IPTC 10152
Use of Fuzzy-Logic Permeability Models To Facilitate 3D Geocellular Modeling and
Reservoir Simulation: Impact on Business
M.O. Amabeoku, SPE, C. Lin, SPE, A.A. Khalifa, SPE, J. Cole, M. Dahan, SPE, and J. Jarlow, Saudi Aramco, and
A. Ajufo, SPE, Petroleum Services Inc.
Copyright 2005, International Petroleum Technology Conference
This paper was prepared for presentation at the International Petroleum Technology
Conference held in Doha, Qatar, 21–23 November 2005.
This paper was selected for presentation by an IPTC Programme Committee following review
of information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the International Petroleum Technology Conference
and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not
necessarily reflect any position of the International Petroleum Technology Conference, its
officers, or members. Papers presented at IPTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor
Society Committees of IPTC. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this
paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the International Petroleum
Technology Conference 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 where and by whom the paper was presented. Write
Librarian, IPTC, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Permeability is an important reservoir evaluation property and
is vital to well completion strategies, reservoir productivity, 3-
D geocellular model construction, and reservoir simulation.
Despite its importance, it is still one of the most difficult
petrophysical properties to predict accurately. Simple
porosity-permeability relationships have been used
extensively, even though the relationship between them is
admissibly poor. The problem is even more complex when
conventional open-hole log responses are used to predict
permeability in heterogeneous carbonates. Logs are obtained
in all wells, whereas only a few wells are cored. Therefore, it
becomes obvious that if conventional logs can be used to
predict permeability, then continuous permeability traces can
be as commonplace as porosity traces in well sets, instead of
sparse core data.
This paper describes the use of fuzzy logic to model and
predict permeability in cored wells by calibrating core
permeability against conventional open-hole logs. Fuzzy logic
is an application of recognized statistical techniques. It is an
extension of conventional Boolean logic (zeros and ones) that
has been developed to handle the concept of "partial truth" and
for modeling uncertainties. The permeability models
developed were then used to generate permeability trace in
each well across the field. In this application, fuzzy logic was
preferred to the conventional porosity-permeability regression
and neural networks because the results worked best as
demonstrated by blind verification to core data and the
excellent quality of reservoir simulation results.
There was a very good match between the modeled
permeability, the core data, and flow meter data in cored wells
that had flow meter data. The match was also very good in
non-cored wells that had pressure build-up data. Having
validated the model in these wells with hard data, we
proceeded to populate the 3-D geocellular model with the
generated permeability traces in all wells.
Cokriging the log of permeability with porosity was used
to distribute permeability in the 3-D model. This conditioning
facilitated consistency between porosity and permeability
trends, which agreed very well with observed stratigraphic
trends in the reservoir. The correlation of the logarithm of
permeability to porosity of core (plug) data is very good, with
coefficients of 0.65 to 0.75 for different layers in the reservoir.
The resulting geological models were used in reservoir
simulation of two complex carbonate reservoirs.
Significant success that is attributed to the use of fuzzy-
derived permeability was observed during the history
matching phase. The permeability was never modified and yet
the 55-year production history was matched with high
accuracy tolerance, in only two weeks for each of the two
reservoirs studied. In addition, water saturation logs were
accurately mimicked in the simulation model. A reduction of
80 percent of the project duration was achieved.
Introduction
Reservoir simulation is the most effective tool to integrate
rock-fluid data and to predict the field performance.
Currently, 60-70 percent of the simulation time is spent on
history matching, resulting in an extremely long cycle time.
Most of this time is spent on fine-tuning permeability. As a
result, the utilization of simulation as an effective planning
tool falls in the range of 50-60 percent. Much needs to be
done to leverage this technology, including improving the
model accuracy and shortening the cycle time of the
simulation process.
Permeability is an important reservoir property and is key
to well completion strategies, reservoir productivity, 3-D
geocellular model construction, and reservoir simulation.
Despite its import, it is still one of the most difficult
petrophysical properties to model or predict accurately.
Traditional plots of permeability versus porosity, in which
permeability is plotted against porosity in a semi-log format to
reduce the size of scatter, have little mathematical
justification. The underlying assumption is the relationship
between permeability and porosity as it is stated by the
Kozeny-Carman1,2 equation:
2 IPTC 10152
1 φ3
k= 2 2
τ Sgv Fs (1 − φ )2 ………………… (1)
Where,
K = permeability, cm2
φ = effective porosity
τ = tortuosity
Fs = shape factor
Sgv = specific surface area of porous media, cm-1
Fs τ2 = Kozeny constant, kz
In reality, tortuosity and shape factors vary drastically
from one sample to another, reflecting formation
heterogeneity. Therefore, classical approach of permeability
versus porosity plots show scatter, even in semi-logarithmic
space. Consequently, any transform equation derived from
this approach (via statistical best-fit line) is prone to have
unacceptable error boundaries.
Amaefule et al3 proposed the derivation of hydraulic units,
within which the rock properties can be averaged with
minimal errors. The benefit of identifying hydraulic units lies
in the ability to determine flow zone indicator (FZI) which
characterizes each flow unit and hence the relationship that
enables permeability to be calculated thus:
⎡ φ3 ⎤
K = 1014 FZI 2 ⎢ 2 ⎥
……………(2)
⎣ (1 − φ ) ⎦
Core samples that belong to the same hydraulic unit would
fall along the same best fit curve, as shown in Figure 14.
The biggest challenge is to be able to obtain the flow zone
indicators from logs. Soft computing techniques (artificial
neural networks (ANN), fuzzy logic, genetic algorithms) have
demonstrated that it is possible to get more confident models
for FZI and hence permeability compared with conventional
techniques. Before developing a soft computing model, we
must solve the problem of dimensionality such as determining
dominant and irrelevant variables. Soto and Holditch5 sought
to apply principal component and factor analyses to reduce the
dimensionality to facilitate formulation of more realistic
models.
ANN works very well at solving problems when it is
difficult to propose exact mathematical models. Artificial
neural networks learn the nature of the dependency between
input and output variables through a carefully selected and
representative set of training examples. Most artificial neural
networks use multi-layer back-propagation architecture to
apply knowledge gained from training experiences, which
allows the network to make new decisions, classifications, and
predictions. Helle et al6 used ANN to predict permeability
which they considered to be sufficiently accurate for their
purpose in a North Sea field, given the spatial resolution of the
logging tools and the range covered by the permeability
values.
Coates et al7 have written extensively on the application of
nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) log to calculate
permeability. Amabeoku et al8 illustrated how calibration of
NMR data to core can significantly improve NMR-derived
permeability. Multi-linear regression is also a common
mathematical formulation for permeability prediction
incorporating several logs or mineral components.
The problem is more complex when conventional open-
hole log responses are used to predict permeability in
heterogeneous carbonates. Logs are obtained in all wells,
whereas only a few wells are cored. Therefore, it becomes
imperative that if conventional logs can be used to predict
permeability, then continuous permeability traces can be as
common as porosity traces in well sets, as opposed to scanty,
discrete core data.
Permeability and porosity measured from cores are
representative of only a small rock volume, while a single
well-log reading is a composite result of petrophysical
properties within a radius of a few inches to several feet.
Small-scale heterogeneity between core samples a few inches
apart may not be resolved by well logs.
This paper discusses the use of fuzzy logic to model and
predict permeability in cored wells by calibrating core
permeability against conventional open-hole logs. The models
developed were then used to create a permeability trace in
each well in the field. Fuzzy logic was preferred to the
conventional porosity-permeability regression and neural
networks because the results worked the best in geocellular
modeling and reservoir simulation studies.
Fuzzy Logic Model Methodology
The principle of classical logic is bivalence; this means any
preposition would be either true or false. Aristotle formulated
the Law of the Excluded Middle. Any thing must be either
asserted or denied. There is no middle in the principle and
prepositions such as half-correct or more or less right are
excluded. The real world is not made up of bivalent black and
white, but of shades of gray. This is the basis of fuzzy logic
introduced by Zadeh9. There are many examples in the real
life; one of those is the calculation of "clayness" in a rock.
Figure 2 from Ohen et al10 shows a smoothly varying curve for
calculation of clay-volume for a specific rock from gamma ray
readings. It can be explained by fuzzy logic.
The process of fuzzy inference systems include:
fuzzification of the input and output variables, fuzzy “if-then”
rules, weighting factors, and defuzzification. The first step is
to take the inputs and outputs and determine the degree to
which they belong to each of the appropriate fuzzy sets via
membership functions. If Z is the universe and its elements are
denoted by z, then a fuzzy set A in Z is defined as a set of
ordered pairs:
A = {z, µ A | z ∈ Z }......................................(3)
where µA(z) is called the membership function of z in A. The
membership function maps each element of Z to a membership
value between 0 and 1. A membership function associated
with a given fuzzy set maps an input value to its appropriate
membership value. The membership function maps each
element of Z to a membership value between 0 and 1. In this
example, the clay-volume corresponds to the Z set. The
gamma ray values to element z, and the membership function
could be represented by the curve in Figure 2. Gamma Ray
value equal to 55 API units may correspond to an average of
IPTC 10152
0.65 for the clay-volume membership function, with some
degree of uncertainty.
A logging tool to determine porosity may respond to
mineralogy, fluids, and drilling fluid invasion. These effects
could introduce errors in the measurement. Conventional
techniques try to minimize or ignore the error. Fuzzy logic
asserts that there is useful information in this error. Cuddy and
Glover11 showed that the error information can be used to
provide a powerful predictive tool for the geoscientist to
complement conventional techniques.
Mathematical Expression of Permeability Prediction
by Fuzzy Logic
The normal distribution is given by:
e − ( x − µ ) / 2σ
2 2
P( x) = ............................................ (4)
σ 2π
P(x) is the probability density that an observation x is
measured in the data-set described by a mean µ and standard
deviation σ.
In conventional statistics, the area under the curve
described by the normal distribution represents the probability
of a variable x falling into a range, say between x1 and x2.
The curve itself represents the relative probability of variable x
occurring in the distribution. That is to say, the mean value is
more likely to occur than values 1 or 2 standard deviations
from it. This curve is used to estimate the relative probability
or “fuzzy possibility” that a data value belongs to a particular
data set. If a permeability value has a porosity distribution
with a mean µ and standard deviation σ the fuzzy possibility
that a well log porosity value x is measured in this
permeability value can be estimated using Equation 4. The
mean and standard deviation are simply derived from the
calibrating or conditioning data set, usually core data.
Where there are several permeability values in a well, the
porosity value x may belong to any of these permeability
ranges but some are more likely than others. Each of these
permeabilities has its own mean and standard deviation such
that for f permeabilities there are f pairs of µ and σ. If the
porosity measurement is assumed to belong to permeability f,
the fuzzy possibility that porosity x is measured (logged) can
be calculated using Equation 4 by substituting µf and σf.
Similarly the fuzzy possibilities can be computed for all f
permeabilities.
Cuddy12 showed that the relative fuzzy possibility R(xf) of
a porosity x belonging to permeability value f compared to the
fuzzy possibility of measuring the mean value µ f is:
−(x−µ )2 /2σ 2
R(x f ) = e f f
........................(5)
Any number of curves (RHOB, DT, NPHI, RT, etc.) can
be used by the technique. The fuzzy possibilities are combined
harmonically to give a composite fuzzy possibility.
Geology of the Study Field
The reservoir units in the study field comprise the C and D
members of the Arab Formation. The C reservoir was formed
3
during the late Jurassic on an extensive carbonate platform
with the basin center (Samin Intra-shelf Basin) towards the
south and south-west. A shallow water ramp crest developed
during C time and extended NW-SE over the North Dome
where the reservoir is characterized by coarse, clean limestone
(grainstone) with subordinate dolomites developed at
consistent stratigraphic horizons. The distal ramp extends
south, over what is now structurally the South Dome area,
where the Reservoir C is also dominantly limestone, but
contains more lime mud characterizing wackestone and
packstone facies. The C reservoir is divided into seven
reservoir zones on the basis of sequence stratigraphy and
diagenesis.
The D reservoir was deposited along the margins of the
same basin. The north-northeastern part of the field
represented sediments of a major shoal complex trending NW-
SE. The mudstones which were deposited within the middle
interval record deposition under low energy conditions. The D
can be broken down stratigraphically into three main
components, upper, middle and lower. The upper interval
comprises multi-layers of carbonate stringers inter-layered
with evaporites. The carbonate layers are three to 10 feet thick
and dolomitized in variable amounts. These form laterally
extensive sheet-like geometries. The Middle Interval is
approximately 85-95 feet thick and represents the principal
reservoir interval within the D reservoir. This interval has
been divided into seven layers which showed substantial
lateral facies changes from north to south (designated B1 to
B7). These layers are dominated by grainstones in the north
which pass southward laterally into generally mud-dominated
lithologies, except the top layer (B1) which is grain-dominated
throughout. The mud-rich lithologies can be extensively
dolomitized. Layers B2 and B3 tend to form laterally
extensive tight intervals, especially in the southern half of the
field. From the sequence stratigraphic point of view the
grainstones represent highstand deposits which were
developed as high energy shoal deposits along the margins of
an intra-shelf basin. The mudstones in the south correspond to
the basinal facies of the intra-shelf basin. The lower interval is
120-150 feet thick, and is divided into three laterally extensive
sub-layers (C1 to C3). The lowest two layers are dominated by
lime mudstones of outer ramp origin. The upper layer is
dominated by mudstones and wackestones in the south and
packestones and grainstones in the north. These deposits
correspond to transgressive to early highstand deposits of the
main Reservoir D sequence.
Application of Fuzzy Logic to Predict Permeability
Fuzzy logic attempts to uncover the relationship between log
signatures and formation attributes. In the case of permeability
prediction, the relationship sought is that between open-hole
logs (i.e., resistivity and porosity logs) and core permeability.
Quality controlled core data from several wells were used to
calibrate open-hole logs from the same wells. The resulting
calibration database, herein referred to as the model, was
validated and then used to predict permeability in both cored
and uncored wells.
Figure 3 illustrates predicted permeabilities in Well 4X
using fuzzy logic. The predicted permeability (KMODEL) in
Track 5 is comparable with the core permeability in
4 IPTC 10152
Reservoirs C and D. The fuzzy logic permeability model was
able to capture both the high and low extremes of the core
permeability. Other techniques, by their nature, regress
towards their mean values and, hence, perform poorly at the
extremes.
The input open-hole logs are shown in Tracks 1, 3, and 4.
It should be noted that the prediction was performed with a
model developed by multi-well calibration and not specifically
for an individual well. In the interval X385 to X405 feet, the
core porosity is lower than the log-derived porosity. If the core
porosity is considered to be wrong, then the core permeability
could be wrong also. Still, the model predicts reasonably
accurate permeability because it uses the log responses, not
the core porosity.
Figure 4 shows permeability prediction in Well 3X. This
well is located 8 kilometers southwest of Well 4X. There is
quite a bit of divergence between the core measured porosity
and the log porosity in Reservoir C. Based on the log
signatures, the predicted permeability is deemed to be
sufficiently accurate for engineering calculations. There is
limited core permeability data in Reservoir D, even though
there is ample core porosity. The reason is, possibly, that flow
could not be established through the core plugs. Therefore,
permeability was not recorded. The fuzzy logic model,
nevertheless, ameliorates that situation and provides a
continuous depth trace of permeability.
The fuzzy logic model was blind-tested in Well 27X,
shown in Figure 5. Whereas Wells 3X and 4X were among the
wells used in the development of the model, the data for Well
27X were withheld from the modeling group. At the time of
testing, only the logs were made available and the resulting
permeability trace was delivered for comparison with the core
permeability. As can be seen, the prediction is very good.
Based on the success of the blind test, the model was applied
to the rest of the wells in the field.
Further visualization of the conformance of the fuzzy logic
permeability is provided in Figures 6 and 7. In the first graph
(Figure 6), the core porosity-permeability plot of several cored
wells is shown on Cartesian plot to show the full
uncompressed range of the permeability data for the C2
interval in the C reservoir. Fuzzy logic predicted permeability
is superimposed on the core data and this is shown in Figure 7.
As is evident, the fuzzy logic permeability covers the full
spectrum of the core permeability. This shows that the
statistical pattern of the distribution of permeability in non-
cored wells would be preserved, as is the case in the cored
wells.
As noted by Cuddy13, knowledge of extreme values is
important as these are often the main conduits to flow and
barriers to production. In other words, the technique retains
the natural heterogeneity of the measured system, compared to
other techniques which tend to artificially homogenize the
data, which amounts to a scale change, bearing in mind that
some of the parameters we want to extract such as
permeability are not scale invariant.
Comparison Between Fuzzy Logic Permeability KH
and Pressure Build-up KH Data
Pressure build-up data were available for 16 wells in this field.
The well test KH mD-ft in Reservoir C were calculated and
compared with the fuzzy logic KH mD-ft. This is illustrated in
Figure 8. There is remarkable agreement across the field. This
further validates the fuzzy logic approach for permeability
prediction. Synthetic production log using the predicted
permeability compared very favorably with production log
(flowmeter) data.
Case Study of Fuzzy Logic Permeability in History
Matching
As discussed earlier the 3-D geocellular model was
constructed and populated with the generated permeability and
used in the reservoir simulation of the complex C and D
reservoirs. Cokriging the log of permeability with porosity
was used to distribute permeability in the 3-D model. For
brevity, one the C reservoir case is discussed here.
In the reservoir simulation, only two parameters were
considered during the history match process: aquifer size and
the continuity of tar. Aquifer support in the C reservoir is not
strong. In the very first simulation run, model pressure did not
match the most recent pressure data. This is shown in Figure
9. A match of the latest pressure was achieved by simply
adjusting aquifer size in the model.
It can also be observed that the model pressure between
initial date and the last date was a lot higher than that in the
field. This necessitated a review of the tar distribution in the
geological model. It was discovered that the tar was modeled
as discontinuous in the 3-D geocellular model. In reality, the
tar is more continuous than it was described in the model. In
one test the tar was made to be completely sealing around the
reservoir. In this case, illustrated by the blue curve in Figure
10, the modeled reservoir pressure became lower than that of
the field pressure. The tar is known to be patchy in some
sectors of the field. After a minor adjustment for the tar, the
model pressure matched the field data as shown in Figure 11.
The 55-year production history was matched with high
accuracy in only two weeks. A reduction of 80 percent of the
project duration was achieved, and this is attributed to the
accurate permeability models.
Conclusions
Fuzzy logic was successfully used to predict permeability in
this complex carbonate reservoir.
The predicted permeabilities using fuzzy logic compare
very well with the core derived permeabilities. The
predictions are very good at the high and low permeability
extremes. The extreme values are often the main conduits to
flow and barriers to production.
Fuzzy permeability covers the full spectrum of the core
permeability. This shows that the statistical pattern of the
distribution of permeability in non-cored wells would be
preserved, as is the case in the cored wells.
The fuzzy logic KH in Reservoir C accurately reflected
pressure build-up KH. This and the blind test validation of the
fuzzy permeability model make fuzzy logic a powerful tool for
prediction in this field.
A reduction of 80 percent of the project duration was
achieved. The permeability was never modified and yet the
55-year production history was matched with high accuracy
tolerance, in only two weeks. This success is attributed to the
use of fuzzy-derived permeability.
IPTC 10152 5

Simulation can again be leveraged as an effective reservoir 8. Amabeoku, Maclean. O., Funk, James J., Al-Dossary, Saleh M.,
planning tool because of the much reduced cycle time and Al-Ali, Hussein A.: “Calibration of Permeability Derived
resulting from improved permeability prediction. from NMR Logs in Carbonate Reservoirs,” SPE Paper 68085
Having established a reasonably accurate permeability presented at Middle East Oil Show (2001).
9. Zadeh, L.: “Fuzzy Sets,” Information and Control (1965).
model for this field, the emphasis of the simulation effort is 10. Ohen, H., Soto, R.B., and Ajufo A.: “Development Of New
directed towards understanding the distribution of the tar and Permeability Model For Berri Field,” Report Prepared by PSI
the strength of aquifer support. for Saudi Aramco, 2002.
11. Cuddy, S.J. and Glover, P.W.J. 2000. The application of fuzzy
Acknowledgments logic and genetic algorithms to oil exploration. In Developments
The authors thank the management of Saudi Aramco for their in Soft Computing, Physica Verlag, 167-174.
support and permission to publish this paper. 12. Cuddy, S. J.: “Litho-Facies and Permeability Prediction from
Electrical Logs using Fuzzy Logic,” paper SPE 65411 presented
at 8th Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and
Nomenclature
Conference.
τ = tortuosity 13. Cuddy, S.J., “The Application of Fuzzy Logic to Petrophysics,”
φ = porosity, fraction Presented at the 38th Annual Logging Symposium of the
φz = pore volume to grain volume ratio Society of Professional Well Log Analysts, June 1997.
A = fuzzy set representation
Fs = shape factor 1000
Fs τ2 = Kozeny constant, kz
FZI = flow zone indicator
100
K = permeability, cm2, mD

Permeability (mD)
nf = expected occurrence of x in litho-facies f
P (x) = fuzzy possibility density of an observation x 10

R (x f) = relative fuzzy possibility of x

Sgv = specific surface area of porous media, cm-1 1
x = log variable
µ = mean 0.1
µf = mean value of x in litho-facies f
µA(z) = membership function of z in A
0.01
σ = standard deviation. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
σf = standard deviation of x in litho-facies f Porosity (%)

HU-1 HU-2 HU-3 HU-4 HU-5 HU-6

References
1. Kozeny, J.: “Uber die kapillare leitung des wassers im boden
Figure 1. Porosity-permeability trends for several hydraulic units.
(aufstieg versickerung und anwendung auf die bewasserung),” (After Amabeoku )
4

Sitz. Ber. Akad. Wiss, Wien, Math. Nat, (Abt. ha) (1927) 136,
271-306.
2. Carman, P.C.: Fluid flow through granular beds, Trans.
Inst.Chem. Eng, 15 (1937) 150.
3. Amaefule, Jude O., Altunbay Mehmet, Tiab Djebbar, Kersey,
David G., and Keelan, Dare K.: “Enhanced Reservoir
Description : Using Core and Log Data to Identify Hydraulic
(Flow) Units and Predict Permeability in Uncored
Intervals/Wells,” SPE Paper 26436, prepared for presentation at
the 68th Annual SPE Conference and Exhibition held in
Houston, Texas, October 3-6, 1993.
4. Amabeoku, Maclean O.: “Optimal Sample Selection for
Petrophysical Properties Measurements,” Presented at RDD
Petrophysical Workshop, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, Dec. 2004.
5. Soto, R.B. and Holditch, S.A.: “Development of reservoir
Characterization Models Using Core, Well Log, and 3D Seismic
Data and Intelligent Software,” SPE Paper 57457, prepared for
presentation at the 1999 Eastern Regional Conference and
Exhibition held in Charleston, WV, October 21-22, 1999.
Figure 2. Representation of clay volume membership function.
6. Helle, Hans B., Bhatt, Alpana and Ursin, Bjùrn: “Porosity and
Permeability Prediction from Wireline Logs Using Artificial
Neural Networks: A North Sea Case Study,” Geophysical
Prospecting, 2001, 49, 431-444.
7. Coates, G.R., Xiao, L., and Prammer, M.G.: NMR logging:
Principles and Applications, Halliburton Energy Services,
Houston (1999) 234.
6 IPTC 10152

DEPTH DT
US/F
PHIE NPHI KMODEL
FEET

V/V V/V MD
ILD CORE POROSITY RHOB COREPERM
OHMM V/V G/C3 MD

X300

X400

X500

X600

Figure 3. Comparison of fuzzy logic predicted permeability with core permeability in Well 4X.
IPTC 10152 7

DT
DEPTH
US/F

FEET
PHIE NPHI KMODEL
V/V V/V MD
ILD CORE POROSITY RHOB COREPERM
OHMM V/V G/C3 MD

X300

X400

X500

Figure 4. Comparison of fuzzy logic predicted permeability with core permeability in Well 3X.
8 IPTC 10152

DT
DEPTH

US/F
PHIE NPHI KMODEL
FEET

V/V V/V MD
RT CORE POROSITY RHOB COREPERM
OHMM V/V G/C3 MD

X000

X100

X200

Figure 5. Validation of fuzzy logic predicted permeability by blind-testing in Well 27X.

IPTC 10152 9

1500

1200

Core Permeability (mD) 900

600

300

0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45
Porosity

Figure 6. Core porosity-permeability pattern in several cored wells in the C2 interval of reservoir C.

1500
Core and Model Permeability Data

1200

Core Data Model Result

900

600

300

0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45
Porosity

Figure 7. Superposition of fuzzy permeability on core porosity-permeability data in several cored wells
in the C2 interval to show that distribution pattern is maintained.
KH, mD-ft

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Well
KH from Permeability Model KH from Pressure Build-up

Figure 8. Comparison of KH from fuzzy logic predicted permeability with pressure build-up KH in 16 wells.
10 IPTC 10152

¤¤ Observed C Rsvr Data

80% Continuous Tar

Figure 9. Match of the last Pressure by adjusting aquifer Size in Cell Boundary; tar in the geological model is not continuous.

¤¤ Observed C Rsvr Data

80% Continuous Tar
100% Continuous Tar

Figure 10. Model pressure is lower than the field pressure when the tar in the model is 100% sealing around the C reservoir.
Start-up

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Time (years)

Figure 11. Model pressure matches the field data with proper adjustment to tar distribution in the C reservoir.