Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Uncertainty Analysis
Serdar Kaya,
Please contact for any suggestion, comments or contribution serdar@grenergyllc.com
Water Saturation
Fault Transmissibility
Fault Displacement
Fractures
Permeability
Porosity
NTG
Develop an Approach
Gather Information
Collect uncertainty information on data and data
processing
Perform Analysis
Statistical
Quantitative
Quantification of Uncertainty
Accuracy : Systematic shifts due to environmental correction or
measurement tools/techniques
Difference between Core porosity and Phie
Precision:
Well
Marker
Base Case
Uncertainty Analysis
Uncertainty in Top Structure
240 feet
FWL
40 feet
Log Porosity
Type
Min
Max
Delta
Mean
Std
Var
Sum
Scaled-up
Cont.
2.35
27.24
24.89
227
18.08
5.292
28.003
4104.0497
Well logs
Cont.
2.35
28.62
26.26
592
18.855
5.157
26.59
11162.171
Cont.
0.68
29.91
29.23
441
17.8
6.37
40.57
7850.9
Well logs
Cont.
30.72
30.72
2706
18.41
6.39
40.84
49812.24
Max
Mean
Realization #1
2.06
28.79
14.54
Realization #2
1.23
29.07
14.6
Realization #3
0.83
27.48
14.63
Realization #4
1.16
27.61
14.33
Realization #5
0.74
27.54
14.42
Realization #6
1.2
28.3
14.52
Realization #7
1.33
27.38
14.46
Realization #8
0.69
27.65
14.99
Realization #9
1.13
28.13
14.5
Porosity Statistics
Phie
Min
2.79
Max
29.34
Delta
26.54
Number of
Defined Values
296
Mean
18.36
Std. dev.
6.44
Variance
41.54
Sum
5434.2
Cpor
Cpor
9.212
28.616
19.404
92
20.41
4.1544
17.259
1877.7
Difference in mean
is 2.05 PU
Porosity Modeling
Result of Various Modeling Approach
Scenario Based
Uncertainty
Krigging Model
as 2D Trend
Krigging Model
without trend
Krigging Model
with modified
trend
SGS with 5
Km range
SGS with
30 Km range
Krigging with 5
km Variogram
Krigging with 30
km Variogram
Trend
Correlation
coefficient
Variogram
Seed number
Parametric Dependencies
Conditional Modeling and
Permeability Uncertainty
Perm Modeling
Uncertainty
Perm = a * Porosity b
Permeability
Estimate
data point
Porosity
Uncertainty
Input variable
Porosity
10 Runs
1 Case
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.85
0.9
0.95
10 Cases
3
2.5
2
1.5
0.5
1
0.9
0.95
500
30
20
1200
5000 Runs
10000 Runs
10000 Cases
400
300
200
0
1.05 0.85
1.05
1000
5000 Cases
800
600
400
200
0.9
0.95
Millions
Emission
0.95
Emission
100
10
0.95
0.9
Millions
Frequency
500 Case
Frequency
Frequency
1.05
0
0.85
Millions
600
500 Runs
0.9
Emission
40
0
0.85
Emission
50
0
1.05 0.85
50 Cases
Millions
60
50 Runs
3.5
Frequency
Frequency
4.5
1 Runs
Frequency
1.2
1.05
0
0.85
0.9
0.95
Emission
1.05
Millions
Millions
Emission
Fluid
Characteristics
Structure
HC Pool Area
FWL
STOOIP
Reservoir
Connectivity
Data:
Injectivity
Reduce your
uncertainty by
consciously
developing
data gathering
program
Productivity
Uncertainty:
Production Test/
PBU/PFO
Long Term Test
(Prod/Inj)
Interference Test
Production Logging
Tracer test
Formation Pressure
PVT data
3D Seismic
Well Coverage
Core data (whole
core analysis)
Log data
15
13 Layers
23 Layers
47 Layers
16
Permeability Model
Cloud Definition for Uncertainty Multiple Realizations
Porosity
Water
Contact
Water
Saturation
STOIIP (MMSTB)
Porosity Modeling
Uncertainty parameters
Final porosity model is obtained by history match process
Uncertainty cases are generated on various parameters:
Modeling algorithm: SGS versus Krigging
Trend
Variogram
Seed number
Bulk shift due to core porosity log porosity difference
Permeability Modeling
Uncertainty Embedded in Permeability Modeling Workflow
Permeability (10 wells)
(Distribution on Phie-K Cross Plot per sub-zone)
Scale-up permeability to 3D Model
Scenario Based
Uncertainty
Cloud Transformation
Cloud definition
GRFS with 2D
Porosity Map
Trend
5 and 30 Km range
variogram
Trend
Variogram
Seed number
Permeability Modeling
Uncertainty Parameters
Final permeability model will be decided after history match
Uncertainty cases are generated on various parameters
Modeling algorithm: SGS with various trends
Cloud definition
Variogram
Seed number
Bulk shift due to uncertainty in measurements
Conclusion
Uncertainty analysis starts with data processing and review
Along the modeling work, analysis can be incorporated into
workflow
Uncertainty parameters can be evaluated by stochastic or
deterministic methods
Conscious data planning can reduce uncertainty