Evaluation of reservoir compartmentalization and property trends using static modelling and sequence stratigraphy

Abstract

In the context of harder-to-find reserves and rise in development costs, it is vital that reservoir heterogeneities and compartmentalization be accurately predicted ahead of the drill bit. There are many situations where unexpected compartmentalization negatively impacts reservoir development. This paper used an integration of 3D seismic, well logs, and biostratigraphic data analysis to evaluate compartmentalization in a low well density reservoir (Z-2), onshore Niger Delta. The aim was to identify areas of bypassed hydrocarbon accumulations during production due to compartmentalization. Structural modelling of the Z-2 reservoir identified three intra-reservoir faults that could lead to possible compartmentalization of the reservoir. Z-2 reservoir was interpreted as early transgressive systems tract normal regressive sediments based on sequence stratigraphic techniques used in the modelling. Z-2 reservoir is bounded below and above by layers of shale about 180–200 ft thick, which provides a good seal for the reservoir. Sequential Gaussian simulation algorithm was used to distribute the modelled petrophysical properties in the static model. Modelled porosity, permeability, and NTG ranges are 5–30 %, 1–10,000 mD, and 0.10–0.98, respectively, through all layers. Z-2 reservoir was divided into two flow units separated by approximately 12-ft-thick shale unit, which could act as a barrier to flow between the zones. Fault analysis was done using Shell structural and fault analysis plug-in in Petrel to determine the shale gauge ratio, fault permeability, and fault zone thickness of the relevant intra-reservoir faults. Fault juxtaposition analysis shows sand-on-sand juxtaposition at the fault tips. Further analysis shows that fault thickness is within the gas crossflow range of (0–0.6 ft) and shale gouge ratio for all three faults falls within the ranges of 0–100 % with a significantly higher percentage of the areas below 35 % in fault 3. Fault 1 will not allow gas crossflow, while <20 % of the juxtaposed areas in fault 2 are within the range to permit gas crossflow. Fault 3 which has a low SGR and high permeability relative to the other faults is not interpreted to be sealing. Fault zone permeability for parts of fault 1 is <1 mD while parts of faults 2 and 3 are >1 mD. The Z-2 reservoir stands the risk of being compartmentalized into two hydrocarbon accumulations (‘X’ and ‘Y’) during production. The total GIIP for Z-2 is 1668 Bscf and with the present well positions and configurations; the production of about 20 % of the GIIP is at risk of being bypassed. Future wells should be planned to appraise ‘X’ and ‘Y’ accumulations.