Depositional Environments

and Systems

Integrated Reservoir Study

DATA
MANAGEMENT

RESERVOIR
CHARACTERIZATION

STATIC
MODEL

Data Flows

DYNAMIC
MODEL

Work Flows

Depositional Model
RESERVOIR CHARACTERIZATION
Petrophysical Results Interpreted Logs & Marker Picks
Regional
Geological
Model

Structural
Model
Interpreted
Geophysical
Model

Depositional
Model

Statistical
Model of
Production &
Pressure Data

Pore
Systems
Model

Facies Evaluations
Evaluate available cores and cuttings
Correlate horizons in seismic and well log databases
throughout the project area
Integrate petrophysical data with facies analysis to
identify flow (reservoir) and non-flow units
Map properties of flow and non-flow units
Integrate reservoir properties (such as porositythickness) with seismic attributes
Map potential reservoir using seismic transform

Scales of Geological Reservoir Heterogeneity

Interwell
Area

Field Wide

Well

Well

Determined
From Well Logs,
Seismic Lines,
Statistical
Modeling,
etc.

100's
m

Interwell

1-10 km

Reservoir
Sandstone

10's
m

Well-Bore

100's m

10-100's
m

Petrographic or
Scanning Electron
Microscope

1-10's
m

10-100's
mm

Hand Lens or
Binocular Microscope

Unaided Eye

(modified from Weber, 1986)

Well Logs and Seismic Data

Ultimate Goal:
Property-Populated Static Model
Wells with sands
(red)

Multiple
channels / levees

Fluvial channel
simulation through
wells

Clastic Depositional
Systems

Recovery Efficiency by Depositional System

Depositional System
Wave-dominated Deltaic
Barrier Strandplain
Fluvial Deltaic
Wave-Modified Deltaic
Fluvial
Fluvial Deltaic
Back-Barrier Strandplain
Deltaic
Mud-Rich Submarine Fan

Clastic

Atoll-Pinnacle Reef
Platform Margin
Open Shelf-Ramp
Cretaceous Restricted Platform
Karst-Modified Open Shelf-Ramp
Platform Margin
Paleozoic Restricted Platform
Unconformity Related

Carbonate

0
(modified from Tyler, 1984)

20

40

60

80

Average Recovery Efficiency (Percent)

100

Clastic Depositional Systems

Fluvial

ee
d
v
o
e
o
L
Fl

Barrier Island

Crevass
e
Splay

Lagoon
T

a
h
C

l
e
n

ill

in
a
l
p

Facies
Controls on
Permeability

10 to .1 darcys
.1 darcys
.01 to .0001 darcys

R
AD
IE
N
G

Ti
da
lP
as
s

10 to 100 darcys

P
DI

STRIKE

H
YD
R
AU
LI

DEPOSITIONAL

Back Barrier

Barrier Core

Lower
Shoreface

Shelf

(modified from Galloway and Hobday, 1983; after Galloway et al 1979, and
Davis, 1969)

Types of Fluvial Systems

(Bedload system)

el-f
n
n
ha

nd
a
s
ill

(Mixed load system)

Braided
Flo

Meandering

lai
p
od

u
nm

dp
o
o
Fl

Channel-fill sand

lai

u
nm

Overbank - fine sand, silt & mud

Anastomosing

(Suspended load
system)

(modified from Bjorlykke, 1989)

Correlation Approaches
Lithostratigraphic correlation

Delta-front sand and silt

Sea level
Pro-delta
silty mud

Original depositional surface

Chronostratigraphic correlation
T1
T2

T3
Sea level

(Modified from Bashore and others, 1994)

Submarine Fan Systems

Inner
Fan

Slides

Middle
Fan

Inner
Fan

on
y
n
Ca

Canyon

UF

Middle
Fan

Shelf
Basin
Plain

Slope

ca. 100m

Outer
Fan

Fan
Lateral
Margin
Scarp
(modified from Pickering, 1989; after Lucchi, 1972)

UC
Outer
Fan
UC
Basin
Plain

Carbonate Depositional
Environments and
Systems

Recovery Efficiency by Depositional System

Depositional System
Wave-dominated Deltaic
Barrier Strandplain
Fluvial Deltaic
Wave-Modified Deltaic
Fluvial
Fluvial Deltaic
Back-Barrier Strandplain
Deltaic
Mud-Rich Submarine Fan

Clastic

Atoll-Pinnacle Reef
Platform Margin
Open Shelf-Ramp
Cretaceous Restricted Platform
Karst-Modified Open Shelf-Ramp
Platform Margin
Paleozoic Restricted Platform
Unconformity Related

Carbonate

0
(modifed from Tyler, 1984)

20

40

60

80

Average Recovery Efficiency (Percent)

100

Carbonate Reef System

30 km

Back Reef
(Lagoon)

Open Water

SL

Lime Grainstone

150
m

Reef
Forereef

Miliolids

100

Shelf
Dense lime mudstone

50

Orbitolina
Boundstone

Chalky
lime mudstone

0
(modified from Wilson, 1975; after Harris et al, 1968)

Globigerina
mudstone

Carbonate Models
Ramp Model

Tidal Flat

Shelf

Grainstone Shoals

Tidal Flat

SL

Platform Model
Shelf

Mound

Reef

Shelf
Margin

Pinnacle
Reef

SL

p
Slo
e

Basin
(Modified from Perkins and Lloyd, undated)

Start Up
Sea Level

Antecedent Surface

Catch Up
Sea Level

Antecedent Surface

Keep Up
MFS

Maximum Flooding
Surface (MFS)

Highstand
Systems
Tract

Sea Level

Antecedent Surface

Subaerial
Exposure

Transgressive
Systems
Tract

Sequence Boundary (SB)

Lowstand
Systems
Tract

Sea Level

SB
Antecedent Surface

Platform
Drowning

Sea Level

Platform Drowning
(Drowning
Unconformity)

Antecedent Surface

(modified from Emery and Myers, 1996)

Model for an
Isolated Carbonate
Platform

Effect of Well Spacing on Interpretation

A

Actual Facies
Distribution
(160 acre spacing)

Deterministic Facies
Interpretation
(160 acre spacing)

Fenestral
Laminae

Typical Well/Data Spacing

Ooid
In Orenburg Field
Grainstone
Peloid Mollusc
Packstone
Peloid Foram
Packstone
(modified from Kerans and Tinker, 1997)

C Deterministic Facies
Interpretation
(40 acre spacing)

Facies determination in B
does not match actual
distribution (A) because 160
acre spacing exceeds tract
width.
Facies determination in C
matches actual distribution
(A) because well spacing is
within facies tract width.

Permeability Distribution Cross Sections

Modeling Results Permian Basin

Model A Simple interpolation

Model B Actual Permeability
Distribution

Effect of Geologic
Model on
Simulation Results
Less constrained and/or
simpler models tend to
result in over-optimistic
predictions
Model A predicts 50%
recovery of oil in place
Model B predicts 35%
recovery
Lower predicted recovery
but better ability to target
effectively

(from Lucia, 1999)

Sedimentary Facies vs. Porosity

S3

Facies

= 12%

S11

S11'

S2
0

10

15
20
Porosity (%)

25

30

4-D (Time Lapse) Seismic

1998

1995

- production reduces reservoir pressure

- gas evolves from solution
- seismic amplitudes brighten
Data Courtesy of BP-Amoco and Shell

4-D (Time Lapse)

Seismic
T32 1998
amplitude
s
Significant change
after 10 months
production

T32 1995
amplitudes
Data Courtesy of BP-Amoco and Shell