Porosity is one of the most important parameters to assess in-place oil or gas in reservoirs, and to evaluate recovery from enhanced production operations. Since it is relatively well-established to determine porosity using different laboratory and field methods, its value is usually determined at many locations across a reservoir as part of the common practice to capture reservoir heterogeneity and the variability in values. This suite of measurements and the distribution of values are most valuable for probabilistic reservoir assessments, and for spatial modeling if the exact data locations are known.

Despite the importance of individual measurements to set the range of values for probabilistic studies, it is not always possible to access these data due to confidentiality. In most cases, commercial or publicly available databases that assessments may rely on usually report only mean values of porosity, like any other reservoir data, or they may not report a value at all. This makes both quantifying the mean value and the uncertainty around it difficult for probabilistic assessments.

In this study, the TORIS (Tertiary Oil Recovery Information System) dataset of the National Petroleum Council and the U.S. Department of Energy was used to model porosity and the uncertainty around predicted values. TORIS is an integrated dataset of production data, reservoir properties, and project databases of crude oil reservoirs in the United States. The model presented in the paper was based on ANCOVA (Analysis of Co-Variance) of data from 1038 reservoirs from the TORIS dataset for porosity prediction, validation and testing for quantitative and qualitative parameters that may be readily available in most cases, and to estimate uncertainty around the mean values. This model also explored association of porosity values to different parameters, and to different depositional systems and diagenetic overprint conditions. Furthermore, an ANN (Artificial Neural Network) model was created to compare the predicted values of both models. Results showed that the ANN model was able to represent more of the variability, however it lacked the insights that might be gained from the ANCOVA model.