Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 22


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

Article in AAPG Bulletin · October 2009

DOI: 10.1306/05270909001


98 345

5 authors, including:

Ralf J. Weger Gregor P. Eberli

University of Miami University of Miami


Gregor Baechle Jose Luis Massaferro

Repsol, Houston, USA YPF


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

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.

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.

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

Jose L. Massaferro  Gerencia Geología y and separate-vug porosity cannot always be separated using
Estudios Integrados, Dirección Exploración y De-
sarrollo de Negocio, Macacha Güemes 515,
sonic logs, (2) P-wave velocity is not solely controlled by the
(C1106BKK), Puerto Madero, Buenos Aires, percentage of spherical porosity, and (3) quantitative pore ge-
Argentina ometry characteristics can be estimated from acoustic data and
Jose Luis Massaferro is a geology manager in used to improve permeability estimates.
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 INTRODUCTION
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, Several attempts have been made to find a rock or pore-type
including 3-D seismic volume interpretation, high- classification that would capture rock texture, pore type, and
resolution sequence stratigraphy, and kinematic petrophysical characteristics (Archie, 1952; Choquette and
modeling of compressional structures. In 2005, Pray, 1970; Lucia, 1983, 1995; Lønøy, 2006). In this article,
he joined Repsol in Madrid.
we describe a digital image analysis (DIA) method for mea-
Yue-Feng Sun  Department of Geology suring quantitative pore-structure parameters derived from
and Geophysics, Texas A&M University, College thin sections and introduce four parameters that are most re-
Station, Texas 77843
liable for capturing the geometrical character of pore struc-
Yue-Feng Sun is an associate professor at Texas
ture in carbonates.
A&M University. He received his Ph.D. (1994)
from Columbia University. He has 25 years of Many studies have recognized that acoustic velocity in car-
experience as a geoscientist in the industry and bonates is dependent upon pore geometry (Anselmetti and
academia. His professional interests include Eberli, 1993, 1997, 1999; Kenter et al., 1995; Wang, 1997; Sun
carbonate rock physics, poroelasticity, poroelectro- et al., 2001; Eberli et al., 2003; Baechle et al., 2004; Weger
dynamics, reservoir geophysics, and petroleum
geology. He is a member of AAPG, the American
et al., 2004; Weger, 2006). In many theoretical studies, the
Geophysical Union, American Physical Society, pore aspect ratio is assumed to be the main geometric variable
and the Society of Exploration Geophysicists. 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
The methodology presented in this paper was grain-to-grain contact than interparticle and intercrystalline
developed in collaboration with Shell‘s carbon-
pores, thus decreasing the pore compressibility and provid-
ate development team in Rijswijk, Holland, and
the Comparative Sedimentology Laboratory ing more stiffness to the rock at equal porosity (Mavko and
of the University of Miami. We acknowledge fi- Mukerji, 1995; Saleh and Castagna, 2004). Consequently, a
nancial support from Shell and the Industrial sequence of rocks with mostly moldic and/or vuggy porosity
Associates of the Comparative Sedimentology will have a higher acoustic velocity than a formation with pre-
Laboratory. Discussions with Guido Bracco dominantly intercrystalline and/or interparticle porosity with
Gartner, Gene Rankey, and Peter Swart were
the same amount of total porosity. Many scientists exploited
essential to the technical development of the
equipment and methodology. Comments and this fact to quantitatively estimate the amount of secondary
reviews on several versions of the manuscripts porosity (Schlumberger, 1972, 1974) and separate-vug po-
by Wayne Ahr, Stephen Ehrenberg, Jerry Lucia, rosity by modeling porosity from acoustic logs (e.g., Nurmi,
Mark Longman, David Kopaska-Merkel, and 1984; Lucia and Conti, 1987; Wang and Lucia, 1993; Lucia,
Jeroen Kenter greatly improved the manuscript. 1999). This modeling was based on (1) Wyllie’s time-average
The AAPG Editors thanks the following reviewers
equation (Wyllie et al., 1956) and (2) the assumption that
for their work on this paper: Jeroen Kenter,
David C. Kopaska-Merkel, and Mark W. separate-vug porosity has a minor influence on the acoustic
Longman. 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

1298 Geohorizons
proposed empirical equations to calculate separate- the advantages of quantitative geometrical param-
vug porosity from acoustic transit time. Anselmetti eters over qualitative pore-type classifications.
and Eberli (1993, 1997, 1999), however, showed
how in carbonates a variety of pore types produce
variable velocities in rocks with similar porosity. DATA SET
Other experiments documented that oomoldic car-
bonate samples with near-spherical pores show large One hundred twenty carbonate core-plug samples
scatter in velocities with up to 2500 m/s (8202 ft/s) (1-in. [25.4-mm] diameter by 1- to 2 in. [25.4–
difference at a given porosity (Baechle et al., 2007, 50.8 mm] long) were selected from cored wells at
2008a; Knackstedt et al., 2008). several locations in the Middle East, Southeast Asia,
In an attempt to quantify the influence of pore and Australia (Baechle et al., 2004). The Middle
structure on permeability, Anselmetti et al. (1998) East samples are from the Shu’aiba Formation and
defined the DIA parameter g that describes the are Aptian in age, the Southeast Asian samples are
roundness of pores and compared it with mea- from an isolated platform of Miocene age, and the
sured permeability values of plugs with character- Australian samples are from two drowned cool-
istic pore types. The parameter showed a strong subtropical platforms on the Marion Plateau and
correlation to permeability. Anselmetti and Eberli are also Miocene in age (Ehrenberg et al., 2006).
(1999) also quantified the pore-structure-induced Vertical plugs were drilled from reservoir and non-
scatter of velocities at any given porosity with the reservoir intervals to capture a wide range of total
velocity deviation, which is defined as the differ- porosity, rock types, and pore types. The set of se-
ence between measured velocities and velocities lected samples includes textures ranging from
estimated using Wyllie’s time-average equation. coarse-grained packstones with interparticle to
Intervals from Miocene–Pliocene cores from the vuggy porosity to fine-grained wackestone domi-
Great Bahama Bank with high positive velocity nated by interparticle to micromoldic porosity
deviation and oomoldic porosity show low perme- (mG). All samples are either limestone or dolomite
ability. This finding corroborated the general no- with less than 2% noncarbonate minerals.
tion that rocks with a high amount of separate-vug The samples have high-quality measurements
porosity have a high velocity and low permeabil- of velocity, porosity, and permeability. Thin sec-
ity. The application of the deviation log proved tions are impregnated with blue epoxy and cut
less successful in Cretaceous carbonates where from the end of the plug sample on which these
the separation between the medium and deep in- measurements were performed. Petrophysical mea-
duction curves better detected the high flow zones surements, geological description, and DIA param-
(Smith et al., 2003), indicating that the separation eter values are listed in the Appendix.
between interparticle or intercrystalline and intra-
grain or vuggy porosity is insufficient to capture
all pore type-velocity-permeability relationships. METHODS
These complications were the motivation behind
the study presented in this article. The goal was to Petrophysical Measurements
find a repeatable, independent measure of the pore
structure that is needed to quantitatively evaluate Sonic velocity was measured using an ultrasonic
the influence of pore geometry on acoustic velocity transmitter-receiver pair with piezoelectric trans-
and other petrophysical properties. ducers forming the core of the equipment. The
The here-described methodology of DIA pro- transducer arrangement measures one compres-
duces parameters that quantify the relationship sional and two independent orthogonally polarized
between pore geometry, acoustic velocities, and per- shear waves simultaneously using a pulse trans-
meability. The high correlation between the DIA mission technique developed by Birch (1960). Both
parameters and the petrophysical values illustrates transducers (compressional and shear) generate

Weger et al. 1299

wave signals at frequencies centered on 1 MHz. All proportions is observer based, resulting in great dif-
of the samples were saturated with distilled water ficulty to quantitatively assess their respective in-
and placed between two piezoelectric transducers fluence on the petrophysical properties. The pore
and sealed with a rubber sleeve from the surround- types of each sample are listed in the Appendix.
ing oil in the pressure vessel. The pressure condi- The term dominant pore type is used for the pore
tions of the pore fluid inside the sleeve were kept type containing more than 50% of the visible poros-
constant at 2 MPa. The confining pressure of the ity, and minor pore types contribute with at least
surrounding oil was varied to produce a range of 5% to the visible pores. In the figures, only the domi-
effective pressure conditions. For this study, only nant pore type is used for color coding.
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- Digital Image Analysis Using
termining the difference between the measured Cross-Polarized Light
volume of the core plug (e.g., 1-in. [25.4-mm] di-
ameter  plug length) and the real volume deter- The DIA method uses three basic steps: (1) image
mined by helium injection in a Boyle’s law porosi- acquisition, (2) image segmentation, and (3) calcula-
meter. The sample’s real volume is determined by tion of pore geometry parameters. A comparison of
pumping a known amount of helium gas into the images with different orientation in cross-polarized
sample chamber and measuring the pressure. He- light (XPL) is used during image segmentation to
lium is able to fill all but the smallest connected differentiate between pore space and matrix (Weger,
micropores of the sample. Gas permeability was 2006).
measured at a confining pressure of 20 bar. All val- Photomicrographs obtained using conven-
ues are reported as Klinkenberg-corrected perme- tional digital cameras in combination with an opti-
abilities in units of millidarcies. cal light microscope (OLM) have been used in in-
vestigations of sandstones and carbonates. The
DIA relies heavily on accurate image segmenta-
Descriptive Thin-Section Analysis tion, i.e., the separation of a specific feature such as
pore space from its background. Selection proce-
Thin sections were qualitatively described and clas- dures vary widely ranging from simple manual selec-
sified using traditional carbonate rock and pore- tion to more sophisticated automated threshold-
type classifications according to Dunham (1962), ing procedures (Crabtree et al., 1984; Ehrlich et al.,
the extended Dunham terminology (Embry and 1991; Anselmetti et al., 1998; Fens, 2000; Van den
Klovan, 1971), Choquette and Pray (1970), and Berg et al., 2002; Keehm, 2003) or probability-
Lucia (1995, 1999). Rocks altered by recrystalliza- theory-based maximum likelihood classification
tion that obliterated the original texture are referred (Lillesand and Kiefer, 1994; Van den Berg et al.,
to as recrystallized rocks. 2002). In our method, we use variations in extinc-
Pore space was described using a limited Cho- tion under XPL to image and segment pore and
quette and Pray (1970) terminology. In our sam- rock space.
ples, we determined interparticle, intercrystalline, We use these differences in extinction behavior
moldic, vuggy, and intraparticle porosity, and in- to distinguish white air bubbles and unfilled pore
cluded intraframe porosity to describe the pore space from white crystals (Figure 1). To obtain the
space within boundstone and rudstone. In addi- differences, we photographed the thin section first
tion, we use the term micromoldic (mG) to describe without the polarizing filter and subsequently
microscopic molds (<20 mm) that can be detected with a filter at three different angles (0°, 20°, 40°).
with strong magnification. As is characteristic for Using a Matlab program, the differences in pixel
carbonates, most samples contain more than one intensity during rotation are calculated at the imag-
pore type. The quantification of their respective ing resolution of approximately 30 mm2/pixel.

1300 Geohorizons
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 on computed tomography (CT) scans of core plugs
for image segmentation into pore space and rock at a resolution comparable to that of our OLM
(Weger, 2006). images that suggested that directionality has little
influence on geometrical parameter values.
Pore-Shape Parameters from Digital In our DIA, 37 parameters are measured on
Image Analysis each thin section. A principal component analysis
was performed to identify the most important and
Two different types of parameters exist for pore distinguishable parameters (Weger, 2006). Four
shape calculation (Russ, 1998): global parameters DIA parameters proved to best describe several
that describe the entire pore system on a photograph aspects of the pore system. Definitions and short
or thin section and local parameters that are ob- descriptions of the parameters’ characteristics are
tained from individual pores. All shape param- given below. More specific explanations on the deri-
eters used here are derived from two-dimensional vation and characteristics of these parameters are
(2-D) images. We are aware of the limitation of given by Weger (2006).
2-D-derived geometrical properties for correlation
to the physical property of the three-dimensional Perimeter Over Area
sample volume. However, any kind of thin-section Perimeter over area (PoA) is the ratio between the
analysis, quantitative or not, suffers from this limi- total pore-space area on a thin section and the total
tation. In addition, we performed a variety of tests perimeter that encloses the pore space. The PoA

Weger et al. 1301

can be regarded as a 2-D equivalent to a specific section). The amount of microporosity is calcu-
surface, the ratio between pore volume and pore lated as the difference between the observed poros-
surface. Generally, a small number indicates a sim- ity in DIA and the measured porosity from the core
ple geometry. The PoA values in our data range from plug. The geometry of the micropores is not as-
less than 40 mm−1 to more than 250 mm−1. Be- sessed in this study, but the percentage of micro-
cause of the almost log-normal distribution of porosity is included in the analysis.
these parameter values, some figures are plotted In Figure 2, several digital photographs of differ-
in log10(PoA) instead of PoA. ent thin sections are placed next to a PoA-DomSize
crossplot to demonstrate that these parameters
Dominant Pore Size vaguely recognize and separate traditional carbon-
Dominant pore size (DomSize) is determined as the ate pore classifications. These parameters are, how-
upper boundary of pore sizes of which 50% of the ever, not limited to the grouping of samples, as tra-
porosity on a thin section is composed. This param- ditional carbonate pore-type classifications are, but
eter provides an indication of the pore-size range provide a continuous ordered scale of pore geome-
that dominates the sample. In our data, DomSize try. Coarse grainstones with large pores and rela-
ranges from less than 100 mm to more than 1 mm tively simple pore systems tend to show large Dom-
(0.039 in.) (units given in length as equivalent diam- Size and small PoA. In contrast, packstones to
eter). As in the case of PoA, some figures show val- mudstones with large amounts of microporosity
ues of log10(DomSize) instead of DomSize. commonly show high PoA and low DomSize.

Gamma Mutivariate Regressions

Gamma (g) was defined by Anselmetti et al., (1998)
as the perimeter over an area of an individual pore Multivariate linear regression is used to quantify
normalized to a circle; i.e., a perfect round circle trends among velocity, porosity, and four different
would have a g of 1. The g describes the roundness geometrical parameters. We use the coefficient of
of the pore. In our data, the area-weighted mean determination (R2) between the measured and the
of g for the entire thin section ranges from 1.5 estimated velocity to quantify how well the model
to 4.5. explains the measured data. In addition to direct
linear regression, a semilinear approach is used,
Aspect Ratio which combines linear regression and Wyllie’s time-
Aspect ratio (AR) is defined here as the ratio be- average equation. Some rearrangement of the time-
tween the major and the minor axis of an ellipse average equation leads to an explicit formulation
that encloses the pore. The AR describes the elon- of Wyllie’s velocity estimate (VpW).
gation of the pore-bounding ellipsoid. The arith-
metic means of AR values for the entire thin sec- 1f f 1
VpW ¼ þ ð1Þ
tion range from 1 to 2.5. In acoustic modeling, VpS VpF
pores are commonly assumed to be ideal ellipsoidal
inclusions with a variable AR (Kuster and Toksöz, where VpS and VpF are the compressional velocity
1974; Norris, 1985). This ideal ellipsoid does not of the solid and the fluid, respectively, and f is po-
consider the edginess, complexity, or surface rough- rosity. This formulation was used by Anselmetti
ness of the pore. and Eberli (1999) to define the velocity deviation as

Amount of Microporosity
In our methodology, macropores are defined by DVp ¼ Vp  VpW ð2Þ
pores, which are vertically connected through the
thin section, resulting in a minimum pore diameter where Vp is the measured compressional velocity
of approximately 30 mm (the thickness of a thin of the sample.

1302 Geohorizons
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

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.
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 Geometry and Trends in
can be observed, but individual samples deviate from this trend Velocity-Porosity Space
in excess of 2000 m/s (6562 ft/s).
Crossplots of velocity porosity with the digital im-
age parameters PoA, DomSize, AR, g, percentage
This formulation can be used to incorporate of microporosity (% microporosity), and traditional
the velocity deviation into a regression model de- pore types using the Choquette and Pray (1970)
fined as classification superimposed in color are shown in
Figure 4. Figure 4a displays the samples color coded
Vp ¼ VpW þ c0 þ c1 x þ e ¼ ^y þ e ð3Þ with the dominant pore type, which is visually esti-
mated on the thin section. Most samples, however,
where Vp is the measured compressional velocity, contain more than one pore type, and these addi-
x represents any measured geometrical parameter tional pore geometries (the Appendix lists the mi-
(e.g., PoA or DomSize), c0 and c1 are constants to be nor pore types) might explain some of the scatter.
determined during the regression, ^y represents the Nevertheless, some slight trends are visible. For ex-
new velocity estimate, and e is the error term that ample, samples with vuggy or moldic porosity tend
in this case would contain both measurement error to fall into the high-velocity area, but several moldic
and any other influences on velocity that were not samples display a low velocity and overlap with
accounted for. samples containing interparticle porosity. Samples
containing either micromoldic porosity or poros-
ity within particles occupy the lower part of the
RELATIONSHIP OF PORE STRUCTURE TO velocity-porosity data cloud. In contrast, samples
SONIC VELOCITY with interparticle porosity cover the entire velocity-
porosity space. Samples with high amounts of micro-
The velocity-porosity data of all core-plug samples porosity (100–70%) tend to cluster around the
show a characteristic first-order trend of increasing Wyllie time-average equation (Figure 4b), and at
acoustic velocity with decreasing porosity. At any any given porosity, a trend of increasing velocity with
given porosity, a spread of velocity in excess of decreasing microporosity is observed (Figure 4b).
1500 m/s (4921 ft/s) can be observed (Figure 3). The digital image parameters of the macro-
This large scatter cannot be explained by mineral- pores also define trends with similar orientation
ogy because most samples contain only minor in the velocity-porosity space. The PoA shows a

1304 Geohorizons
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

clear trend in which at any given porosity, samples ual pores is captured by g, which shows generally
with a low value of PoA (simple pore geometry) low values in samples with relatively low velocities
have relatively high velocities, whereas samples at a given porosity and vice versa (Figure 4d). This
with high values of PoA (more complex pore ge- trend is similar as for the DomSize but not as well
ometry) have low velocities (Figure 4e). In other developed (Figure 4c, d). The AR only displays a
words, samples with simple pore geometries are very weak trend in velocity-porosity space where
faster than samples with a complicated pore struc- samples with low velocity for their given porosity
ture if porosities are the same. The DomSize also are generally those with high ARs (Figure 4f ). The
shows a clear trend of increasing velocity with in- parameters PoA and AR form trends with similar
creasing values of DomSize at a given porosity. orientation. Low values of PoA and AR correspond
This trend indicates that samples with larger pores to high velocities, and high values of PoA and AR
are faster than those with smaller pores at equal correspond to low velocities for a given porosity
porosities (Figure 4c). The roundness of individ- (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 PERMEABILITY AND PORE SHAPE
the log10 of DIA parameters PoA and DomSize
(Figure 6) result in an R2 of 0.65 and an R2 of Pore size and specific surface influence permeabil-
0.62, respectively. This means that these two quan- ity. In our data, pore size and pore network com-
titative geometric parameters are able to explain plexity (PoA), which is the 2-D equivalent of a
62–65% of the deviation of acoustic velocity (DVp) specific surface, have a strong influence on perme-
from Wyllie’s time-average equation at a given ability (Figure 7). Samples with low permeability
porosity. 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 correlation between a measured and estimated
high permeability for their given porosity show low permeability of 0.419 (red dots in Figure 8).
values of PoA and high values of DomSize. Low val- Microporosity and pore-throat diameter are im-
ues of PoA represent a simple pore structure and portant to properly predict flow properties. Thin-
low specific surface, whereas high values of PoA section-based pore-structure analyses like the pre-
stem from a more complex pore structure and high sented method here do not capture pore geometries
specific surface (Figures 2, 7). below the 30-mm threshold, but the macro- and
mesopore system represents a large part of the flow
Quantitative Permeability Estimation capacity. This is reflected in the improvement of
the permeability estimates from R2 = 0.143 to R2 =
Bear (1972) refined Kozeny’s (1927) equation to 0.415 gained by incorporating the macroscale DIA
express permeability as a function of porosity, spe- parameters into the Kozceny equation (Figure 8).
cific surface, and tortuosity. Here we estimate per- Further improvements of permeability estimates
meability using pore geometry parameters and in- will be possible using micro-CT scans (Knackstedt
corporate them into Kozeny’s equation. et al., 2008) or by combining DIA analysis and mer-
cury injection capillary pressure.
k ¼ cf3 =S2 ð4Þ

where k is permeability, f is porosity, c is Ko- DISCUSSION

zeny’s factor, which can be estimated from poros-
ity (Fabricius et al., 2007), and S is the specific Anselmetti and Eberli (1999) demonstrated how
surface with respect to bulk volume. The PoA is acoustic velocities in carbonates are influenced by
the 2-D equivalent of the specific surface, and thus, porosity and a variety of pore structures using tradi-
we estimate S from measured 2-D geometrical tional carbonate pore-type classification (Choquette
parameters (PoA and DomSize). and Pray, 1970). In our data, the separation of sam-
We compare four different approaches to esti- ples grouped according to Choquette and Pray’s
mate permeability. First, estimates of permeabil- pore-type classification is poor in velocity-porosity
ity are derived from porosity alone. For compari- space (Figure 4a), indicating that the classification
son, Kozeny’s S is expressed as a function of PoA of Choquette and Pray is not capable of uniquely
and DomSize and used for permeability estima- defining ranges of specific acoustic properties. In
tion. Finally, the relationship between acoustic ve- comparison, quantitative characterization of pore-
locity and pore geometry is used to calculate S di- space geometry using DIA parameters such as PoA
rectly from acoustic data. This estimate of S is then (Figure 4e) has the advantage of providing a con-
combined with porosity to estimate permeability tinuous numerical parameter that can be used di-
directly from a combination of measured porosity rectly in a mathematical formulation used to esti-
and acoustic velocity. mate velocity.
Figure 8 shows a comparison of measured and The AR is the geometrical parameter most com-
estimated permeabilities. Estimation of perme- monly used in theoretical models to explain varia-
ability using porosity alone is extremely ineffec- tions in rock stiffness and acoustic velocities (Assefa
tive (R2 = 0.143, black dots in Figure 8). These es- et al., 2003; Saleh and Castagna, 2004; Agersborg
timates can be improved using pore geometry et al., 2005; Kumar and Han, 2005; Rossebø et al.,
information from PoA and DomSize (R2 = 0.415 2005), although Rafavich et al. (1984) concluded
and R2 = 0.383, green and blue dots in Figure 8). that AR does not significantly influence velocity.
The good relationship between sonic velocity, po- The weak correlation for velocity estimates using
rosity, and PoA allows for the substitution of PoA porosity and the DIA parameter for roundness
by a geometry estimate derived from sonic veloc- (g) and AR, respectively, questions this assump-
ity. Using this geometry estimate, we obtain an R2 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 Baechle et al. (2008b) proposed that the frac-
of the macropore system are much more important tion of stiff macropores versus soft micropores is
factors for determining the stiffness and, thus, the responsible for the variation of velocity at any given
acoustic behavior of carbonates (Table 1). A recent porosity and develop a rock physics model that cap-
study of oomoldic rocks by Baechle et al. (2007) tures the presence of both macro- and microporosity
also documented that the percentage of spherical to better estimate velocity and permeability. The
pore shape is not the dominant factor in producing percentage of microporosity for this dual porosity
positive deviations from the Wyllie time-average DEM model is derived with the DIA methodology
equation. They attribute the variable acoustic re- described here (Baechle et al., 2008b).
sponse of up to 2000 m/s (6562 ft/s) at a given po- The assumption that rocks with mostly moldic
rosity to variations in intercrystalline porosity in and/or vuggy porosity will have a faster acoustic ve-
the rock frame; a conclusion that is corroborated locity than a formation with predominantly inter-
by ultra-high-resolution CT tomography and scan- crystalline and/or interparticle porosity has been
ning electron microscope (SEM) analysis on the used for quantitative estimates of separate-vug po-
same samples (Knackstedt et al., 2008). rosity from acoustic logs (e.g., Nurmi, 1984; Lucia

1310 Geohorizons
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.

and Conti, 1987; Wang and Lucia, 1993; Anselmetti 1996). In carbonates, cementation at grain contacts
and Eberli,1999). To test this assumption, we distrib- are meniscus cements derived from meteoric waters
ute the samples into two groups. The vuggy group (Harris, 1978; Longman, 1980) or micritic bridging
consists of samples whose primary pore types are cements in the marine realm (Hillgärtner et al.,
vuggy, moldic, intraframe, and intraparticle poros- 2001). In a Holocene grainstone, small amounts
ity. The interparticle group consists of samples with of bridging cement (15% of the total rock) produce
interparticle and intercrystalline porosity as the a Vp of 4500 m/s (14,764 ft/s) at 20 MPa (Eberli
primary pore type. Plotting the two groups in the et al., 2003). Some of the samples displayed in
velocity-porosity space reveals a considerable over- Figure 9 are dolomites; in this case, the extreme
lap (Figure 9). The samples of the vuggy group gen- stiffening of the frame is not caused by early cement
erally plot above the Wyllie time-average equa- but more likely by interlocking crystals. Anselmetti
tion, and a cluster of interparticle samples in the et al. (1997) documented this process on Neogene
low velocity area is observed. However, nearly an carbonates, in which the velocity of sucrosic dolo-
equal amount of samples from each group display mite increases dramatically as isolated rhombohe-
an exceptionally high velocity at a given porosity dra grow together to form a stiff framework.
(Figure 9).
High velocity at a given, sometimes high poros-
ity is possible if pore compressibility is low and CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
consequently if the stiffness of the rock is not sig-
nificantly decreased (Mavko and Mukerji, 1995). The DIA quantifies the influence of pore types on
Such a stiff frame is well known to occur in rocks velocity and permeability. A combination of porosity
with vugs or molds, but it also occurs in rocks with and (image-derived) microporosity is capable of
interparticle and intercrystalline porosity. A pro- estimating velocity with R2 = 0.77; a combina-
cess that can produce frame stiffening in these latter tion of porosity and digital image parameters is
rocks is contact cementation (Dvorkin and Nur, able to explain more than 85% of the variation

Weger et al. 1311

of acoustic velocity (R2 = 0.85). The geometrical rosity (oomoldic), these estimates work well (Lucia
characteristics most influential for acoustic velocity and Conti, 1987; Wang and Lucia, 1993; Anselmetti
are the complexity of pore space (PoA) and the sizes and Eberli, 1999). The nonunique acoustic re-
of the pores (DomSize). These parameters com- sponse of separate-vug porosity might explain why
bined with porosity estimate velocity with R2 = estimates based on these models do not always
0.79 and 0.77, respectively. In short, carbonates with yield the expected results. Given the relationship
a large amount of microporosity, a complex pore between permeability and the DIA parameters
structure (high specific surface), and small pores PoA and DomSize, in theory, it should be possi-
generally show low acoustic velocity at a given po- ble to discriminate high and low permeability at a
rosity. Samples with a simple pore structure (low given porosity directly from well-log data. For ex-
specific surface) and large pores show high acoustic ample, rocks with high acoustic velocity for their
velocity for their porosity. given porosity generally show low specific surface
Knowledge of roundness (g) and the aspect ra- (PoA) and large pore sizes (DomSize, Figures 4, 5).
tio of pores (AR) does not significantly enhance Rocks with low specific surface and large pore
the ability to estimate sonic velocity in carbonates. sizes also have high permeability for their given po-
Thus, incorporating parameters that capture both rosity (Figure 7, Appendix). These relationships
size and complexity (e.g., DomSize and PoA) po- imply two things: (1) not all fast intervals in car-
tentially improves acoustic velocity models. bonates that produce a positive acoustic impedance
The finding that samples with interparticle are necessarily tight, low-porosity sequences, and
and intercrystalline porosity can display high ve- (2) a quantitative assessment of the pore types by
locity similarly to samples with separate-vug poros- DIA and their acoustic response is beneficial for
ity is an unwelcomed finding because its nonunique an accurate interpretation of log-based pore-type
acoustic response adds uncertainty to quantitative estimates.
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- APPENDIX: DATA TABLE

Appendix. Texture, Pore Type, DIM (Digital Image Analysis) Parameter Values, and Petrophysical
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-

ume, v. 16, p. 7.
Agersborg, R., T. A. Johansen, and M. Jakobsen, 2005, The Baechle, G. T., G. P. Eberli, A. Boyd, J.-M. DeGrange, and L.
T-matrix approach for carbonate rocks: Society of Explora- Al-Kharusi, 2008a, Oomoldic carbonates: Pore structure
tion Geophysicists, Expanded Abstracts, v. 24, p. 1597– and fluid effects on sonic velocity: Society of Exploration
1600. Geophysicists, Expanded Abstracts, v. 27, p. 1660.
Anselmetti, F. S., and G. P. Eberli, 1993, Controls on sonic Baechle, G. T., A. Colpaert, G. P. Eberli, and R. Weger,
velocity in carbonates: Pure and Applied Geophysics, 2008b, Effects of microporosity on sonic velocity in car-
v. 141, p. 287–323, doi:10.1007/BF00998333. bonate rocks: Leading Edge, v. 27, no. 8, p. 1012–1018,
Anselmetti, F. S., and G. P. Eberli, 1997, Sonic velocity in car- doi:10.1190/1.2967554.
bonate sediments and rocks, in I. Palaz and K. J. Marfurt, Bear, J., 1972, Dynamics of fluids in porous media: Mineola,
eds., Carbonate seismology: Society of Exploration Geo- New York, Dover Publications, 764 p.
physicists, Geophysical Developments Series 6, p. 53–74. Birch, F., 1960, The velocity of compressional waves in rocks
Anselmetti, F. S., and G. P. Eberli, 1999, The velocity-deviation to 10 kilobars: 1: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 65,
log: A tool to predict pore type and permeability trends p. 1083–1102, doi:10.1029/JZ065i004p01083.
in carbonate drill holes from sonic and porosity or density Choquette, P. W., and L. C. Pray, 1970, Geologic nomencla-
logs: AAPG Bulletin, v. 83, p. 450–466. ture and classification of porosity in sedimentary carbon-
Anselmetti, F. S., G. A. von Salis, K. J. Cunningham, and ates: AAPG Bulletin, v. 54, p. 207–244.
G. P. Eberli, 1997, Controls and distribution of sonic ve- Crabtree Jr., S. J., R. Ehrlich, and C. Prince, 1984, Evaluation
locity in Neogene carbonates and siliciclastics from the of strategies for segmentation of blue-dyed pores in thin
subsurface of the Florida Keys: Implications for seismic sections of reservoir rocks: Computer Vision, Graphics
reflectivity: Marine Geology, v. 144, p. 9–31, doi:10.1016 and Image Processing, v. 28, p. 1–18, doi:10.1016/0734
/S0025-3227(97)00081-9. -189X(84)90136-1.
Anselmetti, F. S., S. M. Luthi, and G. P. Eberli, 1998, Quanti- Doveton, J. H., 1994, Geological log interpretation—Reading
tative characterization of carbonate pore systems by digi- the rocks from wireline logs: SEPM Short Course 29,
tal image analysis: AAPG Bulletin, v. 82, p. 1815–1836. 169 p.
Archie, G. E., 1952, Classification of carbonate reservoir Dunham, R. J., 1962, Classification of carbonate rocks
rocks and petrophysical considerations: AAPG Bulletin, according to depositional texture: AAPG Memoir 1,
v. 36, p. 278–298. p. 108–121.
Assefa, S., C. McCann, and J. Sothcott, 2003, Velocities of Dvorkin, J., and A. Nur, 1996, Elasticity of high-porosity sand-
compressional and shear waves in limestones: Geophysi- stones: Theory for two North Sea data sets: Geophysics,
cal Prospecting, v. 51, p. 1–13, doi:10.1046/j.1365-2478 v. 61, no. 5, p. 1363–1370, doi:10.1190/1.1444059.
.2003.00349.x. Eberli, G. P., G. T. Baechle, F. S. Anselmetti, and M. L. Incze,
Baechle, G. T., R. Weger, G. P. Eberli, and J. L. Massaferro, 2003, Factors controlling elastic properties in carbonate
2004, The role of macroporosity and microporosity in sediments and rocks: The Leading Edge, v. 22, p. 654–
constraining uncertainties and in relating velocity to per- 660, doi:10.1190/1.1599691.
meability in carbonate rocks: Society of Exploration Ehrenberg, S. N., G. P. Eberli, and G. Baechle, 2006, Porosity-
Geophysicists, Expanded Abstracts, v. 23, p. 1662. permeability relationships in Miocene carbonate plat-
Baechle, G. T., L. Al-Kharusi, G. P. Eberli, A. Boyd, and A. forms and slopes seaward of the Great Barrier Reef, Aus-
Byrnes, 2007, Effect of spherical pore shapes on acoustic tralia (ODP Leg 194, Marion Plateau): Sedimentology,

Weger et al. 1315

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

1316 Geohorizons
Shang, Q. Li, and T. F. Gao, eds., Theoretical and compu- Wang, Z., 1997, Seismic properties of carbonate rocks: Geo-
tational acoustics: Singapore, World Scientific, p. 335– physical Development Series, v. 6, p. 29–52.
347. Weger, R. J., 2006, Quantitative pore/rock type parameters
Van den Berg, E. H., A. G. C. A. Meesters, J. A. M. Kenter, in carbonates and their relationship to velocity devia-
and W. Schlager, 2002, Automated separation of touch- tions: Ph.D. dissertation thesis, University of Miami,
ing grains in digital images of thin sections: Computers Coral Gables, 232 p.
and Geosciences, v. 28, p. 179–190, doi:10.1016 Weger, R. J., G. T. Baechle, J. L. Masaferro, and G. P. Eberli,
/S0098-3004(01)00038-3. 2004, Effects of pore structure on sonic velocity in car-
Wang, R. F. P., and F. J. Lucia, 1993, Comparison of empiri- bonates: Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Ex-
cal models for calculating the vuggy porosity and cementa- panded Abstracts, v. 23, p. 1774.
tion exponent of carbonates from log responses: Bureau of Wyllie, M. R. J., A. R. Gregory, and L. W. Gardner, 1956, Elas-
Economic Geology, University of Texas at Austin, Geo- tic wave velocities in heterogeneous and porous media:
logical Circular 93-4, 27 p. Geophysics, v. 21, p. 41–70, doi:10.1190/1.1438217.

Weger et al. 1317

View publication stats

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi