See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/311342613

Importance of conceptual geological models in 3D reservoir modelling

Article  in  First Break · July 2016

DOI: 10.3997/1365-2397.2016010

CITATIONS READS

2 380

5 authors, including:

J. Cavero Ney Orellana

College of Engineers of Peru Repsol
6 PUBLICATIONS   9 CITATIONS    9 PUBLICATIONS   65 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Ivan Yemez Virendra Singh

Repsol Repsol
24 PUBLICATIONS   21 CITATIONS    28 PUBLICATIONS   103 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Working in clastic and carbonate development projects. View project

Reservoir properties for oil and gas prospects, geothermal prospects and mineral resources. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Virendra Singh on 15 December 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

first break volume 34, July 2016 technical article

Importance of conceptual geological models

in 3D reservoir modelling
J. Cavero1, N.H. Orellana1, I.Yemez1, V. Singh1* and E. Izaguirre1

Abstract
Conceptual Geological Models (CGM’s) represent geological knowledge and are traditionally visualized by 2D geologic cross-
sections. Construction of CGMs is a non-linear and complex process which involves application of geological rules and experi-
ence. These models describe essential features of geological situations, illustrate the principal processes of the petroleum system,
and provide important information about reservoir characteristics, pressure and fluid flow of the field under study. The CGMs
are being extensively used as the key input for 3D reservoir modelling and simulation at different stages of E&P projects. A fully
integrated CGM building process consists of at least four stages: construction of one or more structural models, identification
of depositional models, construction of sedimentary facies models and finally building of diagenetic facies models. This process
requires integration of geological, geochemical, geophysical, and petrophysical data along with information from well testing
and production into a comprehensive model describing the physical features of the geologic system.
This paper briefly describes the different components of CGM and model building process. The importance of integrating CGM
in the 3D reservoir models has been demonstrated through an example of siliciclastic reservoir. This reservoir has complex
internal sedimentary distribution and stratigraphy which leads to high subsurface uncertainties. The study shows that different
possible conceptual geologic scenarios provide significantly different Hydrocarbon-In-Place, recoverable resources and produc-
tion forecasts. Therefore, the successful application of appropriate CGM’s is critical for better 3D reservoir characterization
and modelling which enables us to identify and rank the key reservoir uncertainties and assess their impact, establish interde-
pendency of spatial property distribution, make volumetric assessments, plan the number and location of wells including their
drainage area, optimize recovery efficiency and obtain reliable production forecasts.

Introduction limited data and its quality, multiple possibilities of the

Nowadays, three-dimensional reservoir interpretation,
modelling, and flow-simulation studies are used as com-
mon tools to generate production forecasts and to economi-
cally support value-based E&P business decisions. One of
the key challenges in 3D reservoir modelling is distributing
the identified facies and their properties, and integrating
lateral and vertical variability in reservoir quality within
and between different flow units in the defined 3D frame-
work (Orellana et al., 2014). This requires incorporation of
the CGM in the integrated 3D reservoir modelling work-
flow through use of appropriate geostatistical techniques
(Orellana et al., 2015). The CGM represent geological
knowledge and is used as a guide to construct the 3D res-
ervoir model (s) at different stages of an E&P project based
on real and or conceptual geological objects and processes
(Quinto et al., 2013).
The major challenges in building the CGMs are the
availability of the subsurface information, data from differ-
ent disciplines with the variable scale of resolution (micro
to mega), lack of enough geological knowledge and proper
data integration (Al-Khalifa et al., 2007). Some of the most
common uncertainties in the geological studies are: the
geologic interpretations, reservoir geometry, areal extent
and thickness variations which lead to uncertain reservoir
characterization (Singh et al., 2013a). Despite the boom of
stochastic simulation owing to computing advances in recent
years, most of the stochastic models suffer due to lack of
geologic soundness (Tamhane et al., 1999). Most of these
3D reservoir models either do not incorporate the CGM
or use only 2D models qualitatively. As a result, the oil and
gas industry has witnessed mismatch between actual and
simulated production profiles in both brown as well as green
fields (Singh et al., 2013b). In some cases, geoscientific and
engineering data is not enough. In other cases, geostatistical
techniques are not appropriately utilized. All these aspects
contribute to poor assessment of subsurface uncertainties
and it remains a key issue for any 3D reservoir charac-
terization and modelling. Therefore, it is never possible to
guarantee only one accurate ‘Best Estimate’ even in more
matured fields where abundant data are available. The best
geoscientists and engineers can do is to provide a range of
equi-probable volumetric estimates.
To properly define and quality-control the 3D modelling
workflows a detailed interpretation of geological aspects of

1
Repsol, Méndez Álvaro 44, 28045 Madrid, Spain.
*
Corresponding author, E-mail: vsingh@repsol.com

© 2016 EAGE www.firstbreak.org 39

 technical article
the reservoir – including environment, sequence stratigraphy,
areal extent, pore space characteristics, reservoir thickness,
porosity, and permeability – is absolutely essential. In order
to capture a whole range of the uncertainties, it is important
to understand the complexity of different components of
the CGMs and integrate them in the 3D reservoir model.
Without a realistic geological framework and an appropri-
ate 3D modelling workflow, no 3D reservoir model can be
used reliably as a predictive tool for hydrocarbons In-place,
recoverable resources and production forecasts.
To demonstrate the impact of CGMs, an example of a
siliciclastic reservoir, deposited in distal-fluvial sequences, is
illustrated. Based on 3D seismic and well data, a trap was
interpreted as a well-defined anticline. Available field data
indicate that the internal sedimentary configuration and
its continuity away from the wells in the field carry high
uncertainties. Several scenarios of well logs correlation were
generated considering multiple criteria, keeping in view a
complex internal sedimentary configuration and a wide
range of feasible channel size with respect to field positions
for the distal fluvial system. These well correlation scenarios
were used as the basis to define multiple possibilities of the
CGMs. These CGMs were used as input in different 3D
static reservoir models. Detailed results are discussed in this
paper.
Conceptual Geological Models (CGM)
It is necessary to know: What is a CGM? What are differ-
ent components and geological processes for CGMs? What
are the data required for building CGM? What will be the
benefit for having more than one model? What if the newly
created CGM’s are totally wrong? What is needed to reduce
the risk of getting wrong CGMs? What are the most effective
ways to utilize CGM for different applications?
CGM is an expression of geological knowledge which
represents geological objects spatially in terms of their
physical features based on evidences and or analogues. They
40
first break volume 34, July 2016
Figure 1 Schematic diagram showing input data
and output scenarios that can be generated and
analysed from combinations of critical components
of CGM. Number of CGM scenarios will depend on
available data and uncertainties of each component.
Depending on geological complexity, scanty informa-
tion, ambiguous position of the field in the geological
configuration, several scenarios for each component
can be generated. A combination of these scenarios
leads to multiple cases of deterministic CGMs which
can be used as the input for capturing the geological
uncertainties.
incorporate possible scenarios of structural/stratigraphic
configurations, permeability systems, geochemical factors,
evolution, temperature evolution and distribution, seal and
trap evolution etc. Construction of CGMs is in fact a non-
linear and complex process which involves application of
geological rules and geologist’s experience and in turn helps
to build a geologically consistent 3D reservoir model.
Components of CGM: Building a fully integrated CGM
involves at least four stages: construction of structural,
stratigraphic, sedimentary and diagenetic facies models. This
requires integration of geological, geochemical, geophysical
and petrophysical data along with information from well
testing and production. CGM should be understood either
as a map or set of maps of geological concepts/components
and relationships, between them taking into account mul-
tiple possible scenarios that may cover the uncertainties.
Depending on the complexity of the field, CGMs can relate
to the components for each geological entity, singly or
integrally, to specific objectives and to a set of key uncertain-
ties that are required to be analysed. The criticality and
importance of the specific component of CGM and/or their
combination will vary from field to field.
CGM Building Process: The CGM building process
integrates geologists’ knowledge, experience and imagina-
tion and probable geological objects to build the geological
scenarios. Each input used in the CGM building process has
its own uncertainty. The uncertain structural configuration,
overlapping of the sedimentary environment, uncertain verti-
cal and lateral continuity, uncertainty in post-depositional
changes etc. form an integral part of the conceptual model
building process. Therefore, use of single deterministic geo-
logical concepts, particularly during the appraisal and early
development phases, is too risky.
Recent technological advances, in terms of computing
and 3D visualization, allow effective integration of avail-
able data, geological knowledge and geologists’ wisdom to
visualize impact of different critical components (structural,
www.firstbreak.org © 2016 EAGE
first break volume 34, July 2016 technical article

stratigraphic, sedimentary, diagenetic and other processes),
different cases and their combinations in the generation
of multiple CGM (Figure 1) within shorter timeframe.
This plays an important role in capturing the subsurface
uncertainties in terms of reservoirs quality and their property
distribution.
During the CGM’s building process, it is recommended to
take the following into account:
n Analyse validated data and information from wells,
seismic surveys, outcrops, regional geological setting,
basin analysis, play concept and analogues related to the
prospect, discovery or field to be evaluated.
n Ensure that the CGM represents the subsurface
configuration with real geological objects avoiding
artefacts or software synthetic events. Consider
qualitative and quantitative descriptions of the geological
objects or geological concepts, internal and external
geometrical characteristics of different scales, data and
evidence from wells, field and or analogues.
n Consider description of static geometry and kinematic
history of geological structure, rock bodies, tectonic
processes and/or assumptions.
n Consider classification of range of rock sequences
into litho-stratigraphic, bio-stratigraphic, chrono-
stratigraphic, rock units, etc.
n Consider all possibilities of trends and interpretation
for the structural, stratigraphic, sedimentary, diagenetic
elements which affect the reservoir quality.
n Consider possible reservoir compartmentalization which
may have impact on hydrocarbon recovery.
Example illustrating the importance of multiple
CGM scenarios
To demonstrate the importance of the CGMs on 3D reservoir
interpretation and modelling outcomes, a real field example
was taken. The available data for this example is summarized
in Table 1.
The discovered sandstone reservoir’s gross thickness
varies from 25-35m and net pay from 10-25m. It has well-
defined structural boundaries. The interpreted oil water
contact (OWC) for the field is at around 1371 m TVDSS.
To build fully integrated and representative 3D geomodels,
geophysical, geological, petrophysical and engineering data
were used in two steps:
n Conceptual geological models building
n 3D geomodel building using CGMs as inputs
Conceptual geological models building: In order to produce
an improved 3D seismic volume with better signal to noise
ratio and attenuated noise, a seismic data enhancement pro-
cedure was applied in the original 3D PSTM volume. The
procedure for construction of conceptual geological models,
described in the previous section, consists of four compo-
nents: (1) structural, (2) stratigraphic, (3) sedimentary, and
(4) post depositional processes.
Structural component
This component incorporates the spatial positions of major
boundaries of geobodies, faulting, folding, and erosion etc.
to define the framework of the traps, seals and reservoirs.
These structural components might have control on the
sedimentation trends or natural fracturing and may provide

Regional n Regional geological studies: Geological history of the basin, structural evolution, stratigraphic
information correlation.
n Basin analysis and play concept: Source (volume, richness, maturation), Timing, migration
and preservation (timing of closure, expulsion, effective migration fairway, and preservation),
Reservoir (presence, quality and reservoir performance, trap geometry, closure: map reliability
and control, trap model confidence) and Seal (top, lateral and base seal).
n Rock outcrops associated to the fluvial and tidal environments with high variability. Facies
association in the siliciclastic sequences deposited in proximal and distal fluvial environments
leading to highly uncertain vertical and lateral continuity.
n Analogue fields in and around the area. These analogues with similar geologic characteristics
indicate that field performance is well below the production forecasts used in defining the field
development plan.
n Public domain database for structural, stratigraphic and sedimentary configuration including
geological parameters ranges (published literature, third party such as ERGO CGG, C&C, etc.).
Drilled wells n Reports: Well, geological studies, mud-logging reports, core sample description image logs,
(data and reports) conventional and core analysis reports. DST (2 wells) and MDT (2 wells) Analyses reports.
n Digital data: Open hole and cased hole wireline logs from 11 wells, image logs from 4 wells, and
mud logs from 11 wells, well tops and geological markers, conventional and special core analysis
from 4 wells, DSTs and MDTs (2 wells each).

3D seismic, check n Reports: 3D Acquisition, processing and interpretation, Check shots and zero offset VSP reports.
shots & VSPs n Digital data: T-D curves from 2 wells, VSP T-D curves and corridor stacks from 2 wells, 3D seismic
(data and reports) pre-stack time migrated cube covering around 60 km2 (full fold), integrated 3D velocity cube.
Table 1 Summary of available digital data and reports used for this study.

© 2016 EAGE www.firstbreak.org 41

 technical article
Figure 2 Depth maps for (a) reservoir top, and (b)
reservoir base. Top and Base reservoir maps, gener-
ated using the 3D seismic velocity model and well
data, show similar structural trends.
explanation for particular characteristic of part or whole
of the reservoir. Integration of regional tectonic setting,
outcrop evidences, structural configuration from 2D/3D
seismic, play and analogues fields and geologic data from
wells define the possible structural scenarios for the field
or area under study. Velocity is one of the key parameters
which affect the seismic imaging of the subsurface in time
or depth. Velocity uncertainty together with reservoir top/
base interpretation uncertainty can have high impact on
the structural configuration, gross and net reservoir thick-
ness away from well control areas and hence gross rock
volume estimation (Singh et al., 2009). Depending on
the velocity uncertainty combined with prior geological
knowledge, single or multiple structural scenarios can be
defined.
For this example, using enhanced 3D Pre-stack Time
Migrated (PSTM) seismic data, welt-to-seismic tie and VSP
data at key wells, seismic interpretation was carried out
for defining the structural configuration. The structural
trap appears to be a coffer-shaped-antiform with four-way
closure calibrated by 11 drilled wells tied to the seismic.
The interpreted reservoir top and base time horizons were
depth converted (Figure 2) using a 3D velocity model built
integrating Check-shots/VSP and seismic velocities. The
conceptual structural model (Figure 3) was interpreted as
strike slip faults bounded by a structure generated by com-
pressional stress. Seismic evidences are very well correlated
with outcrop analogue. Due to good number of drilled wells
and available velocity data, the structural component does
not carry high uncertainties. Therefore, the only single struc-
tural framework was used as input in creating the 3D static
model.
42
first break volume 34, July 2016
Figure 3 Illustration showing the tectonic factors,
structural framework and elements to define the
type of traps. A real structural object from the out-
crop (Source: Wilson, 2010) is used as analogue to
make correlation with 3D seismic data for creating
the 3D structural framework of geological model.
Stratigraphic component
Identifying the stratigraphic sequences variability and com-
plexity, their hieratical orders and stacking patterns require
more specific data and the robust methodologies to make
flexible stratigraphic interpretation (Catuneanu, 2011).
Establishing the link between lithology and stratigraphic
sequences is primarily essential whether they are siliciclastic;
a carbonate system, intercalation of carbonate and siliciclas-
tic or even volcanic sedimentary sequences. Additionally, the
stratigraphic sequences types and their areal distribution are
also the most critical information required for defining the
2D/3D geological models.
The integration of the regional stratigraphic setting,
geological outcrops, seismic sequence stratigraphic inter-
pretation and well correlation (Singh et al., 2013b) allows
for capturing the time framework for correlating and
mapping of sedimentary strata, fosters integration between
stratigraphy, paleontology, geochemistry, petroleum geol-
ogy and helps in defining the stratigraphic scenarios. It is
absolutely necessary to include the history of geological
evolution for the basin, play and field, mechanism of basin
filling, definition of the mega sequences, seismic sequences
and unconformities, type of internal sequences and possibil-
ity of multiple interpretations. Sequence stratigraphy helps
us to understand systematic and orderly arrangement of
facies and their locations.
The enhanced 3D PSTM volume was used for sequence
stratigraphy study. Seismic data shows plane parallel strati-
graphic sequences close to the top and the base of the
reservoir. The base shows a minor erosional unconformity
probably because of action of the fluvial channels in the
sequence. As reservoir thickness variation (25-35m) con-
www.firstbreak.org © 2016 EAGE
first break volume 34, July 2016
forms to the sedimentation trends, only one stratigraphic
scenario (Figure 4) is considered for CGM building.
Sedimentary components
Regional sedimentary trends, 2D/3D seismic data, analogues
and public databases (e.g. ERGO Robertson CGG) are used
to interpret the sedimentary trends including facies and their
association. However, this interpretation may not be unique
particularly when data is limited and sparse. It becomes even
more complicated when the reservoir bodies have smaller
dimensions and are discrete in nature. Conventional core
data can provide clear evidences for some sedimentary facies
but only at the cored location. Away from the core interval,
it is possible to find facies of some other environment(s)
of variable vertical/horizontal scales and geological time.
Seismically derived facies have inherent limitations owing
to vertical resolution and may lead to several scenarios.
Sometimes, outcrop evidences provide meaningful informa-
tion about facies distribution and the environment.
The litho-stratigraphic unit can consist of several sequenc-
es and/or several reservoir units within it and may be isolated
owing to genetic depositional architecture of sedimentary
distribution (Yu et al., 2013). Sedimentary components in
siliciclastic sequences, can significantly affect the mobility
of fluid and reservoir productivity. The partial lateral and
vertical sealing concept could be an important issue to be
considered in the sedimentary studies. Uncertainty in sedi-
mentary evolution interpretation can lead to several possible
scenarios using the same data. Miall (2006) has published an
Figure 4 Seismic section (2) passing through the field shows plane parallel sequences and it is corroborated with the formations top and base obtained from
the well logs correlation (3). Outcrop image from the Colorado canyon (1) shows similar plane parallel stratigraphic configuration (Source: Seo-Websitedesigner,
2012) which is used as an analogue to build a conceptual stratigraphic model.
Figure 5 Core samples (1 to 9) showing different
sedimentary structures and facies in the fluvial
environment. Samples (1 to 4) show different types
of fluvial cross-bedding owing to different energy
associated from close continental to tidal zones.
Samples 5 and 8 represent laminated facies in fine
grain sands with draping of limolites, clay and
carbonaceous lamination of quiet and low energy
of floodplain and levee zones. Sample 6 shows bio-
turbation and remainant red soils. Sample 7 shows
the variation of type of sand sedimentation from
fine cross bedding to massive blocky sand. Sample
9 shows bioturbation roots.
© 2016 EAGE www.firstbreak.org
technical article
excellent example showing alternate sedimentological mod-
els, for clastic reservoirs deposited in a fluvial environment,
generated using same data with different assumptions.
The well logs correlation of 11 drilled wells in the field
show complex sedimentary trends. The sandstone reservoirs
encountered in wells show intercalation of sand and shale
layers with different configurations and apparently short-
distance vertical and lateral variations. Based on analysis
of conventional cores from four wells, several sedimentary
facies associated to the fluvial and tidal associations were
defined indicating different geometry and distribution of
channels owing to possible variation of the gradient in the
distal part of the fluvial system. Cross-bedding with different
geometry indicates different energy and different granu-
lometric distribution within similar facies with different
matrix and mineralogical composition (Figure 5). Intervals
of bipolar cross bedding, mud-drapes and thin bed of red-
black shales in the well and core suggest small periods of
non-reservoir sedimentation with tidal influences. Reduced
presence of paleosols and mud floodplain explains that the
mechanism of sedimentation was progradation of the point
bars and sands lobules reworked over the time with less
aggradation influences.
The offset analogue fields are located far from this field
and they do not provide enough confidence. The sedimentary
facies evidence suggests a possible complex configuration in
term of vertical/lateral variation and dynamic factors but
their assumptions can help in defining the distribution of the
quality and quantity of the good rock reservoirs.
43
 technical article first break volume 34, July 2016

According to the regional setting, the main trend of
fluvial deposition was SE-NW, overlying basement with
constant and moderate rate of sediment discharge into a
relatively quiet tectonic basin with minimum subsidence
and inclination. Rambling local trends, variable distribu-
tion of the channel and crevasse splays, internal facies
configuration, different sedimentation mechanism and
sediment loading could be responsible for the complex
distribution of reservoir facies and associated properties.
Fields can have been located in a distal fluvial system
where the reservoir properties distribution can be different
(Figure 6).
Different distal fluvial facies types in this siliciclastic
sequence can be present vertically and laterally in a relatively
short distance and the sediments can change the proportion
from blocky sand to inter-bedding of sand and clay sequences
and can also have variation of shape and thickness from flat
to sigmoidal sedimentation (Galloway, 1981). A set of dif-
ferent types of channels were visualized in the distal fluvial
environment as possible scenarios and four different types of
well log correlation were performed based on Gamma Ray
and DT patterns.
Consideration of different sedimentary environments
allows for the capturing of high uncertainties in the predic-
tion of reservoir quality. Likewise, several other criteria
including internal correlation, geometry and facies distribu-
tion can be applied to create conceptual models, as any
single deterministic sedimentary model is neither enough nor
adequate to capture geologic uncertainties.
Four scenarios of well correlation (1: Following top,
2: Following base, 3: Following internal slope, and 4:
Proportional layering from reservoir Top to Base) were
considered (Figure 7) and respective 3D grid layering was
used for further modelling. 3D Seismic data considered in
the interpretation has provided some possible evidences to
support the well correlations.

Figure 6 Uncertainties of the position of the field in the sedimentary environment can modify the areal and vertical distribution of the reservoir properties (e.g.
porosity and permeability). This variation can positively or negatively affect the production rate and final recovery of the resources.

Figure 7 Illustration of four different well-log correlations with the same data to cover the uncertainties owing to the complexity of distal fluvial sandstone
deposition. Scenario-1: Following the reservoir top, Scenario-2: Following the reservoir base, Scenario 3: Following the internal slope different from the dip of
the reservoir top and supported by seismic evidences, and Scenario-4: Considering proportional layering from reservoir Top to Base. Internal configuration of
sand and shale distribution will change according to the specific scenario.

44 www.firstbreak.org © 2016 EAGE

first break volume 34, July 2016 technical article

Figure 8 The core images and thin sections show the diagenetic effects on the reservoir interval. This shale-sand intercalation and or overlapping of sedimentary
sequences along with diagenesis can affect the overall performance of the reservoir/field, if these uncertainties are not accounted for properly.

Figure 9 ERGO Public Data Base of clastic depositional environment used as reference to define: (a) lithology relationship between thickness and width, (b)
fluvial channels facies association relationship between length and width (i.e., size and geometries).

Post depositional geologic processes (diagenesis) components
Diagenesis has been identified as one of the most compli-
cated and lesser addressed components. Sometimes, it is even
completely ignored while building the 3D geological model.
Neglecting the uncertainty of diagenetic processes on the
reservoir properties (porosity and permeability) could be one
of the main causes that can severely affect the commercial
development of the fields (Ali et al., 2010).
Detailed petrographic analysis together with burial
history helps to define the most important diagenetic
processes that might have affected the reservoir qual-
ity. Core analysis, outcrops and offset analogues can also
provide useful trends for diagenetic processes. Volumetric
significance and relative timing of occurrence are important
constraints to building several possible diagenetic models.
However, unless statistically meaningful data (e.g. high
quality petrographic point counts/grain size distribution/
grain coating per sample), burial history with time (burial
depth, temperature, overpressure and effective stress) is
available, it is extremely difficult to build multiple scenarios
of this component.
The formation is composed of sandstones (75%), silt-
stone (10%) and shale (15%). Sandstones are composed
by coarse grain (25%), medium grain (35%) and fine grain
(40%) sands which are slightly argillaceous with good
roundness. Abundant cross bedding and base of channel
surfaces are present in these sandstones. Bioturbation is rare
but some meniscate filled burrows and roots are observed in
the cores. The most predominant mineral is Quartz (75%),
Feldspars (10%) and rock fragments and clays (10-15%)
that composed the matrix (Figure 8). Clay minerals are
infiltrated between the grain quartz pores partially, affecting
the effective porosity. Likewise, porosity reduction is also due
to the compaction of rock fragment and feldspars alteration.
Microscopic and Scanner Electronic Microscopic (SEM)
analysis showed natural compaction, quartz overgrowths
and clay coating. This evidence suggests that diagenesis
reduced the pore space. Based on core samples, it is assumed
that the diagenetic processes have affected the reservoir
homogeneously. Therefore, only one scenario for this com-
ponent can be considered.
Based on the above analysis, one scenario each from
structural, stratigraphic and diagenetic components and
four discrete scenarios from sedimentary components (as
illustrated in Figure 7) were considered for defining the four
CGMs which were used as inputs for building the four 3D
geological models.
3D Geomodels building using four CGMs as input
To build a 3D reservoir model, a 3D structural framework
is built first. After 3D structural/stratigraphic modelling,
the four CGMs discussed above were used as the input
within the defined stratigraphic framework. Each CGM
contains a mixture of sedimentary facies. Porosity and

© 2016 EAGE www.firstbreak.org 45

 technical article
permeability within each facies are typically well cor-
related in all static models. These four 3D static models
would be capturing uncertainties of the distal fluvial sys-
tem and also different conceptual sedimentary models,
structural, stratigraphic and diagenetic components.
These considerations in the 3D geological models provide
criteria for rock type identification. A semi-log permeability-
porosity cross-plot was used to define different rock types
incorporating pore throat variations (Winland R35 function
relationship, Amaefule et al., 1993).
Five rock types (R1 to R5, R1 best reservoir and R5
non-reservoir) were identified. This was done in two steps:
(1) Analysis of well log responses (GR, RHOB, NPHI, DT)
in association with core description to define electro-facies.
(2) Integration of petrophysical information from conven-
tional and special core analysis to establish the link between
electro-facies and rock types. Average capillary functions
for each rock type was used to build the saturation profile
and for defining irreducible water saturation. To validate
the rock-type reservoir characteristics, the calculated satura-
tion was compared with those derived from petrophysical
interpretation of logs (e.g. effective porosity, Vshale and water
saturation).
Stochastic realizations based on four deterministic
conceptual geological models are created to cover the
wide range of possibilities in facies distribution and their
association, considering the parameterizations for the three
input cases: (A) Analogues (geometries from a modern
distal fluvial depositional system), (B) Public Domain Fluvial
Sedimentary DataBase (Geometries from ERGO CGG, 2015,
46
first break volume 34, July 2016
Figure 10 Vertical sections and 3D views of internal
configuration of facies of four 3D static models built
using four CGMs in Petrel Software. These models
show: (a) Internal correlation following top configur-
ing a braided system, (b) Internal correlation follows
base configuring anastomosing channels system, (c)
Internal correlation following the internal slope con-
figuring stacking migrant meandering systems (d)
Internal correlation of channels proportional to the
top and base reservoir target configuring non-sequen-
tial meandering channelization. Those scenarios show
the wide range of variability of the bodies deposited
in fluvial environment where the fluvial sandstone
reservoir can be located. Difference of sand and shale
distribution and connectivity can be observed in each
scenario, this internal configuration will affect the
static and dynamic models in term of volumetric and
final recovery.
Figure  9), and (C) variogram modelling (Orellana et al.,
2014) honouring well data and seismic stratigraphic configu-
ration in order to obtain realistic references of geometry and
size of the fluvial bodies.
Object Based Simulation ‘OBS’ (in ‘A’ and ‘B’ cases) and
Sequential Indicator Simulation ‘SIS’ (in C case) techniques
for facies and Sequential Gaussian Simulation ‘SGS’ (in
all cases) for rock properties distribution with porosity-
permeability functions were used. The vertical sections and
3D views extracted from the four 3D static models (Figure
10) clearly show vertical and lateral variability of the facies
distribution. Therefore, a total of 12 independent 3D static
models (four CGMs and three cases of facies and property
distribution in each) were generated.
Using these 3D static models as input, around 30
realizations were made for each model to capture the
lateral and vertical variability of facies and property distri-
bution. The number of iterations was defined based on the
Central Limit Theorem (Johnson, 2004) in order to have
a reasonable precision of probabilistic results. According
to this theorem, the sampling distribution of the sampling
means approaches a normal distribution as the sample size
gets larger – no matter what the shape of the population
distribution.
Results and discussion
Several criteria of well logs correlation and type of channel
systems were conceptualized in the distal fluvial environ-
ment. Reservoir continuity of the channelized reservoir and
shale relocation owing to varying grid layering and channel
www.firstbreak.org © 2016 EAGE
first break volume 34, July 2016 technical article

Figure 11 Diagram showing hydrocarbon saturation, OOIP probabilistic distribution, recoverable resources and production forecasts ranges from different 3D
reservoir models built using different CGMs. (Abbreviations: PLLT – Parallel to reservoir top, PLLB-Parallel to reservoir base, SIGM – Sigmoidal following internal
slope, PRP – Proportional layering to the top and base).

geometry allows for the capturing of a reasonable range of
Original Oil In-Place (OOIP) uncertainties.
360 stochastic realizations created using 12 3D static
models provide a full range of OOIP distribution using
single oil water contact. These volumes plotted as a
Probability Distribution Function (PDF) show the narrow
range of variation (Figure 11). This is mainly due to good
lateral continuity of the channelized reservoir with shale
layers close to top and base (see Figures 7 and 10). The P50
OOIP value (see Table 2) from these 3D static models (12
PDFs) was used for estimating the recoverable resources
and production forecasts.
In terms of conceptual geological models, the realizations
based on Scenario 3 (using variograms as input for facies and
property distribution) provide the most conservative OOIP
value of 37 Million BO and the realizations based on the
scenario 4 (using analogue as input for facies and property
distribution) with the most optimistic OOIP value of 46 mil-
lion BO.
Different 3D static models were used for generating the
recoverable resources and production forecasts which led to
variable plateau (most pessimistic forecast of around three
years to scenario 3 and most optimistic forecast of around five
years to scenario 4). Around 50% variance in the cumulative
production between extreme cases was observed indicating the
importance of incorporating different CGMs.
The recovery factor obtained from different 3D reservoir
models ranges from 30% to 43%. The difference between

© 2016 EAGE www.firstbreak.org 47

 technical article first break volume 34, July 2016

Summary of production forecasts from dynamic simulation of different 3D static models

CGM Scenarios input data used for facies OOIP range P50 OOIP production recovery
and properties distribution (million BO) (million BO) (million BO) factor (%)
P99-P1

Scenario 1 analogue 39-48 44 18.3 42%

(parallel to reservoir top
ergo database 36-44 41 15.9 39%
(PLLT))
variogram 38-42 40 16.3 41%

Scenario 2 analogue 35-47 42 15.9 38%

(parallel to reservoir base
ergo database 35-42 38 14.6 38%
(PLLB))
variogram 37-42 40 15.1 38%

Scenario 3 analogue 38-44 42 12.5 30%

(sigmoidal configuration
ergo database 33-45 40 13.3 33%
(SIGM))
variogram 33-39 37 15.2 41%

Scenario 4 analogue 42-48 46 18.7 41%

(proportional layering
ergo database 34-43 39 16.7 43%
from top and base (PRP))
variogram 34-43 39 16,0 41%
Table 2 Output summary of P50 OOIP, production forecasts and recovery factor generated from different 3D reservoir models and dynamic simulation.

the lowest and highest recovery factor is around 13% due
to different internal architecture in different models achieved
from using CGMs. The difference in the cumulative produc-
tion and recovery factor of the Scenarios 3 and 4 is mainly
due to the internal layering distribution of sandstone and
shales in those scenarios which affect the oil flow and exhibit
different flow behaviour in the reservoir.
This exercise provides higher confidence on possible
scenarios and ranges of volumetric estimation and produc-
tion forecasts. Probability distribution functions obtained
from these 12 3D geological models provide a much more
reasonable range of OOIP, recoverable resources and
production forecasts. This study reinforces the point that
if the appropriate data quality control, mapping principles
and geostatistics are not applied in the light of the rules
implied by fundamental geological processes during the
conceptual geological models and 3D static reservoir model
building process, the 3D numerical and automatic models
will not reasonably represent the geology regardless of the
sophistication of the software and algorithms deployed.
Conclusions
The CGM building workflow is a nonlinear process which
involves integration of geologic and engineering data/
interpretation studies of geological aspects from the basin
scale to reservoir or field scale, pore space characteristics at
reservoir scale using field and offset analogues, application
of geologic rules and geologists’ experience.
The proposed workflow for the creation of adequate
CGM integrates qualitatively the boundary conditions from
basin to the reservoir scale facies modelling and provides an
improved understanding of reservoir depositional environ-
ments, geometry and connectivity. Therefore, CGM is a
critical input for the facies and property distribution in 3D
static reservoir model building and allows for bridging the
gap between reservoir geology and 3D numerical reservoir
modelling activity. Visualization of simple 2D vertical cross
sections and maps showing structural/stratigraphic configu-
ration, lithology/facies and property distributions has proven
to be very effective tool to analyse and quality control the
quality of 3D reservoir models.
The example shows that the integration of multiple
CGMs with 3D reservoir model-building processes has
allowed for the capturing of the most likely development
scenario with a full range of geological possibilities and
improved confidence in the estimated oil-in-place, recover-
able resources and production forecasts. These multiple
3D static models were used to history match the existing
production and DST data. The most likely CGM-guided
static model required very minor or negligible modifications
to achieve a reasonable history match against previous
models built without the CGM workflow. The history
matching process was used to rank models and ascertain the
most likely scenario. Such models, without ad-hoc changes
and with better history match, have improved the confidence
level of the most likely development scenario.

48 www.firstbreak.org © 2016 EAGE

 first break volume 34, July 2016
Even though, the CGM building process is time con-
suming and labour intensive, in-depth understanding and
incorporation of various geologic aspects and use of experts’
knowledge from different disciplines in the 3D integrated 3D
reservoir interpretation and modelling process is essential
to improve the reliability of the 3D numerical modelling
outcomes and assessment of the risks.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Repsol management for
providing the facilities, guidance and encouragement during
the execution of this work and permission to publish this
material. The suggestions from the colleagues from Dirección
Ejecutiva de Desarrollo Técnico (DEDT), DG E&P are also
acknowledged for their valuable discussion and interaction.
Sincere thanks goes to Tapan Mukerji (Stanford University,
USA) and Malleshwar Yenugu (Icon Science Americas,
Houston) for their valuable comments which were very use-
ful in improving the quality of the paper.
References
Ali, S.A., Clark, W.J., Moore, W.R. and Dribus, J.R. [2010]. Diagenesis
and Reservoir Quality. Oilfield Review, 22 (2), 87-93.
Al-Khalifa, T., Tobias, M.A., Payenberg, H.D. and Lang, S.C. [2007].
Overcoming the Challenges of Building 3D Stochastic Reservoir
Models Using Conceptual Geological Models – A case study.
SPE Middle East Oil and Gas Show and Conference, SPE-
104496.
Amaefule, J.O., Altunbay, M., Tiab, D., Kersey, D.G. and Keelan, D.
[1993]. Enhanced reservoir description: Using core and Log data to
identify hydraulic (flow) units and predict Permeability in uncored
intervals/wells. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
SPE-26436.
Catuneanu, O., Galloway, W., Kendall, C., Miall, A., Posamentier,
H., Strasser, A. and Tucker, M. [2011]. Sequence Stratigraphy:
Methodology & Nomenclature. Newsletters on Stratigraphy, 44 (3),
173–245.
ERGO Robertson CGG [2015]. Database of reservoir analogues and
knowledgebase of geologic information for E&P projects. http://
robertson.cgg.com/products/ergo.
Galloway, W.E. [1981]. Depositional Architecture of Cenozoic Gulf
Coastal Plain Fluvial systems. SEPM Special publication, 31 (4),
127-155.
Johnson, O.T. [2004]. Information theory & the central limit theorem.
Imperial College Press, London.
Miall, A.D. [2006]. Reconstructing the architecture and sequence
stratigraphy of the preserved fluvial record as a toll for reservoir
development: A reality check. AAPG Bulletin, 90 (7), 989-1002.
Orellana, N., Cavero, J., Yemez, I., Singh, V. and Sotomayor, J. [2014].
Influence of Variograms in 3D reservoir Modelling Outcomes: An
Example. The Leading Edge, 33 (8), 890-902.
Orellana, N., Yemez, I., Cavero, J., Singh, V. and Izaguirre, E. [2015].
Role of geostatistical techniques on the evolution of 3D interpreta-
tion and modelling outcomes: An Example. Petroleum Geostatistics
Conference, Extended Abstracts.
© 2016 EAGE www.firstbreak.org
CC01317-MA020.indd 1
View publication stats
technical article
Quinto S., Weltje, G.J. and Salina, B.E. [2013]. How to integrate basin-scale
information into reservoir models. 75th Annual EAGE Conference &
Exhibition, Extended Abstracts.
Seo-Websitedesigner [2012]. Top pictures of Grand Canyon. http://www.
traveltourismblog.com/grand-canyon.php.
Singh, V., Hegazy, M. and Fontanelli, L. [2009]. Assessment of reservoir
uncertainties for development evaluation and risk analysis. The
Leading Edge, 28 (3), 260-268.
Singh, V., Yemez, I. and Sotomayor, J. [2013a]. Key factors affecting 3D
reservoir interpretation and modelling outcomes: Industry perspec-
tives. British Journal of Applied Science & Technology, 3 (3), 376-405.
Singh, V., Yemez, I. and Sotomayor, J. [2013b]. Integrated 3D reservoir
interpretation and modelling: Lessons learned and proposed solutions.
The Leading Edge, 32 (11), 1340-1353.
Tamhane, D., Wang, L. and Wong, P.M. [1999]. The role of geology in
stochastic reservoir modelling: The future Trends. SPE Asia Pacific Oil
and Gas Conference and Exhibition, 54307.
Wilson, M. [2010]. Anticline in the Barstow Formation (Miocene) at
Calico Ghost Town near Barstow, California. Wikimedia Commons.
USA, www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anticlinal#/media/File:BarstowFormati
onAnticlineMarch2010.jpg.
Yu, X., Li, S., and Chen, B. [2013]. Depositional Architecture-based
Correlation Techniques for Deltaic and Fluvial Reservoirs in Lacustrine
Basins. AAPG 2013 Annual Convention and Exhibition, #10513.
Received: 27 July 2015; Accepted 11 March 2016.
Doi: 10.3997/1365-2397.2016010
Colorado School of Mines
Department of Geophysics
Department Head
The Department of Geophysics at Mines seeks a dynamic,
enthusiastic leader to head the Department. We seek
candidates excited to share in our mission to address the
challenges of a sustainable global society by educating the
next generation of leading engineers and scientists, and by
expanding the frontiers of knowledge through research.
Department heads at Mines generally continue to teach
undergraduate and graduate courses, mentor graduate
students, and carry out research. Further, the successful
candidate will be expected to work effectively in a
collaborative, interdisciplinary environment within the
Department and across Mines.
Requirements include a Ph.D. in Geophysics or related
field, and a proven track record in research and service.
Effective interpersonal, communication and organizational
skills are a must. Must have demonstrated high ethical
standards, operating in a transparent, collegial way. The
successful candidate should be responsive to the needs of
the Department faculty, staff, and students and have a
strong commitment to enhance diversity.
For the complete job announcement, full statement of
qualifications and directions on how to apply, visit:
http://inside.mines.edu/HR-Academic-Faculty
Mines is an EEO/AA employer.
49
10/05/16 10:18