Changes

Elements of fieldwide variability include reservoir thickness, facies geometries and continuity, and bulk reservoir properties. Like interwell heterogeneity, heterogeneities at this scale are difficult to assess because information derived at smaller scales must be scaled up and generalized. Depositional models, determined by geological description at the smaller scales, provide the main basis for interpreting fieldwide reservoir architecture. (For more on depositional models, see [[Lithofacies and environmental analysis of clastic depositional systems]] and [[Carbonate reservoir models: facies, diagenesis, and flow characterization#]].) It is very important to describe the reservoir at this scale adequately because reservoirs, being complex depositional systems, are often compartmentalized ([[:file:geological-heterogeneities_fig5.png|Figure 5]]), and separate compartments may not be in communication (see [[Evaluating stratigraphically complex fields]]).

Elements of fieldwide variability include reservoir thickness, facies geometries and continuity, and bulk reservoir properties. Like interwell heterogeneity, heterogeneities at this scale are difficult to assess because information derived at smaller scales must be scaled up and generalized. Depositional models, determined by geological description at the smaller scales, provide the main basis for interpreting fieldwide reservoir architecture. (For more on depositional models, see [[Lithofacies and environmental analysis of clastic depositional systems]] and [[Carbonate reservoir models: facies, diagenesis, and flow characterization#]].) It is very important to describe the reservoir at this scale adequately because reservoirs, being complex depositional systems, are often compartmentalized ([[:file:geological-heterogeneities_fig5.png|Figure 5]]), and separate compartments may not be in communication (see [[Evaluating stratigraphically complex fields]]).

Compartmentalization gives rise to regional patterns of variability in reservoir characteristics and production performance that directly reflect variability in facies distributions or, more precisely, geological flow units (see [[Flow units for reservoir characterization]]). Unfortunately, it is not always possible to uniquely define the depositional environment and facies distribution because the reservoir, and the geographic distribution of the database from which to formulate an interpretation, may be smaller than the entire depositional system from which the reservoir originates (see <ref name=pt06r139>Tillman, R. W., Jordan, D. W., 1987, Sedimentology and subsurface geology of deltaic forces, Admire GSO Sandstone, El Dorado field, Kansas, in Tillman, R. W., Weber, K. J., eds., Reservoir Sedimentology: SEPM Special Publication 40, p. 221–292.</ref> and <ref name=pt06r122>Slatt, R. M., Phillips, S., Boak, J. M., Lagoe, M. B., 1993, Scales of geological heterogeneity of a deep-water sand giant oil field, Long Beach unit, Wilmington field, California, in Rhodes, E. G., Moslow, T. F., eds., Marine Clastic Reservoirs—Examples and Analogs: New York, Springer-Verlag.</ref> for examples).

Compartmentalization gives rise to regional patterns of variability in reservoir characteristics and production performance that directly reflect variability in facies distributions or, more precisely, geological   [[Flow units for reservoir characterization|flow units]]. Unfortunately, it is not always possible to uniquely define the depositional environment and facies distribution because the reservoir, and the geographic distribution of the database from which to formulate an interpretation, may be smaller than the entire depositional system from which the reservoir originates (see <ref name=pt06r139>Tillman, R. W., Jordan, D. W., 1987, Sedimentology and subsurface geology of deltaic forces, Admire GSO Sandstone, El Dorado field, Kansas, in Tillman, R. W., Weber, K. J., eds., Reservoir Sedimentology: SEPM Special Publication 40, p. 221–292.</ref> and <ref name=pt06r122>Slatt, R. M., Phillips, S., Boak, J. M., Lagoe, M. B., 1993, Scales of geological heterogeneity of a deep-water sand giant oil field, Long Beach unit, Wilmington field, California, in Rhodes, E. G., Moslow, T. F., eds., Marine Clastic Reservoirs—Examples and Analogs: New York, Springer-Verlag.</ref> for examples).

At this scale, analysis of conventional two-dimensional seismic data, inverted two-dimensional seismic (Seislog), and vertical seismic profiling may be useful in delineating gross architectural elements. With recent improvements in acquisition, processing, and interpretation procedures, three-dimensional seismic is more widely used for reservoir delineation. Brown<ref name=pt06r17>Brown, A. R., 1986 Interpretation of three-dimensional seismic data: [http://store.aapg.org/detail.aspx?id=1025 AAPG Memoir 42], 194 p.</ref> provides several examples of the determination and mapping of structure, [[fluid contacts]], porosity, bed thickness, lateral bed continuity, and various other attributes of reservoirs using [[three-dimensional seismic method]]s. (For more on using seismic data to help delineate reservoir heterogeneity, see [[Geophysical methods]].)

At this scale, analysis of conventional two-dimensional seismic data, inverted two-dimensional seismic (Seislog), and vertical seismic profiling may be useful in delineating gross architectural elements. With recent improvements in acquisition, processing, and interpretation procedures, three-dimensional seismic is more widely used for reservoir delineation. Brown<ref name=pt06r17>Brown, A. R., 1986 Interpretation of three-dimensional seismic data: [http://store.aapg.org/detail.aspx?id=1025 AAPG Memoir 42], 194 p.</ref> provides several examples of the determination and mapping of structure, [[fluid contacts]], porosity, bed thickness, lateral bed continuity, and various other attributes of reservoirs using [[three-dimensional seismic method]]s. (For more on using seismic data to help delineate reservoir heterogeneity, see [[Geophysical methods]].)