Reservoir Modeling with GSLIB

Case Studies / Modeling Tips

• Sequential Approach to Reservoir Modeling
• Question / Answer Time
• A Small Example
• Glimpses of Case Studies

Centre for Computational Geostatistics - University of Alberta - Edmonton, Alberta - Canada

 Reservoir Modeling
Establish Stratigraphic Layering / Coordinates

Cell-based Lithofacies Object-Based Lithofacies

Modeling Modeling
Repeat for Multiple Realizations

Porosity Modeling
Model Uses
1. Volumetric / Mapping
2. Assess Connectivity
3. Scale-Up for Flow Simulation
4. Place Wells / Process Design
Permeability Modeling

Main geostatistical modeling flow chart: the structure and stratigraphy of each reservoir
layer must be established, the lithofacies modeled within each layer, and then porosity and
permeability modeled within each lithofacies.

Centre for Computational Geostatistics - University of Alberta - Edmonton, Alberta - Canada

 Introductory Example
Existing Vertical Well
Top of Reservoir

• Fashioned after a real problem and the geological data is based on outcrop observations
• A horizontal well is to be drilled from a vertical well to produce from a relatively thin oil
column.
• The goal is to construct a numerical model of porosity and permeability to predict the
performance of horizontal well including (1) oil production, (2) gas coning, and (3)
water coning.

Centre for Computational Geostatistics - University of Alberta - Edmonton, Alberta - Canada

 Introductory Example -
Petrophysical Data
•Lithofacies 1
10,000 •Lithofacies 2
•Lithofacies 3
Permeability, md

Code Lithofacies Average Coefficient K v :K h

Perm. of variation ratio
0 Coal and Shale 1 md 0.00 0.1
1 Incised Valley Fill Sandstone 1500 md 1.00 1.0
2 Channel Fill Sandstone 500 md 1.50 0.1
3 Lower Shoreface Sandstone 1000 md 0.75 0.8

10
0 0.4
Porosity

Permeability characteristics of each lithofacies: the coefficient of variation is the

average permeability divided by the standard deviation, Kv is the vertical permeability,
and Kh is the horizontal permeability.

Centre for Computational Geostatistics - University of Alberta - Edmonton, Alberta - Canada

 Flow Simulation

Gridding for flow simulation. For numerical efficiency, the vertical gridding is
aligned with the gas-oil fluid contact and the oil-water fluid contact. The black
dots illustrate the location of the proposed horizontal well completions.
Representative three-phase fluid properties and rock properties such as
compressibility have been considered. It would be possible to consider these
properties as unknown and build that uncertainty into modeling; however, in this
introductory example they have been fixed with no uncertainty.

Centre for Computational Geostatistics - University of Alberta - Edmonton, Alberta - Canada

 Simple Geologic Models
Layercake Model Gaussian Simulation Model

Smooth Model

Three simple assignments of rock properties (a) a “layercake” or horizontal

projection model, (b) a smooth inverse distance model, and (c) a simple Gaussian
simulation.
Centre for Computational Geostatistics - University of Alberta - Edmonton, Alberta - Canada
 Simple Geologic Models:
Flow Results
1000
Oil Production Ratio (m3/day)

1.0
1600

Gas Oil Ratio

Water Cut

0 3000 0 3000 0 3000

Time (days) Time (days) Time (days)

Flow results: layercake model - solid line; smooth model - long dashes; simple
geostats model -- short dashes.

Centre for Computational Geostatistics - University of Alberta - Edmonton, Alberta - Canada

 Better Geologic Model
(a) Geostatistical Model (b) Geostatistical Model - Flow Grid

The first geostatistical realization shown on the geological grid and the flow
simulation grid

Centre for Computational Geostatistics - University of Alberta - Edmonton, Alberta - Canada

 Multiple Realizations

01 06 11 16

02 07 12 17

03 08 13 18

04 09 14 19

05 10 15 20

Centre for Computational Geostatistics - University of Alberta - Edmonton, Alberta - Canada

 Geologic Models - Flow Results
10,000 1.0 2000

Gas Oil Ratio

Oil Production

Water Cut
m3/day

0 3000 0 0 3000
3000
Time, days Time, days Time, days

Flow results from 20 geostatistical realizations (solid gray lines) with simple
model results superimposed

Centre for Computational Geostatistics - University of Alberta - Edmonton, Alberta - Canada

 Uncertainty
Cumulative Oil Production at 1000 Days Time of Water Break Through

layercake first sgsim

first sgsim smooth
smooth
layercake

Frequency
Frequency

200 800 0 1600

Cumulative Oil Production, x 10^3 m^3 Water Break Through, days

The cumulative oil production after 1000 days and the time to water breakthrough.
Note the axis on the two plots. There is a significant difference between the
simple models and the results of geostatistical modeling (the histograms).

Centre for Computational Geostatistics - University of Alberta - Edmonton, Alberta - Canada

 Major Arabian Carbonate
Reservoir
• GOSP 2 & 7 Area study commissioned by Zone Porosity % Layer
Saudi Aramco
• SPE29869 paper Integrated Reservoir
Modeling of a Major Arabian Carbonate 3A
Reservoir by J.P. Benkendorfer, C.V. Deutsch,
P.D. LaCroix, L.H. Landis, Y.A. Al-Askar,
A.A. Al-AbdulKarim, and J. Cole
• Oil production from wells on a one-kilometer 3B
spacing with flank water injection. There has
been significant production and injection
during the last 20 years 3A
• This has had rapid and erratic water movement
uncharacteristic of the rest of the field a
reason for building a new geological and flow 3B
simulation models

Centre for Computational Geostatistics - University of Alberta - Edmonton, Alberta - Canada

 Modeling Process
Matrix Large-Scale
Lithology Porosity
Permeability Permeability

• Standard GSLIB software (because it was for Saudi Aramco)

• Novel aspect was modeling permeability as the sum of a matrix permeability
and a large-scale permeability
– fractures
– vuggy and leached zones
– bias due to core recovery
• Typical modeling procedure that could be applied to other carbonates and to
clastic reservoirs

Centre for Computational Geostatistics - University of Alberta - Edmonton, Alberta - Canada

 Indicator Simulation of
Lithology
Vertical Indicator Variogram: Layer 8 Horizontal Indicator Variogram: Layer 8
120 degrees
0.25 0.25
30 degrees

γ γ

0 0.8 0 100
Distance Distance
Limestone N

Dolomite

1 km

Presence / absence of limestone / dolomite was modeled with indicator simulation

(SISIM) on a by-layer basis

Centre for Computational Geostatistics - University of Alberta - Edmonton, Alberta - Canada

 Gaussian Simulation of
•
Porosity
Variogram model for porosity in limestone:
Vertical Porosity Variogram Horizontal Porosity Variogram
Layer 8 (Limestone) Layer 8 (Limestone)

1.0 110 degrees

0.8
Variogram

Variogram
20 degrees

0 0
0 0.8 0 10,000
Distance (m) Distance (m)
• Variogram model for porosity in dolomite:
Vertical Porosity Variogram Horizontal Porosity Variogram
Layer 8 (Limestone) Layer 8 (Limestone)
110 degrees
0.8 Variogram 1.0
Variogram

20 degrees

0 0
0 0.8 0 10,000
Distance (m) Distance (m)

Centre for Computational Geostatistics - University of Alberta - Edmonton, Alberta - Canada

 Gaussian Simulation of
Porosity

Porosity models for limestone and dolomite were built on a by-layer basis with
SGSIM and then put together according to the layer and lithology template

Centre for Computational Geostatistics - University of Alberta - Edmonton, Alberta - Canada

 Indicator Simulation of
Matrix Permeability
Group 1 - Limestone Vertical Matrix k Variogram Layer 5 (Limestone)
2.0
Means: Correlation: Linear Transform:
Porosity = 21.57 Pearson = 0.73 Slope = 0.129

Variogram
Permeability = 295.7 Spearman = 0.70 Intercept = -1.224
10,000
Permeability (md)

0
0 1.0
Stratigraphic Distance (m)
Horizontall Matrix k Variogram Layer 5 (Limestone)
2.0 20 degrees
110 degrees

0.01 Variogram
0
40
Porosity (%) 0
0 12000
Stratigraphic Distance (m)
Numbers above x-axis are porosity class percentages
Numbers at corners are porosity/permeability class percentages

Centre for Computational Geostatistics - University of Alberta - Edmonton, Alberta - Canada

 Gaussian Simulation of
Large-Scale Permeability
Vertical Large Scale Variogram Layer 5 Horizontal Large Scale Variogram Layer 5
2.0 2.0
isotropic

Variogram
Variogram

0 0
0 1.0 0 12000
Stratigraphic Distance Stratigraphic Distance

• Matrix permeability at each well location yields a K•hmatrix

• Well test-derived permeability at each well location yields a K•htotal
• Subtraction yields a K•hlarge
• Vertical distribution of K•hlarge scale on a foot-by-foot basis is done by
considering multiple CFM data

Centre for Computational Geostatistics - University of Alberta - Edmonton, Alberta - Canada

 Gaussian Simulation of
Large-Scale Permeability

• Large-scale permeability models were built on a by-layer basis with SGSIM

• Matrix permeability and large-scale permeability models were added together
to yield a geological model of permeability
• A calibrated power average was considered to scale the geological model to
the resolution for flow simulation

Centre for Computational Geostatistics - University of Alberta - Edmonton, Alberta - Canada

 Flow Simulation: First
History Match
3400
Datum Pressure (psi)

1600
100
Water Cut (%)

0
1975 1980 1985 1990 1994
1940 1995
Year

Centre for Computational Geostatistics - University of Alberta - Edmonton, Alberta - Canada

 Flow Simulation: Fourth
History Match
3400
Datum Pressure (psi)

1600

100
Water Cut (%)

0
1975 1980 1985 1990 1994
1940 1995
Year

Centre for Computational Geostatistics - University of Alberta - Edmonton, Alberta - Canada