Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Net Pay
Net Pay
in quantities sufficient for their exploitation to be potentially viable that comprises net reservoir rock containing a significant volume
and beneficial. of potentially exploitable hydrocarbons. There is no standard defi-
This classical terminology is rooted in the onshore history of nition of net pay, even in a semiquantitative sense (Worthington
the oil industry. It is in widespread use, but it remains inexact. Net and Cosentino 2005). Net-pay subintervals are often aggregated
sand would be better described as net potential reservoir, a term to give a total net pay and thence, by ratio to gross thickness, net-
that encompasses, for example, carbonates and fractured basement. to-gross pay. The quantification of net-to-gross pay lies on the
Net reservoir intervals contain rocks that have been identified as critical path to the estimation of ultimate recovery through the
having a useful capability to store fluids and allow them to flow static volumetric method. However, for geological mapping and
(into a wellbore). In this respect, the term static volumetrics is engineering purposes, an aggregated net-to-gross pay is not useful
potentially misleading. Net pay is a descriptor that originates in in itself: an inventory needs to be kept of exactly where the pay
single-well completions onshore, where technical and economic subintervals are located. Moreover, historically, net pay has been
decisions are contemporaneous. The term is strictly a misnomer a major source of uncertainty in geology-based methods of
in multiwell situations, where economic decisions are made on a estimating ultimate recovery.
field scale. A better term might be net hydrocarbons. The adop- There is a body of opinion to the effect that the evaluation of net
tion of this term would decouple the identification of potentially pay is based on somewhat arbitrary criteria and that net-to-gross
exploitable volumes of hydrocarbons from the issue of whether pay, and therefore net-to-gross reservoir, should be fixed at unity
they constitute a stand-alone economic resource. regardless of the nature of the geological succession and the fluids
Terminology issues will merely be recorded here and placed contained therein. If this is accepted, one is essentially stipulating
on hold for the time being. Note, however, that other conventions that the entire evaluation interval comprises good quality reservoir
have been proposed. Some of these were collated and compared rock that contains potentially exploitable hydrocarbons. It is further
by Worthington and Cosentino (2005), who adopted the conven- argued (by others) that an analysis of reservoir dynamics through
tion of Fig. 1 as their reference. This adoption has subsequently a simulator will be sufficient to quantify realistic recoverable vol-
been endorsed by Ringrose (2008). This paper will also adopt the umes. Although it is true that some of the earlier approaches have
convention of Fig. 1. been arbitrary, a more incisive response can be gleaned from the
In terms of the adopted convention, the ratio net-to-gross thick- answers to the following key questions:
ness takes three forms: net-to-gross sand, net-to-gross reservoir, Do we believe that all rocks that host a given hydrocarbon
and net-to-gross pay. It is not appropriate to use the terms net accumulation are functional reservoir rocks?
and net-to-gross without qualifying what they are. Do we believe that all hydrocarbon volumes in an accu-
mulation contribute significantly to the energy of the reservoir
What Is Net Pay? system?
Net pay is a thickness with units of length. Net pay can be mea- Do we believe that all hydrocarbon volumes in an accumula-
sured only at a well. It is a subinterval within the gross thickness tion are potentially recoverable to a significant degree?
If the answer to one or more of these three questions is no, the
identification of net pay has to be an integral part of any forma-
Gross NetNet
N et S a n d NetNet
Net Net
N etNP
etay
Pa y tion-evaluation exercise.
R ock Sand and Reser
ReserRveserv
oir voioirr
Total Potential Supracritical Supracritical What Does Net Pay Do?
evaluation reservoir porosity and amounts of There is no universal perception of the role of net pay in geology-
interval permeability recoverable based reservoir studies. In essence, the net-pay concept leads to the
character hydrocarbons identification at a well of those sections of a reservoir that will pro-
duce exploitable hydrocarbons. It excludes the rest. Thus, net pay
Subcritical allows recovery efficiency to be evaluated meaningfully against an
hydrocarbons initial hydrocarbon volume that is contained within reservoir rock.
In other words, recovery efficiency is measured against in-place
Subcritical hydrocarbon volumes in rock that will allow reservoir fluids to
porosity and be stored and to flow. Otherwise, estimates of recovery efficiency
permeability can be distorted by the inclusion of noncontributing volumes (in
character nonreservoir rock) that will not be produced. Note that net pay is
e.g. a reservoir property that is measured at wellbores, and its interpo-
lation into the interwell region is founded on what has been seen
evaporites,
in downhole data: it cannot take account of (as yet) unidentified
mudstone, properties and processes away from a wellbore.
unfractured Once net pay and net reservoir have been identified, petrophysi-
basement cal algorithms can be established over these intervals, as appropri-
ate. This means that interpretive equations can be founded exclu-
Fig. 1Interrelationship of net thicknesses. sively on calibrating data from those very same intervals to which
Fig. 2Late onset production from intercalating tight layers with enhancement of recovery factor (RF) from permeable layers.
they are to be applied. Otherwise, data from nonreservoir intervals the wellbore and the depleted permeable layers provide a conduit
might influence the establishment of interpretive algorithms and to the well. Thus, a permeable layer can show an inflated recovery
thence degrade their application over net reservoir and net pay. factor, in some cases greater than 100%, but this does not negate the
Moreover, if there is no separation of net reservoir and net pay net-pay concept, provided that the underlying recovery mechanism
from the gross thickness, it will be necessary to characterize the has been recognized. An alternative approach might have been to
nonreservoir rock to the same degree as the reservoir rock. Given distinguish between early production and late production as the
that core analysis of poorer quality rock is more expensive than for deliverables of different recovery mechanisms. However, even if
reservoir rock, it is a challenge to envisage this happening as part this is done, it should not impact perforating decisions.
of the evaluation of conventional reservoirs in any cost-conscious It is worth substantiating the preceding comment that net pay
culture. Note that these protocols do not imply that only the better can be measured only at a wellbore, specifically within the context
quality rocks should be sampled for core analysis purposes. In fact, of using seismic-attribute mapping to estimate net pay in interwell
unbiased sampling of the net-sand interval is a prerequisite for the regions. Order-of-magnitude differences in seismic vertical resolu-
identification of net reservoir and thence net pay. However, once tion compared to well logs (e.g., 3040 m vs. 0.51.0 m) inhibit
net reservoir has been identified, only those data that relate to net the required correlation(s) between net pay and seismic attribute(s),
reservoir are admitted in order to establish core-derived interpre- which should strictly be effected at the seismic resolution scale.
tive algorithms. Some measurements, such as relative permeability Partly as a consequence, such geophysically-driven correlations
data, will have specific applications to net pay. admit wide ranges of uncertainty that can encompass the complete
The identification of net pay and the associated elimination ranges of depth-averaged reservoir properties (at the seismic reso-
of nonreservoir rock form the basis for a more meaningful ini- lution scale). With these limitations, a geophysical deliverable is
tialization of a reservoir simulator. This statement is rooted in not a measurement of net pay: it is at best a broad net-pay indicator.
the adoption of dynamically-conditioned cutoffs for delineating Although such an indicator can be useful in favorable situations,
net-reservoir and net-pay intervals. It is important to note that the the potential benefit is weakened where reservoir thickness is
traditional practice of defining net pay using static cutoffs, which below seismic vertical resolution.
demarcate intervals with sufficient hydrocarbon-filled porosity,
has been refined here through the use of dynamically-conditioned How Is Net Pay Quantified?
cutoffs, which demarcate intervals with potentially exploitable The earlier literature referred to the picking of net pay according
hydrocarbon-filled porosity. This refinement is in accord with the to how it was to be used, so that the intended method of application
contemporary approach to net-pay quantification within the context influenced how net pay was identified [e.g., Snyder (1971)]. Today,
of integrated reservoir studies (Cosentino 2001). Although there is this exercise is largely automated, with the possible exception of
a point of view that simulation is a catch-all that can account for single-well completions where decisions have to be made on the
nonreservoir rock as well as reservoir rock, our recent experience spot. Net pay is quantified through the use of petrophysical cutoffs
has confirmed that if net pay is systematically quantified, the per- that are applied to well logs. Cutoffs are limiting values of forma-
formance of dynamic reservoir models is demonstrably improved tion parameters that remove noncontributing intervals. The role and
in terms of more readily attainable history matches. application of cutoffs in integrated reservoir studies have been dis-
The net-pay concept is open to challenge specifically in the case cussed previously (Worthington and Cosentino 2005; Worthington
of tight gas layers that release hydrocarbons into adjacent perme- 2008). Traditionally, a shale volume fraction, Vsh, cutoff is used to
able beds when a sufficiently large pressure differential has been identify net sand. A porosity, $, cutoff is then applied to net sand
established through primary depletion (Fig. 2). Because those tight to delineate net reservoir. Finally, a water saturation, Sw, cutoff is
gas sands may not be incorporated within net pay at the wellbore, applied to net reservoir to define net pay. Thus, net pay is nested
it can be argued that late onset recovery from those sands renders a within net reservoir and this, in turn, is nested within net sand.
net-pay protocol meaningless. The rebuttal to this argument calls for Perhaps the biggest argument that has been made against
a return to basics. Net pay can be measured only at a wellbore and the introduction of cutoffs is the arbitrary nature of historical
this has to be done in light of the recovery process. In a vertical well, approaches. It is true that there is no generally accepted method of
it is a measure of the thickness of hydrocarbon-bearing reservoir identifying cutoffs. It is also true that certain rules of thumb have
rocks whose constituent fluids express themselves significantly at existed in the petroleum industry for more than 50 years and that
the wellbore. Late-onset recovery occurs in response to changes in some authors have even advocated generally-applicable cutoffs
fluid properties within the reservoir system. It is initiated away from for sandstones, on the one hand, and for carbonates, on the other
log k Vsh Sw
Swc
Vshc
log kc
(c) c c c
Fig. 3Schematic process for data-driven identification of dynamically-conditioned cutoffs. (a) Correspondence of reference and
conventional parametric cutoffs for primary depletion [from Worthington (2008)]. (b) Correspondence of reference and conventional
cutoffs for waterflood depletion [from Worthington (2008)]. (c) Synergic quantification of conventional cutoffs [from Worthington
and Cosentino (2005)].
[e.g., Desbrandes (1985)]. However, more recent applications have key stages. Central to this process is the concept of a reference
been data-driven, and these have formed the basis for an improved parameter, which is a parameter that allows the limit to flow to
protocol by avoiding the use of industry defaults and generic be identified for a particular reservoir (sub)unit and for a given
specifications. Further guidance can be gleaned from the answers depletion mechanism. Parameters that can be quantified through
to the following key questions: downhole measurements are tied back to the reference parameter
Do we believe that a reservoir can be characterized solely in so that a reference-parameter cutoff can be related to cutoffs for
terms of its ability to store hydrocarbons? properties that can be determined from well-log analysis. This
Yes: we can use static net-pay cutoffs. process is handled synergically (i.e., all log-applicable cutoffs are
No: we must use net-pay cutoffs that also take account of tied back directly or indirectly to the same reference parameter so
reservoir dynamics. that all cutoffs have a hydraulic significance).
Do we believe that all hydrocarbon-bearing rocks have the Specify an evaluation interval in a well.
same reservoir character? Select a reference parameter, such as a reservoir quality
Yes: we can use generic net-pay cutoffs. indicator, (k/$)0.5, for primary depletion or endpoint relative per-
No: we must establish net-pay cutoffs for each identified rock meability to oil in the presence of water, kro(Swirr), for waterflood
type. depletion (Fig. 3).
Do we believe that all hydrocarbon-bearing reservoirs are Establish any data partitioning for the segregation of (hydrau-
produced through the same drive mechanism? lic) rock types and thence the reduction of data scatter in analytical
Yes: we can use a universal approach to the generation of net- crossplots of reservoir parameters.
pay cutoffs. Identify a value of the appropriate reference parameter [e.g.
No: we must condition our net-pay cutoffs to the drive mecha- (k/$)0.5 ; k (S )] that corresponds to the lower limit of hydraulic
ro wirr
nism. behavior of the rock over a partitioned fraction of the evaluation
If the answer to these three questions is no, the identification of interval (Fig. 3). If in doubt, select the most all-encompassing
net pay has to be conditioned dynamically and be fit for purpose lower limit that is compatible with the principle. Adopt this limit-
(i.e., it must take account of flow criteria, rock type, and deple- ing value as a reference cutoff.
tion mechanism). Note that the identification of net reservoir is an For the partitioned data set for each (hydraulic) rock type, relate
integral part of this process. the reference cutoff to a corresponding value of a conventional core
The application of these principles (of flow criteria, etc.) in analysis parameter such as porosity or Klinkenberg-corrected air
quantifying net reservoir and thence net pay calls for an exami- permeability taking due account of scale where feasible. Adopt this
nation of porosity and permeability, k, as represented within a corresponding value as a dynamically-conditioned cutoff.
conventional core data set. This should be undertaken in light of Using the principle of synergic cutoffs (Cosentino 2001),
the recovery mechanism and with appropriate data partitioning relate the dynamically-conditioned cutoff to corresponding cutoffs
(e.g., on the basis of facies type) and honoring of scale (e.g., of log-derived porosity (where required), shale volume fraction,
from core to log). This approach has been described more fully by and water saturation, so that all cutoffs become dynamically con-
Worthington and Cosentino (2005). In essence, there are several ditioned (Fig. 3).
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250
Porosity
1.0
0.9
0.6
Shale volume fraction
0.8
0.5
0.7
Water saturation
0.4
0.6
0.3
0.5
0.2
0.4
0.1 0.3
0.0 0.2
0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250
Porosity 0.1
0.0
0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250
Porosity
Fig. 4Worked example of establishing dynamically-conditioned, synergic cutoffs using the method of Figs. 3a and 3c. The
reservoir is an oil-bearing sandstone under primary depletion. The porosity cutoff of 0.075 corresponds to a Vsh cutoff of 0.41
and an Sw cutoff of 0.67.
Apply the cutoffs simultaneously to obtain net pay within can be used to identify the respective endpoint water saturations
the partitioned data set. If the lower depth limit of the evaluation (i.e., irreducible water saturation and the critical water saturation at
interval is a sharply-defined hydrocarbon/water contact (HWC) which hydrocarbons do not flow). The former is used to quantify a
or a hydrocarbon-down-to level, and there is no perched water reference parameter for waterflood depletion in Fig. 3b; the latter
or intraformational interval with high capillarity, the resulting net can be used to guide the selection of a water saturation cutoff. For
reservoir and net pay will be very similar. They will not be the same further discussion of the evaluation of net pay during secondary
because of the inexactness of interpreted reservoir properties and depletion, see Cobb and Marek (1998). If there are no core data
their interrelationships. However, the use of dynamically-condi- available, recourse has to be made to a static analysis of cutoffs
tioned synergic cutoffs minimizes the impact of any disparities. [e.g., Joshi and Lahiri (1998)] or to an informed use of analog
Obtain average log-derived porosity and (porosity-weighted) discriminators. Neither of these approaches should be viewed as
water saturation over the net-pay thickness(es) of each partitioned a satisfactory alternative.
interval. The preceding methods have to be varied for certain types of
Integrate the data from all partitioned intervals to obtain an reservoir. These include laminated reservoirs, discrete stacked
overall net pay. reservoirs, naturally fractured reservoirs, tight gas reservoirs, and
Repeat the process for all wells in the project database. coalbed-methane (CBM) reservoirs.
A worked example is shown in Fig. 4. Further tangible examples
have been provided by Worthington (2008). The process has also Laminated Reservoirs. Sand/shale sequences constitute the big-
been tracked by Egbele et al. (2005), though with different cutoff gest cause of overlooked pay in the world today (Worthington
parameters for identifying net pay. 2000). The problem is rooted in the inability of standard logging
If the available core data include special core analysis, there are tools to resolve individual sand laminae. A partial solution is to
other approaches that can be adopted. For example, if Dean-Stark use an electrical micro-imager to identify the laminae and a tensor
extracted water saturations are available, it is possible to ground resistivity tool to quantify the resistivity of the sands. The evalu-
truth the use of composite cutoff parameters such as bulk volume ation of sand porosity can be problematic because of inadequate
water (the product of porosity and water saturation). Capillary spatial resolution and uncertainty associated with the application
pressure measurements can be used in conjunction with conven- of shale corrections to porosity tools. Where core has been recov-
tional porosity and permeability data to ascertain the critical poros- ered, and the thickness of the sand laminations is greater than the
ity and permeability values for which the pore throats are too small diameter of horizontal core plugs, the evaluation of sand porosity
to allow hydrocarbons to enter the rock during migration. This can be groundtruthed by judicious selection of core-plug loca-
analysis contributes to net reservoir, rather than net pay, because tions. Otherwise, it is usually necessary to draw cautiously upon
it is concerned with the issue of reservoir potential for a given res- some kind of volumetric model for shaly sands [e.g., Thomas
ervoir fluid regime. Yet again, relative permeability measurements and Stieber (1975)]. A noteworthy exception has been the use of
Scale up relationships
to well-log scale
Establish saturation-vs.-height
function(s) at grid-cell scale
Estimate resources
Fig. 5Workflow illustrating the use of net reservoir and net pay in a geocellular volumetric approach to the estimation of
petroleum resources in conventional reservoirs.
Dynamic Conditioning of Cutoffs. The process of dynamic this is the case, the use of an air permeability term as a composite
conditioning merits further comment. Permeability is pivotal to reference parameter can be accommodated. However, the industry
this process. In many field databases, the permeability data are air should be encouraged to move towards effective permeability,
permeabilities that may or may not have been corrected for gas- specifically the (endpoint) permeability to hydrocarbons at irreduc-
slippage effects through a Klinkenberg correction. If no correction ible water saturation. The implications have been exemplified by
has been applied, the data are arbitrary because they depend on the Cobb and Marek (1998). At the very least, a subset of preserved
average of the upstream and downstream flowline pressures used samples should be measured for effective permeability so that cor-
in the laboratory. There have been many cases in which these pres- rection factors can be investigated for converting conventional
sures have not been reported. Therefore, where several contractors air permeability to pseudo-effective permeability.
have been used across a database and these pressures vary between
laboratories, the data cannot be integrated. The Klinkenberg cor- Vertical Wells. Up to now, the discussion has been set notionally
rection avoids these problems, but it remains an air permeability within the context of vertical wells and horizontal, homogeneous,
based on flow across the entire pore cross-sectional area. This and longitudinally isotropic layers. These simplified conditions are
measurement condition is not prohibitive provided that the hydrau- shown in Fig. 6a, for which net-to-gross pay is specified as unity
lic character of an oil-bearing water-wet rock can be diagnosed for simplicity. Here MD is along-hole measured depth, TVD is true
meaningfully through Klinkenberg-corrected air permeability. If vertical depth, MT is the measured thickness of a layer along the
Caprock
MD TVD MD TVD MD TVD
Shale ODT
FWL
(a) (b) (c)
MD TVD MD TVD
NP TVDT
NP
TVT MT TVT MT
TVDT
(d) (e)
Fig. 6Schematic depiction of a well fully penetrating a reservoir unit with a notional net-to-gross pay of unity over the evalu-
ation interval. (a) Vertical well, horizontal layer. (b) Vertical well, dipping layer [NP (net pay) is dashed to show that it becomes
greater when referred to TVT rather than to TST]. (c) Deviated well, horizontal layer. (d) Deviated well, dipping layer, deviation
downdip with azimuths in same vertical plane. (e) Deviated well, dipping layer, deviation updip with azimuths in same vertical
plane: deviation = dip.
wellbore, TVDT is the true vertical depth thickness of the layer deviated downdip (Fig. 6d) or updip (Fig. 6e). In Fig. 6d, MD >
(i.e., MT transposed into a vertical plane), TVT is the true vertical TVD and MT > TVDT > TVT > TST. Net-to-gross reservoir and
thickness of the layer (i.e., the thickness of the layer measured in net-to-gross pay can be appropriately referred to TVT or TST in
a vertical direction), and TST is the true stratigraphic thickness 3D geological modeling. TVDT takes account only of borehole
of the layer. In Fig. 6a, MD = TVD, provided that these use the deviation and does not accommodate bedding dip. Fig. 6e shows
same depth reference datum. Moreover, MT = TVDT = TVT = the particular case where a deviated well penetrates an updipping
TST. With these simplified conditions, net-to-gross reservoir and layer at right angles (i.e., deviation = dip). For the depicted case,
net-to-gross pay can be appropriately referenced to MT, TVDT, TVT > MT = TST > TVDT. Here, net reservoir and net pay will
TVT, or TST without distorting net reservoir and net pay. be inflated relative to Fig. 6a when referred to TVT, but the cor-
Fig. 6b shows a vertical well fully penetrating a dipping layer for responding net-to-gross ratios are materially unchanged, with the
which TST is the same as in Fig. 6a. Here, MD = TVD and MT = caveat that anisotropy is a potential influence on resistivity and
TVT = TVDT, but TVT > TST. Net-to-gross reservoir and net-to-gross sonic logs in all deviated wells and thence on interpretive deliv-
pay can be referred to TVT or TST for 3D geological modeling pur- erables. The situation becomes even more complex in the general
poses, depending on how the modeling is to be performed. Although case where the deviation and dip azimuths are in different vertical
net reservoir and net pay can be inflated relative to Fig. 6a by referral planes. The way in which these issues are accommodated within
to TVT rather than TST, net-to-gross ratios do not materially change a volumetrics exercise depends on the 3D modeling method. For
as a consequence. This is an important observation because it is a further discussion of subsurface geological mapping methods see
net-to-gross ratio that is entered into the volumetric equations (Eqs. Tearpock and Bischke (1991) and Boak (1992).
1 and 2). Note that if a dipping layer is transversely (relative to bed-
ding) anisotropic, directionally-measured log parameters can become Horizontal Wells. For simplicity, this discussion assumes hori-
a function of the degree of dip, so the impact of cutoffs can be changed zontal beds. Along-hole net pay is the penetration length measured
and this can alter the resulting net-reservoir and net-pay intervals and in the wellbore of those reservoir rocks containing a supracritical
thence the corresponding net-to-gross ratios. volume of hydrocarbons that can express itself at the borehole
face. Horizontal wells often target net-pay zones that have been
Deviated Wells. A deviated well that fully penetrates a horizontal, pre-identified in vertical wells (Fig. 7). Therefore the concept of
homogeneous, and longitudinally isotropic layer is shown in Fig. net pay in vertical wells is not directly transposable to horizontal
6c. TST is the same as before. Here, MD > TVD and MT > TVT wells. For this reason, some authors have distinguished between
= TVDT = TST. Net reservoir and net pay are unchanged when vertical-well net pay and horizontal-well net pay [e.g., Lemos
referred to TVT or TST. et al. (2006)]. This distinction is appropriate, not least because
Where a deviated well penetrates dipping layers, the analysis the criteria for accepting an interval as net pay will change with
becomes more complex. For simplicity, these considerations are rotation from vertical to horizontal wellbores because of formation
confined to cases where the azimuth of the dip (measured from anisotropy. Moreover, it is often assumed that a vertical well taps a
the horizontal) is in the same vertical plane as the azimuth of the laterally extensive net-pay unit of given thickness with consistent
deviation (measured from the vertical). Even with this restric- hydraulic properties. This perception has to be changed for hori-
tion, it is necessary to distinguish between cases where a well is zontal wells, where the along-hole net-pay penetration length is no
Acknowledgments
longer geologically constrained, but rather becomes a function of
borehole reach. In other words, net pay can be increased simply The author thanks Vivian Bust and Ian Firth for helpful comments
by drilling further. The key limitation is now drilling technology. during the preparation of the manuscript. The author also acknowl-
Of course, the down side is that the extent of the target net-pay edges Gaffney, Cline & Associates for supporting the preparation
volume away from a horizontal wellbore is constrained (e.g., and presentation of the original paper and its progression into the
by overlying and underlying seals), and it is far less likely to pos- peer-reviewed literature.
sess consistent hydraulic properties in a plane orthogonal to the
wellbore axis because of the effects of sedimentary deposition. Put-
ting these matters together, in vertical wells net pay (thickness) is
constrained by geology but the expressive hydrocarbon volume per
unit wellbore thickness extends far from the wellbore. On the other
hand, in horizontal wells, net pay (length) is larger but the expres-
sive hydrocarbon volume per unit wellbore length is geologically
constrained to be closer to the borehole in all but subhorizontal
planes. Therefore, horizontal-well net pay should not be handled
in the same way as vertical-well net pay. In general, although there
are potential complexities of log response in horizontal wells, the
criteria used for horizontal net pay can be simpler in concept, and
they are sometimes based on length counts derived from logging
while drilling. However, it should never be forgotten that horizon-
tal wells provide an opportunity for reservoir description between
vertical wells, with the caveat that targeted drilling of sweet spots
can distort perceptions of overall reservoir quality.
Conclusions
The concepts of net pay and net reservoir are strongly interrelated,
with the former thickness a subinterval of the latter. The nature and
role of net pay have been clarified on the basis of host-rock char-
acter and how a hydrocarbon accumulation is to be modeled. In so
doing, it is noted that the term net pay would more appropriately
be designated net hydrocarbons because economic decisions
often extend beyond single well completions.
In the absence of an industrywide protocol for quantifying net
pay, an iterative data-driven approach has been proposed for the