Status: Draft

Suggestions and ideas for the next generation SBED™ to fit the software into an assets workflowBjørn Terje Oftedal, Jian (James) Wen & Lasse Renlie

2

Outline

•Introduction

•Limitations with current program version

•New user interface proposal

•New possibilities with this new interface.

•Summary

3

Current program limitations

4Introduction

Introduction

•SBED™ can be used in a variety of ways, and new and advance workflows are likely to occur in the years ahead.

•As workers in assets, the members of Statoil HNO (Halten Nordland area) Permeability Project have to focus on solutions which can fit into the asset workflow in the short term.

•This presentation focus on the practical aspect of SBED™ work. How we would like to se SBED™ functionality in the future. Even though we aim for a program that would fit into our geomodelling routines, the main improvement we suggest for user interface/program structureshould enhance the work of every user regardless of workflow.

5Current program version

Project Organization

•SBED™ are set up as stand alone models (submodels)

•If you want to view the entire core from base and up, you have to ad the depth in the model name to be able to sort it.

6Current program version

Visualization

• To visualize the model you have to click on a realization

7Current program version

Stacking of submodels

Limitations:

•Long realization time (increasing exponentially with model height)

•Visualization problems for high models

•Modifications are time consuming since the whole stack has to be remodelled.

8Current program version

Parameter inputModel heigth, cell sizeRipple or dune formDirectionsSand vs mud thickess and ratioPorosity Permeability

9

New user interface proposal

10New interface proposal

Interface changes

•SBED™ models has to be connected to depth in an improved way to ease data input and output.

•Statoil has suggested (in 2005) a new interface which look like a kind of SBED™core view.

•SBED™ model can then easily be correlated to existing wireline logs, core plug measurement and dynamic data……

•The main advantage is however that every cm of an SBED model are associated to various depth scales. This make data transfer and depth shift trivial, and not a time consuming number crunching routine

11New interface proposal

Assigning geometry

•Each interval have one set of sedimentary parameters assigned.

•The parameters are normally chosen from a template library.

Parameters can also be assigned from a modified template

•Templates are created by experts by tuning depositional parameters.

•A reasonable depositional variability is also added.

12New interface proposal

Multiple Scenarios

•An interval can contain several scenarios.

•Geometrical and Petrophysicalparameter are separated

13New interface proposal

Assigning petrophysical values

•Separate petrophysical input

•LAS3 import from other applications

14New interface proposal

Run realizations

• The intervals wanted for different types of realizations are toggled in the user interface.

• Geometry realization and petrophysical realization are separate processes. This means that you can assign new petrophysical input without having to redo the geometrical realization.

• The entire well can be realized in one single operation.

Realization columns

15New interface proposal

Upscaling (Single Phase)

•Flow based upscaling method can be decided independently

– Fixed boundary

– Linear boundary

– Periodic boundary

•The well interval can be upscaled in several ways

– Submodel upscaling

– Moving window upscaling

– Geomodel Grid controlled upscaling

•Multi phase upscale can be done in similar manner

16New interface proposal

Submodel upscale

•Each of the submodels in the well are upscaled.

•Kv, Kh, Kv/Kh and NTG curves are the results of this upscale.

•Each curve can have an associated uncertainty assigned to

•The resolution of these curves are dependant on model size.

17New interface proposal

Moving Window Upscale

•The entire interval is upscaled stepwise with a predefined step size and increment interval.

•The resolution of the curves can be changed to give the best fit to wireline log resolution.

•By tool based forward modelling you can compare your SBED results with wireline logs and then do several iterations to get the best match.

18New interface proposal

•The depth picks from the intersection point between the grid cell boundary and the well trajectory are imported to SBED

•Flow base upscale at the grid scale – Not forced average blocking

•The results can then be compared to other blocked geomodel input or/and exported back to the geomodel

Grid cell upscale

19New interface proposal

Importing results to Geomodel

Well trajectoryKv,Kh and NTG values derived from SBED flow upscaling.

•The petrophysical values are then distributed in the x-y direction by desired method in the Geomodeling program.

•The variance can be derived from a the variability in the SBED models created by several realisations/scenarios.

20

New possibilities with a new User Interface

21New possibilities

SBED™ constraining the geomodel grid

•The geomodel grid cell height specification can be derived from the SBED™ upscale results.

•Sharp changes in petrophysical values indicate a grid cell boundary.

22New possibilities

Facies division

Facies flag

SBED Studio™ or petrel/RMS facies

•Petrophysical data assigned to a facies (or facies association) are could be directly linked to the geomodel.

23

• In the future SBED™ could be the basic core description tool.

•A sedimentological log drawing program could be an ad-on to the package.

•Core plug measurements of various kind can also be added.

•Wireline log curves display would also be convenient.

Core description

New possibilities

24New possibilities

Core Pictures

25Summary

Summary

•A more direct connection between submodels and depth will ease the daily use of SBED™.

•An easy way of viewing the entire core would act as bridge to various kind of core/well data, and you can easily QC your models.

•Such near wellbore models represent a much better handover from a geologist to other disciplines, than the standard sedimentological log or general facies description.

•The proposed new UI will ease more advanced upscaling routines and tool based forward modelling.

•The time needed for getting new results after changes in input will be drastically decreased.

•A new UI creates possibility for useful functionalities that can aid fixing weak spots in the present geomodelling routine.

26Summary

Speed is safety!

• Icreased workspeed will be