Application of Chronostratigraphic and Lithostratigraphic Concepts to Deepwater Reservoir

Characterization*

Jeff Chen1

Search and Discovery Article #40652 (2010)

Posted December 6, 2010

*Adapted from oral presentation at AAPG Convention, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, September 12-15, 2010
1
Marathon Oil Company, Houston, TX. (jchen@marathonoil.com)

Abstract

Deepwater siliciclastic sands were deposited by accumulations of external clastic materials carried by turbidite flows from shoreface
or slope areas to the basins. However, whether the concepts of classic sequence stratigraphy model developed from relative coastal
onlap and offlap can be applied to deepwater environment is still an issue of open debate, mainly because the magnitude of sea-level
fluctuation in a typical third order cycle is much less than the total water depth of most deepwater basins. This paper presents a case
study from a Gulf of Mexico deepwater reservoir currently under development to investigate the impact of relative sea level and
sediment input in the development of submarine lobe system. A chronostratigraphic framework was constructed by integrating
biostratigraphic data with regional seismic mapping using amplitude volumes. The framework was verified by quantitative analysis of
petrographic, geochemical, and pressure data, and correlated to the GOM sequence chart. The top boundary of each sequence is
capped by a shale interval that serves as the vertical barrier for flows, and limits the interval deposition of multi-sand zones, each with
unique pressure trend, and representing subsequence deposition at higher frequencies. Subsequence deposition of reservoir scales was
accomplished by two major processes, downlapping and backstepping, as revealed by investigation on seismic acoustic impedance
(AI) volumes. The resultant depositional model allows us to successfully predict the occurrence of sand depositional events during the
development drilling. We conclude that classic sequence stratigraphic concepts can be applied in deepwater turbidite environment in
order to construct a chronostratigraphic framework, while by applying advanced seismic technology, profound lithostratigraphic
correlation within each 3rd order sequence can be performed to characterize the pattern of flow unit distribution, greatly enhancing the
effects of reservoir modeling on field development.

Reference

Plink-Bjorklund, and R.J. Steel, 2002, Sea level fall below the shelf edge, without basin-floor fans: Geology, v.30, p. 115-118.
 Application of Chronostragraphic
and Lithostratigraphic Concepts
to Deepwater Reservoir Modeling

Jeff Chen
Marathon Oil Corporation
Houston, TX, USA

(AAPG International Conference, Calgary, September 14, 2010)

 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 Marathon Oil Company

 CGG-Veritas for allowing the author to show the

seismic lines

 Co-workers: Dave Petro, George Laguros, Rodrige

Bastidas, Madhav Kulkarni, Johnny Carroll, Don
Caldwell, Julia Khadeeva, Hung-Lung Chen, and Moji
Enilari

 AAPG and all of you!

2
 Turbidite Deposition Process and Its Link to
Sequence Stratigraphy Framework
 The issue:
– Need for predictive reservoir models in deep-water reservoir
development
 Reservoir connectivity / disconnectivity
 Field development design / completion scenario

 The questions:
– Can concepts of classic sequence stratigraphy model be applied to
deepwater environment?
– If so, can an ad hoc depositional model be constructed based on
first-order principles?
– Is the model consistent with an integrated dataset?

 The approaches:
– General model to specific field study

3
General Sequence Stratigraphy Model and Systems Tracts

Lowstand fan deposited immediate above SB

Lowstand fan uncomforable to lowstand wedges

ExxonMobil Classic Model

(Courtesy of Kirt Campion)
4 4
 Click to View Notes by Presenter

SB2
SB1 HST

MFS
TST
TS

LST

Predictive Model?
Systems Tracts
? • Linkage of contemporaneous
depositional systems, each associated
with a specific part of the relative sea-level
curve.
• Chronostratigraphy vs. lithostratigraphy

(Courtesy of Kirt Campion)

5 5
Notes by Presenter (for previous slide):

System tracts consist of a contemporaneous linked set of EOD’s. For example: clastic fluvial drainage basin, delta, and offshore bars (Mississippi
River, delta) or carbonate system (Great Bahamas Bank).

As relative sea level changes, how do these environments respond? As the EOD’s produce and accumulate sediment in short-term cycles, the stratal
packages stack and track the long-term sea level change, from LST to TST to HST.
 Basin-floor
floor sand deposits?
 Opposite to classic basin fan model,
Bjorklund and Steel (2002, Geology)
suggested:
– Slope area can be extrmely sand
prone
– Sea-level fall below the shelf edge
does not necessarily result in basin-
floor sand deposits beyond the base
of slope

6
 An Alternative Model
A. On-set of sea-level fall Sea-level curve/cycle position

SL1

B. Continued forced-regression
SL2
SL3 Sequence Boundary

Basinward downlapping of turbidite systems (channels + lobes)

C. Transgression
SL4: MFS
MFS

Landward back-stepping of debris flows and then beds

D. Another falling event

SL5

4th/5th
order cycle
7
 Case Study: Post-Drilling Pressure Trends
Pressure (psi)
13500 14000 14500 15000 15500 16000 16500
18,500
 Organized or
#2OH #2ST1
1 2 disorganized?
#2ST2
3 #3OH
4
19,000 #3ST1
5 #3ST2
6  Overall trend:
#57 #2ST3
8 increasing pressure
#49
with depth
19,500
Well ID
 Significant lateral
Depth (ft TVDss)

variation
20,000

 Multi-compartments

20,500
 Development
scenarios must
handle all these
21,000 issues

21,500

Our goal: To understand the compartmentalization of these reservoirs

in order to formulate a feasible and efficient development plan
8
 Well Log Sequence Stratigraphy: The Bounding Surfaces for Reservoir Model
Total Foram
Well Logs Petrographic Analysis Total
Nannofossil
Abundance
Agglutinated Chronostratigraphic Correlation
Planktonic Benthics
Abundance
Total Clay Content (%) Laser Grain Size (mm)
Foram
Abundance (Relative Change of Coastal Onlap)
BIO. GR Res 10 20 30 40 50 0.00
0.00 0.02
0.04
0.04 0.06
0.08
0.08 0.10 0.12
0.12
0.14 0 100 200 0 600 1200 0 100 200
19100.0
19100
GOM Regional Sequences Local Field Sequences Remarks
19210 ft 19200.0
7.27 ma 19200 7.00 7.00
19300.0
19300 Seismic H1
(Trough)
19400.0
Biodatum

19400

19500.0
19500

19600.0
19600

19700.0 Seismic H2
19700
19770 ft (Peak)
7.50 ma MFS
19800.0
19800 7.40 SB
19900.0
19900

20000.0
20000

20100.0
20100

MFS
20200.0
20240 ft 20200 7.80 Seismic H3
Local
maker (Trough)
20300.0 SB
20300

20400.0
20400
MFS
20500.0
20500
8.00 SB

20600.0
20600

20700.0
20700
MFS

20800.0
20800
8.20 SB

20900.0
20900
MFS
21000.0
21000
Biodatum

21100.0
21100
8.60 8.60 SB
21200.0
21200

21300.0
21300

21410 ft 21400.0
8.80 ma 21400
MFS
21500.0 Seismic H4
21500
(Zero Crossing)
9.00 9.00
21600.0
21600 SB
21700.0
21700

21800.0
21800
MFS
21900.0
21900

22000.0
9.25 9.25 SB
22000

22100.0
22100

22200.0
22200

22300.0 MFS
22300

22400.0
22400

9
 Major reservoir sand packages separated by capping shale intervals
9 3 8 2 7 6
N

PERFORATION

PERFORATION

PERFORATION
PERFORATION
TVDSS TVDSS
GR_WS_1 FEET
RDEEP_WS_1 GR_1 FEET RT_1 GR_WS_1 TVDSS
FEET
RDEEP_WS_3 GR_1 TVDSS
FEET RT_1 GR_WS_1 TVDSS
FEET
RDEEP_WS_1 GR_1 TVDSS
FEET RT_1
0 V/V 150 0.2 OHMM 200 0 V/V 150 0.2 OHMM 200 0 V/V 150 0.2 OHMM 200 0 V/V 150 0.2 OHMM 200 0 V/V 150 0 V/V 150 0.2 OHMM 200
0.2 OHMM 200

18900
SB
18900
S
18900 18900 18900 18900

A SB
19000 19000 19000
A1A 19000 19000 19000

SB
A
19100 19100
K1A
19100 19100
A1A
19100 19100

A1A SB
19200 19200 19200 19200 19200 19200

A6 water K5 A1A
19300 19300 19300 19300 19300 19300
A4 A1B
A7 A5 water
19400 19400 19400 19400 19400 19400 A
A1 water
A6 water A519500
water
19500 19500 19500 19500
A1 water 19500

B2B
B B 19600 B2A 19600 SB 19600 19600 19600 SB
B1 19600
SB
19700 19700 19700 19700 B2A 19700 19700
B4
B2B B2A
C C 19800 19800 19800 19800 19800 19800 B
19900 C1A 19900 19900 19900 19900 19900

DUA L2w SB SB
D 20000 20000 SB 20000 20000
C1A
20000
C Stray Sands
20000
SB
D C1A
20100 DUB 20100
C1A
20100 20100 20100 20100
Dw SB C
20200 20200 20200 20200 20200 20200

20300 20300
DUB
20300 20300 DUB
20300 SB 20300

E1
20400 20400 SB 20400 20400 20400

E E 20500 20500 20500 20500 20500

20600 20600 20600 20600 20600

F4 E2 SB
20700
F4w
20700
SB 20700 20700 20700

F 20800 20800 F2 F1
F 20800 20800 20800
F2 SB
20900 20900 20900 F2w F3
20900

21000 SB 21000 21000 21000

SB
G 21100 G
21100 21100 Salt
21200
G water
21200 21200

2007-2009
G

21300 21300 21300

Pressure Depletion
B2A/B2B: 65 psi 21400 21400 21400
C1A: 55 psi
21500 21500

SB = Sequence Boundary 21600

10
 Major reservoir sand packages separated by capping shale intervals
9 3 8 2 7 6
N

PERFORATION

PERFORATION

PERFORATION
PERFORATION
TVDSS TVDSS
GR_WS_1 FEET
RDEEP_WS_1 GR_1 FEET RT_1 GR_WS_1 TVDSS
FEET
RDEEP_WS_3 GR_1 TVDSS
FEET RT_1 GR_WS_1 TVDSS
FEET
RDEEP_WS_1 GR_1 TVDSS
FEET RT_1
0 V/V 150 0.2 OHMM 200 0 V/V 150 0.2 OHMM 200 0 V/V 150 0.2 OHMM 200 0 V/V 150 0.2 OHMM 200 0 V/V 150 0 V/V 150 0.2 OHMM 200
0.2 OHMM 200

18900
SB
18900
S
18900 18900 18900 18900

A SB
19000 19000 19000
A1A 19000 19000 19000

SB
A
19100 19100
K1A
19100 19100
A1A
19100 19100

A1A SB
19200 19200 19200 19200 19200 19200

A6 water K5 A1A
19300 19300 19300 19300 19300 19300
A4 A1B
A7 A5 water
19400 19400 19400 19400 19400 19400 A
A1 water
A6 water A519500
water
19500 19500 19500 19500
A1 water 19500

B2B
B B 19600 B2A 19600 SB 19600 19600 19600 SB
B1 19600
SB
19700 19700 19700 19700 B2A 19700 19700
B4
B2B B2A
C C 19800 19800 19800 19800 19800 19800 B
19900 C1A 19900 19900 19900 19900 19900

DUA L2w SB SB
D 20000 20000 SB 20000 20000
C1A
20000
C Stray Sands
20000
SB
D C1A
20100 DUB 20100
C1A
20100 20100 20100 20100
Dw SB C
20200 20200 20200 20200 20200 20200

20300 20300
DUB
20300 20300 DUB
20300 SB 20300

E1
20400 20400 SB 20400 20400 20400

E E 20500 20500 20500 20500 20500

20600 20600 20600 20600 20600

F4 E2 SB
20700
F4w
20700
SB 20700 20700 20700

F 20800 20800 F2 F1
F 20800 20800 20800
F2 SB
20900 20900 20900 F2w F3
20900

21000 SB 21000 21000 21000

SB
G 21100 G
21100 21100 Salt
21200
G water
21200 21200

2007-2009
G

21300 21300 21300

Pressure Depletion
B2A/B2B: 65 psi 21400 21400 21400
C1A: 55 psi
21500 21500

SB = Sequence Boundary 21600

11
 Deep Water Turbidite Deposition Process
NW SE

AI
5000 9500

12
 Deep Water Turbidite Deposition Process

13
 Post-Drill Pressure Trends
with Stratigraphic Zonation
Pressure (psi)
13500 14000 14500 15000 15500 16000 16500
18,500

#2OH
1 #2ST1
2
#2ST2
3 4
#3OH
19,000 5
#3ST1 #3ST2
6
7
#5 8
#2ST3
9
#4
19,500
Well ID
Depth (ft TVDss)

20,000

20,500

21,000

21,500

14
 Post-Drill Pressure Trends
with Stratigraphic Zonation
13700 13900 14100 14300 Pressure (psi)
Pressure
14500 (psi)
14700 14900 15100 15300 15500
18,500 13500 14000 14500 15000 15500 16000 16500
18,500 Upper #2OH #2ST1
1 2
#2OH
1 #2ST2
3 #2ST1
2#3OH
4
5
3 #3ST1
#2ST2 4#3ST2
6
#3OH
19,000 A1 #57 #2ST3
8
19,000 5
#3ST1 #3ST2
6
A5 (Oil) #49
7
#5 8
#2ST3
A7 (Oil)
A6 9
#4
19,500 B2 Lower
19,500
A5 (Water) Well ID
B4
TVDss)

B2
Depth(ft(ftTVDss)

20,000 B2 Deleted
20,000
C1A DU
Depth

C1 E
20,500
20,500
E2 F

21,000
21,000
G

21,500
21,500

15
 Conceptual Reservoir Connectivity Model
9 3 8 2 7 6
N

PERFORATION

PERFORATION

PERFORATION
PERFORATION
TVDSS TVDSS
GR_WS_1 FEET
RDEEP_WS_1 GR_1 FEET RT_1 GR_WS_1 TVDSS
FEET
RDEEP_WS_3 GR_1 TVDSS
FEET RT_1 GR_WS_1 TVDSS
FEET
RDEEP_WS_1 GR_1 TVDSS
FEET RT_1
0 V/V 150 0.2 OHMM 200 0 V/V 150 0.2 OHMM 200 0 V/V 150 0.2 OHMM 200 0 V/V 150 0.2 OHMM 200 0 V/V 150 0 V/V 150 0.2 OHMM 200
0.2 OHMM 200

18900
SB
18900
S
18900 18900 18900 18900

A SB
19000 19000 19000
A1A 19000 19000 19000

SB
A
19100 19100
A1A
19100 19100
A1A
19100 19100

A1A SB
19200 19200 19200 19200 19200 19200

A6 water K5 A1A
19300 19300 19300 19300 19300 19300
A4 A1B
A7 A5 water
19400 19400 19400 19400 19400 19400 A
A1 water
A6 water A519500
water
19500 19500 19500 19500
A1 water 19500

B2B
B B 19600 B2A 19600 SB 19600 19600 19600 19600 SB
L1 SB
19700 19700 19700 19700 B2A 19700 19700
B4
B2B B2A
C C 19800 19800 19800 19800 19800 19800 B
19900 C1A 19900 19900 19900 19900 19900

DUA B2w SB SB SB
D 20000 20000 SB 20000 20000
C1A
20000 C Stray Sands
20000

D C1A
20100 DUB 20100
C1A
20100 20100 20100 20100
DUw SB C
20200 20200 20200 20200 20200 20200

20300 20300
DUB
20300 20300 DUB
20300 SB 20300

E1
20400 20400 SB 20400 20400 20400

E E 20500 20500 20500 20500 20500

20600 20600 20600 20600 20600

F4 E2 SB
20700
F4w
20700
SB 20700 20700 20700

F 20800 20800 F2 F1
F 20800 20800 20800
F2 SB
20900 20900 20900 F2w F3
20900

21000 SB 21000 21000 21000

G 21100 G
21100 21100
SB Salt
21200
G water
21200 21200

2007-2009
G

21300 21300 21300

Pressure Depletion
B2A/B2B: 65 psi 21400 21400 21400
C1A: 55 psi
21500 21500

SB = Sequence Boundary 21600

16 Working model as of 9/9/09

 Depositional Process: A Quick Thought

Source Area

SB=Bounding Surfaces Down-lapping Back-stepping

Lobe A1 Lobe A2

Lobe B1 Lobe B2

Lobe D1 Lobe D2

Speed Bump 1

Salt

17
 Summary Remarks
 Presented a conceptual, ad hoc model for deepwater
depositional processes

 A GOM field development case study consistent with the model

– Reservoir connectivity
– Field development / completion scenarios

 General sequence stratigraphy concepts can be applied to

deepwater reservoir modeling
– Stacking patterns determined by relative sea-level fluctuation and sediment
input

 Deepwater basin (including mini-basins) deposition can be

attributed to two processes:
– Basinward downlapping during falling period (forced-regression)
– Landward “backstepping” during rising stage (transgression)

 Integrating well logs, cores, paleo, geochem, seismic (amplitude

& AI volumes), pressure and other reservoir property data is the
key for success
18