Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 194: Line 194:     
A single delta lobe is present in the model and extends beyond the model volume (Figures 5D, 8A). As a result, clinoforms are larger in their depositional dip and strike extent (BLTN13190eq79 and BLTN13190eq80, respectively; Table 2) than the model area, and they form arcs in plan view in the model ([[:File:BLTN13190fig8.jpg|Figure 8B]]). This plan-view geometry is consistent with the approximately lobate plan-view geometries of clinoforms in fluvial-dominated deltas ([[:File:BLTN13190fig3.jpg|Figure 3C]]). The clinoform-modeling algorithm generates the concave-upward clinoform geometry observed at the outcrop (Figures 7B, 8C), while honoring the topography of the parasequence bounding surfaces. The variation in topographic elevation of the modeled parasequence (Figures 7, 8) is attributed to postdepositional compaction. In a depositional strike cross section of the clinoform-bearing model, the algorithm produces bidirectional concave-upward dips (Figures 7C, 8D) that are consistent with delta-front bodies that are lobate in plan view (e.g., Willis et al., 1999; Kolla et al., 2000; Roberts et al., 2004). Additionally, the model contains stratal geometries observed at the outcrop, such as onlap and downlap of younger clinoforms on to older clinoforms (Figures 7B, 8C). The clinoform-modeling algorithm also produces clinoforms that are consistently distributed in the same orientation as those in the observed delta-lobe deposits and its interpreted plan-view progradation direction (Figures 5A, 8B). Facies proportions in the model are 8% SMB sandstones, 50% pDF sandstones, 31% dDF heteroliths, and 11% PD mudstone. Using porosity values that are characteristic of these facies associations in analogous reservoirs (Table 3), the volume of oil in place in the model is 7.1 million bbl. The clinoform-bearing model is now used to investigate the impact of heterogeneities associated with clinoforms on fluid flow during waterflooding within this fluvial-dominated deltaic parasequence.
 
A single delta lobe is present in the model and extends beyond the model volume (Figures 5D, 8A). As a result, clinoforms are larger in their depositional dip and strike extent (BLTN13190eq79 and BLTN13190eq80, respectively; Table 2) than the model area, and they form arcs in plan view in the model ([[:File:BLTN13190fig8.jpg|Figure 8B]]). This plan-view geometry is consistent with the approximately lobate plan-view geometries of clinoforms in fluvial-dominated deltas ([[:File:BLTN13190fig3.jpg|Figure 3C]]). The clinoform-modeling algorithm generates the concave-upward clinoform geometry observed at the outcrop (Figures 7B, 8C), while honoring the topography of the parasequence bounding surfaces. The variation in topographic elevation of the modeled parasequence (Figures 7, 8) is attributed to postdepositional compaction. In a depositional strike cross section of the clinoform-bearing model, the algorithm produces bidirectional concave-upward dips (Figures 7C, 8D) that are consistent with delta-front bodies that are lobate in plan view (e.g., Willis et al., 1999; Kolla et al., 2000; Roberts et al., 2004). Additionally, the model contains stratal geometries observed at the outcrop, such as onlap and downlap of younger clinoforms on to older clinoforms (Figures 7B, 8C). The clinoform-modeling algorithm also produces clinoforms that are consistently distributed in the same orientation as those in the observed delta-lobe deposits and its interpreted plan-view progradation direction (Figures 5A, 8B). Facies proportions in the model are 8% SMB sandstones, 50% pDF sandstones, 31% dDF heteroliths, and 11% PD mudstone. Using porosity values that are characteristic of these facies associations in analogous reservoirs (Table 3), the volume of oil in place in the model is 7.1 million bbl. The clinoform-bearing model is now used to investigate the impact of heterogeneities associated with clinoforms on fluid flow during waterflooding within this fluvial-dominated deltaic parasequence.
 +
 +
{| class = wikitable
 +
|-
 +
|+ Table 3. Reservoir, Fluid, and Rock Properties Used in the Model of the Ferron Sandstone Member Reservoir Analog (after Farrell and Abreu, 2006; Deveugle et al., 2011)
 +
|-
 +
! Properties || Value || Units
 +
|-
 +
| colspan = 3 | '''Reservoir Properties'''
 +
|-
 +
| Reservoir pressure (Pr) || 100 || bar
 +
|-
 +
| Oil–water contact (OWC) || 600 || m
 +
|-
 +
| Top || 1253 || m
 +
|-
 +
| Base || 1246 || m
 +
|-
 +
| colspan = 3 | '''Fluid Properties'''
 +
|-
 +
| Oil viscosity (μo) || 0.7 || cp
 +
|-
 +
| Oil density (ρo) || 650 || kg/m3
 +
|-
 +
| Oil compressibility (co) || 10^-4 || 1/bar
 +
|-
 +
| Oil formation volume factor (Bo) || 1.00000009 || (rm3/sm3)
 +
|-
 +
| Water viscosity (μw) || 0.3 || cp
 +
|-
 +
| Water density (ρw) || 950 || kg/m3
 +
|-
 +
| Water compressibility (cw) || 10^-5 ||1/bar
 +
|-
 +
| Water formation volume factor (Bw) || 1 || (rm3/sm3)
 +
|-
 +
| colspan = 3 | '''Rock Properties'''
 +
|-
 +
| Porosity (⊘) of prodelta mudstone (PD) facies association || 0 || %
 +
|-
 +
| Horizontal (kh) and vertical permeability (kv) of PD facies association || 0, (kh), 0 (kv) || md
 +
|-
 +
| Porosity (⊘) of distal delta-front heteroliths (dDF) facies association  || 18 || %
 +
|-
 +
| Horizontal (kh) and vertical permeability (kv) of dDF facies association || 71 (kh), 7 (kv) || md
 +
|-
 +
| Porosity (⊘) of proximal delta-front sandstones (pDF) facies association || 27 || %
 +
|-
 +
| Horizontal  (kh) and vertical permeability (kv) of pDF facies association || 433 (kh), 325 (kv) || md
 +
|-
 +
| Porosity (⊘) of stream-mouth-bar sandstones (SMB) facies association || 28 || %
 +
|-
 +
| Horizontal  (kh) and vertical permeability (kv) of SMB facies association || 1793 (kh), 1614 (kv) || md
 +
|-
 +
| Rock compressibility for all facies associations (cr) || 10^-12 || 1/bar
 +
|}
    
===Production Strategy===
 
===Production Strategy===

Navigation menu