Purpose

To construct a geologic and petrophysical model of the

Panoma Field in sufficient detail to accurately represent
the fine-scale vertical and lateral heterogeneities for
accurate reservoir modeling of the entire field.
Abstract
The Panoma (Council Grove) Field in southwest Kansas lies
stratigraphically subjacent to the more prolific Hugoton (Chase)
Field, and has recovered 2.8 TCF of gas from approximately 2,600
wells across 1.7 million acres since its discovery in the early 1960's.
Field-wide upscaling of lithofacies distribution for reservoir
characterization has proven problematic in large heterogeneous
reservoirs like the Panoma Field, but prediction tools, neural
networks and the Excel add-in Kipling.xla, a non-parametric
discriminant analysis tool, provide solutions to the facies prediction
dilemma.
Panoma produces gas from the upper seven fourth-order
sequences of the Permian Council Grove Group containing 50%
nonmarine siliciclastics and 50% marine carbonates and
siliciclastics. Lithofacies controlled petrophysical properties dictate
gas saturations and discrimination of lithofacies reduces standard
error in permeability prediction in marine carbonate facies by a
factor of twelve. Nonmarine siliciclastic facies error was reduced by
a factor of three. At low gas column heights, lithofacies
discrimination can result in predicted saturation differences of 20-
40% while differences at high gas column heights, near
irreducible, are less than 10%.
Both a neural network and Kipling.xla were trained on data from
eight wells including half-foot digital wireline log data and
descriptions of two thousand feet of core utilizing a digital rock
classification scheme. Both models were then used to predict
lithofacies in non-cored wells based on their log attributes.
Techniques employed in this study could be applied to other large
and complex reservoirs where accurate representations of
lithofacies heterogeneity in the 3D volume are key to realistic
reservoir analysis.

Kansas Hugoton Project
The Hugoton Project (http://www.kgs.ku.edu/Hugoton/index.html) is an
Industry, University and Governmental funded consortium whose purpose is
to develop technology and information to better understand the oil and gas
resources of the Hugoton Embayment in Southwest Kansas. This paper is
one of the outcomes of the five year project.
We wish to acknowledge members of the Hugoton Consortium that
contributed data including Pioneer Natural Resources USA, Inc., BP, OXY
USA, Inc., and Anadarko Petroleum Corp. We are grateful to those who
served as technical advisors including Kevin Schepel, Louis Goldstein, and
Randy Offenberger, Pioneer, and those that provided technical support
including Bob Perry, Bill Tulp Jenna Anaya and Susan Leigh, Pioneer, Tim
McGinnley, McGinnley and Associates, David Hamilton and Jeff Kiester,
SCM, Inc., and Ken Dean and Mike Maroney, Kansas Geological Survey.
Statistically-based Lithofacies Predictions for 3-D Reservoir Modeling:
Example from the Panoma (Council Grove) Field, Hugoton Embayment, Southwest Kansas
1 1 1 2 1
Martin K. Dubois , Alan P. Byrnes , Geoffrey C. Bohling , Shane C. Seals , and John H. Doveton
(1) Kansas Geological Survey, University of Kansas,(2) Pioneer Natural Resources USA, Inc.


(AAPG 2003, Salt Lake City, Utah)
Http://www.kgs.ku.edu/PRS/publication/2003/ofr2003-30/index.html
Stratigraphy
P
e
rm
ia
n
Panoma
Bradshaw
Byerly
Hugoton
Greenwood
Sumner
Chase
Council
Grove
Admire
Wabaunsee
Shawnee P
e
n
n
s
y
lv
a
n
ia
n
System Group Field Series
W
o
l f c a m
p
i a n
Leonardian
V
irg
ilian
Council Grove Group
Formation Member
Field Zone
Speiser
Shale
Funston
Limestone
Blue Rapids
Shale
Crouse
Limestone
Easly Creek Sh
Bader
Limestone
Middleburg
Limestone
Hooser
Shale Eiss LS
Stearns Shale
Beattie
Limestone
Morrill Ls
Florence Sh
Cottonwood
Limestone
Eskridge
Shale
Neva
Limestone Grenola
Limestone
Salem Point Sh
Burr Ls Legion Sh
Sallyards Ls
NM Silt & Sd
NM Shly Silt
Mar Shale & Silt
Mudstone
Wackestone
Dolomite
Packestone
Grnst & PA Baf Newby 2-28R
Council Grove
Stratigraphy
A1
B1
B2
B3
B4
B5
C
Solution: Use artificial intelligence to predict lithofacies in 500
wells and fill a 3D volume with lithofacies constrained porosity,
permeability and gas saturations.
1. Identify and characterize key lithofacies and tie to core petrophysical
properties.
2. Predict lithofacies for wells without cores using a neural net and electric
log curves and marine-nonmarine indicator curve as predictor
variables. Generate predicted lithofacies and probability curves.
3. Fill 3-D cellular volume with lithofacies and porosity using Petrel.
4. Add lithofacies-constrained permeability and gas saturations to cell
properties with transform formulas and height above free water.
5. Export cellular model with porosity, permeability, and initial gas
saturations to a reservoir simulator.
Statement of Problem:
1. No comprehensive geologic model for the Council Grove available.
2. Accurate reservoir model is critical for most efficient management of
remaining resources in this large asset.
3. Lithofacies controlled petrophysical properties dictate gas saturations.
4. Accurate discrimination of lithofacies reduces error in predicted
permeability and gas volume.
5. The Council Grove is a large, complex heterogeneous reservoir.
6. Field-wide upscaling of lithofacies distribution for reservoir characterize
-ation and analysis of large heterogeneous reservoirs like the
Panoma Field is impractical by traditional methods.
Permeability vs Porosity by Facies
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
In situ Porosity (%)
In situ Klinkenberg Perm
eability (m
d)
1-NM Silt & Sand
2-NM Shaly Silt
3-Marine Sh & Silt
4-Mdst/Mdst-Wkst
5-Wkst/Wkst-Pkst
6-Sucrosic Dol
7-Pkst/Pkst-Grnst
8-Grnst/PhAlg Baff
Capillary Pressure Curves by Facies
(Porosity = 10%)
10
100
1000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Water Saturation (%)
Gas-Brine Height Above Free W
ater (ft)
1-NM Silt&Sand
2-NM Shaly Silt
3-Marine Sh & Silt
4-Mdst/Mdst-Wkst
5-Wkst/Wkst-Pkst
6-Sucrosic Dol
7-Pkst/Pkst-Grnst
8-Grnst/Grnst-PhAlg Baff
Capillary Pressure Curves by Facies
(Porosity = 7%)
10
100
1000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Water Saturation (%)
Gas-Brine Height Above Free W
ater (ft)
1-NM Silt & Sand
2-NM Shaly Silt
3-Marine Sh & Silt
4-Mdst/Mdst-Wkst
5-Wkst/Wkst-Pkst
6-Sucrosic Dol
7-Pkst/Pkst-Grnst
8-Grnst/PhAlg Baff
Council Grove faciesidentification is important to
reservoir characterization because petrophysical properties
vary between facies. At porosities > 6% permeability in
grainstone/bafflestones can be 30X greater than mudstones
and >100X greater than marine siltstones of similar porosity.
Differences in permeabilities between nonmarine silt/sand-
stones and shaly siltstones range from 3.3X at 12% porosity
to 7X at 18%.
Capillary pressures and corresponding water
saturations also vary between facies. For example, at 7%
porosity (which represents >50% of all Mstn/Wkstn) at
200 ft above free water Mudstones are 100% water
saturated while grainstones exhibit water saturations of
~40%. Differences in water saturations between facies
increase with decreasing porosity and decreasing height
above free water.
Lithofacies, Sequences,
Depositional Environments
"Lumped" Lithofacies
Council Grove A1- B5
Grain
Support &
Dolomite
20%
Mud
Support
30%
Non-
marine
45%
Lithofacies Distribution
Council Grove, Panoma Field
26%
23%
12%
4%
8%
7% 16%
4%
NM Silt & Sd
NM Shly Silt
Mar Shale & Silt
Mudstone
Wackestone
Dolomite
Packestone
Grnst & PA Baf
(For A1 - B5)
A1-B5 Pay Facies (L6,7,8)
(Sum of Net / Sum of Gross)
468 LAS Wells
Shoal
Tidal Flat
Tidal
Flat
Carbonate
Dominated
Shelf
Siliciclastic
Dom
inated Shelf
Coastal Plain
Lagoon
Shoal
Phyloid Algal
Idealized
Depositional
Model (Modified after Reservoirs, Inc.)
Lithofacies and Depositional Environments
In the Panoma Field of southwest Kansas the Council Grove Group comprises seven
fourth-order marine-nonmarine sequences. Through the detailed study of ten widely
distributed and lengthy cores eight major lithofacies were identified and characterized
(see Panel 2).
During Council Grove deposition, the Panoma Field
area was situated on a broad shallow shelf or ramp that
dipped gently southward into the Anadarko basin in
Oklahoma. The geometry of the shelf was conducive
for broad, parallel depositional environments and
associated lithofacies belts. In response to cyclical sea
level fluctuations, lithofacies belts migrated across the
shelf resulting in a predictable vertical succession of the
eight major lithofacies.
Beaty
Newby
Alexander
Cores Available
Shankle
Luke
Shrimplin
Kimzey
Stuart
(Key wells are named)
Easly Creek Sh
Middleburg LS
Hooser Sh
Eiss Ls
B
a d e r L s
C
o
r e
P
h
o
t o
sSequence Boundary
Flooding Surface
Sequence Boundary
Flooding Surface
NM Silt & Sd
NM Shly Silt
Mar Shale & Silt
Mudstone
Wackestone
Dolomite
Packestone
Grnst & PA Baf
Core from Middleburg (B2 LM) Strat X-Sections
Northwest to southeast
cross sections illustrate the
large-scale lithofacies and
depositional relationships
in the Panoma Field. The
updip limit to the Panoma
coincides with thinned
marine carbonate intervals
and their reciprocally
thicker nonmarine silts and
shaly silts. The smaller
scale cross section of the
same wells shows the 8
lithofacies using Petrel's
interpretive colorfill. It
illustrates some major
lateral and vertical facies
relationships but is not to
be considered a true
representation of the finer
geometries.
Seven Sequences
The Council Grove Group is comprised of
seven fourth-order marine-nonmarine
sequences bounded by unconformities on
exposed carbonate surfaces. A typical vertical
succession, beginning at the exposed
carbonate surface, are primarily wind blown
silts, very fine sands and clay rich silts with
paleosols. Above a flooding surface are
generally thin, shallow water carbonates with
grain-supported textures deposited during the
initial, shallow water portion of the flooding
event. These are overlain by deeper water
dark marine siltstones and silty carbonate
mud- and wackestones which are, in turn,
overlain by cleaner mud- and wackestones
deposited in shallower water. With progressive
shallowing these are overlain by either
packstones and grainstones, interpreted to
indicate increased wave or tidal agitation; quiet
water, lagoonal, mudstones and wackestones;
or silty dolomites and dolomites, where there
was little or no wave agitation. Fenestral and
laminated tidal flat carbonates are also
common near the top of the carbonate interval.
Exposure is evidenced by well-developed
calcretes, root molds, and other indicators.
Higher frequency cycles are evident in the
Funston and Neva, in particular.
Statistics
IInitial Prod 1968
2002 Prod 67 BCF
Cum. Prod 2.88 TCF gas
Well count 2600
Per well avg. 1.1 BCF to date
Area 1.7 million acres
(1 well per sect)
Top of pay 2500-3200 feet
(+800 to 100)
Current SIP ~60#
OriginaSIPl ~480#
Setting and History
PANOMA FIELD GAS PRODUCTION
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
1965 1975 1985 1995 2005
A
n
n
u
alP
ro
d
.(B
C
F
/Y
)
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
C
u
m
u
lative
P
ro
d
.(B
C
F
)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1,000
1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
A n n u a l P r o d u c t i o n ( B C F )
Panoma
Hugoton Area-Panoma
Non-Hugoton Gas
Kansas Annual Gas Production
B
ra
d
s
h
a
w
P
a
n
o
m
a
H
u
g
o
to
n
G
re
e
n
w
o
o
d
+1000 +500
O
(SL)
-500
Council Grove Structure
CI = 100 feet
Modified after Pippin (1985)
Generalized Field X-Section
Panoma
Hugoton
Cumulative Gas Per Well
(Council Grove)
KANSAS
Central
Kansas
Uplift
0
0 100 K
100 M
Nemaha
Anticline
Salina
Basin
Cherokee
Basin
Forest City
Basin
Sedgwick
Basin Hugoton
Embayment
Keyes
Dome
The Panoma Field (2.9 TCF gas) produces from
Permian Council Grove Group marine
carbonates and nonmarine silicilastics in the
Hugoton embayment of the Anadarko Basin. It
and the Hugoton Field, which has produced
from the Chase Group since 1928, the top of
which is 300 feet shallower have combined to
produce 27 TCF gas, making it the largest gas
producing area in North America. Both fields
are stratigraphic traps with their updip west and
northwest limits nearly coincident. Maximum
recoveries in the Panoma are attained west of
center of the field. Deeper production includes
oil and gas from Pennsylvanian Lansing-Kansas
City, Marmaton, and Morrow and the
Mississippian.
Maps and cross sections in this panel were created
In geoPLUS Petra with an academic license.
General
Panoma Field
Geology
A1-B5 Thickness
8000 Wells
Gross Nonmarine
Thickness
536 LAS Wells
Gross Marine
Thickness
536 LAS Wells
Maps of the A1SH (top Council Grove) through the B5LM (base Cottonwood)
The most striking large-scale geometry feature of the Panoma reservoir is the
reciprocal relationship between nonmarine and marine interval thickness. Though
the total thickness of the Council Grove (A1-B5) in most of the study area varies
less than 50 feet (from 200-250 feet), the summed nonmarine and marine intervals
each vary 120 feet (from 50-170 feet) and their respective summed thicknesses
are reciprocal. Thick nonmarine shale and silt dominates the northwest side of the
study area while marine carbonates dominate to the southeast.
Panoma
A1 LM Funston
B1 LM Crouse
B2 LM Middleburg
B3 LM Eis
B4 LM Morrill B5 LM Cottonwood
C LM
Neva
Not to Scale
Stratigraphic Cross Section
Datum: Top of Council Grove
2
0
0
F
e
e
t
6
0
0
M
e
t e
r s
P
a
n
o
m
a
F
i e
l d

U
p
d
ip
L
im
it
Non Marine
Mdst, Wkst & Shale
Pkst, Grnst & Dol.
NM Silt & Sd
NM Shly Silt
Mar Shale & Silt
Mudstone
Wackestone
Dolomite
Packestone
Grnst & PA Baf
Lithofacies are those predicted by neural net models (see Panel
3) in wells without triangles around the well symbols. Lithofacies
by core description are shown in wells with triangles which are
two of the eight keystone wells.