1887
Volume 27, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 1354-0793
  • E-ISSN:

Abstract

Reservoir development forecasts depend on accurate descriptions of the spatial distribution of rock properties that impact subsurface fluid-flow pathways and volume connectivity. Reservoir models constructed using geostatistical methods combine analogous facies dimension data with sparse subsurface data to predict spatial variations in rock properties. This study uses a physics-based depositional process model to define realistic facies variations within a river-dominated delta deposit formed during multiple shoreline regressions and transgressions. Geostatistical models are conditioned to varying amounts of information extracted from the depositional model to examine how well they reproduce the facies patterns. Reservoir simulation is used to examine the impact of analogous dimension data and varying conditioning constraints on reservoir performance predictions of water displacing oil. The dimensions of surface depositional features underestimate the continuity of preserved facies patterns, proportional grids following major flooding surfaces allow significantly better predictions than uniform rectangular grids, and trend constraints are more important when defined facies correlation length is significantly less than well spacing. When geostatistical model parameters are poorly chosen, reservoir simulation of the resulting weakly-structured facies patterns overpredict recovery and water breakthrough time. It is demonstrated that process-based depositional models can be used to optimize geostatistical model construction methods and input parameters to reduce uncertainty of reservoir development assessments.

[open-access]

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1144/petgeo2019-105
2020-04-08
2024-04-26
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/pg/27/1/petgeo2019-105.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1144/petgeo2019-105&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Amaru, M., Sun, T., Goggin, L.
    and Harris, A. 2017. Integration of computational stratigraphy models and seismic data for subsurface characterization. The Leading Edge, 36, 947a1–947a6, https://doi.org/10.1190/tle36110947a1.1
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Boucher, A., Gupta, R., Caers, J.
    and Satija, A. 2010. Tetris: a training image generator for SGeMS. Paper presented at theProceedings of the 23nd SCRF Annual Affiliates Meeting, May 5–6, 2010, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Colombera, L., Felletti, F., Mountney, N.P.
    and McCaffrey, W.D. 2012. A database approach for constraining stochastic simulations of the sedimentary heterogeneity of fluvial reservoirs. AAPG Bulletin, 96, 2143–2266, https://doi.org/10.1306/04211211179
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Colombera, L., Mountney, N.P., Hodgson, D.M.
    and McCaffrey, W.D. 2016. The shallow-marine architecture knowledge store: A database for the characterization of shallow-marine and paralic depositional systems. Marine and Petroleum Geology, 75, 83–99, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2016.03.027
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Deutsch, C.V.
    1992. Annealing Techniques Applied to Reservoir Modeling and the Integration of Geological and Engineering (Well Test) Data. Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 2002. Geostatistical Reservoir Modeling. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. and Tran, T.T. 2002. FLUVSIM: a program for object-based stochastic modeling of fluvial depositional systems. Computers & Geoscience, 28, 525–535, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0098-3004(01)00075-9
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Fadlelmula, F., Mohamed, M. et al.
    2016. Separable multiple-point geostatistical modeling of three-dimensional discrete fracture-vug networks. Paper SPE-182049 presented at theAbu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition & Conference, 7–10 November 2016, Abu Dhabi, UAE, https://doi.org/10.2118/183049-MS
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Fisk, H.N.
    and McFarlan, E. 1955. Late Quaternary deltaic deposits of the Mississippi River. Geological Society of America Special Papers , 62, 279–302.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Frazier, D.E.
    1967. Recent deltaic deposits of the Mississippi River: Their development and chronology. Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies Transactions, 17, 287–315.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Gibling, M.R.
    2006. Width and thickness of fluvial channel bodies and valley fills in the geological record: A literature compilation and classification. Journal of Sedimentary Research, 76, 731–770, https://doi.org/10.2110/jsr.2006.060
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Guardiano, F.
    and Srivastava, M. 1993. Multivariate geostatistics, beyond bivariate moments. In: Soares, A. (ed.) Geostatistics Tróia ’92. Quantitative Geology and Geostatistics, Volume 5. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 133–144, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-1739-5_12
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Hu, L.
    and Chugunova, T. 2008. Multiple-point geostatistics for modeling subsurface heterogeneity: A comprehensive review. Water Resources Research, 44, 1–14, https://doi.org/10.1029/2008WR006993
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Journel, A.G.
    and Deutsch, C.V. 1997. Rank order geostatistics: A proposal for a unique coding and common processing of diverse data. In: Baafi, E.Y. and Schofield, N.A. (eds) Proceedings of the 5th International Geostatistical Congress, Wollongong, Australia, September 22–27, 1996, Volume 1. Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 174–187.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Maharaja, A.
    2008. Object-based training image generator. Computers & Geosciences, 34, 1753–1761, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2007.08.012
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Parker, G.
    2008. Transport of gravel and sediment mixtures. ASCE Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice , 110, 165–251, https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784408148.ch03
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Parker, G., Fukushima, Y.
    and Pantin, H.M. 1986. Self-accelerating turbidity currents. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 171, 145–181, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022112086001404
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Pyrcz, M.J., Boisvert, J.B.
    and Deutsch, C.V. 2009. ALLUVSIM: A program for event-based stochastic modeling of fluvial depositional systems. Computers & Geosciences, 35, 1671–1685, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2008.09.012
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Reynolds, A.D.
    1999. Dimensions of paralic sandstone bodies. AAPG Bulletin, 83, 211–229.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Shaw, J.B.
    and Mohrig, D. 2014. The importance of erosion in distributary channel network growth, Wax Lake Delta, Louisiana, USA. Geology, 42, 31–34, https://doi.org/10.1130/G34751.1
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Strebelle, S.
    2002. Conditional simulation of complex geological structures using multiple-point statistics. Mathematical Geosciences, 34, 1–22, https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014009426274
    [Google Scholar]
  22. and Remy, N. 2005. Post-processing of multiple-point geostatistical models to improve reproduction of training patterns. Quantitative Geology and Geostatistics , 14, 979–988.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Willis, B.J.
    and Sun, T. 2019. Relating depositional processes of river-dominated deltas to reservoir behavior using computational stratigraphy. Journal of Sedimentary Research, 89, 1250–1276, https://doi.org/10.2110/jsr.2019.59
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1144/petgeo2019-105
Loading
/content/journals/10.1144/petgeo2019-105
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error