Wessex Basin 2011 Feedback

by Hayley Allen, Claire Huck, Alastair Fraser, Matthew Jackson & Howard Johnson

Wednesday 22nd November 2011

‘We wish we were back in the field……..!’

‘How about you……..?’

Hayley does….

I’ve just finished marking all the Geoscience Wessex Basin worksheets!’

Wessex Basin Assessment Results for 2011
Marks Range Average (%) 70 62 64 Distinction (%) 46 50 51 Merit (%) 43 25 30 Pass (%) 11 25 19

Geoscience Geophysics Engineering

50-88% 35-78% 50-77%

Student Numbers: Petroleum Geoscience: 54 students Petroleum Geophysics: 24 students Petroleum Engineering: 53 students Assessment by: Hayley Allen (Geoscience) Claire Huck (Geophysics & Engineering) Alastair Fraser (Geoscience) Matt Jackson (Geophysics & Engineering) Howard Johnson (Geoscience)

Marks based on Day 2: Triassic Budleigh Salterton-Ladram Bay-Sidmouth (Geoscience + Tecton-stratigraphic chart) Marks categories: Distinction: >70% Merit: 60-69% Pass: 50-59% Fail: <50%

Wessex Basin Assessment Results for 2011
Highlights: 1.  Completed worksheets 2.  Numerous personal observations & interpretations 3.  Clear & well-annotated field sketches 4.  Neat, concise & annotated vertical logs 5.  Evidence of independent analysis 6.  Work is neatly presented and legible Lowlights: 1.  Worksheets only partly completed and often many gaps……… but hampered by poor weather! 1.  Recycling of discussion items, without independent data 2.  Field sketches lack scale & orientation, too schematic (‘stylistic’) & lacking detail: only record what you can see! 3.  Vertical logs either missing or grossly simplistic 4.  Lack of evidence of independent analysis 5.  Work lacks attention to detail &/or suffers from poor legibility

  Highlight good practice in field work 3.  Briefly review Day 2 of the field trip 2.Wessex Basin Feedback Objectives Main Objectives: 1.  Preparation for the Wytch Farm Field development Project .  Sherwood Sandstone reservoir geology: revision session 4.

on  Map   1   Days  1-­‐2   2   Days  3   3   Days  4-­‐5   Stoneley & Selley.Wessex  Basin:  Loca.  source  rocks  &  seals. 1991 1  –  Permian-­‐Triassic  reservoirs.  3  –  Cretaceous-­‐Ter<ary  &  tectonics  &  HC  occurrences   7 .  2  –  Jurassic  reservoirs.

 mu<ple  syn-­‐riM/post-­‐riM  cycles   .Stra.  Weald  and  Channel  Basins   8 From  Hawkes  et  al.  1998   Note:  4  main  megasequences/plate  cycles..graphic  Summary  North  Wessex.

 1998   .Permo-Triassic isopach map Outcrop  Area   Wytch  Farm  Area   From:  Underhill  &  Stoneley.

White Lias (c. 10 m) Triassic of the Wessex Basin: Winterborne Kingston Well The Sherwood Sandstone-Mercia Mudstone Forms an extremely effective reservoir-seal pair. Both in the Wessex Basin and elsewhere in NW Europe Mercia Mudstone Group (c. 175 m) Halite Sandstone (Sherwood) . 700 m) Legend Limestone (White Lias) Mudstone Siltstone Sherwood Sandstone (c.

Reservoir zonation scheme. Wytch Farm Field From  McKie  et  al.  1990   . Sherwood Sandstone Group..

 1990   . Wytch Farm Field: Outcrop Analogues Sidmouth Ladram Bay Budleigh Salterton From  McKie  et  al.Sherwood Sandstone Group..

Sherwood Sandstone Outcrop Analogue Locations Upper Greensand/Chalk Regional unconformity Mercia Mudstone Group Otter Sandstone Budleigh Salterton Pebble Bed Permian Sherwood Sandstone Group .

m Budleigh Salterton Pebble Bed Log & sketch courtesy Stefan Froud (2010) 50 m .

These roots (rhizocretions) provided an important intra-basinal source of carbonate . Triassic floodplains were vegetated by trees containing carbonate-secreting tap roots.Rhizocretions (= Palaeo-soil horizons) 1m 1. 2.

4. Also. and (2) heterogeneities. shapes and lengthscales. 2. etc. predicting effective flow properties and when thinking about waterflood sweep/oil recovery. . 3. The Otter Sandstone is a close analogue for the middle part of the Sherwood Sandstone reservoir at Wytch Farm. think about which of these features are measurable in the subsurface and which are not. Hence.Ladram Bay 1. we can expect similar types of (1) sandstone body. Use this knowledge when constructing your reservoir models. both with similar dimensions.

Typical Vertical profile through the Sherwood Sandstone at Ladram Bay Log courtesy Stefan Froud (2010) .

Otter Sandstone: Internal Reservoir Body Dimensions & Geometries 5m .

Internal Reservoir Body Dimensions & Geometries: Major Channel Forms 5m .

Otter Sandstone Internal Stratification: Lateral & Downstream Fluvial Bar Accretion 5m .

Otter Sandstone (Ladram Bay) Field Sketch Courtesy Jeremy Hugall (2010) .

Reservoir Heterogeneity Type 1: Cemented Channel Lags Cross-bedded fluvial channel sandstone Carbonate cemented channel lag .

Reservoir Heterogeneity Type 2: Abandoned Channel Mudstones .

Sherwood Heterogeneity Type 2: Abandoned Channel Mudstones Mud plug .

Sherwood Reservoir Heterogeneity at Ladram Bay Courtesy Clare Hobday (2010) .

1985 ..Shale Layer Frequency versus Shale Layer Length Use field observations to predict the impact of reservoir heterogeneities on effective flow properties from Begg et al.

Effective vertical permeability variations based on the number and length of discontinuous shale layer baffles from Begg et al. 1985 ..

Deterministic vs Probabilistic Shales Haldorsen & Lake. 1984 .

Deterministic vs Probabilistic Shales Haldorsen & Lake. 1984 .

Sherwood Sandstone Outcrop Analogue Locations Upper Greensand/Chalk Regional unconformity Mercia Mudstone Group Otter Sandstone Budleigh Salterton Pebble Bed Permian Sherwood Sandstone Group .

Sidmouth Overview Mercia Mudstone Chalk-Upper Greensand Sherwood Sandstone .

Sidmouth Structural Cross-Section .

Sidmouth Stratigraphic Overview Note the gradational nature of the boundary between the Sherwood Sandstone (base of cliff) And the Mercia Mudstone (upper half of the cliff) .

Winterborne Kingston well GR Sonic Note the gradational contact ? .Top Sherwood Sandstone Group.

Top Sherwood Sandstone Group. Wytch Farm .

Sherwood-Mercia Transition at Sidmouth Details in following two slides .

Single Fluvial Channel Sand Bodies. Sherwood-Mercia Transition (Sidmouth) .

Sherwood-Mercia Transition (Sidmouth) Lacustrine Mudstone Fluvial Channel Sandstone Floodplain Mudstone Fluvial Channel Sandstone Note: (1) the irregular erosion surface at the base of the fluvial channel sand body. and (4) channels separated by intercalated mudstone to the right (blue arrow) .Single Fluvial Channel Sand Bodies. (2) planar top surface. & (3) channel-on-channel connectivity to the left (yellow arrow).

Analogue Depositional Models for the Lower Triassic Sherwood Sandstone Depositional Environment Playa  mud  flat   Terminal  splay   Lake  Eyre.  intermi`ent  flow  from  we`er  catchments   .  Botswana   Dune  field   Lower Alluvial  fan   Mountain  Belt/Hinterland   Courtesy  Tom  Mckie  (Shell  UK  E&P)   Seasonal  discharge.  Australia   Sabkha   Delta   Shoreline   Eolian  sand  sheet   Upper Middle Okavango.  dry  basin.

Now for something stressful! .

Sub-Seismic Faulting at the Sherwood-Mercia Transition Mercia Mudstone Sherwood Sandstone .

which can results from: •  clay smear •  cataclasis •  cementation Sherwood Sandstone .Sub-Seismic Faulting at the Sherwood-Mercia Transition Mercia Mudstone Sub-Seismic faults (c. Faults may also compartmentalise the reservoir. if the fault planes are lined by impermeable material. especially in the upper part of the Sherwood reservoir. or reduce lateral connectivity. <10 m vertical displacement) may further decrease reservoir continuity.

1993 Connected permeable pathways through the major sandstone reservoir types. Water breakthrough is shown as a function of aquifer strength. permeability profile and the buoyancy of oil (and gas) with respect to water. After Weber. .Impact of Reservoir Heterogeneity & Reservoir Architecture on Waterflood Sweep Efficiency: What the outcrops were showing? Koen Weber. 1993. Key heterogeneities that influence fluid flow are highlighted.

10 m) Wytch Farm Field Development Plan Now use your knowledge of the Triassic rocks in the Wessex Basin to your help your descriptions and interpretations of the Sherwood Sandstone reservoir at Wytch Farm.White Lias (c. Good luck! Legend Mercia Mudstone Group (c. 175 m) Halite Sandstone (Sherwood) . 700 m) Limestone (White Lias) Mudstone Siltstone Sherwood Sandstone (c.

we would love to go back into the field and fill out some more worksheets!’ .Yes.

Worksheets with Answers for Sidmouth & Ladram Bay .

65% [5 marks] .to medium-grained sandstones (sandstone) • Sorting Poor • Small-scale (mm-cm-scale) stratification Lamination • Large-scale (m-scale) stratification Cross-bedding (sandstone).g. 100-400 mD in sandstones. mudstone [2 marks] 4. What is the main reservoir lithology? Sandstone [1 mark] Describe the following rock characteristics: • Colour Red (sandstone). mudstone. etc. What is the age of the rocks exposed at this locality? • Period: Triassic [1 mark] • Age (Ma): ~ 240 Ma [1 mark] 2. and (2) the analogous rock unit in the subsurface of the Wessex Basin? • Local rock unit: Otter sandstone (part of Sherwood Sandstone Group). 20% in sandstones • Permeability: c. average c. red (mudstone) • Grain size Fine.Feedback on Sidmouth: Sheet 1 LOCALITY 1: SIDMOUTH 1. Mercia Mudstone [1 mark] • Wessex Basin rock unit: Sherwood Sandstone Group. mudstone lenses encased in sandstone (in lower part of cliff face) and sandstone channels encased in mudstones (in upper part of cliff face) [8 marks] Estimate the rock properties: • Porosity: c. Mercia Mudstone [1 mark] 3. What are the main types of lithology exposed here (e. What are the lithostratigraphic names of (1) the rock unit at this outcrop. sandstone.)? Sandstone. <1 mD in mudstones • Net/gross: decreases from base (100%) to top (0%) of cliff face.

1 for any sedimentary structures recorded. 2 for capturing fault(s) with correct sense of throw. 2 for featureless gamma ray log (or gamma ray higher in mudstone than sandstone)] 6.Feedback on Sidmouth: Sheet 2 5. erosive. 1 if have added lithology in the appropriate column. [12 marks]: Suggest 1 for suitable vertical scale. gradational). 1 for capturing channelized nature of sandbodies. Select an appropriate vertical scale and draw a simplified vertical profile through the rocks exposed here on the logging sheet (page 4). with emphasis on the nature and geometry of reservoir and nonreservoir rock types. 1 for capturing sharp nature of basal contacts between sandstone and mudstone. 1 for having described orientation of sketch. 2 for suitable range of grain size. Pay particular attention to the nature of contacts between different lithological units (e. 2 for capturing variation in range of grain size between sandstone and mudstone. 1 for capturing upwards decrease in sandstone thickness. annotated scaled sketch of a selected part of the outcrop face on page 5 (use landscape page format). sharp. 1 for any sedimentary structures captured (e. draw a schematic Gamma Ray (GR) log through the section. From your sketch describe the following: [12 marks]: Suggest 2 for suitable horizontal and vertical scales. 1 for capturing upwards decrease in sandstone frequency.e. 3 for overall presentation and neatness] • Thickness: • Facies/rock types: • Large-scale geometrical features: • Primary sedimentary structures: • Major stratal surfaces (nature & geometry): What is the depositional origin of the features described? • Fluvial Justify these interpretations: • Presence of cross-bedding . cross-beds/accretional surfaces).g. Make sure that the true aspect ratio is retained (i. 1 for capturing upwards decrease in sandstone frequency. Next to your profile. Make a simplified.g. 1 for capturing upwards decrease in sandstone thickness and lateral extent. keep the same vertical and horizontal scales).

What is the nature of this contact: • Gradational. What implications would this contact have for reservoir management? Explain your answer. Spiky gamma ray reflects interbedded sst and mst & gradually increasing upwards. [6 marks] 11. This outcrop shows the upper part of the Sherwood Sandstone Group and its boundary with the overlying Mercia Mudstone Group. . or • Erosional? 8. but weak and diffuse due to gradational nature of contact. How would you recognise this contact on seismic sections? Expect reflection because of contrast in acoustic properties between sandstone and mudstone. mudstone chips Drilling rate: Slower in sandstone. faster in mudstone GR log: Higher GR in mudstones (although also high in sandstones because contain feldspar).Feedback on Sidmouth: Sheet 3 7. or [1 mark] • Sharp. and difficult to trace laterally. How would you recognise this contact on well logs: Drill cuttings: Sand grains. • Difficult to recognize and map top reservoir surface in seismic – uncertainty in calculating initial oil-in-place • Difficult to predict connectivity of sandbodies – decreases upwards with decreasing net-to-gross – so difficult to predict efficiency with which hydrocarbons will be drained / swept – uncertainty in predicting reserves. How would you rate the potential of the Sherwood and the immediately overlying Mercia Mudstone in relation to the following: • Reservoir: Sherwood sandstone – moderate to poor • Seal: Mercia mudstone – excellent seal • Source rock: None observed [3 marks] This locality marked from a total of 70. [4 marks] 10. Density log: Higher density in mudstones – spiky signature gradually increasing upwards Sonic log: Smaller transit-time in mudstones – spiky signature gradually decreasing upwards Borehole image log: Recognize sandstone and mudstone lithologies –observe frequency and thickness of mudstone beds increasing upwards. and frequency and thickness of sandstone beds decreasing upwards [12 marks] 9. • Bypassed / remaining hydrocarbons likely to be left in this upper part of the reservoir – target for IOR / infill drilling.

[8 marks] Estimate the rock properties: • Porosity: c. greeny-black mudstones. 100-400 mD • Net/gross: 70-80 % [5 marks] . 20 % • Permeability: c.10’s m wide and m’s deep. mudstone. clay-sized grains (mudstones) • Sorting Poor • Small-scale (mm-cm-scale) stratification mm-scale laminations in both sandstones and mudstones • Large-scale (m-scale) stratification cm-scale trough crossbedding.to medium-grained sandstones. and (2) the analogous rock unit in the subsurface of the Wessex Basin? • Local rock unit: Otter Sandstone (or Sherwood) [1 mark] • Wessex Basin rock unit: Sherwood Sandstone [1 mark] 3. erosive channel bases (often picked out by cemented lag deposits) c. etc.Feedback on Ladram Bay: Sheet 1 1. What are the main types of lithology exposed here (e. mudstone [2 marks] 4. What are the lithostratigraphic names of (1) the rock unit at this outcrop. planar laminations in mudstones.g. What is the age of the rocks exposed at this locality? • Period: Triassic [1 mark] • Age (Ma): ~ 240 Ma [1 mark] 2.)? Sandstone. coarser-grained channel lags (pebble-sized clasts). sandstone. • Grain size Fine. What is the main reservoir lithology? Sandstone [1 mark] Describe the following rock characteristics: • Colour Red sandstones.

annotated scaled sketch of a selected part of the outcrop face on page 11 (use landscape page format). 4 for overall presentation & neatness] 7.5-2 m • Abandoned channel-fill width: 10-100 m • Abandoned channel-fill thickness: 1-5 m [12 marks (1 each for upper and lower estimates – be reasonable with these)] 8. reduce vertical permeability because increase tortuosity of fluid flowpaths. Pay particular attention to: • Vertical & lateral changes in grain size • The nature of contacts between different lithological units (e. little impact on horizontal permeability. mudstone and channel lag. draw a schematic Gamma Ray (GR) log through the section.Feedback on Ladram Bay: Sheet 2 5. [3 marks] . Make sure that the true aspect ratio is retained. Mudstone channel-fill and cemented channel-lag deposits are barriers to flow. review the impact of reservoir heterogeneity on vertical permeability/vertical flow paths. 1 for having described orientation of sketch. crossbeds/accretional surfaces). 1 for any sedimentary structures recorded. 1 for capturing channelized nature of abandoned channel fill mudstones. Using your sketch on page 11. 1 if have added lithology in the appropriate column. Make a simplified.5 m • Channel lag width: 2-20 m • Channel lag thickness: 0. 3 for capturing variation in range of grain size between sandstone. 2 for featureless gamma ray log (or gamma ray higher in mst than sst)] 6. [12 marks: Suggest 2 for suitable horizontal and vertical scales. Select an appropriate vertical scale and draw a simplified vertical profile through the rocks exposed here on the logging sheet (page 10).g. 1 for capturing sharp nature of basal contacts between sandstone / channel lag and underlying unit. gradational) Next to your profile. 1 for capturing channelized nature of sandbodies. with emphasis on the nature and geometry of reservoir and nonreservoir rock types. 2 for any sedimentary structures captured (e. erosive. 1 for capturing channel lags at channel bases. 3 for suitable range of grain size. Now consider the same 2D panel in terms of its reservoir characteristics: • Sand body width: 10-100 m • Sand body thickness: 1. sharp. [12 marks] Suggest 1 for suitable vertical scale.g.

estimate the ratio of vertical-to-horizontal permeability (kv/kh ratio) at the following scales: • A core plug (2 x 2 x 10 cm): Close to one. the kv/kh ratio is c. No. Based on your observations and using Figure 1 where appropriate. Do you think you would be able to represent the reservoir heterogeneity observed here explicitly in: • A geological (static) reservoir model with typical grid block size 100 x 100 x 1m No. The lateral dimensions of these barriers to flow are very similar to the areal grid block size. because each grid block contains a mixture of sandstone. Problem even worse as grid block resolution so much lower in simulation model. May attempt to use upscaling to capture impact of heterogeneity captured in finer geological model in coarser simulation model. vertical dimensions are similar to or smaller than grid block thickness. Estimated from figure 1. depending upon whether the fine grid block contains an abandoned channel mudstone or cemented lag. Sand body widths often smaller than areal dimension of grid blocks.05 or 5%. and several tens of metres vertically. these could not be captured explicitly because of the limited areal and vertical grid resolution. Barriers to flow have similar lateral dimensions to sand bodies but are often much thinner than grid blocks (channel lags). [3 marks – students may not have captured all of this] 10. [2 marks] • A simulation (dynamic) model grid block: Significantly lower than one. at best. mudstone and cemented channel-lags. [2 marks] • A pressure transient test: Samples several tens of hundreds of meters laterally from well. Need more grid blocks than this to properly capture the connectivity of sand bodies. but need to recognise that ‘fine’ geological model may not have properly captured heterogeneity observed in outcrop. Result is simulation models which are too homogenous. may be able to capture the largest sand bodies with 1-2 grid blocks. [2 marks] . 0. [3 marks – students may not have captured all of this] • A dynamic (simulation) model with typical grid block size 500 x 500 x 10 m? Explain your answer. [2 marks] • A geological (static) model grid block: Extreme fluctuations between 0 and close to 1. Similar values to simulation model grid block.Feedback on Ladram Bay: Sheet 3 9. may be lower because platy clay minerals tend to be oriented parallel to bedding.

[2 marks] 15. but no clear distinction between lithologies because of feldspar in sandstone. Density log: Higher in mudstone and cemented sandstone Sonic log: Lower in mudstone and cemented sandstone Borehole image log: Recognize variations in lithology. cemented sandstone. Overall higher quality. Unit has moderate porosity. [2 marks] 16. at Sidmouth)? Higher net-to-gross.Feedback on Ladram Bay: Sheet 4 11. How would you rate the potential of this and the immediately overlying rock unit in relation to the following: • Reservoir: Moderate to good • Seal: None observed • Source rock: None observed [3 marks] This locality marked from a total of 100. Do your field observations support this? Yes. Can you suggest a gross depositional environment for these rocks? Explain your reasoning. generally higher in mudstone and lower in sandstone. Too small to resolve on seismic and cannot correlate between wells. Could use quantitative data obtained from suitable outcrop analogues to constrain geometry and dimensions.g. permeability and net-to-gross. [3 marks] 13. GR log: Spiky signature. plus larger cross-beds Seismic: Features too small to resolve [14 marks] 12. How do the reservoir characteristics of the Middle Sherwood. . Vertically and laterally stacked channel sandbodies. relatively uniform over vertical extent of cliff faces. NB: Localities 3 and 4 not marked. No. In several parts of the western British Isles. Would you be able to determine the geometry and lateral extent of the heterogeneities using only subsurface data? Explain your answer. Drilling rate: Variations through different lithologies and noncemented vs. Braided fluvial. How would you recognise this type of rock unit in the subsurface: Drill cuttings: Recognize sandstone and mudstone lithologies and cemented sandstone. compare with those seen in the Upper Sherwood (e. this rock unit is a major petroleum reservoir. [3 marks] 14. Overall mark from a total of 170. as seen in this section. higher kv / kh ratio. Higher connectivity of channel sandbodies.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful