Static Model

4.
Static reservoir study
4.5.1 Introduction
The most important phase of a reservoir study is probably the definition of a static model of the reservoir rock, given both the large number of activities involved, and its impact on the end results. As we know, the production capacity of a reservoir depends on its geometrical/structural and petrophysical characteristics. The availability of a representative static model is therefore an essential condition for the subsequent dynamic modelling phase. A static reservoir study typically involves four main stages, carried out by experts in the various disciplines (Cosentino, 2001). Structural modelling. Reconstructing the geometrical and structural properties of the reservoir, by defining a map of its structural top and the set of faults running through it. This stage of the work is carried out by integrating interpretations of geophysical surveys with available well data. Stratigraphic modelling. Defining a stratigraphic scheme using well data, which form the basis for wellto-well correlations. The data used in this case typically consist of electrical, acoustic and radioactive logs recorded in the wells, and available cores, integrated where possible with information from specialist studies and production data. Lithological modelling. Definition of a certain number of lithological types (basic facies) for the reservoir in question, which are characterized on the basis of lithology proper, sedimentology and petrophysics. This classification into facies is a convenient way of representing the geological characteristics of a reservoir, especially for the purposes of subsequent three-dimensional modelling.
Petrophysical modelling. Quantitative interpretation of well logs to determine some of the main petrophysical characteristics of the reservoir rock, such as porosity, water saturation, and permeability. Core data represent the essential basis for the calibration of interpretative processes. The results of these different stages are integrated in a two (2D) or three-dimensional (3D) context, to build what we might call an integrated geological model of the reservoir. On the one hand, this represents the reference frame for calculating the quantity of hydrocarbons in place, and on the other, forms the basis for the initialization of the dynamic model. In the following paragraphs we will describe these stages in greater detail.
4.5.2 Structural model

The construction of a structural reservoir model basically involves defining the map of the structural top, and interpreting the set of faults running through the reservoir. Traditionally, this phase of the study falls under the heading of geophysics, since seismic surveys are without doubt the best means of visualizing subsurface structures, and thus of deducing a geometric model of the reservoir. Further contributions may be made by specialist research such as regional tectonic studies and, for fault distribution, by available dynamic data (pressures, tests and production data). The definition of the reservoirs structural top involves identifying the basic geometrical structure of the hydrocarbon trap. In this case we are dealing with the external boundaries of the reservoir, since its internal structure is considered in relation to the stratigraphic reservoir model (see below).
VOLUME I / EXPLORATION, PRODUCTION AND TRANSPORT
553
OIL FIELD CHARACTERISTICS AND RELEVANT STUDIES
In most cases, the map of the reservoirs structural top is defined on the basis of a geophysical interpretation of 2D or 3D data. In this case, the most frequent, the geophysicist interprets significant horizons in a seismic block as a function of times. This generates a data set (x, y, t), forming the basis for the subsequent gridding phase; in other words, the generation of a surface representing the time map of the horizon under consideration. This time map is then converted into a depth map, using the relevant laws governing the velocities of seismic waves, which are calculated according to the characteristics of the formations overlying the reservoir. There are various techniques for performing this conversion, some of which are highly sophisticated. The choice of the most suitable depends on geological complexity, and on the human, technological and financial resources available. In any case, the resulting map is calibrated against well data. In some cases, the map of the structural top may be generated solely on the basis of available well data, with the help of data from the geological surface survey, if the reservoir lies in an area with outcrops of geological formations. This may happen where no seismic survey has been carried out, or when there are enough wells available to provide adequate coverage of the structure. In these instances, the improvement in quality of the structural top map resulting from a seismic interpretation is not sufficient to justify the extra work involved, which is due above all to the problem of calibrating a large number of wells. The interpretation of the set of faults running through a reservoir has considerable impact on its production characteristics, and in particular on the most appropriate plan for its development. Given an equal volume of hydrocarbons in place, the number of wells required is higher for reservoirs characterized by faults which isolate independent or partially independent blocks from the point of view of fluid content. In the case of deep sea reservoirs (for example in the Gulf of Mexico, West Africa, etc.), the number of wells is often crucial in the evaluation of development plans. Consequently, an accurate assessment of faults and their characteristics may be a decisive factor. The interpretation of the set of faults within a reservoir is generally based on four types of data that are subsequently integrated. Inconsistencies in correlation. The presence of faults may sometimes be apparent from well data, indicated by inconsistencies in the correlation scheme. Typically, for example, the depth of a horizon in a well may turn out to be greater or
smaller than expected, indicating the possible presence of a fault. In the past, when 3D seismic surveys were much less readily available than today, this technique allowed only the largest faults to be identified and located with a good degree of accuracy. Well data. The presence of faults in a well can generally be ascertained through the analysis of the stratigraphic sequence. Missing geological sequences indicate the presence of normal faults, whereas repeated sequences indicate the presence of reverse faults. Geophysical tests. Geophysical data represents the main source of information on the presence of faults since, unlike the two previous techniques, it also investigates parts of the reservoir which are distant from the wells. The presence of faults may be indicated by discontinuities in the seismic signal. This applies to both data from surface seismic surveys and data recorded in well seismics (VSP, crosswell seismics). Furthermore, this data can be interpreted both traditionally, by mapping a reflecting geological horizon, and by using seismic attributes (dip, azimuth, amplitude, etc.). Dynamic well test data. The interpretation of dynamic well tests (see Chapter 4.4) may show the presence of faults in cases where the faults have an impact on fluid flow, and thus on pressure patterns over time. An adequate integration of these types of information generally allows the set of faults running through the reservoir to be reconstructed with sufficient accuracy. However, in carrying out the integration, we should take into account a series of factors which may be crucial for the quality of the end result. The first factor concerns the degree of detail aimed for in the interpretation. In most cases this depends more on the tools available than on the actual aims of the study. Geophysicists tend to include in their interpretation all those discontinuities which can be identified from the seismic survey, regardless of whether these have an impact on fluid flow. As a result, the reservoir engineer often has to simplify the map during the dynamic simulation phase, keeping only those faults which turn out to have a significant impact on the results of the simulation model. For example, faults shorter than the average size of the model cells can obviously be disregarded. For this reason, the degree of detail in a geophysical interpretation should match the overall requirements of the study, and be discussed and agreed with the other members of the study team. Another factor is linked to the hydraulic transmissibility of the faults. In a reservoir study, we
554
ENCYCLOPAEDIA OF HYDROCARBONS
STATIC RESERVOIR STUDY
are interested only in those faults which act as sealing faults, or which are more transmissive than the reservoir rock. Faults which have no impact on fluid flow, on the other hand, may be disregarded. From this point of view it is important to stress that geophysical tests provide a means of locating the faults in space relatively accurately, but give no information on their sealing effect. By contrast, dynamic well tests allow us to quantify the impact of the faults on fluid flow, but not to locate them precisely in space. It is therefore obvious that these two techniques are complementary, and that adequate integration improves the end result. Reconstructing the network of faults running through a reservoir is a complex activity, requiring a combination of data of differing type, quality and reference scale. The quality of the final reconstruction is generally tested during the validation phase of the simulation model (see Chapter 4.6), in which we attempt to reconstruct the reservoirs past production history (history match). It may be found necessary to adjust the preliminary interpretation during this phase of the work, which consequently takes on an iterative nature, aimed at progressively refining the initial assumptions. Obviously, all modifications must be made after consultation with the geologist/geophysicist who carried out the work, so as to maintain the models necessary geological and structural coherence. The structural model of a reservoir is based on the combination of results obtained during the stages of defining the structural top, and interpreting the fault network. In a 2D context, the result is simply a depth map calibrated against the wells, with the superimposition of fault lines where these intercept the structural top. The model, understood as the external framework of the reservoir, is completed with a map of the bottom which is derived using the same method. Recent years, however, have seen the increased use of software allowing us to model subsurface structures in 3D, and this now represents the most widely adopted approach in the field. The main advantages of 3D techniques are their speed and ease of use, as well as the ability to model complex structures (e.g. reverse faults), which are impossible to represent with traditional 2D techniques, based on the mapping of surfaces representing geometrical and petrophysical parameters. The procedures for constructing a threedimensional structural reservoir model vary according to the applications used, but generally include the following steps. Modelling of major faults. These are faults which bound the main blocks forming the reservoir. The fault
Fig. 1. Example of a 3D structural reservoir model (courtesy of L. Cosentino).
planes are in this case explicitly modelled as surfaces, which in turn define the boundaries of the main blocks of the three-dimensional model. Construction of geological surfaces. Within each main block, parametric surfaces are generated, which represent the main geological horizons, typically the top and bottom of the main sequences. These surfaces must be consistent with the depths measured in all available wells. Modelling of minor faults. Whilst affecting fluid dynamics, these faults have only a slight impact on the overall geometry of the reservoir, locally displacing the geological surfaces. Fig. 1 shows an example of a three-dimensional structural reservoir model: the major faults, surfaces and minor faults are clearly visible. It is obvious that structures of this complexity cannot be modelled using traditional two-dimensional mapping methods.
4.5.3 Stratigraphic model

The development of the stratigraphic model is without doubt one of the most traditional tasks of the reservoir geologist, who must perform a well-to-well correlation with the aim of defining the stratigraphic horizons bounding the main geological sequences within the hydrocarbon formation. This task is of vital importance for the studys overall accuracy, since fluid flow is heavily influenced by the reservoirs internal geometry. It is therefore essential to devote the necessary time and resources, both human and technological, to this stage of the project, in order to build an accurate model.
555
The difficulties encountered at this stage of the reservoir study are mainly linked to the definition of the depositional environment of the reservoir. In some cases, when the sedimentary sequences present a significant lateral extension, the correlations between wells may be relatively simple. This is true, for example, for shelf areas, with both terrigenous and carbonate sedimentation, dominated by tidal phenomena. An extreme example of correlativity is represented by the distal facies of some deep sea turbidite sediments, as in various Adriatic fields, where we can correlate with certainty individual events just a few centimetres thick, even between wells several kilometres apart. However, such examples are exceptions to the rule. In most cases, the lateral extension of the sedimentary bodies is much lower, and in many cases, unfortunately, is less than the average distance between wells. This is true of most continental and transitional geological formations, such as alluvial, fluvial and deltaic sediments, where reconstructing the internal geometry of the reservoir may turn out to be extremely complicated, representing an often insurmountable challenge for the reservoir geologist. In these cases, as we will see below, integration of the various disciplines participating in the reservoir study may be crucial for improving the accuracy of the end result.
Correlation techniques
The basic data used for well-to-well correlations are the logs recorded in open hole or cased hole, and cores. These data are used to create stratigraphic sections and
correlations, in terms of real depth or with respect to a reference level, through which we can generally identify the lines corresponding to significant geological variations. Fig. 2 depicts a classic example of a geological cross-section between two wells, showing the logs used for the correlation itself. As already mentioned, there is often a high risk of generating spurious correlations, and the reservoir geologist must carefully choose the suitable methodologies to minimize possible errors. To this end, one of the best techniques is sequence stratigraphy. Sequence stratigraphy is a relatively new approach, whose official appearance can be dated to 1977 (Vail et al., 1977). This is a chronostratigraphic system, based on the hypothesis that the deposition of sedimentary bodies is governed by the combined effects of changes in sea-level (eustatic phenomena), sedimentation, subsidence and tectonics. On this basis, we can identify sequences of different hierarchical order within a geological unit, separated by sequence boundaries which represent unconformities or maximum flooding surfaces. These surfaces are the most important reference levels (or markers) that a reservoir geologist may find in well profiles. The correct identification of these units allows us to generate an extremely detailed chronostratigraphic framework. This is especially well-suited to reservoir studies, since chronostratigraphic units and fluid flow are usually closely linked. This link does not necessarily exist if we consider traditional lithostratigraphic units (for example by correlating the tops of arenaceous units).
Fig. 2. Example of a correlation between wells (courtesy of L. Cosentino).
556
Where it is not possible to apply sequence stratigraphy, or where this does not provide the desired results, we may resort to correlations based on the hydraulic properties of the sedimentary bodies. This approach aims to define flow units (or hydraulic units), which do not necessarily coincide with the geological units, but which can be considered homogeneous from a dynamic point of view. One of the classic methodologies for the definition of flow units is described in Amaefule et al. (1993).
Validation of the stratigraphic scheme
the responsibility of the reservoir geologist to examine all the existing opportunities, and exploit these to the utmost.
Construction of a stratigraphic model
Once we have defined the reference correlation scheme, it is good practice to check its accuracy using other types of techniques and data which may provide useful information for this purpose. Biostratigraphy and palynology. Available rock samples (cores or cuttings) are frequently analysed with the aim of studying micropalaeontological and/or palynological associations (spores and pollens). This data may in some cases help to confirm the stratigraphic scheme. However, it is important to check that chronostratigraphy and biostratigraphy are consistent, and, in the case of drilling debris (cuttings), to take into account the limited vertical resolution of the data. Pressure data. Available static pressure data, and particularly those collected in wells with WFT (Wireline Formation Tester) instruments, provide extremely significant information on the continuity and connectivity of the various sedimentary bodies. In the absence of structural discontinuities (e.g. faults), the pressures measured in different wells in identical geological sequences should be similar. If this is not the case, there may be correlation problems. Production data. Within a geological unit we should be able to observe a thermodynamic equilibrium, corresponding to specific characteristics of the fluids produced at the surface (gas-oil ratio and oil density). The presence of anomalies in these characteristics may be due to correlation problems. Obviously, in these cases we should first rule out problems with the well (e.g. defective cementing). Drilling data. The Rate Of Penetration (ROP) may provide useful information on the stratigraphic sequence crossed. Different geological units often present varying resistance to the advancement of the bit. In these cases, data supplied by the drilling activity may be used to check the consistency of available correlations. It is obvious that this list of techniques is not, and cannot be, exhaustive; every reservoir study possesses distinctive data and information which can be used during the various stages of the study. It is therefore
The stratigraphic horizons defined at the wells during the correlation phase are subsequently linked to one another by constructing surfaces which together form what we might call the stratigraphic model of the reservoir. This model consists of a series of thickness maps of the individual geological horizons located between the upper and lower boundary surfaces of the reservoir. These maps are usually created using appropriate computer mapping programmes. For stratigraphic modelling, too, the three-dimensional approach is the most commonly adopted by reservoir geologists today. In this case, after constructing the external framework of the reservoir according to the procedure described in the previous paragraph, we proceed to define the internal geometry; in other words, to create that set of surfaces between the top and the bottom of the reservoir which represent the boundaries between the geological sequences selected for correlation. Generally, as already stressed, these surfaces form boundaries between flow units which are independent of one another. The specific procedure allowing us to construct this stratigraphic scheme obviously depends on the applications used. Generally speaking, it is possible to model all existing sedimentary geometries (conformity and erosion surfaces, pinch-out, onlap, toplap, downlap, etc.) and to achieve an accurate reproduction of the depositional scheme under consideration. Fig. 3 shows an example of a three-dimensional stratigraphic model, where we can see the different depositional geometries of the various sedimentary units. Note especially the onlap type geometry of the lower unit in the area of structural high.
Fig. 3. Example of a 3D stratigraphic model
(courtesy of L. Cosentino).
557
4.5.4 Lithological model

The structural and stratigraphic models described in the previous paragraphs together form the reservoirs reference framework. The next stage in a reservoir study involves defining the spatial distribution of the reservoir rocks petrophysical characteristics. In three-dimensional geological modelling jargon, this operation is often described as the populating of the reservoir model. As a rule, it can be performed using appropriate deterministic or stochastic functions which allow us to generate two or three-dimensional spatial distributions of significant characteristics, such as porosity and permeability, directly from well data. However, this operation is often difficult to perform, since the lateral and vertical continuity of these reservoir parameters is often uncertain, and the modelling process is based on the a priori assumption of continuity and spatial regularity which does not necessarily reflect the real situation. This is especially true of parameters such as permeability, whose spatial continuity is usually considerably lower than the average distance between control points (wells). For this reason, when working in three dimensions, it is often preferable to construct a preliminary lithological model of the reservoir; that is, a model based on the identification and characterization of a certain number of basic facies which are typical of the reservoir under examination. These facies are identified on the basis of data gathered in the wells using specific classification criteria, and subsequently distributed within the three-dimensional structural-stratigraphic model using special algorithms. The main advantage of this approach is that it is usually much easier to carry out the spatial distribution of basic facies than that of reservoir-rock parameters. This is because the distribution of facies is based on precise geological criteria which depend on the sedimentary environment under consideration. The distribution of petrophysical parameters is therefore implemented subsequently, and is based on the previously created lithological model. The idea behind this procedure is that the petrophysical characteristics of the reservoir can be considered intimately linked to the lithological facies. The concept of facies is particularly well-suited to reservoir studies. Once the facies have been determined and characterized by integrating log and core data, and, where possible, seismic data, this classification system can be used in various stages of the study, including the following. Three-dimensional modelling. The facies can be employed as building blocks for the development of three-dimensional geological models, generally
through the application of stochastic algorithms. As we have said, this is the most typical use of facies. Quantitative interpretation of logs. We can associate each facies, or group of facies, with a typical interpretative model, for example in terms of mineralogy (matrix density), saturation exponent or cementation factor. Definition of rock types. Although it is not possible to perform a direct upscaling on the facies for the simulation stage (since this is a discrete parameter), their distribution may be used as a qualitative reference in the dynamic model for the assignment of saturation functions (capillary pressure and relative permeability). This stage is usually known as the definition of rock types. It is evident that the small-scale, three-dimensional geological model which describes and characterizes the facies can be used in different stages of the study, and in various contexts. The facies may thus be considered the most suitable tool for conveying wideranging geological information through the various stages of the study up to the simulation model, guaranteeing the consistency of the work flow. It is worth noting that the concept of facies also represents a convenient common language for all the experts involved in the study. In practical terms, the lithological model of a reservoir is constructed by integrating an ideal representation of the reservoir (sedimentological model), a classification stage (definition of facies) and a spatial distribution stage (three-dimensional model).
Sedimentological model
The sedimentological/depositional model of the reservoir forms the basis for the lithological model, and is defined in two main stages: the description and classification of the individual lithological units (lithotypes) making up the reservoir rock, carried out on available cores; and the definition of a depositional model describing the sedimentary environment (fluvial, deltaic, marine, etc.). This model also allows us to formulate hypotheses regarding the geometries and dimensions of the geological bodies; this information is used in the three-dimensional modelling stage.
Classification of facies
The facies can be considered the building blocks of the lithological reservoir model. They can be defined in various ways, the simplest of which involves the application of cut-off values to log curves recorded in the wells. For example, a simple sands-clays classification may be realized by identifying a cut-off value in the gamma ray
558
log curve (log of the gamma rays emitted by the rock as a function of depth). Usually, the classification into facies is obtained through a more complex process. This involves selecting the most suitable log curves, identifying a number of reference wells (i.e. those wells which have been cored, and have high-quality logs), and applying statistical algorithms such as cluster analysis, or more complex processes based on neural networks. In this way, a lithological column is generated for each reference well, where each depth interval is associated with a specific facies (log facies). This process is iterative, and aims to identify the optimal number of facies needed to describe the reservoir rock in the right degree of detail. Next, these log facies are compared with available core data and characterized from a lithological and petrophysical point of view. Basically, each log facies is associated with typical lithological descriptions and values (mean and/or statistical distributions) for petrophysical parameters. The degree of detail and the accuracy of this characterization stage obviously depend on the number and quality of logs used. In the case of old wells, with a limited availability of logs (e.g. electrical logs of spontaneous potential and/or resistivity), the classification process is perfunctory and the characterization stage is limited to a basic lithological description, for example sands/silt/clays, with limited vertical resolution. By contrast, where logs of more recent generations are available (e.g. density/neutron, PEF, sonic and NMR), the facies emerging from the classification process can be characterized more completely. For example, each
facies can be linked not only to the most obvious lithological characteristics, but also to precise petrophysical values such as porosity, permeability, capillary behaviour, compressibility, cementation factor, saturation exponent, etc. During the final stage, the defined classification on reference wells is extended to all the other wells in the reservoir through a process of statistical aggregation. This stage allows us to obtain lithostratigraphic columns in terms of facies for all the wells in the reservoir.
Three-dimensional distribution of facies
The three-dimensional distribution of facies is usually obtained by applying stochastic algorithms, using the three-dimensional stratigraphic model as a base (see above). These algorithms, which will be discussed in greater detail below, allow us to generate extremely realistic geological models, related to all available data; geophysics, log and core data, and sometimes even dynamic data. Fig. 4 shows an example of this type of model, demonstrating the degree of detail which can be obtained in what are now routine geological studies. These models use a vast number of basic cells, often in the order of tens of millions, thus allowing an extremely detailed representation of the real geological structure of the reservoir. In a later stage, after a process of simplification and reduction of the number of cells (upscaling), these geological models (in terms of the petrophysical characteristics of the reservoir rock) are input into the dynamic model to simulate the production behaviour of the reservoir.
Fig. 4. Example of a stochastic
model of facies (courtesy of L. Cosentino).
559
4.5.5 Petrophysical model

Fluid flow in a reservoir takes place in an interconnected grid of porous spaces within the reservoir rock. The characteristics of this grid determine the quantity of fluids present, their relative distribution, and the ease with which they can flow towards production wells. The properties of this porous system are linked to the characteristics (mineralogical, granulometric, and textural) of the solid particles which bound it. These in turn are a function of the original depositional environment and the post-depositional processes (diagenesis, cementation, dissolution, fracturing) which may have affected the rock after its formation. The quantitative study of the porous space in reservoir rock forms a part of petrophysics, a discipline which plays a fundamental role in reservoir studies. This represents the basis for the dynamic description of fluid flow, and thus of the behaviour (observed or predicted) of production wells. For this reason it is essential to devote sufficient time and resources to this stage, both in terms of data collection and analysis (including laboratory tests on cores), and in terms of interpretation, in order to generate a representative petrophysical model of the reservoir. This section is divided into two parts: the first is devoted to the petrophysical interpretation in the strict sense of the word the quantitative evaluation of reservoir properties in the wells. Special emphasis will be given to the most important parameters (porosity, water saturation and permeability) which make up a typical petrophysical well interpretation. This will be followed by a discussion of the problem of determining the cut-off value to be applied to petrophysical parameters to obtain the net-pay of the reservoir in question in other words the portion of rock which actually contributes to production. The second part is devoted to the distribution within the reservoir of the petrophysical parameters calculated at the wells, dealing separately with 2D and 3D representations, and a description of the main deterministic and stochastic techniques adopted for this purpose.
Petrophysical well interpretation
Fig. 5. Example of a petrophysical well interpretation (courtesy of L. Cosentino).
the results in terms of petrophysical and mineralogical parameters. Both the properties of the porous system and the composition of the solid part can be analysed and measured directly on cores. In this case, the results can generally be considered fairly accurate, at least where the cored portions are actually representative of the reservoir rock. However, cores often cover only a limited portion of the total number of intervals crossed by the wells. Consequently, the petrophysical interpretation is generally carried out using available logs, whereas cores are used to calibrate the interpretation algorithms and to check the results. Below is a brief description of the main petrophysical parameters, and the techniques used to determine them, as already described in Chapter 4.1.
Porosity
In a classic petrophysical interpretation we generate, for each well in the reservoir, a series of vertical profiles describing the main properties of the reservoir rocks porous system, such as porosity, water saturation and permeability. This analysis also provides a more or less sophisticated mineralogical interpretation of the solid part of the system, in other words the reservoir rock itself. Fig. 5 shows a typical example of a petrophysical interpretation, including
The determination of porosity (see Chapters 1.3 and 4.1) can generally be considered the least complex stage in a petrophysical interpretation. However, this stage is extremely important, since it defines the quantity of hydrocarbons present in the reservoir. In the laboratory, porosity is measured on rock samples whose linear dimensions are generally limited to 11.5 inches, using techniques which involve the extraction of fluids, or, vice-versa, the introduction of fluids into the samples porous system. These techniques, which have been in use for over 40 years,
560
generally provide fairly accurate values, and can also be applied under conditions of temperature and pressure corresponding to original reservoir conditions. The problems associated with this type of measurement, where they exist, are linked to the representativeness of the rock sample. A typical example is the measurement of secondary porosity, which, being linked to genetic factors whose spatial intensity is extremely irregular, may not be at all representative of average reservoir conditions. As such, it may be difficult to determine the porosity of fractured rocks, or rocks affected by intense dissolution and/or cementation phenomena. Another example of poor representativeness is provided by rocks of conglomerate type, in which the distribution of the porous system is highly irregular, at least at the core scale. The methods most frequently used to determine porosity are those based on the interpretation of well logs. The quantitative interpretation of porosity is of particular significance in reservoir studies when the determination of the porous volume of the reservoir turns out to be highly complex. This is true, for example, of old fields, with little data of low quality and resolution; of carbonate reservoirs, characterized by prevalently secondary porosity; and of fractured reservoirs, where well instruments may at times turn out to be completely inadequate for a quantitative calculation of porosity. In all of these cases it is essential to integrate the normal petrophysical interpretation, based on log and core data, with all those techniques, static and dynamic, which may provide information, even of an indirect nature, on the porous volume of the reservoir. This integration process may make a fundamental contribution to the evaluation of the porous volume of the reservoir, and the understanding of its spatial distribution.
Water saturation
The porous system of a reservoir rock is filled with fluids, typically water and hydrocarbons. The relative distribution of these fluid phases within the porous space depends on a series of factors linked to the chemical and physical properties of the rock and the fluids themselves, as well as the interaction between rock and fluid (the rock wettability). Determining the saturation conditions of the reservoir rock represents one of the most important stages in a reservoir study, since it influences not only the calculation of the amount of hydrocarbons in place, but also the determination of fluid mechanics, and thus the productivity of the wells. This is generally a
complex stage, which frequently involves a high degree of uncertainty in the final construction of the integrated reservoir model. The water saturation of a rock, like its porosity, may be measured on cores, or on the basis of logs. In the laboratory, meaningful measurements of water saturation may be obtained using Dean-Stark type extraction data on preserved samples, at least in cases where mud filtrate invasion is limited, and where the expansion of the gaseous phase does not lead to a significant change in the samples initial saturation conditions. We can often obtain data of considerable accuracy by using suitable coring techniques and noninvasive oil-based drilling muds, at least in areas of the reservoir which are distant from the transition zone, also known as the capillary fringe. An example of a systematic study of this type, carried out on the Prudhoe Bay field in Alaska, is described in McCoy et al. (1997). The water saturation of a rock may also be determined using capillary pressure measurements, based on the fact that capillary forces are responsible for the relative distribution of water and hydrocarbons within the porous space. For the purposes of reservoir studies, water saturation is mainly measured on the basis of well logs recorded in uncased boreholes, and particularly electrical resistivity/induction logs, generally using the famous Archie equation, first published back in 1942 (Archie, 1942). In cased boreholes, on the other hand, water saturation can be measured using data obtained with pulsed neutron-type instruments. These also have the advantage of being recordable through the production tubing, while the well is producing. These instruments are often used in systematic monitoring of the evolution of saturation conditions in reservoirs, and therefore represent an extremely interesting source of information for reservoir studies. For example, the ability to monitor the advancement of oil-water or gas-water contacts in the various zones of the reservoir as a function of time, not only allows us to optimize the management of the field, but also provides information which is essential in calibrating the results of the reservoir model.
Permeability
Permeability (see Chapter 4.1) is without doubt the most important petrophysical reservoir parameter. Permeability determines both the productivity of the wells and the reservoirs ability to feed drainage areas, and thus the reservoirs capacity to sustain economic rates in the long term. On the other hand, this is also the most difficult parameter to determine. Permeability is a property which can be measured
561
directly only on cores, logs generally allowing us to obtain only rough estimates. Further, permeability is usually characterized by extremely high spatial variability, which makes it difficult to estimate even in areas adjoining available measurement points. The determination of permeability is thus an important and complex stage in the reservoir study, which requires an integration of all available data, and consequently a high degree of cooperation between the engineers and geologists in the work team. Estimates of a reservoirs permeability are generally carried out on the basis of available core data, preferably calibrated on the results of production test interpretations, when these exist. Although this approach generally provides acceptable results, reservoir engineers are frequently forced to modify radically the distribution of permeability values in the simulation model during the subsequent dynamic modelling phase, so as to replicate the production behaviour observed in the wells. This clearly indicates an incorrect initial determination of permeability. The best method for satisfactorily defining the initial distribution of permeability values in a reservoir is doubtlessly the integration of the different sources which provide direct or indirect information on this property. These sources are more numerous than is generally thought, and the integration process often allows us to generate fairly accurate permeability models, which turn out to be adequate during the simulation phase. Below is a brief list of some of the available techniques providing information on the permeability of a reservoir. Each of these techniques supplies data referring to a given support volume (i.e. reference scale), given saturation conditions (i.e. relative or absolute permeability) and given measuring conditions (in situ or laboratory-based). When integrating these data, it is therefore necessary to carry out a normalization process which takes these differences into account.
Core analysis
Minipermeameter analysis
Permeability can be rapidly and accurately measured in the laboratory using an instrument known as a minipermeameter. Comparison with the normal measurements obtained from cores under ambient conditions often shows a good level of coherence between these two types of data. The significance of this type of measurement lies in the possibility of identifying small-scale heterogeneities. In this case, too, the critical aspect is represented by the sample volume, even smaller than normal core samples. Furthermore, the measurements only refer to laboratory conditions.
Interpretation of well tests
The permeability of a formation can be estimated (see Chapter 4.4) through the interpretation of well tests (flowing and pressure build-up, injectivity and interference tests, etc.). These interpretations provide values for effective permeability to hydrocarbons under reservoir conditions, and refer to a much larger support volume than any other technique. Where good quality pressure data are available, well tests allow us to estimate the average permeability of a reservoir with considerable accuracy.
Production logs (PLT)
These tools are generally used to monitor wells (see Chapter 6.1); however, where a production test is available it is possible to use PLT (Production Logging Tool) data to calculate a permeability profile at the well (Mezghani et al., 2000). These data refer to the effective permeability to hydrocarbons under reservoir conditions, and generally represent an interesting link between the dynamic estimates deriving from the interpretation of well tests, and the static estimates which can be obtained, for example, by logging. However, it is necessary to note the possible damage suffered by the geological formation (or skin) around the well.
Wireline Formation Testing (WFT)
Absolute permeability can be measured in the laboratory on core samples of various sizes. These measurements, which represent the only source of direct data, may refer both to laboratory and reservoir conditions. The data measured are then adjusted to take into account the so-called Klinkenberg effect (gas slippage) due to gas escaping from the reservoir, and the effects of overburden pressure. The most critical aspect of this type of data is the extremely small support volume, which often renders the measurements unrepresentative of the reservoir as a whole.
This is a test which measures formation pressures at predetermined depth intervals, by carrying out short flowing and pressure build-up phases. These are interpreted in the same way as a flowing test to obtain estimates of permeability. In this case the values obtained can be considered to refer to the permeability of the fluids present in the invaded zone, under reservoir pressure and temperature conditions.
Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) logs
Nuclear magnetic resonance tools represent the only means of obtaining a continuous vertical profile
562
Table 1. Characteristics of the various methods employed Method Core analysis Minipermeameter Production tests PLT WFT NMR Regressions Empirical equations Neural networks Scale Macro Micro Mega Mega Macro Macro Macro Macro Macro Pression Temperature Environment/In situ Environment In situ In situ In situ In situ In situ In situ In situ Saturation Absolute Absolute Relative Relative Relative Absolute Absolute Absolute Absolute Measurement Direct Direct Indirect Indirect Indirect Indirect Indirect Indirect Indirect
of permeability in the well. Permeability is calculated using equations based on the proton relaxation time, and the results obtained may be fairly accurate, especially where some of the input parameters can be calibrated on measurements carried out on core samples in the laboratory.
Petrophysical correlations.
By integrating the data derived from these different techniques we can often generate reliable permeability models, which reflect both the static and dynamic aspects of this property. This allows us to improve and shorten the validation phase (history matching) of the dynamic simulation model, thereby optimizing the quality of the reservoir study and the time required to perform it.
Determination of net pay
Permeability is often obtained using a correlation with porosity by means of core measurements (Nelson, 1994). However, this method tends to generate permeability profiles which are unnaturally regular; there are various types of statistical data processing which allow us to preserve at least in part the heterogeneity of the original permeability distribution. These include, for example, regressions for individual lithological facies, and multiple linear regressions (Wendt et al., 1986).
Empirical equations
Various empirical equations exist in the relevant literature for the estimate of permeability on the basis of known petrophysical parameters. In some specific cases, these equations may provide fairly acceptable results, but it is always important to check them using available core data.
Neural networks
This is a recent methodology, which allows us to generate permeability profiles using logs or other petrophysical profiles. The most interesting aspect of this methodology (Mohaghegh and Ameri, 1996), is that the obtained estimates correctly represent the original degree of heterogeneity of the data measured, and the results do not suffer, as statistical methods do, from the smoothing effect. Particular attention should be paid during the preliminary training process of the neural networks; this requires adequate calibration data, without which the results obtained may be misleading. Table 1 illustrates the characteristics of these various methods.
The net pay of a reservoir represents that portion of rock which effectively contributes to production. This value is calculated using appropriate cut-off values applied to petrophysical parameters. Although the simplicity of the term might lead one to think otherwise, cut-off is one of the most controversial concepts within the community of geologists and reservoir engineers, since there is no clear shared methodology for its definition. This is also evident from the lack of literature on the subject, despite the fact that the determination of net pay is practically unavoidable in any reservoir study (Worthington and Cosentino, 2003). One of the key points in determining the cut-off to be applied to petrophysical curves is an understanding of its dynamic nature. This is because the cut-off is linked to conditions that imply the productive capacity of hydrocarbons under given pressures, and with a given development plan. Typically, a porosity cut-off is selected on the basis of permeability versus porosity graphs drawn up using data obtained from core analysis, thus fixing a limit value for permeability often equivalent to a conventional value of 1 mD (microdarcy). In selecting the cut-off, we must consider at least the following two factors. Firstly, the cut-off must be chosen on the basis of fluid mobility rather than permeability alone. Consequently, in the same geological formation, the value of the cut-off varies as a function of the fluid present. This is why many of the worlds gas fields produce from reservoirs with extremely low permeability, just a few mD, whereas
563
the cut-offs normally applied to heavy oil reservoirs are in the order of tens of mD. Typical cut-off values for mobility lie in the range of 0.5-1 mD/cp. Secondly, the choice of cut-off must be a function of production mechanisms. In reservoirs which produce by simple fluid expansion (depletion drive), the value of the cut-off depends on the prevalent pressure level. It is obvious that rocks with low permeability, subjected to high pressure differential (the difference between reservoir pressure and the pressure imposed in the production tubing), can contribute to production. As a result, in a reservoir of this type, the real cut-off changes over time, as pressure differences increase. The cut-offs dependency on time emphasizes another aspect of this complex problem. By contrast, in reservoirs dominated by convective phenomena (e.g. reservoirs subjected to secondary recovery processes using water injection), where pressure does not change significantly during production, the cut-off depends more on the efficiency of the displacement process, and is thus more generally linked to concepts of Residual Oil Saturation (ROS). It should be stressed, however, that even taking into consideration the aspects described above, the selection of an appropriate cut-off value is difficult, and often elusive. This explains why such a choice is highly subjective and difficult to justify. It is no coincidence that one of the most controversial aspects of reservoir unitization processes (the pooled production of a reservoir which extends over two or more production leases, by agreement or imposed by law), is precisely the choice of cut-off and the determination of net pay. The main problem in determining the cut-off lies in the choice of the reference value for permeability, which represents the boundary between productive and non-productive rocks. Various factors should
contribute to this choice: a good knowledge of the reservoirs lithologies and fluids, the prevalent production mechanism, the analysis of data which may provide direct or indirect information for the purpose (production tests and DST, data obtained with measurements performed using WFT and NMR-type well test tools, etc.). The integration of all these types of information allows an appropriate choice of the values to be adopted. Once the permeability cut-off value for commercial production has been defined, other associated petrophysical cut-off values may be obtained fairly simply on the basis of diagrams (crossplots) of reservoir properties. This methodology is illustrated schematically in Fig. 6. Where a lithological classification is available (see above), this procedure should be carried out independently for each facies. This usually results in greater accuracy, and consequently a more effective distinction between producing and non-producing rocks. In some cases, the lithological classification may also lead to the definition of facies which are reservoir and non-reservoir, thus making the determination of net pay even easier, especially when working on complex three-dimensional geological models. Finally, it is always advisable to perform sensitivity analyses on the method employed by using different working hypotheses, and thus different cut-off values, and noting the variations in the final values for the volume of hydrocarbons in place. This phase often allows us to refine our initial hypotheses, and to optimize our final choice.
Distribution of petrophysical parameters
The petrophysical well interpretation forms the basis for the subsequent stage of the study, consisting in the lateral (2D) or spatial (3D) distribution of reservoir properties. In both cases, the most complex
log K
log SW
SWC
KC
VshC
Vsh
Fig. 6. Procedure for defining a consistent set of petrophysical cut-offs. K, permeability; F, porosity;
SW, water saturation; Vsh, shale volume; c, cut-off.
564
problem is the lack of information on those parts of the reservoir between wells, especially when dealing with highly heterogeneous geological formations, or those characterized by poor lateral continuity. Traditionally, the interpolation of known values measured at the wells has represented the classic methodology for the construction of reservoir maps, with the geological/sedimentological model forming the only reference point for this operation. In the past, the reservoir geologist drew these maps manually; only from the 1980s onwards did computer mapping techniques begin to be used. Since the 1990s the situation has changed radically. On the one hand, the availability of computers with increasingly high processing and graphic capabilities has definitively changed the way reservoir geologists work. On the other, the development of new methodologies such as geostatistics and the extraordinary evolution of techniques for acquiring and processing geophysical data have provided geologists with new tools, allowing them to build more accurate and less subjective models. In the following sections we will describe separately the two possible approaches: two-dimensional and threedimensional modelling.
Two-dimensional modelling of reservoir parameters
Two-dimensional geological modelling consists in the generation of a set of maps representing the lateral distribution of reservoir parameters. We can distinguish between two basic types of map: those which describe the geometry of geological units (top, bottom and thickness of the various layers: see above), and those which describe their petrophysical properties; porosity, water saturation, net/gross ratio, and permeability. It should be stressed that the latter type of map, whilst not strictly speaking necessary for the static model, is essential for dynamic simulations. The procedures used to generate maps of porosity and net/gross (the ratio of net pay to gross thickness), are basically similar. Mean values are calculated in the wells for each geological unit, and these values are then adopted for the interpolation process by using computer mapping techniques. In the simplest cases, as we have said, this operation is performed solely on the basis of the sedimentological reservoir model, with fairly reliable results, at least where there is a high density of existing wells. However, considerable attention must be paid to the peripheral areas of the reservoir, where the mapping algorithm may extrapolate meaningless values. In these cases, it is common practice to use reference control points,
which prevent this type of uncontrolled extrapolation. This procedure may be improved by using geostatistical techniques. In this case, the correlation function adopted is not predefined, as in the case of commercial algorithms. Instead, it is calculated directly on the basis of available data, with obvious benefits in terms of the accuracy of the end result. These correlation functions (the variogram, or its opposite, covariance) express the real lateral continuity of the variable being modelled, and also allow us to take into account possible directional anisotropies. The geostatistical algorithm used in the next stage of the evaluation process is known as kriging. This algorithm allows us to represent accurately the lateral distribution of the parameters, and has the additional advantage of providing an evaluation of local uncertainty (kriging variance). A further improvement of the expected results may be obtained by using seismic data. Geophysics is the only direct source of information on areas of the reservoir which are distant from wells, and in recent years the geophysical techniques available for this purpose have improved considerably. This approach is based on a possible correlation between particular characteristics (or attributes) of the seismic signal recorded, and the petrophysical characteristics of the reservoir (typically porosity and/or net pay). This correlation is defined in the calibration phase, by comparing surface seismic data with data measured at the wells (sonic and velocity logs, VSP, etc.). Once the correlation has been defined, we proceed to integrate the seismic data, generally using the following methods (in order of complexity): The normal well data interpolation, improved by using maps of seismic attributes; these are used to calculate the large-scale trend of the parameter under consideration. The conversion of the map of the seismic attribute (e.g. amplitude or acoustic impedance) into a porosity map, using the correlation defined at the wells. Later, the resulting map is modified to be consistent with available well values. The geostatistical approach, using spatial distribution functions calculated on the basis of the correlation between well data and seismic data. The use of collocated cokriging techniques (Xu Wenlong et al., 1992) has become widespread in recent years. Fig. 7 shows an example of a porosity map generated by integrating information obtained from wells with geophysical data. This type of approach to the construction of reservoir maps is becoming increasingly common in current practice, due mainly to the availability of
565
highly sophisticated software applications. These allow us to visualize seismic and traditional geological data simultaneously, with obvious benefits for the modelling process. However, considerable care is required in these operations, since seismic signals are influenced by a broad range of factors (lithology, petrophysical characteristics, fluid content, overlying formations), and it is thus important to check the correlation between seismic data and well data carefully. Spurious correlations are more common than one might think, especially where only a few wells are available for control (Kalkomey, 1997). There are also various methodologies for the production of water saturation maps. As for porosity and net/gross, the most traditional technique is based on the direct mapping of values measured at the wells for each geological layer. This procedure works fairly well where a large number of wells are available, and has the added advantage of reflecting the values effectively measured in the wells themselves. However, this methodology fails to take into account the correlation with other petrophysical parameters (porosity and permeability), and does not allow an accurate reproduction of the capillary fringe (see Chapter 4.1). Moreover, it is prone to consistency problems in the petrophysical interpretation of the various wells. Another technique frequently used to generate saturation maps consists in the direct application of a porosity-water saturation correlation. In cases where pore geometry is relatively simple, we can frequently observe a linear correlation between these parameters on a semilogarithmic scale. The main advantage of this technique lies in its speed of execution and the consistency of results. However, it does not allow us to model the capillary fringe; its principal application is thus for gas fields, and in general for those reservoirs where the height of the capillary fringe can be disregarded. Other techniques for generating saturation maps rely on the application of capillary pressure curves, which reproduce the distribution of the fluid phases relative to the height above the water-hydrocarbon contact. These functions may be derived from capillary pressure data measured in the laboratory (see above), or they may be calculated on the basis of multiple linear regressions. In the latter case, both petrophysical (porosity) curves and height above the contact are used, and this allows us to simultaneously take into consideration the dependence on the porous system, and on the distance from the interface between the fluids. These methods, whilst more timeconsuming, generally represent the most satisfactory compromise for the generation of saturation maps,
partly because the methodology employed is similar to that used for dynamic simulation in the initialization phase of the model. In this light, this method promotes greater consistency between the hydrocarbons in place values calculated during the geological modelling phase, and those calculated during the dynamic simulation phase. The construction of an accurate permeability map is one of the most important aspects of a reservoir study, since the results of the dynamic simulation model are largely dependent on it. Various methodologies are available, and the choice of which to use depends on the characteristics of the reservoir under examination, on the available data, and on available human and technological resources. The traditional method, as in the case of porosity and net/gross, involves direct mapping of available well values. However, as compared to other petrophysical parameters, this methodology has greater limitations, linked to the following aspects. Availability of data. Generally, the availability of data for the mapping process is more limited than for other petrophysical parameters, given that, with the partial exception of nuclear magnetic resonance logs, permeability data are available only from cored wells. Type of data. As already discussed (see above), there are generally various possible sources of permeability data, each of which provides characteristic values relating to scale, saturation conditions and type of information (direct/indirect). The homogenization of these data required prior to a mapping process often turns out to be an arduous task, and subject to compromises. Spatial variability. The spatial continuity (lateral and vertical) of permeability is usually much lower than that of other reservoir parameters. In the case of highly heterogeneous formations, this continuity may
0.275 0.250 0.225 0.200 0.175 0.150 0.125 0.100 0.075 0.050 0.025
Fig. 7. Example of a porosity map
generated by integration with seismic data (courtesy of L. Cosentino).
566
be as little as one metre, or even entirely inexistent. It is worth remembering that most algorithms used in software packages assume a predefined and implicitly very high spatial continuity which generates fairly regular maps. In the case of permeability this is often unrealistic. Despite this, the mapping of permeability using production tests carried out in wells may generate accurate maps, especially when a sufficiently large number of tests are available. These permeability values are often extremely representative, and allow us to produce consistent maps which are particularly well-suited to dynamic simulation. In the case of fractured reservoirs, where core data are shown to be inadequate for the representation of the actual reservoir permeability, this type of approach is often a forced choice. Finally, it should be stressed that, as for other reservoir parameters, these interpolations may be further improved by using geostatistical techniques and kriging algorithms. An alternative methodology which is frequently employed is based on the generation of a permeability map from a map of porosity, using a correlation between the two parameters, generally calculated on the basis of available core data. In this case, the resulting permeability map will intrinsically resemble that of porosity, the implicit assumption being that the spatial correlation function for these two parameters is of the same type. However, this is normally inaccurate, and the resulting maps often appear unnaturally regular. Furthermore, it should be stressed that the relationship between porosity and permeability on which this method rests is often far from clear, especially in the case of carbonate sediments. As such, the results may be improved through a careful analysis of the basic correlation, and the identification of lower-order correlations, preferably for each individual facies.
Three-dimensional modelling of reservoir parameters
Generally speaking, two types of approach can be identified: in the first, the distribution of petrophysical parameters is carried out directly in the threedimensional space of the reservoir, starting from well profiles (single-stage model). This method does not require a three-dimensional lithological model of the facies (see above). In the second, the distribution is implemented on the basis of the lithological model. In this case, the petrophysical parameters are distributed following the three-dimensional modelling of the facies, in accordance with statistical laws specific to each facies (two-stage model). The second method has the advantage of being based on a geological reference model which forms the basis for lithological modelling. This generally allows a better assignment of petrophysical properties, especially in the presence of complex lithologies characterized by different porous systems. A particularly interesting aspect of 3D modelling is the possibility of integrating seismic data, traditionally used in a two-dimensional context, directly in three dimensions. Thanks to the availability of sophisticated processing algorithms which allow us to improve the vertical resolution of seismic data, and to the use of new techniques to characterize the seismic signal, we can identify seismic facies within the set of seismic data. These in turn can be correlated with the more traditional facies deriving from the lithological characterization of the reservoir. Fig. 8 shows an example of profiles derived from seismic data characterized in terms of seismic facies. Examples of this type represent a notable point of convergence between lithological, petrophysical and seismic modelling, the integration of which may produce extremely accurate three-dimensional models.
The 2D methodology described in the previous paragraph is gradually being replaced by more complex techniques, based on a three-dimensional approach to geological modelling. It is now possible to generate and visualize rapidly three-dimensional models of any reservoir parameter, with a resolution that frequently exceeds tens of millions of cells. This means that the reservoir geologist can quickly check different working hypotheses and analyse results directly on the screen of his own computer, with obvious benefits in terms of time, and the accuracy of the end results. Three-dimensional modelling may be applied to all reservoir parameters, basically using the same procedures already described for twodimensional models.
Fig. 8. Example of seismic profiles characterized
in terms of seismic facies (courtesy of L. Cosentino).
567
4.5.6 Integrated geological model

Until a few years ago, the geological model referred to a workflow rather than an object. During the past ten years the extraordinary development of information technologies and the spatial modelling of oil fields has occasioned such radical changes in the way reservoir geologists work and even think, that the meaning of the geological model has changed considerably. On the one hand, it has become clear that the integration of different disciplines, static and above all dynamic, is fundamental for the correct static characterization of the reservoir. On the other, the information platforms on which we work today allow the gradual construction of a model (first structural, then stratigraphic, lithological, and finally petrophysical), which comprises and summarizes the results of the interpretations carried out by the various experts participating in the interdisciplinary study. The integrated geological model has thus taken on a revolutionary meaning compared to the past, becoming a virtual object which represents the actual reservoir present underground in a discrete (but extremely detailed) way. It is characterized quantitatively by petrophysical parameters distributed within the three-dimensional space of the reservoir, and may be modified and up-dated rapidly if new data become available, for example from new wells. The theoretical and practical basis for this new approach to reservoir geology is represented by stochastic modelling. The use of stochastic (or geostatistical) models is relatively recent, but is becoming the most common practice among reservoir geologists. From the 1990s onwards numerous algorithms have been developed, the most versatile being available in commercial applications which have made them fairly simple to use. In brief (Haldorsen and Damsleth, 1990), stochastic modelling refers to the generation of synthetic geological models (in terms of facies and petrophysical parameters), conditioned to all available information, both qualitative (soft), and quantitative (hard). These models generate equiprobable realizations, which share the same statistical properties, and which represent possible images of the geological complexity of the reservoir. There is no a priori method for choosing which realization to use in a reservoir study, and this hinders the full acceptance of these methodologies by the geological community. On the other hand, the availability of a theoretically unlimited series of realizations allows us to explore thoroughly
(for a given algorithm and its associated parameters) the uncertainties linked to the available data. The stochastic approach therefore represents a considerable improvement on traditional geological modelling techniques. Currently, the most frequently used algorithms for stochastic modelling belong to either the pixelbased or object-based category. In pixel-based models, also known as continuous models, the variable simulated is considered a continuous random function, whose distribution (often of Gaussian type) is characterized by cut-off values which identify different facies or different intervals for petrophysical values. The most commonly used algorithms in this category are truncated Gaussian random functions (Matheron et al., 1987), and functions of indicator kriging type (Journel et al., 1990). These models are applied especially in the presence of facies associations which vary continuously within the reservoir, as is frequently the case in geological formations of deltaic type or shallow water marine reservoirs. No a priori assumptions are made on the form and extension of the sedimentary bodies, which are simulated solely on the basis of the spatial distribution functions used (variograms and proportionality curves). This approach is often adopted in cases characterized by relatively high net/gross ratios, in other words in prevalently sandy geological formations with intercalations of clay or other non-productive layers. By contrast, object-based models, also known as Boolean models, generate three-dimensional distributions of sedimentary bodies, obtained by juxtaposing objects of simplified geometry, such as disks or tabular bodies, within a clayey matrix. The parameters of these bodies (orientation, sinuosity, length, width, etc.) can be estimated on the basis of the sedimentological model adopted, geophysical data, outcrops of comparable rocks, or on the basis of production test interpretations. This type of model is used more frequently for fluvial-type reservoirs, characterized by channels or meanders located within prevalently clayey geological units, where the overall net/gross ratio is relatively low. In these contexts, we can obtain extremely interesting results, with highly realistic images of the geology simulated. By contrast, in cases where the net/gross ratio is higher (typically 40%), and when the number of conditioning wells is high, these algorithms may require an extremely long time to process. Fig. 9 shows an example of a geological model generated with a pixel-based algorithm. Note the
568
discontinuous nature of the facies generated, whose extension and orientation depend on the parameters of the variogram used. Fig. 10, on the other hand, shows an image generated with an object-based algorithm, in which the sedimentary bodies are more clearly defined and separated from one another. It is worth underlining that there is no a priori criterion for choosing one of these two approaches, nor any specific algorithm within these families. With the exception of the general indications based on the sedimentary environment, which are outlined above, the algorithm is chosen by the reservoir geologist carrying out the study on a largely subjective basis. Since different algorithms generate geological images which often vary considerably, especially when conditioning data is limited, the final result should clearly be understood in a statistical sense, even in those cases (the most frequent) where it is used in a deterministic way. The correct use of this type of results should therefore be seen within the much more complex context of the evaluation of uncertainties linked to geological modelling, a topic which will be discussed later. The enormous potential of stochastic modelling is basically the possibility of quantitatively integrating a whole range of different types of information and data generated during the study by the various specialists. This technique is particularly useful for a general geological understanding. General geological knowledge of the reservoir, based for example on known depositional models or on the existence of comparable outcrops, may be input into the stochastic model along with the often insufficient information from wells, thus allowing us to generate more realistic geological models. Recent theoretical developments (i.e. multi-point geostatistics) allow us to use data derived from
Fig. 10. Example of a geological model
created with an object-based algorithm (courtesy of L. Cosentino).
Fig. 9. Example of a geological model created
with a pixel-based algorithm (courtesy of L. Cosentino).
general geological models in a quantitative way within the stochastic model. Even the petrophysical interpretation of the reservoir rock, defined in the well logs quantitative interpretation phase, can be extended to the entire reservoir through stochastic modelling. As already mentioned, this can be done both directly, by simulating petrophysical properties, or indirectly, by simulating facies, and then associating mean petrophysical values or frequency distributions with these. The stochastic approach can also be used to simulate structural characteristics on a small or medium scale (faults and fractures), which cannot be distinguished in a deterministic way on the basis of available data. Later, these faults and fractures may also be characterized with hydraulic parameters. Finally, the integration of dynamic data (production tests and production data) represents one of the current frontiers of stochastic modelling. It is significant because a geological model conditioned to available dynamic data, once input into the dynamic simulation model, should allow a much more rapid validation of the production history of the reservoir (history match). Currently there are no standard methodologies for performing this integration, but in the relevant literature various approaches of notable interest have already been presented. The integrated geological model generated using a stochastic approach represents the end result of the static modelling process. Once this is available, it is used to estimate the amount of hydrocarbons in place, and where required, it can be used to assess uncertainty.
569
4.5.7 Calculation of hydrocarbons in place

The determination of Original Hydrocarbons In Place (OHIP, or OOIP for oil and GOIP for gas) is generally considered the final stage of the static reservoir study. It is during this stage that the description of the reservoir, in terms of external and internal geometry, and the properties of the reservoir rock, are quantified through a number expressing the amount of hydrocarbons present in the reservoir at the time of discovery. In fact, the most important number for the economic evaluation of a field is that relating to the reserves; in other words that portion of hydrocarbons which can actually be recovered with a given development plan. The relation between hydrocarbons in place and Recoverable Reserves (RR) is expressed by the well-known equation: [1] RROHIPRf
the integrated geological model. These estimates are based on the following formula: [2] N OHIPGBV 1 /(1Sw) G
where Rf is the recovery factor. The value of this factor, and consequently of the reserves, depends both on the geological characteristics of the reservoir, and on a series of other elements such as the type of hydrocarbon, the characteristics of drive mechanisms, the development plan adopted, the surface equipment, gas and oil prices, etc. (see Chapter 4.6). The value of hydrocarbons in place, on the other hand, is independent of these factors, and therefore extremely important, especially because it gives a clear and immediate picture of the importance and potential of the existing accumulation. Basically, there are two techniques for estimating hydrocarbons in place: the traditional method, based on geological volumetric calculation techniques; and methods based on material balance (see Chapter 4.3). In this context, it is worth remembering that dynamic simulation does not provide an independent estimate of hydrocarbons in place, since the values calculated by the simulator simply derive from the geological model used as input. Below, only geological evaluation methods are described in detail. It should be stressed, however, that material balance techniques may often provide extremely accurate estimates of hydrocarbons in place, and that it is the reservoir geologists task to check the agreement between the various methods, and to justify any disagreements.
Volumetric evaluations
where GBV is the Gross Bulk Volume of rock in the reservoir; N/G the net to gross (ratio of net pay to gross thickness); / the porosity (fraction); Sw the water saturation (fraction); (1Sw), equal to Sh, the hydrocarbon saturation (fraction). If we know the mean values of these parameters for the reservoir in question, we can quickly calculate the amount of hydrocarbons in place. In fact, in common practice, this calculation is not performed using mean values (except as a preliminary evaluation), but rather using surfaces (in two dimensions) or volumes (in three dimensions) representing the spatial distributions of the parameters in the equation. All the computer applications commonly used in two or threedimensional static modelling supply the relevant calculation algorithms, allowing us to obtain the volume of hydrocarbons in place simply and rapidly. In traditional two-dimensional modelling, based on the combination of surfaces (grids), we obtain a map known as the equivalent hydrocarbon column (Gross pay N/G /Sh), which provides a clear and immediate picture of the hydrocarbon distributions within the reservoir. The value of OHIP is then obtained simply by integrating this map. In the case of threedimensional models, the OHIP value is calculated directly on the basis of the integrated geological model, using suitable calculation algorithms which realize the sum of the volume of hydrocarbons present in each of the basic cells of the model. It is important to note that Eq. [2] supplies a value for OHIP under reservoir conditions. To convert this into surface conditions, we need to take into consideration the variation in volume that oil and/or gas undergo when they reach the surface. This variation in volume, which is mainly a function of pressure, is measured experimentally in the laboratory, and is known as Formation Volume Factor (FVF). In the case of oil, the equation linking downhole volume and surface volume is as follows: [3] OHIP R 121 OHIP ST B o
These refer to estimates of the quantity of original hydrocarbons in place calculated using the results of
where OHIP is the volume under stock tank ST conditions, OHIP is the volume under reservoir R conditions, and Bo is the FVF of the oil, expressed in reservoir barrels over stock tank barrels. In the case of gas, the FVF is indicated with an equivalent volume factor Bg. It should be emphasized that the application of this formula often leads to misunderstandings, because
570
reports on the PVT analysis of reservoir oils (see Chapter 4.2) usually give different values for the volume factor, according to the experiments carried out in the laboratory. We can thus define a differential Bo, a flash Bo, and other Bo types deriving from separation tests at different pressures and temperatures. These Bo values usually differ from one another, especially in the case of volatile oils. Furthermore, by combining differential Bo values with those from separation tests we can calculate a composite Bo, which takes into account both the behaviour of the oil under reservoir conditions (differential test), and the actual separation conditions at the surface. This composite value generally represents the best approximation of the fluids volumetric behaviour, and is that which should be used in Eq. [3]. The direct use of the value under reservoir conditions expressed by Eq. [1] eliminates possible ambiguities relating to the choice and use of the volume factor, especially when data calculated volumetrically must be compared with data calculated using the simulation model, where the volume factors are determined using more complex calculations.
Deterministic and probabilistic evaluations
in place, since they also evaluate the accuracy of the estimate itself. The probabilistic approach involves taking into account the probability distributions of every single parameter involved in the calculation. Each of these probability distributions quantitatively reflects the degree of knowledge, and thus of uncertainty, of the parameter in question. In the simplest case (one dimension), these distributions are sampled repeatedly and at random (Monte Carlo method), ultimately generating a distribution of OHIP values. This distribution is characterized by statistical parameters (mean, median, standard deviation, etc.) which give a concise representation of the results obtained. In two or three dimensions, the Monte Carlo method can nevertheless be applied, replacing simple one-dimensional distributions with surface and grid distributions. In any case, the final result is still represented by a frequency distribution, and therefore a probability distribution, for OHIP values. In general, however, when making a probabilistic evaluation of hydrocarbons in place, the preferred methodology is that of stochastic modelling.
Uncertainties relating to geological modelling
Generally speaking, the volume of hydrocarbons in place may be calculated deterministically and/or probabilistically. Deterministic values of OHIP are obtained simply by combining the mean values (in one dimension), surfaces (two dimensions) or grids (three dimensions) of the reservoir parameters indicated in Eq. [2]. These estimates are deterministic in that all the parameters are calculated in a univocal way, without taking into account the possible uncertainties associated with each of them. In other words, the estimates calculated for the representation of these parameters are implicitly considered to be correct. This is the type of estimate traditionally supplied by the reservoir geologist, and most frequently performed. However, the process of constructing a geological model on the basis of insufficient, scattered information (wells) involves uncertainties due to errors of measurement, the lack of representative data, interpretative problems, etc. As a result, the value for OHIP obtained using this type of procedure is just one of many possible values, and depends on the specific interpretative process adopted. If we were to use, for example, a different interpolation algorithm, we would usually obtain a different value for OHIP which is, a priori, equally valid. In contrast to deterministic evaluations, probabilistic evaluations generally provide a much more realistic estimate of the amount of hydrocarbons
The reservoir geologist has the difficult task of reconstructing with maximum accuracy the geometry and petrophysics of a reservoir about which he usually has little, and mostly indirect, information. It is therefore obvious that the final model will always present some degree of uncertainty. The quantitative evaluation of uncertainties relating to geological modelling is one of the most complex and interesting aspects of a reservoir study. In a typical static reservoir modelling study, we can identify four main sources of uncertainty. Uncertainties linked to the quality of data and their interpretation. All of the basic data in a study, from geophysical data to logs and core data, are associated with errors of measurement which influence the accuracy of the final result. Even though it is in theory possible to quantify these errors, this task is rarely carried out, and the basic data are generally assumed to be correct. This is even more true of the interpretative stages. Uncertainties linked to the structural and stratigraphic models. The structural interpretation carried out by the geophysicist is in most cases of a deterministic nature, and does not include quantifying associated uncertainties, although it is clear that this phase of the work is to some degree subjective. The same can be said of the correlation phase (stratigraphic model), especially when dealing with depositional environments characterized by poor lateral continuity (e.g. continental type deposits).
571
Uncertainties linked to the stochastic model and its parameters. Static modelling may be carried out using different stochastic algorithms, each of which will usually provide different results. Furthermore, as already mentioned, there are no fixed rules for preferring one algorithm a priori to another. A further source of uncertainty is linked to the parameters selected for the algorithm itself, for example the length of correlation chosen for the variogram, or the geometries of depositional units in a Boolean algorithm. Uncertainties on these points are rarely explored, although they have a significant impact on the end results. Uncertainties linked to the different realizations of the stochastic algorithm. These uncertainties can be quantified simply by comparing different realizations of the stochastic model used; this is the most frequently carried out evaluation, probably due to its simplicity. However, uncertainties linked to this aspect of the study are negligible, or almost, compared to those mentioned above. These brief considerations highlight the importance of the space of the uncertainties under exploration. The total space of uncertainties is obviously unknown, but when we attempt a quantitative evaluation of the uncertainties of a geological model it is important to ensure that this space is adequately sampled. If we consider only the aspects covered in point 4, for example, we risk quantifying in detail just a limited part of the overall uncertainty, thus creating a false sense of accuracy. The problem becomes even more complex when we go on to evaluate uncertainties linked to the dynamic simulation phase. These are even more significant as they have a direct impact on the economic evaluation of a reservoir, and implicitly include the uncertainties linked to the geological model. When carrying out a complete analysis of these uncertainties, for example using a massive approach (i.e. by realizing hundreds of dynamic simulations with different input parameters), we may find that some aspects become so significant as to almost cancel out the impact of factors which, in the static model on its own, appeared important. Fig. 11 shows an example of a risk analysis carried out on a deep sea reservoir. In this case, the analysis took into consideration a broad series of parameters, both static and dynamic. The results show that the greatest uncertainties in the final results concern the dimensions of the aquifer (over 75%), followed by the position of the water-oil contact. Uncertainties regarding static modelling, on the other hand, are negligible, despite the use of geological models which differ considerably from
aquifer water-oil contact unexplained drawdown model Cr skin Kr

Fig. 11. Results of risk analysis
81.79789 14.02499 1.64918 1.16589 0.71339 0.39629 0.25219 0.00019
on a deep sea reservoir.
one another. In this case, a detailed study of the uncertainties linked to the static model alone is obviously pointless, at least with hindsight.
References
Amaefule J.O. et al. (1993) Enhanced reservoir description: using core and log data to identify hydraulic (flow) units and predict permeability in uncored intervals/wells, in: Oil and gas strategies in the 21st century. Proceedings of the 68th conference of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, Houston (TX), 3-6 October, SPE 26436. Archie G.E. (1942) The electrical resistivity log as an aid in determining some reservoir characteristics, American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers. Transactions, 146, 54-62. Cosentino L. (2001) Integrated reservoir studies, Paris, Technip. Haldorsen H.H., Damsleth E. (1990) Stochastic modelling, Journal of Petroleum Technology, April, 404-412. Journel A.G. et al. (1990) New method for reservoir mapping, Journal of Petroleum Technology, 42, 212-219. Kalkomey C.T. (1997) Potential risks when using seismic attributes as predictors of reservoir properties, The Leading Edge, March, 247-251. McCoy D.D. et al. (1997) Water salinity variations in the Ivishak and Sag River reservoirs at Prudhoe Bay, Society of Petroleum Engineers. Reservoir Engineering, 12, 37-44.
572
Matheron G. et al. (1987) Conditional simulation of the geometry of fluvio-deltaic reservoirs, in: Proceedings of the Society of Petroleum Engineers annual technical conference and exhibition, Dallas (TX), 20-30 September, SPE 16753. Mezghani M. et al. (2000) Conditioning geostatistical models to flowmeter logs, in: Proceedings of the Society of Petroleum Engineers European petroleum conference, Paris, 24-25 October, SPE 65122. Mohaghegh S., Ameri S. (1996) Virtual measurement of heterogeneous formation permeability using geophysical well log responses, The Log Analyst, 37, 32-39. Nelson P.H. (1994) Permeability-porosity relationships in sedimentary rocks, The Log Analyst, 35, 38-62. Vail P.R. et al. (1997) Seismic stratigraphy and global changes of sea level, in: Payton C.E. (edited by), Seismic stratigraphy. Applications to hydrocarbon exploration, American Association of Petroleum Geologists. Memoir, 26, 63-98.
Wendt W.A. et al. (1986) Permeability prediction from well logs using multiple regression, in: Reservoir characterization. Proceedings of the Reservoir characterization technical conference, Dallas (TX), 29 April-1 May 1985, 181-221. Worthington P., Cosentino L. (2003) The role of cut-off in integrated reservoir studies, in: Proceedings of the Society of Petroleum Engineers annual technical conference and exhibition, Denver (CO), 5-8 October, SPE 84387. Xu Wenlong et al. (1992) Integrating seismic data in reservoir modeling. The collocated cokriging alternative, in: Proceedings of the Society of Petroleum Engineers annual technical conference and exhibition, Washington (D.C.), 4-7 October, SPE 24742.
Luca Cosentino
Eni - Agip San Donato Milanese, Milano, Italy
573

Static Model

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Static Model

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

4.

Static reservoir study

4.5.2 Structural model

VOLUME I / EXPLORATION, PRODUCTION AND TRANSPORT

OIL FIELD CHARACTERISTICS AND RELEVANT STUDIES

STATIC RESERVOIR STUDY

Fig. 1. Example of a 3D structural reservoir model (courtesy of L. Cosentino).

4.5.3 Stratigraphic model

VOLUME I / EXPLORATION, PRODUCTION AND TRANSPORT

OIL FIELD CHARACTERISTICS AND RELEVANT STUDIES

Fig. 2. Example of a correlation between wells (courtesy of L. Cosentino).

STATIC RESERVOIR STUDY

Fig. 3. Example of a 3D stratigraphic model

VOLUME I / EXPLORATION, PRODUCTION AND TRANSPORT

OIL FIELD CHARACTERISTICS AND RELEVANT STUDIES

4.5.4 Lithological model

STATIC RESERVOIR STUDY

Fig. 4. Example of a stochastic

model of facies (courtesy of L. Cosentino).

VOLUME I / EXPLORATION, PRODUCTION AND TRANSPORT

OIL FIELD CHARACTERISTICS AND RELEVANT STUDIES

4.5.5 Petrophysical model

Fig. 5. Example of a petrophysical well interpretation (courtesy of L. Cosentino).

STATIC RESERVOIR STUDY

VOLUME I / EXPLORATION, PRODUCTION AND TRANSPORT

OIL FIELD CHARACTERISTICS AND RELEVANT STUDIES

STATIC RESERVOIR STUDY

VOLUME I / EXPLORATION, PRODUCTION AND TRANSPORT

OIL FIELD CHARACTERISTICS AND RELEVANT STUDIES

SW, water saturation; Vsh, shale volume; c, cut-off.

STATIC RESERVOIR STUDY

VOLUME I / EXPLORATION, PRODUCTION AND TRANSPORT

OIL FIELD CHARACTERISTICS AND RELEVANT STUDIES

Fig. 7. Example of a porosity map

generated by integration with seismic data (courtesy of L. Cosentino).

STATIC RESERVOIR STUDY

Fig. 8. Example of seismic profiles characterized

in terms of seismic facies (courtesy of L. Cosentino).

VOLUME I / EXPLORATION, PRODUCTION AND TRANSPORT

OIL FIELD CHARACTERISTICS AND RELEVANT STUDIES

4.5.6 Integrated geological model

STATIC RESERVOIR STUDY

Fig. 10. Example of a geological model

created with an object-based algorithm (courtesy of L. Cosentino).

Fig. 9. Example of a geological model created

with a pixel-based algorithm (courtesy of L. Cosentino).

VOLUME I / EXPLORATION, PRODUCTION AND TRANSPORT

OIL FIELD CHARACTERISTICS AND RELEVANT STUDIES

4.5.7 Calculation of hydrocarbons in place

STATIC RESERVOIR STUDY

VOLUME I / EXPLORATION, PRODUCTION AND TRANSPORT

OIL FIELD CHARACTERISTICS AND RELEVANT STUDIES

aquifer water-oil contact unexplained drawdown model Cr skin Kr

81.79789 14.02499 1.64918 1.16589 0.71339 0.39629 0.25219 0.00019

on a deep sea reservoir.

STATIC RESERVOIR STUDY

VOLUME I / EXPLORATION, PRODUCTION AND TRANSPORT

You might also like