See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315800144

A Neural Network approach for hydraulic flow

unit-based reservoir characterization

Conference Paper · October 2009

CITATIONS READS

0 20

1 author:

An Hai Le
Hanoi University of Mining and Geology
6 PUBLICATIONS 5 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Environmental protection and sustainable development View project

All content following this page was uploaded by An Hai Le on 06 April 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

A Neural Network approach for hydraulic flow unit-based reservoir
characterization
Le Hai An (1)
(1)
Hanoi University of Mining and Geology, Vietnam (lehaian@humg.edu.vn)
ABSTRACT
Recently, neural network techniques have emerged as
robust tools to tackle complicated problems in the
petroleum industry, especially in reservoir
characterization. This paper demonstrates the
application of neural networks in predicting global
hydraulic elements and hydraulic flow units through
core - log integration. A new approach to effectively
use the predicted global hydraulic element resulting in
netpay calculation is proposed. The derived GHE
outcome has potentially resulted in calculating a more
precise result of netpay in the reservoir. Several
approaches in the wireline log interpretation have been
attempted and it is proved that the hydraulic flow
unit-based approach has far more advantages
compared to the conventional versions. Case studies
from several low resistivity low contrast reservoirs in
the offshore Vietnam have been presented in this paper
to illustrate the new proposed approach.
KEYWORDS: hydraulic flow unit, global hydraulic
element, neural network, reservoir characterization.
INTRODUCTION
To characterize a reservoir, information on lithofacies
and petrophysical parameters such as shale volume,
porosity, permeability, water saturation always play
important roles. Among them, the top most three key
parameters for assessing hydrocarbon in place is
porosity, water saturation and net to gross ratio. The
hydraulic flow unit concept is used here to maximize
the geological information from core data in order to
integrate with wireline logs using neural networks. It
consequently has increased the efficiency of wireline
log interpretation in reservoir characterization,
especially in the net pay calculation. The resulting
outcome allows more precise integration of G&G data
in the subsequent reservoir modeling [Amaefule et al,
1993; Abbaszadeh et al, 1995; Svirsky et al, 2004)]
LOW RESISTIVITY LOW CONTRAST
RESERVOIRS
The low resistivity low contrast (LRLC) reservoirs are
rather common in a northeastern part of Cuu Long
basin, where most of the crude oil in Vietnam is
currently produced. Lower Miocene sandstone
reservoir is one of the most important plays in Cuu
Long basin. Drilling and testing results show that
reservoirs are very good with high porosity and
Proceedings of the 9th SEGJ International Symposium –Imaging and Interpretation- , Sapporo, Japan 12-14 October 2009
permeability. However, low resistivity is one special
characteristic of these Lower Miocene reservoirs in the
basin. The presence of low resistivity zones makes
difficulties for the log analyst to accurately determine
water saturation Sw and differentiate between pay
zones and non-pay zones. These summation results are
really sensitive and have a huge impact on
hydrocarbon initial in place (HIIP) assessments. A
proper approach in these LRLC reservoirs is therefore
essential.
The main causes of LRLC include (i) thin
shale/sand lamination, (ii) clay minerals, (iii)
conductive minerals such as pyrite, (iv) high salinity of
formation water, (v) deep invasion of drilling fluid into
formation and (vi) grain size. To date, several
approaches have been attempted, most rely on the
environmental correction of resistivity as well as
conductive minerals. However, there is no single
approach proposed for how to precisely define net pay.
All are based on conventional methods that use single
cut off value of porosity and water saturation to
calculate the net pay.
HYDRAULIC FLOW UNIT-BASED RESERVOIR
CHARACTERIZATION
Ebanks first introduced the concept of the hydraulic
flow unit in 1987 and since then, many researchers
have applied the method in reservoir characterization
and description, and reservoir modeling has been done
with great success. Researchers from Heriot-Watt
University proposed and applied not only for
permeability prediction from wireline logs but also for
selecting and sampling of representative core plugs for
special core analysis (SCAL) as well as prediction of
other petrophysical, geochemical parameters and
dynamic reservoir modeling [Corbett, 2003 and An,
2004].
Hydraulic Unit and Global Hydraulic Element
concepts
A reservoir is characterised by its flow units. A flow
unit is defined as a volume of the total reservoir rock
within which geological and petrophysical properties
that affect fluid flow are internally consistent and
predictably different from properties of other rock
volumes (Ebanks, 1987). A flow unit is a reservoir
zone that is continuous laterally and vertically and has
similar flow and bedding characteristics. Within each
flow unit, there is a strong relation between porosity
and permeability i.e. each flow unit should have texture and mineralogy in the discrimination of distinct
distinct petrophysical characteristics. pore geometry facies (hydraulic units) [Amaefule et
Permeability depends on the porosity, and its al., 1993]
geometric distribution and connectivity. The most Corbett et al. have introduced the term global
commonly used porosity - permeability equation is the hydraulic elements (GHEs). A systematic series of a
Kozeny-Carman equation [Kozeny, 1927; Carman, priori FZI values was arbitrarily chosen to define 10
1937]. Amaefule proposed a generalised formula of porosity-permeability elements (global hydraulic
Kozeny-Carman which included the pore shape (Fs) elements). Only 10 were chosen in order to split the
parameter as follows: wide range of porosity and permeability parameter
Φe space into a manageable number of GHEs. The series
3
1
K= (1) of FZI values chosen was as follows: 0.0938; 0.1875;
Fsτ S Vgr (1 − Φ e ) 2
2 2
0.375; 0.75; 1.5; 3; 6; 12; 24; 48 which corresponded
respectively to the lower boundary of GHE1; GHE2;
Where K is permeability, Fs is shape factor, τ is
GHE3; GHE4; GHE5; GHE6; GHE7; GHE8; GHE9;
tortuiosity, SVgr is surface area per unit grain volume,
and GHE10. The GHE template was then constructed
Φe is effective porosity.
on the porosity-permeability crossplot. The GHE
The Flow Zone Indicator (FZI) parameter was
template allows any core plug to be rapidly classified
defined by Amaefule et al. (1993) as follows:
in terms of GHEs merely by plotting its porosity and
1
FZI = (2) permeability values on the template. There is no need
Fs τ SVgr to calculate FZI values. The advantage of this
approach is that it allows data from any reservoir to be
The Reservoir Quality Index (RQI) can be defined plotted on exactly the same reference frame - unlike
as: the Amaefule et al., 1993, conventional approach
K [Corbett et al., 2003].
RQI = 0.0314 (3)
Φe GHE/HU recognition from core data
The constant 0.0314 occurs because the The database consists of wireline logs and core data
permeability K in Equation (1) is in µm2 whereas the from 5 wells located in three different oilfields within
permeability K in Equation (3) is in mD [Amaefule et Cuu Long basin. The LRLC reservoir of Lower
al., 1993]. Miocene in age is a common feature in these fields.
Φz is defined as the pore volume to grain volume To study the reservoir quality through its
ratio: petrophysical properties, porosity and permeability
measured on core plugs and wireline logs from 5 wells
 Φe 
Φ z =   (4) were used. The porosity permeability crossplot of all
 1 − Φ e  core plugs taken from these wells, in Lower Miocene
The generalised equation (3) can be re-written as reservoirs, is shown in Figure 1.
follows:
K
0.0314
RQI Φe
FZI = = (5)
Φz  Φe 
 
1− Φe 
and

log RQI = log Φ z + log FZI (6)

From Equation (6), if RQI were plotted versus Φz

on a log-log plot, the data from a given flow unit or a
similar FZI value will lie on a straight line with a slope
of 1.0. Other flow units will fall on adjacent parallel
lines and each flow unit will have a separate FZI value.
The FZI value will be the same for a given flow unit
having similar pore throat characteristics.
Furthermore the value of FZI can be determined from
the intercept at Φz = 1.0 (or logΦ z = 0). The FZI has Figure 1. Porosity-permeability crossplot (solid line
high geological significance since it is a unique shows regression line of porosity-permeability
parameter that incorporates the geological attributes of transform).

Proceedings of the 9th SEGJ International Symposium –Imaging and Interpretation- , Sapporo, Japan 12-14 October 2009
 learning algorithm is a time-consuming process. For
In this study, the porosity and permeability data simplicity and time saving, the conventional
were also plotted on GHE template (Figure 3); it’s back-propagation neural network was used in this
obvious that the porosity permeability relationships are study to build the model based on core derived FZI and
clearly defined within individual GHE. In these 5 wireline logs as input (Figure 3).
wells, 8 GHE are defined, from GHE1 to GHE8. It Six conventional wireline logs: gamma ray (GR),
means that the hydraulic properties of these reservoirs sonic transit time (DT), deep resistivity (LLD), shallow
are very complex and vary in a great range. It is resistivity (LLS), density (RHOB) and neutron (NPHI)
therefore essential to be able to know well in advance were used as input and calculated FZI from core was
what the formation is from wireline log if core data is used as output to the neural network model.
not available.
Since the variation in porosity-permeability
relationship is large, the unique cutoff values for pay
reservoir is no longer valid. Each GHE / rocktype
should have distinguished porosity cutoff values based
on the 1mD cutoff value of permeability, which is the
industry standard for an oil reservoir and 0.1mD for a
gas reservoir. For instance, in this case, from the
porosity-permeability relationship, the porosity cutoff
for the entire reservoir is 0.13 for oil and 0.08 for gas
(Figure 1). If the GHE concept is used, the porosity
cutoff values vary from as high as 0.25 for GHE1 to as
low as 0.03 for GHE8 (oil reservoir) and 0.2 for GHE1
to 0.02 for GHE8 (Figure 2). Similarly, different cutoff
values of water saturation would also be applied for
individual GHE.
Figure 3. Schematic of Neural Network prediction.

Figure 4 shows the neural network predicted FZI and

FZI calculated from core data of the training dataset.
There is a very good agreement between them. The
correlation coefficient between them is R2=0.91.

Figure 2. Core porosity-permeability on GHE template.
GHE prediction model using a neural network
approach
One of the purposes of this study is to build an
empirical model to directly predict GHE by calculating
FZI from a different combination of wireline logs.
The Artificial Neural Network approach, which is
robust and able to reveal the nonlinear relationship
between variables, was employed in this study to
accomplish this task. GHE would then be classified
based on predicted FZI values.
The construction of a Neural Network as well as a
Figure 4. Core and Neural Network predicted FZI in
the training dataset
The trained neural network was then used to calculate
FZI in uncored intervals and wells in the entire
Miocene reservoirs. Consequently, predicted FZI was
used to determine GHE.
RESULTS
The results obtained from conventional wireline log
interpretation (shale volume, porosity and water
saturation) were then used to calculate the net pay for
entire reservoir based on two approaches: (i)

Proceedings of the 9th SEGJ International Symposium –Imaging and Interpretation- , Sapporo, Japan 12-14 October 2009
 conventional approach: one cutoff values for entire
reservoir; (ii) new proposed GHE approach: different
cutoff values for different GHE. In the second
approach, the predicted neural network GHE was used
as an extra input for the reservoir summation.
For the sake of simplicity and when compared with
petrographic analysis from core, it was decided that in
this Miocene reservoir, GHE should be grouped. The
first GHE group (HU1) is GHE1, GHE2 and GHE2,
the second group (HU2) is GHE4 and GHE5, the third
group (HU3) is GHE5 and GHE6, and the fourth group
(HU4) is GHE7 and GHE8. For the second approach,
different cutoff values of porosity and water saturation
for these 4 groups of GHE were used.
The summation results show that there is a
difference between the two approaches, the second
approach, which is based on GHE has far more
advantage and was more precise than that of the first
approach when verified with well testing results (Table
1). Several pay zones were missed out when using the
first conventional approach.
Table 1. Reservoir summation in 5 wells
Well GHE approach Conventional
Approach
1 39.5m 34.9m
2 13.4m 6.4m
3 35.6m 24.5m
4 9.4m 7.2m
5 11.2m 11m
When using the outcomes in the subsequent
reservoir modeling process, once the GHE has been
determined, one can easily relate porosity and
permeability through Equation (7), which is derived
from Equation (5). The larger the number of GHE in
the model, the more complex the reservoir model.
2 approach for engineering projects. Abstract
  Φ 
 FZI  1 − Φ  
K = Φ   (7)
 0.0314 
 
 
For reservoir modeling, to reduce the complexity
of the model, two or more GHE could be grouped into
one HU.
CONCLUSIONS
In the LRLC reservoir, the conventional wireline log
Proceedings of the 9th SEGJ International Symposium –Imaging and Interpretation- , Sapporo, Japan 12-14 October 2009
View publication stats
interpretation is limited in terms of net pay calculation
if a single cutoff value is being used.
The new proposed hydraulic flow unit-based
approach using GHE/HU and Artificial Neural
Network is certainly a better and more precise
approach.
In future, a reservoir characterization in LRLC
reservoirs based on the integration of data from diverse
disciplines such as core, testing, wireline data, with use
of the GHE approach, as shown in this study, is
strongly recommended.
The results of this study will be tested for
reservoir modeling and simulation of this Miocene
reservoir.
REFERENCES
Abbaszadeh, M., Fujii, H., and Fujimoto, F., 1995.
Permeability prediction by hydraulic flow units –
theory and applications. SPE paper 30158.
Amaefule, J. O., Altunbay, M., Tiab, D., Kersey, D.
G., and Keelan, D. K., 1993. Enhanced reservoir
descriptions: using core and log data to identify
Hydraulic (flow) Units and predict permeability in
uncored intervals / wells. SPE paper 26436.
An, L. H., 2004. Innovative neural network approaches
for petrophysical parameter prediction.
Unpublished PhD thesis, Heriot-Watt University,
193 p.
Carman, P.C, 1937. Fluid Flow through Granular
Beds. Trans. AIChE , v. 15, 150-166.
Corbett, P. W. M., Ellabad, Y., Mohamed, K., and
Pososyaev, A., 2003. Global Hydraulic Elements
– elementary petrophysics for reduced reservoir
modeling. European Association of Geoscientists
and Engineers 65th Conference, Paper F-26 EAGE
meeting, Stavanger, June 2 - June 5.
Ebanks, W. J., 1987. Flow unit concept - integrated
presented June 8, during the roundtable sessions at
the 1987 American Association of Petroleum
Geologists Annual Convention.
Kozeny. J., 1927. Uber Kapillare Leitung des Wassers
im Boden. Sitzungsberichte. Royal Academy of
Science, Vienna, Proc. Class 1, v. 136, pp.
271-306.
Svirsky D., A. Ryazanov, M. Pankov, P. W. M.
Corbett, A. Posysoev, 2004. Hydraulic Flow Units
Resolve Reservoir Description Challenges in a
Siberian Oil. SPE paper 87056