Primary funding is provided by

The SPE Foundation through member donations

and a contribution from Offshore Europe

The Society is grateful to those companies that allow their

professionals to serve as lecturers

Additional support provided by AIME

Society of Petroleum Engineers

Distinguished Lecturer Program
www.spe.org/dl
 Creating geologically realistic models
used for reservoir management

David Stern

Society of Petroleum Engineers

Distinguished Lecturer Program
www.spe.org/dl
 Outline
Background
How do we use reservoir models?
Why do models need to be geologically realistic?
Challenges in building realistic reservoir models
Strategy to meet these challenges
Examples
1. Constructing and calibrating a reservoir model
2. Interpreting results of sensitivity study
Summary

3
 Reservoir Simulation models
A digital representation of reservoir geology, wells, fluids, and
facility network. Used to predict reservoir performance.
Develop hypothesis Create reservoir
Analyze Data model
Test hypothesis
Validate
against data
80000
OIL

Production Rate
60000

(STBPD)
40000
WATER
20000

0
0 5 10 15 20
800 5000
Ye a r

(MSCFPD)
Gas Rate

Pressure
(PSI)
400 3000

200 2000 Production

0
Forecast
1000
0 5 10 15
Year

Predict behavior

Cost/Revenue
Estimates
Implement
development plan Act based on predictions 4
 Geologic Heterogeneity
Governed by physics of deposition
Recognizable geologic features (lobes, shale barriers, etc.)
Well-understood spatial distribution of rock texture (grain
size, composition, and sorting)
Organized heterogeneity

5
Getty Images
Impact of geologic heterogeneity: Bypassing

Decreasing Grain Size

6
Impact of Geologic Heterogeneity:
Compartmentalization

7
Challenges in building and using reservoir models

Geologic interpretation is often uncertain

Difficult to represent detailed geology in reservoir
models
Heterogeneity is often organized lobes, bars,
channels, etc.
Not easily represented by geostatistics
Dont know what geologic features need to be
represented
Non-uniqueness different reservoir descriptions that
give the same response at wells

8
 Strategy
1. Build fit-for-purpose models*
2. Represent geologic features in the model*
3. Calibrate models by adjusting features, not
cells*
4. Seek multiple solutions**
5. Infer relationships between features and
performance**

*Example 1 **Example 2
9
Example 1
Fit-for-purpose Geologic features Adjust features,
in the model not cells
Thin oil rim
Shallow marine reservoir
Permeability Thickness (KH) measured
from early well tests
GOR rises soon after production starts
Heals when wells are shut in
Chayvo Early Production Wells: Z-1, Z-2, Z-3, Z-5
Z-5

4000
Z-5
Z-3
Z-1
GOR, SCF/STB

3000
Z-2
GOR (SCF/STB)

2000 2 Km

1000 Start-up dates:

Z-1 Oct 11, 2005
Hypotheses
Z-2 Oct 13, 2005
Z-3 Mar 5, 2006
Z-5 Oct 15, 2005 Gas is produced because:
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Gas cap moves to the well, OR
Well Cum. Oil produced, KBBL
Well cumulative production (KBBL)
Gas comes out of solution at the well

Sahni et. al., SPE 136432 (2010) 10

 Geologic Setting Wave-dominated Shoreface

Colors represent different facies (rock texture grain size,

composition, and sorting)
Strong contrast in permeability and porosity between facies
Clinoform geometry

Davies, et. al.,AAPG Bulletin, v. 90, p. 11211140 (2006)

11
 Hypothesis testing
Building the Model
Start with mechanistic box model
Single-well detailed model
Full-field model USF
Conform layering to clinoforms MSF
Honor facies progression LSF

Competing Hypotheses
Gas cap movement sensitive
to horizontal and
vertical permeability
Compartmentalization
from permeability contrast
between facies

12
 Posing the problem Parameters for Calibration

Three Facies: Upper, Middle, and Lower Shoreface

(USF,MSF, LSF)
Two Parameters per Facies average horizontal and vertical
permeability (Kh and Kv)
One Constraint Permeability thickness from pressure
transient analysis
6 Parameters 1 Constraint = 5 Net Factors
Parameter Min Max
KhLSF/KhUSF .0025 .04
KhMSF/KhUSF 0.05 0.5
USF Kv/Kh 0.05 0.5
MSF Kv/Kh 0.001 0.1
LSF Kv/Kh 0.001 0.01 13
 Best match simulation results
Well Results
5000

Good overall matches

obtained
FBHP, psi

Able to match early time

Gas-Oil-Ratio (GOR) bump
Historical data and flowing bottomhole
GOR match pressure (FBHP) changes
FBHP match
0

0 Time, days 400 Analysis of simulation

Well Results results:
0 GOR, SCF/STB 1000

The highest-impact
Historical data parameters for matching
GOR match For GOR:
FBHP match Permeability contrast between
facies
For FBHP:
Horizontal and vertical
permeability in MSF 14
0 Time, days 400
Example 2
Multiple solutions Infer relationships between
features and behavior
Parametric sensitivity study on a synthetic shallow
marine geologic setting
Vary sedimentological and structural parameters, well
pattern
Analyze results to infer relationships
Give decision makers geologic scenarios linked to a given
production response
Decide to acquire more data or revise development
plan
Suzuki, S., et all, SPE 174774 (2015)
Jiang, R., et al., International Journal of Uncertainty Quantification 6
(6):533-559(2016) 15
 SAIGUP: Sensitivity Analysis of the Impact of
Geologic Uncertainty on Production
Parameters in SAIGUP dataset
3.

Reservoir
Sedimentological parameters
Topography Shoreface curvature
Progradation direction
Aggradation angle
2. Aggradation angle
Barrier coverage lo
1. Shoreline curvature
Structural Parameters High

Fault Pattern
Fault density Low

Fault seal
Low High
Well pattern
7 geologic parameters + well placement 9072 simulations

Manzocchi, et. al., Petroleum Geoscience, vol. 14, no. 1, pp3-15 (2008)
16
 Analysis of flow behavior vs. Geologic Inputs
Oil rate vs. time: Three characteristic behaviors

Green cluster (105 cases): Red cluster (108 cases):

high rate, short plateau low rate, long plateau

Blue cluster (87 cases):

high rate, long plateau

Jiang, R., et al. (2016) 17

 Dimensional Stacking Plot
Cross-dip (X) Down-dip (D) Up-dip (U)
Fault pattern

U
Progradation Direction

U
C
B
A

L Aggradation angle
Fault perm

X M High

H
Low
L M H
L M H
Barriers
Shoreline Curvature
L M H Jiang, R., et al. (2016) 18
Aggradation Angle
 Key Guidance
Represent key geologic features in the reservoir model
Fault blocks, stratigraphic compartments, flow barriers and
conduits
Fidelity of the model depends on its purpose
Pose model calibration problems in terms of geologic features
If current geologic concept cannot predict historical
performance, revise the concept.
Use models to interpret production data in terms of the
geology
Reservoir management, with or without a model, hinges
on adapting to the geologic description
19
 Concluding Remarks
Properly applied, existing tools allow integration of
engineering and geoscience data to create realistic
reservoir models
Guides interpretation of geologic data and production data
Enforcing geologic realism is an important element of
model construction and calibration
Recent developments in use of ensembles and analysis of
results offer potential to improve effectiveness of these
models
Provide decision-makers with concrete geologic scenarios linked
to significant business outcomes

20
 Acknowledgements

A. G. Dawson C. Agbalaka
D. S. Frankel S. Suzuki
X-H. Wu L. Branets
I. Sahni X. Gai
M.A. Langenberg T. Manzocchi
L. Lun R. Jiang
A. S. Oyerinde K. Sorbie
S. Cullick

21
Your Feedback is Important
Enter your section in the DL Evaluation Contest by
completing the evaluation form for this presentation
Visit SPE.org/dl

Society of Petroleum Engineers

Distinguished Lecturer Program
www.spe.org/dl 22
 Primary funding is provided by

The SPE Foundation through member donations

and a contribution from Offshore Europe

The Society is grateful to those companies that allow their

professionals to serve as lecturers

Additional support provided by AIME

Society of Petroleum Engineers

Distinguished Lecturer Program
www.spe.org/dl