Advertisement

Automatic Determination of Sedimentary Units from Well Data

  • Anna Bubnova
  • Fabien OrsEmail author
  • Jacques Rivoirard
  • Isabelle Cojan
  • Thomas Romary
Article
  • 13 Downloads

Abstract

The issue of identifying stratigraphic units within a sedimentary succession is of prime importance for reservoir studies, because it allows splitting the reservoir into several units with specific parameters, thus reducing the vertical nonstationarity in simulations. A new method is proposed for semi-automatic determination of the sedimentary units from well logging that uses a customized geostatistical hierarchical clustering algorithm. A new linkage criteria derived from the Ward criteria (cluster minimum variance) is proposed to enforce the monotonic increase of dissimilarities. The discretized proportion of sand lithofacies calculated from the vertical proportion curve of the well is taken as input data. At each step of the procedure, the algorithm merges the most similar of two consecutive units of sand lithofacies, ensuring stratigraphic consistency. Finally, the number of units is deduced from the first most important step of the dissimilarity. The user can investigate a larger number of units by considering the clusters with lower levels of dissimilarities. The method is validated using two synthetic cases built for a fluvial meandering reservoir analog containing three and five units. The results from the synthetic cases show that the units are identified when the sand proportion contrast between units is larger than the internal variability within the units. For low sand contrasts between units or for a small number of wells, sedimentary unit limits may be found for lower clustering dissimilarities. Finally, the method is successfully applied to a field study, where the resulting cluster units are found to be comparable to the field interpretation, suggesting a limit between units defined by paleosols rather than close overlying lacustrine levels.

Keywords

Geostatistical hierarchical clustering Reservoir model Stratigraphic unit Vertical proportion curve Well data Fluvial system 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study is part of the first author’s Ph.D. thesis. The authors wish to thank Hélène Beucher for her valuable review. This method has been implemented as a well analysis tool in the Flumy® software within the scope of the Flumy Research Program. The authors are grateful to ENGIE (Neptune Energy) and ENI partners for support and fruitful discussions.

References

  1. Allard D, Guillot G (2000) Clustering geostatistical data. In: Proceedings of the sixth geostatistical conferenceGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen DB, Pranter MJ (2016) Geologically constrained electrofacies classification of fluvial deposits: an example from the Cretaceous Mesaverde Group, Uinta and Piceance Basins. AAPG Bull 100:1775–1801.  https://doi.org/10.1306/05131614229 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Armstrong M, Galli A, Beucher H, Loc’h G, Renard D, Doligez B, Eschard R, Geffroy F (2011) Plurigaussian simulations in geosciences. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berkhin P (2006) A survey of clustering data mining techniques. Grouping multidimensional data. Springer, Berlin, pp 25–71Google Scholar
  5. Catuneanu O (2002) Sequence stratigraphy of clastic systems: concepts, merits, and pitfalls. J Afr Earth Sci 35:1–43.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0899-5362(02)00004-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Catuneanu O (2006) Principles of sequence stratigraphy. Elsevier, BostonGoogle Scholar
  7. Cojan I, Geffroy F, Laratte S, Rigollet C (2006) Process-based and stochastic modeling of fluvial meandering system. From model to field case study: example of the Loranca Miocene succession (Spain). In: Presented at the 17th international sedimentological congress, Fukuoka, Japan, AugustGoogle Scholar
  8. Cojan I, Rivoirard J, Renard D (2009) From outcrop to process-based reservoir modelling of fluvial meandering systems. The key issue of parameter choice. In: Presented at the from river to rock record, January 12Google Scholar
  9. Daams R, Díaz-Molina M, Mas R (1996) Uncertainties in the stratigraphic analysis of fluvial deposits from the Loranca Basin, central Spain. Sediment Geol 102:187–209.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0037-0738(95)00062-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Diaz-Molina M, Bustillo A, Capote R, Lopez-Martinez N (1985) Wet fluvial fans of the Loranca Basin (Central Spain), channel models and distal bioturbated gypsum with chert. 37Google Scholar
  11. Edwards J, Lallier F, Caumon G, Carpentier C (2017) Uncertainty management in stratigraphic well correlation and stratigraphic architectures: a training-based method. Comput Geosci 111:1.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2017.10.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fang JH, Chen HC, Shultz AW, Mahmoud W (1992) Computer-aided well log correlation. AAPG Bull 76:307Google Scholar
  13. Ferraretti D, Gamberoni G, Lamma E (2012) I2AM: a semi-automatic system for data interpretation in petroleum geology. In: PAI, pp 14–20Google Scholar
  14. Fouedjio F (2016) A hierarchical clustering method for multivariate geostatistical data. Spat Stat 18:333–351.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spasta.2016.07.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hammer Ø, Harper DAT (2006) Paleontological data analysis. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  16. Hill E, Robertson J, Uvarova Y (2015) Multiscale hierarchical domaining and compression of drill hole data. Comput Geosci.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2015.03.005 Google Scholar
  17. Lance GN, Williams WT (1967) A general theory of classificatory sorting strategies: 1. Hierarchical systems. Comput J 9:373–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lapkovsky VV, Istomin AV, Kontorovich VA, Berdov VA (2015) Correlation of well logs as a multidimensional optimization problem. Russ Geol Geophys 56:487–492.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rgg.2015.02.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lopez S (2003) Modélisation de réservoirs chenalisés méandriformes : une approche génétique et stochastique. https://pastel.archives-ouvertes.fr/pastel-00000630/document
  20. Lopez S, Cojan I, Rivoirard J, Galli A (2008) Process-based stochastic modelling: meandering channelized reservoirs. In: Analogue and numerical modelling of sedimentary systems: from understanding to prediction. Wiley-Blackwell, New York, pp 139–144Google Scholar
  21. Luthi SM, Bryant ID (1997) Well-log correlation using a back-propagation neural network. Math Geol 29:413–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Martinius AW (2000) Labyrinthine facies architecture of the Tortola Fluvial System and controls on deposition (Late Oligocene-Early Miocene, Loranca Basin, Spain). J Sediment Res 70:850–867.  https://doi.org/10.1306/2DC4093D-0E47-11D7-8643000102C1865D CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Milligan GW (1979) Ultrametric hierarchical clustering algorithms. Psychometrika 44:343–346.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294699 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. MINES ParisTech, ARMINES (2016) Flumy Software v4.104. http://cg.ensmp.fr/flumy
  25. Mirowski P, Herron M, Fluckiger S, Seleznev N, McCormick D (2005) New software for well-to-well correlation of spectroscopy logs. In: Presented at the AAPG international conference, Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  26. Parks JM (1966) Cluster analysis applied to multivariate geologic problems. J Geol 74:703–715.  https://doi.org/10.1086/627205 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ratcliffe KT, Wright AM, Hallsworth C, Morton A, Zaitlin BA, Potocki D, Wray DS (2004) An example of alternative correlation techniques in a low-accommodation setting, nonmarine hydrocarbon system: the (Lower Cretaceous) mannville basal quartz succession of southern Alberta. AAPG Bull 88:1419–1432.  https://doi.org/10.1306/05100402035 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ravenne C, Galli A, Doligez B, Beucher H, Eschard R (2002) Quantification of facies relationships via proportion curves. Geostatistics Rio 2000. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 19–39Google Scholar
  29. Romary T, Ors F, Rivoirard J, Deraisme J (2015) Unsupervised classification of multivariate geostatistical data: two algorithms. Comput Geosci 85:96–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Startzman RA, Kuo T-B (1987) A rule-based system for well log correlation. SPE Form Eval 2:311–319.  https://doi.org/10.2118/15295-PA CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Van Wagoner JC, Mitchum RM, Campion KM, Rahmanian VD (1990) Siliciclastic sequence stratigraphy in well logs, cores, and outcrops: concepts for high-resolution correlation of time and facies. American Association of Petroleum Geologists, TulsaGoogle Scholar
  32. Weill P, Cojan I, Ors F, Rivoirard J, Beucher H (2013) Process-based modelling of a meandering fluvial reservoir: FLUMY and the Miocene Loranca Basin. In: Presented at the ICFSGoogle Scholar
  33. Wilde A, Hill EJ, Schmid S, Taylor WR (2017) Wavelet tessellation and its application to downhole gamma data from the Manyingee and Bigrlyi sandstone-hosted uranium depositsGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association for Mathematical Geosciences 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre de Géosciences, MINES ParisTechPSL UniversityFontainebleauFrance

Personalised recommendations