Using Leverett’s J function in Petrel and ECLIPSE to match the static

model’s water saturation and GIIP

Background
One of the main outcomes of the petrophysical interpretation of a well is the water saturation log curve.

This interpretation is usually a function of height above free water level, HAFWL, rock properties, porosity
and permeability, and reservoir fluid properties, densities and interfacial tensions.

From the well level, this interpretation is carried forward in the 3D space where, having already
distributions of porosity and permeability, a distribution for water saturation is created as a function of
HAFWL.

Hence, when calculating the in place for the static model this water saturation interpreted in the
petrophysics stage and distributed in the static modelling stage is being used.

The main development in ECLIPSE to model the water saturation as a function of height above free water
level and rock properties is Leverett’s J-function.

The advantages of using this approach are:

• The petrophysics interpretation is being respected;

• The 3D distribution of the static properties and water saturation is being respected;
• Very close match (within 1% accuracy) of the static (Petrel) and dynamic (ECLIPSE) volumes
reported;
• Once calibration of the dynamic model begins, feedback can be delivered to the petrophysicist
and static modeler and their original interpretations can be adjusted so that the dynamic model
matches the production behavior of the field.

Most often, as support reservoir engineers, access for the petrophysicist is not always available. However,
if this is the case, a J-function equivalent model of the water saturation as a function of height above free
water level should be provided to the reservoir engineer to obtain back from ECLIPSE, after initialization,
the same water saturation distribution as used in the static model for the hydrocarbon in place calculation.

If the J function equivalent model is not offered, then, based on the input used for water saturation
modelling, a J function equivalent model can be determined and implemented so that all assumptions
made during petrophysical interpretation and static modelling stages of the study will are obeyed by the
dynamic model.

This methodology is being applied on a synthetic model which has already distributed rock properties,
water saturation as a function of these properties and height above free water level and the static volumes
reported.

Hence, for a synthetic dry gas reservoir, the objectives of this content are:

• Determining a J-function equivalent model for the SW=SW(HAFWL);

• QC the ECLIPSE initialized water saturation distribution;

1/16
 • Compare the static gas initially in place volumes reported by Petrel’s Volume Calculation process
with the values written by ECLIPSE in the .prt file.

Static model description

Figure 1. Facies distribution - Rock types - Hydraulic units

2/16
Figure 1 presents the simple synthetic distribution of a field which has two rock types or hydraulic units.
The rock type division is constructed based on Winland’s R35 model.

For simplicity, we consider the porosity to be two normal distributions for the two rock types present in
the model as per relationship 1.

Poro=If(RT=1,Normal(0.1, 0.002 ), Normal(0.08,0.002 )) (1)

From petrophysical interpretation, the relationship for permeability as a function of porosity is given by
(2) and (3):

Perm=If(RT=1,pow(10,(log(4.0000)-0.732+0.864*log(Poro*100))/0.588),Perm) (2)

Perm=If(RT=2,pow(10,(log(1.5000)-0.732+0.864*log(Poro*100))/0.588),Perm) (3)

The outcome is presented in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Permeability – Porosity relationship

3/16
One characteristic of the Winland’s R35 rock typing model is that it is built on top of the sqrt(Perm/Poro)
parameter which is part of the Rock Quality Index or RQI.

When looking at a graphical representation of this parameter, sqrt(Perm/Poro), for each rock type, as a
general QC of the porosity permeability dependency, the boundaries of the different rock types should be
well delimited as it is clearly reflected by Figure 3.

The notation used for this parameter is:

RQI=sqrt(Perm/Poro) (4)

Figure 3. RQI boundaries for the two rock types

Next step of the static properties population looks at creation of a water saturation property. As
previously stated, in this case, this is a function of RQI and height above free water level.

The free water level is considered to be at 1350 m TVDSS. Hence, the equations supplied from
petrophysical interpretation for the two rock types are given by relationships (5) and (6):

4/16
 SW=Min(1,Max(0,-0.0362951+(1--0.0362951)*Pow((0.0161854*Pow(Sqrt(Poro/Perm),-
1.04737))/(Max(0,Min(200,Z+1350))*(1.09-0.274)*0.0980665*(1.0/(46.3*1))),1/3.38438))) (5)

SW=If (SW=U,1,SW) (6)

The graphical representation of this result is given in Figure 4 where water saturation for the two rock
types is being presented throughout the reservoir above the free water level.

Figure 4. Water saturation above free water level for the two rock types
From the first equation (5), the transition zone is limited within 200 m above free water level, 1350 m
TVDSS. This can clearly be seen in Figure 3 where, for HAFWL of and above 200 m, the water saturations
for the two rock types are reaching their irreducible water saturation values.

5/16
The 3D profile of the water saturation property is being reflected in Figure 5. In this figure, it can be
observed that, as expected, the transition zone for the poor quality facies, RT2, is more prominent than
in the case of the better rock quality, RT1.

Figure 5. 3D water saturation above free water level for the two rock types
From equation (5), the density of the reservoir water under reservoir conditions is 1090 kg/m3.

The density of gas under reservoir conditions is 274 kg/m3.

6/16
The gas water interfacial tension is 46.3 dynes/cm.

From a static gradient survey interpretation performed during the first well test for one of the first wells
drilled on the structure, the reservoir pressure has been found to be 420 bara at a datum depth of 1250
m TVDSS.

As previously mentioned, the reservoir fluid is gas with a surface conditions specific gravity of 0.675.

The average gas formation volume factor under initial conditions is 0.003 rmc/stmc.

All parameters to calculate the gas initially in place, GIIP, with Petrel have been supplied and the value
calculated is being presented in Figure 6.

Figure 6. Gas initially in place from Petrel’s Volume Calculation

The GIIP is 24035.77 MMSTM3.

Dynamic model description

Fluid model

The goal is to have ECLIPSE after initializing the model to reproduce the water saturation property and
the GIIP reflected by the static model.

A fluid model is created using Make fluid model. The settings used for the model are reflected in Figure 7
below.

This fluid has to be representative and its key properties will have to have similar values as those used for
the petrophysical interpretation and presented above. After initializing the model, the fluid properties
given by ECLIPSE at the initial pressure at the datum depth are compared to these values as per Figure 8
below and it can be noticed that the two sets of values match quite well.

7/16
 Figure 7. Fluid model settings

Figure 8. Initialised fluid properties

8/16
Relative permeability curves

Two sets of relative permeability curves have been created for a gas water system for each RT using
default settings in Make rock physics function from Petrel. The only difference between the two being the
irreducible water saturation, SWL. The SWL for RT1 is 0.152, whereas SWL for RT2 is 0.211.

The resulting sets are presented in Figure 9.

Figure 9. Relative permeability curves for the two RTs

Capillary pressure curves

As initially stated, the purpose is to match the water saturation, hence the usage of the Leverett J function.

The average porosity of RT1 is 0.1 and its corresponding permeability according to the above formula is
17.72 mD.

The average porosity of RT2 is 0.08 and its corresponding permeability is 2.41 mD.

In Excel, as per Figure 10, for these average representatives of RT1 and RT2 for different heights above
free water level ranging from 0 to the value corresponding to the structural high of the structure, we
determine the water saturation according to the petrophysical interpretation as per the above formula.

9/16
 Figure 10. Average rock type properties and water saturation values foe different HAFWLs

According to the formula presented in Figure 11, Leverett’s J function is a function of capillary pressure,
interfacial tension between the two phases and the lithology term, sqrt(Perm/Poro).

Figure 11. Leverett’s J function formulation

10/16
From there, Pc can be expressed as:

Pc=(Row-Rog)*g*HAFWL (7)

Next step is to determine the J function as per Figure 11:

J=(Pc/(sigma*U))*SQRT(k/phi) (8)

Hence the above mentioned in Figure 10 excel table becomes Figure 12:

Figure 12. Excel table relationship between J function, capillary pressure, and water saturation
Plotting the dependency between the J function and water saturation we get the representation from
Figure 13. It can be observed that the two sets are quite close to each other. If this relationship would
have come from the petrophysical interpretation, the two sets would have been on top of the other.

14.000

12.000 JRT1
10.000 JRT2
J Function

8.000

6.000

4.000

2.000

0.000
0.000 0.200 0.400 SW 0.600 0.800 1.000
Figure 13. J function representation of SW

11/16
If an equation is being fitted through the points of RT1, as per Figure 14 and Figure 15, a continuous
variation of the J function as a function of water saturation can be obtained. After looking at Figure 13,
it can be said that using RT1 equation for RT2 too is a safe action.

Figure 14. Matching an equation through the J function, SW pairs

Figure 15. Resultant equation

12/16
After using the formula above to determine the input for the J functions for the two RTs, the following
tables will be given back. The relative permeability curves presented above have been included in the
tables:

SwRT1 KrwRT1 KrgRT1 JFUNCRT1

0.152 0.000 0.900 14.429
0.154 0.000 0.887 13.930
0.201 0.000 0.616 6.616
0.248 0.000 0.418 3.578
0.294 0.001 0.277 2.132
0.341 0.002 0.177 1.366
0.388 0.006 0.110 0.925
0.435 0.012 0.065 0.654
0.482 0.023 0.037 0.479
0.529 0.039 0.020 0.361
0.575 0.063 0.010 0.279
0.622 0.096 0.004 0.219
0.669 0.140 0.002 0.176
0.716 0.199 0.001 0.143
0.763 0.274 0.000 0.118
0.810 0.368 0.000 0.098
0.856 0.485 0.000 0.083
0.903 0.628 0.000 0.070
0.950 0.800 0.000 0.060
1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000
Figure 16. Relative permeability and J function tables as functions of water saturation

SwRT2 KrwRT2 KrgRT2 JFUNCRT2

0.211 0.000 0.900 5.732
0.213 0.000 0.885 5.577
0.256 0.000 0.615 3.229
0.300 0.000 0.418 2.022
0.343 0.001 0.276 1.345
0.386 0.002 0.177 0.938
0.430 0.006 0.110 0.679
0.473 0.012 0.065 0.506
0.516 0.023 0.037 0.388
0.560 0.039 0.019 0.303
0.603 0.063 0.010 0.241
0.647 0.096 0.004 0.195
0.690 0.140 0.002 0.160
0.733 0.199 0.001 0.133
0.777 0.274 0.000 0.111
0.820 0.368 0.000 0.094
0.863 0.485 0.000 0.081
0.907 0.628 0.000 0.069
0.950 0.800 0.000 0.060
1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000

13/16
The above values for Jfunction are added to the Petrel Saturation functions for the two rock types in the
Gas-water capillary pressure tables.

After defining the simulation case, the ENDSCALE keyword needs to be added in the GRID section and
the JFUNC keyword needs to be added in the GRID section as per Figure 17.

Figure 17. Necessary keyword editing

After defining the simulation case and initializing it, when checking the water saturation properties coming
from the static and the dynamic model it can be seen that they are quite similar as in Figure 18 and Figure
19. Figure 20 presents a 3D comparison of the two properties. It can be observed that the match
observed in the numbers is reflected graphically as well.

Figure 18. Water saturation comparison between the static and the dynamic model for RT1

14/16
Figure 19. Water saturation comparison between the static and the dynamic model for RT2

Figure 20. 3D Comparison of the static and dynamic water saturation profiles

15/16
Implicitly, the GIIP reflected by the simulator, as in Figure 21 Figure 21. ECLIPSE GIIPshould be quite
close to the one returned by the static model.

Figure 21. ECLIPSE GIIP

The dynamic value is 23899.09 MMSTM3, whereas the static value is 24035.77 MMSTM3. The difference
between the two numbers is 0.57 % which is a very low number.

Hence by using the JFUNCTION, we are keeping in place all the petrophysical and geological assumptions
used during interpretation and further used to build the static model. When this happens, the initial water
saturation distribution and the GIIP are more or less the same for both Petrel and ECLIPSE, or static and
dynamic modelling.

16/16