Efficient Detection of Productive Intervals in Oil and Gas Reservoirs
- Nicolas Bouffin (BP America) | Jerry L. Jensen (University of Calgary)
- Document ID
- Society of Petroleum Engineers
- Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology
- Publication Date
- March 2010
- Document Type
- Journal Paper
- 58 - 63
- 2010. Society of Petroleum Engineers
- 5.1.5 Geologic Modeling, 7.2.2 Risk Management Systems, 5.5 Reservoir Simulation, 4.1.2 Separation and Treating, 4.1.5 Processing Equipment, 5.6.2 Core Analysis, 5.1 Reservoir Characterisation, 4.3.4 Scale, 5.6.1 Open hole/cased hole log analysis, 2 Well Completion, 5.5.2 Core Analysis
- cutoff, discriminant, net pay, reduced major axis, regression
- 0 in the last 30 days
- 538 since 2007
- Show more detail
- View rights & permissions
|SPE Member Price:||USD 5.00|
|SPE Non-Member Price:||USD 35.00|
The utility and evaluation of cutoff values for net pay or net-to-gross determination have been hotly debated topics since the 1950s. There are numerous subtleties to cutoffs, but exactly how the values are calculated has largely been overlooked. Most cutoff users have been content to use a regression line to calculate the cutoff value.
We show that cutoffs obtained using a regression line are likely to be inferior to estimates produced by other methods. When four methods were applied to two field datasets and compared, regression-based porosity cutoffs were between 1 and 2 pu different than the values that give the smallest number of errors. Monte Carlo simulations broadly support the results obtained from the datasets. One method, the "trial-and-error?? method, performed well through most of the tests, reducing errors by 40% from those obtained using the regression line-based cutoff.
All cutoff estimation methods have errors, caused by the imperfect relationships we have between variables, such as porosity and permeability. This study shows we have a choice of methods. Because the better method can be easily applied in spreadsheet software, this should be a valuable addition to the petrophysicist's toolbox.
Net pay (NP) may be defined as any interval containing economically producible hydrocarbon using a specific production method. This represents the portion of the reservoir that contains sufficient porosity, permeability and hydrocarbons for economic exploitation. NP can be interpreted as an effective thickness that is pertinent to identification of flow units and target intervals for well completions and stimulation programs [Worthington and Cosentino(1)]. The associated net-to-gross ratio (NGR) corresponds to the proportion of the total or gross thickness, which is composed of net pay.
Numerous papers have reviewed and proposed methods for NP and NGR determination. Snyder(2) covers many of the methods in use up to the early 1970s, which used the self-potential (SP) or gamma ray (GR) logs and core analysis. More recent proposals include using capillary pressure [Vavra et al.(3)], probe permeameter measurements [Flølo et al.(4)] and percolation modelling [Li et al.(5)]. Of the large variety of possible methods, one approach is much more commonly discussed than any other. This method involves defining threshold values (or cutoffs) for the characteristics of interest and their surrogates. These limiting values are designed to define those rock intervals that show potential to contribute significantly to economic hydrocarbon production.
|File Size||2 MB||Number of Pages||6|
1. Worthington, P.F. and Cosentino, L. 2005. The Role of Cutoffs in IntegratedReservoir Studies. SPE Res Eval & Eng 8 (4): 276-290.SPE-84387-PA. doi: 10.2118/84387-PA.
2. Snyder, R.H. 1971. A Reviewof the Concepts and Methodology of Determining "Net Pay". Paper SPE 3609presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans,3-6 October. doi: 10.2118/3609-MS.
3. Vavra, C.L., Kaldi, J.G., and Sneider, R.M. 1992. Geological applicationsof capillary pressure; a review. AAPG Bulletin 76 (6):840-850.
4. Flølo, L.H., Kjærefjord, J.M., Arnesen, D.M., Menard, W.P., andWeissenburger, K.W. 2000. Revealing the PetrophysicalProperties of a Thin-Bedded Rock in a Norwegian Sea Reservoir With Logs, Core,and Miniperm Data. SPE Res Eval & Eng 3 (3): 249-255.SPE-64273-PA. doi: 10.2118/64273-PA.
5. Li, W., Jensen, J.L., Ayers, W.B., Hubbard, S.M., and Heidari, M.R. 2009.Comparison ofinterwell connectivity predictions using percolation, geometrical, and MonteCarlo models. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 68 (3-4): 180-186.doi:10.1016/j.petrol.2009.06.013.
6. Holditch, S.A., Lin, Z-S., and Spivey, J.P. 1991. Estimating the Recovery From anAverage Well in a Tight Gas Formation. Paper SPE 21500 presented at the SPEGas Technology Symposium, Houston, 22-24 January. doi: 10.2118/21500-MS.
7. Cobb, W.M. and Marek, F.J. 1998. Net Pay Determination for Primary andWaterflood Depletion Mechanisms. Paper SPE 48952 presented at the SPEAnnual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, 27-30 September. doi:10.2118/48952-MS.
8. George, C.J. and Stiles, L.H. 1978. Improved Techniques for EvaluatingCarbonate Waterfloods in West Texas. J Pet Technol 30 (11):1547-1554. SPE-6739-PA. doi: 10.2118/6739-PA.
9. Worthington, P.F. 2007. A road map for improving thetechnical basis for the estimation of petroleum reserves. PetroleumGeoscience 13 (4): 291-303. doi:10.1144/1354-079306-732.
10. Li, D. and Dria, M.A. 1997. Cut-off or Separation? A New Approachto Distinguish Reservoir Rock from Non-Reservoir Rock for Reservoir Modelingand Simulation. Paper SPE 38380 presented at the SPE Rocky MountainRegional Meeting, Casper, Wyoming, USA, 19-21 May. doi: 10.2118/38380-MS.
11. Jensen, J.L. and Menke, J.Y. 2006. Some Statistical Issues in SelectingPorosity Cutoffs for Estimating Net Pay. Petrophysics 47 (4):315-320.
12. Martin, F.D., Murphy, M.B., Stubbs, B.A., Uszynski, B.J., Hardage, B.A.,Kendall, R.P., Whitney, E.M., adn Weiss, W.W. 1999. Reservoir Characterization as aRisk-Reduction Tool at the Nash Draw Pool. SPE Res Eval & Eng2 (2): 169-179. SPE-56007-PA.doi: 10.2118/56007-PA.
13. Davis, J.C. 2002. Statistics and Data Analysis in Geology, thirdedition. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
14. Bouffin, N. 2007. Net pay evaluation: a comparison of methods toestimate net pay and net-to-gross using surrogate variables. MS thesis, TexasA&M University, College Station, Texas (August 2007).
15. Jensen, J.L., Lake, L.W., Corbett, P.W.M., and Goggin, D.J. 2000.Statistics for Petroleum Engineers and Geoscientists: Handbook of PetroleumExploration and Production, 2, second edition. Amsterdam, The Netherlands:Elsevier B.V.
16. Dutton, S.P., Flanders, W.A., and Barton, M.D. 2003. Reservoircharacterization of a Permian deep-water sandstone, east Ford field, Delawarebasin. AAPG Bulletin 87 (4): 609-627.doi:10.1306/10100201085.
17. Nelson, P.H. and Kibler, J.E. 2003. A Catalog ofPorosity and Permeability from Core Plugs in Siliciclastic Rocks. Open-fileReport 03-420, USGS,http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2003/ofr-03-420/ofr-03-420.html.