Estimating Permeability from Porosity in Alabama Ferry Field:

the Rock-Fabric Approach

Lucia, F. Jerry
Bureau of Economic Geology, John A. and Katherine G. Jackson School of Geosciences,
The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78713-8924

Abstract
Characterizing fluid flow in carbonate reservoirs is difficult because of the robust mixture of pore types
found in carbonates. Pore types that contribute most to permeability are interparticle and touching vug. Per-
meability from interparticle porosity is related to pore-size distribution, which can be linked to rock-fabric
descriptions. Separate vugs may add to flow capacity, but their contribution has been shown to be small. Core
analysis and wireline logs measure total porosity, which in most carbonates combines interparticle and sepa-
rate-vug porosity. In order to predict permeability from porosity, core and log measurements must be
separated into interparticle and separate-vug porosity.
Samples from Alabama Ferry field were used to quantify the relationship between separate-vug poros-
ity, intergrain porosity, and permeability. Thin sections were made from 22 perm-plugs of skeletal/ooid
grainstone having varying amounts of grain molds and intragrain microporosity. Porosity and permeability
data do not plot in the grainstone field of Lucia (1995) using total porosity. However, when interparticle poros-
ity, determined by subtracting separate-vug porosity from total porosity, is used, the data plot in the
grainstone field. Scatter does not decrease, however, because of the sampling bias of the thin sections. MRI
scans of the perm-plugs show that porosity due to large pores is highly variable within the perm-plugs. Perme-
ability values calculated by using the rock-fabric approach capture important high-permeability values,
whereas those calculated by the simple petrophysical approach do not.

Introduction
The economics of producing hydrocarbons from a carbonate reservoir is closely tied to volume of oil, which is
related to porosity, and production rate, which is related to permeability. Production rate is arguably the most impor-
tant factor. However, porosity is the attribute most commonly used to describe a carbonate field as opposed to
permeability, and a number of data show that there is no relationship between porosity and permeability, especially in
carbonate rocks. Porosity most likely is used because pore space can be observed in rock samples, and porosity can be
readily measured by using wireline logs. Permeability, however, cannot be observed and is difficult to determine from
wireline logs.
Permeability is difficult to determine because of the robust mixture of carbonate pore types. A method of orga-
nizing carbonate pore types into petrophysically significant groups was proposed by Lucia (1995, 1999), however. All
carbonate porosity is divided into interparticle (intergrain and intercrystal) and vuggy (within grains/crystals or larger
than grains) porosity. Permeability is a function of pore-size distribution, which can be characterized by particle size,
shape, and sorting, and by interparticle porosity (Fig. 1). In limestones, size and sorting are controlled by depositional
environment, and interparticle porosity by cementation and compaction (diagenesis). Limestone rock fabrics are
divided into three basic petrophysical groups on the basis of grain size and sorting: grainstone (class 1), grain-domi-
nated packstone (class 2), and mud-dominated fabrics including mud-dominated packstone, wackestone, and
mudstone (class 3). Dolostones are formed by replacement of limestone by dolomite but often have rock fabrics sim-
ilar to limestone fabrics. Dolograinstones are class 1, and grain-dominated dolopackstones are class 2. Dolomite
crystal size, however, has a dominant effect on pore-size distribution in mud-dominated fabrics. Fine-crystalline,
mud-dominated dolostone has class-3 petrophysical properties, similar to those of mud-dominated limestones.
Medium-crystalline, mud-dominated dolostone has class-2 petrophysical properties, similar to those of grain-domi-
nated packstone. Large-crystalline dolostone has class-1 petrophysical properties, similar to those of grainstones
(Lucia, 1995). Amount of interparticle porosity in dolostones is thought to be inherited from the precursor limestone
and is reduced by overdolomitization (Lucia, 1999).

Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies Transactions, Volume 52, 2002 673
 Lucia

PETROPHYSICAL CLASSES
GRAIN-DOMINATED FABRIC MUD-DOMINATED FABRIC
GRAINSTONE PACKSTONE PACKSTONE WACKESTONE MUDSTONE

Class 3
Note: bar is 100 mm

Limestone

Class 2
Dolomite
Class 1
Crystal size
<20 mm

Limestone

Crystal size
20–100 mm
Dolomite
Crystal size
<100 mm

Crystal size
Crystal size >100 mm
>100 mm

Pore space
Lime mud Dolomite crystals

Figure 1. Petrophysical/rock-fabric classes based on similar capillary properties and interparticle porosity/
permeability transforms.
^
Vuggy porosity is divided into two groups on the basis of vug interconnection (Lucia, 1995). Vugs intercon-
nected through interparticle porosity are termed separate vugs, and vugs that form an interconnected pore system
independent of the interparticle pore network are termed touching vugs. Separate vugs contribute little to permeabil-
ity, although they do contribute to reservoir volume. Touching vugs form their own permeability network and
commonly control the production rate of a reservoir.

Alabama Ferry Field

Alabama Ferry field is located in Leon County, Texas, within the Lower Cretaceous Glen Rose Formation. It
has been the subject of a number of papers, including Pollard (1989, 1990), Bruno et al. (1991), and Fitchen et al.
(1997). It is a cyclic shoal complex located approximately 15 to 30 mi north of the Glen Rose shelf margin. Three
facies were described by Fitchen et al. (1997)—ooid/skeletal/intraclast grainstone, skeletal wackestone-packstone,
and shale. These facies are stacked into two main high-frequency cycles composed of shale and shaly skeletal wacke-
stone-packstone overlain by thick (20-ft) grainstone beds (Fig. 2). A third cycle is apparently present at the south
edge of the field (Fitchen et al., 1997).
The relationship between rock fabric, porosity, and permeability was studied in detail in one well, the Lasmo
Wingfield No. 2. A cross plot of porosity and permeability from this well is illustrated in Figure 3. Although the per-
meable samples are grainstones, most plot in the class-2 petrophysical field of Lucia (1995), as opposed to the class-
1 field as predicted. Also, a number of data points having less than 0.1 md permeability and 3 percent porosity fall to
the left of the rock-fabric trends. These anomalous data will not be considered in this paper because (1) the perme-
ability is too low to be considered as pay and (2) the permeability data are questionable and need to be verified before
they can be considered reliable.
674
 Estimating Permeability from Porosity in Alabama Ferry Field: the Rock-Fabric Approach

Permeability (md)
0.01 1000
9160

Cycle 1

9180
Depth (ft)

Porosity
Permeability Cycle 2 Figure 2. Depth plot of core analysis data from Lasmo
Wingfield No. 2 showing facies successions and loca-
tion of thin-section samples.

9200

0 5 10 15 20 25
Porosity (percent)
Skeletal/ooid Shaly-mud-dominated
grainstone limestone
Sample location

^
1000
Wingfield No. 2 Class 1
Alabama Ferry field Class 2
100
Permeability (md)

Class 2
10
Figure 3. Porosity-permeability cross plot of core data
from Lasmo Wingfield No. 2 showing rock-fabric
1 petrophysical classes. Most of the data above 0.1 md
fall within the class 2 field.

0.1

0.01
1 5 10 40
Porosity (percent)

^
Thin sections were made from 22 perm-plugs of skeletal/ooid grainstone facies (Fig. 2) and described petro-
graphically. As reported by Fitchen et al. (1997), pore types include intergrain, moldic, and intragrain microporosity,
the latter two being types of separate-vug pores. Grain types include ooid, skeletal, and intraclast. The volume of
these fabric elements was determined by describing 300 points per section (Table 1). Intragrain microporosity is diffi-
cult to quantify using thin sections but does not appear to be a major pore type. No systematic vertical change was
observed in these fabric elements. Porosity is significantly lower than that of modern grainstones (Enos and Sawatsky,
1981). It is occluded by calcite cement in both interparticle and moldic pore space and by compaction in the form of
crushed and compacted grains.

675
 Lucia

Table 1. Core-analysis and fabric data from thin-section point counts, Alabama Ferry Field, Wingfield No. 2.

Core
Depth Thin Section Ippor Allochems
Analysis

Perm. Phi Ippor Svug Visible Phi Phi-Svug Ooids Skeletal Intraclasts
(ft)
(md) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

9170.0 208 13.6 14.6 2.2 16.8 11.4 2.6 22.0 9.3
9171.0 46 16.6 11.3 5.6 16.9 11.0 11.0 16.3 22.6
9172.0 49 17.3 8.0 7.6 15.6 9.7 10.0 18.3 19.3
9173.0 81 14.2 18.0 2.9 20.9 11.3 2.32 27.6 2.0
9175.0 25 17.3 5.6 4.6 10.2 12.7 11.6 20.3 32.0
9176.0 2.0 14.2 6.0 6.0 12.0 8.2 1.1 24.0 26.6
9177.5 0.09 7.3 2.0 0.3 2.3 7.0 14.0 30.0 17.3
9178.5 0.24 9.1 3.6 1.3 4.9 7.8 2.3 73.3 6.3
9179.0 1.0 8.5 6.6 0.9 7.5 8.6 6.0 18.6 10.3
9180.0 0.62 11.3 7.6 4.0 11.6 7.3 2.0 34.0 16.3
9181.0 0.66 14.5 6.0 4.9 10.6 9.6 13.6 24.3 16.0
9182.4 5.5 8.9 6.3 4.6 10.6 4.3 3.0 24.0 4.0
9183.0 0.10 5.1 3.3 0.9 4.2 4.2 8.0 23.6 7.0
9191.0 0.033 9.7 1.3 0.6 1.9 9.1 4.3 20.3 55.3
9192.0 13 15.0 5.6 1.9 7.5 13.1 0.6 50.3 4.6
9193.0 13 15.3 7.3 7.6 14.9 7.7 6.0 34.3 7.3
9194.0 2.5 7.0 10.0 0.9 10.9 6.1 3.0 36.6 2.6
9195.0 0.20 8.7 1.6 1.2 2.8 7.5 10.6 38.0 10.6
9196.0 1.1 5.8 0.3 0.3 0.6 5.5 5.6 42.0 4.3
9197.0 0.26 10.2 6.6 5.6 12.2 4.6 8.6 33.0 5.6
9198.0 5.9 12.9 5.0 7.3 12.3 5.6 5.0 29.6 2.6
9199.2 0.04 2.5 0.3 0.3 0.6 2.2 1.6 43.0 3.0

^
A porosity-permeability cross plot of thin-section samples (Fig. 4) is similar to the plot of all samples shown in
Figure 3, in which the data plot mainly within the class-2 field. These two cross plots use total porosity, whereas per-
meability is controlled primarily by interparticle porosity within a rock-fabric petrophysical class. To obtain
interparticle porosity, moldic porosity from thin-section point counting is subtracted from total porosity measured by
core analysis. When interparticle porosity is used instead of total porosity, most of the data plot in the class-1 grain-
stone field (Fig. 5). The scatter does not decrease as expected, however, because of the sampling bias of the
thin sections.
Sampling bias occurs because it is unlikely that the porosity of a 30-micron slice from a 1.5-inch plug is the
average porosity of the plug. It is equally unlikely that the amount of moldic porosity or the allochems in the 30-
micron slice are average for the plug. The bias can be illustrated by two observations: (1) Visible porosity in the thin
section varies from 50 percent higher to 50 percent lower than core porosity (see Table 1). This variation might be
explained by intragrain microporosity, which is not visible, but microporosity does not appear to be abundant. (Capil-
lary pressure data are needed to quantify microporosity). (2) Low-resolution Magnetic Resonance Image (MRI) scans

676
 Estimating Permeability from Porosity in Alabama Ferry Field: the Rock-Fabric Approach
of perm-plugs show that porosity is highly variable within the perm-plugs (Fig. 6). This type of small-scale porosity
variability is commonly found in all carbonate fabrics and results in permeability varying by orders of magnitude at a
scale of inches to feet (Jennings et al., 2000). Because of this sampling bias, only the grainstone fabric (class 1) can be
assumed to be constant throughout the plug.
The importance of using interparticle porosity instead of total porosity is illustrated by comparing permeability
values calculated from a simple petrophysical porosity-permeability transform that uses total porosity with an
advanced transform that uses interparticle porosity and a class-1 transform. The first approach ignores the importance
of incorporating rock-fabric information into the transform and is a purely petrophysical approach. The second
approach recognizes the fact that rock fabric has a dominant control on pore-size distribution and on permeability.

1000
Class 1
Class 2
100
Permeability (md)

Figure 4. Cross plot of total porosity and permeabil-

10 Class 3
ity data from samples with thin sections showing a
similarity to plot of all core data.
1

0.1

0.01
1 5 10 40
Porosity (percent)

1000
Class 1
Class 2

100
Permeability (md)

Class 3
10 Figure 5. Cross plot of interparticle porosity and per-
meability. Data plot in the class 1 grainstone field.
1

0.1

0.01
1 5 10 40
Interparticle porosity (percent)

677
 Lucia

Figure 6. Low-resolution MRI scans from the end and middle of one 1.5-inch perm-plug. The plug is 1 inch in
diameter, and porosity increases with increasing darkness. The end slide has much less porosity than does the
middle slice.

^
A simple porosity-permeability transform is calculated from the core data (Fig. 7). It has a very low correlation
factor of 0.14, typical of many purely petrophysical transforms,
5 4.7817
k = ( 1.0612 × 10 ) × ϕ tp , R = 0.14 ........................................................................................................ (1)

where k = permeability (md) and ϕtp = fractional total porosity.

The rock-fabric approach uses a class-1 transform from Lucia (1995), which is based on data from a number of
grainstone fabrics, limestone, and dolostone:
8 8.537
k = ( 43.35 × 10 ) × ϕ ip ............................................................................................................................. (2)

where k = permeability (md) and ϕip = fractional interparticle porosity.

The permeability values resulting from these two approaches are compared on a porosity-permeability cross
plot in Figure 8. The maximum permeability calculated by the petrophysical approach is 24 md, and the average per-
meability is 7 md. The core analysis, however, has a number of values above 100 md and an average permeability of
20 md. In contrast, the maximum permeability calculated by the rock-fabric approach is 140 md, and the average per-
meability is 18 md, values that match the core values more closely.

Discussion
Capturing high- and low-permeability layers is very important in fluid-flow simulation. High-permeability lay-
ers control water breakthrough, and low-permeability layers control cross-flow and sweep efficiency. In Alabama
Ferry field, the low-permeability layers are the cycle-based, shaly-limestone, mud-dominated fabrics. The high-per-
meability layers are the grainstone cycle caps, and it is possible that there is a systematic layering of permeability
within grainstone units. The petrophysical approach underestimates permeability in the grainstone caps and does not
capture the complete range of permeability values present. A flow simulation based on the petrophysical approach
will result in underestimation of the time it will take for injected water to break through and overestimation of the
economic return of the waterflood.

678
 Estimating Permeability from Porosity in Alabama Ferry Field: the Rock-Fabric Approach
For the rock-fabric approach to be applied throughout Alabama Ferry field, interparticle porosity must be cal-
culated from wireline logs. The conventional method for calculating interparticle porosity from wireline logs is to use
cross plots of transit time and total porosity. To be useful, these cross plots should be calibrated with core descrip-
tions. This approach could not be applied in this field because very few combinations of porosity and sonic logs were
available.

1000

100
Permeability (md)

y = 1.0612e + 05 * x(4.7817)
R= 0.14182
10

0.1
0.01 0.05 0.1 0.4
Porosity (percent)
Figure 7. The simple petrophysical approach to calculating a porosity-permeability transform using total porosity.
^

1000
Core permeability values
Max K = 208 md
Mean K = 20 md
Rock-fabric
100 class 1 transform.
Permeability (md)

Interparticle porosity
Max K = 140 md Figure 8. Porosity-permeability cross plot showing
Mean K = 18 md
permeability values calculated using the rock-fabric
10 method and the petrophysical method compared with
core permeability values. The rock-fabric method
Petrophysical preserves high-permeability values, whereas the
transform.
1 Total porosity
petrophysical method does not.
Max. K = 24 md
Mean K = 7 md

0.1
1 5 10 40
Porosity (percent)

679
 Lucia

References
Bruno, Lawrence, D.L. Roy, G.S. Grinsfelder, and A.J. Lomando, 1991, Alabama Ferry Field, U.S.A.; East Texas Basin, Texas, in
N.H Foster, and E.A. Beaumont, eds., Stratigraphic Traps II: AAPG Treatise of Petroleum Geology, Atlas of Oil and Gas
Fields, p. 1-27.
Enos, Paul, and L.H. Sawatsky, 1981, Pore networks in Holocene carbonate sediments: Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v. 51,
no. 3, p. 961-985.
Fitchen, W.M., D.G. Bebout, and D.R. Prezbindowski, 1997, Production from Cretaceous high-permeability carbonate grain-
stones; Alabama Ferry, North Unit, Leon County, Texas, in R.P. Major, ed., Oil and Gas on Texas State Lands; an Assess-
ment of the Resource and Characterization of Type Reservoirs: The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic
Geology Report of Investigations No. 241, p. 117-126.
Jennings, J.W., Jr., S.C Ruppel, and W.B. Ward, 2000, Geostatistical analysis of permeability data and modeling of fluid-flow
effects in carbonate outcrops: SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, v. 3, no. 4, p. 292-303.
Lucia, F.J., 1995, Rock-fabric/petrophysical classification of carbonate pore space for reservoir characterization: AAPG Bulletin,
v. 79, no. 9, p. 1275-1300.
Lucia, F.J., 1999, Carbonate Reservoir Characterization: Heidelberg, Springer-Verlag, 226 p.
Pollard, Nick, 1989, Alabama Ferry (Glen Rose) field, Leon County, Texas, in Occurrence of Oil and Gas in Northeast Texas: East
Texas Geological Society, p. 1-14.
Pollard, Nick, 1990, Alabama Ferry (Glen Rose) field, Leon County, Texas: Bulletin of the South Texas Geological Society, v. 30,
no. 7, p. 13-26.

680