SPE 134001

How to Integrate Wireline Formation Tester, Logs, Core and Well Test Data to
Get Hydraulic Flow Unit Permeability’s: Application to Algeria Gas Field
Fethi Elarouci, Nabil Mokrani, Salim Mouici El Djoudi, and Peter Hill, Baker Hughes North Africa

Copyright 2010, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Production and Operations Conference and Exhibition held in Tunis, Tunisia, 8–10 June 2010.

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

Reservoirs in Algeria typically contain multiple rock types from different facies depositional systems, and their identification and
their evaluation in some areas, is becoming more challenging.
It’s not easy to get a unique permeability value for specific flow-unit without combining different formation evaluation disciplines.
Logs, cores and Well tests data, provide information not only of different kinds of permeability but also at different scale
measurements.

The presented methodology is a case study of an integrated work performed during an exploration and appraisal stage in a gas field
in Algeria.

The integration technique steps consisted of:

• Identifying facies and hydraulic units from core data analysis
• Computing permeability curve in the entire reservoir including the non-cored zones by combining logs and
porosity/permeability relationship of each hydraulic flow unit.
• Analyzing well testing transient pressures and estimating flow capacity.
• Computing permeability at the identified flow-unit scale by the analysis of wireline formation tester data using its inflatable
straddle packer configuration.

The synthetic permeability curve showed a good correlation between core data and predicted values. A thickness that is actively
contributing to the flow has been identified. Permeability values at the flow-unit scale were then computed.

The obtained results from the integrated technique provide accurate dynamic characteristics in a gas-bearing formation and
constrain the producibility knowledge of a reservoir.

1. INTRODUCTION

More than two hundred oil and gas fields have now been found in Algeria. Almost all are located in the Sahara region and
distributed among different basins; Oued Mya, Berkine and Illizi basin in the South-East, and Ahnet, Gourara, Mouydir basins in
the South-West. Reservoirs generally lie in sandstone formations within Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian, Carboniferous
and Triassic ages.

The identification and evaluation of those reservoirs becomes more challenging from one region to another where the facies
system deposit, petrophysical properties and petroleum system are completely different.
2 SPE 134001

Permeability prediction in such reservoirs is probably the most challenging issue for geologists, petrophysicists and reservoir
engineers.

It’s well known that the “true” estimation of this parameter will enhance reservoir description which will allow us to reduce
hydrocarbons left behind pipe.

Knowledge of permeability and permeability distribution is critical for effective reservoir description, for planning and
implementing completion strategies in successful water flooding programs, and for construction of representative simulation
models.1

All investigators worked on this parameter provide to petroleum society a better understanding of the factors controlling
permeability but they also show that it is an illusion to look for a universal relation between permeability and other variables.

For a reservoir characterization study, the availability of permeability curve in a large number of wells is one of the most desired
targets.6

Permeability is determined from core data. Most wells, though, are often not cored. When cores are available and are combined
with logs, they provide accurate and high data density at very small scale representing just inches in a reservoir. On the other hand,
well test pressure transient analysis gives a unique permeability value at hundreds of meters of investigation beyond the wellbore.
Wireline formation tester analysis in its inflatable straddle packer configuration provides the same unique value at an intermediate,
ten-meter scale between the two previous methods, but with the challenge of defining the effective flowing thickness4 (Fig. 1).

The objective of this work is to determine the best way for integration and optimisation of different kinds of data for reservoir
characterization to get an accurate permeability value at flow-unit scale. This technique has applied in the appraisal stage of new
discovered Algerian gas field.

The term “flow unit” means different things to different people,8 so we use the term “hydraulic flow units (HU)” in this paper to
define the units detected by Reservoir Quality Index and that have the same Flow Zone Indicator1. Facies units are those detected
under core Porosity – Permeability relationships (Φ–K plot) regarding geological attributes.

2. PERMEABILITY MEASUREMENT SOURCES

Pressure transient analysis, production tests, cores and logs are all used to estimate permeability. Each measurement has different
characteristics, advantages and disadvantages.7

Core data:
Routine core measurements give absolute permeability. In shaley reservoirs with high water saturation or in an oil-wet reservoir,
the effective permeability can be significantly lower than the absolute permeability. Cores are taken on samples that have been
moved to surface and cleaned so that the measurement conditions are not the same as those made in-situ. Some of these conditions,
such as downhole stress, can be simulated on surface. Others, such as clay alteration and stress-relief cracks, may not be reversible.

Log data:
Logs measure porosity and attributes that are related to pore size, for example irreducible water saturation and nuclear magnetic
resonance (NMR). Permeability can be estimated from these measurements using suitable empirical relationships which must be
calibrated for each reservoir and area to more direct measurements, usually cores, but sometimes, after scaling up, to pressure
transient analysis. The main use of log-derived permeability is to provide continuous permeability estimates. In the majority of
wells, especially those from older fields, the availability of NMR logs is not the rule.

Well test:
Pressure transient analysis measures the average in-situ effective permeability of the reservoir. The results, however, have to be
interpreted from the change of pressure with time. Interpreters use several techniques by identifying and analysis specific flow
regimes and matching transient pressure to type curves. The goal is to measure, during radial flow, the transmissivity (KH/μ) or
when knowing fluid viscosity, the flow capacity (KH). In normal reservoir engineering practice, the main source of average
effective permeability is pressure transient well testing. This is usually a good indicator of overall well performance and gives an
average permeability within a couple hundred meters reservoir drainage area. Consequently, it cannot resolve the permeability
SPE 134001 3

layer distribution. Wireline formation testers with the inflatable straddle packer provide a similar function as a well test, but at
smaller scale.

Other sources:
In the absence of the above-listed methods, permeability is often related to porosity. In theory, the relationship is weak. In practice,
however, a well-sorted sandstone reservoir with a consistent porosity – permeability relation does exist.

3. RESERVOIR AVAILABLE DATA OF STUDY FIELD

The presented case concerns a gas field discovered in Southwest Sahara, represented by a massive 80 m shaly sandstone reservoir.
It consists of very fine to coarse-grained sandstone deposits with some interbedded sand-shale sequences. The porosity and
permeability parameters range between 5 and 28 p.u. and between 0.01 to 300 mD, respectively.

In the first well (A), in addition to conventional wireline logs, 39% of the reservoir thickness has been cored and routine porosity
and permeability measurements were performed.

After perforating 42 meters in the reservoir the well has been tested where commercial dry gas flow rate at surface has been
recorded.

In the second well (B), conventional wireline logs have recorded and a wireline formation tester with the straddle inflatable packer
application has been performed.

4. STEP-BY-STEP METHODOLOGY AND APPLICATION

Step 1: Porosity–Permeability Facies Units Determination

Starting with the classical Phi-K relationship where several authors1,5,9 mentioned that for any given rock type, the different
porosity/permeability relationships are evidence of existence of different flow units.

On well A, the Φ-K plot from core measurements (Fig. 2) allows distinguishing five relations; a colour code was assigned for
each. This classification reflects geological framework, of similar deposit conditions and diagenetic process. The core description
confirmed that, by showing the influence of grain size and diagenesis effect of each porosity range from very-fine tight sandstone
(Facies 1) to coarse-grained friable sandstone (Facies 5). These five relations reflect then the facies distribution within the studied
reservoir, see Table 1.
.

Step 2: Identification of Hydraulic Flow units

To control flow unit boundaries on the reservoir, a Hydraulic Unit (HU) zonation scheme devised by Ameaeful, Tiab et al.1 was
used to compute and distinguish the different hydraulic flow units. The technique is based on a modified Koseny-Carmen equation
and the concept of mean hydraulic radius.

The equation indicates that for any hydraulic unit, a log-log plot of a “Reservoir Quality Index” (RQI) versus “Normalized
Porosity Index” that is the pore volume–to-grain volume ratio (Φz) should yield a straight line with a unit slope. The intercept of
unit slope with Φz=1, designated as “The Flow Zone Indicator” (FZI), is a unique parameter for each hydraulic unit.1. The
computations are as follows:

Normalized Porosity Index

Φz = Φ / (1-Φ)………………………….(1)

Reservoir Quality Index

RQI = 0.0314 √ K/Φ.................................(2)
4 SPE 134001

Flow Zone Indicator

FZI = RQI/Φz……………………………(3)

From core data measurements, the plot of RQI versus Φz allows determining the Hydraulic Units (Fig. 3). Four units were
identified and called HU1, HU2, HU3 and HU4.

Table 2 shows the main results of RQI and FZI for each Hydraulic Unit and its corresponding porosity and permeability classes. A
colour code was assigned to each HU. When combined with facies units, colour helps to define facies-hydraulic units boundaries
that will be used for detailed correlation.

Note that HU1 includes both 2 and 3 facies units, also the boundaries don’t coincide with the HUs.
The facies unit 5 split with two hydraulic units HU4 and HU3.
The unit with porosity below 5% that corresponds to facies unit 1, has very low FZI and was not considered as an hydraulic unit.

Fig. 4 shows the porosity-permeability relationship based on determined HUs where we can consider that hydraulic units HU4,
HU3 and HU2 could be grouped within the same relationship, and HU1 lied under another.

Step 3: Synthetic permeability curve generation

Showing a good correlation between effective porosity from petrophysical analysis and porosity from cores, the objective of this
step is to generate a synthetic permeability curve based on the two Φ-K relations controlling the HUs.

Relation applied on HU4, HU3 and HU2 is:

K = 0.0017 e 0.477Φ (R2=0.9)…………….(4)

Relation applied on porosity HU1 is:

K = 8 E-7 Φ6 (R2=0.79)………………..(5)

The obtained curve (Fig. 5) shows a good match within the cored intervals between core and synthetic permeability.

Based on effective porosity, the synthetic permeability curve has generated beyond the cored interval and could be considered as
prediction permeability over these zones.

Step 4: Effective-thickness computation

The assigned colours code respectively for facies and hydraulic units on digital values of synthetic permeability and effective
porosity gives another dimension for viewing vertical distribution of hydraulic units and their link of geological attributes (facies
units) that control reservoir zonation (Fig. 6).

Table 3 shows the thickness as well as porosity and permeability distribution for each HU over either cored and uncored intervals
in the reservoir.
The HU track in Fig. 5, scaled from 0 to 4 shows the vertical distribution of defined hydraulic units on well-A.

Table 4 resumes the thickness summation as well as Average Phi and K of each individual HU. It is, therefore, important to
define the correct thickness that is actively contributing in the flow. This is provided by drill stem test (DST) analysis.

Step 5: Well test DST interpretation

The DST performed over the top part of the reservoir is a multi-rate test, suitable for gas wells, which allows evaluation of well
deliverability and non-Darcy effects that gives the real skin effect. Pressure transient analysis gives a good match between raw data
and numerical model: homogeneous with wellbore storage and skin bounded by constant pressure. Figs. 7 and 8 show,
respectively, the pressure history of the entire test and numerical analysis of a second build-up pressure variation and its derivative.

The obtained flow capacity is KH = 2277 mD.m

SPE 134001 5

In the other side the HUs’ thicknesses and their flow capacities KH’s summation has been calculated in the tested interval. The
results are reported in Table 5.

We can see that the first three HU have actively contributed in the flow during the well test.
The summation of HU4+3+2 have a KH = 2442 mD.m. that is the closest flow capacity compared from that obtained by DST
analysis.
Note that also the grouped HUs (HU4+3+2+1) has similar flow capacity value (KH=2448 mD.m) which means the HU1 has not
contributing on the flow.

The corresponding effective thickness is: H = 23.88 m

The average permeability then is:
KH/H = 2442/23.88= 102.26 mD

The effective permeability by well test is:

KH/H = 2277/23.88 = 95.35 mD

The difference could be attributed to the difference between resolution and scale measurements of the two techniques. However
the obtained permeability, from either first or second method, is an average value including several layers within the tested rock
interval. The target is to determine permeability value at each individual or grouped HU.
Step 6: Permeability Check Point at Well B

In the appraisal second well, the operator’s objectives are not only to gather conventional logs but also good-quality fluid samples
and formation pressure from each individual hydraulic flowing unit as well as accurate horizontal and vertical permeability. For
that Wireline formation tests have performed in the well B.
Based on effective porosity from petrophysical analysis of this well, a permeability synthetic curve has been generated from the
two relationships applied in well A, using Eq.4 and Eq.5.
Fig. 9 shows the obtained permeability curve, as well as HU’s has been defined by the same technique used in well A.
A wireline formation tester in its straddle inflatable packer configuration was carried out to test 1-meter interval in the well B (the
black square in Fig. 9).
The interpreted model of homogeneous partially penetration with wellbore storage and skin gives a flow capacity KH = 299
mD.m. Figs. 10 and 11 show the pressure history simulation plot of this test and the interpreted pressure build up where the radial
flow regime shown in the derivative indicates the presence of two impermeable barriers in the tested zone.
From synthetic permeability curve linked with HU’s distribution, (Fig. 12) the closest flow capacity value in the tested zone is KH
= 291.73 mD.m. which include the two hydraulic units HU3 and HU2 with an effective flowing thickness of 4.72 meters. Table 6
shows the parameters: thickness, porosity, permeability and KH related to Hydraulic Flow Units within the tested zone.
Note that the grouped HU3+2+1 has also similar close value (KH=294 mD.m) which means once again, that HU1 if has not
contributing to the entire flow has a very slight contribution.
This result provides a confirmation of which HUs contributed in the flow during this mini DST as well as the determination of KH
for each separate flow unit. The obtained permeability of the grouped HU3+HU2 units is considered as flow unit effective
permeability, which cannot be done from a global DST.

5. CONCLUSION
The benefit of this cross-discipline method can be summarized as follows:
- Linking between Facies Units and Hydraulic Units
- From core data, extract Φ–K relationships linked with HU’s
- Generation of Permeability Prediction curve from effective log porosity and HU relationships
- Identification of effective flowing thickness from HU’s coupled with predicted permeability and compared with flow capacity
of DST and straddle inflatable packer analysis
- Provide a unique permeability value at hydraulic flow unit scale which will be assigned in the geo-cellular numerical
simulator.

Acknowledgments
The authors thank the management of Sonatrach Exploration for their support and permission to publish this paper.
6 SPE 134001

Nomenclature
Φ = porosity , fraction
Φz = normalized porosity index , fraction
K = permeability, mD
HU = hydraulic units
RQI = reservoir quality index
FZI = flow zone indicator
Heff = effective flowing thickness, m
KH = flow capacity, mD.m
KH/μ = transmissivity, mD.m/cP

References
1. Amaefule, J. O., Altunbay, M., Tiab, D. Kersey, D., and Keelan, D. : “Enhanced Reservoir Description Using Core and
Log data to Identify Hydraulic (Flow) Units and Predict Permeability in Uncored Intervals/Wells.” SPE 26436, Oct.1993
at SPE Annual Houston, Texas.
2. Charles R. Smith, G. W. Tracy, R. Lance Farrar “Applied Reservoir engineering” OGCI Publication, Tulsa, Oklahoma,
1992
3. R, C, Earlougher. “Advances in well test analysis” monograph volume 5 of the Henry L. Doherty series. Society of
Petroleum engineers of AIME, 1977
4. T.M, Wittle, SPE, J. Lee, SPE, Baker Atlas, A. C. Gringarten, SPE, Imperial College, UK. “Will Wireline formation
Tests Replace Well Tests?” SPE 84086, Oct. 2003 at SPE Annual Denver, Colorado.
5. M.O. Amabeoku, SPE, D.G. Kersey, SPE, R.H. BinNaasser, SPE, and A.R. Belowi, SPE, Saudi Aramco. “Relative
Permeability Coupled Saturation Height Models Based on Hydraulic (Flow) Units in a gas field” SPE 102249, Sept.2006
at SPE Annual San Antonio, Texas
6. M. Cozzi, L. Ruvo, SPE, P. Scaglioni, and A.M. Lyne, Eni E&P. “Core Data Preprocessing To Improve Permeability Log
Estimation” SPE 100748 Sept.2006 at SPE Annual San Antonio, Texas
7. C. Ayan, H. Hafez, S. Hurst, F. Kuchuk, A. O’Callaghan, J. Pop and M. Zeibek: “Characterizing permeability formation
testers” oilfield review Autumn 2001, page 6 and 7.
8. O.D. Cortez, SPE, Centrica Energy and P.W.M. Corbett, SPE, Hariott Watt University “Time lapse Production Logging
and the Concept of Flow Units” SPE 94436, June 2005 at SPE Europec/EAGE Annual Madrid, Spain.
9. Gunter, G. W., Finneran, J.M., Amoco EPTG, Hartmann, D.J., DJH Energy, Miller, J.D., Amoco E&P “Early
Determination of Reservoir Flow units Using an Integrated Petrophysical Method” SPE 38679, Oct. 1997 at SPE Annual
San Antonio, Texas
10. G. Michael Shook, SPE, Chevron Energy Technology Company, and Kameron M. Mitchell, Chevron International
Exploration and Production “A robust Measure of Heterogeneity for Ranking Earth Models: The F-PHI Curve and
Dynamic Lorenz Coefficient” SPE124625, Oct. 2009 at SPE Annual New Orleans, Louisiana.
SPE 134001 7

Table 1:
Porosity Permeability
Facies
Range, p.u. Range, mD
1 0-5 0.03 - 0.05
2 5 - 10 0.05 - 0.2
3 10 -15 0.2 - 9
4 15 - 20 10 - 50
5 20 - 28 50 - 300

Table 2:
K ,mD Porosity, p.u RQI FZI
HU4 300<K<460 25<phi<28 1.2 3.68
HU3 100<K<200 21<phi<24 0.701 2.37
HU2 10<K<50 14<phi<20 0.389 1.8
HU1 0.05<K<1 5<phi<13 0.0388 0.377
0<phi<5

Table 3:
Heff , Φ_AVER K_AVER, KH,
m , p.u. mD mD.m
0.25 26.02 244.97 61.2425
HU4 0.55 25.603 244.16 134.288
0.95 26.148 399.454 379.4813
3.527 21.996 94.303 332.625
0.190 20.050 61.725 11.728
5.200 23.155 138.515 720.279
HU3
0.610 20.279 56.236 34.281
1.067 21.780 87.222 93.048
3.353 22.842 121.901 408.709
1.067 16.436 17.759 18.946
0.600 17.553 33.317 19.990
1.030 17.668 39.742 40.934
0.457 15.213 9.026 4.127
HU2
0.305 17.121 22.320 6.803
3.505 18.738 36.030 126.294
0.914 19.686 47.040 43.014
0.305 16.688 20.531 6.258
1.829 9.215 0.191 0.348
2.743 8.828 0.184 0.505
4.400 8.955 0.203 0.893
6.650 9.853 0.567 3.773
HU1
0.305 10.700 0.364 0.111
0.305 9.072 0.317 0.097
1.676 9.138 0.242 0.406
0.152 8.126 0.110 0.017

Table 4:
Heff _AVER K_AVER, ΣKH,
,m ,p.u. mD mD.m
HU4 1.75 25.92 296.19 575.012
HU3 13.95 21.68 93.32 1600.671
HU2 8.18 17.39 28.22 266.365
HU1 18.06 9.24 0.27 6.15
8 SPE 134001

Table 5:
Heff Φ_AVER K_AVER, ΣKH,
,m ,p.u. mD mD.m
HU4 1.75 25.924 296.195 575.011
HU4+3 15.70 23.80 194.76 2175.68
HU4+3+2 23.88 21.67 139.24 2442.04
HU4+3+2+1 41.94 18.56 104.50 2448.19

Table 6:
Heff Φ_AVER K_AVER, ΣKH,
,m ,p.u. mD mD.m
HU3 2.29 22.248 100.39 229.500
HU3+2 4.72 19.750 61.76 291.735
HU3+2+1 8.00 16.111 36.86 294.880

Fig. 1 : Disciplines vs scale measurement

Fig. 2 : Φ – K Plot for Facies Unit identification

SPE 134001 9

Reservoir Quality Index

10

HU4

HU3

HU2
1
RQI

HU1

0.1

0.01
0.010 0.100 1.000

Φz

Fig. 3 : Reservoir Quality Index and FZI plot

Fig. 4 : Φ – K Plot for HU identification

 10 SPE 134001

Fig. 5 : Well A, Φeff & core – Ksynth & core vs Depth with Hydraulic flow units HU4, HU3 and HU2

Fig. 6 : Vertical distribution of HU and their link of geological attribute (facies units)
SPE 134001 11

Fig. 7 : DST Pressure history simulation plot on well A

Fig. 8 : Build-up test analysis

12 SPE 134001

Fig. 9 : Well B, Φeff – Ksynth vs Depth

with Hydraulic flow units HU4, HU3 and HU2

Fig.10 : Pressure history simulation plot of straddle inflatable packer test

SPE 134001 13

Fig. 11 : Straddle inflatable packer build-up test analysis

Fig. 12 : Well B: Flowing thickness identification by contribution of HU3 & HU2 (yellow) during Straddle Packer test