About This Item

Share This Item

The AAPG/Datapages Combined Publications Database

AAPG Bulletin

Abstract

AAPG Bulletin, V. 98, No. 4 (April 2014), P. 729763.

Copyright copy2014. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists. All rights reserved.

DOI:10.1306/08281313035

A comparative study of reservoir modeling techniques and their impact on predicted performance of fluvial-dominated deltaic reservoirs

Peter E. K. Deveugle,1 Matthew D. Jackson,2 Gary J. Hampson,3 Jonathan Stewart,4 Martyn D. Clough,5 Thaddeus Ehighebolo,6 Michael E. Farrell,7 Craig S. Calvert,8 James K. Miller9

1Department of Earth Science and Engineering, Imperial College London, South Kensington Campus, London SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom; present address: Chevron Energy Technology Company, 250 St. Georges Terrace, Perth, Western Australia 6000, Australia; [email protected]
2Department of Earth Science and Engineering, Imperial College London, South Kensington Campus, London SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom; [email protected]
3Department of Earth Science and Engineering, Imperial College London, South Kensington Campus, London SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom; [email protected]
4ExxonMobil Upstream Research Company, P.O. Box 2189, Houston, Texas; present address: ExxonMobil Development Company, 12450 Greenspoint Drive, Houston, Texas 77060; [email protected]
5Department of Earth Science and Engineering, Imperial College London, South Kensington Campus, London SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom; present address: Chevron Australia, 250 St. Georges Terrace, Perth, Western Australia 6000, Australia; [email protected]
6Department of Earth Science and Engineering, Imperial College London, South Kensington Campus, London SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom; present address: Shell UK, 1 Altens Farm Road, Aberdeen AB12 3FY, United Kingdom; [email protected]
7ExxonMobil Upstream Research Company, P.O. Box 2189, Houston, Texas; present address: Third Coast Geoscience, 22136 Westheimer Parkway 426, Katy, Texas 77450; [email protected]
8ExxonMobil Upstream Research Company, P.O. Box 2189, Houston, Texas; [email protected]
9ExxonMobil Upstream Research Company, P.O. Box 2189, Houston, Texas; [email protected]

ABSTRACT

Multiple techniques are available to construct three-dimensional reservoir models. This study uses comparative analysis to test the impact of applying four commonly used stochastic modeling techniques to capture geologic heterogeneity and fluid-flow behavior in fluvial-dominated deltaic reservoirs of complex facies architecture: (1) sequential indicator simulation; (2) object-based modeling; (3) multiple-point statistics (MPS); and (4) spectral component geologic modeling. A reference for comparison is provided by a high-resolution model of an outcrop analog that captures facies architecture at the scale of parasequences, delta lobes, and facies-association belts. A sparse, pseudosubsurface data set extracted from the reference model is used to condition models constructed using each stochastic reservoir modeling technique.

Models constructed using all four algorithms fail to match the facies-association proportions of the reference model because they are conditioned to well data that sample a small, unrepresentative volume of the reservoir. Simulated sweep efficiency is determined by the degree to which the modeling algorithms reproduce two aspects of facies architecture that control sand-body connectivity: (1) the abundance, continuity, and orientation of channelized fluvial sand bodies; and (2) the lateral continuity of barriers to vertical flow associated with flooding surfaces. The MPS algorithm performs best in this regard. However, the static and dynamic performance of the models (as measured against facies-association proportions, facies architecture, and recovery factor of the reference model) is more dependent on the quality and quantity of conditioning data and on the interpreted geologic scenario(s) implicit in the models than on the choice of modeling technique.

Pay-Per-View Purchase Options

The article is available through a document delivery service. Explain these Purchase Options.

Protected Document: $10
Internal PDF Document: $14
Open PDF Document: $24

AAPG Member?

Please login with your Member username and password.

Members of AAPG receive access to the full AAPG Bulletin Archives as part of their membership. For more information, contact the AAPG Membership Department at [email protected].