Indicator Kriging

Case study; Geological Models of

Upper Miocene Sandstone
Reservoirs at the Klotar Oil and Gas
Field

Kristina Novak Zelenika Zagreb, November 2013

 Introduction

Application of mathematics in geology is

relatively new approach in interpretation of
underground geological relations.

Two great scientists are founders of this

discipline: Prof. Dr. Daniel Krige and Prof. Dr.
George Matheron.

Geostatistical methods can be divided into

deterministical and stochastical methods.
 Introduction determinism
In deterministical methods, all the conditions which can influence to
estimation, have to be completely known (mustn't have
randomness of any kind in variables description).

Deterministical results can be unambiguously described by the

completely known finite conditions.

It is clear that geological underground is only one, but since the

description of the underground is based on well data (point data) it
is not possible to be absolutely sure that the solution obtained with
geostatistical methods is absolutely correct (all geostatistical
methods contain some uncertainty).

Deterministical methods give only one solution.

It is more correct to call them deterministical interpolation methods.

 Introduction stochastics

Stochastical realizations provide different number of solution for

the same input data set.

The solutions can be very similar, but never identical, and all
obtained solutions or results are equally probable. There are
conditional and unconditional simulations.

In stochastical processes number of realizations can be any

number we want.

It is very clear that more realizations will cover more uncertainty

area, i.e. the more realizations there are, the lower uncertainty is.
Introduction determinism and
stochastics
Indicator Kriging theory
 Indicator Kriging

1 if z ( x) vcutoff
I ( x)
0 if z ( x) vcutoff

Where:
I(x) - indicator variable;
z(x) - measured value;
cutoff - cutoff value.

Location map of 38 data:

1 represents sandstone, Recommended no. of cutoffs: 5-11
0 represents other lithofacies
Results: probabilities
 What are the principles of indicator
formalism in Indicator Kriging?

Indicator formalism:

Indicator transformation can be interpreted as follows:

If v is continuous variable

In this case we should create cumulative probability distribution of v from

the data values:

Since we generaly have finite number of data, the cumulative

probability distribution function may change with the increasing or
decreasing number of available data.
That is why the cumulative probability distribution function is called
conditional probability distribution function (ccdf)
It is conditioned by number of available data
 Next step: Introduce the indicator formalism for this ccdf in a way to
subdivide the total range using k cut-off values
 According to ccdf we can define the corresponding probabilities for
all these cut-offs:
 We can choose a particular cut-off, say 2m
All the locations can be categorized in two groups:

The first one is the set of locations where the actual

thickness is smaller than 2 m

The next group is locations where the actual thickness is

larger than 2 m

Using this cut-off we can define an indicator variable, which takes 1 for
all locations where the thickness is smaller than 2, and takes 0 for
all other locations
 In this way we can define all other indicator variables
Actually, the larger number of cut-offs, the more precise the
continous ccdf derived are and this is the principle of Indicator
Kriging
 With respect of 5 indicator cut-offs (2, 4, 6, 8, 10 m), we can create
5 point maps showing the actual values (0 or 1).
That means we have 5 point maps one for each cut-off
Each map contains only 0 and 1 values
Unfortunately, we cannot perform any meaningful estimation with
these values
 But, they can hold some other meaning:
We suppose that at any particular well location the probability
of the thickness smaller than a particular cut-off can be
derived from the global probability distribution of thickness

We can conclude that after making indicator transformation, the

probabilities of their value equals 1 can be estimated
 This estimation can be performed for each individual cut-off
separately
As a result we got grids showing the probabilities that the indicator
variable take 1 value
 Output of Indicator Kriging

In each row the probabilities increase by increasing of the cut-off

values
All of these probabilities belong to a particular grid point
Using Indicator Kriging the ccdf at a grid point can be estimated
The final result we can get is ccdf for each grid point
If v is a categorical variable

Rock type

The Indicator Kriging of that variable gives the probability that this
rock type appears at a particular location
 Conclusion

The Indicator Kriging is a specific geostatistical technique for

spatial phenomena with weak stationarity.

In fact, this kriging technique is weaker than any other kriging

approximation.

However, this technique is designed for estimating lateral

uncertainty.

This approach estimates the local probability distributions on grid

cells.
Advantages and disadvantages

Advantages:
It does not need normality of the input data set
It can be inplemented in case of bimodal distribution
Since it estimates probabilities, it may show the connectivity of the
largest values (very important in production plans or EOR projects)

Disadvantages:
Success of IK strongly depends on the correct selection of the cut-offs
values. The fewer the numbers of cut-offs are, the fewer details of the
distribution can be got.
Case study; Klotar Field
 Introduction research location

There are many reservoirs in Croatian part of Pannonian Basin

interpreted with deterministical and stochastical methods (like
reservoirs of the fields Ivani, Molve, Kalinovac, Stari Gradac-
Barcs Nyugat, Benianci, Ladislavci, Galovac-Pavljani, Velika
Ciglena).

Klotar Field was very detail analyzed in the joint study of INA and
RGNF, led by Prof. Dr. J. Veli and Prof. Dr. T. Malvi.

Klotar Field was chosen as research location i.e. its sandstone

reservoirs as objects with high and accurate base of the measured
data and many geostatistical results and interpretations.
 Introduction used methods and
analyzed variables

Used methods

Deterministic Stochastic

OK IK SGS SIS

Analyzed variables

Porosity Depth Thickness

 Introduction - goals
Goals:

(1) Construction of geostatistical model of the Klotar field

(reservoirs T and Beta); using of geostatistics as tool for improving
of mapping accuracy

(2) Geostatistical models will represent upgrade for previously

available deterministic models from field study.
 Location of the Klotar Field

SL OVEN I A
Varadin
H U N GA RY
Krievci

K LOTA R FI ELD
ZAGREB Virovitica

Karlovac
Osijek
Kutina Naice
Vukovar SER BIA
Poega
CROATIA Vinkovci
Slavonski Brod

0 100 200 km

Klotar Field location (CVETKOVI et al.,

2008)
About the Klotar Field wells

Total no. of wells: 197

Measured wells: 57

Technically abandoned: 73

Water injection wells: 5

Production wells: 62
 Location of the Beta and T reservoirs

Location of the Beta reservoir Location of the T reservoir

 Lithology and log Lithology and log
curves of Klo-62 well curves of Klo-145 well
Core data
 Core data cores from INA laboratory

Klo 57 (788.9 793.3 m, III m) Klo 82 (1404.6 1411.7 m, II m)

Rocks top section of T+U+V reservoir Beta Reservoir
Determination: Lithoarenite (VELI & Determination: Lithoarenite (VELI &
MALVI, 2008) MALVI, 2008)
 Structural modeling of the Klotar Field

Klotar Field is anticline with direction northwest-southeast

Normal fault (Klotar fault) divides structure into two parts,

northeastern and southwestern

Conceptual models were constructed based on structural maps of

the Upper Pannonian and Lower Pontian reservoirs, well data and
structural maps and palaeotectonic profiles from the paper VELI
et al. (2011)
 Structural modeling of the Klotar Field

During Badenian to Late

Pannonian new
accommodation space
opened

Sandstone reservoirs
were deposited

Evolution of the Klotar Field during Late Pannonian

 Structural modeling of the Klotar Field

At the transition from Late

Pannonian to Early Pontian
normal fault appeared, which
caused down lifting of the NE part

NE of the fault and SW of the

Moslavaka gora Mt. new deeper
area for sedimentation was
created

It is very possible that two source

of material were active:
(1) Eastern Alps and

(2) Moslavaka gora Mt.

Evolution of the Klotar Field during Early Pontian

 Structural modeling of the Klotar Field
During Late Pontian transpression began, which is active still today
Main normal faults changed to reverse.
Smaller faults in the field are normal because of the local extension
at the top of the Klotar structure

Evolution of the Klotar Field during Late Evolution of the Klotar Field during
Pontian Pliocene and Quaternary
 Deterministical geostatistical mapping of
the reservoir variables
Porosity Depth Thickness Porosity Depth Thickness
Well (%) (m) (m) Well
(%) (m) (m)
Klo-5 18,0 1365,0 3,0 Klo-1 19,9 940,0 13,0
Klo-19 1502,5 15,5
Klo-12 19,5 991,0 12,0
Klo-60 17,9 1447,0 23,0
Klo-62 Klo-16 19,6 916,0 12,0
15,3 1400,0 22,5
Klo-63 16,6 1437,0 9,0 Klo-20 21,1 1026,0 13,0
Klo-64 15,0 1397,0 10,0 Klo-22 23,3 966,0 11,5
Klo-70 12,2 1387,5 3,5 Klo-23 20,5 1014,0 12,0
Klo-73 13,3 1373,0 4,0 Klo-24 20,1 1020,5 11,0
Klo-74 1358,0 20,5 Klo-26 21,2 1016,0 9,5
Klo-75 17,5 1375,0 20,0 Klo-27 17,9 880,0 20,0
Klo-76 18,5 1362,5 14,5 Klo-28 19,2 994,0 17,0
Klo-77 1386,0 22,0
Klo-35 13,8 790,0 3,0
Klo-78 16,2 1376,5 13,5
Klo-43 5,5 765,5 4,5
Klo-79 18,5 1393,0 14,0
Klo-81 19,1 1362,0 11,5 Klo-48 19,7 1019,0 13,5
Klo-82 18,3 1396,5 18,5 Klo-57 18,2 795,0 25,0
Klo-83 16,0 1368,5 8,5 Klo-58 21,8 803,0 6,0
Klo-84 1406,0 9,0 Klo-59 18,1 890,0 9,0
Klo-86 1338,0 8,5 Klo-71 18,5 838,0 10,0
Klo-87 17,3 1409,0 10,0 Klo-72 19,6 785,0 11,0
Klo-88 15,5 1405,0 8,0 Klo-95 22,0 957,0 8,0
Klo-89 17,9 1395,0 7,0
Klo-104 18,4 912,5 6,0
Klo-163 1394,0 18,0

Analyzed variables of the Beta Analyzed variables of the T reservoir

reservoir
 Indicator Kriging mapping of the Beta
reservoir porosity data transformation

Indicator transformation of the porosity input data

Indicator Kriging mapping of the Beta
reservoir porosity variograms

Experimental variograms (left) and

their approximation with
theoretical curves (right) of the
Beta reservoir porosity for cutoffs:
a-15%, b-16%, c-18% and d-19%
Indicator Kriging mapping of the Beta
reservoir porosity

Probability map
Probability map for for porosity less
porosity less than than cutoff 16%
cutoff 15%

Probability map for Probability map

porosity less than for porosity less
cutoff 18% than cutoff 19%
 Indicator Kriging mapping of the Beta
reservoir thickness data transformation

Indicator transformation of the thickness input data

Indicator Kriging mapping of the Beta
reservoir thickness variograms

Experimental variograms (left) and

their approximation with
theoretical curves (right) of the
Beta reservoir thickness for
cutoffs: a-7m, b-9m, c-15m and d-
21m
Indicator Kriging mapping of the Beta
reservoir thickness

Probability map for Probability map

thickness less than for thickness less
cutoff 7m than cutoff 9m

Probability map Probability map

for thickness less for thickness less
than cutoff 15m than cutoff 21m
 Indicator Kriging mapping of the T
reservoir porosity data transformation

Indicator transformation of the porosity input data

Indicator Kriging mapping of the T
reservoir porosity variograms

Experimental variograms (left) and

their approximation with
theoretical curves (right) of the T
reservoir porosity for cutoffs: a-
14%, b-18%, c-19% , 20% and d-
22%
 Indicator Kriging mapping of the T
reservoir porosity

Probability map for porosity less Probability map for porosity less Probability map for porosity less
than 14% than 18% than 19%

Probability map for Probability map for

porosity less than porosity less than
20% 22%
 Indicator Kriging mapping of the T
reservoir thickness data transformation

Indicator transformation of the thickness input data

Indicator Kriging mapping of the T
reservoir thickness variograms

Experimental variograms (left) and

their approximation with
theoretical curves (right) of the T
reservoir thickness for cutoffs: a-
5m, b-9m, c-13m, 17m and d-21m
Indicator Kriging mapping of the T
reservoir thickness

Probability
Probability map map for
for thickness thickness
less than 5m less than 9m

Probability
Probability map map for
for thickness thickness
less than 13m less than
17m
 Discussion and conclusion
1st assumption - higher porosity represents sandy lithofacies and lower
marly lithofacies.

In this way it was possible to distinguish sandstones, marly sandstones,

sandy marls and pure marls.

2nd assumption - higher thicknesses should point to central part of

depositional channel, where the coarsest material was deposited.

In Upper Pannonian reservoir Beta higher porosity locations matched

higher thickness locations.

In Lower Pontian reservoir highest thicknesses were only partly matched

higher porosities.

In the deepest parts of the depositional channel sandstones were

deposited and toward the channel margins more and more marly
component could be expected.
 Material transport direction during Late Pannonian interpreted on the probability
map for the porosity higher than 18% (left) and thickness higher than 15 m
(right)

Main material transport direction in Upper Pannonian was NW-SE.

Lateral thickness changes points to transition into marls and sandy marls.
The coarsest material was deposited in local synclines and today they can be
recognized with the highest thicknesses of the sandy layers.
Thin marls and clayey marls were deposited in the N and NE direction, i.e. in the
direction of the Moslavaka gora Mt.
 Material transport direction during Early Pontian interpreted on the
probability map for the porosity higher than 19% (left) thickness higher than
13 m (right)
The coarsest material in this part of the Sava Depression mostly came from
north.
Part of material was transported parallel with the fault toward SE.
Locations of the highest probabilities for the highest thicknesses does not
match location of the highest probabilities for the highest porosity.
The highest thicknesses match sandstone and marl intercalations, so it could
not represent depositional channel.
Probability map for porosity more accurate shows depositional channel than the
probability map for thickness.
 Material transport direction interpreted on the probability map
for the porosity lower (left) and higher (right) than 18%

13 Upper Pannonian and Lower Pontian cores were examined.

Upper Pannonian reservoirs have more mica.
Local material source could not be directly interpreted based on 13 core
data.
Local material source should be noticed on the probability maps as direction
NNE-SSW.
NE part of the reservoir has high probability that porosity is higher than 18%.
It was concluded that it was possible that Moslavaka gora Mt. was a local
source for one part of sandy and silty material
 Discussion and conclusion
Geostatistical methods were used for detail modeling of the two most
important and significantly different reservoirs of the Klotar Field.

Every geological model is always stochastical because it contains

uncertainty.

It is possible to perform additional geostatistical analysis by increasing

number of input data and number of mapped reservoir variables.

Reliability of the model also depends on used software.

Mapped variables were porosity and thickness of the Beta and T reservoirs.

All previous solutions as well as E-logs were taken into the consideration.

Two mentioned reservoirs were chosen as the most widespread, the

thickest and typical Upper Miocene reservoirs.
 Discussion and conclusion
The Indicator Kriging method have been used in the probability mapping of
the certain variable value.

Probability maps for certain cutoff value showed material transport direction
and distribution channel location.

The Indicator Kriging maps proved heterogeneity of the reservoirs by

existence of different lithofacies starting with sandstones in the central part
of the channel to marly sandstones, sandy marls and marls. In this way it is
easier to create precise boundary around the reservoirs and to get accurate
estimation of the original hydrocarbon in place.

The methodology applied in the Klotar Field can be used in all Upper
Pannonian and Lower Pontian sandstone reservoirs in the Sava
Depression, primarily because all depositional conditions, migrations and
traps forming were almost the same.
Thank you for your attention!