Abstract
A Geological model is the image of the understanding of a
field according to available data. Through time new data allow
generating more detailed models. Peciko Gas field is
interpreted as complex shale dominated deltaic environment
deposit. Modeling strategy is pragmatic, based on a 2D
approach. Its resolution is optimized through time.
Methodology focuses on multi-disciplinary data integration for
interpreting and modeling fluid distribution. Final goal is to
provide reservoir model with major flow barriers.
5000-15000 m wide
STACKED BARS
Introduction
Peciko is a giant gas field south east of the Mahakam Delta. It
covers 250km2 with a gross reservoir column of 2000m.
It is interpreted as shale dominated deltaic environment
deposit. If the fluid content is relatively simple - gas or water its organization appears more difficult to evaluate.
The objective of this paper is to illustrate these difficulties
and how they can be, at least partly, overcome through
integration of petrophysics, geology & reservoir.
This paper focuses on:
1. Sand: sedimentological organization, identification and
modeling for NetSand evaluation
2. Fluid status: analysis and distribution for NetPay
evaluation in a context where no regional GWC can be
identified
3. Saturation: estimate and modeling
4. Describing the global modeling workflow. Where
NetSand, NetPay and Saturation fit in this workflow and
what are the remaining issues.
It also illustrates how the modeling of these parameters is
optimized through time according to the available data.
fig. 1.
SPE 93253
C sand
mudstone
B sand
Laminated
sandstone
Burrowed
mudstone
to
siltstone
bioturbated
sandstone
and
mudstone
A sand
bioturbated
C sand
Laminated
C sand
clean
sandstone
with few
clay
drappes
Thin
bedded
burrowed
sandstone
and
mudstone
Sand distribution
Once sands are defined at the wells, using log
interpretation calibrated with cores, sand is spatially correlated
based on a layering.
Peciko gross reservoir column is about 2000m thick.
Within this interval 7 Units based on correlation with other
existing fields and pressure regimes have been defined. Each
Unit is subdivided into layers for a total of 39 layers. Each
layer is itself subdivided into deltaic cycles for a total of 97
deltaic cycles.
Until recently, modeling was done at layer scale and is
now done at deltaic cycle scale to better constrain the reservoir
flow model.
SPE 93253
20 km
fig. 8. Sketch of
organization
layer,
deltaic
cycles,
mouth
bars
C
B
A
Sand Mapping
Methodology
3c-0
1 cell
Deltaic cycle
3a-3
Deltaic
cycle
Deltaic cycle
3a-2
Layer
3a-1
3D modeling alternative
3D object modeling scale is an even thinner resolution. It
consists in modeling sand bodies distribution within an
interval. The proper interval is the deltaic cycle scale as mouth
bars stack downstream from a distributary channel which is
active during the deltaic cycle phase. Lateral distribution is to
be controlled through trend maps (probability of presence of
sand bodies). At layer scale (which stacks several deltaic
cycles) trend maps would be too homogeneous due to
compensation effects between stacked deltaic cycles.
Therefore 3D modeling requires a good understanding of the
deltaic cycle scale which can be reached only through the
generation of a 2D model at deltaic cycle scale prior to the 3D
model construction.
15 to 120 m
Flow barrier?
Layer
3a-0
Sand Mapping
Methodology
SPE 93253
Object
Modeling
1 or more cells
fig. 13 shows two deltaic cycle maps that are very different
in term of sand distribution.
The difference between these two maps is explained by the
following key values: only 45% of the wells are sand bearing
in deltaic cycle 1g-0 and the average Net To Gross (NTG) in
these sand bearing wells is 10%. On the other hand, for deltaic
cycle 2e-1, 96% of the wells are gas bearing and their average
NTG is 34%. Basically, such differences can highly impact
production.
Fluid identification & distribution
To be able to go from NetSand to NetPay (i.e. from Sand to
Gas Bearing Sand) one must be able to identify and distribute
fluids within the reservoirs. In Peciko gas field, only 2 fluids
are discriminated: water and gas.
Identification techniques
A series of techniques are available to identify fluid within
the formation.
Layer 3a
NetSand ABC
fig. 12. Example of a NetSand Map at Layer Scale
Log interpretation
Logs are indirect measurements of the formation content
(rock and fluid). By combining different logs information and
through interpretation one can perform a fluid status.
In the case of Peciko, fluid interpretation leads to 4
possible statuses:
Water
Gas
Possible Gas: interpretation is not clear enough and an
uncertainty remains.
Water Rise: fluid is interpreted as water but initially was
gas bearing. Water rise is the result of depletion from
surrounding production wells. Today in the case of Peciko
Water Rise is not a major issue but this is expected to
change in the future as production and therefore depletion
increase. Geological model considers fluid status prior to
production start (i.e. before water rise) allowing reservoir
engineers to history match the model and simulate the
water rise. Therefore in the geological model water rise is
interpreted as Gas.
Peciko Fluid status analysis is based on the following log
interpretation rules (fig. 14):
SPE 93253
OFA: W
fig. 14. Fluid identification (a) gas interval; (b) water interval
Resistivity logs
A synthetic resistivity log R0 is created to discriminate
gas bearing reservoirs from water bearing reservoirs. R0
is computed based on 100% water saturation in reservoirs.
High values on Rt (measuring the uninvaded zone)
indicate hydrocarbon presence.
Comparison between Rt and R0 gives a strong indication
of the presence or absence of hydrocarbons. In thick gas
bearing reservoir, R0 is opposite to Rt while in thick
water bearing reservoirs, R0 is superimposed or parallel to
Rt. Ambiguity for reservoir fluid determination appears in
thin sand reservoir context. Fluid change cannot be
detected by the logs resulting in a major uncertainty on
fluid identification.
Comparison between Rxo (measuring the invaded zone)
and Rt helps confirm fluid identification. High Rxo (wells
drilled with oil based mud) compared to Rt gives water
bearing reservoirs indication. On the other hand, Rxo and
Rt are superimposed in gas bearing reservoirs.
Interpretation
Different reservoir petrophysical properties result in
different log responses for the same fluid status. On the other
hand, the same resistivity response can be associated to
different fluid status as it is sensitive to other parameters.
Fluid status analysis is an interpretation which requires
deconvolving imbricated parameters (reservoir quality, fluid
status and saturation). This interpretation is particularly
difficult for thin reservoirs.
Some anomalies on logs behavior (see fig. 15) are found in
deeper stratigraphic unit. Log responses that would be
confidently interpreted as Proven Gas in upper units were
SPE 93253
PT - FA
#1
#2
PT FA
if #1
tight/water
Proven Gas
Water
GWC
Proven Gas
Gas Down To
Possible Gas
Water Up To
Water
Deltaic Cycle
#4
PT FA
if #3
tight/water
Deltaic Cycle
#3
PT FA
If #2 gas
OFA: W
OFA: W
Pressure data
Within a connected reservoir initial pressures are at
equilibrium. After production starts things can be different.
Away from producing wells a pressure trend appears. When a
new well goes through already produced reservoirs, pressure
measurements show depletions. The degree of depletion
depends on parameters such as: for how long the reservoir has
been produced, reservoir size, reservoir quality (connectivity),
and distance to producing wells. Therefore, today on Peciko,
depending on when well was drilled, pressure can either be:
Initial pressure: i.e. pressure data from well drilled before
production start. This category can be extended to layers
or reservoirs that are not yet perforated. For example in
Peciko upper reservoirs are not perforated yet. Therefore
pressure measurements in these layers, even from recent
wells, are still initial pressure data
Depleted pressure: i.e. pressure data taken after
production start: such pressure measurements potentially
SPE 93253
Wells
Water bearing
Gas bearing
Layer 3g
G
th DT
e
st cro
ru
ct ss
ur
e
Hydrodynamism
shifts Gas Pool
towards NW flank
of the structure?
SPE 93253
Water Head
0
-20
20
40
2700
WaterHead Layer 2a-a
Initial Gas
Initial Possible Gas
Initial Water
C
2800
d C
ren
T
A
s
Ga
E
m? F
s
i
E
nam
U
GPydrody
E
h
t
r
H
No
E
North GPU
Trend
Depth
?
ter
Wa
d
e
B
ch
Per
Water
2900
C
F
B
Water bearing
Gas bearing
A
3000
Water Head
300
200
Ce
ntr
al
GP
U
3200
No
rth
GP
U
WaterHead Layer 3f
Initial Gas
Initial Possible Gas
Initial Water
400
D epth
J
I
3400
K
3500
Fl
GP
U
ow
Ba
rri
e
So
ut
hG
PU
F E
Ce
nt
ra
l
G
D
C
No
rth
GP
U
500
H
I
I
Water bearing
Gas bearing
G H
Possible Gas
related to
South GPU?
3300
So
ut
hG
PU
Water bearing
Gas bearing A
SPE 93253
Saturation modeling
Gas saturation modeling is one more fluid related
challenge in such a complex environment.
In term of modeling, a grid cell does not have the same
significance when considering a 3D model or a 2D model.
In a 3D model a cell is a subdivision of the layer or deltaic
cycle. The stack of cells subdividing the layer allows to model
vertical variability. Considering fluid, deeper cells might be
water bearing, upper cells gas bearing and toward uppermost
cells gas saturation might increase modeling the transition
zone.
In a 2D model it is very different as one cell represents the
whole layer thickness. Therefore parameters such as porosity
or saturation are average parameters hiding the variability
within the column.
The main issue for 2D modeling saturation is the
management of the transition zone and the predictivity of the
resulting map.
LAYER
Gas zone
GWC
Well A
Water
zone
top of a deeper sand body (sand bodies with possible gas may
exist in between) as shown in fig. 26.
LAYER
Gas zone
GWC
Water
zone
Well B
Apparent transition zone at layer scale
Well A
Sand
quality
Sg
Well B
Sand
quality
Sg
10
SPE 93253
5.
WATER
modeled
modeled
on
lC
ca
derived
derived
pt
ce
Filling Ratio
&
d
ui
Fl
in
n
io
at
rm
fo
Phie
Gas Bearing Pore Volume
Sg (Gas Saturation)
HPM Gas In Place Down Hole Condition
Bg (Gas Compression Factor)
1.
2.
3.
4.
NetSand mapping
Filling Ratio mapping
a. Filling Ratio limit
b. Filling Ratio interpolation
NetPay map is then computed:
NetPay = NetSand FillingRatio
Porosity mapping (using NetSand limit as a 5 p.u. limit)
Conclusion
Updating and improving the geological model of a giant field
in such a complex shale dominated deltaic environment is a
challenge and requires a pragmatic approach to meet the
development deadlines. Peciko is modeled with a 2D mapping
methodology with increasing vertical resolution between
generations. These models are clearly flow driven and
constructed in the frame of an integrated geology reservoir
team.
Before production starts and based on exploration and
delineation wells, a 2D model at layer scale was the optimal
achievable vertical resolution.
The addition of production wells geological interpretation
together with production data improved the geological
understanding of the field. It revealed weaknesses of the layer
scale model: specifically inadequacy between vertical scale
and fluid organization. This led to initiate a model at deltaic
cycle scale. This model is expected to provide reservoir model
with geologically constrained flow barriers.
Further down the road of the field life modeling might be
done in 3D. This would require a highly geologically
controlled object modeling approach in the frame of an
integrated uncertainty study. This is not feasible today by lack
of geological understanding at infra deltaic cycle scale to
properly constrain the stochastic distribution of mouth bars
and related flow barriers.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank TOTAL, TOTAL E&P
INDONESIE, BP-MIGAS and INPEX for their permission to
publish this paper.
Special thanks to all Peciko asset members whose daily
work made Peciko models possible, and therefore this paper!
The authors also want to thank the petrophysics, the
reservoir transverse teams and the exploration team from
TOTAL E&P INDONESIE in Balikpapan for their valuable
collaboration.