1874-8341/19 Send Orders for Reprints to reprints@benthamscience.

net

The Open Petroleum Engineering Journal

Content list available at: https://openpetroleumengineeringjournal.com

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Analysis of Spatial Distribution Pattern of Reservoir Petrophysical Properties

for Horizontal Well Performance Evaluation-A Case Study of Reservoir X
Aidoo Borsah Abraham1,*, Annan Boah Evans1 and Brantson Eric Thompson2
1
Oil and Gas Engineering Department, School of Engineering, All Nations University College, Koforidua, Ghana
2
Petroleum Engineering Department, Faculty of Mineral Resources Technology, University of Mines and Technology, Tarkwa, Ghana

Abstract:
Introduction:
Building a large number of static models to analyze reservoir performance is vital in reservoir development planning. For the purpose of
maximizing oil recovery, reservoir behavior must be modelled properly to predict its performance. This requires the study of the variation of the
reservoir petrophysical properties as a function of spatial location.

Methods:
In recent times, the method used to analyze reservoir behavior is the use of reservoir simulation. Hence, this study seeks to analyze the spatial
distribution pattern of reservoir petrophysical properties such as porosity, permeability, thickness, saturation and ascertain its effect on cumulative
oil production. Geostatistical techniques were used to distribute the petrophysical properties in building a 2D static model of the reservoir and
construction of dynamic model to analyze reservoir performance. Vertical to horizontal permeability anisotropy ratio affects horizontal wells
drilled in the 2D static reservoir. The performance of the horizontal wells appeared to be increasing steadily as kv/kh increases. At kv/kh value of
0.55, a higher cumulative oil production was observed compared to a kv/kh ratio of 0.4, 0.2, and 0.1. In addition, horizontal well length
significantly affects cumulative oil production of the petroleum reservoir studied.

Results:
At kv/kh of 0.55, the results of the analysis showed a rapid decrement in cumulative oil production as the horizontal well length decreases.
Considering horizontal well length of 3000 ft, 2000 ft, and 1500 ft, a minimum cumulative oil production was obtained from a horizontal well
length of 1500 ft.

Conclusion:
The geostatistical and reservoir simulation methods employed in this study will serve as an insight in analyzing horizontal well performance.

Keywords: Kriging, Simulation, Variogram, Geostatistics, Permeability, Thickness, Porosity.

Article History Received: November 05, 2018 Revised: February 14, 2019 Accepted: February 20, 2019

1. INTRODUCTION needed. Geostatistics seeks to improve prediction by deve-

Reservoir development planning and well performance loping different types of static models. It uses techniques that
evaluation is essential for oil and gas exploration and develop- do not average important reservoir properties to produce more
ment (E&P) project. In the past years, horizontal wells have realistic geological model of reservoir heterogeneity. Like the
been widely used in the exploration and development of traditional deterministic method, “hard” data is indisputably
unconventional and low permeability reservoirs [1 - 7]. Gene- preserved where they are known and interpretative “soft” data
rally, E&P investment decision is based on several factors where they are informative [8]. In addition, petrophysical
including reservoir performance predictions. To achieve sound properties distribution is essential for building static models of
reservoir performance predictions, a reliable static model is the reservoir. These properties involved may include the poro-
sity, permeability, thickness, saturation, rock facies and rock
* Address correspondence to this author at the Oil and Gas Engineering
Department, Faculty of Engineering, All Nations University College, Koforidua,
characteristics, faults and fractures [9]. For many years now,
Ghana; Tel: +233243344953; E-mail: borsahaidoo@gmail.com geostatistical techniques have been an acceptable technology

DOI: 10.2174/1874834101912010001, 2019, 12, 1-13

2 The Open Petroleum Engineering Journal, 2019, Volume 12 Abraham et al.

used for reservoirs’ characterization [10 - 13]. The main pur- sand with a gently west dipping slope. The structure has a
pose for using geostatistics is to analyze and provide adequate maximum elevation difference of approximately 60 ft with a
assessment of geological uncertainty and a realistic model of thickness of approximately 40 ft to 50 ft. The average net-pay
reservoir property variability. Geostatistics attempts to generate thickness is 20 ft. The compressibility of the formation is
many realizations of a two dimensional variable that represents -6 -1
approximately 3.0 x 10 psi . At 9290ft reference depth, the
the reservoir quality within the stratigraphic interval [14]. initial oil and gas saturation are estimated to be Soi=77%, and
More importantly, the decision on how to increase oil Swi=23% respectively. At the reference depth of 9290 ft, initial
recovery and maximize the profitability of field development formation pressure is measured to be 4800 psia. Reservoir X
projects is the focal point. Therefore, an extensive evaluation consists of poorly-to-well-sorted Cretaceous Dakota J sands.
of certain decision variables such as production scheduling The reservoir sands depict excellent reservoir quality with
parameters, reservoir properties, well types, location to drill permeability ranging from 250 mD to 300 mD. The average
new wells and effective technique to obtain the best economic effective porosity of the reservoir is 22% [15].
strategies are required. Also, consideration should be given to
the spatial distribution of geological and rock properties such 3. MATERIALS AND METHODS
as porosity and permeability in order to locate potential
hydrocarbon zones for drilling activities. This involves exten- 3.1. Materials Used
sive analysis and critical evaluation of development strategies The data used for this research include: isoporosity map,
to produce the greatest amount of hydrocarbons within the isopermeability map, structure, and isopach maps of reservoir
expected economic limits. Several techniques have been X. The maps were digitized and their corresponding coordi-
adopted to achieve efficient reservoir development process nates were used to produce Digital Terrain Model (DTM) and
which significantly affects the productivity and economic contour map of top of sand structure of reservoir X as shown in
benefits of an oil reservoir. However, the purpose of this study Figs. (1 & 2). The permeability, porosity and thickness values
is to analyze the spatial distribution pattern of reservoir obtained from the isopermeability, isoporosity, and isopach
petrophysical properties to evaluate horizontal well perfor- maps were used for the Geostatistical modeling.
mance. In this study, spatial based modeling approaches and
reservoir simulation were used as key evaluating factor for the 3.2. Reservoir Characterization and Static Modeling
development of the reservoir to improve its productivity.
The reservoir has an aerial extent of about 620 acres with
the net thickness of about 40ft. The average effective porosity
2. RESERVOIR DESCRIPTION
of the reservoir is 22%, with permeability ranging from 250mD
The reservoir studied in this research synthetically named to 300 mD.The maximum and minimum values of the X and Y
reservoir X is located in Plum Bush Greek Field, Washington coordinates of the properties location were used to estimate the
County, Colorado. It has a geometry comparable to channel region of stationarity as shown in Table 1.
N

0
00
623
00 00
44186 28
0 2
840 06
441 26
0
0 62
20
18 00
44 24
00 62
44 180 00
00 22
8 62
17
44 00
00 20
Nortings (ft) 6 62 Eastings (ft)
17
44 0
180
4 00 62
17
44 00
16
200 62
17
44 00
14
62

Scale, ft

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Fig. (1). Digital terrain model of Reservoir X.

Analysis of Spatial Distribution Pattern of Reservoir Petrophysical Properties The Open Petroleum Engineering Journal, 2019, Volume 12 3

N 4418600

4418400

9800
4418200
Nortings (ft)

75
92
4418000

00
4417800 93
6

0
927

930
4417600
00
93

4417400
75
92
9300 76
92
4417200

621400 621600 621800 622000 622200 622400 622600 622800 623000

Eastings (ft)
Scale, ft

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Fig. (2). Contour map of top of sand structure of reservoir X.

Stanford Geostatistical Modeling Software (SGEMS), an Table 1. Summary of Defined Region of Stationarity used
open-source computer package for solving problems involving in Static Modeling.
spatially related variables, was employed. Each reservoir
property data set was estimated using variogram models, Cell Dimensions (in feet) Value
Ordinary Kriging (OK), Sequential Gaussian Simulation Number of cells in the X-direction 96
(SGS), and Sequential Indicator Simulation (SIS). Generally, Number of cells in the Y-direction 96
anisotropic variograms were considered to adequately capture Number of cells in the Z-direction 20
the spatial variation between the data points. The properties
Minimum value of X-coordinates, Xmin 621359.55
evaluated are permeability, porosity, and net thickness. These
Maximum value of X-coordinates, Xmax 623285.70
properties were evaluated in each of the eight layers within the
reservoir. OK was used to estimate permeability, porosity, and Minimum value of Y-coordinates, Ymin 4416890.17
thickness values at the unsampled location. SGS was carried Maximum value of Y-coordinates, Ymax 4418816.32
out on porosity and thickness, while SIS was carried out on the
permeability model with many realizations produced in each Table 2. Porosity Modeling Parameters.
layer. Philips [14] proposed that one realization is only one
possible outcome, many realizations normally need to be Parameters Value
simulated to assess variability and probability of occurrence. Number of Lags 60
3.3. Porosity Distribution Model Lag Separation (ft) 45
Lag Tolerance (ft) 75
In this study, porosity was modeled using SGS. Fig. (3)
shows porosity distribution map generated with OK and SGS. Number of Directions 1
The spatial variation in the porosity data points was well Azimuth (degree) 0
captured in one variogram direction. Variogram analysis was Dip (degree) 0
conducted on the porosity data set to subsequently aid in the Tolerance (degrees) 90
generation of equiprobable realizations. Exponential model Bandwidth(ft) 1200
was used to fit the data set by visual inspection. The modeling Nugget Effect (γ) 0.35
input parameters are shown in Table 2. Number of Structures 1
Sill (γ) 0.53
3.4. Permeability Distribution Model
Minimum Range (ft) 89
Modeling of permeability was carried out using SIS. Fig.
Medium Range (ft) 221
(4) shows permeability distribution map generated with OK
Maximum Range (ft) 512
and SIS. The modeling input parameters are shown in Table 3.
4 The Open Petroleum Engineering Journal, 2019, Volume 12 Abraham et al.

(a)

Porosity (%)
22.97
22.32
21.66
21.00
20.35
19.69
19.03
y

x
(b)

Porosity (%)
25.11
23.89
22.67
21.45
20.23
19.02
17.80
y

(c)
1.4

1.2

0.8
g
0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Distance (ft)

Fig. (3). Spatial distribution of porosity;(a) ordinary kriging (b) a plot of SGS (c) variogram model.

The OK map shows good lateral continuity of high perme- 3.5. Thickness Distribution Model
ability values along the south west and north east corner of the
grid block. Gaussian variogram model was used to fit the Modeling of net thickness was carried out using SGS. Fig.
permeability data set from the variogram analysis conducted. (5) shows thickness distribution map generated from OK and
Omni-directional variograms were used to appropriately SGS. The model shows lateral continuity from the southeast to
capture the spatial correlation in the permeability data set. the northwest corner of the grid block.
Analysis of Spatial Distribution Pattern of Reservoir Petrophysical Properties The Open Petroleum Engineering Journal, 2019, Volume 12 5

This represents the principal direction of the variogram. variograms were used to adequately capture the spatial corre-
Gaussian variogram model was used to fit the thickness data lation in the thickness data set. Table 4 shows the modeling
set from the variogram analysis conducted. Omni-directional input parameters.

(a)

Permeability (mD)
264.3
262.3
260.2
258.2
256.1
251.1
252.0
y

(b)

Permeability (mD)
269.6
266.4
263.4
259.8
256.6
253.3
250.0
y

(c)
25

20

15

g
10

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Distance (ft)

Fig. (4). Spatial distribution of permeability; (a) ordinary kriging (b) a plot of SIS (c) variogram model.
6 The Open Petroleum Engineering Journal, 2019, Volume 12 Abraham et al.

(a)
Thickness (ft)
28.00
24.98
21.95
18.92
15.89
12.86
09.83

(b)

Thickness (ft)
36.80
31.16
25.53
19.89
14.26
08.63
02.99

(c)
35

30

25

20
g
15

10

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Distance (ft)

Fig. (5). Spatial distribution of net thickness; (a) ordinary kriging (b) a plot of SGS (c) variogram model.

4. DYNAMIC RESERVOIR MODELLING tion Problem [17], SPE2, A Three-Phase Coning Study [18]
and SPE9, An Expanded Three-Dimensional Problem with a
Sensor 6K compositional and black-oil reservoir simulator Geostatistical Distribution of Permeability [19], were run as
was used for the reservoir simulation phase of this research well as two compositional cases, SPE3, Gas Cycling of
[16]. Several SPE comparative solution examples were used to Retrograde Condensate Reservoir [20], and SPE5, Evaluation
test the accuracy and efficiency of the model code formulation of Miscible Flood Simulators [21]. All the runs gave identical
and results. Three black oil problem, SPE1, Comparison of results and good agreement was obtained on validity of the
Solutions to a Three Dimensional Black Oil Reservoir Simula- compositional and black-oil reservoir simulator [16].
Analysis of Spatial Distribution Pattern of Reservoir Petrophysical Properties The Open Petroleum Engineering Journal, 2019, Volume 12 7

Prod 2
Prod 1
Prod 3

OilSat

2.06620 0.46338 0.66057 0.85775

0.06902

Fig. (6). Well location in reservoir X.

Table 3. Permeabilitymodeling Parameters. Table 4. Thickness modeling parameters.

Parameters Value Parameters Value

Number of Lags 50 Number of Lags 40
Lag Separation (ft) 60 Lag Separation (ft) 30
Lag Tolerance (ft) 105 Lag Tolerance (ft) 80
Number of Directions 1 Number of Directions 1
Azimuth (degree) 0 Azimuth (degree) 0
Dip (degree) 0 Dip (degree) 0
Tolerance (degrees) 90 Tolerance(degrees) 90
Bandwidth (ft) 6900 Bandwidth (ft) 6900
Nugget Effect (γ) 3 Nugget Effect (γ) 7.9
Number of Structures 1 Number of Structures 1
Sill (γ) 10 Sill (γ) 23
Minimum Range (ft) 112 Minimum Range (ft) 150
Medium Range (ft) 310 Medium Range (ft) 720
Maximum Range (ft) 588 Maximum Range (ft) 1320

The phases present in reservoir X are water and oil. The 4.1. Spatial Distribution Model of Pressure and Saturation
model represents a 620 acre field (approximately 6000ft x
The reservoir is strongly supported by an aquifer and the
5400ft) with three production wells located in grid block 7:7:4,
invading water helps to move the oil to the producing wells.
2:3:6 and 9:4:5 respectively. In this study, 10 years’ production
The pressure within the reservoir is uniformly distributed and it
period was considered. Perforations were shut down as soon as
ranges from 2992.9 psia to 3009.3 psia. Fig. (8) shows the
water cut reaches 80%. Fig. (6) and Table 5 shows wells
spatial distribution map of field pressure and saturation.
location in reservoir X and the initial fluids in place after the
initialization run. Table 5. Initial fluids in place.
The porosity, permeability, and thickness generated were
Water Oil Gas GOR SCF/STB Bo Bg
used to populate the reservoir model. The simulation grid and
MSTB MSTB MMCF 1 2 3 (RB/STB) (RB/MCF)
various rock properties in each grid cell were specified in the
grid section. From these properties, the pore volumes of the 7524 25871 0 0 0 0 1.175 0
grid blocks and the inter-block transmissibilities were 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
estimated by the simulator. The average effective porosity is
22% and permeability ranges from 250mD to 300 mD. Fig. (7) In this research, well performance evaluation was
shows the relative permeability curve used while a summary of considered to be a key factor in the reservoir development plan
the reservoir properties are shown in Table 6. with the purpose of maximizing oil recovery. In respect of this,
8 The Open Petroleum Engineering Journal, 2019, Volume 12 Abraham et al.

certain reservoir and well parameters such as vertical to recovery. The critical evaluation of development strategies
horizontal permeability anisotropy (kv/kh) and horizontal well implemented to produce the greatest amount of hydrocarbons is
length were analyzed to ascertain optimum hydrocarbon described as follows:

0.45
0.40

Relative Permeability
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15 KRW
0.10 KRO
0.05
0.00
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Water Saturation, SW

Fig. (7). Relative Permeability Curve.

1 2 4 6 8 1 11 P (psia) 1 2 4 6 8 1 11

J J 3009.3 J J

2 2
2 2 3007.2

3005.2
4 4
4 4 3003.1

3001.1
6 6

6 6 2999.0

2997.0 8 8

8 J J
8 2994.9
Sa
J J 2992.9 1 2 4 6 8 1 11

1 2 4 6 8 1 11
Sw So

Fig. (8). Pressure and saturation distribution map of reservoir X.

7000

6000

5000
QOIL (STB/D)

4000 kv/kh=0.55
kv/kh=0.4
3000
kv/kh=0.2
2000
kv/kh=0.1
1000

0
0 2 4 6 8 10
TIME (YRS)

Fig. (9). Oil production rate.

Analysis of Spatial Distribution Pattern of Reservoir Petrophysical Properties The Open Petroleum Engineering Journal, 2019, Volume 12 9

6000

5000

TB)
4000

MMS
k
v/k
h=0.
55

L(
3000
CUMOI k
v/k
h=0.
4

2000 k
v/k
h=0.
2
k
v/k
h=0.
1
1000

0
0 2 4 6 8 10
T
IME(
YRS
)

Fig. (10). Cumulative oil production.

Table 6. Summary of reservoir properties. researchers [22] on the effect of permeability anisotropy on
horizontal well performance is in agreement with the findings
Properties Value of this research in the sense that their work depicted the same
Reservoir area 620 acres trend with this research work as shown in Figs. (9) & (10). In
Grid block size 200ft x 200ft x 6ft their work, kv/kh ratios of 1, 0.1, 0.0333, 0.02, and 0.01 were
Top of Reservoir 9290 ft used to demonstrate that horizontal wells are more affected by
anisotropy. The general trend observed from their results
Water Oil Contact 9330 ft
indicates that at higher kv/kh ratio, horizontal well perform
Reservoir thickness 40 ft
better and as kv/kh ratio decreases, horizontal well productivity
Average Porosity 0.22
decreases. Also, in this present study, the results indicate that
Initial Oil Saturation 0.77 with the highest kv/kh ratio of 0.55, there was an increment in
Initial Water Saturation 0.23 both oil production rate and cumulative oil production as
Oil Viscosity 2.4 cp compared to kv/kh ratio of 0.4, 0.2, and 0.1.
Water Viscosity 0.96 cp
Oil FVF (Bo) 1.175rb/stb 5.2. Horizontal Well Length Influence
Water FVF (Bw) 1.00325 rb/stb At kv/kh of 0.55, the effect of horizontal well length was
Oil Density 49.011 lb/cuft analyzed by producing hydrocarbon from the reservoir with a
Water Density 62.140 lb/cuft varied length of 1500ft, 2000ft and 3000ft. Running the simu-
Water Compressibility 3 x 10-6 psi-1 lator for 10 years, the results of the oil production rate and
Rock Compressibility 3 x 10-6 psi-1 cumulative oil production with respect to time are shown in
Initial Reservoir Pressure 4800 Psi Figs. (11 & 12).
Bubble Point Pressure 3000 Psi The results shown in Fig. (12) depict a uniform cumulative
oil production from the three horizontal wells for the first two
5.1. Influence of Vertical to Horizontal Permeability
years. After the second year, cumulative oil production
Anisotropy (kv/kh)
appeared to be increasing. However, horizontal well length of
The effect of vertical to horizontal permeability anisotropy 3000 ft achieved the highest cumulative oil production at the
was analyzed by producing the reservoir with kv/kh varied at end of the production period.
0.1, 0.2, 0.4, and 0.55. A horizontal well was drilled at a length
It was observed from the simulation studies conducted by
of 3000 ft and the simulator was run for 10 years. The results
Akpabio et al. [23] that increasing horizontal well length and
of the oil production rate and cumulative oil production are
production rate is desirable because it enhances ultimate
shown in Figs. (9 & 10).
recovery from the well bore. The findings of their research
Cumulative oil production appears to be increasing steadily agree with this present study as depicted in Figs. (11 & 12).
as kv/kh ratio increases. From Fig. (10), kv/kh ratio of 0.55 Considering horizontal well length of 3000 ft, 2000 ft, and
predicted a higher cumulative oil production as compared to 1500 ft, a higher oil production rate and cumulative oil pro-
kv/kh ratio of 0.4, 0.2, and 0.1 at the end of the 10 years. This duction were obtained from horizontal well length of 3000 ft.
is because a low vertical to horizontal permeability anisotropy The productivity of the horizontal well in this study shows a
ratio minimizes the vertical cross flow of hydrocarbon between general increase with an increase in the well length. This is
the layers of the reservoir. because, while the productivity of a horizontal well increases
Already conducted and validated studies by various with an increase in well length, the efficiency of a horizontal
well decreases with increases in the reservoir thickness [24].
10 The Open Petroleum Engineering Journal, 2019, Volume 12 Abraham et al.

7000

6000

5000

QOIL (STB/D)
4000
1500 FT
3000 2000 FT

2000 3000 FT

1000

0
0 2 4 6 8 10
TIME (YRS)

Fig. (11). Oil production rate.

9000
8000
7000
CUMOIL (MSTB)

6000
5000
4000 1500 FT
3000 2000 FT
2000 3000 FT
1000
0
0 2 4 6 8 10

TIME (YRS)

Fig. (12). Cumulative oil production.

8
7

5
WCUT (%)

4 1500 FT

3 2000 FT

2 3000 FT

1
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
TIME (YRS)

Fig. (13). Water cut.

Analysis of Spatial Distribution Pattern of Reservoir Petrophysical Properties The Open Petroleum Engineering Journal, 2019, Volume 12 11

6000

5000

4000
FPR(PSI)
3000 1500 FT
2000 FT
2000
3000 FT
1000

0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Time(YRS)

Fig. (14). Field pressure.

Fig. (13) shows a graph of water cut versus time. Gene- AVAILABILITY OF DATA AND MATERIALS
rally, the rate of water production from the reservoir was The data supporting the findings of the article is available
extremely low. This is because the analysis of the spatial in the [AAPG Datapages/Archives] at [http://archives.
distribution of petrophysical properties resulted in horizontal datapages.com/data/rmag/oilgasfields82/plumbushcreek.htm].
wells been drilled at best locations and perforated away from
the water zone. FUNDING

Fig. (14) shows a graph of field pressure versus time. The None.
graph shows no significant variation in the field pressure for
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
the three wells. At 3009 psi, the field pressure remained
constant till the end of the production period, year 10. This is The authors declare no conflict of interest, financial or
due to the presence of a strong aquifer which provided enough otherwise.
pressure support.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
CONCLUSION The authors appreciate the All Nations University College
(ANUC), Koforidua for the supports granted to complete this
The study seeks to evaluate the performance of fully
work.
penetrated horizontal wells based on the analysis of spatial
distribution pattern of the reservoir petrophysical properties. REFERENCES
Geostatistical models of permeability, porosity, and thickness [1] E. Ozkan, R. Raghavan, and S.D. Joshi, "Horizontal-well pressure
were used to populate the reservoir model for dynamic analysis", SPE Form. Eval., vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 567-16378, 1989.
simulation. Based on the above analysis, the following [http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/16378-PA]
[2] Z. Chen, X. Liao, X. Zhao, X. Dou, L. Zhu, and L. Sanbo, "A finite-
conclusions were derived: conductivity horizontal-well model for pressure transient analysis in
multiple-fractured horizontal wells", SPE J., vol. 22, no. 4, pp.
Vertical to horizontal permeability anisotropy ratio affects 1112-1122, 2017.
horizontal wells. The performance of the horizontal wells [http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/177230-PA]
appeared to be increasing steadily as kv/kh increases. At a [3] Z. Rui, C. Li, and F. Pengetal, "Development of industry performance
metrics for offshore oil and gas project", J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng., vol. 39,
kv/kh value of 0.55, a higher cumulative oil production was pp. 44-53, 2017.
observed compared to a kv/kh ratio of 0.4, 0.2, and 0.1. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2017.01.022]
[4] W. Ren, G. Li, S. Tian, M. Sheng, and L. Geng, "Adsorption and
In addition, horizontal well length significantly affects surface diffusion of supercritical methane in shale", Ind. Eng. Chem.
Res., vol. 56, no. 12, pp. 3446-3455, 2017.
cumulative oil production of the petroleum reservoir. At kv/kh [http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.6b04432]
of 0.55, the results of the analysis showed a rapid increment in [5] Z. Chai, B. Yan, J.E. Killough, and Y. Wang, "An efficient method for
cumulative oil production as the length of the horizontal well fractured shale reservoir history matching: The embedded discrete
fracture multi-continuum approach", UAE, 20162016.In: SPE Annual
increases. Considering horizontal well length of 3000 ft, 2000 Technical Conference and Exhibition, ATCE,
ft, and 1500 ft, a maximum cumulative oil production was [http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/181765-MS]
obtained from horizontal well length of 3000 ft. [6] T. Guo, Y. Li, Y. Ding, Z. Qu, N. Gai, and Z. Rui, "Evaluation of acid
fracturing treatments in shale formation", Energy Fuels, vol. 31, no.
10, pp. 10479-10489, 2017.
CONSENT FOR PUBLICATION [http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.7b01398]
[7] R. Rui, F. Peng, K. Ling, H. Chang, G. Chen, and X. Zhou,
Not applicable. "Investigation into the performance of oil and gas projects", J. Petrol.
12 The Open Petroleum Engineering Journal, 2019, Volume 12 Abraham et al.

Sci. Eng., vol. 38, pp. 12-20, 2017. Reservoir Simulation, Duke Engineering and Services Co.: Los
[8] C.E. Wilson, A. Aydin, L.J. Durlofsky, A. Boucher, and D.T. Angeles, 2001, pp. 8-31.
Brownlow, "Use of outcrop observations, geostatistical analysis, and [16] K.H. Coats, K.H. Thomas, and R.G. Pierson, "Compositional and
flow simulation to investigate structural controls on secondary black-oil reservoir simulation", Society of Petroleum Engineers, pp.
hydrocarbon migration in the Anacacho Limestone, Uvalde, Texas", 149-162, 1995.
AAPG Bull., vol. 95, no. 7, pp. 1181-1206, 2011. [http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/29111-MS]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1306/11191010069] [17] A.S. Odeh, "Comparison of solutions to a three dimensional black-oil
[9] M.L. Zhang, Y.Z. Zhang, and G.M. Yu, "Applied Geostatistics reservoir simulation problem", JPT, vol. 33, pp. 13-25, 1981.
Analysis for Reservoir Characterization Based on the SGeMS", Open [http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/9723-PA]
J. Yangtze Gas Oil, vol. 2, pp. 45-66, 2017. [18] H.G. Weinstein, J.E. Chappelear, and J.S. Nolen, "Second comparative
[http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojogas.2017.21004] solution project: A three-phase coning study", JPT, vol. 38, pp.
[10] L. Qi, T.R. Carr, and R.H. Goldstein, "Geostatistical three-dimensional 345-353, 1986.
modeling of oolite shoals, St. Louis Limestone, southwest Kansas", [http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/10489-PA]
AAPG Bull., vol. 91, no. 1, pp. 69-96, 2007. [19] J.H. Killough, "Ninth SPE comparative solution project: An expanded
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1306/08090605167] three-dimensional problem with a geostatistical distribution of
[11] M. Abdideh, and D. Bargahi, "Designing a 3D model for the permeability", 1995 SPE Symposium on Reservoir Simulation, 1995
prediction of the top of formation in oil fields using geostatistical San Antonio, USA
methods", Geocarto Int., vol. 27, no. 7, pp. 569-579, 2012. [20] D.E. Kenyon, and G.A. Behie, "Third SPE comparative solution
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10106049.2012.662529] project: Gas cycling of retrograde condensate reservoirs", JPT, vol. 39,
[12] S. Esmaeilzadeh, A. Afshari, and R. Motafakkerfard, "Integrating pp. 981-998, 1987.
artificial neural networks technique and geostatistical approaches for [http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/12278-PA]
3D Geological Reservoir Porosity Modeling with an example from one [21] J. Killough, and C. Kossack, "Fifth SPE comparative solution project:
of Iran’s oil fields", Petrol. Sci. Technol., vol. 31, no. 11, pp. Evaluation of miscible flood simulators", paper SPE 16000 presented
1175-1187, 2013. at the Ninth SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium., 19871987 San
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10916466.2010.540617] Aqntonio, Texas
[13] A. Fegh, M. Riahi, and G. Norouzi, "Permeability prediction and [22] R. Pathak, D.E. Ogbe, and J.L. Jensen, "The application of
construction of 3D geological model: application of neural Networks geostatistical and fluid flow simulation to evaluate options for well
and stochastic approaches in an Iranian gas reservoir", Neural Comput. placement", Society of Petroleum Engineers, p. 4, 2013.
Appl., vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 1763-1770, 2013. [23] J. U. Akpabio, O. I. Akpanika, and I. A. Isemin, "Horizontal well
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00521-012-1142-8] performance in thin oil rim reservoirs", Int. J. Eng. Sci. Res. tech., p. 4,
[14] R. Philip, and B. Mark, Reservoir Modeling Design, Springer 2013.
Dordrecht Heidelberg, Press: New York, 1986, pp. 36-103. [24] S.D. Joshi, "A review of horizontal well and drain hole technology",
[15] T. Ertekin, J.H. Abou-Kassem, and G.R. King, Basic Applied In: 62th SPE Ann. Tech. Conf. and Exhib, Dallas, TX, 1987, pp. 27-30.

© 2019 Abraham et al.

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License (CC-BY 4.0), a copy of which is
available at: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the
original author and source are credited.