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

net/publication/331869395

KPI Based Standardizing Static Geomodeling Practices for QA and QC of Models

Conference Paper · January 2019

DOI: 10.2523/19123-MS

CITATIONS READS
0 395

6 authors, including:

Prashant Dhote
Kuwait Oil Company / University of Petroleum & Energy Studies
21 PUBLICATIONS   38 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Mantle Petrology View project

Numerical Geodynamic Modeling View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Prashant Dhote on 01 October 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

IPTC-19123-MS

KPI Based Standardizing Static Geomodeling Practices for QA and QC of

Models

Prashant Dhote, Talal Al-Adwani, Mohammad Al-Bahar, and Ahmad Al-Otaibi, Kuwait Oil Company; Subrata
Chakraborty and Slobodan Stojic, Schlumberger

Copyright 2019, International Petroleum Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the International Petroleum Technology Conference held in Beijing, China, 26 – 28 March 2019.

This paper was selected for presentation by an IPTC Programme Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s).
Contents of the paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the International Petroleum Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The
material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the International Petroleum Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
IPTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor Society Committees of IPTC. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial
purposes without the written consent of the International Petroleum Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of
not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented.
Write Librarian, IPTC, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax +1-972-952-9435.

Abstract
Subsurface petroleum industry is burdened with uncertainties in every aspect from exploration to production
due to limitations of accessibility to reservoir and technology. The most important tools used to understand,
quantify and mitigate the uncertainties are geostatistical static modeling and numerical dynamic simulation
geomodels. Geomodels are widely used in the industry for characterizing the reservoir and planning
favorable development strategy. It is vital instrument for maximizing asset value and optimize project
economics.
Static geomodels are foundation for all the advanced numerical and analytical solutions to solve the
intricacies of reservoir performance. At the same time, it is where all the static and dynamic geological
and engineering observations get integrated to develop common understanding of the reservoir for future
studies. Understanding of the above observations and imaging of reservoir framework by individual is the
basis for building static geomodels. Hence, at time, the process is highly subjective and proper QC'ing of the
models to achieve the general and specific modeling objectives becomes imperative. Simple Questionaries’
based QC'ing and ranking methodologies are also controlled by subjectivity and individual preferences.
In the present endeavor, quantitative ‘Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)’ based standard static
geomodeling practices and QC'ing methodologies at corporate level are developed in specially designed
"Process Implementation Project (PIP) – Hydrocarbon resource and Uncertainty Management"’ under the
aegis of ‘Kuwait Oil Company (KOC) - Reservoir Management Best Practices Steering Committee'.
The main objectives are to establish a practical modeling process, workflows and criteria to standardize
modeling processes. A structured self-guidling modeling document has been developed with self-
assemment guidelines and questionary. Finally, for each individual process a set of KPIs are specified as
minimum standard to meet to obtain the approval of static model.
The present efforts are important for any geologists, geomodelers and reservoir engineers dealing with
geostatistical and numerical reservoir modeling and will provide the KPI's based general practices for quality
assurance (QA) and QC'ing of the models.
Keywords: Static Modeling, Quantitative Assessment, KPI, QA, QC
2 IPTC-19123-MS

Introduction
Kuwait Oil Company (KOC) being national oil company with large portfolio of reservoirs regularly
builds many static models for different purposes. In the current climate of large numbers of projects,
ever shortening cycle times and increasing field complexity, there is a need for rigourous and agreed
Quality Control (QC) guidelines for reviewing static reservoir models1. Commercially available software
packages used to develop geocellular models are becoming increasingly user friendly. However, workflows
for data quality control, modelling procedures and evaluation of results are not always well established,
tempting inexperienced users to build 3D models without the necessary rigor. The economical and technical
implications of using 3D models on reservoir simulation studies, volumetrics, and field development, on
the other hand, are of paramount importance2. In today's industry, it is well recognized that one has to
embrace systematic methodological approach in all the stages of 3D model building to construct reliable
and predictable model based on specific objective of the 3D static model. Possible model objectives such
as listed below can have different modeling approaches and weighting KPI parameters.

• Short-term forecast,

• Well placement,

• Long-term field development plan,

• Reserves booking,

• Capital decision planning,

Individual teams in KOC based on their requirements define the model objectives. This paper deliberates
with the examples of the scheme devised for basic data flow, workflow and QA/QC (quality assurance
and quality control) practices to ensure the quality of the 3D model bulding in KOC. Almost all the topics
and workflows are covered in guidelines prepared for the purpose including data analysis, data density,
integration of disparate data types, framework modeling, incorporation of chrono-stratigraphic zonation,
fault and fracture modeling, deterministic and stochastic property modeling, quality control, uncertainty
analysis; upscaling, downscaling and visualization.
It is impractical to explain all the processes detailed in the guidelines (due to big size of the document)
which have been prepared for a standard integration modeling exercise and are focused on accuracy in
a general context of application. However, key concepts used for assureing the quality of the model are
presented here.
The main focus of the exercise was on high level static model building guidelines, workflow applied (best
practices), static modeling reviewing workflows suitable for exploration and asset teams and checklists and
criteria required (KPI) to approve static models. Standardizing geomodelling practices project objectives
was:

• To define Best Practice for Quality Assurance in reservoir Modeling

• To capture Guidelines to QA/QC Static Models

• To define KPI to measure conformance

• To help define a routine process for Quality Assurance Reviews of models

IPTC-19123-MS 3

Methodology
The scope of the project included establishment and generation of Geomodeling guidelines, workflows
and criteria that are required to assess suitability of Static models for Hydrocarbon (HC) resources and
uncertainty estimation for different purpose.
The main objectives are to establish a practical modeling process, workflows and criteria to standardize
modeling processes. These guidelines and workflows will help validate and approve static models.
Based on the model objectives such as short-term forecast, well placement, long-term field development
plan, reserves booking, capital decision planning, etc., different types of modeling strategies have been
considered; such as analytical, numerical, data-driven models or combination of these.
The guidelines and workflows are based on best practices and state-of-art in reservoir modeling activities
to ensure models reliability with minimum associated risks and uncertainties prior use for reserves booking
and, generating and optimizing field development plans.
These workflows and guidelines must ensure to achieve the company's oil and gas production target and
plateau sustainability, faster approval of reserves booking and field development plans to improve integrated
reservoir management process.
Four 3D static modeling projects (M1, M2, M3 and M4) and one field modeling report (R1) were
reviewed for understanding KOC internal processes and workflow such as;

• Purpose of the model

• Sequence of integration processes (building blocks)

• Maturity attributes (key attributes, approach used, status of completion)

• Writing summary note, etc.

Static Model Approval Process

Standard guidelines and procedures to approve static model to ensure hydrocarbon-in-place (Oil, Gas
and Condensate) volumes estimates based on proper structural framework, seismic interpretation and
attributes, stratigraphy, sedimentology facies analysis, lateral and vertical fluids distributions honoring the
thermodynamic and rock-fluid interaction models as well as geochemical model. Workflows, guidelines
and quality measures have been established for each of the following main tasks and model scopes:

• Structural Model (including seismic attributes)

• Stratigraphic Model

• Sedimentology Model

• Petrophysical Model

• Geostatistical model

• Estimation of Original hydrocarbon in-Place

• Uncertainty analysis

Deliverables
The major deliverable is ‘Geomodeling Standards Handbook’ comprising:

• Documented Static Modeling Processes and Guidelines

• Process to use of analog during model building

4 IPTC-19123-MS

• Process Workflows,

• Checklists

• Use Criteria required to approve static models

• Upscaling Method Selection criteria and process

Key performance indicators (KPIs) have been defined for each of the main tasks and for the entire static
model to measure the quality and robustness of them.

Structure of the Guidelines

The main goals of static modeling is to provide the operator with a numerical tool to quantify hydrocarbon
volumes in place and be used for dynamic simulation which will estimate future production and remaining
producible volumes, under a variety of development scenarios.
General Concepts. A study is a composed of a series of technical steps. From the highest level a modeling
project can be viewed as five major steps as presented in the Fig. 1.

Figure 1—Main steps in subsurface study (analysis and modeling)

The guidelines are only addressing the Static modeling. The guidelines do not cover:

• Data inventory and QC;

• Individual Technical Domain Analysis;

• Integrated Dynamic Modeling

• Field Development Planning in full.

The relevant aspects of the steps preceding or following Reservoir Static Modeling are mentioned in this
document to ensure the guidelines are set in context with sufficient detail to support their understanding
and implementation.
IPTC-19123-MS 5

Processes. Reservoir static modeling study is composed of several processes build in the workflow with
a goal to integrate domain analysis and relying on previous steps. These guidelines has covered, for each
static modeling process,

• An overview chapter defining the process, listing input processes and/or analysis, final result of
the processes and building blocks
• High level description chapter of building blocks with best practices and pros and cons for each

• Process reviewing chapter with necessary steps to analyze modeling result for its maturity (input
data used, analysis honored, model consistency), assurance (process analysis honored) and quality
(measurable analysis, error estimation, geostatistics)
In these guidelines the minimum requirements for the validation of the successive technical steps required
for endorsement is presented. The purpose of the model must be clearly stated at the onset.
Static modeling workflow. Main processes included in static modeling workflow3 are displayed in Fig.
2 and covers:

• Structural and Stratigraphic Framework Modeling

• Facies Modeling

• Porosity Modeling

• Permeability Modeling

• Saturation Modeling

• Volumetric Analysis

• Uncertainty Analysis

The documents extended its description also to Upscaling process (Static to Dynamic Model) to cover
important geological (structure and properties) parameters that are essential to be preserved for dynamic
simulations.

Figure 2—Static Modeling Workflow - Processes

Quality Management System

Value of full utilization of standardization of static modeling processes can be observed in increased
quality within KOC and all assets and contractors and in that sense, longer project life expectancy (min 5
years). Reviewing process will create a database of projects maturity and quality so project management
6 IPTC-19123-MS

activities can be properly planned. As described in section "Structure of the Guidelines" for each process
an assessment questionnaire spreadsheet has been developed (QA) for process maturity and assurance, as
well as for model quality (QC).
Each reviewing project must have a full audit trail so each process can be reproduced and must be
accompanied with a final report explaining findings and results. The elements shown in Table 1 must be
prepared and communicated ahead of the scheduled review:

Table 1—Quality management System: Audit Trail material

Document title Completion party / timing Submission

Self-assessment questionnaire Technical Experts / to be filled before the Activity starts spreadsheet

KPI's score card Tech. Expert / to be completed before the request for Review is made spreadsheet

Key QC plots / tables Tech. Experts / to be provided with the request for review meeting presentation

These are further explained below.

Assessment questionnaire (prior to the start of the Activity). The checklist represent a technical questions
for the review of input data and check have analysis were performed well. Primary goal is to validate and
endorse the input data and check that these data represent a minimal acceptable risk that will not prevent
the model reaching expected results. The questionnaire must be filled by the Subject Matter Experts and
once filled becomes an item of the Quality Management records. The Assessment is to be carried out prior
to or at the start of the activity. Identified gaps must be described and their potential impact on the quality
of the results thereof commented upon.

Table 2—Example of Assessment questionnaire

# Question Yes No Remarks

Has the coordinate system of the project been

1
reconfirmed?

Is the purpose of the model clearly stated and

2 the statement endorsed / accepted by the various
parties?

Is the number of cells adequate with the overall

3
purpose of the model?

Is the resolution of the model (average cell size)

4
adequate for the overall purpose of the model?

Is it possible to decrease the number of cells

5 while keeping the model resolution adequate for
the purpose of the model?

Key Performance Indicators (Upon Finalization of the Activity). Individual KPI's to measure the quality /
suitability of the results, have been defined per activity. The KPI hold a minimum score, for a specific result
to be considered of an acceptable level of quality and adequacy.
It is expected that since the KPI define a threshold (minimum standard) all KPI's should be met, prior
to scheduling a technical review with the peers.
Should for any reason any of the KPI being either: not applicable, not measurable, or not achievable (due
to data quality for example) a written justification must be provided by the Party executing the project in
writing, explaining why the KPI cannot be achieved, and recommending a path of action to mitigate the
consequences of not achieving this KPI
The completion of the self-assessment must be presented to KOC before scheduling the Technical review.
IPTC-19123-MS 7

Example: Structural and Stratigraphic Framework Modeling KPIs

Structural and stratigraphic framework model's quality control can be defined in analysis of

• Grid type and size in sense how fit for purpose it is (in line with declaration of the purpose of the
model) (Table 3)
• Cell orthogonality which is especially important if model will be used for dynamic simulation4
(Table 4 and Figure 3)
• Number of wells that has interpretation data (well tops) (Table 5)

• How many cells are twisted (Table 6 and Figure. 4.)

• How many cells has negative volume (Table 7)

• Applied layering and cell thickness inline with property preservation (Table 8 and Figure 5)

Table 3—KPI - grid quality - grid type and size

KPI Poor Medium Good

Not fit for purpose and up- Not fit for purpose or up-
Fit for purpose and no up-
Grid type and size scaling is necessary XY and scaling is necessary XY and
scaling is necessary
Z Z

Table 4—KPI - grid quality - cell orthogonality

KPI Poor Medium Good

Cell orthogonality angle > 40 degrees 20 – 40 degrees < 20 degrees

Figure 3—Cell orthogonality between 20 – 40 degrees (lower left) and zoomed section
(lower right) and between 40 – 90 degrees (top left) and zoomed section (top right)
8 IPTC-19123-MS

Figure 4—Twisted cells (usually along faults) in the left and zoomed section indicating shape of cells (right)

Figure 5—Absolute error of difference between log and upscaled log (porosity):

Table 5—KPI - grid quality - well data usage

KPI Poor Medium Good

Ratio between number of wells in the reservoir vs number of wells

> 1.3 1 – 1.3 <1
in the model (brown fields only)
IPTC-19123-MS 9

Table 6—KPI - grid quality - twisted cells

KPI Poor Medium Good

Twisted cells
Twisted cells number No twisted cells No twisted cells
exist

Table 7—KPI - grid quality - negative cells

KPI Poor Medium Good

Negative cells No negative No negative

Negative cells number
exists cells cells

Table 8—KPI - layering quality - porosity upscaling in net reservoir

KPI Poor Medium Good

Mean and Mean and Mean and

Well Logs Up-Scaling Error (porosity log minus synthetic porosity Median >0.5 % Median <0.5 % Median <0 %
of upscaled log(blocky)) OR Standard OR Standard AND Standard
Deviation >3 % Deviation <3 % Deviation <1 %

QC plots and tables (to be prepared during the execution of the activity). A set of Standard QC plots,
and tables, must be prepared, specific to each Activity. The set of plots and tables is to be presented in a
document and communicated before the scheduling of the Technical review with peers. The specific plots
and tables are presented for each activity, in the specific activity Chapter.
Example: Consistency of the Saturation Height Model with Well Tests and Production Data
Free Water Level (FWL) and fluid contacts defined from well test and pressure gradient analysis can be
compared with populated saturation properties at time zero or initial Sw by visual checking or qualitative
check in well section window5.
Consistency of Saturation Model Distribution
Due to the close dependency between saturation and description of reservoir rock and fluid properties, the
water saturation grid should be verified at several levels. Visualization and filtering techniques are required
for a thorough review of model consistency.
The following steps describe how to review a water saturation model:

• The comparison of well logs (Sw) vs model (Sw) for each well is elaborated in paragraph above
(Consistency of Log-Derived SW with Saturation Height Function (SHF)). The same process
should be repeated after 3D modeling, to check consistency due to scaling up petrophysical
properties (well section window) (Figure 6).
• Histogram of the difference between water saturation model (function) and upscaled water
saturation log interpretation per zone/reservoir (histogram of absolute error) Figure 7. This process
will provide an input for uncertainty analysis ranges, although in most cases a more complex
analysis of error is needed and error as a function should be generated.
• Cross plot of water saturation vs height above free water level as a function of rock types (facies),
porosity and/or permeability (function window) Figure 8. This will insure that proper rock typing
and respected saturation functions, as wells as correct distribution logic established at core/log
level have been applied in a 3D space.
• Water saturation vertical distribution map (map window) and lateral distribution (cross section
window) will clearly display saturation distribution in the reservoir. It is useful to check their
dependency of a secondary property that was used and understand possible fluid flow barriers
caused by facies/petrophysical properties6.
10 IPTC-19123-MS

Figure 6—Water saturation vs SW petrophysical interpretation (1st track: depth; 2nd

track: core facies; 3rd track: log facies; 4th track: upscaled facies; 5th track: Porosity
core and interpretation; 6th track: permeability; 7th track: SW log and SHF, 8th track

Figure 7—Histogram of absolute error between SW log and SHF

IPTC-19123-MS 11

Figure 8—Bad example of water saturation trend (crossplot of SW vs HAFWL per facies)

Conclusion
QC of Static model QC is important and critical process in constructing reliable and predictable static model.
At the sametime, it is very subjective if carried out qualitatively as there is no standard for each and every
process which everyone can follow. It is normal to except this variability as each reservoir is unique and
objective of 3D model construction can differ from project to project. However, there are certain common
indicators in every 3D model contruction exercise which needs to be attained to establish the reliability
of the static model. If objectives of the modeling is clear, deliverables are well documented and proper
approach to building the model with underlying physics is followed, basic eorros can be avoided during
the course of model building.
KPI based standerdized static modeling QA/ QC scheme provide the Geomodeler with opportunity to
self assess the performance and course correction if required. It also brings Geomodeler and the reviewer
at same level to quality control and assurance of the static model.

Acknowledgement
The authors want to express their thanks to the management of KOC for the permission to pusblish this
paper, and their encouragement toward the envisioning and implementation of sound reservoir management
policies and practices.

Reference
1. Spilsbury-Schakel, J. A. (2006, January 1). Quality Control of Static Reservoir Models. Society of
Petroleum Engineers. (doi:10.2118/101875-MS), SPE-101875-MS
12 IPTC-19123-MS

2. Gomes, J. S., Ribeiro, M. T., El Deeb, M., Silva, F. P., Bockel-Rebelle, M. O., & King, R. F.
(2004, January 1). Lessons Learned from Static Reservoir Modelling on Complex Carbonate
Fields, Onshore UAE. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/88780-MS
3. Sylvester, Ian F. et al.: "Integrated Reservoir Modelling Enhances the Understanding of Reservoir
Performance of the Dolphin Gas Field, Trinidad and Tobago." SPE 94343 presented at the 14th
Europe Biennial Conference, Madrid, Spain, 13-16 June 2005.
4. Weber, K. J., Van Geuns, L. C., 1990, Framework for constructing clastic reservoir simulation
models. Journal of Petroleum Technology, (p. 1248–1297).
5. Qassab, H.M.A., Rahmeh, B.A., Khalifa, M.A.A. et al 2001. Conditioning Integrated Geological
Models to Dynamic Flow Data of Giant Saudi Arabian Reservoir. Presented at the SPEATCE,
New Orleans, Louisiana, SPE-71319-MS
6. Pyrcz, Michael J., 2014, Geostatistical Reservoir Modeling, second edition, OXFORD University
Press.

View publication stats