Montecarlo Illustrations

7/28/2009
1
Illustration of Formation Evaluation
Uncertainty Characterization with Excel
MonteCarloIllustrations.xls
Be aware that Excel2007 is being used, in the Backwards Compatible mode.
Excel2003 screens may appear different than those included herein. y pp ff
The only certainty in most of our formation
evaluations is the presence of uncertainty
and how that issue is (or is not) addressed.
It is in fact relatively
simple to address the
uncertainty question
in a comprehensive,
i i f hi quantitative fashion,
and to further identify
where to focus time,
and money, in search
of an improved
evaluation.
Monte Carlo with Excel Summary
The Monte Carlo method relies on repeated random sampling to model results
This approach is attractive when it is infeasible or impossible to compute an
exact result with a deterministic algorithm.
An advantage of Monte Carlo is that any type of distribution can be used to
characterize the uncertainty distribution of any parameter cha acte ize the unce tainty dist ibution of any pa amete
Normal, log normal, etc
The phenomena governing frequency distributions in nature often favor log-
normal.
A limitation of Monte Carlo is that special software is needed
Not included with many commercially available petrophysics s/w packages
The implementation of a MC Model over a large section of log data can also be
very time consuming
CarbonatePetrophysicsforGeoNeurale
Copyright2009RobertEBallay,LLC
7/28/2009
2
The Monte Carlo method makes use of individual probability distributions to arrive
at a cumulative probability distribution
The determination of a probability distribution is superior to the single
deterministic value
Insight is gained into the upside and downside Insight is gained into the upside and downside
Many Oilfield analyses can be accomplished with Excel
This eliminates both the expense of, and need to learn, commercial programs
@Risk, Crystal Ball, etc
Oilfield applications typically use normal, log normal, and triangular
statistical distributions.
Relevant Excel functions
Rand, NormDist, NormInv, LogNormDist, LogInv, TriangleInv
With Monte Carlo, insight is gained into the upside and downside
+ / - 1 will encompass ~ 68% of the distribution
+ / - 2 ~ 95 % of the distribution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation
7/28/2009
3
Supplemental material
Relevant spreadsheets
MonteCarloModeling.xls
RollingTheDice.PDF
MonteCarloModeling.PDF
Illustrative Excel-based Monte Carlo Evaluations
Phi(Rhob)
Dual Porosity Cementation Exponent (Wang & Lucia)
Sw(Archie)
Relevant spreadsheet
MonteCarloModeling.xls
7/28/2009
4
Excel MC Evaluation of Phi(Rhob)
Your bulk density log has been run across
a cored, wet (Rho_fluid=1.00), limestone
(Rho_ma=2.71) and correlates with
compaction corrected core plug porosity
as seen at right, and below
Is the observed correlation consistent
0
2
0
.
0
0
0
.
1
0
0
.
2
0
0
.
3
0
Porosity
Phi(Core)
Phi(Rhob)
with a MC simulation that is based upon
expected uncertainties?
Exhibit following
020
0.30
y
Log vs Core
12 inch Log
4
6
D
e
p
t
h
Rhob MC Exercise
0.00
0.10
0.20
2.25 2.35 2.45 2.55 2.65 2.75
C
o
r
e

P
l
u
g

P
o
r
o
s
i
t
y
Wi rel i ne Bul k Densi ty
8
10
MonteCarloIllustratePhi(Rhob).xls
The synthetic Rhob is a mathematical
construct based upon the 12 inch
average of sequential Phi(Core) plugs
and user specified Rho_ma & Rho_fld,
with random noise added
Because of the averaging effect (blue
0
2
0
.
0
0
0
.
1
0
0
.
2
0
0
.
3
0
Porosity
Phi(Core)
Phi(Rhob)
Phi(Avg)
Because of the averaging effect (blue
line vs purple dots), which is also present
in wireline tools, the high and low
porosities may not be seen by the tool
Hence the shortfall of Phi(Rhob) at
the peaks and troughs
Be aware that because the noise is
random, the graphics will change
4
6
D
e
p
t
h
Rhob MC Exercise
random , the graphics will change
every time the spreadsheet is opened
Note that if core plugs are carefully
selected, to represent the entire foot, the
averaging issue will be minimized
Exhibit following
8
10
7/28/2009
5
The synthetic Rhob is a mathematical
construct based upon the 12 inch
average of sequential Phi(Core) plugs,
user specified Rho_ma & Rho_fld, with
random noise added
Exhibit following
0
2
0
.
0
0
0
.
1
0
0
.
2
0
0
.
3
0
Porosity
Phi(Core)
Phi(Rhob)
Phi(Avg)
Rhob MC Exercise
Exhibit following
4
6
D
e
p
t
h
8
10
Your bulk density log has been run across a cored, wet (Rho_fluid=1.00), limestone
(Rho_ma=2.71) and correlates with compaction corrected core plug porosity as seen
below
Is the observed correlation consistent with a MC simulation that is based upon
Log vs Core
Assume the Phi(Core)
Rhob MC Exercise
0.20
0.30
P
l
u
g

P
o
r
o
s
i
t
y
Log vs Core
12 inch Log
Assume the Phi(Core)
data is very well known,
and all uncertainty is in
the Rhob measurement
(ie does a MC simulation
of Phi(Rhob) account for
the observed scatter).
Scatter in Rhob is
Rhob MC Exercise
0.00
0.10
2.25 2.35 2.45 2.55 2.65 2.75
C
o
r
e

P
Wi rel i ne Bul k Densi ty
Scatter in Rhob is
about + / - 0.02 gm/cc
Scatter in Phi(Rhob)
then about + / - 1 pu
Exhibit following
includes a Phi(Rhob) model
7/28/2009
6
Is the observed correlation consistent with a MC simulation that is based upon
Scatter in Rhob is ~ + / - 0.02 gm/cc; Scatter in Phi(Rhob) then ~ + / - 1 pu
Exhibit following
Rhob MC Assume all uncertainty is in the Rhob measurement.
Solution
Set RhoG & RhoF STD small, and find (vary) RhoB STD required to
match observed + / - 1 pu scatter
Is the observed correlation consistent with a MC simulation that is based upon expected
uncertainties? Yes
MC simulation matches observed RhoB scatter, with RhoB STD ~ 0.01 gm/cc which is a
physically realistic value
Exhibit following
Rhob MC Vary RhoB STD to match observed + / - 1 pu scatter
Solution
RhoB STD ~ 0.01 gm/cc yields uncertainty in Phi(Rhob) of ~ +/- 2 STD
+/- 1 pu (+/- 2 STD encompasses 95% of the distribution)
7/28/2009
7
MC simulation matches observed RhoB scatter, with RhoB STD ~ 0.01 gm/cc
Random noise in RhoB(Synthetic) was + / - 0.03 gm/cc square distribution
+ / - 0.03 gm/cc random noise corresponds to ~ 2 3 STD, STD ~ 0.01
0.015 gm/cc
Yes, the MC simulation and the synthetic Rhob are consistent
Rhob MC
Solution
Phi (Rhob) Reference
Material Follows
Excel Monte Carlo Evaluation of Phi(Rhob)
Porosity estimation with density log is dependent upon
Grain density (mineralogy)
Fluid density (mud filtrate, connate water, hydrocarbon)
Bulk density (measured)
If the distribution of uncertainty in each of these is estimated, the net uncertainty in
Phi(Rhob) can be characterized with Monte Carlo simulation
Exhibit following
Reference Material
7/28/2009
8
Grain density (mineralogy) is dependent upon our ability to identify the presence and
concentration of the various minerals
In the case of a limestone - dolostonemix, if the ability to distinguish mineralogy is
about 10% , the grain density (2 sigma, 95% ) range is about
+/- 0.03 gm/cc g
One RhoG sigma is ~ 0.0075 gm/cc
Exhibit following
E ndPoint R hoG PctPrsnt
L imestone 2.710 0.9
Dolostone 2.870 0.1
Mixture 2.726
Ifmineralogyis10%uncertain,
R hoGis~+/0.015gm/ccuncertain
Note that the presence of a mineral whose
density is significantly different than
limestone - dolostone, would expand the
uncertainty range
GrainDensity
E ndPoint R hoG PctPrsnt
L imestone 2.710 0.1
Dolostone 2.870 0.9
Mixture 2.854
Ifmineralogyis10%uncertain,
R hoGis~+/0.015gm/ccuncertain
Salt: 2.17 gm/cc
Anhydrite: 2.96 gm/cc
Siderite: 3.94 gm/cc
Pyrite: 5.00 gm/cc
Grain Density
Reference Material
From the preceding calculations we recognize the two sigma (95 %) RhoG range to
be ~ 0. 03 gm/cc
One RhoG sigma is ~ (0.03 gm/cc) / 4 = 0.0075 gm/cc
+ / 2 95 % f th di t ib ti
Excel Monte Carlo Evaluation of Phi(Rhob) Reference Material
7/28/2009
9
T & P Dependence (GeoLog)
1.10
1.12
1.14
1.16
1.18
1.20
y

(
g
m
/
c
c
)
75 F / 0 psi
175 F / 2500 psi
225 F / 2500 psi
Fluid density is dependent upon the relative
amounts of
mud filtrate,
connate water
h d b
Net Fluid Density
Concentration Relations
250
1.00
1.02
1.04
1.06
1.08
0 50 100 150 200 250
Sal i ni t y (k ppm)
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
hydrocarbon
Mud filtrate density is dependent upon salinity,
temperature and pressure
Salinity may be specified in terms of TDS or PPM
Consider two salinity's: 50 kppm & 150 kppm
At 175 F, 2500 psi, the two densities are
0
50
100
150
200
0 50 100 150 200 250
Salinity (k ppm)
T
D
S

(
m
g
/
l
)
75 F
175 F
, p ,
Spreadsheet Salinity_Density Conversions.xls
50 kppm => 1.011 gm/cc
150 kppm => 1.085 gm/cc
Reference Material
Crude density may be specified as gm/cc or API Gravity
API Gravity is a measure of specific gravity per the American Petroleum Institute,
graduated in degrees on a hydrometer which was designed so that most values would
fall between 10 and 70 API gravity degrees.
Th bit f l dt bt i thi ff t i
The arbitrary formula used to obtain this effect is:
API Gravity = (141.5 / SG at 60 F) - 131.5
Sixty degrees Fahrenheit is used as the normal reference for measurements and tables
are published that give adjustments for temperature. (ASTM D1298)
A heavy oil with a specific gravity of 1.0 (the density of pure water) would have an
API Gravity of:
C rudeDensity(60F )
(141.5 / 1.0) - 131.5 =10.0 degrees API
C rude ensity (60F )
gm/cc API
0.500 152
0.600 104
0.700 71
0.800 45
0.900 26
1.000 10
Reference Material
7/28/2009
10
Fluid density is inherent in pressure profiles
Spreadsheet Fluid_Density_PressureGradient.xls
Fluid density calculated from first principles (preceding) should be cross-checked
against any available pressure data
F luidGradientDens ityR elation
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
u
r
e
G
r
a
d
i
e
n
t
ps i/ft
ps i/m
Exhibit following
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20
F luidDens ity(g m/c c )
P
r
e
s
s
ups i/m
Reference Material
Fluid density is dependent upon the relative amounts of mud filtrate, connate water
and hydrocarbon that are present
Consider two hypothetical endpoints
50 kppm mud filtrate and 50 kppm connate water
50 k d filt t d 150 k t t 50 kppm mud filtrate and 150 kppm connate water
If mud filtrate and connate water are similar
the net fluid density is dependent only upon the amount of (unmoved)
hydrocarbon present
If the connate water is saltier than the mud filtrate
the net fluid density is dependent upon the efficiency of the mud filtrate f y p p ff y f f
displacement of both hydrocarbon and connate water
Mud filtrate invasion can be more complex than one might at first expect
Exhibit following
Net Fluid Density
Reference Material
7/28/2009
11
Invasion and Two Fronts
In a hydrocarbon interval, the mud filtrate can push formation water ahead of it,
which itself moves hydrocarbons. There can then be two fluid banks created
the first having mud filtrate salinity
the second of connate water salinity
Reference Material
Allen, David et al.
Invasion Revisited.
Oilfield Review. J uly 1991
Saturation / salinity fronts and fluid banks as water base filtrate invades water wet,
hydrocarbon bearing formation.
Exhibit following
Mud filtrate invasion can be more
complex than one might at first expect
Invasion & Two Fronts
Resistivity profiles for Two
Front model of water base mud
invading water wet, hydrocarbon
charged, reservoir with various
Rw & Rmf combinations
Therecan ingeneral beboth There can, in general, be both
Saturation / salinity fronts and
fluid banks
The fluid banks are
Mud filtrate salinity
Connate water salinity
Formation Resistivity (ohm-m)
Mud filtrate invasion can
be more complex than
one might at first expect
is displayed along the vertical
axis, and Distance from Well
bore along the horizontal, for
each combination
Allen, David et al. Invasion Revisited.
Oilfield Review. J uly 1991
Well Worth The Read
7/28/2009
12
Excel Monte Carlo
Evaluation of Phi(Rhob)
Mud filtrate invasion can
be more complex than one
might at first expect
Additional considerations
Mud filtrate invasion can be complex
In multiple hydrocarbon
charged carbonates, we
have found that the
Phi(Rhob) which best
matches core, is the
estimate which takes RhoF
to be that of the reservoir
diti d filt t conditions mud filtrate
In effect, the mud
filtrate invasion has
been 100% efficient
Exhibit following
Reference Material
Iterative corrections, which are intuitively attractive, may over-correct
Simple calculation, assuming that fluid density is that of mud filtrate at reservoir
conditions, produced a better match to core in this example - exhibit following
Gas Interval of Limestone Reservoir Gas Interval of Limestone Reservoir
Reference Material
Mineralogy Well-known
Phi Estimate
Determined Iteratively
Mineralogy Well-known
Phi Estimate per Mud
Filtrate Density
Phi(core) with Compaction
Correction
Correction
7/28/2009
13
Gas Interval of Limestone Reservoir Gas Interval of Limestone Reservoir
Be aware that cored wells are typically drilled slower
More efficient mud filtrate penetration.
Un-cored wells can conceivable be different.
Reference Material
Mineralogy Well-known Mineralogy Well-known
Phi Estimate
Determined Iteratively
Phi Estimate per Mud
Filtrate Density
Correction
Correction
Consider the hypothetical endpoint:
50 kppmmud filtrate & 50 kppmconnate water
If mud filtrate and connate water are similar, the net fluid density is dependent only
upon the amount of (unmoved) hydrocarbon present and the density of the brine
versus hydrocarbon phase
Reference Material
From these calculations we find the two sigma RhoF range to be ~ 0.05 gm/cc
One RhoF sigma is ~ (0.05 gm/cc) / 4 = 0.0125 gm/cc
Exhibit following
E ndPoint R hoF PctPrsnt
50kMud_50kWtr
MudF iltrate 1.011 0.900
C onnateWtr 1 011 0 000
50kMud_50kWtr
Net Fluid Density
C onnateWtr 1.011 0.000
C rude 0.700 0.100
Mixture 0.980
C rude 0.700 0.300
Mixture 0.918
50kMud_50kWtr
C rude 0.700 0.000
Mixture 1.011
50kMud_50kWtr
C rude 0.700 0.200
Mixture 0.949
7/28/2009
14
From the preceding calculations we recognize the two sigma RhoF range to be ~ 0.05
gm/cc
+ / 2 95 % f th di t ib ti
If the connate water is saltier than the mud filtrate, the net fluid density is dependent
upon the efficiency of the mud filtrate displacement of both connate water &
hydrocarbon
Now there are more variations of mixing to consider
Two sigma RhoF uncertainty may be larger, but 0.05 gm/cc uncertainty is not
Reference Material
unreasonable for illustration purposes
One RhoF sigma is ~ 0.0125 gm/cc
Exhibit following
50kMud_150kWtr
C rude 0.700 0.200
Mixture 0.971
50kMud_150kWtr
50kMud_150kWtr
Net Fluid Density
50kMud_150kWtr
C rude 0.700 0.200
Mixture 0.964
C rude 0.700 0.200
Mixture 0.978
50kMud_150kWtr
C rude 0.700 0.000
Mixture 1.011
C rude 0.700 0.200
Mixture 0.949
7/28/2009
15
Repeatability of modern bulk density measurements is generally very good
Repeatability does not always mean accuracy
An erroneous value may be repeated
For illustration purposes, the net
Reference Material
p p ,
uncertainty in RhoB is taken as
+ / - 0.01 gm/cc
One RhoB sigma is ~ (0.02
gm/cc)/4 = 0.005 gm/cc
Consult your Service Company
about your specific tools
Illustrative Uncertainties courtesy Stefan Calvert, BG India
Measurement
Uncertainty
From the preceding calculations we recognize the two sigma RhoB range to be ~ 0.02
gm/cc
+ / 2 95 % f th di t ib ti
7/28/2009
16
Porosity estimation with density log is dependent upon
Reference Material
If the distribution of uncertainty in each attribute is estimated, the net uncertainty in
Phi(Rhob) can be characterized with Monte Carlo simulation
With the considerations and assumptions preceding, the largest uncertainty is in RhoF
Because porosity is typically 30 pu or
less (ie less than the matrix volume),
th fl id d it t i t i
MonteCarloSimulationofPhi(Rhob)
Phi=(RhoGRhoB)/(RhoGRhoF)
SpecifyParametersBelow
the fluid density uncertainty is
discounted accordingly
Exhibit following
Setting Up Excel
OtherTableswillupdateautomatically
Attribute Mean Std
RhoG 2.710 0.0075
RhoB 2.300 0.0050
RhoF 1.000 0.0125
Phi(RhoB) 0.240
If the distribution of uncertainty in each of the following components is estimated, the
net uncertainty in Phi(Rhob) can be characterized with Monte Carlo simulation
B lk d it ( d)
Reference Material
As a QC device, Monte Carlo result statistics are compared to input attributes
Monte Carlo result statistics correctly reproduce the input attributes
Exhibit following
Specify Parameters Below
CrosscheckSpecs MonteCarloResults
Rhob Phi(Rhob)
MonteCarloStatistics
QC the Monte Carlo
Attribute Mean Std
RhoG 2.710 0.0075
RhoB 2.300 0.0050
RhoF 1.000 0.0125
Phi(RhoB) 0.240
Rhob Phi(Rhob)
Mean Std_Dev Mean Std_Dev
2.300 0.0049 0.240 0.0048
RhoG RhoF
2.710 0.0074 1.000 0.0125
DeltaPhi 0.019
7/28/2009
17
As a QC device, the distribution of Excel random numbers, used to drive the Monte
Carlo simulation, are binned from zero to one
With 2000 simulation performed, we expect to find Frequency ~ 200 in each of
the ten bins
The Excel Random() has approached the ideal distribution
Reference Material
() pp
Exhibit following
MonteC arloDis tribution
150
200
250
q
u
e
n
c
y
QC the Monte Carlo
0
50
100
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20
R andom()
F
r
e
q
Random
With the input attributes below, one is able to characterize the Phi(RhoB) estimation
in both numerical and graphical formats
With these specifications, one expects the porosity estimate to be within + / - 2 (~ 2
pu), 95% of the time
Exhibit following
Uncertainty in Phi(Rhob)
Reference Material
f g
MonteC arloDis tribution
200
300
400
500
600
700
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
P hi(Rhob)
Attribute Mean Std
RhoG 2.710 0.0075
RhoB 2.300 0.0050
RhoF 1.000 0.0125
Phi(RhoB) 0.240
0
100
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
Poros ity
Rhob Phi(Rhob)
2.300 0.0049 0.240 0.0048
RhoG RhoF
2.710 0.0074 1.000 0.0125
DeltaPhi 0.019
7/28/2009
18
With the input attributes below, Phi(RhoB) is expected to be within + / - 2 (~ 2 pu)
95% of the time
The Best / Worst case uncertainty would yield a Delta Porosity of nearly twice as
much. It is, however, unlikely that all Best / Worst values would occur simultaneously
Exhibit following
MonteCarlovsBest/Worst
Reference Material
f g
Monte Carlovs Best/Worst
Attribute Mean Std
RhoG 2.710 0.0075
RhoB 2.300 0.0050
RhoF 1.000 0.0125
Phi(RhoB) 0 240
Rhob Phi(Rhob)
2.300 0.0049 0.240 0.0048
RhoG RhoF
2.710 0.0074 1.000 0.0125
Delta Phi 0 019
Phi(RhoB) 0.240 DeltaPhi 0.019
Attribute Low High
Rhob 2.290 2.310 0.2355 0.2425 0.2486 0.2559
RhoG 2.695 2.725
RhoF 0.975 1.025 0.2238 0.2305 0.2371 0.2441
Phi(Rhob) 0.240
0.032
HighLowNumericalStatistics
PhiRangeforLowRhob
PhiRangeforHighRhob
LowRhoG_LowRhoF HiRhoG_HiRhoF
MaxDeltaPhi
Excel Monte Carlo Evaluation of
Phi(Rhob)
Light Hydrocarbon Effects and Corrections
Dont let your evaluation
go upin smoke
LHC_Effects.pdf
LHC_Effects_Phi.pdf
ArchieUncertaintypdf
Reference Material
Building for size reference
ArchieUncertainty.pdf
Adjust Monte Carlo spreadsheet per
your specific, local conditions
QuantifyingPetrophysical Uncertainties.
S J Adams. 2005AsiaPacific Oil & Gas Conference. J akarta.
Simply calculating
uncertainty is
insufficient unless it
can beshown that
theapplied
interpretation
model is
appropriate
31st Annual SPWLA
Symposium. J une 1990
appropriate.
Good-quality core
data provide an
excellent basis on
which todetermine
theappropriate
interpretation
model.
Theseresults
enablesoperatorsto
make better data-
gathering and
completion
decisions.
7/28/2009
19
Monte Carlo Evaluation of Dual Porosity Cementation Exponent
You have just cored a vuggy carbonate, and the field geologist reports
About half the total porosity appears to be vuggy and poorly connected
The remainder is IG/IX
Vuggy Porosity Ratio (VPR) = 0.50
Your porosity calculation across the upper interval estimates total porosity ~ 10 pu p y pp p y p
Assuming
m(IG/IX) = 2.0
Std_Phi = 1 pu
Std_VPR = 0.20*VPR
Vug fraction estimate uncertainty is large, ~+/- 0.4*VPR
Estimate the Dual Porosity (Wang & Lucia) Cementation Exponent y ( g ) p
How does the m estimate change as the vuggy porosity becomes better connected?
If Rw @ FT is 0.05 ohm-m, what Ro do we expect to observe in the water leg?
If Rmf @ FT is 0.5 ohm-m, what Rxo do we expect to observe in the water leg?
MonteCarloIllustrations.xls includes a Phi(Rhob) model
m MC Exercise
m MC
Solution
Half the total porosity is vuggy & poorly connected
m(IG/IX) = 2.0 , Std_Phi = 1 pu, Std_VPR = 0.20*VPR
Estimate the m Exponent
m ~ 2.5
How does the m estimate change
as the vuggy porosity becomes better
connected?
m will drop, approaching 1.0
Quality Control: Exhibit following
7/28/2009
20
m MC
Solution
Half the total porosity is vuggy & poorly connected
m(IG/IX) = 2.0 , Std_Phi = 1 pu, Std_VPR = 0.20*VPR
m ~ 2.5
How does the m estimate change
as the vuggy porosity becomes better
connected?
2
1
Quality Control: 1) Random centered on 200 counts per bin. 2) Monte Carlo population
statistics match specification statistics
FF =Ro / Rw =Cw / Co = 1 / [ ]
m
ip
=2.0,
v
& a
v
held constant across range of
ip
FF[Archie(m=2)] =1/
t
2
=1/[
ip
+
v
]
2
Dual-porosity Model / What If Characterizations Dual Porosity / Type 1
10
100
1000
F
o
r
m

F
a
c
t
o
r
av=1
av=10
av=100
av=1000
m MC
Solution
p
1
0.01 0.10 1.00
Total Porosity [ Phi(v)=0.05 ]
av=1000
Archie (m=2)
Dual Porosity / Type 1
3
4
n
t
ip
+
v
= 6 pu
Phi(v) = 0.05 as Phi(Total) varies
m ~ 2.5
The Monte Carlo results are consistent with the
spreadsheet results of the Dual Porosity m
Exponent Model Module
0
1
2
3
0.01 0.10 1.00
Total Porosity [ Phi(v)=0.05 ]
C
e
m
e
n
t

E
x
p
o
n
e
n
av=1
av=10
av=100
av=1000
7/28/2009
21
Estimate the Dual Porosity (Wang & Lucia) Cementation Exponent
m ~ 2.5
How does the m estimate change as the vuggy porosity becomes better connected?
m MC
Solution
f @ , p g
Ro = .05 / (0.10^2.5) ~ 15.8 ohm-m
Rxo = .50 / (0.10^2.5) ~ 158 ohm-m
Exhibit following
Ro = .05 / (0.10^2.5) ~ 15.8 ohm-m
Rxo = .50 / (0.10^2.5) ~ 158 ohm-m
The above result is related to a quick look methodology for Rw estimation
m MC
Solution
q gy f
See Quick Look module for additional details
Taking the ratio of Archies equation, in the invaded and un-invaded zones yields
S
w
n
/ S
xo
n
=( R
w
/ R
mf
) * ( R
xo
/ R
deep
)
In the water leg, S
w
1 andS
xo
1 to yield
R
w
= R
mf
* ( R
deep
/ R
xo
) =0.50 * (15.8 / 158) =0.05
w mf
(
deep xo
) ( )
R
w
estimate independent of porosity
7/28/2009
22
Archies cementation exponent reflects thetortuosity of the brine filled pore system
In a general way, we expect the following relative relations between pore type, m
exponent and BVW.
As compared to IG/IX porosity, vuggy porosity that is not connected requires a
higher Archie m, to reflect the more tortuous pore geometry.
g , p g y
Small pores (chalk) do not necessarily infer an m that is larger than the m of
large (relatively well-connected) IG/IX pores.
Small pores (chalk) will exhibit a larger BVW than larger (relatively well
connected) IG/IX pores
Vuggy porosity, in the case of relatively large vugpore bodies, will tend to exhibit
a smaller BVW than both IG / IX porosity, and chalk. p y,
Exhibit following
Generic Relations
The general, relative effect on Sw(Archie) of the above considerations, is then
In the water leg, unrecognized vuggy porosity evaluated with an m ~2.0 can
appear as pay
The more tortuous pore geometry will result in an increased resistivity, at a
specific porosity.
p p y
In the hydrocarbon interval, unrecognized vuggy porosity evaluated with an m
~2.0 may have an optimistically low Sw, at a specific porosity & resistivity.
Interpretation of the same interval, with an appropriately higher m, will
yield a higher Swif everything else is the same.
In the hydrocarbon interval, relatively large vugs will exhibit a lower BVW than
IG/IX porosity. p y
Exhibit following
Generic Relations
7/28/2009
23
At a specific porosity, above the transition zone, we then expect vuggy porosity to
correspond to higher resistivity than IG/IX porosity, for two reasons
The pore system is more tortuous
The BVW is likely lower.
E hibit f ll i
Exhibit following
Generic Relations
Once the attributes which affect m are recognized, one is faced with the question of
how to better identify and evaluate intervals for which vuggy porosity may, or may
not, be present.
Sw(Resistivity Ratio), which is
independent of both porosity and
t ti t d t cementation exponent, compared to
Sw(Archie) with an m of 2.0 (or locally
appropriate value), is an option
QuickLook_Ballay.pdf
Chapter V: Combining Water
Saturation by Ratio Method, Moveable
Hydrocarbon Index, Bulk Volume
How to recognize & evaluate vuggy porosity
y ,
Water and Archie Water Saturation
(found with Google, pub details n/a)
Exhibit following
7/28/2009
24
When NMR & Image Logs are available porosity can be potentially partitioned
Modern (NMR & Image) techniques
Case Study of Permeability, Vug Quantification and Rock Typing in a
Complex Carbonate. N.Gomaa, A. Al-Alyak, D. Ouzzane, O. Saif, M.
Okuyiga, D. Allen, D. Rose, R. Ramamoorthy, E. Bize. SPE Annual Technical
y g , , , y,
Conference and Exhibition. San Antonio, Texas, Sept 2006
In the case of legacy data (ie no NMR Image), the historical [Phi(Dt) vs Phi(D - N)]
protocol can be investigated
If the porosity partition can be determined, m can be modeled with Wang &
Lucias Dual Porosity model and Sw(Archie) calculated
Exhibit following f g
..continued. how to better identify and evaluate intervals for which vuggy porosity
may, or may not, be present.
Archie independent options
If the formation water is sufficiently salty, LWD Neutron Capture Cross-section
If t t li it i l ti l f h
If connate water salinity is relatively fresh
The dielectric tool (in combination with supplemental porosity and resistivity
tools), can be used to deduce m in the flushed zone, and this m then used to
interpret the deep resistivity measurement
C/O log
NMR may allow Fluid Type ID (water or hydrocarbon)
Pressure profile for fluid gradient and identification
Others?
7/28/2009
25
We propose a generalized dual-porosity model to calculate variable cementation
exponents for carbonates with heterogeneous vuggy pores.
The constant a
v
may be used to characterize the connectivity of different types of
vuggy pores:
an a
v
greater than 100 for separate-vug dominated carbonates,
v
g p g ,
an a
v
less than 20 for touching-vug-dominated carbonates,
and an a
v
of 1 for well-connected planar fractures.
Comparison of Empirical Models for Calculating the
Vuggy Porosity & Cementation Exponent of Carbonates
fromLog Responses. Fred Wang & J erry Lucia
If the porosity partition can be
determined, m can be modeled
Pore geometries control the interrelationship of petrophysical properties.
The three most important pore geometry characteristics are
amount and types of pores or shape
interconnectedness of pores (tortuosity)
size of interconnecting pore throats
m and the Vuggy Porosity Ratio
Various m exponents as a function
of vuggy porosity ratio
If VPR = Phi(vug)/Phi(total), then
Phi(vug) = VPR*Phi(total)
Phi(ip) = Phi(total) - Phi(vug)
Petrophysical Characterization of Permian Shallow-Water Dolostone. M H Holtz, R. P. Major. SPE 75214, 2002
http://www.beg.utexas.edu/mainweb/presentations/2002_presentations/holtz_spe0402ab.pdf
Vuggy porosity tends to increase m
The Myers trend is relatively flat,
as the vugs are connected. The
Myers data can serve as a test of the
Dual Porosity m Model (exhibit
following)
Supplemental Material
7/28/2009
26
This indicates
that equation 30
can be used to
If the porosity partition can be determined, m can be modeled
model reservoirs
with separate
vugs, touching
vugs, and
fractures using
appropriate
values of a
v
.
Comparison of Empirical Models for Calculating the Vuggy Porosity and Cementation Exponent of Carbonates fromLog
Responses. Fred P. Wang and F. J erry Lucia
The Myers data can serve as a test of the
Dual Porosity m Model
Cementation Effects on m
Wyllie and Gregory constructed lab
formations with varying degrees of
cementation
Cementation (reduction in pore throat
size) corresponds to an increase in m
The baseline of unconsolidated spheres
has m ~ 1.1
The various cemented bead packs have
similar slopes with m ~ 4
Various
Lab-induced
Cementations
Lab characterization of m range
M R Wyllie and A R Gregory: Formation Factors of
Unconsolidated Porous Media: Influence of Particle Shape and
Effect of Cementation, PetroleumTransactions of the AIME 198
(1953): 103-110. Schlumberger Technical Review, Volume 36
Number 3
g
7/28/2009
27
Cementation Exponent and Porosity Type
Fockeand Munn investigated both
laboratory and wellbore m
measurements, within the context of thin
section determined pore geometries
Thin Section a : Rock Types 1 and 2
dt i t l i t correspond to intergranular grainstone,
limestone and dolostone
Thin Section b : Rock Type 3 is sucrosic
dolostone with intercrystalline porosity
Rock Types 1, 2 and 3 exhibit similar
resistivity responses and have been
combined into a single Group g p
Exhibit following
Cementation Exponents in ME Carbonate Reservoirs. J W Focke and D Munn, SPE Formation Evaluation, J une 1987
IG / IX Porosity
Rock Types 1, 2 and 3
exhibit similar resistivity
responses (above 5 pu)
and have been combined
into a single Group with
Limestone and dolostone
grainstone, and sucrosic
dolostones.
S b l f t diff t
Laboratory Measurements
into a single Group with
m ~ 2.0
The porosity < 5 pu
behavior is discussed in
more detail by authors
separately (they
specifically note that this
isnot afractureeffect)
Symbols refer to different
wells and reservoirs
is not a fracture effect ).
IG / IX Porosity
7/28/2009
28
Thin Section c : Rock Type 4, the moldic
limestone grainstone, represents a
diagenetic inversion
the original porosity (between the
grains) was filled with cement,
the original grains were dissolved to
form the current porosity
Theporosity is very poorly interconnected
m ranges from about 2.0 to 5.4
V P it
Vuggy Porosity
Thin Section d : Rock Type 6 is
mudstones and chalks with matrix
porosity
No significant moldic, vuggy,
fracture or fissure porosity f f p y
A constant average m of 2.0 is
reasonable for this Rock Type
Mudstone & Chalk
Cementation Exponents in Middle Eastern Carbonate Reservoirs J W Focke & D Munn, SPE FormEvaluation, J une 1987
7/28/2009
29
Mudstones & chalk with
matrix porosity and no
significant moldic, vuggy,
fracture or fissure
porosity
Moldic limestone
with permeability
less than 0.1 md
Small pores
do not
necessarily
mean high
m
Increased
porosity does
not always
mean lowered
m
Cementation Exponents in Middle Eastern Carbonate Reservoirs J W Focke & D Munn, SPE FormEvaluation, J une 1987
Critical BVW
TheKansas Geological Survey
has summarized Bulk Volume
water for a variety of reservoirs
and pore types
BVW=Constant values in Texas
carbonates, displayed as a
cumulative frequency of values
reported per Reservoir, illustrate
variations that can be expected
from one reservoir to the next.
Chalk, as one would expect for
very small pores, has a high
irreducible BVW
http://www.kgs.ku.edu/Gemini/Help/PfEFFER/Pfeffer-theory4.html#bvw_pickett
Cumulative frequency plots of irreducible bulk
volume water for reservoirs by Texas carbonate
formation.
Bulk Volume Water
and Pore Type
7/28/2009
30
Critical BVW
Vuggy porosity tends to have a lower
BVW(Irr), than does Intercrystalline /
Ingergranular
Due to the vuggy pore bodies
(usually) being larger than the
IX/IG pore bodies
Relatively larger pore bodies infer
relatively less surface / volume
S/V ~ (4 r
2
)/(4 r
3
/3) ~ 1/r
If the rock is water wet, BVW will
decrease as S/V decreases Cumulative frequency plots of irreducible bulk
f i
http://www.kgs.ku.edu/Gemini/Help/PfEFFER/Pfeffer-
theory4.html#bvw_pickett
volume water for reservoirs by pore type.
Bulk Volume Water
and Pore Type
Pore Body Size
Bill Guy (KGS) has identified
Critical BVWs based on his
experience in Kansas.
Lansing andKansas City oolitic g y
porosity has lower BVWthan does
theintergranular porosity
Chat macro-porosity has lower
BVWthan does chat micro-
Bulk Volume Water
and Pore Type
porosity
Chat: pseudo-brecciated cherty
carbonate. PetroleumPotential of SE Kansas,
NE Oklahoma & SW Missouri. KGS
http://www.kgs.ku.edu/Gemini/Help/PfEFFER/Pfe
ffer-theory4.html#bvw_pickett
7/28/2009
31
John Doveton Comments
As to LKC oolitic porosity having a lower BVW than intergranular porosity, I will
leave Bill Guy to answer that one, although the probable answer will be the bigger the
pores, the smaller the BVWi.
This was first pointed out by Buckles, a petroleum engineer who worked for
Imperial Oil in Calgary, so that BVW's were often known as Buckles' numbers.
Buckles published data for a variety of Canadian reservoirs and contrasted low
BVWis in Devonian reefs with higher BVWis in clastics. He explained the
phenomenon in terms of internal surface area which, of course, is a function of
pore size.
The Ellenburger and Austin Chalk data are taken from a book on Texas reservoir
data.
Th di t ti l it d t t k f i i di f
Thevugs and interparticle porosity data are taken from reservoirs in an appendix of a
book by Chilingar et al (1972).
Wherever possible, I plot up reservoir and rock-type data, so that I don't have to
make generalizations
Cementation Exponent m and Dual Porosity Systems
Dual (carbonate) porosity systems present a challenge to Archies equation
Consider a system of large and small pores
If the large and small pores are present as laminations
The small pore lamination can short circuit the current flow
Analagousto laminated shaly sand problem
Will cause the net resistivity of the measured interval to be too low
Sw(Archie) as calculated by routine methods will be too high
As discussed and illustrated by Griffiths et al, following exhibit
Modification of the cementation exponent will not compensate
Laminations
7/28/2009
32
There is a good overlay between the Archie and saturations
in the gas interval
the top lobe of the oil layer.
High in the oil layer, the buoyancy of the oil is able to disrupt the continuous
t h th t t f ti " h t " water phase that creates formation "shorts."
The discrepancy between the resistivity-
derived and - derived oil volumes increases
with increasing water saturation
More "shorting" of the resistivity
measurements, lower in the oil column.
Estimating S
w
with a volume measurement
R. Griffiths, A. Carnegie, A. Gyllensten, M. T. Ribeiro, A. Prasodjo, and Y. Sallam. World Oil, October 2006
Laminations
Laminations and Triaxial Resistivity
Laminations
Review of historical induction measurements
Discussion of triaxial measurements Supplemental Material
7/28/2009
33
Additional Material on Lamination Effects
Vector Resistivity
Measurement
R ti b t ti l Ratio between vertical
& horizontal resistivity
versus Bulk Sw
Laminations
Grain size lamination effects on calculated Sw
Vector Resistivity
Measurement
Laminations
7/28/2009
34
Quick Look Vuggy Porosity S
w
Evaluation
Kansas City - Lansing, Anadarko Basin
The Anadarko Basin is one
of the deepest basins on the
North American continent
Encompassesroughly Encompasses roughly
35,000 square miles in
western Oklahoma, the
northern Texas Panhandle
and Southwestern Kansas.
It contains over 40,000 feet
of potential hydrocarbon
bearing sediments
http://www.dutcherco.com/anadarkobas.html
bearing sediments
Quick Look Evaluation of Vuggy Porosity
Quick Look S
w
Evaluation of the Kansas City - Lansing
Anadarko Basin
Take n = 2, and define the Moveable Hydrocarbon Index as follows
S
w
/ S
xo
=[( R
w
/ R
mf
) * ( R
xo
/ R
deep
)] ^(1/2)
p
Schlumberger (1972) guidelines are that if the ratio of S
w
/ S
xo
> 1.0 no
hydrocarbons were moved during invasion.
True regardless of whether the zone contains hydrocarbons.
Exhibit following
CHAPTER V: COMBINING WATER SATURATION BY RATIO METHOD, MOVEABLE HYDROCARBON INDEX,
BULK VOLUME WATER AND ARCHIE WATER SATURATION. Author, date and publication n/a.
f g
No Hydrocarbons Moved
7/28/2009
35
Quick Look S
w
Evaluation of the Kansas City - Lansing, Anadarko Basin
Take n = 2, and define the Moveable Hydrocarbon Index as follows
S
w
/ S
xo
=[( R
w
/ R
mf
) * ( R
xo
/ R
deep
)] ^(1/2)
Whenever S
w
/ S
xo
<0.7 for sandstones or S
w
/ S
xo
< 0.6 for limestone, moveable
hydrocarbons are indicated.
S
xo
> S
w
/ 0.6 => 1.67 * S
w
If a carbonate reservoir has a Moveable Hydrocarbon Index < 0.6, you can conclude
hydrocarbons are present
Although not necessarily in commercial quantities
the reservoir has enough permeability so that hydrocarbons have been moved
duringtheinvasionprocessbymudfiltrate during the invasion process by mud filtrate.
Exhibit following
Hydrocarbons Moved
Quick Look S
w
Ratio water saturation is calculated with the assumption S
xo
= S
w
1/5
S
w
2
/ S
xo
2
=[ S
w
/ S
w
1/5
]
2
=[ S
w
4/5
]
2
= S
w
8/5
= ( R
w
/ R
mf
)* ( R
xo
/ R
deep
)
Sw (Ratio) = [(R
w
/R
mf
) * (R
xo
/R
deep
)]^(5/8) = [(R
w
/R
mf
)* (R
xo
/R
deep
)]^(0.625)
Remember the assumptions in calculating Sw(ratio). Remember the assumptions in calculating Sw(ratio).
If S
w
(Archie) ~ S
w
(Ratio) the assumption of a step-contact invasion profile is
correct and all calculated values (S
w
, R
t
, R
xo
, and d
i
) are correct (reasonable).
S
w
(Archie) calculated independently per routine Archie equation
Exhibit following
Sw(Resistivity Ratio)
& Sw(Archie)
7/28/2009
36
Kansas City- Lansing Formation,
northwestern shelf of the Anadarko basin.
Moveable Hydrocarbon Index calculated
according to
MHI S /S S t[(R /R )/(R /R )]
Quick Look S
w
MHI=S
w
/S
xo
= Sqrt[(R
xo
/R
t
)/(R
mf
/R
w
)]
Quick Look water saturation calculated
according to
Sw(Rat)=[(R
w
/R
mf
)*(R
xo
/R
deep
)]^(0.625)
Exhibit following
Resistivity Logs
Quick Look Evaluation
of Vuggy Porosity
Kansas City- Lansing Formation,
northwestern shelf of the Anadarko basin.
MHI=Sw/Sxo =Sqrt[(Rxo/Rt)/(Rmf/Rw)]
Sw(Rat)=[(R
w
/R
mf
)*(R
xo
/R
deep
)]^(0.625)
Quick Look S
w
The Rxo/Rt quick look evaluation at 4,810
and 4,900 feet (top two arrows) suggest a
wet zone
The Rxo/Rt quick look evaluation at 4,924
to 4,932 (lower two arrows) are interpreted
as indicating the presence of
hydrocarbons. y
Exhibit following
Resistivity Logs
7/28/2009
37
Quick Look S
w
The zone at 4810 has good porosity and low Archie water saturation.
The Moveable Hydrocarbon Index (S
w
/S
xo
=0.61) is greater than 0.60
The Ratio Method water saturation is high (53 percent) .
Th l l ti i di t th t th b t
From Density-Neutron.
These calculations indicate that the zone may be wet.
Exhibit following
Quick Look S
w
The zone at 4810 has good porosity and low Archie water saturation.
The Moveable Hydrocarbon Index (S
w
/S
xo
=0.61) is greater than 0.60 and the Ratio
Method water saturation is high (53 percent) . These calculations indicate that the
zone may be wet.
h l l i hi h f h i di h i i h hi h b lk
The calculation which further indicates the zone is wet is the very high bulk
volume water value (0.095)
Exhibit following
This BVWis based upon * S
w
(Archie), with m =2.0, and will increase if
S
w
(Ratio) is used for the calculation (ie the zone will look even wetter)
BULK VOLUME WATER AND ARCHIE WATER SATURATION. Author, date and publication n/a. Supplemental Material
7/28/2009
38
Critical BVW
The calculation which further
indicates the zone is wet is the very
high bulk volume water value (0.095)
Carbonate reservoirs with a bulk
volume water greater than 0.04 are g
usually wet
Exhibit following
f i
B lkV l W t
http://www.kgs.ku.edu/Gemini/Help/PfEFFER/Pfeffer-
theory4.html#bvw_pickett
Bulk Volume Water
Critical BVW
Carbonate reservoirs with abulk
volume water greater than 0.04 are
usually wet
The zone at 4810 feet is oomoldic
with high porosity andhigh m g p y g
Exhibit following
volume water for reservoirs by pore type
Quick Look Evaluation
of Vuggy Porosity
From petrography
7/28/2009
39
Quick Look S
w
The interval 4932 => 4936 feet has good to fair porosity, andlow Archie water
saturations.
The Moveable Hydrocarbon Index (0.47 =>0.46) is low
Thewater saturation bytheRatio Method (39to38percent) islow
The water saturation by the Ratio Method (39 to 38 percent) is low
Exhibit following
Quick Look S
w
The interval 4932 => 4936 feet has good to fair porosity and low Archie water
saturations. Both the Moveable Hydrocarbon Index (0.47 =>0.46) and the water
saturation by the Ratio Method (39 to 38 percent) are low.
The bulk volume water value at 4,932 (0.037) and 4,936 (0.032) are both lower than
h i i l ff i f 0 04 the critical cut-off point of 0.04.
Our evaluation suggests this zone should be oil-productive.
Exhibit following
7/28/2009
40
Quick Look S
w
The interval 4932 => 4936 feet has good to fair porosity, and low Archie water
saturations.
The Moveable Hydrocarbon Index (0.47 =>0.46) is low, as is water saturation by
the Ratio Method (39 to 38 percent).
From petrography
The bulk volume water value at 4,932 (0.037) and 4,936 (0.032) are both lower than
the critical cut-off point of 0.04.
Our evaluation suggests to us that this zone should be oil-productive.
Exhibit following
Intergranular / IntercrystallinePorosity
Quick Look S
w
The interval 4,932 =>4,936 feet has good to fair porosity, andlow Archie water
saturations.
The Moveable Hydrocarbon Index (0.47 =>0.46) is low, as is water saturation by
the Ratio Method (39 to 38 percent).
Thebulk volume water valueat 4932(0037) and4936(0032) arebothlower than The bulk volume water value at 4,932 (0.037) and 4,936 (0.032) are both lower than
the critical cut-off point of 0.04.
REB comments: If BVW is calculated with S
w
(Ratio), it will rise above the 0.04
critical value in the upper (but not lower) zone ?? Without core (or cuttings), how do
we eliminate the possibility of vuggy porosity in Upper Zone?
7/28/2009
41
Quick Look S
w
A similar evaluation approach is described in the literature for the oomoldic
Smackover reservoirs
These reservoirs are similar to the oomoldic(4810 feet ) zone in the Lansing-
Kansas City
Mit h ll T i (1983) l d th t th S k t b l Mitchell-Tapping (1983) concludes that the Smackover cannot be properly
evaluated by the standard Archie technique.
When Moveable Hydrocarbon Index, water saturation Ratio Method, and bulk
volume water are used, then correct judgments about the productive potential can be
made.
Always remember the underlying assumptions, and importance of locally specific
guidelines g
Hydrocarbon moveability factor
(HCM): derived from the shallow
and deep resistivity data.
For HCM less than 0.75,
Quick Look Evaluation in Egypt,
with HC Moveability
hydrocarbon is moveable
For HCM greater than 0.75, the
hydrocarbon is immovable.
When HCM is less than 0.25, the
moveable hydrocarbon is gas
When HCM greater than 0.25 and
G.M. Hamada. Hydrocarbon Moveability Factor: New Approach to Identify Hydrocarbon Moveability and Type from
Resistivity Logs. Emirates J ournal for Engineering Research, 9 (1), 1-7 (2004)
less than 0.75, the moveable
hydrocarbon is oil.
Field examples have been analyzed
with the HCM factor.
7/28/2009
42
Monte Carlo Evaluation of Sw(Archie)
You have just drilled a new carbonate well, and performed an Sw(Archie) evaluation
with the following parameters
a =1, Rw =0.05 ohm-m, Rt =10 ohm-m
Phi =20 pu, Std_Phi =1 pu (95% confidence range is 18 pu 22 pu)
m =2.0, Std_m =0.10 (95% confidence range is 1.8 2.2)
n =2.0, Std_n =0.20 (95% confidence range is 1.8 2.2)
What is the Upper deterministic Sw limit?
What is the Lower deterministic Sw limit?
What are the 95% Upper and Lower Monte Carlo Sw limits?
MonteCarloIllustrations.xls includes an Sw(Archie) model
Sw MC Exercise
a, Rw and Rt are assumed to be
well-known, reflected here by no
STD specification
This simulation is approximating
an Sw interpretation for which the
p f
porosity, m & n estimates are
each subject to individually
specified uncertainty
Porosity (for example) is described
by a Gaussian distribution, centered
on 20 pu with a standard deviation
of 1 pu
a =1, Rw =0.05 ohm-m, Rt =10 ohm-m
f p
Exhibit following
Sw MC Solution
Phi =20 pu, Std_Phi =1 pu
95% confidence range is 18 pu 22 pu
m =2.0, Std_m =0.10
95% confidence range is 1.8 2.2
n =2.0, Std_n =0.20
95% confidence range is 1.8 2.2
7/28/2009
43
With the specifications at right,
Monte Carlo results are as follows
Sw(mean) = 0.356
(Sw) = 0.038
There is a 95% likelihood that Sw is contained
within + / - 2
600
MonteCarloDistribution
Sw
What are the 95% Upper and
Lower Monte Carlo Sw limits?
Sw MC Solution
(0.356 0.076) < Sw < (0.356 + 0.076)
0.280 < Sw < 0.432
Be aware of how Excel bins data
RollingTheDice.pdf
Exhibit following
0
100
200
300
400
500
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
Sw
Sw
S MC
Thereisa95%likelihood that Sw is contained within + / - 2
Sw MC
Solution
What is the Upper deterministic Sw limit?
What is the Lower deterministic Sw limit?
Sw MC Solution
There is a 95% likelihood that Sw is contained within + / - 2
0.280 < Sw < 0.432
The Best / Worst case would yield considerably more uncertainty
0.239 < Sw < 0.50
In practice, its unlikely (but not impossible) that Best / Worst of all attributes would
occur simultaneously, so that Sw(Monte Carlo) provides a better representation
7/28/2009
44
Excel can handle common
probability distributions, and can thus
serve as a Monte Carlo simulator.
Quantitative estimation of the
ncertaint allo sonetod t i
RollingTheDice.PDF
uncertainty allows one to determine
where time / money is most effectively
spent, and to further avoid the trap of
being misled as a result of a previous
bad experience with a poorly defined
parameter
The importance of the various input
parameters will change accordingto parameters will change, according to
the various magnitudes. There may be
a linkage in that one parameter
becomes more or less important as
another parameter value is change.
One size does not fit all feet.
An alternative, deterministic
approach to error analysis is
accomplished by taking the derivative
of Sw(Archie) with respect to each
RiskyBusiness.PDF
f ( ) p
attribute
S
w
n
= a R
w
/ (
m
R
t
)
The same approach will suffice for a
shaly sand equation
The various terms in the derivative
expression quantify the individual
impact of uncertaintyineachterm impact of uncertainty in each term,
upon the result
The relative magnitude of each then
allow one to recognize where the
biggest bang for the buck, in terms of a
core analyses program or suite of
potential logs, is to be found (Figure 1).
7/28/2009
45
Monte Carlo Evaluation of Sw(Archie) Summary
Swuncertainty is a dynamic issue
Should be evaluated for each set of circumstances
Attributes are linked
A change in one can cause another to become more, or less, g , ,
important
The evaluation can be done with either a (deterministic) derivative, or
(probabilistic) Monte Carlo simulation approach
In general, its unlikely that Best / Worst of all attributes would occur
simultaneously
A deterministicor probabilisticevaluationwill bemore A deterministic or probabilistic evaluation will be more
representative

Montecarlo Illustrations

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Montecarlo Illustrations

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

7/28/2009

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen