SPE 148098

A Workflow for Fully Consistent Water Saturation Initialization without

Capillary Pressure Scaling
Kassem Ghorayeb, SPE, and Christophe Darous, SPE, Schlumberger; Mihira N. Acharya, SPE, and
Ealian El-Anzi, SPE, Kuwait Oil Company

Copyright 2011, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Reservoir Characterisation and Simulation Conference and Exhibition held in Abu Dhabi, UAE, 9–11 October 2011.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Discrepancies in terms of hydrocarbon initially in place volumes (HIIP) between static and dynamic models might take place
because of nonlinear dependency of the saturation height function (SHF) versus porosity and averaging of height above free
water level. Upscaling tends to eliminate the high and low porosity values in favor of the average porosity, which might lead to
substantial changes in the resulting water saturation. Furthermore, pressure and compositional variation with depth in the
dynamic model might lead to substantial contribution to the discrepancies, independent of upscaling.
We present a procedure to address the above issues and provide full consistency between static and dynamic models in terms
of HIIP, without the use of capillary pressure (Pc) scaling by the reservoir simulator. A “preprocessing” workflow is used to
slightly reassign the Pc curve of each grid block so that a very close match is obtained between the two models in terms of
HIIP.
Results show that HIIP obtained from the dynamic model through equilibration using the proposed procedure are within 1% of
those obtained using the static model without having to use Pc scaling in the reservoir simulator which warranties realistic and
physically valid Pc curves in the reservoir dynamic model initialization process.

Introduction
In this paper we present a workflow that was used to ensure full consistency in terms of HIIP between static and dynamic
models in the North Kuwait Jurassic Project (Chakraborty et al. 2009; Ghorayeb et al. 2011). In a previous work (Ghorayeb et
al. 2009) we presented a procedure to address this problem in which the endpoint-scaling functionality in the simulator is used
to modify the discrete set of capillary pressure (Pc) curves to support the provided initial water saturation. Unlike the
procedure presented in Ghorayeb et al. (2009), the proposed workflow in this paper does not use capillary pressure scaling by
the reservoir simulator. Instead, the Pc curve is slightly modified for each grid block in a “preprocessing” step so that an
excellent match is obtained between the two models in terms of HIIP.
The saturation height function (SHF) is defined from drainage capillary pressure data measured on core plugs. A
comprehensive set of mercury injection capillary pressures (MICP) were selected to cover the full range of porosity and
permeability of the matrix. Since MICP were measured on plug trim ends, mercury porosity of each sample has been
compared with the corresponding air porosity of the full plug for consistency between the plug and the trim end.
Measurements that exhibit obvious anomalies such as low entry pressure in low matrix permeability samples were filtered out
and considered affected by induced fractures or having major conformance issues. A minority of reservoir samples has also
been separated based on their MICP behavior since they belong to separate rock types, which was confirmed by petrography.
Fig. 1 (left) displays the entire MICP data set color-coded according to the validation step.
MICP measurements are performed at nonreservoir conditions and with fluids (air and mercury) having very different contact
angle and interfacial tension compared to the reservoir fluids. To establish the impact of fluids and confinement pressure, key
samples have been selected to measure Pc with reservoir fluids at reservoir conditions. Capillary pressures were measured
using porous plate techniques with crude oil and synthetic water at net overburden pressure (NOP) and elevated temperature.
The results are compared with the respective MICP in Fig. 1 (right). As it can be observed, the match is very good irrespective
of the shape of the Pc curves. The remaining difference can also be attributed to the different samples used for the two
experiments (whole plug versus the trim end).
2 SPE 148098

The analysis of the MICP samples reveals that there is a well-defined common shape for the majority of the samples. The
common shape of MICP also corresponds to a common trend in porosity and permeability consistent with the lithofacies
model in which rock quality is related with the proportion of intercrystalline dolomite.
The analytical function chosen to fit the capillary pressure data in this work has been used in studies of similar reservoirs
(Clerke et al. 2008). The Thomeer hyperbola takes the form of Eq. 1:

⎛ ⎡ G
⎥⎞
⎤
⎜
Sw = Swirr + (1 − Swirr ) × 1 − e ⎣ ln [ Pce HAFWL / RCF ] ⎦ ⎟
⎢
…..………………..…………………………………….………… Eq. 1
⎜ ⎟
⎝ ⎠
Capillary pressure from air-mercury is converted to height above free water level (HAFWL) using a reservoir conversion
factor (RCF) defined as in Eq. 2:

RCF =
(σ cosθ )res × 144 …………………..…………………...……………………………………….………… Eq. 2
(σ cosθ )lab ρ w − ρ o
The shape of the Thomeer hyperbola is controlled by three parameters, Swirr, G, and Pce that represent the asymptote at
infinite Pc, the curvature of the hyperbola, and the entry pressure below which Sw is 100%, respectively. The best linear
regression for these three parameters was determined as a function of porosity: Swirr = -0.02; G = 10-(2.07671×Φ + 0.15); Pce =
2.697×Φ-1.54903. Fig. 2 displays the MICP data and the Thomeer fit colored per porosity values.
Sw from SHF was compared to water saturation measured in core. Since wells are drilled with oil-base mud, water saturation
extracted from cores using the Dean-Stark distillation technique provides a value of irreducible water saturation when core is
taken above the transition zone. The trend of initial water saturation (Swi) versus porosity from the SHF is displayed and
compared with the core saturation and porosity measurements in Fig. 3. Despite potentially complex wettability conditions
that have modified fluid saturation downhole and some uncertainty associated with preserving and measuring the water
saturation in the core, the trend from the SHF is within the envelope of the porosity and saturation measured from cores.
The SHF used for populating water saturation (Sw) in the static model is a function of porosity among other parameters. The
equivalent water-oil capillary pressure (Pc) curves are used to populate Sw in the dynamic model (equilibration). Porosity in
this work is categorized into twenty ranges to which correspond twenty different Pc curves. Grid blocks are assigned different
Pc curves depending on their porosity.

Problem Statement
One important aspect to consider in the upscaling process is to conserve the HIIP. That is, the calculated HIIP in the upscaled
model should equal that calculated using the fine-grid model within a predefined tolerance. The comparison should, usually,
be done between HIIP obtained using the static model and that reported by the reservoir simulator after the initialization
process.
Discrepancies in terms of HIIP between static and dynamic models might take place because of nonlinear dependency of the
SHF versus porosity and averaging of height above free water level. Upscaling tends to eliminate the high and low porosity
values in favor of the average porosity, which leads to substantial changes in the resulting water saturation. Furthermore,
pressure and compositional variation with depth in the dynamic model might lead to substantial contribution to the
discrepancies, which contribution is independent of upscaling.

Proposed Solution and Results

We present a procedure implemented as a preprocessor workflow to address the above issues and provide full consistency
between static and dynamic models in terms of HIIP, without the use of Pc scaling by the reservoir simulator.
As mentioned above, porosity is categorized into twenty ranges/intervals (Interval 1: 2% to 3%, Interval 2: 3% to 4%, etc). For
each interval corresponds a Pc calculated using the interval’s middle porosity (Interval 1: 2.5%, Interval 2: 3.5%, etc). Each
grid block in the dynamic simulation is assigned a Pc curve depending on its porosity.
For each grid block in the upscaled model (corresponding to a given porosity interval), the preprocessing workflow reassigns a
Pc curve to this grid block that corresponds to the porosity interval resulting in an exact match in terms of hydrocarbon pore-
volume between the static fine grid and upscaled models. Below are the detailed steps of the workflow:
1. Upscale water saturation using arithmetic, net pore volume weighted, averaging. The upscaled water saturation will
not be directly used to populate water saturation in the dynamic model using endpoint scaling. Instead, it will be used
in Step 2 below. Note that the upscaled water saturation using arithmetic, net pore volume weighted, averaging
always results on an excellent match in terms of HIIP between fine-grid and upscaled models. Fig. 4a shows the
SPE 148098 3

discrepancy between the upscaled water saturation and that obtained through equilibration by the reservoir simulator
if no corrective action is taken. This discrepancy in terms of water saturation generally results in an equivalent
discrepancy in terms of HIIP. Thus the need, traditionally, to use Pc scaling by the reservoir simulator to address this
issue.

2. Using an iterative process, calculate, for each grid block in the upscaled model, a modified porosity that, when used
in the SHF (e.g., Eq. 1) instead of the upscaled porosity, results in a water saturation that is equal to the upscaled
water saturation (from Step 1). An algorithm based on a simple bisection root-finding method is used in this paper.
Fig. 4b presents the water saturation resulting from this step to the upscaled water saturation confirming the exact
match between the two. Fig. 4c compares the upscaled porosity to the “modified” porosity using this step. The
modified porosity is not used directly by the simulator. It only serves for performing Step 3 below.

3. Reassign, for each grid block in the upscaled model, the Pc curve using the calculated porosity from Step 2 instead of
the upscaled porosity. The modified porosity is not used in the reservoir simulator; its usage is restricted to this
workflow. Fig. 4d compares the capillary pressure corresponding porosity interval resulting from proposed procedure
compared to initial capillary pressure interval. The points are mainly on the diagonal or slightly off-diagonal showing
that the Pc reassignment resulting from this procedure is minor. Note that this is largely within the range of
uncertainty in the Pc curves as presented in Fig. 3.
Results show that HIIP obtained from the dynamic model through equilibration using the proposed procedure are within 1% of
those obtained using the static model without having to use Pc scaling in the reservoir simulator which warranties realistic and
physically valid Pc curves in the equilibration process.

Concluding Remarks
In this paper we presented a workflow to ensure full consistency in terms of HIIP between static (fine-grid) and dynamic
(upscaled) models. The implemented procedure does not use capillary pressure scaling by the reservoir simulator. Instead, it
uses a preprocessor that assigns to a grid block a capillary pressure that corresponds to a slightly different porosity. Results
presented in this paper from a complex of fractured carbonate reservoirs show that an excellent match between static and
dynamic models in terms of water saturation is obtained while honoring the capillary pressure data. The proposed workflow
can be readily modified and applied to different types of saturation height functions.

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Kuwait Oil Company for permission to publish this paper. The North Kuwait Jurassic
Project’s team members are gratefully acknowledged for contributing to the paper.

Nomenclature
MICP = Mercury Injection Capillary pressure (psi)
HAFWL = Height above free water level, L, ft
P = pressure, m/Lt2, psi
RCF = laboratory to reservoir conversion factor, dimensionless
Sw = water saturation, dimensionless
SATNUM = Sauration region number assignment
ρo , ρw = oil and water densities at reservoir conditions, m/L3, lb/ft3
σ = interfacial tension, m/t2, dyne/cm
θ = contact angle
φ = Porosity

Superscripts
c = capillary
o = oil
w = water
Subscripts
i = initial
irr = irreducible
lab = laboratory conditions
res = reservoir conditions
4 SPE 148098

References
Chakraborty, S.K., Rao, N.S., Al-Awadi, M., Kidambi, V.K., Al-Houli, M., Al-Ateeqi, K., Perrin, C., and Ghorayeb, K.. 2009. 3D
Geological Modeling of a Tight Naturally Fractured Carbonate Reservoir as an input to Reservoir Simulation - A Case Study from
North Kuwait Jurassic fields. Paper SPE 127599 presented at the Kuwait International Petroleum Technical Conference, 14–16
December, Kuwait.

Ghorayeb, K., Limsukhon, M., Aziz R.M,. and Al-Anzi, Ealian. 2011. Innovative alternative to full field compositional modeling—Case
study of the North Kuwait Jurassic Complex," SPE Res Eval & Eng 14 (3):, 332-344. SPE 144442-PA.

Ghorayeb K., Tan L. ., Limsukhon M., and Aziz R.M. 2009. Ensuring water saturation consistency between static (fine grid) and dynamic
(upscaled) models—A case study of the North Kuwait Jurassic Complex. Paper SPE 125568 presented at the 2009 SPE/EAGE
Reservoir Characterization & Simulation Conference, 19-21 October, Abu Dhabi.

Clerke E. A., Mueller III, H.W., Phillips, E.C., Eyvazzadeh, R.Y., Jones, D.H., Ramamoorthy, R., and Srivastava, A. 2008. Application of
Thomeer Hyperbolas to decode the pore systems, facies and reservoir properties of the Upper Jurassic Arab D, Limestone, Ghawar
field, Saudi Arabia: A “Rosetta Stone” approach. GeoArabia 13 (4) p. 113-160.
SPE 148098 5

Fig. 1—MICP color-coded data set during the validation step (left). Comparison between MICP and Pc oil-water on key samples (right).

(a) MICP Data (b) Thomeer SHF

Fig. 2—a) MICP data. b)Thomeer SHF (color coded with porosity).
6 SPE 148098

Fig. 3—Swi versus porosity trend from SHF compared to core porosity and saturation measurements.
SPE 148098 7

a b

c d
Fig. 4―Field example. (a) Comparison of upscaled Sw and Sw obtained from simulation through the initialization process. (b)
Comparison of upscaled Sw and Sw resulting from the proposed procedure. (c) Porosity resulting from proposed procedure (only
used to generate a modified saturation number SATNUM) compared to upscaled porosity. (d) SATNUM resulting from proposed
procedure compared to initial SATNUM.