Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Sept 2009 The Geomodeling Network Newsletter
Sept 2009 The Geomodeling Network Newsletter
Sept 2009 The Geomodeling Network Newsletter
Sept 2009 The Geomodeling Network Newsletter
Sept 2009 The Geomodeling Network Newsletter
Sept 2009 The Geomodeling Network Newsletter
Sept 2009 The Geomodeling Network Newsletter
Sept 2009 The Geomodeling Network Newsletter
Sept 2009 The Geomodeling Network Newsletter
Sept 2009 The Geomodeling Network Newsletter
Sept 2009 The Geomodeling Network Newsletter
Sept 2009 The Geomodeling Network Newsletter
Sept 2009 The Geomodeling Network Newsletter
Sept 2009 The Geomodeling Network Newsletter
Sept 2009 The Geomodeling Network Newsletter
Sept 2009 The Geomodeling Network Newsletter
Sept 2009 The Geomodeling Network Newsletter
Sept 2009 The Geomodeling Network Newsletter
Sept 2009 The Geomodeling Network Newsletter
Sept 2009 The Geomodeling Network Newsletter
Sept 2009 The Geomodeling Network Newsletter
Sept 2009 The Geomodeling Network Newsletter
Sept 2009 The Geomodeling Network Newsletter
Sept 2009 The Geomodeling Network Newsletter
Sept 2009 The Geomodeling Network Newsletter
Sept 2009 The Geomodeling Network Newsletter
Sept 2009 The Geomodeling Network Newsletter
Sept 2009 The Geomodeling Network Newsletter
Sept 2009 The Geomodeling Network Newsletter
Sept 2009 The Geomodeling Network Newsletter
Sept 2009 The Geomodeling Network Newsletter
Sept 2009 The Geomodeling Network Newsletter
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Sept 2009 The Geomodeling Network Newsletter

1,171

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,171
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
36
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

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. The Geomodeling Network Newsletter September 2009 W elcome to the latest version of the Geomodeling Network newsletter. Last month was a quiet one in terms of receiving articles from our members. I put this down to a lot of people being away on vacation, where the most important thing on their minds was not sending in an interesting article, but wondering where their next Pina Colada was coming from. Because of this lackadaisical attitude  I decided to hold back the release until now – but I hope you agree that it was worth waiting for. Talking of members, our network has grown remarkably quickly and we have now shot past the 900 mark and are well on our way to 1000 members (unbelievable!). As befits any significant milestone, the 1000’th member will be recognized in a suitable fashion (a knighthood, a Nobel prize or lifetime membership to the Geomodeling Network – can’t decide yet). Now would be an excellent time to run the Workflow Manager. Set it for 100 realizations – that should be long enough to enable you to read this month’s newsletter. Go and grab yourself a coffee (or a beer) depending on how good or bad your day is going and put your feet up. For those members who took the time to contribute the interesting articles contained in this version – thank-you very much, it’s highly appreciated. Finally, if there’s anyone out there just itching to contribute an article, I’d be more than happy to receive them. Don’t worry if your article is radical or off-the-wall. Both the newsletters and discussion forums are proving to be great places for voicing opinions and stimulating conversations on all aspects relating to geomodeling. Cheers for now, Mitch Sutherland mitch.sutherland@blueback-reservoir.com Page 1 The Geomodeling Network – Sponsored by Blueback Reservoir www.blueback-reservoir.com
  • 2. The Geomodeling Network Newsletter September 2009 Table of Contents 1. How to Model Separate Facies for Channel Thalwags This is a response to an article raised in a previous Geomodeling Network Newsletter and documents a workflow solution to this problem. Sebastien Duclert –Geology & Geophysics Team Leader at Schlumberger SIS Page 3 2. Blueback Toolbox The September 2009 release of this popular and FREE PETREL Plug-in is now available – see below for recently added functionality Paul Hovdenak – Software Manager at Blueback Reservoir AS Page 7 3. A New Multiple-Point Statistics Software Ephesia Consult (formerly FSS Consultants) and the Stochastic Hydrogeology Group of the University of Neuchâtel (Switzerland) have joined forces during the last two years to develop new commercial software for efficient 3D multiple- point simulation. Dimitri D’Or – Environmental Resources Consultant at Ephesia Consult Page 14 4. Size is not important when you have the right Aspect Ratio The importance of Throw-Length Ratios in Fault Seal Analysis William Harvey & Titus Murray – FaultSeal Pty Ltd Page 18 5. Towards a set of Geological Rules for Characterizing Faults Computing a Fault Network using Geostatistics and the Potential Field Method DJ Fitzgerald, Intrepid Geophysics and Gabriel Courrioux, BRGM Page 23 6. Rigorous upscaling of net to gross: Is it possible? Does it have value? This is a good example of a question placed on the Geomodeling Network discussion forum which has started to generate some response from our members. Please feel free to comment further. Tor Barkve –Technical Product Manager at Roxar Page 30 Page 2 The Geomodeling Network – Sponsored by Blueback Reservoir www.blueback-reservoir.com
  • 3. The Geomodeling Network Newsletter September 2009 Member Articles, Reviews & Questions 1. How to model Separate Facies for Channel Thalwags? Sebastien Duclert, Schlumberger SIS I fell madly in love with Geology. In Object modeling, Petrel models channel/levee facies associations. Channel Erin Brockovich sands are typically higher quality in the upper middle part of the channel. Ideally, we would like to be able to model different petrophysical characteristics than on the margins and at the bottom of the channel in this thalweg. The workflow presented here allows the user to create a separate facies representing the thalweg within previously modelled channels. How to spot a geologist (1): Someone who only includes The first part of the workflow is to generate a Bodies and Depth trend properties from the Other output tab in Facies modeling. Tick on Body property people in photos for scale (only for the channel facies) and Depth trend (Leave the default options). Press the Create buttons to generate the two blank properties that are stored in the Properties folder. Page 3 The Geomodeling Network – Sponsored by Blueback Reservoir www.blueback-reservoir.com
  • 4. The Geomodeling Network Newsletter September 2009 You then need to re-run the modeling to populate those two properties. The Bodies property is a simple body index, that will allow us to perform operations on each channel independently inside the workflow manager. The Depth trend shows the depth of each channel cell from the channel top, relative to the total thickness of the channel. For each channel it has values comprised between 0 at the top of the channel and 1 at the bottom. The depth trend will allow us to isolate the cells located near the top of the channel. By using the workflow below, we can create a new Depth Trend Sum property. Page 4 The Geomodeling Network – Sponsored by Blueback Reservoir www.blueback-reservoir.com
  • 5. The Geomodeling Network Newsletter September 2009 How to spot a geologist (2): The workflow sums vertically the depth trend values independently for each Someone who scoffs when channel, then divides the sum by the maximum value of the sum for each they see your compass channel. The resulting property is equivalent to a pseudo relative thickness of doesnt have a clinometer as the channel. standard We can now create our separate thalweg facies by applying a combined if statement on both depth trend properties in the property calculator. 1. Copy the initial facies property. 2. Create a thalweg facies in the property template 3. Use the Property filter to filter out the background and levee facies (Keep the channel and thalweg facies ON) as well as the upscaled cells. 4. Run the following equation in the property calculator with the filter ON. Page 5 The Geomodeling Network – Sponsored by Blueback Reservoir www.blueback-reservoir.com
  • 6. The Geomodeling Network Newsletter September 2009 In plain text, this can be translated as: To the cells of the copy of the original facies property where the relative depth from the top is lower than 0.5 and where the relative thickness is greater than 0.5 (near the channel axis), assign the facies thalweg (code 15 in this case), otherwise keep the existing facies (vary the thresholds according to the amount of thalweg you want to create). A different porosity or permeability distribution can then be used in the thalweg facies. An obvious limitation of this workflow is that, if the higher quality thalweg facies has been identified in the wells, there is no guarantee that the axis of the channel will run through it. Setting the thickness of the channels smaller than the thickness of the channel intervals in the well will help. If the thickness of the modelled channels is larger than the interval, the wells will usually tie to the margins of the channels. The channels have to be modelled with a simplified channel facies (ignoring the She looks like a cocktail distinction between thalweg and non-thalweg) and several realizations can be compared to find the one that will match the best the high quality sand in the waitress on an oil rig “Best in well. Show” In order to re-associate the detailed facies model with the result of the Anonymous workflow: Page 6 The Geomodeling Network – Sponsored by Blueback Reservoir www.blueback-reservoir.com
  • 7. The Geomodeling Network Newsletter September 2009 1. Upscale the detailed log (including the thalweg facies). 2. Copy the result property (Channels with thalwegs). 3. Set the Property filter to Upscaled cells only. 4. Run the equation below in the property calculator (with the filter ON): Filtered (Upscaled = cells only) For this particular realization and well, the match between the thalweg facies in the upscaled cells and modelled thalweg is pretty good, except for the lowermost channel. Another realization might do a better job. Changing the cut-offs on the depth trend properties might also help. 2. Blueback Toolbox September 2009 version has been released The new version of the Blueback Toolbox is now available for download. Several hundred Petrel users now have installed our Toolbox, and its great to see that we can help expanding and optimising reservoir characterization workflows in Petrel. Page 7 The Geomodeling Network – Sponsored by Blueback Reservoir www.blueback-reservoir.com
  • 8. The Geomodeling Network Newsletter September 2009 All the new features in this release have been developed based on feedback and suggestions from Petrel users, so feel free to forward your ideas for the next It was the foolish man that built release of the Toolbox! his house upon the sand. Frequency power spectre Matthew 7:26 - A tool for seismic interpreters to better understand the frequency content of the seismic signal This much requested little tool allows an interpreter to easily compute the Power-Spectrum within a defined area "Probe" for any Seismic Line. The use of such an information helps the interpreter to better understand the frequency content of the seismic signal at any given depth range. From this data, if some knowledge of local velocities is at hand, geologists can for example estimate the actual resolution of the seismic signal. Power spectra plots can be also used to estimate the frequency content characteristics of certain areas, for example in order to derive analytic wavelets. The tool also allows the user to display and compare the Power Spectra of areas across different lines. Analyse the frequency spectre in your seismic This feature was developed based on input from Gaston Bejarano, former Geophysics Champion at Schlumberger SIS. Gaston has been working with seismic software for 30 years, and has forthe last 6 years worked in the Petrel team. Page 8 The Geomodeling Network – Sponsored by Blueback Reservoir www.blueback-reservoir.com
  • 9. The Geomodeling Network Newsletter September 2009 Gaston Bejarano, Geophysics Champion Schlumberger SIS Unflatten interpretation - Option to unflatten a seismic interpretation done on flattened seismic This feature was added based on feedback from users using the Flatten Seismic Cube feature in the Toolbox. When interpreting on a flattened seismic cube, the interpretation now can be unflattened according to the seismic pick on the original unflattended seismic. The functionality was requested from one of the geophysicists and expert volume interpreters at a major American oil company. Import images as 2D seismic lines - This feature allows for display of any kind of image onto a seismic 2D section The functionality allows to position a digital profile (image) along a crooked line. Because the image is represented as a seismic section, it can be used to visualize in the 3D window together with satellite images and in the Interpretation window to perform actual interpretation on it. Workflow: How to spot a geologist (3): 1. Position interpreted sections and geological interpretations from an electronic document along an existing seismic line. Someone whose shorts expose 2. Interpret directly on geological sections using seismic horizons and faults way more leg than you ever 3. Co-visualize regional geological profiles with project data in 3D, perfect for wanted to see exploration work This tool is not converting images to real seismic amplitudes/wiggles. It is merely a grayscale/pseudocolor image represented in seismic format. In Petrel, a "pseudo color" to the sections is introduced by associating it to a color template. Page 9 The Geomodeling Network – Sponsored by Blueback Reservoir www.blueback-reservoir.com
  • 10. The Geomodeling Network Newsletter September 2009 This functionality does unfortunately not work on Petrel 2008 version. This is because of OCEAN extensions affecting color table handling introduced in Petrel 2009. Schematic regional structural model displayed on a seismic line The feature was requested by Edo Hoekstra at Schlumberger SIS. Edo has been working with seismic interpretation tools for the last 12 years and is now a Product Champion for Petrel geophysics. Extend seismic 2D lines - Extend the length of a 2D seismic lines Geologists are 'scientists' with This feature extends a 2D seismic section with empty traces, so that you can an unnatural obsession with make composite 2D line displays of seismic lines which do not intersect. Where geology (rocks and alcohol). there are empty traces, you get a blank area in the section. Often too intelligent to do This tool is very useful and you can quickly make composite sections without monotonous sciences like having crossing 2D lines. biology, chemistry, or physics, geologists devote their time to mud-worrying, volcano poking, fault finding, bouldering, dust- collecting, and high-risk colouring. Anonymous Page The Geomodeling Network – Sponsored by Blueback Reservoir www.blueback-reservoir.com 10
  • 11. The Geomodeling Network Newsletter September 2009 The functionality was requested by Petrel users at a major oil company Create seismic cubes with data specified resolution - Tool for creating a cube with lateral dimensions from another cube, 3D grid or surface This is an extension to the Make Cube feature in the Toolbox. You can now use Petrel data objects to specify the lateral resolution and rotation of the cube you create. This enables a workflow where you can sample all types of seismic into a new cube. Most capabilities in Petrel assume identical inline/crossline/depth to seismic cubes, and multiple seismic vintages (particularly for 4D seismic) can be a bit of a nightmare to deal with. Workflow: Make a simple 3D grid model with correct number of layers relative to the seismic increment. And with a rotation that would best capture the data. Sample seismic from various vintages into the simple model using standard Petrel functionality Use the Make Cube feature in the Toolbox to create a seismic cube with the same resolution as the grid model Convert the grid model into the new seismic cube This new workflow would give a quick way to bring several seismic vintages in line, within a subset volume. Since you also can control the rotation of the cube, you can ensure that it is canyon running at 45 degrees to the original seismic acquisition, you could reduce seismic volume size greatly). Page The Geomodeling Network – Sponsored by Blueback Reservoir www.blueback-reservoir.com 11
  • 12. The Geomodeling Network Newsletter September 2009 This feature was requested by Petrel users at a major oil company. Server license option A server license option is now available through a hardware key licensing system. A dongle must be plugged into your server, with a license file defining how many licenses (concurrent users) you need in your offices. This licensing option has an associated cost to cover for the the third party licensing system (SafeNet/Sentinel). Contact sales@blueback-reservoir.com for more details. Submittal form for functionality requests You can now easily submit a functionality request from within the Toolbox. On the Info tab in the Toolbox dialog, you can start a Word document using our submittal template, write up your suggestion, and send it to us. We encourage you to send us your input! Many smaller upgrades are very quickly implemented. Bug fixes The only larger bug fix to mention is on the Flatten cube feature. There was a problem when the input cube was cropped and the interpretation was not cropped. This bug is now fixed. Blueback Toolbox - development requests All new features are developed based on feedback from the users. With the Petrel development kit (OCEAN) there are limitations to what can be developed, but in many cases we see that small development efforts can make a big difference to Petrel users :-) Do you have functionality ideas yourself ? Are there some specific missing features in Petrel you would like to add? Get in touch with us to discuss how we can help you and your company to optimize your workflows and Petrel usage. For each new Blueback Toolbox version, a Blueback iPod is the award for the best new feature included. Page The Geomodeling Network – Sponsored by Blueback Reservoir www.blueback-reservoir.com 12
  • 13. The Geomodeling Network Newsletter September 2009 For the August'09 version the winner was Gaston Bejarano at Schlumberger SIS in Stavanger Blueback Toolbox - download info The Blueback Toolbox is available to anyone interested and can be downloaded from our FTP site. Use our FTP site ftp.blueback-reservoir.com User: TOOLBOX Password: xxToolbox2009 There are 3 zip-files with different versions: 1 – TOOLBOX 1.3 2008-1035-040909.zip. This is the installation file if you are running Petrel 2008 on XP. 2 – TOOLBOX 1.3 2009.1 32bit-1034-040909.zip. This is the installation file if you are running Petrel 2009 on Vista or XP 32 bit. 3 – TOOLBOX 1.3 2009.1 64bit-1034-040909.zip. This is the installation file for those running Petrel 2009 on Vista 64 bit. Download the file you need, unzip it and run the installation on the PC you will be running the Toolbox on. Then start Petrel and open the Blueback License dialog from the HELP pulldown menu. To activate the Toolbox – you must send to support@blueback-reservoir.com the COMPUTER CODE for your installation. This is found if you click the Manage Licenses button. Send us the computer code for the TOOLBOX. Contact support@blueback-reservoir.com if you have any problems installing the Toolbox. Page The Geomodeling Network – Sponsored by Blueback Reservoir www.blueback-reservoir.com 13
  • 14. The Geomodeling Network Newsletter September 2009 3. A New Multiple-Point Statistics Software IMPALA – Improved Multiple Point Algorithm using a List Approach Dimitri D’Or, Environmental resources Consultant, Ephesia Consult Ephesia Consult (formerly FSS Consultants) and the Stochastic Hydrogeology Group of the University of Neuchâtel (Switzerland) have joined forces during the last two years to develop a new commercial software for efficient 3D multiple-point simulation. The challenge was twofold: Develop a fast (CPU) and efficient (RAM) algorithm, with as little hardware induced limitations as possible. Ensure that its results are geologically realistic even when based on a structurally complex training image. The beta version of this software, named IMPALA, is now ready and we believe that the challenges have been met: It is a fully parallelized algorithm which dramatically improves the CPU performances The multi-point statistics are stored in lists rather than search-trees, thus resulting in a substantial reduction in RAM requirements It implements an innovative synchro-processing which provides superior results compared to traditional post-processing It proposes new methods for conditioning to existing hard data It offers a wide choice of simulation path strategies It can account for non-stationarity, using a-priori expert information It embeds a novel algorithm to account for secondary attribute Impala performances The use of lists instead of trees results in a large reduction of RAM usage (Figure 1). In addition, the parallelization of the code allows for drastic reduction of the computation times. This is shown on the speed-up curves (Figure 2) where the speed-up is the ratio between the computation time with p processors and the computation time with 1 processor. Ideally, the speed-up curve must be close to S_p=p, which is the case here. Page The Geomodeling Network – Sponsored by Blueback Reservoir www.blueback-reservoir.com 14
  • 15. The Geomodeling Network Newsletter September 2009 Figure 1: Comparison of RAM usage between lists and trees. Figure 2: Speed-up curves for 3 test situations. Page The Geomodeling Network – Sponsored by Blueback Reservoir www.blueback-reservoir.com 15
  • 16. The Geomodeling Network Newsletter September 2009 Examples Example 1: The Lena Delta This example uses the Lena Delta as training image along with auxiliary information about the distance to the sea (Figure 3). On the simulation grid, two auxiliary variables are available: the distance to the sea and the orientation (Figure 4). The results of the simulation are given at Figure 5. Figure 3: training image and auxiliary information on the training image. Figure 4: Auxiliary information available on the simulation domain. Page The Geomodeling Network – Sponsored by Blueback Reservoir www.blueback-reservoir.com 16
  • 17. The Geomodeling Network Newsletter September 2009 Figure 5: One realization produced by Impala. Example 2: 3D simulation This example aims at simulating on various 3D grids using a 100 x 100 x 60 cells training image (Figure 6a). Results are shown at Figure 6b. Figure 6a: Training image. Figure 6b: Some realizations. Page The Geomodeling Network – Sponsored by Blueback Reservoir www.blueback-reservoir.com 17
  • 18. The Geomodeling Network Newsletter September 2009 Other examples can be found at : http://www.ephesia- consult.com/Table/Impala/ If you are interested in becoming a partner of Ephesia Consult to commercialize this software please contact: Roland Froidevaux E-mail: roland.froidevaux@ephesia- consult.com Phone: +41 (0)22 300 4629 4. Size is not important when you have the right Aspect Ratio The importance of Throw-Length Ratios in Fault Seal Analysis William Harvey & Titus Murray, FaultSeal Pty Ltd When building a static reservoir model, the absence and inaccuracy of fault data can result in the misinterpretation of structures, with the outcome often being poor reserves and history matches. The important thing to remember most of structural geology is “Not Rocket Surgery”. It is all about simple geometry that any good geologist or interpreter understands. Last issue we investigated the importance of displacement (throw) profiles on the correct interpretation and subsequent analysis of faults. This issue we illustrate another straightforward structural geological tool Throw Length Ratios and how they can be used to assess the fault validity. In the article are examples from our software application FaultRisk . Where we have imbedded structural validation into tools and work flows for used by both our customers and us so we can more accurately calculate the probability of faults sealing or leaking. Page The Geomodeling Network – Sponsored by Blueback Reservoir www.blueback-reservoir.com 18
  • 19. The Geomodeling Network Newsletter September 2009 Geologists, secure in their vague estimates have forever Throw Length Ratios conflicted with engineers and Structural Geologists use the ratio of maximum fault throw and length to their need for a definitive, understand faulting processes. Throw-length ratios can also be used to assess quantifiable answer since the the accuracy and validity of a fault interpretation. building of the pyramids. We feel that it is a vital step in assessing the abilities of these faults to seal or The ancient Egyptian leak hydrocarbons. engineers had determined that Factors affecting the interpretation include: the Great Pyramid would require 1. Factors affecting fault length: a. Position and direction of measurement relative to seismic 6961105709.356732519874 acquisition; 886510 metric tons of stone b. Seismic resolution; blocks to construct. The c. Inclusion or exclusion of damaged zones. ancient Egyptian geologists 2. Factors affecting fault displacement: a. Map censoring effect the: The maximum throw may be off the yawned and disagreed. When map; it turned out that only b. Time to Depth conversion 6961105709.356732519874 c. Well control to constrain growth and fault inversion 886509 metric tons were d. Velocity and geometry causing miss positioning of images required, the geologists sneered and said, "I told In exploration regional faults are frequently longer than they appear in models you your calculations were or maps. This extra length results in frequent fault interaction and the wrong." The geologists, subsequent segmentation of faults. Fault interaction affects the amount of stress on faults, therefore altering the maximum displacement of a fault or fault having been proven correct segment (Shultz et al, 2005). and superior, have been envied by engineers since that In appraisal and development faults are often shorter than interpreted due to fateful day. To this day, the miscorrelation of faults at seismic resolution. This leads to static models having distinction between the two is inappropriate compartment sizes. quite simple, an engineer is a Suitable throw length ratios geologist with his brains Plotting the maximum displacement versus length of multiple normal faults knocked out. results in a linear relationship (n=1) (Fig. 1). The relationship between the Anonymous maximum displacement (dmax) and the maximum length of a fault can be expressed as: Dmax = cLn Assuming that the linear scaling law is used (n=1) c is an expression of the displacement / length ratio (dmax/ L) (Kim and Sanderson, 2005). The maximum displacement versus length diagram of Schultz et aI (2008) suggests that throw Page The Geomodeling Network – Sponsored by Blueback Reservoir www.blueback-reservoir.com 19
  • 20. The Geomodeling Network Newsletter September 2009 length ratios between 0.001 and 0.1 are acceptable. Throw length ratios are therefore good indicators that a fault is more complex than first thought and may require reanalyzing. Figure 1 – Plot of maximum displacement versus length from a compilation of faults (Source: Schultz et al, 2008) Examples As an example of this type of analysis we will look at the Gulfaks model. Fault polygons have been made from the Petrel grid and imported into FaultRisk™. The throw length ratio can be seen in the throw profile window (Fig. 2), the blue example has a displacement length ratio of y=0.0138, which is well within our acceptable range. This is further supported by reviewing the displacement profile that has been created by FaultRisk™. The red example has a significantly lower displacement length ratio of y=0.055 and is somewhat of an outlier when plotted upon the diagram of Schultz et al (2005). We have contingency plans for anything that can possibly go wrong ... except the volcano. When Time Ran Out... – 1980 Page The Geomodeling Network – Sponsored by Blueback Reservoir www.blueback-reservoir.com 20
  • 21. The Geomodeling Network Newsletter September 2009 Figure 2 –Displacement profiles and displacement versus length plot Further review of the displacement profile of the red fault indicates that fault a series of faults may have been combined across branch lines or the maximum displacement is off the map. For a more accurate interpretation we can split the fault. (Fig 3). Page The Geomodeling Network – Sponsored by Blueback Reservoir www.blueback-reservoir.com 21
  • 22. The Geomodeling Network Newsletter September 2009 “You want to compare Figure 3 – Displacement profiles for the new split faults brainpans? I won the The fault was split into three sections. The new faults have throw/length ratios Westinghouse prize when I (y=0.016, 0.0228 & 0.016) plot more appropriately (Figure 4). was 12, big deal. Published Splitting faults can be extremely useful in the accurate analysis of fault seal at 19, so what. I got a capacity of the compartment highlighting branch lines, genetically separate double doctorate from faults and relay ramps acting all of which may act as breaches. MIT at 22, Chemistry and Some care should be used when using Dmax/L ratios when combining different Geology. I taught at data sets where discrepancies of fault type, tectonic history and analytical Princeton for two and a techniques, result in scatter of results are plotted. half years. Why do I do this? Because the money's good, the scenery changes and they let me use explosives.” Armageddon – 1998 Figure 4 – Maximum displacement versus length plot for new split faults (Schultz et al, 2008) This style of analysis is quick and easy to do and will ensure your 3D models have good-looking faults. Most importantly to us when investigating the probability of fault leakage and/or across fault flow this analysis is a vital step in the workflow. Page The Geomodeling Network – Sponsored by Blueback Reservoir www.blueback-reservoir.com 22
  • 23. The Geomodeling Network Newsletter September 2009 If you want to try FaultRisk™, have any queries on this article or fault seal issues please contact us at titus@faultseal.com and/or visit our website www.faultseal.com. 5. Towards a Set of Geological Rules for Characterizing Faults Computing a Fault Network using Geostatistics and the Potential Field Method. DJ Fitzgerald, Intrepid Geophysics and Gabriel Courrioux, BRGM Faults network Faults are bounded by the existence of other faults : ---> User has to define relations between faults • Set of faults: f1, f2, f3 …. f6 • Relations: • f1 stops on f2 • f1 stops on f4 • f5 stops on f4 • f3 stops on f6 • f6 stops on f2 f5 f1 f3 f4 f6 f2 Page The Geomodeling Network – Sponsored by Blueback Reservoir www.blueback-reservoir.com 23
  • 24. The Geomodeling Network Newsletter September 2009 How to spot a geologist (4): Deriving a consistent geometry from relations Someone who can jump start a do we need to guarantee transitivity of relations ? campfire in wet weather with the judicious application of a beer fart. “Things get worse under By transitivity F4 stops on F2 (and F1) pressure” Murphy’s Law of Thermodynamics Page The Geomodeling Network – Sponsored by Blueback Reservoir www.blueback-reservoir.com 24
  • 25. The Geomodeling Network Newsletter September 2009 ”We tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and underestimate the effect in the long Mixing finite and infinite faults in fault networks run” • The troubles start here - Amara’s Law – What about stoping an infinite fault on a finite fault ? – What about stoping a big finite fault on a small finite fault – Is it possible to anticipate these consistency problems ? • assumption behind is that the relation « stops on » means that displacement agregates from minor faults to major faults. • Defining another relation type such as « is cut by » could probably help Infinite fault stoping on a finite fault. M M belongs _to_fault_domain (i) if center of (i) is visible from M 2 1 Page The Geomodeling Network – Sponsored by Blueback Reservoir www.blueback-reservoir.com 25
  • 26. The Geomodeling Network Newsletter September 2009 “Conclusion = the place where you got tired Taking faults into account for of thinking” interfaces interpolation Anonymous Discontinuous drift functions are added to the cokriging equations They model the shape influence of the fault 1 1 0 0 Transversal profile radius Transversal profile -1 1 1 0 0 Longitudinal profile Longitudinal profile radius Finite Faults Infinite Faults Effect of faults on the interface modelling Page The Geomodeling Network – Sponsored by Blueback Reservoir www.blueback-reservoir.com 26
  • 27. The Geomodeling Network Newsletter September 2009 Effect of fault radius on the interface modeling Infinite fault Radius = 500 m Radius = 400 m Radius = 300 m Taking faultnetwork into account for interfaces interpolation The discontinuous drift functions is associated to each fault as for single faults but takes into account the relations 0 (f1) 1 (f2) 0 (f1) 0 (f2) f2 0 (f2) 1 (f1) f1 Page The Geomodeling Network – Sponsored by Blueback Reservoir www.blueback-reservoir.com 27
  • 28. The Geomodeling Network Newsletter September 2009 Limagne basement(30km x 35 km) COPGEN project (COmpilation du Potentiel Géothermique National) collaboration Ademe, BRGM From Adrien Dagallier – Master thesis - Note the effect of cumulative displacement when secondary faults branch on a major fault Infinite fault stoping on a finite fault. Pb with the drift function Telescoping drift functions There is a boundary 01 for f1 in this area Depending if f1 center is visible or not 0 (f1) 1 (f2) 0 (f1) -1 (f2) f2 0 (f2) 1 (f1) f1 Page The Geomodeling Network – Sponsored by Blueback Reservoir www.blueback-reservoir.com 28
  • 29. The Geomodeling Network Newsletter September 2009 Infinite fault stoping on a finite fault. Geometry of faults may look ok, but may have an undesired impact on layers interpolation.… Explanation on previous slide. New: Display faults only in the formations they affect. ONLAP If pile in Top: Fault are displayed within the formation they affect and within the upper next in the pile If pile in Base convention Faults are displayed within the formation they affect and within the lower next in the pile Page The Geomodeling Network – Sponsored by Blueback Reservoir www.blueback-reservoir.com 29
  • 30. The Geomodeling Network Newsletter September 2009 Consistencies between Faults-Faults and Faults-Series relations • A fault should affect at least all series affected by faults which stop on this one. • In other words a fault must affect a subset of the series affected by the faults on which it stops on. Could work in some cases Why ? F1 does not exist for f2_series > What should we do : • Automatically check and F2 stops on F1 fix ? • Forbid ? Will always work • Allow ? • Warnings ? • …. 6. Rigorous upscaling of net-gross: Is it possible? Does it have value? Tor Barkve – Technical Product Manager, Roxar Modelling of net-gross in flow simulators is difficult for at least three related reasons: 1) Net-gross is both a volume property (used to calculate pore volumes) and a transport property (used to calculate transmissibilities and well indicies). Finding a upscaling method that can preserve both these aspects from the fine scale to the coarse scale is challenging. 2) The view of net-gross changes in the modelling chain. For a petrophysicist and a geologist, net-gross is a pure volumetric property. For a reservoir engineer not. We may be talking different languages and not communicate correctly. 3) The definition of horisontal and vertical permeability in the geo model may be blurred - how does it relate to net-gross? Is the definition applied in sync with the use in the flow model? I would appreciate your views: Is it possible to treat net-gross rigorously in a flow model? Does it have value to have net-gross separately defined in the flow model or should we process it together with porosity/permeability before the Page The Geomodeling Network – Sponsored by Blueback Reservoir www.blueback-reservoir.com 30
  • 31. The Geomodeling Network Newsletter September 2009 upscaling? This discussion is branched from a previous discussion initiated by Ivan Nikulshin on upscaling in Petrel and RMS. Comment 1: Tim Wynn Senior Reservoir Geologist at AGR-TRACS Good question and it is a definite can of worms. Before getting into the upscaling issue I think points 1) and 2) should be discussed. Although NTG is often defined from a porosity cutoff, I have always understood it's origins to be related to permeability. The two are linked via poroperm relationships which are straightforward in many clastic systems. Porosity is usually used instead of permeability because it is easily defined from logs. I think this poroperm link is often forgotten by geologists and NTG can become defined and discussed purely in terms of porosity. Therefore, if the link between porosity and permeability is remembered, net to gross is a definition of effective STOIIP/GIIP i.e. the component of the hydrocarbon volume that will flow. This way of defining effective or flowable hydrocarbons was probably valid in the days before full field 3D simulators. However, the problem with a log derived porosity cutoff is that it is deciding a- priori what will flow. Removing pure shale or other tombstone lithologies like evaporites is valid but even quite tight porous rock with low saturations can contribute energy to a system even if the hydrocarbons within it are unlikely to be accessed. Another problems is that NTG definitions are fluid dependent and I have seen NTG logs with different porosity cutoffs in the oil and gas legs. This is because the definition of what will flow has a different permeability threshold for oil vs. gas due to viscosity contrasts. This maybe all well and good for a static log derived definition of NTG but plays havoc in a simulator as soon as the GOC starts to move. A practical way to handle the problem is to be inclusive of all reservoir rock types. Non reservoir rocks (e.g. shales and evaporites) can be defined as non-net as they usually contribute no volume or flow capacity. Water saturations and absolute and relative permeabilities then define what will flow hydrocarbons during simulations. Obviously this has a computational overhead but does avoid the problems mentioned. Comment 2: Steve Flew Technical Manager - Field Development & Production Services at Schlumberger You raise a very valid point, and I think its often down to communication. You detail cases 1) and 2) well - I'd just add to 2) that its really the transmissibility Page The Geomodeling Network – Sponsored by Blueback Reservoir www.blueback-reservoir.com 31
  • 32. The Geomodeling Network Newsletter September 2009 (and not instantaneous or 'averaged' permeability) that is affected by NTG per se. You're 3rd point I suspect will go past all the non-upscalers - I think this is often the crux of the challenge: horizontally, the volume factor NTG is easy to understand - it is applied to reduce the cell face/face area between 2 adjacent cells, thus reducing the transmissibility between those 2 cells (but NOT affecting the perm used for any well inflow calcs, usually...). when you come to vertical flow its more of a challenge, there was a previous thread some months ago on some rules of thumb for reducing vertical transmissibility based on the NTG raised to some power. I can't recall the gentleman who wrote an excellent article on that, but seem to recall he was from Shell. The key here is you cannot mod the vertical perm in many cases, it has to be the cell-cell transmissibility that is 'corrected' for poor vertical connectivity, since the 'kludge' of kv/kh across big cells often means you can kill well inflow performance, where in deviated or horizontal wells, kz comes back in. Hopefully, there'll be a few more comments to keep this important, but oft ignored/overlooked thread alive cheers Steve Requests for the newsletter No6 The next newsletter is planned for Oct/Nov 2009, so please send articles to me at the following email address for inclusion (mitch.sutherland@blueback- reservoir.com). Finally, a bit of fun at the expense of engineers everywhere…… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOle_cIXuyw Fin Page The Geomodeling Network – Sponsored by Blueback Reservoir www.blueback-reservoir.com 32

×