Application of Chronostratigraphic and Lithostratigraphic Concepts to Deepwater Reservoir...

7/31/2019 Application of Chronostratigraphic and Lithostratigraphic Concepts to Deepwater Reservoir Characterization

1/20

Application of Chronostratigraphic and Lithostratigraphic Concepts to Deepwater Reservoir

Characterization*

Jeff Chen

1

Search and Discovery Article #40652 (2010)Posted December 6, 2010

*Adapted from oral presentation at AAPG Convention, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, September 12-15, 2010

1Marathon Oil Company, Houston, TX. ([email protected])

Abstract

Deepwater siliciclastic sands were deposited by accumulations of external clastic materials carried by turbidite flows from shoreface

or slope areas to the basins. However, whether the concepts of classic sequence stratigraphy model developed from relative coastalonlap and offlap can be applied to deepwater environment is still an issue of open debate, mainly because the magnitude of sea-level

fluctuation in a typical third order cycle is much less than the total water depth of most deepwater basins. This paper presents a case

study from a Gulf of Mexico deepwater reservoir currently under development to investigate the impact of relative sea level andsediment input in the development of submarine lobe system. A chronostratigraphic framework was constructed by integrating

biostratigraphic data with regional seismic mapping using amplitude volumes. The framework was verified by quantitative analysis ofpetrographic, geochemical, and pressure data, and correlated to the GOM sequence chart. The top boundary of each sequence is

capped by a shale interval that serves as the vertical barrier for flows, and limits the interval deposition of multi-sand zones, each with

unique pressure trend, and representing subsequence deposition at higher frequencies. Subsequence deposition of reservoir scales wasaccomplished by two major processes, downlapping and backstepping, as revealed by investigation on seismic acoustic impedance

(AI) volumes. The resultant depositional model allows us to successfully predict the occurrence of sand depositional events during thedevelopment drilling. We conclude that classic sequence stratigraphic concepts can be applied in deepwater turbidite environment in

order to construct a chronostratigraphic framework, while by applying advanced seismic technology, profound lithostratigraphiccorrelation within each 3rd order sequence can be performed to characterize the pattern of flow unit distribution, greatly enhancing the

effects of reservoir modeling on field development.

Reference

Plink-Bjorklund, and R.J. Steel, 2002, Sea level fall below the shelf edge, without basin-floor fans: Geology, v.30, p. 115-118.
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/20

Application of Chronostragraphic

and Lithostratigraphic Conceptsto Deepwater Reservoir Modeling

Jeff Chen

Marathon Oil CorporationHouston, TX, USA

(AAPG International Conference, Calgary, September 14, 2010)


3/20

2

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Marathon Oil Company

CGG-Veritas for allowing the author to show theseismic lines

Co-workers: Dave Petro, George Laguros, RodrigeBastidas, Madhav Kulkarni, Johnny Carroll, DonCaldwell, Julia Khadeeva, Hung-Lung Chen, and MojiEnilari

AAPG and all of you!


4/20

3

Turbidite Deposition Process and Its Link toSequence Stratigraphy Framework

The issue: Need for predictive reservoir models in deep-water reservoir

development

Reservoir connectivity / disconnectivity

Field development design / completion scenario

The questions:

Can concepts of classic sequence stratigraphy model be applied todeepwater environment?

If so, can an ad hocdepositional model be constructed based onfirst-order principles?

Is the model consistent with an integrated dataset?

The approaches:

General model to specific field study


5/20

4 4

General Sequence Stratigraphy Model and Systems Tracts

ExxonMobil Classic Model

(Courtesy of Kirt Campion)

Lowstand fan deposited immediate above SB

Lowstand fan uncomforable to lowstand wedges


6/20

5 5

Systems Tracts Linkage of contemporaneousdepositional systems, each associatedwith a specific part of the relative sea-levelcurve.

Chronostratigraphy vs. lithostratigraphy

SB1

SB2

HST

TST

LST

MFS

TS

(Courtesy of Kirt Campion)

?

Predictive Model?

Click to View Notes by Presenter

Click to View Notes by Presenter


7/20

Notes by Presenter (for previous slide):

System tracts consist of a contemporaneous linked set of EODs. For example: clastic fluvial drainage basin, delta, and offshore bars (Mississippi

River, delta) or carbonate system (Great Bahamas Bank).

As relative sea level changes, how do these environments respond? As the EODs produce and accumulate sediment in short-term cycles, the stratal

packages stack and track the long-term sea level change, from LST to TST to HST.


8/206

Basin-floor sand deposits?

Opposite to classic basin fan model,

Bjorklund and Steel (2002, Geology)suggested:

Slope area can be extrmely sandprone

Sea-level fall below the shelf edge

does not necessarily result in basin-floor sand deposits beyond the baseof slope


9/207

An Alternative Model

SL3

SL2

B. Continued forced-regression

Sequence Boundary

Basinward downlapping of turbidite systems (channels + lobes)

SL4: MFSMFS

C. Transgression

Landward back-stepping of debris flows and then beds

SL1

A. On-set of sea-level fall Sea-level curve/cycle position

SL5

D. Another falling event

4th/5th

order cycle


10/208

Case Study: Post-Drilling Pressure Trends

Our goal: To understand the compartmentalization of these reservoirs

in order to formulate a feasible and efficient development plan

Organized ordisorganized?

Overall trend:increasing pressurewith depth

Significant lateralvariation

Multi-compartments

Developmentscenarios musthandle all theseissues

18,500

19,000

19,500

20,000

20,500

21,000

21,500

13500 14000 14500 15000 15500 16000 16500

Pressure (psi)

Depth

(ftTVDss

)

#2OH #2ST 1

#2ST2 #3OH

#3ST1 #3ST2

#5 #2ST3

#4

Well ID

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9

W ll L S S i h Th B di S f f R i M d l


11/209

0 .00 0 .02 0 .04 0 .06 0 .08 0 .10 0 .12 0 .14

19100.0

19200.0

19300.0

19400.0

19500.0

19600.0

19700.0

19800.0

19900.0

20000.0

20100.0

20200.0

20300.0

20400.0

20500.0

20600.0

20700.0

20800.0

20900.0

21000.0

21100.0

21200.0

21300.0

21400.0

21500.0

21600.0

21700.0

21800.0

21900.0

22000.0

22100.0

22200.0

22300.0

22400.0

19100

19200

19300

19400

19500

19600

19700

19800

19900

20000

20100

20200

20300

20400

20500

20600

20700

20800

20900

21000

21100

21200

21300

21400

21500

21600

21700

21800

21900

22000

22100

22200

22300

Total Foram

Abundance

Planktonic

Foram

Abundance

Agglutinated

Benthics

Total

Nannofossil

Abundance

0 100 200 0 100 2000 600 12000.00 0.04 0.08 0.1210 20 30 40 50

Laser Grain Size (mm)

Chronostratigraphic Correlation

(Relative Change of Coastal Onlap)

GOM Regional Sequences Local Field Sequences Remarks

7.00 7.00

8.60

9.00

9.25

8.60

9.00

9.25

7.40

7.80

8.00

8.20

Seismic H1(Trough)

Seismic H2(Peak)

Seismic H4(Zero Crossing)

MFS

MFS

MFS

MFS

MFS

MFS

MFS

GR

Well Logs

Res

19770 ft7.50 ma

21410 ft

8.80 ma

20240 ftLocalmaker

19210 ft7.27 ma

B

iodatum

Biodatum

Petrographic Analysis

Total Clay Content (%)

BIO.

Seismic H3(Trough)

MFS

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

0 .00 0 .02 0 .04 0 .06 0 .08 0 .10 0 .12 0 .14

19100.0

19200.0

19300.0

19400.0

19500.0

19600.0

19700.0

19800.0

19900.0

20000.0

20100.0

20200.0

20300.0

20400.0

20500.0

20600.0

20700.0

20800.0

20900.0

21000.0

21100.0

21200.0

21300.0

21400.0

21500.0

21600.0

21700.0

21800.0

21900.0

22000.0

22100.0

22200.0

22300.0

22400.0

19100

19200

19300

19400

19500

19600

19700

19800

19900

20000

20100

20200

20300

20400

20500

20600

20700

20800

20900

21000

21100

21200

21300

21400

21500

21600

21700

21800

21900

22000

22100

22200

22300

Total Foram

Abundance

Planktonic

Foram

Abundance

Agglutinated

Benthics

Total

Nannofossil

Abundance

0 100 200 0 100 2000 600 1200

Total Foram

Abundance

Planktonic

Foram

Abundance

Agglutinated

Benthics

Total

Nannofossil

Abundance

0 100 200 0 100 2000 600 12000.00 0.04 0.08 0.1210 20 30 40 50

Laser Grain Size (mm)

Chronostratigraphic Correlation

(Relative Change of Coastal Onlap)

GOM Regional Sequences Local Field Sequences Remarks

7.00 7.00

8.60

9.00

9.25

8.60

9.00

9.25

7.40

7.80

8.00

8.20

Seismic H1(Trough)

Seismic H2(Peak)

Seismic H4(Zero Crossing)

MFS

MFS

MFS

MFS

MFS

MFS

MFS

GR

Well Logs

Res

19770 ft7.50 ma

21410 ft

8.80 ma

20240 ftLocalmaker

19210 ft7.27 ma

B

iodatum

Biodatum

Petrographic Analysis

Total Clay Content (%)

BIO.

Seismic H3(Trough)

MFS

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

Well Log Sequence Stratigraphy: The Bounding Surfaces for Reservoir Model


12/2010

Major reservoir sand packages separated by capping shale intervals

GR_WS_1V/V0 150

18900

19000

19100

19200

19300

19400

19500

19600

19700

19800

19900

20000

20100

20200

20300

20400

20500

20600

20700

20800

TVDSSFEET RDEEP_WS_1

OHMM0.2 200

PERFORATION

GR_1V/V0 150

18900

19000

19100

19200

19300

19400

19500

19600

19700

19800

19900

20000

20100

20200

20300

20400

20500

20600

20700

20800

20900

21000

21100

21200

21300

21400

21500

21600

TVDSSFEET RT_1

OHMM0.2 200

GR_WS_1V/V0 150

18900

19000

19100

19200

19300

19400

19500

19600

19700

19800

19900

20000

20100

20200

20300

20400

20500

20600

20700

20800

20900

21000

21100

21200

21300

21400

21500


OHMM0. 2 200

PERFORATIONGR_WS_1

V/V0 150

18900

19000

19100

19200

19300

19400

19500

19600

19700

19800

19900

20000

20100

20200

20300

20400

20500

20600

20700

20800

20900

21000


OHMM0.2 200

PERFORATION

GR_1V/V0 150

18900

19000

19100

19200

19300

19400

19500

19600

19700

19800

19900

20000

20100

20200

20300

TVDSSFEET RT_1

OHMM0. 2 200

PERFORATION

G

F

E

B

A

GR_1V/V0 150

18900

19000

19100

19200

19300

19400

19500

19600

19700

19800

19900

20000

20100

20200

20300

20400

20500

20600

20700

20800

20900

21000

21100

21200

21300

21400

TVDSSFEET RT_1

OHMM0. 2 200

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

3 2 7 6

A

B

C

8

A1B

B1

B2A

A1A A1A

A1A

K1A

A4

A1A

B4

A5 water

C Stray Sands

F2w

G water

B2B

C1A

CC1A

DUB

D

C1A

G

DUB

N

S

F2

F3

L2w

A1 water

A1 water

K5

F1

E1

E2

F2

F4

DUA

DUB

A5 water

A7

A6 water

F4w

SB

SB

SB

SB SBSB

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB SB

SB

B2B

B2A

B2A

9

SB

A6 water

Dw

1

0 00

SB = Sequence Boundary

Salt

2007-2009

Pressure Depletion

B2A/B2B: 65 psiC1A: 55 psi

SB

SB

SB

SB

C1A


13/2011

Major reservoir sand packages separated by capping shale intervals

GR_WS_1V/V0 150

18900

19000

19100

19200

19300

19400

19500

19600

19700

19800

19900

20000

20100

20200

20300

20400

20500

20600

20700

20800


OHMM0.2 200

PERFORATION

GR_1V/V0 150

18900

19000

19100

19200

19300

19400

19500

19600

19700

19800

19900

20000

20100

20200

20300

20400

20500

20600

20700

20800

20900

21000

21100

21200

21300

21400

21500

21600

TVDSSFEET RT_1

OHMM0.2 200

GR_WS_1V/V0 150

18900

19000

19100

19200

19300

19400

19500

19600

19700

19800

19900

20000

20100

20200

20300

20400

20500

20600

20700

20800

20900

21000

21100

21200

21300

21400

21500


OHMM0. 2 200

PERFORATIONGR_WS_1

V/V0 150

18900

19000

19100

19200

19300

19400

19500

19600

19700

19800

19900

20000

20100

20200

20300

20400

20500

20600

20700

20800

20900

21000


OHMM0.2 200

PERFORATION

GR_1V/V0 150

18900

19000

19100

19200

19300

19400

19500

19600

19700

19800

19900

20000

20100

20200

20300

TVDSSFEET RT_1

OHMM0. 2 200

PERFORATION

G

F

E

B

A

GR_1V/V0 150

18900

19000

19100

19200

19300

19400

19500

19600

19700

19800

19900

20000

20100

20200

20300

20400

20500

20600

20700

20800

20900

21000

21100

21200

21300

21400

TVDSSFEET RT_1

OHMM0. 2 200

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

3 2 7 6

A

B

C

8

A1B

B1

B2A

A1A A1A

A1A

K1A

A4

A1A

B4

A5 water

C Stray Sands

F2w

G water

B2B

C1A

CC1A

DUB

D

C1A

G

DUB

N

S

F2

F3

L2w

A1 water

A1 water

K5

F1

E1

E2

F2

F4

DUA

DUB

A5 water

A7

A6 water

F4w

SB

SB

SB

SB SBSB

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB SB

SB

B2B

B2A

B2A

9

SB

A6 water

Dw

1

0 00

SB = Sequence Boundary

Salt

2007-2009

Pressure Depletion

B2A/B2B: 65 psiC1A: 55 psi

SB

SB

SB

SB

C1A


14/2012

Deep Water Turbidite Deposition Process

NW

AI

5000 9500

SE


15/2013

Deep Water Turbidite Deposition Process


16/2014

Post-Drill Pressure Trendswith Stratigraphic Zonation

18,500

19,000

19,500

20,000

20,500

21,000

21,500

13500 14000 14500 15000 15500 16000 16500

Pressure (psi)

Depth

(ftTVDss)

#2OH #2ST1

#2ST2 #3OH

#3ST1 #3ST2

#5 #2ST3

#4

Well ID

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9


17/2015

Post-Drill Pressure Trendswith Stratigraphic Zonation

18,500

19,000

19,500

20,000

20,500

21,000

21,500

13500 14000 14500 15000 15500 16000 16500

Pressure (psi)

Depth

(ftTVDss)

#2OH #2ST1

#2ST2 #3OH

#3ST1 #3ST2

#5 #2ST3

#4

Well ID

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9

18,500

19,000

19,500

20,000

20,500

21,000

21,500

13700 13900 14100 14300 14500 14700 14900 15100 15300 15500

Depth(ftTVDss)

Pressure (psi)

#2OH #2ST1

#2ST2 #3OH

#3ST1 #3ST2

#5 #2ST3

#4

A1

A5 (Water)

B2B4

G

C1DU

E2 F

C1AB2 Deleted

A5 (Oil)

A7 (Oil)

B2 Lower

E

A6

Upper1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9


18/20


19/2017

Depositional Process: A Quick Thought

Salt

Speed Bump 1

Lobe D1 Lobe D2

Lobe A1 Lobe A2

SB=Bounding Surfaces

Source Area

Back-steppingDown-lapping

Lobe B1 Lobe B2


20/20

Summary Remarks

Presented a conceptual, ad hocmodel for deepwaterdepositional processes

A GOM field development case study consistent with the model

Reservoir connectivity

Field development / completion scenarios

General sequence stratigraphy concepts can be applied to

deepwater reservoir modeling Stacking patterns determined by relative sea-level fluctuation and sediment

input

Deepwater basin (including mini-basins) deposition can beattributed to two processes:

Basinward downlapping during falling period (forced-regression)

Landward backstepping during rising stage (transgression)

Integrating well logs, cores, paleo, geochem, seismic (amplitude& AI volumes), pressure and other reservoir property data is the

key for success

Application of Chronostratigraphic and Lithostratigraphic Concepts to Deepwater Reservoir...

Documents

Transcript of Application of Chronostratigraphic and Lithostratigraphic Concepts to Deepwater Reservoir...