SPE 132110

Development of Petrophysical Stress Models For Conversion of Core

Porosity and Permeability Data from Ambient to Reservoir Conditions
A New Hybrid Approach
Steve O. Williams, SPE, Samih S. Batarseh, SPE, Max Solanki, SPE, Aera Energy LLC

Copyright 2010, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Western Regional Meeting held in Anaheim, California, USA, 2729 May 2010.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract that nearly all conventional core measurements are

Correction of ambient measured core data to performed at near ambient conditions (200, 400 or
reservoir conditions poses a major challenge in the 800 psi) with very few samples measured at elevated
optimal use of historical core data in reservoir stresses. This makes the routine porosity and
description and exploitation. The use of such data in permeability core data difficult to use especially in
any form of reservoir evaluation without appropriate reserves determination and flow performance
correction to reservoir conditions will result to some predictions. Conversion of such routine data to
degree of uncertainty in reserves determination and desired reservoir conditions are therefore necessary
flow performance predictions. before use in any oil field exploitation or development
program.
Core data from the Ventura Avenue field, California
was used for this development. This field is Many investigators Andersen (1985), Jones (1988),
structurally complex and consists of a turbidite sand Vassilellis et. al. (2004) have used petrophysical
sequence that is thick, shaly and thinly bedded. fitting parameters of porosity and permeability in the
Porosity and permeability values are low and calculation of stress related rock properties and
variable. This paper presents a new hybrid approach reservoir engineering studies. However, none has
that uses the numerical or error minimization used such fitting parameters in the development of a
techniques to approximate the non-linear and double field-wide or reservoir specific application model that
exponential relationship of porosity and permeability can be used in the conversion of routine or
versus stress and takes into account the shaly and conventional core data from one stress point to
laminated sand variability, the existence of another or from hydrostatic to uniaxial conditions.
microscopic pore throat attributes and resultant stress
patterns inherent in the Ventura core data. This The methodology demonstrated in this paper reveals
approach eliminates the use of average parameters a new hybrid approach that first uses the flow unit
that are more favoured in homogenous reservoirs. It zonation process to capture the inherent reservoir
also examines and compares with other existing heterogeneity at the pore size level. It then uses an
methodologies in the industry. The result is promising error minimization technique to approximate or history
and shows a more improved and accurate porosity match the non-linear relationship of porosity and
and permeability conversion model that can be used permeability versus stress thereby unravelling fitting
in both clastic homogenous and non-homogenous parameters that are used in building petrophysical
reservoirs. models required for the conversion of porosity and
permeability data from ambient to reservoir
Introduction conditions.
As exploration plays dwindle and fields mature, there Characteristics of Ventura Field Sands.
is always the need to re-visit or tap into the existing The Ventura field is geologically complex, highly
database of conventional core porosity and faulted with anticlinal structure, characterized by a
permeability data that resides in the archives of most turbidite sand sequence that is thick and thinly-
exploration and production companies for reservoir bedded. According to Schwalbach et. al. (2009), the
studies. This desire may be hampered for the fact homogenous thickly bedded sands are dominant and
2 SPE 132110
range from medium-coarse to fine grained while the
thinly bedded turbidite sands are medium to finer
grained, interbedded with siltstones and hemipelagic
shales. These facie packages commonly stack in a
predicable manner and help to predict reservoir net-
to-gross.
Ventura porosity and permeability values are low and
variable. Typically, porosity ranges from 0.05 0.27
while permeability ranges from less than 0.1 to
approximately 500 mD across the field. Permeability
variation (Dykstra Parsons) is about 0.8.
Figure 1 shows a montage of a typical well bore
image, core photo and dip meter logs. The images
show a structurally complex turbidite sand sequence
that is highly dipping, thick, and thinly bedded.
Flow Unit Concept
Flow unit is defined by Ebanks (Ebanks, W.J,) as the
mappable portion of the total reservoir rock within
which geological and petrophysical properties that
effect fluid flows are internally consistent and
predictably different from properties of other rock
volumes. Arguably, flow units and lithofacies are not
the same. Lithofacies are characterized by
macroscopic attributes of lithology such as texture,
nature of bedding contacts and sedimentary
structures while flow units are subsets of the facies
and according to Amaefule, et. al, (1993) is defined
as zones with similar pore throat sizes and
distributions. It is not uncommon for multiple flow
units to exist within a lithofacie or a flow unit existing
or re-occurring in various lithofacies.
The flow zone indicator, FZI (m) is defined
mathematically as:
RQI
FZI = ..............(1)
z
Reservoir Quality Index RQI (m) is expressed as:
K
R Q I = 0 .0 3 1 4 .2
where K = Permeability, mD
and = Porosity, frac
Porosity Group z is expressed as:
= ....3
z
(1 ) 0
On a log- log plot of FZI versus z, all samples with
similar FZI will lie on a straight line with a unit slope.
These samples have similar pore throat attributes and
thereby constitute a hydraulic flow unit.
Plug Sample Selection
Traditionally, plug samples are selected for elevated
stress measurements or special core analysis (SCAL)
based on geological controls of litho-facies, porosity
and permeability variations. While this approach
remains the fundamental choice for reservoir quality
sands delineation, it may not provide enough
representative samples necessary to characterize the
entire reservoir or field.
Figure 2, shows a classical plot of core permeability
versus porosity of wells used in the model
development. The variability in permeability for any
given porosity is an evidence of the existence of
microscopic-pore level heterogeneity. As evidenced
from Figure 2, for a given porosity, permeability varies
up to three orders of magnitude. Therefore, choosing
samples based on this cross plot for any reservoir
development may be prone to some error.
In order to capture heterogeneity at microscopic pore
throat level, FZI was derived for all routine core data
and used to distinguish existing flow units. A plot of
the reservoir quality index (RQI) versus porosity
group (z) is shown in Figure 3. There are nine flow
units in this reservoir. Samples within a given cluster
or straight line belong to the same flow unit and
posses similar pore throat attributes and fluid flow
characteristics. Sand quality increases with increase
in RQI. Flow unit 9 (FU_9) depicts the best sand
quality while FU_1 is the worst.
Porosity Vs Permeability Plot
1000
K=181 - 6.8722
R2=0.25
100
Permeability. mD
10
1
0.1
0.1 0.2 0.3
Porosity, frac
Figure 2- Porosity and Permeability Plot
3 SPE 132110

Reservoir Quality Index vs. Phiz Porosity Vs Net Confining Stress

10.00 0.195 0.195

= 0.2707X-0.0577
FU_9
0.19 R2 = 0.996 0.190
FU_8

Original , frac
1.00 FU_7 0.185 0.185
RQI, microns

Predicted , frac
FU_6

FU_5 0.18 0.180

FU_4
0.10
0.175 0.175
FU_3

FU_2
0.17 0.170
FU_1 = 0.271X-0.0581
0.01 R2 = 0.998
0.165 0.165
0.01000 0.10000 1.00000
0 2000 4000 6000
PHIZ
Net Confining Stress (X), psi

Figure 3-Plot showing Flow Units Figure 4- Curve Fitting Original Porosity Decay
Permeability Vs Net Confining Stress
To properly characterize the reservoir, it is essential
to pick test samples from each flow unit. Ten plug 30.0 30.0
samples were selected based on the nine flow units K= 72.86X-0.1825
identified. An extra sample came from the best FZI 25.0
R2 = 0.9779
25.0
(FU_9).

Predicted KL , mD
20.0 20.0
Original K, mD

Core Measurements at Multiple Stress Points 15.0 15.0

The key to the acquisition of optimized stress K = 74.043X-0.1846
R2 = 0.9801
parameters from porosity and permeability decay 10.0 10.0
relationship is the measurement of the plug samples
at multiple stress points. The selected plug samples
5.0 5.0
for the model development were subjected to
estimated reservoir pressure ranges of 400, 1500,
2500, 3500 and 4500 psi so as to define the curves 0.0 0.0
adequately. Both porosity and permeability decreases 0 2000 4000 6000
with increase in net confining stress. The decrease Net Confining Stress (X) , psi
is most rapid at low stresses and becomes
progressively steady at elevated stresses as shown
Figure 5: Curve Fitting Original Permeability Decay
on Figures 4 and 5.

Jones (1988) developed an empirical model that can Porosity group at stress is expressed as:
be used to fit such porosity and permeability versus
stress decay relationship. These empirical relations
are shown as Equations 4 through 6 Exp b2 1 exp( / 2 ( )
z = zo ........4
1+ C

where:

zo = ......................5
(1 )
4 SPE 132110

Permeability at stress is expressed as: The Porosity and Permeability stress factor model
equations are shown as equations 7 and 8.
exp b1 (1 exp( / 1 *)
K = K0 ........6 b 2 = 0 .0 0 5 z 2 .1 9 1 ...7
1+ C

0 .4 4 0
Model Development b1 = 0 .2 8 7 R Q I .....8
The idea is to determine the fitting parameters for
porosity (2, C, b2, zo) and permeability (1, C, b1, K0)
that approximates the true curves of a historical Table 2: Porosity & Permeability Model Parameters
porosity and permeability measured at multiple stress
Z b2 2 RQI b1 1*
points and use these parameters to build a field-wide
or reservoir specific stress conversion model. To psi microns
achieve this, a proprietary non-linear regression
400 0.192 0.178 1269 0.110 0.699 1988
program was developed and used to fit porosity and
permeability decay curves defined by equations 4 and 400 0.163 0.263 1333 0.120 0.850 1965
6. The initial input requires a tolerance and initial
guess of each input parameter. Results of each 400 0.174 0.229 1330 0.147 0.730 1476
sample are shown as Figures 4 and 5. A poor overlay
of the predicted curves will require further 400 0.199 0.191 1149 0.182 0.632 1628
optimization by running a sensitivity of the parameters
until a near zero tolerance factor is achieved. Table 1 400 0.199 0.179 1160 0.216 0.609 1562
shows fitting parameters for a sample measured at
400 0.245 0.109 1120 0.269 0.425 1208
five stress points. If the fitting parameters are plugged
back into Equation 1, 2 and 3 as the case may be, a 400 0.309 0.068 913 0.418 0.400 1000
predicted porosity and permeability is obtained.
However, the use of these fitting parameters for a 400 0.220 0.132 1198 0.390 0.440 1000
field-wide or reservoir specific application which had
before now remained a challenge is the central focus 400 0.148 0.340 1400 0.167 0.630 1766
and fully demonstrated in this paper.
400 0.232 0.120 1060 0.889 0.330 655

Table 1: Fitting Parameters The reservoir quality index (RQI) correlates with
1*=988 psi b1=0.63 C=3x10-6) K=30.7 Tol=0.0001 permeability stress index 1* while porosity group (Z)
2*=1269psi b2=0.18 C=3x10-6) Z=0.2015 Tol=0.0001
correlates with porosity stress index 2* as shown in
Figures 8 and 9.
Stress original Porosity Perm Porosity Perm
psi porosity Group original predicted predicted
Z K Z K

400 0.161 0.192 25.0 0.192 24.9

1500 0.150 0.177 18.4 0.177 18.7
2500 0.147 0.172 17.3 0.172 17.0
3500 0.145 0.169 16.6 0.169 16.5
4500 0.143 0.167 16.0 0.167 16.2

Correlations with Basic Rock Properties:

Fitting parameters of porosity and permeability were
correlated with various rock properties in order to find
a good fit. The reservoir quality index (RQI) correlates
with permeability stress factor b1 and stress index 1*
while the porosity group (Z) correlates with porosity
stress factor b2 and stress index 2* as shown in
Figures 6, 7, 8 and 9. Table 2 shows the porosity and
permeability model parameters used in the
correlations.
5 SPE 132110

Porosity Stress Factor Porosity Stress Index

0.35
2000
b2 =0.005z2.191
0.30 1800
R = 0.91
2* = 480.92z-0.565
1600 R2 = 0.89

porosity stress index 2*, psi

0.25
Porosity stress factor, b2

1400

0.20 1200

1000
0.15
800
0.10
600

0.05 400

200
0.00
0
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40
Porosity Group, z
porosity group , z

Figure 6: Porosity Stress Factor

Figure 8: Porosity Stress index

Permeability Stress Factor Permeability Stress Index

1.40 3000

b1 = 0.29RQI-0.44 1*=621.8RQI0.5349
1.20 R = 0.86 2500 R2 =0.87
Permeability Stress factor, b1

1.00 2000
1*

0.80 1500

0.60
1000

0.40
500

0.20
0

0.00 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 RQI , microns

RQI, microns
Figure 9: Permeability Stress Index

Figure 7: Permeability Stress Factor

6 SPE 132110

Porosity and Permeability stress index model

equations are shown as Equations 9 and 10. Similarly, Porosity at 400 psi can be written as:

Exp b2 1exp((400) / 2 ( )
2 * = 4 8 0 .9 2 z z (400) =zo
0 .5 6 5
........9 .........14
1+C(400)

Also, Porosity at 3500 psi can be written as:
1 * = 6 2 1 .7 R Q I 0 .5 3 4 9
......10
Exp b2 1exp((3500) / 2
( )
z (3500) =zo .......15
A field-wide modelling of permeability and porosity at 1+C(3500)
zero stress was not necessary as it stands out as the
most trivial parameter to eliminate. To circumvent the Zero stress porosity (zo) can be eliminated by
zero stress modelling approach we invoked a simple dividing the porosity group at 3500 psi with ambient at
and sound mathematical concept that eliminated the 400psi. This will result to equation 16.
zero stress values as shown below:

If we consider a core plug sample measured at 400 (1+ C400 )exp b2 1 exp 3500

psi. We can convert permeability and porosity 2 * .16
z (3500) = z (400)
measured at 400 psi to 3500psi as demonstrated 1+ C exp b 1 exp 400
below: ( ) 2
2 *
3500

Permeability at 400 psi (K400) can be written as:

exp b1 (1 exp(400 / 1 *) Model Validation

K400 = K0 .....11
1+ C
400
Also, K at 3500 psi (K3500 ) can be written as:
exp b1 (1 exp(3500 / 1 *)
K3500 = K0 .....12
1 + C
3500
We assume that the porosity stress parameters
(2,C, b2) and permeability stress parameters (1*, C,
b1) of a core sample are slightly sensitive with stress.
This implies that the only parameter independent of
stress is the permeability ( Ko ) and porosity group (
zo.) estimated at zero stress. The desire is to get rid
of zero stress porosity and permeability in both
equations 11 and 12, since it is the only parameter
The porosity and permeability stress conversion
models were validated using core data from different
reservoirs not used in the model development. Core
samples measured at 800 psi were predicted at 3500
psi and results are shown
in Table 3. Correlations of predicted versus measured
porosity and permeability show good results. Porosity
and Permeability prediction results (Figures 10 and
11) superimposed on a 45 degree line with a unit
slope show an error margin of 0.05.
Porosity Prediction @ 3500 psi
(Stress Model- Data Set 1)
0.25
p(2*,b2,C, zamb)
0.20
,modelpredicted,frac

that do not vary in the process of the decay.

0.15
Therefore, If we divide Equation 12 by 11, this will
result to Equation 13
0.10
Permeability at 3500 psi can be computed using
equation 13 below:
0.05

(1+C400 )*exp-b11-exp 3500 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25

1* ,coremeasured(frac)
K
(3500) 400
=K ....13
400
(1+C3500 )*exp 1
-b 1-exp
1* Figure 10: Permeability Prediction at 3500 psi using the stress
model (Data-Set 1)
7 SPE 132110
Permeability Prediction @ 3500 psi
(Stress Model- Data Set 1)
100.0
Kp=f(1,b1,C,Kamb)
K, model predicted, (mD)
10.0
1.0
0.1
0.1 1.0
K, core measured (mD)
Figure 11: Porosity Prediction at 3500 psi using the
stress model (Data-Set 1)
Model Applications
Equations 7, 8, 9, 10, 13 & 16 enable the conversion
of core porosity and permeability data measured at
near ambient (400psi) to reservoir conditions. To
apply these models, the following steps must be
adhered to:
1. Compute RQI and z at 400psi.
2. Compute stress factors b1 and b2 using Equations
7 and 8 (400psi)
3. Use equations 9 and 10 to determine the stress
indices 1* and 2*(400psi)
4. Then use equations 13 and 16 to obtain
permeability and porosity at any desired stress
condition.
Conversion from Laboratory Hydrostatic to
Uniaxial Conditions
Core porosity and permeability data measurements
are performed under hydrostatic loading conditions
which are quite different from the uniaxial loading
condition existing in the reservoir. Before using the
routine core data for any field study, the hydrostatic
compaction data need to be translated into uniaxial
conditions which are prevalent in the reservoir.
According to Teeuw (1971), at equal hydrostatic and
uniaxial pressures, Equation 17 relates the uniaxial
compaction, Z, to the hydrostatic compaction H.
1 1+ v
Z= H ...17
3 1 v
Multiplying the uniaxial compaction factor (Z) by the
difference of the overburden and the product of the
poroelastic constant and formation pressure will
result to equation 18
.
Equation 18 enables the computation of the true net
overburden stress. The poroelastic constant, ,
which is equal to the bulk modulus of the dry rock
divided by the bulk modulus of the matrix when the
pore pressure is equal to the vertical stress. Darling
Toby, (2005).
1 1 + v
NOB = * ( V ( * p P )) ..18
3 1 v
In the Ventura field a poisons ratio of 0.25, pressure
10.0 100.0 gradient of 0.36psi/ft, overburden pressure gradient of
1 psi/ft and poroelastic constant of 1, were used to
compute the Net effective stress at each depth.
According to Keelan, D (1986), It is the net effective
or overburden stress (NOB) that primarily controls
formation compaction stress, relieved during the
coring process and also re-applied and simulated in
the laboratory core measurement system.
Having computed the true net overburden stress, the
porosity and permeability at each depth is computed
using the stress models. Table 4 shows computed
true net overburden stresses and resultant
permeability and porosity results.
Comparison of Porosity and Permeability
Prediction Methods
A. Classical Regression Method
(Data Set 1)
Predicting core porosity and permeability from
classical regression method of core ambient versus
stress relationship has been the quick turnaround
method in the industry especially in cases where
basic rock properties and reservoir parameters are
not readily available.
The classical regression model derived from core
dataset-1 is shown as equation 19.
K(3500) = 0.971K(800)1.038 .............................19
The limitation of classical regression method
includes:
Limitation imposed by the range of stresses used
in the core measurement. Predicting porosity and
permeability outside the measured stress ranges
is prone to huge errors.
The application of the regression method suffers
greatly when used in reservoirs that are up dip or
8 SPE 132110

down dip the reservoir used in developing the Results from this approach depend strongly on the
model due to different Net overburden pressures. right evaluation of bulk compressibility. Prediction
using this model on dataset 2 shows an error margin
The application of the classical regression model of 0.10 (Figure 16) compared to the stress model
on dataset1 (back prediction) overestimated the
method showing an error margin of 0.01 5.
predicted permeability with a maximum error
margin of +0.15 as shown in Figures 12 and
It is therefore noteworthy that the stress model
underestimated porosity with a an error margin of -
technique presented in this paper is a better
0.15 as shown in Figure 13, compared to the
prediction tool and offers a wider applicability than the
stress model porosity and permeability predictions
regression, bulk compressibility or log density
with error margins of 0.05 . method.
B. Log Density Regression Method .
(Data Set 2)
The regression of the density log versus core Permeability prediction at 3500 psi
(Classical Regression method Data set 1)
porosity is another way of converting unstressed
core porosity to reservoir conditions. The log 1000.00
regression model derived from the plot of core
porosity versus log density porosity is expressed
as:
100.00
stressed=0.8019400+0.0133 .20
The fact that the density porosity is measured at K, predicted, mD
10.00
insitu conditions makes it a desirable choice.
However, results from this method are masked by
the following factors.
1.00
The use of the density regression model is
constrained to correct environmental corrections
for the effects of mud chemicals such as barite 0.10
and generally, invasion or washouts.
0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00

The density log is also affected by lithology. K,measured,mD

Proper matrix characterization and proper depth
matching or adjustments of the core to the log Figure 12: Permeability Prediction at 3500 psi
density is necessary before use. (Classical Regression Method- Data Set 1)

Super-imposition of the predictions from the density Porosity prediction at 3500 psi
log model on a 45 degrees line with a unit slope, (Classical Regression method-Data set 1)
show porosity with an error margin of 0.10 (Figure 0.30
15), compared to the stress model method showing
an error margin of 0.01 (Figure 14).
0.25

0.20
,predicted,md

C. Bulk Compressibility Method

(Data Set 2)
This is another porosity conversion method that can 0.15
be very promising if the rock compressibility is known.
The bulk compressibility method is derived from the 0.10
premise that the overburden pressure compresses
the grains, packing them closely together without 0.05
changing their grain volume. Equation 20 is the bulk
compressibility model for the deep reservoir. Full
0.00
derivation of Equation 20 is shown in Appendix A.
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30
,measured,md
-K z
insitu = Lab r ........................20 Figure 13: Porosity Prediction at 3500 psi
1-K r z (Classical Regression Method- Data Set 1)
9 SPE 132110

PorosityPredictedatNOB Porosity Predicted at NOB

(StressModelDataset2) (Bulk Compressibility Method Dataset 2)
0.250
0.250
NOB(2,b2,C,amb) insitu(Lab,Kr,Z)
@ NOB, Model Predicted

0.200
0.200

Porosity @ insitu-predicted
0.150

0.150
0.100

0.100
0.050

0.050
0.000
0.050 0.050 0.150 0.250
atNOB,frac 0.000
0.000 0.100 0.200
Porosity @ NOB
Figure 14: Porosity Prediction at NOB
(Stress Model Method- Data Set 2) Figure16: Porosity predicted at NOB
( Bulk Compressibility Method- Data Set 2)

Porosity predicted at NOB Conclusions

(log density model Data set 2)
0.25 1. The use of the flow unit zonation concept unveils
heterogeneity at pore throat level and
demonstrates a very efficient way of delineating
at NOB, log Density Model Predicted

0.20 the reservoir and selecting representative core

plug samples for stress model development.
.
0.15 2. This study demonstrates that porosity and
permeability at multiple stress measurements is
the best way to capture the inherent stress
0.10 parameters that optimally define the stress decay
relationship.

0.05
3. Results from model predictions show that the
porosity and permeability fitting parameters can
be used to develop a field wide or reservoir
specific models that can be used to convert
0.00
porosity and permeability data from one pressure
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 point to another or from laboratory hydrostatic to
atNOB uniaxial conditions.

Figure 15: Porosity Prediction at NOB
(Log Density Methodl - Data Set 2)
4. Predictions of porosity and permeability for
Ventura wells using the stress models were very
good and show to be more accurate than other
existing methods for a clastic non-homogenous
or homogenous reservoir.
10
Nomenclature
C = Limiting compressibility constant, 310-6 psi-1
1* = Permeability stress index, psi
2* = Porosity stress index, psi
z = Porosity group at stress
z0 = Porosity group at zero stress
K = Permeability at zero stress, mD
Ko = Permeability at ambient, mD
b1 = Permeability stress factor
b2 = Porosity stress factor
= Poisson's ratio
NOB= Net Overburden Pressure
Z =Uniaxial Compaction
H = Hydrostatic Compaction
v = Vertical principal stress
RQI= Reservoir Quality Index, m
= Porosity, frac
FZI = Flow Zone Indicator, m
K = Permeability, mD
6 Ventura Basin and Beyond. Coast Geological
K r =Bulk Compressibility=3*10 vov / vol / psi
VBLab = Bulk Volume, Lab
VBinsitu =Bulk Volume, insitu
Vg = Grain Volume, cc
POB =Overburden pressure =z, (psi/ft x depth)
insitu =Insitu Porosity, frac
Lab =Lab Porosity, Frac
SPE 132110
References
1. Amaefule, J.O. et. al.: Enhanced Reservoir
Description: Using Core and Log data to
Identify Hydraulic (Flow) Units and Predict
Permeability in Uncored Intervals/Wells. SPE
Annual Technical Conference & Exhibition,
SPE 26436, Houston, Texas 1993.
2. Andersen, M. A: Predicting Reservoir
Condition PV Compressibility from
Hydrostatic Stress Laboratory Data. SPE
Annual Technical Conference & Exhibition,
SPE 14213, Las Vegas, Sept. 22-25, 1985.
3. Ebanks, W.J., Jr.: Integrated Approach to
Reservoir Description for Engineering
Projects, (Abstract only) AAPG abstract flow
unit concept.
4. Keelan,D.K.: Automated Core Measurement
System for Enhanced Core Data at
Overburden Conditions. Rocky Mountain
Regional Meeting of the Society of Petroleum
Engineers held in MT, May19-21, 1986.
5. Jones, S.C.: Two point Determinations of
Permeability and PV vs. Net Confining
Stress, SPE formation Evaluation, March
1988
6. Schwalbach, J.: Deep Clastic Reservoirs:
Society News Letter, Ventura California, May
19, 2009,
7. Vassilellis, G.D et. al: Application of Stress-
Dependent Rock Properties in Reservoir
Studies. SPE International Thermal
Operations and Heavy oil Symposium, SPE
86979, Bakersfield, California, March 2004
8. Teeuw, D: Prediction of Formation
Compaction from Laboratory Compressibility
Data, SPE September 1971.
9. Darling, T: Well logging and Formation
Evaluation, Professional publishing, Oxford,
UK, 2005
11 SPE 132110

APPENDIX A
Rock Compressibility Method
If we assume that the grain density is much less than
the bulk compressibility, this implies that the
grains can be compressed though without changing
their volume and they pack more closely
Then:
1 - L ab
= V g L ab ........................................i
V B Lab
R e-arran g in g
1 - Lab
V B Lab = .........................,............ii
V
g Lab

S in ce G rain V olu m e is a co nstan t

1 - Lab 1 - in situ
V g Lab = V g (in situ ) = = ...............iii
V B L ab V B in situ
A lso ,
1 -K r PO B 1 -K r Z
V B in situ = ...............iv
V B L ab V B L ab

R e-arran g in g eq .3
V B in situ (1 - Lab )= V B L ab (1 - in situ )...................v
su bstitutin g eq.4 in to 5 a n d re-arran g in g
-K r z
in situ = L ab .....................................vi
1-K r z

Figure 1 A montage of the well bore image, Core photos

and dip logs
 12 SPE 132110

Table 3: MODEL VALIDATION OF K and at 3500 psi Using Stress Models

K & @ 800psi K & @ 3500psi Stress Model Parameters Predicted Predicted Predicted Measured Predicted Predicted Measured Predicted
Net Stress K RQI PHIZ Net Stress K 1 2 b1 b2 z @ 400 @ 400 K @ 400 @ 3500 z @ 3500 @ 3500 K @ 3500 K @ 3500
psi frac md microns psi frac md frac frac md frac frac frac md md
800 0.176 6.50 0.1910 0.213 3500 0.166 4.89 1507 1152 0.595 0.148 0.22 0.180 7.21 0.166 0.20 0.164 4.89 4.79
800 0.181 1.70 0.0964 0.220 3500 0.169 0.89 2173 1130 0.803 0.137 0.23 0.184 1.90 0.169 0.20 0.170 0.89 1.13
800 0.183 15.11 0.2857 0.223 3500 0.171 10.9 1215 1122 0.498 0.134 0.23 0.186 16.65 0.171 0.21 0.172 10.89 11.83
800 0.158 44.23 0.5259 0.187 3500 0.146 35.4 877 1239 0.381 0.196 0.19 0.162 48.15 0.146 0.17 0.144 35.39 37.65
800 0.165 78.92 0.6863 0.198 3500 0.156 69.6 760 1201 0.339 0.174 0.20 0.170 85.34 0.156 0.18 0.152 69.59 69.29
800 0.148 5.58 0.1931 0.173 3500 0.134 3.16 1499 1296 0.592 0.233 0.18 0.153 6.18 0.134 0.15 0.132 3.16 3.20
800 0.185 20.57 0.3314 0.227 3500 0.173 15.5 1123 1113 0.467 0.129 0.23 0.188 22.61 0.173 0.21 0.174 15.47 16.45

800 0.184 46.13 0.4967 0.226 3500 0.175 40.3 904 1114 0.390 0.130 0.23 0.188 50.28 0.175 0.21 0.174 40.29 38.99
800 0.151 1.38 0.0949 0.178 3500 0.138 0.51 2191 1277 0.809 0.220 0.18 0.156 1.54 0.138 0.16 0.136 0.51 0.52
800 0.159 8.63 0.2317 0.188 3500 0.148 6.40 1359 1235 0.546 0.193 0.20 0.163 9.54 0.148 0.17 0.145 6.40 6.55
800 0.181 11.88 0.2541 0.222 3500 0.171 9.61 1294 1127 0.524 0.136 0.23 0.185 13.11 0.171 0.21 0.170 9.61 9.14
800 0.198 77.35 0.6205 0.247 3500 0.189 69.6 803 1060 0.354 0.107 0.25 0.201 83.87 0.189 0.23 0.188 69.58 67.15
800 0.207 774.52 1.9207 0.261 3500 0.196 562.2 439 1027 0.215 0.095 0.27 0.210 812.73 0.196 0.25 0.198 562.16 736.81
800 0.191 27.25 0.3752 0.236 3500 0.181 22.4 1050 1088 0.442 0.118 0.24 0.194 29.88 0.181 0.22 0.181 22.38 22.18
800 0.159 2.95 0.1354 0.188 3500 0.149 1.97 1812 1235 0.692 0.193 0.20 0.163 3.28 0.149 0.17 0.145 1.97 2.06
800 0.176 20.31 0.3376 0.213 3500 0.165 16.39 1111 1152 0.463 0.148 0.22 0.180 22.31 0.165 0.20 0.164 16.39 16.29
800 0.124 3.13 0.1578 0.141 3500 0.115 2.55 1669 1452 0.647 0.363 0.15 0.131 3.48 0.115 0.12 0.115 2.55 2.24

800 0.196 37.22 0.4327 0.244 3500 0.182 24.18 973 1068 0.415 0.110 0.25 0.199 40.69 0.182 0.23 0.186 24.18 30.90
800 0.204 49.51 0.4897 0.255 3500 0.185 25.50 911 1040 0.393 0.099 0.26 0.206 53.97 0.185 0.24 0.194 25.50 28.10
800 0.187 14.44 0.2760 0.230 3500 0.176 12.25 1238 1104 0.506 0.125 0.24 0.190 15.91 0.176 0.21 0.176 12.25 11.24
800 0.159 6.92 0.2074 0.188 3500 0.148 4.07 1442 1235 0.573 0.193 0.20 0.163 7.66 0.148 0.17 0.145 4.07 5.16
13 SPE 132110

TABLE 4: CONVERSION OF LAB MEASURED DATA FROM HYDROSTATIC TO UNIAXIAL CONDITIONS

RESERVOIR NOB
Ambient NOB Mech Rock Prop Model Properties
NORMALIZED DATA
Depth Lab Porosity PHIZ Kair RQI poisson Pressure b1 b2 2* 1* OB Pp NOB K Porosity z
Core Amb. frac (z) ratio gradient Perm Porosity Porosity perm (v) @ @
feet NOB md microns ( ) psi/ft factor factor index index psi psi psi NOB NOB
10270.3 400 0.119 0.135 13.25 0.3315 0.25 0.360 0.466 0.403 1491 1122 10270.3 3697 3652 9.62 0.092 0.10
10270.8 400 0.200 0.251 59.37 0.5405 0.25 0.360 0.376 0.104 1051 864 10270.8 3697 3652 46.55 0.188 0.23
10271.3 400 0.183 0.224 68.36 0.6065 0.25 0.360 0.358 0.132 1119 812 10271.3 3698 3652 54.50 0.169 0.20
10271.9 400 0.137 0.158 19.72 0.3770 0.25 0.360 0.441 0.283 1362 1048 10271.9 3698 3652 14.62 0.114 0.13
10275.5 400 0.156 0.184 10.89 0.2626 0.25 0.360 0.517 0.203 1250 1271 10275.5 3699 3654 7.60 0.137 0.16
10277.0 400 0.158 0.188 9.75 0.2464 0.25 0.360 0.532 0.194 1236 1315 10277.0 3700 3654 6.73 0.140 0.16
10278.0 400 0.152 0.179 7.80 0.2251 0.25 0.360 0.553 0.217 1272 1380 10278.0 3700 3654 5.29 0.132 0.15
10281.0 400 0.161 0.192 27.71 0.4117 0.25 0.360 0.424 0.185 1221 999 10281.0 3701 3655 20.83 0.144 0.17
10281.6 400 0.147 0.172 13.32 0.2989 0.25 0.360 0.488 0.236 1299 1186 10281.6 3701 3656 9.50 0.127 0.15
10284.0 400 0.150 0.176 10.36 0.2614 0.25 0.360 0.518 0.226 1284 1274 10284.0 3702 3657 7.22 0.130 0.15
10287.4 400 0.155 0.184 10.72 0.2608 0.25 0.360 0.518 0.204 1252 1276 10287.4 3703 3658 7.47 0.137 0.16
10288.9 400 0.166 0.199 18.93 0.3354 0.25 0.360 0.464 0.172 1198 1115 10288.9 3704 3658 13.76 0.149 0.18
10291.6 400 0.166 0.199 8.53 0.2249 0.25 0.360 0.553 0.171 1196 1381 10291.6 3705 3659 5.79 0.149 0.18
10293.4 400 0.171 0.207 10.91 0.2505 0.25 0.360 0.528 0.158 1171 1304 10293.4 3706 3660 7.55 0.155 0.18
10294.3 400 0.159 0.190 11.88 0.2710 0.25 0.360 0.510 0.191 1231 1250 10294.3 3706 3660 8.33 0.141 0.16
10296.7 400 0.175 0.212 9.16 0.2272 0.25 0.360 0.551 0.149 1155 1374 10296.7 3707 3661 6.23 0.160 0.19
10318.0 400 0.154 0.183 20.03 0.3576 0.25 0.360 0.451 0.207 1257 1078 10318.0 3714 3669 14.72 0.136 0.16
10318.3 400 0.134 0.154 17.40 0.3585 0.25 0.360 0.451 0.301 1383 1076 10318.3 3715 3669 12.79 0.110 0.12
10318.8 400 0.135 0.157 15.59 0.3369 0.25 0.360 0.463 0.290 1370 1113 10318.8 3715 3669 11.34 0.113 0.13
10320.0 400 0.184 0.226 31.80 0.4125 0.25 0.360 0.424 0.130 1115 998 10320.0 3715 3669 23.91 0.170 0.20
10320.6 400 0.165 0.198 15.29 0.3023 0.25 0.360 0.486 0.174 1202 1179 10320.6 3715 3670 10.92 0.148 0.17
10321.1 400 0.142 0.165 7.35 0.2260 0.25 0.360 0.552 0.258 1330 1377 10321.1 3716 3670 4.99 0.121 0.14
10322.5 400 0.163 0.194 9.25 0.2367 0.25 0.360 0.541 0.181 1213 1344 10322.5 3716 3670 6.33 0.145 0.17
10322.7 400 0.162 0.193 11.87 0.2690 0.25 0.360 0.511 0.184 1218 1255 10322.7 3716 3670 8.31 0.144 0.17
10356.9 400 0.185 0.227 7.54 0.2006 0.25 0.360 0.582 0.129 1113 1468 10356.9 3728 3682 5.01 0.170 0.21
10357.5 400 0.181 0.221 6.81 0.1924 0.25 0.360 0.593 0.136 1128 1501 10357.5 3729 3683 4.49 0.166 0.20
10367.6 400 0.166 0.199 7.05 0.2045 0.25 0.360 0.577 0.171 1196 1453 10367.6 3732 3686 4.70 0.149 0.18
10378.5 400 0.183 0.224 28.51 0.3920 0.25 0.360 0.433 0.133 1120 1026 10378.5 3736 3690 21.25 0.168 0.20
10382.2 400 0.197 0.245 16.65 0.2888 0.25 0.360 0.496 0.109 1064 1208 10382.2 3738 3691 11.79 0.184 0.23
10382.8 400 0.157 0.186 43.81 0.5251 0.25 0.360 0.381 0.200 1245 877 10382.8 3738 3692 34.19 0.138 0.16
10383.4 400 0.236 0.309 45.84 0.4376 0.25 0.360 0.413 0.066 934 967 10383.4 3738 3692 34.78 0.226 0.29
10383.8 400 0.197 0.245 30.95 0.3936 0.25 0.360 0.433 0.109 1064 1024 10383.8 3738 3692 23.09 0.184 0.23
10389.9 400 0.201 0.251 21.60 0.3258 0.25 0.360 0.470 0.103 1050 1133 10389.9 3740 3694 15.62 0.188 0.23
10390.6 400 0.203 0.255 9.37 0.2132 0.25 0.360 0.566 0.100 1041 1421 10390.6 3741 3694 6.29 0.191 0.24
14 SPE 132110

TABLE 4: CONVERSION OF LAB MEASURED DATA FROM HYDROSTATIC TO UNIAXIAL CONDITIONS

RESERVOIR NOB
Ambient NOB Mech Rock Prop Model Properties
NORMALIZED DATA
Depth Lab Porosity PHIZ Kair RQI poisson Pressure b1 b2 2* 1* OB Pp NOB K Porosity z
Core Amb. frac (z) ratio gradient Perm Porosity Porosity perm (v) @ @
feet NOB md microns ( ) psi/ft factor factor index index psi psi psi NOB NOB
10270.3 400 0.119 0.135 13.25 0.3315 0.25 0.360 0.466 0.403 1491 1122 10270.3 3697 3652 9.62 0.092 0.10
10270.8 400 0.200 0.251 59.37 0.5405 0.25 0.360 0.376 0.104 1051 864 10270.8 3697 3652 46.55 0.188 0.23
10271.3 400 0.183 0.224 68.36 0.6065 0.25 0.360 0.358 0.132 1119 812 10271.3 3698 3652 54.50 0.169 0.20
10271.9 400 0.137 0.158 19.72 0.3770 0.25 0.360 0.441 0.283 1362 1048 10271.9 3698 3652 14.62 0.114 0.13
10275.5 400 0.156 0.184 10.89 0.2626 0.25 0.360 0.517 0.203 1250 1271 10275.5 3699 3654 7.60 0.137 0.16
10277.0 400 0.158 0.188 9.75 0.2464 0.25 0.360 0.532 0.194 1236 1315 10277.0 3700 3654 6.73 0.140 0.16
10278.0 400 0.152 0.179 7.80 0.2251 0.25 0.360 0.553 0.217 1272 1380 10278.0 3700 3654 5.29 0.132 0.15
10281.0 400 0.161 0.192 27.71 0.4117 0.25 0.360 0.424 0.185 1221 999 10281.0 3701 3655 20.83 0.144 0.17
10281.6 400 0.147 0.172 13.32 0.2989 0.25 0.360 0.488 0.236 1299 1186 10281.6 3701 3656 9.50 0.127 0.15
10284.0 400 0.150 0.176 10.36 0.2614 0.25 0.360 0.518 0.226 1284 1274 10284.0 3702 3657 7.22 0.130 0.15
10287.4 400 0.155 0.184 10.72 0.2608 0.25 0.360 0.518 0.204 1252 1276 10287.4 3703 3658 7.47 0.137 0.16
10288.9 400 0.166 0.199 18.93 0.3354 0.25 0.360 0.464 0.172 1198 1115 10288.9 3704 3658 13.76 0.149 0.18
10291.6 400 0.166 0.199 8.53 0.2249 0.25 0.360 0.553 0.171 1196 1381 10291.6 3705 3659 5.79 0.149 0.18
10293.4 400 0.171 0.207 10.91 0.2505 0.25 0.360 0.528 0.158 1171 1304 10293.4 3706 3660 7.55 0.155 0.18
10294.3 400 0.159 0.190 11.88 0.2710 0.25 0.360 0.510 0.191 1231 1250 10294.3 3706 3660 8.33 0.141 0.16
10296.7 400 0.175 0.212 9.16 0.2272 0.25 0.360 0.551 0.149 1155 1374 10296.7 3707 3661 6.23 0.160 0.19
10318.0 400 0.154 0.183 20.03 0.3576 0.25 0.360 0.451 0.207 1257 1078 10318.0 3714 3669 14.72 0.136 0.16
10318.3 400 0.134 0.154 17.40 0.3585 0.25 0.360 0.451 0.301 1383 1076 10318.3 3715 3669 12.79 0.110 0.12
10318.8 400 0.135 0.157 15.59 0.3369 0.25 0.360 0.463 0.290 1370 1113 10318.8 3715 3669 11.34 0.113 0.13
10320.0 400 0.184 0.226 31.80 0.4125 0.25 0.360 0.424 0.130 1115 998 10320.0 3715 3669 23.91 0.170 0.20
10320.6 400 0.165 0.198 15.29 0.3023 0.25 0.360 0.486 0.174 1202 1179 10320.6 3715 3670 10.92 0.148 0.17
10321.1 400 0.142 0.165 7.35 0.2260 0.25 0.360 0.552 0.258 1330 1377 10321.1 3716 3670 4.99 0.121 0.14
10322.5 400 0.163 0.194 9.25 0.2367 0.25 0.360 0.541 0.181 1213 1344 10322.5 3716 3670 6.33 0.145 0.17
10322.7 400 0.162 0.193 11.87 0.2690 0.25 0.360 0.511 0.184 1218 1255 10322.7 3716 3670 8.31 0.144 0.17
10356.9 400 0.185 0.227 7.54 0.2006 0.25 0.360 0.582 0.129 1113 1468 10356.9 3728 3682 5.01 0.170 0.21
10357.5 400 0.181 0.221 6.81 0.1924 0.25 0.360 0.593 0.136 1128 1501 10357.5 3729 3683 4.49 0.166 0.20
10367.6 400 0.166 0.199 7.05 0.2045 0.25 0.360 0.577 0.171 1196 1453 10367.6 3732 3686 4.70 0.149 0.18
10378.5 400 0.183 0.224 28.51 0.3920 0.25 0.360 0.433 0.133 1120 1026 10378.5 3736 3690 21.25 0.168 0.20
10382.2 400 0.197 0.245 16.65 0.2888 0.25 0.360 0.496 0.109 1064 1208 10382.2 3738 3691 11.79 0.184 0.23
10382.8 400 0.157 0.186 43.81 0.5251 0.25 0.360 0.381 0.200 1245 877 10382.8 3738 3692 34.19 0.138 0.16
10383.4 400 0.236 0.309 45.84 0.4376 0.25 0.360 0.413 0.066 934 967 10383.4 3738 3692 34.78 0.226 0.29
10383.8 400 0.197 0.245 30.95 0.3936 0.25 0.360 0.433 0.109 1064 1024 10383.8 3738 3692 23.09 0.184 0.23
10389.9 400 0.201 0.251 21.60 0.3258 0.25 0.360 0.470 0.103 1050 1133 10389.9 3740 3694 15.62 0.188 0.23
10390.6 400 0.203 0.255 9.37 0.2132 0.25 0.360 0.566 0.100 1041 1421 10390.6 3741 3694 6.29 0.191 0.24
15 SPE 132110

TABLE5:POROSITYPREDICTIONCOMPARISONSCoreDataset2
bulk com, method STRESS MODEL
DEPTH NOB CORE_K CORE DPHI Core/DPHI 1 2 b1 b2 Z @ NOB @ NOB
psi 400 psi 400psi NOB insitu predictions RQI PHIZ frac frac
predictions
8314 3233 13.0 0.172 0.152 0.145 0.151 0.273 0.208 1245.2 1168.7 0.519 0.156 0.186 0.151
8315 3234 22.0 0.166 0.161 0.139 0.146 0.361 0.199 1071.6 1197.2 0.456 0.172 0.176 0.161
8317 3234 4.9 0.132 0.123 0.104 0.119 0.191 0.152 1506.0 1393.8 0.612 0.310 0.123 0.109
8318 3235 8.3 0.126 0.107 0.097 0.114 0.255 0.144 1291.9 1436.5 0.536 0.348 0.114 0.102
8320 3236 18.0 0.198 0.158 0.172 0.172 0.299 0.247 1185.2 1060.0 0.497 0.107 0.228 0.160
8323 3237 21.0 0.195 0.138 0.169 0.170 0.326 0.242 1132.7 1071.5 0.478 0.112 0.223 0.140
8358 3250 26.8 0.229 0.170 0.204 0.197 0.340 0.297 1107.8 954.9 0.469 0.071 0.281 0.181
8365 3253 8.5 0.177 0.170 0.150 0.155 0.218 0.215 1405.8 1146.0 0.577 0.145 0.194 0.162
8368 3254 5.9 0.178 0.172 0.151 0.156 0.181 0.217 1552.3 1141.5 0.629 0.143 0.195 0.163
8376 3257 5.3 0.173 0.160 0.146 0.152 0.174 0.209 1585.4 1164.0 0.640 0.154 0.187 0.158
8381 3259 4.5 0.16 0.160 0.132 0.142 0.167 0.190 1622.1 1227.3 0.653 0.189 0.167 0.143
8382 3260 4.9 0.164 0.164 0.136 0.145 0.172 0.196 1596.0 1207.1 0.644 0.177 0.173 0.147
8388 3262 4.3 0.155 0.127 0.127 0.138 0.165 0.183 1628.0 1253.7 0.655 0.205 0.159 0.137
8396 3265 13.0 0.195 0.169 0.168 0.170 0.256 0.242 1287.7 1071.5 0.534 0.112 0.223 0.182
8397 3266 11.0 0.18 0.165 0.153 0.158 0.245 0.220 1318.0 1132.8 0.545 0.139 0.199 0.166
8398 3266 6.2 0.168 0.167 0.141 0.148 0.191 0.202 1508.4 1187.5 0.613 0.166 0.179 0.160
8403 3268 6.1 0.152 0.151 0.124 0.135 0.199 0.179 1474.9 1270.2 0.601 0.216 0.154 0.150
8451 3287 2.2 0.179 0.126 0.152 0.157 0.110 0.218 2024.1 1137.1 0.791 0.141 0.197 0.140
8472 3294 47.0 0.207 0.172 0.181 0.179 0.473 0.261 927.9 1027.2 0.402 0.095 0.243 0.150
8473 3295 33.0 0.157 0.144 0.129 0.139 0.455 0.186 947.2 1243.0 0.409 0.199 0.162 0.140
8503 3307 11.0 0.202 0.199 0.175 0.175 0.232 0.253 1359.3 1045.2 0.560 0.101 0.235 0.200
8505 3308 18.0 0.198 0.180 0.171 0.172 0.299 0.247 1185.2 1060.0 0.497 0.107 0.228 0.180
8506 3308 15.0 0.193 0.177 0.166 0.168 0.277 0.239 1236.0 1079.2 0.516 0.115 0.220 0.180
8507 3308 13.0 0.176 0.175 0.148 0.154 0.270 0.214 1252.9 1150.4 0.522 0.147 0.192 0.175
8509 3309 23.0 0.196 0.185 0.169 0.170 0.340 0.244 1107.0 1067.6 0.469 0.110 0.225 0.183
8518 3313 37.0 0.201 0.183 0.174 0.174 0.426 0.252 981.4 1048.8 0.422 0.103 0.233 0.183
8519 3313 23.0 0.189 0.178 0.162 0.165 0.346 0.233 1096.3 1095.1 0.465 0.122 0.213 0.176
8520 3313 73.0 0.186 0.167 0.159 0.162 0.622 0.229 801.5 1107.4 0.354 0.127 0.208 0.172
8521 3314 59.0 0.166 0.157 0.138 0.146 0.592 0.199 823.1 1197.2 0.362 0.172 0.176 0.157
8522 3314 54.0 0.16 0.151 0.132 0.142 0.577 0.190 834.5 1227.3 0.367 0.189 0.166 0.143
8523 3315 33.0 0.153 0.145 0.125 0.136 0.461 0.181 940.7 1264.7 0.407 0.212 0.155 0.135
8536 3320 40.0 0.2 0.181 0.173 0.174 0.444 0.250 959.9 1052.5 0.414 0.104 0.231 0.180
8549 3325 51.0 0.164 0.122 0.136 0.145 0.554 0.196 853.0 1207.1 0.374 0.177 0.173 0.130
8551 3325 64.0 0.169 0.134 0.141 0.149 0.611 0.203 809.2 1182.7 0.357 0.164 0.181 0.142
8553 3326 19.0 0.141 0.102 0.112 0.126 0.364 0.164 1066.8 1335.0 0.454 0.262 0.137 0.110
8558 3328 0.1 0.061 0.050 0.029 0.062 0.046 0.065 3234.0 2253.8 1.189 1.995 0.019 0.050
8564 3330 67.0 0.198 0.177 0.171 0.172 0.578 0.247 833.9 1060.0 0.366 0.107 0.228 0.177
8565 3331 85.0 0.189 0.162 0.162 0.165 0.666 0.233 772.9 1095.1 0.343 0.122 0.213 0.176
8566 3331 52.0 0.169 0.128 0.141 0.149 0.551 0.203 855.4 1182.7 0.375 0.164 0.181 0.132
8568 3332 27.0 0.152 0.137 0.123 0.135 0.418 0.179 990.8 1270.2 0.426 0.216 0.154 0.133
8570 3333 24.0 0.19 0.166 0.163 0.166 0.353 0.235 1085.4 1091.1 0.461 0.120 0.215 0.177