CHAPTER 7.

WATER SATURATIONS AND FREE WATER

LEVEL
Alan P. Byrnes and Martin K. Dubois

Introduction

Determining accurate water saturations (Sw) in the Hugoton is important both for accurate
volumetric calculations and for flow modeling, because water saturation can significantly
influence gas relative permeability even in rocks at “irreducible” water saturation (Swi).
It is well recognized by operators in the Hugoton, that determination of formation water
saturations from induction wireline log response is problematic. Traditional methods of
determining water including routine core saturations and induction wireline log analysis
are complicated by deep mud filtrate invasion resulting from the common drilling
management practice of drilling with a large hydrostatic overbalance relative to low-
pressure reservoirs (Olson et al., 1997; Babcock et al., 2001). Routine core water
saturations are high due to flushing during the coring operation that is further enhanced
by capillary imbibition of water due to low gas pressure in the core and high drilling mud
pressure. For log interpretation, invasion modeling by George et al. (2004) examined the
complexity of the mud-filtrate invasion process and the influence of a low-resistivity
mud-filtrate annulus on induction log response. Their study indicated that modeling of
invasion is required to estimate gas saturation and that there is no simple procedure to
correct previously acquired logs. Using conventional saturation calculation methods,
calculated water saturations are significantly higher than true formation saturations.

Because water saturations cannot be reliably determined for most wells using logs, it was
decided to estimate water saturations based on matrix capillary-pressure properties and
determination of the free water level (FWL, level at which gas-brine capillary pressure is
zero). Olson et al. (1997) employed a capillary pressure, matrix-based methodology for
predicting water saturations for intervals in the Chase. The methodology they employed
was limited in regional application because: 1) the capillary-pressure curves used were
for intervals and consequently represented pseudo-capillary-pressure properties that did
not provide unique curves for each lithofacies or porosity, and 2) were required only to
predict water saturation in the upper Chase which is at low saturation where error is
small. The following text discusses aspects of water saturation determination including
the capillary-pressure properties of Hugoton rocks, the relationship between saturation
and free water level, the FWL surface geometry, and sensitivity of the estimated water
saturations and original gas in place (OGIP) to capillary pressure and FWL uncertainty.

7- 1
7.1 CORE and LOG PETROPHYSICS
Alan P. Byrnes

The work of George et al. (2004) illustrated the limitations of determining water
saturation from induction wireline logs and the inability to accurately use existing logs.
Based on these results, analysis of electrical wireline log response to determine water
saturation was not investigated further.

The present study uses a matrix capillary pressure method that calculates water saturation
based on the capillary properties of a rock at any given position in the reservoir and its
height above free water level (Hafwl, the datum at which capillary pressure is zero or gas
and water pressure are equal). The physics governing determining water saturation from
capillary pressure is well documented in the literature (Berg, 1975; Schowalter, 1979)
and is not reviewed here. For a simple system the basic method involves the following:

1) Measure capillary pressure in the laboratory.

2) Convert laboratory capillary pressure data to reservoir gas-brine capillary pressure data
using the standard equation (Purcell, 1949; Berg, 1975):

Pcres = Pclab (σcosθres/σcosθlab) (7.1.1)

where Pcres is the gas-brine capillary pressure (psia) at reservoir conditions, Pclab is the
laboratory-measured capillary pressure (psia), σcosθres is the interfacial tension (σ,
dyne/cm) times the cosine of the contact angle (θ, degrees) at reservoir conditions, and
σcosθlab is the interfacial tension times the cosine of the contact angle at laboratory
conditions.
3) Convert reservoir capillary pressure curves to Sw versus Hafwl curves using the standard
relation (Hubbert, 1953; Berg, 1975):

Hafwl = Pcres/(C(ρbrine-ρgas)) (7.1.2)

where Hafwl is the height (ft) above free-water level, Pcres is the capillary pressure (psia) at
reservoir conditions, ρbrine and ρgas are the density of brine and gas at reservoir conditions
and C is a constant (0.433(psia/ft)/(g/cc)) for converting density to pressure gradient.
4) Using the Hafwl-Sw curve to determine Sw at a any given Hafwl.

Fundamental to this methodology is an understanding and input of reservoir rock, fluid,

and large-scale connectivity properties including:

1) The capillary pressure properties of the rock at any given location.

2) A model for conversion of capillary pressure to Hafwl.
2.1) Understanding of fluid properties.
2.1.1) Laboratory and reservoir interfacial tension and contact angle.
2.1.2) Reservoir fluid composition and resulting densities.
3) Hafwl of the location, and implicitly the elevation of the FWL.

7- 2
4) The implicit assumption that there is a continuous gas column between the defined
FWL and the location at which saturation is being determined.
5) Gas and water pressure and change of the above properties through time (i.e. how have
properties changed through time and is the system presently in equilibrium or in a
transient state).

Each of these inputs is briefly discussed, with the Hafwl and FWL elevation discussed in
section 7.2.

Capillary Pressure Properties

The capillary pressure properties of the rocks in the Hugoton are discussed in Chapter 4,
Section 4.2. Analysis of capillary pressure curves for 252 samples, ranging in porosity,
permeability and lithofacies, showed that capillary pressure properties differ among
lithofacies and among different porosities within a lithofacies. Figure 7.1.1 illustrates
example capillary pressure curves, expressed as Hafwl-Sw curves, for all 11 lithofacies at
10% porosity showing that water-saturation differences among lithofacies can vary up to
65% at a given Hafwl. Within a given lithofacies (e.g. continental very fine to fine-grained
sandstone (L0)). water saturations can vary by up to 95% as a function of porosity. These
differences in capillary pressure properties are sufficiently great that to predict accurate
water saturations, it is necessary to be able to construct capillary pressure curves specific
for the lithology and porosity of rock for which a predicted Sw value is needed.

Section 4.2 discusses the analysis of the capillary pressure data and the development of
equations 4.2.15 through 4.2.19 that can predict Sw for each lithofacies and porosity. The
complete Hafwl-Sw curves presented in Figures 4.2.67-4.2.77 were constructed using
equation 4.2.17. Figures 7.1.1 and 7.1.2 illustrate curves developed using these equations.
Several features common to Hugoton rocks of most lithofacies are illustrated in Figure
7.1.2. Threshold entry height, or the gas column height above the free water level necessary
to begin to desaturate a rock, increases with decreasing porosity (and associated decreasing
permeability and maximum pore-throat size). For high-porosity rocks (in situ porosity,
φi>18%), the threshold entry Hafwl (Hte) is generally less than 10 ft and these rocks have
significant gas saturation throughout the Chase and Council Grove. The Hte for lower
porosity (φi<6%) mud- to silt-rich lithofacies (e.g., fine- to medium-grained siltstone-L2,
mudstone-L4) can exceed 800 ft, and therefore these rocks require greater gas column
height than is available in the Hugoton. These rocks are at Sw=100% in all areas of the
Hugoton assuming the Hugoton is in capillary equilibrium. The mean in situ porosity for all
Hugoton core measured is 8.5+5.1% (1 s.d.) and mean in situ porosity for many lithofacies
in the Council Grove is similar to or less than this value. This places half of their L0-L4
lithofacies rocks with Hte in the Chase or higher.

7- 3
Capillary Pressure Conversion

The conversion of laboratory-measured capillary pressure to equivalent reservoir gas

column height above free water level requires the input of a range of fluid properties
including interfacial tension, contact angle, and density. Because these properties change
with gas and brine composition and reservoir pressure and temperature, and these vary in
the Hugoton, there is some uncertainty in the conversion.

Conversion of laboratory air-mercury capillary pressure to reservoir condition gas-brine

capillary pressure assumed several conditions. Laboratory air-mercury interfacial tension
and contact angle values used were interfacial tension, IFT = 484 dyne/cm and contact
angle = 140 degrees. Though IFT exhibits little error (~+1 dyne/cm), contact angles can
vary from 110 to 160 degrees over different substrates and depending on whether
mercury is advancing or retreating (Ritter and Drake, 1945). For carbonate surface the
variance in contact angle is low (+5o), but published work does not include low-porosity
mudstones. Because there is no oil with surface active agents and little organic matter,
there is no evidence to indicate that the CH4-brine contact angle would be different than
the value used, θ = 0 degrees. Reservoir interfacial tension is dependent on reservoir
temperature and pressure. Present temperatures are near 98 oF and are considered to vary
from 90 to 100oF (32-38 oC) over the field. Reservoir pressure at discovery ranged from
400 to 450 psi (2.8-3.1 MPa) and may have originally been as high as 1,500 psi (10.3
MPa). At 400-450 psi and 90-100 oF, CH4-water IFT ranges from 65.5 to 67.5+0.3
dyne/cm (Jennings and Newman, 1971). At 1,500 psi CH4-water IFT ranges from 56.7 to
58.5+0.3 dyne/cm.

For the Chase and Council Grove, reported brine total dissolved solids range from
159,000 ppm to 239,000 ppm with most analyses reported with TDS> 210,000 ppm. For
the calcium and sodium content of these brines and for a reservoir pressure of 450 oF and
temperature of ~98oF, the brine range in density from 1.05 g/cc < ρbrine < 1.19 g/cc but
average near 1.16 g/cc. At reservoir pressures ranging from 100 psi (690 kPa) to
discovery pressures near 400-450 psi (2.8-3.1 MPa) and possible early reservoir pressures
as high as 1,500 psi (10.3 MPa), the gas density ranges from 0.008 g/cc < ρgas < 0.11 g/cc
with a value near 0.031 g/cc at 450 psi and 98oF.

For this range in uncertainty the height above free water level conversions exhibit an
average error of 4.5%. For this uncertainty a calculated height of 1,000 ft might be 955 ft
or 1,045 ft or a height of 100 ft might be 95.5 ft or 104.5 ft.

For the purpose of converting air-mercury capillary pressure data to gas-brine capillary
pressure data and gas-brine height above free water level at reservoir conditions, the
following properties were assumed: ρgas = 0.031 g/cc, ρbrine = 1.16 g/cc, and CH4-brine
IFT = 64 dyne/cm. These values are appropriate for the saturated brine present in the
Hugoton and for the natural gas in the Hugoton at 400-450 psi.

7- 4
Gas Column Continuity

Implicit in the calculation of water saturation from a capillary pressure curve is the
assumption that there is a continuous gas column between the defined free water level,
FWL, and the height at which saturation is being determined. It is clear from the Hafwl-Sw
curves that for some lithofacies with porosity less than 6%, water saturations are 100%.
The presence of a water-saturated layer can act to re-establish the FWL to the saturated
layer. However, if gas is able to bypass a saturated region then the continuity of a
continuous gas column is maintained. Bypass of areas where portions of a stratigraphic
interval are predicted to be saturated is possible either through a large-scale fracture system
or through regions where the saturated layer is improved in properties.

The existence of a regionally common reservoir pressure, a common pressure between the
Chase and Council Grove at discovery and later in the reservoir history, and similar fluid
contacts, argue that some form of reservoir communication exists. Fractures observed in
core and regional time-sequenced mapping of reservoir pressure and production (Chapter
8) support the existence of a fracture communication system. Assuming fracture
permeabilities of 0.5-1,000 md, the presence of even a large-scale fracture system, where
fracture spacing is on a scale of miles, there is sufficient time within the Holocene to
establish capillary pressure continuity in the system.

Gas/Water Pressure and Equilibrium

Use of the Hafwl-Sw curves formally only requires an understanding of the pressure
difference between the gas and water phases and not definition of the absolute pressures.
However, the subnormal pressures in the Hugoton, relative to reservoir depth, raise
questions about what the water pressure is in the reservoir and therefore what is the
capillary pressure. For many midcontinent reservoir systems, it is assumed that reservoir
water pressure is near hydrostatic relative to the overlying surface. Studies of the Arbuckle
in Kansas (Carr et al., 1986) have shown that Arbuckle pressures are tied to the
hydrodynamic gradient established by recharge in Colorado and discharge in Missouri.
Sorensen (2005) presented a similar model for the Chase and Council Grove that is
discussed below. Sorenson (2005) proposed that the Chase and Council Grove groups were
originally in hydrodynamic equilibrium with their outcrops, which were more deeply
buried. Exhumation in the Late Tertiary and Holocene resulted in a drop in elevation of the
outcrop. Assuming Chase/Council Grove communication with the Wolfcampian outcrop in
northeast Kansas, water at the base of the Council Grove near sea level is at an approximate
depth of 950 ft relative to the outcrop. For a brine density of ~1.06 g/cc, this depth is
equivalent to a pressure of approximately 435 psi. Thus the gas reservoir pressure at
discovery was equal to the aquifer pressure in the deeper Chase/Council Grove with a free
water level approximately at sea level.

Based on the elevations and pressures, the model proposed by Sorenson would indicate that
the Hugoton hydrodynamic system is approaching or has approached equilibrium. This
model has potential implications for saturation calculations. If the system is presently at

7- 5
equilibrium then prediction of water saturations using capillary pressure methods is
appropriate. However, it is possible that parts of the reservoir system might not have
reached saturation equilibrium. Assuming that the Chase/Council Grove outcrops were at
higher elevation in the past, then the FWL would have been at a higher elevation and, as
Sorenson proposed, the reservoir pressure would have been higher in a smaller field located
in the western portion of the present Hugoton and in the up dip portion of the structure.
Assuming that the rocks are unlikely to have changed significantly in capillary pressure
properties in the Late Tertiary, a higher FWL elevation in the same Hugoton field would
require that the water saturations in the Chase would have been higher and that significant
portions of the Council Grove would have been water saturated. With exhumation of the
outcrop and a drop in Hugoton reservoir pressure, the expanding gas cap would have
displaced water from the eastern Hugoton Chase and underlying Council Grove on a
drainage cycle. With expansion of the gas cap the displacing water front would have been
in continuous close contact with downdip water-saturated reservoir and would therefore
have minimum relative permeability resistance to efficient water desaturation.

Water in the Chase in the western Hugoton could have been more restricted in its ability
to flow out to the east and maintain equilibrium with the expanding hydrocarbon column.
Water in the highest elevations of the reservoir might have been near critical water
saturation but at significantly higher water saturation than capillary equilibrium would
establish in the present reservoir system. As the gas column expanded down and to the
east, the water in the upper Chase might be temporarily stranded by low relative
permeability. This would leave the portions of the original, pre-exhumation, Hugoton gas
field at higher water saturations than the present capillary pressure relations would
predict. An existing large-scale fracture system and the ability of gas near the water table
to displace water would allow the creation of a system that is regionally near equilibrium
and has a FWL in equilibrium with the outcrop thus defining the existing capillary
pressure system. If this model is correct then the “new” portions of the Hugoton field
might be in capillary and water saturation equilibrium, but the “old” portions of the field
are in gas pressure equilibrium, however, water saturations are elevated in a transient
state as the water flows slowly out of the reservoir, restricted by ultra-low water relative
permeability.

Examination of the Hafwl-Sw curves (Figures 4.2.67-4.2.77) and the water relative
permeability curves (Figure 4.2.82) provides some semi-quantitative information. Using as
an example a wackestone/wacke-packstone with 10% porosity (Figure 4.2.73) located in a
high portion of the original reservoir, and assuming the original reservoir had a 300 ft gas
column, the example limestone would have had a water saturation of 37%. With expansion
of the gas cap and establishment of a new Hafwl = 500 ft, the predicted equilibrium
saturation would be 25%. However, Figure 4.2.82 shows that the initial 37% was already
approaching critical water saturation and 25% water saturation would have even lower
water relative permeability.

It is important to note that the gas-water drainage relative permeability curves defined by
laboratory testing are not designed to test for extremely low water flow rates and that ultra-
low flow rates might still be sufficient to move large volumes of water over 10,000+ years.

7- 6
7.2 RESOLVING FREE WATER LEVEL GEOMETRY
Martin K. Dubois

Estimating the free water level (FWL) position is critical for calculating water saturations
using capillary pressures and the height above FWL. It has been recognized that the
Hugoton field has a sloped gas-water contact, and we interpret a sloped FWL that is
several 100’s of feet (100’s m) higher at the west updip margin than on the east downdip
limits (Garlough and Taylor, 1941; Hubbert, 1953, 1967; Pippin, 1970; Sorenson, 2005).
In this study we have defined the gas-water contact as the lowest position in the reservoir
that a well can produce gas economically, without substantial water, and the free water
level as the datum where gas-brine capillary pressure is zero. As shown in Section 4.2
(Petrophysics section of Reservoir Characterization Chapter 4), initial reservoir
desaturation may not occur for some lithofacies until several tens or hundreds of feet
(10’s-100’s m) above the free water level (threshold entry height). For typical reservoir
rocks in the study area, packstone-grainstone 8-10% porosity, the FWL ranges from 50 to
70 ft (9-21 m) below the “gas-water” contact, a point at which the water saturation is
approximately 70% (Figure 7.1.2). Across the range of lithofacies that are typically
considered the main pay lithofacies (L6-L10) the height above FWL at which water
saturations are approximately 70% broadens slightly.

The Hugoton gas reservoir is a dry-gas, pressure-depletion reservoir with very little or no
support from the underlying aquifer. Vertical water flow is constrained by low vertical
water permeabilities through low-porosity siltstone layers (k< 10-6 md (10-9 μm2) for φ <
4%) and by low water relative permeability in carbonates with low water saturation.
However, below the transition zone, water can be produced freely and reservoir pressures
(600-700 psi; 4.1-4.8 MPa) approach regional hydrodynamic pressures for the depth
(Sorensen, 2005). As noted above, the low reservoir gas pressures (~450 psi; 3.1 Mpa)
and sub-hydrostatic water pressures below the transition zone were proposed by Sorenson
(2005) to be the result of water pressure equilibrating with reservoir rocks exposed at
outcrop in eastern Kansas and gas cap expansion, and consequent pressure decrease.

The Hugoton has long been considered a classic example of a giant stratigraphic trap
(Garlough and Taylor, 1941; Parhman and Campbell, 1993) due to updip changes in
lithofacies and petrophysical properties associated with these changes. However, dips on
the apparent gas-water contact and FWL that cross stratigraphic boundaries cannot be
fully explained by lateral heterogeneities. Hubbert (1953, 1967) proposed a conceptual
model for the Hugoton being a hydrodynamic trap with trapping resulting from a
hydraulic gradient coupled with permeability changes at the updip margin of the field.
Pippin (1970) cited Hubbert’s hydrodynamics and updip pinchouts of reservoir rock as
the trapping mechanism. Olson et al., (1997) suggested that sealing faults, at least in the
western portion of the field in Stanton and Morton counties, Kansas, compartmentalize
the lower Chase reservoirs with the compartments having dramatically different gas-
water contacts that rise to the west. Sorenson (2005) suggested that the downdip flow of
gas during expansion of the Hugoton gas bubble might be responsible for the gas-water
contact geometry.

7- 7
Determining the mechanism for an uneven FWL was not an objective of our
investigations but FWL had to be established for the calculation of water saturations
using capillary pressure. Though others have presented general descriptions of the gas-
water contact datum (e.g., Garlough and Taylor, 1941; Pippin, 1970; Parhman and
Campbell, 1993), it has not been rigorously defined by earlier workers. Determining the
FWL is no small task and merits investigation beyond this study, particularly along the
east margin of the Panoma and Hugoton where there is a discrepancy between two
methods employed. In the current version (Geomod 4-3), our estimation of the FWL
(Figure 7.2.1) was derived using a combination of three indicators: (1) base of lowest
perforations; (2) position where log calculated water saturation equals 100% in field pay
zones; and (3) calculation of the FWL for an estimated original gas in place (OGIP).
Figure 7.2.2 illustrates the height above FWL for key stratigraphic horizons in the Chase
and Council Grove.

Within the central portion of the Panoma field, we based the depth of FWL on the
average lowest reported productive perforations in the Council Grove (FWL = base of
perforations + 70 ft (20 m)), 70 ft below perforations, assuming that operators have been
efficient at identifying pay and avoiding water production. A significant difference
between the base of Council Grove and the base of Chase perforations exists along the
east side of the fields (Figure 7.2.3) with the lowest Chase perforations being 150-200
feet higher than in the Council Grove. We do not believe the Chase perforations
represent the same relationship with free water level and that other factors contribute to
this difference, and thus we must rely on other indicators outside the Panoma boundary.
Along the eastern and western margin of the Hugoton in Kansas, where there is no
underlying Council Grove production we used log-derived water saturations for
estimating the FWL at the field boundary (Figure 7.2.4). FWL was estimated to be 30 ft
(9 m) below the structural datum of the point where Chase pay zone log derived water
saturation equals 100%. Thirty feet is the threshold entry pressure for many of the major
pay lithofacies in the 8-10% porosity range. Limited data in the Oklahoma Panhandle
required that FWL be estimated by back-calculating the FWL required for capillary
pressure based original gas in place (OGIP) equal to the cumulative production divided
by 70% (Figure 7.2.5). This method assumed that the Panhandle reservoir exhibited
similar pressure depletion and gas production as reservoirs in Kansas. There is
discrepancy in the FWL where two methods join on the east side of the field that is yet to
be resolved. Base of Council Grove perforations are approximately sea level at the
Panoma boundary, and the FWL would be at a datum of -70 based on the perforations
+70 ft rule. However, the Chase FWL estimated on the basis of water saturations is a
+50 at the east side of the Hugoton, 15-20 miles to the east. This cannot be the case if we
assume the FWL on the east side of the field is flat. In an earlier version we chose to use
a FWL closer to the perforations +70 ft method and extend a flat FWL (approximate
datum = -40) from the Panoma edge to the east margin of the Hugoton. This resulted in
what appeared to be an excess amount of gas in both the Chase and Council Grove in that
area. In the current model version (Geomod 4-3) we did the opposite. A FWL of
approximately +50 at the Hugoton margin was sloped down slightly to close to sea level
at the Panoma margin where it was merged into the base of Council Grove perforations

7- 8
+70 surface as it began its westward ascent. This resulted in what appear to be more
appropriate OGIP in the Chase, but what may be too little in the Council Grove at the
field edge. The FWL issue is yet to be completely resolved in this area, but appears to be
satisfactory in most other areas of the current model.

The combining of the three methods resulted in a fairly smooth FWL surface. Contour
lines in the Oklahoma Panhandle that were back calculated are an extension of those in
Kansas that were based on the Council Grove perforations. The FWL subsea depth is
approximately +50 ft (+15 m) at the east margin of the Hugoton to +20 ft (+6 m) at the
Panoma margin and, moving west, begins to rise at a rate of 15 ft/mi (2.85 m/km) to a
datum of +250 ft (+80 m), where it then rises at 50 ft/mi (9.4 m/km) to a height of +1000
ft (+300m) at the western margin of the Hugoton. The configuration closely parallels the
gas-water contact described by Pippin (1970), although he placed the gas/water contact at
the west side at a datum of +850 ft, and our estimate places the gas/water contact 20-50 ft
(6-15 m) lower than he did at the east margin of the Hugoton. Our estimated gas-water
contact is +120 ft (36 m) at this position in the field (70 ft above the FWL).

7.3 SENSITIVITY OF OGIP TO CAPILLARY PRESSURE AND FREE WATER

LEVEL
Alan P. Byrnes and Martin K. Dubois

Geomodel calculation of gridcell saturation is based on:

Predicted gridcell lithofacies

Predicted of gridcell porosity
Predicted free water level
Capillary pressure equation for lithofacies and porosity at gridcell height above
free water level

Each of these inputs has error. Chapter 6 discussed error in the lithofacies prediction and
Chapter 7 discussed error in porosity. In this section the influence of error and change in
capillary pressure properties and free water level on predicted water saturation is
examined.

Capillary Pressure Effects

The modeling of capillary pressure is discussed in Section 4.2. Figures 4.2.54-4.2.60

show the lithofacies-specific relationships between the threshold entry height, Hte, and in
situ porosity. Figures 4.2.62-4.2.66 illustrate the lithofacies-specific relationships
between the dimensionless Hafwl-Sw slope, t, Hf, and in situ porosity. Figures 4.2.67-4.2.77
illustrate modeled Hafwl-Sw curves for a range of porosities for each lithofacies. Included in
Table 4.2.10 are the equation parameters used for Hafwl-Sw curve construction and Sw
prediction. Also included in that table is the standard error of prediction for predicted Hte
and Hf . The error of prediction varies among lithofacies but an average standard error of

7- 9
Hf of 0.5 is representative. Similarly, the error of prediction varies among lithofacies for
the Hte but an average standard error of Hte of approximately a factor of 3X or in
logarithmic units, 0.5, is representative. A crossplot of the logHte error versus Hf (Figure
7.3.1) shows that for the Hugoton rocks analyzed these errors are positively correlated
with a slope, determined by reduced major axis regression analysis, of 1.06 and an
intercept of 0.013 (i.e., effectively a slope of 1 and intercept of zero). Figures 7.3.2-7.3.5
illustrate the logHte error- Hf error relationship for each major lithofacies group. The
possible cause for this relationship is not known. This relationship places an important
constraint on error analysis and the influence of error on predicted water saturation. The
direction of these errors on predicted water saturation act in an opposite direction. A
positive error in logHte results in a higher Hte and consequently high Sw at a given Hafwl. A
corresponding positive error in Hf results in a shallower slope and narrower transition
zone and thus lower Sw.

The errors shown in Figures 7.3.1-7.3.5 do not account for the absolute values of the
predicted Hte. For some samples in these crossplots the predicted Hte is less than 20 ft
where error prediction is not significant. Figure 7.3.6 shows the same logHte error versus
Hf error crossplot but with error assigned a value of zero for all samples where the
predicted and measured Hte is less than 50 ft. For the samples clustered along the y-axis,
only error in Hf has significant influence on predicted saturation.
Differences in predicted water saturation as a function of variance in the Hte and Hf terms
are a complex function of lithofacies (and the associated Hafwl-Sw curve), porosity, and
Hafwl. As with the differences among Hafwl-Sw curves for different porosity rocks of the
same lithofacies, the influence of error and the change in Hafwl-Sw curves that result vary
among lithofacies and porosity. Figure 7.3.7 illustrates for a single lithofacies some of the
differences that can exist. Because the variance is not a simple function of Sw, the use of
cloud transforms in geomodel construction does not appropriately handle the possible
variance.

It is important to note that the range in Hafwl-Sw curves evident in 7.3.7 represents curves
at 1 standard deviation and at 2 standard deviations. Because the error is approximately
normally distributed, each of the outer curves representing 2 standard deviations
represents a small (<2.3%) percent of the total population of rocks that might exhibit
these extreme curves. To analyze the potential influence of the combined logHte and Hf
error, a continuous series of Hafwl-Sw curves were constructed with errors ranging -2
standard deviations to +2 standard deviations for each lithofacies and a range in porosity
from 4 to 18%. The curves were constructed by changing the logHte and Hf terms in
increments of 0.2 from -1 to +1 (i.e., -1.0, -0.8, -0.6, -0.4, -0.2, 0.0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0).
The difference in predicted water saturation for the modified Hafwl-Sw curve and the
“baseline” curve, represented by the parameters in Table 4.2.10, was calculated for each
porosity and for a range of Hafwl from 2.9 to 600 ft. For each lithofacies, porosity, Hafwl
combination the series of Hafwl-Sw curves with parameters ranging from -1 to +1 were
calculated and the saturation difference from the baseline determined.

Based on a normal distribution for the error, relative weights or probabilities of each Hafwl-
Sw curve are not equal. For example, a curve with an Hf term increased from +0.0 to +0.2

7- 10
represents approximately 15% of the total normally distributed population. A curve with
an Hf term increased from +0.6 to +0.8 represents approximately 6% of the total normally
distributed population. Thus, although a Hafwl-Sw curve at, for example 2 standard
deviations, might predict a very different Sw from the baseline curve, the probability that
that lithofacies with that porosity would exhibit such extreme properties is less than 2.3%.
To account for the probability that a predicted Sw would occur, the combined sum of the
predicted Sw – baseline Sw values weighted by their probability was calculated. The
probability-weighted water saturation error calculated using this methodology thus
represents the possible difference in saturation between the baseline-predicted Sw and an
Sw that represents the probability-weighted realization of the possible range in curves
based on the error. Tables 7.3.1- 7.3.4 summarize the probability-weighted saturation errors
for each of the lithofacies, for a selected range of porosity and at various Hafwl. In the tables
where the probability-weighted saturation error is less than 10% (positive or negative) the
values are uncolored. For errors greater than 10% and 15%, the cells are colored. It is
evident from these tables that the baseline Hafwl-Sw curve models were generally insensitive
to error in the equation parameters for many lithofacies, porosities, and Hafwl.

Each lithofacies exhibits a narrow range in Hafwl for a given porosity in which the
probability-weighted saturation is 10-15% less than the baseline model (blue cells). This
difference in saturation occurs in a high Hafwl for low-porosity rocks and migrates to low
Hafwl with increasing porosity. This migration results from a shift in the transition zone to
lower Hafwl as porosity increases. The presence of an interval of maximum saturation error
is consistent with the comparatively rapid water saturation changes that occur in the
transition zone for each lithofacies-porosity rock. In the transition zone, and particularly
near the Hte, small changes in curve properties can change saturations significantly.

Average error between the probability-weighted saturations and the baseline model
saturations is -1.0%. Though there is a pattern of saturation errors where the probability-
weighted model predicts lower than the baseline model by 10-15%, the probability-
weighted model never predicts more than 7.7% greater than the baseline model. Figure
7.3.8 illustrates the frequency distribution for all errors compared. Based on the
distribution of porosities and depth compared, the fraction of the total population that
exhibits high baseline Sw values (>~8%) compared to the probability-weighted model is
approximately 10%.

Free Water Level Position and Model Gas Saturation

Water saturation is a complex function of the lithofacies capillary pressure properties,

porosity, and FWL. While each variable has uncertainty, FWL has the most influence on
water saturation within its range of uncertainty, particularly at a datum close to the FWL.
Sensitivity to the elevation of the FWL is largely a function of the height above free
water of a rock’s transition zone and the proximity of the rock to that transition zone. For
rocks at elevations that place them near or in their transition zones, predicted Sw is often
highly sensitive to differences in FWL. The same rocks at elevations above the transition
zone (i.e. at “irreducible” water saturation) or below the transition zone (i.e. saturated at

7- 11
Sw=100%) are insensitive to FWL change. For higher porosity and permeability rocks the
threshold entry heights are close to the FWL and transition zones are narrow. When these
rocks are close to the FWL, even small changes in FWL can significantly change
predicted water saturations. Alternately, these same rocks in the upper Chase are at low
Sw and may exhibit less than 2% Sw change for FWL changes of many tens of feet. Low
porosity and permeability rocks exhibit higher threshold entry heights, which tend to
decrease the sensitivity to FWL change. However, even for these rocks, if the rock is at a
depth where change in FWL results in the rock exceeding or dropping below the
threshold entry height, a change in FWL can have significant effect on predicted Sw.

Tables 7.3.5-7.3.8 show the changes in saturation that occur from FWL elevation changes
of +50, +25, -25 and -50 ft. Only the depth intervals and porosities that exhibit a
difference in water saturation greater than 5% from the baseline Sw are listed. All other
porosities and depths exhibit less than a 5% Sw change for the porosity classes shown
(i.e. porosities presented in discrete intervals of 2%). These tables show the variable
nature of the saturation changes and the heights above free water level at which
significant Sw changes occur due to FWL-elevation change.

For better quality rocks the greatest impact on water saturations (Sw) and gas in place
(GIP) is in the region closest to the FWL. This is observed at large scales by examining
the impact at the field edges, but is also apparent when considering the three areas where
we performed multi-well section simulations (Table 7.3.9). In each of the three
simulation areas, we moved the FWL up or down to help match conditions that were felt
to be more likely. In two cases, the Graskell and Flower, the FWL was moved from its
original position, 75 ft below the lowest perforations in the Council Grove, to a lower
position to increase the gas in the Council Grove. In the Hoobler, the initial FWL was an
early Geomod 4 FWL where we experimented with extending the FWL +70 (base of
perforations in the Council Grove +75 ft) to the edge of the field, resulting in a FWL that
is approximately 100 ft below that which would be established using the 100% Sw method
described in section 7.2, above. Here we raised the FWL by 100 ft.

It is readily evident in the Graskell model that a very slight change in FWL (25 ft) can
have a dramatic effect in terms of percent increase in gas content zones close to the FWL.
Here the Council Grove had a 44% increase while the Chase experienced only a 4%
increase. The very upper zones in the Chase experienced almost no increase because they
are already very high on the capillary pressure curve, while the Council Grove zones are
well down in the transition zone. More than one variable was changed in the Flower
models so they cannot be compared rigorously, but can be compared in relative terms.
Here again, with a lowering of the FWL (by 50 ft), zones high in the section (Chase) saw
little effect while the Council Grove experienced a substantial increase in gas. In the
Hoobler, where only the FWL was modified (raised 100 ft), the effect was quite dramatic
close to the FWL in the lower Chase and upper Council Grove.

In addition to the FWLs used in the simulation models, the FWL for the present version
in the model areas is given in Table 7.3.9. The present model FWL in the Flower and
Graskell areas is the average base of Council Grove perforations + 70 ft, fairly close to

7- 12
the elevation of the FWL that yielded what was thought to be too little gas in the Council
Grove. In the Hoobler the present field model FWL is about in the middle, representing
the compromise position outside the Panoma but inside the Hugoton, described in section
7.2. The results of the simulations and general observations of GIP in relation to
cumulative gas (discussed later) highlight the sensitivity of Sw and GIP to the FWL and
the need to make adjustments at a more local level when working with the model at the
well level.

References

Babcock, Jack A., et al., 2001, Reservoir characterization of the giant Hugoton gas field,
Kansas: in Johnson, K. S. (ed.): Pennsylvanian and Permian Geology and Petroleum in
the Southern Midcontinent, 1998 symposium: Oklahoma Geological Survey, Circular
104, p. 143-159.

Berg, R. R., 1975, Capillary pressures in stratigraphic traps: American Association of

Petroleum Geologists, Bulletin, v. 59, p. 939-956.

Carr, J. E., McGowen, H. E., Gogel, T., 1986, Geohydrology of and potential for fluid
disposal in the Arbuckle aquifer in Kansas: U.S. Geological Survey, Open-file Report
No. 86-0491, 101p.

Garlough, J. L., and G. L. Taylor, 1941, Hugoton gas field, Grant, Haskell, Morton,
Stevens, and Seward counties, Kansas, and Texas County, Oklahoma: in Levorsen, A. I.,
ed., Stratigraphic Type Oil Fields: American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa,
p. 78-104.

George, B. K., C. Torres-Verdin, M. Delshad, R. Sigal, F. Zouioueche, and B. Anderson,

2004, Assessment of in-situ hydrocarbon saturation in the presence of deep invasion and
highly saline connate water: Petrophysics, v. 45, no. 2, p. 141-156.

Hubbert, M. K., 1953, Entrapment of petroleum under hydrodynamic conditions:

American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Bulletin, v. 37, p. 1954-2026.

Hubbert, M. K., 1967, Application of hydrodynamics to oil exploration: 7th World

Petroleum Congress Proceedings, Mexico City, v. 1B: Elsevier Publishing Co., LTD, p.
59-75.

Jennings, H.Y., Jr., and Newman, G. H., 1971, The effect of temperature and pressure on
the interfacial tension of water against methane-normal decane mixtures: Transactions
Am. Inst. Mechanical Engineers (AIME), v. 251, p. 171-175.

Olson, T. M., Babcock, J. A., Prasad, K. V. K., Boughton, S. D., Wagner, P. D., Franklin,
M. K., and Thompson, K. A., 1997, Reservoir characterization of the giant Hugoton Gas

7- 13
field, Kansas: American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Bulletin, v. 81, p. 1785-
1803.

Parham, K. D., and J. A. Campbell, 1993, PM-8. Wolfcampian shallow shelf carbonate-
Hugoton Embayment, Kansas and Oklahoma: in D. G. Bebout, ed., Atlas of Major
Midcontinent Gas Reservoirs: Gas Research Institute, p. 9-12.

Pippin, L., 1970, Panhandle-Hugoton field, Texas-Oklahoma-Kansas-The first fifty years,

in Halbouty, M. T. (ed.), Geology of Giant Petroleum Fields: American Association of
Petroleum Geologists, Memoir 14, Tulsa, p. 204-222.

Purcell, W. R., 1949, Capillary pressure – their measurements using mercury and the
calculation of permeability therefrom: American Institute of Mechanical Engineers
Petroleum, Transactions, v. 186, p. 39-48.

Ritter, H.L., and L.C. Drake. 1945. Pore-size distribution in porous materials: Pressure
porosimeter and determination of complete macropore-size distributions. Ind. Eng.
Chem. Anal. Ed., v. 17, p 782–786.

Schowalter, T. T., 1979, Mechanics of secondary hydrocarbon migration and entrapment,

American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Bulletin, v. 63, no. 5, p. 723-760.

Sorenson, R. P., 2005, A dynamic model for the Permian Panhandle and Hugoton fields,
western Anadarko basin: American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Bulletin, v. 89,
no. 7, p. 921-938.

7- 14
Lithofacies Height Above Probability Weighted Water Saturation Error
Code Free Water In situ Porosity (%)
Level (ft) 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4
L0 10 2.9 -12.0 -5.2 -0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
L0 30 3.4 2.4 -7.1 -6.2 -1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
L0 50 1.7 3.2 -0.8 -11.6 -3.0 -0.3 0.0 0.0
L0 100 0.4 2.2 2.1 -3.1 -8.6 -2.1 -0.2 0.0
L0 150 0.1 1.3 2.4 -0.1 -8.9 -4.1 -0.6 0.0
L0 200 0.0 0.9 2.2 1.1 -5.0 -5.9 -1.2 0.0
L0 250 0.0 0.7 1.8 1.5 -3.1 -8.1 -2.0 -0.2
L0 300 0.0 0.5 1.5 1.7 -1.6 -9.8 -2.6 -0.3
L0 350 -0.1 0.4 1.3 1.8 -0.8 -8.9 -3.5 -0.5
L0 400 0.0 0.3 1.2 1.7 -0.2 -7.2 -4.3 -0.7
L0 450 0.0 0.2 1.0 1.7 0.2 -5.8 -5.0 -0.9
L0 500 0.0 0.2 0.9 1.7 0.6 -4.6 -5.7 -1.2
L0 550 0.0 0.2 0.8 1.6 0.8 -3.9 -6.6 -1.5
L0 600 0.0 0.1 0.7 1.5 0.9 -3.3 -7.4 -1.8
L1 10 -3.8 -9.9 -2.7 -0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
L1 30 2.1 -1.3 -13.8 -4.2 -0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0
L1 50 2.1 2.0 -6.2 -9.3 -2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
L1 100 1.2 2.7 2.0 -11.6 -8.1 -1.6 0.0 0.0
L1 150 0.8 2.2 3.4 -2.0 -13.9 -4.0 -0.3 0.0
L1 200 0.6 1.6 3.5 1.9 -18.9 -6.2 -0.9 0.0
L1 250 0.4 1.2 3.2 3.4 -11.3 -9.5 -1.9 0.0
L1 300 0.4 1.0 2.9 4.2 -5.2 -11.8 -2.7 0.0
L1 350 0.3 0.8 2.6 4.5 -1.5 -14.8 -4.1 -0.3
L1 400 0.2 0.7 2.2 4.4 0.7 -17.6 -5.4 -0.6
L1 450 0.2 0.6 1.9 4.3 2.5 -19.9 -6.4 -0.8
L1 500 0.2 0.5 1.6 4.3 4.0 -21.6 -7.5 -1.2
L1 550 0.2 0.5 1.4 4.1 4.7 -16.5 -9.2 -1.7
L1 600 0.1 0.4 1.3 3.8 5.0 -12.3 -10.7 -2.2
L2 10 -10.4 -5.6 -1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
L2 30 1.2 -6.9 -8.1 -1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
L2 50 2.2 -0.3 -15.1 -4.8 -0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0
L2 100 1.8 2.6 -1.8 -13.6 -4.0 -0.4 0.0 0.0
L2 150 1.2 2.7 2.0 -11.8 -7.9 -1.5 0.0 0.0
L2 200 0.9 2.4 3.3 -4.0 -11.5 -2.9 -0.1 -0.1
L2 250 0.7 2.0 3.4 -0.6 -15.7 -4.7 -0.5 -0.5
L2 300 0.6 1.6 3.5 1.8 -18.7 -6.1 -0.8 -0.8
L2 350 0.5 1.4 3.3 3.0 -14.2 -8.4 -1.6 -1.6
L2 400 0.4 1.2 3.1 3.6 -9.4 -10.2 -2.2 -2.2
L2 450 0.4 1.0 2.9 4.1 -5.5 -11.7 -2.6 -2.6
L2 500 0.3 0.9 2.8 4.6 -2.6 -13.5 -3.5 -3.5
L2 550 0.3 0.8 2.5 4.5 -0.9 -15.6 -4.5 -4.5
L2 600 0.3 0.7 2.2 4.4 0.6 -17.4 -5.3 -5.3
Table 7.3.1. Summary of difference in water saturation between a probability-weighted
predicted water saturation (Sw, where distribution reflects variance in Hafwl-Sw curve
parameters) and “baseline” model-predicted water saturation used in geomodel for
continental siltstone and sandstone lithofacies. Lithofacies-porosity-height combinations
where probability-weighted saturation is less than baseline Sw is <10% are shaded in
blue.

7- 15
Lithofacies Height Above Probability Weighted Water Saturation Error
Code Free Water In situ Porosity (%)
Level (ft) 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4
L3 10 -1.1 -12.8 -3.6 -0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
L3 30 2.2 0.7 -14.6 -4.9 -0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0
L3 50 1.8 2.6 -3.3 -10.8 -2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
L3 100 0.9 2.4 2.8 -8.4 -8.7 -1.6 0.0 0.0
L3 150 0.6 1.7 3.4 -0.4 -14.9 -4.0 -0.3 0.0
L3 200 0.4 1.2 3.3 2.8 -17.8 -6.2 -0.7 0.0
L3 250 0.3 1.0 2.9 3.8 -9.4 -9.5 -1.7 0.0
L3 300 0.3 0.8 2.6 4.6 -3.5 -11.8 -2.5 0.0
L3 350 0.2 0.6 2.1 4.4 -0.6 -14.8 -3.6 -0.1
L3 400 0.2 0.5 1.8 4.3 1.6 -17.6 -4.9 -0.4
L3 450 0.1 0.4 1.5 4.3 3.3 -19.9 -5.9 -0.6
L3 500 0.1 0.4 1.3 4.0 4.5 -21.6 -6.8 -0.8
L3 550 0.1 0.3 1.1 3.7 4.9 -16.5 -8.3 -1.1
L3 600 0.1 0.3 1.0 3.5 5.2 -12.3 -9.8 -1.6
L10 10 -14.1 -7.7 -3.8 -1.8 -0.7 -0.2 0.0 0.0
L10 30 2.2 -3.6 -10.1 -10.0 -5.7 -2.9 -1.4 -0.5
L10 50 4.5 1.5 -2.4 -7.1 -10.6 -6.3 -3.5 -1.8
L10 100 3.4 3.2 2.0 -0.3 -3.3 -6.8 -8.7 -5.1
L10 150 2.1 2.8 2.4 1.3 -0.6 -3.0 -6.0 -8.4
L10 200 1.2 2.2 2.3 1.6 0.5 -1.2 -3.5 -6.5
L10 250 0.8 1.7 2.1 1.8 0.9 -0.4 -2.1 -4.4
L10 300 0.5 1.3 1.8 1.7 1.2 0.3 -1.2 -3.2
L10 350 0.4 1.1 1.6 1.7 1.3 0.5 -0.7 -2.4
L10 400 0.2 0.9 1.4 1.6 1.3 0.7 -0.3 -1.6
L10 450 0.2 0.8 1.2 1.4 1.3 0.8 0.0 -1.2
L10 500 0.1 0.7 1.1 1.3 1.3 0.9 0.2 -0.9
L10 550 0.1 0.6 1.0 1.2 1.3 0.9 0.3 -0.6
L10 600 0.0 0.5 0.9 1.1 1.2 0.9 0.4 -0.4

Table 7.3.2. Summary of difference in water saturation between a probability-weighted

predicted water saturation (Sw, where distribution reflects variance in Hafwl-Sw curve
parameters) and “baseline” model-predicted water saturation used in geomodel for
marine siltstone and sandstone lithofacies. Lithofacies-porosity-height combinations
where probability-weighted saturation is less than baseline Sw is <10% are shaded in
blue.

7- 16
Lithofacies Height Above Probability Weighted Water Saturation Error
Code Free Water In situ Porosity (%)
Level (ft) 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4
L4 10 -11.2 -5.4 -1.8 -0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
L4 30 -0.2 -8.0 -11.8 -5.6 -1.8 -0.4 0.0 0.0
L4 50 2.5 -0.5 -9.3 -11.5 -5.2 -1.8 -0.4 0.0
L4 100 2.6 2.9 1.2 -6.2 -14.1 -7.0 -2.6 -0.5
L4 150 2.0 3.0 3.1 0.0 -10.3 -12.1 -5.4 -1.9
L4 200 1.4 2.6 3.3 2.4 -3.4 -16.8 -8.8 -3.7
L4 250 1.1 2.2 3.4 3.4 -0.2 -12.0 -11.8 -5.2
L4 300 0.9 1.8 3.0 3.7 2.1 -6.7 -15.0 -7.4
L4 350 0.7 1.5 2.8 3.7 2.9 -3.1 -17.5 -9.3
L4 400 0.6 1.3 2.6 3.7 3.5 -1.0 -15.5 -10.8
L4 450 0.5 1.1 2.2 3.6 4.0 0.7 -11.4 -12.9
L4 500 0.5 0.9 2.0 3.4 4.2 2.1 -8.0 -14.9
L4 550 0.4 0.8 1.7 3.2 4.2 3.0 -5.2 -16.6
L4 600 0.3 0.7 1.5 3.0 4.1 3.4 -3.0 -18.1
L5 10 -11.3 -11.9 -5.3 -1.8 -0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
L5 30 4.1 0.5 -11.5 -12.6 -5.6 -2.0 -0.4 0.0
L5 50 4.2 4.3 0.3 -12.9 -12.3 -5.4 -1.9 -0.4
L5 100 2.2 4.0 5.2 2.9 -8.0 -15.6 -7.5 -2.7
L5 150 1.0 2.8 4.7 5.2 1.3 -13.2 -13.3 -5.8
L5 200 0.6 1.6 3.6 5.3 4.7 -3.0 -18.8 -9.8
L5 250 0.3 1.0 3.0 4.9 5.6 1.3 -15.0 -12.9
L5 300 0.2 0.7 2.1 4.3 6.1 4.1 -7.5 -16.8
L5 350 0.1 0.4 1.5 3.7 5.6 5.4 -2.1 -19.7
L5 400 0.0 0.3 1.1 3.2 5.3 5.8 0.6 -19.2
L5 450 0.0 0.2 0.8 2.7 5.1 6.2 2.6 -13.4
L5 500 0.0 0.1 0.6 2.1 4.6 6.6 4.3 -8.8
L5 550 0.0 0.1 0.4 1.7 4.1 6.3 5.7 -5.0
L5 600 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.3 3.7 5.9 6.1 -1.8
L7 10 -16.0 -14.4 -10.1 -7.4 -4.7 -3.1 -1.7 -0.9
L7 30 3.9 2.5 -1.0 -5.8 -13.2 -15.8 -11.6 -8.3
L7 50 4.5 4.8 3.9 2.6 -0.9 -5.7 -13.1 -15.8
L7 100 2.8 3.5 4.4 4.6 4.7 3.6 1.7 -1.9
L7 150 1.3 2.1 3.1 3.8 4.5 4.7 4.3 3.2
L7 200 0.7 1.2 2.0 3.1 3.7 4.4 4.7 4.4
L7 250 0.4 0.7 1.2 2.1 3.1 3.8 4.5 4.7
L7 300 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.4 2.4 3.3 4.1 4.5
L7 350 0.1 0.3 0.6 1.0 1.8 2.9 3.6 4.4
L7 400 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.3 2.2 3.2 4.0
L7 450 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.6 1.0 1.8 2.9 3.6
L7 500 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.4 2.4 3.3
L7 550 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.7 1.2 2.0 3.1
L7 600 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.0 1.7 2.7
L8 10 -11.3 -13.1 -12.1 -10.8 -9.4 -8.6 -7.6 -6.2
L8 30 0.9 0.7 0.4 -0.6 -1.8 -3.3 -6.9 -12.2
L8 50 2.0 2.3 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.6 3.7 3.4
L8 100 1.8 2.2 2.7 3.3 4.1 4.8 5.8 7.7
L8 150 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.5 3.1 3.7 4.5 5.6
L8 200 0.9 1.1 1.4 1.7 2.1 2.7 3.2 3.4
L8 250 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.7 1.9 2.5
L8 300 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.0 0.6
L8 350 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.0
L8 400 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.3 -0.2
L8 450 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.1 -0.2
L8 500 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.0 -0.3
L8 550 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 -0.1 -0.2
L8 600 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 -0.1 -0.2
Table 7.3.3. Summary of difference in water saturation between a probability-weighted
predicted water saturation (Sw, where distribution reflects variance in Hafwl-Sw curve
parameters) and “baseline” model-predicted water saturation used in geomodel for
limestone lithofacies. Lithofacies-porosity-height combinations where probability-
weighted saturation is less than baseline Sw is <10% are shaded in blue.

7- 17
Lithofacies Height Above Probability Weighted Water Saturation Error
Code Free Water In situ Porosity (%)
Level (ft) 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4
L6 10 -1.9 -0.9 -0.4 -0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
L6 30 -13.3 -9.7 -6.1 -4.2 -2.2 -1.3 -0.5 -0.2
L6 50 -16.6 -18.7 -13.5 -9.8 -6.3 -4.3 -2.3 -1.4
L6 100 4.9 0.4 -7.7 -19.2 -17.5 -12.2 -9.0 -5.7
L6 150 7.4 6.9 3.2 -1.8 -11.7 -20.3 -15.5 -11.0
L6 200 7.0 7.4 6.9 3.8 -0.9 -10.0 -20.9 -16.3
L6 250 5.9 7.2 7.3 6.7 3.3 -1.5 -11.1 -20.4
L6 300 5.0 6.1 7.6 7.1 6.2 2.1 -3.9 -14.0
L6 350 3.7 5.6 6.6 7.4 6.8 4.7 0.2 -7.5
L6 400 3.0 4.6 6.0 7.3 7.1 6.5 2.7 -2.5
L6 450 2.6 3.7 5.6 6.5 7.4 6.8 4.6 0.2
L6 500 1.2 3.1 4.8 6.0 7.4 7.0 6.2 2.2
L6 550 0.5 2.8 4.0 5.7 6.8 7.2 6.6 3.8
L6 600 0.2 2.1 3.5 5.4 6.3 7.4 6.8 5.1
L9 10 -0.8 -6.2 -12.0 -12.7 -8.8 -5.9 -3.7 -2.3
L9 30 4.7 4.0 2.5 0.6 -2.0 -4.6 -8.1 -10.9
L9 50 3.2 3.6 3.3 2.5 1.3 -0.3 -2.3 -4.5
L9 100 0.7 1.6 2.3 2.4 2.2 1.7 1.0 -0.1
L9 150 0.2 0.8 1.3 1.7 2.0 1.8 1.5 0.9
L9 200 0.0 0.4 0.9 1.3 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.2
L9 250 0.0 0.3 0.6 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.4 1.2
L9 300 -0.1 0.1 0.5 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.3
L9 350 -0.1 0.1 0.4 0.6 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.1
L9 400 -0.1 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.0 1.0
L9 450 -0.1 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
L9 500 -0.1 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
L9 550 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.8
L9 600 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

Table 7.3.4. Summary of difference in water saturation between a probability-weighted

predicted water saturation (Sw, where distribution reflects variance in Hafwl-Sw curve
parameters) and “baseline” model-predicted water saturation used in geomodel for fine-
to medium-crystalline sucrosic dolomite lithofacies. Lithofacies-porosity-height
combinations where probability-weighted saturation is less than baseline Sw is <10% are
shaded in blue.

7- 18
Lithofacies L0 Lithofacies L1 Lithofacies L2
Free Water Height Difference Free Water Height Difference Free Water Height Difference
Level In situ Above Predicted in Sw from Level In situ Above Predicted in Sw from Level In situ Above Predicted in Sw from
Elevation Porosity Free Water Baseline Elevation Porosity Free Water Baseline Elevation Porosity Free Water Baseline
Change Water Saturation Sw Change Water Saturation Sw Change Water Saturation Sw

(ft) (%) (ft) (%) (Sw%) (ft) (%) (ft) (%) (Sw%) (ft) (%) (ft) (%) (Sw%)
50 18 0 100 75 50 18 0 100 52 50 18 1 100 44
50 18 0 100 62 50 18 0 100 38 50 18 1 100 27
50 18 20 38 19 50 18 20 62 23 50 18 20 73 27
50 18 50 22 7 50 18 50 44 10 50 18 50 52 12
50 16 0 100 50 50 16 0 100 36 50 18 100 40 6
50 16 0 100 32 50 16 0 100 14 50 16 1 100 24
50 16 20 68 30 50 16 20 86 36 50 16 20 100 40
50 16 50 45 12 50 16 50 58 15 50 16 50 69 18
50 16 100 32 6 50 16 0 43 7 50 16 100 52 8
50 14 0 100 22 50 14 0 100 7 50 14 20 100 14
50 14 20 100 37 50 14 20 100 30 50 14 50 100 28
50 14 50 72 17 50 14 50 83 24 50 14 100 72 13
50 14 100 55 8 50 14 0 59 11 50 14 150 59 8
50 12 20 100 9 50 14 50 48 6 50 12 100 100 9
50 12 50 100 20 50 12 50 100 10 50 12 150 91 14
50 12 100 80 10 50 12 0 90 19 50 12 200 77 9
50 12 150 70 7 50 12 50 71 11 50 12 250 68 7
50 10 150 96 8 50 12 200 61 7 50 10 300 100 8
50 10 200 88 6 50 10 200 100 13 50 10 350 92 8
25 18 0 100 62 50 10 250 87 10 50 10 400 84 7
25 18 15 44 19 50 10 300 76 8 25 18 1 100 27
25 16 1 100 32 50 10 350 69 6 25 18 15 81 25
25 16 15 78 29 50 8 500 100 8 25 18 45 54 8
25 16 45 47 9 50 8 550 92 7 25 16 15 100 24
25 14 15 100 22 25 18 0 100 38 25 16 45 73 12
25 14 45 75 12 25 18 5 70 21 25 16 75 58 7
25 14 75 61 7 25 18 45 46 7 25 14 45 100 14
25 12 45 100 9 25 16 0 100 14 25 14 75 83 11
25 12 75 89 8 25 16 5 97 33 25 14 125 65 6
-25 18 45 24 -14 25 16 45 61 10 25 12 125 100 9
-25 18 65 19 -6 25 16 75 49 6 25 12 175 83 6
-25 16 45 47 -21 25 14 5 100 7 -25 18 45 54 -19
-25 16 65 40 -10 25 14 45 87 17 -25 18 65 47 -9
-25 14 45 75 -25 25 14 75 68 9 -25 16 45 73 -27
-25 14 65 65 -14 25 12 75 100 10 -25 16 65 62 -14
-25 14 95 56 -7 25 12 25 79 8 -25 16 95 53 -7
-25 12 65 93 -7 25 10 225 93 7 -25 14 65 89 -11
-25 12 95 82 -9 -25 18 45 46 -16 -25 14 95 74 -12
-25 12 125 75 -6 -25 18 65 40 -8 -25 14 125 65 -7
-50 18 70 18 -19 -25 16 45 61 -25 -25 12 175 83 -8
-50 18 90 16 -9 -25 16 65 52 -12 -50 18 70 46 -27
-50 16 70 38 -30 -25 16 95 44 -6 -50 18 90 41 -15
-50 16 90 34 -16 -25 14 45 87 -13 -50 18 120 37 -8
-50 16 120 30 -8 -25 14 65 73 -20 -50 18 150 34 -6
-50 16 150 27 -6 -25 14 95 61 -10 -50 16 70 60 -40
-50 14 70 63 -37 -25 14 25 53 -6 -50 16 90 54 -22
-50 14 90 57 -21 -25 12 95 93 -7 -50 16 120 48 -12
-50 14 120 51 -12 -25 12 25 79 -11 -50 16 150 43 -8
-50 14 150 47 -8 -25 12 75 65 -6 -50 14 70 86 -14
-50 12 70 91 -9 -25 10 225 93 -7 -50 14 90 76 -24
-50 12 90 83 -17 -25 10 275 81 -6 -50 14 120 66 -20
-50 12 120 76 -15 -50 18 70 39 -23 -50 14 150 59 -13
-50 12 150 70 -10 -50 18 90 35 -13 -50 14 200 52 -8
-50 12 200 64 -7 -50 18 20 32 -7 -50 12 150 91 -9
-50 10 200 88 -8 -50 16 70 50 -36 -50 12 200 77 -14
-50 10 250 82 -6 -50 16 90 45 -19 -50 12 250 68 -9
25 18 45 24 5 -50 16 20 40 -10 -50 12 300 61 -7
-25 16 95 33 -5 -50 16 50 36 -7 -50 10 350 92 -8
-50 14 200 42 -5 -50 14 70 70 -30 -50 10 400 84 -8
50 14 150 47 5 -50 14 90 62 -30 -50 10 450 77 -7
-50 18 120 14 -5 -50 14 20 54 -16
-50 12 250 59 -5 -50 14 50 48 -11
-50 14 200 42 -6
-50 12 20 81 -19
-50 12 50 71 -19
-50 12 200 61 -11
-50 12 250 53 -7
-50 10 250 87 -13
-50 10 300 76 -10
-50 10 350 69 -8
-50 10 400 63 -6
-50 8 550 92 -8
-50 8 600 85 -7
-50 8 650 79 -6

Table 7.3.5.Summary of depth intervals and porosities by lithofacies for continental

siltstones and sandstones that exhibit water saturation change greater that 5% due to
FWL elevation change. Intervals and porosities not shown exhibit < 5% Sw change due
to elevation changes from -50 to +50 ft.

7- 19
 Lithofacies L3 Lithofacies L10
Free Water Height Difference Free Water Height Difference
Level In situ Above Predicted in Sw from Level In situ Above Predicted in Sw from
Elevation Porosity Free Water Baseline Elevation Porosity Free Water Baseline
Change Water Saturation Sw Change Water Saturation Sw

(ft) (%) (ft) (%) (Sw%) (ft) (%) (ft) (%) (Sw%)
50 18 1 100 57 50 18 1 100 49
50 18 1 100 44 50 18 1 100 25
50 18 20 56 21 50 18 20 75 38
50 18 50 40 9 50 18 50 45 15
50 16 1 100 42 50 18 100 30 6
50 16 1 100 22 50 16 1 100 32
50 16 20 78 32 50 16 1 100 6
50 16 50 53 14 50 16 20 94 42
50 16 100 39 6 50 16 50 62 17
50 14 1 100 15 50 16 100 45 8
50 14 20 100 35 50 14 1 100 16
50 14 50 77 22 50 14 20 100 33
50 14 100 55 10 50 14 50 77 18
50 14 150 45 6 50 14 100 58 9
50 12 50 100 15 50 12 20 100 20
50 12 100 85 18 50 12 50 90 19
50 12 150 67 10 50 12 100 71 9
50 12 200 57 7 50 12 150 62 6
50 10 200 98 14 50 10 20 100 8
50 10 250 84 10 50 10 50 100 17
50 10 300 74 8 50 10 100 83 9
50 10 350 66 6 50 10 150 73 6
50 8 500 100 8 50 8 50 100 7
50 8 550 92 7 50 8 100 93 10
25 18 1 100 44 50 8 150 83 6
25 18 15 63 19 50 6 100 100 7
25 18 45 41 6 50 6 150 93 6
25 16 1 100 22 25 18 1 100 25
25 16 15 88 30 25 18 15 89 38
25 16 45 55 9 25 18 45 48 11
25 14 15 100 15 25 16 1 100 6
25 14 45 81 16 25 16 15 100 32
25 14 75 63 8 25 16 45 65 12
25 12 75 100 15 25 16 75 51 6
25 12 125 74 7 25 14 15 100 16
25 10 225 90 6 25 14 45 80 13
-25 18 45 41 -15 25 14 75 65 7
-25 18 65 36 -7 25 12 45 93 13
-25 16 45 55 -23 25 12 75 78 7
-25 16 65 47 -11 25 10 45 100 8
-25 16 95 40 -6 25 10 75 90 7
-25 14 45 81 -19 25 8 75 100 7
-25 14 65 67 -18 -25 18 45 48 -28
-25 14 95 56 -9 -25 18 65 39 -12
-25 14 125 49 -6 -25 18 95 31 -6
-25 12 95 87 -13 -25 16 45 65 -30
-25 12 125 74 -10 -25 16 65 54 -14
-25 12 175 61 -6 -25 16 95 46 -7
-25 10 225 90 -8 -25 14 45 80 -20
-50 18 70 35 -21 -25 14 65 69 -15
-50 18 90 32 -11 -25 14 95 60 -8
-50 18 120 29 -6 -25 12 45 93 -7
-50 16 70 46 -32 -25 12 65 82 -15
-50 16 90 41 -17 -25 12 95 72 -8
-50 16 120 36 -9 -25 10 65 94 -6
-50 16 150 33 -6 -25 10 95 84 -8
-50 14 70 65 -35 -25 8 95 94 -6
-50 14 90 57 -28 -50 18 70 37 -38
-50 14 120 50 -15 -50 18 90 32 -19
-50 14 150 45 -10 -50 18 120 27 -10
-50 14 200 39 -6 -50 18 150 24 -6
-50 12 90 90 -10 -50 16 70 53 -42
-50 12 120 76 -24 -50 16 90 47 -21
-50 12 150 67 -18 -50 16 120 41 -12
-50 12 200 57 -10 -50 16 150 37 -8
-50 12 250 50 -7 -50 14 70 67 -33
-50 10 250 84 -14 -50 14 90 61 -23
-50 10 300 74 -10 -50 14 120 54 -13
-50 10 350 66 -8 -50 14 150 50 -9
-50 10 400 60 -6 -50 12 70 80 -20
-50 8 550 92 -8 -50 12 90 74 -23
-50 8 600 85 -7 -50 12 120 67 -13
-50 12 150 62 -9
-50 12 200 56 -6
-50 10 70 92 -8
-50 10 90 85 -15
-50 10 120 78 -14
-50 10 150 73 -9
-50 10 200 67 -6
-50 8 120 88 -12
-50 8 150 83 -10
-50 8 200 77 -6
-50 6 150 93 -7
-50 6 200 86 -6

Table 7.3.5.Summary of depth intervals and porosities by lithofacies for marine

siltstones and sandstones that exhibit a water saturation change greater that 5% due to
FWL elevation change. Intervals and porosities not shown exhibit < 5% Sw change due
to elevation changes from -50 to +50 ft.

7- 20
 Lithofacies L4 Lithofacies L5 Lithofacies L7 Lithofacies L8
Free Water Height Difference Free Water Height Difference Free Water Height Difference Free Water Height Difference
Level In situ Above Predicted in Sw from Level In situ Above Predicted in Sw from Level In situ Above Predicted in Sw from Level In situ Above Predicted in Sw from
Elevation Porosity Free Water Baseline Elevation Porosity Free Water Baseline Elevation Porosity Free Water Baseline Elevation Porosity Free Water Baseline
Change Water Saturation Sw Change Water Saturation Sw Change Water Saturation Sw Change Water Saturation Sw

(ft) (%) (ft) (%) (Sw%) (ft) (%) (ft) (%) (Sw%) (ft) (%) (ft) (%) (Sw%) (ft) (%) (ft) (%) (Sw%)
50 18 1 100 39 50 18 1 100 59 50 18 1 100 58 50 18 1 100 42
50 18 1 100 18 -50 14 70 52 -48 -50 12 70 48 -52 50 18 1 100 25
50 18 20 82 34 50 14 20 100 48 50 12 20 100 52 50 18 20 75 28
50 18 50 56 14 50 16 1 100 46 50 16 1 100 51 50 18 50 53 12
50 18 100 41 7 -50 16 70 39 -43 -50 14 70 41 -46 50 18 100 41 6
50 16 1 100 23 50 16 20 82 43 50 14 20 87 46 50 16 1 100 42
50 16 20 100 40 25 16 15 97 43 -50 10 70 56 -44 50 16 1 100 23
50 16 50 69 19 25 18 1 100 39 50 10 20 100 44 50 16 20 77 31
50 16 100 51 9 50 18 1 100 39 25 14 15 100 43 50 16 50 53 13
50 14 20 100 24 -50 12 90 61 -39 50 14 1 100 43 50 16 100 40 6
50 14 50 89 25 50 12 50 90 33 -50 16 70 35 -39 50 14 1 100 41
50 14 100 64 11 -25 16 45 50 -31 50 16 20 75 39 50 14 1 100 20
50 14 150 52 7 -25 14 45 69 -31 25 16 15 89 39 50 14 20 80 34
50 12 50 100 18 -50 18 70 30 -31 -25 12 45 62 -38 50 14 50 53 14
50 12 100 82 16 50 18 20 61 31 25 18 1 100 36 50 14 100 39 6
50 12 150 67 9 25 18 15 71 31 50 18 1 100 36 50 12 1 100 40
50 12 200 58 6 -50 14 90 44 -30 -50 8 70 65 -35 50 12 1 100 16
50 10 100 100 12 -50 10 120 71 -29 50 8 20 100 35 50 12 20 84 39
50 10 150 88 13 -50 12 70 72 -28 -50 6 90 65 -35 50 12 50 54 15
50 10 200 75 9 50 12 20 100 28 -50 8 90 56 -35 50 12 100 38 7
50 10 250 67 6 25 14 15 100 26 -50 18 70 30 -34 50 10 1 100 39
50 8 200 100 10 50 14 1 100 26 50 18 20 64 34 50 10 1 100 11
50 8 250 90 9 25 12 45 97 25 25 18 15 76 34 50 10 20 89 44
50 8 300 81 7 -25 12 65 76 -24 -25 14 45 54 -33 50 10 50 54 17
50 8 350 74 6 50 14 50 64 23 25 12 15 100 33 50 10 100 37 7
50 6 400 95 7 -25 18 45 38 -22 50 12 1 100 33 50 8 1 100 38
50 6 450 88 6 -50 12 120 50 -22 50 6 50 92 31 50 8 20 96 52
25 18 1 100 18 -50 16 90 33 -21 -50 10 90 48 -30 50 8 50 54 19
25 18 15 93 32 -50 10 150 61 -20 50 4 50 100 29 50 8 100 35 8
25 18 45 58 10 50 10 100 81 20 -25 16 45 46 -29 50 6 1 100 36
25 16 15 100 23 -25 14 65 54 -19 -25 10 45 73 -27 50 6 20 100 58
25 16 45 73 13 50 10 50 100 19 50 8 50 79 27 50 6 50 54 22
25 16 75 58 7 25 10 75 99 18 -50 12 90 41 -26 50 6 100 33 8
25 14 45 93 18 25 16 1 100 18 25 16 1 100 25 50 4 1 100 34
25 14 75 73 9 50 16 1 100 18 50 16 1 100 25 50 4 20 100 59
25 12 75 95 13 -50 8 200 72 -17 -25 18 45 40 -25 50 4 50 55 25
25 12 125 73 7 50 8 150 89 17 -50 6 70 75 -25 50 4 100 30 9
25 10 125 98 9 25 14 45 69 17 50 6 20 100 25 25 18 1 100 25
25 10 175 81 6 50 16 50 47 16 -50 4 90 75 -25 25 18 15 83 25
25 8 225 96 6 -25 10 95 84 -16 -50 4 120 64 -24 25 18 45 55 8
-25 18 45 58 -24 -50 18 90 26 -15 50 10 50 68 23 25 16 1 100 23
-25 18 65 50 -11 -50 14 120 37 -15 -25 8 65 68 -23 25 16 15 87 28
-25 18 95 42 -6 -25 16 65 40 -14 25 6 45 98 23 25 16 45 56 9
-25 16 45 73 -27 -50 12 150 43 -13 25 10 15 100 22 25 14 1 100 20
-25 16 65 62 -15 50 12 100 57 13 50 10 1 100 22 25 14 15 91 32
-25 16 95 52 -8 -25 12 95 59 -13 -50 14 90 35 -22 25 14 45 56 10
-25 14 45 93 -7 -50 10 90 87 -13 -25 6 65 79 -21 25 12 1 100 16
-25 14 65 78 -21 -50 6 300 79 -12 -50 6 120 55 -21 25 12 15 97 37
-25 14 95 65 -10 50 6 250 91 12 50 12 50 58 20 25 12 45 56 11
-25 14 125 57 -6 25 12 75 69 12 -25 10 65 58 -20 25 12 75 44 6
-25 12 95 85 -14 -25 10 125 69 -12 25 8 45 84 20 25 10 1 100 11
-25 12 125 73 -9 50 18 50 36 12 -50 16 90 30 -19 25 10 15 100 39
-25 10 175 81 -7 25 16 45 50 12 -50 8 120 47 -18 25 10 45 57 12
-50 18 70 48 -34 -50 10 200 50 -11 50 14 50 50 17 25 10 75 43 6
-50 18 90 43 -18 50 10 150 61 11 -25 12 65 50 -17 25 8 15 100 38
-50 18 120 38 -10 -50 8 150 89 -11 25 10 45 73 17 25 8 45 58 14
-50 18 150 35 -7 25 8 125 100 11 -50 18 90 26 -16 25 8 75 42 7
-50 16 70 60 -40 50 8 100 100 11 -25 8 45 84 -16 25 6 15 100 36
-50 16 90 53 -24 -50 8 250 61 -11 -50 10 120 40 -15 25 6 45 58 16
-50 16 120 47 -13 50 8 200 72 11 -50 4 150 56 -15 25 6 75 40 8
-50 16 150 42 -9 -50 16 120 28 -11 50 4 100 71 15 25 4 15 100 34
-50 14 70 76 -24 -25 18 65 31 -10 50 16 50 43 15 25 4 45 60 19
-50 14 90 67 -32 -25 8 175 79 -10 -25 4 95 73 -15 25 4 75 38 8
-50 14 120 58 -17 -50 14 150 32 -9 -25 14 65 43 -14 -25 18 45 55 -19
-50 14 150 52 -11 50 14 100 42 9 25 12 45 62 14 -25 18 65 48 -10
-50 14 200 46 -7 -50 4 450 87 -9 25 4 75 84 13 -25 16 45 56 -22
-50 12 90 87 -13 50 4 400 97 9 -50 12 120 35 -13 -25 16 65 48 -10
-50 12 120 75 -24 -50 6 250 91 -9 -50 6 150 48 -13 -25 14 45 56 -24
-50 12 150 67 -16 50 6 200 100 9 50 6 100 61 13 -25 14 65 48 -11
-50 12 200 58 -9 -50 6 350 69 -9 25 14 1 100 13 -25 14 95 40 -6
-50 12 250 51 -6 50 6 300 79 9 50 14 1 100 13 -25 12 45 56 -28
-50 10 150 88 -12 -25 14 95 43 -9 50 18 50 37 13 -25 12 65 47 -13
-50 10 200 75 -13 25 18 45 38 8 -25 6 95 63 -13 -25 12 95 39 -6
-50 10 250 67 -9 25 10 125 69 8 -25 16 65 37 -12 -25 10 45 57 -32
-50 10 300 60 -6 25 14 75 50 8 25 14 45 54 12 -25 10 65 46 -14
-50 8 250 90 -10 25 6 225 99 8 -50 4 70 88 -12 -25 10 95 38 -7
-50 8 300 81 -9 -25 12 125 49 -8 25 4 45 100 12 -25 8 45 58 -38
-50 8 350 74 -7 -50 18 120 22 -8 50 4 20 100 12 -25 8 65 46 -16
-50 8 400 68 -6 -50 8 300 53 -8 25 6 75 72 11 -25 8 95 36 -8
-50 6 450 88 -7 50 8 250 61 8 -50 14 120 30 -11 -25 6 45 58 -42
-50 6 500 82 -6 -50 12 200 36 -8 -50 8 150 41 -11 -25 6 65 45 -19
50 12 150 43 8 50 8 100 52 11 -25 6 95 34 -8
25 8 175 79 8 -25 8 95 54 -11 -25 4 45 60 -40
-50 4 500 80 -8 -25 18 65 32 -11 -25 4 65 43 -23
50 4 450 87 8 25 16 45 46 11 -25 4 95 31 -9
-50 10 250 42 -7 25 8 75 62 10 -50 18 70 47 -28
50 10 200 50 7 -50 16 120 26 -10 -50 18 90 43 -15
-50 6 400 62 -7 -50 10 150 35 -10 -50 18 120 38 -9
50 6 350 69 7 50 10 100 45 10 -50 18 150 35 -6
-50 16 150 25 -7 25 8 15 100 9 -50 16 70 47 -31
50 16 100 31 7 50 8 1 100 9 -50 16 90 42 -16
-25 6 275 84 -7 -25 10 95 46 -9 -50 16 120 37 -9
-25 16 95 32 -6 25 18 45 40 9 -50 16 150 34 -6
-25 10 175 55 -6 -25 4 125 62 -9 -50 14 70 46 -34
-50 4 550 73 -6 -50 4 200 47 -9 -50 14 90 41 -18
50 4 500 80 6 50 4 150 56 9 -50 14 120 36 -10
-25 8 225 66 -6 25 10 75 53 8 -50 14 150 33 -6
25 16 75 37 6 -50 18 120 22 -8 -50 12 70 45 -39
-50 8 350 47 -6 -50 12 150 30 -8 -50 12 90 40 -20
50 8 300 53 6 50 12 100 39 8 -50 12 120 35 -11
25 6 275 84 6 -25 4 65 92 -8 -50 12 150 31 -7
-50 6 450 57 -6 -25 12 95 40 -8 -50 10 70 45 -44
50 6 400 62 6 -25 6 125 53 -8 -50 10 90 39 -22
25 12 125 49 6 -50 6 200 40 -8 -50 10 120 33 -11
50 6 150 48 8 -50 10 150 29 -7
25 12 75 46 7 -50 8 70 44 -52
-50 14 150 26 -7 -50 8 90 37 -25
50 14 100 33 7 -50 8 120 31 -13
-25 14 95 34 -7 -50 8 150 27 -8
-25 8 125 46 -7 -50 6 70 42 -58
-50 8 200 35 -6 -50 6 90 35 -28
50 8 150 41 6 -50 6 120 29 -14
25 4 125 62 6 -50 6 150 24 -8
25 14 75 39 6 -50 4 70 41 -59
-50 16 150 22 -6 -50 4 90 33 -33
50 16 100 29 6 -50 4 120 25 -15
-25 16 95 29 -6 -50 4 150 21 -9

Table 7.3.7.Summary of depth intervals and porosities by lithofacies for limestone that
exhibit a water saturation change greater that 5% due to FWL elevation change.
Intervals and porosities not shown exhibit < 5% Sw change due to elevation changes
from -50 to +50 ft.

7- 21
 Lithofacies L6 Lithofacies L9
Free Water Height Difference Free Water Height Difference
Level In situ Above Predicted in Sw from Level In situ Above Predicted in Sw from
Elevation Porosity Free Water Baseline Elevation Porosity Free Water Baseline
Change Water Saturation Sw Change Water Saturation Sw

(ft) (%) (ft) (%) (Sw%) (ft) (%) (ft) (%) (Sw%)
50 18 20 100 31 50 18 1 100 72
50 18 50 92 42 50 18 1 100 56
50 18 100 50 15 50 18 20 44 24
50 18 150 35 8 50 18 50 25 9
50 16 20 100 15 50 16 1 100 61
50 16 50 100 37 50 16 1 100 44
50 16 100 63 19 50 16 20 56 28
50 16 150 44 10 50 16 50 34 11
50 16 200 34 6 50 14 1 100 51
50 14 50 100 22 50 14 1 100 32
50 14 100 78 23 50 14 20 68 30
50 14 150 55 12 50 14 50 44 12
50 14 200 43 7 50 14 100 32 6
50 12 100 97 28 50 12 1 100 42
50 12 150 68 15 50 12 1 100 22
50 12 200 53 9 50 12 20 78 32
50 12 250 44 6 50 12 50 53 14
50 10 100 100 15 50 12 100 40 6
50 10 150 85 18 50 10 1 100 32
50 10 200 66 11 50 10 1 100 12
50 10 250 55 8 50 10 20 88 34
50 10 300 47 6 50 10 50 62 14
50 8 150 100 18 50 10 100 48 7
50 8 200 82 14 50 8 1 100 23
50 8 250 68 10 50 8 20 97 34
50 8 300 58 7 50 8 50 71 15
50 6 200 100 16 50 8 100 56 7
50 6 250 84 12 50 6 1 100 15
50 6 300 72 9 50 6 20 100 29
50 6 350 63 7 50 6 50 79 16
50 4 250 100 11 50 6 100 63 8
50 4 300 89 11 50 4 1 100 8
50 4 350 78 8 50 4 20 100 22
50 4 400 70 7 50 4 50 86 16
25 18 45 100 31 50 4 100 70 8
25 18 75 65 14 25 18 1 100 56
25 18 125 41 6 25 18 15 52 24
25 16 45 100 15 25 18 45 26 6
25 16 75 80 18 25 16 1 100 44
25 16 125 52 8 25 16 15 65 27
25 14 75 100 22 25 16 45 36 8
25 14 125 64 9 25 14 1 100 32
25 12 125 80 12 25 14 15 78 29
25 12 175 60 6 25 14 45 46 9
25 10 125 99 14 25 12 1 100 22
25 10 175 74 8 25 12 15 89 30
25 8 175 92 10 25 12 45 56 9
25 8 225 74 6 25 10 1 100 12
25 6 225 91 8 25 10 15 99 31
25 4 275 95 7 25 10 45 65 10
-25 18 65 73 -27 25 10 75 53 6
-25 18 95 53 -16 25 8 15 100 23
-25 18 125 41 -9 25 8 45 73 10
-25 16 65 91 -9 25 8 75 61 6
-25 16 95 66 -20 25 6 15 100 15
-25 16 125 52 -11 25 6 45 82 11
-25 16 175 39 -6 25 6 75 69 6
-25 14 95 81 -19 25 4 15 100 8
-25 14 125 64 -14 25 4 45 89 11
-25 14 175 48 -7 25 4 75 77 6
-25 12 125 80 -17 -25 18 45 26 -17
-25 12 175 60 -8 -25 18 65 21 -7
-25 10 175 74 -10 -25 16 45 36 -20
-25 10 225 60 -6 -25 16 65 30 -9
-25 8 175 92 -8 -25 14 45 46 -22
-25 8 225 74 -8 -25 14 65 39 -10
-25 6 225 91 -9 -25 12 45 56 -23
-25 6 275 77 -6 -25 12 65 48 -11
-25 4 325 83 -6 -25 12 95 41 -6
-50 18 70 69 -31 -25 10 45 65 -24
-50 18 90 55 -45 -25 10 65 56 -11
-50 18 120 43 -26 -25 10 95 49 -6
-50 18 150 35 -15 -25 8 45 73 -24
-50 18 200 27 -8 -25 8 65 65 -12
-50 16 70 85 -15 -25 8 95 57 -6
-50 16 90 69 -31 -25 6 45 82 -18
-50 16 120 54 -32 -25 6 65 73 -12
-50 16 150 44 -19 -25 6 95 64 -7
-50 16 200 34 -10 -25 4 45 89 -11
-50 16 250 28 -6 -25 4 65 80 -12
-50 14 90 85 -15 -25 4 95 71 -7
-50 14 120 67 -33 -50 18 70 20 -24
-50 14 150 55 -23 -50 18 90 17 -11
-50 14 200 43 -12 -50 18 120 14 -6
-50 14 250 35 -7 -50 16 70 28 -28
-50 12 120 83 -17 -50 16 90 25 -14
-50 12 150 68 -28 -50 16 120 21 -7
-50 12 200 53 -15 -50 14 70 37 -30
-50 12 250 44 -9 -50 14 90 33 -16
-50 12 300 38 -6 -50 14 120 29 -8
-50 10 150 85 -15 -50 14 150 26 -6
-50 10 200 66 -18 -50 12 70 46 -32
-50 10 250 55 -11 -50 12 90 41 -17
-50 10 300 47 -8 -50 12 120 37 -9
-50 10 350 41 -6 -50 12 150 33 -6
-50 8 200 82 -18 -50 10 70 55 -34
-50 8 250 68 -14 -50 10 90 50 -18
-50 8 300 58 -10 -50 10 120 45 -10
-50 8 350 51 -7 -50 10 150 41 -7
-50 6 250 84 -16 -50 8 70 63 -34
-50 6 300 72 -12 -50 8 90 58 -19
-50 6 350 63 -9 -50 8 120 52 -11
-50 6 400 57 -7 -50 8 150 48 -7
-50 4 300 89 -11 -50 6 70 71 -29
-50 4 350 78 -11 -50 6 90 65 -19
-50 4 400 70 -8 -50 6 120 60 -11
-50 4 450 63 -7 -50 6 150 56 -8
-50 4 70 78 -22
-50 4 90 73 -20
-50 4 120 67 -12
-50 4 150 62 -8

Table 7.3.8.Summary of depth intervals and porosities by lithofacies for fine- to medium-
crystalline sucrosic dolomites that exhibit water saturation change greater that 5% due to
FWL elevation change. Intervals and porosities not shown exhibit < 5% Sw change due
to elevation changes from -50 to +50 ft.

7- 22
 Hoobler Graskell Flower*
P 465 465 423 423 465 465
Z 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Cgrv Perfs Reference NA NA FWL+75 FWL+100 FWL+75 FWL+125
Sim Model FWL +65 -35 +30 +5 +145 +95
Geomod 4-3 FWL +20 +20 +44 +44 +142 +142
Shading indicates model used in simulation excercises.
OGIP (BCF) by Zone (Formation/Member level)
HRNGTN 4 5 4 4 10 10
KRIDER 29 31 13 13 47 46
ODELL 0 0 4 4 1 1
WINF 22 24 9 10 24 24
CHASE

GAGE 2 3 9 10 8 9
TWND 40 48 31 32 32 31
B/TWND 3 5 3 3 2 2
FTRLY 24 42 64 65 32 31
MATFIELD 0 0 2 3 2 2
WREFORD 0 11 18 19 11 11
A1_SH 0 0 1 2 0 0
A1_LM 0 4 11 14 5 5
B1_SH 0 0 0 0 0 1
B1_LM 0 0 1 1 4 5
COUNCIL GROVE

B2_SH 0 0 0 0 0 0
B2_LM 0 0 0 1 5 6
B3_SH 0 0 0 0 0 0
B3_LM 0 0 0 0 1 1
B4_SH 0 0 0 1 0 0
B4_LM 0 0 0 0 1 2
B5_SH 0 0 0 0 0 0
B5_LM 0 0 0 0 4 8
C_SH 0 0 0 0 0 0
C_LM 0 0 0 0 0 2

Chase 124 169 155 161 169 167

Council Grove 0 4 14 20 20 30
Combined 124 173 169 181 189 197

% change Chase 36.3% 3.8% -1.2%

% change Council Grove #DIV/0!** 44.4% 50.0%
% change combined 39.5% 7.1% 4.2%
* The two Flower models have more than one variable changing
** Hoobler has no gas in Council Grove or Wreford with higher FWL.

Table 7.3.9. Comparison of OGIP by zone in three multi-section simulation models as a

function of the height above FWL. Relatively small changes in FWL dramatically affect
zones lower in the section and very little in the very upper part of the Chase.

7- 23
 1000
Gas-Brine Height Above Free Water (ft)

100

2-NM Shly Silt

1-NM Silt
0-NM Ss
3-Marine Silt
10-Marine Ss
4-Mud/Mud-Wkst
5-Wkst/Wkst-Pkst
7-Pkst/Pkst-Grnst
8-Grnst-PhAlg Baff
6-Dol slt
9-Crs Dol
10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Water Saturation (%)
Figure 7.1.1. Model height above free water level curves for all 11 lithofacies for a φi =
10% rock. Water saturation can vary by up to 60% for the same porosity rock depending
on the lithofacies. Curves were constructed using equations 4.2.15-4.2.19 in text.
Differences in water saturation are greatest at lower heights and decrease with
increasing height above free water level.
1000
Gas-Brine Height Above Free Water (ft)

100

Porosity=4%
Porosity=6%
Porosity=8%
Porosity=10%
Porosity=12%
Porosity=14%
Porosity=16%
Porosity=18%
10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Water Saturation (%)
Figure 7.1.2. Model height above free water level curves for continental very fine to fine-
grained sandstones (L0) constructed using equations 4.2.15-4.2.19 in text.

7- 24
Figure 7.2.1. Two views of the FWL surface model version Geomod4 with a
contour interval = 50 ft. The FWL surface is relatively flat on the east side (+50 at
the Hugoton boundary to +20 at the Panoma boundary). The surface rises
gradually to the midfield position and then rises rapidly to approximately +1000 at
the west margin of the Hugoton.

7- 25
Figure 7.2.2. Height above FWL for key stratigraphic horizons in the Chase and
Council Grove. Scale is from 0 to 500 ft (150 m) except for the B4_LM where the
insert map covering Grant and Stevens Counties is 0-100 ft.

7- 26
Figure 7.2.3. Elevation above sea level for base of Council Grove (Panoma)
perforations, 2000 wells (left), and base of Chase (Hugoton) perforations, 4000
wells (right). Contour interval = 50 ft. Lowest perforations in the Council Grove at
the Panoma margin approximately at sea level. In the Chase the perforations at
the Hugoton margin are approximately 150-200 ft above sea level.

7- 27
Figure 7.2.4 Average water saturation for Krider calculated from wireline logs
using Archie for grain-supported lithofacies having porosity greater than 8% in
color (purple is 100% Sw). Contour lines (50-ft interval) are the structure on the
base of the Krider. Estimated FWL is 30 ft below coincidence of the base of
Krider and 100% Sw.

Figure 7.2.5. Back-calculated FWL for eight wells in Texas County, Oklahoma,
in feet above sea level.

7- 28
Figure 7.2.6 Geomod 4-3 FWL resulting from the integration of three methods.

7- 29
 L0
L1 1.5
L2
L3
L4
L5
Dimensionless Slope Error (Hf)
L6
L7 1.0
L8
L9
L10

0.5

0.0
-1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5

-0.5

-1.0

-1.5

log Threshold Entry Height Error (Hte)

Figure 7.3.1. Crossplot of Hafwl-Sw curve parameter errors, logHte error (threshold entry
height parameter) versus, Hf error (dimensionless slope) for all lithofacies. Positive
correlation between the two errors exhibits a reduced major axis line with slope=1.07
and intercept = 0.013.

7- 30
 1.5
Dimensionless Slope Error (Hf)

1.0

0.5

0.0
-1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5

-0.5

-1.0
L0
L1
L2
-1.5

log Threshold Entry Height Error (Hte)

Figure 7.3.2. Crossplot of Hafwl-Sw curve parameter errors, logHte error (threshold entry
height parameter) versus, Hf error (dimensionless slope) for continental siltstone and
sandstone lithofacies. Positive correlation between the two errors exhibits a reduced
major axis line with slope=1.07 and intercept = 0.013.

7- 31
 1.5
Dimensionless Slope Error (Hf)

1.0

0.5

0.0
-1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5

-0.5

-1.0
L3
L10

-1.5

log Threshold Entry Height Error (Hte)

Figure 7.3.3. Crossplot of Hafwl-Sw curve parameter errors, logHte error (threshold entry
height parameter) versus, Hf error (dimensionless slope) for marine siltstone and
sandstone lithofacies. Positive correlation between the two errors exhibits a reduced
major axis line with slope=1.07 and intercept = 0.013.

7- 32
 1.5
Dimensionless Slope Error (Hf)

1.0

0.5

0.0
-1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5

-0.5

-1.0
L4
L5
L7
L8
-1.5

log Threshold Entry Height Error (Hte)

Figure 7.3.4. Crossplot of Hafwl-Sw curve parameter errors, logHte error (threshold entry
height parameter) versus, Hf error (dimensionless slope) for limestone lithofacies.
Positive correlation between the two errors exhibits a reduced major axis line with
slope=1.07 and intercept = 0.013.

7- 33
 1.5
Dimensionless Slope Error (Hf)

1.0

0.5

0.0
-1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5

-0.5

-1.0
L6
L9

-1.5

log Threshold Entry Height Error (Hte)

Figure 7.3.5. Crossplot of Hafwl-Sw curve parameter errors, logHte error (threshold entry
height parameter) versus, Hf error (dimensionless slope) for fine- to medium-crystalline
sucrosic dolomite lithofacies. Positive correlation between the two errors exhibits a
reduced major axis line with slope=1.07 and intercept = 0.013.

7- 34
 L0 1.5
L1
L2
L3
L4
Dimensionless Slope Error (Hf)
L5
L6 1.0
L7
L8
L9
L10

0.5

0.0
-1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5

-0.5

-1.0

-1.5

log Threshold Entry Height Error (Hte)

Figure 7.3.6. Crossplot of Hafwl-Sw curve parameter errors, logHte error (threshold entry
height parameter) versus, Hf error (dimensionless slope) for all lithofacies. Positive
correlation between the two errors exhibits a reduced major axis line with slope=1.07
and intercept = 0.013. In the figure all samples in which the measured and predicted
threshold entry height Hte is less than 50 ft were assigned an error of zero Because error
in this range of threshold entry height is not significant.

7- 35
 +1.0, 0.023
1000 +0.8, 0.032
+0.6, 0.060
Gas-Brine Height Above Free Water (ft)
0.4, 0.097
0.2, 0.133
0.0, 0.155
-0.2, 0.155
-0.4, 0.133
-0.6, 0.097
-0.8, 0.060
-1.0, 0.032

100

10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Water Saturation (%)
Figure 7.3.7. Example Hafwl-Sw curves for a packstone/grainstone with 16% porosity
showing the range in curves produced by error in the parameters for creating the Hafwl-Sw
curve. Highest and lowest curves represent -2 and +2 standard deviations on the
parameter errors. Approximate fraction of total population for each curve is shown.
Fractions were used to weight predicted saturations to sum a probability-weighted
predicted saturation that is compared against the baseline model in the tables 7.3.1-
7.3.4.

7- 36
 Fraction of Total Population 0.40 1.0
0.36 0.9

Cumulative Frequency
0.32 0.8
0.28 0.7
0.24 0.6
0.20 0.5
0.16 0.4
0.12 0.3
0.08 0.2
0.04 0.1
0.00 0.0
-20
-18
-16
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
SwProbW-Swbase (Sw %)
Figure 7.3.8. Frequency distribution of difference in saturation between probability-
weighted saturations and baseline model saturations for selected porosity and height
above free water level values shown in Tables 7.3.1-7.3.4 (n= 1,232).

7- 37