in the fine-grained and mud-dominated pelagic facies some layers pay as oil producer and some structures with the same microfacies do not produced oil.
Is there a relationship between decreasing pore throats and increasing water saturation?
I think there is a reasnable relation within the reservoir intervals, however week. Plotting Sw-porosity or plotting Sw-permeability within the reservoir interval shows a negative relation between Sw and pore-throat indicators (imprecisely porosity and permeability).
I interpret this phenomenon based on below assumptions:
1- Small pore-throats result in high pore-pressure.
2- High-pore-pressure does not let fluid substitution during HC migration into the reservoir.
3- So, HC injection in reservoirs with high-pore pressures (or small pore-throats) is difficult, and the fossil water will remain in the less-permeable reservoirs.
In extreme case, this relation diminishes when the ratio of reservoir pressure to the entropy of permeability increases, extremely. But it is an ideal case.
Salaamz from Abu Dhabi. Microporosity is usually related to both pore throat sizes and their distributions, Fluid saturations are influenced by microporosity, and expected to be abundant in fine grained carbonates. You can assess and quantify microporosity from micro and Nano-CT scans.
Indeed your Sw should be related to microporosity development. However, the relationship is not as straight forward. Some pelagic reservoirs (Middle East, North Sea Chalk, US chalks, etc) are almost 100% microporous and still host oil and/or gas.
Micro and nano CT scans are indeed one of hte tool to check the distribution of microporosity at the plug-scale. However, and quicker and cheaper way (but destructive) is to look at your samples under SEM and compare with CCA and MICP data.
If there is anything you want to discuss on the characterisation of microporosity, please feel free to send me a message, I will be happy to help.