You are on page 1of 9

SPE 94343

Integrated Reservoir Modelling Enhances the Understanding of Reservoir Performance


of the Dolphin Gas Field, Trinidad and Tobago
I.F. Sylvester, R. Cook, R. Swift, T. Pritchard and J. McKeever, BG Group

Copyright 2005, Society of Petroleum Engineers


reservoirs units. Eight development wells have been drilled to
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Europec/EAGE Annual Conference held date; two in the Lower reservoir and six in the Upper
in Madrid, Spain, 13-16 June 2005.
reservoir. The wells are completed with a slotted liner and
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of open hole gravel packs. The completions do not have
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to permanent down hole pressure gauges so bottom hole
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any pressures are collected during regular data gathering
position of the SPE, their officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage
of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of campaigns. Since production wells commingle production
Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract over approximately 1000 feet of open hole completion,
of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain
conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write production logs are run to determine zonal contribution.
Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Significant ‘Possible” reserves were thought to exist


Abstract in the Dolphin Field at the time of the Field Development Plan
The Dolphin Field in Trinidad and Tobago has consistently (FDP). A geological model rebuild in 1999 resulted in higher
performed better than original Field Development Plan. This GIIP than the FDP. The 1999 static GIIP is taken as the base
has resulted in the static model Gas Initially In Place (GIIP) line against which all subsequent GIIP comparisons are made.
historically lagging behind the reservoir simulation model The 1999 static GIIP was slightly lower than the history
GIIP. matched dynamic GIIP. After 1999 production rates increased
and a comprehensive data gathering campaign was undertaken
Reservoir characterization and modelling studies in 2003/04 in 2001. This confirmed that the 1999 reservoir simulation
has resulted in close alignment of the static GIIP and the model predicted a more rapid decline in simulated reservoir
dynamic history match GIIP. This paper will describe the pressure than observed reservoir pressure data (Figure 3). To
modelling work flow and discuss the key lessons learned from obtain a history match, simulation studies showed that ,even
applying an integrated reservoir management solution to this with a large modelled aquifer, the dynamic GIIP had to be
significant producing gas field. increased significantly compared to the 1999 static GIIP.

Introduction A multi-disciplinary subsurface team was mobilized


The Dolphin Field, situated off the east cost of Trinidad to Trinidad in 2002 to develop a holistic reservoir model for
(Figure 1), is a large dry natural gas field which currently the Field ahead of the next development phase for the Dolphin
supplies gas under a long-term contract to the National Gas Field. A new reservoir model was built in two phases. Phase
Company of Trinidad and Tobago (NGC). The Field is 1 provided a new geophysical and petrophysical interpretation
operated by BG (50%) on behalf of ChevronTexaco (50%). of Dolphin and resulted in a significant increase in static GIIP
The Dolphin Field was developed with a 24 slot production to match the 2001 dynamic GIIP. Phase 2 generated a new
platform with domestic gas exported via a 24 inch pipeline to reservoir layering scheme, a new 3D heterogeneity model and
the NGC Poui platform. First gas was achieved in in March a new reservoir simulation model. This work resulted in a
1996. In the future Dolphin gas may also be exported through further large increase in estimated GIIP. Following further
the planned new 24 inch export pipeline to Beachfield on the data gathering in 2002 and 2003 and history matching, the
East coast of Trinidad. new Phase 2 reservoir simulation model required a small
reduction in the static GIIP. Modelling of thin bedded pay
The Dolphin Field (Figure 2) was discovered in 1976 was a significant technical challenge and was a major
and appraised by five wells over an 18 year period. The field contributor to reducing the difference between the static GIIP
consists of 33 stacked, highly unconsolidated young deltaic and the dynamic history match GIIP. Dolphin now has a
reservoir sands that are sourced from the Orinoco delta. The realistic 3D reservoir model that matches dynamic history and
field is bounded to the East by the Dolphin Main Fault and to has been used to optimize the next phase of field development.
the West by the Dolphin Back Fault. The Dolphin Field
reservoir layers can be grouped into Upper and Lower
2 SPE 94343

Reservoir Uncertainties modelling results clearly demonstrated that using the


The difference between the 1999 static GIIP and the 2001 Indonesian equation or any dispersed clay resistivity model,
dynamic GIIP can be attributed to a number of factors. Old resulted in a significant under-estimation of the hydrocarbon
legacy log data, limited formation evaluation during the pore volume. The extent to which hydrocarbon pore volume
development drilling combined with the geological complexity was under-estimated increased as the water salinity decreased
and poor seismic imaging of the deeper horizons results in a or as the degree of near well bore invasion of the water-based
large variation in static GIIP. Dolphin has 33 reservoir layers drilling mud increased. The modelling results clearly
but only three known gas water contacts (GWC). The key demonstrate that previous petrophysical interpretations are
reservoir uncertainties are: aquifer size, location of GWC’s, almost certainly inadequate to quantify reserves in such
imaging of the Dolphin Main Fault and thin bedded pay. formations.
The new petrophysical re-evaluation was based on
Static Model – Phase 1
the analytical procedures first developed by Thomas and
The first phase of the static modeling consisted of a
Steiber et al1.
comprehensive review of the 1998 3D seismic data and
petrophysical data.
Petrophysical interpretation. Petrophysical strategies to
Geophysics
The seismic data over the Dolphin Field is poor to moderate quantify hydrocarbon reserves within the Dolphin Field should
seek to definitively characterise the properties of the sand
quality. Deterioration in the quality due to the presence of
pervasive shallow gas, together with a gas chimney at depth laminae and take into account the nature of the clay/shale
which have resulted in poor imaging of the Dolphin Field, and distribution, since these factors have such a profound impact
of the Dolphin Main Fault, to be poor (Figure 4). In order to on the computed results. A number of alternative
address the issue of possible geophysics-related under- interpretation strategies were considered and as a consequence
of this review an optimised interpretation strategy, based on
estimation of the gross rock volumes (GRV), a re-
interpretation was carried out in 2002/3. It was considered the work of Thomas et al, a methodology was selected as
that significant additional GRV could be added by a more being most appropriate for the Dolphin Gas Field.
detailed interpretation of the Dolphin Main Fault location.
The basic principals of the Thomas et al
The five main geological surfaces that can be imaged; interpretation strategy are illustrated in Figure 8. From these
D30A, D30E, D40C, D80A and D90A (Figure 5) were relationships of this form, Thomas et al demonstrated that the
remapped along with the Dolphin Main and Back faults. nature of the clay distribution within a formation profoundly
Intermediate surfaces for all the remaining reservoir layers influences the relationship between petrophysical properties,
were created using conformal gridding techniques. This and in this case between total porosity and clay volume.
method allows for variations in thickness observed on the Therefore, from knowledge of the total porosity and clay
seismic data away from the wells to be incorporated into the volume, as determined from a conventional interpretation of
isochores. The area between the Dolphin and Starfish fields the LWD/wireline log data, fractional volumes of laminated
(Figure 1) was examined to see whether the Dolphin field and dispersed clay, or the fractional volumes of laminated and
extends further north than was previously mapped. Dolphin is structural clay, can be determined provided a simplifying
now interpreted as extending further north and south than was assumption originally proposed by Ruhovets et al2 is adopted.
mapped in 1999. Most likely and maximum aquifer limits
were remapped for the main surfaces. The bulk resistivity measured for a laminated
formation is known to be the harmonic mean of the individual
layer resistivities, provided one can define the bulk average
Petrophysics
In all previous petrophysical evaluations of the Dolphin Gas fraction of the formation that is laminated clay, and the
resistivity of the clay, then one can compute the resistivity of
Field, a single equation, the Indonesian Equation was used to
relate water saturation to resistivity measurements. The the sand lamina. At no stage in this computational procedure is
Indonesian Equation implicitly assumes that clay is distributed it necessary to assign an actual thickness to any of these
layers, rather the method relies on quantifying the bulk
within the formation in a dispersed or pore-filling form. This
can lead to the exclusion of “low resistivity pay”, or thin average fraction of the formation that is laminated clay or
bedded pay from the net pay calculation. Thin beds are laminated sand within the vertical resolution of the log
measurements.
observed in young deltaic-sediments (e.g. Gulf of Mexico,
Gulf of Thailand, Nile Delta etc), and so should be present in By computing the effective porosity and clay volume
the Orinoco delta where the Dolphin Field is located. The present within the sand lamina using the above methodology,
one can then use a simple resistivity equation (e.g. Archie or
geological data, core photographs and wireline log data
provide evidence for the presence of thinly laminated Modified Simandeoux or Waxman Smits) to compute the
formations within the Dolphin Gas Field (Figure 6). water saturation within the sand laminate. Finally
computations of hydrocarbon pore volumes were made by the
To evaluate how accurately a dispersed clay appropriate volumetric calculations and compared to the 1999
resistivity model can quantify hydrocarbon reserves in a thinly model (Figure 9).
laminated formation a synthetic laminated clean-sand/clay
formation was constructed, as shown in Figure 7. The The advantage of the method described above is that it is one
SPE 94343 Integrated Reservoir Modelling Enhances the Understanding of Reservoir Performance of the Dolphin Gas Field, Trinidad and Tobago 3

that is well established and reported extensively in the engineering model. A 3D heterogeneity modelling approach
scientific literature, and it is one that can be applied was taken in order to better model connectivity in the Dolphin
consistently across the entire dataset for the field. It also Field data-set. The geological modelling in Phase 2 is
provides a means whereby the petrophysical data can be described in detail below.
interpreted in a more geologically consistent manner and
avoids the under-estimation of thin bedded pay that arises
Reservoir Layering
from the inappropriate use of a single dispersed-clay resistivity
The Dolphin Field reservoir layering was re-defined based on
model.
the new thin bedded pay petrophysical interpretation. The
1999 reservoir layering (not changed in Phase 1) was
Petrophysical uncertainty. Changes in the interpretation
lithostratigraphic and was heavily dependant on the gamma-
methodology impact on the uncertainties associated with the
ray log. Previous attempts to refine the correlation using
propagation of uncertainty3. To evaluate that uncertainty it is
biostratigraphy and bulk chemostratigraphy could only
necessary to not only consider the inherent uncertainties that
identify two major surfaces (base D40C and base D60E,
exist with both the LWD/Wireline logging measurements, but
Figure 12). Further refinement of the reservoir layering was
also those associated with the derivation of the petrophysical
not possible due to the high sedimentation rate during the
calibration parameters necessary to solve the wireline log
deposition of the Dolphin sediments (estimated at
response equations to derive the required petrophysical
approximately 8,000ft per million years) which smeared out
properties.
any key events. Fresh water influx from the proto-Orinoco
Monte Carlo simulation methods seemed impractical delta created brackish water conditions that were unfavourable
to use given the computational time involved. Therefore, an for colonisation by the micro-organisms used for
analytical methodology called the General Theory for the biostratigraphic correlation purposes.
Propagation of Errors was used to determine the uncertainty.
For the reasons outlined above, a sequence
Figure 10 shows how the uncertainty of computed
stratigraphic approach was adopted for a field wide correlation
hydrocarbon pore volume increases as the pore volume
scheme. The final correlation was checked for consistency by
fraction decreases. The validity and limitations of this
investigating formation pressure data, GWC, gas-down-to
approach were, however, directly quantified using Monte
(GDT), highest-known-water (HKW) data and strontium
Carlo simulation methods.
isotope correlation techniques.
There were a number of changes between the old and
Geological Modelling new layering schemes (Figure 12) particularly in the D30-D50
After minor layering refinement the new petrophysical Sands relating to limited distribution sands. Such differences
averages were incorporated into a commercial mapping are expected between sequence stratigraphic and
package for volumetric estimation and found to match the lithostratigraphic correlation techniques: the former is
2001 dynamic GIIP. essentially correlating packets of sediments deposited at the
same time, whilst the latter is correlating packets of sediments
that look the same on logs. Connectivity within and between
Static Model – Phase 2
the sand units will be different between the old and new
The Phase 2 static model work consisted of a new reservoir
reservoir layering scheme.
layering scheme and a new facies based 3D heterogeneity
model.
Facies Identification
Although the Phase 1, geophysical and geological A high-resolution facies assignment, with a resolution down to
model gave a GIIP estimate in line with the 2001 history 2 feet, was made to all the wells for use in the 3D
matched reservoir simulation there was enough evidence heterogeneity model. The basis of the facies picking was the
showing that the model had several inconsistencies. Previous core interpretation from Dolphin-5st and FMI data from
geological correlations between sand units relied entirely on Dolphin-5st, DAP-1, DAP-2, DAP-5 and DAP-6. From these
correlating patters exhibited within the Gamma Ray logs. Due wells a typical wireline response was recognised and then
to the high concentration of potassium within the drilling mud, carried across the other Dolphin wells and Starfish-1x to
the Gamma Ray logs show low sensitivity to changes in assign facies interpretations. Facies were identified from three
lithology, which resulted in a number of good sand units being depositional settings: inner to middle shelf, outer shelf and
overlooked and not included in the 1999 reservoir model but slope deposition.
were highlighted by the new thin-bed petrophysics (Figure
11). Thin-bed Modelling
The thin-beds in the field are typically only a few inches or
Based on the above concerns a second phase of re- less in thickness, although outcrop data indicate that they will
interpretation and modeling was initiated. All the Dolphin still be laterally continuous for several hundreds of feet.
wells, plus Starfish-1x, to give a northern control point, were Modelling thin-beds at the inch scale is impossible for field-
used to define a layering scheme, redefine the scale 3D heterogeneity models since the number of cells in the
sedimentological model, and fully integrate all the subsurface grid would run to billions. Previous generic modeling studies
disciplines into defining a new, consistent geological and which investigated the recovery factor for thin-bedded
4 Ian F. Sylvester, Dr. Robert Cook, Dr. Roland Swift, Dr. Tim Pritchard and James McKeever SPE 94343

reservoirs and their scale-up from the core scale to the 3D


heterogeneity modelling scale and scale-up to the reservoir
Thin-bed Upscaling. The second part of the generic study
simulation scale.
involved taking the initial models described above and
upscaling them to the 3D heterogeneity model and the
reservoir simulator scale models whilst preserving the
Thin-bed Modelling at the Inch Scale. Generic models were
recovery. The fine-scale thin-bedded model was upscale to
created in a commercial reservoir modeling software package
relevant 3D heterogeneity model and the reservoir simulator
at the inch scale. The fine Z resolution used meant that the
cell sizes and the distribution in porosity, kh and kv noted.
thin-beds could be modelled as discrete objects. The purpose
The petrophysical ranges were then used to model the
of the models was to define a base-case from which 3D
properties in the larger cells using Gaussian techniques. Into
heterogeneity model and the reservoir simulator scale models
the Gaussian thin-bed models varying proportions of thicker
could be tested.
sand bodies were added. The models were then depleted as
Thin sand sheets were modelled in a shale above with a single central vertical well completed over the
background to mimic the sand-shale interbedded nature of entire model thickness with the same initial and final reservoir
thin-bedded sections. The sand sheets were modelled as pressures.
ellipsoids and stochastically distributed throughout the volume
with a target proportion or net-to-gross (NTG) of 22%. Results showed that for entirely thin-bedded reservoir
models it was difficult to preserve the recovery seen in the
The thin-bedded model acted as the base case for
fine-scale model. The upscaling process very easily turned the
three scenarios: an entirely thin-bedded model, a thin-bedded model into a “tank” with recoveries of over 60% compared to
model with an additional central “thick” sand body, and a thin- the fine-scale 22%. Only with special local grid refinements
bedded model with an off-centre “thick” sand body (Figure to the reservoir simulation grid could the recovery be correctly
13). The thick sand bodies were modelled as channels, modelled. However, the miss-match in the recovery at
accounted for only 10% of the model by volume and were a
different scales is less evident when a small proportion of
maximum of 4 inches thick. “thick” sands are present, which is the case for Dolphin. The
The sand bodies, both thin and thick, were modelled recovery factors from upscaled models matched those of the
with petrophysical data were taken from actual measurements fine-scale models.
of thin-bedded facies. The shale was set to 0% porosity and In summary, the Dolphin model draws on previous,
0mD permeability. in-depth thin-bed modelling techniques and does not suffer
The models were run to depletion in the reservoir from upscaling problems.
simulator to investigate the recovery and connectivity of the
models. A single central vertical well completed over the
The Full Field Geological Heterogeneity Model
entire model thickness was used. Setting the central thick
Structural Model. A 33 zone structural model was
sand recovery factor as the base. A significant reduction in constructed, each zone representing one of the reservoir layers.
recovery was observed for the thin bed model and a small The model was bounded to the east and west by the Dolphin
reduction for the edge thick sand.
Main and Back faults respectively. The model was extended o
As well as acting as base-case models, the results the north to include the Starfish-1x well and to the south to
highlighted a number of issues with thin-bedded reservoirs. In allow for aquifer modelling.
low NTG thin-bedded reservoirs the connectivity and hence
The X and Y grid resolution was set at approximately
recovery is low. Once the NTG increased beyond 300 feet by 300 feet. The Z resolution varied between 2 feet
approximately 33%, recovery increased significantly. Also, and 10 feet from sub-zone to sub-zone depending on the facies
with the addition of a small proportion of thicker sand the thickness in the wells and on the degree of heterogeneity that
recovery greatly increases even if the “thick” sand is some needed to be modelled. Overall this gave a model with
distance from the well.
15,734,400 cells.
It is interesting to compare the results from these
generic models to published information on the Ram/Powell Facies Modelling. A single, most likely facies model
Field, Gulf of Mexico4. A thin-bedded reservoir, with porosity was produced using object-based stochastic techniques for
and permeability similar to the generic models discussed here, modelling different facies and shapes in a background facies.
is being depleted through a single well. It was thought that the Each sub-grid (sand layer) in the model had its own facies
interbedded mudstones and complex bedding architecture in model set-up allowing for greater flexibility in the modelling
the reservoir would lead to reduced reservoir connectivity and process. All the facies that had been identified in the wells
recovery but, after two years of production, the well is were modelled. The target proportions for the facies volume
producing much better than expected. Data from other wells in each sub-grid were taken from the well data.
that have penetrated the reservoir indicate pressure
communication across the entire 4,000acre reservoir. The Facies thickness was taken from the well data and the
connectivity is thought to be due to small sand filled channels
aerial extent of the facies was taken from analogue outcrop
cutting into the thin-bedded sands. data and seismic information5. All the facies were modelled
SPE 94343 Integrated Reservoir Modelling Enhances the Understanding of Reservoir Performance of the Dolphin Gas Field, Trinidad and Tobago 5

as ellipsoids since the authors experience has shown that for rocks.
models with poor data constraints an ellipsoid geometry
defines the heterogeneity efficiently. The thin-bedded facies The Pore Modelling technique developed by the
were modelled as “packets” of thin-beds into which average commercial core analysis company relies upon an extensive
petrophysical parameters would be later added based on the database of laboratory measurements of the properties of
fine scale thin bed modeling described earlier. unconsolidated rocks that have been classified according to
certain geologic features (e.g. bed thickness, depositional
Seismic data was not used to control facies environment, authigenic clay content etc).
distribution due to the low data quality. The facies models
were initially conditioned to well data only but later iterations In using the method, core samples were first analysed
as part of the history matching were conditioned to simple to classify sample into a pore-type, depending upon the
trend maps and the wells. prevailing geologic characteristics. Subsequent measurements
of particle size distributions were then interpreted using
Porosity Modelling. P50 porosity distributions optimised transform models, to compute a porosity and
(mean and standard deviations) were defined for each facies in permeability for the sample. Samples were submitted from
each layer of the model. Variogram data, defining the various sand intervals within DAP-2 and DAP-5, in addition,
influence distance of a data point, was derived from control samples were also analysed from other wells where the
proprietary analogue studies done at out-crop. The model was porosity and permeability characteristics of the samples were
conditioned to the well data. known. From the analysis of the control samples, correction
coefficients were derived, and then applied to the Dolphin core
To investigate the variability in the data the P50 data in order to establish the porosity-permeability algorithm.
porosity model was set to run in multiple realisation mode and
20 models were produced. The models were then ranked on The 3D heterogeneity model permeability was based
GIIP. The variation was found to be only +/-2% as this on the application the new porosity-permeability relationship.
represented only the variability of the P50 data and not the No vertical permeability data was available, so kv was defined
true uncertainty of the data. Single models based on the P10 as 0.1*kh in all facies except the major thin-bedded facies
and P90 petrophysical curves were produced representing high where kv was set to zero.
and low estimates respectively. The three porosity models
(low, P50 and high) were carried through in all the subsequent
Upscaling to Reservoir Simulation Grid. Porosity,
modelling, upscaling and ultimately the history matching.
permeability and water saturation were upscaled to a reservoir
Water Saturation Modelling. Water saturation (Sw) simulation grid with the same area of interest as the geological
modelling was broken down by facies and layer using the P50 model. Water saturation and porosity was upscaled using
petrophysical curve. Using the P10 and P90 petrophysical pore volume weighted technique while permeability was
curves to generate low and high Sw models in combination upscaled using a diagonal tensor method.
with the low and high case porosity models, would develop
overly pessimistic and optimistic results. The Sw model was
Dynamic Model – Phase 2
conditioned to the well data and the facies model, and related
Although the 1999 full field reservoir simulation model
to the porosity model by use of correlation coefficients.
initially matched the static GIIP, by 2001 the dynamic GIIP
Permeability Modelling. The original core had to be increased. After these changes to match the
permeability data was unreliable because the core was reservoir performance the reservoir simulation model bore
irrevocably damaged by heating prior to conventional analysis. little resemblance to the 1999 geological model. The
In the intervening years the core had deteriorated to such an expectation was that the new geological model would match
extent that conventional analysis can not be applied. the dynamic reservoir performance of the Dolphin Field.

In an effort to develop a more robust permeability


algorithm for the Dolphin Gas Field, a Pore Modelling Model Construction
technique developed by a commercial core analysis company A new reservoir simulation model was created based on the
was employed. The Pore Modelling technique makes use of fine scale geological model described above. A reservoir
published information concerning the controls of textural simulation grid was built with an i, j k of 30, 75, 33. The i,j
properties (e.g. grain size, grain sorting, grain angularity and 700ft by 700ft cell size was kept around the wells but
packing) on porosity and permeability for unconsolidated increased away from the wells and into the water leg. Total
sediments. This empirical knowledge has been further grid contains 74,000 active cells. Four simulation layers in the
quantified through the development of physical models that centre of the model were inactivated to isolate the Upper
relate measurements of particle size distributions, and reservoir from the Lower reservoir.
subsequent computations of the mean particle size, variance of
The reservoir simulation model fluid properties
the particle size distribution and the skewed nature of the
distributions, to porosity and permeability. However, these remained unchanged. Permeability and porosity were
models do not have universal applicability, and they need to upscaled from the 3D heterogeneity model as described above.
The model does not contain a net to gross multiplier as this has
be optimised depending upon the geological origin of the
6 Ian F. Sylvester, Dr. Robert Cook, Dr. Roland Swift, Dr. Tim Pritchard and James McKeever SPE 94343

effectively been modeled at the geological scale in the 3D 4. Chronostratigraphic reservoir layering provides a
heterogeneity model. The reservoir simulation model was better reservoir layering scheme in deltaic reservoirs.
initialised by equilibrating 19 capillary pressure curves
corresponding to the upscaled water saturation distribution.
Acknowledgements
Each reservoir simulation layer had a northern and a The authors would like to thank BG Group, ChevronTexaco
southern aquifer. The southern aquifer volume was divided Trinidad and Tobago and the Ministry of Energy and Energy
between a southern connection (66% of volume) and a Industries of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago for
southwestern connection (33% of volume) (Figure 14). The permission to publish this paper.
aquifer properties were taken as the average reservoir
properties from the equivalent reservoir model layer. For the
Nomenclature
initial history match all aquifers were connected to the model.
ALNG = Atlantic LNG
Aquifer volumes were estimated from the regional seismic and
aquifer connectivity from the geological model. FDP = Field Development Plan
History Matching GDT = gas-down-to
The history match results shown in Figures 15 and 16 illustrate
GIIP = gas initially in place
the success of the new reservoir model. The reservoir
simulation model provides a much better pressure match than GRV = gross rock volume
the old history matched model. The modifications to the
reservoir simulation model were minor and more importantly GWC = gas water contact
consistent with the geological model. Permeability had to be HKW = highest know water
reduced in certain layers and only one major pore volume
multiplication factors had to be used in the Upper reservoir NTG = net to gross
which was geologically realistic. NGC = Natural Gas Company of Trinidad and Tobago

The main history matching parameter was Sw = water saturation


determining GWC’s for the 30 reservoir layers without a
known GWC. The new sequence stratigraphic based layering References
constrained the degree by which the majority of layers could 1. Thomas, E.C., Steiber, S.J., "The Distribution of
be adjusted between the GDT and HKW. Two simulation Shale in Sandstone and Its Effect Upon Porosity",
layers in the Upper reservoir have GDT but no HKW leading SPWLA 16th Annual Logging Symposium, June 4-7,
too large static GIIP uncertainty, however, when the dynamic 1975, Paper T.
reservoir performance is taken into consideration then this
uncertainty is reduced. 2. Ruhovets, N., Fertl, W.H., "Digital Shaly Sand
Analysis Based on Wasman-Smits Model and Log-
The Upper reservoir has limited aquifer support based Derived Clay Typing", SAID's 7th European Logging
on the p/z plot (Figure 17) which is consistent with the Symposium Transactions, 1981
geological model interpretation of higher proportions of thin 3. Pritchard, T.N., Colley, N and Bedford, J. "The
beds. This results in poor connectivity to large extensive Quantification of Hydrocarbon Reserves in Thinly
aquifers. The Lower reservoir has medium aquifer support Laminated Shaly-Sandstone Formations". SPE
(Figure 18) which again is consistent with the geological 81077, 2003.
model of lower proportion of thin bed and laterally extensive
good quality sands which are visible on seismic data. Based 4. Clemenceau, G.R. et al: “Production results from
on the regional seismic data these sands can be seen extending levee-overbamk turbidite sands at Ram/Powell Field,
for over six miles. A downside aquifer cases was run based on Deepwater Gulf of Mexico.” Presented at the 2000
aquifer sands extending over thirty miles to the north and the GCSSEPM Foundation 20th Annual Research
south. Conference, “Deep-Water Reservoirs of the World”,
3-6 December.
Conclusions 5. Reynolds, D.: “Dimensions of paralic sandstone
The following conclusions are made: bodies,” AAPG Bull. (1999) 83.
1. The Dolphin Field GIIP has increased significantly
since 1999 based on a consistent geological and
history matched reservoir simulation model.
2. Development drilling formation evaluation
programmes should not be reduced when appraisal
data is incomplete.
3. Petrophysical interpretation should take account of
thin bed pay in young deltaic reservoirs.
SPE 94343 Integrated Reservoir Modelling Enhances the Understanding of Reservoir Performance of the Dolphin Gas Field, Trinidad and Tobago 7

The location of the Dolphin Gas Field. Seismic dip-line through Dolphin Field, illustrating some of the imaging problems in the
Figure 1 region Figure 4

WELL & COMPLETIONS

DAP-3st1x
DAP-1

DAP-2

DAP-4

DAP-5

DAP-6

DAP-7

DAP-8
SEISMIC
SAND PICK
D30A X
D30B 0 0
D30C 0 0 0
D30D 0 0 0 0
D30E X 0 0 0 0
D40A 0 0 0 0
D40B 0 0 0 0
D40C X 0 0 0
D50A 0 0 0
D50B 0 0 0
D50C 0 0 0
D50D 0 0 0
D50E 0 0
D60A 0 0 0
D60B 0
D60C 0
D60E 0
D60E 0
D70A 0
D70B
D70C
D70D 0
D80A 0
D80B 0 0
D80C X 0 0
D90A 0 0
D90B X 0 0
D90C 0 0
D90D 0 0
D90E 0 0
D90F 0 0
D90G 0 0
D90H 0

Dolphin top structure map Key surfaces, completions and sand unit names
Figure 2 Figure 5

Actual pressure 2001 History Matched Model


data

1999 Dynamic Model

BHP plots for DAP-1 for the 1999 and 2001 dynamic models Dolphin Gas Field depositional environments and the occurrence of thin-bedded sandstones
Figure 3 and shales. Figure 6
8 Ian F. Sylvester, Dr. Robert Cook, Dr. Roland Swift, Dr. Tim Pritchard and James McKeever SPE 94343

Schematic diagram of a synthetic laminated formation and the wireline log response The General Theory for the Propagation of Errors applied to the DAP-2 well.
modelling results, illustrating the under-estimation of pay in laminated sand-clay sequences Figure 7 Figure 10
arising from the inappropriate selection of resistivity models.

Schematic diagram illustrating the different ways clay may be distributed within a formation Good quality sands and thin-bedded pay missed in Phase 1
and the impact of clay distribution upon the relationship between total porosity and clay Figure 8 Figure 11
volume.

Example calculation illustrating the problem of seeking to quantify reserves in thinly Schematic diagram of the new and old layering schemes
laminated formations using an inappropriate dispersed clay resistivity model. Figure 9 Figure 12
SPE 94343 Integrated Reservoir Modelling Enhances the Understanding of Reservoir Performance of the Dolphin Gas Field, Trinidad and Tobago 9

2004 history match

actual pressure
data

2001 history match

Thin-bed models with central and side “thick” sandbody and a central producing well. The 2P history match for DAP-3 (D90 Sands) for the 2004 model compared with the 2001 model.
models are approximately 6,600ft square by 8 inches thick (vertical exaggeration shown is Figure 13 Figure 16
x500).

3600

3550
25 sq km
3500

Northern Aquifer 3450

Limit of new model


3400

3350
(psig)
P/z

3300

3250

3200

3150
40 sq km
3100
Stingray Aquifer
3050
Connection (33%)
Southern Aquifer 0 100000 200000 300000 400000

Gp - Gi
Connection (66%) (MMscf)

P/Z plot for the Upper Reservoir unit showing weak aquifer drive.
Figure 14 Figure 17

4050

4000

2001 history match


3950

actual pressure
data
(psig)
P/z

3900

3850

2004 history match


3800

3750
0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Gp - Gi
(MMscf)

2P history match for DAP-1 (D30-D50 Sands) for the 2004 model compared with the 2001 P/Z plot for the Lower Reservoir unit showing medium aquifer drive
model. Figure 15 Figure 18