Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Abstract
Typical petrophysical deliverables for volumetric and
modeling purposes are net reservoir, porosity, permeability,
water saturation and contact locations. These data are usually
provided without quantitative determination of their
uncertainties.
Current computing power renders it now feasible to use
Monte-Carlo simulation to determine the uncertainty in
petrophysical deliverables. Unfortunately, quantitative
uncertainty definition is more than just using Monte-Carlo
simulation to vary the inputs in your interpretation model. The
largest source of uncertainty may be the interpretation model
itself.
This paper will use a variety of porosity interpretation
models to illustrate how the impact of each input on the
uncertainty varies with the combination of input values used in
any given model. It will show that use of the incorrect model
through oil and gas zones may give porosity estimates with
Monte-Carlo derived uncertainty ranges that exclude the
actual porosity.
Core data provides the best means of quantifying actual
uncertainty in the petrophysical deliverables. Methodologies
for deriving uncertainties quantitatively by comparison with
core data will be presented. In the absence of core data,
interpretation models should have been tested against core
data through the same or similar formations nearby. MonteCarlo simulation can then be used as an effective means of
quantifying petrophysical uncertainty. Comparisons between
the core comparison and Monte-Carlo techniques will be
made, showing that similar results are achieved with the
appropriate interpretation models.
The methodologies described in this paper are
straightforward to implement and enable petrophysical
deliverables to be treated appropriately in volumetric and
modeling studies. In addition, quantification of petrophysical
uncertainty assists in operational decision-making by letting
www.petroman.ir
SPE 93125
0.24
P90
P50
P10
0.23
0.22
porosity values (v/v)
0.21
0.20
0.19
0.18
0.17
0.16
10
100
50
100
500
10000
30000
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.17
0.18
0.19
0.2
10000
100000
Figure 2 The P90, P50 and P10 statistics derived from the
Monte-Carlo density porosity distributions vary with the
number of scenarios modeled.
Figure 2 shows how the statistics derived from the
porosity distributions do not approach the correct values until
at least 500 scenarios have been run.
Note that the required number of scenarios for statistical
accuracy will increase with the number of input variables used
in any particular model.
Porosity Uncertainty Using Monte-Carlo in
Theoretical Cases
To illustrate the significance of the assumptions and models
used for uncertainty quantification, the basic petrophysical
deliverable of total porosity is used.
Monte-Carlo models have been built for density porosity,
sonic porosity and density-neutron porosities. The
uncertainties in these three different methods are compared
through water, oil and gas bearing sand models.
Figure 3 compares the porosities calculated for the same
density log measurement in known water, oil and gas systems.
This Figure serves to illustrate that not correcting for the
presence of hydrocarbons will result in significant errors in
density porosity estimates. Indeed, failure to correct for
hydrocarbons in a gas-bearing zone will result in most likely
porosity estimates that do not include the actual porosity value
in the P90 to P10 uncertainty range.
0.5
normalised frequency
normalised frequency
0.20
0.00
0.16
1000
number of scenarios
0.21
0.22
0.23
0.24
0.25
0.26
water
oil
gas
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
www.petroman.ir
SPE 93125
water
oil
gas
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
normalised frequency
0.4
water
oil
gas
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.5
normalised frequency
normalised frequency
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
porosity (v/v)
Figure 6 Histogram of the porosities derived using MonteCarlo simulation through water-bearing sands.
0.5
normalised frequency
density
density-neutron
sonic
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
porosity (v/v)
Figure 7 Histogram of the porosities derived using MonteCarlo simulation through oil-bearing sands.
www.petroman.ir
SPE 93125
density
density-neutron
sonic
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
density
density HC corr.
density-neutron
sonic
core
0.5
normalised frequency
normalised frequency
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.1
0.3
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
porosity (v/v)
porosity (v/v)
0.5
normalised frequency
Figure 9 - The log-derived porosity statistics for waterbearing sands in a medium porosity shaley sand reservoir.
density
density HC corr.
density-neutron
sonic
core
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
porosity (v/v)
Figure 10 - shows the log-derived porosity statistics for oilbearing sands in a similar medium porosity shaley sand
reservoir.
0.4
normalised frequency
Figure 8 Histogram of the porosities derived using MonteCarlo simulation through gas-bearing sands.
density
density HC corr.
density-neutron
sonic
core
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
porosity (v/v)
www.petroman.ir
SPE 93125
normalised frequency
0.4
density
density HC corr.
density-neutron
sonic
core
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
porosity (v/v)
Figure 12 - The log-derived porosity statistics for waterbearing sands in a medium porosity limestone reservoir.
normalised frequency
0.4
0.3
density
density HC corr.
density-neutron
sonic
core
0.2
0.1
0
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
porosity (v/v)
normalised frequency
0.4
density
density HC corr.
density-neutron
sonic
core
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
porosity (v/v)
www.petroman.ir
SPE 93125
www.petroman.ir