SPE-195861-MS

Hierarchical Geomodeling Approach for Ultra High Permeability Reservoir

Wei Xu, CNOOC Research Institute Co., Ltd.; Beijing Key Laboratory of Unconventional Natural Gas Geological
Evalution and Development Engineeing, China University of Geosciences Beijing; Kaiyuan Chen, Beijing Key
Laboratory of Unconventional Natural Gas Geological Evalution and Development Engineeing, China University of
Geosciences Beijing; Lei Fang, Yingchun Zhang, Zhiyi Jing, Jun Liu, and Jingyun Zou, CNOOC Research Institute
Co., Ltd.

Copyright 2019, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 30 Sep - 2 October 2019.

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 have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper 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 SPE copyright.

Abstract
The lacustrine delta sandbody deposited in the north of Albert Basin is unconsolidated due to the shallow
burial depth, which leads to an ultra-high permeability (up to 20 D) with large variation and poor diagenesis.
Log derived permeability differs greatly with DST results. Thus, permeability simulation is challenging
in 3D geomodeling. A hierarchical geomodeling approach is presented to bridge the gap among the ultra-
high permeability log, model and DST results. The ultimate permeability model successfully matched the
logging data and DST results into the geological model.
Based on the study of sedimentary microfacies, the new method identifies different discrete rocktypes
(DRT) according to the analyis of core, thin section and conventional and special core analysis (e.g.,
capillary pressure). In this procedure, pore throat radius, flow zone index (FZI) and other parameters are
taken into account to identify the DRT. Then, hierarchical modeling approach is utilized in the geomodeling.
Firstly, the sedimentary microfacies model is established within the stratigraphic framework. Secondly, the
spatial distribution model of DRT is established under the control of sedimentary microfacies. Thirdly, the
permeability distribution is simulated according to the different pore-permeability relation functions derived
from each DRT. Finally, the permeability model is compared with the logging and testing results.
Winland equation was improved based on the capillary pressure (Pc) data of special core analysis. It is
found that the highest correlation between pore throat radius and reservoir properties was reached when
mercury injection was 35%. The corresponding formula of R35 is selected to calculate the radius of reservoir
pore throat. Reservoirs are divided into four discrete rock types according to parameters such as pore throat
radius and flow zone index. Each rock type has its respective lithology, thin section feature and pore-
permeability relationship. The ultra-high permeability obtained by DST test reaches up to 20 D, which
belongs to the first class (DRT1) quality reservoir. It is located in the center of the delta channel with high
degree of sorting and roundness. DRT4 is mainly located in the bank of the channels. It has a much higher
shale content and the permeability is generally less than 50 mD. Through three-dimensional geological
model, sedimentary facies, rock types and pore-permeability model are coupled hierarchically. Different
2 SPE-195861-MS

pore-permeability relationships are given to different DRTs. After reconstructing the permeability model,
the simulation results are highly matched with the log and DST test results.
This hierarchical geomodeling approach can effectively solve the simulation problem in the ultra-high
permeability reservoir. It realizes a quantitative characterization for the complex reservoir heterogeneity.
The method presented can be applied to clastic reservoir. It also plays a significant positive role in carbonate
reservoir characterization.
Key words: Rocktype, Ultra high permeability, Hierarchical geomodeling, Reservoir heterogeneity

Introduction
With the increasing difficulty of oil and gas field development, the requirement of reservoir quantitative
description and characterization is becoming higher and higher (Fan Zifei et al., 2014). Conventional
facies-constrained stochastic modeling realizes the quantitative characterization of reservoirs to a certain
extent. However, for the efficient development of oil and gas fields, the scale of sedimentary facies is
difficult to meet the needs of actual production (Wu Shenghe et al., 2007; Liu Wenling, 2008). In shallow
unconsolidated sandstone oilfield, reservoir diagenesis is weak, and the heterogeneity is strong. Especially,
the permeability gradient is large. For such reservoirs, permeability simulation in conventional facies scale
geological model is facing severe challenges, which seriously affects the accuracy of reservoir numerical
simulation (Yuan Xintao et al., 2005).
In this paper, based on the study of sedimentary microfacies in J oilfield, northern Albert Basin,
Uganda, Rocktypes were divided by core analysis, log interpretation, thin section identification, analysis
and laboratory data, and then established microfacies model, Rocktype model and physical property model
with the idea of multi-stage facies-constrained modeling to quantify reservoirs. Characterization provides
accurate data basis for reservoir numerical simulation.

Hierarchic geological modeling methods

Shortcomings of conventional facies-constrained modeling
For oilfields with homogeneous reservoirs, the results of conventional facies-constrained modeling can
reflect the actual situation of oilfields well (Yu Xinghe, 2009). However, when the heterogeneity of
reservoir is strong, the simulation of sedimentary facies or lithofacies scale is not enough to characterize the
internal differences of sand bodies. Especially for shallow unconsolidated sandstone reservoirs in rift basins,
because of the influence of differential compaction and cementation, the physical properties of sedimentary
microfacies or lithofacies change rapidly, and the geophysical response characteristics are quite different. It
is impossible to accurately characterize the heterogeneity characteristics of reservoirs by dividing different
facies zones only, which may also lead to large deviations in simulation results.

Advantages of hierarchic geological modeling methods

In order to more accurately characterize the reservoir characteristics with strong heterogeneity, based on
the study of sedimentary microfacies, through the comprehensive analysis of core observation, logging
interpretation, thin section identification, and laboratory data, the reservoir was subdivided into several
types of Rocktypes. For each Rocktype, it has different physical property distribution characteristics.
The idea of hierarchic facies-constrained modeling is firstly to establish a sedimentary microfacies model
reflecting the sand body skeleton by using multi-condition constraints after the completion of the structure
and stratigraphic model, then establish a Rocktype model within the sand body framework under the strict
constraints of the microfacies model, and then establish a reservoir attribute model under the control of the
Rocktype model (Figure 1). The model established by this method not only reflects the spatial distribution
characteristics of reservoirs, but also quantitatively characterizes the heterogeneity of reservoirs. It can
SPE-195861-MS 3

effectively compensate for the shortcomings of conventional facies-constrained modeling. The simulation
results are more consistent with the actual underground situation, and provide a more accurate data basis
for reservoir numerical simulation.

Figure 1—Workflow map of multi-hierarchic facies-constrained geological modeling

Geological characteristics
Structural background and reservoir characteristics
Albert Basin, located at the northern end of the Western Branch of the East African Rift Valley, is a Cenozoic
graben rich in oil and gas, most of which are covered by deep lakes (Dou Lirong et al., 2004) (Fig. 2).
J oilfield is located in the north of Albert basin. At present, 10 wells have been drilled, which distribute
uniformly in the oil-bearing range. The target stratum is Pliocene unconsolidated sandstone with an average
burial depth of 450 m. It can be divided into five sublayers from top to bottom (Xu Wei et al., 2015). Shallow
water delta deposits are developed in the oilfield.
4 SPE-195861-MS

Figure 2—Structure location and formation of J oil field in the north of Albert Basin, Uganda

The reservoir is mainly composed of distributary channel sand bodies. The horizontal channel branches
intersect and cut each other, and overlap vertically. The spatial distribution of reservoirs is very complex.
Reservoir has good physical properties and belongs to high porosity-extra high porosity, high permeability-
extra high permeability reservoir. Locally, it is characterized by medium-low porosity and medium-low
permeability. Because of the strong heterogeneity between layers and within layers, the results of reservoir
permeability interpreted by well logging differ greatly from those interpreted by well testing (Table 1).

Table 1—Reservoir permeability (allvalues in Darcys) comparison between well log and well test

Well J-2A J-3 J-4 J-5A

Layer H1 H2 H2 H3 H5 H2 H3

Logging interpretation results 10 24 17 8 18 16 21

Well test interpretation results 7.9 17 35.6 18.9 43.6 16.7 18.9

Ratio of log interpretation results to well test

1.27 1.41 0.48 0.42 0.41 0.96 1.11
interpretation results

Sedimentary facies
Based on the characteristics of regional tectonic sedimentary evolution and comprehensive analysis of
paleontology, core, logging and seismic data, it is considered that the northern part of Albert lake basin is a
shallow water delta sedimentary model (Yang Xiaoli et al., 2015). The target interval of J oilfield develops
SPE-195861-MS 5

delta plain (H2-H5), delta front (H1) and pre-delta (above H1) subfacies successively from bottom to top.
The distributary channel of delta plain is the main reservoir with good reservoir properties, while the sand
body of delta front is thin, the distribution of delta front is limited in plane, and the reservoir physical
properties are relatively poor.

Rocktype classification
Reservoir heterogeneity
By quantitatively calculating the coefficient of variation, coefficient of penetration and gradation of
permeability in different facies zones, the degree of reservoir heterogeneity and permeability distribution
characteristics were evaluated. The H1 layer is mainly composed of fine-silt and medium-fine sandstone,
with relatively poor physical properties and large variation. Its porosity is 6.5%-34.8%, permeability is
0.1-2747.6 mD. The coefficient of variation is over 1.5, the coefficient of penetration is 4.2, the permeability
difference can reach 17 000, and the degree of heterogeneity is strong. The lithology of H2-H5 layer
is mainly medium-coarse sand with good physical properties. It belongs to high-extra high porosity and
permeability reservoir with porosity of 30-40% and up to 45%. Permeability is generally over 10 D,
coefficient of variation is about 0.5, coefficient of penetration is less than 2.5, permeability gradient is 343
in layer H4, other layers are mostly below 10, and overall heterogeneity is weaker than H1 (Table 2).

Table 2—Reservoir interlayer heterogeneity quantitative parameters of J oil field

Single Sand Stratification Coefficient of Penetration

Layers Gradation
Thickness /m coefficient variation coefficient

H1 1.57 4.30 1.11 2.96 5014.00

H2 5.43 3.00 0.49 1.84 5.39

H4 2.78 3.50 0.75 2.35 343

H5 5.40 3.81 0.39 1.52 3.13

For reservoirs with large permeability gradient, sedimentary microfacies scale will conceal the
heterogeneity characteristics of reservoirs, and it is difficult to accurately characterize the changes of
heterogeneity within reservoirs. In order to quantitatively characterize the heterogeneity within reservoirs,
it is necessary to further divide Rocktypes to achieve the fine characterization and characterization of
reservoirs.

Rocktype classification methods

In order to further quantitatively study the internal heterogeneity characteristics of J oilfield, Rocktype
classification was carried out according to the following methods. Firstly, the lithological characteristics of
sedimentary microfacies in coring wells were fully analyzed, including the content and variation of cements
and matrix, rock texture structure characteristics. Then, according to the characteristics of rock physical
parameters such as flow zone index (FZI) and pore throat (R35) (Jin Yanxin et al.,2004), the Rocktypes
of reservoirs were divided qualitatively and quantitatively, and the reservoirs were detailed in combination
with reservoir evaluation criteria. Subdivided classification and evaluation (Yao Hefa et al., 2006; Jiang
Ping et al., 2013; Zhou Wei et al., 2013). The calculation formula of flow zone index (FZI) is as follows:
Reservoir Quality Index:

Ratio of Pore Volume to Particle Volume:

6 SPE-195861-MS

Flow Zone Index:

Winland established an empirical formula between pore throat radius and porosity and permeability using
mercury injection capillary pressure curve through the study of Spindle Oilfield in Colorado (Kolodzie,
1980). It is found that when the mercury injection saturation was 35%, the correlation coefficient between
pore throat radius and porosity and permeability was the highest. Therefore, the pore throat radius was
approximated with the empirical formula when the mercury saturation was 35%. The empirical winland
formula is as follows:

Where: Φ- porosity, K-permeability

The empirical formula mentioned above is not applicable to all oilfields. It is necessary to establish
the empirical formulas according to the actual data of the target oilfields. Based on the mercury injection
experimental data of 20 core samples in J oilfield, the empirical formula of pore throat radius, porosity
and permeability at different mercury injection saturation was established (Table 3). When the mercury
saturation was 35%, the correlation between pore throat radius and porosity and permeability was the best,
so this formula was chosen calculate the radius of reservoir pore throat in J oilfield:

Table3—Empirical formula between pore throat radius, porosity and permeability at different mercury saturation in J Oilfield

Empirical Formulas Correlation Coefficient

LgR10=−1.406+0.529LgK-2.063LgΦ 0.847

LgR15=−1.452+0.528LgK-2.037LgΦ 0.873

LgR20=−1.428+0.515LgK-1.952LgΦ 0.819

LgR25=−0.996+0.489LgK-1.160LgΦ 0.857

LgR30=−0.932+0.491LgK-0.888LgΦ 0.798

LgR35=−1.808+0.610LgK-1.832LgΦ 0.916

LgR40=−1.104+0.538LgK-0.736LgΦ 0.829

LgR45=−0.533+0.497LgK+0.300LgΦ 0.867

LgR50=−1.150+0.604LgK-0.175LgΦ 0.824

LgR55=−0.971+0.593LgK+0.362LgΦ 0.829

LgR60=−0.704+0.638LgK+1.349LgΦ 0.764

LgR65=−1.116+0.761LgK+1.812LgΦ 0.687

LgR70=0.349+0.734LgK+4.961LgΦ 0.678

LgR75=−0.448+0.877LgK+4.729LgΦ 0.752

LgR80=0.118+0.860LgK+6.251LgΦ 0.766

LgR85=−0.288+0.841LgK+6.221LgΦ 0.671
SPE-195861-MS 7

Rocktype classification results

According to the above method, reservoirs of J oilfield were divided into four Rocktypes (DRT). The
lithological characteristics and boundary values of the Rocktypes are shown in Figure 3, and the intersection
of FZI and R35 is shown in Figure 4.

Figure 3—Lithological characteristics and parameter threshold value of different Rocktypes in J oil field
8 SPE-195861-MS

Figue 4—Cross plot of FZI and R35 of J oil field

The lithology of DRT1 is mainly coarse sandstone and medium-coarse sandstone, mainly consisting of
tabular cross bedding, trough cross bedding, and massive bedding. The reservoir is characterized by ultra-
high porosity and permeability, large pore throat radius, small displacement pressure and median pressure,
and strong seepage capacity. The lithology of DRT2 is clay-bearing coarse-medium sandstone and medium
sandstone, with cross-bedding and wavy cross-bedding. The physical properties of the reservoir are similar
to those of DRT1. The lithology of DRT3 is clay-bearing medium-fine sandstone, with grooved cross-
bedding, high-ultra-high porosity, medium-high permeability, large pore throat radius, small displacement
pressure and median pressure, and strong seepage ability. DRT4 is mainly clayish fine-siltstone, some
carbonate cemented medium-fine sandstone, developed parallel bedding, which is characterized by low
permeability. The pore throat radius are obviously smaller, displacement pressure and median pressure are
obviously increased, and seepage capacity is relatively weak.

Hierarchical facies-constrained modeling

Facies model
The H1 layer in J oilfield is a delta front subfacies, which contains four microfacies: underwater distributary
channel, mouth bar, distal bar and shallow lake. The H2-H5 layer is a delta plain, which contains three
microfacies: distributary channel, levee and interdistributary bay. Distributary channel is the main reservoir.
A 3D microfacies model of J oilfield was established by using target-based stochastic modeling method,
and the shape and scope of microfacies was constrained by channel distribution direction, sand thickness
and channel width (Huo Chunliang et al., 2007) (Figure 5A).
SPE-195861-MS 9

Figure 5—Reservoir facies model (A) and Rocktypes model (B) of J oil field

Rocktypes model
According to the results of single well reservoir Rocktype classification, the proportion of each Rocktype
in different microfacies was calculated. Through data analysis, the variation functions corresponding to
each Rocktype were obtained. Under the constraint of microfacies model, the reservoir Rocktype model of
J oilfield was established by sequential indicator method (Figure 5B), which quantitatively characterized
the three-dimensional spatial distribution characteristics of different Rocktypes (T.K. Banerjee et al., 2009).
Generally speaking, J oilfield reservoirs are mainly composed of the first and the second types of Rocktypes,
followed by the fourth type of Rocktypes, and the third type of Rocktypes is the least, which is consistent
with wells.

Physical property model

Permeability and porosity of different Rocktypes have different corresponding relations (Figure 6). Logging
permeability were recalculated according to the formula of pore-permeability correspondence of different
Rocktypes of core analysis results. Compared with the original logging permeability, the coincidence rate
between the calculated results and the measured permeability of core increased from 71.6% to 82.4%.
Controlled by the Rocktype model, the porosity and permeability models were established by using the
Gauss stochastic function simulation method, with the porosity of well logging interpretation as hard
10 SPE-195861-MS

data and the porosity and permeability distribution of different Rocktypes as constraints. This method
greatly improves the accuracy of permeability simulation. From the intersection diagram of porosity and
permeability of the model, it can be seen that the permeability model established under the control of
Rocktypes matches better with the DST test results (Figure 7).

Figure 6—Cross plot of reservoir core porosity and permeability of J oilfield

Figure 7—Cross plot of reservoir porosity and permeability with DST results points
SPE-195861-MS 11

Conclusions
Shallow water delta deposits are developed in J oilfield, northern Albert Basin, Uganda. According to flow
zone index (FZI), pore throat radius (R35) and other parameters, reservoirs can be divided into four types
of Rocktypes, which delicately depict the heterogeneity of reservoirs.
Using the method of hierarchical facies-constrained modeling, under the constraint of sedimentary facies
model, the Rocktype model was established, and then the reservoir physical property model based on
Rocktype was established. The accuracy of permeability simulation was improved by nearly 10%, which
provides a more accurate data basis for reservoir numerical simulation.
Conventional facies-constrained modeling cannot well characterize the heterogeneity characteristics of
reservoir, and hierarchical facies-constrained modeling can effectively overcome its shortcomings. The
simulation results were consistent with the actual underground situation, providing a more accurate data
basis for reservoir numerical simulation.

Acknowledgements
CNOOC Uganda Limited is acknowledged for their support and permission to present this work.

References
Fan Zifei, Li Kongchou, Li Jianxin, et al. A study on remaining oil distribution in a carbonate oil reservoir based on
reservoir flow units [J]. Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2014, 41(5): 578–584.
Wu Shenghe, Li Yupeng. Reservoir modeling: Current Situation and Development Prospect [J]. Marine petroleum
geology, 2007, 12(3): 53–60.
Liu Wenling. Geological model ing technique for reservoir constrained by seismic data [J]. Acta Petrolei Sinica, 2008,
29(1): 64–68, 74.
Yuan Xintao, Peng Shimi, Lin Chengyan. An interpretation method for permeability based on flow units and its
applicability [J]. Acta Petrolei Sinica, 2005, 26(6): 78–81.
Yu Xinghe. Basis of Oil and Gas Reservoir Geology [M]. Beijing: Petroleum Industry Press, 2009:278–288.
Dou Lirong, Wang Jiuanjun, Cheng Dingsheng, et al. Geological conditions and petroleum exploration potential of the
Albertine Graben of Uganda [J]. ACTA GEOLOGICA SINICA, 2004, 78 (4) :1002–1010.
Dou Lirong, Ccheng Dingsheng, Wang Jiuanjun, et al. Geochemical significance of seepage oils and bituminous
sandstones in the Albertine Graben, Uganda [J]. Journal of Petroleum Geology, 2004, 27 (3) :299–312.
Xu Wei, Yang Xiaoli, Li Xue, et al. Milankovitch Cyclostratigraphy of Pliocene in the North Albert Basin, Uganda [J].
Geological Science and Technology Information, 2015, 34 (1): 57–62.
Yang Xiaoli, Hu Guangyi, Pang Yumao, et al. Retrogradation shallow water delta sedimentary model and reservoir
characteristics in north area of Albert lacustrine basin [J]. China Offshore Oil and Gas, 2015, 27 (5): 55–61, 75.
Jin Yanxin, Lin Chengyan, Zhao Li, et al. Discussions on FZT methodology in flow unit identification and discrimination
[J]. Petroleum exploration and development, 2004, 31(5): 130–132.
Yao Hefa, Lin Chengyan, Jin Xiuju, et al. Study on multi –parameters discrimination method for flow units [J]. Acta
Sedimentologica Sinica, 2006, 24 (1) :91–95.
Jiang Ping, Lu Mingsheng, Wang Guoting. Flow unit division based on reservoir architecture: taking Fuyu-yangdachengzi
Formation in blocks Dong5-9 of Fuyu Oilfield as an example [J]. Petroleum experimental geology, 2013, 35 (2):
213–219.
Zhou Wei, Ma Desheng, Tang Zhonghua, et al. Evaluation of Flow Units and Distribution of Remaining Oil: A Case Study
of Shen-95 Block, Liaohe Oilfield, China [J]. Geological and scientific information, 2013, 32 (3): 100–106.
S. Kolodzie. Analysis of pore throat size and use of the Waxman-Smits equation to determine OOIP in Spindle field,
Colorado. SPE-9382-MS SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 21-24 September, Dallas, Texas (1980)
Huo Chunliang, Guli, Zhao Chunming, et al. Integrated reservoir geological modeling based on seismic, log and geological
data [J]. Journal of Petroleum, 2007, 28 (6): 66–71.
T.K. Banerjee, A/Aziz Haider, Bishnu. Case study:Integrated 3D geomodeling of Minagish Oolite Formation, Umm
Gudair Field, Kuwait[R]. SPE125309, 2009.