A new approach to improve reservoir modeling
via machine learning
Islam A. Mohamed1, Adel Othman2, and Mohamed Fathy2
Downloaded 08/01/20 to 125.70.254.71. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at https://library.seg.org/page/policies/terms
https://doi.org/10.1190/tle39030170.1
Abstract
In highly heterogeneous basins with complex subsurface
geology, such as the Nile Delta Basin, accurate prediction of
reservoir modeling has been a challenge. Reservoir modeling is
a continuous process that begins with field discovery and ends
with the last phases of production and abandonment. Currently,
the stochastic reservoir modeling method is widely used instead
of the traditional deterministic modeling method to consider
spatial statistics and uncertainties. However, the modeling work-
flow is demanding and slow, typically requiring months from the
initial model concept to flow simulation. In addition, errors from
early model stages become cumulative and are difficult to change
retroactively. To overcome these limitations, a new workflow is
proposed that implements probabilistic neural network inversion
to predict reservoir properties. First, well-log data were conditioned
properly to match the seismic data scale. Then, the networks were
trained and validated, using the conditioned well-log data and
DOI:10.1190/tle39030170.1
seismic internal/external attributes, to predict water saturation
and effective porosity 3D volumes. The resulting volumes were
sampled in simulation 3D grids and tested using a blind well test.
Subsequently, the permeability was calculated from a porosity-
permeability relationship inside the reservoir. Finally, a dynamic
simulation project of the field was performed in which the historical
field production and pressures were compared to the predicted
values. One of the Pliocene deepwater turbidite reservoirs in the
offshore Nile Delta was used to demonstrate the proposed
approach. The results proved the accuracy of the model in predict-
ing the reservoir properties and honoring the heterogeneity of
Figure 1. Steps of the conventional seismic-to-simulation workflow.
1
Rashid Petroleum Company (Rashpetco), Cairo, Egypt. E-mail: islam.ali@rashpetco.com.
2
Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt. E-mail: a3othman2@yahoo.com; green_geophysics@yahoo.com.
170 The Leading Edge March 2020 Special Section: Reservoir characterization Part II
the reservoir. The new approach represents a shortcut for the
seismic-to-simulation process, providing a reliable and fast way
of constructing a reservoir model and making the seismic-to-
simulation process easier.
Introduction
Reservoir simulation is simply the prediction of fluid flow
behavior in a particular reservoir over time. This process is essential
for estimating reserves, predicting future production, and making
decisions regarding field development. This requires having accu-
rate static and dynamic 3D models of the reservoirs that reflect
the original well logs, seismic data, and production history.
In the static case, the model represents the physical space of
the reservoir by an array of discrete cells, delineated by a 3D grid.
Each cell has specific values of the reservoir properties, i.e.,
porosity, permeability, and water saturation (Sw), outlining the
3D distribution of the reservoir (Tyson, 2007). The conventional
reservoir modeling workflow, however, is a complicated and
demanding process. After gathering and conditioning of the input
data set, we must build a structural framework and design a 3D
grid. Then, we have to distribute the facies and petrophysical
properties in a geologically reasonable manner, run different
scenarios, and perform uncertainty analysis. After that, we design
a simulation grid to simulate the flow of fluids within the reservoir
over its production lifetime. The final step is the model optimiza-
tion and production history matching (Figure 1).
Although this is a widely used and standard workflow for
most oil companies, it suffers from three main problems. First
 is the demanding nature of the workflow. Building a robust
reservoir model requires many inputs. As an example, we need
accurately interpreted horizons and faults. Also, we need many
Downloaded 08/01/20 to 125.70.254.71. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at https://library.seg.org/page/policies/terms
equally distributed wells to represent the reservoir heterogeneity
via the geostatistics. A low number of inputs likely will produce
a poor model. The second problem is the cumulative error prob-
lem. This means that early-stage errors become cumulative and
are difficult to change retroactively. It is even more difficult to
define where exactly the error is coming from when the final
model is not consistent with the production data. The third
problem is slowness. This workflow requires months from the
initial conceptual model to the flow simulation, and in addition
there is the extra time spent fixing the model to better tie the
production profile.
To overcome these problems, we have designed a new workflow
that implements the probabilistic neural network (PNN) to predict
reservoir properties. These properties are mainly S w and effective
porosity (ϕ). The resulting volumes were sampled in simulation
3D grids and tested using a blind well test. Subsequently, the
permeability is calculated from the porosity-permeability relation-
ship inside the reservoir. After the initial history match process,
PNN parameters were adjusted to improve the match. The final
model represents the best match to original field measurements
and production data (Figure 2).
DOI:10.1190/tle39030170.1
Compared with the conventional workflow, this workflow has
four main advantages: (1) it does not require many inputs; (2) it
is short and direct; (3) it mitigates the cumulative error problem
and decreases the statistical uncertainties; and (4) it is fast, reducing
reservoir modeling time by 80% (taking two weeks instead of 10).
Geologic setting
The Sequoia Field is one of the Pliocene gas fields in the
offshore Nile Delta, Egypt. It is located on the western side of
the West Delta Deep Marine (WDDM) and Rosetta concessions
to the north and south, respectively, and about 50 km from the
Figure 2. The proposed new approach that implements the PNN to predict the
reservoir properties. The new workflow represents a reliable shortcut that mitigates
the cumulative error problem and reduces the modeling time by 80%–90%.
Special Section: Reservoir characterization Part II
present-day shoreline (Figure 3). The field was discovered in 2000
based on seismic amplitude anomalies (bright/flat spots) and
encountered gas-bearing sands in a slope canyon setting.
Subsequently, the first exploration well was followed by another
three appraisal wells (2000–2002). The field was sanctioned in
2008, and six development wells were drilled as a result, three in
each sector (i.e., north and south) and tied back to existing facilities
(2008–2009). Production started in August 2009, and the cumula-
tive gas production reached approximately 662 billion cubic feet.
The Sequoia Field is a submarine slope canyon system that
consists of multistacked channel systems associated with gravity-
driven sediment transport (turbiditic) deposits (Cross et al., 2009).
This channel complex runs from south to north and starts narrow
(5 km wide) but broadens to more than 20 km wide in the north
with many branches (Figure 4). The field gets its name due to a
similarity in shape to a type of giant redwood tree that grows in
California. The total length is more than 30 km.
The reservoir inside the canyon consists of a succession of
sandstones and mudstones formed by many stacked channels,
organized into a composite upward-fining profile. Those channels
are different in shape and behavior and include laterally amalgam-
ated channels, sinuous channels, channels with frontal splays,
and leveed channels. Following the work of Cross et al. (2009)
and the application of seismic variance and spectral decomposition
on 3D seismic data presented by Mohamed et al. (2017), we are
able to map and understand the geometry of the incised channels.
Figure 3. (a) Bathymetric map of the eastern Mediterranean region. (b) Index
map showing location of the Sequoia Field in the WDDM concession offshore Nile
Delta, Egypt. Upper Pliocene gas fields are in gray, and Sequoia Field is in orange.
Modified from Mohamed et al. (2019).
March 2020 The Leading Edge 171
 The Sequoia story started with the initial erosion of the channel the trained network to the 3D seismic and inversion volumes to
(stage I), followed by the deposition of several laterally amalgam- predict the target reservoir property.
ated channels (stage II), then another deposition of sinuous chan- Practically, we have used the following data as an input for this
Downloaded 08/01/20 to 125.70.254.71. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at https://library.seg.org/page/policies/terms

nels with aggradational stacking patterns (stage III). The next study: a seismic full-stack prestack depth migration volume acquired
cycle was characterized by channels with frontal splays and leveed in 2006 and reprocessed in 2014 with a record duration of 6 s and
overbank (stage IV). Finally, the channel system is abandoned sampled at 4 ms. We also have used the available in-house prestack
during mudstone deposition (stage V) and buried by prograding seismic inverted volumes — P-impedance, S-impedance, P-wave
sand sheets (stage VI). All of these channels are stacked to form velocity, S-wave velocity, VP /VS ratio, lambda-rho, and mu-rho
a thick reservoir that is approximately 200 m in gross thickness volumes. The interpretation data include structural maps (channel
and 77 m of pay gas sand. The average nonshale porosity is 24%, top, gas base, and channel base), fault sticks, and fault polygons.
and the average Sw is 34%. Eight wells were used in the study. These wells are sorted
into exploration (Sapphire-2 and Rosetta-10) and development
Methodology wells (Sequoia-D1, -D2, -D3, -D4, -D5, and -D6). One of these
Many machine learning algorithms have proved their validity
and show significant accuracy in predicting various reservoir
properties. The PNN is one of these algorithms. The PNN can
be used either for classification or for reservoir properties predic-
tion. In the prediction mode, the algorithm trains a neural network,
utilizing the information from multiple wells and seismic data,
to predict the reservoir properties away from the well control. The
procedure involves three main steps — finding the best set of
attributes via multilinear regression technique, network training,
and validation.
In the first step, we use the technique of multilinear regression
DOI:10.1190/tle39030170.1

to find the set of attributes that most effectively estimates the target
reservoir property, i.e., the set of attributes that will predict a given
reservoir parameter with the lowest prediction error. For this step,
we use the prestack inversion volumes as external attributes besides
the seismic-derived (internal) attributes. The seismic-derived attri-
butes are grouped into instantaneous, windowed frequency, filter
slice, derivative, integrated, and time attributes. Moreover, all of
the attributes are increased by applying nonlinear transforms — Figure 4. Root-mean-square amplitude map over Sequoia Field overlaying
natural log, exponential, square, inverse, and square root (Mohamed variance slices extracted at the base of channels. Seven wells were used in
et al., 2017). We try all of these attributes and then determine this study, and one was kept as a quality control blind well.
statistically the best order and num-
ber of attributes that give the lowest
prediction error and save them for
the subsequent network training.
In the second step, the PNN
algorithm trains the network. It uses
Gaussian weighting functions to fit
the seismic attributes to the training
reservoir property samples. Each
mean of these functions is centered
at each training sample, and the
algorithm optimizes the standard
deviation or the smoothness param-
eter, sigma, for each attribute. Those
sigma values are determined auto-
matically by the cross-validation
method. In the validation step,
performed simultaneously with the
training, we remove part of the well
data (one-third of the wells) from Figure 5. Cross sections through the blind well location (Sequoia-D5) show results of the PNN method. S with actual
w
the training stage and try to predict Sw log is shown at top, and ϕ with the actual ϕ log across the reservoir interval is shown at bottom. Figure 4 shows the
these wells blindly. Finally, we apply location of this line.

172 The Leading Edge March 2020 Special Section: Reservoir characterization Part II
Downloaded 08/01/20 to 125.70.254.71. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at https://library.seg.org/page/policies/terms
Figure 6. Cross sections show the resampling of (a) ϕ and (b) Sw in the simulation 3D grid for the dynamic simulation process. Some details were lost during this
process, and to make up for that, we had to use multipliers at the final stage.
DOI:10.1190/tle39030170.1
Figure 7. (a) The porosity-permeability relationship. Permeability values from the
linear trend are overestimated at the low porosity values. (b) Permeability values
were calculated from the porosity using a third-order polynomial equation.
wells, Sequoia-D5, was kept as a blind quality control well
(Figure 4). The S w and ϕ logs for these wells were provided by
an in-house petrophysicist.
We have applied the same PNN procedure that was proposed
by Mohamed et al. (2017), using Hampson-Russell software, to
predict Sw and ϕ in two different separate runs using different sets
of attributes. First, we filtered, resampled, and smoothed the logs
to match the seismic data vertical scale (4 ms). Second, we trained
the network using the conditioned well-log data and seismic internal/
external attributes. Simultaneously, we validated the network by
hiding some of the wells and predicted them using the trained
network. The input attributes for Sw prediction were: 1/inverted
Special Section: Reservoir characterization Part II
VP /VS ratio, inverted VS , square root of inverted VP, frequency filter
5/10–15/20, amplitude weighted phase, and cosine instantaneous
phase, respectively. The input attributes for ϕ prediction are
1/inverted VP /VS ratio, the square of lambda-rho, the logarithm of
mu-rho, two-way time, and frequency filter 5/10–15/20.
After training and validation of the networks, we applied the
trained neural networks to the 3D seismic data volume to generate
3D volumes. The PNN shows outstanding results in the prediction
of S w and ϕ, the average correlations with actual logs were 0.90
and 0.94, respectively. Figure 5 shows the resulting Sw and ϕ
sections through the blind well location. The normalized correla-
tions with the actual logs for the blind well were 0.86 for the S w
and 0.81 for the ϕ.
It is easy to note the high level of detail in the resulting
volumes and the lateral continuity inside the reservoir. This degree
of resolution is required in estimating flow continuity and barriers
in the dynamic simulation model. The simulation 3D grid was
designed in conjunction with the reservoir engineer. The grid
was designed to cover the main channel complex and also include
the faults. For practicality, it should be a coarse grid that is
100 × 100 m instead of the original seismic cell dimensions
(25 × 25 m). The average cell thickness was 1.5 m, and the layers
are proportional inside the reservoir. Both Sw and ϕ were upscaled
using the arithmetic averaging method in the simulation grid.
Figure 6 shows the results before and after the upscaling
process. Some details were lost during this process. To make up
for that, we had to use pore volume and permeability multipliers
at the final stage, but before that, we created the permeability
volume using the porosity-permeability relationship that is
coming from the special core analysis and the well test data. As
shown in Figure 7a, the relationship between porosity and
permeability could be expressed either by a linear or polynomial
trend. It has been observed that the permeability values from
March 2020 The Leading Edge 173
Downloaded 08/01/20 to 125.70.254.71. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at https://library.seg.org/page/policies/terms
DOI:10.1190/tle39030170.1

Figure 8. (a) Saturation at one of the training wells location and the corresponding production history versus the model’s prediction for (b) the conventional model versus
(c) the PNN model. The observed gas production is represented by red circles, while the predicted gas production from the model is the red line. Bottom hole pressure
is represented by black circles, while the pressure prediction is the black line. The actual water production (blue circles) has no equivalent prediction from the model
because this run was dedicated to gas production only.

the linear trend are overestimated at the low porosity values.
Hence, we chose to apply the polynomial equation. The result
is shown in Figure 7b.
Results
To measure the quality of the model, we have kept one of
the wells (Sequoia-D5) aside from the study to be used as a blind
test. In the static case, the predicted reservoir properties (satura-
tion and porosity) were very close to the actual logs as shown
in Figure 5. However, the model should reflect the original well
logs, seismic data, and production history to be considered as a
“good model.” A dynamic simulation project of the field was
performed in which we compared the historical field production
and pressures to the predicted values in a history matching
process. The dynamic simulation results from the conventional
model and the proposed PNN model at one of the training wells
and at the blind well locations are shown in Figures 8 and 9,
respectively. The observed gas production (red circles) from the
well matches perfectly the predicted gas production from both
models (red lines). Also, the pressure forecasting (black lines)
generally matches the bottom hole pressure trend (black circles)
in both cases. However, the pressure predictions from the PNN
model look more accurate. The actual water production (blue
circles) has no equivalent prediction from the models because
these runs were dedicated to the gas production only.
Both simulation models show superb history matching and
tie the production data very well. However, the PNN model is
much more efficient and requires much less effort and time. The
high predictability of the PNN model can be attributed to its
ability to honor the heterogeneity of the reservoir and the accurate
prediction of the reservoir properties. Keeping in mind that the
accuracy of the PNN prediction is dependent on many factors
such as the well-log and seismic-amplitude data quality, any
imaging artifacts or poor illumination zones probably will cause
incorrect reservoir property predictions.
The final PNN model represents the best deterministic
match to original field measurements and production data.
Consequently, this model is a good base-case model. For the
low/high-case model, we may use the error percentiles from
the neural-network prediction processes. Otherwise, using the
geostatistical inversion probabilities as inputs for the PNN
instead of the deterministic inversion could give different sce-
narios to address the uncertainties.
Conclusions
In real life, where the reservoir can be developed and produced
only once and mistakes can be tragic and irrefragable, we need
an accurate reservoir that mimics the well logs, seismic data, and
production history. The conventional way of modeling is demand-
ing and slow, typically requiring months from the initial model

174 The Leading Edge March 2020 Special Section: Reservoir characterization Part II
Downloaded 08/01/20 to 125.70.254.71. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at https://library.seg.org/page/policies/terms
DOI:10.1190/tle39030170.1
Figure 9. (a) Saturation at the blind well location and the corresponding production history versus the model’s prediction for (b) the conventional model versus
(c) the PNN model. The observed gas production is represented by red circles, while the predicted gas production from the model is the red line. Bottom hole pressure
is represented by black circles, while the pressure prediction is the black line. The actual water production (blue circles) has no equivalent prediction from the model
because this run was dedicated to gas production only.
concept to flow simulation. In addition, errors from the early
model stages become cumulative and are difficult to change
retroactively. In this study, we propose a new approach that
implements the PNN to predict reservoir properties. The results
proved the accuracy of the model in predicting the reservoir
properties and honoring the heterogeneity of the reservoir. The
proposed workflow represents a shortcut for the seismic-to-
simulation process, providing a reliable and fast way of constructing
a reservoir model, which will in turn effectively enhance the
reserves estimation and production planning.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the Offshore Mediterranean Conference
2019 organizers and the Society of Petroleum Engineers Italian
Section for awarding this work first prize in the student paper contest,
PhD category. We thank Egyptian General Petroleum Corporation
and Rashid Petroleum Company (Rashpetco) for permission to
publish this study and for providing the data. We also thank Rashpetco
staff, especially Basem Khalaf and Ayman Shamsia, for their valuable
contribution to this study. Finally, we thank the anonymous reviewers
who helped improve the quality of this work.
Special Section: Reservoir characterization Part II
Data and materials availability
Data associated with this research are confidential and cannot
be released.
Corresponding author: islam.ali@rashpetco.com
References
Cross, N. E., A. Cunningham, R. J. Cook, A. Taha, E. Esmaie, and N.
El Swidan, 2009, Three-dimensional seismic geomorphology of a
deep-water slope-channel system: The Sequoia Field, offshore west
Nile Delta, Egypt: AAPG Bulletin, 93, no. 8, 1063–1086, https://
doi.org/10.1306/05040908101.
Mohamed, I., M. Hemdan, A. Hosny, and M. Rashidy, 2019, High-
resolution water-saturation prediction using geostatistical inversion
and neural network methods: Interpretation, 7, no. 2, T455–T465,
https://doi.org/10.1190/INT-2018-0153.1.
Mohamed, I., O. Shenkar, and H. Mahmoud, 2017, Understanding
reservoir heterogeneity through water saturation prediction via
neural network — A case study from offshore Nile Delta: The
Leading Edge, 36 , no. 4, 298–303, https://doi.org/10.1190/
tle36040298.1.
Tyson, S., 2007, An introduction to reservoir modeling: Pipers’ Ash Ltd.
March 2020 The Leading Edge 175