Integrating of core and logs and 2D seismic data

to improve 3D hydraulic flow unit modeling

Ha Quang Man Hanoi University of Mining and Geology, Faculty of Petroleum, Department of
Petroleum Geology, Hanoi, Vietnam, Ph.D. student at AGH UST, haman@agh.edu.pl
Jadwiga Jarzyna - AGH University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Geology Geophysics and
Environmental Protection, Department of Geophysics, Cracow, Poland, jarzyna@agh.edu.pl
Summary
Petrophysical parameters are input data to modeling of state and production ability of hydrocarbon
reservoir. Using Eclipse needs to divide reservoir into hydraulic flow units, HU, and characterize
them with geometrical and geological factors. Porosity and permeability are the most important
features deciding about productivity of reservoir. Flow Zone Indicator, FZI, a factor calculated using
only porosity and permeability makes easier description of hydraulic flow units without applying of
coefficients which are difficult to evaluate.
In the paper an integration of data of micro scale (core plug) to log scale and then to seismic scale has
been done to improve 3D HU modeling. The presented case study was tested in one of the gas
deposits in the Miocene reservoirs in the northern part of the Polish Carpathian Foredeep. The case
study comprise the following steps: i) HU classification using core data, ii) HU prediction using core
and log data, iii) 3D HU modeling using log and 2D seismic data.
The presented case study may be used as a pattern for reprocessing of old data from other gas fields in
the Miocene sandy-shaly formation, where dense sets of 2D seismic line exist and there is great
amount of core data. Such approach to HU modeling and fluid flow modeling may improve
evaluation of productivity of old gas deposits.

73rd EAGE Conference & Exhibition incorporating SPE EUROPEC 2011

Vienna, Austria, 23-26 May 2011

Introduction
Petrophysical parameters are input data to modeling of state and production ability of hydrocarbon
reservoir. Using Eclipse (Schlumberger) needs to divide reservoir into hydraulic flow units, HU,
(Ebanks et al., 1992) and characterize them with geometrical and geological factors. Porosity and
permeability are the most important features deciding about productivity of reservoir. Flow Zone
Indicator, FZI, a factor calculated using only porosity and permeability makes easier description of
hydraulic units without applying of coefficients which are difficult to evaluate.
In the paper an integration of data of micro scale (core plug) to log scale and then to seismic scale has
been done to improve 3D HUs modeling. The presented case study was tested in one of the gas
deposits in the Miocene reservoirs in the northern part of the Polish Carpathian Foredeep. The case
study comprise the following steps: i) HU classification using core data, ii) HU prediction using core
and log data, iii) 3D HU modeling using log and 2D seismic data.
The tested gas deposit consists of the Sarmatian thinly bedded formation, of the deltaic environment,
very complex in lithology. In the study area there are observed tidal, near shore, lagoon, and mixed
facies (Mysliwiec et al., 2004). Core samples revealed sandy-muddy-shaly sediments. Making data
file more uniform for further analyses our attention was focused on 313 samples from deltaic
sediments at a depth section between 400 - 900 m.
HU classification using core and log data
Permeability, K, can not be reliably estimated from porosity, , only on the basis of a simple loglinear plot. Therefore, from the very beginning many researchers attempted to apply empirically
established relationships such as Kozeny-Carman equation (1). Amaefule et al. (1993) proposed a
generalized relationship between permeability and porosity which included FZI parameter (2).

3e
1 - e 2

2 2
Fs S gv

(1)

K 1014 FZI 2

3
(1 ) 2

(2)

In this case study hydraulic unit, HU, classification for 10 wells of the Z gas field was done using
available core data (K and ). HU classification based on the histograms, the probability plots and
Wards clustering method approved division of data into FZI groups. Therefore, the core plug data
were divided into six clusters, corresponding to six appropriate HUs. Next, linear multiple regression
method, LMR, and alternating conditional expectation, ACE, method (Breiman and Friedman, 1985;
Xue et al., 1996) were applied to improve the HU prediction from logs for the entire reservoir. Logs
selected for analysis were min-max standardized and extra variables as combinations of logs were
included to LMR and ACE process. The results of FZI prediction, FZI_pre, from the LMR and from
the ACE algorithm were compared (Table 1). Thus, ACE algorithm was used to obtain a continuous
curve of FZI_pre vs. depth. The result shown on the cross plots of permeability calculated for groups
of selected mean FZI vs. laboratory permeability reveals a nearly perfect correlation (Fig. 1). Figure 1
presents also relationship between GR log and 6HUs predicted in the well Z76 by the ACE method.
3D HU modeling using log and 2D seismic data
Lack of 3D seismic data caused that 25 2D seismic lines available in the study area were converted
into a pseudo 3D seismic cube and the 3D grid was obtained being the basis for structural
interpretation. Seismic amplitudes were upscaled into 3D grid using the 2DSeis2Seis3D plug-in of
Petrel (Ocean Petrel 2010) and modeled by Sequence Gaussian Simulation (SGS) method (Fig. 2).
Then, several seismic attributes were extracted from that pseudo 3D seismic cube and seismic facies
classification was made using the Unsupervised Neural Network, UNN. The final 3D HU and
properties models were done on the basis of Sequence Indicator Simulation, SIS, method and
73rd EAGE Conference & Exhibition incorporating SPE EUROPEC 2011
Vienna, Austria, 23-26 May 2011

Sequence Gaussian simulation, SGS, method by combining 6 seismic facies with 6 rock types
obtained from logs (Fig. 3). The result outcome showed good facies distribution in lateral and vertical
directions and then this model was used to constrain the hydraulic unit modeling.
Table 1 Comparison of correlation coefficients (R) of FZI_core vs. FZI_pre for the LMR and ACE
methods
Correlation coefficients (R)
Group Wells

Number of data
LMR

ACE

Z72-Z74-Z77

89

0.762

0.899

Z75-Z84

103

0.838

0.906

Z76-Z81-Z82

76

0.747

0.889

Z78-Z79

45

0.884

0.982

All data (10 wells)

313

0.507

0.643

The final step consisted of 3D permeability calculation using equation (2). Comparing the facies
model and HU model we observed that although the borders did not match but the trends of HU were
similar to facies distribution (Fig. 3). It meant that the 3D HU model was not only dependent on
reservoir properties (K, ) but also was controlled by geological factors (facies).
10000

1000
y = 1.33x0.95

K_pre [mD]

100

R = 0.97

10
HU1
HU2

HU3
HU4

0.1

HU5
HU6

0.01
0.01

0.1

10

100

1000

10000

K_core [mD]

Fig. 1 6HUs classification on the basis of core plugs and logs data in the study area; left hand side:
dispersion plot of K_pre vs. K_core, and six HUs defined on the basis of core origin data;
right hand side: comparison between GR and 6HUs in the well Z76
Conclusions
The effective method to determine the flow zone indexes, FZI, and hydraulic flow units, HU, as the
continuous functions of depth is proposed. An algorithm starts from core data and include log results
using statistical methods. The proposed algorithm is effective and possible to realize in many cases

73rd EAGE Conference & Exhibition incorporating SPE EUROPEC 2011

Vienna, Austria, 23-26 May 2011

since porosity and permeability from cores are relatively easily measured and available and since the
basic well logs (GR, resistivity logs, neutron log, density log and acoustic log) are made in each well.

(b)

(c)

(a)

(d)

Fig. 2 Result of conversion of 2D seismics to pseudo 3D seismic cube: (a) - 2D seismic survey
displayed in 3D window, (b) - 2D seismics after upscaling into 3D grid, (c) - 3D amplitude
model, (d) - comparison of pseudo 3D seismic cube to 2D seismics

(a) (b)
(d) (c)

Fig. 3 Final property models of the reservoir: (a) - 3D 6Facies_UNN model, (b) - 3D 6HU_SIS
model; (c) - 3D porosity model; (d) - 3D permeability model

73rd EAGE Conference & Exhibition incorporating SPE EUROPEC 2011

Vienna, Austria, 23-26 May 2011

Statistical methods turn out to be useful, flexible, effective, and giving acceptable results. The choice
of the alternating conditional expectations algorithm, ACE, instead of the linear multiple regression,
LMR, is based on the assumption that petrophysical parameters belong to a group of fuzzy data.
Heuristic reasoning is included when applying ACE for the relationships between real parameters, but
a blind statistical tool to determine the optimal transformation of data, treating the data as values
without geological meaning is used.
In the presented case study it was shown that high density of 2D seismic measurements can be
converted to pseudo 3D seismic cube which enabled to calculate selected seismic attributes. The
attributes can be used for seismic facies classification. Facies work as constrains in HU modeling. The
outcomes from properties modeling, i.e porosity model and permeability model and HU model were
good inputs for Eclipse reservoir simulation in the consequent study.
The presented case study may be used as a pattern for reprocessing of old data from in other gas fields
in the Polish Carpathian Foredeep, where dense sets of 2D seismic line exist and there are great
amounts of core data. Such approach to HFU modeling and fluid flow modeling may improve
evaluation of productivity of old gas deposits.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank to the Polish Oil and Gas Company Ltd., Warsaw, Department in Sanok (Jaslo),
Poland for allowing the use of core data and log data and 2D seismic data from the Z gas field. The
authors also thank to prof. Le Hai An, Hanoi University of Mining and Geology, Vietnam for
discussion. Petrel and Eclipse and Interactive Petrophysics (Schlumberger) were used thanks to
the university grant donation by Schlumberger to AGH University of Science and Technology, Cracow,
Poland. STATISTICA software was used thanks to AGH UST, Cracow, Poland license. The paper
was financially supported by scientific project of Polish Ministry of Science and High Education Nr
3953/B/T02/2010/39 and by internal university grant of the Faculty of Geology Geophysics and
Environmental Protection of AGH UST, nr 10.10.140.600 in 2010 yr.
References
1. Amaefule, J. O., Altunbay, M., Tiab, D., Kersey, D. G., and Keelan, D. K., 1993, Enhanced
reservoir description: Using core and log data to identify hydraulic (flow) units and predict
permeability in uncored intervals/wells. SPE Paper 26436, p. 205220
2. Breiman, L., and Friedman, J. H., 1985 Estimating Optimal Transformations for Multiple
Regression and Correlation: Journal of the American Statistical Association (September,
1985), 580 -598
3. Ebanks, W.J. Jr., Scheihing, M.H., and Atkinson, C.D., 1992. Flow units for reservoir
characterization. In: D.Morton-Thompson, A.M.Woods (Eds.), Development Geology
Reference Manual, Amer. Assoc. Petrol. Geol. Methods in Exploration Series No. 10, pp.
282284
4. Eclipse (Schlumberger) 2010 (Manual and Help)
5. Mysliwiec M., Madej K., and Bys I., 2004, The Miocene gas fields discovered in the
Rzeszow area, Carpathian Foredeep, on the base of the Direct Hydrocarbon Indicators.
Przeglad Geologiczny, v. 52, no 7, p. 501506 (in Polish, Abstract in English)
6. Petrel (Schlumberger) 2010 (Manual and Help)
7. Xue G., Datta-Gupta A., Valko P., and Balsingame T., 1996, Optimal Transformations for
Multiple Regression: Application to Permeability Estimation from Well Logs: SPE 35412
presented at the Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, Ok, 21 April 1996
8. 2DSeis2Seis3D plug-in of Petrel, Ocean-Petrel, 2010

73rd EAGE Conference & Exhibition incorporating SPE EUROPEC 2011

Vienna, Austria, 23-26 May 2011
All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.