See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/281769705

Permeability Estimation Based on Cokriged Porosity Data

Research · September 2015

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.3245.3604

CITATIONS READS

0 231

1 author:

Anne Sirait
Lehigh University
2 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Geostatistic View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Anne Sirait on 15 September 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 PERMEABILITY ESTIMATION BASED ON COKRIGED POROSITY DATA

Anne Meylani Magdalena Sirait

1. Background

Porosity and permeability distributions are two indicators needed for petroleum

reservoir evaluation. To evaluate the petroleum reserves, porosity information plays an

important role. An accurate estimation of the porosity changes will give information

about changes in total reserves. In addition to being porous, a reservoir rock must have

the ability to allow petroleum fluids to flow through its interconnected pores. That is, the

pores of the rock must be connected together so that hydrocarbons can move from one

pore to another. The rock’s ability to conduct fluids is referred as permeability. The

importance of modeling permeability in petroleum geology and engineering is rivaled by

the difficulty in obtaining sufficient data. In practice, two- or three-dimensional models

of permeability that include spatial variation must depend on qualitative information or

data from which permeability can be inferred through empirical relationships.

Geostatistical approach is able to integrate the datasets of well and seismic to

produce a more detailed image of porosity distribution. Geostatistical method can be

applied to quantitatively relate well and seismic data and quatitatively assess map

accuracy (Wolf et. al., 1994). Cokriging method is chosen to integrate the well data and

seismic data. The cokriging method considers the well data as the primary variable and

the seismic data as secondary variable.

All methods described above discussed how to estimate porosity distribution over

a large area. While to estimate the permeability distribution is still challenging to do;

this research will focus on how to estimate the permeability distribution over a large

area based on the cokriged porosity data. The goal of this research is to integrate the

porosity data from well and seismic data using cokriging method. The porosity

distribution produced from the cokriging method will be used to estimate the

Anne Meylani Magdalena Sirait 1

permeability distribution of study area. Analyzing the distribution map from the

procedure mentioned above will be the final step to determine the permeability

distribution of area of interest.

2. Purpose

The purpose of this research is to estimate the permeability based on the cokriged

porosity data. First the porosity data is extracted from the well and seismic data, then

both data are integrated using cokriging method. The well data is considered as

primary data and seismic data is considered as secondary data. Then, we will use the

correlation between porosity and permeability from core analysis to produce a

permeability map and finally, analyze the value of permeability distribution based on

methods mentioned above.

3. Methodology

Method used in this research are geostatistics and inversion methods. Both

methods were used to predict porosity and permeability distribution at Boonsville area.

Both methods were used to integrate the seismic and well log data to predict the

permeability distribution within the area.

Research steps taken:

a. Modelling porosity from well-log data

b. Modelling Porosity Distribution using Kriging Method

c. Integration of Well Data and Seismic Data using Cokriging Method

d. Permeability Estimation Based on Cokriged Porosity Data

4. Result and Discussion

Porosity Map Using Kriging Method

In the kriging method, the porosity distribution within the area of interest was

derived from one variable only, which is the porosity data form the well. The porosity

Anne Meylani Magdalena Sirait 2

data is derived from the density log although there are few other porosity logs exist in

the well such as neutron log, sonic log and resistivity log. Density log measured the

bulk density of rock formations; the bulk density is the function of matrix density,

porosity and density of fluid in the pores. The neutron log was not chosen because the

neutron log measured the hydrogen content in rock formation not the porosity of rock

formation. Neutron log will give wrong impression within shale formations which have

high concentration of hydrogen content but small porosity.

The porosity derived from density log is averaged below MFS 90 for about 30 ft,

because the Gamma Ray logs at that depth show the low value which is concluded as

the sandstone area. However, the density log gives a quite high density value at that

area and the porosity log gives a very low porosity value. Based on the log description,

we can conclude that the area 30 ft below MFS 90 is a tight sandstone area.

The averaged porosity data is derived form 14 wells where the porosity value

ranges between 0.8 % - 11.57 %. This porosity value should be cross-evaluated using

neutron porosity and the condition of well based on its caliper value. The variation in

caliper represent the condition of well, it could be rough or flat. Based on the cross –

evaluation of the neutron log and caliper it can be conclude that only 8 wells are able to

be used to build the porosity model. The wells are ASHE C6, BY11, BY13, BY15,

BY18D, CY9, IGY9A, and LOF2.

In order to get the porosity map where the porosity value within the area is not

covered good enough with well data, the variogram model is required to give weighing

value. The weighing value is needed to help well data estimate the porosity value

outside the well location. The weighing method is derived from variogram model such

as spherical, exponential and Gaussian model. As the result, the spherical model is the

best method that can describe the well data. Spherical model is the best variogram

model because it gives the biggest range in value among other model. The bigger

range value is able to cover non data area from well location rather than the smaller

Anne Meylani Magdalena Sirait 3

range value. Based on the spherical model as the weighing factor to estimate porosity

values outside the well location, kriging method was applied to get the kriging map of

porosity data. The kriging map stills is not able to show variation of porosity data within

the area of interest. The variation of porosity value still concentrated surrounding well

location while in the other parts there is still no variation displayed. This happens

because the well data is not distributed well within the area of interest. The kriging error

map also confirms this assumption, as the kriging error surrounding the well is smaller

compared to kriging error at the area outside the well location. This means the

estimation works best surrounding the well location, but does not work well outside the

well location.

Figure 1 The porosity map based on kriging method

Seismic Data as Secondary Datasets

Because the kriging method is not able to properly display the porosity distribution

within the area of interest, thus the cokriging method is needed. Cokriging method

combines two kinds of data, well data as the primary dataset and seismic data as the

secondary datasets. Seismic data is chosen because it is able to cover a large area,

but the data is still in inexact. The secondary dataset needs to be extracted from the

seismic data.

Anne Meylani Magdalena Sirait 4

 Acoustic impedance value is chosen as the part of seismic data used as

secondary dataset. Acoustic impedance is extracted from seismic data using the model

based inversion method. Model based inversion method tries to match the synthetic

data produced from the acoustic impedance from log to real seismic data. The method

to match the synthetic and real data is based on squeeze and stretch method until the

correlation achieves maximum value. In this method, the wavelet is considered as the

zero-phase wavelet.

The correlation of synthetic data to the real seismic data is based on three wells

(BY11, BY18D, and CY9), where the correlation coefficient ranges between 0.67 and

0.78. Those value can be considered good for seismic well tie procedure. The inversion

analysis of modeled synthetic trace from the impedance log showed a good correlation

with maximum correlation 0.99 and maximum error 0.07. It means that the modeled

synthetic trace fits well with seismic data.

The inversion result shows that the area of interest located below the MFS 90 has

a high impedance value range between 31800 ft/s.g/cc and 34100 ft/s.g/cc. High

impedance value show that this area is the area with dense rock formation. Although

based on Gamma Ray log this area is considered as the sandstone area. Futhermore,

it can be concluded that this area is a tight sandstone area because its high acoustic

impedance value. The acoustic impedance (AI) property is chosen because it derived

from rock density and wave velocity. The density of rock was formed based on the rock

matrix and density of fluid in the rock pore. The density of rock generally decreases as

porosity increases. As in the figure 2, there is AI variation on the map, either at the well

location or at the area outside the well location. The AI information covers the whole

area not just the area surrounding the well location.

Anne Meylani Magdalena Sirait 5

 Figure 2 Amplitude slice of acoustic impedance value of seismic data

Cokriging Process of Well and Seismic Data

The unique characteristics of well data which have exact information but limited

about the formation properties and the characteristics of seismic data which are able to

cover large are but inexact information of formation properties are combined together in

the cokriging method to improve the porosity map. In order to combine the seismic

data (AI value), an appropriate variogram model is required. An appropriate variogram

model is chosen based on its components such as nugget, sill and range. The

appropriate variogram model for the seismic data (AI value) is spherical model because

the range value of this model is the highest among other model. The higher range

value covers non data area better than smaller range value.

The next step to combine both datasets is to find the appropriate variogram model

between well and seismic. The appropriate variogram model is also spherical model

based on its range value. The modeling variogram of well and seismic are chosen

based on their range value. Range value on the model was shown how far the model

able to reach out the area outside the well. Based on the range value from the model,

the estimation of reservoir properties can be done thoroughly. The cokriging map of

porosity data is displayed in the figure 3. The resulted map from cokriging method is

showing fine variation of interest area. The range of porosity value is between 0.1 % -

12%. The high porosity value is concentrated around ASHE C6, IG Yates 14, and B

Yates 13 well which are represented in color purple. While the low porosity value is

Anne Meylani Magdalena Sirait 6

exists in the area outside the three wells mention above. The area lays surroundings

well show the variation of porosity value. The cokriging method which combines well

and seismic data able to improve the quality of porosity map rather than the kriging

map.

Although the map shows the distribution of low porosity value, this map able to

improve the quality of map and based on that the cokriging porosity map is chosen as

the input map for the permeability estimation process. The porosity value range from

0.5% - 12.2%, the vast range of porosity value is can be happen because the

heterogeneity of rock formation.

Figure 3 The cokriging map of porosity data

Permeability Estimation Based on Cokriged Porosity Data

Using the resulted map of porosity data based on cokriging method, permeability

within interest area are able to obtained. The porosity map from cokriging data is used

because it can show the variation of porosity properties of interest area. While the

porosity has a correlation with permeability, it is believed that by using the porosity map

from cokriging data, the permeability distribution can be estimated.

The correlation between porosity and permeability data is obtained based on the

core analysis of two wells, Tarrant A4 and Sealy C2. The correlation between both

properties is based on the function shown in the graph in Figure 4. The function shows

Anne Meylani Magdalena Sirait 7

a linear relationship between porosity and permeability where one porosity value has

correlation with one permeability value. So based on this correlation, the permeability

value within interest area are based on one porosity value.

Figure 4. Porosity – permeability relation taken from two wells core based on linear regression.

The permeability map obtained from the porosity cokriged porosity data are shown

in the Figure 5. The permeability map obtains from cokriged porosity data able to show

a fine variation within interest area. The map shows low permeability value with the

highest value of permeability 0.85 mD. The low porosity value along with low

permeability value shows that the interest area is very tight zone.

Figure 5. The permeability field obtain from cokriged porosity data

Conclusion and Recommendations

Conclusions

Anne Meylani Magdalena Sirait 8

The permeability estimation at Caddo horizon in Boonsville area has been conducted

using the kriging and cokriging methods. Based on the method that has been

conducted there are few conclusions can be made.

1. Based on Gamma Ray, density and porosity log, the interest zone is located below

the MFS 90. It can be concluded that the interest zone is a tight sandstone

formation.

2. Porosity values are derived from the density log. It was chosen because it

describes the rock porosity well better than other logs such as neutron log. There

are 14 wells that contains density log, so based on that there were 14 wells with

porosity data.

3. The porosity value of all wells ranges between 0.5% and 12.2% which is quite low

caused by the tight formation of sandstone reservoir.

4. Model based inversion has been applied to seismic data to obtain the AI value

from seismic data.

5. Ordinary kriging method was chosen to obtain the porosity map. The map obtained

based only from well data and the map shows that there are variations around the

well, but the map was not able to show variations in area beyond the well.

Cokriging method was used as a way to improve the resolution of the porosity

map.

6. The spherical model was the best variogram model for the well data and seismic

data. The spherical model is also the best cross variogram model between well

and seismic data.

7. The cokriging method was chosen to improve resolution of the porosity maps

compared to the map obtained from the kriging method.

8. The correlation between porosity and permeability was derived from two wells near

the interest area. Porosity and permeability was linearly dependent with correlation

Anne Meylani Magdalena Sirait 9

 coefficient equal to 0.8702. This correlation was used to derive the permeability

value from the cokriged porosity data.

9. The permeability map resulted from cokriged porosity data was derived form the

one on one correlation of porosity and permeability data. The resulted map

showed a fine variation of permeability compared to the map obtained from kriging

process.

Recommendations

1. Since the porosity data was only derived from density log, it is suggested to obtain

the porosity data from other log information such as neutron log, sonic log and

resistivity logs or based on the combination of different porosity logs.

2. The porosity derived from density is needed to be cross – validate with neutron

porosity or with good caliper condition to avoid the misinterpretation.

3. Besides using the model based inversion, the other inversion method can be

applied to get the finest inversion result.

3. The correlation between the porosity and permeability value should be derived

carefully taken account the low and high porosity value.

4. Other than using the AI inversion, the seismic attributes data can be used as the

secondary variable in cokriging method.

5. The other geostatistic method such as Kriging with External Drift or Collocated

Cokriging can be applied to combine the well and seismic data.

Anne Meylani Magdalena Sirait 10

View publication stats