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

net/publication/301399751

Rock-typing In Carbonates: A Critical Review Of Clustering Methods

Conference Paper · January 2014

DOI: 10.2118/171759-MS

CITATIONS READS

5 652

1 author:

Michel Rebelle
ADCO
24 PUBLICATIONS   103 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Carbonate Petrophysical Synthesis View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Michel Rebelle on 26 May 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

SPE 171759

Rock-typing In Carbonates: A Critical Review Of Clustering Methods

REBELLE Michel & LALANNE Bruno, TOTAL

Copyright 2014, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference held in Abu Dhabi, UAE, 10–13 November 2014.

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

Abstract
Carbonate reservoir Rock-Types are generally complex to identify due to the intricate impact of diagenesis on the porous
network. Based on a many years of experience working with carbonates, TOTAL has developed over time a dedicated Rock-
Typing workflow contingent on the integration of all core and log data at all possible scales (from SEM to field). The result is
designated as SRT standing for Static Rock-Types.

Considering that the key point of Rock-Typing is to capture as straightforward as possible a relationship between geology and
petrophysics, SRT could be considered as a geologically and petrophysically homogeneous group of rocks with specific
distributions and relationships between K,  and Sw, reflecting the main petrophysical properties. The petrophysical
distributions within each Rock-Type must be stationary or homogeneous within petrophysical domain and follow certain
geostatistical behaviors. Moreover, there must be a specific and comprehensible link with the geology (lithology, stratigraphy,
sedimentology and diagenesis) in order the petrophysics to be extrapolated in 3D.

This paper presents a critical review of the most common clustering methods (Lucia, Pittman, RQI, FZI …). Some are
geologically driven, others petrophysically driven, some are defined at plug or even core scale, others at log scale. After
comparing the pros and cons of each method, the SRT approach reconciles plug to log scale on one side and geology
(including diagenesis) and petrophysics on the other side.
The discriminating parameters for SRT building have to be found among CCA (, K, ), SCAL (Pc, PTR), accurate thin
sections description (texture, porosity types, cement types, crystals size), and logs responses (core logs, well logs including
imagery and NMR).

SRT can consequently be propagated in non-cored intervals through electro-SRT models based on the sedimento-diagenetical
model provided by the sedimentologists allowing the 3D distribution of petrophysical properties between the wells.

Introduction
For more than 60 years, Rock-Typing in carbonate reservoirs has been an exciting source of debates during conferences,
workshops and seminars. Each contractor, each company, each consultant addresses this issue on its own way. Litterature
takes also its part of the game.
Throughout all these attempts to normalize or universalize the rock-typing approach, several tendencies could be evidenced :
- geologically driven rock-typing : the depositional facies, including more or less diagenesis impact, is the main
(when not the only one) parameter for discriminating the rock-types,
- petrophysically driven rock-typing : only petrophysical properties, through conventional measurements (porosity,
permeability, grain density) or SCAL data (Pc curves parameters, PTR,…), are controlling the final rock-typing
assignment,
- production geologist driven rock-typing : large scale dynamic data are the main drivers for creating rock-types.

Figure 1 provides a summary of these 3 main approaches with the pros (in green) and the cons (in orange) of each of them.
2 SPE 171759

Figure 1 - Pros (in green) and cons (in orange) of discipline driven rock-typing

If all of these approaches present some advantages, they all share the same weaknesses: the lack of integration of other data,
the non management of upscaling issues (from plug to core, from core to well, from well to field) and therefore the difficulty
to propagate the petrophysical properties into the 3D geological model.

The objective of this paper is to propose a critical review of the most known approaches of clustering methods for rock-typing
and to finally deliver an integrated approach. This approach takes into account all types of data, from different scales, and
relies on an as straightforward as possible relationship between geology and petrophysics at core and log scale.

Data scales and types

Considering rock-typing as a clustering of rocks presenting homogeneous geological and petrophysical properties at core and
log scale, scale is an important issue to deal with. During a reservoir characterization study in carbonate or even in clastic
reservoirs, a lot of data have been acquired at different scales. Moreover, these data are either geological or petrophysical
parameters, as displayed on Figure 2.

Small scale (m)

Nano-pore 10-9

10-8

10-7

Micro-pore 10-6
DRP

10-5
PTR
Elemental mapping

10-4
Thin section
XRD, Grain size

10-3
 , K, , Pc,
Core description
CT-Scan

m, n

Plug 10-2
Kr

Full size 10-1

Geology Petrophysics
Core 100
Logs

101
PLT

Well 102
tests
Well

103
Field
104
Basin
105

Large scale (m)

Figure 2 - Different scales and types of data

SPE 171759 3

Their representativeness and their final impact on reservoir properties depend on this scale effect. Nevertheless, all these data
should be consistent within a given rock-type.

Data are also used for different objectives through dedicated interpretations: cross sections, rock physics model, quantitative
log interpretation, facies model, permeability model, well test interpretation,… These objectives are geologically and/or
petrophysically driven and are addressing different scales as displayed on Figure 3.

Figure 3 – Different types of data interpretations

Review of clustering methods

Many clustering methods are used in reservoir characterization studies worldwide or found and developed in the literature.
They can be sorted by their specific type of approach : geology vs petrophysics, and large scale vs small scale (Figure 4).

Small scale (m)

Nano-pore 10-9

Porosity and 10-8

texture driven 10-7
Pc driven
Micro-pore 10-6

Winland
10-5 Thomeer
Lucia Pittman-R35
WWJ
Facies driven 10-4 J function

10-3 DRT
RQI (Kr, Pc)
Plug 10-2 FZI
Lithotypes
Cut-offs
Full size 10-1
Geology
100
-K driven Petrophysics
Core

101
Log types
Well 102
PLT
103
Field Logs driven
104 Dynamic
Basin driven
105

Large scale (m)

Figure 4 – Classification of the main clustering methods

4 SPE 171759

Geology driven clustering methods

Lithofacies :

These methods are focused on an initial lithofacies classification. Lithofacies are generally depositional facies, mentioning
texture (generally Dunham one) and type of grains (organisms or calcareous particles) with no mention of diagenesis impact.
As a consequence, when plotted in a -K cross-plot, each lithofacies is considered as a rock-type (or even RRT standing for
Reservoir Rock-Type) (Figure 5). Petrophysical properties are generally widely distributed (several decades of permeability,
15 to 20 porosity units) and are consequently overlapping each other. Relationship between geology and petrophysics is quite
too loose for practical use. Moreover, due to the overlap of -K properties amongst different RRT, the upscaling of the
petrophysical properties into the 3D geological model is questionable.

Figure 5 – Lithofacies driven rock-types

(each colored symbol represents one different lithofacies)

LUCIA method

LUCIA method (LUCIA, 1983, 1995) is an attempt of a universal classification of carbonate reservoirs petrophysical
properties essentially based on interparticle porosity. Interparticle porosity (expressed in log scale) is derived from the total
porosity (read on logs or measured on plugs) after being substracted from separate vugs porosity (Figure 6). Data are
consequently grouped within classes (from Class 1 to Class 3) bounded by oblique straight lines.
100

10
Core Kh (mD)

0.1

0.01
1 10 100

Interparticle porosity (%)

Figure 6 – LUCIA classification

LUCIA’s Rock Fabrics
When total porosity is derived from logs, the core-log depth match has to be very accurate to be associated with a given thin
section. Moreover, porosity acquisition scale from logs and plugs are largely different and large discrepancies could be
observed between both. Separate vugs, being considered as non connected vugs, are difficult to quantify on a 2D thin section
where even the biggest magnification inhibits the observation of very narrow pore throats (through which fluid, especially gas,
SPE 171759 5

can flow). Finally, carbonates with micro-porosity do not generally fit the LUCIA approach.
As a conclusion, even if LUCIA approach appears very pragmatic, uncertainties can be introduced in the case of complex
porous networks (micro-porosity, tiny pore throats). Moreover, the LUCIA classes logs signature are not consistent,
preventing a confident propagation of these classes to non cored wells.

-K driven clustering methods

FZI (Flow Zone Indicator) and RQI (Reservoir Quality Index)

FZI and RQI are largely used in many studies since AMAEFULE et al. (1993) introduced these parameters based on a ratio
between K (permeability) and e (effective porosity) :
- FZI = (0.0314√ K/e) . [(1-e) /e]
- RQI = FZI * z
• with e = effective porosity
• with z = Pore volume/Matrix volume = e/1- e

In a standard -K cross-plot, data can be clustered into families of similar ranges of FZI or RQI (Figure 7).

Figure 7 – FZI clustering

This approach appears very easy and pragmatic to cluster CCA measurements. Nevertheless, several questions should be
addressed for a rock-typing issue.
FZI/RQI method is purely petrophysics. Geology parameters (depositional environments, sedimentological texture, type of
grains, diagenesis,…) are never taken into account and propagation of FZI/RQI in a 3D geological model will consequently be
only based on stochastics concerns and not relying on a sedimentological concept which allows predicting the geological
facies to be encountered.
The choice of the FZI/RQI boundaries seems to be arbitrary and does not rely on a petrophysical or geological or even
geostatistical pattern.
A simple observation on the cross-plot shows that within the same FZI/RQI group, there is a wide distribution of permeability
(up to 4 decades on Figure 7) which should be problematic for upscaling issue. This is a consequence of a clustering which
cross-cuts the general -K trend capturing the occurring porous network.
By construction, FZI/RQI relies on a K/ ratio which makes sense when an obvious -K trend is observed (most of clastics
reservoirs, simple carbonate reservoirs without a strong diagenesis impact). Unfortunately, -K cross-plots in complex
6 SPE 171759

carbonate reservoirs (which are the large majority) display a large cloud of data in which K/ ratio does not support any
petrophysical significance. Consequently, the log response of FZI/RQI will not be consistent and petrophysically meaningful.
Moreover, as evidenced by CLERKE (2003), the flow behavior is strongly dominated by the large pores and K/
underestimates the micropore system.

Cut-off based clustering

Clusters based on porosity or permeability ranges or even a combination of both are sometimes proposed (Figure 8).

100 100

10 10
Core Kh (mD)

Core Kh (mD)
1 1

0.1 0.1
4
0.01 0.01
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Core porosity (%)

Core porosity (%)

Figure 8 – Clustering based on permeability range (left) or both porosity-permeability ranges (right)

The choice of the range boundaries seems to be arbitrary and does not follow any geological or petrophysical pattern.
Relationship between petrophysical properties of the resulting classes and geology is not defined which prevents any
consistent propagation in a 3D geological model either from cores or even from logs.

Pc (Capillary pressure) driven clustering methods

WINLAND/PITTMAN R35 method

This method has been initially introduced by Dale WINLAND, an AMOCO geologist, who was studying Spindle field
sandstones from Colorado. His work has been enhanced and increased by KOLODZIE (1980) then PITTMAN (1992). The
main result of this method is an empirical law relating porosity, permeability and capillary pressure (Pc) through the following
equation :
log R35 = 0.732 + 0.588.log K - 0.864.log 
with R35 = PTR (Pore Throat Radius) at SHg =35%

PTR are deduced from the MICP (Mercury Injection Capillary Pressure) curves and are generally displayed as a distribution
histogram of pore throat radii within a given porous network (Figure 9).

Figure 9 – MICP curve (left) and Pore Throat Radius (PTR) distribution histogram (right)
SPE 171759 7

R35, defined as the pore throat size at which 35% of the pore spaces are saturated with mercury, is considered as the largest
connected pore throat in a rock with intergranular porosity. It can be directly obtained from MICP curves (Figure 10).

Saturation vs Pore Throat Size

1.00
0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80

Mercury Saturation (Frac)

0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
35% of Hg
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00 R35
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Pore Throat Radius (Microns)

Figure 10 – Measurement of R35 from a MICP curve

Classes will be created according to the range of R35 values, i.e. range of pore throat radii generally expressed in m (Figure
11).

Figure 11 – PITTMAN R30 based clutering results

SPEARING et al. (2001) already mentioned that R35 is rather a calculation than a measurement and were questioning the
intrinsec value of 35. PITTMAN suggested to rather use 30 but this value could also be questioned.
To complete the SPEARING et al. comments, as for FZI/RQI method, the resulting clusters cross-cut the general -K trend
capturing the existing porous network. This approach will not consider multi-modal behavior of Pc curves (micro-porosity,
vugs, …) and is not easily linkable with any geology concern, at core and log scale.

J Leverett function

This very popular worldwide method is based on an equation provided by LEVERETT (1941), initially for unconsolidated
sands, which can be expressed as :
JSw = (3.162 . Pc/.cos) . √ K/
with  =Interfacial tension and  = contact angle

As for FZI/RQI, J Leverett equation is based on a K/ ratio. LALANNE & REBELLE (2014) have also shown that
considering a 0.5 exponent for the K/ ratio is a strong hypothesis which can be easily discussed.
8 SPE 171759

The use of K/ ratio will lead to the same remarks concerning the large uncertainty in applying this method for carbonate
reservoirs. In the recent years, it seems that more and more companies are reluctant to use J Leverett approach in carbonate
reservoirs. Several case studies confirm this reluctance and J Leverett is definitively not recommended for carbonate reservoirs
characterization.

THOMEER function

THOMEER (1960) function is another attempt to address a mathematical formula for each Pc curve :
log (SHg) = (-G/Ln10) / log(Pc/Pd)
with G = pore geometrical factor (shape of the Pc curve)
Pc = capillary pressure
Pd = displacement pressure

Due to lack of computational capabilities in the 60’s, Thomeer produced an abacus filled with a large range of Thomeer
hyperbolas and their corresponding G values (Figure 12).

Figure 12 – Thomeer abacus in log-log

The use of the abacus, plotted on transparent paper, was then straightforward and consisted in plotting the actual Pc data in
same 3 decades Y-axis vs 2 decades X-axis, then shift the transparent abacus over the plot to find the G value which allowed
fitting a hyperbola to the data. The X-axis at the bottom of the abacus was giving the Pd when projected on the Y-axis of the
actual data plot.
With present calculating capabilities, abacus is no more a necessity : deriving G and Pd is straightforward with the
transformation of the original equation. A Thomeer fit plotted in lin-lin scales of log(Pc) vs 1 / log(SHg) appears as a linear
trend with the slope corresponding to (– G / Ln10) and the intercept addressing log(Pd) (Figure 13) :
log (Pc) = (-G/Ln10)*(1/log SHg) + log (Pd)

Figure 13 – Thomeer fit criteria

SPE 171759 9

The Thomeer fit criteria (G and Pd) can consequently be used as discriminant parameters for rock-typing studies.
A restriction to the Thomeer approach is the imperious necessity to get MICP measurements in order to sweep a large pressure
ranges and consequently to display a complete Pc curve to optimize the fit criteria definition.
This approach has been widely discussed and amended by CLERKE (2003, 2008) through Ghawar field experience. Clerke
provided numerous examples of using Thomeer fit for bimodal pore system, especially with micro-porosity occurrence.

WOODDY-WRIGHT-JOHNSON (WWJ) approach

This approach results of a combination of the WRIGHT & WOODDY works (1955) then JOHNSON ones (1987).
The method consists in plotting the pairs of values [Sw, K] obtained for a few characteristic Pc values
picked on the curves. A Pc dataset is then eligible to the following relationship :
log(Sw) = -A. log K + B

When plotted in log-log scales, linear and parallel trends are provided for given Pc values, i.e. of same constant slope A.
Moreover, intercepts B being variable with Pc, B is itself linear when plotted vs Pc in log-log scales (Figure 14).

Figure 14 – WWJ approach

On Figure 14 example, the resulting Sw equation would thus be log (Sw) = - 0.213 . log (K) + 2.85 . Pc-0.083, which indeed
allows computing Sw whatever the range of K and Pc. In addition to providing a Sw equation, this method helps in clearly
differentiating rock-types, since distinct rock-types would definitively plot on different trends, for a given Pc step (Figure 15).

Figure 15 – Rock-types discrimination using the WWJ approach

10 SPE 171759

Logs driven clustering methods

Electro-facies method

When core data are either lacking or of bad quality, it could be interesting to define “log-types” or “facies models” or “electro-
facies” standing for a group of homogeneous log values in the log space with respect to a geological "facies". These clusters
would be afterwards calibrated on the available core data.

Geological facies modelling (sedimentary, rock types, petrophysical groups, etc.) based on log interpretations requires a
unique log signature for each "facies", whatever the well concerned. Logs can be biased by a certain number of artefacts linked
with the acquisition and are also sensitive to elements other than the lithology (compaction and fluids among others).
Pre-processing is designed to eliminate the artefacts and other phenomena which can interfere with the elements to be
modeled: fluid effect, compaction effect, acquisition effects (different contractors, different vintages, different tools).
Moreover, complementary standardised log sets can be created to allow a simultaneous processing of all wells.

Facies modelling is primarily intended to extrapolate core data (geological facies, petrophysical classification, lithological
characterisation, etc.) to unsampled zones by using log data, resulting in a supervised model displayed with horizontal
probabilities of facies occurrences (Figure 16).

Figure 16 – Supervised facies model with probabilities of occurrence

In the absence of any calibration data (no core sample, insufficient or inadequate data for the modelling objectives), an
unsupervised model can be constructed from statistical analyses. The electro-facies are defined during model construction
based on a statistical analysis in the log space. The sample groups formed during this analysis are classified, regrouped if
necessary, and assigned to a facies (or lithology).
The model is propagated to the training well to assess its relevance, then to all the other wells.

An overall verification of the consistency of a facies model is carried out using all the available wells through correlations,
distribution of properties per facies (porosity, mineralogy, etc.), facies mappings or facies proportions, comparison with data
obtained by other techniques such as facies from imaging or seismic methods.

Electro-facies are defined at log scale and are consequently smoothing or averaging the finest vertical heterogeneities.
Consequently, some discrepancies are obviously expected between a detailed core description and the facies model from the
same well.
SPE 171759 11

Dynamic driven clustering methods

It is useful to define flow units at well scale using direct dynamic indicators.

Well tests, due to their intrinsic costs, are not covering the whole column within a given well and are generally not continuous
enough to capture all the heterogeneities within the reservoirs. Nevertheless, they can discriminate different dynamic units on
the single K*H basis and be part of a dynamic rock-typing at well scale.

PLT (Production Logging Tool) allows highlighting the most producing intervals. These intervals can consequently be related
with specific geological and petrophysical behaviors to be calibrated on core data.

Dynamic Rock-Types (DRT), which can be defined as “units of rock characterised by similar range of pore geometry/topology
and wettability resulting in a unique relative-permeability Saturation relationship”, can also be used to discriminate flow units
at core scale in a multi-phase flow environment. DRT can be summarized by a Kr-Pc combination. Despite time-consuming
measurements (several months), DRT are useful supports to integrate geological framework (lithology, texture,…),
petrophysical behavior (porosity, permeability, porous network) and fluid concern. They are generally related with the static
rock-types but in some specific cases, as already demonstrated by G. HAMON, no straightforward relationship can be found
between static and dynamic rock-types (for example in mixed wettability oil fields with water injection where the distance to
FWL is the main control on petrophysical behavior).

Static Rock-Types (SRT): an integrated approach

After having reviewed the main clustering methods, and relying on more than 30 years of experience on different carbonates
reservoirs, an integrated approach is proposed. Based on the reconciliation of plugs, core, log and well scale data and
accounting for CCA, Pc, mineralogy, imagery (from micro-CT scans to imagery logs) and dynamic data, Static Rock-Types
(SRT) are the final result of a as straightforward as possible relationship between geology and petrophysics.

After defining the Petrophysical Groups (PG) (neural network built clusters from porosity, permeability, grain density and Pc
curves parameters released from WWJ or Thomeer approach), a geological significance including diagenesis impact of these
PG has to be found through several iterations between sedimentologists, petrophysicists and reservoir engineers.
Once the core scale clusters have been defined, they have to be identified on log scale, meaning each of the geologically
significant PG have to get their own log signature in order to propagate the petrophysical properties throughout the non-cored
intervals. The final clusters are defined as Static Rock-Types (SRT).

The upscaling of petrophysical data from core to log scale is supported by petrophysical log approach with the building of a
continuous log of petrophysical parameters (, K,  or even Sw) from discrete measurements. According to the quality and
number of core data, direct interpolation, co-kriging (with GR or Density-Neutron log or mini-permeameter) or
representativeness (based on core photos and detailed core description) methods will be used. The resulting log will be finally
smoothed with a sliding window.

SRT are an integration of multi-scales acquired parameters, representing homogeneous clusters in terms of geology (including
diagenesis) and petrophysics, defined at core scale then propagated into logs domain. They are the perfect balance between
geology and petrophysics and between thin section to well scales as displayed on Figure 17.
12 SPE 171759

Figure 17 – Static Rock-Types (SRT) : the perfect balance

SRT are defined at core and log scales. Nevertheless, the population of the SRT into a geomodel deserves some statistical
constrains in order to avoid too wide porosity and permeability distribution which would result in large overlaps between the
different SRT and jeopardize the upscaling of the petrophysical properties into geomodel scale. Data distribution are indeed
affected by a support effect (Figure 18).

Figure 18 – Support effect on data distribution (with courtesy of G. MASSONNAT, TOTAL)

Two types of indicators are accounted for:

- scattering indicator S : quantifying the scattering within the distribution of  and K within each SRT, and defined by
/m (with  = standard deviation and m = mean)
• porosity (Gaussian law distrinbution) : S < 0.25
• permeability (Log normal law) : S < 1 (after discarding the extreme values)
- explanation indicator I : variance analysis defined by the inter-classe variance / global variance ratio
- I > 0.7
SPE 171759 13

Conclusions

The most common clustering methods (Lucia, Pittman, R35, RQI, FZI …) are either geologically driven or petrophysically
driven, some are defined at plug or even core scale, others at log scale. A critical review of these methods leads to the
introduction of the Static Rock-Type (SRT) approach which seems to be the only one reconciling plug to log scale, and being a
perfect balance between geology (including diagenesis) and petrophysics.
The discriminative parameters for SRT building have to be found among CCA (, K, ), SCAL (Pc, Pore Throat Radius),
accurate thin sections description (texture, porosity types, cement types, crystals size) and logs responses (core logs, well logs
including imagery and NMR).

SRT can consequently be propagated in non-cored intervals through electro-SRT models based on the sedimento-diagenetical
model provided by the sedimentologists allowing the population of petrophysical properties between the wells. Finally, before
being released to geomodelers, the distribution of petrophysical parameters within each SRT should follow some statistical
constrains in order to optimize the upscaling of these properties at geomodel scale.

Moreover, SRT approach deserves a complete integrative work between sedimentologists, petrophysicists and reservoir
engineers at each step of the rock-typing process.

References
Amaefule J.O., Altunbay M., Tiab D, Kersey D.G. & Keelan D.K. (1993) : Enhanced reservoir description : using core and log
data to identify hydraulic (flow) units and predict permeability in uncored intervals/wells. SPE 26436, 68th SPE ATCE,
Houston, October 3-6.
Clerke E.A. (2003) : Beyond porosity-permeability relationships : Determining pore network parameters for the Ghawar Arab-
D using the Thomeer method. GeoFrontier, 1 (3), 12-17.
Clerke E.A., Mueller III H.W., Phillips E. C., Eyvazzadeh R.Y., Jones D.H., Ramamoorthy R. & Srivastava A. (2008) :
Application of Thomeer Hyperboals to decode the pore systems, facies and reservoir properties of the Upper Jurassic Arab D
Limestone, Ghawar field, Saudi Arabia : a “Rosetta stone” approach. GeoArabia, v. 13, n°4, 113-160.

Johnson A. (1987) : Permeability Averaged Capillary Data: A Supplement To Log Analysis In Field Studies, 28th SPWLA
Annual Logging Symposium, June 29-July 2.
Kolodzie Jr. S. (1980) : Analysis of pore throat size and use of the Waxman-Smits equation to determine OOIP in Spindle
Field, Colorado (1980). SPE 9382, 55th SPE ATCE, Dallas, September 21-24.

Lalanne B. & Rebelle M. (2014) : A review of alternative methods to classify rock-types from capillary pressure
measurements. IPTC 17631, Doha, January 20-22.
Leverett MC (1941) : Capillary pressure Behaviour of Porous Solids. AIME, vol. 142,151-169.
Lucia F. J. (1983) : Petrophysical parameters estimated from visual descriptions of carbonate rocks : a field classification of
carbonate pore space. SPE 10073, SPE ATCE, San Antonio, October 5-7.
Lucia F. J. (1995) : Rock-fabric / Petrophysical classification of carbonate pore space for reservoir characterization. AAPG
Bull., v. 79, n°9, 1275-1300.
Pittman E. D. (1992) : Relationship of porosity and permeability to various parameters derived from Mercury Injection-
Capillary Pressure curves for sandstone. AAPG Bull., v. 76, n°2, 191-198.

Spearing M., Allen T. & McAulay G. (2001) : Review of the Winland R35 method for net pay definition and its application in
low permability sands. SCA 2001-63.
Thomeer, J.H.M. (1960) : Introduction of a pore Geometrical Factor defined by the capillary pressure curve. AIME, 219, 354-
58.
Wright H.T. & Wooddy L.D. (1955) : Formation evaluation of the Borregas and Seeligson Fields: Brooks and Jim Wells
County Texas. Symposium on Formation Evaluation, AIME 27-28 October.
14 SPE 171759

Acronyms list
CCA : Conventional Core Analysis
CT-scan : Computerised Tomography scan
DRT : Dynamic Rock-Types
FZI : Flow Zone Indicator
K : Permeability
MICP : Mercury Injection Capillary Pressure
NMR : Nuclear Magnetic Resonance
Pc : Capillary pressure
PG : Petrophysical Groups
PLT : Production logging Tool
PTR : Pore Throat Radius
RQI : Reservoir Quality Index
RRT : Reservoir Rock-Types
SCAL : Special Core Analysis
SEM : Scanning Electronic Microscope
SRT : Static Rock-Types
Sw : Water saturation
WWJ : Wooddy-Wright-Johnson
 : Porosity

View publication stats