PG Guidelines For Estimation of In-Place Volumes PDF

Production Geoscience Guidelines for Estimation of In - Restricted
Place Volumes
EP 2010-0432
Production Geoscience Guidelines for

Estimation of In-Place Volumes
EP2010-0432 HRVM October 2010

Custodian PTU-E
ECCN No US Content
Place Volumes
DOCUMENT HISTORY
Author/Custodian Han Raven, PTU/EDDI
Approved by Hans Goeyenbier (Global Discipline Head Production
Geosciences); Ibbel Ansink (Global Discipline Head
Geophysics); Martin Kraaijveld (Global Discipline Head
Petrophysics); Dave Masson (Global Discipline Head
Reservoir Engineering)
Endorsed by Bill Henry (Group Chief Petroleum Engineer)
Document type Guidelines
Distribution HCM Portal
Date Issue Reason for change
October 2010 1 Release on HCM Portal
This document will be maintained live on the SIEP intranet site. The Web -based document
will be the controlled version and revision announcements will be published on the web.
Copies or extracts of this manual, which have been downloaded from the website, are
uncontrolled copies and cannot be guaranteed to be the latest version.
This document must be read in the context of the Control Framework for Discovered SFR
and Expectation Resource Volumes and the Control Framework for Proved Reserves.

Custodian PTU-E
ECCN No US Content Page 1 of 26
Place Volumes
T ABLE OF C ONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................... 2
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 3
1. THE MINDSET ............................................................................................................ 5
2. THE PROCESS ........................................................................................................... 6
2.1 The general principles of Hydrocarbon In Place volumetrics ...................................... 6
2.2 Data preparation ................................................................................................................. 7
2.3 Frame the project ............................................................................................................... 8
2.4 Data Analysis and Determination of Key Uncertainties ................................................ 9
2.5 Volumetric Method ........................................................................................................... 12
2.6 Modelling or Mapping ...................................................................................................... 14
2.7 Calculation of In Place volumes ..................................................................................... 20
3. QA/QC, MODELS, MAPS AND DOCUMENTATION .................................................... 20
3.1 QA/QC: ............................................................................................................................... 20
3.2 Documentation.................................................................................................................. 22
4. EXAMPLES OF PITFALLS ........................................................................................ 24
5. REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... 25
6. ABBREVIATIONS...................................................................................................... 25

Custodian PTU-E
Place Volumes
INTRODUCTION
The scope of this document is to describe the role of the production geologist (PG) in the
estimation of in-place hydrocarbon resources. The objective of this document is to provide a
practical guide regarding the estimation of in -place volumes, including the establishment of
uncertainty ranges, with the intention of establishing a uniform approach within the Shell
Group to mapping and volumetrics. This will facilitate the signoff on such volumetric
estimates by the PG TA2. Since the introduction of DCAF, Production Geology has single
point accountability for generating the In Place Volumetric Report and for planning and
executing the technical assurance of the estimates.
It is written from the perspective of a PG professional explaining how to execute a mapping
and volumetrics exercise underpinning a resource estimate, and how to use professional
judgment. It makes reference to tools, workflows, potential pitfalls and additional information
sources, and provides a framework to share best practices and lessons learned. No specific
reference is made to proved reserves estimation, determination of proved area, and reliable
technologies. Various changes are expected as a result of project Camel – this document
will be updated for these in 2011.
Although this guide focuses on the PG role, input from other disciplines is critical, especially
from seismic interpretation and petrophysics (see Petrophysical Standards & Guidelines).
These disciplines generally deliver data and interpretations used in hydroc arbon estimation,
with consistency between input data and results being checked through close -the-loop
exercises. A further close-the-loop can be done based on dynamic reservoir performance.
Close-the-
loop
Data / Data /
Interpretation Interpretation
SI PG PP
Seismic Production Petrophysicist
Interpreter Geologist
Close-the- Close-the-
loop loop
Volumetric estimation is a sub process of the Exploration, Hyd rocarbon Maturation,

Integrated Reservoir Modelling and Well and Reservoir Management processes. As a result,
throughout the lifecycle of an asset multiple in -place volumetric estimates are made, from
before the drilling of the discovery well through , the development and the production phase.
Volumetric assessments can be based on a probabilistic approach, 2D mapping , or 3D
modelling. In place volumes can also be determined from a dynamic simulation model . In all
cases the PG should take ownership of the results.
In-Place Volumetric Calculation
1D 2D 3D
Spreadsheet Mapping Modelling
Exploration
Development / Production /
Abandonment
(this guide)

Custodian PTU-E
Place Volumes
Initially these can only be calibrated with analogue information, but based on production
data calibration with performance estimates is feasible and estimates become more reliable
with field maturity (see graph below) . Approach and tools change through this lifecycle.
The objectives of the volumetric estimation vary through this lifecycle. In the exploration and
appraisal phases the key objective will be the ranking of prospects and leads, and the
justification of exploration and appraisal wel ls. During field development focus will be on
decisions regarding feasibility and selection of the optimal development concept, and
resource estimates and production forecasts as input to business plans. During the
operations phase emphasis will be on decisions regarding zone changes, well interventions ,
infill drilling and secondary/tertiary recovery options .
As a result, volumetric estimates are calculated, documented and reported in very different
formats to suit the requirements at different phases in the asset‟s lifecycle, including:
 dSFR Project Initiation Note (DG1)
 Reservoir Characterisation Report (method, volumes)
 Integrated Reservoir Modelling Peer Assist
 Feasibility Report (DG2)
 Field Development Plan (DG3)
 Group Investment Proposal for Final Investment Decision (DG4)
 FDP updates
 Field Studies
 Asset Reference Plan
 Annual Cycle: ARPR/HRV-MS Update/Annual Field Review/Business Plan/Basis for
Booking/RES sessions
 Decision on asset abandonment
This note is a HCM Best Practice Guides that are available through the HCM portal. Specific
workflows for the use of Petrel are available through the IRM Portal and the Global Petrel
Portal. Additional clarification and regional/area of operations specific guidance can be
obtained from the Regional PG Discipline Lead and/or the RRVM.
Throughout this note the terms HIIP, GIIP and STOIIP refer to in -place volumes that comply
with the Control Frameworks for Discovered SFR and Expectation Resource Volumes .and
for Proved Reserves (these are currently being merged).

Custodian PTU-E
Place Volumes
1. THE MINDSET
Volumetric estimates are based on a combination of hard data (from the specific reservo ir or
field and regional information) with soft data (geological concept, analogues) and , therefore,
always require professional judgement. A range of estimates should be made to capture
subsurface uncertainty ranging from the minimum (i.e. what is really known about the
reservoir) to the maximum resources the reservoir could potentially hold. Therefore,
volumetric estimates enhance a project or asset team‟s awareness of subsurface
uncertainty and may provide justification for further data acquisition or ap praisal.
There are many different classifications of hydrocarbon resources (S cope For Recovery-
Expectation-Proved; P90-P50-P10, Proved-Probable-Possible) but all should be
underpinned by a single cumulative density function (cdf) defining the in -place volumetric
range.
Based on the available data (field data, regional data) the team will have a less or more
specific interpretation of the reservoir. As framework for this interpretation a geological
concept should be defined, which comprises structural (defo rmation style, faulting,
fracturing), depositional (sequence stratigraphy, facies trends, reservoir architecture) and
diagenetic (recrystallisation, cementation) elements. In early stages this concept may be
very sketchy and largely based on analogues. The geological concept provides a framework
that should underlie all interpretations and all data should be tested against it. W here data
do not fit this should be explained (e.g. measurement problems) or the concept should be
changed or adjusted. This consistency check helps to reduce subsurface uncertainty. Only
where insufficient data is available for such a geological interpretation geostatistical
methods can be used in isolation , but efforts should be made to link the range of
parameters to applicable regional analogues.
Volumetric calculations require the multiplication of various intermediate products. Where
multiple interpretations are available for each product the selection of interpretations to
combine (based on the understanding of dependencies) is a critical step, as not all
combinations will be physically possible. The geological concept will help in selecting
realistic combinations. The selection of combinations may also be guided by the
requirement to test specific possible subsurface outcomes, such as one where all faults are
sealing, or with a porosity-depth trend. Combining pessimistic or optimistic interpretations
for all parameters will generally result in volumetric estimates outside the realistic volume
range. Therefore, it generally suffices to vary only a small number of key parameters, which
can be combined with „most likely‟ interpretations for the other parameters. The parameters
with largest impact on in-place volume are generally top structure and net reservoir. It
should also be noted that certain parameters (e.g. fault transmissibility, permeability) might
have no impact on in-place volume but still have a major impact on ultimate recovery.
Volumetric estimates are performed at many different stages in an asset‟s lifecycle. As new
data come in (initially appraisal data, subsequently reservoir performance data) these
estimates will change, sometimes dramatically. Over time, the range in resource estimates
will converge, as uncertainty regarding the in -place volume reduces. This can be illustrated
in a hydrocarbon maturation graph. In contrast the uncertainty where in a reservoir the
remaining recoverable volumes occur may increase, especially if no time -lapse seismic data
are available.
 This document covers HIIP estimation as basis f or hydrocarbon resource estimates.
Throughout this document reference is made to low, base (or expectation) and high case
resource estimates. Proved reserves estimates are generally similar to low case
estimates but meet more stringent requirements for external reporting (see EP1100
documentation). In field development planning and well and reservoir management
reference will be made to the base case, which is a deterministic subsurface realisation
with the volume close to the expectation volume.

Custodian PTU-E
Place Volumes
 Modelling and mapping for volumetric estimation has to be constrained by actual well
data and within the context of the Shell Petroleum Resource Volume Requirements as
defined in the EP1100 documentation and associated yearly training programme. Care
should be taken to ensure that all models and/or maps are geologically consistent and
make sense with respect to the data and the geological concept.
Note: For assets on which sufficient t echnical work has already been done it is highly
recommended as a best practice to prepare high confidence maps and volumes as
part of a modelling project framing. A good understanding of factual distribution of
data (“what we know”) will give a much bette r grounding and understanding on what
modelling assumptions and associated uncertainties (“what we don’t know”) we have
to assume during reservoir modelling, i.e. the preparation of deterministic models for
expectation, high and low realisations. This will give a better framework for defining
appraisal and surveillance plans as part of the full life cycle hydrocarbon maturation
plan for a project, including life cycle hydrocarbon resource maturation plans.
 Special attention should be given to extrapolations beyond measured values, for
example:
o Mapping of volumes below the lowest observed hydrocarbons from well log
control (especially where there are no conclusive seismic data or pressure
measurements).
o Treatment of hydrocarbons above highest known oil.
o Mapped faults, which may limit the aerial or vertical extent of hydrocarbons.
 Reservoir parameters improving away from wells (estimated net sand thickness, average
porosity and average hydrocarbon saturation). The above should be supported with a
sound and solid geological framework.

 To avoid time being wasted on alternative approaches, or undue bias in approach for
specific reservoirs, in this document choices have been made for some work steps.
Professional judgement should be used to determine whether the u se of an alternative
approach is justified. The Discipline Lead PG or the RRVM can provide further guidance.
2. THE PROCESS
2.1 T HE GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF H YDROCARBON I N P LACE VOLUMETRICS
The general formulae 1 for STOIIP and GIIP are:
STOIIP = Gross Pay x NTG x  x Sh / Boi
GIIP = Gross Pay x NTG x  x Sh / Bgi
Where net reservoir is not evenly distributed over the reservoir interval (and thus the
hydrocarbon column) it is recommended to map the Net Pay Isochore, which is more easily
quality controlled and audited (see Section 2.6). In such case the formulae become:
STOIIP = Area x Average Net Pay (as back-calculated from Total Productive Volume /
Total Productive Area) x  x Sh / Boi
GIIP = Area x Average Net Pay (as back-calculated from Total Productive Volume /
Total Productive Area) x  x Sh / Bgi
1
NOTE 1: For some unconventional resources a modified formula is used. It is beyond the
scope of this note to describe these variations.
NOTE 2: The formulae are written for a mapping exercise in which grids are multiplied. The
Gross Pay map defines Area and the Gross Pay values. In a reservoir modelling exercise
Gross Rock Volume would be used as input.

Custodian PTU-E
Place Volumes
The hydrocarbon in place volume is the product of the individual values (in 3D models) or
grids/averages (in 2D mapping) of the above parameters. For reservoirs comprising both oil
and gas separate So and Sg values or average So and Sg grids are required.
2.2 D ATA PREPARATION
Before starting a volumetric exercise it is essential to collect the following data:
 Existing maps, models and volumetric data, which should at least be used to
compare new interpretations against.
 Well data per reservoir: formation tops, isochore data, sums and averages of
petrophysical data (for the entire reservoir or for the hydrocarbon -bearing interval only,
as applicable). For deviated wells, corrections for well deviation and bed dip must be
made (isochore values) and must include the X/Y location correction.
Lithology cut-offs (typically Vshale or GR) are generally applied to discriminate reservoir
intervals from non-reservoir intervals. In addition, cut-offs on other reservoir properties
(porosity, permeability, saturation, shale volume, etc.) can be deployed on the basis of
petroleum engineering judgment. The use of cut -offs should be supported with sound
geoscience and engineering judgment and be consistent with the approved F ield
2
Development Plan. For the calculation of in -place volumes it is critical that only one cut-
off is applied, even though another cut -off may be applied subsequently to estimate
3
movable hydrocarbons .
Note: In case of thick reservoirs which are penetra ted by highly deviated wells the
entire reservoir penetration along the well path must be indicated on top reservoir
maps. In case of highly deviated wells extra attention should be given to the point
used as basis for the gridding. For average property ma ps (porosity, net to gross
and hydrocarbon saturation) it is most correct to use the midpoint (in between Top
and Base reservoir) as the reference point. With the current software tools
(TechLog/Petrel) this is not straightforward; therefore judgement is r equired to
determine in which cases the additional effort is warranted. These cases require
4
additional QA/QC.
 Fluid contacts, as defined by proper petrophysical evaluation. To understand the
uncertainty ranges it is useful to also have information about l owest and highest known
hydrocarbons per reservoir at hand.
These data should be integrated with other information, e.g. structural conformable
seismic amplitude information, well test data, etc. Data should be available per well /
fault block / reservoir. A single contact rarely applies to the whole field due to aerial and
vertical compartmentalisation.
2
Some assets apply both net reservoir and net -pay cut-offs. W here a net pay cut-off has
been used, the in-place volumes will be lower and the recovery factor will be higher than for
estimates using only a net reservoir cut-off. Therefore, when comparing recoveries from
different fields or reservoirs or with analogues it is essential to know how the in -place
volumes have been calculated.
3
Cut-offs to discriminate moveable hydrocarbons typically exclude poorer reservoir zones
based on well-based observations regarding flow, e.g. production logging tool data. It is far
more difficult to demonstrate that further away from the wellbore such a specific poor
reservoir interval will not contribute to flow or provide pressure support, especially later in
field life. When assessing cut-offs this should be taken into account. .
4
In highly deviated wells the reservoir may be (partially) penetrated several times (e.g.
snake wells, fish hook wells). A good evaluation is required to determine which values can
be used for property modelling and/or mapping.

Custodian PTU-E
Place Volumes
 Seismic interpretation, including top and base structure per reservoir (if available), and
associated fault patterns. It is essential that the structural f ramework is robust:
geologically feasible and not over interpreted.
Fault data should be grouped by fault type (direction, timing) and/or magnitude. Higher
resolution seismic data allows the recognition of a larger proportion of the smaller faults,
and better definition of the larger faults, which often turn out to be a series of smaller,
unconnected faults. W hen only lower resolution seismic is available such events can be
recognized from sudden changes in fault orientation and too low fault throw (compar ed
to fault length). Faults should not be over-interpreted (extended beyond what is seen on
seismic) as this could lead to an underestimation of resources.
Seismic amplitude data may comprise information about reservoir quality and fluid
distribution. Seismic inversion data can provide information about reservoir quality,
continuity and connectivity. Time-lapse seismic data may also provide information about
the dynamic reservoir response, including fault transmissibility.
 Well correlation panels and relevant structural / stratigraphic cross sections.
 Regional geological information, if available, to support observed trends and identify,
if possible, the existence of analogue fields to allow comparison of observed reservoir
parameters. This should include data from other fault blocks (is the fault in between a
normal or a growth fault?) or over/underlying reservoirs (need sequence stratigraphic
framework).
 Supporting information, e.g. well test/dynamic data that infer connectivity within
reservoir or between fault blocks, geochemical data, etc.
Prepare a set of base maps (simple plot of well positions and well values) per
reservoir showing the aerial distribution of the data. This will also enable identification of
trends in the reservoir data and quality control of well data.
2.3 F RAME THE PROJECT
Before any volumetrics project is started it is advisable to sit together with all disciplines
(including Geomatics) to frame the project, agree key parameters and plan ahead . W here
the HIIP estimation is part of a reservoir modelling effort these elements should be
addressed as part of the modelling framing.
 Purpose of the exercise (basis for an upcoming decision; formal hydrocarbon resource
reporting, etc.)
 Scope of the exercise (first estimate of new asset, up date for specific new data, update
for a single reservoir or fault block, etc.)
 Upfront constraints (resources, time)
 Review of available data (see Section 2.2) including:
o Well data that are valid and should be taken into account . W ell data that should be
excluded, and why, e.g. data from wells with poor log coverage should be
excluded; data from wells that only partially penetrate the reservoir (this includes
horizontal wells that follow the stratigraphy) or with part of the sequence missing
due to faulting should be rejected for reservoir property mapping, but should be
included for 3D modelling. Comparison of log based porosity to core based
porosity. Professional judgement is required.
o Fluid contacts to use;
o Wells that have changed status and impact thereof.
 Method, approach and tools to be used. A volumetric evaluation is largely an
assessment of uncertainty; therefore „‟Handling uncertainty in EP (Guidelines)‟‟ (EP
2009-5212; Aalbers et al, 2009) is a key document.
The first choice is between determin istic, probabilistic, or a combination of both.
Deterministic can be based on models (3D) or maps (2D), whereas probabilistic methods
are 1D. Generally a combination of methods is recommended (see Section 2.4) .

Custodian PTU-E
Place Volumes
Whichever approach is selected, it is critica l to have a good understanding of key
uncertainties (key parameters that impact volumetrics and their uncertainty range),
dependencies between parameters, and the ability of the various methods to address
these.
Notes:
The approach taken may also depend on the asset under evaluation: e.g. a major new
project with few reservoirs versus a group of producing fields with numerous individual
reservoirs and fault bocks.
Whatever method and approach is selected, a minimum set of maps is always required
for each reservoir (for HSSE purposes, for well and reservoir management, for QA/QC,
to establish aerial distribution of parameters, etc.).
 Area that will be modelled/mapped.
There is a strong preference for the full petroleum system (gas leg, oil leg, aquifer)
being modelled/mapped, but this may be practically impossible (e.g. if the field or the
aquifer is much larger than the licence area).
Maps for all reservoirs should be made using the same area of interest and be plotted at
the same scale.
 Petrophysical evaluation criteria to apply for Proved volumetric consideration .
 Units to be used for volumetric calculation/reporting .
o Reservoir intervals in a vertical sense, aligned as practically as possible with the
completion strategy. Which reservoirs are perforated , or will be perforated in
accordance with the approved development plan, and where (i.e. in which wells and
over which intervals)?
o Reservoir blocks (polygons) for each reservoir, based on fault and fluid distributions
and/or licence areas.
 Models/maps to be made. Generally at least a base case (P50) and low (P90) and high
(P10) realisations, but additional cases may be constructed to test specific combinations
of parameters.
 Naming convention to be used (for reservoirs, map types, models, volumetric polyg ons,
etc.). Map type names should be aligned with those used in the Mapping Standard and
consistently used in models, on maps, in workflows, in reports (e.g. FDP), etc.
 Modelling/mapping and volumetrics strategy, and output requirements .
2.4 D ATA ANALYSIS AND D ETERMINATION OF K EY U NCERTAINTIES
A fundamental step in any volumetric exercise is basic data analysis. A good understanding
is required of the data coverage and variation, which can be checked through the following:
 What data is available? How many data points are there for each of the reservoirs and
how are these distributed?
o Have all relevant data types been captured; is no specific key information missing?
o Are all reservoirs equally covered or are the data for specific intervals less or of
lower quality and is therefore the uncertainty larger?
o Are the data points concentrated in a specific part of the reservoir (e.g. the crest)
and are specific uncertainties therefore under sampled (e.g. the deeper parts of the
flanks, a specific fault block, or the proximal part of the reservoir where properties
are expected to be better).
o How certain are the data? Is their positioning correct (vertical and lateral); did the
tool work properly (e.g. logging in a washed out zone); are the data optimal (e.g.
structural definition under salt/gas chimney/coral reef; hydrocarbon saturation
determined in a zone with thin beds); do different data types confirm the same
information?

Custodian PTU-E
Place Volumes
o What dependencies are there between parameters? For example saturation is
dependent on (1) elevation above fluid contact and (2) reservoir properties;
otherwise certain areas may have a larger uncertainty due to being under a gas
chimney and without any well penetration.
 Are there geological trends visible from the data? E.g. net -to-gross deteriorating away
from the sediment source, porosity deteriorating down flank.
 Is there a good analogue? (Preferably in the same area and geological setting, and with
similar reservoir properties). Analogues are extremely valuable for benchmarking or for
providing additional information, e.g. if their development is more advanced and
therefore dynamic data and more detailed static data are available. (Note: there are
strict rules regarding selection of an analogue for Proved volumes)
The identification of key uncertainties is another fundamental step, as it allows the analysis
to focus on specific parameters. This is generally done through a sensitivity analysis in
which a single parameter is allowed to vary, whilst the others are kept constant. The
measured impact on volumetrics (HIIP) compared to a base case is then displayed in a
tornado plot (see figure below) based on which key parameters can be selected. Even
though individual parameters are varied, it is important to understand dependencies, in
5
order not to underestimate the impact of specific parameters.
Often the volumetric evaluation will be an element of a larger scope, e.g. also updating the
static reservoir models as input to reservoir simulation and development planning. It is
advised to generate a “washing line” between the old and new results to visuali se the
reason(s) for change. Therefore it is important that also other factors are weighed in
choosing the method/approach and in the identification of key parameters for further
analysis.
 The table underneath can be used as a generic guide. The static parameters with the
biggest impact are generally top structure and net -to-gross, followed by isochore and
contacts.
5
In a tornado plot the end points represent P90 and P10 values for individual parameters
(i.e. NOT the full uncertainty range).

Custodian PTU-E
Place Volumes
Impact Parameter GRV Volume in Place Recoverable Well Planning

Volumes
Structural surfaces H H (dependent) M M
(seismic horizons)
Fault position H (dependent) M (dependent) M H (dependent)
Fault pattern L L High H (dependent)
Fault seal None None H H
Natural fractures None L H (dependent) H (dependent)
Stratigraphic L L H M
zonation
Reservoir L L/M H L/M
architecture
Isochore H H (dependent) M L
Porosity L M/H H L
Net-to-gross None H H L
6
Permeability levels None None H H
7
Permeability None None H H
Distribution
Contacts (incl. H H H H
oil/gas column
thickness)
Saturation None H H M
Aquifer strength None None H (dependent) H (dependent)
Oil viscosity None None M M
Oil compressibility None None L (dependent) L
Rock None None L (dependent) L
compressibility
Uncertainty parameters typically considered in rese rvoir modelling with their impact for conventional
clastic reservoirs (not an exhaustive list; modified from Aalbers et al., 2009: 19)
Through the lifecycle of an asset the key uncertainties often change. Initially focus will often
be on top structure, net-to-gross and hydrocarbon contacts defining in-place volumes, but
gradually emphasis will change to parameters impacting dynamic behaviour, including
reservoir connectivity and permeability. As assets mature, the recovery process often
changes, and a more detailed understanding of the reservoir and related uncertainties is
generally required to maximise recovery.
Overall volumetric uncertainty will reduce as more data become available (additional wells,
further seismic data, production data). However, the uncertainty around the location of
remaining resources and their volume may stay constant or even increase as a project
matures.
In some reservoirs/fields volumetric estimates and/or uncertainty ranges have changed
dramatically through the lifecycle of th e asset, sometimes with the expectation case
estimate ending up outside the original uncertainty range. Such changes can be the result
of new data (e.g. seismic data, well data, performance data), further study, or simply as
6
Unless permeability is a component of the saturation -height function
7
Same as footnote 6

Custodian PTU-E
Place Volumes
result of handovers resulting in other staff getting involved. It is the intention of these
guidelines to standardise approaches and thus to minimise the occurrence of this latter type
of changes.
2.5 V OLUMETRIC M ETHOD
Two methods can be used to analyse uncertainty (modified from Aalbe rs et al., 2009: 5):
 Deterministic methods where uncertainty is assigned (discrete) single values over
ranges that cover the perceived solution space (e.g. best and worst cases). They
therefore capture the aerial distribution of parameters (lateral and ver tical) and
geological trends, especially in 3D modelling.
 Probabilistic (stochastic) methods where randomness is present and uncertainties are
not described by unique values, but rather by (continuous) probability distributions with
specific dispersion and shape. The challenge is to ensure that the combinations of
parameters result in realistic and meaningful combinations.
 With time (and additional data becoming available) there will be increasing emphasis on
the deterministic approach.
They can both be defined using historical data, expert opinion or fundamental principles.
Associated pros and cons of the two distinct methods are:
Pros Cons
Deterministic + Aerial distribution of - Under sampling of range (limited number of realisations)

parameters captured - Difficult to assign a probability to each set of outcomes (realisation),
+ Consistency, ease to so typically only reveals range of outcomes, not likelihood of
communicate occurrence e.g. what is the chance of the best /worst case
assumptions/model to occurring?
customer
Probabilistic + Range fully sampled - Lack of consistency (if dependencies cannot be fully incorporated in
+ Statistics based on large model)
number of samples - One-dimensional, i.e. aerial distribution/dependency of paramete rs
not captured
- Difficult to communicate assumptions/model to customer
- Results of two probabilistically determined estimates cannot be
simply added together
- Impossible to run large simulation models for full range of
uncertainties
As both methods have advantages and disadvantages, in a volumetric exercise often both
methods will be combined. The typical workflow is then:
 Construct a deterministic base case map or model and perform a sensitivity analysis to
determine the key uncertainties impactin g in-place volumes (see Section 2.4). Note that
certain parameters may impact dynamic reservoir performance (and therefore ultimate
recovery) besides their direct impact on HIIP volumes (e.g. if permeability is derived
from log-based porosity estimates).
 Perform a probabilistic analysis on these k ey uncertainties based on which a
cumulative density function (CDF) for the volumetric uncertainty in the reservoir or field
is constructed. Percentiles divide the y-axis into 100 equally probable increments
(horizontal slices). In an ordered sequence of simulated samples, the value of the P90
sample is larger than that of 10% of the samples and smaller than that of 90% of the
samples. The P100 and P0 represent respectively the smallest and largest value
calculated, but not necessarily the smallest & largest value possible, due to under
sampling of input ranges (from Aalbers et al., 2009: V).

Custodian PTU-E
Place Volumes
 Construct a number of deterministic realisations (reservoir models or sets of maps)

capturing upside and downside.
o The production geoscientist should ensure that uncertainties and drivers for
alternative interpretations are well understood. Alternative realisations should
consist of geologically realistic combinations of geologically realistic elements .
Preferably each model or set of maps should be constructed around one or two key
uncertainties (e.g. structural uncertainty or a particular trend in reservoir properties)
– this allows focus and ensures the realisation does not become overly pessimistic
or optimistic.
o Good understanding is required of the key parameters driving subsurface uncertainty
(impact on volumetrics, reservoir performance, and development options). Typically
this understanding should drive the selection of low and high case realisa tions.
o If the work is performed as part of development planning , besides volumetric low and
high cases additional realisation may be required to assess the impact of specific
key uncertainties on development decisions, e.g. specific reservoir connectivity
realisations impacting well type and pattern, a realisation resulting in high water or
gas production to decide on required facility capacity, etc.
o Within deterministic models or maps, c ertain parameters may be populated using
probabilistic approaches, e.g. geostatistical approaches in parameter gridding for
maps or probabilistic reservoir body distribution in models. Judgement is required
whether the product adequately captures the geology, or whether geological bias is
required (e.g. through the introduction of help points, dummy wells or contours ).
 Each of the deterministic realisations can be plotted on the CDF and therewith
calibrated. Specific realisations near P90, P50 and P10 can then be selected as the low,
base and high cases. For field development planning there is no need to select those
realisations closest to one of these points on the graph; it is better to select a realisation
with a specific, relevant combination of parameters which is reasonably close to one of
these points – for example a case with low net sand if that is a key subsurface
uncertainty. W ithin this workflow a further combination of methods is often worthwhile or
required, e.g.:
o Using maps (2D) for QA/QC of reservoir models (3D);
o Using probabilistics to add the volumes ca lculated for different polygons in a
reservoir, different reservoirs in a field, etc.
 An important consideration in the probabilistic addition of volumes concerns the
dependencies between parameters. In order to get a good estimate of overall
volumes the correct dependencies should be selected. For example, in a stack of
reservoirs, if top structure is a key uncertainty there is likely a high dependency
between the reservoirs in a specific fault block, but not necessarily between
parts of the same reservoir in different fault blocks.

Custodian PTU-E
Place Volumes
Besides the above-mentioned workflow there are other methods that can deliver volumes,
e.g. a scenario approach or experimental design. The scenario approach is preferentially
used in development planning, and is focused on ev aluating a range of potential outcomes,
rather than on defining HIIP. Experimental design provides a range in volumes but, again, is
one dimensional – not capturing aerial dependencies. Where such exercises are performed
the production geoscientist should actively participate. A good description of uncertainty
analysis is Abernathy et al. (2009).
2.6 M ODELLING OR M APPING

Each volumetric estimation project will have to deal with sets of maps, and most will also
make use of 3D models. Different approaches a re feasible, depending on the primary
objective, which may focus on estimating in place volumes, recoverable volumes, locating
remaining resources, etc. Even if the intent is making maps only, this is generally done most
efficiently through the building of a simple 3D model, at least for the structural framework,
contacts and thickness, from which a consistent set of maps can easily be derived. If
probabilistic methods are used, at least simple models or maps for top structure, thickness
and fluid contacts are required. If 3D models are built, sets of maps need to be created for
QA/QC purposes. In all cases sets of maps are needed for auditing purposes (described in
Section 2.2). The following section discusses key aspects of modelling and mapping as far
as these are related to volumetric estimates.
As for all modelling work, it is recommended to use geophysical and petrophysical “close-
the-loop” approaches to validate the final mapping/modelling/volumetric outcomes against
key input data.
Further guidance on modelling can be found in the IRM Guidelines.
Note: The default Convergent Interpolation gridding algorithm in Petrel is advised for
all structure and reservoir property gridding. Th is algorithm best honours the original
data points and minimises edge effects. This is in line with the requirement that for
each parameter mapped, map contours should exactly tie the posted value at each
individual well location. As always, evaluators mus t QA/QC resulting maps to ensure
they properly represent the geological concept. Especially in property mapping the
use of some control points or lines or dummy wells may be required.
Top and Base Reservoir Structure
The first step in mapping/volumetric c alculation is establishing Top and Base Reservoir
Structure surfaces/maps based on a seismic interpretation that has been validated, tied to
wells and appropriately depth converted. Top Structure is generally the parameter (or one of
the parameters) with largest impact on in-place volume. A good understanding of the
uncertainties in seismic interpretation, structural interpretation and depth conversion is
essential for deriving a range of maps representing low/expectation/high cases. Generally,
away from dense well control, and where there is significant uncertainty in seismic time
interpretation, depth conversion methodology or reservoir conformance, the difference
between low and high case surfaces/maps will be largest.
The process to derive Top and Base S tructure (time structure, velocity modelling,
amplitudes, etc.) and data on the depth conversion process leading to time structure
surfaces/maps should be retained for the audit trail. Equally, where Top and/or Base
Structure cannot be picked directly from seismic data, but are derived by isochoring up or
down from the nearest seismic horizon, all relevant data should be retained. Special care
should also be taken if there is a difference between the formally defined (and mapped) top
reservoir and the top of the hydrocarbon-bearing part of the reservoir (e.g. in a highly
heterogeneous reservoir – such as channels surrounded by shales, where the uppermost
part of the reservoir is a waste zone due to diagenesis underneath an unconformity, or
where a maximum flooding surface has been picked).

Custodian PTU-E
Place Volumes
Top Structure is generally the map on which key reservoir data is summarised, including
fluid contacts, faults and fault block number, volumetric polygons, etc. Such information
should be properly annotated.
Gross Isochore
If gross isochore maps are required as intermediate step (because Top or Base Structure
cannot be picked directly from seismic, or to derive intra -reservoir maps and volumetrics)
they will generally be gridded from well data.
A good review is required of what data should (not) be used in a gridding exercise and what
controls are needed. For example, in areas with faults it is important to understand whether
the thickness distribution is impacted by factors such as syndepositional faulting, differential
erosion between fault blocks, or different fluid contacts. In preparing an isochore map for a
channelised deposit or a canyon, extrapolation away from wells without the use of pinch out
lines will lead to erroneous results.
It is essential that extrapolated thickness changes away from well control are scrutinised
against depositional trends, structural dip, etc. (the isochore for a reservoir with constant
isopach can increase dramatically in areas of steep dips). Checking against other data (e.g.
seismic) and geological concept is essential.
In areas with a thick reservoir and low angle faults the isochore values in the fault wedge
zone should be adjusted (Fig. 1). This has to be done manually if maps are constructed
through grid operations. It is done automa tically in 3D modelling software, but the end result
should be QC‟d.
Well 1 Well 2 Gross Isochore map
Well 1
1 Line
of sec
Top Structure and Isochore in each well

tion
Fault zone at
Top Structure
2
Isochore from well values Fault zone at
Base Structure
3 Well 2
Isochore corrected for fault wedges
4 If a Gross Isochore map is used

to derive another Structure map,
corrections have to be made in
Top and Base Structure the fault zone
Cross Section
Figure 1. Effects of fault wedge on isochore

If isochore maps are used to subdivide a reservoir it is important to understand the nature of
all contacts between reservoir units. For example, if Top Structure is an unconformity, the
isochore for the highest reservoir subunit cannot be established from well data alone, but
requires the stack of isochore maps for the subunits to be subtracted from Base Structure
and intersected with Top Structure.
Gross Pay

Custodian PTU-E
Place Volumes
The Gross Pay grid is the difference between the Top and Base Structure grids, constrained
between agreed fluid contacts (or lowest/highest known hydrocarbon – LKH/HKH). The fluid
contacts will be based on a combination of evidence from well logs, pressures and seismic.
There are alternative ways of constructing a Gross Pay map – with key variables being
working down from the Top Structure grid or up from the Base Structure grid, and clipping to
fluid contacts. The decision which of these approaches is most appropriate depends on the
specific circumstances of each case, e.g. which horizon was directly interpreted from
seismic data; whether Top Structure represents an angular unconformity; how well thickness
variation within the reservoir is understood, etc. These operations can become complex if
done manually, but are quite straightforward in 3D modelling software. In either case the
result should be QC‟d.
In case both oil and gas are present separate grids for oil and gas must be generated.
Especially for thick reservoirs and areas with low structural dip significant areas can be in
the wedge zone where water underlies hydrocarbon, or oil underlies gas. In such areas
Gross Pay will change rapidly, decreasing to 0 at the agreed flu id contact (or LKH). A
manual adjustment of the Gross Pay map will be required if maps are constructed through
grid operations. It is done automatically in 3D modelling software, but the end result should
be QC‟d.
Figure 2. Gross Pay calculation correcting for contacts of a given reservoir with a
constant thickening towards the NW.
Reservoir Properties and Reservoir Continuity

Reservoir properties (gross isochore, net reservoir) and a verage reservoir properties (NTG,
porosity, hydrocarbon saturation) should be calculated from well data (logs, cores, etc.). For
each reservoir property the variability should be evaluated. This is best done through a base
map displaying property values in combination with relevant key features. This could include
faults, pinch out lines, wedge zones (defined by the intersection lines of fluid contact or LKH
with top and with base structure grids), etc. Other information can provide information for
the areas in between the wells and outside well control, especially seismic am plitude or
seismic inversion data. It is critical that such information i s properly calibrated to the wells,

Custodian PTU-E
Place Volumes
and its reliability is established through fit to geological concept, development history
(additional wells drilled coming in on prognosis based on seismic data, or dummy wells
demonstrating the same), the use of analogues (e.g. a nearby similar but more mature
reservoir), etc.
Where reliable seismic data is available the modelling or mapping can be done directly from
these data in combination with well data. Alternatively, or where only well data is available,
based on the base maps (in combination with other evidence) it can be decided to contour
all well data together, or by subset. For example if synsedimentary faulting impacted the
property distribution, the contours should be discontinuous across such faults. The
contouring should reflect the geological concept, e.g. gross isochore reducing away from
the sediment source (or thickening in the case of carbonate build ups), NTG following the
orientation of facies belts, porosity reducing with depth (compaction/diagenesis). This can
be achieved through a combination of well data and controls such as co -kriging, control
lines, control points, etc. This assessment will give the PG insight into reservo ir continuity,
which is also very relevant input for the evaluation of hydrocarbon recovery. Conversely, if
the reservoir is already in production, production data, pressures, 4D seismic, etc. will also
provide insight into reservoir continuity, which can be used to guide property
mapping/modelling.
Care should be taken to ensure that the set of maps for a particular reservoir is consistent,
and the same is required for a stack of reservoirs or for reservoirs in the same formation in
a specific area.
In the special situation where certain reservoir properties (average NTG, average porosity,
average hydrocarbon saturation) are materially different above and below a fluid contact,
values must be calculated across the relevant hydrocarbon -bearing part of the reservoir
only in order to avoid invalid averages being used in the volumetric calculation. For
example, if reservoir properties are not equally distributed vertically (as in a fining or
coarsening upward sequence, Figure 3) and there is a substantial wedg e zone (gross pay
thins due to fluid contact or hydrocarbon down to/up to), such an approach should be used.
Inte
Wedge zone
rse
c
Inters
tion
OW
ection
0.531
C
&B
0
0.466 0.5
OWC
ase
Stru
& Top S
ctur
e
0.569
tructu
0
0.6
re
0.654 Well A
0.593 0.681
N
0.70
Figure 3a. Average NTG map for a reservoir – contouring is not impacted by
hydrocarbon distribution.

Custodian PTU-E
Place Volumes
Well A
Wedge zone
-
0
0.466 0.5
OWC
0.70
0.569
1.00
0.80
0.90
0
Well with GR log showing 0.6 Well A
coarsening upward 0.835
0.593 -
Net to Gross map
Figure 3b. If reservoir properties are not equally distributed vertically (as in a fining
or coarsening upward sequence, see log for well A), and there is a substantial wedge
zone, average properties should be calculated over the hydrocarbon bearing part of
the reservoir only, and contouring adjusted to avoid over- or underestimation of
volumes in the wedge zone
In the case of reservoir modelling this is generally straightforward. In the case of mapping
this issue can be addressed through first establishing trends by mapping reservoir
properties for all wells, and subsequently correcting the wedge zone contours based on
average properties for the hydrocarbon-bearing part of the reservoir only.
An alternative approach to mapping Gross Pay and Net -to-Gross is to directly grid the Net
Pay values across the hydrocarbon-bearing interval, based on average Net Pay values for
individual wells supplied by the petrophysicist. This approach is attractive in cases where
net reservoir is not distributed evenly over the reservoir interval, so that clipping o f Gross
Pay (Fig. 3) could lead to substantial over or underestimation of the net reservoir interval.
Where this method is applied it should be done in addition to the standard method (at least
a Net-to-Gross map should be produced) and subject to the same constraints as above
(honouring trends outside the wedge zone, clipping to f luid contacts, etc.). See also Section
3.1. This method is more easily quality controlled and audited, and the refore preferred by
auditors. It will depend on the local geological conditions which method is more geologically
robust and delivers the best input for volumetrics.
In mapping and in modelling special attention should be given to potential pitfalls in the use
of sums and averages. In maps reservoir averages for an entire reservoir are used, in
models the same is done by model block thickness. In specific situations the multiplication
of average values for porosity and saturation for the entire reservoir may give very different
results than the result of such multiplication by model block, and the same is true for models
with larger/thicker versus smaller/thinner blocks.
Porosity and Net-to-Gross (NTG)
Average NTG and porosity grids should be based on a specific most likely geological
interpretation supported by all the available data, where appropriate also including seismic
data, production data, etc. Lateral variations should be well understood, especially where
trends result in areas with average values that are much higher or lower than observed in

Custodian PTU-E
Place Volumes
wells. Manual correction may be required, especially in heterogeneous reservoirs, but
should be based on geological considerations.
In case the lateral variation of one or more properties is a key subsurface uncertainty (e.g.
stratigraphic traps, basin centred gas, heavy oi l sands), for those properties separate low
and high cases should be prepared.
Where there is insufficient information to map a property, a mean value should be used, as
computed from the well values for each area or reservoir. The same approach may be t aken
where sufficient information exists to show very limited property variability. A base map with
all average well values is still required to justify this approach. Where multiple wells are
clustered in a small area of the reservoir (e.g. around a well pad or infill drilling) whereas
other wells are spread out, the average from those clustered wells should be used as a
single average well when estimating the mean value for the reservoir (to avoid undue
weighting to the properties in that small area) . When estimating mean values, based on
geological evidence or concept the PG should determine whether well data from adjacent
areas should be taken into account or ignored.
Property maps in use by a project or asset team (or such maps derived directly from the 3D
model in use by the team) may be based on stochastic property infill or 'reservoir body
mapping'. Use of such maps in res ource estimates can be accepted after checking that
these maps and derived maps fit a specific geological interpretation supported by all the
available data.
Hydrocarbon Saturation (Sh)
Per reservoir a Sh grid should be constructed, through the application of a saturation -height
8
function to porosity and top/base reservoir structure grids . The saturation-height function
should be properly calibrated to petrophysically-derived knowledge of the transition zone
and implemented using all relevant geological information. Application of saturation -height
functions is the preferred approach, but the resulting saturation maps will not precise ly tie
individual wells. QA/QC is required to understand these differences and to determine
whether the function used is adequate.
Occasionally, especially in very mature fields with abundant well data , PGs choose to map
saturation by contouring average well values. This is generally not advised as this method
is not straightforward: (1) due to contacts and saturations changing over time, and (2)
especially in the wedge zone where saturation changes rapidly well data are generally
sparse. Proper analysis is required to establish which data is valid to use to establish
original contacts and saturations.
Special attention should be given to extrapolations and to the contours in the wedge zone
(where the reservoir is filled partially with hydrocarbon and par tially with water). The Sh grid
will generally converge to 0 at the deepest hydrocarbon contact. W here there is a thin
transition zone the reduction in the wedge zone may be less, and grid may not converge to
0 at HC contact. W here there is a thick transit ion zone saturation may be low beyond the
wedge zone.
Where both oil and gas occur within a reservoir, separate grids are required for each of
these hydrocarbons.
In case a Sh grid cannot be prepared a mean value could be calculated from average
values for all wells. Whether this is done by reservoir or in more detail for specific areas
should be decided based on geological arguments. W atch out for bias in data. For
reservoirs with long transition zones or significant variations in structural elevation thi s
approach will introduce additional uncertainty.
8
The Shell proprietary application Relate can be used for derivation of this function

Custodian PTU-E
Place Volumes
Oil shrinkage factor/gas expansion factor
In general a mean value per reservoir is applied, and should be advised by the team‟s
reservoir engineer. In compartmentalised fields with demonstrably differen t PVT properties,
compartment specific formation volume factors should be used.
Additional constraints on mapping and volumetrics
 Well data from outside the field, or from outside the licence area (in case the field extends beyond
the licence area) should be used in the analysis of geological trends and in the contouring. Special
scrutiny should be given to the validity of using such data in mapping/modeling or averaging, using
the geological concept as a guide.
 If QA/QC of derived maps (e.g. net reservoir maps derived from gross isochore and NTG
map) indicates that a correction is required, this should be done to the basic maps,
rather than the derived maps.
Note: Following data inventory and analysis, during the framing the application of the
above constraints for each reservoir should be reviewed and agreed between the
team’s production geologist, petrophysicist, reservoir engineer, Team Leader, and PG
Discipline Lead, and where needed (in some case of Proved reserves estimates)
endorsed by the RRVM, before embarking on gridding/mapping and volumetrics.
2.7 C ALCULATION OF I N P LACE VOLUMES

HIIP is calculated by multiplication of the above grids:
 Gross Pay grid * NTG grid = Net Pay grid
 Net Pay grid * average Porosity grid = Net Pore Column grid
 Net Pore Column grid * Sh (grid or value) * expansion factor (or divided by shrinkage
factor) = HIIP grid
Before multiplying the grids it is important to confirm that all averages or values used are
properly related to the multiplied parameter, i.e. Porosity shou ld be the average for the
relevant Net Pay values, and Sh should be the average for the Net Pore Column value by
which it is multiplied. In 3D modelling packages this multiplication is done automatically.
All input grids and calculated grids must be viewed in contoured map form to confirm that
they are geologically reasonable within the constraints of any clipping.
3. QA/QC, MODELS, MAPS AND DOCUMENTATION

Following the gridding and volumetric calculations, QA/QC of the results and preparation of
final documentation should take place.
3.1 QA/QC:
All the different elements contribution to the HIIP estimate should undergo adequate
QA/QC. Most of this will be done by the individual(s) performing the work throughout the
workflow. At certain key steps informal or m ore formal peer reviews can take place, with
formal review/approval as the work is completed.
As generic check:
1. Ensure all available data is used (or explained why not)
2. Ensure there is data consistency between disciplines (well paths, reservoir property
data, etc.)
3. Define correct uncertainty ranges on all reservoir properties, at the right scale

Custodian PTU-E
Place Volumes
Specific QA/QC sheets have been developed for petrophysical evaluation, seismic
interpretation and Petrel mapping and modelling. Usage of these sheets is recommended
for the individuals performing the work (throughout the workflow) and for reviewers.
Specific for HIIP estimation the following key petrophysical elements should be checked:
1. Net reservoir contains all rock that has the potential to store hydrocarbon (no
“dynamic” cutoffs) and is consistent with available core data
2. Check that intervals of low resistivity pay, radioactive sands, etc have not been
overlooked.
3. Check correct application of in situ stress co rrections for porosity and that
calculated porosities are in line with these.
4. Hydrocarbon saturations average to zero in known water bearing rock
5. Check saturation height modelling is applied correctly against log derived
saturations and using free water levels consistent with the models (not “contacts”).
In 1D modelling (Fastrack) ensure the saturation height model is incorporated
properly.
6. In the case of 3D modelling, ensure correct combination of upscaling options,
preserving the equivalent hydrocarbon column. In case of 1 D modelling (e.g.
Fastrack) ensure average reservoir properties are internally consistent (i.e.
average NTG and porosity calculated using the same cutoff criteria)
7. Ensure that no areal trends are removed with log normalisation
8. Bad hole effects have been identified and discounted for (usually these effects
result in too high porosities)
9. Free water level assessment
10. Synthetic seismogram has been made using the correct parameters
The key elements for seismic interpretation are:
1. Project Dynamic (in this guide described as project frame)
2. Data
3. Regional framework (stratigraphic, structural, charge model)
4. Seismic-W ell tie
5. Quantitative Interpretation (QI)
6. Horizon Interpretation
7. Fault Interpretation
8. Time-Depth
9. Uncertainty management
10. Interface SI & Static & Dynamic models (close the Loop)
11. Audit trail
For reviews of the In Place Volumetric Report, the general recommendation is using the IRM
Standard - Technical Peer Assists 2 and/or 3 [previously called IMR3/4]. Key elements
comprise:
1. Proper frame
2. Data – reviewed, properly used, documented
3. Key uncertainties identified and basis for realisations
4. Base case and L/H realisations internally consistent, geologically realistic, in line
with geological concept
5. Base, Low and High cases calibrated against probabilistic volumetric assessment
6. Audit trail

Custodian PTU-E
Place Volumes
A modelling workflow has been developed which utilises the 3D functionality of the software
(1) in constructing 2D grids and (2) for QA/QC purpose s (see Petrel Portal; the current
version is for Petrel2007 and Proved volumes – this is being adjusted for generic application
in HIIP calculation and for Petrel2010).
A critical item to check is that the logical link between the various volumes (low-expectation-
high) reported for a reservoir is understood and reflected in the materials underpinning the
volumes. It is most useful to understand and document how much of the d ifference in
volume is due to differences in top structure, fluid contacts, property maps, area (polygon)
considered, etc.
3.2 D OCUMENTATION
Documentation and supporting interpretational information should be prepared as part of the
audit trail to allow further assessments during internal/external reviews/audits and final
reporting. Documentation of the reliability of specific interpretations and technologies
(especially where demonstrated through later well or production data) establishes
analogues, which should be shared with other asset teams and regions. Pr esentation
material and hard copy material should be incorporated in documentation supporting the
HIIP submission. These maps should be stored and archived separately from the working
maps, following the local AoO archiving procedures (see Hulshof, 2009).
What should I prepare per reservoir, as part of the documentation:
 First, consider how maps fit the purpose of resource estimation. For green fields, maps
are the critical determinant of volumetric based resource estimates (the following bullets
describe this situation). For very mature fields for which resource estimates are based
on decline curve analysis a set of expectation maps in use by the asset team (or derived
from the current reservoir model) will suffice. However, if there is significant remaining
uncertainty about a specific parameter, then low and high case maps for that parameter
will still be required. For example, if there is considerable remaining uncertainty about
fluid contacts, low and high case Gross Pay, Net Pay and Sh maps would be required.
Volumetric based estimates Performance based estimates

Top Structure Low/Expectation/High Expectation*
Gross Isochore Expectation* Professional judgement is Expectation*
Gross Pay Low/Expectation/High required to determine when a Expectation*
Average Net to Gross Expectation* field is sufficiently mature to Expectation*
Net Pay Low/Expectation/High allow reporting in line with the Expectation*
Average Porosity Expectation* right hand column Expectation*
Average Sh Expectation* Expectation*
* Unless this parameter is a key uncertainty in the volumetric estimate
Table 2. Overview of minimum set of maps required

 A good understanding of the field‟s setting within the regional framework as basis for
mapped/modelled reservoir property trends. Furtherm ore, analogue reservoirs within this
regional framework should be indicated.
A schematic chart showing the differences between low, expectation and hi gh volumes will
demonstrate the level of uncertainty and the approach applied (see Fig. 6). In this type o f
analysis focus should not be on precision in the numbers or listing all differences, but rather
on identifying the key elements that create the differences between the base case, low and
high volumes.

Custodian PTU-E
Place Volumes
Miscellaneous small changes

Use alternative saturation-height function
Assume unpenetrated fault block(s) have deeper fluid contacts
Use High case structure map
Use Low Case structure map

Exclude unpenetrated fault block
Use Low Case OWC
High
Miscellaneous
small changes
Low
Figure 6. Example of a schematic chart to illu strate key differences between base
case, low and high volumes
 Similarly, a good calibration of in-place volumes calculated is by comparison to material
balance results or decline curve analysis based volumetric estimates.
 ‟‟W ashing line‟‟ or „‟waterfall‟‟ c harts can be used to show the differences between
volumetric reports at different times (e.g. last year‟s and this year‟s bookings) and
explaining the reasons (i.e. what has changed and why). In these charts precision in the
640 Rw changes
Proved Reserves (MMbbls)
620
Bo changes
600
Well 1
Results Well 2
580
Results
560
End Year 1
End Year 2
540
520
500
numbers is required in order to produce an auditable record (see Fig. 7).
Figure 7. Example of a schematic “washing line” or “waterfall chart” for tracking

differences between volumetric reports at different times
 Appropriate hard copy and scaled cross sections and correlation panels to further
demonstrate the relationship between wells, observed fluid contacts and reservoir
trends.

Custodian PTU-E
Place Volumes
 Structure and property maps (hard copies at appropriate scale, suggested 1:50,000 or
1:25,000) per reservoir. Maps should adhere to the Mapping Standard and the Shell
Standard Legend, be clearly labelled and signed off by the relevant Te chnical Authority.
As a minimum the following maps should be prepared (also see Table 2):
o Top Structure maps showing all well penetrations, faults and the outlines of
all volumetric polygons, fluid contacts/LKH/HKO (intersection at Top and
Base Structure), faults, stratigraphic pinch outs, reservoirs labelled, licence
areas.
o Gross Isochore map
o Gross Pay map clipped to fluid contacts (or LKH/HKO), showing the actual
values in wells. In case both oil and gas are present, prepare separate maps
for oil and gas.
o Average Porosity and NTG maps (Proved), showing actual average well
property data.
o Net Pay map. In case both oil and gas are present, prepare separate maps
for oil and gas.
o Average Sh map (only if a grid is used).
The contour intervals on each of the maps should be selected in a sensible way to reflect
the variations observed in the well data.
What additional materials should I prepare as part of a review?
 Slides that explain the setting of the reservoir within the regional context
 Slides showing the “washing lines”
 Correlation panels and cross sections.
 A table of values by reservoir so that calculations can be checked more easily
Net Pay
end GRV area Net Pore volumes av. Sh Bo STOIIP
Volumes
year 1
MMm3 MMm3 MMm3 MMm3 MMbbls frac MMbbls
unit 1 747 603 36 141 889 0.611 1.333 408
unit 2 236 7 19 1 8 0.389 1.333 2
unit 3 610 194 34 43 270 0.510 1.333 103
unit 4 538 14 25 3 19 0.320 1.333 5
unit 5 163 38 11 8 52 0.500 1.333 19
unit 6 31 3 4 1 4 0.401 1.333 1
total 538
Table 3. Overview of in place volumetric calculation by reservoir
4. EXAMPLES OF PITFALLS
Structure Maps
- Too optimistic/unrealistic or even three dimensionally impossible
- Mechanically correct but geologically wrong
- Not based on sound data
- Fault interpretation/integration inco nsistent
- Uncertainty in the depth of the flank of the structure not reflected in the Top Reservoir
Structure map (to create high confidence interpretation)
- Inconsistency between top/base reservoir structure and tops and bases used to
calculate averages for reservoir properties.
Isochore/Net Pay Maps
- Use of isopach thickness instead of isochore thickness in existing penetrations.

Custodian PTU-E
Place Volumes
- Wrong application of correction factors for deviated wells/dipping beds
- Incorrect use of thickness (net reservoir/net pay)
- Use of incorrect methods for bottom/edge water in construction of net pay maps
- Incorrect application of wedges (water, hydrocarbon, fault)
- Stratigraphic occurrence within a field defines two separate hydrocarbon accumulations
but are mapped with contours as one continuous accumulation.
Reservoir Property Maps
- Properties from full reservoir interval used, whilst properties in water column were
significantly different from those in the hydrocarbon column.
- Gridding process resulted in bull‟s eyes in the property maps. Although the impact on
resource estimates was negligible, many maps had to be recreated to demonstrate this.
- Incorrect application of net-to-gross ratios
- Resources being over or underestimated due to large contact area and coarsening
upward (underestimated) or fining upward sequence (overestimated).
- In case of directly gridding hydrocarbon saturation d ata: wedge zone well data
negatively impacting contouring in the area where reservoir is fully hydrocarbon filled.
Wedge zone well data and zero saturation contour points should be used for gridding
within the wedge zone only.
- In 2D mapping exercises use of partially penetrated or faulted reservoir data points can
lead to areas with erroneous values and/or erroneous trends.
Several of the above examples are from Dan Tearpock's (Subsurface Consultants &
Associates, LLC) course on Reserves - Common Mapping Errors
5. REFERENCES
 Aalbers et al., 2009. Handling uncertainty in EP (G uidelines). EP 2009-5212.
 Abernathy, R., et al., 2009. Handbook for Integrated Reservoir Modelling of Clastic
Reservoirs. SIEP Inc Report EP2009-3407.
 Hulshof, B., 2009. PG Guidelines f or Publication and Archival of Subsurface Maps. SIEP
BV Report EP 2009-5366.
 Mapping Standards
 Petrophysical Standards & Guidelines
 Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), 2001. Guidelines for the Evaluation of Petroleum
Reserves and Resources. A Supplement to the SPE/WPC Petroleum Reserves
Definitions and the SPE/ W PC/ AAPG Petroleum Resources Defin itions.
http://www.spe.org/web/store/index.shtml
 Swinkels, W., 2009. Probabilistic and Deterministic Reserves Assessment. SIEP BV
Report 2009-5204.
6. ABBREVIATIONS
AoO: Area of Operation (also called Operational Unit or OU)
ARPR: Annual Review of Petroleum Resources
Bgi: Gas formation volume factor
Boi: Oil formation volume factor
GIIP: Gas Initially in Place
GRV: Gross Rock Volume

Custodian PTU-E
Place Volumes
HC: Hydrocarbon(s)
HIIP: Hydrocarbons Initially in Place
HKO: Highest Known Oil
HRV-MS: Hydrocarbon Resource Volumes - Management System
IRM: Integrated Reservoir Modelling
LKH: Lowest Known Hydrocarbon
NTG: Net to Gross
: Porosity
PG: Production Geosciences / Production Geoscientist
PRA: Proved Reserves Addition
QA/QC: Quality Assurance/Quality Control
RRVM: Regional Resource Volume Manager
RVR: Resource Volume Reporting
SFR: Scope for recovery
Sh: Hydrocarbon Saturation
STOIIP: Stock Tank Oil Initially in Place
DISTRIBUTION LIST
AoO Recipient Ref Ind. No. of Copies

SIEP BV EP Library 1
UA Bill Henry SIEP-PTU/A 1
P&T Dave Masson SIEP-PTU/EDDI 1
P&T Hans Goeyenbier SIEP-PTU/EUES 1
P&T Ibbel Ansink SIEP-PTU/DQ 1
P&T Martin Kraaijveld SIEP-PTU/EDDI 1
P&T Han Raven SIEP-PTU/EDDI 1

Custodian PTU-E

PG Guidelines For Estimation of In-Place Volumes PDF

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

PG Guidelines For Estimation of In-Place Volumes PDF

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Production Geoscience Guidelines for Estimation of In - Restricted

Production Geoscience Guidelines for

EP2010-0432 HRVM October 2010

EP2010-0432 HRVM October 2010

TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................... 2

1. THE MINDSET ............................................................................................................ 5

2. THE PROCESS ........................................................................................................... 6

2.1 The general principles of Hydrocarbon In Place volumetrics ...................................... 6

2.2 Data preparation ................................................................................................................. 7

2.3 Frame the project ............................................................................................................... 8

2.4 Data Analysis and Determination of Key Uncertainties ................................................ 9

2.5 Volumetric Method ........................................................................................................... 12

2.6 Modelling or Mapping ...................................................................................................... 14

2.7 Calculation of In Place volumes ..................................................................................... 20

3. QA/QC, MODELS, MAPS AND DOCUMENTATION .................................................... 20

3.1 QA/QC: ............................................................................................................................... 20

4. EXAMPLES OF PITFALLS ........................................................................................ 24

EP2010-0432 HRVM October 2010

Volumetric estimation is a sub process of the Exploration, Hyd rocarbon Maturation,

Spreadsheet Mapping Modelling

EP2010-0432 HRVM October 2010

EP2010-0432 HRVM October 2010

EP2010-0432 HRVM October 2010

EP2010-0432 HRVM October 2010

EP2010-0432 HRVM October 2010

EP2010-0432 HRVM October 2010

EP2010-0432 HRVM October 2010

EP2010-0432 HRVM October 2010

Impact Parameter GRV Volume in Place Recoverable Well Planning

EP2010-0432 HRVM October 2010

Deterministic + Aerial distribution of - Under sampling of range (limited number of realisations)

EP2010-0432 HRVM October 2010

 Construct a number of deterministic realisations (reservoir models or sets of maps)

EP2010-0432 HRVM October 2010

2.6 M ODELLING OR M APPING

EP2010-0432 HRVM October 2010

Well 1 Well 2 Gross Isochore map

Top Structure and Isochore in each well

4 If a Gross Isochore map is used

Figure 1. Effects of fault wedge on isochore

EP2010-0432 HRVM October 2010

Reservoir Properties and Reservoir Continuity

EP2010-0432 HRVM October 2010

EP2010-0432 HRVM October 2010

Net to Gross map

EP2010-0432 HRVM October 2010

EP2010-0432 HRVM October 2010

2.7 C ALCULATION OF I N P LACE VOLUMES

3. QA/QC, MODELS, MAPS AND DOCUMENTATION

EP2010-0432 HRVM October 2010

EP2010-0432 HRVM October 2010

Volumetric based estimates Performance based estimates

* Unless this parameter is a key uncertainty in the volumetric estimate

Table 2. Overview of minimum set of maps required

EP2010-0432 HRVM October 2010

Miscellaneous small changes

Use Low Case structure map

Figure 7. Example of a schematic “washing line” or “waterfall chart” for tracking

EP2010-0432 HRVM October 2010

EP2010-0432 HRVM October 2010

EP2010-0432 HRVM October 2010

AoO Recipient Ref Ind. No. of Copies