m Society of Petroleum Engineers

SPE 48880

The Integration of Geology and Well Testing for Improved Fluvial Reservoir
Characterisation
Patrick Corbett’, Shi-Yi Zheng*, Moe Pinisetti* and Abdallah Mesmari, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, and
George Stewart*, Edinburgh Petroleum Services Ltd. (EPS), Edinburgh

*SPE Members to an Effective jlow itzterva[ has been developed, which shows
a significant improvement from the conventional core analysis
method. Geoskin as a geological phenomena has been
Copyright 1998, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.
identified and the technique quantifying its value with respect
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 1998 SPE International Conference and to geology has been developed. A wealth of geological data
Exhibition in China held in Beijing, China, 2-6 November 1998.
sets, derived from ancient (outcrops) and modern rivers, have
Thla paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstrac( submitted by the author(s). Contents of the Paper, as been integrated. Fluviczl Flow System Diagnostic Plots
preeented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to (FFSDP) have been developed, with which ten well tests of
correction by the author(s), The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, ita officers, or members. PaPerS presented at . Tertiary channel sand reservoirs from the Gulf of Thailand
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper have been evaluated.
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers la
prohibited, Permission to reproduce in print !s restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 :
Based on these studies, a T~’o-stage diagnostic procedure
words illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous for well test analysis has been developed. A confident
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Ltbrarian, SPE, P.O.
Box B33e36, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U. S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435. interpretation requires that the tested system should be clearly
mapped out prior to the tranfi”ent data analysis in ensuring-the
correct selection of the interpretation model. Then the
meaningful reservoir parameters can be inverted. The final
Abstract
match to the tested data should be made by the Numerical
F1uvial reservoirs are important hydrocarbon reservoirs world-
wide. It is the tluvial dcpositional characteristics that give rise solutio from the defined reservoir system, rather than “force”
an analyt” al model, whit rc mostly idealised, for the match.
to the complex reservoir architectures/geometries, spatial
An impr ed under anding on the scale and limits of the
distributions/patterns, internal heterogeneities/petrophy sical
L/ invo v
disciplines “n reservoir characterisation is crucial for
properties as wcil as the connectivity between flow
the integrated studies. This study gives insights into the
units/channel sands that combine to give great uncertainty in
integration and scaling of measurements as well as the need for
characterizing the cf’f’ectivc reservoir properties.
improved geological, petrophysical and dynamic descriptions.
Well testing, which measures the dynamic response of the
reservoir, is potentially a very important tool for investigating
Introduction
these properties in tluvial reservoir systems. Through the
Fluvial reservoirs are those whose sediments have been
integration of geoscience and engineering, the uncertainty
deposited by the action of rivers. These reservoirs are
resulting from reservoir description and well test analysis in
heterogeneous in nature with respect to its external geometry
such heterogeneous systems can be substantially reduced.
and internat properties due to its complex depositional and
This paper reviews the latest techniques developed from
the integration of geology and well testing for fluvial re rvoir diagenesis processes. However, they are important
hydrocarbon reservoirs world-wide 52.
characterisation. Starting from the classification f fluvial
Fluvial channel systems are economically important
systems, deterministic geological models, based on t e two end
because of their large oil and gas reserves throughout the
members of fluvial systems (Meandering md f?rai cd), have
c world. Examples include the Gulf of Thailand which has long
been mapped out.
been recognised as a fluvially dominated petroleum province
A well test interpretation model for meandering channel
where the excellent seismic image of subsurface fluvial
reservoirs, the Pseltdo-clumt?el model has been distilled, which
systems can be mapped 8’52 (Fig.1). The Middle Jurassic Ness
removes the assumption of the uniform formation thickness.
Numerical solutions, termed Geotype curves have been Sands of the North Sea is also typical of the channelised
systems. The heavy oil sands of the Cretaceus Athabasca,
derived. A new measure for the reservoir heterogeneity leading

471
2 PATRICK CORBETT, SHI-YI ZHENG, M. PINISETTI, A. MESMARI AND G, STEWART
Canada and numerous large to small fields in mature areas
such as the Gulf Coast (Cretaceus Travis Peak Fields) are
channel and bar type reservoirs, while Triassic Sherwood,
Bunter and Lower Jurassic Statfjord Sandstones in North Sea,
Triassic Sandstones of North Africa, Prudhoe Bay Field in
Alaska and fields in the Cooper Basin in Australia are braided
systems. According to the statistics, the preserved hydrocarbon
in fluvial facies reservoirs in China are about 53’-ZOof total
recoverable reserves ‘s.
The developed or appraised oil fields in which major
reservoir units are of braided fluvial origin probably contain
remaining proven recoverable oil reserves of at least well over
30,000 MMSTB in petroleum provinces including Alaska, the
North Sea and the Sirte Basin of Libya. This is approximately
equal to original UK total oil reserves, or about 490 of world
cumulative oil production. Remaining proven gas reserves are
more difficult to quantify but may be at least 40 TSCF;
comparable to around 2% of world cumulative gas production
35
Fluvial reservoirs are often characterised by laterally
discontinuous reservoir units. The evaluation of such
reservoirs by petrophysical measurement and well testing is
crucial to the determination of formation lateral continuity,
connectivity and total reservoir productivity. The development
strategy for fluvial reservoirs is largely based on the
interpretation and analysis of well tests, Estimation of channel
sandbody dimensions and interconnectivity wiIl heIp to
determine well spacing, completion strategy, production rate
and the ultimate recoverable reserves 52.
A large amount of geological outcrop data on fluvial sands
(width/thickness or aspect ratio, Iengthlwidth ratio and
stacking arrangemcntipattern) have been collected and are now
being used in the deterministic and stochastic (conditional)_
modelling of fluvial channel reservoirs 32’38.Well testing is an
effective measure to calibrate and detect the dynamic
performance of the modelled system, which ultimately leads to
an improved reservoir characterisation and reservoir model for
flow simulation.
The improved understanding in both geology and reservoir
engineering have motivated the integrated studies in
heterogeneous reservoir well testing and characterisation. The
importance and advantages of such integration in reducing the_
uncertainties involved have been fully demonstrated through
case studies, reservoir modelling and simulations in the recent
2,’20,37.47..5’2
literatures
This paper is aimed to summarise these studies and to
present the techniques developed in the project.
Geological Classification
The measurement of architectural elements in fluvial systems
(channel geometries, shale lengths, etc.) at outcrops has
become widespread in recent years ]‘ ‘]’ 42. These data from
ancient fluvial systems are being supplemented by geometrical
data in present day Iluvial systems/modern rivers 23 and
laboratory models. A hierarchal system of architectural
472
SPE 48880
elements provides the framework for the sedimentoIogicaI
classitlcation of fluvial systems S9. The spatial distributions
and geometry of fluvial architectural elements produce
reservoirs that are heterogeneous. These studies have formed
the basis for reservoir modelling and flow simulations.
Fluvial Channel Reservoir Models. In general, fluvial
reservoirs are broadly of two types: relatively low netlgross
channelised systems and high net/gross massive braided
systems. These are two end-members of fluvial systems that
have been recognised in the previous studies of hydrodynamics
and sedimentology. The Meandering channel and Braided
channel reservoirs contain a range of, often complex
geometries and internal characteristics. These systems are
shown in Fig.2 52. These channel sands range from limited,
isolated point-bars deposited by rapidly avulsing meandering
rivers to the deposits of sand rich braidplains. In meandering
systems, with the increasing sinuosity, the pattern or style of
the system developed from ribbon channel, anastomosing
channel, meandering channel to isolated point-bar sand bodies.
The braided systems include layered flood plain and massive
braidplain. The former gives rise to so-called commingled
reservoir while the latter forms the cross-flow reservoirs. In
space, these systems can be connected or stacked and together
form more complex cross-cutting or multistory reservoir
systems.
In strongly meandering systems (high sinuosity),’ it is
possible for the accumulations of reservoir quality material
deposited on the inside of the meander loops to become
isolated as single point-bars, which have a lunate geometry and
can be separated within impermeable materials “. In low
sinuosity fluvial systems, more linear channels will develop.
The development of the fluvial system through geological time
will determine if cross-cutting or composite channel systems
are deposited and preserved.
Fluvial Flow System Diagnostic Plots (FFSDP). The fluvial
channel geometry is conveniently defined by its depth,
width/depth (aspect) ratio, and sinuosity 39. But once the
meandering channel has been discriminated from braided
systems (mainly by sinuosity, 22), the description of a
meandering channel architecture becomes the thickness, width
and length.
The geological studies of modern and ancient fluvial
systems in the past several decades have accumulated a huge
amount of valuable data and knowledge. Meandering and
braided channel reservoir systems have a distinct difference in
terms of internal heterogeneity, geometry and dimensions.
Recent studies have shown that meandering channel sandbody
dimensions have the same order of magnitude of the channel
dimensions itself 41. So, the studies of ancient channel
(outcrops) can be linked in a way to those of modern rivers.
Modern rivers are easier to measure than outcrop data because
it is hard to have the third dimension data from outcrop.
Example includes the studies to the modern river deposits,
SPE 48880 THE INTEGRATION OF GEOLOGY AND WELL TESTING FOR IMPROVED FLUVIAL RESERVOIR CHARACTERISATION
such as point-bars, using ground-penetrating radar (GPR),
which have provided detailed data in 3-D. This yields the
volume of such sandbodies 7.
Well testing can derive reservoir geometry as well as the
volume, however, the results are highly uncertain due to its
non-uniqueness nature. So, there is a need to integrate the
knowledge of geology with well testing to develop a way that
can reduce such uncertainty. Well testing derived channel
width and formation thickness together give rise to the aspect
ratio (width/thickness ratio) of the tested channel sand. By
applying ten fluvial reservoir well test data sets derived in this
way to the modern and ancient river “data envelope” from
Bryant and Flint 9, an aspect ratio consistency between
modern, ancient and subsurface channel sands can be observed
(Fig.3). The well test data points all fall within the scattered
data envelope, but around the averaged line from the modern
rivers.
This results tell an underlying truth that regardless of the
channel sands have been deposited at different locations
(surface/subsurface, North Sea or Gulf of Thailand), in
different geological age (ancient/modern), but as long as the
fluvial process that formed these sandbodies are similar, the
dimensions such as widthlthicknessllength of a certain type of
channel sands, such as point bars, are of the same order of
magnitudes. With this result, an encouraging idea has been
explored in which the surfiace channel sand data from fluvial
geology may be used to develop a diagnostic tool for the
subsurface fluvial systems when well testing data are available.
In this way, the geology and well testing can be effectively
integrated.
The averaged relationships of the fluvial sand dimensions
have been available in the literature for many years6’9’ 17’“’ 36’
46. By employing a FORTRAN programme incorporating these
data, the relationships of sand body width fthickness and its
volume/thickness for braided and meandering channel systems
have been generated. For meandering systems, the shape of the
channel sand cross sectional profile (parabolic and tabular) has
been considered. By plotting these data in a log-log scale, two
plots in terms of sand body widthlthickness and
volume/thickness for braided and meandering channel systems
have been developed. These plots have been defined as Fluvial
Flow System Diagnostic Plots (FFSDP). These together with
ten well testing results from fluvial channel reservoirs in the
Gulf of Thailand are shown in Fig.4 and Fig.5 respectively.
The region between braided and meandering systems is
considered as composite reservoir systems. These results are
very encouraging, but the uncertainties are still remain as
shown by arrows on the data points, because the uncertainty
still exists with respect to the possible faults and flow intervals
used for well test interpretation. The detailed structural
geology map and high resolution seismic data will be helpful
in resolving this problem.
Numerical Well Testing
Based on the geological classifications, well testing model can
473
3
be distilled. The solution of the defined system in terms of
geometry and heterogeneity can be derived directly from
numerical simulations. For some reservoirs, such as a system
with variable kh, an analytical solution is not possible to derive
and a numerical approach is needed. Also, the numerical
solution will give the pressure distributions within the
reservoir, while the analytical solution can only give the
wellbore pressure. As an example in the fluvial reservoir
systems, a meandering point-bar has been studied in this way.
Modelling. Since reservoir geometry has a profound impact on
flow dynamic performance, its dimension variables such as
length, thickness and width only have precise meaning when
applied to a specified shape. Steel 43 has found through the
experiment that the bottom boundary of a channel can be
characterised by a parabolic equation. A model with this
approach will yield an equivalent transient behaviour in a
system with variable thickness such as a “wedge” and
“triangle” shaped reservoirs 10’ 28’ 49. Since well testing
characterises the “behaviour” of a geological system, the
interpretation model is very much different from a geological
object, so this model has been defined as “pseudo-channel”.
Fig.6 shows the geometry of the model in 3-D.
The pseudo-channel model has been constructed
numerically using Eclipse-200. The parabolic shape of the
channel model profile has been approximated by setting the
permeability and porosity in the cells outside the parabolic
boundary to zero. The internal properties such as lateral
accretion surfaces as well as the permeability contrasts
between layers have been modelled by varying the
transmissibility vertically and horizontally. The model
dimensions have been constrained by the derived averaged
relationships from the fluvial geology as described above. The
resulting numerical model plan view, cross sectional profile
and in 3-D are shown in Fig.7, the contrasts in colour show the
transmissibility y variations.
Numerical Solution and Interpretation. Using the pseudo-
channel model, the corresponding mathematical descriptions in
terms of initial and boundary conditions have been derived.
The dimensionless variables such as P~ and T~ as well as the
simulation sensitive groups have been derived by using
inspectional analysis. The corresponding numerical solutions
have also been derived. A fluvial reservoir field example from
North Sea has been analysed using this method 50. Herein this
paper, solutions to address the problems in the reservoir
systems with variable thickness (pinching-out and thickening
away from wellbore) along with the system with rectangular
parallelepipeds geometry (constant thickness) will be presented.
Fig.8 shows the numerical solutions for these three cases
on the diagnostic plot. The difference between responses from
reservoir with constant thickness and reservoir with variable
thickness (thickening and pinch-out) is significant. The solid
line in the figure represents the solution from the model with a
rectangular profile, which is identical to analytical solution
4 PATRICK CORBETT, SI+I-YI ZHENG, M. PINISETTI, A. MESMARI AND G. STEWART
derived from the system with rectangular parallelepipeds
geometry. The flow regimes as classified in the previous
studies include early time region (ETR), middle time region
(MTR), late time region (LTR) and semi-steady-state flow
(SSS). This solution is suitible for the analysis of a ribbon
channel with tabular profile. In contrast, the dotted Iine above
is solution from a well located in the centre of the pseudo-
channel model where after a much shorter MTR, the pressure
derivatives go up increasing due to formation thickness pinch-
out toward the channel parallel margins. The dotted line
below the solid line has been generated from a well located in
a reservoir with reverse-parabolic profile. Again, with a much
shorter MTR, the pressure derivatives decrease after MTR due
to formation thickness (flow capacity) increasing toward the
channel parallel boundaries, where the negative derivative
slope is a reflection of the flow convergence. Here, the
convergence flow is a “parabolic flow”.
Since the slope of the pressure derivative curve reflects the
flow regime, the [low regime reflects the reservoir geometry,
the total flow regimes experienced by a pressure transient
together are a dynamic description of the reservoir. Since
every reservoir is unique, the test resulted response
characterised by a derivative curve is a specialised measure of
the corresponding subsurface system, here such a dynamic
description with the corresponding geological contents has
been defined as “geotype curve”. Geotype curve study will
enhance the understanding and interpretation of a geologically
heterogeneous reservoir system.
Integrated Studies In Fluvial Reservoirs
Characterisation of a geologically heterogeneous system such
as fluvial reservoir system requires a multi-disciplinary
integration. Multi-discipline studies are the integration of the
data from all relevant measurements. An understanding of the
scale and limits of the individual subjects involved is the key
for such integrated studies. A geological, petrophysical and
engineering description of a subsurface fluvial reservoir
combines its static characteristics and dynamic behaviour
together have ensured a great improvement in this process.
Petrophysics of the Fluvial Reservoir Systems. The
heterogeneous nature of fluvial channel reservoirs gives rise to
the considerable variation in the magnitude and pattern of
porosity and permeability. This heterogeneity is very marked
at a number of scales 5. Small scale heterogeneities exist at the
meter and sub-meter scale because of the high preservation
potential of bedt’orms. Variability at the large scale is
determined by sandbody continuity and interconnectivity ‘8’44.
The measurement of small scale permeability is made by core
plug or more recently, the probe measurement ~“. The value of
this modern technique in characterizing fluvial reservoir
heterogeneity has been reported recently in the literature ls’ 19’
25’27’31’33. However, the only way to measure the reservoir
property such as permeability at large scale is through well test
analysis. The evaluation of the reservoir permeability from
474
SPE 48880
core and well testing needs an understanding of the limits,
scale and mechanism of these different measurements 53.
A traditional method for the measurement of porosity and
permeability in reservoir sandstones is by laboratory tests on
core plugs. The dimensions of core plugs (i.e., prepared rock
cylinders) are 0.025m in diameter and Iength which are very
close to the length scale of variation in petrophysical
properties caused by lamination (cm scale). Such core plugs
are an inappropriate volume to determine either lamina
properties or the effective (average) bedform properties 15.
The grain size, sorting, compaction, cementation and early
time diagenetic modifications in a fluvial channel sand deposit
yield a scattered porosity/permeabiIity relationship which can
be difficult to analyse. Fig.9 shows the porosity/permeability
cross plots across the perforated interval from a fluvial channel
reservoirs in North Sea. It is hard to see a clear relationship
between porosity and permeability from such a plot, where, for
a given porosity, permeability may vary by several orders of
magnitude. So, it is not possible to predict permeability from
traditional density log transforms or to relate these smaIl scale
measurements to larger scale measures such as well testing
without careful up-scaling. The inter-relationships between
porosity, permeability and sediment properties can only be
used predictively if they can be built into up-scaled models
considering reservoir heterogeneities 52.
Another problem from the core plug measurement is due to
the sampling spacing. The traditional one plug per foot (0.3nl
spacing) is also inappropriate for characterizing the
heterogeneous reservoir elements that occur at the meter scale
(i.e., bedform scale). In Fig.10, the core plug permeability data
from a fluvial meander-loop, braided and multi-storey
reservoirs show a scattered distributions within certain ranges,
but the geological information that can be inferred from plugs
aIone is ambiguous. Comparison of these measurements with
corresponding probe data at a cm-spacing demonstrates
additional details of the geological sequence.
The arithmetic average of the plug data will only give a
good estimate of the reservoir permeability in a relatively
homogeneous, layered reservoir. However, no reservoir has
uniform properties in reality and, secondly, the core taken from
the borehoIe may not adequately represent the whole formation
under investigation by a well test in a heterogeneous system.
The core plug measures often miss the high and low
permeability sections which will give a significantly different
average if they had been taken into account. As shown in
Fig.11, the core photos from a fluvial channel reservoir in
North Sea, only a few core plugs have been taken from the
non-permeable sections, most of these sections (such as shale
and coaly layers) have been missed. However, this is not
uncommon in practice. Upscaling the core permeability from
such a heterogeneous system needs high density measurements
such as probe measurements 12.
Geoskin and Its Impact on Transient Behaviour. The
negative skin due to high permeable “streaks” within a lower
SPE 48880 THE INTEGRATION OF GEOLOGY AND WELL TESTING FOR IMPROVED FLUVIAL RESERVOIR CHARACTERISATION
permeability matrix in the braided fluvial system, has been
identified as a geological phenomena. Its pressure transient
behaviour is equivalent to that of a well intersecting the natural
fractures or fissures in the reservoir (early time linear flow).
The term “geoskin” has been defined to address this
phenomena as a diagnostic of the depositional environment
(e.g., a braided system with small channels), and such high
permeable “streak” has been defined as “pseudo fracture
channel” (PFC) 16.As shown in Fig.12, the magnitudes of the
negative skin due to the extent of a PFC , the PFC thickness
relative to the perforated interval, permeability contrasts
between PFC and matrix have been derived through the
numerical simulations. In return, the extent of a PFC can be
derived if the skin and the permeability contrasts are known.
This study has also found that to be able to diagnose the
reservoir system from well testing, the PFC have to be
intersected by wellbore and its length have to be less than 10%
of the radius of investigation during the test. Otherwise, the
reservoir behaviors as a two-layer system such as double
permeability and double porosity depending on the
permeability contrasts. The data from high density
permeability measurements and PLT will greatly help the
interpretation of this phenomena.
A Dynamic Measure of the Core Data and Effective Flow
Interval (EFI). In a fluvial reservoir system, the
heterogeneous formation gives rise to the non-uniform flow
profile. This means that the interval or net pay derived by a
“cut-off’ from the cross plot may different from that actually
flowing. In contrast to this traditional method of the core data
analysis, a dynamic measure which takes reservoir flow
capacity (kh) and storage capacity (~ h) into account has been
developed on the basis of Lorenz plot (LP). The new approach
has combined LP with Modified Lorenz Plot (MLP) in
characterizing the reservoir heterogeneity. By the integration
of high density core permeability measurements, composite
logs and pLT, the interva] contributing to flow in a
heterogeneous formation can be quantified. Such an interval
has been defined as effective flow interval (EFI) 40.
In Flg.13, this method has been applied to analyse a fluvial
reservoir from the North Africa. The cumulative kh as a
permeability predictor is compared with the PLT and
permeability distributions from logs, where the flow interval
and interval not tlowing are obvious. The further study has
found that whether a sub-section of a perforated interval
contributes to flow or not does not depend on its absolute
permeability magnitudes, but its relative value to the
neighboring layers, i.e., the permeability contrasts.
Since well testing permeability depends on the reservoir
transmissivity (kh), it is very important to have EFI correctly
defined in a well test interpretation. Otherwise, the effective
reservoir permeability will be over- or under-estimated. As
shown in Fig.14, ithas been found that a parallel line to the
homogeneous diagonal line across the “inflection” point on the
LP will give the percentage of flow from the percentage of
475
5
reservoir storage capacity. Here, in this case, 8070 of the flow
from about 28% of the stcmage capacity.
Crossflow versus Commingled Systems. Testing layered
reservoirs has been a petroleum engineering challenge for
many years. In a massive braided reservoir system, two type of
reservoirs are common in practice. One has been termed
“commingled” reservoir where the flow from layers
contributes to the wellbore directly, but no flow between
layers. The second has been termed “cross-flow” reservoir
where there are flows from layers into the wellbore as well as
between these layers. Distinguishing commingled from cross-
flow reservoir systems from pressure transient analysis has
been proved almost impossible. However, by the integration of
geology, logs, and PLT, it may resolve the problem. As shown
in Fig.15, a field example from a southern North Sea gas
reservoir, where the major reservoir units consist of either
aeolian or fluvial sandstones. These units are laterally
continuous and can be easily correlated between wells spaced
1-2 km apart. Fluvial and aeolian units have contrasting
petrophysical properties. Aeolian sandstones have the best
reservoir quality, with core plug horizontal permeabilities of
up to 100 mD, which is two orders of magnitude higher than
the sandsheet or fluvial genetic units 40.
In this example, the PLT and cumulative transmissibility
(kh) have been superposed together with the flow units
(facies). The two curves matched each other are considered
due to cross-flow between layers, while the two curves do not
overlay are considered commingled layers since the rate ratio
of the intervening layer (or layers) within that zone is not equal
to the transmissibility ratio (greater or less). This disparity is
due to the fact that the layers in a commingled system can
deplete independently. This can be easily seen when an inflow
performance curve (IPR) (plot of bottomhole pressure versus
downhole flowrates) for the two layers is plotted and- also
explains why a commingled reservoir cannot have a unique
flow profile as seen from a time lapse PLT.
The production log data indicates three main inflow points.
These correspond to high permeability zones within the
aeolian units. High permeability streaks commonly occur 2-3
feet above the base of aeolian dune sets, where the coarsest
sand was deposited. The flowrate and transmissibility curves
do not overlay for these zones, suggesting that they are
commingled rather than crossflowing. The three flowing
aeolian zones are separated by tight fluvial layers.
Integration with 3-D Seismic Data. Since both 3-D seismic
and well testing can yield the reservoir geometry such as
channel width and volume. In a geological background
(FFSDP), within the seismic resolution, a range of well testing
channel width/thickness can be derived from the analysis of the
effective flow interval using the core data. The predicted area
where the results from the four disciplines converges will give
~~;zto the most possible subsurface reservoir system in reality
6 PATRICK CORBETT, SHI-YI ZHENG, M. PINISETTI, A. MESMARI AND G. STEWART SPE 48880

A field example from the fluvial reservoir in the Gulf of in this block. The realisations of this model have been
Thailand, has been interpreted in this way. The analysis results produced. The challenge in this study is how to transfer this
from the four disciplines involved are in agreement, which model into flow model by upscaling and to evaluate the
shows the potential of the 3-D seismic in such integrated reservoir performance as well as the effective properties
studies. As shown in Fig.16, the formation thickness without losing the essential geological details. What should be
contributing to flow has been quantified using the developed preserved and what should be ignored in terms of flow is still a
techniques, further well test interpretation has been made by question. Due to the inverse nature of either history match or
changing the thickness input. With the corresponding thickness numerical well test simulation, a “perfect match” can never be
input, the permeability, then channel width are derived. considered as a convincing solution to the reservoir model. An
Superposing well test and seismic-derived channel width in agreement in the predictions from all the disciplines involved
FFSDP, the tested reservoir system has been Iocat.ed in the is more important. Integration of geology and well testing for
most likely area with more confidence 14. heterogeneous reservoir characterisation is still an engineering
challenge. In this process, one should always bear in mind that
Improved Fluvial Reservoir Description/Modelling every subsurface reservoir is unique, but the solution or
The fluvial environment provides a full range of heterogeneous reservoir models/realisations are highly nonunique.
reservoirs from jigsaw braided streams to labyrinth
meandering channels “. Characterisation and interpretation of Summary And Conclusions
fluvial channel reservoirs are of great challenges 4’24. Recent A multidisciplinary research project, “Integration of geology
technological advances and the increasing emphasis on and wefl testing for fluvial reservoir characterisation” has
maximizing recovery from existing oil and gas fields has led to made a systematic approach which progressed logically from
an upsurge of interest in reservoir characterisation and the disciplines/methods of fluvial geology (outcrops/models),
quantitative modelling of physical rock properties 9. The fluvial reservoir sedimentology, formation petrophysics,
detailed reservoir description is required to ascertain the modern/ancient fluvial channel assessments,
degree of inter-connectivity of the channel sands and the numerical/analytical model ling/simulation to well test
definition of separate or isolated reservoir elements within the analysis/interpretations (case studies). The integration of these
field. disciplines/methodologies along with the static
The increasing application of reservoir dynamic data in variability/dynamic performance of fluvial channel reservoirs
conjunction with geology on conditional reservoir modelling has made a significant step forward in fluvial reservoir well
and description has rc-established the role of well testing. The testing and characterisation. These include:
difference between the static and dynamic properties of a
● The relavent aspect of the disciplines involved in detailed
reservoir, the reservoir heterogeneities vary at a hierarchy of
fluvial reservoir description has been explored and an
different scales and the requirement to characterise and model
integrated approach has been developed through the
the reservoir at a proper scale are the critical issues that need
analysis of the field examples from North Sea, UK, Gulf
to be addressed in detailed reservoir characterisation.
Coast, SE Asia and N. Africa.
With the integration of the disciplines involved by using
the developed techniques described above, a two stage ● The fluvial reservoir database including geology,
diagnostic procedure has been developed for the integrated petrophysics, core data, sedimentology, composite logs,
well test interpretation. A flow chart to demonstrate this RFT/MDT, PLT, 3-D seismic and pressure transient
process is shown in Fig.17. In the first stage, the data from (dynamic) data have been built, which will provide the key
geology, core, composite logs, RFT/MDT, PLT and seismic parameter inputs for the reservoir modelling. As shown in
are analysed to yield an interpretation model. Then transient Table 1, a individual discipline can only give parameters
data are analysed and the results are used to calibrate the addressing a specific aspect, but can not provide all
subsurface flow system. The test interpretation is made and the parameters required. The integration of all these
transient data are matched by numerical simulation using the disciplines, especially well testing, may satisfy the need.
calibrated reservoir model. Finally, the parameters in terms of
reservoir geometry as well as the heterogeneity are derived.
● A framework of fluvial reservoir systems have been
These data will be considered established. The classification of Braided and Meandering
for the future reservoir
modelling and flow simulations. In this process, the correct systems has improved the engineering “image” of fluvial
reservoirs. This provides valuable information for well test
selection of the reservoir model is more important than a
modelling, test design, completion strategy and test
“perfect match”. With a wrong reservoir model, a perfect
interpretations.
match could be achieved, but the results derived are
meaningless. ● A geological object - an isolated channel reservoir has been
As shown in Fig.18, a geostatistical fluvial reservoir model modelled and the corresponding numerical solutions have
from North Sea, UK has been built by integrating all the data been derived. The resulting Geotype curves, as the
available. Two exploration wells, P3 and P9, have been driIled dynamic response of the modeIled system, can be stored as

476
SPE 48880 THE INTEGRATION OF GEOLOGY AND WELL TESTING FOR IMPROVED FLUVIAL RESERVOIR CHARACTERISATION
tabulated PD functions. These specialised curves can be
recalled from the stored database through the interpolations
when needed for the diagnostic and interpretations.
● The methods and procedures to evaluate the core,
petrophysics and well testing have been explored through
case studies. The importance of probe measurements for
detailed fluvial reservoir description have been studied.
● A new approach which combines the geoscience and
engineering has been made to give rise to a flow system
diagnostic tool - Fluvial Flow System Diagnostic Plots
(FFSDP). This tool provides a means for helping the
interpretation model selection in well test analysis. The
agreement in matching the outcrops, modern rivers and
well testing results have shown confidence and potential of
this technique.
● Combining FFSDP with Geotype curves, a Two-Stage
Diagnostic Process which integrates geology, petrophysics
(core, sedimentology) and well testing has been developed
through the studies of a variety of field examples.
Acknowledgements
We acknowledge the following companies and organisations
for funding this work within the “Integration of Geology and
Well Testing for Fluvial Reservoir Description” project at
Heriot-Watt University and the permission to publish this
paper: Arco British, Shell, Statoil, Norsk Hydro, Mobil and
Unocal. Phillips and Amoco are also thanked for assisting the
continuation of this work. We also thank Geoquest RT and
Edinburgh Petroleum Services Ltd. (EPS) for the provision of
software to undertake this study.
References
1. Alexander, J.,: A Discussion on the Use of Analogues for
Reservoir Geology, 1993, in Ashton, M. (eds), Advances in
Reservoir Geology, Geol. Sot. Spec Publ. No. 69, 175-194.
2. Ayestaran L.C., Nurmi R.D., and Shehab G.A.K., and El si si
W.S.: Well Test Design and Final Interpretation Improved by
Integrated Well Testing and Geological Efforts, 1989, SPE
17945.
3. Ball, L.D., Corbett, P.W. M., Jensen, J.L. and Lewis, J.J.M.: The
Role of Geology in the Behaviour and Choice of Permeability,
1994, SPE 28447.
4. Bowman, M., McClure, N.M. and Wilkinson, D.W.: Wytch Farm
Oilfield: Deterministic Reservoir Description of the Triassic
Sherwood Sandstone, 1993, in Parker, J.R.:Petroleum Geology of
NW Europe, Proceedings of the 4th Conference. geological
Society, 1513-1518.
5. Brayshaw, A.C.. Davies, G.W. and Corbett, P.W.M.:
Depositional Controls on Primary Permeability and Porosity at
[he Bedform Scale in Fltrvial Reservoir Sandstones, 1996,
Advances in Fluvial Dynamics and Stratigraphy, PA CarIing and
MR Dawson (cds), by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 373-394.
6. Bridge, J.S. and S.D. Mackey: A Theoretical Study of Fluvial
Sandstone Body Dimensions, 1993, in Spec. PubIs. Int. ASS.
Sediment., 15, ‘213-236.
7. Bridge, J.S.; Alexander, J.; Collier, R. E. LL.; Gawthorpe, R.L.
7
and Jarvis, J.: Ground Penetrating Radar and Coring Used to
Study the Large-scale Structure of Point-bar Deposits in Three
Dimensions, 1995, Sedimentology 42,839-852.
8. Brown, A.R.: Interpretation of Three-Dimensional Seismic Data,
1991, Third edition. Memoir 42. American Association of
Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa.
9. Brvant, I.D. and S.S. Flint: Chrantitative Clastic Reservoir
Ge~logical Modelling: Problems ~nd Perspectives, 1993, Special
Publ. No. 15 of the International Association of Sedimentologists.
Flint, S.S. and Bryant, I.D., (eds) by Blackwell Scientific
Publications. 3-20.
10. Chen Chih-Cheng, and Rajagopal, R.,: Computing Pressure
Distribution in Wedges and Pinch-Outs, 1995, SPE 30555.
11. Corbett, P.W.M. and Jensen, J.L.: Application of Probe
Permeametry to the Prediction of Two-Phase Flow Performance
in Laminated Sandstones (Lower Brent Group, North Sea), 1993,
Marine and Petroleum Geology, V. 10, Aug. 335-346.
12. Corbett, P.W.M., and Jensen, J.L.: Estimating the mean
permeability - How many measurements do you need?, 1992,
First Break.,.10.89-94.
13. Corbett, P.W.M., and Jensen, J.L.: Quantification of Variability
in Laminated Sediments: A Role for the Probe Permeameter in
Improved Reservoir Characterisation, 1993, in C.P. North and
D.J. Presser (eds), Characterisation of Fltrvial and Aeolian
Reservoirs, Geol. Sot. Spec. PubI., 73,433-442.
14. Corbett, P.W.M., Emery, A., Zheng, S.Y., and Arthur, M.: On the
Geophysical and Engineering Images of A Reservoir Unit - A
Geoengineering Case Study from the Gulf of Thailand, June,
1997, Submitted to Petroleum Geoscience.
15. Corbett, P.W.M., M. Pinisetti, Mario, T.R., and G. Stewart; The
Comparison of Plug and Well Test Permeabilities, 1996, Dialog,
V.4, Issue 2, April.
16. Corbett, P.W.M., Mesmari, A. and Stewart, G.: A Method for
Using the Naturally-Occurring Negative Geoskin in the
Description of Fluvial Reservoirs, 1996, SPE 36882.
17. Crane, R.C.: A Computer Model for the Architecture of Avulsion
Controlled Alluvial Suites, 1982. Unpublished PhD Dissertation,
University of Reading, 534.
18. Davies, D.K., Williams, B.P.J. and Vessell, R. K.: Reservoir
Geometry and Interns! Permeability Distribution in Fluvial,
Tight, Gas Sandstones, Travis Peak Formation, Texas, 1993,
SPE, Reservoir Engineering, Feb., 7-12.
19. Dreyer, T., Scheie, A. and Walderhaug, O.: Minipermeameter-
Based Study of Permeability Trends in Channel Sand Bodies,
1990, AAPG, V. 74, April, 359-374.
20. Du, K.F. and Stewart, G.: Reservoir Description from Well Test
Interpretation, 1994, North Sea Oil and Gas Reservoir -- III,
339-356, Norwegian Institute of Technology (NTH ).
21. Fielding, C.R. and Crane, R.C.: An Application of Statistical
Modelling to the Prediction of Hydrocarbon Recovery Factors in
Fluvial Reservoir Sequences, 1987, (Recent Developments in
Fluvial Sedimentology), SEPM, 321-327.
22. Friend, P.F. and Sinha R.: Braided and Meandering Parameters,
1993, in Best. JL. & Bristow, C.S. (eds), Braided Rivers, Geol.
Sot. Spec Publ. No. 75, 105-111.
-- 23. Gawthorpe, R.L., Collier, R.E.L., Alexander, J., Leeder, M.R.
and Bridge, J.S.: Application to Sandbody Geometry and
Heterogeneity Studies, 1993, Ground Penetrating Radar by C.J.
North and J. Presser (eds), Characterisation of Fluvial and
reservoirs, Geol. Sot. Spec Publ.
24. Geehan, G.W., Lawton, T. F., Sakurai, S., Klob, H., Clifton,.T.R.,
Inman, K.F. and Nitzberg, K.E.: Geologic Prediction of Shale
477
8 PATRICK CORBETT, SHI-YI ZHENG, M. PINISETTI, A. MESMARI AND G. STEWART SPE 48880

Continuity, Prudhoe Bay Field, 1986, in Lake, L.W. and Carroll, 45. Weber, K.C. and Van Geuns, L.C.: Framework for Constructing
H.B. (eds), Reservoir Characterisation, 63-82. Clastic Reservoir Simulation Models, 1990, JPT, 1248-1297.
25. Gibbons, K., Haldorsen, C. and Siring, E.: Vertical and 46. Weber, K.J., Eijpe, R., Leinjnse, D. and Moens, C.: Permeability
Horizontal Permeability Variation Within A Sandstone Reservoir Distribution in A Holocene Distributary Channel-Fill Near
Based on Minipermeameter Measurements, 1993, Marine and Leerdam (The Netherlands), 1972, Geologie en Mijnbouw, V. 51,
Petroleum Geology, V. 10, Aug., 325-334. 53-62.
26. Hartkamp-Bakker, C.A., and M.E. Donselaar: Permeability 47. Williams, G.P.: River Meanders and Channel Size, 1986, J.
Paterns in Point-bar Deposits: Tertiary Loranca Basin, Central Hydrol., 88, 147-164.
Spain, 1993, Spec. PubIs. Int. Ass. Sediment. 15, 157-168. 48. Wilson, D.C.: Petroleum Engineering: The State of The Art,
27. Hartkamp-Bakker, C.A.: Permeability Heterogeneity in Cross- 1985, Developments in Petroleum Engineering - 1, edited by
bedded Sandstones. Impact on Water/Oil Displacement in Fluvial Dawe, R.A. and Wilson D.C., Elsevier Applied Science
Reservoirs, 1993, PhD Thesis, TU Delft. Krips repro meppel, Publishers.
Meppel, Netherlands. 49. Xue, P.H.: A Point-bar Facies Reservoir Model - Semi-
28. Home, R.N. and Temeng, K.O.: The Recognition and Location of Communicated Sandbody, SPE 14837, 1986.
Pinch - Out Boundaries by Pressure Transient Analysis, 1981, 50. Yaxley L.M.: New Stabilised Inflow Equations for Rectangular
SPE 9905. and Wedge Shaped Drainage Systems 1987, SPE1 7082.
29. Home, R.N.: Modern Well Test Analysis, 1995, Petroway Inc. 51. Zheng, S.Y., Corbett, P.W.M. and Stewart, G.: Scaling Pressure
185. Transient in Fluvial Channel Reservoirs by [nspectional Analysis,
30. Hurst, A., and Goggin, D.: Probe Permeametry: An Overview and 1998, The 6th European Conference on the Mathematics of Oil
Bibliography, 1995, AAPG B., V. 79, No. 3, March, 463-473. Recovery (ECMOR VI).
31. Jacobson, T., and Rendall, H.: Permeability Patterns in Some 52. Zheng, S.Y., Corbett, P.W.M. and Stewart, G.: The Impact of
Fluvial Sandstones. An Outcrop Study from Yorkshire, North Variable Formation Thickness on Pressure Transient Behaviour
East England, 1991, in Lake, L.W., Carroll, H.B. Jr. & Wesson, and Well Test Permeability in Ftuvial Meander Loop Reservoirs,
T.C. (eds), Reservoir Characterisation-II. 315-339. SPE36552, 1996.
32. Keijzer, J.H., and Kortekaas, T.F.M.: Comparison of 53. Zheng, S.Y.: Well Testing and Characterisation of Meandering
Deterministic and Probabilistic Simulation Models of channel Fluvial Channel Reservoirs, 1997, PhD Thesis, Heriot-Watt
Sands in the Stat fjord Reservoir, Brent Field, 1990, SPE 20947. University.
33. Kerr, D.R., Andrew, R.S., Grigsby, J.D. and Raymond, A.L.: 54. Zheng, S.Y.and Corbett, P.W.M.: Uncertainty in Well Test and
Minipermeameter Study of Fluvial Deposits of the Frio Core Permeability Analysis: Case Studies in Fluvial Channel
Formation (Oligocene), South Texas: Implications for Gas Reservoirs, North Sea, 1998, Submitted to AAPG Bulletin
Reservoir Compartments, 1991, NIPER, V.2, Nov.
34. Leeder, M.R.: Fluviatile Fining-upwards Cycles and the
Magnitude of Palaeochannels, 1973, Geol. Msg., 110,265-276.
35. Martin, J. H.: A Review of Braided Fluvial Hydrocarbon
Reservoirs: The petroleum engineer’s perspective, 1993, in Best,
J.L. and Bristow, C.S. (eds), Braided Rivers, Geological Society
Soecial Publication, 75, 333-367.
36. Martinius A.W.: The Sedimentological Characterisation of
Labyrinthine Fluvial Reservoir Analogues, 1996, PhD Thesis,
Delft University of Technology. 300.
37. Massonnat G.J. and Batndiziol D.,: Interdependence Between
Geology and Well Test Interpretation, 1991, SPE 22740.
38. Meling, L.M., Morkeseth, P.O., and Langeland, T.: Production
Forecasting for Gas Fields with Multiple Reservoirs, 1990, Dec.,
JPT, 1580-1587.
39. Miall, A.D: The Geology of Fluvial Deposits, 1996, Sedimentary
facies, Basin Analysis, and petroleum Geology. Springer-Verlag
Berlin Heidelberg. 582.
40. Pinisetti M.; Well Testing Modelling and Characterisationin of
Braided Fluvial Reservoirs, 1997, unpublished PhD thesis,
Heriot-Watt University.
41. Poissonnier Maud: Volumetric Modelling of Point-bar
Geobodies, 1996, Msc thesis, Heriot-Watt University.
42. Ravenne, C.R., Eschard, R., Gallia, A., Mathieu, Y., Montadert,
L. and Rudkiewicz, J-L.: Heterogeneities and Geometry of
Sedimentary Bodies in A Fhrvio-Deltaic Reservoir, 1987, SPE
16752.
43. Seifert Dirk: Uncertainties in Spatial Modelling of Static
Reservoir Properties, 1997, PhD thesis, Heriot-Watt University.
44. Steel T.J.: A Simple One-Operator Technique For Cross-Profiling
Tidal and River Channels, 1995, Journal of Sedimentary
Research, VOL. A65, No. 3,577-579.

478
Table 1- Parameters Required for the Modelling of F1uvial Systems and Possible Sources of Data
Model Parameter Losdcore Analogue Seismic Well test Well test
Meandering Braided
Net:gross Yes Possibly Possibly No EFI/PLT
Channel thickness Yes Yes Below resolution Av. thickness EFI/PLT
Channel width No Yes Possibly Linear flow -ve skin
Channel volume No No Possibly Depletion No
Stacking pattern Possibly Yes Possibly Possibly ? Crossflow
Channel azimuth Dipmeter Yes Yes No No
Channel sinuosity Perm. profile Yes Yes Linear flow No
Internal architecture Yes Yes No (except GPR) No Yes (x-flow)
Permeability distribution Yes Yes No (perm trends) No Yes (double-@ )
Effective permeability Yes (upscaling) No No Yes (from kh) Yes (from kh)

Fig.1 The seismic surface slice (amplitude display) of a subsurface meandering channel belt in the Gulf of Thailand.
(length/width: 20km/10km). The lines along the channel belt show: channel belt margins (left and right line) and channel
belt median line (middle line).

479
 ~> Increasing Sinuosity

RI“BBON CHANNEL
W:T< 15:1

- mANDERING CHANNEL

_ , ;w~..y
““n”” CUTTING CHANNELS
SINGLE POINT B AR

,, MASSIVE BRAID PLAIN

,.,. ,.
~f .. -””
L r

Fig.2 A range of deterministic architectural models in fluvial channel reservoir systems, which comprise two families of
geological end members: the Meandering systems (above) and Braided systems (below). These together can give rise
to the more complex systems such as multistory and crosscutting or stacked reservoirs.

10000
,-

~c8*’ ‘: ,., ‘ Fluvial-C

f 000 j , d’ ‘well test data
/ /’
#~ ~
,*0’
100: ,/
-,**

10: El
@ Scatter of published ancient data
(Bryant and Flint, 1993)
1 [ 1 J-
.1 1 10 100
Channel thickness / bankfull depth (m)

Fig.3 Comparison of average modern river width/thickness and the range from ancient sediments (data envelope) with
well test interpreted subsurface channel dimensions. The well test data have been taken from the operator’s
interpretations (after Bridge and Mackey, 1993).
480
 105

104

1000

100

10

Fig.4 Fluvial F1OWSystem Diagnostic Plot with respect to channel sand width against thickness. The solid data points are
well test interpretation results from a Tertiary channel sands, the Gulf of Thailand.

10”
-4
109

107

105

1000
1 10 100
Channel Sandbody Thickness (m)

Fig.5 Fluvial Flow System Diagnostic Plot with respect to channel sand volume against thickness. The solid data points
are well test interpretation results from a Tertiary channel sands, the Gulf of Thailand.

481
 ,,———— ———— ———— ———.
/ ‘1
~1,.” ;Az Aq
/
/ I
/ / /
/ Xw /
/ /
/ w/2 I /
/ I
I
I
I
I
I I* , I
I II I xl
‘___~–__.+_7––—7J
I /’ “’1
~,. , I /’ }/ /
}/ Y
/
! /’ ! /’1 /“; //”
/k(. –_–––___Lc_Lc ––.1/’
, / o X}v,/
w/2 /’ /“’”
U2,. /
/ / / /
/ / / /
/ / / /
/ / / /
/
/
——— ___w/2 _ J—’— _ _/. __ / /

Fig.6 The geometry of the Pseudo-channel model in 3-D, which includes parallel boundaries with parabolic cros_s-
sectional profile. X, Y, Z are the Cartesian co-ordinates, L denotes the channel length, w, channel width, ~(x), the
channel bottom boundary defined as a parabolic function, h, channel maximum thickness, h.,, well intersected thickness
and XW,the distance from the well to the centre of the channel (Zheng et al, 1998). -

Pseudo-Channel Model in 3-D

o 400 800 1200

XY Planes 7 to 8

o 400 800 1200

m 1
XZ Cross Sectional View XY Planes I to 2

--0-- -
TRANX: 0.0- 0.1 0.1 -0.2 0.2-0.30.3-0.390.39- 0.490.49-0.59

Fig.7 The pseudo-channel model from Eclipse 200. The figure includes: modeI cross-sectional profiIe; modeI in 3-D; XY
planes 1 to 2 and 7 to 8. The colours represent the transmissibility variations. The lateral accretion surfaces are modelled
by flow barriers perpendicular to the top plane across the channel width (Zheng et al, 1998).

482
 I
I

1 I I I I

.- (2) Rectangular Profile, Constant Thickness.

Sss’ / i
/ .’.
----
(3) Parabolic Profile, Thickness pinch-out.
~.. (1) Pseudo-Parabolic Profile, Thickening ‘ /“’
~ Slope=,tfO/
Away from Wellbore.
LT R / .,/
c1 /
0.1
.’

i=
a
..
n,.
Q 0.01 .

c1
o
-1

0.001 l.............. “/
...............................__...........
L...LLl L.......L.....L..L..kA!L1l .....L.l.L
...............!A..L..L .... ....l.....A...L.
U.J!.li

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

LOG(T) (Hours)

Fig.8 Pressure responses of channel models from reservoirs with rectangular profile; parabolic profile and reverse-
parabolic profile. A new region SPGR, after MTR but before LTR, which is due to the variable formation thickness is
significant (Zheng et al, 1997).

o 5 10 15 20 25 30

Porosity (%)

Fig.9 A porosity/permeability crossplot across the reservoir formation. With a given linear correlation, the permeability
can be derived from the corresponding porosity. The uncertainty is that with a given porosity, e.g., 20%, the
corresponding permeabilities vary within several orders of magnitude. The scatter is due to the effects of grain size and
cementation variability.

483
 .kg
00

(a)

-1

-.7
1 . ...5
.3
. .“ ‘2
o -4

-5
-.
-6

-7

-x

1 hmi(” “ ‘PCLMM7’)
“’’’’)’(’)(”)
(b)

-2

.10

1 %77T!2T
“)’ “ ‘
10 10(1 10(x) IIMWOIOWOI)
PmmMi,iy(mD)

(c)

Fig.10 Permeability profiles in a (a) meander-loop, (b) thin braided and (c) multistory fluvial reservoir intervals. The
upper profile shows a single fining-up sequence. In the middle braided example, pedogenic processes have homogenised
the individual sand bodies which fine-up. In the lower multistory example, the inter-lamina and inter-bed variability can
be picked out in an overall fining upward sequence.

484
Fig.11 Core photos from the tested interval of Fluvial-D3. The formation sand is heterogeneous and most core plugs
tend to measure better quality sand sections, while only a few have been taken in poor quality sections. These plug data
in average can not represent formation permeability (Zheng et al, 1998).

0.~ I

Rc/Re=O.l %

Rc/Re=O.25 YO

Rc/Re=O.75 VO

Rc/Re= 1.5 %

Rc/Re=2.5 %
-4-
Rc/Re=5 %
Rc/Re=7.4 ‘A
Km:Kc (1:1 O) 1
-5 # 1 1
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0:4
‘PFC

r-6-
n

iT\iii’
&
-4
“’Re=O-25%
iiziiz~ I ‘ Rc/Re=O.l %

1 -5

.001 .01 .1 1
TpFClh

Fig.12 Relationship between negative skin (Geoskin), thickness(T,,,,C as af function of total thickness,h) and extent
(radius, Rc as a function of reservoir extent, Re) for PFC of varying permeability contrast with the “background matrix”
(Kmatric:Kchannel) (Corbett et al, 1996). 485
 ‘
-11900 ‘

sands and silts

-12000 “
—— .

-12050-

—. .
-12100 -
UNIT 2
(clean sand)

-777cn
,L, .J”

o 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750

Permeability (mD)

Fig.13 Permeability predictor compared to PLT data. The Y-axis represents the permeability calculated by the predictor.
The PLT curve has been linearly scaled to fit the Y-axis and the cumulative permeability curve has been scaled to fit
the PLT at the top and base of the perforated interval (after Ball et al., 1994).

1 i
I_’
I 1
I 1 1
1 1 1 I
1 I 1

no
1
C!uv’ ‘v

.$ 0.6
a
a
G
3 0.4
0
ii

0.2
o Data ordered
————A—
Data not ordered
r 1 1 I 1 I I 1 r I I I I
0
o 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Storage Capacity (PHl*h)

Fig.14 The Lorenz plot of core data across the perforated interval for DST- 1, Fluvial-E, the Gulf of Thailand. The
diagonal line represents the homogeneous reservoir. In contrasts, the data ordered and not ordered are all show the
heterogeneity of the reservoir formation in which nearly 80% of the flow from only about 28% of the perforated interval.
486
 -......
......
.,...,
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...... 9900
......
.,.,.,
......
......
.....
.....
,.,.,
,....
g ; 10000
E
E :::::
B :.::;:;
......
...,..
......
...... 10100
......
,.,.,
.,....
.,.,..
......
.....
...$.,
......
......
......
......
...... 10200
.,.,.,
.,.,.,
,.,..
...,.,
......
.,....
..
2a 10300
*
&

o~
a ,(),00
100 80 60 40 20 0

TRANSMISSIBILITY &
TOTAL FLOWRATE

Fig,15 Showing flow rate and transmissibility overlay with commingled zones shown crosshatched. These toge[her with
[he geological information, the type of reservoir in terms of flow (Crossffow and commingled)
-. can be distinguished
(Pinisetti, 1997).

log(thickness)
Fig.16 The idea of integration of geology, seismic, petrophysics and well testing. The geology background is provided by
the developed fluvial tlow system diagnostic plots (FFSDP). This has been derived from the interpretation of the field
example, Fluvial-E, in the Gulfof Thailand. -

487
 I

TWO-STAGE DIAGNOSTIC PROCESS

I b 4 I
GEOLOGICAL
MODEL
l—
~––––––––_– –r
I
I FLUVIAL SYSTEM
I
I ‘----”--h----”------”
DIAGNOSTIC ----- I i

L~~ I ~
I

I
I
I
I

I
ANALYSIS
L–––––_–.–.–––––_– ––––.–-– ––––––––––––---.--– –– –1

i i

Fig.17 The flow chart showing the two-stage diagnostic process. The integrated well test interpretation needs the analysis
of all the relavent data to derive the reservoir model. Then the subsurface flow system is calibrated through the
interpretation of the pressure transient data along with the geology. The interpreted reservoir parameters in terms of
geometry and heterogeneity are valid only with the correct reservoir or interpretation model.

Flg.18 The geostatistical model showing a fluvial channel reservoir from the North Sea, UK. TWO exploration wells have
been drilled within the appraisal block. The engineering challenge is to characterise the reservoir from the flow
performance and the reservoir dynamic behaviour with the limited data (Siefert, 1997).
488