SPE 63254

Permeability Estimation Using Hydraulic Flow Units in a Central Arabia Reservoir

Fahad A. Al-Ajmi, Saudi Aramco, Stephen A. Holditch, Schlumberger

Copyright 2000, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

hydraulic flow units were compared with the core
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2000 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in Dallas, Texas, 14 October 2000. description made at the well site by a geologist. The
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of grain size classes from core description match very
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to well with the statistically derived clusters from the
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at HFU m
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper ethod. Our results indicate that hydraulic
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 flow units correspond to different rock types in this
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Central Arabian Reservoir.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Of course, direct measurement of rock
properties using cores is the ideal method to
Abstract determine HFUs. However, because the costs to
Knowledge of permeability is critical to cut and analyze cores are so high, few core
developing an effective reservoir description. measurements are routinely available. Hence, it is
Permeability data can be obtained from well tests, crucial to extend the flow unit determination to the
cores or logs. Normally, using well log data to un-cored intervals and wells. The relationship
derive estimates of permeability is the lowest cost between core flow units and well log data was
method. To estimate permeability, we can use established by non-parametric regression in cored
values of porosity, pore size distribution, and water wells, and then was used as a tool to extend the flow
saturation from logging data and established units prediction to un-cored intervals and wells.
correlations. One benefit of using wireline log data Permeability estimation using the HFU
to estimate permeability is that it can provide a method was extended to un-cored wells by
continuous permeability profile throughout a implementing the Alternating Conditional
particular interval. Expectation (ACE) algorithm. ACE provides a data-
This paper will focus on the evaluation of driven approach for identifying the functional forms
formation permeability for a sandstone reservoir in for the well log variables involved in the
Central Arabia from well log data using the concept correlation. The reservoir porosity vs. permeability
of Hydraulic Flow Units (HFU). Cluster analysis is relationship was represented with single equation by
used to identify the hydraulic flow units. We have using the different HFUs as indictor variables.
developed a new clustering technique that is Permeability profiles generated by HFUs using
unbiased and easy to apply. Moreover, a procedure well log data agree with core data.
for determining the optimal number of clusters that A computer program was developed to
should be used in the HFU technique will be perform hydraulic flow unit analysis. In the
introduced. In this procedure, the sum of errors computer program, three main processing options
squared method was used as criterion for were integrated, which are:
determining the required number of HFUs to sensitivity runs are made to determine
describe the reservoir. the optimal number of HFUs;
In our work, the statistically derived the analysis is then based on the optimal
2 FAHAD A. AL-AJMI, STEPHEN A. HOLDITCH SPE 63254

number of HFUs (or any user-defined are internally consistent and predictably different
number of HFUs); and from properties of other rocks 2.
regression analysis is performed using Amaefule et al.3 considered the role of the
the different HFUs as dummy variables mean hydraulic radius in defining hydraulic flow
to predict values permeability. units and correlating permeability from core data.
Their approach was essentially based on a modified
Development of Hydraulic Flow Unit Concept Kozeny-Carmen25 equation coupled with the
Although permeability values are best concept of mean hydraulic radius.
determined from core data, most wells are not
cored. Consequently, permeability values in
uncored wells are usually estimated from porosity Cross Sectional Area r
and permeability relationships developed from core r mh = = ,(2)
WettedPerimeter 2
data or from well test data. The general expression
for the conventional porosity-permeability
where r is the pore throat radius in m and rmh is
transform can be written as
mean hydraulic radius in m.
Kozeny4 and Carmen5 simulated a porous
log( k ) = a + b (1) medium as a bundle of capillary tubes. They
combined Darcys law for flow in a porous medium
and Poiseuilles law for flow in tubes. A tortuosity
There is no rigorous theoretical basis to factor was also included, because for a realistic
support the traditional crossplot of the logarithm of model of porous media the connected pore structure
permeability versus porosity, but an analogy can be is not straight capillary tubes, to give the following
made with the Kozeny-Carmen1 equation. When relationship between porosity and permeability
graphing permeability versus porosity data it is
assumed that permeability is log normally
distributed. However, correlation of two normally
e r e r 2 e r 2mh
k= = = ,.(3)
distributed variables does not necessarily establish 8 2 2 2 2 22
causality. Unlike permeability, porosity is generally
independent of grain size. where k is permeability, e is effective porosity, and
Fig. 1 shows a scatterplot of permeability is tortuosity.
versus porosity for core data from all the wells used The mean hydraulic radius can be related to
in this study. The plot shows a lot of scatter, which the surface area per unit grain volume, Sgv, and the
clearly indicates that porosity alone is not enough to effective porosity, e, by the following equation:
explain the permeability variation. Even if the
porosity-permeability data that were used came 1 e
from the same well, as in Fig. 2, the plot still shows S gv = .......(4)
a lot of scatter. The scatter of these plots could be r mh 1 e
attributed to the existence of more than one rock
type, with different fluid flow properties. Hence, the Combining Eqs. 3 and 4, gives the generalized
porosity permeability relationship is best achieved if Kozeny-Carmen1 equation.
rocks with similar fluid-flow properties are
identified and grouped together. Each group is
referred to as a hydraulic flow unit. 3e 1
k= (5)
1
( ) F s 2 S 2gv
2
A hydraulic flow unit is defined as the
e
representative volume of total reservoir rock within
which geological properties that control fluid flow
SPE 63254 PERMEABILITY ESTIMATION USING HYDRAULIC FLOW UNITS IN A CENTRAL ARABIA RESERVOIR 3

where k is in m2 and e is a fraction. The term Fs2 with significantly different FZI values will lie on
is known as the Kozeny constant, which is usually other, parallel, unit-slope lines. Samples that lie on
between 5 and 100 in most reservoir rock. The term the same straight line have similar pore throat
Fs2S2gv is a function of geological characteristics of attributes, and thereby, constitute a unique hydraulic
porous media and varies with changes in pore flow unit. Each line is an HFU and the intercept of
geometry.6 The determination and discrimination of this line with z = 1 is the mean FZI value for that
the Fs2S2gv group is the focal point of the HFU HFU.
classification technique. The basis of HFU classification is to identify
Amaefule et al.3 addressed the variability of groups of data that form a unit-slope straight lines
Kozenys constant by dividing Eq. 5 by effective on a log-log plot of RQI versus z. The permeability
porosity, e. of a sample point is then calculated from a pertinent
HFU using the mean FZI value and the
k e 1 corresponding sample porosity using the following
0.0314 = ,(6)
e (1 e) F s S gv equation:

where the constant 0.0314 is the permeability 3e

conversion factor from m2 to md. k = 1014 FZI 2
. ....(12)
( )
2
Defining flow zone indictor FZI as 1 e

1
FZI = ,.(7) HFU Classification Using Core Data
F s S gv
Identification of hydraulic flow units within
a reservoir is accomplished with core data.
reservoir quality index RQI as
Measurements of porosity and permeability under
k net confining stress from conventional cores are
RQI = 0.0314 , .(8) used to compute RQI, z, and FZI. Although there
e
should be one single FZI value for each HFU, a
distribution for each FZI around its true mean value
and normalized porosity z as results because of random measurement errors in
core analysis. When multiple HFU groups exist, the
overall FZI distribution function is a superposition
z = e , .(9)
1 e of the individual distribution functions around their
mean FZI. Identification of each mean FZI, or the
Eq. 6 becomes corresponding HFU, would require decomposition
of the overall FZI distribution into its constituting
RQI = z FZI .....(10) elements. This is a desuperposition problem, and
cluster analysis technique allows for such a
Taking the logarithm of both sides of Eq. 10 yields decomposition process.2
Three approaches, histogram analysis,
probability plot, and analytical cluster algorithm
log RQI = log z + log FZI .(11) have been used by previous investigators2,3 for
clustering core data into the appropriate HFU
groups. The first two methods can be called
Ideally, on a log-log plot of RQI versus z, graphical clustering methods.
all samples with similar FZI values will lie on a Graphical clustering methods of histogram
straight line with a slope of one, and data samples analysis and probability plots provide a general
4 FAHAD A. AL-AJMI, STEPHEN A. HOLDITCH
visual image of FZI distribution to determine the
number of HFUs and their mean FZI values. The
clustering of FZI is performed on biases of the
logarithm of FZI because FZI values usually exhibit
log-normal distribution. This is attributed to the
strong dependency of FZI on permeability.
Since FZI distribution is a superposition of
multiple log-normal distributions, a histogram of
log FZI should show n number of normal
distributions for n number of HFUs. When clusters
are distinctly separate, the histogram clearly
delineates each HFU and provides its corresponding
mean FZI value. However, it is often difficult to
separate the overlapped individual distributions
from a histogram plot. Therefore, the histogram
method is not suitable for most field applications
because the transition zones between the different
HFUs often cloud the judgment on their identity.2
Fig. 3 shows a histogram of the log of FZI
for CTR-17. It is clearly difficult to identify or
determine the number of HFUs that exist in this
well from the histogram plot alone because of the
superposition nature of the histogram plot.
The probability plot (the cumulative distribution
function) is the integral of the probability density
function (histogram). The probability plot is
smoother than the histogram and hence the scatter
in the data is reduced in this plot and the
identification of clusters becomes easier. A normal
distribution forms a distinct straight line on a
probability plot. Therefore, the number of straight
lines in the probability plot may be used to indicate
the number of hydraulic flow units in the reservoir.
Because mean FZI values cannot be calculated from
probability plot, the representative FZI value of
each HFU is obtained by averaging all the FZI
values within the corresponding HFU limit. The
superposition effect may shift or distort the straight
lines in the probability plot. Fig. 4 shows a
probability plot of the logarithm of FZI for Well
CTR-17.
Graphical clustering methods may carry
some biased errors because they are based on visual
interpretation. Moreover, the overlapped individual
distributions and the transition zones between
HFUs may cloud the judgment on their identity.
SPE 63254
The third method is hierarchical cluster
analysis (e.g. Wards algorithm). In this method, the
distances between data points (FZI values) are
calculated, initially treating each sample data as a
cluster. Next, the two clusters that are closest in
distance are merged and the distances of new
clusters from other clusters are calculated. The
process of distance calculation and merging of
clusters is continued until the required number of
clusters is attained. The number of clusters is an
input into the hierarchical cluster analysis. Usually,
graphical methods such as the probability plot, can
be used to determine an appropriate number of
HFUs for a data set.
Analytical hierarchical cluster analysis
introduces bias to the process of HFU classification
because the number of clusters should be known
prior to clustering.
Iterative Multi-Linear Regression Clustering
Both the graphical and the analytical
clustering methods will introduce bias to the
determination of HFUs. In this resaerch, we have
developed a new clustering technique that is
unbiased and easy to apply. Moreover, this new
clustering technique can be used to determine the
optimal number of HFUs that exist in the reservoir.
The iterative, multi-linear, regression
(IMLR) clustering technique is based on deciding
the optimal center for each data cloud and isolating
that set of data with a cluster identification tag. The
basic concept of this method is that a log-log plot of
RQI versus z will produce a straight line with a
unit slope and an intercept that represent the mean
FZI value for each HFU. Samples of different pore
throat attributes will lie on a parallel straight line.
This sounds like a very simple problem to solve.
However, in this case there are two unknowns and
single equation (Eq. 11). The two unknowns are the
intercept of the straight line, HFU mean FZI value,
and the second unknown is how the data samples
are distributed among the different HFUs. The only
way to solve this problem is to guess the first
unknown and solve for the second, then recalculate
the first unknown and repeat the process till we get
both unknowns within acceptable tolerance. This
SPE 63254 PERMEABILITY ESTIMATION USING HYDRAULIC FLOW UNITS IN A CENTRAL ARABIA RESERVOIR
problem is solved iterativly to optimize the
placement of each straight line on the log-log plot
of RQI versus z that gives a minimum error sum of
squares (SSE).
The HFU classification process using core data
requires the following steps:
1- Compute the reservoir quality index (RQI) and
normalized porosity (z) from core information
using Eqs. 8 and 9.
2- Plot RQI versus z in logarithmic space.
3- Use a reasonable initial guess of the intercept of
each straight-line equation, the mean FZI value
of each HFU.
4- Assign core sample data to the nearest straight
line.
5- Recalculate the intercept of each HFU using
least-squares regression equations.
6- Compare the new and old values of the intercept
for every straight line. If the difference is not
within the acceptable tolerance, update the
intercept values and go to Step 4.
The procedure above should be repeated
until the optimal location of each straight line is
found in which the error sum of squares is a
minimum for the desired number of hydraulic flow
units.
Determination of Optimal Number of HFUs
The IMLR method can be used to provide
the optimal number of hydraulic flow units that
exist in the formation. The conventional porosity
permeability transform is based on the assumption
that there exists only one rock type and all the
sample data exhibit the same flow characteristics.
This is the same if we use only one hydraulic flow
unit in our analysis. Fig. 5 is a plot of reservoir
quality index versus normalized porosity where one
HFU is used to fit the whole data set. Fig 6 shows a
plot of permeability versus porosity assuming single
HFU. The error sum of squares (SSE) in this case is
1963. This plot clearly indicates that using the
traditional permeability porosity transform will
produce inaccurate permeability estimation in the
CTR field. The resulting coefficient of
determination, R2, is 0.26.
5
Adding more HFUs should cause a reduction in the
SSE. However, as we continue to add HFUs, we
will reach to a point where error reduction is getting
smaller and smaller. The SSE in this case can be
used as a criterion for determining when we have
enough HFUs to describe the data. The SSE will
eventually get smaller if we fit enough straight
lines. However, as we add more straight lines
(more HFUs), we soon reach the law of
diminishing returns. In other words, it isn't worth
adding any further straight lines because the change
in SSE is negligible. A plot of error sum squares
versus the number of HFUs is shown in Fig. 7. The
SSE is plotted on the vertical axis and the number
of HFUs is recorded on the horizontal axis. Fig. 7
clearly shows a declining SSE curve with adding
more HFUs until we get to about the number 5
where the SSE curve will be flat. This indicates that
five HFUs is a fair representation of the number of
HFUs in the formation.
IMLR Unbiased Clustering
After determining the optimal HFUs that
should used to provide the best mapping of the
different formation HFUs, the IMLR method will
provide unbiased clustering of the sample data. The
IMLR method produces unbiased clustering
because the calculated parameters are based on the
least-square equations, which provide unbiased
estimation of regression parameters.
On the basis of the optimal HFUs from the
IMLR clustering technique, a combined RQI versus
z graph is made for all the wells in the study area,
as shown in Fig. 8. The unit slope lines are drawn
through segments of data according to mean FZI
values calculated for each group of data that belong
to the same HFU. The permeability porosity
relationship constructed from the HFUs is
illustrated in Fig. 9.
Porosity Permeability Relationship
With the classification of existing HFUs
above, we need to represent the formation porosity-
permeability relationship in a single formula instead
of having n number of equation for n number of
HFUs. This is done by using the different HFUs as
indictor variables in the following formula:
6 FAHAD A. AL-AJMI, STEPHEN A. HOLDITCH
log( k ) = o + 1 + 2 x1 + .......+ n x n 1 ,(13)
where is the regression coefficient and Xi = 1 if
the sample belongs to the ith HFU, and 0
otherwise.
The coding 1,2,3,.., for the existing HFUs
implies that the mean response changes by the same
amount when going from one class to another. This
may not be in accord with reality and is the result of
type coding that assigns equal distances between the
classes. Indicator variables, in contrast, make no
assumptions about the spacing of the classes and
rely on the data to show the deferential effects that
occur.
The calculated permeability using the IMLR
clustering technique and the HFU method is plotted
against the core permeability in Fig. 10. The
determination coefficient R2 is 0.93, which indicates
perfect correlation between the calculated and the
actual permeability values.
For the sake of comparison, Fig. 11 shows
permeability estimated using the traditional log of
permeability versus porosity transform (Eq. 1) for
the same core data. As expected, the estimated
permeability is unsatisfactory, with a determination
coefficient R2 of 0.37 between actual core
permeability and estimated permeability.
The calculated permeability using the IMLR
clustering technique and the HFU method for Well
CTR-2 is plotted against the core permeability in
Fig. 12. The calculated permeability using the
Wards clustering algorithm from SAS software and
the HFU method for Well CTR-2 is plotted against
the core permeability in Fig. 13. The use of the
IMLR clustering technique significantly improved
the correlation between permeability derived by
HFU method and core permeability.
Computer Program for Hydraulic Flow Unit
Analysis
A computer program was developed in this
research to perform hydraulic flow unit analysis.
The new IMLR clustering algorithm was
implemented in this computer program. The
computer program was developed using FORTRAN
SPE 63254
language for the main program and VISUAL
BASIC for the user interface and graphical
presentation of the analysis. Fig. 14 shows the main
menu and the different processing options that are
available for the user. Three main processing
options are available: sensitivity run to determine
the optimal number of HFUs; HFU analysis based
on the optimal number of HFUs or any user-
defined number of HFUs; regression analysis using
the different HFUs as dummy variables to calculate
the HFU methods predicted permeability. First the
user will start the analysis process by determining
the optimal number of HFUs to be used in a
specific formation. If the first option is selected, the
program makes a sensitivity run on the data and
generates a table of error sum of squares versus
number of HFUs used (Table 1). The plot of the
error sum of squares versus number of HFUs is
used to determine the optimal number of HFUs.
The second step of the analysis is to cluster the data
using the optimal number of HFUs. The program
output of this step is shown in Table 2. The final
step of the analysis is to develop a single
permeability estimation equation for the formation.
Relating HFUs to Grain Sizes from Core
Description
The previous section describes how core
permeability and porosity data are used to map the
formation rocks that exhibit the same flow
characteristics (flow units). The next important
question is, How are these statistically derived flow
units related to the core description information?
To relate the statistically derived flow units
in Well CTR-6 to core description, we used grain
size information from visual core description by the
well site geologist. We used the grain size
description because the permeability is strongly
affected by the sample grain size. Five categories of
grain sizes were identified from visual core
description: medium-coarse, fine-coarse, fine-
medium, fine-very fine, and siltstone. Each category
of grain sizes was given a number from 1 to 5: 1,
medium-coarse; 2, fine-coarse; 3, fine-medium; 4,
fine-very fine; and 5, siltstone.
Using the IMLR clustering technique, we
have identified 5 flow units in Well CTR-6. The
SPE 63254 PERMEABILITY ESTIMATION USING HYDRAULIC FLOW UNITS IN A CENTRAL ARABIA RESERVOIR
permeability porosity relationship constructed for
the different HFUs is illustrated in Fig 15. The
selected five HFUs are deemed sufficient to
minimize the scatter around the HFU lines for the
whole range of permeability. A comparison
between CTR-6 HFUs and grain size profiles
plotted against depth is shown in Fig. 16. The
dashed line represents the grain size profile derived
from visual inspection of cores. The area curve
represents the HFUs profile for Well CTR-6
derived using the IMLR clustering technique.
Considering the differences in methods used to
derive these two classification systems, the
correlation is quite satisfactory.
HFUs Prediction Using Log Data
The next major task is to extend the concept
of hydraulic flow units in wells where only well log
measurements are available. Amaefule et. al.3
derived a fundamental relationship between
porosity and permeability based on FZI as follows:
3
k = 1014 FZI 2
(1 ) 2
...(12)
To calculate permeability in uncored wells,
correlations were developed between well log
measurements and FZI values from core data. The
well logs used to develop the correlation were
gamma ray, deep resistivity to shallow resistivity,
effective porosity, and sonic travel time. A
technique of optimal nonparameteric transformation
of variables regression was used. Specifically, we
used GRACE6 software, which is based on an
algorithm called Alternating Conditional
Expectation (ACE).
FZI Correlation with Well Logs Using ACE
The goal is to find the relationship between
the flow zone indicator computed from core data
and openhole well logs. Four well log variables are
selected: gamma ray (GR), deep resistivity to
shallow resistivity ratio (Rd/s), effective porosity
(e), and zone indicator (Zone). The ACE algorithm
was used because of its ability to derive optimal
7
dependent and independent variable transformations
that improve correlation.
The optimal transformation for FZI is shown
in Fig. 17. The irregular shapes of the estimated
transformation further reveal the complicated
relationship between core FZI and well logs.
A linear regression in the transformed space results
in
* ( FZI) = 09969
. [
1 (ln_ GR) + 2 (ln_ Rd / s) + 3 (e) + 4 (Zone)
* * * *
]
, .(13)
with R2 = 0.72, which indicates a good level of
correlation.
Finally, FZI is predicted from the well log
data using the following equation derived by ACE:
FZI pre
j [ ( ) ( ) ( )
= * 1 1 ln _ GR j + 2 ln _ R d / s j + 3 ej + 4 ( Zone j )
* * * *
]
,......(14)
where FZIjpre is the predicted FZI value for a given
well log readings of {GRj, Rd/sj, ej, Zonej}. Fig.
18 shows a comparison of core FZI with the
predicted FZI values from well logs. Considering
the scatter in the original data, the prediction is
quite satisfactory.
The results of permeability prediction for
Wells CTR-2 and 6 are shown in Figs. 19 and 20,
respectively. These predicted permeability profiles
were obtained by assuming that these wells had
been logged only and did not have core data, while
in reality core data were available at all wells. This
was done only to check how accurately the HFU
method would predict permeability in these wells if
they had not been cored. As shown, the
permeability profiles of the log-derived HFU agree
with core data.
Fig 21 shows a scatterplot of estimated permeability
using HFUs method versus core permeability. The
samples in the scatterplot are grouped by HFUs.
The permeability estimated using HFUs method is
positively correlated with core permeability with a
8 FAHAD A. AL-AJMI, STEPHEN A. HOLDITCH
correlation coefficient of 0.64. Data points that
belong to HFUs 1 and 2 show a lot of scatter. The
flow units 1 and 2 are considered as having poor
flow characteristics.
The value of correlation coefficient may be affected
by a few aberrant pairs. A good alignment of a few
extreme pairs can dramatically improve an
otherwise poor correlation coefficient. Conversely,
an otherwise good correlation could be ruined by
the poor alignment of a few extreme pairs.
Moreover, it is important to note that correlation
coefficient provides a measure of the linear
relationship between two variables. If the
relationship is not linear, the correlation coefficient
may be very poor summary statistics.
Conclusions
1- Reservoir porosity permeability relationship is
best achieved if rocks with similar fluid-flow
conductivity are identified and grouped
together. Each group is referred to as a
hydraulic flow unit.
2- Permeability estimation using the HFU
technique was improved by developing a new
unbiased clustering algorithm to cluster the
different rock types on a basis of their flow
characteristics. Unlike the existing analytical
and graphical cluster analysis, which introduces
bias to the HFUs determination, our IMLR
clustering algorithm introduces no bias.
3- A procedure for determining the optimal
number of clusters that should be used in the
HFU technique was introduced. In this
procedure, the error sum of squares was used as
criterion for determining the required number of
HFUs to describe the reservoir.
4- Permeability estimation using the HFU method
was extended to uncored wells by implementing
the alternating conditional expectation (ACE)
algorithm. ACE provides a data-driven approach
for identifying the functional forms for the well
log variables involved in the correlation.
Permeability profiles generated by HFUs using
well log data agree with core data, which
illustrate the potential and applicability of the
HFU method.
SPE 63254
5- The statistically derived hydraulic flow units
were compared with the core description made
at the well site by the well-site geologist. The
grain size classes from core description match
very well with the statistically derived clusters
from the HFU method. This match indicates that
these hydraulic flow units reflect the different
rock types in the analyzed formation. Moreover,
it shows the practical efficiency of the
procedure used to determine the number of
hydraulic flow units in the formation.
6- A computer program was developed to perform
hydraulic flow unit analysis. Three main
processing options were integrated: sensitivity
run to determine the optimal number of HFUs;
HFU analysis based on the optimal number of
HFUs or any user-defined number of HFUs;
regression analysis using the different HFUs as
dummy variables to calculate the HFU methods
predicted permeability.
Acknowledgments
The first author gratefully acknowledges the support
of Saudi Aramco and thanks Saudi Aramco for
permission to publish this paper.
Nomenclature
= regression coefficient
= tortuosity
= viscosity
= error tolerance
core = core porosity
t = sonic travel time
ACE = alternating conditional expectation
CNL = compensated neutron log
2
e = ACE regression error
f = function
Fs2 = Kozeny constant
FZI = flow zone indicator
GR = gamma ray
SPE 63254 PERMEABILITY ESTIMATION USING HYDRAULIC FLOW UNITS IN A CENTRAL ARABIA RESERVOIR 9

HFU = hydraulic flow unit References

1- Wyllie, M.R.J., and Gardner, G.H.F.: The
IMLR = iterative multi-linear regression
Generalized Kozeny-Carmen Equation, World
k = permeability Oil, March and April 1958.
2- Abbaszadeh, M.D., Hikari Fujii, Fujio Fujimoto:
kcal = calculated permeability
Permeability Prediction by Hydraulic Flow
kcore = core permeability Units-Theory and Applications, SPE
Formation Evaluation (Dec. 1996), 263-271.
PHID = density porosity
3- Amaefule, J.O., Altunbay, D., Tiab, D., Kersey,
PHIE = calculated effective porosity D.G., and Keelan, D.K.: Enhanced Reservoir
Description: Using Core and Log Data to
PHIS = sonic porosity
Identify Hydraulic (Flow) Units and Predict
r = pore throat radius Permeability in Uncored Intervals/Wells, SPE
2 26436 (1993).
R = coefficient of determination
4- Kozeny, J.: Uber Kapillare Letung des Wassers
Rd = deep resistivity im Boden, Sitzungsberichte, Royal Academy
of Science, Vienna, Proc. Class I (1927) V.
Rd/s = deep to shallow resistivity ratio
136,271-306.
rmh = mean hydraulic radius 5- Carmen, P.C.: Fluid Flow through Granular
Beds, Trans. AIChE (1937) V. 15, 150-166.
RQI = reservoir quality index
6- Guoping Xue, Datta-Gupta, A., Peter Valko,
Sgv = surface area per grain volume and Balsingame T.: Optimal Transformations
for Multiple Regression: Application to
SSE = error sum of squares
Permeability Estimation from Well Logs, SPE
Zone = zone indicator 35412 presented at the Improved Oil Recovery
Symposium, Tulsa, Ok, 21 April 1996.
= porosity
avg = average porosity
e = effective porosity
N = neutron porosity
z = normalized porosity
10 FAHAD A. AL-AJMI, STEPHEN A. HOLDITCH SPE 63254

Hisotgram Plot of FZI

30

20

10000
10

1000
Permeability, md

0
100 -.88 -.38 .13 .63 1.13 1.63 2.13
-.63 -.13 .38 .88 1.38 1.88

10
LFZI

1
Fig. 3- Histogram of the logarithm of FZI for Well CTR-17.
0.1

0.01
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Porosity, %

Fig. 1- Scatterplot of core permeability vs. core porosity for

the study wells.

10000

1000
Permeability, md

100

10 Fig. 4- Probability plot of logarithm of FZI for Well CTR-17.

0.1
10
0.01
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Porosity, %
1
Fig. 2- Scatterplot of core permeability vs. core porosity for
Well CTR-2.
RQI

0.1

0.01
0.01 0.1 1
Z

Fig. 5- Scatterplot of log RQI versus log z when one HFU is

used to fit the whole data.
SPE 63254 PERMEABILITY ESTIMATION USING HYDRAULIC FLOW UNITS IN A CENTRAL ARABIA RESERVOIR 11

100 00 1 00 00

100 0 1 00 0

C ore Pe rm e ability , m d
1 00
P e rme ability , md

100

10
10
1
1 K = 0 .0 1 0 8
2 .6 1 4 9

2
R = 0 .2 5 6 1 0 .1
0.1
0 .0 1
0.01 0 10 20 30 40
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Porosity , %
P orosity, % Fig. 9- Porosity permeability relationship derived by HFUs
Fig. 6- Fitting core permeability and porosity using a single method.
HFU.
100000

2400
10000
T o ta l E rro r S um o f S qua re s (S S

Kcal = Kcore
2

Calculated permeability
2000 R = 0.9275
1000

1600
100

1200
10

800
1

400
0.1

0
0.01
0 2 4 6 8 10
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
N umbe r o f H FU 's Measured core permeability
Fig. 7- Total error sum of squares versus number of HFUs. Fig. 10- Crossplot of estimated permeability using HFUs
method versus core permeability.

10 10000
0 .3 7 5 1
K c a l = 3 .9 9 0 4 K c o r e
2
1000 R = 0 .3 7 5 1
C a lc ula te d p e rme a b ility

1 100
RQI

10

0 .1
1

0 .1

0 .0 1
0 .0 1
0 .0 1 0 .1 1
0 .0 1 0 .1 1 10 100 1000 10000
z
M e a s ure d c o re p e rme a b ility
Fig. 8- Clustering core data into the optimal number of HFUs
using the IMLR technique. Fig. 11- Estimated permeability using traditional transform
versus core permeability.
12 FAHAD A. AL-AJMI, STEPHEN A. HOLDITCH SPE 63254

10000 Table 1- Using SSE to Determine Optimal Number of HFUs.

0.9762
1000
P r e d ic te d P e r me a b ility, m

y = 1 .0 6 3 1 x
2
N u m b er of H FU s SS E
R = 0 .9 7 6 2
100 1 1 9 6 3 .0
2 6 0 1 .6
10
3 3 1 8 .1
1 4 2 2 8 .6
5 1 5 0 .3
0 .1 6 1 2 5 .3
7 1 0 4 .3
0 .0 1
0 .0 1 0 .1 1 10 100 1000 10000
8 9 2 .3
M e a s ur e d P e r m e a b ility, md .
9 8 6 .7

Fig. 12- Calculated permeability using IMLR clustering

technique for Well CTR-2.

10000
Table 2- Sample Output for the HFU Analysis
1000 y = 1 .1 1 8 8 x
0.9563 DEPTH POROSITY PERMEABILITY CLUSTER z RQI
2
P r e d i c te d P e r m e a b i l ity

R = 0 .9 5 6 3 ft. % md #
100 735.00 12.70 1.600 2 0.145 0.111
735.50 9.40 0.300 1 0.104 0.056
10
736.00 10.30 0.100 1 0.115 0.031
736.50 9.30 0.200 1 0.103 0.046
737.00 8.10 0.300 2 0.088 0.060
1 737.50 8.90 0.200 1 0.098 0.047
. . . . . .
0 .1 . . . . . .
. . . . . .
0 .0 1 . . . . . .
0 .0 1 0 .1 1 10 100 1000 10000 900.00 9.60 0.300 1 0.106 0.056
900.50 9.70 0.500 2 0.107 0.071
M e a s ur e d P e r m e a b il i ty, m d .
901.00 11.40 0.300 1 0.129 0.051
Fig. 13- Calculated permeability using the Wards clustering
algorithm for Well CTR-2.

H ydraulic Flow U nit A nalysis Program

U sing IM L R C lustering 10000
D eveloped by: F ahad Alajm i
1998
1000

O p tim al N o. H FU 's H FU Analys is

Permeability, md

100
Execute
Execute
10
Clear

1
R eg res s ion An alys is
N um ber of H FU 's
Execute 5 0.1

Clear 0.01
Data File:
c:\f32\hfuxls\core6.dat 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Porosity, %

Fig. 15- Porosity permeability relationship derived by the

Fig. 14- User interface for the HFU analysis computer IMLR clustering technique for Well CTR-6.
program.
SPE 63254 PERMEABILITY ESTIMATION USING HYDRAULIC FLOW UNITS IN A CENTRAL ARABIA RESERVOIR 13

6 6 1 00 00 0

G rain S ize C lasses H F U s

1 00 00 R = 0.64
5 5

1 00 0

H F U P ermeab ility
4 4
1 00

3 3 10
HU1
1 HU2
2 2 HU3
0 .1 HU4
HU5
1 1
0 .0 1
0 .0 1 0 .1 1 10 1 00 1 00 0 1 00 00 1 00 00 0
Fig. 16- Relationship between statistically derived HFUs and
grain size classes from core description for Well CTR-6 [(1) C o re P ermeab ility
medium-coarse, (2) fine-coarse, (3) fine-medium, (4) fine- Fig. 21- Scatterplot of permeability estimated using HFUs
very fine, and (5) siltstone]. method vs. core permeability.
G R & C a lip er P H IE H F U P e rm e a b i l i t y , m d

0 50 100 150 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 .0 1 1 100 10000

3 .5 650

3 .0
2 .5
700

2 .0
* ( ln_FZI )

1 .5
1 .0 750

0 .5
0 .0
800

-0 .5
-1 .0
-1 .5 850

-3 .0 -2 .0 -1 .0 0 .0 1 .0 2 .0 3 .0 4 .0
_ln_FZI
900

Fig. 17- Optimal transformation of natural logarithm of FZI

as derived by ACE. 950

1000

4 .0

1050
C a lc ula te d ln_ F Z

2 .0
HF U P erm .
P H IE
Core P erm .
1100

0 .0

Fig. 19- Permeability profile derived using HFUs method for

-2 .0 Well CTR-2.

-4 .0
-4 .0 -2 .0 0 .0 2 .0 4 .0
M e a s ure d ln_ F ZI

Fig. 18- FZI values predicted from well logs using ACE
versus core FZI.
14 FAHAD A. AL-AJMI, STEPHEN A. HOLDITCH SPE 63254

G R & C a lip er P H IE H F U P e rm e a b ility , m d

0 50 100 150 0 10 20 30 40 0 .0 1 1 100 10000

700

750

800

850

900

950

1000

HF U P erm .
P H IE
Core P erm .
1050

Fig. 20- Permeability profile derived using HFUs method for

Well CTR-6.