Influence of Property Modeling Practices

on Estimated Hydrocarbon Pore Volume

Vivian K. Bust*, SPE, and Paul F. Worthington**, SPE, Gaffney, Cline & Associates

Summary
The emergence in geoscience of 3D geocellular modeling has raised
questions about the correspondence of hydrocarbon volumetric
deliverables with those derived from 2D zonal modeling. These differences of approach are compounded because the contemporary
3D methods use net-reservoir volumetric algorithms whereas the
more established 2D methods have traditionally used net-pay volumetric algorithms. Both methods are initialized using 1D alongwellbore datasets. Key parameters for comparison are initial hydrocarbon pore volume (IHPV) for 2D and 3D modeling and equivalent
hydrocarbon column (EHC) for 1D along-wellbore modeling.
The focus is twofold. The first objective has been to generate a
functional petrophysical model as a basis for volumetric comparisons. The reservoir notionally comprises an oil accumulation
within a water-wet, lithologically-clean sandstone that is partially
saturated with high-salinity brine. The sandstone comprises five
rock types (RTs), each of which has a defined set of interpretive
algorithms. The second objective has been to compare static volumetric estimates of EHC and/or IHPV for a range of case models.
This objective was approached using three workflows. Initially, 1D
along-wellbore screening studies used different case models representing various stratigraphic sequences. These allowed a preliminary assessment of results arising from the use of net-reservoir and
net-pay volumetric algorithms without the influence of mapping
practices. The findings were corroborated by field studies. Second,
2D zonal modeling led to values of IHPV based on both net-reservoir and net-pay algorithmic protocols. Third, 3D geocellular modeling also led to values of IHPV based on both protocols. These
data allowed equitable comparisons of 2D zonal deliverables with
those from 3D geocellular models because a consistent inter-well
interpolation methodology was used for all 2D and 3D cases.
The analysis incorporated the influence of stratigraphic
sequences of the five RTs with their different petrophysical characteristics. Comparisons of 2D and 3D models showed that IHPV
values delivered by established 2D zonal models with net-pay
algorithmic protocols are mostly lower than those values delivered by contemporary 3D geocellular models with net-reservoir
protocols by approximately 4% on average, but the differences
are highly variable. These outcomes, which have implications for
reserves estimation, are strongly governed by the stratigraphic
distribution of the RTs. They re-emphasize that each case must be
investigated separately and thoroughly.
Introduction
The past 15 years have seen a migration from 2D to 3D subsurface modeling in the geoscience domain, with the objective of
determining the IHPV of a reservoir at in situ conditions. The
mapping of zonal properties in 2D has given way to geocellular
property modeling in 3D. Computation of IHPV in 2D has used
zonal volumes traditionally, whereas computation of IHPV in 3D
is based on a summation of grid-cell volumes. Both of these methods use a static volumetric equation.
*Present affiliation: Shell International Exploration & Production
**Present affiliation: Park Royd P&P (England) Limited
C 2014 Society of Petroleum Engineers
Copyright V

This paper (SPE 155868) was accepted for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, USA, 810 October 2012, and revised for
publication. Original manuscript received for review 14 December 2012. Revised manuscript
received for review 20 August 2013. Paper peer approved 7 October 2013.

For 2D zonal modeling, the volumetric equation is

IHPV EHC  A GRV  N=G  /  Sh ; . . . . . . . 1
where, for a given geological zone at reservoir conditions, EHC
N  /  Sh , m; A is the drainage area, m2; GRV is the gross rock
volume, m3; N is the net thickness, m; N/G is the net-to-gross
fraction; / is the average fractional porosity over net interval(s);
Sh is the average porosity-weighted hydrocarbon saturation over
net interval(s); and N/G and net interval(s) can be either net pay
or net reservoir, according to the adopted protocol.
For 3D geocellular modeling, the volumetric equation is
X
IHPV
GRVi  N=Gi  /i  Shi ; . . . . . . . . . . . 2
where, for the ith grid cell at reservoir conditions, GRVi is the
gross rock volume, m3; N/Gi is the net-to-gross fraction; /i is the
average fractional porosity over net interval(s); Shi is the computed hydrocarbon saturation over net interval(s); and N/Gi and
net interval(s) can be either net pay or net reservoir, according to
the adopted protocol.
Eqs. 1 and 2 have been used to investigate the impact of geoscience modeling practices on the resulting computed hydrocarbon volumes. This has been undertaken using net-pay and netreservoir algorithmic protocols in conjunction with 2D zonal and
3D geocellular modeling approaches, with these methods being
initialized through along-wellbore (1D) computations.
A key question is whether the emergence of 3D geocellular
modeling has shifted the base level of reported hydrocarbon volumes in the subsurface. Although this paper is primarily concerned with the implications of a paradigm shift in geomodeling
practices, the established 2D method is still used extensively, specifically at early stages in the life of a field, when there are insufficient data to build a geocellular model, and later at the point of
reserves audits, when volumetric cross-checks are required. These
applications give this paper a greater relevance, because it sets out
to compare hydrocarbon volumetric deliverables from practices
that remain current, albeit to different degrees.
Construction of the Petrophysical Model
The input well-log data were based on a functional petrophysical
model, which can be described by several measureable parameters
that show definable interrelationships for each constituent RT.
The petrophysical model has been designed to minimize risks of
any computational artifacts that might cause the objectives of the
exercise to be compromised.
Basic Data. The reservoir comprises an oil accumulation within
a water-wet, lithologically-clean sandstone that is horizontally
isotropic, partially saturated with high-salinity brine, and satisfies
Archies law in its default form (porosity and saturation
exponents 2) (Archie 1942). Residual hydrocarbon saturation is
assumed to be zero. The sandstone comprises five RTs (A through
E), all of which honor the same relationship between core total
porosity / and permeability k, where both parameters are at effective reservoir stress and k is effective permeability to oil at irreducible water saturation Swirr. Each RT has different nominal
reservoir properties (Table 1). Permeability and irreducible water
saturation are allowed to vary in a manner that corresponds to the
ranges of porosity specified in the rightmost column of Table 1.
The correspondence is governed by hydraulic character.
February 2014 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

TABLE 1NOMINAL RTs

TABLE 2SATURATION VS. HEIGHT FUNCTIONS

Nominal RT Characteristics

Rock
Type

Irreducible
Water
Saturation (Swirr)

Permeability
(k, mD)

Porosity
(/)

Nominal
Porosity
Ranges

A
B
C
D
E

0.10
0.25
0.40
0.55
0.70

1,000
100
10
1
0.1

0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05

0.2250.275
0.1750.225
0.1250.175
0.0750.125
0.0250.075

Note: lower porosity range limit is defined by greater than or equal to; upper porosity range limit is defined by less than.

Rock Type

Swirr

Ht (m)

Hirr (m)

A
B
C
D
E

0.10
0.25
0.40
0.55
0.70

0.25
0.63
1.50
3.16
5.00

2.50
7.07
19.36
50.00
111.80

1.24
0.78
0.39
0.18
0.08

0.83
0.67
0.55
0.45
0.37

assumption allows the quantification R 158.1 mD0.5 m. This

value of R has been applied to the other four RTs to calculate Hirr
for each (Table 2).
There will be a different saturation-height function for each
RT. The starting point is the following J-function modified from
Leverett (1941) by Rose and Bruce (1949):

Hydraulic Character. The nominal porosity and permeability

data of Table 1 can be described by an algorithm of the form:

J aSwb cHk=/0:5 ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

log k 2:0 20/: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

where H is height above FWL, nominal / and k values are as

listed in Table 1, and a, b, and c are constants for a given oilwater system. Eq. 7 can be modified to:

Eq. 3 is to be used to assign permeability to porosity-populated

grid cells within the geomodel.
Irreducible water saturation Swirr is predicted from porosity
and permeability using the following regression relationship:
log Swirr 1:54 1:72log/  0:5logk: . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
In this study, Eq. 4 is primarily calibrated for reservoir rock, so it
can be expected to perform better over net-reservoir intervals as
opposed to non-reservoir intervals, which do not contribute to
computed hydrocarbon volumes. It is broadly aligned with previously published algorithms (e.g., Morris and Biggs 1967; Timur
1968; Schlumberger 2000).
Water saturation Sw is predicted from a saturation-height function. This function uses threshold height Ht and height of transition
zone Hirr. Here, Ht is assumed to be proportional to threshold pressure which, in turn, is proportional to the following function of porosity and permeability provided that the Archie porosity exponent
m 2. This derivation is based on the work of Rose and Bruce
(1949) as developed by Wyllie and Rose (1950) but with the alternative definition of electrical tortuosity as the product of formation
resistivity factor and porosity, as adopted by Paterson (1983) and
by Walsh and Brace (1984) (see collation by Nelson 1994):
Ht Q/=k0:5 ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
where Q is a constant of proportionality. For RT A, the threshold
entry pressure is specified to be attained at a height of 0.25 m
above free water level (FWL). This assumption allows the quantification Q 31.63 mD0.5 m. This value of Q has been applied to
the other four RTs to calculate the threshold entry height for each.
These results are included in Table 2.
The height above FWL Hirr, at which irreducible conditions
are effectively attained, is assumed to be governed by reservoir
quality in a way that renders Hirr inversely proportional to the reservoir quality index (k//)0.5, so that
Hirr R/=k0:5 ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
where R is a constant of proportionality. For RT A, we assume
that Hirr 2.5 m, an order of magnitude greater than Ht, and this
TABLE 3NET RESERVOIR AND NET PAY CUT-OFFS
Basis for Cut-offs
Nominal
Analytical (A1)
Analytical (A2)

Net Reservoir

Net Pay

/  0.10
/  0.08
/  0.06

/  0.10; Sw < 0.55

/  0.08; Sw < 0.60
/  0.06; Sw < 0.65

February 2014 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

Sw pHq k=/0:5 ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
where p and q are constants and the negative exponent is introduced to account for the observation that higher reservoir quality
indicates lower water saturation, all other things being equal.
Water saturation Sw and height H have been rescaled so that water
saturation is in excess of irreducible water saturation Swirr and
height is above threshold entry height Ht:
Sw  Swirr uH  Ht v k=/0:5 : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Eq. 9 defines the shape of the capillary-pressure drainage curve
from (Sw 1, H Ht) to (Sw Swirr, H Hirr). To quantify u and v
for each RT, the following boundary conditions have been
assumed: H Hirr when Sw Swirr 0.01; Sw 1 when H
Ht 0.01 m. On this basis, the terms u and v have been quantified
as listed in Table 2. Eq. 9 is used to calculate Sw with the defined
values of u, v, Ht, and Swirr together with measured H, measured
porosity, permeability computed from measured porosity (Eq. 3),
and Swirr computed from porosity and permeability (Eq. 4). Eqs. 3,
4 and 9 define a realistic and functional petrophysical model.
Cut-offs. Cut-offs distinguish net reservoir and net pay from
non-net intervals. Here, they are tied back to permeability and
therefore are dynamically conditioned (Cosentino 2001). The cutoffs are set for two discrete situations. First, they are defined
according to the nominal-RT characteristics of Table 1 in a way
that takes account of industry convention. These are termed the
nominal cut-offs (Table 3). Second, they are defined according
to analyses delivered through the application of Eqs. 3, 4 and 9 to
the porosity ranges of Table 1 in accordance with Table 2. Cut-off
recognition uses the method for primary drainage proposed by
Worthington (2008). This approach better simulates reality
because it is data-driven. Two sets of analytical cut-offs (A1 and
A2) are delivered within the limits of uncertainty. The cut-offs are
shown in Table 3. It can be seen that the nominal cut-offs are
more stringent than the analytical cut-offs. The three sets of cutoffs are used throughout so that their impact on the computational
results can be monitored. Note that there is no separate shale-volume-fraction cut-off for net sand because the five RTs are specified to be lithologically clean (shale-free).
Screening Studies
Screening studies of different stratigraphic sequences have been
carried out to assess how the modeling might best be enacted. A
specific aim has been to quantify differences between hydrocarbon volumes calculated using net-reservoir and net-pay criteria.
7

20

TABLE 4DATA FOR SCREENING STUDIES

Case No.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

20
10
30
40
0
50
0
25
15
35
25
10
25
10
0
0

20
15
25
30
10
30
0
25
15
35
0
0
25
30
0
0

20
20
20
20
20
20
20
0
0
0
25
30
25
30
40
20

20
25
15
10
30
0
30
25
35
15
25
30
25
0
30
40

20
30
10
0
40
0
50
25
35
15
25
30
0
30
30
40

This has been accomplished by using the nominal porosity data of

Table 1 with permeability calculated from Eq. 3 and irreducible
water saturation calculated using Eq. 4 together with the nominal
cut-offs of Table 3. The five RTs have been distributed amongst
100 layers, each with 1-m thickness. Sixteen cases have been considered, each with a different fractional combination of RTs
(Table 4). Because all RTs are specified to be at irreducible water
saturation, the results are not impacted by the positions of RTs
relative to a transition zone.
Fig. 1 shows the results, which are presented in terms of EHC,
an along-wellbore (1D) parameter that is proportional to IHPV for
a given drainage area (Eq. 1). With this workflow, EHC (net reservoir) cannot be less than EHC (net pay). The results quantify the
disparity as about 10% on average, as a consequence of differences in algorithmic protocol only with no influence from any
adopted modeling approach. The linear fit to the data of Fig. 1 is
termed Model A for later reference. Fig. 1 is also useful in the
selection of stratigraphic sequences for geocellular modeling purposes, although such an exercise moves beyond the screening
studies in that the position of RTs relative to a transition zone can
become a major influencing factor.
The realism of these findings is supported by Fig. 2, which
shows the results of 14 single-well case histories from different
clastic and carbonate reservoirs within diverse petroleum provin-

EHC (net reservoir) / EHC (net pay)

1.3

1.2

1.1

1.0
1.0

3.0

5.0

7.0

Net Reservoir / Net Pay

Fig. 2Crossplot of net reservoir/net pay and EHC (net reservoir)/EHC (net pay) for 14 reservoirs.
8

EHC (net reservoir) (m)

Proportional Representation of RTs (%)

15

10

10

15

20

EHC (net pay) (m)

Fig. 1Model A: Crossplot of EHC calculated along wellbore
for the 16 cases of Table 4 using nominal net-reservoir and netpay criteria.

ces. Here, EHC (net reservoir) is greater than EHC (net pay) by
about 16% on average. The data plot of Fig. 2 may suggest a
broad trend whereby larger differences between net-to-gross pay
and net-to-gross reservoir transmit to EHC and thence to IHPV
and estimated ultimate recovery. In general, greater net reservoir
relative to net pay leads to greater EHC (net reservoir) relative to
EHC (net pay), but the latter ratio is reduced because of partiallycompensating differences in average porosity and hydrocarbon
saturation.
Description of Geological Model
The geological model is the vehicle for addressing the key objective of this paper. These are to examine static hydrocarbon volumetric computations of IHPV through net-pay and net-reservoir
algorithmic protocols when used in conjunction with 2D zonal
and 3D geocellular modeling approaches. The calculations described here relate to true vertical depth and thickness and they
would generally be inappropriate for along-wellbore analyses in
horizontal-well settings. The 2D and 3D modeling has been
undertaken using industry-standard geomodeling software. The
same software package has been used throughout in order to avoid
unquantifiable aberrations that might arise as a consequence of
computer programming differences.
Architecture. The geological architecture for the models comprises horizontal and conformable surfaces, layers, zones, and RTs
for seven of the eight case models considered here: the remaining
case model consists of conformable parallel dipping beds (monocline) (Table 5). The generic conceptual model comprises one- to
three-cycle coarsening-upward stratigraphic sequences. Note that
two cases (Case_1_RH3SK and Case_1_RM3SK) have three-cycle
stratigraphic sequences, and the remaining cases have one-cycle
stratigraphic sequences. A 3  3 vertical-well pattern extending
across a 1200  1200 m area has been populated with nine blockcentered wells at a well spacing of 400 m (Figs. 3a and 3b). The
reservoir extends across a 100-m interval defined in true vertical
space by a top surface (rk1) and base surface (rk1_base). The interval comprises 100 conformable layers of 1-m thickness, which are
grouped as a single zone within the model domain. Five RTs
describe the pore fluid distribution and flow-capacity potential
within the reservoir. The five RTs have been established through
the petrophysical model as described previously. The FWL is set at
a fixed depth at the base of the zone for seven case models. For the
monocline (Case_1_RM3SK), the FWL is held at the same fixed
depth and a portion of the dipping beds extends below the FWL.
Rock Properties. One aspect of the model design is elimination
of the effect of well-log upscaling. To accomplish this, the wellFebruary 2014 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

FWL H. Net-to-gross is then flagged as zero or unity for each

penetrated cell.

TABLE 5CASE MODEL DESCRIPTIONS

Case Model
Case_1_NHPK
Case_1_RHPK
Case_1_RHPFK
Case_1_RH3SK
Case_1_RM3SK
Case_Multi_RHPK

Case_9_RHPK
Case_10_RHPK

Case
Inputs

Code

Rock Type (%)

Wells

1
1
1
1
1
9
14
4
12
1
7
13
16
10
9
10

NHPK
RHPK
RHPFK
RH3SK
RM3SK
RHPK
RHPK
RHPK
RHPK
RHPK
RHPK
RHPK
RHPK
RHPK
RHPK
RHPK

(20:20:20:20:20)
(20:20:20:20:20)
(20:20:20:20:20)
(20:20:20:20:20)
(20:20:20:20:20)
(15:15:0:35:35)
(10:30:30:0:30)
(40:30:20:10:0)
(10:0:30:30:30)
(20:20:20:20:20)
(0:0:20:30:50)
(25:25:25:0:25)
(0:0:20:40:40)
(35:35:0:15:15)
(15:15:0:35:35)
(35:35:0:15:15)

All 9 wells
All 9 wells
All 9 wells
All 9 wells
All 9 wells
B_1
B_2
B_3
C_1
C_2
C_3
D_1
D_2
D_3
All 9 wells
All 9 wells

Explanation of Codes:
N Nominal porosity input values used for each rock type.
R Random-number-generated porosity input values within specified limits for
each rock type.
H Horizontal: conformable horizontal layers.
M Monocline: conformable, parallel dipping layers.
3S Three sequences with five RTs coarsening upward within each sequence.
P RT sequences and proportions are the same as those represented by the
screening model.
F Facies-conditioned modeling.
K Kriging inter-well algorithm.
For well locations, see Fig. 3.

log sampling interval of 1 m is set equal to the grid-cell height.

The procedure has been to sample well-log data already upscaled
to a 1-m scale across each grid cell and to assign the property
value to the mid-point of the penetrated cell. This establishes a
one-to-one correspondence between the scale of the sampled
well-log property value and the model-layer thickness, so that
each layer comprises a single RT with uniform properties. For porosity, the upscaled data are used to populate the geological model
for the cases of Table 5 using as input either nominal porosity values or constrained random porosity values (Table 1). In the latter
case, a random number generator is used to select porosity values
from within the specified porosity range for each 1-m layer of
each given RT. Then, the porosity-populated cells are assigned
permeability using Eq. 3 and water saturation through the saturation-height function (Eqs. 4 and 9) corresponding to the RT of
each 1-m layer (Tables 1 and 2) at its (mid-point) height above

(a)

Single-Well Modeling Workflow

In the 1D modeling workflow, the property or attribute of an individual RT layer that satisfies net-reservoir and/or net-pay cut-off
criteria is aggregated along the wellbore on a zonal basis. The
cut-offs are applied conjunctively. The resulting zonal EHC values constitute the EHC (net reservoir) and EHC (net pay) for each
well in a given case. Again, EHC (net reservoir) is never less than
EHC (net pay). This fundamental outcome is illustrated in Fig. 4
where EHC (net pay) is plotted against EHC (net reservoir) for
multiple cases (Case_Multi_RHPK). Recall from Table 5 that
Case_Multi_RHPK consists of a specific case input for each of
the nine wells in the model. All three sets of cut-off criteria (Nominal, A1 and A2) have been applied to Case_Multi_RHPK and,
for all three criteria, the plotted points are superposed for this
along-wellbore (1D) exercise. Moreover, two of the eight cases in
Fig. 4 effectively plot on top of others. Fig. 4 also confirms agreement for computations along the wellbore using the same inputs
both to a spreadsheet and to the geocellular software. As an example, Fig. 5 displays the stratigraphic section and output with nominal cut-offs for one well representing Case_1_RHPK, which is
one of the multiple cases.
Zonal Modeling Workflow
In the 2D zonal modeling workflow, the property or attribute of an
individual RT layer that satisfies net-reservoir or net-pay cut-off criteria is aggregated along the wellbore on a zonal basis for each case
considered. The resulting zonal EHC value constitutes the EHC (net
reservoir) or EHC (net pay) for each well in a case. The EHC isochore attribute-value generated at each well location is distributed
across the zone using Kriging to create an EHC isochore 2D grid.
The product of the EHC isochore 2D grid and reservoir drainage
area yields the IHPV for each case. The mathematics are described
by Eq. 1 for both net-reservoir and net-pay protocols. As recognized
in the literature, although zonal averages may be acceptable where
the reservoir is uniformly distributed, their use over-simplifies the
spatial distribution of reservoir characteristics in the presence of
marked heterogeneity (Rae and Neve 1994).
Geocellular Modeling Workflow
In the 3D modeling workflow, once the structural framework of
the model has been created, the next step is to establish the relationship between the spatial data and unsampled values at the
grid-cell scale for model generation (Caers 2005). The spatial variability in the data has been quantified by following the methodology of variogram construction and interpretation as outlined by
Gringarten and Deutsch (1999). Semivariograms were constructed
for this study.

(b)

Porosity

0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0

Water
Saturation

1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0

Fig. 3Block models for Case_1_RHPK showing profiles of (a) porosity and (b) Sw for the nine wells.
February 2014 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

20
Model A

EHC (net reservoir) (m)

EHC 1D geocellular
15

EHC 1D spreadsheet

10

3 Cutoff Criteria
0
0

10

15

20

EHC (net pay) (m)

Fig. 4Confirmation of computational agreement between
spreadsheet and geocellular software for multiple cases of EHC
along the wellbore.

In these case models, semivariogram analysis has been performed in three directions to assess data variation and quantify parameters for facies and petrophysical modeling. In the horizontal
semivariogram for the continuous porosity property, the major
and minor ranges are set at 1000 m for azimuths of 0 and 270o,
respectively. These latter settings honor the initial specification
of horizontal isotropy. The search radius is nominally set at the

diagonal extent of the horizontally-spaced dataset and the lag is

nominally set at one half of the well spacing. The vertical heterogeneity of continuous properties such as porosity is captured in
the vertical semivariogram model and through the resulting parametric data distributions.
In facies modeling, the discrete facies (grid-cell-based RTs)
have been propagated throughout the 3D grid using Indicator
Kriging. In petrophysical modeling, porosity has been distributed
by Kriging constrained by stratigraphic layer and semivariograms
with the zone modeled in a single operation (non-facies conditioned) in all but one case: for Case_1_RHPFK porosity modeling
for the zone has been performed facies by facies (facies conditioned). The difference in the IHPV delivered with and without facies conditioning is less than 1% (Table 6). Quality assurance of
(upscaled) well-log values, rock properties, and parameter grids
has been attained using statistical controls to ensure that extreme
low or high values are retained and average porosity is
unchanged. The mathematics of grid-cell by grid-cell volumetric
summations are described by Eq. 2 for both net-reservoir and netpay protocols.
Results
Eight model cases have been studied (Table 5). The screening
studies indicated that the sequence of stratigraphic layers
impacted the results significantly. Cases 1, 9 and 10 were considered representative of that range of outcomes and they have been
chosen for detailed comparisons (Table 6). Once the volumetric
computations had been completed in the geomodel, the data could
be extracted in various ways so that differences in net-to-gross,
EHC and/or IHPV could be quantified.

B_1 [SSTVD]
SSTVD
1:833

rk1

NTG_res_log
NTG_pay_log
phi
swirr
sw
1.00 0.00
1.00 0.10 1.10 0.10 1.10
0.00 m3/m3 0.30 0.00
NTG_res_prop
NTG_pay_prop
swirr_prop
sw_prop
phi_prop [U]
0.00 m3/m3 0.30 0.00
1.00 0.00
1.00 0.10 1.10 0.10 1.10

95.1
100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

rk1_base

203.1

Fig. 5Stratigraphic section for Case_1_RHPK. Tracks show depth (m), RT, porosity, Swirr, Sw, net reservoir and net pay.
10

February 2014 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

TABLE 6CASE MODEL RESULTS

Criteria

Case Model
Case_1_NHPK

Case_1_RHPK

Case_1_RHPFK

Case_1_RH3SK

Case_1_RM3SK

Case_Multi_RHPK

Case_9_RHPK

Case_10_RHPK

Net-to-Gross (NTG)

Cut-offs

Res

Pay

% Diff
NTG

Nom
A1
A2
Nom
A1
A2
Nom
A1
A2
Nom
A1
A2
Nom
A1
A2
Nom
A1
A2
Nom
A1
A2
Nom
A1
A2

0.80
0.80
0.80
0.71
0.80
0.88
0.71
0.80
0.88
0.71
0.80
0.88
0.73
0.80
0.86
0.66
0.75
0.86
0.51
0.65
0.78
0.78
0.85
0.92

0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.64
0.67
0.60
0.64
0.67
0.60
0.64
0.67
0.34
0.35
0.37
0.56
0.60
0.62
0.30
0.37
0.44
0.70
0.73
0.76

33
33
33
18
25
31
18
25
31
18
25
31
115
129
132
18
25
39
70
76
77
11
16
21

Column No.

% Difference IHPV
2D Zon
Res
Pay

3D Cell
Res
Pay

Res
3D Cell
2D Zon

Pay
3D Cell
2D Zon

Cross-Cultural
Res 3D Cell
Pay 2D Zon

7
7
7
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
3
5
5
6
16
14
12
3
3
2
6

5
7
6
4
7
6
5
6
5
6
5
5
3
5
4
6
5
5
12
18
14
2
3
3
7

1
3
3
1
0
1
0
0
0
5
4
4
3
2
2
2
2
3
2
1
3
2
2
2
8

3
3
4
0
2
2
0
1
1
5
4
5
2
3
3
2
2
1
1
4
4
1
2
2
9

8
3
3
4
5
3
5
5
4
0
1
0
1
2
1
3
3
3
13
13
9
1
1
0
10

Explanation of Codes: as for Table 5

Abbreviations: Nomnominal; Paynet pay; Resnet reservoir; Zonzonal; Cellgeocellular.
Percentage Differences: these are expressed as 100 (XY)/Y where X relates to net reservoir and/or geocellular cases and Y relates to net pay and/or zonal cases.

Along the Wellbore. The first-level 1D comparisons used spreadsheet and geocellular model calculations to re-affirm equivalence
of computation (as was carried out for Fig. 4). This setting allowed
a comparison of the deliverables from net-pay and net-reservoir
algorithmic protocols without any influence from mapping algorithms, geological structure, or other related factors. Overall, the
results mimic Fig. 1 in that EHC (net reservoir) is greater than
EHC (net pay), here by about 5% on average.

Net-Pay Algorithmic Protocol. The fifth level was to compare

IHPV (net pay) for both the 2D zonal and the 3D geocellular
approaches (Table 6, Column 9). Again, the negative values show
that the 2D zonal approach generally results in higher hydrocarbon volumes than does the 3D geocellular approach. Table 6 (Column 9) shows that the (negative) percentage differences range
from zero to 5%, but with the same exception as before
(Case_1_NHPK).

2D Zonal Approach. The second level was to generate and analyze results from 2D zonal approaches based on net-pay and net-reservoir protocols, which indicated that IHPV (net reservoir) is greater
than IHPV (net pay) by between 2 and 16% (Table 6, Column 6).

2D Zonal Net Pay vs. 3D Geocellular Net Reservoir. The final

task was to compare results of a 2D zonal approach based on the
net-pay algorithmic protocol with those of a 3D geocellular modeling approach based on the net-reservoir algorithmic protocol.
Table 6 (Column 10) shows that the latter is generally greater
than the former by up to 13%. These findings are illustrated in
Fig. 7, which shows a crossplot of IHPV (net pay) derived from
the 2D zonal approach and IHPV (net reservoir) derived from the
3D geocellular approach. Both of these use the nominal cut-off
criteria.

3D Geocellular Approach. The third level was to generate and

analyze results from 3D geocellular approaches based on net-pay
and net-reservoir protocols. Here, IHPV (net reservoir) is greater
than IHPV (net pay) by between 2 and 18% (Table 6, Column 7).
Crossplots of IHPV derived from the 2D and 3D cases are shown
in Figs. 6a and b, respectively. Each of these crossplots uses the
nominal cut-offs for net reservoir and net pay.
Net-Reservoir Algorithmic Protocol. The fourth level was to
compare IHPV (net reservoir) determined from 2D zonal and 3D
geocellular approaches (Table 6, Column 8). The negative values
show that the 2D zonal approach mostly results in higher hydrocarbon volumes than does the 3D geocellular approach. Table 6
(Column 8) shows that the differences range from zero to 5%
with one exception (Case_1_NHPK), for which the net-reservoir
approach leads to greater IHPV. This one exception was populated with nominal porosity data (Table 1).
February 2014 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

Analysis. Key observations from Table 6 are: (1) IHPV delivered

using a net-reservoir protocol is generally greater for 2D zonal
than for 3D geocellular approaches; (2) IHPV delivered using a
net-pay protocol is generally greater for 2D zonal than for 3D
geocellular approaches; and (3) IHPV delivered through a 2D
zonal approach is generally greater than that delivered through a
3D geocellular (cell-by-cell) approach for either a net-pay or a
net-reservoir protocol. Most importantly, IHPV from a net-reservoir algorithmic protocol with a 3D geocellular modeling
approach is never less than IHPV from a net-pay protocol with a
2D zonal modeling approach (Table 6, Column 10). This latter
11

(b)
20

1:1
15
Case_1_NHPK
Case_1_RHPK
Case_1_RHPFK
Case_1_RH3SK

10

Case_1_RM3SK
Case_Multi_RHPK
Case_9_RHPK
Case_10_RHPK

5
5

10

15

20

IHPV (net pay, 2D zonal) (106 m3)

6 3
IHPV (net reservoir, 3D geocellular) (10 m )

IHPV (net reservoir, 2D zonal) (106 m3)

(a)

20

1:1
15
Case_1_NHPK
Case_1_RHPK
Case_1_RHPFK
Case_1_RH3SK

10

Case_1_RM3SK
Case_Multi_RHPK
Case_9_RHPK
Case_10_RHPK

5
5

10

15

20

IHPV (net pay, 3D geocellular) (106 m3)

20

TABLE 7RANKING OF MODELING PRACTICES ACCORDING

TO RESULTING HYDROCARBON VOLUMETRIC ESTIMATES

IHPV (net reservoir, 3D geocellular) (10 m )

Fig. 6Crossplots of IHPV (net pay) and IHPV (net reservoir) for (a) 2D zonal and (b) 3D geocellular modeling approaches, using
nominal net-reservoir and net-pay cut-off criteria.

1:1
15
Case_1_NHPK
Case_1_RHPK
Case_1_RHPFK
Case_1_RH3SK

10

Modeling Approach

Algorithmic Protocol

1
2
3
4

2D zonal
3D geocellular
2D zonal
3D geocellular

Net reservoir
Net reservoir
Net pay
Net pay

Note: ranking Number 1 delivers the greatest IHPV.

Case_1_RM3SK
Case_Multi_RHPK
Case_9_RHPK
Case_10_RHPK

5
5

10

20

15
6

IHPV (net pay, 2D zonal) (10 m )

Fig. 7Crossplot of IHPV for cross-culture of 2D zonal net-pay
and 3D geocellular net-reservoir methods, using nominal cutoff criteria.

observation relates directly to the impact of the change in property

modeling practices within the industry over the past 15 years or
so, and it is attributed to differences in admitted datasets and
aggregating processes.
The outcomes are summarized in Table 7, where different
practices are ranked according to the resulting hydrocarbon volumetric estimates. It should be emphasized that simple structures
in our block models coupled with constrained stratigraphic variations allow a framed rather than a panoramic insight into the
effects of procedural changes from 2D to 3D modeling methods.
Nevertheless, the screening studies lend support to the representativeness of the cases considered.
Two specific case models merit further comment.
Case_1_RM3SK is the dipping-bed case and Case_9_RHPK
stands out because it results in the most extreme differences
between IHPV (net reservoir) and IHPV (net pay). These cases
show the greatest differences between net-to-gross reservoir and
net-to-gross pay.
For Case_1_RM3SK, the three-cycle stratigraphic sequence
within the evaluation interval is partly below the FWL. IHPV
from a 2D zonal approach is greater than that for a 3D geocellular
approach for both net-reservoir and net-pay algorithmic protocols
(Table 6, Columns 8 and 9). Yet, the cross-cultural difference
between IHPV (net reservoir) obtained through a 3D geocellular
approach and IHPV (net pay) calculated through a 2D zonal
approach indicates that the former is 1 to 2% greater than the latter. Thus, the impact of these different modeling approaches on
12

Ranking

IHPV is still insufficient to counter the opposite differences

between IHPV resulting from different algorithmic protocols.
This confirms that although structure and stratigraphy relative to
the position of the FWL are important considerations in these
analyses, they do not always dominate the outcome.
For Case_9_RHPK, as in most other cases examined, a constant structural position was maintained relative to the FWL and
the only variations were attributable to RT positions within the
single- or three-cycle stratigraphic sequences. Here, the cross-cultural difference can result in a 13% higher IHPV (net reservoir)
with a 3D geocellular approach than for IHPV (net pay) with a 2D
zonal approach. This is the greatest observed difference and it is
attributed to good quality rock being in the minority (Figs. 8a and
b). In contrast, minimal cross-cultural differences are observed
for Case_10_RHPK for which 70% of the interval consists of
good quality rock at the top of the stratigraphic section (Table 6,
Column 10).
Discussion
For vertical wells, along-wellbore models represent the most
straightforward scenario for comparing different aggregations.
Although the net-pay algorithmic protocols are best suited for this
purpose, good modeling practice requires that all methodologies
and algorithms be initialized at the wellbore before proceeding to
inter-well interpolation and 3D modeling. The introduction of
inter-well model variations increases the complexity of comparisons that use the two algorithmic protocols. The net-reservoir
algorithmic protocols are more appropriate for these inter-well
applications. Moreover, the 3D geocellular approach can also take
more effective account of vertical variations as well as lateral
changes in reservoir character. On this basis, the volumetric
results delivered by the contemporary 3D geocellular approach
should be more meaningful than those arising from the established
2D zonal approach. However, where the goal of 2D and 3D modeling is to represent a pronounced spatial variation of reservoir
properties, there may be a strong scenario dependence with
February 2014 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

(a)

(b)

1.0

Porosity

0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0

Water
Saturation

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0

Fig. 8Block models for the nine wells for Case_9_RHPK showing the profiles of (a) porosity and (b) Sw.

respect to which model is best suited for a given geological structure, architecture or reservoir heterogeneity. Geomodels tailored
to specific conceptual models (e.g., depositional analogues) will
drive the selection of inter-well interpolation algorithms to the
next stage of modeling beyond comparisons of 2D and 3D volumetric summations.
The examples considered here represent a subset of those that
could be generated. Nevertheless, in general, the range of model
specifications has given rise to significant differences between
IHPV determined with a net-reservoir algorithmic protocol
coupled with a 3D geocellular approach and IHPV determined
with a net-pay protocol coupled with a 2D zonal approach. In general, the former is greater than the latter by approximately 4% on
average. These increases are sufficiently large to be of interest in
petroleum reserves estimation. However, the differences are variable and there are situations where the opposite outcome might
prevail. For example, unrefined data can lead to greater differences than those indicated by our models. Also, the use of the Leverett J-function has limited the vertical extent of the transition zone:
thicker transition zones can be expected to cause greater differences between the results delivered by net-pay and net-reservoir
algorithmic protocols. In other words, each of our studies should
deliver a reference prognosis of disparities between the deliverables of different property-modeling practices and more complex
situations may project even greater disparities. Therefore, each
case must be investigated separately and thoroughly.
Conclusions
A functional petrophysical model has been used to study the
impact of evolving geomodeling practices on estimated hydrocarbon volumes. Screening studies using data from along the wellbore have been corroborated by along-wellbore studies of diverse
reservoirs. This 1D initialization underpins extrapolation away
from the wellbore into 2D and 3D space. A focused modeling
study using different stratigraphic sequences has indicated that
generally there are significant differences between IHPV determined through the 3D geocellular and 2D zonal approaches
undertaken in conjunction with net-reservoir and net-pay algorithmic protocols in any combination.
Although based on a limited number of stratigraphic cases, the
results can be interpreted as follows. For the 2D zonal approach
there is generally a higher IHPV (net-reservoir algorithmic protocol) and IHPV (net-pay algorithmic protocol) than for the 3D geocellular approach with any given cut-off criteria. For the netreservoir protocol, there is generally a higher IHPV (2D zonal)
and IHPV (3D geocellular) than for the net-pay protocol, again
with any given cut-off criteria. Putting these matters together,
IHPV (net reservoir) with the 3D geocellular approach is generally greater than IHPV (net pay) with the 2D zonal approach by
approximately 4% on average, although the differences can vary
markedly from case to case. In other words, the relative impact of
the 2D zonal approach is more than countered by the differential
February 2014 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

effect of the net-reservoir algorithmic protocol. This outcome is

consistent across three different (sets of) cut-offs. The resulting
uplift in IHPV has profound implications for the estimation of petroleum reserves.
Nomenclature
a first regression coefficient (Eq. 7)
A drainage area, m2
b regression exponent (Eq. 7)
c second regression coefficient (Eq. 7), mD0.5 m1
EHC equivalent hydrocarbon column (N /  Sh ) for net
(reservoir or pay) intervals, m
GRV gross rock volume, m3
H height above FWL, m
Hirr height above FWL at which defined irreducible conditions are attained, m
Ht threshold height above FWL, m
IHPV initial hydrocarbon pore volume, m3
J Leverett J-function
k intergranular effective permeability to oil at Swirr, mD
m porosity exponent in the Archie equation
N net (reservoir or pay) thickness, m
N/G net-to-gross fraction (reservoir or pay)
p regression coefficient (Eq. 8)
q regression exponent (Eq. 8)
Q constant of proportionality (Eq. 5), mD0.5 m
R constant of proportionality (Eq. 6), mD0.5 m
Sh hydrocarbon saturation
Sh average porosity-weighted hydrocarbon saturation over
net (reservoir or pay) interval(s)
Sw water saturation
Swirr irreducible water saturation
u regression coefficient (Eq. 9)
v regression exponent (Eq. 9)
/ fractional porosity
/ average fractional porosity over net (reservoir or pay)
interval(s)
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Doug Peacock for helpful input to the preparation
of the manuscript and Gaffney, Cline & Associates for supporting
the progression of this work into the peer-reviewed literature.
References
Archie, G.E. 1942. The electrical resistivity log as an aid in determining
some reservoir characteristics. In Transactions of the American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers, Vol. 146, SPE-942054-G,
5462.
Caers, J. 2005. Petroleum Geostatistics. Richardson, Texas: Society of Petroleum Engineers.
13

Cosentino, L. 2001. Integrated Reservoir Studies. Paris: Editions Technip.

Gringarten, E. and Deutsch, C.V. 1999. Methodology for Variogram Interpretation and Modeling for Improved Reservoir Characterization. Presented
at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, 3-6
October. SPE-56654-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/56654-MS.
Leverett, M.C. 1941. Capillary Behavior in Porous Solids. In Transactions
of the American Institute of Mining, and Metallurgical Engineers, Vol.
142, Paper SPE-941152-G, 152169.
Morris, R.L. and Biggs, W.P. 1967. Using Log-Derived Values of Water
Saturation And Porosity. Presented at the SPWLA 8th Annual Logging
Symposium, Denver, June, Paper X, 1-26.
Nelson, P.H. 1994. Permeability-Porosity Relationships in Sedimentary
Rocks. The Log Analyst 35 (3): 3862.
Paterson, M.S. 1983. The equivalent channel model for permeability and
resistivity in fluid-saturated rockA re-appraisal. Mech. Mater. 2 (4):
345-352. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0167-6636(83)90025-X.
Rae, S.F. and Neve, P. 1994. Experiences in Incorporating a 3D Geological Model Into a Reservoir Simulator. Presented at the European Petroleum Computer Conference, Aberdeen, 15-17 March. SPE-27564-MS.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/27564-MS.
Rose, W.D. and Bruce, W.A. 1949. Evaluation of capillary character in petroleum reservoir rock. In Transactions of the American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers, Vol. 186, SPE-949127-G, 127142.
Schlumberger. 2000. Log Interpretation Charts, Sugar Land, Texas:
Schlumberger Oilfield Communications.
Timur, A. 1968. An Investigation of Permeability, Porosity, and Residual
Water Saturation Relationships for Sandstone Reservoirs. The Log Analyst 9 (4): 817.
Walsh, J.B. and Brace, W.F. 1984. The effect of pressure on porosity and the
transport properties of rock. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid
Earth 89 (B11): 9425-9431. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/JB089iB11p09425.
Worthington, P.F. 2008. The Application of Cutoffs in Integrated Reservoir Studies. SPE Res Eval & Eng 11 (6): 968975. SPE-95428-PA.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/95428-PA.
Wyllie, M.R.J. and Rose, W.D. 1950. Some theoretical considerations
related to the quantitative evaluation of the physical characteristics of
reservoir rock from electric log data. In Transactions of the American
Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers, Vol. 189, SPE950105-G, 105118.
Vivian K. Bust is a Senior Production Geologist with Shell International Exploration and Production Incorporated in Houston,
in the Enhanced Oil Recovery group, where she is engaged in
3D static and dynamic modeling of reservoirs for oil recovery
by solvent, polymer, and chemical flooding. She is a Professional Engineer (PE) in Petroleum, Registered Geologist, and Certified Hydrogeologist. Previously, Bust was a Senior Reservoir

14

Engineer/Geologist with Gaffney, Cline & Associates, where

she conducted petroleum reserves analysis that involved 3D
static and dynamic modeling, petrophysical analysis, and
evaluation of reservoir performance and field development
plans for conventional and unconventional reservoirs. During
her 25-year career in California, she was a consulting geologist/petroleum engineer for Occidental Petroleum for the Wilmington Oil Field waterflood, senior hydrogeologist with
Converse Consultants of California, and petrophysical engineer with Shell Oil Company. Bust holds MS and BS degrees in
geology, and a BS degree in civil engineering, all from Michigan State University. As the 2000 Chair of the SPE Los Angeles
Section, she led efforts that resulted in the section being
awarded the SPE Presidents Award for Section Excellence.
Bust was the recipient of the 2004 SPE Western North American
Regional Service award, and was a Director on the 2010
Board of the SPE Gulf Coast Section.
Paul F. Worthington is Principal at Park Royd P&P (England) Limited, where his main interests are integrated studies for reservoir evaluation and management, unitization and equity
redetermination, and reserves estimation. He is a Chartered
Geologist and Chartered Engineer in the United Kingdom and
a Fellow of the United Kingdoms Energy Institute. Previously,
Worthington spent many years as a Technical Director with
Gaffney, Cline & Associates and, before that, with BP, mostly
as Head of Formation Evaluation at the BP Research Centre in
Sunbury-on-Thames in England. From 1986 through 1992, he
served as Chair of the Downhole Measurements Panel of the
international Ocean Drilling Program. Since 1997, Worthington
has held a visiting professorship in Petroleum Geoscience and
Engineering at Imperial College, University of London, and
prior to that (1990 through 1997) he held a visiting research
professorship at Columbia University in New York. He has published more than 90 peer-reviewed papers in the field of engineering geoscience and has edited or co-edited the journals
Petrophysics and Petroleum Geoscience and the tripartite
book series Advances in Core Evaluation. Worthington holds
PhD and higher doctorate (DEng) degrees from the University
of Birmingham in England. He has served as President of the
Society of Petrophysicists and Well Log Analysts (SPWLA) and
has twice served as an SPE Distinguished Lecturer (1985 to
1986 and 2001 to 2002), has been an SPE Distinguished Author
(2004 and 2011) and has served as Chair of the SPE Formation
Evaluation Committee (2001 to 2002 and 2002 to 2003). Worthington has also co-chaired four SPWLA topical conferences
and five SPE Applied Technology Workshops on the subjects of
formation evaluation and reserves. He has received the Distinguished Technical Achievement Awards of SPWLA and the Society of Core Analysts, has received the Gold Medal for
Technical Achievement of SPWLA and is an Honorary Member
of the European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers.

February 2014 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering