Petrel More

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Our immense gratitude goes out to the management and staff of the Institute of Petroleum Studies especially Mr. Francis Fusier for working assiduously to ensure the smooth running of our MSc program and for putting all required logistics in place for a successful one week of STATIC RESERVOIR Simulation with PETREL software. Our heart goes out to TOTAL Exploration and Production Nigeria Ltd for the rare opportunity granted us in funding our MSc degree program with the IPS initiative. Finally, we thank God for His constant strength and guidance especially in this tough and mentally-challenging environment, and extend our thanks also to the entire exciting, fun-loving, intelligent and smart individuals that make up Batch Seven of IPS.
CHAPTER ONE
1.0 Introduction
The Gulfalks field (about 6115N, 215E) is one of the three giant oil fields located at the edge of the North Sea Plateau, located on the western flank of the North Viking Graben (Norwegian sector), also with high gas accumulations. The sediments are coarse sands due to their proximity to submerged beach zone. Gullfaks field has no pockmark structures probably due to coarseness of sediments. The gas found at Gullfaks, of which 98% of it is methane can easily migrate vertically through the porous sediments. Numerous shallow gas accumulations lie at a depth of about 300-450 m below seafloor. The source rock of Gullfaks Oil field is from the Permian age. These gas hydrocarbons migrated to the mean, economical, interesting reservoirs of Jurassic age. The origin of methane is fossil (Hovland and Judd, 1988). The temperature at the reservoir is 8C. The Gullfaks field (see figures 1.1 and 1.2) comprises marine and fluviodeltaic sandstone reservoirs of the Middle Jurassic Brent Group. The Broom, Rannoch, Etive and lower Ness formations represent the deltas advance or progradation, while the upper Ness and Tarbert formations represent its retreat or retrogradation. The intensely faulted and compartmentalized structure contains an accommodation zones sandwiched between a system of strongly rotated fault (domino-type) blocks to the west and a horst complex to the east. Some of the crestal areas have been eroded and are directly overlain in places by the baseCretaceous unconformity.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This is a project on the static reservoir modelling of the Joana field: an oilfield located in the Paris Basin at 300km South-East of France. The field was discovered in the 1960s, drilled in the 1980s and the 1990s with one of its wells still producing at present. Data was obtained from the existing Joana field wells in the form of geological and seismic survey, sedimentology, well correlation, coring, logging, fluid properties, and production data. These were all quality-checked, prepared and geostatisitically extrapolated as inputs to be used in the characterization of the reservoirs of the field. A 3-D static model of the field was produced using the Petrel software which encompassed the gridding, layering, facies modelling, fault modelling, zonation, etc of the field. This threw more light on the overall structure of the reservoir and was used in the calculation of the Original Oil in Place (OOIP) for the two major scenarios chosen. That is, for the connected reservoirs case, a value of 1,394 MM bbls OOIP was obtained while the assumption of unconnected reservoirs yielded 478 MM bbls manually and the software-calculated value as 403 MM bbls. Economical analysis of the field (assuming a recovery factor of 0.25 and a price of $65 per barrel of oil), a gross revenue of $22.70 billion was obtained for the connected reservoirs, $7.77 billion for the unconnected reservoirs (manual) and the software calculated as $6.50 billion. On the basis of all of the above, a recommendation for the upscale of the model to a dynamic one was made with a view to producing the field as 4
early as possible. 6
RESERVOIR MODELLING PROJECT REPORT JULY 2009 (BY NWATU, VICTOR OKECHUKWU AND OLAJIDE, FESTUS OLATEJU.)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .................................................................................................. 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................... 6 LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ 9 LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ 11 CHAPTER ONE: GENERAL INTRODUCTION ........................................................... 12 1.1 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY ....................................................................... 12 1.2 SCOPE OF THE STUDY .................................................................................. 12 1.3 DATA USED ..................................................................................................... 13 1.4 METHODS ADOPTED .................................................................................... 13 1.5 HISTORY OF THE PARIS BASIN .................................................................. 14 1.6 STRUCTURE OF THE PARIS BASIN ........................................................... 15 1.7 STRATIGRAPHY OF THE PARIS BASIN .................................................... 16 1.8 THE PETROLEUM SYSTEM .......................................................................... 17 1.8.1 Source Rock ................................................................................................ 20 1.8.2 Reservoir Rock ............................................................................................ 20 1.8.3 Traps ........................................................................................................... 21 1.8.4 Migration .................................................................................................... 21 1.8.5 Seals ............................................................................................................ 21 1.8.6 Time............................................................................................................. 22 CHAPTER TWO: SEISMIC INTERPRETATION AND ANALYSIS ........................... 23 5
2.1 PICKING OF TOPS ........................................................................................... 23 2.2 TIME DEPTH CONVERSION ......................................................................... 23 2.3 FAULT PATTERNS .......................................................................................... 24 CHAPTER THREE: SEDIMENTOLOGY OF JOANA FIELD...................................... 27 3.2 STRATIGRAPHY OF JOANA FIELD.................................................................. 30 3.3 CORRELATION ............................................................................................... 32 7
CHAPTER FOUR: PETROPHYSICS ............................................................................. 36 4.1 LOGS AND INTERPRETATION ..................................................................... 36 4.1.1 Identification of the Reservoir zones........................................................... 38 4.1.2 Identification of Non-reservoir areas (shale zones) ................................... 39 4.1.3 Summary of the Petrophysical Analysis of the Logs ................................... 39 CHAPTER FIVE: STATIC RESERVOIR MODELING ................................................. 41 5.1 DATA QC/QA AND ANALYSIS ..................................................................... 41 5.2 STRUCTURAL MODELING ........................................................................... 41 5.3 COMPARISON OF THE GEOSTATIC MODELLING METHODS .............. 41 5.1 DATA QC/QA AND ANALYSIS ..................................................................... 42 5.1.1 Data import and QA/QC of input................................................................ 42 5.1.2 Creation of surfaces .................................................................................... 42 5.1.3 Layering and Gridding of surfaces ............................................................. 44 5.1.4 Matching facies with wells .......................................................................... 45 5.1.5 Correlation of reservoir logs. ..................................................................... 47 5.2 STRUCTURAL MODELLING ........................................................................ 48 5.2.1 Fault modeling ............................................................................................ 48 5.2.2 Scaling-up of well logs parameters............................................................. 49 6
5.2.3 Scaling-up of Net-to-gross. ......................................................................... 53 5.2.4 Facies modeling .......................................................................................... 54 5.3 COMPARISON OF THE VARIOUS GEOSTATIC MODELLING METHODS 60 CHAPTER SIX: CALCULATION OF OOIP .................................................................. 62 6.1 MANUAL CALCULATION OF OOGIP .............................................................. 62 6.1.1 Connected Reservoir ................................................................................... 64 6.1.2 Unconnected Reservoir ............................................................................... 65 6.2 OOIP CALCULATION FROM PETREL .............................................................. 66 6.1.2 Connected Reservoir ................................................................................... 66 8
CHAPTER SEVEN: UNCERTAINTIES, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................. 69 7.1 UNCERTAINTIES ............................................................................................ 69 7.1.1 General Reservoir Structure ....................................................................... 69 7.1.2 Sealing or Non-Sealing of Faults ................................................................ 70 7.1.3 Reservoir Layering...................................................................................... 70 7.1.4 Geostatisitcal extrapolation of Petrophysical Parameters ......................... 70 7.1.5 Position of the Fluid Contacts .................................................................... 70 7.1.6 Reservoir Fluid Properties ......................................................................... 71 7.1.7 Sequence Stratigraphy ................................................................................ 71 7.2 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 72 7.3 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................... 73 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 74 9
LIST OF FIGURES
7
Figure 1.1 Location of the Paris Basin.............................................................................. 15 Fig 1.2: Geological cross section of the Paris basin ......................................................... 16 Figure 1.3: General Stratigraphy of the Paris Basin ......................................................... 17 Figure 1.4: Petroleum System of the Joana Field ............................................................. 19 Figure 1.5: Facies C4a and C4b ........................................................................................ 21 Figure 1.6: Log seals of reservoir 1(C4a) and 2(C4b). ..................................................... 22 Figure 2.1: The seismic surface of Joana field showing wells and major faults. ............. 25 Figure 2.2 Contour map of the Paris basin with the red circle showing the location of Joana field ......................................................................................................................... 26 Figure 4.1: A typical dune-like depositional environment ............................................... 27 Figure 3.2: The prehistoric map of Paris basin showing the location of Joana field by the blue ring which corresponds with section E-F .................................................................. 30 Figure 3.3 The Stratigraphy of Joana field. ...................................................................... 31 Figure 3.4: Location of the facies 1 - 9 in their typical depositional environment ........... 32 Figure 3.5: The maximum flooding surfaces and sequence boundaries. .......................... 33 Figure 3.6: The correlated cross-section of wells; Joana-3, Joana-2, & Joana-6 (partly) . 34 Figure 3.7 .The correlated cross-section of facies of the wells in Joana field ................. 35 Figure 4.1: The Joana 2D well log .................................................................................... 37 Figure 4.2: Cross section of processed logs from Joana-2D showing some computed reservoir properties along the well section. ...................................................................... 37 Figure 4.3: Cross section of well logs from Joana fields 3,2,,6 ........................................ 40 Figure 5.1: Contour diagram for thickness between MFS 0 and MFS 1 .......................... 43 Figure 6.1: Creation of six surfaces .................................................................................. 43 Figure 5.3: Layering of surfaces ....................................................................................... 44 8
Figure 5.4: Gridding of the surfaces with dimensions 100*100*1.0 per cell ................... 45 Figure 5.5(a): Matching of facies with well log (Joana-2) ............................................... 46 Figure 5.5(b): Matching of facies with well log (Joana-3) ............................................... 46 Figure 5.6: Reservoir log correlation ................................................................................ 47 Figure 5.7: Fault modeling identifying key pillars ........................................................... 48 Figure 5.8: final fault model of the Joana field. ................................................................ 49 Figure 5.9: Scaling up of porosity using arithmetic mean method. .................................. 50 Figure 5.10: Scaling up of porosity along the wells in the model .................................... 50 Figure 5.11: Histogram of the porosity distribution for the method used. ....................... 51 Figure: 5.12: Up scaling of Gamma ray on the reservoir model ...................................... 52 Figure 5.13: Up scaled gamma ray logs in 3D.................................................................. 53 Figure 5.14: Histogram obtained from the scaled up net-togross.................................... 54 Figure 5.15: facies modeling of Reservoir 2 ..................................................................... 55 Figure 5.16: facies modeling of the NonReservoir.......................................................... 55 Figure 5.17: Facies modeling using Boolean method for the non reservoir .................... 56 Figure 5.18: Facies modeling of the channel the discrete Boolean method .................... 57 Figure 5.19: Histogram obtained from the Boolean method ............................................ 57 Figure 5.20: facies modeling using Sequential Gaussian Simulation (SGS) .................... 58 10
Figure 5.21: Histogram obtained from Sequential Gaussian Simulation. ........................ 59 Figure 5.22: Facies modeling using kriging method ........................................................ 59 Figure 6.23: facies modeling using the moving average method ..................................... 60 Figure 6.1: The plot reservoir area versus depth assuming connected reservoir. ............. 64
Figure 6.2: The plot reservoir layers versus depth for an unconnected scenario .............. 65 Figure 6.3: volume calculation settings window .............................................................. 67 Figure 6.4: Print screen of the Volume Calculation Report.............................................. 68 11
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1: Summary of the properties and reservoir potentials C1 C9 facies. .............. 28 Table 5.1: Representation of the reservoir parameters. .................................................... 60 Table 5.2: Comparison of the various geostatistic methods. ............................................ 61 12
CHAPTER ONE GENERAL INTRODUCTION

1.1 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
The objective of this study is to produce a static geological modeling of the Joana field. The field is located in the Paris Basin, about 300 km South-East of France and existed since the Triassic-Jurassic period though most of its physical changes took place during the Cretaceous Eocene period. The static modeling of the reservoir was achieved with the industry-acclaimed software, PETREL, produced and patented by Schlumberger.
1.2 SCOPE OF THE STUDY

The scope of the project involves the following: Identification of the field location on the Paris Basin Explanation of the field and reservoir parameters of the Joana field. Acquisition, velocity model of and time-depth conversion of the seismic of the field. Exploration of the fault pattern of the field. Sedimentological study of the field (sequence stratigraphy, heterogeneity and facies). Petrophysics of the fields reservoirs (Cut-off, Rw, OWC, ODT, WUT, FWL etc.) Propose a static model for the reservoirs of the field. Carry out a calculation (estimation) of the OOIP (Original Oil In Place) by both manual means and the application of the software Making the necessary recommendations and concluding eventually. 13
RESERVOIR MODELLING PROJECT REPORT JULY 2009
10
(BY NWATU, VICTOR OKECHUKWU AND OLAJIDE, FESTUS OLATEJU.)
1.3 DATA USED

The data used for this project were all provided by Prof. Bernard Michaud i.e. it had already been inputted into the software beforehand. Had it been otherwise, the data would have been inputted by the use of the Petrel Explorer which consists of eight tabs, put in two separate explorer windows, called First and Second Petrel Explorer. They can be enabled/disabled from the View option in the Menu bar. Two main working tabs in the First Petrel Explorer are: Input tab: Where all the input files are placed as well as edits on input data or copies of input data. Data created within Petrel and not related to the 3D grid (such as polygons, surfaces, seismic interpretations) will also be stored under this tab. And the Models tab: All data related to the 3D grid (horizons, faults, properties, etc.). Also, the active items in PETREL are shown in bold fonts, and the characteristic thing in Petrel is the active item which is being displayed with bold fonts. Also, the +/sign is used for the expansion and collapse of icons respectively by clicking the sign before the icon concerned.
1.4 METHODS ADOPTED

The method adopted was entirely the use software to electronically acquire, sort and arrange, process, and interpret the field data for the Joana field save for the manual calculation of the OOIP (Original Oil in Place) in Chapter Six. This was done to get a feel of the action and verify the accuracy of the work done by the comparison of the ranges of the results of the two methods. Having looked at all these, we would now go into the structure of the field, as it were. 14
1.5 HISTORY OF THE PARIS BASIN

Paris basin is an intracratonic basin a basin existing in the middle of continents where the compressive and extensive forces of the foreland and the extensive basins act out and produce a net effect. In actual sense, its a combination of extensive and compressive 11
basins. As a matter of fact, the Paris basin was first formed an extensive basin (during the Triassic-Jurassic era) which progressively transformed to a compressed structure till present day. There exist also the distributions of structural traps caused by stresses; Cretaceous-Eocene shortening being the most important and prominent of them. In the basin also several north-west trending folds extend from the basin to the English Channel. Subsidence continued throughout the Triassic and the Jurassic but decreased somewhat in the early cretaceous. By the late Cretaceous, the Tethys Sea to the south (which got as far as the present-day North Africa) had transgressed and covered much of France. A prominent mark of this transgression is the extensive chalk deposits that outcrop in the visibly arid but agriculturally sound Champaign district. 15
Figure 1.1 Location of the Paris Basin
1.6 STRUCTURE OF THE PARIS BASIN

The Joana field is located in the Paris Basin located in the intracratonic sag basin with concentric structures..The basement and carboniferous rocks is over-lain by 3000m of Triassic to tertiary sediments. Rifting in the Triassic was overlain by a phase of rapid thermal subsidence in the Jurassic which was laminated in the latest Jurassic resulting in the rise of the Vosges block to the coast. The Vosges is a range of mountains northeasterly of France that extends190km from South to North, running parallel to the Rhine River. It has highest elevation of about 1500m.
PARIS
Source Rock for Middle Jurassic and Cretaceous = LIAS

TRIASSI C MIDDLE JURASSI C Limestone LOWER CRETACE OUS
16
There was a major North-South compression event which is related to the Pyrenean progeny and a minor NW-SE compressed event which resulted to the Alpine progeny. Most of the important anticlines of the Paris basin were formed during the Pyrenean 12
progeny.
Fig 1.2: Geological cross section of the Paris basin
1.7 STRATIGRAPHY OF THE PARIS BASIN

The general stratigraphy of the Paris basin on which Joana field is located is shown in the figure 1.3 below. This shows that the basement rock is overlain with Triassic sediments deposited in fluvial through marine to evaporitic environment. There was rapid thermal subsidence in the early Jurassic period which produced a down wrapping of the basin centre and a deposition of transgressive-regressive cycles. The Comblanchean platform and callovian, on which the reservoir of Joanna field overlies, is part of the T8 aggrading and transgressive series. The transgressive phase shows the classical succession of the lagoonal mud-rich, aggrading sequences and high energy oolithic-rich back steeping sequence. Joana Field 17
Figure 1.3: General Stratigraphy of the Paris Basin
1.8 THE PETROLEUM SYSTEM

Before hydrocarbon accumulations are formed and retained in the sub-surface, there are requisite conditions that must be in place. These conditions are what make up the petroleum system. In essence, the petroleum system is made up of: Presence of a source rock Migration Presence of reservoir rocks Seals Traps Time and Preservation 18
The conditions that have to do with flow and movement are called dynamic conditions and includes migration, trap, time and preservation; while the reverse ones are named static conditions, made up of source rocks, reservoir rocks and seal. The Joana Petroleum system being considered follows the same pattern and falls into the same description. Figure 1.4 below depicts that: Also shown in the figure are the major geological (in some cases tectonic) incidents that 13
helped shape the Joana system. Some of these included the Austrian, Pyrenean and Albine phases, the Tethys rifting, the primary and secondary diagenesis and their respective periods, etc. coming back to the different conditions, the next section contains their explanations firstly on a general basis, and secondly as it relates to the field at hand. 19
Figure 1.4: Petroleum System of the Joana Field
JOANA
SOURCE ROCK RESERVOIR MIGRATION OROGENIC EVENT SEAL ROCK TRAPS
MAASTRICHTIAN Maturation Major phase
rifting
SUBSIDENCE
phase Austrian Tethys

S t M a r t i n d e B o s s e n a y f a u l t s
Early diagenesis ?? Secondary diagenesis ?? phase phase Alpine Pyrenean
S T R U C T
14
U R A L & S T R A I G R A P H C
20
1.8.1 Source Rock

Source rocks refer to those fine-grained sediments; mainly organic rich shales that are deposited on shallow marine environment during low energy transgressive phases of geologic basin formation. Hydrocarbons originate from the source rocks. For Joana field, the principal source rocks are several layers of Jurassic Toarcian Schists cartons and Sineumurian Hettangian. The former (Sineumurian Hettangian) may have generated more oil than the latter (Toarcian) because they are more deeply buried and cover a larger area at the centre of the basin which is shown in Figure 1.2. However, the lower Torcian Schists cartons are the source rock for Joana field. The phase of oil generation began in the late cretaceous.
1.8.2 Reservoir Rock

The two main reservoir rocks encountered in the Paris basin are sandstones (upper Triassic keuper) and carbonates (middle Jurassic Bathonian). The Jurassic carbonates (which serves as reservoir for Joana field) are complex Oolitic bioclastic limestone reservoirs. They are divided into the upper calcarenitic unit (C4a) and the lower calcarenitic unit (C4b). As shown in Figure 1.5, Facies C4a is less homogenous than Facies C4b (Chapter 3 gives a detailed description). These rocks have accounted for about 40% of the total production. 15
21
Figure 1.5: Facies C4a and C4b
1.8.3 Traps
The type of trap existing is stratigraphic and structural in nature. Also porous micritic and concentric Ooliths are being replaced by radial Oolite types with little reservoir quality.
1.8.4 Migration
The presence of Fault juxtaposition which enables the Hettangian to often make contact with Triassic sandstones makes migration pathways easy. The thick and widespread middle Jurassic (callovian) shales seal the middle Jurassic carbonate reservoir. The presence of this very extensive shale is one of the possible explanation for having nearly no major oil accumulation above it in the centre of the basin.
1.8.5 Seals
The presence of shale seals exists in the upper and lower reservoirs. The facies C2 and C3 seals reservoir 1 while C6 shale with patches of facies C9,C8 and C5(not continuous) acts as a seal for reservoir 2.The log below taken from Joana 5D illustrates this point. 22
Figure 1.6: Log seals of reservoir 1(C4a) and 2(C4b).
1.8.6 Time
The conversion of oil from the remains of plants and animals to kerogen and then to oil and gas requires the passage of time for its attainment. Also, the migration and accumulation of oil at a particular reservoir takes time to be achieved. 23
CHAPTER TWO SEISMIC INTERPRETATION AND ANALYSIS

The acquisition of geophysical data for reservoir simulation is usually done in three stages from the seismic report. The three stages are:
2.1 PICKING OF TOPS

Usually the tops of geological layers (markers) are selected either with the use of vertical seismic profile (VSP) which involves the process of obtaining the travel time of sound 16
wave at one point and extrapolating it to other points or with the use of the log calculations. In some cases, both the results from the VSP and the log are correlated to arrive at the top of the marking layers. The interpretation of seismic is done by the geophysicist and the geologist each with their respective input: the geophysicist understands the mathematics of the process while the geologist knows the existence of the various markers. The well known layer cake interpretation method of analysis comes in handy at this point.
2.2 TIME DEPTH CONVERSION

The respective geological layers are shown with respect to the time taken to reach their tops and pass through them. Distance (depth) is not shown at this stage. The next task involved is the conversion from time domain to the domain of depth. The knowledge of the velocity of the respective layers is now needed. Most times, the average velocities of the different layers which have been well researched and documented are used for the conversion. The knowledge of the different layers comes in very important at this stage. 24
However, care must be taken not to fall prey to the classical velocity hoax, the case of spurious structures thrown up on the time plot as a result of wide velocity difference between two adjacent layers. Clay and salt are usually the common culprits. This structure leads to a false representation of the base of the salt layer as an anticline-like structure. This is as a result of an adjusting in shape to cancel out the wide velocity difference. So, the existence of a structure that looks like an anticline should be well investigated so as not to be confused with a salt dome. Or better still, the existence of a salt layer in the field seismic should make the geologist and the geophysicist be prepared to correct for this hoax. This has led to drilling of salt domes with the thought that they were anticlines.
2.3 FAULT PATTERNS

The fault patterns existing in a field are usually very clear in the seismic report. For the 17
Joana field, the two parallel faults were located at the edge of the field. Specifically, the fault is located at the south-west corner of the field. That was strategic. The strategic location of the fault could also be used to locate other points in the field. Simply put, the fault pattern was as unambiguous as they were helpful. Despite the three methods enumerated above, none was applied in the Joana field. The geophysicist had already prepared the seismic surface. The surface of the presented seismic map was located on top of the maximum flooding surface correlated as layer MFS 3 The seismic surface is as shown in Figure 2.1 below. 25
-1 0 4 0 -1050 -1 0 6 0 -1070 -1 0 8 0 -1090 -1 1 0 0 -1110 -1 1 20 - 1 13 0 -1 1 40 J o a n a -4 Jo a n a -3 Jo a n a -2 J oa n a -1 EM -2 EM -1
12 0 0 1 60 0 2 00 0 2 4 0 0 2 8 00 3 2 0 0 3 6 0 0 4 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 4 8 0 0 5 2 0 0 12 0 0 1 60 0 2 00 0 2 4 0 0 2 8 00 3 2 0 0 3 6 0 0 4 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 4 8 0 0 5 2 0 0 6400 6000 5600 5200 4800 4400 4000 3600 3200 2800 2400 2000 1600 1200 1200 1600 2000 2400 2800 3200 3600 4000 4400 4800 5200 5600 6000 6400 025050075010001250m 1 :2 5 0 0 0
Figure 2.1: The seismic surface of Joana field showing wells and major faults.
The seismic surface contains a major fault in the South West direction. Such faults are popular in the basin which is evident in the contour map of the field which shows several fault planes as shown in Figure 2.2 below. Major Faults 26
Figure 2.2 Contour map of the Paris basin with the red circle showing the location of Joana field
27
CHAPTER THREE SEDIMENTOLOGY OF JOANA FIELD

The Paris basin has most of its geological features composed of sediments of fine 18
materials (shales that is) formed in the shallow marine environment (depositional environment) and during the Jurassic era (time). As a typical shallow marine environment that it is, the geological features of the sedimentology of the Joana field is as follows: Dune-like deposition of sediments ( shown in figure 3.1 below) The presence of oolithic and bioclastics sediments (shown in figure 3.1 below) Deposited in the environment of an ancient lagoon; characterized by warm shallow water.
Figure 4.1: A typical dune-like depositional environment
28
In line with the process of obtaining first hand information about the sub-surface, core samples were collected at different sections of the wells under study. The core samples fell into facies classification within the beds and were studied in their respective classes. The classes were from facies C1 C9. The study was quite extensive and covered the various properties of the reservoir rock. However, the summary of it was what concerned the study at hand and exactly that is what is presented in the next section. These include: Table 3.1: Summary of the properties and reservoir potentials C1 C9 facies.
FACIE TYPE DESCRIPTION RESERVOIR POTENTIAL C1 Fine bioclastic debris mudstone facies; cemented with dolomite. Deposited in low energy open sea Good seal; poor reservoir potential C2 Micritic matrix mudstones. Deposited in subtidal environment Poor reservoir potential C3 Packer stone with partial dissolution if some bioclasts with very low porosity and permeability Deposited in a high energy environment of platform margin Poor reservoir potential C4a Essentially Grainstone and little packestone; well sorted, bimodal distribution with fine and medium granulometry Deposited in submarine dune Good reservoir potential C4b Grainstone with chemical compression and pressure dissolution phenomena Good reservoir potential
19
C5 Sediments from lower reef shoals Deposited by very strong tidal currents Poor reservoir potential C6 Micritic mudstone and wackestone. Deposited in subtidal environment Poor reservoir potential C7 Reworked limestone particles coming from high energy dunelike constructions Poor reservoir potential
29
C8 Facies containing bioclasts and wackestone Deposited close to platform margin in high energy bar Fair reservoir potential in fair sorted levels C9 Bioclastic shale wackestone Deposited in low energy open platform margin Poor reservoir potential
From the table 4.1 above, most of the facies from the cores were deposited in dunes in shallow marine environment. There was equally the record of the presence of oolithic limestone and bioclastics. These are intrinsic properties of dune-like depositions. A prehistoric surface map of the Paris basin was also available for the study of the sedimentology of Joana field. The map was presented in figure 3.2 below. The ringed area is the location of Joana field and its depositional environment corresponds with section E-F as equally shown below in figure 3.2 below. The figure indicates that the transgression and regression of the sea in prehistoric times around the coast and in the shallow parts of the sea played a major role in the deposition of sediments which formed Joana field. As shown in the figure 3.2, the Ladiox sediments, which was deposited in the shallow sea, formed the Callovian formation. The reservoirs of Joana field are contained within this Callovian formation. In conclusion, the sedimentology of the Joana field is that of limestone deposits. 30
Figure 3.2: The prehistoric map of Paris basin showing the location of Joana field by the blue ring which
20
corresponds with section E-F
3.2 STRATIGRAPHY OF JOANA FIELD

The stratigraphy of Joana field is a description of the succession of bed and formation within the field. This is represented diagrammatically in figure 4.3 below. The beds with good reservoir are located within the lower Callovian formation, while the Bathonian formation forms the bottom seal of the reservoir. These formations were of the upper Jurassic era, and are extensions of the Paris basin stratigraphy. 31
Figure 3.3 The Stratigraphy of Joana field.
Upper Callovian formation C1 C2 C1 C2 :Mudstone as Micritic limestone, tight formation

C3 C3:Highly cemented limestone; 2-3 porosity, low permeability C4A C4A: Coarse grain stones, well sorted; about 15% porosity C6 C6:Micritic limestone with brachiopod, wake stone corals and numerous broken pieces C4B C4B: Grainstone and little packestone modified by compression and pressure dissolution BATHOLITHS Upper Bathonian
32
3.3 CORRELATION
Sequence stratigraphy was used to create a chronological reconstruction of the sedimentary processes which gave rise to the reservoirs in Joana field. First, the classes of the facies were located in their typical depositional environment as shown in figure 4.4 below.
Figure 3.4: Location of the facies 1 - 9 in their typical depositional environment
In effect, the given facies collected from the seven wells, as cores, were arranged in order of increasing depositional energy. The order was in this manner
C4A, C4B, C8, C9, C5, C7, C3, C6, C2, C1 Increasing energy of deposition
C1 C2 21
C3 C4 C6 C7 C8 C9 C5 33
For each log of the seven wells under consideration, the positions of the facies along the well log column was marked and an arrow was used to connect the marked facies in the provided column as shown in figure 4.5 below for the well section of Joana 5D. The directions of the arrows were coordinated which culminated in the identification of the maximum flooding surfaces and the sequence boundaries.
Figure 3.5: The maximum flooding surfaces and sequence boundaries. SB 3
Sequence Boundary
MFS 3
Maximum Flooding Surface
SB 2
Sequence Boundary
MFS 2
Maximum flooding surface
SB 1
Sequence Boundary
Increasing Energy of Deposition
34
Using Petrel, the two well cross-sections under study were displayed and the maximum Flooding surfaces across the logs correlated using the following lines MFS 3, MFS 2 MFS 1 and MFS 0 in figure 3.6.
Figure 3.6: The correlated cross-section of wells; Joana-3, Joana-2, & Joana-6 (partly)
35
The correlation of the well cross-sections in figure 3.6 yielded the following: There are three main maximum flooding surfaces across all the logs in the seven wells under study (of which the cross-section of three is shown) as shown in figure 3.6 and above. The first maximum flooding surface correlated depth is MFS 3. Its correlation line indicates the top of the Bathonian formation. The lower reservoir sand lies above MFS 3 correlation depth. This lower reservoir is marked as facie C4b. It was deposited when the sea regressed after the 22
maximum flooding surface of MFS 3 was attained. The next maximum flooding surface above the Bta 5 is MFS 2. It was also correlated across all the logs. It indicates the maximum deposition of C6 facie as the sea transgressed. After MFS 2 maximum flooding surface, the sea regressed to deposit the sediments of facie 4A which formed the upper reservoir. Then the sea transgressed to reach the maximum flooding surface of MFS 2, which covered the entire area to deposit sediments of facie C3, C2 and C1 as seal.
Figure 3.7 .The correlated cross-section of facies of the wells in Joana field
J1 J3 J2 J5 J6 J7GD J4 36
CHAPTER FOUR PETROPHYSICS

4.1 LOGS AND INTERPRETATION
Logs obtained from well logging activities on the wells in the Joana field included gamma ray logs, resistivity logs and neutron density logs. The primary aim of such logs was to identify the reservoir and non-reservoir zones. Usually, the identification of reservoir zones is accomplished by the correlation of all of these above-named logs. No single log on its own can identify and confirm the existence of such. Truth be told, the use of these, and many other logs cannot overrule the uncertainty that still lurks around the corner. We are aware of that and a section would be dedicated to this concept. However, based on what was done, Figure 4.1 shows one of well logs from Joana 2D well. Using Petrel, analysis of this well log together with the well logs from the other nine wells was interpreted, and interpretation result extrapolated to describe the entire field. The next two sub-sections would explain in slight details how the reservoir and non-reservoir portions of the field were identified with the use of logs. Added to these also is the use of some of the appropriate reservoir engineering terms such as the cut-off,
23
the water saturation, volume of shale calculation, the water salinity, the free water level, oil-water contact, the oil down to, water up to, and so on. All these would be spoken about in the light of the field under consideration. 37
CALI_1
4 IN 14
GR_1
0 GAPI 100
BS_1
4 IN 14 1515 1520 1530 1535 1540 1545 1555 1560 1565 1570 1580 1525 1550 1575
1510.2 1585.0
DEPTH METRES
IMPH_1
0.2 OHMM 2000
IDPH_1
0.2 OHMM 2000
DT_1
140 U S/F 40
NPHI_1
0.45 V/V - 0.15
RHOB_1
1.95 G/C 3 2.95
DRHO_1
-0.35 G/C 3 0.15
PEF_1
0 B/E 20
TENS_1
11000 LBF 1000
Porous Reservoirs Shale

9m 8m
Very low Porosity Limestone < 6%

12m
Low Porosity 19m Limestone (6-9%) Compact LS

LOWER CALLOVIAN BATHONIAN Facies C4a Facies C4b Facies Comblanchien WELL: J2D Facies C6
Figure 4.1: The Joana 2D well log

1515 1520 1530 1535 1540 1545 1555 1560
1525 1550 DEPTH

METRES GR_1
0 GAPI 100
RT_1
0.01 OHMM 1000

K_C ORE_1
0.01 MD 1000
SWE_1
1 V/V 0
SWE_1
1 V/V 0
PHIE_1
0.2 V/V 0
VOL_U WAT_1
0.2 V/V 0
PHI_COR E_1
0.2 V/V 0
VSH _1
0 V/V 1
PHIE_1
1 V/V 0
CALC I_3MN_1
100 0
EF_EZT _1
0 10
FACIESLITH.VALU E_1 SHOWS_1 CORE_NO_1 SAND _1 0 1.2 RESERVOIR _1 0 1.7 PAY_1 03 PERF S.D ESCR IPT ION _1 -1090 -1095
-1100
-1105 -1110 -1115 -1120
-1125 ELEVATION(TVD)
METRES 1515 Call_Sup 1522 Call_Inf 1552 Bathoni en
Core Permeability Core Porosity Water Saturation SW Effective Porosity PHIE Shale Content VSH Core HC Shows Electro- Facies EasyTrace Geological Facies
Measured Depth
1525m 1550m
WELL: J2D
Rw=0.5 @ 52 C => Salinity = 7 kppm
VSH GR
High Rt SW < 60%

GR Rt SW PHIE VSH EFacies Geol Facies HC Shows
Core Calcimetry
SW
Figure 4.2: Cross section of processed logs from Joana-2D showing some computed reservoir properties along the well section.
38
4.1.1 Identification of the Reservoir zones

24
The reservoir sections of well logs are generally characterized and identified based on the analyses made on the measurements taken from the respective logs:: Low gamma ray (this is at a value far below the minimum called the cut-off) Caliper size less than bit size RHOB (density log) lying on the left of NPHI (neutron porosity log) PEF (Photoelectric factor log) reading of about 1.8 units ( within sandstone), 5.1 ( within limestone) & 3.1 (within dolomite) LLD (Laterolog Deep resistivity) lying on the left of MSFL (Micro Spherically Focused Log) SP (Spontaneous Potential) log having values which are not close the baseline where the base line is chosen as the shale line. Most times, the results shown above apply to the pure reservoir rocks (i.e 100% sandstone or limestone) without any contaminant. In nature, however, that rarely occurs. To account for the volume of the impurities present (mostly shales), the volume of shale calculation is done. This actually a factor (always less than one) which shows the volume of the reservoir that is has shale impurity. The remaining would now be the pure reservoir rock. Also contained in the reservoir region is the contacts (the water-oil contact WOC, the gas-water contact GWC etc). WOC is determined by the difference between the LLD and the MSFL. That is, at the contact, the distance between the two logs widens more showing a variation in their resistivities. The MSFL which measures predominantly the resistivity of water starts reducing while the LLD which measures both the resistivity of oil and water starts increasing. This point usually becomes clear if the two super imposed on one another. The WOC is also the last point of 100% water saturation in the reservoir. 39
The free water level, FWL, on its part is also a point of 100% water saturation. However, it is marked in reservoir engineering as the point of zero capillarity pressure. The water up to, WUT, is the last point that pure water reaches to in the reservoir. It may or may not be equal to either the FWL or the WOC depending on the reservoir rock type and pore spaces.
25
Also, the oil down to, ODT, is the lowest point of oil in the reservoir. It also could be equal to the WOC or not depending on the rock properties and the pore size distribution.
4.1.2 Identification of Non-reservoir areas (shale zones)

The non-reservoir sections of well logs are generally characterized by the following properties: Caliper size greater than bit size. High gamma ray log. PEF (photoelectric log) reading of about 3.4 units. SP (spontaneous potential log) on the baseline RHOB (density log) lying on the right of NPHI (neutron porosity log). The use of the shale cut off value a value of the gamma ray above which the sections are taken to be shaly is used. The non-reservoir portions are usually of almost opposite properties to the reservoir sections.
4.1.3 Summary of the Petrophysical Analysis of the Logs

Following the highlighted points above, the logged sections of the wells were analyzed. The reservoir and non-reservoir sections were identified and correlated as shown in figure 4.3 below. 40
Using the gamma ray log and the density-neutron log overlay, two reservoir sections were identified. The reservoir sections were separated by a thick shale beds. The reservoir sections were limestone bearing formations as indicated by the position of the neutron log lying on the left of the density logs along the reservoir sections. The gamma ray log values along the reservoir sections were v low indicating clean formations. Using quick look analysis, the average porosity along the identified reservoir sections was about 19 percent. Also, the reservoir sections were bearing hydrocarbons formations as indicated by the high resistivity readings from the resistivity log as shown for Joana 2D in figure 4.2 above. Subsequent analysis of the saturation of the reservoir section showed that the average water saturation of the hydrocarbon bearing sections was about 30 percent, indicating that it was rich in hydrocarbons.
Figure 4.3: Cross section of well logs from Joana fields 3,2,,6
26
41
CHAPTER FIVE STATIC RESERVOIR MODELING

Petrel software was used for the static modeling of the Joana field. A threedimensional model was chosen owing to its ability to assist in the visualization of reservoir more clearly. That is, its easier for the modeler to get a feel of his model while its being done in three dimensions. On a normal operation, the workflow for the static (or geostatic) modeling of a reservoir is as follows:
5.1 DATA QC/QA AND ANALYSIS

Data import and QC/QA of input Creation of matching geographical surfaces Correlation of reservoir on logs Intersection map Creation of isochors map for reservoir
5.2 STRUCTURAL MODELING

Fault modeling Upscaling of logs Facies modeling Petrophysical modeling Grid Design
5.3 COMPARISON OF THE GEOSTATIC MODELLING METHODS

The above have been the outline of the different sections. They would now be explored in details in the subsequent sections. In the course of our geostatic modeling, we carried out the following activities: 42
5.1 DATA QC/QA AND ANALYSIS 5.1.1 Data import and QA/QC of input
The data for carrying out the modeling are generally imported into the software from many formats. Notable among them is the ASCII file format. Data can be imported as Well data (Well Tops), or Well logs. Also, the data could be copied from existing Petrel project. The quality assurance of the data is ensured by the use of the Import Data Spreadsheet (which can be edited by the text editors Notepad, WordPad, Word and 27
Excel) to verify the data and their units. However, for the project at hand, the data has already being imported and set for further analysis. That is, the quality of the data has already been assured. The input data was then used to create the surfaces for the modeling.
5.1.2 Creation of surfaces

This is a process of gridding data into surfaces, and editing same to display on a window. This is not just related to pre-processing of data, but as a way of preparing the input data. The several types of data that could be converted to surfaces, include lines/point data, well tops/fault cuts etc. for our own case, the data was in the form of well tops. From the process window, the attribute to be created was chosen as the well depth. The geometry was then defined and the size of the boundary defined. The input type was also chosen as seismic lines. Three sequence boundaries were identified along log sections for the wells provided for this study as shown in figure 4.3 above. The sequence boundaries were named MFS 3, MFS 2 and MFS 1. The surface MFS 0 was also identified. Together the references for the top and bottom surfaces were also provided. The thickness between the surfaces MFS 0 and MFS 1 is shown below as a representative of the other surfaces to give an idea of the contour system in the reservoir (figure 5.1) 43
Figure 5.1: Contour diagram for thickness between MFS 0 and MFS 1
The other six surfaces are also shown in the next figure 5.2 below. It shows the surfaces that were created.
Figure 6.1: Creation of six surfaces
44
5.1.3 Layering and Gridding of surfaces

Gridding refers to the use of cells to represent the reservoir models. Considerations for the choice of the grid is that the reservoir was fairly heterogeneous limestone deposited in a dune-like manner as discussed in sedimentology of Joana field in Chapter three. Thus, to represent the heterogeneities associated with the reservoir and considering the 28
processing speed of our computer systems, 100 * 100 grids was used for the geostatic model as diagrammatically represented in figure 5.5 below. With respect to the layering, 1.0 thickness was used to represent the heterogeneities in a vertical section of the model. This gave rise to six layers as show in figure 5.3 below. The window used for the selection of the thickness is as shown in figure 5.4 below. Thus, the grid dimension of the cells used for the geostatic model was 100*100*1.0 per cell.
Figure 5.3: Layering of surfaces
45
Figure 5.4: Gridding of the surfaces with dimensions 100*100*1.0 per cell
5.1.4 Matching facies with wells

The nine facies that were identified and sufficiently studied and explained (Chapter Three) from the core data of wells were matched with the logs. From the matches, the sequence boundaries were then identified. This was done using the displaying the data tool, then to the well section tool. The logs chosen for display were the gamma ray, the resistivity, the neutron porosity log and the density log. Also, the respective well parameters: the permeabilities, the well names, the depth is TVD subsea etc were all entered. The colourful log was later displayed as shown in figure 4.3 above. 46
Figure 5.5(a): Matching of facies with well log (Joana-2) Figure 5.5(b): Matching of facies with well log (Joana-3)
47
5.1.5 Correlation of reservoir logs.

Sequence stratigraphy was used to correlate the logs obtained from the various logs in the Joana field. With the knowledge of the respective maximum flooding surfaces, the correlation of the logs obtained from the various wells in Joana field was done Well Tops window as shown in figure 5.6 below. The different layers, showing their different formation types and characteristics (shown by their colours) were added. This is an addition to the one earlier which contained the layers without the characteristics of the formations (figure 4.7) 29
Figure 5.6: Reservoir log correlation
48
5.2 STRUCTURAL MODELLING 5.2.1 Fault modeling

This was the first stage in structural modeling. Here, the process involved the generation of a faulted 3D grid and inserting the horizons, zones and layers of the field into it. This has to be done first by defining the shape of each of the faults to be modeled i.e. generating the key pillars. The choice of the key pillars was done so as to have the fault diagram cut through a section of the Joan field as shown in figure 5.7 below while still retaining the grid shape of the field.
Figure 5.7: Fault modeling identifying key pillars
The final fault model using the fault sticks digitized on the x-section is shown below. Care was taken in the development of the fault sticks (key pillars) to use as few pillars and shape points as possible, using just enough to show the faults form. The model is already complex, and we dont intend adding to this by a microscopic fine-tuning of the fault model. The model is just an approximation of the fault itself. This is shown in figure 5.8 below. 49
Figure 5.8: final fault model of the Joana field.
5.2.2 Scaling-up of well logs parameters

Having created the 3D grid and the fault model, values were added to the empty 3D grids to build the geostatic model. First, we scaled up the well the well logs. In scaling up the logs, the simple method was used: that is assigning a value to each grid which the log passed through. The open hole log provided for the study were neutron log, density log, gamma ray log and sonic log. Each log was scaled up along vertical direction of the wells using volume arithmetic average methods as shown in figure 5.9 for the neutronporosity log. This plot showed the up scaling process for the value and the graphical representation of the logs. 50
30
Figure 5.9: Scaling up of porosity using arithmetic mean method. Figure 5.10: Scaling up of porosity along the wells in the model
51
As shown in figure 6.9, the distributions of the scaled-up properties of the neutron porosity log were closely comparable with the original log. Also, the distribution for the scaled-up well sections of the neutron log was obtained by three methods of averaging: the sequential Gaussian, the Boolean and the Krigig methods. This is shown in figure 5.10 with the sequential Gaussian clearly showng a better approximation of the porosity distribution.
Figure 5.11: Histogram of the porosity distribution for the method used.
52
For the Gamma Ray Log , it was up scaled using the using the acclaimed appropriate sequential Gaussian method. This is used despite the fact that porosity mostly a normal distribution whereas most other reservoir parameters are lognormal. From figure 5.11 below, the up scaled logs matched the actual logs within the limits of the structure of our model.
Figure: 5.12: Up scaling of Gamma ray on the reservoir model
53
The 3D model (figure 6.12) also adds to the explanation of this point, showing the distribution of the gamma ray properties of the fields in the field.
Figure 5.13: Up scaled gamma ray logs in 3D
5.2.3 Scaling-up of Net-to-gross.

The net-to-gross property was also scaled up using the arithmetic mean method. 5.13 show the histogram where the scaled up net-to-gross values of the well logs was compared with the original well logs and the up scaled cells. An appreciable comparison was obtained which implies that the scaled up net to gross is representative of the reservoir heterogeneity. 54
Figure 5.14: Histogram obtained from the scaled up net-to-gross
5.2.4 Facies modeling

Here, the log properties and the facies properties were extrapolated across Joana field. 31
Three methods usually are applied in achieving this namely: Sequential Gaussian Simulation (SGS), Kriging and the Boolean method. However, because of the reasons given above about the appropriateness of the Sequential Gaussian method to the simulation being carried out and time constraints, it was the only method adopted. The figures 5.14(a) and 5.14(b) show the input window for the formation parameters for the reservoir (named Reservoir 1) and the shaly nonreservoir region (Non Reservoir). 55
Figure 5.15: facies modeling of Reservoir 2 Figure 5.16: facies modeling of the Non-Reservoir
56
Figure 5.17: Facies modeling using Boolean method for the non reservoir
The facies modeling was carried out in order to build a geological model of Joana field. The up scaled log properties were complemented with given facie data for the field. Six facies were provided for the field and were inputted in the model as shown in figure 5.17 above where the input for both the reservoir and the non-reservoir zone are shown. For the channel (the meandering river), the geostatistic method adopted is the Boolean. The Boolean method is usually used for definite objects in an area where its influence ends. For example, the meandering river starts and ends in the channel, and not even an inch outside it. The map of this is shown in figure 5.18 below. Equally substantiating this property of the Boolean method is the Histogram 5.19 which shown little or no variation. The distribution of the properties for both the original data and the up scaled data showed elements of being discrete. 57
Figure 5.18: Facies modeling of the channel the discrete Boolean method Figure 5.19: Histogram obtained from the Boolean method
58
The reservoir model using the Sequential Gaussian method as shown in figure 5.20 and 32
5.21 below. Sequential Gaussian method of geo statistics is applicable for data that are discrete and vary as well. It is not for continuous and deterministic data. Simply put, it involves simulation (similar to the Monte Carlo simulation) to arrive at its selected distribution of data. The choice of this method over the collocated kriging method was that the Collocated kriging has to make use of two distributions of data in which one of them is being made to concur with the other. For example, constraining of a seismic map to become porosity map. The sequential Gaussian, on its part, allows the variation and just shows it. This is acceptable in the modeling of reservoirs because of its attendant uncertainties.
Figure 5.20: facies modeling using Sequential Gaussian Simulation (SGS)
59
Figure 5.21: Histogram obtained from Sequential Gaussian Simulation. Figure 5.22: Facies modeling using kriging method
60
Figure 6.23: facies modeling using the moving average method
5.3 COMPARISON OF THE VARIOUS GEOSTATIC MODELLING METHODS

Table 5.1: Representation of the reservoir parameters. Region Bounding MFS Horizons Check Best Layering Parameter Reservoir 1 MFS3,MFS2 Horizontal Gamma Ray Proportional layering (15) Non-Reservoir MFS2,MFS1 Vertical Gamma Ray Proportional Layering (5) Reservoir 2 MFS1,MFS0 Horizontal Gamma Ray Proportional Layering (12) 61
Table 5.2: Comparison of the various geostatistic methods. GEOSTATISTIC MODEL CHARACTERISTICS Deterministic (moving average) It gives a single map and most times a single value for the estimation of parameter of interest. Kriging It usually gives a single value most of the times. It does not give a distribution with a range of possible values. Stochastic (sequential Gaussian) This is a stochastic as well as a simulation method. Single values are not usually 33
provided, but a range of possible values; a probability. The variation in data is well recognised and factored into any design. The process is similar to the famous Monte Carlo simulation. Boolean It is similar to the stochastic method, but it is usually confined within a particular region for a particular object of interest. For e.g., the modelling of the variation of porosity in a river channel. 62
CHAPTER SIX CALCULATION OF OOIP

For this chapter our work would be to calculate the Original Oil in Place (OOIP) in the reservoir. There would be two methods adopted for doing such. The first would be to do so manually based on the information available from the logs of Joana field. This is in itself a two-pronged approach as there would two different values for the manual calculation based on the assumption made about the connectedness or not of the reservoirs of the field. Then, the static modeling software, Petrel, would be used to perform the same calculation based on the model created. The two results would then be compared for similarities or otherwise.
6.1 MANUAL CALCULATION OF OOGIP

Static reservoir modeling most times is done to obtain a geological structure of the reservoir as well as an estimate of the Original Oil and Gas in Place (OOIGP). For the Joana field, same was done as has been shown in the previous five chapters. To calculate the volume of oil in the field, the knowledge of the two reservoir layers separated by some non-reservoir beds was used. The process was done for two cases: connected and unconnected reservoirs. Which among the cases is correct? No one can really say, it depends on who is looking at the report and what information is being sought. This would be explored more under the section on uncertainties (section 6.2). 63
RESERVOIR MODELLING PROJECT REPORT JULY 2009
34
(BY NWATU, VICTOR OKECHUKWU AND OLAJIDE, FESTUS OLATEJU.)
The OOGIP is given by the formula below: OOIGP = bbls RV B S G N

o
6.29 1 Where: G N =Net-to-gross Ratio= ratio of the whole rock that is in the reservoir. = Porosity (fraction) o S = Saturation of Oil (fraction) o B = Formation Volume Factor RV= Rock Volume (in m3) 6.29 = conversion factor from m3 to barrels (the commercial unit of oil). Data obtained from the logs of Joana field gave the following value for the petro physical properties: G N =0.70; =19%; o S =0.80 and o B = 1.2 Rb/STB. These values were considered to be average values across the reservoir beds in Joana field. For the Rock Volume, the table of values for the top surface area of the topmost reservoir at various depths was provided. These values were plotted on the graph sheet shown in figure 6.1 below. From the plotted top surface line, the base of the topmost reservoir, and the top and bottom of the reservoirs below were marked and extrapolated parallel to the plotted topmost surface line. The actual shape of the plot and hence the rock volume, depends on whether connection is assumed or not. 64
o
6.1.1 Connected Reservoir

Figure 6.1: The plot reservoir area versus depth assuming connected reservoir.
For the connected reservoir case shown above (figure 6.1), the number of squares of the graph paper were counted. They were then multiplied with the magnitude a unit square 35
(in volume units) and 2,500,000,000 m3 was obtained as the Rock Volume. The OOGIP is then calculated by substituting the following values in the governing equation: 0.70 G N , 0.19, o S 0.80, o B 1.2 Then, OOIGP = 6 .29 2500 ,000 ,000 1 .2 1 0.70 0 .19 0 .80 bbls = 1,394,000,000 bbls = 1,394 MM bbls 65
Going a step further in calculating the hydrocarbon reserves (or recoverable oil); a recovery factor of 0.25 was assumed. Reserves = 0.251,394106bbls = 349 MM bbls To bring the calculation to realistic, economic terms, we assume a price of $65.00 per barrel of oil. Then: Revenue = 6 6534910 = $22.70 billion (by approximation)
6.1.2 Unconnected Reservoir

Figure 6.2: The plot reservoir layers versus depth for an unconnected scenario
For the unconnected reservoir case, by manual counting of the grids (within the yellow zones in figure 6.2 above) and multiplication with unit volume of the grids, the volume representing the unconnected section of the reservoir was 60,000,000 m 3. 66
Thus the reference volumes for the unconnected and connected reservoir portions of Joana field are considered to be 600,000,000 m 3. OOIGP = 6.29 600 106 1.2 1 1.000.190.80bbls = 478,000,000 bbls = 478 MM bbls Going a step further in calculating the hydrocarbon reserves (or recoverable oil); a 36
recovery factor of 0.25 was assumed. Reserves = bbls 6 0.2547810 = 120 MM bbls To bring the calculation to realistic, economic terms, we assume a price of $65.00 per barrel of oil. Then: Revenue = 6 6512010 = $7.77 billion (by approximation)
6.2 OOGIP CALCULATION FROM PETREL

The calculation of OOGIP from Petrel was done in these two steps:
6.1.2 Connected Reservoir

Under the process window, the make contacts icon was chosen, from then to the contact set and the contact level was then entered. The contact level chosen was entered to be the same for all segments and same for all zones. The flow was in this manner: Definition of Contacts: this was done as a new contacts set since none had been defined earlier. 67
Definition of the Contact Type: the contacts were defined as Gas Oil Contact and Oil Water Contact. 0.19, o S 0.80, o B 1.2 Definition of Contact level: Gas Oil Contact = 1625m Oil Water Contact = 1945m From the common settings tab, the properties of the reservoir that are userdefined were entered. They are as follows: o S 0.80, o B 1.2
Figure 6.3: volume calculation settings window
68
On completion, the volume calculation report was generated and the print screen is as shown in figure 6.4 below.
Figure 6.4: Print screen of the Volume Calculation Report.
From the figure 6.4 above, the Original Oil in Place from Petrel was 64 million cubic metres of oil. Apply the same recovery factor used above; we have revenue of $6.5 billion. 69
CHAPTER SEVEN UNCERTAINTIES, CONCLUSION AND

37
RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 UNCERTAINTIES
The uncertainties that exist in the modeling of this field and by extension, the calculation of the OOIP include:
7.1.1 General Reservoir Structure

The modeling of the field was done on the assumption of the classical anticlinal structure for the reservoirs. The layers that were used to create the structure of the reservoir were assumed to be formed in this manner with the bottom water in place. Also, the seismic interpretation that yielded most of the information used to define the field could have been erroneous also. This is because the layers were not explicit and there presence was inferred majorly based on experience. The time depth conversion that yielded the depths of the different layers is also not foolproof, bearing in mind the classical velocity hoax in salt domes. The compartmentalization of the reservoirs to different pressure regimes is also subject to error. 70
7.1.2 Sealing or Non-Sealing of Faults

The fault that ran through the south-west of Kandie field was assumed to be sealing. That went into the modeling of the fault, the reservoirs in the field and the calculation of the OOIP. It could have been non sealing leading to the migration of fluid that was expected to have been trapped there. That could lead to an error in the OOIP
7.1.3 Reservoir Layering

Uniform layering was assumed for the reservoirs of the field that resulted in the division into three major layers i.e. the top and bottom reservoir and the middle nonreservoir. The gamma ray was used to quality check the layers which is an approximate itself. The layers are not as homogenous as the model might have assumed.
7.1.4 Geostatisitcal extrapolation of Petrophysical Parameters

The use of geostatistics to extrapolate most of the reservoir petrophysical parameters is not without its own errors. Parameters such as porosity, permeability, fluid saturations etc were all extrapolated using either the deterministic or probabilistic methods of 38
geostatistical analysis. The use of the methods of estimation such as the moving average, the kriging, the collocated kriging; the simulation methods of the sequential Gaussian and the Boolean all involve either estimating a value to represent a whole group of numbers or the use of the distribution of values to extrapolate the others
7.1.5 Position of the Fluid Contacts

The fluid contacts chosen for the calculation of the OOIP were given based on the interpretation of logs and the seismic survey, coupled with the knowledge of the geology of the area (which can never be exhaustive). The water level used for the calculations cannot be clearly said to be Oil Water Contact. It could be the Water Up To or the Free Water Level. This is because despite the sophistication of the tool used, there is a loophole for uncertainties. 71
7.1.6 Reservoir Fluid Properties

The fluid (gas, oil and water) properties that were used in the description of the reservoirs and in the calculation of the OOGIP were, at best, estimates. This is because no matter how perfect a sampling process is, the result would still have errors. Samplings are usually done on the premise of homogeneity; such could not be said with certainty about the field. Also, the Pressure, Temperature, and Volume (PVT) properties of reservoir fluids vary with the parameters of the environment. So, the samples taken, and used could not be said to be perfectly representative. Parameters involved in this include the Formation Volume Factor (both for oil and gas), the solution gas ratio etc.
7.1.7 Sequence Stratigraphy

The determination of fluid contacts (and other reservoir properties) is usually done at the drilled wells with certainty. The other points between the wells have their properties determined by correlation and sequence stratigraphy. The correlations could be wrong and any OOIP calculated with such wrong correlations would be useless. 72 39
7.2 CONCLUSION
At the end of the week-long static modelling of the Joana field, we were able to define and model the reservoir and non-reservoir compartments culminating in the calculation of the OOIP of 1398 MM bbls and 478 MM bbls respectively for the connected and unconnected reservoirs. Also, the use Petrel for modeling gave an OOIP of 402.56 MM bbls (i.e. a reserve of 120 MM bbl). From the data presented above, two things become evidently clear: The quantity of OOIP calculated depends on the person calculating and the assumptions made in the calculation. For example, assuming a connected reservoir gives a value about thrice that of an unconnected reservoir. These are the uncertainties discussed in the previous section. Also, the more of the uncertainties that one takes care of determines the accuracy or not of the calculated OOIP. The use of the software Petrel appeared to give a better result because of the number of uncertainties as against the manual method of calculation. The use of geostatistics to make intelligible and reasonable predictions based on the response of the reservoir cannot be over-emphasized. The parameters (e.g. Porosity is more distributed under Petrel than the arithmetic average assumption of the manually calculated method. Synthesizing the two points above, it suffices to say that a reservoir could have a wide range of the cost implications depending on which method of calculation as the connected reservoir is worth about $15billion more than the unconnected one. So, the preferred calculation is the Petrel calculation because of its recognition of uncertainties and giving a more realistic quantification of the reservoir OOIP. 73
7.3 RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the above, we recommend that: The facies modelling be repeated with another geostatistic method so as to arrive at the optimal method of reservoir properties extrapolation. The model be fine-tuned with a smaller upscaling ratio in order to arrive at better results. A higher model of the Petrel software can suffice, at this point. The uncertainties identified in the study be investigated upon for further information. The ones that relate to the change of scales of observation can also be studied too. The model can still be upscaled to a dynamic model, based on the favourable economic outlook of the OOIP, which could still updated as field data is gathered. 40
74
REFERENCES
Lecture Notes on Original Oil in Place (OOIP) Calculation and Reservoir Uncertainties (2009), Bernard Michaud, IPS/IFP, Port-Harcourt, Nigeria. Petrel for Reservoir Engineers, Reservoir Engineering Course v.2004 (course ed. 1), Schlumberger Information Solutions, 1st July 2005, 5599 San Felie, suite 1700, Houston, TX 77056-2722.
41

Petrel More

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Petrel More

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

CHAPTER ONE GENERAL INTRODUCTION

1.2 SCOPE OF THE STUDY

(BY NWATU, VICTOR OKECHUKWU AND OLAJIDE, FESTUS OLATEJU.)

1.3 DATA USED

1.4 METHODS ADOPTED

1.5 HISTORY OF THE PARIS BASIN

Figure 1.1 Location of the Paris Basin

1.6 STRUCTURE OF THE PARIS BASIN

Source Rock for Middle Jurassic and Cretaceous = LIAS

1.7 STRATIGRAPHY OF THE PARIS BASIN

Figure 1.3: General Stratigraphy of the Paris Basin

1.8 THE PETROLEUM SYSTEM

Figure 1.4: Petroleum System of the Joana Field

phase Austrian Tethys

Early diagenesis ?? Secondary diagenesis ?? phase phase Alpine Pyrenean

1.8.1 Source Rock

1.8.2 Reservoir Rock

Figure 1.5: Facies C4a and C4b

Figure 1.6: Log seals of reservoir 1(C4a) and 2(C4b).

CHAPTER TWO SEISMIC INTERPRETATION AND ANALYSIS

2.1 PICKING OF TOPS

2.2 TIME DEPTH CONVERSION

2.3 FAULT PATTERNS

CHAPTER THREE SEDIMENTOLOGY OF JOANA FIELD

corresponds with section E-F

3.2 STRATIGRAPHY OF JOANA FIELD

Figure 3.3 The Stratigraphy of Joana field.

Upper Callovian formation C1 C2 C1 C2 :Mudstone as Micritic limestone, tight formation

Increasing Energy of Deposition

CHAPTER FOUR PETROPHYSICS

Porous Reservoirs Shale

Very low Porosity Limestone < 6%

Low Porosity 19m Limestone (6-9%) Compact LS

Figure 4.1: The Joana 2D well log

1525 1550 DEPTH

0.01 OHMM 1000

High Rt SW < 60%

4.1.1 Identification of the Reservoir zones

4.1.2 Identification of Non-reservoir areas (shale zones)

4.1.3 Summary of the Petrophysical Analysis of the Logs

CHAPTER FIVE STATIC RESERVOIR MODELING

5.1 DATA QC/QA AND ANALYSIS

5.2 STRUCTURAL MODELING

5.3 COMPARISON OF THE GEOSTATIC MODELLING METHODS

5.1.2 Creation of surfaces

5.1.3 Layering and Gridding of surfaces

5.1.4 Matching facies with wells

5.1.5 Correlation of reservoir logs.

Figure 5.6: Reservoir log correlation

5.2 STRUCTURAL MODELLING 5.2.1 Fault modeling

Figure 5.8: final fault model of the Joana field.

5.2.2 Scaling-up of well logs parameters

5.2.3 Scaling-up of Net-to-gross.

Figure 5.14: Histogram obtained from the scaled up net-to-gross

5.2.4 Facies modeling

Figure 6.23: facies modeling using the moving average method

5.3 COMPARISON OF THE VARIOUS GEOSTATIC MODELLING METHODS

CHAPTER SIX CALCULATION OF OOIP

6.1 MANUAL CALCULATION OF OOGIP

(BY NWATU, VICTOR OKECHUKWU AND OLAJIDE, FESTUS OLATEJU.)

The OOGIP is given by the formula below: OOIGP = bbls RV B S G N

6.1.1 Connected Reservoir