Validating Reservoir Models to Improve Recovery

Valid and worthwhile reservoir simulation hinges on careful preparation of a

reservoir model and clear understanding of model uncertainty. Creative integration
and comparison of seemingly disparate data and interpretations elevate reservoir
models to new heights of reliability. Through this process, all data incorporated
into a model and ultimately fed into a simulator become more valuable, resulting
in increases on the order of 10% in predicted ultimate recovery.

Jack Bouska Mike Cooper Chip Corbett Alberto Malinverno Sarah Ryan
BP Amoco plc Andy O’Donovan Houston, Texas, USA Michael Prange Cambridge, England
Sunbury, England BP Amoco plc Ridgefield,
Aberdeen, Scotland Connecticut, USA

For help in preparation of this article, thanks to Ian Bryant,
Schlumberger-Doll Research, Ridgefield, Connecticut, USA;
Henry Edmundson, Schlumberger Oilfield Services, Paris,
France; Omer Gurpinar, Holditch-Reservoir Technologies,
Denver, Colorado, USA; Steve McHugo, Geco-Prakla,
Gatwick, England; Claude Signer and Lars Sønneland,
Geco-Prakla, Stavanger, Norway; and James Wang,
GeoQuest, Houston, Texas. We thank the Bureau of
Economic Geology, The University of Texas at Austin, for
permission to use the Stratton field 3D Seismic and Well
Log Data Set, and BP Amoco and Shell UK E&P for
permission to use the Foinaven area data.
ARI (Azimuthal Resistivity Imager), FMI (Fullbore
Formation MicroImager), MDT (Modular Formation
Dynamics Tester), OFA (Optical Fluid Analyzer), RST
(Reservoir Saturation Tool) and TDT (Thermal Decay Time)
are marks of Schlumberger.
Making and testing predictions are part of our
everyday existence and basic to most industries.
Safety equipment, medical treatments, weather
forecasts and even interior designs are evaluated
by simulating situations and predicting the
results. Similarly, the oil and gas industry makes
predictions about hydrocarbon reservoirs to
decide how to improve operations.
Reservoir optimization requires carefully
constructing a reservoir model and performing
simulations. Interpreting and integrating quality-
controlled data from a variety of sources and vin-
tages, and at different scales, are prerequisites
for preparing a comprehensive reservoir model.
Most computer simulators take the reservoir
model and represent it as three-dimensional
blocks through which fluids flow (previous page).
The data, models and simulations provide a more
complete understanding of reservoir behavior.
Working together, skilled interpreters use a
simulator to predict reservoir behavior over time
and optimize field development strategies accord-
ingly. For instance, the effectiveness of infill
drilling locations and trajectories can be deter-
mined through simulations of multiple scenarios
or assessment of the impact of the uncertainty of
specific parameters. Reservoir simulation is also
useful in evaluating different completion tech-
niques as well as deciding whether to maximize
production rate or ultimate recovery. In this arti-
cle, we consider how the integration of all avail-
able data to validate and constrain reservoir
models leads to more realistic reservoir
simulation (next page).

Summer 1999 21

Traditional Approach
Distributed disciplines
Use of data in isolation, obscuring relationships
between data (for example, seismic and core data)
Inconsistent or poorly documented
interpretation techniques
Overdependence on simple reservoir maps
Simulation dependent on computer availability
and capability
Unlimited modification of simulation input values
to achieve match with production history
Limited use of simulation to guide data acquisition
> Simulation approaches. In the past, single-discipline interpretation and lack of computing capability
limited the use of reservoir simulation. Now, a more sophisticated approach to simulation makes the
most of multidisciplinary teams and nearly ubiquitous computers.
Reservoir simulation is a tool for reservoir
management and risk reduction.1 Although the
first simulations were performed during the 1950s,
for a long time limited computer availability and
slow speed confined their use to only the most
significant projects.2
At present, reservoir simulation is performed
most commonly in high-risk, high-profile situa-
tions, but could improve virtually any project. The
list of typical applications is varied and extensive
(next page):
• New discoveries, to determine the number of
wells and the type and specification of facilities
needed for production. Particular attention is
paid to the reservoir’s drive mechanism and the
development of potential oil, gas and water pro-
files. All assessments are subject to the risk of
limited data, sometimes from only a single well.
• Deepwater exploration and other areas where
initial test wells are expensive. Estimates draw
on restricted data, such as seismic data and
results from a single well.
• Fields in which production surprises occur and
development expenditures have already been
incurred. New measurements or production
strategies might be advisable.
• Secondary recovery implementation. Appro-
priate decisions are essential because of the
expense of enhanced production startup.
• Divestment and abandonment decisions.
Simulation can help determine whether a field
has reached the end of its economic life or
how remaining reserves might be exploited.
22
Leading-Edge Approach
Multidisciplinary teamwork
Integration of data and interpretations to confirm
reservoir models
Archiving of interpretations and consistent methods
Seismic-guided reservoir property mapping
Simulations run on personal computers
or using massively parallel processing
Reservoir models constrained by integrated data and
interpretations and prudent adjustment of inputs
Modeling and simulation to determine optimal
timing for data gathering, such as 4D seismic surveys
These applications of simulation are made
possible by new programs and computers that
are faster and easier to use. (A full review of the
advances in simulation software that have
occurred in the last few years is beyond the
scope of this article, but will be covered in a
future article in Oilfield Review.) The new simu-
lators run on less expensive computers and allow
rapid studies to rank opportunities. Along with
these capabilities, however, arises the possibility
that simulations might be performed indiscrimi-
nately or before a validated reservoir model has
been built, potentially prompting misleading or
erroneous results and poor decision-making.
There is also the risk of performing simulations
based on limited data.
Developing a first-rate reservoir model from
limited data at a variety of scales is difficult. In
its most basic form, model validation is achieved
through integrating different types of data.
Researchers are investigating the best way to
integrate some new types of data, such as multi-
component seismic data, into reservoir models.
A more sophisticated approach involves uncer-
tainty analysis (see “Validating Models Using
Diverse Data,“ page 24 ).
In some cases, it is best to begin with the sim-
plest model that fits the data and the objectives of
the project and reproduces reservoir behavior. In
all cases, the starting point should be an evalua-
tion of what answers are required from reservoir
simulation, the accuracy needed and the level of
confidence or the acceptable range of quantita-
tive predictions. The model complexity might be
increased as more data become available. The
reward for increasing model complexity can be
evaluated after each simulation run to decide
whether more complex simulation is justified.
Estimates of well flow rates and predictions
of reservoir performance from simulations affect
design of production facilities and should be
believed, even if they seem unlikely. For example,
a deepwater Gulf of Mexico field required expan-
sion and de-bottlenecking of facilities soon after
initial production because the initial reservoir
model was compromised by a pessimistic view of
the interpreted reservoir continuity and flow
rates. Better predictions allow operators to size
facilities correctly the first time rather than having
to re-engineer them.
The quality of predevelopment reserve esti-
mates, field appraisals and development strate-
gies relates closely to reservoir architecture and
structural complexity; reserve estimates tend to
be underestimated in large, less complex fields,
whereas reserves in smaller, more complex fields
are commonly overstated. Poor reservoir models
and resultant incorrect calculations of reserves,
whether too high or too low, have negative eco-
nomic consequences. In the North Sea, deficient
reservoir models have led to improper facilities
sizing and suboptimal well placement, even in
fields where simulation studies were carried out.3
Better validation of models, particularly using 3D
seismic data, might have averted over- or under-
sizing production facilities or drilling unnecessary
wells in some cases. In other cases, reservoir
simulation has allowed identification of the key
drivers of reservoir performance so that data-
gathering efforts can be targeted to reduce
uncertainty in those areas. Alternatively, facili-
ties can be designed to be flexible within a given
reservoir uncertainty.
Oilfield Review
Increasing the Value of Data
Operating companies spend considerable time
and money acquiring data—from multimillion-
dollar seismic surveys and cores from costly
exploratory wells, to sophisticated well logs and
production tests during and after drilling. Data
acquisition presents potential risks—to both
project economics and the well itself—such as
logging or testing tools becoming stuck, a core
barrel malfunctioning or having to shut in or kill a
producing well. One would expect, then, that
data would be analyzed and incorporated into
models as fully as possible or not collected in the
first place. Most reservoir simulations rely heav-
ily on production data from wells and only four
types of geological or geophysical reservoir
maps: structure of the top of the reservoir, reser-
voir thickness, porosity and the ratio of net pay to
gross pay. These maps are often constructed
from seismic and well log data alone.
Incorporating all available data, such as core
analyses, seismic-guided reservoir property dis-
tributions and fluid analyses, is a cost-effective
way to strengthen and validate reservoir models
across disciplines.
A reservoir model usually combines produc-
tion rates and volumes with geological and geo-
physical maps of subsurface strata derived from
well logs and seismic data. Aquifers are often
included in the model and sealing rocks are typi-
cally treated as zero-permeability layers. The
subsurface maps take into account well locations
Situation Desired Results
New discoveries Determine optimal number of
infill wells
Size and type of production
facilities
and trajectories. The reservoir model is strength-
ened if a geological map of permeability values is
created by applying a porosity-to-permeability
transform to the porosity map according to per-
meability values interpreted from well tests, well
logs or cores. Even more rigorous results are
obtained when, in addition to inclusion of well
rates and produced or producible hydrocarbon
volumes, all available production data are input
into the model. These include pressure, gas/oil
ratios, and fluid densities, saturations, viscosities
and compressibilities.
In many instances, though, reservoir models
fail to encompass the full diversity of reservoir
data because only a few basic geological and
geophysical maps, constructed from a subset of
the data available, are used to describe varia-
tions in the data. Additional data and interpre-
tations are needed to make reservoir models
more robust. For example, core data can serve as
calibrators for geological, petrophysical and
engineering data and interpretations, but are
often used only as guides to permeability. Core
analysis refines model values of porosity, perme-
ability, capillary pressure and fluid saturation.
Whole cores, while not necessarily represen-
tative of the entire reservoir, offer tangible
evidence of grain size and composition, sorting,
depositional environment and postdepositional
reservoir history, such as bioturbation, cementa-
tion or diagenesis.
Pitfalls or Other Considerations
Limited data, sometimes from
only a single well
Drive mechanism
Seismic and well test data enable mapping of
permeability barriers, but are rarely used in tan-
dem. For example, horizon dip, azimuth, coherency
or other seismic attributes might indicate fault
patterns.4 Such information is especially useful
when contemplating the addition of directionally
drilled or multilateral wells. These types of inter-
pretations are just the beginning; all other data
types should be similarly scrutinized.
As mentioned earlier, the reliance of simula-
tors on four simple subsurface maps has
impaired simulation effectiveness. Simulation
becomes more realistic as additional data are
incorporated into the reservoir model—reconcil-
ing all available data tends to rule out some
interpretations. For example, permeability values
can be inferred from well logs and confirmed by
core and well test data, and possibly related to
seismic attributes, rather than merely computed
from an empirical transform of a porosity map
and well test data. Reconciling conflicting data
requires acceptance of a hierarchy of data confi-
dence. This hierarchy might be developed on the
basis of probable measurement errors.
(continued on page 26)
1. For a general introduction to reservoir simulation:
Adamson G, Crick M, Gane B, Gurpinar O, Hardiman J
and Ponting D: “Simulation Throughout the Life of a
Reservoir,” Oilfield Review 8, no. 2 (Summer 1996): 16-27.
2. Watts JW: “Reservoir Simulation: Past, Present, and
Future,” paper SPE 38441, presented at the SPE
Reservoir Simulation Symposium, Dallas, Texas, USA,
June 8-11, 1997.
3. Dromgoole P and Speers R: “Geoscore: A Method for
Quantifying Uncertainty in Field Reserve Estimates,”
Petroleum Geoscience 3, no. 1 (February 1997): 1-12.
4. Key SC, Nielsen HH, Signer C, Sønneland L, Waagbø K
and Veire HH: “Fault and Fracture Classification Using
Artificial Neural Networks – Case Study from the Ekofisk
Field,” Expanded Abstracts, 67th SEG Annual
International Meeting and Exposition, Dallas, Texas, USA,
November 2-7, 1997: 623-626.

Decide whether to maximize Terms of operating license

production rate or or lease
ultimate recovery

Deepwater exploration Prospect evaluation Limited data, no wells available

Scenario planning

Mature fields Answers to sudden Relatively inexpensive way

production problems to extract maximum value
from development costs

Implementation of secondary Determine appropriate

recovery recovery method

Divestment or abandonment Determine future Unanticipated future produc-

production volumes tion problems might reduce
property value

> Simulation uses. Reservoir simulation is useful during all phases of the life of a reservoir and in
both high- and low-risk projects.

Summer 1999 23
 Validating Models Using Diverse Data

A shared earth model is a model of the geome-

try and properties of the reservoir constrained
by a variety of measurements. To be predictive,
the model should approximate the key features
of the actual reservoir as closely as possible
(right). In a valid reservoir model, predictions
from the model agree with the measured data. A
Reservoir Model Measured Data
good fit between predictions and measurements
is not sufficient, though. Several models might
agree equally well with the data. The best model
is the one that agrees best with the data and Seismic data
with prior information on the model parame- Well log data
ters. The uncertainty of the model is defined as Dynamic data
the range of model parameters consistent with
the measurements.
Shared Earth Model Predicted Data
Consider a thin bed imaged by seismic data
(below right). The uncertainty of the shared > Model inputs. A shared earth model begins with seismic, well log and dynamic data from the
earth model in this case is described by the actual reservoir. In this example, the reservoir is represented by a model (top left). Measured
range of thickness and impedance values that seismic data (top right) are compared with data predicted by the model (bottom right),
which can be adjusted to improve the fit. The final three-dimensional shared earth model
satisfy the data. This range defines a probability (bottom left) incorporates all available data.
density function (PDF).

ρV
P

Uncertainty ellipse
Poor fit
ρV
P
h
Good fit

Best fit
h

> Quantifying uncertainty. The thin bed shown as a red layer (left) has thickness h
and acoustic impedance ρVP. The plot to the right displays the posterior probability
density function. Thickness and impedance values within the red uncertainty ellipse
satisfy the data, and within that ellipse are red circles denoting a good fit and the
best fit. The red circle outside the uncertainty ellipse does not satisfy the model.

24 Oilfield Review
 Researchers at Schlumberger-Doll Research,
Ridgefield, Connecticut, USA, are using a m2 m2 m2
Bayesian approach to quantify the uncertainty Uncertainty
ellipse
of reservoir models (right). A prior PDF
Best
represents initial information on model para- model
meters—the vector m. This prior PDF can
be combined with a likelihood PDF, which m1 m1 m1
quantifies information provided by additional
Prior PDF Likelihood Posterior PDF
data, to obtain a posterior PDF. When new data p (m) L (m d[1]) p (m d[1])
become available, the posterior PDF is used as
the initial or prior PDF, and the model is again m2 m2 m2
refined. As additional measurements are incor-
porated in the model, the uncertainty decreases
and a better reservoir description follows.
Effective model validation using a Bayesian
approach requires three modes of operation: m1 m1 m1
interactive, optimization and uncertainty. In the Prior PDF Likelihood Posterior PDF
interactive mode of the prototype application p (m d[1]) L (m d[2]) p (m d[1],d[2])
in development, the user modifies the reservoir
model and observes the consequences of inter- > Reducing uncertainty. In a Bayesian approach, a prior PDF quantifies the initial
pretation decisions on the data (below right). information on model parameters, expressed as vector m. The prior PDF (top left) is
In the example shown, predicted seismic data refined by the inclusion of new data (top center) to create the posterior PDF (top right).
The uncertainty of the model is shown in the red uncertainty ellipse. The blue circle
are compared with measured data. In the opti- represents the best model. The posterior PDF then becomes the prior PDF (bottom left)
mization mode, the user selects the model when more data become available (bottom center). The next posterior PDF
parameters to optimize. The software finds the (bottom right) has a smaller uncertainty ellipse and a slightly different optimal model.
best local fit of the model to the data. Finally,
in the uncertainty mode, the uncertainty ellipse
of selected reservoir properties is computed and
displayed. The uncertainty ellipse represents
the range of acceptable models.
The prototype application has been used to
test a Bayesian validation approach against
diverse data types, including seismic data, well
logs, while-drilling data and production infor-
mation. By validating a reservoir model against
all available data before beginning the history-
matching phase, the range of admissible models
can be reduced substantially. The result is a
more predictive reservoir model.

> Validation modes. Prototype software developed by Schlumberger includes an interactive mode in which the
user assesses the effects of interpretation decisions on reservoir models. In this case, the center of the upper
panel shows predicted seismic data as dotted lines and measured data as solid lines after the upper horizon,
shown in green to the left, has been moved. The lower panel shows a better fit between the predicted and
measured data (center) and the model uncertainty in the ellipse to the right.

Summer 1999 25
Limitations of Reservoir Models
Generating and fine-tuning the model entail close
collaboration by the reservoir team. As in other
phases of exploration and production, such as
geological and geophysical interpretation or
drilling preparations, handing off results from
one team member to the next along a chain is
less effective than working together from the
outset.5 Reservoir teams analyze data and per-
form simulations more rapidly as their experience
increases. Working as a team also ensures that
no one gets bogged down in endless tinkering
with input parameters to try to obtain a match
with production history.
In addition to working interactively, the team
must employ consistent methods to ensure that
normalization and interpretation are performed
properly. If data are not normalized and inter-
preted consistently, relationships between data
might be obscured, such as that between porosity
and seismic attributes (see “Model Validation,”
next page).6
Any uncertainty in the data limits confidence
in reservoir models and reservoir simulations.
Permeability barriers, pinchouts, faults and other
geological features are not always apparent from
well, seismic and production data. Their exact
locations might be off by tens or hundreds of
meters and their effectiveness as flow barriers or
Geological modeling Well logs
Petrophysical modeling
> Shared earth model. A numerical representation of the subsurface, housed in a database shared by multidisciplinary team members, allows constant
access to and updating of the reservoir model used for simulation. As databases and software improve, the simulation model and the shared earth model,
which now must be upscaled before being used as a simulation model, will be the same.
26
conduits might be miscalculated. Formation
thicknesses are usually defined by integrating
seismic and averaged well log data, although
the resolution of seismic data is on the order of
tens to hundreds of feet, whereas well logs show
variations at the scale of inches. Under- or over-
estimating pay thicknesses directly impacts
simulation reliability.
Averaging techniques also affect simulation
results, especially when reservoir properties are
highly variable. Also, problems may occur when
averaging fine detail, such as interpretations
from well logs, to integrate with data of lower
resolution, such as seismic data. For example, a
reservoir that consists of several distinct layers
with different properties might not behave like a
single layer of the same overall thickness and
average properties. The uncertainty of many
measurements increases dramatically with dis-
tance from the wellbore. Even though there is a
different level of uncertainty with each data type,
proper model validation forces comparisons of
independent data and interpretations.
Upscaling, or representing the data at a com-
mon scale, coarsens the fine-scale reservoir
description in the shared earth model to the degree
that a computer can cope with it (below). This step
usually reduces the number of cells, or subdivisions
Simulation model
Upscaling
3D and 4D seismic data Drilling data
Seismic modeling
of the reservoir model. Horizontal upscaling in the
absence of horizontal wellbores is typically simpler
because there is generally less fine detail in seis-
mic data, whereas vertical upscaling is compli-
cated by the greater amount of detail available at
the wellbores. Thickness and porosity, whose vari-
ations typically follow simple, linear averaging
laws, are less prone to upscaling problems than
permeability. The ”average“ permeability of a two-
layer system in which one layer has zero perme-
ability is not one layer with the average
permeability of the two layers. The reservoir model
must be built around such impermeable layers.
No matter how carefully a model is prepared
and simulation performed, the dynamics of pro-
duction might affect the reservoir in ways that
reservoir simulation might not predict. History
matching, or comparing actual production vol-
umes and measured pressures with predictions
from simulations, is the most common method
for judging the quality of the reservoir model. The
assumption is made that if the model yields a
simulation that matches past production, then
the model is more likely to be a useful tool for
forecasting.7 Certainly, a model that does not
match past production history or reservoir
response to past production is unlikely to cor-
rectly predict future production.
Classification system Reservoir simulations
Oilfield Review
 VSP well tie
interpretation
Data loading
Petrophysical
interpretation
> Model construction workflow. Once data from the Stratton field were loaded, the team worked together from the outset to correlate well logs,
vertical seismic profile (VSP) data and seismic data. Interpreted seismic horizons, depth conversion results and extracted attributes were compared with
normalized well log porosities and geologic log correlations. The consistent relationship between the weighted average porosity and seismic amplitude
prompted generation of a reservoir property distribution map, a seismic-guided map of porosity distribution in this case, to complete the reservoir model.
Obtaining a good match between the produc-
tion history and predictions from simulations is
inexpensive in some cases, but can become time
consuming when the model is continuously
refined and simulated. In certain situations, such
as waterfloods, tracers in the form of chlorides,
isotopes or brines are introduced into injected
water to reveal patterns in the reservoir.
Comparisons of these patterns with expected
patterns can be used to reevaluate input values,
for example, porosity, permeability and transmis-
sibility—the ease with which fluid flows from
one model cell to another, to improve the history
match. Whenever a new well is drilled, it offers
an opportunity to check the quality of a reservoir
simulation, principally by comparison of observed
pressure with the pressure predicted by the
model at the drilling location.
The difficulty of simulating a reservoir
underscores the need to constrain the reservoir
model with all available data. A reservoir model
constrained and validated by geological, geo-
physical and reservoir data before initiating
simulation extracts as much information as pos-
sible from the data and provides a better result.
Also, understanding the range and impact of
reservoir uncertainty allows a quantitative and
qualitative judgment of the accuracy or range of
model predictions.
Summer 1999
Time horizon Attribute extraction
Depth grids
Geologic Weighted average
correlation
Model Validation
A data set from the Stratton field of south Texas
(USA) demonstrates the value of cross-disciplinary
interpretation and model validation in calculating
in-situ gas reserves in the Frio formation (above).8
The data include 3D seismic data, logs from nine
wells, correlations of geological markers and a
vertical seismic profile (VSP). Resistivity, neutron
porosity, bulk density, and spontaneous potential,
gamma ray or both curves were available for the
nine wells. Preliminary examination of the well
logs and VSP data guided selection of horizons in
the Frio formation for seismic horizon tracking.
The VSP provided a good tie between the well
and the seismic data along with good under-
standing of the phase of the seismic data.9
A thin, clean Frio sand that is easy to correlate
and ties to a mappable seismic event was
selected for both well-by-well analysis and multi-
well petrophysical interpretation that ensured
consistent analysis of all the logs. The interpreters
observed that porous zones seemed to correspond
Reservoir property Model construction
distribution
5. Galas C: “The Future of Reservoir Simulation,”
Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology 36, no. 1
(January 1997): 5, 23.
6. Corbett C: “Improved Reservoir Characterization Through
Cross-Discipline Multiwell Petrophysical Interpretation,”
presented at the SPWLA Houston Chapter Symposium,
Houston, Texas, USA, May 18, 1999.
7. This assumption does not always hold. For example,
a reservoir model might match the production history
even when there is bypassed oil. Additional seismic
data might reveal undrained reservoir compartments
in this case.
8. Corbett C, Plato JS, Chalupsky GF and Finley RJ:
“Improved Reservoir Characterization Through Cross-
Discipline Multiwell Petrophysical Interpretation,”
Transactions of the SPWLA 37th Annual Logging
Symposium, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, June 16-19,
1996, paper WW.
9. Phase refers to the motion of, or means of comparison
of, periodic waves such as seismic waves. Waves that
have the same shape, symmetry and frequency and that
reach maximum and minimum values simultaneously
are in phase. Waves that are not in phase are typically
described by the angular difference between them, such
as “180 degrees out of phase.” Zero-phase wavelets
are symmetrical in shape about zero time whereas non-
zero-phase wavelets are asymmetrical. Non-zero-phase
wavelets are converted to zero-phase wavelets to
achieve the best resolution of the seismic data. Known
(zero) phase well synthetics and vertical seismic profiles
(VSPs) can be compared with local surface seismic data
to determine the relative phase of the surface seismic
wavelets. Such knowledge allows the surface seismic
data to be corrected to zero phase.
For more on combining vertical seismic profiles with
other geophysical data: Hope R, Ireson D, Leaney S,
Meyer J, Tittle W and Willis M: “Seismic Integration
to Reduce Risk,” Oilfield Review 10, no. 3
(Autumn 1998): 2-15.
27
 to high seismic amplitude. To confirm this obser-
vation, crossplots of effective porosity and ampli-
tude were prepared. The crossplots of the
Well 18 well-by-well petrophysical analysis showed sig-
Well 7
0.10 nificant scatter, whereas the multiwell analysis
Well 13
Well 20 demonstrated a clear relationship between seis-
0.09 mic amplitude and effective porosity (left).
Well 19 Next, an equation that related effective
Single-well effective porosity

0.08 porosity to amplitude was used to generate a

Well 11 map of effective porosity. The mathematical rela-
0.07 tionship between the weighted average porosity
values at the wellheads and the seismic ampli-
Well 12
0.06 tudes at those locations guided the mapping.
Well 9
Combining carefully integrated core porosity, log-
0.05 derived porosity and seismic attributes—in this
case, amplitude—produced a single, validated
0.04 porosity map constrained by several independent
Well 10
sources of porosity information (next page).
Using each type of data in isolation in the
30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
Stratton field example obscured relationships
Amplitude between data and probably would have resulted
in a set of incompatible subsurface maps that
were not physically realistic.
The difference between the single-well ana-
0.17 lytical approach and the consistent, normalized
Well 10 petrophysical analysis in the Stratton field
0.16 affects the economic evaluation of the reservoir.
Well 19
Well 9 The single-well approach precluded integrating
0.15 the well logs with the seismic data to generate a
Well 13
seismic-guided porosity map because the cross-
Multiwell effective porosity

Well 12
0.14
plot of effective porosity and amplitude indicated
no consistent relationship between the well logs
0.13
and seismic data. The in-situ gas volume calcu-
lated by single-well petrophysical analysis is
0.12
12% greater than that calculated from the vali-
Well 20
dated, seismic-guided porosity distribution. An
0.11
overstated gas volume might lead to unnecessary
Well 11 infill drilling.
0.10
In another case offshore Malaysia, 3D seis-
Well 7
Well 18 mic data, well logs, wellbore image logs and
0.09
30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
core data enabled generation of time-depth
Amplitude
relationships and synthetic seismograms to tie
logs to seismic data.10 The relationship between
effective porosity, seismic amplitude and acous-
> Single well versus multiwell interpretation. Well-by-well petrophysical analysis tic impedance, expressed as a calibration func-
(top) obscures the relationship between porosity and seismic amplitude. In this tion, allowed prediction of effective porosity
example from the Stratton field, the plot of effective porosity versus seismic
amplitude shows considerable scatter around the line of best fit because the well throughout the 3D seismic data, similar to the
logs were not analyzed consistently. The relationship between seismic amplitude previous Stratton field example. Additional
and porosity is clear when the logs are normalized and consistent analytical data, such as pressure measurements from
methods are used (bottom). The observed relationship between seismic
wireline tools or well tests, make the reservoir
amplitude and effective porosity allowed interpreters to use the seismic data
to generate a map of effective porosity. model more robust and improve confidence in
the predictions from simulation.11

28 Oilfield Review
 7000

6000
100
5000 90
Well 9 Well 7
80
Well 20
4000
70
60
3000 Well 12 Well 11
50
0.040 Well 18
40 Well 10
0.060 2000
0.080 Well 13
0.100 30
0.120 20
0.140 1000
0.160 10
0.180 Well 19
0.200 0
0.220 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10,000 11,000

> Seismic-guided porosity distribution. In the Stratton field of south Texas, USA, a clear relationship between effective
porosity and seismic amplitude permitted seismic-guided mapping of effective porosity. This map could not have been
created without consistent, multiwell petrophysical analysis. Yellow and orange represent areas of high seismic
amplitude; blue represents low amplitude.

Model Manipulation
Because simulation inputs are subject to revision
by the project team to improve the match between
the simulation and production history, it is impor-
tant to restrict the input model as much as the
data permit and avoid unnecessary adjustments of
input values. Simulation software typically allows
interpreters to change not only the geological and
geophysical maps used to build a reservoir model,
but also variables such as pressure, temperature,
fluid composition and saturation, permeability,
transmissibility, skin, productivity index and rock
compressibility. Seasoned interpreters have differ-
ent opinions about what changes to simulation
inputs are acceptable, but prudently adjusting
simulation input parameters often improves the
history match.
10. Corbett C, Solomon GJ, Sonrexa K, Ujang S and Ariffin T:
“Application of Seismic-Guided Reservoir Property
Mapping to the Dulang West Field, Offshore Peninsular
Malaysia,” paper SPE 30568, presented at the SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas,
Texas, USA, October 22-25, 1995.
11. For another example of seismic-guided property mapping:
Hart BS: “Predicting Reservoir Properties from 3-D
Seismic Attributes With Little Well Control—Jurassic
Smackover Formation,” AAPG Explorer 20, no. 4
(April 1999): 50-51.
Simulation experts use a three-stage
approach to fine-tune a reservoir model, begin-
ning with the energy balance, then an adjust-
ment for multiple fluid phases, and finally the
well productivity. The energy balance stage
accounts for the reservoir pressure. The relative
permeabilities of different fluid phases are
adjusted in the second stage. The final step uses
recent productivity test data, such as bottomhole
flowing pressure, tubing surface pressure and
total fluid production rate, to further improve the
history match.
Reservoir thickness values typically are con-
strained by seismic data and well logs, but are
wrong if the interpreter tracks seismic horizons
incorrectly, if logs and seismic data are not tied
properly, or if well logs are off-depth or miscor-
related. Poor-quality seismic data, a common
problem in structurally complex areas, can
hamper horizon tracking. Reprocessing can
improve seismic data quality.
The depth to the reservoir should also be well
constrained if log and seismic data are inter-
preted diligently. Comparing well logs or syn-
thetic seismograms generated from logs with
seismic data improves depth conversion.
Additional data, such as VSPs, also tend to
improve depth conversion. In structurally com-
plex areas, however, depth-based processing
from the outset is preferable to depth conversion.
The enhanced integrity that validation brings to a
depth-converted structure map—that is, a map
displayed in units of depth rather than the seis-
mic unit of time—is demonstrated by integrating
dipmeter data with the structure map or by com-
paring depth-converted seismic sections to dip

Summer 1999 29
 interpretations from wellbore images, such as
FMI Fullbore Formation MicroImager or ARI
Azimuthal Resistivity Imager logs (left). By inter-
preting seismic data, well logs and wellbore
images together rather than independently, the
interpreter ensures that the final structure map
has been rigorously checked.
Though typically not introduced in the large-
-800
scale model-construction phase, information
about reservoir fluids can offer important insight.
-1200
-800 Formation tester data, such as MDT Modular
-1600
Formation Dynamics Tester results, indicate the
-1000
location of a fluid contact. This information, com-
-1400 -1800 bined with well log and seismic data, yields a
more constrained starting model for simulation.
-1200 Structure contours in meters Other fluid information may be used to con-
Well location strain the fine-scale model in the vicinity of the
Strike and dip from dipmeter wellbore. Perforation locations are considered
known, but the effectiveness of the perforations
may be evaluated with production logs, and
changes in fluid saturations monitored with RST
Depth, ft 415 413 412 410 408 406 404
1443 1443 1443 1443 1443 1443 1443
Reservoir Saturation Tool or TDT Thermal Decay
Time data.
11,050 18,000 The ratio of net pay to gross pay can vary
11,150 21,000 widely across a reservoir, but like other simula-
11,250 24,000 tion input values, should not be altered during
27,000 the history-matching stage without good reason.
11,350
30,000 The net-to-gross ratio might be adjusted if sup-
11,450
33,000 ported by drilling results, such as well logs and
11,550 36,000 cores, or production logs.
11,650 39,000 Permeability values are obtained in several
42,000 ways, including core and log analysis and well
11,750
45,000 tests, so comparisons of the values from each of
11,850 these approaches can limit the range of input val-
48,000
11,950 51,000 ues, at least at well locations. Effective assimila-
12,050 54,000
tion of wellbore image logs, probe permeability
data and core data allows characterization of
12,150
horizontal permeability near the wellbore and
T67V f/s*g/cm3 prediction of vertical permeability.12 Saturation
values, established through well log analysis, are
> Confirming depth conversion. Dipmeter data reduce interpretive contouring options for structure maps verified by capillary pressure data from special
if the mapper honors the data (top). Dipmeter data from the depth of interest, plotted at each well, show core analysis, wireline formation tester results or
reasonable conformity with structure contours in the upper right and lower sections of the map, but RST measurements. All of these input parame-
refute the contouring of the upper left area in this fictitious example. Dip interpretation from an image log, ters, within reason, are considered adjustable by
tied to an actual depth-converted seismic section, confirms dip direction and magnitude at horizons of
interest (bottom). The color variation in the seismic section represents acoustic impedance. simulation experts.
12. Thomas S, Corbett P and Jensen J: “Permeability and
Permeability Anisotropy Characterisation in the Near
Wellbore: A Numerical Model Using the Probe
Permeameter and Micro-Resistivity Image Data,”
Transactions of the SPWLA 37th Annual Logging
Symposium, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA,
June 16-19, 1996, paper JJJ.
13. Crombie A, Halford F, Hashem M, McNeil R, Thomas EC,
Melbourne G and Mullins OC: “Innovations in
Wireline Fluid Sampling,” Oilfield Review 10, no. 3
(Autumn 1998): 26-41.
14. For more on skin: Hegeman P and Pelissier-Combescure J:
“Production Logging for Reservoir Testing,”
Oilfield Review 9, no. 2 (Summer 1997): 16-20.

30 Oilfield Review
 Some reservoir engineers minimize adjust-
ments to PVT samples, which indicate reservoir
fluid composition and behavior at the pressure,
volume and temperature conditions of the reser-
voir. In cases of surface recombination of the
sample or sample collection long after initial pro-
duction, however, the engineer might decide to
adjust PVT values. At the other extreme, produc-
tion rates and volumes, and pressure data from
wells are considered inalterable by some
experts, although exceptions are made at times,
such as when production measurement equip-
ment fails. Many experts choose to honor the
most accurate representation of production data.
Placing restrictions on the alteration of input
values makes a good history match from simula-
tion more elusive, but many input values may be
adjusted during simulation. Transmissibility is
computed by the simulator using the input poros-
ity and permeability. A high computed transmis-
sibility value can be overridden if well tests,
formation tester data or seismic data provide evi-
dence of separate sand bodies, stratigraphic
changes, faults or other types of reservoir com-
partmentalization. Differences in fluid chemistry
or pressure from one well to another also sug-
gest reservoir compartmentalization. In-situ fluid
samples obtained from the OFA Optical Fluid
Analyzer component of the MDT tool are uncon-
taminated and can be brought to surface without
changing phase for chemical analysis.13
Production logs, well tests and pressure tran-
sient analyses indicate skin, which is a dimen-
sionless measure of the formation damage
frequently caused by invasion of drilling fluids or
perforation residue.14 When the location, pene-
tration and effectiveness of perforations are of
concern, production logs provide information that
may affect the model input for skin. If a field is
located in a geological trend of similar accumu-
lations, skin values in the trend might be a useful
starting assumption if data within the field are
initially scarce.
Summer 1999
. . . Validating interpretations and models across disciplines
addresses complex problems that are difficult to solve
within the confines of a single discipline . . . Multidisciplinary
validation of reservoir models increases the value of
data beyond the cost of data-gathering activities alone . . .
Adjustment of the productivity index, another
input parameter, affects the quality of a history
match. The productivity index, often expressed in
units of B/D/psi or Mcf/D/psi, is a measure of
how much a well is likely to produce. If the skin
value is known, the productivity index—usually
computed from model inputs that include the
skin—can be computed more accurately. When
differing stimulation or completion techniques
among field wells are used, productivity index
values often vary from well to well. For example,
hydraulic fracturing of a single well in a field might
enhance permeability and, therefore, productivity
of that well alone.
The options available to change a reservoir
model to improve the match between one simu-
lation run and a field’s production history might
appear endless. At some point, practical limits on
data collection, computational power and time
for modifying input parameters curtail simulation
iterations. Independent analyses that support the
interpretations of other team members increase
confidence in reservoir simulation. A proper sim-
ulation workflow helps accomplish this goal.
Working as a team ensures that all data are used
to validate the reservoir model.
Validating interpretations and models across
disciplines addresses complex problems that are
difficult to solve within the confines of a single
discipline. A multidisciplinary team sharing a
database and iteratively validating and updating
shared earth models, or geomodels, achieves this
goal.15 Operating companies report increases on
the order of 10% in predicted ultimate recovery
through proper data integration, simulation and
reservoir development.16 Cycle time also
decreases in many cases, probably because of
ready access to data and interpretations for
everyone involved in the project.
Multidisciplinary validation of reservoir mod-
els increases the value of data beyond the cost of
data-gathering activities alone. In 1998, for
example, Geco-Prakla acquired 3D multicompo-
nent seismic data for Chevron in the Alba field in
the North Sea. The objectives of the survey were
to better image the sandstone reservoir, identify
intrareservoir shales that affect movement of
injected water and map waterflood progress.
After integration of the new shear-wave data to
improve the reservoir model, two additional
wells were drilled in the field. The first well is
producing up to 20,000 B/D [3200 m3/d]; the sec-
ond well is being completed and has resulted in
the discovery of Alba’s highest net sand. Both
wells have confirmed some of the features
observed on the converted-wave data. Because
the first well was drilled less than a year after
seismic acquisition started, Chevron felt the new
data arrived in time to make a significant com-
mercial impact on the field’s development.17
15. For more on the shared earth model and integrated
interpretation: Beardsell M, Vernay P, Buscher H,
Denver L, Gras R and Tushingham K: “Streamlining
Interpretation Workflow,” Oilfield Review 10, no. 1
(Spring 1998): 22-39.
16. Major MJ: “3-D Gets Heavy (Oil) Duty Workout,” AAPG
Explorer 20, no. 6 (June 1999): 26-27.
O’Rourke ST and Ikwumonu A: “The Benefits of
Enhanced Integration Capabilities in 3-D Reservoir
Modeling and Simulation,” paper SPE 36539, presented
at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Denver, Colorado, USA, October 6-9, 1996.
Sibley MJ, Bent JV and Davis DW: “Reservoir Modeling
and Simulation of a Middle Eastern Carbonate
Reservoir,” SPE Reservoir Engineering 12, no. 2
(May 1997): 75-81.
17. For more on the Alba field survey and shear wave
seismic data: MacLeod MK, Hanson RA, Bell CR and
McHugo S: “The Alba Field Ocean Bottom Cable Seismic
Survey: Impact on Development,” paper SPE 56977,
prepared for presentation at the 1999 Offshore European
Conference, Aberdeen, Scotland, September 7-9, 1999.
Caldwell J, Christie P, Engelmark F, McHugo S, Özdemir H,
Kristiansen P and MacLeod M: “Shear Waves Shine
Brightly,” Oilfield Review 11, no. 1 (Spring 1999): 2-15.
31
Modeling for Data Acquisition t
2 Predicted Seismic Properties t
3
In addition to the general question of determin-
ing how best to produce a reservoir, simulation
can demonstrate the best time to acquire addi-
tional data. Time-lapse (4D) seismic surveys,
which are repeated 3D surveys, can be acquired
at optimal times predicted by careful model con-
struction and simulation.18 As oil and gas are pro-
duced from a reservoir, the traveltime, amplitude
and other attributes of reflected seismic waves
change; simulation can demonstrate when these
changes become visible.19 Because 4D seismic t t
2 Predicted Seismic Data 3
data acquisition, processing and interpretation
can cost millions of dollars, it is critical to deter-
mine from modeling studies whether reservoir
variations will be discernible in the new survey.
This type of prediction differs from routine simu-
lation techniques.
Traditionally, reservoir engineers have been
interested in matching simulated well production t Actual Seismic Data t
2 3
with actual production data. These data come
from one point in space—the wellhead—but are
nearly continuous in time. There are other types
of history matching, though. Seismic data repre-
sent a single point in time but offer almost com-
plete spatial coverage of the reservoir. Also, the
modeled and observed parameters are differ- > Forward modeling to optimize data acquisition. Predicted properties of seismic data at
ent—seismic amplitudes are of concern rather time t2 (top left) are used to predict the appearance of seismic data (middle left). These
predictions are revisited after acquisition of actual seismic data at time t2 (bottom left).
than fluid pressures, for example. Seismic properties at time t3 (top right) are predicted next from actual t2 seismic data.
To perform seismic history matching, first, the By considering fluid changes in the reservoir and their effects on seismic waves, and
seismic response to a saturated reservoir is then modeling the seismic data that would result from surveying at time t3 (middle right),
modeled. After some period of production, the additional seismic surveys for reservoir monitoring will be acquired at the optimal time
t3 (bottom right).
seismic response to the depleted reservoir is
calculated. The seismic response might be com-
plex and include a combination of changes in
amplitude, phase, attenuation and traveltime. Multicomponent seismic data and amplitude Interpretation of a seismic response change
The initial and depleted reservoir responses dif- variation with offset (AVO) analysis of compres- from an initial seismic survey to a repeated sur-
fer because the composition of the pore fluids sional-wave data both reduce the ambiguity of vey enables detection and spatial calibration of
and the reservoir pressure change during produc- distinguishing the effects of pressure changes additional faults, movement of oil-water contacts
tion, both of which affect the seismic velocity of from the effects of pore fluids. Without AVO and gas coming out of solution. Small faults in
the reservoir. The synthetic responses are com- processing, ordinary marine 3D seismic data are the reservoir section are often visible as linear
pared with recorded seismic data—the initial 3D fundamentally ambiguous because they respond features of decreased amplitude in a seismic
survey and the subsequent repeated survey. The to compressional waves only, but compressional amplitude or coherency plot. Sealing faults also
difference in seismic character of the reservoir waves respond to both pressure and saturation. appear as patches of undrained hydrocarbons
from the initial survey to the later survey is a Multicomponent seismic data separate compres- whose well-defined edges represent the fault.
function of the compressional (P) and shear (S) sional and shear components, allowing the inter- Movements of oil-water contacts are visible as
seismic velocities and is interpreted as a change preter to separate saturation effects and pressure changes in amplitude and possibly as ”flat
in fluid content and pressure. effects that influence porosity, because shear spots.“ When the reservoir pressure drops below
18. Gawith DE and Gutteridge PA: “Seismic Validation of waves do not respond to pore fluids.20
Reservoir Simulation Using a Shared Earth Model,”
Petroleum Geoscience 2, no. 2 (1996): 97-103.
19. Pedersen L, Ryan S, Sayers C, Sonneland L and Veire HH:
“Seismic Snapshots for Reservoir Monitoring,”
Oilfield Review 8, no. 4 (Winter 1996): 32-43.
20. In the case of the Magnus field, located on the UK conti-
nental shelf, the effect of pressure changes on time-
lapse seismic data is greater than the effect of changes
in pore fluids. For more information: Watts GFT, Jizba D,
Gawith DE and Gutteridge P: “Reservoir Monitoring of
the Magnus Field through 4D Time-Lapse Seismic
Analysis,” Petroleum Geoscience 2, no. 4
(November 1996): 361-372.
21. Pedersen et al, reference 19: 42.

32 Oilfield Review
bubblepoint and gas comes out of solution,
P-wave seismic data typically show a significant
brightening of seismic amplitude. Multicomponent
seismic data, which include shear-wave data,
show no brightening because the shear waves
do not respond to pore fluids. Such a response
confirms the presence of gas.
Seismic history matching has benefited reser-
voir management decisions in the Gullfaks field,
where interpretation of 4D seismic data indi-
cated the existence of previously unseen sealing
faults and the presence of bypassed oil. The
faults themselves were not seen on the new
data, but were interpreted where fluid content
changed abruptly in geophysical maps showing
the time-lapse results. After fluid transmissibility
across faults was reevaluated, the potential for
bypassed pay supported drilling an additional
well.21 That well, drilled by Statoil, initially pro-
duced 12,000 B/D [1900 m3/d] from a formerly
undrained compartment and confirmed the pres-
Faroe
Islands
Clair
Schiehallion
Foinaven
Orkney
Islands
0 20 40
SCOTLAND 0 20
> Foinaven field. Located West of Shetlands (left), the Foinaven field produces from four main turbidite reservoirs. The reservoir map (top right) shows gas
caps in red and the strike of the normal faults as black lines. The platforms and well locations are shown in black. The Foinaven study area is indicated by
the blue box. The cross section (bottom right), which extends from south of platform DC1 to north of platform DC2, shows the layered reservoirs that have
been compartmentalized by normal faulting that must be drained by carefully constructed directional wells.
Summer 1999
ence of a gas cap predicted by seismic data.
Statoil also reentered and sidetracked an aban-
doned well and produced 6300 B/D [1000 m3/d].
Currently, the scientists at Schlumberger
Cambridge Research, Cambridge, England, are
combining information on the distribution of fluids,
pressure and other properties from the reservoir
simulator with rock properties from the geo-
model, or earth model, to generate a forward
model of seismic response (previous page). In
particular, the porosity, bulk modulus and shear
modulus from the geomodel are combined with
saturation and pressure information from the
simulator. The forward model provides informa-
tion about the elastic moduli and density of the
reservoir, from which P-wave velocity, density
and acoustic impedance, or other properties, can
be derived.
Next, the synthetic seismic data are com-
pared with actual seismic data. Numerous com-
parisons can be made between vintages of
DC1
0 1 km
0 1 mile Study area
Shetland Reservoir DC1
Islands T35
South
T34
T32
T31
60 80 100 km
40 60 mi
seismic data, such as maps of seismic attributes,
prestack gathers for AVO studies and so on, but
each approach has the common goal of deter-
mining the area of mismatch between predicted
and recorded seismic data and analyzing the rea-
sons for the differences.
One major challenge in interpretation of an
observed time-lapse seismic response is that the
non-uniqueness in a particular seismic response
must be considered. For example, an observed
change in amplitude might represent a change in
saturation of oil or free gas, a change in the
amount of gas dissolved in the oil, a change in
pressure, or, most likely, a combination of these.
Clearly, it is important to know which of these
factors are significant in the reservoir, and seismic
modeling can help determine this.
In the Foinaven study area, West of
Shetlands, UK, normal-faulted, layered turbidite
reservoirs form separate reservoir compartments
(below). A preproduction baseline 3D survey was
Gas cap
DC2
DC2
North
Horizontal scale
0 1 km 0
Vertical 50
0 1 mile scale, m
100
33
 Synthetic Seismic 4D Response Surface Seismic 4D Response
Repeat Repeat T35 sands not yet
3D survey 3D survey on production
1998 1998

T32 sand after 10

Oil + Free gas (~5%)
months of production
Bright
Water

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

Baseline Baseline
3D survey 3D survey
1995 1995

T32 sand before

Oil production
Dim
Water

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

> Visible changes in repeated surveys. Cross-sectional synthetic seismic displays for the baseline survey and repeated survey (left)
show the development of a gas cap. The actual seismic sections confirm the predictions from seismic modeling (right).

acquired in 1995 and a repeat survey was shot in

1998 after 10 months of oil production. The
amplitude brightening in the synthetic seismic
data indicated that development of gas caps
would be visible as the reservoir pressure
Small dropped and gas came out of solution during pro-
gas caps
OWC duction (above). The repeat survey verified the
existence of the expanded gas caps as high-
amplitude events (left). Because seismic property
modeling predicted a good match between the
-3.40 baseline survey and the repeat survey—synthetic
-3.17
-2.94 seismic sections from simulator model matched
-2.71
-2.48
-2.25
real seismic data at appropriate times—the reser-
0 500 1000 1500 2000 m -2.02
voir team had more confidence in the reservoir
-1.79
-1.56
-1.33 simulator model, both in this area and, by extrap-
-1.10
-0.87
-0.65
olation, elsewhere in the field. As a result, addi-
-0.42
-0.19
tional 4D seismic data will be acquired across
0.04
0.27 Foinaven and neighboring Schiehallion field to val-
0.50
idate the reservoir models and ultimately support
the placement of a number of infill production and
Free gas injection wells.
Enlarged Correct timing of data acquisition maximizes
gas caps
the value of the data. Careful study before repeat
OWC 3D survey acquisition can ensure optimal acqui-
sition timing, which is field-dependent. In the
Free gas Foinaven case, timely acquisition of 4D seismic
data helped determine where the reservoir was
N
connected or segmented and where flow barriers
existed so the team could select optimal infill and
0 500 1000 1500 2000 m
water-injection well placement.
> Amplitude changes. Map views of the 1995 baseline survey and the 1998 repeat survey clearly
display the changes in seismic amplitude that result from gas cap development. The small gas
caps in the original survey and the synthetic data shown above it (top) enlarged significantly
after 10 months of production (bottom). The oil-water contact (OWC) remains consistent
between the two surveys.

34 Oilfield Review
 Reservoir Characterization

Reservoir modeling Interpretive data

Development and Production Planning

Reservoir Monitoring and Control

Reservoir performance Flow simulation Development scenario

History Reservoir
matching development

Production Production and reserves Uncertainty analysis

forecasting and risk management

Field Implementation

> Future reservoir management. Reservoir optimization is an iterative process that normally begins with reservoir characteriza-
tion of a new discovery, but can be implemented at any stage in an existing field. Reservoir management will rely increasingly on
monitoring and modeling reservoir performance to optimize oil and gas production. The key additional element will be ongoing
collection of data at the reservoir scale, including seismic data and wellbore measurements, so that the development plan can
be assessed and, where necessary, modified. Monitoring the reservoir closely will overcome the current problems of history
matching using only the loose constraints of production data.

Future Possibilities
Reservoir simulation has already helped oil and
gas producers increase predicted ultimate recov-
ery, and further improvement is likely. In addition
to ongoing software and shared earth model
enhancements, reservoir monitoring with down-
hole sensors, 4D seismic surveys or other meth-
ods is becoming increasingly cost-effective,
particularly when new data are acquired at opti-
mal times (above).22
22. Watts et al: reference 20.
A prudent, efficient team that works together
to develop a field reduces cycle time and
expense. Sharing data and interpretations allows
the team to maximize the value of its achieve-
ments for more realistic reservoir simulation and
improved understanding of the reservoir. These in
turn advance reservoir management, reserve
recovery and project economics. Currently, this
method relies heavily on the team’s motivation to
work together. Software provides strong support,
but is not yet fully integrated to handle the com-
plete spectrum of oilfield data simultaneously.
In the future, new software that validates the
shared earth model will incorporate measured
uncertainties of data and interpretations. As the
model is refined with the capture of new data,
any change in uncertainty will be addressed
automatically. Forward modeling will further
reduce uncertainty and risk, and maximize the
value of additional data. If the shared earth
model is consistently updated and new data and
interpretations are incorporated, project team
members will have another tool to better cope
with increases in both the volume of data and the
productivity expectations of their companies.
—GMG

Summer 1999 35