Characterization of Fluvial

Sedimentology for Reservoir

Simulation -Modeling
Adolfo Henriquez, SPE, Kelly J. Tyler, SPE, and Andrew Hurst, * SPE, Statoil

SPE 1832-'3
Summary. This paper presents a critical study of a 3D stochastic simulation of a fluvial reservoir and of the transfer of the geological
model to a reservoir simulation grid. The stochastic model is conditioned by sand-body thickness and position in wellbores. Geological
input parameters-sand-body orientation and width/thickness ratios-are often difficult to determine, and are invariably subject to in-
terpretation. Net/gross ratio (NGR) and sand-body thickness are more easily estimated. Sand-body connectedness varies, depending
on the modeling procedure; however, a sedimentary process-related model gives intermediate values for connectedness between the
values for a regular packing model and the stochastic model. The geological model is transferred to a reservoir simulation grid by
use of transmissibility multipliers and an NGR value for each block. The transfer of data smooths out much of the detailed geological
information, and the calculated recovery factors are insensitive to the continuity measured in the geological model. Hence, we propose
improvements to the interface between geological and reservoir simulation models. Input for our conditional, statistical, sedimentary,
process-related model includes regional geological parameters (rates of subsidence and aggradlltion and grossly contoured paleotopog-
raphy) and local values (depth, thickness, and direction and width of sand bodies ascertained from well-test and core analyses). In-
tegration of sedimentological understanding of the reservoir's depositional environment is emphasized.

Introduction of the geological model of a fluvial reservoir-to a practical study

A recognized need exists to develop quantitative geological models
based on reservoir information and experience for use in numerical
simulation for reservoir evaluation. Fluvial reservoirs containing
hydrocarbon reserves in partially connected sand bodies pose special
challenges for geological modeling because the influence of iso-
lated fluvial bodies is'important when fluid transport and production
profiles are calculated. Detailed knowledge of sand-channel li-
thology, morphology, distribution, stacking, and connectedness are
essential to develop a model that accurately describes fluid flow
and production capacity within fluvial systems.
The usual method of contouring the reservoir parameters (NGR,
permeability, and porosity) is inadequate because the sand bodies
comprise discrete sandstones embedded in impermeable shale. Al-
ternative methods are "hand-made" models, I random-object
distribution 2- 4 of the sand bodies, or sedimentological process-
related models. 5,6
Hand-made models, like that Johnson and Kroll used to model
fluvial sandstones in the Brent field, rely on the geological interpre-
tation of well data. The sandstones are placed in this model according
to well data, but placement between the wells is somewhat arbitrary
when sandstones are insufficiently laterally extensive to be correlated
between wells. Though conceptual modeling generates models that
are acceptable to the geological intuition, it is highly subjective and
nonreproducible in the sense that different geologists will create
different models. Therefore, the reservoir simulation performed on
the basis of these models gives results that, even when production
data for history matching are available, are unacceptable for ob-
jective economical, political, or production planning purposes in
a reservoir evaluation.
Another method used to model discrete heterogeneities is based
on a stochastic distribution of the heterogeneities, conditioned by
the data at the wells, with respect to probability distributions ob-
tained from outcrop or other studies of analog depositional envi-
ronments. Haldorsen and Lake 2 developed this technique, and
Allen 7 applied the method to shale distribution in alluvial-fan sand-
stone reservoirs.
Another method used to model heterogeneities in sedimentary
depositional environments is exemplified by Bridge and Leeder's5
modeling of a 2D alluvial sedimentary succession. This method has
not yet been generalized to a 3D representation for representing
hydrocarbon reservoirs, but Alexander 6 has made progress in this
direction.
The purpose of this paper is to present a critical study of the ap-
plication of a model of the second kind-a stochastic simulation
'Now at UnocaJ.
Copyright 1990 Society of Petroleum Engineers
of the Statfjord reservoir in a North Sea oil field. This modeling
tool was described in detail by Augedal et at. 3 and Clementsen et
at. ,4 and a short introduction to the method is presented. The ex-
perience gained with stochastic models indicates that alternative
models that use geological processes as input parameters are nec-
essary.
Description of the 3D Stochastic Simulator
Fluvial reservoirs pose special challenges to geologists and reservoir
engineers who wish to arrive at good estimates for fluid transport
and production capacity. The oil-bearing formation comprises sand
bodies that have been deposited in a fluvial environment. Even with
good well control, it is impossible to decide the exact geometric
form and distribution of each and every sand body. The problem
is even more acute in offshore oil exploitation where the distances
between production and exploration wells are 0.6 to 1.2 miles [1
to 2 km] and 1.2 to 6.2 miles [2 to 10 km]. Correlation between
sand bodies in neighboring wells is hazardous. Because decisions
about platform capacity, number and position of wells, and expected
production profiles are taken at a stage when only limited data are
available, modeling tools are used to evaluate alternative production
strategies. For the special case considered in this paper, no natural
drive mechanism was present in the reservoir, necessitating water
injection.
A 3D stochastic geological model 3 ,4 was developed to describe
a fluvial reservoir and to calculate input to a numerical reservoir
simulator. The program derives numerous stochastic realizations
of the reservoir from probability distributions of parameters that
describe sand-channel geometry and distribution at the wells (Fig.
1). The program also calculates correction factors for the number
describing the flux between neighboring simulation gridblocks, or
the transmissibility. These correction factors are called transmis-
sibility multipliers (TMM's). Input parameters include the
reservoir's NGR and probability distributions for sand-channel
thickness, width, and orientation. The model has the following sim-
plifying assumptions.
1. The reservoir is a 3D pamllelepiped, with width, length, and
thickness chosen by the user.
2. The reservoir is built of permeable sand bodies that penetrate
impermeable shale or clay.
3. Sand bodies are infinitely long parallelepipeds, with thickness
specified by a probability distribution taken from the data at the
wells and any other available information (e.g., outcrop analog
studies), and widths are assigned a conditional probability distri-
bution that determines the probability of finding a given width for
a given thickness.

SPE Fonnation Evaluation, September 1990 211

 GEOLOGICAL INPUT
1.00

-
Sand Content 0.80 ~ Group 1
Sand Channel' Dimensions
Sand Bod y Orientation Group 2
Reservoir Dimensions
">-

:0
~
0.60

.c
0 0.40
.t
MODEL OUTPUT
0.20

Grid Block Parameters 0.00

-dimensions 3 6
Channel Thickness (m)
-net/gross
-transmissibility Fig. 2-Thickness probability of sand channels as interpreted
by two independent geological studies.

(Group 1)
1600
. 1.0
........300:1 -;:'0.5
1400
- - - - 287:1 ....
........;,........
~.","
1200 --159:1
........:,..."
E --66.6:1 ........;;,..;,.;
::;; 1000
'0 ..
~....:;;,."

...;:'''0;;'" .................. ..... 0.2

'i 800

~~ ......:;:;;." .,..,.,..
()
600
..
,;;'"
,;.;;",
.........
.................
..........
400
~~ 0.0
200 ~;
~" ..........
......... ,
o~~~~~~~--~~--~---.---,--.---,--,
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00
Channel Thickness (m)

AX
Fig. 3-Conditlonal probability for sand-channel width given
Fig. 1-Schematic of the geological simulation model. its thickness.

4. Sand bodies are placed randomly within the reservoir with their
orientation determined from a probability distribution obtained from
provenance studies and, to a lesser degree, from dipmeter meas-
urements.
5. The NGR for a given reservoir zone is constant and user-
specified.
6. Sand bodies can be conditioned to specified vertical wells within
the reservoir boundaries.
With this model (Le., well data, user-defined probability functions
for input parameters, and a random-number generator), many
reservoir representations can be simulated. The procedure involves
the following steps.
Step 1. Assign a position for the sand-channel centroid obtained
from the random-number generator.
Step 2. Choose the channel thickness from the user-given proba-
bility distribution.
Step 3. Choose the channel width for the given thickness from
the user-given conditional-probability distribution.
Step 4. Choose the channel orientation from the user-given prob-
ability distribution.
Step 5. Calculate the NGR for the reservoir.
If the target NGR has not been obtained, a new iteration from Step
1 is performed.
As mentioned previously, the particular reservoir to which this
modeling tool was applied required water injection to maintain
reservoir pressure and to displace the oil. Because we needed to
discriminate between the many possible reservoir realizations, we
defined a continuity concept. The continuity ratio, Fe> is
Fe = Vel Vsd , ...................................... (1)
where Ve=the contact volume between wells, and Vsd=the total
sand volume in the simulation reservoir. The volumes are corrected
for overlapping of sand channels. Calculation of Fe demands con-
siderable computer resources because of the reservoir's complex
geometry. Continuity is closely related to the concepts of connect-
edness and average fractional contact, which will be covered later.
Estimation of continuity is possible and depends on the user's spec-
ification of the well pattern in the reservoir, the flow length be-
tween the injection and production wells, and the maximum number
of sand channels the user considers reasonable for flow between
the injectors and producers. The continuity ratio is the ratio of the
displaceable reserves to the sum ofthe depletable and displaceable
reserves. An example of a calculated continuity ratio is illustrated
later.
The sand bodies generated consist of several connected sand
channels and have geometries that are too complex to be transferred
directly into a numerical reservoir simulator. Thus, a rectangular
grid is laid over the chosen geological simulation, and parameters
(NGR and TMM's for neighboring gridblocks in the flow direction)
are calculated.
NGR is calculated as the average sand content of each individual
gridblock. The NGR value is used with porosity to calculate PV
in the reservoir simulator.
TMM's between neighboring gridblocks are calculated by use
of control planes between the gridblock centers. A harmonic mean
of the sand content in these control planes defines each TMM. These
numbers are combined with the permeabilities in the reservoir simu-
lator to calculate transmissibility between gridblocks in the flow
direction.

212 SPE Fonnation Evaluation, September 1990

 TABLE 1-ECLIPSE SIMULATIONS OF
MODELED RESERVOIRS

Water Production
Continuity Breakthrough Time Recovery
Ratios (years) (years) (%)
NGR=30%
Best 1.75 5.9 37
Middle 1.50 4.8 29
6 Worst 1.00 6.3 35

NGR=45%
4
Best 2.50 6.3 49
Middle 2.50 6.7 51
Worst 1.50 6.7 48

NGR=60%
Best 3.00 7.2 56
30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Reservoir Continuity (%)
Middle 3.00 7.2 56
Worst 2.50 6.4 53

Fig. 4-Calculated reservoir continuity for varying NGR's. NGR=80%

Fifteen cases are studied for each NGR. UnclaSSified 3.00 7.7 59

Inconsistent Input Parameters
The input parameters for the geologic simulation include proba-
bility distributions for channel thickness, channel width as a function
of channel thickness, and channel orientation. It is our experience
that obtaining probability distributions for the three geological pa-
rameters is difficult. Data for channel-thickness distribution (Fig.
2) were derived from two independent geological studies of the same
core and log data from the Statfjord reservoir.
Probability distributions for channel width are derived from the
geological literature, the sedimentological interpretation of the sand-
body geometry, and well-test analysis. The relevance of published
data to a specific subsurface situation is always ambiguous; i.e.,
it is difficult to know how similar analog data are to the reservoir
under scrutiny. Fig. 3 shows one interpretation of all known data
needed to give the conditional probability of a given sand-channel
width when the thickness is given for a specific formation. For a
thickness of 10 ft [3 m], for example, the probability of a width
> 2,821 ft [> 860 m] and < 2,953 ft [ < 900 m] is 50%. An alter-
native interpretation (Group 2 in Fig. 2) of the same data was that
every sand-channel width was 60 times its thickness. This 60: 1
value actually had a probability of 0 % in the first study.
Most geological data focus on relationships between sand-channel
thickness and width. Well-test analyses, however, give sand-body
dimensions and do not reveal whether they are single channels or
composite units. Sand bodies of significance in a production test
will invariably comprise several overlapping channels.
Dipmeter data are an information source that may be useful for
determining sand-body orientation. Sand bodies, however, are com-
posite units with an architecture that probably comprises a number
of channels, which in turn comprise a range of smaller-scale sand
units, such as dunes. Orientations obtained from dipmeter data may
represent only the orientation of structures within a limited volume
of the whole sand body rather than the general orientation of the
body. Dipmeter data may thus become the subject of geological
interpretation. In this instance, one group interpreted the dipmeter
data to give orientations of 30 east from north with a 60 dis-
persion, while another group interpreted the same data as 60 east
from north with a 40 dispersion.
We concluded that input parameters in the geological simulations
are ambiguous; therefore, simulations generated should be treated
circumspectly.
Simulation Examples
In the sand-body simulations, the continuity ratio is assumed to be
a measure of reservoir qUality. When evaluating reservoir quality
with a stochastic simulator, it is important to understand the devi-
ations from the average reservoir generated. To check the relia-
bility of the continuity ratio as a discriminator, several stochastic
simulations were run for different NGR's (Fig. 4). Three reservoirs
for each NGR were then simulated in a black-oil reservoir simu-
lator. Three continuity ratios were run for each NGR: the best, the
middle, and the worst (Table 1). The ultimate recovery (at 90%
water cut) has little variance over the given range of continuity-
ratio values. Even more serious, the simulated reservoirs with the
highest continuity may have the poorest recovery. With increased
NGR, the geological realizations give increasingly similar break-
through, production time, and recovery (Table 1). A single run with
an 80% NGR put extreme demands on computer time. Therefore,
we concluded that the continuity ratio was not a good production-
potential measure for stochastically generated reservoirs. We rec-
ognized, however, that a qualitative method for differentiating the
reservoir representations must be used when such stochastic simu-
lators are used.
Sand.Body Connectedness
Sand-body connectedness, loosely defined as a 2D attribute that
describes the degree of sand-body overlap in a cross section of the
reservoir, is a concept that, though intuitively obvious, is difficult
to define unequivocally. We adopted Allen's8 definition because
of its direct relevance to reservoir management purposes. Allen de-
fines the average fractional contact as the average fraction of the
sand-body perimeter in contact with contiguous sand bodies. For
the regularly packed model described in this paper, 8 the connect-
edness, K, can be approximated as follows.
K=O for F nl /:s;0.50 ............................... (2)
and K=2x(Fnl/-0.50) for Fnl/~0.50, ................. (3)
where Fnl/=the sand content of the simulated reservoir.
The stochastic model discussed here generates reservoir reali-
zations that show that when sand-body connectedness is measured
with Allen's method, it is an approximately linear function of the
sand content in the reservoir (Fig. 5).
Bridge and Leeder 5 introduced a 2D sedimentary process-related
model that permits sand-body connectedness to be modeled with
a greater degree of geological integrity. For computational reasons,
they define interconnectedness as the ratio of the total number of
erosive contacts between channel belts to the total number of channel
belts encountered in vertical linear scannings of the cross section
generated. Though average fractional contact 8 and the intercon-
nectedness rati05 are specific to the methods in which the reali-
zations are generated, they are closely related to the sand-body
connectedness defined previously. Measures of sand-body connect-
edness' average fractional contact, and the interconnectedness ratio
are independent of well spacing and are measures of the reservoir
architecture itself.

SPE Fonnation Evaluation, September 1990 213

 1.00 ] "/ Layer 1 Layer 2
- .- Stochastic Model /"/
____ Regular Packing "/
:lc~ I :"/
0.80
"0
Model
/
~
~
c 0.60
Sed. Process-related
Model
/1:
"/
c
o / ./
{)
>-
/ .,/
S 0.40 /~..../
"0 i/
..../
C
m

. . . . . .:>/
<f)
0.20

0.00 ~-.,--.,.-.-,..--,...--f--,----,--------,,--------,---,
.00 .10 .20 .30 .40 .50 .60 .70 .BO .90 1.00
Reservoir NGR
Layer 3 Layer 4
Fig. 5-Sand-body connectedness as calculated by different
models; the definition is different for the process-related
model.

With Bridge and Leeder's model, sand-body connectedness is cal-

culated to lie between the connectedness calculated from the
stochastic model and the regularly packed model (Fig. 5) and is
closest to the latter. For a sand-body distribution thought to be more
representative of a real alluvial sequence, Allen produces a rela-
tionship with smaller values than those represented by the
sedimentary process-related model, which are therefore closer to
Bridge and Leeder's v.alues. When accounting for the differences
in definitions, however, the relevance ofthe similarities should not
be pushed too far because of the inherent randomness of the process-
related model and its dependence on several parameters.
The stochastic model gives overly optimistic values for connect-
edness, which can be explained by the lack of geological intelli-
gence in the simulator. During sedimentation, the positioning of
previously deposited sand bodies has an important control over
where subsequent sand bodies are deposited. When generating the
target NGR, this system does not take into account where previ-
ously generated sand bodies lie, and too many sand bodies are placed
in the reservoir. Consequently, too much overlap between sand
bodies is generated in the simulator with respect to the specified
NGR.
Interface Between Geological and Reservoir
Simulation Models
Transfer of detailed information to a reservoir simulation model
is an important but difficult task. In this study, the flux between
adjacent gridblocks is determined with TMMs, 1 which are roughly
proportional to the common area of the sand bodies at the block
boundaries and to the sand content of the gridblocks.
A plan view of the sand bodies generated by a stochastic simu-
lation (Fig. 6) is compared with the same data discretized in a 15 x5
simulation grid (Fig. 7). Each block is 328 x 820 ft [lOOx250 m],
with a thickness of 10 ft [3 m]. The representation in the simu-
lation grid clearly smooths out the detail of the geological model
and blurs the boundaries between the sand bodies. The resulting
production profIles are less sensitive to the connectedness measured
in the geological simulation model.
A further problem with discretization is that when more than one
channel is present in anyone simulation gridblock, not all the
channels contribute to the flow in a given direction (Fig. 8). The
presence of sandstone volumes in blocks that are not swept by the
injected water can be accounted for with directionally dependent
relative. permeability curves. The hydrocarbon flow between con-
tiguous simulation gridblocks containing nonconnected sand bodies
will then be reduced accordingly, and the endpoint values will ac-
count for the oil that is not displaced by the injected water and for
the residual oil of the sandstone that is swept. Thus, the residual
oil saturation in the positive flow direction (from ito i + 1 in Fig.
8) consists of the residual oil saturation in the volume of Sand
Channel 2 in Block i plus all the oil contained in the volume of
Sand Channell in Block i.
Fig. 6-Areal view of sand bodies generated by the stochastic
model. Four horizontal cross sections are taken at 3-m dis-
tances.
A disadvantage of directional relative permeabilities is that a set
of endpoints of relative permeability curves exists for each block.
These curves are dependent on the location of the injection and pro-
duction wells. This way of obtaining a more faithful interface be-
tween the geological and reservoir simulation models is easily
implemented in existing simulation codes.
Fig. 9 illustrates another reason for the discrepancy between con-
tinuity and recovery calculations performed by the geological and
reservoir simulation programs. Because continuity for a given well
pattern is a measure of the HCPV in the sand bodies that are per-
meated by the injected fluid, the NGR calculations neglect the
difference between displaceable and depletable volumes. A pos-
sible method to include this level of detail in the reservoir simu-
lation is to use the dual-porosity facility present in many
commercially available black-oil simulators. * The displaceable
fraction of the sand body in a given simulation gridblock may be
assigned to the fracture porosity. The fraction that cannot be swept,
but that may be produced by depletion, is assigned to the matrix
porosity. The matrix/fracture interface area per unit volume may
be assigned as a sensitivity constant for the entire reservoir or, al-
ternatively, can be calculated for each gridblock as a measure of
the contact area between the parts of a given sand body that are
displaceable and depletable, respectively. It also may be possible
to simulate the behavior of the hydrocarbon FVF of the depletable
oil as a function of pressure with a transfer function 9 that repre-
sents the hydrocarbon expelled from a matrix element as a function
of time. This method of preserving a higher level of detail in the
reservoir simulation stage is easily implemented in the reservoir
simulator but requires more storage and more computer time.
Proposal for a Sedimentary
Process-Related Model
The limitations of the stochastic model tested include (1) difficulties
in obtaining unique input parameters, (2) an absence of sedimen-
tological understanding, (3) an overestimation of sand-body con-
nectedness resulting from the excessive amount of sand channels
required to obtain a target NGR, and (4) the generation of a large
number of realizations from which none can be chosen ob-
'Privale communication wilh V. Dalen, Slaloil, Slavanger (1988).

214 SPE Formation Evaluation, September 1990

 Layer 1 Layer 2

NGR NGR
.978 .998
.652j.<:..~~'l 5 .665 5

.332

Grid Blocks In X-direction Grid Blocks in X-direction

Layer 3 Layer 4

NGR
.971
.666 .677
.361 .354
0~15----~~____- ,____~
'" 10
5
Grid Blocks in X-direction Grid Blocks in X-direction

Fig. 7-Sand bodies from Fig. 6 after being transferred to the 15x5x4 simulation grid.

Flow Direction

Sand Channel 1 Sand Channel 2

Fig. 8-Fluld in Sand Channell in Gridblock i flows to Block

i+ 1.

jectively as the most representative of the real reservoir. These dis-

advantages, however, should not obscure the fact that a quantifi-
cation of the uncertainties is made possible by the model. Probably
the most serious objection to the stochastic model is the difficulty
in accepting that the sedimentological processes that control the ge-
ometry of fluvial sandstone reservoirs are totally random, such that
each sand body is noncorrelatable with every other channel. This
objection almost certainly applies to stochastic modeling of any
sedimentary facies or geological parameters. The assumption re- Injection well 1:-::-:] Depletable
veals our ignorance and inability to model the actual geological proc-
esses acting in a depositional environment that define the eventual
P Production well m Displaceable

internal geometry of reservoirs. Fig. 9-Displaceable and depletable fluids in a simulation

To improve our ability to model fluvial reservoirs, we propose
a new method that, essentially, is an extension of Bridge and
Leeder's5 2D studies and Alexander's6 use of paleotopographical
contouring. The expectation is that the explicit incorporation of
sedimentological processes, which in geological time contribute to
the construction and preservation of the sand bodies, will provide
us with a more realistic representation of the reservoir. The steps
required for this model follow.
Step 1. Determine the area and depths to be simulated.
grid block.
Step 2. Assign areal coordinates for the wells already drilled and
make the well data (sand-body thickness, width, and orientation)
functions of depth. '
Step 3. Contour all of the paleotopography.
Step 4. During the first timestep (equivalent to a single avulsion
period), place sand bodies in the direction of the steepest slope on

SPE Fonnation Evaluation, September 1990 215


Authors
Henriquez Tyler Hurst
Adolfo Henriquez is staff engineer in petroleum technology
at Statoil in Stavanger. He has worked in development, main-
tenance, and user support of reservoir simulation tools. His
research interests are reservoir description, supercomputing,
and improvements in reservoir modeling technology. He holds
MS and PhD degrees from the U. of Oslo. Kelly J. Tyler, a
senior reservoir engineer at Statoil, researches geomathe-
matical modeling of reservoir heterogeneities. She holds a BS
degree in mathematics from Cornell C. and an MS degree in
meteorology from South Dakota School of Mines & Tech-
nology. Andrew Hurst is a senior geologist at Unocal U.K.
and researches various aspects of reservoir characterization.
Previously at Statoil, Hurst holds a PhD degree in geology from
Reading U., U.K.
the alluvial-flood-plain surface and contour before the second
timestep.
Step 5. Calculate the depositional rate, subsidence, differential
compaction, and tectonic movement as you would for the 2D
modeI.5
Step 6. Change the paleotopography contours and other relevant
parameters if sand bodies not present in the wells are generated.
Step 7. Generate an updated contouring.
Step 8. Repeat Steps 3 through 7 until a satisfactory represen-
tation is achieved or a target NGR is obtained for the reservoir.
An advantage of this model is that known data from the wells
are honored during simulation. Linear dimensions of the sand bodies
are normally obtained from well-test analyses, which are able to
provide width and the product of effective permeability and height.
Sand-channel thickness can be directly obtained from core data.
Only coarse directional parameters for sand bodies and channels
(e.g., regional trends derived from paleogeographic studies) need
to be defined with any degree of certainty.
A further advantage is that regional values of subsidence, sedimen-
tation rates, and tectonic movements may be obtained from neigh-
boring hydrocarbon fields that may be in a more advanced stage
of exploitation and that therefore have a larger amount of data
available. This is the current situation in the North Sea.
It is extremely important to include regional geological data in
geological simulations because they significantly contribute to
differentiate the sandstone distribution. Note that Bridge and
Leeder 5 have shown that the NGR for a given well in an alluvial
depositional environment depends strongly on the aggradation and
subsidence rates and on the tectonic movements.
A large number of iterations is probably necessary because of
the stringent requirement that sand bodies present at the wells be
reproduced in the simulation. On the other hand, the stringency
will give a larger degree of confidence in the model than is pos-
sible with random models. It is important to remember that geo-
logical processes are not random; thus, a physical reason for the
shape and size of sand bodies and for the preservation of shale layers
in reservoirs exists. If the physical processes controlling deposition
and preservation are quantifiable, such processes should be included
as parameters in geological simulation models.
216
Conclusions
1. A detailed critical study of a conditional random geological
model of fluvial reservoirs shows that such a model, even though
it forces geologists to quantify key reservoir characteristics, has
shortcomings because of the lack of sedimentological understanding
included in it.
2. Sand-body connectedness, as calculated by conditional random,
process-related, and regularly packed models, can be compared.
Values from the random model are higher than values from other
models and are interpreted to be too high.
3. A new conditional sedimentary process-related model is pro-
posed with regional and local values as input parameters. Because
regional values can be taken from neighboring fields in production,
better-quality data are available.
Nomenclature
Fe = continuity ratio
F n1t = net/gross ratio
i = arbitrary gridblock
K = sand-body connectedness
Vc = contact volume between wells in the simulated
reservoir
Vsd = total sand volume in the simulated reservoir
Acknowledgments
The permission of Statoil to publish this paper is gratefully ac-
knowledged. Discussions and collaboration with R. Knarud and 1.
Nystuen of Saga Petroleum Co. contributed to this paper. We also
benefited from discussions with H. Omre of the Norwegian Com-
puting Center and with A.T. Buller, V. Dalen, A. MacDonald, and
K. Skrettingland, all of Statoil.
References
I. Johnson, H.D. and Krol, D.E.: "Detailed Geological Modeling of a Het-
erogeneous Sandstone Reservoir: Lower Jurassic Statfjord Fonnation,
Brent Field," paper SPE 13050 presented at the 1984 SPE Annual Tech-
nical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Sept. 16-19.
2. Haldorsen, H.H. and Lake, L.W.: "A New Approach to Shale
Management in Field-Scale Simulation Models," SPEl (Aug. 1984)
447-52.
3. Augedal, H.O., Stanley, K.O., and Omre, H.: "SISABOSA, A Program
for Stochastic Modelling and Evaluation of Reservoir Geology, " paper
presented at tbe 1986 IFE/SSI Conference on Reservoir Description and
Simulation With Emphasis on EOR, Oslo, Sept. 3-5.
4. Clementsen, R. et at.: "A Computer Program for Evaluation of Fluvial
Reservoirs," paper presented at the 1989 IntI. Conference on North Sea
Oil and Gas Reservoirs, Trondheim, June 8-11.
5. Bridge, J.S. and Leeder, M.R.: "A Simulation Model of Alluvial Stratig-
raphy," Sedimentology (1979) 26, 617-44.
6. Alexander, J.: "Idealized Flow Models to Predict Alluvial Sandstone
Body Distribution in the Middle Jurassic Yorkshire Basin," Marine and
Petroleum Geology (1986) 3, 298-305.
7. Geehan, G. W. et at.: "Geologic Prediction of Shale Continuity in Prudhoe
Bay Field," Reservoir Characterization, Academic Press Inc., London
(1986) 63-81.
8. Allen, J.R.L.: "Studies in Fluviatile Sedimentation: An Elementary Ge-
ometrical Model for the Connectedness of Avulsion-Related Channel Sand
Bodies," Sedimentary Geology (1979) 24, 253-67.
9. Eclipse Reference Manuals, Exploration Consultants Ltd., Henley-on-
Thames, England.
SI Metric Conversion Factor
ft x 3.048* E-Ol m
*Conversion factor is exact. SPEFE
Original SPE manuscript received for review Oct. 2, 1988. Paper accepted for publication
April 16, 1990. Revised manuscript received Feb. 22, 1990. Paper (SPE 18323) first
presented at the 1988 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Houston.
Oct. 2-5.
SPE Fonnation Evaluation, September 1990