See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/288935156

Reservoir connectivity: Definitions, examples and strategies

Article · January 2007

CITATIONS READS
6 4,241

7 authors, including:

John W. Snedden Peter Vrolijk

University of Texas at Austin New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology
107 PUBLICATIONS   1,787 CITATIONS    91 PUBLICATIONS   3,644 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Liza Sumpter Michael Louis Sweet

Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis University of Texas at Austin
7 PUBLICATIONS   44 CITATIONS    37 PUBLICATIONS   860 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Gulf of Mexico Depositional Systems View project

Tuscaloosa Deepwater View project

All content following this page was uploaded by John W. Snedden on 05 July 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

IPTC 11375
Reservoir Connectivity: Definitions, Examples, and Strategies
John W. Snedden, Peter J. Vrolijk, Larry T. Sumpter, Mike L. Sweet, Kevin R. Barnes, Elijah White and Mike E. Farrell,
ExxonMobil Upstream Research Company
Copyright 2007, International Petroleum Technology Conference
This paper was prepared for presentation at the International Petroleum Technology
Conference held in Dubai, U.A.E., 4–6 December 2007.
This paper was selected for presentation by an IPTC Programme Committee following review
of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the International Petroleum Technology Conference
and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not
necessarily reflect any position of the International Petroleum Technology Conference, its
officers, or members. Papers presented at IPTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor
Society Committees of IPTC. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this
paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the International Petroleum
Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an
abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must
contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write
Librarian, IPTC, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Reservoir connectivity, and its inverse, compartmentalization,
is a critical area of petroleum industry research and business
application. However, significant differences in how it is
defined, measured, and modeled exist among companies. For
some, connectivity is defined relative to an entity such as a
well or set of perforations in a reservoir. Others prefer
reservoir connectivity indexes, using a set of often
subjectively defined criteria to gauge how problematic a field
will be to develop or exploit.
We have developed a technology called "Reservoir
Connectivity Analysis" (RCA) to investigate field
compartments and associated connections (Vrolijk et al.
2005). A compartment is precisely defined as a trap which
has no internal boundaries which would allow fluids to reach
equilibrium at more than one elevation. Compartment
boundaries include sealing faults, channel margins, shale-
draped clinoforms, paleokarst fractures and other diagenetic
boundaries. These can separate hydrocarbons and aquifers
within a field or discovery. Connections between
compartments include fault juxtaposition windows, erosional
scours between channels, and capillary leakage. Compartment
boundaries include spill and breakover points, defined on
topseal and baseseal maps.
We also find that it is important to separately define and
investigate "static" and "dynamic" connectivity. Static
connectivity describes the native state of a field, prior to
production start-up. Evaluation of static connectivity is the
basis for proper assessment of original hydrocarbons in place
and prediction of fluid contacts in unpenetrated compartments.
Dynamic connectivity describes movement of fluids once
production has begun. Initiation of production actually
perturbs the original fluid distributions as pressure and
saturation changes proceed in a non-systematic fashion across
field compartments. Analysis of dynamic connectivity is
essential to estimating ultimate recovery from a field.
An example of RCA application in the Gulf of Mexico is
provided to illustrate how RCA can generate testable fluid
connectivity scenarios and explain troubling production
anomalies.
Introduction
Reservoir connectivity and its inverse, reservoir
compartmentalization, is a growing area of oil industry
research and business application, as large offshore
discoveries go through development and established
producing fields progress through their maturity cycle
(Smalley and Hale, 1996; Elshahawi et al. 2005). The size
and scale of the associated monetary investments requires
three key foundations be established: 1) strict definitions of
connectivity; 2) explicit workflows for analyzing connectivity;
and 3) suitable analogs to be used as guides for investigating
new cases. This paper provides each of these in order below.
Previous Definitions of Connectivity
Surveying the general terrain of reservoir connectivity reveals
significant differences among companies in how it is defined,
measured, modeled, and acted upon.
Schlumberger (2004) compared two unnamed North Sea fields
(Fig. 1). Without specifying the connectivity measure, it was
noted that the “highly connected” submarine fan reservoir and
“poorly connected” deltaic reservoir fields differed
substantially in terms of estimated oil in place, ultimate oil
recovery (reserves), and cumulative oil production.
Particularly striking is the drop in oil reserves (ultimate
recovery) in the “poorly connected” deltaic reservoir field, just
a short time after production start-up. By contrast, the highly
connected submarine fan reservoir had showed a steady climb
in oil reserves through time.
For some petroleum and service companies, connectivity is
defined relative to an entity such as a well or set of
perforations in a reservoir (Fig. 2). For example, a tabular
reservoir penetrated by a single well yields 100% reservoir
volume connected to the well, while more discrete,
channelized reservoirs show lower connectivity (Ainsworth,
2005). However, drilling an additional well decreases the
overall connectivity measure in most cases, as the more rapid
2 IPTC 11375
pressure decline imparted by two wells (all other factors being
equal) reduces sweep during production. In our opinion, this
scale-sensitive approach tends to mix time spans, e.g.,
geologic versus production time scales. It is also very
sensitive to the well spacing, completion technique, and
pressure maintenance. It is our view that connectivity
measures should relate instead to the inherent geology of a
reservoir and field: the structural and stratigraphic framework,
fluid type and distribution.
Other companies prefer reservoir connectivity indexes, using a
set of often subjectively defined criteria to gauge how
problematic a field will be to develop or exploit (Harrison,
2004). Equally important is the confidence values associated
with each estimate used in the index, and these vary
considerably among different field and data (seismic) types.
Proposed definitions of connectivity and
connectivity elements
One approach to connectivity is to eschew subjective
numerical values and let the buoyant fluids tell us what is
connected. First, one needs to differentiate between static or
geologic time scale fluid connectivity and dynamic or
production time scale fluid connectivity. It is well known
from our field studies that over geologic timescales, buoyancy
and capillary forces work to allow lighter fluids like oil and
gas to find their way into virtually any water-wet, porous
sandstone regardless of quality (e.g., Sweet and Sumpter, in
press). A schematic example shows how fluids migrate into
the crest of a trap and fill downward, eventually crossing a
fault plane where a relatively poor quality (low porosity and
permeability) delta front reservoir facies is juxtaposed across
the fault from high quality inner stream mouth bar reservoir
facies (Fig. 3a). This continues until the spillpoint is reached.
However, our field studies also have demonstrated that
understanding reservoir type and quality is critical to
understanding dynamic connectivity as well (Pfeiffer et al.
2000; Sweet and Sumpter, in press). For example, the 4D
seismic response (dark blue polygon in Fig. 3b), resulting
from either pressure or water saturation changes due to fluid
movement, often occurs at the best facies juxtaposition across
a fault plane, here in the case of a deepwater channel axis on
axis. That is a critical difference between the two but both are
important: understanding static connectivity is critical to
appropriate in-place hydrocarbon estimation and dynamic
connectivity for accurate determination of ultimate recovery.
Compartments and Boundaries
Like connectivity, compartments and their connections are
defined by the presence of two or three fluids (Fig. 4). A
compartment is a trap which contains no internal barriers that
would allow the contact between two fluids (e.g. oil and
water) to reach equilibrium at more than one elevation
(Vrolijk et al. 2005). Within a static compartment, the contact
between two fluids will settle at a single elevation over
geologic time (Sweet and Sumpter, in press). Water-filled
reservoirs are generally not considered “compartments”
because they have failed to trap hydrocarbons, as per
definition, but for practical reasons may be included in a
connectivity evaluation (e.g. associated aquifers, etc.)
Compartment boundaries are defined by structural features
like faults, stratigraphic features like channel-margins, and the
limits of topseal and baseseal (Fig. 4). For example, a
compartment can be completely bounded by faults or partially
bounded by faults with a reservoir pinchout (enclosed
reservoir compartment). Faults or reservoir pinchouts may
only bound three sides of a compartment (open reservoir
compartment) In some cases, oil may become separated across
a fault and a separate gas-oil contact (GOC) and/or water –oil
contact (WOC) may develop, thus defining two different
compartments (Vrolijk et al. 2005).
Two other important features also represent compartment
boundaries (Fig. 5). Spillpoints separate buoyant fluids on
structural highs and thus can allow division of compartments
containing different hydrocarbon/water contacts, for example
(Fig. 5a).
A less well-understood compartment boundary is the
breakover point (Fig. 5b). A breakover point separates denser
fluids (e.g. oil below gas, water below oil) allowing
development of separate contacts and thus compartments. It is
broadly defined as the deepest elevation at which buoyancy
forces can trap a relatively heavy fluid below a lighter one.
Compartment boundaries are associated with baseseal and are
thus best identified from top baseseal maps. Oil and water
pressures no longer communicate through the crest of the
structure, assuming that there is lateral bounding to prevent
the heavier fluid from communicating around the flank of the
structure.
Lateral bounding to set up breakover (a type of
compartment boundary) is probably more common that most
operators assume. Laterally bounding of fluids has a variety
of causes (Fig. 6). It can occur due to primary faulting as
observed in Hibernia Field of Canada (Vrolijk et al. 2005).
Diagenetic changes (e.g. downdip loss of porosity, presence of
impermeable karst towers, etc.) contribute to bounding of
fluids. Channelization in both alluvial and deepwater realms
can lead to lateral bounding if the channel margins and
overbank are largely impermeable (Sweet and Sumpter, in
press). Even shale-draped delta clinoforms are known to trap
and bound fluids.
Connections
There are also a number of connections between
compartments to consider while investigating reservoir
connectivity. An obvious connection between compartments
is due to the juxtaposition of sand-on-sand at a fault plane.
Assuming limited occurrence of shale gouge or cementation,
sand-on-sand contacts tend to leak over geologic timeframes
(James et al. 2004). Over production timescales, the
transmissibility of the fault zone controls the rate and volume
of fluid leakage (Lescoffit and Townsend, 2005).
IPTC 11375
Gas and oil can also leak out of the top of a reservoir
through the seal rock, forming another potential connection to
an overlying reservoir compartment (Fig. 5c). The ideas
formulated by Sales (1997) to explain leakage and spill in
traps can be extended down in scale to the compartment level
(Fig. 7). The base assumption is that the filling of traps (and
thus compartments) depends on the seal capacity relative to
closure size. Large traps (and compartments) tend to leak gas
and oil until the buoyancy forces and capillary forces are
balanced (Class 3). In this case, there often is more oil than
gas in a trap or compartment as a given seal rock has less
capacity to trap gas than oil. Traps (and compartments) with
less closure size for the same seal rock capacity are prone to
leak gas but trap oil (Class 2). If oil is added to a
compartment due to continued migration or leakage from an
underlying compartment, it will spill out of a filled
compartment. Smaller closures (or improved seal rock
capacity for the same closure) will trap oil or gas and spill
these out of a compartment if additional oil or gas is added
over geologic time (Class 1). These traps tend to be gas
prone, as gas is often generated last during source rock
maturation and gas displaces oil (Gussow, 1954).
The Sales (1997) model and the RCA workflow itself
assume access to adequate hydrocarbon charge and a system
in equilibrium (steady-state). These assumptions have
worked in the vast majority of fields examined to date (Vrolijk
et al. 2005; Sweet and Sumpter, in press).
Other connections include channel-on-channel contacts
where the appropriate sandy lithofacies is present in the two
channels. Channel scour is an effective means of connecting
two channels and is analogous in many ways to sand-on-sand
juxtaposition across faults (Fig. 8). For example, muddy
drapes at channel-bases are thought to restrict fluid
communication in the deepwater channel systems of Gulf of
Mexico deepwater fields (Barton et al. 2004). It is analogous
to shale gouge in fault zones and fault relays, as both restrict
fluid movement (which can be good or bad for well sweep
efficiency, depending on the fluid breaking through). Our
experience is that relatively few sand-on-sand contacts (faults
or channels) tend to seal over geologic time scales. However,
during production, fluid leakage is more difficult to predict
due to complex processes controlling the formation of shale
gouge in faults or shale drapes in channels (Fig. 8).
Connectivity in channelized systems has previously been
explored through simple experimental or empirical
relationships between the number of sand-prone channels and
overbank mud (expressed as net-to-gross or NTG). 2D
modeling work has established a threshold value of 66% NTG
above which communication is expected (Allen, 1978), while
recent 3D models show a lower threshold value of 30% NTG
(King et al. 1990; Larue and Hovadik, 2006). These
investigations fail to appreciate the complexity of
compartments and connections described above.
3
Comparison to Available Fluid Data
To ensure internal consistency, candidate compartments and
connections are checked against available fluid data. Rather
than establishing gas, oil, and water gradients by plotting all
(and sometimes erroneous) pressure data, available
compositional data (from PVT reports, etc.) is used to
independently calculate gradients (Vrolijk et al. 2005).
Petrophysical data is evaluated and compilations of the
observed contact information (including GDT’s, OUT’s,
ODT’s, WUT’s, etc.) are reviewed. Inconsistencies like
different fluid types present across an open fault juxtaposition
window are rectified (i.e. by adjusting the fault window
depths).
The RCA workflow can be still carried out in the absence of
pre-production pressure data, as is the case for many older
fields. In fact, it is quite useful to construct schematic
diagrams of pressure versus depth to help construct geologic
and connectivity models. For example, observations of
different WOC’s in a channel crossing an anticline (Fig. 9)
suggest one of two possibilities: 1) hydrodynamic flow
causing a tilted WOC; and 2) a breakover point is set up by oil
fill down to the top of the baseseal and lateral bounding
(Vrolijk et al. 2005). Constructing the schematic pressure
versus depth plots for the two scenarios reveals two key
differences which can be tested. The hydrodynamic case
requires both a thicker channel, communication of water
pressures across the crest of the structure, and a regional or
semi-regional pressure gradient from right to left. The
breakover scenario indicates two separate water lines but does
not require regional water gradients or variations in sand body
thickness (Vrolijk et al. 2005).
While well-documented cases of hydrodynamically tilted fluid
contacts do exist, it is our experience that many times the
cause is breakover (separation of denser fluids across a
structure and lateral bounding). Perched water (water trapped
in a structural low) is also more common than previously
thought and often misinterpretations of field-wide fluid
contacts and free water levels can result.
Building a Connectivity Model
The goal of any reservoir connectivity analysis is to construct
a model showing how a field is plumbed together. Often
construction of a connectivity diagram is a useful means of
tabulating observations of fluid contacts and keeping track of
compartments and connections (Fig. 10). Compartments are
represented by rectangles and connections by arrows of
various types. Of course, building such a model requires some
simplification. Compartments here are shown here as
rectangles, in this case defined by stratigraphic level (N1, N2,
etc.) and structural block (West Central Fault Block, etc). The
connections are illustrated by single-headed arrows, assigned
to the type of connection (cap leak, channel cut window, and
spill). Reservoirs that potentially have separate fluid contacts
are tabulated in this chart as compartments.
4 IPTC 11375
One way to think of reservoir connectivity is to hypothetically
add a drop of oil to any compartment in the model and follow
it as it displaces hydrocarbons in the linked compartments
finally to a system exit point such a fieldwide spill or capillary
leak out of a topseal. In the case of the hypothetical oil field
depicted by Fig. 10, a drop of oil added to Compartment N1 in
the East Flank (EF) will take the following path to the system
exit point:
1. Leak via fault juxtaposition to compartment N5 in
the East Central Fault Block (ECFB).
2. Leak via capillary leakage from N5 to N2
compartment in ECFB.
3. Spill to N2 in the west central fault block (WCFB)
4. Leak via fault juxtaposition to the N1 reservoir in
the West Graben (WG)
5. Spill to the system exit point updip of the WG
This analysis also reveals compartments that may be
shadowed from charge or that may be by-passed oil
opportunities. In this example we find three unconnected
compartments (N2 in EF, N2 in WG, and N6 in ECFB). Of
these, only N2 in EF is shown to be sourced (closest to source
kitchen).
Other potential compartments depend on hydrocarbon
sourcing. N3 and N4 in the WCFB could be self-sourced
(transported organic matter), which explains their connection
to the system. N6 in ECFB requires charge from below or up
the fault plane.
In most field cases, there is some uncertainty around
connections because of seismic resolution and/or well control.
The connectivity diagram can easily be modified to
accommodate different fault throws and create difference
connectivity scenarios. For example, changing the fault throw
on the east flank could allow N6 in the ECFB to be juxtaposed
against the N2 reservoir. Allowing for more erosion between
the N5 and N6 channels in the ECFB could link the two
reservoirs. The scenarios created are non-unique but testable
with additional drilling or examination of new data.
The connectivity diagram constructed in Fig. 10 represents a
pre-production state and is particularly useful for estimating
original fluid contacts and original hydrocarbons in place.
However, it is more difficult to estimate how the various
connections will operate over production time scales. For
example, the formation of a shale gouge along the fault
bounding the West Graben may limit recovery from wells
drilled on either side of the fault. The presence of a shale base
drape between N3 and N4 channels in the WCFB may inhibit
communication there. Internal permeability barriers not seen
in this gross reconstruction may also prove to be an issue
during production. However, our experience is that without
first understanding the pre-production distribution of fluids,
illuminated through this work, it is even more problematic to
evaluate or predict production time scale field behavior.
Field Application, South Timbalier-26, Gulf of Mexico
We developed a workflow for investigating reservoir
connectivity called Reservoir Connectivity Analysis (RCA) as
described by Vroljk et al (2005). It has been applied in cases
ranging from discovered/undeveloped resources, early field
life and mature fields. In mature producing fields, RCA has
explained troubling production anomalies, generated new drill
well opportunities, and boosted field reserves above original
estimates. A case study of the Miocene O sand reservoir of the
South Timbalier Block-26 (ST-26) in the Gulf of Mexico
illustrates how RCA and our connectivity definitions are
applied to: a) development of scenarios for pre-production
connectivity; and b) testing these scenarios against both pre-
production (static) and post-production (dynamic) data. The
data used are from publicly available sources (Farrell and
Abreu, 2006).
The ST-26 field is developed on the southern flank of a large
salt dome (Fig. 11a). Salt traps hydrocarbons to the north
while radial NW-SE-striking faults trap laterally and internally
compartmentalize the field. In the “D” Fault block, the
Miocene O sand traps oil in Miocene age fluvial and deltaic
reservoirs. Reservoirs are isolated vertically because of thick
overlying and underlying shales. Initially, it was thought that
a common oil-water contact (WOC) could be used for the
entire fault block. Subsequent development drilling revealed
significant variations in the WOC from well to well (Fig. 11b).
The O sand had generally similar reservoir types, mainly
fluvially-dominated deltaic lobes but it was apparent from
comparison of log motifs in the ST-26 #1 and #2 wells (drilled
2800 feet apart) that variable downcutting by overlying
distributary channels had occurred. As illustrated in Fig. 11b,
ST26#2 has thin distributary channel and #1 has a relatively
thick one. It was not immediately understood how this could
impact the pre-production fluid contact elevations over just a
short distance.
Evidence of separate fluid contacts between wells indicates
that one of the two fluids; either oil or water is not in
communication between the two wells. Obviously, both
cannot be in communication otherwise the same fluid contact
elevation would be present in both wells. The type of barrier
was also problematic as faults were not recognized in wells or
seismic data. An additional concern surrounded the question
of whether this “barrier” would make a difference during
production (dynamic connectivity).
Using this case as an example of how to approach connectivity
problems, the first step is to propose some scenarios of how
the oil or water may have become separated over geologic
time scales. As deltaic reservoirs are inherently architecturally
complex, a series of stratigraphic models were generated (Fig.
12). These represent “static connectivity” scenarios as defined
earlier.
In scenario 1, it was speculated that amalgamation of the
upper delta reservoirs allowed a fluid connection in the oil leg
but separation of water in the more distal delta facies (Fig.
IPTC 11375
12a). In general, this scenario assumes a limited aquifer
volume.
In Scenario 2, the connection of fluids was also presumed to
be in the oil leg but through an incised distributary or fluvial
channel sand (Fig. 12b). This model also incorporates a
connection to a larger volume of aquifer below the OWOC, as
the channel sand extends downdip (during progradation or
lowstand shifting).
In Scenario 3, a similar channel is present, but located below
the delta lobes (Fig. 12c). The fluid connection is through the
aquifer. This model also presumes access to a large downdip
aquifer.
The models described above can also be depicted in the
connectivity diagram discussed earlier (Fig. 12). The different
scenarios for pre-production fluid connectivity are established
by varying both compartments and connections.
The three connectivity scenarios form hypotheses which can
be tested by evaluation of pressure data or other relevant
measures of communication between wells and reservoirs.
Unfortunately, this publicly available dataset did not contain
pre-production pressure data, which is usually the case for
older fields like this one (production began in the 1970’s).
However, early production pressure data was available and
assuming limited initial drawdown, could be used as a proxy
for original pressures (Fig. 13). The early production pressure
data from the oil-reservoirs indicated that most wells had
roughly similar pressures during the first few months of
production, prior to significant drawdown. Wells D4, D11,
D15, and D17 all had pressures within 200 psi of each other
for the first 14 months of production. This is reasonably
similar, considering the quality of measurements from 1970’s
vintage strain gauge data. Thus, it is concluded that fluid
communication must be occurring through the oil column.
This deduction indicates that connectivity scenario #3
(communication through the aquifer) is not supportable (Fig.
12). However, scenarios 1 and 2, which both allow
communication in the oil leg, are consistent with the data
above (Fig. 12).
Differentiating between connectivity scenarios 1 and 2
requires examination of more “dynamic” data like gas-oil-
ratio’s (GOR’s). In the ST-26 Field, the O sand reservoir
contains a near-critical fluid and significant production-related
pressure declines are usually accompanied by increased GOR.
This significantly impacts oil production and overall oil
recoveries. Co-mingling of reservoirs is limited in the field,
so changes in GOR reflect mainly pressure drawdown and
degree of aquifer support in the O sand reservoir.
Detailed seismic facies mapping (Abreu et al 2002) provided
the rough geometry of the delta lobe reservoirs in Fault Block
D and the areal extent of the distributary channel cutting
through the delta lobes (Fig. 14). In fact, one could interpret
the channel connecting with a large delta lobe below the
5
OWOC. This delta lobe could provide considerable aquifer
volume and strength to support pressures.
Plotting GOR’s on the seismic facies map shows a clear
relationship with the mapped distributary channel trend (Fig.
15). GOR’s appear increase steadily away from the channel,
suggesting that the wells near the channel are receiving aquifer
pressure support, assuming similar rates of production and
associated drawdown.
The observed trends support connectivity scenario 2 and
argues against scenario 1 (Fig. 12). Scenario 1 presumes a
connection in the oil leg through toplap and amalgamation of
delta lobes but a poor connection to an aquifer and thus poor
pressure support. By contrast, scenario 2: the connection is
also in the oil leg but through a downcutting distributary
channel. This would result in a good connection to a downdip
aquifer and thus good pressure support.
To summarize, a series of connectivity scenarios were
established to explain differences in OWOC’s over short
distances where faulting plays a minor or no role. Use of early
production pressure data and dynamic GOR information
allowed testing of these different hypotheses. By eliminating
scenarios which are inconsistent with the observations, one is
able to establish the most likely connectivity model for a
mature producing field. Mitigation strategies and infill
drilling opportunities were not explored here, due to the fact
that the field was operated by another company. Yet the
insights and workflow were significant and supported
applications elsewhere.
Strategies for Application of Reservoir Connectivity
Analysis
We would suggest disciplined evaluation of reservoir
connectivity should be carried out where appropriate. Clues
or signs that this is needed include:
• Fields with multiple fluid contacts, even where
compartments are not completely enclosed.
• Maps that show fault-defined compartments and a
potential for multiple fluid contacts;
• Stratigraphic complexity (e.g. lateral reservoir
bounding);
• DHI’s or AVO that don’t quite conform to
structure;
• MDT pressure data suggests limited vertical
connectivity;
• “Perched” or trapped water
• “Tilted” hydrocarbon/water contacts;
• WUT’s above field/sub-regional FWL; multiple
contacts, unpenetrated compartments;
• Variations in HWC’s that cannot be explained by
depth measurement error;
• A lack of wells penetrating a true HWC (e.g. many
ODT’s)
6 IPTC 11375
Of course, economic criteria may also play a role in deciding
when to investigate connectivity (e.g, significant anticipated
costs, need to arrest rapid pressure decline, etc.)
Conclusions
We have found that reservoir connectivity analysis is essential
to proper reserve estimation, realizing reserve adds from
established fields, appropriate development, efficient
depletion. ExxonMobil developed Reservoir Connectivity
Analysis (Vrolijk et al. 2005) which involves:
– Strict definitions of compartments and connections;
– Integration of stratigraphic, structural, and fluid analyses;
– Evaluation of pre-production fluid distribution as a
necessary foundation for understanding later production
behavior;
– Application of fundamental geoscience and engineering
practices.
In application work like this, success often comes from a
novel integration of diverse datasets, as we have done here.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank ExxonMobil Upstream
Research for permission to publish this paper. The review by
Ryan Ruppert is appreciated.
References Cited
Abreu, V., et al. 2002, Reservoir Characterization of the South
Timbalier 26 Field: The Importance of Shelf Margin Deltas as
Reservoirs in the Gulf of Mexico; AAPG BulletinVolume 86,
Issue 13. (abstract) .
Ainsworth, R. B., 2005, Sequence stratigraphic-based analysis
of depositional architecture-a case study from a marginal
marine depositional setting: Petroleum Geoscience, v. 11, p.
257-276.
Allen, J. R L., 1978, Studies in fluviatile sedimentation; an
exploratory quantitative model for the architecture of
avulsion-controlled alluvial sites: Sedimentary Geology, vol.
21; 2, Pages 129-147.
Barton, M. et al., 2004, Understanding hydrocarbon recovery
in deepwater reservoirs; modeling outcrop data in the third
dimension. Anonymous In: AAPG annual meeting. (Abstract)
Annual Meeting Expanded Abstracts - American Association
of Petroleum Geologists, vol. 13; p. 11.
Elshahawi, H., M. Hashem, O. C. Mullins, and G. Fujisawa,
2005, The missing link Identification of reservoir
compartmentalization through downhole fluid analysis: Proc.
2005 Society of Petroleum Engineers Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, October 9 12,
2005, SPE Paper 94709, p. 1 12.
Farrell, M. and V. Abreu, 2006, Reservoir Connectivity in
Fluvial/Deltaic Depositional Environments: South Timbalier
26 Field Study: AAPG Bulletin, v. 90 (2006). AAPG
International Meeting Program Abstracts (Digital).
Gussow, W. C., 1954, Differential Entrapment of Oil and Gas:
A Fundamental Principle: AAPG Bull., vol. 38, Issue 5, p.
816 - 853,
Harrison, C. J., 2004, Method for computing complexity,
confidence and technical maturity indices for reservoir
evaluations: United States Patent Application Publication, US
20040158406A1, 10 pages.
Larue, D. K. and J. Hovadik, 2006, Connectivity of
channelized reservoirs; a modelling approach: Petroleum
Geoscience. 12; 4, Pages 291-308.
King, P. R., 1990, The connectivity and conductivity of
overlapping sand bodies. In, Buller Anthony T. et al.,eds,
North Sea oil and gas reservoirs; II, Proceedings of the North
Sea oil and gas reservoirs conference. [Book, Conference
Document] Pages 353-362.
James, W. R. et al., 2004, Fault-seal analysis using a
stochastic multifault approach: AAPG Bull., vol. Volume 88,
Issue 7, p. Pages 885 – 904.
Lescoffit, G., and C. Townsend, 2005, Quantifying the impact
of fault modeling parameters on production forecasting for
clastic reservoirs, in P. Boult and J. Kaldi, eds., Evaluating
fault and cap rock seals: AAPG Hedberg Conference Series 2,
p. 137 149.
Pfieffer, D. S., 2000, Mensa, Mississippi Canyon Block 731,
Gulf of Mexico-An Integrated Field Study: in Weimer, P., et
al. Deepwater Reservoirs of the World, p. 756-778.
Sales, J. K., 1997, Seal Strength vs. Trap Closure--A
Fundamental Control on the Distribution of Oil and Gas:
AAPG Memoir 67: Seals, Traps, and the Petroleum System, p.
57 – 83.
Schlumberger, 2004, Managing Uncertainty in Oilfield
Reserves, Middle East Well Evaluation Review: Volume 12
http://www.slb.com/content/services/resources/mewr/mewr12.
asp
Smalley, P.C., Hale, N.A., 1996, Early Identification of
Reservoir Compartmentalization by Combining a Range of
Conventional and Novel Data Types: SPE Formation
Evaluation, v.11, p. 163-169.
Sweet, M. L., and L. T. Sumpter, in press, Genesis Field, Gulf
of Mexico: recognizing reservoir compartments on geologic
and production timescales in deep-water reservoirs: AAPG
Bull.
IPTC 11375 7

Vrolijk, P. et al., 2005, Reservoir Connectivity Analysis - Common Abbreviations Used:

Defining Reservoir Connections & Plumbing: SPE Middle
East Oil and Gas Show and Conference, Kingdom of Bahrain GOC: gas/oil contact
#93577-MS. WOC: water-oil contact
OWOC: original water/oil contact
HWC: hydrocarbon/water contact
DHI: direct hydrocarbon indicator
AVO: amplitude versus offset
MDT: measurement downhole tool
WUT: water-up-to
ODT: oil–down-to
GDT: gas-down-to
OUT: oil-up-to
PVT: pressure, volume, temperature
GOR: gas-oil ratio
RCA: Reservoir Connectivity Analysis
 a. Highly Connected Reservoir

b. Poorly Connected Reservoir

Figure 1. Importance of Reservoir

Connectivity/Compartmentalization.
Modified from Schlumberger (2004)
 100% of reservoir volume
connected to the well

100% of reservoir volume

a. Connectivity connected to the well

relative to one 70% of reservoir volume

connected to the well
well 80% of reservoir volume
connected to the well

50% of reservoir volume

connected to each well

b. Connectivity 50% of reservoir volume

connected to each well
relative to two 10% and 70% of reservoir

wells
volume connected to the wells,
respectively
20% and 60% of reservoir
volume connected to the
wells, respectively

Figure 2. Connectivity measure relative to a) one well; and b) several wells. Modified from Ainsworth (2005).
Figure 3. Static versus dynamic connectivity.
A compartment is a trap containing no -1000

identified barriers that would allow the -1100

contact between two fluids to reach Compartment1

-1200

equilibrium at more than one elevation. -1400

-1300

-1500

Compartment boundaries are defined by: a. Compartment2

-structural features
-stratigraphic features -11000000
-
-limits of topseal or baseseal
--11220000 C1
C1 -1600

Spillpoint and Breakover points --11440000

C2
C1
also define compartment boundaries --11660000

--11880000
00
--220000

D
Figure 4. Definition of a reservoir compartment. a) Enclosed Map represents
reservoir compartment; b) Open reservoir compartment. Inset
shows schematic pressure versus depth plot for this example.
top of reservoir
b.
P
 P

c. Capillary leak

D
al
s e
p
a. Spill to
Point
aquifer
overpressuring

b. Breakover point:
Highest point of base reservoir*
Oil and water pressures no
longer communicate through
crest of structure
Figure 5. Connections: a) spill, b)
breakover and c) capillary leak. *Assumes lateral Assumes efficient
Inset shows schematic pressure boundaries (e.g. channel source rocks and
versus depth plot for this example.
or fault boundary) filled compartments
• Lateral bounding of reservoirs sets up breakover, as fluids cannot
communicate around structure
• Lateral bounding can occur due to
– Structural causes: primary faulting
– Diagenetic causes (porosity loss, karst towers)
– Depositional causes:
• Channelization
–Alluvial
–Deepwater
Faults
– Delta Clinoforms

Dip view

Channel reservoir

Breakover point Shale seal

Strike SE Channel margins
View
Figure 6. Geologic factors causing lateral bounding.
Clinoforms
 Crest of Trap

? Figure 7. Classification of traps by tendency to capillary leak or

spill. Filling of traps with oil and gas depends on seal capacity
relative to closure size. This is not a seal classification scheme, as
Max Gas size of closure relative to seal capacity controls leak or spill. In
Column RCA, this concept is extended to reservoir compartments, as cap
leak allows oil and gas to move upward until the capillary forces
and buoyancy forces are balanced. Modified from Sales (1997).
Max (Oil-dominated)
Column

CLASS 1 CLASS 2 CLASS 3

Pressure Pressure Pressure

Reserve Seal Strength (Oil)
Seal Strength Reserve Seal Strength (Oil) Top of Trap Seal Strength Top of Trap Seal Strength Gas and Oil Leak Top of Trap

Class 1 Trap Class 2 Trap Class 3 Trap

Both Oil and Gas
Spill (Nothing Leaks) Equilibrium
Gas/Oil Contact
Gradient of Maximum
Spill Point Possible Gas Column

Depth
Depth

Depth

Maximum Possible Maximum Possible Maximum Possible

Gas Column Gas Column Gas Column

Spill Point
Maximum Possible (Oil- Maximum Possible (Oil- Maximum Possible (Oil-
dominated) Column dominated) Column dominated) Column Nothing
Spilling oil Oil/Water Contact Reserve Closure
Spills

and gas Spilling oil Leaking oil and gas Spill Point

Leaking gas
 Static Dynamic
Fault and Channel Connectivity Connectivity Connectivity

Channel 2 May leak or seal,

depending on
Generally presence of shale
leaks drapes at base of
Channel 1 channel (and
Channel base scour appropriate sandy fill).

May leak or seal,

Fault juxtaposition depending on
Generally
Leaks presence of shale
flow gouge in fault.

Figure 8. Schematic diagram showing how fault juxtaposition is analogous to connectivity at the
base of erosional channels. Our experience is that both generally leak fluids on geologic
timescales but can leak, seal, or baffle during production
 0
10
A.

14 0
13 0
11 0

12 0
B.

Figure 9. Simple illustration showing difference between a hydrodynamically trapped oil accumulation (A) and alternative reservoir/seal geometric interpretation (B) that satisfies
same fluid pressure observations. Blue lines in (A) indicate potentiometric contours in aquifer. In both cases, map shows same distribution of well observations of oil and water and
same oil and aquifer pressures in wells. Note that reservoir isopach in hydrodynamic case (A) must be thicker at crest to allow continuous water stream to cross crest. An important
distinction between interpretations is hydrodynamic trapping requires aquifer flow, while breakover component of RCA permits but does not require flow of denser water phase.
Modified from Vrolijk et al. (2005)
A.

B.

Figure 10. A) hypothetical field compartments; B) representative compartment diagram

 Salt
ST26 #2 ST26 #1
2800 ft apart

2900ms
D15

1 1

12 1
1 D17

3000 ms
1 D21
1 D28
1 1D11
D4

3300ms

South Timbalier 26

350
Time Structure (CI=100ms) OWOC
350
O Sand Fault Block D
0m
0m
s

s
A. 1 Mile
OWOC

Distributary channel

Figure 11. South Timbalier 26 Field, Gulf of Mexico. A. Time structure map, O sand
Delta lobe
reservoir, Fault Block D; B. Well log comparison showing variation in OWOC and thickness
of distributary channel facies in wells ST26 #1 and #2, located just 2800 feet apart. Modified
from Abreu et al. (2002).
B.
A.
• Scenario 1: Connection in oil leg
through delta lobe toplap and
amalgamation. Toplap/Amalg.

Aquifers*

B.
• Scenario 2: Connection in oil leg
through distributary channel
Erosional
Channel

Continues to aquifer

Downdip
Local Aquifers Aquifer

C. • Scenario 3: Connection in aquifer

through underlying fluvial channel
system.

Local aquifers
Figure 12. Three connectivity scenarios for ST-26 Fault Block D. with
Connectivity diagram format as discussed in text shown (insets). basal
*Normally not depicted but included here connection
for illustrative purposes
 ST 26 Well Test Data
6800

Salt 6600

6400

6200

Pressure (psi)*
D15
1 1 6000
1
2
1
1
D17
D17

3000 m
s 5800
1
1 1 1 D21 D4
D28 D11
D4 5600
D11
D15
5400
s
3200 m D17

5200 D21
D28
5000

Jan-71
Jan-70

Apr-70

Oct-70
Oct-69

Jul-70
*1970’S VINTAGE STRAIN GAUGE MEASUREMENTS
• Figure 13. Early production oil pressure data, ST-26 Field, Gulf of Mexico:
A) Map of wells; B) Production oil pressures versus time. Modified from
Abreu et al. (2002).
 Salt

D15
1 1

2 1 11
1 D17 C2

s
3000 m
1 D21
1D28 1 1D11
D4

South Timbalier 26
Seismic Facies Classification and Trace Shape
Seismic Facies Classification
350
0m
s Time Structure (CI=100ms)
O Sand Fault Block D
1 Mile

Figure 14. Delta lobes and distributary channels resolved using seismic trace classification technique. Interpreted distributary channels
shown by arrows (modified from Abreu et al 2002).
View publication stats

Salt

D15
D15
1
111
1

2 112
1 D17
D17
C2
C2

s
3000 m
1 D21D21
1D28
D28
1 1D11D11
C4
D4
D4
x
C18
x xC3 xC16
C13
x
x x C9
C7

South
South Timbalier
Timbalier 26
26
Seismic Facies Classification and Trace Shape
GOR
Seismic Facies Classification
Time Structure (CI=100ms)
0 - 1000 350
0m
s Time
GORStructure (CI=100ms)
of O Sand, Oct 1974
1000-2000
O Sand Fault Block D
2000+ 11 Mile
Mile

Figure 15. Comparison of GOR (gas-oil ratio) data to seismic facies maps of Fig. 14.
Modified from Farrell and Abreu (2006).