SPE 84599

Reliable Simulation Model Permeability Arrays By Integration of Core, Test, and

Log-Derived Permeability Data
Shawket G. Ghedan, SPE, Douglas A. Boyd, SPE, and Bertrand M. Thiebot, SPE, ADMA-OPCO

Copyright 2003, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

The initialization of the simulation model is completed with
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and each of the three permeability and rock type realizations. The
Exhibition, held in Denver, Colorado, U.S.A., 5-8 October 2003.
fluids in place are very close and model is equilibrated. The
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
simulation model performance of the initial history matching
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to runs was found to be very close to the field observed
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 performance for a very complicated and heterogeneous
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
carbonate reservoir. In our case, a combination of the
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is conditioned permeability models are found to be best for
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 achieving a quality history matched simulation model.
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Background
Essential to the building of robust reservoir simulation models
Abstract
is an accurate representation of permeability variability and
The generation of permeability models that best describe the
quantity. Common sources of permeability are well test and
reservoir heterogeneity and its flow dynamics is a difficult
core. Available on many of the wells in this offshore reservoir,
objective to achieve. This paper addresses the multi-step
well tests lack the fine detailed permeability profiles of core
procedure followed and the various analytical techniques
and are restricted to the completed reservoir layer. Core
utilized to integrate different types of permeability data to
coverage is scarce however, comprising only small percentage
generate multiple realizations of permeability, which were fed
of the vertical footage drilled.
and tested in a dynamic reservoir simulation model for
initialization and history matching.
To supplement these information gaps, numerous approaches
to relating core permeability to conventional log response
Due to the limited availability of core permeability data and
were explored over the past eighteen years. None were
lack of vertical resolution in test permeability data, most
satisfactory. Abu Dhabi’s carbonate rocks have highly
modelers rely on statistically log derived permeability
complex pore geometries. Variations in facies, cementation,
predictors to generate permeability models. This paper
diagenesis, pore throat size, grain size etc. nearly obliterates
discusses the design, merits and drawbacks associated with
the link between porosity and permeability. For the most
three permeability predictors included in the static geological
difficult cases, lithology remains constant, porosity and water
model of a major carbonate reservoir in offshore Abu Dhabi,
saturation fluctuate little, while permeability varies three
along with the rock-typing scheme utilized.
magnitudes. The most enduring permeability estimate1 was
arrived at using a program called ESTIME+. Core
Four analysis techniques are utilized to screen and choose the
permeabilities were related to accompanying well log values
right permeability predictor for the right sub reservoir or layer
via a multidimentionsonal look-up table. This approach
of the field. These are merged to generate the first realization
presented an unrealistic homogeneous picture of the reservoir
of permeability for the simulation model after upscaling.
permeability variability.
Test KH conditioned to core KH is taken as a reference in the
As part of a new comprehensive reservoir study, two new
screening and testing process. The conditioning process is
permeability estimation models were developed. Each model
performed at the wells levels to add the core permeability
sought to preserve the large permeability variations observed
vertical resolution to test permeability data and produce a new
in core. A statistical approach using geologically guided
log for that matter. This new log is utilized to produce two
porosity permeability cloud transforms successfully duplicated
additional permeability realizations for the simulation model
the average permeability and permeability frequency when
by either conditioning at the wells level followed by modeling
compared with cored wells. A second competing statistical
and upscaling, or conditioning at the geological model after
modeling followed by upscaling.
+
Mark of Schlumberger
2 SPE 84599
based method we call Case Base Reasoning (CBR) was
developed concurrently with the cloud transform method.
CBR compares a facies guided library of known cases (cored
wells) to the current case (uncored well) for each one of the
newly defined forty-seven geological layers. When a statistical
best match is found, the permeability from the cored well is
transferred to the uncored well.
These three field wide permeability estimations allowed us to
test and compare results for each geological layer and select
the better for that particular layer.
Traditional well-test analysis provides good insight into the
average properties of the reservoir in the vicinity of a well2.
The use of well test data to descripe reservoir heterogeneity3,
and to constrain and condition reservoir permeability models2,4
has been reported in the literature.
In our large model, the proper permeability estimator for each
layer was also conditioned to test K, to produce some other
permeability realizations. Before conditioning, however, the
test K data was scaled to core K which gave more vertical
refinement.
Geological Model
Eleven thousand feet of core material from thirty-six wells
were studied in detail, including thin section description to
establish a sequence stratigraphy driven layering scheme.
Lithology: The reservoir is composed of dolomite and
limestone with intervening anhydrite layers.
Pore System Geometry: Wide variations in pore size to pore
throat ratio occur. Over 600 high pressure mercury injection
pore throat size distribution measurements with accompanying
thin section descriptions enabled our geologists to identify
sixteen rock types which were later narrowed to nine.
Depositional Model: The reservoir is a distally steepened
ramp characterized by thick regressive events or high stand
systems tracts, and thin trangressive systems tracts5. It covers
a broad platform to outer ramp profile with a set of facies
characterizing each tract. Broad statements are possible about
the permeability tendencies of each depositional setting
despite the complicating influence of digenetic overprinting.
1. Peritidal (Inner Most Ramp): Comprised of anhydrites,
stromatolites and vermicular or patterned dolomites.
Permeability is generally low.
2. Lagoon (Inner Ramp): Here evaporatic flats and lagoonal
deposits occupy the platform. The lagoonl facies are
bioturbated algal wackestones and packstones. These
textures favour moderate to low permeabilities.
3. Shoal (Ramp Crest): These are high-energy deposits
dominated by shoal facies comprised of foraminiferal
packstones and grainstones. Rock textural qualities
display a broad range of permeabilities from low to high,
but favour moderate to high values.
4. Rudstones (Ramp Margin): Coarse grain rudstones
forming discontinuous prograding clinoforms occur at the
margin of the shoal facies. Permeability is high.
5. Outer Ramp: Formed below the storm wave base, this
zone is comprised of open marine bioturbated
wackestones and mud dominated packestones. Moderate
to low permeability is favoured.
In addition to the above, two additional sedimentary packages
with permeability tendencies were identified:
1. Dolomitized packstones / float grainstones in two
geological layers favoured moderate to high permeability.
2. Float grainstones in one geological layer favoured high
permeability.
Dolomitization: Each layer’s permeability is influenced by its
degree of dolomitization though not always in the same
manner. In the shoal and lagoonal facies, moderate amounts of
dolomitization degrade permeability, while near complete
dolomitization enhances it. In the peritidal environment of the
SE part of the field, dolomitization enhances permeability.
Data Quality
The validity of a reservoir model is a reflection of the quality
of the data used to construct it. Log interpretation, core
analyses and well test data suffer from data quality issues.
Log Interpretation: Log interpretation of early wells
overestimates dolomite content ten to twenty percent.
Pervasive overestimation of reservoir porosity (13% to 17%)
is present in certain geologic layers. To correct the above, over
half the wells in the field require reinterpretation.
Core Data: Low porosity plugs often display elevated
permeabilities. This is the effect of cracks or fractures6. To
address this, plugs with porosities of 6% or less with unusually
high permeability were removed. Cracked plugs above 6%
porosity remain hidden in the database.
Permeability Estimation Methods
ESTIME: This approach assumes for any rock physical
parameter such as permeability, there is a unique log response.
Core air permeability data is employed to create a cellular
database. Each cell is built by assigning it the logarithm of
permeability for a finite range. Cells containing multiple
values are averaged to produce a single permeability. The
number of permeability values used to compute the average is
recorded. Specific ranges of NPHI, RHOB, and MSFL derived
porosity are equated with a specific permeability value within
each cell. Conflicts in the database are resolved. If the three
log values equate with three different cells, each with a
different permeability value, then a weighted average
permeability is predicted. A cell whose permeability was
derived from the greater number of core values is weighted
more than other cells. For example, suppose one cell contains
a permeability average of log1020 md from three original
values, the second cell contains log1050 md obtained from two
original values, and our third cell contains log10200 md, a
single original value, the average is
[(log1020*3)+(log1050*2)+(log10200*1)]/[3+2+1] = 39.8 md.
Empty cells containing no permeability value for the log
values are handle by linear interpolation between filled cells.
Since each point used to create the prediction model is include
SPE 84599
in the prediction of any cored well, the bias is towards
acceptable prediction for that particular well.
Advantages
• Links permeability variations to three log responses.
• Applicable to hydrocarbon and water filled porosity.
Limitations
• Misses high permeability streaks.
• Smoothes the data. Poor dynamic range.
Cloud Transforms (CLTD): Each reservoir depositional
setting is dominated by grainstones, packstones or
wackestones. These rocks displayed different permeability
distribution patterns (Figure 1). This suggested a statistical
permeability estimation guided by depositional setting and its
dominant rock fabric is appropriate. Cloud transforms are one
such statistical method7. Cloud transforms stochastically
estimate one parameter (permeability) from another, i.e.
porosity. Each geological layer and facie defined by the
geologist was cross-plotted, core porosity versus core
permeability. This resulted in eighty-three geologic layer and
facie related individual plots. Some geological layers were
combined where properties were similar. Bins of 2.5 porosity
units width were created along the X-axis of each plot. One of
three (Log10) permeability distributions (log normal, normal,
triangular) was assigned to each of these porosity bins based
on permeability distribution analyses with the software
package Best Fit (manufacturer Palisade). Log10 core data sets
too few in number (a frequent occurrence) to quantify the
distribution type, were assigned a normal distribution. A
random number generator duplicates each permeability
distribution or any single data point belonging to that
distribution. For each well, using log porosity and the
Reservoir Geologist’s assigned geological layer and facie, one
permeability probability value was generated at one foot
spaced depth levels using the appropriate cloud transform and
porosity bin. Figure 2 illustrates the fundamental elements of
this technique.
Advantages
• Reproduces the permeability frequency distribution
within each reservoir layer and facie.
• Maintains the dynamic range (no smoothing).
• Applicable to hydrocarbon and water filled porosity.
Limitations
• Permeability depth trends are not maintained.
• Log porosity is a poor proxy for core porosity in the case
of the Peritidal layers. Log porosity smoothes the porosity
profile displaying much less heterogeneity than is present
in core.
• Cloud transforms from layers and facies with sparse core
data sets are not statistically representative of the
reservoir.
• Presents a more heterogeneous picture of the reservoir
than is actually present.
3
Case Base Reasoning (CBR): Geological mapping revealed
reservoir permeability magnitude and distribution is
influenced by: (1) geologic layer, (2) facies within a geologic
cycle, and (3) depth (base to top). These concepts were
developed into a statistical software program we call “Case
Base Reasoning” or CBR. Well log-derived attributes from
uncored wells are statistically compared to those of a library
of uncored wells within a single geologic layer and facie. The
presumption is; similar log patterns and values from different
wells (same layer and facie as judged by the reservoir
geologist) equate with similar permeability. Similarity is
judged based on a weighted comparison of the standard
deviation and mean of porosity and lithology. (Lithology was
awarded a low weight due to the previously mentioned data
quality issues.) In other words, “if they look the same, than
their other attributes must be alike”. Once the most similar
match of an uncored well to an uncored well is found, a
transfer of permeability from the cored well to the uncored
well occurs. This is accomplished through recognition curves
(RC). Recognition curves are the weighted product of porosity
and lithology calculated along the depth track of both cored
and uncored wells. A moving window of a user selected fixed
length (one or more depth levels) is progressively migrated
over the recognition curves. At each depth level, the window
covering the RC of the cored well is shifted up and down one
or more depth levels. At each station, the average RC is
calculated. When the minimum absolute difference in RCs’ is
encountered between the uncored well and the cored well, the
two RC’s are considered equivalent. Permeability from the
current window position is transferred from the cored well to
the uncored well. Both windows are then depth shifted one or
more depth levels and the process repeated (Figure 3).
Advantages
• Maintains the permeability heterogeneity of the
formation. Averaging of the data is not performed.
• Permeability depth profiles are maintained.
• Applicable to hydrocarbon and water filled porosity.
Limitations
• Boundaries between facies within the database are not
gradational. Sharp changes in permeability range can
occur if the geologic layer is classed as lagoon, outer
platform or shoal.
• The assumption, if recognizable physical features of the
layer are similar, than the permeability must be similar,
may not valid for all geologic layers. For example, one
layer displays little in the way of porosity or lithology
character to differentiate one well from the next, yet large
changes in permeability do occur. Since the changes in
permeability are rhythmic cycles, the depth processing of
the CRB reproduces these rhythms but not their exact
placement.
Validation
Building confidence in the predictive models requires data
from different sources providing supptive answers. Used
collectively they comprise:
4 SPE 84599
Blind Tests: Estimate the core permeability of a cored well
(which also matches well test) without the benefit of the core.
3D Visualization: 3D visualization ensures the plausibility of
a model. It allows us to step back from an interpretation and
“look”, either the model makes sense based on what the
geologist and engineer knows about the geologic and flow
characteristics of the reservoir, or it does not.
Bootstrapping: Select only uncored wells to build a new
model. With 270 wells minus the cored wells, the new model
should look like the cored wells at the cored well locations.
Water Flood Dynamics: Areas of rapid and slow
encroachment are compared to the high and low permeability
paths and bubble maps (amount of production).
Integration of Core K and Well Test K Data
Core permeability is preferred to well test permeability for its
high vertical resolution. Well test permeability however is
believed to present more representative reservoir permeability
due to the large rock volume investigated. Integrating core
and well test permeability takes advantage of the strengths of
both. A script written using the internal programming
language of IRAP-RMS++, scales core K to well test K. The
steps followed to achieve this are explained below (Figure 4).
• Before loading into the geological model, well test KH
was divided by the reservoir layer thickness to determine
test K, which was distributed on foot-by-foot over the test
interval.
• Overlap between the well test intervals and core K data
are recorded. Over any overlap, the script computes the
well test KH (Test K * H), and the core KH (C_Kc-ave*
H), and the ratio between them. By multiplying the core K
(C_Kc) by this ratio, well test scaled core permeability
(C_Kc-c), is generated.
• Well test K remains the same in all wells except in the
overlap interval where it is replaced by C_Kc-c.
These new well test permeability profiles are blocked to the
resolution of geological model fine layers. They are then
modeled by Kriging between wells, and upscaled by a flow
based averaging technique8.
Which Permeability Estimator is More Applicable?
Despite the above validation tests, it was not clear which of
the new permeability estimates was the most appropriate for
the reservoir simulation model. To explore the quality of these
permeability estimates, each was compared in turn against the
wells’ test KH (conditioned to core KH) as the reference. For
reference the older ESTIME prediction was also included. The
analysis methodology involves four techniques:
• KH cross-plots
• Cumulative KH plots
• KH difference histograms
• Visualization of simple permeability maps.
++
Mark of Roxar
KH Cross Plots
The field is subdivided into six main sub-reservoirs. Test KH
data was cross-plotted against the KH of the three
permeability estimators for the wells of any of these sub-
reservoirs, as shown in Figure 5. On these plots, the half-
decade lines are plotted on both sides of the ideal 1:1, 45° line.
They represent an acceptable level of uncertainty in the data.
The following conclusions were made about the six main
reservoir layers.
• In sub-reservoir 1, all three predictors underestimate well
test permeability. However, more CBR KH data than
ESTIME and CLDT fall in between the half-decade lines.
• In sub-reservoir 2, the cross plot is inconclusive which
estimator is better than the others.
• CLDT K performs better than the ESTIME and CBR K
estimators in the sub-reservoir 3, as shown in Figure 5.
• CLDT K does better than the ESTIME and CBR K
predictors in matching the test KH in sub-reservoir 4.
• In sub-reservoir 5, CLDT and CBR K predictors perform
better than ESTIME. However, it is not clear enough
which is better when they are compared with each other.
• In sub-reservoir 6, CBR K predictor is performing better
than CLDT and ESTIME K predictors. The number of
data points however is sparse.
Cumulative KH Plots
Well cumulative test KH is plotted versus estimator KH for
the six main layers of the reservoir, Figure 6. Ideal is for
cumulative estimated KH curve to overlap with the cumulative
well test KH curve. If not, the profiles should be similar.
• In sub-reservoirs 1 and 2 of the field, all three K
estimators are found to underestimate permeability
confirming the conclusion of the KH cross plots
technique. Figure 6 illustrates this for sub-reservoir 2.
CBR K in both sub-reservoirs is closer to well test K than
ESTIME or CLDT K.
• In sub-reservoir 3, CLDT and CBR estimators follow
closely the well test KH. CLDT KH is closer than CBR,
confirming the finding of the KH cross plot. ETIME
cumulative KH falls below all three curves.
• In sub-reservoir 4, the cumulative KH plot shows both
CLDT and CBR closely follows the cumulative well test
KH. CLDT estimator seems to perform better for the
latest wells, confirming the finding of the KH cross plot.
• For sub-reservoirs 5 and 6, KH cross plots were not
definitive. CLDT estimator is closest to the trend of well
test cumulative KH than the other two predictors for sub-
reservoir 5. As for sub-reservoir 6, both the ESTIME and
CBR predictors follow the curve of well test K closely.
CBR, however, seems to be a little better than ESTIME.
By using the KH cross plots and cumulative KH plots, it was
possible to conclude that CBR K provides a better K estimator
in sub-reservoirs 1, 2 and 6, while CLDT K is better in sub-
reservoirs 3, 4 and 5.
SPE 84599
KH Difference Histograms
The above conclusions about the applicability of the three
permeability estimators are supported by a third analysis
technique, KH difference histograms. The histograms
represent the frequency distribution of the differences between
the log10 well test KH and the log10 KH of any of the three
permeability estimators for all the wells completed in any of
the 6 sub-reservoirs of the field. Ideally the histograms should
be centered on the zero. If the estimator histogram is skewed
to any side, it means that it not accurate. If skewed to the
positive side, it means that the estimator undestimates the
layer K, and vice versa. The estimator is more precise if the
histogram is of less standard of deviation.
• The differences histogram for sub-reservoir 1 is shown in
Figure 7. It indicates all three permeability estimators are
not accurate. Each underestimates the well test KH.
Moreover, the CBR KH difference histogram supports the
KH cross plot and cumulative KH analyses by being more
accurate and more precise than that of the ESTIME and
CLDT permeability estimators.
• The KH difference histograms for sub-reservoir 2 are
skewed to the positive side underestimating well test KH.
CBR does better than the other two, which supports the
previous conclusions.
• In sub-reservoir 3, the CLDT estimator is more accurate
and more precise than the other two, which supports the
previous conclusions.
• For sub-reservoir 4, CLDT is the most accurate and
precise, supporting the previous findings.
• CLDT is most appropriate for sub-reservoir 5, as
concluded above and as supported by the difference
histograms.
• In sub-reservoir 6, the difference histograms show that
ESTIME may the better than the other two. This calls for
another way or technique to finally decide as which is
better, CBR or ESTIME.
Visual Inspection of Permeability Maps
The three analysis techniques stated above are based on the
well test KH as compared to the estimators well KH. Visual
inspection of permeability maps is concerned with the K
distribution after modeling and upscaling8. This technique
should support our findings by adding another dimension to
the analysis down to the level of the layers of each sub-
reservoir of the field. Permeability maps of all reservoir layers
were inspected and appeared to support our findings. Figure 8
present the permeability maps for a sample layer of sub-
reservoir 4.
Simulation Model First K Realization
Taking into account about the suitability of permeability
estimators in the different sub-reservoirs of the field, the first
K realization of the simulation model was constructed by
using CBR K for sub-reservoirs 1, 2, and 6, and CLDT K for
the sub reservoirs 3, 4 and 5. The K of each estimator was
modeled to populate the cells between the wells, and then
upscaled using flow based averaging technique. The resulting
5
permeability array constituted the first permeability realization
of the simulation model.
Simulation Model Second and Third K Realization
As a second step, the first permeability realization of
simulation model was used to produce second and third
permeability realizations. This was achieved by prorating the
first permeability realization to well test K at the wells level of
the fine geological model. The steps followed in the prorating
process are very similar to the steps utilized to scale core K to
well test K. A program looks for the overlap between the test
intervals and the CLDT or CBR K data, depending on the
geological zone. Over any overlap, the program calculates the
test KH along with CLDT KH or CBR KH. Then the script
generates CBR and CLDT K multipliers by dividing test KH
by CBR KH or CLDT KH. Figure 9 presents the frequency
distribution of the CBR K multipliers in sub-reservoir 2, and
of the CLDT K multipliers in sub-reservoirs 3 and 4.
The simulation model second permeability realization is
generated by prorating the estimated permeability at the well
level, modeled to populate in between the wells and then
upscaled. The simulation model third permeability realization
is generated by first mapping the multiplier of the permeability
estimators in the geological model by Kriging, second,
multiplying the permeability estimator K maps by their
multipliers maps at the geological levels, and third, upscale the
new parameters (using flow based averaging technique) to the
upscaled zone or the simulation zone.
Testing of K Realizations
The three permeability realizations were tested in the
simulator for initialization and initial quality of the model
history matching. Rock types and their associated capillary
pressure curves are strongly linked to the permeability in the
geological model5. Accordingly, the simulation model cells’
saturation tables change with each permeability realization.
This makes little difference to STOIP, which varies only
0.3%.
The simulation model was run over 40 years of production
history. There are six sub-reservoirs with six sectors each and
over 580 production and injection strings involved in the
process. Testing the quality of the history match is performed
on four levels, including the field, sub-reservoir, sectors and
wells levels. The model initial quality of the history match is
inspected after running the model with the three permeability
realizations. The inspection includes:
• The ability of the model to make the required oil rate per
field, sub-reservoir and strings levels.
• The model levels of water cut and gas oil ratio, again for
the field, the sub-reservoirs and strings levels
• The model average pressures, for the field, sub-reservoirs,
sectors, and strings levels.
• The string bottom hole and tubing head flowing pressures.
The model’s second and third permeability realizations
conditioned to the wells test K, performed better than the first
6 SPE 84599
realization, which did not involve any conditioning to well test
K (just a combination of the permeability estimators). Model
performance is better with the second permeability realization
for five out of the six sub-reservoirs of the field, Figure 10.
The third permeability realization gave better performance for
onlt one sub-reservoir.
Since none of the permeability realizations performed best in
all the field’s sub-reservoirs, we decided to apply the third K
realization in sub-reservoir 1, and the second K realization in
all other sub-reservoirs. A combination of the second and the
third realization better describes the heterogeneity of the
reservoir.
Summary and Conclusions
• Permeability modeling of a large carbonate reservoir is
improved when more than one estimation is available.
• Four different techniques were utilized to aid the selection
of the best permeability estimator for each sub reservoir.
• The simulation model first K realization is built by
combining the K of the most appropriate estimators to the
different sub reservoirs.
• Conditioning the model first K realization to the test KH
derived two other K realizations.
• The model K maps is either multiplied by the ratio at he
well level then mapped or by mapping the multipliers
then multiplying by the permeability predictors.
• The permeability arrays that are conditioned to the test K
(second and third realizations) performed much better
than the first K array in matching the model production
and pressure history.
• By inspecting the quality of the simulation model history
match, neither the second nor the third K realization did
well in all sub reservoirs.
• A combination of the second and the third realization
better describes the heterogeneity of the reservoir to
produce a quality history matching of the simulation
model.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank ADNOC and ADMA OPCO
senior management for their continuous support and for
permission to publish this work. Samir Azir, ADMA-OPCO,
interpreted the geology and built the 3D geological model.
References
1. Plomb, J.P.: “Umm Shaif Arab Petrophysical Study”,
ADNOC/Schlumberger Joint Internal Report, Oct. 1991.
2. Kamal, M. M.: “Use of Pressure Transients To Describe
Reservoir Heterogeneity,” JPT (August 1979) 1060.
3. He, N., Oliver, D. S., and Reynolds, A. C.: “Conditioning
Stochastic Resevoir Models to Well-Test Data,” SPE
Reservoir Eval. & Eng. 3 (1), February 2000.
4. Landa, J. L., Horne, R. N., Kamal, M. M., and Jenkins, C.
D.: ”Reservoir Characterization Constrained to Well-Data:
A Field Example,” SPE Resevoir Eval. & Eng., Vol. 3, No.
4, August 2000.
5. Azer, S., Al-Aruri, A., Peebles, R., Boyd, D., and Lyon, T.:
“Umm Shaif Field Arab C and D Integrated
Multidisciplinary Reservoir Characterization Study”, Ref.
PDD/752, 3 Volumes, Internal, Report, Nov. 1999.
6. Boyd, D.: “Trustworthy Core Data”, Internal Document,
File Note Ref. No. 28/33330, Feb. 2002.
7. Pfeffer, D., Prezbindowski, D., Sherman, B. and Waite, M.:
“Comparison of Deterministic and Stochastic Methods of
Distributing Reservoir Properties in a Complex Carbonate
Reservoir: an Example from the Cretaceous Ratawi Oolite
in the Kuwait-Saudi Arabia Partitioned Neutral Zone”, Geo
2000 abstracts, p. 162.
8. Ghedan, S. G., Cunningham, T. W., Ehmaid, B. H, and
Azer, S. R., “Upscaling of Multimillion Cell Geological
Model into a Practical Simulation Model of a Major
Carbonate Oil Reservoir in Offshore Abu Dhabi”, Paper
SPE 78578 presented at the 10th Abu Dhabi International
Petroleum Exhibition and Conference, Abu Dhabi, UAE,
13-16 October, 2002.
SPE 84599 7

Wackestone Facies
120 Packstone Facies
180
100
160
80 140
Frequency

Frequency
120
60
100
40 80
60
20
40
0 20

0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 0

Permeability (Md) 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000

Permeability (Md)

Fig. 1- The probability of high permeability occurring

Grainstone Facies increases if grainstones comprise the majority of the
120 geological layer. The opposite applies to wackestones.
Depositional environment determines whether grainstones,
100 packstones or wackestones predominate and hence
likelihood of low, moderate or high permeability.
80
Identification of diagenetic processes which enhance
Frequency

or diminish permeability in certain areas of the field

60
are also important.
40

20

0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000

Permeability (Md)

Fig. 2- Geologically driven cloud transforms duplicate mean, maximum, minimum and frequency of
permeability for each reservoir layer and facie.
8 SPE 84599

Processing Flow

Cored Wells Query the Database Uncored Well

Layer Search for Same Layer among Cored Wells

Layer

Search for Same Facie among Cored Wells

Facie Facie

Search for the Most Statistically

Porosity & Lithology Porosity & Lithology
Similar Porosity and Lithology
Between Single Cored Well & Uncored Well

Search Moving Top to Bottom, Locate the Best Match Moving

Length Between Porosity and Lithology per Depth Level Window

Core Hz. Permeability Uncored Well

Copy Core Permeability to Uncored Well

at Moving Windows Current Depth Level

Terminate Predictive Process for Layer When End of Data Column Reached

Fig. 3- Cased Based Reasoning program flow chart.

1.E+05

Fig. 4- Conditioning Test K with Core K in one of the wells.

1.E+04
CLDT KH

1.E+05
1.E+03

1.E+02 1.E+04
ESTIME KH

1.E+02 1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05

Test KH

1.E+05 1.E+03

1.E+04
1.E+02
1.E+02 1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05
CBR KH

Test KH

1.E+03

Fig. 5- Cross Plots of Test KH vs. CLDT KH,

ESTIME KH and CBR KH of Wells Completed
in Layer 3.
1.E+02
1.E+02 1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05
Test KH
SPE 84599 9

2.E+05

2.E+05
Cum Test KH
Cum CLDT KH
1.E+05
Cum ESTIME KH
Cum CBR KH
1.E+05
Cum. KH, md.ft

1.E+05

8.E+04

6.E+04

4.E+04

2.E+04

0.E+00
005
025
031
035
041

043
047
051
072
076
091

095
098
101
104
107
110
112

113
115
118
119
124

125
140

145
157
161
169
174

179
183

208
Well Number

Fig. 6- Cumulative KH Plot for the Wells Completed in the Layer 2.

8
CLDT KH Diff.
7 ESTIME KH Diff.
CBR KH Diff.
6

5
Frequency

0
-2 -1.6 -1.2 -0.8 -0.4 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2
Log (Test KH) - Log (Est KH)

Fig. 7- KH Difference Histograms of Wells Completed in Layer 1.

10 SPE 84599

Well Test K ESTIME K CLDT K CBR K

Fig. 8- Test, RDS, CLDT, and CBR Permeability Distribution in a Sample layer in Sub-Reservoir 4. CLDT K is the Closest to Test K.

70 70
CBR K Multipliers Frequency CLDT K Multipliers Frequency
60 60

50 50
Frequency

40
Frequency

40

30 30

20 20

10 10

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
CBR K Multiplie r CLDT K Multiplier

30
CLDT K Multiplier Frequency
Fig. 9- CBR K Multiplier Frequency of CBR K in Sub-
25 Reservoir 2, CLDT K in Sub-Reservoirs 3 and 4.

20
Frequency

15

10

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
CLDT K Multiplier
SPE 84599 11

4500

4400

4300

4200
Sector Pressure, Psia

4100

4000

3900

3800

3700

3600

3500
Jan-62 Jan-66 Jan-70 Jan-74 Jan-78 Jan-82 Jan-86 Jan-90 Jan-94 Jan-98 Jan-02
Time, Ye ars

Model_2 WBP9 Model_3 WBP9 Measured BHCIP

Fig. 10- Observed BHCIPs Data of Certain Sector, Matched by the Model Average Wells WBP9
in that Sector. It Seems that the Model with Second K Realization is better matched than with
the third K Realization.