See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/240738185

Assessment of reservoir uncertainties for development evaluation and risk

analysis

Article  in  The Leading Edge · March 2009

DOI: 10.1190/1.3104070

CITATIONS READS
13 1,843

3 authors, including:

Virendra Singh Laurent Fontanelli

Repsol Repsol
37 PUBLICATIONS   204 CITATIONS    21 PUBLICATIONS   20 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Advanced Carbonate Reservoir Characterization View project

G&G Strategies to break pessimistic paradigms View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Virendra Singh on 20 December 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 INTERPRETER’S CORNER Coordinated by REBECCA LATIMER

Assessment of reservoir uncertainties for development evaluation

and risk analysis
V. SINGH, M. HEGAZY, and L. FONTANELLI, RepsolYPF

D ue to limited availability
and quality of data, the
complexity of the physics in-
volved in predicting flow, and
uncertainties in the modeling
process, the reservoir model is
always plagued by uncertainties.
It is, therefore, important to
analyze the input data in terms
of quality, quantity, and
complexities of different scales,
review basic assumptions,
appropriateness of the modeling
workflow with reference to
static and dynamic reservoir
uncertainties, desired hardware
and software tools to reposition
the base case model with
reasonable certainty for better Figure 1. Global level reservoir modeling process workflow.
project evaluation, risk analysis,
and integrated decision making. 1) Geophysical uncertainties about migration, time-to-
Under these circumstances, it is necessary to achieve the depth conversion, picking, fault positioning, and well
right balance between short-term gains in production and ties
optimizing long-term development. We propose a workflow 2) Geologic uncertainties about in-place hydrocarbon
that achieves this goal in a cost-effective way. This paper de- volume, sedimentary depositional environments, rock
scribes the workflow, and its effectiveness is demonstrated types and their heterogeneities, spatial distribution, and
through an example. particle size
3) Petrophysical uncertainties about net reservoir thick-
Integrated reservoir modeling workflow ness, Vshale, porosity, permeability, water saturation,
The need for better decisions in field development has made and fluid contact locations
it necessary to utilize multidisciplinary teams and integrate 4) Dynamic uncertainties about absolute and relative per-
their functions/resources to maximize the economic value of meabilities, fault transmissibilities, horizontal barriers,
the project. thermodynamics, injectivity, productivity indexes, and
Figure 1 summarizes the process, shows the complex in- well skin.
terrelation of various functions commonly implemented in a
modeling effort and its iterative nature. Each process gener- There are no rules to systematically rank these uncer-
ates an output which is an input to the reservoir modeling or tainties, but an incorrectly selected or neglected uncertainty
to other parts of the workflow. may result in incorrect quantification of development-related
Implementation of many of these processes tends to be risks. Therefore, all possibilities should be considered. To ap-
iterative as simple models evolve to more advanced models as propriately assess these uncertainties, we suggest a workflow
additional data are collected during field development and as that focuses on six major areas:
more understanding of a particular model is developed. The
outputs from these processes are incorporated into a reservoir 1) Distribution of gross rock volume (GRV). It is not possible to
characterization model developed using geostatistical meth- generate perfectly sharp seismic images of the subsurface;
ods. The geologic framework forms the “static” portion of the due to the nature of the seismic method, blurring and lat-
reservoir model. Upscaling and application of flow analysis eral smearing of images occur. Therefore, it is important
provides the “dynamic” part. to estimate uncertainties related to the seismic data and
Major sources of reservoir uncertainty at the early stage categorize them by their impact on the structural frame-
of development can be broadly grouped into four main cat- work. The seismic workflow involved in the construction
egories: of a structural framework includes acquisition and prepro-

260 The Leading Edge March 2009

 INTERPRETER’S CORNER
Figure 2. Time structure map corresponding to reservoir top.
Figure 3. Average velocity map derived from seismic stacking velocity cube.
cessing; stacking; migration; interpretation; time-to-depth
conversion; and building a 3D structural model.
Data acquisition is the most uncertain phase of the
seismic workflow, and inadequate parameters may lead to
erroneous deliverables that permeate the entire modeling
process. Substandard preprocessing may blur or obliterate
the image. Incorrect statics will impact the shape and posi-
tion of reflectors. Inadequate reflection strength will lead
to inaccurate rock property analysis.
Stacking is a most important phase of seismic process-
ing because at this point the image is constructed. If an
incorrect velocity is used, the energy of the reflector will be
reduced when positioning the data. The stacking velocity
is also an input for migration and time-to-depth conver-
sion.
Migration places reflectors in their true
position and collapses diffractions. Therefore,
the impact in terms of the structural image is
crucial especially if reflectors are dipping. Mi-
gration uncertainty depends on the accuracy of
the velocity and on the migration algorithms.
The velocity used for time and depth migra-
tion is derived from a smoothed version of the
stacking velocity. The uncertainty associated
with the velocity should be determined prior to
and during smoothing.
Seismic interpretation includes many sub-
processes: well-to-seismic ties, detection of seis-
mic markers, picking horizons, gridding hori-
zons, fault detection, and building a complex
structural framework. These operations com-
bine seismic data and prior geologic knowl-
edge.
Time-to-depth conversion may involve a
vertical stretch from time to depth plus residual
corrections, or tying seismic depth to well depth.
The uncertainty related to this step is generally
very high and, as it shifts the whole reservoir up
or down, can represent 50% of the total uncer-
tainty related to gross rock volume estimation.
Since fluid contacts remain at constant depth,
a small variation in depth conversion implies a
relatively huge difference in the initial in-place
volume of hydrocarbons. The usual way to de-
termine depth uncertainties is cross validation.
In the areas of less well control, stacking veloc-
ity can be used for time-to-depth conversion.
This will have two uncertainty terms, one from
calibration to well velocities and another that is
intrinsic to stacking velocities.
3D structural model building consists of a
stack of horizons and a set of faults. In addi-
tion to this static geometric representation, to-
pological relationships exist between faults and
horizons. These relationships are part of the de-
scription of the structural framework.
It is important to analyze the generated 3D
structural framework using basic structural geologic con-
cepts to understand the history of deformation, under-
stand and interpret displacements, stress and rates, pres-
sures and temperatures, impact of structural uncertainty
on hydrocarbon migration, and accumulation and fluid
flow during production. From this 3D structural model,
GRV can be computed using top and base of the reservoir
or hydrocarbon-water contacts.
2) Distribution, definition, and continuity of lithofacies. Litho-
facies may be used to define flow units within the struc-
tural framework to build the reservoir architecture. Defin-
ing the reservoir architecture is a highly complex process
that requires integration of all data (well logs, core data,
seismic attributes, conceptual depositional model, sedi-
March 2009 The Leading Edge 261
 INTERPRETER’S CORNER
mentary facies types and their depositional environment,
sedimentary body orientation, and sequence stratigraphic
evolution). Facies distribution interpreted from well logs
and core data has very high vertical resolution but very
poor lateral resolution.
Identifying reservoir stratigraphy from 3D seismic data
allows quantitative facies mapping away from the well.
Many seismic attributes, derived from pre- and poststack
data, are used for facies distribution in the 3D geologic
model.
3) Distribution of petrophysical properties. Petrophysical inter-
pretation identifies a consistent set of rock properties from
the log and core data with the objective of developing
flexible petrophysical models. Typical deliverables are net
reservoir thickness, shale volume, porosity, permeability,
water saturation and fluid contact locations. These data
are usually provided without quantitative determination
of their uncertainties.
A wide range of probability distribution functions (pdfs)
are used and uncertainty on their mean value is introduced
to fully cover the range of petrophysical uncertainties. In
the case of limited well data, it is important to capture
the realistic range of uncertainty for each petrophysical pa-
rameter. To avoid underestimation of uncertainty ranges,
well-log petrophysical properties can be calibrated.
When sufficient well data are available, Monte Carlo
simulation can calculate petrophysical uncertainty. Monte
Carlo modeling is flexible and quick, allowing different
interpretation models to be built and quick testing of the
results. However, Monte Carlo simulation requires many
iterations for a stable and meaningful set of statistics. This
can be time consuming and needs to be evaluated for the
specific case.
This integrated petrophysical interpretation assesses the
possible range of petrophysical parameters to select reason-
able cut-off parameters for defining productive zones in
the reservoir, to obtain probabilistic hydrocarbon-initially-
in-place (HIIP) estimates, to understand and solve reser-
voir flow simulation problems, and to determine reservoir
performance.
4) Quantification of the distribution of hydrocarbon-initially-
in-place (HIIP). The hydrocarbon volume in a reservoir
can be expressed as:
Vhc = A*h* φ* (1-Sw) * B
or
Vhc = GRV* N/G* φ* (1-Sw) * B
where A = area of the reservoir filled with hydrocarbon, h
= reservoir thickness, GRV = gross rock volume, N/G =
net to gross thickness, φ = porosity, Sw = water saturation,
B = hydrocarbon surface transformation factor (1/FVF),
V hc = volume of hydrocarbon, and FVF = formation vol-
ume factor.
After all parameters are determined, the volumetric
equation can compute the the distribution of HIIP. To
avoid overestimates or underestimates of HIIP, it is im-
262 The Leading Edge March 2009
portant to include the dependency relationships between
input parameters (e.g., area versus net pay, porosity ver-
sus water saturation) if any exist. The estimation of HIIP
distribution combines reservoir geometrical, geologic and
petrophysical uncertainties and uses reservoir geometry
(structural/stratigraphic framework), facies distribution,
rock types and porosity, net-to-gross, permeability and
saturation). In the case of scarce data, it is necessary to
define the range of uncertainties to obtain the probability
distribution of HIIP.
5) Distribution of recoverable reserves and statistical production
profiles. In order to quantify the impact of dynamic uncer-
tainties on recoverable reserves and production, it is im-
portant to identify the main uncertainty parameters based
on flow simulation. The workflow for estimating dynamic
uncertainties is:
• Identifying the main uncertainty parameters such as
main faults sealing capacity, secondary faults sealing capac-
ity, possible permeability barriers within reservoir, absolute
permeability, fluid type, composition and its properties (oil
or gas or both, gravity, GOR, GCR, viscosity, mobility ra-
tio, initial condensate yield), water/oil and gas/oil relative
permeability, skin of producers and injectors, PVT, specific
transmissibility reduction for low NTG regions, existence
of a possible barrier layer, aquifer influx and recovery fac-
tor
• Identifying ranges of the selected uncertainties
• Quantification of probability density function (PDF) as-
sociated with each parameter
• Establishing a methodology to identify the parameters
with significant impact on well productivity and recover-
able reserves
• Forecast surface process dependent production rates and
production plateau duration for different envisaged mod-
els
6) Evaluating the impact of uncertainties on project economics
and risks. The production forecast obtained from reservoir
simulation forms the basis for assessing project feasibility
and business value, estimating the economic performance
of various production strategies, and prioritizing them
based on return on investment. The schedule of wells to be
drilled, the pressure maintenance strategy, the investment
schedule for the new pipelines and equipment facilities are
a few of the important components of the forecasting sce-
nario. Additionally, economic parameters, such as costs for
drilling, laying new pipelines and investing in new equip-
ment, along with pricing forecasts for oil and gas for rev-
enue estimation, are needed for the evaluation of alternate
development strategies. The monetary value of a project
can be normally determined by five factors: (1) the amount
of hydrocarbon recoverable under a specific development
scheme; (2) the rate at which these hydrocarbons can be
produced: (3) the cost of producing hydrocarbons; (4) the
price that the hydrocarbons will fetch at the market; and
(5) the fiscal regime under which the hydrocarbons will
 INTERPRETER’S CORNER
Figure 4. Vertical cross sections of (a) average velocities, (b) depths
without, and (c) depths with calibration.
be produced.
These factors interact in a complex fashion to determine
the ultimate value of the project and will have a range of val-
ues, with varying uncertainties and probabilities associated
with individual values within that range. It is interesting that
even recoverable reserves from a reservoir are not a fixed quan-
tity. It is a function of the development scheme, the price that
the hydrocarbons will realize, and the amount of hydrocar-
bons initially present. The development scheme selected for
a reservoir is not only a function of the prices that produced
hydrocarbon will realize but the projection of the prices in the
future when produced. Therefore, to understand the risks, it
is desirable to understand the impact of each important eco-
nomic input parameter on overall E & P business. This analy-
sis will help identify the key decision drivers to focus reserves
with reduced costs, understanding the different production
scenarios and in improving the level of confidence to deliver
the various possible production rates over the initial plateau
period. Further, it will enhance the work of multidisciplinary
asset teams by enabling each member to see the relevance or
irrelevance of their contribution to the decision at hand, help
to test the validity of the reservoir models themselves, and
guide decisions on investing in the construction or overhaul
of surface facilities.
Example of systematic reservoir modeling and uncertain-
ty analysis
The available data for the field evaluation in this example
are:
Geophysical — acquisition and processing parameters,
prestack gathers and stacked seismic data (prestack time-
migrated), check shots/VSPs, velocity picks, and velocity
cubes, T-D curves
Geological — geologic model based on basin evolution,
stratigraphic setting, petroleum systems and play concepts,
entrapment model, depositional environment and other
related information, core/SCAL analysis, earlier interpre-
tation based on 2D seismic data.
Petrophysical — analog data from nearby fields, suite
of logs in four wells, fluid contacts, water salinity, bottom
hole temperature.
Reservoir — PVT data from the reservoir, production
test data, DST/well test, pressure measurements (from
DST, RFT/MDT), temperature surveys, mud loss data,
datum levels, depths, net reservoir thicknesses, reservoir
rock mechanics/deformation data, fluid properties and
composition, GOR, average water sample salinity.
The main sources of uncertainty originating from
3D seismic surveys, data acquisition variables, processing
methodologies, and techniques are assumed minimum
and do not have significant impact on estimates of gross
rock volumes. The seismic reflector corresponding to res-
ervoir top has good signal-to-noise ratio, moderate ampli-
tude, and is laterally continuous. Sonic and density logs
are quite consistent and have provided a fairly good match
between synthetic and seismic data. After well-to-seismic cali-
bration, voxel tracking was used to pick the reflection event
corresponding to reservoir top in the 3D PSTM data volume.
Voxel tracking has minimized the uncertainty related to ho-
rizon picking and interpolation. Figure 2 shows a time map
at reservoir top.
Often a very simple time-to-depth conversion method is
used to obtain a depth map of reservoir top without under-
standing its impact on volumetric analysis. The magnitude
of structural uncertainty due to time-depth conversion can
represent 50% of total uncertainty in the estimated gross rock
volume. However, this magnitude depends on the geology
of the area and specific method used for depth conversion.
We demonstrate the impact of time-to-depth conversion by
describing two methods for generating depth maps (both of
which were used):
• A single time-depth curve, derived from a best fit to the
four time-depth curves from wells and reservoir tops, can
be used to generate a depth map. This method is simple,
quick, and assumes a constant velocity throughout the
structure but lacks accuracy away from the well. It also
ignores the structure of the velocity, operates at known
depth points, and uses only the seismic time at well points.
The velocity information from the seismic and all the spa-
tial benefits can not be used in this method. Therefore, in
case of steeply dipping structure, the area of the reservoir
might be overestimated.
• In the second method, a simple average velocity derived
from the stacking velocity cube calibrated with VSP/check
shots velocity values and constrained with well markers
March 2009 The Leading Edge 263
 INTERPRETER’S CORNER

resolution using short- and long-offset

data has been demonstrated by Schultz
(1999). Larger offsets provide more reso-
lution on the velocity spectrum. But this
will require using a nonhyperbolic mo-
veout equation.
Addition and subtraction of this ve-
locity uncertainty from average seismic
velocity gives two additional velocity
maps and hence two depth maps. Figure
4 shows three average velocities derived
from stacking velocities and their corre-
sponding depth sections before and after
well calibration. Using upper and lower
semblance peak limits of seismic veloc-
ity provides fairly good understanding
of the depth uncertainty range due to
uncertainty in seismic velocity. This ap-
proach of time-to-depth conversion pro-
vides fairly accurate structural maps with
reasonable certainty in the areas with no
abnormal velocities above reservoir top.
Therefore, using both methods of
Figure 5. Depth maps for the four cases of depth conversion. depth conversion, four depth structure
maps for the reservoir top were prepared.
These maps form the basis for reservoir
modeling of four separate cases: case 1 =
constant velocity and well markers; case
2 = average velocity derived from stack-
ing velocity and constrained with well
markers; case 3 = average velocity derived
from stacking velocity considering lower
limit of velocity semblance width and
constrained with well markers; case 4 =
average velocity derived from stacking
velocity considering upper limit of ve-
locity semblance width and constrained
with well markers.
Figure 5 shows the depth maps of
reservoir base for each case, generated
using top reservoir map, an isochoring
technique, and gross thicknesses at wells.
These maps were used for building the
Figure 6. Identification of litho and electrofacies using well logs and core data.
3D structural model to compute gross
rock volume.
has been used (Figure 3). Anomalous interval velocity 3D structural models built for the four cases considered
behavior above reservoir top is not accounted for in this only the major faults. Faults below seismic resolution were
method. not considered. These models were analyzed to understand
the impact of structural uncertainty on hydrocarbon migra-
Defining the uncertainty of the stacking velocity based tion and accumulation, and fluid flow during production.
on acquisition parameters, noise levels, and other physical The main sources of uncertainty in facies modeling are
parameters is very tedious and highly complicated. However, very limited data and geologic knowledge about the reser-
a simple expression for stacking velocity resolution derived voir. Hence spatial distribution of flow units or facies within
by O’Brien and Lerche (1988) can be used which indicates the 3D structural framework is very uncertain. To fill in the
that increased velocity resolution can be achieved by record- gap, general geologic knowledge in a similar depositional
ing longer-offset data with higher dominant frequency. The environment, regional geology, and experience from nearby
possible uncertainty of stacking velocity estimation and its fields were used. This helped define the sand body geometry

264 The Leading Edge March 2009

 INTERPRETER’S CORNER
Figure 7. 3D view of facies distribution using truncated Gaussian
simulation.
Figure 8. Porosity and water saturation distribution based on simula-
tion results.
to quantify the reservoir architecture. Based on the available
information, the reservoir is assumed to be deposited in a ma-
rine environment as beach sandbar and oriented NE-SW.
This reservoir consists of coarse-, medium-, and fine-grain
sands. Shale and carbonates are considered nonreservoir fa-
cies. All facies were used to populate the 3D static reservoir
models for the four cases (Figure 6).
Figure 7 shows the facies modeling which uses truncated
Gaussian simulation with NE-SW orientation to represent
the sandbar geometry and respect the vertical proportion
curves derived from wells. N/G thickness was 0 for nonreser-
voir and 1 for reservoir facies. The N/G ratio was computed
from the different facies. The gross reservoir thickness in the
wells varied from 25 to 120 m. Logs from well 4 indicate an
oil-water-contact (OWC) at 2550 m TVDSS which was used
for hydrocarbon in-place estimates.
Based on the internal reservoir architecture, petrophysical
modeling then assigns rock properties (e.g., porosity, oil satu-
ration, permeability) throughout the modeling grids. These
grids have been populated constraining with different facies.
Petrophysical property distribution largely depends on the in-
put distribution of various properties, so it is crucial to assign
Figure 9. 3D view of porosity distribution.
Figure 10. 3D view of permeability distribution.
different possible distributions as inputs to capture their un-
certainty range. The inferred porosity distribution from well
logs will have significant uncertainty due to the estimation
method from gamma ray, density, neutron density, and/or
sonic logs. To estimate the uncertainty ranges in petrophysi-
cal parameters distribution, the porosity and water saturation
distribution models were simulated using well-log data and
were validated from the core properties (Figure 8). The poros-
ity and saturation were distributed using sequential Gaussian
simulation for different facies. The permeability distribution
used an empirical permeability-porosity relation. 3D views
of porosity and permeability distribution (Figures 9 and 10)
showed similar trends to that of facies distribution.
Using 3D structural and tectonic framework, the grid was
constructed with 100 × 100 m cell size and a total of 600
000 cells. The rock and fluid properties were assigned to each
grid block in terms of facies, saturation, permeability, poros-
ity, and net-to-gross ratio. Two methods were used for HIIP
estimation:
Deterministic — In this method, only mean gross rock
volume was taken from 3D models and average values of
N/G ratio, porosity, saturation and formation volume factor
March 2009 The Leading Edge 265
 INTERPRETER’S CORNER

Figure 11.
HIIP distribu-
tion for the Case
1 and Case 2
reservoir models.

Parameters Case Case Case Case were used to compute HIIP for the four models and is given
1 2 3 4 in Table 1.
GRV (millions m ) 3
5070 2723 2872 2645
Probabilistic — In order to evaluate the impact of reser-
voir uncertainties, the original 3D static reservoir models for
Net To Gross 0,93 0,93 0,93 0,93
case 1 and case 2 were considered for simulation to estimate
OWC (m) TVDSS 2550 2550 2550 2550 HIIP through a probabilistic approach. To obtain a stable
Mean Porosity (%) 15 15 15 15 outcome from simulation, 50 iterations were made for each
Mean SW (%) 34 34 34 34 input parameter used in HIIP computation. The probabilistic
FVF 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 approach has provided three HIIP values namely low (P90),
OIIP (MBO) 2486 1250 1334 1228 mean (P50) and High (P10) for each case (Figure 11).
The 3D static model was upscaled into 200 × 200 m cell
RF (%) 20 20 20 20
size and 75 000 cells before dynamic simulation. The reservoir
Reserves (MBO) 497 250 267 246
simulation was performed on this upscaled 3D static model.
Table 1. HIIP estimates for different cases using deterministic ap- It was ensured that upscaling of 3D static model does not af-
proach. fect the hydrocarbon-initially-in-place volume and does not
compromise the internal heterogeneities of
Case 1 Model Case 2 Model the reservoir.
No Normal Strong No Normal Strong
To identify, assess, and quantify the im-
Field/Activity pact of dynamic uncertainties on reservoir
aquifer aquifer aquifer aquifer aquifer aquifer
performance, the workflow discussed in
OIIP 2583 2583 2583 1336 1336 1336 the previous section was adopted. A stan-
Ultimate recovery 10.5% 25.1% 31.2% 11.7% 27.3% 33.3% dard PVT analysis in the laboratory for
EUR (MBO) till the black oil case was performed. Based on
258 310 325 133 169 173
MBO till 2018 these PVT data, the following parameters
EUR (MBO) till
271 648 806 159 365 445
were used to initialize the reservoir simu-
2048 lation process: initial reservoir pressure =
Number of producers 9 9 9 6 6 6 2704 psi; bubble point pressure = initial
Max. production rate
15 000 15 000 15 000 15 000 15 000 15 000
reservoir pressure; temperature = 200°F;
per well (BOPD) viscosity of oil = 2.0 cP; oil gravity = 32
Plateau rate 90 000 90 000 90 000 60 000 60 000 60 000 API; gas gravity = 0.68; salinity = 30 000
Plateau duration ppm; FVF = 1.23 rb/stb; gas-to-oil ratio =
5 5 5 4 4 4
(years) 450 scf/stb; maximum production rate per
Production field life well = 15 000 b/d; minimum flowing bore-
40 40 40 40 40 40 hole pressure = 1000 psi; oil water contact
(years)
(OWC) = 2550 m.
Table 2. Summary of reservoir development for Case 1 and Case 2 models.

266 The Leading Edge March 2009

 INTERPRETER’S CORNER

Permeability distribution, vertical and

lateral reservoir connectivity, and reservoir
drive mechanisms play a crucial role in
producing the reservoir fluids and deter-
mining the primary recovery factor. Dif-
ferent mechanisms (solution gas, water in-
flux and their combination) were analyzed
based on nearby analogs and PVT data to
ascertain the amount of recoverable re-
serves, the range of recovery factor, recov-
ery by well, number of production wells
and production forecasts. The evaluation
considered three cases: no aquifer, normal
aquifer, and strong aquifer support for the
case 1 and case 2 reservoir models. Figures
12–14 show 3D views of initial pressure,
oil and gas saturation at the reservoir for
Figure 12. Initial reservoir pressure, oil and gas saturation under depletion drive for the
three different drive mechanisms. They
Case 2 simulation model.
indicate that more secondary gas cap is
formed in case of no aquifer support and
it reduces to a minimum in the case of
strong aquifer support. The recovery fac-
tor, recoverable reserves, and production
profile for Case 2 are shown in Figure 15.
Similar simulation studies were made for
the Case 1.
Table 2 summarizes reservoir simu-
lation for both cases. These results have
helped understand reservoir performance,
fluid flow, history match of present pro-
duction rates, and production forecast for
future production strategies.
The estimated resources, based on the
assumed drive mechanisms, for Case 1 are
much higher than Case 2. The plateau rate
for Case 1 is almost 1.5 times higher than
Figure 13. Initial reservoir pressure, oil and gas saturation under normal aquifer support for Case 2. This is mainly due to structural
the Case 2 simulation model. uncertainty as all other parameters are
similar in both models. The average re-
covery factor for different assumed drive
mechanisms varies from 10.5 to 31.2% in
case 1 and from 11.7 to 33.3% in case 2
which will lead to different recoverable re-
serves. If these uncertainties are not iden-
tified and properly accounted, they will
affect the production forecasts, drilling
well schedule and numbers, investment
decisions, new pipelines and equipment
facilities sizing, increase the overall devel-
opment costs, and affect project econom-
ics.

Conclusions
This study shows that systematic quanti-
fication of technical risks is crucial for the
decision-making process to compare or
Figure 14. Initial reservoir pressure and oil and gas saturation under strong aquifer support understand the risk level in each invest-
for the Case 2 simulation model.

March 2009 The Leading Edge 267

 INTERPRETER’S CORNER

study” by Pramanik
et al. (Geophysics,
2004). “Quantifying
petrophysical uncer-
tainties” by Adam (SPE
paper 93125, 2005),
“Experience with the
quantification of sub-
surface uncertainties”
by Charles et al. (SPE
paper 68703, 2001).
“Integrated uncertainty
assessment for proj-
ect evaluation and risk
analysis” by Corre et
al. (SPE paper 65205,
2000). “Application
of integrated reservoir
studies and probabilis-
tic techniques to esti-
mate oil volumes and
recovery, Tengiz field,
Republic of Kazakh-
stan” by Dehghani et
al. (SPE paper 102197,
2006). “Reserves un-
Figure 15. Recovery factor, recoverable reserves, water certainty: some his-
cut, production and reservoir pressure profiles for the torical trends and
Case 2 simulation model. wider implications”
by Demirmen (First
Break, 1998). “Next
generation parallel
ment decision for reservoir surveillance and smart oil field computing for large scale reservoir simulation” by Fjerstad et
development. al. (SPE paper 97358, 2005). “Probabilistic estimation proce-
An integrated approach, as adopted in this work, for iden- dures” (SPE guidelines for evaluation of reserves and resourc-
tifying, assessing, and integrating reservoir uncertainties into es, 2001). “Integrated asset managment: Work process and
a complete reservoir modeling workflow, enables determina- data flow models” by Janale et al. (SPE paper 39712, 1998).
tion of reliable volumetric estimates, recoverable reserves and “Can we sample the complete geological uncertainty space in
production forecast profiles. Numerical reservoir simulation reservoir-modeling uncertainty estimates?” by Massonnat (SPE
forms an integral part in the probabilistic forecast process Journal, 2000). “Seismic imaging of deep hydrocarbon reser-
to improve the quality of analysis involving a wide range of voirs” by O’Brien and Lerche (PAGEOPH, 1988). “Mapping
static and dynamic uncertainties. This integrated modeling reservoir saturation with seismic resolution to improve reservoir
workflow translates input parameter uncertainties into eco- model” by Reymond et al. (SPE paper 57259, 1999). “Discus-
nomic parameter uncertainties. sion on integrating monitoring data into the reservoir manage-
It is important to utilize the multidisciplinary team’s ment process” by Rossi et al. (SPE paper 65150, 2000).
knowledge, skills, and expertise as well as advanced hardware
and software to evaluate, capture, and integrate reservoir un- Acknowledgments: The authors thank RepsolYPF for providing
certainties for a better production forecast, project economic the facilities to carry out this work and permission to present and
evaluation, risk analysis, and more informed decisions. publish this material. We also thank Robert Wilson for his guid-
ance and encouragement during the execution of this work. The
Suggested reading. “Understanding the seismic resolution technical support provided by Tamrat Worku and Ivan Yemez is
and its limit for better reservoir characterization” by Singh and also gratefully acknowledged. Sincere thanks to Rebecca Latimer
Srivastava (Geohorizons, 2004). “Structural uncertainties: Deter- for her valuable comments which were very useful in improving the
mination, management, and applications” by Thore et al. (Geo- quality of the paper and to Robert Wilson and William Harmony
physics, 2002). The Seismic Velocity Model as An Interpretation of RepsolYPF for improving the manuscript’s readability.
Asset by Schultz, (SEG, 1999). “Estimation of effective poros-
ity using geostatistics and multi-attribute transforms: A case Corresponding author: vsingh@repsol.com

268 The Leading Edge March 2009

View publication stats