RESERVOIR DESCRIPTION
Subsurface Data from
Geological and Engineering
Sources
Data Acquisition and integration
The data required to characterize a reservoir are: porosity, permeability, water saturation,
pay thickness, fluid properties, and initial pressure.
Porosity
• Porosity is determined from conventional core and well log data.
• Typically, core data are more accurate because porosity is measured directly.
Exceptions are unconsolidated sandstone and vuggy/fractured reservoirs.
• In unconsolidated sandstones, well log values of porosity are considered to be more
accurate than disturbed core samples.
• In formations with vugs and fractures, it is challenging to obtain a representative core
sample.
• The recommended approach is to compare core and log porosities at the same depth
for each well that has been both cored and logged.
• The log porosities are adjusted to match the core data either by adjusting the inputs
into the log calibration, or
• using an appropriate averaging formula (e.g., φ=0.5 φN +0.5 φD or φ=0.33 φN
+0.67 φD ).
2
• If there are insufficient data to match core and log data directly, then the overall
average core porosity can be compared with overall average log porosity.
• Some judgment is required to ensure that an appropriate comparison is made.
• For example, it is not valid to calibrate log data coming from one rock type (e.g.,
coarse sandstone) with core data coming from a different rock type (e.g., shaly
sandstone).
• Porosity is one of the more reliable reservoir property measurements.
• Once an average porosity is determined, it is not recommended to adjust the average
porosity by more than 0.01-0.03 (i.e., one to three porosity units). One exception to
this rule of thumb is highly heterogeneous reservoirs with limited porosity data.
• If there are large areas that have not been drilled, it may be valid to adjust the
average porosity based on reservoir performance, material balance, and seismic
information.
3
Core-log porosity integration:
• If we have core data we overlay it on the log
porosity data.
• We double check that both logs are on depth.
• If the core porosity is matched with log
porosity then our parameters are optimal.
• If the core data is not matched with the
porosity from log then we need to do
corrections for the porosity from log.
• Either test the parameter or cross plot the
porosity from log with the one from log.
• A regression line show that the log porosity is
0.01 less than the core porosity, which may be
due to slight different in Mtx density or Fluid
density.
Permeability
• Permeability is one of the most critical factors determining reservoir
performance.
• It is often the most difficult reservoir parameter to determine accurately
because it is highly variable.
• Permeability is also scale dependent, which adds to its complexity.
• Permeability is determined from conventional core data, permeability-
porosity correlations, pressure transient analysis, and production rates.
• The best results are obtained if all four methods for determining
permeability can be used together.
• Permeability-porosity correlation:
• Typically, both grain size and sorting change in a reservoir, so one will observe a
partial correlation of porosity and permeability.
• When sorting is the major control, the correlation may be used to estimate
permeability from porosity data because permeability data are usually more
limited than porosity data.
• However, when grain size is the major control, permeability estimation using
porosity may be unhelpful, and other measurements may be better permeability
predictors.
A uniformly very fine grain size, lower-shoreface sandstone has both permeability
and porosity variations controlled by sorting (left). A fluvial sandstone with more
variable grain size (silty to medium) shows weak correlation (right).
8
• In carbonate rocks, the controls on porosity and permeability may be different than in
sandstones.
• Porosity-permeability cross plots for carbonates tend to show much more scatter than
such plots for sandstones, reflecting the weaker relationship between porosity and
permeability.
Example
The permeability-porosity cross plot for the dataset for core samples is shown in the
Figure. The core samples are all from one rock type and follow the same trend.
Three different quadratic lines that could
characterize the porosity-permeability
relationship. Line 1 (solid) is for all 258 data; line 2
(long dash) is for all data except the >10 D points,
and line 3 (short dash) is where a number of
extreme data have been excluded.
9
Conventional core data:
• Permeability in core samples is influenced by sample alteration, overburden
pressure,
• There is a great deal of uncertainty in converting measured air permeability to in
situ absolute permeability.
• Core data also only sample a small fraction of the reservoir.
• Nonetheless, core data are often the best tool for assessing small-scale, vertical, and
lateral permeability variation.
Schematic positions of core
The approximate effect of plugs taken to measure both
overburden pressure on horizontal and vertical
permeability. permeability.
10
Pressure transient analysis:
• Pressure transient analysis (PTA) measures the reservoir response within the
drainage area of the pressure test.
• The permeability calculated from a drawdown, build-up, or fall-off test can provide a
good estimate of the in situ average permeability within the drainage radius.
• PTA cannot provide a quantitative determination of the local vertical or lateral
permeability distribution.
Semilog plot of pressure response Horner plot for a homogeneous
during a drawdown test. reservoir with radial inflow 11
Flow rate equation:
• Permeability can be back calculated from Darcy’s law if the flow rate, reservoir
pressure, and bottom hole flowing pressure are known.
• It is also necessary to correctly identify the boundary conditions.
• This method can work well in undersaturated reservoirs, but is uncertain when
multiphase flow occurs and the local saturation profile and relative permeabilities
are unknown.
• It is not usually possible to identify boundary conditions accurately.
• As with PTA, this method will provide an average in situ permeability and cannot
provide a quantitative determination of the local vertical or lateral permeability
distribution.
For example, the constant rate, pseudo steady-state radial inflow equation is given
by:
12
Vertical-to-Horizontal Permeability Ratio
• This value may be representative of the matrix kV/kH ratio if there is sufficient core
data.
• However, core data cannot determine the effective vertical permeability when there
are large-scale barriers to vertical flow, as shown in the Figure.
• For example, interbedded sandstones can have laterally extensive shale barriers that
reduce the effective vertical permeability to near zero.
Differences between matrix kV/kH ratio from core data and effective kV/kH ratio in
reservoir.
13
• The reservoir architecture and the measurement scale both influence the k V/kH ratio
measured (see the Figure), so there is unlikely to be a unique value for a reservoir
that applies at all scales.
• The appropriate value will depend on the application; small-scale values are needed
for horizontal well productivity, while larger-scale values are used for reservoir
simulation models.
• With simulation, the effective vertical permeability can be assessed by history
matching reservoir performance.
Data from three reservoirs show the kV/kH
ratio generally decreases with increasing
scale of measurement. Small-scale
measurements are based on core, while
the larger estimates come from wireline
mini-tester, and reservoir simulation.
14
Water Saturation
• Water saturation is determined from well logs, relative permeability data, and
capillary pressure data.
• If the wettability of the core has not been altered, the relative permeability and
capillary pressure data usually give the best measure of the irreducible water
saturation.
• The best results are obtained from cores drilled with an oil-based mud and collected
from the oil zone above the transition zone.
• However, even accurate special core data sample a small fraction of the reservoir.
• Well log data usually give a better sampling but can be inaccurate because resistivity
logs are sensitive to many factors, including invasion, mineralogy, accuracy of water
resistivity, and thin bed effects.
• If the special core data are believed to be representative, water saturations from logs
should be scaled to match the special core data.
• If there is a transition zone, the height and profile of the transition zone are
identified from the well logs. The capillary pressure data are tuned to match the well
log profile.
15
Fluid Properties, Initial Pressure, and Initial GOR
• Fluid properties are obtained from a fluid study or from correlations.
• The main checks on fluid properties are on the bubble point pressure and the
solution gas-oil ratio (Rs).
• If a reservoir has a gas cap, then the bubble point pressure must equal the initial
pressure.
• If the reservoir is undersaturated, the initial pressure must exceed the bubble point
pressure.
• If the bubble point pressure is inconsistent with pressure and production data, then
check the pressure data. If the pressure data are valid, then adjust the fluid study or
correlations.
16
Pay Thickness and Fluid Contacts
• Pay thickness is determined from well logs and core data.
• Often there are insufficient core data to determine pay thickness independently. The
core data provide a check on the log interpretation.
• Net pay thickness depends on the choice of porosity, water saturation, and shale
content cutoffs
• If the original oil in place (OOIP) or original gas in place (OGIP) determined from
volumetric is not consistent with reservoir performance or material balance, it is
recommended to consider the sensitivity of the net pay determination to the
cutoff values
• In some cases, the wells do not penetrate the fluid contacts, but the presence of a
contact becomes apparent through production performance, for example, high GORs
near the top of the structure or high water cuts low in the structure.
• In other cases, a material balance indicates that an oil zone is obtaining pressure
support from another source, either a gas cap or an aquifer.
17
Net Pay Cutoffs
• When examining net pay cutoffs, it is important to differentiate among gross rock
volume, net sand volume, net reservoir volume, and net pay.
• Figure shows four categories of rock: gross pay, net sand, net reservoir, and net pay.
18
Rock typing
• Are units of rock deposited under similar
conditions which experience similar digenetic
processes resulting in a unique porosity-
permeability relationship, capillary pressure
profile and water saturation for a given height
above free water in a reservoir.
Why rock typing
• Essential for supporting reservoir modeling
and simulation studies.
• Linked to facies and used to distribute
petrophysical properties in static model.
• Used in simulation model.
Flow unit
• Flow unit: a discrete reservoir zone,
continuous laterally and vertically, that is
characterized by being composed of single
rock type
Methodologies
• Sample examination
• Porosity-Permeability relationship
• Pore geometry information
• Log measurements
Samples Examination
Directly based on relationship between
petrological properties and petrophysical
properties.
- Sneider clastic scheme
- Archie carbonate scheme
- Lucia carbonate
Sneider clastic scheme
Sneider clastic scheme
Archie Carbonate scheme
Porosity-Permeability relationships
• Amco Methodology
• Corelab Methodology(FZI)
• Winland R35 methodology
• Jennings & Luicia RRT methodology
Amco Methodology
• Based on the ratio k/phi as a measure of
reservoir process “speed”
• Tools:
• –Stratigraphic modified Lorenz plot
• –Stratigraphic flow profile
• –Modified Lorenz plot
Stratigraphic modified Lorenz plot
• Plot of cumulative porosity
thickness against
cumulative permeability
thickness
• For multi-well studies, do
not normalise
• Changes in slope represent
changes in reservoir
process “speed”, indicative
of flow unit boundaries
Stratigraphic flow profile
• Log type display
summarizing flow
unit information
Modified Lorenz plot
• Flow units ordered by
flow unit speed (ratio
of cumulative flow
capacity /cumulative
storage capacity)
• Flow units with
similar slope
represent same rock
type
Core Labs methodology
• Based on the evaluation of equivalent
hydraulic radius as derived from a Kozeny-
Carman type relationship
• Tools:
–Reservoir quality index
–Flow zone indicator
Reservoir quality index
• Flow units define
straight line
relationships on plot
of RQI versus
Flow zone indicator
• Histogram of FZI
displays flow units
• FZI displays
consistent trends on
porosity-permeability
cross plots
WinlandR35methodology
• Empirical relationship
between porosity
and permeability
values and mercury
injection capillary
pressure data
