SPE 136041

Petrophysical Modeling of the Granular and Fractured Reservoirs

D. Kozhevnikov, K. Kovalenko, and A. Arsibekov, Gubkin U

Copyright 2010, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2010 SPE Russian Oil & Gas Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Moscow, Russia, 2628 October 2010.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
One of petrophysics basic challenges is to proceed residual water saturation and porosity is (notation is shown
from empirical dependences studying to construction and in fig.1) (Kozhevnikov, Kovalenko 2001):
studying of reservoir theoretical petrophysical models for Swr = 1, > t;
their subsequent association with well log analysis and Swr = (0 + M )/t - , M > t > (1)
petrophysical models of well logs. However petrophysical = /( M --0) (2)
analysis results are often used for empirical regression or
calculations and very rarely as a starting point for Swr = 1 B(1 / t) (3)
analytical description of reservoirs. and
The described approach tends to move petrophysical B = (M 0 )/( M ) (4)
interpretation from the empirical level to the level where B is the cement swelling index (B = 1+) and is the ratio
petrophysical models describe common effects on the of the total cement volume to the volume of solid cement
regular basis. First of all such models could be introduced component.
for granular reservoirs. Petrophysical models that are Model (1) is a hyperbolic dependence which is
analytically describing basic properties of a granular operated by three independent parameters {0, , M}.
reservoir reduce the number of influencing parameters to These paremeteres are characteristic parameters of the
only four synthetic characteristic parameters, namely: reservoir.
water- and oil-holding capacity of the framework, water- The content of bulk residual water (or product Swrt)
holding capacity of the cement and porosity of the linearly depends on effective porosity (fig. 1b):
framework. However, there is no information loss, and
Swrt= ef /(1+ ). (5)
completeness of all specific reservoir properties variety
From equation (3) for effective porosity estimation
description is kept as well. All used parameters could be
we have:
directly measured or established in analysis of the total
ef = B (t ) (6)
porosity residual saturation dependence.
Maximum effective porosity of the reservoir is:
Established granular model could be considered as a
background model. If fractures presented in core sample ef max = M - 0. (7)
then petrophysical dependences behavior will be different It was established that effective porosity normolised
from granular ones. It is possible to show theoretically by its maximum value for some particular reservoir ef max
that such difference could be used for the quantitative represents a petrophysical invariant . Parameter can
analysis of the fractured porosity. Several core collections vary between 0 and 1 (01) independently of particular
from the Eastern Siberian reservoirs were analyzed and reservoir properties.
such possibility was proved. Using dependence between porosity and relative
The developed approach shows that deficit of the clayness t = M (1 ), such equation could be
information in studying of complex reservoirs can be obtained:
compensated by strictly proved petrophysical models = 1 /max 1 * = idem, (8)
instead of building empirical multidimensional where - relative clayness, max maximum value of
petrophysical dependencies. relative clayness. Whereupon, we may conclude that
effective porosity petrophysical model based on the
Petrophysical Models of Reservoir Filtration- residual water saturation model leads to equation (8)
Capacity Properties between two invariants which are normolised effective
An analytical form of dependence between the porosity and normalized relative clayness *.
2 SPE 136041
Petrophysical invariant could be expressed in terms
of model (1):
= (t - )/( M ) = ef / (M 0) (9) water saturation or the same dependence Swr(). This
In its meaning petrophysical invariant describes the
fraction of volume which is accessible for fluid filtration.
In case of oil bearing reservoir it reflectes the maximum
relative oil saturation nmax:
nmax = (1 Swr)/(1 a ) (10)
where = 0/.
As it shown above change of individual reservoir
properties is not considered by changing models analytical
structuref; on the contrary, changes of their synthetic
characteristic parameters {0, , } values are taken into
account which is one of described approach main
advantages.
In the petrophysical modeling practice along with
listed exact models some approximate models could be
useful. For example, Swr(t) dependence could be describe
by equation:
Swr(t) = (t / ), (11)
where = lga/lg(M /).
Equation (11) follows from approximation
Swr(t) = t , (12)
where constants were taken from condition Swr () 1,
Swr() .
Petrophysical Invariance of Residual Water
Saturation
From (1) and (9) the dependence between residual
water saturation and Swr and petrophysical invariant is
described by equation:
Swr () = 1 (1 )( M /t). (13) porosity is very dependent on the cement material and its
This equation does not contain water-holding
capacities of the cement and total water-holding
capacities. However, parameter depends on {M, t ,0}
and that is why Swr could be considered as a function of
one argument and one fixed parameter :
Swr () = exp(), (14)
where constants , determined from conditions Swr (0)
=1, Swr (1) = , and then
Swr () = exp( ln)= = (0/ M) . (15) (without clayness) was the minimum amount of residual
The validity of equation (15) was confirmed by the
core sample analysis. We would keep in mind that for
some particular reservoir = 0/ M = const, and M is a
function of true vertical depth, as it will be shown later.
The advantage of approximation (15) is the
dependence of Swr from one parameter only, which does
not depend on the clay cement amount and properties.
If in series of expansion (15) second order elements
are considered as a small ones, and it is possible to get a
parabolic approximation. Parabola is almost matching
model (15), if its expressed as
Swr () = 2 +1 , (16) porosity as a top boundary of the porosity distribution.
It is possible to get (16) from Swr () = 12 2 +3, This approach does not work in case if core samples with
where coefficients follow conditions: Swr (1) = ; Swr
(0)=1; then 1 = ; 3 = - 2 =1.
In addition the linear model can be introduced:
Swr () =1-(1-) (17)
Different reservoirs with different {t, 0, , , M}
but with the same have the same values of the residual
conclusion is agreed with the principle of petrophysical
invariance (Kozhevnikov, 2001).
Invariance of residual water saturation allows
increasing accuracy and reliability of the amount of
movable hydrocarbons estimation. The dependence
between Swr and petrophysical invariant (fig.2b) has much
better correlation then the dependence Swrt(ef), even
though the different mineral composition of cement is in
place (fig.2a).
It is a straight transition from residual water
saturation to the maximum hydrocarbon saturation So/g max
= 1 Swr (fig.2c).
For granular reservoirs with different mineral
composition of cement the best solution is power-low
dependence Swr () (15), and framework properties will be
a dominant factor. If carbonate cement is available, then
non-linearity is increased, and in this case parabolic
approximation gives better results. Finally invariant
representation allows to get almost functional dependence
and an estimate of the maximum movable amount of
hydrocarbons (fig.2c,d).
Framework Properties (the Western Siberia
Example)
From the beginning of geophysics investigations one
of the main petrophysical tasks was to study porosity and
density changes along with reservoir bedding depth.
Hence, the same reservoir density and total porosity
are not steady, and one is a function of another. Total
mineralogy. The firm characteristic of the reservoir is the
framework porosity and it would be petrophysically
correct to study a change of the framework porosity versus
the reservoir bedding.
Apparently, for the first time the one who paid
attention to this issue was Leontyev (Leontyev, 1978). He
established M(TVD) dependence for few Western Siberian
reservoirs. The criterion to identify clean sandstone
water saturation. Leontyev published M(TVD)
approximation of this dependence (fig.3, line 3) for the
number of reservoirs from few oilfields and different
formations (mostly fine-grained):
M (TVD) = M0 (1 cTVD), (18)
where M0 =48%, c=10.7. However, this result can not be
reliable as formations with low residual water saturation
could be formations with cement with low water-holding
capacity (carbonate or kaolinit), and it will not
characterize the framework porosity.
There is another way to identify the framework
the highest porosity are not presented. It is also difficult to
keep such samples without special technique (such as
freezing, for example), as unconsolidated sandstones
usually disintegrate on surface or even before.
For heterogeneous reservoirs the correlation field
SPE 136041
between residual water saturation and total porosity are
limited by two envelopes. The top envelope represents
cement with the highest water-holding capacity, while the
bottom envelope with the low one. Both of these
envelopes intersect at point = 0 /M, (t = M) (fig.1). In
this manner the framework porosity could be established
even in case clean core samples with high porosity were
not available for the laboratory analysis.
To study M(TVD) dependence for fine-grained
sandstones (more seldom medium-grained) we analyzed
polygons {Swr t} and {Swrt ef} in some specific
depth intervals. We analyzed it for reservoirs for two
Western Siberian structures (Surgut and Vartovsk vaults).
Each depth interval was 25 meters and the depth range
was from 2250 to 2870 meters. All data were obtained
from the exploration wells which are suppose to be
vertical1. In each polygon there have been calculated the
top and bottom envelops representing maximum and
minimum water-holding capacity of the clay cement. The
framework porosity was determined as the abscise where
envelopes crossed, and additionally it controlled at
Swrt(ef) dependence at each depth interval (table 1).
Analytical approximation of M (TVD) dependence
could be presented according to following equation:
M (TVD) = 0[- 1TVD3- 2TVD0.5] (19)
with correlation coefficient r=0.99, where M(TVD) in
meters, 0 = 48.9%; 1 = 2.6-11 (m -1), 2 = 0.006 (m-1).
This dependence shown in fig. 3, line 4, where also
presented M (TVD) dependence calculated from
irreversible compression theory (fig.3, line 2) (Dobrynin,
2004):
M (TVD) = M0 E(TVD)/{1 M0[1 E(TVD)]}, (20)
where E(TVD) = exp(- g TVD);
= f,
coefficient of the irreversible compression (0.033 Pa-
1
); and f formation average density and formation
fluids correspondingly, g gravity acceleration.
In fig.3 dependence (19) is different from dependence
(20) which is the evidence of some factors which affect
monotonous compression. The framework porosity could
change with depth not only because of compression but
also due to the epigenetic processes of under pressure
grains dissolvent and filtration of the formation water. It
also includes corrosion of quartz grains, micas grains
dissolvent, carrying out of carbonate minerals and
autohigenic minerals formation. Such processes caused by
ascending and descending formation water filtration as a
result of thermodynamic pressure gradient have been
generated by cooling and heating of the earth crust
(Dobrynin, 2004).
Apparently, M (TVD) dependence could not be
universal for the different regions.
Water-holding capacity of the framework 0 is
another parameter which should be analyzed. This
parameter is the ordinate of the envelopes ross at Swr(t)
1
Generaly, it is very important to have a reliable directional
survey results to establish a TVD of reservoir. Significance of the
accurate directional surveying is increasing along with geological
modeling progress.
3
dependence or the ordinate of the horizontal envelope at
Swrt(ef) plot. This parameter does not change much and
for the Western Siberia reservoirs is stable within a narrow
range with the average value of 5.56 %.
Petrophysical Modeling of the Fractured
Reservoirs
For fractured reservoirs any analytical dependence
between residual water saturation and total porosity has
not been established yet. It could be explaind by very
complicated morphological structure of the capacity space.
However it is possible to try to use the difference
between analytically modeled residual water saturation for
the granular reservoir and actually measured Swr of the
fractured reservoir as a fractured porosity criterion.
Petrophysical model of the Swr(t) dependence
reflect granular reservoir properties, i.e. residual water
saturation is in inverse proportion to porosity for the
current water-holding capacity.
In the granular reservoirs the total water-holding
capacity is a sum of the framework and cement water-
holding capacity.
If measured dependence between residual water
saturation and porosity is not described by reference
granular model then it could indicate that there are some
influencing factors which complicate capacity space
morphology with fractures (fig. 3).
Immediate fractures influence is developed in
measured residual water saturation lowering against
reference or modeled values for the granular reservoir.
From here it is possible to calculate fracture
porosity with such equation:
F =Swr t ; Swr = Swr model - Swr mes (21)
Along with model between residual water
saturation and petrophysical invariant which was
described earlier (15) for the fractured porosity estimation
this equation can be proposed:
F = ( - Swr) t (22)
To make a separation based on water-holding
capacity for analytical description of the dependence
between fractured porosity and petrophysical invariant this
model can be used:
F = ( -max) ln() (23)
Finaly it is possible to build a correlation F()
(fig. 5). Fig.5 shows that for the low level of fracturing the
high level of water-holding capacity is noted (blue points).
Results and Conclusions
Analysis of correlation fields Swr(t) and Swrt(ef)
with application of corresponding petrophysical models
allows identifying: porosity of the framework; water-
holding (retaining) capacities of the framework and
cement; swelling ability of the clay cement (swelling
index); cement type (carbonate or clay); as well as
reservoir heterogeneity according to the framework
mineral structure and to estimate the degree of its
secondary transformations; and to reveal reservoir
heterogeneity according to the cement mineral
composition, and the presence of swelling minerals
influencing reservoir properties change. Water-holding
4 SPE 136041
capacity of the framework does not depend on the cement
mineral structure and the cement water-holding ability
does not depend on the framework structure.
The spread of points or range Swr(t) is caused by
heterogeneity of the cement mineralogical composition.
The growth of the reservoir water-holding capacity is
supported by consecutive clay minerals composition
change from kaolinit to montmorillonite. The reservoir
model allows defining the swelling factor of the cement in
a quantitative way.
Attempts to carry out a uniform regression of Swr(t)
lead to miscounting of heterogeneity of the reservoir
cement and can cause essential errors of interpretation of
well logging data.
The petrophysical invariant was established. This
parameter is defined as the current value of effective
porosity, normalized to its maximum (for the given
reservoir) value expressed through the framework porosity
and its water-holding capacity. Association of
petrophysical models of the reservoir with petrophysical
models of well logs allows proving petrophysical invariant
as directly interpretative parameter.
All variety of the cement structure and properties is
reflected in Swr() correlation, but transition to invariant
representation of residual water saturation allows
essentially raising accuracy of the mobile fluid saturation
definition.
Invariant representation allows receiving practically
functional dependence Swr(), thus petrophysical invariant
is close to the volume content of mobile water (in case of
water saturated reservoir) or potentially possible
maximum relative oil saturation of the reservoir.
Results of petrophysical modeling provided for
steady dependence of framework porosity of extended
terrigene reservoirs of Vartovsk and Surgut vaults in the
Western Siberia on their bedding depth. Water-holding
capacity of the framework of these terrigene reservoirs
changes within a narrow interval.
If fractures present in core sample then petrophysical
dependences behavior will be different from granular
ones. It is possible to show theoretically that such
difference can be used for the quantitative analysis of the
fractured porosity and permeability. Several core
collections from the Eastern Siberian reservoirs were
analyzed and such possibility was proved.
Nomenclature
petrophysical invariant;
t - total porosity;
ef - effective porosity;
ef max - maximum effective porosity for particular
reservoir;
dyn - dynamic porosity;
dyn max - maximum dynamic porosity for particular
reservoir;
M framework porosity;
F fractured porosity;
Swr - residual water saturation;
Swr M = a - framework residual water;
0 - water-holding capacity of framework, water
volume accociated with framework;
- water-holding capacity of cement, water
volume accociated with cement, Swr =1;
- water-holding capacity of the reservoir, total
residual water volume, Swr =1;
- cement moisture;
B - cement swelling index;
- relative clayness, =1- t/M;
max- maximum relative clayiness for particular
reservoir;
* - relative clayiness normolized on maximum
relative clayiness for particular reservoir;
n hydrocarbon fraction in the effective porosity
volume;
TVD true vertical depth.
References
1. Dakhnov, V.N.: Geophysical methods of reservoir
properties and oil saturation determination, Nedra,
Moscow (1975), (in Russian).
2. Dobrynin, V.M., Vendelshtein, B.Y., Kozhevnikov,
D.A.: Petrophysics, Nedra, Moscow (2004), (in
Russian).
3. Kobranova, V.N.: Petrophysics, Springer-Verlag
(1989).
4. Kozhevnikov, D.A., 2001, Petrophysical Invariance of
Granular Reservoirs. Geophysics, N 4, p.31-37, (in
Russian).
5. Kozhevnikov, D.A., Kovalenko, K.V.: Macro
description of the residual water saturation,
Geophysics (2001) N4 (in Russian).
6. Leontyev, E.I.: Modeling in petrophysics, Nedra,
Moscow (1978), p.48 (in Russian).
7. Serra, O.: Well logging and reservoir evaluation,
Editions Technip (2007).
8. Woodhouse, R.: Accurate Reservoir Water Saturation
from Oil-Mud Cores: Questions and Answers from
Prudhoe Bay and Beyond, The Log Analyst (1998)
Vol.39, N3, p.23 - 47.
9. Worthington, P.F.: Conjunctive interpretation of core
and log data through association of effective and total
porosity models, in: Harvey, P.K., Lovell, M.A. Core-
Log Integration, Geological Society, London (1998),
Special Publications, 136, 213-223.
10. Wu, T., Berg, R.R.: Relationship of Reservoir
Properties for Shaly Sandstones based on Effective
Porosity, Petrophysics (2003) Vol.44, No 5, p. 328-
341.
About authors
Dmitry A. Kozhevnikov
Dmitry A. Kozhevnikov received Ph.D. in physics
and mathematics from the Institute of Nuclear Research at
the Moscow State University in 1964 and D.Sc. at 1983
from the All-Union Research Institute of Nuclear
Geophysics.
He is a Professor of Geophysical Information
Systems Department at Russian State University of Oil &
Gas. He is an author of monographs "Neutron
Characteristics of Rocks and their Application in
Petroleum Geology", Nedra Press, Moscow, (two editions
SPE 136041 5

in Russian: 1974, 1982; in Chinese - 1986, Beijing),

"Neutron Logging Theory" (with coauthors), Nedra Press,
Moscow (in Russian, 1985), a textbook "Petrophysics",
Nedra Press, Moscow, (in Russian, 1991, 2004; with
coauthors), and other.
He is a Vice-President of Russian Nuclear
Geophysics Society, member of Russian Academy of
Natural Sciences, member of Euro-Asian Geophysical
Society. E-mail: kda@com2com.ru

Kazimir V. Kovalenko
Kazimir V. Kovalenko is an engineer-geophysicist.
He holds Ph.D. degree in technical science (2001) from
the Russian State University of Oil and Gas after
I.M.Gubkin, Moscow, Russia. His research interests focus
on algorithmical formalization of well-logging data
petrophysical interpretation. Member of SPWLA, SPE. E-
mail: kazimirk@hotmail.com

Anton A. Arsibekov
MSc student of Geophysical Information System chair in
Gubkin Russian State University. Personal scholarship
holder of JSC NK Rosneft, Schlumberger and
Gubkin`s scholarship. Participant of international
conference. E-mail: a.arsibekov@gmail.com
6 SPE 136041

Table Captions

Table 1. Framework porosity evaluation results (fig.3) for Western Siberian reservoirs from Swr(t) and Swrt(ef)
dependencies analysis.

Figure Captions

Fig.1. Scheme of characteristic points locations on Swr(t), Swrt(ef) and Swr () dependences. a. Swr(t) dependence, 1-
curve of solid cement component, 2-curve of maximum water holding capacity of cement; b. Swrt(ef) dependence. c. Swr ()
dependence.

Fig.2. Swrt(ef) correlation field for one oil field in the Western Siberia (fine-grained sandstones) (a); power-low and
parabolic models (lines) Swr () (b) and So () (c) and core analysis results (dots); the maximum relative oil saturation nmax
versus petrophysical invariant (d).

Fig.3. M(TVD) dependence for few Western Siberian reservoirs (table 3). 1 results obtained from core data analysis; 2
calculated with (20); 3 calculated with (18); 4 calculated with (19).

Fig.4. Swr(t) dependence. Red line is the reference granular model. Fractures effect shown by braces.

Fig.5. F () dependence. Markers results obtained with equation (22); lines model (23) for high (blue) and low (red)
water-holding capacity.
SPE 136041 7

Table 1.

Formation TVD range, Average M from core, M

m TVD, m % calculated
(35), %
1 Senoman* 900-960 930 40.0 39.9
2 PK1 senoman* 1090-1110 1100 39.0 38.7
3 AV1 1700-1770 1735 33.0 33.2
4 BV2, AV8-1 2250-2280 2265 27.5 27.2
5 BV3 2280-2310 2295 27.0 26.8
6 BV0 2335-2355 2345 26.4 26.1
7 BS11-1 2450-2460 2455 25.0 24.7
8 BV4 2480-2500 2490 24.5 24.3
9 BS10 2-3 2600-2630 2615 22.5 22.6
10 BV18-22, BS10 2-3 2630-2660 2645 21.8 22.2
11 Yu0-1, YuV1 2760-2800 2780 21.0 20.4
12 YuV1 2800-2835 2820 19.5 19.8
13 Yu, YuV1 2840-2870 2855 19.0 19.4
14 BP14 2930-2960 2945 18.6 18.2

* Data added from Tauzhnanskiy, G.V., 2003, NTV Karotazhnik, N.110, pp. 112-123 and 2004, NTV
Karotazhnik, N.120, pp. 45-52.
8 SPE 136041

Fig.1
SPE 136041 9

Fig.2.
10 SPE 136041

Framework porosity, %
0 10 20 30 40 50
0

1 2 3 4
500

1000
True Vertical Depth, m

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

Fig.3
SPE 136041 11

Fig.4.

Fig.5.