Integrated Geostatistics For Modeling
Fluid Contacts and Shales in Prudhoe Bay
Godofredo Perez, SPE, A.K. Chopra, SPE, Arco E&P Technology, and
C.D. Severson, SPE, Arco Alaska Inc.
Summary
Geostatistics techniques are being used increasingly to model reser-
voir heterogeneity at a wide range of scales. A variety of techniques
is now available with differing underlying assumptions, complex-
ity, and applications. This paper introduces a novel method of geo-
statistics to model dynamic gas-oil contacts and shales in the Prud-
hoe Bay reservoir.
The method integrates reservoir description and surveillance data
within the same geostatistical framework. Surveillance logs and
shale data are transformed to indicator variables. These variables
are used to evaluate vertical and horizontal spatial correlation and
cross-correlation of gas and shale at different times and to develop
variogram models. Conditional simulation techniques are used to
generate multiple three-dimensional (3D) descriptions of gas and
shales that provide a measure of uncertainty. These techniques cap-
ture the complex 3D distribution of gas-oil contacts through time.
We compare results of the geostatistical method with convention-
al techniques as well as with infill wells drilled after the study. Pre-
dicted gas-oil contacts and shale distributions are in close agreement
with gas-oil contacts observed at infill wells.
Introduction
Geostatistical techniques provide a framework to integrate and
model several sources of reservoir data at different scales. With re-
cent developments of high-speed and large-memory computer
workstations, geostatistics has become a powerful tool for detailed
reservoir analysis, description, and evaluation. These technologies
make it possible to integrate geological, geophysical, and petro-
physical data for building more realistic reservoir models.
In the Prudhoe Bay field, reservoir description and monitoring
fluids in-place through time are key elements for field development,
reservoir management, and predicting performance for different
reservoir mechanisms. The stakes include reduction of gas and wa-
ter-handling costs, selection of completion and re-completion inter-
vals, selection of better infill well locations, development of better
reservoir simulation models, and reduction of effort required for
fluid mapping.
Prudhoe Bay is the largest field in North America. During 16 years
of operations, the field has produced more than 7 billion barrels of oil.
The major producing mechanisms in Prudhoe Bay are gravity drain-
age, waterflood, and miscible gas flood. Interactions among these
mechanisms, reservoir architecture, and heterogeneities (shales,
faults, and fractures of different shapes and sizes) result in complex
gas and water movement through time. Fig. 1 illustrates the gas
movement in a cross-section along the main dip direction in a gravity
drainage region of the reservoir. Gas movement is affected signifi-
cantly by shales of varying sizes that may not be continuous between
wells. Gas tends to move underneath shales resulting in isolated gas
tongues or fingers that breakthrough at different times at wells (gas
underruns) and oil regions that are bypassed (oil lenses). Therefore,
cased-hole logs at different times in a well might show multiple gas-
oil contacts (Fig. 1). For these conditions, it is difficult to interpret and
visualize inter-well distribution of gas in 3D.
Prudhoe Bay operators implemented a comprehensive surveil-
lance program to monitor gas- and water-oil contacts through time
in several wells throughout the field. The program is a primary
Copyright 1997 Society of Petroleum Engineers
Original SPE manuscript received for review 25 October 1993. Revised manuscript received
12 June 1997. Paper peer approved 31 July 1997. Paper (SPE 26475) first presented at the
1993 SPE Annual Technical Conference & Exhibition held in Houston. 3-0 October.
SPE Formation Evaluation, December 1997
source of data to estimate fluid movement for all wells in the field
net fluid columns at potential infilllocations, and fluids in-place t~
evaluate recovery efficiencies. Haldorsen et at. l and Bradley et ai. 2
describe applications of this surveillance program to evaluate re-
covery efficiencies of the gravity drainage mechanism in Prudhoe
Bay. The conventional approach used to map interwell movement
of fluids is based on visual interpretations of multi well cross-sec-
tions of surveillance, reservoir description, production, and comple-
tion data. This approach is time-consuming, subjective, and does
not account explicitly for 3D correlation and cross-correlation of
fluids and shales. The objective of this paper is to develop a geosta-
tistical method that overcomes these drawbacks.
Geostatistics provides tools for systematic integration, modeling,
and description of data. 3-5 The basic geostatistics tools are vario-
grams and conditional simulation. Variograms are used to quantify
and develop models for spatial correlation and cross-correlation of
data. Conditional simulation generates reservoir descriptions that
honor variogram models, univariate statistics, and conditioning
data. Recently, geostatistics methods have been developed to inte-
grate geology,6 core,? production,8 seismic,9 and well-test lO data.
The main contribution of this paper is a novel application of geo-
statistics to describe simultaneously dynamic data, such as fluid
contacts at different times, and static data, such as shales. The geo-
statistical method consists of the following three steps: (1) trans-
form fluid surveillance and reservoir description data to indicator
variables (Conditioning Data section), (2) analyze and model spatial
correlation and cross-correlation of indicators by use of variograms
(Variography section), and (3) generate conditional simulation real-
izations at different times that honor conditioning data and vario-
grams (Conditional Simulation section). We used results of this
method to estimate net fluid columns at infilllocations and to visual-
ize spatial distributions and interaction between gas and shales in a
gravity drainage region in Prudhoe Bay.
Prudhoe Bay Databases
The primary sources of data used to describe the fluid movement
through time come from surveillance and zonation databases. These
databases contain fluid monitoring and reservoir description data
for all wells in the field.
Surveillance Database. The fluid surveillance database provides
locations of gas and water intervals along wells at different times.
Prudhoe Bay has a comprehensive fluid-surveillance program
based on running the cased-hole compensated neutron logs (CNL's)
and pulsed neutron logs (PNL's) at key wells throughout the field
and openhole logs at new wells. Dupree ll shows several cased-hole
logs examples. The database is updated every year by the field oper-
ators. The gas and water intervals at wells are picked by a team of
engineers and geologists on the basis of their analysis of surveil-
lance logs, production, completion, and reservoir-description data.
Zonation Database. The zonation database consists of the location
of pay and nonpay zones along all wells in the field. These zones are
identified based on geologic interpretations of cores and logs. Non-
pay zones represent shales with a wide range oflength and thickness
that are correlated to depositional environment. The Prudhoe Bay
reservoir was deposited in fluvial and fluvio-deltaic environments.
Depending upon the depositional environment and faulting, shales
mayor may not be continuous between wells. The database includes
mainly floodplain and prodelta shales that are the thickest and most
continuous shales in Prudhoe Bay.
213
 HE
Fig. 1-Schematic of gas movement mechanism in Prudhoe Bay.
Conditioning Data
The study area is located in the gravity drainage region (Fig. 2). This
area covers 7,000 acres and average spacing between wells is about
1,500 ft. There are only a few faults in the study area.
Conditioning data for the geostatistical analysis consisted of indi-
cator variables generated with surveillance and zonation databases
for 59 wells in the study area. For each well, gas intervals at different
times and shale zones were transformed into indicators at 1-ft spac-
ing that indicate presence or absence of gas and shale.
Gas Indicator. The gas indicator is a binary variable given by
_
I(s,t)=
{I Gas is present in
OOh .
s@ time t
. ....... ... (1)
g t erWlse
Because most wells in the study area are not vertical, the well
paths (5) were described with x, y, and z coordinates from gyroscop-
ic surveys. The I-ft spacing used for the vertical direction provides
enough resolution to resolve gas intervals observed in the field . The
origin of all the indicators was set equal to the original gas-oil con-
tact (8,575 ft). Fig. 3 shows gas indicators for three time intervals
for one well. In 1984, the bottom of the first interval (8,670 ft) corre-
sponds to the main gas-oil contact and the lower two intervals are
gas underruns. In 1987, the sizes of the three gas intervals increased,
and, in 1991, the two lower intervals collapsed into one interval.
These data illustrate that gas movement cannot be described with
only one gas-oil contact.
Shale Indicator. The shale indicator is a binary variable given by
I (S) =
I Shale is present in
0 0 h .
s. ..... .... . .. ...... (2)
s { t erWlse
The I-ft spacing used to discretize the vertical direction provides
enough resolution to define shale in the database. Fig. 3 shows shale
indicator data for one well. In this well, there are seven shale inter-
vals below the original gas-oil contact. The presence of gas and
shale is mutually exclusive ; only gas or shale can be present at a
location in the reservoir.
Variography
Variogram is a geostatistical tool used to quantify spatial correlation of
data as a function of distance and direction. Variograrns of gas and shale
indicators were used to evaluate, analyze. and model spatial correla-
tion. We analyzed cross-correlation between gas and shale with cross-
variograms. Variogram models are input parameters for conditional
simulation techniques used to generate gas and shale descriptions.
Gas Variograms. We calculated variograms of gas indicators (Yg)
with the following equation:
214
Fig. 2-Map of Prudhoe Bay showing location of study area.
where h is the lag vector for the separation distance between pairs
of data along a specified direction, and np is the number of pairs of
data separated by a distance IhI. Yg were calculated for different time
intervals (t) and vertical and horizontal directions. These time inter-
vals include all the gas observed in a well from initial conditions to
a time t. Yg quantifies the variance of data separated by h . Eq. 3 indi-
cates that for smalllhl, when gas indicators have same values, the
magnitude ofYg will be small. As Ihl increases, Yg will increase be-
cause the gas indicators will tend to be different at large distances.
Beyond a lag distance known as correlation range, Yg stabilizes
around a value know as the sill. Usually, the sill is close to the vari-
ance. For an indicator variable, the variance is equal p( 1 - p), where
p is the mean of the indicator variable (O:s p:S I).
Figs. 4 and 5 show vertical and horizontal gas variograms at three
times for all wells in the study area. Horizontal direction is parallel
to the main dip within the study area (1.4 degrees dip towards the
south). Variograms show that sills increase as time increases be-
cause the mean of gas indicators increases with time. The mean of
gas indicators is directly proportional to in-place gas and increases
with time because of movement of gas into the study area as a result
of gravity-drainage mechanism. Vertical correlation range (Fig. 4)
decreases from greater than 70 ft in 1980 to approximately 40 ft in
1990. This reduction of range indicates that spatial variability of gas
indicators increases owing to development of multiple gas under-
runs and oil lenses with time. Data along the horizontal direction are
less closely spaced to be able to quantify the correlation range (Fig.
5). Nevertheless, the range appears to increase from about 2,500 ft
in 1980 to 6,000 ft in 1990. This increase in correlation range indi-
cates that interwell connectivity of gas intervals increases with time.
Figs. 6 and 7 show vertical and horizontal models fitted to vario-
grams of gas indicators for 1991, respectively. These models are in-
put parameters for conditional simulations techniques.
Shale Variograms. Variograms of shale indicators (Ys) were calcu-
lated with the following equation:
np(~ 2
Ys(~ = ~(t:i L [lis;) - Is(S; + ~]. . .......... . . (4)
2np h) i= 1
This equation is similar to Eq. 3, except that shale indicator is not
a function of time.
Gal Indicators Shale Indicator
1984 1987 1990
""
.
-
Fig. 3-Gas indicators at three times and shale indicator data for
one well In study area.
SPE Formation Evaluation, December 1997
 0.4+-1~.........

~031
Time
-1980 ,
~ 0.3 - -1984 . 'o. .
,\ ...''',.,:
.
,0

c 1990 ,,
' 0

~ , -.,
.;:
~
,
0,2 J021 ..
'E(J.)
, 0

~011
:~ '#0 /, ,
:I'~/"~,' I ,,' 1\
(J) 0.1 : ~I \' v
:" ,0
(I '/
I,

O++~""'~""''''''''''''""T""'""'' ~r' , , I o

o
0

20 40 60 80 100 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

Lag, ft Lag, ft
Fig. 4-Vertical variograms for gas indicators at three times. Fig. 5-Horizontal variograms for gas indicators at three times.

Figs. 8 and 9 show vertical and horizontal variograms for shale
indicators for all wells in the study area, respectively. Sills of these
variograms are close to the variance of the data, The vertical vario-
gram (Fig. 8) has a correlation range close to 10ft and hole effect 3,4
between 40 and 60 ft. This hole effect indicates an increase of cor-
relation for lags usually longer than the range. Horizontal range is
2,100 ft (Fig, 9) and corresponds to a distance between one and two
well spacings.
Gas and Shale Cross-Variograms. Cross-variograms (Ygxs) be-
tween gas and shale indicators were calculated with the following
equation:
Figs. 10 and 11 show vertical and horizontal gas and shale cross-
variograms for three times. Cross-variograms are negative because
gas and shale indicators are mutually exclusive. It can be seen in Eq.
5 that when gas is present at one location and shale is present at
another location separated by h, then the cross-variogram will be
negative. The vertical cross-variograms for 1980 and 1984 are close
to zero for most lags, This cross-correlation is an indication of gas
underrun that appeared at late times. The horizontal cross-vario-
grams are close to zero, indicating poor cross-correlation.
This apparent lack of cross-correlation between gas and shale is
a result of a combination of factors in the proposed indicator vari-
ables (Eqs. I and 2), Cross-variograms can be improved by defining
indicators for more specific categories of data that account better for
gas-movement mechanisms, such as shale types, zones, and gas
movement for smaller time sub-intervals,

IPC Variograms. Gas and shale indicators were transformed to IPC

Cross-variograms provide a measure of occurrence of gas and
shale at two locations separated by a distance h. If spatial cross-cor-
relation between gas and shale is small, the magnitude of the cross-
variogram will be close to zero.
(indicator principal components) to account for the small but in-
herent cross-correlation among indicators. IPC transformation
creates variables that are not cross-correlated. IPC variables are
used in indicator principal component kriging simulation (IPCKS)
method. The advantage oflPCKS is that it does not require cross-va-
riogram models, yet it accounts implicitly for cross-correlation
among variables. Suro-Perez and Joumel 12 describe IPCKS in de-

0.4 r~~::::::::::::::::=:::::':::::::~'--'--"-I
-1991 Gas Indicator
-1991 Gas Indicator --Model
~ 0.3 - -Model 83
c c
~ ~
'i: 'i:
~, 0.2 ~0.2
,
E
(J.)
E
(J.)
(J) 0.1 (J) 0,1

o~~~~~~~~~~~ o~~~~~~~~~~
o 20 40 60 80 100 o
2000 4Q(X) 6000 8000 10000 12000
Lag, ft Lag, ft
Fig. 6-Vertical variogram and model for 1991 gas indicator. Fig. 7-Horizontal variogram and model for 1991 gas Indicator,

SPE Formation Evaluation. December 1997 215

 0.3 -Shale Indicator ~ 0.3
Q)
Co) -Shale Indicator]
c:: -Model c:: --Model
ttl ttl
.;: '----_._------
.~

~ 0.2 ~ 0.2
I I

'EQ) E
Q)
(J) 0.1 (J) 0.1

o~-~~~~~~~~ O~~~~~~~~~~~
o 20 40 60 80 100 o 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Lag, ft Lag, ft
Fig. 8-Vertical variogram and model for shale indicator. Fig. 9-Horizontal variogram and model for shale indicator.

tail. Gas and shale IPC are linear combinations of indicators, and
these are given by
Yis, t) = a g.g lis, t) + ag.J/j) ..................... (6)
YsCs,t) = as.glis,t) + as.J/j), .................... (7)
where the coefficients a are obtained by decomposition of the
covariance matrix.
Figs. 12 and 13 show vertical and horizontal variograms and
models for gas and shale IPC at one time. These variograms have the
same character as indicator variograms for gas (Figs. 4 and 5) and
shale (Figs. 8 and 9). Indicator and IPC variograms are similar be-
cause of small cross-correlation between gas and shale indicators.
Therefore, IPC transformation has only a small effect on indicators.
The most noticeable difference among indicator and IPC vario-
grams is the magnitude of the semi-variances. In general, variances
of indicators and IPC are different and governed by Eqs. 6 and 7.
Conditional Simulation
Conditional simulation is a geostatistical approach to generate mul-
tiple realizations that honor several statistical constraints, such as
conditioning data and variogram models. Because the realizations
are equiprobable, conditional simulation is a tool to quantify uncer-
tainty. We used conditional simulation to generate 3D descriptions
of gas and shale in the study area. We used these descriptions to esti-
mate net gas columns at infill well locations and to visualize interac-
tion between gas and shale through time.
The conditional simulations techniques used in this study are se-
quential indicator simulation (SISl3) and indicator principal com-
ponent simulation (IPCKS 12). Both techniques belong to the family
of sequential simulation algorithms described by Deutsch and Jour-
nel. s The techniques simulate values (i.e., gas or shale indicators)
at points selected at random in a grid defined in the simulation area.
Simulations are conditioned with values previously simulated in the
grid and conditioning data. At each grid point, indicator kriging is
used to estimate the distribution function of the variable (i.e., proba-
bility of occurrence of gas and shale). Then, the simulated value is
calculated by drawing a random sample from the estimated distribu-
tion function. Because kriging honors the local mean of the data,
calculated proportions of gas and shale within the simulation area
will be close to proportions observed in the surveillance and shale
data of the closest wells.
Physics of gas movement are introduced implicitly in conditional
simulation method by mechanisms implied in the surveillance data
and continuity imposed with variograms.

0.06r~
Time ::\~.~.-LI........,.~ ~'''''''''T~.J......~~o~1.~
..LI
Q) ,-----
o
c 003; -1980
co . --1984 - -1984
"i:
co --'1990 '"1990
~
.-e
Q)

'="o.. -0.03
o
-0. 06 +------..--.---,~...........~.,.......,...~_,__._-...--.--t -0.06 ~...,..-,-,~.,...-.--r~...,--,-.,........,...,....,.....,..........f
o 20 40 60 80 100 o 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Lag,ft Lag,ft
Fig. 1o-Vertical traditional cross-semi-variogram for gas and Fig. 11-Horizontal traditional cross-semi-variogram for gas
shale indicators at three times. and shale indicators at three times.

216 SPE Formation Evaluation, December 1997

 0.4 0.4
0
1984 Gas IPC ~ 0
o 0 00
Q) 0.3 Q) 0.3 00 0 0
()
() 0
c c 00 0
tU tU
00
.t: 00
tU
>I
0.2
.t:

>
ca
I
0.2 000
E
Q)
en 0.1 ~/#Jif
E
Q)
en 0.1 \0 o 1984 Shale IPC
"'-1984 Shale IPC
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Lag, ft Lag, ft
Fig. 12-Vertical semi-variograms and models for 1984 gas and Fig.13-Horizontal semi-variograms and models for 1984 gas
shale IPC. and shale IPC.

Estimation of Net Gas Columns. Net gas column thickness is an cross-correlation between gas and shale indicators is not strong (see
important parameter for selection of infilliocations. Locations with Variography section and Figs. 10 and 11).
small net gas columns are the best targets for infill because these Figs. 17 and 18 show IPCKS realizations of gas at six times and
have thick oil columns. Net gas thickness changes through time be- shale in the simulation area (Fig. 14). These realizations illustrate
cause gas moves into the study area because of the gravity drainage gas movement through time and the complex interaction between
mechanism. gas and shale. Overall, gas moves down structure with time as ex-
We calculated net gas columns with SIS. The objective was to pected in a gravity-drainage process. Gas descriptions from one
compare SIS calculations, actual net gas column thickness from time are correlated to descriptions in later times because surveil-
open-hole logs, and previous field estimates. Fig. 14 shows 19 infill lance data shows correlation from one time to the next and because
locations evaluated. In each infill location, SIS simulated occur- variogram models for each time are consistent with these data. Shale
rence of gas and shales by use of a grid of I-ft resolution defined descriptions change slightly from one time to the next because sur-
from the original gas-oil contact to the reservoir base. These calcula- veillance data bring at each time more information about internal
tions were conditioned only to data available at the time of the evalu- reservoir architecture. These results allowed us to visualize and lo-
ation (Fig. 14) and variogram models estimated from these data (Va- cate gas underruns.
riography section). The thicknesses of net gas columns were
calculated by summing simulated gas and shale indicators along the Conclusions
grid. For each infilliocation, we generated 100 SIS realizations to 1. We used geostatistics to integrate and describe dynamic and
evaluate uncertainty in the estimated net gas column. static reservoir data, such as gas-oil contacts and shales. The geosta-
Fig. 15 shows estimated net gas column thickness for 100 SIS re- tistical method has been used to generate 3D descriptions of gas
alizations at one infilliocation (Fig. 14). For this infill, the mean of through time and shale in Prudhoe Bay reservoir. These descriptions
simulated net gas column thickness (186.4 ft) is in close agreement provide an efficient way to visualize gas movement and interaction
with the actual net gas column (189 ft) from openhole logs. This between gas and shales through time.
mean of the SIS realizations provided an excellent prediction, even 2. The method transforms reservoir data to indicators and uses
though the range (maximum minus minimum net gas column thick- conditional simulation to generate 3D descriptions that honor
ness) of the realizations was 80 ft. In general, the distribution of net
gas column thickness should be used to evaluate overall economic
Inflll Conditioning
risk associated with the infilliocation.
Fig. 16 compares SIS results for 19 infill wells to actual net gas
20000
/well I Well
columns and previous estimates. Previous estimates were based on o 0 0 0
interpretations of several cross-sections of surveillance data. These
o r tr I I:
comparisons show that for 74% of infilliocations, actual net gas col- 600 to 0 0 0 0 ~
.0 0 I
umns are within the range of SIS realizations. For 79% of infillioca- 15000 0: 0 0 0 0 0 0 dO
tions, means of SIS realizations are closer to actual net gas columns
V, feet o I ~". 0
than previous field estimates. For net gas thicknesses greater than i'LO 0 0 0 0
0 ./"\0 100 0
0 ..-.
200 ft, SIS results tend to be optimistic while previous estimates
10000
10
I
0 0
8 o.
i9
tend to be pessimistic predictions of oil column at in fill locations.

Visualization of Gas and Shales. We used IPCKS to visualize 3D

0

weuL ~~ O.~Jl.~_\
0 0

...
I

distributions of gas through time and shale. The spatial distribution 5000
of gas is not uniform because of shales that are effective barriers to
Simulation
fluid flow.
Area
The simulation area (Fig. 14) covers 22,400 ft by 13,600 ft. This o~~~~~~~~~~~~+
area was discretized with a grid spacing of 250 ft in the horizontal o 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000
direction and 2 ft in the vertical direction. The number of grid-
blocks required for simulation was 734,175. IPCKS honors condi-
X, feet
tioning data and variogram models described in the previous sec- Fig. 14-Location of conditioning data, infill wells, and simula-
tions. In this study, IPCKS and SIS yield similar results because tion area in study area.

SPE Formation Evaluation, December 1997 217

 300~
' ---L--~--L---~~--T

~
Well B .t:: II Previous _ =
- Actual Net_ ,.- -- C 250 ~
E
Estimate
Gas Column ::s I
20 -- '0 200
=

~~
(,)
>. tA
u I-- ."
~ 15
:::s
c::r
Q)
-- -
Cl
Q)
C
150

100
f
Lt 10 1:1
~

5
r-- f-- ."
50
~
~ Realizations
Mean of 100 L

o 1----0
130
I
150 170 190 210 230
1ii
w
50
Minimum
O ~--c---r---r--.r--.---+
o 100 150 200 250 300
Estimated Net Gas Column, ft Actual net gas column, ft

Fig. 15-Histograms of 100 realizations of net gas column thick- Fig. 16-Estimated and actual net gas columns thickness for
ness for Well B generated with SIS. 1991 infill wells in study area.

Fig. 17-30 block diagrams of gas and shale indicators generated with IPCKS at six times.

Fig. 18-0ip cross-sections of gas and shale indicators generated with IPCKS at six times.

218 SPE Formation Evaluation. December 1997

conditioning data and variogram models. Major advantages of this
method over conventional fluid mapping are consistency, standard-
ization, accuracy, and quantification of uncertainty.
3. The method was used to estimate net gas column thickness (a
key parameter for gravity drainage infilllocation selection) for 19
infill wells. Results indicate that for 74% of infilllocations, actual
net gas column thickness are within the range of estimated net gas
column realizations.
4. The method provides better predictions of net gas column
thickness at infilllocations than previous estimates for 79% of infill
wells evaluated.
Acknowledgments
We thank the management of Arco E&P Technology for their per-
mission to publish this paper. We are grateful to Lee Moritz, Frank
Paskvan, and Alan Wilson from Prudhoe Bay Reservoir Engineer-
ing for providing useful insight about field mechanisms and support
with the databases. We thank the reviewers for providing valuable
comments and suggestions.
Nomenclature
a = coefficients for IPC transformation
Ihl= lag
I = indicator
np = number of pairs in variogram
p = mean of indicator variable
t= time
s = location coordinates
Y = IPC (indicator principal component)
y = variogram
Subscripts
g= gas
s= shale
References
I. Haldorsen, H.H. et al.: "An Evaluation of the Prudhoe Bay Gravity
Drainage Mechanism by Complementary Techniques," paper SPE
13651 presented at the 1985 SPE California Regional Meeting, Bakers-
field, 27-29 March.
2. Bradley, M.E., Mayson, H.J., and Wilkins, K.L.: "An Integrated Ap-
proach to Refining Reservoir Description Through Monitoring Fluid
Movements in the Prudhoe Bay Reservoir," paper SPE 15567 presented
at the 1986 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Or-
leans, Louisiana, 5-8 October.
3. Journel, A.G. and Huijbregts, C.J.: Mining Geostatistics, Academic
Press New York (1978).
4. Isaaks, E.H. and Srivastava, R.M.: Applied Geostatistics, Oxford U.
Press. New York (1989).
5. Deutsch, C.v. and Journel, A.G.: GSLIB: Geostatistical Software Li
brary and User's Manual, Oxford U. Press, New York (1992).
6. Haldorsen, H.H. and Damsleth, E.: "Stochastic Modeling," lPT(April
1990) 404.
7. Damsleth, E. and Tjolsen, c.B.: "Scale Consistency From Cores to Geo-
logical Description," paper SPE 24700 presented at the 1992 SPE Annu-
al Technical Conference and Exhibition, Washington, 4-7 October.
SPE Formation Evaluation, December 1997
8. Hird, K.B. and Kelkar, M.G.: "Conditional Simulation Method for Res-
ervoir Description Using Spatial and Well Performance Constraints,"
paper SPE 24750 presented at the 1992 SPE Annual Technical Confer-
ence and Exhibition, Washington, 4-7 October.
9. Araktingi, U.G. et al.: "Integration of Seismic and Well Log Data in Res-
ervoir Modeling," Reservoir Characterization III, B. Linville, T. Burch-
field and T. Wesson (eds.), PennWell Books, Tulsa (1993) 515-54.
10. Deutsch, C.v. and Journel, A.G.: "The Application of Simulated
Annealing to Stochastic Reservoir Modeling," paper SPE 23565, unso-
licited paper submitted to SPE (1991).
11. Dupree, J.H.: "Cased-Hole Nuclear Logging Interpretation, Prudhoe
Bay Alaska," The Log Analyst (May-June 1989) 162.
12. Suro-Perez, V. and Journel, A.G.: "Indicator Principal Component Krig-
ing," Mathematical Geology (1991) 23, No.5.
13. Journel, A.G. and Alabert, EG.: "New Method for Reservoir Mapping,"
lPT (February 1990) 212.
51 Metric Conversion Factors
acre X 4.046 873 E-01 =ha
ft x 3.048* E-01 =m
Conversion factor is exact. SPEFE
Godofredo PereZ is a senior research engineer with Arco E&P
Technology in Plano, Texas. His work involves application, devel-
opment, and evaluation of geostatistics technologies for reser-
voir characterization. His experience includes reservoir descrip-
tion studies for several fields worldwide. Currently, he
investigates methods to integrate production, surveillance,
and seismic data in reservoir descriptions. He holds BS, MS, and
PhD degrees in petroleum engineering from the U. of Tulsa. Anil
K. Chopra is Director of the Reservoir Geostatistics and Charac-
terization group at Arco E&P Technology in Plano, Texas. His job
responsibilities include implementing a strategy for integrating
diverse sources of geological, petrophysical, geophysical, and
engineering data by using advanced mathematical tech-
niques. He has authored more than 20 publications in different
areas of reservoir engineering and characterization. He holds a
BS degree from the Indian Inst. ofTechnology and a PhD degree
from the U. of Houston, both in chemical engineering. He is the
Editor of Applied Geostatistics for Reservoir Characterization,
was a distinguished panelist at the 1996 SPE Abu Dhabi Interna-
tional Petroleum Exhibition and Conference, was the 1994
Chairman of the SPE Development Geology of Geophysics
Committee, and is a member of the SPE Book Committee. He
was also a 1992 SPE Steering Committee Member of the Reser-
voir Characterization Forum Series. Charles Severson is Regional
Engineering Manager for Arco Middle East and Central Asia lo-
cated in Dubai, UAE. He has worked in applied reservoir engi-
neering technologies for 18 years and has held positions in
California, Houston, Alaska, and Dallas.
Severson
Perez
219