9.

Permeability Modeling

Interdependence of
Reservoir Attributes
Seismic
Attribute(s)

Facies

Porosity

Permeability

Depth Saturation

1
 Why do we do Permeability Modeling ?
z To obtain 3D distribution of permeability
consistent with it’s geological (facies) and
porosity distribution.
z It is required to control flow behavior (i.e.,
connectivity) of the reservoir.
z Remarks :
„ Many traditional modeling ignored the generation of
permeability modeling in Static Modeling process (i.e.,
only build permeability model after upscaling for
dynamic model)
„ Generating permeability model after upscaling (using
poro-perm correlation) may eliminate the detail
heterogeneity of the reservoir.

Consideration
z Source of permeability data :
„ Core
„ Well Test
„ Production Data
z No well log exists for permeability measurement
z Integrating different type of these data sources is not easy, as the
resolution of the data are significantly different.
z Current geostatistics technique does not include co-simulation of well
test or production data permeability with core permeability.
z No correlation between seismic and permeability
z The best correlation exists between core-porosity and core-
permeability (i.e., from the same sample point), which depends on the
facies (or rock type).
z Correlation between well-log-porosity versus core-permeability may
be worse than between core porosity vs. core permeability.

How should we model permeability, then ?

2
 General Strategy
z Estimate Permeability using Core Data
z Improve Permeability Distribution by
integrating well test data

Modeling of Core Derived Permeability

z Procedure
„ Generate Cross Plot between Core-Porosity and Permeability per
Facies. Eliminate outlier if necessary.
„ Compare the above correlation with Log-Porosity versus Core-
Permeability per Facies
„ Evaluate whether Log-Porosity vs. Core-Perm can be used by
evaluating correlation between Core-Porosity vs. Log-Porosity and
the Depth Match. Decide which correlation to use.
¾ If Log-Poro vs. Core-Perm cannot be used due to quality of
correlation, evaluate if core-porosity can be estimated from log-poro.
„ Perform Data Analysis (Transform and Variogram Analysis) of
permeability, if needed.
„ Estimate/Simulate Permeability :
¾ Cross Plot Method : High Correlation Coefficient (does not need
Variogram Model)
¾ SGS with Collocated Cokriging or External Drift (Trend) biased to
Facies

3
 Permeability Modeling – Key Issues
z Obtaining unique Poro-Perm relationship
for each facies is the critical step for
permeability modeling

Poro-Perm Relationship
1000

100

10
Perm

0.1

0.01

0.001
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2
Poro

1 2 3 4 5 6

4
 Poro-Perm Relationship
for different facies
1000
y = 2.9885e27.378x
R2 = 0.4924
100

10 y = 0.0826e21.169x
y = 0.1395e29.586x R2 = 0.8141
R2 = 0.405
y = 0.0443e17.607x
Perm

1 R2 = 0.7629

y = 0.0192e21.087x
0.1
R2 = 0.7199
y = 0.0114e7.8072x
R2 = 0.241
0.01

0.001
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2
Poro

1 2 3 4 5 6

Data for Permeability Modeling

z Primary Data :
„ Permeability at Well Locations, obtained from :
¾ Estimation at Non-Cored Wells. This can be done by :
9 Linear Regression of porosity (for high correlation coefficient)
9 Non Linear Regression (using multiple well logs)
9 Geostatistics (SGS with Kriging with External Drift)
9 Neural Network
z Secondary Data :
„ 3D Facies Model
„ 3D Porosity Model
z Spatial Information
„ Calculated from well data (at least vertical variogram), if sufficient
well data exists, or
„ Inferred from Porosity Model (which may come from Seismic)

5
 Procedure
z Estimate permeability at non-cored well locations
z Scale Up Well Log
„ Include all wells or selected wells
z Data Analysis (constrained to Facies)
„ Outlier Exclusion
„ Output Range
„ Logarithmic Transform
„ 1D Trend
„ 3D Trend (porosity)
„ Normal Score Transform
z Variogram Analysis (single variogram)
z Petrophysical Modeling :
„ Constrained to 3D Porosity (with/without Facies Constrained):
¾ Collocated Cokriging
¾ Kriging with External Drift (Trend Method)

Permeability
Modeling in Petrel
Conditioned to Facies
(to honor poro-
poro-perm
relationship for each
facies)
facies)

Use Porosity as the

Secondary Variable

Use Correlated Cokriging

with proper Corr.
Corr. Coef.
Coef.
for each facies

6
 Results example for
Consistent Facies-Porosity-Permeability
“Facies” Porosity Permeability

Result Poro-Perm Comparison

Original Data vs. Simulation (SGS)

Data Simulation

7
 Result Poro-Perm Comparison
Original Data vs. Linear Regression

Data Linear Regression

Integration of Engineering Data

Background
z Reservoir descriptions based on the core
measurements alone cannot honor the well
test results due to
„ Differences in the measurement scales
„ Presence of fractures and/or high permeability
streaks
„ Presence of other fluids

8
 Integration of Engineering Data
Objective
z Match the core-derived permeability with
the well-test derived permeability without
violating the underlying geological and
geostatistical information.
z Consider fracture information
z Assume well-test derived permeability to be
accurate.

Matching Permeability
Procedure
Simulated Fine Scale
Well Test
Permeability Distribution

Re

Radial
Stop Upscaling
Yes

KH-Well Test Match ? KH-Sim

No

Enhanced
Permeability
Fracture

9
 Matching Permeability
Approach
z Case – 1 : Non-Fractured Reservoir
z Case – 2 : Fractured Reservoir with
available fracture distribution only but no
fracture property – Integration of Well Test
Data
z Case – 3 : Fractured Reservoir with
available fracture maps and fracture
properties – Integration of Well Test and
Production Data

Matching Permeability
Case 1

Adjustment Factor

10.0

9.0

8.0

7.0

6.0
AF

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0
Sa-1

Sa-1L
Sa-2
Sa-3
Sa-4

Sa-5
Sa-6
Sa-7
Sa-8

Sa-9
Sa-10
Sa-10
Sa-11

Sa-12
Sa-12
Sa-13
Sa-14

Sa-17
Sa-18

Sa-24
Sa-24

Sa-29
Sa-30

Sa-35

Sa-38
Sa-39

Sa-44

Sa-51
Sa-1S

Sa-4S

Sa-8S

Sa-11L

Sa-15L

Sa-19L

Sa-20L

Sa-21L

Sa-22L
SA-22L
Sa-23L

Sa-27L

Sa-28L

Sa-28L

Sa-31L

Sa-33L

Sa-34L

Sa-36L

Sa-37L

Sa-40L

Sa-46L

Sa-49L
Sa-11S

Sa-15S

Sa-19S

Sa-20S

Sa-21S

Sa-22S

Sa-27S

Sa-28S

Sa-28S

Sa-31S

Sa-33S

Sa-34S

Sa-36S

Sa-37S

Sa-40S

Sa-46S

Sa-49S

Sa-50S

Well

10
 Matching Permeability
Case 1

Histogram

35 100.0%
90.0%
30
80.0%
25 70.0%
Frequency

60.0%
20
50.0%
15
40.0%

10 30.0%
20.0%
5
10.0%
0 .0%
0.1 1 3 5 7 More
Adjustment Factor

Matching Permeability
Case 1 – Kriged of AF

11
 Matching Permeability
Case 1 – Perm. Distribution Comparison

Before Adjustment After Adjustment

Matching Permeability
Case 2

z Fracture map from

curvature analysis.
z Log and core data
z Well test data
z Radius of influence
z Spatial continuity

N40 and N70 Fracture

12
 Matching Permeability
Case 2 - Procedure
khwell test
EF =
Definition khsim

EF ≈ 1, low fractured area

Observations EF >> 1, high fractured area

To find correlation between

Challange fracture parameter and enhancement factor
Log (EF)

Numerical Experiment

Fracture Density

Matching Permeability
Case 2 – Background Enhancement
z Definition :
„ Enhancement required to match well test when
there is no fracture.
z Physical Interpretation :
„ Enhancement required due to micro
fracture/fissures which are not captured by
seismic curvature analysis

log( EF ) = m AFD + n

13
Permeability Distribution

Matching Permeability
Log (EF) vs Fracture Density

Background Enhancement .

14
 Permeability Distribution
Before and After Enhancement

Layer 35 Fractures from seismic

Not-enhanced

Permeability Distribution
Before and After Enhancement

Layer 35 Layer 35
Not-enhanced Enhanced

15
 Permeability Distribution
Before and After Enhancement

Layer 35 Layer 35
Enhanced Enhanced

Matching Permeability – Case 3

z Three fracture maps

from curvature
analysis.
z Log and core data
z Well test data
z Radius of influence
z Spatial continuity
z Fracture Permeability N40 and N70 Fracture
(kx, ky, kz)

16
 Integration – Work Flow
Pre-Calibration
Dominant Factor Determination
Upscaling
Flow Simulation (ECLIPSE)

Calibration
Permeability Adjustment
Upscaling
Flow Simulation (ECLIPSE)

NO
Production Capacity YES
Match Finish
Accepted ?

Dominant Factor
z It is defined as the major controlling factor
(matrix or fracture), to produce fluid at each
well for a given realization
z It is used as the guiding factor in selecting
the appropriate variable for permeability
adjustment (calibration process)

17
 Dominant Factor Determination
z Procedure :
„ Enhancement Factor (EF) Analysis
„ Sensitivity Analysis

Enhancement Factor (EF) Analysis

KHwelltest
EF =
KHmodel

18
 EF For Wells
Matrix Only – Assume no Fractures

1,100 Enhancement Factor - 500 m

1.2
1000

100

10
EF

0.1

0.01
Sy1R1

Sy1R2
Sy4R2
Sy6R2

Sy4R3

Sy12HR1
Sy18HR1
Sy19HR1
Sy22HR1
Sy24HR1
Sy25HR1

Sy6HR2
Sy11HR2
Sy21HR2
Sy25HR2
Sy26HR2
Sy27HR2
Sy32HR2
Sy34HR2
Sy35HR2
Sy11R1
Sy12R1
Sy13R1
Sy15R1
Sy18R1
Sy19R1
Sy20R1

Sy11R2
Sy12R2
Sy13R2
Sy14R2
Sy15R2
Sy18R2
Sy19R2
Sy20R2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

Well
Well

Matrix

EF Histogram
Matrix Only – Assume no Fractures

EF Histogram - Matrix Only

45%

40%

35%
Relative Frequency

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
< 1.0 1 - 10 10 - 40 40 - 100 > 100
EF

19
 EF Comparison
Matrix + Fracture (Real. #1)
Fracture Well
Enhancement
EnhancementFactor
Factor -–500
Real
m #1

1000

100

10
EF

0.1

0.01
Sy1R1

Sy1R2
Sy4R2
Sy6R2

Sy4R3
Sy11R1
Sy12R1
Sy13R1
Sy15R1
Sy18R1
Sy19R1
Sy20R1

Sy11R2
Sy12R2
Sy13R2
Sy14R2
Sy15R2
Sy18R2
Sy19R2
Sy20R2

Sy12HR1
Sy18HR1
Sy19HR1
Sy22HR1
Sy24HR1
Sy25HR1

Sy6HR2
Sy11HR2
Sy21HR2
Sy25HR2
Sy26HR2
Sy27HR2
Sy32HR2
Sy34HR2
Sy35HR2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

Well
Well

Matrix Matrix + Fracture

EF Analysis
Fracture Maps Around Well 4

20
 EF Analysis
Matrix + Fracture (Real #1)
Matrix Well
Enhancement
Enhancement Factor
Factor - 500#1
– Real m

1000

100

10
EF

0.1

0.01
Sy1R1

Sy1R2
Sy4R2
Sy6R2

Sy4R3
Sy11R1
Sy12R1
Sy13R1
Sy15R1
Sy18R1
Sy19R1
Sy20R1

Sy11R2
Sy12R2
Sy13R2
Sy14R2
Sy15R2
Sy18R2
Sy19R2
Sy20R2

Sy12HR1
Sy18HR1
Sy19HR1
Sy22HR1
Sy24HR1
Sy25HR1

Sy6HR2
Sy11HR2
Sy21HR2
Sy25HR2
Sy26HR2
Sy27HR2
Sy32HR2
Sy34HR2
Sy35HR2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

Well
Well

Matrix Matrix + Fracture

EF Analysis
Fracture Maps Around Well - 16

16

21
 EF Histogram
Matrix + Fracture (Real #1)

EFFactor
Enhancement Histogram - After
– After IFP
Introducing Fracture

40%

35%

30%
Relative Frequency

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
< 1.0 1 - 10 10 - 40 40 - 100 > 100
EF

Dominant Factor Determination

Summary for For All Three Fracture Realizations
Well
Index Realm
500 #1 Real
750 #2
m Real
1000#3m
1 Matrix Fracture Matrix
2 Fracture Fracture Fracture
3 Matrix Matrix Matrix
4 Fracture Fracture Fracture
5 Matrix Matrix Matrix
6 Matrix Matrix Matrix
7 Matrix Matrix Matrix
8 Fracture Fracture Matrix
9 Fracture Fracture Fracture
10 Fracture Fracture Fracture
11 Fracture Fracture Fracture
12 Matrix Fracture Fracture
13 Fracture Fracture Fracture
14 Matrix Matrix Matrix
15 Fracture Matrix Fracture
16 Matrix Fracture Matrix
17 Fracture Fracture Fracture
18 Fracture Fracture Fracture
19 Fracture Fracture Fracture
20 Matrix Matrix Matrix
21 Fracture Fracture Fracture
22 Matrix Matrix Matrix
23 Matrix Matrix Matrix
24 Matrix Matrix Matrix
25 Matrix Matrix Matrix
26 Fracture Fracture Fracture
27 Fracture Fracture Fracture
28 Matrix Matrix Matrix
29 Matrix Matrix Fracture
30 Fracture Fracture Fracture
31 Fracture Fracture Fracture
32 Fracture Fracture Fracture
33 Fracture Fracture Fracture
34 Matrix Matrix Matrix
35 Matrix Matrix Matrix
36 Matrix Matrix Matrix
37 Fracture Fracture Fracture
38 Fracture Fracture Fracture
39 Fracture Fracture Fracture

22
 Flow Simulation using ECLIPSE
Purposes

z To evaluate the production capacity match,

i.e., to see if the given permeability
distribution is sufficient to produce the fluid
at the specified pressure.
z It is not intended for full history matching.
z It provides the link between EF and
Production Capacity Match

EF and Production Capacity

Relationship
EF ≈1.0
Enhancement Factor - 1000 m

1000

100

10
EF

0.1

0.01
Sy1R1

Sy1R2
Sy4R2
Sy6R2

Sy4R3

Sy12HR1
Sy18HR1
Sy19HR1
Sy22HR1
Sy24HR1
Sy25HR1

Sy6HR2
Sy11HR2
Sy21HR2
Sy25HR2
Sy26HR2
Sy27HR2
Sy32HR2
Sy34HR2
Sy35HR2
Sy11R1
Sy12R1
Sy13R1
Sy15R1
Sy18R1
Sy19R1
Sy20R1

Sy11R2
Sy12R2
Sy13R2
Sy14R2
Sy15R2
Sy18R2
Sy19R2
Sy20R2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

Well
Well

Matrix Matrix + Fracture

23
 EF and Production Capacity
Relationship
EF ≈1.0

BHFP BHCIP/PBU

OIL RATE WATER CUT

EF and Production Capacity

Relationship
EF >>1.0
Enhancement Factor - 1000 m

1000

100

10
EF

0.1

0.01
Sy1R1

Sy1R2
Sy4R2
Sy6R2

Sy4R3

Sy12HR1
Sy18HR1
Sy19HR1
Sy22HR1
Sy24HR1
Sy25HR1

Sy6HR2
Sy11HR2
Sy21HR2
Sy25HR2
Sy26HR2
Sy27HR2
Sy32HR2
Sy34HR2
Sy35HR2
Sy11R1
Sy12R1
Sy13R1
Sy15R1
Sy18R1
Sy19R1
Sy20R1

Sy11R2
Sy12R2
Sy13R2
Sy14R2
Sy15R2
Sy18R2
Sy19R2
Sy20R2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

Well
Well

Matrix Matrix + Fracture

24
 EF and Production Capacity
Relationship
EF >>1.0

BHCIP/PBU
BHFP

OIL RATE WATER CUT

EF and Production Capacity

Relationship
EF <<1.0
Enhancement Factor - 1000 m

1000

100

10
EF

0.1

0.01
Sy1R1

Sy1R2
Sy4R2
Sy6R2

Sy4R3

Sy12HR1
Sy18HR1
Sy19HR1
Sy22HR1
Sy24HR1
Sy25HR1

Sy6HR2
Sy11HR2
Sy21HR2
Sy25HR2
Sy26HR2
Sy27HR2
Sy32HR2
Sy34HR2
Sy35HR2
Sy11R1
Sy12R1
Sy13R1
Sy15R1
Sy18R1
Sy19R1
Sy20R1

Sy11R2
Sy12R2
Sy13R2
Sy14R2
Sy15R2
Sy18R2
Sy19R2
Sy20R2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

Well
Well

Matrix Matrix + Fracture

25
 EF and Production Capacity
Relationship
EF <<1.0

BHFP BHCIP/PBU

OIL RATE WATER CUT

Summary of EF and Prod. Capacity Match

Fracture Realization #1
Dominant Productivity Match
Deviation Unit
Index Factor Before Modification
2 Vertical R1 Fracture
4 Vertical R1 Fracture
8 Vertical R1+R2 Fracture
9 Horizontal R1 Fracture
10 Horizontal R1 Fracture
11 Horizontal R1 Fracture
13 Horizontal R1 Fracture
15 Horizontal R1 Fracture Perm. Is Not Enough (EF >> 1.0)
17 Vertical R2 Fracture
18 Vertical R2 Fracture
19 Vertical R2 Fracture Perm. Is Sufficient (EF ≈ 1.0)
21 Vertical R2 Fracture
26 Horizontal R2 Fracture
27 Horizontal R2 Fracture Perm. Is Over (EF << 1.0)
30 Horizontal R2 Fracture
31 Horizontal R2 Fracture
32 Horizontal R2 Fracture
33 Horizontal R2 Fracture
37 Vertical R3 Fracture
38 Vertical R2+R3 Fracture
39 Vertical R3 Fracture
1 Vertical R1 Matrix
3 Vertical R1 Matrix
5 Vertical R1 Matrix
6 Vertical R1 Matrix
7 Vertical R1 Matrix
12 Horizontal R1 Matrix
14 Horizontal R1 Matrix
16 Vertical R2 Matrix
20 Vertical R2 Matrix
22 Vertical R2 Matrix
23 Vertical R2 Matrix
24 Vertical R2 Matrix
25 Vertical R2 Matrix
28 Horizontal R2 Matrix
29 Horizontal R2 Matrix
34 Horizontal R2 Matrix
35 Horizontal R2 Matrix
36 Horizontal R2 Matrix

26