227 (2023) 211855

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Geoenergy Science and Engineering

journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/geoenergy-science-and-engineering

Investigation of the effect of tortuosity, hydrocarbon saturation and

porosity on enhancing reservoir characterization
Ayman Mahmood, Hamed Aboelkhair *, Attia Attia
Petroleum and Gas Technology Department, Faculty of Energy and Environmental Engineering, The British University in Egypt, El-Shorouk City, 11837, Cairo, Egypt

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Reservoir characterization and rock typing studies are required before implementing any enhanced oil recovery
Characterization number projects to select the most suitable technique. Effective characterization of the reservoir provides a compre­
Rock typing hensive description of the entire reservoir, which reduces the errors in secondary and enhanced hydrocarbon
Tortuosity
recovery projects. Characterization of the reservoir insufficiently and inadequately will lead to the failure of most
Porosity
Hydrocarbon saturation
of the field development plans in terms of determining how to deal with a particular field and will also affect the
effectiveness of secondary and enhanced hydrocarbon recovery. This study aimed to investigate and assess the
effects of tortuosity, porosity and hydrocarbon saturation to enhance reservoir characterization. The charac­
terization number and the capillary pressure equations were modified with the consideration of the tortuosity,
hydrocarbon saturation, and porosity using core data obtained from an Egyptian oil field to improve the accuracy
in determining the number of rock types available which will help in obtaining a permeability correlation for
uncored wells and in the generation of static and dynamic models to predict the reservoir performance in the
field development plan stages as well. Results showed that the characterization number and the capillary
pressure equations that not taking into consideration important parameters such as the tortuosity, hydrocarbon
saturation and porosity in their derived expressions led to a decrease in the accuracy and also an inaccurate
number of rock types in some cases. This study developed permeability correlations for Egypt carbonate reser­
voirs to determine the permeability of uncored wells. Results also confirmed that the modifications on the
characterization number and the capillary pressure equations could be implemented including these important
parameters in the characterization methodologies. Results revealed the importance of these parameters in the
characterization number methodology through the observed changes in the correlation R2 coefficients associated
with the characterization number (CN) for five different rock types.

1. Introduction
Reservoir characterization plays a crucial role in the oil and gas in­
dustry. The understanding of the properties of the reservoir rock such as
the permeability, porosity, resistivity and water saturations assists the
engineering in enhancing the characterization of the reservoir and
obtaining a more accurate model of the reservoir. The process of
reservoir characterization could be performed using several sources of
data such as core samples, well logs, and well tests, followed by the
integration of all data sets (Attia, 2007; Attia and Shuaibu, 2015; Feng
et al., 2013; Gomaa et al., 2022; Shahat et al., 2021; Tavakoli, 2018).
Knackstedt et al. (2004) implemented computed micro topography and
X-ray radiation on existing core samples to obtain a 3D characterization
of a reservoir, as well as determine the interconnectivity of the pore
space and the distribution of the pore size (for improved permeability
predictions) (Aboelkhair et al., 2022; Knackstedt et al., 2004). Jaya et al.
(2005) and Skalinski et al. (2010) improved the determination of
permeability correlations by modifying the pore throat size distribution
through a set of experiments of enhanced-accuracy pore throat radii,
Based on modifications of the Winland and Pittman correlations (Jaya
et al., 2005; Skalinski et al., 2010). Wibowo and Permadi (2013) studied
the complete core analysis data of eight carbonate reservoirs using the
Kozeny equation and identified the microscopic geological features for
every core plug employed (Wibowo and Permadi, 2013). Abduslam
(2012) performed an integrated approach using core data, petrophysical
data, core to wireline log correlations, and production history data to get
a better understanding of the heterogeneity of oil fields and to assess
which petrophysical and geometrical parameters would be most

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: hamed.ali@bue.edu.eg (H. Aboelkhair).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoen.2023.211855
Received 17 January 2023; Received in revised form 10 April 2023; Accepted 23 April 2023
Available online 24 April 2023
2949-8910/© 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
A. Mahmood et al.
Fig. 1. Location of alamein field, western desert, Egypt.
important for Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) in these settings (Abdus­
lam, 2012).
Alramahi et al. (2005) utilized the porosity values from neutron and
porosity well logs to identify the permeable and impermeable zones
within the formation (Alramahi et al., 2005a; Engelke and Hilchie,
1971). Mohaghegh et al. (2000) combined magnetic resonance logs and
conventional logs (density and gamma-ray) to develop synthetic logs for
characterizing a reservoir for permeability, porosity, and saturation
(Mohaghegh et al., 2000). Shedid et al. (1998) developed new correla­
tions for enhanced-accuracy reservoir permeability estimations, using
nuclear magnetic resonance (decay time) data but they neglected an
important parameter, which is tortuosity (Shedid et al., 1998). On the
other hand, Elmahdy and Hamada (2014) integrated Nuclear Magnetic
Resonance (NMR) and density logs, together with core data to minimize
the uncertainties and also to determine the formation porosity, perme­
ability, and capillary pressure curves for heterogeneous, gas-bearing,
and shaly sands (Elmahdy and Hamada, 2014). Similarly, Al-Harbi
et al. (2007) and Burrowes et al. (2010) calibrated the wireline forma­
tion by testing conventional logs with NMR measurements to improve
the permeability prediction (Al-Harbi et al., 2007; Burrowes et al.,
2010). Based on the combination of conventional and unconventional
log data, Babadagli and Al-Salmi (2002) performed multiple regression
analyses that also assisted in the characterization process (Babadagli and
Al-Salmi, 2002, 2004). In 2004, they presented a review of the existing
correlations to estimate permeability for carbonaceous rocks using
porosity, as well as correlations using pore-scale (Kozeny-Carman,
percolation, and fractal models) to field-scale models (well logs)
(Babadagli and Al-Salmi, 2002, 2004). Akam et al. (2010) used data
from well logs, which included the shale volume, porosity and perme­
ability volume, to determine a new term known as the flow quality in­
dicator (FQI) which allows the prediction of formation permeabilities in
the absence of core data (Akam et al., 2010). Pritchard et al. (2010) and
Gomes et al. (2008) established a method for improving characterization
by combining log-derived data with geologically-interpreted facies to
reduce geological interpreted facies into flow zone facies based on cross
plots between the porosity and permeability (Gomes et al., 2008;
Pritchard et al., 2010). Fitch et al. (2010) used conventional logs (den­
sity, gamma-ray, resistivity) together with cross plots of porosity and
permeability to obtain the degree of heterogeneity which was subse­
quently compared to the results obtained from the Lorenz degree of
heterogeneity method. A heterogeneity log was developed and super­
imposed on the conventional logs (Fitch et al., 2010).
Teh et al. (2012) and Xu et al. (2012) improved the permeability
predictions/estimations through a rock fabric number, flow zone
2
Geoenergy Science and Engineering 227 (2023) 211855
indicator (FZI) and depth-by-depth inversions respectively (Teh et al.,
2012; Xu et al., 2012). The authors achieved this by integrating petro­
physical and electro-facies data obtained from conventional well-logs.
Neog and Borah (2000) utilized data from different well-tests per­
formed in a specific well in a reservoir model that allowed specification
of different boundary types and barriers; the model was then inserted
into simulation software to determine whether any layers are in
communication with a water aquifer (Neog and Borah, 2000). Babadagli
et al. (2001) performed pressure transient tests to improve the estima­
tion of permeability distribution by comparing results from tests using
known and unknown permeability distributions so that the different
zones could be determined (Babadagli et al., 2001). Rodolfo et al. (2014)
improved the characterization of fractured reservoirs by pressure well
tests through the application of a triple porosity-double permeability
(3Ф-2k) model instead of a double porosity-single permeability (2Ф-1k)
model due to the presence of three porosities in fractured reservoirs
(matrix, vugs, fractures) (Rodolfo et al., 2014). The authors recommend
the use of the (3Ф-2k) model in such scenarios, as it allows better data fit
than the classical dual-porosity model, and subsequently more infor­
mation regarding the interactions of the three different media. Bagci and
Akbas (2007) used log data and core samples to determine the different
pore throat radii with the Winland equation (Bagci and Ceylan, 2007).
Finally, Prasse et al. (2008) also developed a method through the inte­
gration of the three sources of data (core, neutron and sonic data) to
determine the porosity and permeability; core data was used to deter­
mine the lithology, mineralogy and depositional facies of the reservoir,
and subsequently, this information was applied to neutron and sonic
cross plots, which indicated the number of lithofacies present (Prasse
et al., 2008).
Enhanced reservoir characterization employs numerous techniques
and data ranging from the Reservoir Quality Index (RQI) technique
(Aboelkhair et al., 2021; Amaefule et al., 1993), the porosity vs.
permeability approach based on the Flow Zone Indicator (FZI) (Dez­
foolian, 2013) and the Discrete Rock Type (DRT) technique (Amaefule
et al., 1993; Gunter et al., 1997); the Flow Quality Indicator (FQI) (Akam
et al., 2010), the Electrical Flow Unit (EFU), the Resistivity Zone Index
(RZI), Characterization Number (CN) and capillary pressure (Pc) tech­
niques are also implemented (Shahat et al., 2021).
In this study, the reservoir characterization was improved, firstly
through the application of various techniques to determine the degree of
heterogeneity and determine the number of rock types present in the
formation using techniques such as the Flow Zone Indicator (FZI), the
Reservoir Quality Index (RQI), and the Discrete Rock Type (DRT). Sec­
ondly, through the modification of already existing techniques, which
A. Mahmood et al. Geoenergy Science and Engineering 227 (2023) 211855

discovered in 1966 and is considered one of the largest fields discovered

in the area.
The lithostratigraphic column in the northern part of the Western
Desert comprises formation intervals from Pre-Cambrian basement
rocks to recent deposits as shown in Fig. 2. The Aptian Alamein Dolo­
mite, which is the area of interest in this study, is considered the most
important carbonate reservoir in the northern Western Desert. The
Aptian Alamein Dolomite is the first commercial reservoir discovered in
the Western Desert and one of the most prolific oil-producing reservoirs.
The Alamein Formation is a shallow marine carbonate layer consisting
of fractured microcrystalline dolomites with minor shales of Lower
Cretaceous Mid-Aptian age.
Several techniques were applied to the core samples collected from
Alamein Field to determine the number of rock types in its reservoir. The
implemented techniques were described in Amaefule et al. (1993)
including the reservoir quality index technique, the porosity vs.
permeability approach based on the Flow Zone Indicator and discrete
rock type; the flow quality indicator the electrical flow unit, character­
ization number and capillary pressure techniques were also imple­
mented (Akam et al., 2010; Amaefule et al., 1993). Figs. 3–10 (except
Fig. 8) showed the results from the various techniques, whilst Fig. 8
showed the comparison between two permeability-porosity relation­
0.5
ships described by the two equations: (i) Kɸ and (ii) K
ɸ3
. The aim was to
identify the most appropriate technique which will most accurately
determine the flow zones within the particular field under study.
Tables 1–8 showed the correlation coefficients associated with each
Fig. 2. Lithostratigraphic column of the northern part of Western Desert, Egypt
technique presented in Figs. 3–10. From the results, it was clear that the
(Shalaby et al., 2018).
characterization number and capillary pressure techniques result in the
highest values of R2, indicating the highest accuracy. To further improve
are the characterization number and the capillary pressure techniques
the identification of the rock types/flow zones, modifications were
by inserting the important parameters (tortuosity, porosity, and hy­
subsequently performed on the characterization number (CN) and
drocarbon saturation) that were not considered in all reported studies to
capillary pressure (Pc) techniques only, by including the tortuosity,
obtain a more accurate method that could minimize the assumptions
hydrocarbon saturation and porosity into the equations; this was done so
thus reaching more accurate characterization of the reservoir.
that higher accuracies could be achieved/established (through increased
values of R2) and hence a more confident/accurate description of the
2. Geological setting
reservoir hydraulic flow units would be reached.

The core samples used in this study were collected from Alamein
Field, which is located between latitudes 280 00′ –300 00′ S and longi­
tudes 280 00′ –300 00′ E as shown in Fig. 1. The Alamein Field was

Fig. 3. Reservoir Quality Index (RQI) vs. Normalized porosity (ɸ z) for the different flow zones.

3
A. Mahmood et al. Geoenergy Science and Engineering 227 (2023) 211855

Fig. 4. Porosity vs Permeability based on FZI.

Fig. 5. Porosity vs Permeability based on Discrete Rock Typing (DRT).

3. Data and methods of the contact angle (θ)

Group 2: The second group is determined through the expression;
3.1. Conventional and modified characterization numbers (CN and CNm) σ o− w
π2 = (2)
μw Vw
Shedid and Reyadh (2002) reported that the characterization num­
ber (CN), a dimensionless parameter, is based on grouping other representing the inverse of the capillary number, under perfect
dimensionless properties (including the properties required for the wetting conditions.
modifications) into three different groups, where symbols are as speci­ Modified Group 2: Modifications were performed on the second
fied in the nomenclature (Shedid and Almehaideb, 2002). group by including the porosity value into the capillary number based
Group 1: The first group is specified through the expression; on the concept of Tiab and Donaldson (2015) leading to the following
expression (3) (Tiab and Donaldson, 2015):
ρo Vo Dp
π1 = (1)
μo cos (θ) σ o− w ɸ
π2m = (3)
μw V w
The expression represents the Reynold number divided by the cosine

4
A. Mahmood et al. Geoenergy Science and Engineering 227 (2023) 211855

Fig. 6. Porosity vs Permeability based on the FQI method.

Fig. 7. Porosity vs. Permeability based on the Electrical flow unit (EFU) method.

Group 3: The third group represents the reservoir quality index The conventional and modified characterization numbers (CN and
(RQI) divided by the pore diameter as shown in expression (4): CNm respectively) are now obtained by multiplying the three dimen­
√̅̅̅ sionless groups together, leading to the following expressions:
K
ɸ √̅̅̅
π3 = (4) ρo σ o− w Vo k
Dp Conventional characterization number, CN = (6)
μo cos (θ) μw Vw ɸ
Modified Group 3: Further modifications were performed on the
third group by inserting the tortuosity (τ) and hydrocarbon saturation, √̅̅̅̅
Kτ
So, (where So = 1-Swi, with Swi being the irreducible water saturation) in ρ ɸσ o− w Vo
Modified characterization number, CNm = o
ɸ
(7)
the reservoir quality index (RQI) based on the concepts by El-Khatib μo cos (θ) μw Vw (1 − Swi)
(1995) and Attia et al. (2004), resulting in the expression (Attia et al.,
Water and oil velocities (Vw and Vo respectively) as used in equations
2004; El-Khatib, 1995):
(6) and (7) above, can be further defined using Darcy’s steady-state flow
√̅̅̅̅
Kτ as follows;
ɸ
π 3m = (5)
Dp (1 − Swi )

5
A. Mahmood et al. Geoenergy Science and Engineering 227 (2023) 211855

Fig. 8. Comparing permeability-porosity relationships for each flow zone.

Fig. 9. Characterization number (CN) vs. (sqrt (k/ɸ) for each flow zone.

( ) ( )
2πKw h Pe − Pwf 2πKo h Pe − Pwf water (krw ), as well as the surface tension between oil and water (σo− w ).
Vw = ( ) and Vo = ( ) (8) We can subgroup equation (11) further, by considering the effects of:
μw ln rrwe μo ln rrwe
√̅̅
k
Dividing Vo by Vw leads to: (i) Oil saturation (1 − Swi) only – hence : CNm1 =
ρo σo− w kro ɸ

μo cos (θ) krw (1 − Swi )

Vo ko μw kro μw
= = (9) (11a)
Vw kw μo krw μo
√̅̅̅̅̅
Substituting equation (9) into equations (6) and (7) we obtain the ρo σo− kro kτ
(11b)
w
following equations (10) and (11): (ii) Tortuosity (τ) only – hence : CNm2 =
μo cos (θ) krw ɸ
√̅̅̅
ρo σ o− w kro k √̅̅
Conventional characterization number CN = (10) k
μo cos (θ) krw ɸ ρ ɸσ o− w kro ɸ
(iii) Porosity (ɸ) and oil saturation – hence : CNm3 = o
μo cos (θ) krw (1 − Swi )
√̅̅̅
kτ (11c)
ρ ɸσ o− w kro ɸ
Modified characterization number CNm = o (11) √̅̅̅̅̅
μo cos (θ) krw (1 − Swi )
ρo ɸσ o− w kro kτ
(iv) Porosity (ɸ) and tortuosity (τ) – hence : CNm4 =
which show the dependence of both CN and CNm on all the crucial pa­ μo cos (θ) krw ɸ
rameters, namely: porosity (ɸ), tortuosity (τ), irreducible water satura­ (11d)
tion (Swi ), the relative permeabilities of the two main fluids (oil (kro ) and

6
A. Mahmood et al. Geoenergy Science and Engineering 227 (2023) 211855

Fig. 10. Capillary pressure (Pc) vs. water saturation (Sw) for each flow zone – based on Desouky’s expressions (Desouky, 2003).

Table 1 Table 5
RQI vs Normalized porosity FZI Equations and R2. CZI technique EFU equations and R2.
FZI Equation R2 EFU Equation R2
− 0.18 0.927
FZI 1 0.332x 0.045 EFU 1 22.89x 0.042
FZI 2 0.818x0.179 0.44 EFU 2 480.4x3.379 0.947
FZI 3 3.815x1.202 0.807 EFU 3 387.2x2.740 0.792
FZI 4 4.008x0.995 0.705 EFU 4 59.14x1.127 0.219
FZI 5 2.723x0.530 0.875 EFU 5 719.7x2.501 0.841

Table 2 Table 6
Porosity vs Permeability based on FZI Equations and R2. (k/Ф)0.5 vs (k/Ф3) technique - Rock type equations and R2.
FZI Equation R2 FZI Equation R2

FZI 1 100.9x0.660 0.071 FZI 1 1.450x0.293 0.678

FZI 2 55713x4.454 0.863 FZI 2 0.020x0.776 0.841
FZI 3 74544x4.072 0.870 FZI 3 0.015x0.780 0.712
FZI 4 1068.x0.562 0.018 FZI 4 0.032x0.702 0.661
FZI 5 15528x2.365 0.952 FZI 5 4180.x− 0.42 0.234

Table 3 Table 7
Porosity vs Permeability based on DRT Equations and R2. Comparison between the correlation coefficient of Characterization Number
(CN) and Modified Characterization Number (CNm1).
DRT Equation R2
FZI CN R2 CNm1 R2
10 276.7x1.791 0.272
11 2825.x2.953 0.894 1 5E-10x5.750
0.803 3E-10x 5.823
0.876
12 1151x1.744 0.762 2 2E-06x3.997 0.942 9E-07x4.185 0.946
13 25264x4.758 0.799 3 0.003x2.158 0.858 0.002x2.235 0.806
14 10879x2.142 0.933 4 0.00002x2.999 0.893 0.00002x3.392 0.909
5 0.003x2.684 0.965 0.002x2.856 0.972

Table 4
FQI technique Rock type equations and R2. Table 8
Comparison between the correlation coefficient of Characterization Number
FZI Equation R2
(CN) and Modified Characterization Number (CNm2).
FZI 1 449.1x2.598 0.469
FZI CN R2 CNm2 R2
FZI 2 6378.x3.167 0.414
FZI 3 12090x3.938 0.858 1 5E-10x 5.750
0.803 2E-18x 10.76
0.891
FZI 4 15597x2.997 0.917 2 2E-06x3.997 0.942 1E-08x5.365 0.929
FZI 5 50383x3.403 0.986 3 0.003x2.158 0.858 2E-06x4.214 0.86
4 0.00002x2.999 0.893 8E-05x3.799 0.908
5 0.003x2.684 0.965 7E-05x4.049 0.891

7
A. Mahmood et al. Geoenergy Science and Engineering 227 (2023) 211855

Fig. 11. Modified Characterization Number (CNm1) – after considering oil saturation only (equation (11a)).

The importance of the modified characterization numbers in more

Sw − Swr
accurately identifying the different flow zones is presented and dis­ Swn = (17)
1 − Swr
cussed in the results section (3.1) further below.
Substituting equation (15) into (16), the capillary pressure expres­
3.2. Capillary pressure sion is derived – as in Desouky (2003):
− 1 − 1

Desouky (2003) performed modifications on the capillary pressure σ cos (θ)J ∗ Swn Swn
λ λ

Pc = =ψ (18)
equation by combining the reservoir quality index (RQI) equation and FZIɸn ɸn
the J-function equation as shown below (Desouky, 2003):
Where ψ is given by:
(i) The RQI – in terms of the flow zone indicator (FZI) is simply given J∗
in terms of the absolute permeability and the porosity of the ψ = σ cos θ (19)
FZI
particular flow zone e.g.
Modifications were performed on equation (18) by considering the
√̅̅̅̅
K tortuosity (τ) and hydrocarbon saturation (1-Swi) based on El-Khatib
RQI = 0.0314FZIɸn = (12) (1995) and Attia (2004), resulting in the modified capillary pressure
ɸ
expressions (20a and 20b) (Attia et al., 2004; El-Khatib, 1995), as
where the normalized porosity (ɸn ) is defined by follows:
− 1
ɸ Swn
λ

ɸn = (13) Pcm = ψ (20a)

1− ɸ τɸn
(ii) The J-function equation: The J-function equation is given in When only the tortuosity factor was considered, and
terms of the capillary pressure (Pc), absolute permeability, porosity (ɸ)
and contact angle (θ), as in the express
− 1
λ
ψ Sτɸwnn
√̅̅ Pcm = (20b)
k (1 − Swi)
ɸ
J(Sw ) = Pc ∗ (14)
σ cos (θ) when both the tortuosity and hydrocarbon saturation parameters were
Substituting equation (12) into equation (14) we obtain: both considered.

0.0314 FZIɸn 4. Results

J(Sw) = Pc ∗ (15)
σ cos (θ)
For capillary pressure data of a constant pore geometry (i.e. a fixed 4.1. Conventional techniques
value of FZI), the relationship between the values of J(Sw) and
normalized water saturation (Swn) is given by: Fig. 3 represented the reservoir quality index plot against the
normalized porosity which is generated based on the values of the flow
(16) zone indicator. In this figure, each flow zone or hydraulic flow unit was
− 1
J(Sw) = J ∗ Swn
λ

represented by a different colour which also was represented by accu­

Where, rate correlations of straight lines and each straight line contains an R2
value as summarized in Table 1. The relationship between porosity and
permeability based on the flow zone indicators was shown in Fig. 4.

8
A. Mahmood et al. Geoenergy Science and Engineering 227 (2023) 211855

Fig. 12. Modified Characterization Number (CNm2) – after considering tortuosity only (equation (11b)).

Fig. 13. Modified Characterization Number (CNm3) after considering both porosity (ɸ), and oil saturation (1-Swi) only (equation (11c)).

Based on the DRT, Fig. 5 represented the permeability porosity rela­ capillary pressure plotted against the water saturation in Fig. 10 for all
tionship which also indicated the presence of five discrete rock types, the core samples showed that the values were grouped into five separate
however, with an increased degree of accuracy compared to the porosity zones which proved all the methods performed before the presence of
permeability relationship based on the FZI which is represented in terms five rock types in the reservoir.
of the R2 concluded in Table 3 which are greater than the values in
Table 2. Fig. 6 represented a new approach known as the flow quality
4.2. Characterization numbers: conventional CN vs. modified CNm
indicator which is based on plotting the porosity against the
permeability.
Fig. 9 showed the conventional characterization number before any
Fig. 9 represented an enhanced method of characterizing the reser­
modifications, whilst Figs. 11–15 showed the modified characterization
voir which is the characterization number, and plotting the character­
numbers after considering several modifications, which are the modi­
ization number against the square root of the ratio between the
fication considered the oil saturation (1-Swi) only (Fig. 11), the modi­
permeability and porosity based on the flow zone indicator grouped the
fication considered tortuosity (τ) only (Fig. 12), the modification
data points into five hydraulic flow units with a degree of accuracy that
considered the porosity (ɸ) and the oil saturation (1-Swi) only (Fig. 13),
is much greater than all the other techniques as shown in Table 7 . The
the modification considered the porosity (ɸ) and tortuosity (τ) only

9
A. Mahmood et al.
Fig. 14. Modified Characterization Number (CNm4) – after considering porosity (ɸ) tortuosity (τ) only (equation (11d)).
Fig. 15. Modified Characterization Number (CNm5)– after considering all three parameters: (i) porosity (ɸ); (ii) (1-Swi) and (iii) tortuosity (τ) (equation (11)).
(Fig. 14), and the modification considered the all three parameters
porosity (ɸ), tortuosity (τ) and hydrocarbon/oil saturation (1-Sw)
(Fig. 15).
Figs. 16–20 showed the comparison between the original charac­
terization number, based on equation (10), and the modified one based
on (equation (11)) for each flow zone . The corresponding correlation
coefficients, for both the conventional and modified characterization
numbers, were represented in Tables 7–11.
4.3. Capillary pressure
Fig. 21 showed the capillary pressure (Pc) as obtained by Desouky
(2003) (equation (18)), whilst Fig. 22 showed the modified capillary
pressure as in equation (20a) where only the tortuosity parameter is
considered. Fig. 23 shows the modified capillary pressure when both the
tortuosity and oil saturation parameters are considered. The corre­
sponding correlation coefficients (for the different flow zones) for both
10
Geoenergy Science and Engineering 227 (2023) 211855
scenarios (i.e. for Figs. 22 and 23) were listed in Table 12 and Table 13.
All three capillary pressure plots shown in Figs. 21–23 indicated the
presence of five rock types in the reservoir and the R2 coefficient values
are similar to the conventional case, as summarized in Tables 12 and 13.
5. Discussion
Reservoir characterization is an integrated process that is associated
with different disciplines, which are reservoir engineering, geology,
geostatistics, geophysics and petrophysics, and has an essential role in
the reservoir management and field development plan processes
through determining the lowest cost that could be required to develop
the reservoir, minimize the production prediction forecasting, and in­
crease the recoverable reserves. Inaccurate characterization of the
reservoir could lead to low amounts of oil recovery. The present study
worked on modifying already existing techniques (conventional tech­
niques), which are the characterization number technique and capillary
A. Mahmood et al.
Fig. 16. Comparison between normal CN and modified CNm5 for flow zone 1.
Fig. 17. Comparison between normal CN and modified CNm5 for flow zone 2.
pressure technique to obtain more realistic results that represent the
reservoir in terms of predict of rock types and flow units and assigning
each unit with properties, speed zones, identifying barriers. Finally, the
modified techniques have been compared with the conventional tech­
niques to determine the most accurate technique in characterizing the
reservoir.
5.1. Conventional techniques
The present study intended to improve reservoir characterization
through the application of various techniques to determine the degree of
heterogeneity and determine the number of rock types present in the
formation using techniques such as FZI, RQI, and DRT (Amaefule et al.,
1993; Dezfoolian, 2013; Gunter et al., 1997). The interpretation of the
data in Fig. 3 indicates the presence of five flow zone indicates which
confirms the presence of five hydraulic flow units in the formation which
is also further explained by the degree of heterogeneity that indicated a
heterogeneous reservoir. In addition, the permeability values calculated
using the shale volume of each core sample plotted against the porosity
based on the flow zone indicator also indicated five hydraulic flow units
11
Geoenergy Science and Engineering 227 (2023) 211855
present with a higher degree of accuracy than the relationship between
the porosity and permeability based on FZI for all the five hydraulic flow
units with the higher values of equation coefficient summarized in
Table 4.
5.2. Characterization numbers: conventional CN vs. modified CNm
This study focused on the Characterization Number (CN) technique,
which utilizes the dimensionless characterization number to charac­
terize/describe a given reservoir . Conventional techniques that have
been used to determine the characterization number for a given reser­
voir seem to neglect important parameters such as the tortuosity, irre­
ducible water saturation and the porosity of a reservoir, resulting in
reduced accuracy of the reservoir characterization. When comparing the
conventional or original characterization number (equation (10)), and
the modified characterization number (equation (11)) for each flow
zone that was shown in Figs. 16–20, it was interesting to note the lower
values in each zone when all three parameters were considered in the
modified characterization number (equation (11)). The results obtained
from the modified characterization number indicate the presence of five
A. Mahmood et al. Geoenergy Science and Engineering 227 (2023) 211855

Fig. 18. Comparison between normal CN and modified CNm5 for flow zone 3.

Fig. 19. Comparison between normal CN and modified CNm5 for flow zone 4.

flow zones as also shown in Figs. 3 and 9 that indicates the presence of
five flow zones. The improved accuracy for all different modifications
was observed, with each comparison showing an increased R2 coeffi­
cient, indicating the importance of involving these parameters to obtain
a more realistic model of the reservoir. This was particularly shown in
Table 11, which corresponds to the scenario in which all three param­
eters (tortuosity, porosity, and hydrocarbon saturation) were considered
in the modified characterization number estimation; the R2 coefficients
for all of the five rock types were greater than the conventional char­
acterization number. More specifically, for FZI 1 the R2 increased from
0.803 to 0.942; for FZI 2, R2 increased from 0.942 to 0.982; for FZI 3, it
increased from 0.858 to 0.943; for FZI 4, it increased from 0.893 to
0.936; and for FZI 5 it increased from 0.965 to 0.972, indicating higher
confidence in the reservoir model.
The obtained results clearly showed and highlighted the importance
of the inclusion of these parameters in the characterization number for
the identification of the different rock types within the reservoir.
Comparing the modified characterization number with the Amafuele
RQI technique indicates an increase in the R2 , for FZI 1 the R2 increased
from 0.045 to 0.942; for FZI 2, R2 increased from 0.44 to 0.982; for FZI 3,
it increased from 0.807 to 0.943; for FZI 4, it increased from 0.705 to
0.936; and for FZI 5 it increased from 0.875 to 0.972, indicating higher
confidence in the reservoir model. El-Khatib (1995) confirmed that any
expression for the characterization number that neglects variations of
tortuosity and irreducible water saturation leads to a high degree of
inaccuracy in subsequent estimations of hydraulic permeability since

12
A. Mahmood et al. Geoenergy Science and Engineering 227 (2023) 211855

Fig. 20. Comparison between normal CN and modified CNm5 for flow zone 5.

degree of brine saturation, formation resistivity factor, cementation

Table 9 factor, and amount of fine grains, thus obtaining a more realistic and
Comparison between the correlation coefficient of Characterization Number accurate model of the reservoir (Attia, 2005). Moreover, Tiab and
(CN) and Modified Characterization Number (CNm3). Donaldson (2015) confirmed that including the porosity of the forma­
FZI CN R2 CNm3 R2 tion in the reservoir characterization techniques is crucial as the effect of
1 5E-10x5.750
0.803 2E-14x 8.311
0.904 important parameters such as uniformity of the grain sizes, degree of
2 2E-06x3.997 0.942 7E-08x4.806 0.931 consolidation or cementation and packing arrangement are also indi­
3 0.003x2.158 0.858 0.0001x2.758 0.879 rectly incorporated through their effect on porosity; this, in turn, pro­
4 0.00002x2.999 0.893 2E-05x4.382 0.901 vides a more accurate description of the reservoir and more accurate
5 0.003x2.684 0.965 0.001x3.573 0.946
number of rock types (Tiab and Donaldson, 2015).

5.3. Capillary pressure

Table 10
Comparison between the correlation coefficient of Characterization Number
In addition to the characterization number, further modifications
(CN) and Modified Characterization Number (CNm4).
were performed on the capillary pressure equation based on the same
FZI CN R2 CNm4 R2 concept/logic discussed above. It is interesting to note that the R2 value
1 5E-10x 5.750
0.803 4E-10x 5.715
0.861 for FZI - 2 (flow zone 2) is low in both the conventional and modified
2 2E-06x3.997 0.942 2E-12x7.555 0.975 cases when it was expected/hoped that the inclusion of tortuosity and
3 0.003x2.158 0.858 3E-08x5.343 0.869 hydrocarbon saturation might have improved the correlation. For the
4 0.00002x2.999 0.893 2E-07x5.836 0.892
5 0.003x2.684 0.965 1E-06x5.527 0.881
remaining zones, the performed modifications provided a more accurate
model of the reservoir for the overall process of reservoir characteriza­
tion. Finally, The obtained results reveal that neglecting such important
parameters (tortuosity, hydrocarbon saturation, and porosity) could
Table 11 lead to a high degree of inaccuracy in the characterization of the
Comparison between the correlation coefficient of Characterization Number
reservoir, which was in agreement with several reports that confirmed
(CN) and Modified Characterization Number (CNm5).
the importance of these parameters (Alramahi et al., 2005a; Attia et al.,
FZI CN R2 CNm5 R2 2004; Attia, 2005; El-Khatib, 1995; Tiab and Donaldson, 2015).
5.750 8.177
1 5E-10x 0.803 5E-15x 0.942
2 2E-06x3.997 0.942 2E-09x5.337 0.982 6. Conclusion
3 0.003x2.158 0.858 2E-06x3.703 0.943
4 0.00002x2.999 0.893 0.00003x2.708 0.936
5 0.003x2.684 0.965 0.001x2.248 0.972 It could be concluded that reservoir characterization is the most
challenging stage that should be considered in an oil/gas field devel­
opment plan. This stage should be effectively and accurately established
such expressions are based on constant tortuosity and irreducible water for any oil/gas producing reservoir since the inaccurate and inefficient
saturation for all formations–both unrealistic assumptions (El-Khatib, characterization of the reservoir will lead to the failure of the field
1995). In addition, Attia et al. (2004) confirmed that including the development plan and any subsequent secondary and tertiary recovery
tortuosity in any correlation leads to a more accurate representation of projects. The characterization number and the capillary pressure equa­
the behaviour of the rock, and thus more accurate estimation of the tions that were not considered important parameters such as the tortu­
number of rock types present in the formation (Attia et al., 2004). osity, hydrocarbon saturation, and porosity in their derived expressions,
Furthermore, Attia (2005) added that involving the tortuosity factor in could lead to a decrease in the accuracy and also an inaccurate number
reservoir characterization techniques leads to enhanced estima­ of rock types in some cases. The addition of the tortuosity, porosity and
tions/knowledge of other reservoir properties such as the porosity, hydrocarbon saturation into the characterization number indicated the

13
A. Mahmood et al. Geoenergy Science and Engineering 227 (2023) 211855

Fig. 21. Original Capillary pressure – based on equation (18) (Desouky, 2003).

Fig. 22. Modified capillary pressure after considering tortuosity (τ) only (equation (20a)).

increase of the R2 from 0.803 to 0.942; for Flow Zone Indicator (FZI) 2,
R2 increased from 0.942 to 0.982; for FZI 3, it increased from 0.858 to
0.943; for FZI 4, it increased from 0.893 to 0.936; and for FZI 5 it
increased from 0.965 to 0.972. The developed permeability correlations
of the Egypt carbonate reservoirs have the capability of determining the
permeability for uncored wells or wells with only porosity data. The
obtained results confirmed the potential of implementing these modi­
fications on the characterization number and the capillary pressure
equations. In addition, the importance of these modifications was
noticed in the higher R2 coefficients obtained with the modified equa­
tions compared with the R2 coefficients obtained using the conventional
characterization number, which indicates that when reducing the
number of assumptions in any characterization technique, a more real­
istic static and dynamic model of the reservoir could be obtained.
Credit author statement
Ayman Mahmood: Conceptualisation, Data curation, Investigation,
Methodology, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing - Original Draft,
Visualisation, Project administration. Hamed Aboelkhair: Investiga­
tion, Writing - Review & Editing, Visualisation, Formal analysis, Project
administration. Attia: Supervision, Formal analysis, Writing - Review &
Editing, Visualisation, Project administration, Resources.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.

14
A. Mahmood et al. Geoenergy Science and Engineering 227 (2023) 211855

Fig. 23. Modified capillary pressure after considering tortuosity (τ) and water saturation (Sw) (equation (20b)).

Acknowledgment
Table 12
Comparison between the correlation coefficient of Capillary pressure (Pc)and The authors gratefully thank Dr Mai Elgebali for proofreading this
Modified Capillary pressure (Pcm1) (corresponding to Fig. 17). study.
FZI Pc R2 Pcm1 R2
− 4.534 − 4.98
1 9.1011x 0.995 4.591x 0.993
3.845 3.42
2 0.9254x− 0.399 0.595x− 0.429
3.117 2.97
3 0.5752x− 0.738 0.343x− 0.736
2.944 2.41
4 0.3564x− 0.761 0.267x− 0.744
2.96 2.99
5 0.1414x− 0.966 0.078x− 0.951

Table 13
Comparison between the correlation coefficient of Capillary pressure and
Modified Capillary pressure (Pcm2).
FZI Pc R2 Pcm2 (Ʈ) R2
4.534 5.64
1 9.1011x− 0.995 0.121x− 0.969
3.845 3.68
2 0.9254x− 0.399 0.029x− 0.444
3.117 3.02
3 0.5752x− 0.738 0.019x− 0.703
2.944 3.16
4 0.3564x− 0.761 0.018x− 0.803
2.96 3.08
5 0.1414x− 0.966 0.003x− 0.94

Data availability

No data was used for the research described in the article.

Nomenclature

CNm Modified Characterization Number

Dp Pore diameter, cm
K Absolute rock permeability, mD
Kro Oil relative permeability
Krw Water relative permeability
σ o− w Interfacial Tension between oil and water, N/cm
RQI Reservoir Quality index, μm
Vo Oil Velocity, m/sec
Vw Water Velocity, m/sec
ρo Oil density, Kg/ m3
ɸ Porosity

15
A. Mahmood et al. Geoenergy Science and Engineering 227 (2023) 211855

μo Oil Viscosity, cP
μw Water Viscosity, cP
θ Contact Angle, degree
τ Tortuosity
FZI Flow Zone Indicator
J(Sw) Leverett J-function for capillary pressure
J* Lithology index
Sw Water saturation
Swn Normalized water saturation
Swr Irreducible water saturation
λ Pore size distribution index
Ψ Constant

References Gomaa, S., Soliman, A.A., Mohamed, A., Emara, R., Attia, A.M., 2022. New correlation
for calculating water saturation based on permeability, porosity, and resistivity
index in carbonate reservoirs. ACS Omega 7, 3549–3556. https://doi.org/10.1021/
Abduslam, A., 2012. Reservoir Characterization and Enhanced Oil Recovery Potential in
acsomega.1c06044.
Middle Devonian Dundee Limestone Reservoirs, Michigan Basin. Dep. Geosci.
Gomes, J.S., Ribeiro, M.T., Strohmenger, C.J., Negahban, S., Kalam, M.Z., 2008.
Masters De, USA.
Carbonate reservoir rock typing - the link between geology and SCAL. Soc. Pet. Eng. -
Aboelkhair, H., Diaz, P., Attia, A., 2022. Environmental comparative study of
13th Abu Dhabi Int. Pet. Exhib. Conf. ADIPEC 2008 (3), 1643–1656. https://doi.org/
biosurfactants production and optimization using bacterial strains isolated from
10.2118/118284-ms.
Egyptian oil fields. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 216, 110796 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
Gunter, G.W., Finneran, J.M., Hartmann, D.J., Miller, J.D., 1997. Early determination of
PETROL.2022.110796.
reservoir flow units using an integrated petrophysical method. Proc. - SPE Annu.
Aboelkhair, H., Diaz, P., Attia, A., 2021. Biosurfactant production using Egyptian oil
Tech. Conf. Exhib. Omega 373–380. https://doi.org/10.2118/38679-ms.
fields indigenous bacteria for microbial enhanced oil recovery. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 208,
Jaya, I., Sudaryanto, A., Widarsono, B., 2005. Permeability prediction using pore throat
109601 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2021.109601.
and rock fabric: a model from Indonesian reservoirs. 2005 SPE Asia Pacific Oil Gas
Akam, S.A., Maher, T., Schell, C., Arnott, S., 2010. Flow Quality Indicator (FQI): an
Conf. Exhib. - Proc. 559–571. https://doi.org/10.2118/93363-ms.
innovative approach to permeability prediction. Soc. Pet. Eng. - SPE Asia Pacific Oil
Knackstedt, M.A., Arns, C.H., Limaye, A., Sakellariou, A., Senden, T.J., Sheppard, A.P.,
Gas Conf. Exhib. 2010 1, 244–258. https://doi.org/10.2118/132361-ms. APOGCE
Sok, R.M., Pinczewski, W.V., Bunn, G.F., 2004. Digital core laboratory: properties of
2010.
reservoir core derived from 3D images. Proc. SPE Asia Pacific Conf. Integr. Model.
Al-Harbi, A., Gringarten, A., Akkurt, R., 2007. A practical approach to determine
Asset Manag. 105–118. https://doi.org/10.2523/87009-ms.
permeability from wireline measurements. Soc. Pet. Eng. - SPE Saudi Arab. Sect.
Mohaghegh, S.D., Goddard, C., Popa, A., Ameri, S., Bhuiyan, M., 2000. Reservoir
Tech. Symp 2007. https://doi.org/10.2118/111221-ms.
characterization through synthetic logs. SPE east. Reg. Conf. Proc. 191–200. https://
Alramahi, B.A., Alshibli, K.A., Attia, A.M., 2005. Influence of Grain Size and
doi.org/10.2118/65675-ms.
Consolidation Pressure on Porosity of Rocks 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1061/40785
Neog, P.K., Borah, N.M., 2000. Reservoir characterization through well test analysis
(164)41.
assists in reservoir simulation - a case study. SPE - Asia Pacific Oil Gas Conf 755–766.
Amaefule, J., Altunbay, M., Tlab, D., Kersey, D.G., Keelan, D.K., 1993. Enhanced
https://doi.org/10.2118/64447-ms.
reservoir description: using core and log data to identify hydraulic (flow) units and
Prasse, E.M., Hornbrook, J.W., Tye, R.S., Putnam, T.W., 2008. Using resistivity log
predict permeability in. Soc. Pet. Eng. 205–220.
invasion profiles, multiple porosity logs, core and test data to determine lithology,
Attia, A., Kurniawan, B., Nabih, M., 2004. Effects of grain size and compaction on
porosity and permeability in pre-cambrian sandstones of eastern siberia. Soc. Pet.
petrophysical rock properties using mercury injection data. J. Pet. Min. Eng.
Eng. - SPE Russ. Oil Gas Tech. Conf. Exhib. 2008 (2), 854–866. https://doi.org/
Attia, A.M., 2007. Relative Permeability and Wettability of Rocks Obtained from Their
10.2118/116853-ms.
Capillary Pressure and Electrical Resistivity Measurements. https://doi.org/
Pritchard, T., Scotellaro, C., Webber, R., 2010. Carbonate facies and permeability
10.2118/106642-MS.
estimation using rock physics and flow-zone facies. Soc. Explor. Geophys. Int. Expo.
Attia, A.M., 2005. Effects of petrophysical rock properties on tortuosity factor. J. Pet. Sci.
80th Annu. Meet. 2010 https://doi.org/10.1190/1.3513392. SEG 2010 2654–2658.
Eng. 48, 185–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2005.06.012.
Rodolfo, C.V., Gómez, S., Mario, V.C., Norma, F.M., Tomas, C.R., Ramos, G., Carlos, M.
Attia, A.M., Shuaibu, H., 2015. Identification of barriers and productive zones using
M., Mesejo, A., Gorgonio, F.C., 2014. Well testing characterization of heavy-oil
reservoir characterization. Iarjset 2, 8–23. https://doi.org/10.17148/
naturally fractured vuggy reservoirs. Soc. Pet. Eng. - SPE Heavy Extra Heavy Oil
iarjset.2015.21202.
Conf. - Lat. Am. 2014 https://doi.org/10.2118/171078-ms. LAHO 2014 968–981.
Babadagli, T., Al-Bemani, A., Al-Shammakhi, K., 2001. Assessment of Permeability
Shahat, J.S., Balaha, M.I., El-Deab, M.S., Attia, A.M., 2021. Resistivity zone index: a new
Distribution through Well Test Analysis. https://doi.org/10.2523/68707-ms.
approach in rock typing to enhance reservoir characterization using well log data.
Babadagli, T., Al-Salmi, S., 2004. A review of permeability-prediction methods for
Energy Rep. 7, 711–723. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2021.01.026.
carbonate reservoirs using well-log data. SPE Reservoir Eval. Eng. 7, 75–88. https://
Shalaby, M.R., Jumat, N., Islam, M.A., 2018. Formation microscanner providing better
doi.org/10.2118/87824-PA.
answers for carbonate secondary porosity in alamein dolomite formation, NW desert,
Babadagli, T., Al-Salmi, S., 2002. Improvement of permeability prediction for carbonate
Egypt. Geosci. 8 https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences8040118.
reservoirs using well log data. SPE - Asia Pacific Oil Gas Conf 555–571. https://doi.
Shedid, S., Tiab, D., Osisanya, S., 1998. Enhanced Reservoir Characterization Using NMR
org/10.2118/77889-ms.
Core and Well-Log Derived Data. SPE 39810.
Bagci, A., Ceylan, A., 2007. Permeability Estimation Using Hydraulic Flow Units in
Shedid, S.A., Almehaideb, R.A., 2002. A new approach of reservoir description of
Carbonate Reservoirs. https://doi.org/10.2523/107263-ms.
carbonate reservoirs. Proc. SPE Int. Pet. Conf. Exhib. Mex. 35–44. https://doi.org/
Burrowes, A., Moss, A., Sirju, C., Pritchard, T., 2010. Improved permeability prediction
10.2523/74344-ms.
in heterogeneous carbonate formations. 72nd Eur. Assoc. Geosci. Eng. Conf. Exhib.
Skalinski, M., Kenter, J., Jenkins, S., Tankersley, T., 2010. Updated rock type definition
2010 A New Spring Geosci. Inc. SPE Eur 2010 (2), 1442–1452. https://doi.org/
and pore type classification of a carbonate buildup, tengiz field, republic of
10.2523/131606-ms.
Kazakhstan. Soc. Pet. Eng. - SPE Casp. Carbonates Technol. Conf. 2010, 152–167.
Desouky, S.E.D.M., 2003. A new method for normalization of capillary pressure curves.
https://doi.org/10.2118/139986-ms.
Oil Gas Sci. Technol. 58, 551–556. https://doi.org/10.2516/ogst:2003038.
Tavakoli, V., 2018. Geological core analysis. SpringerBriefs in Petroleum Geoscience &
Dezfoolian, M.A., 2013. Flow zone indicator estimation based on petrophysical studies
Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78027-6.
using an artificial neural network in a southern Iran reservoir. Petrol. Sci. Technol.
Teh, W.J., Willhite, G.P., Doveton, J.H., 2012. Improved reservoir characterization using
31, 1294–1305. https://doi.org/10.1080/10916466.2010.542421.
petrophysical classifiers within electrofacies. Proc. - SPE Symp. Improv. Oil Recover.
El-Khatib, N., 1995. Development of a modified capillary pressure J-function. Proc.
2, 1649–1661. https://doi.org/10.2118/154341-ms.
Middle East Oil Show 2, 547–562. https://doi.org/10.2118/29890-ms.
Tiab, D., Donaldson, E.C., 2015. Petrophysics: Theory and Practice of Measuring
Elmahdy, O.A., Hamada, G.M., 2014. Integrated NMR and density logs for evaluation of
Reservoir Rock and Fluid Transport Properties: Fourth Edition, Petrophysics: Theory
heterogeneous gas-bearing shaly sands. Petrol. Sci. Technol. 32, 958–964. https://
and Practice of Measuring Reservoir Rock and Fluid Transport Properties, fourth ed.
doi.org/10.1080/10916466.2011.621500.
https://doi.org/10.1016/C2014-0-03707-0
Engelke, C.P., Hilchie, D.W., 1971. New qualitative permeability indicator. In: SPWLA
Wibowo, A.S., Permadi, P., 2013. A type curve for carbonates rock typing. Soc. Pet. Eng. -
12th Annual Logging Symposium, Dalla, Texas. Paper G. Transactions, pp. M1–M10.
int. Pet. Technol. Conf. 2013, IPTC 2013 Challenging Technol. Econ. Limits to Meet
Feng, X.T., Hudson, J.A., Tan, F., 2013. Rock Characterisation, Modelling and
Glob. Energy Demand 3, 1817–1828. https://doi.org/10.2523/iptc-16663-ms.
Engineering Design Methods, Rock Characterisation, Modelling and Engineering
Xu, C., Heidari, Z., Carlos, T.-V., 2012. Rock classification in carbonate reservoirs based
Design Methods. https://doi.org/10.1201/b14917.
on static and dynamic petrophysical properties estimated from conventional well
Fitch, P., Davies, S., Lovell, M., Pritchard, T., Sirju, C., 2010. Heterogeneity in carbonate
logs. SPE 99, 1261–1280. https://doi.org/10.1306/02091514167, 159991.
petrophysical properties: application to fluid flow units and sampling strategies.
SPWLA 51st Annu. Logging Symp. 2010 1–201010.

16