SPE 103586

Seismic and Well Log Reprocessing, Re-interpretation and Geostatistical Inversion

Yields More Detailed View of Yuzhno Khilchuyu Field
Bret Fossum, ConocoPhillips; John Snow, NaryanMarNefteGaz; Yoann Guilloux, Fugro-Jason and Inga Khromova,
Andrey Chernitskiy and Aleksey Glebov, LUKoil
Copyright 2006, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2006 SPE Russian Oil and Gas Technical
Conference and Exhibition held in Moscow, Russia, 36 October 2006.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program 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 Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
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
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers 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, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836 U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
LUKoil and ConocoPhillips formed the joint venture company
NaryanMarNefteGaz (NMNG) to develop jointly owned
licenses in the Timan-Pechora Basin. The Yuzhno Khilchuyu
license lies in this province and, is expected to be one of the
largest and most prolific fields in the region. Development of
the Yuzhno Khilchuyu Field requires a huge initial investment
in infrastructure, drilling and transportation. Successfully
achieving acceptable reserves and production levels from the
field will be critical to offset these investments. To meet this
challenge a more detailed understanding of the reservoir is
needed to optimize well placement.

In 2004, a large multi-disciplinary subsurface project team
was formed with members from LUKoil, ConocoPhillips and
Fugro-Jason to develop updated high-resolution geologic and
reservoir simulation models. The seismic and well log data
were completely reprocessed, resulting in a significant
improvement in the overall data quality. All log, core, and
production test data were incorporated into a new, fully
integrated, interpretation. A sophisticated Markov Chain
Monte Carlo (MCMC) geostatistical inversion methodology
was applied, and the resulting high-resolution geologic model
yields a dramatic increase in reservoir detail. The new model
enabled the team to define the aerial extent of different
reservoirs and the distribution of internal barriers. It also
provided insight into porosity and permeability distribution
within each reservoir, enabling better decisions on the location
of production and water injection wells. Development drilling
is in progress.

Introduction
The NMNG joint venture agreement between LUKoil (70%)
and ConocoPhillips (30%) was consummated in 2005 and is
comprised of two exploration and eleven production licenses.
The NMNG assets are located in the Nenets Autonomous
Okrug, situated in the northern Timan-Pechora Basin onshore
region (Figure 1). The hydrocarbon bearing sequences are
predominantly carbonates and secondarily siliciclastics
ranging from the Silurian to the Triassic. The Yuzhno
Khilchuyu Field is considered to be the most prolific of the
NMNG joint venture portfolio.

The Yuzhno Khilchuyu Field reservoir characterization re-
interpretation project that commenced in late 2004 and ended
in early 2006, was carried out by an integrated technical team
from Fugro-Jason, NMNG, ConocoPhillips, and LUKoil
(Guilloux, et. al., 2006). Although Fugro-Jason had the
accountability of executing and completing the project,
ConocoPhillips, LUKoil and NMNG collaborated with Fugro-
Jason on a regular basis to facilitate knowledge sharing,
validate and understand interim results and to ensure the
resulting high-resolution geological model would initialize in
the selected reservoir simulation software. Collaboration
activities included participation in interim work sessions and
implementation of milestone-related peer reviews and project
reviews with pertinent company specialists and management.
Additionally, ConocoPhillips prepared a secondary shadow
model utilizing Petrel to aid in validation of the project as it
progressed. The three companies contributed to the project
management and all major technical project tasks including
data discovery and collection, seismic reprocessing, seismic
inversion, petrophysics, rock physics, interpretation (seismic,
geology, biostratigraphy), petrophysical cluster analysis,
stochastic porosity simulations, high-resolution geologic
modeling and analysis. The ongoing and successful
collaboration between the three companies and Fugro-Jason
contributed significantly to the success of the project and
ensured alignment of interim and final results with each
company and defendable project results. Although a technical
interpretation of the entire hydrocarbon-bearing sequence of
the Yuzhno Khilchuyu Field was carried out during the
project, this paper will focus on the reservoir characterization
of the principal oil-bearing deposits in the Lower Permian
Asselian-Sakmarian carbonate sequence.

Geological Setting
The Timan-Pechora Basin Province, located in the Arctic
coastal region of northwestern Russia, ranks high in
2 SPE 103586
Figure 1. NaryanMarNefteGaz (NMNG) Timan-Pechora Nenets Okrug Region Basemap. Annotated fields depict the
eleven production licenses in the NMNG portfolio.
discovered oil and gas volumes (Lindquist, 1999). The basin is
characterized by one total petroleum system, where the main
source rocks are basinal facies equivalents to shelfal carbonate
systems. The source rocks range in age from Ordovician to
earliest Carboniferous. The onshore area of the province is
315,100 km
2
; the offshore area is 131,700 km
2
, including
5,400 km
2
of islands.

The basin overall consists of 55-60% carbonates, 35-40%
siliciclastics, and 5% evaporates (Dedeev et. al, 1993). The
presence of oil has been known since at least 1595, and the
first wells were drilled between 1869 and 1917 (Meyerhoff,
1980). Known ultimate recoverable reserves are nearly 20
BBOE, distributed as 66% oil, 30% gas and 4% condensate.
Province wide, oil gravity ranges from 11-62 API, with an
average API of 35 degrees (Lindquist, 1999). Nearly 90% of
Timan-Pechora known reserves are associated with structural
traps, however in the Kolva Swell region, Middle Devonian
unconformities provide stratigraphic trapping mechanisms as
well.



Tectonics and Structure
The Timan-Pechora Basin is located on the eastern edge of the
East European Plate and was a passive margin basin during the
Paleozoic. Approximately 610 km of Paleozoic and
Mesozoic sediments overlies a thick upper Precambrian
granitic-metamorphic basement as well as an intermediate
Riphean-Vendian igneous-sedimentary layer overlying the
metamorphic basement. Multiple phases of local inversion
associated with compression and transpression occurred along
a northwest-southeast trend during the OrdovicianDevonian.
Past grabens are now structural highs, whereas past structural
highs are now depressions.

The Yuzhno Khilchuyu field is located on the 350 km-long
Kolva swell, a broad regional structural high located partly
over an inverted lower PaleozoicMiddle Devonian basin
(Figures 2 and 3 below). Immediately to the west lie the
Denisov trough and the Lay swell, and to the east, the
Khoreyver depression. The Khoreyver depression has
undergone little faulting or folding, whereas the western
margin of the Timan-Pechora Basin, comprised of the Kolva
swell, Denisov trough, and Lay swell, has been much more
mobile.
SPE 103586 3



Figure 2. Generalized tectonic map of the Timan-Pechora Basin.
Cross-section A-A (Figure 3) illustrates structural setting of
Yuzhno Khilchuyu Field. (Fossum et. al., 2001). AAPG 2001,
reprinted by permission of the AAPG whose permission is
required for futher use.

Regionally, there was extension during the Ordovician,
resulting in the Proto-Uralian Ocean. During the Early to
Middle Devonian, rifting occurred in the region of the present-
day Kolva swell. This rift was filled with Lower and Middle
Devonian siliciclastics. Intermittent compression and
associated erosion resulted in local and regional
unconformities. After the tectonically active Lower and
Middle and earliest Upper Devonian, the Upper Devonian was
a time of stable platform carbonate sedimentation. Carbonate
deposition continued through the Carboniferous and until the
Lower Permian. In the Timan-Pechora Basin, the effects of
the Uralian orogeny, during the early stages, were primarily
restricted to the inversion of the Kolva rift. This inversion
provided local highs for reef development and set up the
Lower Permian Asselian-Sakmarian carbonate play at Yuzhno
Khilchuyu. Siliciclastic input from sediments shed from the
Urals was not felt in the Yuzhno Khilchuyu area until the
Lower Permian SakmarianArtinskian. Carbonate
sedimentation was drowned by siliciclastic input from the west
during the Kungurian. Clastics continued to be shed from the
Urals westward into the region, throughout the Jurassic and
Early Cretaceous, a period of relative quiescence (Swirydczuk
t. al., 2003).
of
alaeoaplysina and Tubiphytes (Shamovella in Russian
e

Stratigraphy
During the Lower Permian AsselianSakmarian (Figure 4), the
Khilchuyu, Yuzhno Khilchuyu, and Yareiyu Field areas of the
Kolva swell continued to be paleohighs along which carbonate
buildups developed. The buildups are light gray, massive,
skeletal grainstones, with finer grained and commonly
siliceous interbeds. Thicknesses range from 80 to 130 m.
Buildups grew in a warm, shallow-water environment with
normal salinity, as indicated by the presence
P
Figure 3. West-east cross section across the northern part of the Timan-Pechora Basin showing the location of Yuzhno Khilchuyu Field
on the Kolva Swell. Yuzhno Khilchuyu has trapped hydrocarbons in the Lower Permian (Asselian-Sakmarian and Kungarian and also in
the overlying Upper Permian Sands (Fossum, et. al., 2001). AAPG 2001, reprinted by permission of the AAPG whose permission is
required for further use.
4 SPE 103586

li ut
th
buildups hold large oil accumulations at Yuzhno Khilchuyu
Field Summ
Th e
re e
de sited in response to sea
ower Zone C primarily present in the perimeter
isplays for Zones A and
istribution based on the
version volume. In general, enhanced intraparticle and
terature). Oil accumulations have been identified througho
e Kolva swell in these carbonate buildups, and these
and Yareiyu fields (Swirydczuk, 2003).

ary
e principal Lower Permian Asselian-Sakmarian carbonat
servoir is a stacked succession of shallow-water carbonat
posits, with individual cycles depo
level fluctuations (Figure 5). Each cycle consists of basal
wackestone or packstone overlain by Palaeoplysinid
grainstones or boundstones. Two main reservoir intervals exist
in the Asselian-Sakmarian sequence the upper Zone A
sweet spot is primarily present in the middle portion of the
fiel and the l d
of the field. Figure 6, total amplitude d
, illustrate the horizontal reservoir d C
in
Figure 4. Timan-Pechora Basin generalized stratigrap ction (Fossum et. al, 2001). AAPG 2001, reprinted by hic se
her use. permission of the AAPG whose permission is required for fut
5 SPE 103586
interp
response to subaerial exposure (Swirydczuk, 2003).

The field has been appraised by twenty-four wells (two
additional offset wells were utilized in the present study) and
has an average reservoir depth of 2,200 m. The trap is a
article
with microcodium (ancient soil profiles) are exhibited as a
combination structural stratigraphic (Figure 7) as convincing
evidence exists for an oil column present outside of the
structural closure. The gross reservoir thickness ranges from
80 to 130 meters; permeability ranges dramatically from less
than 1 to 4,520 md, with higher permeability values associated
with dissolution. Maximum measured porosity based on core
plug data is 30% and the average API of the oil is 35. Fluid
analysis indicates the Asselian-Sakmarian H
2
S values range
from 2-3%.

Development and Transportation Program
lopment program, comprised of five pads with 46
producers, 44 injectors and 18 water source wells will be
implemented in two phases. Phase 1 production plan calls for
acity of
780 MBO, will be capable of handling up to 250 MBWPD,
and the produced gas will be sweetened to less than 5 ppm
H
2
S prior to re-injection. Yuzhno Khilchuyu hydrocarbons
porosity and permeability commonly associated
The deve
Figure 5. Yuzhno Khilchuyu Field type log utilizing two
representative wells. Display illustrates a stacked
succession of shallow-water carbonate deposits with
individual cycles deposited in response to sea level
fluctuations. Arrows indicate upward coarsening sequences.
Figure 6. Total amplitude displays for Zones A and C. Total
amplitude = integrated inversion porosity. Yellow, red, green
and light blue colors indicate porous regions, dark blue and
purple colors indicate low porosity.
Figure 7. Lower Permian Asselian-Sakmarian top reservoir
depth structure with well control. Blue dashed line illustrates
approximate area of Yuzhno Khilchuyu 3D seismic survey.
White wavy line illustrates Zone A sweet spot region
defined by mapped porosity trends (see Figure 6). Black line
indicates a south to north line-of-section depicted in Figures
10 and 15 below. Coutour interval is 20 meters and north is
towards top of page.
60 MBOPD output by 4
th
quarter 2007 and Phase 2 production
plan calls for an increase to 160 MBOPD by 4
th
quarter 2008.
The central production facility will have a storage cap
6 SPE 103586
will be transported via a 162 km pipeline connected to the
offshore Varandey terminal capable of 200 MBOPD. The
Varandey terminal, situated in approximately 17 meters water
depth, will have four main tanks with a total of 1.25 MM
barrels of storage. Excess gas will be injected into the adjacent
Yareiyu field.

Methodology and Interpretation

Seismic Reprocessing
Approximately 217 km
2
of Viborsies 3D data were acquired
over the Yuzhno Khilchuyu field during the 1992-1994 winter
seasons (blue outline in Figure 7). The data were originally
processed in 1995 using after stack time migration (ASTM).
Because it had been so long since the data were processed,
significant improvement in data quality and the vertical and
horizontal resolution of the Lower Permian Asselian-
Sakmarian was expected by applying the newer methods
available today.

A modern pre-stack time migration (PSTM) technique was
utilized. Careful pre-processing, noise attenuation and statics
corrections were followed by multiple NMO statics passes
with progressively tighter velocity analyses. Horizon-
consistent long period statics corrections were applied pre-
stack, followed by a Kirchoff pre-stack time migration. Post-
migration processing included horizon consistent velocity
analyses
carefully oject.

Results of the reprocessing effort were very encouraging
ock and Top Carboniferous horizons
addition to the improved confidence in the data positioning
and structural dips due to more robust migration, the vertical
resolution of the data were enhanced significantly. The
improved vertical resolution, primarily due to better
preservation of the frequency content in the data, allowed a
more robust characterization of the internal boundaries and
porosity trends.

Core Analysis
Over 1,600 routine core plug samples covering both reservoir
and non-reservoir rock in the Asselian-Sakmarian section were
acquired and analyzed. Samples with the highest porosity (up
to 30%) and permeability (up to 4,520md) were recovered
mainly from the crestal portions of the mound complexes.
Subaerial exposure, suspected from the well logs,
petrophysical interpretation and confirmed from the whole
core facies descriptions, was evident in a subset of the
samples. Non-reservoir rock was deposited primarily on the
flanks of the complexes as well as the crests during periods of
high sea level and mound flooding. Core chips from the whole
core plug samples were utilized in the biostratigraphic
interpretation (Clopine et. al, 1996).

Production and Interference Test Data
Approximately 70 relatively short term open hole and cased
hole production tests were run at various times throughout the
delineation of the field. Well tests were carried out on all
om 18 to
5,525 BOPD at drawdowns of 217 to 3,015 psia, with an
average of 2,120 BOPD and drawdown of 1,200 psi. Many of
the well tests yielded oil and water or only water. From these
, trim statics and partial stack analyses. Each step was
quality controlled throughout the pr
hydrocarbon bearing sequences and rates varied fr
(Figure 8). The Top Capr
that bracket the Lower Permian Asselian-Sakmarian target
interval, have been displayed on the image for reference. In
data a complex picture of variable free water contacts can be
inferred (Figure 9). The production test data typically disagree
with the well log water saturation interpretations.
Figure 8. Representative seismic line, original vs. current reprocessing.
SPE 103586 7

Figure 9. Simplified cross-section illustrating variability of water and oil fluid contact surfaces based on interpretation of
production test data (Strauss, 2005).
Well log interpretation
A comprehensive petrophysical evaluation of each well was
carried out using
Follow
plug de
and water saturation were interpreted. Following this process,
ater saturation was initially estimated based on two main
ty data and unfocused
induction and lateral devices. Unfortunately, all but one well
was drilled with fresh water, which generated uncertainty in
n of the
with
deep
penetrating, focused induction log that allowed a calibration of
defined in the
A (primary
wireline and core plug analysis data.
ing a lengthy data quality control, log splicing and core
pth matching process, matrix porosity, vug porosity
the BKZ resistivity measurements due to deep invasio
fresh water drilling fluids. However one well was drilled
an oil-based mud system and was logged with a
a cluster analysis was carried out to characterize petrophysical
rock types related to lithology and complex pore types
(Sokolova and Klyazhnikov, 2005).

The well log porosity estimation was performed using
Russian-style single detector neutron-gamma (compensated
neutron available in four of the newer wells), P-sonic, density
data and calibrated to core plug data. Total porosity from the
neutron-gamma log data was estimated by the traditional
technique of utilizing two marking beds with high and low
readings of neutron gamma log with a correction for gamma
activity according to the neutron log tool. Based on prior
knowledge in the area and results of special core analysis data,
a 9% porosity cut-off was utilized to determine net and non-
net reservoir rock.

W
sets of data focused induction resistivi
BKZ (Russian-style) resistivity data. The BKZ data, which
were the most plentiful, were interpreted using an iso-
resistivity technique that used focused single-detector
the BKZ data and an accurate reading of true resistivity in the
oil column. Due to the uncertainty in the water saturation
values as stated above, a J-function approach, based on
available capillary pressure and results of the petrophysical
cluster analysis was utilized. Additional details may be found
below.

Correlation Framework and Geological Facies Model
A fully integrated correlation framework based on seismic
data, synthetic well ties, wireline character and
biostratigraphic data was carried out. As the correlation
framework was developed, the geological facies model as
discussed above was defined and optimized throughout the
interpretation process. Five main intervals were
correlation framework caprock (top seal), Zone
reservoir), Zone B (tertiary reservoir), Zone C (secondary
reservoir) and basal Zone C (primarily non-reservoir).
Additionally, secondary internal surfaces were correlated
whenever the data allowed. See Figure 10 for a representative
cross-section which illustrates the main intervals and porosity
bearing regions.
8 SPE 103586

The caprock interval is easily mapped throughout the field
area and represents the top seal for the Yuzhno Khilchuyu
hy s
ra n
be its a
ounding morphology (see porosity distribution depicted in
ickness of a few meters on the perimeter
bearing region to greater than 70 meters on the
primarily to the subtle
p/Vs fluid effects typical in carbonates and secondarily to
Figure 10. South to north stratigraphic cross-section illustrating Y
Gamma ray (left) and interpreted porosity (right) logs are disp
Carboniferous. See Figure 7 for line-of-section.
drocarbon accumulation. The caprock interval thicknes
nges from 15 to 40 meters over the main hydrocarbo
aring portion of the field. Zone A, which exhib
m
Figure 6), ranges in th
to over 60 meters in the central portion of the field and sweet
spot region. Zone B ranges in thickness from 10 to 30 meters
and exhibits sporadic porosity development. Zone C, which
exhibits a tectonically influenced orthogonal mound pattern
(see porosity distribution depicted in Figure 6) ranges in
thickness of 10 meters in the central portion of the
hydrocarbon
perimeter. Generally, thicker sequences correlate to higher
porosity.

Constrained Sparse Spike Inversion.
A constrained sparse spike acoustic inversion was carried out
on the newly reprocessed full-fold stacked seismic data to
investigate the porosity signature in the Asselian-Sakmarian
reservoir interval. A relationship between well log derived
acoustic impedance and porosity estimated from the well log
calculations was derived. Using that relationship, the acoustic
impedance volume was converted to porosity. The expected
variations in porosity in the reservoir zones are apparent at a
coarse scale (see Figure 11 for an example). The seismic
derived porosity was very successful as the correlation
between the inversion seismic porosities and the well log
derived porosity were quite good, the best correlation being
porosity times thickness. See Figure 12 for a cross-plot of total
amplitude (integrated seismic porosity thickness or Phi-H
within the reservoir interval) versus well log average porosity
times Phi-H. The correlation coefficient was calculated at 96%
while the standard error based on the Students T-Distribution
is 75%, given limitations of the data population.

Offset Acoustic Impedance and Vp/Vs Analysis
Additionally, offset acoustic impedance and Vp/Vs
(compressional vs. shear velocity) volumes were calculated to
address fluid characterization. Due
V
the very limited shear velocity data, the predictive capabilities
of this method was considered to be weak (Foster, 2006).

uzhno Khilchuyu stratigraphic architecture and zonation.
layed for each well. Cross-section flattened on the Top
9 SPE 103586

Stochastic Inversion
The stochastic inversion process utilized a Markov chain
Monte Carlo (MCMC) approach. The reprocessed seismic data
(for lateral detail) and well log porosity (for vertical detail)
was stochastically processed to produce a high resolution view
of the reservoir that is statistically correct and geologically
reasonable.

Initially a rigorous probability distribution matrix was defined
based on well log and acoustic impedance porosity data that
linked the petrophysical cluster-based rock type volume with
e pre-stack time migration seismic, well log porosity,
nd geostatistics. The geostatistical
describe the characteristics of continuity and variance for each
zone.

Subsequently, MCMC methods were used to generate a
statistically correct set of output samples from the validated
probability distribution function. Numerous iterations were
atistical inputs with the intent
ogically reasonable and
consistent with the facies models generated from the
correlation framework task discussed above. Once input data
were validated, numerous realizations were run to explore the
simulation space, and to ensure the input data variance was
reflected in the results.

The MCMC methods have recently emerged as the main tools
for solving problems involving a large number of random
variables. As the input probability distribution function can be
very complex, analytical methods cannot be used (Chen and
Hoversten, 2003). In the case of a stochastic inversion
application, the input data can be numerous including well
logs, seismic attribute volumes, variography and most
importantly, geological insight. The resulting simulation is
computed by selecting values from a Markov Chain that has a
given probability distribution, and using these values to
co g
pr e
we puted. If
the difference is reduced, the iteration is retained and starts
d for the
generated to test alternative geost
of generating a product that was geol
Figure 11. Representative acoustic impedance display showing strong response to porosity.
th
geological facies model a
input data were comprised of expected data distributions in the
form of histograms and lateral and vertical variograms to
over with new values. If the difference is larger, it may be
rejected or accepted by the next iteration. The simulation is
expected to converge to the best solution which results in one
realization, and is determined using convergence diagnosis
methods (Gelman and Rubin, 1992).

The stochastic inversion process yielded highly detailed
information on porosity throughout the Asselian-Sakmarian
reservoir and non-reservoir interval, and was utilize
Figure 12. Total amplitude versus por
plot for Zones A, B and C. Illus
osity-thickness cross-
trates the strong correlation
between the acoustic inversion and porosity in the wells.
mpute other properties. In each iteration, the resultin
operties are compared to the expected distributions for th
ighted input data, and a residual difference is com
10 103586 SPE
porosity property in the high-resolution geological model. See
Figure 13 for the generalized workflow of the stochastic
porosity process. Following generation of the simulated
permeability logs and J-function based water saturation
functions discussed below, the MCMC algorithm co-
simulation approach was utilized to produce final high-
resolution property models.

Petrophysical Cluster Analysis
The primary goal of the cluster analysis was to differentiate
principal rock types based on porosity, pore throat structure
and the occurrence of fracturing or vugs. The aim was to use
the petrophysical cluster based rock type classes as an
additional conditioning control in the geological modeling co-
simulation process. Rocks were divided into six clusters using
blocked gamma-ray, total porosity and P-sonic logs as input
data. As many of the cluster populations were subtle, two main
clusters were interpreted and carried forward in the fine-scale
geological and reservoir simulation model. The two main
cluster population rock types were utilized in the fine-scale
geological model to populate water saturation based on results
of the J-function analysis. See Figure 14 for a summary of the
six clusters as a relationship of porosity and permeability.

Permeability simulation
Well log permeability was simulated by utilizing a densified
P-C y
dat sity
rossplot was densified by blocking the porosity and
ermeability point data and carrying out an editing process to
n. As a first pass editing process,
Figure 13. Stochastic inversion generalized workflow. The phase "*n" refers to the number of realizations.
was plotted against core plug permeability. The resulting P-
Cloud c
p
create a reasonable distributio
discretizing (blocking) the core plug point data naturally
removed the outliers. The well log calculated porosity was
simulated against the densified P-Cloud distribution using a
bivariate application. The resulting permeability log, necessary
for the MCMC co-simulation input, was created by
Figure 14. Porosity vs. permeability by cluster cross-plot
based on petrophysical analysis of the Yuzhno Khilchuyu
well log database (Sokolova and Klyazhnikov, 2005).
loud transform of the core plug porosity and permeabilit
a and calculated well log porosity. First, core plug poro
SPE 103586 11

geometrically averaging the resulting realizations. See Figure
f well test results and water saturation estimated
fro BKZ resistivity log data, specific areas and zones within
free water levels. Following a review
The MCMC approach was utilized to generate multiple
final high-resolution rock type, permeability
resol
abov lution stochastic
Figure 15. Simulated permeability log workflow based on P-Cloud transform of core plug porosity, core plug permeability and
well log porosity.
15 for a summary of the simulated well log permeability
simulation workflow.

Water Saturation
As discussed above, a J-function approach was utilized to
populate the water saturation property model. Based on a
combination o
m
the field were assigned
of the available capillary pressure information, the data were
converted to J-functions based on laboratory data consistent
with the approach utilized in Harrison (2001). Two J-functions
were created, one for the rock type 2 (best porosities and
permeabilities) and one for the remaining rock types (Figure
16). The resulting J-functions were utilized in the rock
property simulation discussed below. Input for the J-function
based simulated water saturation calculations were modeled
rock type, porosity, permeability and interpreted free water
levels.

Rock Property Simulation
realizations of
and water saturation property models to complement the high-
ution stochastic porosity property models discussed
e. Input data included the high-reso
Figure 16. Summary J-functions utilized in the MCMC
simulation. Two curves represent calculated J-functions
for each summarized rock type illustrated in Figure 14.
12 SPE 103586
porosity, petrophysical well log calculations, simulated
eability data, derived petrophysical relationships, J-
ions by rock type, and geologic inferences about
rvoir tren
perm
funct
ese ds, shape, thickness, and lateral extent captured
alid sults to well
mod
data See Figure
7 for examples of modeled rock type, porosity, permeability
utili
aria volumetrics and streamline simulation as input
utili

onclusions
ct yielded many insights to the Yuzhno Khilchuyu
f the final high-
solution geological models. It was very clear from the
beginning that reprocessing the seismic data would have a
he modeling process was critical to the ultimate
ccess. Also, utilizing the MCMC based geostatistical
tanding the variance and related
ncertainties.
itchell, Gary
yers, Claude Scheepens, Sindre Soerensen, Stephen Strauss,
otruk, Tatyana Pilosova, Boris Rapoport
nd Alexander Rusalin from NMNG; Denis Antonov, Nataliya
enis Saussus,
atiana Sokolova, Paul Tijink and Olga Zhuravliova from
eferences
r
in the input geostatistics (variograms and histograms).
Following multiple iterations of varying input data and a
ation process that included comparing re v
data, sector model history matching and a drop-out analysis
using four key wells, the resulting high-resolution property
els were proved to be statistically consistent with the input
and considered to be geologically reasonable.
1
and water saturation. The multiple realizations were ranked
zing property model statistics (mean, standard deviation,
nce, etc), v
criteria. Following the ranking process, the best technical case
model and variance analysis were calculated and are being
zed to optimize the drilling program.
C
This proje
Field and for the project team in terms of the workflow. Input
from the multi-discipline team contributed greatly to
maximizing the integrity and reliability o
re
large impact, and that understanding the geology prior to
commencing t
su
inversion provided direction input into the high-resolution
geological model and was critical for capturing finer detail in
the model and unders
u

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the individuals contributing to
the project team. These individuals are Andre Bouchard, Chip
Feazel, Gordon Fielder, Douglas Foster, Ray M
M
Krys Swirydczuk and Mark Wuensher from ConocoPhillips;
Andy Haas, Valery M
a
Chernoglazova, Dmitry Daudin, Mikhail Ercenkov, Pavel
Ershov, Dmitriy Klyazhnikov, Konstantin Kunin, Elena
Malysheva, Beth Rees, Alexander Rykov, D
T
Fugro-Jason and Vasily Duzin from Pomor-Gers.

R
Bonner, F. M., E. J. Bergamo, C. Gonzalez, W. King, S. R. Strauss
and P. L. Wilson, 1995, Yuzhno Khilchuyu well test report,
ConocoPhillips internal report, p. 1-22.
Figure 17. South to north transect (see Figure 7 for line-of-section) final rock type, porosity, permeability and water
saturation property models. Vertical lines indicate well control points.
SPE 103586 13
Chen, J. and G. M. Hoversten, 2003, Joint Stochastic Inversion of
. Musafirova, and K. Swirydczuk, 1996, Lower
ecial Publication
8, p. 75.
no. 9-10, p. 324-335 (translated from Aktual nyye problemy
tektoniki SSSR, Nauka, p. 124-138, 1988).

Fossum, B. J., W. J. Schmidt, D. A. Jenkins,V. I. Bogatsky, and B. I.
Rappoport, 2001, New frontiers for hydrocarbon production in
the Timan-Pechora Basin, Russia, in M.W. Downey, J. C.
Threet, and W. A. Morgan, eds., Petroleum provinces of the
twenty-first century: AAPG Memoir 74, p. 259279.

Foster, D. 2006, Summary of the Yuzhno Khilchuyu Seismic
Inversion Project, ConocoPhillips Internal Report, p. 1-3.

Gelman, A. and Rubin, D., 1992, Inference from iterative simulation
using multiple sequences: Statistical Science, 7, p. 457-511.

Guilloux, Y. C., E. O. Maleshova, T. F. Cokolova and P. H. Ershov,
2006, Yuzhno Khilchuyu Field reservoir characterization and
geological modeling final report, NaryanMarNefteGaz internal
report.

Harrison, B., 2001, Saturation Height Methods and Their Impact on
Volumetric Hydrocarbon in Place Estimates, SPE 71326, p. 1-
12.

Lindquist, Sandra J., 1999, The Timan-Pechora Basin Province of
Northwest Arctic Russia: DomanikPaleozoic Total Petroleum
System, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological
Survey.

Meyerhoff, A. A., 1980, Petroleum basins of the Soviet Arctic:
Geological Magazine, v. 117, No. 2, p. 101-186.

Sokolova T.F., Klyazhnikov D.V. et al., 2005, Saturation
determination of complex carbonate reservoirs using well log
data with application of cluster analysis, 7th International
Conference Geomodel-2005, Gelendjik, Russia.

Strauss, S., 2005, Yuzhno Khilchuyu Field interpretation of well test
data and fluid contacts, ConocoPhillips Internal Proprietary
Report.

Swirydczuk, K., B. I. Rapoport, V. F. Lesnichy, and J. A. Quadir,
2003, Yuzhno Khilchuyu field, Timan-Pechora Basin, Russia, in
M. T. Halbouty, ed., Giant oil and gas fields of the decade
1990 1999, AAPG Memoir 78, p. 251 274.

Figures
1. NaryanMarNefteGaz (NMNG) Timan-Pechora Nenets
Okrug Region Basemap. Annotated fields depict the eleven
production licenses in the NMNG portfolio.

2. Generalized tectonic map of the Timan-Pechora Basin.
Cross-section A-A (Figure 3) illustrates structural setting of
Yuzhno Khilchuyu Field. (Fossum et. al., 2001).

3. West-east cross section across the northern part of the
Timan-Pechora Basin showing the location of Yuzhno
Khilchuyu Field on the Kolva Swell. Yuzhno Khilchuyu has
trapped hydrocarbons in the Lower Permian (Asselian-
Sakmarian and Kungarian) and also in the overlying Upper
Permian Sands (Fossum et. al., 2001).

4. Timan-Pechora Basin generalized stratigraphic section
(Fossum et. al, 2001).

5. Yuzhno Khilchuyu Field type log utilizing two key wells.
Display illustrates a stacked succession of shallow-water
carbonate deposits with individual cycles deposited in
response to sea level fluctuations. Arrows indicate upward
coarsening sequences.

6. Total amplitude displays for Zones A and C. Total
amplitude = integrated inversion porosity. Yellow, red, green
and light blue colors indicate porous regions, dark blue and
purple colors indicate low porosity.

7. Lower Permian Asselian-Sakmarian top reservoir depth
structure with well control. Blue dashed line illustrates
approximate area of Yuzhno Khilchuyu 3D seismic survey.
White wavy line illustrates Zone A sweet spot region defined
by mapped porosity trends (see Figure 6). Black line indicates
a south to north line-of-section transect depicted in Figures 10
and 15 below. Contour interval is 20 meters and north is
towards top of page.

8. Representative seismic line, original vs. current
reprocessing.

9. Simplified cross-section illustrating variability of water and
oil fluid contact surfaces based on interpretation of production
test data (Strauss, 2005).

10. South to north stratigraphic cross-section illustrating
Yuzhno Khilchuyu stratigraphic architecture and zonation.
Gamma ray (left) and interpreted porosity (right) logs are
displayed for each well. Cross-section flattened on the Top
Carboniferous. See Figure 7 for line-of-section.

11. Representative acoustic impedance display showing strong
response to porosity.

12. Total amplitude versus porosity-thickness cross-plot for
Zones A, B and C. Illustrates the strong correlation between
the acoustic inversion and porosity in the wells.

13. Stochastic inversion generalized workflow. Note: *n
refers to number of realizations.

14. Porosity vs. permeability by cluster cross-plot based on
petrophysical analysis of the Yuzhno Khilchuyu well log
database (Sokolova and Klyazhnikov, 2005).
Geophysical Data for Reservoir Parameter Estimation, Society
of Exploration Geophysicists 73
rd
Annual Meeting Proceedings.

lopine, W. W., E. M C
Permian fusulinid biostratigraphy and graphic correlation in
Yuzhno Khilchuyu field, Timan Pechora basin, northern Russia
(abs.): Sixth North American Paleontological Convention
Abstracts of Papers, Paleontological Society Sp

Dedeev, V., L. Aminov, V. A. Molin and V. V. Yudin, 1993,
Tectonics and systematic distribution of deposits of energy
resources of the Pechora platform: Petroleum Geology, v. 27,
14 SPE 103586

15. Simulated permeability log workflow based on P-Cloud
transform of core plug porosity, core plug permeability and
well log porosity.

16. Summary J-functions utilized in the MCMC simulation.
Two curves represent calculated J-functions for each
summarized rock type illustrated in Figure 14.

17. South to north transect (see Figure 7 for line-of-section)
final rock type, porosity, permeability and water saturation
property models. Vertical lines indicate well control points.