ohm-m)
Rmf Mud filtrate resistivity at reservoir temperature
(ohm-m)
163
 Aguilera et al.

Rshallow Shallow resistivity (ohm-m) volume of the composite system as shown in

Rt True resistivity (ohm-m) of the composite Appendix A (Figure A.1), fraction
system fnc Porosity of non-connected vugs (phinc)
Rw Water resistivity at reservoir temperature attached to the bulk volume of the composite
(ohm-m) system as shown in Appendix A (Figure
Sw Water saturation of the composite system, A.1), fraction
fraction f2 Porosity of natural fractures (phi 2) attached to
Swb Water saturation of matrix block from equation bulk volume of the composite system as shown
(12), fraction in Appendix A (Figure A.1), fraction
Swf Water saturation of the fractures, fraction
Swnc Water saturation of non-connected vugs, REFERENCES
fraction
v Partitioning coefficient = f2/f, fraction Aguilera, R., 1976, Analysis of naturally fractured reservoirs from
conventional well logs: Journal of Petroleum Technology, vol.
vnc Non-connected vug porosity ratio = fnc/f,
28, no.7, p. 764–772.
fraction Aguilera, R., 1995, Naturally Fractured Reservoirs: PennWell
f Total porosity, fraction Books, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 521 p.
fb Matrix block porosity attached to the bulk Aguilera, R., 1999, Recovery factors and reserves in naturally
volume of the matrix system. It is equivalent to fractured reservoirs: Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technol-
porosity from unfractured plugs, fraction ogy, vol. 38, no. 7, p. 15–18.
fm Matrix block porosity attached to the bulk Aguilera, R., 2003a, Determination of matrix flow units in natu-

FIG. 9 Logs of input and calculated data for example problem.

164 PETROPHYSICS March-April 2004

 A Triple Porosity Model for Petrophysical Analysis of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs

rally fractured reservoirs: Journal of Canadian Petroleum and the combination matrix/fractures and vugs in series. For
Technology, vol. 42, no.12, p.54–61. a dual porosity system made out of matrix and fractures and
Aguilera, R., 2003b, Discussion of “trends in cementation expo- saturated 100% with water (Aguilera and Aguilera, 2003):
nents (m) for carbonate pore systems”: Petrophysics, vol. 44,
no. 5, p. 301–304.
Aguilera, M. S. and Aguilera, R., 2003, Improved models for 1 nf (1- nf )
petrophysical analysis of dual porosity reservoirs: = + . (A.2)
Petrophysics, vol. 44, no. 1, p. 21–35.
R fo Rw Ro
Archie, G. E., 1942, The electrical resistivity log as an aid in deter-
mining some reservoir characteristics: Trans. AIME, vol. 146, From which,
p. 54–67.
Rw Ro
Borai, A. M., 1985, A new correlation for cementation factor in R fo = . (A.3)
low-porosity carbonates: SPE Formation Evaluation, vol. 4, nfR o + (1- nf ) R w
no. 4, p. 495–499.
Draxler, J. K. and Edwards, D. P., 1984, Evaluation procedures in Inserting equation (A.3) into (A.1) leads to
the Carboniferous of Northern Europe: Ninth International
Formation Evaluation Transactions, Paris, France. (1- nnc f ) R w R o
R fnco = n nc fR w + . (A.4)
Lucia, F. J., 1983, Petrophysical parameters estimated from visual nfR o + (1- nf ) R w
descriptions of carbonate rocks: A field classification of car-
bonate pore space: Journal of Petroleum Technology, vol. 35, p.
629–637.
Ragland, D. A., 2002, Trends in cementation exponents (m) for
carbonate pore systems: Petrophysics, vol. 43, no. 5, p.
434–446.
Rasmus, J. C., 1983, A variable cementation exponent, m, for frac-
tured carbonates: The Log Analyst, vol. 24, no. 6, p. 13–23.
Serra, O., 1989, Formation Micro Scanner image interpretation:
Schlumberger Educational Service, Houston, SMP-7028, 117
p.
Towle, G., 1962, An analysis of the formation resistivity fac-
tor-porosity relationship of some assumed pore geometries:
Paper C presented at Third Annual Meeting of SPWLA, Hous-
ton, Texas.

APPENDIX A

Development of triple-porosity model for reservoirs made

up of matrix, natural fractures and non-connected vugs
A triple porosity reservoir can be modeled as a parallel
resistance network for matrix and fractures and a series
resistance network for the non-connected vugs and the
matrix/fractures combination. The equation representing
this model can be written as

R fnco = (1- nnc f ) R fo + nnc fR w (A.1)

where the first term in the right hand side represents matrix
and fractures, and the second term represents non-connected
vugs. Figure A.1 shows a schematic representation of the
triple porosity model developed in this paper. Schematic (a)
shows the rock with matrix, fractures and non-connected
vugs. Schematic (b) shows the volumetric representation of
each of the components of the reservoir rock. Schematic (c)
shows how we handle the matrix and fractures in parallel,
FIG. A.1 Schematic showing (a) reservoir rock with matrix,
fractures (lineaments) and non-connected vugs (black spots),
(b) volumetric distribution of matrix, fractured, and non-con-
nected vug (nc) porosities, and (c) matrix and fractures in paral-
lel, and the combination of matrix + fractures in series with the
non-connected vugs. The resistivity of the triple porosity reser-
voir when it is 100% saturated with water is Rfnco.

March-April 2004 PETROPHYSICS 165

 Aguilera et al.

The basic formation evaluation equations for only the ABOUT THE AUTHORS
matrix are

R o = FR w (A.5)

and,

F = f -b mb . (A.6)

The basic formation evaluation equations for the triple

porosity reservoir are

R fnco = Ft R w (A.7) Roberto F. Aguilera is currently working on a MSc degree in

Mineral Economics at the Colorado School of Mines. Previously
and, he worked as a Managing Assistant for Servipetrol Ltd. in Calgary,
Canada where he concentrated on administration, economic evalu-
Ft = f - m (A.8) ation of oil and gas reservoirs, and petrophysical research assign-
ments. He received a Bachelor of Commerce degree from the
Inserting equation (A.7) into (A.4), and taking Ro as a Haskayne School of Business at the University of Calgary.
common factor in the denominator of the first term of the
right hand side of equation (A.4) leads to
(1- nnc f ) R w R o
Ft R w = nnc fR w + . (A.9)
R o [ nf + (1- nf ) R w / R o ]

Canceling terms and inserting equations (A.5), (A.6) and

(A.8) into (A.9) we obtain the equation for the triple poros-
ity reservoir
(1- nnc f)
f -m = nnc f + . (A.10)
nf + (1- nf ) / f -b mb
Dr. Roberto Aguilera is president of Servipetrol Ltd. and an
The total porosity of the triple porosity system is the fol- Adjunct Professor in the Chemical and Petroleum Engineering
lowing Dept at the University of Calgary. He is a petroleum engineering
graduate from the Universidad de America (Bogota, Colombia)
f = f b (1- f 2 - f nc ) + f 2 + f nc = f m + f 2 + f nc . and holds Master and PhD degrees in Petroleum Engineering from
(A.11) the Colorado School of Mines. He has presented his course on Nat-
urally Fractured Reservoirs and has rendered consulting services
When m is isolated the re-arranged equation (A.10) throughout the world. He is a Distinguished Author of the Journal
of Canadian Petroleum Technology, a recipient of the outstanding
becomes
service award from the Petroleum Society of CIM and an SPE Dis-
é (1- nnc f ) ù tinguished Lecturer on the subject of Naturally Fractured Reser-
- logê n nc f + ú voirs.
ë nf + (1- nf ) / f -b mb û
m= . (A.12)
log f

This is equation (3) in the text for calculating m of the tri-

ple porosity system.

166 PETROPHYSICS March-April 2004