Marine and Petroleum Geology 26 (2009) 2032–2043

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Marine and Petroleum Geology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpetgeo

Prediction of hydrocarbon recovery from turbidite sandstones with

linked-debrite facies: Numerical flow-simulation studies
Lawrence A. Amy a, *, Simon A. Peachey a, Andy A. Gardiner a, Peter J. Talling b,1
a
Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot Watt University, Riccarton, Edinburgh EH14 4AS, UK
b
Department of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1RJ, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A series of two-dimensional numerical flow simulations were carried out to investigate the production
Received 2 July 2008 characteristics of a sheet sandstone bed with a linked-debrite interval. A deterministic geological model
Accepted 13 February 2009 was used based on a two-dimensional representation of a bed from the Marnoso Arenacea Formation.
Available online 1 April 2009
The model was 60 km long and w1 m thick and contained three zones, arranged in a vertical facies
arrangement typical of many linked-debrite beds: i) a lower, coarse-to-medium grained, clean turbidite
Keywords:
sandstone interval; ii) a middle, muddy sandstone, debrite interval; iii) an upper, fine-grained, clean,
Turbidite
laminated sandstone interval. Simulation involved only a 3-km long sector of the model, with one
Debrite
Numerical flow simulation injector well and one production well, placed 1-km apart in the middle of the sector model. The
Two-phase flow simulated sector was moved progressively down the length of the bed, in 1-km steps, sampling different
Oil production parts of the bed with different facies proportions. The petrophysical properties of the debrite interval
were varied to produce different porosity–permeability cases. All other modelling parameters, including
the upper and lower interval petrophysics, were kept constant. Results indicate that, in most cases, key
production parameters such as cumulative oil production with time and water cut are proportional to the
volume of movable oil between the wells. This relationship does not hold, however, for cases with
relatively low values of debrite porosity (0.15) and permeability (kh  100 mD) where the debrite
interval accounts for more than 20% of the interwell volume. In these models, production efficiency
declines systematically with reducing reservoir quality and increasing debrite percentage, resulting in
relatively low oil production and early water breakthrough.
Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The widespread occurrence of linked debrites in distal settings
of turbidite systems has been emphasised in a number of recent
studies on ancient outcrop and modern sea-floor turbidite systems
(Haughton et al., 2003; Talling et al., 2004; papers in this issue).
These studies were prompted by a need to understand reservoir
heterogeneity of analogous, hydrocarbon-bearing, subsurface
systems. Linked debrites comprise mixtures of sand and mud in
varying proportions, with the latter component occurring as matrix
and/or clasts. This facies, therefore, tends to have a lower reservoir
quality compared to associated cleaner turbidite sandstones and in
cases of significantly reduced permeability, can act as baffles or
* Corresponding author now at: Saudi Aramco, Reservoir Characterization
Department, EXPEC Building, Dhahran 31311, Saudi Arabia. Tel.: þ966 3 873 9560.
E-mail address: lawrence.amy@aramco.com (L.A. Amy).
1
Now at National Oceanography Centre, Southampton European Way, South-
ampton SO14 3ZH, UK.
barriers to flow in reservoirs (e.g., Garland et al., 1999). Key ques-
tions for exploration activities are: where are linked debrites likely
to occur and in what proportions? Once wells have been drilled and
linked-debrite facies has been encountered, a new set of questions,
related to production issues, becomes important: how should
reservoir models be populated to account for linked-debrite facies
and what will their effect be on reservoir flow and production? This
study is focussed on the latter question: how may linked-debrite
facies impact reservoir flow and production?
Work on outcrop and existing subsurface systems, as well as
laboratory and numerical simulation of sedimentary flow processes,
are critical in order to develop sedimentary models and to provide
geostatistics for static modelling. However, it is numerical flow
simulation (henceforth referred to as flow simulation) of porous flow
in reservoirs that, ultimately, are required to quantify the importance
of particular reservoir heterogeneities on reservoir flow and hydro-
carbon production.
Recovery from hydrocarbon reservoirs by water flooding can
vary, depending on the reservoir geometry, connectivity, sedimen-
tary facies architecture, permeability heterogeneity, fluid properties

0264-8172/$ – see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2009.02.017
 L.A. Amy et al. / Marine and Petroleum Geology 26 (2009) 2032–2043
and the reservoir management strategy. Indeed, variability related to
geology and production engineering parameters will make, to some
degree, any given reservoir unique in its production behaviour.
However, systematic flow-simulation studies are useful to quantify
uncertainties in production related to a specific parameter. In these
studies, most parameters are kept constant. Although this produces
a somewhat simplistic model, removing the effect of other variables,
it is perhaps the best way of examining the variable of interest
(Stephen et al., 2001). For example, previous generic flow-simulation
studies have quantified the impact on production of shale continuity
and sand amalgamation (Stephen et al., 2001), onlap characteristics
(Gardiner, 2006) and channel architecture (Larue and Friedmann,
2005; Larue and Hovadik, 2006). Generic studies also afford
the opportunity to simulate relatively high-resolution, detailed,
geological models with small grid cells that capture small-scale
geological heterogeneity. In comparison, due to time and computa-
tional constraints, typical reservoir studies generally ignore small-
scale geological heterogeneities or attempt to approximate them
using ‘upscaling’ techniques.
In this study, a geological model was built of a turbidite sand-
stone bed with a linked-debrite interval using outcrop data. The
models presented have grid cell sizes below the scale in most
geological models. Flow simulations were run for different sectors
of the model that contain different debrite facies proportions and
for different debrite porosity–permeability cases whilst keeping
other parameters constant. The results highlight the importance of
linked-debrite facies on production and trends in production that
may be useful to aid better hydrocarbon recovery. Whilst this study
is focussed on understanding turbidite system with lower reservoir
quality linked-debrite facies, the results may also be applicable to
other sedimentary systems that contain relatively low-permeability
horizons with similar geometries, dimensions and petrophysical
properties to those modelled here. In the following, the geological
aspects of the model are described in Section 2 and the model
building procedure and the chosen flow-simulation parameters in
Section 3. Section 4 then describes the flow-simulation results and
Section 5 discusses their interpretation.
IV
III
II
~1m
I I: Clean sandstone
Fig. 1. Field photo and sedimentary log of turbidite bed of the Marnoso Arenacea Formation displaying a typical vertical sequence of: i) a lower, coarse-to-medium grained, clean
turbidite sandstone interval (Bouma Ta/Tb); ii) a middle, muddy sandstone, debrite interval; iii) an upper, fine-grained, clean, laminated sandstone interval (Bouma Tc/Td) and; iv)
capped by an overlying mudstone (Te).
2033
2. Geological background
Clean turbidite sandstones are commonly interbedded with
mud-prone, ‘linked-debrite’ facies, also commonly called slurried
units, in many turbidite systems, for example: the Pennsylvanian,
Jackfork Group, Ouachita Basin of Arkansas (Hickson, 1999); the
Late Jurassic, deep-water fans of the northern North Sea (Haughton
et al., 2003); the Oligocene flysch of the East Carpathians of
Romania (Sylvester and Lowe, 2004); the Hecho Group of the
South-Central Pyrenees, Spain (Remacha and Fernández, 2003);
and the Quaternary deposits of the Agadir Basin, offshore Morocco
(Talling et al., 2004).
The geological model used for flow-simulation work is based on
a bed from the Miocene, foreland basin-plain sequence of the
Marnoso Arenacea Formation, northern Italy. The facies architec-
ture of turbidite beds within this system is well constrained by
previous field work, that has developed stratigraphic correlations
for individual flow deposits over many tens of kilometres (Ricci
Lucchi and Valmori, 1980; Amy and Talling, 2006; Talling et al.,
2007). Whilst early work recognised the occurrence of debritic
intervals within turbidite sandstone–mudstone beds (slurried
divisions identified by Ricci Lucchi and Valmori, 1980), only more
recent work has described in detail the character and geometry of
these debritic units (Talling et al., 2004; Amy et al., 2005; Amy and
Talling, 2006).
Beds with linked-debrite intervals commonly display a distinc-
tive vertical structure (Fig. 1). This comprises: i) a lower, coarse-to-
medium grained, clean, turbidite sandstone interval (Bouma Ta/Tb);
ii) a middle, muddy sandstone, debrite interval; iii) an upper, fine-
grained, clean, laminated, turbidite sandstone interval (Bouma Tc/
Td) and; iv) capped by an overlying mudstone (Te). The middle
muddy sandstone is typically medium or fine-grained, poorly sor-
ted, often with a comparatively high silt, mica and organic content
and a high (>20%) matrix mud content. Centimetre-to-millimetre
sized clasts of mudstone and hemipelagite and less commonly
siltstone and sandstone are present in some units, whilst absent in
others. The upper clean sandstone interval is often missing from the
IV: Mudstone cap
III: Laminated sandstone
(thin or absent)
II: Chaotic division:
swirly texture, grey
matrix, randomly
arranged, mm - cm size,
Sharp contact
base with no clasts
Flat or grooved base
MUD
SILT
SAND
2034 L.A. Amy et al. / Marine and Petroleum Geology 26 (2009) 2032–2043

sequence, but the basal clean sandstone, even if relatively thin Geological field work Geoengineering
(<20 cm) is always present. This vertical facies arrangement is
common in linked-debrite beds of the distal basin-plain stratig- Collect field data Define well placement
raphy of the Marnoso Arenacea Formation and is similar to that of
beds in other turbidite formations (including those mentioned
Process field data Define fluid properties
above).
The studied linked debrites of the Marnoso Arenacea Formation
are laterally continuous, over kilometres to many tens of kilo- Define development strategy
metres. In comparison, the clean sandstone and mudstone units
within the same bed are much more continuous and in many cases Define simulation case
Geomodelling
are as continuous as the extent of the Marnoso Arenacea outcrop,
some 120 km (Ricci Lucchi and Valmori, 1980; Amy and Talling, Define model boundary
2006; Talling et al., 2007). The Marnoso Arenacea units may
represent an end-member, ‘sheet-like’ geometry for linked
debrites; linked debrites in other systems may have smaller lateral Define model grid Flow simulation
extents. Some debritic units in the Marnoso Arenacea display
thinning patterns, from about 1-m to 0 thickness over 2–5 km. Import field data Export to ECLIPSE
Within the Marnoso Arenacea basin-plain sequence, this amount of
thinning is relatively abrupt compared to that exhibited by clean Run ECLIPSE simulator
Correlate ‘well tops’
sandstone and mudstone units. On an interwell or even reservoir
field scale, however, these debritic units would generally be later-
ally continuous. Make surfaces

3. Modelling methodology Make horizons / zones Results analysis

Building of geological ‘static’ models and ‘dynamic’ reservoir

flow simulation was carried out using Schlumberger’s PETRELÔ Make layers
and ECLIPSEÔ, respectively. Table 1 outlines the static and dynamic
model properties. Define zone properties

3.1. Static model building Fig. 2. Workflow used within the study showing geological field work, geological
modelling, geoengineering and numerical flow-simulation components.
The models described here were built using the workflow
shown in Fig. 2. Initially, a three-dimensional model of the entire
two-dimensional model significantly reduces the flow-simulation
30-m thick stratigraphic interval documented by Amy and Talling
time, due to the smaller number of grid cells. For this study, this is
(2006) was built, using data from over seventy measured sections
appropriate since the facies geometries within Bed 5.1 vary insig-
(Fig. 3A). This model represents the stratigraphy at the time of
nificantly in a cross-basin direction (NE–SW) over distances typical
deposition, without consideration of subsequent folding and
of well spacing (hundreds of metres). This approach would not be
thrusting. Surfaces representing bed and facies division boundaries
appropriate for other studies involving stratigraphic architectures
were flattened on the top of the Contessa mudstone interval, that
that vary more significantly in three dimensions. It should be borne
was used as a horizontal datum. A single bed, Bed 5.1 of Amy and
in mind, however, that three-dimensional spreading effects of the
Talling (2006), was subsequently chosen for flow-simulation work
flow front, that could impact the results, are not represented in
(Fig. 3B). The surfaces for this bed were extracted and flattened on
two-dimensions. The two-dimensional model should, however, be
the basal bed surface and a new, higher-resolution, model
comparable to a three-dimensional model in which water flooding
comprising only Bed 5.1 was built (Fig. 3C). The base of the model
occurs over a broad area.
was arbitrarily set to a depth of 1000 m below sea level.
It was decided that a two-dimensional model, rather than
a three-dimensional model, would be used for flow simulations. A 3.2. Gridding, zonation and layering

Table 1 The choice of grid cell aspect ratio and therefore, cell dimen-
Geometrical and production engineering parameters for the two-dimensional sions, was informed by a separate set of sensitivity tests (Fig. 4).
model of Bed 5.1 (see Fig. 3). Results of these tests show that two-dimensional models with a cell
Parameter Units aspect ratio of 1:100 or less, produce similar results (<2%) in total
Geometrical (whole model)
cumulative oil production as a model with cells of 1:1 aspect ratio.
Length (x) 35,000 m A model with a ratio of 1:1000, however, shows a substantially
Width (y) 10 m different result, with water breakthrough occurring relatively early
Thickness (z) 0.09–1.13 m compared to the other models. This was due to the greater effect of
Cell length (x) 10 m numerical dispersion in this model. On the basis of this screening,
Cell width (y) 10 m a grid cell aspect ratio of 1:100 was chosen for models of this study.
Cell thickness – average (z) 0.07 m The model was divided into three zones representing the lower
Total number of cells 120,000 –
basal sandstone, the middle debrite interval and the upper sand-
Engineering stone interval, using surfaces correlated from outcrop data. The
Water injection rate 71.7 m3/year
zones were ‘layered’ such that each zone contained multiple grid
Bottom hole pressure 100 bars
cells in the z direction, in order to allow vertical flow. Layering was
 L.A. Amy et al. / Marine and Petroleum Geology 26 (2009) 2032–2043 2035

Fig. 3. Geological models of: A) the Marnoso Arenacea stratigraphy reported by Amy and Talling (2006); B) a three-dimensional model of Bed 5.1 taken from the model shown in
3A; C) a two-dimensional model of Bed 5.1 based on the model shown in 3B from the line marked A–A0 . Note vertical exaggeration.

conducted using proportional layering for the upper zone and

1000
constant thickness layering for the lower two zones. Using these
two algorithms in combination were found to provide the best
gridding pattern with the most regular grid. On average in the
thicker portion of the model, the model had ten or more cells in the
z direction with an average cell thickness of 0.1 m.

3.3. Petrophysical and fluid properties

oil recovery (sm3)

Outcrop samples were collected from the Marnoso Arenacea in

an effort to quantify facies porosities and permeabilities for flow- 500
simulation work. Measurements were performed on 25 mm
diameter drilled plugs. Porosity was measured using a helium gas Aspect ratio
porosimeter and the Klinkenberg permeability measured using
1:1000
a nitrogen gas permeameter under ambient conditions. It was found,
however, that samples had very low porosities and permeabilities, 1:100
most likely due to calcite cementation, which limited the opportu- 1:10
nity to identify petrophysical trends between facies. It was therefore 1:1
decided to use petrophysical properties based on reported
values from analogue turbidite reservoirs. The chosen porosity and
permeability values occur within the range for turbidite facies 0
0 5 10
encountered in subsurface reservoirs of the North Sea (e.g., the East
time (yrs)
Brae field, Nelson, 2004; the Miller field, Garland et al., 1999) and
Gulf of Mexico (e.g., Green Canyon 205 Unit, Reedy and Pepper, 1996; Fig. 4. Results of sensitivity tests on grid cell aspect ratio: oil recovery in volumes at surface
Green Canyon 18 field, Plantevin, 2002; Aniekwena et al., 2003) and pressure and temperatures with time. The notation ‘sm3’ is used for units of volume at
for unnamed Tertiary turbidite deposits reported by Bennes and surface conditions. The ‘test’ model had a thickness of 1 m and a length of 1 km; similar to
subsequent modelling work reported here. It used a rectilinear grid with uniform petro-
Hamon (2007). These data commonly show an exponential rela- physical properties: porosity was 0.3 and permeability 1000 mD and used the SF1 saturation
tionship between permeability and porosity. Furthermore, Bennes curves. The cell length in the x direction was varied whilst maintaining a cell thickness
and Hamon (2007) show a decline in sandstone permeability with (z direction) of 0.1 m, such that the cell aspect ratio (z/x) was varied from 1:1 to 1:1000.
2036 L.A. Amy et al. / Marine and Petroleum Geology 26 (2009) 2032–2043

Table 2 corresponding to good quality reservoir turbidite sandstones based

Petrophysical parameters for the different porosity–permeability cases. These on published data. The upper clean sandstone was given a lower
properties were chosen based on published data from turbidite reservoirs; see text
for further explanation.
permeability and porosity. Case P1 had the highest values for the
middle debrite interval, having the same porosity and permeability
Case Facies 4 kh kv Sat Fun values as the Ta basal sandstone. This case can be considered as
Zone 1 (upper) All cases Clean sandstone 0.15 100 50 SF2 a ‘base case’ with no lower-quality debrite unit. In case P2 the
Zone 2 (middle) P1 Debrite 0.3 1000 500 SF1 debrite had the same porosity and permeability values as the upper
P2 Debrite 0.15 100 50 SF2 Tb/d clean sand. In case P3 the debrite had lower values than either of
P3 Debrite 0.05 10 5 SF3 the clean sandstone zones and in case P4 the debrite had zero
P4 Debrite 0 0 0 SF4
porosity and permeability. The latter two cases are more likely to
Zone 3 (lower) All cases Clean sandstone 0.3 1000 500 SF1 represent debritic intervals with poor sorting and significant mud
contents. The vertical to horizontal permeability ratio (kv/kh) was 0.5
for all facies in each case. In this modelling work, porosity and
grain size and a decline in both permeability and porosity with mud permeability values were kept uniform throughout each zone.
content. Good quality turbidite reservoir sandstones commonly have In multiphase flow in porous media, the ‘relative permeability’ is
permeabilities of 100–1000 mD and porosities of 0.3–0.35, whilst a dimensionless measure of the effective permeability of each
poorer quality siltstones and muddy sandstones often have much phase, which varies with the proportion of oil and water saturation.
lower permeabilities (<0.1 mD) and porosities (<0.05). The capillary pressure is another important variable that must be
Four porosity–permeability cases were defined, cases P1–P4, accounted for and also varies with saturation proportions. Appro-
with different values for the middle debrite interval (Table 2). priate values for these parameters were calculated using the
Debrites with variable petrophysics might be expected, due to computer software ‘Geopseudo Toolkit’ (Ma et al., 2001). This
variable grain size and sorting and perhaps more importantly mud program calculates curves as a function of the absolute perme-
content. In each case, values of the lower and upper clean sandstone ability using typical Corey type exponent functions of water
zones were kept constant. The relatively coarse, lower clean sand- saturation (e.g., Pickup and Sorbie, 1996). Saturation curves were
stone was given the highest value of 1000 mD and 0.3 porosity: calculated for different absolute permeabilities and assigned

A 2 B 2
Krw Krw
Kro Kro
0.5 0.5
Pc Pc
1.5 1.5
0.4 0.4
Pc (bars)

Pc (bars)
Kr

Kr

1 0.3 1 0.3

0.2 0.2
0.5 0.5
0.1 0.1

0 0 0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Sw Sw

C 2 D 2
Krw Krw
Kro Kro
Pc 0.5 Pc 0.5
1.5 1.5
0.4 0.4
Pc (bars)
Pc (bars)
Kr

Kr

1 0.3 1 0.3

0.2 0.2
0.5 0.5
0.1 0.1

0 0 0 0
0 0.2 0. 4 0. 6 0. 8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Sw Sw

Fig. 5. The relative permeability (kr) of water (krw) and oil (kro) and capillary pressure (Pc) as a function of water saturation (Sw) for: A) the SF1 saturation functions used for
1000 mD permeability facies; B) the SF2 saturation functions used for 100 mD permeability facies; C) the SF3 saturation functions used for 10 mD permeability facies and D) the SF4
saturation functions used for 1 mD permeability facies. Values were calculated using the ‘Geopseudo Toolkit’ software (Ma et al., 2001).
 L.A. Amy et al. / Marine and Petroleum Geology 26 (2009) 2032–2043 2037

Fig. 6. Sequence of pictures showing changes in saturated oil (So) with time in years (t) for the W27 sector model of the P1 and P2 porosity–permeability cases. The porosity (4),
horizontal permeability (kh) and vertical permeability (kv) are shown for each zone. Note that zones of different permeabilities have different initial oil saturations. The development
of the flood front and its migration away from the injector well can be seen. Note that water saturation ranges from 25% (red) to 75% (purple).

Fig. 7. Sequence of pictures showing changes in saturated oil (So) with time in years (t) for the W27 sector model of the P3 and P4 porosity–permeability cases. The porosity (4),
horizontal permeability (kh) and vertical permeability (kv) are shown for each zone. Note that zones of different permeabilities have different initial oil saturations. The development
of the flood front and its migration away from the injector well can be seen. Note that water saturation ranges from 25% (red) to 75% (purple).
2038 L.A. Amy et al. / Marine and Petroleum Geology 26 (2009) 2032–2043

A 1500
SECTOR MODEL
B 1

P1_W2
P1_W5
P1_W10
P1_W15
oil recovery (sm3)

1000 P1_W20
P1_W25

water cut
P1_W30 SECTOR MODEL
P1_W34 0.5 P1_W2
P1_W5
P1_W10
500 P1_W15
P1_W20
P1_W25
P1_W30
P1_W34

0 0
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
time (yrs) time (yrs)

C 1500 D 1
SECTOR MODEL
P4_W2
P4_W5
P4_W10
P4_W15
oil recovery (sm3)

1000 P4_W20
P4_W25
water cut

P4_W30 SECTOR MODEL

P4_W34 0.5 P4_W2
P4_W5
P4_W10
500 P4_W15
P4_W20
P4_W25
P4_W30
P4_W34

0 0
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
time (yrs) time (yrs)

Fig. 8. Results of cumulative oil recovery and water cut with time for selected sector models of the P1 (A, B) and P4 (C, D) porosity–permeability cases. For each case, the cumulative
oil recovery shows a similar constant rate of recovery, followed by an abrupt decline in oil recovery at the time of increased water cut.

appropriately to each zone (Fig. 5). The connate (irreducible) water
saturation (Swc) for each facies was defined using a relationship of
Swc with permeability derived from North Sea data (Pickup et al.,
2000; see their equation A-2). Fluid properties such as the oil
viscosity, density and volume expansion factor were set using the
standard PETRELÔ model for oil properties.
3.4. Production engineering parameters
All production engineering parameters were kept constant
except for the position of wells (see below). A single vertical
injector well and a single vertical production well were used. The
entire thickness of the model was perforated so that fluid flow
could occur from all adjacent grid cells into or out from the well.
The water injection rate was set at a rate of 0.2 m3/day. This value
was chosen since it produces a flow front that moves at w0.3 m/day
in the thicker part of the model. This rate of advance of the flow
front is within the range typical for subsurface reservoirs. The
producing well was set to maintain a constant bottom hole
pressure of 100 bars throughout the flow simulation.
3.5. Flow simulations
A set of flow simulations were run in order to investigate the
effect of i) variable debrite porosities and permeabilities and ii)
variable facies proportion and geometry as controlled by well
placement. In the flow simulations, only a 3 km long sector of the
model was used, with the rest of the model being inactive. The
3-km sector was moved progressively along the model in 1-km
steps. In each simulation, the injector and production wells were
placed 1-km apart at 1 and 2 km, respectively, from the proximal-
most edge of the sector model. It was decided not to place the wells
adjacent to the model boundary to avoid boundary effects. Each
simulation was run for a simulation time of thirty years which
provided enough time to capture production behaviour. Simula-
tions were carried out for each of the porosity–permeability models
at thirty three different positions along the model. Each run was
named according to the porosity–permeability case (Pn) and the
well position (Wn).
4. Flow-simulation results
4.1. Flow behaviour
In each simulation injected water spread across the model
moving away from the injector and resulting in the displacement
of oil (Figs. 6 and 7). In each case, some oil remains in the pore
space due to the effect of relative permeability, since at low oil
saturations (high water saturations) oil permeability tends to zero
(Fig. 5).
 L.A. Amy et al. / Marine and Petroleum Geology 26 (2009) 2032–2043 2039

A 1500 B 16
MODEL
MODEL
P1 P1

water breakthrough time (yrs)

P2 P2
P3 12 P3
P4
oil recovery (sm3)
P4
1000

500
4

0 0
0 500 1000 1500 0 500 1000 1500
movable oil (m3) movable oil (m3)

C 500 D 5
MODEL
MODEL
P1
P1 P2

water breakthrough time (yrs)

400 P2 4 P3
P3 P4
oil recovery (sm3)

P4

300 3

200 2

100 1

0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500
3
movable oil (m ) movable oil (m3)

Fig. 9. Results of cumulative oil recovery at the time of first water breakthrough (A) and the time of first water breakthrough (B) versus movable oil for each sector model of the P1,
P2, P3 and P4 porosity–permeability cases. Graphs C and D show the same data enlarged in order to better show the reduced values for some P3 and P4 sector models at relatively
small volumes of movable oil. First water breakthrough is taken here as the time when the production well produces a percentage of 0.01 water.

The spread of water away from the injecting well occurred in
both directions, with the flood front moving faster towards the
producing well, due to the comparatively high pressure gradient
between the wells. Water ‘breakthrough’ occurred once the flood
front reached the producing well. The flow front and saturation
gradients, in general, were near vertical, perpendicular to zone
boundaries. Gravity segregation, where the water slumps under the
force of gravity, was not observed; capillary imbibition is strong
enough to smooth out the leading edge of the front (Stephen et al.,
2001). In most cases, the flood front was sharp with a rapid change,
from predominately oil to predominately water saturated, over
a relatively small distance (50 m or less). In some cases, however,
the flood front was more diffuse with smaller changes in saturation
over wider distances.
4.2. Production trends
As might be expected, cumulative oil production and water
cut relationships with time vary widely for the different flow
simulations, depending on the porosity and permeability case
and well position (Fig. 8). The water cut is one of the main
parameters that control the economics of a well. The acceptable
maximum water cut for a given well or field will vary
depending on the water handling facilities and environmental
regulations.
Overall, there is a typical production pattern of a constant rate of
oil production until breakthrough, after which the oil production
rate declines rapidly and then more slowly as a decreasing
proportion of oil is produced along with water. The breakthrough
time varies significantly between models, with the earliest break-
through occurring in the sector models sampling the thinnest part
of the bed.
The movable oil is defined as:
MOV ¼ PVð1  Sor  Swc Þ (1)
where, PV is the pore volume and Sor is the residual oil saturation
and Swc is the connate water saturation (Dake, 1994, p. 23). Only the
movable oil in the model between the wells is considered here. The
movable oil is different in each sector model. Trends in important
production parameters, in most cases, follow that of the total
volume of movable oil in the model between the injector and
production wells (Fig. 9): production is greater when there are
larger pore volumes of movable oil, as governed by the model
volume, facies proportions, porosity and relative permeabilities.
However, departures from this relationship are observed, notably
for sector models with relatively small volumes of movable oil in
2040 L.A. Amy et al. / Marine and Petroleum Geology 26 (2009) 2032–2043

the P3 and P4 porosity–permeability cases. Cumulative oil
production is reduced by up to a third in some of these models
compared to the P1 case (Fig. 9C and D).
4.3. Production efficiency
The production efficiency (also called sweep efficiency or
recovery factor) is a measure of the effectiveness of the sweep of
movable oil in the volume between wells. This can be assessed by
using the following normalised values: i) the normalised oil
recovery (NOR), defined as the total volume of oil produced as
a fraction of the total volume of movable oil between wells and ii)
the normalised injected pore volume (NIV), defined as the total
volume of injected water as a fraction of the total volume of
movable oil between wells, which can also be considered as nor-
malised time. It should be noted that the production efficiency
measured against movable oil is significantly higher than the
production efficiency based on the total oil in place. Also in this
study, the NOR may be greater than unity, since some oil is also
swept from outside the interwell area. Assuming the same sweep
efficiency, reservoirs of different porosity, permeability and relative
permeability should have the same NOR at the same NIV.
Differences in flow behaviour or patterns of flow may, however,
lead to significant difference in production efficiency.
NOR is similar throughout most of the bed in the P1 case, where
the debrite facies has the same porosity–permeability as the lower
clean sandstone zone (Fig. 10A). In the P2 case, where the debrite
has the same porosity–permeability as the upper clean sandstone
zone, there is a slight reduction in post-breakthrough NOR associ-
ated with areas of high debrite proportion, between 20 and 30 km
along the model (Fig. 10B). For P3 and P4 cases, where the debrite
facies has a lower porosity–permeability than the upper and lower
zones, there is a further reduction in post-breakthrough NOR in this
same area of high debrite proportion (Fig. 10). Other production
parameters, such as the NIV at first water breakthrough are
similarly reduced in this area.
The effect of debrite percentage within the interwell volume on
normalised oil recovery is seen more directly by plotting the two
variables for the same values of injected pore volumes (Fig. 11). In
case P1, there is, as expected, no relationship between debrite
percentage and NOR. In the P2 case, at debrite percentages greater
than 20%, there is a systematic decrease in NOR with increasing
debrite percentage. At the highest debrite percentages NOR is
reduced by 10–15% compared to the P1 case and to parts of the

Upper sand

Debrite
Lower sand

A 1.2 P1
NIV
0.2
1 0.4
NOR

0.8 0.6
0.8
0.6 1
0.4 1.2
1.4
0.2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

B 1.2 P2 NIV
1 0.2
0.4
NOR

0.8 0.6
0.6 0.8
1
0.4 1.2
0.2 1.4
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

C 1.2 P3 NIV
0.2
1 0.4
NOR

0.8 0.6
0.8
0.6 1
0.4 1.2
1.4
0.2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
NIV
D 1.2 P4 0.2
0.4
1 0.6
NOR

0.8 0.8
1
0.6 1.2
0.4 1.4
0.2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Distance along model, km

Fig. 10. Normalised oil recovery (NOR) for different times of normalised injected volume (NIV) for each sector model of the P1 (A), P2 (B), P3 (C) and P4 (D) porosity–permeability
cases, shown in the position of the producing well. Results for P1 show little variation in normalised oil recovery along the length of the model, whilst results for P2, P3 and P4 show
larger variation in areas where there are significant proportions of debrite facies. A picture of the model facies zonation is shown above the graphs.
 L.A. Amy et al. / Marine and Petroleum Geology 26 (2009) 2032–2043 2041

same model with a debrite percentage of <20%. This trend is also
seen in the results for the P3 and P4 cases, but in these cases the
reduction in production efficiency is even more marked, being
reduced by up to 30%. Since we are considering normalised values,
the observed trends in production efficiency are related to varia-
tions in flow behaviour and/or flow patterns.
5. Discussion
As shown from our results, the volume and petrophysics of
linked debrites are important parameters affecting the uncertainty
in oil recovery from turbidite systems. The discussion focuses on an
explanation for production efficiency trends and modelling of
linked-debrite heterogeneity.
5.1. Reduced production efficiency
A number of different phenomena could explain the reduced
production efficiency observed for those sector models with rela-
tively large volumes of relatively low porosity–permeability debrite
facies. Facies geometry can act to trap oil, but this is unlikely to be
a factor in the studied model due to the continuous, sheet-like
facies geometries and simple porosity–permeability distribution.
Gravity slumping occurs in systems where gravity has a relatively
strong effect on flow compared to viscous and capillary forces and
this may act to reduce production efficiency (cf. Stephen et al.,
2001). However, observation of the developing flow (i.e. changes in
oil saturation) indicate that gravity slumping does not occur in the
flow simulations reported here, as is generally the case for flow in
relatively thin strata (Stephen et al., 2001).
The best production efficiency in reservoirs will come from
piston-like displacement of oil, where the flood front has a sharp
boundary and reaches the production well at the same time for
different parts of the reservoir. Production efficiency will be
reduced where the flood front is diffuse with a wide mixing zone.
It will also be reduced in heterogeneous systems where the flood
front reaches the production well at different times, due to vari-
able flood front velocities in different parts of the reservoirs, as
determined by layer permeabilities (absolute or relative) and
capillary pressure. It is likely that these are the important factors
controlling differences within production efficiency in the present
study. Analysis of the water cut with pore volumes injected
provides an indication of the flood front character and may help
to identify if breakthrough occurs at the same or at different
times for the different zones. It can be seen that, for the sector
model positioned where the debrite interval is thickest, break-
through occurs in the P1 model at about 0.8 injected pore
volumes, as indicated by the rapid rise in water cut after which
the rise in water cut gradually declines (Fig. 12). This water cut
pattern, as supported by observations of changes in saturation
with time, suggests a relatively sharp flood front and break-
through from the different zones at similar times. For the P2 and

NIV NIV
A P1 0.2
B P2 0.2
1.2 0.4 1.2 0.4
0.6 0.6
1 0.8 0.8
1
1 1
1.2 1.2
0.8 1.4 0.8 1.4
NOR

NOR

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
debrite % debrite %

C P3 NIV D P4 NIV
0.2 0.2
1.2 0.4 1.2 0.4
0.6 0.6
1 0.8 1 0.8
1 1
1.2 1.2
0.8 1.4 0.8 1.4
NOR

NOR

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
debrite % debrite %

Fig. 11. Normalised oil recovery (NOR) versus debrite percentage for different times of normalised injected volume (NIV) for each sector model of the P1, P2, P3 and P4 porosity–permeability
cases. Results for P1 show little variation in normalised oil recovery with debrite percentage whilst results for P2, P3 and P4 show a systematic decline in recovery with debrite percentage.
2042 L.A. Amy et al. / Marine and Petroleum Geology 26 (2009) 2032–2043
1 character, distribution, length scales and geometry of the linked-
water cut
0.5
CASE
P1
P2
P3
P4
0 discontinuous linked debrites will most likely produce different
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
NIV
Fig. 12. Water cut versus normalised injected volume (NIV) for the W27 sector model
of the P1, P2, P3 and P4 porosity–permeability cases. There is a reduction in time at
which water breakthrough occurs from model P1 to P4 and the P4 model shows
secondary water breakthrough at 1.5 normalised injected volumes.
P3 case, water breakthrough occurs earlier but afterwards follows
essentially the same pattern as the P1 model. Water breakthrough
in the P4 case with the lowest debrite porosity–permeability
occurs at about 0.5 injected pore volumes, much earlier than the
P1 case. The water cut trend for the P4 case has a second ‘kick’ in
water breakthrough at about 1.5 injected pore volumes, related to
delayed water breakthrough in the upper zone that has a lower
permeability compared to the lower zone.
The earlier water breakthrough time, in terms of normalised
pore volumes injected, in the P2, P3 and P4 cases explains their
lower oil recovery efficiency. In the P4 case, this is mainly due to
earlier breakthrough in the lower zone and delayed water break-
through in the upper zone. In the P2 and P3 cases, it can be inter-
preted to be mainly due to a comparatively diffuse flow front within
the upper layer (Fig. 7). This diffuse front is interpreted to be the
result of high values of capillary pressure in the underlying debrite
zone, which draws fluid from the upper layer into the debrite.
The reduced production efficiency in those sector models with
relatively large volumes of relatively low porosity–permeability
debrite facies, corresponds to reduced absolute values of cumula-
tive production and reduced first water breakthrough time (Fig. 9C
and D). This, however, tends only to affect sector models with
relatively small volumes of movable oil, corresponding to large
volumes of debrite with low porosity. Oil recovery and water
breakthrough times for these simulations are reduced by up to
25–50%, compared to the general relationship with movable oil. It
should be noted that due to the lower porosity and initial oil
saturation in the low-permeability debrite in these models, the
initial oil volume is relatively low and therefore hydrocarbon
production will also be less than other models. However, reduced
production efficiency means that oil recovery is less than might be
expected based on estimations of movable oil. This reduction
related to sweep efficiency could impact field economics especially
if there are multiple beds of this character in the producing interval.
5.2. Modelling of linked-debrite heterogeneity
The modelling approach used to accurately represent hetero-
geneity associated with linked debrites will depend on the
debrite units, which may vary significantly between turbidite
systems. Since linked debrites are sub-seismic scale bodies, in most
reservoir studies their characteristics will generally be determined
from core and image logs, and then outcrop analogues chosen to
provide sedimentary models and statistical data for geomodelling.
The interval of the Marnoso Arenacea Formation studied by Amy
and Talling (2006) contains linked debrites with relatively long
length scales and low-to-moderate, planform aspect ratios – tens of
kilometres in directions both parallel and perpendicular to
palaeoflow. In this case, linked-debrite facies is generally laterally
extensive on a reservoir scale. This contrasts with other systems
with linked debrites, for example the North Sea Miller field, where
linked debrite (referred to as slurried facies by Garland et al. (1999))
occur in high net-to-gross, scour-associated facies and are inter-
preted to have relatively small dimensions (20–100 m) and
potentially a high planform aspect ratio related to local palaeoflow
(Garland et al., 1999). In this study, only laterally extensive linked
debrites have been considered. Generic modelling of laterally
results to those presented here as a consequence of the more varied
facies geometries and porosity–permeability distributions. More-
over, this study has necessarily made a wide variety of assumptions
related to the geology and production engineering parameters and
further work is required to quantify the influence of other param-
eters that were not varied here.
6. Conclusions
A series of reservoir flow simulations were carried out to
investigate the production characteristics of a sheet sandstone bed
with a linked-debrite interval and in particular, variable debrite
porosities and permeabilities and variable debrite facies propor-
tions. A deterministic, two-dimensional model of a linked-debrite
bed, based on field data from the Marnoso Arenacea Formation, was
used. Given the assumptions made during the study, our results
show that the volume and petrophysics of linked debrites are
important parameters affecting the uncertainty in oil recovery from
turbidite systems and that;
C in beds containing small debrite proportions (<20%) produc-
tion parameters, such as the cumulative oil production and
time of first water breakthrough, are proportional to the
volume of movable oil in the bed between the injector and
production wells, regardless of debrite porosity–permeability;
C however, beds containing significant proportions (>20%) of
low porosity (0.15) and permeability (100 mD) debrite
have reduced production efficiency which declines system-
atically with reducing porosity–permeability and increasing
debrite percentage, resulting in relatively low values of oil
production and earlier times of water breakthrough.
Whilst the current modelling work is not exhaustive in terms of
the parameters varied, it serves to demonstrate the importance of
linked debrites on hydrocarbon production efficiency.
Acknowledgements
This research work was carried out as part of the Genetic Units
Project, Phase IV, Deep Water Clastic Module funded by Exxon-
Mobil, Nexen and Shell. The UK-TAPS Research Group is thanked for
allowing use of outcrop data in this project. We are grateful for
constructive reviews from Julian Clark, Andrew Hurst and Bill
McCaffrey that helped improve the clarity of the manuscript. The
authors would also like to thank Jingsheng Ma, Eric MacKay and
 L.A. Amy et al. / Marine and Petroleum Geology 26 (2009) 2032–2043
Karl Stephen for invaluable discussion on geomodelling and flow
simulation. Schlumberger is thanked for the use of the PETRELÔ
geomodelling software and the ECLIPSEÔ simulator software.
References
Amy, L.A., Talling, P.J., 2006. Anatomy of turbidites and linked debrites based on
long distance (120  30 km) bed correlation, Marnoso Arenacea Formation,
Northern Apennines, Italy. Sedimentology 53, 161–212.
Amy, L.A., Talling, P.J., Peakall, J., Wynn, R.B., Arzola Thynne, R.G., 2005. Bed
geometry used to test recognition criteria of turbidites and (sandy) debrites.
Sedimentary Geology 179, 163–174.
Aniekwena, A.U., McVay, A.D., Anr, W.M., Watkins, J.S., 2003. Integrated Charac-
terization of the Thin-bedded 8 Reservoir, Green Canyon 18, Gulf of Mexico. SPE,
84051, pp. 1–11.
Bennes, M., Hamon, G., 2007. Core Petrophysical Synthesis Carried Out at a Scale of
a Basin, Some Examples from Tertiary Offshore Reservoirs. Society of Core
Analysts, SCA2007–27, pp. 1–12.
Dake, L.P., 1994. The Practice of Reservoir Engineering. In: Development in Petro-
leum Geoscience, vol. 36. Elsevier, 534 pp.
Gardiner, A.R., 2006. The variability of turbidite sandbody pinchout and its impact
on hydrocarbon recovery in stratigraphically trapped field. In: Allen, M.R.,
Goffrey, G.P., Morgan, R.K., Walker, I.M. (Eds.), The Deliberate Search for the
Stratigraphic Trap. Geological Society, London, Special Publication, vol. 254, pp.
267–287.
Garland, C.R., Haughton, P.D.W., King, R.F., Moulds, T.P., 1999. Capturing reservoir
heterogeneity in a small, sand-rich submarine fan, Miller field. In: Fleet, A.J.,
Boldy, S.A.R. (Eds.), Petroleum Geology of NW Europe: Proceedings of the 5th
Conference. Geological Society of London, pp. 1199–1208.
Haughton, P.D.W., Barker, S.P., McCaffrey, W.D., 2003. ‘Linked’ debrites in sand-rich
turbidite systems – origin and significance. Sedimentology 50, 459–482.
Hickson, T.A., 1999. A Study of Deep-water Deposition: Constraints on the Sedi-
mentation Mechanics of Slurry Flows and High Concentration Turbidity
Currents, and the Facies Architecture of a Conglomeratic Channel Overbank
System. Unpublished PhD thesis. Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 256 pp.
2043
Larue, D.K., Friedmann, J., 2005. The controversy concerning stratigraphic archi-
tecture of channelized reservoirs and recovery by waterflooding. Petroleum
Geoscience 11, 131–146.
Larue, D.K., Hovadik, J., 2006. Connectivity of channelized reservoirs: a modelling
approach. Petroleum Geoscience 12, 291–308.
Ma, J., Pickup, G.E., Gardiner, A.R., Stephen, K.D., 2001. Geopseudo Toolkit User
Guide: Version 2.1. Unpublished HET Group Report. Department of Petroleum
Engineering, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh.
Nelson, P.H., 2004. Permeability–porosity data sets for sandstones. Leading Edge 23,
1143–1144.
Pickup, G., Sorbie, K., 1996. The scale-up of two-phase flow in porous media using
phase permeability tensors. SPE Journal 1, 369–381.
Pickup, G., Ringrose, P.S., Sharif, A., 2000. Steady-state upscaling: from lamina-scale
to full-field model. SPE Journal 5, 208–217.
Plantevin, M., 2002. Characterization of the 3_D Properties of the Fine-grained
Turbidites 8 Sand Reservoir, Green Canyon 18, Gulf of Mexico. Unpublished MSc
thesis. Texas A&M University, USA.
Reedy, G.K., Pepper, C.F., 1996. Analysis of finely laminated deep marine turbidites:
integration of core and log data yields novel interpretation model. In:
Proceedings of the Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE) Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, pp. 119–127.
Remacha, E., Fernández, L.P., 2003. High-resolution correlation patterns in the
turbidite systems of the Hecho Group (South-Central Pyrenees, Spain). Marine
and Petroleum Geology 20, 711–726.
Ricci Lucchi, F., Valmori, E., 1980. Basin-wide turbidites in a Miocene, over-supplied
deep-sea plain: a geometrical analysis. Sedimentology 27, 241–270.
Stephen, K.D., Clark, J.D., Gardiner, A.R., 2001. Outcrop-based stochastic modelling
of turbidite amalgamation and its effects on hydrocarbon recovery. Petroleum
Geoscience 7, 163–172.
Sylvester, Z., Lowe, D.R., 2004. Textural trends in turbidites and slurry beds from the
Oligocene of the East Carpathians, Romania. Sedimentology 51, 945–972.
Talling, P.J., Amy, L.A., Wynn, R.B., Peakall, J., Robinson, M., 2004. Beds comprising
debrite sandwiched within co-genetic turbidite: origin and widespread occur-
rence in distal depositional environments. Sedimentology 51, 163–194.
Talling, P.J., Amy, L.A., Wynn, R.B., Blackbourn, G., Gibson, O., 2007. Evolution of
turbidity currents deduced from extensive thin turbidites: Marnoso Arenacea
Formation (Miocene), Italian Apennines. Journal of Sedimentary Research 77,
172–196.