Reducing the Uncertainty of Static Reservoir Model in a Carbonate Platform, through the

Implementation of an Integrated Workflow: Case A-Field, Abu Dhabi, UAE*

Kevin M. Torres1, Noor F. Al Hashmi1, Ismail A. Al Hosani1, Ali S. Al Rawahi1, and Humberto Parra2

Search and Discovery Article #20370 (2016)**

Posted October 31, 2016

*Adapted from oral presentation given at GEO 2016, 12th Middle East Geosciences Conference & Exhibition, Manama, Bahrain, March 7-10, 2016
**Datapages © 2016. Serial rights given by author. For all other rights contact author directly.

1
ADCO, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates (kevint@adco.ae)
2
ADNOC, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates

Abstract

Predicting the spatial distribution of petrophysical properties within heterogeneous reservoirs is affected by significant
uncertainties when based only on well information. However, integrating additional constraints, such as 3D seismic data and
sedimentary concepts, can significantly improve the accuracy of reservoir models and help reduce uncertainties on predictions
away from wells.

The aim of this study is to build a reliable 3D geological static model using petrographic and sedimentary reports and current
understanding of the sedimentary conceptual model for the field. These core interpretations provide a clear description of the
facies architecture across the A-Field, serve as excellent reference during seismic stratigraphy interpretations, and lead into a
more geological distribution of the petrophysical properties in the reservoir through the facies models.

In the area of interest, Reservoir 1 is dominated by skeletal peloidal packstone with common thin, interbedded good-reservoir-
quality rudstone and algal unit in the upper part of the reservoir. Reservoir 2, on the other hand is dominated by foraminiferal
algal peloidal packstones with thin units of floatstone.

An integrated approach for facies modeling was implemented in order to generate stochastic models of the facies associations
capable of reproducing the natural transition through the sequences. This method was adopted to model the high-resolution
prograding pulses in the carbonate platform that were interpreted through cores description and facies association for both
reservoirs.

The final 3D sedimentary-stratigraphic architecture is used as the main constraint to model the petrophysical properties for each
reservoir. Under this approach, these models can account for the varying spatial continuity of reservoir properties honoring the
different sedimentary facies. Facies-based property models preserve the facies- specific statistical distribution of the property, as
well as its depositional direction. The facies-based, 3D petrophysical models provide an improved prediction of petrophysical
properties distribution and reservoir heterogeneity. The permeability simulation based on facies and the cloud transform between
porosity and permeability allows better control across the reservoir of spatial connectivity patterns that could be used for
improved reservoir performance prediction as carried out in the present static model.
 Reducing the Uncertainty of Static Reservoir Model in a
Carbonate Platform, through the Implementation of an Integrated
Workflow: Case A-Field, Abu Dhabi, UAE
K.M. Torres, N.F. Al Hashmi, I.A. Al Hosani, A.S. Al Rawahi, H. Parra
 Presentation Outline
1. Objective
2. Definition of Geological and Geophysical Uncertainties
3. Geological Static Model (Base Case)
a. Structural Framework
b. Facies Modeling
c. Petrophysical Modeling
4. Modeling Uncertainties in Realizations
5. Sensitivity Analysis
6. Conclusions
 1. Objective

• Implementation of an Integrated Workflow in order to reduce

the Uncertainty of Static Reservoir Model in a Carbonate
Platform.
 Overview
Field A
Development area of 8.5 x 4 km
• Ø (%): R1: 18 - 27

R2: 15 - 18

• K (mD): R1: 25 - 70

R2: 5 - 10

• Thick (ft.): R1: 150

R2: 20

Slightly elongated low-relief structure with a NNE-SSW trend located between two giant fields.
 2. Definition of geological and geophysical uncertainties
Fishbone Diagram Workflow

Structural Framework Porosity Modeling Saturation Modeling

Azimuth

Petrophysical Geostatistic Variogram

Interpretation Probability Analysis Ranges
Distribution
Fluid Contact Azimuth
Isochore
Thickness Anisotropy
MDT
Geostatistic Variogram
Analysis Ranges
Velocity Model Probability
Distribution
Anisotropy
CCA
Seismic Picks

UNCERTAINTY
Depositional
Association Well Test

Facies
Azimuth Probability Distribution
Association

Variogram Geostatistic
Analysis Azimuth
Ranges CCA

Geostatistic Analysis Variogram

Anisotropy Facies Ranges
Proportion

Anisotropy
Permeability
Facies Modeling Modeling

“Is impossible to work with all variables in all processes related with all uncertainty analysis…”
 3. Geological Static Model
Workflow

3. Sedimentological &
2. Structural Model Stratigraphic Study
4. Facies Model

1. Well Core Data 5. Porosity Model

8. Sw Model
7. RRT Model 6. Permeability Model
Z-values: TZ_PG_B_G
0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.2 0.24 0.28 0.32 0.36
5000

5000

NA
TZB_1
1000

1000

TZB_2
TZB_3
500

500

TZB_4
TZB_5
TZB_6
100

100

TZB_7
TZG_1
50

50

TZG_2
TZG_3
CKH, [mD]
10

10
5

5
1

1
0.5

0.5
0.1

0.1
0.05

0.05
0.01

0.01

0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.2 0.24 0.28 0.32 0.36

Symbol legend
Phie, [ft3/ft3]
Kh vs Phie
Phie vs. CKH vs. T Z_PG_B_G (All cells)
R35 = 28 Country Model name
R35 = 7 United Arab Emirates 2014 BQ Geomodel
R35 = 4 Block Scale
Bida Al Qemzan 1:50000
R35 = 2
License Date
ADCO 02/02/2015
 00
0
0

2634000
732000
Residual Stochastic Map
734000 736000 738000 740000

3.a. Structural Uncertainty

0
0

Stochastic Surfaces (Uncertainty during seismic Interpretation)

2636000

2632000
Step I: Residual Stochastic Gaussian Map
00
0
• Zero value in wells (mean = 0 and std = 1)

2634000
• Varies smoothly with increasing distance from the wells

0
2630000
0
• Variations depend on the quality of seismic
0

2632000
• Velocity Model
• Interpretation Pick
0

2628000
• Isochore Thickness

0
0
2630000
0 0

0 Step II: Run a certain number of realizations, adding the residual Gaussian
2628000
0

0
2626000
0
20.00 map with the base case map in each equi-probable realization.
15.00
0

0
2626000

10.00
20.00

15.00
5.00
0

2624000

Maximum
10.00 Uncertainty
0

0.00
5.00
2624000
0

-5.00
0.00 Realistic
Realizations with
-5.00
-10.00 Limited correlation
0

-10.00 Length
0

2622000

-15.00 Well
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000m
2622000

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000m -15.00 Position

1:80000
-20.00
-20.00 Base
1:80000
Case
732000 734000 736000 738000 740000
734000 736000 738000 740000
 732000 734000 736000 738000 740000 742000 -86
00

Structural Closures -8600

B’
-85
80
3.a. Structural Uncertainty
Structural Closures and Fluid Contacts

2636000
-86
00
-8600

-8
MDT, Fluid Test and Sw Log Interpretation

58
0
80 B B’ A-7

2634000
-85

B
xx

2632000
-85
80 xx
-8580
OWC 86
00
xx
xx
-86
-

00 xx
xx
xx
Northern Structural xx

2630000
xx
Culmination xx
-858

xx
00
-86

xx
xx
0
54

xx
-8

xx
0
-856

2628000
xx
xx
-8
60

xx
0
60

A A’
xx
-85

-8540
xx
xx
xx
B Field A Field
2626000

xx
xx
xx

A’
-85
40

OWC Log and MDT Interpretation showed FWL which was also
2624000
0
-860

-86

-8
58
0
00

Southern Structural supported by fluid sampling.

Closure
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000m Through Seismic Interpretation lateral uncertainty was reduced
A
2622000

1:80000
and vertically through petrophysical and well test evaluations.
732000 734000 736000 738000 -8
58 740000 742000
0

0
56
 3.b. Facies Modeling
Facies, Facies Association, Depositional Environment
Facies Association
Sub Environments Facies Petrel
Main Subordinates

Inner Shoal SPP (3) OSPr (9), SPG (4) Inner Shoal (3)

RPR (1), RPF (2), SPP (3), CgASR

Shoal CgSG (5), SPG (4) Shoal_R (4, 5)
(6)

SPP (3), SPG (4), CgSG (5),

Sedimentary Interpretation Shoal-Upper Ramp RPR (1), RPF (2)
CgASR (6), ASPF (7), ASFB (8)
Shoal-Upper Ramp (1, 2)

RPR (1), RPF (2), CgSG (5), ASPF

Upper Ramp SPP 3), ASPFR (7), CsASR (6) Upper Ramp (3, 6, 7)
(8), OSP (9), SPWP (10)

Facies Association
OSP (9), SPWP (10), OSW
FA Proportion Middle Ramp
(11), SW (12)
ASPF (7), ASFB (8) Middle Ramp (10, 11, 12)

FA Maps
• The depositional trend.
Shoal

6%
Upper Ramp

27%
• Boundary of facies.
• Estimate and propose fluid flow
Dominated by SPP with common
trend.
thin interbedded of good reservoir
• As a guidance to define layer cake /
grainstones and rudstones mainly
clinoform structures, etc.
in the upper section. Middle Ramp

67%
MWPGB Inner Shoal Middle Ramp Depositional sedimentary trend is used as
guidance during 3D modeling
Facies Description Shoal_R Upper Ramp

Shoal-Upper Ramp
Distribution 3.b. Facies Modeling
3D Model Algorithm - Intersection
Vertical Proportion Curve
Truncated Gaussian with Trends

Variograms Progradation 3
A-15

A-17
Progradation 2
A-13 A-16

A-21 Progradation 1
Histogram shows good relationship
between upscaled and log data. Basinward
Southeast
Variograms were defined to know the
spatial relationship between wells.
VPC avoids vertical stationary
distribution.

Yet distribution is skewed
towards lower values due
to shoulder effect with
Non-Reservoir Zone
(Dense)
3.d. Petrophysical Modeling
Porosity Model
Most values around input
mean, standard deviation
and distribution
Understand how to perform data analysis to
prepare the input for petrophysical modeling

6000 6100 6200 6300 6400 6500 6600 6700 6800 6900 7000 7100 7200 7300 7400 7500 7600 7700 7800

-8540

-8540
-8560

-8560
Shoulder mean
Effect
Dense Zone std std

-8580

-8580
-8600

-8600
Porosity [ft3/ft3]

There are two important 0.2500

sources of porosity 0.2000

-8620

-8620
uncertainty. The first is related 0.1500

0.1000

to logging tool measurement,

-8640

-8640
0.0500

processing and interpretation. 6000

0.0000

6100 6200 6300 6400 6500 6600 6700 6800 6900 7000 7100 7200 7300 7400 7500 7600 7700 7800

The second is related to

upscaling from logs to 3D
model.
1. Neural Network Estimation Model
3.e. Petrophysical Modeling
Permeability Model
2. Calibration 3D Permeability Model from Well Testing
A Field

A-11
A-15 High values
A-16
achieved
A-12
A-13
A-14
Test Type Date K KH
Logs used during
Train Estimation Model DST 6-Sep-75 169 2200

Resistivity Model 167 2214

Sonic
Gamma Ray Permeability
Neutron Porosity Rhob (Well Test)
NPHI
Density Resist DT
Phie Perm
Test Type Date K KH

Two main objectives: DST 4-Sep-75 318 1935

1. Reduce uncertainty through the calibration of the Permeability
Permeability log, using two different sources. (RCA) Model 324 1967
2. Involve more wells as input data before K modeling
(15 wells instead of 6 cored wells).
 3.f. Petrophysical Modeling
RRT Model
Z-values: TZ_PG_B_G
0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.2 0.24 0.28 0.32 0.36

5000

5000
NA
TZB_1

1000

1000
TZB_2
TZB_3

500

500
PGs
TZB_4
TZB_5
TZB_6

100

100
TZB_7
TZG_1

50

50
TZG_2
TZG_3

Best

CKH, [mD]
10

10
5

5
1

1
0.5

0.5
0.1

0.1
0.05

0.05
Z-values: TZ_PG_B_G
0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.2 0.24 0.28 0.32 0.36

5000

5000
NA
TZB_1

1000

1000
TZB_2

0.01

0.01
TZB_3

500

500
TZB_4
TZB_5
TZB_6

100

100
TZB_7
0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.2 0.24 TZG_1 0.28 0.32 0.36

50

50
TZG_2

Symbol legend
Phie, [ft3/ft3] TZG_3

Kh vs Phie

CKH, [mD]
10

10
Phie vs. CKH vs. T Z_PG_B_G (All cells)

5
R35 = 28 Country Model name
R35 = 7 United Arab Emirates 2014 BQ Geomodel

1
R35 = 4 Block Scale

0.5

0.5
Bida Al Qemzan 1:50000
R35 = 2
License Date

0.1

0.1
ADCO 02/02/2015

0.05

0.05
0.01

0.01
0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.2 0.24 0.28 0.32 0.36

Symbol legend
Phie, [ft3/ft3]
Kh vs Phie
Phie vs. CKH vs. T Z_PG_B_G (Upscaled)
Country Model name

Worst
R35 = 28
United Arab Emirates 2014 BQ Geomodel
R35 = 7
R35 = 4 Block Scale
Bida Al Qemzan 1:50000
R35 = 2
License Date
ADCO 02/02/2015
 3.f. Petrophysical Modeling
4.4 Km 2.5 Km 5.0 Km RRT - Intersection
S N

Good continuity of best RRT in the upper section and poor RRT in the lower section.

1.5 Km 4.0 Km

W E PGs
N
Best

Transverse section shows how the best RRT is being degraded from RRT1 to RRT2 or 4 Worst S
(consistent with sedimentological interpretation and petrophysical evaluations).
 G 02" 12th Middle East Geosciences Conference and Exhibition

ItAFWL (ttl YI. Eq uiv Brine ... t. (f .... c! Norrna,j",d Data <s. Pore Th root Size
3.g. Petrophysical Modeling
SW Model
"
_ / 1
-/ )- 111 I

'U ......
(,
K
<

-
l I .. I
JvsSw
I
Z-values: TZ_PG_B_G
0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.2 0.24 0.28 0.32 0.36
5000

5000

NA

!.
TZB_1

'L
1000

1000

TZB_2
TZB_3

,
500

500

r
TZB_4
TZB_5
TZB_6
100

100

TZB_7

l,
, ~~~~r:- t
TZG_1
50

50

TZG_2

-
. t
TZG_3

~,
CKH, [mD]

'\ )
10

10
5

I,
1

1
0.5

0.5

F I
t·
0.1

0.1
0.05

0.05

-
0.01

0.01

0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.2 0.24 0.28 0.32 0.36

Phie, [ft3/ft3]

,
Symbol legend
Kh vs Phie
Phie vs. CKH vs. TZ_PG_B_G (All cells)
Country Model name
R35 = 28
R35 = 7
R35 = 4
United Arab Emirates
Block
2014 BQ Geomodel
Scale
DJ] IJ 1.2 0.3 O.~ 0.5 IJ.6 0.7 0,8 U 1.0
Bida Al Qemzan 1:50000 "
R35 = 2
License Date
ADCO 02/02/2015

Water laturatio Sill fruticn

J
PC property assigned to Transverse section shows how the best RRT are being
degraded from RRT1.
 4. Modeling Uncertainties in Realizations
Uncertainty Variables, Distribution and Monte Carlo Simulation
95 variables were defined to run uncertainty model in:

Structural Framework, Facies, Porosity, Permeability , RRT, Sw Models.

500 Reservoirs 1 & 2 – STOOIP

realizations
(MM STB)
P90: 0.8 X
P50: X
P10: 1.3 X
 5. Sensitivity Model
Tornado Plot

Finally, OWC and SW Model mainly in Reservoir 1 has more

± 21 % influence in the changes of the volume.

± 20 % Sw ranges are between:

0.88X – 1.15X MMSTB
±4%
OWC in R-1 ranges are between:
±1% 0.9X – 1.1X MMSTB

<1% Phie Model ranges are between:

0.98X – 1.02X MMSTB
 6. Conclusions

• The main variables which interfere during each step were

identified.
• The uncertainty was modeled using the variables directly
related to the construction of the static model.
• Analysis was very well represented due to higher density of
wells at the crest of anticline.
• Additional seismic information was included in order to
reduce the uncertainty and find spill point and structural
closure in the northern and southern area of the field.
The authors would like to thank ADCO and ADNOC management for permission to
publish these work.