About This Item
- Full text of this item is not available.
- Abstract PDFAbstract PDF(no subscription required)
Share This Item
The AAPG/Datapages Combined Publications Database
AAPG Special Volumes
Abstract
Reducing
Reservoir
Risk
and Uncertainty in Deepwater Gulf of Mexico
Exploration
by Using a Wide Range and
Scale of Predictive Tools
By
Exploration
, Eric J. Ekstrand, BP
Exploration
,
Christopher J. Travis, BP
Exploration
, J. Doug
Boyd, BP
Exploration
, Roger Reagan, BP
Exploration
, Dennis M. Urban, BP
Exploration
, and John D. Oldroyd, BP
Exploration
Originally presented at the 1998 Hedberg (AAPG) Research Conference at Galveston, TX
Book/CD-ROM Title:
Risk
in the Gulf of
Mexico
Edited by
Reservoir prediction in
exploration
may be enhanced by
following six axioms: (1) Acquire the right data; (2) Use all available data; (3) Work the
problem at a variety of spatial and stratigraphic scales; (4) Apply multiple
tools/methodologies and geologic disciplines;(5) Carry multiple models to quantify or
qualify uncertainty; (6) Use new data to update/exclude models. Our analysis proceeds from
regional to prospect-scale evaluation of reservoir potential, and we will use an example
exploration
well to illustrate the methods used, ranges of uncertainty and insights gained
at each scale.
Regional-scale analyses provide the depositional and
petroleum systems framework within which
exploration
is focused. Reservoir evaluation is
based predominantly on a 2D seismic grid, calibrated using key well information,
structural controls and biostratigraphy. Key products are a chronostratigraphic and
sequence stratigraphic framework, a regional-scale understanding of the architecture and
distribution of major depositional systems, and an associated regional reservoir
risk
pattern.
In the deepwater Gulf of Mexico, a range of risks on
amount and type of reservoir facies present may be applied at a regional scale. The
location of the major sediment input sites migrates with time, such that the ages of
prospective reservoir intervals and their provenance is different in different regions.
Well-developed sands are commonly found in a middle or lower slope setting directly
down-dip of the major coeval shelf depocenter, which leads to a low "regional"
risk
for reservoir. Higher
risk
is associated with the lateral edges of the deposystem and
the upper slope and shelf margin (often bypassed or characterized by complex reservoirs).
Reconstruction of the subregional structural and stratigraphic evolution of an area provides insight into the range of depositional processes and controls on reservoir geometry and distribution. Overall slope gradient, subsidence rate and local structures (faults, salt withdrawal )may generate accommodation space where sediment can aggrade or pond, even in a generally sand-poor setting such as the upper slope. Local bathymetric highs may lack reservoir but may restrict or impede flows and concentrate sand accumulation in adjacent areas.
Subregional analysis is typically built on a framework
of 3-D seismic surveys and any available well data. Data includes detailed
biostratigraphic analyses, seismic facies maps (geometries, textures and seismic
attributes), log facies and lithology interpretations, and structural analysis of
subsidence pattern, fault movement and salt migration. Key products are a detailed
chronostratigraphic framework and a series of paleogeographic maps showing the nature and
distribution of potential reservoir facies and their controls through time. The details
provided by a robust subregional analysis allow us a better understanding of the details
of potential reservoir systems, and allow us to corroborate or modify the
risk
associated
with the regional framework.
On a prospect-scale, prediction is focused on reservoir
thickness, extent, quality, and continuity. These parameters provide input to reserves
ranges, well positioning, definition of stratigraphic trap edges, and the distribution of
potential reserves within a trap. Detailed seismic and well log facies analysis are
utilized to high-grade potential reservoir-prone intervals. Seismic attribute analysis
tied to a rock properties database may be used to predict the range of possible
lithologies for a target horizon. Delta-t/interval velocity, AI, and AVO techniques may be
used to predict thickness and net/gross variations, across the prospect. Facies mapping
and fault analysis are used to predict reservoir continuity. At the prospect scale,
multiple reservoir models are described, risked and carried for each target interval, with
risk
and a range of reserves calculated for the "most likely" reservoir
prediction.
In summary, the integration of a variety of methods,
data types, and geologic disciplines across a range of scales yields more robust results
for reservoir prediction than any one particular method of analysis. Different information
and aspects of
risk
are derived from investigations at different scales, but sometimes the
appropriate level of analysis is controlled by the availability and quality of data; for
example, the regional picture may be the only tool available for reservoir prediction in
some "wildcat areas". Well tests give us confidence that, using the approach
described above, we can often predict the types of reservoir and general facies types
within a deposystem.