Static Reservoir Modeling Comparing Inverse Distance Weighting to Kriging Interpolation Algorithm in Volumetric Estimation. Case Study: Gullfaks Field

Daniel Asante Otchere, D. Hodgetts, T. Ganat, Najeeb Ullah, Alidu Rashid
{"title":"Static Reservoir Modeling Comparing Inverse Distance Weighting to Kriging Interpolation Algorithm in Volumetric Estimation. Case Study: Gullfaks Field","authors":"Daniel Asante Otchere, D. Hodgetts, T. Ganat, Najeeb Ullah, Alidu Rashid","doi":"10.4043/30919-ms","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Understanding and characterizing the behaviour of the subsurface by combining it with a suitable statistical method gives a higher level of confidence in the reservoir model produced. Interpolation of porosity and permeability data with minimum error and high accuracy is, therefore, essential in reservoir modeling. The most widely used interpolation algorithm, kriging, with enough well data is the best linear unbiased estimator. This research sought to compare the applicability and competitiveness of inverse distance weighting (IDW) method using power index of 1, 2 and 4 to kriging when there is sparse data, due to time and budget constraints, to calculate hydrocarbon volumes in a fluvial-deltaic reservoir.\n Interpolation results, estimated from descriptive statistics, were insignificant and showed similar prediction accuracy and consistency but IDW with power index of 1 indicated the least error estimation and higher accuracy. The assessment of hydrocarbon volume calculations also showed a marginal difference below 0.08 between IDW power index of 1 and kriging in the reservoir zones. Reservoir segments cross-validation and correlation analysis results indicate IDW to have no significant difference to kriging with absolute errors of 3% for recoverable oil and 0.7% for recoverable gas. Grid upscaling, which usually causes a loss of geological features and extreme porosity values, did not impact the results but rather complemented the robustness of IDW in both fine and coarse grid upscale.\n With IDW exhibiting least errors and higher accuracy, the volumetric and statistical results confirm that when there are fewer well data in a fluvial-deltaic reservoir, the suitable spatial interpolation choice should be IDW method with a power index of 1.","PeriodicalId":10936,"journal":{"name":"Day 2 Tue, August 17, 2021","volume":"106 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Day 2 Tue, August 17, 2021","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4043/30919-ms","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Understanding and characterizing the behaviour of the subsurface by combining it with a suitable statistical method gives a higher level of confidence in the reservoir model produced. Interpolation of porosity and permeability data with minimum error and high accuracy is, therefore, essential in reservoir modeling. The most widely used interpolation algorithm, kriging, with enough well data is the best linear unbiased estimator. This research sought to compare the applicability and competitiveness of inverse distance weighting (IDW) method using power index of 1, 2 and 4 to kriging when there is sparse data, due to time and budget constraints, to calculate hydrocarbon volumes in a fluvial-deltaic reservoir. Interpolation results, estimated from descriptive statistics, were insignificant and showed similar prediction accuracy and consistency but IDW with power index of 1 indicated the least error estimation and higher accuracy. The assessment of hydrocarbon volume calculations also showed a marginal difference below 0.08 between IDW power index of 1 and kriging in the reservoir zones. Reservoir segments cross-validation and correlation analysis results indicate IDW to have no significant difference to kriging with absolute errors of 3% for recoverable oil and 0.7% for recoverable gas. Grid upscaling, which usually causes a loss of geological features and extreme porosity values, did not impact the results but rather complemented the robustness of IDW in both fine and coarse grid upscale. With IDW exhibiting least errors and higher accuracy, the volumetric and statistical results confirm that when there are fewer well data in a fluvial-deltaic reservoir, the suitable spatial interpolation choice should be IDW method with a power index of 1.
静态储层建模:体积估计中逆距离加权与Kriging插值算法的比较案例研究:Gullfaks Field
通过将其与合适的统计方法相结合,了解和描述地下的行为,可以提高所生成的储层模型的可信度。因此,在储层建模中,以最小误差和高精度插值孔隙度和渗透率数据至关重要。使用最广泛的插值算法克里格是最好的线性无偏估计。由于时间和预算的限制,在数据稀疏的情况下,利用幂指数为1、2和4的逆距离加权(IDW)方法与克里格法(kriging)在河流-三角洲储层中计算油气体积的适用性和竞争力进行了比较。描述性统计估计的插值结果不显著,预测精度和一致性相似,但幂指数为1的IDW估计误差最小,精度较高。油气体积计算的评价结果也表明,在储层中,IDW功率指数为1与克里格的差异在0.08以下。储层段交叉验证和相关分析结果表明,IDW与克里格法无显著差异,可采原油和可采天然气的绝对误差分别为3%和0.7%。网格升级通常会导致地质特征和极端孔隙度值的丢失,但对结果没有影响,反而补充了IDW在细网格和粗网格升级中的鲁棒性。体积和统计结果表明,当河流-三角洲储层井资料较少时,适合的空间插值方法应为幂指数为1的IDW方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信