Thesis Louise Meijer - Final Version 21 August

AES/TG/12-20
Development of heterogeneous slope reservoirs for

different production mechanisms
August 2012
Louise Alexandra Meijer
Title
Development of heterogeneous slope reservoirs for

different production mechanisms
Author(s)
Louise Alexandra Meijer
Date
Professor(s)
Supervisor(s)
TA Report number
:
:
:
:
August 2012
Prof.dr.ir. J.D. Jansen & Prof.dr. S.M. Luthi
Prof.dr.ir. J.D. Jansen & Prof.dr. S.M. Luthi
AES/TG/12-20
Postal Address
Telephone
Telefax
:
:
Section for Applied Geology

Department of Geoscience & Engineering
Delft University of Technology
P.O. Box 5028
The Netherlands
(31) 15 2781328 (secretary)
(31) 15 2781189
Copyright 2012
All rights reserved.

No parts of this publication may be reproduced,
Stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted,
In any form or by any means, electronic,
Mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,
Without the prior written permission of the
Abstract
Deep-marine slope and base-of-slope hydrocarbon reservoirs are difficult to model and
produce because of their size and complex nature. The oil and gas industry focuses on
easily producible reservoirs in channelized deposits, thereby leaving considerable
volumes in the more heterogeneous external levees and lobes. This thesis is on how such
systems can be modelled and produced as a whole and how variation of input parameters
can affect the recovery factor in its reservoirs. A conceptual reservoir model consisting of
different facies regions was created based on geometries found in literature, after which
realistic petrophysical data from field analogues were implemented. Fifty-six simulation
cases were defined to test the effect of using different upscaled grid sizes, production
mechanisms, fluid types, well lay-out and rock properties on the recovery factor.
Deep-marine slope and base-of-slope reservoirs can be modelled reasonably well by
using object-based modelling for the channels and internal levees, truncated Gaussian
simulation for the external levees and multi-point facies simulation for the fan region.
Fluid flow simulations show that specially upscaling and application of different water
saturation functions have a significant impact on the modelled recovery factor.
Furthermore, reservoirs of this kind can be produced best by aiding the natural production
mechanisms with water injection. Wells should be deviated, because they have a larger
contact area with the reservoir sections than vertical wells, and horizontal wells are less
effective due to the deposits inherent vertical heterogeneity. Well orientation should be
perpendicular to the principal paleoflow direction. To increase oil production, the
external levees can be produced with deviated injectors and producers oriented parallel to
the channel belt.
Table of Contents
Abstract ............................................................................................................................... 3
List of abbreviations ........................................................................................................... 6
1
Introduction ................................................................................................................. 6
Geology of deep-marine siliciclastic slope systems .................................................... 7

2.1 Controls and processes ...................................................................................................... 7
2.2 Sequence stratigraphy........................................................................................................ 8
2.3 Facies characteristics ........................................................................................................ 12
2.3.1
Channels ................................................................................................................ 13
2.3.2
Internal and external levees .................................................................................. 13
2.3.3
Lobes...................................................................................................................... 15
2.4 Connectivity ...................................................................................................................... 16

2.5 Comparison between Karoo and other deep-marine slope systems ............................... 16
2.6 Comparison between submarine and continental channel systems ............................... 16
Data and methods ...................................................................................................... 17

3.1 Grid and region definition ................................................................................................ 17
3.2 Facies modelling ............................................................................................................... 18
3.2.1
Statistic modelling techniques ............................................................................... 18
3.2.2
Channels and internal levees ................................................................................. 22
3.2.3
External levees ....................................................................................................... 22
3.2.4
Lobes and distributary channels ............................................................................ 22
3.3 Petrophysical modelling ................................................................................................... 23

3.4 Upscaling .......................................................................................................................... 27
3.5 Dynamic modelling ........................................................................................................... 28
Results ....................................................................................................................... 32
4.1 Facies modelling ............................................................................................................... 32
4.2 Petrophysical modelling ................................................................................................... 36
4.3 Upscaling .......................................................................................................................... 36
4.4 Dynamic modelling ........................................................................................................... 44
4.4.1
Well type................................................................................................................ 46
4.4.2
Drive mechanism ................................................................................................... 46
4.4.2.1
Depletion and gas cap drive (live oil) .................................................. 46

4
4.4.2.2
Aquifer drive (dead oil) ....................................................................... 48
4.4.2.3
Water injection drive (dead oil) ........................................................... 49
4.4.3
4.4.3.1
In general ............................................................................................. 51
4.4.3.2
External levees ..................................................................................... 54
4.4.4
Grid size ................................................................................................................. 51
Residual water saturation ..................................................................................... 56
Discussion .................................................................................................................. 56
5.1 Limitations ........................................................................................................................ 56
5.1.1
Static models ......................................................................................................... 57
5.1.2
Dynamic models .................................................................................................... 57
5.1.3
Grid size and upscaling .......................................................................................... 57
5.2 Uncertainty analyses ........................................................................................................ 58

5.2.1
Influence of facies and porosity realisations on STOIIP calculations .................... 58
5.2.2
Influence of permeability realisations on recovery factor .................................... 59
5.3 Economic evaluation ........................................................................................................ 59
5.3.1
Water injection with deviated wells...................................................................... 59
5.3.2
External levee development .................................................................................. 61
Conclusions and recommendations ........................................................................... 62

6.1 General conclusions ......................................................................................................... 62
6.2 Optimal field development scenario ................................................................................ 63
6.3 Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 64
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................... 65
Bibliography ..................................................................................................................... 65
Appendix ........................................................................................................................... 67
A. Data and methods ................................................................................................................. 67
B. Results ................................................................................................................................... 73
C. Work flow .............................................................................................................................. 79
D. Time allocation ...................................................................................................................... 79
List of abbreviations
CAPEX
CDF
FSST
GOC
GRF
HST
IK
LST
MPS
N:G ratio
NPV
OPEX
OWC
PDF
RF
SIS
STOIIP
TGS
TST
capital expenditure
cumulative distribution function
falling-stage systems tract
gas-oil contact
Gaussian random function
high-stand systems tract
indicator Kriging
low-stand systems tract
multi-point facies simulation
net-to-gross ratio
net present value
operating expenditure
oil-water contact
probability distribution function
recovery factor
sequential indicator simulation
stock tank oil initially in place
truncated Gaussian simulation
transgressive systems tract
1 Introduction
Deep-marine slope and base-of-slope systems form an important part of global oil and
gas reserves, e.g. offshore Angola, Brazil and Norway. They are (extensively) studied in
present-day systems (e.g. Nakajima et al., 1998) and outcrops in e.g. the Karoo (South
Africa; e.g. Luthi et al., 2006; Flint et al., 2011; Hodgson et al., 2011), Canada (e.g.
Arnott, 2007; Khan and Arnott, 2007), California (e.g. Hickson et al., 2002), Chile (e.g.
Beaubouef, 2004), Mexico (e.g. Kane et al., 2007; Kane et al., 2009), Turkey (e.g. Cronin
et al., 2000) and Egypt (e.g. Samuel et al., 2003). Oil companies publish certain field data
from such reservoirs e.g. off the coasts of Brazil (e.g. Camargo et al., 2004), Angola (e.g.
Nivlet et al., 2007; Carvalho et al., 2009; Yang et al., 2009) and Norway. These studies
have resulted in a better understanding of controls, processes, sequence stratigraphy and
reservoir architecture associated with this kind of systems, as well as their producibility
(see section 2).
Deep-marine slope and base-of-slope systems (hereafter referred to as slope systems) are
rewarding to produce due to their large volumes, but are also difficult to characterise
because their architecture and composition can be extremely variable. The oil and gas
industry mainly focuses on the easily producible reserves, often leaving quite large
volumes of such systems untouched as they are heterogeneous and therefore difficult to
model and produce.
Heterogeneity-related modelling, upscaling and production issues in general are a
problem for the production of oil and gas from siliciclastic fluvial, shallow-marine, deepmarine and carbonate reservoirs. Reservoir (e.g. of small-scale heterogeneities such as
6
cross-bedding) and numerical modelling (upscaling), and their impact on simulated

production, have been studied by Stephen et al. (2008) for shallow-marine reservoirs.
Part of their conclusion is that capillary pressure exponents, aggradational angle and
permeability have important influences on ultimate production. On a larger scale, De
Jager et al. (2009) have investigated the impact of reservoir body geometries,
permeability, net-to-gross ratio and as a derived property the connectivity on flow
behaviour and thus recovery factor of channelized deposits. They mention that a correct
assumption of the net-to-gross ratio is especially important for connectivity and thus for
more accurate flow behaviour, and that a good model of connectivity and permeability is
imperative to adequately describe reservoir flow.
Synthetic models can aid in discerning reservoir parameters which greatly influence
recovery factors, as is shown by Manzocchi et al. (2008) and Skorstad et al. (2008).
Manzocchi et al. (2008) created synthetic reservoir models with a focus on the impact of
fault rock and fault juxtaposition on recovery factors of shallow-marine deposits.
Skorstad et al. (2008) created many realisations of siliciclastic shallow-marine reservoirs
to investigate their impact on production variability by varying structural, stratigraphic
and well-control parameters. They left gridding, relative permeability and upscaling
unchanged.
This thesis aims to (i) evaluate the impact of geological and petrophysical modelling of
reservoir properties, numerical modelling (upscaling), production mechanism, fluid type,
well lay-out and rock properties on slope reservoir recovery factors. It thereby indirectly
investigates to what extent modelling decisions regarding the systems inherent
heterogeneities affect the recovery factor (ii). A final objective (iii) is to produce an allround field development plan to include production of the more heterogeneous sections.
The stated objectives are reached by: (1) creating a conceptual static deep-marine slope
model based on geometries derived from literature; (2) choosing one realisation of the
geological model and populating it with petrophysical data from a real-world case; (3)
upscaling the grid and properties to different simulation grid sizes; (4) running fluid flow
simulations with varying grid sizes, production mechanisms, fluid types, well lay-out and
rock properties; (5) running an uncertainty analysis for the STOIIP and one for the
recovery factor of the best case to having used only one realisation of the static models;
(6) evaluating the economics for the best case and (7) recommending a comprehensive
field development plan including production of the more difficult reservoir sections. The
results of this work do not provide a conclusive answer to how deep-marine slope
reservoir heterogeneities should be modelled and which upscaling methods should be
applied, but could serve as a basis for further research on such topics.
2 Geology of deep-marine siliciclastic slope systems

The outcrop and field studies mentioned in the introduction have resulted in increased
knowledge of slope systems and their deposits. A brief summary of the findings most
relevant to this thesis is given in this chapter.
2.1 Controls and processes

Sediments are transported into oceans along coastal margins and continue down the
continental shelf, shelf break and continental slope to come to rest on the continental rise
7
or basin floor. Resulting deposits on the continental slope and rise form so-called deepmarine slope and base-of-slope systems.
Several types of slope processes can be identified, of which gravity remobilisation and
mass flow of already-deposited or newly-imported sediments are the most important
ones. These processes can result in cohesive, high-density laminar or turbidity flows,
each with their own characteristic deposits. Galloway and Hobday (1996) and Kane et al.
(2009) have described these flows and their associated deposits in more detail.
Slope deposits display a wide variety in reservoir architecture as they are created by a
combination of many different, partially interdependent, auto- and allocyclic controls
(Figure 2.1) (Richards and Bowman, 1998).
Figure 2.1 Auto- and allocyclic controls on slope architecture. Source: Richards and Bowman, 1998.
Richards et al. (1998) classify slope systems based on sediment supply mechanism,
dominant grain size and number of entry points of the sediment to the slope/basin floor.
The focus of this thesis is the set of slope systems identified by a channel-levee type
feeder system to the terminal submarine fan, mud rich to mixed sand-mud rich sediment
compositions and a single sediment entry point.
2.2 Sequence stratigraphy

As sediment flows do not continuously pass down the slope, sedimentation is not
constant but an intermittent process. Whether erosion or sedimentation takes place is
determined by the actual state of the slope compared with the equilibrium slope. If the
actual slope lies above the equilibrium line, erosion will take place. If the actual slope lies
below the equilibrium line, accommodation space is present and deposition will occur
(Figure 2.2).
8
Figure 2.2 Left: erosional and depositional potential of a slope. Right: stratigraphic processes as a function of
flow size, density and grain size. Source: Samuel et al., 2003.
Several authors, e.g. Samuel et al. (2003) and Flint et al. (2011) have described slope
deposition in terms of systems tracts for the Nile region (Egypt) and the Karoo (South
Africa), respectively. According to them, during Falling-stage Systems Tracts (FSST)
and Low-stand Systems Tracts (LST) a combination of erosion due to sediment flow and
slumping creates a valley through which subsequent sediment flows continue downslope.
When the sediment floods reach the base-of-slope and emerge from the valley
confinements, they are deposited in lobes which are fed by distributary channels. Lobes
from different stages together form a submarine fan complex. The more upslope valley
fill consisting of channel-levee deposits is formed during Transgressive Systems Tracts
(TST) and High-stand Systems Tracts (HST) with generally more fine-grained or muddy
deposits (Flint et al., 2011). Figure 2.3 schematically shows the resulting system
components. Lower-order variations in sea level (e.g. relative lowstands) may cause
reincision and new phases of infill (generally marked by increased channel sinuosity)
(Figure 2.4 and Figure 2.5).
The general facies model consists of low-sinuosity channels migrating in a confined
space (valley systems in Egypt were found to be between 0.5 and 6km wide and 50-200m
deep with a traceable length of 55km, aspect ratios between 6 and 30 and a sinuosity of
1.04-1.21 (Samuel et al., 2003)) and depositing levees in sections where the flow
decelerates (Galloway and Hobday, 1996). Channel splays can occur within the channel
belt. During periods of peak run-off, the sediment flows cannot be contained by the
channel belt confinements anymore and spill over the edges, thereby creating external
levee facies, a term used by e.g. Kane et al. (2011) to distinguish them from the
architecturally different internal levees deposited adjacent to the channels and inside the
channel belt confinements (see 2.3.2). The lobe facies created in the down-slope and lesssteep section of the system are fed by distributary channels and grade into lobe fringe
facies towards the edges.
According to Hodgson et al. (2011), the phases of slope sedimentation consist of (1)
localized lobe deposition, succeeded by (2) slope degradation, external levee formation
and sediment bypass under conditions of low accommodation space, followed by (3)
lateral migration (horizontal stacking at at-grade conditions) and later (4) slope
aggradation, vertical stacking and internal levee creation under conditions of high
accommodation space (Figure 2.6).
9
Figure 2.3 Deep-marine slope system components. Source: Kane et al., 2007.
10
Figure 2.4 Influence of sea-level fluctuations on valley infill. Source: Samuel et al., 2003.
Figure 2.5 Valley infill in the Nile region, Egypt, after several cycles of local sea-level fluctuations with a trend
towards a higher sea level. Source: Samuel et al., 2003.
11
Figure 2.6 Phase 1: low accommodation space and localized lobe deposition. Phase 2: slope degradation and
sediment bypass, confined by external levee development, erosion and unorganised channelization. Phase 3: atgrade horizontal stacking. Phase 4: high accommodation space with vertical stacking and internal levee
formation. Source: Hodgson et al., 2011.
2.3 Facies characteristics

In this section, information concerning lateral and vertical extent, geometry and
sedimentology is given per facies type. The lay-out of a slope system with typical
gamma-ray logs at various locations is given in Figure 2.7.
Figure 2.7 Typical gamma-log responses for a slope system. Source: Galloway and Hobday, 1996.
12
The sedimentological variation within slope systems is expressed by a South American

national oil company as a function of net-to-gross ratio and the ratio between vertical and
horizontal permeability (Kv/Kh) (Table 2.1).
Table 2.1 N:G and Kv/Kh ratios per facies type.
Facies
Discrete channels
High channel density
Moderate channel density
Low channel density
Amalgamated channels
Axis
Margin
Lobe complexes
Proximal (distributary channels)
Central
Distal
Levees
Internal levees
External levees (close to channel
belt)
External levees (far from channel
belt)
N:G ratio
Kv/Kh
0.8
0.5
0.3
0.5
0.4
0.1
0.95
0.85
0.7
0.4
0.9
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.1
0.05
0.5-0.7
0.5-0.7
0.2-0.5
0.2-0.5
0.05-0.2
0.01-0.1
2.3.1 Channels
Hodgson et al. (2011) mention a channel belt width between 2 and 3.3km and a channel
complex of 300-500m wide and 30-50m deep. Single channels have a typical width
between 50 and 250m and are between 10 and 20m in depth, but often less than 15m
(Samuel et al., 2003 and Hodgson et al., 2011). A certain asymmetry in the channel
profile is reported by Hodgson et al. (2011): one margin dips at less than 10, the other
between 15 and 20.
Submarine channel fills can be characterised by an erosional base with more coarsegrained sediments, whereas upward decreasing grain sizes in the rest of the fill are less
common and might be mainly dependent upon grain size differences between various
sediment flow phases (Arnott, 2007). Kane et al. (2009) report a coarse-grained system
with a traction-dominated channel fill which is better sorted than the surrounding levees.
2.3.2 Internal and external levees
Kane and Hodgson (2011) report external levee thicknesses of 100m and a width of
approximately 2.5km. It has to be noted that individual bed thickness can be very small
(less than 10cm), thinning in a direction away from the channel. The lateral extent of
external levees is very large, making their volumetric contribution to hydrocarbon
volumes important. The same authors describe internal levees with a total thickness
between 1 and 100m. Their lateral extent is smaller than that of the external levees
because they lie inside the channel belt confinements and are less easily preserved
because of channel migration.
13
Kane and Hodgson (2011) have described the distinction between internal and external
levees as summarized in the following (see also Figure 2.8).
Internal levees are found in the more aggradational (vertical stacking) sections, because
they are less likely to be preserved as lateral migration is common. They generally have
variable lateral bed extensions with local pinch-outs, some vertical bed thinning or
thickening trends, irregular overspill structures, multiple fining sequences and erosion
surfaces within individual beds, erosion as well as bed amalgamation and small-scale
slumping and sliding.
External levees on the other hand have laterally extensive wedge-shaped beds which
diminish, become finer and change in facies type away from the channel belt. Bed
thickness increases in level of organisation upwards and sedimentary structures resulting
from waning flows are present. Erosional features are scarce but large-scale deformation
at the channel-belt margin is common.
The main differences between the inner and outer levees arise from the dissimilarity
between their depositional processes. Internal levees are formed during confined
overbank flow and are subject to reflection and deflection, and subsequent erosion and
redeposition. External levees are formed during unconfined overbank flow, which is
mainly gravity-controlled, resulting in relatively structured, more Bouma-sequence-type
deposits. Another feature is that the paleocurrent directions are found to be more
scattered in internal levee deposits (Figure 2.9) (Kane and Hodgson, 2011).
Figure 2.8 Schematic of sedimentological differences between external (A) and internal levees (B). Source: Kane
and Hodgson, 2011.
14
Figure 2.9 Explanation for difference in paleocurrent scatter between inner and outer levees. Source: Kane and
Hodgson, 2011.
Levees that are created by channels on the (base-of-) slope are generally steeper in crosssection than those adjacent to channels on the basin floor (Kane et al., 2010).
Levee sediments close to the channel are more sand rich and show both tractional
structures and structureless deposits, pointing to both high flow and deposition rates.
Further away from the channel the sediments are richer in mud and are found to display
starved ripples (Kane et al., 2007).
Khan and Arnott (2011) have observed a difference between the inner and outer bend
internal levees of a channel-levee complex in the Isaac Formation (southern Canada). The
outer bend facies have a higher net-to-gross ratio (0.68) which decreases over a few
hundreds of meters away from the channel (to 0.35). The inner bend facies have a lower
net-to-gross ratio (0.4), which decreases more rapidly (within 150m to 0.15). The
difference in levee height between the outer and inner bends is roughly a 2:1 ratio.
2.3.3 Lobes
Flint et al. (2011) describe composite lobe deposits with a total width of 10km, a length
of 20km and a thickness between 5-15m (i.e. an areal extent of 200km2). Galloway and
Hobday (1996) suggest that the largest sheet lobes can have an areal extent of up to
104km2.
Aggradational lobe deposits are created at locations where flows slow down due to
decreased confinement, lower sediment loads and/or smaller slope angles. The process
15
causes the distinction between distributary channel fill and lobe facies and creates a
transition zone with cross-bedded sands, lags and scours. In more coarse-grained systems
the lobe facies and lower channel fills can merge, showing scour, traction, drape and lag
deposits while low-relief channels are formed on the lobe surface. At the lobes edges
fringe facies are deposited, consisting of finer sediments. Ongoing lobe switching can
cause individual lobes to merge into a submarine fan apron (Galloway and Hobday,
1996).
According to Flint et al. (2011), the TST and HST fine-grained fan deposits of the Karoo
show little variation in sedimentary properties, grain size and thickness over tens of
kilometres. The FSST and LST coarser-grained fan deposits, on the other hand, display
more variation at smaller scales.
2.4 Connectivity
Connectivity between channel fills and internal levees depends on the location in the
paleovalley system and improves with increased amalgamation (i.e. in the more valleyconfined parts). Slumping and sliding may create flow barriers or baffles inside the
channel belt, rendering production more difficult. Some separated sediment bodies might
be connected to channel fills by channel splays (Beaubouef, 2004).
External levees are horizontally connected to the channel belt, but not everywhere to
channel fills, thereby increasing production difficulties. Vertical connectivity in external
levees will be good close to the channel belt, but extremely poor further away where the
beds decrease in thickness to centimetres and are intercalated with shale.
Lobe and lobe fringe facies can be well-connected (also to their distributary channels),
but their inherent heterogeneities can pose problems for fluid flow.
2.5 Comparison between Karoo and other deep-marine slope systems

Because a large portion of the geometrical values used for the model come from the
Laingsburg system in the Karoo basin, some notes on their applicability to deep-marine
slope systems in general are in order. Laingsburg-Karoo deposits are relatively finegrained (Kane and Hodgson 2011) compared with for instance those of the Rosario
Formation (Baja California, Mexico; Kane et al. 2009, Kane and Hodgson 2011), the
Isaac Formation (Canada; Arnott 2007, Khan and Arnott 2011), the Cerro Toro
Formation (Chile; Beaubouef 2004) and to a lesser extent the Nile region (Egypt; Samuel
et al. 2003) and the Kirkgeit Formation (Turkey; Cronin et al. 2000), in most of which
conglomerates are an important constituent. The Laingsburg-Karoo system is however
coarser grained than the present-day Toyama Deep-Sea Channel system (Japan;
Nakajima et al., 1998). Data obtained from the Laingsburg-Karoo can be applied to the
other systems if one keeps in mind that the general depositional processes are similar but
that increasing grain sizes result in higher width/depth ratios and lower sinuosity and
levee height (Galloway and Hobday, 1996; Van Toorenenburg, 2012).
2.6 Comparison between submarine and continental channel systems

As e.g. Arnott (2007), Galloway and Hobday (1996) and Kane et al. (2009) acknowledge,
some parallels can be drawn between fluvial (continental) and submarine channel
architecture (basal erosion, braided bar formation in gravel-rich systems, splays, levee
formation, increased sinuosity with increasing mud content, etc.). However, they also
point out some fundamental (architectural) differences. In submarine channels, deposition
16
takes place more intermittently and in the entire stratified turbulent suspension flows the
sediment is mostly in suspension, whereas continental rivers are more prone to bed load.
Secondary circulation is reverse in deep-sea compared with continental channels,
resulting in different inner and outer bend architecture. Furthermore, flow and
sedimentation speeds are high, preventing typical sedimentary structures from forming in
the channels (Arnott, 2007). These differences result in an absence of upward grain size
change in channel fills and along accretion surfaces, and sparseness of tractional
structures in submarine channel systems (Arnott, 2007). Besides this, submarine channels
are generally much larger than fluvial channels (Galloway and Hobday, 1996).
An important resemblance between continental and submarine channel systems is that
they form very heterogeneous hydrocarbon reservoirs and are therefore difficult to model
and produce.
3 Data and methods

A short literature study (see section 2) was carried out to determine typical slope deposit
geometries that could be used as input for a stacked channel-levee-fan geological model.
Porosity and permeability data from an actual reservoir in the South Atlantic were used to
create a petrophysical model. The geological and petrophysical models were upscaled
and fluid contacts, fluid models, rock properties, wells and development scenarios were
created to facilitate dynamic modelling. A brief economic analysis was made to evaluate
the NPV of the most promising case.
Schlumbergers Petrel 2010.1 software was used for geological and petrophysical
modelling, upscaling and well design. Dynamic models (fluid flow simulations) were run
using Schlumbergers Eclipse100 (via Petrel). Eclipse100 is a three-dimensional, threephase flow simulator which makes use of fully implicit finite difference calculations.
Streamline simulations were created using Schlumbergers FrontSim simulator. FrontSim
can model three-dimensional three-phase reservoir flow by making use of finite
difference calculations using the IMPES method (IMplicit Pressure Explicit Saturation).
The difference with other finite difference simulators is that FrontSim implicitly
evaluates one variable (pressure) in one dimension. The pressure is used to create
velocity fields and subsequently volumetric streamlines. The saturation functions are
solved explicitly along the streamlines, while making use of numerical methods and
front-tracking to model the displacement.
Microsoft Excel was used for other data processing (e.g. petrophysical and economic
calculations).
In the following the workflow is discussed in more detail.
3.1 Grid and region definition

The stacked geological model was created in Petrel on a grid with X,Y,Z-dimensions of
15km x 8km x 3km and grid blocks of 50m x 50m x 1m. A reservoir with a constant
thickness of 100m was placed between two horizons with six wells constraining the slope
angles (specified in Appendix Table A. 1 and Table A. 2). This resulted in a reservoir
containing 4.8 million cells. For X between 0 and 7km a slope angle of 1.43 and for the
base-of-slope (X between 7and 15km) an angle of 1.07 was used. A relatively low angle
was chosen to account for the proximity of the slope to the basin floor. The angles
17
correspond to the flattest slope/base-of-slope angles for the United States Gulf of
Mexico bathymetry described by Pratson and Haxby (1996).
Petrel cannot create a slope deposit system by default, especially not without faciesconstraining wells. Another approach thus had to be used. Petrel has the ability to use
different modelling regions, which allows the user to choose the most appropriate
modelling method per reservoir section (section 2). Four regions were used to build the
stacked model: one for the channels and internal levees, two for the external levees on
both sides of the channel, and one for the lobes and distributary channels. They were
created using the code in Appendix A. Data and methods.
The created regions (Figure 3.1) represent a sinuous channel belt with a width of 1.5km
and a length of 5km, featuring external levees on either side with a maximum width of
1.5km each and a maximum length of 5km. The fan system has a width of 8km and a
length of 10km. The models dimensions are too small to represent an entire fan system
(see section 2.3.3). Such a model would be so large that dynamic modelling would be
very time-consuming but having little added value. Instead, the geological model created
and evaluated in this thesis should be seen as a model of a distal channel-levee belt and
multiple proximal lobe deposits.
Figure 3.1 Region definition. The arrow points north.
3.2 Facies modelling

In this section a brief overview of the possible stochastic modelling techniques is given
with subsequently more details on how each facies type has been generated.
3.2.1 Statistic modelling techniques
Statistic facies modelling is explained in sufficient detail in the Petrel Help
documentation. The most useful information is summarised in this sub-section.
Facies can be modelled in Petrel using variogram-based methods (e.g. Kriging), pixelbased methods making use of variograms (e.g. Indicator Kriging, Sequential Indicator
Simulation and Truncated Gaussian Simulation with or without trends), object-based
indicator methods using insertion points (e.g. (fluvial) channels, splays, fans and userdefined bodies), training-image-based multipoint statistics and other tools (e.g. assign a
constant value).
18
Kriging is a deterministic method which creates weighted linear estimates in space based
on well-data points, a distribution with a stationary mean and a variogram. A distinction
can be made between simple Kriging (the mean is known) and ordinary Kriging (the
mean is estimated locally).
Pixel-based Indicator Kriging (IK) makes use of the same principles as Kriging and thus
gives locally-accurate and smooth results. The method fails to reproduce spatial variation
on a larger scale, for which stochastic methods are better suited.
Pixel-based Sequential Indicator Simulation (SIS) is a stochastic method. It uses
probability distribution functions (PDF) for facies based on well data and visits grid cells
sequentially. First IK creates the facies probabilities, from which a PDF is constructed. A
random number is generated, which corresponds to a facies outcome from the PDF. For
each grid cell the local PDF is updated based on the previously-visited cells and the
original hard data. SIS does not consider facies relationships (i.e. facies transitions) and
can therefore only be used for modelling facies without clearly defined geometries.
Pixel-based Truncated Gaussian Simulation (TGS) is a stochastic method which uses
well data, facies fractions, a variogram and close facies relationships as input. Well data
can provide facies proportions. A Gaussian residual field is generated, after which the
data are truncated using thresholds determined by facies proportions. The same
variogram is used for all facies, which is why the method is faster than SIS. This is also a
limitation, because different variograms per facies cannot be implemented. TGS with
trends introduces a point or line source location, an orientation and a position and angle
of the facies boundaries. The resulting facies can show prograding or retrograding
transitions as desired. TGS with trends is therefore suitable to model ordered facies
transitions (e.g. carbonate coasts).
Object-based stochastic modelling makes use of genetic body information (e.g. shape,
dimensions, orientation, sinuosity, etc., with user-defined distributions) to generate
objects per insertion point. An evaluation of whether the body should be inserted or not is
aided by well-data constraints. The location of the bodies can be further constrained by
facies body fractions, insertion order, erosion and trends. To prevent bodies from being
generated with the same dimensions, a factor named drift is introduced (a value of 0
indicating no variance, a value of 1 the opposite). For fluvial channels source points can
be introduced, which is not possible for adaptive channels (these channels are modelled
differently than fluvial ones). On the other hand, adaptive channels show better results if
more well data are present, because SIS is used to incorporate all well data leading to
acceptance of all proposed channels. The advantage of object-based modelling is that it
produces realistic body shapes, which pixel-based methods cannot. However, not all
types of bodies are set as default in Petrel, which makes it difficult to model complex
architectures in settings such as deep-marine slope systems.
Simulations using multi-point statistics (MPS) incorporate both pixel-based and objectbased methods. Input can consist of well data, trends, scaling, rotation and a training
image. Additional soft data (e.g. seismic probabilities) can constrain the data further.
19
A training image is used instead of a variogram because the geometric relationship

between multiple cells is an important input. The image is created in a special grid with
smaller dimensions than the original one. Among others, object-based modelling, handdrawn bodies and imported figures can be used as input for the training image. A correct
training image is not too complex, but shows the general facies relationships and shapes
and consists of at least two different facies types.
The training image is subsequently used to create a multi-point facies pattern with an
algorithm which sequentially assigns facies to a cell, based on the surrounding cells in the
specified search mask. Each visited location gets a local conditional distribution, from
which a simulated value is taken. The search mask should be large enough to capture
large structures in a training image, but this takes up much computer time. To make the
algorithm more efficient, the concept of multi-gridding is used. Multi-gridding enables
the algorithm to describe small- and large-scale features by starting with a coarse grid
(evaluating only every 2(m-1)th cell with m the number of multigrids) and taking the
results as hard data to subsequently finer grids. Increasing the number of multi-grids
leads to a decreased runtime, but also to decreased facies recognisability (Figure 3.2).
The resulting multi-point facies pattern is used as a basis in the multi-point facies
simulation process, in which the algorithm stochastically fills the model. The process
allows for the implementation of different patterns per modelling region. The trust
fraction strength option allows the user to indicate whether the patterns facies fractions
should be honoured more (1) or less (0). Allowing the algorithm to deviate from the
patterns fractions leads to more realistic facies shapes.
With the current algorithm it is not possible to model a channel-levee system ending in a
lobe with distributary channels, because the facies relationships are too complex for the
algorithm to reproduce.
The pixel-based, object-based and MPS simulations have seeded realizations, meaning
that realizations with the same seed number and same input give the same result.
20
Figure 3.2 Above: the concept of multi-gridding with four multi-grids. In this example every 8th cell is populated
in the coarsest grid first (upper left). In the second coarsest grid these cells are used as input to populate the cells
in between (upper right). This infilling is repeated on increasingly finer grids until all cells are assigned a value.
Below: a training image example illustrating that using an increased number of multi-grids leads to decreased
recognisability. The upper left model was created with one multi-grid (i.e. evaluation of all cells) and shows
realistic channel-levee shapes. However, it runs very slowly. The lower right model was created using four multigrids. It runs quickly but the channels are hardly recognisable. Source: Petrel online help documentation.
21
3.2.2 Channels and internal levees

Standard object-based modelling was chosen to model the channels, channel splays and
internal levees because shapes, geometries and facies relationships are much more
realistic than with any other method (section 3.2.1). To ensure adherence to the net-togross ratios obtained from a South American national oil company (Table 2.1) and
literature, body fractions (percentage of channels, splays, floodplain, etc.) were defined.
The input data can be found in Appendix Table A. 3.
3.2.3 External levees
Truncated Gaussian Simulation with trends is a useful method for modelling the sheet
flood-like external levee deposits, as it allows for including a gradual change from
coarser deposits closer to the channel belt to fines further away.
The facies fill was set at 30% for the deposits closer to the channel belt, 20% for those
further away from it and 50% for the floodplain to achieve an overall net-to-gross ratio of
0.5. Line-source geometry was used in combination with a progradational depositional
regime with either a 0 or 180 azimuth, depending on the region. A Gaussian variogram
with a sill of 1.0 and a nugget of 0.01 was used, both with lateral ranges of 5,000m, to
ensure reproduction of extensive sheet deposits, and a vertical range of 1m. Maintaining
the variograms vertical range at 1m is an attempt to account for the vertical variability of
the deposits. This is still not geologically accurate, but it is not possible to decrease the
vertical range any further because the height of the grid cells is 1m. To incorporate more
heterogeneity into the model, a variance of 0.2 was implemented. A dip of 0 was used
because the true reservoir dip resulted in linear artefacts.
3.2.4 Lobes and distributary channels
It is difficult to model distributary channels inside a lobe-shaped feature in Petrel, which
is why use was made of multi-point facies simulation.
For the training image a grid of 150 x 80 x 30 (I,J,K) cells was used with each cell 100m
x 100m x 1m. For the pattern creation process an ellipsoid search radius of 15 x 15 x 2
cells was used with 2 multi-grids and 32 informed nodes (number of nodes used for
simulation of a point). These mentioned values are derived from recommended settings in
Petrel.
The training image itself was built using object modelling with different channel sizes
and splays (input in Appendix Table A. 4; see also the result in Figure 3.3). Fluvial
channels were used because only then source point polygons could be implemented to
ensure a distributary pattern. Channel widths and thicknesses were exaggerated because
they would otherwise be too small when transferred from the training image grid to the
original grid. The levees were set to be wider than the channels so they would produce
broad geometries, which could then be named lobe instead of levee facies. Fan
geometries were used to model lobe splays in the lobe facies. Body fractions were
defined to adhere to the used net-to-gross ratios (Table 2.1).
22
Figure 3.3 Training image based on object modelling.
The multi-point facies pattern created with the described training image show facies
fractions similar to the input fractions (Appendix Table A. 4 and Table 3.1). The pattern
cannot be visualised but consists of information on each facies fraction and distribution.
Table 3.1 Facies fractions in the training image-based multipoint facies pattern.
Facies
Floodplain
Lobe
Distributary channels
Lobe splays
Fraction (-)
0.2684
0.5565
0.1607
0.0144
Implementation of the pattern in the region-based facies modelling was done by

allocating the pattern only to the fan region and leaving all other regions in the multipoint facies simulation undefined. The patterns facies fractions (Table 3.1) are set with a
0.5 confidence (default, value between 0 and 1), which is a balance between honouring
predefined fractions and showing reasonably realistic facies shapes. The distributary
pattern, which was already introduced during the object modelling of the training image,
was detailed further by using a rotation polygon (Appendix Figure A. 1). This polygon
has the same shape as the fan and contains lines on which flow direction angles are
defined, which the algorithm uses to create channels with a distributary trend following
these angles.
3.3 Petrophysical modelling

Porosity-permeability models can be created using different simulation options in Petrel.
The choice was made to use stochastic Gaussian Random Function simulation (GRF), as
it allows the user to input a separate distribution per facies and use collocated co-kriging
to link permeability to porosity. GRF is a stochastic method based on Kriging, but its
advantage is that it can deal with extreme values in a heterogeneous reservoir. It uses a
23
Kriging-derived mean and variance, a variogram and a Gaussian distribution as input. A

cumulative distribution function (CDF) is created from the input data. Kriging is used to
calculate values for each grid point based on surrounding grid points and previously
evaluated points. A conditional CDF is made based on the original and simulated data.
From this conditional CDF a value is taken, which updates the function. The next grid
point to be visited is determined randomly. After simulation, the value is backtransformed with the CDF of the input data.
Porosity-permeability relations (Figure 3.4, Table 3.2, Table 3.3 and Table 3.4) were
derived from data from a South American national oil company, which are applicable to
fields off the Brazilian and West African coasts and the Gulf of Mexico. Per facies a
corresponding petrofacies group was found in the provided data. Certain data points were
interpreted as outliers and were deleted.
The minimum, maximum, mean and standard deviation of the porosity values were
calculated using Excel to generate input data for the GRF simulation (Table 3.2).
During the analysis of the permeability values, one has to take into account that
permeability is often log-normally distributed and that the mean and standard deviation
are thus not obtained with the same calculations as is the case for the porosity. Instead,
the geometrical mean and the standard deviation of the logarithms of the data points are
here used as input (Table 3.3).
The dependence of permeability on porosity can be implemented in the algorithm by
using collocated co-kriging, which makes use of one variogram for the primary variable
(in this case permeability) and a correlation coefficient of the previously-modelled
secondary variable (in this case porosity).
Shale was assigned a low porosity and permeability to make it easier for the algorithm to
create the realizations.
The variograms used for the porosity and permeability models are different per facies and
vary mostly in vertical range to reflect the slope systems inherently large vertical
heterogeneity (Table 3.2 and Table 3.3). The reservoir facies variograms were made
elliptic to account for the variability in the flow direction (smaller) and perpendicular to
the flow direction (larger). Their ranges are smaller than those in the shale variogram,
because their internal variability is much larger. Variation between the lateral variogram
ranges of each facies could result in more geologically realistic results, but they were
kept the same for all reservoir facies because not much information about their
distribution was available and the results seemed satisfactory (section 4). The shale
variogram was made circular and large because internal variability is not important for a
non-reservoir facies.
Even though the reservoir model dips slightly with 1.5 or less, the variogram dip was
kept at 0. Implementing the correct dip led to linear artefacts in the results, which were
deemed unrealistic.
The horizontal (I and J) permeability models were kept the same, but a scaling factor was
introduced for the vertical (K) permeability to account for the vertical heterogeneity
inherent to slope systems (Table 2.1 and Table 3.4).
24
Porosity-permeability relations per facies

Permeability (mD)
10000
Channels
1000
Internal levees
External levee splays
100
Lobe
10
External levee sheets

0
0,1
0,2
0,1
0,3
0,4
0,5
Lobe splays
Channel splays
Porosity (-)
Figure 3.4 Facies-based porosity-permeability relation.
Table 3.2 Porosity distributions and variogram specifics per facies.
Facies
Normal distribution (-)

Min
Max
Mean
Floodplain
Channel
Internal levees
External levee
close to
channel belt
Lobe
Distributary
channels
External levee
far from
channel belt
Lobe splays
Channel
splays
0.000
0.281
0.204
0.170
0.100
0.376
0.365
0.317
0.125
0.220
0.050
0.336
0.308
0.244
Standard
deviation
0.0100
0.0262
0.0339
0.0485
Variogram (m)
Major
Minor
range
range
4000
4000
1000
500
1000
500
1000
500
Vertical
range
10
5
3
2
0.332
0.394
0.253
0.335
0.0570
0.0420
1000
1000
500
500
3
4
0.084
0.209
0.158
0.0400
1000
500
0.204
0.304
0.365
0.383
0.308
0.350
0.0339
0.0220
1000
1000
500
500
2
2
25
Table 3.3 Permeability distributions and variogram specifics per facies.
Ki and Kj
Facies
Normal distribution (mD)

Min
Max
Geomean
Variogram (m)
Major
Minor
range
range
Floodplain
Channel
Internal levees
External
levees - close
to channel belt
Lobe
Distributary
channels
External levee
far from
channel belt
Lobe splays
Channel
splays
0.0
812.0
103.8
17.2
0.1
3516.2
741.3
98.5
0.045
1492.9
343.3
34.8
Standard
deviation in
ln-space
0.730
0.403
0.551
0.484
Vertical
range
4000
1000
1000
1000
4000
500
500
500
10
5
3
2
4.3
751.8
644.5
3164
97.8
1412.2
1.610
0.357
1000
1000
500
500
3
4
0.1
9.4
0.5
1.580
1000
500
103.8
835.5
741.3
2577.7
343.3
1216.6
0.551
0.304
1000
1000
500
500
2
2
Table 3.4 Scaling factor between horizontal (Ki) and vertical (Kk) permeability per facies.
Kk
Facies
Floodplain
Channel
Internal levees
External levees - proximal
Lobe
External levees - distal
Lobe splays
Channel splays
Factor*Ki
0.00
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.10
0.50
0.05
0.10
0.40
A net-to-gross map was created in which shale was set equal to 0 to prevent the volume
calculations from incorporating its porosity. Because net-to-gross had already been
incorporated in the facies modelling as a percentage of reservoir facies versus shale, the
other facies net-to-gross ratios were set to 1. Internal heterogeneity was already
introduced by using a distribution of porosity and permeability per facies instead of
single values.
The Stock Tank Oil Initially In Place (STOIIP) was calculated using the following
formula:
26
Equation 1
with Vo the STOIIP, A the reservoir area, h the reservoir height, the porosity, N/G the
net-to-gross ratio, Soi the initial oil saturation and Boi the initial oil formation volume
factor. The described porosity and net-to-gross models were used as input. For Soi and Boi
a constant value was set of 0.8 and 1.14 respectively. It was assumed that the entire
reservoir is filled with oil.
3.4 Upscaling
Upscaling can have quite a significant influence on the STOIIP and recovery factor,
especially with a grid as large as the one used in this thesis (4.8 million cells). To
quantify this difference two upscaled grids were created: a coarser one with grid blocks
of 150m x 100m x 5m (160,000 cells) and a finer one with grid blocks of 100m x 100m x
2m (600,000 cells).
The original grid was upscaled using source-cell-centred volume-averaging and
geometrical layering, which results in a slight overestimation of the post-upscaling
STOIIP. Another option is to use all-intersecting-cells averaging, a method which Petrel
recommends for upscaling with a factor less than 3 in all directions (applicable to the
upscaled grid sizes in this case). This results in a slight underestimation of the STOIIP
(Table 3.5).
The difference in STOIIP can be adjusted by scaling the porosity model afterwards with
the relative difference between the models prior to- and post-upscaling. However,
increasing the porosity after upscaling might lead to unrealistic values (e.g. more than
0.40 porosity in clastic deposits). This is why upscaling with source cell-centres was
opted for; this method overestimates the STOIIP, meaning that the porosity model needs
a decreasing factor afterwards. This should not lead to physically unreasonable results.
Table 3.5 Differences in STOIIP per grid size.
STOIIP for source-cell-centred

averaging (106 m3)
Relative difference with
original grid (%)
STOIIP for all-intersectingcells averaging
Relative difference with
original grid (%)
Original grid
Upscaled grid (coarser)
950
982
Upscaled
grid (finer)
972
+3.26
+2.26
950
920
926
-3.16
-2.53
Volume-weighted most-of averaging (i.e. selecting the mode facies group from a set of
grid blocks constituting an upscaled grid block) was used for facies upscaling, because
arithmetic upscaling results in a vector length error due to the facies models discrete
nature.
Porosity was averaged using arithmetic averaging, as is common practice. The net-togross model was not upscaled, but reassigned per facies after upscaling (0 for shale and 1
for reservoir facies) to ensure minimal STOIIP differences with the original model.
27
For permeability a flow-based average is common practice; it directionally averages the

permeability of the fine grid to the upscaled grid. However, as directional permeabilities
were already defined for the original model they only needed to be averaged per
direction. For the horizontal permeabilities arithmetic averaging was used. The vertical
permeability was harmonically averaged to account for the vertical heterogeneity inherent
to slope deposits.
3.5 Dynamic modelling

Flow simulations were run for different drive mechanisms, grid sizes, fluid types, rock
properties and well lay-outs. Initially several trial runs were made, based on which 56
cases were developed to compare with one another (Table 3.6). The specifics are
described in this section.
Table 3.6 Overview of the 56 simulated cases. Differences lie in well type, drive mechanism, grid size, type of
fluid phases and rock properties (sand versus shaly sand). Both depletion and gas cap drive have been simulated
with and without water flowing in from the bordering aquifer. All shaly sand simulations were run without
aquifer drive, except for the water drive scenario. GO = gas and oil; GOW = gas, oil and water; OW = oil and
water. A separate set of cases has been generated only for the external levees, using six deviated wells and
making use of water injection.
Well type
Vertical
Deviated
Horizontal
External
levees
Drive mechanism
Depletion
Water drive
Water injection
(line)
Water injection
(5/9-spot)
Gas cap
Depletion
Water drive
Water injection
Gas cap
Depletion
Water drive
Water injection
Gas cap
Deviated, water
injection
Coarse grid
Sand
No aquifer
drive
GO
Shaly
sand
Aquifer
drive
GOW
OW
OW
GO
OW
OW
OW
GO
GO
OW
GO
GO
OW
GO
OW
GOW
GOW
OW
GOW
GOW
OW
GOW
Fine grid
Sand
No aquifer
drive
GO
Shaly
sand
Aquifer
drive
GOW
OW
OW
OW
GO
GO
OW
OW
GO
GO
OW
OW
GO
OW
GO
GO
OW
GO
GO
OW
GO
OW
GOW
GOW
OW
GOW
GOW
OW
GOW
OW
OW
OW
As primary production mechanisms, depletion, water drive and gas cap drive were chosen
to be modelled separately. Water injection was added as a mechanism to increase
recovery factors. Gravity drainage was not considered as the reservoir model used is not
shallow and does not have a steep layer dip.
Depletion drive is based on the expansion of rock, oil and gas following decreasing
reservoir pressure, thereby aiding oil production. Gas cap drive is based on the same
expansion principle, but with gas being present as free gas from the start because
reservoir pressure is already below bubble-point pressure. With aquifer or water drive, an
aquifer is present at the bottom and/or edges of the reservoir. Aquifer water can flow into
28
the reservoir when the pressure is lowered because of production, thereby (locally)
maintaining reservoir pressure and allowing for continued production. Water injection
can be used when primary recovery is not sufficient anymore, or to speed up production.
It consists of water injector wells pushing water into the reservoir and thereby sweeping
oil towards the producer wells.
Two types of reservoir fluid were used: dead oil (two-phase) and (a heavier) oil and gas
(three-phase). Their settings were left at the default settings of Petrel (Appendix Table A.
5). These were checked with field data from literature (e.g. fields in Angola: Duhot,
2000; Zakarian and Larrey, 2007; Yang et al., 2009), and found to be plausible. Petrel
automatically uses fluid correlations with ranges valid for the input values. This means
that for instance the oil formation volume factor changes with respect to its user-defined
value for the static STOIIP calculations.
The OWC was set at -2895m for all cases, whereas the GOC (if applicable) was set at 2470m (i.e. above the reservoir top) for depletion drive and at -2600m (i.e. inside the
reservoir) for gas cap drive.
For depletion and gas cap drive simulations were run without water (with the OWC
present, but no influx) and with aquifer (constant influx at 300 bar). Water drive
simulations were run with active aquifer influx.
Originally depletion with only oil was tried as well, but this led to such quick pressure
drops to below bubble point that the scenario was not further evaluated and is thus not
included in the 56 simulation cases.
Two different saturation and relative permeability curve sets were used to check the
impact on the production results. Use was made of the default Petrel settings for sand and
shaly sand and two-phase and three-phase flow (appendix Table A. 6). A rock physics
function with a compressibility of 0.0001/bar was used. Capillary pressure was neglected
to increase simulation speed.
All drive mechanisms were simulated using three well type scenarios: only vertical,
deviated or horizontal wells (Figure 3.5). The deviated wells have more or less the same
well paths, although their average deviation angles differ with varying well depths. The
same holds for the horizontal wells.
A small test was carried out with horizontal well paths both parallel and perpendicular to
the paleoflow direction. One would expect that the facies and therefore permeability
variability in the direction perpendicular to the paleoflow direction would be larger than
in the direction parallel to it, but the production results for both lay-outs were similar.
This might be explained by the effect upscaling has on the lateral variability of the facies
distribution; since the coarse grid was used for this test, this could be a reasonable
explanation. It was therefore decided to opt for deviated and horizontal well paths
perpendicular to the principal flow direction to make optimal use of the higher
permeability of the (distributary) channels; for finer grids there should be a difference
between both lay-outs.
For each scenario two wells were placed in the external levees (e.g. two vertical ones in
the vertical well scenario, etc.), but this did not sweep them efficiently. Because external
29
levees contain a significant percentage of reservoir volume but are difficult to produce,
special simulation cases were run in which only the external levees were produced (last
row in Table 3.6). Deviated wells were chosen as they penetrate the vertically separated
reservoir layers (which horizontal wells cannot) and have longer contacts with the
reservoir than vertical wells. Water injection was chosen as the drive mechanism as this
was thought to be the most effective for oil-water two-phase flow in such deposits.
Figure 3.5 Plan view of vertical (above) and deviated (below) well-layout to the background of the lowest layer of
the geological model. The circles indicate surface well locations; black lines indicate well paths.
30
Figure 3.6 Plan view of horizontal (above) and external levee (below) well-layout to the background of the lowest
layer of the geological model. The circles indicate surface well locations; black lines indicate well paths.
Simulation constraints and targets are summarised in Appendix Table A. 7. Some

Eclipse100 keywords were adapted from their default settings to increase simulation run
speed (Appendix A. Data and methods).
All scenarios were run for twenty years with all wells producing from the start. This was
done to avoid complicated development strategies that vary per case and make
comparison of the results more difficult. In reality, a drilling campaign of up to five years
is more realistic, with each well being brought on-stream as soon as it has been
completed. A build-up to the plateau production thus occurs, which is not the case in the
simulations of this thesis.
31
4 Results
4.1 Facies modelling
One representative realisation of the geological model was chosen (seed number 20078)
for further modelling and is described in this section. It would be possible to rerun all
simulations with multiple realizations of the geological model, but time constraints
prevented this.
The stacked geological model (Figure 4.1, Figure 4.2, Figure 4.3, Figure 4.4 and Figure
4.5) shows the channel belt (channel and internal levees) realistically in the sense that it
captures both the correct geometrical features and the correct facies relationships and
ratios.
Figure 4.1 Realization of the geological model, which is used as the basis for all further models.
The external levees are geologically correct in the sense that they thin and fine away from
the channel and that they are more abundant downstream (Figure 4.2, Figure 4.3 and
Figure 4.5). They are connected to channel belt reservoir facies or to channel belt shale,
and downstream to the transition between channel belt and lobe system. Not all
connectivity to channel belt shale is very realistic, but is an artefact of modelling in
separate regions. The extent of the external levees away from the channel is
underestimated in the model to compensate for the exaggerated thickness. In reality the
beds can be as thin as 10cm whereas they are at least 1m in the model. This cannot be
changed with the current vertical grid size of 1m.
The distributary channels in the fan (Figure 4.1, Figure 4.2 and Figure 4.4) have a
geometric trend as a result of the combination of the source points in the training image
and the diverging polygon. They are slightly too wide compared with the upstream
channels, but their thickness is realistic. The connectivity between the distributary
channels is less than in the training image, which is caused by the multi-point facies
simulation process. However, because the channels are connected by (quite permeable)
32
lobe facies in between, this was deemed acceptable. Another inaccuracy is that the
distributary channels run along the entire length of the fan and are therefore oversized. A
lobe fringe facies, with finer and less permeable sediments than the general lobe deposits,
is absent because it could not be implemented in the workflow. The shale patches in the
fan have a slightly unrealistic shape and the entire fan does not look like it consists of
amalgamated lobes.
The modelled fan is not wide enough to depict an entire fan system and might be seen
more as a stacked lobe sequence relatively close to distal channelized deposits (pers.
comm. Hodgson, 2012).
Some general limitations of the geological model are that it is too symmetric, the
reservoir has the same thickness across the entire model and that neither topography nor
faults are present. The borders between the different modelling regions are vertical,
which is not realistic for such a depositional system. On the other hand, the conceptual
overall facies relationships, geometries and net-to-gross ratios are deemed to be
representative enough to allow for meaningful comparison between simulation cases.
33
Figure 4.2 Top view of single layers of the geological model. Top: topmost layer. Middle: layer 57. Bottom:
lowermost layer.
34
Figure 4.3 Geological model (channels, internal and external levees). Cross-section perpendicular to the
principal flow direction.
Figure 4.4 Geological model (distributary channels and lobes). Cross-section perpendicular to the principal flow
direction.
Figure 4.5 Geological model (external levees). Cross-section parallel to the principal flow direction. Above:
adjacent to the channel belt. Below: far from the channel belt.
35
4.2 Petrophysical modelling

The porosity and permeability models (Appendix B. Results) are not reproduced here,
because they are also included in the results of the upscaling process (see section 4.3).
The petrophysical models are based on the facies model and clearly retain the difference
between various facies (Appendix B, Figure B. 1). The ranges of porosity and
permeability are such that sometimes a facies type can have different porosity values but
more or less equal permeabilities or vice-versa. Some realizations of the porosity and
permeability model might thus show that the distributary channels are more porous or
permeable than the channels. If one assumes that the diagenetic processes for the entire
system are more or less the same, this is not very realistic. The geological model was thus
rerun until a realistic realization was found in which the channels are more permeable
than the distributary channels.
In the chosen realization the channels can be distinguished from the internal and external
levees, and the distributary channels from the lobe facies because they have higher
porosity and permeability values. The channel splays are also visible. The same holds for
the permeability models (Appendix B, Figure B. 2 and Figure B. 3). Comparing the
porosity and permeability models shows that their correlation was introduced by the cokriging process. The vertical permeability is lower than the horizontal permeability, as
intended. Both lateral and vertical porosity and permeability differences within single
facies reflect the systems inherent heterogeneity and are a result of the variogram ranges
(Appendix B, Figure B. 4 and Figure B. 5).
4.3 Upscaling
Upscaling information contained in 4.8 million cells to 160,000 or 600,000 cells
inevitably leads to a loss of information. The differences in net volume and unscaled pore
volume between the original and coarse upscaled grids are 1.4 and 3.3% respectively
(Table 4.1). The pore volume was rescaled as described in section 3.4.
Table 4.1 Net and unscaled pore volume per grid.
Grid
Original
Upscaled coarser
Upscaled finer
Net volume (106 m3)
5073
5144
5135
Unscaled pore volume (106 m3)
1354
1399
1385
Loss of body shape, connectivity along the distributary channels and slight rearrangement
of facies ratios are the most noticeable effects upscaling has on the geological model
(Figure 4.6, Figure 4.7 and Table 4.2). Channel-levee connectivity is exaggerated in the
channel belt. Loss of intra-channel connectivity occurs mainly in the distributary
channels, but they are not entirely connected in the original model either. The distributary
channels are however still connected to one another by the (less permeable) lobe facies.
Loss of information is worst for the external levees, which become narrower but also
thicker.
Naturally, the loss of information is higher in the coarse upscaled grid. Facies proportions
deviate most from the original model in the fan area where the lobe facies increase (more
36
than 8% in the coarse grid), mainly at the expense of the distributary channels. The
fraction of distal external levee facies becomes almost twice as small in the coarse
upscaled model. The proportion of floodplain facies (shale) does not vary much, which
implies an almost constant overall net-to-gross ratio prior to and after upscaling.
The porosity models lose extreme values and therefore heterogeneity during the
upscaling process (Figure 4.6 and Figure 4.8), which renders subsequent dynamic
modelling outcomes less representative of what could be expected in real fields.
Especially the external levees lose detail and on average their porosity is overestimated.
All upscaled permeability models contain overestimates (Figure 4.9, Figure 4.10 and
Figure 4.11). The difference is most noticeable for the permeability, meaning that fluid
baffles and barriers are greatly reduced. This is thought to have an important impact on
the dynamic modelling results.
To quantify the differences between the petrophysical models prior to and post upscaling,
histograms have been extracted from Petrel (Figure 4.12). They clearly show a change in
histogram shape with a decrease in lower and an increase in higher values. The mean
porosity does not change much: it has a value of 0.22, 0.23 and 0.23 for the original,
coarse upscaled and fine upscaled grids respectively. However, the difference between
the permeability means prior to and after upscaling is large: the horizontal permeability
means are 378, 913 and 709mD and the vertical permeability means 158, 191 and 195mD
for the original, coarse upscaled and fine upscaled grids respectively. It can be concluded
that the loss of information which significantly influences subsequent dynamic modelling
occurs mainly during upscaling of the permeability models.
Table 4.2 Facies percentages per grid.
Grid
Facies
Floodplain
Channel
Internal levees
External levee close to
channel belt
Lobe
External levee far from
channel belt
Lobe splays
Channel splays
Original
%
Upscaled coarser
%
Upscaled finer
%
24.12
3.11
4.68
2.31
23.83
3.12
4.82
2.30
24.35
3.10
4.64
2.27
48.46
13.74
2.06
56.67
7.67
1.08
52.38
10.56
1.62
1.23
0.28
0.30
0.22
0.84
0.25
37
Figure 4.6 Plan view of the effect of upscaling on the geological (left) and porosity (right) models. Top: original
model. Middle: coarse upscaled model. Bottom: fine upscaled model. The upscaled porosity is the scaled version
to correct for STOIIP differences.
38
Figure 4.7 Cross-sections perpendicular to the principal flow direction for the facies in the channel belt (top
three) and fan (lower three). For each the original model is at the top, the coarse upscaled version in the middle
and the fine upscaled version at the bottom.
39
Figure 4.8 Cross-sections perpendicular to the principal flow direction for the porosity in the channel belt (top
three) and fan (lower three). For each the original model is at the top, the coarse upscaled version in the middle
and the fine upscaled version at the bottom.
40
Figure 4.9 Plan view of the effect of upscaling on the horizontal (left) and vertical permeability (right) models.
Top: original model. Middle: coarse upscaled model. Bottom: fine upscaled model.
41
Figure 4.10 Cross-sections perpendicular to the principal flow direction for the horizontal permeability in the
channel belt (top three) and fan (lower three). For each the original model is at the top, the coarse upscaled
version in the middle and the fine upscaled version at the bottom.
42
Figure 4.11 Cross-sections perpendicular to the principal flow direction for the vertical permeability in the
channel belt (top three) and fan (lower three). For each the original model is at the top, the coarse upscaled
version in the middle and the fine upscaled version at the bottom.
43
Figure 4.12 Comparison between porosity (top), horizontal (middle) and vertical permeability (bottom)
histograms. Note the varying vertical axis ranges between the horizontal and vertical permeability histograms.
4.4 Dynamic modelling

In this section the 56 simulated cases are summarised and a comparison is made between
their most important results. Coarse-grid and fine-grid refer to the coarse and fine
upscaled grids respectively, not to the original model.
In Petrel a difference occurs between the static (950106 m3) and dynamic STOIIP,
probably due to the different oil formation volume factors that are used as input (see
section 3.5). The dynamic STOIIP also varies per simulation case with presence of gas,
grid size and shalyness of the reservoir (Table 4.3). The difference between static and
dynamic STOIIP for the reservoir filled entirely with oil is 3.8%. To make comparison
between absolute production volumes per case possible, it was decided to calculate the
recovery factor (RF) of each simulation case based on the STOIIP of the fine grid with a
sandy reservoir filled entirely with oil (Table 4.4). However, for completeness a table has
been added with the recovery factors calculated using each cases specific STOIIP (Table
4.5). The production rate, absolute cumulative production and production time varies per
case and has an influence on the economic viability of each scenario. The latter two are
given in Appendix Table B. 1 and Table B. 2.
Table 4.3 Dynamic STOIIP per simulation case (106 m3).
Drive mechanism
Coarse grid
Depletion
Water drive/injection & external levees
Gas cap
Sand
841.2
985.7
757.1
44
Fine grid
Shaly sand
736.0
862.5
662.4
Sand
841.6
986.1
756.1
Shaly sand
862.8
-
Table 4.4 Recovery factors (RF) in % for all simulated cases based on the dynamic STOIIP of the fine grid filled
with only oil. The cases with shaly sand and depletion or gas cap are simulated without an aquifer. Shaly sand
simulations were run without aquifer drive, except for the water drive scenario.
Recovery factors
(%)
Drive mechanism
Coarse grid
Fine grid
Sand
Well type
Vertical
Deviated
Horizontal
External levees
Depletion
Water drive
Water injection
(line)
Water injection
(5/9-spot)
Gas cap
Depletion
Water drive
Water injection
Gas cap
Depletion
Water drive
Water injection
Gas cap
Deviated, water
injection
Shaly
sand
No aquifer
drive
18.9
Aquifer
drive
29.5
5.6
Sand
32.8
17.5
11.5
31.1
39.4
15.6
19.8
25.5
29.9
4.3
41.8
16.6
26.3
18.6
30.3
4.5
39.1
15.4
6.8
26.5
Shaly
sand
No aquifer
drive
18.2
Aquifer
drive
25.7
12.4
31.2
37.7
14.6
18.1
12.8
35.0
15.3
15.3
18.9
17.2
11.9
33.2
14.4
0.1
17.6
38.5
16.1
34.0
14.7
3.4
22.1
27.0
14.0
23.2
26.7
13.3
23.4
32.3
28.6
3.4
Table 4.5 Recovery factors (RF) in % for all simulated cases. A * indicates recovery factors based on a total
STOIIP that is less for shaly sand (higher Swir) and depletion and gas cap drive (presence of gas volumes). Shaly
sand simulations were run without aquifer drive, except for the water drive scenario.
Well type
Vertical
Deviated
Horizontal
External
levees
Drive mechanism
Depletion
Water drive
Water injection
(line)
Water injection
(5/9-spot)
Gas cap
Depletion
Water drive
Water injection
Gas cap
Depletion
Water drive
Water injection
Gas cap
Deviated, water
injection
Coarse grid
Sand
No aquifer
drive
22.1*
Fine grid
Sand
Shaly
sand
Aquifer
drive
34.6*
5.6
32.8
23.4*
13.1*
35.6*
39.4
20.3*
23.2*
41.8
21.6*
21.8*
39.1
20.1*
6.8
33.2*
35.1*
4.3
34.2*
35.5*
4.5
34.6*
45
No aquifer
drive
21.4*
Shaly
sand
Aquifer
drive
30.1*
12.4
31.2
37.7
21.7*
24.2*
14.7*
40.0*
22.7*
23.0*
13.7*
38.0*
21.4*
0.1*
20.0*
22.2*
38.5
21.0*
20.6*
34.0
19.2*
3.4
28.9*
31.6*
14.0
30.3*
31.3*
13.3
30.5*
37.0*
32.7*
3.4*
4.4.1 Well type

Production from the modelled slope system is possible using vertical wells, resulting in
reasonable recovery factors (Table 4.4). Deviated wells have a larger contact surface with
the reservoir facies and result in higher recovery factors with fewer wells. Horizontal
wells generally produce well from the layers they are located in, but because of the low
vertical permeabilities they are expected to produce less than deviated wells. This is
largely true, although horizontal wells generally have a slightly better production than
deviated wells for depletion and gas cap combined with aquifer drive. This might be
attributed to the fact that deviated wells might have earlier water breakthrough because
they extend further down into the reservoir, and therefore have earlier water influx.
Some comments can be made on the different number of wells used per type (41 vertical,
40 deviated or 31 horizontal). The number of vertical wells chosen is too small to drain
the reservoir efficiently because their spacing is too large (sometimes up to 1,500 m).
Increasing the number of vertical wells is probably not cost effective and better
production can be achieved with a smaller number of deviated wells.
More deviated than horizontal wells were used for the simulations: 31 horizontal wells
could ideally produce 155,000 m3 a day, whereas 40 deviated wells could only produce
140,000 m3 at the used rates (Appendix Table A. 7). Still, deviated wells have a higher
recovery factor in almost all cases, indicating that they are better suited to producing this
type of reservoir. It has to be noted here that well rates have not been optimised.
4.4.2 Drive mechanism
4.4.2.1 Depletion and gas cap drive (live oil)
Depletion is not an efficient way to drain slope deposit reservoirs containing dead oil,
because the pressure drops too quickly below bubble-point pressure after only little
production. This happens with two or more wells already after a few years (these
simulations have not been added to the 56 cases). However, for a different reservoir fluid
consisting of relatively heavy oil and gas with a low bubble-point pressure, depletion
works much better. A reasonable percentage of the reservoir can be produced before the
pressure becomes so low that mainly gas is produced (Table 4.4).
Gas cap drive simulations result in more or less the same production curves as depletion
by dissolved gas, except that they have lower absolute production volumes because more
gas is coproduced from the start.
A significant increase in recovery factor is achieved for the depletion and gas cap cases
by adding aquifer drive (constant at 300 bar) to the scenario (Figure 4.13). The aquifer
allows production to continue for a longer period of time, because it maintains pressure
and thus enables continuous oil production. There is a sudden decrease in production rate
in all cases including an aquifer. This can be explained by a significant increase in gas
production per well because the reservoir pressure decreases, causing some wells to be
shut in. Production can continue, albeit more slowly, because the aquifer counteracts this
pressure decrease. The reservoir pressure stabilises after this point in time and even starts
increasing after a while with the gas-oil ratio decreasing again (Figure 4.14). Oil and gas
saturation plots (Figure 4.15) show that the aquifer in combination with depletion drive
provides a reasonable sweep of the downdip sections of the reservoir, but not so much in
the updip area. Interestingly, a gas pocket seems to form in the southern external levees
46
in the lowermost reservoir layers. This could be attributable to their heterogeneous

nature.
Figure 4.13 Comparison between cumulative production curves for depletion and gas cap drive (fine grid, sand)
without (above) and with aquifer (below).
47
Figure 4.14 Cumulative oil production, gas-oil ratio and reservoir pressure as a function of time (fine grid
depletion simulation in a sandy reservoir with aquifer drive and horizontal wells).
Figure 4.15 Oil (left) and gas (right) saturation after 20 years for the topmost (above) and lowermost (below)
layers (fine grid depletion with aquifer drive and horizontal wells in a sandy reservoir).
4.4.2.2 Aquifer drive (dead oil)

Water drive alone (constant at 300 bar) allows pressure maintenance in the reservoir
section closest to the aquifer, but the upslope regions cannot be produced because the
pressure front does not reach so far. This is why a smaller number of wells close to the
aquifer was used for these scenarios. A constant aquifer drive can result in a reasonably
48
efficient sweep front, although preferred fluid paths occur along the distributary channels
(Figure 4.16).
Figure 4.16 Example (the middle layer of the model is shown) of sweep efficiency expressed in oil saturation
after 20 years of production for the sandy fine grid water drive simulation with deviated wells. Only eight wells
close to the aquifer were used.
4.4.2.3 Water injection drive (dead oil)

Water injection gives the highest recovery factors and is therefore the best option to
maintain pressure throughout the reservoir for the entire project duration. Increased
injection rates are necessary towards the end of field life to maintain pressure.
Two types of vertical well lay-out were investigated for this scenario: a line-injection and
a combination of a 5- and 9-spot pattern (Figure 4.17). Many more injectors had to be
used to create a line injection pattern, which goes at the expense of the number of
producers. The 5-/9-spot combination has a significantly higher recovery factor (a
difference of 6.6%) because it allows for more producers and has a better sweep
efficiency. It has to be noted, however, that the number of vertical wells is too low to
produce the reservoir to its full potential (see section 4.4.1).
49
Figure 4.17 Sweep efficiency expressed in oil saturation after 20 years of production for the sandy fine grid
water injection simulations with vertical wells and line pattern (left) or 5-/9-spot pattern (right). Above: top
layer with well locations. Middle: middle layer. Below: lowermost layer.
For deviated and horizontal well scenarios a line injection pattern was chosen (Figure
4.18), because a 5-/9-spot combination was not possible with the current well placement.
Water injection with deviated wells gives the best recovery rates compared with vertical
and horizontal wells.
The change in sweep efficiency due to permeability differences per facies is clearly
visible in all simulated cases: the oil saturation is much lower in the channels than in the
surrounding facies after 20 years of production (Figure 4.17 and Figure 4.18). The sweep
of the lower layers is much better than of the upper ones. Porosity and/or permeability of
the lower layers are not more favourable for fluid flow, but the observation could be
attributed to fluid density differences between oil and water.
50
Figure 4.18 Sweep efficiency expressed in oil saturation after 20 years of production for the sandy fine grid
water injection simulations with deviated (left) or horizontal wells (right). Above: top layer with well locations.
Middle: middle layer. Below: lowermost layer.
4.4.3 Grid size

4.4.3.1 In general
From the summarising table (Table 4.4) it becomes clear that the coarse grid
overestimates the recovery factor compared with the fine grid. The most significant
difference occurs in the deviated and horizontal water injection simulations (3.3 and 5.1%
respectively). A comparison between the oil saturations and streamline simulations after
20 years of production for the deviated water injection cases clearly shows this (Figure
4.19 and Figure 4.20). Because the fine grid is also upscaled, it is likely that the original
geological model would have even lower recovery factors, which shows the importance
of good upscaling methods (see section 5). This is especially the case for slope systems,
whose volumes are so large that a difference of a few per cent in recovery factor
estimates can have an important impact on economic evaluations prior to decision
making.
Another problem in dealing with varying grid sizes is a difference in water break-through
times and water production rate profiles. This is most significant for the external levees
(Figure 4.21), because their properties are distorted most during upscaling.
51
Figure 4.19 Comparison between coarse (left) and fine grid (right) water injection in a sandy reservoir with
deviated wells. Above: top layer. Middle: middle layer. Below: lowermost layer.
A theory to explain the observed differences is that upscaling has an influence on how the
pressure is (re)distributed in the reservoir during production, which is visible as a lower
ultimate recovery factor. Finer grids result in more complex flow paths (closer to the
heterogeneity represented in the original geological model) and therefore slower
production. That possible fluid paths are more complex and have lower residual oil
saturations can be seen in the streamline simulation results for the simulation case with a
sandy reservoir and water injection with deviated wells (Figure 4.20). In the case of water
drive, however, the reservoir fluids have more time to readjust to the changing
circumstances. This is good for the ultimate recovery factor because a favourable
production pressure can be maintained for a higher number of years.
52
Figure 4.20 Oil saturation along streamlines for the coarse (above) and fine grid (below) sandy water injection
scenario with deviated wells after 20 years.
53
Figure 4.21 Difference in water breakthrough time and water cut for coarse (blue) and fine grid (red) sandy
external levee simulations (the fine-grid simulation stops early see section 4.4.3.2). The irregularities can be
explained by Petrel trying to adhere to production rates and water cut rules (i.e. time-varying production rates
and opening and closing of wells).
4.4.3.2 External levees

Field development with two deviated injectors and four producers on the coarse grid with
a sandy reservoir results in a 6.8% recovery factor after 20 year. However, the same
simulations on the fine grid cannot run for 20 years due to errors in residual water flow
equations. The reason for this remains unclear, but a possibility is that the well placement
is not ideal and that isolated grid cells are penetrated (Figure 4.22) which do not exist in
the coarser grid. The same problem occurs in all simulations including shaly sand (see
section 4.4.4), which might be caused by different pressure distributions during
production due to differences in residual water saturation.
Streamline simulations for the external levees show that fluid has to follow more tortuous
pathways in the fine grid because more heterogeneity is included in this grids models
(Figure 4.23). Interestingly, the use of streamlines does allow for the fine grid simulation
to run for 20 years, unlike the Eclipse100 simulations for this particular scenario. As the
input model is the same for both Eclipse100 and FrontSim, this might be attributed to the
difference in algorithms used by both simulators.
A general note on the simulation results for the external levees is that the geological
model has beds with a minimum thickness of 1 m, whereas in the upscaled coarser and
finer models this is 5m and 2m respectively. This minimum value is too high compared
with reality.
54
Figure 4.22 Example of difference in oil saturation after 7 years of production in the coarse (left) and fine grid
(right) simulations of sandy external levees. The displayed layer lies 20 m above the base of the reservoir. The
deviated wells are indicated as black lines. The two injector wells are the topmost and lowermost wells.
Figure 4.23 Oil saturation along streamlines after 20 years for the coarse (top) and fine (bottom) grid sandy
external levee simulation.
55
4.4.4 Residual water saturation

Scenarios with shaly sand have a lower recovery factor compared to those with sand,
which is most noticeable on the fine grid (38.5 vs. 32.3% recovery factor). The pressure
drop is less than in sandy reservoirs because shaly sand has higher residual water
saturations (Figure 4.24) and high production rates are thus more difficult to attain. For
this reason water drive, as the exception here, produces more than in the sandy scenarios.
The slower pressure drop allows for favourable redistribution of the pressure and hence
longer production.
Figure 4.24 Comparison between fine grid water injection (middle layer) with deviated wells for sand (above)
and shaly sand (below).
5 Discussion
A discussion is presented in this section on the limitations of the models and on gridding
issues. Subsequently a sensitivity analysis is carried out for the STOIIP and the recovery
factor for the best case. An economic evaluation of the best case is presented to indicate
the economic value of reservoirs described in this work.
5.1 Limitations
For both static and dynamic modelling, the model lay-out is symmetric and lacks faults
and paleotopography, which are heterogeneities that do exist in real-world fields.
Furthermore, in real fields with steeper tectonic dips gravity will be much more important
than is assumed here. Still, for comparative purposes a relatively simple model can be
clarifying. This is why a conceptual model was created and no real field was modelled.
56
5.1.1 Static models

A limitation regarding the facies and petrophysical models is the lack of vertical
heterogeneity within the (distributary) channel facies, but this would have been lost
anyway during upscaling. It does, however, become increasingly relevant with the use of
better upscaling techniques.
Another problem is the absence of lobe fringe facies, which makes it difficult to show
decreasing reservoir properties away from the main channel axis. However, this problem
was partly solved using ellipsoid variogram ranges for porosity and permeability
modelling, with the major axis in direction of flow.
Modelling of external levee thin beds remains an important problem. This is further
touched upon in section 5.1.3. One of the actions that were carried out to compensate for
the lack of heterogeneity in the external levees due to exaggerated thicknesses was to
decrease horizontal (and thus vertical) permeability. This leads to slower and more
difficult production in the simulations but is possibly easier in reality that is, if well
placement is reasonably on target.
5.1.2 Dynamic models
Neglecting capillary pressure to speed up simulations is a serious limitation of this work,
because in reality this parameter would lead to a decrease in recovery factor of possibly a
few per cent. However, while this exclusion mainly has an influence on the final NPV of
a project, it still allows for valid comparison between different simulation cases.
It is possible that a higher percentage of the reservoir could have been drained if a less
stringent water cut rule had been used during simulation (now the worst perforations
were already closed at a water cut of 0.3, with the entire well being shut in at 0.95)
As it is less realistic to use only BHP control, field and well production and injection
target rates were also implemented. Other rates could have been used, but the simulation
algorithm automatically lowers the production and injection rates if the targets cannot be
reached.
It should be noted that the reservoir was modelled based on the assumption that no
permeable layers lie directly below the reservoir, meaning that water inflow can only
occur at its downdip end. In reality it is possible that permeable water-bearing layers
underlie the reservoir. In that case, deviated well paths can be less favourable due to
increased chances of early water break-through.
Unlike water injection, gas injection was not investigated as a drive mechanism from the
point of view that it is expensive to have such facilities offshore and that gas transport to
the platform would be difficult. One could, however, envision a scenario where produced
gas is reinjected into the reservoir for pressure maintenance.
5.1.3 Grid size and upscaling
The grid chosen for this work is reasonable for most reservoir areas, but clearly not
optimal for capturing important heterogeneities in the external levees. Accurate
modelling of such deposits could be done by locally refining the grid, which is already
common practice in the industry to decrease the loss of information around wells.
However, this would still be quite complicated for external levees because the vertical
scale would have to be very small (about 0.2 m per grid cell), whereas the total facies
package is laterally very continuous and can be up to a hundred metres thick. As a result
57
the number of cells would still be much too large to maintain heterogeneities after
upscaling.
Apart from statistical upscaling, flow-based upscaling methods exist which are often used
for permeability. This was not done in this work, because the permeability had already
been split into three dimensions prior to upscaling. It was therefore deemed better to use
arithmetic averaging for the horizontal direction and harmonic for the vertical (as
indicated in the Petrel help documentation). A better solution still would be to use only
one permeability set for the original model and introduce arithmetic-harmonic flow-based
upscaling to account for the fact that upscaling should be carried out in three-dimensions.
Arithmetic averaging can then be used perpendicular to the flow direction (across cells)
and harmonic averaging along the flow direction (along cells).
Studies are devoted to optimising grid choice and subsequent upscaling, but as Schatz
(2006) mentions in her dissertation, these are often only applicable to specific cases. She
has tried to come up with a general work flow, which consists of identifying important
hydraulic units in reservoir models by using a numerical application of multi-phase flow
equations. Hydraulic units are regions most important to flow and are identified by
evaluation of equilibrium between gravitational and capillary forces. Based on the
hydraulic units identified, an optimal layering is chosen in which all less-relevant regions
are modelled with very coarse layering. According to Schatz (2006) this approach is
independent from and better than upscaling, because the sections most important to fluid
flow do not need to be upscaled. However, her test simulations were carried out on
smaller grids than are used in this work. For a slope reservoir with the size and geological
variability as discussed in this thesis, the hydraulic unit concept would be less applicable.
Still, Schatzs approach might be interesting to pursue in future research.
5.2 Uncertainty analyses

5.2.1 Influence of facies and porosity realisations on STOIIP calculations
To investigate the effect of having used only one realisation for the facies and porosity
models, a Monte Carlo uncertainty analysis was carried out in Petrel. Both the facies and
porosity models were varied by seed number, subsequently redefining the net-to-gross
model to implement in the STOIIP calculation. Only ten Monte-Carlo simulations were
run due to time constraints. The results are visible in Figure 5.1. The spread in STOIIP is
2% of 950106 m3, which seems an acceptable variance considering the small population.
Most simulations indicate slightly higher STOIIP values than the one used in this work
(maximum 1.8% above and 0.2% below 950106 m3). A cumulative distribution function
was added (Figure 5.1) to extract a P10, P50 and P90 value. The P50 is 958106m3,
indicating that the model realisation used in this thesis is conservative. However, because
of the low number of runs this conclusion should be treated with caution.
58
Figure 5.1 STOIIP frequency and cumulative distribution function for ten realisations of the facies and porosity
models. The P10 equals 952106m3, the P50 958106m3 and the P90 963106m3.
5.2.2 Influence of permeability realisations on recovery factor

The effect of using only one realisation of the permeability on the fields recovery factor
was evaluated by changing the seed number of the horizontal permeability model and
changing the vertical permeability accordingly in ten Monte Carlo simulations. The
dynamic simulations of the coarse-grid water injection with deviated wells were taken, as
it gives the quickest and best production results. The spread in cumulative production
after 20 years is quite low with a maximum of roughly 3106 m3, leading to a maximum
difference with the original coarse-grid recovery factor (41.8%) of 0.5%. This means that
if a reasonably accurate porosity model is used, the subsequently modelled permeability
does not have a very large influence on the final recovery factor. However, this
uncertainty analysis was carried out on the coarser grid; it is possible that the finer
simulation grid would result in a larger change of the recovery factor due to different
permeability realisations.
5.3 Economic evaluation

5.3.1 Water injection with deviated wells
Two economic evaluations were carried out to give an indication of the investment return
potential for deep-marine slope reservoirs. A fine-grid simulation was chosen, as this grid
is more realistic. The scenario involving water injection with deviated wells and a sandy
reservoir was selected because it has the highest simulated recovery factor.
59
All wells produce immediately from the start of the simulation (i.e. no start-up phase),
which is not realistic. In the economic evaluation this was circumvented by implementing
a five-year drilling campaign with all wells starting up together in year 6, which allows
for direct use of the simulated rates. This method will underestimate the projects value,
which is deemed better than to overestimate it.
Standard economic equations were used (Equation 2 and Equation 3) with more
optimistic and more conservative input parameters (Table 5.1).
Equation 2
Equation 3
With Fk the annual cash flow in year k, R the revenues, E the expenses, po the oil price, N
the annual production, O the OPEX, C the CAPEX, rR the royalty rate, TR the tax rate and
Ibt,k the income before tax with D the depreciation function over a number of K years. A
discount factor (Rdisc) was introduced to account for the value of the sum of money if
spent on other investments. This factor was used to discount the annual cash flow as
displayed in Equation 4, with Sdisc the discounted cash flow, S the money invested in year
0, Salt the value in year n from an alternative investment of S and n the number of years.
((
Equation 4
Table 5.1 Overview of input parameters for the economic evaluation.
Parameter
Oil price
Water production/injection price
Platform costs
Deviated well cost
Fixed OPEX
Variable OPEX
Royalty rate
Tax rate
Discount factor
Days per year
English units Metric units

More optimistic
80 $/bbl
503.18 $/m3
2 $/bbl
12.58 $/m3
500 M$ x2
30 M$
0.03
2 $/bbl
12.58 $/m3
30%
65%
0.12
365
English units Metric units

More conservative
60 $/bbl
377.39 $/m3
2 $/bbl
12.58 $/m3
750 M$ x2
75 M$
0.03
2 $/bbl
12.58 $/m3
30%
65%
0.12
365
For the depreciation function a linear function over five years was taken. The net present
value (NPV) of the project after 25 years would be 8656 M$ and 4025 M$ for the more
optimistic and more conservative scenarios respectively (Figure 5.2 and Figure 5.3).
Maximum exposure would occur in year 5 (-1633 M$ and -3342 M$ respectively). The
maximum exposure would be lower and reached sooner if a phased onset of production
from year 1 onwards would be implemented. The slowing rate of increasing cash flow in
later years is partly due to increased water production, but also to the discount factor:
revenues in later years are less valuable than in early years. Attention could be devoted to
enhanced oil recovery at a later stage of field life.
60
The results of the two economic scenarios differ reasonably much in absolute value, but
indicate that slope reservoirs can be very profitable.
Cumulative discounted cash flow

10000
8000
6000
4000
Cash (M$)
Cumulative
discounted
cash flow
2000
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415 161718192021 22232425
-2000
-4000
Time (y)
Figure 5.2 Cumulative discounted cash flow for the fine-grid sandy deviated water injection scenario with more
optimistic input parameters. NPV after 25 years is 8656 M$.
Cumulative discounted cash flow

5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
Cash (M$)
0
-1000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415 161718192021 22232425
Cumulative
discounted
cash flow
-2000
-3000
-4000
Time (y)
Figure 5.3 Cumulative discounted cash flow for the fine-grid sandy deviated water injection scenario with more
conservative input parameters. NPV after 25 years is 4025 M$.
5.3.2 External levee development

The idea of placing six extra wells in the external levees is evaluated in this section. The
external levee simulations did not work properly, except for the coarse grid sandy case
(6.8% RF). Production should come mainly from the external levees, but in layers where
61
they are well-connected to very permeable channel sands, these channels contribute
greatly to the 6.8%. It is not possible to see exactly which volume of the total STOIIP
belongs to the external levees, but a rough estimate can be given based on the external
levee percentages in the geological models and their average porosity. Based on this,
around 1% of the total STOIIP can be produced from the external levees, amounting to
almost 10106 m3 (hence the largest part of the simulated 6.8% comes from the channels,
even more so because the levees are not drained entirely in the simulation). Only 1% of
the total STOIIP does not seem like much, but because slope systems are so large and this
thesis has only modelled a section of a slope system (i.e. distal channels and proximal
lobes), volume-wise the external levees could indeed be worth the investment. This was
investigated with a small economic evaluation: if the six proposed wells were to produce
at least 6% of the total external levee volume (here 0.6 106 m3), the investment would be
worthwhile in the scenario with more optimistic input parameters (based on a rough cash
flow calculation with all production occurring in one year, including royalty and tax
rates). In the more conservative scenario this would be the case if more than 1.9% of the
total external levee volume were to be produced (here 1.9 106 m3). The choice whether
extra effort is made to produce the external levees is therefore dependent on the economic
circumstances for specific field development projects. An important additional comment
here is that because detailed modelling of the external levee deposits is difficult, well
placement is a complicated task. If not placed correctly, wells might not penetrate the
target beds and be uneconomic after all.
6 Conclusions and recommendations

6.1 General conclusions
It has been shown that without seismic and well logs, a simple conceptual facies model of
stacked deep-marine slope deposits can be made by using different stochastic techniques
for separate reservoir sections. There is, however, still room for improvement.
Conclusions are that:
object-based modelling is most suitable for the channel belt
truncated Gaussian simulation is a good method to model the external levees as it
allows for lateral continuation in finer and thinner facies
multi-point facies simulation can produce fan areas with enough accuracy for
fluid simulations, but object-based modelling with (still-to-be-created)
distributary channel/lobe bodies would be better
population of the model with petrophysical properties is easy with Gaussian
random function simulation
upscaling is an important problem and has the highest impact on external levees,
which belong to the most heterogeneous reservoir areas
Fluid flow simulations in the created reservoir model showed the impact of different
upscaled grids, production mechanisms, well types and rock properties on the recovery
factor:
62
the finer upscaled grid logically retained more heterogeneities compared to the
coarser one, leading to lower recovery factors in the simulations. This once again
points out the importance of sound gridding and upscaling techniques.
both depletion and gas cap drive reservoirs are enhanced significantly by aquifer
influx
aquifer drive alone is not adequate to produce also the upslope reservoir sections
water injection with a line pattern significantly increases recovery factors in deepmarine slope reservoirs (except for vertical wells, where a 5-/9-spot combination
is better)
deviated wells are preferred over vertical and horizontal wells, due to their larger
contact area with the reservoir compared with the former and their ability to deal
better with vertical heterogeneity compared with the latter
well orientation should be perpendicular to the principal flow direction to make
optimal use of the fact that there is less permeability variation parallel to the
principal flow direction
parts of the external levees can be produced by using deviated injector and
producer wells parallel to the channel belt, with the injected water pushing the oil
towards the channel belt.
more conservative saturation and relative permeability functions lead to a
significant decrease in recovery factor, especially on the fine grid. This stresses
the importance of investing time in finding correct saturation functions in real
fields.
The findings in this thesis could be used to enhance real-world field models and
development plans. All conclusions are given with the side note that in real fields they
might have to be adapted to specific circumstances (e.g. choose a different well lay-out
due to stress fields and/or bedding dips altered by tectonics).
6.2 Optimal field development scenario

An ideal production scenario for deep-marine slope reservoirs would encompass both
aquifer (water) drive (if present) for the downslope reservoir sections and water injection
for the upslope parts.
If the fluid in the reservoir is live oil, three-phase flow occurs. In the first years use could
be made of depletion or gas cap drive, depending on whether the gas is entirely dissolved
in the oil or already present as a separate phase. Subsequently, water injection could be
implemented to keep the pressure in the reservoir high enough so that not only gas is
produced but also enough oil. Producers closer to the aquifer should be put in operation
first, afterwards converting them to injectors and moving in an up-dip direction to create
a better sweep. Alternatively, water injection from the start could increase production
already in the first years, which could be economically preferable in certain cases.
It is best to use deviated wells for slope system reservoirs because vertical ones are not
efficient enough and horizontal wells cannot adequately deal with the systems vertical
permeability barriers. However, well paths should be close to horizontal near the aquifer
to prevent early water break-through. For the same reasons, well paths should also be
more horizontal if there are water-bearing permeable layers directly underlying the
reservoir. In case of a gas cap, well perforations in the upper section of the reservoir
63
should be designed such that gas coning is prevented. Wells should be oriented
perpendicular to the principal paleoflow direction to make optimal use of the
permeability, which shows less variance in the principal paleoflow direction. The water
injection pattern should be linear if deviated wells are used, but this can depend on the
field in question.
The recovery factor could be further enhanced by adding several deviated producers and
injectors in the external levees, parallel to the channel belt. Wells penetrating the entire
reservoir interval would be most useful, because then all main external levee beds should
be covered. The chance of good well placement is better closer to the channel belt. Water
injectors should not be placed too far from the channels to avoid missing entire beds.
It would be necessary to use two production platforms to accommodate the large number
of wells. Their locations should be above the channel-levees and above the lobes
respectively and chosen such that inefficient well length is minimised.
6.3 Recommendations
Although the general modelling workflow can be applied to real-world fields, some
features of the geological model can be altered to improve its overall realism.
More thought can be given to the division of the model in geologically more realistic
regions (e.g. including valley cuts). Part of this should be constrained by available
seismic data.
A vertical trend could be implemented in the (distributary) channel facies to allow for
vertical variability in subsequent petrophysical modelling.
The fan region could be modelled using only object-based source-point fluvial channel
modelling combined with flow line polygons to ensure a more representative distributary
channel pattern and better connectivity. However, this would not prevent the channels
from running along the entire length of the fan, unless the fan would be subdivided into
more regions: one region for the more proximal deposits and a second for the more distal
ones. Lobe fringe facies could still not be modelled with his method. It would therefore
be a better idea to invest more time in the creation of a standard lobe-with-distributarychannel object for object-based modelling. Another option is to create a better training
image and continue using multi-point facies simulation. Furthermore, implementation of
process-based models in the modelling work flow could be investigated, as they may
accurately reproduce a fan consisting of interconnected lobe facies.
More attention could be devoted to optimising the lateral ranges of the petrophysical
variograms, instead of keeping them the same for each reservoir facies. Directional flow
trends could be added to further enhance geological realism. Permeability should be
upscaled using flow-based averaging with both arithmetic and harmonic averaging.
Regarding all modelling steps, it should be kept in mind that for real fields seismic and
well log data exist which can aid and constrain the models much better.
Dynamic modelling could be improved by using production data, also from other
comparable reservoirs in the area.
Future research could focus on modelling the most heterogeneous sections (e.g. external
levees) in more detail using different grid sizes and upscaling techniques, possibly
encompassing the hydraulic unit concept.
64
Acknowledgements
I would like to take the opportunity here to thank the people who have contributed to or
facilitated work on my thesis. First and foremost, I would like to thank Prof.dr.ir. J.D.
Jansen and Prof.dr. S.M. Luthi for being inspiring tutors in spite of their very busy
schedules. If I arrived at their offices slightly depressed with results I had achieved so far,
they would always point out the positive side of these results. Prof.dr. Bill Rossen and
Dr. Rick Donselaar are thanked for completing my graduation committee and for
investing their time to read this thesis and share their professional discussions afterwards.
I would like to thank Mr. Tiago Agne for sharing data and insights into deepwater
reservoir properties. Many thanks also go out to Mr. Jeroen van der Vaart and Mr.
Maurizio Mastrolorenzo, both from Schlumberger, who have helped me understanding
the possibilities of Petrel for advanced geological modelling and were always interested
in my proceedings. I thank Schlumberger for providing the Petrel and Eclipse software.
Thanks to Kevin Bisdoms and Rahul Mark-Fonsecas help with my specific Eclipse
questions, the speed of the static modelling and flow simulations was improved.
Thanks go out to the Thesis Factory; all good people sharing the same graduation
problems/fun/drinks/laughs during the past nine months. Jolle Langeveld, my
housemates and Koen van Toorenenburg were always there to take my mind off my
thesis when I needed it many thanks to them.
Bibliography
Arnott, R.W.C. (2007) Stratal architecture and origin of lateral accretion deposits (LADs) and
conterminuous inner-bank levee deposits in a base-of-slope sinuous channel, lower Isaac Formation
(Neoproterozoic), East-Central British Columbia, Canada. Marine and Petroleum Geology 24, p. 515-528
Beaubouef, R.T. (2004) Deep-water leveed-channel complexes of the Cerro Toro Formation, Upper
Cretaceous, southern Chile. AAPG Bulletin, v. 88, no. 11, p. 1471-1500
Camargo, R.M.T., Gonalves, M.A.L., Montesanti, J.R.T., Cardoso, C.A.B.R., and Minami, K. (2004)
A Perspective View of Flow Assurance in Deepwater Fields in Brazil. OTC 16687
Carvalho, N.A., Lazary, J., Pinheiro, N., Mengel, F., and Weinheber, P. (2009) Evaluation of Reservoir
Connectivity of Gimboa Field, Deepwater West Africa. OTC 19909
Cronin, B.T., Hurst, A., Celik, H. and Trkmen, I. (2000) Superb exposure of a channel, levee and
overbank complex in an ancient deep-water slope environment. Sedimentary Geology 132, p. 205-216
De Jager, G., Van Doren, J.F.M., Jansen, J.D., and Luthi, S.M. (2009) An evaluation of relevant
geological parameters for predicting the flow behaviour of channelized reservoirs. Petroleum Geoscience,
v. 15, p. 345-354
Duhot, J.F. (2000) The Deep Offshore off the coast of West Africa. WPC 30153, p. 269-272
Flint, S.S., Hodgson, D.M., Sprague, A.R., Brunt, R.L., Van der Merwe, W.C., Figueiredo, J., Prlat,
A., Box, D., Di Celma, C., and Kavanagh, J.P. (2011) Depositional architecture and sequence
stratigraphy of the Karoo basin floor to shelf edge succession, Laingsburg depocentre, South Africa.
Marine and Petroleum Geology 28, p. 658-674
Galloway, W.E., and Hobday, D.K. (1996) Slope and base-of-slope systems. In: Galloway, W.E., and
Hobday, D.K. (eds.). Terrigenous clastic depositional systems: applications to fossil fuel and groundwater
resources, p.186-206, Springer, Berlin
Hickson, T.A., and Lowe, D.R. (2002) Facies architecture of a submarine fan channel-levee complex: the
Juniper Ridge Conglomerate, Coalinga, California. Sedimentology 49, p. 335-362
Hodgson, D.M., Di Celma, C.N., Brunt, R.L., and Flint, S.S. (2011) Submarine slope degradation and
aggradation and the stratigraphic evolution of channel-levee systems. Journal of the Geological Society, v.
168, p. 625-628
65
Kane, I.A., Kneller, B.C., Dykstra, M., Kassem, A. and McCaffrey, W.D. (2007) Anatomy of a
submarine channel-levee: An example from Upper Cretaceous slope sediments, Rosario Formation, Baja
California, Mexico. Marine and Petroleum Geology 24, p. 540-563
Kane, I.A., Dykstra, M.L., Kneller, B.C., Tremblay, S., and McCaffrey, W.D. (2009) Architecture of a
coarse-grained channel-leve system: the Rosario Formation, Baja California, Mexico. Sedimentology 56,
p. 2207-2234
Kane, I.A., and Hodgson, D.M. (2011) Sedimentological criteria to differentiate submarine channel levee
subenvironments: Exhumed examples from the Rosario Fm. (Upper Cretaceous) of Baja California,
Mexico, and the Fort Brown Fm. (Permian), Karoo Basin, S. Africa. Marine and Petroleum Geology 28, p.
807-823
Khan, Z.A., and Arnott, R.W.C. (2011) Stratal attributes and evolution of asymmetric inner- and outerbend levee deposits associated with an ancient deep-water channel-levee complex within the Isaac
Formation, southern Canada. Marine and Petroleum Geology 28, p. 824-842
Luthi, S.M., Hodgson, D.M., Geel, C.R., Flint, S.S., Goedbloed, J.W., Drinkwater, N.J., and
Johannessen, E.P. (2006) Contribution of research borehole data to modelling fine-grained turbidite
reservoir analogues, Permian Tanqua-Karoo basin-floor fans (South Africa). Petroleum Geoscience, v. 12,
p. 175-190
Manzocchi, T., Matthews, J.D., Strand, J.A., Carter, J.N., Skorstad, A., Howell, J.A., Stephen, K.A.,
and Walsh, J.J. (2008) A study of the structural controls on oil recovery from shallow-marine reservoirs.
Petroleum Geoscience, v. 14, p. 55-70
Nakajima, T., Satoh, M., and Okamura, Y. (1998) Channel-levee complexes, terminal deep-sea fan and
sediment wave fields associated with the Toyama Deep-Sea Channel system in the Japan Sea. Marine
Geology 147, p. 25-41
Nivlet, P., Lefeuvre, F., and Piazza, J.L. (2007) 3D Seismic Constraint Definition in Deep-Offshore
Turbidite Reservoir. Oil & Gas Science and Technology Rev. IFP, vol. 62, no. 2, p. 249-264
Pratson, L.F., and Haxby, W.F. (1996) What is the slope of the U.S. continental slope? Geology 24, p. 36
Richards, M., Bowman, M., and Reading, H. (1998) Submarine-fan systems I: characterization and
stratigraphic prediction. Marine and Petroleum Geology 15, p. 689-717
Richards, M., and Bowman, M. (1998) Submarine fans and related depositional systems II: variability in
reservoir architecture and wireline log character. Marine and Petroleum Geology 15, p. 821-839
Samuel, A., Kneller, B., Raslan, S., Sharp, A., and Parsons, C. (2003) Prolific deep-marine slope
channels of the Nile Delta, Egypt. AAPG Bulletin, v. 87, no. 4, p. 541-560
Schatz, B.M. (2006) Flow Based Determination of Hydraulic Units (dissertation). Montanuniversitt
Leoben, pp. 244
Skorstad, A., Kolbjrnsen, O., Manzocchi, T., Carter, J.N., and Howell, J.A. (2008) Combined effects
of structural, stratigraphic and well controls on production variability in faulted shallow-marine reservoirs.
Petroleum Geoscience, v. 14, p. 45-54
Stephen, K.D., Yang, C., Carter, J.N., Howell, J.A., Manzocchi, T., and Skorstad, A. (2008) Upscaling
uncertainty analysis in a shallow-marine environment. Petroleum Geoscience, v. 14, p. 71-84
Van Toorenenburg, K.A. (2012) Building and Evaluating Borehole-Image-Constrained Facies Models of
a Complex Channelised Slope System, Karoo Basin, South Africa. Master thesis. TU Delft.
Yang, T., Mengel, F., Lannotta, A., Lazary, J., and Mouzinho, E. (2009) Modelling of Complex Fluid
Systems in Gimboa Field Block 4: An Offshore Field in Angola With Biodegraded Heavy Oils. SPE
124609
Zakarian, E., and Larrey, D. (2007) A systematic Investigation of Girassol Deepwater Field Operational
Data to Increase Confidence in Multiphase Simulation. IPTC 11379, p.1-9
66
Appendix
A. Data and methods
Table A. 1 Reservoir-bounding horizon specifics (no changes occur in the Y-direction)
Horizon 1
Horizon 2
(X,Z)min (m)
(0, -2473.7)
(0, -2573.7)
(X,Z)max (m)
(15000, -2797.5)
(15000, -2897.5)
Table A. 2 Slope-constraining well locations
Well
1
2
3
4
5
6
X (m)
1000
3500
7000
14000
11000
11000
Y (m)
4000
4000
4000
4000
7500
500
Z (m)
-2500
-2562.5
-2650
-2781.3
-2725
-2725
Code for the creation of the geological model regions

Geometry_region2=if(Y<3250+100sin(0.2X),1,2)
Geometry_region2=if(Y<1750+100sin(0.2X),0,Geometry_region2)
Geometry_region2=if(Y<4750+100sin(0.2X),3,Geometry_region2)
Geometry_region2=if(Y>6250+100sin(0.2X),0,Geometry_region2)
Geometry_region3=if((X-5000)>0.02(Y-4000)2,4,Geometrey_region2)
Geometry_region3=if((X-15000)>-0.017(Y-4000)2,5,Geometry_region3)
Geometry_region4=if(Y>7700 or Y<300,6,Geometry_region3)
Geometry_region5=if(Y<(33000.000075x2)orY>(4800+0.00006x2),7,Geometry_region4)
67
Table A. 3 Input for object-based modelling of the channel and internal levee facies. Layer tolerance is set at 2
(maximum number of layers a channel top may cross). Floodplain is used as background. Deltaic/alluvial fans
represent channel splays and are inserted only in internal levee facies. Levee roughness indicates the variability
in width and thickness and is kept at the Petrel default.
Channels
Levees
1 Adaptive
channels
(25%)
2 Deltaic/
alluvial fan
(5%)
3 Adaptive
channels
(25%)
4 Adaptive
channels
(30%)
Roughness
Min
Mean
Max
Distribution
Orientation
89
90
91
Triangular
Amplitude
800
900
1000
Triangular
Wavelength
1000
1500
2000
Triangular
Relative sinuosity
0.2
0.3
0.4
Triangular
Width (relative to channel)
0.2
1.1
1.2
1.4
Triangular
Thickness (relative to channel)
0.2
0.5
0.7
0.9
Triangular
Width
50
100
150
Triangular
Thickness
10
13
Triangular
Orientation
180
Uniform
Minor width
400
500
600
Triangular
Maj/Min ratio
0.8
1.2
Triangular
Thickness
Deterministic
Width
100
150
200
Triangular
Thickness
10
13
16
Triangular
Width
150
200
250
Triangular
Thickness
13
16
20
Triangular
68
Table A. 4 Input for training image. The realisation with seed number 25754 has been used. The background is
set as floodplain. Deltaic/alluvial fans represent lobe splays and are only inserted into lobe facies.
Levees
1 Fluvial channels (25%)
2 Deltaic/ alluvial fan

(5%)
Drift
Min
Mean
Max
Distribution
Orientation
0.2
40
140
Uniform
Amplitude
0.2
100
200
300
Triangular
Wavelength
0.2
1000
1500
2000
Triangular
Width (relative to channel)
0.2
1.2
1.4
1.6
Triangular
Thickness (relative to
channel)
0.2
Deterministic
Width
0.2
150
200
250
Triangular
Thickness
0.2
10
15
20
Triangular
Orientation
180
Uniform
Minor width
150
200
250
Triangular
Maj/Min ratio
0.8
1.2
Triangular
Thickness
Triangular
Width
0.2
200
250
300
Triangular
Thickness
0.2
15
21
30
Triangular
Width
0.2
300
350
400
Triangular
Thickness
0.2
21
27
30
Triangular
69
Figure A. 1 Rotation polygon to further detail the distributary channels. The colours indicate directions in
degrees.
Code for assigning vertical permeability ratios

If(facies=0,0,ki)
If(facies=1,kk=0.6*ki,ki)
Code for creating a facies-based net-to-gross model
If(facies=0,0,NG)
If(facies=1,1,NG)
If(facies=2,1,NG)
If(facies=3,1,NG)
If(facies=4,1,NG)
If(facies=5,1,NG)
If(facies=6,1,NG)
If(facies=7,1,NG)
If(facies=8,1,NG)
70
Table A. 5 Fluid model input. Pmin = minimum pressure, Pmax = maximum pressure, Pref = reference or
reservoir pressure, T = reservoir temperature, x = density of fluid x, Pb = bubble-point pressure,
GOR = gas-oil ratio.
Pmin
Pmax
Pref
T
gas
oil
water
Pb
Solution GOR
Salinity
Dead oil
80 bar
350 bar
290 bar
76.85 C
0.8117 kg/m3
875.3 kg/m3
1020.3 kg/m3
80 bar
32.8 m3/m3
30000 ppm
Oil and gas

80 bar
350 bar
290 bar
76.85 C
0.8117 kg/m3
897.5 kg/m3
1020.3 kg/m3
120 bar
46.5 m3/m3
30000 ppm
0.6636 sg air
30 dAPI
0.6636 sg air
26 dAPI
Table A. 6 Rock physics function input. Swmin = minimum water saturation, Somax = maximum oil saturation, Swcr
= critical water saturation, Sgcr = critical gas saturation, Sorg = residual oil saturation to gas, Sorw = residual oil
saturation to water, Krw = relative permeability of water, Kro = relative permeability of oil, Krg = relative
permeability of gas and Corey x the Corey fluid exponents of fluid x.
Sand two-phase
Sgcr
Corey Gas
Krg@Swmin
Krg@Sorg
Sorw
Sorg
Corey O/W
Corey O/G
Kro@Somax
0.2
3
0.9
Swmin
Swcr
Corey Water
Krw@Sorw
Krw@S=1
0.2
0.22
4
0.8
1
Sand three-phase
Sgcr
Corey Gas
Krg@Swmin
Krg@Sorg
0.05
6
0.9
0.8
Sorw
Sorg
Corey O/W
Corey O/G
Kro@Somax
0.2
0.2
3
3
0.9
Swmin
Swcr
Corey Water
Krw@Sorw
Krw@S=1
0.2
0.22
4
0.8
1
Shaly sand two-phase

Sgcr
Corey Gas
Krg@Swmin
Krg@Sorg
Sorw
Sorg
Corey O/W
Corey O/G
Kro@Somax
0.25
3
0.8
Swmin
Swcr
Corey Water
Krw@Sorw
Krw@S=1
0.3
0.35
4
0.7
1
Shaly sand three-phase

Sgcr
Corey Gas
Krg@Swmin
Krg@Sorg
0.1
6
0.8
0.7
Sorw
Sorg
Corey O/W
Corey O/G
Kro@Somax
0.25
0.25
3
3
0.8
Swmin
Swcr
Corey Water
Krw@Sorw
Krw@S=1
0.3
0.35
4
0.7
1
71
Table A. 7 Base case simulation constraints. All scenarios are run with a water cut restriction of 0.3 (shut worst
perforations) and 0.95 (close well) where applicable. BHP of injectors is set at 290 bar. Vert = vertical, dev =
deviated, hor = horizontal, inj = injection. All open holes are 12 inch in diameter (30.48cm).
Scenario
Wells
Depletion vert
Depletion dev
Depletion hor
Water drive
vert
Water drive
dev
Water drive
hor
Water inj vert
(line)
Water inj (5/9spot)
Water inj dev
Water inj hor
Gas cap vert
Gas cap dev
Gas cap hor
Ext levees (dev
+ inj)
41
40
31
10
Well rates (inj. vs.

prod.) (m3/day)
2500
3500
5000
2500
Target field rate (inj. vs.

prod.) (m3/day)
102500
140000
155000
25000
BHP limits
(bar)
100
100
100
85
3500
28000
85
5000
30000
85
41 (21 inj, 20
prod)
41 (14 inj, 27
prod)
40 (18 inj, 22
prod)
31 (13 inj, 18
prod)
41
40
31
6 (2 inj, 4
prod)
10000 vs. 2500
210000 vs. 50000
85
10000 vs. 2500
140000 vs. 67500
85
7000 vs. 3500
126000 vs. 77000
85
10000 vs. 5000
130000 vs. 90000
85
2500
3500
5000
3500
102500
140000
155000
21000
100
100
100
85
Altered Eclipse keywords

RUNSPEC NSTACK
-75/
SCHEDULE MESSAGES
6* 100000/
SCHEDULE TUNING
0.1 30 0.1/
/
12 1 200 1* 250
72
B. Results
Figure B. 1 Plan view of the topmost (above) and lowermost (below) layers of the porosity model.
73
Figure B. 2 Plan view of the topmost (above) and lowermost (below) layers of the permeability model in
directions i and j.
74
Figure B. 3 Plan view of the topmost (above) and lowermost (below) layers of the permeability model in
direction k.
75
Figure B. 4 Heterogeneity in the channels, internal and external levees perpendicular to the main flow direction.
Above: porosity. Middle: permeability in i- and j-directions. Below: permeability in k-direction. The crosssection is the same as in Figure 4.3.
76
Figure B. 5 Heterogeneity in the fan perpendicular to the main flow direction. Above: porosity. Middle:
permeability in i- and j-directions. Below: permeability in k-direction. The cross-section is the same as in Figure
4.4.
77
Table B. 1 Cumulative production per simulation case (106 m3). Shaly sand simulations were run without
aquifer drive, except for the water drive scenario.
Well type
Drive
mechanism
Coarse grid
Fine grid
Sand
Vertical
Deviated
Horizontal
External
levees
Depletion
Water drive
Water injection
(line)
Water injection
(5/9-spot)
Gas cap
Depletion
Water drive
Water injection
Gas cap
Depletion
Water drive
Water injection
Gas cap
Deviated, water
injection
Shaly
sand
No aquifer
drive
185.9
Aquifer
drive
291.0
54.9
Sand
323.5
172.2
113.3
306.8
388.6
153.7
194.8
411.9
163.7
183.3
386.0
152.3
66.6
251.2
294.9
42.6
259.1
299.0
44.4
261.8
Shaly
sand
No aquifer
drive
179.7
Aquifer
drive
253.6
122.3
307.8
372.1
143.5
178.2
126.6
344.9
150.5
169.3
117.8
327.7
141.8
0.5
151.0
186.8
380.1
158.6
173.1
335.7
145.4
33.4
218.4
266.3
138.4
318.9
282.4
33.4
229.1
263.2
131.1
230.3
Table B. 2 Number of years to attain the absolute cumulative production. Shaly sand simulations were run
without aquifer drive, except for the water drive scenario.
Well type
Vertical
Deviated
Horizontal
External
levees
Drive mechanism
Depletion
Water drive
Water injection
(line)
Water injection
(5/9-spot)
Gas cap
Depletion
Water drive
Water injection
Gas cap
Depletion
Water drive
Water injection
Gas cap
Deviated, water
injection
Coarse grid
Sand
No aquifer
drive
6
Fine grid
Sand
Shaly
sand
Aquifer
drive
Shaly sand
No aquifer
drive
20
2
Aquifer
drive
20
20
20
20
20
6
5
20
20
4
4
20
20
4
<<1
6
5
7
5
20
20
1
20
6
4
20
20
1
20
5
20
20
78
20
4
5
20
4
7
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
6.5
C. Work flow
An overview of the sequential modelling steps applied in this thesis is given below.
Make simple 3D grid
Insert horizon-constraining wells
Make well tops
Make horizons
Make layering
Make regions (property calculator)
Facies modelling
Petrophysical modelling:
Porosity model
Permeability model (I)
Permeability model (J: set equal to I with property calculator)
Permeability model (K: with property calculator based on I)
Net-to-gross model (0=shale, 1=rest)
Make OWC/GOC
Volume calculation (static STOIIP)
Upscaling:
Scale up grid
Scale up properties (recreate only the net-to-gross model with the property
calculator)
Make fluid models
Make saturation functions
Make rock physics function
Make aquifers per grid
Make production and injection wells
Make development strategies
Make simulation scenarios
Make uncertainty analyses
D. Time allocation
Literature study and initial single
channel-lobe model (both static
and dynamic)*
Static modelling
Dynamic modelling
Economic and uncertainty analysis
Report writing
Presentation
Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug

x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
*First a simple geological model of one single channel and one single lobe was modelled
in Petrel by means of object-based modelling. Because Petrel cannot model a channel and
lobe that are always connected with the lobe downstream of the channel, facies
realisations had to be repeated until the right configuration appeared by coincidence. The
79
external levees and distributary channels were manually painted on the model. This is a
cumbersome method and not useful for the more complicated and stacked type of slope
deposits, which were the ultimate study object. However, this model was used to get a
feeling for the petrophysical and dynamic modelling possibilities in Petrel.
The single channel/lobe model (Figure D. 1) is conceptually correct, except that the lobe
dimensions are too small compared with the channel belt and the internal and external
levees too wide. The deeper deposits are coarser-grained, which is realistic.
Figure D. 1 First simple model.
80

Thesis Louise Meijer - Final Version 21 August

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Thesis Louise Meijer - Final Version 21 August

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

AES/TG/12-20

Development of heterogeneous slope reservoirs for

Louise Alexandra Meijer

Development of heterogeneous slope reservoirs for

Louise Alexandra Meijer

Section for Applied Geology

Section for Applied Geology

All rights reserved.

Geology of deep-marine siliciclastic slope systems .................................................... 7

Internal and external levees .................................................................................. 13

2.4 Connectivity ...................................................................................................................... 16

Data and methods ...................................................................................................... 17

Statistic modelling techniques ............................................................................... 18

Channels and internal levees ................................................................................. 22

External levees ....................................................................................................... 22

Lobes and distributary channels ............................................................................ 22

3.3 Petrophysical modelling ................................................................................................... 23

Drive mechanism ................................................................................................... 46

Depletion and gas cap drive (live oil) .................................................. 46

Aquifer drive (dead oil) ....................................................................... 48

Water injection drive (dead oil) ........................................................... 49

External levees ..................................................................................... 54

Grid size ................................................................................................................. 51

Residual water saturation ..................................................................................... 56

Static models ......................................................................................................... 57

Dynamic models .................................................................................................... 57

Grid size and upscaling .......................................................................................... 57

5.2 Uncertainty analyses ........................................................................................................ 58

Influence of facies and porosity realisations on STOIIP calculations .................... 58

Influence of permeability realisations on recovery factor .................................... 59

5.3 Economic evaluation ........................................................................................................ 59

Water injection with deviated wells...................................................................... 59

External levee development .................................................................................. 61

Conclusions and recommendations ........................................................................... 62

cross-bedding) and numerical modelling (upscaling), and their impact on simulated

2 Geology of deep-marine siliciclastic slope systems

2.1 Controls and processes

2.2 Sequence stratigraphy

2.3 Facies characteristics

The sedimentological variation within slope systems is expressed by a South American

2.5 Comparison between Karoo and other deep-marine slope systems

2.6 Comparison between submarine and continental channel systems

3 Data and methods

3.1 Grid and region definition

Figure 3.1 Region definition. The arrow points north.

3.2 Facies modelling

A training image is used instead of a variogram because the geometric relationship

3.2.2 Channels and internal levees

Figure 3.3 Training image based on object modelling.

Implementation of the pattern in the region-based facies modelling was done by

3.3 Petrophysical modelling

Kriging-derived mean and variance, a variogram and a Gaussian distribution as input. A

Porosity-permeability relations per facies

External levee sheets

Figure 3.4 Facies-based porosity-permeability relation.

Table 3.2 Porosity distributions and variogram specifics per facies.

Normal distribution (-)

Table 3.3 Permeability distributions and variogram specifics per facies.

Normal distribution (mD)

STOIIP for source-cell-centred

Upscaled grid (coarser)

For permeability a flow-based average is common practice; it directionally averages the

3.5 Dynamic modelling