SPWLA 32nd Annual Logging Symposium, June 16-19, 1991

QUANTITATIVE DETERMINATION OF SECONDARY POROSITY

USING X-RAY COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY AND WIRELINE LOGS

Robert M. Moss and John W. Russo

Texaco Inc., Houston, Texas

ABSTRACT

A new technique has been developed to quantify secondary porosity using x-ray
computed tomography (CT) of whole cores. These cores were from a
heterogeneous limestone-dolomite formation with water production problems.
Identification of secondary porosity heterogeneity by CT agreed well with core
descriptions and well log results.

A detailed analysis of single-scan x-ray CT data from well ‘A” has shown that
the permeability is strongly influenced by the amount of secondary (vugular)
porosity present in the formation. Well “A” is a good producer with water coning
problems. Good agreement was found when the amount of secondary porosity
was compared to the horizontal plug permeability as a function of depth. The
single-scan results were confirmed by directly measuring the porosity
distributions of eight core plugs from well “A” using a dual-scan CT method.
This correlation to horizontal permeability indicates a distribution of secondary
porosity that is uniform in three dimensions.

Well “B” is a poor producer with early water breakthrough. Selected areas were
scanned and analyzed for the amount of secondary porosity for comparison to
the original data from well “‘A”. The porosity distributions seen in well “B” have
quite a bit less secondary porosity on average, and much of the material
scanned shows evidence of very high vertical permeability. A poor correlation
of horizontal permeability with CT data in well “B” indicates a non-uniform
distribution of secondary porosity.

Differences between density-neutron porosity and sonic porosity were correlated

with the CT data to establish a method of identifying porosity heterogeneity in
intervals where no core exists. The log-derived secondary porosity shows good
agreement with the quantitative, whole core CT data and core descriptions.
Previous attempts to correlate log-derived secondary porosity with core data
rely on thin section measurements.

By greatly increasing the volume of core analyzed, this method provides

confidence that logs can be used to identify heterogeneities in this reservoir.
Such information can help decrease water production by indicating the
extremely high permeability zones prior to perforating.

-l-
SPWLA 32nd Annual Logging Symposium, June 16-19, 1991

INTRODUCTION

The reservoir under study has characteristics of a dual porosity system. Wells
in this field that are good producers are plagued by water coning problems.
Poor wells have early water breakthrough and subsequent loss of production.
The goal of this work is two-fold: a) to use x-ray computed tomography to
quantify the secondary porosity heterogeneity and relate it to the water
problem, and if successful b) to correlate the CT results with log measurements
for application in wells where no core is available.

This limestone-dolomite reservoir consists primarily of intercrystalline porosity

with secondary porosity present in certain facies. This can be seen visually in
Figure 1, which shows photos of two core plugs from well “A”. Plug “61” shows
high secondary porosity while plug “76” shows predominately intercrystalline
porosity. CT porosity images of the same plugs are shown in Figures 2 and 3.
Figure 2 is a slice from plug “61” showing high secondary porosity (white areas),
while Figure 3 from plug “76” shows primarily intercrystalline porosity.

CT DATA ANALYSIS

CT DATA ACQUISITION

All CT data reported here were acquired, displayed, and analyzed in-house
(Moss, 1990a). These data were all obtained using an 8 second scan time, 75 mA
current, and 120 kV peak voltage. The full resolution images contain 512 x 512
picture elements (pixels). The actual spatial resolution of the data is
approximately 0.5 mm x 0.5 mm x 2 mm. Note however that features on the
order of 0.1 times the volume element (voxel) can be seen if the density
contrast between the feature and the surrounding matrix is sufficiently high.

The single-scan secondary porosity data has a voxel size of 0.25 mm x 0.25 mm
x 2.0 mm = 0.125 mm’. Images were scanned every 25 mm for well “A” data,
where approximately 40 feet of core was analyzed. Data from seven
representative samples were analyzed from well “B”. These samples were
generally less than one foot in length (Moss, 1990b).

For the dual-scan xenon injection studies of well “A”, eight plugs were chosen as
representative of the variations seen in the single-scan data with respect to the
amount of secondary porosity. The plug samples were scanned with a 2 mm
slice thickness and a 2 mm slice spacing (continuous coverage). Because of the
small size of these samples (1” diameter), each pixel represents a volume
element (voxel) of approximately 0.16 mm x 0.16 mm x 2 mm = 0.051 mm”.
Note that this volume is only about 40% of the volume in the single-scan data
reported for this well. The voxel size should be kept in mind when comparing
xenon and single-scan porosity data. Many of the differences between the

-2-
 SPWLA 32nd Annual Logging Symposium, June 16-19, 1991

histograms of the two types of data reflect differences in the heterogeneity of

the samples at the two scales (Moss, 199Oc).

SINGLE-SCAN ANALYSIS OF WELL “A

DATASET CONSTRUCTION AND REDUCTION

The core sample from well “A” was a one-third slab which was broken in some
places. Care was taken to place the pieces of the sample into the scanner with
the proper depth spacing between them. This resulted in a total of 1038 images
which were grouped into 57 datasets, each containing approximately 1.5 feet of
sample. Because we tried to maintain the proper depth intervals, some of the
individual scans contained no data, or only very small, irregular pieces of
sample. There were a few slight variations on the depth interval covered by a
given dataset, but in general 1.5 feet may be assumed. The dataset intervals
were chosen based on the length of sample that could be scanned conveniently
at one time.

After the data were collected, overview images from each dataset (depth
interval) were produced and stored onto video disk. In general it was observed
that the images were similar to each other within a given dataset. The slices
within a given dataset that were more or less complete (whole) were then J
analyzed to determine the CT number statistics on a slice-by-slice basis.

The selected slices were then analyzed to produce histograms of the CT

number distribution, one distribution for each depth interval. Further analysis
was performed on these distributions rather than on a slice-by-slice basis to
reduce the amount of data analyzed and to facilitate comparison to the core
plug data.

SINGLE-SCAN POROSITY CALIBRATION

The equation that relates the measured CT number (CTN,,,,) to core

parameters is:

cTv,*, =(I -@)*CTN,,,, +4+,*CTN, +S,$TN, +S&TN,] (1)

where: CTN = CT number, 4 = porosity, S = Saturation, 0 = oil, B = brine,

G = gas, and ROCK = rock matrix.

The fact that the CT numbers for oil and water are very similar results in an
approximate relationship for native state cores:

CT4EM=(l -+CTN ROCK+~*[SF*CTNF+SG*CTNGl (2)

-3-
SPWLA 32nd Annual Logging Symposium, June 16-19, 1991

where F = fluid and other notation is as in Equation 1.

Core plug porosities by helium porosimetry were available over the depth
interval at a nominal 1 foot spacing. We assumed that the core was completely
air filled (S, = 1, CTN, = -1000). The mineralogy in well “A” over most of the
interval was known to be a relatively homogeneous dolomite. The value for
CTNIKKKwas calculated by taking CTN,,,, at six points over an interval that
was representative of the mineralogy of the formation, along with the core plug
porosities (4) for the same locations, and using Equation 2:

(CT%*s-CTNLJ 3740
(3)
cwKm =
U-4)

The equation used to convert single-scan CT number data to porosity is

therefore

+= (CT%,,-CTN~~E*,)
=(2740.
-CT%,*,) (4)
KTN,,,,-CT&J 3740. .

DETERMINATION OF SECONDARY POROSITY

The CT number distribution (frequency histogram) for each dataset was

converted to porosity units using Equation 4 and normalized to one pore
volume. The matrix porosity was determined by the best fit of the porosity
distribution to a normal (gaussian) distribution. The porosity distributions of
two representative areas from well “A” are shown in Figures 4 and 5. The solid
line is a gaussian fit to the matrix peak. These histograms are normalized to
one pore volume. Areas of the distribution above the cutoff for secondary
porosity are shown shaded. The statistics for selected areas from well “A” are
compiled in Table I.

A common feature of the single-scan porosity distributions was an excess

number of points above the primary fit with greater than approximately 30%
porosity. Since the mean porosity over the majority of the analyzed depth
interval is near 18% with an RMSD of about 4%, points above 30% porosity are
about 3 standard deviations above the mean porosity of the sample.
Examination of the CT images indicated that these areas of highest porosity
appear to be well correlated spatially (well connected).

For the purposes of the CT analysis, the term “secondary porosity” refers to an
excess in the porosity distribution that is above a porosity 3 standard deviations
higher than that of the primary (matrix) porosity for the interval. For most of
this data, the secondary porosity distributions had a mean porosity near 32%,
although some were as high as 45%. This secondary porosity distribution is

-4-
 SPWLA 32nd Annual Logging Symposium, June 16-19, 1991

made up of a range of pore sizes significantly larger than that of the primary
pore system. If the secondary porosity system is well connected, it will tend to
dominate the flow characteristics of the rock, even though it may account for
only a small percentage of the total pore volume.

DATA INTERPRETATION

In order to determine if the fraction of data which we have defined as

secondary porosity is in fact important to the flow characteristics of the well,
we must compare our data to the permeability data that is available. A
reasonable way to do this would be to convert the information concerning the
amount and value of secondary porosity into something that is proportional to
permeability.

Simple capillary tube models of flow through a porous medium relate the
permeability to some power of the porosity (Scheidegger, 1974). Considering the
known channelling and water coning problems associated with the wells in this
field, these simple models may have some applicability. We have calculated a
number using our data that weights the square of the mean porosity of the
secondary porosity distribution by the amount of secondary porosity present
within the pore volume:

X=O.l*(%SP)*(MSP)’ (5)
J

where %SP = the percent of the pore volume that is secondary porosity, and
MSP = the mean porosity of the secondary porosity distribution.

The first term in equation 5 is a scale factor to bring the magnitude of the X
values into line with the permeability values. This equation is not intended to
be a rigorous relationship. Clearly other relationships are possible, but since the
mean secondary porosity measured in this formation is relatively constant,
other power laws are essentially scale factors. The label X has no significance.
The values for X were observed to correlate well with horizontal permeability
in well “A” (see Figure 6).

Conversion of the mean CT number data into porosity was found to agree fairly
well with the core plug porosities when plotted as a function of depth. This
agreement indicates the general validity of our porosity calibration assumptions.

RESULTS OF SINGLE-SCAN ANALYSIS

The relevant statistics from the porosity analysis are given in Table II. See the
table legend for explanation of the entries.

-5-
SPWLA 32nd Annual Logging Symposium, June 16-19, 1991

A plot of the quantity X and the plug permeability (CPER) versus depth can be
seen in Figure 6. Note the good agreement in general between the character
permeability curve and the X curve. The plug permeability data point for each
interval was chosen as a best guess match depth-wise. Since the exact location
of the plug within the interval was unknown, a worst-case depth matching error
between the permeability trace and the X trace of almost 3 feet is possible. We
believe that the depth matching between the two traces is probably much
better than that, and we estimate that the permeability data points probably
are not off by more than 2 feet.

It is interesting to note that not only does the X curve and the permeability
curve match very well in a relative sense, the magnitudes of the two curves are
also in substantial agreement.

The correlation coefficient (r) between the plug He porosities and the logarithm
of the plug permeabilities is 0.90. For the single-scan CT porosities the same
correlation is r = 0.80. The correlation drops to 0.52 for the mean secondary
porosities.

We can draw two primary conclusions from these facts: a) the permeability of
the formation is strongly influenced by the quantity and quality of the
secondary porosity which we have defined, and b) the part of the sample
containing secondary porosity is in fact a well-connected region of higher
porosity/permeability running through the sample.

The observed correlation between secondary porosity and permeability may not
hold in other reservoirs. One reason the quantity X was observed to track with
the permeability so well may be because the percentage of secondary porosity
within the pore volume was relatively small (mean 1.5%). In an area where
more diagenetic alteration of the matrix results in a larger percentage of this
type of porosity system, the effect may be washed out. In this data the
percentage of secondary porosity ranged from 0 to a maximum of about 6% of
the total pore volume. This variation manifested itself in relatively large
changes in the permeability with depth, proportional to the amount of
secondary porosity present. In an area where the amount of this pore system is
a much larger percentage of the total pore volume, the difference between
different areas may be smaller because the relative importance of the amount
of the secondary porosity becomes less significant.

Several factors probably contribute to the fact that the correlation coefficient
between the mean secondary porosity and the logarithm of the permeability is
not particularly high, especially when compared to the mean porosities of the
sample. One such factor is depth matching errors in the selection of the plug
permeabilities for each dataset interval. Another is that the pore structure of
the secondary areas is such that some quantity such as the size of the pore

-6-
 SPWLA 32nd Annual Logging Symposium, June 16-19, 1991

throats is the dominant factor effecting flow, rather than the mere existence of
high porosity in this region. This seems reasonable considering the diagenetic
origin of the secondary system.

WELL “A” Xe POROSITY DATA

In order to confirm the results of the single-scan analysis, the porosity of eight
representative core plugs from well ‘A” was measured directly (Moss, 199Oc).
To perform the direct porosity measurement, the evacuated plug samples were
scanned, flooded with xenon gas, and rescanned at the same locations. The
evacuated images were subtracted from the xenon images and scaled to produce
porosity images:

CTN ROCK+Xe
-~TzOCK+vAC”IJM
4= (6)
CTNX,- CT%mJM ’
where CTN = CT number (Moss, 1990d). The values for the denominator in
equation 6 were obtained by separate measurements made at various xenon gas
pressures using the same apparatus.

The porosity distributions for two of the plugs studied are shown as histograms
in Figures 7 and 8. These distributions are normalized to one pore volume. The
best gaussian Iit to the data is shown with a solid curve. The statistics and J
calculated values from these data are collected in Table II.

Most of the relevant statistics from both the single-scan and xenon data for
these samples are compared in Table I. Note in particular the good agreement
between the single-scan estimate for mean porosity and the directly measured
mean porosity. For plugs 59 and 61, the apparent high value for the mean
xenon porosity is a result of the extended high porosity tail of these
distributions. The porosity of the peak of the distributions, i.e. the most
probable porosity value, agrees well with the single scan estimate for the mean
porosity. Some of the differences between the amounts of secondary porosity
present, as well as the mean values of the secondary porosity, are due to the
smaller voxel size for the dual-scan data. These differences are telling us
something about the scale of the heterogeneity within the samples. For
example, the mean value for the secondary porosity for plug 59 is large
compared to the single-scan data because the voxel size for the xenon
measurement was smaller than the larger pores. For a sample where the
results for secondary porosity are almost the same, e.g. plug 40, one might
deduce that the relevant pores are all significantly smaller than a voxel, so that
no size effect is observed.

The general shapes and values from the direct measurement of the porosity
distributions are in excellent agreement with the porosity distributions

-7-
SPWLA 32nd Annual Logging Symposium, June 16-19, 1991

estimated from the single-scan data (cf. Figures 4,5,7 and 8). The highest
permeability plugs (plug 59; plug 61, Figure 7) show by far the largest standard
deviations, and the most secondary porosity. These samples have some vugular
pores which are larger than the voxel size (0.051 mm3). Note that the standard
deviations tend to decrease as the permeability decreases.

In general the direct measurements have confirmed the assumptions we made

concerning mineralogy in our single-scan study, thus validating the results of
the single-scan study for well “A”. Furthermore, the behavior of the porosity
distributions generally agrees with what was expected in terms of the
correlation of secondary porosity with permeability. Of course, the correlation
of secondary porosity from CT with horizontal permeability implicitly assumes
that the porosity heterogeneities are more or less isotropic in space.

WELL “B” SINGLE-SCAN POROSITY DATA

The analysis of the single-scan data for well “B” follows that performed for well
“A”. An example single-scan porosity distribution from near Plug 92 of well “B” is
shown in Figure 9. The shaded part of the histogram shows the part of the
distribution included as secondary porosity. Note that this histogram does not
have the symmetric, normally shaped peak that characterized almost all of the
data from well “A”. Most of the histograms from well “B” show considerably
more asymmetry than those from well “A”. The statistics for the eight datasets
analyzed from well “B” are compiled in Table III.

A look at the results tabulated in Table III shows that we do not see the same
kind of correlation in well “B” between secondary porosity as measured by CT
and horizontal permeability that we saw in well “A” (cf. Table I). We believe
that this is because of the high vertical connectivity in well “B”, with little
horizontal connectivity. This contrasts to the data from well “A”, where
although a strong degree of vertical connectivity was observed, there was good
horizontal connectivity as well, resulting in a more isotropic distribution of
secondary porosity. Because the CT porosity is derived from three dimensional
data, a poor correlation with horizontal permeability indicates that the
secondary porosity is not uniformly distributed. Conversely, good correlation
with horizontal permeability indicates a more isotropic distribution of the
vugular porosity, as seen in well ‘A”.

Figure 10 is a slab image of 114 mm of core from well “B” near the location of
Plug 92. The figure is oriented such that up is in the vertical direction. This
image clearly shows good, high porosity flow paths (bright, porosity >25%)
running vertically through the sample, separated from each other by lower
porosity areas (dark, porosity 6-8%). This is strong evidence of extremely high

-8-
 SPWLA 32nd Annual Logging Symposium, June 16-19, 1991

vertical permeability with lower horizontal permeability. This property is

important for understanding the early water behavior of this well.

WIRELINE LOG ANALYSIS

Correlating the CT-derived secondary porosity to well logs is essential in

predicting porosity heterogeneity where no core exists. Verification of log-
derived secondary porosity typically comes from visual core observations or
scattered thin sections. The successful correlation of quantitative whole core
CT data with log derived values increases confidence in using logs to identify
secondary porosity in the reservoir.

Log plots showing raw curves from both wells are presented in Figures 11 and
12. Computed curves showing secondary porosity are shown in Figures 13 and
14 (Russo, 1990).

DETERMINATION OF TOTAL POROSITY

Total porosity (intercrystalline and vugular) was determined for each well from
a neutron/density crossplot, such as the one shown in Figure 15. This method
provides a good porosity match with core data in several wells in this field.
J
DETERMINATION OF SECONDARY POROSITY

Sonic logs measure the fastest travel time of sound waves travelling vertically
near the edge of the borehole. This first arrival will likely be through the
intercrystalline or least vugular portion of the rock. As mentioned earlier,
neutron/density logs measure total porosity. Therefore secondary porosity was
determined by the equation:

&=(+l), (7)
where & = secondary porosity (corresponds to %SP from the CT data), 4, =
total porosity from neutron/density crossplot, and 4, = sonic porosity. This
secondary porosity curve is presented in track 3 of Figures 13 and 14 (labeled
POR2).

DETERMINATION OF SONIC POROSITY

Two of the most common techniques for obtaining sonic porosity are the time
average equation (Wyllie, et. al, 1956, 1958):

At-Atma
+= (8)
A$-Atma

-9-
SPWLA 32nd Annual Logging Symposium, June 16-19, 1991

where At = sonic travel time measured from log, At,, = rock matrix travel
time, and At, = fluid travel time, and the Hunt-Raymer Transform (Raymer, et.
al., 1980):

and

where V = velocity, V, = apparent matrix velocity, V, = fluid velocity, and

V SONIC = velocity measured by sonic log. Due to the mixture of dolomite and
limestone seen on the neutron/density crossplot in Figure 15, a variable matrix
velocity was used in calculating the sonic porosity.

The time average and Hunt-Raymer methods, as well as the acoustic formation
factor approach (Raiga-Clemenceau, et. al, 1986) were compared for wells “A”
and “B”. Although the Hunt-Raymer study was an empirical observation of sand
samples, for these wells it provides secondary porosities that compare favorably
to extensive core observations (Hogg, 1990). Sonic porosities from the time
average equation appeared too low, resulting in an additional 4-5 porosity unit
(p.u.) separation from the total porosity curve. This was further substantiated
in one additional well in the same field which had no secondary porosity as seen
from core. Hunt-Raymer results for the sonic porosity tracked the total porosity
curve, giving little or no secondary porosity, while the time average sonic
porosity gave about a 5 p.u. separation from the neutron/density porosity. The
acoustic formation factor approach also gave sonic porosities that were too low
for these wells. Successful application of the Hunt-Raymer transform in
carbonates has also been found by others (Hunt, 1991).

It should be noted that regardless of the method chosen for wells “A” and “B”,
the overall character (i.e. shape) of the log-derived secondary porosity curve is
similar, and still correlates with the CT-derived curve.

An outline of the steps used in determining sonic porosity is as follows:

1) Calculate matrix density from neutron/density crossplot. This can be

done using the equation (Bateman, 1990):

(p&ti (11)
l-4,
where (p,,), = apparent matrix density and pb = bulk density.

2) Use Figure 16 to calculate apparent matrix travel time. Mineral points

are plotted at their matrix values for bulk density and travel time. To find

-lO-
 SPWLA 32nd Annual Logging Symposium, June 16-19, 1991

matrix velocity for a limestone/dolomite mixture, enter the y-axis with

apparent matrix density (determined from equation 8) to the limestone-
dolomite line. Drop this point straight down to read apparent matrix velocity
from the x-axis.

3) Using this variable matrix travel time, calculate sonic porosity from
the Hunt-Raymer formula in equation 9.

CORRELATION OF LOG AND CT DATA

Track 3 of Figure 13 represents log-derived secondary porosity (POR2) for well

“A”. Secondary porosity from CT data is plotted next to it in track 4 (labeled
POR2CT). An expanded version of this plot is also shown in Figure 6. Overall,
the character of the two curves shows good correlation, indicating a tie between
the two measurements (see results on page 6).

Magnitudes differ primarily due to resolution effects, since logs investigate a

much larger volume of material than the CT. Differences may also occur based
on our definitions of secondary porosity. Log values of secondary porosity will be
representative of discontinuous porosity, since non-connected porosity will
probably not be included in the first arrival of the sound wave. Values of the
secondary porosity from single-scan CT data includes connected and
discontinuous porosity.

Due to sampling differences between core data and logs, it is possible for the
CT curve to be off depth with logs by +/- 3 feet at any point. However, stretch
and shrink depth shifting of the CT curve was not performed in order to
preserve and present its original depths.

Scanned images were also obtained from well “B”. CT data is not plotted due to
the sparseness of data points analyzed. It was concluded from the CT
information that this well did not have as much secondary porosity as well “A”
(see Tables I-III). This is also seen on the logs where well “A” shows a greater
separation between total porosity and sonic porosity than well “B”.

The correlations between secondary porosity from CT and from logs provides
assurance that logs can be used to identify heterogeneities in this formation in
areas where no core exists.

CONCLUSIONS

1) Secondary porosity can be quantified using single-scan x-ray computed

tomography. This was verified by direct, dual-scan measurements of porosity

-ll-
SPWLA 32nd Annual Logging Symposium, June 16-19, 1991

distributions using xenon injection. The use of whole core gives a more
complete, unbiased measurement of secondary porosity than thin sections.

2) For wells with uniformly distributed porosity heterogeneity, the permeability

of the formation in this field is well correlated to the amount of secondary
(vugular) porosity present.

3) Prediction of horizontal permeability trends from CT data, as in well “A”,

indicates a more uniform distribution of secondary porosity.

4) Poor correlation of horizontal permeability trends with CT data, as from well

“B”, indicates a non-uniform distribution of secondary porosity.

5) Log-derived secondary porosity shows good agreement with quantitative CT

data and core descriptions. This provides confidence that logs can be used to
identify secondary porosity heterogeneities in this reservoir.

6) Identification of heterogeneities from logs should help decrease water

production by avoiding very highly permeable zones when perforating.

For future work in this field, density-neutron-sonic porosity cross-plots could be

used to try to avoid the extremely high permeability (> 1000 mD> zones which
would tend to have water break-through first. However, because of the high
vertical permeability that is obviously present out in the formation, another
viable solution may be to drill a horizontal well close to the top of the producing
region. This might allow for greater production rates by taking advantage of
the high vertical permeability. In addition, by drilling as high as possible in the
formation, the water breakthrough can postponed as long as possible.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thank Mr. K. D. McVey for permission to publish these

results. We would also like to thank Mr. M. D. Hogg for his consultations
regarding core observations.

NOMENCLATURE

CTN = CT number, Hounsfield Units S = Saturation

4 = porosity & = secondary porosity
+x = porosity from density/neutron crossplot & = porosity from sonic log
HU = Hounsfield units p,, = bulk density
(p,,), = apparent matrix density SP = secondary porosity
V = velocity V,,= apparent matrix velocity
V, = fluid velocity Xe = xenon gas
At = travel time read from sonic log.

-12-
 SPWLA 32nd Annual Logging Symposium, June 16-19, 1991

Subscripts:
B = Brine F = Fluid
c, = Gas 0 = Oil
IMEAS = measured ma = matrix
ROCK = ROCK matrix

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bateman, R., 1990, Open Hole Log Analysis and Formation Evaluation, Texaco
E&P Technology Division.

Coates, G. R., Nugent, W. H., and Peebler, R. P., 1978, A New Approach to
Carbonate Analysis: Transactions, SPWLA 19th Annual Logging Symposium,
Paper 0.

Hogg, M. D., 1990, Texaco East Region Geologic Lab Report.

Hunt, E., 1991, personal communication.

Moss, R. M., 1990a, Overview of X-ray Computed Tomography for Petrophysios,

Texaco E&P Technology Division Technical Memorandum 90-027
J
Moss, R. M., 1990b, Texaco E&P Technology Division Technical Memorandum
90-079.

Moss, R. M., 199Oc, Texaco E&P Technology Division Technical Memorandum

90-162.

Moss, R. M., 1990d, Direct Measurement of the Constituent Porosities in a Dual

Porosity Matrix, SCA-9003: Society of Core Analysts, presented at the 1990
Technical Conference.

Raiga-Clemenceau, J., Martin, J. P., and Nicoletis, S., 1986, The Concept of
Acoustic Formation Factor for More Accurate Porosity Determination from
Sonic Transit Time Data, Transactions, SPWLA 27th Annual Logging
Symposium, Paper G.

Raymer, L. L., Hunt, E. R., and Gardner, J. S., 1980, An Improved Sonic Transit
Time-To-Porosity Transform: Transactions, SPWLA 21st Annual Logging
Symposium, Paper P.

Russo, J. W., 1990, Texaco E&P Technology Division Technical Report 90-l 89.

-13-
SPWLA 32nd Annual Logging Symposium, June 16-19, 1991

Scheidegger, A.,1974, The Physics of Flow Through Porous Media, 3rd edition,
University of Toronto Press, p. 174 ff.

Wyllie, M. R. J., Gregory, A. R., and Gardner, L. W., 1956, Elastic Wave
Velocities in Heterogenous and Porous Media: Geophysics, Vol. 21, No. 1, p.
41-70.

Wyllie, M. R. J., Gregory, A. R., and Gardner, L. W., 1958, An Experimental

Investigation of Factors Affecting Elastic Wave Velocities in Porous Media:
Geophysics, Vol. 23, No. 3, p. 459-493.

-14-
 SPWLA 32nd Annual Logging Symposium, June 16-19, 1991

TABLE I
Single-Scan and Xe Porosities
Well “A”

SINGLE SCAN DATA DUAL SCAN (Xe) DATA PLUG DATA

PLUG DEPTH SS RM %SP MSP x Xe RM %SP MSP PERM He

(ft) PHI SD PHI SD (mD) PHI

40 10955.1 17.0 5.22 4.6 28.0 358 17.4 5.7 4.4 38.5 304 17.9

59 10979.8 279 18.9

61 10984.1 1748 2‘1.1

72 674 23.8

73 10993.8 111 19.2

74 10995.3 217 17.9

76 10996.5 96 15.0

83 11005.0 80 17.1

TABLE I LEGEND
PLUG plug number for xenon study, from DEPTH interval.

DEPTH depth of the top of the dataset interval (ft)

SS PHI mean of fit to single-scan CT porosity for DEPTH interval

RMSD standard deviation from single-scan porosity fit.
FIT MEAN mean CT porosity from gaussian fit (%)
FIT RMSD standard deviation of the CT porosity fit (%).
SP CUTOFF porosity threshold for secondary porosity
= (FIT MEAN) + 3*(FIT RMSD)
%SP percentage of secondary porosity in the pore volume
MEAN SP mean secondary porosity (%)
PERM core plug HORIZONTAL permeability (mD)
He PHI core plug porosity (%)

-15-
SPWLA 12nd Annual Logging Symposium, June 16-19, 1991

TABLE II LEGEND

PLUG Plug number for xenon study, from DEPTH interval.

DEPTH depth of the top of the dataset interval (ft)

Xe CAL porosity calibration factor = (CTN,,,,, - CTN,,,.,,)

MEAN PHI mean CT porosity from xenon injection from entire

distribution (%).

RMSD standard deviation of the porosity distribution

FIT MEAN mean CT porosity from gaussian fit (%)

FIT RMSD standard deviation of the CT porosity fit (%).

SP porosity threshold for secondary porosity
CUTOFF = (FIT MEAN) + 3*(FIT RMSD)
%SP percentage of secondary porosity in the pore
volume

MEAN SP mean secondary porosity (%)

PERM core plug HORIZONTAL permeability (mD)

He PHI core plug porosity (%)

-16-
 SPWLA 32nd Annual Logging Symposium, June 16-19, 1991

TABLE III
Single-Scan Porosities
Well “B”

TABLE III LEGEND

NEAREST PLUG number of plug nearest DEPTH interval.
DEPTH approximate depth of the dataset (ft)
FIT MEAN mean CT porosity from gaussian fit (%)
FIT RMSD standard deviation of the CT porosity fit (%).

SP CUTOFF porosity threshold for secondary porosity

= (FIT MEAN) + 3*(FIT RMSD)

%SP percentage of secondary porosity in the pore

volume

MEAN SP mean secondary porosity (%)

X = O.l*(%SP)*(MEAN SP)‘. This value should be
proportional to permeability.
PERM core plug HORIZONTAL permeability (mD)
He PHI core plug porosity (%)

-17-
 SPWLA 32nd Annual Logging Symposium, June 16-19, 1991

Well A Plug 61

Figure2 - CT Xe Porosity Figure 3 - CT Xe Porosity

Well A Near Plug 76

0.006
1
J
0.004

0.002

0 L___._ : 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Figure4 - Single-ScanCT’Porosity Figure 5 - Single-ScanCT Porosity

Figures 2 and 3 - Representative porosity images from Well A. These images

are from a direct, dual-scan measurement of the porosity using xenon injection.
Bright areas are secondary porosity.

Figures 4 and 5 - Porosity distributions inferred from single-scan CT data

near the locations for the plugs in Figures 2 and 3 (Well A). Note the gaussian
matrix peak. The black tails of the distributions represent secondary porosity
@P).

-19-
SPWLA 32nd Annual Logging
Symposium,June16-19,
1991

WELL “A”

CPEn
1 lE$I
---_--_-_-_---_----_~ ~--_--_-_-_-_--------_

Figure 6 - Secondary porosity curves (POR2) & (POR2CT) for Well "A".
Core permeability (CPER) vs. CT-derived X value.

-2o-
 SPWLA 32nd Annual Logging Symposium, June 16-19, 1991

Well A Plug 61 Well A Plug 76

0.12
O-l2 I
0.1 Eec&l Ti4.4 _
0.08 RMSG 4:7
Fit Mean = 13.7
0.06 Fit RMSD= 3.4 _
0.04 ’ ;Suto;fO= 23.9
0.04
_ l&n=S~ = 28.6
0.02
0 I
0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80 100
Figure7 - CT Xe Porosity(%) Figure8 - CT Xe Porosity(%)

Well B Near Plug 92 Well B Near Plug 92

0.006 F;t Me~~.-..1912~-
i~_~_~

Fit RMS<= 612

0.004 L ;P$utd;= 37.9
Gean-SP’= 42.5

L i
0.002

Ok
0 20 40 60 80 100
Figure 9 - Single-ScanCT Porosity Figure 10 - Single-ScanCT Porosity
Figures ‘7 and 8 - Directly measured porosity distributions from the samples
shown in Figures 2 and 3 from Well A. The voxel size for Figures 7 and 8 is
smaller by 40% than that for Figures 4 and 5.

Figure 9 - Porosity distribution inferred from single-scan CT data near the

location for plug 92, Well B. Note the highly asymmetric structure.

Figure 10 - Slab porosity image from Well B near plug 92. Note the large
amounts of vertically connected porosity (light) separated horizontally by lower
porosity regions (dark). This material was classified as a digitate stromatolite.

-21-
 WELL ‘A” 1 WELL ‘B”
11 aI ILD IWJB DI 11 6n ILD MB DT
588 I WI 1BB .2 Lwl! 288 1.95 UC3 2.95 148 us/F 44 564 I WI lea .2 OtM aa 1.95UC3 2.95 148 us.4 4a
. ---------.
FEET FEET
sFl.u NFlil
.2 arm 28u: 45 Pu
_--------: -15

Figure 11 - Raw log curves for Well “A”.

Figure 12 - Raw log curves for Well “B”.

 WELL “A” WELL “B”
CR l/ PORDN POIK
B WI 186 588 I ea 18
FEET
SPHI
---------~ e
P

lleee

Figure 13 - Comparison of secondary porosity from

logs (PORZ) and CT (POR2CT).

Figure 14 - Log-derived secondary

porosity (POR2) for Well "B".

L
 POROSITY AND LITHOLOGY DETERMtNATION FROM
FORMATION DENSITY LOG hNO
COMPENSATED NEUTRON LOG ICNLl
FRESH WTER. LIOUIO-Fu_!_EO HOLES

FDC-CNL

I
(Pma)a gm/c

Figure 15 - Neutron/Density crosspl Figure 16 - Chart used to determine apparent

for Well "A". matrix velocity from apparent
matrix density.
 SPWLA 32nd Annual Logging Symposium, June 16-19, 199
1

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Robert M. Moss received a Ph.D. in Physics

in 1988 from Rice University in Houston,
Texas. Since then he has worked for the
Exploration and Production Technology
Division of Texaco Inc. in Houston developing
the methods, hardware, and software used for
the quantitative imaging of petrophysical
properties using x-ray CT. Ongoing research
interests include quantitative dual energy CT
methods, well log-CT data correlations,
petrophysical measurements using nuclear
magnetic resonance imaging, and stochastic
descriptions of petrophysical properties.

John W. Russo graduated from Southern

Illinois University in 1979 with a B.S. degree
in Geology. IIe joined Texaco’s Bellaire
Research Laboratories in Bellaire, Texas the
same year and was assigned to the Log
Interpretation Group. In 1982 he was
assigned to the Reservoir Imaging Group
where he specialized in VSP modeling. In
1985 he transferred to the Formation
Evaluation Section in Texaco’s Exploration
and Production Technology Division in
Houston. He is presently active in log analysis
on a world-wide basis and log analysis
training of Texaco employees. Recent projects
have emphasized integration of log data with
various formation evaluation methods such as
CT-scan data, Texaco’s Quantitative
Fluorescence Technique (QFT), core
descriptions and production testing.

-25-