Do we have the right rock types in PETROTYPING

our reservoir simulation models? A basemap and atlas for navigating through
permeability and porosity data for
comparison and permeability prediction
- or what can you do with 1000’s of core plugs?

Patrick Corbett Patrick Corbett and David Potter

Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University, Riccarton, Edinburgh Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University, Riccarton, Edinburgh
SCA 2004

Outline Hydraulic Units

• Rock Typing by Hydraulic Units • Cluster analysis on core plug data
• The problem with Hydraulic Units
Hydraulic Flow Unit is defined as
• Petrotyping (Global Hydraulic Elements) the elements of the reservoir rock
• The advantages of Petrotyping which have similar averages of
petrophysical rock properties that
• Engineering Validation affect fluid flow

Amaefule, 1993

Derivation of Hydraulic Flow Elements

Definition of RQI and FZI
From Koseny-Carman equation
2
φ φ
2
⎛ r ⎞ ⎛r ⎞ Koseny-Carman RQI - Reservoir Quality Index
k = ⎜ ⎟ = ⎜ mh ⎟ equation φ3 ⎛
⎜
⎞
⎟
2τ 2 ⎝ 2 ⎠ 2τ 2 ⎝ ⎠ k = ⎜
1
⎟ FZI - Flow Zone Index
(1 − φ ) 2 ⎝ F g τ Sgr
2 2
⎠

1 ⎛ φ ⎞ 100

rmh = ⎛ ⎞ HU1
⎜ ⎟ φ
⎝1 −φ
k ⎜ 1 ⎟ 10 HU2
S gr ⎠ 0.0314
φ = (1 − φ ) ⎜ Fg τ ⎟ HU3
RQI

⎝ S gr ⎠ 1 HU4

φ ⎛ ⎞
3 0.1

k = ⎜ 1 ⎟ RQI = φ z × FZI
⎜ ⎟
(1 − φ ) 2
0.01
⎝ F g τ Sgr
2 2
⎠ 0.01 0.1 1
Log(RQI) = Log(φz) + Log(FZI) φz

1
 Permeability-
Permeability-Porosity Coded by HU Visualization of HUs
Probability Plot for identify HFE's, G7-97 Grain size fining
1.0

0.9

Subdivision of the 0.8

HU1 HU4 HU7
0.7

Hydraulic Flow Units

Normal Probability

0.6

0.5
HFE1
0.4
HFE2
0.3 HFE3
Crossplot of (k vs. Phi) for different 0.2 HFE4 Plot of RQI vs. Φz, well G7
Hydraulic Units, Well X7
0.1 HFE5
10
1000
0.0 HFE1, FZI=6.9
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 HFE2, FZI=2.7
Empirical Probability HFE3, FZI=1.1
100
HFE4, FZI=0.3
10
HFE5, FZI=0.1
1

RQI
k, mD

0.1

0.1
0.01

0.001

0.0001 0.01
0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250 0.01 0.1 1

Phi, frac. Φz

PoroPerm relationship Reservoir Quality

is uniquely defined for each Index vs. Flow Zone
Hydraulic Unit Indicator From Mohammed, 2002
(from Ellabad, 2003)

The problem with HUs HU’s across a field

• Clusters systematically selected on
statistical grounds Crossplot of (k vs. Phi) for different Hydraulic
Units, well X1
Crossplot of (k vs. Phi) for different
Hydraulic Units, Well X2

1000
Crossplot of (k vs. Phi) for different
Hydraulic Units, Well X7

1000 1000

• Depend on available sample set 100 100 100

10 10 10
Permeability, mD

• Field-specific 1 1 1

k, mD
k, mD

0.1 0.1 0.1

• Clustered on well by well basis 0.01 0.01 0.01

0.001
– Lack of implied geometry 0.0001
0.001

0.0001
0.001

0.0001
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.

– Non-facies specific Porosity, frac. Phi, frac. Phi, frac.

– Cant be correlated and mapped Different numbers of HUs – Different HUs

(from Ellabad, 2003)

Petrotyping GLOBAL HYDRAULIC ELEMENTS

• Global Hydraulic Elements (Standard HU’s) FZI GHE
48 10
• Grounded quantitatively or porosity and 24 9

permeability 12 8
6 7
• Consistent classification of “rock type” on 3 6
petrophysical criteria 1.5 5
0.75 4
• A-priori petrotypes 0.375 3
0.1875 2
– (cf rock type, pore types, pore groups) 0.0938 1

• Transportable
– (cf grain size comparator)
• Standard representation – plot and colours
• Number of petrotypes “absolute” not “relative” RQI
0.0314
k
φ
FZI = =
• Use of “element” implies spatial knowledge Φz ⎛ φ ⎞
⎜⎜ 1 − φ ⎟⎟
⎝ ⎠
– (cf stratal element)

2
 Coarsening-up Shoreface

CHALK

0.40

Median Grain Diameter (mm)

mU
0.35

0.30 mL
0.25

0.20 fU
0.15 fL
0.10 vfU
0.05
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Data from
GHE
Peter Frykman, GEUS

Shallow Marine (North Africa)

Shallow Marine Trends

Shallow Marine (North Africa)

SHALLOW
MARINE

Uses of Petrotyping Comparing Fields

• Comparing fields
– Visual (standard colour scheme)
• A priori trends
– Permeability prediction
• Comparing Databases
– Common patterns
Field A Field B
Eclipse model data

3
 Comparing Models

Field A Field B
Eclipse model data

Comparing Fields
SPE Comparative Solution Project

Turbidite Trends

Braided Fluvial

Braided Fluvial Trends Braided Fluvial Trends

Global Hydraulic Elements

1000000
GHE10
100000 GHE9
GHE8
10000 GHE7
GHE6
GHE5
Permeability (mD)

1000 GHE4
GHE3
100 GHE2
GHE1
Coarse
10 Medium
Fine
1 Very fine

0.1

0.01

0.001
0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500

Porosity (decimal)

Piraces, La Serreta, Huesca Fan, Ebro Basin

4
 A-priori trends Petrotype Comparison of Databases
Aeolian Aeolian
Shallow Marine Trends Turbidite Trends
0.4 facies distributions
0.35
0.6

Probability, fraction
0.3 0.5
lagoon
0.25 fluvial 0.4
tidal flat

probability
deltaic
0.2 0.3 mixed tidal
aeolian
0.15 0.2 deltaic
chott
aeolian
0.1 0.1
washover
0
0.05
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
-0.1
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 GHE
Middle East
North Africa GHE

Database: several thousand core plugs

Braided Fluvial Trends (from Kooistra, 2004)

Petrophysical Validation of HFEs Rock types and flow

Grain
GrainSize
Sizeand Sortingforfor
and Sorting each
each HU HFE M ercury
Mercury Injection Capillary
Injection Capillary Pressure
Pressure
4 2000

1800 Sample #39

Sample # 39- k– =
k 265
= 265- HFU1
– HFE1
3.5
Sample # 45- k– =
Sample #45 k 68
= 68 – HFE2
- HFU2
1600 Sample # 55- k– =
k 7.5
= 7.5 – HFE3
Air-Mercury Capillary Pressure (psia)

Sample #55 - HFU3

Grain Size and Sorting

3
1400
2.5
, Phi Units

1200

2
1000

1.5 800

1 600

400
0.5
200
0
G7HU1 G7HU1 G7HU2 G7HU3 G7HU4 G7HU5 0
G7HE1 G7HE1 G7HE2 G7HE3 G7HE4 G7HE5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
HFESUnits
Hydraulic Wetting Phase Saturation (%)

Escanilia Fm, Olsen

Grain size shows clear contrast HFEs characterized also by

among HFEs, where sorting different capillary pressure
shows no big variation curves
Braided Fluvial, Triassic, North Africa, Ellabad, 2003

Geochoke Model
Petrotyping in Carbonates
Pixel Model
Braided Fluvial
Rock Type
Distribution • GHEs can be found
• Needs more systematic work!

Numerical Well Test

Simulations

Ellabad, 2003

5
 Carbonbate Rock Types
Petrotype 1

Petrotype 2 Petrotype 3

5 Petrotypes

(from Masalmeh and Jing, 2004)

Conclusions Acknowledgements
• Petrotyping: Use of Global Hydraulic Elements • Total support for PWMC
– Consistent Basemap
– Comparable Colours • Anadarko support for DP
– A-priori Information
– Standardisation of databases
• Pegasus project sponsors
• Basis for: – Amerada Hess, BG, Halliburton and
– SCAL selection (S = Systematic) Schlumberger
– Permeability Prediction
– Correlation and Mapping
– Property Assignment and Reservoir Modelling