See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269631174

Quantification of pore structure and its effect

on sonic velocity and permeability in
carbonates

Article in AAPG Bulletin · October 2009

DOI: 10.1306/05270909001

CITATIONS READS

98 345

5 authors, including:

Ralf J. Weger Gregor P. Eberli

University of Miami University of Miami
38 PUBLICATIONS 671 CITATIONS 511 PUBLICATIONS 4,329 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Gregor Baechle Jose Luis Massaferro

Repsol, Houston, USA YPF
36 PUBLICATIONS 572 CITATIONS 25 PUBLICATIONS 275 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

The Tropical Ostracod Record of The Maldives and its Paleoceanographic Implications View
project

Maldives Monsoon, Sea Level and Currents View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Gregor P. Eberli on 19 April 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 GEOHORIZONS AUTHORS
Ralf J. Weger
University of Miami,
Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric
Quantification of pore structure Science, Division of Marine Geology and Geo-
physics, 4600 Rickenbacker Causeway, Miami,
and its effect on sonic velocity Florida 33129; rweger@rsmas.miami.edu
Ralf J. Weger was a postdoctoral researcher with

and permeability in carbonates the Comparative Sedimentology Laboratory at

the University of Miami when the article was
written. He received his B.S. degree in systems
Ralf J. Weger, Gregor P. Eberli, Gregor T. Baechle, analysis (2000) and his Ph.D. in marine geology
Jose L. Massaferro, and Yue-Feng Sun and geophysics (2006) from the University of
Miami. His dissertation focuses on quantitative
pore- and rock-type parameters in carbonates
and their relationship to velocity deviations. His
ABSTRACT main interests range from processing and visu-
alization of geophysical data to petrophysical
Carbonate rocks commonly contain a variety of pore types characterization of carbonate rocks.
that can vary in size over several orders of magnitude. Tradi-
Gregor P. Eberli
University of Miami, Ro-
tional pore-type classifications describe these pore structures senstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric
but are inadequate for correlations to the rock’s physical prop- Science, Division of Marine Geology and Geophys-
erties. We introduce a digital image analysis (DIA) method ics, 4600 Rickenbacker Causeway, Miami, Florida
33129; geberli@rsmas.miami.edu
that produces quantitative pore-space parameters, which can
be linked to physical properties in carbonates, in particular Gregor P. Eberli is a professor in the Division of
Marine Geology and Geophysics at the University
sonic velocity and permeability. of Miami and the Director of the Comparative
The DIA parameters, derived from thin sections, capture Sedimentology Laboratory. He received his Ph.D.
two-dimensional pore size (DomSize), roundness (g), aspect from the Swiss Institute of Technology (ETH) in
ratio (AR), and pore network complexity (PoA). Comparing Zürich, Switzerland. His research integrates the
sedimentology, stratigraphy, and petrophysics
these DIA parameters to porosity, permeability, and P-wave
of carbonates. With laboratory experiments and
velocity shows that, in addition to porosity, the combined ef- seismic modeling, his group tries to understand
fect of microporosity, the pore network complexity, and pore the physical expression of carbonates on log and in
size of the macropores is most influential for the acoustic be- seismic data. He was a distinguished lecturer for
havior. Combining these parameters with porosity improves AAPG (1996/97), Joint Oceanographic Institutions
(1997/1998), and the European Association of
the coefficient of determination (R2) velocity estimates from Geoscientists and Engineers (2005/2006).
0.542 to 0.840. The analysis shows that samples with large sim-
ple pores and a small amount of microporosity display higher Gregor T. Baechle
University of Miami,
Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric
acoustic velocity at a given porosity than samples with small, Science, Division of Marine Geology and Geo-
complicated pores. Estimates of permeability from porosity physics, 4600 Rickenbacker Causeway, Miami,
alone are very ineffective (R2 = 0.143) but can be improved Florida 33129
when pore geometry information PoA (R2 = 0.415) and Dom- Gregor T. Bächle graduated from the University
Size (R2 = 0.383) are incorporated. of Tübingen in 1999 with a Diploma (equivalent to
M.Sc. degree) in geology. In 2001, he joined the
Furthermore, results from the correlation of DIA parameters
Comparative Sedimentology Laboratory (CSL)
to acoustic data reveal that (1) intergrain and/or intercrystalline with a Scholarship of the German Academic Ex-
change Service to obtain a Ph.D. from the Univer-
sity of Tübingen. From 2004 to 2008, he was a
research associate in the CSL, managing the rock
physics laboratory. He is currently working for
Copyright ©2009. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists. All rights reserved.
ExxonMobil Upstream Research Company, Quan-
Manuscript received January 7, 2009; provisional acceptance March 27, 2009; revised manuscript titative Interpretation, Houston, Texas.
received May 2, 2009; final acceptance May 27, 2009.
DOI:10.1306/05270909001

AAPG Bulletin, v. 93, no. 10 (October 2009), pp. 1297–1317 1297

 Jose L. Massaferro
Gerencia Geología y
Estudios Integrados, Dirección Exploración y De-
sarrollo de Negocio, Macacha Güemes 515,
(C1106BKK), Puerto Madero, Buenos Aires,
Argentina
Jose Luis Massaferro is a geology manager in
Repsol YPF’s exploration office in Argentina. He
received his Ph.D. from the University of Miami in
1997. He was a Fulbright Fellow while pursuing
his studies in Miami. Prior to his Ph.D. studies, he
worked for Texaco as a geologist. In 1998, he joined
Shell E&P and was involved in different projects,
including 3-D seismic volume interpretation, high-
resolution sequence stratigraphy, and kinematic
modeling of compressional structures. In 2005,
he joined Repsol in Madrid.
Yue-Feng Sun
Department of Geology
and Geophysics, Texas A&M University, College
Station, Texas 77843
Yue-Feng Sun is an associate professor at Texas
A&M University. He received his Ph.D. (1994)
from Columbia University. He has 25 years of
experience as a geoscientist in the industry and
academia. His professional interests include
carbonate rock physics, poroelasticity, poroelectro-
dynamics, reservoir geophysics, and petroleum
geology. He is a member of AAPG, the American
Geophysical Union, American Physical Society,
and the Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The methodology presented in this paper was
developed in collaboration with Shell‘s carbon-
ate development team in Rijswijk, Holland, and
the Comparative Sedimentology Laboratory
of the University of Miami. We acknowledge fi-
nancial support from Shell and the Industrial
Associates of the Comparative Sedimentology
Laboratory. Discussions with Guido Bracco
Gartner, Gene Rankey, and Peter Swart were
essential to the technical development of the
equipment and methodology. Comments and
reviews on several versions of the manuscripts
by Wayne Ahr, Stephen Ehrenberg, Jerry Lucia,
Mark Longman, David Kopaska-Merkel, and
Jeroen Kenter greatly improved the manuscript.
The AAPG Editors thanks the following reviewers
for their work on this paper: Jeroen Kenter,
David C. Kopaska-Merkel, and Mark W.
Longman.
1298 Geohorizons
and separate-vug porosity cannot always be separated using
sonic logs, (2) P-wave velocity is not solely controlled by the
percentage of spherical porosity, and (3) quantitative pore ge-
ometry characteristics can be estimated from acoustic data and
used to improve permeability estimates.
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; Lønøy, 2006). In this article,
we describe a digital image analysis (DIA) method for mea-
suring quantitative pore-structure parameters derived from
thin sections and introduce four parameters that are most re-
liable for capturing the geometrical character of pore struc-
ture in carbonates.
Many studies have recognized that acoustic velocity in car-
bonates 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; Rossebø 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 provid-
ing 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 pre-
dominantly 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 po-
rosity 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) Wyllie’s 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 influ-
ence 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 separate-
vug 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 car-
bonate 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 mea-
sured permeability values of plugs with character-
istic 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 differ-
ence between measured velocities and velocities
estimated using Wyllie’s time-average equation.
Intervals from Miocene–Pliocene cores from the
Great Bahama Bank with high positive velocity
deviation and oomoldic porosity show low perme-
ability. This finding corroborated the general no-
tion that rocks with a high amount of separate-vug
porosity have a high velocity and low permeabil-
ity. The application of the deviation log proved
less successful in Cretaceous carbonates where
the separation between the medium and deep in-
duction curves better detected the high flow zones
(Smith et al., 2003), indicating that the separation
between interparticle or intercrystalline and intra-
grain 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 pro-
duces parameters that quantify the relationship
between pore geometry, acoustic velocities, and per-
meability. The high correlation between the DIA
parameters and the petrophysical values illustrates
the advantages of quantitative geometrical param-
eters over qualitative pore-type classifications.
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 Shu’aiba 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 cool-
subtropical platforms on the Marion Plateau and
are also Miocene in age (Ehrenberg et al., 2006).
Vertical plugs were drilled from reservoir and non-
reservoir intervals to capture a wide range of total
porosity, rock types, and pore types. The set of se-
lected samples includes textures ranging from
coarse-grained packstones with interparticle to
vuggy porosity to fine-grained wackestone domi-
nated 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 sec-
tions are impregnated with blue epoxy and cut
from the end of the plug sample on which these
measurements were performed. Petrophysical mea-
surements, geological description, and DIA param-
eter values are listed in the Appendix.
METHODS
Petrophysical Measurements
Sonic velocity was measured using an ultrasonic
transmitter-receiver pair with piezoelectric trans-
ducers forming the core of the equipment. The
transducer arrangement measures one compres-
sional and two independent orthogonally polarized
shear waves simultaneously using a pulse trans-
mission technique developed by Birch (1960). Both
transducers (compressional and shear) generate
Weger et al. 1299
wave signals at frequencies centered on 1 MHz. All
of the samples were saturated with distilled water
and placed between two piezoelectric transducers
and sealed with a rubber sleeve from the surround-
ing oil in the pressure vessel. The pressure condi-
tions of the pore fluid inside the sleeve were kept
constant at 2 MPa. The confining pressure of the
surrounding oil was varied to produce a range of
effective pressure conditions. For this study, only
measurements with a fluid pressure of 2 MPa and
an effective pressure of 20 MPa were used.
Porosity for all samples was measured by de-
termining the difference between the measured
volume of the core plug (e.g., 1-in. [25.4-mm] di-
ameter  plug length) and the real volume deter-
mined by helium injection in a Boyle’s law porosi-
meter. The sample’s real volume is determined by
pumping a known amount of helium gas into the
sample chamber and measuring the pressure. He-
lium is able to fill all but the smallest connected
micropores of the sample. Gas permeability was
measured at a confining pressure of 20 bar. All val-
ues are reported as Klinkenberg-corrected perme-
abilities in units of millidarcies.
Descriptive Thin-Section Analysis
Thin sections were qualitatively described and clas-
sified using traditional carbonate rock and pore-
type classifications according to Dunham (1962),
the extended Dunham terminology (Embry and
Klovan, 1971), Choquette and Pray (1970), and
Lucia (1995, 1999). Rocks altered by recrystalliza-
tion that obliterated the original texture are referred
to as recrystallized rocks.
Pore space was described using a limited Cho-
quette and Pray (1970) terminology. In our sam-
ples, we determined interparticle, intercrystalline,
moldic, vuggy, and intraparticle porosity, and in-
cluded intraframe porosity to describe the pore
space within boundstone and rudstone. In addi-
tion, we use the term micromoldic (mG) to describe
microscopic molds (<20 mm) that can be detected
with strong magnification. As is characteristic for
carbonates, most samples contain more than one
pore type. The quantification of their respective
1300 Geohorizons
proportions is observer based, resulting in great dif-
ficulty to quantitatively assess their respective in-
fluence 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 poros-
ity, and minor pore types contribute with at least
5% to the visible pores. In the figures, only the domi-
nant pore type is used for color coding.
Digital Image Analysis Using
Cross-Polarized Light
The DIA method uses three basic steps: (1) image
acquisition, (2) image segmentation, and (3) calcula-
tion of pore geometry parameters. A comparison of
images with different orientation in cross-polarized
light (XPL) is used during image segmentation to
differentiate between pore space and matrix (Weger,
2006).
Photomicrographs obtained using conven-
tional digital cameras in combination with an opti-
cal light microscope (OLM) have been used in in-
vestigations of sandstones and carbonates. The
DIA relies heavily on accurate image segmenta-
tion, i.e., the separation of a specific feature such as
pore space from its background. Selection proce-
dures vary widely ranging from simple manual selec-
tion to more sophisticated automated threshold-
ing procedures (Crabtree et al., 1984; Ehrlich et al.,
1991; Anselmetti et al., 1998; Fens, 2000; Van den
Berg et al., 2002; Keehm, 2003) or probability-
theory-based maximum likelihood classification
(Lillesand and Kiefer, 1994; Van den Berg et al.,
2002). In our method, we use variations in extinc-
tion under XPL to image and segment pore and
rock space.
We use these differences in extinction behavior
to distinguish white air bubbles and unfilled pore
space from white crystals (Figure 1). To obtain the
differences, we photographed the thin section first
without the polarizing filter and subsequently
with a filter at three different angles (0°, 20°, 40°).
Using a Matlab program, the differences in pixel
intensity during rotation are calculated at the imag-
ing resolution of approximately 30 mm2/pixel.
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.

This difference is then combined with color values
for image segmentation into pore space and rock
(Weger, 2006).
Pore-Shape Parameters from Digital
Image Analysis
Two different types of parameters exist for pore
shape calculation (Russ, 1998): global parameters
that describe the entire pore system on a photograph
or thin section and local parameters that are ob-
tained from individual pores. All shape param-
eters used here are derived from two-dimensional
(2-D) images. We are aware of the limitation of
2-D-derived geometrical properties for correlation
to the physical property of the three-dimensional
sample volume. However, any kind of thin-section
analysis, quantitative or not, suffers from this limi-
tation. In addition, we performed a variety of tests
on computed tomography (CT) scans of core plugs
at a resolution comparable to that of our OLM
images that suggested that directionality has little
influence on geometrical parameter values.
In our DIA, 37 parameters are measured on
each thin section. A principal component analysis
was performed to identify the most important and
distinguishable parameters (Weger, 2006). Four
DIA parameters proved to best describe several
aspects of the pore system. Definitions and short
descriptions of the parameters’ characteristics are
given below. More specific explanations on the deri-
vation and characteristics of these parameters are
given by Weger (2006).
Perimeter Over Area
Perimeter over area (PoA) is the ratio between the
total pore-space area on a thin section and the total
perimeter that encloses the pore space. The PoA

Weger et al. 1301

can be regarded as a 2-D equivalent to a specific
surface, the ratio between pore volume and pore
surface. Generally, a small number indicates a sim-
ple geometry. The PoA values in our data range from
less than 40 mm−1 to more than 250 mm−1. Be-
cause of the almost log-normal distribution of
these parameter values, some figures are plotted
in log10(PoA) instead of PoA.
Dominant Pore Size
Dominant pore size (DomSize) is determined as the
upper boundary of pore sizes of which 50% of the
porosity on a thin section is composed. This param-
eter provides an indication of the pore-size range
that dominates the sample. In our data, DomSize
ranges from less than 100 mm to more than 1 mm
(0.039 in.) (units given in length as equivalent diam-
eter). As in the case of PoA, some figures show val-
ues of log10(DomSize) instead of DomSize.
Gamma
Gamma (g) was defined by Anselmetti et al., (1998)
as the perimeter over an area of an individual pore
normalized to a circle; i.e., a perfect round circle
would have a g of 1. The g describes the roundness
of the pore. In our data, the area-weighted mean
of g for the entire thin section ranges from 1.5
to 4.5.
Aspect Ratio
Aspect ratio (AR) is defined here as the ratio be-
tween the major and the minor axis of an ellipse
that encloses the pore. The AR describes the elon-
gation of the pore-bounding ellipsoid. The arith-
metic means of AR values for the entire thin sec-
tion range from 1 to 2.5. In acoustic modeling,
pores are commonly assumed to be ideal ellipsoidal
inclusions with a variable AR (Kuster and Toksöz,
1974; Norris, 1985). This ideal ellipsoid does not
consider the edginess, complexity, or surface rough-
ness of the pore.
Amount of Microporosity
In our methodology, macropores are defined by
pores, which are vertically connected through the
thin section, resulting in a minimum pore diameter
of approximately 30 mm (the thickness of a thin
1302 Geohorizons
section). The amount of microporosity is calcu-
lated as the difference between the observed poros-
ity in DIA and the measured porosity from the core
plug. The geometry of the micropores is not as-
sessed in this study, but the percentage of micro-
porosity is included in the analysis.
In Figure 2, several digital photographs of differ-
ent thin sections are placed next to a PoA-DomSize
crossplot to demonstrate that these parameters
vaguely recognize and separate traditional carbon-
ate pore classifications. These parameters are, how-
ever, not limited to the grouping of samples, as tra-
ditional carbonate pore-type classifications are, but
provide a continuous ordered scale of pore geome-
try. Coarse grainstones with large pores and rela-
tively simple pore systems tend to show large Dom-
Size 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 Wyllie’s time-
average equation. Some rearrangement of the time-
average equation leads to an explicit formulation
of Wyllie’s velocity estimate (VpW).
 
1f f 1
VpW ¼ þ ð1Þ
VpS VpF
where VpS and VpF are the compressional velocity
of the solid and the fluid, respectively, and f is po-
rosity. This formulation was used by Anselmetti
and Eberli (1999) to define the velocity deviation as
DVp ¼ Vp  VpW ð2Þ
where Vp is the measured compressional velocity
of the sample.
Figure 2. Crossplot of perimeter over area (PoA) versus dominant pore size (DomSize) where the measured acoustic velocity is super-
imposed in color. (a–d) 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 carbon-
ate 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).
This formulation can be used to incorporate
the velocity deviation into a regression model de-
fined as
Vp ¼ VpW þ c0 þ c1 x þ e ¼ ^y þ e ð3Þ
where Vp is the measured compressional velocity,
x represents any measured geometrical parameter
(e.g., PoA or DomSize), c0 and c1 are constants to be
determined during the regression, ^y represents the
new velocity estimate, and e is the error term that
in this case would contain both measurement error
and any other influences on velocity that were not
accounted for.
RELATIONSHIP OF PORE STRUCTURE TO
SONIC VELOCITY
The velocity-porosity data of all core-plug samples
show a characteristic first-order trend of increasing
acoustic velocity with decreasing porosity. At any
given porosity, a spread of velocity in excess of
1500 m/s (4921 ft/s) can be observed (Figure 3).
This large scatter cannot be explained by mineral-
ogy because most samples contain only minor
1304 Geohorizons
amounts of dolomite, and variations in grain veloc-
ity (e.g., calcite to dolomite) could not produce
such large velocity variations. In addition, all sam-
ples 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 con-
clusion and to quantify the effect of pore structure,
we relate the four digital image parameters, PoA,
DomSize, AR, and g, to sonic velocity and poros-
ity. Because each of the parameters captures a dif-
ferent characteristic of the pore system, this corre-
lation 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 im-
age 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 esti-
mated on the thin section. Most samples, however,
contain more than one pore type, and these addi-
tional pore geometries (the Appendix lists the mi-
nor pore types) might explain some of the scatter.
Nevertheless, some slight trends are visible. For ex-
ample, 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 poros-
ity within particles occupy the lower part of the
velocity-porosity data cloud. In contrast, samples
with interparticle porosity cover the entire velocity-
porosity space. Samples with high amounts of micro-
porosity (100–70%) 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 macro-
pores 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

Figure 5. Illustration of the importance
of pore structure as a factor controlling
acoustic velocity using pore-shape charac-
teristics as the third dimension. Three-
dimensional crossplot between sonic ve-
locity (Vp), porosity (f), and perimeter
over area (top) and dominant pore size
(bottom) with simple linear regression
surfaces.

clear trend in which at any given porosity, samples
with a low value of PoA (simple pore geometry)
have relatively high velocities, whereas samples
with high values of PoA (more complex pore ge-
ometry) have low velocities (Figure 4e). In other
words, samples with simple pore geometries are
faster than samples with a complicated pore struc-
ture if porosities are the same. The DomSize also
shows a clear trend of increasing velocity with in-
creasing values of DomSize at a given porosity.
This trend indicates that samples with larger pores
are faster than those with smaller pores at equal
porosities (Figure 4c). The roundness of individ-
ual pores is captured by g, which shows generally
low values in samples with relatively low velocities
at a given porosity and vice versa (Figure 4d). This
trend is similar as for the DomSize but not as well
developed (Figure 4c, d). The AR only displays a
very weak trend in velocity-porosity space where
samples with low velocity for their given porosity
are generally those with high ARs (Figure 4f ). The
parameters PoA and AR form trends with similar
orientation. Low values of PoA and AR correspond
to high velocities, and high values of PoA and AR
correspond to low velocities for a given porosity
(Figure 4e, f). The parameters DomSize and g form

1306 Geohorizons
 Table 1. Coefficients of Determination from the Correlation
trends in the opposite direction (Figure 4c, d), where
between Measured Velocity and Estimated Velocity from
low values correspond to low velocities and high
Regressions with the Following Digital Image Analysis Parameters
parameter values correspond to high velocities at
as Input Variables: Dominant Pore Size, Gamma, Perimeter
any given porosity. over Area, Aspect Ratio, and Percentage of Microporosity*
The trends formed by PoA and DomSize
(Figure 4c, e) are very strong (Figure 5), indicating Estimators Used for Velocity Prediction R2
that pore structure is a second independent param- Porosity 0.542
eter influencing velocity. In Figure 5, these quanti- Porosity and AR 0.549
tative DIA parameters are displayed together with Porosity and g 0.639
velocity and porosity in three dimensions. Many Porosity and DomSize 0.768
samples align closely with a simple linear best-fit Porosity and % microporosity 0.769
surface that is displayed for reference. This illus- Porosity and PoA 0.786
trates that what appears as a 2-D scatter (Figure 3) Porosity and PoA and AR 0.788
is mostly caused by the projection of this surface Porosity and PoA and DomSize 0.800
into a 2-D crossplot. Porosity and PoA and g 0.810
Porosity and PoA and % microporosity 0.820
A crossplot of PoA and DomSize with acoustic
Porosity and PoA and % microporosity and AR 0.822
velocity superimposed in color (Figure 2) illustrates
Porosity and PoA and % microporosity and g 0.832
the link between the parameters PoA, DomSize,
Porosity and PoA and % microporosity and DomSize 0.840
and acoustic velocity and rock texture. Four thin- Porosity and PoA and % microporosity and 0.841
section images are shown to illustrate the differ- DomSize and AR
ence in pore structure detected by high, medium, Porosity and PoA and % microporosity and 0.844
and low parameter values. Low-velocity samples are DomSize and g
characterized by DomSize below 200–300 mm and Porosity and PoA and % microporosity and 0.845
PoA above 50 mm−1. The corresponding thin-section DomSize and AR and g
images are dominated by small pores, a significant *The geometric parameters PoA and DomSize in addition to porosity significantly
amount of small particles, and/or abundant micro- improve the correlation, whereas the combination of several geometrical param-
porosity (Figure 2c, d). In contrast, high-velocity sam- eters does not produce significant improvement. DomSize = dominant pore size;
g = gamma; PoA = perimeter over area; AR = aspect ratio; % microporosity =
ples are characterized by DomSize above 300 mm percentage of microporosity.
and PoA below 50 mm−1. The corresponding thin-
section images show larger pores, larger particles,
and little to no mud (Figure 2a, b). In general, high As a first step, porosity alone is used as an esti-
velocities correspond to samples with simple and mator of compressional velocity. The correlation
large pores with smooth pore surfaces, low specific between the measured and the estimated velocity
surface, and a small amount of microporosity. resulted in a coefficient of determination (R2) of
0.542. Second, a linear combination of porosity
Quantitative Assessment of Different and a single DIA parameter (g, AR, PoA, DomSize,
Geometric Characteristics % microporosity) is used to estimate compres-
sional velocity. The parameter AR combined with
To explore the link between velocity, porosity, and porosity produces the least effective velocity esti-
pore-space geometry quantitatively, velocity is es- mate (R2 = 0.549, Table 1). The highest corre-
timated using multivariate linear regression from lation coefficient of all estimates (R2 = 0.845) is
combinations of porosity and the DIA parameters. obtained by combining porosity with all DIA pa-
The geometrical parameters g, PoA, DomSize, rameters (g, AR, PoA, DomSize, and % micro-
and AR, and the percentage of microporosity were porosity), but this correlation coefficient is only
used for multivariate linear regression. The correla- slightly better than the estimate from a combina-
tion coefficients between measured and estimated tion of porosity with PoA, DomSize, and % micro-
velocity are listed in Table 1. porosity (R2 = 0.840).

Weger et al. 1307

Figure 6. Crossplots between velocity deviation and digital image parameters. Both parameters, perimeter over area (PoA) and domi-
nant pore size (DomSize), are capable of explaining more than 60% of the variability in velocity deviation.

Crossplots between the velocity deviation and
the log10 of DIA parameters PoA and DomSize
(Figure 6) result in an R2 of 0.65 and an R2 of
0.62, respectively. This means that these two quan-
titative geometric parameters are able to explain
62–65% of the deviation of acoustic velocity (DVp)
from Wyllie’s time-average equation at a given
porosity.
PERMEABILITY AND PORE SHAPE
Pore size and specific surface influence permeabil-
ity. In our data, pore size and pore network com-
plexity (PoA), which is the 2-D equivalent of a
specific surface, have a strong influence on perme-
ability (Figure 7). Samples with low permeability
for their given porosity have high values of PoA

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
and low values of DomSize. In turn, samples with
high permeability for their given porosity show low
values of PoA and high values of DomSize. Low val-
ues of PoA represent a simple pore structure and
low specific surface, whereas high values of PoA
stem from a more complex pore structure and high
specific surface (Figures 2, 7).
Quantitative Permeability Estimation
Bear (1972) refined Kozeny’s (1927) equation to
express permeability as a function of porosity, spe-
cific surface, and tortuosity. Here we estimate per-
meability using pore geometry parameters and in-
corporate them into Kozeny’s equation.
k ¼ cf3 =S2 ð4Þ
where k is permeability, f is porosity, c is Ko-
zeny’s factor, which can be estimated from poros-
ity (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 esti-
mate permeability. First, estimates of permeabil-
ity are derived from porosity alone. For compari-
son, Kozeny’s S is expressed as a function of PoA
and DomSize and used for permeability estima-
tion. Finally, the relationship between acoustic ve-
locity and pore geometry is used to calculate S di-
rectly 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 perme-
ability using porosity alone is extremely ineffec-
tive (R2 = 0.143, black dots in Figure 8). These es-
timates 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, po-
rosity, and PoA allows for the substitution of PoA
by a geometry estimate derived from sonic veloc-
ity. Using this geometry estimate, we obtain an R2
correlation between a measured and estimated
permeability of 0.419 (red dots in Figure 8).
Microporosity and pore-throat diameter are im-
portant to properly predict flow properties. Thin-
section-based pore-structure analyses like the pre-
sented method here do not capture pore geometries
below the 30-mm threshold, but the macro- and
mesopore system represents a large part of the flow
capacity. This is reflected in the improvement of
the permeability estimates from R2 = 0.143 to R2 =
0.415 gained by incorporating the macroscale DIA
parameters into the Kozceny equation (Figure 8).
Further improvements of permeability estimates
will be possible using micro-CT scans (Knackstedt
et al., 2008) or by combining DIA analysis and mer-
cury injection capillary pressure.
DISCUSSION
Anselmetti and Eberli (1999) demonstrated how
acoustic velocities in carbonates are influenced by
porosity and a variety of pore structures using tradi-
tional carbonate pore-type classification (Choquette
and Pray, 1970). In our data, the separation of sam-
ples grouped according to Choquette and Pray’s
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 pore-
space geometry using DIA parameters such as PoA
(Figure 4e) has the advantage of providing a con-
tinuous numerical parameter that can be used di-
rectly in a mathematical formulation used to esti-
mate velocity.
The AR is the geometrical parameter most com-
monly used in theoretical models to explain varia-
tions in rock stiffness and acoustic velocities (Assefa
et al., 2003; Saleh and Castagna, 2004; Agersborg
et al., 2005; Kumar and Han, 2005; Rossebø 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 assump-
tion. 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).

of microporosity and (2) the size and complexity
of the macropore system are much more important
factors for determining the stiffness and, thus, the
acoustic behavior of carbonates (Table 1). A recent
study of oomoldic rocks by Baechle et al. (2007)
also documented that the percentage of spherical
pore shape is not the dominant factor in producing
positive deviations from the Wyllie time-average
equation. They attribute the variable acoustic re-
sponse of up to 2000 m/s (6562 ft/s) at a given po-
rosity to variations in intercrystalline porosity in
the rock frame; a conclusion that is corroborated
by ultra-high-resolution CT tomography and scan-
ning electron microscope (SEM) analysis on the
same samples (Knackstedt et al., 2008).
Baechle et al. (2008b) proposed that the frac-
tion of stiff macropores versus soft micropores is
responsible for the variation of velocity at any given
porosity and develop a rock physics model that cap-
tures 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 ve-
locity than a formation with predominantly inter-
crystalline and/or interparticle porosity has been
used for quantitative estimates of separate-vug po-
rosity from acoustic logs (e.g., Nurmi, 1984; Lucia

1310 Geohorizons

and Conti, 1987; Wang and Lucia, 1993; Anselmetti
and Eberli,1999). To test this assumption, we distrib-
ute the samples into two groups. The vuggy group
consists of samples whose primary pore types are
vuggy, moldic, intraframe, and intraparticle poros-
ity. The interparticle group consists of samples with
interparticle and intercrystalline porosity as the
primary pore type. Plotting the two groups in the
velocity-porosity space reveals a considerable over-
lap (Figure 9). The samples of the vuggy group gen-
erally plot above the Wyllie time-average equa-
tion, and a cluster of interparticle samples in the
low velocity area is observed. However, nearly an
equal amount of samples from each group display
an exceptionally high velocity at a given porosity
(Figure 9).
High velocity at a given, sometimes high poros-
ity is possible if pore compressibility is low and
consequently if the stiffness of the rock is not sig-
nificantly decreased (Mavko and Mukerji, 1995).
Such a stiff frame is well known to occur in rocks
with vugs or molds, but it also occurs in rocks with
interparticle and intercrystalline porosity. A pro-
cess that can produce frame stiffening in these latter
rocks is contact cementation (Dvorkin and Nur,
Figure 9. Velocity-porosity
crossplot of samples measured
at 20 MPa with annotation of
porosity types separated into two
groups. Open circles are sam-
ples with vuggy, moldic, intra-
frame, 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 inter-
crystalline porosity can in some
cases have a stiff framework
and high velocity.
1996). In carbonates, cementation at grain contacts
are meniscus cements derived from meteoric waters
(Harris, 1978; Longman, 1980) or micritic bridging
cements in the marine realm (Hillgärtner et al.,
2001). In a Holocene grainstone, small amounts
of bridging cement (15% of the total rock) produce
a Vp of 4500 m/s (14,764 ft/s) at 20 MPa (Eberli
et al., 2003). Some of the samples displayed in
Figure 9 are dolomites; in this case, the extreme
stiffening of the frame is not caused by early cement
but more likely by interlocking crystals. Anselmetti
et al. (1997) documented this process on Neogene
carbonates, in which the velocity of sucrosic dolo-
mite increases dramatically as isolated rhombohe-
dra grow together to form a stiff framework.
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
The DIA quantifies the influence of pore types on
velocity and permeability. A combination of porosity
and (image-derived) microporosity is capable of
estimating velocity with R2 = 0.77; a combina-
tion of porosity and digital image parameters is
able to explain more than 85% of the variation
Weger et al. 1311
of acoustic velocity (R2 = 0.85). The geometrical
characteristics most influential for acoustic velocity
are the complexity of pore space (PoA) and the sizes
of the pores (DomSize). These parameters com-
bined with porosity estimate velocity with R2 =
0.79 and 0.77, respectively. In short, carbonates with
a large amount of microporosity, a complex pore
structure (high specific surface), and small pores
generally show low acoustic velocity at a given po-
rosity. Samples with a simple pore structure (low
specific surface) and large pores show high acoustic
velocity for their porosity.
Knowledge of roundness (g) and the aspect ra-
tio of pores (AR) does not significantly enhance
the ability to estimate sonic velocity in carbonates.
Thus, incorporating parameters that capture both
size and complexity (e.g., DomSize and PoA) po-
tentially improves acoustic velocity models.
The finding that samples with interparticle
and intercrystalline porosity can display high ve-
locity similarly to samples with separate-vug poros-
ity is an unwelcomed finding because its nonunique
acoustic response adds uncertainty to quantitative
estimates of separate-vug porosity from velocity
logs. It is well documented that separate-vug po-
rosity is mostly ineffective with regard to velocity,
and in reservoirs that are dominated by such po-
rosity (oomoldic), these estimates work well (Lucia
and Conti, 1987; Wang and Lucia, 1993; Anselmetti
and Eberli, 1999). The nonunique acoustic re-
sponse of separate-vug porosity might explain why
estimates based on these models do not always
yield the expected results. Given the relationship
between permeability and the DIA parameters
PoA and DomSize, in theory, it should be possi-
ble to discriminate high and low permeability at a
given porosity directly from well-log data. For ex-
ample, rocks with high acoustic velocity for their
given porosity generally show low specific surface
(PoA) and large pore sizes (DomSize, Figures 4, 5).
Rocks with low specific surface and large pore
sizes also have high permeability for their given po-
rosity (Figure 7, Appendix). These relationships
imply two things: (1) not all fast intervals in car-
bonates that produce a positive acoustic impedance
are necessarily tight, low-porosity sequences, and
(2) a quantitative assessment of the pore types by
DIA and their acoustic response is beneficial for
an accurate interpretation of log-based pore-type
estimates.
APPENDIX: DATA TABLE

Appendix. Texture, Pore Type, DIM (Digital Image Analysis) Parameter Values, and Petrophysical
Measurements*
Dunham Dominant Minor DomSize PoA Micro
Sample Index** Pore Type† Pore Type† Gamma (mm) (mm−1) AR VP (m/s) Phi (%) Phi (%) K (md)

C5-B1 G IP 2.15 39 167 0.52 3177 28.0 26.8 6.7

C5-B100 G MO 2.37 48 151 0.59 3185 27.6 25.3 11.3
C5-B101 G IP WG 2.25 73 103 0.55 3262 30.4 25.3 35.6
C5-B102 G IP MO 2.61 188 69 0.54 3738 25.8 21.8 26.1
C5-B103 G IP MO 2.61 188 69 0.54 3866 26.3 22.3 26.1
C5-B104 G IP 2.17 87 89 0.54 3458 29.0 24.4 37.8
C5-B105 G IP FR, MO 1.78 106 83 0.59 3853 23.7 21.7 4.5
C5-B106 G IP MO 2.55 202 58 0.54 4050 29.9 21.4 184.0
C5-B107 P-G IP 2.05 63 117 0.58 3406 27.4 25.3 13.8
C5-B108 G IP 1.98 78 99 0.52 4893 12.8 9.8 9.8
C5-B109 P-G MO 2.03 113 79 0.57 3435 26.2 22.9 7.7
C5-B110 G WF 2.38 208 52 0.53 4259 22.5 17.3 4.2
C5-B111 G WF 2.38 208 52 0.53 4177 22.1 16.9 4.2
C5-B112 G mG 1.85 52 137 0.61 3466 26.7 25.7 3.9
C5-B113 G IP 2.78 108 90 0.56 3403 27.4 19.3 25.8

1312 Geohorizons
Appendix. Cont.

Dunham Dominant Minor DomSize PoA Micro

Sample Index** Pore Type† Pore Type† Gamma (mm) (mm−1) AR VP (m/s) Phi (%) Phi (%) K (md)

C5-B114 G IP WG 2.87 97 92 0.54 3377 28.0 22.6 23.5

C5-B115 G WF IP 2.96 262 55 0.54 3867 29.8 23.0 63.8
C5-B116 G IP 2.10 90 84 0.53 3520 26.8 18.4 36.7
C5-B117 G-P IP MO 2.43 170 66 0.55 3974 25.4 15.1 64.7
C5-B118 G IP 3.74 178 73 0.57 3714 29.4 24.4 55.3
C5-B119 G IP MO 2.23 151 71 0.55 4782 17.9 14.8 2.9
C5-B120 G IP WG 2.44 143 70 0.54 3513 28.3 24.4 71.5
C5-B58 FR VUG IP 2.88 560 34 0.54 4703 21.8 15.5 2195.0
C5-B60 RD IP WP, MO 2.58 680 30 0.53 4555 25.7 15.9 1321.1
C5-B61 P VUG IP 1.95 421 45 0.59 4564 18.7 17.1 12.7
C5-B72 RD-FR IP VUG, WF 2.89 519 42 0.49 4628 15.9 10.5 9.0
C5-B74 G WF IP 2.51 1200 18 0.54 4362 23.6 10.6 646.0
C5-B75 P-G mG MO 1.84 50 150 0.60 3466 29.4 28.2 13.2
C5-B79 G IP IP 2.61 31 196 0.50 3179 26.4 25.1 2.1
C5-B80 P mG MO 1.97 39 157 0.56 2898 30.8 30.2 4.1
C5-B81 G-RD IP MO, WP 2.19 224 42 0.54 3856 26.7 14.8 113.5
C5-B82 W-P MO VUG 1.82 129 63 0.57 3936 28.8 25.8 20.8
C5-B84 P-G IP MO 1.61 102 71 0.57 4171 20.1 17.5 4.1
C5-B85 G IP MO 2.31 106 96 0.57 3768 27.1 26.3 14.0
C5-B86 W mG 2.09 50 167 0.59 4413 15.9 15.5 0.1
C5-B87 RD-FL MO IP 2.32 143 78 0.57 3374 30.0 28.5 19.9
C5-B88 FL-RD WP IP, MO, FR 2.15 294 49 0.54 4102 23.9 21.5 1.5
C5-B89 P IP MO 2.14 92 115 0.56 4084 21.9 10.9 4.7
C5-B90 G IP 2.57 87 109 0.51 4023 21.4 18.0 221.5
C5-B91 FL MO IP, FR 2.50 154 95 0.52 5156 12.1 10.1 5.0
C5-B92 G-RD IP WP 1.86 135 62 0.58 3974 24.3 18.5 99.8
C5-B93 G-P MO MO 3.74 215 81 0.54 3786 29.7 26.6 24.4
C5-B94 G-P IP VUG 4.22 43 164 0.51 3266 26.2 24.8 1.6
C5-B95 G IP 2.89 68 109 0.48 3481 29.8 27.5 18.3
C5-B96 G-P IP 2.25 53 169 0.46 3535 28.4 13.4 2.4
C5-B97 P-G IP 2.70 27 215 0.59 3324 22.3 22.1 1.7
C5-B98 G-P IP 3.48 20 244 0.44 3692 21.8 21.5 2.3
C5-B99 G MO FR 1.70 109 74 0.64 3156 28.0 26.2 4.5
C5-L10 P WP MO 2.17 157 139 0.60 4753 13.4 8.4 0.1
C5-L11 rDol VUG IX 2.85 345 48 0.57 5791 14.2 4.3 2.0
C5-L12 G-P WP IP 2.36 118 147 0.52 4011 26.3 25.1 0.6
C5-L13 rDol VUG IX 3.05 368 47 0.55 5747 20.0 12.7 562.0
C5-L14 rDol MO IX 2.15 440 36 0.55 5797 19.5 9.1 2.9
C5-L15 rDol IX VUG 3.53 451 40 0.55 5180 26.0 8.2 2340.0
C5-L16 rDol VUG IX 3.74 790 28 0.56 4737 33.6 12.4 15,049.0
C5-L17 G IP 3.64 310 71 0.55 5333 17.8 15.3 91.9
C5-L19 rDol VUG IX 3.23 452 43 0.55 4658 31.9 12.4 5564.0
C5-L2 G IP MO 3.77 447 41 0.54 3894 41.6 18.3 15,966.0
C5-L20 rDol VUG IX 2.57 466 36 0.55 5991 11.2 1.2 123.0
C5-L21 rDol VUG IX 2.73 297 51 0.55 5949 13.0 5.5 28.7
C5-L22 rDol IX VUG 2.29 205 77 0.56 5890 13.3 5.2 92.2
C5-L23 rDol IX MO 3.15 372 49 0.55 3274 44.7 32.0 525.0
C5-L24 P IP MO 2.61 115 111 0.56 3961 25.2 15.2 1.0
C5-L25 rDol VUG IX 2.45 370 38 0.55 5430 21.0 10.8 131.0
C5-L26 G MO 2.09 121 112 0.52 5361 10.8 10.1 0.0

Weger et al. 1313

Appendix. Cont.

Dunham Dominant Minor DomSize PoA Micro

Sample Index** Pore Type† Pore Type† Gamma (mm) (mm−1) AR VP (m/s) Phi (%) Phi (%) K (md)

C5-L27 B WF IX 3.27 357 51 0.54 6148 14.7 7.0 8.1

C5-L28 P IP MO 3.07 453 53 0.55 4249 27.2 21.3 895.0
C5-L29 G-B IP WF 2.22 413 38 0.56 5662 17.5 10.0 535.0
C5-L3 rDol IX VUG 2.30 254 55 0.56 6080 10.1 2.9 12.2
C5-L30 rDol VUG IX 2.90 702 31 0.56 5918 14.2 4.2 240.0
C5-L31 rDol IX VUG 2.95 602 29 0.56 4650 32.1 12.9 29,369.0
C5-L32 G IP 2.20 355 41 0.55 5908 16.4 10.5 698.0
C5-L33 FL IP VUG 2.92 643 32 0.56 5356 24.2 8.9 12.7
C5-L34 rDol MO IX 2.71 290 55 0.56 4951 24.8 12.7 209.0
C5-L35 G MO WP 2.46 488 304 0.45 5297 11.8 11.7 2.0
C5-L36 rDol IX VUG 3.28 652 35 0.54 4791 36.1 17.5 11,940.0
C5-L37 P WP IP 3.50 852 41 0.55 3956 29.7 23.5 25.2
C5-L38 P MO 2.55 440 51 0.56 4381 20.8 15.3 1.5
C5-L39 P mG IP 2.50 325 61 0.55 4246 25.0 23.7 4.3
C5-L4 rDol VUG IX 3.13 439 42 0.56 5303 20.3 3.8 29.1
C5-L40 rDol MO IX 2.66 412 53 0.53 5640 13.0 7.5 0.4
C5-L41 G IP 2.49 425 40 0.54 5604 18.9 10.4 2550.0
C5-L42 G MO WP 2.39 132 87 0.54 4520 21.1 18.2 0.1
C5-L43 rDol IX VUG 2.43 362 44 0.56 5132 24.1 14.2 167.0
C5-L44 rDol MO IX 3.49 874 26 0.53 5407 21.8 0.0 0.7
C5-L45 rDol VUG IX 2.62 14 35 0.56 6325 9.7 0.9 0.7
C5-L46 G WP MO 1.97 134 79 0.55 4615 17.2 5.2 0.1
C5-L47 P-G IP MO 3.01 471 49 0.57 4784 18.2 12.8 1575.0
C5-L48 rDol VUG IX 2.62 514 38 0.55 5271 26.5 16.8 25,775.0
C5-L49 P-G IP MO 2.78 352 42 0.55 4860 26.2 13.9 2032.0
C5-L5 rDol IX VUG 3.05 344 45 0.55 5871 13.4 3.1 122.0
C5-L50 rDol VUG IX 2.78 247 67 0.54 5335 21.0 15.5 16.1
C5-L51 rDol IX MO 3.27 318 53 0.53 4259 32.7 16.7 2423.0
C5-L52 P IP 2.00 93 137 0.56 5442 8.9 8.5 0.0
C5-L53 G MO IX 2.67 347 54 0.56 5082 25.2 11.2 331.0
C5-L54 G-B IP WF 2.86 595 38 0.57 6183 11.6 6.3 271.0
C5-L55 G-B WF IP 2.24 388 46 0.56 5910 17.2 11.7 401.0
C5-L6 G IP MO 2.68 279 54 0.53 4093 29.5 24.3 1410.0
C5-L7 P WP MO 2.61 353 108 0.52 4977 14.2 13.8 0.7
C5-L8 rDol VUG IX 3.71 1031 25 0.55 6325 10.5 0.5 94.2
C5-L9 rDol VUG IX 2.44 331 48 0.56 5850 12.4 6.0 54.3
C5-M18 G-P IP MO 2.90 112 105 0.54 4038 26.6 20.0 15.0
C5-M56 P-G VUG MO, IP 2.56 393 35 0.58 3725 33.5 15.5 390.0
C5-M57 G-P IP VUG, WP 2.98 233 65 0.55 3612 28.9 19.3 22.0
C5-M59 G-P IP MO 2.27 81 125 0.59 3671 26.0 22.4 14.0
C5-M62 P-G IP MO 2.18 76 140 0.57 3978 23.6 19.3 13.0
C5-M63 P IP IP 3.73 230 56 0.53 4346 32.0 24.1 300.0
C5-M64 P IP mG 2.04 49 149 0.58 3524 29.4 25.0 21.0
C5-M65 G-P MO IX 1.91 521 36 0.57 4357 20.8 15.5 3.7
C5-M66 rDol VUG IX 2.56 521 36 0.54 5604 13.0 7.9 150.0
C5-M67 P VUG IP 2.56 685 43 0.53 4285 22.5 16.5 36.0
C5-M68 P VUG 1.86 113 78 0.55 4105 26.7 22.8 26.0
C5-M69 G IX VUG 2.38 267 51 0.54 4477 20.8 16.2 120.0
C5-M70 P-G MO IP 2.18 98 97 0.57 3829 31.9 27.6 26.0
C5-M71 rDol IX VUG, MO 2.46 341 43 0.56 5531 11.4 4.2 150.0

1314 Geohorizons
Appendix. Cont.

Dunham Dominant Minor DomSize PoA Micro

Sample Index** Pore Type† Pore Type† Gamma (mm) (mm−1) AR VP (m/s) Phi (%) Phi (%) K (md)

C5-M73 G-P MO IP 2.05 118 110 0.57 4092 23.4 20.1 8.6
C5-M76 W-P IP MO 2.81 96 116 0.57 3696 27.9 24.3 11.0
C5-M77 P IP MO 2.05 174 67 0.56 4450 21.7 20.2 3.9
C5-M78 P MO VUG, IP 1.91 148 67 0.57 4118 30.0 24.0 63.0
C5-M83 P MO 2.20 46 163 0.59 4117 24.1 21.6 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 properties: AAPG Annual Convention, Abstracts Vol-

Agersborg, R., T. A. Johansen, and M. Jakobsen, 2005, The
T-matrix approach for carbonate rocks: Society of Explora-
tion 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. 287–323, doi:10.1007/BF00998333.
Anselmetti, F. S., and G. P. Eberli, 1997, Sonic velocity in car-
bonate sediments and rocks, in I. Palaz and K. J. Marfurt,
eds., Carbonate seismology: Society of Exploration Geo-
physicists, Geophysical Developments Series 6, p. 53–74.
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. 450–466.
Anselmetti, F. S., G. A. von Salis, K. J. Cunningham, and
G. P. Eberli, 1997, Controls and distribution of sonic ve-
locity in Neogene carbonates and siliciclastics from the
subsurface of the Florida Keys: Implications for seismic
reflectivity: Marine Geology, v. 144, p. 9–31, doi:10.1016
/S0025-3227(97)00081-9.
Anselmetti, F. S., S. M. Luthi, and G. P. Eberli, 1998, Quanti-
tative characterization of carbonate pore systems by digi-
tal image analysis: AAPG Bulletin, v. 82, p. 1815–1836.
Archie, G. E., 1952, Classification of carbonate reservoir
rocks and petrophysical considerations: AAPG Bulletin,
v. 36, p. 278–298.
Assefa, S., C. McCann, and J. Sothcott, 2003, Velocities of
compressional and shear waves in limestones: Geophysi-
cal Prospecting, v. 51, p. 1–13, 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 per-
meability 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
ume, v. 16, p. 7.
Baechle, G. T., G. P. Eberli, A. Boyd, J.-M. DeGrange, and L.
Al-Kharusi, 2008a, Oomoldic carbonates: Pore structure
and fluid effects on sonic velocity: Society of Exploration
Geophysicists, Expanded Abstracts, v. 27, p. 1660.
Baechle, G. T., A. Colpaert, G. P. Eberli, and R. Weger,
2008b, Effects of microporosity on sonic velocity in car-
bonate rocks: Leading Edge, v. 27, no. 8, p. 1012–1018,
doi:10.1190/1.2967554.
Bear, J., 1972, Dynamics of fluids in porous media: Mineola,
New York, Dover Publications, 764 p.
Birch, F., 1960, The velocity of compressional waves in rocks
to 10 kilobars: 1: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 65,
p. 1083–1102, doi:10.1029/JZ065i004p01083.
Choquette, P. W., and L. C. Pray, 1970, Geologic nomencla-
ture and classification of porosity in sedimentary carbon-
ates: AAPG Bulletin, v. 54, p. 207–244.
Crabtree Jr., S. J., R. Ehrlich, and C. Prince, 1984, Evaluation
of strategies for segmentation of blue-dyed pores in thin
sections of reservoir rocks: Computer Vision, Graphics
and Image Processing, v. 28, p. 1–18, doi:10.1016/0734
-189X(84)90136-1.
Doveton, J. H., 1994, Geological log interpretation—Reading
the rocks from wireline logs: SEPM Short Course 29,
169 p.
Dunham, R. J., 1962, Classification of carbonate rocks
according to depositional texture: AAPG Memoir 1,
p. 108–121.
Dvorkin, J., and A. Nur, 1996, Elasticity of high-porosity sand-
stones: Theory for two North Sea data sets: Geophysics,
v. 61, no. 5, p. 1363–1370, doi:10.1190/1.1444059.
Eberli, G. P., G. T. Baechle, F. S. Anselmetti, and M. L. Incze,
2003, Factors controlling elastic properties in carbonate
sediments and rocks: The Leading Edge, v. 22, p. 654–
660, doi:10.1190/1.1599691.
Ehrenberg, S. N., G. P. Eberli, and G. Baechle, 2006, Porosity-
permeability relationships in Miocene carbonate plat-
forms and slopes seaward of the Great Barrier Reef, Aus-
tralia (ODP Leg 194, Marion Plateau): Sedimentology,

Weger et al. 1315

 v. 53, p. 1289–1318, doi:10.1111/j.1365-3091.2006
.00817.x.
Ehrlich, R., S. J. Crabtree, K. O. Horkowitz, and J. P. Horkowitz,
1991, Petrography and reservoir physics: I. Objective
classification of reservoir porosity: AAPG Bulletin,
v. 75, p. 1547–1562.
Embry, A. F., and J. E. Klovan, 1971, A Late Devonian reef
tract on northeastern Banks Island, Northwest Terri-
tories: Canadian Petroleum Geology Bulletin, v. 19,
p. 730–781.
Fabricius, I. L., G. Baechle, G. P. Eberli, and R. Weger, 2007,
Estimating permeability of carbonate rocks from poros-
ity and vP/vS: Geophysics, v. 72, no. 5, p. E185–E191,
doi:10.1190/1.2756081.
Fens, T. W., 2000, Petrophysical properties from small rock
samples using image analysis techniques: Doctoral dis-
sertation thesis, Technical University of Delft, Nether-
lands, 199 p.
Harris, P. M., 1978, Holocene marine cemented sands, Joulter’s
Ooid Shoal, Bahamas: Gulf Coast Association of Geologi-
cal Societies Transactions, v. 28, p. 175–185.
Hillgärtner, H., C. Dupraz, and W. Hug, 2001, Microbially in-
duced cementation of carbonate sands: Are micritic ce-
ments indicators of vadose diagenesis?: Sedimentology,
v. 48, p. 117–131, doi:10.1046/j.1365-3091.2001.00356.x.
Keehm, Y., 2003, Computational rock physics; transport
properties in porous media and applications: Doctoral
dissertation thesis, Stanford University, Stanford, Cali-
fornia, 135 p.
Kenter, J. A. M., et al., 1995, Parameters controlling acoustic
properties of carbonate and volcaniclastic sediments
at sites 866 and 869, in E. L. Winterer, ed., Proceed-
ings of the Ocean Drilling Program, Scientific Results,
Leg 143, Northwest Pacific atolls and guyots: College
Station, ODP, Texas A&M University, p. 287–303.
Knackstedt, M. A., R. M. Sok, A. P. Sheppard, S. Latham, M.
Madadi, C. H. Arns, G. Baechle, and G. P. Eberli, 2008,
Probing pore systems in carbonates: Correlations to petro-
physical properties: Society of Petrophysicists and Well
Log Analysts 49th Annual Logging Symposium, Edin-
burgh, Scotland, p. 1–17.
Kozeny, J., 1927, Über kapillare leitung des Wassers im Boden:
Sitzungsberichte der Wiener Akademie des Wissen-
schaften, v. 136, p. 271–306.
Kumar, M., and D.-h. Han, 2005, Pore shape effect on elastic
properties of carbonate rocks: Society of Exploration
Geophysicists, Expanded Abstracts, v. 24, p. 1477–1480.
Kuster, G. T., and M. N. Toksoz, 1974, Velocity and attenua-
tion of seismic waves in two-phase media: Part I. Theo-
retical formulations: Geophysics, v. 39, p. 587–606,
doi:10.1190/1.1440450.
Lillesand, T. M., and R. W. Kiefer, 1994, Remote sensing and
image interpretation: New York, John Wiley and Sons,
v. 1, 733 p.
Longman, M. W., 1980, Carbonate diagenetic textures from
near surface diagenetic environments: AAPG Bulletin,
v. 64, p. 461–487.
Lønøy, A., 2006, Making sense of carbonate pore system:
AAPG Bulletin, v. 90, p. 1381–1405, doi:10.1306
/03130605104.
1316 Geohorizons
Lucia, F. J., 1983, Petrophysical parameters estimated from
visual descriptions of carbonate rocks, a field classifica-
tion of carbonate pore space: Journal of Petroleum Tech-
nology, v. 35, p. 629–637.
Lucia, F. J., 1987, Rock fabric, permeability, and log relation-
ships in a upward-shoaling vuggy carbonate sequence:
Bureau of Economic Geology, University of Texas at
Austin, Geological Circular 87.5, 22 p.
Lucia, F. J., 1991, Geological engineering aspects of the San
Andres reservoirs in the Lawyer Canyon, Algerita Es-
carpment outcrop and Seminole, subsurface field, in C.
Kerans, F. J. Lucia, R. K. Senger, G. E. Fogg, H. S.
Nance, E. Kasap, and S. D. Hovorka, eds., Characteriza-
tion of reservoir heterogeneity in carbonate-ram sys-
tems, San Andres/Grayburg, Permian Basin: Bureau of
Economic Geology, University of Texas at Austin, Final
Report, p. 117–174.
Lucia, F. J., 1995, Rock-fabric/petrophysical classification of
carbonate pore space for reservoir characterization:
AAPG Bulletin, v. 79, p. 1275–1300.
Lucia, F. J., 1999, Carbonate reservoir characterization: Ber-
lin, Springer-Verlag, 226 p.
Lucia, F. J., and R. D. Conti, 1987, Rock fabric, permeability,
and log relationships in an upward-shoaling, vuggy car-
bonate sequence: Bureau of Economic Geology, Uni-
versity of Texas at Austin, Geological Circular 87-5,
22 p.
Mavko, G., and T. Mukerji, 1995, Seismic pore space com-
pressibility and Gassmann’s relation: Geophysics, v. 60,
p. 1743–1749, doi:10.1190/1.1443907.
Norris, A. N., 1985, A differential scheme for the effective mod-
uli of composites: Mechanics of Materials, v. 4, p. 1–16.
Nurmi, R. D., 1984, Carbonate pore systems: Porosity/per-
meability relationships and geological analysis: AAPG
Bulletin, v. 68, no. 4, p. 513–514.
Rafavich, F., C. H. S. C. Kendall, and T. P. Todd, 1984, The
relationship between acoustic properties and the petro-
graphic character of carbonate rocks: Geophysics, v. 49,
p. 1622–1636, doi:10.1190/1.1441570.
Rossebø, Ø. H., I. Brevik, G. R. Ahmadi, and L. Adam, 2005,
Modeling of acoustic properties in carbonate rocks: So-
ciety of Exploration Geophysicists, Expanded Abstracts,
v. 24, p. 1505–1508.
Russ, J. C., 1998, The image processing handbook: Boca
Raton, Florida, CRC Press, 771 p.
Saleh, A. A., and J. P. Castagna, 2004, Revisiting the Wyllie
time average equation in the case of near-spherical pores:
Geophysics, v. 69, p. 45–55, doi:10.1190/1.1649374.
Schlumberger, 1972, Log interpretation, Vol. I: Principles:
New York, Schlumberger Limited, 113 p.
Schlumberger, 1974, Log interpretation, Vol. II: Applica-
tions: New York, Schlumberger Limited, 116 p.
Smith, L. B., G. P. Eberli, J. L. Masaferro, and S. Al-Dhahab,
2003, Discrimination of effective from ineffective poros-
ity in heterogeneous Cretaceous carbonates, Al Ghubar,
Oman: AAPG Bulletin, no. 9, v. 87, p. 1509–1529, doi:10
.1306/041703200180.
Sun, Y. F., J. L. Massaferro, G. P. Eberli, and Y. C. Teng,
2001, Quantifying the effects of pore structure and fluid
saturation on acoustic wave velocity in carbonates, in E. C.
 Shang, Q. Li, and T. F. Gao, eds., Theoretical and compu-
tational 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 touch-
ing grains in digital images of thin sections: Computers
and Geosciences, v. 28, p. 179–190, doi:10.1016
/S0098-3004(01)00038-3.
Wang, R. F. P., and F. J. Lucia, 1993, Comparison of empiri-
cal models for calculating the vuggy porosity and cementa-
tion exponent of carbonates from log responses: Bureau of
Economic Geology, University of Texas at Austin, Geo-
logical Circular 93-4, 27 p.
View publication stats
Wang, Z., 1997, Seismic properties of carbonate rocks: Geo-
physical Development Series, v. 6, p. 29–52.
Weger, R. J., 2006, Quantitative pore/rock type parameters
in carbonates and their relationship to velocity devia-
tions: 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 car-
bonates: Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Ex-
panded Abstracts, v. 23, p. 1774.
Wyllie, M. R. J., A. R. Gregory, and L. W. Gardner, 1956, Elas-
tic wave velocities in heterogeneous and porous media:
Geophysics, v. 21, p. 41–70, doi:10.1190/1.1438217.
Weger et al. 1317