• Save
Jun 2008 The Geomodeling Network Newsletter
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Jun 2008 The Geomodeling Network Newsletter

  • 769 views
Uploaded on

this newsletter is published and sent out to all members of the Geomodeling Network every second month.

this newsletter is published and sent out to all members of the Geomodeling Network every second month.

More in: Technology , Business
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
769
On Slideshare
736
From Embeds
33
Number of Embeds
3

Actions

Shares
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 33

http://www.linkedin.com 20
https://www.linkedin.com 8
http://www.lmodules.com 5

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. June 2008 The Geomodeling Network Newsletter Congratulations, if you have received this newsletter it means you have signed up to be a member of ‘The Geomodeling Network’ on the popular LinkedIn networking site. This newsletter is kindly sponsored by Blueback Reservoir – a provider of 3D modeling services & solutions The aim of the group is short and simple: “To provide up to the minute independent advice, information and news on all geomodeling related issues” it sounds easy when I put it like that – but just try asking members for contributions and see how far you get . All articles on the newsletter are contributions from fellow Geomodeling Network members and represent their past experiences and/or opinions. If you take a look at the makeup of our current members you will see that the group is fairly diverse, being made up of oil company employees, independent consultants and geomodeling software providers. Each member is entitled to express their own opinions and ideas on the Geomodeling Network and I hope that these articles will encourage open discussions, where problems can be solved, advice can be offered and technology can be reviewed. If you would like to reply to any of the articles or ask any questions you have the ability through LinkedIn to connect to the contributor then contact them directly or reply to me and I will ensure that everyone is copied (unfortunately this is a bit cumbersome as LinkedIn does not provide the ability to send a ‘reply to all’ email at the moment and I don’t really want to publish everyone’s email address). So, to business! On the next page you will find a listing of all the articles in this first newsletter, I hope you enjoy it. If however you would like the format to be changed for subsequent newsletters please let me know – all constructive comments (good & bad) are welcome. Welcome again, Mitch Sutherland (group administrator) mitch.sutherland@blueback-reservoir.com Page 1 The Geomodeling Network – Sponsored by Blueback Reservoir www.blueback-reservoir.com
  • 2. June 2008 The Geomodeling Network Newsletter Table of Contents 1. Member Articles, Reviews & Questions A review of the new IRAP RMS Structural Modeling software Page 3 By Lynsey Anderson – Blueback Reservoir Geomodeling from different perspectives (Geologists & Reservoir Engineers) Page 5 Noelia Vera – TAQA Energy Modeling high NTG fluvial sands in Petrel whilst keeping the reservoir engineer happy! Page 6 Emilie Deloof – Perenco One way to use the Petrel distance to object functionality as a trend for modeling porosity Page 7 Juan Cottier – Blueback Reservoir Assigning parameters in RMS using IPL Page 8 Edwin Meissner – Blueback Reservoir 2. New Geomodeling Technology Roxar’s new structural modeling tools Page 10 Blueback/EMGS – EM Petrel plug-in tool Page 11 3. Career networking Page 12 4. Requests for newsletter No2 Page 13 Page 2 The Geomodeling Network – Sponsored by Blueback Reservoir www.blueback-reservoir.com
  • 3. June 2008 The Geomodeling Network Newsletter 1. Member Articles, Reviews & Questions Review of the new structural modelling module in IRAP RMS Lynsey Anderson: Geologist at Blueback Reservoir (lynsey.anderson@blueback- reservoir.com) The new structural modelling system in Irap RMS (version 9) has recently been used to build a framework of a structurally complex reservoir in the Central North Sea. Previous attempts to build a fault model in another 3D modelling package resulted in faults either being verticalised, inaccurate fault geometry modelled or even faults being removed. The resulting 3D grid also had problems initialising in the simulator. Due to time constraints, after two weeks it was decided that an alternative approach was required to build a more structurally accurate framework. The same input data was used in both approaches (fault sticks) however Irap RMS can use fault polygons, fault surfaces as well as control points for well intersections. The first step is to use this data to create fault surfaces, the data can be either specified as soft input (fault sticks to give general fault shape) or hard input (well picks). There is a choice of algorithms (general or linear) and the user can specify the grid increment and also apply a smoothing factor. Data can be limited by using a tip-line polygon which surrounds the data and allows for the fault surface to be extended or clipped. Once generated it is very quick to QC in the 3D viewer, however it is not possible to edit these fault surfaces, therefore it is recommended to either edit the input data first of all/ or take some time to adapt the settings on the fault modelling job for specific faults. However the default settings gave a reasonable result for a first pass. The next stage in the modelling process is to specify the fault truncations; this can be done either by specifying the truncations in the job panel, or in the 3D view which was found to be a very powerful option. RMS remembers what pieces of the faults have been deleted, so if a mistake has been made by the user, it is very easy to restore the fault and apply a different fault truncation. In the model there were 23 faults, many of which were either low angle, or Page 3 The Geomodeling Network – Sponsored by Blueback Reservoir www.blueback-reservoir.com
  • 4. June 2008 The Geomodeling Network Newsletter truncated against several major normal faults as Y or inverted Y faults. The geophysicist was pleased at how accurately the fault geometries were modelled, which led him to do further interpretation and ask for more faults to be included! There is also a very handy tool for QC’ing which allows the user to systematically go through and check each fault with its intersections and truncations, which is very useful for a model with lots of faults as the animate view controls how the faults are displayed. Once the fault surfaces and relationships have been defined, the horizons need to be modelled. This is no longer a requirement to generate fault lines from the intersections of the fault surfaces and horizons. The new horizon modelling also removes the requirement for stratigraphic modelling as a separate step in the workflow. This not only reduces the time taken but also ensures a more integrated structural framework. Setting up the stratigraphy is relatively straightforward and the user has the option to specify the input data as soft or hard. RMS also produces points from the horizon data; these can be edited and also used as input, which is great if data near the fault has to be ignored. It is also possible to define several horizon modelling jobs and look at various stratigraphic options. A new 3D gridding algorithm has been developed to incorporate the new structural modelling. This works in a similar way as the previous 3D gridder in RMS. Users have the option to define control lines, whether the faults are included as pillar or stair-stepped and the vertical resolution. The only drawback is that all the faults in the structural model are included in the 3D grid; therefore it is not possible to exclude smaller faults for example. However a second “With their four horizon model could be built with the same settings by copying the job and dimensional minds and in removing the unwanted faults. The grid quality tools are also available to allow for QC’ing. The resulting 3D grid easily incorporated all the complexity of the their interdisciplinary structural framework, whilst creating a 3D grid without distorted cells or ultra-verbal way, compromising the fault geometry. geologists can wiggle out of almost anything” In conclusion a structurally complex fault model and 3D grid was built which satisfied the requirements from both the geophysicist and reservoir engineer, in John McPhee less than half the time compared to the previous model. Page 4 The Geomodeling Network – Sponsored by Blueback Reservoir www.blueback-reservoir.com
  • 5. June 2008 The Geomodeling Network Newsletter Geomodeling from different perspectives Noelia Vera: Reservoir Engineer at TAQA Energy (nverar@hotmail.com) Why reservoir engineers insist in simplifying the reservoir model? Less faults, less heterogeneity, less number of cells… in the same way as the geophysicist wants to include any single interpreted fault in the model, every change of facies... As reservoir modeling packages offer more cross-disciplinary tools, the geophysicist focus in the 2D, depth conversion and complex fault modeling workflow, while the reservoir engineer wants to only model few faults and the essential parameters affecting the well performance. The engineer uses uncertainty to replicate the reservoir behaviour seen by “Engineering is the art production, tries different transmissibility across faults, multiplies permeability of modeling materials to match the Kh at the well test and will do anything to replicate flow rates and pressures at the existing wells. Sometimes engineers go as far as changing the we do not wholly pore volumes across the field (so carefully modeled by the geologist) without understand, into shapes even modifying other dependent properties, like permeability or water we cannot precisely saturation, almost nothing matters as long history match is achieved. analyse so as to Different models can achieve the same history match. The best match will be the withstand forces we one that does not divert too much from the geological property ranges and cannot properly assess, honours the PVT and other dynamic input. This is the reason why the geological in such a way that the and simulation grids should be feeding one each other if we want to understand the reservoir as a whole, instead of only getting separate answers from each public has no reason to side of the workflow. suspect the extent of our The engineer wants to replicate the observed flow rates and depletion seen by ignorance” the historical data. This is the first step in the dynamic model before predicting the production rates until the end of the field life. In the other hand the Dr AR Dykes geophysicist concentrates the efforts in giving a single answer, hoping to obtain the true model, a static model that will replicate the subsurface at the smallest detail. Uncertainty in the geological model is necessary to allow the reservoir engineer enough room to modify the static parameters in a way that they do not deviate from the geological input data. From the engineer’s point of view, the ability to estimate and quantify uncertainty, perform intelligent upscaling and have seamless data transfer to and from the simulator is more valuable that the software capabilities to model the most sophisticated structure. Most engineers embrace stochastic/probabilistic methods for their ability to give different valid answers without differing from the geological description. Page 5 The Geomodeling Network – Sponsored by Blueback Reservoir www.blueback-reservoir.com
  • 6. June 2008 The Geomodeling Network Newsletter How to model high NTG fluvial sands in multi stacked reservoirs in Petrel when my favourite reservoir engineer can only accept 10ft cells grid?? Emilie Deloof: Development Geologist at Perenco (edeloof@ukperenco.com) The lateral extension of the thin non reservoir intervals within each zone is a key ”Imagine we have data” uncertainty for the production simulation. Prof. Steven Gorelick With very few well data, one cored well only, and, as usual, very limited time to complete the study, this modelling exercise can be challenging. The reservoirs are heavy oil bearing, with excellent properties (~18-20% poro, 200mD to several Darcies on average for the net). I have just only started on this project (was dealing with the “quiet” gas bearing Rotliegendes sandstones before – so the project could not be more different !) My strategy for now is: collect information from papers across the entire basin and look at similar type - fields located 100s km away – luckily it seems the depositional environments are broadly similar model the net reservoir as pseudo facies using SIS – but there, lateral extension - of the non net facies ?? use different scenarios. As the NTG averages are high I think the thin non reservoir intervals have very limited extension (also, they cannot be correlated across the few wells in the area), so the sands are all connected. model porosity using SGS based on net reservoir statistics - apply poro-perm transform defined from the available core data - At this early stage of the project, I am working directly at the simulation grid scale, not going through a geomodel grid then upscaling. This simplifies the workflow, but could greatly impact on the properties distribution. Any idea ? tips from your own experience ? Page 6 The Geomodeling Network – Sponsored by Blueback Reservoir www.blueback-reservoir.com
  • 7. June 2008 The Geomodeling Network Newsletter How can you use the distance from a channel as a trend for porosity modeling, i.e. how far from the channel edge (or centre), is the cell that porosity should be modeled in? Juan Cottier: Geologist at Blueback Reservoir (juan.cottier@blueback-reservoir.com) I’ve pondered over the issue, but fail to find a really clever way if doing it… If anyone of you has any good solutions, please share!! Petrel does have a “Distance to object” function in geometrical modeling, but that only applies to point, polygons, wells and maps (which gives only distance in Z). Channels are defined as a discrete parameter in the 3D grid and can’t be used directly. One way it can be done is the following way: Model your channels as usual. Export the property using GSLIB format and toggle on X;Y coordinates for output. Take the resulting file into excel or similar and remove all points/lines that doesn’t correspond to the channel facies. Use sort on facies code column, then it’s easy. Reload into Petrel as point data set. This point data set can then be used in the Geometrical modeling process (Distance to object) Drawbacks: There are many points that define a channel in this method, i.e. not just edge or centre… The Distance to object process doesn’t seem to discriminate between layers/zones so; the lateral distances are common for all depths of the model…. The last point could be fixed by exporting out channel facies zone by zone, though… So, if anyone has any other ways of solving this issue I’d love to hear. “Most of you probably don’t know what dikes and joints are….at least in the geological sense” Prof. David Pollard Page 7 The Geomodeling Network – Sponsored by Blueback Reservoir www.blueback-reservoir.com
  • 8. June 2008 The Geomodeling Network Newsletter Assigning parameters in RMS using IPL – useful if you do not have a Facies or Petrophysical modeling modules. Article – Edwin Meissner: Geologist at Blueback Reservoir (em@emgs.com) If the Facies and Petrophysical modules are not available, this procedure is a workaround which will enable you to create a property in a grid and assign values to it. The values are assigned by using the region index to distinguish between different parameter values which will then be assigned. Below there are 5 ppt slides describing the process (full ppt is also attached) plus an Excel spreadsheet (IPL_100_if_Resistivities_OK.xls) is also attached to help you create the IPL script. Assigning parameters in RMS IPL based template + other updates Edwin Meissner Start a new project 1. Copy START_NEW_PROJECT -template from: bollywood:ggusers3D_MODEL_BUILDERRMS • Some standard horizons, which can be renamed • Folder structure in general 2D data for Areamaps and Horizon generation (no more ”Work” Horizon needed) • Folder structure in clipboard for prospect outlines, Tx and Rx positons • Colourtables • Workflows 2. Rename it before opening it with RMS: Tlahuan_Pemax_areamaps_120308_RMS9_02 Project_Client_short_description_DDMMYY_RMS9_projectversion Page 8 The Geomodeling Network – Sponsored by Blueback Reservoir www.blueback-reservoir.com
  • 9. June 2008 The Geomodeling Network Newsletter Prepare Excel /open Office template 1. Copy template from: https://emgs-docuwiki.emgs.local//dokuwiki/doku.php?id= modelling:building_3d_model Or from: bollywood:ggusers3D_MODEL_BUILDERRMS 2. Save with a new name! 3. Fill in the Horizon names and the desired resistivities. They should be automatically converted to conductivity values. 4. Go to the ”Export_IF_Statements”- worksheet. Excel/ Open Office template 5. Copy the whole column A from the “Export_IF_statements” worksheet And paste it into the upper IPL command edit window. Two column page • After creating the Grid, open the IPL- Window either from double click on the IPL Job in the workflow or (if not the RMS – template was used to start the project) in the Job Tab is also a IPL icon. • Paste the copied column of the excel- template in the upper IPL window. • Fill in the correct number of the grid; in this case 3 (sometimes the gridnumber does not change imeadiatly after deleting one earlier grid, after saving the project the grids are renumbered from the beginning) • Click execute Grid models • Save!  Done Page 9 The Geomodeling Network – Sponsored by Blueback Reservoir www.blueback-reservoir.com
  • 10. June 2008 The Geomodeling Network Newsletter 2. NEW GEOMODELING TECHNOLOGY EMGS and Blueback Reservoir launch Bridge, an EM Integration tool for Petrel Electromagnetic Geoservices (EMGS) and Blueback Reservoir have collaborated to develop and launch a new decision-support tool for exploration professionals called Bridge. Bridge has been created to help oil & gas companies find and develop hydrocarbons more efficiently. The new software enables the easy integration of electromagnetic (EM) data with other geophysical and geological information, resulting in a clearer and more complete understanding of the subsurface. Terje Eidesmo, EMGS chief executive officer, said: “This is an important milestone for EMGS and the industry. Bridge will enable our customers to capitalise on the benefits of EM by allowing the easy integration EM information with their workflows. By integrating EM data with conventional geophysical, geological and well log information, our customers can improve their exploration risking process and the assessment of a reservoir’s potential.” Bridge is an EM plug-in for Petrel, one of the industry’s leading geological and geophysical integration platforms. The launch of Bridge brings long-awaited EM functionality to the standard Petrel workflow. Petrel was originally created and developed by the founders of Blueback Reservoir. “We have been working with the team who created Petrel. The heritage, expertise and experience we bring from our respective fields is an endorsement for Bridge and the increasing demand for EM integration by the industry bodes well for the uptake of this product. The launch of Bridge also reaffirms our leadership in the EM sector”, continued Eidesmo. Jan Egil Fivelstad, Blueback Reservoir’s chief executive officer, commented: “EM data adds great value for geoscientists, and Bridge will make this technology more accessible and understandable. There has been a growing recognition throughout the oil and gas industry of the need for extra functionality in Page The Geomodeling Network – Sponsored by Blueback Reservoir www.blueback-reservoir.com 10
  • 11. June 2008 The Geomodeling Network Newsletter interpreting EM data and as a result we expect the demand for this product to continue to grow”. For more information on this product please click on the following link: http://www.blueback- reservoir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=57&Itemid=71 ROXAR – Next Generation Structural Modeling It’s probably fair to say that most geomodelers with any long term experience will have used IRAP RMS software at one point during their career. Indeed a lot of you will be using it as we speak. So it’s good to see that Roxar are still churning out quality products, a case in point being their new structural modeling tool which was officially released at the end of 2007. I have attached the following material from the Roxar website which highlights some of the features of their new Structural Modeling solution: • Improved Fault Geometry & Fault Intersection. New algorithms will create fault surfaces that closely honor the input data while also allowing the user control. Fault surfaces can be automatically adjusted to well picks, may die out laterally or in depth, and can be truncated by unconformity surfaces. Roxar’s structural modeling tools will also enable the widest range of antithetic and synthetic fault intersections to be modeled, including Y faults, lambda faults, K faults, as well as crossing conjugate or X faults. Fault truncations can be a combination of automatic and interactively defined in 3D. • Horizon modeling. Roxar’s new approach to horizon modeling is a faultblock based approach, which provides an easy method for modeling repeat section due to reverse faults. Horizon surfaces can be generated directly from interpreted seismic data or calculated using well and thickness data. • Improved 3D gridding. New 3D grid building, designed to work with the new structural framework building, will ensure the building of the best quality grids. Any selection of faults may be treated as pillar or stair-cased faults. Roxar’s unique methodology used for stair-casing reverse faults also eliminates the shadow zone problems often seen in corner point grids and maintains layer connections across the fault blocks. Page The Geomodeling Network – Sponsored by Blueback Reservoir www.blueback-reservoir.com 11
  • 12. June 2008 The Geomodeling Network Newsletter For more information on the above Roxar software, please click on the following link: http://www.roxar.com/structure/ (If you missed it there is an independent review of the new RMS structural modelling software on Page 3) 3. Career Networking You wouldn’t believe (or maybe you would) the number of agency headhunters that have applied to join the Geomodeling Network. Personally I have no problem granting them access to the group but if any of you have any issues with this please let me know and I will go with the general consensus. Bearing the above in mind, it’s worth noting that this group was set up with the intention of informing its members about various employment opportunities, so if your team is looking for people let me know and I will of course list these opportunities on the next newsletter. Being the group administrator and in a position of absolute power , I will kick off the career’s part of the Geomodeling Network. As you will have no doubt noticed from my email address I work for Blueback Reservoir currently based in London. Blueback are continuously on the lookout for talented geomodelers who are able to use Petrel or RMS and who possess significant experience in the E&P industry. Our consultants are in big demand throughout the UK, Norway, Europe and the Middle East so we would be very interested in speaking to anyone who would like to work for us. For those that are interested or know someone that is, please click on the following link for more details: or http://www.blueback-reservoir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=54&Itemid=69 drop me an email on mitch.sutherland@blueback-reservoir.com Page The Geomodeling Network – Sponsored by Blueback Reservoir www.blueback-reservoir.com 12
  • 13. June 2008 The Geomodeling Network Newsletter 4. Requests for the newsletter No2 “None of us is as smart The current plan is to make this newsletter as regular as possible and I propose as all of us” that a newsletter is sent out every 2 months. This will ensure that the content is current and 6 newsletters a year shouldn’t really bog down your Outlook inbox Ken Blanchard too much. This newsletter is only possible through the kind contributions of different network members; however I do need more contributions from as many different people as possible. The current layout of the newsletter is my own design, so if you don’t like it or would like to see it done differently please let me know and I will consider it for the next issue. In the meantime as a gentle way of requesting input for future newsletters, here are some topics (which is by no means exhaustive) that you may like to contribute towards: 1. Workflows/workarounds you would like to share 2. Technology reviews – who’s using Jewel Suite, Skua and Gocad and are they any good? 3. Technology requests – what’s missing from your workflow 4. Company Geomodeling workflows – how does your company do it? 5. Uncertainty modeling – a hot topic that needs to be discussed Fin Page The Geomodeling Network – Sponsored by Blueback Reservoir www.blueback-reservoir.com 13