SPE

International

Society of Petroleum Engineers

SPE 88968

Congenital Reservoir Rock Characterization of Weak Hydraulic Properties

Ikechukwu Chike, Emmanuel Egbele, Laser Engineering and Resources Consultants Limited,
and Mike Onyekonwu, University of Port-Harcourt, Rivers State, Nigeria

Copyright 2004, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

evaluation process if cut-off were not applied.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 28th Annual SPE International Also, the approach resulted to a construction of
Technical Conference and Exhibition in Abuja, Nigeria, August 2-4, 2004.
the simplest dynamic model that is compatible with
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
the static model which is the objective of every
of the paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum reservoir characterization.
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.
The prime aim of this approach is a more precise
Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for reservoir characterization as against a mere
commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum
Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract approximate.
of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must
contain conspicuous acknowledgement 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.
Introduction
Most reservoirs formed within a progradational to
retrogradational parasequence have rock units
Abstract that are of weak hydraulic properties which are
typified in many Niger Delta fields. The description
Weak hydraulic units occur frequently in many
of such reservoir needs to be precise to reduce
Niger Delta fields. This makes the characterization
the amount of hydrocarbon left behind pipe. It is
of reservoirs in such fields quite challenging.
therefore expedient to develop appropriate
In this work the interpretation procedure, adopted methodology and algorithm in the description of
model and algorithm were chosen such that each such reservoirs.
unit is treated separately to make the evaluation
process as detailed as possible. Also, a conscious Hydraulic units have previously been defined as
effort was made to incorporate functions in our the representative elementary volume of total
adopted model that take care of the factors reservoir rock within which geological and
responsible for the weak hydraulic units in the petrophysical properties that affect fluid flow are
reservoir. internally consistent and predictably different from
properties of other rock volumes1. When such
The application of cut-offs was done in a manner units are of small transmissibility they are said to
that blocked properties and predictive algorithm be weak. Geologically the weak hydraulic units
only relate to intervals that will contribute to form part of the reservoir succession (congenital),
production. This approach is necessary to improve but they do not contribute significantly to the
the precision and predictive algorithm of porosity, evaluation of the hydrocarbon in place or the
permeability and water saturation that form part of estimation of reserves2. This is due to the poor
the reservoir evaluation process. Usually the storage capability of these units. The permeability
inclusion of units with weak hydraulic properties in values of these units are also very low; hence the
the evaluation of hydraulic storage at the onset will transmissibility is also invariably small compared
decrease and weaken the precision of the to the other successions in the reservoir rock.
2 I. Chike, E. Egbele, and M.O. Onyekonwu SPE 88968

One primary and six secondary faults were

In order to determine the reservoir rock properties identified. The strike directions of the mapped
accurately, models for porosity and water faults are generally East/West, North/South and
saturation were chosen such that the shale Northwest/Southeast. The Northern boundary fault
parameter (which is a major factor responsible for and the three parallel faults striking
the low storage and transmissibility of the weak Northwest/Southeast direction, assume an en-
units) is taken into account. Overestimation of echelon arrangement. All the faults are
petrophysical parameter was thus avoided. Downthrown Southwards.

In most recent studies of such reservoirs the Stratigraphically the reservoir is the topmost of the
adopted models and algorithm do not lay three reservoirs in the field. The lithology is
emphasis on such units. They are usually treated predominantly sandstone. However, continuous
in concert with the other congenital units of intra-reservoir shale which acts as baffles3 to fluid
stronger hydraulic properties. This paper shows occurs as intercalations within the sand body. This
the way out. indicates an erratic depositional cycle4. From the
well log correlation studies, the log motif (of
Field Location and History Gamma Ray and SP logs) are observed to be
The field is located onshore, eastern Niger delta. block-shaped which is probably distributaries
The field was discovered in 1977. Three channel sand (Figure 1) reservoir formed within a
hydrocarbon-bearing levels have been identified, progradational to retrogradational parasequence.
two of which are oil bearing while the other is a The thickness of the reservoir range from a
gas reservoir. For the purpose of this study only maximum of 40m in well 7 to minimum of 25m in
one of the oil bearing reservoirs is considered. well 5. There is a good sand development at the
central part of the reservoir, while it thins out
Production started in August 1980. Four out of towards the faults. The strike and dip section of
seven wells drilled were completed. They include the logs are shown in Figures 2 and 3.
Well 3T, 4T, 5T, and 6T. The four wells were all
completed with a single string all landing on this Data Availability
level. Presently Well 3T is shut in since April 1996. The data available for the characterization
The other three wells are still producing. The includes: the seismic interpreted surface, seismic
reservoir is tight and characterized by fines interpreted fault polygons, well logs, composite log
movement and is water driven, thus encroaching data containing deviation data, side wall core
the producing wells. description data and results of the petrophysical
evaluation.
Wells 3T and 4T have been worked over rigless,
however, that of Well 3T was unsuccessful. The Well bore Petrophysical Evaluation
most important job that was carried out in this field The wireline measurements were evaluated for
was a remarkable clay-acid job in Well 3T at the conventional properties of porosity and fluid
very beginning of its life. Also important to note is saturations. In the absence of core data, the
the two time reperforation and additional permeability calculation was based on empirical
perforation effected in Well 5T followed by an acid correlations. Other petrophysical variables were
treatment at a much later date. Several Nitrogen also estimated. The methodology and algorithm
liftings (unloading) jobs have been carried out to adopted will now be discussed.
flow the wells.
There was no measured connate water resistivity
General Geology and Stratigraphy available for this study, hence the formation water
The reservoir used in this work is from a field in resistivity (Rw) was calculated using two methods
the Tertiary Niger Delta. It is bounded to the north namely, the Rwa method, and the Pickett crossplot
by an East-West trending and South-hading method. After comparing the results obtained, the
growth fault, which is a major boundary fault in the Pickett crossplot (Figure 4) method was adopted
field. Two major types of trapping mechanisms are for its consistency and ability to incorporate the
responsible for the hydrocarbon accumulation shale volume cut-off in the adopted algorithm.
encountered in the reservoir: (1) Fault closures at
the South, North and Eastern parts of the reservoir The Gamma Ray Index option was employed to
(2) hydrodynamic trap at western flank. Most of determine the percentage of shale (Vsh) and
the faults appear to be sealing with no evidence of implicitly, the dominant lithology. This was
drainage across faults. achieved by determining the clean sand and clean
3 Congenital Reservoir Rock Characterization of Weak Hydraulic Properties SPE 88968

shale lines from the Gamma Ray logs. Also, to inhibition in this method was the unavailability of
adequately account for the presence of conventional core data from this field or a near-by
heteroliths, a gamma ray curvature index of 3 was field. Permeability – porosity (K-φe) crossplots for
adopted for this reservoir. The resulting gamma each layer are shown in Figures 5 - 9.
ray index was then used as an input in the
unconsolidated shale volume model. The fluid cut-offs used in this study were derived
from crossplots of φe vs. Vsh and Sw vs. Vsh /φe.
The porosity was estimated from the density log. This is to account for the productive zones of the
The effective porosity was further deduced by reservoirs. The Sw vs. Vsh /φe plot is a new
introducing the shale volume percentage into the approach, aimed at delineating limiting values for
equation. Sensitivity study was done on the matrix reservoirs with weak hydraulic units. The ratio of
and fluid densities. This resulted to more exact Vsh/φe introduces a mobility factor in the cut-off
pore volume estimation. delineation, most especially where core data are
not available. The crossplots are shown in Figures
The water saturation (Sw) in the reservoir was 10 – 12.
calculated using the Simandoux equation5. The
model accounts for the conductivity arising from
the shale component in the reservoir. This model Static Reservoir Modelling
was adopted for use based on the shale fraction The stratigraphy and structural frameworks of the
observed in the reservoir sand6. The model was reservoir were incorporated into a 3D grid using a
then validated using Archie and Indonesian static reservoir modelling package. The grids were
Saturation models to ensure consistency of constructed as follows:
results. It finally collapses to the antecedent Archie A. Horizon gridding of the reservoir structural
saturation model in the zones of zero-percent surface using original top structural surface.
shale volume. The log calculated Sw was then
used to derive a capillary pressure model from B. Faults cutting the top reservoir surface were
which the irreducible water saturation (Swirr) was assigned vertical dip and modeled.
estimated. A Sensitivity of calculated Sw to Sw
exponent was done to ensure accuracy of the C. Well intersection points were used to generate
model. the thickness from which the isochores were
gridded. These help in defining the stratigraphic
In the absence of core data, a qualitative setting of the reservoir so as to incorporate
estimation of permeability was predicted using erosional and unconformity surfaces where they
empirical correlations7. The formulas produce exist.
correct results at irreducible water saturation (Swirr)
conditions. Results obtained were compared with D. Internal reservoir surfaces were defined based
that from well test analysis, Coates and Denoo on the isopach thickness below the structural
(1981) compared reasonably with the Well Test surface representing the top of the reservoir and
results and was thus adopted. A pseudo-absolute checked with well markers9. The result of adding
permeability model was then developed based on isopach maps to the top structural surface was a
regression analysis (transforms) for each reservoir finely layered stratigraphic framework for the
rock type (zones where lithology and diagenetic reservoir.
history do not change) to qualitatively define the
permeability-porosity relationship. This correlation E. Individual grids were constructed for each
was used for a pseudo-absolute permeability parasequence using the subgrid layering process.
calculation for each layer.
F. Data analysis of petrophysical properties.
The reservoir was divided into layers with
relatively uniform flow behaviour and lateral G. Geostatistical model were generated using
continuity. Flow zones are dictated by pore-throat increasing complex methodologies to populate the
size and local geologic changes, the calculated grid with reservoir properties. Several scenarios
permeability and Gamma Ray log were the basic were modelled to ascertain the uncertainties
attributes used for a “quick-look” subdivision. Five associated with the models10-11. The volumes were
flow zones were delineated using this approach. then computed.
Furthermore, the Kozeny – Carmen concept1, 8
was used to quantitatively subdivide the reservoir
as a check of the previous zonation. The main
4 I. Chike, E. Egbele, and M.O. Onyekonwu SPE 88968

The resultant fine geological model was then 4. H.G. Reading.: “Sedimentary
upscaled so as to reduce the number of cells to Environment and Facies. Oxford, 1991.
decrease simulation run time. 5. P. Worthington.: “The Evaluation of
Shaly-Sand, Concepts in Reservoir
Conclusions Evaluation. The Log Analyst, Jan-Feb.
1. A methodology for reservoir 1985.
characterization that takes into account 6. Souvick Saha.: “Low-Resistivity Pay
factors responsible for weak hydraulic (LRP): Ideas for Solutions. SPE paper
units was introduced. 85675 (2003).
7. Djabbar Tiab and Erle C. Donaldson.:
2. The reserves estimation, stock tank oil “Theory and Practice of Measuring
initially in place (STOIIP) obtained were Reservoir Rock and Fluid Properties,
more precise with this approach. The 1996.
estimate is tabulated below. 8. Hector H. Perez and S. Mishra.: ”The
Role of Electrofacies, Lithofacies, and
STOIIP (MMSTB)
Hydraulic Flow Units in Permeability
Previous Study Recent Study Predictions from Well Logs: A
(Most likely) (Most likely) comparative Analysis Using
50 57.3 Classification Trees. SPE paper 84301
(2003).
3. A better synergy between the static and 9. D.K. Larue and H. Legarre.: “Flow
dynamic reservoir models was established Units, Connectivity, and Reservoir
using the methodology introduced. Characterization in a Wave Dominated
Deltaic Reservoir: Meren Reservoir,
References Nigeria. AAPG March, 2004.
1. Jude O. Amaefula and Mehmet 10. Akshay Sahni.: “Case Studies of
Altunbay.: ”Enhanced Reservoir Uncertainty Analysis in the Seismic to
Description: Using Core and Log Data Reservoir Simulation Workflow. SPE
to Identify Hydraulic Units and Predict paper 84188 (2003).
Permeability in Uncored Intervals/wells. 11. J.G. Hamman, R.E. Buettner, D.H.
SPE paper 26436 (1993) Caldwell.: “A Case Study of a Fine
2. Paul F. Worthington and Luca Scale Integrated Geological,
Cosentino.: ”The Role of Cut-offs in Geophysical, Petrophysical, and
Integrated Reservoir Studies. SPE Reservoir Characterization and
paper 84387 (2003). Simulation with Uncertainty Estimation.
3. J.C. Iwegbu and E.C. Arochukwu.: SPE paper 84274 (2003).
”Integrated 3-D Static Reservoir
Modelling of an Onshore Niger Delta
Field Using Well and Analogue Data.
SPE paper (2003).
5 Congenital Reservoir Rock Characterization of Weak Hydraulic Properties SPE 88968

Figure 1: Evaluated lithologic log showing distributary channel sand

Zone of
interest

Figure 2: Correlated well-log showing strike section

6 I. Chike, E. Egbele, and M.O. Onyekonwu SPE 88968

Zone of
interest

Figure 3: Correlated well-log showing dip section

Figure 4: Pickett plot (with Vsh cut-off incorporated)

7 Congenital Reservoir Rock Characterization of Weak Hydraulic Properties SPE 88968

100
y = 0.0003e0.5722x
R2 = 0.9069
Perm eability,m D

10

1
5 10 Porosity,% 15 20 25

Figure 5: K-φ crossplot for layer 1

1000
y = 0.0002e0.5671x
R2 = 0.8144

100
Perm eability,m D

10

1
5 10 Porosity,% 15 20 25

Figure 6: K-φ crossplot for layer 2

10000
y = 0.0008e0.6144x
R2 = 0.9635

1000
Perm eability,m D

100

10

1
5 10 Porosity,% 15 20 25

Figure 7: K-φ crossplot for layer 3

8 I. Chike, E. Egbele, and M.O. Onyekonwu SPE 88968

1000
y = 0.0016e0.5752x
R2 = 0.7858

100
Perm eability,m D

10

1
5 10 Porosity,% 15 20 25

Figure 8: K-φ crossplot for layer 4

1000
y = 0.3764e0.2393x
R2 = 0.5621

100
Perm eability,m D

10

1
5 10 Porosity,%15 20 25

Figure 9: K-φ crossplot for layer 5

30
Vsh cutof

25
Porosity (%

20

15

10
Porosity cut of f
5

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Shale volum e (% )

Figure 10: φ vs. Vsh crossplot (based on plot observation)

9 Congenital Reservoir Rock Characterization of Weak Hydraulic Properties SPE 88968

30

Vsh cuto
Porosity (% 25

20

15

10
Porosity cut of f
5

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Shale volum e (% )

Figure 11: φ vs. Vsh crossplot (based on regression analysis)

0.8

w ater cutoff ≥ 65
0.6
Sw

0.4

0.2

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Vsh/φ
Vsh/

Figure 12: Sw vs. Vsh/φ crossplot