00091820

© All Rights Reserved

8 views

00091820

© All Rights Reserved

- 2012 Sis Global Forum Abstracts
- Problems Cap 2
- Research Proposal
- Saturation Notes (Petroleum Engineering)
- Arps correlations
- 85MoreProbabilityQuestions Solutions
- 1997 - SPE - Gunter Etal - Early Determination of Reservoir Flow Units Using an Integrated Petrophysical Method
- Feb 8 Week
- First Energy XEL Note
- 00-Mechanics of Seismic Instabilities Induced
- 3 Fracture Vuggy Carb Res
- sp3
- spe113464.pdf
- Validating Reservoir Models to Improve Recovery
- Trabajo de Reservorios Practica # 2
- Well Planning
- Well Productivity in an Iranian Gas-condensate Reservoir a Case Study
- Full Text
- SPE-68050-PA
- Cutoffs in Finite Element Modeling

You are on page 1of 8

W.T. Peake, ChevronTexaco; M. Abadah, Kuwait Oil Co.; and L. Skander, ChevronTexaco

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2005 SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium

held in Houston, Texas U.S.A., 31 January 2 February 2005.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of

information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as

presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to

correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any

position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at

SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of

Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper

for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is

prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to a proposal of not more than 300

words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal must contain conspicuous

acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.

Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract

A peripheral waterflood is planned in the Minagish Oolite

Reservoir, Burgan Field. This is a large carbonate reservoir

which has been under limited primary production since 1965.

There is considerable uncertainty in the waterflood oil forecast

because of the minimal amount of data with which to

characterize the reservoir.

This study identifies key

subsurface uncertainties impacting waterflood performance

and quantifies uncertainty with P10/P50/P90 oil forecasts.

Experimental design (ED) techniques were used to

establish the minimum number of reservoir simulation runs

needed to quantify uncertainty. Both traditional and ED

techniques were used to preserve history matches for all

simulations.

Analysis of variance and multiple linear

regressions were used to identify the most significant

uncertainties and to create a proxy for the simulator. The

proxy was used in Monte Carlo simulation to develop

P10/P50/P90 oil forecasts.

Uncertainty analyses have not often been conducted on

producing reservoirs.

In this report a new technique

combining ED with history matching has been successfully

demonstrated.

The technique can be applied to other

producing reservoirs. Despite the need to restrict simulator

inputs for history matching, it was shown that considerable

uncertainty exists in the waterflood oil forecast. The results

are valuable for: a) identifying actions to reduce uncertainty

and b) input to additional development evaluations.

many oil field projects today, the production forecast is

usually the outcome of reservoir simulation. In the past, if

uncertainty was assessed, it was the result of personal

judgment and/or a few simulation runs. The simulations were

conducted by varying one factor (such as such as porosity or

permeability) at a time. The effects of varying each factor are

shown in a tornado chart. A better means of assessing

uncertainty is through the use of experimental design (ED).

ED is more efficient, can assess interactions and allows effects

to be estimated at several levels1.

A variety of experimental designs/methodologies have

been proposed and tested for oil and gas applications2,3. The

appropriate design for a specific application will be a function

of: number of uncertainty factors, expert knowledge, and

personal choice. In this study we used a methodology similar

to that described by Friedmann, et.al.4 and Kabir, et.al.5 Their

methodology was modified to include history matching. A

flow chart is shown in Fig. 1. More recent methodologies can

automate this process, although requiring many simulations6.

Define Objective

Build History Matched Simulation Model

Identify Uncertainty Factors and Ranges

Evaluate History Matches

Perform Experimental Design Simulations

Test for History Matches and Curvature

Generate Results by Statistical Analysis

Introduction

Quantification of uncertainty in reservoir development

projects has been a steadily growing industry-wide practice

since the early 1990s. By quantifying uncertainty in the early

phases of a project, it becomes possible to clearly assess risk

and plan for a range of possible project outcomes. Together,

these two abilities should yield better business decisions and

higher project values.

Background

The Minagish Oolite Reservoir, Burgan Field, Kuwait has

been on primary production since 1965. Cumulative oil

production is 8% OOIP and water production has been

minimal. Reservoir pressure has been slowly declining and is

now approaching the bubble point. The next planned stage of

development is waterflooding. Excellent response to water

www.petroman.ir

SPE 91820

nearby field7.

list was made intentionally extensive to minimize personal

bias.

Table 1. Original Uncertainty Factors and Ranges

Factor

Low

Middle

High

Top Structure

Depth

No change

60 ft. higher on

flanks

Mean Porosity

x 0.87

x 1.0

x 1.13

Mean Horizontal

Permeability

x 0.34

x 1.0

x 1.66

OOWC

6 ft. deeper

6 ft. shallower

Mean Irreducible

Water Saturation

x 0.38

x 1.0

x 1.62

4 High Perm

Zones

6 High Perm

Zones

11 Low Perm

Zones

x 0.333

x 1.0

Geologic Contrast

Vertical

Permeability

Sealing Faults

0 ft.

34 ft.

108 ft.

Rock

Compressibility

5 x 10

-6

1/psi

Pb = 2571 psia

Uncertainty Factors

At the onset of the study we identified all major subsurface

uncertainties which are labeled factors and listed in Table 1.

The list was developed from: experience gained during

simulation model building and history matching, analogy with

-6

8 x 10

1/psi

Bob = 1.362

rb/STB

Rsb = 724

SCF/STB

Bob = 1.412

rb/STB

Rsb = 766

SCF/STB

Viscosity = 1.31 cp

Viscosity = 1.12 cp

Viscosity = 0.93 cp

Sorw = 0.2

Sorw = 0.28

Sorw = 0.36

krw@sorw = 0.2

krw@sorw = 0.4

krw@sorw = 0.6

Water Relative

Permeability

1/psi

Pb = 2794 psia

-6

6.5 x 10

Pb = 2683 psia

Oil Properties

tentatively selected as the preferred development plan shown

in Fig. 2. The number of uncertainties remains large,

however, given no field evidence of what water injection

response will be. In addition to the uncontrollable subsurface

uncertainties, there exist additional uncertainties.

They

include production and injection well management and

facilities limitations.

The objective of this study is to quantify uncertainty of the

oil production forecast. The uncertainty assessment will be

conducted in two phases; the 1st phase to identify key

subsurface uncertainties while holding the development plan

fixed. A 2nd phase (not described here) will address

operational uncertainties and optimization for wells and

facilities.

The basis for production forecasts is a dynamic reservoir

model built in 2001. This reservoir model was history

matched by forcing oil to produce at historic rates and

adjusting model parameters to match reservoir pressure and

water cut. Within the accuracy of pressure data, all wells

exhibited a similar pressure decline. Most wells produced

little or no water. Model adjustments were: increased

horizontal permeability, addition of a few low and high

permeability layers, decreased rock compressibility and

reduced aquifer size. Wells were also calibrated using flow

tables. A very good match was obtained with minimal

changes to the original model inputs.

x 2.0

These factors include: rock

properties, fluid properties, rock-fluid interaction, and initial

fluid contact. As seen in Table 1, oil properties consist of

several fluid properties that are expected to be highly

correlated. By combining these fluid properties into one

factor we insure a consistent set of input data. During

experimental design simulations and analysis it is assumed

that all factors are uncorrelated. This is a reasonable first

assumption for the factors considered, which later will be

removed during Monte Carlo simulation.

Due to the use of a static model with geostatistical derived

properties, there is the possibility of including geostatistical

parameters as factors. We assumed that resultant uncertainty

in oil production created by geostatistical parameters (e.g.

seed and variogram) is much smaller than that created by the

uncertainty of the mean. As a result, only a single static

model realization was utilized. Uncertainty due to porosity,

horizontal permeability and irreducible water saturation was

captured through uncertainty of their mean values.

Three levels for each factor were developed (low, middle,

high). The middle values are equal to factor values in the

original history matched model. Low and high values were

obtained by the following, in order of priority: 1. statistical

analysis of data, 2. analogy, and 3. personal judgment.

Top Structure Depth Seismic mapping and a valid time

depth relationship at the crest of the reservoir reduces the

overall (average) structure depth uncertainty between the 8

crestal wells. But this is not valid on the flanks of the

reservoir, where well data is sparse.

The first flank well was recently drilled and encountered

the reservoir top approximately 60 ft. lower than expected. In

www.petroman.ir

SPE 91820

uncertainty on the flanks. The low value for structure depth

was obtained by adding 60 ft. to all mapped depths on the

flanks. The high value was obtained by subtracting 60 ft. on

the flanks.

Mean Porosity The most significant components of

uncertainty in mean porosity were assumed to be: (1)

measurement error and (2) non-representative sampling8.

Non-representative sampling is the difference between sample

and reservoir statistics.

Reservoir model porosities were derived from log

porosities calibrated to core measurements.

Systematic

measurement error, including core measurement error and log

to core calibration error was assumed to be +/- 0.015.

Reviews of all possible sources of measurement error can be

found in the literature9.

Uncertainty resulting from non-representative sampling

was obtained by considering an areal distribution of porosities.

The porosities considered are vertical averages over reservoir

thickness. The vertical mean (average) was obtained from

well logs. The variance of the mean of mean porosities from

well logs provides our estimate of uncertainty due to

sampling. If: (1) wells are uniformly distributed and (2)

internal reservoir stratigraphic layering is uniform, then the

result should not be biased. Both conditions are met in the

Minagish Oolite Reservoir.

Mean porosities were calculated in each of 7 wells. The

mean (of means) was 0.24 with standard deviation of 0.02.

The Central Limit Theorem states that the distribution of

sample means is approximately normal, regardless of the

distribution of the parent population. This justifies an

assumed normal distribution for mean porosity.

Both components of uncertainty are independent. As a

result, variances are additive and the combined standard

deviation of 0.025 was obtained using a root-mean-square

calculation. It is seen that sampling error dominates. Mean

porosities at 10% and 90% probability were calculated and

converted into multipliers shown in Table 1. This uncertainty

estimate was only applied to the oil column and did not impact

the aquifer pore volume.

Mean Horizontal Permeability Uncertainty in mean

horizontal permeability was calculated in a similar manner as

porosity. Core Labs determined that the reproducibility of

core air permeabilities to be +/- 10% for permeabilities

between 500 and 5000 md. Using this value, the measurement

uncertainty is +/- 61 md.

Lacking a permeability well log, we substituted core

measurements from 5 wells for an estimate of sampling

uncertainty. The sample mean and standard deviation of the

mean horizontal permeability was 609 and 307 md,

respectively. The combined standard deviation is 313 md.

Sampling error is seen to dominate. Mean porosities at 10%

and 90% probability were calculated and converted into

multipliers shown in Table 1.

Original Oil-Water Contact Three credible original OWC

depths were obtained from wells drilled early in the life of the

reservoir. The range of these measurements is 8 ft., however,

a water-up-to depth from a well drilled at the same time

indicates the possibility of a slightly larger range. The mean

values were selected to be +/- 6 ft. from the mean.

Mean Irreducible Water Saturation Uncertainty in the

mean irreducible water saturation was calculated in a similar

manner as porosity.

A +/- 0.05 measurement error was

assumed. From well logs, the sample mean and standard

deviation is 0.108 and 0.014, respectively. The combined

standard deviation is 0.052. Measurement error is seen to

dominate. Mean irreducible water saturation at 10% and 90%

probability were calculated and converted into multipliers

shown in Table 1.

Geologic Contrast With few modern logs and vintage

1970s logs and core data, it has not been possible to construct

a facies based static model. Thus, the presence and lateral

extent of very high and very low permeability layers, that may

have a profound effect on fluid movement, can not be obtained

from existing data. The best estimate of lateral extent and

location of the high/low permeability streaks was derived from

an analogous reservoir, where both types of permeability

layers were observed.

Using the analogy as a guide, it was assumed a most likely

case (geologic contrast middle) as having a similar number

of layers, at the same stratigraphic depths and with the same

approximate areas. These layers were assigned 0.01 and 5000

md permeabilities. These layers and their permeabilities

provide internal reservoir geologic contrast that would

otherwise not exist in the static model derived strictly from

well logs and geostatistical modeling of permeability. A range

of values for geologic contrast was obtained by adding and

removing permeability layers, as shown in Table 1.

Vertical Permeability Static model vertical permeability

was calculated using a vertical/horizontal permeability ratio of

0.6, an average value observed in cores. A majority of core

vertical/horizontal permeability ratios lie within the range of

1.2 and 0.2. This range was converted to multipliers shown in

Table 1. It is noted that vertical/horizontal permeability ratios

were input to the static model, however the multipliers are

applied post scale-up. This apparent inconsistency is minimal

however, as post scale-up model layers are 1-2 ft. thick.

Sealing Faults There are 5 mapped faults in this

reservoir, all of which are nearly vertical. None juxtapose pay

and non-pay.

Shut-in bottom hole pressure (SIBHP)

measurements from all wells follow the same general trend as

shown in Fig. 3. However, the accuracy of SIBHP data is

such that it is not possible to completely rule out reservoir

compartmentalization due to sealing faults. The most likely

scenario is that, based on several pressure buildup analyses

and the regional stress field, 3 faults are sealing. The range of

possibilities is that 0 to 5 faults are sealing.

Tar Zone Thickness Core descriptions from the 1970s

include observations of heavy oil near the oil-water contact.

To date there has been no investigation of the nature and

extent of this observation. However, the properties and

location of an immobile tar zone have been extensively

studied in the analogous reservoir10. There the tar zone is

located directly above the oil-water contact and has a

maximum thickness of 108 ft. It is located only where

permeability is greater than 100 md. By analogy, we assumed

a range of 0 108 ft. thickness with a most likely value of 54

ft. It was also assumed that the tar zone exists only where

www.petroman.ir

SPE 91820

It was anticipated that some factor values (low/high) would

cause a mismatch during experimental design simulations,

regardless of the values of other factors. It is industry practice

that a valid simulation model is obtained only through

reasonableness of input data and history matching. It is our

premise that ED results from simulation models that do not

match history are highly questionable. Therefore, the

methodology that follows is designed to preserve history

matches for all simulation models.

Two different approaches were used in this study to insure

that all simulation models were adequate history matches.

The approaches are:

1. Traditional (vary one-factor-at-a-time)

2. Experimental Design

Both approaches rely on simulation results to identify

factors that have the largest impact on the history match.

Once these factors were identified, their range was modified to

achieve better history matches for the next set of simulations.

The traditional approach was used initially because it was

fast. Partial history matches (15 out of 38 years) without

forecasts were run in 2 hours. In hindsight, we could have

used ED with the same partial history matches to obtain

similar results (described later). From the traditional approach

a tornado chart was used to identify the factors listed in Table

2 that caused the greatest mismatches. Fortunately only water

cut match was problematic; all simulations produced

reasonable pressure matches. Adjusted factor values, which

were carried forward to the first ED set of simulations, are

listed in Table 2.

Table 2. Pre-ED History Match Adjustments

Factor

Low

High

Mean Horizontal

Permeability

x 0.67

Geologic Contrast

4 Low Perm Zones

20 ft.

54 ft.

Oil Properties

Viscosity = 1.215 cp

Water Relative

Permeability

Sorw = 0.32

krw@sorw = 0.5

A Plackett-Burman 2 level design was chosen for its

usefulness in screening a relatively large number of factors

with a minimum number of simulations. Its disadvantages are

the inability to thoroughly investigate interactions and higher

order effects. With 12 factors the design has 16 runs. A 17th

center point run was added to evaluate curvature (caused by

nonlinear and interaction effects).

All simulations began in 1965, the year production began.

The history match concluded near the end of 2003. As shown

in Fig. 3 a reasonable pressure match was obtained for all

runs. The center point run (containing only middle values)

lies in the middle of all the results. As shown in Fig. 4 the

water cut match was excellent for the center point run and

many other runs. However, two runs had unacceptably high

water cuts (pink and grey curves).

3300

X Field Data

Pressure (psia)

gaps which permit communication between the oil column and

the aquifer, although at a reduced amount than without the tar

zone.

Rock Compressibility As a result of history matching,

reservoir model rock compressibility is near the lower limit of

core measurements. Unlike the other factors, we recognized

that obtaining a range for rock compressibility from core

measurements would lead to values far outside the range

needed for a pressure match. Therefore a smaller range (5 - 8

x 10-6 1/psi) was assumed that would likely permit an

acceptable match.

Uncertainty in rock compressibility was also used as a

surrogate for uncertainty in aquifer size. The history matched

reservoir model has an aquifer to oil column pore volume ratio

of 23. The effect of aquifer size was indistinguishable from

that of rock compressibility.

Oil Properties There are 4 credible oil PVT analyses

conducted on bottom hole fluid samples obtained early in the

life of the reservoir. After review of the PVT and sampling

depth data, it was decided that although an oil property

gradient with depth might exist, it could not be determined

from this data set. As a result, the model contains a single set

of black oil fluid properties. The mean, P10 and P90 values

of key oil properties at bubble point pressure and reservoir

temperature were obtained using t-statistics to account for the

small number of data points. These key oil properties are:

bubble point pressure, gas-oil ratio, oil formation volume

factor and oil viscosity. Their values are shown in Table 1.

Measurement error was assumed small in comparison to the

variance in PVT measurements. Published correlations were

used to calculate consistent sets of low, middle, high oil

properties for all pressures.

Water Relative Permeability There exists no relative

permeability measurements for this reservoir. However,

relative permeability measurements were made in the

analogous reservoir. From this data, a set of most likely

relative permeabilities were derived and input to the reservoir

model as a power-law function. History matching was used to

determine the middle values: a 0.28 residual oil saturation and

a 0.4 water relative permeability. Based on experience, water

relative permeability endpoints were selected that could span

the range of very favorable to very unfavorable (to oil

recovery) as shown in Table 1. These values might also be

considered as spanning the range of possible wettabilities.

3100

2900

2700

1965

www.petroman.ir

1975

1985

1995

2005

SPE 91820

50

Water Cut (%)

X Field Data

40

30

Center Point Run

20

10

0

1965

1975

1985

1995

2005

those factors with the greatest impact on water production.

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and calculation of main

effects were performed on the cumulative water production at

the end of the history match period. Those factors impacting

cumulative water production, in order of significance, are:

water relative permeability, mean porosity, OOWC, vertical

permeability, geologic contrast, mean horizontal permeability,

and rock compressibility. This is shown in a normalized

Pareto chart of main effects in Fig. 5. As a result of this

evaluation, those factor ranges were adjusted to improve the

history match during the next (second) ED design runs.

Relperm

Porosity

OOWC

Vperm

Geolcon

Hperm

Comp

Oil Prop

Curvature

Str top

Swirr

Fault Seal

Tar Zone

reservoir pressure above bubble point. Wells produce against

a constant bottom hole pressure and plug backs occur at 95%

water cut, starting with the lowest completion. The only

facility limitation is a maximum field oil rate.

A Pareto chart of main effects for cumulative oil recovery

at 2040 is shown in Fig. 6. In this chart the absolute value of

effects are ranked and shown against a 95% significance limit.

Significance is obtained from an F-statistic. From this result it

is seen that at least 4 factors are significant, from porosity

through horizontal permeability. The least significant factors

are: structure top, fault seal, curvature, and geologic contrast.

This observation generally holds for other years, although the

ranking may differ slightly and the position of the 95%

significance limit varies.

Porosity

Tar Zone

Relperm

Hperm

Oil Prop

OOWC

Swir

Comp

Vperm

Geolcon

Curvature

Fault Seal

Str top

proceed ahead with predictions. It was considered that these

predictions would provide a first-order estimate of the relative

importance of each factor. Cumulative oil recovery and

recovery efficiency (%OOIP) were selected as response

variables. Once the prediction runs were completed, the

factors were prioritized through ANOVA and calculation of

main effects.

From 2003 to 2007 two wells remain on primary

production. The water flood prediction begins in 2007 when

new injectors and producers are drilled, completing a ring of

peripheral injectors and crestal producers on 250 acre spacing.

Injectors are completed above and below the OOWC and

2040. This analysis showed that structure top ranks high in

significance and porosity, tar zone and OOWC rank much

lower.

This first set of ED forecasts, however imperfect the

history match, yielded valuable information. It was observed

that fault seal and geologic contrast were consistently the least

significant factors for both cumulative oil and recovery factor.

We also determined that due to the lack of significant

curvature, both factor interactions and quadratic effects are

unimportant.

Second Experimental Design Simulations

Iteration is a normal component of ED methodology. A

second set of ED simulations were conducted to improve the

water cut matches. Factor values for the second ED

simulations are shown in Table 3. Adjustment was made to

those values having the highest impact on water production, as

previously identified. It is not known a priori, whether these

adjustments will be sufficient to provide matches for all ED

simulations. The middle water relative permeability was also

adjusted to remain centered between low and high values.

www.petroman.ir

SPE 91820

Factor

Low

Middle

High

Top Structure

Depth

60 ft. lower on

flanks

as is

60 ft. higher on

flanks

Mean Porosity

x 0.94

x 1.0

x 1.13

Mean Horizontal

Permeability

x 0.8

x 1.0

x 1.66

OOWC

6 ft. deeper

3 ft. shallower

Mean Irreducible

Water Saturation

x 0.382

x 1.0

x 1.618

Vertical

Permeability

x 0.333

x 1.0

x 1.4

20 ft.

34 ft.

54 ft.

Rock

Compressibility

5 x 10-6 1/psi

Pb = 2571 psia

Pb = 2683 psia

Pb = 2794 psia

Bob = 1.312

rb/STB

Rsb = 683

SCF/STB

Bob = 1.362

rb/STB

Rsb = 724

SCF/STB

Oil Viscosity = 1.12

cp

Bob = 1.412

rb/STB

Rsb = 766

SCF/STB

Oil Viscosity =

0.93 cp

Oil Properties

Viscosity = 1.22 cp

Water Relative

Permeability

Sorw = 0.2

Sorw = 0.25

Sorw = 0.3

krw@sorw = 0.2

krw@sorw = 0.3

krw@sorw = 0.4

can be neglected, reducing the number of factors from 12 to

10. This had the desirable consequence of reducing the

number of required simulation runs. As before, we used a

Plackett-Burman ED for the second set of simulations but now

the number of required runs is 12. Adding a center point run

gives a total of 13 runs.

Acceptable history matches were obtained for all runs as

shown in Fig. 7. The pressure match was qualitatively the

same as shown in Fig. 3.

50

40

is observed that despite of the reduction of factor ranges due to

history matching there remains a considerable uncertainty in

oil recovery.

ANOVA and effects for cumulative oil is shown in Fig. 9

with a significance limit of 80%. Comparing Figs. 3 & 6, it is

observed that the exact position of factors has changed;

however, the relative importance of each factor remains

unchanged. As before, interactions and higher order terms are

not important.

Tar Zone

Relperm

Porosity

Hperm

Swir

Vperm

OOWC

Oil Prop

Comp

Str top

Curvature

Without the need to include interactions and higher order

terms, we can continue using 2-level ED simulation results for

building multiple linear regression models. These models will

become proxies for the reservoir simulator in Monte Carlo

simulations.

Table 4 lists factor rankings for cumulative oil at selected

years. Factor rankings were obtained from Pareto charts like

Fig. 9. Only the top 6 factors (shaded in green) were used as

independent variables while performing regressions.

Table 4. Cumulative Oil Factor Rankings by Year

X Field Data

30

20

10

0

1965

1975

1985

1995

2005

Cumulative Oil

0

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2010

2

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

tarzone

relperm

porosity

hperm

swirr

vperm

oowc

11

11

oilprop

comp

11

11

11

top

10

11

10

10

curvature

10

10

10

10

11

oil production every 5 years from 2010 to 2040. Coded values

for the independent variables were used because certain

variables are qualitative functions. An example result is given

below for cumulative oil at 2040. The variable subscripts

correspond to the rank given in Table 4.

Y = 561 -43.2 X1 41.7 X2 + 39.2 X3+ 23.4 X4 -21.0 X5 +11.6 X6

www.petroman.ir

SPE 91820

and 0.98, indicating an excellent fit to simulator results.

A further demonstration of the ability of proxies to serve

as a substitute for the simulator is given by calculation of

residuals. Residuals for cumulative oil at 2040 are shown in

Fig. 10 for 13 ED runs and 5 check runs (#14 #18).

Residuals for other years are similar.

Residual (%)

3

1

-1

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

respectively.

As described previously, mean porosity, mean horizontal

permeability, and mean irreducible water saturation are

characterized by a normal pdf. The assigned pdfs have 90%

and 10% cumulative probabilities at -1 and +1, respectively.

From fundamental principles, we expect: (1) a negative

correlation between porosity and irreducible water saturation

and (2) a positive correlation between porosity and horizontal

permeability. A negative 0.50 correlation between porosity

and irreducible water saturation was obtained from analysis of

well log data. A 0.34 correlation between porosity and

horizontal permeability was obtained from analysis of core

plug data. Lacking log or core data for both horizontal

permeability and water saturation, we approximated the

correlation as a negative 0.2.

of the regression models. Factor values in the check runs were

2-level and chosen at random. The residuals from the check

runs are similar to that obtained from the ED runs providing

confidence in the results.

The above calculations were repeated for oil recovery

factor at 2040. The formula for recovery factor is:

Y = 33.9 2.62 X1 1.92 X2 + 1.29 X3+ 1.12 X4 + 0.91 X5 0.74 X6

X3 is oil properties; X4 is horizontal permeability; X5

irreducible water saturation; and X6 is tar zone. The

coefficient of determination is 0.92 and the maximum residual

is 5.7%.

Generate Probablility Distributions

Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) was used to obtain probability

distributions for both response variables11.

Input data

requirements for MCS include the simulator proxies,

probability density functions (pdf) for each independent

variable and correlation coefficients where applicable.

Probability density functions and correlations can be obtained

from fundamental principles, expert opinion, and historical

data12. Following the convention used to develop the proxies,

each pdf is in coded variables.

The factors which have discrete values (tar zone, oil

properties, top structure, and water relative permeability) were

assigned pdfs with probabilities corresponding to each value.

Values -1, 0, and 1 were given 20%, 60% and 20%

probabilities, respectively.

Rock compressibility was assigned a uniform pdf between

-1.25 and +1.25. As a result, 90% and 10% cumulative

probabilities (equal to or less than) are at -1 and +1,

respectively.

Vertical permeability was assigned a triangular

distribution, with zero as the most likely value. 90% and 10%

P10

P50

P90

0

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

Fig. 11 Cumulative Oil Uncertainty

MCS was conducted with 25,000 trials and the results are

shown in Fig. 11 & 12. In Fig. 11 cumulative oil production is

shown as three curves depicting 90%, 50% and 10%

probabilities (equal to or less than). Values were calculated

every 5 years, with graphical interpolation in between. In

comparison to Fig. 8, it is seen that the P90 and P10 curves

fall within the range of results obtained from the ED

simulations. This result is expected, as ED simulations

contain only low and high values and should include more

extreme outcomes.

The cumulative probability for recovery factor at year

2040 is shown in Fig. 12. 90% and 10% (equal to or less

than) recovery factors are 30.3 and 37.4 % respectively.

Cumulative Probability

(%)

-5

Cumulative Oil

-3

100

75

50

25

0

25

30

35

40

45

Conclusions

A valid oil production uncertainty assessment has been

obtained for a potential waterflood in the Minagish Oolite

Reservoir. Validity was established by history matching and

www.petroman.ir

SPE 91820

simulation, Experimental Design, ANOVA, multiple linear

regression analysis and Monte Carlo simulation was used.

The methodology was a modification to that previously

described in the literature. The modification included steps to

evaluate and preserve history matching.

Despite constraints imposed by the history match,

significant uncertainty was calculated. The major subsurface

factors creating uncertainty in cumulative oil production were:

tar zone thickness, water-oil relative permeability, mean

porosity and mean horizontal permeability. The major

subsurface factors creating uncertainty in recovery factor

were: water-oil relative permeability, top structure depth, oil

properties, and mean horizontal permeability.

Both

cumulative oil and recovery factor were linear functions of the

uncertainty factors. Cumulative oil production forecasts

developed at 10%, 50% and 90% probabilities will be useful

for: (a) an estimate of reservoir performance uncertainty and

(b) input to obtaining the optimal development plan.

10. Al-Ajmi, et.al.: The Minagish Field Tar Mat, Kuwait: Its

Formation, Distribution and Impact on Water Flood, GeoArabia,

Vol. 6, No. 1, 2001, pp. 7-24.

11. Murtha, J.A.: Monte Carlo Simulation: Its Status and Future, J.

Petroleum technology, April 1997, pp.361-373.

12. Murtha, J.A.: Incorporating Historical Data in Monte Carlo

Simulation, paper SPE 26245 presented at the 1993 SPE

Petroleum Computer Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana, July

11-14.

Acknowledgment

We are grateful to the management of the Kuwait Oil

Company and to the Energy Ministry of the State of Kuwait

for permission to publish this work. We thank Adwait

Chawathe of ChevronTexaco for his advice and

encouragement on ED.

References

1. Montgomery, D.: Design and Analysis of Experiments, John

Wiley and Sons, New York City, 2001.

2. Peng, C. and Gupta, R.: Experimental Design and Analysis

Methods in Multiple Deterministic Modeling for Quantifying

Hydrocarbon In-Place Probability Distribution Curve, paper

SPE 87002 presented at the 2004 SPE Asia Pacific Conference

on Integrated Modeling for Asset Management, Kuala Lumpur,

Malaysia, March 29-30.

3. White, C. and Royer, S.: Experimental Design as a Framework

for Reservoir Studies, paper SPE 79676 presented at the 2003

SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, Houston, Texas,

February 3-5.

4. Friedmann, R., Chawathe, A., and Larue, D.: Assessing

Uncertainty in Channelized Reservoirs Using Experimental

Designs, SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, August

2003, pp. 264-274.

5. Kabir, C. et.al.: Developing New Fields Using Probabilistic

Reservoir Forecasting, paper SPE 77564, presented at the 2002

SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio,

Texas, September 29 October 2.

6. Castellini, A. et.al.: Practical Methods for Uncertainty

Assessment of Flow Predictions for Reservoirs with Significant

History A Field Case Study, paper A-33, presented at the 9th

European Conference on the Mathematics of Oil Recovery,

Cannes, France, August 10 September 2, 2004.

7. Matar, S. et.al.: A Full Field Simulation Model of a Giant

Carbonate Reservoir in Kuwait, paper SPE 81498 presented at

the 2003 SPE 13th Middle East Oil Show & Conference, Bahrain,

April 5-8.

8. Bu, T. and E. Damsleth, Errors and Uncertainties in Reservoir

Performance Predictions, SPE Formation Evaluation,

September 1996, pp. 194-200.

9. American Petroleum Institute: Recommended Practices for Core

Analysis, Recommended Practise No. 40, February 1998.

www.petroman.ir

- 2012 Sis Global Forum AbstractsUploaded byEnrique Daniel Contreras Avila
- Problems Cap 2Uploaded bySharon Osorio Calderon
- Research ProposalUploaded byMax Odeh
- Saturation Notes (Petroleum Engineering)Uploaded byrestoffical
- Arps correlationsUploaded bytomk2220
- 85MoreProbabilityQuestions SolutionsUploaded byRam Yadav
- 1997 - SPE - Gunter Etal - Early Determination of Reservoir Flow Units Using an Integrated Petrophysical MethodUploaded byAlviNelsonShtephenson
- Feb 8 WeekUploaded byMohammad Iqbal Mahamad Amir
- First Energy XEL NoteUploaded byreservoirengr
- 00-Mechanics of Seismic Instabilities InducedUploaded byzirimia
- 3 Fracture Vuggy Carb ResUploaded byKakda Kret
- sp3Uploaded byAli Nakhaee
- spe113464.pdfUploaded byعبدالغفار بيزان
- Validating Reservoir Models to Improve RecoveryUploaded byGrissel Irene Chipana Tapia
- Trabajo de Reservorios Practica # 2Uploaded byJuniorVargasJimenez
- Well PlanningUploaded byAmoah-kyei Ebenezer
- Well Productivity in an Iranian Gas-condensate Reservoir a Case StudyUploaded byMuhammad Wibisono
- Full TextUploaded byRasdi S Ag
- SPE-68050-PAUploaded byJessica King
- Cutoffs in Finite Element ModelingUploaded byviya7
- akecs-150813085144-lva1-app6891Uploaded byserept
- Research Proposal Final Version.docxUploaded byRozh Sartip
- water wells.pdfUploaded byAmar Isco
- Analyzing in Situ Geothermal Energycontribution to Hydrocarbon Reservoir PrUploaded byBagus Panuntun
- Rejuvenation of Qarun FieldUploaded byPeter James
- Estimating Irreducible Water Saturation and Relative Permeability From LogsUploaded byNaufal Fadhlurachman
- guarinarenas2010.pdfUploaded byAlejandro Duvan Lopez Rojas
- Oil & Gas Glossary_02Uploaded byGitta Ditta
- The Six 'Ko Ko' Rules to Easily Detect Oil, Gas & Water From a Well Log _ Dosh Nazlan _ Pulse _ LinkedInUploaded byMujtaba
- Reese 1996Uploaded byJose Torres

- SPE-108573-MS-P.pdfUploaded bymsmsoft90
- Premium Connections CatalogueUploaded bymsmsoft90
- SPE-98506-MS-PUploaded bymsmsoft90
- SPE-110332-MS-P.pdfUploaded bymsmsoft90
- SPE-108864-MS-PUploaded bymsmsoft90
- SPE-108852-MS-P.pdfUploaded bymsmsoft90
- SPE-109831-MS-P.pdfUploaded bymsmsoft90
- SPE-109791-MS-P.pdfUploaded bymsmsoft90
- SPE-109245-MS-P.pdfUploaded bymsmsoft90
- SPE-109057-MS-PUploaded bymsmsoft90
- SPE-109036-MS-P.pdfUploaded bymsmsoft90
- SPE-108876-MS-PUploaded bymsmsoft90
- SPE-108683-MS-P.pdfUploaded bymsmsoft90
- SPE-108646-MS-P.pdfUploaded bymsmsoft90
- SPE-108621-MS-PUploaded bymsmsoft90
- SPE-108580-MS-PUploaded bymsmsoft90
- SPE-108554-MS-P.pdfUploaded bymsmsoft90
- SPE-108553-MS-P.pdfUploaded bymsmsoft90
- SPE-108523-MS-P.pdfUploaded bymsmsoft90
- SPE-108476-MS-P.pdfUploaded bymsmsoft90
- SPE-107739-MS-P.pdfUploaded bymsmsoft90
- SPE-107738-MS-PUploaded bymsmsoft90
- SPE-107240-MS-PUploaded bymsmsoft90

- Neutrosophic Sets: An OverviewUploaded byAnonymous 0U9j6BLllB
- Ecological Quality RatioUploaded byfoocheehung
- Practical Ideas from Professors - Standards Education in Your CoursesUploaded byabdo-dz
- Duncan 1972Uploaded byQamber Abbas
- C01 How the FASB Approaches a Standard-Setting IssueUploaded byBrooke Carter
- Topic 1.2 FormativeUploaded byJunior Alexis Julon Ventura
- 2. UNFC2009_ES39_eUploaded byarnab
- Prakoso GeoTalk_2018 LRFDUploaded bywikelisma
- Insulation Tester 1 CI 02 I2Uploaded byebbasingh
- IndexUploaded byADNAN
- Chapter 1Uploaded byAnonymous y5Z7Mg3
- Mechanics LabmanualUploaded byJuliahNicole
- Manua(Nuc. Physics)Uploaded byUjjwal Rastogi
- The WHO's Ranking Of Healthcare Systems.pdfUploaded bylowtech4
- Merged DocumentUploaded byhabbythomasa
- bahat2009.pdfUploaded byBernard Owusu
- RBI-Oceaneering-apresentaçãoUploaded byRony
- Picket Fence Free FallUploaded byMark
- 2015 - Denis - Twelve StepsUploaded bydownloader1983
- 1-s2.0-S0263224115002638-mainUploaded byRaul Andres
- SAudi STD_HVAC.pdfUploaded byfarshan296015
- SANS10160-1-Basis of structural design.pdfUploaded byKyle Moolman
- Physics 121/122 Laboratory Calculating UncertaintiesUploaded bySeanGoonShengTang
- Unit 6.docxUploaded byAnonymous XU2T0mf
- TruCal UUploaded byFloyd Allison
- JISA Final LecturesUploaded bymanny12
- Summary Trading in the ZoneUploaded byleo_kp5104
- ISO31000 2009Uploaded byvalentina sucerquia
- Economics 02Uploaded byZargham Khan
- Electricity for ShipUploaded byJohannes Ricky Sihombing