Porosity and Permeability Estimation

through Seismic Data Integration

A Research Proposal

Ph.D PETROLEUM ENGINEERING RESEARCH PROPOSAL

Petrophysical Properties Estimation through Dynamic

Title
Proposed
Supervis
ors
Project
Type
Research
Project
Descripti
on and
Problem
Definition

Data Integration
Prof. Stow

Academic Research (Ph.D)

The research work aims to deal with the problem of
estimating

the

distributions

of

permeability

and

porosity in a petroleum reservoir by matching the

dynamic behavior. Permeability and porosity are the
parameters

that

have

the

largest

influence

in

determining the performance of the reservoir, and yet

they are the most difficult properties to determine in
reservoir characterization. This work addresses the
problem of estimating the parameters from a variety of
measurements that are only indirectly related to them.
Estimating permeability and porosity is difficult for the
following reasons:

Permeability and porosity have spatial variability

There are very few sampling locations (wells)

compared to the areal extent of the reservoir

Information (data) is scarce

Measurements

are

obtained

with

different

technologies.
The mathematical model of the reservoir is very
complex,

usually

consisting

of

numerical

reservoir simulation.
This work plans to integrate dynamic data in the form

of field measurements from well testing, production

history, interpreted 4D seismic information, and other
data such as correlations between permeability and
porosity, geostatistics in the form of a variogram model
and the inference of large scale geological structure so
as to have a good estimate of the parameters.
Devising the optimal strategy for the development of
an oil or gas reservoir is an important and difficult task.
Many mathematical techniques for optimization can be
used to deal with problems in engineering and
economics systems. These techniques assume that we
have a fairly complete understanding of the problem
and also that we can construct a mathematical model
that predicts the system's performance accurately in
time under different scenarios; this is not a serious
concern in most engineering problems since the
parameters that define the system may not be very
difficult

to

Unfortunately

obtain
this

is

by
not

direct
the

measurement.

case

in

reservoir

engineering, where the system, that is the oil and gas

reservoir, is physically inaccessible many thousands of
feet

underground.

Thus,

any

serious

attempt at

optimization of reservoir development first requires the

determination of the parameters of the reservoir and
the only way to obtain them is through indirect
measurement.
Since data is being collected almost continuously, the
process of updating the reservoir model never ends.
During the producing life of a reservoir, data of
different nature are always being collected. These data

can be classified as static or dynamic depending on

their association with the movement or flow of fluids in
the reservoir. Data that have originated from geology,
electrical logs, core analysis, fluid properties, seismic
and geostatistics can be generally classified as static,
whereas the information originating from well testing,
pressure shut{in surveys, production history, bottom
hole pressure from permanent gauges, water-cut, and
gas oil ratio can be classified as dynamic. With 4-D
seismic information, it is possible to estimate the areal
distribution of change of saturations in the reservoir
due to the production or injection of fluids. One of the
outstanding features of the 4D seismic information is
that it is areally distributed whereas the other dynamic
data

are

available

only

at

the

location

of

the

production or injection wells. The process of handling

different

data

simultaneously

is

known

as

data

integration. So far, most of the success in data

integration has been obtained with static information.
The parameter estimation problem would not only be
faster but also more reliable if it were performed with a
process that uses all or at least most of the information
in the reservoir data set simultaneously. Remarkably, it
has not yet become

common

to

completely

or

systematically integrate dynamic data with static data

and it is currently the subject of major research effort
in several places. This work will address this specific
problem and will represent a number of steps in the
direction of full integration.
The behavior of the reservoir will be modeled with a

finite difference numerical simulator because of the

requirement

of

mathematical

model

that

is

sufficiently complex to accommodate all the types of

the dynamic data that will be used. This will also allow
the application of the approach to heterogeneous
reservoirs, multiphase flow and multiple well problems.
The key problem envisaged in this approach is in the
efficient computation of the derivatives of the field
observations with respect to parameters that define
the distributions of permeability and porosity in the
reservoir.
Research To develop a robust reservoir parameters estimation
Goal

technique with a mathematical modeling process that

integrates dynamic data with static data using a
systematic
techniques

Technical
Objective
s

approach
of

well

involving
test

synchronized

interpretation,

history

matching, reservoir simulation, geological modeling

To investigate the role of time-lapse seismic data
for estimation of key reservoir parameters within
the data assimilation framework
To combine dynamic information (which includes

production history, well test data data from

permanent bottom hole pressure gauges, and
changes in the saturation distribution: from 4D
seismic

interpretation)

with

the

large

scale

geological information to produce key reservoir

parameters estimates (porosity and permeability)
that have a good history match to all available
data and predictive capabilities, and at the same
time contain the features present in a true field.

 To include core analysis data and geostatistical

information
Benefits

about

the

spatial

correlation

of

permeability using a variogram model.

Porosity and permeability are the most important
properties of reservoir rock that have big influence on
the ability of the fluids to flow through the reservoir
and often determine the strategies used during oil
recovery. Usually they have the largest impact on
reserves and production forecasts, and consequently
on the economy of a project. An accurate estimation of
the spatial distribution of porosity and permeability
translates into higher success rates in infill drilling, and
fewer wells required for draining the reservoir.
Knowing the spatial distribution of rock properties, one
would be able to design the production strategy to
postpone

water

breakthrough

in

the

wells

and

maximize the recovery.

If the numerical model would adequately describe the
real reservoir, it would be possible to predict the
reservoir

behaviour

properly

and

plan

optimal

strategies to maximize the recovery from a given field.

Backgrou
nd

Of the several properties of the porous rock which are

important for oil extraction, porosity and permeability
are the most difficult to estimate. The difficulty of
estimating them comes from the fact that porosity and
permeability may vary significantly over the reservoir
volume, but can only be sampled at well locations,
often using different technologies at different scales of
observation. All other reservoir properties can be
quantified more easily. For example, we can measure

fluid properties over the expected range of reservoir

thermodynamic conditions through relatively simple
laboratory tests. Likewise, the external geometry of a
reservoir can generally be determined using surface
seismic and well-established interpretation techniques.
Porosity data, on the other hand, can only be
measured in core samples, or inferred from density,
sonic,

and/or

Permeability

neutron
is

even

logs
harder

along
to

well

paths.

predict:

lab

measurements provide information about its absolute

value at the core scale, but the only way to obtain
permeability estimates at a larger scale is through
transient pressure tests, which may yield an average of
permeability over the drainage area of a well. The
internal distribution of lithology and facies in a
reservoir, and the inherent variation in porosity and
permeability, remains beyond the resolution of most
geophysical methods. Such lithology variations can be
determined only in cases where conditions favor the
application

of

advanced

seismic

interpretation

techniques, which must be supported by a sound rock

physics analysis of the reservoir being evaluated. Even
in those cases the predictions have a limited degree of
certainty, which has been the driving force behind the
recent academic and industrial interest on probabilistic
approaches to estimate petrophysical properties from
seismic data.
Porosity and permeability are the most important
properties of reservoir rock that have big influence on
the ability of the fluids to flow through the reservoir

and often determine the strategies used during oil

recovery. Knowing the spatial distribution of these rock
properties is of particular importance in secondary
recovery. It happens very often that there exist
preferential paths through which injected fluid is
moving toward the production well. All the oil that is
located outside this path is not influenced by the
injection of fluids. This causes the production of
injected fluid instead of oil at an early stage. Due to
heterogeneous character of the reservoir rock, the
water or gas injected during the secondary recovery
phase flows with different velocities in different parts
of the reservoir. If there exists a preferential path
through which injected fluid is moving toward the
production well, the oil located outside this path
remains unflooded and often the production of injected
fluid instead of oil occurs soon after the start of
injection (early breakthrough). To avoid early water
breakthrough in the wells,
one can try to optimize the production scenarios, by
controlling the injection and production in the existing
wells. In the long-term these proactive strategies
should yield higher recovery factors than in the case of
reactive control only (no action is undertaken until
significant

changes

are

observed

in

the

wells).

Knowing the spatial distribution of rock properties, one

would be able to design the production strategy to
postpone

water

maximize

the

breakthrough
recovery.

in

the

However,

wells
the

and

spatial

heterogeneity and lack of direct measurements of rock

properties, which are only known in well locations,

introduces a lot of uncertainty that needs to be
addressed if reliable future predictions of reservoir
performance are to be expected.
After

the

exploration

phase,

in

which

potential

reservoirs are identified and exploration wells are

drilled, initial geological models are created based on
the knowledge obtained from seismic surveys and well
data.

Initial

predictions

for

the

future

reservoir

performance are made, and if those predictions are

economically profitable the reservoir enters a field
development phase. When developing a field, the main
target is to maximize the economic criterion, most
often in terms of oil and gas revenues. Choices are
made about the number and locations of wells, the
surface facilities that need to be built and the required
infrastructure. Based on all available information a
detailed geological model of a given reservoir is
created, of which an upscaled simpler version is used
for flow simulation. This numerical reservoir model
should ideally mimic all the processes occurring in the
reservoir

itself.

If

the

numerical

model

would

adequately describe the real reservoir, it would be

possible to predict the reservoir behaviour properly
and plan optimal strategies to maximize the recovery
from a given field. Unfortunately, a numerical reservoir
model is only a crude approximation to the truth,
mainly for two reasons. Firstly, not all the processes
occurring in a real reservoir can be modelled in an
appropriate way. Very often some simplifications are

imposed on the model, to make the problem easier to

tackle. Secondly, there is usually a large uncertainty in
the parameter values of the simulation model. Many
rock properties that influence reservoir flow are poorly
known, while there are also uncertainties in fluid
properties and the amount of hydrocarbons present in
the reservoir. The uncertainties involve the reservoir
structure,

the

permeability

initial

fluid

values,

transmissibilities,

contacts,

porosities,

etc.

These

and

and

reservoir

the
fault

related

parameters are assumed to be known in numerical

simulations. However, neglecting the uncertainties
leads to results produced by numerical reservoir
models that contradict the data gathered from the real
field. Its then difficult to make decisions based only on
the output of a numerical model. Therefore, the
measured data together with numerical simulations
should be used in reservoir management for improving
the production rates and increasing the recovery from
a field.
Usually production history data, obtained from wells in
the form of wellhead or bottom hole pressures and flow
rates, is used in history matching algorithms, to update
the uncertain parameters. This type of data is typically
acquired with an accuracy between 5%-20%. However,
because the number of model parameters to be
estimated is very large, production history data has a
limited

resolving

information

on

power.
the

It

does

unknown

provide

properties

some
in

the

neighbourhood of the wells, but not further away from

them. As a result, there are many reservoir models

that give rise to the same production history data, but
yield different predictions for the future performance of
the reservoir.
On the other hand, time-lapse seismic data could also
be used update the uncertain parameters. Due to
developments in geophysics, especially in the field of
seismic, it becomes possible to determine not only the
position of the reservoir, but also to track the fluids
movements in the reservoir itself. This additional
information in the form of time-lapse seismic data can
be utilized, together with production data, to narrow
the solution space when minimizing the misfit between
gathered measurements and their forecasts from the
numerical model. Time-lapse seismic is the process of
carrying out a seismic survey before the production
begins and then repeating surveys over the producing
reservoir. Seismic data is sensitive to static properties
like e.g. lithology, pore volume, net/gross ratio but also
to dynamic (i.e. time varying) properties like fluid
saturation and pore pressure. From one single seismic
survey one is not able to differentiate between
features caused by static properties and those caused
by dynamic properties. By comparing two different
seismic surveys acquired over the producing reservoir
at different times, however, it is possible to extract
information about the changes in dynamic properties.
It is possible to include an interpretation step in which
the direct seismic measurements are inverted to
produce variables that can be represented in a

reservoir model or in a rock physics model.

The inverted seismic data is then used together with
production data as input into a data assimilation
scheme. Although less accurate

than

production

data,

time-lapse

seismic

contains information about the reservoir properties

everywhere and can be used to infer parameter values
away from wells.
Due to different spatial and time scales, history data
and seismic data sets were, and often still are, used
separately in updating reservoir models, resulting in
the updated reservoir models which differ significantly
from each other. The models updated in this way,
would often contradict some of the observations
obtained from the true reservoir. With combined use of
production and seismic data one can constrain the
inversion in such a way that the final estimates
resemble to some degree the true model.
Project
Scope

Review the literature to identify some important

areas that were poorly developed and target them
for this work
Review the challenges in the estimation of
reservoir parameters and historical efforts in this
regard
Review the general mathematical formulation
employed in estimating reservoir parameters by
history matching
Adopt a numerical reservoir simulator as the
mathematical model which will allow the inclusion
of oil and gas flow as well as the modeling of

complex reservoir, and also simulator that will

allow the integration of 4D seismic data
Develop an algorithm for reservoir parameters
estimation especially porosity and permeability
distribution; an algorithm that would as well be
efficient

in

computation

of

coefficient

of

parameter variations in a reservoir for proper

estimation of parameters.
Adopt a procedure that will preserve object-based
reservoir models and ensure its consistency when
changing reservoir parameters as a way to
preserve the geological information in the model,
and adopt an optimal prediction method to
maintain consistency in geostatistical information
in the resulting interpretation through spatial
correlation of the parameters.
Analyse the variance of the parameter estimates
and

resolution

for

homogeneous

and

heterogeneous reservoirs by using an appropriate

algorithm
Demonstrate the practicality of the intended
approach of this research work through real field
application.
Existing
Data

Results generated with the model will be validated with

yet to be identified real field data. In this work the field
observations, or data for the parameter estimation
problem are:
Extended bottom hole pressure history
Production rates, water cut, and gas oil ratio

Distributed saturation data: Change of saturation

distribution in the reservoir in a given time

Key
Referenc
es

interval (4D seismic data).

Relevant Petroleum Engineering Books, Literatures on
Reservoir modeling and simulations, Previous works on
reservoir parameters estimation including, but not
limited, to the following:
i.

Carter,

et

al:

Performance

Matching

with

Constraints," Soc. Pet. Eng. Journal (April 1974)

187{196.
ii.

Dadashpour M et al: Porosity and permeability

estimation by gradient-based history matching
using time-lapse seismic data 15th SPE Middle
East Oil & Gas Show and Conf. (Bahrain, 1114
March) SPE 104519. 2007

iii.

Dadashpour M et al: Non-linear inversion for

estimating reservoir parameters from time-lapse
seismic data Quantitative Methods for Reservoir
Characterization

Conf.

(IFP,

Rueil-

Malmaison).2006
iv.

Echeverria Ciaurri D et al: Optimal updating of

reservoir facies models by integrating seismic and
production
Congress

data

Proc.

(Santiago

VIII
de

Int.
Chile,

Geostatistics
Chile,

15

December). 2008
v.

Ewing, R. E.: The mathematics of reservoir

simulation: Frontiers

in

Applied

Mathematics.

1983
vi.

Guohua Gao et al. A Stochastic Optimization

Algorithm for Automatic History Matching. SPE

Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 2629 September 2004, Houston, Texas
vii.

Jenkins C. D et al: Reservoir

Characterization

Constrained to Well Test Data: A Field Example

viii.

Leitao H C and Schiozer D J 1999 A new

automated historymatching algorithm improved
by

parallel

computing,

SPE53977

SPE

Latin

American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering

Conf. (Caracas, Venezuela, 2123 April)
ix.

Maschio C. et al: A framework to integrate history

matching

and

geostatistical

modeling

using

genetic algorithm and direct search methods J.

Pet. Sci. Eng. 63 3442
x.

Mohsen Dadashpour et al : A derivative-free

approach for the estimation of porosity and
permeability

using

time-lapse

seismic

and

production data. 2010 J. Geophys. Eng. 7 351

xi.

Porosity

and

permeability

estimation

by

integration of production and time-lapse near and

far offset seismic data. Mohsen Dadashpour et al
2009 J. Geophys. Eng. 6 325
xii.

Shah P C, Gavalas G R and Seinfeld J H 1978 Error

analysis inhistory matching: the optimum level of
parameterization Soc. Pet. Eng. J. 18 21928

xiii.

Tao Feng and Trond Mannseth: Improvements on a

predictorcorrector

strategy

for

parameter

estimation with several data types . 2009 Inverse

Problems 25 105012
Work
Schedule

Cost

Gantt Chart:

Budget/ Cost Estimate:

Local Transport:
Field Data Collection:
Modeling/Data Analysis:
Report Preparation:
Miscellaneous:
Dissertation/ Monograph,

Key
SPE Paper; Power Point
Deliverab
Presentation, Virtual Basic (Software) Programming
les