See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275426940

Optimization of reservoir cut-off parameters: A

case study in SW Iran

Article in Petroleum Geoscience November 2011

DOI: 10.1144/1354-079311-005

CITATIONS READS

5 92

4 authors, including:

Bijan Mahbaz Yaser Mirzaahmadian

University of Waterloo NAED
10 PUBLICATIONS 14 CITATIONS 3 PUBLICATIONS 9 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Nano-Geomechanic View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Bijan Mahbaz on 20 May 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
 Downloaded from http://pg.lyellcollection.org/ at University of Waterloo on May 20, 2015

Optimization of reservoir cut-o parameters: a case study in SW Iran

SeyedBijan Mahbaz1,*, Hadi Sardar1, Mehdi Namjouyan1 and Yaser Mirzaahmadian2
1
Department of Petrophysics, Petro Gostar Permayon Company, 30 Sharifimanesh St,
Fereshte (Elahie) St, PO Box 16615-916, Tehran, Iran
2
NIOC Exploration Directorate, 1st Dead-end, Seoul St, NE Sheikh Bahaei Square, PO Box 19395-6669,
Tehran, Iran
*
Corresponding author (e-mail: mahbaz@pgpermayon.com)

ABSTRACT: Although reservoir quality cut-o criteria have been used for
more than 50 years as a guide for economic decisions, there is still no rational
procedure for identifying and applying them in Iranian oil and gas fields. In
other words, there are dierent rules-of-thumb in dierent sections of the
National Iranian Oil Companies for determination of cut-o values. For
instance, in one section, values of 10%, 50% and 50% are used for porosity,
water saturation and shale content cut-os, respectively; in another section,
cut-o criteria are not used at all, simply an estimate of the time when 20%
of oil-in-place could be produced. This paper addresses the optimization of
cut-o value estimation from raw and processed petrophysical data based on
extracting the most appropriate relationship for permeability as a function
of porosity, water saturation and shale content k = $(, Sw, Vsh). The
procedure starts by looking at permeability as the key parameter in choosing
a cut-o value because sometimes the minimum value (the permeability
cut-o) is directly related to economic circumstances and is defined by the
client. Regression analysis coecients of 0.936 and 0.870 were achieved for
relationships of the form k = $ (, Sw, Vsh) in the two petrofacies intervals
studied. This leads to specification of minimum k values of permeability and
determination of optimum cut-o values for , Sw and Vsh. This method is
then used to determine optimum cut-o values for the Burgan Member
(sandstone) in the Kazhdumi Formation in an oshore oil field in the Persian
Gulf. The calculated cut-o values for this case for k = 1.0 mD are = 12.5%,
Sw = 60% and Vsh = 27%, as opposed to the standard corporate values of
= 10%, Sw = 50% and Vsh = 50%.

KEYWORDS: hydrocarbon reservoir, cut-o, multiple regression,

permeability, porosity, shale content, water saturation, Burgan sandstone,
Kazhdumi Formation, Persian Gulf

INTRODUCTION containing zone must meet certain criteria the cut-o. In a

Net-to-gross and cut-o are terms used extensively by
petrophysicists, geoscientists and petroleum engineers in defin-
ing the economic viability of a petroleum reservoir. Along with
mathematical simulation, these parameters are used to address
various issues in reservoir evaluation, such as assessing pro-
ducible oil quantities, predicting production rates and choos-
ing well geometries and completion intervals. Unfortunately,
there is no widely accepted way to define these parameters
or to estimate their optimum values in field conditions. This
shortcoming causes misunderstanding among groups, errors in
volumetric and recovery factor calculations, poor well test
interpretation and rate predictions, inappropriate well stimu-
lation design, and uncertainty in equity evaluation (Cobb &
Marek 1998).
Net-to-gross is the fraction of pay, or economically viable
oil-containing thicknesses, in a specified interval, usually called
the reservoir. However, to be defined as pay, each oil-
literal sense, cut-os may be viewed as limiting values of
specific parameters (permeability, oil saturation, etc.) or
groupings of parameters defining what is to be considered pay
in an economic sense. In the context of integrated reservoir
studies, cut-os become the limiting values of formation
parameters defining pay, thereby eliminating those rock vol-
umes that will not contribute significantly to the economic
evaluation of the reservoir. Typically, cut-os are specified in
terms of well-understood physical characteristics of the rock
and, if used properly, they should lead to a superior and
reliable reservoir description and characterization that forms
the basis for simulation and production predictions.
Although physical cut-os have been used for more than
50 years, there is still no general procedure for identifying and
applying them (Worthington & Cosentino 2003). This lacuna
is compounded by the diversity of approaches to reservoir
evaluation that have been considered, further blurring the role
of cut-os in the evaluation process. This issue has become

Petroleum Geoscience, Vol. 17 2011, pp. 355363  2011 EAGE/Geological Society of London
DOI 10.1144/1354-079311-005
 Downloaded from http://pg.lyellcollection.org/ at University of Waterloo on May 20, 2015

356 S. Mahbaz et al.

Fig. 1. (a) Traditional and (b)

contemporary approaches to reservoir
studies (from Worthington & Cosentino
2003).

more complex in contemporary integrated reservoir studies, for permeability is calculated directly. We successfully use this
which are systemic rather than parallel or sequential in nature, method for well A in an oshore oil field in the Iranian sector
so that all components of the evaluation process are inter- of the Persian Gulf (Fig. 2).
linked. Integrated evaluation means that the execution of a
task on any process component has ramifications for the
others (Fig. 1); therefore, a necessary characteristic of such CASE STUDY CHARACTERISTICS
a systemic approach is the provision for iteration as the
knowledge-base advances. For example, simulation is used in Site information
early reservoir studies to choose well configuration, identify
the dominant oil production mechanism and choose a produc- In this study, data from two wells spaced about 16 km apart
tion strategy. However, once the development plan has been (well A and B) are examined. Data from well A are used for
formulated, the dynamic simulation model must be re-visited calculation and data from well B for formation correlation.
and progressively updated, and data deficiencies must be Figure 3 shows the stratigraphic column of wells A and B
continually identified as development gets under way and more and formation top depths for the reservoir (Burgan sandstone
and better data become available (Worthington & Cosentino member) analysed for cut-o estimation. The primary reser-
2003). voir in this interval is formed by the coarse-grained clastic beds
The principal use of cut-os is to delineate net pay, of the Kazhdumi Formation, referred to as Burgan A & B
described broadly as the summation of those depth intervals units. The Kazhdumi Formation sandstone reservoir in this
through which hydrocarbons are (economically) producible. In block has probably been charged from Cretaceous source
the context of integrated reservoir studies with mathematical rocks, and the hydrocarbon is expected to become more
simulation, net pay plays an important role both directly and mature towards the north of the block.
through defining the net-to-gross pay ratio. Net pay criteria The carbonates in the Burgan member mainly consist of
demarcate the reservoir intervals that become the focus of Fe-oolitic grainstone with some rounded quartz grains.
further study (petrophysics, detailed logging, simulation mod- Cementation is fairly well developed and some of the oolites
els etc.). These criteria define eective thicknesses that are used are squeezed because of compaction. The source of Fe is
to identify or specify hydrocarbon flow units, that are used to unclear; a process of halmyrolysis in relation to volcanic
identify target intervals for well completions and stimulation exhalations has been hypothesized (Van Buchem et al. 2006).
programmes, and that are needed to estimate permeability Because of depositional environments, orbitolinids and other
(and hence productivity index) through the analysis of well-test carbonate-precipitating organisms appear to have been absent
data. The net-to-gross pay ratio and geometric pay disposition during oolite formation, some of which have quartz grain
in wells are used directly in volumetric computations of nuclei that served as the initial substrate for precipitation from
hydrocarbons in place and thence lead to static estimates of CaCO3-saturated solutions. Sandstones are interpreted to be
ultimate hydrocarbon recovery. These also form key indicators
of hydrocarbon zone continuity and connectivity, so they
contribute to the development of the dynamic model used
in simulation, thus aiding dynamic estimates of ultimate
hydrocarbon recovery (Worthington & Cosentino 2003).
There is no universal definition of net pay, nor does there
appear to be general agreement on how it should be delineated;
hence, net pay has been incorporated within integrated reser-
voir studies in dierent ways that have not always been
optimally fit-for-purpose. In an attempt to rectify some of
these shortcomings, this paper describes a method to deter-
mine optimum values of reservoir cut-os. Simply put, using
regression methods, we wish to extract relationships between
permeability as the dependent factor using reservoir porosity,
water saturation and shale content (, Sw, Vsh), as independent
parameters. Economic evaluation will define a minimum value
/
of mobility (M) for the net pay, defined as M = k
, where
is viscosity. Based on a defined minimum economic value for
W'
mobility and a constant viscosity, a minimum economic value Fig. 2. Location map of the studied field.
 Downloaded from http://pg.lyellcollection.org/ at University of Waterloo on May 20, 2015
Optimization of reservoir cut-o parameters: SW Iran
Fig. 3. Stratigraphic column and formation tops for wells A and B
across studied intervals.
quartzose (silt-sized to fine-grained) sand with a glauconitic
fraction, all with calcite cement. The Fe-oolites and glauconitic
sandstone lithologies testify to the process of shallow chemical
precipitation in the presence of iron taking place in a shallow-
marine inner shelf to a deltaic environment (Van Buchem et al.
2006).
In well A, one conventional core was cut (22222246 m)
in the Burgan B sands of the Kazhdumi Formation, show-
ing good arenaceous facies and traces of hydrocarbon. The
Burgan B sand reservoir was interpreted to have average
eective porosity of 21.2% and a favourable oil saturation
(Sw = 69.1%). However, the average eective net porosity of
the Burgan A member is 9.2%, with no net pay defined.
In well B, the Burgan A sand reservoir is interpreted to
have average eective porosity of 20.3% and a favourable oil
saturation (Sw = 52.7%), but with a low net pay Stoneley
permeability of 1011 mD. In contrast, the Burgan B sands in
well B are water-bearing.
Data availability
Conventional core analysis data were obtained from well A
(Table 1) and conventional lithology, resistivity and porosity
logs were available for both wells (Fig. 4). A CMR tool was
run in well A, and the permeability from the processed data
was also available after petrophysical analysis.
METHODS
Petrophysical evaluation
The well logs were initially corrected for any environmental
eects or tool malfunctioning that had possibly occurred in the
Table 1. Core analysis data for well A
Interval (m) Recovery (%) Formation
22942306 90 Burgan A
23062318 88 Burgan A & Burgan B
23182327 100 Burgan B
357
course of logging. This data-preparation stage was conducted
as a quality control to ensure the accuracy and depth precision
of the sampled data points.
The true Formation Resistivity (Rt) was obtained from the
Deep Laterolog (LLD) with the accompanying Microspheri-
cally Focused Log (MSFL) for the flushed-zone resistivity
measurement. The formation water salinity obtained from
DST test samples was 230 (ppk NaCl) for well A and 200 (ppk
NaCl) for well B; in addition, temperature and depth correc-
tions were carried out for both wells.
The normalized volume of shale (Vsh) in the reservoir was
calculated from gamma-ray logs in both wells using the
gamma-ray index, IGR. The study also involved integration of
natural gamma-ray spectroscopy, elemental capture spec-
troscopy, neutron porosity, bulk density, resistivity, acoustic
slowness and nuclear magnetic resonance data to estimate the
porosity, saturation profile, permeability, rock mechanical
properties and basic lithology within the tools vertical resolu-
tion. The water saturation was calculated assuming water
salinity of 230 ppk for well A and 200 ppk for well B.
The upper Kazhdumi Formation in well A (21052184 m
measured depth (MD)) consists mainly of shales containing
principally illite with small amounts of kaolinite and chlorite,
sand, a limestone member and small amounts of pyrite and
siderite. The average eective net porosity is 14.0% and there is
no net pay in this interval.
The Burgan A member (21842222 m MD) consists mainly
of shales (illite, kaolinite and chlorite), limestone, sand and
some siderite and pyrite. The average eective net porosity is
14.2% and the average net-pay water saturation is 65.3%.
The Burgan B member (22222291 m MD) consists mainly
of sand with some calcite and shales (dominantly kaolinite and
illite), and some siderite and pyrite. The average eective
net-pay porosity is 18.9% and the average net-pay water
saturation is 36.1%. Table 2 shows the reservoir characteristics.
The upper Kazhdumi Formation in well B (21882258 m
MD) is interpreted to be a combination of illitic shales
(commonly called the Kazhdumi shales), limestone (the Dair
member) and a small amount of pyrite. Average net porosity is
11% without the presence of any net pay.
The Burgan A member (22582314 m MD) consists mainly
of sand, kaolinite, some illite and pyrite. Average eective
porosity is 20.3%, with a favourable water saturation of 52.7%.
However, average net-pay Stoneley permeability is about
1011 mD.
The Burgan B member (23142325 m MD) and the lower
Kazhdumi Formation (23252375 m) have similar constituent
minerals as that of Burgan A, but show no significant net pay;
the average eective porosity is quite low (13.2%).
The results of reservoir petrophysical characterization and
the interpreted model response parameters for well #B can be
seen in Table 3. Note that the cut-o values shown for wells A
and B (Tables 2 and 3) are rough estimates provided by a
service company which made petrophysical analyses after
gathering petrophysical data. These are shown here just for the
readers information.
Fluorescence/cut & odour Gross lithology
Dark brown/flash, bright brown cut Mainly sand, siltstone & shale, soaked
Dark brown/flash, bright brown cut with oil
Dark brown/+ve cut Sand, shale and silty shale, upper part
oil-bearing
 Downloaded from http://pg.lyellcollection.org/ at University of Waterloo on May 20, 2015

358 S. Mahbaz et al.

Fig. 4. Conventional well logs for wells A and B.

Calculations permeability measurements and permeability relations; and

minimum acceptable level for permeability.
In order to determine cut-os for the reservoir parameters, we The first three items (rock type, porosity and fluid proper-
tried to determine a number of reservoir characteristics: rock ties) have been discussed for Burgan sandstone members A
type (lithological classification); porosity type; fluid properties; and B in previous sections; the calculation procedure for
 Downloaded from http://pg.lyellcollection.org/ at University of Waterloo on May 20, 2015

Optimization of reservoir cut-o parameters: SW Iran 359

Table 2. Summary of reservoir petrophysical properties in well A

Gross Net reservoir* Net pay

Formation
Formations
top (m MD) Thickness e (%) Net-to-gross e (%) k (mD) Net-pay-to- e (%) Swe (%) k (mD)
(m MD) ratio gross ratio
Kazhdumi 2105.00 79 13.91 0.996 13.95 0.89
Burgan A 2184.00 38 12.94 0.1 12.94 11.91 0.1 14.16 65.3 28.46
Burgan B 2222.00 69 12.48 0.951 12.95 2.13 0.315 18.85 36.07 236.8
*
Net: after porosity cut-o of 5% ( > 5%).

Net-pay: after porosity cut-o of 5% and water saturation cut-o of 70% ( > 5% and Sw < 70%).

The average Stoneley permeability is calculated geometrically.

e (eective porosity) is PIGN (VISO, VPAR and bound water removed), Swe is SUWI (non-clay water intergranular water saturation for
undisturbed zone) and k is Stoneley permeability. Permeability cut-o is 1 mD.

the other items will be explained briefly in the following in well B, data from well A were used for determining a
section. permeability relation.

Permeability measurements Determining permeability relationships

For well A, permeability was interpreted based on CMR
measurements in the following intervals: the Ilam Formation
(16701777 m); the Sarvak formation (19552050 m); and the
Burgan sandstone member of the Kazhdumi Formation
(21902270 m). The CMR+ tool was run as a stand-alone
logging run and was operated in the enhanced precision mode
(one long wait time, followed by a series of short wait times).
The data quality was good, except for the washout zones in the
Burgan A formation.
The free-water level was arbitrarily fixed at 2350 m (Burgan
sands), 1840 m (Ilam Fm.) and 2100 m (Sarvak Fm.) and the
PCT 2 scale factor to 3450 Pas. The fluid density dierence
was set at 0.2. The comparison between the CMR high
resolution permeability and MDT mobility was found to be
excellent.
For well B, no CMR tool information for permeability
estimates was available; there were just three cores available,
which were analysed (Table 4). Because of insucient log data
Previous works show that permeability is highly dependent on
the nature of the porosity, mineral constituents and texture in
dierent types of rocks (Timur 1968; Ahmed et al. 1989; Balan
et al. 1995a, b; Saner et al. 1997; Kameda et al. 2006). Corre-
lation between porosity and permeability for a particular rock
type (i.e. of a specified texture and mineral composition) is a
basic procedure applied in core data interpretation. However,
this correlation may not always be satisfactory because of pore
size heterogeneity and geometry. Rocks with a similar porosity
but dierent permeability are very common in a reservoir, and
carbonate rock data especially show scattering and poor
correlation on permeability versus porosity plots. Thus, use of
porositypermeability relationships is not a favoured method
for calculating permeability in carbonates (Saner et al. 1997).
The standard comparison for most published methods of
permeability estimation is with the historic Fontainebleau
Sandstone dataset see Bourbie & Zinszner (1985) for data
and descriptions. This dataset is publicly available, spans a

Table 3. Summary of reservoir petrophysical properties in well B

Gross Net reservoir* Net-pay

Formation
Formations
top (m MD) Thickness e (%) Net-to-gross e (%) k (mD) Net-pay-to- e (%) Swe (%) k (mD)
(m MD) ratio gross ratio
Kazhdumi 2187.00 71.00 10.32 90.99 11.00 1.49 0.00
Burgan A 2258.00 57.00 15.00 100.00 15.00 0.02 19.75 20.30 52.70 10.60
Burgan B 2315.00 52.00 13.23 100.00 13.23 0.03 0.15
*
Net: after porosity cut-o of 5% ( > 5%).

Net-pay: after porosity cut-o of 5% and water saturation cut-o of 70% ( > 5% and Sw < 70%).

The average Stoneley permeability is calculated geometrically.

e (eective porosity) is PIGN (VISO, VPAR and bound water removed), Swe is SUWI (non-clay water intergranular water saturation for
undisturbed zone) and k is Stoneley permeability. Permeability cut-o is 1 mD.

Table 4. Core analysis for permeability measurement in well B

Porosity (%) Grain Permeability (mD)

Sample no. Core no. Depth (m) Direction density Remarks
Ambient Overburden (g cm3) Ambient Overburden
1 CC-1 2297.53 H 25.5 24.5 3.25 23.6 3.79 frac
2 CC-1 2303.88 H 26.2 25.6 2.95 493 175 frac
3 CC-3 2321.22 H 29.3 2.63 253 * frac
*
plug collapse.
H, horizontal.
 Downloaded from http://pg.lyellcollection.org/ at University of Waterloo on May 20, 2015

360 S. Mahbaz et al.

Fig. 5. Permeability versus porosity in

well A.

large porosity and permeability range, and the relation demanding and, in general, may prove tedious and with no
between porosity and permeability in the Fontainebleau is well guarantee of enhanced relationships being found. Hence we
defined (Kameda et al. 2006). One reason for this distinct trend adopted well A as our type or marker well due to its
is that the Fontainebleau samples are extremely clean and well
sorted, consisting of 99.8% quartz. After deposition, the sands
underwent quartz overgrowth to dierent degrees, which pro-
duced a large span of porosity among the samples (Kameda
et al. 2006). In spite of its uniqueness, the Fontainebleau
dataset is relevant to hydrocarbon-bearing reservoir sand-
stones.
Figure 5 shows permeability versus porosity in well A,
demonstrating the lack of a strong (statistically significant)
relationship in this well. Making predictions using this dataset
by linear regression methods will lead to poor results/matches;
therefore, multiple regression methods are suggested because
permeability depends on other parameters as well as porosity
in this kind of reservoir. The other influential parameters are
water saturation and shale content which were added to
porosity to form the independent parameter set for developing
a multiple regression model to predict permeability.
Based on the research referred to above, it is clear that there
is no formula to predict permeability exactly, so we used our
data to find the best relationship of the form k = $ (, Sw, Vsh).
Determining the optimum set of cut-o values of these para-
meters was our final goal. Based on MDT sampling pressure
analysis on well A in the Burgan member, it was concluded
that there were two main sections that could be called reservoir
intervals (22222239 m and 22462250 m; Fig. 6), which are
referred to as Petrofacies I and II.
The multiple regression technique was used to extract the
permeability relationship for well A and, subsequently, this
relationship was used for permeability estimation in well B
(Balan et al. 1995a, b). This approach proved to be more
accurate than empirical models obtained from literature
(Timur 1968; Ahmed et al. 1989).
To get the best from this approach, it may be necessary to
treat each well independently since the reservoir is hetero-
geneous and may, therefore, not reveal the same hydraulic
properties across the entire field and, perhaps, not even within
the same petrofacies. However, due to the large number of Fig. 6. Petrofacies I (22222239 m) and Petrofacies II (22462250 m) of
wells being investigated, this would have been excessively well A.
 Downloaded from http://pg.lyellcollection.org/ at University of Waterloo on May 20, 2015

Optimization of reservoir cut-o parameters: SW Iran 361

Table 5. Dierent cut-o values based on dierent minimum expected
permeability
k (mD) (%) Vsh (%) Sw (%)
0.8 12 28 60
1.0 12.5 27 60
1.4 13 25 61
2 18 14 67
complete and relatively modern dataset. Nevertheless, we note
that in appropriate circumstances, multiple wells, properly
divided into consistent petrofacies, may enhance the predictive
strength of such models.
Rather than having just a unique value as the result, we
decided to use a dynamic approach by having some scenarios
with one action as the base case, then at one extreme the most
pessimistic option and at the other the most optimistic option.
Using this approach, sets of cut-o values were generated.
Based on production histories, cut-o values were variable; we
showed that when minimum expected permeability changed,
other related variables changed accordingly (Table 5).
RESULTS
Rock type and porosity type study of wells A and B
(Kazhdumi Formation, Burgan sandstone member)
Tables 6 and 7 present the lithology and porosity types of the
Burgan sandstone member at wells A and B. The main
lithology of these sections is sandstone with some intervals of
limestone and shale.
Fluid properties
Well A: Based on production testing, the following measure-
ments were carried out to obtain the oil API gravity; two zones
within Burgan B sand were tested by a TCP-DST assembly.
+ Object I in the interval 22452250 m on nitrogen applica-
tion indicated the presence of little heavy oil with water
during reverse out.
+ Object I was isolated by placing a bridge plug at 2243 m.
+ Object II in the interval 22222239 m, 15.5(API oil @ 438
BOPD through a $ choke (FTHP: 19 psi). The zone,
retested with ESP, flowed oil @ 2124 BOPD through $
choke at 58 Hz (FTHP: 115 psi); the gravity of the oil
ranged between 14.1 and 14.6(API.
Well B: Based on production testing, the following
measurements were carried out to obtain the oil API gravity;
two zones within Burgan A sand were tested by TCP-DST
assembly.
Table 7. Lithology of Burgan sandstone member in well B
Member Depth (m) Lithology
A 22542285 Shale: Grey, olive-green, greenish, moder-
ately hard to very hard, splintery, slightly
silty.
Sand: Translucent, fine to very fine-grained,
occasionally coarse-grained, sub-angular,
sub-rounded, well-sorted, hard, loose.
Sandstone: Transparent, translucent, brown-
ish, moderately hard, very fine to fine-
22852315 grained, occasionally medium-grained, sub-
angular, sub-rounded, moderately sorted.
Siltstone: Brown, dark brown, moderately
hard, friable slightly silty.
Shale: Grey, olive-green, greenish, moder-
ately hard to very hard, splintery.
B Sand: Translucent, fine to very fine-grained,
occasionally coarse-grained, sub-angular to
sub-rounded, well sorted, hard and loose.
Siltstone: Brown, dark brown, moderately
hard, friable slightly silty.
23152327 Shale: Grey, olive-green, greenish, moder-
ately hard to very hard, splintery.
Sandstone: Transparent, translucent, brown-
ish, moderately hard, very fine to fine-
grained, occasionally medium-grained, sub-
angular to sub-rounded, moderately sorted.
Limestone: White, o-white, cream, soft to
moderately hard, friable, sub-blocky.
Shale: Grey, olive-green, greenish, moder-
23272336 ately hard to very hard, splintery.
Sand: Translucent, fine to very fine-grained,
sub-angular to sub-rounded, well sorted,
loose.
Marl: Grey/greenish, soft to very soft,
sticky.
Limestone: White to o-white, cream, soft
23362348
to moderately hard, friable, sub-blocky.
Shale: Grey, olive-green, greenish, moder-
ately hard to very hard, splintery.
Clay/Claystone: Grey to dark grey, soft,
occasionally blocky, sticky, washable (dis-
persable).
23482354 Marl: Grey/greenish, soft to very soft,
sticky.
Shale: Grey, olive-green, greenish, moder-
ately hard to very hard, splintery.
Argillaceous limestone: Beige, cream, rarely
light brown, soft, blocky-sub-blocky.
Limestone: White to o-white, cream, soft
23542360
to moderately hard, friable, sub-blocky.
Shale: Grey, olive-green, greenish, moder-
ately hard to very hard, splintery.
Limestone: Light grey, white, light cream,
hard, blocky to sub-blocky, locally fossilifer-
23602367 ous.
Shale: Grey, olive-green, greenish, moder-
ately hard to very hard, splintery.

Table 6. Lithology of Burgan sandstone member in well A

+ Object I (23022309 m): Little oil with water of salinity
242 550 ppm NaCl, oil 1518(API.
Member Depth (m) Lithology + Object II (22952298 m): Poor oil influx in 1st TCP-DST,
A 21842222 Dominantly sandstone with intercalations of reverse out & water with oil traces in 2nd reverse out, water
shale and claystone of salinity 242 550 ppm NaCl, oil 17(API.
22222251 Dominantly sandstone with minor claystone
and siltstone towards bottom
22512257 Shale
Permeability relationships
B 22572264 Dominantly limestone with minor argilla- The results obtained from the multiple regression models are
ceous limestone and shale
shown in Table 8. The measured and predicted permeability
22642291 Dominantly shale/claystone with minor
interbedded limestone/argillaceous limestone values reveal good relationships (Figs 7, 8), indicating the
usefulness of the model. The correlation coecients (R) for
 Downloaded from http://pg.lyellcollection.org/ at University of Waterloo on May 20, 2015

362 S. Mahbaz et al.

Table 8. Regression equations for the two petrofacies units with coef-
ficient of determination
Petrofacies Regression equation R ing this study, a number of suggestions can be made.
Petrofacies 1 Log (k) = 0.868+16.4711.522Sw1.015Vsh 0.936
Petrofacies 2 Log (k) = 1.379+4.2600.452Sw6.068Vsh 0.870
these two equations are 0.936 and 0.870, respectively, far better
than any single-parameter, linear-regression approach. On the
other hand, regression coecients (R2) are 0.8755 and 0.7577.
These equations are then applied to the other wells which have
been previously and carefully correlated with petrofacies.
CONCLUSION
There are no universally accepted definitions for the net-to-
gross parameters and the cut-o criteria by which they are
obtained. To reduce the ambiguity surrounding the usage of
these terms, there is a need for geologists, petrophysicists,
engineers and even resource economists to clearly define what
they mean and to specify the yardstick used to arrive at
decisions. As permeability is related to porosity, water satura-
tion and shale content in the two studied petrofacies, while
economic mobility is associated with a minimum expected
permeability (cut-o value for permeability or economic per-
meability), calculated cut-o values should be optimized using
multiple parameters. A good cut-o selection procedure will be
a useful input in integrated field management studies. Follow-
1. Permeability is a key factor in determination of cut-o
values (along with viscosity).
2. It is necessary to determine a permeability prediction based
on combining the influences of porosity, water saturation
and shale content, for individual petrofacies.
3. Based on the data studied here, it is possible to develop
a very strong statistical predictor approach based on a
multiple regression method for these petrofacies. There
is a significant dierence between regular cut-o values
( = 10%, Sw = 50%, Vsh = 50%) obtained from standard
petrophysical analysis and our optimum determination (for
k = 1.0 mD, = 12.5%, Vsh = 27% and Sw = 60%).
4. It should be noted that the reservoir cut-o values are not
constant values and depend on minimum expected per-
meability, viscosity and economic factors.
The authors would like to express their gratitude to Prof. Jack
Dvorkin of Stanford University for help in showing us the key aspects
of the cut-o problem and introducing some useful papers and theses.
They would also like to thank Prof. Mohammad Ghavidel Syooki
from the University of Tehran and Prof. Maurice B. Dusseault from
the University of Waterloo for scientific suggestions. Thanks go to Mr
Mohsen Yazdimoghadam for correcting geological sections and to Mr


Fig. 7. Plot of measured and predicted permeability values for Petrofacies I using the multiple regression technique for (a) well A and (b) cross-plot
of predicted and measured permeability.
 Downloaded from http://pg.lyellcollection.org/ at University of Waterloo on May 20, 2015

Optimization of reservoir cut-o parameters: SW Iran 363


Fig. 8. Plot of measured and predicted permeability values for Petrofacies II using the multiple regression technique for (a) well A and (b) cross-plot
of predicted and measured permeability.

Reza Khayam (Head of the Board, Petro Gostar Permayon Co.) and
Mr Shervin Nejatian (Director Manager of Petro Gostar Permayon
Co.) for support and co-operation. The use of trade names within this
article should not be taken as an endorsement.
REFERENCES
Ahmed, U., Crary, S.F. & Coates, G.R. 1989. Permeability estimation:
Their various sources and their interrelationships. Paper SPE 19604.
Balan, B., Mohaghegh, S. & Ameri, S. 1995a. State-of-the-art in per-
meability determination from well log data: Part 1 A comparative study,
model development. Paper SPE 30978.
Balan, B., Mohaghegh, S. & Ameri, S. 1995b. State-of-the-art in per-
meability determination from well log data: Part 2 Verifiable, accurate
permeability predictions, the touchstone of all models. Paper SPE 30979.
Bourbie, T. & Zinszner, B. 1985. Hydraulic and acoustic properties as a
function of porosity in Fontainebleau sandstone. Journal of Geophysical
Research, 90, 1152411532.
Cobb, W.M. & Marek, F.J. 1998. Net pay determination for primary and
waterflood depletion mechanisms. Paper presented at the SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, 2730 September, New Orleans,
Louisiana.
Kameda, A., Dvorkin, J., Keehm, Y., Nur, A. & Bosl, W. 2006.
Permeabilityporosity transforms from small sandstone fragments.
Geophysics, 71(1), N11N19.
Saner, S., Kissami, M. & Al Nufaili, S. 1997. Estimation of permeability
from well logs using resistivity and saturation data. SPE Formation
Evaluation, March, Paper SPE 26277-PA.
Timur, A. 1968. An investigation of permeability, porosity, and residual
water saturation relationships for sandstone reservoirs. Paper presented
at the SPWLA 9th Annual Logging Symposium, Society of Petrophysi-
cists & Well Log Analysts.
Van Buchem, F., Gaumet, F., Vedrenne, V. & Vincent, B. 2006. Middle
East Cretaceous sequence stratigraphy study. IFP project for NIOC,
internal report.
Worthington, P.F. & Cosentino, L. 2003. The role of cut-os in integrated
reservoir studies. Paper SPE 84378.

Received 19 January 2011; revised typescript accepted 14 July 2011.