See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271075455

Static, dynamic data integration improves

reservoir modeling, characterization

Article in Oil and Gas Journal September 2014

CITATION READS

1 490

3 authors:

Shouxiang Ma Murat Zeybek

Saudi Arabian Oil Company Schlumberger Oilfield services
79 PUBLICATIONS 773 CITATIONS 70 PUBLICATIONS 295 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Fikri Kuchuk
Schlumberger Limited
237 PUBLICATIONS 1,232 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Unconventional oil and gas View project

Best practices in core analysis View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Shouxiang Ma on 09 March 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Integration of Static and Dynamic Data
for Enhanced Reservoir Characterization,
Geological Modeling and Well
Performance Studies
Authors: Dr. Shouxiang M. Ma, Dr. Murat M. Zeybek and Dr. Fikri J. Kuchuk

ABSTRACT

A new methodology is presented for reservoir characterization,

geological modeling and well performance prediction by inte-
grating a complete suite of petrophysical and pressure tran-
sient test data to build a detailed geological reservoir model
(RM) with anisotropy. Data used include cores, open hole logs,
wireline formation testing (WFT) pretests, vertical interference
tests (VITs), production logs, and downhole pressure buildup
and injection falloff tests. Core data were first integrated with
open hole logs and WFT pretests to build a detailed geological
model. Vertical and horizontal permeabilities derived from the
VITs were then integrated to produce a geological model with
anisotropy. Using this model, a numerical pressure transient
analysis (PTA) for a single well was performed by simultaneously
history matching the packers and the probes pressures, as well
as pressure derivatives, to identify the presence of tight reservoir
streaks and to quantify reservoir layer permeability ranges.
The model was further refined and validated by comparisons
with dynamic data derived from production logs, and downhole
pressure buildup and injection falloff tests. This validated RM
was used in single well reservoir simulation studies to predict
well performance and infer in situ reservoir scale and reservoir
condition petrophysical properties, such as relative permeability
and capillary pressure.
INTRODUCTION
Most carbonate reservoirs are layered and heterogeneous. The
lithology (lith) and porosity ( ), derived from cores and logs,
of a typical Arab-D carbonate reservoir are shown in Figs. 1a
and 1b, respectively. Characterizing reservoir layering and het-
erogeneity is essential in reservoir engineering. For example,
when addressing oil recovery by waterflood, the following
equation is often referred to:
E = EAEVEM (1)
where E is oil recovery efficiency, subscript A is areal sweep
efficiency (the ratio of area swept to total field area), subscript
V is vertical conformance (the ratio of intervals swept to total
pay thickness), and subscript M is the microscopic displacement
Fig. 1a. Typical Arab-D carbonate reservoir volumetrics (blue is limestone,
green is dolostone, and pink is anhydrite). Fig. 1b. Comparison between log
and core porosities. Fig. 1c. Schematic of a WFT and VIT setup showing a
packer-probe configuration applied to a section having four layers, including a
low permeability streak.
efficiency (defined as the saturation change with respect to
original oil saturation in the swept volume).
Note that even though many factors (including pore struc-
ture and wettability) may affect E microscopically, it is the
areal sweep efficiency and vertical conformance that dominate
the efficiency of oil recovery. Consequently, detailed reservoir
characterization is critical for better reservoir management.
Petrophysical reservoir characterization consists of data
acquisition, data processing and data distribution in space, or
modeling. Petrophysical data in reservoir characterization usu-
ally include lith,  , water saturation (Sw), zone thickness (h)
and permeability (k), with k being the most challenging to
characterize, especially for carbonates due to the heterogeneous
pore structure caused by depositional environments and diage-
nesis (such as dolomitization, compaction, cementation and/or
fracturing).
The most commonly used techniques for in situ reservoir
permeability characterization are based on pressure transient
analysis (PTA); either wireline formation testing (WFT) with
measurements typically ranging from 10 ft to 50 ft away from
the well, depending on formation properties and duration of
production and buildup periods, or conventional well testing,
with a depth of investigation ranging from hundreds to thousands

62 FALL 2013 SAUDI ARAMCO JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY SAUDI ARAMCO JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY SUMMER 2011 62
of feet1, 2. It is a common understanding for almost all petro-
physical measurements that the greater the depth of the investi-
gation, the poorer the vertical resolution. The WFT has much
better vertical resolution than conventional well tests.
There are basically two modes in WFT for estimating reser-
voir permeability: a pretest with probes and a vertical interfer-
ence test (VIT) with a combination of packers and probes, Fig.
1c. A pretest requires a drawdown volume of less than 20 cm3
of fluid, most likely mud filtrate. As a result, mobility esti-
mated from a WFT pretest is a near wellbore mobility indica-
tor; at remaining oil saturation (ROS) if water-based mud were
used across an oil interval. On the other hand, during a VIT,
hundreds of liters of reservoir fluid are pumped out (at a rate
of 1 to 30 barrels per day (BPD) for up to 1 hour), providing a
reservoir permeability estimation up to 50 ft into the reservoir,
which is certainly much more representative of reservoir per-
meability (at connate Sw if measured across a pay zone). In
addition, unlike other reservoir petrophysical properties men-
tioned above, permeability is directional. Currently, the only
techniques that are used routinely for directional reservoir per-
meability characterization are based on PTA, such as a VIT.
Details of a nonlinear regression analysis of VIT PTA data for
determining formation parameters are given by Onur and
Kuchuk (2000)3.
The main objective of this article is to introduce a method-
ology to integrate static and dynamic petrophysical data to
build a comprehensive reservoir model (RM) for reservoir
characterization, geological modeling and well performance Fig. 2. Methodology for reservoir characterization, reservoir modeling and well
performance prediction.
prediction. Results reported in this article are part of a larger
project, and some of the details of the project have been pub-
lished previously4, 5. gle well data integration, reservoir characterization, reservoir
modeling and well performance prediction are summarized
METHODOLOGY below and illustrated in Fig. 2.
1. Data Preparation and Integration:
Petrophysical properties derived from open hole logs and WFT Core data are reviewed and quality controlled for
are calibrated with core analysis data before being distributed geological features (such as depositional environments
in space to build a geological model. The established model and layering), lith, pore types,  , k and grain density.
can be verified from borehole fluid flow profiles measured by a
production log, as shown in Eqn. 2, even though layers with Open hole logs are reviewed, quality controlled,
no flow or a low flow rate due to skin, low permeability or processed and interpreted for lith,  , grain density, Sw,
low pressure may not be detectable by a production log: zoning and zone thickness (h).
WFT pretest data are reviewed, quality controlled and
(
n
i=1 kihi) Core, OH Logs,WFT =(
n
i=1 )
kihi PL (2) processed for estimating mobility, then for qualitatively
determining k.
The cumulative of the borehole flow profiles can be cali- Together with other geological information, the above
brated from the total kavgH determined from a well test: core data, open hole logs and WFT pretests are
integrated for a foot-by-foot formation evaluation and
(
n
i=1 ki hi ) =(k H)
PL
avg WT (3) reservoir characterization.
2. Geological Model:
In Eqns. 2 and 3, H is the total reservoir thickness, h is the
A layered, single well geological model is generated
individual layer thickness, n is the total number of reservoir
from the above detailed formation evaluation and
layers, subscript avg is the average of all layers, and subscript i
reservoir characterization.
is the ith reservoir layer.
Details of the methodology introduced in this study for sin- WFT and VIT data are analyzed to quantify vertical and

SAUDI ARAMCO JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY FALL 2013 63

 horizontal permeabilities (kv and kh) for the layers
selected for the VIT.
The geological model is updated with kv and kh
determined from analyses of all VITs.
This layered anisotropic geological model is fine-tuned
by integrating geological features and the range of
permeabilities obtained from performing a single well
numerical PTA, with the pressure and pressure
derivatives as the history matching parameters, for each
VIT.
3. Reservoir Model:
A RM is established by validating, iteratively, the fine-
tuned geological model with
kh from a production log
and the total KavgH from downhole pressure buildup
and falloff tests, as shown in Eqns. 2 and 3.
4. Use of the RM:
By history matching downhole pressure and flow rate,
the RM can be used in a single well reservoir simulation
for well performance prediction or in any other
reservoir characterization and management studies4, 5.
TEST OF THE METHODOLOGY IN A STUDY WELL
The above methodology was developed in a joint research
project between Saudi Aramco and Schlumberger, and some
of the results of the project have been published4, 5. In this
article, the focus will be on the methodology of integrating
static and dynamic data for reservoir characterization and
modeling. In the process, it will be demonstrated that the VIT
is an extremely powerful tool for characterizing reservoir
heterogeneity1, 6-8.
Data Acquisition
As previously reported4, 5, a research well, Well-A, was drilled
in 2001 across the Arab-D carbonate reservoir, and a complete
set of petrophysical data was acquired in the following order:
1. Cores, open hole logs and WFT:
Conventional cores were taken from the top 250 ft of
the target reservoir. Core description, petrographics, and
routine and special core analyses were performed on
selected core samples.
Open hole logs acquired included caliper, spectral
gamma ray, bulk density, thermal neutron porosity,
sonic, array induction resistivity, micro resistivity,
resistivity imaging, mineralogy and nuclear magnetic
resonance tests.
A total of 25 WFT pretests and eight VITs were
conducted.
2. Baseline production log. Following completion, the well
was allowed to produce oil for one day to clean out mud
64 FALL 2013 SAUDI ARAMCO JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY
invasion, and then the baseline flow profile was established
from the production log.
3. Baseline buildup tests for KavgH at connate water satura-
tion (Swc):
The well was then shut-in to perform a buildup test for
total KavgH (at Swc) by using the downhole permanent
pressure gauge located just above the top of the tested
zone.
After producing the well for a while, another pressure
buildup test was performed immediately before water
injection to confirm the determined KavgH (at Swc).
4. Water injection tests:
A stepwise rate change was applied. Each injection rate
usually lasted 3 to 5 hours, depending on the time
required for the electrode resistivity array measurement4
and production log measurements.
The initial injection rate was 1,000 BPD. With an
incremental of about 1,000 BPD, the final rate reached
8,200 BPD at the end of the eighth test.
A production log was run to obtain the injection profile
during each test.
5. Falloff test for KavgH at ROS.
The well was then shut-in for a falloff test to determine
the total KavgH at ROS and skin.
6. Final buildup test for KavgH at reduced Sw:
All of the injected water and some oil were produced
back to the surface with a nitrogen lift for 14 days.
During this water and oil production period, a
production log was run frequently to monitor fluids
produced.
After the well stopped producing water, the well was
shut-in for a final pressure buildup test to estimate
KavgH at a reduced Sw close to, but usually larger than,
the original Swc.
Data Processing and Interpetation
Core Data. Core description and petrographic analysis were
conducted to extract information on reservoir depositional en-
vironment and rock typing, and to identify reservoir layers; an
example of this analysis is shown in Fig. 3. Conventional core
analysis under stress, Figs. 3a and 3b, on selected core samples
was performed to provide data for log calibration and reser-
voir layering(1). On a subset of cores, adjacent twin plugs were
taken, one horizontally and another vertically, for kh and kv
(1) In using core data to calibrate logs and/or well tests, it is noted that core data
may not be representative in very high and very low permeability rocks9. For rocks
with very high permeabilities (such as measures in Darcies), cores may not be avail-
able or pluggable due to their weak mechanical integrity. On the other hand, con-
ventional laboratory measurements on very low permeability rocks (such as
measures in less than milli-Darcies) have large uncertainties.
Fig. 3. Example of core analysis data and associated core descriptions and
petrographics.
measurements, Fig. 3b. From Fig. 3, the following are ob-
served:
1. Correlations between permeability and  are strongly de
pendent on rock type.
2. The difference between kh and kv is not obvious at the core
plug scale. This may be attributed to the following:
Laboratory permeability measurements have relative
large uncertainties, so the difference between kh and kv
is probably within permeability measurement
uncertainties.
To ensure a plugs mechanical integrity, samples are
typically taken in more homogeneous sections, where
rock anisotropy is less.
Even though small-scale rock anisotropy can be
observed, for example, in thin sections, it is probably
true that the larger the scale, the more obvious the rock
anisotropy.
Open Hole Logs. As previously mentioned, a complete suite of
open hole logs was run. These logs were quality controlled,
processed and interpreted for lith,  and Sw. Correlations were
also used to qualitatively predict reservoir permeability. Use of
the processed logs and core data in geological modeling has
been previously described5.
WFT Pretests and VITs. As summarized in Fig. 2 describing a
geological model built with geological and petrophysical data,
25 pretests were performed using probe 1, Fig. 1c, for formation
pressure profiling. Eight VITs were conducted with a configu-
ration of a dual packer and two observation probes, probes 1
and 2, as shown in Fig. 1c; 13 additional pretests were also
performed using both probes during the VITs. A pump-out
module was used for fluid withdrawal to create pressure tran-
sients in the formation, which were monitored by crystal
quartz pressure gauges and strain gauges at the dual packer and
observation probes. Figure 4 shows the acquired downhole data,
including reservoir pressure (with an oil gradient of 0.32 psi/ft)
from the probes, from the packer and during the interference
Fig. 4. Composite display of open hole logs, reservoir layering, WFT pressures,
mobilities and VIT positions.
test (track 1); pretest drawdown mobilities (track 2); image log
and the positions of the VITs (track 3); reservoir porosity
(track 4); and formation resistivity (track 5). Reservoir poros-
ity and formation resistivity data provide quantitative informa-
tion for reservoir layering, while the image log is used to check
the reservoir layering qualitatively.
Pretest Applications. As shown in Fig. 4, pretest data can be
processed for formation pressure and fluid mobilities. Formation
pressure derived from the probe pretest is as accurate as that
obtained from a packer test or a well test (track 1 of Fig. 4);
therefore, it is routinely used for reservoir fluid typing, fluid
contacts identification and free water level determination.
On the other hand, the probe pretest drawdown mobility is
rather qualitative, due to its small volume drawdown (typically
5 cm3 to 20 cm3). It has a shallow depth of investigation, and
it is affected by formation damage in the invaded zone and by
near wellbore, small scale heterogeneity. Because of the small
volume drawdown, the mobility determined typically does not
include anisotropy. Consequently, pretest drawdown mobility
can only be qualitatively used for reservoir rock and fluid
characterization.
VIT Applications. As described in Fig. 2, VIT data can be
processed for reservoir rock anisotropy assessment. This VIT
data processing workflow is expanded in Fig. 5. To process the
VIT data, a robust geological model is essential to match the
packers and probes pressures and pressure derivatives with
predicted kv and kh. This matching is not only for one VIT, but
for all VITs, so an iterative process is necessary.
In a heterogeneous reservoir, pressure changes at the obser-
vation probes, especially the one with the farthest spacing, may
be very small. For a VIT to be successful in this situation, very
high precision pressure gauges are required, Fig. 6. Besides kv
SAUDI ARAMCO JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY FALL 2013 65
 Layer H Poro kh kv kh/kv

1 8 0.16 7.2 4.03 1.8

2 2 0.05 3.2 0.96 3.3
3 45 0.25 940 432.4 2.2
4 2 0.12 2 0.18 11.1
5 4 0.25 736 58.88 12.5
6 1 0.2 0.15 0.02 7.5
7 7 0.25 497 49.7 10
8 2 0.24 2.9 3.19 0.9
9 7 0.24 160 16 10
10 1 0.1 3 0.06 50
11 6 0.23 463 96.45 4.8
12 1 0.15 3.5 0.07 50
13 13 0.2 980 490 2
14 1.5 0.1 16.2 15.39 1.1
15 14.5 0.25 164 22.08 7.4
Fig. 5. Workflow for VIT data processing in a layered reservoir.
16 5 0.12 4.5 9 0.5
17 11 0.17 55 11 5
18 1 0.13 8 0.06 133.3
19 6 0.23 139 34.75 4
20 3 0.1 5 0.55 9.1
21 15 0.25 716 27.72 25.8
22 5 0.1 3 2.5 1.2
23 11 0.12 114 2.05 55.6
24 11 0.1 48 7.97 6
Fig. 6. Example of precise probe pressure measurement during a VIT. 25 10 0.1 8 5.28 1.5
26 2 0.05 1 0.1 10
27 6 0.09 3 0.3 10
28 7 0.07 2 0.2 10
29 2 0.12 14 2.8 5
30 27 0.05 2 0.2 10
31 10 0.07 1 0.1 10
32 1 0.03 1 0.1 10
33 8 0.07 58 4.64 12.5
34 60 0.03 0.5 0.15 3.3

Table 1. Final layered reservoir model with anisotropy

Fig. 7. Use of VITs in reservoir fluid flow regime identification and reservoir
heterogeneity characterization.
and kh determination as described in Fig. 5, VITs can also be
useful in reservoir fluid flow regime identification and detailed
reservoir heterogeneity characterization, as demonstrated in
Fig. 7, by examining the pressure and its derivative vs. buildup
time. From Figs. 6 and 7, the following can be summarized:
Probe pressure changes of 0.1 psi are clearly observed, re-
peatedly, with the high resolution crystal quartz gauges.
F
Measured packer and probe pressures are matched or
reproduced satisfactorily with the geological model.
Fluid flow regimes are identified from features of
buildup pressure derivatives. The identified flow regime
is consistent with the geological model.
Final RM
By integrating geological information with data derived from
core description and core analysis, open hole logs, WFT

66 FALL 2013 SAUDI ARAMCO JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY


Fig. 8. Reservoir model validation using kh from production logs (a) and
KavgH from downhole pressure and pressure derivatives (b).
Fig. 9. History matching of downhole pressure and flow rate during injection
and falloff4.
pretests and VITs, the RM in this study well was established,
following the methodology of Fig. 2, as shown in Table 1. This
model is considered accurate not only because it integrates all
relevant data, but more importantly because it is internally
consistent with VIT pressure and pressure derivatives.
The established RM, Table 1, is further validated in terms of
its production behaviors by comparing its data with the fluid
flow profile derived from production logs and the total KavgH
derived from numerical analyses of well test pressure as well as
pressure derivative, Fig. 8. Results show that the model
matches the well dynamic behavior very well, Fig. 8.
Application of the Validated Geological Model
The RM, Table 1, can be used in well performance studies, as
shown in Fig. 9, by matching and predicting the bottom-hole
pressure and flow rate. It has also been used in this study well
for identifying and characterizing reservoir heterogeneity, in-
verting reservoir scale and reservoir condition relative perme-
ability and capillary pressure, assessing oil recovery by water-
flooding, and monitoring water movement in situ in connection
with measurements of a specially designed electrode resistivity
array and permanent downhole pressure gauges4, 5.
CONCLUSIONS
From this article, the following are concluded:
At core plug scale, permeability anisotropy may not be
observable.
A VIT with advanced WFT is a powerful tool for
reservoir heterogeneity characterization.
To build a robust geological model, integration of all
geological and petrophysical data is critical.
To test the internal consistency of a built RM, numerical
history matching of measured properties, such as
pressure and its derivatives, is a proved best practice.
Total KavgH from a well test and kh from a production
log flow profile are useful in validating RMs.
A methodology is introduced that integrates static
and dynamic petrophysical data for reservoir
characterization, geological modeling and well
performance studies.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank the management of Saudi
Aramco and Schlumberger for their permission to publish this
article.
This article was prepared for presentation at the SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans,
LA, September 30 - October 2, 2013.
REFERENCES
1. Ayan, C., Hafez, H., Hurst, S., Kuchuk, F.J., OCallaghan,
A., Peffer, J., et al.: Characterizing Permeability with
Formation Testers, Oilfield Review, Vol. 13, No. 3,
October 2001, pp. 2-23.
2. Kuchuk, F.J.: Radius of Investigation for Reserve
Estimation from Pressure Transient Well Tests, SPE paper
120515, presented at the SPE Middle East Oil and Gas
Show and Conference, Manama, Bahrain, March 15-18,
2009.
3. Onur, M. and Kuchuk, F.J.: Nonlinear Regression
Analysis of Well Test Pressure Data with Uncertain
Variance, SPE paper 62918, presented at the SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas,
October 1-4, 2000.
4. Kuchuk, F.J., Zhan, L., Ma, S.M., Al-Shahri, A.M.,
Ramakrishnan, T.S., Altundas, B., et al.: Determination of
In-Situ Two-Phase Flow Properties through Downhole
Fluid Movement Monitoring, SPE paper 116068,
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, September 21-24, 2008.
SAUDI ARAMCO JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY FALL 2013 67
5. Zhan, L., Kuchuk, F.J., Al-Shahri, A.S., Ma, S.M.,
Ramakrishnan, T.S., Altundas, B., et al.: Characterization
of Reservoir Heterogeneity through Fluid Movement
Monitoring with Deep Electromagnetic and Pressure
Measurements, SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering,
Vol. 13, No. 3, June 2010, pp. 509-522.
6. Kuchuk, F.J.: Pressure Behavior of the MDT Packer
Module and DST in Crossflow-Multilayer Reservoirs,
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, Vol. 11,
No. 2, June 1994, pp. 123-135.
7. Kuchuk, F.J., Halford, F., Hafez, H. and Zeybek, M.: The
Use of Vertical Interference Testing to Improve Reservoir
Characterization, SPE paper 87236, presented at the Abu
Dhabi International Petroleum Conference and Exhibition,
Abu Dhabi, U.A.E., October 13-15, 2000.
8. Zeybek, M., Kuchuk, F.J. and Hafez, H.: Fault and
Fracture Characterization Using 3D Interval Pressure
Transient Tests, SPE paper 78506, presented at the Abu
Dhabi International Petroleum Conference and Exhibition,
Abu Dhabi, U.A.E., October 13-16, 2002.
9. Ma, S.M., Belowi, A., Pairoys, F. and Zoukani, A.:
Quality Assurance of Carbonate Rock Special Core
Analysis Lesson Learnt from a Multi-Year Research
Project, IPTC paper 16768, presented at the 6th
International Petroleum Technology Conference, Beijing,
China, March 26-28, 2013.
68 FALL 2013 SAUDI ARAMCO JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY
BIOGRAPHIES
Dr. Shouxiang M. Ma is a Senior
Petrophysical Consultant in the
Reservoir Description Division and
serves in the Petroleum Engineering
Technologist Development Program
actively as a mentor and a member of
its Technical Review Committee. He
member of the Upstream Professional
was a founding mem
Development Center as the petrophysics job family
Professional Development Advisor from 2009 to 2012.
Before joining Saudi Aramco in 2000, he worked as a
Lecturer at Changjiang University, Jingzhou City, China,
and as a Lab Petrophysicist at the New Mexico Petroleum
Recovery Research Center, the Wyoming Western Research
Institute and Exxons Production Research Company.
Mark received his B.S. degree from China University of
Petroleum, Beijing, China, and his M.S. and Ph.D. degrees
from the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology,
Socorro, NM, all in Petroleum Engineering.
He is a member of the Society of Core Analysts and the
Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), and served on the
SPEs Formation Evaluation Award Committee (as
Chairman in 2012) and the AIME/SPE Robert Earll
McConnell Award Committee.
Mark has more than 60 publications and several patents
in petrophysics. He was awarded the 2003 Department
Individual Achievement Award and 2011 SPE Saudi Arabia
Section Active Technical Involvement Award, and is a
technical journal reviewer for SPE Reservoir Evaluation
and Engineering (SPERE&E), Journal of Canadian
Petroleum Technology (JCPT), Journal of Petroleum
Science & Engineering (JPS&E) and the Arabian Journal
for Science and Engineering.
Dr. Murat M. Zeybek is a
Schlumberger Reservoir Engineering
Advisor and Reservoir and Production
Domain Champion for the Middle
East Region. He works on analysis
interpretation of wireline formation
testers, pressure transient analysis,
numerical
i l modeling
d li of fluid flow, water control,
production logging and reservoir monitoring.
He is a technical review committee member for the
Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE) journal Reservoir
Evaluation and Engineering. Murat also served as a
committee member for the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, 1999-2001. He has been a
discussion leader and a committee member in a number of
SPE Applied Technology Workshops (ATWs), including a
technical committee member for the SPE Saudi Technical
Symposium, and he is a global mentor in Schlumberger.
Murat received his B.S. degree in Petroleum Engineering
from the Technical University of Istanbul, Istanbul, Turkey.
He received his M.S. degree in 1985 and his Ph.D. degree
in 1991, both from the University of Southern California,
Los Angeles, CA, also in Petroleum Engineering.
 He has published more than 50 papers on analysis/
interpretation of wireline formation testers, pressure
transient analysis, numerical modeling of fluid flow, fluid
flow porous media, water control, production logging and
reservoir monitoring.

Dr. Fikri J. Kuchuk, a Schlumberger

Fellow, is currently Chief Reservoir
Engineer for Schlumberger Testing
Services. He was a consulting
professor at the Petroleum Engineering
Department of Stanford University
from 1988 to 1994, teaching
Advanced
Ad dWWell Testing.
ll T ti Before joining Schlumberger in
1982, Fikri worked on reservoir performance and
management for BP/Sohio Petroleum Company.
He is a Distinguished and Honorary Member of the
Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), the Society for
Industrial and Applied Mathematics, the Russian Academy
of Natural Sciences and the American National Academy
of Engineering. Fikri received the SPE 1994 Reservoir
Engineering Award, the SPE 2000 Formation Evaluation
Award and the SPE 2001 Regional Service Award; the
Henri G. Doll Award in 1997 and 1999; and the Nobel
Laureate Physicist Kapitsa Gold Medal. He has been very
active in professional societies, serving as SPE International
Director-at-Large and SPE Northern Emirates Section
Director, and he is a member of the SPE Forum Series
Implementation Committee, the Middle East Oil Show &
Conference Executive and Program Committees, and many
SPE award, editorial, membership and technical
committees.
Fikri has published and presented more than 150 papers
on fluid flow in porous media, formation evaluation,
pressure transient well testing, production logging, wireline
formation testers, horizontal and multilateral well place-
ment and performance, permanent reservoir monitoring,
water conformance and control, and reservoir engineering
and management.
He received his B.S. and M.S. degrees from the
Technical University of Istanbul, Istanbul, Turkey, and his
M.S. and Ph.D. degrees from Stanford University, Palo
Alto, CA, all in Petroleum Engineering.

SAUDI ARAMCO JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY FALL 2013 69

View publication stats