Geologically-based

quantification of reservoir
anisotropy: an example from
the Garn Formation on
Tyrihans Field.
C. Elfenbein, P. Ringrose, Ø. Husby
Talk outline
- What is SBED?
- Process-oriented modelling,
recap
- The Garn Formation on
Tyrihans Field
- assessment of reservoir
anisotropy: the workflow
- implementation of results
- conclusion
The audience (You!)
- interested, listening
- still somewhat
interested, but eye lids
get heavier
- “Anaconda phase”
- REM (rapid eye
movement)
- Deep, dreamless sleep
- Sudden wake-up
(applause!)
 What is SBED?
SBED stands for Sedimentary Bedding
• process-oriented modelling of realistic sedimentary
structures
• takes sedimentary processes like bedform migration,
erosion and deposition into account, but no physics of grain
movement or fluid flow are involved

S  x, y   A sin( x)  B sin( y )  C
t
1

Z
0 Preserved bedset after surface
migration
-1
0 3 6 9
X

• this modelling approach is not new (e.g. Rubin 1987), but SBED adds
STOCHASTIC components to it and represents 3D volumes instead of
only surfaces
 This makes the spatial distribution of petropysical values possible
 What goes into the model?
1. We input expected values for amplitudes, wavelengths and
migration vectors, deposition intervals:
Flaser-bedded core sample
 Iterative studies were used to match
field and flume tank observations

2. Realisations of bedding geometry are

stochastic and aim to capture real,
inherent geological variability

3. We simulate correlated gaussian

distributions for porosity and permeability
using conventional methods, but at the
bed-set scale (mm to cm):
 This requires some higher resolution
data (probe permeameter data)
and/or careful interpretation of
core plug measurements Permeability map from
2mm-spaced probe data
 Process-oriented
modelling Lower Tilje Formation

Tidal mudflat, Waddenzee, Germany

Interpretation of
Mud after depositional parameters
Flood
40 cm

n
io
ct
ire

Process oriented
D
d

Validation of
oo

modeling
Fl

model
5cm by 50cm
cube

Depositional
direction

Flaser ripple
bedding
template
 How does this help?
• The main aim of the tool is to model core-to-reservoir model bedding structure
(the missing scale)
• The major value of SBED is to …..
… quantify a geological
observation as a
petrophysical estimate
Observations from core

Xm
reservoir

SBED can interval

translate to a
The geologist
3D model of
said it was an
expected spatial
estuarine channel
distribution of
properties
 The Tyrihans Field
• located on central Halten Terrace, Mid-Norwegian Sea
• Horst structure with two hydrocarbon accumulations, Tyrihans Nord and Tyrihans
Sør
• main reservoirs: Middle Jurassic Garn and Ile Formations
• Post- PDO; anticipated production start 2007
 The Garn Formation on
Tyrihans Field
• interpreted as deposits on a sand-rich shoreline
• primary sedimentary heterogeneity: proportion of muddy drapings on crossbed
foresets and in toesets
• additional complexity added by diagenetic phenomena: quartz and illite cements,
calcite concretions/patches
• cored in three wells, routine core analyses available for all cored wells
 KLV
0.1 10000
0.1 KLH POR 0.35
10000 0
Meters
0 GR 150 MD 0.01 KLOGH PHIF 0.35
10000 0

Horizontal permeability curve

example 1

3650

example 2

Core plug permeabilities

3700
 Calcite cements
The Problem

- extreme variability of plug permeabilities (especially kv), even inside

very small vertical intervals
- Evaluation of kv/kh ratios has to take both primary sedimentary and
diagenetic effects into account
- One global ratio derived from well test analyses had been applied
before this study
- Core plug measurements do not give a realistic picture of kv/kh on a
larger scale (classical problem)

- Can we quantify sedimentary anisotropy caused by mud drapings,

and can we give a more geologically-based estimate of kv/kh in
intervals with little or no overprint of calcite cements?
 Reservoir characterization
- The Garn Fm. mainly consists of medium to coarse grained sandstone with a certain
mud content in form of laminae draping cross bed foresets and rippled toesets
- Five lithofacies were defined for this study

1m
1m

10cm 10cm

10
cm
Modelling

1) Geological input 2) Petrophysical input

- information about volume
fractions of sand and mud and
their geometrical distributions
(bedding type)
- Trends and cyclic components
- Comes from:
- at the very least you need mean and
standard deviation for all parameters
you want to model
- property distribution on the lamina
scale for three lithologies (sand, silt,
mud)
0,20

- comes from: 0,15

• sedimentological logs F 0,10

0,05
(core/outcrop) 0,00

• detailed core measurements • Core plugs time-out

0,1 1
k (md)
10 100
1000
10000

• core photos • mini permeameter

Modelling
- Porosity data from plugs
were considered sufficient
Facies 4
to characterize inherent
variabilities
- Permeability data from
Facies 3
plugs are problematic
 Probe permeameter
data set obtained
Facies 4

1m

Facies 3

Facies 4
Modelling

- Probe permeameter:
Two grids per cored
well were sampled, one
in the most Permeability [mD]

homogenous part of 1750-2000

the core comprising 1500-1750

facies 4 or 5 and one 1250-1500

covering a typical 1000-1250
heterogeneous interval
750-1000
represented by either
facies 1, 2 or 3. 500-750

250-500

0-250

Advantages:
•Gives permeability
distribution on the
SBED input scale
• cheap and easily
measured
 Results
- Upscaled small-scale models: pressure solver for single-phase flow with
sealed side boundary conditions for k; arithmetic average of cell values for
bulk Φ
kv/kh vs. Vmud
all models, all wells
(n=641)
1

0.9

0.8 kv = kh a e(b.Vshale)
0.7
facies 1
0.6
facies 2
kv / kh

0.5 facies 3
10 model 0.4
facies 4
realizations per y = 1.6435e
-19.463x facies 5
0.3
data point
0.2

0.1

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Volume fraction of mud
 Implementation
- Instead of using a net-sand concept, the “bulk sand volume” is treated as
an effective medium with continuous parameters to be estimated and
upscaled to the appropriate volume
- Geomodel: stochastic spatial model of facies, kh, Vshale and Φ (grid cells
approx. 125m x 125m x 0.5m)
- kh is the horizontal permeability estimate based on a calibrated log
transform
-Vshale is a continuous bulk shale estimator based on GR log
1 geomodel grid cell

kv =Vertical
kh apermeability???
e(b.Vshale)

Facies = constant
Volume shale = constant
Porosity = constant horiz. permeability = constant
Implementation
- Vertical and horizontal permeabilities from the geological model are upscaled to the
simulation model (same x and y dimensions, z resolution coarsening by *7.5) by
conventional tensor upscaling

Conventional
geomodelling
methods (RMS)

SBED-derived
Geologically sound estimate of
kv based on small-scale
modelling of sedimentary
structures
 DST data from Garn Formation:
Comparison to well test - poor match in Garn 1-3 with significant calcite
cementation
- good match in Garn 4 where calcite
cementation is minimal
Modelled well
test zone (RMS)

Well

Modelled kv/kh: geometric Modelled kv/kh: geometric Well test kv/kh

Reservoir Unit
average of simulation model average of well test volume estimate
Tyrihans South
Garn 4 0.031 0.043 < 0.05
Garn 3 0.11
Garn 2 0.22
Garn 1 0.11
Tyrihans North
Garn 4 0.025
Garn 3 0.123 0.19 0.055
Garn 2 0.24
Garn 1 0.12
Conclusions

1) The Garn Formation on Tyrihans:

• Varying proportions of muddy drapings on beforms in
otherwise clean sandstones in the Garn Formation on Tyrihans
Field comprise the main primary heterogeneity
• The Garn Formation is also strongly influenced by diagenesis
• Nevertheless, primary heterogeneity has an important effect
on reservoir anisotropy
• We are able to quantify this effect by modelling and upscaling
small-scale sedimentary features
Conclusions

2) Implications for geomodeling workflow:

Sedimentary SBED
structures

Diagenetic Effective flow

effects SBED properties

Faults /
other larger-scale
fractures modelling tools

Small-scale modelling and upscaling of sedimentary features is

a powerful tool for bridging different scales in petrophysical data
from the core plug to well test data