SPE 28608

Improved Reservoir Characterization in

Low-Permeability
Reservoirs
With
Geostatistical Models
D.N. Meehan*, Union Pacific Resources Co, and S.K. Verma,* Stanford U.
* SPE Members
Copyright 1994, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE 69th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition
held in New Orleans, LA. USA, 25-28 September 1994.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of information
contained in an abstract 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 an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where
and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 750833836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Introduction
Abstract
Infill drilling has been commercially successful in many low permeability, heterogeneous gas reservoirs.
Reservoir discontinuities have often been suspected as a factor in poor gas recoveries on wide spacing.
Large vertical and lateral variations in permeability make it difficult to account for partial drainage at infill
locations. How many wells must be drilled to recover the gas? What are the effects of heterogeneities on
optimal well spacing and fracture length?
In this paper, a case history illustrates the power of incorporating high resolution, fine grid geostatistical
models in simulating reservoir behavior. Previous reservoir simulation studies provided acceptable
matches of flow rates and pressures by fairly arbitrary reductions in the log derived net pay for the entire
reservoir or away from the well. However, these models failed to match extended pressure buildups. The
buildups indicate significantly higher gas-in-place in the reservoir than is indicated by simulation matches
based on simpler reservoir descriptions. The geostatistical model presented here resulted in excellent
multiple well history matches and matched the long term buildup.
The techniques for generating the reservoir description are summarized along with the reservoir
simulation results. Predictions of infill drilling success with this model are better than for prior models.
Predictions of incremental gas recoveries from infill drilling from this model are consistent with observed
results. Reservoir heterogeneities (specifically the lateral continuity of permeability) appear to be the most
important factors in this reservoir controlling inadequate drainage of the uppermost intervals. These
lateral heterogeneities appear to be diagenetic permeability alterations resulting in partial
compartmentalization of the many individual sands.
Optimal well spacing in very low permeability reservoirs has been addressed by numerous authors. Wells
with permeabilities in the Cotton Valley range (# 0.01 md) generally indicate extremely long "optimal"
fracture lengths (often in excess of 1000 ft fracture half-lengths). It is doubtful that such fractures can be
created without vastly larger jobs than predicted by conventional hydraulic fracture models. Economic
approaches used in conventional fracture optimization models may be inappropriate in thick intervals with
few stress barriers. Inadequate barriers to fracture height growth and reservoir heterogeneities indicate
the need for closer spacing and moderate fracture lengths.
Continued infill drilling accomplishes two things, viz. increased access to poorly drained portions of the
reservoir with better stimulations and acceleration of recoveries from the most continuous portions of the

reservoir. Current well costs can justify incremental recoveries at the current spacing levels; however,
significant gas will remain unrecovered. The importance of lowering well costs is described.
Geology
The Carthage (Cotton Valley) Field is located in Panola County in East Texas. The Cotton Valley
sandstones of Carthage field consist of a series of marine and lagoonal deposits overlying the gentle
regional structure associated with the Sabine uplift. At its crest the Cotton Valley section is 1200 ft thick,
expanding to 1500 ft downdip. The Cotton Valley interval includes very fine-grained sandstones,
siltstones, shales and limestones. Sediments were deposited by longshore currents that deposited
continuous clean sands in a shallow marine environment. Shale laminations are extensive, resulting in
small sand members ranging in thickness from a few inches to 10 to 15 feet. Bounding shale laminae are
lenticular and discontinuous. Diagenesis in the form of calcite cementation and quartz overgrowth,
combined with overburden pressure have dramatically reduced porosity and permeability. Sand porosities
range from 2% to 12% with microdarcy-level permeabilities. Massive hydraulic fractures stimulations are
required for commercial completions.
Previous Studies
Modern hydraulic fracturing techniques and improved natural gas prices resulted in rapid development of
the Carthage (Cotton Valley) gas field in the 1976-1979 time frame. Attempts to model well performance
followed quickly, with well test and simulation studies indicating hydraulic fracture lengths much shorter
than predicted by conventional 2-D fracture models. One reservoir simulation study was completed in
1992 by an in-house team on the Carthage Gas Unit 21 (CGU-21) to evaluate 80-acre drilling potential.
Cartesian grids with one of the directions oriented in the expected fracture direction were used with
uniform reservoir properties. The reservoir was divided into three non-communicating layers and one
communicating layer. A history-match with well head pressure controls was performed. The only way that
a good match could be obtained was by compartmentalizing the upper layers. A similar approach was
1
2
taken by Meehan and Pennington and by Schell . Individual flowing pressure declines were matched;
however, the model pressure could not increase to the observed value in well 21-2 when it was shut in for
a eighteen month pressure buildup. Simple single layer models were also made but required large
decreases in net pay and decreasing reservoir permeability with time (or increasing skin effect) to match
production.
This Study
The study was divided into four stages,
1. Data analysis,.
2. Reservoir characterization based on geostatistical methods,
3. Creating a reservoir model for numerical simulation, and
4. Matching reservoir and well performance and making reservoir performance predictions.

Data Analysis
Two types of data were used in the study: data to arrive at the geological model of the reservoir and
production/pressure data for each well. The first stage of the project consisted of gathering all log, core,
production and pressure data. Logs were recalibrated and interpreted on a consistent basis, matching
core data for porosities and shale content. Flowmeter logs were available at several times for most wells;
individual layer flow rates were used as history match parameters. Flowing tubing pressures, well tests,
pressure buildups, pressure gradient checks and production data were also integrated. Well flow rates
and flowing tubing pressures were used to calculate bottom hole flowing pressures. Incorporating flowing
gradient
data
improved
the
pressure
drop
calculations.
Geological Data
Exhaustive petrophysical studies of all wells incorporating the full range of available open-hole logs and
core analyses were conducted. Foot-by-foot estimates of porosity (N), shale volume (Vsh), and water
saturation (Sw) were made and integrated with formation tops and bottom.
Analytical plots (histogram, probability, scatter, etc.) for N , Vsh and Sw were made for each group and
sub-group of sands. This analysis is useful to understand frequency distributions, detect correlations
between properties, identify outliers, provide regional statistics, etc. There is only a modest correlation
between porosity and water saturation for most groups of sands. These plots were also useful in
preparing geostatistical simulations to be undertaken and in understanding the numerous realizations.
Production and Pressure Data
The section taken for study was around CGU Unit 21. The area covered by the study is 9000 ft in the Xdirection and 7000 ft in the Y-direction (1446 acres). There are ten wells in this area which have produced
from the Lower Cotton Valley Sands. The surrounding 24 wells were not included in the reservoir
simulation match but were analyzed for variogram development and geostatistical modeling. The first well

(21-2) in the simulation area commenced production in January, 1979. This well produced intermittently
due to gas demand. Early bottom hole pressure buildup measurements failed to stabilize. However,
wellhead flowing pressures were available for entire well history along with numerous measured bottomhole pressures. Measured and modeled bottom-hole pressures were in excellent agreement, providing
confidence
in
using
flowing
tubing
pressure
in
the
simulation
runs.

Geostatistical Simulations
The geological model was generated using a geostatistical approach provided by a group at Stanford
3
University based on the "Amoco Data Set" . This approach is summarized here without extensive
discussion of the geostatistical principles involved. The first step was to get facies distributions, followed
by determination of N, Vsh and Sw. This information was used to provide initial estimates of permeability.
Formation tops for each interval were determined by kriging.
Vsh as a function of areal location and depth was the first attribute addressed. Following our statistical
study, we examined the spatial continuity of each reservoir property as measured by the variogram.
Variograms
are
a
first-order
measure
of
an
attribute's
spatial
variability.
Computing the variogram
Spatial variability is commonly measured by the semi-variogram, defined as the average squared
difference
between two attribute values
approximately
separated
by
vector
h
:

where N(h) is the number of pairs, xi is value at start or tail of pair i and yi is the corresponding end or
head value. h can be specified with directional and distance tolerances. A semivariogram is normally
used for the same variable, e. g. two N values separated by h.
Another useful measure of spatial variability is the indicator semivariogram. This variogram is computed
on an internally constructed variable and requires the specification of a continuous variable and cutoff to
create an indicator transform. For a specific cutoff and datum value the indicator transform is defined as:

Horizontal and vertical indicator semivariograms of Vsh for each group of sands was computed. Cutoffs
2
were based on the cumulative probability distribution of the variable. Widely available GSLIB programs
were used to compute the variograms as well as perform all the geostatistical modeling used in this study.
Modeling the Variogram
Standard variogram models easily fit the data; example computed and modeled horizontal indicator
variograms show the vertical variogram of Vsh for one group of sands (Figure 1). All the wells in the
simulation study area were used to develop the variogram models along with the offset wells within 3000
ft of the simulation area. For most horizontal variograms a spherical model was sufficient to model
horizontal variability while a combination of exponential and spherical was used to model vertical
variability. Not all cutoff levels show good horizontal correlation; vertical variograms are better correlated
because of the presence of short-scale data. Data in the x-y plane are sparsely located with the minimum
distance between two wells being about 900 feet. At some cutoff levels a model with range greater that
900 was observed. For levels where the correlation range from the available data was not observed, a
value
less
than
900
ft
was
used.
Vsh Estimation
An estimate of a property (V)at any particular point can be made by a linear combination of values of the
property at a set of given data points(Vi).

The challenge is in finding best possible weighting factors (wi) to be used with available data. One
method is to assume a stationary random function as our model and specify its variogram. Taking this
model as a true representation the values of which minimize the error variance are used to find V. Thus
the variable to be minimized is:

where ri is the error of the i-th estimate and mr is the average error. If all the available data points are
used at once then one does ordinary kriging. Ordinary kriging provides the best linear unbiased estimate
and gives a very smooth picture and is in fact a contouring technique. Kriging provides a single numerical
model which may be considered best in a local accuracy sense.
Stochastic simulation, on the other hand, is the process of drawing alternative, equally probable, joint
realizations of a variable from a random function model. The realizations represent a number of possible
images of the spatial distribution of the attribute values over the field. Each realization, also called a
stochastic image, reflects properties that have been imposed on a random function model. Typically, the
realizations honor input attribute values at data locations and are thus said to be conditional. Such
conditional simulations correct the smoothing effect shown on maps produced by the kriging algorithm. In
the sequential simulation approach all original data in a given neighborhood (of the point where the
property is to be estimated) as well as all simulated values available up to that point in the simulation are
used to obtain the estimate. The size of the conditioning data set increases as the number of values at
simulated points increases. As far as the implementation of such algorithms are concerned, a limit is set
on number of original and simulated data that can be used to obtain the estimate. A random sequence is
followed in selecting the nodes where the property is to be simulated. When indicator semivariograms are
used for the random function model then the process is called sequential indicator simulation5.
Numerous realizations were obtained by changing the random path followed in the simulations. Figure 2
gives three such simulations of Vsh for one group of sands. Similar simulations were performed for each
of the other five major groups of sands. Color output is essential to properly visualize these results.
Indicator simulations were performed on a grid of 45 by 35 blocks in the x-y plane. These grids were 200
ft in length in each direction. In the vertical direction, the stratigraphic thickness of each group of sands
was used. Grids in the vertical direction were five feet thick.
Selection of Realization
Any of the realizations shown in Figure 2 could be selected. Selection of the best possible realization may
be very important. In the current study, available data were distributed throughout the area of interest
without excessive local concentration. Hence it was decided to select that realization which had a similar
cumulative probability density function as the data. Quantile-Quantile (q-q) plots (Figure 3) and histogram
plots for each of the realizations was made. The realization which gave a best fit around the 45 degree
straight line on the q-q plot was selected. A similar approach was used for each group of sands.
Modeling Porosity
It was observed that for all the groups of sands there was a good correlation between Vsh and and a good
crossvariogram existed (at least in the vertical direction). Porosity realizations were initially modeled
independent of the Vsh realizations. This approach did not result in an acceptable correlation between the
realizations for Vsh and N. Following the approach outlined in Ref. 5, it was necessary to make the N
realizations dependent on the Vsh realizations. Markov-Bayes6 simulations were used for N to account for
the relationship between Vsh and N by using Vsh data as soft indicator data. This approximates indicator
cokriging, where the soft indicator covariances and cross-covariances are calibrated from the hard
indicator covariance models.
Modeling Sw, Permeability and Formation Tops
Sw values at each grid location were originally generated using Markov-Bayes simulations with the Vsh
and values as soft data points; however, linear correlations of Sw with and Vsh were found to reduce
computational time and generate very similar results. Vsh, N, and Sw values were used to determine an
initial permeability value for each grid point using a relationship of the form:

where is a constant obtained by history matching. Permeability values were modified during the historymatch; a typical realization for permeability is given in Figure 4. Formation tops for individual layers were
obtained
using
ordinary
kriging.

Numerical Reservoir Modeling

Fine scale realizations of Vsh ,Sw , N, and permeability were computed at grid nodes whose dimensions
were 200 by 200 by 5 feet (385,875 grid points). Flow simulation grid point locations had to be reduced to
solve the problem on a workstation in a reasonable amount of time.
Upscaling
In the horizontal plane a decision was made to stay with the 200 ft by 200 ft block dimensions (the scale
at which geostatistical simulation was done) to keep enough blocks between infill wells.
Simulator performance was determined to be acceptable with up to 40,000 grid blocks (a few hours per
run), dictating the level of vertical upscaling. Layers were grouped to lump high Vsh content (shaly)
intervals reducing the model to 24 layers with 37,800 grid blocks.
Simple upscaling techniques were used for computing effective permeability of the coarse blocks
because the reduction factor was only about 0.10 and adjacent fine layers of similar V sh properties were
grouped together. Vertical permeability was computed by harmonic averaging with horizontal permeability
computed using arithmetic averaging. Effective porosity of the coarse blocks was also computed by
arithmetic averaging.
Other Input Parameters
There are ten Cotton Valley wells in the simulated area. Hydraulic fractures were modeled conventionally
with increased permeability near the well blocks using local refined grids. Experiments with local grids
confirmed the necessary level of refinement by matching analytic solutions. Fracture lengths were
obtained by matching the net pressures observed during the hydraulic fracture treatments. Several
different hydraulic fracture models were used to estimate xf. Each of these gave reasonably similar
results
when
the
net
pressures
were
matched.
History Match
Gas production data by well was the control parameter with tubing head pressure (ptf) used as the
matching parameter. Average monthly production was used. CGU 21-2 has the longest production history
and has an extended pressure buildup. We started to match this drawdown and buildup performance to
obtain reasonable permeability multiplication factors for the whole reservoir. Two types of permeability
modifiers were used in the history match, global and local. Local permeability in the refined grid near the
well accounted for hydraulic fracturing. A factor of 0.13 for the overall permeability values (derived by
correlation) gave a very good match for the pressure data of CGU 21-2. Fracture permeability had to be
reduced with time, indicating possible fracture plugging and/or proppant crushing. The close match of
each of the transient drawdown periods (following the shut-ins) confirmed the decreasing fracture
permeability-width product.
Figure 5 illustrates the history match of the CGU 21-2 well. The upper portion of Figure 5 match compares
the flowing tubing pressures calculated from all test points and the extended pressure buildup with the
simulated values of bottom hole pressure. The measured bottom hole pressure values have been
converted to surface values for comparison with the simulated values in Fig. 5. The lower portion of the
figure compares the actual flow rates input in the model (primarily based on average monthly production)
and each reported well test. Virtually all of the discrepancies in the pressure match can be understood by
comparison of the test data and monthly production. On several occasions following a short shut-in period
the test production data are significantly higher than the monthly average production used to control the
model. For these instances, model pressures exceed the test values. The accurate reproduction of
flowing pressures following repeated shut-in periods lends confidence to the reservoir description as well.
Test pressures at time 2100-2200 days are characteristic of the well response following a shut-in; monthly
production data do not support this explanation. Several other small anomalies are present. In each case,
the variances are small and cause us to question the reported test data rather than the simulator
response.
The permeability adjustments (from the log estimated values) were applied uniformly across the reservoir.
The match of subsequent wells was phenomenal. Essentially no further data modification was required to
match the other nine wells with acceptable accuracy. Additionally, repeated flowmeter survey results and
measured initial bottom hole pressure values were reproduced. Initial pressure is a difficult value to
1
measure in very low permeability wells .
The most continuous zone is the lower, or Taylor interval. Initial pressure estimates in this interval have
been made by many methods including:

Conventional underbalanced perforation/flow/shut-in --- This approach is only successful for the
most permeable intervals because of the inability to clean up damage and difficulties in
establishing measurable flow rates.
"Slug" tests --- This approach consistently underestimates reservoir pressure in the
heterogeneous cases.
Perforation/breakdown/flow/shut-in --- This approach results in unacceptably long times to
stabilize measured BHP.
Overbalanced perforation/pressure fall-off --- This approach only works on the first interval to be
perforated. The well is perforated in clean fluid with a 100-300 psi overbalance. The well is not
flowed, but the pressure falloff is monitored until stable. This approach can also be combined with
a small pump-in to breakdown the perforations combined with pressure falloff.
Contrast to simpler models
Prior single- and multiple-well models were based on much simpler reservoir descriptions. Two basic
approaches have been prevalent. These approximations have been necessary to match the declining well
productivity, predict the pressure level at infill locations, and match the well transient behavior. In the most
common, the net pay in the upper layers is reduced away from the wellbore1. This is obviously not meant
to imply an actual reduction laterally, but just poor permeability connectivity in the upper layers. While the
gross sand layers correlate very well over interwell distances, individual porous and permeable sand
lenses result in significant isolation due to diagenetic alterations.
A second common technique is to actually reduce the total net pay but maintain a fixed layer thickness.
This technique has the disadvantages that flowmeter results are not reproduced and transient behavior is
significantly in error. However, it provides a rapid method for matching the well performance based on this
oversimplified model. It is difficult to justify the smaller gas-in-place indicated in such models (compared
to volumetric calculations), especially when accounting for flowmeter data and extended pressure
buildups.
CGU 21-2 was shut-in for more than eighteen months to determine the extent of contribution from the
less permeable layers. Figure 6 compares forecasts made with two simpler models to the match from the
geostatistical reservoir description and the actual data. Both of the simpler models had resulted in
matches of the well performance. The "multiple layer" match was a multiple well model with decreasing
layer net thickness in the upper layers. The Taylor sand was represented by a continuous layer. Well
performance and infill pressure values were matched adequately and required pressure dependent
permeability in the fractures. The "single layer" model was a one-well model that approximately matched
well performance with less total net pay. These two models result in vastly different expectations for infill
well performance. The multiple layer model implies larger gas-in-place with the implication that some
portion of the poorly connected pore volumes will be accessible to appropriately placed infill wells. The
single-layer model indicated limited potential for additional drilling.
This model is not uniquely predictive of infill well performance because the interconnection of the upper
layers and their spatial distribution is uncertain. Bounds for the maximum and minimum connectivity
cases can be established. The resulting forecast range of predicted infill well performance indicates
commercial potential for such wells.
The single continuous layer model results in values of thickness that are too low and requires
permeabilities that are too high. The estimated gas-in-place values are thus far too low and this model
predicts a stabilized pressure significantly below that predicted by the multiple layer approach.
The actual data demonstrate the inability of both of the simpler reservoir descriptions to model long term
buildup behavior. The early transient behavior and total gas-in-place are both reflected in the actual data
points (Figure 6). There is much more energy in the system than either model predicts. The model based
on the geostatistical reservoir description honors all the pay in the wellbore and accurately reproduces the
long term buildup. This model provides very specific estimates of infill performance.
Infill Performance
The "optimal" fracture length and well spacing depend on the heterogeneity of the system7,8 as well as
economic criteria. Historic well development and well placement may dictate future optima that are
different from (and generally inferior to) a plan developed much earlier. Unfortunately, the data to create
the necessary reservoir description and well performance forecasts are not generally available at early
times. Engineering optimization resolves current optimal decisions; the difference between the economic
optimum expected with late-time data following sub-optimal prior decisions is a measure of the maximum
economic value of obtaining additional data, performing early-time optimization, etc.
Figure 7 compares the incremental recoveries predicted by the geostatistical models and multiple layer
models for a typical case (identical fracture lengths). Identical well performance constraints for each well
are used with a maximum 40-year well life. Only the incremental recoveries are given for these cases;
significant acceleration is present for the tighter spacing. Incremental recoveries are defined as the total
incremental recovery per well comparing one level of spacing with the next. For example, the total

recovery for four 160-acre wells is 17894.4 MMcf with 24211.2 MMcf for eight wells spaced on 80 acres.
The incremental 6316.8 MMcf is allocated to the incremental four wells for an incremental 1579.2 MMcf
per well for 80-acre spacing. Had all eight wells been drilled initially, each would average 3026.4 MMcf
(according to this model). The actual ultimate recoveries for 80-acre wells drilled later in time depends
both on when they are drilled and their location. Surface locations are not always available at a desired
spot and prior well locations may not always have provided for optimal subsequent infill wells. The wells
used to generate the data for Fig. 7 are uniformly spaced.
The actual economic optimum depends on the specific location of infill wells, the portion of the field in
which the wells are located and their completion efficiencies. The geostatistical reservoir description
predicts significantly more incremental recovery for this specific case than does the multiple layer model.
In fact, incremental gas recoveries are predicted for 40-acre wells!
Unfortunately, the level of incremental recovery is significantly lower than current economic minimum
requirements. Many Cotton Valley fields have poor recoveries (less than 750 MMcf per well) even for
widely spaced wells. In some instances these areas represent very poor permeability and/or porosity.
Other areas have significant water production. Virtually none of these areas have been extensively infill
drilled in spite of the fact that they may drain smaller areas than do wells in better areas.
Further infill drilling and exploitation of marginal areas depends on improved completions and reduced
well costs. Simple natural gas price increases are often associated with increased well and leasehold
costs. Actually changing the drilling and completion methodology represents the most important
opportunity to improve the economics of infill drilling and to improve recovery for low permeability,
extremely
heterogeneous
reservoirs.

Conclusions
1. A numerical reservoir model for flow simulation was successfully built using geostatistical simulation
methods.
2. History-matches of ten wells in the CGU 21 area indicates that hydraulic fracture permeability is
reduced with pressure. This indicates that design values of dimensionless fracture conductivity may need
to be increased.
3. Accounting for reservoir heterogeneities gives a significantly better match of reservoir performance
than do conventional approaches.
4. The geostatistical description of reservoir heterogeneities indicates significant potential for increased
recovery from the Cotton Valley interval in Carthage Field.
5. Decreased well costs improve the reservoir recovery efficiency in low permeability, heterogeneous gas
reservoirs by increasing the number of commercial infill wells.

Acknowledgments
The authors thank Union Pacific Resources and the Stanford University Petroleum Recovery Institute
(Reservoir Simulation) for support of this project.

Nomenclature
(h) Semivariogram
h Vector between attribute pairs
N(h) Number of attribute pairs
xi, yi i-th attribute value
Porosity
indi Indicator transform level
Vsh Volume fraction shale
Sw Water saturation
wi Weighting factor
V Property estimate
R Variance
ri Error of the i-th estimate
mR Average error
k Permeability
a constant

xf Fracture half-length
ptf Flowing tubing pressure

References

1. Meehan, D. N. and Pennington, B. F.: "Numerical Simulation Results in the Carthage (Cotton Valley)
Field," paper SPE 9838, Journal of Petroleum Technology, January, 1982.
2. Schell, E. J. : "Drainage Study in the Carthage (Cotton Valley) Field," paper SPE 18264 presented at
the 63rd Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers held in
Houston, TX, Oct. 2--5, 1988.
3. J. Chu, W. Xu, H. Zhu, and Journel, A. G.: "The AMOCO Case Study," July, 1991, Stanford Center for
Reservoir Forecasting, Stanford, CA.
4. Deutsch, C. V. and Journel, A. G.:GSLIB: Geoststistical Software Library and User's Guide, Oxford
University Press, New York, 1992.
5. Gomez-H., J. and Srivsatava, R.: "ISIM3D: and ANSI-C three-dimensional multiple indicator conditional
simulation program," Computers Geosciences, 16(4):395--440,1990.
6. Journel, A. and Zhu, H.: "Integrating Soft Seismic Data: Markov-Bayes updating, and alternative to
cokriging and traditional regression," in Report 3, Stanford Center for Reservoir Forecasting, Stanford,
CA, May, 1990.
7. Meehan, D.N., Horne, R.N., and Aziz, K.: "The Effects of Reservoir Heterogeneity and Fracture
Azimuth on Optimization of Fracture Length and Well Spacing," paper SPE 17606 presented at SPE
International Meeting on Petroleum Engineering, Tianjin, China, November, 1988.
8. Meehan, D.N.:Hydraulically Fractured Wells in Heterogeneous Reservoirs: Interaction, Interference,
and
Optimization,
Ph.D.
Dissertation,
Stanford
University,
July,
1989.

Figure 1- Vertical (upper) and horizontal (lower) indicator semivariograms of typical layer (lag distances are in feet).

Figure

2-

Three

Vsh

realizations

of

one

group

of

sands.

Figure

3-

Example

Q-Q

plot

used

to

select

realizations.

Figure

4-

Permeability

realization

for

entire

area.

Figure

5-

Final

history

match

of

CGUl

21-2.

Figure 6- Comparison of buildup responses.

Figure 7- Predicted infill performance.