1887
Volume 27, Issue 4
  • ISSN: 1354-0793
  • E-ISSN:

Abstract

Outcrops are valuable for analogous subsurface reservoirs in supplying knowledge of fine-scale spatial heterogeneity pattern and stratification types, which are difficult to obtain from subsurface reservoir cores, well logs or seismic data. For petrophysical properties in a domain where the variations are relatively continuous and not dominated by abrupt contrasts, the spatial heterogeneity pattern can be characterized by a semivariogram model. The outcrop information therefore has the potential to constrain the semivariogram for subsurface reservoir modelling, even though it represents different locations and depths, and the petrophysical properties may differ in magnitude or variance. However, the use of outcrop-derived spatial correlation information for petrophysical property modelling in practice has been challenged by the scale difference between the small support volume of the property measurements from outcrops and the typically much larger grid cells used in reservoir models. With an example of modelling the porosity of an outcrop chalk unit in eastern Denmark, this paper illustrates how the fine-scale spatial correlation information obtained from the sampling of outcrops can be transferred to coarser-scale models of analogue rocks. The workflow can be applied to subsurface reservoirs and ultimately improves the representation of geological patterns in reservoir models.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1144/petgeo2020-126
2021-06-01
2021-12-04
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

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. 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]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1144/petgeo2020-126
Loading
/content/journals/10.1144/petgeo2020-126
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
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