Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
AUTHORS
ABSTRACT
Carbonate rocks commonly contain a variety of pore types
that can vary in size over several orders of magnitude. Traditional pore-type classifications describe these pore structures
but are inadequate for correlations to the rocks physical properties. We introduce a digital image analysis (DIA) method
that produces quantitative pore-space parameters, which can
be linked to physical properties in carbonates, in particular
sonic velocity and permeability.
The DIA parameters, derived from thin sections, capture
two-dimensional pore size (DomSize), roundness (g), aspect
ratio (AR), and pore network complexity (PoA). Comparing
these DIA parameters to porosity, permeability, and P-wave
velocity shows that, in addition to porosity, the combined effect of microporosity, the pore network complexity, and pore
size of the macropores is most influential for the acoustic behavior. Combining these parameters with porosity improves
the coefficient of determination (R2) velocity estimates from
0.542 to 0.840. The analysis shows that samples with large simple pores and a small amount of microporosity display higher
acoustic velocity at a given porosity than samples with small,
complicated pores. Estimates of permeability from porosity
alone are very ineffective (R2 = 0.143) but can be improved
when pore geometry information PoA (R2 = 0.415) and DomSize (R2 = 0.383) are incorporated.
Furthermore, results from the correlation of DIA parameters
to acoustic data reveal that (1) intergrain and/or intercrystalline
Copyright 2009. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists. All rights reserved.
Manuscript received January 7, 2009; provisional acceptance March 27, 2009; revised manuscript
received May 2, 2009; final acceptance May 27, 2009.
DOI:10.1306/05270909001
1297
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
1298
Geohorizons
INTRODUCTION
Several attempts have been made to find a rock or pore-type
classification that would capture rock texture, pore type, and
petrophysical characteristics (Archie, 1952; Choquette and
Pray, 1970; Lucia, 1983, 1995; Lny, 2006). In this article,
we describe a digital image analysis (DIA) method for measuring quantitative pore-structure parameters derived from
thin sections and introduce four parameters that are most reliable for capturing the geometrical character of pore structure in carbonates.
Many studies have recognized that acoustic velocity in carbonates is dependent upon pore geometry (Anselmetti and
Eberli, 1993, 1997, 1999; Kenter et al., 1995; Wang, 1997; Sun
et al., 2001; Eberli et al., 2003; Baechle et al., 2004; Weger
et al., 2004; Weger, 2006). In many theoretical studies, the
pore aspect ratio is assumed to be the main geometric variable
influencing acoustic velocity (Assefa et al., 2003; Saleh and
Castagna, 2004; Agersborg et al., 2005; Kumar and Han,
2005; Rosseb et al., 2005). The theoretical concept is that
high-aspect-ratio pores, such as molds and vugs, provide more
grain-to-grain contact than interparticle and intercrystalline
pores, thus decreasing the pore compressibility and providing more stiffness to the rock at equal porosity (Mavko and
Mukerji, 1995; Saleh and Castagna, 2004). Consequently, a
sequence of rocks with mostly moldic and/or vuggy porosity
will have a higher acoustic velocity than a formation with predominantly intercrystalline and/or interparticle porosity with
the same amount of total porosity. Many scientists exploited
this fact to quantitatively estimate the amount of secondary
porosity (Schlumberger, 1972, 1974) and separate-vug porosity by modeling porosity from acoustic logs (e.g., Nurmi,
1984; Lucia and Conti, 1987; Wang and Lucia, 1993; Lucia,
1999). This modeling was based on (1) Wyllies time-average
equation (Wyllie et al., 1956) and (2) the assumption that
separate-vug porosity has a minor influence on the acoustic
log (Schlumberger, 1972, 1974; Lucia, 1987; Doveton, 1994).
Lucia and Conti (1987) and Lucia (1991) calibrated the influence of separate-vug porosity on acoustic logs by point counting
separate-vug porosity on thin sections of oomoldic rocks, and
proposed empirical equations to calculate separatevug porosity from acoustic transit time. Anselmetti
and Eberli (1993, 1997, 1999), however, showed
how in carbonates a variety of pore types produce
variable velocities in rocks with similar porosity.
Other experiments documented that oomoldic carbonate samples with near-spherical pores show large
scatter in velocities with up to 2500 m/s (8202 ft/s)
difference at a given porosity (Baechle et al., 2007,
2008a; Knackstedt et al., 2008).
In an attempt to quantify the influence of pore
structure on permeability, Anselmetti et al. (1998)
defined the DIA parameter g that describes the
roundness of pores and compared it with measured permeability values of plugs with characteristic pore types. The parameter showed a strong
correlation to permeability. Anselmetti and Eberli
(1999) also quantified the pore-structure-induced
scatter of velocities at any given porosity with the
velocity deviation, which is defined as the difference between measured velocities and velocities
estimated using Wyllies time-average equation.
Intervals from MiocenePliocene cores from the
Great Bahama Bank with high positive velocity
deviation and oomoldic porosity show low permeability. This finding corroborated the general notion that rocks with a high amount of separate-vug
porosity have a high velocity and low permeability. The application of the deviation log proved
less successful in Cretaceous carbonates where
the separation between the medium and deep induction curves better detected the high flow zones
(Smith et al., 2003), indicating that the separation
between interparticle or intercrystalline and intragrain or vuggy porosity is insufficient to capture
all pore type-velocity-permeability relationships.
These complications were the motivation behind
the study presented in this article. The goal was to
find a repeatable, independent measure of the pore
structure that is needed to quantitatively evaluate
the influence of pore geometry on acoustic velocity
and other petrophysical properties.
The here-described methodology of DIA produces parameters that quantify the relationship
between pore geometry, acoustic velocities, and permeability. The high correlation between the DIA
parameters and the petrophysical values illustrates
DATA SET
One hundred twenty carbonate core-plug samples
(1-in. [25.4-mm] diameter by 1- to 2 in. [25.4
50.8 mm] long) were selected from cored wells at
several locations in the Middle East, Southeast Asia,
and Australia (Baechle et al., 2004). The Middle
East samples are from the Shuaiba Formation and
are Aptian in age, the Southeast Asian samples are
from an isolated platform of Miocene age, and the
Australian samples are from two drowned coolsubtropical platforms on the Marion Plateau and
are also Miocene in age (Ehrenberg et al., 2006).
Vertical plugs were drilled from reservoir and nonreservoir intervals to capture a wide range of total
porosity, rock types, and pore types. The set of selected samples includes textures ranging from
coarse-grained packstones with interparticle to
vuggy porosity to fine-grained wackestone dominated by interparticle to micromoldic porosity
(mG). All samples are either limestone or dolomite
with less than 2% noncarbonate minerals.
The samples have high-quality measurements
of velocity, porosity, and permeability. Thin sections are impregnated with blue epoxy and cut
from the end of the plug sample on which these
measurements were performed. Petrophysical measurements, geological description, and DIA parameter values are listed in the Appendix.
METHODS
Petrophysical Measurements
Sonic velocity was measured using an ultrasonic
transmitter-receiver pair with piezoelectric transducers forming the core of the equipment. The
transducer arrangement measures one compressional and two independent orthogonally polarized
shear waves simultaneously using a pulse transmission technique developed by Birch (1960). Both
transducers (compressional and shear) generate
Weger et al.
1299
Geohorizons
proportions is observer based, resulting in great difficulty to quantitatively assess their respective influence on the petrophysical properties. The pore
types of each sample are listed in the Appendix.
The term dominant pore type is used for the pore
type containing more than 50% of the visible porosity, and minor pore types contribute with at least
5% to the visible pores. In the figures, only the dominant pore type is used for color coding.
Figure 1. (a) Image acquired using plane-polarized light shows a thin-section photomicrograph of a carbonate impregnated with blue
epoxy resin. Minerals and grains are beige, whereas pore space is blue except for an air bubble with color identical to the matrix. (b) The
intensity image of absolute cross-polarized-light (XPL) variation covers the same area and is derived using XPL images at different angles.
(c, d) The close ups and the distributions illustrated in panel (e) show that the red-green-blue (RGB) color bands of the subsection are not
capable of separating air bubbles from the matrix mineral, but the XPL variation of intensity is clearly different in those regions.
1301
Geohorizons
section). The amount of microporosity is calculated as the difference between the observed porosity in DIA and the measured porosity from the core
plug. The geometry of the micropores is not assessed in this study, but the percentage of microporosity is included in the analysis.
In Figure 2, several digital photographs of different thin sections are placed next to a PoA-DomSize
crossplot to demonstrate that these parameters
vaguely recognize and separate traditional carbonate pore classifications. These parameters are, however, not limited to the grouping of samples, as traditional carbonate pore-type classifications are, but
provide a continuous ordered scale of pore geometry. Coarse grainstones with large pores and relatively simple pore systems tend to show large DomSize and small PoA. In contrast, packstones to
mudstones with large amounts of microporosity
commonly show high PoA and low DomSize.
Mutivariate Regressions
Multivariate linear regression is used to quantify
trends among velocity, porosity, and four different
geometrical parameters. We use the coefficient of
determination (R2) between the measured and the
estimated velocity to quantify how well the model
explains the measured data. In addition to direct
linear regression, a semilinear approach is used,
which combines linear regression and Wyllies timeaverage equation. Some rearrangement of the timeaverage equation leads to an explicit formulation
of Wyllies velocity estimate (VpW).
VpW
1f
f 1
VpS
VpF
Figure 2. Crossplot of perimeter over area (PoA) versus dominant pore size (DomSize) where the measured acoustic velocity is superimposed in color. (ad) Thin-section images are shown to illustrate carbonate pore types corresponding to certain combinations of digital
image analysis (DIA) parameters and velocity. The samples shown as images are represented by enlarged dots, and exact parameter
values are listed below each thin-section photograph.
Weger et al.
1303
Figure 3. Velocity-porosity crossplot of water-saturated carbonate samples measured at 20-MPa confining pressure. A first-order
inverse proportional relationship between velocity and porosity
can be observed, but individual samples deviate from this trend
in excess of 2000 m/s (6562 ft/s).
Geohorizons
amounts of dolomite, and variations in grain velocity (e.g., calcite to dolomite) could not produce
such large velocity variations. In addition, all samples were measured saturated with distilled water
so that fluid velocities are constant. Anselmetti and
Eberli (1993) demonstrated that such variation of
velocity at a given porosity is typical in carbonates
and relates to the pore structure. To test this conclusion and to quantify the effect of pore structure,
we relate the four digital image parameters, PoA,
DomSize, AR, and g, to sonic velocity and porosity. Because each of the parameters captures a different characteristic of the pore system, this correlation also assesses the relative importance of each
geometric characteristic for Vp.
Geometry and Trends in
Velocity-Porosity Space
Crossplots of velocity porosity with the digital image parameters PoA, DomSize, AR, g, percentage
of microporosity (% microporosity), and traditional
pore types using the Choquette and Pray (1970)
classification superimposed in color are shown in
Figure 4. Figure 4a displays the samples color coded
with the dominant pore type, which is visually estimated on the thin section. Most samples, however,
contain more than one pore type, and these additional pore geometries (the Appendix lists the minor pore types) might explain some of the scatter.
Nevertheless, some slight trends are visible. For example, samples with vuggy or moldic porosity tend
to fall into the high-velocity area, but several moldic
samples display a low velocity and overlap with
samples containing interparticle porosity. Samples
containing either micromoldic porosity or porosity within particles occupy the lower part of the
velocity-porosity data cloud. In contrast, samples
with interparticle porosity cover the entire velocityporosity space. Samples with high amounts of microporosity (10070%) tend to cluster around the
Wyllie time-average equation (Figure 4b), and at
any given porosity, a trend of increasing velocity with
decreasing microporosity is observed (Figure 4b).
The digital image parameters of the macropores also define trends with similar orientation
in the velocity-porosity space. The PoA shows a
Figure 4. Comparison between (a) Choquette and Pray (1970) pore types, (b) microporosity fraction, and four digital-image-analysis
parameters: (c) dominant pore size, (d) gamma (g), (e) perimeter over area, and (f) aspect ratio. All parameters are superimposed in
color onto velocity-porosity crossplots. All show a gradient that differentiates samples with high velocity from samples with low velocity at
any given porosity.
Weger et al.
1305
Geohorizons
R2
Porosity
Porosity and AR
Porosity and g
Porosity and DomSize
Porosity and % microporosity
Porosity and PoA
Porosity and PoA and AR
Porosity and PoA and DomSize
Porosity and PoA and g
Porosity and PoA and % microporosity
Porosity and PoA and % microporosity
Porosity and PoA and % microporosity
Porosity and PoA and % microporosity
Porosity and PoA and % microporosity
DomSize and AR
Porosity and PoA and % microporosity
DomSize and g
Porosity and PoA and % microporosity
DomSize and AR and g
and AR
and g
and DomSize
and
0.542
0.549
0.639
0.768
0.769
0.786
0.788
0.800
0.810
0.820
0.822
0.832
0.840
0.841
and
0.844
and
0.845
As a first step, porosity alone is used as an estimator of compressional velocity. The correlation
between the measured and the estimated velocity
resulted in a coefficient of determination (R2) of
0.542. Second, a linear combination of porosity
and a single DIA parameter (g, AR, PoA, DomSize,
% microporosity) is used to estimate compressional velocity. The parameter AR combined with
porosity produces the least effective velocity estimate (R2 = 0.549, Table 1). The highest correlation coefficient of all estimates (R2 = 0.845) is
obtained by combining porosity with all DIA parameters (g, AR, PoA, DomSize, and % microporosity), but this correlation coefficient is only
slightly better than the estimate from a combination of porosity with PoA, DomSize, and % microporosity (R2 = 0.840).
Weger et al.
1307
Figure 6. Crossplots between velocity deviation and digital image parameters. Both parameters, perimeter over area (PoA) and dominant pore size (DomSize), are capable of explaining more than 60% of the variability in velocity deviation.
Figure 7. Permeability-porosity (K-f) crossplots with perimeter over area (PoA) and dominant pore size (DomSize) superimposed in
gray scale. Both parameters exhibit trends in porosity-permeability space. Samples with low permeability despite relatively high porosity
have high values of PoA and low values of DomSize. Samples with high permeability have low values of PoA and high values of DomSize,
representing samples with a large and simple pore structure.
1308
Geohorizons
where k is permeability, f is porosity, c is Kozenys factor, which can be estimated from porosity (Fabricius et al., 2007), and S is the specific
surface with respect to bulk volume. The PoA is
the 2-D equivalent of the specific surface, and thus,
we estimate S from measured 2-D geometrical
parameters (PoA and DomSize).
We compare four different approaches to estimate permeability. First, estimates of permeability are derived from porosity alone. For comparison, Kozenys S is expressed as a function of PoA
and DomSize and used for permeability estimation. Finally, the relationship between acoustic velocity and pore geometry is used to calculate S directly from acoustic data. This estimate of S is then
combined with porosity to estimate permeability
directly from a combination of measured porosity
and acoustic velocity.
Figure 8 shows a comparison of measured and
estimated permeabilities. Estimation of permeability using porosity alone is extremely ineffective (R2 = 0.143, black dots in Figure 8). These estimates can be improved using pore geometry
information from PoA and DomSize (R2 = 0.415
and R2 = 0.383, green and blue dots in Figure 8).
The good relationship between sonic velocity, porosity, and PoA allows for the substitution of PoA
by a geometry estimate derived from sonic velocity. Using this geometry estimate, we obtain an R2
DISCUSSION
Anselmetti and Eberli (1999) demonstrated how
acoustic velocities in carbonates are influenced by
porosity and a variety of pore structures using traditional carbonate pore-type classification (Choquette
and Pray, 1970). In our data, the separation of samples grouped according to Choquette and Prays
pore-type classification is poor in velocity-porosity
space (Figure 4a), indicating that the classification
of Choquette and Pray is not capable of uniquely
defining ranges of specific acoustic properties. In
comparison, quantitative characterization of porespace geometry using DIA parameters such as PoA
(Figure 4e) has the advantage of providing a continuous numerical parameter that can be used directly in a mathematical formulation used to estimate velocity.
The AR is the geometrical parameter most commonly used in theoretical models to explain variations in rock stiffness and acoustic velocities (Assefa
et al., 2003; Saleh and Castagna, 2004; Agersborg
et al., 2005; Kumar and Han, 2005; Rosseb et al.,
2005), although Rafavich et al. (1984) concluded
that AR does not significantly influence velocity.
The weak correlation for velocity estimates using
porosity and the DIA parameter for roundness
(g) and AR, respectively, questions this assumption. Our results indicate that (1) the amount
Weger et al.
1309
Figure 8. Comparison between measured and estimated permeability (k). Estimates are derived using four different models with different
input parameters. Green dots are estimates derived from porosity alone. Both blue and black dots are derived using measured porosity
and the measured geometric parameters perimeter over area (PoA) and dominant pore size (DomSize). Red dots represent permeability
estimates derived using measured porosity (f), measured acoustic velocity (Vp), and assumed grain and fluid velocities (VpS and VpF).
Geohorizons
Baechle et al. (2008b) proposed that the fraction of stiff macropores versus soft micropores is
responsible for the variation of velocity at any given
porosity and develop a rock physics model that captures the presence of both macro- and microporosity
to better estimate velocity and permeability. The
percentage of microporosity for this dual porosity
DEM model is derived with the DIA methodology
described here (Baechle et al., 2008b).
The assumption that rocks with mostly moldic
and/or vuggy porosity will have a faster acoustic velocity than a formation with predominantly intercrystalline and/or interparticle porosity has been
used for quantitative estimates of separate-vug porosity from acoustic logs (e.g., Nurmi, 1984; Lucia
Figure 9. Velocity-porosity
crossplot of samples measured
at 20 MPa with annotation of
porosity types separated into two
groups. Open circles are samples with vuggy, moldic, intraframe, and intragrain porosity,
black and gray dots represent
samples with interparticle and
intercrystalline porosity. A large
overlap exists between these
two groups, indicating that rocks
with interparticle and/or intercrystalline porosity can in some
cases have a stiff framework
and high velocity.
1311
Appendix. Texture, Pore Type, DIM (Digital Image Analysis) Parameter Values, and Petrophysical
Measurements*
Sample
C5-B1
C5-B100
C5-B101
C5-B102
C5-B103
C5-B104
C5-B105
C5-B106
C5-B107
C5-B108
C5-B109
C5-B110
C5-B111
C5-B112
C5-B113
1312
Dunham
Index**
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
P-G
G
P-G
G
G
G
G
Dominant
Pore Type
IP
MO
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
MO
WF
WF
mG
IP
Geohorizons
Minor
Pore Type
WG
MO
MO
FR, MO
MO
Gamma
DomSize
(mm)
PoA
(mm1)
AR
VP (m/s)
Phi (%)
Micro
Phi (%)
2.15
2.37
2.25
2.61
2.61
2.17
1.78
2.55
2.05
1.98
2.03
2.38
2.38
1.85
2.78
39
48
73
188
188
87
106
202
63
78
113
208
208
52
108
167
151
103
69
69
89
83
58
117
99
79
52
52
137
90
0.52
0.59
0.55
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.59
0.54
0.58
0.52
0.57
0.53
0.53
0.61
0.56
3177
3185
3262
3738
3866
3458
3853
4050
3406
4893
3435
4259
4177
3466
3403
28.0
27.6
30.4
25.8
26.3
29.0
23.7
29.9
27.4
12.8
26.2
22.5
22.1
26.7
27.4
26.8
25.3
25.3
21.8
22.3
24.4
21.7
21.4
25.3
9.8
22.9
17.3
16.9
25.7
19.3
K (md)
6.7
11.3
35.6
26.1
26.1
37.8
4.5
184.0
13.8
9.8
7.7
4.2
4.2
3.9
25.8
Appendix. Cont.
Sample
Dunham
Index**
Dominant
Pore Type
C5-B114
C5-B115
C5-B116
C5-B117
C5-B118
C5-B119
C5-B120
C5-B58
C5-B60
C5-B61
C5-B72
C5-B74
C5-B75
C5-B79
C5-B80
C5-B81
C5-B82
C5-B84
C5-B85
C5-B86
C5-B87
C5-B88
C5-B89
C5-B90
C5-B91
C5-B92
C5-B93
C5-B94
C5-B95
C5-B96
C5-B97
C5-B98
C5-B99
C5-L10
C5-L11
C5-L12
C5-L13
C5-L14
C5-L15
C5-L16
C5-L17
C5-L19
C5-L2
C5-L20
C5-L21
C5-L22
C5-L23
C5-L24
C5-L25
C5-L26
G
G
G
G-P
G
G
G
FR
RD
P
RD-FR
G
P-G
G
P
G-RD
W-P
P-G
G
W
RD-FL
FL-RD
P
G
FL
G-RD
G-P
G-P
G
G-P
P-G
G-P
G
P
rDol
G-P
rDol
rDol
rDol
rDol
G
rDol
G
rDol
rDol
rDol
rDol
P
rDol
G
IP
WF
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
VUG
IP
VUG
IP
WF
mG
IP
mG
IP
MO
IP
IP
mG
MO
WP
IP
IP
MO
IP
MO
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
MO
WP
VUG
WP
VUG
MO
IX
VUG
IP
VUG
IP
VUG
VUG
IX
IX
IP
VUG
MO
Minor
Pore Type
WG
IP
MO
MO
WG
IP
WP, MO
IP
VUG, WF
IP
MO
IP
MO
MO, WP
VUG
MO
MO
IP
IP, MO, FR
MO
IP, FR
WP
MO
VUG
FR
MO
IX
IP
IX
IX
VUG
IX
IX
MO
IX
IX
VUG
MO
MO
IX
Gamma
DomSize
(mm)
PoA
(mm1)
AR
VP (m/s)
Phi (%)
Micro
Phi (%)
K (md)
2.87
2.96
2.10
2.43
3.74
2.23
2.44
2.88
2.58
1.95
2.89
2.51
1.84
2.61
1.97
2.19
1.82
1.61
2.31
2.09
2.32
2.15
2.14
2.57
2.50
1.86
3.74
4.22
2.89
2.25
2.70
3.48
1.70
2.17
2.85
2.36
3.05
2.15
3.53
3.74
3.64
3.23
3.77
2.57
2.73
2.29
3.15
2.61
2.45
2.09
97
262
90
170
178
151
143
560
680
421
519
1200
50
31
39
224
129
102
106
50
143
294
92
87
154
135
215
43
68
53
27
20
109
157
345
118
368
440
451
790
310
452
447
466
297
205
372
115
370
121
92
55
84
66
73
71
70
34
30
45
42
18
150
196
157
42
63
71
96
167
78
49
115
109
95
62
81
164
109
169
215
244
74
139
48
147
47
36
40
28
71
43
41
36
51
77
49
111
38
112
0.54
0.54
0.53
0.55
0.57
0.55
0.54
0.54
0.53
0.59
0.49
0.54
0.60
0.50
0.56
0.54
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.59
0.57
0.54
0.56
0.51
0.52
0.58
0.54
0.51
0.48
0.46
0.59
0.44
0.64
0.60
0.57
0.52
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.56
0.55
0.55
0.54
0.55
0.55
0.56
0.55
0.56
0.55
0.52
3377
3867
3520
3974
3714
4782
3513
4703
4555
4564
4628
4362
3466
3179
2898
3856
3936
4171
3768
4413
3374
4102
4084
4023
5156
3974
3786
3266
3481
3535
3324
3692
3156
4753
5791
4011
5747
5797
5180
4737
5333
4658
3894
5991
5949
5890
3274
3961
5430
5361
28.0
29.8
26.8
25.4
29.4
17.9
28.3
21.8
25.7
18.7
15.9
23.6
29.4
26.4
30.8
26.7
28.8
20.1
27.1
15.9
30.0
23.9
21.9
21.4
12.1
24.3
29.7
26.2
29.8
28.4
22.3
21.8
28.0
13.4
14.2
26.3
20.0
19.5
26.0
33.6
17.8
31.9
41.6
11.2
13.0
13.3
44.7
25.2
21.0
10.8
22.6
23.0
18.4
15.1
24.4
14.8
24.4
15.5
15.9
17.1
10.5
10.6
28.2
25.1
30.2
14.8
25.8
17.5
26.3
15.5
28.5
21.5
10.9
18.0
10.1
18.5
26.6
24.8
27.5
13.4
22.1
21.5
26.2
8.4
4.3
25.1
12.7
9.1
8.2
12.4
15.3
12.4
18.3
1.2
5.5
5.2
32.0
15.2
10.8
10.1
23.5
63.8
36.7
64.7
55.3
2.9
71.5
2195.0
1321.1
12.7
9.0
646.0
13.2
2.1
4.1
113.5
20.8
4.1
14.0
0.1
19.9
1.5
4.7
221.5
5.0
99.8
24.4
1.6
18.3
2.4
1.7
2.3
4.5
0.1
2.0
0.6
562.0
2.9
2340.0
15,049.0
91.9
5564.0
15,966.0
123.0
28.7
92.2
525.0
1.0
131.0
0.0
Weger et al.
1313
Appendix. Cont.
Sample
Dunham
Index**
Dominant
Pore Type
C5-L27
C5-L28
C5-L29
C5-L3
C5-L30
C5-L31
C5-L32
C5-L33
C5-L34
C5-L35
C5-L36
C5-L37
C5-L38
C5-L39
C5-L4
C5-L40
C5-L41
C5-L42
C5-L43
C5-L44
C5-L45
C5-L46
C5-L47
C5-L48
C5-L49
C5-L5
C5-L50
C5-L51
C5-L52
C5-L53
C5-L54
C5-L55
C5-L6
C5-L7
C5-L8
C5-L9
C5-M18
C5-M56
C5-M57
C5-M59
C5-M62
C5-M63
C5-M64
C5-M65
C5-M66
C5-M67
C5-M68
C5-M69
C5-M70
C5-M71
B
P
G-B
rDol
rDol
rDol
G
FL
rDol
G
rDol
P
P
P
rDol
rDol
G
G
rDol
rDol
rDol
G
P-G
rDol
P-G
rDol
rDol
rDol
P
G
G-B
G-B
G
P
rDol
rDol
G-P
P-G
G-P
G-P
P-G
P
P
G-P
rDol
P
P
G
P-G
rDol
WF
IP
IP
IX
VUG
IX
IP
IP
MO
MO
IX
WP
MO
mG
VUG
MO
IP
MO
IX
MO
VUG
WP
IP
VUG
IP
IX
VUG
IX
IP
MO
IP
WF
IP
WP
VUG
VUG
IP
VUG
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
MO
VUG
VUG
VUG
IX
MO
IX
1314
Geohorizons
Minor
Pore Type
IX
MO
WF
VUG
IX
VUG
VUG
IX
WP
VUG
IP
IP
IX
IX
WP
VUG
IX
IX
MO
MO
IX
MO
VUG
IX
MO
IX
WF
IP
MO
MO
IX
IX
MO
MO, IP
VUG, WP
MO
MO
IP
mG
IX
IX
IP
VUG
IP
VUG, MO
Gamma
DomSize
(mm)
PoA
(mm1)
AR
VP (m/s)
Phi (%)
Micro
Phi (%)
K (md)
3.27
3.07
2.22
2.30
2.90
2.95
2.20
2.92
2.71
2.46
3.28
3.50
2.55
2.50
3.13
2.66
2.49
2.39
2.43
3.49
2.62
1.97
3.01
2.62
2.78
3.05
2.78
3.27
2.00
2.67
2.86
2.24
2.68
2.61
3.71
2.44
2.90
2.56
2.98
2.27
2.18
3.73
2.04
1.91
2.56
2.56
1.86
2.38
2.18
2.46
357
453
413
254
702
602
355
643
290
488
652
852
440
325
439
412
425
132
362
874
14
134
471
514
352
344
247
318
93
347
595
388
279
353
1031
331
112
393
233
81
76
230
49
521
521
685
113
267
98
341
51
53
38
55
31
29
41
32
55
304
35
41
51
61
42
53
40
87
44
26
35
79
49
38
42
45
67
53
137
54
38
46
54
108
25
48
105
35
65
125
140
56
149
36
36
43
78
51
97
43
0.54
0.55
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.55
0.56
0.56
0.45
0.54
0.55
0.56
0.55
0.56
0.53
0.54
0.54
0.56
0.53
0.56
0.55
0.57
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.54
0.53
0.56
0.56
0.57
0.56
0.53
0.52
0.55
0.56
0.54
0.58
0.55
0.59
0.57
0.53
0.58
0.57
0.54
0.53
0.55
0.54
0.57
0.56
6148
4249
5662
6080
5918
4650
5908
5356
4951
5297
4791
3956
4381
4246
5303
5640
5604
4520
5132
5407
6325
4615
4784
5271
4860
5871
5335
4259
5442
5082
6183
5910
4093
4977
6325
5850
4038
3725
3612
3671
3978
4346
3524
4357
5604
4285
4105
4477
3829
5531
14.7
27.2
17.5
10.1
14.2
32.1
16.4
24.2
24.8
11.8
36.1
29.7
20.8
25.0
20.3
13.0
18.9
21.1
24.1
21.8
9.7
17.2
18.2
26.5
26.2
13.4
21.0
32.7
8.9
25.2
11.6
17.2
29.5
14.2
10.5
12.4
26.6
33.5
28.9
26.0
23.6
32.0
29.4
20.8
13.0
22.5
26.7
20.8
31.9
11.4
7.0
21.3
10.0
2.9
4.2
12.9
10.5
8.9
12.7
11.7
17.5
23.5
15.3
23.7
3.8
7.5
10.4
18.2
14.2
0.0
0.9
5.2
12.8
16.8
13.9
3.1
15.5
16.7
8.5
11.2
6.3
11.7
24.3
13.8
0.5
6.0
20.0
15.5
19.3
22.4
19.3
24.1
25.0
15.5
7.9
16.5
22.8
16.2
27.6
4.2
8.1
895.0
535.0
12.2
240.0
29,369.0
698.0
12.7
209.0
2.0
11,940.0
25.2
1.5
4.3
29.1
0.4
2550.0
0.1
167.0
0.7
0.7
0.1
1575.0
25,775.0
2032.0
122.0
16.1
2423.0
0.0
331.0
271.0
401.0
1410.0
0.7
94.2
54.3
15.0
390.0
22.0
14.0
13.0
300.0
21.0
3.7
150.0
36.0
26.0
120.0
26.0
150.0
Appendix. Cont.
Sample
Dunham
Index**
Dominant
Pore Type
Minor
Pore Type
C5-M73
C5-M76
C5-M77
C5-M78
C5-M83
G-P
W-P
P
P
P
MO
IP
IP
MO
MO
IP
MO
MO
VUG, IP
Gamma
DomSize
(mm)
PoA
(mm1)
AR
VP (m/s)
Phi (%)
Micro
Phi (%)
2.05
2.81
2.05
1.91
2.20
118
96
174
148
46
110
116
67
67
163
0.57
0.57
0.56
0.57
0.59
4092
3696
4450
4118
4117
23.4
27.9
21.7
30.0
24.1
20.1
24.3
20.2
24.0
21.6
K (md)
8.6
11.0
3.9
63.0
5.5
*DomSize = dominant pore size; PoA = perimeter over area; AR = aspect ratio; VP = compressional acoustic velocity (values of water-saturated conditions with a confining
pressure of 20 MPa at a frequency of 1 kHz); Phi = porosity; K = permeability.
**G = grainstone; P = packstone; W = wackestone; M = mudstone; FL = floatstone; FR = framestone; RD = rudstone; B = boundstone; combinations are separated by a
hyphen; rDol = completely recrystallized rocks.
IP = interparticle; IX = intercrystalline; MO = moldic; VUG = vuggy; WPO = intraparticle; WF = intraframe; mG = micromoldic; FR = fracture. The dominant pore type listed
in the table is estimated to contain more than 50% of the visible pores. Minor pore types are listed if they are more than an estimated 5% of the total visible pores.
REFERENCES CITED
Agersborg, R., T. A. Johansen, and M. Jakobsen, 2005, The
T-matrix approach for carbonate rocks: Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Expanded Abstracts, v. 24, p. 1597
1600.
Anselmetti, F. S., and G. P. Eberli, 1993, Controls on sonic
velocity in carbonates: Pure and Applied Geophysics,
v. 141, p. 287323, doi:10.1007/BF00998333.
Anselmetti, F. S., and G. P. Eberli, 1997, Sonic velocity in carbonate sediments and rocks, in I. Palaz and K. J. Marfurt,
eds., Carbonate seismology: Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Geophysical Developments Series 6, p. 5374.
Anselmetti, F. S., and G. P. Eberli, 1999, The velocity-deviation
log: A tool to predict pore type and permeability trends
in carbonate drill holes from sonic and porosity or density
logs: AAPG Bulletin, v. 83, p. 450466.
Anselmetti, F. S., G. A. von Salis, K. J. Cunningham, and
G. P. Eberli, 1997, Controls and distribution of sonic velocity in Neogene carbonates and siliciclastics from the
subsurface of the Florida Keys: Implications for seismic
reflectivity: Marine Geology, v. 144, p. 931, doi:10.1016
/S0025-3227(97)00081-9.
Anselmetti, F. S., S. M. Luthi, and G. P. Eberli, 1998, Quantitative characterization of carbonate pore systems by digital image analysis: AAPG Bulletin, v. 82, p. 18151836.
Archie, G. E., 1952, Classification of carbonate reservoir
rocks and petrophysical considerations: AAPG Bulletin,
v. 36, p. 278298.
Assefa, S., C. McCann, and J. Sothcott, 2003, Velocities of
compressional and shear waves in limestones: Geophysical Prospecting, v. 51, p. 113, doi:10.1046/j.1365-2478
.2003.00349.x.
Baechle, G. T., R. Weger, G. P. Eberli, and J. L. Massaferro,
2004, The role of macroporosity and microporosity in
constraining uncertainties and in relating velocity to permeability in carbonate rocks: Society of Exploration
Geophysicists, Expanded Abstracts, v. 23, p. 1662.
Baechle, G. T., L. Al-Kharusi, G. P. Eberli, A. Boyd, and A.
Byrnes, 2007, Effect of spherical pore shapes on acoustic
Weger et al.
1315
1316
Geohorizons
Shang, Q. Li, and T. F. Gao, eds., Theoretical and computational acoustics: Singapore, World Scientific, p. 335
347.
Van den Berg, E. H., A. G. C. A. Meesters, J. A. M. Kenter,
and W. Schlager, 2002, Automated separation of touching grains in digital images of thin sections: Computers
and Geosciences, v. 28, p. 179190, doi:10.1016
/S0098-3004(01)00038-3.
Wang, R. F. P., and F. J. Lucia, 1993, Comparison of empirical models for calculating the vuggy porosity and cementation exponent of carbonates from log responses: Bureau of
Economic Geology, University of Texas at Austin, Geological Circular 93-4, 27 p.
Wang, Z., 1997, Seismic properties of carbonate rocks: Geophysical Development Series, v. 6, p. 2952.
Weger, R. J., 2006, Quantitative pore/rock type parameters
in carbonates and their relationship to velocity deviations: Ph.D. dissertation thesis, University of Miami,
Coral Gables, 232 p.
Weger, R. J., G. T. Baechle, J. L. Masaferro, and G. P. Eberli,
2004, Effects of pore structure on sonic velocity in carbonates: Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Expanded Abstracts, v. 23, p. 1774.
Wyllie, M. R. J., A. R. Gregory, and L. W. Gardner, 1956, Elastic wave velocities in heterogeneous and porous media:
Geophysics, v. 21, p. 4170, doi:10.1190/1.1438217.
Weger et al.
1317