The document presents reservoir characterization and 3D static modeling of the Awe Field in the Niger Delta. Key findings include: 1. Petrophysical analysis of two reservoirs, G and I, across five wells found reservoir G has better porosity (29%) and permeability (262.5 mD) than reservoir I (26% porosity, 77.06 mD permeability). 2. 3D seismic interpretation identified faults within the field and mapped reservoir structure. Reservoir G contains two main faults while reservoir I has one minor fault. 3. Static modeling estimated reservoir G has a stock tank oil initially in place of 156 MMSTB while reservoir I contains 127 MMSTB, indicating reservoir G has greater

1. RESERVOIR CHARACTERIZATION AND 3D STATIC MODEL
OF “AWE FIELD” NIGER DELTA
BY
AWE, T and IDEOZU, R. U
Presented At the Nigerian Mining and Geosciences Society
International Conference Holding at Sheraton Hotel, Abuja
Date: March 26 to March 31 2017
1

2. PRESENTATION OUTLINE
• INTRODUCTION
• MATERIAL AND METHODS
• RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
• SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
2

3. 3
INTRODUCTION
The need for proper integration of 3-D seismic data with petrophysical data to
improve exploration success has been in use in the petroleum industry for some
time now. (Oghonyon et al, 2015).
3-D seismic data and well logs have been used to map structure and stratigraphy
of many Niger Delta Field’s, where identification of reservoir facies is a major
challenge to plan delineation and development drilling. (Anthony and Aurelius,
2013).
Reservoir characterization is a combined technique of geophysics, geology,
petrophysics and geostatistics and reservoir engineering with a single goal- to aid
field development and assist reservoir management team in describing the
reservoir in sufficient detail.
Developing a 3D/4D data for reservoir development planning so as to obtain
higher recoveries with fewer wells at minimum cost through optimisation,
increasing reserves, improving stimulation and completion practices and reducing
to a minimum uncertainty in production forecasts. (Hardorsen and Domsleth,
1993; Phillips, 1996)

4. AIM AND OBJECTIVES
• The aim of this research is to characterize and carry out 3D static
modelling of “AWE FIELD” Eastern Niger Delta Nigeria.
The objectives of the study are:
1. Correlate the reservoir across the five wells
2. Delineate the hydrocarbon bearing reservoir
3. Map out major faults within the field
4. Compute the petrophysical parameters such as porosity, permeability
net-to-gross ratio and water saturation using the deterministic approach.
5. Infer the depositional environment from well-log motif and relate the
quality of the reservoirs to its environment of deposition.
6. Create 3D static petrophysical and facies model
7. Evaluate the reservoir hydrocarbon volume.
4

5. LOCATION OF STUDY AREA
The study area is located within
Coastal Swamp Eastern Niger Delta.
Location of study
area
Fig. 1: Niger Delta map
showing location of study area
Fig. 2: Base map with
location of the five wells in
the study area
5

6. MATERIAL AND METHODS
• Data set for 5 wells from SPDC
through the permission of DPR
• The data set used by for thus
research was provided by shell
Petroleum Development Corporation
(SPDC) through the permission of the
Department of petroleum Resources
DPR). This Data set includes
• The data set used by for thus research
was provided The data set used by for
thus research was provided by shell
Petroleum Development Corporation
(SPDC) through the permission of the
Department of petroleum Resources
DPR). This Data set includes by shell
Petroleum Development Corporation
(SPDC) through the permission of the
Department of petroleum Resources
DPR
• 3D Seismic (Zeg Y format)
• Well logs (GR, Resistivity,
Density, Neutron log, sonic)
(ASCII format)
• Check shot (ASCII format)
• Deviation data (ASCII format)
Computer Based Tool
6

7. RESERVOIR CHARACTERIZATION WORK FLOW
MATERIAL AND METHODS Cont’d
Fig 4: General workflow
for reservoir petrophysical
analysis process
Fig. 3 : Reserach workflow used
for Awe field reservoir
characterisation and modelling
7

8. MATERIAL AND METHODS Cont’d
• RESERVOIR IDENTIFICATION AND PETROPHYSICAL ANALYSIS
Petrophysical Formulae
Porosity:
Permeability:
Water Saturation:
8

9. MATERIAL AND METHODS Cont’d
• SEISMIC INTERPRETATION
1. Well-to-seismic tie
2. Fault and Horizon mapping
3. Time and Depth surface map (V0 + K*Z. )
Fig 5: Generating synthetic seismogram
9

10. MATERIAL AND METHODS Cont’d
• 3D STATIC MODEL
1. Petrophysical Model (Sequencial Guassian Simulation
algorithm)
2. Facies Model (Sequencial Indicator Simulation algorithm)
• DETERMINISTIC VOLUME ESTIMATION
STOIIP = Stock Tank
Oil Initially In Place
10

11. MATERIAL AND METHODS Cont’d
• ENVIRONMENT OF DEPOSITION
Fig 6: GR Log response for different environments
11

12. • RESERVOIR IDENTIFICATION AND PETROPHYSICS
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
Sand ShalySand Shale
Fig 7: Well correlation panel reservoir G, H and I
12

13. RERVOIR IDENTIFICATION AND PETROPHYSICS
Reervoir G
Reservoir G
Well Name Top Ft Base Ft Thickness Ft
Awe 1 6714.12 7267.61 553.49
Awe 2 6497.9 7184.4 686.5
Awe 3 6507.09 7241.51 734.42
Awe 4 6424.18 7085.07 660.89
Awe 5 6454.97 7123.85 668.88
Average 6519.65 7180.49 660.84
Reservoir I
OWC depth: 10950ft in Awe 1 and
9750ft in others (SSTVD)
Reservoir I
Well Name Top Ft Base Ft Thickness Ft
Awe 1 10588.51 11342.71 754.2
Awe 2 9362.11 9872.14 510.03
Awe 3 9456.07 9805.48 349.41
Awe 4 9290.8 9972.34 681.54
Awe 5 9334.93 9828.82 493.89
Average 9606.48 10164.29 557.81
Table 1: Reservoir G top, base and thickness Table 2: Reservoir I top, base and thickness
• Petrophysical analysis in reservoirs G and
I across the five wells. The results for the
various petrophysical parameters such as
net-to-gross (NTG), effective porosity (ɸ)
permeability (K) in mD, water saturation
(Sw) were computed using the
interpretration software.
13

14. Water Oil Fig 8: Reservoir fluid contact correlation panel
RESERVOIR IDENTIFICATION AND PETROPHYSICS cont’d
14

15. RESERVOIR PETROPHYSICS
Table 3 & 4 Qualitative description of poro-perm after Rider, 1986
Table 3:Petrophysical values for sand G and I
15
/ 29%
/ 26%

16. Fig 9: Petrophysical curve for Sand G from Awe 001 to Awe 003
16

17. Fig 10: Petrophysical curve for Sand I from Awe 003 to Awe 005
17

18. SEISMIC INTERPRETATION
Fig 11a: Seismic-to-well match
1. WELL-TO-SEISMIC TIE
18

19. WELL-TO-SEISMIC TIE Cont’d
19Fig 11b: Seismic-to-well match

20. SEISMIC INTERPRETATION Cont’d
Fig 12: Seismic section showing mapped faults and
horizons G Top and I Top on the inline
2. INTERPRETED FAULTS AND HORIZONS
20
F1
F2
F3F4
F5
F6
F7F8
F9

21. 3. SIESMIC TIME AND DEPT SURFACE MAP
21Fig 13a: Seismic time &
structural map for reservoir G
Fig 13b: Seismic time &
structural map for reservoir I

22. 3D STATIC MODEL
Reservoir G Structural Model
22
Reservoir I Structural Model
1. Structural Model
Fig 14a: G shows two main faults, I
shows has only one Fig 14b: I shows one minor fault.

23. 2. Fluid Contact Model
Reservoir G Reservoir I
23
3D STATIC MODEL Cont’d
G has more oil than I
Oil Water Fig15: Fluid contact models for
reservoir G & I

24. 3. Porosity Model
24
Reservoir G
Reservoir I
3D STATIC MODEL Cont’d
Fig16: G and I Porosity model
reflects a range of 0.28-0.3 by
colour variation
/ 29%
/ 26%

25. 25
3D STATIC MODEL Cont’d
4. Permeability Model
Reservoir G , > 250mD Reservoir I < 100mD
/ 29%
/ 26%
Fig17: Permeability models of reservoir G and I

26. Reservoir G Reservoir I
26
3D STATIC MODEL Cont’d
5. Facie Model
Sand Shaly Sand Shale
Fig 18: Facies model shows only two facies
(sand and shalysand) with sand predominately
present in reservoir G while reservoir I shows
three main lithofacies – sand, shaly sand and
shale

27. RESERVOIR DETERMINISTIC VOLUME ESTIMATE
27
The Rock bulk volume (106ft3) for both
reservoir G and I are 27191 and 475823
respectively. However, reservoir I with higher
bulk volumes is less petroliferous due to higher
shales volume as seen in the petrophysical
correlation panel
Table 4: Reservoir Volumetrics Estimation

28. DEPOSITIONAL ENVIRONMENT
28
Table 5: Inferred depositional environment

29. CONCLUSION
 The delineation and correlation of hydrocarbon bearing reservoirs, 3-D
structural interpretation, reservoir fluid and contact identification,
petrophysical analysis, lithofacies interpretation and volumetric estimation of
two reservoirs from 5 wells in the Awe Field have shown that:
• Reservoirs G and I, were penetrated at depth of 6714.12 ft, 6497.9 ft, 6507.09
ft, 6424.18 ft, 6454.97 ft in reservoir G and 10588.51ft, 9362.11ft, 9456.07ft,
9290.8 ft, 9334.93ft in reservoir I.
 The intrinsic petrophysical analysis of the reservoirs from the well logs show
that they both have a NTG of 78% and 75%, porosity of 29% and 26%, water
saturation of 50% and 43%, and a permeability of 262.5 Md and 77.06Md
respectively.
 These results suggest a reservoir with economic performance that is
considerably viable for production, having an estimated stock tank oil initially
in place (STOIIP) of 156MMSTB and MMSTB127 for reservoir G and I
respectively.
 Comparing the reservoir petrophysics, reservoir G which is a distributary
channel has the best hydrocarbon potential than reservoir I which is a
shoreface.
29

30. THANNKS FOR LISTENING
30