APPLICATION OF DESIGN OF EXPERIMENTS TO EXPEDITE PROBABILISTIC ASSESSMENT OF RESERVOIR HYDROCARBON VOLUMES (OOIP)

W. SCOTT MEDDAUGH, STEWART D. GRIEST, STEPHEN J. GROSS ChevronTexaco Energy Technology Company, Bellaire, TX

Abstract. Design of Experiment (DoE) methodology was used to minimize the number of stochastic earth models that were needed to appropriately evaluate original oil in place (OOIP) uncertainty for a Jurassic-age, Middle East carbonate reservoir. The DoE methodology enables the maximum amount of information to be obtained from the minimum number of experiments (model OOIP) in which multiple parameters (structural uncertainty, facies distribution uncertainty, oil-water contact uncertainty, netto-gross uncertainty, etc.) contribute. The DoE methodology also allows for rapid determination of the magnitude of model parameters to overall OOIP uncertainty. Thus, attention can properly be focused on the few key model parameters that most affect OOIP uncertainty, perhaps to the point of obtaining additional data if cost-justified. The DoE-based workflow used was as follows: (1) use Plackett-Burman design (one of several DoE methodologies tested) to determine which combinations of model parameters should be evaluated; (2) collect the experimental results (OOIP); (3) analyze the results statistically to determine significant contributors to OOIP uncertainty; (4) use the experimental results to obtain a response surface (equation) that describes the relationship between OOIP and the significant contributors to OOIP uncertainty; (5) use the response surface along with appropriate statistical distributions for the significant contributors to OOIP uncertainty in a Monte Carlo-process to obtain P10, P50, and P90 OOIP values. Drained volume uncertainty was also evaluated using the above workflow so that stochastic reservoir models with P10, P50, and P90 drained volumes could be generated using appropriate combinations of geologically reasonable parameters for further sensitivity and optimization studies as well as input to probabilistic economic evaluation.

1 Introduction Design of experiments (DoE), also often referred to as experimental design (ED), is seeing increasing use within the oil and gas industry within both the reservoir geology and reservoir engineering communities (Friedmann et al, 2003; White and Royer, 2003; Peng and Gupta, 2003; Sanhi, 2003, White et al., 2001; Peng and Gupta, 2004). Within the reservoir engineering community, DoE techniques are now routinely used in reservoir fluid flow simulation studies to reduce the number of simulation sensitivity or

751 O. Leuangthong and C. V. Deutsch (eds.), Geostatistics Banff 2004, 751756. 2005 Springer. Printed in the Netherlands.

752

MEDDAUGH ET. AL.

optimization runs. Within the reservoir geology community, DoE techniques are being used, though not yet routinely, to assess reservoir uncertainty both volumetric (OOIP) and connectivity (drained volume) uncertainty. The focus of this short communication is to examine the use of DoE to assess reservoir uncertainty both volumetric and connectivity using data from a Jurassic-age, Middle East carbonate reservoir. A DoE-based methodology was employed for this study to allow efficient and quantitative examination of both OOIP and drained volume uncertainty so that P10, P50, and P90 reservoir models could be developed for use in additional reservoir sensitivity studies, field development optimization studies, and economic evaluation. The methodology of this project was based on the Plackett-Burman (PB) experimental design, which although generally regarded as a screening design is the most efficient two level design (Plackett and Burman, 1946) and ideally suited to the short time frame for the evaluation of the Jurassic-age, Middle East carbonate reservoir. Once the uncertainty factors and levels were determined, the DoE-based workflow followed for the Jurassic-age, Middle East carbonate reservoir study was as follows: (1) use the Plackett-Burman design to determine which combinations of model parameters should be evaluated; (2) collect the experimental results (OOIP); (3) analyze the results statistically to determine significant contributors to OOIP uncertainty; (4) use the experimental results to obtain a response surface (equation) that describes the relationship between OOIP and the significant contributors to OOIP uncertainty; (5) use the response surface along with appropriate statistical distributions for the significant contributors to OOIP uncertainty in a Monte Carlo-process to obtain P10, P50, and P90 OOIP values. Drained volume uncertainty was also evaluated using the above workflow so that stochastic reservoir models with P10, P50, and P90 drained volumes could be generated using appropriate combinations of geologically reasonable parameters for further sensitivity and optimization studies as well as input to probabilistic economic evaluation.

2 Middle East Example The Jurassic-age, Middle East carbonate reservoir that is the primary focus of this note is located largely within the Partitioned Neutral Zone (PNZ) between Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. The reservoir was discovered in 1998 and currently produces 25-33 API oil with 5% water cut from five wells. The reservoir depth is about 9700'. The reservoir, a relatively simple four-way closed anticline oriented NW-SE, produces largely from limestone within the Marrat interval. The porosity in productive zones averages about 12%. Permeability is low (average for interval is on the order of 1-5 md) but extremely variable with measured core plug values up to 400 md. Well test derived permeabilities range between 10 and 80 md. Although a detailed sequence stratigraphy for the interval has not been finalized, there is good correlation between all five wells. The available data suggests that porosity increases significantly updip and is almost certainly related to an up-dip facies change as is shown in table below (wells 4, 5, and 8 are structurally low compared to wells 6 and 7).

APPLICATION OF DESIGN OF EXPERIMENTS

753

Porosity (%) Zone A Zone C Zone E

All Wells 6.6 7.6 9.8

W-4 5.3 5.9 8.1

W-5 5.0 8.6 8.3

W-8 5.2 7.2 7.4

W-6 8.8 9.9 11.6

W-7 8.6 8.1 12.8

The average well log water saturation (Sw) for Zone A is 45%, for Zone C it is 51%, and for Zone E it is 31%. OOIP and drained volume calculations detailed later in this note make use of a normalized J-function derived Sw rather than the well log calculated Sw. The J-function derived Sw values are in very good agreement with the well log Sw values in the productive portions of the overall reservoir interval. Thus, OOIP as calculated from well log Sw values and OOIP calculated from J-function derived Sw values are also in very good agreement. Porosity (and Sw) histogram uncertainty was estimated based on well to well variability. The original oil water contact (OOWC) is unknown. For the upper reservoir zones, the oil water contact is defined by a lowest known oil (LKO) at -9329' and a lowest closed contour (LCC) at -9909'. The lower zone may have a separate OOWC with a LKO at 9831' and a LCC at -9909'. Production data and well tests strongly suggest that some intervals, notably in the upper portion of the reservoir, may be fractured although image log data show relatively few fractures. 3D seismic interpretation shows some faulting likely within the interval, although the resolution of the seismic volume does not permit easy identification and/or mapping of the faults. One well (W-5) has significantly lower gravity oil that may reflect some reservoir compartmentalization. The table below summarizes the factors were considered to impact both OOIP and drained volume uncertainty. The high and low values for each factor were chosen to represent likely P1 and P99 scenarios.
Uncertainty Factor Structure Low Drained Volume (low OOIP) Case Current structure map minus uncertainty map A (tied to all wells) No facies Mid Drained Volume (mid OOIP) Case Per current structure map (tied to all wells) One facies with moderate porosity improvement defined by wells W-6 and W-7. Given by well data Given by J-function -9500' for A, C zones; 9850' for E zone High Drained Volume (high OOIP) Case Current structure map + uncertainty map B (tied to all wells) Two facies with significant (well W-7) and moderate porosity improvement (well W-6). Well data with +2 p.u. shift J-function with -10 s.u. shift -9909'

Facies

Porosity Histogram Sw Histogram OOWC

Well data with -2 porosity unit (p.u.) shift J-function with +10 saturation unit (s.u.). shift -9329' for A, C zones; 9831' for E zone

754

MEDDAUGH ET. AL.

Uncertainty Factor (continued) Porosity vs. Sw Correlation Porosity Semivariogram R1 Permeability Multiplier

Low Drained Volume (low OOIP) Case Not used as Sw derived via J-function 500 m

Mid Drained Volume (mid OOIP) Case Not used as Sw derived via J-function 1500 m

High Drained Volume (high OOIP) Case Not used as Sw derived via J-function 6000 m

Faults

None. Permeability distribution given by core data and porosity to permeability transform(s) Two per current structure map

Fault Transmissibility

Sealing (transmissibility = 0.005)

Guided by global multiplier needed for prior fluid flow simulation study (e.g. 6.5x) Four faults parallel to structure with three perpendicular faults defining a total of 6 compartments Moderate (transmissibility = 0.05)

Guided by well test derived permeability (e.g. x 10) Four faults parallel to structure with eight perpendicular faults defining a total of 12 compartments Essentially open (transmissibility = 0.5)

The structural uncertainty incorporated in the analysis essentially has little uncertainty near the five wells (+20, -10) and increases to a maximum value (+250, -125) 2 km from the wells. Porosity and Sw uncertainty ranges set based on the range of individual well average values (table given previously). The porosity semivariogram range uncertainty is based on analog carbonate reservoirs. Likewise, the facies distribution uncertainty is based on analog carbonate reservoirs. The thirteen reservoir model scenarios given by the Plackett-Burman design (PB) design table were generated using the following workflow: 1. Build structural framework and stratigraphic model grids for minimum, mid, and maximum uncertainty cases. All stratigraphic model grid top and bottom surfaces are tied to the appropriate well picks Distribute porosity using sequential Gaussian simulation by stratigraphic layer using layer appropriate histograms and semivariogram ranges per the experimental design table. As appropriate, modify the porosity distribution (histogram) per the experimental design table. Distribute minimum case permeability using the porosity to permeability transforms given previously. As appropriate, modify the permeability distribution (histogram) per the experimental design table. Distribute Sw using J-function. As appropriate, modify the Sw distribution (histogram) per the experimental design table.

2.

3.

4.

The calculated OOIP for each model was then calculated and the results analyzed statistically to determine which factors significantly affect OOIP uncertainty. The analysis showed that OOWC and the porosity histogram were clearly the most significant uncertainty sources (Figure 1). The Sw histogram and structural uncertainty were next most important. Other factors were not important based on a 95% confidence limit. Clearly, if our OOIP assessment is to be improved, a better understanding of the

APPLICATION OF DESIGN OF EXPERIMENTS

755

OOWC and porosity histogram is critical. Such information can have a value assigned and be used as part of the decision process for the next appraisal well. As noted above, another significant source of uncertainty in reservoir management is connectivity. Connectivity Figure 1. Pareto chart showing relative uncertainty was evaluated for the contribution of each uncertainty source relative Jurassic-age, Middle East to OOIP uncertainty. Significance limit shown carbonate reservoir by evaluating corresponds to 95% confidence limit. the drained volume by finite difference simulation on an upscaled static model from each of the 13 scenarios given in PB design table. Finite difference simulation was selected because model run times were very short. For larger models streamline-based simulation may be more appropriate. The following producing rules were used to evaluate drained volume: Well spacing = 160 acres Start date = 1 January 2006 End date = 1 January 2036 Maximum liquid rate = 3000 BOPD/well Minimum bottomhole pressure = 750 psia Economic limit oil rate = 100 BOPD Economic limit water cut = 80%

Statistical analysis of the drained volume results showed that the only significant sources of uncertainty at a 95% significance level were the porosity histogram and the permeability multiplier (Figure 2). All other factors including structural, OOWC, and faulting uncertainty were not significant. These results, together with the derived response surface equation were used to build the P10, P50, P90 drained volume earth models for subsequent sensitivity and optimization studies that will yield P10, P50, and P90 flow streams for use in probabilistic economic analysis. Figure 2. Pareto chart showing relative contribution of each uncertainty source relative It should be noted that the to drained volume uncertainty. Significance emergence of the porosity limit shown corresponds to 95% confidence histogram and the permeability limit. multiplier (which are somewhat

756

MEDDAUGH ET. AL.

linked) as the only significant sources of uncertainty relative to drained volume was unexpected. This surprise reinforced the need to use of a DoE-based workflow to assess uncertainty early in reservoir studies. DoE-based workflows, which are scenariobased rather than realization-based, are very efficient and therefore can be used to reduce project cycle time. Such has also been the case for the Jurassic-age, Middle East carbonate project. The scenario-based workflow may require less than 20-25% of the time needed for a traditional workflow to provide the same input to an economic analysis. Assessment of uncertainty due to dynamic model input parameters (e.g. aquifer support, Kv/Kh, PI multiplier, etc) will be assessed in a second level DoE design that will be completed prior to development optimization and economic modelling.

3 Summary This study shows the value added of using a DoE-based scenario workflow to assess OOIP and drained volume uncertainty. The value added is largely due to the relatively short cycle time of a DoE-based scenario workflow compared to the cycle time of a realization-based workflow. Additional value of a DoE-based scenario workflow is that even a cursory assessment of uncertainty sources early in a projects lifecycle may significantly impact which uncertainty elements are targeted for more extensive study and which uncertainty sources may be neglected which oftentimes reduces project cycle time. Uncertainty assessment coupled with a value of information assessment may be sufficient to justify acquisition of additional data.

Acknowledgements The authors thank the Saudi Arabia Ministry of Petroleum, Saudi Arabian Texaco, and ChevronTexaco for permission to publish this paper.

References
Friedmann, F., Chawathe, A., and LaRue, D.K., 2003. Assessing Uncertainty in Channelized Reservoirs Using Experimental Designs, SPE Reservoir Evaluation and Engineering, August 2003, p. 264-274. Mason, R.L., Gunst, R.F., and Hess, J.L., 2003. Experimental Design and Analysis of Experiments with Application to Engineering and Science (2nd Edition), Wiley-Interscience, 728 p. Peng, C.W. and Gupta, R., 2003. Experimental Design in Deterministic Modelling: Assessing Significant Uncertainties, SPE 80537 (Indonesia, September, 2003). Peng, C.W. and Gupta, R., 2004. Experimental Design and Analysis Methods in Multiple Deterministic Modelling for Quantifying Hydrocarbon In-Place Probability Distribution Curve, SPE 87002 (Kuala Lumpur, March, 2004). Plackett, R.L., and Burman, J.P., 1946. The Design of Optimum Mutifactorial Experiments, Biometrika, V. 33. p. 305-325. Sanhi, A., 2003. Case Studies of Uncertainty Analysis in the Seismic to Reservoir Simulation Workflow, SPE 84188 (Denver, October, 2003) White, C.D. and Royer, S.A., 2003. Experimental Design as a Framework for Reservoir Studies, SPE 79676 (Houston, February, 2003). White, C.D., Willis, B.J., Narayanan, K., and Dutton, S.P., 2001. Identifying and Estimating Significant Geologic Parameters with Experimental Design, SPE Journal, September 2001, p. 311-324.