SPWLA 49th Annual Logging Symposium, May 25-28, 2008

THE EFFECT OF PORE GEOMETRY

ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF RESERVOIR FLUIDS IN
U.K. NORTH SEA OIL AND GAS FIELDS
Dean Gagnon1, Steve Cuddy2, Fabrizio Conti2, Craig Lindsay2
1
Nexen Petroleum UK Ltd., 2 Helix RDS
Copyright 2008, held jointly by the Society of Petrophysicists and
Well Log Analysts (SPWLA) and the submitting authors.

A new pore geometry (PG) index is proposed that is

correlated to the FOIL a constant. This index can be
used to make predictions about the quality of pore
geometry within a reservoir and the shape of the SwH
function. This PG index is successful in explaining
how fields with very different porosity and
permeability can have very similar SwH functions
and why poorer quality reservoir intervals do not
necessarily have higher water saturations. The revised
SwH function provides a robust method for picking
the FWL even in fields where the actual fluid contact
is unclear or was not penetrated.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPWLA 49th

Annual Logging Symposium held in Edinburgh, Scotland, May 2528, 2008.

ABSTRACT
The accurate determination of hydrocarbons initially
in place requires a thorough understanding of how
water saturation (Sw) varies as a function of height
above the free water level (FWL). Nowhere is this
more important than in the transition zone.

The new index better describes pore geometry and

allows the hydrocarbon distributions to be understood
and represented more accurately in the 3D reservoir
model.

Electrical logs, core data and thin sections from

fifteen North Sea fields were compared to understand
how reservoir parameters determine the shape of the
transition zone. These included pore geometry as
well as the rock quality and reservoir fluid parameters
contained in the Leverett J-Function.

INTRODUCTION
Background

The water saturation vs. height (SwH) function

selected for this research is the so-called FOIL
Function, that relates the bulk volume of water to
height using only two constants a and b in the
form BVW=aHb. Comparison of the Leverett JFunction with the FOIL Function showed that all the
reservoir parameters relating to rock quality and
reservoir fluids are found within the a constant of
the FOIL Function. Although the fields studied
ranged from multi-Darcy gas fields to milli-Darcy oil
fields, the b constant is surprisingly invariable: with
the shape of the transition zone described by the SwH
Function being controlled almost entirely by the
single constant a.

Accurate determination of hydrocarbons initially in

place requires a saturation vs. height (SwH) function
to describe how water saturation varies with height
above the free water level (FWL).
Water saturation (Sw) determined from interpretation
of log data can only represent the reservoir within a
few feet surrounding the well bore. Sw cannot be
mapped as it depends on numerous factors including
porosity and the height above the local FWL.
SwH functions are used in a fields reservoir model to
estimate Sw away from well locations so that
hydrocarbons initially in place can be calculated. The
error in reserves resulting from an equation that
poorly describes the reservoir can be significant.

The constant a is found to be predominantly

dependent on reservoir pore geometry. Thin section
analysis showed that the fields with a low a value
have well connected evenly spaced pores, lack pore
throat bridging, blocking and grain coating clays and
have simple pore pathways. This explains how the
water saturation is a function of connectivity as well
as porosity and height above the FWL. Analysis
confirmed that the pore geometry rather than porosity
and permeability determine the shape of the transition
zone.

This study uses the FOIL1 SwH function to compare

reservoirs of different North Sea fields. The FOIL
Function is an algorithm which is commonly used to
determine water saturations in North Sea reservoirs
(Cuddy 1993). It was developed using log data from
the Southern North Sea and has since found wider
1

The term FOIL refers to free oil (or gas) above the
FWL. Free water exists below the FWL.

SPWLA 49th Annual Logging Symposium, May 25-28, 2008

The aim of SwH functions is to estimate the water

content throughout the reservoir as accurately as
possible. The advantage of the FOIL Function is that
it contains the BVW term which is especially
appropriate to 3D modelling (Worthington 2002)

application throughout the United Kingdom

Continental Shelf (UKCS). The function has a simple
form and is largely independent of porosity and
permeability. It calculates the Bulk Volume of Water
(BVW) as a function of height (H) above the FWL.
Alternatively, it can be used to calculate BVW as a
function of Capillary Pressure (Pc). BVW is the
product of water saturation and porosity. The FOIL
Function is derived from the Leverett J-Function and
has the form:

Study Objectives
This study had five main objectives:

BVW = S w = aH b
where:
BVW

Sw
H
a
b

Equation 1

= bulk volume of water (v/v)

= porosity (v/v)
= water saturation (v/v)
= height above the free water level (ft)
= constant (dimensionless)
= constant (dimensionless, negative value)

The function describes how BVW varies as a function

of height above the FWL. The function tells us that at
a particular depth in the net reservoir BVW is fixed
with hydrocarbon filling the remaining pore space.

Once the function has been derived water saturation

can be calculated re-arranging equation 1:

Sw =

aH b

Relate pore and pore throat geometry as seen in

thin sections to FOIL Functions from log data.
Gain an understanding of how and why the FOIL
Function works by carrying out FOIL analysis on
fields with differing depositional environments
and hydrocarbon composition.
Derive the FOIL Function from the Leverett JFunction and capillary pressure versus height
relationship in order to determine which rock and
fluid parameters are contained within the
functions constants.
Validate the method by analysis of core capillary
pressure, porosity and permeability data.
Determine the sensitivity of the FOIL Function
constant a to variations in the rock and fluid
parameters that compose it.

Data Available
Data from fifteen UK North Sea fields (250 wells)
were used in this study. Electrical logs and
conventional core (porosity and permeability) data
were available from eleven fields. Thin section and
capillary pressure data were respectively available
from three and two of these fields. Capillary pressure
and conventional core data were also available from
four additional fields.

Equation 2

The main strengths of the FOIL Function are that it

does not require permeability and is mostly
independent of lithology. However, if a reservoir
interval contains different geological units or lithofacies with distinct and coherent porosity
permeability relationships, then separate FOIL
Functions should be constructed to provide a more
robust description of the reservoir (Amabeoku et al.
2005). The predictions the function makes with
regard to pore and pore throat geometry were
investigated through thin section observations.

The fields with log data used in the study are listed in
Table 1. They were selected as they represent a range
of reservoir fluids, depositional environments and
porosity vs. permeability (poroperm).
The poroperm distribution for the eleven fields with
log and core data is shown in Figure 1: where average
permeability increases with average porosity as
expected. Average permeability spans four
logarithmic cycles: from 0.1 mD to 2 D (Darcy).
Porosities range from 8 to 32 Porosity Units (PU).

The FWL is the datum from which the FOIL Function

bases its calculations as it represents the depth where
the capillary pressure is zero. In the absence of
drilling fluids it is the depth where water and
hydrocarbon would vertically separate in a large
borehole. In water-wet reservoirs the FWL is below
the lowest occurrence of hydrocarbons. The FWL is
the depth predicted by the interception of the
formation fluid pressure gradients.

THIN SECTION ANALYSIS

Thin sections from three of the study fields (Fields E,
F, and K) were described with emphasis placed on the
geometry of pores and pore throats. The descriptions
were quantified where possible in order to facilitate

SPWLA 49th Annual Logging Symposium, May 25-28, 2008

the comparison between samples. This quantification

was based on visual observation and estimation of
relative percentages.

are characterised by isolated groups of pores

connected via long tortuous pathways that contain an
abundance of pore throat obstructing material.

The limitations of describing a 3-dimensional pore

system from 2-dimensional thin-sections are well
documented. For the purposes of this study,
comparative evaluation of thin sections from different
reservoirs provided fit for purpose quantification of
pore network properties.

FOIL FUNCTION METHODOLOGY

A FOIL Function can be determined for a well or
entire field from either log or core data. This section
describes the steps involved in constructing a FOIL
Function for a field using log data. FOIL Functions
were determined from electrical logs for eleven fields
located throughout the UK North Sea. The fields
included both gas and oil accumulations in different
types of clastic reservoirs from different depositional
environments. The broad spectra of fields were
chosen in order to assess the robustness of the
function. Table 1 lists the fields, their fluid type and
depositional environment.

Fields E, F, K have similar porosity but substantially

different permeability as seen in Figure 1. This can be
explained by differences in pore throat attributes.
Pore throat attributes include pore throat shape,
radius, pore coordination number (number of outlets
per pore), general connectivity (defined as the
arithmetic mean of the pore coordination number for
the entire measured volume) and quantity/type of
throat blocking (flow impeding) minerals. Generally,
if samples have the same porosity, any differences in
permeability can be explained by differences in
connectivity and amount of flow impeding material
within the connecting pore pathways.

The BVW for each well was calculated as the product

of the water saturation and porosity curves. This was
plotted against the height above the FWL. Only data
away from conductive bed boundaries were included
in order to minimise the effect of shoulder bed effects
on the resistivity logs.

Fields E and F have very similar pore and pore throat

attributes. Figure 2 (Field E) and Figure 3 (Field F)
display complex pore shapes which are evenly
distributed, have a smooth pore wall texture and lack
pore lining materials, though minor amounts of quartz
overgrowths, pyrite crystals and grain coating clays
do occur. Most often the pore throat radii are only
moderately smaller than the adjoining pores
maximum dimension and the majority of pores are
connected via short nontortuous pore pathways
which have a curved geometry.
Overall the
connectivity between pores is excellent and most
pores have an average coordination number of 4.

The FOIL Functions were calculated by plotting the

logarithm (base 10) of BVW (x-axis) against the
logarithm of the true vertical height (y-axis) above the
FWL. Then a free linear regression was used to
compute the FOIL Function parameters. This process
works because the form of the FOIL Function can
also be stated as:

log10 BVW = b log10 H + log10 a

Equation 3

which is the form of the straight-line equation y = mx

+ c, where parameter b (m) has a negative value.

Field K shown in Figure 4 has a much different pore

and pore throat character. Pore shapes are distributed
between complex and simple geometric shapes. Pore
walls have a rough texture and are lined with detrital
grain coating clays. Pore lining, bridging, and filling
authigenic clays (platy chlorite and illite, wispy illite)
are common. Most pores are found in isolated groups
with good internal connectivity but very poor inter
group connectivity.
Internal connectivity is
characterized by short curved pathways with three to
four outlets per pore, where as intergroup
connectivity is via long narrow tortuous pathways.

Since the FOIL Function can be written in the form of

a straight line the a value is the y-intercept and the
b value is the slope of the line. The FOIL Functions
calculated for the study fields are shown in Figure 5.
The FOIL a and b parameters were calculated
from logs for the eleven study fields as listed in Table
1. A log-log plot of BVW against height above the
FWL is shown in Figure 6.
It is noticeable that all the fields share a similar b
parameter (slope) and the main difference between
the SwH Functions is due the variation of a
(intercept) between the fields.

These observations suggest that good reservoirs are

characterised by well connected evenly spaced pores,
minor throat obstructing material and simple pore
throat pathways. Conversely, low quality reservoirs

SPWLA 49th Annual Logging Symposium, May 25-28, 2008

The b of the FOIL Function is invariant to scale as it

is a dimensionless unit of measurement which is
consistent with the Leverett J-Function which itself is
dimensionless. Consequently, the same b value is
calculated: regardless of whether the scale of the yaxis represents height (H) above the FWL in feet or
metres, or it represents capillary pressure (Pc).

FOIL FUNCTION ANALYSIS

The FOIL Function can be derived from the Leverett
J-Function and capillary pressure versus height
relationship as described by Cuddy (1993).

BVW =

cos
g ( w h )H

* Equation 4
K

Sensitivity analysis of Equation 5 confirmed that

BVW is largely independent of porosity and
permeability for the typical porosity range seen in the
eleven fields of Table 1. Equation 5 was shown to be
dependent on the reservoir parameters such as
hydrocarbon and water densities. However these
parameters vary little in a given field.

Re-arranging this into the form of the FOIL Function

(Equation 1) gives:

cos
BVW =
g (
w
h)

1

H
K

Eq. 5

RESERVOIR QUALITY
We define the quality of a reservoir by its value of
water saturation at a certain height above FWL and
given porosity: with lower Sw being considered better
quality reservoir. The computed water saturation
derived from the FOIL Function at 200 above the
FWL and assuming a porosity of 20 PU is listed for
each field in Table 1.

Comparison with Equation 1 gives constants a and

b of the FOIL Function:
1

( cos )

a =

g ( w h ) K
1
b=

Equation 6

The quality of a reservoir can be defined by the value

of its forced a parameter. Figure 7 shows reservoir
quality increasing towards the top-right corner of the
cross-plot. Water saturations vary from 6 Saturation
Units (SU) in high quality reservoirs (Field G) to 36
SU in low quality reservoirs (Field I). Notice that the
FOIL parameter a varies much more between these
fields compared to the FOIL parameter b.

Equation 7

where:

= interfacial tension (dyne/cm)

K
= permeability (cm2)

= porosity (fraction)

= contact angle (degrees)

g
= acceleration of gravity (m/sec2)
w
= density of the water phase (g/cm3)
g
= density of the hydrocarbon phase (g/cm3)

= dimensionless constant

= dimensionless constant

THE PORE GEOMETRY INDEX

We define the Pore Geometry (PG) Index as

PG_ Index =

It is noticeable that all parameters associated with

rock quality and reservoir fluids are contained in
parameter a. This is consistent with the empirical
observation from Figure 6.

log K 7
log

Equation 8

The PG Index is similar to (K/)0.5 which Leverett

proposed in 1941 with the dimension of mean pore
radius. The Leverett J-Function represents a sand
pack as a bundle of capillary tubes with different pore
radii. Just as core plugs are a bundle of capillary tubes
with an average pore radius, hydrocarbon reservoirs
consist of a number of facies with different porositypermeability characteristics. So long as these facies
are in communication, over geological time, the
whole reservoir can be considered as having a mean
pore radius.

In order to compare the FOIL Functions between

fields they were recomputed using a common b
value (slope). This was done by calculating the
average b value for the fields and using this to recompute a forced regression a value for each field
as listed in Table 1. The average b value used was 0.41. The a value for each field calculated from the
average b value is herein referred to as the forced
a value.

SPWLA 49th Annual Logging Symposium, May 25-28, 2008

Although the parameter b is not strictly a constant it

can be assumed to be -0.41 for this purpose. Solving
for two unknowns a and FWL is more precise
compared to a, b and FWL.

The constant 7 was found to give the best

correlation coefficient between the values of PG
index and FOIL a parameters from regression of log
and core data: respectively figures 8 and 11. This
constant is also a convenient scaling factor.

As the FOIL a parameter represents the intercept of

the FOIL function with the y-axis, the FWL can be
determined from this intersect when the y-axis has the
units of TVDSS.

When the PG Index is a constant for a particular field,

Equation 4 shows that BVW is constant at given
value of height (H) above FWL. Therefore, any
formation with a similar PG Index will have
comparable BVW values for a given H and hence
similar pore throat geometry. The PG Index is plotted
against the forced FOIL parameter a in Figure 8.

CORE ANALYSIS
The findings on the relationship between Bulk
Volume of Water (BVW) and Pore Geometry Index
(PG) derived from log data were validated by means
of core data. The database available included core
porosity, permeability and capillary pressure (Pc)
measurements.

Using PG to Understand Reservoir Quality

Figure 1 shows that Fields D and G have high
average porosity and permeability with Field D
having significantly better properties. Surprisingly,
the computed water saturations are twice in Field D
compared to Field G, for the same height above the
FWL and porosity. This can be explained by the
better (lower) values of PG Index and forced FOIL
a parameter for Field G.

The study was focussed on 102 core plugs from six

reservoirs in the North Sea region. These represent a
variety of depositional environments, including a
Permian Aeolian Sand, a Triassic Distal Fluvial
Delta, a Jurassic Marine Fan Conglomerate, two
Jurassic Shallow Marine Sands and a Palaeocene
Turbidite. The variety of lithological and textural
features made the database suitable for validation of
the method.

The PG Index can also be used to explain the

apparent inconsistency seen in Field L. Two zones
that are thought not to be in communication have the
porosity and permeability values shown in Table 2.

The database included all main types of core Pc

measurements: Air-Brine Porous Plate, Air-Mercury
Injection and Air-Brine Centrifuge. All porosity and
permeability measurements were executed at ambient
conditions. Similarly, all core Pc measurements were
converted to Air-Brine Pc at laboratory conditions. In
addition all core data were quality controlled and poor
data discarded from the database.

Zone 1 has much higher permeability and porosity

compared to Zone 2. However, Zone 2 has lower
water saturations. This is explained by the PG Index
being better (lower) in this zone.
Using PG to Predict Reservoir Permeability
Using the average b value (-0.41), the forced a
parameter can be determined by FOIL analysis of
electrical logs. The forced a parameter can provide
an estimate of the PG Index which in turn is related to
the average field permeability by using Equation 8.

The porous plate data was considered free of artefacts

associated with loss of capillary contact with the
porous plate which can result in pessimistic water
saturation for a given capillary pressure. The ultracentrifuge data was considered coherent and
consistent. All centrifuge capillary pressure data were
derived by modelling the raw production data. The
model employed for the datasets utilised appeared fit
for purpose. Mercury intrusion produces a very
detailed description of the capillary properties of a
pore system, however, data derived from capillary
pressures equivalent to greater than the maximum
reservoir closure are not relevant for saturation height
modelling these were excluded from the QC
dataset.

Therefore, the PG Index allows the prediction of

reservoir mean permeability from electrical logs that
measure only porosity and water saturation.
Formation pressures and core are not required for this
gross field permeability estimate.
Picking the FWL using the FOIL Function
The FWL can be determined from logs by plotting
BVW vs. true vertical depth sub sea (TVDSS) in loglog space and solving for the parameter a and the
depth of the FWL. Only net data away from
conductive bed boundaries should be included.

The QC core data at laboratory conditions were used

to generate cross-plots of Bulk Volume of Water vs.

SPWLA 49th Annual Logging Symposium, May 25-28, 2008

The comprehensive core database also allowed the

investigation of the correlation between the FOIL b
parameter and PG. Figure 12 shows such a
correlation, where b exhibits a narrow range of
values: (-0.2 to -0.6). The FOIL b parameter was
found to have a median (P50) value equal to -0.37,
with an uncertainty range of 37%. Despite its low
correlation coefficient (R2=0.20), the regression on
the cross-plot of Figure 12 provides a means of
estimating b from the Pore Geometry (PG) index.

Capillary Pressure (BVW vs. Pc) in log-log space.

Regressions were generated for 102 core plugs,
having all Pc values expressed in pounds per square
inch (psi). Figure 9 shows one core plug for each of
the six reservoirs. Figure 10 shows the results for all
102 regressions.
The regressions provided the FOIL parameters for
each core plug: intercept a and slope b. Also,
porosity and permeability measurements on each core
plug allowed the evaluation of the PG index, as
defined in Equation 8. As a result, values of FOIL
parameters a and b were compared to values of PG
for 102 core plugs. Figures 11 and 12 show the crossplots used for such comparisons.

The functions obtained from Figures 11 and 12

provide a means of estimating the FOIL parameters
a and b from conventional (lab) core porosity and
permeability.

The cross-plot of Figure 11 shows the FOIL a

parameter to be a consistent function of the Pore
Geometry (PG) index: over a large range of a values
(0.1-1). The regression shows a high correlation
coefficient (R2=0.86) and provides a useful function
applicable to a variety of clastic reservoir rocks and
depositional environments.

In conclusion, the analysis of core data supports the

findings from logs. The strong correlation between
FOIL a and PG was confirmed to be consistent for a
variety of depositional environments. The range of
values of the FOIL b parameter was confirmed to be
narrow, with a median value of -0.37, very close to
the average value derived from logs (-0.41).

The applications of the correlations between the PG

index and the FOIL a and b parameters are
important. Figure 13 shows the results of a blind
test done to verify the method. In this example core
porosity, permeability and Pc data were available
from one well (Well X) and wireline logs plus core
porosity and permeability were available from a
second well (Well Y). Both wells encountered the
same reservoir facies: Permian Aeolian Sand.

The availability of core porosity, permeability and Pc

data allows the identification of field specific
functions: a=f(PG) and b=f(PG). These provide a
reliable link between SwH height and porositypermeability, with important applications for
saturation-height and permeability modelling. Ideally
every reservoir facies should be characterised with its
own a, b and PG parameters.
Two functions were derived from regressions on core
data from a variety of clastic fields:

The core data available from Well X were used to

predict permeability in Well Y. The method is
described here briefly and details are provided in
Appendix 1. As a first step, the core data from Well X
were used to derive the FOIL functions parameters
a and b plus the function relating a to the PG
index. As a second step, the FOIL function was used
to calculate a continuous a profile in Well Y using
the BVW profile calculated from logs.

a = 0.01 e 0.41PG

Equation 9

and

b = 0.03PG 0.17

Equation 10

These equations are applicable to a variety of North

Sea clastic reservoirs and can be used to calculate
preliminary saturation-height functions in absence of
core Pc data using just conventional core porosity and
permeability. They provide values of a and b that
are applicable to FOIL functions where BVW is
expressed as a function of capillary pressure at
standard (lab) conditions and in psi units. Conversely,
they could be used to estimate permeability if the
FOIL parameters were known and a porosity profile
was available from logs.

The continuous a profile was converted to

continuous PG and then to a continuous permeability
profile, using total porosity computed from logs.
Tracks 5 and 6 in Figure 13 show the comparison
between predicted continuous permeability (K_PG)
and core permeability (PERM_CORE) in logarithmic
and linear scales respectively. An excellent match
between the two set of data is observed over most of
the hydrocarbon column, except for the top and base
where the resistivity log is affected by polarization
effects (highly deviated well).

SPWLA 49th Annual Logging Symposium, May 25-28, 2008

be used for the computation of the forced a constant

from logs. This is believed to be more accurate than
the average b value derived from log data.

Amaefule (1988) developed a method for identifying

and characterising formation zones having similar
hydraulic characteristics. The technique is based on a
modified Kozeny-Carman relationship and the
concept of mean hydraulic radius.
Amaefule
proposed a parameter called the flow zone indicator
(FZI) which has many useful applications in
formation evaluation. FZI was calculated for each of
the core database elements and reviewed for
correlations with the FOIL function exponents.
Although correlations exist, the PG Index produced
better correlations with respect to modelling
saturation height behaviour in the transition zone, the
objective of this study.

Observations of thin sections indicate that the FOIL

function is dependent on the geometry of the pore
throats; wide non-tortuous short pore pathways with
little flow impeding mineralogy produce the best
quality FOIL shape as determined by the constant a.
The constant a is found to be predominantly
dependent on reservoir pore geometry and explains
how the water saturation is a function of connectivity
as well as porosity and height above the FWL.
Analysis confirmed that the pore geometry has a
major influence on the shape of the transition zone.

The core analysis focused on a variety of clastic

North Sea fields that exhibit a range of poroperm,
depositional environment and geological age.
Preliminary work on a North African fluvial-glacial
sands and Saudi dolomites suggest that they may also
follow the same trend especially for PG and the FOIL
a parameter.

As the FOIL a parameter represents the intercept of

the FOIL function with the y-axis in log-log space, its
dependence on scale confirms that the FWL can be
determined from this intersect when the y-axis has the
units of true vertical depth subsea (TVDSS). If b is
assumed to be relatively constant then the picking of
the FWL is more precise with only 2 unknowns.
Therefore the revised SwH function provides a robust
method for picking the FWL even in fields where it is
unclear or was not penetrated.

CONCLUSIONS
This study investigated electrical logs and core data
from fifteen North Sea clastic fields with different
porosity and permeability characteristics, depositional
environments and geological age. The overall
objective was to understand how reservoir parameters
determine the shape of the transition zone.

One method of defining the quality of a reservoir is

the value of water saturation at a known porosity and
height above FWL, where the lower the Sw the better.
The quality of reservoirs can be compared through the
comparison of FOIL a values.

The FOIL Function was found to be a simple but

robust SwH function that allows an accurate
determination of hydrocarbons initially in place.
Based on log or core data, it does not require
permeability or knowledge of Leverett J parameters at
reservoir conditions.
Comparison of the Leverett J-Function with the FOIL
Function (equation 1) showed that most of the
reservoir parameters relating to rock quality and
reservoir fluids are in the FOIL a constant.

A new Pore Geometry (PG) Index is proposed that

correlates to the FOIL a constant. This index can be
used to make predictions about the quality of pore
geometry within a reservoir and the shape of the SwH
Function. This PG Index is successful in explaining
how fields with very different porosity and
permeability can have very similar SwH functions
and why poorer quality reservoir intervals do not
necessarily have higher water saturations.

The b constant was found to be a function of pore

geometry, but to a much lesser extent than the a
constant. Observation of the reservoirs in this study
suggest that b is similar between fields and the
shape of the transition zone described by the SwH
Function is controlled almost entirely by the single
constant a. This was confirmed from core data.

The PG Index depends upon the mean pore radius

of the reservoir and is a single value for the field
provided it has been in pressure/fluid communication
over geological time. The PG Index has been shown
here to be a useful tool for predicting the shape of the
transition zone as a function of average porosity and
permeability in the reservoir.

The b constant is independent of scale and is the

same whether it is derived from core plugs, electrical
logs or on the field scale. Consequently the median
value of the b constant derived from core data can

The investigation of core data convincingly supports

the findings obtained from logs. The strong
correlation between FOIL a and the PG Index was
confirmed to be consistent for a variety of

SPWLA 49th Annual Logging Symposium, May 25-28, 2008

depositional environments. Also, the range of values

for the FOIL b parameter was found to be very close
to the range of values obtained from electrical logs.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Dean Gagnon is Geoscientist with Nexen Petroleum
UK Ltd. and holds a [Link] Integrated Petroleum
Geoscience from Aberdeen University. Before joining
Nexen he worked with a CBM Solutions Ltd. and
Tahera Corporation.

Using an average FOIL b parameter the PG Index

allows the prediction of reservoir mean permeability
from electrical logs that measure only porosity and
water saturation. Formation pressures and core are not
required for this gross permeability estimate for the
field. Conversely, this research provides a means of
estimating the FOIL shape of the transition zone from
porosity and permeability in the absence of Pc data.

Steve Cuddy is a Principal Petrophysicist with Helix

RDS and holds a Ph.D. in Petrophysics from
Aberdeen University. Before joining Helix RDS he
worked for Schlumberger and BP for 10 and 15 year
respectively.

Preliminary work on a North African fluvio-glacial

sand and a Saudi dolomite suggests that they follow
the same trend for the PG Index and the FOIL a
parameter.

Fabrizio Conti is the Petrophysics Team Leader for

Helix RDS and holds a [Link]. in Geology from Milan
University. Before joining Helix RDS he worked for
Schlumberger and ENI UK Ltd.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Craig Lindsay is Principal Core Specialist with Helix
RDS and holds a [Link]. in Geology from Liverpool
University. Before joining Helix RDS he worked for
Core Laboratories Ltd. and Gearhart Industries.

The Authors would like to thank Helix RDS for the

use of their data and resources, and also to the
University of Aberdeen, Geology Department, for
their guidance.

NOMENCLATURE AND DEFINITIONS

REFERENCES
BVW
AMABEOKU, M.O. et al., 2005. Incorporating
hydraulic units concepts in saturation-height
modelling in a gas field: 2005 SPE Asia Pacific Oil
and Gas Conference Proceeding, pp. 609.

FOIL
FWL
FZI
H
Pc
PG
Phi
Sw
SwH

AMAEFULE J.O. et al., 1993 Enhanced reservoir

description: using core and log data to identify
hydraulic (flow) units and predict permeability in
uncored intervals/wells: SPE 68th Annual technical
Conference, Houston, Texas 3-6 October 1993.
CUDDY, S., 1993. The FOIL function - a simple,
convincing model for calculating water saturations in
Southern North Sea gas fields: Transactions of the
34th Annual Logging Symposium of the Society of
Professional Well Log Analysts, H1-17, Calgary,
Canada., 1993, BP Exploration.
LEVERETT, M.C., Capillary behaviour in porous
solids: Trans AIME (1941), Vol. 142.
WORTHINGTON, P.F., LOVELL, M. and
PARKINSON, N., 2002, Application of saturationheight functions in integrated reservoir description:
AAPG Methods in Exploration Series, 13, pp. 89.

Bulk volume of water (v/v).

The product of Sw and Phi.
SwH function describing a variation of the
free oil (gas) with height
Free water level (feet).
Depth of zero capillary pressure
Flow zone indicator
Height above the FWL (feet)
Capillary pressure (psi)
Pore Geometry Index
Effective Porosity (PU)
Water saturation (SU)
Water saturation vs. height function

SPWLA 49th Annual Logging Symposium, May 25-28, 2008

TABLES

Field

Fluid
Type

Depositional
Environment

Av.
Porosity
(v/v)

Av.
Perm
(mD)

FOIL
a

FOIL b

FOIL
Forced
a

PG

Sw at
200
(v/v)

Oil

Palaeocene Turbidite

0.217

27.94

0.3110

-0.3107

0.4693

8.360

0.270

Oil

Devonian Lacustrine

0.140

7.19

0.3242

-0.3561

0.5221

7.190

0.300

Oil

Palaeocene Turbidite

0.191

21.20

0.3520

-0.3732

0.4066

7.893

0.234

Gas

Palaeocene Turbidite

0.324

2207.89

0.2897

-0.4351

0.2520

7.470

0.145

Oil

U. Jurassic Turbidite

0.214

570.04

0.2744

-0.5196

0.1835

6.329

0.106

Permian Aeolian

0.202

341.78

0.2669

-0.3956

0.2441

6.438

0.140

Gas
Gas
Conden.

L. Cret. Turbidite

0.239

847.65

0.1045

-0.4054

0.1115

6.552

0.064

Oil

M. Jurassic Deltaic

0.134

3.24

0.4309

-0.4073

0.5183

7.422

0.298

Oil

Palaeocene Turbidite

0.214

23.94

0.6686

-0.4391

0.6292

8.385

0.362

Gas

Permian Fluvial

0.086

0.17

0.4492

-0.4746

0.3223

7.268

0.185

Gas

Permian Aeolian

0.135

0.87

0.4154

-0.3526

0.5408

8.121

0.311

Table 1: UKCS fields with electrical log data analysed in this study

Zone

Av.
porosity
(v/v)

1
2

Av. Perm'
(mD)

Forced
FOIL a

FOIL b

PG

0.172

15.75

0.2350

-0.4225

7.584

0.135

0.089

0.59

0.0900

-0.3216

6.881

0.052

Table 2: Zone Parameters for Field L (Permian Aeolian Gas Sand)

Sw (v/v)

SPWLA 49th Annual Logging Symposium, May 25-28, 2008

FIGURES
Field
Legend

10000

Permeability (mD)

1000

100

10

0.1

0.35

0.30

0.25

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00

0.01

Porosity (V/V)

Figure 1: Porosity vs. Permeability for eleven fields in the Study

Figure 2: Field E Thin Section. Pores are evenly spaced throughout sample. Pore edge geometry ranges from
convex (60%) and straight (30%) to concave (10%). Quartz composes 90% of pore walls with remainder being
feldspar. Pore walls are mostly smooth (95%) and there is minor (< 5%) pore lining or pore throat bridging
mineralization visible. The sample is loosely compacted and does not show any pore occlusion due to cementation.
There is minor secondary porosity associated with degraded feldspars. The majority of pore throats (60%) are of a
similar size to the pores they connect. Pore pathways are short, non-tortuous and visibly free of flow impeding
materials. Overall connectivity is excellent.

10

SPWLA 49th Annual Logging Symposium, May 25-28, 2008

Figure 3: Field F Thin Section. Visible porosity is dominated by primary intergranular pores (13.5%) with minor
secondary dissolution pores (2.0%). Primary pores are large and well connected and there is consistent pore distribution
throughout the sample. There are very few simple geometric pore shapes (10%), most pores have complex shapes
(98%) and are joined together via short pore throats that are often only slightly smaller in diameter than the maximum
dimension of the adjoining pore. They are mostly clay free, smooth walled and free of blocky authigenic cements.
Pore lining ferroan dolomite rhombs are the only obstacles to fluid flow. Secondary pores are associated with degraded
K-feldspar and rock fragments. Secondary porosity is often isolated due to relic grain boundaries being coated by kfeldspar or clay. Trace microporosity is associated with kaolinite and illite.

Figure 4: Field K Thin Section. Most pores have complex shapes (63%) with the remainder having simple
geometric shapes (37%). Pore edge geometry ranges from convex (50%) and straight (30%) to concave (20%). Pore
walls are rough (95%) and there is abundant pore lining and pore throat bridging mineralization. The majority of pore
throats (95%) have a much smaller diameter than the adjoining pores. Pores are contained within isolated groups. Pore
groups have good internal connectivity; however connectivity between groups is via long tortuous pathways.

11

SPWLA 49th Annual Logging Symposium, May 25-28, 2008

0
0.200

0.180

0.160

0
0.140

0.120

F
0

0.100

0
0.080

0
0.040

0.060

0
0.020

0.000

Field
Legend
500
450

Height above the FWL (Feet)

400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0

Bulk Volume of Water (V/V)

Figure 5: FOIL Functions from Logs for the Study Fields (linear scales)

Height above the FWL (Feet)

500

100

10

0.2

0.01

0.1

Bulk Volume of Water (V/V)

Figure 6: FOIL Functions from Logs for the Study Fields (log scales)

12

SPWLA 49th Annual Logging Symposium, May 25-28, 2008

Field
Legend

Water Saturation (V/V) at 200' Phi = 20 p.u.

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.40

Forced 'A' Parameter

6
6

5
5

Figure 7: Relationship between Force a and Water Saturation

2

Forced 'A' Parameter

0.1

PG - Pore Geometry

Figure 8: Relationship between forced a and PG on the Field Scale

13

10

0.05

SPWLA 49th Annual Logging Symposium, May 25-28, 2008

NS Triassic Distal Delta Sand

1000.00

NS Jurassic Marine Fan Conglomerate

NS Permian Aeolian Sand
NS Jurassic Shallow Marine Sand (1)
NS Jurassic Shallow Marine Sand (2)

Capillary Pressure [psi]

100.00

NS Palaeocene Turbidite

10.00

1.00

0.10
0.010

0.100

1.000

Bulk Volume of Water [v/v]

Figure 9: BVW vs. Pc for 6 Core Plugs from 6 different N.S. clastic reservoirs

1000

Capillary Pressure [psi]

100

10

1
0.01

0.1

Bulk Volume of Water [v/v]

Figure 10: BVW vs. Pc for 102 Core Plugs from 6 different N.S. clastic reservoirs

14

SPWLA 49th Annual Logging Symposium, May 25-28, 2008

10.00

y = 0.01e0.41x
R 2 = 0.86

FOIL a

1.00

ALL
NS T riassic Distal Fluvial Delta Sand
NS Jurassic M arine Fan Conglomerate
NS Permian Aeolian Sand
NS Jurassic Shallow M arine Sand (1)
NS Jurassic Shallow M arine Sand (2)
NS Palaeocene T urbidite
Expon. (ALL)

0.10

0.01
4

10

12

14

16

18

20

Pore Geometry Index

Figure 11: Foil a vs. PG for 102 core plugs from 6 N.S. clastic reservoirs
0.0
-0.2
-0.4

y = -0.03x - 0.17
R 2 = 0.20

-0.6

FOIL b

-0.8
-1.0
-1.2
ALL
NS T riassic Distal Fluvial Delta Sand
NS Jurassic M arine Fan Conglomerate
NS Permian Aeolian Sand
NS Jurassic Shallow M arine Sand (1)
NS Jurassic Shallow M arine Sand (2)
NS Palaeocene T urbidite
Linear (ALL)

-1.4
-1.6
-1.8
-2.0
4

10

12

14

16

18

20

Pore Geom etry Index

Figure 12: Foil b vs. PG for 102 core plugs from 6 N.S. clastic reservoirs

15

SPWLA 49th Annual Logging Symposium, May 25-28, 2008

Figure 13: Permeability prediction in Well Y using Pc data from offset Well X

APPENDIX 1
Details of Permeability prediction in Well Y using Pc data from offset Well X (Figure 13)
Step 1

Core porosity, permeability and Pc from well X were used to derive the functions:
BVW=0.135*(Pclab)^(-0.275)
the FOIL Function with Pclab in [psi]
and
a=0.01*e^(0.41*PG)
the relationship between a and PG.
The FOIL Function was used to calculate the Sw profile named SWE_PC_OFF in well Y, to be
compared to the Sw profile from the Archie equation (SWE):
SWE_PC_OFF=[0.135*(H*0.42*72/50)^(-0.275)]/PHIE
Where: H = height above FWL [ft], 0.42 = differential fluid gradient [psi/ft], 72/50 = conversion
factor from gas/brine at reservoir conditions to air/brine at lab conditions and PHIE = continuous
effective porosity calculated from logs in well Y.

Step 2

The FOIL Function was used to solve a continuous a profile (not displayed in Fig. 13) in well Y
using BVW calculated from logs (BVW=SWE*PHIE) as input:
a=BVW*(H*0.42*72/50)^0.275

Step 3

Function a=f(PG) from step 1 was re-arranged to solve PG (not displayed in Fig. 13) in well Y:
PG=ln(a/0.01)/0.41.

Step 4

Equation 8 was used to solve for continuous permeability using the continuous PG (from Step 3)
and total porosity calculated from logs (curve PHIT) as input: K_PG=10^(PG*log10(PHIT)+7).

16