SPWLA 53rd Annual Logging Symposium, June 16-20, 2012

BEYOND VOLUMETRICS: PETROPHYSICAL CHARACTERIZATION

USING ROCK TYPES
TO PREDICT DYNAMIC FLOW BEHAVIOR IN TIGHT GAS SANDS
Shujie Liu, David R. Spain, BP America
John M. Dacy, Core Laboratories LP
Copyright 2012, held jointly by the Society of Petrophysicists and Well Log Analysts (SPWLA) and the submitting authors
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPWLA 53rd Annual Logging Symposium held in Cartagena, Columbia, June 16-20, 2012.

ABSTRACT
Cotton Valley tight gas sands in the East Texas Basin consist of very fine-grained, well-sorted quartz arenites and
subarkoses, overprinted by significant diagenetic processes. Hydrocarbon production is controlled predominantly
by stratigraphic variations in rock types. Hydraulic fracturing has been utilized to establish economic gas
production, yet water management strategies are required to handle high water yields. These water yields are in
excess of expected water condensation production, and it is clear that free water exists in the low permeability
reservoir. Traditional formation evaluation methods are challenged by this unconventional hydrocarbon reservoir.
A static petrophysical rock typing study using routine and special core analyses, including nuclear magnetic
resonance and high-pressure mercury injection capillary pressure data, was previously published. This work builds
upon that study and extends the rock typing work into the realm of dynamic reservoir characterization. Additional
petrophysical analysis of relative gas permeability and capillary pressure measurements enabled the development of
relative permeability models for gas and water.
Dynamic rock typing focuses on using the basic reservoir petrophysical properties including rock type, porosity, and
effective permeability at reservoir conditions to divide the reservoir into flow units. Dynamic rock type models
provide insight into fractional flow behavior and mobile water prediction ahead of completions. Flow profiles
suggest that in the Cotton Valley tight gas sand, even though gas dominates the production, free water can be
produced depending on rock type and water saturation. Good correlation exists between the stratigraphic flow
profile and the well production performance.
In summary, tight gas petrophysical studies need to go well beyond the routine calculation of volumetrics, and
should consider both static (storage) and dynamic (flow) properties. Combining the concepts of rock type and flow
unit in reservoir characterisation helps to make better reservoir management decisions in: identifying high gas flow
performance units, avoiding water-prone flow units, optimizing well trajectory design, prioritizing infill drilling
targets, screening well recompletion opportunities, and guiding reservoir surveillance strategies.

INTRODUCTION
Cotton Valley tight gas sands in the East Texas Basin, USA (Figure 1) consist of very fine-grained, tightly cemented
and well-sorted quartz arenites and subarkoses, overprinted with significant and complex diagenetic features. Much
of the reservoir interval contains gas, but stratigraphic variations in rock types control gas production. Hydraulic
fracturing has been used to reach economic gas production. High water yields which exceed the water condensate
level have been observed. Free water exists in this low porosity, low permeability reservoir.
In the Cotton Valley Formation, porosity usually averages less than 10%, and the lab-measured, single-phase gas
permeability is in the microdarcy range. However, rocks with similar porosity can exhibit more than two
magnitudes of permeability difference. Grain size, complex mineralogy, diagenetic cement, clay content, and
morphology can all affect the porosity permeability relationship and the magnitude of the irreducible water
saturation. Additionally, the absolute permeability in tight gas reservoirs is extremely sensitive to effective
overburden pressure and the gas effective permeability at reservoir conditions is also very sensitive to water

SPWLA 53rd Annual Logging Symposium, June 16-20, 2012

saturation. The gas flow capacity largely depends on the water saturation of the reservoir and its corresponding
effective permeability to gas.

Figure 1. Map of the East Texas Cotton Valley fields, showing the location of the study well and the stratigraphy
of the East Texas Basin (Spain et al, 2011, Modified from Wescott, 1984.).

B
Rock Types Pore Volume Partition and Pore Throat Distribution

20

100

0
0.1

10

100

1000

Cumulative Porosity, %

Thin Section Photomicrographs

20

Frequency (%)

0
10000

0
0.001

1000

PTR_R (um)

Figure 2. Characterization of rock types by thin section description, Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) T2 pore
volume partition, and Mercury Injection Capillary Pressure (MICP) pore throat distribution. The T2 diagram uses
3ms cutoff, so Swirr is the clay bound water saturation. Porosities of the three samples are not much different, but
the percentage of bound volume increases as rock type degrades, and gas flow capacity decreases (Liu et al, 2011).

SPWLA 53rd Annual Logging Symposium, June 16-20, 2012

In the previous study, a log-based, core-calibrated, and pore-geometry based rock typing method was developed
(Liu et al, 2011). Apart from shale and tight silt, three reservoir rock types were identified. Figure 2 displays the
characteristics of these three rock types. Rock Type 1 is the best, high gas flow capacity rock type, prone to produce
water-free gas. As the rock type degrades, grain size decreases, sorting becomes poor, clay and associated
microporosity becomes pervasive. This in turn presents an increase in clay-bound (irreducible) water, a decrease in
gas storage capacity and gas flow capacity. These rocks are more prone to produce gas with water. In our previous
study, Swirr was taken as the saturation at the NMR T2 of 3 ms; essentially equivalent to clay-bound water.
Static volumetric petrophysical evaluations are inadequate to comprehend the dynamic flow performance of tight
gas sands. Flow capacity determines dynamic flow performance. High storage capacity does not always guarantee
high flow capacity. Building on our previous study, this work extends the rock typing philosophy further into the
realm of dynamic reservoir characterization. The concept of flow unit (Gunter et al, 1997) is adopted for our
dynamic petrophysical study. Storage capacity and gas flow capacity can be calculated for each potential flow unit,
and these can be ranked by their gas flow capacities. This can help us to predict and avoid water prone flow units
and target gas producing flow units. There should exist an inherent consistency between flow units and rock types;
a prolific flow unit should mainly consist of excellent quality rock types.

RELATIVE PERMEABILTIY AND FRACTIONAL FLOW

To understand flow capacity, the relative permeabilities and the effective permeabilities for gas and water under
reservoir conditions have to be investigated. Getting these permeabilities correct is crucial in calculating
recoverable reserves and history matching or predicting production performance. Figure 3 (Miller and Shanley,
2010) compares two drainage gas relative permeability curves used in reservoir performance calculations for a tight
gas sandstone that resulted in 30% more recoverable gas for the Case 1 curve. There is no obvious difference
between the two curves when water saturation is less than 0.4, but the drainage gas curve exponent, ngd, and the
critical gas saturation,

S gc , are very different which lead to distinctive gas relative permeabilities at high water

saturations.

Case 2

Case 1
1

Swcg=0.17
Swcg=0.10

0.1

krgd

ngd=1.62

ngd=2.02

0.01

0.001

Sgc=0.36

Sgc=0.15

0.0001
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Sw

Figure 3. Importance of getting gas relative permeability correct in tight gas sands. There is no obvious difference
between the two curves when water saturation is less than 0.4, but the gas relative permeabilities are very different
at high water saturations. Case 1 curve yielded 30% more recoverable gas in reservoir performance
calculations. (Modified from Miller et al, 2010)

SPWLA 53rd Annual Logging Symposium, June 16-20, 2012

Gas and water relative permeabilities are functions of water saturation, with endpoints tied to different gas and water
saturations (Dacy, 2010). The relative permeability curves (Figure 4, Dacy 2010) are best presented in logarithmic
scale, so that small values can be displayed more obviously. This is especially important for tight gas sands. The
lowest relative permeability value is not zero, but close to zero, 0.01%. Curve 1, k rgd , the drainage gas relative
permeability, starts from critical gas saturation

S gc and increases as water saturation decreases until it reaches the

critical water saturation for gas ( S wcg ). Curve 2,

k rwd , the drainage water relative permeability, starts from 100%

water saturation and decreases until it reaches the critical water saturation for water ( S wcw ). Curve 3,

k rgi , the

imbibition gas relative permeability, depicts that the gas flow capacity reduces as the water saturation increases
which can be due to completion fluid loss in tight gas sands. When gas permeability becomes zero, the remaining
gas is trapped at gas saturation S gt and will not be produced. The difference between the drainage gas relative
permeability and the imbibition gas relative permeability is called hysteresis. Curve 4,

k rwi , the imbibition water

relative permeability, increases as the water saturation increases. It is generally understood that the relative
permeability hysteresis for the wetting phase does not occur or is very small. Therefore, in gas-water systems, water
does not show hysteresis. The two water relative permeability curves 2 and 4 overlay with each other.
1

Swi, initial water saturation;

fn of column height;
1-Swi=Sgi, initial gas saturation

krg (specific)

krw (specific)

kr, k effective / k absolute

0.1
3

krwd
Swcg, critical water
saturation for gas
phase;
At Sw<Swcg, krg=1

0.01

krw @ Sgt
Sgt, trapped
gas saturation;
fn Sgi

Sw increase
from fluid loss;
krg hysteresis

Swcw, critical water

saturation for water
phase;
At Sw<Swcw, krw=0

0.001

krwi

krgi

krgd

0.0001
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

Sw

0.8

Sgc, critical gas saturation

Figure 4. Example cross-plot of gas and water relative permeabilities versus water saturation (Dacy, 2010).
Gas and water fractional flows can be calculated from their relative permeabilities and viscosities under reservoir
conditions (Dake, 2002). Fractional flows range between naught and unity. With two phase flow, the sum of gas
and water fractional flows should be unity. They demonstrate the relative volumetric contributions of each flowing
phase, taking account of the reservoir flow capacities and the fluid properties.

Mw =

krw

(1)

w
4

SPWLA 53rd Annual Logging Symposium, June 16-20, 2012

Mg =

fw =

krg

(2)

Mw
Mw + Mg

(3)

f g = 1 fw

(4)

where:

f g , f w = gas and water fractional flows, v/v;

krg , krw = gas and water relative permeabilities, ratio of effective permeability to absolute permeability, fraction;
M g , M w = gas and water relative mobilities, 1/cp;

g , w

= gas and water viscosities,

g =0.026 cp, w = 0.37 cp at reservoir conditions;

Reservoir conditions: Temperature T = 260 F, Pressure P = 5100 psia.

RELATIVE PERMEABILITY MEASUREMENT AND MODELING

Twenty preserved core plugs were selected for relative permeability measurement in a gas-water system. The plugs
mostly came from the Lower Cotton Valley Formation (Taylor Sands) in Harrison County, Texas (Figure 1).
The samples were subjected to hot solvent extraction at the toluene boiling point of 230F and then dried in a
convection oven at 240F. Basic properties (permeability, porosity, grain density) were measured on these samples
at 2300 psi net confining stress.
The samples were then saturated with 150,000 ppm sodium chloride (NaCl) brine and subjected to the specific
permeability to water (brine) measurements. The samples were later desaturated in four steps by centrifugation,
using buffers to maintain proper distribution of fluids in the pore system. At each drainage step, the effective
permeability to gas was determined and the corresponding water saturation calculated. After this, the samples were
allowed to spontaneously imbibe brine for three imbibition points. At each imbibition step, the effective
permeability to gas was determined. The relative permeability for gas or water was taken as the ratio of the gas or
water effective permeability to the absolute overburden- and Klinkenberg- corrected gas permeability.
Maximum trapped (residual) gas was determined by counter-current imbibition to provide a means to compute an
endpoint for the imbibition relative permeability curve. An unconfined, dry sample was submerged in toluene, and
change in gas saturation was monitored gravimetrically and logged versus time to determine trapped gas. Toluene
was chosen because it unambiguously wetted the dry rock surfaces in the presence of gas and it was easily removed
after the measurement (Dacy, 2010).
Mercury injection was then used to determine the critical gas saturation on nineteen of the samples. Mercury was
injected, using small pressure steps, into one end of a sample that was stressed by means of a non-conductive
hydraulic fluid. Resistance across the sample length was continuously monitored. Evacuated dry samples had high,
off-scale resistance. Cumulative injected volume was noted when resistance dropped, indicating arrival of the first
thread of continuous mercury spanning in the sample length (Dacy, 2010). The critical gas saturation corresponds to
the highest water saturation where gas can be a continuous phase and hence is mobile.
Air-brine high-speed centrifuge capillary pressure data using a different set of samples from this well were available
for use in determining drainage k rw parameters according to the Brooks and Corey (1964) method. The function
parameters were integrated with measured specific brine permeability of the relative permeability samples.
Figure 5 is a typical relative permeability plot derived from the core plug measurement. The relative permeability
functions were derived by curve fitting to that specific data set.

SPWLA 53rd Annual Logging Symposium, June 16-20, 2012

Sample Identification, basic &

end-point properties, and kr
characterization parameters

krgd

krgi

krw specific

krgd fn Sw

krgi fn Sw

krw(Pc) fn Sw

1
8S-A; 9673.60'

0.1

kr, k effective/k absolute

Sample: 8S-A
Depth, ft: 9673.60
Porosity: 0.064
k absolute, md: 0.00322
krw specific: 0.093
Sgt max: 0.309
Sgc: 0.200
Sw cg: 0.070
ngd: 2.86
ngi: 3.73
Sw cw : 0.020
nw : 6.38
Sw i actual: 0.351
krgd max: 0.258
Sgt at Sgi: 0.265

0.01

0.001

0.0001

0.00001

0.000001
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Sw

Figure 5. Typical relative permeability plot from core plug measurement. Red line is the drainage gas relative
permeability (fitted) curve; maroon line is the imbibition gas relative permeability (fitted) curve. Green line is the
water relative permeability curve which was calculated using brine specific permeability measurements, air-brine
capillary pressure measurements, and the Brooks and Corey (1964) methodology.

B
After generating the gas relative permeability data from both drainage and the imbibition experiments, extensive
modeling was performed to obtain the best relationship between gas relative permeability and water saturation for
individual rock types. Relative permeability characteristics for both gas and water were fairly common among the
different samples, with only minor differences among the rock types. This allowed us to adopt a common relative
permeability curve fit which honored the data as well or better than more complicated, rock-type-dependent
analysis. The resulting common model is shown in Figure 6 with data from seven samples of the best rock type.

DYNAMIC RESERVOIR CHARACTERIZATION

The relative permeability models for gas and water suggest that the relative permeabilities are functions of formation
actual water saturation and absolute permeability. Although these models are common models, independent of rock
types, they will show difference in the relative permeability behavior for different rock types, because the rock types
have distinct water saturation and absolute permeability ranges. Figure 7 compares the dynamic flow characteristics
of the three producible rock types as introduced in Figure 2.
The left column shows the correlations between the inverse of the irreducible water saturation (1/Swirr) and the
NMR geometric mean T2 time based on core NMR measurements. There is a reasonable relationship between the
Swirr and the geometric mean T2 time (Liu et al, 2011).
The middle column displays the gas and water relative permeability change with the water saturation. The drainage
gas relative permeability (dark blue) and the imbibition gas relative permeability (dark green) are plotted against the
water saturation on a semi-logarithmic scale. Their difference is due to hysteresis related to gas trapping. The water
relative permeability is also plotted as a function of the water saturation by semi-logarithmic scale. These relative
permeability curves are based on the modeling of core effective permeability measurements and core capillary
pressure measurements, as discussed previously.

SPWLA 53rd Annual Logging Symposium, June 16-20, 2012

krgd data
krgd model

krgi data
krgi model

krw specific data

krw model

kr, k effective/k absolute

0.1

0.01

Rock Type 1
0.001

0.0001

0.00001

0.000001
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Sw

Figure 6. Relative permeability plot derived using common curve fit model described in text. Measurement is on
Rock Type 1 samples.
Inverse of Irreducible Water Saturation

Relative Permeability

Fractional Flow

Swirr ~ 7 to 14%

Swirr ~ 18 to 50%

Swirr ~ 61 to 95%

Figure 7. Characterization of rock types by dynamic flow properties. On the relative permeability plot, dark blue
represents drainage gas relative permeability, dark green represents imbibition gas relative permeability, and pink
is water relative permeability. The three rock types have different relative permeability intersection locations
relative to the red threshold.

SPWLA 53rd Annual Logging Symposium, June 16-20, 2012

Unlike conventional reservoirs, the relative permeabilities (and therefore the effective permeabilities) are rather
small at the reservoir water saturation range, especially the water relative permeability. This explains why hydraulic
fracturing is necessary for tight gas to flow and why gas dominates the flow. The gas and water relative
permeability curves suggest strong water-wet characteristics: the curve intersection has high water saturation
(>60%) and low relative permeability (<0.01 or 1%).
The right column illustrates the gas and water fractional flow relationship with the water saturation under reservoir
conditions. Again, unlike conventional reservoirs, the fractional flow profile shows a much sharper slope due to the
high gas to water mobility ratio, which indicates that it is uncommon to have simultaneous gas and water flows at a
certain water saturation range for the same rock type.
The three rock types are arranged by rows. For Rock Type 1, the pore body and pore throat sizes are larger, the
geometric mean T2 is longer, the irreducible (clay-bound) water saturation Swirr is lower, and the initial reservoir
water saturation is lower.
On the relative permeability plot, an arbitrary threshold of 0.01 (or 1%) has been set up for both the gas and the
water relative permeabilities. For tight sand whose absolute permeability is in micro-Darcies, the 0.01 relative
permeability threshold will render the effective permeability to tens of nano-Darcies. In order to compare the
relative permeability characteristics among the rock types, it is assumed that there will not be any flow on an
effective production time scale below this threshold. Some authors refer to this as permeability jail (Cluff et al,
2010).
The first diagram in the middle column shows the relative permeability curve for Rock Type 1. The drainage
curve starts from low initial water saturation. On the left side of the
water does not flow because

k rgd

k rgd and krw intersection, gas flows while

krw is below the threshold. Gas flow region is represented by the orange box. In the

neighborhood (red arrow region) of the intersection, the relative permeabilities of both phases drop below the
threshold; the two phases are locked in a state of ultra-low total mobility. Neither phase will flow on a production
time scale. After this no-flow region, k rw is above the threshold and k rgd is below the threshold, so water flows
while gas does not flow (blue box region).
The corresponding fractional flow diagram on the right column takes into account of the mobility competition
between the two phases to illustrate the gas and water flow performances as a function of water saturation under
reservoir conditions. These fractional flows are translated into water cut and gas production at surface conditions.
Rock Type 1 mainly contributes to gas production, unless the initial water saturation is very high, consistent with a
Sw transition zone (Hartmann et al, 1990). No free water level has been observed in Cotton Valley, and therefore
the water saturation is not very sensitive to the height above free water level. Pore geometry is the dominant factor
which controls water saturation and fluid flow.
For Rock Type 2, the pore body and pore throat sizes are smaller than Rock Type 1, but not distinctly different, as
displayed on the pore throat distribution diagram (Figure 2), the geometric mean T2 is shorter, the irreducible (claybound) water saturation is higher, and the initial water saturation is higher.
The relative permeabilities on the second diagram in the middle column of Figure 7 are characterized by a narrow
gas flow range (orange box) due to the higher initial water saturation and a lower initial gas relative permeability, a
narrow no-flow region (red arrow region), and a close distance between the relative permeability intersection and the
relative permeability threshold. At high water saturation, water will flow and gas will become immobile. The
fractional flow reconfirms what has been observed from the relative permeability characteristics.
Rock Type 3 is poorly sorted, very fine grained, and pervasive with microporous clays. The pore throat distribution
diagram (Figure 2) illustrates this. The geometric mean T2 time is the shortest, Swirr is the highest, and the initial
water saturation is high. The relative permeability characteristics of this rock type in Figure 7 are significantly
different from the other two rock types due to the high initial water saturation. There is no gas flow in this example
according to the assumed relative permeability threshold. The relative permeability intersection has moved further
up and is very close to the assumed relative permeability threshold. The water relative permeability at Sw=100% is

SPWLA 53rd Annual Logging Symposium, June 16-20, 2012

higher than the other two rock types. This rock type can cause most of the water production, especially after the
formation is hydraulically fractured. The water fractional flow diagram shows that this rock type can be the major
contributor to high water cut.
The present data suggest that the difference in both the relative permeability model and the fractional flow model
among the three producible rock types is negligible if the water saturation is the same. More and representative
core plug measurements will clarify this. However, both the relative permeabilities and the fractional flows are
functions of water saturation. The three rock types have distinct water saturation ranges. This will lead to very
different dynamic behavior under reservoir conditions even with the present common relative permeability model.
Additionally, any tectonic uplift in the post gas migration period may have forced the rock / fluid system into
imbibition depending upon the balance of porosity re-bound and gas and water depressurization effects. As is
observed from Figure 7, the imbibition gas relative permeability behaves very differently by rock type due to the
different water saturation when the imbibition starts. If the reservoir is at the imbibition stage, the relative
permeability and the fractional flow will be very different.
Based on the above observations, identifying the different rock types and understanding their flow performances can
help us to target the gas producing zones and avoid the water-prone zones.

STRATIGRAPHIC FLOW PROFILE

The purpose of dynamic petrophysical reservoir characterization is to use the knowledge of petrophysical properties
to better predict reservoir flow performance and to reasonably estimate well productivity. It is fundamental for field
development and reservoir management. Given our understanding of static petrophysical rock types and their
dynamic production characteristics, we applied the modified Lorenz plot technique and constructed well flow
profiles based on flow units. A flow profile along the wellbore is an effective graphical expression that helps to
visualize well productivity foot by foot. It provides a more accurate prediction of the well production performance,
and is suitable for supporting completion strategies and decisions. It can also be used as a surrogate for a base line
production log, which has proven helpful in reservoir surveillance studies. The following terminology used in a
reservoir flow profiling and performance study (Gunter et al, 1997) warrants a brief review here.
1.

Flow unit - a stratigraphically continuous interval of similar relative flow capacity based on its storage
capacity. It honors the geologic framework and maintains characteristics of rock types. Relative flow
capacity can be measured by the R35_Winland parameter or the ratio of permeability to porosity.
R35_Winland corresponds to the calculated pore throat radius (microns) at 35% mercury saturation from a
mercury injection capillary pressure test. It can be calculated directly from Winlands equation or other
equations based on permeability and porosity (Gunter et al, 1997).

2.

Storage capacity - the product of porosity and the corresponding thickness. By using total porosity, the
storage will be total fluid, including free gas, free water, residual gas, and irreducible water. Rock Type 4
(tight silt) and Rock Type 5 (shale) both have non-zero total porosity. They both will have storage
capacity.

3.

Flow capacity - the product of permeability and the corresponding thickness. The non-producible rock
types Rock Type 4 and Rock Type 5 have near zero permeability. Their flow capacity will be near zero.

4.

Relative flow capacity the percent flow capacity divided by the percent storage capacity.

5.

Stratigraphic Lorenz plot (SLP) - a plot of percent flow capacity versus percent storage capacity ordered in
stratigraphic sequence. It offers guidance to subdivide the stratigraphic sequence into flow units. The
shape of the SLP curve is indicative of the reservoir flow performance, and the flow units should retain this
character. Flow units with steep slopes have a greater relative flow capacity, and therefore are likely to be
more productive. They are called productive zones. Productive zones will mainly consist of
producible rock types. The better quality the component rock types, the more productive the flow unit.

SPWLA 53rd Annual Logging Symposium, June 16-20, 2012

The non-producible rock types (tight silt and shale) have storage capacity (mainly irreducible water) but
little flow capacity. They will appear as flat segments or points on the SLP curve. If laterally extensive
these are often called reservoir baffles. Preliminary flow units (productive zones and baffles) are
interpreted by selecting changes in slope or inflection points on the SLP curve. This is an iterative process.
Both the flow unit dynamic characteristics and the geological framework need to be honored.
6.

Modified Lorenz plot (MLP) - a plot of flow capacity versus storage capacity that is computed on a flow
unit basis. Unlike the original SLP, this plot can sort the flow units in decreasing order of the flow capacity
or in decreasing order of the relative flow capacity. On the MLP curve, the best productive zones will sit at
the bottom left-hand corner, and the poorest rock types, the most likely baffles, will sit at the upper righthand corner.

7.

Stratigraphic flow profile - a plot used to display the flow unit division and their flow performances footby-foot. It normally contains a correlation log curve (e. g., GR), core data, porosity, permeability,
R35_Winland, rock type, percent storage capacity and percent flow capacity.

By applying the Lorenz plot technique, the geological zones can be divided into flow units and their flow
characteristics can be studied. In our study well, the Cotton Valley tight gas sands were divided into twelve flow
units based on the SLP (Figure 8), honoring the geological zonation within the Cotton Valley Formation.
Here, some modification over the original SLP definition is necessary. When the SLP technique was first
introduced, the authors correctly pointed out that we are ignoring the effect that water saturation has in reducing
storage capacity. In practice, ignoring saturation is very dangerous. (Gunter et al, 1997) In terms of gas
production, the presence of water will reduce both the gas storage capacity and the gas flow capacity. Gas storage
capacity and gas flow capacity are derived from gas porosity and gas effective permeability, both of which are
functions of water saturation. Although an SLP of gas flow capacity versus gas storage capacity could be generated
as a variation of the original defined SLP, the non-producible rock types (i.e. potential reservoir baffles) would
disappear from this plot, and the sum of the flow unit thicknesses on the plot would not equal the gross formation
thickness. This type of SLP plot would not be a foot-by-foot representation of the reservoir flow performance.
As a modification (Figure 8), the gas flow capacity (gas effective permeability multiplied by thickness) is plotted
versus total storage capacity (total porosity multiplied by thickness). This modified SLP plot has steep segments
representing gas productive flow units and flat segments or points representing gas flow baffles. Thus, the water
saturation effect on reducing the gas flow capacity is taken into account, the gas flow baffles are preserved on the
plot, and the plot is kept as a foot-by-foot expression of the reservoir gas flow performance prediction for the
interval. A similar SLP plot can be generated by plotting the water flow capacity versus total storage capacity. It
will help to identify the water productive flow units and allow them to be avoided in the completion design. These
plots affirm that an integration of effective or relative permeability is needed, not only in reservoir simulation, but
even more importantly in volumetric-based formation evaluation and pay definition studies.
Figure 8a colors the SLP curve by flow units. The flow units are picked honoring the geological zonation and are
arranged in the stratigraphic sequence of the Cotton Valley Formation, with Lower Cotton Valley at the bottom
having higher flow unit numbers and Upper Cotton Valley at the top having lower flow unit numbers. Each flow
unit has a relatively constant slope. Gas productive zones and gas flow baffles can be identified by the slope
change. Figure 8b colors the SLP curve by rock types. As discussed previously, the producible rock types are
Rock Type 1 in red, Rock Type 2 in yellow, and Rock Type 3 in orange. Rock Type 1 has the best storage and flow
capacities. The non-producible rock types are Rock Type 4 (tight) in blue and Rock Type 5 (shale) in grey.
Comparing the two SLP plots, when a flow unit is steep, it is mainly made of Rock Type 1 and 2, the two good rock
types; when a flow unit is flat, it is mainly made of the non-producible rock types or the poorer producible rock
types with high water saturation.
The Modified Lorenz Plot (MLP) technique was applied in Figure 9 by rearranging the stratigraphically numbered
flow units in the gas flow capacity (Y increment) descending order (Figure 9a) and in the gas relative flow capacity
(slope) descending order (Figure 9b). Flow Units 2, 3, 8 in the Upper Cotton Valley and Flow Units 10, 12 in the
Lower Cotton Valley have high gas flow-capacities (Y increment) and high gas relative flow capacities (slope).

10

SPWLA 53rd Annual Logging Symposium, June 16-20, 2012

These are the gas productive zones. Flow units 4, 5, 7 are interbedded with some high water fractional flow zones
(observed later in Figure 10), so gas from these units can be commingled with water, especially after hydraulic
fracturing. The tight silt or shale units 6, 9, 11 at the top right hand corners on both plots are gas flow baffles.

(a)
(b)
Figure 8. Modified Stratigraphic Lorenz Plot (SLP) of the Cotton Valley Formation. (a) Colored by flow units; (b)
Colored by rock types. Productive flow units consist of good quality rock types; baffle flow units consist of poor
quality rock types. This plot used gas effective permeability rather than rock absolute permeability.

(a)
(b)
Figure 9. Modified Lorenz Plot of the Cotton Valley Formation. (a) Flow units in gas flow capacity (Y increment)
descending order from bottom to top; (b) Flow units in gas relative flow capacity (slope) descending order from
bottom to top. Flow units are marked by numbers. Flow units with larger numbers are stratigraphically deeper.
Flow Units 2, 3, 8 (Upper Cotton Valley Sandstones) and Flow Units 10, 12 (Lower Cotton Valley Taylor
Sandstones) are shown to be the major gas producers in this Field.

11

SPWLA 53rd Annual Logging Symposium, June 16-20, 2012

Figure 10 shows composite stratigraphic flow profiles based on rock type and flow unit analysis from logs. Track 8
displays the NMR derived rock types as described in the static petrophysics study. Red is the best rock type (Rock
Type 1). Grey is the poorest rock type (Rock Type 5). Track 9 has gas fractional flow in red and water fractional
flow in blue, plotted in opposite directions, each using half track. Their values range from zero to one. In
producible rock types, their sum is one. In non-producible rock types, there is no flow capacity. They are both
zero. In this tight gas formation, it is rare that a rock type flows both gas and water simultaneously, so the fractional
flow values are close to either zero or one, rather than in the middle range of zero to one. This track demonstrates
that the Upper Cotton Valley is more prone to high water cut than the Lower Cotton Valley. Track 10 shows the
cumulative gas flow capacity foot-to-foot from bottom to top, calculated by the Lorenz plot technique. This can be
used as a baseline production log for completion design and for time-lapse comparison with future production logs
(Jacobsen et al, 2006).
Observations from Figures 9 and 10 have been confirmed by regional production performance. Ideally, if
production log data were acquired and were in excellent quality, a production flow profile could be derived and
compared with the gas flow capacity profile in Figure 10 for each logged well. That would help to calibrate and
refine the petrophysical model. Several production logging jobs in Cotton Valley horizontal wells have been
planned. This will improve the understanding of the reservoir and guide the corresponding completion strategies.
In summary, an integrated, dynamic, petrophysical reservoir characterization workflow for tight sands has been
developed and applied to the Cotton Valley Formation. Combined with the previous petrophysical static rock typing
study, the integrated field-wide petrophysical static and dynamic studies will reduce uncertainties in reserves
estimation, improve initial rate prediction, guide surveillance data acquisition, and facilitate informed reservoir
management decisions throughout the life of a field.
GR, CALI, Badhole

Porosity Logs Resistivity Logs Porosity

Permeability

Water
Saturation

R35_Winland

Rock Type

Fractional
Flow

Gas Flow
Capacity
Cum

10

Flow Unit

11

Figure 10. Composite stratigraphic flow profile of the Cotton Valley Formation. There exists good correlation
between rock type quality and flow unit gas flow capacity. Good rock types (red, yellow) constitute high gas flow
capacity flow units.

12

SPWLA 53rd Annual Logging Symposium, June 16-20, 2012

CONCLUSIONS
A comprehensive dataset of core measurements and log measurements was acquired in a Cotton Valley tight gas
sand study well. A petrophysical rock typing method was previously developed by integrating log and core data
which provides a unique view of the intricate pore geometry and pore network in the heavily cemented tight gas
sands. A dynamic petrophysical study using relative permeability measurements on core samples has enabled the
calculation of gas effective permeability and fractional flow under reservoir conditions. Reservoir gas flow capacity
and storage capacity have been derived, and the reservoir has been subdivided into flow units. Flow units with high
gas flow capacities have been identified and confirmed by regional well productivity performance evaluation. This
integrated reservoir static and dynamic petrophysical study has helped us to refine infill drilling targets, enhance
completion strategies, improve reservoir surveillance programs, and make wiser reservoir management decisions.
Production log data reflecting individual frac-stage production contribution will be collected to further refine the
petrophysical model and to improve the completion strategies.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank BP America, Inc. for permission to publish this work. The authors appreciate the
cooperation between BP and Core Laboratories and acknowledge the managerial support from each.

NOMENCLATURE
fg = gas fractional flow, fraction
fw = water fractional flow, fraction
k absolute = absolute slip-free (Klinkenberg) permeability of the rock, md
k effective = effective slip-free (Klinkenberg) permeability to a specific flowing phase, md
kg = effective permeability to gas, md
kr = relative permeability to a specific flowing phase, fraction
kw = effective permeability to water, md
krg = relative permeability to gas, fraction
krgd = relative permeability to gas in the water-drainage direction of saturation change, fraction
krgi = relative permeability to gas in the water-imbibition direction of saturation change, fraction
krw = relative permeability to water, fraction
krwd = relative permeability to water in the water-drainage direction of saturation change, fraction
krwi = relative permeability to water in the water-imbibition direction of saturation change, fraction
krw specific = relative permeability to water at 100 percent water saturation, fraction
Mg = gas relative mobility, 1/cp
Mw = water relative mobility, 1/cp
ngd = exponent of drainage relative permeability to gas function
ngi = exponent of imbibition relative permeability to gas function
nw = exponent of relative permeability to water function
Sg = gas saturation, fraction
Sgc = critical gas saturation, fraction
Sgi = initial gas saturation, fraction
Sgt = trapped gas saturation, fraction
Sgt max = maximum trapped gas saturation, fraction
Sw = water saturation, fraction
Swcg = critical water saturation with respect to gas
Swcw = critical water saturation with respect to water
Swi = initial water saturation, final drainage water saturation before water imbibition
g = gas viscosity, cp

= water viscosity, cp

13

SPWLA 53rd Annual Logging Symposium, June 16-20, 2012

REFERENCES
Brooks, R.M. and Corey, A. T. 1964. Hydraulic Properties of Porous Media. Hydraulic Paper (3). Colorado State
University, fort Collins, Colorado.
Cluff, R. M., Byrnes, A. P. 2010. Relative Permeability in Tight Gas Sandstone Reservoirs the Permeability
Jail Model: Society of Professional Well Log Analysts, 51st Annual Logging Symposium Transactions. P. -16.
Corey, A. T. 1977. Mechanics of Heterogeneous Fluid in Porous Media: Water Resources Publications, Fort
Collins, Colorado, 1977.
Dacy, J. M. 2010. Core Tests for Relative Permeability of Unconventional Gas Reservoirs: Paper SPE 135427,
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Florence, Italy, 19-22 September 2010.
Dacy, J. M. 2011. BP_presentation_ TW_George_A8-H_kr_Model.ppt: BP internal, Houston, August 2011.
Dake, L. P. 2002. Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering: Elsevier, Nineteenth Impression, London, 2002.
Gunter, G. W., Finneran, J. M., Hartman, D. J., and Miller, J. D. 1997. Early Determination of Reservoir Flow
Units Using an Integrated Petrophysical Method: Paper SPE 38679, presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition held in San Antonio, Texas, USA, 5-8 October 1997.
Gunter, G. W., Pinch, J. J., Finneran, J. M., and Bryant, W. T. 1997. Overview of an Integrated Process Model to
Develop Petrophysical Based Reservoir Descriptions: Paper SPE 38748, presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition held in San Antonio, Texas, USA, 5-8 October 1997.
Hartmann, D. J. and Coalson, E. B. 1990. Evaluation of the Morrow Sandstone in Sorrento Field, Cheyenne
County, Colorado: Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists, 1990.
Jacobsen, S., May, D., Grant, J., and Little, J. 2006. Producibility Prediction In Gas Sands Through Effective
Integration of NMR, Resistivity, and Porosity Log Data: Society of Professional Well Log Analysts 47th Annual
Logging Symposium. Paper I. P. -24.
Liu, S., Spain, D. R., Devier, C., Buller, D., and Murphy, E., 2011. Integrated Petrophysical Study of a North
America Tight Gas Sand: Cotton Valley Formation, East Texas: Society of Professional Well Log Analysts 52nd
Annual Logging Symposium. Paper D. P. -16.
Miller, M. and Shanley, K. 2010. Petrophysics in Tight Gas Reservoirs Key Challenges Still Remain: The
Leading Edge, December 2010.
Spain, D. R., Liu, S., and Devier, C. 2011. Petrophysical Rock Typing of Tight Gas Sands - Beyond Porosity and
Saturation: Example from the Cotton Valley Formation, East Texas: Paper SPE 142808-pp, presented at the SPE
Middle East Unconventional Gas Conference and Exhibition, Muscat, Oman, 31 January2 February 2011.

14

SPWLA 53rd Annual Logging Symposium, June 16-20, 2012

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Shujie Liu is a Petrophysicist with BP North America Gas. She studied Oil and Gas
Exploration in China National Oil and Gas Research Institute, Beijing, and studied
Reservoir Evaluation and Management in Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh. She holds a
PhD in Oil and Gas Exploration and an MSc in Reservoir Management. She has worked
as a Petrophysicist and Reservoir Engineer in China oil & gas fields, UK North Sea fields,
USA Prudhoe Bay field, and is now working with East Texas unconventional resources.
She is a member of SPWLA.

David Spain is the Discipline Lead for Geology and Petrophysics for BP North America
Gas, and an Advisor in Unconventional Gas Petrophysics. David has over 30 years in
Appraisal and Development as a Reservoir Geologist and member of Integrated Reservoir
Management Teams across the globe. David is a Distinguished Alumni of the Amoco
Petrophysics XXII Training Program in Tulsa, Oklahoma where he spent 8 years in the
Petrology/Lithochemistry and Production Research departments. David is the BP Shale
Gas Community of Practice Leader and was previously the subsurface team leader for the
East Texas Cotton Valley and Haynesville Shale appraisal projects. David graduated with
his B.S. (Hons.) from Murray State University, and his M.Sc. in Geology from Vanderbilt
University in Nashville, Tennessee in 1982. He is a member of AAPG, SPE, and
SPWLA.
John Dacy is Technical Director for the Petroleum Services division of Core Laboratories
and is based in their Houston, Texas office. He graduated with a B.S. degree in geology
from the University of Texas at Arlington in 1972 and began his career with Core Lab the
same year working in their Dallas Special Core Analysis lab. In his 39 years at Core he
has held a variety of technical and administrative positions. As Technical Director he
provides training and other support to Core Lab's worldwide network of rock properties
laboratories on issues of technology transfer, testing protocols, data applications, and
quality assurance. He is a member of SPWLA, SPE, AAPG, SEG, and the Society of
Core Analysts.

15