See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/309918533

Estimation of Fluid-Fluid Contact and the Transition Zone: A Case Study of Low
Contrast Resistivity Zone

Conference Paper · November 2016

DOI: 10.2523/IPTC-18807-MS

CITATION READS

1 1,181

2 authors, including:

Muhammad Nur Ali Akbar

University of Miskolc
18 PUBLICATIONS   8 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Organic-Rich Shale Petrophysical Analysis in North Sumatra Basin, Indonesia View project

EFOP-3.6.1-16-2016-00011 project View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Muhammad Nur Ali Akbar on 27 December 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

IPTC-18807-MS

Estimation of Fluid-Fluid Contact and the Transition Zone: A Case Study of

Low Contrast Resistivity Zone

M. N. Ali Akbar, Institut Teknologi dan Sains Bandung; P. Permadi, Institut Teknologi Bandung

Copyright 2016, International Petroleum Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the International Petroleum Technology Conference held in Bangkok, Thailand, 14-16 November 2016.

This paper was selected for presentation by an IPTC Programme Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s).
Contents of the paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the International Petroleum Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The
material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the International Petroleum Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
IPTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor Society Committees of IPTC. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial
purposes without the written consent of the International Petroleum Technology Conference 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 where and by whom the paper was presented.
Write Librarian, IPTC, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax +1-972-952-9435.

Abstract
Determination of a fluid-fluid contact and the transition zone is a crucial problem in formations having a
low contrast resistivity (LCR) characteristic. High reservoir heterogeneity even makes a serious problem
when the contact is not encountered in the existing wells drilled. Improper use of capillary pressure data
may lead to severe errors in estimating both the contact and the transition zone.
This paper presents a technique to determine a fluid-fluid contact by maximizing and integrating
geological and engineering data available such as well logs, routine and special core analysis (SCAL), and
flow test data. Integration of all the data leads to establishing rock types along the interval of interest and
developing the corresponding capillary pressure data needed. Establishment of rock types is shown to be
of importance because SCAL data are rock type dependent. Flow test data and relative permeability ratio
data are used to determine water saturation at the tested interval.
Two well cases of a LCR zone are considered in this study. All the data needed are available, except that
capillary pressure data are limited. The rock type model based on the core analysis data available enables
us to develop additional capillary pressure curves as needed. Combination of log responses and routine
core data are used to predict permeability. The rock types are then distributed in the well within the tested
zone. The oil-water contact (OWC) estimated for each of the zones by applying the technique proposed is
significantly deeper than that previously determined using resistivity logs. The water saturation distribution
within the transition zone is controlled by the distribution of rock types. When the previous corresponding
OWC in each zone is used, it is shown that the calculated Water Cut much higher than the actual data. This
demonstrates that the electric log-based OWC is too pessimistic.
In conclusion, the LCR zone under the study needs an integrated solution. The proposed technique offers
a theoretically sound solution for estimating a fluid-fluid contact and water saturation distribution in the
transition zone. It can be applied to common problems of fluid-fluid contact estimation. A procedure to
overcome limited SCAL data is provided.
2 IPTC-18807-MS

Introduction
A transition zone is defined as a zone having a lower boundary so called as Oil-Water Contact (OWC)
and an upper boundary above which water is immobile. When considering immobile oil saturation, there
is a lowest portion of the transition zone within which oil saturation ranges from an infinitely small to the
residual oil saturation. The lowest horizontal boundary at which the capillary pressure Pc becomes zero at
the first time is called as Free Water Level (FWL).
Determination of a transition zone of an oil reservoir and the vertical distribution of water saturation
Sw are very important in estimating the original oil in place (OOIP), placing perforated intervals for
production, predicting water breakthrough, and reservoir modeling for numerical simulation. Sw in wells
may be determined on the basis of well logs analysis and interpretation. However, the results of well log
interpretation may contain uncertainties due to changes in mineralogy contained or lithology within the
intervals of interest, low contrast resistivity characters, and incorrect values of cementation factor and/or
saturation exponent used in the log analysis.
When the OWC or FWL of an oil reservoir is definitively identified, Sw distribution may be generated with
the help of Pc data available for this reservoir. The Pc data, after being converted to the reservoir conditions,
are transformed to become saturation-height function. The height, H, is equal to zero at FWL where Sw =
1.0. Above FWL, H > 0 and Sw decreases starting from the so called capillary-entry pressure, Pce. OWC
is located at a distance of Hce when Sw starts decreasing from the value of 100%. Since Pc is directionally
proportional to height above FWL and also affected by the rock properties, thus Sw depends not only on
H but also on the rock properties. Very recently, Ghedan et al. (2006) proposed a method for which rock
properties were grouped into rock types for a purpose of distributing Sw within the transition zone.
However, when the wells drilled did not penetrate any fluid-fluid contact, the contact needs to be predicted
as soon as possible to locate delineation wells. Such a situation has led to many workers to develop methods
or techniques for estimating the bottom reservoir boundary (Alger et al., 1989; Smith, 1992; Hawkins et
al., 1993). All the methods developed basically require Pc data and either core or log derived porosity ϕ,
water saturation Sw, and permeability k. In the implementation, a care should be exercised when using log
derived Sw because a small error in Sw could result in a large error in the FWL predicted. This particularly
may happen in formations with low resistivity low contrast (LRLC) characteristics. Many cases of such
formations have been discussed in the literature (Givens, 1987; Deakin, 1996; Simpson and Menke, 2010;
Jian-ming et al., 2013) but a little attention has been paid to cases where the resistivity of productive zones
is relatively high, above 5 ohm-m, but only slightly higher than or even nearly the same as the resistivity
of the underlying water zone. This kind of formations is frequently called as low contrast high resistivity
(LCR) zones. Such a characteristic is usually encountered in relatively clean formations containing very
low salinity water (Goode et al, 1995; Akkurt et al., 2008). It would be even more confusing at a glance
if there is some variation of the bulk density within the interval of interest that causes a little resistivity
difference between the transition zone and the water zone.
Therefore, in the case where neither OWC nor FWL data is available and the existing log resistivity data
exhibit LCR characteristic, it would be difficult to rely on the resistivity data to search for the boundary,
OWC. However, in early life of an oil field, it would be fortunate if one or more of the wells drilled
produce(s) some water even if no RFT or the like is available on hand. This situation can be very helpful
in estimating the fluid-fluid contact.
The bottom reservoir boundary is not the only important parameter in estimating the initial hydrocarbon in
place but also vertical and lateral distributions of the fluids saturation. Fluids saturation and the distribution
are strongly influenced by rock properties such as permeability and porosity. Determination of the height
of a transition zone, therefore, requires knowledge of the rock property distributions. This study presents
a method to estimate a fluid-fluid contact for cases where well tests run in the wells give some water
IPTC-18807-MS 3

produced. Two concepts, Leverett J-function to derive saturation-height function and reservoir rock typing
that conforms the J-function, will be employed for the case of a LCR zone.

Method
The method presented herein is the one utilizing all the data available, consisting of both static and dynamic
data. The static data include standard well logs data, conventional core porosity, and drainage cycle capillary
pressure. The dynamic data cover conventional core permeability, relative permeability as a function of
water saturation from special core analysis (SCAL) data, PVT data for the liquids produced, and drill stem
test data.
Saturation-height function derived from capilary J-function will be used to distribute Sw along the zone
interval of interest. Since J-function curve is influenced by rock type, rock types model will be first built.
The rock typing method employed is based on grouping similarity in pore geometry and structure. The
method is to plot (k/ϕ)0.5 as pore geometry attribute against (k/ϕ3) as pore structure attribute on a reference
graph available (Wibowo and Permadi, 2013). The rock type model built for the reservoir zone will then
be used to establish rock types distribution in the well by determining first porosity and permeability along
the interval of interest.
It is known that capillary pressure relates to height measured from FWL,
(1)
where PC is capillary pressure, H is height measured from FWL, ρW and ρO are density of water and density
of oil, respectively. Capillary pressure data (Pc vs. Sw) will be used to generate the J-function needed through
the following equation (Leverett, 1941),

(2)

where σ is interfacial tension, θ is contact angle, k is permeability, and ϕ is porosity. By having all the data for
the parameters contained in the right hand side of Eq. (2), J-function can be calculated and plotted against
Sw. The best fitting line of the data points may yield the following form:
(3)
It would obtained that each rock type established would have its own J-function. Then, combining Eqs.
(1), (2), and (3) results in the equation below.

(4)

or,

(5).

Finally, each rock type established would have its own Eqs. (3), (4), and (5).
Production or well test data are needed to determine the relative permeability ratio from the produced
fluids in the effort of estimating the water saturation within the production or tested interval.
The following is the procedure of estimating a FWL and distributing Sw vertically:
1. Based on flow test data in terms of Water Cut (WC), calculate water-oil relative permeability ratio,
4 IPTC-18807-MS

(6)
2. Identify the best rock type or rock types that are expected to dominantly contribute to the fluids
flow within the tested interval and then select a proper SCAL relative permeability (krw/kro) curve.
The calculated krw/kro using Eq. (6) is used to estimate Sw employing the selected (krw/kro) curve.
3. The estimated Sw from point 2) above is then used in Eq. (4) to determine height H, the distance
vertically down from the midpoint of the dominant rock type(s) within the tested interval to a depth,
which will become the FWL.
4. Once the FWL is determined, Sw at any depth above FWL can be determined by using Eq. (5) of
the related rock type at that depth.
5. The corresponding OWC is determined at the deepest point of Sw = 1 encountered the first time
approaching toward the FWL.

Data Used
Lithology of the formation of interest is sandstone. One of the earliest wells, M-01 well, penetrated a very
thick zone indicated by the Gamma Ray log. Unfortunately, only a shallow resistivity log data are available
for this well, giving resistivity readings ranging from 11 to 40 ohm-m both in the oil and water zones. A 14-
foot production test at the top part of the zone was carried out in this well, resulting in a rather high Water
Cut, 47%. Four years later, the second well, M-02, was drilled slightly updip and penetrated the same zone.
This well was planned better than previous one by running a triple-resistivity log, deep, shalow, and micro-
spherical focused logs. The deep resistivity readings range from 10 to 42 ohm-m.A 20-foot production test
at the top section of the zone yielded a Water Cut (WC) of only 6%.
Other data available for this field, although limited, include the results of water analysis, PVT analysis,
conventional routine core analysis (RCA), and special core analysis (SCAL). Salinity of the formation water
is about 4,000 ppm with a resistivity of 1.93 ohm-m at 77 °F. This is a typical fresh water property. The
reservoir temperature is 156 °F. The PVT data at the specific reservoir conditions are given in Table 1. The
only data that are not available are oil-water interfacial tension (IFT) σ and wettability contact angle θ. An
observation made on the SCAL data, particularly oil and water relative permeability curves, indicates water-
wet behavior. Therefore, typical values commonly used at reservoir conditions for IFT =30 dyne/cm and θ
= 30 degrees, respectively, were employed in the present study.

Table 1—The fluid properties data

The PVT Data at reservoir conditions

ρo (gr/cc) ρw (gr/cc) μo (cp) μW (cp)

1.012
0.757 1.4 0.4
(assumed)

The core samples were obtained only from the second well, M-02. Core analysis data, particularly
the SCAL data, were very limited for the zone under this study. Fortunately, there were several SCAL
capillary pressure and relative permeability data available from other Formations, located above the zone of
interest, with similar log responses but relatively higher resistivity log readings within the oil zone intervals.
Consideration of such very similar log characters led to a decision of using all these SCAL data. The RCA
data for the zone of interest were obtained from 36 core plugs with porosity and permeability values ranging
from 9.1 to 31.4% and from 0.1 to 5,000 md, respectively. The porosity and permeability data available from
all the RCA and SCAL core plugs were employed to develop the rock type model, as shown in Figure 1.
There are seven different rock types (RT4, RT5, RT6, RT8, RT9, RT10, and RT11) formed on this reference
IPTC-18807-MS 5

graph. In this figure, circle, triangle, and square symbols for the data points, respectively, denote for RCA,
relative permeability, and capillary pressure data. As can be seen in this figure, no core sample data fall on
and around the line of RT7 and the data points for the SCAL core plugs fall on RT4 and RT5. Hence, there
are only two rock types representing the SCAL data.

Figure 1—Rock typing for the core samples

All the existing capillary pressure data were plotted in the form of J-function (see Figure 2). It is seen
in this figure that two distinct trends are expected for the data points. When looking at Figure 1, the SCAL
data points separate into two rock types, RT4 and RT5. This is expected to occur because pore geometry
attribute, (k/ϕ)0.5, is the same variable used in both the rock typing model just discussed above and the J-
function. While, pore structure attribute, (k/ϕ3), is another variable characterizing tortuosity and pore shape
factor which both determine the curvature of J-function (Purcell, 1949; Rose et al, 1949; Burdine et al.
1950; El-Khatib, 1995; Desouky, 2003; Wibowo and Permadi, 2013).
6 IPTC-18807-MS

Figure 2—Capillary pressure data transformed into J-function.

Of all the rock samples available, the best quality belongs to RT4 with permeability ranging from 164 md
to 5,000 md; while the poorest rock quality belongs to RT9, RT10, and RT11 all with permeability less than
1 md which is considered for non-reservoir rock. An effort was also performed to identify the rock quality
in terms of irreducible water saturation Swirr. All the SCAL data were then used to relate permeability to Swirr.
The result demonstrates that Swirr is strongly permeability dependent as shown in Figure 3, indicating that
permeability value of 1 md would yield Swirr close to 100%. It should be mentioned here that Swirr derived
from the laboratory SCAL Pc data was determined at the same pressure of 50 psi for all the data sets. This
selected pressure was referred to the previous publications relating to the use of capillary pressure data
(Timur, 1969; Dodge et al., 1996; Romero et al., 2002).

Figure 3—Swirr versus k derived from all the SCAL data available.

Results and Discussion

Prior to this study was conducted, the Oil-Water Contact (OWC) for the zone of interest was estimated on
the basis of production tests performed in the first two wells drilled. This was because all the tests resulted
in two-phase flow, oil and water. The difficulty faced in log analysis of the low contrast high resistivity
cases here took an estimation for the OWC at the lowest perforated interval in the well giving the highest
Water Cut. The OWC selected was at the lowest perforation hole, -4163 ft-TVDSS. The present study is to
estimate OWC for the zone by utilizing all the data available and implementing the concept of saturation-
height function.
IPTC-18807-MS 7

Developing Capillary J-Function

Since we have only two capillary pressure data sets on hand, we have to generate more capillary J-function
curves for rock types needed for the reservoir. The data available give a good Swirr–k correlation for this
particular reservoir. In fact, many cases have exhibited such a behavior, even for carbonates (Wibowo and
Permadi, 2013). In this study, the RCA data for RT6 and RT8, respectively, were used to determine its
geometric permeability average. Each of these permeability averages was then used to estimate its Swirr by
using Figure 3. As equations of the first two RT4 and RT5 J-curves are exponential, RT6 and RT8 were
assumed to have similar forms and thus the J-function for RT6 and RT8 were easy to generate. Because no
core plug representation for RT7, a graphical relation was made between the exponent b of J(Sw) equation
of each rock type (RT4, RT5, RT6, and RT8) and the respected Swirr as shown in Figure 4, exhibiting an
excellent relationship. Prior to taking the benefit for RT7 from this figure, the Swirr of RT7 was to be sought.
A relationship of rock type numbers (4, 5, 6, and 8) with Swirr was then developed. In the development, it
was recalled that RT1 according to the concept of rock typing model as presented in Figure 1 represents
smooth capillaric tube systems (Wibowo and Permadi, 2013), meaning that Swirr is zero for RT1. Thus, we
have a dummy data point for RT1. It was obtained then that plotting Swirr against rock type number yielded
a very good relationship giving a correlation coefficient R2 = 0.973 as depicted in Figure 5. Hence, Swirr for
RT7 can be easily estimated by utilizing this figure and the exponent value of J(Sw) equation for RT7 can
then be determined by using Figure 4. Finally, the J-functions needed are all available as shown in Figure
6. No J-function was developed for RT9 to RT11 because Figure 5 says that these rock types would have
Swirr = 100%, representing non-reservoir rocks as mentioned above.

Figure 4—The relationship between Swirr and exponent b of J(Sw).

8 IPTC-18807-MS

Figure 5—The relationship between Swirr and rock types number.

Figure 6—J-function developed for all the rock types

Generating Saturation-Height Function

Each of J-function equations obtained was then combined with Eq. (2) to produce saturation-height function
for each rock type as presented in Table 2. To implement these saturation-height models to the wells, the
distribution of rock types in the wells sholud be established. The log porosity are already available for the
two wells. When RCA data were used to generate k–ϕ crossplot, the correlation obtained was not good to
predict permeability for the tested interval. Timur-like equations to predict permeability is not recommended
for the case under this study because log analysis for Sw here is still a problem due to the low contrast high
resistivity situation.
IPTC-18807-MS 9

Table 2—The equations for J-function and saturation-height function for all the rock types.

Consideration of the facts that all well log responses corrected manifest physical characters of the rocks
logged. Therefore, the present study uses all the corrected log responses, except resistivity, to predict
permeability. The availability of RCA data enables us to predict permeability by integrating the log data
with the core data. A multivariate regression analysis was then performed to develop a correlation for
permeability prediction. The best regression obtained is in the form of the following equation below.

(7)

with a correlation coefficient obtained R2 = 0.73. In Eq. (4), the variables RHOC, GRC, and ND denote
corrected density log, corrected gamma ray log, and the difference value of neutron porosity and porosity
estimated from density log, respectively.
The permeability predicted as compared with core permeability is shown in Figure 7 (Track #8) for M-02
well from which all the core samples were obtained. The prediction is considered very good with relatively
high R2 and results in very low permeability for the overlying shale zone. Eq. (7) was also implemented in
the same zone in M-01 well (see Figure 8, track #8). Since each rock type line (see Figure 1) has its own
equation (Wibowo and Permadi, 2013) and both log porosity and log permeability are already determined,
rock types distribution was sucessfully established as shown in Figures 9 (track #9) and 10 (track #9),
respectively, for M-02 and M-01 wells. Comparison of these two wells indicates that top boundary of the
reservoir in M-01 well is lower, -4149 ft-TVDSS, than that in M-02 well, -4119 ft-TVDSS. M-01 well has
only LLS log run, whereas M-02 well has complete resistivity logs. Although the first well has a shallow
resistivity log and was hard to further analyze, both wells exhibit relatively high resistivity readings along
the vertical column. It might be better to look at the resistivity readings in M-02 well, indicating a gradual
decrease in the resistivity vertically down. At glance, this looks like changes in Sw, increasing downward.
However, it was thought that the decrease may be due to reduction in the reservoir quality as demonstrated
by the log responses. RFT does not help as it was only run in M-02 well within a 10-foot interval at the top
part of the reservoir and indicated a formation pressure gradient of 0.31 psi/ft, a typical oil gradient.
10 IPTC-18807-MS

Figure 7—Results of generating permeability prediction based on

core and well logs data of M-02 well and the rock types distribution.

Figure 8—Permeability predicted in M-01 well using Eq. (7) and rock types distribution.
IPTC-18807-MS 11

Figure 9—Water saturation distribution above Free Water Level and Oil-Water Contact (track #10) for M-02 well.

Figure 10—Water saturation distribution above Free Water Level and Oil-Water Contact (track #10) for M-01 well.

Determination of OWC and Transition Zone

Since the well tests resulted in oil and water flow, it is assumed that the perforated intervals in both wells are
initially within the transition zone. The production tests data in terms of Water Cut can be related to water-
12 IPTC-18807-MS

oil relative permeability ratio by using Eq. (6). For M-01 and M-02 wells with initial Water Cut of 47% and
6%, respectively, and employing PVT data given in Table 2, the use of Eq. (6) results in krw/kro equal to 0.224
for M-01 well and 0.016 for M-02 well. Once krw/kro is calculated, one can determine the corresponding Sw
using krw/kro data but needs to know first the related rock type within the perforated interval because both
relative permeability ratio and J-function are rock type dependent.
The perforated interval in each of the wells is dominated by the best rock type, RT4. This rock type has
predicted permeability ranging from more than 500 to 2,000 md in M-01 well and from 1,000 to 5,000
md in M-02 well. It is assumed that the produced fluids mostly flowed through the most permeable part
of the zone within the perforated interval. Therefore, both relative permeability ratio and saturation-height
function of the best rock type, RT4, are selected for determining both Sw for krw/kro just calculated and the
distance H to estimate FWL. By considering such very high permeability, the data set of SCAL relative
permeability of RT4 with the highest permeability, 1091 md, is employed (see Figure 11). It is obtained that
Sw = 0.392 for M-01 well with WC = 47% and Sw = 0.281 for M-02 well having WC = 6%.

Figure 11—Water-to-Oil relative permeability ratio for RT4.

The FWL is estimated by calculating H by using the equation of RT4 in the fourth column of Table 2. The
values of porosity and permeability needed to be used for H are selected at a depth within a RT4 layer but
as close as possible to the middle of all RT4 layers that exist within the perforated interval. For M-01 well,
this depth is about at -4156 ft TVDSS with ϕ = 0.263 and k = 557 md, resulting in calculated H = 21.49 ft;
whilst, for M-02 well, that depth is around -4128.5 ft TVDSS with ϕ = 0.238 and k = 1,069 md, yielding the
calculated H = 47.80 ft. The estimated FWL is thus at a depth of -4177.5 ft-TVDSS and -4176.3 ft-TVDSS,
respectively, based on the evaluation in M-01 well and M-02 well. These estimates are both very close.
Furthermore, when carefull observation is made on all the well log responses in M-02 well at an interval
of -4177 – -4181 ft-TVDSS, it can be seen that the porosity and permeability are high, the deep resistivity
is the lowest, and almost no separation occurs between LLD and MSFL log readings. Below this interval,
the separation does not appear as well. These characteristics are suspected as the water zone. Differently,
above the depth of -4177 ft-TVDSS all the way up to the top of the zone, LLD-MSFL resistivity separation
is clearly seen with MSFL resistivity always lower than LLD resistivity. All the analysis made convinces
the FWL estimated.
IPTC-18807-MS 13

Regarding OWC, the following discusses the characteristics of multi-layer reservoirs in general. In a
multi-layer reservoir with an edge water zone, when the reservoir has a common FWL then OWC in each
layer depends on permeability of the respected layer. However, if a multi-layer reservoir, with all the layers
are hydraulically connected, has a single bottom water zone then the FWL is also the same for all the layers
and the vertical distribution of water saturation initially depends on vertical distribution of permeability in
the well. The case under this study similar to the latter. If we take the highest position of Sw≈ 100% in
M-01 well, then the depth of OWC looks like at -4166 ft-TVDSS; whereas the highest point of Sw≈ 100%
next to the FWL is at -4174.3 ft-TVDSS in M-02 well. Are we having two OWC's or a tilted OWC? The
answer is neither one as long as the shale layers above the FWL are laterally discontinuous and the two
wells are hydraulically connected. From the engineering stand point, no numerical model can be built for
such a reservoir with either a tilted OWC or more than one OWC. For the case studied here, the permeability
distribution between the two wells is obviously different. Specifically, the permeability just above the FWL
in M-01 well is much lower than that also just above the FWL in M-02 well. Consequently, the OWC is at
-4174.3 ft-TVDSS for the zone. By defining a transition zone below which Sw starts 100% downward, the
thickness of transition zone is only about 17 ft in M-01 well, while it is about 55 ft in M-02 well.
When compared to the previous estimation of OWC which was based on resistivity log readings in M-01
well, showing a reduction at -4163 ft-TVDSS and a constant resistivity trend downward, then the application
of saturation-height function would yield pessimistic results. Or in other words, Sw would be significantly
higher within the tested interval and thus could result in a much higher calculated Water Cut than the actual
one.
As discussed above, no parameter dealing with log resistivity has been involved in the methods used.
Therefore, the solution offered for predicting the fluid-fluid contact of a reservoir is not limited to LCR
cases.

Conclusion
The followings are conclusions drawn from the present study.
1. The problems of a low contrast high resistivity (LCR) zone under this study are resolved.
2. The use of common and relevant methods in handling the problems has been demonstrated by
maximizing and integrating all the limited static and dynamic data available.
3. Based on the core analysis data, it is found that excelllent correlations exist between Leverett J-
function exponent, b, and Swirr and also between Swirr and rock type numbers of the rock typing method
used.
4. Water saturation distribution within a transition zone depends on the distribution of the rock types
representing the rock qualities.
5. Due to a large difference in permeability in the lower parts of the oil column found in the two wells,
thicknesses of the transition zone are significantly different in both wells.
6. The method offered for predicting a fluid-fluid contact and distribution water saturation within the
transition zone is not limited to LCR zones.

Nomenclature
a = Linear coefficient in empirical J-Function
b = Exponent in empirical J-Function
Bo = Oil Formation Volume Factor, bbl/STB
Bw = Water Formation Volume Factor, bbl/STB
H = Height measured from FWL, ft
Hce = Heiht at Capillary-Entry Pressure, ft
14 IPTC-18807-MS

J = J-Function
k = Permeability, md
kro = Oil Relative Permeability
krw = Water Relative Permeability
Pc = Capillary Pressure, psi
Pce = Capillary-Entry Pressure, psi
Qo = Oil Production Rate, STB/d
Sw = Water Saturation, fraction
Swirr = Irreducible Water Saturation, fraction
WC = Water Cut, percent (%)
ϕ = Porosity, fraction
μo = Oil Viscosity, cp
μw = Water Viscosity, cp
ϴ = Contact Angle, degree
ρo = Oil Density, gr/cc
ρw = Water Density, gr/cc
σ = Interfacial Tension, dyne/cm

List of Acronyms and Log Curve Mnemonics

CALI = Caliper Log
FP = Formation Pressure
FPG = Formation Pressure Gradient
FWL = Free Water Level
GRC = Corrected Gamma Ray Log
IFT = Interfacial Tension
LCR = Low Contrast High Resistivity
LLDC = Corrected Deep Resistivity
LLSC = Corrected Shallow Resistivity
LRLC = Low Resistivity Low Contrast
MSFLC = CorrectedMicro-Spherical Focused Log
ND = the difference of neutron porosity and porosity estimated from density log
NPHIC = Corrected Porosity Neutron Log
OWC = Oil–Water Contact
Perm Core = Core Permeability
Perm_MLR = Permeability estimated from multivariate analysis
PHIT = Log Porosity from Bulk Density Log
Poro Core = Core Porosity
RCA = Routine Core Analysis
RFT = Repeat Formation Tester
RHOC = Corrected Bulk Density Log
RT = Rock Type
SCAL = Special Core Analysis
SP = Spontaneous Potential Log
Sw_SHF = Water Saturation from Saturation-Height Function
IPTC-18807-MS 15

References
Akkurt, R., Ahmad, N.A., Behair, A.M., Rabaa, A.S., Crary, S.F., Thum, S. 2008. NMR Radial Saturation Profiling for
Delineating Oil-Water Contact in a High-Resistivity Low-Contrast Formation Drilled with Oil-Based Mud. Presented
at the SPWLA 49th Annual Logging Symposium, Edinburg, Scotland, 25-28 May.
Alger, R.P., Luffel, D.L., Truman, R.B. 1989. New Unified Method of Integrating Core Capillary Pressure Data with Well
Logs. SPE Formation Evaluation, June. SPE-16793-PA.
Burdine, N.T., Gournay, L.S., and Reichettz, P.P. 1950. Pore Size Distribution of Petroleum Reservoir Rocks. Trans. AIME
vol.189, pp. 195–204.
Deakin, M., Manan, W. 1996. The Integration of Petrophysical Data for the Evaluation of Low Contrast Pay. Presented at
the Asia Pacific Conference on Integrated Modelling for Asset Management, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 23-24 March.
SPE-39761.
Desouky, S.E.D.M. 2003. A New Method for Normalization of Capillary Pressure Curves. Oil & Gas Science and
Technology –Rev. IFP, v.58, No. 5, pp. 551–556.
Dodge, W. S., Shafer, J. L., and Klimentidis, R. E. 1996. Capillary Pressure: the Key to Producible Porosity. SPWLA
37th Annual Logging Symposium, 16-19 June.
El-Khatib, N. 1995. Development of a Modified Capillary Pressure J-Function. Presented at the SPE Middle East Oil
Show, Bahrain, 11-14 March. SPE-29890.
Ghedan, S.G., Thiebot, B.M., Boyd, D.A. 2006. Modeling Original Water Saturation in the Transition Zone of a Carbonate
Oil Reservoir. SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, December, pp. 681–687. SPE-88756-PA.
Givens, W.W. 1987. A Conductive Rock Matrix Model (CRMM) for the Analysis of Low-Contrast Resistivity Formations.
The Log Analyst. March-April, pp. 138–151.
Goode, P.A., Pietsch, A.P., Williams, N.V., Sibbit, A.M. 1995. Determination of Petrophysical Parameters Using Wireline
Logs in Low Salinity Reservoirs. Presented at the Asia Pasific Oil & Gas Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 20-22
March 1995. SPE-29272.
Hawkins, M.H., Luffel, D.L., Harris, T.G. 1993. Capillary Pressure Model Predicts Distance to Gas/Water, Oil/Water
Contact. Oil and Gas journal, 18 January, pp. 39–43.
Jian-ming, D., Liu Xiao-peng, He Kui, Hu Xiao-xin. 2013. Novel Methods of Identifying Hydrocarbon Bearing Formation
with Low Resistivity Contrast from Conventional Logs in Tight Sandstone Reservoirs of North Ordos Basin. Presented
at the SPE Middle East Unconventional Gas Conference and Exhibition, Muscat, Oman, 28-30 January. SPE-163952.
Leverett, M.C. 1941. Capillary Behavior in Porous Solids. Trans. AIME, vol. 142, pp. 152–169. SPE-941152-G.
Purcell, W.R. 1949. Capillary Pressures - Their Measurements Using Mercury and the Calculation of Permeability
Therefrom. Trans. AIME, February, vol.186, pp. 39–48.
Romero, P., Bruzual, G., and Suarez, O. 2002. Determination of Rock Quality in Sandstone Core Plug Samples Using
NMR. International Symposium of Society of Core Analysts, SCA2002-51.
Rose, Walter and Bruce, W.A. Evaluation of Capillary Characters in Petroleum Reservoir Rocks. Trans. AIME (May
1949), vol.186, pp. 127–142.
Simpson, G.A., and Menke, Janice Y. 2010. Identifying Low Contrast –Low Resistivity Pay Zones with Pulsed Neutron
Capture Logs In Shaly Sand Miocene Formations of South Louisiana. Presented at the SPWLA 51st Annual Logging
Symposium, Perth, Australia, 19-23 June. SPWLA-2010-99170.
Smith, D. 1992. How to Predict Down-Dip Water Level. World Oil, May, pp. 85–88.
Timur, A. 1969. Pulsed Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Studies of Porosity, Moveable Fluid, and Permeability of Sandstones.
Journal of Petroleum Technology (JPT), June, pp. 775–786. SPE-2045-PA.
Toth, J., Bodi, T., Szucs, P., Miskolc, U., Civan, F. 2006. Near-Wellbore Field Water/Oil Relative Permeability Inferred
from Production with Increasing Water Cut. Presented at the SPE annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San
Antonio, Texas, U.S.A, 24-27 September. SPE 102312.
Wibowo, A.S., and Permadi P. 2013. A Type Curve for Carbonates Rock Typing. Presented the IPTC Beijing, China,
26-28 March. IPTC-16663.

View publication stats