Advertisement

Taking One Step Forward in Reservoir Characterization Using Artificial Neural Networks

  • Shahab Mohaghegh
Part of the Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing book series (STUDFUZZ, volume 80)

Abstract

Reservoir characterization is usually a long and costly process. Engineers, geologists and geophysicists use many different methodologies to characterize the hydrocarbon reservoirs. The conventional reservoir characterization studies normally involve a series of data collection and interpretation processes that can be cost prohibitive. This chapter reviews a collection of methods developed by the author over several years in order to generate a better understanding of reservoir characteristics only using the available data. These methodologies were developed using artificial neural networks and dates back to early 1990s. In this collection of studies, the types of data used for reservoir characterization are wireline logs, core data, and magnetic resonance logs. The outcomes of the reservoir characterization studies using the tools being introduced here are effective porosity, fluid saturation and formation permeability. Based on the amount and the quality of the available data one or more of the aforementioned reservoir properties can be characterized.

Keywords

Effective Porosity Fluid Saturation Neural Network Technique Reservoir Characterization Core Permeability 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Mohaghegh, S., Goddard, C., Popa, A., Ameri, S., and Bhuiyan, M. 2000: “Reservoir Characterization Through Synthetic Logs”, SPE 65675, Proceedings, 2000 SPE Eastern Regional Conference and Exhibition, October 17–19, Morgantown, West Virginia.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mohaghegh, S., Koperna, G., Popa, A. S. and Hill, D. G. 1999: “Reducing the Cost of FieldScale Log Analysis Using Virtual Intelligence Techniques”, SPE 57454, Proceedings, 1999 SPE Eastern Regional Conference and Exhibition, October 21–22, Charleston, West Virginia.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Archie, G. E.:“The Electrical Resistivity Log as an Aid in Determining Some Reservoir Characteristics,” Trans., AIMS, 1942, Vol.146, No. 1, pp. 54–62Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tixier, M.P.: “Evaluation of Permeability From Electric-Log Resistivity Gradients,” Oil & Gas Journal, (June 1949), pp. 113.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wyllie, M.R.J. and Rose, W.D.: “Some Theoretical Considerations Related to the Quantitative Evaluation of the Physical Characteristics of Reservoir Rock from Electric Log Data,” Trans., AIME, Vol. 189, (1950), pp. 105.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pirson, S.J.: “Handbook of Well Log Analysis,” Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall, Inc., (1963).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Timur, A.: “An Investigation of Permeability, Porosity, and Residual Water Saturation Relationship for Sandstone Reservoirs,” The Log Analyst, Vol. 9, No. 4, (July-August 1968), pp. 8.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Coats, G.R. and Dumanoir, J.L.: “A New Approach to Improved Log-Derived Permeability,” The Log Analyst, (January-February 1974), pp. 17.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schlumberger Ltd.: “Log Interpretation Charts,” Houston, Texas, (1987).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kapadia, S.P. and Menzie, U.: “Determination of Permeability Variation Factor V From Log Analysis,” SPE 14402, Annual Technical Conference, Las Vegas, NV, (September 1985).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bloch, S.: “Empirical Prediction of Porosity and Permeability in Sandstones,” AAPG Bulletin, Vol. 75, No. 7, (July 1991), pp. 1145.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ahmed, U., Crary, S.F., Coates, G.R.: “Permeability Estimation: The Various Sources and Their Interrelationships,” JPT, (May 1991), pp. 578.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wendt, W.A., Sakurai, S., Nelson, P.H.: “Permeability Prediction From Well Logs Using Multiple Regression,” in Lake, L.W. and Caroll, H.B.,Jr..,editors: “Reservoir Characterization,” Academic Press, New York, (1986).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Draper, N.R., Smith, H.: “Applied Regression Analysis,” Wiley, (1981).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dubrule, O., Haldorsen, H.H.: “Geostatistics for Permeability Estimation,” in Lake, L.W. and Caroll, H.B.,Jr.,editors: “Reservoir Characterization,” Academic Press, New York, (1986).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Osborne, D.A.: “Permeability Estimation Using a Neural Network: A Case Study from The Roberts Unit, Wasson Field, Yoakum County, Texas,” AAPG South West Section Transactions, 1992, pp. 125–132.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mohaghegh, S., Reza, A., Ameri, S., Rose, D.: “Design and Development of An Artificial Neural Network for Estimation of Formation Permeability,” SPE 28237, SPE Petroleum Computer Conference, Dallas, Texas,(August 1994).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Balan, B., Mohaghegh, S., and Ameri, S., “State-of-the-art in Permeability Determination From Well Log Data, Part 1: A Comparative Study, Model Development,” SPE 30978, Proceedings, SPE Eastern Regional Conference and Exhibition, September 1921, 1995, Morgantown, WV.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mohaghegh, S., Balan, B., and Ameri, S., “State-of-the-art in Permeability Determination From Well Log Data, Part 2: Verifiable, Accurate Permeability Predictions, the Touch Stone of All Models,” SPE 30979, Proceedings, SPE Eastern Regional Conference and Exhibition, September 19–21, 1995, Morgantown, West Virginia.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mohaghegh, S., Balan, B., and Ameri, S.:“Determination of Permeability From Well Log Data.” SPE Formation Evaluation Journal, September 1997, pp 170–174.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mohaghegh, S., Arefi, G., and Ameri, S.:“Virtual Measurement of Heterogeneous Formation Permeability Using Geophysical Well Log Responses.” The Log Analyst, A Journal of Formation Evaluation and Reservoir Description, Society of Professional Well Log Analysts, March-April, 1996, pp 32–39.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Doveton, J. H.: “Geological Log Analysis Using Computer Methods,” AAPG Computer Applications in Geology, 1994, No. 2, AAPG, Tulsa, 169 pp.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Aminian, K.: “Characterization of a Complex Resrvoir in West Virginia,” SPE 26939, Eastern Regional Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, (November 1993).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Molnar, D., Aminian, K., Ameri, S.: “The Use of Well Log Data for Permeability Estimation in a Heterogeneous Reservoir,” SPE 29175, Eastern Regional Conference, Charleston, WV, (November 1994)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Donaldson, A., et al.: “The Fluvial-Deltaic Big Injun Sandstone in West Virginia,” Final Report, DOE/BC/14657–15, Bartlesville Project Office, USDOE, 1992.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mohaghegh, S., Balan, B., and Ameri, S., “State-of-the-art in Permeability Determination From Well Log Data, Part 2: Verifiable, Accurate Permeability Predictions, the Touch Stone of All Models,” SPE 30979, Proceedings, SPE Eastern Regional Conference and Exhibition, September 19–21, 1995, Morgantown, West Virginia.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Austin, J., and Faulkner, T.: “Magnetic Resonance Imaging Log Evaluates LowResistivity Pay”, The American Oil & Gas Reporter, August 1993.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mohaghegh, S., Richardson, M., Ameri, S. 1998: “Virtual magnetic Resonance Imaging Logs: Generation of Synthetic MRI logs from Conventional Well Logs”, SPE 51075, Proceedings, 1998 SPE Eastern Regional Conference and Exhibition, November 9–11, Pittsburgh, PA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shahab Mohaghegh
    • 1
  1. 1.West Virginia UniversityMorgantownUSA

Personalised recommendations