SPE 105350
Estimation of Permeability From Wireline Logs in a Middle Eastern Carbonate
Reservoir Using Fuzzy Logic
A. Abdulraheem, E. Sabakhi, and M. Ahmed, King Fahd U. of Petroleum and Minerals; A. Vantala, Geomechanics Intl.;
and I. Raharja and G. Korvin, King Fahd U. of Petroleum and Minerals
Copyright 2007, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 15th SPE Middle East Oil & Gas Show and
Conference held in Bahrain International Exhibition Centre, Kingdom of Bahrain, 11–14 March
2007.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than
300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Permeability is one of the most difficult properties to
predict, especially in carbonate reservoirs. The most reliable
data of permeability, obtained from laboratory measurements
on cores, do not provide a continuous profile along the depth
of the formation.
This paper presents the use of fuzzy logic modeling to
estimate permeability from wireline log data in a Middle
Eastern carbonate reservoir. In this study, correlation
coefficients are used as criteria for checking whether a given
wireline log is suitable as an input for fuzzy logic modeling.
The coefficients are enhanced if they are evaluated with
respect to the logarithm of core-based permeability values of
the given well.
After training the fuzzy model on a layer in a given well,
permeability predictions were made for other layers in the
same well. These predictions were in excellent agreement
with permeability values obtained from cores. It was also
observed that Subtractive Clustering technique gives better
predictions of permeability when compared with Grid
Partitioning technique.
A parametric study was also conducted to see the effect of
type and number of membership functions, combination of log
input parameters, and data size on predictions of permeability.
The possibility of training the fuzzy program on one well and
testing it for other wells in the same formation is also
explored.
Introduction
Reality does not work in black and white but in shades of
grey. Fuzzy logic uses the benefits of approximate reasoning.
It simulates the human expert’s reasoning process much more
realistically than do conventional expert systems. It is an
efficient tool for modeling the kind of uncertainty associated
with vagueness, imprecision, and/or a lack of information
regarding a particular problem. Fuzzy logic is simply an
application of recognized statistical techniques.
Recently, fuzzy logic has achieved considerable attention
in several areas of geosciences. The oil industry has shown
considerable interest in the fuzzy logic technique to predict
permeability in un-cored wells. Fuzzy logic is simply an
application of recognized statistical techniques and is an
extension of conventional Boolean logic (zeros and ones)
developed to handle the concept of partial truth, i.e., values
between complete truth (ones) and totally false (zeros).
This paper presents fuzzy logic modeling to predict
permeability using conventional open-hole logs.
Literature Review
Permeability prediction is a challenge to reservoir
engineers due to the lack of tools that measure them directly.
It is a function of pore throats rather than pore size, and
therefore can not be related directly to the electrical logs.
There is a weak correlation between porosity and permeability
as is shown by the spread of points on typical crossplots of
porosity and permeability.
Fuzzy logic can be used as a simple tool for confirming
known correlations or as a powerful predictor in wells where
core samples are not available.
Cuddy [1] implemented fuzzy logic for litho-facies and
permeability prediction. In the first phase of his study, fuzzy
logic was applied for lithofacies prediction form well logs in
Viking field, Southern North Sea. Three major lithofacies
associations were recognized from core studies. A well with
substantial core coverage was used to calibrate litho-facies and
permeability predictor for the older wells. Using the fuzzy
relationships between the described lithofacies and electrical
logs, litho-facies were predicted in a second well. The
prediction success in this second well between the predicted
facies and ‘‘hidden’’ described facies is 73%, with the
majority of the ‘‘failed’’ predictions falling into the next-
closest litho-facies type rather than one with completely
different reservoir characteristics.
In the second phase of Cuddy’s work, fuzzy logic was
applied for permeability prediction from well logs in Ula field,
Southwest Norway. The fuzzy prediction technique was
calibrated in a cored well and ‘‘blind tested’’ in another well
2 SPE 105350
to see how well it fitted the actual core permeabilities. The
comparison between the predicted and core-derived
permeabilities showed good matching between these values.
Lee and Gupta [2] proposed a two-step approach to
permeability prediction that utilizes non-parametric regression
in conjunction with multivariate statistical analysis. They
classified the well log data into electrofacies types. A
combination of principal component analysis, model-based
cluster analysis and discriminant analysis was used to
characterize and identify electrofacies types. In the second
step, non-parametric regression techniques were applied to
predict permeability using well logs within each electrofacies.
Fuzzy logic was also applied for lithofacies and
permeability forecasting by Hambalek [3]. Fuzzy logic was
applied to establish a narrow relation between well logs and
the seven rock types of the sedimentological model that
describes a very complex reservoir in Eastern Venezuela.
Core analysis of five wells and the established fuzzy relations
were used to get the lithofacies descriptions. Permeability was
also estimated in eighteen wells of the same area having only
electrical logs. The efficiency of the developed algorithm is
verified against a control well with both log and core data.
Gamma ray, Porosity, and V-shale logs were used as inputs for
permeability prediction.
Amabeoku et al. [4] used fuzzy logic to model and predict
permeability in cored wells by calibrating core permeability
against conventional open-hole logs.
Taghavi [5] used three methods to predict permeability
from well log data for a heterogeneous carbonate reservoir in
an Iranian oil field. These methods are 1) permeability from
effective porosity 2) multilinear regression, and 3) fuzzy logic.
He concluded that fuzzy logic yields better results than the
two other methods.
Ilkhchi et al [6] used data from three wells of the Iran
offshore gas field for the construction of fuzzy logic models of
the reservoir, and a fourth well was used as a test well to
evaluate the reliability of the models. A fuzzy c-means
clustering technique was used for rock type classification
using porosity and permeability data. Permeability was
modeled and predicted using a Takagi-Sugeno fuzzy inference
system. Their results show that show that fuzzy logic
approach was successful for the prediction of permeability in
rocks of the gas field.
Approach to the Problem
To develop the fuzzy relationship, rules and membership
functions have to be developed from the available input data.
The Adaptive network based fuzzy inference systems (ANFIS)
approach was adopted to learn the rules and membership
functions from data. ANFIS is a network of nodes and
directional links. Associated with the network is a learning
rule - for example back propagation. It is called adaptive
because some, or all, of the nodes have parameters which
affect the output of the node. These networks are learning a
relationship between inputs and outputs. A combination of the
least-squares method and the back propagation gradient
descent method for training fuzzy inference system (FIS)
membership function parameters is applied to emulate a given
training data set.
A single-output Sugeno-type FIS is generated using a grid
partition on the data [7; 8]. FIS is used to provide initial
conditions for ANFIS training. Each rule generated by FIS
has one output membership function, which is of type 'linear'
by default.
The grid partition is the most commonly used among the
fuzzy partitioning methods in practice. Wang and Mendel
have used this type of fuzzy partition in their procedure for
fuzzy rule extraction from numerical data [9]. A typical grid
partition in a two-dimensional input space is shown in Figure
1. The grids in Figure 1(a) are uniformly partitioned and
static. The performance of the resultant model depends
entirely on the initial definition of these grids. An adaptive
fuzzy grid partition can be obtained if we introduce some
learning procedure in constructing the partition. Figure 1(b)
gives an example of an adaptive fuzzy grid partition in a two-
dimensional input space. Grid partition (both static and
adaptive) is convenient to use, but it may encounter a serious
“rule explosion” problem when the number of input variables
is large. This problem is closely related to the so-called “curse
of dimensionality”, the well-known problem of exponentially
increasing complexity with the number of input variables.
In addition to grid partitioning, clustering of the input data
was also carried out. An initial FIS for ANFIS training was
generated by first implementing subtractive clustering on the
data. This is accomplished by extracting a set of rules that
models the data behavior. The rule extraction method first
determines the number of rules and antecedent membership
functions and then uses linear least squares estimation to
determine each rule’s consequent equations. The number of
rules and antecedent membership functions are extracted from
the data by finding the optimal data point to define a cluster
center. The purpose of clustering is to provide a method that
shows how to group data points that populate some multi-
dimensional space into a specific number of different clusters.
Development of Software for Fuzzy Logic Using
MATLAB
A software for fuzzy logic was developed using MATLAB to
handle training of the model and then predict for the new
layers or wells [10]. Some of the features of the software are
described below.
Handling core data: The core data file was of Log ASCII
Standard (.las) format containing the depth, porosity and
permeability information of the cores. The program was
coded to extract and refine the data into two sets containing
header text and the numeric data.
Handling Marker data: The marker data file contains the
details about the formations at various depths from which
cores were obtained. The software handles the marker data as
follows:
• Checks the number of formations in each file. Takes each
formation as a Top, for example Top1, Top2 based on
depth;
• Checks the corresponding core data file and accesses the
core data for each Top (formation) based on the depth
information available in the marker data file;
SPE 105350
• Counts the number of core data points available for that
depth range; and creates a temporary file containing
information about depth, tops and number of core data
points.
Handling wireline data: The wireline log data was of Log
ASCII Standard (.las) format and contained eleven to thirteen
parameters apart from depth. Based on correlation study, out
of these parameters only six were chosen for predicting
permeability using fuzzy logic. Similar to the handling of core
data, the software was coded to perform a number of
operations. Most important among these are the following:
• Segregates the relevant parameters along with its header
information;
• Reads data from the given tops file (data containing the
information regarding the layers and the number of core
data points in that layer);
• Divides the data as per the tops;
• Interpolates the positive data for missing log values at the
depths where core data is available using linear
interpolation;
• Based on the available interpolated data, checks if fuzzy
logic can be applied based on the number of core data
points. The following is the minimum required criteria for
applying fuzzy logic:
Core points > nlogs*nmfs+1
Core points = Number of core points available in each
layer (top)
nlogs = Number of log parameters used for fuzzy logic
prediction
nmfs = Number of membership functions used in fuzzy
logic
e.g. if nlogs = 6 and nmfs = 2 then there should be at least 13
core data points, with each point having corresponding log
data points.
Graphical User Interface (GUI)
A Graphic User Interface (GUI) is developed to allow the
user to perform the necessary steps for predicting
permeability. Figure 2 shows a typical screenshot of the GUI.
The GUI is divided in to 3 major panels namely a) Data Input
Panel; b) Data Modeling Panel; and c) Data Output Panel. A
brief description of each of these panels is given below.
Data Input Panel: The Data Input Panel is designed to handle
input data for the model. It consists of 3 sub-panels namely i)
Existing Well Wireline Data; ii) Existing Well Core Data; and
iii) New Well Wireline Data. The first two subpanels are for
selecting log and core data for training as well as testing using
a given well. The third sub-panel is for selecting a new well,
which has only wireline log inputs.
Data Modeling Panel: The Data Modeling Panel provides the
user the option to model the given input data using Grid
Partition (GP) technique or Subtractive Clustering technique.
The panel also helps in selection of different fuzzy logic tools
such as type and number of membership functions.
3
Data Output Panel: The data output panel helps the user to
select different training and testing options. Based on the
input data, a user can choose to predict permeability data for a
part of the data in the same well. This will help him assess the
strength or weakness of the model. Another option is to train
the software on one well and use it for prediction for another
well where core data is not available.
Predictions and Parametric Study
It was observed that the fifth top contained maximum
number of core data points in all wells and hence was used for
training and testing the fuzzy logic program.
To start with, a correlation analysis was carried out on the
wireline data by correlating the core permeability (k) with
individual wireline logs, namely, CT, DRHO, DT, DR, MSFL,
NPHI, PHIT, RHOB, RT, SWT. The terms are explained in
Table 1. Log10 was applied to MSFL and CT to check if the
correlation coefficient can be enhanced since the values of CT
and MSFL were in the range of several orders of magnitude.
Since the range of permeability was also found to be of several
orders of magnitude, log10 was applied to the core
permeability values also. Significant improvements were
observed in the correlation coefficients. Table 2 shows the
coefficients after applying logarithms to respective log and
core data.
Wireline logs having correlation coefficient values greater
than 0.5 were chosen as inputs for permeability prediction.
The six wireline log input parameters chosen are DT, MSFL,
NPHI, PHIT, RHOB, and SWT.
The data set of each well was divided into two separate
sets namely ‘training’ and ‘testing’. The data points were
distributed among training and testing sets in a fixed and
uniform manner to help in comparing the outputs from
different approaches. For a given well, 70% of the data set
was used for training while the remaining 30% was used for
testing.
The criteria used for evaluating the predicted values include:
• The agreement between the predicted and the actual core
permeabilities;
• The number of outliers, i.e., predicted values that lie far
away from the actual data; and
• The RMSE (Root mean square of error) between the
actual and the predicted value.
A predicted point is considered an outlier if its value is out
of range (maximum or minimum) of the actual data. Other
error values were also evaluated but the RMSE was
considered to be enough for comparison. The outliers were
dealt with by replacing them with the corresponding maximum
or minimum core permeability values.
Membership Functions
Seven types of membership functions, viz., gauss, gauss2,
gbell, tri, trap, pi, and psig were used to develop the fuzzy
inference system. For a given type, a maximum of two
membership functions were assigned for each log input. Only
two membership functions were assigned for each input.
Preliminary studies showed that increasing membership
functions from two to three did not enhance the output
4 SPE 105350
significantly. Rather, it resulted in excessive usage of virtual
memory and computational time.
Typical plots with their degrees of membership for ‘tri’
membership functions are shown in Figure 3. Figure 3(a)
shows the initial membership functions. The modified
membership function generated by Sugeno-type FIS structure
using grid partitioning is shown in Figure 3(b).
Hence further investigations on the Grid-Partitioning based
fuzzy modeling were carried out using triangular membership
function only.
Grid Partitioning (GP) Versus Subtractive Clustering (SC)
Apart from Grid Partitioning (GP), the data for fuzzy
inference system was generated using another established
technique called Subtractive Clustering (SC). For SC, a
cluster radius of 0.1 was selected for analysis. The radius
indicates the range of influence of a cluster when the data
space is considered as a unit hypercube. Small cluster radius
leads to generation of a large number of clusters, thereby,
rules.
The number of outliers in the predictions of permeability
using SC, both during testing and training, were found to be
lesser than those obtained using GP. The trained and tested
data output using ‘GP’ (‘tri’ membership function type) and
‘SC’ for W-2 is shown in Figure 4. From the figure and from
the data on outliers and errors (not reported here), it was found
that SC technique gives better permeability prediction than the
GP technique.
The Effect of Using ‘k’ and ‘log10k’ on Permeability
Prediction
The data of well W-2 was trained and tested using ‘k’ as
well as ‘log10k’. Both GP and SC techniques were used in
training. Figure 5 shows the predictions obtained using k and
log10k by applying SC technique. Based on the match between
the predicted and actual data, the data on outliers, and RMSE
analyses, it was observed that using log10k gives better
permeability prediction than using only k.
Permeability Prediction Based on Individual Logs and
their Combinations
The effect of individual log input parameters and their
different combinations on predicted permeability was also
investigated. These cases, represented by different labels, are
shown in Table 3.
Three tops from three different wells having maximum
numbers of data points were selected for this study (W-1, W-2,
and W-6). For the sake of brevity, only one case showing the
variation of error with increasing log combinations is
presented in Figure 6.
A general trend that could be observed is that the predicted
permeability is close to the actual permeability with increasing
input parameters (log combinations).
The Effect of Data Size on Permeability Prediction
Since fuzzy logic predictions depend on the amount of data
available, a study was carried out to check the minimum
number of training points needed for reliable prediction of the
permeability. For this, fuzzy modeling using both fuzzy
clustering and non-clustering was performed on the following
two data sets belonging to the same well (W-2).
a. Training (70%) and testing (30%) or 70-30. This is already
described earlier.
b. Training (50%) and testing (50%) or 50-50; and
c. Training (30%) and testing (70%) or 30-70.
‘Tri’ membership function for non-clustering with two
membership function for each input with 10 epochs was used
on the 50-50 and 30-70 dataset. Apart from this, the two data
sets were also analyzed using fuzzy clustering technique with
a cluster radius of 0.1.
Figure 7 shows the predicted permeability obtained using
the three different percentages of training and testing data.
Both GP and SC techniques were used on the data sets. As
expected, it was observed that the larger the data points, the
closer the predictions to true values. However, for the cases
considered here, there is no significant change in predictions
even for 30-70 dataset. This shows that if there is a good
correlation between core permeability and different logs,
fewer points are enough to train the model. It may be noted
here that for the rest of the predictions, we have used 70-30
approach.
Training and Testing Using the Entire Well Data
The above predictions were made for a given top or
formation within a given well. A study was conducted to
check the efficiency of the fuzzy logic program for the entire
well. Several wells were studied for this purpose and the data
of the each given well were considered both for training as
well as testing.
The errors generated during Fuzzy Logic prediction of
permeability using GP and SC techniques are shown in Figure
8 for these wells. From the figure it is clear that the SC
technique generates fewer outliers and errors when compared
with the GP technique. Figure 9 shows that the actual
permeability values match well with those of predicted values.
For the sake of brevity, results are shown for SC technique
only.
Training the Model Using a Well Data and Testing it for
Other Wells
In view of the field application of the Fuzzy Logic
program, an entire well was considered for training; testing
was done using the data of other individual wells.
Different combinations, as shown in Table 3, were used to
test the predictions given by the model. It was observed that
the errors were low for individual ‘P’ (PHIT) and ‘R’ (RHOB)
log inputs as well as their combination, as shown in Figure 10.
For other combinations, the predictions were not satisfactory.
This aspect needs further investigation. Figure 11 shows the
predictions made using PHIT data from well W-2 for training
the model and then using it to predict for the remaining wells.
The second strip in the figure shows the match for well (W-2)
which was used for training.
Training the Model Using Multiple Wells and Testing it on
a Different Well
Study was also performed to check the predictions when
the training is carried out using input data from six different
wells. The model is tested for predictions for the seventh well.
SPE 105350
The wireline input logs were NPHI and RHOB for this work.
The study was repeated for different wells within that group,
leaving one well at a time.
Figure 12 shows the results of training for all of these
wells. It may be noted that even though the calibration was
done for all the seven wells, the plots show the match for one
well at a time only. Figure 13 shows the same plots but for
testing.
From the results it can be concluded that for a new well in
a formation, the fuzzy model trained using the combination of
data from surrounding wells can help in getting a good
prediction of permeability.
Conclusions
The following conclusions can be drawn out from the
study:
• Fuzzy Logic modeling is capable of predicting the
permeability using different relevant log data inputs.
• Correlation coefficient can be used as a criterion for
checking whether a given wireline log is suitable as an
input for fuzzy logic modeling or not. This coefficient is
enhanced if it is evaluated with respect to the logarithm of
core-based permeability values of the given well.
• Subtractive Clustering technique with a radius of 0.1
gives better predictions of permeability when compared
with Grid partitioning technique.
• For training and testing on the same well tops, the
predicted permeability for the missing intervals is very
close to the actual permeability. Further, the predictions
improve with increasing number of input log-data curves.
The same is true for wells instead of tops only.
• For the case when the training and testing data are from
different well tops, permeability prediction depends upon
the similarities between the rocks of the two regions. The
same is true for wells instead of tops only. For the wells
under study, the predictions were satisfactory.
• For a new well in a formation, the fuzzy model trained
using a combination of data from surrounding wells can
help in getting a good prediction of permeability.
Acknowledgement
The authors acknowledge the support provided by King
Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals during this research
work.
References
1. Cuddy, S. J. (1998). Litho-Facies and Permeability
Prediction from Electrical Logs using Fuzzy Logic.
Paper SPE (49470) Presented at 8th Abu Dhabi
International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference.
5
2. Lee, H.S. and Gupta, A. D. (1999). Electrofacies
characterization and permeability predictions in
carbonate reservoirs: Role of multivariate analysis and
nonparametric regression Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition in Houston (Texas, 3–6 October) SPE
56658.
3. Hambalek N. and G. Reinaldo, (2003). Fuzzy logic
applied to lithofacies and permeability forecasting.
Paper SPE (81078) presented at SPE Latin America
and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference,
Port of Spain, Trinidad, West Indies.
4. Amabeoku, M.O. Lin, C. Khalifa, A.A. Cole, J.,
Dahan, M., J. Jarlow, and Ajufo, A. (2005). Use of
Fuzzy-Logic Permeability Models To Facilitate 3D
Geocellular Modeling and Reservoir Simulation:
Impact on Business. Presented at the International
Petroleum Technology Conference , 21-23 November,
Doha, Qatar.
5. Taghavi, A.A. (2005). Improved Permeability
Estimation through use of Fuzzy Logic in a Carbonate
Reservoir from Southwest, Iran. Presented at SPE
Middle East Oil and Gas Show and Conference, Mar 12
- 15, 2005, Kingdom of Bahrain.
6. Ilkhchi, A.K., Rezaee, M., and, Moallemi, S.A. 2006.
A fuzzy logic approach for estimation of permeability
and rock type from conventional well log data: an
example from the Kangan reservoir in the Iran Offshore
Gas Field. J. Geophys. Eng. 3 (2006) 356–369.
7. Sugeno, M. 1985. Industrial applications of fuzzy
control. New York Elsevier U.S.A.
8. Takagi, T. and M. Sugeno (1985). Fuzzy identification
of systems and its applications to modeling and control.
IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybernet, pp. 116-132.
9. Wang, L. and J. M. Mendel (1992). Fuzzy Basis
Functions, Universal Approximation, and Orthogonal
Least- Squares Learning. IEEE Transactions on Neural
Networks. vol. 3, No. 5, pp. 807-814.
10. MATLAB user’s Guide 2001 Fuzzy logic toolbox,
MATLAB CD-ROM Mathworks, Inc.
6 SPE 105350

(a) (b)
Figure 1. Various methods for partitioning the input space: (a) Grid partitioning (static); (b) Grid partitioning (adaptive).

Figure 2. GUI for the Fuzzy logic model.

SPE 105350 7

Initial Tri-MF’s
Initial MFs UTMN635 tri Final MFs UTMN635 tri
Final Tri MF’s
1 1
x
degre mfs

degre mfs
0.5 0.5

0 0
0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
1 input1
1 input1 x
degre mfs

degre mfs
0.5 0.5

0 0
0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
1 input2
1 input2 x
degre mfs

degre mfs
0.5 0.5

0 0
0.5 1 1.5 2 0.5 1 1.5 2
1 input3
1 input3 x
degre mfs

degre mfs

0.5 0.5

0 0
2.2
1
2.3 2.4
input4
2.5 2.6 2.7 2.2 2.3 2.4
input4
2.5 2.6 2.7
x
1
degre mfs

degre mfs

0.5 0.5

0 0

1
0 0.2 0.4
input5
0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4
input5
0.6 0.8 1
x
1
degre mfs

degre mfs

0.5 0.5

0 0
40 50 60
input6
70 80 90 40 50 60
input6
70 80 90
x

Figure 3. Initial and final membership functions for the grid x

partitioning technique using ‘Tri’ membership functions.

Figure 5. Actual and predicted permeability using SC for Well

W-2; first two strips show the case for training and testing
using k; the last two for the case using Log(k).

150 training errors

testing errors
x

100
x
Error

50
x

0
x
M

PM
N

N
PR

PM S
PM SD
P

PM

SD
PM

R
R

x Log Combinations

x Figure 6. Errors generated during Fuzzy modeling for

different log combinations using SC technique for the Well W-
2.
x

Figure 4. Actual and predicted permeability for well W-2; first

two strips show the case for training and testing using GP;
the last two for the case using SC.
8 SPE 105350

X
X

X
X

Figure 7. Actual and predicted permeability using SC for Well Figure 9. Actual and predicted permeability using SC; first
W-2; first two strips show the case for training with 70% data two strips show the case for Well W-1; the second two for the
and testing using 30% or 70-30; the second two for the 50-50; Well W-2; the last two for the Well W-3.
the last two for 30-70.

GP-training
SC-training
700 P
800 GP-testing
SC-testing
600
R
600 500
PR
400
E rro r

Error

400
300

200
200
100

0 0
W-1
619 W-2
635 W-3
653 W-4
682 W-5
688 W-6
1076 W-7
1455 W-1
619 W-2
635 W-3
653 W-4
682 W-5
688 W-6
1076 W-7
1455
WELLS
Well Number

Figure 8. RMSE error generated during FL modeling for Figure 10. RMSE error generated during FL modeling for
different wells (70% trn -30% tst) using GP and SC techniques. different wells using ‘W-2’ as calibration well with SC
technique.
SPE 105350 9

X X
X
X
X
X X
X
X X

X
X

X
X X
X
X X
X

X X
X
X
X X
X

X
X
X

X
X X
X X

X X

X X

X X
X
X

Figure 11. Actual and predicted permeability for different Wells (W-1, W-2, W-3, W-4, W-5, W-6 and W-7) with ‘W-2’ as calibration well
SC technique using ‘PHIT’ (P) log as input.

X X
X
X
X
X X

X
X
X
X
X

X X
X
X X
X
X

X X
X X
X
X X

X X

X
X
X X X

X X

X
X
X
X
X
X

Figure 12. Actual and predicted permeability during training with NPHI and RHOB as log inputs for Wells W-1, W-2, W-3, W-4, W-5, W-
6 and W-7.
10 SPE 105350

X X

X
X
X X

X X

X X

X
X X
X
X
X

X
X X

X X X

X X X
X
X

X
X
X

X
X
X

Figure 13. Actual and predicted permeability during testing with NPHI and RHOB as log inputs for Wells W-1, W-2, W-3, W-4, W-5, W-6
and W-7.
SPE 105350 11

Table 1. Terms used to represent different Logs.

Term Log type
CT: True formation conductivity
DT: Compressional wave travel time
GR: Gamma Ray
MSFL: Microspherical focused resistivity log
NPHI: Neutron porosity
PHIT: Total porosity
RHOB: Bulk Density
RT: Resistivity
SWT: Un-flushed zone saturation

Table 2. Correlation of log10(k) with wireline parameters.

Well# W-1 W-2 W-3 W-4 W-5 W-6 W-7
Log10(kcore) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
phicore 0.89 0.86 0.84 0.80 0.79 0.81 0.72
CT 0.27 0.57 -0.09 0.16 -0.02 -0.04 0.12
log10(CT) 0.19 0.40 -0.10 -0.04 -0.13 0.02 0.05
DRHO -0.44 -0.33 -0.28 -0.17 -0.24 -0.15 0.15
DT - 0.83 0.66 0.68 0.54 0.73 0.50
GR -0.09 -0.08 -0.21 -0.17 -0.22 -0.19 0.31
MSFL -0.50 -0.76 -0.24 0.04 -0.28 -0.13 -
log(MSFL) -0.74 -0.80 -0.39 -0.09 -0.38 -0.33 -
NPHI 0.82 0.83 0.72 0.73 0.51 0.78 0.62
PHIT 0.83 0.85 0.73 0.71 0.54 0.78 0.70
RHOB -0.80 -0.84 -0.70 -0.65 -0.52 -0.76 -0.57
RT -0.13 -0.04 0.10 0.17 -0.01 -0.07 0.06
SWT -0.52 -0.53 -0.71 -0.55 -0.46 -0.58 -0.66

Table 3. Letter codes representing logs or their combinations.

LABELS Log or combination of Logs
N: NPHI or Neutron porosity log
P: PHIT or Total porosity log
M: MSFL or Micro-spherical formation resistivity log
R: RHOB or Bulk density log
S: SWT or Water saturation log
D: DT or Compressional velocity travel time for one
PR: Combination of logs for P and R (as listed above)
PM: Combination of logs for P and M
PMR: Combination of logs for P, M, and R
PMRS: Combination of logs for P, M, R and S
PMRSD: Combination of logs for P, M, R, S and D
PMRSDN: Combination of logs for P, M, R, S, D and N