PETROPHYSICS

Vol. 60, No. 3 June 2019

 PETROPHYSICS
June Vol. 60, No. 3
Contents
350 From the Editor

The Society of
Petrophysicists and TUTORIAL
Well Log Analysts 351 Organic Mudstone Petrophysics, Part 3: Workflow to EsƟmate Storage Capacity
Kent Newsham, Joe Comisky, and Roland Chemali
8866 Gulf Freeway, Suite 320
Houston, TX 77017, USA
P: +1-713-947-8727
F: +1-713-947-7181 ARTICLES ͳ REGULAR SUBMISSIONS
Email: Sharon@spwla.org
Membership@spwla.org 373 ComposiƟon of the Shales in NiuƟtang FormaƟon at Huijunba Syncline and its
www.SPWLA.org Influence on Microscopic Pore Structure and Gas AdsorpƟon
Fu De-liang, Xu Guosheng, Tian Tao, Qin Jian-qiang, and Yang Fu
SPWLA Foundation. This fund
supports scholarships in higher educa on
and research in formation evaluation. 384 Accelerated Whole-Core Analysis OpƟmizaƟon With Wellsite Tomography
Please send dona ons to: SPWLA, 8866 InstrumentaƟon and Bayesian Inversion
Gulf Freeway, Suite 320, Houston, TX Alberto Mendoza, Lassi Roininen, Mark Girolami, Jere Heikkinen, and Heikki Haario
77017, USA
397 Finite-Volume ComputaƟons of Shale Tortuosity and Permeability From 3D Pore
ISSN 1529-9074 Networks Extracted From Scanning Electron Tomographic Images
PETROPHYSICS is published Mouin Almasoodi and Zulfiquar Reza
bimonthly by the Society of
Petrophysicists and Well Log Analysts 409 ApplicaƟon of a Fast NMR T1 RelaxaƟon Time Measurement to Sedimentary
(SPWLA). Subscription is included in Rock Cores
annual dues for members. Library Jonathan Mitchell and Andrea Valori
Subscription cost is $250 (6-issues,
Feb, April, June, Aug, Oct, Dec) Send
Subscription and member address 421 Reconsidering Klinkenberg’s Permeability Data
changes to the SPWLA business office. Douglas Ruth and Rasoul Arabjamaloei
Back issues if available are $35 each
to members and $45 each to library 429 DeterminaƟon of the Appropriate Value of m for EvaluaƟon of Carbonate Reservoirs
subscribers. With Vugs and Fractures at the Well-Log Scale
ADVERTISING RATES: (based on Dahai Wang and Jun Peng
one-time, full color) Full Page: $1500,
Half Page: $1200, Quarter Page: 438 Perched Water Contacts: Understanding Fundamental Controls
$1000. Additional fee for printing on Iulian N. Hulea
covers. Media kits are available by
contacting the SPWLA business office 450 Wellbore PosiƟoning While Drilling With LWD Measurements
or by visiting the SPWLA website
www.spwla.org. Responsibility: The Benny Poedjono, Dozie Nwosu, and Albert Mar n
statements and opinions expressed
in PETROPHYSICS are those of the
authors and should not be construed
as an official action or opinion of the
Society of Petrophysicists and Well
Log Analysts, Inc. © Copyright 2017
by the Society of Petrophysicists and
Well Log Analysts, Inc.
Full-Color versions of all technical arƟcles are available in the digital ediƟon of Petrophysics,
which is free to SPWLA members and can be found at Recent_Petrophysics_Journals.aspx.
About the Cover
SEM images of sample microscopic pores.
The organic pores are widely distributed,
As of Vol. 46 (1) 2005,
inorganic pores including intergranular The Society of Petrophysicists and Well Log Analysts
Petrophysics [ISSN: 1529-9074]
pores, crystal par cle pores, microcracks, is dedicated to the advancement of the science of forma on
evalua on through well logging and other forma on evalua on is indexed and abstracted in
and intragranular pore can also be seen in
techniques. SPWLA is dedicated to the applica on of these Thomson Reuters:
the images. See the ar cle by Fu et al. techniques, to the explora on and exploita on of gas, oil and Scien fic Cita on Index Expanded
other minerals. PETROPHYSICS publishes original contribu ons
Journal Cita on Report–Science
on theore cal and applied aspects of forma on evalua on;
par cularly well logging and petrophysics. Current Contents–Physical, Chemical,
PRINTED IN USA ON ACID FREE PAPER and Earth Sciences

June 2019 PETROPHYSICS 348

 PETROPHYSICS The Society of Petrophysicists and Well Log Analysts
Editor Board of Directors 2018–2019
Carlos Torres-Verdin President VP Finance
University of Texas at AusƟn Zhipeng “Z” Liu Jennifer Market
(+1) 512-471-4216 Kinder Morgan Lloyd’s Register
cverdin@aus n.utexas.edu Houston, TX, USA Houston, TX, USA
(+1) 713-369-8059 (+1) 713-302-8325
Associate Editors President@spwla.org VP-Finance@spwla.org

President-Elect VP PublicaƟons
Jesus Salazar Carlos Torres-Verdin
Acous cs and Rock Physics ConocoPhillips University of Texas at AusƟn
Richard Coates, Halliburton Houston, TX, USA Aus n, TX, USA
(+1) 281-293-5237 (+1) 512-471-4216
President-Elect@spwla.org VP-Publica ons@spwla.org

VP Technology VP IT
Core Analysis and Laboratory Petrophyiscs James Hemingway Mehrnoosh Saneifar
Gary Beck, Cardinal Geosciences Consultant BHP Petroleum
Manitou Springs, CO, USA Houston, TX, USA
(+1) 281-433-5170 (+1) 832-600-4046
VP-Technology@spwla.org VP-InfoTech@spwla.org

Electromagne cs VP EducaƟon
Fei Le, Baker Hughes Katerina Yared
SM Energy
Highlands Ranch, CO, USA
(+1) 720-431-7482
VP-Educa on@spwla.org
Forma on Tes ng
Mayank Malik, Chevron
REGIONAL DIRECTORS
N. America 1 Middle East/Africa/India
Adam Haecker Shouxiang (Mark) Ma
Integrated Forma on Evalua on ConƟnental Saudi Aramco
Chengbing Liu, Saudi Aramco Oklahoma City, OK, USA Dhahran, Saudi Arabia
Wilfrido Solano, Chevron (+1) 979-587-1061 (+966) 3874 6931
Director-NA1@spwla.org Director-MEA@spwla.org

N. America 2 Asia/Australia
Doug PaƩerson Rick Aldred
Integrated Forma on Evalua on and Case Studies Consultant Petrophysicist
Baker Hughes
Hesham El-Sobky, ConocoPhillips Houston, TX, USA Queensland, Australia
(+1) 713-879-4056 (+610) 408-453-351
Director-NA2@spwla.org Director-Asis-Aus@spwla.org

Magne c Resonance LaƟn America ExecuƟve Director

Nadege Bize-Forest Sharon Johnson
Lalitha Venkataramaman, Schlumberger
Schlumberger SPWLA
Wim Looyes jn, Shell Houston, TX 77017
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
(+552) 197 45 45 772 (+1) 713-947-8727
Director-LA@spwla.org sharon@spwla.org

Nuclear Europe
Pingjun Guo, ExxonMobil Michael Webster
ProducƟon Petrophysics Ltd
Aberdeen, Scotland, UK
(+440) 7568-476931
Director-Europe@spwla.org
Petroleum Geochemistry
Drew Pomerantz, Schlumberger

Well and Reservoir Surveillance

Gerardo Cedillo, BP

Managing Editor PublicaƟon Manager

Stephen Prensky Anna Tarlton
(+1) 301-593-4966 InkSpot PrinƟng
Data-Driven Analy cs sprensky@gmail.com 2301 S. Shaver
Chicheng Xu, Aramco Services Pasadena, TX 77502, USA
(+1) 713-472-1100
orders@inkspotprin ng.com

349 PETROPHYSICS June 2019

FROM THE EDITOR
Welcome to a new installment of Petrophysics! This issue comprises eight relevant and interesting regular-submission
papers together with the third and last part of the Tutorial on Petrophysics of Unconventional Resources. I hope you ¿nd the
material useful and applicable to your projects. The ¿rst and second parts of the tutorial by Newsham et al. received excellent
and enthusiastic comments from our readers; I assure you that the third part is equally interesting and worthwhile reading.
This is also my last issue as your Petrophysics editor and VP Publications. I thank you for the honor of your support and
I am glad and proud to report that during my last two years as VP Publications there were 100 refereed papers and 11 tutorials
published in Petrophysics, averaging an unprecedented 9.25 papers per issue. The published refereed papers included two
special issues devoted to topics of high contemporary technical relevance. All Petrophysics issues were published on time
and we commenced to assign DOI (Digital Object Identi¿er) numbers to all published papers. Likewise, papers recently
published in Petrophysics have experienced an upsurge in their number of citations, thereby increasing the overall reputation
of our Àagship technical journal. Documented Petrophysics Impact Factors have also been steadily risen. While the future
looks brighter than ever for Petrophysics, it is important to continue to motivate potential authors and attract relevant papers
to guarantee the same bimonthly rate of publications in the future. The latter does not happen spontaneously: one must “shake
the trees” and contact potential authors routinely, including those whose revised papers often fall into the cracks of the review
system.
I would like to take this opportunity to heartily thank my colleague, Stephen Prensky, Petrophysics Managing Editor,
for his excellent editing and organizational skills, which have been fundamental to cementing the technical reputation of
our journal. It was a pleasure working alongside him during these last two years; we exchanged myriad emails and phone
calls to make sure that every issue of Petrophysics would be well organized, published on time, and devoid of mistakes. My
strong gratitude goes to all the Petrophysics Associate Editors and reviewers, whose silent work and time behind the scenes
have greatly enhanced the quality of our journal; they deserve much of the credit for the wellbeing of Petrophysics. Without
their inÀux of technical acumen and voluntary time we could have not gotten this far. Thanks so much! It was also my great
privilege working with all the authors who penned refereed papers and tutorials for Petrophysics. It was one of the most
enjoyable highlights of my editorial role to have closely interacted with them. Please note that during the last two years I took
a personal vow not to publish my own coauthored papers in Petrophysics in order to avoid conÀicts of interest; I look forward
to returning as coauthor in the near future.
The reins of Petrophysics will now be in the dexterous and experienced hands of Tom Neville. I welcome Tom in his new
role of VP Publications and I pledge to work closely with him to secure a smooth transition forward.
Thanks for your unwavering support and professional endorsement during the last two years; may Petrophysics continue
to positively impact the fabulous world of Formation Evaluation!

Sincerely,
Carlos Torres-Verdín, Ph.D., Professor
Brian James Jennings Memorial Endowed Chair in Petroleum and Geosystems Engineering
Department of Petroleum and Geosystems Engineering
University of Texas at Austin
cverdin@mail.utexas.edu

June 2019 PETROPHYSICS 350

PETROPHYSICS, VOL. 60, NO. 3 (JUNE 2019); PAGES 351–371; 14 FIGURES; 2 TABLES. DOI: 10.30632/PJV60N3-2019T1

TUTORIAL
Organic Mudstone Petrophysics, Part 3: WorkÀow to Estimate Storage Capacity

Kent Newsham1, Joe Comisky2 and Roland Chemali3

This is the third of a three-part tutorial describing a workflow for evaluating unconventional resources including organic mudstones and tight
siltstones. Part 1 reviewed the unique challenges and provided an overview of the proposed workflow (Newsham et al., 2019a). Part 2 described in
detail the many components of the workflow and how they come together to determine the storage capacity of the reservoir (Newsham et al., 2019b).
Part 3 links the petrophysical results to the production potential in terms of fractional flow and water cut and presents alternate cross-checks of the
storage properties to validate the results.

INTRODUCTION Furthermore, the authors redirect the discussion

As stated in the previous tutorials a key function that
petrophysics provides is the estimation of accurate storage
properties. The authors recognize there are numerous
practical workÀows to estimate the storage capacity of these
complex systems and offer ours as a viable but not exclusive
option. Keep in mind that the goal is to provide consistent,
portable, hence, reliable estimation of hydrocarbon storage
capacity, aka “Petrophysics CPR”, as discussed in Part 2.
This is especially relevant when discussing reserves and
being able to defend the use of petrophysics as a “reliable
technology” as de¿ned by the US Securities and Exchange
Commission. The SEC de¿nes a “reliable technology”
as “... a grouping of one or more technologies (including
computational methods) that has been ¿eld tested and has
been demonstrated to provide reasonably certain results
with consistency and repeatability in the formation being
evaluated or in an analogous formation (Sidle and Lee,
2010).” Numerous papers are available discussing the impact
of the SEC de¿nition and rules changes made in 2014 (Sidle
and Lee, 2010, 2016; Lee, 2011; Glorioso and Rattia, 2011).
The approach for achieving Petrophysics CPR is what
we refer to as the “Three-Point Stance.” Conceptually,
the idea is to measure the same property from multiple
sources, including varying scales and methods. If the
property values are the same or similar, then the property
is considered constrained with minimal variance or error. In
Part 2, the authors’ focus was on the use of physical property
measurement from core as a validation reference. In Part 3,
we use multiple independent cross-checks to validate the
constrained simultaneous inversion results beyond core data.
We’ll expand on the use of advanced logs, such as magnetic
resonance (MR) and dielectric logs, to serve as independent
cross-checks of the storage properties and provide additional
examples in support of Petrophysics CPR.
towards crossdiscipline methods that complement the
workÀow. We’ll discuss some geochemistry and engineering
applications including the use of programmed pyrolysis to
estimate oil in place (OIP) and the fractional Àow analysis to
better de¿ne water-prone intervals. We tie the storage results
to production and discuss forecasting of the water/oil ratio
(WOR) or produced water cut.
STORAGE VALIDATION USING ADVANCED
LOGGING TECHNOLOGIES
In the workÀow of Part 2 we compute the volumes of
OIP and water in place through a rigorous log-interpretation
method, guided by, and anchored in core analysis and
cuttings analysis. Core and cuttings analyses by specialized
laboratories corroborate the mineralogy, including kerogen;
they help characterize the endpoints for dry clay. Core
analyses con¿rm the total porosity and the water saturation
computed by the inversion of the log data. Should there
remain discrepancies between cores and logs, we must
resolve them before we can con¿rm the storage volumes of
hydrocarbon in place.
We describe here a supplementary method for validating
the storage results from the workÀow of Part 2. This method
relies on two advanced logging technologies; magnetic
resonance and dielectric logging. The former measures the
total porosity, the latter yields the water-¿lled porosity.
In conventional reservoirs, the dielectric log is limited to
measuring water-¿lled porosity in the invaded zone due to
its shallow depth of investigation. But in unconventionals,
where invasion rarely takes place, the dielectric-based
measurement is representative of the true reservoir water
¿lled porosity. The downside of mudstones, namely their
extremely low permeability, turns into an advantage when
evaluating the water-¿lled porosity.

1
Occidental Petroleum Corp., 31827 Edgewater Dr. Magnolia, TX 77354; Kent_newsham@oxy.com
2
Devon Energy Corporation, 333 W Sheridan Ave, Oklahoma City, OK 73102; joe.comisky@dvn.com
3
Occidental Petroleum Corp, 5 Greenway Plaza, Suite 110, Houston, TX 77046; Roland_Chemali@oxy.com

351 PETROPHYSICS June 2019

 Organic Mudstone Petrophysics, Part 3: WorkÀow to Estimate Storage Capacity
Storage validation using magnetic resonance and
dielectric logs does not replace the comprehensive
core analysis integrated in the workÀow. It serves as an
independent cross-check of the Àuid output from the
workÀow. It further helps provide consistent, portable hence
reliable estimation of hydrocarbon storage capacity, also
known as “Petrophysics CPR.” The advanced technology
logging sensors provide an independent cross-check of total
porosity and water saturation since neither are included in
the constrained simultaneous inversion.
USE OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE FOR TOTAL
POROSITY
Direct measurement of total porosity by magnetic
resonance is a well-known, robust application for modern
logging technology (Coates et al., 1997). Since they were
¿rst introduced, magnetic resonance logs have been
publicized as the solution for determining free-Àuid volume
and permeability (Timur, 1991), Àuid viscosity (Morriss et
al., 1994), gas saturation (Akkurt et al., 1996), Àuid typing
(Anand et al., 2017) and total porosity (Coates et al., 1997).
Of all these applications, total porosity is the most robust. It
is the only one we consider in this tutorial.
Simply stated, the total magnetic resonance porosity
signal is directly proportional to the number of hydrogen
atoms contained in the pore Àuids. In that sense, it is similar
to the neutron log, except for the fact that the neutron log
is also affected by the hydrogen contained in the borehole,
and in the clay matrix, and by other elements in the matrix
and by various absorbers including chlorine and boron.
Therefore, neutron-porosity logs require borehole correction,
lithology correction, chlorine correction and other types of
corrections. One correction that the neutron-porosity log and
the magnetic resonance porosity log have in common is that
for the hydrogen index (HI). (HI is equal to the number of
hydrogen atoms per unit volume of pore Àuid, divided by the
number of hydrogen atoms per unit volume of pure water at
surface conditions).
One of the main advantages of the magnetic resonance
Fig. 1—Graphic representation of an organic mudstone. Total porosity Àuids include oil, gas and water contained within the organic and inorganic pore.
June 2019
total-porosity measurement is readily visualized from Fig. 1.
All components of organic mudstone are shown juxtaposed,
with solids on the left and Àuids on the right. The organic
solid component, also called solid TOC, has density and
neutron signatures similar to those of hydrocarbon; it is,
however, part of the matrix. We have accounted for it in
Part 2 through correction equations modi¿ed from Passey
et al. (1990) and Schmoker and Hester (1983). The total
porosity from the workÀow is therefore a corrected porosity
for TOC. Since magnetic resonance porosity does not see
this component, it should corroborate the results from the
workÀow and validate the correction for TOC.
In Track 5 (“Msol Phi”) in Fig. 2, we show a typical
overlay of the porosity values from the workÀow, validated
by total porosity from magnetic resonance. The good
agreement suggests that our lithological model, including
TOC is likely accurate.
USE OF DIELECTRIC LOG FOR WATER-FILLED
POROSITY
The dielectric log was originally developed for the case
of freshwater mud ¿ltrate (Rmf) or fresh formation water
resistivity (Rw), where the classic resistivity-based Archie
equation could not yield accurate reliable results. The
dielectric log would then rely on the large contrast between
the dielectric permittivity of oil and the dielectric permittivity
of water to measure the water-¿lled porosity (Calvert and
Wells, 1977; Poley et al., 1978). Table 1 illustrates the large
difference in dielectric permittivity between water, oil and
various matrix minerals.
Dielectric logs are often proclaimed as capable of
yielding an accurate water-¿lled porosity independent
of water salinity. This is only true for low-salinity water
environments. The mudstones of the Permian Basin do not
fall in the category of “low-salinity environment” as water
salinities are generally greater than 50,000 ppm. Statements
like “dielectric log yields a salinity independent water-
¿lled porosity,” and “a water-¿lled porosity independent of
saturation exponent,” do not apply in this case. We use a
PETROPHYSICS 352
 Organic Mudstone Petrophysics, Part 3: WorkÀow to Estimate Storage Capacity
Fig. 2—Track 5 shows a cross-validaƟon of total porosity from the workŇow (red) with total porosity from magneƟc resonance(blue). Note that in the lithology track
(Track 3) kerogen or solid TOC is shown in purple.
Table 1—RelaƟve Dielectric Permiƫvity of Oil Water and Matrix Material
*A funcƟon of frequency, temperature and pressure.
modi¿ed complex refractive index method (CRIM) equation
to derive water-¿lled porosity (Birchak et al., 1974; Wharton
et al., 1980). This model accounts for both components of
the electrical properties, the dielectric permittivity and the
conductivity or resistivity. There are many recent references
353
for the CRIM and the modi¿ed CRIM (e.g., Wang et
al., 2018; Seleznev et al., 2006; Bittar et al., 2010). The
complex refractive index is uniquely related to permittivity
and to resistivity. Physicists chose to introduce a complex
permittivity whose real component is the traditional
dielectric permittivity and whose imaginary component is
related to resistivity. The governing equations are:
(1)
where İ*w is the complex permittivity of water; İw’ is the
real part of this complex permittivity, equal to the relative
permittivity of water; i=¥-1; İw” is the imaginary part of this
complex permittivity. It is related to the water resistivity
through a numeric relationship. At 1 GHz (Bittar et al.,
2010), İ ”= 18 where Rw is the formation water resistivity.
w Rw
PETROPHYSICS June 2019
 Organic Mudstone Petrophysics, Part 3: WorkÀow to Estimate Storage Capacity

A similar set of identities applies to the complex permittivity
of the formation as measured by the dielectric logging
sensor:
(2)
where İ t’ is the permittivity of the formation at 1 GHz,
İ”= 18 and Rt is the resistivity of the formation at 1 GHz.
t Rt
Equation 3 is the modi¿ed CRIM equation which yields the
water ¿lled porosity, ‫׋‬w:
(3)
where İmat
* is the complex dielectric constant of the matrix.
We compute it based on the lithological data obtained from
the workÀow of Part 2. It is normally a real number except in
cases where the matrix contains some conductive minerals,
such as pyrite. When we apply the modi¿ed CRIM equation
we simply lump the hydrocarbon with the rest of the matrix
* . The error resulting from this approximation is
into İmat
minimal.
Observe that in the Permian Basin mudstones, water
conductivity is a signi¿cant component of İw*, therefore
water salinity must be taken into account when estimating
water-¿lled porosity from dielectric logs. We use the
same water salinity as used within the workÀow of Part
2. It is often based on samples from the produced water.
Another zonal parameter is the “mn” exponent, related to
the tortuosity of the water path within the rock. We base it
on local experience. It too has a bearing on the computed
water-¿lled porosity. Some petrophysicists have proposed
advanced methods for automatically determining “mn”
using dispersion theory (Seleznev et al., 2006; Wang et al.,
2018) however, their approaches are not part of this study.
In Fig. 3, Track 7 (Bulk Volume Water), we show the
good agreement between the dielectric-log-derived water-
¿lled porosity (Track 7, blue curve) and the results from

Fig. 3—Cross-validation of water-¿lled porosity from the workÀow (Track 7, red curve) with water-¿lled porosity from dielectric, processed through the
modi¿ed CRIM equation (Track 7, blue curve). In Track 6, note again the good agreement between the total porosity from the workÀow (red) and the
total porosity from magnetic resonance (blue).

June 2019 PETROPHYSICS 354

 Organic Mudstone Petrophysics, Part 3: WorkÀow to Estimate Storage Capacity
the workÀow described in Part 2 (Track 7, red curves). We
also note the excellent agreement between the total porosity
from the workÀow (red curve) and that from the magnetic
resonance logging sensor (blue curve) in Track 6 (Total
Porosity).
GEOCHEMICAL METHOD TO ESTIMATE OIL
STORAGE VOLUME
Modi¿ed Downey-Asquith Method
Downey et al. (2011) proposed a quantitative measure
of OIP from measurements of the distillable oil from the S1
measurements in programmed pyrolysis (i.e., the Rock-Eval
pyrolysis method). The literature is replete with documents
on the use of programmed pyrolysis in oil¿eld chemistry
applications (Claypool and Reed, 1976; Espitalie et al., 1977,
1985a, 1985b, 1986; Clementz, 1979; Clementz et al., 1979;
Jarvie and Baker, 1984; van Krevelen, 1984; Peters, 1986;
Behar et al., 2001; Maende, 2017). The method involves
combusting crushed material and measuring the combusted
hydrocarbon components in a Àame ionization detector
(FID). The units of measure are milligrams of hydrocarbon
per gram of rock (mg/g). However, this unit of measure
isn’t a standard for use in the oil¿eld. The Downey Method
provides a method for converting the units of measure to
barrels per acre-feet, a more commonly referenced unit of
measure. The method allows for up-scaling cuttings or core-
based tests to calculate OIP pro¿les for a given formation.
OIP estimates from programmed pyrolysis are comparable
to estimates from petrophysics, providing a lower limit
of OIP due to potential volatile losses in extracting core/
cuttings samples from the subsurface and/or due to sample
handling. The Downey Method for determining OIP is given
by Eq. 4.
(4)
where ȡAve is the average bulk density (g/cm3), S1Ave is the
average S1 (mg/g) measured from the programmed pyrolysis
test and represents the free hydrocarbon in the sample before
combustion, ȡoil is the density of oil (g/cm3) and 4965.36
is the units conversion factor explained in Downey et al.
(2011).
In practice, the average density is obtained from the
bulk-density log. The density of the oil is determined from
equations of state referenced in Part 2. The limitation of
the Downey method is in the limited S1 samples available
within a given well. Asquith (2014, 2015) recognized that
upscaling S1 is achieved by correlation to the total organic
content (TOC), also measured by programmed pyrolysis or
via log-based correlations discussed in Part 2. The measure
355 PETROPHYSICS
of TOC by programmed pyrolysis is given by the generalized
Eq. 5 (Law, 1999).
(5)
where TOC is in wt%, S1 is the free hydrocarbons present
in the sample before the analysis, S2 is the volume of
hydrocarbons that formed during thermal pyrolysis of the
sample, and S4 is the residual carbon content of the rock
sample.
Programmed Pyrolysis
For the programmed pyrolysis test, the authors have
adopted the ‘multiramp’ temperature program modi¿ed
from Romero and Sarmiento, (2015). Figure 4a shows
the temperature series beginning at 50°C ramping to 100,
200, 350 and ¿nally 650°C. Four FID response peaks
results include the Sh0, Sh00, Sh1 and Sh2. The Sh0 peak
represents the lightest thermos-vaporized hydrocarbons
(HC) released between T1 (50°C) and T2 (100°C). The Sh00
peak represents the thermo-vaporized HCs released between
T2 (100°C) and T3 (200°C). The Sh1 peak represents the
heavier thermo-vaporized HCs released between T3 (200°C)
and T4 (350°C). The Sh2 peak represents HCs issued from
both the pyrolysis of sedimentary organic matter (OM)
and the thermo-vaporization of the heaviest HCs detected
between T4 (350°C) and T5 (650°C). We sum the Sh0, Sh00
and Sh1 to represent the producible hydrocarbon.
Asquith S1 Upscaling. To upscale the S1 from a point
representation to a continuous pro¿le, the authors adopted
the Asquith (2014, 2015) method. Asquith recognized that S1
is a subset of TOC and generally is found to be correlative.
Figure 4b is a graph showing the relationship between TOC
and S1 that is useful to upscale S1 from point to pro¿le. The
S1 pro¿le is then substituted into Eq. 4 to generate the OIP
pro¿le. Combining Eq. 1, the “Downey Method,” with the
upscaling of S1 via TOC, the “Asquith Method,” results in
the “Downey-Asquith Method” for estimating OIP from
programmed pyrolysis.
Sample Handling. Since the S1 is the producible
hydrocarbon in the sample, the authors developed a best
practice for retaining as much of the producible hydrocarbon
before evaporative losses. To minimize exposure at the
wellsite, cuttings are stored in isojars and whole core or rotary
sidewall cores are sealed, stored in a climate-controlled
container and transported to the laboratory immediately. In
the laboratory, detubing is performed in a controlled and
paced manner such that samples can be extracted, weighed,
and sealed with a minimum of exposure before pyrolysis
testing. We have found that wax dipping is the best method
to seal Àuids in samples while in storage. Upon the start
June 2019
 Organic Mudstone Petrophysics, Part 3: WorkÀow to Estimate Storage Capacity

(a) (b)
Fig. 4—(a) Programmed pyrolysis temperature series. (b) Asquith-type TOC vs. S1 correlation.

of testing, the samples are reweighed to account for any
evaporated loss while in storage.
Modi¿ed Downey-Asquith Method
The authors recognized that lost oil volumes due
to extraction and handling, especially in highly volatile
systems will subdue the S1 measured in the laboratory. This
is especially true for high gas/oil (GOR) systems where gas
will evolve from the liquid phase as samples are recovered
to surface conditions, resulting in lost gas and oil shrinkage.
Figure 5 shows an example of the Downey-Asquith Method
applied to a reservoir with a GOR of 2,200.
Track 9 in Figure 5 shows the incremental OIP
calculated from the petrophysics workÀow represented by

Fig. 5—Log pro¿le with the results of the Downey-Asquith method shown in Tracks 9 and 10 (far right). Track 9 shows the incremental OIP derived
from the petrophysics workÀow (dashed blue) and Downey-Asquith method (solid). Track 10 shows the cumulative OIP from the petrophysics
workÀow (dashed blue) and the Downey-Asquith method (solid).

June 2019 PETROPHYSICS 356

 Organic Mudstone Petrophysics, Part 3: WorkÀow to Estimate Storage Capacity

the dashed blue curve and the incremental OIP estimate
using the Downey-Asquith method represented by the solid
curve. Track 10 (far right) is the cumulative OIP from the
petrophysics workÀow and the Downey-Asquith method,
represented by the dashed and solid curves, respectively.
The bright green shading is the OIP volume retained by the
S1-based measurement. The yellow shading represents the
lost hydrocarbon. Generally, the S1-based OIP will be less
than the petrophysics-based OIP. It should be considered a
lower constraint for the estimation of OIP. Conceptually, the
authors have attempted to correct for the lost hydrocarbon
through Eq. 6.
(6)
where Bo is the formation factor pro¿le for oil, and ȡoil is
the density of oil (g/cm3) estimated from the equations of
state (EOS) described in Part 2 (Newsham, 2019b), ȡb is the
measured bulk density and S1 is the upscale pro¿le from
the Asquith Method. Both ȡb and ȡoil are considered to be
at reservoir conditions, whereas S1 is measured at surface
conditions. Conceptually, multiplying S1 by Bo corrects the
S1 to reservoir conditions. Figure 6 is the same plot as Fig.
5, but with this correction. The two OIP results are very
similar, especially in the mudstone systems. There are still
signi¿cant losses (yellow shading) in the more permeable
siltstone faces that are not fully corrected.
ABSOLUTE PERMEABILITY
Absolute permeability (kabs) as de¿ned by Darcy’s law
(Hubbert, 1956; Amyx et al., 1960) relates the Àow of a
single-phase incompressible Àuid to the pressure difference
(ǻP), viscosity (ȝ), length (L), and cross-sectional area (A)
of a porous medium:
(7)
In addition to the assumptions of a single-phase
incompressible Àuid, application of Eq. 7 requires steady-
state, viscous, and laminar-Àow conditions where no
reactions take place that would change the Àow capacity
of the rock through time or that consider the preferential
wettability of one Àuid to another. Absolute permeability
de¿nes the ability of a rock to transmit Àuids via the matrix
and is a cornerstone in petrophysical engineering. While Eq.
7 has a very narrow de¿nition and a handful of assumptions,
measurements of absolute permeability in the laboratory

Fig. 6—Log pro¿le with the results of the modi¿ed Downey-Asquith method, including the use of the formation volume factor to correct for volatile
losses, are shown in Tracks 9 and 10 (far right). Track 9 shows the incremental OIP derived from the petrophysics workÀow (dashed blue) and Downey-
Asquith method (solid). Track 10 shows the cumulative OIP from the petrophysics workÀow (dashed blue) and the Downey-Asquith method (solid).

357 PETROPHYSICS June 2019

 Organic Mudstone Petrophysics, Part 3: WorkÀow to Estimate Storage Capacity
often violate these rules; however, industry has instituted
some guidelines for best practices.
Gas (e.g., helium, nitrogen, argon, CO2) is often used
in the laboratory with a variety of equipment con¿gurations
to estimate absolute permeability in lieu of using a single-
phase liquid. When an intact core plug void of fractures
or other discontinuities is available, two methods are
commonly employed: steady-and unsteady-state. The API
Recommended Practices for Core Analysis RP 40 (API,
1998) recommends using the multipoint steady-state method
for estimating absolute permeability to gas. The viscous,
laminar-Àow assumption is one of the primary violations of
the Darcy de¿nition (also called non-Darcy effects) when
measuring absolute permeability to gas. When liquid Àows
through a capillary or pore, there is a zero-velocity layer
at the solid/Àuid interphase. When a gas is used, the zero-
velocity assumption is not valid, and there is additional
“slippage” of molecules at the solid/gas interphase (McPhee
et al, 2016).
The slippage phenomena of gas relative to the pore wall
is known as the Klinkenberg effect (Klinkenberg, 1941),
and the “apparent” absolute permeability measured under
these conditions will be greater than what is measured with
a single, incompressible, nonreactive Àuid. The magnitude
of this slippage is a function of the mean free path of the gas
molecules at a given temperature, the mean Àowing pressure
(Pm), and the radius of the pore throats through which the
gas is Àowing. Many references show that an estimate of the
absolute permeability to gas can be achieved by measuring
the apparent gas permeability at a variety (i.e., three or more)
of mean Àowing pressures (Rushing et al., 2004; McPhee
at al., 2016). A plot of the reciprocal mean pressure (1/Pm)
vs. the apparent gas permeability (kgas) reveals a straightline
relationship with the following form:
(8)
where kinf is the Klinkenberg-corrected absolute permeability
as Pmĺ’, and the slope b is the slippage factor. The
y-intercept on a plot of 1/Pm vs. kgas is equivalent to kinf, or one
can surmise that as Pmĺ’ then 1/Pm ĺ0. Some may refer to
kinf as the equivalent liquid permeability; and for all practical
purposes is a valid estimate for our original de¿nition of
absolute permeability using Eq. 7 (Chhatre et al., 2015).
Techniques have also been developed to estimate kinf by
measuring kgas at a single 1/Pm using various correlations for
the b term in Eq. 8 (Jones and Owens, 1980; Florence et al.,
2007). Additional non-Darcy factors may be present besides
slippage that could render a nonlinear dependence between
June 2019 PETROPHYSICS
kgas and 1/Pm including turbulent Àow and/or double-slip
Klinkenberg effects (Rushing et al., 2004; Fathi et al., 2012).
The unsteady-state method (USS) is also widely used
in industry now for estimating kgas and kinf using not only
core plugs, but also crushed material. Jones (1972) was the
¿rst to introduce this method, which uses a pressure falloff
technique (i.e., pressure vs. time) in conjunction with a
diffusivity equation to estimate kinf, kgas, the slippage factor b,
and various coef¿cients related to the Forchheimer effect, for
plugs. While many commercial laboratories and equipment
manufacturers have used this technique for conventional
and tight sands above 0.001 mD, it may not be suitable for
organic mudstones or extremely tight sands/silts.
Another USS technique commonly used on core plugs
is the pulse method (Brace et al., 1968; Dicker and Smits,
1988) where a pressure difference is initiated at both ends of
a plug and the resulting decay is recorded while gas diffuses
through the sample. A slight variation of this technique
involves keeping the pressure constant at one end of the
sample while the pressure buildup is monitored at the other
end (Heller et al., 2014). Despite the speci¿c experimental
setup, pressure-pulse techniques are inherently USS and a
variety of analytical models must be used to solve for kgas
and kinf as a function of the gas properties (i.e., Z-factor and
viscosity) in addition to the pore volume of the sample. There
are also many instances when only a kgas value is reported
while ignoring kinf. While all of the above-mentioned
USS methods for plugs are scienti¿cally sound and well-
practiced by both industry and academia, small details in
the experimental procedure and data analysis may present
systematic or even random differences in results (David et
al., 2018). We have found that while USS techniques are
generally faster for rocks in the submicrodarcy to nanodarcy
range, it is well worth the time and effort to adhere to the API
RP 40 (1998) recommendation for multipoint steady-state
measurements as a basis for kinf using gas as the nonreactive
Àowing agent.
It is also worth noting that all of the various permeability
methods described above for plugs should be conducted
initially at subsurface reservoir net con¿ning stress (NCS)
conditions. Subsequent measurements at higher NCS points
should also be considered to simulate the reservoir stress
depletion path during production. It is well documented
that tight sand and mudstone permeability exhibit a strong
con¿ning stress dependency, and that preferential closing of
slot-like pores and cracks in the sample at higher con¿ning
stresses is the main driver (Jones and Owens, 1980; Byrnes,
1997; Sondergeld et al., 2010).
358
 Organic Mudstone Petrophysics, Part 3: WorkÀow to Estimate Storage Capacity
The crushed rock permeability method pioneered by
Luffel et al. (1993) and further expanded upon by Cui et al.
(2009), Tinni et al. (2012), and Civan et al. (2013) attempts
to mitigate several problems associated with measuring the
apparent and absolute matrix permeability of mudstones
using plugs. One inherent problem is the tight nature and
nonconnectivity of the matrix pores which may prevent
the samples from being fully gas-saturated during the
permeability measurement. Another issue is the presence of
stress-relief cracks and bedding planes which may arti¿cially
enhance the apparent matrix permeability. Crushing the
samples into smaller (0.5 to 3 mm) particles overcomes
the pore access issue by increasing the surface area/volume
ratio over which gas can diffuse into the matrix while also
eliminating the effect of cracks and discontinuities that one
may encounter with a full core plug.
The measurement principles and experimental setups
for the crushed-rock permeability method are fairly
straightforward, yet there are many small details that may
lead to inconsistencies. The crushed particles are loaded and
sealed in a double-cell experimental setup where the pressure
decay is measured while gas (typically He) diffuses from the
reference into the sample chamber and eventually into the
pores of the crushed material. A very attractive aspect of the
method is that measurement times vary from tens of minutes
to 1 hour. Consequently, the grain volume is also determined
during this measurement, which leads to the estimation of
the ambient porosity. Cui et al. (2009) and Tinni et al. (2012)
address some of the shortcomings of this method including
the effect of dead volumes, the ratio of the sample chamber
volume to the crushed particles, crushed particle size, and the
initial ¿ll-up pressures. Another challenging aspect of this
method is that only a small portion of the total pressure drop
(<<1%) is associated with diffusion into the matrix during
the equilibrium phase; and one must be careful to capture the
entire pressure vs. time curve over which the permeability is
calculated. Slippage effects also play an important role since
the equilibrium pressures are relatively small (100 to 500
psi), and correcting this measurement back to a kinf equivalent
relies on additional analytical models (Civan et al., 2013)
that many commercial laboratories do not consider. It is
not surprising that several published studies (Sondergeld
et al., 2010; Passey et al., 2010) and numerous personal
communications have revealed major inconsistencies
between different laboratories and experimental setups.
While the crushed-rock method may have limited value for
determining the absolute permeability of liquid systems, the
authors have found it useful as a relative index of reservoir
quality, particularly when comparing results from the same
359 PETROPHYSICS
commercial and academic laboratories.
PORE TO FLOW: MATCHING AND CALIBRATING
TO PRODUCTION
Our discussion about absolute permeability is important
in that it serves as the basis for eventually de¿ning the
preferential Àow capacity of one Àuid phase vs. another.
Almost all hydrocarbon-bearing intervals contain more
than one Àuid phase, so we must consider the effective
permeability of each to help quantify Àow at the surface.
While gas, oil, and water are typically found as distinct
phases within the pores of rocks in the subsurface, we will
focus on oil/water systems with no free-gas component.
Equation 7 focuses on a rock containing only a single phase,
but when both oil and water are present, the effective Àow
for each phase is de¿ned as:
(9)
(10)
where Qo and Qw are the Àow rates at reservoir conditions,
ko and kw are the effective permeabilities, and ȝo and ȝw are
the viscosities of oil and water, respectively. It is important
to note that Eqs. 9 and 10 refer to the effective permeability
to oil and water at a speci¿c value for water saturation (Sw),
and each of those values may change rapidly as a function of
varying Sw for a given ǻP, A, and L.
An alternative way of incorporating the important
information expressed by Eqs. 9 and 10 is to consider the
relative permeability, or the ratio of the effective permeability
for each phase to a reference permeability:
(11)
(12)
where kro is the relative permeability to oil, krw is the relative
permeability to water, and kref is the reference permeability.
There are two common ways to de¿ne kref, the ¿rst being
to set this equal to the kabs or kinf we de¿ned in the absolute
permeability section. This is typically done within the
context of reservoir Àow simulations when an estimate
of the absolute permeability is known, and the individual
contributions of each phase is then de¿ned by the shape of the
kro and krw curves as a function of Sw. An alternative kref used
June 2019
 Organic Mudstone Petrophysics, Part 3: WorkÀow to Estimate Storage Capacity
when considering laboratory measurements is the effective
permeability to oil when the water phase is immobile (koSwirr).
The Sw value corresponding to the immobile water phase is
known as the irreducible water saturation (Swirr). Another
important value when considering relative permeability is
the residual oil saturation (Sor), or the oil saturation at which
the oil phase is immobile.
Measuring the relative permeability curves to oil and
water is dif¿cult in low-permeability mudstone core samples,
so an approach is taken here that is synergistic with reservoir
simulation and production results that speci¿cally focuses
on the water cut at the surface (fws). We note that advances
have been made to measure the ko at the surface on fresh
core samples with the connate water still intact (Krumm
and Howard, 2017), while others have used a combination
of nitrogen absorption and analytical techniques to simulate
the effective and relative permeability behavior (Ojha et al.,
2017).
We use the classic Buckley and Leverett (1942) approach
to evaluate the fractional Àow of water (fw) at reservoir
conditions by considering that:
(13)
Substituting Eqs. 11 and 12 into Eqs. 9 and 10 gives the
Buckley-Leverett solution:
(14)
A more appropriate approach is to correct the relative
volumes of oil and water that are Àowing at reservoir
conditions to surface conditions (fws) via their respective
formation volume factors for water (Bw) and oil (Bo):
(15)
Equations 14 and 15 normalize the water production by
the total Àuids (oil and water), whereas some may prefer to
simply use the water/oil ratio (WOR) at reservoir conditions:
(16)
or the water-oil ratio at surface conditions (WORs):
(17)
We observe in Eqns. 14 and 15 that both kro and krw
are fundamentally important for determining the fractional
water Àow (in addition to the Àuid viscosity and formation
volume factors), so now we will detail how to model these
parameters as a function of Sw (Dacy, 2010):
June 2019 PETROPHYSICS
(18)
(19)
where Ao and Aw are scaling factors, and No and Nw are the
Corey exponents for oil and water, respectively. Swn is the
normalized water saturation and is de¿ned as:
(20)
The Swn term ranges from 0 to 1 and is a convenient
way to rescale and average relative permeability data from
various sources.
Both the Swirr and Sor terms can be elusive, particularly
in tight mudstones, so we use local knowledge and a trial-
and-error approach to ¿rst derive these terms from other
measurements including porosity and absolute permeability.
A common way to emulate the relative pore-throat size
contributing to Àow for different rock types is by the
reservoir quality index (RQI):
(21)
where ‫׋‬T is the total porosity from logs or core measurements.
One approach for determining the Swirr behavior is to
correlate this parameter to the RQI for rocks with different
wetting characteristics (Fig. 7). In this case a log-log plot of
Swirr as a function of RQI was derived from a combination
of laboratory experiments and downhole logging techniques.
The asymptotic nature (i.e., constant Swirr as a function of
RQI) for each of the cases in Fig. 7 is arti¿cially placed as a
practical means of controlling the Swirr behavior and needs to
be calibrated for each interval. It is evident that for a given
RQI, rocks with a strongly water-wet nature will have a
higher Swirr compared to rocks with a more oil-wet nature;
and rocks with an intermediate af¿nity for water will lie
somewhere in between. In the case presented in Fig. 7, the
lowest Swirr is 20% for the strongly oil-wet rocks while the
lowest value is 40% for the strongly water-wet case.
Land (1968) demonstrated that Sor and the initial Sw
in the reservoir are related by a constant, C, known as the
trapping coef¿cient:
(22)
Application of Eq. 22 assumes that the current subsurface
Sw derived from a combination of log- and core-based
techniques is at the lowest value attained during its drainage
history, but not necessarily at irreducible conditions. The
360
 Organic Mudstone Petrophysics, Part 3: WorkÀow to Estimate Storage Capacity

downhole log-based Sw should always be greater than

or equal to Swirr at any given depth.
3. Use Eq. 20 to determine Swn as a function the
reservoir’s current Sw at a particular depth, the Swirr
from Step 1, and the Sor from Step 2.
4. Use the Swn from Step 3 and values for Aw, Ao, Nw, and
No to calculate kro and krw from Eqs. 18 and 19.
5. Estimate the pore pressure documented in Part II
of this tutorial (Newsham et al., 2019b) and use
knowledge of hydrocarbon composition, API gravity,
GOR, salinity, and temperature to calculate the
downhole Àuid viscosities (ȝo and ȝw) in addition to
the formation volume factors (Bo and Bw).
6. Use Eqs. 14 through 17 to calculate continuous
pro¿les of fws and WORs as a function of depth,
and then use the vertical zonation and allocation
techniques presented later in this paper to compare
Fig. 7—Swirr as a function of the RQI for rocks with three different wetting these predictions to actual production at the surface.
characteristics (strongly water-wet, intermediate, and strongly oil-wet).

trapping coef¿cient, C, is a constant for a given rock type

depending on the pore geometry and wetting characteristics.
Figure 8 shows how Sor varies as a function of the current
oil saturation (1 í Sw) for the three different scenarios we
considered in Fig. 7. The Sor and (1 í Sw) values are equal
for the case of C = 0 in Fig. 8. This implies that the initial
and residual oil saturations are the same, hence no movable
oil is in the system, and the oil phase is fully trapped. For
the strongly oil-wet case (C = 1), we observe that rocks with
an initial oil saturation (1 í Sw) of 0.8 will have a relatively
higher Sor compared to the same rock with an initial oil
saturation of 0.5. For a constant oil saturation (1 í Sw) value,
rocks with a higher value of C will have a lower residual oil
saturation (strongly water-wet case) compared to rocks with
a lower value of C (strongly oil-wet case). Also, notice that
for higher values of C, the variation of Sor as a function of
(1 í Sw) is less for strongly water-wet rocks compared to the Fig. 8—Sor as a function of the trapping coef¿cient C and the log-derived
strongly oil-wet rocks. oil saturation (1 í Sw) for rocks with three different wetting characteristics
(strongly water-wet, intermediate, and strongly oil-wet) using Eq. 22
We can now use these concepts to build a family of (Land, 1968).
relative permeability curves for each case that will ultimately
predict the fractional water Àow on a foot-by-foot basis
using the storage results that have been calibrated to core Examples of relative permeability and fws curves are
from logs. Below is a step-by-step guide meant to be done presented for three cases with some simpli¿cations for
for each unique rock type case or Àow unit. clarity. In these example cases we are using constant values
1. Determine the Swirr endpoint as a function of RQI for ȝo (0.3 cP), ȝw (0.6 cP), Bo (1.9 rb/STB), Bw (1 rb/STB), Ao
using Eq. 21 and a plot similar to Fig. 7. The shape (1), No (3), and Nw (2). We have assumed the RQI and hence
and curvature of these relationships are dependent on Swirr for each rock type has been determined from a variety
the availability of relevant data and their correlation of core and log measurements. The downhole Sw used as a
to other petrophysical parameters. Log-log crossplots reference is arbitrarily set to 20 saturation units (s.u.) higher
work well, but don’t have to always be employed. than Swirr for illustrative purposes. Table 2 summarizes the
2. Use Eq. 22 to derive a relationship between rock additional parameters.
types, the trapping coef¿cient C, (1 í Sw), and Sor. The

361 PETROPHYSICS June 2019

 Organic Mudstone Petrophysics, Part 3: WorkÀow to Estimate Storage Capacity

Table 2—Values Used to Calculate the Relative Permeability and fws Curves Shown in Figs. 9 and 10

Examination and comparison of the relative permeability
curves and the resulting fws predictions in Figure 9 and Table
2 reveals that rock type and wettability will have a strong
inÀuence on the fractional Àow. We observe that rocks with a
strongly water-wet behavior (Fig. 9a) will have a higher Swirr
and lower Sor compared to rocks with a higher af¿nity to oil
(Fig. 9c). We can also just focus on the resulting fws curves
for each case (Fig. 10) and observe how the predicted water
cut varies as a function of the rock’s af¿nity for oil vs. water.
The predicted fws at Sw = 0.6 for the strongly water-wet case
is much less than the fws at Sw = 0.6 for the oil-wet case using
this model and the assumptions we listed in Table 2.
This example was meant to illustrate the point that just
because one interval has a lower Sw compared to the other,
there is not always a direct link to the water cut at the surface
(i.e., zones with lower Sw will not always have a lower fsw).
In reality what we tend to observe in oil-wet systems is a
much more consistent and lower downhole Sw at reservoir
conditions that is closer to Swirr compared to intermediate
and mixed-wet systems which tend to have a much more
variable Sw pro¿le. This example also shows the need to
for more research and effort in de¿ning the endpoints
and relative shapes of these relative permeability pro¿les.
Ultimately, we have found that the current state-of-the-art
lies in continuously updating our models and pro¿les for
relative permeability with the values that work best for the
reservoir and completion engineers trying to history-match
the actual production at the surface.
Ultimately, taking these concepts from point to
pro¿le is needed to begin to understand the intervals that
are contributing oil versus water. Three methods are
readily available including estimation of static water/oil
ratios (WOR) from the petrophysical analysis using the
appropriate equations of state (EOS) to determine the oil and
water in place, as described in Part 2. Second, we use the
fractional Àow at surface—what we refer to as the dynamic
solution, as described above—to generate pro¿les of relative
permeability and fractional Àow at surface. Third, water-cut
estimations from either the static or dynamic methods are
available by Eq. 23.
(23)
Figure 11 is a pro¿le example. From left to right,
the tracks are: GR correlation, resistivity, model-based
composition, total porosity from the model (blue) compared
to the independent MR total porosity (red), water saturation,
WOR and water cut, relative permeability, fractional Àow at

Fig. 9—Example calculations of krw, kro, and fws for three cases (a) strongly water-wet, (b) intermediate, and (c) strongly oil-wet. The discrete points on
each curve show the calculated value at a speci¿c Sw which was chosen to be 10 s.u. units higher than Swirr.

June 2019 PETROPHYSICS 362

 Organic Mudstone Petrophysics, Part 3: WorkÀow to Estimate Storage Capacity

implying that the hydraulic fracture propagated upward.

In Fig. 12, we compare the P50 value of the fractional
Àow at surface for the contributing interval to Àow to the
production water cut. In this example, the producing water
cut is approximately 65% after fracture-Àuid cleanup. The
fractional Àow at surface for the same interval and shown in
the histogram is approximately 67%, a reasonable match.

OIP ALLOCATION METHOD

Hydraulic stimulation signi¿cantly modi¿es the drainage

Fig. 10—Comparison of the resulting fws curves predicted from the
family of relative permeability curves presented in Fig. 9.
surface and the contributing interval Àow as estimated from
the chemical-extraction method brieÀy described in the next
section on geochemical applications. Note the horizontal
landing position relative to the chemical-extraction pro¿le
area and height of a producing reservoir. Determination
of drainage volumes often includes the acquisition and
interpretation of microseismic data, downhole pressures
gauges and pressure pro¿ling from offset wells. High well
density, both laterally and vertically, may result in pressure
depletion and production interference causing signi¿cant
reduction in expected ultimate recovery (EUR) forecasts and
project over capitalization. The recent vernacular is termed
the “parent–child” relationship where standalone wells more
often outperform the nearby offset wells in a given lease
section. Production allocation methods attempt to assess the
vertical drainage thickness.

Fig. 11—Log pro¿le showing the upscaling of relative permeability and fractional Àow at surface across the interval contributing to Àow as estimated
by the chemical extraction (Track 9). From left to right, the tracks are: Track 1, GR correlation; Track 2, resistivity; Track 3, model-based composition;
Track 4, total porosity from the model (blue) compared to the independent MR total porosity (red); Track 5, water saturation; Track 6, WOR and
water cut, Track 7, relative permeability, Track 8, fractional Àow at surface; and Track 9, the contributing interval Àow as estimated from the chemical-
extraction method.

363 PETROPHYSICS June 2019

 Organic Mudstone Petrophysics, Part 3: WorkÀow to Estimate Storage Capacity
(a)
Fig. 12—(a) The histogram of the fractional Àow curve from Fig. 11 limited to the contributing interval to Àow as estimated by the chemical extraction
method. (b) Water cut from production stabilizing after 55 days and used as the match-reference for the fractional Àow estimation.
Multiple approaches for allocating production are
currently in practice including methods involving DNA
sequencing of anaerobic bacteria, chemical ¿ngerprinting
of compounds and elemental isotopes and the use of an
equivalent EUR method. The two former methods generate a
static vertical pro¿le from cuttings or core extractions across
zones of interest. In the case of the DNA method, groups
of anaerobic bacteria ‘families’ are pro¿led. In the chemical
extraction method, pro¿les of combinations and ratios of
chemical compounds and their isotopes are pro¿led. In
both methods, production streams are collected over time
from which similar extractions are made and represent the
composite of the contributing pro¿le. The production stream
‘extractions’ are then allocated, based on the static pro¿le,
on a percentage contribution basis. The product is a pro¿le
indicating the percentage contribution of each interval to the
production stream. From this a drainage height is implied.
These methods are time consuming and expensive.
The equivalent EUR method is an alternative approach
that uses the petrophysics OIP in combination with
knowledge of well spacing by plan or execution and an
assumed range of recovery ef¿ciencies for a given facies
type by Eq. 24.
where EUReq is the equivalent EUR, OIP is the oil-in-
place per section obtained from petrophysics and RE is the
recovery ef¿ciency. The assumption here is the OIP is well
constrained by use of the constrained simultaneous inversion
described in Part 2 (Newsham, 2019b). The well spacing
is a variable but constrained by plan, drilling execution or
general perception. The RE ranges by facies, Àuid type and
June 2019
(b)
system pressure. For example, organic mudstones, such as
the Spraberry, Wolfcamp and Avalon (Leonard), the RE
ranges from 2 to 5%, when using a per-section, per-well
basis. Nonorganic siltstones, such as the Hoban, Bone Spring
and Dean, range from 4 to 9% using the same per-section,
per-well reference. High GOR systems tend to have greater
RE than low GOR due to gas expansion drive and lower
oil viscosity yielding greater Àuid mobility. Reservoirs that
have pore pressure far exceeding the bubblepoint also have
greater RE.
Use of the equivalent EUR requires knowledge of the
type curve EUR or a near offset well EUR, generally limited
to 1-mile long lateral wells or 1-mile equivalents, since the
OIP and well density are on a per-section basis. The method
integrates the petrophysics-derived OIP from the bottom of
a contributing interval, upward stratigraphically, calculating
the equivalent EUR at each step until the equivalent EUR
matches the offset or type curve EUR. At the point of
matching EURs, the drainage height is implied. The method
is essentially a quicklook material-balance test.
Figure 13 is an example showing the comparison
between the OIP allocation using the equivalent EUR and
the chemical-extraction method. From left to right, the
tracks are: Track 1, GR correlation; Track 2, resistivity;
(24) Track 3, model composition; Track 4, total porosity from
the petrophysics model (blue) and the independent MR total
porosity (red); Track 5, water saturation; Track 6, magnetic
resonance T2 distribution; Track 7, chemical allocation;
Track 8, OIP allocation and the cumulative OIP per bench
from petrophysics. The chemical-extraction track de¿nes
the contributing interval to Àow. The EUR match is based
on a per section basis using four wells per section and RE
of 6%, well within the range for tight siltstones. There is
good agreement between the chemical and OIP allocation
methods in this case.
PETROPHYSICS 364
 Organic Mudstone Petrophysics, Part 3: WorkÀow to Estimate Storage Capacity

Fig. 13—Log pro¿le comparing the OIP allocation pro¿le with the chemical extraction pro¿le which de¿ned the contributing interval to Àow. From left to
right, the tracks are: Track 1, GR correlation; Track 2, resistivity; Track 3, model composition; Track 4, total porosity from the petrophysics model (blue)
and the independent MR total porosity (red); Track 5, water saturation; Track 6, magnetic resonance T2 distribution; Track 7, chemical allocation; Track
8, OIP allocation and the cumulative OIP per bench from petrophysics. Track 9 HPV, bench ranking.

BENCH RANKING
From a ¿nancial perspective, it’s important that
companies invest and drill their best opportunities ¿rst,
whether at a basin, ¿eld or well scale. As a determinant
for which bench to drill ¿rst, there are numerous attributes
based on the workÀow that should be considered for bench
ranking. Storage de¿nes the opportunity, so it makes sense
to include an assessment of porosity, water saturation and
OIP in any ranking criteria. Additionally, the water-in-place
(WIP), water-oil-ratio (WOR), or conversely water cut, need
consideration for facilities design and implantation. High
water cuts diminish a well’s productivity and economic
value. Facies type will affect the range of RE. As stated
in the Allocation section, organic mudstones generally
will have lower RE ranges, typically ranging from 2 to
5%. Low-permeability siltstones may range from 4 to
9%. Fluid pressure-volume-temperature (PVT) properties
are important due to the impacts on mobility and drive
mechanisms. High GOR systems will generally have
lower Àuid viscosity yielding greater mobility. Also, these
systems bene¿t from gas-expansion drive. Pore pressure is
important as a drive mechanism and understanding whether
the reservoir is above the bubblepoint (i.e., undersaturated)
or below the bubblepoint (saturated). As the pressure drops
below the bubblepoint, gas disassociates from the oil causing
the GOR to increase, oil to decrease and increases the oil
shrinkage. Finally, incorporating the OIP Allocation method
can yield drainage height if the well spacing and RE are
well-constrained. If the RE and well spacing are unknown
or uncertain, OIP Allocation can provide sensitivity analysis
to the merits of ¿eld development plans and their associated
well spacing assumptions or RE. In the end, the ordering
or weighting of these attributes is company dependent.
The critical consideration is to actually incorporate these
attributes in the bench-ranking exercise. Figure 14 displays
many of these attributes. From left to right, the tracks show
the correlation curves, resistivity curves, composition,
Poisson’s ratio in a butterÀy display, pore volumes, gas
shows, pressure pro¿les with the grey shading representing
an undersaturated condition where pore pressure is greater
than the bubblepoint pressure, the cumulative OIP, WIP and
GIP per bench, the WOR, the TOC content, and hydraulic
fracture models for various bench opportunities.
SUMMARY
In Part 3, we have shown examples of cross-discipline
applications of the workÀow including logging, geochemical,
reservoir engineering and production methods. The emphasis
is on calibration to known references beyond laboratory core
measurements to support the authors’ claim of Petrophysics

365 PETROPHYSICS June 2019

 Organic Mudstone Petrophysics, Part 3: WorkÀow to Estimate Storage Capacity

CPR: consistent, portable and reliable analysis results.
Examples of the use of total porosity from the magnetic
resonance log and the bulk-volume water from the dielectric-
permittivity logs are used as an independent calibration
reference to the petrophysics results. They are independent
since neither are included in the constrained simultaneous
inversion method as inputs. We show a modi¿ed geochemical
method developed by Downey and Asquith to estimate OIP
from cuttings or core using the S1 measured from programmed
pyrolysis. These results are compared to the petrophysics OIP
as a cross-check and provide a lower constraint of OIP. Some
engineering applications include the use of absolute, effective
and relative permeability in the estimation of fractional Àow.
We also present static and dynamic comparisons of water/
oil ratio or water-cut to produced water after cleanup of the
hydraulic fracture Àuid. Finally, considerations for how to
rank bench opportunities from the various products resulting
from the workÀow is given.
This concludes the author’s tutorial on, “Organic
Mudstone Petrophysics: WorkÀow to Estimate Storage
Capacity.” The workÀow should be considered a framework
and is not implied as the only approach to evaluating organic
mudstone and tight oil systems. It is comprehensive and
yields consistent results satisfying Petrophysics CPR and
SEC “Reliable Technology” mandates using the “Three-Point
Stance” approach.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to acknowledge Occidental Petroleum
Corporation and Devon Energy for supporting the publication
of these tutorials. We’d also like to thank David Bell,
Occidental’s Manager of Rocks and Fluids team, for his
contributions to the ¿gures used in the tutorials.
NOMENCLATURE
Abbreviations
BPP = bubblepoint pressure
CRIM = complex refractive index method
DFIT = diagnostic fracture injection test
EOS = equation of state
EUR = expected ultimate recovery
EUReq = equivalent EUR

Fig. 14—Log pro¿le composite showing various (but not all) attributes used for developing a rank ordering of bench opportunities. From left to right,
Track 1, correlation curves; Track 2, resistivity curves; Track 3, composition; Track 4, Poisson’s ratio in a butterÀy display; Track 5, pore volumes;
Track 6, gas shows; Track 7, pressure pro¿les with the grey shading representing an undersaturated condition where pore pressure is greater than
the bubblepoint pressure; Track 8, the cumulative OIP, WIP and GIP per bench; Track 9, WOR; Track 10, TOC content; Tracks 11 to 13, hydraulic
fracture models for various bench opportunities.

June 2019 PETROPHYSICS 366

 Organic Mudstone Petrophysics, Part 3: WorkÀow to Estimate Storage Capacity

FID = Àame ionization detector Rt = formation resistivity

GOR = gas/oil ratio Rw = formation water resistivity
H= hydrocarbons Sor = residual oil saturation
HI = hydrogen index Sw = formation water saturation
OIP = oil in place Swirr = irreducible water saturation
OM = organic matter Swn = normalized water saturation
PHIT = total porosity Sh0 = lightest thermo-vaporized hydrocarbons released
PVT = pressure, volume, temperature between 50 and 100°C
RE = recovery ef¿ciency Sh00 = lightest thermo-vaporized hydrocarbons release
RQI = reservoir quality index between 100 and 200°C
SS = steady state Sh1 = heavier thermo-vaporized hydrocarbons released
SWT = total water saturation between 200 and 350°C
TOC = total organic carbon (wt%) Sh2 = thermo-vaporization of the heaviest HCs detected
USS = unsteady-state between 350 and 650°C
WIP = original water in place S1 = free hydrocarbons present in the sample
WOR = water/oil ratio S1Ave = interval average for S1 (mg/g) measured from
WORs = water/oil ratio at surface conditions the programmed pyrolysis
S2 = volume of hydrocarbons that formed during
Symbols thermal pyrolysis
A= area S4 = residual carbon content of the rock sample
b= slippage factor T= temperature
Ao, Aw= scaling factors
Bo= formation volume factor for oil = complex permittivity of the matrix
Bw = formation volume factor for water = imaginary component of the complex
C= trapping coef¿cient permittivity of the formation
fw = Àow of water at reservoir conditions = real component of the complex permittivity
fws= Àow of water at surface conditions of the formation
H= thickness = complex permittivity of the formation
i= ¥-1 = imaginary component of the complex
kabs = absolute permeability permittivity of formation water
Keff = effective permeability = real component of the complex permittivity
kgas = apparent gas permeability of formation water
kinf = Klinkenberg-corrected absolute permeability = complex permittivity of formation water
ko = effective oil permeability ȡave= average sediment density
koSwirr = effective permeability to oil when the ȡb = bulk density
water phase is immobile ȝo = oil viscosity
kref = reference permeability ȝw z = water viscosity
kro = relative permeability to oil ȝ= viscosity
krw = relative permeability to water ȡo = live oil density
kw = effective water permeability ın= normal pressure
L= length ıv = overburden pressure
m= porosity exponent in Archie’s equation ‫׋‬T = total porosity
mn = zonal parameters ‫׋‬w= water-¿lled porosity
n= saturation exponent in Archie’s equation
No = Corey exponents for oil
Nw= Corey exponents for water
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Pb = bubble point pressure
Pi = initial pressure Akkurt, R., Vinegar, H.J., Tutunjian, P.N., and Guillory, A.J., 1996,
Pm = mean pressure NMR Logging of Natural Gas Reservoirs, The Log Analyst,
ǻP = pressure difference 37(6), 33–42.
Q= Àow rate American Petroleum Institute, 1998, Recommended Practices for
Qo = oil Àow rate Core Analysis, RP 40, 2nd Edition, API. http://w3.energistics.
Qw = water Àow rate org/RP40/rp40.pdf. Accessed May 23, 2019.

367 PETROPHYSICS June 2019

 Organic Mudstone Petrophysics, Part 3: WorkÀow to Estimate Storage Capacity
Amyx, J.W., Bass Jr., D.M., and Whiting, R.L., 1960, Petroleum
Reservoir Engineering Physical Properties, McGraw-Hill.
ISBN: 0070016003
Anand, V., Ali, R.M., Abubakar, A.A., Grover, R., Neto, O.,
Pirie, I., and Iglesias, J.G., 2017, Unlocking the Potential of
Unconventional Reservoirs Through New Generation NMR
T1/T2 Logging Measurements Integrated with Advanced
Wireline Logs, Petrophysics, 58(2), 81–96.
Asquith, G.B., 2014, OOIP Utilizing GEOCHEM [ECS] Data,
Triple Combo Data Only, and Pyrolysis S1 Data, Permian
Wolfcamp “A” and “B” Shales, AAPG Search and Discovery
Article 41406. http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/
documents/2014/41406asquith/ndx_asquith.pdf. Accessed
May 23, 2019.
Asquith, G.B., 2015, OOIP Utilizing GEOCHEM [ECS] Data,
Triple Combo Data Only, and Pyrolysis S1 Data, Permian
Wolfcamp “A” and “B” Shales, Midland Basin, Texas,
AAPG Search and Discovery Article 110207. http://www.
searchanddiscovery.com/documents/2015/110207asquith/
ndx_asquith.pdf. Accessed May 23, 2019.
Behar, F., Beaumont, V., and De B. Penteado, H.L., 2001, Rock-
Eval 6 Technology: Performances and Developments, Oil
& Gas Science and Technology – Rev. IFP, 56(2), 111–134.
DOI: 10.2516/ogst:2001013.
Birchak, R.J., Gardner, G.C., Hipp, J.E., and Victor, J.M., 1974,
High Dielectric Constant Microwave Probes for Sensing
Soil Moisture, Proceedings of the IEEE, 62(1), 93–98. DOI:
10.1109/PROC.1974.9388.
Bittar, M., Li, J., Kainer, G., Cherry, R., Torres, D., and McCoy,
D., 2010, A Modern Microwave Formation Evaluation
Sensor and its Applications in Reservoir Evaluation, Paper B,
Transactions, SPWLA 51st Annual Logging Symposium, Perth,
Australia, 19–23 June.
Brace, W.F., Walsh, J.B., and Frangos, W.T., 1968, Permeability of
Granite Under High Pressure, Journal of Geophysical Research,
73(6), 2225–2236. DOI: 10.1029/JB073i006p02225.
Buckley, S.E., and Leverett, M.C., 1942, Mechanism of Fluid
Displacements in Sands, Paper SPE-942107-G, Transactions,
AIME, 146, 107–116. DOI: 10.2118/942107-G.
Byrnes, A.P., 1997, Reservoir Characteristics of Low-Permeability
Sandstones in the Rocky Mountains, The Mountain Geologist,
34(1), 39–51.
Calvert, T.J., and Wells, L.E., 1977, Electromagnetic
Propagation…A New Dimension In Logging, Paper SPE-
6542, presented at the SPE California Regional Meeting,
Bakers¿eld, California, 13–15 April. DOI: 10.2118/6542-MS.
Chhatre, S.S., Braun, E.M., Sinha, S., Determan, M.D., Passey,
Q.R., Zirkle, T.E., Wood, A.C., Boros, J.A., Berry, D.W.,
Leonardi, S.A., and Kudva, R.A., 2015, Steady-State Stress-
Dependent Permeability Measurements of Tight Oil-Bearing
Rocks, Petrophysics, 56(2), 116–124.
Civan, F., Devegowda, D., and Sigal, R., 2013, Critical Evaluation
and Improvement of Methods for Determination of Matrix
Permeability of Shale, Paper SPE-166473 presented at the
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New
Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 30 September–2 October. DOI:
10.2118/166473-MS.
June 2019 PETROPHYSICS
Claypool, G.E., and Reed, P.R., 1976, Thermal-Analysis Technique
for Source-Rock Evaluation: Quantitative Estimate of Organic
Richness and Effects of Lithologic Variation, AAPG Bulletin,
60(4), 608–612. DOI: 10.1306/83D92410-16C7-11D7-
8645000102C1865D.
Clementz, D.M., 1979, Effect of Oil and Bitumen Saturation on
Source-Rock Pyrolysis, AAPG Bulletin, 63(12), 2227–2232.
DOI: 10.1306/2F918919-16CE-11D7-8645000102C1865D.
Clementz, D.M., G.J. Demaison, and Daly, A.R., 1979, Well Site
Geochemistry by Programmed Pyrolysis, Paper OTC-3410
presented at the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston,
Texas, 30 April–3 May. DOI: 10.4043/3410-MS.
Coates, G.R., Menger, S., Prammer, M., and Miller, D., 1997,
Applying NMR Total and Effective Porosity to Formation
Evaluation, SPE-38736 presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 5-8 October.
DOI:10.2118/38736-MS.
Cui, X., Bustin, M.M., and Bustin, R.M., 2009, Measurements of
Gas Permeability and Diffusivity of Tight Reservoir Rocks:
Different Approaches and Their Applications. GeoÀuids, 9(3),
208–223. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-8123.2009.00244.x.
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,
Florence, Italy, 19–22 September. DOI: 10.2118/135427-MS.
David, C., Wasserman, J., Amann, F., Lockner, D.A., Rutter, E.H.,
Vanorio, T., Amann, A., Billiotte, J., Reuschle, T., Lasseux,
D., Fortin, J. Lenormand, R., Selvadural, P., Meredith, P.,
Browning, J., Mitchell, T.M., Loggia, D., Nono. F., Sarout,
J., Esteban, L., Davy, C.A., Louis, L., Bltnott, G., Madonna,
C., Jahns, E., Fleury, M., Berthe, G., Delage, P., Braun, P.,
Gregoire, D., Perrier, L., Polito, P., Jannot, Y., Sommier, A.,
Krooss, B., Fink, R., Hu, Q., Klaver, J., and Clark, A.C.,
2018, KG2B, a Collaborative Benchmarking Exercise for
Estimating the Permeability of the Grimsel Grandiorite—
Part 1: Measurements, Pressure Dependence, and Pore-Fluid
Effects, Geophysical Journal International, 215(2), 799–824.
DOI: 10.1093/gji/ggy304.
Dicker, A.I., and Smits, R.M., 1988, A Practical Approach for
Determining Permeability From Laboratory Pressure-Pulse
Decay Measurements, Paper SPE-17578 presented at the
International Meeting on Petroleum Engineering, Tianjin,
China. 1–4 November. DOI: 10.2118/17578-MS.
Downey, M.W., Garvin, J., Lagomarsino, R.C., and Nicklin,
D.F., 2011, Quick Look Determination of Oil-in-Place in
Oil Shale Resource Plays, AAPG Search and Discovery
Article 40764. http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/
documents/2011/40764downey/ndx_downey.pdf. Accessed
May 23, 2019.
Espitalie, J., Deroo, G., and Marquis, F., 1985a, Rock-Eval
Pyrolysis and its Applications (Part 1), Oil & Gas Science
and Technology – Revue IFP, 40(5), 563–579. DOI: 10.2516/
ogst:1985035.
Espitalie, J., Deroo, G., and Marquis, F., 1985b, Rock-Eval
Pyrolysis and its Applications (Part 2), Oil & Gas Science
and Technology – Revue IFP, 40(6), 755–784. DOI: 10.2516/
ogst:1985045.
368
 Organic Mudstone Petrophysics, Part 3: WorkÀow to Estimate Storage Capacity
Espitalie, J., Deroo, G., and Marquis, F., 1986, Rock-Eval
Pyrolysis and its Applications (Part 3), Oil & Gas Science
and Technology – Revue IFP, 41(1), 73–89. DOI: 10.2516/
ogst:1986003.
Espitalie, J., Madec, M., Tissot, B., Mening, J.J., and Leplat, P.,
1977, Source Rock Characterization Method for Petroleum
Exploration, Paper OTC-2935 presented at the Offshore
Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, 2–5 May. DOI:
10.4043/2935-MS.
Fathi, E., Tinni, A., and Akkutlu, I.Y., 2012, Shale Gas
Correction to Klinkenberg Slip Theory. Paper SPE-154977
presented at the SPE Americas Unconventional Resources
Conference, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, 5–7 June. DOI:
10.2118/154977-MS.
Florence, F.A., Rushing, J., Newsham, K.E., and Blasingame,
T.A., 2007, Improved Permeability Prediction Relations for
Low Permeability Sands, Paper SPE-107954 presented at the
Rocky Mountain Oil and Gas Technolog Symposium, Denver,
Colorado, USA, 16–18 April. DOI: 10.2118/107954-MS.
Glorioso, J.C., and Rattia, A.J., 2011, New SEC Rules: What is
New for the Petrophysicist?, Paper SPE-141045 presented
at the SPE Middle East Oil and Gas Show and Conference,
Manama, Bahrain, 25–28 September. DOI: 10.2118/141045-
MS.
Heller, R., Vermylen, J., and Zoback, M., 2014, Experimental
Investigation of Matrix Permeability of Gas Shales, AAPG
Bulletin, 98(5), 975–995. DOI: 10.1306/09231313023.
Hubbert, M.K., 1956, Darcy’s Law and the Field Equations of the
Flow of Underground Fluids, Paper SPE-749-G, Transactions,
AIME, 207, 222–239.
Jarvie, D.M., and Baker, D.R., 1984, Application of the Rock-Eval
III Oil Show Analyzer to the Study of Gaseous Hydrocarbons
in an Oklahoma Gas Well, presented at the 187th ACS
National Meeting, St. Louis.
Jones, F.O., and Owens, W.W., 1980, A Laboratory Study of Low-
Permeability Gas Sands, Journal of Petroleum Technology,
32(9), 1631–1640. DOI: 10.2118/7551-PA.
Jones, S.C., 1972, A Rapid Accurate Unsteady-State Klinkenberg
Permeameter, Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal, 12(5),
383–397. DOI: 10.2118/3535-PA.
Klinkenberg, L.J., 1941, The Permeability of Porous Media to
Liquids and Gases, Paper API-41-200 presented at API
Drilling and Production Practice, New York, New York, 1
January.
Krumm, R.L., and Howard, J.J., 2017, WorkÀow for Measurement
of Steady-State-to-Liquid Permeability in Nanodarcy
Reservoir Rock, Paper SCA2017-038 presented at the
International Symposium of the Society of Core Analysts,
Vienna, Austria, 17 August–1 September.
Land, C.S., 1968, Calculation of Imbibition Relative Permeability
for Two- and Three-Phase Flow From Rock Properties,
Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal, 8(2), 149–156. DOI:
10.2118/1942-PA.
Law, C.A., 1999, Evaluating Source Rocks, Chapter 6, in
Beaumont, E.A., and Foster, N.H., Editors, Treatise of
Petroleum Geology/Handbook of Petroleum Geology, AAPG.
ISBN: 089181602-X.
369 PETROPHYSICS
Lee, W.J., 2011, The “Reliable Technologies” Rule: What Did
the SEC Intend? Paper SPE-139494, SPE Economics &
Management, 3(1), 18–21. DOI: 10.2118/139494-PA.
Luffel, D., Hopkins, C., and Schettler, P.D., Jr., 1993, Matrix
Permeability Measurement of Gas Productive Shales, Paper
SPE-26633 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, USA, 3–6 October. DOI:
10.2118/26633-MS.
Maende, A., 2017, Wildcat Compositional Analysis For
Conventional and Unconventional Reservoir Assessment,
HAWK Petroleum Assessment Method, Application
Note 052016-1, Wildcat Technologies. https://www.
wildcattechnologies.com/download_¿le/view_inline/224.
Accessed May 22, 2019.
McPhee, C., Reed, J., and Zubizarreta, 2016, Core Analysis: A
Best Practice Guide, Developments in Petroleum Science, 64,
Elsevier. ISBN: 9780444635334.
Morriss, C.E., Freedman, R., Straley, C., Johnston, M., Vinegar,
H.J., and Tutunjian, P.N., 1994, Hydrocarbon Saturation and
Viscosity Estimation From NMR Logging In the Belridge
Diatomite, Paper C, Transactions, SPWLA 35th Annual
Logging Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA, 19–22 June.
Newsham, K., Comisky, J., and Chemali, R., 2019a, Organic-
Mudstone Petrophysics: WorkÀow to Estimate Storage
Capacity, Petrophysics, 60(1), 4–15. DOI: 10.30632/
PJV60N1-2019t1.
Newsham, K., Comisky, J., and Chemali, R., 2019b, Organic-
Mudstone Petrophysics, Part 2: WorkÀow to Estimate Storage
Capacity, Petrophysics, 60(2), 181–207. DOI: 10.30632/
PJV60N2-2019t1
Ojha, S.P., Misra, S., Sinha, A., Dang, S., Tinni, A., Sondergeld,
C., and Rai, C., 2017, Relative Permeability and Residual
Saturation Estimates for Organic-Rich Shale Samples From
Bakken, Wolfcamp, Eagle Ford and Woodford Formations.
Paper SPE-187398 presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, USA, 9–11
October. DOI: 10.2118/187398-MS
Passey, Q.R., Bohacs, K., Esch, W.L., Kimentidis, R., and Sinha, S.,
2010, From Oil-Prone Source Rock to Gas-Producing Shale
Reservoir—Geologic and Petrophysical Characterization of
Unconventional Shale Gas Reservoirs, Paper SPE-131350
presented at the International Oil and Gas Conference and
Exhibition, Beijing, China, 8–10 June. DOI: 10.2118/131350-
MS.
Passey, Q.R., Creaney, S., Kulla, J.B., Moretti, F. J., and Stroud, J.
D., 1990, A Practical Model for Organic Richness from Porosity
and Resistivity Logs, AAPG Bulletin, 74(12), 1777–1794.
DOI:10.1306/0C9B25C9-1710-11D7-8645000102C1865D.
Peters, K.E., 1986, Guidelines for Evaluating Petroleum Source
Rock Using Programmed Pyrolysis, AAPG Bulletin,
70(3), 318–329. DOI: 10.1306/94885688-1704-11D7-
8645000102C1865D.
Poley, J.P, Nooteboom, J.J., and De Waal, P.J., 1978, Use of VHF
Dielectric Measurements for Borehole Formation Analysis,
The Log Analyst, 19(3), 8–30.
Romero-Sarmiento, M.F., Pillot, D., Letort, G., Lamoureux-Var, V.,
Beaumont, V., Huc, A.Y., Garcia, B., 2015, New Rock-Eval
June 2019
 Organic Mudstone Petrophysics, Part 3: WorkÀow to Estimate Storage Capacity
Method for Characterization of Unconventional Resources,
presented at the AAPG European Regional Conference and
Exhibition, Lisbon, Portugal, 18–19 May. https://www.scribd.
com/document/325432437/New-Rock-eval-Method-for-
Characterization-of-Unconventional-Resources. Accessed
May 23, 2019.
Rushing, J.A., Newsham, K.E., Lasswell, P.M., Cox, J.C., and
Blasingame, T.A., 2004, Klinkenberg-Corrected Permeability
Measurements in Tight Gas Sands: Steady-State Versus
Unsteady-State Techniques, Paper SPE-89867 presented at the
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston,
Texas, USA, 26–29 September. DOI: 10.2118/89867-MS.
Schmoker, J., and Hester, T., 1983, Organic Carbon in Bakken
Formation, United States Portion of Williston Basin, AAPG
Bulletin, 67(12), 2165–2174.
Seleznev, N.V., Habashy, T.M., Boyd, A.J., and Hizem, M., 2006,
Formation Properties Derived From a Multi-Frequency
Dielectric Measurement, Paper VVV, Transactions, SPWLA
47th Annual Logging Symposium, Veracruz, Mexico, 4–7
June.
Sidle, R.E., and Lee, W.J., 2010, The Demonstration of a “Reliable
Technology” for Estimating Oil and Gas Reserves, Paper
SPE-129689 presented at the SPE Hydrocarbon Economics
and Evaluation Symposium, Dallas, Texas, USA, 8–9 March.
DOI: 10.2118/129689-MS.
Sidle, R.E., and Lee, W.J., 2016, An Update on Demonstrating
“Reliable Technology”—Where are We Now?, Paper SPE-
179991 presented at the SPE/IAEE Hydrocarbon Economics
and Evaluation Symposium, Dallas, Texas, USA, 8–9 March.
DOI: 10.2118/179991-MS.
Sondergeld, C., Newsham, K., Comisky, J.T., Rice, M.C., and Rai,
C.S., 2010. Petrophysical Considerations in Evaluating and
Producing Shale Gas Resources, Paper SPE-131768 presented
at the SPE Unconventional Gas Conference, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, USA, 23–25 February. DOI: 10.2118/131768-
MS.
Timur, A., 1991, Part 1. Advances in Open Hole Well Logging,
Paper WPC-24153 presented at the 13th World Petroleum
Congress, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 20–25 October.
Tinni, A., Fathi, E., Agarwal, R., Sondergeld, C.H., Akkutlu, I,Y.,
and Rai, C.S., 2012, Shale Permeability Measurements on
Plugs and Crushed Samples, Paper SPE-162235 presented
at the SPE Canadian Unconventional Resources Conference,
Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 30 October–1 November. DOI:
10.2118/162235-MS.
Van Krevelen, D.W., 1984, Organic Geochemistry—Old and New,
Organic Geochemistry, 6, 1–10.
Wang, H., Wang, H., Toumelin, E., Brown, R., and Crousse, L.,
2018, Improving Dielectric Interpretation by Calibrating
Matrix Permittivity and Solving Dielectric Mixing Laws With
a New Graphical Method, Petrophysics, 59(2), 185–200 DOI:
10.30632/PJV59N2-2018a5
Wharton, R., Hazen, G., Rau, R., Best, D., 1980, Advancements
in Electromagnetic Propagation Logging, Paper SPE-9041
presented at the SPE Regional Rocky Mountains Meeting,
Casper, Wyoming, USA, May 14–16. DOI: 10.2118/9041-
MS.
June 2019 PETROPHYSICS
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Kent Newsham is the Sr. Director
of Subsurface Characterization &
Application and Chief Petrophysicist
– Unconventional Resources (UCR) at
Occidental Petroleum Corporation. He
has over 40 years of industry experience
working as a Chief of Staff, Geologist
and Petrophysicist. Prior employers
include Apache, Anadarko, BP, Amoco and Unocal. Special
areas of interest include unconventional natural gas and
tight oil systems. He has authored or co-authored more
than 30 technical papers, many dealing with unconventional
reservoirs, tight gas sand characterization, phase behavior of
Àuids and evaluation workÀows. Kent holds three patents
in vapor desorption capillary pressure methods of core
analysis. He is the ¿rst to develop a laboratory method for
measuring electric properties in mudstones and ultra-low
permeability rocks. Kent is a graduate from Pennsylvania
State University with a BS degree in Earth Science-Geology
and a minor in Marine Science. Newsham is also a graduate
of the Amoco Petrophysics Center of Excellence, a masters-
based program at Amoco Production Research. He served on
the Pennsylvania State University Geoscience Department
Board of Advisors from 2011 to 2015.
Joe Comisky is the discipline lead
and technical advisor for petrophysics at
Devon Energy Corporation in Oklahoma
City. He specializes in the integration of
various geologic and engineering data,
particularly core and log measurements.
Joe trained in geophysics, geology, and
engineering at the Pennsylvania State
University earning a BS and MS in Geosciences. He began
his career working various tight gas and deepwater projects
for Anadarko Petroleum and ConocoPhillips in Houston.
Joe joined the petrophysics team at Apache Corporation
in 2005 where he helped to develop integrated workÀows
for describing both conventional and unconventional rock,
pore, and Àuid systems for their international and domestic
regions. He also performed research and graduate work
at the University of Oklahoma focused on integrating
NMR, capillary pressure, geomechanics, and mineralogy
measurements for various Apache projects. Currently he is
advising and mentoring the staff at Devon Energy in all of
their US basins.
370
 Organic Mudstone Petrophysics, Part 3: WorkÀow to Estimate Storage Capacity

Roland Chemali is Consultant

Petrophysicist for Occidental Oil and
Gas Corporation in Houston, Texas. In
the years prior, Roland was Halliburton
Technology Fellow and Chief
Petrophysicist. He served as President of
the Society of Petrophysicists and Well
Log Analysts (SPWLA) in 2012–13. He
was also Distinguished Lecturer for the Society of Petroleum
Engineers (SPE) in 2010–2011. For several decades Roland
Chemali dedicated his activity to Resistivity, Magnetic
Resonance and Dielectric logging physics and interpretation.
He received the SPWLA Technical Achievement Award in
1997. Roland earned engineering degrees from the Ecole
Polytechnique of Paris and from the French Petroleum
Institute and a Master’s in Mathematics from Louisiana
State University. He has coauthored over seventy papers and
patents.

371 PETROPHYSICS June 2019

 Regular
Submissions

June 2019 PETROPHYSICS 372

PETROPHYSICS, VOL. 60, NO. 3 (JUNE 2019); PAGES 373–383; 9 FIGURES; 4 TABLES. DOI: 10.30632/PJV60N3-2019a1

Composition of the Shales in Niutitang Formation at Huijunba Syncline and its

InÀuence on Microscopic Pore Structure and Gas Adsorption
Fu De-liang1,2, Xu Guosheng2, Tian Tao1, Qin Jian-qiang1, and Yang Fu1

ABSTRACT

The inÀuence of the shale composition, especially
organic matter and clay minerals, on microscopic pore
structure and gas adsorption at Huijunba syncline were
investigated by the TOC, XRD, low-pressure gas-
adsorption measurement, SEM and isothermal adsorption
analysis. The results show that organic matter is the
main material basis for the micropores and clay minerals
form more mesopores. The isosteric heat of methane
adsorption in the study area is 5.3 to 22.2kJ/mol and the
standard entropy of adsorption is í98.8 to í48.8J/mol·K.
The methane adsorption is mainly affected by the organic
matter, and the organic matter in the shale with low clay-
mineral content could have much more effective methane
adsorption position.

INTRODUCTION
With the rapid development of hydraulic fracturing
technology and horizontal drilling technology, shale gas
has gradually become an important source of clean energy.
Unlike conventional reservoirs, nanoscale pores are widely
developed in shale, which leads to a large part of the gas
in the shale being adsorbed on the pore surfaces (Curtis,
2002). The organic matter and clay minerals are two key
compositions that affects the pore structure and the adsorption
characteristics (Wang et al., 2016; Xiong et al., 2017).
Therefore, understanding the relationship between shale
composition characteristics and microscopic pore structure
is the key to study the gas-adsorption characteristics. The
isothermal adsorption experiment, which is the most effective
method for evaluation of shale adsorption, is widely used
and can be applied to geological conditions by mathematical
models, such as Langmuir model, SDR model, SLD model
et, al. (Tian et al., 2016; Li et al., 2018). Low-temperature
N2 adsorption experiments, backscattering high-resolution
scanning electron microscopy (SEM) combined with argon-
ion polishing and other technical means have provided
effective support for study of the nanopore structure
characteristics (Chalmers et al., 2012).
The Huijunba syncline, which has a good potential
for shale-gas accumulation, is located at the center of the
Micangshan-Hannan paleo-uplift with structural coupling
between the Sichuan Basin and the Qinling Orogenic Belt
(Fig. 1). The total organic carbon (TOC), X-ray diffraction
(XRD), low pressure N2-adsorption measurement, SEM
data and isothermal CH4-adsorption analysis were used to
study the inÀuence of the organic matter and clay minerals
on the microscopic pore structure and CH4 adsorption, to
provide some reference for future shale-gas exploration and
development work in this region.
SAMPLES AND METHODS
All 22 samples used in this paper were collected from
the outcrop section of the Lower Cambrian Niutitang
Formation at the Huijunba syncline (Fig. 1). The lithology
of the sample is mainly black carbonaceous shale, black
shale, black silty shale, etc.
The TOC analyses were measured using a CS-344
analyzer following the standard GB/T 19145-2003 of China.
The XRD analysis of full rock was performed using a Rigaku
Ultima IV diffractometer with Cu-KĮ radiation at 40kV and
40mA. The scan was taken from 2 to 60° with a rate of 4°/
min and a step interval of 0.02°. For the clay-mineral XRD
analysis, the samples powders were treated by HCl (2 to
3%) to remove the carbonate minerals, and H2O2 (30%) was
used to remove the organic matter. Then the samples were
washed repeatedly with distilled water, and ammonia water
added and let stand to extract the suspension to centrifuge
the clay mineral. The treated samples were dried at 60°C
and ground to a powder for XRD analysis. The analysis was

Manuscript received by the Editor December 16, 2018; revised manuscript received May 4, 2019; manuscript accepted May 6, 2019.
1
Key Laboratory of Coal Exploration and Comprehensive Utilization, Ministry of Land and Resources, Xi’an 710021, PR China; Fu Deliang. No.
26 Wenjing Road Xi’an, 710021, Shaanxi, PR China. E-mail address: fudl3513@foxmail.com; Tian Tao. No. 26 Wenjing Road Xi’an, 710021,
Shaanxi, PR China. E-mail address: 54497213@qq.com
2
College of Energy, Chengdu University of Technology, Chengdu 610059, PR China;

373 PETROPHYSICS June 2019

 Composition of the Shales in Niutitang Formation at Huijunba Syncline and its InÀuence on Microscopic Pore Structure and Gas Adsorption
Fig. 1—Geological setting and sample location.
performed using a Bruker AXS D8 diffractometer with Cu-
KĮ radiation at 40kV and 40mA. The scan was taken from 3
to 45° with a rate of 2°/min and a step interval of 0.02°.
The low-pressure nitrogen-adsorption measurements
were performed on a Micromeritics ASAP 2460 physical
adsorption instrument. About 0.4 g of each powder sample
was automatically degassed at 110°C for 24 hours in
vacuum to remove adsorbed moisture and volatile matter.
The degassed samples were exposed to nitrogen at í196 °C
(with liquid nitrogen) along a series of precisely controlled
gas pressure. The pore-structure characteristics, such as
speci¿c surface area, pore volume, and pore diameter, were
generated by instrument software which included Brunauer-
Emmett-Teller (BET) analysis for speci¿c surface area, and
nonlocal density functional theory (NLDFT) for pore volume
and varied range of pore-size distributions (Lastoskie et al.,
1993).
The morphological and structural characteristics of the
pores were observed using a SEM with Merlin Compact
¿eld emission environment produced by Zeiss, which has an
accelerating voltage range of 20 V-30 kV, a resolution of 1.6
nm@1 kV, and a magni¿cation of 12X to 2×106X. The block
samples (about 5×5×3 mm) were ¿rst manually polished,
and then prepared by argon-ion cross-section polishing
(Leica EMTIC020 mill) using an acceleration voltage of 8
kV, a sample current of 2.8 mA, and a milling time of 1 hour.
June 2019
The mineralogical composition adjacent to pore structure
was identi¿ed using elemental analysis (EDS).
The isothermal methane-adsorption experiments were
conducted on a GAI-100 high-pressure isotherm adsorption
instrument at temperatures of 35, 60, and 85°C, at pressures
ranging from 0.15 to 14 MPa. The samples were dried at
100°C for about 24 hours in a He atmosphere to remove the
moisture in the sample and loading about 110 g of dried-
powder sample into the experiment cell. The experiment
system (Fig. 2) was ¿lled with He gas to remove the other
gases and the sample cells were pressurized with He gas
up to 20 MPa for a leak test at experiment temperature
for 24 hours (an accepted leakage is < 6.89×10-4 MP/h.
The void volume was determined by helium expansion
at experiment temperature individually for the methane-
adsorption isotherms calculation. Valves 2 and 3 were kept
closed and the methane was transferred to the tank for a
¿xed volume and Valve 1 was closed. When the pressure
in the tank reached equilibrium, Valve 2, which connects
the tank and the cell, was opened. When the change in
pressure to decreased below 6.89×10-4 MP over 5 min, the
equilibrium pressure was assumed to have been achieved
and the excess adsorption of methane at a given temperature
and equilibrium pressure could be calculated via the method
previously reported (Zhang et al., 2012, Gasparik et al.,
2014; Xiong et al., 2016).
PETROPHYSICS 374

Fig. 2—Schematic of the high-pressure isotherm adsorption instrument
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Pore Structure Characterization and Main Controlling
Factors
The TOC and XRD analysis results are presented in
Table 1. Figure 3 show the low-pressure N2-adsorption
Table 1—Results of the TOC and XRD Analyses
Q, quartz; F, feldspar; Car, carbonate; Py, pyrite; Bar, barite; Anh, anhydrite; K, kaolinite; C, chlorite; I, illite; I/S, illite/montmorillonite mixed layer; C/S,
chlorite/montmorillonite mixed layer. “/”, not detected.
375
Fu et al.
isotherms for samples YSB-05, NZ-09, and FZ-14, and
the Table 2 shows the pore structure characterization.
According to the International Union of Pure and Applied
Chemistry (IUPAC), pores are classi¿ed as micropores (<2
nm), mesopores (2 to 50 nm), and macropores (>50 nm),
additionally, the pores are generally divided into organic
PETROPHYSICS June 2019
 Composition of the Shales in Niutitang Formation at Huijunba Syncline and its InÀuence on Microscopic Pore Structure and Gas Adsorption

pores and inorganic pores based on the pore-forming material widely distributed, inorganic pores including intergranular
(Slatt and O’Brien, 2011). Figure 4 presents SEM images of pores, crystal particle pores, microcracks, and intragranular
sample microscopic pores. In Fig. 4 the organic pores are pore can also be seen in the images.

Fig. 3— Low-pressure N2-adsorption isotherms for Samples YSB-05, NZ-09, and FZ-14.

Table 2—The Pore Structure Characterization

a: T-P, total pores, b: Mi-P, micropores (<2 nm), c: Me-P, mesopores (2 to 50 nm), d: Ma-P, macropores (>50 nm).

June 2019 PETROPHYSICS 376

 Fu et al.

Fig. 4—SEM images of microscopic pores from the samples.

377 PETROPHYSICS June 2019

 Composition of the Shales in Niutitang Formation at Huijunba Syncline and its InÀuence on Microscopic Pore Structure and Gas Adsorption
Micropores in the shale primarily provide speci¿c
surface area, while mesopores and macropores provide
pore volume. Figure 5 show the relationship between shale
composition and pore SDFT (the pore surface area generated
by the NLDFT model), the TOC and the speci¿c surface area
of micropores show a good positive correlation (Fig. 5a),
indicating that organic matter is the main form of micropores.
There is a positive correlation between N2 adsorption and its
speci¿c surface area, this is also reÀected in the increase in
the TOC, the shale adsorption gas capacity increases (Tian et
al., 2016; Wang, 2017). There is a slight positive correlation
between the speci¿c surface area of the mesopores and the
clay minerals, reÀecting the contribution of clay minerals to
the mesopores. Aside from the organic matter, clay minerals
are the most important minerals that affect the content of
adsorbed gas in the shale (Gu et al., 2018), and previous
study has shown that the adsorption capacity of clay minerals
has the following order: montmorillonite > I/M mixed layer
> kaolinite > chlorite > illite (Ji et al., 2012).
The pore volume would be more relevant to the free-
gas storage and Fig. 6 shows the relationship between
shale composition and pore VDFT (pore volume generated
by the NLDFT model), which is similar to the surface area.
However, it’s important to note that the mesopore volume
is much higher than the micropore and the macropore
volumes in the NLDFT method, which are limited. The VDFT
shown in Figs. 6c and 6f is incomplete, which means that
the macropores and mesopores provide much more storage
space for free gas.
Fig. 5—Crossplots showing the relationship between shale composition and the pore SDFT.
June 2019
Isothermal Adsorption Characteristics and
Thermodynamic Parameters
Samples FZ-14, NZ-09, YSB-05 were subjected to
isothermal adsorption experiments and the result are shown
in Fig. 7.
Similar to previous studies, the amount of methane
adsorption in the three samples at same temperature increased
with the increase of pressure and when the pressure reached
a certain value, the adsorption amount gradually became
stable. The three parameters in the Langmuir adsorption
model (Eq. 1) and the thermodynamic adsorption principle
(Eq. 2) (Li et al., 2018) were used and the results were ¿tted
to obtain the Langmuir constant (K) and the maximum
absolute adsorption capacity at a given temperature (nmax)
(Table 3) and the adsorption thermodynamic parameters
(Table 4).
(1)
(2)
where nexcess is the excess adsorption amount obtained by
CH4 isothermal experiment, ȡg is density of free methane
at experimental temperature and pressure (which can be
obtained via the US National Institute of Standards and
Testing (NIST) package using the Setzmann and Wagner
equation (Setzmann and Wagner, 1991), ȡads is the density
PETROPHYSICS 378
 Fu et al.

Fig. 6—The relationship between shale composition and pore VDFT.

Fig. 7—Measured and Langmuir-based model calculations of excess adsorption isotherms of methane for shale.

379 PETROPHYSICS June 2019

 Composition of the Shales in Niutitang Formation at Huijunba Syncline and its InÀuence on Microscopic Pore Structure and Gas Adsorption

Table 3—Langmuir Constant and Maximum Adsorption Amount of Each Sample Under Different Temperature

Table 4—Adsorption Heat and Standard Adsorption Entropy physical adsorption, the entropy produced by the conversion
of methane from free gas to adsorbed gas is about í87 J/
mol/K when the temperature is between 0 to 150°C (Xia
and Tang, 2012), while the entropy of Sample FZ-14 is
í98.8 J/mol/K (Table 4) which indicates that some methane
molecules are trapped in the micropores and have not been
adsorption (Hu et al., 2015).
The similarity between the diagram of excess adsorption
normalized to rock and to clay mineral or to TOC should
reÀect the level of the correlation between the rock and
of adsorbed methane which is always ¿tted to values of
clay and organic matter that the higher the similarity, the
424 mg/cm3 (the density of liquid methane at its boiling
temperature under 0.1 MPa), q is enthalpy of adsorption,
ǻS0 is molar entropy of adsorption, and P0 is constant
atmospheric pressure 0.1 MPa.
As the experimental temperature increases, the
adsorption amount gradually decreases, indicating that
the adsorption gas molecular activity is enhanced with
increasing temperature. The q and ǻS0 are two important
thermodynamic parameters used to describe the dependence
of Langmuir constant on the temperature at a certain
temperature. A higher q indicates a stronger adsorption force
of the gas on the surface of the shale, and a larger ǻS0 means a
weaker adsorption force of the gas on the surface of the shale
(Zhang et al., 2012). The thermodynamic parameters listed
in Table 4 show that the isosteric heat of adsorption is 5.3 to (a)
22.2kJ/mol and the standard entropy of adsorption is í98.8
to í48.8J/mol·K. and the parameters prove that Sample FZ-
14 has the strongest adsorption to methane, while Sample
NZ-09 has the weakest.

Controlling Factor in the Amount of Methane Adsorption

of Shale
Figure 8 show the pore-size distribution plot (8a) and
the cumulative surface area plot (8b) of shales calculated
using the NLDFT method, Sample FZ-14 has the largest
speci¿c surface area, while Sample YSB-05 has the lowest.
The surface area of the samples has two peaks when the pore
diameter is less than 2 nm, and it gradually decreases with
increasing pore diameter when the diameter is larger than 5
nm, which means that the micropores of the shale provide (b)
most of the methane-adsorption sites, while the contribution Fig. 8—(a) Pore-size distribution, and (b) the cumulative surface area
of mesopores and macropores is relatively limited. For plot of shales calculated using the NLDFT method

June 2019 PETROPHYSICS 380


stronger the correlation. In order to compare the effects of
clay mineral and TOC on CH4 adsorption, the isothermal
methane adsorption at three temperature were normalized to
the original rock (Fig. 9a1-3), clay mineral (Fig. 9b1-3) and
TOC (Fig. 9c1-3).
As Figs. 9b1-3 show a similar characteristic that the
methane adsorption is normalized to the clay mineral of the
three samples at different temperature that is Samples NZ-09
> YSB-05 > FZ-14, but is signi¿cantly different from Figs.
9a1-3, which could mean that the methane adsorption of clay
minerals is not the key factor in the methane adsorption in
shale. Additionally, the clay-mineral content of Samples
NZ-09 and YSB-05 are relatively low but the clay-mineral
normalized adsorption is higher than Sample FZ-14, which
means that the adsorption of shales with low clay-mineral
content may have a higher effective adsorption position.
It is clear from Figs. 9c1-3 that the adsorption amount
decreases with increasing temperature. The ¿gures are very
different from each other at different temperatures, which
range from 35 to 85°C, the order of the amount of adsorption
Fig. 9—CH4-adsorption isotherms for three samples, normalized to rock (a), to clay mineral (b), and to TOC (c),
381
Fu et al.
of the three samples changes from FZ-14 > NZ-09 > YSB-
05 to NZ-09 > FZ-14 > YSB-05, which means that as the
temperature increases the adsorption amount of Sample FZ-
14 decreases faster than Sample NZ-09. This characteristic is
similar to the original rock in which the methane adsorption
amount of Sample FZ-14 decreased much faster than the
other two with increasing temperature, indicating that the
organic matter is in the dominate factor in the methane
adsorption of shale.
CONCLUSIONS
The range of the thermodynamic parameters of Niutitang
Formation shales in Huijunba syncline were calculated as
(1) 5.3 to 22.2kJ/mol for the isosteric heat of adsorption,
and (2) í98.8 to í48.8J/mol·K for the standard entropy of
adsorption.
The nanoscale micropores in the study area are very
developed and the organic matter is the main material basis
for the formation of micropores. The surface area has two
PETROPHYSICS June 2019
 Composition of the Shales in Niutitang Formation at Huijunba Syncline and its InÀuence on Microscopic Pore Structure and Gas Adsorption

peaks in the range of pore diameter below 2 nm, which Image Analyses: Examples From the Barnett, Woodford,
provides the main sites for methane adsorption. Haynesville, Marcellus, And Doig Units, AAPG Bulletin,
The CH4 isothermal adsorption normalized to the 96(6):1099–1119. DOI: 10.1306/10171111052.
original rock, clay mineral and TOC reÀects that the organic Curtis, J.B., 2002, Fractured Shale-Gas Systems, AAPG Bulletin,
86(11), 1921–1938. DOI: 10.1306/61EEDDBE-173E-11D7-
matter is in the dominate factor in the methane adsorption of
8645000102C1865D.
shale and the adsorption of low clay-mineral content shales Gasparik, M., Bertier, P., Gensterblum, Y., Ghanizadeh, A.,
may have a higher effective adsorption position. Krooss, B.M., and Littke, R., 2014, Geological Controls
on the Methane Storage Capacity in Organic-Rich Shales,
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS International Journal of Coal Geology, 123, 34–51. DOI:
10.1016/j.coal.2013.06.010.
This research is ¿nancially supported by the Independent Gu, Y., Ding, W., Yin, S., Yin, M., and Xiao, Z., 2018,
subject of the Key Laboratory of Coal Exploration and Adsorption Characteristics of Clay Minerals in Shale,
Comprehensive Utilization, Ministry of Land and Resources Petroleum Science and Technology, 36(2):108–114. DOI:
10.1080/10916466.2017.1405031.
(ZP2019-3), the “Enterprise top innovative young talents
Hu, H., Zhang, T., Wiggins-Camacho, J.D., Ellis, G.S., Lewan,
support plan” (20180407), and Shaanxi Provincial Key
M.D., and Zhang, X., 2015, Experimental Investigation of
Research and Development Project (2017GY-150). Changes in Methane Adsorption of Bitumen-Free Woodford
Shale With Thermal Maturation Induced by Hydrous
NOMENCLATURE Pyrolysis, Marine and Petroleum Geology, 59, 114–128. DOI:
10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2014.07.029.
Abbreviations Ji, L., Zhang, T., Milliken, K.L., Qu, J., and Zhang, X., 2012,
Experimental Investigation of Main Controls to Methane
BET = Brunauer-Emmett-Teller Adsorption in Clay-Rich Rocks, Applied Geochemistry,
I/M = illite/montmorillonite 27(12), 2533–2545. DOI: 10.1016/j.apgeochem.2012.08.027.
NL-DFT = nonlocal density functional theory Lastoskie, C., Gubbins, K.E., and Quirke, N., 1993, Pore Size
SDR = supercritical Dubinin–Radushkevich Distribution Analysis of Microporous Carbons: A Density
SEM = scanning electron microscope Functional Theory Approach, The Journal of Physical
SLD = simpli¿ed local density Chemistry, 97(18):4786–4796. DOI: 10.1021/j100120a035.
TOC = total organic carbon Li, J., Zhou, S., Gaus, G., Li, Y., Ma, Y., Chen, K., and Zhang, Z.,
XRD = X-ray diffraction 2018, Characterization of Methane Adsorption on Shale and
Isolated Kerogen From the Sichuan Basin Under Pressure up
to 60 MPa: Experimental Results and Geological Implications,
Symbols
International Journal of Coal Geology, 189, 83–93. DOI:
K = Langmuir constant 10.1016/j.coal.2018.02.020.
nexcess = excess adsorption amount obtained by Setzmann, U., and Wagner, W., 1991, A New Equation of State and
CH4 isothermal experiment Tables of Thermodynamic Properties for Methane Covering
nmax = maximum absolute adsorption capacity at the Range from the Melting Line to 625 K at Pressures up to
a given temperature 100 MPa, Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data,
P = pressure 20(6), 1061–1155. DOI: 10.1063/1.555898.
P0 = constant atmospheric pressure (0.1MPa) Slatt, R.M., and O’Brien. N.R., 2011, Pore Types in the Barnett and
q = enthalpy of adsorption Woodford Gas Shales: Contribution to Understanding Gas
Storage and Migration Pathways in Fine-Grained Rocks, AAPG
R = nolar fas constant (8.314 J/mol/K)
Bulletin, 95(12), 2017–2030. DOI: 10.1306/03301110145.
ǻS0 = molar entropy of adsorption Tian, H., Li, T., Zhang, T., and Xiao, X., 2016, Characterization
T = temperature of Methane Adsorption on Overmature Lower Silurian–
ȡg = the density of free methane at experimental Upper Ordovician Shales In Sichuan Basin, Southwest
temperature and pressure China: Experimental Results and Geological Implications,
ȡads = the density of adsorbed methane (424 mg/cm3) International Journal of Coal Geology, 156, 36–49. DOI:
10.1016/j.coal.2016.01.013.
Wang, Y., Zhu, Y., Liu, S., and Zhang, R., 2016, Pore
REFERENCES Characterization and its Impact on Methane Adsorption
Capacity for Organic-Rich Marine Shales, Fuel, 181, 227–
Chalmers, G.R., Bustin, R.M., and Power. I.M., 2012, 237. DOI: 10.1016/j.fuel.2016.04.082.
Characterization of Gas Shale Pore Systems by Porosimetry, Wang, Z. 2017, Characterization of the Microscopic Pore
Pycnometry, Surface Area, and Field Emission Scanning Structure of the Lower Paleozoic Shale Gas Reservoir in the
Electron Microscopy/Transmission Electron Microscopy Southern Sichuan Basin and its InÀuence on Gas Content,

June 2019 PETROPHYSICS 382

 Fu et al.

Petroleum Science and Technology, 35(23), 2165–2171, DOI: Yang Fu graduated from Northwest University (China)
10.1080/10916466.2017.1390682. and worked as a senior engineer at Shaanxi Coal¿eld
Xia, X., and Tang, Y., 2012, Isotope Fractionation of Methane Geology Group Co., Ltd. He is engaged in unconventional
During Natural Gas Flow With Coupled Diffusion and natural gas geological research at the Key Laboratory of
Adsorption/Desorption, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta,
Coal Resources Exploration and Comprehensive Utilization
77, 489–503. DOI: 10.1016/j.gca.2011.10.014.
Xiong, F., Jiang, Z., Li, P., Wang, X., Bi, H., Li, Y., Wang, Z.,
of Ministry of Land and Resources, China. He has a PhD in
Amooie, M.A., Soltanian, M.R., and Moortgat, J., 2017, geology.
Pore Structure of Transitional Shales in the Ordos Basin, NW
China: Effects of Composition on Gas Storage Capacity, Fuel,
206, 504–515. DOI: 10.1016/j.fuel.2017.05.083.
Xiong, W., Zuo, L., Luo, L., Hu, Z., and Cui, Y., 2016, Methane
Adsorption on Shale Under High Temperature and High
Pressure of Reservoir Condition: Experiments and Supercritical
Adsorption Modeling, Adsorption Science & Technology,
34(2–3), 193–211. DOI: 10.1177/0263617415623425.
Zhang, T., Ellis, G.S., Ruppel, S.C., Milliken, K., and Yang,
R., 2012, Effect of Organic-Matter Type and Thermal
Maturity on Methane Adsorption in Shale-Gas Systems,
Organic Geochemistry, 47, 120–131. DOI: 10.1016/j.
orggeochem.2012.03.012.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Fu De-liang (corresponding author) is a geological

senior engineer. He is engaged in unconventional oil and
gas geology research; his work mainly focuses on the gas
adsorption mechanism and pore structure characteristics
of shale. He received a PhD in geochemistry from the
University of Chinese Academy of Sciences in 2016.

Xu Guosheng is a professor of research on the

mechanism of hydrocarbon accumulation dynamics. His
work mainly targets the Tarim Basin, the Junggar Basin, the
Ordos Basin, the Sichuan Basin, the Songliao Basin, and the
Bohai Bay Basin in China.

Tian Tao (corresponding author) is a geological senior

engineer. He did a lot of research in the northern margin of
the upper Yangtze plate about the shale gas accumulation
mechanism. He received a PhD in geology from Northwest
University (China) in 2015.

Qin Jian-qiang is a geophysical senior engineer. He

is primarily engaged in geophysical logging and seismic
exploration research at the Key Laboratory of Coal Resources
Exploration and Comprehensive Utilization of Ministry of
Land and Resources, China.

383 PETROPHYSICS June 2019

PETROPHYSICS, VOL. 60, NO. 3 (JUNE 2019); PAGES 384–396; 9 FIGURES; 2 TABLES. DOI: 10.30632/PJV60N3-2019a2

Accelerated Whole-Core Analysis Optimization With Wellsite Tomography

Instrumentation and Bayesian Inversion
Alberto Mendoza1, Lassi Roininen2, Mark Girolami1, Jere Heikkinen3, and Heikki Haario2

ABSTRACT

Our previous work con¿rmed that Bayesian inversion
enables whole-core tomography with sparse and noise-
perturbed measurements, suitable for wellsite portable
industrial scanners. The current study examines further
potential of Bayesian inversion on-site X-ray computerized
tomography (CT) in producing quanti¿able digital
representations of core samples. To that end, workÀows
using 3D tomographic images depict (1) rock heterogeneity,
(2) lithological changes, (3) bedding planes, (4) fractures
and nodules, and (5) scale of heterogeneity by quantifying
porosity regions. In so doing, this wellsite-based analysis
aids in accelerating an informed assessment of whole
round core and plug-sample locations for laboratory
analysis. Additionally, earlier ¿rst-stage core analysis,
promotes timely core-log integration and can signi¿cantly
improve ef¿ciency of subsequent laboratory sampling and
analysis programs. Considering carbonate core samples
with complex pore topology, images stemming from
Bayesian inversion yield estimates of image-detectable
macroporosity within 8% relative to those from customary
medical tomograms and depict similar distribution of vugs
and angular bedding. Moreover, further appraisal of the
performance of the proposed imaging technique, in the
presence of multiphase saturation, considers a micro-CT
of an oil-bearing carbonate after waterÀooding. The intent
is to con¿rm availability of a consistent CT method across
scales, and its relevance to whole-core imaging in situations
of sponge coring or ¿ltrate invasion. At this scale, while
images from Bayesian inversion generate coarsened pore
networks, porosity and saturation estimates are within 2%
compared to those from customary micro-CT.

INTRODUCTION of heterogeneity, presence of bedding, and subsample

Ground truth in formation evaluation still
fundamentally anchors on information stemming from
core analysis, which often starts before sample arrival
to the laboratory. Consequently, timely and informed
decisions, from precollection planning, wellsite handling,
and laboratory analysis, to effective use by geoscientists
or engineers aid in securing successful coring investments.
To that end, a customary ¿rst-stage analysis practice, that
improves decisions for further analysis is whole-core
X-ray computational tomography (CT). Because of its
nondestructive characteristic and the fact that it can produce
a three-dimensional (3D) image of the core while still inside
the liner, whole-core X-ray CT yields key information for
selecting analysis requirements.
In addition to promoting early integration of core with
log analysis, McPhee et al. (2015) describe numerous
functions of whole core X-ray CT in ¿rst-stage evaluation
including assessment of quantity and quality of recovered
core, detecting fracture or damage zones, inspecting scale
selection. Particularly, when wellsite subsampling is
required for fast-track analysis (see McPhee et al., 2015),
unless whole-core CT is completed on-site, this procedure
may result in suboptimal sample selection. Additionally,
earlier availability of whole-core CT scans (i.e., at the
wellsite), accelerates more ef¿cient and optimized core-
analysis programs for subsequent execution in the laboratory.
However, although X-ray CT (with medical measurement
principles) has been used in the ¿eld (Freifeld et al., 2003,
2006), whole-core X-ray CT remains almost exclusively
in the laboratory domain because of restricted portability
and high costs associated with customary (medical) X-ray
scanners.
This paper examines the potential added value of
wellsite whole-core X-ray CT using portable industrial
instrumentation, which require different computational
imaging methods than customary medical scanners. In
Mendoza et al. (2019), we con¿rmed that sparse, noise-
perturbed measurements, acquired with industrial scanners,
combined with Bayesian inversion tomography produce

Manuscript received by the Editor November 27, 2018; manuscript accepted February 18, 2019.
1
The Alan Turing Institute, UK; The British Library, 96 Euston Road, London, NW1 2DB; amendozachavez@turing.ac.uk; mgirolami@turing.ac.uk
2
LUT University, Finland; Yliopistonkatu 34, FI-53850 Lappeenranta; lassi.roininen@lut.¿; heikki.haario@lut.¿
3
Finnos Oy, Tukkikatu 5, FI-53900 Lappeenrant; jere.heikkinen@¿nnos.¿

June 2019 PETROPHYSICS 384

 Accelerated Whole-Core Analysis Optimization With Wellsite Tomography Instrumentation and Bayesian Inversion

useful information about whole-core samples. In this study,
our primary objective is to evaluate the potential of Bayesian
inversion wellsite whole-core tomography as a quanti¿ed
representation of the sample. To that end, we assess the
performance of the inversion technique in characterizing (1)
rock heterogeneity, (2) lithological changes, (3) fractures
and nodules, (4) bedding planes, and (5) porosity regions.
We show that similar information about the core can
be inferred from sparse-measurement Bayesian inversion
tomograms and dense-measurement (base-case) medical
X-ray CT images of whole-core carbonate samples. At the
outset, we examine two contrasting carbonate whole-core
samples of complex pore topography and distinctive degrees
of heterogeneity. In so doing, we segment 3D tomograms
into pore and rock matrix, and subsequently ¿t pore-network
models for quantitative comparison between inversion
results and base-case. Similarly, we consider imaging a
microscale case of a waterÀooded oil-bearing carbonate
with the intent of evaluating the inversion performance in
the presence of multiphase saturation. This attribute could
be useful in whole-core applications such as situations of
sponge whole core, or mud-¿ltrate invasion.
METHOD AND WORKFLOW
Particularly when whole-core samples are required for
reservoir characterization, on-site tomographic imaging
enables accelerated preliminary integrated analysis.
Additionally, earlier sample imaging aids in designing
more informed, time-ef¿cient, and cost-effective laboratory
core-analysis programs. Depending on drillsite location
and logistics of transportation to a core-analysis laboratory,
it may take days to several weeks before beginning core
analysis. Alternatively, if whole-core X-ray imaging is
completed on-site, an informed ¿rst-stage evaluation of the
core can be completed prior to its arrival to the laboratory
(see Fig. 1). Moreover, accelerated 3D whole-core imaging
enables the design of detailed sampling plans that aid in
selecting location and orientation of plugs and whole-core
sample intervals (see Fig. 2).
A practical on-site whole-core tomographic imaging
technique is feasible with a portable X-ray source-detector
assembly, which either rotates around a stationary sample
or is ¿xed for a rotating core. While this imaging setting can
acquire dense, full- or limited-angle, X-ray measurements,

Fig. 1—Simpli¿ed core-analysis workÀow from wellsite whole-core recovery to specialized laboratory procedures in subsamples. The top section
shows a standard situation when the ¿rst X-ray CT is done in the laboratory and the bottom section shows a proposed workÀow where X-ray CT of
whole-core samples is completed on-site with a portable industrial scanner (see Fig. 3). RCA and SCAL refer to routine core analysis and special
core analysis, respectively.

385 PETROPHYSICS June 2019


Fig. 2—3D visualization of a 0.5-m long, 5-in. diameter whole-core and potential 1.5-in. diameter plug samples, allowing accelerated detailed sampling
planning for laboratory analysis, when imaging is completed on-site.
the portability of the scanner is inversely proportional
to the measurement sophistication. Consequently, we
consider X-ray imaging with sparse and limited-angle
measurements, that simpli¿es the scanning equipment,
increasing its portability. While conventional (medical)
scanners produce high-resolution tomographic images
using direct computational methods, i.e., ¿lter back-
projection (FBP), which are fast, these imaging techniques
require dense and noise-free measurements (Vepsäläinen
et al., 2014). Mendoza et al. (2019) show that statistical
tomographic imaging methods, namely Bayesian inversion,
can reconstruct whole-core images with sparse and noise-
contaminated measurements, which can effectively detect
coarse sedimentary features and provide useful information
about the rock texture and heterogeneity. In so doing,
portable industrial scanners combined with the proposed
computational method can accelerate availability of valuable
information (see Fig. 3).
In this paper, we further examine the potential of on-site
Bayesian inversion (via Markov Chain Monte Carlo, MCMC)
whole-core tomography as a quanti¿ed representation of the
June 2019
Mendoza et al.
sample. To that end, we use a single-component Metropolis-
Hastings (SCMH) algorithm to estimate the posterior
conditional mean (CM) and reconstruct 3D whole-core
X-ray images as in Mendoza et al. (2019). In this analysis,
at the expense of additional computational intensity for the
inversion, we consider 91 angular projections (still very
sparse, given that FBP typically uses more than 2,000)
acquired in a limited interval of 180° around the sample,
with 10% noise contamination. As described by Markkanen
et al. (2019) and Mendoza et al. (2019), the assumed
measurement con¿guration consists of a 2D fan-beam with
source and detector relative distance to the rotational axis of
4 and 2, respectively.
Tomographic imaging with Bayesian inversion
For tomographic imaging, with discretized “unknown”
parameter-vector v ԹN (i.e., with N pixel/voxel values), the
linear inverse problem is characterized by
(1)
PETROPHYSICS 386
 Accelerated Whole-Core Analysis Optimization With Wellsite Tomography Instrumentation and Bayesian Inversion

Fig. 3—Laboratory (top-left) and industrial (bottom-left) X-ray scanning instrumentation and schematics of their corresponding measurement
principles. Right panels represent direct (top) and statistical (bottom) computational imaging methods, suitable for dense and sparse measurements,
respectively.

where m is the known, noise-perturbed measurements,
A is the known linear forward-theory matrix, and e is the
measurement-noise vector with known statistical properties
(refer to Mendoza et al. (2019) for construction of these
vectors and matrices). The solution of a Bayesian statistical
inverse problem is the posterior probability density, which
we give as an un-normalized representation as follows:
h, h’ > 0 and regularization parameter ı2, we give the prior
with independent and identically distributed increments (i.e.,
differences between neighboring pixels) as
(4)
(5)

(2) For details on the Cauchy difference prior construction, see

where D(m|v) is the likelihood density, which depends on the
measurement con¿guration, and D(v) is the prior (a priori
distribution) of v, and accounts for information available
before the inversion. The likelihood density is ¿xed
(Markkanen et al., 2019) and constrained by the discrete
model as,
(3)
Markkanen et al. (2019). Following previous observations
(Mendoza et al., 2019), we choose the CM as an estimator of
the posterior distribution, explicitly,
(6)
and approximate its solution via SCMH, because of its
unfeasibility in higher dimensions (see Hastings, 1970; Gilks
et al., 1995; Roininen et al., 2014; Markkanen et al., 2019).

with known covariance matrix Ȉ. Sample Image Quanti¿cation

Since we established that the form of the likelihood
distribution is ¿xed, the only adaptable parameter is the
prior, D(v). In so doing, Mendoza et al. (2019) con¿rm
that Cauchy difference priors are most suitable for this
application. In a 2D lattice (hj, h’j’) with discretization steps
We infer quantitative information from 3D whole-core
Bayesian inversion results to (1) measure their similarity
against the unknown (base-case) images, and (2) better
evaluate their potential use for accelerated ¿rst-stage
core analysis. In addition to earlier log-core integration,
identi¿cation of pore-space regions and lithological

387 PETROPHYSICS June 2019

 Mendoza et al.
variations is critical for designing improved subsampling
and analysis plans. To that end, ¿rst, we segment the 3D
whole-core images into pore space and rock matrix using
thresholding (where the threshold values are determined
consistently for multiple samples). Second, in analogy
to a micro-CT scale core-analysis workÀow, we extract
a conventional pore network from discretization of the
pore space from reconstructed images using the algorithm
Pnextract (Raeini et al., 2017) and OpenPNM (Gostick et
al., 2016). To that end, we report visual, using ParaView
(Ayachit, 2015), and tabulated comparisons between
the results from the inversion image and those from the
unknown. A last set of results, which is a microscale image,
includes, in addition to the above, comparison of estimated
relative permeability estimates via the network simulation
code PoreÀow (Valvatne and Blunt, 2003).
RESULTS AND DISCUSION
To evaluate the feasibility of obtaining valuable
information about core samples from Bayesian inversion
3D whole-core images, we compare vCM estimates to
corresponding base-case images (acquired in the laboratory
domain). We assume that the unknown is represented
by the base-case image, which consequently, in our
formulation, restricts the resolution of the estimator to that
of the unknown. The goal is to obtain similar information
from the estimators using sparse, partial angle, and noise-
contaminated measurements, to that from standard X-ray CT
images.
Because whole-core analysis is of special interest in
carbonates due to their scale of heterogeneity (see Baynum
and Koepf, 1957; Honarpour et al., 2005; Mohamed et al.,
2010; Skinner et al., 2015; Victor et al., 2017; Dernaika et
al., 2018), at the outset, we present results from two distinct
carbonate samples. Given the sample scale and image
resolution, the analysis focuses in obtaining information
about rock heterogeneity, lithological variations, bedding
planes, presence of fractures and nodules, and regions of
concentrated macroporosity and vugular porosity.
An additional set of results examines the performance of
the inversion at the microscale in the presence of multiphase
saturation. Conversely, the objective of this example is not
to evaluate the potential of on-site CT at the microscale.
Because micro-CT is customarily done in small rock
samples and using specialized laboratory high-resolution
instrumentation (see Ketcham and Carlson, 2001; Arns et al.,
2005; Cnudde and Boone, 2013), the use of on-site industrial
scanners, at this scale, remains impractical. Accordingly, the
intent of this example is to further validate the technique
by examining its performance in smaller scale and in the
June 2019 PETROPHYSICS
presence of multiple saturating Àuids. Additionally, we
assess scale-consistency of the technique, which may be
useful for upscaling digital rocks, for example. Moreover,
because of its statistical characteristics, Bayesian inversion
may offer insights into quantifying the intrinsic uncertainty
of the petrophysical properties inferred from X-ray images,
which we leave for future study.
Whole Core X-Ray CT
Sample 1 in Fig. 4 is a tomographic image of a whole-core
carbonate rock sample with complex pore topology resulting
from diagenetic processes (sample C04B21_Raw140keV
from Victor and Prodanovic (2017)). To compare medical
X-ray CT images to corresponding Bayesian inversion
tomograms, we show results using sections of the samples
described by Victor et al. (2017) in their dual-energy CT-
based Monte Carlo study. While Bayesian inversion was
completed for the entire region in the medical experimental
setup, we show results for an 8.5×8.5×50 cm, rectangular
section (i.e., focusing on the rock sample only). To that end,
the 3D tomograms consist of 137×137×400 voxels, each
of dimensions 0.488×0.488×1.25 mm in the x, y, and z
coordinate directions.
The left panels in Fig. 4 show the medical CT image
(Fig. 4a) and the pore network model (Fig. 4g) stemming
from binarizing the tomogram into rock matrix (Fig. 4c)
and pore-space (Fig. 4e). Accordingly, the right panels show
the corresponding estimators from Bayesian inversion. The
results in Figs. 4b, 4d, and 4f show that, on ¿rst inspection,
the tomograms reconstructed with Bayesian inversion (using
sparse, noise-perturbed, and limited-angle measurements)
image rock heterogeneity similar to that of the base-case.
While the density of large vugular pores is lower in the
inversion results, the distribution of porosity regions is
similar to that of the base-case, e.g., lower porosity planes
between 150 and 200 mm and 350 and 450 mm in the
z direction. Additionally, similar lithological variations
(dolomitization) are reproduced by relative concentrations
of more- and less-attenuating rock, in orange and yellow
colors, respectively.
While detection of the above sedimentary characteristics
yields valuable information to quantify and compare the
porosity attributes (captured within the sample scale and
image resolution) from the inversion image, we examine
extracted pore networks. In so doing, we construct
conventional pore-network models following techniques
designed for micro-CT analysis (Dong and Blunt, 2009;
Raeini et al., 2017) as a comparative metric of the inversion
image to the unknown and not as a meticulous description
of the rock porosity and connectivity. To that end, Table 1
lists characteristics of pore-network models constructed
388
 Accelerated Whole-Core Analysis Optimization With Wellsite Tomography Instrumentation and Bayesian Inversion

Fig. 4—Sample 1 whole-core spatial distribution of the macroporosity estimated from Bayesian inversion results (right panels) vs. that of the unknown
(left panels). (g) and (h) compare pore networks extracted (in analogy to a micro-CT scale image) using the whole-core macroporosity distribution (see
Table 1). Axes show length in mm and voxel size is 0.488×0.488×1.25 mm.

389 PETROPHYSICS June 2019


Table 1—Comparison of Pseudo-Pore-Network Properties Extracted From Whole-Core Sample Images (see Figs. 4 and 6).
using medical (unknown) and inversion images. Porosity
depicts the ratio of number of voxels classi¿ed as pore space
(Figs. 4e and 4f), below a threshold CT value (see Fig. 5a),
to those classi¿ed as matrix (Figs. 4c and 4d), above the
threshold. Similarly, net porosity is the percent pore space
calculated after network extraction via Pnextract (Raeini et
al., 2017); throats are cylindrical pore-to-pore connections,
and connection number represents the number of connecting
pores to a single pore. While the percent difference between
the porosity from Bayesian inversion and base-case is 8%,
the number of pores and throats differ by 14 and 21%,
respectively.
Fig. 5—Normalized frequency of CT values for (a) Sample 1, and (b)
Sample 2. Inversion results are in red and the unknown is in black (see
Figs. 4 and 6). Dashed vertical lines are corresponding porosity cutoff
values.
June 2019
Mendoza et al.
Threshold CT values for porosity were determined as,
CTth = ȝ – aı. Where ȝ is the mode of the image CT density, ı
is the standard deviation of a normal distribution, with mean
ȝ, that best ¿ts the image density (neglecting the left tail),
and a is a scaling factor equal to 2.3 and 2.74 for inversion
and unknown images, respectively.
Sample 2 in Fig. 6 is of the same dimensions of Sample
1 and is a section of sample C04B10_Raw140keV from
Victor and Prodanoviü (2017). Characteristically different
from Sample 1, Sample 2 includes larger regions of
subresolution vugular porosity and angular bedding planes
with large vugs. Additionally, we include a fractured section
of the core for imaging. Following the same tomographic
image CT thresholding procedure as used in Sample 1, Figs.
6d and 6f show Bayesian inversion results for rock matrix
and porosity, respectively. Accordingly, on ¿rst inspection,
porosity regions (i.e., large vugs and subresolution porosity)
and fracture geometry are similar to those depicted from the
unknown (Figs. 6c and 6e). In this case, for pore-network
extraction, we exclude the last 5 cm of the sample, which
contain the fracture. To that end, visual comparison between
the network form Bayesian inversion results (Fig. 6h) and
that of the base-case (Fig. 6g) shows that, while the location
of vugs is similar, pore size and number is signi¿cantly
different. Incidentally, Table 1 shows that the porosity (and
net porosity) values of the inversion image are very similar
(even more than in the case of Sample 1) than those of the
unknown. However, contrary to Sample 1, in this case the
number of pores and throats differ from the base-case values
by 49 and 60%, respectively.
The above comparisons show that although quantitative
characterization of the pore network is not feasible using
Bayesian inversion (or medical) tomograms from whole-
core samples (with the resolution of the images used in
this study), both medical and industrial CT images yield
similar valuable information. Successful detection of rock
heterogeneity, vugular porosity regions, bedding planes,
and fractures with Bayesian inversion enables accelerated
optimization of core analysis with measurements acquired
on-site. Additionally, reservoir rock heterogeneity inferred
from accelerated whole-core tomographic images can
be valuable input for ¿rst-stage analysis based on digital
PETROPHYSICS 390
 Accelerated Whole-Core Analysis Optimization With Wellsite Tomography Instrumentation and Bayesian Inversion

Fig. 6—Sample 2 whole-core spatial distribution of the macroporosity estimated from Bayesian inversion results (right panels) vs. that of the unknown
(left panels). (g) and (h) compare pore networks extracted (in analogy to a micro-CT scale image) using the whole-core macroporosity distribution (see
Table 1). Axes show length in mm and the voxel size is 0.488×0.488×1.25 mm.

391 PETROPHYSICS June 2019

 Mendoza et al.
techniques. On-site images could be used for preliminary
estimates of density and atomic number (Victor et al., 2017)
or a preface assessment of the effects of heterogeneity
on permeability following similar techniques to those of
Dernaika et al. (2018).
Results con¿rm that accelerated whole-core-based
¿rst-stage characterization of rock heterogeneity and
detection of coarse sedimentary features is feasible with
industrial scanners combined with statistical imaging
methods. However, to further assess the boundaries of the
of the inversion technique, it is advantageous to examine its
performance at the microscale and high-resolution. To that
end, (acknowledging that micro-CT resides in the laboratory
domain and with specialized scanning techniques) in a
similar way as in the whole-core examples, we report an
example of Bayesian inversion imaging at the microscale in
the presence of multiphase saturation.
Microscale X-Ray CT
Sample 3 in Fig. 7 is a 1.2-cm cubic section of Sample2_
Original from Alhammadi et al. (2018), an oil-bearing
mixed-wet carbonate reservoir rock after 20 pore volumes of
waterÀooding (see Alhammadi et al. (2017) for details of the
waterÀooding conditions and wettability characterization).
The 3D tomogram under analysis consists of 600×600×600
cubic voxels of 2 ȝm size. Figure 7 compares distribution
of water (Fig. 7d) and remaining oil (Fig. 7f) stemming
from Bayesian inversion imaging to corresponding Àuid
distributions from standard micro-CT images (Figs. 7c and
7e). In both, inversion and base-case, we used corresponding
thresholding determined from the image CT distribution
for segmentation into rock matrix, brine, and oil. Figure
8 shows normalized density and threshold values for the
unknown (black) and inversion results (red). A remarkable
characteristic of the Bayesian inversion image is the more
evident trimodal atribute of its density compared to that of
the unknown. This characteristic aids in selecting threshold
values, which in this case, yield very similar porosity and
Àuid-saturation estimates between the unknown and the
inversion images (Table 2).
Figures 7g and 7h show that, in general, pore size is
signi¿cantly larger in the pore network extracted from
inversion results compared to that from the unknown.
Accordingly, for similar net porosity, the number of pores
is substantially lower in the case of the Bayesian inversion
estimator. While the percent variation of net porosity
between the two images is less than 2%, the number of
pores and throats decrease in the inversion by 72 and 82%,
respectively (see Table 2). These results indicate that sparsity
of measurements used in Bayesian inversion yields a coarser
tomographic image that groups neighboring small pores
June 2019 PETROPHYSICS
into single, larger pores. Consequently, the extracted pore
network, of similar net porosity, consists of fewer and larger
pores and pore throats, i.e., a simpli¿ed, coarsened version
of the base-case.
To assess the impact of pore-network model coarsening,
stemming from use of sparse X-ray angular projections (and
possibly imaging method), on rock Àow attributes, Fig. 9
compares estimated relative permeability curves. To that
end, we consistently simulate relative permeability in an oil-
brine system using both unknown and inversion images via
the network-simulation code PoreÀow (Valvatne and Blunt,
2003). In both, drainage and imbibition processes, estimated
values of oil, kro, and water relative permeability, krw, match
when values of water saturation, Sw, are below approximately
42%.
While the intent of this exercise is not to promote use of
sparse-measurement-based imaging for meticulous micro-
CT analysis, results show further feasibility of the inversion
technique in detecting multiphase saturations and preserving
useful information about rock connectivity, under enough
detector resolution.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
With the conception that customary, direct, X-ray
CT methods, namely FBP, require dense and noise-free
measurements, generally acquired in a laboratory, we
evaluated the feasibility of using simpli¿ed measurement
principles for accelerated on-site tomographic imaging.
In particular, we con¿rmed that combination of Bayesian
inversion (via MCMC methods) with sparse and noise-
contaminated measurements, can yield valuable information
prior to transporting core to a laboratory. In so doing, portable
industrial scanners can successfully produce 3D tomograms
of core samples useful for accelerated ¿rst-stage analysis.
Using medical CT images of two carbonate samples as a
base-case, we compared basic sedimentary characteristics
inferred from these tomograms to those from Bayesian
inversion images and showed that:
x In carbonates with complex pore topology, inversion
images effectively characterize distribution of
macroporosity regions, large vugs, and angular
bedding.
x Bayesian inversion images show similar proportion
of lithological variations i.e., dolomitization.
x Inversion yields similar values (up to 8% difference)
of CT-derived porosity (neglecting subresolution
pores) via thresholding, while differences in ¿tted
pores and pore throats were as high as 49 and 60%,
respectively. However, extracted pore networks
preserve the relative distribution of large pores.
392
 Accelerated Whole-Core Analysis Optimization With Wellsite Tomography Instrumentation and Bayesian Inversion

Fig. 7—Sample 3 spatial distribution of the porosity and Àuids estimated from Bayesian inversion results (right panels) vs. that of the unknown (left
panels). (g) and (h) compare extracted conventional pore networks (see Table 2). Axes show length in ȝm and voxel size is 2×2×2 ȝm.

393 PETROPHYSICS June 2019

 Mendoza et al.
Fig. 8—Normalized frequency of image values for Sample 3. Inversion
results are in red and the unknown is in black (see Fig. 7). Dashed and
dotted vertical lines are corresponding porosity and Àuid-phase cutoff
values, respectively.
Fig. 9—Relative permeability curves simulated with a two-phase network
modeling code using extracted pore networks from the unknown and
inversion images (see Fig. 7).
June 2019 PETROPHYSICS
Table 2—Comparison of Pore-Network Properties Extracted From Core
Sample Images (see Fig. 7)
Similarly, further assessment of the performance of
the inversion technique at the microscale in the presence of
multiphase saturation shows that:
x The multimodes of the density of Bayesian inversion
images are more evident, aiding basic segmentation
via thresholding.
x While CT image estimates of porosity and saturation
are within 2%, pore-network modeling shows over
70% decrease in the number of ¿tted pores and
pore throats, but with larger radius (i.e., a coarsened
description of pore network).
Considering that the proposed inversion-based
imaging technique uses at least one order of magnitude
fewer measurements than customary FBP, the similarity of
information conveyed by inversion tomograms is remarkable.
Accelerated availability of this information is valuable,
predominantly in cases of small-scale rock heterogeneity
and complex pore topology, where both, whole core and
plugs are required for effective reservoir characterization.
In so doing, on-site imaging, sensibly feasible with portable
scanners and statistical imaging methods, can potentially
enable, in addition to optimized design of sampling plans,
(1) early informed ¿rst-stage core evaluation, (2) integration
with log analysis, and (3) serve as critical input to digital-
analysis techniques.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The work reported in this paper was funded by the
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council,
Grant Number: EP/K034154/1; Academy of Finland, Grant
Numbers: 312122, 326240 and 326341; and with support
from the Alan Turing Institute – Lloyd’s Register Foundation
program on data-centric engineering.
394
 Accelerated Whole-Core Analysis Optimization With Wellsite Tomography Instrumentation and Bayesian Inversion

NOMENCLATURE Alhammadi, A., AlRatrout, A., Singh, K., Bijeljic, B., and Blunt,
M.J., 2017, In Situ Characterization of Mixed-Wettability in
Abbreviations a Reservoir Rock at Subsurface Conditions, Nature: Scienti¿c
Reports, 7(1), 10753. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-10992-w.
3D = three-dimensional Arns, C.H., Bauget, F., Ghous, A., Sakellariou, A., Senden, T.J.,
CM = conditional mean Sheppard, A.P., Sok, R.M., Pinczewski, W.V., Kelly, J.C.,
CT = computational tomography and Knackstedt, M.A., 2005, Digital Core Laboratory:
FBP = ¿lter back-projection Petrophysical Analysis From 3D Imaging of Reservoir Core
MCMC = Markov chain Monte Carlo Fragments, Petrophysics, 46(4), 260–277.
OpenPNM = open-source pore-network modeling package Ayachit, U., 2015, The Paraview Guide: A Parallel Visualization
Application, Kitware Inc. ISBN 978-1930934306.
ParaView = open-source, multiplatform data analysis and
Baynum, R.S., and Koepf, E.H., 1957, Whole-Core Analysis
visualization application Methods and Interpretation of Data from Carbonate
PoreÀow = two-phase network modeling code Reservoirs, Journal of Petroleum Technology, 9(11), 11–15,
Pnextract = pore-network extraction code DOI: 10.2118/817-G.
RCA = routine core analysis Cnudde, V., and Boone, M., 2013, High-Resolution X-Ray
SCAL = special core analysis Computed Tomography in Geosciences: A Review of the
SCMH = single-component Metropolis Hastings Current Technology and Applications, Earth-Science Reviews,
123, 1–17, DOI: 10.1016/j.earscirev.2013.04.003.
Dernaika, M., Al Mansoori, M., Singh, M., Al Dayyani, T.,
Symbols Kalam, Z., Bhakta, R., Koronfol, S., and Uddin, Y.N., 2018,
a= scaling factor Digital and Conventional Techniques to Study Permeability
A= linear forward theory matrix Heterogeniety in Complex Carbonate Rocks, Petropysics,
CTth = threshold CT value 59(3), 373–396, DOI: 10.30632/PJV59N3-2018a6.
D(•) = probability density of • Dong, H., and Blunt, M.J., 2009, Pore-Network Extraction from
D(•|*) = conditional probability density of • given * Micro-Computerized-Tomography Images, Physical Review
E, 80(3), 036307. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.80.036307.
e= measurement noise vector
Freifeld, B., Kneafsey, T., and Rack, F., 2006, On-Site Geological
h= magnitude of vertical discretization step Core Analysis Using a Portable X-ray Computed Tomographyc
h’ = magnitude of horizontal discretization step System, in Rothwell, R.G., New Techniques in Sediment Core
j= vertical discretization step Analysis, Geological Society (London) Special Publication,
j’ = horizontal discretization step 267, 165–178. DOI: 10.1144/GSL.SP.2006.267.01.12.
kro = oil relative permeability Freifeld, B., Kneafsey, T., Tomutsa, L., and Pruess, J., 2003,
krw = water relative permeability Development of a Portable X-ray Computed Tomographic
Imaging System for Drill-Site Inverstigation of Recovered
ȝ= mode of the image CT density
Core, Paper SCA2003-51 presented at the International
m= “known” measurements Symposium of the Society of Core Analysts, Pau, France,
N= number of pixels/voxels 21–24 September.
Թ= set of all real numbers Gilks, W.R., Best, N.G., and Tan, K.C., 1995, Adaptive Rejection
ı= standard deviation of the normal distribution Metropolis Sampling Within Gibbs Sampling, Journal of The
ı2 = regularization parameter Royal Statistical Society, Series C (Applied Statistics), 44(4),
Ȉ= covariance matrix 455–472, DOI: 10.2307/2986138.
Gostick, J., Aghighi, M., Hinebaugh, J., Tranter, T., Hoeh, M.A.,
Sw = water saturation
Day, H., Putz, A., 2016, OpenPNM: A Pore Network Modeling
T= transpose Package, Computing in Science & Enginering, 18(4), 60–74,
ߥ= “unknown” parameter vector DOI: 10.1109/MCSE.2016.49.
ߥCM = conditional mean estimator of the posterior Hastings, W.K., 1970, Monte Carlo Sampling Methods Using Markov
distribution Chains and TheirApplications, Biometrika, 57(1), 97–109, DOI:
10.1093/biomet/57.1.97. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/
download?doi=10.1.1.452.6839&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
Accessed May 10, 2019.
REFERENCES Honarpour, M.M., Djabbarah, N.F., and Sampath, K., 2005,
Whole-Core Analysis—Experience and Challenges, Paper
Alhammadi, A., AlRatrout, A., Bijelijc, B., and Blunt, M.J., SPE-81575, SPE Reservoir Evaluation and Engineering, 8(6),
2018, X-ray Micro-Tomography Datasets of Mixed-Wet 460–469, DOI: 10.2118/81575-PA.
Carbonate Reservoir Rocks for In Situ Effective Contact Ketcham, R.A., and Carlson, W.D., 2001, Acquisition, Optimization
Angle Measurements, Digital Rocks Portal. DOI: 10.17612/ and Interpretation of X-Ray Computed Tomographyc Imagery:
P7VQ2G. https://www.digitalrocksportal.org/projects/151. Applications to the Geosciences, Computers & Geosciences,
Accessed May 22, 2019. 27(4), 381–400, DOI: 10.1016/S0098-3004(00)00116-3.

395 PETROPHYSICS June 2019

 Mendoza et al.
Lee, J., Sung, W., and Choi, J., 2015, Metamodel for Ef¿cient
Estimation of Capacity-Fade Uncertainty in Li-Ion Batteries
for Electric Vehicles, Energies, 8(6), 5538–5554, DOI:
10.3390/en8065538.
Markkanen, M., Roininen, L., Huttunen, J.M.J., and Lasanen, S.,
2019, Cauchy Difference Priors for Edge-Preserving Bayesian
InversionWith an Application to X-Ray Tomography, Journal
of Inverse and Ill-Posed Problems, 1-16. DOI: 10.1515/jiip-
2017-0048. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1603.06135.pdf. Accessed
May 10, 2019.
McPhee, C., Reed, J., and Zubizarreta, I., 2015, Core Analysis:
A Best Practice Guide.Elsevier, Development in Petroleum
Science, 64, Elsevier. ISBN: 9780444635334.
Mendoza, A., Roininen, L., Girolami, M., Heikkinen, J., and
Haario, H., 2019, Statistical Methods to Enable Practical
On-Site Tomographic Imaging of Whole-Core Samples,
Geophysics, 84(3). DOI: 10.1190/geo2018-0436.1.
Mohamed, S.S., Dernaika, M., Al Hosani, I., Hannon, L.,
Skaeveland, S., Kalam, M.Z., 2010, Whole Core Versus
Plugs: Integrating Log and Core Data to Decrease Uncertainty
in Petrophysical Interpretation and STOIP Calculations,
Paper SPE-137679 presented at the Abu Dhabi International
Petroleum Exhibition and Conference,Abu Dhabi, UAE, 1–4
November. DOI: 10.2118/137679-MS.
Patel, G., 2009, Computed Tomography Image Reconstruction
[slide presentation], SlideShare.net. https://es.slideshare.
net/ripjan/ct-1470963?qid=3ce2b676-e1ea-4129-93c7-
6558663060bf&v=&b=&from_search=6. Accessed May 10,
2019.
Raeini, A.Q., Bijelic, B., and Blunt, M.J., 2017, Generalized
Network Modeling: Network Extraction as a Coarse-Scale
Discretization of the Void Space of Porous Media, Physical
Review E, 96(1), 013312. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.96013312.
Roininen, L., Huttunen, J., and Lasanen, S., 2014, Whittle-Matern
Priors for Bayesian Statistical Inversion with Applications
in Electrical Impedance Tomography, Inverse Problems and
Imaging, 8(2), 561–586, DOI: 10.3934/ipi.2014.8.561.
Skinner, J.T., Tovar, F.D., and Schechter, D.S., 2015, Computed
Tomography for Petrophysical Characterization of Highly
Heterogeneous Reservoir Rock, Paper SPE-177257
presented at The SPE Latin America and Caribean Petroleum
Engineering Conference, Quito, Ecuador, 18–20 November,
DOI: 10.2118/177257-MS.
Valvatne, P.H., and Blunt, M.J, 2003, Predictive Pore-Scale
Network Modeling, Paper SPE-84550 presented at the SPE
Annual Teachnical Conference and Exhibition, Denver,
Colorado, USA, 5–8 October. DOI: 10.2118/84550-MS.
Vepsäläinen, M., Markkanen, M., and Sundberg, P., 2014, X-Ray
Tomography of Large Objects with Limited Measurement
Angle, AIP Conference Proceedings, 1581, 1800–1807, DOI:
10.1063/1.4865042.
Victor, R., and Prodanoviü, M., 2017, Dual-Energy Medical
CT in Carbonate Rocks, Digital Rocks Portal, DOI:
10.17612/P74368.URL: https://www.digitalrocksportal.org/
projects/102. Accessed May 22, 2019.
Victor, R.A., Prodanoviü, M., and Torres-Verdín, C., 2017,
Monte Carlo Approach for Estimating Density and Atomic
Number from Dual-Energy Computed Tomography Images
of Carbonate Rocks, Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid
June 2019 PETROPHYSICS
Earth, 122, 9804–9824, DOI: 10.1002/2017JB014408.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Alberto Mendoza is a group leader for Oil and Gas
research projects with the Data-Centric Engineering Program
at the Alan Turing Institute in London, UK. He holds PhD,
MSc, and BS degrees in Petroleum Engineering from the
University of Texas at Austin, and an MSc in Statistics from
Imperial College London. From 2008 to 2014, he worked
with ExxonMobil as a Formation Evaluation Specialist in
the USA and Russia, and during 2014 to 2016 he was a
Petrophysical Engineer with Shell | NAM in The Netherlands.
Lassi Roininen holds the position of Associate Professor
(tenure track) in applied mathematics in LUT University,
Finland. He is also a docent in applied mathematics at the
University of Oulu, Finland, and an Academy of Finland
postdoctoral researcher. He develops rigorous numerical and
computational tools for inverse problems with applications
in near-space remote sensing, subsurface imaging, and X-ray
tomography.
Mark Girolami is the Sir Kirby Laing Professor of
Civil Engineering in the University of Cambridge where he
also holds the Lloyds Register Foundation - Royal Academy
of Engineering Research Chair in Data Centric Engineering.
He is Program Director at the Alan Turing Institute where he
served as one of the original founding Executive Directors.
He is an elected member of the Royal Society of Edinburgh
and previously was awarded a Royal Society – Wolfson
Research Merit Award. Professor Girolami was anEPSRC
Research Fellow from 2007 to 2018.
Jere Heikkinen holds an MSc in applied mathematics
from the Technical University of Lappeenranta. He is
working with limited- and sparse-angle X-ray tomography
through scienti¿c research as a PhD student and as general
manager of Finnos Ltd. -- a Finnish technology company
which develops real-time imaging systems for various ¿elds
of industries.
Heikki Haario is a professor of applied mathematics
and head of department at the LUT University, Finland and
a part-time research professor at the Finnish Meteorological
Institute. He studies methods for inverse problems, especially
statistical Bayesian algorithms with applications to remote
sensing, dynamical systems as well as industrial imaging
and model identi¿cation.
396
PETROPHYSICS, VOL. 60, NO. 3 (JUNE 2019); PAGES 397–408; 9 FIGURES; 2 TABLES. DOI: 10.30632/PJV60N3-2019a3

Finite-Volume Computations of Shale Tortuosity and Permeability From 3D Pore

Networks Extracted From Scanning Electron Tomographic Images
Mouin Almasoodi1 and Zul¿quar Reza2

ABSTRACT

Recent advancements in computational geosciences
and pore-scale imaging have made it possible to extract
three-dimensional (3D) pore geometries from tight rock
samples, such as shale. This study presents a viable mean
to determine elusive transport properties of tight reservoirs
using techniques from computational Àuid dynamics (CFD).
We present a numerical procedure to compute hydraulic
tortuosity in a complex 3D pore system imaged by focused
ion beam scanning electron microscope (FIB-SEM). The
effectiveness of the procedure is demonstrated on a pore
network that was extracted from a shale reservoir in the
United States. Results suggest log-normal distribution of
tortuosity with an average of 1.8, which illustrates the
highly convoluted pathways of Àuid diffusion through
shale reservoirs. Additionally, permeability was computed
at 10 subvolumes of the original shale sample to investigate
the size of permeability representative elementary volume
(REV). Permeability computations were conducted using
a ¿nite-volume method and under the consideration of a
transient incompressible Newtonian Àuid. Findings reveal
that a shale sample of 7.44 ȝm3 is insuf¿cient to reach
permeability REV. Lastly, we carried out mesh density
sensitivities, for the ¿rst time on a shale sample, to examine
the reliability of using 3D pore networks extracted from
FIB-SEM stacks.

INTRODUCTION to high operator ef¿ciency and lower service cost (EIA,

Understanding the architecture of shale pore geometry
is a daunting task that has inspired recent developments
in pore-scale imaging and modeling. Unlike conventional
reservoirs, shale is a ¿ne-grained and thinly laminated
sedimentary rock that is formed from the compaction of
clay and silt minerals. Shales are known for their black
color which is attributed to the presence of organic matter.
The presence of a few volume percent of organic matter is
suf¿cient to give organic shales their dark color. The black
color is also indicative that the shales were deposited in
anoxic conditions where the lack of oxygen prevented the
decay of organic matter. The shape and connectivity of the
pore system play an essential role in the transport behavior
of porous media (Lee et al., 2017). Shale pore structure is
characterized by geometrical complexity that cannot be
well explained by traditional descriptors, such as packing of
spheres or bundles of tubes.
Regarding the economic impact of tight reservoirs,
such as shale, the U.S. Energy Information Administration
(EIA) expects large share of global capital investments to
be focused on tight oil reservoirs in the United States due
2018). However, it has been challenging to optimally
produce tight reservoirs due to dif¿culties in identifying
the optimal number of wells that is needed to drain the oil
and gas ef¿ciently. The dif¿culties are mainly attributed to
substantial uncertainty in the subsurface petrophysical, and
geomechanical properties. Shale hydraulic tortuosity and
intrinsic permeability are two examples of those properties
that are highly uncertain, expensive, and dif¿cult to measure
in the laboratory.
In order to predict the movement of Àuids within the
porous medium, it is necessary to develop knowledge about
the morphology of the porous media itself. Tortuosity is a
morphological property that measures the resistance of
porous media to Àow. Carman (1937) was ¿rst to allude to
the concept of tortuosity; his work was an upgrade and a
generalization to Kozeny’s (1927) permeability formulation
through which he realized that Kozeny’s assumption of
straight and parallel tubes was not accurately capturing the
transport behavior. Therefore, he introduced a dimensionless
parameter called hydraulic tortuosity which is de¿ned as the
ratio of the average length of the Àuid paths to the geometrical
length of the sample. However, the average length of the Àuid

Manuscript received by the Editor November 5, 2018; revised manuscript received February 4, 2019; manuscript accepted February 13 2019.
1
Devon Energy, 333 W Sheridan Ave, Oklahoma City, OK 73102; mouin.almasoodi@dvn.com.
2
Zul¿quar Reza, University of Oklahoma, Mewbourne School of Petroleum and Geological Engineering (MPGE), 100 Boyd St,
Norman, OK 73069; zul¿quar.reza@ou.edu.

397 PETROPHYSICS June 2019

 Finite-Volume Computations of Shale Tortuosity and Permeability From 3D Pore Networks Extracted From Scanning Electron Tomographic Images
paths cannot be measured experimentally. Hence, several
numerical studies were conducted to compute tortuosity. The
most recent work was done by Saomoto and Katagiri (2015)
in which a 2D theoretical porous medium was constructed
to compare electric tortuosity to hydraulic tortuosity using
¿nite-element analysis. Saomoto and Katagiri (2015) found
that, on average, hydraulic tortuosity is 15% greater than
the electric tortuosity. Similarly, the concept of tortuosity
has gained prominence in the lithium-ion battery industry as
battery manufactures are primarily interested in reducing the
electric tortuosity of porous electrodes to improve battery
ef¿ciency and reduce waste heat (Ebner et al., 2014; Delattre
et al., 2018).
Recent advancements in pore-scale imaging, processing,
and parallel computing have made it possible to simulate
Àuid Àow through realistic pore geometries and investigate
pore-scale physics, such as multiphase behavior (Zuo et al.,
2017), relative permeability (Zhang, 2017), and capillary
action (Ruspini et al., 2017). Computational rock physics,
known as digital rock physics, uses numerical techniques of
various physical phenomena to extract transport properties
(e.g., electrical conductivity and permeability), and to gain
insights into Àow dynamics within the reservoir. These
computational techniques are directly applied to the pore
geometry of the rock, which eliminates the need for using
theoretical pore networks to represent the pore geometry.
In addition, recent developments in pore-scale imaging
allow the detailed and more accurate mapping of 3D pore
geometries of rock samples. Conversely, traditional rock
physics involves either empirical relationships based
on experimental data, or theoretical models based on
idealized microstructures (Andrä et al., 2013). Despite the
valuable insights that conventional rock physics provides,
it is challenged to capture the inherent complexity of
the pore morphology needed to accurately characterize
tight reservoirs. Several studies have demonstrated the
utility of coupling the imaging technology with the well-
established physics of Àuid dynamics (Piri and Blunt, 2005;
Madonna et al., 2013; Raeini et al., 2014; Berg et al., 2016;
Mohammadmoradi and Kantzas, 2016). However, despite
the extensive research, there is a research gap in modeling
3D porous networks extracted from tight reservoirs, such
as shale. Similarly, the impact of mesh re¿nement on
transport properties, such as permeability, has not been
fully analyzed until now. This is mainly due to the large
mesh sizes that could easily exceed 30 million cells for a
sample size of 1 ȝm3.
Besides the oil and gas industry, there are many other
industries interested in computational pore-scale modeling.
For instance, Aslannejad and Hassanizadeh (2017) illustrated
that paper used in the printing industry usually contains a
June 2019 PETROPHYSICS
thin porous coating covering a thicker ¿brous base layer. The
morphology of the pore structure within the coating layer
has a signi¿cant impact on the Àow pattern and properties of
the ink inside the paper medium. The authors illustrate that
upon arrival of an ink droplet, Àuid starts invading the pore
space and thus displacing the air that was initially ¿lling the
pore space. Essentially, this process is similar to imbibition
in oil and gas reservoirs.
The full understanding of imbibition requires
characterization of the pore morphology, wettability, and
effect of capillarity. Furthermore, Silin et al. (2011) used
3D images generated using synchrotron-based X-ray
microtomography of pore space as input for the maximal
inscribed spheres (MIS) method to predict two-phase Àuid
distribution in capillary equilibrium. The study showed
agreement between the computed Àuid distribution in the
pores and experimental data. Even though the MIS method
is incapable of capturing the morphological detail of the
pore geometry, the study suggests that microcomputed
tomography (micro-CT) along with MIS is a viable approach
to study the pore-scale mechanisms of CO2 injection into
an aquifer. Furthermore, Blunt et al., (2013) described in
detail the imaging of rock pore space from the nanometer
scale and upwards. They provide three examples to illustrate
the range of scienti¿c problem that can be addressed. The
¿rst example was the dispersion of highly heterogenous
carbonate rocks; the second example, imaging of super
critical CO2 to illustrate the possibility of capillary trapping
in geological carbon storage; and the third example focused
on the computation of relative permeability for mixed-
wet carbonates and discussed implications for oil¿eld
waterÀood recovery. The authors concluded that pore-scale
modeling has the potential to transform our understanding of
multiphase Àow processes, improve contaminants removal,
and safe carbon storage. More recently, Zapata and Sakhaee-
Pour (2016) have attempted to characterize the pore space
of shale formations by using data from mercury-intrusion
and nitrogen-adsorption experiments. The authors were
able to distinguish pore bodies, from pore throats. In order
to account for the restrictions within the connected path of
the pore space, Zapata and Sakhaee-Pour (2016) needed to
implement an acyclic pore model. Alternatively, the rock
sample could have been imaged to extract the pore geometry
which then can be directly used in the Àow simulation of the
mercury-injection experiment.
Regarding the computational aspect of pore-scale
modeling, signi¿cant efforts have been invested to verify and
validate codes of computational Àuid dynamics (CFD). Most
of the efforts are emerging from mechanical and aerospace
engineering. For instance, Oberkampf and Trucano (2002)
presented an extensive literature review on fundamental
398
 Almasoodi and Reza
topics in CFD, such as solution versus code veri¿cation,
model versus solution validation, and sources of error and
uncertainty. Despite the continuous development of new
codes, and faster solution algorithms, legacy codes remain
crucial to today’s simulation due to the extensive validation
process and ¿nancial investment in such codes. In this work,
we address some of the gaps in recent literature, such as how
to develop a method to compute rock hydraulic tortuosity
from FIB-SEM images, explore permeability dependence
on mesh density, and investigate whether FIB-SEM images
provide enough resolution and scale to compute shale
permeability.
METHODOLOGY
Sample Description and Preparation
Both connected and isolated 3D pore networks were
extracted from a shale sample using FIB-SEM technology.
Isolated pores were ignored since they are not connected to the
Àow domain. However, tight reservoirs are often stimulated
by hydraulic fracturing, which could connect isolated pores
and increase permeability. The sample minimum pore throat
was approximately 30 nm. Figure 1 presents the isometric
projections of the 3D pore geometry that was used for the
tortuosity and permeability simulations; it also shows the
position of the inlet and outlet. The dimensions of the pore
geometry are 2.36, 1.89, and 1.67 ȝm along the x, y, and
Fig. 1—Connected pore geometry scanned by the FIB-SEM technology.
399 PETROPHYSICS
z axes, respectively. The sample porosity was computed to
be 4% by taking the ratio of the pore volume to the bulk
volume of the rock sample. The sample was imaged and
processed at the laboratories of the University of Oklahoma.
The sample was cut and mounted to an aluminum stub using
a conductive carbon paste. The sample was then coated with
Au/Pd in a Denton Vacuum Desk V sputtering system to
provide a conductive coating on the sample surface. Next,
the sample was prepared for 3D SEM imaging using a dual-
beam FIB-SEM system. A platinum pad was deposited on
the edge of the sample to minimize curtaining effects. Data
acquisition was performed via FEI Slice N View software.
In order to use the 3D pore system for Àow simulation,
a mesh needs to be created. Mesh generation is the most
important and laborious step in the modeling process
(Power et al., 2003; Dennis et al., 2005; Zadeh et al., 2014).
Good quality mesh must ensure accurate representation of
the rock pore structure and allow the use of higher-order
numerical schemes. The meshing process started by creating
a background mesh containing hexahedral cells. The 3D
pore network was embedded inside the background mesh.
Cells were re¿ned near the surface of the pore geometry to
accurately capture the sample morphology. Finally, cells
outside the sample geometry were removed. Figure 2 shows
the FIB-SEM model of the pore space (blue) prior to the
meshing process and the ¿nal mesh (gray).
June 2019
 Finite-Volume Computations of Shale Tortuosity and Permeability From 3D Pore Networks Extracted From Scanning Electron Tomographic Images

Fig. 2—The imaged pore geometry is shown in blue and the mesh is shown in gray. A zoom-in view shows the cell re¿nement along one of the pore
throats. The sample has dimensions of 2.36, 1.89, and 1.67 ȝm along the x, y, and z axes, respectively.

Mathematical Model The particle position components along the x, y, and z

Once the void fraction is identi¿ed and the mesh is
prepared, the continuity equation for incompressible Àuid
can be written as follows:
(1)
By substituting the constitutive relationships that link the
shear stress to the rate of deformation for a Newtonian Àuid,
the conservation of momentum can be written as follows:
(2)
axes were identi¿ed by applying the fourth-order Runge-
Kutta method as integration technique. The particle position
was then related to tortuosity, as will be discussed in detail
in the Results section.
One of the dif¿culties in solving Eq. 2 is the weak
coupling between pressure and velocity as there is no explicit
differential equation for the pressure. For compressible Àow,
the velocity and pressure are coupled via an equation of state.
However, for incompressible Àow, the continuity equation is
used along with the momentum divergence to formulate an
additional equation known as Poisson’s equation.

Where P is the pressure, ȝ is the dynamic viscosity,
ĺ
and V is the velocity vector. Equation 2 is a representation
of Newton’s second law and it is known as the Navier-
Stokes equation. The right-hand side has two terms that
represent the pressure gradient and diffusion terms. The
left-hand side has two acceleration terms, which are linear
local acceleration and nonlinear advective acceleration. The
nonlinearity due to the advective term will be addressed via
an iterative numerical framework.
After solving the velocity and pressure ¿elds
numerically, streamlines within the pore system were
computed by integrating the equation of motion for massless
particle shown below:
(3)
Numerical Approach and Simulation Setup
Numerical implementation and simulation assumptions
are discussed in this section. The ¿nite-volume method
was used to solve the mathematical model discussed in the
previous section. The goal of the ¿nite-volume method is
to represent and evaluate partial differential equations in
the form of algebraic equations. Besides its computational
ef¿ciency, it is capable of handling unstructured grids,
which are needed to capture the details of the shale sample
pore morphology. Essentially, the Àow domain was
divided into subdomains called control volumes and then
the conservation equations (mass and momentum) were
integrated over each control volume. Therefore, the ¿nite-
volume technique inherently satis¿es the conservation
property and there is no need to impose conservativeness to
the formulation. The volume integrals were then converted

June 2019 PETROPHYSICS 400

 Almasoodi and Reza

to surface integrals with the aid of the divergence theorem Figure 4 presents Àow streamlines colored by their
to arrive at the discretized form. PISO (pressure-implicit corresponding tortuosity value. Results suggest that the
with splitting of operators) was used as a procedure to solve sample has a tortuosity range of 1.1 to 3.9, and a mean of
the pressure-velocity coupling; the PISO technique was 1.7. Table 1 shows the summary statistics of the streamline
originally proposed by Issa (1986). Finally, the results were tortuosity. Figure 5 depicts a ¿ltered version that shows
presented in terms of algebraic quantities that were solved tortuosity values • 2 to illustrate the highly tortuous paths
iteratively. within the tight shale sample.
The ¿nite-volume method was implemented via
openFOAM® toolbox. Details regarding the required
hardware and software along with code are provided in the
Code Availability section. The open-source code offers a
variety of schemes for discretizing the gradient, convection,
and diffusion terms. Depending on the mesh quality, the
choice of the scheme is determined. For instance, when
the mesh has good quality cells, such as full hexahedrons,
the gradient can be discretized by applying Gauss’s linear
scheme which is a central differencing scheme. Otherwise,
the gradient limiter scheme needs to be applied to ensure
that the extrapolated gradient falls within the minimum and
maximum of neighboring points.
Regarding the pore Àuid physical properties, water was
selected as the pore Àuid during the simulation; it has density
of 1,000 kg.m-3 and dynamic viscosity of 0.001 Pa.s. The
slip boundary condition was adopted at the solid boundaries
and the Àow domain was initialized by applying a pressure
gradient between the inlet and outlet of 100 psi.

RESULTS
Computation of Tortuosity from Streamlines
Streamlines are paths that imaginary particles would
take if they were released into the Àow stream. Streamlines
carry signi¿cant information about the velocity ¿eld
direction and magnitude at each point. We de¿ne tortuosity
a as the ratio of streamline length to the straightline distance
between its two ends as shown in Eq. 4, where Ts is the
streamline tortuosity, Ls is streamline tortuous length, and L
is the streamline straightline distance between its two ends
(4)
After solving for the velocity ¿eld that was derived in
the mathematical model section, the equation of motion for
a massless particle was integrated to compute streamlines
within the sample pore body. The cumulative distance
between the particles of each streamline was computed
to determine the tortuous length of the streamline. The
straightline distance was also calculated for each streamline
by simply using the distance equation between two points.
Figure 3 summarizes a workÀow that shows the necessary
steps to calculate tortuosity based on streamline tracers.
Fig. 3—Overall workÀow outlining the steps for computing tortuosity
from pore-scale images based on streamline tracers.
Tortuosity is often estimated from empirical models,
especially in the absence of laboratory experiments and
simulation results. One of the most commonly used empirical
models is the model proposed by Comiti and Renaud (1989).
The model represents tortuosity as logarithmic function of
porosity as show in Eq. 5.
(5)
Where ‫ ׋‬is porosity and P is an empirical parameter
that is usually estimated by simulations, or experiments.
The model satis¿es T = 1 when, ‫ = ׋‬100%, and satis¿es T
= ’ when ‫ = ׋‬0%. Streamline-based simulation can be used
to ¿ne-tune empirical models. For instance, since the shale
sample has 4% porosity and average tortuosity of 1.8, the P
value is estimated to be 0.25. Obviously, more samples need
to be simulated to inform the appropriate P value for shale
reservoirs. Additionally, our simulated tortuosity results are
well aligned with ¿ndings derived from the Pisani (2011)
model for spherical particles shown in Eq. 6. Based on
Pisani’s model, tortuosity is calculated to be 1.6.

401 PETROPHYSICS June 2019

 Finite-Volume Computations of Shale Tortuosity and Permeability From 3D Pore Networks Extracted From Scanning Electron Tomographic Images

Fig. 4—Transparent 3D pore geometry reveals streamlines colored by their corresponding tortuosity.

Table 1—Summary Statistics for the Streamline Tortuosity

(6)

Furthermore, to gain insights into the statistical

distribution of tortuosity within the shale sample, three
theoretical probability density functions (log-normal,
Weibull, and gamma) were attempted to model the tortuosity
distribution. Based on the maximum likelihood estimation,
log-normal distribution was found to ¿t the data best, as
shown in Fig. 6. The ¿tting parameters were 0.57, and 0.25
logarithmic mean and standard deviation respectively. Fig. 5—Streamlines registering tortuosity • 2.

June 2019 PETROPHYSICS 402


Fig. 6—Simulated tortuosity histogram overlain by theoretical probability density functions.
Computation of Permeability with Varying Mesh Sizes
It is imperative to accurately estimate reservoir
permeability to identify the optimal number of horizontal
wells and mitigate economic risks due to overcapitalization.
In this section, permeability is computed numerically
based on transient incompressible simulation, and a
mesh convergence study is conducted to investigate the
dependence of permeability on the mesh size.
Five transient simulations were run with varying mesh
sizes, as shown in Table 2. The meshes were designed such
that the minimum pore throat has at least 10 cells from wall
to wall. Simulation cases were terminated once the velocity
had stabilized. The average inlet and outlet pressures were
calculated by performing surface integration at the inlet and
outlet faces for each time step. The average velocity was
obtained by conducting volume integration over the control
volumes that constituted the pore geometry. Consequently,
permeability values were calculated via Darcy formulation at
each time step. Similar discretization schemes were applied
to all cases. Essentially, the time schemes were discretized
using the Crank and Nicolson (1996) method, which is a
second-order accurate and implicit scheme. The gradient
calculation was performed using a least-squares approach.
Moreover, the Courant number (convergence measure)
was calculated independently for each cell because it depends
on the cell size, time step, and velocity. The Courant number
was maintained at < 1 by automatically adjusting the time
403
Almasoodi and Reza
Table 2—The Number of Cells in Each Direction Along With the Final
Mesh Size After Re¿nement and Cell Removal Processes
x, y, and z
step to avoid convergence problems. Finally, permeabilities
were plotted against simulation time as shown in Fig. 7.
Results suggest lower permeability values for ¿ner meshes
during the transient period. Eventually, the ¿ve mesh sizes
reached comparable steady-state permeability of 480 nD
after about 20 ns.
Numerical results need to be calibrated with experimental
data once a consistent methodology for measuring shale
permeability becomes available. Several studies, such
as Sondergeld et al. (2010) and Tinni et al. (2012), have
pointed out that standardized methods for measuring shale
permeability do not exist. Similarly, Passey et al. (2010)
conducted a comparative study on permeability measured
by different laboratories using crushed rock samples in
which each laboratory received sample splits from the same
depth interval. Passey et al. (2010) found that permeability
PETROPHYSICS June 2019
 Finite-Volume Computations of Shale Tortuosity and Permeability From 3D Pore Networks Extracted From Scanning Electron Tomographic Images
Fig. 7—Permeability mesh sensitivities based on ¿ve mesh densities.
values reported by different laboratories varied by two to
three orders of magnitude. However, more recently, there
have been several encouraging developments to measure
shale permeability experimentally. For instance, Krumm and
Howard (2017) developed a workÀow for measuring shale
permeability in the presence of microcracks. They have
integrated micro-CT scanning, and NMR technology with
a standard steady-state permeability rig for measurement
of the hydrocarbon Àow. Krumm and Howard (2017) claim
that a full permeability test requires 7 to 14 days to complete.
It is worth mentioning that permeability results presented in
this study need to be veri¿ed with similar experimental tests.
Analysis of Permeability Representative Elementary
Volume (REV)
Several statistical techniques have been attempted to
characterize the microstructure of porous media at various
length scales, such as the recent work of Adeleye and Akanji
(2017). In this work, we implement a computational approach
to assess the dependence of permeability on the pore-volume
size. The ¿nest mesh size was used to compute permeability
at different volume increments. The pore volume was
reduced by 10% successively to create 10 subvolumes.
S-1 represents the smallest volume and S-10 represents
June 2019 PETROPHYSICS
the full pore volume, as shown in Fig. 8. The subvolume
inlet and outlet pressures were calculated by performing
surface integration. The corresponding Àow velocity was
obtained by performing volume integration over the volume
of the sample. Now that we know the subvolume pressure
drop and Àow velocity, Darcy’s law is used to compute
permeability. These steps were repeated for each sector to
obtain permeability. Figure 9 presents a bar chart with the
permeability value for each volume increment. Furthermore,
we have applied uniform volume reductions of 25, 50, and
75% of the original volume and then evaluated permeability.
Permeability values for reductions of 0, 25, 50, and 75%
were 0.480, 0.146, 4.808, and 4.744 mD, respectively.
Looking closely at the results, two permeability groups
can be distinguished (S1–S4) and (S5–S10). The average
permeability for each group is shown by blue horizontal
lines in Fig. 9. Results suggest that a shale sample of volume
7.44 ȝm3 is not enough to identify the REV of permeability.
Findings from recent studies, such as Al-Raoush and
Papadopoulos (2010) and Mostaghimi et al. (2012), have
revealed that the REV is property speci¿c, which makes the
task of upscaling learnings from one scale to the next even
more challenging.
404
 Almasoodi and Reza
Fig. 8—Volume increments of the original shale sample. S-1 depicts the
smallest volume and S-10 depicts the full pore volume.
Fig. 9—Permeability values for each volume increment. Blue horizontal
lines represent the average permeability for intervals S-1 to S-4 and S-5
to S-10, respectively.
405 PETROPHYSICS
DISCUSSION
Transport properties of tight reservoirs, such as shale,
are dif¿cult to measure, and measurements can often be
inaccurate and expensive. Computational methods to obtain
shale transport properties of pore-scale samples is viable;
however, it is computationally intensive and requires proper
diligence. Fluid Àow within a 3D pore network was modeled
as continuum because the minimum diameter of the pore
throat was 30 nm, which leads to a Knudson number on the
order of 0.01. However, the concept of continuum Àow breaks
down whenever the smallest characteristic length is on the
same order as the mean free path of the Àuid molecules, such
as the case of shale-gas reservoirs. Hence, the assumption
of Àuid continuity is sample-speci¿c and needs to be
evaluated on case-by-case basis. Luckily, such reservoirs
have signi¿cantly less economic value if compared to oil-
rich shale reservoirs. Otherwise, if the pore system is small
in comparison to the distance between molecules, Àuid Àow
needs to be simulated as discrete particles using the lattice
Boltzmann method.
It is imperative to develop knowledge about the
morphology of the porous media to predict movement of
hydrocarbons and evaluate the reservoir’s commercial
viability. The average tortuosity within the shale sample
was 1.7 with 29% of the streamlines registering tortuosity
• 2. Findings from studies conducted on sandstone rocks
show tortuosity values of 1.4 and 1.2 based on Gommes et
al. (2009) and Spearing and Matthews (1991), respectively.
Hence, our results suggest substantial resistance to Àuid Àow
within tight reservoirs in comparison to sandstone reservoirs.
These ¿ndings aim to assist the efforts of designing and
implementing optimal ¿eld development strategies by
providing a better understanding of the Àow capacity and
visualizing the intricate pathways traced by reservoir Àuids
within tight reservoirs.
Furthermore, mesh-convergence studies, which are
done routinely in the CFD community, are not performed
regularly during pore-scale simulation, which could be
detrimental to the accuracy and reliability of the solution.
Results suggest that denser meshes lead to slower Àow
development during the transient period (< 20 ns). Because
denser meshes can resolve more Àow features, they lead to
lower intrinsic permeability during the transient time.
FIB-SEM tomography provides detailed realizations of
the complex pore network. However, the imaged volumes are
small and expensive. Therefore, it is crucial to identify the
representative elementary volume prior to populating results
to the reservoir scale. Although the FIB-SEM technology
has provided high-resolution images of the pore structure,
the size of the simulated pore volume was insuf¿cient to
June 2019
 Finite-Volume Computations of Shale Tortuosity and Permeability From 3D Pore Networks Extracted From Scanning Electron Tomographic Images
identify the REV of permeability. Results suggest that a
shale sample of volume of 2.36×1.89×1.67 ȝm (7.44 ȝm3)
is within the domain of microscopic heterogeneity. In other
words, the observation scale is smaller than the representative
elementary volume. Emerging plasma FIB-SEM technology
offers the promise of larger volumes at shorter imaging time
that could be up to 50 times faster compared to conventional
FIB-SEM technology (Burnett et al., 2016).
CONCLUSIONS
By capitalizing on recent advancements in pore-scale
imaging and modeling, Àuid Àow was simulated in a shale
sample based on a 3D pore network. Given the remarkable
diversity of tortuosity de¿nitions in the literature, we used
a consistent approach that bene¿ts from the concept of
streamlines to de¿ne tortuosity as a ratio of the geometric
length of the streamline to its straightline length. Streamlines
were colored by their corresponding tortuosity values to
visualize the tortuous path traced by massless Àuid particles.
We observed that shales can have signi¿cant tortuosity that
can reach up to 3.9. Results suggest a tortuosity range of
1.1 to 3.9. The statistical distribution of tortuosity was best
represented by a log-normal probability density function;
29% of the streamlines showed tortuosity >2. Findings
reveal the highly tortuous nature of shale reservoirs. A
mesh-convergence study was conducted for the ¿rst time on
a shale sample to evaluate its permeability dependence on
mesh density. Results suggest permeability dependence on
the mesh size during the transient period, and less so, during
the steady-state period. Based on representative elementary
volume (REV) analysis, our numerical investigation
con¿rms that even at the nanoscale, depending on the
heterogeneity, permeability can have signi¿cant variation.
However, clusters of similar permeability can exist as well.
Ultimately, results suggest that a shale sample of volume
2.36×1.89×1.67 ȝm (7.44 ȝm3) is within the domain of
microscopic heterogeneity but is insuf¿cient to derive
permeability REV. These ¿ndings aim to provide practical
insights into the exploitation of unconventional resources as
well as scale-dependency of transport properties.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We acknowledge the Integrated Core Characterization
Center at The University of Oklahoma for providing the
FIB-SEM data. Special thanks to Mark Curtis for providing
the information on sample FIB-SEM sample preparation.
Also, we are thankful to Alexey Matveichev for his feedback
on the implementation of the mathematical model.
June 2019 PETROPHYSICS
COMPUTER CODE AVAILABILITY
Shale sample pore geometry will be made available
on request. Tortuosity data along with the code were made
available at https://github.com/MouinAlmasoodi/Tortuosity.
The repository also includes R script that was used for
modeling the probability density function. Simulation cases
were carried out on a server with 64 Xenon processors,
speed of 3.3 GHz, and 128 GB of memory.
NOMENCLATURE
Abbreviations
CFD = computational Àuid dynamics
REV = representative elementary volume
FIB-SEM = focused ion beam scanning electron microscope
Symbols
Ts = tracer tortuosity
ĺ
V = velocity vector
ĺx = position vector
ȡ= density
‫ = ׋‬porosity
‫ =׏‬gradient operator
‫׏‬2 = Laplacian
REFERENCES
Adeleye, J.O., and Akanji, L.T., 2017, Pore-Scale Analyses of
Heterogeneity and Representative Elementary Volume for
Unconventional Shale Rocks Using Statistical Tools, Journal
of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology, 8(3),
753–765. DOI: 10.1007/s13202-017-0377-4.
Al-Raoush, R., and Papadopoulos, A., 2010, Representative
Elementary Volume Analysis of Porous Media Using X-Ray
Computed Tomography, Powder Technology, 200(1–2), 69–
77. DOI: 10.1016/j.powtec.2010.02.011.
Andrä, H., Combaret, N., Dvorkin, J., Glatt, E., Han, J., Kabel,
M., Keehm, Y., Krzikalla, F., Lee, M., Madonna, C., Marsh,
M., Mukerji, T., Saenger, E.H., Sain, R., Saxena, N., Ricker,
S., Wiegmann, A., and Zhan, X., 2013, Digital Rock Physics
Benchmarks—Part I: Imaging and Segmentation, Computers
& Geosciences, 50, 25–32. DOI: 10.1016/j.cageo.2012.09.005.
Aslannejad, H., and Hassanizadeh, S.M., 2017, Study of Hydraulic
Properties of Uncoated Paper: Image Analysis and Pore-Scale
Modeling, Transport in Porous Media, 120(1), 67–81. DOI:
10.1007/s11242-017-0909-x
Berg, S., Rücker, M., Ott, H., Georgiadis, A., Van der Linde, H.,
Enzmann, F., Kersten, M., Armstrong, R.T., Becker, J., and
Wiegmann, A., 2016, Connected pathway relative permeability
406
 Almasoodi and Reza
from pore-scale imaging of imbibition, Advances in Water
Resources, 90, 24–35. DOI: 1016/j.advwatres.2016.01.010.
Blunt, M.J., Bijeljic, B., Dong, H., Gharbi, O., Iglauer, S.,
Mostaghimi, P., Paluszny, A., and Pentland, C., 2013, Pore-
Scale Imaging and Modelling, Advances in Water Resources,
51, 197–216. DOI: 10.1016/j.advwatres.2012.03.003.
Burnett, T.L., Kelley, R., Winiarski, B., Contreras, L., Daly, M.,
Gholinia, A., Burke, M.G., and Withers, P.J., 2016, Large
Volume Serial Section Tomography by Xe Plasma FIB Dual
Beam Microscopy, Ultramicroscopy, 161, 119–129. DOI:
10.1016/j.ultramic.2015.11.001.
Carman, P.C., 1937, Fluid Flow Through Granular Beds,
Transactions, American Institute of Chemical Engineers
(AIChE), 15, 150–166. Reprinted in 1997 in Chemical
Engineering Research and Design, 75, Supplement, S32–S48.
DOI: 1016/S0263-8762(97)80003-2.
Comiti, J., and Renaud, M., 1989, A New Model for Determining
Mean Structure Parameters of Fixed Beds From Pressure
Drop Measurements: Application to Beds Packed With
Parallelepipedal Particles, Chemical Engineering Science,
44(7), 1539–1545. DOI: 10.1016/0009-2509(89)80031-4.
Crank, J., and Nicolson, P., 1996, A Practical Method for Numerical
Evaluation of Solutions of Partial Differential Equations
of the Heat-Conduction Type, Advances in Computational
Mathematics, 6(1), 207–226. DOI: 10.1007/BF02127704.
Delattre, B., Amin, R., Sander, J., De Coninck, J., Tomsia, A.P.,
and Chiang, Y.-M., 2018, Impact of Pore Tortuosity on
Electrode Kinetics in Lithium Battery Electrodes: Study
in Directionally Freeze-Cast LiNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2 (NCA),
Journal of the Electrochemical Society, 165(2), A388–A395.
DOI: 10.1149/2.1321802jes.
Dennis, J., Fournier, A., Spotz, W.F., St-Cyr, A., Taylor, M.A.,
Thomas, S.J., and Tufo, H., 2005, High-Resolution Mesh
Convergence Properties and Parallel Ef¿ciency of a Spectral
Element Atmospheric Dynamical Core, The International
Journal of High Performance Computing Applications, 19(3),
225–235. DOI: 10.1177/1094342005056108.
Ebner, M., Chung, D.-W., García, R.E., and Wood, V., 2014,
Tortuosity Anisotropy in Lithium-Ion Battery Electrodes,
Advanced Energy Materials, 4(5), 1301278. DOI: 10.1002/
aenm.201301278.
EIA, 2018, Investment in Tight Oil, Oil Sands, and Deepwater
Drives Long-Term Oil Production Growth, Today in Energy,
March 9, U.S. Energy Information Administration. https://
www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=35272#. Accessed
May 9, 2019.
Gommes, C.J., Bons, A.-J., Blacher, S., Dunsmuir, J.H., and Tsou,
A.H., 2009, Practical Methods for Measuring the Tortuosity
of Porous Materials From Binary or Gray-Tone Tomographic
Reconstructions, AIChE Journal, 55(8), 2000–2012. DOI:
10.1102/aic.11812.
Issa, R.I., 1986. Solution of the Implicitly Discretised Fluid Flow
Equations by Operator-Splitting, Journal of Computational
Physics, 62(1), 40–65. DOI: 10.1016/0021-9991(86)90099-9.
Kozeny, J., 1927, Uber Kapillare Leitung der Wasser in Boden,
Royal Academy of Science, Vienna, Proceedings Class I, 136,
271–306.
407 PETROPHYSICS
Krumm, R.L., and Howard, J.J., 2017, WorkÀow for Measurement
of Steady-State-to-Liquid Permeability in Nanodarcy
Reservoir Rock, Paper SCA2017-038 presented at the
International Symposium of the Society of Core Analysts,
Vienna, Austria, 27 August–1 September 2017.
Lee, Y., Barthel, S.D., Dáotko, P., Moosavi, S.M., Hess, K., and
Smit, B., 2017, Quantifying Similarity of Pore-Geometry in
Nanoporous Materials, Nature Communications, 8, 15396.
DOI: 10.1038/ncomms15396.
Madonna, C., Quintal, B., Frehner, M., Almqvist, B.S., Tisato,
N., Pistone, M., Marone, F., and Saenger, E.H., 2013,
Synchrotron-Based X-ray Tomographic Microscopy for Rock
Physics Investigations, Geophysics, 78(1), D53–D64. DOI:
10.1190/geo2012-0113.1.
Mohammadmoradi, P., and Kantzas, A., 2016, Pore-Scale
Permeability Calculation Using CFD and DSMC Techniques,
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 146, 515–525.
DOI: 10.1016/j.petrol.2016.07.010.
Mostaghimi, P., Bijeljic, B., and Blunt, M., 2012, Simulation of Flow
and Dispersion on Pore-Space Images, Paper SPE-135261,
SPE Journal, 17(4), 1,131–1,141. DOI: 10.2118/135261-PA.
Oberkampf, W.L., and Trucano, T.G., 2002, Veri¿cation and
Validation in Computational Fluid Dynamics, Progress in
Aerospace Sciences, 38(3), 209–272. DOI: 10.1016/S0376-
0421(02)00005-2.
Passey, Q.R., Bohacs, K.M., Esch, W.L., Klimentidis, R., and
Sinha. S., 2010, From Oil-Prone Source Rock to Gas-
Producing Shale Reservoir-Geologic and Petrophysical
Characterization of Unconventional Shale Gas Reservoirs,
Paper SPE-131350 presented at the International Oil and Gas
Conference and Exhibition in China, Beijing, China, 8–10
June. DOI: 10.2118/131350-MS.
Piri, M., and Blunt, M.J., 2005, Three-Dimensional Mixed-Wet
Random Pore-Scale Network Modeling of Two- and Three-
Phase Flow in Porous Media. II. Results, Physical Review E,
71(2, part 2), 026302. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.71.026302.
Pisani, L., 2011, Simple Expression for the Tortuosity of Porous
Media, Transport in Porous Media, 88(2), 193–203. DOI:
10.1007/s11242-011-9734-9.
Power, C., Navarro, J.F., Jenkins, A., Frenk, C.S., White, S.D.,
Springel, V., Stadel, J., and Quinn, T., 2003, The Inner
Structure of ȁCDM Haloes—I. A Numerical Convergence
Study, Monthly Notice of the Royal Astronomical Society,
338(1), 14–34. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.05925.x.
Raeini, A.Q., Blunt, M.J., and Bijeljic, B., 2014, Direct Simulations
of Two-Phase Flow on Micro-CT Images of Porous Media and
Upscaling of Pore-Scale Forces, Advances in Water Resources,
74, 116–126. DOI: 10.1016/j.advwatres.2014.08.012.
Ruspini, L.C., Farokhpoor, R., and Øren, P.E., 2017, Pore-
Scale Modeling of Capillary Trapping in Water-Wet Porous
Media: A New Cooperative Pore-Body Filling Model,
Advances in Water Resources, 108, 1–14. DOI: 10.1016/j.
advwatres.2017.07.008.
Saomoto, H., and Katagiri, J., 2015, Direct Comparison of
Hydraulic Tortuosity and Electric Tortuosity Based on Finite
Element Analysis, Theoretical and Applied Mechanics Letters,
5(5), 177–180. DOI: 10.1016/j.taml.2015.07.001.
June 2019
 Finite-Volume Computations of Shale Tortuosity and Permeability From 3D Pore Networks Extracted From Scanning Electron Tomographic Images

Silin, D., Tomutsa, L., Benson, S.M., and Patzek, T.W., 2011, Zul¿quar Reza is an associate
Microtomography and Pore-Scale Modeling of Two-Phase professor in the Mewbourne School of
Fluid Distribution, Transport in Porous Media, 86(2), 495– Petroleum and Geological Engineering
515. DOI: 10.1007/s11242-010-9636-2. at the University of Oklahoma. He holds
Sondergeld C.H., Newsham K.E., Comisky J.T., Rice M.C., and
a PhD degree in petroleum engineering
Rai, C.S., 2010, Petrophysical Considerations in Evaluating
and Producing Shale Gas Resources, Paper SPE-131768 from the University of Alberta. Reza can
presented at the SPE Unconventional Gas Conference, claim more than 20 years of experience
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, 23–25 February. DOI: in the oil and gas industry, research, and
10.2118/131768-MS. academia including Schlumberger and Chevron among
Spearing, M., and Matthews, G.P., 1991, Modelling Characteristic others, and a stint as ECLIPSE reservoir-simulator developer.
Properties of Sandstones, Transport in Porous Media, 6(1), His current research interests include conventional-and
71–90. DOI: 10.1007/BF00136822. unconventional-reservoir engineering; enhanced oil and
Tinni, A., Fathi, E., Agarwal, R., Sondergeld, C.H., Akkutlu, I.Y., gas recovery; advanced reservoir simulation and simulator
and Rai, C.S., 2012, Shale Permeability Measurements on
development; multiscale, multiphysics modeling; pore-scale
Plugs and Crushed Samples, Paper SPE-162235 presented
modeling; data analytics; ¿eld-development planning; waste-
at the SPE Canadian Unconventional Resources Conference,
Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 30 October–1 November. DOI: water disposal; and uncertainty and risk management. Reza
10.2118/162235-MS. contributed to a monograph on production-data integration.
Zadeh, S.N., Komeili, M., and Paraschivoiu, M., 2014, Mesh
Convergence Study for 2-D Straight-Blade Vertical Axis Wind
Turbine Simulations and Estimation for 3-D Simulations,
Transactions of the Canadian Society of Mechanical
Engineers, 38(4), 487–504. DOI: 10.1139/tcsme-2014-0032.
Zapata, Y., and Sakhaee-Pour, A., 2016, Modeling Adsorption–
Desorption Hysteresis in Shales: Acyclic Pore Model, Fuel,
181, 557–565. DOI: 10.1016/j.fuel.2016.05.002.
Zhang, M., 2017, Pore-Scale Modelling of Relative Permeability
of Cementitious Materials Using X-Ray Computed
Microtomography Images, Cement and Concrete Research,
95, 18–29. DOI: 101.1016/j.cemconres.2017.02.005.
Zuo, L., Ajo-Franklin, J.B., Voltolini, M., Geller, J.T., and
Benson, S.M., 2017, Pore-Scale Multiphase Flow Modeling
and Imaging of CO2 Exsolution in Sandstone, Journal of
Petroleum Science and Engineering, 155, 63–77. DOI:
10.1016/j.petrol.2016.10.011.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Mouin Almasoodi is a senior reservoir

engineer in the Reservoir Technology &
Optimization (RTO) at Devon Energy.
He is also a PhD candidate in Petroleum
Engineering at the Mewbourne School of
Petroleum and Geological Engineering at
the University of Oklahoma. Almasoodi
has more than six years of experience in
the oil and gas industry. He is mainly involved in projects
related to identifying optimal well spacing and production
forecastomg based on numerical models. His current research
interests include unconventional-reservoir engineering;
production interference; computational Àuid dynamics;
advanced reservoir simulation; pore-scale modeling; and
petroleum economics.

June 2019 PETROPHYSICS 408

PETROPHYSICS, VOL. 60, NO. 3 (JUNE 2019); PAGES 409–420; 10 FIGURES; 1 TABLE. DOI: 10.30632/PJV60N3-2019a4

Application of a Fast NMR T1 Relaxation Time Measurement to Sedimentary Rock

Cores
Jonathan Mitchell1 and Andrea Valori2

ABSTRACT

Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) offers a powerful
toolbox for petrophysical analysis of reservoir rocks.
Laboratory measurements are often performed at low
frequency (2 MHz) to provide consistent spin physics to
downhole logging tools. The popular single-shot Carr-
Purcell-Meiboom-Gill (CPMG) sequence for measuring the
transverse T2 relaxation time is sensitive to local magnetic
¿eld inhomogeneities (internal gradients) that scale with
resonance frequency. For T2 analysis of conventional
formations, low-¿eld magnets are considered mandatory.
Recently, there has been renewed interest in operating at
higher frequency (• 20 MHz) to provide sensitivity to solid-
like components in shale formations (kerogen, bitumen,
structural water). The longitudinal T1 relaxation time is
insensitive to internal gradients, but slow to measure with
the traditional inversion-recovery pulse sequence. Here, a
modi¿ed fast double-shot T1 pulse sequence is applied to
conventional rock formations, allowing these samples to
be studied reliably at high magnetic ¿elds. Representative
porosity and permeability values are recovered for a
selection of brine-saturated sandstone and carbonate
core plugs. This double-shot T1 measurement is readily
implementable on commercial NMR hardware appropriate
for laboratory or rigsite deployment.

INTRODUCTION only by a factor 1.5, at most, and provide essentially the

Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) is used to
determine the petrophysical properties of conventional
reservoirs, such as porosity, permeability, Àuid content, and
irreducible brine saturation (Kenyon, 1997). The standard
well-logging analysis comprises a measurement of the
transverse T2 relaxation-time distribution of the Àuids
con¿ned in the rock pores as a function of depth. T2 is
sensitive to pore size (Davies and Packer, 1990) and chemical
composition (e.g., gas, oil, and brine) through molecular
mobility (Kleinberg and Vinegar, 1996). Additional
parameters that are measurable with logging tools, such as
the molecular diffusion coef¿cient D0 and longitudinal T1
relaxation time, are used to improve the Àuid-phase sensitivity
in challenging formations. Early logging tool technology
was based on T1 measurements because the longitudinal
relaxation time is more robust to motion (Kenyon, 1997).
However, T2 has become the archetypal NMR log parameter
as the single-shot Carr-Purcell-Meiboom-Gill (CPMG)
pulse sequence (Carr and Purcell, 1954; Meiboom and Gill,
1958) reduces acquisition time and improves quanti¿cation
of porosity with moving tools. For conventional reservoirs,
at low resonance frequency (f0 ~ 2 MHz), T1 and T2 differ
same information. However, the recent focus on shales as
a hydrocarbon resource has restored interest in longitudinal
relaxation-time measurements as T1-T2 correlations enable
more robust Àuid typing in these complex materials, such as
separation of immobile oil (bitumen), mobile oil, and brine
signals that can be present in inorganic (mineral) or organic
(kerogen) pores (Washburn, 2014). The latest logging-
while-drilling (LWD) NMR tools are designed speci¿cally
to perform these two-dimensional (2D) correlation
measurements in shale reservoirs.
Well logging is inherently limited to low magnetic
¿elds, and hence, frequency, through the Larmor relation
Ȧ0 = ȖB0 (where Ȧ0 = 2ʌf0 is the radial frequency, Ȗ is the 1H
gyromagnetic ratio, and B0 is the magnet ¿eld strength), due
to the practicalities of installing robust permanent magnets
on a downhole tool. The same limitation does not apply in
core analysis, although it is considered prudent to perform
measurements on conventional reservoir rocks at low ¿eld
to ensure the same spin physics and interpretations apply
in the laboratory as downhole. The magnetic susceptibility
contrast ǻȤ between the solid rock and pore Àuid distorts
the magnetic ¿eld of the NMR instrument, generating so-
called “internal gradients” on the pore scale (Hürlimann,

Manuscript received by the Editor November 21, 2018; revised manuscript received April 4, 2019; manuscript accepted April 5, 2019.
1
Schlumberger Cambridge Research, High Cross, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0EL, UK; Tel: +44 1223 325426;
E-mail: jmitchell16@slb.com.
2
Schlumberger Houston Formation Evaluation Center, Sugar Land, TX, USA; E-mail: avalori@slb.com.

409 PETROPHYSICS June 2019

 Application of a Fast NMR T1 Relaxation Time Measurement to Sedimentary Rock Cores
1998). Diffusion of liquids through these gradients enhances
the decay of coherent transverse magnetization, as measured
in the CPMG experiment, preventing quanti¿cation of
liquid volumes (Straley et al., 1997). Consequently, most
laboratories use low-¿eld NMR instruments (typically
around 2 MHz) when measuring the diffusion-sensitive T2
relaxation time.
Interest in shales has restored the old paradigm that
“higher ¿elds are better” (Mitchell et al., 2013; Washburn,
2014). There is a continuing trend in medical imaging and
chemical spectroscopy to use stronger magnetic ¿elds for
improved spatial resolution and chemical shift separation.
In laboratory studies of shales, higher ¿elds improve the
contrast of components, such as kerogen, bitumen, and
structural water in T1-T2 correlation plots. The traditional
assumption that the rock matrix is invisible to NMR no
longer applies as organic kerogen is detected with solid-
state pulse sequences (Jia et al., 2018). It is important to note
that, although strong internal gradients are present in shales,
the geometric restriction imposed by the nanometric pores
on molecular motion minimizes the detrimental effects of
diffusion (Washburn, 2014). Core-analysis companies have
been offering routine measurements of unconventional shale
reservoir samples at f0 = 20 MHz (B0 = 0.5 T) since 2013 and
various interpretation schemes have been published (Fleury
and Romero-Sarmiento, 2016).
Recently, there has been renewed interest in formation
evaluation based on rigsite analysis of drill cuttings (Georgi
and Loermans, 2018) as an alternative to costly logging
operations in low-tier, high-volume markets. Automated
analysis of drill cuttings has the potential to provide
near-real-time answers for production decisions and
geosteering (Nikitin et al., 2017). Rigsite NMR has existed
as a concept since the 1980s (Nigh and Taylor, 1984), and
numerous studies have been published comparing porosity
measurements from cuttings, core plugs, and downhole logs
(Meazza et al., 1996; Lenormand and Fonta, 2007; Hübner,
2014; Yu and Menouar, 2015; Kesserwan et al., 2017). To
avoid the proliferation of expensive NMR instruments for
cuttings analysis, particularly at the rigsite, where space
and cost constraints are high, it would be desirable to have
a single platform appropriate for analysis of conventional
(sandstones, carbonates) and shale resources.
The need to quantify the kerogen and bitumen content
of shales as reservoir quality indictors demands a high
¿eld strength (Reeder et al., 2016), with existing B0 = 0.5
T benchtop permanent magnet technology practical for
laboratory or rigsite (surface) deployment for analysis of core
or cuttings. Conventional rocks can be analyzed reliably at
such ¿eld strengths using T1 relaxation-time distributions, as
longitudinal relaxation processes are insensitive to diffusion
June 2019 PETROPHYSICS
(Washburn et al., 2008). Laboratory measurements of T1 are
usually based on slow pulse sequences, such as inversion
recovery (IR), requiring multiple separate acquisitions to
cover a range of longitudinal recovery times (Vold et al.,
1968). Several fast single-shot T1 sequences have been
proposed in the literature and reviewed elsewhere (Kingsley,
1999). These methods suffer from a convolution of
parameters, with the ¿nal magnetization (signal amplitude)
dependent on both the number of resonant nuclei and the
relaxation time. Recently, a double-shot (DS) T1 pulse
sequence was introduced to overcome these limitations
(Chandrasekera et al., 2008). Although slower than a single-
shot CPMG acquisition (by approximately a factor of two
for a given number of repeat scans), the DS T1 measurement
is still an order of magnitude faster than the classic IR
experiment. The DS pulse sequence was originally designed
for use in the second dimension of multidimensional high-
¿eld acquisitions, such as the T2-T1-į correlation experiment
(where į is the chemical shift) or the T1-T1 exchange
experiment. The DS pulse sequence has been implemented
on a benchtop spectrometer and used to generate T1-ǻȤ
correlations (as a measure of rock heterogeneity) and as a
rapid method of imaging with T1 contrast (Mitchell, 2014).
The original experiment used magnetic ¿eld gradient pulses
requiring high-performance audio ampli¿ers considered
impractical for rigsite deployment.
In this paper, a simpli¿ed DS sequence is introduced
without the requirement for a pulsed ¿eld gradient (PFG).
The measurement is demonstrated on a high-¿eld
instrument, B0 = 0.25 T (10.7 MHz), and used to acquire
T1 relaxation-time distributions for a selection of water-
saturated sandstones and carbonates. These relaxation-time
distributions are compared to classic T2 relaxation-time
distributions acquired on the same samples at low frequency
(2.4 MHz). The DS sequence is readily implementable
at 20 MHz (or higher frequency) and so can be used to
quantitatively measure Àuids in conventional reservoir rocks
on hardware optimized for shale characterization.
NMR METHOD
The DS pulse sequence, modi¿ed for robust
implementation on a low-¿eld instrument, is illustrated
in Fig. 1. The longitudinal magnetization is prepared by a
composite ʌ/2-ʌ/2 radio frequency (RF) pulse followed by a
series of n small-tip-angle RF pulses (Į ~ 0.2 rad). Each Į pulse
rotates a fraction of the longitudinal magnetization onto the
transverse plane where it is observed as a free induction decay
(FID) described by the exponential time constant T2* (Hahn,
1950). Each FID is ¿tted with a monoexponential decay
function to determine the time-dependent signal amplitude
410
 Mitchell and Valori

M(t). An FID is also observed after the composite RF pulse

with an amplitude corresponding to the total magnetization
M0. The DS sequence is repeated, and the signals summed.
Altering the phase of the composite RF pulse eliminates the
inherent offset (equilibrium magnetization) in the raw data
after two scans, hence the “double-shot” experiment. The
resulting signal amplitude M decays with the exponential Fig. 1—Schematic for the modi¿ed DS pulse sequence. The vertical
lines indicate RF pulses (full height pulses correspond to ʌ/2 tip angle,
time constant T1 and is described by reduced height pulse to Į tip angle). The oscillating signals represent
FID acquisitions. A suitable phase cycle is given in Table A1. The
(1) preparative ʌ/2 pulses are applied sequentially (as a composite pulse)
with no time delay between them; the phase cycle of the second ʌ/2
pulse is adjusted to provide an initial spin tip angle of ʌ/2 or ʌ rad.

where 2sin Į is a constant scaling factor on the signal

amplitude, n is the number of Į pulses, M0 is the total
magnetization (at zero-time), IJ1 is the longitudinal recovery
delay between consecutive Į pulses, and IJ0 is the delay
between the composite pulse and the ¿rst Į pulse. To improve
the temporal resolution of the modi¿ed DS sequence, the
measurement is repeated with different IJ0 times and the
results interleaved, as demonstrated in Fig. 2. This multiple
acquisition mode increases the overall experiment duration
(3 min is typical), but the measurement is still faster than
the classic IR acquisition by an order of magnitude. Full
details of the pulse sequence, experimental timings, and data
processing are given in the Appendix.

ROCK SAMPLES

A selection of rock outcrop samples was prepared to

demonstrate the application of the DS pulse sequence. Each
cylindrical core plug had dimensions (diameter × length)
of 38 × 50 mm (1.5 × 2 in.). Conventional core-analysis
techniques (helium porosity and nitrogen permeability)
were applied to the dry plugs and the petrophysical sample
properties are listed in Table 1. The plugs were vacuum
saturated with a low-salinity (3 wt% KCl) brine. Each plug
was wrapped in plastic ¿lm to prevent Àuid loss during the
NMR measurements.
The measurement parameters for the DS sequence were
selected based on the expected relaxation properties of the
brine-saturated rock plugs, see Table A2. These samples
had been studied previously at low ¿eld, which allowed Fig. 2—Demonstration of DS sequence acquisition (data for Ohio Blue
sandstone). Raw FID signals were acquired using the DS sequence
the maximum T1 relaxation time to be estimated. FID with varying initial relaxation delays of (a) IJ0 = 10 ms, (b) 13 ms, and
measurements at 10.7 MHz provided the T2* relaxation times. (c) 16 ms. The real and imaginary channels are indicated by the line
Here, the IJ1 delays were optimized on a sample-by-sample style (see legend); note the initial FID has a different phase rotation
compared to the subsequent FIDs. The data are phase rotated and
basis to demonstrate the DS sequence, but such detailed amplitude corrected to account for the Į tip-angle excitations according
re¿nement is not essential for implementation. In general, to Eq. 1, and then stacked on a single plot in (d). Each FID is ¿tted with
a modest IJ1 = 30 ms will likely suf¿ce for most reservoir a monoexponential decay function to determine the signal amplitude
formations. When measuring clean sands or high-porosity immediately after the RF pulse, see × symbols in (d). These points are
used to generate a T1 distribution by numerical inversion. See Appendix
(vuggy or fractured) carbonates it is necessary to increase IJ1 for full details.

411 PETROPHYSICS June 2019

 Application of a Fast NMR T1 Relaxation Time Measurement to Sedimentary Rock Cores

Table 1—Petrophysical Properties of Outcrop Rock Samples

to correctly characterize the long-time relaxation behavior.

The shortest T1 that can be measured by this sequence will
depend on T2* and hence, IJ0; in short T2* samples it is practical
to measure T1 relaxation times down to 1 ms.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

To simplify presentation of the results, the rock samples

listed in Tables 1 and A2 are categorized as sandstones
(¿rst 11 samples) or carbonates (last 5 samples). The
magnetization decays and T1 distributions obtained using the
DS sequence for the sandstones are shown in Fig. 3. Included
for comparison are the equivalent results obtained using the
classic IR sequence. Note that the DS sequence generates a
decay curve, whereas the IR sequence generates a recovery
curve. The sampling schemes of the two measurements
differ as well. The DS sequence provides a higher data
density with points uniformly sampled in time (except for
the M0 datum at zero-time). The logarithmic sampling of the (a) (b)
IR sequence provides closely spaced data at short times but Fig. 3—Double-shot T1 measurement of sandstone core plugs at 10.7
MHz (solid lines). Column (a) contains the raw data used to generate
sparse sampling at long times. Additionally, the IR sequence the T1 distributions in column (b). The data and distributions obtained by
cannot provide a genuine zero-time datum. the IR sequence (dashed lines) are included for comparison. The area
A numerical inversion method (Wilson, 1992) was under each distribution has been normalized to unity.
used to generate T1 distributions from the data. The ¿tted T1
distributions, shown in Fig. 3, are predominantly bimodal, The CPMG data and corresponding T2 distributions (2.4
and there is excellent agreement between the distributions MHz) obtained for the same set of sandstone plugs are shown
generated from the DS and IR data; the integral areas under in Fig. 4; the DS results (10.7 MHz) are repeated for clarity.
the distributions (equivalent to porosity) are consistent for The T1 relaxation times are expected to be longer than T2
each sample. Due to the difference in data sampling, the DS because the spin physics of surface relaxation dictates the
distributions are weighted more toward the long-relaxation- canonical relation T1 = 1.5×T2 at f0 = 2 MHz (Kleinberg
time component, although there are a couple of exceptions, et al., 1993b), and T1 is further increased by the higher
such as the BRb and LA samples. resonant frequency (Kleinberg et al., 1993a). For many of
the samples, the T2 distributions are qualitatively akin to

June 2019 PETROPHYSICS 412

 Mitchell and Valori
the T1 distributions, albeit shifted on the relaxation-time
axis. However, even at low ¿eld, the inÀuence of internal
gradients on the T2 measurements manifests in some of these
samples (Bra, BRb, LA) as multiple discrete peaks (Mitchell
et al., 2010).
(a) (b)
Fig. 4—CPMG T2 measurement of sandstone core plugs at 2.4 MHz
(dot-dashed lines). Column (a) contains the raw data used to generate
the T2 distributions in column (b). The data and T1 distributions obtained
by the DS sequence at 10.7 MHz (solid lines) are repeated from Fig. 3
for comparison. The area under each distribution has been normalized
to unity.
The T1 distributions generated from DS and IR data for
the selection of carbonate core plugs are presented in Fig.
5. The results from the two techniques are qualitatively
413 PETROPHYSICS
consistent, and almost identical for DO, PT, and SK. The
sampling of the DS decay leads to broader distributions for
the ES and IN samples, compared to the IR results, but the
integral areas under the distributions remains consistent for
each sample. The T2 distributions (2.4 MHz) for the carbonate
samples are shown in Fig. 6 with the DS results (10.7 MHz)
repeated for clarity. The two distributions are qualitatively
similar for each sample, with the T2 distribution shifted to
shorter relaxation times compared to the T1 distribution.
As these carbonates exhibit a low magnetic-susceptibilty
contrast, the T2 distributions are not modi¿ed by diffusion
through internal gradients and therefore closely resemble the
T1 distributions acquired at higher ¿eld.
(a) (b)
Fig. 5—Double-shot T1 measurement of carbonate core plugs at 10.7
MHz (solid lines). Column (a) contains the raw data used to generate
the T1 distributions in column (b). The data and distributions obtained by
the IR sequence (dashed lines) are included for comparison. The area
under each distribution has been normalized to unity.
A summary of the T1 relaxation results obtained by
the DS and IR sequences for the selection of core plugs
(sandstones and carbonates) is given in Fig. 7. The log-mean
relaxation times T1LM de¿ned as
(2)
where Pi is the amplitude of the i th component in the
pseudocontinuous T1 distribution, were calculated from
the distributions in Figs. 3 and 5. Excellent agreement is
observed for the fast-relaxing samples (T1LM < 200 ms). For
June 2019
 Application of a Fast NMR T1 Relaxation Time Measurement to Sedimentary Rock Cores

the slower-relaxing samples, the DS sequence generally

returns a distribution weighted to longer times, as noted
above, and so the calculated T1LM relaxation times are
longer from the DS data than the IR data. An exception
occurs in several of the carbonate samples where slightly
longer T1LM times are returned by the IR sequence. T1LM is
used to estimate permeability, where an order of magnitude
variation is considered signi¿cant. Therefore, the T1LM values
presented in Fig. 7 are considered comparable.

Fig. 7—Comparison of core-plug T1LM relaxation times determined

using the IR and DS pulse sequences. The solid diagonal line indicates
equality between the two techniques.

(a) (b)
Fig. 6—CPMG T2 measurement of carbonate core plugs at 2.4 MHz
(dot-dashed lines). Column (a) contains the raw data used to generate
the T2 distributions in column (b). The data and T1 distributions obtained
by the DS sequence at 10.7 MHz (solid lines) are repeated from Fig. 5
for comparison. The area under each distribution has been normalized
to unity.

A summary comparison of the T1LM relaxation times

determined using the DS sequence at 10.7 MHz to T2LM
relaxation times determined using the CPMG sequence at 2.4
MHz is presented in Fig. 8. As expected, the T1LM relaxation
times are universally longer than T2LM (Kleinberg et al., Fig. 8—Comparison of core-plug T2LM relaxation time (measured at
1993a). Although there is some scatter in the data, a typical 2.4 MHz using CPMG) and T1LM relaxation time (measured at 10.7
MHz using DS). The solid diagonal line indicates equality between the
ratio of T1LM = 1.67×T2LM is observed. This ratio is expected measurements and the dashed diagonal line indicates the scaling factor
to increase at higher resonant frequencies and is sensitive to T1LM = 1.67×T2LM.
the mineral surface wettability (Valori et al., 2017); all the
rocks considered here are water-wet. Given this observation
The total signal intensity is determined by integrating
of a constant scaling factor, it is practical to compare T1
the area under a relaxation-time distribution. The signal
relaxation-time measurements at a frequency f0 § 20 MHz
intensity is proportional to liquid volume and hence, can be
to T2 relaxation-time measurements from logging tools at
rescaled to porosity using a reference sample. When using
f0 < 2 MHz.

June 2019 PETROPHYSICS 414

 Mitchell and Valori
the DS sequence, the total signal intensity is determined
directly from the zero-time amplitude of the initial FID
as an alternative to integrating the distribution; the two
estimates are equivalent. Porosity values determined by
helium porosimetry and NMR are compared in Fig. 9 for
the selection of rock plugs. In core analysis, an uncertainty
of ±0.5 p.u. is considered acceptable on any porosity
measurement (Thomas and Pugh, 1989). The NMR porosity
estimates fall within, or very near, to these bounds. The DS
sequence is therefore considered appropriate for measuring
porosity at high frequency.
Fig. 9—Comparison of core-plug porosity determined by He gas
porosimetry and by calibration of the total NMR signal obtained in the
DS T1 measurement (bottom plot). The difference ǻ‫[ כ = כ‬He] – ‫[ כ‬NMR]
is shown in the top plot. The solid lines indicate equality between the
two techniques, and the dashed lines indicate ±0.5 p.u. deviation from
equality. The legend applies to both plots.
Log-mean relaxation time is rescaled to permeability k
using the relation developed at Schlumberger-Doll Research
(SDR) Center for well-sorted sands (Kenyon et al., 1988)
(3)
or a modi¿ed equation for carbonates (Allen et al., 2001)
(4)
where Cs and Cc are empirical constants and ȡ1 is the
longitudinal surface-relaxivity parameter (Brownstein and
Tarr, 1979). The T1LM relaxation times for the selection
415 PETROPHYSICS
of sandstone and carbonate core plugs studied here were
converted to permeability using estimated constants of
C s = 8 × 106 m2 sec-2, Cc = 2.5 × 104, and ȡ1 = 2 × 10-6 m sec-1.
Note that surface relaxivity is frequency dependent and will
increase with increasing resonance frequency. The NMR
permeability estimates are compared to N2 gas permeability
in Fig. 10. It is usual in logging applications to adjust the
constants depending on the formation under investigation.
Here, the use of single numeric values gave permeability
estimates within the factor ×3 range (approximately ± half
a decade) considered acceptable for NMR analysis. OB is
an obvious outlier with k [N2] = 1 md and k [NMR] = 18 md
due to an unusually high surface relaxivity. Nevertheless,
the measured T1LM relaxation times are considered robust for
interpretation of the formation permeability with appropriate
scaling factors.
Fig. 10—Comparison of core-plug permeability determined by N2 gas
permeameter and NMR (kSDR and kcarb estimated using ‫ כ‬and T1LM
measured using the DS pulse sequence, see text for details). The solid
diagonal line indicates equality between the two measurements, and
the dashed diagonal lines indicates a factor ×3 deviation from equality.
CONCLUSIONS
The optimum nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR)
hardware for benchtop measurements of core plugs or drill
cuttings depends on the reservoir formation: conventional
rocks (sandstones, carbonates) are best analyzed with
low-¿eld magnets, whereas detection of kerogen in
unconventional organic shale is best achieved at a higher
magnetic ¿eld strength. There is interest in deploying
June 2019
 Application of a Fast NMR T1 Relaxation Time Measurement to Sedimentary Rock Cores
a single permanent-magnet solution for all formation
evaluation based on surface measurements of drill cuttings at
the rigsite. The liquid/solid magnetic-susceptibility contrast
in conventional rocks prevents quanti¿cation of porosity
or permeability based on the archetypal T2 relaxation-time
distribution at high ¿eld. Instead, T1 relaxation times must be
measured. Here, a rapid double-shot (DS) pulse sequence for
measuring T1 relaxation-time distributions was modi¿ed for
robust implementation on a benchtop NMR instrument (f0
= 10.7 MHz). This DS sequence was applied to a selection
of water-saturated conventional rock core plugs. The T1
relaxation-time distributions obtained using this rapid
method were comparable to those from the classic but time-
consuming inversion recovery (IR) pulse sequence. The T1
relaxation-time distributions acquired at f0 = 10.7 MHz were
also shown to be equivalent, within a constant scaling factor,
to T2 distributions acquired at f0 = 2.4 MHz, suggesting the
higher-¿eld measurements can be used to support calibration
and interpretation of downhole logs. Finally, the total signal
intensities and log-mean T1 relaxation times measured
with the DS sequence were used to estimate petrophysical
properties of the rock samples. The estimated porosity and
permeability values were within the tolerance considered
acceptable for core analysis. Overall, the DS sequence
enables quantitative relaxation-time analysis of conventional
rock formations at high ¿eld with an experiment duration
comparable to the popular single-shot CPMG acquisition
used routinely for core and log NMR at low ¿eld.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Thusara Chandrasekera (University of Cambridge) designed
the original double-shot T1 pulse sequence.
NOMENCLATURE
Abbreviations
CPMG = Carr-Purcell-Meiboom-Gill
(NMR pulse sequence)
DS = double-shot (NMR pulse sequence)
FID = free induction decay (NMR pulse sequence)
IR = inversion recovery (NMR pulse sequence)
MRI = magnetic resonance imaging
NMR= nuclear magnetic resonance
PFG= pulsed ¿eld gradient
RF = radio frequency
SNR= signal/noise ratio
2D = two-dimensional
June 2019 PETROPHYSICS
B0 = magnetic ¿eld strength, T
Cs= empirical constant for sandstone permeability
scaling, dimensionless
Cc= empirical constant for carbonate permeability
scaling, m sec-1
D0 = molecular self-diffusion coef¿cient, m2 sec-1
f0 = mesonance frequency, Hz
k = permeability, mD (millidarcy)
kSDR= permeability, mD (empirical scaling of NMR data
for sandstones)
kCarb = permeability, mD (empirical scaling of NMR data
for carbonates)
M = magnetization, dimensionless
M0 = initial magnetization, dimensionless
Meq = equilibrium magnetization, dimensionless
n = number of radio frequency pulses, dimensionless
T1 = longitudinal relaxation time, sec
T2 = transverse relaxation time, sec
T2* = effective transverse relaxation time, sec
T1LM = log-mean longitudinal relaxation time, sec
T2LM = log-mean transverse relaxation time, sec
tdw = dwell time of each FID datum, sec
tE = spin-echo time, sec
tRD = recycle delay between scans, sec
x, y = transverse plane axes perpendicular to B0 ¿eld
by convention, m
z = spin precession axis aligned with B0 ¿eld
by convention, m
Į= radio frequency pulse tip angle, rad
Ȗ= gyromagnetic ratio, rad sec-1 T-1
į= chemical shift, ppm
ȡ1= longitudinal surface relaxivity, —m sec-1
IJ0 =initial longitudinal recovery delay, sec
IJ1 =longitudinal recovery delay, sec
‫=׋‬ porosity, p.u. (porosity units, scaled 0 to 100)
ǻȤ = magnetic susceptibility contrast
(volumetric), dimensionless
Ȧ0 = Larmor frequency, rad sec-1
REFERENCES
Allen, D.F., Boyd, A., Massey, J., Fordham, E.J., Amabeoku,
M.O., Kenyon, W.E., and Ward, W.B., 2001, The Practical
Application of NMR Logging In Carbonates: 3 Case
Studies, Paper K, Transactions, SPWLA 42nd Annual Logging
Symposium, Houston, Texas, USA, 17–20 June.
Brownstein, K.R., and Tarr, C.E., 1979, Importance of Classical
Diffusion in NMR Studies of Water in Biological Cells,
Physical Review A, 19(6), 2446–2453. DOI: 10.1103/
PhysERevA.19.2446.
Carr, H., and Purcell, E., 1954, Effects of Diffusion on Free
416
 Mitchell and Valori
Precession in Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Experiments,
Physical Review, 94, 630–638. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRev.94.630.
Chandrasekera, T.C., Mitchell, J., Fordham, E.J., Gladden, L.F.,
and Johns, M.L., 2008, Rapid Encoding of T1 with Spectral
Resolution in n-dimensional Relaxation Correlations, Journal
of Magnetic Resonance, 194(1), 156–161. DOI: 10.1016/j.
jmr.2008.06.008.
Chen, Q., Marble, A.E., Colpitts, B.G., and Balcom, B.J., 2005, The
Internal Magnetic Field Distribution, and Single Exponential
Magnetic Resonance Free Induction Decay, in Rocks, Journal
of Magnetic Resonance, 175(2), 300–308. DOI: 10.1016/j.
jmr.2005.05.001.
Davies, S., and Packer, K.J., 1990, Pore-Size Distributions from
Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spin-Lattice Relaxation
Measurements of Fluid-Saturated Porous Solids, II.
Applications to Reservoir Core Samples, Journal of Applied
Physics, 67(6), 3171–3176. DOI: 10.1063/1.345396.
Fleury, M., and Romero-Sarmiento, M., 2016, Characterization
of Shales Using T1-T2 NMR Maps, Journal of Petroleum
Science and Engineering, 137, 55–62. DOI: 10.1016/j.
petrol.2015.11.006.
Georgi, D., and Loermans, T., 2018, Can We Propel Cuttings-
Based Mud Logging Into the 21st Century? SPWLA Today
Newsletter, 1(2), 14–15.
Graumann, R., Barfuss, H., Fischer, H., Hentschel, D., and
Oppelt, A., 1987, TOMROP: A Sequence for Determining
the Longitudinal Relaxation Time T1 in Magnetic Resonance
Tomography, Electromedica, 55, 67–72.
Hahn, E.L., 1950, Nuclear Induction Due to Free Larmor Precession
[Abstract], Physical Review, 77(2), 297–298. DOI: 10.1103/
PhysRev.77.297.2.
Hübner, W., 2014, Studying the Pore Space of Cuttings by NMR
and —CT. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 104, 97–105. DOI:
10.106/j.jappgeo.2014.02.016.
Hürlimann, M.D., 1998, Effective Gradients in Porous Media due
to Susceptibility Differences, Journal of Magnetic Resonance,
131(2), 232–240. DOI: 10.1006/jmre.1998.1364.
Jia, Z., Xiao, L., Chen, Z., Liao, G., Zhang, Y., Wang, Z., Liang, C.,
and Guo, L., 2018, Determining Shale Organic Porosity and
Total Organic Carbon by Combining Spin Echo, Solid Echo
and Magic Echo, Microporous and Mesoporous Materials,
269, 12–16. DOI: 10.1016/j.micromeso.2017.11.049.
Kenyon, W.E., 1997, Petrophysical Principles of Applications of
NMR Logging, The Log Analyst, 38(2), 21-43.
Kenyon, W.E., Day, P.I., Straley, C., and Willemsen, J.F., 1988, A
Three-Part Study of NMR Longitudinal Relaxation Properties
of Water-Saturated Sandstones, Paper SPE-15643, SPE
Formation Evaluation, 3(3), 622–636. DOI: 10.2118/15643-
PA.
Kesserwan, H., Alshanqaiti, E., Jin, G., and Nuic, I., 2017, Porosity
Measurements on Drill Cuttings—Comprehensive Inputs
to Formation Evaluation Near Real-Time While Drilling,
Paper SPE-188881 presented at the Abu Dhabi International
Petroleum Exhibition and Conference, Abu Dhabi, UAE, 13–
16 November. DOI: 10.2118/188881-MS.
Kingsley, P.B., 1999, Methods of Measuring Spin-Lattice (T1)
Relaxation Times: An Annotated Bibliography, Concepts
417 PETROPHYSICS
in Magnetic Resonance, 11(4), 243–276. DOI: 10.1002/
(SICI)1099-0534(1999)11:4<243::AID-CMR5>3.0.CO:2-C.
Kleinberg, R.L., Farooqui, S.A., and Hors¿eld, M.A., 1993a, T1/
T2 Ratio and Frequency Dependence of NMR Relaxation in
Porous Sedimentary Rocks, Journal of Colloid and Interface
Science, 158(1), 195–198. DOI: 10.1006/jcis.1993.1247.
Kleinberg, R.L., Straley, C., Kenyon, W.E., Akkurt, R., and
Farooqui, S.A., 1993b, Nuclear Magnetic Resonance of
Rocks: T1 vs. T2, Paper SPE-26470 presented at the SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston,
Texas, USA, 3–6 October. DOI: 10.2118/26470-MS.
Kleinberg, R.L., and Vinegar, H.J., 1996, NMR Properties of
Reservoir Fluids, The Log Analyst, 37(6), 20–32.
Lenormand, R., and Fonta, O., 2007, Advances in Measuring
Porosity and Permeability from Drill Cuttings. Paper SPE-
111286 presented at the SPE/EAGE Reservoir Characterization
and Simulation Conference, Abu Dhabi, UAE, 28–31 October.
DOI: 10.2118/111286-MS.
Meazza, O., Della Martera, M., Lyne, A., Taylor, M., and Saunders,
M.R., 1996, Porosity from Cuttings: Options and Answers,
Paper SCA9606 presented at the International Symposium
of the Society of Core Analysts, Montpelier, France, 8–10
September.
Meiboom, S., and Gill, D., 1958, Modi¿ed Spin-Echo Method for
Measuring Nuclear Relaxation Times, Review of Scienti¿c
Instruments, 29(8), 668–691. DOI: 10.1063/1.1716296.
Mitchell, J., 2014, Rapid Measurements of Heterogeneity in
Sandstones Using Low-Field Nuclear Magnetic Resonance,
Journal of Magnetic Resonance, 240, 52–60. DOI: 10.1016/j.
jmr.2014.01.006.
Mitchell, J., Chandrasekera, T.C., Johns, M.L., Gladden, L.F., and
Fordham, E.J., 2010, Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Relaxation
and Diffusion in the Presence of Internal Gradients: The
Effect of Magnetic Field Strength, Physical Review E, 81(2),
026101. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.81.026101.
Mitchell, J., Chandrasekera, T.C., Holland, D.J., Gladden, L.F.,
and Fordham, E.J., 2013, Magnetic Resonance Imaging in
Laboratory Petrophysical Core Analysis, Physics Reports,
526(3), 165–225. DOI: 10.1016/j.physrep.2013.01.003.
Nigh, E., and Taylor, M., 1984, P-KTM: Wellsite Determination of
Porosity and Permeability Using Drilled Cuttings, Canadian
Well Logging Society Journal, 13, 43–58.
Nikitin, A., Krugliak, Z., and Stepanov, V., and Dolan, S., 2017,
Automated Mud Logging System as a Cost-Ef¿cient Way
of Acquiring Subsurface Data: Results of the Field Trial,
Paper SPE-187387 presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, USA, 9-11
October. DOI: 10.2118/187387-MS.
Reeder, S.L., Craddock, P.R., Rylander, E., Pirie, I., Lewis, R.E.,
Kausik, R., Kleinberg, R.L., Yang, J., and Pomerantz, A.E.,
2016, The Reservoir Producibility Index: A Metric to Assess
Reservoir Quality in Tight-Oil Plays from Logs, Petrophysics,
57(2), 83–95.
Straley, C., Rossini, D., Vinegar, H., Tutunjian, P., and Morriss, C.,
1997, Core Analysis by Low-Field NMR, The Log Analyst,
38(2), 84–95.
Thomas, D.C., and Pugh, V.J., 1989, A Statistical Analysis of the
June 2019
 Application of a Fast NMR T1 Relaxation Time Measurement to Sedimentary Rock Cores
Accuracy and Reproducibility of Standard Core Analysis, The
Log Analyst, 30(2), 71–77.
Valori, A., Mitchell, J., and Fordham, E.J., 2016, Digital Filters for
Low-Field NMR, Concepts in Magnetic Resonance, 46B(4),
202–220. DOI: 10.1002/cmr.b.21346.
Valori, A., Hursan, G., and Ma, S.M., 2017, Laboratory and
Downhole Wettability from T1/T2 Ratio, Petrophysics, 58(4),
352–356.
Vold, R., Waugh, J., Klein, M., and Phelps, D., 1968, Measurement
of Spin Relaxation in Complex Systems, Journal of Chemical
Physics, 48, 3831–3832. DOI: 10.1063/1.1669699.
Washburn, K.E., 2014, Relaxation Mechanisms in Shales,
Concepts in Magnetic Resonance, 43A(3), 57–78. DOI:
10.1002/cmr.a.21302.
Washburn, K.E., Eccles, C.D., and Callaghan, P.T., 2008, The
Dependence on Magnetic Field Strength of Correlated Internal
Gradient Relaxation Time Distributions in Heterogeneous
Materials, Journal of Magnetic Resonance, 194(1), 33–40.
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmr.2008.05.025.
Wilson, J.D., 1992, Statistical Approach to the Solution of First-
Kind Integral Equations Arising in the Study of Materials and
Their Properties, Journal of Materials Science, 27(14), 3911–
3924. DOI: 10.1007/BF00545476.
Yu, Y., and Menouar, H., 2015, An Experimental Method to
Measure the Porosity from Cuttings: Evaluation and Error
Analysis, Paper SPE-173591 presented at the SPE Production
and Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma,
USA, 1–5 March. DOI: 10.2118/173591-MS.
APPENDIX – NMR EXPERIMENTS
The classic IR sequence for measuring T1 relaxation
time stores the longitudinal magnetization on the negative
z-axis with a ʌ tip angle radio frequency (RF) pulse. After a
recovery time IJ1, the magnetization is interrogated with a ʌ/2
RF pulse and a free induction decay (FID) measured (Hahn,
1950). The transverse magnetization (signal amplitude) M(t)
immediately after the ʌ/2 RF pulse is a function of IJ1 over
successive experiments and has the form
(A1)
It is necessary to wait a recycle delay of tRD = 5×T1 between
experiments to ensure quantitative signal amplitudes are
recorded. Consequently, the entire IR measurement can have
a duration of an hour or more. The acquisition time can be
reduced slightly using saturation recovery (the magnetization
is prepared with multiple ʌ/2 pulses and recovers from zero
rather than -M0) which removes the requirement for a long
tRD (Vold et al., 1968). However, exploring IJ1 delays up to 10
sec over multiple acquisitions is still time-consuming.
An equivalent single-shot experiment is the “T1 by
multiple read-out pulses” (TOMROP) sequence (Grauman
et al., 1987). TOMROP uses a series of n small-tip-angle
June 2019 PETROPHYSICS
pulses (Į ~ 0.1 rad) to drive the spin ensemble to some
equilibrium magnetization Meq which is a nontrivial function
of M0, Į, and T1. For samples with a well-de¿ned T1 (e.g.,
bulk water) it is possible to deconvolve these contributions
to Meq and estimate the relaxation time. For complicated
samples (Àuid-saturated rocks), this deconvolution is
impractical. The DS pulse sequence introduces a preparative
z-store pulse to TOMROP, allowing the initial magnetization
to be alternated between -M0 and zero on successive scans.
Summing two scans cancels the Meq term and encodes the
T1 relaxation time as an exponential decay. The measured
magnetization has the form
(A2)
where sin Į is a constant scaling factor on the signal amplitude
and IJ1 is the longitudinal recovery delay between consecutive
RF pulses. Using the DS pulse sequence, the T1 relaxation
time is measured in a couple of minutes (Mitchell, 2014).
After each Į pulse the transverse magnetization decays with
the exponential time constant T2* which is determined by a
combination of the true transverse relaxation time T2, ¿eld
inhomogeneities of the NMR instrument ǻB0, and local ¿eld
inhomogeneities introduced by ǻȤ such that
(A3)
where it is reasonable to assume, for rocks measured at
modest B0 > 100 mT, the term ȖǻȤB0 will dominate and
the signal will be described by a monoexponential decay
function (Chen et al., 2005). At higher magnetic ¿elds the
T2* relaxation time becomes shorter. It is necessary to wait
for the transverse magnetization to approach zero before
applying the next Į pulse to avoid residual signal or unwanted
coherences (echoes) in the acquisition window. In previous
implementations of the DS sequence (Chandrasekera et al.,
2008; Mitchell 2014), pulsed ¿eld “homospoil” gradients
were applied to rapidly dephase the coherent transverse
magnetization. To avoid the use of pulsed gradients and
enable robust implementation on a benchtop spectrometer,
the DS sequence was modi¿ed in the following ways:
x The initial magnetization condition was established
with a composite ʌ/2-ʌ/2 RF pulse rather than a spin
echo.
x The FID generated by the composite ʌ/2-ʌ/2
initialization pulse was acquired to determine M0
explicitly.
x The number n of Į pulses is restricted in each scan to
ensure IJ1 » 10×T2*.
x The delay IJ0 between the preparative composite
ʌ/2-ʌ/2 pulse and the ¿rst Į pulse is incremented over
418

several (e.g., two or three) repeat acquisitions and the
results interleaved.
x An extended eight-step RF phase cycle is
recommended to eliminate residue magnetization,
see Table A1.
Careful processing of the DS data was required.
The (now obsolete) DRX-TCP spectrometer [Oxford
Instruments, UK] used in this study only permitted a single
acquisition phase to be de¿ned per scan. Consequently, the
quadrature detection phase of the initial FID differed from
the phase of the subsequent FIDs, and this relative rotation
was corrected at the processing stage. More sophisticated
spectrometers may allow the acquisition phase to be
altered within a single scan, removing the requirement for
additional post-processing. The initial FID (observed only
on alternate scans) had a different scaling factor compared
to the FIDs acquired after each subsequent Į pulse. As the tip
angle of the Į pulse was known, the signal amplitudes were
corrected according to Eq. 1. Each FID was ¿tted with a
monoexponential decay function after correctly accounting
for time delays in the digital ¿lters (Valori et al., 2016). The
data acquired with different IJ0 delays were interleaved. As
the initial FID was acquired multiple times, these data were
averaged to improve the estimate of M0. The data processing
steps are illustrated in Fig. 2. Relaxation-time distributions
were generated from the processed magnetization decays
(see Fig. 2d, × symbols) using a numerical inversion method
based on Tikhonov regularization with a second-derivative
smoothing operator (Wilson, 1992).
The modi¿ed DS sequence was implemented on a
custom 10.7 MHz permanent magnet [Laplacian Ltd,
Table A1—RF Phase Cycle for the Pulse Sequence Illustrated in Fig. 1
The two ʌ/2 pulses constitute the composite preparation pulse (applied once per acquisition). The Į pulse is applied n times per acquisition (constant
phase). Acq phase refers to the FID acquisition windows. The RF phases are incremented over repeat scans, so eight scans are required to
accommodate the entire phase cycle.
419
Mitchell and Valori
UK] controlled by a DRX-TCP spectrometer [Oxford
Instruments, UK]. The magnet was ¿tted with a 53-mm inner
diameter RF probe including an active damping feedback
preampli¿er [MRF Innovations, UK] to improve the signal/
noise ratio (SNR). RF pulses were provided by a 500 W
ampli¿er [Tomco Technologies, Australia] and a ʌ/2 pulse
had a duration of 20 —sec at full power. To generate an Į tip
angle pulse, the pulse power was reduced. A tip angle of Į =
0.2 rad (approximately 10°) was chosen to provide a useful
SNR after eight repeat scans. Each FID consisted of 128
points with a dwell time of tdw = 10 —s per point. The IJ1 delay
was ¿xed in each acquisition based on the T2* of the sample.
A train of n = 50 Į pulses was applied. A recycle delay of tRD
= 5 sec was included between scans and IJ0 was incremented
over three separate experiments (IJ0 = IJ1, 1.3×IJ1, 1.6×IJ1).
The eight repeat scans necessary to accommodate the phase
cycle in Table A1 took approximately 90 sec to acquire, and
the entire measurement had a duration of 4 minutes. Sample-
speci¿c details of the acquisition parameters are given in
Table A2.
For comparison to the DS sequence, T1 relaxation times
were measured using the classic IR pulse sequence. The
longitudinal recovery time was incremented logarithmically
from IJ1 = 100 ms to 5 sec over 32 separate acquisitions.
Eight repeat scans were summed and tRD = 5 sec. The entire
experiment duration was 48 minutes. Also, T2 relaxation
times were measured on the same brine-saturated rock plugs
using a 2.4 MHz Geospec magnet [Oxford Instruments,
UK]. CPMG decays were recorded with an echo time of tE =
600 —s and 8,333 echoes, tRD = 5 sec and eight repeat scans
for a total experiment duration of 80 sec.
PETROPHYSICS June 2019
 Application of a Fast NMR T1 Relaxation Time Measurement to Sedimentary Rock Cores

Table A2—Estimated Relaxation Times of Brine-Saturated Outcrop Rock Samples and Corresponding DS Sequence Parameters

The total experiment duration is based on eight repeat scans, three IJ0 values, and tRD = 5 sec

ABOUT THE AUTHORS patents in the ¿eld of NMR and is a reviewer for scienti¿c
and technical international journals.
Jonathan Mitchell is a Senior Research Scientist at
Schlumberger Cambridge Research, UK. He obtained a BSc
degree in 2000 and a PhD in 2003, both in physics, from the
University of Kent, UK. He was previously employed at the
University of Cambridge, UK, under a technology transfer
program bridging academia and industry. His research
interests cover all aspects of NMR related to porous media,
petrophysics, and well construction with a current focus
on drill cuttings and drilling Àuids. He has published over
90 articles in peer-reviewed journals and eight patents. In
2012, he was awarded the Giulio Cesare Borgia Prize for
contributions to the understanding of NMR in porous media;
in 2013 he was awarded the BRSG-NMRDG annual prize
for contributions to magnetic resonance; and in 2014, he was
awarded the prize for Best Young Professional Paper at the
Society of Core Analysts Annual Symposium.

Andrea Valori is a Senior Petrophysicist and NMR team

leader at the Schlumberger Houston Formation Evaluation
Center, Sugar Land, Texas, USA, where he develops
interpretation solutions for logging tools. He holds a PhD
in physics from the University of Surrey, UK. His research
focuses on low-¿eld NMR applications to porous media
(cement while at the University, and rocks since joining
Schlumberger) and the integration of NMR with other
techniques. His present work is focused on the integration
of laboratory and downhole data to improve petrophysical
interpretation. Andrea has authored several papers and

June 2019 PETROPHYSICS 420

PETROPHYSICS, VOL. 60, NO. 3 (JUNE 2019); PAGES 421–428; 5 FIGURES; 5 TABLES. DOI: 10.30632/PJV60N3-2019a5

Reconsidering Klinkenberg’s Permeability Data1

Douglas Ruth2 and Rasoul Arabjamaloei2

ABSTRACT

The foundational paper by Klinkenberg contains a very
rich dataset for gas Àow in porous samples over a range of
mean pressures from 1 to 2,000 kPa. Based on his data,
Klinkenberg proposed a correlation between pressure drop
and Àow rate that depends on both the Darcy permeability
(the permeability at in¿nite mean pressure) and the ratio
of a coef¿cient, now generally termed the Klinkenberg
coef¿cient, and the mean pressure. Klinkenberg’s approach
to analyze his data was to determine the Darcy permeability
at a high mean pressure, then calculate Klinkenberg
coef¿cients at lower values of mean pressures. He found
that values of the calculated Klinkenberg coef¿cient
remained constant for a certain range of mean pressures, but
changed signi¿cantly at low mean pressures. Klinkenberg
clearly stated that his results did not show a strictly linear
function of effective permeability with the inverse of
mean pressure—this observation has never been studied in
detail. Based on an approach published by Arabjamaloei
and Ruth, Klinkenberg’s data were reanalyzed using three
methods: by optimizing the Darcy permeability and the
Klinkenberg coef¿cient simultaneously; by holding the
Darcy permeability constant but optimizing the value of
the Klinkenberg coef¿cient to obtain a single value for
all mean pressures; by optimizing Darcy permeability,
the Klinkenberg coef¿cient, and a second Klinkenberg
coef¿cient divided by mean-pressure-squared. The last
approach is successful in correlating all of Klinkenberg’s
data to within 5%. However, the improvements due to
the modi¿ed Klinkenberg equation are marginal and do
not explain all the disagreement. For this reason, a second
dataset, published by Ash and Grove, was explored. This
dataset, which has been largely ignored in the literature,
provides convincing evidence for Klinkenberg’s ideas,
once the data are reanalyzed to account for shortcomings
in the ranges of experimental pressures. Based on ideas
documented by Carman for mixed viscous/ diffusive Àows,
the results are used to derive estimates of an effective pore
diameter and the tortuosity.

INTRODUCTION
Two foundational papers on low-pressure Àow in porous
media, one by Klinkenberg (1941) and the other by Ash
and Grove (1960), have had very different impacts in the
literature. Based on data from Google Scholar at the time
of writing the present paper, the paper by Klinkenberg has
been cited 1,853 times while the paper by Ash and Grove
has been cited only 15 times. The present paper will show
that by combining the results from these papers with the
model documented by Carman (1956) (a similar treatment
is also presented in Klinkenberg’s paper for a single straight
capillary), a very simple method can be derived to predict an
effective pore diameter and tortuosity of a porous sample.
The great strength of the two papers is that they both contain
suf¿ciently detailed experiment data to allow reanalysis of
the results, a rare occurrence in the literature.
For the purpose of the present paper, three characteristic
Àow regions are de¿ned. When pressure is very low or pore
sizes are very small, this will be termed the “purely diffusive
Àow” region. This region is often termed the “free molecular
Àow” region. When the pressure is very high or the pore
sizes are large, this will be termed the “purely viscous
Àow” region. This region is often termed the “Poiseuille
Àow” or “Darcy Àow” region. Between the two regions is
an “intermediate Àow” region. This region is also termed
the “Knudsen Àow”, “slippage Àow” or “Klinkenberg Àow”
region, although the Knudsen Àow region is often de¿ned to
include the purely diffusive Àow region.

Manuscript received by the Editor October 26, 2018; manuscript accepted March 21, 2019.
1
Originally presented at the International Symposium of the Society of Core Analysts, Trondheim, Norway, August 27–30, 2018,
Paper SCA2018-001.
2
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

421 PETROPHYSICS June 2019

 Reconsidering Klinkenberg’s Permeability Data
MATHAMATICAL BASIS
The analysis in this paper is based on the generalized
Klinkenberg equation proposed by Arabjamaloei and Ruth
(2016)
(1)
Here b is the Klinkenberg coef¿cient, b2 is a second
Klinkenberg coef¿cient, v is the Darcy (bulk) velocity, and
ko is the Darcy permeability, the permeability at in¿nite
mean pressure. Further, P is the pressure, x is the position
and ȝ is the viscosity. The mass Àow rate, mլ , is related to the
Darcy velocity by the equation
(2)
Here Ab is the bulk cross-sectional area and ȡ is the density.
For steady, compressible gas Àow, the mass Àow is constant
along the sample but the Darcy velocity will vary with the
density, hence, pressure. Substituting Eq. 2 into Eq. 1 results
in the equation
(3)
For an ideal gas and isothermal Àow
(4)
Here the subscript denotes the conditions at the arithmetic
mean pressure. Substituting into Eq. 3 and multiplying
through by P
(5)
The right-hand side of Eq. 5 is a constant for steady Àow.
Therefore, the equation can be integrated over the bulk
length, Lb, and from the pressure at its highest value, Ph , to
its lowest value, Pl . The result is
(6)
Because the mean pressure, Pm, is equal to to (Ph + Pi)/2, this
equation can be rearranged as
(7)
June 2019 PETROPHYSICS
An effective permeability, k, is de¿ned by the expression
(8)
The effective permeability is the permeability that is
measured experimentally if Àow is assumed to obey the
Darcy law at all pressures. Substituting Eq. 8 into Eq. 7 and
rearranging
(9)
Three dimensionless groups will now be de¿ned:
Darcy Number (10)
Klinkenberg Number (11)
and
Second Klinkenberg Number (12)
to yield
(13)
At ¿rst sight, the second Klinkenberg number appears to
be ill-behaved because as Ph ĺ Pl , this term goes to in¿nity.
However, as Ph ĺ Pl then In(Ph /Pl ) ĺ 0 which compensates.
THE KLINKENBERG RESULTS
Klinkenberg (1941) included the following statement
in his paper: “Figs.1, 2 and 3 show that the apparent
permeability is approximately a linear function of the
reciprocal mean pressure. The linear function, however,
is an approximation… wherein the value of the constant b
increases with increasing pressure.”
To explore reasons for this behavior, the Klinkenberg
data were reanalyzed using three different approaches. First,
the data were ¿tted with Eq. 9 but assuming b2 = 0. This
resulted in values for ko and b. Second, the data were ¿tted
with Eq. 9 holding the value of ko equal to the value at high
pressure and assuming b2 = 0. Third, the data were ¿tted with
Eq. 9 allowing ko, b and b2 to vary. The results for the three
samples for which Klinkenberg provided detailed data are
shown in Table 1.
422
 Ruth and Arabjamaloei

Table 1—The Fitting Parameters for the Three Models Considered

- - -

Figures 1 through 3 show the errors between the ¿tted better predicted at high pressures, although not as well as for
equations and the measured values of effective permeability. Sample 1, but the error near 10 kPa is still large. Using all
For Sample 1 (Fig. 1), using both ko and b results in errors three parameters results in the best prediction. However, the
exceeding 5% at high pressures and at approximately 10 improvements are again marginal and the errors near 10 kPa
kPa. When only b is used in the ¿t, the effective permeability are still relatively large.
is well predicted at high pressures (this should occur because In summary, despite using a higher-order correlation,
this is the region used to predict ko) but the error near 10 there remains a systematic deviation in the Klinkenberg
kPa is the greatest observed. Using all three parameters data. In order to obtain further insights into this problem,
results in the best prediction. However, the improvements a second dataset, published by Ash and Grove (1960), was
are marginal and the errors at high pressures and near 10 kPa studied.
are still relatively large.
The behavior of Sample 2 (Fig. 2) is similar to that for
Sample 1. Again, using both ko and b results in the largest
errors at high pressures. When only b is used in the ¿t, the
effective permeability is better predicted at high pressures,
although not as well as for Sample 1, but the error near 100
kPa has increased. Using all three parameters results in the
best predictions. However, the improvements are again
marginal and the error near 100 kPa is still relatively large.
The behavior of Sample 3 (Fig. 3) is even more similar
to that for Sample 1. Again, using both ko and b results in the
largest errors at high pressures and approximately 10 kPa. Fig. 2—The errors for Sample 2 (Jenna Glass ¿lter). These errors are
the values predicted by the correlation equation minus the measured
When only b is used in the ¿t, the effective permeability is values, divided by the measured values.

Fig. 1—The errors for Sample 1 (Core Sample “A”). These errors are Fig. 3—The errors for Sample 3 (Core Sample “F”). These errors are
the values predicted by the correlation equation minus the measured the values predicted by the correlation equation minus the measured
values, divided by the measured values. values, divided by the measured values.

423 PETROPHYSICS June 2019

 Reconsidering Klinkenberg’s Permeability Data
THE ASH AND GROVE RESULTS
Ash and Grove (1960) reported effective permeability,
and upstream and downstream pressure data, for 10 gases
on a single sample of ceramic porous media. However, the
data are not in the same form as that used in the petroleum
literature. The Àow rate, G, was calculated using the
declining pressure in a known upstream volume using the
equation
(14)
Here t is time, Vh is the upstream chamber volume, T is
temperature, TR is a reference temperature, in this case
ambient. (The units of the Àow rate in the original paper
were ergs/s, the pressures were in cm of Hg and time was
in min. In Eq. 14 the units of G are J/s.) In the paper, Àow
rates are not actually reported; however, permeabilities, K,
in units of cm2/s (converted to m2/s for use here) are reported
and G is related to K by the equation
(15)
All the variables in this equation are reported except G,
which can be calculated from Eq. 15. Once G is calculated,
the mass Àow rate can be calculated using the equation
(16)
where M is the molecular weight of the gas and ࣬ is the
universal gas constant. Once the mass Àow rate is known,
Eq. 8 can be used to calculate the effective permeability that
corresponds to the current system of units.
The resulting effective permeability/mean pressure
data were ¿tted to determine the Darcy permeability and
the Klinkenberg coef¿cient. When ¿tting an equation to
experimental data, the form of the error equation used can
lead to different values for the ¿tting parameters because
different equations will “weight” the data points differently.
Table 2—Calculated Darcy Permeabilities and Klinkenberg Coef¿cients
June 2019 PETROPHYSICS
In the present analysis, two different error equations were
used
(17)
and
(18)
The results for ¿tting these two equations to the
experimental data for the ten gases are shown in Table
2. These results are not at all what is expected. All the
experiments were done on a single experimental sample and
the expectation is that the Darcy permeability should be the
same for all the gases. What is observed is that the Darcy
permeability varies by a factor approaching three and the
two error equations generally predict very different values
for the same gas. In the original paper, the same observation
was made. There was some attempt to explain the variations
based on arguments involving adsorption and surface Àow
but the authors admitted the arguments were not convincing.
We could speculate that this inconsistent behavior may be
why this work has been largely ignored in the literature.
When ¿tting data, it is important that the data cover
the full range that the equation represents. In this case,
if an accurate value of ko is desired, at least some of the
data points should have a suf¿ciently high mean pressure
such that the Darcy number (Da) is close to one. Table 3
shows the minimum Darcy numbers calculated using the
Darcy permeabilities based on ¿tting the data. Clearly, none
of these Darcy numbers are even close to one. In order to
determine if this observation was the source of the scatter
in the values of ko, the data were reanalyzed by using only
data points that had a Da < 10 (this was not possible for
hydrogen) or, at a minimum, the three data points with the
lowest Darcy number. Although this was not expected to
yield accurate values for the Darcy permeability, this was
the only way that at least three points would be used for each
gas. The results for the recalculated Darcy permeabilities
are shown in Table 4.
424
 Ruth and Arabjamaloei
Table 3—The Minimum Experimental Darcy Number (Da) Calculated
Using Darcy Permeabilities Based on Eq. 13
Although the values for Darcy permeability still show
variations, they are in much better agreement. Furthermore,
the two error equations now predict very similar values. In
order to proceed, the values for the 10 gases and the two
error equations were averaged. This gave a value for ko of
16.0 mD.
Table 4—Reanalyzed Darcy Permeabilities Based on Data Points for
Which Da § 1.
Using the single value of the Darcy permeability, the data
were reanalyzed to obtain new values for the Klinkenberg
coef¿cients. The work of Carman (1956) suggests that the
Klinkenberg coef¿cient divided by the mean pressure should
vary with the mean free path of the gas. The mean free path
can be calculated from the equation
(19)
where Ȝc is the mean free path coef¿cient
Table 5—Calculated Values for the Klinkenberg Coef¿cient and the Mean Free Path Coef¿cient
425 PETROPHYSICS
(20)
Table 5 shows the results for the recalculated Klinkenberg
coef¿cients and the mean free path coef¿cient, and Fig. 4
shows a plot of b versus Ȝc
Fig. 4—The Klinkenberg coef¿cient as a function of the mean free path
coef¿cient.
As observed in Fig. 4, the correlation between the
two variables is remarkably good. In fact, the regression
coef¿cient is 0.9962. It can be concluded that when the Ash
and Grove (1960) data are analyzed by taking care to analyze
separately the data that contain information on the viscous
Àow region, the results conform well to the expectation
that all the different gases will have behaviors that can be
accounted for by changes in the mean free path coef¿cient.
Figure 5 summarizes the errors between the experimental
values and the calculated values of permeabilities using the
data from Table 5. In general, the errors are small, much
below ±0.05. However, the sulphur dioxide results show
anomalously large errors; there is no apparent reason for this
behavior. It is observed that the errors are generally positive.
This may be due to the value of Darcy permeability used in
the analysis. The Darcy permeability can easily be in error
because it was calculated from data that did not include
values for Da § 1.
June 2019
 Reconsidering Klinkenberg’s Permeability Data
Fig. 5—The errors for the Ash and Grove (1960) data. These errors are
the values predicted by the correlation equation minus the measured
values, divided by the measured values.
USING KLINKENBERG DATA TO PREDICT
SAMPLE STRUCTURE
The Ash and Grove (1960) work was motivated by a
desire to determine pore properties based on Àow in capillary
tubes collected into a parallel tube model. The equation for
the effective permeability (as developed in Carman (1956)
but based on the earlier work of others, most notably Adzumi
(1937a, 1937b, 1937c)) is
Here ‫ ׋‬is the porosity, į is an “effective” tube diameter, IJ is
the tortuosity, and Ȝࡄ is the mean free path of the gas given
by Eq. 19. Comparing this equation with Eq. 9, and ignoring
the second Klinkenberg term, the Darcy permeability may
be identi¿ed as
and the Klinkenberg coef¿cient by
Given values for ‫׋‬, ko and b, these equations allow
the prediction of the effective diameter and the tortuosity.
Based on the Ash and Grove (1960) data, the values for these
variables are į = 1.91×10-6 ± 0.14 m and IJ = 1.46 ± 0.11. The
value for the diameter compares favorably with values that
were calculated by Ash and Grove (1960) based on a number of
different approaches (0.41×10-6 to 2.84×10-6 m). The medium
used for this study was a ceramic, which would be expected
to have a uniform and systematically packed structure. As
such, a reasonable expectation for the tortuosity would be
June 2019
_
¥2 or 1.414, which is remarkably close to the predicted
value based on the Ash and Grove (1960) data.
At very low pressures, or for samples with very small
Àow passages, the Àow becomes purely diffusive and
viscosity effects become minimal. The onset of this behavior
is characterized by the Knudsen number, which is de¿ned as
(24)
and Equation 21 may be written as
(25)
As the Knudsen number becomes large, this equation goes to
(26)
If experiments are conducted in the diffusive region, this
equation may be used to model the results. The measurement
of diffusive properties of porous media has great utility. As
pointed out by Klinkenberg in a separate paper (Klinkenberg,
1951), diffusion is an analogy for electrical conductivity in
porous media. For a parallel tube model, the formation factor
is given by (Ruth et al., 2013)
(21)
(27)
Therefore, once effective pore diameters and tortuosities
are determined, formation factors can be predicted without the
need to saturate the samples with an electrically conducting
liquid. The present work clearly demonstrates that when
experiments are conducted to capture and analyze Àow in
(22) both the diffusive and viscous regions, gas Àow experiments
give the results predicted from simple theories of Àow in
tubes. Therefore, they should allow calculation of meaningful
values for effective pore diameters and tortuosities. It is the
(23) opinion of the authors that diffusive experiments represent
a very important but underused opportunity to gain a much
better understanding of rock samples.
A word of caution is required. It should always be
possible, by using very low pressures, to conduct experiments
in moderate- to high-permeability samples that range
over the diffusive, intermediate, and viscous Àow regions.
However, for low-permeability samples, it may be dif¿cult
to perform experiments in the viscous Àow region without
using very high pressures. Therefore, the potential to use this
technique to determine pore structure on tight samples needs
further investigation.
PETROPHYSICS 426
 Ruth and Arabjamaloei

CONCLUSIONS Ph= high pressure

Pl= low pressure
The work reported in this paper supports the following Pm= mean pressure
conclusions: ࣬= universal gas constant
x Using a model equation with a second-order T= temperature
dependence on mean pressure leads to a better TR= reference temperature
correlation between mean pressure and permeability. t= time
However, the improvements are marginal. Vh= tank volume
x Even with a second-order model, the Klinkenberg v = bulk (Darcy) velocity
data show a systematic deviation from the predicted x= position
values in the intermediate Àow region between purely
viscous and purely diffusive Àow.
x When reanalyzed to reduce the impact of lack of data į= effective pore diameter
near a Da § 1, the Ash and Grove (1960) data provide Ȝժ = mean free path
very consistent results for the permeability of the Ȝc = mean free path coef¿cient
sample to various gases. ȝ= viscosity
x Based on the Ash and Grove data, the Klinkenberg ȡ= density
coef¿cient varies in a linear fashion with the mean ȡm = mean density
free path coef¿cient with a very high regression IJ= tortuosity
coef¿cient. ‫=׋‬ porosity
x Using the derived Darcy permeability and Klinkenberg
coef¿cients, very reasonable values for the effective
pore diameter and tortuosity are predicted for the REFERENCES
sample used by Ash and Grove.
x In order to implement a method to calculate effective Adzumi, H., 1937a, Studies on the Flow of Gaseous Mixtures
pore diameter and tortuosity of a sample, accurate through Capillaries. I, The Viscosity of Binary Gaseous
data must be collected in both the purely viscous and Mixtures, Bulletin of the Chemical Society of Japan, 12(5),
the purely diffusive Àow regions. 199–226. DOI: 10.1246/bcsj.12.199.
x Diffusion experiments could represent a very Adzumi, H., 1937b, Studies on the Flow of Gaseous Mixtures
through Capillaries. II, The Molecular Flow of Gaseous
important technique for studying samples of porous
Mixtures, Bulletin of the Chemical Society of Japan, 12(6),
media. 285–291. DOI: 10.1246/bcsj.12.285.
Adzumi, H., 1937c, Studies on the Flow of Gaseous Mixtures
NOMENCLATURE through Capillaries. III, The Flow of Gaseous Mixtures at
Medium Pressures, Bulletin of the Chemical Society of Japan,
12(6), 292–303. DOI: 10.1246/bcsj.12.292.
Ab = bulk area
Arabjamaloei, R., and Ruth, D.W., 2016, Lattice Boltzmann Based
b= Klinkenberg coef¿cient Simulation of Gas Flow Regimes in Low Permeability Porous
b2= second Klinkenberg coef¿cient Media: Klinkenberg’s Region and Beyond, Journal of Natural
Da= Darcy number Gas Science and Engineering, 31, 405–416. DOI: 10.1016/j.
F= formation factor jngse.2016.03.056.
G= Ash and Grove Àow rate Ash, R., and Grove, D.M., 1960, Low-Pressure Gas Flow in
K= Ash and Grove permeability Consolidated Porous Media. Part I—Flow Through a Porous
Kl= Klinkenberg number Ceramic, Transactions of the Faraday Society, 56(9), 1357–
Kl2= second Klinkenberg number 1371. DOI: 10.1039/TF9605601357.
Kn= Knudsen number Carman, P.C., 1956, Flow of Gases Through Porous Media,
Academic Press.
k= effective permeability
Klinkenberg, L.J., 1941, The Permeability of Porous Media to
ko= Darcy permeability (permeability at in¿nite Liquids and Gases, Paper API-41-200, API Drilling and
mean pressure) Production Practice, 1, 200–21
Lb= bulk length Klinkenberg, L.J., 1951, Analogy Between Diffusion and
M= molecular weight Electrical Conductivity in Porous Rocks, Bulletin of the
mլ = mass Àow rate Geological Society of America, 62(6), 559–564. DOI:
P= pressure

427 PETROPHYSICS June 2019

 Reconsidering Klinkenberg’s Permeability Data

10.1130/0016-7606(1951)62[559:ABDAEC]2.0.CO;2.
Ruth, D.W., Lindsay, C., and Allen, M., 2013, Combining
Electrical Measurements and Mercury Porosimetry to Predict
Permeability, Petrophysics, 54(6), 531–537.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Douglas Ruth is a Professor of Mechanical Engineering

and Dean Emeritus in the Faculty of Engineering at the
University of Manitoba. He has been researching issues
related to core analysis and has been an active member of
the Society of Core Analysts for over 30 years.

Rasoul Arabjamaloei received his PhD from the

University of Manitoba for work he did applying the lattice
Boltzmann method to gas Àow in porous media over the
full ranges of pressure and Àow rate. He is currently a post-
doctoral fellow at the University of Calgary.

June 2019 PETROPHYSICS 428

PETROPHYSICS, VOL. 60, NO. 3 (JUNE 2019); PAGES 429–437; 9 FIGURES; 1 TABLE. DOI: 10.30632/PJV60N3-2019a6

Determination of the Appropriate Value of m for Evaluation of Carbonate Reservoirs

With Vugs and Fractures at the Well-Log Scale
Dahai Wang1 and Jun Peng1

ABSTRACT

Water saturation is one of the a few key reservoir
properties, if not the most important one, for pay-zone
identi¿cation and, hence, reserves determination. The oil
industry uses resistivity logs, with help of porosity logs,
to calculate water saturation based on the Archie equation.
This is because the resistivity log has the deepest depth of
investigation and largest difference in log readings between
hydrocarbon (HC) and water among all existing logs, and
the Archie equation is a simple and reliable equation with
only three parameters: porosity (or cementation) exponent
m, saturation exponent n and formation water resistivity
Rw. As we can accurately measure Rw from water samples
or calculate it in wet zones, the two remaining critical
parameters for water saturation calculation are m and n. In
this paper, we focus on m only; we will discuss n in a future
paper.
In homogeneous rock, such as most sandstone
formations, the value of m measured from core plugs
represents the value of the formation volume investigated
by logs. However, carbonate formations are usually
heterogeneous due to the existence of vugs and fractures,
and the value of m measured from core plugs or even whole
core does not represent the value of the formation volume
investigated by logs. The frequently asked question in
the industry is: “How can we get the value of m if core
values cannot represent the reservoir?” and “What is
the appropriate value of m for evaluation of carbonate
reservoirs with vugs and fractures?”
The purpose of this paper is to answer the above
questions. We ¿rst explain why the values of m from
core plugs and whole core are not suitable for evaluation
of carbonate reservoirs by using the scale model of core
plugs, whole core and logs. We then propose a new concept
for obtaining the appropriate value of m for evaluation of
carbonate reservoirs with vugs and fractures at the well-
log scale based on Monte Carlo simulation with a triple-
porosity model of matrix, vugs and fractures.

INTRODUCTION for calculating the value of m of a carbonate rock with matrix,

Previous researchers (Archie, 1942; Towle, 1962;
Lucia, 1983; Rasmus, 1987; Aguilera, 2004, 2010; Al-
Ghamdi et al., 2011; Olusola et al., 2013) have demonstrated
by theoretical models and/or core data that the value of m in
carbonate reservoirs can have a large range (1.0 to 7.3). With
m of the matrix of a carbonate rock being approximately
equal to 2.0; when fractures dominate, m can be as low as
1.0; and where nontouching vugs dominate, m can be as
high as 7.3, or more.
The early work on dual-porosity models from Towle
(1962) and Rasmus (1987) set up the foundation for
petrophysicists to understand that the presence of fractures
may result in m < 2.0 while the presence of vugs may result
in m > 2.0. The equations of triple-porosity models from
Aguilera (2010) and Al-Ghamdi et al. (2011) are very useful
fractures and vugs together. Their work greatly improved
the understanding of the theoretical relationship of m and
matrix, fractures and vugs within a carbonate formation.
However, the porosity of fractures and porosity of vugs
within the formation volume investigated by the resistivity
log are extremely dif¿cult, or often impossible to determine
from even advanced logs currently in use. As a result, we
still cannot get the value of m for evaluation of carbonate
rocks with matrix, fractures and vugs. More importantly,
the equations do not take the random characteristics of
the combination and distribution of matrix, fractures and
vugs within a carbonate reservoir volume investigated by
resistivity tools into account in calculating m. This paper
proposes a new concept to determine the appropriate value
of m for evaluating carbonate reservoirs with fracture and
vugs at the well-log scale.

Manuscript received by the Editor March 25, 2019; manuscript accepted April 29, 2019
1
Southwest Petroleum University, College of Earth Science and Technology; No.8 Xindu Road, Chengdu, China, 610500;
pengjun@swpu.edu.cn; lishi6226@163.com

429 PETROPHYSICS June 2019

 Determination of the Appropriate Value of m for Evaluation of Carbonate Reservoirs With Vugs and Fractures at the Well-Log Scale
SCALE OF CORE PLUG, WHOLE CORE AND LOG
In homogeneous rock, such as most sandstone formations,
the value of m measured from core plugs represents the
formation volume investigated by well logs. But, since
carbonate formations are often heterogeneous, due to the
existence of vugs and fractures, the value of m measured
from core plugs or even whole core does not represent the
formation volume investigated by logs. Figure 1 shows a
model illustrating the relative volumes of investigation of
core plugs, whole core and well logs.
Fig. 1—Relative scale of the reservoir volume investigated by core
plugs, whole core and well logs.
Figure 2 shows the locations of core plugs in a cored
carbonate well where fractures and vugs are present.
Fig. 2—Locations of core plugs in a carbonate cored well.
June 2019
Combining Figs. 1 and 2, we can obtain a simpli¿ed scale
model (see Fig. 3) to show the relative scale of core plug,
whole core, formation volume investigated by resistivity
log and the distribution of fractures and vugs within the
reservoir.
From Figs 1 to 3 one can easily understand that the value
of m obtained from core plugs or whole core cannot represent
the formation volume investigated by logs. As mentioned
previously, the equations of even the triple-porosity model
also cannot be used to get m due to the dif¿culty of obtaining
the porosities of fractures and vugs. Consequently, this paper
proposes a new concept to determine the value of m for
evaluation of carbonate reservoirs with fractures and vugs.
METHODOLOGY
Quick Review of Triple-Porosity Model
Before any analysis, the petrophysical volume model
of the triple-porosity system in carbonates must ¿rst be
de¿ned. Figure 4 shows the petrophysical volume model for
the triple-porosity system.
While one can use any one of the existing triple-porosity
models, the authors have selected the model of Al-Ghamdi
et al. (2011) model to demonstrate the idea. The Al-Ghamdi
et al. triple-porosity model for calculating m is expressed by
Eq. 1:
(1)
where ‫ ׋‬is total porosity of the of triple-porosity system
(matrix + fractures + vugs), ‫׋‬f is the porosity of fractures of
the triple-porosity system, ‫׋‬v is the porosity of nontouching
(or nonconnected) vugs of the triple-porosity system, ‫׋‬b is
the porosity of the matrix in a matrix system (intergranular
or matrix pore + solid), mb is the porosity exponent of the
matrix in a matrix system, and m is the porosity exponent of
the triple-porosity system (matrix + fractures + vugs)
The Effect of Fractures on m
To demonstrate the effect of fractures on m, the formation
is assumed a dual-porosity system, which contains matrix
and fractures. Note that the touching or connected vugs are
just like “special fractures”. One can use Eq. 1 to simulate
the effect of fractures on m by forcing the porosity of vugs
equal to zero. Figure 5 shows the effect of fractures on m. It
is obvious that the presence of fractures causes m to decrease
from mb.
PETROPHYSICS 430
 Wang and Peng

Fig. 3—Simpli¿ed scale model showing the relative scale of core plugs, whole core, formation volume investigated by well logs and the fractures and
vugs within the formation volume or rock.

The Effect of Nonconnected Vugs on m
Nonconnected vugs are not connecting or touching each
other directly, but they are connecting to the matrix and,
hence, the system. So, nonconnected vugs are still connected
to the reservoir system and have the capability of storing
and transporting oil and gas. To demonstrate the effect of
nonconnected (or nontouching) vugs on m, the formation is
assumed a dual-porosity system that consists of matrix and
nonconnected vugs. Equation 1 can be used to simulate the
effect of nonconnected vugs on m by forcing the porosity of
fractures equal to zero, in this case. Figure 6 shows the effect
of nonconnected vugs on m. It is obvious that presence of
nonconnected vugs causes m to increase from mb.

Fig. 4—Petrophysical volume model for the triple- porosity system in carbonate.

431 PETROPHYSICS June 2019

 Determination of the Appropriate Value of m for Evaluation of Carbonate Reservoirs With Vugs and Fractures at the Well-Log Scale

Fig. 5—Effect of fractures on m in a dual-porosity system (matrix + Fig. 6—Effect of nonconnected vugs on m in a dual-porosity system
fractures), with mb = 2.0 and mf = 1.0. The value of m decreases with (matrix + nonconnected vugs),with mb = 2.0. The value of m increases
increasing of porosity of fractures. The presence of fractures results in with increasing of porosity of the nonconnected vugs. The presence of
m < 2. nonconnected vugs results in m > 2.

The Combined Effect of Fractures and Nonconnected case of matrix and fractures only (Fig 7a) and the effect of
Vugs on m nonconnected vugs on m in case of matrix and nonconnected
Figure 7 is formed by combining Figs. 5 and 6. From vugs only (Fig. 7b).
Fig. 7, one can observe the effect of fractures on m in the

(a) (b)
Fig. 7—(a) Effect of fractures on m in a dual-porosity system (matrix + fractures), where mb = 2.0 and mf =1.0. (b) Effect of nonconnected vugs on m
in a dual-porosity system (matrix + nonconnected vugs), where mb = 2.0.

June 2019 PETROPHYSICS 432

 Wang and Peng
Typically, both fractures and vugs exist in carbonate
reservoirs. To determine the combined effect of fractures
and nonconnected vugs on m, we use Eq. 1 to simulate the
effect of fractures and nonconnected vugs together on m,
which is illustrated in Fig. 8.
From Fig. 8, one can see that the range of m is much
narrower when both factures and nonconnected vugs are
present, compared with the cases of only fractures or only
nonconnected vugs shown in Fig. 7. One can determine the
value of m of a reservoir with both fractures and vugs if the
porosity of fractures and the porosity of nonconnected vugs
can be obtained from logs.
A New Concept for Obtaining the Appropriate Value of
m at the Well-Log Scale
From the discussion to this point, one can conclude the
following facts for carbonate reservoirs:
x The value of m obtained from core plugs does not
represent the reservoir volume investigated by resistivity
logs, and it cannot be used for formation evaluation
directly. In practice, during the acquisition of core plugs,
many core plugs are sampling matrix, some of them are
sampling matrix with some vugs, and a few of them are
sampling matrix with microfractures. As a result, the
value of m measured from core plugs can vary over a large
range (1.0 to 7.3) depending on the positions of the core
plugs. Based on the coring and core-analysis experience
of authors at least, if carefully selected, core plugs can
Fig. 8—Combined effect of fractures and nonconnected vugs on m in a triple-porosity system (matrix + fractures + nonconnected vugs), where mb =
2.0 and mf = 1.0.
433 PETROPHYSICS
represent the matrix and the value of m of the matrix has
a very narrow range with an average close to 2.0.
x The value of m obtained from whole core also does not
represent reservoir volume investigated by resistivity logs
and it cannot be used for formation evaluation directly.
x The dual-porosity models (matrix + fractures; matrix
+ nonconnected vugs) previously developed are
fundamental models that can help petrophysicists to
understand the theoretical effect of fractures or vugs on
m. Those models show that the value of m varies over
a large range (see Fig. 7). However, those models are
not suitable for real formation evaluation as carbonate
reservoirs often contain both fractures and vugs.
x Triple-porosity models (matrix + fractures + nonconnected
vugs) developed by researchers in recent years are very
useful models. These models can be used to determine
the value of m for formation evaluation if one can manage
to determine the porosity of fractures and the porosity
of nonconnected vugs within the formation volume
investigated by resistivity logs. Unfortunately, up to the
present, it is almost impossible to use even modern logs
to obtain a reliable porosity of fractures and a reliable
porosity of nonconnected vugs within the formation
volume investigated by resistivity logs. However, triple-
porosity models do demonstrate one important thing,
that is, the value of m varies over a much narrower range
when both fractures and vugs are present in the reservoir
(see Figs. 7 and 8).
June 2019
 Determination of the Appropriate Value of m for Evaluation of Carbonate Reservoirs With Vugs and Fractures at the Well-Log Scale

From the discussions above, it seems that there
currently no way to determine the value of m for evaluation
of carbonate reservoirs. This paper proposes a new concept
to determine the appropriate value of m of the formation
volume investigated by resistivity logs through Monte Carlo
simulation using the triple-porosity model.
Consider a formation volume investigated by resistivity
logs (see Figs. 1 and 3). The value of m of the matrix within
the formation volume is set to 2.0 (close to 2.0 in the real
case). Adding fractures (or connected vugs) to the volume
randomly will result in m < 2.0. Adding nonconnected vugs
to the volume randomly will result in m > 2.0. Based on the
triple-porosity models, the Al-Ghamdi et al. (2011) model is
selected here, one can use Monte Carlo simulation to obtain
the value of m of the volume with randomly distributed
fractures and vugs at various combinations of matrix
porosity, fracture porosity and nonconnected vug porosity.
To get a more realistic simulation result, the variation ranges
of matrix porosity, fracture porosity and nonconnected
vug porosity are set within their minimum value 0.0 and
maximum value 1.0, and each of those porosities has a
most-likely value at each simulation case. While hundreds
of cases are simulated, Fig. 9 shows one example from those
simulation cases, which includes the input (matrix porosity,
fracture porosity, nonconnected vug porosity) and the value
of m modeled by Monte Carlo simulation.
RESULTS
Table 1 lists the simulated values of m for the cases of
various combinations of matrix porosity, fracture porosity
and nonconnected vug porosity. For various cases, the
values of m of reservoir volume investigated by resistivity
logs with both randomly distributed fractures and vugs are
all very close to 1.99 (average: 1.99, variation range: 1.94 to
2.02). From Table 1, two key points are stand out: (1) The
value of m slightly increases with increasing matrix porosity,
indicating that fractures have a greater impact than vugs on
m when matrix porosity is low, while vugs have a greater
impact than fractures on m when matrix porosity is high; (2)
the values of m are all close to 1.99, indicating that 1.99 can
be used as the value of m without knowing anything about
the target reservoir.

Fig. 9—Monte Carlo simulation at the combination case of ‫כ‬f = 0.005 v/v, ‫כ‬v = 0.05 v/v and ‫כ‬b = 0.15 v/v. Input includes (a) ‫כ‬f minimum value = 0.0 v/v,
maximum value = 1.0 v/v, most-likely value = 0.005 v/v, probability distribution =triangle); (b) ‫כ‬v minimum value = 0.0 v/v, maximum value = 1.0 v/v,
most-likely value = 0.05 v/v; and (c) ‫כ‬b minimum value = 0.0 v/v, maximum value = 1.0 v/v, most-likely value = 0.15 v/v. In all three cases the green
triangle represents the probability distribution. (d) m values from Monte Carlo simulation using the Al-Ghamdi et al. (2011) triple-porosity model (the
result or the median value of m = 1.98).

June 2019 PETROPHYSICS 434

 Wang and Peng

Table 1—Monte Carlo Simulated Values of m for Various Combination of Matrix Porosity, Fracture Porosity and Nonconnected Vug Porosity

Ԅf ‫כ‬v ‫כ‬m m  Ԅf ‫כ‬v ‫כ‬m m  Ԅf ‫כ‬v ‫כ‬m m

(v/v) (v/v) (v/v) (median) (v/v) (v/v) (v/v) (median) (v/v) (v/v) (v/v) (median)
0.01 0.01 0.05 1.96 0.01 0.01 0.05 1.96 0.02 0.01 0.05 1.94
0.01 0.01 0.10 1.97 0.01 0.01 0.10 1.97 0.02 0.01 0.10 1.96
0.01 0.01 0.15 1.98 0.01 0.01 0.15 1.98 0.02 0.01 0.15 1.97
0.01 0.01 0.20 1.99 0.01 0.01 0.20 1.99 0.02 0.01 0.20 1.98
0.01 0.01 0.25 1.99 0.01 0.01 0.25 1.99 0.02 0.01 0.25 1.99
0.01 0.01 0.30 2.00 0.01 0.01 0.30 2.00 0.02 0.01 0.30 1.99
0.01 0.01 0.35 2.00 0.01 0.01 0.35 2.00 0.02 0.01 0.35 2.00
0.01 0.01 0.40 2.00 0.01 0.01 0.40 2.00 0.02 0.01 0.40 2.00

0.01 0.03 0.05 1.96 0.01 0.03 0.05 1.96 0.02 0.03 0.05 1.95
0.01 0.03 0.10 1.97 0.01 0.03 0.10 1.97 0.02 0.03 0.10 1.97
0.01 0.03 0.15 1.98 0.01 0.03 0.15 1.98 0.02 0.03 0.15 1.98
0.01 0.03 0.20 1.99 0.01 0.03 0.20 1.99 0.02 0.03 0.20 1.99
0.01 0.03 0.25 1.99 0.01 0.03 0.25 1.99 0.02 0.03 0.25 1.99
0.01 0.03 0.30 2.00 0.01 0.03 0.30 2.00 0.02 0.03 0.30 2.00
0.01 0.03 0.35 2.00 0.01 0.03 0.35 2.00 0.02 0.03 0.35 2.00
0.01 0.03 0.40 2.00 0.01 0.03 0.40 2.00 0.02 0.03 0.40 2.00

0.01 0.05 0.05 1.96 0.01 0.05 0.05 1.96 0.02 0.05 0.05 1.96
0.01 0.05 0.10 1.98 0.01 0.05 0.10 1.97 0.02 0.05 0.10 1.98
0.01 0.05 0.15 1.98 0.01 0.05 0.15 1.99 0.02 0.05 0.15 1.98
0.01 0.05 0.20 1.99 0.01 0.05 0.20 2.00 0.02 0.05 0.20 1.99
0.01 0.05 0.25 2.00 0.01 0.05 0.25 2.00 0.02 0.05 0.25 2.00
0.01 0.05 0.30 2.00 0.01 0.05 0.30 2.00 0.02 0.05 0.30 2.00
0.01 0.05 0.35 2.00 0.01 0.05 0.35 2.00 0.02 0.05 0.35 2.00
0.01 0.05 0.40 2.01 0.01 0.05 0.40 2.00 0.02 0.05 0.40 2.00

0.01 0.08 0.05 1.98 0.01 0.08 0.05 1.97 0.02 0.08 0.05 1.97
0.01 0.08 0.10 1.98 0.01 0.08 0.10 1.98 0.02 0.08 0.10 1.98
0.01 0.08 0.15 2.00 0.01 0.08 0.15 1.99 0.02 0.08 0.15 1.99
0.01 0.08 0.20 2.00 0.01 0.08 0.20 2.00 0.02 0.08 0.20 1.99
0.01 0.08 0.25 2.00 0.01 0.08 0.25 2.00 0.02 0.08 0.25 2.00
0.01 0.08 0.30 2.01 0.01 0.08 0.30 2.00 0.02 0.08 0.30 2.00
0.01 0.08 0.35 2.01 0.01 0.08 0.35 2.01 0.02 0.08 0.35 2.01
0.01 0.08 0.40 2.01 0.01 0.08 0.40 2.01 0.02 0.08 0.40 2.01

0.01 0.10 0.05 1.99 0.01 0.10 0.05 1.98 0.02 0.10 0.05 1.97
0.01 0.10 0.10 1.99 0.01 0.10 0.10 1.99 0.02 0.10 0.10 1.99
0.01 0.10 0.15 2.00 0.01 0.10 0.15 2.00 0.02 0.10 0.15 2.00
0.01 0.10 0.20 2.00 0.01 0.10 0.20 2.00 0.02 0.10 0.20 2.00
0.01 0.10 0.25 2.00 0.01 0.10 0.25 2.01 0.02 0.10 0.25 2.00
0.01 0.10 0.30 2.01 0.01 0.10 0.30 2.01 0.02 0.10 0.30 2.01
0.01 0.10 0.35 2.02 0.01 0.10 0.35 2.01 0.02 0.10 0.35 2.01
0.01 0.10 0.40 2.02 0.01 0.10 0.40 2.01 0.02 0.10 0.40 2.01

0.01 0.15 0.05 1.99 0.01 0.15 0.05 1.99 0.02 0.15 0.05 1.99
0.01 0.15 0.10 2.00 0.01 0.15 0.10 2.00 0.02 0.15 0.10 2.00
0.01 0.15 0.15 2.01 0.01 0.15 0.15 2.01 0.02 0.15 0.15 2.01
0.01 0.15 0.20 2.01 0.01 0.15 0.20 2.01 0.02 0.15 0.20 2.01
0.01 0.15 0.25 2.02 0.01 0.15 0.25 2.02 0.02 0.15 0.25 2.02
0.01 0.15 0.30 2.02 0.01 0.15 0.30 2.02 0.02 0.15 0.30 2.02
0.01 0.15 0.35 2.02 0.01 0.15 0.35 2.02 0.02 0.15 0.35 2.02
0.01 0.15 0.40 2.02 0.01 0.15 0.40 2.02 0.02 0.15 0.40 2.02

435 PETROPHYSICS June 2019

 Determination of the Appropriate Value of m for Evaluation of Carbonate Reservoirs With Vugs and Fractures at the Well-Log Scale
CONCLUSIONS
From previous analysis, the following points can be
concluded for carbonate reservoirs:
x The reservoir volumes investigated by core plugs,
whole core and by well logs (typically induction
resistivity) are different (see Figs. 1 to 3). Saturation
calculated by logs is the (average) saturation value of
the formation volume investigated by induction logs.
So, the value of m used in the saturation calculation
should be the (average) value of m of the formation
volume investigated by induction log.
x The values of m measured from core plugs cannot
represent the formation volume investigated by
induction logs. The values of m measured from
core plugs can have a large range, depending on the
positions of the core plugs. They may be the value of
matrix, matrix and vugs or matrix and microfractures.
Using carefully selected core plugs without vugs
and/or microfractures, the value of m of core plugs
represents the value of the matrix. The values of m of
the matrix are usually close to 2.0.
x The values of m measured from whole core cannot
represent the formation volume investigated by
induction logs for the same reason as the core plugs.
x In theory, triple-porosity models can be used to
calculate the value of m directly if the fracture
porosity and the nonconnected vug porosity are
available. However, in practice, those models still
cannot be used to calculate the value of m, because
it is impossible to get the fracture porosity and the
noconnected vug porosity of the formation volume
investigated by induction logs based on the logs
currently available in the industry.
x The value of m of the formation volume investigated
by induction resistivity logs, with randomly
distributed fractures and vugs, can be determined
by Monte Carlo simulation using a triple-porosity
model, such as the Al-Ghamdi et al. (2011) model, as
proposed by this paper.
x Monte Carlo simulation results (see Table 1) show that
the values of m for the formation volume containing
both randomly distributed fractures and vugs that is
investigated by resistivity logs are all very close to
1.99, with an average of 1.99 and a very narrow range
of 1.94 to 2.02.
When there is a lack of information of the target
reservoir, a value of m = 1.99 (or simply 2.0) can be used for
evaluation of carbonate reservoirs.
For the saturation calculation, another parameter n is
June 2019
also critical. We are currently working on a research project
to determine the appropriate value of n for evaluation of
carbonate reservoirs containing fractures and vugs at the
well-log scale.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank Stephen Prensky (the
Managing Editor of Petrophysics Journal) and the associated
editors and reviewers who reviewed this paper for their
professional review to this paper.
NOMENCLATURE
m = porosity exponent of triple-porosity system
(matrix + fractures + vugs)
mb = porosity exponent of matrix system
(intergranular or matrix pore + solid)
V = triple-porosity system volume
Vf = fracture volume
Vm = matrix pore volume
Vms = matrix system volume
Vs = solid volume
Vv = nonconnected vugs volume
Vv+ms = nonconnected vugs volume + matrix system volume
‫ = ׋‬total porosity, of triple-porosity system
(matrix + fractures + vugs)
‫׋‬f = porosity of fractures, of triple-porosity system
(matrix + fractures + vugs)
‫׋‬v = porosity of non-connected vugs, of triple-porosity
system (matrix + fractures + vugs)
‫׋‬b = porosity of matrix system (intergranular or
matrix pore + solid)
REFERENCES
Aguilera, R.F., 2004, A Triple Porosity Model for Petrophysical
Analysis of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs, Petrophysics,
45(2), 157–166.
Aguilera, R., 2010, Effect of Fracture Dip and Fracture Tortuosity
on Petrophysical Evaluation of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs,
Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, 49(9), 69–76.
DOI: 10.2118/139847-PA.
Al-Ghamdi, A.and Chen, B., Behmanesh, H., Qanbari, F., and
Aguilera, R., 2011, An Improved Triple-Porosity Model for
Evaluation of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs, Paper SPE-
132879, SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, 14(4),
377–384. DOI: 10.2118/132879-PA.
Archie, G.E., 1942, The Electrical Resistivity Log as an Aid
in Determining Some Reservoir Characteristics, Paper
SPE-942054-G, Transactions, AIME, 146(1), 54–62. DOI:
10.2118/942054-G.
Lucia, F.J., 1983, Petrophysical Parameters Estimated From Visual
PETROPHYSICS 436
 Wang and Peng

Descriptions of Carbonate Rocks: A Field Classi¿cation

of Carbonate Pore Space, Paper SPE-10073, Journal of
Petroleum Technology, 35(3), 629–637. DOI: 10.2118/10073-
PA.
Olusola, B.K., Yu, G., and Aguilera, R., 2013, The Use of
Electromagnetic Mixing Rules for Petrophysical Evaluation
of Dual- and Triple-Porosity Reservoirs, Paper SPE-162772,
SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering,16(4), 378–389.
DOI: 10.2118/162772-PA.
Rasmus, J.C., 1987, A Summary of the Effects of Various Pore
Geometrics and Their Wettabilities on Measured and In-situ
Values of Cementation and Saturation Exponents, The Log
Analyst, 28(2), 152–164.
Towle, G., 1962, An Analysis of the Formation Resistivity Factor-
Porosity Relationship of Some Assumed Pore Geometries,
Paper 3, Transactions, SPWLA 3rd Annual Logging
Symposium Transactions, Houston, Texas, USA, 17–18 May.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Dahai Wang is currently a PhD candidate in Geology

at the Southwest Petroleum University, China. He
obtained his BS in Petrophysics from Yangtze University
in 2011. He then obtained his MS in Petroleum Geology
& Reservoir Development Engineering from Southwest
Petroleum University, China in 2015. His research interests
include well log analysis, formation evaluation, reservoir
description, machine learning, and sedimentology with an
emphasis on unconventional reservoirs, such as shale gas and
oil reservoirs.

Jun Peng is currently a Geology professor and a PhD

Advisor in the college of geoscience and technology of
Southwest Petroleum University, China. His research interests
include sedimentology, formation evaluation, petrology, and
sequence stratigraphy.

437 PETROPHYSICS June 2019

PETROPHYSICS, VOL. 60, NO. 3 (JUNE 2019); PAGES 438–449; 15 FIGURES; 1 TABLE. DOI: 10.30632/PJV60N3-2019a7

Perched Water Contacts: Understanding Fundamental Controls

Iulian N. Hulea2

ABSTRACT

Building realistic and reliable subsurface models
requires detailed knowledge of both the rock and Àuids
involved. While the hydrocarbon volume estimation has a
profound impact on the viability of a development, next
to the permeability, saturation-height models, free-Àuid
levels (FWLs) and the hydraulic communication have a
signi¿cant role in determining the recoverable reserves.
When in different parts of the same ¿eld different
free-Àuid levels (leading to different Àuid contacts for
the same rock quality) are identi¿ed, the lateral hydraulic
communication at the ¿eld level can be challenged. This
aspect is of importance since the hydrocarbon volume
distribution impacts the recovery factor. At the same time
building and initializing a model based on different FWL
positions (zero capillary pressure) is challenging.
Perched water contacts are the result of water entrapment
(behind barriers for lateral Àow) during hydrocarbon
migration in the reservoir, as a result leading to locally
elevated FWL or hydrocarbon-water contact position
(for comparable rock quality). A signature of perching is
that between two sampled wells, the hydrocarbon (HC)
column is in hydraulic communication while two mobile
water pools seem to be disconnected. The fundamental
controls that lead to the formation of perched contacts
are studied and shown to be the rock quality and relative
permeability. The perching effect is not going to feature
in poor quality rocks (submillidarcy permeability)—the
effects would be visible only for a considerable barrier
height. Regarding transition zones, the results showing no
signi¿cant difference are expected above the perched zone
when compared to the unconstrained parts of the ¿eld.
Field observations and dynamic simulations are used to
identify the perching controls. A clear distinction is shown
between capillary pressure and buoyancy. The fundamental
assumption that the capillary pressure can be calculated by
using the height above FWL is shown to be de¿cient when
water becomes immobile.

INTRODUCTION 1953; Johnson et al., 1986). A perched water contact is a

Saturation-height models (SHM) combined with
fundamental rock properties (porosity and permeability) and
free-Àuid levels are the base for a volumetric analysis, hence
being determinant in assessing the viability of a project. In
estimating hydrocarbon volumes one possible challenge
arises with the measurement of multiple FWLs—leading to
different height above free-water level (HAFWL)—across
the ¿eld while the hydrocarbon column (HC) appears in
equilibrium.
One phenomenon that could lead to such a FWL
distribution in the ¿eld is a perched water contact (Hubbert,
HC-water contact (in equilibrium) that appears because
of water entrapment and has a local nature (smaller than
¿eld scale). This phenomenon results in the water-phase
pressure being controlled by the hydrocarbon column (at
higher pressure than the ¿eldwide water gradient, see Fig.
1). When populating 3D subsurface models based on such
a phenomenon, our understanding is challenged by an
apparent capillary pressure (equaling buoyancy) difference
above the perched and normal aquifer—a modelling artifact
that cannot be supported by reality since no crossÀow is
observed.

Manuscript received by the Editor July 12, 2018; revised manuscript received February 1, 2019; manuscript accepted February 7, 2019.
1
Parts of this work originally presented at the SPWLA 59th Annual Logging Symposium, London, England, UK, June 2–6, 2018, Paper K.
2
Shell Global solutions International BV, Kessler Park 1, 2288 GS, Rijswijk, The Netherlands; Iulian.Hulea@shell.com

June 2019 PETROPHYSICS 438

 Perched Water Contacts: Understanding Fundamental Controls

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 1—(a) A cartoon of a possible realization leading to the perched water contact probed by formation pressures in (b). (b) Formation pressures and
the FWL example for the main ¿eld (FWL 1) and the perched zone (FWL 2) leading to a difference of about 350 ft (adapted from Johnson et al., 1986).

In addition to volumetric issues, such a perched

contact might add confusion with respect to hydraulic
communication in a lateral sense across the ¿eld. One
example of such a perched contact is the case of the Fulmar
¿eld (Johnson et al., 1986) in the central North Sea. In the
appraisal stage of the project it was determined that the FWL
difference between two parts of the ¿eld was signi¿cant with
the hydrocarbon column in hydraulic communication. In a
broader sense when it comes to perching, without making a
concerted effort to understand the phenomenon, one might
expect perching to be more signi¿cant in poorer quality
rock.
While the phenomenological description of the
process leading to the trapping of water against a fault
has been discussed in detail, little effort has been spent to
date on the microscopic controls of the process. Another
relevant example is the Grane ¿eld in Norway, highlighting
another possible mechanism of oil trapping (Rolsfvag and
Danielsen, 2016). An important suggestion of this work has
been that the transition zone could be compressed, with the
difference between the two FWLs being about 25 m (Fig. 2).
Commonality between these two reported cases of perched Fig. 2—Log-derived saturation vs. HAFWL in two Grane ¿eld wells
contacts is the very good rock quality (Fulmar, hundreds (hence taking into consideration the 25-m FWL difference between the
two wells). Well 2 corresponds to the perched zone (Fig. 1). On this
of millidarcy to Darcy permeability; and Grane, Darcy basis Rolsfvag et al. (2016) expect the transition zone to be compressed
permeability (Johnson et al., 1986, Rolsfvag and Danielsen, above the perched zone. The data are ¿tted by invoking rock quality
2016). The examples presented above and possibly those changes between the two wells reaching a reasonable agreement.
A feature dif¿cult to match is Well 1’s sudden Sw changes under 5-m
presented by (Gaafar et al., 2016) suggest the predictability HAFWL. This could be a sign of deviation from primary drainage (for
of the water-perching effect is not obvious. example imbibition).

439 PETROPHYSICS June 2019

 Hulea
While the phenomenological description in the above
cases appears to be accurate, the rock or Àuid microscopic
parameters controlling the effect are not identi¿ed (Weber,
1997). Also, in terms of predictability it is not obvious how
rock permeability affects perching. Should we expect the
effect to be exacerbated or on the contrary, to be absent as
rock quality is changed?
METHODOLOGY
To study the effect of water perching, dynamic
simulations have been carried out. The framework model
of the rock is shown in Fig. 3, where a constant porosity
and permeability is assumed through individual models.
Porosity/permeability can be varied between simulations
according to Table 1. In the vertical direction, the models
have a 5-m resolution, much smaller than the difference in
FWL we aim to investigate (tens to hundreds of meters.)
(a)
(b)
Fig. 3—The (3D) models built are homogeneous with constant porosity
(hence permeability). Zone 2 is isolated from Zone 1 and 3 in a lateral
sense between the barriers shown. The bottom of Z1 and Z3 have a
pressure boundary open for water Àow while Zone 2 is isolated, allowing
Àuid exchange only at the top. Each one of the zones is monitored
by one vertical well (Zone 1 by Well 1, etc.). During the simulations,
saturations, pressures, and relative permeability are monitored along
the three synthetic wells. (b) a cross section of the model at the end of
the simulations with the ¿nal saturations showing a perching example
(and the corresponding FWLs).
June 2019 PETROPHYSICS
Table 1—Parameters Varied as Sensitivities Cover a Wide Range of
Properties
Pce
In some simulations there is no assumed relationship between entry
pressure and permeability (see Eqs. 1 and 3).
The model size is 1,000×1,000×1,000 m in the x, y, and z
directions. To facilitate the trapping conditions in the models,
the central part of the model (Zone 2) is isolated laterally by
two barriers (see Vrolijk et al., (2016) on possible barriers
origins) and the bottom is sealed to Àow. Zone 1 and 3 are
in communication, while the injection happens at the top of
the model where all three zones are communicating laterally
(Fig. 3a).
The oil-water-rock interaction is governed by Brooks-
Corey saturation-height function (Hulea and Nicolls, 2012):
(1)
Where Pce is the entry pressure and Npc is the capillary
pressure shape factor. These two parameters are varied
in the simulations while Swi (water saturation at in¿nite
capillary pressure) is kept constant at zero, throughout
this work. Relative permeability (krw) curves employed are
parameterized in a similar fashion (comparable shape for
water and oil):
(2)
with Swc ¿xed at 0.2 and resulting in the graphs shown in Fig.
4. A Swc > Swi is a necessary condition to ensure the water
becomes immobile at a given capillary pressure for a few Nw
(Corey parameter) values.
The simulations are carried out starting at Sw = 1 and
slowly injecting 1/3 of the model (pore volume) with oil.
Once the injection has stopped, we wait for equilibrium
another 100X the injection time leading to total simulations
times representing up to tens of thousands of years. The
FWL position at the end of the simulation (per zone) is
determined as the pressure-gradient intersection between
the hydrocarbon- and water-pressure gradients, as shown in
Fig. 5.
440
 Perched Water Contacts: Understanding Fundamental Controls

(a) (b)
Fig. 4—Examples of relative permeability and capillary pressure curves used in this work. (a) Relative permeability curves used in the simulations with
the water Corey exponent (see Eq. 2) ranging from < 1 to > 5 covering a wide range while the No is kept constant at 2. Sensitivities have been carried
out for No = 2 and No = 5 without an impact on the simulation outcome. (b) The Sw vs. depth resulting by coupling Pce and permeability according to
Eq. 3 and using two Npc values (1.25 and 2.5 are used for these examples). For the same color, the effect of Npc is seen while by comparing colors
the effect of entry pressure becomes visible.

The SHM and relative permeability (Fig. 4) functions

are implemented in the model shown in Fig. 3 with ranges
for individual parameters (independently varied), as shown
in Table 1.

RESULTS

A signi¿cant number of simulations (~ 20,000) have been

carried out, a FWL difference at the end of the simulations
between Zone 2 (perched) and Zone 3 being diagnostic
for perching. Each realization is based on Latin hypercube
sampling for each parameter given its prede¿ned range listed
in Table 1. The simulations suggest a few conditions are
necessary for this effect to occur. The relationship between
the following simulation outcomes and inputs has been
analyzed in order to understand what perching is sensitive
to:
x FWL in Zone 2 (susceptible to perching).
x FWL in Zones 1 and 3 (see Figs. 3 and 5)
x The elevation difference between the FWL and
barrier height.
x Entry pressure (or rock permeability) (Eqs. 1 and 3).
x Capillary pressure shape factor, Npc (Eq. 1)

In the simulations, the inputs are varied according the

Fig. 5—Three simulation results leading to FWL differences ranging
from tens to hundreds of meters. On the left, the saturation vs. depth
pro¿les are shown, while on the right, plots show the pressures that are
the basis for FWL determination. Throughout this work a constant oil-
to water-density difference of 0.45 g/cm3 is assumed for simplicity with
ıÂcos ș = 26 dyn/cm.
data in Table 1 and the resulting FWL’s impact is followed.
The results are plotted in Figs. 6 and 7. A ¿rst ¿nding is that
only a minority of the simulations result in perching (about
three for every 10 simulations). The capillary pressure shape
factor (Npc) and entry pressure (Pce), a rock permeability
measure, have the most signi¿cant impact. As permeability

441 PETROPHYSICS June 2019

 Hulea

decreases, fewer perching cases are encountered, the overall (a)

trend is that most of the perching cases occur for low Npc and
low Pce (corresponding to high permeability).

(a)

(b)

(c)

(b)
Fig. 6—The fundamental controls on perching extracted from a dataset
Fig. 7—(a) FWL position with respect to barrier position as identi¿ed
where the entry pressure (Pce), and capillary pressure shape factor
at the end of the simulation for all the simulations vs. those leading
(Npc) are varied independently and with equal probability. The factors
to perching. A FWL2 closer to the barrier than 400 m is correlated to
controlling perching are (a) the capillary pressure shape factor (Npc)
perching (this number is speci¿c to the injected volume). (b) The FWL in
and (b) entry pressure (Pce). Blue shows input number of values, while
Zone 2 vs. FWL in Zone 1 showing a wide range of values, perching is
in orange only those leading to perching. (c) A crossplot of Pce vs. Npc
observed only for the orange dots (deviations from a 1:1 line).
showing the combined values leading to perching.

One interesting aspect is that for perching to occur, as the
capillary pressure shape factor increases, the entry pressure
should decrease, otherwise the effect disappears (Fig. 6c).
One other observation is that as the FWL in the perched
zone can be found deeper (high entry pressure) the ratio of
cases where perching appears vs. the total number of cases
decreases. As the entry height increases, the height interval
(as compared to FWL) required to immobilize the water
increases, hence, accommodating more HC in the trapped
zone. So, for a given injected HC volume the chances of
perching would decrease as the FWL in the trap gets deeper.
This is highlighted in Fig. 7a.
Where perching does occur, a microscopic explanation
of how the effect develops is offered by examining one of
the simulations in more detail. It rapidly becomes obvious
that the water permeability is the limiting factor in the
water escape route (Fig. 8). It is worth noting that at the
highest point of the barrier the water relative permeability is
essentially zero under equilibrium—this is the critical place
in the subsurface where the water escape path is choked.

June 2019 PETROPHYSICS 442

 Perched Water Contacts: Understanding Fundamental Controls

The relative permeability value is determined by the water

saturation, as predicted by the capillary pressure curve. The
capillary pressure curve can go deeper in the perched zone
if water can escape. When water becomes immobile the
capillary pressure stops increasing, hence, the saturation no
longer changes.

Fig. 9—A comparison of the saturation pro¿les at the end of the

simulations for two different cases in terms of transition zone height. For
both examples (Case A and Case B), Well 2 reference (TVD) is shifted
by the derived FWL difference between Zones 1 and 2 (difference
highlighted in Fig. 5). The minimum saturation is the result of the
minimum mobile Sw, as dictated by the relative permeability curves (Fig.
4a). No saturation difference between the transition zones is observed
for the same height above FWL.

DISCUSSION

While investigating Zone 2 for the cases where perching

has been observed, as the FWL2 gets deeper, the chances for
perching decreases (Fig. 7). By choosing to inject relatively
high amounts of hydrocarbon we ensure that the migrating
HC is not a limiting factor for perching along with true
(a) (b) formation thickness. For a subset of simulations, we link
Fig. 8—(a) Sw vs. depth for the perched (orange) and normal (blue) entry pressure (see Eq. 1) and permeability via Eq. 3 (Hulea,
zones at the end of the simulations. (b) Water and oil relative permeability 2018):
vs. depth for Wells 1 and 2.

, (3)
This example (Fig. 8) highlights how the process
leading to water perching is directly controlled by relative
permeability. In addition, we can compare the transition hence, entry pressure being an indicator of rock quality, ı
zone signature between the perched zone and the rest of the being the oil-water interfacial tension, k is permeability, ‫ ׋‬is
reservoir. By overlaying the Sw vs. depth pro¿les we observe porosity, and ș the contact angle.
the saturation pro¿les do not differ between the normal and
perched zones (for same rock quality (Fig. 9).

443 PETROPHYSICS June 2019

 Hulea
Fig. 10—Rock permeability inÀuence on FWL to barrier elevation
difference in the perched zone. As the permeability decreases (the
entry pressure increases) the FWL can enter deeper into the perched-
water zone before the water becomes immobile at the barrier edge. The
plotted data correspond to the instances where the perching occurs, so
the difference in FWL between Zone 2 and 1 is > 0 (Fig. 5).
The simulation results show that counterintuitively,
as the rock quality decreases, the perching is less likely
to happen. For a 1-mD rock it appears that 30 m is the
absolute minimum needed between the perched zone FWL
and barrier edge to allow for perching to form (on average
100 m, see Fig. 10). The number mentioned above will be
affected by the Àuid-density difference and assumes enough
hydrocarbon is available in the drainage process.
The contrast in perching between good and poor rock
(Fig. 11) can be explained by contrasting the SHMs/capillary
pressures curves. Good rock would mean that by going just
a few meters above the FWL the water becomes immobile,
while for the poor rock, a much larger HAFWL is needed to
reduce the water permeability (see Fig. 11), hence, the FWL
can be found deeper in Zone 2.
June 2019 PETROPHYSICS
Fig. 11—The saturation evolution in time for contrasting permeability
values (while keeping the other parameters identical). Red/magenta
corresponds to high oil saturations and cyan is 100 % water. To the
left a 100-mD case leading to perching while to the right a 1-mD case
not leading to perching given suf¿cient equilibrium time. The 1-mD case
model appears (in nonequilibrium situation) that in certain situations
it may develop perching but given suf¿cient time it equilibrates to the
same FWL in all the zones. (c) through (f) show the ¿nal saturations at
the end of the simulations, (a) to (d) are at the beginning of the injection
process. At an intermediary step the poorer rock (e) lags behind in the
central zone but given enough time the water will escape in contrast to
good rock (b).
A similar control on perching is exercised by Npc
(capillary pressure shape factor) (Eq. 1). Rock quality
can also be linked to a wider distribution of pores—or an
increased shape factor (Npc). Increasing the capillary pressure
shape factor (corresponding to a poorer rock) can prevent
perching from occuring.
For 1 mD for example, the distance between the barrier
and FWL2 could be as large as 100 m, while for 100 mD,
it starts at a few meters (Fig. 10). Assuming (in subsurface)
the structure would allow a difference no larger than 50 m
between the formation bottom and barrier height, the chances
of observing perching are reduced dramatically for the 1-mD
rock.
444
 Perched Water Contacts: Understanding Fundamental Controls

(a) (b)
Fig. 12—(a) The porosity-permeability data input colored according to a perched discriminator. (b) The number of perching cases observed vs.
permeability showing the lower the permeability the lower the chance of perching occurring.

Concerning the link between rock quality and perching
(Fig. 12), a decrease in rock permeability would mean the
FWL can go deeper compared to the Àow barrier reducing
the chances of perching (Figs. 7 and 12). Figure 12 shows
that as permeability is reduced (with all other conditions
remaining constant) the likelihood of perching is strongly
reduced.
An important result of this work touches upon the
expected transition above the perched zone, an aspect
relevant for modeling perched contacts in subsurface models.
As shown by simulations, the saturation pro¿les do not
differ between the perched zone and the rest of the reservoir,
assuming same rock quality (see Fig. 9). The transition zone
does not get compressed—irrespective of rock quality, hence
opening the possibility that the observation in the Grane ¿eld
is caused by rock quality differences between the two wells
(details in Fig. 2). Rock quality might be reÀected in Npc
differences, not necessarily in entry pressure/permeability.

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 13—Water saturation (a) and formation pressures (b) are shown for a well that is positioned in a perched zone (orange, Well 2) along a well
penetrating a normal zone (blue, Well 1). Based on assumed oil-phase buoyancy equilibrium with capillary pressure, the capillary pressures appear
to be discontinuous (in a lateral sense) between the two wells (above the barrier). As a guide to the eye the water gradients leading to the capillary
pressure are drawn (dotted blue lines). (c) Along the two well trajectories the capillary pressure can be calculated leading to a difference in capillary
pressure at the top of the reservoir along Well 1 vs. Well 2. Since the reservoir is in equilibrium no crossÀow is present between the two wells, so, this
modeling route is inconsistent.

445 PETROPHYSICS June 2019


Another important ¿nding of this work lies in a
deeper understanding of capillary and buoyancy forces in
the reservoir. Capillary pressure is the pressure difference
between the two phases:
Pc = Poil — Pwater
This is easily calculated by extrapolating the water
and HC gradients, but in the case of perched contacts as
described here, it leads to an apparent inconsistency. Based
on the assumption the pressure follows prede¿ned gradients,
the capillary pressure at reservoir top in Well 1 (with the
deep contact) would be different than at Well 2 (with the
perched contact) but this would lead to different pressures
and, hence, crossÀow; which is not observed—the system
is in equilibrium. The capillary pressure at the reservoir
top should be the same irrespective of what is underneath,
perched or not (contrasting the approach of Adams, 2016),
see Figure 13. For clarity, buoyancy is:
Pb
With ǻp the density difference between water and HC.
By assuming equilibrium between capillary pressure and
buoyancy, a discontinuity in Pc could be expected between
the FWL (under the perched contact) and the barrier edge (a
¿rst surface where the Pc could be expected to vary between
the zones de¿ned by Wells 1 and 2 (see Fig. 13).
Fig. 14—Fluid properties are monitored along two wells. Well 1 penetrates normal aquifer, while Well 2 sits in a zone susceptible to perching (see
Figs. 1 and 13). (a) Water saturation is plotted alongside the barrier, (b) phase pressure, (c) capillary pressure, (d) Àuid gradients, and (e) water
relative permeability.
June 2019
Hulea
To study this inconsistency in modeling capillary
pressures, in the simulations we have monitored not only
the formation pressure but additionally the pressure per
phase. In the cases where perching does not happen, the
simulation outcomes are as expected. Above the FWL the Pc
(4) increases equaling buoyancy with a prede¿ned (by density)
gradient (see Fig.14). Note that above the FWL both the
oil and water have a prede¿ned gradient of 0.22 and 0.45
psi/ft, respectively. For cases where perching does happen
(Fig. 15), the simulation results are not straightforward.
While the formation pressures are comparable, a peculiarity
appears in the water-phase pressure. As soon as it becomes
immobile it does not follow the expected water pressure but
tracks instead the HC pressure, following the HC gradient
(see Fig. 15d vs. Fig. 14d). This phenomenon starts at the
depth corresponding to krw = 0, this becoming the maximum
Pc point. Shallower than this point, Pc is not increasing. This
is well understood from the point of view that saturation
and Pc are interdependent, an immobile wetting phase (Sw = Swc)
translates into a saturated capillary pressure. Capillary
pressure change without water saturation alteration is not
possible. The same effect is observed along Well 1 as well
(5)
as along Well 2, the capillary pressure corresponding to the
perched zone saturates at the edge of the barrier. Above that
point, the capillary pressure does not change. The change
starts immediately under the edge in the perched zone while
outside the perched area it will occur deeper (see Fig. 16).
The fact that between the two zones we have a barrier,
hence, no communication means both the capillary pressure
and formation pressure can differ across the barrier. Above
the barrier, there is no such discontinuity.
PETROPHYSICS 446
 Perched Water Contacts: Understanding Fundamental Controls

Fig. 15—Fluid properties are monitored along two wells. Well 1 penetrates normal aquifer, while Well 2 sits in a zone susceptible to perching (see
Figs. 1 and 13). (a) Water saturation is plotted alongside the barrier, (b) phase pressure, (c) capillary pressure, (d) Àuid gradients, and, (e) water
relative permeability.

Fig 16—(a) Saturation vs. depth for a perching case showing the capillary pressure (b) development along the two wells. The capillary pressure
reaches a maximum, between the two wells, a discontinuity is only seen inside the barrier. The calculated buoyancy is plotted along the same
trajectory. (c) The capillary pressure difference as compared to calculated buoyancy is highlighted, leading to signi¿cant discrepancy at the reservoir
top.

447 PETROPHYSICS June 2019

 Hulea
We must emphasize the fact that signi¿cant confusion
persists between capillary pressure and buoyancy, usually
they are assumed to be in equilibrium. When increasing the
buoyancy (by moving further away from the FWL), more
water is forced out of the rock until it becomes immobile.
Above that depth the capillary pressure and buoyancy
do not appear to be equal anymore. This result can be
explained since the buoyancy assumes the phase exerting
the Archimedes force should be mobile. The underlying
assumption of the Archimedes force is that the displaced
phase exercises the buoyant force. Hence, when that phase
cannot be displaced we cannot alter buoyancy. When that
phase becomes immobile the buoyancy concept becomes
redundant. Hence, there is no contradiction between the
capillary pressure and buoyancy, buoyancy simply does not
apply when water becomes immobile. So, when dealing with
perching we need to use the concept of maximum capillary
pressure.
At a high level, the relevance of the results obtained
is especially around addressing connected hydrocarbon
volumes with the potential of having a smaller well spacing.
By establishing a perched contact’s existence and control
mechanism, the hydrocarbon connectivity is not challenged,
we might even be able to extract meaningful properties, such
as barrier height, knowing the rock properties. The transition-
zone signature allows us to address a possible hydrocarbon-
volume reduction method and water production prediction
by avoiding well drilling in the minima of a permeable
formation.
Signi¿cant confusion persists around perching contacts,
other sources of variability of FWL across a ¿eld—like
hydroactive aquifers—are considered (Boya-Ferrero et al.,
2012). While pure perching cases (assuming an equilibrium
state) involve no HC below the FWL, the hydroactive
aquifers are associated to a certain extent with both FWL
differences at ¿eld level and residual HC. A pure perching
contact (under the equilibrium assumption) implies the
absence of HC below FWL. In a complex reservoir history, it
could be envisaged that by tilting the reservoir (changing the
FWL versus barrier height) residual HC may appear below
the FWL.
In this work homogeneous models have been considered,
heterogeneous models are the subject of other work as well
as studying hysteresis (among other relevant effects) when
looking beyond primary drainage.
CONCLUSIONS
This work has been shown to add a predictability
dimension to perching, a dimension not addressed before.
It has been demonstrated via simulations that under
June 2019 PETROPHYSICS
primary drainage assumptions the enabler for perching
is water permeability at the top of the barrier. One way to
parameterize this is via the saturation, the entry pressure
being the most important control combined with the capillary
pressure shape factor. These two parameters determine (by
determining how thick the transition zone is) the HAFWL
where water becomes immobile.
Perching is predicted to affect poor rock to a lesser extent
than good rock. Good and poor refer here to permeability—
to date, cases reporting perching show unambiguously good
rock (hundreds of millidarcy or higher permeability).
A clear distinction is shown between capillary pressure
and buoyancy. The fundamental assumption that the capillary
pressure can be calculated by using the HAFWL is shown to
be de¿cient when water becomes immobile.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would especially like to acknowledge Harm
Dijk’s critical contribution and to express his gratitude
to Shell’s permission to publish this work. In addition, in
setting up the simulations Bastiaan Huisman and Bram
Timmerarends have been instrumental. Igor Kim’s input
is also acknowledged as well as signi¿cant manuscript
improvements by Frank Wolters, Jean-Paul Koninx, Ap van
der Graaf, Martin Kraaijveld, Mike Dean, John van Wunnik,
Ove Bjorn Wilson and Shehadah Masalmeh.
NOMENCLATURE
Abbreviations
FWL= free-water level
HAFWL= height above free-water level
HC= hydrocarbon
SHM= saturation-height model
Symbols
k = permeability
krw = water relative permeability
Npc = capillary pressure Brooks- Corey
parameter (Eq. 1)
Nw = relative permeability Corey parameter (Eq. 2)
Pc = capillary pressure (Eq. 1)
Pce = entry pressure (Eq. 1)
Sw = water saturation
Swi = Brooks-Corey parameter (Eq. 1)
Swc = Brooks- Corey connate water saturation (Eq. 2)
448
 Perched Water Contacts: Understanding Fundamental Controls

ș = contact angle ABOUT THE AUTHOR

ǻȡ = density difference between brine and
hydrocarbon (g/cm3) Iulian N. Hulea is a Senior Petrophysicist working
ı = interfacial tension for Shell Global Solutions BV, Projects and Technology
‫ = ׋‬porosity in the Netherlands, currently working on Global reservoir
studies. Prior to this position he held a carbonate (¿eld
development planning) Petrophysicist and a Research
REFERENCES Petrophysicist position (both in Shell). He holds a Master’s
degree (Bucharest University, Romania) and a PhD (Leiden
Adams, S.J., 2016, Saturation-Height Modelling for Reservoir
University, The Netherlands) in experimental physics. After
Description: Including Capillary Pressure Interpretation,
The Petrophysicist Limited, New Zealand. ISBN: 978- completing the PhD (2004) he held a postdoctoral position
0473355197. www.thepetrophysicst.com. at the Kavli Institute for Nanoscience, Delft University of
Boya-Ferrero, M.J., Price, S.P., and Hognestad, J., 2012, Predicting Technology, also in The Netherlands.
Water in the Crest of a Giant Gas Field: Ormen Lange
Hydrodynamic Aquifer Model, Paper SPE-153507 presented
at SPE Europec/EAGE Annual Conference, Copenhagen,
Denmark, 4–7 June, DOI: 10.2118/153507-MS.
Gaafar, G.R., Altunbay, M.M., and Aziz, S.B.A., 2016, Perched-
Water, the Concept and its Effects on Exploration and Field
Development Plans in Sandstone and Carbonate Reservoirs,
Paper OTC-26653 presented at the Offshore Technology
Conference Asia, Kuala Lumpur, 22–25 March. DOI:
10.4043/26653-MS.
Hubbert, M.K., 1953, Entrapment of Petroleum Under
Hydrodynamic Conditions, AAPG Bulletin, 37(8), 1954–2026.
Hulea, I.N., 2018, Saturation-Height Modelling: Assessing
Capillary Pressures Stress Corrections, Petrophysics, 59(3),
397–406.
Hulea, I.N., and Nicholls C., 2012, Carbonate rock Characterization
and Modeling: Capillary Pressure and Permeability in
Multimodal Rocks—A Look Beyond Sample Speci¿c
Heterogeneity, AAPG Bulletin, 96(9), 1627–1642. DOI:
10.1306/02071211124.
Johnson, H.D., Mackay T.A., and Stewart D.J., 1986, The
Fulmar Oil-¿eld (Central North Sea): Geological Aspects
of its Discovery, Appraisal and Development, Marine and
Petroleum Geology, 3(2), 99–125. DOI: 10.1016/0264-
8172(86)90023-1.
Rolsfvag, T.A., and Danielsen T.M., 2016, Perched Water
Static Model, Paper SPE-180000 presented at the SPE
Bergen One Day Seminar, Bergen, Norway, 20 April. DOI:
10.2118/180000-MS.
Vrolijk P.J., Urai J.L., and Ketetrmann, M., 2016, Clay Smear:
Review of Mechanisms and Applications, Journal of Structural
Geology, 86, 95–152. DOI: 10.1016/jsg.2015.09.006.
Weber, K.J., 1997, A Historical Overview of the Efforts to Predict
and Quantify Hydrocaton Trapping Features in the Exploration
Phase and in Field Development Planning, in Moller-
Pedersen, P., and Koestler, A.G., Editors, Hydrocarbon Seals:
Importance for Exploration and Production, Norwegian
Petroleum Society Special Publications, 7, 1–13, Elsevier.
DOI: 10.1016/S0928-8937(97)80003-3.

449 PETROPHYSICS June 2019

PETROPHYSICS, VOL. 60, NO. 3 (JUNE 2019); PAGES 450–465; 17 FIGURES; 5 TABLES. DOI: 10.30632/PJV60N3-2019a8

Wellbore Positioning While Drilling With LWD Measurements

Benny Poedjono1, Dozie Nwosu1 and Albert Martin1

ABSTRACT

Driller’s depth has always been the reference
measurement used when logging while drilling (LWD),
calculated using the sum of pipe-strap measured while the
pipe is on surface. However, environmental corrections
must be applied to the driller’s depth to account for the
dynamic changes the pipe undergoes while in the borehole.
These include dynamic mechanical changes due to drilling
activities, changes in the wellbore pro¿le, torque, drag,
friction factor, and temperature. They all result in LWD
depth being shallower than the absolute depth.
Understanding the position objectives, assigning the
depth uncertainty and environmental modeling to predict
the magnitude of depth correction should be applied in
advance, along with the surveying technique to be used.
These are critical components in the prejob analysis to
ensure the position objectives can be met prior to drilling.
Over the years, depth correction has successfully been
run on several projects around the world. Environmental
corrections were applied in various applications to improve
the accuracy of the depth and demonstrate the signi¿cance
of the correction for reservoir development. The intention
of this paper is to raise awareness of the impact of LWD
depth errors and existing approaches for correcting them.
Case studies are presented to demonstrate the bene¿ts
derivable from applying depth corrections. In one case, the
placement of the pressure and sample points provided the
most accurate TVD possible. In another case, the corrected
measurement enabled determination of where to set the
casing depth to within the expected rat hole.
Applying depth correction allows for accurate mapping
of the geological markers, reservoir tops, sand continuity,
and Àuid contacts as well as for setting casing and other
drilling applications in offshore deepwater and extended-
reach drilling worldwide.

INTRODUCTION
Knowing the wellbore position and its associated
uncertainty is fundamental for optimal wellbore placement,
understanding the geological structure, long-term reservoir
management, avoiding hazards while drilling, and preventing
wellbore collision in crowded subsurface environments.
Without predicting the position and its uncertainties while
drilling, certain activities can’t be performed reliably with a
high degree of con¿dence, these include:
x geosteering, positioning the wellbore relative to the
geological marker, or drilling thin reservoirs.
x geometrically or positioning the wellbore as planned
trajectory for a desired vertical and lateral spacing in
conventional and unconventional reservoir
x wellbore-to-wellbore correlation during exploration
or ¿eld development phase.
The quest for an accurate depth measurement is not
new. It was ¿rst discussed by Reistle and Sikes (1938) who
identi¿ed the challenges to accurately obtaining drillpipe and
wireline depth measurements. The introduction of the electric
wireline cable tension measurement in the early 1970s,
comprising integrated dual-wheel electronic measurements
alongside the minicomputer, resulted in the adoption of the
wireline depth as the primary depth measurement in the late
1970s. It took time for the drillpipe depth to catch up, and in
the early 2000s the introduction of drillpipe environmental
corrections improved the LWD depth accuracy. However,
in the 80 years since 1938, the industry has still not fully
adopted the application of environmental corrections and is
only using them on a case-by-case basis.
In the last few decades, LWD and measurement while
drilling (MWD) has played a key role in primary logging
and surveying in the ¿eld of exploration, including
development in conventional and unconventional reservoirs
that were previously dominated by wireline. MWD is the
¿rst measurement available in real time to drill ahead and

Manuscript received by the Editor February 16, 2018; revised manuscript received January 22, 2019; manuscript accepted January 24, 2019.
1
Schlumberger, 225 Schlumberger Drive, Sugar Land, TX 77478; poedjono1@slb.com
1
Schlumberger, 5599 San Felipe, Houston, TX 77056; nnwosu@slb.com
1
Schlumberger, 3600 Briarpark Drive, Houston, TX 77042; amartin5@slb.com

June 2019 PETROPHYSICS 450

 Wellbore Positioning While Drilling With LWD Measurements
position the wellbore accurately while drilling.
This section will cover position accuracy, uncertainty,
drilpipe-stretch modeling, LWD depth measurements,
tracking, depth vs. time, environmental corrections and
examples.
DEPTH UNCERTAINTY
The SPE Wellbore Positioning Technical Section (SPE-
WPTS) and the Industry Steering Committee for Wellbore
Surveying Accuracy (ISCWSA) have published guidelines
and recommendations that became good practices for
quantifying wellbore-position accuracy and uncertainty.
The along-hole, LWD depth measurement is a subset
of the directional survey, and consists of depth, inclination,
azimuth and a method to interpolate each survey point
along the wellbore. The availability of this information in
real time aids the positioning of the wellbore in 3D (vertical
z, TVD, and lateral x, y) position). This allows the driller
and geologist to de¿ne the relationship between subsurface
structures and features, as well as nearby wellbores. This
provides information that aids drilling decisions that could
prevent HSE incidents, such as wellbore collisions.
Williamson (2000) published the ISCWSA error model
and explains the basic MWD error model which subsequently
evolved to the current state (Grindrod et al., 2016).
Key correlation coef¿cients described below include:
x A correlation coef¿cient ȡ1 between error values at
survey stations in the same survey leg. In a survey
listing made up of several concatenated surveys,
a survey leg is a set of contiguous survey station
acquired with a single tool or, if appropriate, a single
tool type.
x A correlation coef¿cient ȡ2 between error values at
survey stations in different survey legs in the same
well.
x A correlation coef¿cient ȡ3 between error values at
survey station in different wells in the same ¿eld.
Table 1—The ISCWSA Error Model Values at 1ı for MWD/LWD and Wireline Depth
Fixed
451 PETROPHYSICS
Tables 1 and 2 show the four combinations of correlation
coef¿cients allowed to ensure the correlations are de¿ned
below.
Table 2 —Combinations of Correlation Coef¿cients
Brooks et al. (2005) describe the simple categorization
of depth error for LWD/MWD and wireline depth:
x Reference error – S, e.g., reference to survey datum,
wind on block-weight line, weather, tides/ballast,
cable sag.
x Reference error – R, e.g., waves, weather, tide/ballast,
pipe stick-up, log picks.
x Scale factor errors – S (MWD/LWD), e.g., tape
measure, measurement temperature, weight on bit
(WOB), pumpoff, differential pressure, annulus
viscous drag, nozzle trust, rotary torque.
x Stretch type error – G (MWD/LWD) (e.g. drillpipe
elastic stretch, temperature, hydrostatic).
x Scale-factor error – W (wireline), e.g., wireline
wheel wear, wheel slippage, wheel buildup, marking
temperature, marking accuracy.
x Stretch type errors – S (wireline), e.g., wireline
inelastic stretch, temperature, pressure, torsion.
In addition to the terms described above, the term values
are dependent on the operating conditions (e.g., Àoating rig
vs. ¿xed; drilling vs off-bottom), and the level of correction
applied, such as basic depth correction, as shown in Table 1.
Each application and combination of applications represents
a distinct model. Therefore, to assign the appropriate error
model to measure depth (MD), the depth measurement must
meet its acquisition standard operating procedure (SOP)
along with relevant details documented.
Fixed
June 2019
 Poedjono et al.

WELLBORE-POSITION ACCURACY AND
UNCERTAINTY
Improvements to the vertical and lateral position certainty
in 3D space with their associated uncertainties, has been
discussed by Williamson (2000) and Grindrod et al. (2016).
To de¿ne wellbore position, the survey, must be acquired
at certain depth intervals, ±100 ft or less, depending on the
positional objective. Survey is de¿ned depth, inclination and
azimuth. The inclination and azimuth are measured using the
most common surveying tool, MWD.
The vertical position, TVD, is reliant mainly on the
accuracy of the inclination measurement. Accelerometers
are used to calculate inclination, relying on the earth’s
gravity that has varying degree of accuracy. Methods exist
for improving inclination to meet the tighter TVD objective
(Williamson, 2000; Stockhausen and Lesso, 2003; Bordakov
et al., 2007; Monterrosa et al, 2016).
The vertical and lateral positions are calculated by
interpolating the depth, inclination and azimuth using the
minimum curvature (Fig. 1) or continuous surveying method
(Fig. 2). The most common azimuth is acquired using
magnetometers in the MWD tool.

Fig. 1—This shows slide rotate pattern vs. calculated position using the minimum curvature method. The actual TVD position could be shallower or
deeper than the actual position depending on the slide/rotate or rotate/slide sequence.

Fig. 2—A plot of a static survey (blue squares) vs. continuous inclination (red circles) and captures the rotate/slide drilling activities.

June 2019 PETROPHYSICS 452

 Wellbore Positioning While Drilling With LWD Measurements

There are various geomagnetic models available with
different accuracies (Figs. 3 and 4), as well as update intervals
(Russell et al., 1995; Williamson et al., 1998; Stockhausen
and Lesso, 2003; Poedjono et al., 2010, 2012a, 2012b,
2013, 2014, 2018; Mohammed and Terpening, 2012; Maus
et al., 2012). The existence of improvements in inclination
and azimuth measurements underscores the importance of
applying environmental corrections to depth to enhance 3D
space description.
DRILLPIPE-STRETCH MODELING
Modeling drillpipe environmental-effect factors allows
for a better understanding of what will be seen and gives
a prediction of what to expect in real time during drilling
operations. Drillpipe stretch is affected by several factors,
including wellbore trajectory type, pipe length, friction,
buoyancy from the mud, drillpipe size, connection, type and
the bottomhole assembly (BHA) and temperature.
Modeling using the ¿nite-element method (FEM)
solves a more general mechanical behavior of the drillpipe
equilibrium inside a 3D borehole (Lesso et al., 1999). This
is where the drillpipe and BHA are considered an assembly
of tubular components with different mechanical and
geometrical characteristics.
The total stretch is determined by the sum of all the
element displacements in the axial direction by considering
the external forces acting upon each element. This include
gravity, Archimedes force, normal reaction force, axial and
circumferential friction, and weight on bit (WOB).
The only parameter not modeled in the drillpipe
examples (Figs. 5 and 6) is temperature gradient. As
temperature increases, the stretch will also increase such
that, depending on how much the temperature increases, this
could greatly increase the amount of stretch seen versus the
model prediction.

Fig. 3—The relative accuracy of the global model. The contribution to the geomagnetic ¿eld is from the main ¿eld (blue) and crustal ¿eld (green).

Fig. 4—A comparison of the advanced survey processing and SAG correction along with ellipse of uncertainty (yellow) vs. the surveying technique
using HDGM (blue).

453 PETROPHYSICS June 2019

 Poedjono et al.

Fig. 5—Graph showing that the wellbore pro¿le along with the drilling activity affect the drillpipe stretch.

Fig. 6—Graph showing the stretch for various types of drillpipe along with the drilling activity in a vertical wellbore.

June 2019 PETROPHYSICS 454

 Wellbore Positioning While Drilling With LWD Measurements
Modeling Parameters
Modeling ¿ve different wellbore types (vertical, slant,
2D-S, 3D-S, and horizontal) (Fig. 7) using various drilling
parameters listed in Table 3, allows for predicting the
magnitude of stretch that is anticipated at the end of the
drillpipe, as shown in Fig. 7.
Fig. 7—Visualization of the various wellbore pro¿les used in the
modeling.
Table 3—Parameters Used in Modeling
455 PETROPHYSICS
The vertical wellbore pro¿le is used to perform drillpipe-
stretch sensitivity analysis for various drillpipe sizes (Table
4) and tapered strings (combinations of drillpipe sizes). Four
different drillpipe con¿gurations were used in the vertical
wellbore type to model this effect, all with the same BHA
and only changing the drillpipe. The 5-in. S-135 19.5-lbm/
ft premium drillpipe was the ¿rst set used and was chosen to
be run in all the well types modeled (Fig. 8).
The next set was 5-in. S-135 19.5-lbm/ft 10% drillpipe.
The last two were made up of a tapered string of 6.625-
in. S-135 27.7-lbm/ft drillpipe to 5,000 ft MD, and 5-in.
S-135 19.5-lbm/ft from 5,000 ft MD to the top of the BHA
at TD. The tapered string was run with both premium and
10% classi¿cations of drillpipe for both sizes of drillpipe.
Premium drillpipe, also called 80% Inspection Class and
most often used for drilling, is de¿ned as the remaining wall
thickness not being less than 80% of the “New” speci¿ed
wall thickness. The drillpipe classi¿cation of 10% is the
90% inspection class and is de¿ned as the remaining wall
thickness not being less than 90% of the “New” speci¿ed
wall thickness.
It should be noted that various drillpipe types were used
for drillpipe-stretch modeling only, with no consideration
taken for passing or not passing the drilling torque and drag
requirements.
Modeling Results
A vertical wellbore is the worst-case scenario for
drillpipe stretch when drilling on bottom, reaming out, and
rotating off bottom. However, it is not the worst case when
June 2019
 Poedjono et al.

Table 4—Drillpipe Properties Used in the Modeling

Fig. 8—Top, 5-in. drillpipe with typical BHA. Bottom, 5-in. and 6.625-in. tapered string used in the modeling.

tripping out. In the scenario of tripping out, the 3D-S well

pro¿le is the worst case. This is due to how the drillpipe
contacts the wellbore based on the geometry.
The horizontal wellbore pro¿le has the least amount of
stretch and was the only scenario to have compression while
drilling on bottom. All the other scenarios only exhibited
stretch and not compression. The 10% drillpipe has a greater
wall thickness than the premium, and exhibited less pipe
stretch than the premium. The tapered strings had 5,000 ft of
larger drillpipe at the top and showed less pipe stretch than
the drilling strings with only 5-in. drillpipe.

DEPTH MEASUREMENT SYSTEMS

The LWD drillpipe depth measurement is made by

tracking the traveling-block movement with a combination
of a hookload sensor and a depth encoder, and an additional
heave-compensation assembly on Àoating rigs, as shown
in Fig. 9. The hookload sensor measures the weight of
the drillpipe attached to the hook or as an integral part of
top drive. The acquisition software uses the hookload
measurement in the “slip-logic” to determine when to stop
the depth tracking or when to advance it. The depth system
consists of an encoder system attached to the drawworks or
older system geolograph that includes a heave-compensation
system used on Àoating rigs to compensate the bit depth for
heave and wave motion.
Fig. 9—Schematics of rig components used to track the bit depth.
The encoder, through the rotation of the drawworks,
measures the rotation then converts to block position or
bit depth using a calibrated traveling-block position table.
Whereas the geolograph is attached to the traveling block
to calculate the traveling-block position by measuring
how many times the sensor rotates. Both the hookload
and encoder position are calibrated to maintain the depth-

June 2019 PETROPHYSICS 456

 Wellbore Positioning While Drilling With LWD Measurements

tracking accuracy. This is often done whenever a new
drum of drawworks drill line is installed, each time the rig
performs a slip-and-cut operation of the drill line, or when
the depth is not tracking as expected. Tracking the block
position using a well-calibrated system and using the in-out
slip algorithm, one can track the bit depth and translate it
to a depth measurement, using the pipe tally to cross-check
for any gross error. Any discrepancy detected needs to be
resolved prior to continuing drilling.
Many rigs may have surface sensors already installed
as part of the rig equipment or installed by a “third party,”
therefore, the rig is the sole provider of the depth-tracking
measurements that is then transmitted to various users via
WITS or WITSML.
cause discrepancies between the real-time and recorded-
mode depth include delay in data transmission due to the
data rate, mud type and viscosity, and pipe length. These
factors together affect how fast the data are transmitted
in real time and, consequently, could put the data at an
incorrect depth. Even when real-time depth is transmitted
correctly, a downhole clock drift can occur that would cause
asynchronization of surface and downhole clock, hence,
putting the recorded data at an incorrect depth. (Dashevskiy
et al., 2008). An example is when a tool is initialized on a
different date than the surface depth-¿le initialization, as
shown in Fig. 10. An error of this type is usually corrected
prior to merging the depth and data by applying time offset
to the surface depth and time ¿le.

Pipe-Tally Tracking
Typical LWD depth tracking includes setting the bit
depth at a certain depth before the bit leaves the casing or
liner shoe, and then tracking the bit depth the entire time
in the open hole, up to the point when it reenters the casing
and liner during pull-out of hole. During the up and down
movement of the traveling block, the LWD depth may be off
when compared to the driller’s depth at the end of a stand.
The LWD engineer would adjust, usually in the unit of inches,
and record corrections and offsets on a depth-tracking sheet.
Any adjustments made while drilling reÀects immediately
on the real-time depth. The depth-tracking sheet is used
during processing of memory data (recorded mode) to ensure
the memory data are on depth with real time. However, for
the rig that provides depth-tracking measurements, then no (a)
cross-check of adjustment is possible. The LWD engineer
would have to rely on the depth tracking as provided.

Real-Time and Recorded-Mode Depth

It is a standard practice to compare real-time to
recorded-mode LWD depth, and then to the driller’s depth.
Disagreement is an indication of more general depth-
tracking issues that must be solved while drilling. Agreement
of real-time and recorded-mode depths ensures consistency
of the depth measurement but does not necessarily mean
depth accuracy. In real time, the LWD data are normally
referenced to time of acquisition initialized, transmitted
through telemetry to the surface and matched to depth. In the
recorded mode, the tool is “time-initialized” by the surface
system, and then acquires data in time while in the hole. The (b)
surface system records the depth with reference to time in a
depth-time ¿le. When the tool memory is dumped, depth- Fig. 10—(a) Shows a time offset between the time ¿le from the tool
time and data-time are merged in the acquisition system to (red) and time recorded on the surface (black). (b) After determining and
applying the appropriate time of offset, ¿rst-time record matched
produce the recorded-mode depth-data pro¿le. Factors that

457 PETROPHYSICS June 2019

 Poedjono et al.
LWD Depth Measurement Errors
LWD depth measurements are performed at the surface,
where the conditions are not the same as downhole due
to temperature and pressure changes—consequently, the
depth measurement at surface does not represent downhole.
The differences caused by dynamic drilling environments
and changes to the wellbore pro¿le, introduce a dynamic
error in the measurement often making the driller’s depth
shallower than the actual along-hole depth. The dynamic
errors are quanti¿able and must be corrected to improve
the accuracy of the depth measurement. The LWD depth is
also prone to static and systematic errors that may include
equipment, environment, calibration and human errors
(Reistle and Sikes, 1938). Consequently, the LWD engineer
therefore often compares the LWD depth with the driller’s
depth at the end of each joint or stand. and makes minor
adjustments to the depth tracking. On a Àoating rig equipped
with a heave-compensation system, it is common to observe
effects of residual heave and tide on LWD images which if
uncorrected, creates noise on LWD images.
DRILLPIPE-STRETCH CORRECTION
The drillers’ s depth is the sum of the tape measure of the
drillpipe plus BHA components taken at surface conditions.
However, it is also known that there are inherent errors
associated with the driller’s depth due to the environmental
conditions and the physical changes that the pipe and
components undergo while in the hole, which produce errors
that are unaccounted for. These effects may result in LWD
depth being shallower that the absolute depth. In the Gulf
of Mexico, depth stretch of up to 70 ft has been observed,
especially in wellbores up to 30,000 ft depth.
Several published papers have discussed the
environmental correction of associated static and
dynamic errors, as well as the impact of the errors on
LWD measurement (Lesage et al.,1988; Chia et al., 2006;
Bordakov et al., 2007; Dashevskiy et al., 2008). The main
sources of drillpipe depth error identi¿ed are drillstring
weight, temperature of the pipe, pressure, friction effect
of pipe on the borehole wall, buckling of drillpipe when in
compression, weight on bit, torque on the pipe, and heave,
on Àoating rigs (Chia et al., 2006; Bordakov et al., 2007).
Some of the factors have positive effects on the pipe length
while other have negative effects, hence, some parts of the
logs are stretched and some shrink. Table 5 lists the cause
and effect of these major sources of error on drillpipe length.
Bordakov et al. (2007) demonstrated that drillpipe
weight and thermal expansion contribute up to 80% of
the total correction seen in a 5,000-m (~16,400 ft) MD
June 2019 PETROPHYSICS
Table 5—Cause and Effect of Sources of Error on Drillpipe Length
When Below the Rotary Table and Not in Slips
S-shaped well. They also showed that downhole friction,
WOB and heave are next in order of magnitude to the error
contribution on stretch. While these errors are acknowledged
by the industry, they are often ignored, or at best a block-
shift correction is used, to correct them using wireline
depth as the reference. As a recommended practice, the best
method is to apply environmental corrections to the drillpipe
and the wireline, then reconcile the difference and assign
uncertainties, as shown in Table 1.
Implementing environmental correction applies the
principle that major contributors of pipe stretch in order
of magnitude are mechanical and temperature. This is
undertaken using input of the wellbore trajectory, geometry,
BHA, surface sensor, temperature thermal pro¿le, and torque
and drag. A calibration of torque-and-drag model is necessary
and completed using actual sensor measurements made in
different drilling modes and parameters selection; average
sliding-friction factor, average pipe wear, mud weight and
effective block weight, as shown in Fig. 11. Correction is
applied to every BHA and drillpipe run in hole. The result is
a new dynamic corrected depth ¿le that is merged with the
LWD time data to generate corrected LWD depth.
Heave and Tidal Effect
On Àoating rigs, the effects of heave and tide on the rig
do cause changes in the depth. Although such rigs are usually
equipped with a heave compensator, sometimes residual
motion (up and down movement) of the rig gets propagated
into LWD depth systems and causes the data to be placed
intermittently at incorrect depth. When the heave effects are
present, it can be easily seen on LWD images. Figure 12
shows heave effect on the LWD image and improvements of
the image after ¿ltering out the heave effect. Tidal effects are
not usually as severe as heave, but still need to be accounted
for using the location tidal chart.
458
 Wellbore Positioning While Drilling With LWD Measurements

Fig. 11—Torque-and-drag model calibration using surface sensor measurements and parameters selection to correct the LWD depth.

repeatability of the depth system with environmental

corrections applied. Drilling parameters, surface weight
on bit (SWOB), surface torque (STOR), revolutions per
minute (RPM), etc. used during time-lapse passes are
sometimes different, and so is the expected stretch effect on
the drillpipe. It is therefore not uncommon to see the depth
mismatch between time-lapse logs, as in Fig. 13. When the
borehole and formation integrity are maintained, time-lapse
logging becomes a recommended step to perform in depth
correction, to verify the depth tracking system as well as the
accuracy of the depth calibration.

APPLICATIONS OF DEPTH CORRECTION

Corrected LWD depth can be, and has been applied to

(a) (b)
Fig. 12—(a) uncorrected LWD image with noise arising from residual
heaving of the rig. This noise is caused by oscillations of the bit depth
versus time, which are caused in turn by residual rig heave. (b) corrected
image with reduced effect.
Time-Lapse Effect
Time-lapse data acquired during drilling and while
tripping out of hole, provide a value of verifying the
logs, images, pressures and MWD surveys to enhance the
log interpretation as well as wellbore-position accuracy.
MWD surveys are usually taken while the drillpipe is
pulled up and suspended 1 to 2 ft off bottom. This causes
downward pull (stretch) on the drillpipe. The reported
survey depth is therefore shallower than actual depth in the
hole, which translates to deeper recomputed vertical depth
after environmental correction has been applied. Accurate
vertical depth helps to improve the estimation of true
vertical thickness, the hydraulic continuity and volume of
that formation, as well as relative position of well.
Case 1
Depth correction was run on a deepwater well in the
Gulf of Mexico to determine the landing depth of casing

459 PETROPHYSICS June 2019


Fig. 13—Time-lapse logs obtained in three passes (P1 to P3) showing depth offsets between each of the different measurements (resistivity, neutron,
and density) resulting from using different drilling parameters.
and to ensure it stayed within the expected rat hole of 40 ft.
(±25%) from TD. Since the rig did not have the capability
to pull back casing, it was necessary to have an accurate
openhole depth in order to determine the actual length of
casing to run. Using the 12.25-in. BHA tally, survey data,
surface time data and temperature pro¿le, depth stretch at
the openhole LWD total depth was calculated to be ~13 ft.
With this information, a more accurate openhole depth was
determined and used to plan the length of casing to run. The
casing assembly (made of drillpipe and casing) stretch at
the corrected openhole total depth was initially modeled to
be approximately 18 ft using a friction factor of 0.22. The
result was used with the landing window to back-calculate
the uncorrected landing depth. While running the 11.75-in.
casing, the model was updated in semireal time with actual
torque-and-drag surface time data. At 80% of the casing
run, the actual stretch of uncorrected driller’s casing depth
was calculated to be 17.69 ft. (within 2% of the model).
The casing was subsequently landed within a window of
approximately 48 ft (Fig. 14).
June 2019
Poedjono et al.
Case 2
Figure 15 presents gamma-ray logs from four wells in
the Gulf of Mexico plotted with driller’s depth shallower
than the stretch-corrected depth. The correction varied
from 55 to 69 ft in ~30,000 ft of hole, depending on the
trajectory. It is important to note that the stretch correction
does not alter LWD data, but the LWD depth will be shifted
downwards. The depth correction was applied to assess well
compartmentalization risk and oil/water contacts across the
¿eld. This was done by placing pressure and sample points
on the most accurate TVD depth possible obtained after
applying depth correction on the original LWD depth. LWD
depths were stretch corrected, then pressure and sample points
were shifted to the corrected depth. The excess pressure plot
shown in Fig. 16 shows Well 4 to be in a totally different
pressure regime than Wells 1 to 3. NMR data also indicated
that the sand quality was very different. Similar work was
reported by Cribbs (2009) at a AAPG Technology Workshop;
he showed that a stretch correction of approximately 60 ft
reduced the risk of compartmentalization.
PETROPHYSICS 460
 Wellbore Positioning While Drilling With LWD Measurements

Fig. 14—Determination of casing landing depth for a deepwater Gulf of Mexico well to within 40 ft (±10 ft) of expected rat hole.

Fig. 15—Gamma-ray logs from four wells from the same ¿eld in the Gulf of Mexico and drilled with different BHAs. Gamma-ray logs plotted with
drillers depth are shown in blue; the stretch-corrected logs are plotted in green.

461 PETROPHYSICS June 2019

 Poedjono et al.

Fig. 16—Excess pressure plot of four wells in the same ¿eld in the Gulf of Mexico. Well 4 seems to be in a totally different pressure regime than Wells
1 to 3.

Case 3
Bordakov et al. (2007) have shown that the dynamic
corrected depth ¿le has application in improving LWD
image quality. They showed a 20% correction in stratigraphic
thickness computed from two dips picked 52 ft apart from
same image log before and after depth correction (see
Fig.17).
CONCLUSIONS
The industry is making discoveries and drilling in areas
and formations where depth accuracy is now becoming more
important in order to maximize production and optimize
drilling time. Consequently, LWD/MWD is playing a
signi¿cant role in “getting it right the ¿rst time.” Lateral
wellbores are being geosteered in longer boreholes in thinner

Fig. 17—LWD depth correction showing a slight difference in true stratigraphic thickness. Top, LWD density image. Bottom, blue lines are dip planes
and green lines are borehole trajectory (from Bordakov et al., 2007).

June 2019 PETROPHYSICS 462

 Wellbore Positioning While Drilling With LWD Measurements
layers where depth placement means the difference in a
wellbore being economic or not. The density of wellbores
being drilled in unconventional ¿elds is increasing—
drilling stacked laterals and “wine rack” patterns, wellbore
placement (vertical, lateral and depth) are essential to
maintain the desired spacing to optimize production—thus,
reducing the risk of borehole collisions is a greater concern
to ensure the residual risk is maintained at a non-HSE level
while maintaining production.
It is important for the industry to track depth accurately,
implement depth environmental corrections, and assign
uncertainties to reconcile LWD and wireline depths. As the
industry and ¿elds mature, it is imperative that the accuracy
of wellbore placement increases, and reconciling the depth
is a major part of improving accuracy. Drillpipe modeling
results shows different error magnitudes while drilling and
while tripping out. The model shows drillpipe error to be
highest in vertical wellbores while drilling and lowest in a
horizontal well. During trip out, a 3D-S well pro¿le showed
the worst case, while a vertical well showed the least. Time-
lapse logging provides the opportunity to capture data
necessary to effectively correct the drillpipe stretch in any
drilling activities, i.e., running in hole, on bottom drilling,
pulling out of hole, etc.
When the drillpipe environmental stretch correction
is properly modeled and applied, the accuracy of depth
measurement increases greatly, allowing for more precise
wellbore placement.
Examples demonstrate the impact of depth correction
on wellbore position and reservoir evaluation. Accurate
wellbore positioning for better reservoir exploitation,
positioning the well correctly and optimizing drill time,
preventing collision, correcting vertical, and horizontal
spacing, etc., are potential applications of drillpipe stretch
corrections. It is therefore necessary to environmentally
correct drillpipe stretch on every drilled wellbore.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to express appreciation for and
acknowledgement of the Bureau of Safety and Environmental
Enforcement (BSEE) and Schlumberger for their permission
to publish the concepts and methods used and the material
contained in this paper. The authors would also like to
thank and acknowledge the SPWLA technical reviewers for
reviewing the draft manuscript.
REFERENCES
Bordakov, G.A., Kostin, A.V., Rasmus, J., Heliot, D., Laastad,
H., and Stockhausen, E.J., 2007, Improving LWD Image and
463 PETROPHYSICS
Formation Evaluation by Utilizing Dynamically Corrected
Drilling-Derived LWD Depth and Continuous Inclination
and Azimuth Measurements, Paper SPE-109972, SPE
Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, 12(1), 137–148. DOI:
10.2118/109972-PA.
Brooks, A.G., Wilson, H., Jamieson, A., McRobbie, D., and
Holehouse, S.G., 2005, Quanti¿cation of Depth Accuracy,
Paper SPE-95611 presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, USA, 9–12
October. DOI: 10.2118/95611-MS.
Chia, C.R., Laastad, H., Kostin, A.V., Hjortland, F., and Bordakov,
G.A., 2006, A New Method for Improving LWD Logging
Depth, Paper SPE-102175 presented at the SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas,
USA, 24–27 September. DOI: 10.2118/102175-MS.
Cribbs, B., 2009, Practical Wellbore Formation Test Interpretation,
AAPG Search and Discovery Article 120009. http://www.
searchanddiscovery.com/documents/2009/120009cribbs/
ndx_cribbs.pdf. Accessed May 8, 2019.
Dashevskiy, D., Dahl, T., Brooks, A.G, Zurcher, D., Lofts, J.C.,
and Dankers, S., 2008, Dynamic Depth Correction to Reduce
Depth Uncertainty and Improve MWD/LWD Log Quality,
Paper SPE-103094, SPE Drilling & Completion, 23(1), 13–
22. DOI: 10.2118/103094-PA.
Grindrod, S.J., Clark, P.J., Lightfoot, D.J., Bergstrom, N., and
Grant, L.S., 2016, OWSG Standard Survey Tool Error Model
Set for Improved Quality and Implementation in Directional
Survey Management, Paper IADC/SPE-178843 presented
at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference and Exhibition, Fort
Worth, Texas, USA, 1–3 March. DOI: 10.2118/178843-MS.
Lesage, M., Falconer, I. G., and Wick, C. J., 1988, Evaluating
Drilling Practice in Deviated Wells With Torque and Weight
Data, Paper SPE-16114, SPE Drilling Engineering, 3(3), 248–
252. DOI: 10.2118/16114-PA.
Lesso, Jr., W.G., and Chau, M.T., 1999, Quantifying Bottomhole
Assembly Tendency Using Field Directional Drilling Data
and a Finite Element Model, Paper SPE-52835 presented
at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam The
Netherlands, 9–11 March. DOI: 10.2118/52835-MS.
Maus, S., Nair, M.C., Poedjono, B., Okewunmi, S., Fairhead,
D., Barckhausen, U., Milligan, P.R., and Matzka, J., 2012,
High-De¿nition Geomagnetic Models: A New Perspective
for Improved Wellbore Positioning, Paper IADC/SPE-
151436 presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference and
Exhibition, San Diego, California, USA, 6–8 March. DOI:
10.2118/151436-MS.
Mohammed, N.C., and Terpening, M.E., 2012, High-Con¿dence
Vertical Positioning for Extended Reach Wells, Paper IADC/
SPE-151441 presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference
and Exhibition, San Diego, California, USA, 6–8 March.
DOI: 10.2118/151441-MS.
Monterrosa, L.C., Rego, M.F., Zegarra, E., and Lowdon, R., 2016,
Statistical Analysis Between Different Surveying Instruments
to Understand the Reliability of MWD/RSS High Resolution
Surveys and its Effect in Well Trajectory Characterization,
Paper IADC/SPE-178830 presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling
Conference and Exhibition, Fort Worth, Texas, USA, 1–3
June 2019
 Poedjono et al.
March. DOI: 10.2118/178830-MS.
Poedjono, B., Adly, E., Terpening, M., and Li, X., 2010,
Geomagnetic Referencing Service—A Viable Alternative
for Accurate Wellbore Surveying, Paper IADC/SPE-127753
presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference and
Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 2–4 February.
DOI: 10.2118/127753-MS.
Poedjono, B., Beck, N., Buchanan, A., Borri, L., Maus, S., Finn,
C.A., Worthington, E.W. and White, T., 2013, Improved
Geomagnetic Referencing in the Arctic Environment, Paper
SPE-166850 presented at the SPE Arctic and Extreme
Environments Technical Conference and Exhibition, Moscow,
Russia, 15–17 October. DOI: 10.2118/166850-MS.
Poedjono, B., Maus, S., Rawlins, S., Zachman, N., Row, A.,
and Li, X, 2018, Continuous Improvement in Wellbore
Position Accuracy: Ultra-Extended-Reach Drilling in Far
Eastern Russia, Paper OTC-29168 presented at the Arctic
Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, USA,
5–7November. DOI: 10.4043/29168-MS.
Poedjono, B., Montenegro, D., Clark, P., Okewunmi, S., Maus, S.,
and Li, X., 2012a, Successful Application of Geomagnetic
Referencing for Accurate Wellbore Positioning in Deepwater
Project Offshore Brazil, Paper IADC/SPE-150107 presented
at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference and Exhibition, San
Diego, California, USA, 6–8 March. DOI: 10.2118/150107-
MS.
Poedjono, B., Pai, S., Maus, S., Manoj, C., and Paynter, R.,
2014, Marine Magnetic Surveying and Disturbance Field
Monitoring by Autonomous Marine Vehicles, Paper OTC-
25228 presented at the Offshore Technology Conference,
Houston, Texas, USA, 5–8 May. DOI: 10.4043/25228-MS.
Poedjono, B., Rawlins, S.A., Singam, C.K., Van Den Tweel,
A., Dubinsky, A., Rakhmangulov, R., and Maus, S., 2012b,
Addressing Wellbore Position Challenges in Ultra-Extended-
Reach Drilling in Russia’s Far East, Paper SPE-160784
presented at the SPE Russian Oil and Gas Exploration and
Production Technical Conference and Exhibition, Moscow,
Russia,16–18 October. DOI: 10.2118/160784-MS.
Reistle, C.E., Jr., and Sikes, S.T., Jr., 1938, Well-Depth
Measurements, Paper API 38-080 presented at the API
Drilling and Production Practice 1938 Conference, Amarillo,
Texas, USA, 17–18 February.
Russell, J.P., Shiells, G., and Kerridge, D.J., 1995, Reduction of
Well-Bore Positional Uncertainty Through Application of a
New Geomagnetic In-Field Referencing Technique, Paper
SPE-30452 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, USA, 22–25 October. DOI:
10.2118/30452-MS.
Stockhausen, E.J., and Lesso, W.G., Jr., 2003, Continuous Direction
and Inclination Measurements Lead to an Improvement in
Wellbore Positioning, Paper SPE/IADC-79917 presented
at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, The
Netherlands, 19–21 February. DOI: 10.2118/79917-MS.
Williamson, S.H., 2000, Accuracy Prediction for Directional
Measurement While Drilling, Paper SPE-67616, SPE Drilling
& Completion, 15(4), 221–233. DOI: 10.2118/67616-PA
Williamson, H.S., Gurden, P.A., Shiells, G., and Kerridge, D.J.,
June 2019 PETROPHYSICS
1998, Application of Interpolated In-Field Referencing to
Remote Offshore Locations, Paper SPE-49061 presented
at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 27–30 September. DOI:
10.2118/49061-MS.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Benny Poedjono is a Schlumberger
Petro-Technical Expert, an Advisor in
Wellbore Positioning, Interception and
Relief Well Operations based in Sugar
Land, Texas. He started his career with
Schlumberger in 1982 as ¿eld engineer
and has held various positions in
operations, management, engineering,
technical, support and business development and has worked
in more than 29 countries. His recent areas of expertise are in
Geomagnetic Referencing, Advanced Wellbore Positioning,
Acoustic Ranging, Collision Avoidance Management,
Wellbore Interception, Relief Well Operation, Platform and
Pad Design and Robotics for Oil and Gas. Benny is also
serving on the SPE, EAGE, ISCWSA, ATC and API RP 78
Recommended for Wellbore Positioning. He has published
more than 60 technical papers and holds various patents.
Benny is a graduate of Bandung Institute of Technology
in Bandung, Indonesia with a BSc and Ir. degree in Digital
Electronic Engineering.
Dozie Nwosu is a Principal
Petrophysicist with Schlumberger. He
holds BEng in Electronic Engineering
from University of Port-Harcourt,
Nigeria, MSc in Petroleum Engineering
from Heriot Watt University, UK and
MBA in Business Administration from
Texas A&M University, Corpus-Christi.
He started his career with Schlumberger in December 1995
as a Logging While Drilling Engineer in Nigeria and has held
various positions in Operations, Training, Engineering and
Interpretation. He is experienced in Logging While Drilling,
Rock Mechanics, Petrophysics, Acoustics and Rock Physics.
He has applied these extensively in both Deepwater Gulf of
Mexico and the Unconventional Shale in North America.
Brad Martin is a Schlumberger
Petro-Technical Expert, a Senior Drilling
Engineer based in Houston Texas. He
started his career with Schlumberger in
2000 as a Field Engineer, working his
way out of the ¿eld and into Drilling
Engineering in 2004. He has been a
464
 Wellbore Positioning While Drilling With LWD Measurements

Drilling Engineer on land and offshore for North America

and has been a Drilling Engineer for offshore clients in West
Africa and South America. His areas of expertise include well
design, torque and drag, wellbore positioning, surveying, and
anti-collision, where he has been an anticollision exemption
sign-off authority in the high-volume land market. Currently
he is assigned in house for a client in the Gulf of Mexico.
Brad is a graduate of Texas A&M University with a BS
degree in Petroleum Engineering.

465 PETROPHYSICS June 2019

June 2019 PETROPHYSICS 466