Incorporating capillary AUTHOR

Roberto Aguilera ⬃ Servipetrol Ltd., 736

pressure, pore throat aperture 6th Avenue SW, Suite 1640, Calgary, Canada
T2P 3T7; aguilera@servipetrol.com
radii, height above free-water Roberto Aguilera is president of Servipetrol
Ltd. in Calgary, Canada. He has an
table, and Winland r35 values undergraduate degree in petroleum
engineering from the Universidad de America
on Pickett plots in Bogota, Colombia, and a master’s degree
and Ph.D. in petroleum engineering from the
Colorado School of Mines. He was an AAPG
Roberto Aguilera
instructor on the subject of naturally fractured
reservoirs from 1984 through 1996. He
received the Outstanding Service Award from
the Petroleum Society of the Canadian
ABSTRACT
Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum
Methods are presented for incorporating capillary pressure, pore Engineers (CIM) in 1994. He is a Distinguished
throat aperture radii, height above the free-water table, and Win- Author of the Journal of Canadian Petroleum
land r35 values on Pickett plots. The techniques involve the use of Technology (1993 and 1999) and a Society of
log-log plots of effective porosity vs. resistivity combined with em- Petroleum Engineers Distinguished Lecturer on
pirical equations for calculating capillary pressure written as a func- the topic “Naturally Fractured Reservoirs” for
the 2000–2001 season. He has developed
tion of permeability, porosity, and water saturation.
various methods that have been published in
I show that a crossplot of porosity vs. true resistivity (in some
leading journals of the oil industry. He has
cases apparent resistivity or true resistivity affected by a shale authored and been a contributor to various
group) should result in a straight line for intervals with constant books, including Naturally Fractured
capillary pressure and constant pore throat aperture radii. Key ad- Reservoirs (PennWell, 1980 and 1995), The
vantages of the proposed methods are (1) the capillary pressure at Technology of Artificial Lift Methods
any point on the Pickett plot is consistent with porosity, perme- (PennWell, 1984), Horizontal Wells (Gulf
ability, and water saturation at that particular point; (2) the value Publishing, 1991), and Determination of Oil
of Rw does not have to be known in advance, provided that the and Gas Reserves (Petroleum Society of CIM
reservoir contains some water-bearing intervals; and (3) core data Monograph 1, 1994).
are not essential, although it is strongly recommended to have cores
to properly calibrate the equations presented in this article. If cap-
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
illary pressures from cores are available, it is possible to estimate
the value of Rw even if there are not water-bearing intervals in the I thank Maria S. Aguilera for her help and en-
reservoir. thusiasm during the preparation of the study.
Pore throat aperture radii (r35) values computed using the em- I am grateful to Dan Hartmann and Matt
pirically derived Winland equation compare reasonably well with Pranter for their detailed review, their advice,
and their contribution to the manuscript.
pore throat aperture radii (rp35) calculated from techniques pre-
sented in this article. This is significant because the data sets used
to establish these empirical equations come from different areas,
different reservoirs, and different lithologies and were evaluated in-
dependently at different times. A mathematical relationship is de-
veloped between Winland r35 values and the pore throat aperture
rp35 presented in this article.

Copyright 䉷2002. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists. All rights reserved.
Manuscript received November 19, 1999; revised manuscript received July 9, 2001; final acceptance
November 25, 2001.

AAPG Bulletin, v. 86, no. 4 (April 2002), pp. 605–624 605

 The methods are illustrated using two case histo-
ries. The first one is a Gulf Coast high-porosity sand-
shale sequence. The second is a limestone oil reservoir
from the Lansing Kansas City formation.
The integration of permeability, capillary pres-
sures, pore-size classes, and geometry of the pores on
a log-log graph of porosity vs. resistivity makes the
Pickett plot one of the most formidable formation eval-
uation tools yet devised.
INTRODUCTION
Pickett plots (1966, 1973) have long been recognized
as very useful in petrophysical interpretation. In Pick-
ett’s method, a resistivity index, I, and water satura-
tion, Sw, are calculated from log-log crossplots of
porosity vs. true resistivity (in some cases apparent re-
sistivity, or resistivity as affected by a shale group, Ash),
as shown in Figure 1a for homogeneous reservoirs
(Pickett, 1966, 1973), Figure 1b for naturally fractured
reservoirs (Aguilera, 1995), and Figure 1c for shaly for-
mations (Aguilera, 1990a).
The Pickett plot has been extended throughout
the years to include many situations of practical im-
portance. For example, Sanyal and Ellithorpe (1978)
and Greengold (1986) have shown that a Pickett plot
should result in a straight line with a slope equal to n
ⳮ m for intervals at irreducible water saturation.
Aguilera (1990a) extended the Pickett plot to the
analysis of laminar, dispersed, and total shale models.
In this approach the resistivity included in the plot is
affected by a shale group, Ash, whose value depends
on the type of shaly model being used (Figure 1c).

Figure 1. Examples of Pickett plots in (a) homogeneous reservoirs, (b) naturally fractured reservoirs, and (c) shaly formations.
Schematic (d) shows how to determine irreducible water zones, gas zones, and movable water zones from nuclear magnetic and
resistivity logs (effective porosity minus free fluid porosity vs. true formation resistivity; data from well in high-porosity sand-shale
sequence) (from Pickett, 1966, reprinted with permission from the Journal of Petroleum Technology; Aguilera, 1990b, used with
permission from the Petroleum Society, whose permission is required for further use, 1995).

606 Pickett Plots

Aguilera showed that all shaly equations published in
the literature, no matter how long they are, become
Sw ⳱ Ishⳮ1 /n. He further showed that a Pickett plot
for shaly formations should result in a straight line with
a slope equal to n ⳮ m for intervals at irreducible water
saturation.
Aguilera (1990b) demonstrated that for oil reser-
voirs, a log-log crossplot of Rt vs. effective porosity as
determined from the combination of neutron and den-
sity logs minus free fluid porosity, as determined from
a nuclear magnetic log, should result in a straight line
with a negative slope equal to the water saturation ex-
ponent, n, for intervals that are at irreducible water
saturation. Extrapolation of the straight line to 100%
porosity yields the product aRw. Gas intervals plot
above the straight line. Intervals with movable water
plot below the straight line. This is illustrated in
Figure 1d.
In the same article, Aguilera (1990b) showed that
a Pickett plot should result in a straight line for inter-
vals of constant permeability at irreducible water sat-
uration. The same concept was used subsequently by
Doveton et al. (1996).
This article shows how to incorporate capillary
pressure and pore throat aperture radii on a Pickett
plot. An example of this type of Pickett plot is shown
in Figure 2, where Pc1 and Pc2 are constant capillary
pressures; r1 and r2 are constant pore throat aperture
radii; and k1 and k2 are constant permeabilities. The
technique is rigorous for water saturations ranging be-
tween 30 and 90%.
Having a good estimate of pore throat aperture ra-
dius might make the difference between a potential
discovery and a failure. For example Pittman (1992)
has shown that a sandstone having a Winland r35 value
of more than 0.5 lm was useful for delineating a strati-
graphic trap. Updip dry holes were characterized by
r35 ⬍ 0.5 lm. Downdip productive wells had net pay
with r35 ⬎ 0.5 lm.
A useful model for putting together petrophysical
information including water saturation, porosity, per-
meability, capillary pressure, pore throat aperture ra-
dius, and flow units has been presented by Gunter et
al. (1997). The same general philosophy led to the de-
velopment presented in this article. The use of the
techniques published in the present article has been
extended by Aguilera and Aguilera (2001) for deter-
mining flow units and reservoir containers.
Integrating pore geometry categories (intergran-
ular, intercrystalline, vuggy, fracture) as suggested
by Coalson et al. (1985), and Winland r35 pore-
size classes (megapores, ⬎10 lm; macropores, 2–
10 lm; mesopores, 0.5–2 lm; micropores, 0.1–0.5
lm; and nanopores, 0.01–0.1 lm) with a log-log
graph of porosity vs. resistivity makes the Pickett
plot one of the most formidable formation evalu-
ation tools yet devised. The unique value of this
technique lies in the fact that we are able to see
within one single plot several key geological and
reservoir engineering parameters, thus making in-
tegrated interpretations easier, as shown in the case
histories of this article.
Figure 2. Schematic diagram
showing lines of constant water
saturation, constant permeabil-
ity, constant capillary pressure,
and constant pore throat aper-
ture radius.
Aguilera 607
 The previously mentioned pore-size classes were
documented originally by Coalson et al. (1985) and
were subsequently modified by Martin et al. (1999) in
a reply to a discussion by Lucia (1999). They have also
been used by Aguilera (1999) as part of a scheme for
estimating recovery factors and reserves in naturally
fractured reservoirs.
THEORY
Pickett Plot
The basic equations in formation evaluation are (Ar-
chie, 1942)
Sw ⳱ I ⳮ1 /n (1)
I ⳱ Rt /Ro ⳱ Rt /(FRw) (2)
F ⳱ a⭋ ⳮm
(3)
All nomenclature is defined in Appendix 1. Equations
2 and 3 can be combined to yield
Rt ⳱ a⭋ⳮmRw I ⳱ a⭋ⳮmRw Swⳮn (4)
Taking the logarithm of both sides of the equation
leads to (Pickett, 1966)
log Rt ⳱ ⳮm log ⭋ Ⳮ log(aRw) Ⳮ log I (5)
Equation 5 indicates that a crossplot of ⭋ vs. Rt on
log-log coordinates should result in a straight line with
a negative slope equal to m for intervals with constant
aRw and constant I. From the plot it is possible to de-
termine the product aRw and Sw as shown in Figure 1.
Permeability
An empirical equation that has been found to give rea-
sonable estimates of permeability has the form (Morris
and Biggs, 1967)
k1 /2 ⳱ 250⭋3 /Swi (6)
for the case of a medium gravity oil (⬇25⬚ API). For a
dry gas at shallow depth, a constant approximately
equal to 79 is used in place of 250. If core data are
available, the constants in equation 6 can be refined to
better fit a particular reservoir. Water saturation in
608 Pickett Plots
equation 6 is irreducible, that is, it corresponds to the
beginning of a krw equal to zero.
Equation 6 can be solved for irreducible water sat-
uration, Swi, and incorporated into equation 4 to obtain
(Aguilera, 1990b)
Rt ⳱ a⭋ⳮmRw(250⭋3 /k1 /2)ⳮn (7)
and
Rt ⳱ a⭋ⳮ3nⳮmRw(250/k1 /2)ⳮn (8)
Taking the logarithm of both sides of the equation
leads to (Aguilera, 1990b, 1995)
log Rt ⳱ (ⳮ3n ⳮ m) log ⭋
Ⳮ log[aRw(250/k1 /2)ⳮn] (9)
Equation 9 indicates that a crossplot of Rt vs. ⭋ on
log-log coordinates should result in a straight line with
a slope equal to ⳮ3n ⳮ m for intervals at irreducible
water saturation with constant aRw and constant k.
Where m ⳱ n the slope is equal to ⳮ4m. Extrapolation
of the straight line to 100% porosity yields the product
aRw(250/k1 /2)ⳮn.
Capillary Pressure
The approach presented in this section for incorporat-
ing Pc into Pickett plots uses an empirical equation
published by Kwon and Pickett (1975). It is, however,
general enough that it can be used with other leading
coefficients and exponents as shown in Appendix 2.
Kwon and Pickett’s equation is
Pc ⳱ A[k/(100⭋)]ⳮB (10)
where Pc is the mercury-air capillary pressure in
pounds per square inch, B is approximately equal to
0.45, and constant A ranges between 151.35 at 30%
water saturation and 22.91 at 90% water saturation, as
shown in Table 1. If core data are available the con-
stants can be calibrated to better suit a particular res-
ervoir. Equation 10 was developed using 2500 rock
samples from 30 formations in North America, repre-
senting a widespread range of rock types. Table 2
shows a list of formations used in Kwon and Pickett’s
article.
They based their correlation on log-log crossplots
of k/␾ vs. Pc using water saturation as a parameter.
Table 1. Empirical Values of A and B in Capillary Pressure Table 2. Formations and Number of Samples Used in Study
Equation* of Sw-k/␾-Pc Relations*

Sw (%) A** B No. Formation Name No. of Cap Curves

30 151.35 0.407 1 Aux Vases 11

40 93.32 0.455 2 Hoover 16
50 64.57 0.468 3 Dakota 8
60 46.77 0.452 4 Nesson 9
70 36.31 0.446 5 Judith River 19
80 29.51 0.440 6 Lodgepole 6
90 22.91 0.428 7 Nisku Dolomite 17
8 Morrow and Keyes 28
*From Kwon and Pickett, 1975. Reprinted with permission from the Society of
Professional Well Log Analysts. 9 Hunton 22
**A is the value of Pc (psi) when k/␾ ⳱ 1 md/%. 10 Granite Wash 12
11 Venango II–III 15
They found that the scatter of individual core values 12 Cypress 10
of k/␾ about the average k/␾ for each increment of Pc 13 Mission Canyon 58
was approximately lognormal with a standard devia- 14 Cherokee 54
tion of 2.5. 15 Bartlesville 340
Significantly, their correlation was developed as a 16 Stony Mountain 88
function of k/␾, that is, process or delivery speed. A 17 Swift 32
stratigraphically continuous interval of similar reser- 18 Muddy 88
voir process speeds defines what is commonly known 19 Tar Springs 65
as a flow unit, a very powerful concept to help solve 20 Minnelusa 138
geological and reservoir engineering problems. 21 Red River 139
Kwon and Pickett also found a log-log correlation 22 Desmoines 15
between core porosity and core permeability. The scat- 23 Devonian 104
ter in k around the average k within a porosity incre- 24 Benois 10
ment of 1% was found to be roughly lognormal with a 25 Tenton Limestone 7
standard deviation of about 6. 26 Red River 216
I crossplotted their values of A vs. water saturation 27 Silurian 960
as shown in Figure 3. The plot shows an approximate 28 Edwards 37
straight line between water saturations of 30 and 90%, Total 2534
which can be represented by the equation *From Kwon and Pickett, 1975. Reprinted with permission from the Society of
Professional Well Log Analysts.

A ⳱ 19.5Swⳮ1.7 (11)
Solving equation 13 for Swi and inserting it into equa-
tion 4 leads to
where Sw is water saturation (fraction). For the case in
which the water saturation is at irreducible conditions, Rt ⳱ ⭋ⳮm(aRw)[(0.929Pc /⭋ⳮ2.25)ⳮ1 /0.8]ⳮn (14)
the insertion of equations 6 and 11 into equation 10
leads to and

Pc ⳱ 7.943(19.5Swiⳮ1.7)(⭋ⳮ5Swi2 /2502)ⳮ0.45 (12) Rt ⳱ ⭋ⳮmⳭ2.8125n(aRw)[1.0961Pcⳮ1.25)]ⳮn (15)

Taking the logarithm of both sides of the equation

where porosity and water saturation are expressed as a leads to
fraction, and
log Rt ⳱ (ⳮm Ⳮ 2.8125n) log ⭋
ⳮ0.8 ⳮ2.25
Pc ⳱ (Swi ⭋ )/0.929 (13) Ⳮ log[aRw(1.0961Pcⳮ1.25)ⳮn] (16)

Aguilera 609
Figure 3. Constant A as a
function of water saturation.

Equation 16 indicates that a crossplot of Rt vs. ⭋ Inserting equation 19 into equation 16 and taking
on log-log coordinates should result in a straight line the logarithm of both sides of the equation results in
with a slope equal to ⳮm Ⳮ 2.8125n for intervals at
irreducible water saturation with constant aRw and log Rt ⳱ (ⳮm Ⳮ 2.8125n) log ⭋
constant capillary pressure, Pc. Extrapolation of the Ⳮ log{aRw[1.0961(ⳮ2(0.147)
straight line to 100% porosity yields the product
⳯ r(cos h)/r)ⳮ1.25]ⳮn} (20)
aRw(1.0961Pcⳮ1.25)ⳮn in the resistivity scale. If m ⳱
n ⳱ 2, the slope of a straight line for a constant Pc
Equation 20 indicates that a crossplot of log Rt vs.
should be on the order of 3.625.
log ⭋ should result in a straight line with a slope equal
to ⳮm Ⳮ 2.8125n for intervals at irreducible water
Pore Throat Aperture Radius
saturation with constant aRw, r, h, and pore throat
aperture radius r. Extrapolation of the constant r
Washburn (1921) presented a technique for relating
straight line to 100% porosity yields the product
mercury capillary pressure (Pc in dyne/cm2) to surface
{aRw[1.0961(ⳮ2(0.147)r(cos h)/r)ⳮ1.25]ⳮn} in the
tension of mercury (r in dyne/cm), contact angle of
resistivity scale.
mercury in air (h), and pore aperture radius (r in lm).
If r ⳱ 480 dyne/cm and h ⳱ 140⬚, equation 20
The Washburn equation is
reduces to

Pc ⳱ ⳮ2r(cos h)/r (17)

log Rt ⳱ (ⳮm Ⳮ 2.8125n) log ⭋
and Ⳮ log{aRw[1.0961(108.1/r)ⳮ1.25]ⳮn} (21)

r ⳱ ⳮ2r(cos h)/Pc (18) Also notice that by using the previous values of r
and h, equation 10 becomes
If Pc is in pounds per square inch rather than dynes
per square centimeter, the pore throat radius in mi- Pc ⳱ (108.1/r) ⳱ A(k/100⭋)ⳮB (22)
crons can be calculated from
where r is the pore throat aperture radius in microns.
r ⳱ ⳮ2(0.147)r(cos h)/Pc (19) A practical pore classification system has been pre-
sented by Coalson et al. (1985) and has been upgraded
For example, if r ⳱ 480 dyne/cm and h ⳱ 140⬚, by Martin et al. (1999). In their system, porosity classes
the pore throat aperture radius in microns is 108.1/Pc are classified first by the geometry of the pores and,
from equation 19. second, by pore size.

610 Pickett Plots

 “Pore geometry” is classified as intergranular, inter-
crystalline, vuggy/moldic, and fractured as shown in
Figure 4a. Pore-size classes comprise megaports (⬎10
lm), macroports (10–2 lm), mesoports (2–0.5 lm),
and microports (⬍5 lm), as shown in Figure 4b. The
correlations between Pc and Sw as related to pore ge-
ometry classes discussed in this article match reason-
ably well the signature presented by capillary pressures
A through E between 30 and 90% water saturation.
The correlations do not properly match curve F.
Height above the Free-Water Table
Height above the free-water table can be calculated
from the equation
Pc ⳱ 0.433(qw ⳮ qh)h[ⳮ(r cos h)/(rh cos hh)] (23)
where rh is the brine-hydrocarbon surface tension and
hh is the contact angle of the hydrocarbon in water.
Inserting equation 23 into equation 16 leads to
log Rt ⳱ (ⳮm Ⳮ 2.8125n) log ⭋
Ⳮ log{aRw[1.0961(0.433(qw ⳮ qh)
⳯ h[ⳮ(r cos h)/(rh cos hh)])ⳮ1.25)ⳮn] (24)
Equation 24 indicates that a crossplot of Rt vs. ⭋
on log-log coordinates should result in a straight line
with a slope equal to ⳮm Ⳮ 2.8125n for intervals at
irreducible water saturation with constant aRw, qw, qh,
and height (h) above the free-water table.
The intersection at 100% gives the product
aRw[1.0961(0.433(qw ⳮ qh)
⳯ h[ⳮ(r cos h)/(rh cos hh)])ⳮ1.25)ⳮn (25)
Winland r35 Values
H. D. Winland of Amoco developed an empirical
equation that has proved very valuable as a cut-off cri-
terion to delineate commercial hydrocarbon reservoirs
and to define flow units (Gunter et al., 1997; Martin
et al., 1997) in stratigraphic traps (Kolodzie, 1980;
Pittman, 1992). The equation is
log r35 ⳱ 0.732
Ⳮ 0.588 log k ⳮ 0.864 log(100⭋) (26)
where k is a routine air permeability. Equation 26 can
also be written as
r35 ⳱ 5.395[k0.588 /(100⭋)0.864] (27)
and
(108.1/Pc35) ⳱ 5.395[k0.588 /(100⭋)0.864] (28)
if ⭋ ⳱ 480 dyne/cm and h ⳱ 140⬚. In equations 26–
28, r35 is the pore throat aperture radius corresponding
to a mercury saturation of 35% during a laboratory cap-
illary pressure test.
Notice that equation 28 has the same form as
equation 10, although the constants at 35% mercury
saturation are different. This is to be expected because
the equations were developed empirically from differ-
ent sets of data.
Winland’s correlation was developed using data
from formations ranging in lithology and age from Or-
dovician to Tertiary, including Simpson, Delaware,
Tensleep, Nugget, Cotton Valley, Muddy, Mesaverde,
Terry, First Wall Creek, Frontier, Montrose, Vicks-
burg, and Frio sandstones (Pittman, 1992). Kwon and
Pickett’s correlation was developed using data from the
sandstone and carbonate formations listed in Table 2.
CASE HISTORIES
The use of the techniques developed in this article is
illustrated using two case histories. The first one uses
logs from a Gulf Coast high-porosity sand-shale se-
quence (Figure 5) published originally by Herrick et al.
(1979). The second one uses log data from the Lansing
Kansas City limestone formation published originally
by Martin et al. (1997).
Clastic Example
This case history presents how to construct the Pickett
plot incorporating capillary pressure, pore throat ap-
erture radii, height above the free-water table, and
Winland r35 values. The approach is presented in detail
so that it can be reproduced easily by the reader with
a spread sheet or with a handheld calculator. The neu-
tron and density porosities from Figure 5 are higher
than the free-fluid porosity, ⭋fl, read from the nuclear
magnetic log. This is the result of ⭋N and ⭋D reading
an effective porosity that includes irreducible water
saturation in sands and bound water in shales, whereas
Aguilera 611
⭋fl does not include irreducible water, it reads only the in the previous figure. To draw a line of constant pore
free-fluid porosity. throat aperture radius equal to 1 lm, calculate Rt from
Columns 1 through 5 in Table 3 show data ex- equation 21 or
tracted from Figure 5. This information was used by
Aguilera (1990b) to determine the value of aRw and Rt ⳱
to prepare the Pickett plot shown in Figure 6. In the ⭋(ⳮmⳭ2.8125n){aRw[1.0961(108.1/r)ⳮ1.25]ⳮn} (29)
same article, Aguilera used equation 9 to construct par-
allel lines of constant permeability assuming a medium using aRw ⳱ 0.036 and any porosity. For example, for
gravity oil, as shown in Figure 7. From equation 9, the ⭋ ⳱ 0.20 and r ⳱ 1 lm, a value of Rt ⳱ 10.65 ohm
slope of ⳮ3n ⳮ m is equal to ⳮ8 because m ⳱ n ⳱ m is calculated. Plot a control point corresponding to
2.0. ⭋ ⳱ 0.20 and Rt ⳱ 10.65 ohm m. This is represented
To draw a line of constant permeability equal to 1 by a hexagon in Figure 9. Draw a straight line through
md, calculate Rt from equation 8 using aRw ⳱ 0.036 this control point with a slope equal to Ⳮ3.625. The
and any porosity. For example, for ⭋ ⳱ 0.10, a value
of Rt equal to 57.6 ohm m is calculated. Plot a control
point corresponding to ⭋ ⳱ 0.10 and Rt ⳱ 57.6 ohm
m. This is represented by a triangle in Figure 7. Draw
a straight line through this control point with a slope
equal to ⳮ8. This straight line corresponds to a per-
meability of 1 md. The same procedure is followed for
other permeabilities of interest. It must be emphasized
that permeabilities on the Pickett plot are valid only
for intervals that are at irreducible water saturation,
not at saturation that includes movable water.
Figure 8 shows the same Pickett plot including par-
allel lines of constant capillary pressure. The slope of
ⳮm Ⳮ 2.8125n is equal to 3.625 because m ⳱ n ⳱
2.0.
To draw a line of constant capillary pressure equal
to 100 psi, calculate Rt from equation 15 using aRw ⳱
0.036 and any porosity. For example for ⭋ ⳱ 0.2, a
value of Rt equal to 8.76 is calculated. Plot a control
point corresponding to ⭋ ⳱ 0.20 and Rt equal to 8.76.
This is represented by a square in Figure 8. Draw a
straight line through this control point with a positive
slope equal to 3.625. This straight line corresponds to
a constant capillary pressure of 100 psi. The same pro-
cedure is followed for other capillary pressures of
interest.
It must be remembered that this straight line is
valid for water saturations ranging between 30 and
90%. Furthermore it is important to emphasize that
capillary pressures shown in Figure 8 are consistent and
apply to the single specific point where they are lo-
cated, provided that the water saturation is at irreduc-
ible conditions. For example, for zone 6, at ⭋ ⳱ 0.25,
k ⳱ 78.8 md, and Swi ⳱ 44%, the mercury-air capillary
pressure is 46.75 psi.
Figure 9 shows the same Pickett plot discussed pre- Figure 4. (a) Categories of pore geometry (from Coalson et
viously including parallel lines of constant pore throat al., 1985; reprinted with permission from the South Texas Geo-
aperture radii. The slope from equation 20 is 3.625 as logical Society). Continued.

612 Pickett Plots

straight line corresponds to a constant pore throat ap-
erture radius of 1 lm. The same procedure is followed
for other pore radii of interest. Figure 9 includes pore-
size classes ranging between macropores and nano-
pores. These pore-size classes are valid at 65% water
saturation.
Figure 10 shows the same Pickett plot presented
previously but now including parallel lines of constant
height above the free-water table. The slope from
equation 24 is 3.625 as in the previous cases. The
height above the free-water table presented in Figure
10 is valid for the intervals at irreducible water satu-
ration represented by the black dots. To draw a line of
constant height above the free-water table, h, equal to
50 ft, calculate Rt from equation 24 or
Rt ⳱ ⭋(ⳮmⳭ2.8125n){aRw[1.0961(0.433
⳯ (qw ⳮ qh)h[ⳮ(r cos h)
⳰ (rh cos hh)])ⳮ1.25)ⳮn] (30)
Figure 4. Continued. (b) Pore geometry classification including typical capillary pressures, pore throat profiles, and relative per-
meability curves (from Martin et al., 1999 and Hartmann and Beaumont, 1999; reprinted by permission of the AAPG whose permission
is required for further use).
using aRw ⳱ 0.036 and any porosity. If, for example,
qw ⳮ qo ⳱ 0.27, rh ⳱ 35 dyne/cm, hh ⳱ 30⬚, r ⳱
480, h ⳱ 140⬚, ⭋ ⳱ 0.20, and h ⳱ 50 ft, a value of
Rt equal to 3.709 is calculated. For these data, equation
30 reduces to
Rt ⳱
⭋(ⳮmⳭ2.8125n)aRw[1.0961(1.4182h)ⳮ1.25]ⳮn (31)
Equation 31 applies in the case of a medium grav-
ity oil. Notice that equation 31 is the same as equation
15 if we make
h ⳱ 0.705Pc (32)
for an average oil.
Plot a control point corresponding to ⭋ ⳱ 0.20
and Rt ⳱ 3.709. This is represented by a black triangle
in Figure 10. Draw a straight line through this control
Aguilera 613

Figure 5. Well logs of well in high-porosity sand-shale se-
quence (from Herrick et al., 1979, reprinted with permission
from the Society of Petroleum Engineers).
point with a slope equal to 3.625. The straight line
corresponds to a constant height above the free-water
table (h) equal to 50 ft. The same procedure is fol-
lowed for other heights of interest.
614 Pickett Plots
Figure 11 presents the same Pickett plot discussed
previously but now including big double circles that
correspond to pore throat aperture radii determined
from the Winland equation. All the double circles are
located in the line of constant water saturation equal
to 65% or mercury saturation equal to 35%. To deter-
mine the position of each circle, r35 is calculated from
equation 27 for the known porosity and permeability
at 65% water saturation. For example, if k ⳱ 100 md
and ␾ ⳱ 29.62% the value of r35 is calculated from
equation 27 to be 4.33 lm.
The pore throat aperture at 65% water saturation
can also be calculated from the techniques developed
in this article, rewriting equation 29 as follows:
rp35 ⳱ 1/{[(Rt /(⭋(ⳮmⳭ2.8125n)aRw))ⳮ1 /n
⳯ (1/1.0961)]ⳮ1 /1.25(1/108.1)} (33)
If k ⳱ 100 md and ⭋ ⳱ 0.2962, the value of Rt
equals 1 ohm m at 65% water saturation, from Figure
12. Using m ⳱ n ⳱ 2.0 and aRw ⳱ 0.036, the pore
throat aperture radius (rp35) is calculated to be 4.55
lm, which compares with 4.33 lm calculated from the
Winland equation. The R2 value for the eight intervals
considered in this example is 0.9968.
A graph comparing values of the Winland r35 to
pore throat aperture from this article (rp35) is pre-
sented in Figure 12. Given the fact that the data sets
used to generate the pore throat aperture radii empir-
ical correlations were completely different, the com-
parison is considered to be very good. The following
correlation was developed between the Winland r35
value and the pore throat aperture from the Kwon-
Pickett capillary pressure equation used in this article
(rp35):
r35 ⳱ 2.024(rp35)k0.138 /(100⭋)0.414 (34)
Equation 34 assumes a medium gravity oil, an air-
mercury interfacial tension of 480 dyne/cm, an air-
mercury contact angle of 140⬚, and the default con-
stants shown in Appendix 2. A more general
correlation has the form
r35 ⳱ [18.35rp35c5(0.65)ⳮc6k0.538ⳮc1]
⳰ [(100⭋)0.864ⳮc1r cos h] (35)
Upon inclusion of the default constants shown in
Appendix 2, together with h ⳱ 140⬚ and r ⳱ 480
dyne/cm, equation 35 becomes equation 34.
Table 3. Evaluation of Well in High-Porosity Sand-Shale Sequence Using the Nuclear Magnetic, Density Neutron, and Resistivity
Log Combination*

Zone ⭋ ⭋fl ⭋ ⳮ ⭋fl Rt Swi Sw ⭋Swi k (md)** Water

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

1 0.35 0.27 0.08 5.5 .229 .231 0.80 2190.9 Irreducible

2 0.30 0.19 0.11 1.3 .367 .555 .110 338.3 Movable
3 0.25 0.10 0.15 2.0 .600 .537 .150 42.4 Irreducible
4 0.32 0.26 0.06 0.5 .187 .839 .060 1919.1 Movable
5 0.30 0.23 0.07 0.4 .233 1.000 .070 839.3 Movable
6 0.25 0.14 0.11 3.0 .440 .438 .110 78.8 Irreducible
7 0.30 0.16 0.14 1.9 .467 .459 .140 208.9 Irreducible
8 0.35 0.29 0.16 10.9 .171 .171 .060 3929.1 Irreducible
*From Aguilera, 1990b. Used with permission from the Petroleum Society; no other copies may be made without the expressed written consent of the Petroleum
Society.
**Permeabilities are calculated based on irreducible water saturations.

Figure 6. Pickett plot; data

from well in high-porosity sand-
shale sequence (from Aguilera,
1990b). Used with permission
from the Petroleum Society; no
other copies may be made
without the expressed written
consent of the Petroleum
Society.

Buckles (1965) indicated that the product ⭋Sw
should be constant for zones at irreducible conditions
of water saturation. Using this concept combined with
a Pickett plot, Sanyal and Ellithorpe (1978) showed
that a crossplot of porosity vs. resistivity on log-log co-
ordinates should result in a straight line with a slope
equal to n ⳮ m for intervals at irreducible water sat-
uration. The concept has been also documented by
Greengold (1986) and Doveton et al. (1996), who
have termed the product ⭋Sw bulk volume water
(BVW). This product is also known as the Buckles
number. The concept has been extended by Aguilera
(1990a) for use in shaly formations.
Figure 13 shows a Pickett plot including the BVW.
Because m and n are equal to 2.0, the slope of n ⳮ m
is equal to zero, and the lines of constant BVW show
up as vertical lines.
Figure 14 shows capillary pressures calculated
from equation 10 for the zones at irreducible water
saturation (zones 1, 3, 6, 7, and 8) and height above
the free-water table (h) for the same intervals. For ex-
ample, for zone 6 at a porosity of 25%, irreducible wa-
ter saturation of 44%, and permeability of 78.8 md,
the air-mercury capillary pressure is 46.75 psi. This is
the same value shown in Figure 8. The height above
the free-water table is 32.9 ft, which is the same value

Aguilera 615
Figure 7. Pickett plot incorporating formation permeability; data from well in high-porosity sand-shale sequence (from Aguilera,
1990b). Used with permission from the Petroleum Society; no other copies may be made without the expressed written consent of
the Petroleum Society.

Figure 8. Pickett plot incorporating formation permeability and capillary pressure; data from well in high-porosity sand-shale
sequence.

616 Pickett Plots

Figure 9. Pickett plot incorporating formation permeability and pore throat aperture radii; data from well in high-porosity sand-
shale sequence.

Figure 10. Pickett plot incorporating formation permeability and height above the free water table.

Aguilera 617
Figure 11. Pickett plot incorporating formation permeability, Winland r35 values, and pore throat aperture (rp35) from techniques
presented in this article.

Figure 12. Comparison of Winland r35 values and pore throat aperture (rp35) from techniques presented in this article.

618 Pickett Plots

Figure 13. Pickett plot incorporating formation permeability and bulk volume of water; data from well in high-porosity sand-shale
sequence.
shown in Figure 9. Notice that if capillary pressures are
available from core analysis, the leading constant and
exponent in equation 10 can be calibrated to match
the laboratory data.
Carbonate Example
The carbonate example is more complicated and has
been documented by Martin et al. (1997). Figure 15
shows neutron and resistivity logs of a well in the Penn-
sylvanian Lansing Kansas City moldic limestone oil res-
ervoir. The cementation exponent (m) of the oomoldic
limestone is 2.0. Where the vugs do not touch each
other, the value of m rises to 2.5. Zones 1–6 were per-
forated (3157–3185 ft [962–971 m]) and gave an ini-
tial production of 2000 BOPD on pump, and no water.
Figure 16 shows a Pickett plot incorporating cap-
illary pressure, pore throat aperture, and height above
the free water table. The detailed procedure described
in the previous case history was used to build Figure
16. Each one of the black dots on Figure 16 corre-
sponds to a flow unit identified by Martin et al. (1997).
Their interpretation indicates that “the tendency is to
group flow units 1, 2 and 6 separately from units 3, 4
and 5. In this manner, without core, group 1, 2 and 6
is inferred to represent a different flow unit type and
performance quality than group 3, 4 and 5” (Martin et
al., 1997, p. 746). Visualizing some imaginary capillary
pressures, Martin et al. further stated that “the 3, 4 and
5 group must be of lesser quality than the 1, 2 and 6
group. Although water saturation is higher in the
poorer quality rocks of the 3, 4 and 5 group, it did not
make water on completion, and therefore is not high-
quality rock near to water transition.”
Except for flow unit 1, Martin et al.’s interpreta-
tion is supported by Figure 16. The rock quality of flow
units 2 and 6 is better, with permeabilities on the order
of 10 md. The permeability of flow units 3, 4, and 5 is
one order of magnitude smaller. Zone 1 has the small-
est permeability of the perforated interval (⬇0.3 md).
Flow units 2 and 6 display throat apertures be-
tween 0.5 and 2 lm at their corresponding water sat-
urations shown on the Pickett plot. The pore throat
aperture (rp35) of the same intervals at 65% water sat-
uration is greater than 2 and less than 10 lm (macro-
ports). An approximate estimate of rp35 for flow units
2 and 6 can be obtained from Figure 16 to be on the
order of 3 lm by reading the pore throat aperture at
65% water saturation in the permeability line of zones
2 and 6 (approximately 10 md).
Aguilera 619
Figure 14. Calculated capillary pressure curves for zones at irreducible water saturation; data from well in high-porosity sand-shale
sequence.
Figure 15. (a) Unprocessed logs of a key well in the Lansing Kansas City limestone formation, Geneseo field, and gameboard
interpretation. (b) Regional cores from Geneseo field’s Lansing Kansas City limestone (from Martin et al., 1997; reprinted by permission
of the AAPG whose permission is required for further use).

Aguilera 621
Figure 16. Pickett plot including water saturation, permeability, pore throat aperture, capillary pressure and height above the free
water table. Plot was generated using techniques developed in this article. Data from key well in the Lansing Kansas City limestone
formation, Geneseo field was published by Martin et al., 1997.
As in the case of zones 2 and 6, the pore throat
apertures of zones 3, 4, and 5 fall between 0.5 and 2
lm at their respective water saturations; however, rp35
also falls between 0.5 and 2 lm, classifying flow units
3, 4, and 5 as mesoports. This corroborates the asser-
tion by Martin et al. that the 3, 4, and 5 group is formed
by a poorer rock than the group formed by zones 2
and 6.
The only significant difference from Martin et al.’s
interpretation is related to flow unit 1. Figure 16 shows
that although it has a very attractive water saturation
(⬍30%), the pore throat aperture at that saturation is
only 0.2 lm. The value of rp35 for zone 1, however, is
approximately 0.6 lm (mesoport).
Martin et al. (1997, p. 735) indicate that macro-
ports are “capable of thousands of barrels of oil per day”
and mesoports allow “only hundreds of barrels of oil
per day.” These guidelines apply in this case history. In
fact, the perforated interval is composed of macroports
and mesoports, and the well initially produced 2000
BOPD on pump, and zero water.
Zone 3 has the highest water saturation, but it is
at irreducible conditions, as the well did not produce
622 Pickett Plots
any water on completion. Zone 6, which is deeper, has
the lowest water saturation, the best permeability, and
the highest rp35. This corroborates Martin et al.’s
(1997, p. 748) assertion that “with improved rock
quality, downdip prospectivity can be clearly
demonstrated.”
Because there is no core data to calibrate the equa-
tions, it is likely that the pore throat apertures in Figure
16 could move somewhat in one direction or the other.
The values presented in this case history, however, fit
well with the testing results. Figure 16 was developed
using the default constants shown in Appendix 2, ex-
cept for c5, which was assumed to be equal to 15. The
R2 value resulting from r35 and rp35 calculations in this
example is 0.9891 using all 12 intervals shown in Fig-
ure 16, and 0.9954 using only the perforated intervals
(flow units 1–6).
CONCLUSIONS
New methods have been presented for incorporating
capillary pressure, pore throat aperture radii, height
above the free-water table, and Winland r35 values into F ⳱ formation factor
Pickett plots. The techniques involve the use of em- h ⳱ height above free water table (ft)
I ⳱ resistivity index
pirical equations for calculating capillary pressure ex-
Ish ⳱ resistivity index of shaly formation
pressed as a function of permeability, porosity, and wa- k ⳱ formation permeability (md)
ter saturation. Based on this work the following krw ⳱ relative permeability to water
conclusions have been reached: m ⳱ porosity exponent
n ⳱ water saturation exponent
Pc ⳱ capillary pressure (mercury injection) (psi)
1. A log-log crossplot of porosity vs. true resistivity (in
r ⳱ pore throat aperture radius (lm)
some cases apparent resistivity or resistivity affected r35 ⳱ Winland pore throat aperture radius corresponding to a mer-
by a shale group) should result in a straight line for cury saturation of 35% (lm)
intervals at irreducible water saturation with con- rp35 ⳱ this article pore throat aperture radius corresponding to a
stant capillary pressure and constant pore throat ap- mercury saturation of 35% (lm)
erture radii. The capillary pressure at any point on Ro ⳱ formation resistivity of zone 100% saturated with water
(ohm m)
the Pickett plot is consistent with porosity, perme-
Rt ⳱ true formation resistivity (ohm m)
ability, and irreducible water saturation at that par- Rw ⳱ water resistivity (ohm m)
ticular point. Swi ⳱ irreducible water saturation, fraction (unless stated
2. The techniques have been extended to incorporate otherwise)
height above the free-water table and Winland r35 Sw ⳱ water saturation, fraction (unless stated otherwise)

values on the Pickett plot.

Subscripts
3. Winland r35 pore throat aperture radii compare rea-
sonably well with apertures (rp35) developed in this fl ⳱ free fluid
article from data published by Kwon and Pickett N ⳱ neutron
(1975). This is significant because the data sets
come from different areas, different lithologies, and Greek Symbols

different reservoirs and were evaluated indepen-

h ⳱ air-mercury contact angle
dently at different times. A mathematical relation- hh ⳱ water-hydrocarbon contact angle
ship between the Winland r35 pore throat aperture lm ⳱ microns
radius and rp35 (this article) has been developed. qh ⳱ hydrocarbon density (g/cm3)
The R2 value is 0.9968 for the clastic example and qo ⳱ oil density (g/cm3)
qw ⳱ water density (g/cm3)
0.9954 for the perforated interval in the carbonate
r ⳱ air-mercury interfacial tension (dyne/cm)
example. A significant advantage of the method de- rh ⳱ water-hydrocarbon interfacial tension (dyne/cm)
veloped in this article is that, in addition to calcu- ⭋ ⳱ effective porosity, fraction (unless stated otherwise)
lating pore throat aperture at 65% water saturation
(rp35), it also allows calculation of the pore throat
aperture at any water saturation of interest. APPENDIX 2
4. Integrating permeability, capillary pressures, pore-
size classes, and geometry of the pores on a log-log For simplicity, methods presented in this article have been developed
graph of porosity vs. resistivity makes the Pickett assuming a medium gravity oil (constant ⬇ 250 in equation 10).
plot one of the most formidable formation evalua- Furthermore they assume that exponent B is equal to 0.45 in the
tion tools yet devised. Ideally, core data of the spe- capillary pressure equation (equation 10), and that constant A at
each water saturation is as presented in Table 1.
cific reservoir being evaluated should be used to cal-
Appendix 2 presents the key equation (equation 15) in a more
ibrate the empirical equations presented in this general form in such a way that the user can modify those constants
article. at will. This is particularly valuable where core data are available for
calibration purposes. The general equation is

Rt ⳱ ⭋ⳮmⳭnc7 /c8(aRw){Pc1 /c8c2c4c1 /c8 /(100c1c5)1 /c8}ⳮn (36)

APPENDIX 1: NOMENCLATURE
where c1 ⳱ exponent B in the capillary pressure equation (equation
a ⳱ constant in formation factor equation 10, for example 0.45); c2 ⳱ constant for oil or gas in the permeability
A ⳱ constant in equation 10 for a given water saturation equation (equation 6, for example 250 in the case of a medium grav-
Ash ⳱ shale group for miscellaneous models ity oil and 79 in the case of a dry gas at shallow depth); c3 ⳱ exponent
B ⳱ exponent in equation 10 (approximately equal to 0.45) of porosity in the equation to calculate permeability (equation 6, for

Aguilera 623
example 3.0); c4 ⳱ nth root of permeability in equation 6 (for ex-
ample 2.0 or squared root); c5 ⳱ constant in equation 11 to calculate
A (for example 19.5); c6 ⳱ exponent of water saturation in equation
11 to calculate A (for example 1.7); c7 ⳱ (1 ⳮ c3c4)(c1); and c8 ⳱
(ⳮc6 Ⳮ c4c1).
If we assume a medium gravity oil (c2 ⳱ 250) and other con-
stants listed previously, equation 36 becomes
Rt ⳱ ⭋ⳮmⳭ2.8125n(aRw)[1.0961Pcⳮ1.25)]ⳮn (37)
which is the same as equation 15 in the main text of the article
(round-off errors might apply).
REFERENCES CITED
Aguilera, R., 1990a, Extensions of Pickett plots for the analysis of
shaly formations by well logs: The Log Analyst, v. 31, no. 6,
p. 304–313.
Aguilera, R., 1990b, A new approach for analysis of the nuclear mag-
netic log-resistivity log combination: Journal of Canadian Pe-
troleum Technology, v. 29, no. 1, p. 67–71.
Aguilera, R., 1995, Naturally fractured reservoirs: Tulsa, Oklahoma,
PennWell Books, 521 p.
Aguilera, R., 1999, Recovery factors and reserves in naturally frac-
tured reservoirs: Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology,
v. 38, no. 7, p. 15–18.
Aguilera, R., and M. S. Aguilera, 2001, The integration of capillary
pressures and Pickett plots for determination of flow units and
reservoir containers: Society of Petroleum Engineers Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, SPE paper 71725, 13 p.
Archie, G. E., 1942, The electrical resistivity log as an aid in deter-
mining some reservoir characteristics: Transactions of the
American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical and Petroleum
Engineers, v. 146, p. 54–67.
Buckles, R. S., 1965, Correlating and averaging connate water satu-
ration data: Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, v. 5,
p. 42–52.
Coalson, E. B., D. J. Hartmann, and J. B. Thomas, 1985, Productive
characteristics of common reservoir porosity types: Bulletin of
the South Texas Geological Society, v. 25, no. 6, p. 35–51.
Doveton, J. H., W. Guy, W. L. Watney, G. C. Bohling, S. Ullah, and
D. Adkins-Heljeson, 1996, Log analysis of petrofacies and flow
units with microcomputer spreadsheet software: Kansas Geo-
logical Survey, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas.
Greengold, G. E., 1986, The graphical representation of bulk volume
624 Pickett Plots
water on the Pickett crossplot: The Log Analyst, v. 27, no. 3,
p. 21–25.
Gunter, G. W., J. J. Pinch, J. M. Finneran, and W. T. Bryant, 1997,
Overview of an integrated process model to develop petro-
physical based reservoir descriptions: Society of Petroleum En-
gineers Annual Technical Conference, SPE paper 38748, 5 p.
Hartmann, D. J., and E. A. Beaumont, 1999, Predicting reservoir
system quality and performance, in E. A. Beaumont and N. H.
Foster, eds., Exploring for oil and gas traps: AAPG Treatise of
Petroleum Geology, Handbook of Petroleum Geology, p. 9-1–
9-154.
Herrick, R. C., S. H. Couturie, and D. L. Best, 1979, An improved
nuclear magnetism logging system and its application to for-
mation evaluation: Society of Petroleum Engineers 54th Annual
Technical Conference, SPE paper 8361, 8 p.
Kolodzie Jr., S., 1980, Analysis of pore throat size and use of the
Waxman-Smits equation to determine OOIP in Spindle field,
Colorado: Society of Petroleum Engineers 55th Annual Tech-
nical Conference, SPE paper 9382, 10 p.
Kwon, B. S., and G. R. Pickett, 1975, A new pore structure model
and pore structure interrelationships: Society of Professional
Well Log Analysts 16th Annual Logging Symposium, 14 p.
Lucia, F. J., 1999, Characterization of petrophysical flow units in
carbonate reservoirs: discussion: AAPG Bulletin, v. 83, no. 7,
p. 1161–1163.
Martin, A. J., S. T. Solomon, and D. J. Hartmann, 1997, Character-
ization of petrophysical flow units in carbonate reservoirs:
AAPG Bulletin, v. 81, no. 5, p. 734–759.
Martin, A. J., S. T. Solomon, and D. J. Hartmann, 1999, Character-
ization of petrophysical flow units in carbonate reservoirs: re-
ply: AAPG Bulletin, v. 83, no. 7, p. 1164–1173.
Morris, R. L., and W. P. Biggs, 1967, Using log-derived values of
water saturation and porosity: Society of Professional Well Log
Analysts Annual Logging Symposium, 26 p.
Pickett, G. R., 1966, A review of current techniques for determi-
nation of water saturation from logs: Journal of Petroleum
Technology, v. 18, p. 1425–1433.
Pickett, G. R., 1973, Pattern recognition as a means of formation
evaluation: Society of Professional Well Log Analysts 14th An-
nual Logging Symposium Transactions, paper A, p. A1–A21.
Pittman, E. D., 1992, Relationship of porosity and permeability to
various parameters derived from mercury injection-capillary
pressure curves for sandstone: AAPG Bulletin, v. 76, no. 2,
p. 191–198.
Sanyal, S. K., and J. E. Ellithorpe, 1978, A generalized resistivity-
porosity crossplot concept: Society of Petroleum Engineers
California Regional Meeting, SPE paper 7145, 8 p.
Washburn, E. W., 1921, Note on a method of determining the dis-
tribution of pore sizes in a porous material: Proceedings of the
National Academy of Science, v. 7, p. 115–116.