Anda di halaman 1dari 9


discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

Static, dynamic data integration improves

reservoir modeling, characterization

Article in Oil and Gas Journal September 2014


1 490

3 authors:

Shouxiang Ma Murat Zeybek

Saudi Arabian Oil Company Schlumberger Oilfield services


Fikri Kuchuk
Schlumberger Limited


Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Unconventional oil and gas View project

Best practices in core analysis View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Shouxiang Ma on 09 March 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Integration of Static and Dynamic Data
for Enhanced Reservoir Characterization,
Geological Modeling and Well
Performance Studies
Authors: Dr. Shouxiang M. Ma, Dr. Murat M. Zeybek and Dr. Fikri J. Kuchuk


A new methodology is presented for reservoir characterization,

geological modeling and well performance prediction by inte-
grating a complete suite of petrophysical and pressure tran-
sient test data to build a detailed geological reservoir model
(RM) with anisotropy. Data used include cores, open hole logs,
wireline formation testing (WFT) pretests, vertical interference
tests (VITs), production logs, and downhole pressure buildup
and injection falloff tests. Core data were first integrated with
open hole logs and WFT pretests to build a detailed geological
model. Vertical and horizontal permeabilities derived from the
VITs were then integrated to produce a geological model with
anisotropy. Using this model, a numerical pressure transient
Fig. 1a. Typical Arab-D carbonate reservoir volumetrics (blue is limestone,
analysis (PTA) for a single well was performed by simultaneously
green is dolostone, and pink is anhydrite). Fig. 1b. Comparison between log
history matching the packers and the probes pressures, as well and core porosities. Fig. 1c. Schematic of a WFT and VIT setup showing a
as pressure derivatives, to identify the presence of tight reservoir packer-probe configuration applied to a section having four layers, including a
low permeability streak.
streaks and to quantify reservoir layer permeability ranges.
The model was further refined and validated by comparisons
with dynamic data derived from production logs, and downhole efficiency (defined as the saturation change with respect to
pressure buildup and injection falloff tests. This validated RM original oil saturation in the swept volume).
was used in single well reservoir simulation studies to predict Note that even though many factors (including pore struc-
well performance and infer in situ reservoir scale and reservoir ture and wettability) may affect E microscopically, it is the
condition petrophysical properties, such as relative permeability areal sweep efficiency and vertical conformance that dominate
and capillary pressure. the efficiency of oil recovery. Consequently, detailed reservoir
characterization is critical for better reservoir management.
INTRODUCTION Petrophysical reservoir characterization consists of data
acquisition, data processing and data distribution in space, or
Most carbonate reservoirs are layered and heterogeneous. The modeling. Petrophysical data in reservoir characterization usu-
lithology (lith) and porosity ( ), derived from cores and logs, ally include lith,  , water saturation (Sw), zone thickness (h)
of a typical Arab-D carbonate reservoir are shown in Figs. 1a and permeability (k), with k being the most challenging to
and 1b, respectively. Characterizing reservoir layering and het- characterize, especially for carbonates due to the heterogeneous
erogeneity is essential in reservoir engineering. For example, pore structure caused by depositional environments and diage-
when addressing oil recovery by waterflood, the following nesis (such as dolomitization, compaction, cementation and/or
equation is often referred to: fracturing).
The most commonly used techniques for in situ reservoir
E = EAEVEM (1) permeability characterization are based on pressure transient
analysis (PTA); either wireline formation testing (WFT) with
where E is oil recovery efficiency, subscript A is areal sweep measurements typically ranging from 10 ft to 50 ft away from
efficiency (the ratio of area swept to total field area), subscript the well, depending on formation properties and duration of
V is vertical conformance (the ratio of intervals swept to total production and buildup periods, or conventional well testing,
pay thickness), and subscript M is the microscopic displacement with a depth of investigation ranging from hundreds to thousands

of feet1, 2. It is a common understanding for almost all petro-
physical measurements that the greater the depth of the investi-
gation, the poorer the vertical resolution. The WFT has much
better vertical resolution than conventional well tests.
There are basically two modes in WFT for estimating reser-
voir permeability: a pretest with probes and a vertical interfer-
ence test (VIT) with a combination of packers and probes, Fig.
1c. A pretest requires a drawdown volume of less than 20 cm3
of fluid, most likely mud filtrate. As a result, mobility esti-
mated from a WFT pretest is a near wellbore mobility indica-
tor; at remaining oil saturation (ROS) if water-based mud were
used across an oil interval. On the other hand, during a VIT,
hundreds of liters of reservoir fluid are pumped out (at a rate
of 1 to 30 barrels per day (BPD) for up to 1 hour), providing a
reservoir permeability estimation up to 50 ft into the reservoir,
which is certainly much more representative of reservoir per-
meability (at connate Sw if measured across a pay zone). In
addition, unlike other reservoir petrophysical properties men-
tioned above, permeability is directional. Currently, the only
techniques that are used routinely for directional reservoir per-
meability characterization are based on PTA, such as a VIT.
Details of a nonlinear regression analysis of VIT PTA data for
determining formation parameters are given by Onur and
Kuchuk (2000)3.
The main objective of this article is to introduce a method-
ology to integrate static and dynamic petrophysical data to
build a comprehensive reservoir model (RM) for reservoir
characterization, geological modeling and well performance Fig. 2. Methodology for reservoir characterization, reservoir modeling and well
performance prediction.
prediction. Results reported in this article are part of a larger
project, and some of the details of the project have been pub-
lished previously4, 5. gle well data integration, reservoir characterization, reservoir
modeling and well performance prediction are summarized
METHODOLOGY below and illustrated in Fig. 2.
1. Data Preparation and Integration:
Petrophysical properties derived from open hole logs and WFT Core data are reviewed and quality controlled for
are calibrated with core analysis data before being distributed geological features (such as depositional environments
in space to build a geological model. The established model and layering), lith, pore types,  , k and grain density.
can be verified from borehole fluid flow profiles measured by a
production log, as shown in Eqn. 2, even though layers with Open hole logs are reviewed, quality controlled,
no flow or a low flow rate due to skin, low permeability or processed and interpreted for lith,  , grain density, Sw,
low pressure may not be detectable by a production log: zoning and zone thickness (h).
WFT pretest data are reviewed, quality controlled and
( n
i=1 kihi) Core, OH Logs,WFT =( n
i=1 )
kihi PL (2) processed for estimating mobility, then for qualitatively
determining k.
The cumulative of the borehole flow profiles can be cali- Together with other geological information, the above
brated from the total kavgH determined from a well test: core data, open hole logs and WFT pretests are
integrated for a foot-by-foot formation evaluation and
( n
i=1 ki hi ) =(k H)
avg WT (3) reservoir characterization.
2. Geological Model:
In Eqns. 2 and 3, H is the total reservoir thickness, h is the
A layered, single well geological model is generated
individual layer thickness, n is the total number of reservoir
from the above detailed formation evaluation and
layers, subscript avg is the average of all layers, and subscript i
reservoir characterization.
is the ith reservoir layer.
Details of the methodology introduced in this study for sin- WFT and VIT data are analyzed to quantify vertical and


horizontal permeabilities (kv and kh) for the layers invasion, and then the baseline flow profile was established
selected for the VIT. from the production log.
The geological model is updated with kv and kh 3. Baseline buildup tests for KavgH at connate water satura-
determined from analyses of all VITs. tion (Swc):
The well was then shut-in to perform a buildup test for
This layered anisotropic geological model is fine-tuned
total KavgH (at Swc) by using the downhole permanent
by integrating geological features and the range of
pressure gauge located just above the top of the tested
permeabilities obtained from performing a single well
numerical PTA, with the pressure and pressure
derivatives as the history matching parameters, for each After producing the well for a while, another pressure
VIT. buildup test was performed immediately before water
3. Reservoir Model: injection to confirm the determined KavgH (at Swc).

A RM is established by validating, iteratively, the fine- 4. Water injection tests:

tuned geological model with  kh from a production log A stepwise rate change was applied. Each injection rate
and the total KavgH from downhole pressure buildup usually lasted 3 to 5 hours, depending on the time
and falloff tests, as shown in Eqns. 2 and 3. required for the electrode resistivity array measurement4
4. Use of the RM: and production log measurements.

By history matching downhole pressure and flow rate, The initial injection rate was 1,000 BPD. With an
the RM can be used in a single well reservoir simulation incremental of about 1,000 BPD, the final rate reached
for well performance prediction or in any other 8,200 BPD at the end of the eighth test.
reservoir characterization and management studies4, 5. A production log was run to obtain the injection profile
during each test.
The well was then shut-in for a falloff test to determine
The above methodology was developed in a joint research the total KavgH at ROS and skin.
project between Saudi Aramco and Schlumberger, and some 6. Final buildup test for KavgH at reduced Sw:
of the results of the project have been published4, 5. In this All of the injected water and some oil were produced
article, the focus will be on the methodology of integrating back to the surface with a nitrogen lift for 14 days.
static and dynamic data for reservoir characterization and
During this water and oil production period, a
modeling. In the process, it will be demonstrated that the VIT
production log was run frequently to monitor fluids
is an extremely powerful tool for characterizing reservoir
heterogeneity1, 6-8.
After the well stopped producing water, the well was
Data Acquisition
shut-in for a final pressure buildup test to estimate
KavgH at a reduced Sw close to, but usually larger than,
As previously reported4, 5, a research well, Well-A, was drilled the original Swc.
in 2001 across the Arab-D carbonate reservoir, and a complete
set of petrophysical data was acquired in the following order: Data Processing and Interpetation
1. Cores, open hole logs and WFT:
Conventional cores were taken from the top 250 ft of Core Data. Core description and petrographic analysis were
the target reservoir. Core description, petrographics, and conducted to extract information on reservoir depositional en-
routine and special core analyses were performed on vironment and rock typing, and to identify reservoir layers; an
selected core samples. example of this analysis is shown in Fig. 3. Conventional core
analysis under stress, Figs. 3a and 3b, on selected core samples
Open hole logs acquired included caliper, spectral
was performed to provide data for log calibration and reser-
gamma ray, bulk density, thermal neutron porosity,
voir layering(1). On a subset of cores, adjacent twin plugs were
sonic, array induction resistivity, micro resistivity,
taken, one horizontally and another vertically, for kh and kv
resistivity imaging, mineralogy and nuclear magnetic
resonance tests.
(1) In using core data to calibrate logs and/or well tests, it is noted that core data
A total of 25 WFT pretests and eight VITs were may not be representative in very high and very low permeability rocks9. For rocks
conducted. with very high permeabilities (such as measures in Darcies), cores may not be avail-
able or pluggable due to their weak mechanical integrity. On the other hand, con-
2. Baseline production log. Following completion, the well ventional laboratory measurements on very low permeability rocks (such as
was allowed to produce oil for one day to clean out mud measures in less than milli-Darcies) have large uncertainties.


Fig. 3. Example of core analysis data and associated core descriptions and

measurements, Fig. 3b. From Fig. 3, the following are ob-

1. Correlations between permeability and  are strongly de Fig. 4. Composite display of open hole logs, reservoir layering, WFT pressures,
mobilities and VIT positions.
pendent on rock type.
2. The difference between kh and kv is not obvious at the core
plug scale. This may be attributed to the following: test (track 1); pretest drawdown mobilities (track 2); image log
Laboratory permeability measurements have relative and the positions of the VITs (track 3); reservoir porosity
large uncertainties, so the difference between kh and kv (track 4); and formation resistivity (track 5). Reservoir poros-
is probably within permeability measurement ity and formation resistivity data provide quantitative informa-
uncertainties. tion for reservoir layering, while the image log is used to check
the reservoir layering qualitatively.
To ensure a plugs mechanical integrity, samples are
typically taken in more homogeneous sections, where
Pretest Applications. As shown in Fig. 4, pretest data can be
rock anisotropy is less.
processed for formation pressure and fluid mobilities. Formation
Even though small-scale rock anisotropy can be pressure derived from the probe pretest is as accurate as that
observed, for example, in thin sections, it is probably obtained from a packer test or a well test (track 1 of Fig. 4);
true that the larger the scale, the more obvious the rock therefore, it is routinely used for reservoir fluid typing, fluid
anisotropy. contacts identification and free water level determination.
On the other hand, the probe pretest drawdown mobility is
Open Hole Logs. As previously mentioned, a complete suite of rather qualitative, due to its small volume drawdown (typically
open hole logs was run. These logs were quality controlled, 5 cm3 to 20 cm3). It has a shallow depth of investigation, and
processed and interpreted for lith,  and Sw. Correlations were it is affected by formation damage in the invaded zone and by
also used to qualitatively predict reservoir permeability. Use of near wellbore, small scale heterogeneity. Because of the small
the processed logs and core data in geological modeling has volume drawdown, the mobility determined typically does not
been previously described5. include anisotropy. Consequently, pretest drawdown mobility
can only be qualitatively used for reservoir rock and fluid
WFT Pretests and VITs. As summarized in Fig. 2 describing a characterization.
geological model built with geological and petrophysical data,
25 pretests were performed using probe 1, Fig. 1c, for formation VIT Applications. As described in Fig. 2, VIT data can be
pressure profiling. Eight VITs were conducted with a configu- processed for reservoir rock anisotropy assessment. This VIT
ration of a dual packer and two observation probes, probes 1 data processing workflow is expanded in Fig. 5. To process the
and 2, as shown in Fig. 1c; 13 additional pretests were also VIT data, a robust geological model is essential to match the
performed using both probes during the VITs. A pump-out packers and probes pressures and pressure derivatives with
module was used for fluid withdrawal to create pressure tran- predicted kv and kh. This matching is not only for one VIT, but
sients in the formation, which were monitored by crystal for all VITs, so an iterative process is necessary.
quartz pressure gauges and strain gauges at the dual packer and In a heterogeneous reservoir, pressure changes at the obser-
observation probes. Figure 4 shows the acquired downhole data, vation probes, especially the one with the farthest spacing, may
including reservoir pressure (with an oil gradient of 0.32 psi/ft) be very small. For a VIT to be successful in this situation, very
from the probes, from the packer and during the interference high precision pressure gauges are required, Fig. 6. Besides kv


Layer H Poro kh kv kh/kv

1 8 0.16 7.2 4.03 1.8

2 2 0.05 3.2 0.96 3.3
3 45 0.25 940 432.4 2.2
4 2 0.12 2 0.18 11.1
5 4 0.25 736 58.88 12.5
6 1 0.2 0.15 0.02 7.5
7 7 0.25 497 49.7 10
8 2 0.24 2.9 3.19 0.9
9 7 0.24 160 16 10
10 1 0.1 3 0.06 50
11 6 0.23 463 96.45 4.8
12 1 0.15 3.5 0.07 50
13 13 0.2 980 490 2
14 1.5 0.1 16.2 15.39 1.1
15 14.5 0.25 164 22.08 7.4
Fig. 5. Workflow for VIT data processing in a layered reservoir.
16 5 0.12 4.5 9 0.5
17 11 0.17 55 11 5
18 1 0.13 8 0.06 133.3
19 6 0.23 139 34.75 4
20 3 0.1 5 0.55 9.1
21 15 0.25 716 27.72 25.8
22 5 0.1 3 2.5 1.2
23 11 0.12 114 2.05 55.6
24 11 0.1 48 7.97 6
Fig. 6. Example of precise probe pressure measurement during a VIT. 25 10 0.1 8 5.28 1.5
26 2 0.05 1 0.1 10
27 6 0.09 3 0.3 10
28 7 0.07 2 0.2 10
29 2 0.12 14 2.8 5
30 27 0.05 2 0.2 10
31 10 0.07 1 0.1 10
32 1 0.03 1 0.1 10
33 8 0.07 58 4.64 12.5
34 60 0.03 0.5 0.15 3.3

Table 1. Final layered reservoir model with anisotropy

Measured packer and probe pressures are matched or
Fig. 7. Use of VITs in reservoir fluid flow regime identification and reservoir
reproduced satisfactorily with the geological model.
heterogeneity characterization.
Fluid flow regimes are identified from features of
and kh determination as described in Fig. 5, VITs can also be buildup pressure derivatives. The identified flow regime
useful in reservoir fluid flow regime identification and detailed is consistent with the geological model.
reservoir heterogeneity characterization, as demonstrated in
Fig. 7, by examining the pressure and its derivative vs. buildup Final RM
time. From Figs. 6 and 7, the following can be summarized:
Probe pressure changes of 0.1 psi are clearly observed, re- By integrating geological information with data derived from
peatedly, with the high resolution crystal quartz gauges. core description and core analysis, open hole logs, WFT



From this article, the following are concluded:

At core plug scale, permeability anisotropy may not be
A VIT with advanced WFT is a powerful tool for
reservoir heterogeneity characterization.
To build a robust geological model, integration of all
geological and petrophysical data is critical.
To test the internal consistency of a built RM, numerical
Fig. 8. Reservoir model validation using kh from production logs (a) and
KavgH from downhole pressure and pressure derivatives (b). history matching of measured properties, such as
pressure and its derivatives, is a proved best practice.
Total KavgH from a well test and kh from a production
log flow profile are useful in validating RMs.
A methodology is introduced that integrates static
and dynamic petrophysical data for reservoir
characterization, geological modeling and well
performance studies.


The authors would like to thank the management of Saudi

Aramco and Schlumberger for their permission to publish this
This article was prepared for presentation at the SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans,
Fig. 9. History matching of downhole pressure and flow rate during injection LA, September 30 - October 2, 2013.
and falloff4.

pretests and VITs, the RM in this study well was established,
following the methodology of Fig. 2, as shown in Table 1. This
1. Ayan, C., Hafez, H., Hurst, S., Kuchuk, F.J., OCallaghan,
model is considered accurate not only because it integrates all
A., Peffer, J., et al.: Characterizing Permeability with
relevant data, but more importantly because it is internally
Formation Testers, Oilfield Review, Vol. 13, No. 3,
consistent with VIT pressure and pressure derivatives.
October 2001, pp. 2-23.
The established RM, Table 1, is further validated in terms of
its production behaviors by comparing its data with the fluid 2. Kuchuk, F.J.: Radius of Investigation for Reserve
flow profile derived from production logs and the total KavgH Estimation from Pressure Transient Well Tests, SPE paper
derived from numerical analyses of well test pressure as well as 120515, presented at the SPE Middle East Oil and Gas
pressure derivative, Fig. 8. Results show that the model Show and Conference, Manama, Bahrain, March 15-18,
matches the well dynamic behavior very well, Fig. 8. 2009.
3. Onur, M. and Kuchuk, F.J.: Nonlinear Regression
Application of the Validated Geological Model Analysis of Well Test Pressure Data with Uncertain
Variance, SPE paper 62918, presented at the SPE Annual
The RM, Table 1, can be used in well performance studies, as Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas,
shown in Fig. 9, by matching and predicting the bottom-hole October 1-4, 2000.
pressure and flow rate. It has also been used in this study well 4. Kuchuk, F.J., Zhan, L., Ma, S.M., Al-Shahri, A.M.,
for identifying and characterizing reservoir heterogeneity, in- Ramakrishnan, T.S., Altundas, B., et al.: Determination of
verting reservoir scale and reservoir condition relative perme- In-Situ Two-Phase Flow Properties through Downhole
ability and capillary pressure, assessing oil recovery by water- Fluid Movement Monitoring, SPE paper 116068,
flooding, and monitoring water movement in situ in connection presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
with measurements of a specially designed electrode resistivity Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, September 21-24, 2008.
array and permanent downhole pressure gauges4, 5.


5. Zhan, L., Kuchuk, F.J., Al-Shahri, A.S., Ma, S.M., BIOGRAPHIES
Ramakrishnan, T.S., Altundas, B., et al.: Characterization
Dr. Shouxiang M. Ma is a Senior
of Reservoir Heterogeneity through Fluid Movement
Petrophysical Consultant in the
Monitoring with Deep Electromagnetic and Pressure
Reservoir Description Division and
Measurements, SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, serves in the Petroleum Engineering
Vol. 13, No. 3, June 2010, pp. 509-522. Technologist Development Program
6. Kuchuk, F.J.: Pressure Behavior of the MDT Packer actively as a mentor and a member of
Module and DST in Crossflow-Multilayer Reservoirs, its Technical Review Committee. He
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, Vol. 11, member of the Upstream Professional
was a founding mem
Development Center as the petrophysics job family
No. 2, June 1994, pp. 123-135.
Professional Development Advisor from 2009 to 2012.
7. Kuchuk, F.J., Halford, F., Hafez, H. and Zeybek, M.: The Before joining Saudi Aramco in 2000, he worked as a
Use of Vertical Interference Testing to Improve Reservoir Lecturer at Changjiang University, Jingzhou City, China,
Characterization, SPE paper 87236, presented at the Abu and as a Lab Petrophysicist at the New Mexico Petroleum
Dhabi International Petroleum Conference and Exhibition, Recovery Research Center, the Wyoming Western Research
Abu Dhabi, U.A.E., October 13-15, 2000. Institute and Exxons Production Research Company.
Mark received his B.S. degree from China University of
8. Zeybek, M., Kuchuk, F.J. and Hafez, H.: Fault and Petroleum, Beijing, China, and his M.S. and Ph.D. degrees
Fracture Characterization Using 3D Interval Pressure from the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology,
Transient Tests, SPE paper 78506, presented at the Abu Socorro, NM, all in Petroleum Engineering.
Dhabi International Petroleum Conference and Exhibition, He is a member of the Society of Core Analysts and the
Abu Dhabi, U.A.E., October 13-16, 2002. Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), and served on the
SPEs Formation Evaluation Award Committee (as
9. Ma, S.M., Belowi, A., Pairoys, F. and Zoukani, A.:
Chairman in 2012) and the AIME/SPE Robert Earll
Quality Assurance of Carbonate Rock Special Core
McConnell Award Committee.
Analysis Lesson Learnt from a Multi-Year Research Mark has more than 60 publications and several patents
Project, IPTC paper 16768, presented at the 6th in petrophysics. He was awarded the 2003 Department
International Petroleum Technology Conference, Beijing, Individual Achievement Award and 2011 SPE Saudi Arabia
China, March 26-28, 2013. Section Active Technical Involvement Award, and is a
technical journal reviewer for SPE Reservoir Evaluation
and Engineering (SPERE&E), Journal of Canadian
Petroleum Technology (JCPT), Journal of Petroleum
Science & Engineering (JPS&E) and the Arabian Journal
for Science and Engineering.

Dr. Murat M. Zeybek is a

Schlumberger Reservoir Engineering
Advisor and Reservoir and Production
Domain Champion for the Middle
East Region. He works on analysis
interpretation of wireline formation
testers, pressure transient analysis,
i l modeling
d li of fluid flow, water control,
production logging and reservoir monitoring.
He is a technical review committee member for the
Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE) journal Reservoir
Evaluation and Engineering. Murat also served as a
committee member for the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, 1999-2001. He has been a
discussion leader and a committee member in a number of
SPE Applied Technology Workshops (ATWs), including a
technical committee member for the SPE Saudi Technical
Symposium, and he is a global mentor in Schlumberger.
Murat received his B.S. degree in Petroleum Engineering
from the Technical University of Istanbul, Istanbul, Turkey.
He received his M.S. degree in 1985 and his Ph.D. degree
in 1991, both from the University of Southern California,
Los Angeles, CA, also in Petroleum Engineering.


He has published more than 50 papers on analysis/
interpretation of wireline formation testers, pressure
transient analysis, numerical modeling of fluid flow, fluid
flow porous media, water control, production logging and
reservoir monitoring.

Dr. Fikri J. Kuchuk, a Schlumberger

Fellow, is currently Chief Reservoir
Engineer for Schlumberger Testing
Services. He was a consulting
professor at the Petroleum Engineering
Department of Stanford University
from 1988 to 1994, teaching
Ad dWWell Testing.
ll T ti Before joining Schlumberger in
1982, Fikri worked on reservoir performance and
management for BP/Sohio Petroleum Company.
He is a Distinguished and Honorary Member of the
Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), the Society for
Industrial and Applied Mathematics, the Russian Academy
of Natural Sciences and the American National Academy
of Engineering. Fikri received the SPE 1994 Reservoir
Engineering Award, the SPE 2000 Formation Evaluation
Award and the SPE 2001 Regional Service Award; the
Henri G. Doll Award in 1997 and 1999; and the Nobel
Laureate Physicist Kapitsa Gold Medal. He has been very
active in professional societies, serving as SPE International
Director-at-Large and SPE Northern Emirates Section
Director, and he is a member of the SPE Forum Series
Implementation Committee, the Middle East Oil Show &
Conference Executive and Program Committees, and many
SPE award, editorial, membership and technical
Fikri has published and presented more than 150 papers
on fluid flow in porous media, formation evaluation,
pressure transient well testing, production logging, wireline
formation testers, horizontal and multilateral well place-
ment and performance, permanent reservoir monitoring,
water conformance and control, and reservoir engineering
and management.
He received his B.S. and M.S. degrees from the
Technical University of Istanbul, Istanbul, Turkey, and his
M.S. and Ph.D. degrees from Stanford University, Palo
Alto, CA, all in Petroleum Engineering.


View publication stats