SESIMIRA—A New Geological Tool for 3D Modelling of Heterogeneous Reservoirs

  • R. Gundesø
  • O. Egeland

Abstract

Set against a background of large uncertainties connected with reservoir description and subsequent recovery evaluation of offshore hydrocarbon fields, a requirement for improved reservoir modelling techniques has become evident. This paper presents a computer program, SESIMIRA, that uses bit-matrices to create high-resolution three-dimensional grids for the three-dimensional modelling of heterogeneous reservoirs. The main objective of the program is to generate reservoir models that clearly preserve a realistic heterogeneity and adequately represent the distribution of important reservoir parameters. The reservoir modelling procedure is applicable to any type of geological setting. The concept is based on the integration of sedimentological, structural and petrophysical data that can be treated both deterministically and stochastically. The user has the option of including any number of facies types, and can require that different conditions (rules) are fulfilled during the modelling process. The current version of SESIMIRA utilizes a Boolean approach to create facies bodies in the reservoir model.

Keywords

Production Well Reservoir Model Reservoir Simulation Sand Body Facies Type 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Augedal, H.O., Omre, H. and Stanley, K.O. (1986). SISA-BOSA, a program for stochastic modelling and evaluation of reservoir geology. Paper presented at the IFE/SSI Seminar Reservoir Description and Simulation with Emphasis on EOR, Oslo, 1986.Google Scholar
  2. Bayat, M.G. and Tehrani, D.H. (1985). The Thistle field-analysis of its past performance and optimisation of its future development. Presented at Ofshore Europe′85 Conference, Aberdeen, 1985, SPE paper no. 13989.Google Scholar
  3. Begg, S.H. and Carter, R.R. (1987). Assigning effective values to simulator grid-block parameters in heterogeneous reservoirs. 62nd Annual Technical Conference, Dallas, 1987, SPE paper No. 16574.Google Scholar
  4. Bratvedt, K. and Rian, D.T. (1988). Modelling and simulation of a fluvial geological system by the application of front tracking methods. The 1st International Forum on Reservoir Simulation, Alpbach, 1988.Google Scholar
  5. Chauvin, A.L., Jackson, R.F., McGee, P.R. and McMichael, C.L. (1979). Development of the Statfjord Field using three-dimensional and areal reservoir simulation. Presented at 54th Annual Fall Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, 1979, SPE paper no. 8334.Google Scholar
  6. Corrigan, T. (1988). Factors controlling successful reserve prediction; a cautionary tale from the U.K. North Sea. Presented at the 2nd. Conference on Reservoir Management in Field Development and Production, Stavanger, 1988.Google Scholar
  7. Delhomme, A.E.K. and Giannesini, J.F. (1979). New reservoir description techniques improve simulation results in Hassi-Messaoud field, Algeria. SPE paper no. 8435.Google Scholar
  8. Dreyer, T. Sand body dimensions and infill sequences of stable, humid climate delta plain channels. This volume.Google Scholar
  9. Dreyer, T. and Scheie, Å. (in press) A minipermeameter-based study of permeability trends in channel sandbodies. AAPG. Google Scholar
  10. Dubrule, O. (1988). A review of stochastic models for petroleum reservoirs. Paper presented at the BSRG Seminar Quantification of Sediment Body Geometries and their Internal Heterogeneities, London, 1988.Google Scholar
  11. Egeland, O. (1987). IRAP-Interactive Reservoir Analysis Package. User manual.Google Scholar
  12. Farmer, C.L. (1987). The generation of stochastic fields of reservoir parameters with specified geostatistical distribution. Presented at the IMA Conference, Cambridge, 1987.Google Scholar
  13. Fielding, C.R. and Crane, R.C. (1987). An application of statistical modelling to the prediction of the hydrocarbon recovery factors in fluvial reservoir sequences. In: Ethridge F.G., Flores R.M. and Harvey M.D. (eds), Recent Developments in Fluvial Sedimentology, pp. 321–327. SEPM Special Publication No. 39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Haldorsen, H.H. and Lake, L.W. (1984). A new approach to shale management in field-scale models, Soc. Petroleum Eng. J. (August) 447–457.Google Scholar
  15. Haldorsen, H.H. and Macdonald, C.J. (1987). Stochastic modelling of underground reservoir facies. 62nd Annual Technical Conference of SPE, Dallas, 1987, paper no. SPE 16751.Google Scholar
  16. Hewett, T.A. and Behrens R.A. (1988). Conditional simulation of reservoir heterogeneity with fractals. 63rd Annual Technical Conference Houston, 1988, paper no. SPE 18326.Google Scholar
  17. Journel, A.G. (1974). Simulation conditionelle, theorie et practique. These de docteur-ingenieur, Universite de Nancy I.Google Scholar
  18. Lasseter, T.J. Waggoner J.R. and Lake L.W. (1986). Reservoir heterogeneities and their influence on ultimate recovery. In: Lake, L.W. and Corroll, H.B., Jr. (eds.), Reservoir Characterization pp. 545–559. Academic Press, Orlando.Google Scholar
  19. Matheron, G., Beucher, H., de Fouget C., Galli, A., Guerillot, D. and Ravenne, C. (1987). Conditional simulation of the geometry of fluvio-deltaic reservoirs. 62nd Annual Technical Conference, Dallas, 1987, SPE paper no. 16573.Google Scholar
  20. Miall, A.D. (1988). Reservoir heterogeneties in fluvial sandstones: lessons from outcrop studies. AAPG Bulletin, 72(6), 682–697.Google Scholar
  21. Nadir, F.T. (1980). Thistle field development. Presented at European Offshore Petroleum Conference and Exhibition, London, 1980, EUR paper no. 165.Google Scholar
  22. Skaug, M. and Gundesø, R. (1986). Geological modelling of the Frigg Field with special emphasis on shale mapping. European Petroleum Conference of SPE, London, 1986, SPE paper no. 15859.Google Scholar
  23. Stiles, J.H. and Bobek, J.E. (1982). Fulmar pre-development simulation study. Presented at European Petroleum Conference, London, 1982, EUR paper no. 282.Google Scholar
  24. Tomutsa, L., Jackson, S.R. and Szpakiewicz, S.R. 1986. Geostatistical characterization and comparison of outcrop and subsurface facies: Shannon Shelf Sand Ridges. California Regional Meeting of SPE, Oakland, 1986, SPE paper no. 15127.Google Scholar
  25. Van Oert, B. (1988). Lessons learned in North Sea oil field developments. J. Can. Petroleum Technol. 27, 123–132.Google Scholar
  26. Wadsley, A.W., Erlandsen S. and Goemans, H.W. Hex, a tool for integrated fluvial architechture modelling and numerical simulation of recovery processes. This volume.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Norwegian Institute of Technology 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Gundesø
    • 1
  • O. Egeland
    • 2
  1. 1.Norsk Hydro ASStabekkNorway
  2. 2.Geomatic ASGjettumNorway

Personalised recommendations