Society of Petroleum Engineers

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEMEOS/proceedings-pdf/93MEOS/All-93MEOS/SPE-25580-MS/1982003/spe-25580-ms.pdf by University of Baghdad, Hussein Y. Ali on 01 July 2021

SPE 25580

Geologic Modelling for Reservoir Simulation: Hanifa Reservoir,

Berri Field, Saudi Arabia
G.S. Kompanik, * R.J. Heil, Z.A. AI-Shammari, and M.J. AI-Shammery, Saudi Aramco
'SPE Member

Copyright 1993, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Middle East Oil Technical Conference & Exhibition held in Bahrain, 3-6 April 1993.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper,
as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessanly reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society
of Petroleum Engineers. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment
of where and by whom the paper is presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083·3836, U.S.A., Telex, 163245 SPEUT.

ABSTRACT The resulting geologic model has improved the

A 3-D geologic model of the Hanifa reservoir was
constructed using sequence stratigraphic principles
and facies to control the distribution of porosity and
permeability. The reservoir had been previously
interpreted as having "layer cake" stratigraphy based
on correlation of similar lithologies and similar
appearing porosity inflections. The new geologic
model incorporates a field-wide gamma ray
correlation over 55 km from the non-reservoir rocks
to the main producing area of the field. The gamma
ray correlation produced a previously unrecognized
reservoir geometry consisting of a high stand systems
tract, a shelf (ramp) margin wedge, and a
transgressive systems tract. This model represents
our first 3-D geologic model based on sequence
stratigraphy. This geologic model has been used
successfully in reservoir simulation and field
operations.
The reservoir consists of skeletal sands and
stromatoporoid boundstone complexes to the north
that grade to non-reservoir mudstones to the south.
The reservoir was divided into 45 geologic layers.
Core descriptions led to mapping facies distribution
within each geologic layer. A 3-D lithofacies model
was constructed and used as a template to calculate
and assemble porosity and permeability models. A
water-saturation model was also constructed based on
facies specific J-functions. The geologic horizons
were then grouped into 20 flow layers as the geologic
front end into reservoir simulation.
Hanifa reservoir simulation by defining previously
unrecognized reservoir geometries and providing the
detailed resolution that enabled engineers and
geologists to identify and understand the geologic
attributes controlling fluid movement. The flood
front has moved preferentially through grainstones in
the highstand systems tract by crossing layer
boundaries. Fluid flow has been impeded within
layers that are dominated by boundstones,
wackestones or mudstones.
INTRODUCTION
Bem field is located about 100 km north of Dhahran
in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia. The field
ranks as the 22nd largest in the world (Carmalt and
St. John, 1986) and is in a mature state of
development. A peripheral water flood has been in
effect since 1973. During the past 20 years, water
encroachment within the reservoir has been poorly
understood. Previous geologic and simulation models
have failed to explain and predict water movement.
In late 1988, Saudi Aramco commissioned Mobil
Exploration and Producing Services to conduct a full
field geological and engineering description of Berri
Hanifa and Hadriya reservoirs. Mobil geologists,
working closely with Saudi Aramco counterparts,
developed a detailed geological understanding of the
sedimentology, depositional environments and
diagenesis of this reservoir using all available core

517
2 GEOLOGIC MODELLING FOR RESERVOIR SIMULATION: HANIFA RESERVOIR
and petrophysical log data (McGuire, 1992). This
reservoir description was used as the basis to
construct 3-D numerical models of facies, porosity,
permeability and water saturation. Saudi Aramco
geologists began to construct these models for
reservoir simulation in early 1991.
The geologic model is different from previous
modelling efforts because, 1) this effort is the first
Aramco model to use sequence stratigraphy to define
reservoir geometry, 2) the modelling techniques used
facies geometry to distribute porosity, permeability,
and water saturation, and 3) we used a team
approach in which geologists worked closely with
reservoir and simulation engineers to ensure
permeability modifications were constrained by
reasonable variability of the geologic model. This
paper will present our modelling techniques.
Reservoir modelling proceeded on two levels, a
robust effort over the Berri Field oil column (10.7
million cells), and a regional (less-robust) modelling
effort over the aquifer area (3.6 million cells). Two
large model files were developed for the reservoir
(Berri Field model file and the regional model file)
which includes a series of lithofacies, porosity,
permeability and water saturation, models (Fig. 4).
The modelling techniques presented in this paper
have revolved around the strategy to keep the geology
as the fundamental control in the reservoir modelling
stream. This is a substantial improvement over
previous techniques used to build most models. We
made every effort to ensure that the numerical
simulation of the geology reflected the interpretation
and intent of the geologic team. Since their
construction, the models have been used extensively
in the daily operational environment. Information
from new wells suggest model predictability is very
good and major model alterations at this time do not
seem likely.
Extensive team work and interaction among reservoir
geology, reservoir engineering and reservoir
simulation, resulted in numerous alterations of
reservoir modelling techniques. Although this
approach was at times frustrating, a better product
resulted than what could have been realized using the
traditional "assembly-line" technique in which the
product (reservoir model) was transferred to
simulation and interaction between groups ceased.
518
SPE25580
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEMEOS/proceedings-pdf/93MEOS/All-93MEOS/SPE-25580-MS/1982003/spe-25580-ms.pdf by University of Baghdad, Hussein Y. Ali on 01 July 2021
HANIFA GEOLOGICAL DESCRlPfION
The Hanifa Formation within the Berri Field area
comprises a large-scale (third order)
coarsening-upward, shallowing-upward carbonate
platform sequence (500 feet thick). In general, the
Hanifa consists of two major units: 1) A lower
non-reservoir unit of organic-rich laminated lime
mudstones and low porosity skeletal wackestones, and
2) An upper reservoir unit of grain-rich carbonates
including skeletal packstones, grainstones,
coral/stromatoporoidboundstones and conglomerates.
These facies form a continuum of depositional
textures and are interpreted to have formed in outer
ramp, ramp-margin, and basinal environments (Fig.
3) (Ahr, 1973; Wilson, 1975; Read, 1985). Skeletal
sands and stromatoporoid/coral bioherm complexes
dominate the outer ramp and ramp margin
environment. These facies grade southward into
skeletal packstones and wackestones along a ramp
margin slope, and finally into tight lime mudstones in
the basin.
The best reservoir facies consist of skeletal
conglomerates and grainstones. The
skeletal/intraclast conglomerate facies has exceptional
reservoir quality, with measured permeabilities in the
darey range. The bioherm associated facies exhibit
discontinuous, lenticular geometries and are
characterized by intermediate reservoir quality. The
bioherm complexes interfinger with the excellent
reservoir quality conglomerates to produce
complicated facies mosaics with extreme intralayer
permeability heterogeneity. Consequently, bioherm-
rich zones are typically bypassed by the flood front,
or are poorly swept.
The Hanifa Formation in Berri field consists of 45
geologic layers, 9 reservoir facies and 1
non-reservoir facies. The 45 geologic layers were
grouped into 20 engineering layers. The 45 geologic
markers that define the layering were correlated in
142 Berri Hanifa penetrations, based on gamma-ray
and porosity markers. The lithofacies, as defined in
cores, were assigned for every foot of well log in the
same 142 wells, resulting in a Hanifa static model
database of over 8000 tops and facies. This database
was used to build the 3-D reservoir models.
The Hanifa Formation is interpreted to be a
third-order, shallowing-upward carbonate sequence
SPE 25580 GARY S. KOMPANIK
dated as Jurassic 144 million year sequence
boundary, placing the Hanifa Formation in a
sequence stratigraphic framework. The sequence
stratigraphic framework is expanded in McGuire, et
al (1992). This third-order sequence is composed of
smaller-scale (fifth-order) parasequences (1-5 meters
thick) that are systematically stacked in parasequence
sets (fourlh-order). (Van Wagoner, 1990).
Parasequence sets (5 meters to 30 meters) typically
consist of from three to six genetically related
parasequences. Overall, parasequence sets have
basinward-dipping (southward) sigmoidal geometries
that reflect the interpreted depositional profile. Within
sets, individual parasequences also have sigmoidal
geometry with platformward toplap or onlap and
basinward downlap relationships. No typical well
consists of the complete package of markers.
The parasequence sets stack characteristically into
systems tracts. (Sarg, 1988). Most of the reservoir
consists of the high stand systems tract of the Jurassic
144 my. South of Berri 78, the ramp margin wedge
(basal part of overlying sequence), forms the upper
portion of the reservoir. North of Berri 78, the
transgressive systems tract forms the uppermost,
northward back-stepping reservoir units. These
systems tracts stack to produce a fairly tabular
reservoir body with internally southward dipping
clinoforms (Fig. 1A).
HANIFA 3-D LITHOFACIES MODELS
Prototyping/Geological Constraints
The lithofacies or the geology model was the first 3-
D model constructed. This was necessary because
the geology model functioned as a template to
control subsequent numerical modelling. The
modelling proceeded along three phases: prototype,
final, and regional. Hand-drawn lithofacies maps of
each layer were constructed by geologists to define
the areal changes in facies and orientation of the
depositional trend. These lithofacies maps and a
network of cross-sections were available to compare
to modelling results. By using these lithofacies maps
as guides to influence model building, the distribution
and geometry of the facies that are simulated by the
model are based on sound geological interpretation.
Where the modelling results were very different or
519
3
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEMEOS/proceedings-pdf/93MEOS/All-93MEOS/SPE-25580-MS/1982003/spe-25580-ms.pdf by University of Baghdad, Hussein Y. Ali on 01 July 2021
unacceptable, edits were made to psuedowells, or
modelling parameters were modified. Pseudowells
are artifical well locations strategically located to
control the facies distribution. The location of
psuedowells was by convenience, and the facies data
in these pseudowells was modified as needed.
Porosity and permeability distributions are ultimately
controlled by the facies geometry, thus we modelled
with the following questions in mind:
• Which facies do we include in the geology
model?
• Which layers do we need in the geology
model?
• How much difference can be tolerated
between the model and the controlling
lithofacies maps?
• What bias direction and magnitude best
depicts facies geometries?
• What methodology should be used to
interpolate facies between well control?
Hamfa Geology (Lithofacies) Model
The Hanifa reservoir has been divided into 45 layers
that have sigmoidal geometry with basinward dip
(Fig. 1A). Many layers thin to zero to the north or
south, and therefore do not extend over the entire
area. The individual isochore maps of each layer
stack together to produce a tabular 500 feet thick
reservoir body which belies the complex internal
geometry.
Ten lithofacies comprise the Hanifa geology model
(Fig. lB). Facies 7 is non-reservoir mudstone and
the remaining facies are reservoir rocks characterized
by fairly distinct porosity and permeability
populations. The facies are distributed (mapped)
within each layer as prescribed by core description
and the depositional model. The facies are stacked
within the 44 layers to complete the reservoir
architecture (Fig. lB).
Lithofacies maps for each layer were used to guide 3-
4 GEOLOGIC MODELLING FOR RESERVOIR SIMULATION: HANIFA RESERVOIR
D modelling. The lithofacies maps clearly illustrate
that the facies belts (for all layers) are aligned on
average of North 109 degrees East. Thus, to
properly simulate this alignment we used a bias of
3:1 with an azimuth of 109 degrees.
Figure 2 compares the conceptual model to actual 3-
D simulations. The facies belts as shown in the 3-D
model are very close to the lithofacies map. Well
data is honored; exceptions are minor and occur in
areas of poor well control. Cross-sections were also
available to verify the vertical stacking of facies (Fig.
2C and 2D).
A stochastic modelling technique was used to emplace
heterogeneity into the lithofacies model between
wells.
Regional Hamfa Geology Model
The Hanifa regional model, 100 lan by 70 lan, was
constructed by extending the facies bands from Berri
Field area over the regional, consistent with the
regional geological control. Control in the regional
area of interest consist of field maps (grids) and
selected wells in oil fields, regional wells and a grid
of psuedowells.
PQROSITY MODEL
Modelling Strategy
This study presents a porosity model that is a facies-
dependent, composited model. In the past, most 3-D
porosity models were built using semi-eontinuous
interpolations of string porosity data independent of
facies. The geometry of facies would only indirectly
control the porosity distribution by changes in the
porosity values at well locations. A better method of
building porosity models would use facies
architecture to control the distribution of porosity.
(Fig. lC)
Facies in the Hanifa reservoir are characterized by
fairly distinct populations according to summary
statistics and histograms. For example, the skeletal
packstones in the Hanifa facies averaged 13 %
porosity, and facies 3 peloidal grainstones averaged
19%. The distribution of porosity is dependent on
the distribution of facies.
520
SPE 25580
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEMEOS/proceedings-pdf/93MEOS/All-93MEOS/SPE-25580-MS/1982003/spe-25580-ms.pdf by University of Baghdad, Hussein Y. Ali on 01 July 2021
In order to create a facies-dependent porosity model,
a separate porosity model for each facies was built
using that particular facies porosity data as input.
This methodology was required in our modelling
because there was no way to use the lithofacies model
to limit the interpolation of porosity within the facies
boundaries. After each individual facies porosity
model was constructed, the geology model was used
as a template to isolate the porosity values in each
model where thatfacies exists in space. Then, using
"model operations", these porosities were composited
into one porosity model. Figure 5 illustrates this
concept by showing a series of facies-specific
porosity models. The geologic model is then used to
extract the porosity values associated in space with
that facies and to assemble the composite porosity
model.
PERMEABILITY MODELS
Transform Development
Porosity to permeability transform development is an
integral step in reservoir modelling studies, as
transforms are necessary to model permeability data
in uncored wells. Nine porosity to permeability
transform equations were developed for the Hanifa
reservoir.
Nine transform equations were initially developed for
the Hanifa reservoir: facies 2, 2.1, 3, 3.2, 3.3, 5, 6,
8, and 8.1 (Figure IB relates facies number
designation to lithologic description). Each of these
facies or facies groups represent a fairly distinct
family of permeability as shown by the cumulative
frequency distributions of the core permeability for
each facies (Fig. 6). In the Hanifa reservoir, facies
2 and 3.2 are characterized by the highest
permeabilities, and the remaining skeletal grainstones,
facies 3, 3.2, 3.3, along with boundstones and
boundstone flank facies have intermediate
permeabilities. Lowest permeabilities are in facies 5
and 6-- packstones and wackestones.
Fitted-eurves of porosity to permeability were
developed interactively using a SAS program in
which coefficients of linear log-log fits were
modified. The equations were then used to generate
SPE 25580 GARY S. KOMPANIK
permeabilities from the core porosity data.
Cumulative frequency distributions of these data were
created and compared to the cumulative frequency
distribution of the core permeabilities. If there was
significant separation, then equation coefficients were
modified as required.
Figure 9 shows the cumulative frequency distributions
of permeabilities resulting from a composite of all the
individual facies. Note that the calculated
permeabilities mmnc observed permeabilities
extremely well. Departures of the curves from each
individual facies tend to cancel out, resulting in a
near perfect overlay. Good agreement between
porosity from log analysis and core porosity is
essential, because we directly transformed log-derived
porosity to permeability. Any differences in the
porosities would show up as differences in the
cumulative frequency distributions of permeabilities.
These transforms are robust prediction tools which
clearly reproduce the full range of measured
permeabilities over the range of core porosity data.
3-D Penneability Modelling Strategy
Permeability models were created by converting
porosity to permeability with facies-specific
transforms. We used the lithofacies model to extract
the porosity corresponding to each facies and pointed
to the appropriate transform equation to calculate
permeability in a series of model operation steps~
These operations produced permeability models for
each facies which were subsequently composited into
one permeability model. Mudstone facies in both
reservoirs were assigned zero permeability. This is
consistent with the porosity models where the
mudstone facies were assigned zero percent porosity.
A significant amount of time was invested to
understand porosity and permeability relationships
within facies contexts.
The permeability model is tied to the geology model
through the porosity model and the facies-based
porosity to permeability transforms. Facies geometry
is clearly reflected in layer average permeability
maps. Fig. ID demonstrates the relationship of
permeability to facies geometry.
Fluid movement is also controlled by facies. Water
flood movement through the skeletal intraclastic
521
5
conglomerates/grainstones is very efficient, and water
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEMEOS/proceedings-pdf/93MEOS/All-93MEOS/SPE-25580-MS/1982003/spe-25580-ms.pdf by University of Baghdad, Hussein Y. Ali on 01 July 2021
quickly sweeps through this facies, bypassing oil in
the boundstones and poorly-connected grainstones.
The waterfiood moves through the most permeable
channels, and moves updip by overriding the least
permeable facies packstones and wackestones (Fig.
7).
Penneability Enhancements
Porosity-weighted Permeability Models:
Sufficient contrasts in facies permeabilities must exist
to match flood front movement in both reservoirs.
This attribute is often compromised because the
geologic permeability model must be grossly
averaged to characterize an engineering layer. This
means that a heterogenous engineering layer,
consisting of stacked facies of differing
permeabilities, will be averaged and contrasts will be
diminished or lost. Based on reservoir simulation
experience in Jurassic carbonate reservoirs in Saudi
Arabia, penneabUities generated by porosity
transfonn equations commonly require multiplieati,e
factors to achie,e history matching. We realized the
Hanifa would require similar treatment. To minimize
the multiplicative factors, we attempted to
systematically increase permeabilities through
porosity-weighting. This generally boosted
permeabilities about 25 to 50 %. The highs on the
porosity-weighted layer average permeability maps
generally show an extra closure, and some contours
include more area by slight elongation.
ArealFacies Specific Transform Analysis:
Two different problems related to the permeability
models prompted us to re-examine the original
transform equations in the lower porosity ranges of
good facies and in the tighter facies generally. This
effort occurred largely after we had completed model
building and the reservoir simulation team was
initializing and history matching the models. One
problem was the large number of cells (20 %) having
zero permeability (a coding problem with 3-D
software) in the Hanifa reservoir. The other problem
involved the poor correlation between I-function
derived water saturations and saturations from log
analysis noted in wells in the southern portion of the
6 GEOLOGIC MODELLING FOR RESERVOIR SIMULATION: HANIFA RESERVOIR
field. With these problems in mind,
porosity-permeability data were reexamined to see if
some of the data scatter could be reduced by dividing
the data into different areas of the field and
consequently solving the problems mentioned above.
The geologic basis for area-dependency is that
because the field is so large, each lithologic facies
may have deteriorating reservoir parameters in the
basinward direction (southward).
In summary, the area/facies-specific transform
analysis indicates there is a permeability degradation
to the south. Core porosity and permeability data
were subdivided by region (north to south) and a
series of porosity-permeability semilog transform
equations were developed. These equations are
generally characterized by decreasing slope
coefficients southward.
Log-log Fit versus Semilog Calculated Permeabilities:
The original permeability model contained a high
percentage of zero permeability cells associated with
low porosity values. Simulation cells with zero
permeability were "keyed out" i.e., not used in the
simulation model, which resulted in a loss of pore
volume and energy in the simulation. Reservoir
simulation felt this was a problem and requested that
we try to remedy it. The problem was caused by
the fitted log-log transform equations. The log-log
equations have steep slopes at low porosity ranges
and predict very low permeabilities (i.e. less than 0.1
md) for porosities less than 8 or 9%. We did not
believe this would affect the history matching.
The solution involved using semilog least square fits
of porosity to permeability to raise the low end.
Figure 8 is an example from the Hanifa reservoir that
illustrates the problem and solution. The solid line is
the log-log fit which predicts permeability that closely
resembles the cumulative frequency distribution of
core permeability. Note, however, that the log-log
fit predicts little to no permeability for porosities
below 10%. The least squares solution (dotted line)
predicts considerably more permeability at the low
end, but flattens out through the middle of the data
cluster such that the higher permeabilities are not
well modelled. The ideal solution to predict
522
SPE 25580
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEMEOS/proceedings-pdf/93MEOS/All-93MEOS/SPE-25580-MS/1982003/spe-25580-ms.pdf by University of Baghdad, Hussein Y. Ali on 01 July 2021
permeability in this situation is to use the least
squares UM until it intersects the log-log fit. In
other words, the modelled permeability is the
maximum calculated permeability of both equations.
Vertical Penneability Problems and Nonsequential
Layerilll
Vertical permeability arrays proved to be a problem
in the Hanifa because of the nonsequential layering
that characterizes the reservoir. Nonsequentiallayer
geometries occur because of stratigraphic onlap,
downlap, and toplap relationships of stratigraphic
surfaces in the Hanifa (Fig. lA).
Vertical permeability is determined by harmonically
averaging permeabilities at engineering layer
interfaces. This software calculation works well as
long as layers are sequential; however, it was
discovered that in nonsequential situations, the
program produced totally erroneous permeabilities,
and generated missing values where connectivity
clearly exists. Reservoir modellers and simulation
engineers should be aware of these potential problems
when nonsequential layering is used. The program
source code had to be modified to get around this
problem.
Although most reservoirs will be characterized by
sequential layering, Bern is a special case. The
reservoir straddles a ramp margin into the basin and
the field is so large (long axis into the basin) that
geometries normally mapped on a seismic scale can
be seen in the reservoir.
WATER SATURATION MODELS
Modellilll Strategy
Water saturation was an involved process, and was
essentially accomplished by Saudi Aramco engineers
using I-functions (Phelps, 1992a and 1992b). The J-
Leverett function is a dimensionless parameter
calculated from porosity, permeability, and capillary
pressure (a function of height above oil-water
contact). Other values in the equation are
laboratory-derived constants for interfacial surface
tension and contact angle. The J=O line is the
oil-water contact and a line running parallel to the Y
SPE 25580 GARY S. KOMPANIK
axis and intersecting minimal water saturation values,
would be the irreducible water saturation.
The reservoir simulation engineers built J-function
curves for each facies by area in the reservoir. J-
function values were calculated from depth, porosity
and permeability (transform). Water saturation
values were obtained from log analysis. The J-
function values and water saturation values were
cross-plotted. Best-fit lines calculated through the
data cloud provided equations for each facies by area.
This technique is explained by Phelps (1992b).
After J-function equations were determined, initial
water saturations could be calculated using the data
unloaded from the geologic model: subsea depth
(capillary pressure), porosity, permeability and facies
(Phelps, 1992b). The initial water saturation
calculations were then loaded into the 3-D modelling
environment as a new 3-D model from which water
saturation arrays and displays could be generated.
Figure 10 features the facies and water saturation
model for the Hanifa reservoir. Note that the water
saturation models display a complex variability in the
transition zone near the oil-water contact and general
variations related to height above the oil-water
contact. There are also very specific variations
related to facies-specific effects reflected in porosity
and permeability variations. All the models are tied
back to the geology model and as is readily seen in
these diagrams.
RESERVOIR SIMULATION ARRAYS
The main purpose in building the 3-D models is to
provide a numerical simulation of the geology for
input into reservoir simulation. The 3-D models are
very detailed in comparison to the simulation model
due to practical limitations of CPU time required for
history matching. The 3-D cells have a vertical
resolution of one foot, whereas the simulation model
combines several geological layers into one
engineering layer. The areal dimensions of the
simulation blocks are at the finest level equal to the
geological model dimensions (250 meters by 250
meters), but become much larger outside of the
peripheral injectors. Thus, the 3-D reservoir model
must be averaged over the simulation blocks. This
operation is accomplished through an interface
program which assigns 3-D reservoir model cells to
523
7
corresponding simulation blocks and averages 3-D
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEMEOS/proceedings-pdf/93MEOS/All-93MEOS/SPE-25580-MS/1982003/spe-25580-ms.pdf by University of Baghdad, Hussein Y. Ali on 01 July 2021
data over the simulation block. The output is in the
form of arrays. Simulation arrays from the reservoir
geometry, porosity, permeability, and water .
saturation were created for three levels of resolution
over the oil column; 1000 meters, 500 meters and
250 meters, so history matching could proceed in a
step-wise fashion.
Because we constructed a set of regional models
designed to provide reservoir parameters over the
aquifer area, and a set of more detailed models over
the oil column, we likewise had to produce two
different sets of arrays (Fig. 4). These arrays were
merged, resulting in a single set of arrays optimally
designed for reservoir simulation.
Figure 11 compares a structural section of the
geologic 3-D permeability model to the same section
of the model used in reservoir simulation. The 45
geologic layers have been grouped into 20 layers to
"gross up" or simplify the geology into less layers for
reservoir simulation. The intent is to reduce
simulation computer resources, but the real effect is
reduction of reservoir heterogeneity. The simulation
model was constructed from geometry and
permeability arrays. Note in particular the reduction
of layers and the loss of detail through the averaging
process. There is about a 25 to 1 loss in vertical
resolution. It is not surprising that more
heterogeneous sections of the simulation model
require multiplication factors to increase permeability
to achieve history matching.
MAJOR CONCLUSIONS/FINDINGS
Conclusions of this modelling effort are:
1. The new Hanifa conceptual geological
models result in improved petrophysical
prediction.
2. Excellent prediction of petrophysical and
reservoir parameters is possible by using the
3-D lithofacies model to control and guide
the distribution of porosity, permeability and
even water saturation.
8 GEOLOGIC MODELLING FOR RESERVOIR SIMULATION: HANIFA RESERVOIR SPE 25580

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEMEOS/proceedings-pdf/93MEOS/All-93MEOS/SPE-25580-MS/1982003/spe-25580-ms.pdf by University of Baghdad, Hussein Y. Ali on 01 July 2021

3. Permeability characterization continues to be
an art form. This study suggests that
permeability be tied to the geology, that
permeability contrasts are reflected in facies,
and that transforms predict a full range of
permeabilities (robust transforms).
4. Model operations in our 3-D modelling
package are cumbersome, and it was much
easier to unload 3-D models and create
water saturation models outside of the 3-D
modelling environment.
5. Nonsequential layering caused problems in
vertical permeability calculations.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
of sequence stratigraphic concepts in development of
reservoir architecture in Late Jurassic grainstone,
Hadriya and Hanifa reservoirs, Saudi Arabia, SPE.
4) Phelps, R.E., 1992a, Lithologic dependent J-
functions and derived relative permeabilities, SPE
25661.
5) Phelps, R.E., 1992b, Practical aspects of
constructing a large 3-D simulation model of a
complex reservoir, SPE 25602.
6) Read, J.F., 1985 Carbonate platform facies
models: AAPG Bull., v.69, no.1, p.1-21.
7) Sarg, J.F., 1988, Carbonate sequence
stratigraphy, in, C.K. Wilgus et al., (eds). Sea-level
changes: an integrated approach: SEPM Sp. Pub.
No.30, p.361-369.

Appreciation is given to the Saudi Arabian Ministry
of Petroleum and Mineral Resources and to the Saudi
Arabian Oil Company for permission to publish this
paper. We also appreciate the excellent geologic
description of the Hanifa reservoir by Jim Markello
from Mobil, who provided the geologic framework
for the reservoir modelling efforts. M.J. Al-
Shammery was responsible for regional mapping and
modelling the aquifer/regional area. We are also
indebted to R.J. Heil for advice and guidance, in
formulating the 3-D modelling techniques. D.
Mohamed, from the Aramco Simulation Division,
provided specific guidelines and computer
programming to build the Hanifa 3-D water saturation
model.
8) Van Wagoner, J.C., R.M. Mitchum, K.M.
Campion, and V.D. Rahmanian, 1990, Siliclastic
sequence stratigraphy in well logs, cores and
outcrops: concepts for high-resolution correlation of
time and facies: AAPG Methods in Exploration
Series, No.7, SSp.
9) Wilson, J.L., and C.F. Jordan, 1983, Middle
Shelf Environment, in Carbonate Depositional
Environments, P.A. Scholle, D.G. Bebout, and C.H.
Moore (eds.), AAPG Menoir #33, p.297-343.

REFERENCES

1) Ahr, W.M., 1973, The carbonate ramp-an

alternative to the shelf model: Gulf Coast Association
of Geological Societies Transactions, v.23, p.221-
225.

2) Carmalt, S.W. and St. John, B., 1986, Giant oil

and gas fields, in Harbouty, M.T., ed, Future
petroleum provinces of the world: AAPG, P.11-53.

3) McGuire, M.D., Kompanik, G., Al-Shammery,

M., Al-Amoudi, M., Koepnik, R.B., Markello, J.R.,
Stockton, M.E., and Waite, L.E., 1992, Importance
524
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEMEOS/proceedings-pdf/93MEOS/All-93MEOS/SPE-25580-MS/1982003/spe-25580-ms.pdf by University of Baghdad, Hussein Y. Ali on 01 July 2021
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEMEOS/proceedings-pdf/93MEOS/All-93MEOS/SPE-25580-MS/1982003/spe-25580-ms.pdf by University of Baghdad, Hussein Y. Ali on 01 July 2021
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEMEOS/proceedings-pdf/93MEOS/All-93MEOS/SPE-25580-MS/1982003/spe-25580-ms.pdf by University of Baghdad, Hussein Y. Ali on 01 July 2021
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEMEOS/proceedings-pdf/93MEOS/All-93MEOS/SPE-25580-MS/1982003/spe-25580-ms.pdf by University of Baghdad, Hussein Y. Ali on 01 July 2021
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEMEOS/proceedings-pdf/93MEOS/All-93MEOS/SPE-25580-MS/1982003/spe-25580-ms.pdf by University of Baghdad, Hussein Y. Ali on 01 July 2021
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEMEOS/proceedings-pdf/93MEOS/All-93MEOS/SPE-25580-MS/1982003/spe-25580-ms.pdf by University of Baghdad, Hussein Y. Ali on 01 July 2021
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEMEOS/proceedings-pdf/93MEOS/All-93MEOS/SPE-25580-MS/1982003/spe-25580-ms.pdf by University of Baghdad, Hussein Y. Ali on 01 July 2021