Hy dr ocar bonat e r eser v oi r char act er i zat i on

const r ai ned t o 3D sei smi c at t r i but es
Aut hor s: Ol ivi er GUILLOU (Pet roleum engi neer , UNICAM P), Dr . Deni s Jose SCHIOZER (Pet r ol eum
depar t ment , UNICAM P), Dr . Pi err e BIVER (Geomodell ing and Uncer t ai nt i es, Tot al SA)
I nt r oduct i on
The gr ow i ng di f f i cul t i es encount er ed i n pet r ol eum expl or at i on and pr oduct i on, such as decl i ni ng
di scover i es, i ncr easi ng coast al di st ances and f i el d dept h, cr eat e a const ant need f or i nnovat i on. To
i mpr ove t he knowl edge and domi nat e reser voi r s l ocat ed i n r emot e ar eas, new t ool s and
met hodol ogi es must be devel oped. Wi t h t he st eady i ncr ease i n comput i ng pow er and t he bi r t h of
new al gor i t hms, t hi s demand can be sat i sf i ed and pr oj ect r i sks can be r educed.
Fr om new 3D sei smi c i nt egr at i on met hodol ogies devel oped and i nt egr at ed i nt o an opt i mi zat i on
pr ocess based on f or w ar d model i ng, di f f er ent vali d r esul t s have been obt ai ned. In t hi s cont ext ,
sei smi c const r ai nt char act er i zat i on has show n an ef f ect i ve w ay t o i mpr ove t he sei smi c quali t y and
t he r el evance of gener at ed model s (Bar ens et al , 2004).
Thi s paper pr oposes t o compar e t he r esul t s of t hr ee r eser voi r char act er i zat i on met hodol ogi es on a
f i el d devel opment r i sk anal ysi s. The case st udy i s r eal ized on a deep of f shor e West Af r i can t ur bi di t es
w i t h a r el evant expl or at i on w ell s number and a good 3D sei smi c sur vey quali t y.
Reser voi r model s gener at i on
St ruct ura l, Archit ect ura l, Fa cies, Pet rophysica l
modeling f or t hree met hods
For al l st udy met hodol ogi es, t he model
char act er i zat i on i s done t hr ough a cl assi cal
pr ocedur e as show n i n Fi gur e 1. Fi r st , sei smi c
at t r i but es ar e i nt egr at ed qual i t at ively i n t he
def i ni t i on of st r uct ur al hor i zons as w el l as i n t he
ar chi t ect ur al i nt er pr et at i on of t he r eser voi r . Then,
r ock t ype and pet r ophysi cal var i abl es ar e
di st r i but ed i nsi de t he w hole vol ume w i t h or wi t hout
i nt egr at i on of sei smi c at t r i but es bef or e t he
posi t i oni ng of t he w at er -oi l cont act and t r ansi t i on
zone def i ni t i on (Ler at et al 2007).
Complet e int egra t ion of 3D seismic a t t ribut es f or 2
met hodologies, pa rt ia l int egra t ion f or 1.
Tw o met hodol ogi es benef i t of a compl et e
i nt egr at i on of 3D sei smi c at t r i but es, acoust i c
i mpedance (IP) and Poisson r at i on (PR). Thi s
i nt egr at i on i s r eal i zed quant i t at i vel y by condi t i oni ng rock t ype and pet r ophysi cal model s t o r el evant
Figure 1: Basic reservoir characterization
methodology.
sei smi c at t r i but es as pr esent ed by Bi ver et al (2009) usi ng r espect i vel y cr oss pl ot smoot hi ng met hods
and geost at i st i cal cosi mul at i on.
Fi r st , t he r ock t ypes need t o be def i ned accor di ng t o t hei r r eservoi r char act er i st i cs and t hei r sei smi c
r esponses. The r ock t ype model condi t i oni ng i s, t hen, r eal i zed by def i ni t i on of a r ock t ype pr opor t i on
cube used i n a Tr uncat ed Gaussi an (TG) algor i t hm t hat gener at es, f i nall y, a r ock t ype cube i n t he
w hol e r eservoi r . The t hr ee char act er i zat i on met hodol ogi es compar ed i n t hi s ar t i cl e have di f f er ent
sei smi c const r ai nt degr ees (Fi gur e 2, l ef t ). Fr om a det er mi ni st i c met hodol ogy based on sedi ment ar y
concept s, sei smi c at t r i but es ar e gr adual l y i nt egr at ed in t he r ock t ype pr opor t i on cube and geol ogi st
i nt er pr et at i on becomes l ess i nf l uent i al .
Secondl y, t he pet r ophysi cal model i s def i ned per r ock t ype. Tw o model i ng met hods ar e compar ed: a
non sei smi c condi t i oni ng met hod and a condi t i oni ng one (Fi gur e 2, r i ght ). The non condi t i oni ng
met hod i s a cl assi cal Sequent i al Gaussi an Si mul at i on (SGS). St at i st i cal di st r i but i ons as w ell as a
var i ogr am l aw ar e i mposed t o t he al gori t hm t hat gener at es t he pet r ophysi cal vari able. The respect of
w el l obser vat i ons i s guar ant ied by a kr i gi ng met hod i nt egr at ed i n t he al gori t hm. The condi t i oni ng
met hod i s a Sequent i al Gaussi an Cosi mul at i on (SGC). As w el l as t he non condi t i oni ng one, i t r espect s
var i able di st r i but i ons, var i ogr am l aw and w ell obser vat i ons. It al so r espect s t he obser ved cor r el at i on
coef f i ci ent bet w een t he simul at ed var i abl e and a secondar y one and makes t he use of a r el evant
sei smi c at t r i but e t o const r ai nt t he pet r ophysi cal model possi bl e.

Full uncert a int y st udy on model (mult iple rea liza t ions)
Rock t ypes and pet r ophysi cal model def i ni t i on i s i nt egr at ed i n an uncer t ai nt y quant i f i cat i on st udy.
The l at t er eval uat es how geol ogi cal uncer t ai nt i es impact i ni t i al hydr ocar bon vol umes as w el l as
dynami c f l ow behavi or s. The model i ng pr ocess i s real i zed sever al t imes t hr ough a spat i al M ont e
Car l o appr oach. Uncer t ai n var i ables ar e:
 Reser voi r ar chi t ect ur e (sedi ment ar y envi r onment i nt erpr et at i on)
 Rock t ype pr opor t i ons
Figure 2: Different geological and petrophysical modeling, from pure geological concepts to
strong seismic constraint.
 Pet r ophysi cal var i abl es di st r i but i on
 Wat er / oi l Cont act posi t i on
 PVT model
Eva lua t ion of t he volume dist ribut ion a ccor ding t o t he init ia l uncert a int ies
The pur el y geol ogi c case is def i ned accor di ng t o a val i dat ed
met hodol ogy, hence, i t i s consi der ed as a r ef er ence i n t hi s
compar at i ve st udy. The i ni t i al vol ume di st r i but i on i s per f ect l y
cent er ed on t he base case model . The ot her compar i son
cr i t er i a ar e consi der ed as r ef er ences as well . A per f ect
cent er i ng of t he vol ume di st r i but i on can be obser ved on bot h
t he w eakl y and st r ongl y const r ai ned cases as w el l. It can be
obser ved t hat t he uncer t ai nt y on i ni t i al vol ume (di st ribut i on’ s
st andar d devi at i on) i ncr eases w i t h t he degr ee of sei smi c
i nt egr at i on i n t he model (Fi gur e 3). Tabl e 1 pr ompt s t he
obser ved r el at ive var i at i on bet w een a const r ai nt case and t he
pur el y geol ogi c case consi der ed as a r ef er ence. Rel at i ve
var i at i on i s comput ed f or t he aver age and st andar d devi at i on
of each vol ume di st r i but i on.
Table 1: Relative differences between volume distributions
according to characterization methodology
Q50 St d. dev
Pur el y geol ogi c - -
Weakl y const r ai ned 0% +0,6%
St r ongl y const r ai ned + 5,5% +33,1%

Comput at i on of synt het i c sei smi c r esponse for each model gener at ed
Genera t ion of synt het ic seismic a t t ribut e
The comput at i on of t he sei smi c r esponse i s i nt r oduced i n t he mul t i pl e reali zat i on pr ocess. It gi ves t he
synt het i cs sei smi c at t r i but es (IP, PR) cor r espondi ng t o each pet r ophysi cal model gener at ed. To do
t hi s, a pet r oel ast i c model (PEM ) i s i nt egr at ed i nt o t he model i ng pr ocess.
In or der t o eval uat e t he synt het i c sei smi c qual i t y, an aut omat i c compar i son must be devel oped. It i s
pr oposed t o si mpl i f y t he measur e of t he sei smi c r esponse qual i t y f r om t hr ee t o onl y one di mensi on,
gi vi ng a scor e t o each gener at ed model . Thi s scor e not onl y al l ow s a r el at i ve compar i son of t he
gener at ed model s of all cases but al so t he abi l i t y of each char act er i zat i on met hodol ogy t o r espect
t he sei smi c i nver si on. Thi s scor e i s t hen used t o sel ect cer t ai n r epr esent at i ve geol ogi cal models.
Comput a t ion of a seismic score ba sed on simila rit y w it h a ct ua l a t t ribut es f or ea ch model
Figure 3: Oil volume distribution
for three characterization
methodologies
a) Pur el y geol ogi c
b) Weakl y const raint
c) St r ongl y const r aint
The sei smi c scor e t o be def i ned must r espect t w o condi t i ons: f i r st , i t has t o consi der onl y t he
qual i t at i ve cont ent of t he dat a w hi l e r espect i ng exi st i ng cont r ast s, secondl y, i t must be si mpl e
enough t o be comput ed at each reali zat i on and i nt er pr et ed r api dly. A scor i ng al gor i t hm i s devel oped
i n or der t o cl assi f y model s accor di ng t o t he simil ar i t y of t hei r synt het i c r esponse wi t h t he act ual
sei smi c. To do so, t he at t r i but e cumul at ed densi t y f unct i on i s used (Fi gur e 4).
The cumul at ed densi t y f unct i on i s used t o keep
onl y t he qual i t at i ve cont ent of t he dat a. Indeed, i f
synt het i c and act ual at t r i but es may have di f f er ent
var i at i on t hr eshol ds, t hei r cor r espondi ng
cumul at ed densi t y var i es syst emat i cal ly bet w een 0
and 1. Know i ng t he cumul at ed densi t y of synt het i c
an act ual at t r i but es f or each cel l , t hei r di f f er ence
can be comput ed. Fi nal l y, t he quali t y of a
r eal i zat i on i s obt ai ned aver agi ng t he cumul at ed
densi t y di f f er ence on al l cel l s.
Scorc =
1
n
| cJ¡( u) − cJ¡( u
i
) |
n
ì=1

u: act ual sei smi c at t r i but e
u′: synt het i c sei smi c at t r i but e
Cla ssif ica t ion of ea ch met hod a ccording t o it s
seismic response
Af t er mul t i ple r eal i zat i ons, t he sei smi c scor es ar e
cl assi f i ed i n ascendi ng or der t o be anal yzed. The
char act er i zat i on met hodol ogi es ar e w el l
di f f er ent i at ed w hi ch al l ows f or easi l y compar ison among t hem. The scor i ng al gor i t hm cl assi f i ed t he
best model s w i t h t he l ow est scor e. Consi der i ng t hi s, t he t hr ee met hodol ogi es can be cl assi f i ed:
 St r ongl y const r ai ned met hodol ogy
 Weakl y const r ai ned met hodol ogy
 Pur el y geol ogi c met hodol ogy
Bot h t he met hodol ogi es combi ni ng sei smi c dat a and geol ogy obt ai n t he best scor es. Thi s l eads t o t he
concl usi on t hat dat a combi nat i on has a si gni f i cant i nf l uence on r eser voi r char act er i zat i on. Bet t er i ng
t he sei smi c r esponse qual i t y means t hat accur acy on oi l vol ume est imat i on i ncr eases as w ell . Fi nall y,
t he scor es obt ai ned i n t he pur el y geol ogi c case conf i r m, once mor e, t he i mpor t ance of i nt egr at i ng
sei smi c dat a i n model char act er i zat i on (Fi gur e 5).

Figure 4: Seismic score computation is based
on comparing actual and synthetic seismic
attribute cumulative density function

Repr esent at i ve model sel ect i on for dynami c si mul at i on
Cla ssica l select ion: Sa mpling of init ia l volume dist ribut ion (represent a t ive uncert a int ies)
Tw o modes of r epr esent at i ve model select i on ar e st udi ed. The f i r st i s a r egul ar sampli ng of t he i ni t i al
oi l vol ume di st r i but i on. 21 r epr esent at i ve model s are ext r act ed (one ever y f i f t h per cent il e). The
dynami c si mul at i on r esul t anal ysi s of t hose model s al l ow s eval uat i ng t he i mpact of t he
char act er i zat i on met hods on pr evi si on f or ecast uncer t ai nt i es w i t hout consi der i ng t hei r r espect i ve
sei smi c r esponses.
Sma rt model select ion: Best seismic response select ion (represent a t ive uncert a int ies + seismic
qua lit y crit eria )
The second mode of sel ect i ng r epr esent at i ve model s i s based on sei smi c scor e. In t hi s case, t he 21
best sei smi c scor es ar e sel ect ed t o r epr esent t he i ni t ial oi l vol ume uncer t ai nt y. In t hi s second case,
t he model s l ess compat i bl e w i t h sei smi c ar e not consi der ed.
Thi s sel ect i on mode shows how t he select ed models ar e l ocali zed i n t he gl obal i ni t i al oi l vol ume
di st r i but i on. A r egul ar r epar t i t i on of t he sel ect ed model s means t hat t he sei smi c r esponse does not
al l ow a r educt i on of uncer t ai nt y on i ni t i al oi l vol ume. On t he cont r ar y, a concent r at i on of t he
sel ect ed model s i n t he same regi on of t he i ni t i al oi l vol ume di st r i but i on t est i f i es t hat t he select ed
i ni t i al oi l vol ume has a bet t er sei smi c r esponse and hence, a bet t er abi l i t y t o r epr esent uncer t ai nt i es.
For al l char act er i zat i on met hodol ogi es t he f i r st sel ect i on mode does not af f ect t he di st r i but i on
par amet er s (aver age, di sper si on). The second sel ect i on mode i s t hen analyzed f or each
char act er i zat i on met hodol ogy.
In bot h, t he pur el y geol ogi cal and t he w eakl y const r ai ned cases, a sli ght decr ease can be obser ved on
t he sel ect ed model s di st r i but i on mean af t er sei smi c sel ect i on. In t he st r ongl y const r ai ned case, t hi s
mean i s not af f ect ed. On t he ot her hand, t he di st r i but i on di sper si on i s not si gni f i cant l y af f ect ed i n t he
pur el y geol ogi cal case w hen i n t he ot her t w o i t i s r educed by al most 50%. Thi s observat i on show s t he
abi l i t y of t he pr oposed sei smi c const r ai nt t o r educe t he i ni t i al vol ume uncer t ai nt y and, as a
consequence, t o i ncr ease t he accur acy of t he r epr esent at i ve model s (Fi gure 6).
Figure 5: Seismic score distribution. Best models have lower scores and are on left side of the
figure.
Table 2: Relative differences on mean and standard deviation between original volume distribution and
seismic selected models
Am An
Purely Geologic - 5,4 % 0 %
Weakly Constrained - 2,5 % - 46,8 %
Strongly Constrained 0 % - 47,9 %


Dynami c si mul at i on
The f l ow si mul at i on i nt ends t o show and compar e t he pr oduct i on f or ecast s f or t he t hr ee st udi es
met hodol ogi es. In t hi s st udy, onl y geol ogi cal uncer t aint i es ar e consi der ed. Uncer t ai n par amet er s ar e
ext r act ed f or dynami c si mul at i on accor di ng t o t he t w o sel ect i on modes f or mer l y descr i bed and
i nt egr at ed i n a dynami c mul t i pl e si mul at i on. Those geol ogi cal par amet er s ar e t he ones t hat best
i nf l uence i ni t i al oil vol ume and pr oduct i on f or ecast s. Ot her par amet er s such as f l ui d and pr oduct i on
st r at egy ar e det er mi ni st i c accor di ng t o a best guess case.
 Net t o gr oss r at i o ( NI0)
 Net sand por osi t y ( P0R0)
 Net w at er sat ur at i on ( Sw
I
)
 Net per meabil i t y ( PERHX, PERHZ)
Result s a na lysis f or ea ch met hodology
Figure 6: Selection criterion has an influence on representative volume distribution.
Seismic criterion allows for the reduction of dispersion by selecting only models with best
A gl obal obser vat i on i s done; f or all t he met hodol ogi es, sei smi c based sel ect i on mode (Fi gure 7, t op
l i ne) has a l ow er di sper si on t han t he cl assi c sel ect i on mode based on di st r i but i on sampl i ng (Figur e 7,
bot t om l i ne). Thi s obser vat i on i s par t i cul ar l y appar ent f or t he t w o combi ned char act er i zat i ons. For
t he sei smi c based sel ect i on mode, t he second obser vat i on t hat i s done i s t hat i n w hi ch bot h t he
pur el y geol ogi cal and t he w eakl y const r ai ned cases have simil ar di sper si ons and eval uat e i n t he same
pr oduct i on f or ecast s envel ope w hen t he st r ongl y const r ai ned case has a hi gher pr oduct i on
uncer t ai nt y w i t h l ow er pr oduct i on f or ecast s. A hi gher het er ogenei t y i n t hose model s is supposed t o
be mai nl y r esponsi bl e f or t hi s behavi or .
Fi nal ly, t he dynami c r esul t s don’ t demonst r at e t he super i or i t y of any met hodol ogy nei t her combi ni ng
sei smi c dat a nor usi ng excl usi vel y geol ogi cal concept s t o r educe uncer t ai nt i es. Also, condi t i oni ng t o
sei smi c i nt r oduces mor e het er ogenei t y i n t he models. The l at t er coul d be bet t er anal yzed i n t he
pr esence of pr oduct i on dat a and hi st or y mat chi ng (Fi gur e 7).

Figure 7: Seismic criterion has an influence on models dynamic behaviors, reducing
dispersion on production forecasts. Strongly constrained models give lower
production forecasts; production history is necessary to know which characterization
methodology is most accurate.
Ri sk Anal ysi s
The dynami c r esul t s ar e used i n or der t o assess t he pr oj ect r i sk. As i t has been demonst r at ed
f or mer l y, t he t hr ee char act er i zat i on met hodol ogies gi ve si mi l ar st at i c vol ume eval uat i on but have
di f f er ent quali t y i n t er ms of sei smi c r esponse and r espect t o sedi ment ar y concept . For t hi s r eason,
t he r i sk anal ysi s must be done w hi l e car ef ull y consi der ing t hose di f f er ent obser vat i ons (Fi gur e 8).
Risk of t he project considering ea ch met hodology sepa ra t ely
Fi r st , i ndi vi dual r i sks ar e eval uat ed. For t he t hr ee met hodol ogi es, di f f er ent pr oduct i on f or ecast
behavi or s ar e obser ved. Consi der i ng each one i ndi vi dual l y, t he pr oj ect r i sk can be under est i mat ed by
not consi der i ng t he r esul t s of t he ot her t w o. On Figur e 8, lef t col umns, di f f er ent met hodol ogi es
pr edi ct di f f er ent r i sks. Consi deri ng onl y one met hodol ogy as t he val i d one cannot be done as each
one gi ves di f f erent r i sk est i mat i on.
Risk of t he project considering a ll met hodologies t oget her
The val i di t y of t he t hr ee met hods i mposes t o consi der t hem t oget her . It i s pr oposed t o combi ne all
r esul t s i n t he same r i sk anal ysi s. In t hi s case, t he r esul t i s a maxi mum r i sk eval uat i on t hat consi der s
an equal w ei ght f or each met hodol ogy (Fi gur e 8, t op r i ght ). But act ual l y, t he pr esent ed
met hodol ogi es have di f f er ent qual i t ies and shoul d not be consi der ed w i t h equal wei ght . The
quest i on ar i ses: How t o w ei ght t he di f f er ent met hodol ogi es accor di ng t o t hei r r espect i ve quali t i es?
The quest i on i s not answ er ed i n t hi s paper , but i t seems t hat t he met hodol ogy weight shoul d
quant i f y bot h t he r espect of sedi ment ar y concept s and t he sei smi c r esponse qual i t y.
As show n on Fi gur e 8, bot t om r ight , t hi s w eight i ng met hod per mi t s t o under l i ne t he r i sk envel ope of
t he pr oj ect as a r esul t of t he super posi t i on of al l w ei ght combi nat i ons (each dashed l i nes r epr esent a
w ei ght combi nat i on). It i s t hen possi bl e t o obt ai n t he mi ni mum and maxi mum ri sk cur ves,
consi der i ng t he li mi t s of t hi s envel ope. Consi der i ng t he exi st ence of an i deal w eight f or each
char act er i zat i on met hodol ogy, t he r eal ri sk cur ve of t hi s pr oj ect exi st s and i s i ncl uded i n t he ri sk
envel ope.

Concl usi on
Di f f er ent met hodol ogi es can be used t o char act er i ze hydr ocar bon r eser voi r s accor di ng t o avai l abl e
dat a. Resul t qual i t y is st r ongl y dependent on t he i nt egr at ed dat a sour ce. It has been show n t hat w i t h
i nt egr at i on of sei smi c at t r i but es, t he sei smi c r esponse qual i t y i s i mpr oved. In t he case of st r ong
geol ogi cal concept i nt egr at i on, t he same obser vat i on can be done on geol ogi cal model accur acy.
The combi nat i on met hodol ogi es pr esent ed i n t hi s paper ar e good al t er nat i ves t o make a bet t er use
of i nf or mat i on i n t he char act er i zat i on pr ocess, t he conser vat i on of geol ogi cal concept s and a st r ongl y
i mpr oved sei smi c r esponse. It al so al l ow s a smar t repr esent at i ve model sel ect i on based on sei smi c
qual i t y eval uat i on. The select i on cr i t er i a r educed st at i c and dynami c di sper si ons on f or ecast s.
Unf or t unat el y, t he l ack of pr oduct i on dat a does not per mi t t he select i on of mor e accur at e
char act er i zat i on met hodol ogy.
The r i sk analysi s present ed her e w as based on t he t hr ee met hodol ogi es and a ri sk envel ope has been
def i ned. In or der t o bet t er l ocal i ze t he case st udy i n t hi s envel ope, a w eight must be def i ned f or each
met hodol ogy. It i s pr oposed t o est abl i sh t hi s w eight on bot h, t he r espect of sedi ment ar y concept s
and t he sei smi c r esponse qual i t y of each met hodol ogy.
Nomencl at ur e
CDF: Cumul at ed densi t y f unct i on
IP: Acoust i c i mpedance
NTG: Net t o gr oss r at i o
Figure 8: Risk analysis (cdf of the total production).
FOPT
FOPT
FOPT
FOPT
FOPT
PDF: Pr obabi l i t y densi t y f unct i on
PEM : Pet r oel ast i c model
PERM X: Per meabil i t y i n X di r ect i on
PERM Z: Per meabil i t y i n Z di r ect i on
PORO:Por osi t y
PR: Poi sson r at i o
Q50:
SGC: Sequent i al Gaussi an cosi mul at i on
SGS: Sequent i al Gaussi an si mul at i on
SWL: Li mi t w at er sat ur at i on
TGS: Tr uncat ed Gaussi an si mul at i on
Am: Aver age vari at i on bet w een or i gi nal vol ume di st r i but ion and sel ect ed model s
An: St andar d devi at i on var i at i on bet w een or i gi nal vol ume di st r i but i on and sel ect ed model s
Bi bl i ogr aphy
Bar ens, L. (2004). Reser voi r f aci es pr edi ct i on f r om geost at i st i cal i nver t ed sei smi c dat a. Abu Dhabi
Int er nat i onal Pet r ol eum Exi bi t ionand Conf er ence. Abu Dhabi : SPE.
Beucher t -Dar r i cau, H. (2006). M odeli ng compl ex r eser voi r s wi t h mul t i pl e condi t i onal t echni ques: A
pr act i cal appr oach t o r eser voi r Char act er i zat i on. In T. C. Cobur n, St ochast i c model i ng and
geost at ist i cs; Pr incipl es, met hods and case st udi es, volume II (pp. 289-299).
Bi ver , P. (2008). Li t ho-t ype model i ng usi ng sof t pr obabi l i t ies f r om sei smi c at t r i but es and ot her
sour ces of i nf or mat i on. Int er nat i onal geost at ist i cs congr ess .
Bi ver , P. (2002). Uncer t ai nt i es i n f aci es pr opor t i on est i mat i on i i. appl i cat i on t o geost at i st i cal
si mul at i on of f aci es and assesment of vol umet r i c uncer t ai nt i es. M at h. Geol. , pp. 701-712.
Hass, A. (2002). Uncer t ai nt i es i n f aci es pr opor t i on est i mat i on i . t heor i cal f r amew or k: t he di r i chl et
di st r i but i on. M at h. Geol .
Ler at , O. (2007). Const r uci t on of a geol ogi cal model const r ai ned by hi gh r esol ut i on 3D sei smi c dat a -
Appl i cat i on t o t he gi r assol f i el d, of f shor e angol a. Annual Techni cal Conf er ence and Exhibi t ion.
Anahei m: SPE.

it respects variable distributions. From a deterministic methodology based on sedimentary concepts. variogram law and well observations. The rock type model conditioning is. It also respects the observed correlation coefficient between the simulated variable and a secondary one and makes the use of a relevant seismic attribute to constraint the petrophysical model possible. the rock types need to be defined according to their reservoir characteristics and their seismic responses. Figure 2: Different geological and petrophysical modeling. then. The non conditioning method is a classical Sequential Gaussian Simulation (SGS). First. a rock type cube in the whole reservoir. seismic attributes are gradually integrated in the rock type proportion cube and geologist interpretation becomes less influential. right). The modeling process is realized several times through a spatial Monte Carlo approach. Full uncertainty study on model (multiple realizations) Rock types and petrophysical model definition is integrated in an uncertainty quantification study. Uncertain variables are:   Reservoir architecture (sedimentary environment interpretation) Rock type proportions . The three characterization methodologies compared in this article have different seismic constraint degrees (Figure 2. Two modeling methods are compared: a non seismic conditioning method and a conditioning one (Figure 2. The latter evaluates how geological uncertainties impact initial hydrocarbon volumes as well as dynamic flow behaviors. As well as the non conditioning one. The respect of well observations is guarantied by a kriging method integrated in the algorithm. Statistical distributions as well as a variogram law are imposed to the algorithm that generates the petrophysical variable. finally.seismic attributes as presented by Biver et al (2009) using respectively cross plot smoothing methods and geostatistical cosimulation. the petrophysical model is defined per rock type. realized by definition of a rock type proportion cube used in a Truncated Gaussian (TG) algorithm that generates. The conditioning method is a Sequential Gaussian Cosimulation (SGC). Secondly. from pure geological concepts to strong seismic constraint. left).

This score is then used to select certain representative geological models. In order to evaluate the synthetic seismic quality. Computation of a seismic score based on similarity with actual attributes for each model . PR) corresponding to each petrophysical model generated.5% Weakly constrained Strongly constrained Computation of synthetic seismic response for each model generated Generation of synthetic seismic attribute The computation of the seismic response is introduced in the multiple realization process.6% +33. Table 1 prompts the observed relative variation between a constraint case and the purely geologic case considered as a reference.1% 0% + 5. hence. giving a score to each generated model.   Petrophysical variables distribution Water/oil Contact position PVT model Evaluation of the volume distribution according to the initial uncertainties The purely geologic case is defined according to a validated methodology. Table 1: Relative differences between volume distributions according to characterization methodology a) Purely geologic b) Weakly constraint Q50 Purely geologic c) Strongly constraint Figure 3: Oil volume distribution for three characterization methodologies Std. It is proposed to simplify the measure of the seismic response quality from three to only one dimension. It gives the synthetics seismic attributes (IP. The other comparison criteria are considered as references as well. an automatic comparison must be developed. The initial volume distribution is perfectly centered on the base case model. Relative variation is computed for the average and standard deviation of each volume distribution. dev +0. This score not only allows a relative comparison of the generated models of all cases but also the ability of each characterization methodology to respect the seismic inversion. To do this. it is considered as a reference in this comparative study. It can be observed that the uncertainty on initial volume (distribution’s standard deviation) increases with the degree of seismic integration in the model (Figure 3). a petroelastic model (PEM) is integrated into the modeling process. A perfect centering of the volume distribution can be observed on both the weakly and strongly constrained cases as well.

their difference can be computed. if synthetic and actual attributes may have different variation thresholds. the scores obtained in the purely geologic case confirm. secondly. the seismic scores are classified in ascending order to be analyzed. their corresponding cumulated density varies systematically between 0 and 1. the importance of integrating seismic data in model characterization (Figure 5). . Knowing the cumulated density of synthetic an actual attributes for each cell. it has to consider only the qualitative content of the data while respecting existing contrasts. Bettering the seismic response quality means that accuracy on oil volume estimation increases as well. Finally. The cumulated density function is used to keep only the qualitative content of the data.The seismic score to be defined must respect two conditions: first. the attribute cumulated density function is used (Figure 4). Indeed. The characterization methodologies are well differentiated which allows for easily comparison among them. it must be simple enough to be computed at each realization and interpreted rapidly. The scoring algorithm classified the best models with the lowest score. To do so. the three methodologies can be classified:    Strongly constrained methodology Weakly constrained methodology Purely geologic methodology Figure 4: Seismic score computation is based on comparing actual and synthetic seismic attribute cumulative density function Both the methodologies combining seismic data and geology obtain the best scores. once more. Finally. Considering this. = 1 | ( )− ( )| : actual seismic attribute ′: synthetic seismic attribute Classification of each method according to its seismic response After multiple realizations. the quality of a realization is obtained averaging the cumulated density difference on all cells. A scoring algorithm is developed in order to classify models according to the similarity of their synthetic response with the actual seismic. This leads to the conclusion that data combination has a significant influence on reservoir characterization.

The first is a regular sampling of the initial oil volume distribution. On the other hand. Representative model selection for dynamic simulation Classical selection: Sampling of initial volume distribution (representative uncertainties) Two modes of representative model selection are studied. For all characterization methodologies the first selection mode does not affect the distribution parameters (average. a concentration of the selected models in the same region of the initial oil volume distribution testifies that the selected initial oil volume has a better seismic response and hence. Smart model selection: Best seismic response selection (representative uncertainties + seismic quality criteria) The second mode of selecting representative models is based on seismic score. In this case. In this second case. On the contrary. In both. the models less compatible with seismic are not considered. the purely geological and the weakly constrained cases. 21 representative models are extracted (one every fifth percentile). a better ability to represent uncertainties. . a slight decrease can be observed on the selected models distribution mean after seismic selection. The dynamic simulation result analysis of those models allows evaluating the impact of the characterization methods on prevision forecast uncertainties without considering their respective seismic responses. dispersion). Best models have lower scores and are on left side of the figure. this mean is not affected. the distribution dispersion is not significantly affected in the purely geological case when in the other two it is reduced by almost 50%. as a consequence. to increase the accuracy of the representative models (Figure 6). This observation shows the ability of the proposed seismic constraint to reduce the initial volume uncertainty and.Figure 5: Seismic score distribution. A regular repartition of the selected models means that the seismic response does not allow a reduction of uncertainty on initial oil volume. In the strongly constrained case. The second selection mode is then analyzed for each characterization methodology. This selection mode shows how the selected models are localized in the global initial oil volume distribution. the 21 best seismic scores are selected to represent the initial oil volume uncertainty.

In this study. Other parameters such as fluid and production strategy are deterministic according to a best guess case. Those geological parameters are the ones that best influence initial oil volume and production forecasts.2.8 % .46.     Net to gross ratio ( Net sand porosity ( Net water saturation ( Net permeability ( ) ) ) . Uncertain parameters are extracted for dynamic simulation according to the two selection modes formerly described and integrated in a dynamic multiple simulation.Table 2: Relative differences on mean and standard deviation between original volume distribution and seismic selected models Purely Geologic Weakly Constrained Strongly Constrained . Seismic criterion allows for the reduction of dispersion by selecting only models with best Dynamic simulation The flow simulation intends to show and compare the production forecasts for the three studies methodologies.47.5.5 % 0% 0% .4 % . ) Results analysis for each methodology .9 % Figure 6: Selection criterion has an influence on representative volume distribution. only geological uncertainties are considered.

For the seismic based selection mode. the second observation that is done is that in which both the purely geological and the weakly constrained cases have similar dispersions and evaluate in the same production forecasts envelope when the strongly constrained case has a higher production uncertainty with lower production forecasts. seismic based selection mode (Figure 7. Finally. the dynamic results don’t demonstrate the superiority of any methodology neither combining seismic data nor using exclusively geological concepts to reduce uncertainties. Also. production history is necessary to know which characterization methodology is most accurate. conditioning to seismic introduces more heterogeneity in the models. Figure 7: Seismic criterion has an influence on models dynamic behaviors.A global observation is done. A higher heterogeneity in those models is supposed to be mainly responsible for this behavior. top line) has a lower dispersion than the classic selection mode based on distribution sampling (Figure 7. . Strongly constrained models give lower production forecasts. for all the methodologies. reducing dispersion on production forecasts. This observation is particularly apparent for the two combined characterizations. bottom line). The latter could be better analyzed in the presence of production data and history matching (Figure 7).

Considering the existence of an ideal weight for each characterization methodology. the real risk curve of this project exists and is included in the risk envelope. In this case. Risk of the project considering all methodologies together The validity of the three methods imposes to consider them together. but it seems that the methodology weight should quantify both the respect of sedimentary concepts and the seismic response quality. It is proposed to combine all results in the same risk analysis. Considering only one methodology as the valid one cannot be done as each one gives different risk estimation. different production forecast behaviors are observed. the risk analysis must be done while carefully considering those different observations (Figure 8). this weighting method permits to underline the risk envelope of the project as a result of the superposition of all weight combinations (each dashed lines represent a weight combination). the presented methodologies have different qualities and should not be considered with equal weight. . the project risk can be underestimated by not considering the results of the other two. But actually. As it has been demonstrated formerly.Risk Analysis The dynamic results are used in order to assess the project risk. different methodologies predict different risks. the three characterization methodologies give similar static volume evaluation but have different quality in terms of seismic response and respect to sedimentary concept. Risk of the project considering each methodology separately First. On Figure 8. For this reason. the result is a maximum risk evaluation that considers an equal weight for each methodology (Figure 8. left columns. The question arises: How to weight the different methodologies according to their respective qualities? The question is not answered in this paper. bottom right. For the three methodologies. top right). considering the limits of this envelope. individual risks are evaluated. As shown on Figure 8. Considering each one individually. It is then possible to obtain the minimum and maximum risk curves.

Unfortunately. a weight must be defined for each methodology. In the case of strong geological concept integration. Nomenclature CDF: Cumulated density function IP: Acoustic impedance NTG: Net to gross ratio . the conservation of geological concepts and a strongly improved seismic response. the respect of sedimentary concepts and the seismic response quality of each methodology.FOPT FOPT FOPT FOPT FOPT Figure 8: Risk analysis (cdf of the total production). Conclusion Different methodologies can be used to characterize hydrocarbon reservoirs according to available data. It is proposed to establish this weight on both. The combination methodologies presented in this paper are good alternatives to make a better use of information in the characterization process. It also allows a smart representative model selection based on seismic quality evaluation. The risk analysis presented here was based on the three methodologies and a risk envelope has been defined. Result quality is strongly dependent on the integrated data source. The selection criteria reduced static and dynamic dispersions on forecasts. It has been shown that with integration of seismic attributes. In order to better localize the case study in this envelope. the seismic response quality is improved. the lack of production data does not permit the selection of more accurate characterization methodology. the same observation can be done on geological model accuracy.

pp. Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. offshore angola.PDF: Probability density function PEM: Petroelastic model PERMX: Permeability in X direction PERMZ: Permeability in Z direction PORO:Porosity PR: Poisson ratio Q50: SGC: Sequential Gaussian cosimulation SGS: Sequential Gaussian simulation SWL: Limit water saturation TGS: Truncated Gaussian simulation : Average variation between original volume distribution and selected models : Standard deviation variation between original volume distribution and selected models Bibliography Barens. Beuchert-Darricau. Coburn. In T. Geol . Abu Dhabi: SPE. (2004). Biver. theorical framework: the dirichlet distribution. Stochastic modeling and geostatistics. Anaheim: SPE. . Math. C. P. (2007). Lerat. Reservoir facies prediction from geostatistical inverted seismic data. (2006). Biver. Litho-type modeling using soft probabilities from seismic attributes and other sources of information. International geostatistics congress . Math. L. 701-712. (2002). . Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exibitionand Conference. Hass. P. 289-299). methods and case studies. Geol. Uncertainties in facies proportion estimation ii. H. volume II (pp. Uncertainties in facies proportion estimation i. A. Construciton of a geological model constrained by high resolution 3D seismic data Application to the girassol field. O. Principles. (2008). application to geostatistical simulation of facies and assesment of volumetric uncertainties. Modeling complex reservoirs with multiple conditional techniques: A practical approach to reservoir Characterization. (2002).

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful