PETROLEUM EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT

Volume 43, Issue 3, June 2016

Online English edition of the Chinese language journal

Cite this article as: PETROL. EXPLOR. DEVELOP., 2016, 43(3): 474–483. RESEARCH PAPER

Relationship between sandstone architecture and

remaining oil distribution pattern: A case of the Kumkol
South oilfield in South Turgay Basin, Kazakstan
ZHAO Lun1,*, LIANG Hongwei1, ZHANG Xiangzhong1, CHEN Li1, WANG Jincai1, CAO Haili1,
SONG Xiaowei2
1. PetroChina Research Institute of Petroleum Exploration & Development, Beijing 100083, China;
2. CNODC, CNPC, Beijing 100034, China

Abstract: Taking the Kumkol South oilfield in South Turgay Basin, Kazakstan as an example, this article summarizes the controlling
pattern of different types of sandstone architecture on remaining oil distribution through examining architecture characteristics, develop-
ment effect and remaining oil distribution characteristics of meandering river sandstone, braided river sandstone and delta sandstone. The
braided river sandstone has simple architecture which is extensive connecting body with horizontal mud-interlayers. The water flooding
sweeps evenly and the edge-bottom water drives quickly in braid river sandstone. And the remaining oil distribution pattern of braid river
sandstone is the vertical blocking pattern controlled by the horizontal mud-interlayers at the high water cut stage. The meandering river
sandstone is a half connecting body with abandoned channels and the lateral accretion mud-interlayers, so the injected water sweeps
through the middle and lower parts of point bar sandstone, and its remaining oil distribution pattern is the horizontal blocking pattern
controlled by abandoned channels and the lateral accretion mud-interlayers. The delta sandstone has a complex architecture of mosaic
structure with abundant horizontal and vertical mud-interlayers and mud-interbeds, in which the injected water sweeps along preferential
path, with low sweeping efficiency, and the remaining oil distribution pattern is the complex blocking pattern controlled by horizontal and
vertical mud-interlayers and mud-interbeds. The results show that different techniques should be used to enhance the remaining oil re-
covery because of the different remaining oil distribution patterns in different kind of sand bodies.

Key words: delta sand body; meandering river sand body; braided river sand body; sandstone architecture; water flooding development
effect; remaining oil distribution; remaining oil development; South Turgay Basin

Introduction Kazakhstan as an example, this study analyzes genesis of

Sandbody architecture is one of the key factors determining
the remaining oil distribution. The remaining oil distribution
in sandstone reservoirs becomes more complex in high wa-
tercut development stage, so remaining oil controlled by res-
ervoir sandbody architecture is becoming the major aim in
oilfield development adjustment[1]. Meandering-river sand-
body, braided-river sandbody and delta sandbody, the main
reservoir types in continental hydrocarbon basins, are differ-
ent in inter-sandbody contact and interlayer distribution pat-
tern inside sandbody because of their differences in river load
capacity, sediment transport and deposition, hydrodynamic
energy of deposition environment, which affect waterflooding
performance and remaining oil distribution pattern of sand-
stone reservoirs at high water cut stage directly[23].
Taking Kumkol South Oilfield in South Turgai Basin of
meandering-river sandbody, braided-river sandbody and delta
sandbody, and compares their sandbody architecture and wa-
terflooding performance, and establishes the remaining oil
distribution patterns in different sandbody architectures based
on the fine 3-D reservoir architecture model and reservoir
numerical simulation[4], to provide guidance for fine reservoir
characterization and remaining oil recovery in different types
of oilfields.
1. Overview of the study area
Located at Aksay Salient in the Aryskum Depression of
South Turgai Basin, Kazakhstan, Kumkol South is a large-
scale anticline sandstone reservoir with bottom-edge water[56].
Kumkol South Oilfield has multiple sets of reservoirs: the
Upper Jurassic J-I－J-IV are delta front deposits (Fig. 1a) of
siltstone and fine powder sandstone, with an average porosity

Received date: 23 Jun. 2015; Revised date: 25 Mar. 2016.

* Corresponding author. E-mail: zhaolun@cnpcint.com
Foundation item: Supported by the PetroChina Science and Technology Major Project (2011E-2506).
Copyright © 2016, Research Institute of Petroleum Exploration and Development, PetroChina. Published by Elsevier BV. All rights reserved.
 ZHAO Lun et al. / Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2016, 43(3): 474–483

Fig. 1. Plane sedimentary microfacies of different strata.

of 22%25% and average permeability of (273720)×103
μm2; the M-II in the lower part of the Lower Cretaceous is
braided-river deposits (Fig. 1b) of medium-coarse sandstone,
coarse sandstone and conglomerate, with an average porosity
of 28% and average permeability of 813×103 μm2; and the
M-I in the upper part of the Lower Cretaceous is meander-
ing-river deposits (Fig. 1c) of siltstone, fine sandstone and
medium-fine sandstone, with an average porosity of 26% and
average permeability of 745×103 μm2. With separate-layer
waterflooding commenced in 1990, the oilfield has an original
oil in place (OOIP) recovery degree of 53.3% and composite
water-cut of 97.2% at present.
2. Sandbody architecture and genesis
2.1. Architecture and genesis of delta sandbody
The J-I—J-IV deposited in late Jurassic rift basin deposi-
tional period are large delta deposits in shallow water, and the
studied area is identified as delta front sub-facies, where due
to the effect of accommodation space and provenance, the
sandbody is characterized by gradual increase of A/S and wa-
ter depth, and conversion from meandering to straight dis-
tributary channel. Meanwhile, with the increase of the hydro-
dynamic energy of lake, the reconstruction of lake water to
distributary channel sandbody gradually increased, causing
the creation of thin sheet sandstone in between underwater
distributary channels. There are few mouth-bars due to rela-
tively small slope of lake basin and poor unloading deposition
of the channels. The river downcutting effect greatly de-
creases after flowing into lake due to the effect of lake hy-
drodynamic energy, which results in vertical superposition
and lateral intersection of different stage channels, with in-
ter-sandbody mudstone interbeds and lateral mudstone/muddy
barriers between sandbodies well preserved. Lateral accretion,
centric and horizontal muddy interlayers developed inside the
sandbodies during the shift of distributary channels, the scale,
dip, distribution frequency and density of muddy interlayers

 475 
 ZHAO Lun et al. / Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2016, 43(3): 474–483
gradually increase[78].
The sandstone and mudstone in delta front appear in an
inlaying structure with well-developed mudstone barriers of
112 m in thickness, 1005 000 m in extension and 0.04 bar-
riers/m in frequency in the vertical direction. The lateral in-
ter-sandbody mudstone barriers in different periods are well
preserved and over a half of the single sandbody size in ex-
tension. Muddy interlayers are well-developed inside the
sandbodies, and generally 0.10.8 m in thickness and 10100
m in extension. The muddy interlayers between and inside
single sands appear at 0.3 interlayers/m in vertical direction.
Overall, the shallow delta deposits in the study area feature a
complex inlaying architecture, with well-developed lateral
and vertical mudstone barriers and muddy interlayers inside
sandbody (Fig. 2a).
2.2. Architecture and genesis of braided-river sandbody
The studied area entered into a depression lake basin period
after overall uplift and denudation in the late Jurassic deposi-
tion stage. During the deposition stage of Layer M-II in early
Cretaceous, the studied area was characterized by humid cli-
mate, smaller accommodation space, adequate provenance
supply, relatively low A/S ratio and wide development of
braided-river floodplains, and a set of braided-river reservoir
more than 100 m thick deposited. The whole studied area was
covered by the braided-river sandbody in plane, the
mid-channel bars and braided-river channels at the width ratio
of about 3:1, featured “wide-bar and narrow-channel” network
distribution[9]. Due to strong hydrodynamic energy and ade-
quate provenance supply in this deposition stage, the
braided-river channels frequently diverted, so the previous
sandbodies are strongly flushed by the late sandbodies during
the diverting of braided-river channels, which results in the
direct contact of different sandbodies in different periods and
low preservation level of inter-sandbody mudstone barriers.
The braided-river deposits are characterized by “mud-in-sand”
structure on the whole, with inter-sandbody mudstone inter-
layers 05 m in thickness and 501 300 m in extension.
The muddy interlayers inside sandbodies are nearly hori-
zontal due to the longitudinal accretion of sandbodies during
deposition. The plane distribution and morphology of muddy
interlayers inside mid-channel bars are similar to that of the
mid-channel bars, and there are few gullies inside the
mid-channel bars, indicating relatively low hydrodynamic
energy during the flooding period and weak reconstruction to
muddy interlayers, so the muddy interlayers are stable in
plane distribution[9]. The muddy interlayers inside mid-chan-
nel bars are 0.150.40 m in thickness and 0.066.00 interlay-
ers/m in frequency. The muddy interlayers inside braided
channels are similar with the braided channels in plane distri-
bution and morphology, but poorer in continuity, indicating
relatively high hydrodynamic energy during the flooding pe-
riod and strong reconstruction to the muddy interlayers. The
muddy interlayers inside braided channels are 0.10.4 m in
 476 
thickness and 0.083.00 interlayers/m in frequency.
On the whole, the braided-river sandbody reservoirs have a
simple sandbody architecture of “pan-communicated sand-
body” with nearly horizontal muddy interlayers (Fig. 2b).
2.3. Architecture and genesis of meandering-river
sandbody
In the deposition period of the Lower Cretaceous Layer M-I,
with the increase of subsiding amplitude, and decrease of
provenance supply, meandering-river floodplain deposits in-
cluding two stages of high-sinuosity meandering-rivers were
developed in the study area. As the rivers varied in hydrody-
namic intensity, the flushing intensity of stage-2 channels to
stage-1 channels are different, so the barriers between the two
stages of channels have a varying thickness from 0 m to 8 m.
There are 5-6 single meandering belts inside the channel of
the same stage. Due to frequent diversion and lateral migra-
tion of the high-sinuosity meandering-rivers, the meander-
ing-river sandbodies are characterized by lateral connection.
The inter-sandbody muddy interlayers are not developed due
to relatively strong hydrodynamic energy[1011].
Point bar, one of the main architecture units of meander-
ing-river, is formed by the lateral accretion of meander-
ing-river. The single point-bars in the study area are 410 m
thick, there are muddy lateral accretion interlayers of 0.20.5
m in thickness and 5°6° in dip angle inside the point-bars,
which divide the point bars into 24 lateral accretion bodies.
The abandoned channels resulted from river diversion have
mudstone in the upper part and sandstone in the bottom, and
the mudstone thickness ratio of 20%52%. The abandoned
channel is the termination and boundary of a single point-bar.
In the flooding period, sand and mud carried by flood water
breaching bank deposited into overbank sand. Only occurring
in local wellareas in the study area, the overbank sand is gen-
erally 0.13.0 m thick, extending 50300 m perpendicular to
the channel direction and 5001 600 m along the channel
direction. As the overbank sand is of one stage genesis, it has
no interlayer inside.
The level 4 architecture units of meandering-river sandbody
mainly consist of point bar, abandoned channel, and overbank
sandbody, etc, among them, point-bar is the dominant archi-
tecture unit. Architecture of the meandering-river sandbody is
characterized by “semi-connected sandbody” of abandoned
channels and point-bars with muddy lateral accretion inter-
layers (Fig. 2c)[1214].
The above analysis shows that the delta, braided-river and
meandering-river sandbodies in the study area are quite dif-
ferent in architecture in terms of the lateral and vertical con-
tact and superposition of single sandbodies, and the develop-
ment and distribution of muddy interlayers inside single
sandbodies. The braided-river sandbodies deposited in the
strongest hydrodynamic energy with the strongest downcut-
ting effect, have under-developed inter-sandbody vertical and
lateral barriers, nearly horizontal interlayers inside single
 477 
ZHAO Lun et al. / Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2016, 43(3): 474–483

Fig. 2. Architecture of 3 different types of sandbodies (GR-Gamma Ray, SP-Self-Potential, RLLS-Laterolog Shallow, RLLD- Laterolog Deep).
 ZHAO Lun et al. / Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2016, 43(3): 474–483

sandbodies, and the simplest architecture out of the three. The
delta sandbodies are diverse in type, in which relatively weak
hydrodynamic energy and downcutting of distributary chan-
nels lead to well development of inter-sandbody vertical and
lateral barriers, including inclined, centric and near-lateral
muddy interlayers toward the lake basin in the distributary
channel sandbodies, so they are most complex in architecture.
The meandering river sandbodies, deposited in relatively
strong hydrodynamic energy and downcutting effect, have
locally developed inter-sandbody vertical and lateral barriers,
and limited muddy lateral accretion interlayers inside sand-
bodies due to the effect of lateral diversion and migration of
the channels, and architecture complexity in between
braided-river and delta sandbodies (Table 1).
3. Effect of sandbody architecture on
waterflooding performance
Since put into development in 1990, the three types of
sandbodies in the studied area have gone through similar wa-
terflooding process, but have different development perform-
ance due to their different architectures. The waterflooding
performance of reservoirs of different sandbodies have been
compared and analyzed based on the production history and
production test data of more than 360 wells and water-out data
of new drilled wells in recent years (Table 2).
The delta sandbodies are characterized by complex archi-
tecture, well-developed muddy interlayers, wide variation of
properties between and inside sandbodies, and strong hetero-
geneity, so in them, the injected water would flow along
high-quality reservoirs and form preferential water channels
due to the blocking of different muddy interlayers, leading to
low sweeping efficiency. The intaking thickness ratio of this
kind of sandbody in injecting wells is 43.3%57.1%. The
reservoirs of this kind of sandbody feature strong water-out in
local intervals, and high thickness ratio of weak water-out
intervals, with an average strong water-out reservoir thickness
ratio of 9.7%23.8%.
The braided-river sandbodies have nearly horizontal muddy
silting interlayers and undeveloped lateral muddy interlayers
inside, so they are pan-connected sandbodies with several
flowing units divided by horizontal muddy interlayers with
relatively low heterogeneity. As a result, in this kind of reser-
voirs, injected water is little blocked by lateral interlayers, and
has weak water advancing in the bottom due to the block of
muddy silting interlayers in vertical direction, resulting in
relatively uniform waterflooding. The ratio of intaking reser-
voir thickness and perforation reservoir thickness is
60.3%85.1% in water injecting wells, showing relatively
uniform reservoir intaking capacity. But this kind of reservoir
usually has bottom aquifer, bottom-water coning is likely to

Table 1. Comparison of architecture of different types of sandbodies

Development of inter-sandbody mud- Muddy interlayer development inside
stone barriers in vertical direction Lateral single sandbody
Sedi-
Architecture Single inter- Muddy Lateral extend-
mentary Fre- Muddy Sandbody architecture
unit Devel- barrier Extending sandbody interlayer ing length of
Facies quency/ interlayer
opment 1 thick- length/m barriers frequency/ muddy inter-
(m ) thickness/m
ness/m (m1) layer/m
“Inlaying” sandbody archi-
Underwater
tecture with well-developed
distributary 100
Delta Good 0.04 112 Good 0.3 0.10.8 10100 lateral and vertical mudstone
channel, sheet 5 000
barriers and muddy interlayers
sand
inside sandbody
“Pan-communicated” archi-
Braided- Braided channel, 50
Poor 0.02 05 Non 0.6 0.10.4 100800 tecture with nearly horizontal
river mid-channel bar 1 300
muddy interlayers
Point-bar, “Semi-connected sandbody”
Mean-
abandoned Me- 80 of abandoned channels and
dering- 0.035 08 Non 0.5 0.10.5 65350
channel, over- dium 1 500 muddy lateral accretion in-
river
bank sand terlayers inside point-bar

Table 2. Water-intaking capacity and water-out statistics of different sandbodies

Water-out thickness ratio/% Water intaking
Sedimentary facies Sandbody
Strong water-out Medium water-out Weak water-out No water-out thickness ratio/%
Underwater distributary channel 23.8 16.9 11.9 47.4 43.3
Delta
Sheet sand 9.7 20.1 7.4 62.8 57.1
Braided channel 81.7 0 0 18.3 85.1
Braided-river
Channel-bar 51.8 30.0 0 18.2 60.3
Point-bar 40.6 19.8 9.1 30.5 52.6
Meandering-river
Floodplain 20.8 22.3 11.5 45.4 No Test Data

 478 
 ZHAO Lun et al. / Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2016, 43(3): 474–483

occur, causing rapid water-out due to the non-development of due to relatively poor development of inter-sandbody mud-
vertical muddy barriers between single sandbodies and muddy stone interlayers in this kind of sandbody, bottom-water con-
interlayers in the braided-river sandbodies. Because of the two ing is more likely to happen, causing rapid reservoir water-out
reasons mentioned above, this kind of reservoir is generally and rapid water-cut increase in this kind of reservoir. For
high in water-out level with big average thickness of strong channel-bar sandbodies, since they have more developed
water-out interval; moreover, there is a certain difference in mudstone interlayers than braided-river sandbodies, which
advancing rate between bottom-water coning and injected exert stronger diversion to injected water and sealing to bot-
water due to the non-uniform development of muddy inter- tom-water, so they have much slower water cut increase than
layers. The channel-bar sandbody has more interlayers than braided-river sandbodies (Fig. 4). In terms of water cut in-
braided-river sandbody, which results in more uniform water- crease resulting from water injection, the braided-river sand-
flooding sweeping efficiency in them. The thickness ratios of bodies are lower than meandering-river and delta sandbodies.
strong water-out interval in channel-bar sandbodies and
4. Effect of sandbody architecture on remaining
braided-river sandbodies are 51.8% and 81.7% respectively.
oil distribution
The waterflooding of braided-river sandbody reservoirs fea-
tures higher water-out level than channel-bar sandbody reser- Based on the analysis of different sandbody architectures,
voirs and rapid sudden water-out resulting from injected water embedded modeling was used to establish the models of
and bottom-water advancing. composite channel belt, single channel belt, architecture unit
The meandering-river deposits have point-bar sandbody as and their internal interlayers in typical wellgroups, and fine
the main architecture unit with local development of overbank geologic models for the three types of sandbodies finally.
sandbody. The muddy lateral accretion interlayers inside a Firstly, interlayer mudstone barrier was modeled as a single
point-bar mainly are distributed in the upper part and the model layer to establish the model of single-layer sandbody
lower part of the point-bar can be considered as a semi-con- and interlayer barrier, and the barrier thickness was used to
nected sandbody. In this kind of reservoir, the injected water constrain the 3-D barrier model. Secondly, the distribution
mainly advances along the lower part due to the sealing effect model of architecture units was built, such as the distribution
of muddy lateral accretion interlayers, so the waterflooding models of mid-channel bar and braided channel in
features water intaking of the lower part with the water intak- braided-river deposits. The embedded modeling based on
ing reservoir thickness ratio of 52.6%. Therefore, this kind of interface was used to characterize the spatial distribution of
reservoir features high water-out level of lower part and
weak-medium water-out of middle-upper part, with the me-
dium-high water-out reservoir thickness ratio of up to 60.4%.
The delta and meandering-river sandbodies usually have no
bottom-aquifer, so the water-cut increase in these reservoirs is
often the result of injected water. Dominant flowing channels
are likely to be created in the early waterflooding of delta
sandbody reservoirs, which will evolve to high-capacity
channels after long-term flushing by injected water. In con-
trast, the meandering-river sandbody reservoirs have more
uniform water sweeping, and far less dominant flowing chan-
nels and high-capacity channels than delta sandbody reser-
voirs. In terms of relationship between recovery degree and Fig. 3. Relationship between recovery degree and water-cut of
different sandbodies.
water-cut (Fig. 3), the delta sandbody reservoirs had slow
increase of water cut in the early waterflooding stage, the
composite water cut was 6.6%10.8% when the recovery
degree was 20.0%, the composite water-cut rapidly rose to
76.7%85.5% when the recovery degree was 40.0%, the pre-
sent recovery degree is 47.1%52.6%, and the composite wa-
ter-cut is 93.1%95.5%. The meandering-river sandbody res-
ervoirs have much slower increase of water-cut than delta
sandbody reservoirs, with composite water-cut of 1.3% at the
recovery degree of 20.0%, composite water-cut of 35.2% at
the recovery degree of 40.0%, and composite water-cut of
93.5% at the recovery degree of 59.8% at present. The wa-
ter-cut increase in braided-river sandbody reservoirs is af-
Fig. 4. Water-cut increase of different types of braided-river
fected by both bottom-water and injected water, moreover, sandbodies.
 479 
 ZHAO Lun et al. / Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2016, 43(3): 474–483

architecture units in single-layer sandbody. Lastly, the muddy
interlayers inside the architecture units were modeled and
embedded modeling based on interface was used to charac-
terize their spatial distribution[1519]. Then, the porosity, per-
meability and oil saturation models were built, and reserve
matching was completed to ensure the error between model
reserves and reserves calculated by volumetric method is less
than 3%. The model parameters are listed in Table 3.
Reservoir numerical simulation has been performed based
on the above established models. The reservoir, fluid and
petrophysical parameters were from field test data, and dif-
ferent oil-water relative permeability curves were used for the
three different sandbodies in the reservoir simulation. The
history of oil production, water cut and liquid production of
production wells, water injection rate, intaking profile, and
pressure of injection wells have been matched. The matching
ratio of single-well production and water-cut exceeds 95%,
and the history matching ratio of liquid production profile and
water intaking profile exceeds 80%. The remaining oil distri-
bution pattern of different sandbodies have been analyzed on
the basis of the reservoir simulation results.
Production performance analysis and reservoir numerical
simulation reveal that the remaining oil is scattered in the high
water-cut stage, but there are still some local remaining oil
enrichment regions and enrichment layers. Remaining oil
distribution is mainly affected by development (injec-
tion-production well pattern) and geologic factors (sandbody
architecture), the effect of sandbody architecture on remaining
oil distribution is mainly discussed in this research, especially
the distribution of muddy barriers and muddy interlayers on
remaining oil distribution. Sandbody architecture is consid-
ered as an internal factor determining remaining oil distribu-
tion (Fig. 5)[56, 2024].
The plane distribution of remaining oil in meandering-river
sandbody is strongly affected by the distribution of abandoned
channels and muddy lateral accretion interlayers. The combi-
nation of abandoned channels and lateral accretion interlayers
usually creates flowing barriers between adjacent channel
sandbodies, which would cause injection-production imbal-
ance in local regions, such as injection without production or

Table 3. 3-D fine architecture model parameters of different sandbodies

Model Total well Longitudinal Horizontal grid Total node Composite chan- Single channel Architecture
Sandbody
area/106 m2 number grid spacing/m spacing/m number nel number number nnit number
Delta 2.02 19 0.1 5 531 268 1 1 15
Meandering river 2.60 16 0.1 5 325 628 1 1 8
Braided river 5.80 36 0.1 5 413 227 1 1 12

Fig. 5. Remaining oil distribution patterns of different sandbodies.

 480 
 ZHAO Lun et al. / Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2016, 43(3): 474–483
production without injection. The remaining reserve abun-
dance is usually high near the abandoned channels[24] due to
the blocking of these lateral barriers. Due to the effects of
gravity and lateral-sealing of muddy interlayers in the mid-
dle-upper part of point-bar, the middle-upper part of point-bar
is usually relatively higher in remaining reserve abundance
and richer in remaining oil (Fig. 5). Overall, the remaining oil
distribution pattern of meandering-river sandbody in high
water-cut stage is characterized by “lateral-sealing control
mode” of architecture units. The average oil saturation of
meandering-river sandbodies is 30.1%, the average oil satura-
tion of point-bars and overbank sandbodies are 29.6% and
33.8% respectively. The remaining oil distribution features
normal distribution (Fig. 6a). The number of grids with re-
maining oil saturation of 20.0%40.0% accounts for 76.5% of
the total grid number. The number of grids with remaining oil
saturation exceeding 40.0% accounts for 21.3% of the total
grid number, which are mainly distributed in the middle-upper
part of sandbodies and near abandoned channels. The number
of grids with remaining oil saturation of less than 20.0% only
accounts for 2.2% of the total grid number, and these grids are
mainly distributed in the lower part of point-bars. There are
local remaining oil enrichment regions in meandering sand-
bodies, which can be considered as potential regions for re-
maining oil recovery.
Due to the dual-effect of bottom-edge water and injected
water, the plane remaining oil distribution in braided-river
sandbody is strongly affected by the network distribution of
braided channels and channel bars lateral accretion interlayers.
The braided channel sandbodies are usually low in remaining
reserve abundance, while channel-bar sandbodies high in re-
maining reserve abundance. Due to the vertical sealing effect
of the nearly horizontal muddy interlayers inside channel-bar
sandbodies, the remaining oil mainly distributes near the rela-
tively large muddy interlayers. In braided-river sandbodies,
due to the non-development of muddy interlayers, bottom-
water coning and injected water advancing along the bottom
interval are stronger, so the remaining oil is mainly distributed
in the middle-upper part not swept by bottom-water and in-
jected water. In general, the remaining oil distribution pattern
of braided-river sandbody in high water-cut stage is charac-
terized by “vertical sealing control mode” of architecture unit.
Fig. 6. Remaining oil saturation distribution frequency histograms of different sandbodies in high water-cut development stage.
 481 
The braided-river sandbodies have an average oil saturation of
21.7%, in which the channel-bar sandbodies and braided
channel sandbodies have an average oil saturation of 24.7%
and 17.1% respectively. In terms of remaining oil saturation,
the remaining oil saturation is generally low: the number of
grids with less than 20.0% of remaining oil saturation account
for 46.8% of the total grid number; the grids in other oil satu-
ration ranges are all less than 6%; the grids with over 40.0%
of remaining oil saturation account for 26.4% of the total
grids, which are mainly distributed near the muddy interlayers
or muddy barriers of relatively large scale (Fig. 6b). Generally
swept evenly, the braided-river sandbodies are low in remain-
ing oil saturation and remaining oil recovery potential.
In delta sandbodies, the water sweeping on plane and pro-
file are both blocked by inter-sandbody muddy barriers,
muddy barriers between architecture units and muddy inter-
layers inside sandbody, and the injected water mainly ad-
vances along dominant flowing channels between and inside
sandbodies, which result in more complex remaining oil dis-
tribution. There are remaining oil enrichment regions and
layers in the plane and profile. Overall, the remaining oil dis-
tribution pattern of delta sandbodies in high water-cut stage is
characterized by “composite-sealing control mode” of archi-
tecture unit. The meandering-river sandbodies have an aver-
age oil saturation of 38.3%, in which the underwater distribu-
tary channel sandbodies and front sheet sandbodies have an
average oil saturation of 37.4% and 40.9% respectively. In
terms of remaining oil saturation distribution range, theses
sandbodies are generally medium-high, the grids with over
40.0% of remaining oil saturation account for 72.8% of the
total grids, which are mainly distributed in areas unswept or
weakly swept by water due to the block of muddy interlayers
and muddy barriers. The grids in other oil saturation ranges all
are less than 6%. The grids with less than 20.0% of remaining
oil saturation only account for 10.6% of the total grids, which
are mainly distributed in the lower part with relatively high
permeability. Therefore, delta sandbodies have higher re-
maining oil recovery potential on the whole (Fig. 6c).
5. Technical measures for remaining oil recovery
With waterflooding recovery degree of 59.0%, meandering-
river sandbodies have relatively low potential for remaining
 ZHAO Lun et al. / Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2016, 43(3): 474–483
oil recovery. Under the effect of strong edge water,
braided-river sandbodies suffering rapid water-out, have a
waterflooding recovery degree of only 45%, and thus higher
potential for remaining oil recovery. However, in this kind of
reservoirs, the regions near barriers cannot be swept by in-
jected water due to the lateral and vertical sealing effects of
muddy interlayers and abandoned channels; moreover, sepa-
rate-layer waterflooding can't be implemented for local re-
maining oil enrichment regions due to the non-development of
inter-sandbody muddy barriers. Therefore, for these two kinds
of sandbodies, on one hand, profile control in injection wells
should be implemented to slow down the advancing of in-
jected water along the high-permeability belts inside sin-
gle-layer sandbodies and improve profile sweeping efficiency;
on the other hand, water injection wells should be added to
divert flowing direction and improve plane waterflooding
sweeping efficiency. With waterflooding recovery degree of
49.0% and complex remaining oil distribution, delta sandbod-
ies have remaining oil enrichment regions and layers, so a
variety of technical measures can be taken to tap the remain-
ing oil in them. Firstly, injection wells could be increased to
improve plane waterflooding sweeping efficiency as the
muddy barriers between sandstone in them are quite thick and
big in distribution range; secondly, separate-layer waterflood-
ing is applicable for them as the muddy barriers between
sandstone are quite thick and wide in distribution, which
could reduce the water intaking rate of high water-out inter-
vals and increase the water intaking rate of intervals, and fi-
nally improve vertical waterflooding sweeping efficiency;
lastly, local well infilling can be implemented in the remain-
ing oil enrichment regions unswept by water with over 60% of
oil saturation to improve the reserve control level of well pat-
tern.
6. Conclusions
Through comparing and analyzing the architecture, water-
flooding performance, remaining oil distribution pattern of
meandering-river, braided-river and delta sandbodies in
Kumkol South Oilfield, the remaining oil controlling mode of
these sandbodies have been figured out. With simple archi-
tecture of “pan communicated sandbody” with nearly hori-
zontal muddy interlayers, the braided-river sandbody reser-
voirs generally have uniform water sweeping, fast advancing
of bottom-edge water, and thus remaining oil distribution pat-
tern in high water-cut stage of “vertical-sealing control mode”
by nearly lateral muddy silting interlayers. The architecture of
meandering-river sandbody is characterized by “semi-con-
nected” abandoned channels and point-bars caused by muddy
lateral accretion interlayers. In this kind of reservoir, the in-
jected water mainly advances along the middle-lower part and
remaining oil distribution pattern in high water-cut stage is
“lateral-sealing control mode” of abandoned channel and
muddy lateral accretion interlayer. The delta sandbodies fea-
ture complex “inlaying” architecture with well-developed
 482 
lateral and vertical mudstone barriers and muddy interlayers
inside sandbody, in which the injected water mainly advances
along dominant flowing channels, resulting in relatively low
sweeping efficiency; the remaining oil distribution pattern of
delta sandbodies in high water-cut stage is “composite-sealing
control mode” by muddy barriers and interlayers.
References
[1] NING Shihua, XIAO Fei, SHU Ningkai. Deepening research
and application of meandering river reservoir configuration at
extra-high water cut development period. Fault-Block Oil &
Gas Field, 2013, 20(3): 354–358.
[2] YU Xinghe. Existing problems and sedimentogenesis-based
methods of reservoir characterization during the middle and
later periods of oilfield development. Earth Science Frontiers,
2012, 19(2): 1–14.
[3] DOJERTY P D, SOREGHAN G S, CASTAGNA J P. Out-
crop-based reservoir characterization: A composite phyl-
loid-algal mound, western Orogrande Basin (New Mexico).
AAPG Bulletin, 2002, 86(5): 779–795.
[4] YUE Dali, WU Shenghe, CHENG Huiming, et al. Numerical
reservoir simulation and remaining oil distribution patterns
based on 3-D reservoir architecture model. Journal of China
University of Petroleum (Natural Science Edition), 2008,
32(2): 21–27.
[5] ZHAO Lun, WANG Jincai, CHEN Li, et al. Influences of
sandstone superimposed structure and architecture on water-
flooding mechanisms: A case study of Kumkol Oilfield in the
South Turgay Basin, Kazakhstan. Petroleum Exploration and
Development, 2014, 41(1): 86–94.
[6] WANG Jincai, ZHAO Lun, ZHANG Xiangzhong, et al. In-
fluence of meandering river sandstone architecture on warter-
flooding mechanism: A case study of the M-I Layer in the
Kumkol Oilfield, Kazakhstan. Petroleum Science, 2014,
11(1): 81–88.
[7] ZHAO Xiaoqing, BAO Zhidong, LIU Zongfei, et al. An
in-depth analysis of reservoir architecture of underwater dis-
tributary channel sand bodies in a river dominated delta: A
case study of T51 Block, Fuyu Oilfield. Petroleum Explora-
tion and Development, 2013, 40(2): 181–187.
[8] LI Zhipeng, LIN Chengyan, DONG Bo, et al. An internal
structure model of subaqueous distributary channel sands of
the fluvial-dominated delta. Acta Petrolei Sinica, 2012, 33(1):
101–105.
[9] SUN Tianjian, MU Longxin, ZHAO Guoliang. Classification
and characterization of barrier-intercalation in sandy braided
river reservoirs: Taking Hegli Oilfield of Muglad Basin in
Sudan as an example. Petroleum Exploration and Develop-
ment, 2014, 41(1): 112–120.
[10] ZHOU Xinmao, GAO Xingjun, TIAN Changbing, et al.
Quantitative description of internal architecture in point bar of
meandering river. Natural Gas Geoscience, 2010, 21(3):
421–426.
 ZHAO Lun et al. / Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2016, 43(3): 474–483
[11] WU Shenghe, YUE Dali, LIU Jianmin, et al. Hierarchy mod-
eling of subsurface palaeochannel reservoir architecture.
SCIENCE CHINA Earth Sciences, 2008, 51(zkII): 126–137.
[12] YUE Dali, WU Shenghe, TAN Heqing, et al. An anatomy of
paleochannel reservoir architecture of meandering river res-
ervoir: A case study of Guantao formation, the west 7th block
of Gudong oilfield. Earth Science Frontiers, 2008, 15(1):
101–109.
[13] YUE Dali, WU Shenghe, LIU Jianmin. An accurate method
for anatomizing architecture of subsurface reservoir in point
bar meandering river. Acta Petrolei Sinica, 2007, 28(4): 99–103.
[14] ZENG Xiangping. Application of reservoir structure research
in the fine exploitation of oilfields. Petroleum Exploration and
Development, 2010, 37(4): 483–489.
[15] LI Yupeng, WU Shenghe. Hierarchical nested simulation ap-
proach in reservoir architecture modeling. Petroleum Explora-
tion and Development, 2013, 40(5): 630–635.
[16] LI Yupeng, WU Shenghe, GENG Lihui, et al. Spatial-vector-
based reservoir architecture modeling of point bar sand. Acta
Petrolei Sinica, 2013, 34(1): 133–139.
[17] LI Shaohua, LU Wentao. Depositional process-based reservoir
stochastic modeling: A case of fluvial reservoir modeling.
Journal of Paleogeography, 2011, 13(3): 325–333.
[18] YIN Yanshu, ZHANG Changmin, LI Shaohua, et al. A new
stochastic modeling method for 3-D forecasting lateral accre-
 483 
tion beddings of point bars in meandering rivers. Acta Petrolei
Sinica, 2011, 32(2): 315–319.
[19] ZOU Tuo, WU Shuyan, CHEN Xiaozhi, et al. Super-fine
modeling of the inner point bar of meandering river: A case
study on the fault one of area I in eastern Dagang oilfield.
Natural Gas Geoscience, 2012, 23(6): 1163–1169.
[20] LI Yang, WANG Duanping, LIU Jianmin. Remaining oil en-
richment areas in continental waterflooding reservoirs. Petro-
leum Exploration and Development, 2005, 32(3): 91–96.
[21] FENG Congjun, BAO Zhidong, CHEN Bingchun, et al. Ap-
plication of the single factor analysis and multifactor coupling
method to the remaining oil prediction in Fuyu oilfield. Acta
Petrolei Sinica, 2012, 33(3): 465–471.
[22] LI Shunming, SONG Xinmin, JIANG Youwei, et al. Archi-
tecture and remaining oil distribution of the sandy braided
river reservoir in the Gaoshangpu Oilfield. Petroleum Explo-
ration and Development, 2011, 38(4): 474–482.
[23] SUN Tongwen, LYU Yanfang, LIU Zongbao, et al. Hydrocar-
bon migration and enrichment features of the Fuyu oil layer to
the east of the Daqing placanticline. Petroleum Exploration
and Development, 2011, 38(6): 700–707.
[24] CHEN Cheng, SONG Xinmin, LI Jun. Dominant flow chan-
nels of point-bar reservoirs and their control on the distribu-
tion of remaining oils. Acta Petrolei Sinica, 2012, 33(2):
257–263.