SPWLA 44 th Annual Logging Symposium, June 22-25, 2003

M E T H O D S OF S A T U R A T I O N M O D E L I N G
USING C A P I L L A R Y PRESSURE A V E R A G I N G AND PSEUDOS
Nick A. Wiltgen, Jo~l Le Calvez, and Keith Owen
Schhmaberger
ABSTRACT
To generate an accurate integrated formation
evaluation, it is necessary to know, for as many
locations as possible, the original reservoir fluid
saturation value. This highly variable parameter can be
best determined when well log data are adequately
combined with core analysis data. From the core
analysis, the key parameter capillary pressure, which
relates directly to the water saturation, can be extracted.
From the well logs, the reservoir scale of both vertical
and lateral variations in reservoir rock properties can be
determined.

There is never enough hard reservoir data to rely upon;

thus, there is always a need to extrapolate the reservoir
rock properties obtained from a few well logs and core
analysis data points to the entire reservoir. These data
can then be used to initialize the original fluid saturation
distribution in a reservoir model simulation.
This paper is a review of several capillary pressure
models using averaging and pseudos that are intended
to model the original reservoir fluid saturations within
the entire reservoir on the basis of a few data points.
The models are Leverette 'J' function, lambda functions
for saturation modeling, FOIL functions (Bulk Volume
Water vs. Free-Water Level), Johnson method "pseudopermeability", pseudo-porosity method (capillary
porosity), Guthrie polynomial method, Thomeer and
Swanson method, Heseldin method and its derivatives,
and Skelt and Harrison method. Only the Thomeer and
Swanson method can generate synthetic capillary
pressure curves for reservoir description when no actual
capillary pressure data are available. If porosity, logderived water saturation, and permeability are known,
porosity can be used as total interconnected pore
volume with an estimated pore geometrical factor to
solve for displacement pressure to predict the down-dip
water level.
A review of these methods leads to the conclusion that
none is intrinsically better than another if all the rock
types are the same. However most reservoirs have more
than one rock type, and these variations are best

handled by building a robust, non-linear formulation

and optimization method, designed so that each term in
the function can be related directly to a physical
parameter. Therefore if the following are available m
high-pressure mercury injection (HPMI) capillary data,
well logs and their associated water level, and a good
knowledge of the rock quality--then the Skelt and
Harrison method in relation to the pseudo-porosity
method can be used with confidence.
INTRODUCTION
There are essentially three methods available to the
engineer to determine connate or interstitial water
saturations. These methods are to core formations with
oil-base or tracer bearing fluids, to calculate values
from petrophysical log analysis, and to determine values
from capillary pressure data.

A correlation between water saturation and air

permeability for cores obtained with oil-base mud
shows a general trend of increasing water saturation
with decreasing permeability. It is accepted from field
and experimental evidence that the water content
determined from cores cut with oil-base mud reflects
closely the water saturation that exists in a reservoir.
However, in the transition zones where some of the
interstitial water is replaced by filtrate or displaced by
gas expansion conditions this is not true (Leverett,
1941; Amyx et al., 1960). Even though there is no
general correlation applicable to all fields, an
approximately linear correlation between connate water
saturation and the logarithm of permeability exists for
each field. The general trend of the correlation is
usually decreasing connate water with increasing
permeability.
If capillary pressure data are to be used for determining
fluid saturations, the saturation values obtained from
core should be similar to those calculated with other
methods.
Water
distributions
determined
from
petrophysical logs and capillary pressure data are usually
in good agreement with one another. In a gas/oil/water
zone case where the gas-bearing portion of the formation
is above the transition zone, there is no significant
variation in water saturation with depth. However, in the

I/7

S P W L A 44 th Annual Logging Symposium, June 22-25, 2003

oil-bearing portion of the rock there is significant

variation in the water saturation with depth depending on
the method used. In all cases, the oil segment is almost
entirely in the oil/water transition zone. Variations in
water saturation with depth within that zone must be
taken into account to accurately determine average
reservoir connate or interstitial water saturations.
L E V E R E T T E ' J ' FUNCTION
The 'J' function correlating term uses the physical
reservoir properties of the rock and fluid and is
expressed as in Figure 1. Nomenclature is as follows:
P c is the capillary pressure in dynes/cm 2, ~ is the
interracial tension in dynes/cm, k is the permeability in
cm 2, and ~bis the fractional porosity. Some authors alter
the expression by including cos 0, where 0 is the contact
angle as in Figure 1.
The 'J' function was originally proposed as a means of
converting all capillary pressure data into a universal
curve, which it is not. There are significant differences
in correlation of the 'J' function with water saturation
from formation to formation, so no universal curve can
be obtained (Leverett, 1941).
This method will work with only one rock type;
otherwise there must be a 'J' function for each rock
type. Therefore using only one 'J' function will not
provide an accurate initialization of the original fluid
saturation distribution in a reservoir model simulation.
L A M B D A FUNCTIONS

In the 'J' function, a relationship between permeability

and porosity is needed along with knowledge of the
areal variations of these parameters. Other functions
used for saturation call for only the porosity with a
simple hyperbolic fit to saturation. The quality of the
rock is divided into effective porosity classes. The
porosity classes address the areal variation in rock
quality.
The resulting equations are
2 =

ea+b*ln(e/lO0)

Sw = (Pc/Pe) -~ = ( S w - S w i ) / O - Swi)
which can also be written as

Sw = [(FWL - rVD)/(FWL - Drh)l-Z (100 - Swi)+ Swi,

(4)

where
Pe

entry pressure
capillary pressure
total water saturation
irreducible water saturation
free-water level
true vertical depth of the calculation
depth where P c equals P e .

Pc
Sw

=
=

Swi
FWL
TVD
DTh

=
=
=
=

This method involving effective porosity classes works

for one Swi only. Since a single Swi does not
characterize a reservoir, this method can not provide an
accurate initialization of the original fluid saturation
distribution in a reservoir model simulation.
FOIL FUNCTIONS (B VW vs. Z F W D
A simple convincing function was developed that
calculates water saturation as a function of the height
above the free-water-level zone. This function, which is
virtually independent of the porosity and permeability
of the rock, is based on the bulk volume of water (the
product of porosity and water saturation). The
derivation is simpler than with classical functions
because there is no porosity banding. It uses the
Leverett 'J' function and the bulk volume of water
equation (B VI~:

(6)

B VW = Sw()

act cos 0

Sw p - g(pw_pg)hF~

4/K

(7)

yielding to
(1)

BVW=
D T h = F W L - e (C+e)/d,

(3)

aer cos 0
g(pw_pg)hFwL4qk/K,

(2)

where a, b, c, and d are fitting functions and t~e the

effective porosity in percent. The lambda fimction is )~.
Therefore, the effective water saturation is

where
ot and [3=
0

(y

--

constants from the 'J' function

contact angle (deg)
interracial tension (dyne/cm)
permeability (cm 2)

(8)

S P W L A 44 th Annual Logging Symposium, June 22-25, 2003

g
=
acceleration of gravity (m/s 2)
9w
=
density of the water phase (g/cm 3)
9g
=
density of the gas phase (g/cm 3)
hyrvL =
height above free-water level (ft).
This equation suggests that the bulk volume of water at
a certain height above the free-water level is virtually
independent of rock properties such as porosity and
permeability. This implies that a saturation height (Swh)
function based on the bulk volume of water avoids the
problems associated with porosity banding and variance
of the gas/water contact (GWC) from FWL. This type of
Swh function has been called the "FOIL" fimction
(Cuddy et al., 1993)"
BVW = I - A x H B,

It is difficult to relate the various parameters A, B, a,

and b because of not knowing the exact effect of each.
This averaged "pseudo-permeability" capillary analysis
technique (Figure 2) shows itself to be a fairly simple
yet robust method of incorporating capillary data into
various aspects of log analysis and field study work. It
does not rely on any profound theoretical basis but is
merely a practical technique, which has evolved in
response to a number of operational requirements
(Johnson, 1987). It does require permeability mapping.
If the relationship between water saturation and
permeability is not linear, then this method cannot be
used.

(9)

where
A and B =constants
B VW
=Sw x d~(FOIL)
=height above the free-water level.
H
This method relies upon the observation that bulk
volume water (Swxqb) is constant regardless of the
porosity at any elevation in the trap in question. This is
not always true. It fails to honor the uniqueness of FWL,
estimating it within +30 ft, and like the other models
fails to recognize different rock types.

PSEUDO-POROSITY (CAPILLARY POROSITY)

The pseudo-porosity method mathematically relates
water saturations derived from standard laboratory
capillary measurements to porosity and capillary
pressure. This is similar to the Johnson "pseudopermeability" technique, in which permeability is used
instead of porosity for the mathematical relation in the
form
log Sw = A x Ht B + C log ~b,

(13)

where A, B, and C are constants and Ht is mid-zone

height above the water contact.

JOHNSON "PSEUDO-PERMEABILITY"

This method mathematically relates water saturations

derived
from
standard
laboratory
capillary
measurements to permeability and capillary pressure.
The relationship between water saturation and
permeability on a log/log plot is reasonably linear and
can be described by an equation of the form

Ht and Sw are derived from a specific capillary pressure

data curve. The well log-derived zonal average water
saturation and mid-zone height above the field
hydrocarbon water contact are used to determine the
capillary porosity (dPcAP)from

log ~bcAe = (A/C)x Ht B +(1/C)logSwAv G . (14)

where
A
=slope of the capillary pressure data set
B
=relationship between the intercept B" and Pc.

Now one is able to map ~CAPand determine the average

water saturation (SwArt) at each grid node from $cA?
and mid-zone height by using the Equation (14) and
apply this to the mapped porosity to calculate the
hydrocarbon pore volume (HCPV).

A bi-logarithmic plot function of B" versus Pc of the

entire capillary pressure data set generates an equation
in the form

If the mathematical relationship between water

saturation and porosity cannot be shown to be valid then
this method cannot be used.

log Sw - A x log K + B,

B ' = a x P c -b,

(10)

(11)

which results in the f'mal relationship

log(Swn )= A x log K + (ax Pc -b )

(12)

GUTHRIE POLYNOMIAL
Another way of evaluating capillary pressure data is to
analyze a number of representative samples and treat
them statistically to derive correlations. These added to
the porosity and permeability distribution data can be

117

SPWLA 44 th Annual Logging Symposium, June 22-25, 2003

used to compute the connate-water saturations for a

field.
A first approximation for the correlation of capillary
pressure data is to plot water saturation against the
logarithm of permeability for constant values of
capillary pressure. An approximately linear relationship
usually results. A straight line can be fitted to the data
for each value of capillary pressure, and average
capillary pressure curves are computed from the
permeability distribution data for the field. The
resulting straight line takes the general form
Sw = a log K + C,

Sb/Sb~ =e

-Fg /log(Pc/Pd )

(17)

If it is assumed that Sb is porosity and Sb is the

product of porosity and hydrocarbon saturation. Then
the equation can be written
log Pc = -Fg ~In 0 - Sw)+ log Pal.

(18)

Swanson (1981) demonstrated that the coordinates from

a special point A on the capillary pressure curve could
be related to air permeability. This relationship is the
following:

(15)
PcA

where a and C are constants determined from the

sample data (Guthrie and Greenburger, 1955).
There are indications, however, that water saturation at
constant capillary pressure is not only a function of
permeability but also some function of porosity as
suggested by
Sw= al~+ a 2 logK +C,

(16)

It should be noted that the sample data are based on

plug data, not averaged water saturation and porosity
data (Amyx et al., 1960).
If the mathematical relationship, from Equation (16)
between water saturation, permeability, and porosity,
cannot be shown to be valid then this method cannot be
used.
THOMEER AND SWANSON

The Thomeer and Swanson method, in principle, can

predict water levels from a combination of capillary
pressure data and porosity, water saturation, and
permeability. In the model, regression analysis is used
to find the water level that best honors all available log
and core data in a reservoir (Figure 4 shows a graphical
representation for this technique).
In 1960, Thomeer proposed that mercury capillary
pressure data could be described with hyperbolic curves
employing the three parameters as follows (Figure 5):

(19)

Thomeer (1983) reported the following empirical

relationship for which a graphical representation of the
equation is shown in Figure 6:
ka = 3.8068Fg -13334 (Sb~ /Pd) 2 ,

(20)

where
Fg

where al, a2, and C are constants determined from the

sample data. The method of least squares can be used to
determine the constants of the best fitting lines. The
effect of ignoring the porosity is the prediction of lower
water saturations for low-permeability materials. The
polynomial form is shown in Figure 3.

k~
Pc
Pd
Sb

=
=
=

Shoo -"

pore geometrical factor (dimensionless)

Fg is also called G in some texts
air permeability (md)
mercury capillary pressure (psi)
mercury displacement pressure (psi)
bulk volume occupied by mercury (%)
bulk volume occupied by mercury at inf'mite
pressure (%).

The missing link was a practical means of determining

Pc and Sw at point A, which are called PCA and SwA,
respectively. In 1992, Pittman provided the link by
demonstrating a relation between the pore-throat radius
at point A and air permeability in sandstones as follows:
log rapex

0.226 + 0.466 log ka,

(21)

where rapexis the pore throat radius at point A (gm).

The technique was fully described by Smith (1992).
Also Hawkins et al. (1993) made many improvements
with the use of regression theory. This further algebraic
manipulation resulted in the following:
Fg = Iln(5.21 ka'1254)]2~.03~

(22)

Pd = 937.8/(ka'346 )qk

(23)

SPWLA 44 th Annual Logging Symposium, June 22-25, 2003

h=

Pc
(O'r c O S O r ) ( 2 4 )
0.433(Pw --ph) O'l cosO l '

where
h
= height above the flee-water level (ft)
0r
= contact angle between the water and reservoir
rock (0 )
0t
= contact angle between mercury and the rock in
the laboratory ( 140 )
cyr = interfacial tension between the fluids in the
reservoir (dynes/cm)
ct
= interfacial tension for mercury in the
laboratory (480 dynes/cm)
9w = formation water density (g/mL)
9h = formation hydrocarbon density (g/mL).
The bulk volume Sb/Sboo or Pc,~ and SWA determination
does not have a unique solution (see Figure 5).
At each depth level, there are four observed variables:
depth or Pc, porosity, water saturation, and air
permeability. Although some or all of the last three
values may be calculated from logs rather than
measured on cores, the interpretation from log-derived
porosities, permeabilities, and water saturations should
be in good agreement with the core values.
If any three of the four basic quantities (porosity,
permeability, water saturation, and capillary pressure)
are known, then the fourth can be calculated. If the
water level is known and porosity and permeability are
available, then a water saturation profile can be derived.
Another application is the calculation of permeability
values when the water level, porosity, and water
saturation values are known with confidence.
Haynes (1995) made the following conclusions in an
evaluation of the method:

The capillary pressure model requires

permeability, porosity, and water saturation to
predict FWL.
The capillary pressure model can reliably
predict FWL in a reservoir if the sand is in a
transition zone.
The capillary pressure model can reasonably
predict permeabilities if porosities, saturations,
and FWL are known with confidence.
The capillary pressure model can be used as a
check of log-derived water saturation values

when porosity, permeability, and FWL

known.
The model can be used to check
consistency of capillary pressure data at
displacement pressure and the shape of
curve in the high-pressure region.

are
the
the
the

Not knowing how to map Fg, Pd, and Sboo, it is difficult

to apply this method to populate the original reservoir
fluid saturations cell by cell
HESELDIN METHOD AND ITS DERIVATIVES
The Heseldin method, linking the Pc/Sw relationship to

other reservoir rock properties, plots porosity vs. bulk

volume hydrocarbon (BVH) at a constant value of Pc.
Water saturation is implied in BVH through the relation

Vbh = 0 - Sw),

(25)

where Vbh = BVH or bulk volume hydrocarbon (Figure

7) (Heseldin, 1974).
This method is essentially a modification of the
Aufricht and Koept (1957) method, which presents a
mathematical procedure to derive a single capillary
pressure relationship from which a saturation can be
calculated for a given rock type at the appropriate subsea depth.
The rock type can be expressed as a continuously
varying parameter such as porosity or permeability. The
relationship can also be used as a basis for generating
one or more representative capillary pressure curves for
reservoir simulation.
Capillary pressure data from a number of cores are
usually correlated or smoothed by plotting Sw vs. either
porosity or permeability at constant Pc. There are three
advantages in plotting (at constant Pc) BVH vs.
porosity to establish a correlation. First, this emphasizes
in-place hydrocarbon volume, which is the primary
economic feature of interest. Second, by plotting BVH
rather than the fractional pore volume (PV) of
hydrocarbon (1 - Sw), the effect of possible erratic Sw
values at low porosities is minimized. Third, by relating
Pc data to porosity rather than permeability, results can
easily be applied to well logs (Alger et al., 1989).
If the mathematical relation relationship between water
saturation or Pc and porosity cannot be shown to be
valid then this method cannot be used.

SPWLA 44 th Annual Logging Symposium, June 22-25, 2003

SKELT AND HARRISON

This method can map hydrocarbon saturation, Sh, and
determine the Sw average at each grid node depending
on the rock type and height above the free-water level, h
and can be designed so that each term in the function
can be related directly to a physical parameters.

Skelt's original method proposed using capillary

pressure data to characterize the shape of the transition
zone and then modified the coefficients to fit log data.
In effect this is calibrating the Pc height transform while
simultaneously finding the oil/water contact less the
free-water level ( O W C - FWL offset).
This is done by using the following equation to
determine the constants a, b, and c. The equation
determines a single or layer-specific capillary pressure
height (Pc(Hr)) vs. Sw curve from core capillary
pressure data only in the form
Sh = 1 - Sw - a x exp(- b/(h + d)) c .

a is the asymptotic hydrocarbon saturation,

1 - Sw(irr).

The Skelt and Harrison method then uses well logs to

derive the zonal average Sw data and mid-zone height
(above each well's apparent Hr water contact) and
"PhiCap" (~c,4P) (see Figures 9 and 10). This simple
function of rock quality from porosity, called PhiCap, is
determined from trial and error in an Excel macro
solver. The macro solver changes PhiCap until Sw
matches the original log Sw average as close as 10-7.

(26)

The value of Pc is determined with an equivalent

expression that replaces h with Pc. Depending on the
context, a, b, c, and d are constants, or alternatively
they may be simple functions of rock properties such as
permeability or porosity. The effect on the function of
altering each coefficient is as follows (Figure 8) (Skelt
and Harrison, 1995):

peppered with outliers. Trying least-squares

minimization has shown that the best approach
seems to be fitting by minimizing absolute
differences, which, although mathematically
more difficult, is less affected by the nonGaussian distribution of a typical data set.
Weighting should be or should not be used
depending on the purpose of the fit. The
requirements for field-wide saturation mapping
maybe different from those of localizing the
hydrocarbon water contact.

b is a vertical scaling factor for the curve as a

whole, which may be used to transform data
between the laboratory pressure and height
domains.
c distorts the vertical axis to account for the
saturations not following the simple form
[a x exp(-b/h)]. Both b and c are related to the
pore-throat size distribution.
d applies a vertical displacement to the entire
curve, and can be used to locate the free water
level.

Two important considerations in the process of fitting

data to a generic algorithm need to be addressed (Skelt
and Harrison, 1995).
Although least-squares error minimization is
popular, it is not necessarily the best method to
use with data that are skewed and typically

Since we are trying to determine Sw average at each

grid node, we need to map PhiCap, which at this step is
renamed the rock quality index (RQI) to avoid
confusion with log porosity, and determine Sw at each
grid node from RQI and the mid-zone height by using
the preceding equations. This pseudo-porosity method
allows for characterization of the relationship between
RQI and Sw. The example graphs for poor rock (5% to
15% porosity) and good rock (9% to 20% porosity) in
Figures 9 and 10, respectively, illustrate this
relationship using simple functions of rock properties
such as porosity and capillary pressure data from
HPMI.
CONCLUSIONS
Three of these methods are similar, using mathematical
fimctions of data sets to statistically derive correlations.

Leverette 'J' function

Lambda functions

FOIL functions
Four other methods use porosity, permeability, or both
to relate the various saturations, permeabilities, and
pressures to one another.

Johnson method "pseudo-permeability"

Pseudo-porosity method (capillary porosity)

Guthrie polynomial method

Heseldin method and its derivatives

These methods will work for only one rock type at a
time and will not work at all if there is no relation

SPWLA 44 th Annual Logging Symposium, June 22-25, 2003

between porosity, saturations, permeabilities, and

pressures to one another. Only the Thomeer and
Swanson method can reliably predict FWL in a reservoir
if the sand is in a transition zone. It cannot be used in a
reservoir model simulation because of mapping
problems with Fg, Pd, and Shoo. Therefore using only
one method will not provide an accurate initialization of
the original fluid saturation distribution in a reservoir
model simulation.
The Skelt and Harrison method that models the shape of
the hyperbolic curve, can handle reservoirs with more
than one rock type. These variations are best handled by
building a non-linear formulation and optimization
method, designed so that each term in the function can
be related directly to a physical parameter. If the
following are available--high-pressure mercury
injection (HPMI) capillary data, well logs and their
associated water level, and a good knowledge of the
rock quality--then the Skelt and Harrison method in
relation to the pseudo-porosity method for PhiCap can
be used with confidence as seen in Figures 9 and 10.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Nick A. Wiltgen received his BS degree in electrical

engineering from Purdue University. He has worked for
Schlumberger Well Services, Shell Oil Company,
Amerada Hess, Sun/Oryx, ResTech, and Qatar General
Petroleum Company. He is now with Schlumberger,
College Station, Texas.
Jo~l Le Calvez received his BS degree in mathematics
and physics from the Universit6 de Nice-Sophia
Antipolis and MS in tectonophysics fi'om the Universit6
Pierre et Marie Curie. He received his PhD in geology
from the University of Texas at Austin, where he also
worked for the Applied Geodynamics Laboratory at the
Bureau of Economic Geology. He is now with
Schlumberger, College Station, Texas.
Keith Owen received his BS degree in petroleum
engineering from Texas A&M University. He has seven
years' experience in the industry with Schlumberger,
including prior field assignments in the Rocky
Mountains, San Joaquin Basin of California, and Gulf
of Mexico. He is now with Schlumberger, College
Station, Texas.
REFERENCES CITED

Alger, R.P., Luffel, D i . , and Truman, R.B., 1989, New

unified method of integrating core capillary pressure

data with well logs: SPE Formation Evaluation, pp.

145-152.
Amyx, J.W., Bass, D.M., and Whiting, R.L., 1960,
Petroleum Reservoir Engineering: McGraw-Hill Book
Company, pp. 155-159, 542-544.
Aufricht, W.R., and Koept, E.H., 1957, Interpretation of
capillary pressure data from carbonate Reservoirs"
Trans. AIME, pp. 402-405.
Cuddy, S., Allinson, G., and Steele, R., 1993, A simple
convincing model for calculating water saturations in
southern North Sea gas fields: SPWLA 34 th Annual
Logging Symposium, paper H.
Guthrie, R.K., and Greenburger, M.H., 1955, The use
of multiple correlation analyses for interpreting
petroleum engineering data: presented at the Spring
Meeting of the S.W. District Division of Production,
New Orleans, LA.
Hawkins, J., Luffel, D., and Harris, T., 1993, Capillary
pressure model predicts distance to gas/water, oil/water
contact: Oil & Gas Journal, pp. 39-43.
Haynes, B., 1995, An evaluation of a method to predict
unknown water levels in reservoirs and quantifying the
uncertainty: SPE Production Operations Symposium,
Oklahoma City, OK, pp. 225--~232.
Heseldin, G.M., 1974, A method of averaging capillary
pressure curves" SPWLA 15th Annual Logging
Symposium, paper I.
Johnson, A., 1987, Permeability averaged capillary
data: a supplement to log analysis in field studies:
SPWLA 28 th Annual Logging Symposium, paper EE.
Leverett, M.C., 1941, Capillary behavior in porous
solids: Trans. AIME, 142, pp. 151-169.
Pittman, E.D., 1992, Relationship of porosity and
permeability to various parameters derived from
mercury injection capillary pressure curves for
sandstone: AAPG Bulletin, 76, No. 2.
Skelt, C., and Harrison, B., 1995, An integrated
approach to saturation height analysis: SPWLA 36 th
Annual Logging Symposium, paper NNN.
Smith, D., 1992, How to predict down-dip water level:
World Oil, pp. 85-88.
Swanson, B., 1981, A simple correlation between
permeabilities and mercury capillary pressures: Journal
of Petroleum Technology, pp. 2498-2504.
Thomeer, J.H.M., 1960, Introduction of a pore
geometrical factor defined by the capillary pressure
curve:, Petroleum Transactions, AIME, 219, pp. 354358.
Thomeer, J.H.M., 1983, Air permeability as a function
of three pore network parameters: Journal of Petroleum
Technology, pp. 809-814.

SPWLA 44 th Annual Logging Symposium, June 22-25, 2003

J (sw)

instantaneousSw

~ot ff~ in

I
I
I

log k
,-|

(sw)

,....

,,.....,..,

,.,.

loo

Sw

At depth n --~ fixed ...Pc n

J,Sw, ~ocosO
~ I~)

S w n = al~b + a 2 2 + a 3 l o g ( K ) + a 4 ( l o g ( K ) ) 2 + c

Figure 3 - Guthrie p o l y n o m i a l

Figure 1 - L e v e r e t t 'J' function

~ Vbp~

100

\\
.,I

'

logPc

10

........................
4

~
IOgSNw

Pfl

ka = 3.8068 * Fg-l'3334(Sboo / pd)2"O

10

100

Log S w

At depth n ~ Pc n

[I 'a12'4112

Fg = In 5.21

/2.303

Log (Swn) = aPc -b + ALog (K )

Pd = 937.8

Figure 2 - J o h n s o n " p s e u d o - p e r m e a b i l i t y "

/ (ka0"3406)

Figure 4 - T h o m e e r and S w a n s o n m e t h o d

S P W L A 44 th A n n u a l L o g g i n g S y m p o s i u m , June 22-25, 2003

_
~;b- (%)...~25.6

1000.

'18.0

12.7

3.0

.,,..

~ Pcincreases/" /

(or togk)

'i

!/r

:--4-_____

(~ * O - sw})

': .... ' .......

=~.0
i or.--=
1

o.1
o.1
o=

o~a~

==.,

=,~_':L~

sb
At A':(--)K"
1.84,
0.2O0
9.2
pc

.a

.I,,~

B VH = Vbh = ~ (1- Sw)

ALL e~mtem: rowe,,)A. o J m

2-!

k=~.l~.~,~
|

'~o" ~

DETERMINATION AND NON-.-UI~ IOUENESS OF THE (Sb/P) /

' =

'

,~

'

=~

. . . . .

PARAMETER

'

Figure 5 - Thomeer and Swanson methods

Figure 7 - Heseldin method and its derivatives

E f f e c t o f A l t e r i n g "a'

E f f e c t o f A l t e r i n g 'b"
1

!i

FunctionofG,PdandSb
-...2-' _ _ [ . . ~

_m

~.-

Increasing

i i

"f + ....... ,o~'u'~

2
~'~,'~.~

\,

~,

Hydrocarbon Saturation

Effect of Altering 'c'

ii ~ ',

0.3

ii

O.4

E f f e c t o f Alterinjg "d'

0.8

O6
O'7

0.9
1 . o -- ~- ./, -

,o.o

,.o

~.

, , ~

Figure 6 - Thomeer and Swanson methods

Figure 8 - Skelt and Harrison method

S P W L A 44 th A n n u a l Logging Symposium, J u n e 22-25, 2003

Poor

Rock

(5- 15%

Porosity)

450
400

[]

350

5%

"~ - 6%
7%

~
- 300

-~ - 8%

=~ 250
.'

9%
10%
11%

200

~. 150

+--

12%
13% /
D - - 14% /

100
50

15%

0
0

0.1

0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

S w (dec)

Figure 9 - Example of poor rock characterized from capillary pressure data from HPMI by
Sw = 1- (aexp-(b(400-0.3PhiCapZ)/(Pc-0.3PhiCap2))^c)*(1-(0.0
lPhiCapa5))

Good

Rock

(9-

20% Porosity)

450
[]

400
350

-'-

300

x--12%
=
13%

250

11%

-----14%
=
15%
--o--16%

200
"

9%

~- - 10%

150

+-=

100
--

0.1

0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

17%
18%
19%

~,- - 20%

Sw (dec)

Figure 10 - Example of good rock characterized from capillary pressure data from HPMI by
Sw = 1- (aexp-(b(400-0.05PhiCap2)/(Pc-0.05PhiCap^-2))^c)(1-(0.0
lPhiCapls))

10