Reservoir Characterization
Using Expert Knowledge, Data and Statistics
Prepared with assistance from:
Peter Corvi, Head of Effective Properties
Kes Heffer, Head of Reservoir Description
Peter King, Senior Reservoir Engineer,
Effective Properties
Stephen Tyson, Computing Consultant
Georges Verly, Senior Geostatistician,
Effective Properties
BP Research
Sunbury-on-Thames, England
Christine Ehlig-Economides, Reservoir
Dynamics Program Leader
Isabelle Le Nir, Geologist
Shuki Ronen, Geophysics Integration
Program Leader
Phil Schultz, Department Head
Etudes et Productions Schlumberger
Reservoir Characterization Department
Clamart, France
Patrick Corbett, Research Associate
Jonathan Lewis, Conoco Lecturer in Geology
Gillian Pickup, Research Associate
Phillip Ringrose, Senior Research Associate
Heriot-Watt University
Department of Petroleum Engineering
Edinburgh, Scotland
Dominique Guérillot, Sr. Research Engineer,
Reservoir Engineering Division
Lucien Montadert, Director of Exploration
and Production
Christian Ravenne, Principal Research Associate,
Geology and Chemistry Division
Institut Français du Pétrole
Rueil-Malmaison, France
Helge Haldorsen, Assistant Director, International
Field Developments
Norsk Hydro A.S.
Oslo, Norway
Thomas Hewett, Professor of Petroleum
Engineering
Stanford University
California, USA
January 1992
Accurately simulating field performance requires knowing properties
like porosity and permeability throughout the reservoir. Yet wells provid-
ing the majority of data may occupy only a billionth of the total reser-
voir volume. Transforming this paucity of data into a geologic model for
simulating fluid flow remains an industry priority.
The simplest representation of a reservoir is
a homogeneous tank with uniform proper-
ties throughout. Characterizing such a sim-
plified model requires merely enough data
to define its volume and basic petrophysical
properties. This information can then be
used to help forecast reservoir behavior and
compare possible production scenarios.
But efficient exploitation of reserves
requires a more sophisticated approach.
Reservoirs have been created by complex
sedimentary and diagenetic processes, and
modified by a history of tectonic change.
Rather than resembling simple tanks, reser-
voirs are heterogeneous structures at every
scale. The need for accurate characteriza-
tion is vital for oil company economic plan-
ning (next page, top ).
In the past, geologists have used expert
knowledge to interpolate between wells and
produce basic reservoir models. However,
during the last ten years, this effort has been
transformed by statistical modeling offering
insight into the effects of heterogeneity.
This article details how reservoir descrip-
tions are developed and is divided into
three stages (page 27 ):
•Defining the reservoir’s large-scale struc-
ture using deterministic data
•Defining the small-scale structure using
statistical techniques—geostatistics
•Rescaling the detailed geologic model to
be suitable input for a fluid-flow simulator.
Cray is a mark of Cray Research Inc. MicroVAX is a mark
of Digital Equipment Corp.
1. Weber KJ: “How Heterogeneity Affects Oil Recovery,”
in Lake LW and Carroll HB Jr (eds): Reservoir Charac-
terization. Orlando, Florida, USA: Academic Press
Inc. (1986): 487-544.
Defining the Large-Scale Structure
The first stage aims to construct as detailed a
geologic description of the reservoir as mea-
surements will allow. The available informa-
tion includes a structural interpretation from
seismic data, static data from cores and logs
and dynamic production data from testing.
To these, the geologist adds expert knowl-
edge on geologic structures, obtained from
field experience and outcrop studies (see
“Gathering Outcrop Data,” page 28).
The first step is to recognize depositional
units and then, if possible, correlate them
between wells. It helps to know the general
shape and order of deposition of the units,
and ideally the relationships between width,
thickness and length for each unit.1 Well-to-
well correlation is made using traditional
hard-copy maps and logs or, today, interac-
tive computer workstations. Workstations
allowing simultaneous visualization of seis-
mic, log and other data enable easier recog-
nition of subtle correlations.
In most cases, this large-scale characteri-
zation results in a conventional layer-cake
model—a stack of subhomogeneous layers.
There is no doubt that many reservoirs
should be characterized by more complex
arrangements of depositional units—such as
the “jigsaw” and “labyrinth” models (next
page, bottom ). 2 The ability to use these
more complex models routinely remains an
industry goal (see “Trends in Reservoir Man-
agement,” page 8 ).
2. Weber KJ and van Geuns LC: “Framework For Con-
structing Clastic Reservoir Simulation Models,” Jour-
nal of Petroleum Technology 42 (October 1990):
1248-1253, 1296-1297.
25
Hypothetical well data
Heterogeneity case A
Heterogeneity case B
Lithology
1 0.5
PV recovered
Defining the Small-Scale Structure Using
Geostatistical Modeling
Once the shape of the reservoir and its
large-scale structure have been described,
the next stage focuses on defining hetero-
geneity within each depositional unit. This
requires more detailed interwell measure-
ments than are currently available. Borehole
seismic data typically cannot span wells.
Although surface and cross-well seismic
data do reach everywhere, there is insuffi-
cient knowledge relating seismic data to
physical rock properties, and exploration
seismic data have insufficient resolution. In
addition, well testing data often lack direc-
tional information. Therefore nondetermin-
istic, or geostatistical, methods are required.3
Large-scale reservoir models typically
comprise a few thousand grid blocks, each
measuring about 100 m square and more
than 1-m thick [about 1000 ft2 by 3 ft] But
models that take into account small-scale
Predicted oil recovery
heterogeneity use smaller grid blocks—1
million or more are often needed. The sheer
quantity of input data required to fill so

2 0.4 Case B
Case A many blocks also favors geostatistics.
3 0.3 Geostatistical techniques designed to pro-
4 0.2 vide missing data can be classified in two
5 0.1 ways: by the allowable variation of the
Shale Barrier property at a given point and by the way
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 data are organized. There are two classes of
Pore volume (PV) injected property variation, continuous and discrete.
Continuous models are suited to properties
nHow heterogeneity affects productivity. In this example developed at BP Research, like permeability, porosity, residual satura-
Sunbury-on-Thames, England, two different models have been interpolated between a tion and seismic velocity that can take any
pair of hypothetical wells. The lithologies are identical: only their spatial correlation
has been altered. The graph shows how the pore volume recovered versus pore volume value. Discrete models are suited to geo-
injected varies for the two models. After one pore volume has been injected, the differ- logic properties, like lithology that can be
ence in recovery between the two models is about 0.1 of a pore volume. represented by one of a few possibilities.4
Data organization has developed along
two paths depending on how the models
are built up. One is grid based. All the
Barrier bar Tidal channel Crevasse splay properties are represented as numbers on a
Transgressive deposit Barrier bar
Barrier foot Distributary channel fill grid, which is then used for fluid-flow simu-
lation. The second is object based. Reser-
voir features such as shales or sands are
generated in space and a grid then superim-
posed on them.

Grid-Based Modeling
One of the key geostatistical tools used in
Layer cake Jigsaw Labyrinth
grid-based modeling is kriging—named after
a pioneer of rock-property estimation, D. G.
nDefining reservoir type. Current large-scale characterization tends to result in a sim- Krige, who made a series of empirical stud-
ple layer-cake model. However, efforts are being made to use more complex models ies in the South African goldfields.5 Kriging
like the jigsaw and labyrinth models shown. is designed to honor measured data and
produce spatially correlated heterogeneity.
The heart of the technique is a two-point
statistical function called a variogram that
describes the increasing difference (or
decreasing correlation) between sample val-
ues as separation between them increases.

26 Oilfield Review
 Core plugs Whole core Well logs Well testing
Kriging minimizes the error between the
interpolated value and the actual (but
unknown) value of the property.6
For a given property, a variogram is con-
structed from pairs of data generally mea-
sured in wells. In the oilfield, criticism of
kriging centers on the low density of well
data when compared to mining. To over- Borehole geophysics Outcrop studies Surface seismics
come this problem, variograms can alterna-
tively be constructed from data measured
on outcrops or in mature fields where better
sampling is available.
Although variograms are commonly used
to infer the spatial continuity of a single
variable, the same approach can be used to
study the cross-continuity of several differ- Geologist’s
ent variables—for example, the porosity at expert knowledge
one location can be compared to seismic
transit time. Once constructed, this cross-
correlation can be used in a multivariate
regression known as cokriging. In this way,
a fieldwide map of porosity can be com-
puted using not only porosity data, but also
the more abundant seismic data.7
Kriging and cokriging deal with quantita-
tive, or hard, data. A third method called Stage 1: Defining large-scale structure
soft kriging combines expert information,
also called soft data, with the quantitative
data. The expert data are encoded in the
form of inequalities or probability distribu-
tions. For example, in mapping a gas/oil
contact (GOC), if the contact is not reached
in a certain well, soft kriging uses the
inequality: GOC is greater than well total Stage 2: Defining small-scale structure
depth. At any given point where there is no
well, an expert may define the probability of
finding the GOC within a certain depth
interval. Soft kriging will use this probability.8
(continued on page 30 )

3. Haldorsen HH and Damsleth E: “Stochastic model-

ing,” Journal of Petroleum Technology 42 (April
1990): 404 -412. Haldorsen HH and Damsleth E:
Stage 3: Scaling up
“Challenges in Reservoir Characterization Research,”
presented at Advances in Reservoir Technology, Char-
acterization, Modelling & Management, organized by
the Petroleum Science and Technology Institute, Edin-
burgh, Scotland, February 21-22, 1991.
4. Journel AG and Alabert GF: “New Method For Reser-
voir Mapping,” Journal of Petroleum Technology 42 30,000 1 million
(February 1990): 212-218. grid blocks grid blocks
5. Krige DG: “A Statistical Analysis of Some of the Bore-
hole Values of the Orange Free State Goldfield,” Jour-
nal of the Chemical, Metallurgical and Mining Society
of South Africa 53 (1952): 47-70. Fluid-flow simulation
6. Journel AG: “Geostatistics for Reservoir Characteriza-
outflow face
inflow face

tion,” paper SPE 20750, presented at the 65th SPE

Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New
Orleans, Louisiana, USA, September 23-26, 1990.
7. Doyen PM: “Porosity From Seismic Data: A Geostatis-
tical Approach,” Geophysics 53 (October 1988):
1263-1275.
8. Kostov C and Journel AG: “Coding and Extrapolating
Expert Information for Reservoir Description,” in Lake
LW and Carroll HB (eds): Reservoir Characterization. nBuilding a reservoir model in three stages with measured data, expert knowledge
Orlando, Florida, USA: Academic Press Inc. (1986): and statistics.
249-264.

January 1992 27
Gathering Outcrop Data
Every reservoir is unique. Yet recurring deposi-
tional conditions create families of reservoirs
that are broadly similar. If reservoir rock outcrops
at the surface, it presents a golden opportunity to
gather data which can be used to help character-
ize related subsurface formations.1
Outcrop studies allow sampling at scales that
match interwell spacing. Small-scale permeabil-
ity can also be measured and compared with
depositional characteristics. Then the statistical
and depositional information measured at the
outcrop can be incorporated into the stochastic
modeling of the subsurface analog.2
Generally, there are two kinds of outcrop
study.3 Bed or bed-set scale genetic models
(GEMs) concentrate on reservoir heterogeneity as
a function of the sedimentary process. To date,
most outcrop studies have been of this type. The
second type, a field analog model (FAM), looks at
heterogeneity caused not only by depositional
processes but also by diagenesis. FAMs present
two difficulties. First, it is hard, given the paucity
of reservoir data, to decide which diagenetic pro-
cesses are relevant. Second, finding outcrops
that have undergone specific diagenetic pro-
cesses can be difficult.
Although the study of outcrops is a traditional
skill learned by most geologists, in the past they
have concentrated on such goals as describing
the sedimentological environment and the
geometries of the major depositional units. For
reservoir characterization, a much more detailed
and quantitative picture of the heterogeneity
within depositional sequences is required.
Therefore, in addition to the geologist’s tradi-
tional mapping skills, new analytical techniques
have been devised. Analyzing photographs of the
outcrop helps clarify the lithofacies distribution.4
Clearly, more than one photograph is needed,
and this technique can succeed only if all the
photographs are at the same scale and taken at
the same distance from the rock. A helicopter-
mounted camera with a laser range finder is one
way of achieving this. Successive photographs
are taken with a 30 to 40% overlap and then com-
bined to construct a photomosaic of the whole
28
nPhotomosaic of the Tensleep Sandstone in the Big Horn basin, Wyoming, USA. This
Pennsylvanian-age sandstone is being studied because of its similarity to the Rotliegen-
des Sandstone, an important gas reservoir unit found in the Southern Basin of the North
Sea. Like most outcrops, it is irregularly shaped. Therefore, to obtain the mosaic with
constant scale and no distortion, overlapping photographs were taken from points in a
plane parallel to a major depositional surface on the outcrop. With a helicopter posi-
tioned in this plane, laser range finders were used to maintain a fixed distance from
the outcrop to ensure constant scale. This was double-checked by positioning scale
bars at regular intervals on the outcrop. The mosaic was prepared during studies by
Jon Lewis and Kjell Rosvoll at Imperial College, University of London, England and
Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, Scotland with the support of Conoco (UK) Ltd.
outcrop (above). The mosaic can be digitized to probe permeameters (next page, below).6 These
quantify lithofacies patterns. It can also be used evaluate permeability—from 0.5 millidarcies
to plan and execute small-scale petrophysical (md) to 15 darcies—by injecting nitrogen into a
measurements on the outcrop. prepared location on the outcrop. Thousands of
Gamma ray logging of outcrops is used to help nondestructive measurements can be made in
describe the composition of the lithofacies. A situ and the results compared to traditional labo-
standard truck-mounted sonde can be lowered ratory tests for quality control. This permits
down the face of an outcrop and gamma ray mea- examination of permeability changes on a very
surements continuously recorded. Although small-scale—on the order of millimeters.
washouts are known to affect borehole gamma Through such measurements, permeability has
ray logging, tests show that the sonde can be as been shown to vary dramatically within a deposi-
much as 0.6 m [2 ft] away from the rock before tional unit.7
the reading is compromised.5 A typical study, carried out by the University of
An alternative technique employs a lightweight, Texas, Bureau of Economic Geology, Austin,
portable gamma ray spectrometer to measure Texas, USA, centers on a Ferron Sandstone out-
either total radiation or individual radioelement crop in central Utah, USA. Ferron is a wave-mod-
concentrations. Total radiation measurements ified, deltaic sandstone with permeability distri-
are typically made at 0.65-m [2.1-ft] intervals. bution strongly related to lithofacies type and
Selected intervals may be logged in greater grain size. It is believed to be an analog for Gulf
detail if required. Because the tool measures an Coast deltaic reservoirs, which account for 64%
area of the rock face with a diameter of about 0.3 of Texas Gulf Coast gas production.8
m [1 ft], readings taken for thin beds will be First, the depositional framework of the out-
slightly influenced by adjacent strata. crop was established using color photomosaics to
One of the principal pitfalls in reservoir charac- map the distribution and interrelations of the
terization stems from the use of unrepresentative sandstone components. This involves determin-
permeability data measured from cores and core ing lithofacies architecture, delineating perme-
plugs taken from only a few wells. Densely sam- able zones and their continuity, identifying flow
pled outcrop permeability data are of key impor- barriers and baffles and establishing permeabil-
tance. These can be gathered by performing labo- ity trends.
ratory-based flow tests on samples gathered in On the basis of this framework, more than 4000
the field. However, a comparatively recent devel- minipermeameter readings were made, all on
opment has seen the introduction of portable
electronic minipermeameters—also known as
Oilfield Review
vertical exposures of rock to minimize the effects
of weathering. Two sampling strategies were
employed. First, more than 100 vertical strips
were mapped every 30 to 60 m [100 to 200 ft] on
three channel complexes. Permeability measure-
ments were taken at 0.3-m spacing on each strip.
Second, two sampling grids were constructed
to examine the small-scale spatial variability of
permeability within lithofacies. One was 12-m
[40-ft] square with 0.6-m subdivisions. The sec-
ond, inside the first, measured 1.8-m [6-ft]
square with 0.1-m [0.3 ft] subdivisions.
The study successfully identified patterns of
heterogeneity. Delta-front sandstones were found
to be vertically heterogeneous but laterally con-
tinuous over a typical well spacing. However, the
sand belts of the distribution system—composed
of amalgamated, lateral accretion point-bar
sandstones—were found to have both lateral and
vertical heterogeneity.
Gas supply R1
(nitrogen cylinder)
Four way valve
Flow units
Injection pressure
measurement system
January 1992
Variogram analysis confirmed that the hetero-
geneity of the permeability was structured in a
way that depended on the rock type sampled and
the sampling scale. For instance, at sampling
intervals of 0.6 m, the range over which perme-
ability shows correlation was 5.5 m [18 ft] for
tough-cross-bedded sandstone and 1.2 m [4 ft]
for contorted beds. Planar cross-bedded strata
exhibited a range of 3.6 m [12 ft] for a 0.6 m
sampling interval and 0.6 m for the 0.1 m inter- nGoing underground—outcrops are not
always on the surface. A three-dimen-
val. According to the University of Texas sional (3D) study of permeability varia-
researchers, this suggests that the permeability tion was undertaken in a subsurface sil-
ica sand mine in Morvern, Scotland. Some
structure may be fractal. 8000 permeability measurements have
This is just one example of work underway. been collected over a 1-km [0.6-mile]
square section of the mine. The work was
Over the past five years, there has been an explo-
carried out by Jon Lewis and Ben Lowden
sion of outcrop studies—a hundred or more liter- at Imperial College, University of London,
ature references (above, right). And many pro- England, and supported by Den Norske
Stats Oljeselskap A.S. (Statoil).
jects are afoot to bring these studies together and
create outcrop data bases. Key information
needed to condition geostatistical modeling will
become readily available.
nMinipermeame- 1. Weber KJ and van Geuns LC: “Framework for Construct-
R2 ter in detail. The ing Clastic Reservoir Simulation Models,” Journal of
probe is applied to Petroleum Technology (October 1990): 1248-1253, 1296-
the cleaned sur- 1297.
Four way valve face of the rock 2. North CP: “Inter-Well Geological Modelling of Continental
with enough pres- Sediments: Lessons From the Outcrop,” presented at
sure to ensure a Advances in Reservoir Technology, Characterisation,
good seal. Nitro- Modelling & Management, organized by the Petroleum
gen is injected into Science and Technology Institute, Edinburgh, Scotland,
the rock and the February 21-22, 1991.
pressure and flow 3. Lewis JJM: “A Methodology for the Development of Spa-
rate measured. tial Reservoir Parameter Databases at Outcrop,” pre-
sented at Minipermeametry in Reservoir Studies, orga-
These values,
nized by the Petroleum Science and Technology Institute,
along with the Edinburgh, Scotland, June 27, 1991.
area of the probe,
4. A lithofacies is a mappable subdivision of a stratigraphic
are then used to unit distinguished by its lithology.
Four way valve calculate perme-
5. Jordan DW, Slatt RM, D’Agostino A and Gillespie RH:
Gas injection probe ability. To measure “Outcrop Gamma Ray Logging: Truck-Mounted and
the range of per- Hand-Held Scintillometer Methods Are Useful for Explo-
meabilities found ration, Development, and Training Purposes,” paper SPE
Rock
at the outcrop, four 22747, presented at the 66th SPE Annual Technical Con-
different flow ele- ference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, USA, October 6-9,
ments are required. 1991.
Pressure
transducer (0-20psi) 6. Lewis JJM: “Outcrop-Derived Quantitative Models of Per-
meability Heterogeneity for Genetically Different Sand
Bodies,” paper SPE 18153, presented at the 63rd SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston,
Texas, USA, October 2-5, 1988.
Jensen JL and Corbett PWM: “A Stochastic Model for
Comparing Probe Permeameter and Core Plug Measure-
ments,” paper 3RC-24, presented at the 3rd International
Reservoir Characterization Technical Conference of the
National Institute for Petroleum and Energy Research and
the US Department of Energy, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA,
November 3-5, 1991.
7. Kittridge MG, Lake LW, Lucia FJ and Fogg GE:
“Outcrop/Subsurface Comparisons of Heterogeneity in
the San Andres Formation,” SPE Formation Evaluation 5
(September 1990): 233-240.
8. Tyler N, Barton MD and Finley RJ: “Outcrop Characteriza-
tion of Flow Unit and Seal Properties and Geometries,
Ferron Sandstone, Utah,” paper SPE 22670, presented at
the 66th SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Dallas, Texas, USA, October 6-9, 1991.
 These kriging methods yield smooth inter- Measured data
polations, but do not describe small-scale
heterogeneity. In a process called stochastic Simulation 1
modeling that superimposes correlated

Value
Kriged
noise onto smooth interpolations, more real- interpolation
istic pictures emerge. A probability distribu- Actual data
tion determines how this noise is generated. Simulation 2
A number of pictures, or realizations, will
usually be created, each with different noise
sampled from the same distribution (top, Distance
right ). By analyzing many realizations, the nImitating reality’s variability. The kriging technique yields a
extent to which geologic uncertainty affects smooth interpolation, ignoring nature’s true small-scale het-
reservoir performance can be studied (mid- erogeneity. By adding noise to a kriged interpolation, stochas-
tic modeling produces more lifelike realizations.
dle, right ).
An example is sequential Gaussian simu-
Realization A
lation (SGS). The data are constructed grid 0 nTwo stochastic
block by grid block. At the first selected realizations of reser-
block, the smooth interpolated value is cal- 20 voir permeability
culated by kriging using the available mea- showing how differ-
40 ent noise added to
sured data. The interpolated value and its
the same kriged
variance, also calculated by kriging, define 60 interpolation gives
Depth, ft

a Gaussian distribution function from which quite different real-

80 izations. In both the
a noise value is randomly drawn and added Realization B
to the interpolated value. For the next point, 0
horizontal and ver-
tical directions,
selected at random, the process is repeated, realization A has
20
using as a base this newly derived data relatively high con-
point together with the measured data. As 40 tinuity whereas
the grid blocks are filled, all previously cal- realization B has
60 relatively low conti-
culated values contribute to computing the
nuity. Continuity is
next in the sequence. 80 gauged by measur-
The technique depends on the reservoir 0 200 400 500 600 800 1000 1200 1400 ing the size of groups
property being normally distributed, so a Distance, ft of contiguous blocks
property like permeability, which has a Above 100 md 1.0–0.1 md with permeability of
100 millidarcies
skewed distribution, requires transformation (md) or more.
to normality. The reverse process has to be 100–0 md Below 0.1 md
performed once all the grid blocks are filled.
10–1 md
An increasingly popular method for gen-
erating noise for stochastic modeling uses After Fogg GE, Lucia FJ and Senger RK: “Stochastic Simulation of Interwell-Scale Het-
the concept of fractals—a statistical tech- erogeneity for Improved Prediction of Sweep Efficiency in a Carbonate Reservoir,” in
Lake LW, Carroll HB Jr and Wesson TC (eds): Reservoir Characterization II. San Diego,
nique that produces remarkably realistic California, USA: Academic Press Inc. (1991): 355-381.
imitations of nature. Fractal objects exhibit
similar variations at all scales of observa-
tion. Every attempt to divide fractal objects
into smaller regions results in ever more
similarly-structured detail (right ).9 This sim-
plifies stochastic modeling. The variogram is nThe Sierpinski Gasket. This self-simi-
lar fractal structure was devised by the
defined from a single number—the fractal Polish mathematician W. Sierpinski
dimension, calculated from measured data about 90 years ago. It is formed by
in the reservoir or outcrops. And because dividing the largest triangle into
fractals are self-similar, the variance of the smaller triangles with sides half as
noise need be determined only at a single long as the original. In three of the
resulting four triangles the process is
scale. Fractal modeling has been used to repeated. The process is repeated at
predict the production performance of sev- progressively finer scales. At every
scale the same patterns can be found.
Random fractals generated by a simi-
lar process, but with added stochastic
variations, produce remarkably realis-
tic simulations of geologic variability.

30 Oilfield Review
eral large fields. Recent studies have also
applied fractal models to investigate the per-
formance of miscible gas floods.10
Discrete data require a special interpola-
tion technique called indicator kriging. This
can be combined with stochastic modeling
to form a process called sequential indicator
simulation (SIS). Take a model where either
sand or shale must be chosen—there is no
middle ground. At the same time, a random
element must be introduced to obtain multi-
ple realizations. Consider building a model
where sand is 1 and shale 0. Indicator krig-
ing will assign every grid block some value
between 0 and 1—giving an indication of
the likely lithology. For example, a value of
0.7 indicates a 70% chance of sand. In the
stochastic stage, this percentage is then used
to weight the random choice of sand or
shale for the grid block.11
Object-Based Modeling
In object-based modeling, a picture of the
reservoir model is built from generic
units—for example, sand bodies or shale
barriers, each unit having uniform internal
properties. These models are built by start-
ing with a uniform background matrix and
adding units with a contrasting property:
either a high permeability background to
which shale barriers are added, or a low
permeability background to which sand
bodies are added.
When starting with a high-permeability
background, the vertical distribution of
nStochastic shales in object-based modeling. The location of
each stochastic shale is random and independent of other
shales. The units are drawn randomly from a size distribution
function and placed at random locations until the required shale
density has been achieved.
January 1992
shales may be inferred from cores and logs,
particularly gamma ray logs. But unless the
well spacing is extremely dense, nothing is
revealed about the shales’ lateral dimen-
sions. Some shales correlate from well to
well, but most do not, and their lateral extent
must be generated statistically.
These stochastic shales are drawn at ran-
dom from a size distribution and placed
randomly until the precalculated shale den-
sity has been achieved. Shale density is esti-
mated from the cumulative feet of shale
measured in wells compared with the gross
pay, and then assumed to represent the
reservoir volume under study. To ensure that
the realizations honor the deterministic
data, shales observed in wells are placed in
the model first, their lateral extent still deter-
mined randomly. Subsequent, randomly
placed shales that intersect a well are
rejected (below ).12
To generate these models, the key statis-
tics specified by the geologist are shale
length and width, together with some guid-
ance as to their interdependence. Tradition-
ally, the geologist describes shales qualita-
tively as wide, extensive or lenticular—too
vague for building realistic stochastic mod-
els. Instead, ranges of length and width are
required, along with gross pay thickness and
average shale density. The depositional
environment has great bearing on these val-
ues and the primary sources of this informa-
tion are outcrop studies.13
9. Hewett TA: “Fractal Distributions of Reservoir Het-
erogeneity and Their Influence on Fluid Transport,”
paper SPE 15386, presented at the 61st SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans,
Louisiana, USA, October 5-8, 1986.
Hewett TA and Behrens RA: “Conditional Simulation
of Reservoir Heterogeneity With Fractals,” paper SPE
18326, presented at the 63rd SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, USA,
October 2-5, 1988.
“Fractals and Rocks,” The Technical Review 36, no.
1 (January 1988): 32-36.
Crane SD and Tubman KM: “Reservoir Variability
and Modeling With Fractals,” paper SPE 20606, pre-
sented at the 65th SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA,
September 23-26, 1990.
10. Perez G and Chopra AK: “Evaluation of Fractal Mod-
els to Describe Reservoir Heterogeneity and Perfor-
mance,” paper SPE 22694, presented at the 66th SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dal-
las, Texas, USA, October 6-9, 1991.
Payne DV, Edwards KA and Emanuel AS: “Examples
of Reservoir Simulation Studies Utilizing Geostatisti-
cal Models of Reservoir Heterogeneity,” in Lake LW,
Carroll HB Jr and Wesson TC (eds): Reservoir Char-
acterization II. San Diego, California, USA: Aca-
demic Press Inc. (1991): 497-523.
11. Journel AG and Alabert FG: “Focusing on Spatial
Connectivity of Extreme-Valued Attributes: Stochas-
tic Indicator Models of Reservoir Heterogeneities,”
paper SPE 18324, presented at the 63rd SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston,
Texas, USA, October 2-5, 1988.
12. Haldorsen HH and Chang DM: “Notes on Stochastic
Shales; From Outcrop to Simulation Model,” in Lake
LW and Carroll HB Jr (eds): Reservoir Characteriza-
tion. Orlando, Florida, USA: Academic Press Inc.
(1986): 445-486.
13. Geehan GW, Lawton TF, Sakurai S, Klob H, Clifton
TR, Inman KF and Nitzberg KE: “Geologic Predic-
tion of Shale Continuity, Prudhoe Bay Field,” in Lake
LW and Carroll HB Jr (eds): Reservoir Characteriza-
tion. Orlando, Florida, USA: Academic Press Inc.
(1986): 63-82.
31

nBuilding an object-based model using SIRCH, a software pack-
age developed at BP Exploration. In this model, two different
types of fluvial channel belt have been generated in a three-
stage process. First, one type of channel belt is generated (yel-
low). Then a second set (purple) is added to the first. This second
type has associated overbank deposits (red)—which are thinner,
poorer quality sands that nevertheless improve connectivity.
Finally, the combined channel belts are faulted.
Each channel belt is created using about 50 properties. Some
are constants, some are picked at random from input distribu-
tions and some are calculated from other properties. Properties
that determine channel shape include width, thickness, reach
length and angle, azimuth and depth. Flow properties, like per-
meability and porosity, are assigned either by lithology or by
using a random sample. All well data are honored. Net-to-gross
ratio is used to control the quantity of sand generated.
32
In theory, a similar method could be
applied to generate sandstone bodies in a
low-permeability background. However, BP
Research, Sunbury-on-Thames, England, has
developed SIRCH—system for integrated
reservoir characterization—to generate real-
istic reservoir heterogeneities using a library
of depositional shapes. Each shape has a set
of attributes defined by sedimentology and
based on observations of depositional sys-
tems. These attributes determine the size
and position in the reservoir model of each
shape and its relations with other shapes.
For example, channel belts are con-
structed as continuous links of a specified
shape.14 As a belt is constructed, input val-
ues for the attributes are repeatedly sampled
from the library and the generated belts may
be conditioned to honor well data. The
model can also be faulted, structured to
account for regional dip and clipped back
using the mapped top and bottom of the
reservoir to give it a volume indicated by
structural maps (left ).
SIRCH is still stochastic, so several real-
izations are required to estimate reservoir
characteristics. The realizations can be used
to estimate the volume of sandstone within
a specified interval, reservoir connectivity
and hydrocarbons in place for a given
radius around a well. This process has
proved valuable in indicating sensitivity of
results to the input parameters. Influential
inputs can then be targeted for extra study.
Individually, all these techniques paint a
portion of the total picture. In most cases,
gaining a full view of the reservoir requires a
hybrid (see “The HERESIM Approach to
Reservoir Characterization,” next page ).
Object-based, discrete modeling may be
used to describe the large-scale hetero-
geneities in the reservoir—the sedimento-
logical units—while different continuous
models may describe the spatial variations
of properties within each unit. For example,
for fluvial environments, BP Research is
planning to use SIRCH to generate chan-
nels, SIS for the facies within them and SGS
for permeability within the facies.
(continued on page 36)
14. Channels are the depositing rivers; channel belts are
the resulting sandstone bodies.
Oilfield Review
The HERESIM Approach to Reservoir Characterization

An example of a software package that combines Geostatistical

traditional geologic analysis with geostatistical analysis Simulation of Simulation of Scaling up of
techniques is HERESIM, developed jointly by the • proportion lithofacies petrophysical petrophysical
curves data data
Institute Français du Pétrole, Rueil-Malmaison,
• variograms
France, and the Centre de Géostatistiques, Ecole
Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Paris, Foun-
tainebleau, France. This allows sedimentological Stratigraphic studies
and geostatistical structural analysis to be car- Fluid-flow modeling
Enhanced oil recovery
ried out on interactive workstations, followed by
studies
geostatistical conditional simulations using Reinterpretation of the results in
terms of sequential stratigraphy
small-scale grid blocks. Each simulation creates
an image of the reservoir geology, consistent
with well data. Petrophysical data, like perme- Connectivity studies
ability and porosity, are then mapped between Optimization of well spacing
wells using deterministic or stochastic Swept volume estimation
algorithms. Finally, the petrophysical information
nOrganization and use of HERESIM, a geostatistical reservoir
is scaled up for fluid-flow simulation (right).1 characterization package.
First, a sedimentological study is carried out to
subdivide the area under investigation, which can
▲▲▲▲
▲ ▲▲▲▲ ▲ ▲▲▲ ▲
▲▲▲ ▲ ▲Wells ▲ Variogram
include formations bordering the reservoir as 100%
well as the reservoir itself. The largest divisions
Sill
are depositional units that include sets of geneti-
Frequency

cally linked strata, bounded by major sedimen-

tary discontinuities or sudden variations in the

sedimentological environment. Distinction of
units is usually achieved by correlating features
between wells. The next step is to identify litho-
facies within each depositional unit, collect sta-
tistical information about them at the wells and
then generate stochastic realizations of lithofa-
cies between wells.
Statistical information obtained from well data,
seismic interpretation and geologic knowledge are:
• Proportion curves—the percentage occurrence
of each lithofacies in a depositional unit (right)
• Experimental variograms—to quantify the spa-
tial continuity of each lithofacies in the reser-
voir (far right).2
With this information and a form of indicator krig-
ing employing a Gaussian random function,
0
-1000 0 1000 2000
Relative distance
Lithofacies
1 2 3 4
nHorizontal proportion curve. Proportion
curves provide information on the relative
frequency of each lithofacies in a deposi-
tional unit. Here, four lithofacies have been
proportioned using data from 20 wells.
numerous realizations of lithofacies distribution
can be readily obtained for each unit. However,
the algorithm works only in rectangular formats,
so it is necessary to first geometrically transform
each unit into a rectangle. After stochastic real-
izations have been generated, the real shape of
the unit is restored. HERESIM offers two types of
transform, depending on whether the prevailing
environment since deposition has been domi-
nated by erosion or differential subsidence—
Value
Range Distance
nVariograms quantify the spatial continu-
ity of each lithofacies in the reservoir. The
sill equals the variance of data; while the
range indicates the separation beyond
which two points are uncorrelated.
1. Eschard R, Doligez B, Rahon D, Ravenne C and Leloch G:
“A New Approach for Reservoirs Description and Simula-
tion Using Geostatistical Methods,” presented at
Advances in Reservoir Technology, Characterization,
Modelling & Management, organized by the Petroleum
Science and Technology Institute, Edinburgh, Scotland,
February 21-22, 1991.
2. Matheron G, Beucher H, de Fouquet C, Galli A, Guérillot D
and Ravenne C: “Conditional Simulation of the Geometry
of Fluvio-Deltaic Reservoirs,” paper SPE 16753, pre-
sented at the 62nd SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, USA, September 27-30, 1987.

January 1992 33
Erosion transformation Subsidence transformation

Fill in eroded strata to create rectangle, then perform stochastic

realization.
Reverse effect of subsidence to create rectangle,then perform
stochastic realization.

Erode stochastic realization to recreate structure.

Subside stochastic realization to recreate structure.

nA step in HERESIM processing: creating rectangles to allow generation of stochastic realizations. Before the stochastic realization
can be generated, the depositional units have to be transformed into rectangles. HERESIM has two ways of doing this. One assumes
that the unit has been eroded and that all the correlation lines within the unit are parallel. To create a rectangle, these correlations
are extrapolated across the eroded sections of the unit. Then the rest of the structure can be stochastically generated and the result-
ing realization re-eroded to recreate the original structure. The alternative technique assumes that differential subsidence has
occurred, causing the correlation lines to diverge. To create a rectangle, the effects of the subsidence are reversed. Then the stochas-
tic realization is created and resubsided.

34 Oilfield Review
nStochastic realization generated using HERESIM.
although some forms of fracturing can also be
accommodated (previous page).
Having selected the most likely realizations of
lithofacies, geologists and reservoir engineers
assign porosity and permeability values.
HERESIM assumes that petrophysical data are
strongly related to lithofacies. For each lithofa-
cies, either constant data values can be assigned
or a Monte Carlo-type distribution employed.
The geologic model describes a reservoir at a
decametric scale (on average 50-m [165 ft] square
or smaller with a thickness of 0.5 m [1.5 ft]). As a
result, simulated grids are huge (millions of
cells), too big for fluid-flow simulation (above).
Scaling up in HERESIM is performed using a fast
algorithm that calculates absolute permeabili-
January 1992
ties.3 First, average permeability is estimated
from the root of the product of the arithmetic mean
and harmonic mean of the grid-block permeabili-
ties. The quality of this value can be judged by
computing the log of the difference between the
two means. The larger the difference, the less
satisfactory the simple average. Grid blocks that
fail this test are subjected to a more accurate and
time-consuming fluid-flow simulation.
3. Guérillot D, Rudkiewicz JL, Ravenne C, Renard G and
Galli A: “An Integrated Model for Computer Aided Reser-
voir Description: From Outcrop Study to Fluid Flow Simu-
lations,” presented at the 5th European Symposium on
Improved Oil Recovery, Budapest, Hungary, April 25-27,
1989. Reprinted in Revue de l’Institut Français du Pétrole
45, no. 1 (January-February 1990): 71-77.
35
Rescaling the Geologic Model For Fluid-
Flow Simulation
Geologic modeling can describe a reservoir
with millions of grid blocks. For the com-
puter, this mainly presents problems of stor-
age. But the next major operation is fluid-
flow simulation, which involves complex
numerical calculation—a monumentally
large task given a million grid blocks (see
“Simulating Fluid Flow,” page 38 ).
Today, fluid-flow simulators can cope
with up to about 50,000 grid blocks—the
nModeling the North Sea Rannoch forma-
tion. This reservoir sandstone is character-
ized by hummocky cross-stratified bed-
forms. The Department of Petroleum
Engineering at Heriot-Watt University
determined the flow performance of this
depositional structure using the two deter-
ministic simulations shown here. These
two images represent a slice of rock mea-
suring 2.4 m [7.9 ft] and 14.4 m [47.2 ft].
In the first (top), saturation is at initial
conditions. Low permeability, rippled
crests have the lowest oil saturations
(green). The second (bottom) shows satu-
ration distribution after 0.2 pore volumes
of water have been injected at a low
advance rate of 0.25 m/d. Saturation is
reduced most rapidly in the low perme-
ability, rippled crests (dark blue).
36
greater the number of grid blocks, the more
expensive the fluid-flow simulation is in
computation. So before the simulation is
run, the geologic model, with its high-reso-
lution petrophysical data must be enshrined
in a smaller number of larger grid blocks—a
process called scaling up. Reorganizing so
much data may introduce error, masking
heterogeneities in the geologic model that
directly affect simulated production.
The key to achieving scale up is deriving
a single set of reservoir properties—called
pseudos—for the larger blocks so that the
fluid-flow simulation after scale up is as
close as possible to what it would have
Recovery of original oil-in-place
been with the small-scale data.
Over the years, a variety of methods has
been developed to do this. These include
calculations based on simple averaging
procedures like the oft-quoted Kyte and
Berry method and more complex simula-
tions of parts of the reservoir using small-
scale grid blocks, measuring about 1 m
square and 0.5 m thick.15
The impact of small-scale effects on two-
phase flow performance is revealed in a
study of the North Sea Rannoch formation,
Recovery of original oil-in-place
carried out at Heriot-Watt University, Edin-
burgh, Scotland. Rannoch subfacies are
strongly laminated and rippled. The study
utilized newly acquired minipermeameter
data at a millimetric scale, much denser
than that conventionally obtained from
core analysis.
These data were combined with rock cap-
illary pressure curves to define pseudos for
each lamina subfacies. A geologic model for
hummocky cross-stratification combined the
subfacies at the bedform scale (left ).16 The
simulated flow performance of this model
was then compared with simpler flow simu-
lations calculated using arithmetic and har-
monic average permeabilities for horizontal
and vertical directions, respectively.
The flow behavior of the detailed model
was anisotropic, whereas the simpler
approach yielded more isotropic behavior
and significantly higher recoveries for verti-
cal displacement (right ). So, small-scale
heterogeneity affects reservoir producibility,
and in many cases, variations in capillary
pressure with rock type and small-scale
sedimentary structure cannot be ignored.
A predominant theme in scaling up is the
identification of a number of discrete scales
of heterogeneity. To preserve the effects of
heterogeneity at all scales, a series of scale-
up operations can be performed, each deal-
ing with heterogeneity larger than the previ-
ous operation. At each stage in the process,
the size of the scale up should be as large as
possible without introducing the next level
of heterogeneity. If a reservoir is divided into
depositional units, lithofacies, beds and
small-scale heterogeneity within a bed, the
scale-up process will have four stages. For
example, lithofacies become the basic build-
ing blocks at the depositional unit scale.17
Horizontal Flood
80%
Detailed geologic model
Arithmetic average and rock
curves
40%
0
0 50% 100%
Total pore volume injected
Vertical Flood
80%
Detailed geologic model
Harmonic average and
rock curves
40%
0
0 50% 100%
Total pore volume injected
nRannoch formation’s flooding character-
istics. Using densely-sampled permeabil-
ity data, capillary pressures measured
from appropriate rock types and knowl-
edge of the depositional structure to con-
struct a detailed geologic model, the
Department of Petroleum Engineering at
Heriot-Watt University simulated both hor-
izontal and vertical flooding. The results
using the detailed geologic model are sig-
nificantly different from those derived
using traditional techniques employing
average permeabilities and rock curves—
particularly for the vertical flood.
Oilfield Review
 Heterogeneity can be assessed by measur-
ing the average value of a reservoir property
within a growing volume. When the volume
is very small, the average value will fluctuate
because of microscopic heterogeneities. But
as the averaging volume increases, more of
these heterogeneities will be encompassed
and the average value will stabilize. Further
growth may result in capturing larger-scale
heterogeneity and the value will again fluc-
tuate (right ).18 Since this behavior varies
among properties, the size of the smallest
grid block should be selected so that all key
properties are stable. 19
No matter how many scales are used,
existing methods of calculating pseudos
have their drawbacks. The elementary
methods, using averaged properties, are
quick but not accurate enough. The simula-
tion methods are computationally expen-
sive. And if sensitivity studies are required
using a number of stochastic realizations,
the time and cost of scaling up can be pro-
hibitive. Recently, BP Research developed a
new algorithm—real-space renormaliza-
tion—that promises speedy yet accurate cal-
culation of pseudos.
The method starts with a group of eight
grid blocks (2×2×2) with permeabilities dis-
tributed to represent the original data. A new
relative permeability is calculated and
adopted for a new single block the size of
the eight original blocks—it becomes the
starting point for the next renormalization
when the process is repeated with seven
other similarly generated blocks. The new
block’s effective relative permeability is cal-
culated using a semianalytical technique that
depends on an analogy between Darcy’s law
and Ohm’s law—block permeabilities are
modeled by an equivalent resistor network.
Through a series of transformations, the
resistor network is reduced to a single resis-
15. Kyte JR and Berry DW: “New Pseudo Functions to
Control Numerical Dispersion,” Society of
Petroleum Engineers Journal 15 (August 1975): 269-
276.
Tompang R and Kelkar BG: “Prediction of Water-
flood Performance in Stratified Reservoirs,” paper
SPE 17289, presented at the SPE Permian Basin Oil
and Gas Recovery Conference, Midland, Texas,
USA, March 10-11, 1988.
January 1992
Normalized average value
Microscopic Macroscopic Megascopic
Volume
Fluid density ( ρ)
nHow sample volume affects
property averages. At small sam-
ple volumes, property averages
fluctuate because of microscopic
heterogeneity. As sample volume
0 is increased, heterogeneities will
average out and properties stabi-
the range of REVρ lize—this gives the representative
Porosity (φ) elementary volume (REV). This sta-
bility continues until larger-scale
heterogeneity begins to take
effect. Different properties have
different volumes where hetero-
geneity is stable. The ideal sample
volume should fall within ranges
of stability for all key properties.
0
the range of REVφ
Permeability (k )
0
the range of REVk
the range of REV for all
properties
16. Corbett PWM and Jensen JL: “An Application of 19. Haldorsen HH: “Simulator Parameter Assignment
Small Scale Permeability Measurements—Prediction and the Problem of Scale in Reservoir Engineering,”
of Flow Performance in a Rannoch Facies, Lower in Lake LW and Carroll HB Jr (eds): Reservoir Char-
Brent Group, North Sea,” presented at Miniperme- acterization. Orlando, Florida, USA: Academic Press
ametry in Reservoir Studies, organized by the Inc. (1986): 293-340.
Petroleum Science and Technology Institute, Edin- Kossack CA, Aasen JO and Opdal ST: “Scaling Up
burgh, Scotland, June 27, 1991. Heterogeneities With Pseudofunctions,” SPE Forma-
17. Lasseter TJ, Waggoner JR and Lake LW: “Reservoir tion Evaluation 5 (September 1990): 226-232.
Heterogeneities and Their Influence on Ultimate Norris RJ and Lewis JJM: “The Geological Modeling
Recovery,” in Lake LW and Carroll HB Jr (eds): of Effective Permeability in Complex Heterolithic
Reservoir Characterization. Orlando, Florida, USA: Facies,” paper SPE 22692, presented at the 66th SPE
Academic Press Inc. (1986): 545-559. Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dal-
18. Any volume for which the property is stable is called las, Texas, USA, October 6-9, 1991.
a representative elementary volume (REV).
37
 Simulating Fluid Flow
Today, most simulators solve fluid-flow problems
by segmenting a portion of the reservoir into a
series of grid blocks—either two- or three-dimen-
sional. The fluid phases in each block are mod-
eled with finite difference equations similar to
the conventional volumetric material balance
equations. Darcy’s law is then used to describe
fluid flow between grid blocks.
Early efforts in reservoir simulation, in the late
1940s, began with simple material balance cal-
culations. Throughout the 1960s, black oil simu-
lations dominated the scene. These describe
nonvolatile oil as a single component containing
gas in solution as a second component. There are
three compressible, immiscible phases: gas,
water and oil. Recovery methods simulated
included pressure depletion and some forms of
pressure maintenance.1
The advent of enhanced recovery techniques
such as chemical flooding, steamflooding and in-
situ combustion, ushered in more sophisticated
simulators. Most describe the hydrocarbon in
terms of a number of components and solve ther-
modynamic equilibrium equations to determine
the distribution of components between the liquid
and vapor phases in the reservoir. 2
A common strategy for fluid-flow simulation is
to use history matching to adjust the geologic
38
model. Adjustments should be consistent with
measured data and improve upon postulated vari-
ations in reservoir properties that cannot be or
have not been measured. The results of the simu-
lation can be extremely sensitive to variations in
the reservoir description. Models for reservoir
management are usually routinely updated as
new production data or reservoir information are
acquired. This allows for reexamination of cur-
rent and future production scenarios. But history
matching always results in nonunique combina-
tions of variables. And it could be said that the only
fully simulated reservoir is a fully depleted one.
Simulator technology is by no means mature.
Some current developments center on improving
the ability to cope with different production sce-
narios, for example, naturally fractured forma-
tions and horizontal wells.
During production by gravity drainage in natu-
rally fractured reservoirs, oil drains from matrix
blocks into the fracture system. From there it can
pass either into other blocks below or along frac-
tures. A fractured reservoir is modeled using two
interacting continua, one for the matrix and one
for the fractures—the so-called dual porosity
concept. The matrix contains most of the oil and
the fractures most of the conductivity. So trans-
missibility between matrix blocks is usually
ignored. But to correctly model ultimate recovery,
the capillary contacts between matrix blocks
should be considered.
Work at Koninklijke/Shell Exploratie en Produk-
tie Laboratorium, Rijswijk, The Netherlands, has
shown that a vertical stack of oil-saturated matrix
blocks surrounded by gas does not drain indepen-
dently.3 Oil from one block passing into the frac-
ture system will be absorbed by the underlying
block, slowing production. Therefore, a flow sim-
ulation that ignores this effect will overestimate
initial production rates. To combat this, Shell has
devised a simulator that allows flow in all direc-
tions between neighboring blocks.
Fluid-flow simulation for horizontal wells is
currently being approached in at least two ways.
The productivity of a horizontal well can be
approximated, using numerical solutions of sim-
plified equations, and the approximation used in
a conventional reservoir simulator. Alternatively,
for single wells in which short-term performance
is being studied, fine-scale, black oil simulations
have been used. In this approach, pseudos can
be derived for a coarser, field-sized simulation.
1. Mattax CC and Dalton RL: “Reservoir Simulation,” Jour-
nal of Petroleum Technology 42 (June 1990): 692-695.
Breitenbach EA: “Reservoir Simulation: State of the Art,”
Journal of Petroleum Technology 43 (September 1991):
1033-1036.
2. Cheshire IM and Pollard RK: “Advanced Numerical Tech-
niques for Reservoir Simulation and Their Use on Vector
and Parallel Processors,” in Edwards SF and King PR
(eds): Mathematics in Oil Production. Oxford Science
Publications, Oxford, England: Clarendon Press (1988):
253-268.
3. Por GJ, Boerrigter P, Maas JG and de Vries A: “A Frac-
tured Reservoir Simulator Capable of Modeling Block-
Block Interaction,” paper SPE 19807, presented at the
64th SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
San Antonio, Texas, USA, October 8-11, 1990.
Oilfield Review
tance, equivalent to the new block’s effective
relative permeability.
The effect of each stage of renormaliza-
tion is to produce larger blocks whose per-
meability approaches that of the whole.
Results of renormalization have been com-
pared with direct numerical simulation and
the maximum error was found to be only
7%.20 The main difference was in computa-
tional effort. Renormalization speeds are up
to two orders of magnitude faster than those
of direct numerical simulation. The largest
problem yet tackled totalled 540 million
grid blocks.
Renormalization has drawbacks: it is diffi-
cult to represent contorted flow paths with
small cells and the estimation of effective
permeability suffers. This is seen in very
shaly reservoirs, where there are high con-
trasts between neighboring permeabilities.
This problem may be resolved by another
method that short-circuits the need for scale
up and requires a different kind of reservoir nCutting simulation time using streamtubes, a network of conduits conveying fluid
characterization. This is the streamtube from injection to production wells. This field-scale model incorporates five solvent injec-
approach, championed by Chevron Oilfield tion wells (pink) and seven producers (yellow). Using streamtubes, simulating the injec-
Research Co., La Habra, California, USA, tion of 2.5 pore volumes of solvent took just 30 seconds on a MicroVAX 3200 worksta-
tion. Using conventional fluid-flow simulation for a coarse grid and a Cray XMP-48, the
among others.21 The plan view of the reser- calculation required 630 seconds. The two calculations predicted similar solvent break-
voir is simulated as a network of tubes that through. (After Hewett and Behrens, reference 21.)
carry the flow between injection and pro-
duction wells (right ). The technique takes
20. King PR: “The Use of Renormalization for Calculat-
into account well placement, areal hetero- may always be able to generate more com- ing Effective Permeability,” Transport in Porous
geneity and the relative flow rates of wells. plex geologic models than can be simu- Media 4 (July 1989): 37-58.
The key to the technique’s success is a pre- lated. Scaling up will therefore remain a key King PR, Muggeridge AH and Price WG: “Renor-
liminary flow simulation on two-dimen- element in reservoir characterization. malization Calculations of Immiscible Flow,” Sub-
mitted to Transport in Porous Media, August 1991.
sional vertical slices between wells. The The fluid-flow simulation bottleneck will 21. Emanuel AS, Alameda GK, Behrens, RA and Hewett
observed scaling behavior is then mapped have to be addressed, either by developing TA: “Reservoir Performance Prediction Methods
onto individual streamtubes and their contri- new, more rapid processing hardware like Based on Fractal Geostatistics,” SPE Reservoir Engi-
neering 4 (August 1989): 311-318.
butions summed to get a three-dimensional parallel processing 22 or by smarter algo-
Hewett TA and Behrens RA: “Scaling Laws in Reser-
prediction of reservoir performance. rithms, or probably both. Then, the capabil- voir Simulation and Their Use in Hybrid Finite Dif-
Because of the relatively greater arith- ity for cost-effective and repeated stochastic ference/Streamtube Approach to Simulating the the
Effects of Permeability Heterogeneity,” in Lake LW,
metic complexity of fluid-flow simulation simulation will be realized. The impact of Carroll HB Jr and Wesson TC (eds): Reservoir Char-
compared with model building, computers this capability on reservoir management, acterization II. San Diego, California, USA: Aca-
and ultimately on improved recovery, demic Press Inc. (1991): 402-441.
remains to be felt. —CF 22. Mayer DF: “Application of Reservoir Simulation
Models to a New Parallel Computing System,” paper
SPE 19121, presented at the SPE Petroleum Com-
puter Conference, San Antonio, Texas, USA, June
26-28, 1990.

January 1992 39