SPE-99285-STU (Student 4)
An Integrated Method for Modeling Fluid Saturation Profiles and Characterising
Geological Environments Using a Modified FZI Approach: Australian Fields Case Study
S. Biniwale, SPE, Australian School of Petroleum, The U. of Adelaide
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2005 SPE International Student Paper
Contest at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition being held in Dallas, Texas,
9-12 October 2005.
This paper was selected for presentation by merit of placement in a regional student paper
contest held in the program year preceding the International Student Paper Contest. Contents
of the paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers
and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not
necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members.
Abstract
Laboratory derived capillary pressure data can be seen as an
important tool for the purpose of establishing water saturation-
height relationships as a function of rock type, forming the
basis for a number of petroleum engineering and geoscience
estimates. A modified ‘FZI-λ’ method, capable of giving
better estimates of fluid distribution for Australian reservoirs,
is proposed. The new methodology is particularly well suited
for interpolating among different lithologies and diverse rock
types as evident from a comparison with other methods
reported in the literature, using a case study of the Griffin area
fields.
Reconciliation of capillary pressure data with core and log
data can be advantageous for better reservoir description. In
this work, the Carman-Kozeny (C-K) equation based
Hydraulic Flow Zone Unit (HU or FZU) methodology has
been found ideal in characterizing geologic depositional
environments and modelling fluid saturation profiles. For this
purpose, the concept of ‘Global Characteristic Envelopes’
(GCEs) has been introduced, to analyse geological and
petrophysical characteristics and for the integration and
correlation among the wells. Capillary pressure data, based on
such FZU and depositional grouping, may be further used for
modeling saturation profiles over the uncored intervals and
allows meaningful averages to be assigned for geocellular
modeling and reservoir simulation.
Introduction
Formation characteristics, both qualitative and quantitative,
are used by geologists, petrophysicists and reservoir engineers.
As such, laboratory derived capillary pressure data is
important in the derivation of water saturation-height
relationships as a function of rock type (or lithology) and
prevailing reservoir and fluid conditions. While knowledge of
fluid wettability conditions and the shape of capillary pressure
curves are important, specific rock properties and grain / pore
parameters may generally be of equal importance. The
quantification of the latter by means of a Carman-Kozeny
based Hydraulic Flow Zone Unit (FZU) methodology can be
most advantageous in characterizing various depositional
environments and modeling saturation trends.
Conventional saturation-height methods used by the oil
and gas industry are critically compared in terms of
advantages and disadvantages for a data set for the Griffin
area fields. After systematic data validation and processing,
quality laboratory capillary pressure data, corrected for
specific reservoir situations, is translated into height above
free water level (FWL) at reservoir conditions. In a first
attempt to derive such profiles, the popular Leverett J-function
approach was used to generate universal, normalized
saturation curves for the field; however, the results could not
bridge across the diversity of rock types. Johnson’s method of
utilizing averaged permeability and the more recent Skelt-
Harrison method were also unable to model core derived
saturation profiles adequately.
To overcome the above limitations, a modified ‘FZI-λ’
approach was developed, using a hydraulic radius based FZU
methodology, emphasizing the flow behaviour of rocks.
Saturation profiles were created for the Griffin area fields and
their validity was checked against saturation profiles
interpreted from petrophysical logs. Statistical and error
measurement techniques were also used in comparing results
from the various methods.
Furthermore, it is shown how such saturation modeling
forms part of an integrated approach where core data,
petrophysical log interpretation and geological models may be
combined into a framework of Global Characteristic
Envelopes (GCEs). These GCEs provide information about
geological attributes, diagenetic variations and petrophysical
characteristics, reflecting sorting, compaction, variations in
grain characteristics, pore structure, and energy of deposition
for a particular depositional environment under consideration.
This FZU methodology allows correlation and integration
among Griffin wells, where average properties for each zone,
including expected saturation profiles, may be extended over
uncored intervals and nearby wells. Such systematic approach
in utilizing FZUs, including a number of enhancements and
additions to the standard methodology, has resulted in an
overall improved method that is able to integrate geological,
petrophysical and engineering aspects.
2 SPE Student Paper
Hydraulic Flow Zone Unit Concepts
In recent years, an increasing number of publications have
highlighted the merits of hydraulic flow zone unit concepts in
fluid flow characterization of porous media. They reveal that
reservoirs are indeed heterogeneous and non-uniform systems
that are typically comprised of multiple, more homogeneous
subgroups referred as flow units (1). Ebanks (2) introduced the
concept of Hydraulic Flow Zone Units (HU or FZU) from a
geological viewpoint, considering a representative elementary
volume within the total reservoir rock, which could be
mappable and correlatable in terms of lithofacies. On the other
hand, Amaefule et al. (3) explained flow units as a subset of
lithofacies, where lithofacies are characterized by macroscopic
attributes of lithology, texture, nature of bedding contact and
sedimentary structures, partially as a result of original
deposition and subsequent modification or diagenesis, such as
compaction and cementation (1).
The first, more quantitative ideas were described by
Kozeny (4) and Carman (5), giving a theoretical foundation for
the dependence of permeability on pore structure and resulting
in the so-called Carman-Kozeny (C-K) equation, generally
given by:
φ e3 ⎛ 1 ⎞
k = ⎜ ⎟ ………………..……. (1)
(1 − φ e ) 2 ⎜ F τ 2S 2 ⎟ or lithofacies (or simply facies), as manifested by
⎝ s gv ⎠ petrological characteristics, and are correlatable in terms of
where,
k = Permeability, µm2
φ = Effective porosity, fractional bulk volume
Fs = Shape factor (2 for a circular cylinder)
τ = Tortuosity
Sgv = Surface area per unit grain volume, µm-1
Conventional core analysis data is often in a first pass
analyzed with simple porosity-permeability cross plots.
Behrenbruch and Biniwale (6) have shown the use of the C-K
equation offers further insight into rock pore structures and
depositional environments. However, the first more practical
petroleum engineering applications using distinct zones
(hydraulic units), providing information about depositional
and diagenetic controls on pore geometry, were given by
Amaefule and Barr (3, 7). They used a modified C-K equation
that includes a log-log plot of the ‘Reservoir Quality Index’
(RQI), which is related to the hydraulic radius and a
‘Normalized Porosity Index/Porosity Group’ (PG), where φ is
the porosity as a fraction. These relationships may be
summarized as follows:
⎛ φ ⎞
φ z = ⎜⎜ e ⎟⎟ ……………………………………………. (2)
⎝ 1 − φe ⎠
k (md ) …………………..……...…. (3)
RQI ( µm) = 0.0314
φe
⎛ 1 ⎞ pressure data and saturation-height relationships form the
FZI ( µm) = ⎜ ⎟ ………………..……………..…. (4)
⎜ Fτ S ⎟
⎝ s gv ⎠
log RQI = log φ z + log FZI …………………………. (5)
When RQI is plotted against PG, the relationship results in
a straight line with a unit slope and the intercept defines the
characteristic ‘Flow Zone Indicator’ (FZI). This offers
flexibility for a practical implementation of the C-K equation
without exact determination of parameters such as pore throat
shape factor, tortuosity and surface area.
Characterisation of Geological Environments
While in many instances, practitioners have used the C-K
equation in a more mechanistic manner, to identify rock
similarities, Behrenbruch and Biniwale (6) have presented a
more systematic approach in analyzing flow zone units. They
have proposed a classification framework, emphasizing the
importance of properly integrating geological knowledge, for
clastic formations that may be generally applied. This
modified FZU methodology considers depositional
environments as the highest level of classification and
incorporates rock type (i.e. grain size, sorting, bedding and
diagenesis) as a secondary classification. Therefore, from a
practical perspective, following modified definition of
hydraulic units is proposed:
“Hydraulic Units are lithologically unique geological layers
the hydraulic radius, by strict adherence to geology.”
“Global Characteristic Envelopes” (GCEs) for
characterising geological depositional environments, which
address the large number of rock attributes in a systematic and
hierarchical manner, is the key feature of such FZU
methodology. Biniwale and Behrenbruch (8) report the
comparison, and describe the analysis, of a large data set
covering several Australian offshore basins. Therefore, GCEs
may be seen as an aid in FZU modeling, by mapping regions
or envelopes in the C-K space as a function of geological
depositional environments.
Altunbay and Barr (9) were first to describe factors
affecting hydraulic qualities of rocks, mainly controlled by
pore geometry, which in turn is a function of mineralogy
(type, abundance, morphology and location relative to pore
throats) and texture (grain size, grain shape, sorting and
packing). All these attributes are primarily influenced by
geological deposition and subsequent diagenesis, consequently
controlling reservoir quality. Such depositional trends and
diagenetic aspects are then generally responsible for the
location of individual FZUs within a particular characteristic
envelope, and conclusions may be further supported by using
photomicrographs and SEMs.
Saturation Profile Modelling
The accurate determination of saturation-height relationships,
based on individual facies, is an important prerequisite for the
delineation of hydrocarbons within a reservoir (10). Capillary
basis for a number of engineering and geoscience applications.
Several methods are available in the literature for determining
SPE Student Paper 3

c
field-wide saturation-height functions based on capillary ⎛ −b ⎞
pressure data and log derived data, mainly utilizing parameters S h = 1 − S w = a exp⎜ ⎟ ….…………..……….. (9)
related to rock typing, porosity and permeability, all for the
⎝H +d ⎠
purpose of grouping similar relationships (11-18). Many of these Where, H is the height above the FWL and a, b, c and d are
methods, in addition to averaging methods and parameter constants determined by regression and optimization of core
grouping, use curve fitting and curve smoothening techniques, and log data. Each data point may be assigned different
in which original data may be more or less honoured. weighting during curve fitting, to honor the data in case of
large fields or for refined reserves calculations. Although this
Leverett-J Method: method provides better flexibility and a more practical
Leverett (15) is generally regarded as the first person to approach, the link to permeability is less clear.
introduce an equation, widely known as the Leverett-J
function for normalization of capillary pressure data, assuming Lambda Function:
a close relationship between porosity and permeability: Field and experimental results show that a lambda function
approach tends to fit most capillary pressure relationships very
Pc k
J (S w ) = ………….…………………….. (6) well. In the Leverett-J function a relationship between
σ cosθ φ permeability and porosity is needed, together with knowledge
Sw represents water saturation for a given capillary pressure, of aerial variation of these parameters (19). This aerial variation
Pc is capillary pressure at any height above the free water level may be addresses by dividing rocks into effective porosity or
in psia, σ is the interfacial tension (dyne/cm), k is permeability permeability classes as proposed by the ‘Lambda function’.
in md and φ as the porosity as a fraction. k / φ signifies the There are various forms of the lambda equation available in
mean hydraulic radius. By grouping rock types of similar pore the literature, which may be written as:
structure, the ‘J-function’ attempts to convert all capillary S = a h −λ …….………….….………….. (10)
w
pressure data, as a function of water saturation, to a universal −λ
curve. However, this generalized method often gives poor Sw = a h + b …………...…….….………….. (11)
results for diverse rock types and is also inappropriate for a
Where a, b and λ are regression constants, dependent on
large range of permeability values.
porosity and permeability relationships. Sw is generally
expressed as a fraction of pore volume, h is the height above
Johnson’s Method: the FWL. The approach was developed to better describe the
Johnson (16) proposed ‘permeability-averaged’ technique,
shape of capillary pressure curves, representing both longer
grouping capillary pressure data on the basis of permeability,
and shorter transition zones and the formulation works well
for saturation modeling. Water saturation and permeability for prediction but is less satisfactory for Swir predicting the
relationship can be approximated by straight lines on a log-log
entire capillary pressure curve.
plot and can be represented by reduced major axis regression
analysis as described by the equations:
Modified ‘FZI-λ’ Function
log( S w ) = a log( k ) + b ….………….……….. (7) A flow zone unit approach, being closely associated with
−C geological and petrophysical parameters, has been used for
log( S w ) = B Pc − A log( k ) …………..……... (8)
saturation modeling. A modified ‘FZI-λ’ method has,
therefore, been proposed and compared with other saturation
Equation 8 represents the empirical correlation used by
prediction models. The new model may be described as
Johnson, correlating capillary pressure and height above Free
follows:
Water Level (FWL) with water saturation and core
permeability. The constants A, B and C are derived from a S w = A (H − H d )−λ .….………...……….. (12)
series of capillary pressure plots. Although, this technique is
relatively simple and does not require irreducible water
Sw is expressed as a fraction of the pore volume and A, Hd and
saturation (Swir) values, it is not universally applicable and
λ are parameters, being simple functions of FZI, as follows:
fails to adequately predict saturations for lower permeability
values and short distances above the FWL. A1
A = ……………...….……………...….. (13)
Skelt-Harrison Method: FZI A 2
Based on Thomeer’s original set of pore geometrical λ1
factors, relating saturation to capillary pressure, the Skelt- λ = λ2
……………...….…………..…….. (14)
Harrison (17, 18) method uses both capillary pressure and log-
FZI
derived data for saturation modeling. The general form of the H
relationship, relating saturation with height above FWL, is H d = 1 …………...….…………..…….. (15)
H
given by: FZI 2

where,
H = the height above the free water level
4 SPE Student Paper
Pd = the pore entry pressure.
Hd = the entry height, equivalent height at which oil first
enters the pores, equating to the pore entry pressure.
A1, A2, λ1, λ2, H1 and H2 are specific constants, evaluated from
capillary pressure data and determined by optimization
techniques, being specific for each field. Parameter Hd offers
more flexibility for handling various entry heights in
modeling. Using FZI also allows for a direct link with other
parameters that characterize a particular zone, e.g. relative
permeability or other petrophysical parameters. This method
gives more realistic saturations, even close to the FWL where
other methods are less satisfactory. Based on Brooks and
Corey’s equation, Udegbunam and Amaefule (21) have utilized
a similar formulation (Equations 14 and 15), relating the terms
λ and Pd with FZIs.
This modified method uses FZI as a correlation parameter
for saturation modeling, which automatically incorporates the
hydraulic radius (Leverett J function), porosity grouping
(lambda function) and offers flexibility for tuning specific
relationships using regression and optimization techniques
(Skelt-Harrison method). Overcoming shortcomings of earlier
methods, the improved methodology offers a better solution
for saturation modeling.
Griffin Area Fields: Case Study
Geology and Stratigraphy
The Griffin area fields are located in the southern
Carnarvon basin, offshore Western Australia and mainly
consist of three fields: Griffin, Chinook and Scindian. The
Griffin main structure lies along a northeast-southwest
Triassic high trend known as the Alpha Arch (6, 22, 23). The
main producing reservoir zones are the Birdrong and Zeepard
formations trapped in early Cretaceous sediments, as shown in
Fig. 1. The Mardie Greensand together with the Muderong
shale acts as a seal for the pay zone. The Zeepaard formation
is of excellent reservoir quality and is the primary reservoir,
separated from the relatively poor quality Birdrong formation
by the Intra-Valanginian unconformity. The location of wells
and the distribution of oil in each of the reservoirs is shown in
Fig. 2. While natural edge water has been effective, resulting
in a high recovery factor for the generally good quality
Zeepaard formation, a number of shale and low permeability
barriers have resulted in uneven displacement. By contrast, the
overlying Birdrong formation shows much more heterogeneity
and facies variation, where average formation characteristics
are relatively poor (8, 25).
Data Validation and Analysis
Validation is the most important step before processing
conventional core analysis data, in order to generate reliable
results (24). For every well in the Griffin area, the core analysis
data validation step was carried out, and all data is categorised
into various classes, as explained in previous publications (6, 8).
The main data class omitted from analysis consists of non-
reservoir data (data with exceptionally low permeability
and/or porosity), atypical data (data which appears atypical or
non-representative for a particular deposition) and scattered
data (data scattering on both porosity-permeability and C-K
plots). In total, 5-10% of data has been removed from the
analysis and the remaining dataset was used for further,
detailed analysis and study (8, 24).
In terms of capillary pressure plugs, 21 samples were
available for the Griffin area fields, mainly from Griffin-1, 2,
3, Ramillies-1 (downthrown edge block to the Griffin main
field) and Scindian-2, see Fig. 2. The above mentioned
validation methodology was extended over the entire data set
and also for validating Special Core Analysis (SCAL) results
for various depositional environments. Capillary pressure
plug samples for the Griffin-2 well are shown in Table-1 and
the figures 3 and 4 are presented in order to give some
appreciation for the SCAL validation methodology, for
Griffin-2. The larger symbols indicate SCAL samples and the
relative affinity of such samples with other conventional core
analysis samples is a measure of their representativeness for a
particular formation interval (depositional environment). More
specifically, SCAL samples 18 and 21 (Figures 3 and 4), are
not representative of the geological interval considered. For
sample 21, porosity and permeability values are relatively
higher (Figure 3) and a higher RQI value is indicated in the C-
K plot of Figure 4, whereas sample 18 shows poor quality,
even less than average quality for the group, meaning that the
SCAL analysis results for this plug are likely to be non-
representative for the overall group. In these cases, the
mentioned SCAL sample results require adjustment before
being used in upscaling and reservoir simulation (26). Careful
review of conventional core analysis data can thus be
invaluable in validating the applicability of special core
analysis derived relationships, such as relative permeability,
and this has largely been the impetus for the current study.
Characterization of Geologic Depositional Environments
As per common practice, porosity-permeability cross plots
were first created to identify clustering of various facies for
specific depositional environments. Following the FZU
methodology described, tentative clusters are then translated
into the C-K space. As mentioned above, the Zeepard
formation is of very good quality, particularly when compared
to the poorer Birdrong formation, and this difference can be
clearly seen from Fig.5, where the bold lines indicate FZI lines
for the Zeepard Formation and the dotted lines indicate FZI
lines corresponding to the Birdrong formation. In addition to
showing the GCE for the Griffin area fields, Fig. 5 also
demonstrates quality zonation, ranging from Q1 (best) to Q5
(poorest). The Zeepard formation falls into Q1-Q3, which
consists of a highstand system tract and is mainly dominated
by stacked distributary channels, with FZI values ranging from
5-50 (8, 25). On the other hand, the Birdrong Formation falls
into Q3-Q5 zones, developed from a combination of lowstand
and transgression systems and is dominated by interbedded
fine-grained sandstones and claystones, being characteristic of
poor quality, lower shoreface deposition.
Correlation among wells: Griffin-1, 2 and 3 is shown in
Figs. 6 and 7, where initial correlation has been based on
SPE Student Paper
geological deposition and is subsequently compared with
petrophysical log correlation. In Fig. 6, FZI values are
compared with the gamma ray logs for each well, showing a
good correspondence between the two. In Fig. 6, geologically
correlatable zones are shown by dotted lines and shows zones
with similar FZI values have been integrated and are
represented by single, straight lines as shown in Fig. 7.
Based on log correlation, Fig. 7 shows a stratigraphic cross
section, referenced to the marker shale layer 4.1. Cored
intervals and corresponding depths are shown in the Fig. 7.
Major shale breaks are indicated by dark dotted lines, with
shale layer 4.1 being cored in Griffin-1 and Griffin-2 wells. It
can be concluded that the HU3 zone in Griffin-2 and 3 wells is
correlatable and the same zone could be identified as the HU5
in the Griffin-2 well, represented by number 15. This zone is
correlatable due to geologic similarity as indicating similar
FZI values, which could be traced back to C-K space, as
marked by line 15 shown in Fig. 5. After the similar analysis,
the other correlatable zones, with similar geological
depositions and overall same flow properties, are indicated by
FZI lines marked by 8, 9, 12, 13 and 19. After establishing
such correlation and integration the relationships can be
extended over uncored intervals of wells.
Fluid Saturation Modelling
Table 1 summarizes drainage capillary pressure laboratory
data for Griffin-2. All data was first corrected for laboratory
conditions and then translated to specific reservoir situations
by using following equation.
⎡ (σ cosθ )( res ) ⎤
Pc ( res ) = Pc ( lab ) ⎢ ⎥ ……..…….……………….. (16)
⎣⎢ (σ cosθ )( lab ) ⎦⎥
Where σ is interfacial tension between the fluids in
dynes/cm, θ is the contact angle relating wettability and rock-
fluid interaction in degrees. It is realized that there is some
uncertainty in appropriate interfacial tension and contact
angles, as well as conversion between different pressure
conditions, giving to a systematic shift in correlations (10, 16).
Fig. 8 gives a comparison of drainage capillary pressure data
for laboratory conditions (represented by solid lines) and the
corresponding reservoir conditions (indicated by symbols).
Similar to the validation procedure described for the SCAL
(relative permeability) explained above, capillary pressure
plugs were also first screened. Atypical plug samples are
indicated within boxes in the respective figures. Data for
reservoir conditions is then translated to height above the free
water level (FWL).
The comparative saturation modeling study has been
carried out for the Griffin-2 well. Initially, the Leverett-J
function approach was used for generating normalized
capillary pressure curves as shown in Fig. 9, indicating that
there are different rock types present and realistically
saturation for these groups could not be modeled by assuming
one universal saturation curve. Porosity, permeability or facies
grouping would be expected to give some improvement, but in
general this method is not adequate for diverse rock types.
5
As saturation is closely linked to permeability,
permeability grouping was carried out and relationships with
saturation are plotted on log-log plots as proposed by Johnson
(16)
. Figures 10 and 11 indicate results derived for Griffin-2
using Johnson’s averaged permeability method. Fig. 11
indicates predicted saturation compared with respective
measured values. For very low and very high permeability
plugs, one can see a good match, but otherwise the method
fails to predict the overall saturation trend. Another
shortcoming observed for this method is that for low
permeability and shorter height above the FWL, the method
predicts saturation values greater than one.
It was found that the Skelt-Harrison method generally
works better than the two techniques discussed above, at least
for Griffin-3 and Ramillies-1; however, for Griffin-2 this
method failed to give satisfactory saturation profiles that
match measured values. Up to 15 m above the FWL, a
reasonable match is indicated, but for greater heights above
the FWL and lower quality samples, the match deviates
significantly, as presented in Fig. 12. This has led to an
attempt to devise an improved formulation using Lambda
functions and permeability grouping, as shown in Fig. 13.
However, at distances of more than 40 m above the FWL the
method still fails to model saturations accurately.
Fig.14 shows saturations modeled for the Griffin-2 well
using a modified FZI-λ method. In this case, results show a
satisfactory match with the measured saturation values,
underpredicting saturation slightly at elevated distances above
the FWL. However, overall saturation trends could be
modeled quite accurately, for different values of FZI and
permeability, when compared to the other methods. As further
validation of this match, capillary saturation profiles were
compared to log derived saturation profiles. Fig.15 shows such
comparison for zones 2 and 4, showing good agreement. Zone
1 is constituted mainly of poor quality Birdrong formation
with very few data points available in cored intervals, making
it difficult to correlate predicted saturations with log derived
profiles. The modified FZI-λ method was also applied to
Griffin-3 and Ramillies-1 wells, where predicted saturations
show a very good match with measured values, Figs. 16 and
17.
Statistical Comparison of Saturation Prediction Methods
Fig. 26 gives a comparative overview of the saturation
modeling methods: Leverett-J function, Johnson’s method,
Skelt-Harrison and modified FZI-λ methods, where the
intention is to produce a plot of height above FWL against
water saturation using porosity, permeability or FZU as a third
parameter axis. Leading up to this final result, Figs. 18, 20, 22
and 24 show plots that compare model predicted water
saturation with saturation determined from core. As evident,
the modified FZI-λ method gives the best results with R2
(correlation coefficient) values ranging from 0.98-1, followed
by the Skelt-Harrison method, whereas the other two methods
indicate lesser correlation.
6 SPE Student Paper
Differences between water saturation predicted by each
model and core measured saturations can be seen on
histograms plots on a comparable basis in Figs. 19, 21, 23 and
25. The superior performance of the modified FZI-λ method
is indicated in plots of Figs. 24 and 25, with mean difference
0.0014 and standard deviation of 0.0016. Table 2 presents a
comparison of error metrics for the described methods, where
the modified FZI-λ method has performed the best with a
mean average error (MAE) of 0.000136 and root mean square
error (RMSE) of 0.0088 for the Griffin-2 well. Similarly, in
case of the Griffin-3 and Ramillies-1 wells, modified FZI-λ
method show most excellent results with high correlation
coefficient and the lowest values for MAE and RMSE.
Fig. 27 summarises the multidisciplinary approach
advocated, reconciling geology (G1-G4: showing core
analysis, facies zonation techniques, photomicrographs and
SEMs), reservoir engineering (R1-R2: capturing porosity-
permeability and C-K relationships) and petrophysics (P1-P4:
integrating capillary pressure and log data with modified FZI-
λ approach). This integration of disciplines is thus paramount
in providing consistent and meaningful averages of data that
may be assigned to grid blocks for geo-cellular modeling and
in reservoir simulation. In offering greater flexibility for
modeling various relationships, the improved saturation
modeling method is able to give an extra dimension to
formation evaluation techniques.
Summary and Conclusions
1. A practical and theoretically based, improved flow zone
unit (FZU) approach has been outlined, which represents
an ideal method for characterizing formations and
modeling saturation profiles. It leads to enhanced reservoir
description, by integration of various core analysis results
utilizing a multidisciplinary approach that covers geology,
petrophysics and reservoir engineering.
2. A systematic data validation and analysis technique has
been proposed for conventional core and SCAL sample
data, where the determination of representative
relationships for SCAL samples is of paramount
importance.
3. “Global Characteristic Envelopes” (GCEs), having a
unique classification scheme potential, may be of
considerable assistance in depositional characterisation and
the analysis of major controlling factors of reservoir
quality, as demonstrated by the Griffin area case study.
4. Adhering strictly to geological interpretation, the modified
FZU methodology has been found to be useful for
correlation and integration among wells, as exemplified by
the Griffin area case study.
5. A modified FZI-λ saturation-height function approach,
which automatically incorporates the hydraulic radius and
porosity grouping, has been presented. Superiority of the
functional form is manifested by the statistical comparison
with other published methods, where this method offers
greater flexibility and accuracy for treating diverse
lithologies, as shown for the selected Griffin area fields.
Acknowledgments
The author would like to gratefully acknowledge the sponsors:
BHP Billiton, ChevronTexaco, Santos Ltd and Woodside
Energy for their financial support and permission to publish
their data and analysis results. The author would also like to
thank Prof. Peter Behrenbruch for his enormous support and
valuable technical guidance in writing this paper.
References
1. Amaefule, J. O. and Keelan, D. K.: “Mature Niger Delta
reservoirs: integration of core and log datafor flow unit zonation
and permeability prediction,” paper SPENC 9702 presented at the
1997 SPE Conference, Harcourt, Nigeria, August 26-29.
2. Ebanks, W. J.: “Geology in enhanced oil recovery: reservoir
sedimentology” SEPM Spec. Publication (1987) 40, 1-14.
3. Amaefule, J.O., Altunbay, M., Tiab, D., Kersey, D.G., Keelan,
and D.K.: “Enhanced reservoir description: using core and log
data to identify hydraulic (flow) units and predict permeability in
uncored intervals/wells,” paper SPE 26436 presented at the 1993
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas,
Oct. 3-6.
4. Kozeny, J.: “Sitzber. Akad. Wiss. Wien Math. Naturw. Klasse,”
(1927) 136, 271.
5. Carman, P.C.: “Fluid flow through granular beds”, J Soc Chem
Ind (1938) 57, 225.
6. Behrenbruch, P. and Biniwale, S.: “Characterization of Clastic
Depositional Environments and Rock Pore Structures Using The
Carman-Kozeny Equation: Australian Sedimentary Basins,”
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, (2005), 47-3.
7. Barr, D.C. and Altunbay, M.: “Identifying hydraulic units as an
aid to quantifying depositional environments and diagenetic
facies,” paper presented at the 1992 Geology of Malaysia,
Symposium on Reservoir Evaluation / Formation Damage, Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia, July 11.
8. Biniwale, S. and Behrenbruch P.: “The mapping of hydraulic
flow zone units and characterisation of Australian geological
depositional environments” paper SPE 88521, presented at the
2004 Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Perth,
Australia, October 18-20.
9. Altunbay, M., Barr, D.C., Kennaird, A.F., Manning, D.K.:
“Numerical geology: predicting depositional and diagenetic
facies from wireline logs using core data,” paper SPE 28794
presented at the 1994 Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and
Exhibition, Melbourne, Australia, Nov. 7-10.
10. Biniwale, S. and Behrenbruch, P.: “An Improved Approach for
Modelling Geological Depositional Characteristics and Fluid
Saturation by Using Hydraulic Units: Australian Offshore
Fields.” presented at the 2005 46th Annual SPWLA Meeting,
New Orleans, USA, June 26-29.
11. Swanson, B. F.: “Visualizing pores and non-wetting phase in
porous rock.” SPE 6857 presented at the 1977 - 52nd Annual Fall
Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum
Engineers of AIME, Denver, USA.
12. Wells, J. D. and Amaefule, J. O.: “Capillary pressure and
permeability relationships in tight gas sands.” SPE 13879,
presented at the 1985 SPE/DOE Low Permeability Gas
Reservoirs, Denver, USA, May 19-22.
13. Jennings, J. B.: “Capillary pressure techniques: application to
exploration and development geology.” AAPG Bulletin, (1987)
71.
14. Aguilera, R. and Aguilera, M. S.: “The integration of capillary
pressures and Pickett plots for determination of flow units and
SPE Student Paper 7

reservoir containers.” SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
(2002), December, 465-471.
15. Leverett, M.C.: “Capillary behaviour in porous solids” Petroleum
transactions of AIME (1941) 142, pp 152-169
16. Johnson, A.: “Permeability Averaged Capillary Data: A
supplement to log analysis in field studies.” SPWLA 1987 - 28th
Annual Logging Symposium, June 29-July 2.
17. Skelt, C. and B. Harrison: “An integrated approach to saturation
height analysis.” SPWLA paper NNN, 1995 - 36th Annual
Logging Symposium, June 26-29.
18. Harrison, B. and X. D. Jing: “Saturation height methods and their
impact on volumetric hydrocarbon in place estimates: SPE paper
71326 presented at the 2001 Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, Sept. 30 - Oct 3.
19. Wiltgen, N. A., Calvez, J. L. and Owen, K.: “Methods of
saturation modelling using capillary pressure averaging and
pseudos.” SPWLA paper W presented at the 2003 - 44th Annual
Logging Symposium, USA, June 22-25.
20. Biniwale, S and Behrenbruch, P.: “An improved approach for
modeling geological depositional characteristics and fluid
saturation by using hydraulic units: Australian offshore fields,”
presented at the SPWLA 2005 - 44th Annual Meeting, New
Orleans, USA, June 26-29.
21. Udegbunam, E. and J. O. Amaefule: “An improved technique for
modelling initial reservoir hydrocarbon saturation distributions:
applications in Illinois (USA) Aux Vases Oil Reservoirs.”
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering (1988), 21,143-
15.
22. Hocking, R. M.: “Carnarvon Basin,” Geological Survey of
Western Australia (1990) 3, 457.
23. Berean, D., Slate, T., Wallace, T., Aldred, R., Hedger, L., Mills,
P. and Cowley, R.: “Planning and drilling of sinuous horizontal
wells for the Griffin Area development,” APEA Journal (1994)
34(1) 19.
24. Biniwale, S.: “Hydraulic Flow Zone Unit Characterisation and
Mapping for Australian Geological Depositional Environments”
PhD Thesis, The University of Adelaide, Australia.
25. Workman, L. J., Slate, T.V. and Oke, B.F.: “The Griffin
Development- Flying high on infill success,” paper SPE 77920
presented at the 2002 Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and
Exhibition, Melbourne, Australia, Oct. 8-10.
26. Goda, H. and Behrenbruch, P.: “Using a modified Brooks-Corey
Model to study oil-water relative permeability for diverse pore
structures” paper SPE 88521, presented at the 2004 Asia Pacific
Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Perth, Australia, Oct. 18
–20.

*
*

* Non-representative plug samples with atypical trends for normal saturation profiles
Table 1: Drainage capillary pressure laboratory data after FZI and depositional grouping, Griffin-2 well

Error Leverett-J Johnson’s Skelt-Harrison Modified FZI-λ

Well
Measurements Function Method Method Method
Griffin-2 R2 0.90 0.88 0.94 – 1.00 0.98 – 1.00
Griffin-2 MAE 0.000037 0.03580 0.01927 0.000136
Griffin-2 RMSE 0.0667 0.0846 0.0508 0.0088
Griffin-3 R2 0.77 -- 0.87 0.98
Griffin-3 MAE 0.0000279 -- -0.000063 -0.0000436
Griffin-3 RMSE 0.0977 -- 0.0729 0.0379
Ramillies-1 R2 0.93 -- 0.91 0.99
Ramillies-1 MAE 0.000558 -- 0.207 -0.000182
Ramillies-1 RMSE 0.0577 -- 0.0819 0.0165
Table 2: Comparison between modified FZI- λ method and other Conventional Methods for Griffin 2, 3 and Ramillies-1
8 SPE Student Paper

Fig. 1: Griffin Area - Stratigraphy Fig. 2: Griffin Area- Zeepaard reservoir top structure map

Note: Samples within boxes indicate non-representative plug samples

Fig. 3: Data Validation and SCAL sample representiveness; porosity-permeability cross plot, Griffin-2 well.
SPE Student Paper 9

Note: Samples within boxes indicate non-representative plug samples

Fig. 4: Data Validation and SCAL sample representiveness; Carman-Kozeny plot, Griffin-2 well.

Fig. 5: Hydraulic zonation by quality; Carman-Kozeny plot, integrating Griffin area wells.
10 SPE Student Paper

Fig. 6: Correlation within Griffin area wells1, 2 and 3; gamma ray and flow zone indicator vs. depth

Fig. 7: Birdrong and Zeepard Formations – stratigraphic cross section, integrating FZUs within Griffin area wells.
SPE Student Paper 11

Note: Plug Samples within boxes

indicate atypical saturation trends

Fig. 8: Drainage capillary pressure; comparison at laboratory and reservoir conditions, Grifin-2 well.

Fig. 9: Leverett-J function; normalized capillary pressure, Griffin-2 well.

12 SPE Student Paper

Fig. 10: Johnson’s method; straight line relationship between saturation and permeability, Griffin-2 well.

Points from drainage

capillary pressure data
Note: Samples within boxes indicate
Corresponding saturation non-representative plug samples
prediction (calculated)

Fig. 11: Johnson’s method; normalized capillary pressure saturation modeling, Griffin-2 well.
SPE Student Paper 13

Note: Samples within boxes indicate

non-representative plug samples

Fig. 12: Skelt-Harrison method; capillary pressure saturation modeling, Griffin-2 well.

Note: Samples within boxes indicate

non-representative plug samples

Fig. 13: Lambda function (using permeability grouping); saturation modeling, Griffin-2 well.
14 SPE Student Paper

Points from drainage capillary

pressure data

Corresponding saturation
prediction (calculated)

Fig. 14: Modified ‘FZI-λ’ method (using FZI and depositional environments grouping); saturation modeling, Griffin-2 well.

Fig. 15: Modified ‘FZI-λ’ method (using FZI and depositional environments grouping); comparison with log saturation, Griffin-2 well.
SPE Student Paper 15

Points from drainage

capillary pressure data

Corresponding saturation
prediction (calculated)

Non-representative plug sample

Fig. 16: Modified ‘FZI-λ’ method (using FZI and depositional environments grouping); saturation modeling, Griffin-3 well.

Points from drainage

capillary pressure data

Corresponding saturation
prediction (calculated)

Non-representative plug sample

Fig. 17: Modified ‘FZI-λ’ method (using FZI and depositional environments grouping); saturation modeling, Ramillies-1 well.
16 SPE Student Paper

Leverett- J Function
Mean = 0.00004
Std Dev = 0.0671

Fig. 18: Comparison between Leveret-J function predicted Fig. 19: Difference between Leveret-J function predicted water
water saturation and core derived saturation, Griffin-2 well. saturation and core derived saturation, Griffin-2 well.

Johnson’s Function
Mean = 0.0358
Std Dev = 0.0771

Fig. 20: Comparison between Johnson’s function predicted Fig. 21: Difference between Johnson’s function predicted
water saturation and core derived saturation, Griffin-2 well. water saturation and core derived saturation, Griffin-2 well.

Skelt-Harrison Function
Mean = 0.019
Std Dev = 0.0536

Fig. 22: Comparison between Skelt-Harrison function Fig. 23: Difference between Skelt-Harrison function predicted
predicted water saturation and core derived saturation, water saturation and core derived saturation, Griffin-2 well
Griffin-2 well
SPE Student Paper 17

Modified FZI-λ Function

Mean = 0.0014
Std Dev = 0.0016

Fig. 24: Comparison between modified FZI-λ function Fig. 25: Difference between modified FZI-λ function predicted
predicted water saturation and core derived saturation, water saturation and core derived saturation, Griffin-2 well.
Griffin-2 well.

After Biniwale and Behrenbruch (2005)

Fig. 26: Comparison of various methods for saturation modeling

 18

Modified after Biniwale and Behrenbruch (2005)

Fig. 27 Multidisciplinary integrated approach: reconciliation of geology, petrophysics and engineering for enhanced reservoir characterisation
SPE Student Paper