Statistical data correlations in tight gas

reservoirs
Tight gas reservoirs generate many difficult problems for geologists, engineers, and managers.
Cumulative gas recovery (thus income) per well is limited because of low gas flow rates and low
recovery efficiencies when compared to most high permeability wells. To make a marginal well
into a commercial well, the engineer must increase the recovery efficiency by using optimal
completion techniques and decrease the costs required to drill, complete, stimulate, and operate a
tight gas well.

To minimize the costs of drilling and completion, many managers want to reduce the amount of
money spent to log wells and totally eliminate money spent on extras such as well testing.
However, in these low-permeability layered systems, the engineers and geologists often need
more data than is required to analyze high permeability reservoirs. To balance the need for more
data with the need to minimize costs, the logical solution is to spend money gathering accurate
data on a few wells, then use correlations developed from that data to evaluate the wells that will
be drilled and completed thereafter. Once acceptable correlations are developed for specific
reservoirs in specific geographic areas, the correlations can be applied to all wells in the area. By
using these "calibrated" correlations, accurate datasets can be developed for new wells at a
minimal cost.

For example, if one spends $100,000 to cut cores, analyze the cores, and generate core-log
correlations, and these correlations can be used to plan and conduct an infill drilling plan for 100
wells, the cost per well to generate accurate datasets is only $1,000. Normally, the most critical
data items are formation permeability and in-situ stress. If accurate correlations, in which logs
can be used to estimate permeability and in-situ stress, can be developed, the well completion
and stimulation plans can be optimized.

Contents
 1 Correlating core and log data
 2 Original gas-in-place (OGIP) distribution
 3 Permeability distribution
 4 Reserves distribution
 5 In-situ stress correlations
 6 Nomenclature
 7 References
 8 Noteworthy papers in OnePetro
 9 External links
 10 See also
 11 Category

Correlating core and log data

All cores from tight gas reservoirs must be properly handled and tested to obtain the accurate
data required for developing useful correlations between log and core data. Information
concerning how to cut and test core plug samples was discussed earlier in the chapter. Also,
information concerning how to develop correlations for determining permeability from logs has
been previously discussed. One can use Eqs. 1 through 7 (Same as Eqs. 1 though 7 in
Permeability estimation in tight gas reservoirs) to generate accurate correlations between log data
and formation permeability derived from core or well tests. These correlations can then be used
to determine values of formation permeability using log data from wells that have not been cored
or well tested.

....................(1)

....................(2)

....................(3)

....................(4)

....................(5)

....................(6)

where

e1 = 5.87–6.89,
e2 = 0.2–0.3,
e3 = 1.18–2.54,
e4 = 1.08–1.65,
and
U = correlation factor.

....................(7)
To generate valid correlations in most layered, tight gas reservoirs, the core and log data
normally must be subdivided by lithology, rock type or flow units prior to finalizing the
correlations. If one tries to correlate the core and log data for the entire reservoir, the correlation
coefficient is usually not very high. For example, consider the dataset in Fig. 1 that contains
1,078 data points from a large Travis Peak dataset. The correlation coefficient between core
permeability at net overburden pressure is only 0.692. However, if the cores containing visible
natural or coring induced fractures are removed and only cores from clean, fluvial-deltaic
channel sands are correlated, the correlation coefficient between permeability and porosity
increases to 0.865, as illustrated in Fig. 2.

Fig. 1—Relation of Klinkenberg corrected gas permeability measured at NOB

pressure to porosity at NOB pressure, all data.

Fig. 2—Relation of Klinkenberg corrected gas permeability measured at NOB

pressure to porosity at NOB Pressure, fluvial/deltaic channel sands only, invalid
data excluded. (Same as Fig. 3 in Core analyses in tight gas reservoirs)

Some have used flow units to segregate core and log data to develop better correlations.[1][2]
Amaefule et al.[1] used the same Travis Peak data set as illustrated in Fig. 1[3] and analyzed the
data using a flow unit concept. In their paper, Amaefule et al. defined a rock quality index (RQI)
and a flow zone indicator (FZI). Using these two parameter groups, they developed a scheme to
correlate formation permeability with effective porosity as a function of the FZI.
Original gas-in-place (OGIP) distribution
As suggested by the Resource Triangle, Fig. 3, the distribution of any natural resource is skewed
in nature. For natural gas, the distribution is log-normal. As the value of reservoir permeability
decreases, the value of OGIP increases exponentially. There is obviously a difference between
OGIP and reserves. The OGIP represents all the gas in the rocks that comprise the reservoir
layers. Reserves represent the amount of gas that can be produced economically. The value of
reserves is a function of gas prices, costs, and the level of technology used to develop the
resource.

Fig. 3—Resource triangle for gas. (Same as Fig. 1 in Tight gas reservoirs)

Often the amount of OGIP is computed by using porosity, water saturation, and shale volume
cutoffs. In high permeability reservoirs, using such cutoffs may be appropriate, especially if the
reservoir produces water above a certain water saturation cutoff and the OGIP estimates are not
very sensitive to the cutoff values chosen. However, in most tight gas reservoirs, only dry gas
and small volumes of water that condense in the wellbore are produced. Very seldom are large
volumes of water produced in tight gas reservoirs.

A good rule of thumb for selecting cutoffs to determine net pay to determine gas-in-place for
tight gas reservoirs is to use 3% gas porosity. The first step is to compute the value of porosity
after making clay correlations with Eqs. 8 through 10 (Same as Eqs. 5 through 7 in Log analyses
in tight gas reservoirs). The porosity can then be used to compute the water saturation, normally
using the dual-water saturation model. One can compute gas porosity and include all zones with
gas porosity values of 3% or greater in the net pay count. In the tight gas sands research project
sponsored by the Gas Research Inst., special core analyses on numerous core samples indicated
that gas could flow at 3% gas saturation in typical tight gas cores.[3]

....................(8)
 ....................(9)

....................(10)

Permeability distribution
Permeability within a gas reservoir, field, or basin is distributed log-normally. To illustrate this
concept, four data sets obtained from public records are presented for discussion. The data in
Fig. 4 are from the Travis Peak Formation in east Texas, the Cotton Valley Formation in east
Texas, the Wilcox Lobo Formation in south Texas, and the Cleveland Formation in northwest
Texas. These reservoirs are in different basins but, remarkably, have very similar log-normal
permeability distributions. More information concerning the permeability distribution for these
four data sets is presented in Table 1. The median permeability for all four formations ranges
from 0.028 to 0.085 md, while the arithmetic mean values of permeability range from 0.179 to
7.378 md.

Fig. 4—Comparison of permeability distribution from four tight gas formations in

Texas.

Table 1—Arithmetic Means and Medians for Field Cases

When the permeability is distributed log-normally, the median value rather than the arithmetic
mean should be used to determine the average value of permeability for the formation.[4] [5] [6]
Statistical distributions of porosity, permeability and net pay can be used to determine the
expected gas recovery from a tight gas reservoir.[4] [5] [6] The statistical distribution of
permeability, porosity and net gas pay for the Travis Peak formation from one study are
illustrated in Figs. 5, 6, and 7, respectively.

Fig. 5—Permeability distribution in the Travis Peak formation.

Fig. 6—Porosity distribution in the Travis Peak formation.

Fig. 7—Net pay distribution in the Travis Peak formation.

In Fig. 5, the permeability distribution is clearly log-normal. There is a positive correlation

between porosity and permeability, as illustrated in Fig. 6. As porosity increases, the
permeability increases. There is a negative correlation between net gas pay and permeability, as
illustrated in Fig. 7. As the value of permeability increases, the net thickness of the layer
decreases. This correlation leads to a log-normal distribution of OGIP. The layers of rock that are
the most permeable are thin, compared to the layers of rock that have low permeability. If one
uses the data in Figs. 5 through 7 in a reservoir simulator, along with other appropriate data for
the Travis Peak formation (see Table 2), one can determine the gas recovery for the average well
in the Travis Peak formation.[4] [5] [6] The results from the calculations are shown in Table 3.

Table 2—Travis Peak Reservoir Data

Table 3—Computation of Average Gas Recovery

Table 4—Distribution of Net Pay and Porosity for Travis Peak Formation

First, one must recognize that the gas recovery from a well completed in a tight gas reservoir is a
function of the average drainage area and the hydraulic fracture length, as well as the values of
permeability, porosity, net gas pay, reservoir pressure, and other reservoir parameters. In Table
4, the column labeled "Actual Average Recovery" was computed for each case using[7]
simulation runs representing 1,000 wells drilled for each well space and fracture length using the
data in Tables 2 and 4. The results show that the average recovery varies from 1.97 Bcf for an
unfractured well draining 160 acres to 7.95 Bcf for a well containing a 500-foot-long fracture
half-length draining 640 acres. The column labeled "Recovery for Median" illustrates the values
of gas recovery that one computes using the median values of all parameters, including
permeability, porosity, and net gas pay. The column labeled "Recovery for Arithmetic Mean"
illustrates the gas recovery one computes using the arithmetic mean values for permeability,
porosity, and net gas pay. The data clearly show that the median values best represent are
"average" values when the parameters are log-normally distributed.

Reserves distribution
Even though the permeability distribution and the OGIP distribution are log-normally
distributed, the distribution of reserves may or may not be log normally-distributed because of
the changing recovery efficiency vs. permeability and the number of wells drilled in each
permeability range. Reserves represent the volume of gas that can be produced economically
using existing technology. Reserves are a function of the:

 Permeability
 Net gas pay
 Porosity
 Drainage area
 Initial reservoir pressure
 Flowing bottomhole pressure
 Gas prices
 Operating costs
 Effective fracture half-length
 Effective fracture conductivity
 Other economic factors such as taxation rates and overhead charges

The data in Figs. 8, 9, and 10 illustrate how the abandonment pressure and recovery efficiency
varies as functions of permeability, net gas pay, and fracture half-length for a specific set of
Vicksburg data.[8] At the time the graphs were generated, an economic limit of 250 Mcf/D was
being used in the Vicksburg because of low gas prices. If these same cases were computed with a
lower value of economic limit, the abandonment pressure would decrease, and the recovery
efficiency would increase. These examples illustrate how one should use reservoir engineering to
evaluate the effects of drainage area, hydraulic fracture properties, and economic parameters to
determine values of recovery efficiency and, thus, the distribution of reserves.


 Fig. 8—Tight reservoir performance.

Fig. 9—Tight reservoir efficiency.

Fig. 10—Influence of fracture.

Fig. 8 shows that as the permeability increases and the net gas pay increases, the abandonment
pressure in the reservoir, when the economic limit is reached, decreases. The data in Fig. 9
illustrate the recovery efficiencies for the same cases as shown in Fig. 8. For thick, high
permeability reservoirs, the recovery efficiency can be 80% or more of the OGIP. However, as
the value of permeability decreases below a value of 0.1 md, the recovery efficiency decreases
substantially. For the case in which the net gas pay was only 25 ft and the permeability was
between 0.02 and 0.1 md, the recovery efficiency varied from 0 to 45% of the OGIP. The data in
Figs. 8 and 9 are for semisteady-state radial flow. Fig. 10 illustrates the effect of a hydraulic
fracture on the recovery efficiency for the 25 feet of net gas pay case. It is clear that a hydraulic
fracture that extends out to 40% of the drainage area substantially increases the recovery of gas
in a tight gas reservoir.

In-situ stress correlations

It is important to generate correlations between logs, cores, and measured values of in-situ stress.
The values of in-situ stress are very important to the engineer planning the well completion and
stimulation treatment. The engineer can usually correlate values of in-situ stress measured from
pump-in tests with data measured using logs and cores. A common equation used to correlate
lithology (using Poisson’s ratio) with the in-situ stress is given in Eq. 11.

....................(11)

where

σmin = the minimum horizontal stress (in-situ stress),

Poisson’
ν =
s ratio,
σ1 = overburden stress,
Biot’
α =
s constant,
σp = reservoir fluid pressure (pore pressure),
and
σext = tectonic stress.

To use Eq. 11, one must determine the values of Poisson’s ratio using log data. Poisson’s ratio
can be correlated with sonic log data or estimated using the lithology of a formation layer. Table
5 illustrates typical ranges for Poisson’s ratio as a function of the lithology. Thus, it is possible to
estimate values of Poisson’s ratio from correlations with log data, then use those estimates to
compute estimates of in-situ stress.

Table 5—Typical Ranges of Poisson’s Ratio for Various Types of Rocks

Another correlation that usually works for tight gas sands is one between the GR log and values
of in-situ stress. Gongora[9] used data from the Travis Peak formation collected during the GRI
tight-gas-sands research program. Data from two wells, SFE No. 1 and SFE No. 2, are shown in
Figs. 7.24 and 7.25. SFE No. 1 was an infill well drilled into the Travis Peak formation. There
were several zones that were partially depleted and many other zones that were at original
pressure. Thus in Fig. 11, the zones were correlated using both the GR log reading and the
reservoir pressure. SFE No. 2 was drilled in a location where little drainage had occurred. As
such, the correlation between in-situ stress and the GR log was accomplished using a single
correlation, as illustrated in Fig. 12.

Fig. 11—Correlation of in-situ stress value with average GR reading for two
different reservoir pressures for SFE No. 1.

Fig. 12— Correlation of in-situ stress value with average GR reading for two
different reservoir pressures for SFE No. 2.

The correlations included in this chapter were generated using log, core, and well-test data for
the Travis Peak formation; hence, one cannot use these correlations for other formations in other
basins around the world. These correlations are included in this chapter to illustrate how values
of permeability and in-situ stress can be correlated with log and core data. The methods
explained in this chapter can be used to generate other correlations in other formations in other
basins.

Once specific correlations have been developed and verified, they can be used to evaluate
layered, tight gas reservoirs to make basic decisions, such as whether the casing should be set.
Once the casing is set, the correlations can be used to generate the data required to design the
completion and the stimulation treatment for the reservoir layers that are determined to be
commercially viable.

Nomenclature
A = surface area
D = diameter (for grain size) or constant for computing s′
h = net pay, ft
I = index
k = permeability, md
q = flow rate, Mcf/D
r = radius, ft
R = resistivity, ohm-m
s = skin
s′ = effective skin factor
ρ = density, g/mL
Δt = travel time, μsec/ft
t = time, hours or days
T = temperature, °F
U = correlation factor
V = volume, fraction
φ = porosity, fraction
μ = gas viscosity, cp
ψ = pseudopressure

Subscripts

b = bulk
d = drainage
e = at the extremity of the reservoir
f = fluid or fracture
g = grain or gas (for flow rate)
i = investigation (for radius)
ild = induction log deep
ma = matrix
N = neutron log
NC = neutron corrected for shale
rh = relative to hydrocarbon flow
sfl = spherically focused log
SC = sonic corrected
SH = shale
t = true (for conductivity); total (for compressibility)
w = wellbore (for radius); water (for saturation)
wf = well flowing; free water (for conductivity)
wir = irreducible water

Superscripts

e = exponent

References
1.

 Amaefule, J.O., Altunbay, M., Tiab, D. et al. 1993. Enhanced Reservoir Description: Using
Core and Log Data to Identify Hydraulic (Flow) Units and Predict Permeability in Uncored
Intervals/Wells. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, 3–
6 October. SPE 26436. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/26436-MS.
  Al-Ajmi, F.A. and Holditch, S.A. 2000. Permeability Estimation Using Hydraulic Flow
Units in a Central Arabia Reservoir. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, 1-4 October 2000. SPE-63254-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/63254-
MS.
  Staged Field Experiment No. 3: Application of Advanced Technologies in Tight Gas
Sandstones—Travis Peak and Cotton Valley Formations, Waskom Field, Harrison County,
Texas. Gas Research Inst. Report, GRI-91/0048, CER Corp. and S.A. Holditch & Assocs. Inc.
(February 1991).
  Rollins, J.B., Holditch, S.A., and Lee, W.J. 1992. Characterizing, Average Permeability in
Oil and Gas Formations (includes associated papers 25286 and 25293). SPE Form Eval 7 (1): 99-
105. SPE-19793-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/19793-PA.
  Holditch, S.A., Lin, Z.-S., and Spivey, J.P. 1991. Estimating the Recovery From an Average
Well in a Tight Gas Formation. Presented at the SPE Gas Technology Symposium, Houston,
Texas, 22–24 January. SPE-21500-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/21500-MS.
  Holditch, S.A. and Spivey, J.P. 1993. Estimate Recovery from Tight Gas Formation Wells.
Pet. Eng. Intl. (August): 20.
  Veatch Jr., R.W. 1983. Overview of Current Hydraulic Fracturing Design and Treatment
Technology--Part 1. J Pet Technol 35 (4): 677-687. SPE-10039-PA.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/10039-PA.
  Holditch, S.A. 1974. Economic Production of Tight Gas Reservoirs Look Better. Oil & Gas
J. (4 February): 99.
 Gongora, C. 1995. Correlations to Determine In-Situ Stress from Open-Hole Logging Data in
Sandstone Reservoirs. MS thesis, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas.