SPE 38985
Application of Neural Network Parameter Prediction in Reservoir Characterization and
Simulation - A Case History: The Rabbit Hills Field
T. Ahmed, SPE, and C.A. Link, Montana Tech, K.W. Porter, Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology, C.J. Wideman and
P. Himmer, Montana Tech, and J. Braun, University of Montana
Copyright 1997, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the Fifth Latin American and Caribbean
Petroleum Engineering Conference and Exhibition held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 30 August–3
September 1997.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
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
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
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
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
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.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Recent developments in artificial neural networks now make
it possible to predict important reservoir parameters from
combinations of well log, geologic, and surface seismic data.
Our neural network predictions of porosity and permeability
make use of high resolution 3-D seismic data and well logs to
extrapolate these reservoir properties away from the borehole.
These predictions can then be used for further geologic
analysis, seismic interpretation, 3-D computer visualization,
or input to reservoir simulators.
This methodology of integration of data types of different
scales combined with prediction of reservoir parameters
provides valuable feedback into the reservoir modeling
process. This in turn enhances the capability of the reservoir
team to model accurately subsurface detail and those features
that are likely to control and influence the displacement
processes associated with hydrocarbon production.
The NE Rabbit Hills Field, north-central Montana, USA,
is used to demonstrate the use of this integrated reservoir
modeling approach. Results of history matching using the
neural network derived rock parameters are also presented.
Introduction
The petroleum industry has increasingly recognized the need
for a cross-disciplinary team approach to reservoir
characterization and simulation studies. A reservoir
simulation study combines data from many different sources
and processes the data through complex nonlinear systems of
equations to generate a reservoir production forecast for
subsequent economic analysis. The data types typically
include geologic, seismic, petrophysical, well log, and
production data. A significant problem with these
simulations is that data generated from different sources are
measured at different scales and on different rock volumes.
The recent intense focus on reservoir characterization as a
production tool has occurred largely because of the enhanced
computer capability now available to integrate and visualize
large volumes of data in a three-dimensional format. Along
with the advances in integration and visualization
capabilities, a new modeling method has been introduced that
is capable of making parameter predictions in the absence of
well defined analytic relationships. This technique, artificial
neural networks (ANN), is becoming increasingly popular in
the areas of pattern recognition and nonlinear problem
solving.
Petroleum reservoirs are, in large part, characterized by
the porosity and permeability of the hydrocarbon-bearing
formation. Accurate estimates of these parameters are
important for predicting reserves and developing oil
extraction techniques. At present, to obtain porosity or
permeability distributions, values are interpolated between
existing wells using conventional gridding techniques.
Gridding techniques can account for large-scale variations in
reservoir parameters but are unable to provide the level of
resolution required to produce accurate production estimates
or to determine injection locations if the reservoir is located
in a zone of complex geology. A neural network approach
provides a method for extrapolating well log data guided by
another type of information, such as seismic data. Neural
networks are thus being used to address the challenge posed
by the considerable difference in physical scale of the
different data sets that are to be integrated, for example,
outcrop and core data with surface and crosswell seismic data.
In reservoir characterization, many different types of data
must be integrated. Each characterization is limited by the
specific data types available and the quality of those data.
The objective in a characterization is to provide a three-
dimensional model of the reservoir that effectively integrates
the available data of different types and scales. The reservoir
2 T. AHMED, C.A. LINK, K.W. PORTER, C.J. WIDEMAN, P. HIMMER, J. BRAUN
characterization case study presented in this paper
incorporates petroleum engineering, surface seismic,
crosswell seismic, geologic, and neural network data. This
study was conducted by the Montana University System
Petroleum Reservoir Characterization research team which
was formed in November, 1993 with funding from the US
Department of Energy (DOE) and from the Montana Science
and Technology Alliance (MSTA).
A Reservoir Characterization Case Study: The NE
Rabbit Hills Oil Field
The Rabbit Hills oil field lies low on the eastern flank of the
Sweetgrass arch, north of the Bearspaw Mountains in north-
central Montana, USA. It is located in Blaine County, about
eight miles north of the town of Chinook, Montana, in
sections 7 and 18, T34N, R20E (Figs. 1 and 2).
Field Characteristics. The Rabbit Hills reservoir is of mixed
carbonate-siliciclastic composition and occurs in the upper
part of the Bowes Member, upper member of the Middle
Jurassic Sawtooth (Shaunavon) Formation. Gross reservoir
interval thickness of the upper part of the Bowes varies from
9 to 26 ft (2.7 to 7.9 m); pay thickness is strongly facies
controlled within the interval and may vary from 2 to 20 ft
(0.6 to 6.1 m). The average drilling depth in the field is
4,090 ft (1,246 m) and the average reservoir subsea elevation
is minus 1401 ft (427 m). To date, the field has produced
slightly over 2 million barrels of 19-degree API-gravity oil.
There is no associated gas but there is a strong water leg.
Seismic and subsurface data indicate a structural high in the
field area and the field is considered a structurally enhanced
stratigraphic trap.
Field History. The field was discovered in 1972 with the
Amoco #1 USA Erving Wolf well which had an IP of 366
BOPD. The Amoco well went on production in 1973 and was
the only well in the field until 1984; except for 11 months of
production from the Norfolk Flynn 7-1 well during 1975-
1976 before this well ceased production due to high water
recovery. In 1984, the Brown 7-34-20 Federal well went on
production and 21 wells now comprise the field. Of these,
currently 11 are producing, 3 are shut in, 1 is an injection
well, and 7 are dry holes (Fig. 2). Most of the producing
wells were drilled in 1991 and 1992 resulting in a sharp
increase in oil production rate and cumulative oil. A pilot
polymer flood was begun in March, 1996.
Study Area and Research Data. Twenty-one wells comprise
the NE Rabbit Hills field and characterization study area
(Fig. 2). Five cores are available; four from producing wells,
and one from the dry hole in SW1/4 SW1/4 Section 17.
Routine core analyses of porosity and permeability conducted
by service companies are available for four of these cores;
analyses are not available for the Amoco #1 USA Erving
SPE 38985
Wolf. Core analyses are also available for two other cored
wells, the Behm #1 and #2 Federal Rabbit wells, for which
the actual cores are not available for study. The dry hole in
SW1/4, SW1/4 Section 8 was omitted from analysis because
of severe deviation in the hole. The Brown 7-34-20 Federal
well in SE1/4, SW1/4, SW1/4 Section 7 is included because
there are production data for this well; however no logs are
available.
As a part of the reservoir characterization study, 3-D
surface seismic and crosswell seismic surveys were
conducted. The 3-D surface seismic survey included the
south quarter of Section 7 and the north three-quarters of
Section 18 (Fig. 2). The crosswell seismic survey was
conducted between the Meridian 42-18 Flynn and the Behm
#2 Federal Rabbit over a horizontal distance of approximately
950 ft (290 m). The Federal Rabbit #2 was the designated
injection well in the pilot polymer flood project that began in
March, 1996.
A neural network approach was then used to correlate
well log porosities and permeabilities with seismic amplitude
data from the 3-D seismic survey. Input data for the network
were derived from the five wells for which core analyses were
available as well as from porosity logs. The neural network
porosity and permeability predictions were then utilized as
input data for the reservoir simulator.
The principal parts of the Rabbit Hills reservoir
characterization study being reported on in the present paper
are the design, execution, and results of the reservoir
simulation modeling. This simulation work has been ongoing
over several years as parameters of the model were refined
based on the addition of geologic, seismic, and production
data.
Geology
The upper Bowes is interpreted as a valley fill deposited on a
lowstand unconformity that was incised into the lower Bowes1
(Fig. 3). The location and orientation of this incised valley
may have been in part structurally controlled, as suggested by
the mappable structural element (now a structural high)
beneath and on trend with the thickest valley fill (Figs. 4 and
5). Sediments were deposited in shifting channels across an
aggradational coastal braid plain in response to the flooding
of the Rierdon sea. It is unlikely that individual channels can
be distinguished at any level of evaluation. The
predominance of ooid and bioclastic grains indicates the
sediment was supplied predominantly from a marine
environment. The quartz sand probably sourced both from
the marine environment and from land. Sediment was
carried into a landward-shifting valley estuary by marine
waters that mixed with sediment moving down the valley.
Abundant sediment and rising base level caused the valley
floor drainage system to braid rapidly back and forth across
the valley, distributing and redistributing the aggradational
bed load.
SPE 38985 NEURAL NETWORK PARAMETER PREDICTION IN RESERVOIR CHARACTERIZATION AND SIMULATION
Producing Horizon. Production is from the Bowes Member,
upper member of the Middle Jurassic Sawtooth (Shaunavon)
Formation. In the field area, the Bowes is divisible into a
lower and upper interval readily identified on well logs. Fig.
6 shows the Gamma/Resistivity logs for the Norfolk 7-10
Flynn well (located on Fig. 2) and indicates the log “picks”
for the stratigraphic horizons used in this reservoir
characterization study. The terms “upper” and “lower”
Bowes are informal, used commonly in the field to
distinguish the reservoir interval (upper Bowes) from the
generally nonreservoir interval (lower Bowes). Regionally,
the upper Bowes is not present everywhere1. Oil production
is from the upper Bowes interval, where three rock types,
quartz sandstone, ooid limestone, and bioclastic limestone are
interbedded.
Cores and core analyses indicate that production is
strongly associated with the bioclastic limestone; other
lithologies have generally lower porosities and much lower
permeabilities1. Core porosities in the bioclastic limestone
lithology range from 6.6% to a high of 23.1%, and average
15.1%. Core permeabilities (horizontal) range from 1.2 md
to a high of 469.0 md, and average 79.6 md. In contrast, the
other lithologies (variably intermixed ooid limestone and
quartz sandstone) in the braid-plain complex of the upper
Bowes have an average porosity of 10.6% and an average
permeability of 15.6 md. The conclusion from the core
analyses is that although porosities commonly exceed 10%
throughout the upper Bowes, high permeabilities are
restricted to the bioclastic limestone facies within the channel
complex.
Thickness of the bioclastic limestone in a well is not
predictable; beds may be as thin as two ft (0.6 m) or may
comprise the entire upper Bowes, reaching a maximum
thickness of 20 feet (6.1 m) in the Norfolk 7-15 Flynn well.
However, core, well log, and production data suggest that,
owing to the relative abundance of the bioclastic limestone,
lithology, pemeability may be quite high across the field1.
This suggestion is supported by the neural network
permeability predictions as shown in Fig. 13 (a) and (b).
Integration of Geologic Data with Seismic Data. From the
geologic data available in this reservoir characterization
study, several conclusions can be made that inform the
seismic interpretation of the field:
(a) seismic indication of porosity is expected to show
significant lateral continuity;
(b) valley-wall proximity, possibly suggested by
thinning of the upper Bowes interval observed in well logs in
the field, may have seismic expression;
(c) deeper seismic horizons may indicate basement
control on the position of the structural feature associated
with the field.
3
3-D Seismic
Presently, 3-D seismic surveying is one of the primary tools
for characterizing a hydrocarbon reservoir. Instantaneous
attributes extracted from the seismic data are often used to
describe qualitatively the variation in the lithology and
associated physical parameters across zones of interest. By
combining seismic data with well log data, we have been able
to produce porosity and permeability predictions at each
common midpoint (CMP) location. Conventional methods
correlate seismic amplitudes to the porosity using
deterministic and stochastic methods2.
The 3-D seismic survey covered an area of approximately
one square mile. The processed data resulted in 80 east-west
cross-lines and 72 north-south in-lines totaling 5760 CMPs.
The bin spacing for the seismic data was 82.5 ft by 82.5 ft (25
m by 25 m) and the data were recorded using a simple array
of shallow dynamite charges.
The seismic data were processed independently by two
contractors. Data examples from the processing by the
second contractor are shown in Figs. 7 and 8. Fig. 7 shows
an east-west in-line from approximately the middle of the
survey area. This section distinctly shows the variation at the
top of the upper Bowes possibly related to the variable
distribution of the bioclastic limestone.
A map of seismic amplitude from the top of the Bowes is
shown in Fig. 8. Zones of high amplitude appear as dark
gray areas to the top center and left center parts of the map.
These high amplitude areas also correlate with high porosity
zones in the layer 1 neural network porosity predictions (Fig.
12a). Both Figs.7 and 8 were made using zero-phase
processed data.
Neural Network Input Data. A border of 7 CMPs was
removed from the data set due to low fold resulting in a data
subset of 66 cross-lines and 58 in-lines. This 66 by 58 CMP
grid was the data set used for the neural network analysis.
Two types of input data for the neural network were extracted
from the seismic data: seismic amplitude and instantaneous
amplitude.
In addition to the amplitude data, geometric information
in the form of CMP coordinates was also used for input into
the neural network. A grid system was constructed with (0,0)
representing the southwest corner of the seismic data subset
and (58,66) the northeast corner; each coordinate
representing a CMP location in the data set.
The seismic amplitudes and instantaneous amplitudes
were scaled from -0.2 to 0.2 and 0 to 0.2 respectively by
scaling the data by five times the maximum of the absolute
value in each data set. The grid coordinates were also scaled;
from (0,0) to (0.66, 0.58). Scaling is often beneficial in
neural networks and was helpful in this case because the
transfer functions used in this neural network were most
sensitive to changes in the range -1 to 1. Scaling was seen to
4 T. AHMED, C.A. LINK, K.W. PORTER, C.J. WIDEMAN, P. HIMMER, J. BRAUN
have a slight effect on the testing error and the above scale
factors resulted in the lowest error. The network input data
thus consisted of scaled combinations of seismic amplitudes,
instantaneous seismic amplitudes, and grid coordinates.
For the neural network to predict the porosity of the upper
Bowes Member, the seismic data representing the Bowes had
to be extracted from the full seismic data set. Extracting the
data was accomplished by training a separate neural network
to predict the time of the regional unconformity between the
Bowes Member and the underlying Firemoon Member. This
regional unconformity was chosen because it is a salient
feature in the seismic data that is located at the bottom of the
Bowes reflection (Fig. 7).
The training data for this horizon-picking neural network
were created by hand picking the interface on three random
sets of twenty adjacent CMPs. This trained network was then
used to estimate the time of the Bowes-Firemoon interface for
the remainder of the data set. An algorithm which precisely
located the time of the peak representing the interface was
used to fine tune the neural network’s predictions. Thirteen
seismic samples above the predicted Bowes-Firemoon
unconformity were selected for each CMP as input to the
neural network. To train the neural network, seismic data
from the training well locations were input into the neural
network in random order. Corrections were made for well
drift at the producing depth using synthetic seismograms
when possible.
Because the Rierdon-Bowes interface is poorly defined
(Fig. 7), the time interval was limited to prevent inclusion of
data representing the Rierdon. If information from the
Rierdon were present in the input data, any porosity
variations in the Rierdon would introduce additional error.
The Bowes Member is thin with respect to the seismic
wavelength so it was not possible to separate the lower and
upper Bowes seismic expression to isolate the upper Bowes.
However, since the lower Bowes is represented by a uniform
depositional environment, lower Bowes porosity variations
should be small relative to the expected variation in the upper
Bowes.
Crosswell Seismic
In addition to acquiring a 3-D surface seismic survey, a
crosswell seismic survey was acquired about two years later.
The primary goal of the crosswell work was to detect lateral
changes in formation properties in the Bowes using crosswell
reflection imaging4. The thickness of the producing zone,
less than 20 ft (6 m), places it at the resolution limit of the 3-
D surface seismic.
The wells used for the crosswell survey were the Flynn
Trust 42-18 and the Federal Rabbit #2. The surface
separation of the wells was approximately 950 ft (290 m).
Data processing results were obtained without the benefit of
sonic logs or deviation surveys for either of the wells
occupied. Gamma logs were used for depth control and dip
SPE 38985
estimation during the survey and sonic logs were constructed
for the test wells using a sonic log from a nearby well and
gamma logs from the test wells. It was economically not
possible to perform deviation surveys in the test wells, so the
crosswell data were used to estimate the extent and direction
of well deviations.
The bandwidth of the recorded crosswell data ranged from
approximately 250 to 1200 Hz. These frequencies are
significantly higher than the frequencies in the 3-D data
volume (up to approximately 100 Hz). This high frequency
content makes it possible to image lithologic variations at an
order of magnitude greater resolution than possible for
surface seismic measurements4.
Fig. 9 shows the resulting crosswell reflection image with
well logs and the velocity tomogram overlay. The entire
imaged interval covers 500 ft (152 m) in depth. Within this
interval, numerous reflection events occur illustrating the
capability of crosswell data to significantly increase
resolution. The Bowes interval is evidenced by the two high
amplitude reflection events. Although considerable lateral
variation is evident at the top of the events, interpretation
must be constrained by knowledge of the error introduced due
to lack of a well deviation survey. A well deviation survey is
critical for accurate location of reflectors.
The tomogram overlay is used as the velocity model for
processing the reflection events. The logs shown on either
side show good agreement between the derived sonic
velocities and tomographic velocities. The seismic velocity at
the level of the Bowes is approximately 12,500 ft/s (3810
m/s).
Efforts are ongoing to determine effective methods to
integrate crosswell data into our integration work.
Neural Networks
A neural network approach enables seismic data to be
correlated with porosity or permeability without the
requirement of explicitly defining the relationship of
parameters that affect the acoustic impedance, such as water
content, lithology, or pore pressure. Additionally, neural
networks can incorporate an interval of seismic data rather
than a single value for parameter prediction. Use of an
interval of seismic data increases the amount of available
information to estimate parameters. As might be expected,
the relationship between seismic data and physical parameters
is not unique. Any number of combinations of values of
porosity, pore pressure, lithology, water content, and other
parameters can give rise to the same acoustic impedance.
This ambiguity means that control data is very important in
determining how valid solutions are.
The application of neural networks is becoming
increasingly common. A neural network approach is often
useful for pattern recognition problems or where no simple
mathematical relationship exists for the parameters of
interest. The type of neural network used is dependent upon
SPE 38985 NEURAL NETWORK PARAMETER PREDICTION IN RESERVOIR CHARACTERIZATION AND SIMULATION
the problem. Neural networks can be categorized into two
main classes: supervised and unsupervised. For this study, a
backpropagation feedforward network (supervised) was used
for parameter prediction.
Background. Artificial neural networks are fundamentally
different from conventional programming approaches. ANN
utilize sets of input and output training examples to allow the
network to “learn” relationships. Typically a supervised
network consists of a layer of input nodes for training
example inputs, one or more “middle-layers” of nodes which
are fully connected to the input nodes, and a layer of output
nodes also fully connected to the middle layer(s). A
connection consists of an adjustable weight value. In a
feedforward network, the inputs are multiplied by the weight
values of all of their connections. All of the values connected
to a node in a following layer are then summed and modified
by a transfer or threshold function whose purpose is to limit
the range of the summation. These node outputs are then
passed forward to the next layer using the same process. The
output of the nodes in the output layer represent the ANN
outputs which are compared with the true outputs in the
training phase. The error is used to adjust the weights
throughout the network and the process is repeated with
multiple passes through the input values until the ANN meets
suitable error criteria. At this point the network is “trained”.
The “testing” phase consists of presenting new examples
to the trained network and comparing the ANN output with
the true value. This step determines if the network will be
able to generalize to new data sets. If testing is successful,
the network is ready to be applied to data sets for which no
true outputs exist.
Drawbacks inherent in the use of neural networks include
the lack of established procedures for network construction,
the requirement of fixed numbers of network inputs and
outputs, the necessity of constructing training sets, and the
lack of a convenient method for error propagation. The
essence of a neural network lies in its nodes and their
associated connections strengths or weights3. The number of
nodes in a layer and the number of layers are determined
adhoc; except for the first and last layer whose dimensions
are determined by the input and target or training examples.
Initially, each connection weight between nodes is set to a
small random number. These weights are then continually
updated via a learning rule as the network “learns” in the
training phase3.
Neural network predictions are often dependent upon
these initial random weights. This occurs because multilayer
networks contain multiple minima in parameter space. Thus,
depending on the starting point, different minima may be
reached; not always the global minimum. The number of
minima is related to the complexity of the problem. In an
attempt to make the porosity predictions more reliable, ten
random seed values were used to generate ten different
5
porosity maps. The four maps with the lowest error were
then averaged together. This ensemble approach helps
alleviate the dependence of the network solution on the
network initial values.
Because there is not a well defined analytical relationship
between seismic data and porosity or permeability, prediction
error cannot be easily determined. Therefore, the reliability
of the training process is estimated by inputting a seismic
trace interval that corresponds to known porosity or
permeability and comparing the neural network prediction to
the known parameter value.
A “one-out” testing procedure was performed by leaving
one well out of the network training set and inputting values
from the remaining wells in random order. The test well’s
seismic data were then input into the trained network and the
network predictions for that well were compared to the well
log or core values.
There were five wells with core analyses in the study area
and eight wells with porosity logs. The “one-out” approach
described above was used to train porosity and permeability
networks. Networks were trained using four of the five sets of
core permeability values or seven of the eight sets of porosity
log values; the remaining sets were used to test how well each
network trained. This process was repeated once for each
well in either the porosity or permeability group. For the
final prediction maps, all of the wells are included in the
training data set. Neural network parameters, network
architecture, and input data for the neural network were then
adjusted based on the testing error. The error criterion was
the absolute difference of the predicted and measured porosity
or permeability values.
Because the difference in porosity between the upper and
lower Bowes is approximately seven percent, if the testing
error is less than that value, then it might be possible to
distinguish the high porosity bioclastic limestone from the
non-reservoir lithology.
Neural Network Predictions. Porosity maps were generated
using core, neutron porosity (NPHI) and density porosity
(DPHI) data. Predictions for two layers were made by using
averaged log porosity values over interpreted intervals
corresponding to the upper and lower Bowes. Permeability
maps were generated from the core analysis data using
similar interpretations. The parameter values subsequently
used for input into the simulator consisted of the sets of two-
layer porosity and permeability prediction maps.
Single layer porosity predictions gave testing errors less
than 4.0% porosity for the eight NPHI wells and less than
4.3% porosity for the seven DPHI wells. Errors for the two
layer porosity predictions were less than 7.2% porosity for
layer 1 and less than 7.4% porosity for layer 2 using NPHI
porosities.
Figs. 11 a and b show NPHI porosity prediction errors for
layer 1 and layer 2 using seismic amplitude, instantaneous
6 T. AHMED, C.A. LINK, K.W. PORTER, C.J. WIDEMAN, P. HIMMER, J. BRAUN
amplitude, and grid coordinates for input data. The root-
mean-square error for layer 2 is slightly less than the error for
layer 1 and the two layer errors are significantly larger than
the error for one layer predictions.
Figs. 12 a and b show the regridded porosity prediction
maps using seismic amplitude, instantaneous amplitude, and
grid coordinates as input data. (Note: figures are oriented
with north pointing to the right.) Pixels in the figures
represent predictions made at each CMP and then averaged
over the simulator cells containing them. Fractional porosity
is represented by the scale bar accompanying the figure.
Histograms were used to identify outlier predictions which
were then removed before input into the simulator. The
number of outliers varied from one to three. Reasonable
porosity values were predicted for all CMP locations (the
outlier maximum was approximately 32% porosity). That the
network predicted reasonable porosity values for all CMPs
indicates that the network is recognizing significant
information in the input data.
Using thirteen seismic samples effectively removes any
information pertaining to thickness variation of the Bowes
member. This lack of thickness information could be a factor
in reservoir predictions where tuning effects occur. In
addition, because the seismic data represent the entire Bowes
Member, any variation in the lower Bowes will introduce
errors into the predictions. The increase in error from one to
two layers is likely due to the limit in vertical resolution of
the seismic data. Layer 1 represents the average porosity over
the top half of the upper Bowes and layer 2 over the bottom
half of the upper Bowes. As can be seen in Fig. 12, these
maps predict that the high porosity regions are not continuous
throughout the upper Bowes. Using only the coordinates of
the CMPs as input data, a single layer porosity prediction
gave very low testing errors of less that 2% porosity.
Table 1 shows the absolute difference between the
predicted and the actual single layer porosity values for the
eight NPHI wells used in this study. Each column header
identifies the data type input into the neural network to make
the porosity predictions. C represents coordinate inputs, A
instantaneous amplitude inputs, and S seismic amplitude
inputs. Inputting only coordinate data gives the lowest
testing errors. This result shows that geologic control is
needed to determine which results are valid. Based on the
geologic model of the reservoir, a homogenous model is
incorrect. By including instantaneous amplitude data, testing
errors increase but are still within acceptable limits.
Including both seismic and instantaneous amplitude data does
not cause a significant increase in the error and may aid the
network in recognizing patterns in the data. For this reason it
was decided to include all data sets for the final predictions.
Figs. 13 a and b show the two layer permeability map
predictions. As in Fig. 12, figures are oriented with north
pointing to the right and pixels in the figures represent
predictions made at each CMP averaged over the simulator
SPE 38985
cells containing them. They were generated using the core
lab analysis values for the five available wells and the “one-
out” procedure. Predicted permeability values for layer 1 are
considerably higher than the predicted values for layer 2.
One possible explanation for this could be the variable effect
due to the valley fill that formed the upper Bowes. Again, the
outlier values were removed from the permeability predictions
before input into the reservoir simulator.
The zones of high permeability do not correlate with the
predicted zones of high porosity. This observation is at least
an indication that the network is responding to different
patterns in the seismic data than did the network that was
trained on porosity, and should be expected.
Testing errors for the permeability predictions were quite
large. These results represent our first attempts at
permeability prediction and we are exploring variations to
increase the accuracy of our predictions.
Reservoir Simulation
A three-phase, three-dimensional black oil simulator was
used to construct a model of the Rabbit Hills Field. A 24 by
30 by 2 Cartesian grid system was selected to simulate the
depletion process of the field. The spacing of the simulator
grid is not constant and is shown in Fig. 10 along with well
locations and the area covered by the 3-D seismic survey.
Simulator grid spacing varies from 150 ft (46 m) to 1500 ft
(457 m) in the x-direction (north-south) and 250 ft (76 m) to
1500 ft (457 m) in the y-direction (east-west).
History matching of the field covered initial field
production in June 1973 through January 1996. Several
history match runs were necessary to ensure that the
simulation model closely matched the observed field
performance and to improve its reliability for prediction. The
model was calibrated by matching the following historical
field production data:
(a) monthly oil and water production for eleven
producing wells,
(b) water-oil ratio,
(c) cumulative oil and water production.
Because the reservoir pressure was never below the oil
bubble-point pressure, the gas-oil ratio was not considered in
the history match.
The following are some of the issues that needed to be
addressed during the model construction and history
matching phase:
(1) The actual areal extent of the NE Rabbit Hills Field.
(2) Early fluid performance which indicated the
presence of significant quantities of water phase attributed to
either high initial connate water saturation or the presence of
a small aquifer.
(3) The slow decline in the production rates of the two
original discovery wells indicating that withdrawals are being
balanced by the natural energy of a “large reservoir” or by a
limited water influx augmented by fluid and rock expansion.
SPE 38985 NEURAL NETWORK PARAMETER PREDICTION IN RESERVOIR CHARACTERIZATION AND SIMULATION
Earlier attempts had been made to model the performance
of the field without a water influx. These simulator
production and pressure decline rates were considerably
below the recorded data. As a result, a source of edge water
influx was attached to the northwest and southwest flank of
the Rabbit Hills Field.
During the history matching process, none of the
initialization data that were generated from the geological
model, 3-D seismic, or neural network predictions were
altered to achieve matching. Only relative permeability and
well data were used to calibrate the model.
Fig. 14 is a comparison of the actual and predicted flow
rates for the discovery well, Amoco #1 USA Erving Wolf,
from 1973 through 1995. Figs. 15 and 16 compare depletion
performance of the Rabbit Hills Field in terms of total flow
rates and cumulative oil production as a function of time. As
can be seen from the plots, the history matching was very
satisfactory.
Conclusions
The Rabbit Hills Field characterization study has been
successful at integrating data of varying type and scale into
parameter estimates used as input to a reservoir simulator.
The scale of the data types used ranged from core scale
measurements up through interwell seismic measurements,
surface seismic and regional geology measurements.
Neural network analysis was used to provide porosity and
permeability estimates across the study area by training on
seismic amplitude information. Reasonable estimates were
obtained that agreed with geologic and seismic trends. The
neural network predictions were then used as input to a
reservoir simulator.
Simulator results showed very good agreement with
production data. Throughout the history matching process,
none of the initialization data that were generated from the
geological model, 3-D seismic, or neural network predictions
were altered to achieve matching. Only relative permeability
Table 1. Error in porosity prediction for single layer NPHI predictions.
Well C A
A 1.14 2.3
B 0.48 3.41
C 0.08 3.58
D 1.03 2.57
E 1.00 6.22
F 1.53 1.53
G 1.59 4.42
H 1.58 2.45
7
and well data were used to calibrate the model.
Acknowledgments
This work has been supported by US Department of Energy
(DOE/EPSCoR) and Montana Science and Technology
Alliance (MSTA) research funds under Contract No. DEFC-
02-91ER75681 granted to the Montana University System for
research in petroleum reservoir characterization. The
industrial partner in the research, Burlington Resources
(formerly Meridian Oil Company), agreed to make the NE
Rabbit Hills field available, and has provided company data
and materials to the research team. Other operators in the
field, including L.E. Behm, United Meridian (formerly
Norfolk Energy), Amoco Production Company, and J. Burns
Brown, have made cores, core analyses, and other
information available. Crosswell seismic acquisition and
processing were contracted by TomoSeis, Inc., Houston, TX.
The authors are grateful for the manuscript reviews
provided by colleagues, and the preparation of text figures by
Pat Tamarin at MBMG and Jon Conaway at Montana Tech.
References
1. Porter, K.W.: “Geologic data in a reservoir characterization,
Sawtooth Formation, NE Rabbit Hills field, Blaine County,
Montana,” Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Open-File
Report 354, (in press).
2. Sheriff R.: Reservoir characterization investigations in
Geophysics No. 7, Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa,
OK (1992).
3. Zurada, J.M.: Introduction to artificial neural systems, West
Publishing Co., St. Paul, MN (1992).
4. Harris, Jerry M., Nolen-Hoeksema, Richard C., Langan, Robert
T., van Schaack, Mark, Lazaratos, Spyros K. and Rector, James
W. III: “High-resolution crosswell imaging of a west Texas
carbonate reservoir: Part 1. Project summary and
interpretation,” Geophysics (1995), 60, no. 3, 667-681.
AC ASC
2.72 2.46
2.92 2.73
2.64 2.73
0.93 0.42
1.86 3.56
1.61 3.24
2.52 3.95
1.63 1.55
8 T. AHMED, C.A. LINK, K.W. PORTER, C.J. WIDEMAN, P. HIMMER, J. BRAUN SPE 38985

Fig. 1. Map showing location of NE Rabbit Hills oil field and other localities in north-central Montana.

Fig. 2. Map detail of NE Rabbit Hills oil field in sections 7 and 8, T34N, R20E, in northern Blaine County, Montana. Areas of the project and of 3-
D seismic survey shown. Twenty-one wells are included in the study; the well in SW 1/4 section 8 is excluded.
SPE 38985 NEURAL NETWORK PARAMETER PREDICTION IN RESERVOIR CHARACTERIZATION AND SIMULATION 9

Fig. 3. Three-dimensional diagram of coastal braid-plain valley-fill model for upper Bowes at NE Rabbit Hills field. North is toward upper right;
coastal braid plain is oriented generally east-northeast. Multiple channels are shown depositing aggradational valley fill across the braid plain.
Braid-plain valley fill overlies erosional unconformity incised into lower Bowes. On north side of area, a marine tongue is shown as observed in
the Norfolk 7-10 Flynn well (Fig. 6). An earlier lowstand unconformity of regional extent is shown incised into underlying Firemoon Member of
Sawtooth (Shaunavon) Formation.

Fig. 4. Conventionally prepared isopach map of upper Bowes interval containing the reservoir rock (bioclastic limestone) as well as other
channel-fill lithologies. Bold numbers are thickness values; lighter numbers are initial production (IP) values in barrels of oil per day (BOPD).
Compare with structure map for Bowes interval (Fig. 5). A similar map is produced by computer contouring of field data.
10 T. AHMED, C.A. LINK, K.W. PORTER, C.J. WIDEMAN, P. HIMMER, J. BRAUN SPE 38985

Fig. 5. Conventionally prepared structure contour map on top “Sawtooth marker” horizon in lowermost Rierdon Formation approximately fifteen
feet above top of Bowes Member (top of Sawtooth Formation). Calculations based on log depths and Kelly Bushing (KB) data, and expressed
relative to mean sea level. Compare with isopach map of upper Bowes (Fig. 4). A similar map is produced by computer contouring of field data.
The structure is also visible in 3-D seismic data across the field.

Fig. 6. Annotated gamma and resistivity log suite for Norfolk 7-10 Flynn well. Structure marker horizon is in lowermost part of the Rierdon
Formation. Oil production at NE Rabbit Hills field is from the upper Bowes interval. Annotated depth is ft below ground elevation.
SPE 38985 NEURAL NETWORK PARAMETER PREDICTION IN RESERVOIR CHARACTERIZATION AND SIMULATION 11

Fig. 7. Seismic in-line from the 3-D seismic data set. The line runs east-west and is approximately in the center of the survey. The arrow in the
figure indicates the varying nature of the top of the Bowes Member.

Fig. 8. Seismic amplitude map from the top of the Bowes Member. Zones of high seismic amplitude are darker gray at left center and top center
of the map. They correspond to high porosity zones in the layer 2 neural network porosity prediction map (Fig. 12 b).
12 T. AHMED, C.A. LINK, K.W. PORTER, C.J. WIDEMAN, P. HIMMER, J. BRAUN SPE 38985

Fig. 9. Plot showing the results of crosswell reflection imaging overlain on the velocity tomogram produced from the crosswell seismic data set
recorded between the wells Flynn Trust 42-18 and the Federal Rabbit #2. Well separation is approximately 950 ft (288 m). The location of the
reflection events is heavily influenced by any well deviation present.
SPE 38985 NEURAL NETWORK PARAMETER PREDICTION IN RESERVOIR CHARACTERIZATION AND SIMULATION 13

x 10 5 Rabbit Hills Field

6.29

6.28

Flynn_trust_7-10
Flynn_trust_7-9
6.27

Flynn_trust_7-15
Federal_7-12
Flynn_trust_7-1 Austad_1
6.26
Federal_7-34-20Flynn_trust_7-14 Flynn_trust_7-16

6.25
northing

Fed._Rabbit_1
Flynn_trust_41-18
Federal_17-4
Fed._Wolf_13-12
USA_E._Wolf_1Flynn_MOI_21-18

6.24
Malsam-Fed._1 Flynn_trust_42-18
Federal_17-5
Fed._Rabbit_2
Fed._Wolf_22-18
6.23

Flynn_trust_18-2
6.22

6.21 Federal_1-18

6.2
2.076 2.077 2.078 2.079 2.08 2.081 2.082 2.083 2.084 2.085 2.086
easting x 10 6

Fig. 10. Map showing the locations of the wells in the Rabbit Hills field overlain on the reservoir simulator grid (irregularly spaced lines). Also
shown are the bin locations for the 3-D seismic survey. For the neural network analysis, a boundary of 7 CMPs was removed from the seismic
grid to eliminate the low-fold areas.

layer 1 layer 2

predicted predicted
actual actual
0.25 0.25

0.2 0.2
frac. porosity

frac. porosity

0.15 0.15

0.1 0.1

0.05 0.05

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
test well no. test well no.
(a) (b)

Fig. 11. Plots showing neutron porosity prediction error for (a) layer 1 (upper) and (b) layer 2 (lower) predictions. The RMS error for layer 2, 0.
0389 porosity units, is less than the RMS error for layer 1, 0.0486 porosity units.
14 T. AHMED, C.A. LINK, K.W. PORTER, C.J. WIDEMAN, P. HIMMER, J. BRAUN SPE 38985

layer 1 porosity layer 2 porosity

30 30
0.25

25 0.2 25
0.2

20 20
simulator row. no.

simulator row. no.

0.15
0.15
15 15
0.1
0.1
10 10

0.05 0.05
5 5
-----> ----->
N N
0 0 0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
simulator col. no. simulator col. no.
(a) (b)

Fig. 12. Plots showing the neural network predicted porosity distribution for (a) layer 1 and (b) layer 2 merged with contoured values outside the
prediction area. Layer 2 porosity highs correlate with seismic amplitude highs taking into account that column and row simulator grid spacing is
not regular as suggested in the figures. North is to the right. These values were used for input into the simulator.

layer 1 permeability layer 2 permeability

30 600 30

350
25 500 25
300

20
simulator row. no.

400 20
simulator row. no.

250

15 300 15 200

150
10 200 10
100
5 100 5
-----> -----> 50
N N
0 0 0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
simulator col. no. simulator col. no.
(a) (b)

Fig. 13. Plots showing the neural network predicted permeability distribution for (a) layer 1 and (b) layer 2 merged with conventionally
contoured permeability values outside the prediction area. Measured permeability values were obtained from core analyses on five wells. North
is to the right. Note, simulator row and column spacing is not regular as suggested in the figures.
SPE 38985 NEURAL NETWORK PARAMETER PREDICTION IN RESERVOIR CHARACTERIZATION AND SIMULATION 15

Oil flowrate, STB/mo.

Fig. 14. Actual (points) and simulator predicted (solid line) flow rates for the discovery well, Amoco #1 USA Erving Wolf, from 1973 through
1995.
Oil flowrate, STB/month

Fig. 15. Actual (points) and simulator predicted (solid line) total production rate for the Rabbit Hills Field from 1973 through 1995.
Cumulative Oil Produced, MSTB

Fig. 16. Actual (points) and simulator predicted (solid line) overall cumulative oil production for the Rabbit Hills Field from 1973 through 1995.
The predictions overly the actual production values.