AAPG Stratigraphy and Sedimentology TIG Discussions

Read This First!

Bogdan Michka — Tue, 09 May 2017 10:48:06 GMT

Welcome to AAPG N.E.T., an online space where you can Network, Engage and Talk.

Please complete the following steps before you begin interacting with the discussion boards:

1. Take time to review your profile and privacy settings, paying attention to your display name and photo, as they will be used to identify your posts.

2. Read the Discussion Boards FAQ page to learn the rules and get familiar with the features: http://broken.aapg.donfick.com/career/aapg-net/discussion-boards-faq — paying special attention to "What are the guidelines for interacting with AAPG's discussion boards used by TIGs and SIGs?" http://broken.aapg.donfick.com/help/faq/articleid/39907/what-are-the-guidelines-for-interacting-with-aapgs-discussion-boards-used-by-tigs-and-sigs and "What is not allowed in AAPG's discussion boards used by TIGs and SIGs?” http://broken.aapg.donfick.com/help/faq/articleid/39906/what-is-not-allowed-in-aapgs-discussion-boards-used-by-tigs-and-sigs

3. If you haven't done so, join any Technical Interest Group (TIG) http://broken.aapg.donfick.com/tigs or Special Interest Group (SIG) http://broken.aapg.donfick.com/sigs that interests you and get involved in a conversation — or start your own topic! Remember to be considerate of other users and enjoy the AAPG N.E.T. communities!

An AAPG/SPE Contradiction

James Dietrich — Fri, 29 Dec 2023 12:02:28 GMT

Dear Colleagues:

There is a contradiction between the positions taken by the AAPG and the SPE on the need for the routine use of property cutoffs in reservoir modeling.

The SPE tacitly supports an approach to model building that eliminates hydrocarbons initially in-place in rock of low permeability, where little or no flow is expected to occur. This implied backing derives mainly from refereeing and publishing the work of Worthington and Cosentino (2005), and Worthington (2008 and 2010). In fact, the SPE (2011) publishes PRMS (Petroleum Resources Management System) guidelines that explicitly call for the use of cutoffs, as follows:

"Typically, information on regional and local geology are (is) used to construct net-to-gross (NTG) maps (obtained from the nearby analogue reservoirs after applying parameter cutoffs to exclude portions of the reservoir that do not meet the minimum criteria to support production), and integrated with gross reservoir volume to yield net pay maps,"

and Board Members of the AAPG explicitly sanction the PRMS guidelines. This endorsement notwithstanding, a different slant is promoted by on-line websites of earth scientists - one in which models are built using estimates of total hydrocarbons in-place. The AAPG WIKI (2016) states that OOIP and GIIP, "refer to the total volume of hydrocarbon stored in a reservoir prior to production." The E&P Geology (2014) website is a "free on-line community that aims to bring petroleum professionals and geologists together and share valuable knowledge." The following is a quotation from their website:

"N/G cutoffs seem to come from an era when hydrocarbon accumulations were mainly calculated through map-based techniques either on paper or on simple workstations. With 3D reservoir modeling, the need for making a specific N/G property to cut out bad porosity and low HC saturation seems a little unnecessary. The low porosity and low HC-saturation cells simply add little extra hydrocarbon volume."

These websites have had tens of thousands of 'hits', thus widely promoting a changed approach to model building. An overly optimistic view of pore space connectivity and recovery factor results when reservoir models for dynamic simulation are built using the total hydrocarbon methodology. When this occurs, estimates of ultimate recovery factor will seldom be achievable due to an inability to produce noncontributing hydrocarbon volumes stored in non-reservoir rock. The difference between what's called "Net Reservoir" and "Net Rock" is at the heart of the matter.

The oil industry has gradually moved from the use of "Net Reservoir" to "Net Rock" during the last 25 years. It’s alleged the result has been a fall in production attainment (production planned at project sanction) and a systematic inflation of reserves. The story is told in "Too Much by Half: the Coming Cut in Proved Oil Reserves," and Reservoir Modeling: Pitfalls in Practice and Projects Gone Wrong,” books available on Amazon.

NET RESERVOIR VOLUME

The term "Net Reservoir Volume" has been used by reservoir and petroleum engineers for decades. Its use in reservoir modeling allows recovery efficiency to be evaluated meaningfully by dividing producible hydrocarbons by an initial volume of hydrocarbons held in rock that is capable of both storing and flowing reservoir fluids.

NET ROCK VOLUME

A different approach to model building began during the dominion of earth science, starting in the mid-1990s and replacing the routine, earlier use of "Net Reservoir Volume." The term "Net Rock Volume" was introduced to describe the proportion of the "Gross Rock Volume" (GRV) that is capable of storing hydrocarbons, without regard to the potential for fluid flow. "Net Rock Volume" includes all hydrocarbon-stained rock. It holds the highest estimate of hydrocarbons in-place, one that stores a portion of the total volume that will neither move nor support reservoir pressure, regardless of the applied recovery process.

Jim Dietrich
Member SPE & AAPG
Pasadena, CA, USA

Pore Space Connectivity

James Dietrich — Fri, 29 Dec 2023 05:05:35 GMT

Dear Colleagues:

It's been alleged by many that a systematic error runs through the practice of reservoir modeling.

The alleged error involves use of the variogram. Briefly stated, it's alleged that geo-modelers simply assume spatial dependency of rock properties over distances of 100s to 1000s of meters (within a given facies) based on the well spacing that happens to be available to them when modeling petroleum reservoirs, whereas property correlation lengths revealed via evaluation of outcrops, quarry sites and geo-hydrological projects are measured and much shorter, ranging over distances of meters to 10s of meters. It seems correct to state that correlation length within the petroleum industry is simply assumed, not measured, and that this important modeling step is arbitrary, leading often to delivery of overly “smooth” (connected) models that underestimate permeability variance and overestimate recovery efficiency.

Colleagues who understand this issue avoid this practice by using fine grids or pattern element models that result in the use of reasonable relative correlation lengths (correlation length / grid block size). It's alleged that both the software and its application are flawed, the software in the sense that it was not practical to introduce the variogram to the oil industry. How is it that we thought it possible to measure property correlation lengths at depth in petroleum reservoirs with probes, core holes or wells spaced at distances of meters to 10s of meters? It seems this is the reason for the outcry from many in the industry upon the introduction of geostatistics during the 1990s-"use of the variogram rests on the gratuitous assumption of spatial dependency."

Might we hear how geo-modelers come up with estimates of property correlation lengths if it’s other than simply using the well spacing that happens to be available to them?

Jim Dietrich (Member SPE/AAPG)
Pasadena, CA, USA

Resources - Ashley Harris' DL Talk and Digging Deeper interview

Bogdan Michka — Wed, 10 Apr 2019 03:16:16 GMT

Watch Ashley Harris' Distinguished Lecture, Re-evaluating the Relationship Between Relative Sea Level and Sediment Distribution Using Numerical Stratigraphic Forward Models:

https://broken.aapg.donfick.com/career/training/in-person/distinguished-lecture/presentation/Articleid/50106/ashley-harris-re-evaluating-the-relationship-between-relative-sea-level-and-sediment-distribution-using-numerical-stratigraphic-forward-m

Also here's a link to his Digging Deeper interview with Vern Stefanic:

https://broken.aapg.donfick.com/videos/interview/Articleid/50105/digging-deeper-with-ashley-harris