.

. I

Ki!!! m
. .

Society of PetroleumEngineers
.

SPE 28244

Integrated Formation Evaluation With Regression Analysis

J.M. Hawkins, Petromation

SPE Member

. .
Copyright 1994, Solkaty of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.

Th,< paper was prepared for presentation at Ihe SPE Petmle.~ Computer Conference held In Dallas, Texas, u.s.A., 31 July* Augus! 1994.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of information contained In an abs!racl submitted by tha author(s). Contents of the paper,
as presented, have M been reviewed by tho society of Petm!etIm Egteers and ma subjmt to correction by the authorfs], The material, as pmmuad, does mat necessarily rel[ed
ay position O! me Society of Petro!ewn Enginoem, its officers, or members. Papera presented at SPE meetings ar.s subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of tha society
of Petroleum Engineers. Permission to copy is restrided to an abstfad of not more than 300 words. Illudrdlons may not be copied. The abdrad should COfltaln COn@CUOUS acknowied9ment
of where and by whom the pnper Is presented, Write IJbrarlan, SPE, P.O, Sax =3836, Richardson, TX 75083-3S36, U.SA, Telex, 163245 SPEUT.

ABsTRAcr - .:-_-:-. . --.-=.

-. ..-. 7- -= 4. Complete synthetic capillaty pressure
curves for each depth level,
A comprehensive formation evaluation method is 5. Relative permeability curves (drainage)
presented which integrates log, core and well test generated from the capillary pressure
data on a reservoir using regression amiiysis. The curves, and
method employs a capillay pressure curve model 6. Estimated effective permeability to
correlating four reservoir variables: porosi~, hydrocarbons and to water opposite the
water saturation, permeability and capillary wellbore.
pressure. Porosity and saturation are estimated by
conventional log analysis, permeability is obtained These results are then integrated with well test
from emptilcal correlations with logs (usually data by comparing effective permeabilities from 6.
porosity) and capillary pressure is directly related above with the test results. U there is a mismatch,
to height above the water level. it may be necessary to rerun the regression in
order to honor all of the datasets.
Depth profiles of the four variables are adjusted by
regression analysis constrained by the capilkuy The method is illustrated with log, core and test
pressure curve model. Results of the regression data from an offshore Gulf of Mexico- well.
include :
INTRODUCTION
1. An estimate of the water level,
2. Improved profiles of the four variables There are three classic methods for esttiating
which are consistent with both log analysis water saturation in a reservoin log analysis, capil-
and capillary pressure theory, lary pressure curves and oil-base coring. By far,
3. Adjusted log analysis parameters, the most common method in use-today is evaJu-
.ationby log analysis alone. A pe~ophysical model
based on some variation of Archies equation is
References and illustrations at end of paper selected, electrical properties such as a, m and n

Z15

2 INTEGRATED FORMATION EVALUATION WITH RJZGRESSIONANALYSIS
are determined and logs for each well in the
reservoir are processed to generate depth profdes
of porosity and water saturation. Net pay cutoffs
are picked and average values for porosity and
water saturation are tabulated along with total net
pay in each well.
Reliance on log analysis alone creates a number of
problems. To begin with, what is the appropriate
petiophysical model to use for a given reservoir?
For sandstones, which will be the focus for the
remainder of the paper, there is a profusion of
choices, with hydrocarbons-in-place often varying
signiilcantly between models, and there exists no
accepted set of guidelines or rules by which to
make a choice.
Once the model is selected, there is the problem of
determining the parameters, particuku-ly the
electrical properties a, m and n. Sometimes these
are measured in a laboratory with cores but more
often not. Although it is possible to derive a and m
from crossplotting log data, n cannot be so
determined.
Another problem is assessing the accuracy of the
calculated water saturation at any given point on
a log. Without an independent estimate of Sw the
potential error at each depth is unknown.
Finally, porosi~ and water saturation by them-
selves only allow the evaluation of hydrocarbon
volume and do not address the key issue of
producibility and hence the determination of net
pay, except in a gross sense. There is no physical
reason why an Sw cutoff of 70 percent, for
example, should differentiate between pay and
nonpay. On the other hand, producibdity is
directly related to effective permeability, which is
the product of permeabili~ and relative perme-
ability. An evaluation method which does not
include effective permeability should be con-
sidered incomplete.
214
.
a
SPE 28244
Ml of the above problems stem from the fact that
petrophysical models are underdetermined
systems, that is, there arent enough equations to
define all the variables of interest. An K
determined system can be created by combining
the equations of the petrophysical model with the
equations of a capillary pressure curve model.
Capillary pressure curve models provide an inde-
pendent method for computing Sw and explicitly
include permeabili~ in the equations in some
cases. These models also include a parameter of
great interest in defining reservoir limits, the free
water level. Another benefit is the generation of
relative perrneab~lty curves from the capillay
pressure curve, as will be discussed below.
Whh an overdetermined system, regression analy-
sis provides a statistical framework for addressing
the problems mentioned above. Choosing the best
petrophysical model can be materially aided, even
formalized, by the statistical procedure known as
hypothesis testing. Determination of model para-
meters such as the electrical properties and the
free water level are a fwidamental feature of
regression analysis. Error bars for the parameters
and for the variables (such as SW] are readily
computed.
CAPILLARYPRESSURE CURVE MODELS
Capillaxy pressure curve models correlate porosi~,
permeabfilty, water saturation and capillary
pressure measured on cores. The earliest such
model was the J-function proposed by Leveretd,
which has found utility in many reservoirs,
although in some cases it does not produce a satis-
factory correlation of the data. Another drawback
is that since there is no universal J-function
comelation, laboratory measurements are required
to apply the method. In spite of these difficulties,
the J-function could serve as the capillary pressure
curve model within the overall evaluation scheme
proposed in this paper, particukdy in those reser-
voirs (thought to be numerous) where it does cor-
relate the data.
SPE 28244 JOSEPH M HAWKINS
Another potential model was proposed by Hawkins
et aL2, based on Thomeers equation in which the
Thomeer parameters were derived as functions of
porosity and permeability. An advantage to thk
model is that a global correlation (for sandstones)
was presented whkh could be used in the absence
of laboratory data. However, the model has no
minimum water satiation and can predict unreal-
istically low saturations (c 10OA)at moderate to
high capill~ pressures. Fumherrnore, the absence
of a minimum or irreducible saturation and the
general formulation of the model do not readily
allow the computation of relative permeability.
The model illustrated with the example well below
is based on Coreys3 capillaty pressure curve
equation,
se=(Pe/Pc)~ . . . . . . . . ...(1)
where S.=(SW-S, )/ (l-S,) . ..(2)
is the effective saturation, - normalized with the
residual water saturation, S,. The Corey p=a-
meters, S,, P, (entry pressure) arid L (a Iithologic
factor ) have been derived as functions of
porosity and permeability in a global correlation
for sandstones called UNILOG4. If laboratory
capillary pressure measurements are available,
the model can be adjusted to fit the data.
In order to apply regression analysis to UNILOG,
or another suitable model, it is necessary to
generate depth profiles of the basic varjables
correlated by the model: porosi~, water satura-
tion, permeability and capilkq pressure-
Porosity and water saturation can be derived
from direct core measurements (in oil base mud)
or from log analysis. Permeability and capillary
pressure are discussed below.
PERMEABILIIY
Preferably, permeability profdes should be taken
from conventional core data. In the usual case,
215
3
however, permeabili~ will be derived from logs.
Numerous papers5b78have proposed methods for
estimating perrneab@ from logs, augmented by
core data. Perhaps the simplest method is estima-
ting permeability from porosity based on crossplot
of core data, which will be used in the example
well. Nuclear Magnetic Resonance logs offer &e
promise of a logging measurement with a slrong
correlation with permeability.
AU methods of obtaining permeability from logs
are at least partly empirical and therefore have
parameters which can be considered adjustable in
the regression analysis.
CAPILLARY PRESSURE
The capillary pressure profde is simply the product
of height above the flee water level (FWL) and a
conversion factor2. Reference 4 (page 19)
discusses deriving the conversion factor from pub-
lished correlations involving pressure, temperature
and. fluid properties such as oil or gas gravity,
GOR and water salinity.
If the FWL is not known in advance, it can be
solved for in the regression analysis as one of the
adjustable parameters.
REGRESSION ANALYSIS
Since capillary pressure ~eory meats a reservoir as
a unit, it becomes possible to relate all log and
core measurements taken in the reservoir within a
unii3ed set of equations based on the capillary
pressure curve model. Thk is in cormast to pemo-
physical models, which consider measurements
taken at a given depth unrelated to those taken at
other depths.
At each point in a reservoir, the four basic vari-
ables (porosi~, water saturation, permeability and
capillary pressure), all of which have been derived
fi-om log/core measurements, are related by the
capillary pressure curve model (a combination. of

4 INTEGRATED FORMATION EvMUATION m
equations 1, 2 and the equations relating Coreys
parameters to porosi~and permeability4). Further-
more, saturations at all points in the reservoir are
related by a family of capillary pressure curves
having a coinmon free water level.
In the case of data from a <igle well, thk means
that the depth profiles of the four basic variables
are related in a single set of equations, one
equation for each depth. Such a system may be
heated statistically by regression analysis.
Regression analysis relates a set of observations
through a model defined in terms of the observa-
tions and certain constant parameters. Staying
with the case of a single well for illustration, the
observations are the log/core measurements and
the model is the capillary pressure curve model.
Actually, the capilkuy pressure curve model relates
the basic variables which are in turn derived from
subsidiary models, one for each variable. There is
a model for porosi~, for saturation (the petro-
physical model), for permeability and for capillary
pressure, each model w@ its own set of constant
parameters. In the case of the petrophysical
model, for example, the parameters include the
electrical properties, a, m and n, and pahaps
some shaliness factors, depending on which satur-
ation equation is chosen.
Regression analysis computes a measure of the
statistical vaEdity of the system of equations called
the error sum of squares (SS). At each depth in
the well, the basic variables are considered subject
to error, which is computed in the regression. A
weighted sum of the squares of the errors is
compiled for each depth and a grand sum is tabu-
lated for all depths. l%is grand sum, S_S, is a
measure of how far the totalhy of observations
depart from the model.
TM statistic, SS, along with others computed in
the regression, protides a means of addressing the
problems noted in the Introduction through hypo-
thesis testing. For example, different petrophysical
216
REGRESSION ANALYSIS SPE 28244
models (hypotheses) could be used in diiYerent
regression runs. The one having the smallest SS
would be the favored model. Statistical tests
involving the SS can determine if one model is
signiilcantly better than another. It is not recom-
mended, however, that statistics be the sole
measure of choosing the pemophysical model, or
any other model, for that matter. Other physical
factors may overrule the purely statistical choice.
Another major reason for using regression analysis
is parameter determination. For example, for a
given petrophysical model it is possible to solve for
the values of a, m and n which minimize SS.
L&eWise, the parameters defining the permeability
model may be adjusted. And, of course, the FWL
is often an unknown parameter. In practice, the
dataset may instilcient to allow the solution for
all these parameters. It may be necessaxy to f~
certain parameters within narrow ranges and solve
for the others.
The upshot of all this is that regression analysis
can aid in selecting the models and p=ameters
which generate improved profiles of the basic
variables.
RELATIVE PERMEABILITY
In 1952, Burdlne formulated relative permeabil-
ity equations based on factors from capillary
pressure curves which he validated with laboratory
experiments. Corey showed that simple solutions
for Burdines equations could be obtained from the
Corey capillary pressure curve-fitting parameters
(reference 3, page 95).
For wetting phase relative permeability we have
~=s: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(3)-
where e=(2+3A )/A . . . . . ...(4).
For non-wetting phase relative permeability, the
equation is
 .
.

SPE 28244 -- JOSEPH M. HAWKINS 5

lqw=(l-se)(l-se~) . ...(5) Log Analysis

where y=(2+A )/A . . . . . . ...(6). In the first pass at the problem, it is useful to
adopt a simple petrophysical model and then go to
These relative perrneabilities are valid for a more complicated models as required. Accordingly,
water-wet reservoir on a primary drainage capil- porosi~ was calculated from the density log and
lary pressure curve. crossplotted with resistivity in the water sand as
shown in Figure No._2, from which an& of .025
EXAMPLE WELL ,:-- .. . and an m of 1.87 were derived. Assigning n the
same value as m allows us to compute= water
The evaluation scheme will be. illush-ated with saturation (SWLog in figure 1) from Archles
data from an offshore Gulf of Mexico well equation.
published in a guidebook on low-resistivity
producing sandsll. The well is located in West Permeability
Delta Block 88, offshore Louisiana. In Figure
No. 1, a computed log, the upper P sand was In Figure No. 3, a good correlation is seen
perforated and flowed clean oil wit-l. resistivities between sidewall core porosity and permeability,
less than one ohm. so we will derive permeability from density poro-
sity using the line shown. Since these data are
Below the perforations a more conventional high from sidewalls, the line will only be regarded as
resistivity section is seen -just below a shaly tentative, subject to adjustment.
break which may separate the two zones into
separate reservoirs. Resistivities in this zone & from the Capillarv pressure Curve Model .
have been enhanced with a forward modeling
program*2. At the bottom of the figure, In Figtue No. 1, SWPCis water saturation calculated
resistivity declines to an appment water contact. from the global capillary pressure curve model
Sidewall cores were sampled extensively based on density porosi~, permeability (derived
throughout the sand above the contact and all from porosi~) and capillary pressure in a recon-
have oil shows. Logs below the plotted interval naissance pass. Capillary pressure was computed
reveal a thick clean water sand with resistivities from a FWL at 1.1120, which was determined from
around .2 ohms. regression analysis. Data from the entire sand was
entered in the regression, excluding porosity less
If this had been a discovery well, the following than 20%, SWgreater than 80% and permeability
qtiestions might have been posed prior. to the less than 1 md. The only parameter adjusted was
well tes~ the FWL, which turns out very close to the appar-
ent contact on the log, a very satisfjhg result.
1- k the upper P stid productive?
2. What is kh for the upper P? The saturation overlay in Figure No. 1 provides a
3. Are the upper and lower swds in the same visual assessment of how well the model fits the
reservoir? data and is useful in detecting anomalies. Agree-
4. What are the volumetric factors (porosi~, ment in the lower P sand (high resistivi~) is good
saturation, net pay)? except for the shdler intervals. This means that
the log analysis and the capillay pressm-e curve
These questions are addressable by the proposed model are .in harmony, except perhaps for some
evaluation method as follows. fme tuning.

217
6 INTEGRATED FORMATION EVALUATION WITH REGRESSION ANALYSIS
On the other hand, SWPCis generally much less
than SWLogin the upper P sand, calliig for further
evaluation. There are a number of possibilities to
investigate. It could be that the global capillary
pressure curve model does not apply in the upper
P, even though it works well in the lower P. The
only way to resolve thk issue is to obtain labora-
tory capillary pressure curves on cores. Prior to
the test, we might have entertained the idea that
the upper P is not productive, that is, the oil
shows are residual. Although we will be able to
make some inferences about thk from the other
possibilities examined, the test is the only
deftitive answer.
Several other possibilities for explaining the
saturation discrepancy in the upper P can be
examined with regression analysis. These include
testing other petrophysical models, testing whether
the FWL in the upper P is different fkom the lower
P and testing the hypothesis that the
porositypermeability transform is different in the
upper P. This requires at least one regression run
for each possibility.
Regression Runs. . . . . .. ,. .- ._
In all, four regression runs were made wi& data
from the upper P sand (11020 -11075 ), each
testing a dfierent case. Results are shown in Table
No. 1. The standard error, a dimensionless
number computed from the error sum of squares
in the regression, is a measure of goodness of fit,
with smaller values representing better fits. HPV
is hydrocarbon pore volume in feet. The kh
en~ies are cumulative permeability-feet computed
from the corrected permeabilities determined in
the regression. Kh to water and to oil are the
cumulative product of permeability and the respec-
tive relative permeabili~ (equations 3 and 5).
.,
Case No. 1 was-inn under the same assumptions
as the original reconnaissance pass shown in
FQure No. 1. Note the relatively large standard
error.
SPE 28244
Case No. 2 is the same as Case No. 1 except that
the FWL was adjusted. This brought the standard
error down significantly, but it also increased the
kh to water to the point where a large water cut
is predicted. Results from the well tests rule this
possibility out.
In Case No. 3, the original FWL was fixed while
the electrical properties and the permeability
transform were adjusted. Although the dataset
did not have a wide enough range of porosities to
adequately define the formation factor relation, it
became apparent that the Humble formula would
improve the fit, so this was adopted and n was
adjusted along with the permeability parameters,
resulting in a highly signiilcant improvement in
the standard error. Both n and perrneabdity came
down, which seems reasonable given the shaliness
of the sand in comparison ro the lower P.
In Case No. 4, a laminated shaly sand petrophys-
ical model was tested. Consideration was given to
using the Waxman-Smits formula, but this was
rejected because trial calculations indicated only
minor impact on the saturations. Instead, the
. ..-Thomas-Stieber13 model, developed specitlcally for
South Louisiana, was adopted because a number
of the sidewall cores in the upper P were
described as laminated. The model seeks to esti-
mate the porosity and resistivity in the sand
Iaminae by correcting density porosity and induc-
tion resistivity for the effects of the shale laminaej
resulting in higher porosity and resistivity than is
seen on the logs. A parallel conductivity mode114)15
was assumed for the induction log response.
As in Case No. 3, n and the permeability para-
meters were adjusted, again resulting in a lower n
and a different permeability transform. FQure No.
4 shows that the new transform predicts a lower
permeability for the same porosity as compared to
the original transform derived from sidewall cores.
~is is a plot of regression corrected porosity
versus permeability. Total kh has increased
because the sand laminaeporosity from the model
218
 .
SPE 28244 JOSEPH M. HAWKINS
is higher than the density porosity used in the
other cases.
Although the Case No. 4 standard error is lower
than for Case No. 3, the dtiference is not statis-
tically signii3cant, meaning that either model is
acceptable. Ot&r considerations must dictate the
choice between the models.
Figure No. 5 shows the results of the model used
in Case No. 4. For uniformity, the laminated
model was also applied in the lower P. The
volume of shale fraction (Vsh) shown is not the
total shale fraction, but only the laminated
portion, which is in qualitative agreement with the
core descriptions. Likewise, the porosity, resis-
tivity, water saturation qnd permeability shown
represent the values estimated for the sand
Iaminae.
Excellent agreement ii now seen in the saturatio-n
overlay in the upper P and improved agreement is
evident in rhe lower P. This is a much improved
interpretation over that in Figure No. 1.
Integration T&th Well Tests _ . .
Permeabilky-feet (@ was estimated with the
radial flow equation from two well tests by pro-
jecting the sand face flowing pressure from the
reported flowing tubing pressure, resultjng in 43
rnd-ft for a six hour test and 31 md-ft for a later
MO hour test. No pressure buildup survey was
run.
In Table No. 1, kh to oil from all of the regression
runs shows fair to good agreement with I& from
well tests. Although Case No. 4 kh is much higher
t$an the well test kh, it actually maybe closer to
the reservoir kh because the well test results do
not account for formation d~age. Subsequent
performance of the well shows a better flow rate
than in the tests, which may have resulted from
cleaning up the darnage. -
219
7
As for kh to water, only Case No. 2 is in serious
error.
Results
Returning to the hypothetical questions posed
earlier, the answers can be formulated from the
results of Table No: 1. Prior to the well test, a
realistic assessment of producibility might have
been that the most likely results would be Case
No. 3 or 4, but there was a risk of water cut by
virtue of Case No. 2. After the test, Case No. 2
would be ruled out, so the FWL for both the upper
and lower P are the same, which may imply a
common reservoir, although thk is not deftitive.
(In a fding with the Minerals Management Service,
the operator indicated a common water level for
the two sands.) The best estimate of volumetric
factors are from Case-No. 3 or 4 with a slight edge
to 4.
CONCLUSIONS .
A comprehensive forrnarion evaluation method has
been presented and illustrated with data ffom an
offshore Gulf of Mexico well. The essence of the
method is in the combination of log analysis and
capillary pressure theory in a unilled model. Thk
combination of two separate methods for estima-
ting water saturation allows the use of regression
analysis in interpreting the log and core data on a
reservoir. A benefit of this approach is that the
best model for evaluating the reservoir may be
selected with the aid of statistical testing and the
attendant model parameters determined in the
process. &other benefit is the determination of
permeability and relative permeability consistent
with capillary pressure curve theory. Effective
permeability detefined in the method can then
be inte~ated with well test results to improve the
evaluation.
 .

. ,.-.

8 INTEGRATED FORMATION EVALUATION WITH REGRESSION ANALYSIS SPE 28244

NOMENCLATURE _____ . . . .. .. Littleton, CO (1990) p.46

a = emptilcal constant in formation factor 4. Hawkins, J., U.NILOG School/Workshop

relationship Manual, Petromation, Houston, TX, 1993, p.30
. free water level
k = permeability, md. 5. Timur, A., An Investigation of Permeability,
= relative permeability to wetting phase Porosity, and Residual Water Saturation Rela-
k
. relative permeability to non-wetting tionships, Trans., SPWIA, (1968) 9, Sec. K
k.
phase
kh . permeability-feet, md.-ft. 6. Tootle, J., The Prediction of Well Productivity
m . porosity exponent from Wireliie Logs, McAllen Ranch Field,
n =
saturation exponent Trans., SPWLA,(1979), paper H
P= . capillary pressure, psi
Pe . ent@ capillaty pressure, psi 7. Lewis, D., and Perrin, J., Wilcox Formation
. water resistivity Ev@ation: Improved Procedures forTlght-Gas
%
se . effective water saturation -Sand Evaluation, JPT ( June, 1992 ), p. 724
s, . residual water saturation
SW . water saturation 8. Amaefule, J. et al., Enhanced Reservoir
Ss . error sti of squares Description Using Core and Log Data to Iden-
E = wetting phase relative permeability tify Hydraulic (Flow) Units and Predict
exponent Permeability in Uncored Intervals/Wells, 68th
Y . non-wetting phase relative permeability Annual Technical Conference and ExMbition
exponent of SPE, (1993) SPE paper no. 26436
1 . lithologic ~ponent
9. Coates, G., Peveraro, R., HardWick, A;, and
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .. . .. . .. Roberts, D., The Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Log Characterized by Comparison With Petro-
The author is grateful to Charles Harrison of AGIP physical Properties and Laboratory Core Data,
PeEoleum Company for providing information on 66th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibi-
the example we~. Ljkewise, thanks are extended tion of SPE (1991), SPE paper no. 22723
to Rich Hq-dman for the use ,of hk fo~~d
modeling code. 10. Burdine, N., Relative Permeability Calcula-
tions from Pore-size Distribution Data, Trans.
REFERENCE S . .. . . . . . . -- AIME (1952), VO1.198, p.71

1. Leverettj M.C.,Capillary Behaviour in Porous 11. Productive Low Resistivity Well Logs of the
Solids, Trans. AIME, Vol. 142, 1941, p.lsi Offshore Guy of Mexico, New Orleans and
Houston Geological Societies, New Orleans, LA
2. Hawkins, J., Luffel, D.Y and Harris, T., and Houston, TX (1993) p. D-115
Capill~ pressure Model Predicts Distance to
Gas/Waterj Oi~ater Contact, Od ~d Gas 12. Haxdman, R., 6FF40 Modeling Software
Journd, Jan. 18, 1993, p.39
13. Thomas, E., and Stieber, S.,The Distribution
3. Corey, A.T., Mechanics of Immiscible Fluids in of Shale in Sandstones and its Effect upon
Porous Media, Water Resources Publications, Porosity, Trans. SPWLA (1975), paper T

220
 >
.

SPE 28244 JOSEPH M. HAWKINS

14. Andersonj B.,The Analysis of Some Unsolved

Induction Interpretation Problems Using
Computer Modeling, The Log Analyst, Sep.:
Oct. 1986, p.60

15. Fylling, A.,Estimating Conductivity and

Saturations in the Sands of Thinly Laminated.
Dipping Sand/Shale Sequen~es, Tram:
SPWLA (1991), paper O

TABLE NO. 1

GEOLOGIC AND
ENGINEERING
DATA

OPERATOR
FWL (MD) 11120 11091 11120 1112 11110 LOGOWC-,
ST. ERROR 1.42 0.76 0.34 0.2 SEVERAL
WELLS

k==
HPV (ft)
% Increase
1.49
o
1.49
0
1.79
20
2.1
4

KH (md-ft) 156 365 124 22

KH-WTR (md-fl) 2 17 2: O WELL
KH-OIL (md-ff) 40 64 32 & 31-43 TESTS

CUMULATIVE
PRODUCTION
(ONE YEAR)
158,000 BO
NET PAY CUTOFFS 150,000 MCFG
346 BW
PHI (%) 20
Sw (%) 80 AVERAGE
K (red] 1 434 BOPD

221
 SPE28244
WATER SANDS F/w = .025

mm, FEW % w,
(1 ,.0 ,, ()

,M o 0

10
100

FIGURE 2

SIDEWALL CORE DATA

;~ ~:e
20 25 30 35 40 ~
[,
POROSIN l.?!
I m
~

,1

REGRESSION RESIJL~ ;,
r:.
,,
$,
10000 h:!
LINE FR(XVICORES
g 1000
~.;,
\
3 ,lo~.
%
u
I& 10 ..{:
, :
Llh E FROM REGRkSSION
, 1
,
flGURE I 20 25 30 35 40 ,
c.
. POROSITY

FIGURE 4 ~;> ~ .
i
I ,,
.,
~pE28244

,. _... .. . .g. .
PERM

VSH --
= 1
KLOG
[1 Iwm

Do (1 10V

11C60

4 lCW

11100

223