Upscaling of outcrop information for improved reservoir modelling – exemplified by a case study on chalk

References

1. Anderskouv, K., Damholt, T. and Surlyk, F.
   2007. Late Maastrichtian chalk mounds, Stevns Klint, Denmark – combined physical and biogenic structures. Sedimentary Geology, 200, 57–72, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sedgeo.2007.03.005
   [Google Scholar]
2. Atkinson, P.M. and Curran, P.J.
   1995. Defining an optimal size of support for remote sensing investigations. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 33, 768–776, https://doi.org/10.1109/36.387592
   [Google Scholar]
3. Buland, A. and Omre, H.
   2003. Bayesian linearized AVO inversion. Geophysics, 68, 185–198, https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1543206
   [Google Scholar]
4. Chopra, S., Castagna, J. and Portniaguine, O.
   2006. Seismic resolution and thin-bed reflectivity inversion. CSEG Recorder, 31, 19–25.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Clark, I.
   1977. Regularization of a semivariogram. Computers & Geosciences, 3, 341–346, https://doi.org/10.1016/0098-3004(77)90010-3
   [Google Scholar]
6. Deutsch, C.V.
   2002. Geostatistical Reservoir Modelling. Oxford University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Deutsch, C.V. and Journel, A.G.
   1997. GSLIB: Geostatistical Software Library and User's Guide. Oxford University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Frykman, P.
   2001. Spatial variability in petrophysical properties in Upper Maastrichtian chalk outcrops at Stevns Klint, Denmark. Marine and Petroleum Geology, 18, 1041–1062, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0264-8172(01)00043-5
   [Google Scholar]
9. Frykman, P.
   2006. Spatial variability of porosity in chalk: Comparison of an outcrop and a North Sea reservoir. AAPG Computer Applications in Geology , 5, 279–288, https://doi.org/10.1306/1063822CA5324
   [Google Scholar]
10. Frykman, P. and Deutsch, C.V.
    2002. Practical application of geostatistical scaling laws for data integration. Petrophysics, 43, 153–171.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Goggin, D.J., Chandler, M.A., Kocurek, G. and Lake, L.W.
    1992. Permeability transects of eolian sands and their use in generating random permeability fields. SPE Formation Evaluation, 7, 7–16, https://doi.org/10.2118/19586-PA
    [Google Scholar]
12. Howell, J.A., Martinius, A.W. and Good, T.R.
    2014. The application of outcrop analogues in geological modelling: a review, present status and future outlook. Geological Society, London, Special Publications , 387, 1–25, https://doi.org/10.1144/SP387.12
    [Google Scholar]
13. Journel, A.G. and Huijbregts, C.H.
    1978. Mining Geostatistics. Academic Press, New York.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Kammann, J., Malehmir, A., Brodic, B. and Tagliavento, M.
    2019. Deep onshore reflection seismic imaging of the chalk group strata using a 45-kg accelerated weight-drop and combined recording systems with dense receiver spacing. Geophysics, 84, 1–42, https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2018-0755.1
    [Google Scholar]
15. Kupfersberger, H. and Deutsch, C.V.
    1999. Methodology for integrating analog geological data in 3-D variogram modeling. AAPG Bulletin, 83, 1262–1278, https://doi.org/10.1306/E4FD3351-1732-11D7-8645000102C1865D
    [Google Scholar]
16. Liu, Y. and Journel, A.G.
    2009. A package for geostatistical integration of coarse and fine scale data. Computers & Geosciences, 35, 527–547, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2007.12.015
    [Google Scholar]
17. Luster, G.
    1985. Raw Materials for Portland Cement: Applications of Conditional Simulation of Coregionalization. PhD thesis, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
    [Google Scholar]
18. Mosegaard, K. and Tarantola, A.
    1995. Monte Carlo sampling of solutions to inverse problems. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 100, 12  431–12  447, https://doi.org/10.1029/94JB03097
    [Google Scholar]
19. Nordahl, K. and Ringrose, P.S.
    2008. Identifying the representative elementary volume for permeability in heterolithic deposits using numerical rock models. Mathematical Geosciences, 40, 753–771, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11004-008-9182-4
    [Google Scholar]
20. Pyrcz, M.J. and Deutsch, C.V.
    2014. Geostatistical Reservoir Modelling. 2nd edn. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Qu, D., Tveranger, J. and Fachri, M.
    2017. Influence of deformation-band fault damage zone on reservoir performance. Interpretation, 5, 41–56, https://doi.org/10.1190/INT-2016-0229.1
    [Google Scholar]
22. Qu, D., Frykman, P., Mosegaard, K., Stemmerik, L. and Nielsen, L.
    2020. Geomodel of outcrop Maastrichtian Chalk at Stevns, Denmark. In: EAGE 2020 Annual Conference & Exhibition Online, December 8–11, 2020. European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers (EAGE), Houten, The Netherlands, 1–5, https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.202011120
    [Google Scholar]
23. Ringrose, P. and Bentley, M.
    2015. Reservoir Model Design. Springer, Berlin.
    [Google Scholar]
24. Stemmerik, L., Surlyk, F., Klitten, K., Rasmussen, S.L. and Schovsbo, N.
    2006. Shallow core drilling of the Upper Cretaceous Chalk at Stevns Klint, Denmark. Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland Bulletin, 10, 13–16, https://doi.org/10.34194/geusb.v10.4880
    [Google Scholar]
25. Surlyk, F., Rasmussen, S. et al.
    2013. Upper Campanian–Maastrichtian holostratigraphy of the eastern Danish Basin. Cretaceous Research, 46, 232–256, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cretres.2013.08.006
    [Google Scholar]
26. Tomutsa, L., Jackson, S.R., Szpakiewicz, M. and Palmer, T.
    1986. Geostatistical characterization and comparison of outcrop and subsurface facies: Shannon shelf sand ridges. Paper SPE-15127 presented at theSPE California Regional Meeting, 2–4 April 1986, Oakland, California, USA, https://doi.org/10.2118/15127-MS
    [Google Scholar]
27. Veeken, P.C.H. and Da Silva, A.M.
    2004. Seismic inversion methods and some of their constraints. First Break, 22, 47–70, https://doi.org/10.3997/1365-2397.2004011
    [Google Scholar]
28. Widess, M.B.
    1973. How thin is a thin bed?Geophysics, 38, 1176–1180, https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1440403
    [Google Scholar]