Abstract

Abstract The utility and evaluation of cutoff values for net pay or net-to-gross determination have been hotly debated topics since the 1950s. There are numerous subtleties to cutoffs, but exactly how the values are calculated has largely been overlooked. Most cutoff users have been content to use a regression line to calculate the cutoff value. We show that cutoffs obtained using a regression line are likely to be inferior to estimates produced by other methods. When four methods were applied to two field datasets and compared, regression-based porosity cutoffs were between 1 and 2 pu different than the values that give the smallest number of errors. Monte Carlo simulations broadly support the results obtained from the datasets. One method, the "trial-and-error?? method, performed well through most of the tests, reducing errors by 40% from those obtained using the regression line-based cutoff. All cutoff estimation methods have errors, caused by the imperfect relationships we have between variables, such as porosity and permeability. This study shows we have a choice of methods. Because the better method can be easily applied in spreadsheet software, this should be a valuable addition to the petrophysicist's toolbox. Introduction Net pay (NP) may be defined as any interval containing economically producible hydrocarbon using a specific production method. This represents the portion of the reservoir that contains sufficient porosity, permeability and hydrocarbons for economic exploitation. NP can be interpreted as an effective thickness that is pertinent to identification of flow units and target intervals for well completions and stimulation programs [Worthington and Cosen­tino(1)]. The associated net-to-gross ratio (NGR) corresponds to the proportion of the total or gross thickness, which is composed of net pay. Numerous papers have reviewed and proposed methods for NP and NGR determination. Snyder(2) covers many of the methods in use up to the early 1970s, which used the self-potential (SP) or gamma ray (GR) logs and core analysis. More recent proposals include using capillary pressure [Vavra et al.(3)], probe permeameter measurements [Flølo et al.(4)] and percolation modelling [Li et al.(5)]. Of the large variety of possible methods, one approach is much more commonly discussed than any other. This method involves defining threshold values (or cutoffs) for the characteristics of interest and their surrogates. These limiting values are designed to define those rock intervals that show potential to contribute significantly to economic hydrocarbon production.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call