Reservoir Models for Input into Flow Simulators

  • F. Jerry Lucia

Abstract

Reservoir characterization is defined as the construction of realistic three-dimensional images of petrophysical properties to be used to predict reservoir performance. A key element in constructing reservoir models is modeling the high and low permeabilities. In the past, these images have been prepared by several different methods including (1) the layered reservoir method, (2) the continuous pay method, and (3) the facies method (Fig. 1). In the layered reservoir method, the reservoir is divided into pay zones using correlations based on gamma ray logs, and the net feet of porosity (net pay maps) or the porositytimes-oil-saturation (SoPhiH maps) isopached for each layer. The layers commonly lump several petrophysical rock types, and the average petrophysical values do not characterize the flow properties of the reservoir.

Keywords

Porosity Lime Compaction Dolomite Lithology 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barber AJ, George CJ, Stiles LH, Thompson BB (1983) Infili drilling to increase reserves - actual ex- perience in nine fields in Texas, Oklahoma, and Illinois. J Pet Technol August 1983: 1530–1538Google Scholar
  2. Fogg GE, Lucia FJ (1990) Reservoir modeling of restricted platform carbonates: geologic/geostatistical characterization of interwell-scale reservoir heterogeneity, Dune Field, Crane County, Texas. The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology, Report of Investigation No 190, 66 ppGoogle Scholar
  3. Galloway WE, Ewing TE, Garrett CM, Tyler N, Bebout DG (1983) Atlas of major Texas oil reservoirs. The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology, 139 ppGoogle Scholar
  4. George CJ, Stiles LH (1978) Improved techniques for evaluating carbonate waterfloods in West Texas. J Pet Technol Nov 1978: 1547–1554Google Scholar
  5. Grant CW, Goggin DJ, Harris PM (1994) Outcrop analog for cyclic-shelf reservoirs, San Andres Formation of Permian Basin: stratigraphic framework, permeability distribution, geostatistics, and fluid-flow modeling. AAPG Bull 78 1: 23–54Google Scholar
  6. Hearn CJ, Ebanks WF Jr, Tye RS, Ranganathan V (1984) Geological factors influencing reservoir performance on the Hartzog Draw field, Wyoming. J Pet Technol Aug 1984: 1335–1344Google Scholar
  7. Hovorka SD, Nance HS, Kerans C (1993) Parasequence geometry as a control on porosity evolution: examples from the San Andres and Grayburg formation in the Guadalupe Mountains, New Mexico. In: Loucks RG, Sarg JF (eds) Carbonate sequence stratigraphy: recent developments and applications. AAPG Mem 57: 493–514Google Scholar
  8. Kerans C, Lucia FJ, Senger RK, Fogg GE, Nance HS, Hovorka SD (1993) Characterization of facies and permeability patterns in carbonate reservoirs based on outcrop analogs. The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology, final report prepared for the Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy, US Department of Energy, under contract no DEAC22–89BC14470, 160 ppGoogle Scholar
  9. Kerans C, Lucia FJ, Senger RK (1994) Integrated characterization of carbonate ramp reservoirs using Permian San Andres Formation outcrop analogs. AAPG Bull 78, 2: 181–216Google Scholar
  10. Lucia FJ (1983) Petrophysical parameters estimated from visual descriptions of carbonate rocks: A field classification of carbonate pore space. J Pet Technol 35, 3: 629–637Google Scholar
  11. Lucia FJ (1995) Rock-fabric/petrophysical classification of carbonate pore space for reservoir characterization. AAPG Bull 79, 9: 1275–1300Google Scholar
  12. Lucia FJ, Major RP (1994) Porosity evolution through hypersaline reflux dolomitization. In: Purser BH, Tucker ME, Zenger DH (eds) Dolomites, a volume in honor of Dolomieu. Int Assoc Sedimentol Spec Pub121: 325–341Google Scholar
  13. Lucia FJ, Kerans C, Senger RK (1992) Defining flow units in dolomitized carbonate-ramp res- ervoirs. Soc Petroleum Engineers Techn Conf, Washington D.C., SPE 24702, pp 399–406Google Scholar
  14. Lucia FJ, Kerans C, Wang FP (1995) Fluid-flow characterization of dolomitized carbonate-ramp reservoirs: San Andres Formation (Permian) of Seminole field and Algerita Escarpment, Permian Basin, Texas and New Mexico. In: Stoudt EL, Harris PM (eds) Hydrocarbon reservoir characterization: geologic framework and flow unit modeling. SEPM (Society for Sedimentary Geology), SEPM Short Course 34: 129–153Google Scholar
  15. Lucia RJ, Conti RD (1987) Rock fabric, permeability, and log relationships in an upward-shoaling, vuggy carbonate sequence. The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology, Geological Circular 87–5, 22 ppGoogle Scholar
  16. Senger RK, Lucia FJ, Kerans C, Ferris MA, Fogg GE (1993) Dominant control on reservoir-flow behavior in carbonate reservoirs as determined from outcrop studies. In: Linville B, Burchfield TE, Wesson TC (eds) Reservoir characterization III. Proc 3rd Int Reservoir Characterization Techn Conf, Tulsa, Nov 1991. Penn Well Books, Tulsa, Oklahoma, pp 107–150Google Scholar
  17. Wang FP, Lucia FJ (1993) Comparison of empirical models for calculating the vuggy porosity and cementation exponent of carbonates from log responses. The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology, Geological Circular 93–4, 27 ppGoogle Scholar
  18. Wang FP, Lucia FJ, Kerans C (1994) Critical scales, upscaling, and modeling of shallow-water carbonate reservoirs. Soc Petroleum Engineers Tech Conf, Midland, Texas, SPE 27715, pp 765–773Google Scholar
  19. Wang FP, Lucia FJ, Kerans C (1998) Integrated reservoir characterization study of a carbonate ramp reservoir: Seminole San Andres Unit, Gaines County, Texas. SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 1,3: 105–114Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. Jerry Lucia
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Texas at AustinAustinUSA

Personalised recommendations