Chapter V Reservoir Modeling

5 Reservoir Modeling

Handing over the reservoir static models involve using the key
inputs of the interpreted horizon surfaces from seismic, interpreted fault
polygons with other available data inputs from wells, fault stick inputs,
seismic visualization and other reservoir modeling algorithm. The
modeling workflow (Fig. 5.1) starts from the structural modeling,
which builds faults and horizon surfaces as the skeletons or frames for
the models. Property modeling is used mainly to populate the structural
models with lithologies, fluid or saturation using well log
interpretations which are up scaled to the models. The operation of
reservoir modeling is much integrated by adopting different techniques
at each stage of the model construction.

5.1 Structural Modeling

In this workflow typical consideration is contributed to the fault
modeling and horizon making process. This process involves the use of
different techniques in carrying out manual interpretation of faults and
automatic fault extraction methods which are mainly adapted to
creating fault patches in the 3D model frame. These interpretations are
controlled based on Structural Modeling geologic interpretations and
adequate evaluation of each process methods aim to deliver the
required deliverables in the models. Furthermore, interpreted horizons
and surfaces attribute functions as previously description of the
DENISE field data is utilized in making the needed structural surfaces
and grid skeletons which form the necessary framework for the model.

133
Chapter V Reservoir Modeling

Fig. 5.1: Workflow with Two Main Modeling Methodologies.

5.1.1 Fault Modeling

The fault modeling process is performed by applying manual based
techniques of isolating faults by interpreting fault zones of interest in
the seismic sections which are correspondingly used to create fault
pillars and/or patches needed in the model.

The process of generating the faults manually starts by having firm

geologic interpretations of the faults, understanding their nature
(whether they are planar, listric etc.) and the type of faults. In the
DENISE seismic volume, the faults are manually picked within each
seismic Inlines and crosslines in the reservoir section of the DENISE
seismic volume.

134
Chapter V Reservoir Modeling

The geologic controls used mainly in interpreting the faults are

based on the displacements of the interpreted horizons or reflectors
within each line, observed fault throws and terminations across the
displaced sections.

In the DENISE seismic volume, the reservoir section is dominated

by minor and major fault planes, which are digitized in the 3D
interpretation window to maintain their geometry across the several
interpreted seismic lines (Fig. 5.2).

5.1.1.1 Pillar Gridding

This process converts the interpreted faults from the fault modeling
workflow into pillars in 3D structural grid surface or model frame.
However, the consistency of the pillars must be checked against the
geologic understanding used in interpreting the faults. The options of
the nature of fault planes whether vertical, curve and listric are
important inputs needed in maintain the structural interpretations of the
fault in the pillar (Fig. 5.3a). The editing pillar options are used to
maintain the shape points, make relevant adjustments like cross cutting
pillars, truncations (I and J functions), fault connections and other
required adjustments. (Fig. 5.3b and 5.3c).

135
Chapter V Reservoir Modeling

Fig. 5.2: Seismic Section Showing the Digitized Point Mode Faults and
Fault Line Surfaces.

Pillar gridding is used mainly to develop the skeletal framework of

the faults, with the main purpose to guide the gridding framework and
orient cells parallel to faults which are further converted into surfaces.
The options of using the grids could serve the purpose of Geo-
modeling of creating of static models and also in flow simulation grids.

The grid skeleton is a grid consisting of a Top, Mid and Base

skeleton grid which are attached to the Top, Mid and Base points of the
key pillars (Fig. 5.4). The pillar grid parameters in the DENISE field
study consisted of the 3D grid increment 100 by 100, the gridding
boundary area was limited to the depth surface, automatic rotation
angle by faults and using cell trend on -45o to be matched with reservoir
trend.

136
Chapter V Reservoir Modeling

Fig. 5.3: Pillar Geometry Type. (a) Fault Geometry and Pillar
Properties (b) I and J Fault Functions of the Connected
Pillars (c) Crosscutting Faults.

137
Chapter V Reservoir Modeling

Fig. 5.4: Grid Skeleton with Top, Mid and Base Fault Patch Surfaces.

5.1.2 Horizon Making

This process is closely linked to the surface attributes and horizon
interpretations which provides the needed inputs of surfaces of the
respective interpreted surfaces of the top Kafr El Sheikh Formation,
PUD, UDS, MDS, LDS and top Rosetta Formation. This process
involves the creation and inserting these surfaces into the 3D grid.

The depth maps surface boundaries were used as key inputs from
the seismic interpretation as the key dimension of the horizons which
means that the edge control in the 3D frames is defined from this
inputted dimensions. The settings allowed the use of a Convergent
gridder method which is used to fill gaps in any undefined area, the
fault displacement was set for each interpreted modeled horizon as 100.
This gives 0 as the minimum to 100 as maximum displacement of the

138
Chapter V Reservoir Modeling

active faults to the modeled horizons, however these parameters are

iterative as the models horizons are updated.

5.1.2.1 Make Zone Process

In this workflow the Make Zone process proved relevant in
differentiating each of the reservoir tops into their corresponding
reservoir zones. Zones can be added to models by introducing thickness
data in the form of isochores, constant thickness and percentages. They
are also interpreted and fitted into well log intervals to provide detail
control to models. In the DENISE Field constructed model we only
sub-divided the space between each two horizons to one zone, having
multi layers as will be discussed in the layering process.

5.1.2.2 Layering
This operation is applied to provide a finer resolution to the zones,
which requires providing the vertical resolution of each zone, cell
thickness and corresponding layer properties in the model. The layer
zone divisions in Petrel have the option of using Proportional method,
follow top and Follow base to define the layers. Proportional division is
a constant number of cell layers at every pillar. The Follow top division
is a cell layering with constant thickness parallel to the top of the zone,
while the Follow base division involves cell layering parallel to the
bottom of the zone. In DENISE model, each interpreted sand level was
sub-divided into 20 layers with a 20:1 zone to layer ratio of
proportional method, this introduces an ideal representation of the sand
units to cater a lot more detail.

5.1.3 3D Structural Model

The final structural modeling is in the creation of 3D structural grid
surfaces, which comprise both the fault modeled pillar grids/models
and the horizon surfaces. The zones / layering of the each of the
reservoir models with filters are displayed in the 3D grid for DENISE
gas field (Fig. 5.5).

139
Chapter V Reservoir Modeling

It is interesting that the positive horst structural reliefs were

characteristically defined as areas within the model which had positive
features in the grid and the negative relief captured the graben deposits.

This 3D grid surfaces of the reservoir sand levels of the DENISE

gas field forms the input grids for property modeling (populating the
grid surfaces with other properties) which might include facies and
petrophysical modeling.

Fig. 5.5: Interpreted 3D Structural Grid Skeleton for DENISE

Volume. (A) N-S Structural Cross-section, (B) E-W
Structural Cross-section.

140
Chapter V Reservoir Modeling

5.2 Property Modeling

The 3D static models from the structural modeling workflow of the
interpreted reservoir surfaces of the DENISE seismic data are populated
with discrete properties from inputted well logs to understand the
property distribution and/or heterogeneity of each reservoir surfaces.
The property modeling workflow in this study consists of facies well
log interpretation for facies modeling where discrete facies are
distributed though out the model grid, well upscaling, data analysis and
petrophysical modeling.

5.3 Facies Modeling

The process of facies modeling involves the property distribution of
upscaled discrete facies in the 3D model. This process is initiated by
well log interpretation of different lithologies as facies types, which are
upscaled to the model dimension as discrete values or interpolated to
define property trends across the 3D model frame. Two basic
algorithms or techniques (Deterministic and Stochastic) are applied in
the process of estimation or interpolation of discrete facies property.

The Deterministic algorithm is applied when single estimated result

with the inputted facies data from well log is needed, which means that
particular cells in the model grid have single facies values. This
algorithm was applied for the top Kafr El Sheikh horizon where it was
assign to be shale as well as the bottom shale of LDS.

The stochastic algorithm uses random seeding to the input data to

maintain the variability; it is mainly applied with sparse data density
especially when using few wells as imports in the property/facies
building process. The randomization of property using this technique
poses challenges to uncertainties on models in honoring the geologic
interpretation of the discrete properties (facies), which means that data
analysis and property trends are critical quality control measures
needed in using this algorithm with upscale discrete log properties.
Furthermore, the seeding of discrete data could be applied at different

141
Chapter V Reservoir Modeling

iterative levels which are used as a control of the degree of

randomization in testing out the property distribution. Within this
algorithm we have applied the sub category “Sequential
Indicator/Simulation” that characterized by three advantages; Statistic
algorithm, having data directionality and the ability to populate
parameter together with secondary attributes as a co-kriging parameter
i.e. seismic amplitude magnitude.

In application to the DENISE field data, since the well sample

points are rather sparse in comparison to the 3D grid models, the
deterministic algorithm with single point extrapolation would not be
robust enough to populate the models with discrete facies, hence
stochastic algorithm was applied. The reservoir formation tops and
properties were distributed using mainly the sequential indicator
sequence where the properties were extrapolated using upscaled well
log interpretation of facies within the interpreted reservoir log sections,
seed selection with variograms scales defined. Data analysis was used
to cross check the facies interpretation after the process of up scaling
the well logs to the reservoir models.

5.3.1 Facies Log Interpretation

Facies log interpretation based on the imported well-logs of wells
(13 well). The convectional well-log template was activated showing
the different logs available for interpretation which includes the
Resistivity, Gamma Ray, Neutron and Density logs etc. The facies
interpretation is based on differentiating the log motif of each
interpreted reservoir surface based on three main lithologic facies of
Sands, Slits and Shales which is a rather coarse interpretation.

The Gamma ray log was mainly used since it was available for
correlation purpose across the entire inputted wells. The neutron and
density was used as quality control of the Gamma ray interpretation in
the wells where they were available. The obtained Shale volume log
was interpreted with a cut off range with high values (>50%)

142
Chapter V Reservoir Modeling

interpreted as shales (green) and low values (< 35%) as sands (yellow)
while the values in-betweens were interpreted as shaly sand (gray). The
neutron density log show areas of shale zones with high separation of
both logs which help to establish shaly lithologies. The interpretation of
each reservoir surface showed that the reservoir was purely composed
of sands with some intercalated shales (Fig. 5.6).

Fig. 5.6: Interpreted Facies Log.

5.3.2 Upscaling of Well Logs

The process of well log up scaling is required to post values in each
cells of the 3D grid where each of the wells is situated; to achieve this
average well properties are used to populate each of the cells. This
makes it possible to relate the well properties to the grid directly and
this also means that the upscaled cells properties value along the well
path will be static in the whole of the 3D grid property with the upscale
zones (Fig. 5.7).

143
Chapter V Reservoir Modeling

Fig. 5.7: Comparison of Upscaled to Normal Facies Discrete Log

Profile.

5.3.3 Facies Modeling as Applied to the DENISE Field

The background understanding of the different facies modeling
algorithm, with interpreted and upscaled well logs formed the necessary
inputs in the static 3D grid of the interpreted reservoirs. The sequential
Indicator Simulation was used based on limited well data in when
compared to the volume of the 3D grid. The upscaled facies properties
were used as the key inputs and similar settings were used for all the
zones in each of the reservoir surfaces.

5.3.4 Variograms and Data QC

It is important to remember that the property modeling is used to
describe the natural variation in a property. The variogram should
therefore describe this natural variation, rather than broad scale trends.

144
Chapter V Reservoir Modeling

Before beginning the variogram analysis, it is necessary to have a

knowledge of regional trends in data analysis. The most important data
in variogram analysis are the orientation of channels, the distribution of
wells in the area of interest, the facies distribution and the spacing
between wells in different directions. A variogram is a description of
the variation in a property, based on the principle that two points close
together are more likely to have similar values than points far from
each other. The range of a variogram could be different in different
directions and will of course often vary in the vertical direction. The
Data Analysis module therefore allows us to analyze our data in two
directions horizontally (these will be perpendicular to each other) and
also vertically. Major, minor and vertical ranges specify the variogram
function range in the major, minor and vertical direction (Fig. 5.8). The
variogram properties were delivered from the data analysis workflow
(Table 5.1).

Fig. 5.8: Example of Data Analysis QC for DENISE Volume Facies

Model (UDS).

145
Chapter V Reservoir Modeling

Table 5.1: Different Cases of Facies Modelling.

Facies model cases Azimuth Vertical range Minor range Major range

Minimun case -45 0.5 500 500

Maximum case -45 0.5 2500 5000

Most likely case -45 0.5 1000 2500

5.3.5 Facies Model Quality Assurance

Facies model is considered the base model through modeling
workflow, where it will be used as a co-kriging parameter though the
construction of different property models. Then, it’s very important to
insure that, the population of different facies “which is based on the
petrophysical analysis in addition to seismic amplitude” is very close to
the nature.

So, application of blind well technique was applied to check-up the

matching degree between the obtained facies log from this well and that
from facies model, (Fig. 5.9) shows a good matching.

Fig. 5.9: Application of Blind Well Technique for Facies Model

Quality Assuranc.

146
Chapter V Reservoir Modeling

5.3.6 Uncertainty and Optimization

Data Uncertainty is applied for DENISE model to optimize the
suitable seed number. Seed number is the cell visiting order, where
different seeds led to different data population. Uncertainty and
optimization module (Geo-modeling Appendix) was applied to re-run
the modeling workflow for one hundred times with different random
seeds (Geo-modeling Appendix), and the data histogram (Fig. 5.10) was
constructed to obtain the optimized seed number to perform the model.

Fig. 5.10: Seed Number Histogram

The result of DENISE volume facies model (Fig. 5.11( showing for
Kafr El Sheikh Formation (Top KF Shale, PUD, UDS, MDS, LDS and
LD Shale) with the interpretation key bar with yellow depicting sand
and shales depicted with green color and shaly sand with gray color
suggest a high sandy proportion when compared to the shales (shales as
used here involves the total combination of fines, calcareous units,
glauconitic horizons etc., as lower gamma interpretation from well logs
is a coarse interpretation of fines as used in this study). Nevertheless,
the shale patches seem to be rather of higher cut off as seen in the green
patches (Geo-modeling Appendix), this is accounted for by the user
defined interpretation cut off range for shales which might be quite high
(>50%). The upscaling methods also need to be iteratively backdated
with different methods to capture their impact to the facies process in
terms of how much bias the up scaling has impacted the modeling. This
means that the process is an iterative one where adequate controls are

147
Chapter V Reservoir Modeling

required to be followed from the interpretation to data analysis with

quality control of upscaled well logs. This means that petrophysical
modeling has to be done as secondary modeling to the facies modeling
process.

The obtained facies model showed that¸ pre-upper DENISE sand

level with poor content of sand facies and the dominance of shaly facies
the PUD sand level is represented the top productive zone in Kafr El
Sheikh Formation, and takes NW-SE direction. while the UDS level
which is the main target level is dominated by sand facies and also
oriented NW-SE. in addition to the LDS level which represented by
thick level with high shale content as described by cross-sections (Geo-
modeling Appendix).

148
Chapter V Reservoir Modeling Reservoir Modeling

Fig. 5.11: DENISE Volume Facies Model.

149
Chapter V Reservoir Modeling

5.4 Continuity of Sand Facies

To discriminate between reservoir and non-reservoir lithologies, a
discrimination property was used to illustrate the continuity of sand
lithology along with different reservoir levels. (Fig. 5.12) showing for
Kafr El Sheikh Formation (Top KF Shale, PUD, UDS, MDS, LDS and
LD Shale) with the interpretation key bar with red depicting reservoir
body and non-reservoir (shale & silt) depicted with gray color and shaly
sand with gray color, this discrimination is based on following up the
sand facies “reservoir bodies” while the shale lithology has been
neglected “background.

The connectivity between reservoir body for each sand level was
analyzed to see the initial relations and fault sealing effects. As
showing in (Fig. 5.13) the fault sealing has no significant effect for
different sand level with an exception of F2, F3 and F5 which were
isolated the reservoir bodies for different sand level.

The sealing effects of F2, F3 and F5 (Fig. 5.14) will lead to isolate
their in-between reservoir intervals which will be found under pressure
regime that will be varied from the general pressure regime of the utter
reservoir, these phenomena cannot be checked as a result of absence of
any drilled holes in this reservoir zone. also this may lead to affect the
population of petrophysical parameters as will be discussed. The
sealing effects of F5 give rise to perform a new promising area with
uplift horst structure.

5.5 Petrophysical Modeling

It is the process of using petrophysically assigned properties values
or attributes as a basis of modeling. Rock properties in siliciclastic
rocks tend to be facies controlled (Shepherd, 2009). Thus, the main
input is the facies models with the sand, siltstone and shale attributes,
which provides a petrophysical distribution of the sand to shale ratio.

150
Chapter V Reservoir Modeling

Its workflow adopts similar modeling algorithm as the facies modeling

with the two main processes of Deterministic and Stochastic models.

S N

F4
F3 F5
F1 F2
F6
F6

Fig. 5.12: N-S Cross-section at DENISE Volume Reservoir Bodies

Model.

Fig. 5.13: DENISE Volume Connected Reservoir Bodies Model,

Showing for Kafr El Sheikh Formation (Top KF Shale,
PUD, UDS, MDS, LDS and LD Shale).

151
Chapter V Reservoir Modeling

S N

Fig. 5.14: N-S Cross-sectional View Showing the Feeble Effects of

Fault Selling for Different Sand Levels with an Exception of
F2, F3 and F5 Which were Sealed all Reservoir Sand Levels.

The main inputs required are the upscaled well logs (Fig. 5.15),
input distribution, variogram and trends. The Gaussian random function
simulation was chosen since it offered a much robust and faster co-
collocated co-simulation option, i.e. taking into account the distribution
of petrophysical parameters in relation to facies population.

Sequential indicator simulation is a stochastic modelling technique,

whereby the result is dependent above all upon:

 Upscaled well log data

 Defined variogram
 Frequency distribution of upscaled data points.

For both effective porosity and water saturation modeling (Figures

5.16 and 5.17), three cases (minimum case. maximum case and most
likely case) have been carried out to explain the areal distribution of
reservoir characteristics (Tab. 5.1).

152
Chapter V Reservoir Modeling

As showing in effective porosity model for different sand levels of

DENISE volume (Geo-modeling Appendix) using the Sequential
indicator simulation to populate the effective porosity is much based on
the facies model where it used as a co-kriging parameters. Also the
water saturation model for sand levels (Geo-modeling Appendix) is
based on the aquifer zone (distance between each model cell and local
GWC for each sand level) and is much having a good matching with
zones of high effective porosities.

The effective porosity model for DENISE volume (PUD, UDS and
LDS levels) (Geo-modeling Appendix) with the interpretation key bar
with hot (red) color depicting sand lithology with high effective
porosity and could (blue) color depicted poor effective porosity
lithology (shale), the two cross-sections show the good population of
effective porosity where the UDS is the main target gas sand level with
the much more gas discoveries, also the new promising uplift structures
to the North and the West of DENISE field. Although the LDS have the
higher thickness but with low sand content.

The water saturation model for DENISE volume (PUD, UDS and
LDS sand levels) with the interpretation key bar with hot (red) color
depicting sand lithology with high gas potentiality and could (blue)
color depicted water saturated sand or shale lithology, the two cross-
sections show the gas discoveries with high gas charging sand body,
also indicate the new promising uplift structures.

153
Chapter V Reservoir Modeling

Fig. 5.15: D-04 Well Layering with a Correlation between Well-Logs

and Upscaled Logs.

154
 Reservoir Modeling
Chapter V Reservoir Modeling

Fig. 5.16: DENISE Volume Effective Porosity Model.

155

F4
F3
 Reservoir Modeling
Chapter V Reservoir Modeling

Fig. 5.17: DENISE Volume Water Saturation Model.

156

F4
F3
Chapter V Reservoir Modeling

5.6 Prospectivity of the DENISE Field

The purpose of the reservoir facies modeling is to evaluate the
facies distribution from seismic volumes with available wells and
determine probable prospect locations / drillable positions. Using the
structural depth maps, surface attribute and inputted fault modeled
surfaces at different sand levels, new prospect locations were identified
based on their structural closures, seismic attributes as well as facies
distribution and petrophysical parameters.

5.6.1 Lower DENISE Sand New Prospect

Lower DENISE sand level represents the deepest sand zone of Kafr
El Sheikh Fm. Likewise, on the basis of the structural depth map and
seismic surface attributes (Fig. 5.18), in addition to the facies and
petrophysical modelling, two new promising locations were found. The
obtained new prospects were interested with the rollover anticlinal
structure of F2 and F5, with no marked DHI feature. The cross sectional
view of LDS level facies change indicates the sandy facies of the new
prospects. Likewise, (Fig. 5.19) show confirmation of new prospects
for lower DENISE (LDS) sand level, (a) using the facies model with
associated cross-section with sandy facies with low shale content (from
10% to 27%), (b) effective porosity cross-section shows high porosity
of new prospects (from 12% to 25%), (c) water saturation cross-section
shows low water saturation within the new suggested prospects (about
30% to 55%), (d) shows the seismic section with amplitude shut-off
significant as DHI mark and user identified pre-drillable locations
within the rollover anticline structures.

Similarly, Djebber Tiab, and Erle. C. Donaldson, (2004) equation

was used to assess the quantity of original gas in place (OGIB) for these
new prospects;

157
Chapter V Reservoir Modeling

Ah (1 S ) (5.1)

G  43560 w
B
gi
Where;

 G = OGIP(SCF)
 43560 = conversion factor from acre-ft to ft3
 Bgi = formation volume factor for gas at initial conditions (RES
ft3/SCF) =0.0037
So The initial gas in place for the new prospect #1 area at LDS is:
37.7 million standard cubic feet of gas, while for the new prospect #2
area is: 50.3 million standard cubic feet of gas.

158
 Reservoir Modeling
Chapter V Reservoir Modeling

Fig. 5.18: New Prospects for Lower DENISE (LDS) Sand Level

159
 Reservoir Modeling
Chapter V Reservoir Modeling

Fig. 5.19: Confirmation of New Prospects for Lwer DENISE (LDS) Sand Level

160
Chapter V Reservoir Modeling

5.6.2 Upper DENISE Sand New Prospect

The UDS level represents the main promising sand level with two
new promising areas as determined by both structural depth map and
average magnitude map (Fig. 5.20). These new promising areas are
suggested along uplift structure of step fault F2 (new promising #2) and
uplifted horst 4-way dip closure (new promising #1) as well as, high
magnitude amplitude suggesting a safe position for gas recharge.

Using facies distribution and petrophysical parameters cross

sections, in addition to the DHI’s signature (Fig. 5.21) shows
confirmation of new prospects for upper DENISE (UDS) sand level, (a)
using the facies model with associated cross section shows clean sand
facies with shale content ranging from 8% to 18%, (b) effective
porosity cross-section shows high porosity of new prospects (from 15%
to 32%), (c) water saturation cross-section shows low water saturation
within the new suggested prospects (from 12 to 40%), (d) shows the
seismic section with non-horizontal flat spot features due to velocity
anomalies as DHI associated with the location of the suggested new
prospects and user identified pre-drillable locations within the uplifted
crested areas.

Also, Djebber Tiab, and Erle. C. Donaldson, (2004) equation was

used to assess the quantity of original gas in place (OGIB) for these
new prospects.

So The initial gas in place for the new prospect #1 area at UDS is:
204.9 million standard cubic feet of gas, while for the new prospect #2
area is: 66 million standard cubic feet of gas.

161
 Reservoir Modeling
Chapter V Reservoir Modeling

Fig. 5.20: New Prospects for Upper DENISE (UDS) Sand Level.

162
 Reservoir Modeling
Chapter V Reservoir Modeling

Fig. 5.21: Confirmation of New Prospects for Upper DENISE (UDS) Sand Level.

163
Chapter V Reservoir Modeling

5.6.3 Pre-Upper DENISE Sand New Prospect

Using the structural depth map and average magnitude as a surface
attribute (Fig. 5.22) new prospect was found along the North of
DENISE field, as presented this young outlook is characterized by
uplift horst structure with 4-way dip closure and high amplitude
magnitude which suggest its suitability for gas accumulation.

Fig. 5.23 shows confirmation of new prospect for pre-upper

DENISE (PUD) sand level, (a) using the facies model with associated
cross-section shows sandy facies, (b) effective porosity cross-section
shows high porosity of new prospect, (c) water saturation cross-section
shows low water saturation within the new suggested prospect, (d)
shows the seismic section with bright spot DHI associated with the
location of the suggested new prospect and user identified pre-drillable
location within the horst crested areas.

Using Djebber Tiab, and Erle. C. Donaldson, (2004) equation the

amount of original gas in place (OGIB) for this new prospect was
calculated.
So The initial gas in place for the new prospect area at PUD is:
194.2 million standard cubic feet of gas.

164
 Reservoir Modeling
Chapter V Reservoir Modeling

Fig. 5.22: New Prospect for Pre-Upper DENISE (PUD) Sand Level.

165
 Reservoir Modeling
Chapter V Reservoir Modeling

Fig. 5.23: Confirmation of New Prospect for Pre-Upper DENISE (PUD) Sand Level.

166
Chapter V Reservoir Modeling

5.7 Discussion
The process of realization of seismic sections, opacity filters,
cropping of the reservoir sections was used to deliver the interpretations
of the seismic volumes and also provide key inputs for the different
seismic attribute template/modeling workflows. Furthermore, it has also
helped to provide a basis of quality control of the models especially
when seismic to model base ties are performed to determine the
altruistic contents of the model in relation to the seismic volume.
Locating/evaluating new prospects with surface based contours is a one
step process, using visualization of the relevant surfaces /volumes and
models provides a 2 step function in delivering prospect based
evaluation with visualization of the seismic and petrophysical data.

The process of populating the structural model is also iterative in

that quality control and patience is needed to toggle the different
property frames or algorithms. Also geologic /statistical analysis is key
understanding in carrying out proper data analysis. It must be said also
that, the geologic control based on hard data must be considered to
confine the nuances of multiplicity in algorithms/techniques.

The property modelling was done on another level with

petrophysical property modelling which uses the facies model as input
properties. The Gaussian random function simulation (GSLIB) was
used as the main algorithm alongside upscaled well log. These models
were done for each of the reservoir sand levels with the average
petrophysical property indicating the reservoirs are 60 to 70 percent
sand rich with shale ratio of 10 to 30 percent in addition to some silt
lithology. The importance of these models has shown that structural
closures associated with the uplifted horst structure tend to be sand rich
which would serve as plausible exploration targets. However, it must be
said that since the DENISE field is a mature gas field which has been
produced for a longer time (about 20 years), saturation models of using
old and newly drilled wells would provide additional information as to
understand the current process as impacted by production.

167