t

Special section: Monitoring reservoir and overburden change

Downloaded 10/10/15 to 41.73.242.244. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

4D seismic interpretation in a Nigerian deepwater field

Oghogho Effiom1, Robert Maskall1, Edwin Quadt2, Kazeem A. Lawal1,
Raphael Afolabi1, Jake Emakpor1, and Reginald Mbah3
Abstract
To improve the management of a Nigerian deep water field, two vintages of 4D data have been acquired since
field start up in 2005. The first Nigerian 4D seismic (monitor-I) in water depths greater than 1000 m was taken in
this field in 2008, and the second monitor (monitor-II) was acquired in 2012. Compared to monitor-I, better
geometric repeatability was achieved in monitor-II as the lessons learned from monitor-I were incorporated
to achieve better results. The final normalized root mean square of monitor-II fast-track volume was 12% compared to 25% for monitor-I. The improved quality is attributed to improvements in the acquisition methodology
and prediction of the effects of currents. Seismic interpretation of the field revealed two distinct turbidite depositional settings: (1) An unconfined amalgamated lobe system with low relief, high net-to-gross reservoir sands
that exhibit fairly homogeneous water flooding patterns on 4D and (2) an erosional canyon setting, filled with
meander belts having a more complex 3D connectivity within and between the channels resulting in a challenging 4D interpretation. The time lapse data were instrumental for better understanding the reservoir architecture, enabling improved wells and reservoir management practices, the identification of infill opportunities,
and more mature subsurface models. We evaluated the seismic acquisition and the 4D interpretation of the
deepwater 4D seismic data, highlighting the merits of a multidisciplinary collaborative understanding to
time-lapse seismic. At present, the value of information of the 4D monitor-II is conservatively estimated at
101 million United States dollars, equivalent to the cost of a well in this deepwater operating environment.

Introduction
The reservoir monitoring technique using time-lapse
(4D) seismic entails acquiring, processing, and interpreting repeated seismic surveys over a particular hydrocarbon reservoir, which is expected to undergo
saturation and pressure changes following significant
fluid injection and/or production. Thus, the technique
compares repeated seismic data sets with the objective
of revealing saturation and pressure changes that might
have occurred over a certain time interval.
Notwithstanding some of its present challenges
(Pickering and Waggoner, 2006), 4D seismic technology
is now a standard addition to the suite of reservoir-management techniques. Its popularity is evident in the diversity of project applications. Some field applications
of 4D include waterflood (Koster et al., 2000), carbon
sequestration (Arts et al., 2004), and thermal recovery
(Sigit et al., 1999). In various projects, 4D has demonstrated excellent value by providing better insights into
the reservoir-scale flow pattern and improved identifi-

cation of potential opportunities for infill drilling and

recompletions.
This paper discusses the acquisition to interpretation
of a current 4D project in a Nigerian deepwater field
developed by water flooding. It has successfully revealed saturation changes being influenced by the reservoir architecture. Regarding wells and reservoir
management, it facilitated the identification of unswept
zones, substantiating inferences from pressure surveys
that some of the reservoirs are more compartmentalized than initially assumed.
Field description
The field is located some 120 km offshore in the
southern part of the Niger Delta, Nigeria, in water
depths of 12 km, and it is a subsea development.
The reservoirs are undersaturated, containing oil of
2933 API and in situ viscosity of 0.30.8 cP. The reservoirs occur between 1500 and 3350 m tvdss in depth,
and the entire field area exceeds 200 km2 .

1
Shell Nigeria E&P Company, Lagos, Nigeria. E-mail: o.effiom@shell.com; robert.c.maskall@shell.com; k.lawal@shell.com; raphael.r.afolabi@
shell.com; jake.emakpor@shell.com.
2
Shell Global Solutions International, Rijswijik, The Netherlands. E-mail: edwin.quadt@shell.com.
3
Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria, Port Harcourt, Rivers State, Nigeria. E-mail: reggie.mbah@shell.com
Manuscript received by the Editor 3 September 2014; revised manuscript received 20 November 2014; published online 19 March 2015. This
paper appears in Interpretation, Vol. 3, No. 2 (May 2015); p. SP11SP19, 9 FIGS.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/INT-2014-0198.1. 2015 Society of Exploration Geophysicists and American Association of Petroleum Geologists. All rights reserved.

Interpretation / May 2015 SP11

Downloaded 10/10/15 to 41.73.242.244. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

Geologic setting

erating point, the reservoirs are not allowed to fall

below the bubble points. The initial assumption of limited connectivity informed implementing a producer-toinjector ratio of roughly 11 to enable full voidage
replacement. However, subsequent performance data
have shown that, depending on the reservoir depositional type (sinuous channel and levees versus amalgamated fans and lobes), well counts could be adjusted
to maintain voidage. Thus, the essence of continuous
reservoir surveillance is to optimize future developments based on new understanding.
During early oil production and water injection, a 4D
feasibility study concluded that the reservoir properties
were conducive to yield an interpretable time-lapse signal. The study quantified the magnitude of the timelapse (4D) seismic response that would be induced
by production and injection as well as assessed its application to optimize field development under realistic
noise conditions. The work looked specifically into the
ability of the 4D data to derisk infill wells, understand
sweep patterns, and map pressure compartments.
Based on the conclusion of the feasibility study and subsequent reservoir simulations, the first 4D seismic data
set was acquired over the entire field in 2008. It was decided to acquire the 2008 first monitor (monitor-I) surField development and 4D history
vey by repeating the baseline antiparallel sail lines, but
At project startup, 3D seismic was acquired over the
also by acquiring this survey in a parallel mode through
field of study, including an area that would later be
additional acquisition of every other sail line in the opoverlain by the floating production storage and offloadposite direction (see Figure 2). This acquisition configuing vessel. 3D seismic interpretation of the reservoirs
ration was designed to be compatible with the previous
was performed on various angle offsets of the data
(antiparallel) baseline survey of 2000 and to be forward
(near-, far-, and full-offset data). The baseline survey
compatible with future monitor surveys, which will be
was acquired in 2000 (preproduction) in an antiparallel
acquired using parallel shooting. The 2000 and 2008
configuration.
volumes were coprocessed, and the monitor-I 4D differConsidering the general absence of an aquifer drive,
ence volumes were derived by extracting the baseline
development is based on injection of treated seawater
2000 survey from the monitor 2008 acquisition. With
for pressure maintenance and sweep efficiency. Recogthis procedure, hardening impedance on 4D is indicanizing that the bubble-point pressure is the optimum optive of an increase in acoustic impedance in the reservoir while softening impedance also
indicates a decreasing impedance within
the sands (Figure 3).
The results of the first 4D exercise
were value adding because they provided
independent calibration and maturation
of the reservoir-simulation models. Many
insights were recorded while knowledge
and skills in 4D acquisition, processing, and interpretation were developed
within the team. The value of monitor-I
and its impact on further development
of the field have been documented and
published (Onuwaje et al., 2009).
In 2012, the second monitor (monitorII) survey was shot by parallel acquisition and offers better repeatability compared to the 2008 parallel acquisition
Figure 1. Conceptual sedimentological model of the depositional environment
due to the use of steerable streamers,
of the study area, which occurs in a mid to lower slope setting. Deepwater turas well as better water current predicbidite reservoirs are formed by the redeposition of sediments in deep water
(Reading and Richards, 1994).
tion techniques (for example, applicaThe environment of deposition is the upper slope of
the Niger Delta basin, where hydrocarbons are trapped
by a complex combination of dip closure, faulting, and
stratigraphic pinchout (Figure 1). Changes in slope dip
due to the rise of the main northeastsouthwest-trending shale-induced diapir results in the formation of
channelized deepwater turbidites that form excellent
hydrocarbon reservoirs. Some faults provide preferential routes to sediment deposition. These thick sands
form hydrocarbon traps that can be laterally amalgamated, or aggradationally stacked. When they are oil
filled, the sands are acoustically soft and can be
clearly seen in seismic amplitude displays. They are further modified by late-stage erosive, sinuous channels
that become mud filled on abandonment. Current interpretations suggest that these late-stage distributive
channels sometimes compartmentalize the reservoirs,
preventing fluid and pressure propagation within the
reservoir during field production. The reservoirs are
generally thick unconsolidated sand packages within
shale drape facies and some thin beds, but permeability
and porosity are in the ranges of 13 darcy and 25%
35%, respectively.

SP12 Interpretation / May 2015

Downloaded 10/10/15 to 41.73.242.244. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

tion of tidal and cold-water statics) were used. A dedicated 4D acquisition expert was on board the vessel to
guide the selection of sail lines. This gave a better geometric repeatability, resulting in more meaningful 4D
difference seismic volumes. The 2008 and 2012 volumes
were processed together, and the monitor-II 4D time
lapse data set was derived by subtracting the 2008 survey from the 2012 data set. This showed the incremental
water movement between 2008 and 2012. This paper
discusses two of the main reservoirs in the field in light
of the 4D results, describing the waterflood responses
of two distinct reservoirs based on differences in their
depositional geology.

4D interpretation
Obtaining a meaningful 4D seismic response depends on the physical rock properties, initial pore pressure, and type of pore fluid contained in a geologic
system. Changes in these parameters during development affect the compressibility and acoustic impedance
of rock properties, some of which can be seen on 4D
seismic (Stammeijer and Hatchell, 2014). Evaluating
changes in these properties between seismic vintages
can provide useful insights into reservoir dynamics.
The reservoirs originally occur in acoustically soft
seismic loops (troughs), indicative of a hydrocarbonfilled amalgamated lobe-and-channel system with high

Figure 2. Acquisition geometries of the seismic data: (a) antiparallel baseline acquired in 2000 and (b) antiparallel monitor-I
acquired in 2008 and coprocessed with the 2000 baseline seismic. (c) Parallel monitor-I (extra lines) acquired during the 2008
seismic acquisition to be forward compatible with future surveys (d) Parallel monitor-II seismic data acquired in 2012 and coprocessed with the 2008 (parallel) seismic data Due to this difference in acquisition geometry, it is not possible to directly compare
and extract a 4D difference between the 2000 baseline and 2012.

Figure 3. The reservoirs are characterized by

a soft seismic event with amplitudes driven by
reservoir quality and reservoir pore fluids. The
4D interpretation of reservoirs A and B shows
acoustic hardening as a result of injected
water replacing oil within the sand. Other effects have not been observed in these reservoirs.

Interpretation / May 2015 SP13

Downloaded 10/10/15 to 41.73.242.244. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

porosity (i.e., soft impedances). When water is injected

into these sediments, it results in a hardening of the
seismic response as oil is replaced by water. Depressurization also gives a hardening effect. Conversely,
the pressurization and replacement of oil by gas result
in softening responses (Stammeijer and Hatchell, 2014).
Due to pressurization and depressurizations, 4D signals
have not been observed in reservoirs A and B.
Seismic interpretation in the field revealed two reservoir depositional types described as amalgamated
lobes and channelized systems. The amalgamated lobe
reservoir top and base can be picked on the zero crossings of the 90 phase-rotated quadrature data (Figure 4a). The channelized systems are typically more
complex because channel erosive edges, overlapping
levees, aggradation, or laterally offset stacking geometries are present in the seismic (Figure 4b). These
geometries are sometimes covered in shale drapes,
causing waterflood behavior to be less predictable in
the channelized systems. Multiple channel sets may either communicate during production or not, depending
on whether the channel boundaries provide sand-on-

sand juxtaposition or are draped with shale facies. Unfortunately, these microfacies are below seismic resolution. In the field study area, lithologies smaller than
2 m are not resolvable on seismic data.
In an earlier paper, Pirmez and Effiom (2011) discuss
the impact of channelized reservoir architecture on production. After distinguishing the micro- and macroscale
changes that typically occur during waterflooding of
lobes and channelized reservoirs, it was concluded that
4D seismic can reveal the spatial fluid changes (including flood fronts) in the reservoirs. That conclusion influenced the analysis presented in the current work.
Results
The discussion of results is limited to two of the five
developed reservoirs in the field. The subject reservoirs
are identified as A and B (Figures 5 and 6, respectively).
Reservoir A is an example of an amalgamated reservoir and comprises a thick sandy layer-cake package,
with the upper surface eroded by distributive channels
that were mud filled after abandonment. The 4D seismic
interpretation from monitor-I (Figure 7b) and monitor-II

Figure 4. Panels (a and b) above are seismic cross sections across the depositional dip of two representative wells in the field.
Reservoir A is geologically younger and made up of layer-cake sandy facies as seen in the gamma ray logs in well A1 and A2;
whereas reservoir B is a deeper canyon system that has been infilled with other sandy channels with muddy intrachannel facies
and thin beds identified by the gamma ray logs in Well B1 and B2.
SP14 Interpretation / May 2015

Downloaded 10/10/15 to 41.73.242.244. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

(Figure 7c) shows a fairly homogeneous and distinct

flood front from the injectors (blue icons) to the producers (red icons). Overall, this signal indicates that
the reservoir is fairly homogeneous in these areas, supporting the interpretation that the reservoir geometry
can be approximated as a layer cake.
From the indication of large swept zones, it is deduced that the intrareservoir connectivity is generally
good. As a result, the current belief is that the existing
well development is adequate and likely to achieve
the expected ultimate recovery. On the basis of these
results, additional wells for reservoir A have been
dropped. Owing to improvement in the delineation of
developed areas and more confidence in the current development strategy to achieve optimum recovery, there
has been a general upward revision of reserves.
Although 4D has resulted in increased volumes,
there could still be subseismic opportunities that higher
resolution surveillance, such as production logging (Sukaman and Supriyadi, 1989), may identify. Subseismic

pockets of producible oil in the areas assumed to be

swept may exist in near-well areas. These subseismic
opportunities may be better candidates for relatively
cheap improved-recovery activities, such as reperforation and stimulation, rather than drilling and completing
expensive new wells.
On the other side of the depositional spectrum, reservoir B has been interpreted as a canyon system, infilled with sandy channels and intrachannel thin-bed
and muddy facies. This interpretation led to the drilling
of a dedicated injector and producer pair in the thalweg
of the geologically youngest and best preserved of these
channels. Performance analysis has shown evidence of
moderate aquifer support in this reservoir, and sustainable production has been achieved by the aquifer drive
alone with the injector switched on sparingly.
Although the base-case assumption was that the well
pair would sweep the main channel axis, there was an
optimistic assumption that there could be areas of sandto-sand juxtaposition in which the shale-drape facies

Figure 5. (a) The rms amplitude structure map of reservoir A showing late-stage mud-filled channels, which are barriers to flow in
some areas. (b) These channels, initially believed to be baffles, have been swept by injected water, especially updip where they are
less erosive and more sand prone. (c) 3D seismic section (line 12) indicating the late-stage channel outlined and (d) 4D seismic
difference section confirming water sweep in connected areas beneath the late-stage channel.
Interpretation / May 2015 SP15

Downloaded 10/10/15 to 41.73.242.244. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

have been eroded. Recognizing the prospects of communication between the meander belts, the high case
assumed a larger floodable area in the dynamic simulation (Figure 8c).
However, 4D interpretation of reservoir B suggests
that only the main channel fairway has been flooded
(Figure 8b), an observation that is not in line with
the dynamic model prediction shown in Figure 8c.
There is a strong indication of bypassed oil volumes
in the two older meander belts flanking the main
channel, and the 4D interpretation shows the possible
influence of the aquifer influx and injected water over
time. It is also evident that most of the waterflooding
took place within the monitor-II time frame (Figure 9).
Based on the 4D evidence of sweep in the area, the second well pair (shown in black icons), planned for the
northwestern portion of the reservoir, has been dropped,
saving an estimated 200 million dollars in well costs.
The 4D program has been a technical and economic
success. Preliminary assessment suggests that substantial oil volume remains in unswept areas of the entire
field. Performing a simple economic evaluation of a development well targeting the bypassed area and the revenue expected from incremental oil production, we
estimate the value of information (VOI) to be ca. 101
million U.S. dollars (for monitor-II only), equivalent

to the cost of a development well in this operating environment. However, the estimated VOI does not include
additional, but less quantifiable, benefits accruable
from a better reservoir-management strategy, as well
as the regret of potentially nonprofitable wells and operating the field safely. Clearly, the success of this
project has provided clear business justification for
future monitor surveys in this and other fields, while
reemphasizing the merits of the multidisciplinary approach to the conceptualization and management of
4D projects.
Suggestions for further study
The difference in acquisition geometry between the
2000 baseline and the 2012 monitor-II data sets has
made it challenging to directly extract a 12-year timelapse volume that shows the overall waterflood front
encroachment during the life of the field. The recommendation from this study is that a detailed 4D reservoir monitoring program should be encoded into new
field development planning from the outset. This ensures that consistent parameters are set and remain
unchanged from baseline to monitor acquisitions. Otherwise, further time and resource consuming processing or seismic scaling needs to be applied to the
baseline data to correct for the difference in acquis-

Figure 6. (a) The rms amplitude map of reservoir B shows the area of development above the oil-water contact. (b) The structural
stratigraphic model highlights the depositional system described as channels infilling a canyon system. (c) The wells were drilled
to develop the youngest and most preserved channel interpreted in orange. (d) The 4D response indicates that the red and orange
channels are in communication; sweep is taking place in both channels.
SP16 Interpretation / May 2015

Downloaded 10/10/15 to 41.73.242.244. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

Figure 7. Showing the evolution of water flooding in reservoir A: (a) rms amplitude structure map. (b) 4D difference map (2000 to
2008). (c) 4D difference map (2008 to 2012).

Figure 8. (a) The rms amplitude map of reservoir B with the 4D area outlined in indicating limited bypassed oil above the OOWC.
(b) 4D map with the swept zone of the overall canyon system outlined. (c) Predicted water-saturation map generated at the time of
4D acquisition. It shows the predicted change in pore water saturation thickness within the reservoir. The dynamic model prediction differs significantly from the actual 4D.
Interpretation / May 2015 SP17

Downloaded 10/10/15 to 41.73.242.244. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

Figure 9. Evolution of water flooding in reservoir B: (a) rms amplitude structure map. (b) 4D difference map (20002008). (c) 4D
difference map (20082012).

ition and make it more comparable to the 2012 seismic,

and the results of this exercise will be qualitative
at best.
Conclusion
Time-lapse seismic is one of the few techniques that
can provide a full-field aerial view of the subsurface, as
fluids are extracted and injected. Correct application of
this technology can image differences due to changes in
saturation and pore pressure inside a reservoir. In a
waterflood, it is possible to observe the progress of injected water, formation of a secondary gas cap, a possible pressure trap, and the distribution of sand bodies
that are dynamically connected.
Furthermore, subsurface geometries can be revealed
by 4D seismic. Stratigraphic architecture has a fundamental impact on how effectively oil is produced, especially in waterfloods. Four-dimensional seismic is a key
ingredient to an integrated reservoir modeling strategy,
aimed at robust forecasting of reservoir performance
under various production/injection scenarios.
Reservoir properties, distribution, and connectivity
are important elements. Areas that appear connected
on 3D seismic may have subseismic lithologic changes
that could impact fluid flow within them. This, in turn,
has an effect on reservoir-management and field-development strategies.
The success of the 4D program in the example deepwater field has been multifaceted, providing business
justification for future monitor surveys in this and other
fields. In areas in which the results have differed from
our expectation, the 4D result has challenged our
understanding of the reservoirs and continues to be
an exciting topic for further research and model
iteration.
Acknowledgments
The work presented is a result of the combined efforts of SNEPCO Asset, Geophysics, and Geomatics
teams as well as Shell Projects & Technology. The auSP18 Interpretation / May 2015

thors would like to acknowledge E. Telatovich, F.

Osayande, R. Detomo, P. Hatchell, M. Tatanova, C. Pirmez, D. Ibianga, C. Njoku, O. Fakunle, and C. Chukwuneke. The authors are also thankful to the Department
of Petroleum Resources and National Petroleum Investment Management Services for permission to publish
this paper.
References
Arts, R., O. Eiken, A. Chadwick, P. Zweigel, L. van der
Meer, and B. Zinszner, 2004, Monitoring of CO2 injected
at Sleipner using time-lapse seismic data: Energy, 29,
13831392, doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2004.03.072.
Koster, K., P. Gabriels, M. Hartung, J. Verbeek, G. Deinun,
and R. Staples, 2000, Time-lapse seismic surveys in the
north sea and the business impact: The Leading Edge,
19, 286293, doi: 10.1190/1.1438594.
Onuwaje, A., A. Adejonwo, I. Al-Mandhary, R. Detomo, Jr.,
O. Effiom, W. Gouveia, N. Kremers, E. Legius, R. MacLellan, R. Mcclenaghan, E. Quadt, and S. Weaver,
2009, The Bonga 4D: Shell Nigerias first deepwater time
lapse monitor: Presented at the 71st Annual International Conference and Exhibition, EAGE, Extended
Abstracts, doi: 10.3997/2214-4609.201400588.
Pickering, S., and J. Waggoner, 2006, Lessons learnt in
time-lapse seismic reservoir monitoring: Presented at
6th International Conference and Exposition on Petroleum Geophysics.
Pirmez, C., and O. Effiom, 2011, Impact of channelized reservoir architecture on production Examples in deepwater Nigeria: Presented at London Geological Society
Internal Architecture, Bedforms and Geometry of Turbidite Channels Conference.
Reading, H. G., and M. Richards, 1994, Turbidite systems in
deepwater basin margins classified by grain size and
feeder system: AAPG Bulletin, 78, 792822.
Sigit, R., P. Morse, and K. Kimber, 1999, 4D seismic
that works: A successful large scale application, Duri

Downloaded 10/10/15 to 41.73.242.244. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

steamflood, Sumatra, Indonesia: 69th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 20552058.
Stammeijer, J., and P. Hatchell, 2014, Standards in 4D feasibility and interpretation: The Leading Edge, 33, 134
140, doi: 10.1190/tle33020134.1.
Sukaman, S., and A. Supriyadi, 1989, Successful reservoir
management in the Mengkapan field using an integrated
production logging and workover strategy 18th Annual Convention Proceedings: Indonesian Petroleum
Association, vol. 2, 215238.

Edwin Quadt is a processing geophysicist who joined Shell in 1989

and has worked in The Netherlands,
Oman and Nigeria. From 2007 to
2014, he supervised the 3D and 4D
processing for Shell Nigerias deep
water fields. His experience includes
3D and 4D land and marine (streamer
and OBN) processing and acquisition.
Currently, he is a seismic processing delivery manager,
leading the large in-house processing team based in Rijswijk, The Netherlands.

Oghogho Effiom received a B.S. in

geology from the University of Benin
and an M.S. in asset management from
Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen.
She is a production geologist who has
worked for Shell since 2006 in Shell
Deepwater Nigeria Asset. Her experience spans the full range of offshore
field development and execution
involving prospect-scale 3D seismic interpretation, geologic static modeling using PETREL, appraisal and development well planning and well site operations geology,
shallow geohazard identification and mitigation, integration of all subsurface data for full-field development scenarios and optimization, 4D seismic interpretation in
waterflooding clastic reservoirs, and SEC reserves estimation and reporting. Prior to joining Shell, Oghogho spent
five years working at Landmark Graphics Corporation
(a Halliburton Company) as an onsite G&G technical consultant and geodata manager.

Kazeem A. Lawal received a B.S. in chemical engineering from the Obafemi Awolowo University, Nigeria; an M.S.
in petroleum engineering from the University of Port-Harcourt, Nigeria; and a Ph.D. in petroleum engineering from
Imperial College, London. He is a reservoir engineer with
Shell Nigeria.

Robert Maskall is a production geologist who has

worked for Shell for almost 30 years in the UK, Brunei,
Houston, and Nigeria. He is currently the production geosciences discipline principal in the Shell Deepwater Nigeria Asset.

Raphael Afolabi received a bachelors degree in geology from Ahmadu

Bello University, Nigeria, and a masters degree in petroleum geology
from the University of Port Harcourt,
Nigeria. He joined Shell in 1997 as a
petroleum geoscientist. His experience covers several geologic depositional environments, ranging from
Niger Delta clastics to north Oman carbonate setting
and Nigeria deep offshore turbidites. He is currently the
field development and execution team leader for Shell Nigeria Exploration and Production Company Limited
(SNEPCO), where he leads hydrocarbon maturation, field
development/management, and deep offshore well deliveries.
Biographies and photographs of the other authors are
not available.

Interpretation / May 2015 SP19