Geomodel Upscaling - Petrophysics Courses & Training

The petrophysical metrics that inform United States of what proportion HC is there's Equivalent HC Column, feet or metres, and the way simply it'll start up is Flow capability, mdft or mdm. Note that these square measure each accumulated values, not averages.

The petrophysicist’s task is to live these 2 essential as accurately and as finely as attainable with the means that at his/her disposal.  The petrophysicist is healthier equipped to try to to thus than the other team member.  Having done this the petrophysical EHC and kh should become absolutely the reference for these basic characteristics. the primary demand of any model, at no matter scale, that purports to explain the resource, should be to adequate the petrophysical EHC and petrophysical kh at the well tracks. porosity averaging is that the servant of this demand, not the master. no matter means that has been adopted to ‘average’ porosity should honour the petrophysical reference at the well track. If it doesn't the model is wrong, period.

Naturally, if the geomodeler believes that the petrophysical EHC or kh is wrong then the petrophysicist should diligently address that concern victimization valid well check kh values within the petrophysical analysis (see IPRC, IPCFR). However, this has nothing no matter to try to to with the geomodel’s averaging technique.  Once the petrophysical kh is as totally evaluated as attainable, the geomodel averaging technique – no matter which will be – should be re-engineered to equal the petrophysical kh.

The simplest thanks to address this common downside is for the team to prevent thinking k_average and begin thinking k flow capability 

Upscaling Geomodels – porosity Averaging vs porosity total

Imagine your reservoir as a road cutting.  It contains a particular quantity of hydrocarbons (EHC, m) and contains a bound Flow capability (kh, mDm) in spite of what scale we decide to explain it at: 15cm (logs), 1m (static geo-model) or 5m (reservoir simulation geo-model).  All models should honor these facts.  If they are doing not they're wrong.  These facts shouldn't be glossed over as “an upscaling problem”, a dismissive angle usually expressed in conferences.  The porosity averaging technique isn't a reality regarding the reservoir. It’s flow capability is.  The averaging technique should equal our greatest estimate of kh and is just that mathematical device that achieves the petrophysical price for kh within the upscaled cell. If the petrophysicist is competent the most effective estimate of kh are going to be the petrophysical well check tag, effective kh. this is often the reference.

Can one Geo-cell k price serve 2 separate functions, SwHt & kh?

The “averaged” permeability’s impact on the geo-cell Saturation-height calculation should be treated after to honor the petrophysical EHC, however this ulterior use of averaged k should not be allowed cause k to deviate from the cell’s factual petrophysical kh price.  The double use of the geo-cell’s k price carries the potential to cause issues. one price of k might not be able to yield the right answers of petrophysical EHC and petrophysical kh, rather these petrophysical reference values should be honored by no matter mathematical device is critical to change k to calculate its derivatives properly.  (Mathematicians: the utilization of k in these equations is empirical not theoretical)  A nonuniformity variance k issue, from the petrophysicist for every geo-cell interval within the log knowledge, could also be inserted into the geo-cell saturation height and/or kh formula to attain equality in EHC and kh across all scales of reservoir description. The k variance issue may be a standardisation parameter, a mathematical device that achieves the target (as with m and n in Archie’s equation..). the ultimate result should be the petrophysical EHC and kh in any respect scales.

Geomodel Checksums. The geo-modeller ought to export the geo-model’s grid upscaled, summed EHC and kh down every well track back to petrophysical computer code. the whole EHC and Flow capability (kh) of the rock should be equal in any respect scales.  Common symptoms of issues square measure fudged Relative perms, kver/khor, or HCIIP to match history.

Geomodel Upscaling outline 

The geo modeller’s objective is to match petrophysical EHC and kh. one k price might not meet this demand. 2 k values could also be needed, one for saturation height and EHC (k_ehc) and one for kh (k_kh).  A k variance issue per geo-cell used with the geo-cell k price within the Swht and/or kh equations could permit one k price to serve these 2 functions.

 All Integrated Petrophysics courses available in whole, part or re-assembled. Delivered via Zoom or similar.  Live or canned sessions. These are the best petrophysics courses at the best rates.