Reservoir

Reservoir heterogeneity
5
Heterogeneity is viewed on a broader scale than anisotropy. The degree of variation in the
petrophyscial properties of petroleum-bearing rocks varies from pore level to field level.
Consequently, petrophysical properties are better understood by using the scales of
heterogeneity. Reservoir rocks are seldom if ever found to be homogeneous in physical
properties or uniform in thickness. Variation in the geologic processes of erosion, deposition,
lithification, folding, faulting, etc. dictate that reservoir rocks be heterogeneous and non-uniform.
Although reservoir geologist have been producing oil and gas from reservoirs for more than a
century, they are still inadequately informed about the distribution of reservoir rock properties.
The overall problem can be best express by the following three questions:
(1) How can heterogeneities be identified and classified as to extent and geometry?
(2) How can the extent and geometry of heterogeneities within a specific reservoir be predicted?
(3) How can the performance of heterogeneous reservoirs be predicted with confidence?

1) Lorenz Coefficient LK
The first practical attempt to statistically analyze the fluctuations of rock properties was reported
by Law [74]. He demonstrated that porosity has anormal frequency distribution and that
permeability has a log-normal frequency distribution. Using Figure .57, Zahaf and Taib and
Schmalz and Rahme proposed the Lorenz coefficient, LK, for characterizing the permeability
distribution [69,75]:

Area ABCA
Lk =
Area ADCA

The value of LK ranges from zero to one. The reservoir is considered to have a uniform
permeability distribution if LK = 0. The reservoir is considered to be completely heterogeneous
1
if LK = 1. This coefficient, however, is not unique to a particular reservoir because different
permeability distributions can yield the same value of LK.

The Lorenz coefficient is calculated as follows:

(1) Tabulate thickness h, permeability k, and porosity φ
(2) Arrange permeability data in a descending order
(3) Calculate the cumulative permeability capacity
⅀(kh)i and cumulative capacity volume ⅀(φh)i
(4) Calculate the normalized cumulative capacities Ck=
⅀(kh)i/⅀(kh)t and Cφ=⅀(φh)i/⅀(φh)t
(5) Plot Ck versus Cφ on a Cartesian graph as shown in Figure 3.57
(6) Use Eq. (3.112) to calculate the Lorenz coefficient

Dykstra-Parsons coefficient Vk
Dykstra and Parsons used the log-normal distribution of permeability to define the coefficient of
permeability variation, Vk
s
V k=
k̄ (1)

2
where s and k̄ are the standard deviation and the mean value of k, respectively. The standard
deviation of a group of n data points is:

( k i −k̄ )2
s=
√ n (2)

where k̄ is the arithmetic average of permeability, n the total number of data points, and ki the
permeability of individual core samples.
The Dykstra-Parsons coefficient of permeability variation, V k, can be obtained graphically by
plotting permeability values on log-probability paper, as shown in Fig. 1, and then using the
following equation:
k 50−k 84 . 1
V k=
k 50 (3)
where
k 50 = permeability value with 50% probability.

k 84.1 = permeability at 84.1% of the cumulative sample..

The Dykstra-Parsons coefficient is an excellent tool for characterizing the degree of reservoir
heterogeneity. The term Vk is also called the Reservoir Heterogeneity Index (RHI).
The range of this index is 0 < Vk < 1 as state by this table

RHI index Reservoir status

0 Ideal homogenous
0 < Vk < 0.25 Slightly heterogeneous
0.25 < Vk < 0.50 Heterogeneous
0.50 < Vk < 0.75 Very heterogeneous
0.75 < Vk < 0.1 Extremely heterogeneous
1 Perfectly heterogeneous

The procedure for graphically determining the Dykstra-Parsons coefficient is as follows:

a) Arrange permeability data in descending order

3
b) Determine the frequency of each permeability value
c) Find the number o sample with larger probability.
d) Calculate the cumulative probability distribution by dividing values obtained in step C with
the total number of permeability points, n (number of values of permeability)
e) Plot permeability data versus cumulative frequency data (step D) on a log-normal
probability graph.
f) Draw the best straight line through the data, with more weight placed on points in the central
portion where the cumulative frequency is close to 50%. This straight line reflects a
quantitative, as well as a qualitative, measure of the heterogeneity of the reservoir rock.

EXAMPLE:
For the following permeability data, calculate RHI and estimate the reservoir status.

4
SOLUTION
Make table like this
Interval k, md frequency Number of samples with larger Cumulative frequency
permeability distribution (% > ki)
2 213 1 0 0.0
5 and 13 212 2 1 7.1
9 210 1 3 21.4
4 200 1 4 28.6
8 198 1 5 35.7
3 180 1 6 42.9
6 165 1 7 50.0
7 145 1 8 57.1
10 143 1 9 64.3
1 120 1 10 71.4
12 118 1 11 78.6
14 117 1 12 85.7
11 79 1 13 92.9

Plot column 2 against column 5 on log-normal probability sheet, and extend the best line through
the points.

5
From the graph, read the values k50 = 158.7 mD and k84.1 = 117.2 mD. Then estimate the RHI
form equation 3. The result is 0.26 and according to this value the formation is slightly
heterogeneous, but is can be treated as homogeneous for reservoir simulation purposes.

Averaging Techniques
There are three standard techniques used to estimate the average permeability of a reservoir:
arithmetic, geometric, and harmonic.

(a) Arithmetic average: The unweighted arithmetic average permeability k̄ is determined

from:
Ḱ A =∑ Ki /n
If the analysis of pressure transient tests yields much lower permeability values than those
obtained from core data, the lateral continuity of the producing formation may not be sufficient
to justify the arithmetic averaging.
(b) Geometric average: In heterogeneous and anisotropic formations, a geometric average,
which assumes random distribution of the matrix, is preferable:
Ḱ G =√n k 1 k 2k 3 … … kn
According to Warren and Price, the geometric mean permeability is more consistent with the
distribution found in many porous rocks [72].The main weakness of the geometric mean is if one
individual value of k is zero, the entire average becomes zero. To avoid this zeroing effect in
reservoir simulation, a relatively small value is assigned to the block that has zero permeability.
It should be noted that even shale has permeability in the order of 10−7 mD.
(c) Harmonic average: The harmonic averaging technique is best suited for layers in series such
as in composite systems. This technique is extensively used in reservoir simulation studies where
different grid cells are in series.
n
n
Ḱ H =
∑ ( ki1 )
i=1

EFFECTIVE PERMEABILITY FROM CORE DATA

The effective permeability, obtained from core data, may be estimated from [82,83]:

6
k e =(1+σ 2k /6)exp ⁡{k −¿ }¿
G

−¿¿
where k G is the geometric mean of the natural log of permeability, i.e.:
k −¿¿ n
G = √ LnK 1 , LnK 2 , LnK 3 … … LnKn

and σ 2k is the variance of the natural log of the permeability estimates:

n
2
σ =∑ ¿ ¿
k
i=1

where
lnk −¿=∑ ln k / n ¿
i

Example
Given the permeability data in Table 3.16 [83] for well HBK5, calculate:
1. The arithmetic, geometric and harmonic averages of the core-derived permeability Values
2. The effective permeability.
3. The Dykstra-Parsons coefficient.

7
Solution
(1) Average values of permeability
The arithmetic, geometric, and harmonic averages of the core-derived permeability values are,
respectively:
Ḱ A =∑ Ki /n= ( 120+213+……+117)/14=165 mD

Ḱ G =√n k 1 k 2k 3 … … kn= 14√ 120∗213∗… .∗117=158.7 mD

n
n
Ḱ H = = 14/(1/120)+(1/213)+……+(1/117)= 151.4mD
∑ ( ki1 )
i=1

difference between the three averages is not significant, implying that the formation is essentially
homogeneous.
(2) The effective permeability of this 14-m thick formation is estimated from Equation
(3.124).From Equation (3.125), we calculate the geometric mean of the natural log of the core-
derived permeability values:

k −¿¿ n
G = √ LnK 1 , LnK 2 , LnK 3 … … LnKn = (7.173*10^9)^1/14=5.058 mD

To calculate the variance σ 2k we need to use Equations (3.126) and (3.127) (Table 3.17):

lnk −¿=∑ ln k / n ¿=70.938/14=5.067 Md

i

n
σ 2k =∑ ¿ ¿ = 1.2171/(14-1)=0.093623
i=1

The arithmetic average of the natural log of the 14 permeability values is practically equal to the
geometric mean of the same permeability values. This further indicates that this particular
formation is practically homogeneous. Using the geometric mean of the natural log of k values,
the effective permeability is:
k e =(1+σ 2k /6)exp ⁡{k −¿ }¿
G = (1+(0.093623/6)) exp(5.067)= 161.17 Md

8
The effective permeability is essentially equal to the geometric mean of core-derived
permeability data. This should be expected, since the variance is very small.

9
(3) The Dykstra-Parsons coefficient is obtained from Equation (3.115a)–(3.115d). The procedure
for graphically determining the Dykstra-Parsons coefficient is as follows:
(a) Arrange permeability data in descending order as shown in Column 2 of Table 3.18.
(b) Determine the frequency of each permeability value (Column 3).
(c) Find the number of samples with larger permeability (Column 4).
(d) Calculate the cumulative frequency distribution by dividing values in Column 4 with the total
number of permeability points, n, which is 14 in this example (Column 5).
(e) Plot permeability data (Column 2) versus cumulative frequency data (Column 5) on a log-
normal probability graph, as shown in Figure 3.49.
(f) Draw the best straight line through the data, with more weight placed on points in the central
portion where the cumulative frequency is close to 50%. This straight line reflects a quantitative,
as well as a qualitative, measure of the heterogeneity of the reservoir rock.
(g) From the graph (Figure 3.63), read the values:
k50=158.7 mD and k84.1=117.2 mD. These values can also be
interpolated from Table 3.18.
(h) Calculate the Dykstra-Parsons coefficient (Equation (3.115a)–(3.115d):

10
Example
The values of permeability, porosity, and formation thickness shown in Table 3.14 were obtained
from several cored wells:
1. Calculate the Lorenz (LK) and Dykstra_Parsons (VK) coefficients.
2. Use the normalized cumulative to find the number of flow units.

Thickness
Porosity Perm
0.179 472 1
0.155 398 3
0.151 266 2
0.165 178 1
0.158 161 1
0.169 121 1
0.156 121 1
0.178 115 1
0.147 112 1
0.219 100 1
0.185 100 1
0.178 100 1
0.147 91 1
0.153 86 1
0.147 77 1
0.132 67 1
0.167 63 1
0.169 60 1
0.124 60 1
0.159 60 1
0.128 55 1
0.167 52 1
0.162 47 1
0.225 44 1
0.164 43 1
0.132 41 1
0.15 36 1

11
 0.189 28 1

12
 Log-Normal probability paper

13