V INGEPET 2005 (EXPL-1-JG-162)

OUTCROP CHARACTERIZATION, 3D GEOLOGICAL MODELING, AND UPSCALING FOR

“RESERVOIR” SIMULATION OF JACKFORK GROUP TURBIDITES IN HOLLYWOOD
QUARRY, ARKANSAS

J. Camilo Goyeneche*, Roger M. Slatt, Alan J. Witten ─ School of Geology and Geophysics, University of
Oklahoma *Currently with Total E&P USA, Inc., Houston, TX USA

Abstract
A 3D geological model was constructed from a 3D outcrop for “reservoir” flow simulation that can address
the effects of small-scale (‘subseismic’) interwell heterogeneities on potential production problems in
analog deepwater oil and gas reservoirs.

Dimensions of Hollywood Quarry are 380x250x25m (1247x821x83ft). The quarry exposes in 3D the
upper Jackfork Group turbidites, which are often used as an outcrop analog for deepwater reservoirs in
the Gulf of Mexico and elsewhere. A variety of pebbly and sandy turbidite facies are folded, cut by faults
and fractures, and separated by laterally continuous shales.
Techniques used to characterize the quarry include: photomosaic mapping, behind-outcrop coring,
outcrop gamma-ray (GR) logging, measured stratigraphic sections, sequential photography of quarry
walls, Digital Orthophoto-Quadrangle mapping (DOQ), Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR), Global
Positioning System (GPS), shallow high resolution (hammer) seismic reflection (SHRS), and GPS laser
gun positioning of geologic features in 3D space.

The west wall has been quarried back within 0.5m of the first inline of a previous 3D GPR survey and
coring operation. The strata imaged along inline #1 are now exposed at the quarry wall. Core and
photomosaic descriptions superimposed on inline #1 show good bed correlations, and reveal small faults.
Similar features are observed from seismic reflection traces. SHRS and a long core provide details of the
geology beneath the quarry floor, which can be correlated updip to the east quarry face.

A GoCad™ 3D geological model was constructed from these data. The model includes spatially-oriented
stratigraphic and structural features, and various upscaling combinations for evaluating the constraints
that a coarser-scale grid places upon the results of “reservoir” flow simulation. More than 100 such
combinations were simulated.

The following “reservoir” features are found in Hollywood Quarry: (I) Fractures, (II) Asymmetric Anticline,
(III) Complex stratigraphy with massive sandstones, shale barrier, layered sandstone/shale, and (IV)
Faults (with gouge zones). Flow simulations with features II, III, and IV have been performed. Each case
was created by a combination of these features and several variables such as drive mechanism, fluid flow
characteristics, and well orientations.

Results indicated that presence and absence of faults is a major factor when producing this analog
“reservoir”. Simulated production decreases between 0.1 and 15.0% when faults are incorporated into the
simplest “Tank” model. Partially sealing faults produce a decrease in production of 1.0 to 10.0%. The
horizontal well across faults provides the best production results with an increase between 4.0 and 21.0%,
compared to vertical well production.

Very simplistic models, such as the “Tank” model, increase OOIP by 17.0%, and oil production by 12.0%
compared with more geologically realistic “reservoir” models. Adding geological information to the model,
such as shale boundaries and faults, increases the accuracy of the initial volumetric calculations.

The 24 acres of geology exposed at Hollywood Quarry are representative of common interwell spacing at
many fields. Three stratigraphic facies, at least 15 faults, and various sets of fractures have resulted in a
horizontally and vertically, highly compartmentalized stratigraphic interval. Hollywood Quarry has
demonstrated to be a very useful area for understanding of different reservoir problems, including: very
closely spaced interwell complexity; log-shape uncertainty interpretation and correlation; 2D and 3D
seismic resolution; and potential field production problems.
V INGEPET 2005 (EXPL-1-JG-162) 2

Purpose and methods

Recent efforts to understand reservoir performance have focused on the study of reservoir-scale outcrops
to obtain a better understanding of the factors that affect oil and gas production (Slatt et al., 2000; Weimer
et al., 2000). Large and continuous 2D outcrops provide 2D models of stratigraphic and structural
features. (White and Barton, 1999; Sullivan et al., 2000; Willis and White, 2000; Stephen and Dalrymple,
2002; Ciftci et al., 2004; Larue, 2004). In far fewer cases do outcrops provide 3D exposures of structural
and stratigraphic features.

Hollywood Quarry in southwestern Arkansas, USA (figure 1) provides an excellent exposure of four
perpendicular walls of the Pennsylvanian Jackfork Group turbidites (Slatt et al., 2000). The quarry was
mined for many years for the hard quartzitic Jackfork sandstone, which was used as crushed aggregate,
riprap, and some decorative stone (Stone, 2003, personal communication). Since 1993, the quarry has
become periodically active, and new walls are exposed, providing time-lapse images and new wall
exposures.

The quarry was characterized using a combination of traditional geological methods and new techniques
to build a 3D geological model, followed by upscaling and importing into EclipseTM for several reservoir
simulation scenarios. Small compartmentalizing faults, folds, fractures, thick sandstones and thin
interbedded sandstones and shales are all present in the quarry, making it an excellent natural laboratory
to evaluate the simulated effects of these features on reservoir performance.

Assuming that the floor of the quarry is an oil-water contact (or gas-water contact), and that the ground
surface at the top of the quarry is an unconformity surface (top seal), then, it is possible to treat this
outcrop as a pseudo-turbidite “reservoir” (Slatt et al., 2000). “Reservoir” performance simulations were
conducted using EclipseTM with combinations of stratigraphic and structural settings, drive mechanisms,
and drilling scenarios. Such simulations are useful for understanding fluid flow behavior in analog
reservoirs, especially when one is standing on the quarry floor (hydrocarbon-water contact) and observing
the complex structure and stratigraphy within the “reservoir” hydrocarbon zone. In essence, the quarry is
a natural immersive visionarium.

Regional geologic setting

Hollywood Quarry is located at the southern edge of the exposed Ouachita fold-thrust belt, in the Athens
Plateau physiographic province of south-central Arkansas. It is about 16 to 20km (26 to 32mi) west of
Tertiary rocks of the Mississippi Embayment section of the Gulf Coastal Plain and 0.8km (1.3mi) north of
Cretaceous exposures of the western Gulf Coastal Plain.

The Jackfork Group of Oklahoma and Arkansas is part of an estimated 9,100-13,700m (30,000-45,000ft)
of Carboniferous strata, mostly of deep water origin. Diagnostic features for interpreting this origin for the
Jackfork include stratification patterns, Nerites trace fossils, and paleogeography (Morris 1964, 1973;
LoPiccolo, 1977; Moiola and Shanmugam, 1984; Coleman et al., 1994; Slatt et al., 2000).

The Carboniferous Ouachita Basin was approximately 250,000 sq. km (95,500 sq. mi) in size, had an
elongate east-west oriented shape, was rimmed to the north and east by mixed carbonate-siliciclastic
shelf margins, and from the south and southeast by the northward-advancing Llanorian orogenic belt
(Blythe et al., 1988; Viele, 1989; Viele and Thomas, 1989; Coleman et al. 1994) (figure 2).

The Ouachita Basin was in the equatorial zone during Jackfork Group deposition; therefore, high
sediment runoff and subaerial weathering provided large volumes of sand for transport directly into the
basin (Coleman, 2000). Major potential source areas for Jackfork Group sediment were: the Illinois Basin
to the northeast, the Black Warrior Basin to the east, the microcontinent of Llanoria to the south, and the
Ozark Shelf to the north (Morris, 1971; Danielson et al., 1988; Viele and Thomas, 1989; Pauli, 1994),
(figure 2).

Coleman et al. (1994) placed the Jackfork at the Mississippian-Pennsylvanian boundary, at an

approximate age of 320-318my. Morris (1964) proposed that the Jackfork Group in Arkansas be divided
into the lower Irons Fork Mountain and upper Brushy Knob Formation. In the southern Ouachitas, an
upper and lower Jackfork terminology was designated and applied by Morris (1974) (also in Jordan et al.,
1993). In Hollywood Quarry, the rocks have been assigned upper Jackfork age, which is equivalent to the
Brushy Knob Formation in the frontal Ouachitas of Oklahoma.
V INGEPET 2005 (EXPL-1-JG-162) 3

Morris (1974), and Ross and Ross (1988) have documented Paleozoic sea-level changes, with the
Jackfork Group having been deposited during a major period of a relative lowstand of sea level.
Estimated deposition rates of 152m/myr (500ft/myr) during a 12myr period (Morris, 1974) and of
400m/myr (1,300 ft/myr) during a 7myr interval (Coleman, 2000), make this part of a second-order
depositional sequence.

Outcrop/Behind outcrop characterization techniques

The stratigraphy and structure of the quarry walls were documented over a 10 year period beginning in
1991. Because the quarry had been excavated at various times, new exposures were revealed and
documented several times. Since 2000, a variety of additional techniques have been employed to build a
3D geological model of the quarry. Techniques are summarized below; more details are provided by
Goyeneche (2005).

1. Global Positioning System (GPS) and Digital Orthophoto-Quadrangle (DOQ) mapping

A TrimbleTM GPS unit and ESRI® 8.2 GIS software were used for X,Y,Z coordinate mapping of all features
and measurement locations, including the base and top of the quarry, positions of faults, new shale pit
exposures, new measured sections, well casing, SHRS, and location of photomosaics (figure 3). A
differential correction tool was applied to all the TrimbleTM GPS data using CORS (Continuously
Operating Reference Stations), DeQueen Arkansas base data station, resulting in an accuracy of 1-2m
(3.3 -6.6ft).

Original mapping of the quarry features by Jordan et al. (1993) and Slatt et al. (1994) was done by the
“pace-and-brunton” method, rather than using GPS. In addition to using GPS for mapping the newer
sites, the locations of the older features were approximated and remapped by GPS and all data were
processed for permanent data organization, attribute storage, gridding and contouring, 3D projection, and
easy import/export to geologic modeling packages like GoCadTM.

GPS points were imported into ESRI® 8.2 as shapefiles and fixed into the 1994 DOQ (Hollywood Quarry,
Chalybeate Mountain East SE DOQQ). By comparing the new GPS data set and the DOQ, it is possible
to quantify how much the quarry has been extended since 1994, especially in the west and south
directions (figure 3).

2. Sequential photomosaics
Photographs of the Hollywood Quarry walls were taken in 1993 and 1997 (Jordan et al., 1993 and Slatt et
al., 1994) and new photographs were taken in 2004 along the four walls (figure 3). All photographs were
merged electronically into photomosaics. Since 1993, the quarry has been excavated about 50-75m (165-
246ft) at its west side, and 30-65m (98-213ft) at its south side, revealing new exposures. Photomosaics of
the west wall from the 1993, 1997, and 2004 sets of photographs were placed in their approximate
geographic positions (figures 4a and 4b). Lithologic and structural interpretations of the photomosaics
were made from the several measured stratigraphic sections and from additional observations.

3. Behind-outcrop coring, outcrop Gamma-Ray logging (GR), and measured stratigraphic

sections
A stratigraphic borehole was drilled by Schlumberger-Chevron-Texaco in 1994 through Jackfork strata
approximately 50m behind the former west cliff exposure (figure 3), penetrating to a depth of 67m (220ft)
(figure 9). Because of post-coring quarry excavations, it is now possible to see the well casing hanging on
the quarry west wall (figure 5b).

Outcrop gamma-ray logs were obtained in several locations using both a logging truck and a hand-held
scintillometer (Slatt et al., 1992; Jordan et al., 1993; Slatt et al., 1994; Slatt et al., 1995; Goyeneche, 2005)
(figure 3). GR log responses and rock properties were qualitatively correlated with stratigraphic
characteristics of the quarry (see figures 5, 6, 7).

Fifteen stratigraphic sections were measured. They complemented previous sections (Slatt et al., 1994)
and have provided new insights on the complex geology of the quarry.

4. GPS laser gun positioning of geologic features in 3D space

On the west wall of the quarry, 3D mapping (x, y, and z coordinates) of fault planes 1A and 4 (figure 3)
was performed using an IMPULSE Laser Rangefinder®. A real time TrimbleTM GPS unit was used to
position the reflectorless rangefinder with cm precision.
V INGEPET 2005 (EXPL-1-JG-162) 4

Using the GPS data set, the DOQ, and geo-referenced points recorded at the quarry walls with the laser
gun, it was possible to assign 3D coordinates to quarry photomosaics and locate them at the correct
geographical position through ArcGIS® workstation software. The photos were geo-registered with the
survey points (coordinates UTM) that were taken in the field. Then the photos were rectified based on the
registered points on the photographs. These registered points have both photo coordinates and survey
coordinates. Using an ArcGIS® affine transformation (which involves translation and rotation), all photo
coordinates were transformed to survey coordinates during geo-referencing.Once 3D coordinates were
assigned to the photomosaics, they were imported to GoCad™ as georeferenced objects for structural
and stratigraphic interpretation.

5. Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR)

A 3D GPR survey was conducted at Hollywood Quarry in 1998 (Peterson, 1999 and Young et al., 1999)
behind the outcrop west wall (figure 3) using a pulseEKKO 100™ system from Sensors & Software, Inc.
The survey consisted of 20 closely spaced 2D lines in the north-south direction with 200 traces per line,
which were processed individually, but interpreted as a 3D volume (Peterson, 1999). Since the survey
was shot, the west wall has been quarried back within 0.5m (1.6ft) of the 3D GPR first inline and the
strata imaged along inline #1 are now exposed at the quarry wall. Geologic facies described from core
and geologic boundaries mapped on the west wall photomosaic, superimposed on GPR inline #1, show
good bed correlations and reveal small-scale faults interpreted as GPR response disruptions (Goyeneche
et al., in press) (figure 5b).

6. High Resolution, Shallow Seismic Reflection (SHRS) (hammer as a source)

Six high resolution seismic lines were shot using a 48 channel Geode system with 28Hz (p wave)
geophones (figure 3). Geophones were spaced at 4m (13.1ft). The source used at the field was a sledge
hammer striking an aluminum plate. Data was acquired at 1 ms sampling for 1024 temporal samples. The
Trimble™ GPS unit was used to record the location (x, y) and elevation (z) coordinates of each geophone
along with the seismic data. The data was processed by synthesizing its response to a plane wave
propagating straight down (Witten, 2004, personal communication). Seismic lines 1, 2, 3, and 4 are
presented in figures 5a, 10, and 11. They reveal structures beneath the quarry floor, such as faults,
dipping beds, and channel (?) form body. The seismic line 6 at the top of the west wall has been
compared with the 3D GPR inline #1. Similar geologic features identified with the GPR are correlative
with seismic reflection line 6 (figure 5b).

Geology of quarry walls and shallow subsurface

Hollywood Quarry occurs in the Chalybeate Mountain (East Quadrangle), Clark County in T7S, R21W,
Section 8, Arkansas (figure 1) (Latitude: 34o 08’ 42” N, Longitude: 93o 15’ 32” W -1000-meter UTM grid,
zone 15; 1927 NAD-). The quarry lies along the crest of an anticline lying between two west-to-east
trending, south-dipping thrust faults (figure 8) (Slatt et al., 1994).

Below, each wall is described based on the combined techniques described above.

1. West wall
The west wall of the quarry exposes 21m (70ft) of upper Jackfork strata that is laterally continuous from
north to south through the 380m (1247ft) quarry length. Strata strike N20oE and dip 12-14oW. The vertical
succession is subdivided into two major sandstone intervals, with a black shale separating them.

The lower interval (C1 in figures 5 and 9) is generally comprised of medium-grained, moderately-sorted,
quartzose and quartz-cemented, massive, amalgamated sandstone beds. Sedimentary structures include
load and scour structures, parallel laminations (?), planar cross-beds, ripple laminations, and water
escape structures. Quartz-granule conglomerate is also present in the lower part of this interval. There
are several sandstone-on-sandstone, amalgamated, erosional, and lenticular contacts (Slatt et al., 2000a,
figure 34). This unit is interpreted as channel-fill sandstone (Slatt et al., 1994; Slatt et al., 2000a; Slatt et
al., 2000b; Goyeneche, 2005).

The upper sandstone interval (S1 and S2 in figures 5 and 9) is composed of thinner-bedded, fine- to
medium- grained sandstones and interbedded black shales. This unit is interpreted as layered sheet
sandstones which were deposited over the main channel fill (Slatt et al., 2000a and Goyeneche, 2005).
Two types of sandstones occur within this upper interval: S1 is light gray, medium- to fine- grained,
relatively clean, quartzose sandstone with parallel laminations, ripples, and water escape structures. S2
shows sucrosic texture, is brown to gray, medium- to fine- grained sandstone which exhibits abundant
V INGEPET 2005 (EXPL-1-JG-162) 5

mudstone clasts, carbonized plant fragments, soft-sediment deformation, and water escape structures.
S2 has more muddy matrix than the cleaner S1 sandstones (Slatt et al., 1994).

A1.8-2.5m (6-8 ft) thick, black, fissile shale with thin siltstone stringers (M1 in figures 5 and 9) separates
these two intervals. This shale and the overlying layered strata are continuous along the length of the
west quarry wall (Slatt et al., 1997), and are correlated to the south and east quarry walls, forming an
excellent correlation datum around the quarry walls. A thinner, black, laminated shale (M2 in figures 5 and
9) that appears as a ‘hot’ shale on the GR logs (Slatt et al., 1994) is present within the upper S1 and S2
sandstones. The M1 shale is interpreted as channel-abandonment facies (Slatt et al., 1994).

The same three-fold succession (C1, M1 and S1/S2) occurs in that part of core from behind the west
quarry wall which is above the quarry floor (figures 5 and 9). Beneath the quarry floor, fine- to medium-
grained massive amalgamated sandstones (C1) (figure 9) are present to the TD at 67m (220ft). There are
several pebble horizons which appear to define the bases of fining-upward intervals.

At least 7 strike-slip faults with some vertical offset are well exposed along the quarry wall. Fault 4 (figure
3) strikes 60-65oNE and dips N61oE within the C1 sandstone interval, but becomes shallower as it passes
through the M1 shale and into the layered sheet sandstones of S1/S2 (figure 5). Slickensides with an
orientation of 8oW can be observed (for complementary fault descriptions, refer to Slatt et al., 1994, p.
354). Continuation of the faults beneath the quarry floor can be observed on the SHRS (figures 5 and 10).

Previous conjugate joint set analysis shows one set striking N71oE (average) and an intersecting set
striking approximately N39oW (Slatt et al., 1994), giving a N74oW orientation for the approximate
compressive stress direction that formed these joint sets.

2. South Wall
Since Slatt et al.’s (1994) map, the south quarry wall has been quarried back approximately 30-65m (98-
213ft) (figure 3). The same stratigraphic units described for the west wall occur on the south wall. For
example, measured section 18 (figure 6) consists, from the quarry floor upward, of 4.6m (15ft) of massive
sandstone (C1), 2.1m (7ft) of back shale (M1), and 1.7m (5.5ft) of layered sandstone (S1) (figure 6). At
the southeast corner of the quarry, beds dip steeply and change orientation progressively westward from
79-85oSW (figure 7) to 37-40oSW, section 18 (figure 6), to 12-14oW at the southwest corner of the quarry,
developing an anticlinal nose (figure 11), similar to that envisioned in 1994 (figure 8).

A high resolution seismic line at the base of the quarry and adjacent to the south wall revealed extensions
of the same six faults which occur on the south quarry wall within a lateral distance of 250m (820ft) (figure
11). In particular, fault 9 (figure 12) is a vertical (?) fault with a N46oE orientation, which exposes a shear
zone containing several feet of rusty red rock fragments. Significant movement of fault 9 can be inferred
by fault gauge. The high resolution seismic line confirms fault 9’s continuity deeper beneath the quarry
floor.

3. East Wall
Strata dip 13-15oW on the east wall. They are projected to dip beneath strata on the west wall. A 17m
(55ft) thick fresh exposure is situated at the northern wall of the southeast corner of the quarry (figures 3
and 13). The basal unit of the quarry wall consists mostly of thin interbedded muddy sandstones which
are medium- to coarse- grained. Clast-rich debris flow mudstones occur above the basal interbedded
sandstone unit. In this zone, slickensides are associated with a fault zone which cuts across the section,
striking N14°E and dipping 43°NW. The “hot” shale M1 is approximately 1.8m (6ft) thick and overlain by
apparently continuous, thinly interbedded sandstones and shales (S1) (figure 13). On this wall, the
sandstone beds are approximately 1.8-2.1m (6-7 ft) thick. Some of these sandstones show ripple
laminations. Above that, there are some thick cross bedded (possible Tc) sandstone units.

4. North Wall
At the northern wall of the quarry, two thick shales that contain interbedded thin sandstones are present
in excavations located at the northwest and northeast corners of the quarry (figures 3 and 14). A fault
occurs at the northeast end of the quarry (figure 14), and a N47oE (average) fracture set with an
intersecting pattern striking N43oW is present in massive sandstones. A right lateral strike-slip fault has
been mapped at the northwest end (figures 3 and 15). Slickensides and fault gouge (cataclasis) occur at
the fault location, providing evidence of lateral movement (figure 16).
V INGEPET 2005 (EXPL-1-JG-162) 6

Geologic reconstruction of the interior of the quarry

The volume of rock that has been quarried is estimated to be 2.3x106 m3 (8.3x107 ft3). This volume of rock
has been reconstructed by structural and stratigraphic interpolation across quarry walls, by determining
the pre-quarry ground surface from Digital Elevation Map, and by reconstructing the sequential
photomosaics of the quarry walls obtained between 1993 and 2000 (figure 3).

The M1 shale provided the datum for across-quarry correlations and bed projections (figures 5, 6, 7, 11,
12, 13). Extrapolation of bed dips at quarry walls indicate that east wall strata dip stratigraphically beneath
west wall strata (figure 17). The core obtained behind the west wall extends 47m (154ft) beneath the
quarry floor at the west wall (figure 9). These sub-floor strata have been correlated with the east wall
stratigraphy (figure 17) in order to reconstruct the quarry geology prior to quarry operations. In addition,
recent excavations have added new exposures to this reconstruction between the east and west walls.
Measurements of height, strike, and dip of this newly exposed strata (pond in figure 3) verifies that they
too are stratigraphically beneath the west wall sandstones and stratigraphically above the east wall
sandstone beds.

Construction of the 3D, gridded, geologic model in GoCad™

The internal stratigraphy and structure described above formed the basis of a 3D geocellular “reservoir”
model, using GoCad™ software. Outcrop data sets of base and top boundaries were imported from
ESRI® 8.2 into GoCad™. Geo-referenced quarry photomosaics and interpretations were imported as
GoCad™ voxet objects matching outcrop GPS base and top points outlines.

Step 1 in building the geological model was to create curve and horizontal objects to form skeletons of
stratigraphic key surfaces that represent facies boundaries (C1, M1, M2, S1, and S2) (figures 18a and
19a). Key surfaces were modeled for steep dips at the southeast corner of the quarry, where the
asymmetrical anticline occurs (figures 6, 7, and 11).

Step 2 was to add faults to the model. Fault plane 4 was created from west wall measurements, as well
as from laser gun GPS positioning. Fault plane 9 was assumed to be vertical because strike and dip
measurements were not possible to obtain. Key surfaces were ‘cut’ and displaced by fault planes 4 and 9.
Dipping beds towards the west and the asymmetrical anticline at the southeast end of the quarry define
partial closure for the model. Faults along the northwest and northeast ends of the quarry define a vertical
fault as the north boundary of the quarry (figure 20). To provide closure to the quarry on its east side, it
was necessary to place a vertical, pseudo-fault there, according to the areal extension of the data (figure
20).

Step 3 was to grid the quarry volume. The model was constructed using a proportional cell thickness in
all facies and using the base of each facies to construct the grid upwards. An initial GoCad™ stratigraphic
cornerpoint grid of 75x60x26 blocks, for a total of 117,000 grid blocks was built (figures 18c, and 19c).

Step 4 was to add petrophysical properties to grid cells. Because Jackfork strata in this area are highly
cemented, with little to no porosity and permeability, petrophysical properties were obtained from similar
facies of an analog turbidite reservoir from the Gulf of Mexico (Slatt et al., 2000). The properties were
stochastically distributed to all gridblocks. Porosity was set to 0.30 for amalgamated channel sandstones,
and to 0.29 for layered sheet sandstones. Horizontal permeabilities were 2000mD for C1 facies, and
1000mD for S1 and S2 facies. Vertical permeability was assumed 1/10th of horizontal permeability
(Fanchi, 1997 p.50; and Carlson, 2003 p. 66). Net-to-gross values were acquired from the core (figure 9).
Shales M1 and M2 are continuous across the quarry. They were assigned a very low horizontal and
vertical permeability as they would be potential fluid barriers in an analog reservoir.

Step 5 was to export the grid into ECLIPSE™ format with appropriate keyword filters and pertinent
geological information. Figure 21 illustrates the grid with faults 4 and 9.

Reservoir Simulation
Flow simulations were carried out solving the three-phase flow equations fully implicit, with a five-point
finite difference method for the ECLIPSE™ black oil commercial simulator (ECLIPSE™, 2004) for a total
simulation period of 10 years. The setup and fluid properties were based on a Gulf of Mexico analog field
at a depth of about 3,658m (12,000ft) (Slatt et al., 2000) (Table 1).
V INGEPET 2005 (EXPL-1-JG-162) 7

Parameter Value
Depth 3658m (12000ft)
Temperature 250oF
Initial Pressure 55158 kPa (8000 psia)
Bubble Point Pressure 27579 kPa (4000 psia)
Oil Gravity 35oAPI
Specific Gas Gravity 0.75
Boi = 1.47 RB/STB at Pi
Bob = 1.53 RB/STB at Pb
Rsoi = 851 SCF/STB at Pi
moi = 0.763 CP at Pi
Black-oil PVT data mob = 0.414 CP at Pb
Cs = 2.84E-06 V/V psi
Cf = 8E-06 V/V psi
Swi = 20%
Sor = 25%
Sgc = 3%

Table 1. "Reservoir" parameters used in flow simulation

1. Simulation Cases
As more information was loaded into the project, computational time increased and unexpected difficulties,
such as convergence, equilibrium, and PVT extrapolations, made the original grid unstable. After fixing
convergence, equilibrium, and PVT issues, the model was scaled up to a 30x42x12 grid blocks model
with a total of 15,120 cells. A total of 101 simulation cases were created to account for the geology
exposed at Hollywood Quarry. Each case was created by a combination of parameters according to
several variables such as stratigraphy, structure (faults and folds), drive mechanism, fluid flow
characteristics, and well orientations. Variables have been grouped into three main levels summarized
on Table 2 and are explained as follows.

1.1 Level I: Stratigraphy, Structure, and Fluid Flow Characteristics through Faults

To account for stratigraphic and structural features present at Hollywood Quarry, five different grids were
created.

The first grid, “Grid I”, is a very basic “Tank Model” (100% sandstone) where the asymmetrical anticline is
incorporated. Neither laterally continuous shales nor faults are included in this scenario.

“Grid II” is the second grid, where both laterally continuous shales M1 and M2 are present, as well as the
asymmetrical anticline. No faults are included in this scenario.

A third grid, “Grid III”, incorporates not only the asymmetrical anticline, but also the laterally continuous
shale M1 and fault No. 4.

Grid number 4 is “Grid IV”. It includes laterally continuous shales M1 and M2, the asymmetrical anticline,
and fault No. 4.

The fifth stratigraphy and structure grid, “Grid V”, represents both shales M1 and M2, the asymmetrical
anticline, and both faults No. 4 and No. 9.

For each grid that included a fault, Faults No. 4 and 9 were defined as follows:
(1) Conduit (non-sealing)
(2) Barrier/conduit (partially sealing), with two degrees of sealing capacity:
a. Partially sealing I (less sealing)
b. Partially sealing II (more sealing)
c. Potential barriers to flow (sealing)
V INGEPET 2005 (EXPL-1-JG-162) 8

1.2 Level II: Drive Mechanism

Two possible drive mechanisms were included in the simulation: depletion (solution gas drive) and aquifer
(water drive). The aquifer was defined as a bottom water drive analytical-Fetkovich, based on a pseudo-
steady state productivity index.

A water injection alternative was included as a third drive mechanism and applied only in “Grid V”. One
vertical producer and one vertical injector well pattern was analyzed.

1.3 Level III: Well Orientations

Four drilling alternatives were created for the simulation combinations: one vertical well, two vertical wells,
and three vertical wells, all with fully completed intervals and drilled one per each of the fault blocks. One
horizontal well across faults was created as a fourth drilling option. Wells produced at a simulated
production rate of 300 barrels per day, except in “Grid I (Tank Model)” where two rates of 300 and 600
barrels per day were tested.

Level I: Stratigraphy, Structure, and Fluid Flow Characteristics through Faults

Shale Fault
4 9
Grid
M1 M2 Partially Sealing Partially Sealing
Non-Sealing Sealing Non-Sealing Sealing
I II I II
I
II x x
III x x x x x
IV x x x x x x
V x x x x x x x x x x

Level II: Drive Mechanism

Drive Mechanism
Depletion Aquifer Injection
All grids All grids Only Grid V
Level III: Well Orientations
Type of well and quantity
Vertical Horizontal
1 2 3 1

Table 2. Variables used for development of the 101 “reservoir” flow simulation cases.

2. Results of Simulation Scenarios

Original Oil in Place (OOIP) values for the five stratigraphy and structural grids are presented in Table 3.
A total of 101 “reservoir” simulation cases were completed from a variety of combinations of the
simulation characteristics discussed above and listed in Table 2. Simulated oil production results are
summarized in Table 4 for all “reservoir” simulation scenarios performed. The result for each combination
can be read by first choosing the Grid (I, II, III, IV, or V), then the drive mechanism on the horizontal
options (depletion or aquifer), followed by the fault flow property (non-sealing, partially sealing or sealing),
and finally, in the vertical column, the drilling option (see “Key” for illustration about it in Table 4). Oil
production results are presented in millions of barrels (first number) and primary recovery factor in
percentage (second number).

Figure 22 shows production results for the case “Grid-V / water drive / partially sealing-I / two vertical
wells”.

A comparison between results on cases “Grid-V / water drive / non-sealing / one vertical well” and “Grid-V
/ water drive / partially sealing-I / one vertical well” is presented in figure 23.
 V INGEPET 2005 (EXPL-1-JG-162) 9

Original Fluids in Place

Grid Oil (x 106stb) Water (x 107stb) Gas (x 106Msfc)
I (Tank model) 5.61 1.32 4.43
II 4.37 1.13 3.80
III 4.42 1.11 3.92
IV 4.52 1.11 3.92
V 4.63 1.09 4.02

Table 3. Original fluids in place for the five stratigraphic and structural grids.

Simulation Results
Grid I (Tank Model) : 100% Sand

Depletion Drive Water Drive

Drilling Simulated Production Rate (bbl/d) Simulated Production Rate (bbl/d)
Strategy 300 600 300 600
One Vertical Well 0.78 (14.0%) 0.98 (14.0%) 1.15 (20.5%) 1.20 (21.4%)

Grid II : M1 and M2 shales present

Drilling
Depletion Drive Water Drive
Strategy
One Vertical Well 0.66 (15.1%) 1.12 (25.6%)
Two Vertical Wells 0.70 (16.1%) 1.51 (34.8%)
Horizontal Well 0.64 (14.5%) 0.93 (21.1%)
10

Grid III : M1 shale and fault 4 present

Depletion Drive Water Drive

Drilling Partially Sealing Partially Sealing
Non-Sealing Sealing Non-Sealing Sealing
Strategy I II I II
One Vertical Well 0.82 (18.6%) 0.8 (18.1%) 0.63 (14.3%) 0.57 (12.9%) 1.12 (25.4%) 1.06 (24.0%) 0.99 (22.5%) 0.84 (19.0%)
Horizontal Well 0.92 (20.8%) 0.8 (18.1%) 0.64 (14.3%) 0.60 (13.7%) 1.11 (25.1%) 1.01 (23.0%) 0.90 (20.5%) 0.79 (18.0%)

Key
Grid # and stratigraphic/structural characteristics:

Drive Mechanism
Table 4. Summary results. Refer to MS Power PointDrilling
file ‘Ingepet_Table_4_Summary_Results.ppt’
Non-sealing Flault flow capacity Sealing
Strategy
Number of wells
Simulated oil production, million of barrels | (Recovery Factor %)
and type

Table 4. Summary results (a)

V INGEPET 2005 (EXPL-1-JG-162) 10

Simulation Results (cont.)

Grid IV : M1 and M2 shales, and fault 4 present

Depletion Drive Water Drive

Drilling Partially Sealing Partially Sealing
Non-Sealing Sealing Non-Sealing Sealing
Strategy I II I II
One Vertical Well 0.64 (14.1%) 0.61 (13.8%) 0.56 (12.2%) 0.39 (8.5%) 0.99 (21.8%) 0.94 (20.8%) 0.86 (19.0%) 0.83 (18.4%)
Two Vertical Wells 0.82 (18.3%) 0.80 (17.7%) 0.70 (15.5%) 0.61 (13.3%) 1.13 (25.0%) 1.24 (27.5%) 1.27 (28.1%) 1.27 (28.1%)
Horizontal Well 0.79 (17.5%) 0.73 (16.3%) 0.66 (14.7%) 0.54 (12.1%) 1.14 (25.1%) 1.18 (26.3%) 1.17 (25.9%) 1.18 (26.0%)

Grid V : M1 and M2 shales, and faults 4 and 9 present

Depletion Drive Water Drive

Drilling Partially Sealing Partially Sealing
Non-Sealing Sealing Non-Sealing Sealing
Strategy I II I II
One Vertical Well 0.76 (16.5%) 0.63 (13.8%) 0.53 (11.5%) 0.21 (4.6%) 0.98 (21.1%) 0.88 (19.0%) 0.57 (12.3%) 0.38 (8.2%)
Two Vertical Wells 0.81 (17.5%) 0.81 (17.5%) 0.76 (16.4%) 0.45 (9.8%) 1.09 (23.6%) 1.05 (22.8%) 0.98 (21.0%) 0.81 (17.6%)
Three Vertical Wells 0.84 (18.2%) 0.86 (18.5%) 0.81 (17.5%) 0.80 (17.3%) 1.06 (23.0%) 1.18 (25.6%) 1.27 (27.6%) 1.32 (28.5%)
Horizontal Well 0.80 (17.2%) 0.74 (15.9%) 0.71 (15.3%) 0.68 (14.7%) 1.12 (24.1%) 1.10 (23.7%) 1.12 (24.2%) 1.08 (23.3%)

GridV (injection) : M1 and M2 shales, and faults 4 and 9 present

Water Injection
Drilling Partially Sealing
Non-Sealing Sealing
Strategy I II
One Vertical Well 1.02 (22.0%) 0.83 (18.1%) 0.52 (11.1%) 0.22 (4.7%) Key
Grid # and stratigraphic/structural characteristics:

Drive Mechanism
Drilling
Non-sealing Flault flow capacity Sealing
Strategy
Number of wells
Simulated oil production, million of barrels | (Recovery Factor %)
and type

Table 4. Summary results (b)

V INGEPET 2005 (EXPL-1-JG-162) 11

Results
1. Presence and absence of faults represent a major factor when producing this analog “reservoir”.
Results for one fault and two fault models with vertical wells in each fault block (Grids III, IV, and V, table
4) show a decrease of production between 0.1 and 15.0% compared to the Tank Model (Grid I), table 4.
Partially sealing faults produce a decrease in production of 1.0 to 10.0% in depletion drive or aquifer
support, respectively. The horizontal well across fault 4 (Grids III and IV, table 4) and faults 4 and 9 (Grid
V, table 4) provides the best production results with an increase between 4.0 and 21.0%, respectively,
compared to vertical well production (Grids III, IV, and V, table 4).

2. Production generally shows a decrease with an increase in sealing capacity of faults from non-sealing,
to partially sealing, then sealing. But, Grid-IV / Water Drive / Two Vertical Wells and Grid-V / Water Drive
/ Three Vertical Wells (table 4) present an increase of 3.0 and 5.0%, respectively, when the sealing
capacity of the faults increases from non- sealing to sealing. One possible explanation of this
phenomenon is that when increasing the faults’ sealing capacity, fluids do not flow as well through the
faults; therefore, the field is under pressure depletion at a lower rate. As a result, the gas saturation does
not increase so rapidly that less liberation of gas occurs and more oil is produced. The faults not only act
as barriers to flow but also as regulators of pressure.

3. Very simplistic models, such as the tank model without stratigraphic and structural features (Grid I -
Tank Model-, table 3), increase OOIP by 17.0%, and oil production by 12.0% compared with more
geologically realistic “reservoir” models (Grids II, III, IV, and V, table 4). Adding geological information to
the model, such as shale boundaries and faults, increases the accuracy of the initial volumetric
calculations, as demonstrated by the model Grid III (table 4), for which OOIP (4.42 x 106 STB) (table 3)
and production results (table 4) are more realistic compared to the Tank model.

4. Amalgamated, massive sandstones generally provide easier fluid flow paths than do layered sheet
sandstones. Presence of shales within S1 and S2 units make the vertical flow of reservoir fluids difficult,
especially when crossing from one side of a partially-sealing fault to the other side. When vertically offset
faults juxtapose sandstone against shale laterally, the fault may be a flow boundary creating
compartments that decrease reservoir performance. The layered sandstones have no vertical connectivity
due to interbedded shales; therefore fluid flow is less efficient (4.0 to 9.0% of total production) and more
wells are necessary to increase recovery compared with the massive sandstones reservoir unit. Once the
layered zone is upscaled to remove interbedded shale, an increase of 18.0% in OOIP and 8.0% (table 3)
in total production is obtained.

5. In the water injection scenario (Grid V, table 4) layered sheet sandstones associated with the existence
of thin interbedded shales make the water front behave as a piston displacement. Therefore, better oil
recovery is obtained than from amalgamated sandstones intervals, where a possible early water
breakthrough occurs. In the presence of sealing faults, compartmentalization occurs and fault-bounded
compartments are not successfully depleted.

6. Although three vertical wells account for more total production than any other drilling scenario, in a 10
year “reservoir” simulation, the total production for one horizontal well is only between 2.0 and 5.5% less
than total production from the three vertical wells; therefore, for a long term economic analysis, horizontal
drilling appears to be the more profitable drilling alternative (as an example, refer to Grid-V / Depletion
Drive / Three Vertical Wells and Grid-V / Depletion Drive / Horizontal Well, table 4).

7. Substantial differences (from 3.0 to 18.0%) in simulated oil production results are obtained in the
course of all the cases (table 4) depending on which drive mechanism is present. Comparing results
presented in table 4, water drive provides higher production compared with depletion. Therefore, the
potential drive mechanisms should be identified as accurately as possible in the early stages of a real
reservoir life cycle.

General Conclusions
The 24 acres of geology exposed at Hollywood Quarry is a typical well spacing in many fields. Moreover,
3 stratigraphic patterns, 15 faults, and set of fractures are present within the area. Characterization,
analysis, and understanding of this structural and stratigraphic sub-seismic complexity could add insights
of potential problems within closely spaced production wells that might not be clearly solved by
conventional field analysis.
V INGEPET 2005 (EXPL-1-JG-162) 12

To account for layering effects in fluid flow, the layered sheet sandstones were investigated through
scale-up procedures, resulting in a reservoir performance difference. Results mimicked known behavior in
analogous producing fields, and the process of going from outcrop rock data to “reservoir” simulation
provided a useful training tool for reservoir characterization methods and techniques.

Outcrops are very useful for visualizing and understanding subsurface geology, and they provide a
powerful tool for training geoscientists as well as reservoir engineers in reservoir behavior.

Outcrop “reservoir” modeling is a very valuable tool for judging the importance and influence of various
reservoir features such as shales, faults and reservoir structure on flow performance.

Within Hollywood Quarry, several subseismic scale faults and a small fold were identified, making it a
structurally complex rock volume. This kind of complexity is very likely to occur in real reservoirs.
Subseismic scale faults should be thought of as especially important in affecting reservoir performance.

References
Al-Siyabi, H. A., 1998, Sedimentology and stratigraphy of the Early Pennsylvanian upper Jackfork interval
in the Caddo Valley Quadrangle, Clark and Hot Springs Counties, Arkansas: Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Colorado, 272 p.

Blythe, A. E., A. Sugar, and S.P. Phipps, 1988, Structural profiles of the Ouachita Mountains, western
Arkansas: AAPG Bulletin, v. 72, p. 810-819.

Carlson, M. R., 2003, Practical Reservoir Simulation: Using, Assessing, and Developing Results:
PennWell Books, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 564 p.

Ciftci, B. N., A. A. Aviantara, N. F. Hurley, and D. R. Kerr, 2004, Outcrop-based three-dimensional

modeling of the Tensleep Sandstone at Alkali Creek, Bighorn Basin, Wyoming, in G. M. Grammer, P. M.
Harris, and G. P. Eberli, eds., Integration of outcrop and modern analogs in reservoir modeling: AAPG
Memoir 80, p. 235-259.

Coleman, J. L. Jr., G. V. Swearingen, C. E. Breckon, 1994, The Jackfork Formation of Arkansas: A test
for the Walter-Mutti-Vail models for deep-sea fan deposition: Arkansas Geological Commission
Guidebook, v. 53, no. 3, p. 71-78.

Coleman, J. L., 2000, Carboniferous submarine basin development of the Ouachita Mountains of
Arkansas and Oklahoma, in A. H. Bouma and C. G. Stone, eds., Fine-grained turbidite systems: AAPG
Memoir 72 / SEPM Special Publication 68, p. 21-32.

Danielson, S. E., P. K. Hankinson, K. D. Kitchings, and A. Thompson, 1988, Provenance of the Jackfork
Sandstone, Ouachita Mountains, Arkansas and eastern Oklahoma, in J. D. McFarland, ed., Arkansas
Geological Commission, Contributions to the Geology of Arkansas Miscellaneous Publications, v. 3, No.
18-C, p. 95-112.

ECLIPSE 100, 2004, Technical Reference Manual: Abingdon, United Kingdom, Schlumberger GeoQuest,
unpaginated.

Fanchi, J. R., Principles of Applied Reservoir Simulation: Gulf Publishing, Houston, Texas, 294 p.

Goyeneche, J. C., 2005, Outcrop characterization, 3D geological modeling, and upscaling for “reservoir”
simulation of Jackfork Group turbidites in Hollywood Quarry, Arkansas: Unpublished M.Sc.. dissertation,
University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, 89 p.

Jordan, D. W., D. R. Lowe, R. M. Slatt, A. E. D’Agostino, M. H. Scheihing, R. H. Gillespie, and C. G.

Stone, 1993, Scales of geological heterogeneity of Pennsylvanian Jackfork Group, Ouachita Mountains,
Arkansas: Applications to field development and exploration for deepwater sandstones: Arkansas
Geological Commission Guidebook 93-1, p. 141.

Harlton, B. H., 1938, Stratigraphy of the Bendian of the Oklahoma salient of the Ouachita Mountains:
AAPG Bulletin, v. 22, p. 852-914.
V INGEPET 2005 (EXPL-1-JG-162) 13

Larue, D. K., 2004, Outcrop and waterflood simulation modeling of the 100-Foot Channel Complex,
Texas, and the Ainsa II Channel Complex, Spain: Analogs to multistory and multilateral channelized slope
reservoirs, in G. M. Grammer, P. M. Harris, and G. P. Eberli, eds., Integration of outcrop and modern
analogs in reservoir modeling: AAPG Memoir 80, p. 337-364.

LoPiccolo, R. D., 1977, Internal sedimentary structures in sandstone of the Jackfork Group, Ouachita
Mountains, Oklahoma, in C. G. Stone, ed., Symposium of geology of the Ouachita Mountains: Arkansas
Geological Commission, Miscellaneous Publications, MP-13, v.1, p. 169-174.

Moiola, R. J., and G. Shanmugam, 1984, Submarine fan sedimentation, Ouachita Mountains, Arkansas
and Oklahoma, Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies Transactions, v. 34, p. 175-182.

Morris, R. C., 1964, Geological investigations of the Jackfork Group of Arkansas: Unpublished Ph. D.
dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin 242p.

Morris, R. C., 1971, Stratigraphy and sedimentology of Jackfork Group, Arkansas: AAPG Bulletin, v. 55, p.
387-402.

Morris, R. C., 1974, Carboniferous rocks of the Ouachita Mountains, Arkansas: A study of facies patterns
along the unstable slope and axis of a flysch trough, in G. Briggs, eds., Carboniferous of the southeastern
United States: The Geological Society of America Special Paper 148, p. 241-279.

Pauli, D., 1994, Friable submarine channel sandstones in the Jackfork Group, Lynn Mountain syncline,
Pushmataha and Le Flore counties, Oklahoma, in N. H. Suneson and L. A. Hemish, eds., Geology and
resources of the eastern Ouachita Mountains frontal belt and southeastern Arkoma basin, Oklahoma:
Oklahoma Geological Survey Guidebook 29, p. 179-202.

Peterson, B. E., 1999, Three-dimensional Ground-Penetrating Radar study of upper Jackfork Group at
Hollywood Quarry, Arkansas: Unpublished M.Sc. Thesis, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, 89
p.

Ross, C. A., and J. R. P. Ross, 1988, Late Paleozoic transgressive-regressive deposition in Wilgus, C. K.,
B. S. Hastings, C. G. St. C. Kendall, C. A. Posamentier, C. A. Ross, and J. C. Van Wagoner, eds., Sea
Level change: an integrated approach: SEPM Special Publication No. 42, p. 227-247.

Slatt, R. M., D. W. Jordan, A. E. D’Agostino, and R. H. Gillespie, 1992, Outcrop gamma-ray logging to
improve understanding of subsurface well log correlations, in C. M. Griffiths and P. F. Worthington, eds.,
Geological applications of wireline logs II: Geological Society Special publications, No. 65, 404 p.

Slatt, R. M., S. Phillips, J. M. Boak, and M. B. Lagoe, 1993, Scales of geologic heterogeneity of a deep-
water sand giant oil field, Long Beach Unit, Wilmington Field, California, in E. G. Rhodes and T. F.
Moslow, eds., Marine clastic reservoirs: examples and analogs, Springer-Verlag, New York, p. 263-292.

Slatt, R. M., D. W. Jordan, C. G. Stone, and M. S. Wilson, 1994, Stratigraphic and structural
compartmentalization observed within a ‘Model turbidite reservoir’, Pennsylvanian upper Jackfork
Formation, Hollywood Quarry, Arkansas, in P. Weimer, A.H. Bouma, and B.F. Perkins, eds., Submarine
fans and turbidite systems, Gulf Coast Section SEPM Foundation 15th Annual Research Conference
Proc., p.349-356.

Slatt, R. M., J. M. Borer, B. W. Horn, H. A. Al-Siyabi, and S. R. Pietraszek, 1995, Outcrop gamma-ray
logging applied to subsurface petroleum geology: The Mountain Geologist, v. 32, p. 81-94.

Slatt, R. M., P. Weimer, C. G. Stone, 1997, Reinterpretation of depositional processes in a classic flysch
sequence (Pennsylvanian Jackfork Group), Ouachita Mountains, Arkansas and Oklahoma: Discussion:
AAPG Bulletin, v. 81, p. 449-459.

Slatt, R. M., H. A. Al-Siyabi, C. W. VanKirk, and R. W. Williams, 2000, From geologic characterization to
“reservoir simulation” of a turbidite outcrop, Arkansas, U.S.A., in A.H. Bouma and C.G. Stone, eds., Fine-
Grained Turbidite Systems, AAPG Memoir 72/SEPM Special Publication No. 68, p.187-194.

Slatt, R. M., C. G. Stone, P. Weimer, 2000a, Characterization of slope and basin facies tracts, Jackfork
Group, Arkansas, with applications to deepwater (turbidite) reservoir management, in P. Weimer, R. M.
V INGEPET 2005 (EXPL-1-JG-162) 14

Slatt, J. L. Jr. Coleman, N. Rosen, C. H. Nelson, A. H. Bouma, M. Styzen, and D. T. Lawrence, eds.,
Deep-water reservoirs of the world, Gulf Coast Section SEPM Foundation, Bob F. Perkins Research
Conference, 20th Annual Research Conference, p. 940-980.

Slatt, R. M., P. Weimer, C. G. Stone, H. Al-Siyabi, and E. T. Williams, 2000b, Turbidite elements of the
Jackfork Group in Arkansas, in K. S. Johnson, ed., Marine clastics in the southern Midcontinent, 2000
symposium: Oklahoma Geological Survey Circular 103, p. 87-103.

Stephen, K. D., and M. Dalrymple, 2002, Reservoir Simulations developed from an outcrop of incised
valley fill strata: AAPG Bulletin, v. 86, No. 5, p. 797-822.

Viele, G. W., 1989, The Ouachita orogenic belt, in R. D. Hatcher, W. A. Thomas, and G. W. Viele, eds.,
The Appalachian-Ouachita orogen in the United States: Boulder, Colorado, Geological Society of America,
The Geology of North America, v. F2, p. 555-561.

Viele, G. W., and W. A. Thomas, 1989, Tectonic synthesis of the Ouachita orogenic belt, in R. D. Jr.
Hatcher, W. A. Thomas, and G. W. Viele, eds., The Appalachian-Ouachita Orogen in the United States:
Boulder, Colorado, Geological Society of America, The Geology of North America, v. F-2, p. 695-728.

Weimer, P., R. M. Slatt, J. L. Jr. Coleman, N. Rosen, C. H. Nelson, A. H. Bouma, M. Styzen, and D. T.
Lawrence, eds., 2000, Deep-water reservoirs of the world: Gulf Coast Section SEPM Foundation, Bob F.
Perkins Research Conference, 20th Annual Research Conference.

Weimer, P., R. M. Slatt, P. Dromgoole, M. Bowman, and A. Leonard, 2000a, Developing and managing
turbidite reservoirs: Case histories and experiences: Results of the 1998 EAGE/AAPG research
conference, AAPG Bulletin, v. 84, p. 453-464.

White, C. D., and M. D. Barton, 1999, Translating outcrop data to flow models, with applications to the
Ferron Sandstone: SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering., v. 2, No.4, p. 341-350.

Willis, B. J., and C. D. White, 2000, Quantitative outcrop data for flow simulation: Journal of Sedimentary
Research, v. 70, No. 4, p. 788-802.

Witten, A. J., B. R. Witten, and R. M. Slatt, 2005, Seismic reflection processing by plane-wave synthesis:
Journal of Geophysics and Engineering, v. 2, p. 1-7.

Young, R. A., B. Peterson, and R. M. Slatt, 1999, Imaging of turbidite outcrop

analogs using ground-penetrating radar, 69th Annual International Meeting, Society of Exploration
Geophysicists, 429-432.
V INGEPET 2005 (EXPL-1-JG-162) 15

Hollywood
Quarry

80 km
80 mi

Figure 1. Hollywood Quarry geographic location. Driving south on I-30, turn right on exit 73 to state Hwy 26 (15.3km), then
turn right on state Hwy 53 north (4.5km).

el f From Illinois Basin

Sh From Black Warrior Basin
a rk
Oz
om
Fr

From Llanoria

Figure 2. Diagrammatic sketch of Pennsylvanian Ouachita Basin during deposition of the Jackfork Group. Various
possible source areas and transport directions of sediments (arrows) are illustrated (modified from Slatt et al., 2000a).
Approximate Hollywood Quarry location shown by blue circle.
V INGEPET 2005 (EXPL-1-JG-162) 16

EXPLANATION
Stratigraphic Sections prior quarry operations
New Measured Stratigraphic Sections/GR
GPS Laser Gun Points
Well No.1 Casing Exposed/Stratigraphic Column
Fault
New 4-6ft Shale “Pit” Exposure
3D GPR Survey Area
GPS Location -Hollywood Quarry Outline-
High Resolution Seismic Lines
New Exposure (Pond)
1994 quarry outline prior to operations (area
in blue not longer exist)

Figure 3. Map showing 2004 Hollywood Quarry outline and different data measured and gathered in this and previous
studies.
V INGEPET 2005 (EXPL-1-JG-162)

Upper Wall, 1993

2m

Interpreted Upper Wall, 1993

12-14o

Fault
Fa
Seism EXPLANATION
Se

2
ic

ult
line 1
ism

37-40o Stratigraphic Sections prior quarry operations

12 line 3

A
3
New Measured Stratigraphic Sections/GR
ic

Fa

Fa
B GPS Laser Gun Points
ult

ult

Fault
4

Well No.1 Casing Exposed/Stratigraphic Column

1A
C Fault

1
13-15o
New 4-6ft Shale “Pit” Exposure
3D GPR Survey Area
GPS Location -Hollywood Quarry Outline-
High Resolution Seismic Lines
79-85o
New Exposure (Pond)
1994 quarry outline prior to operations (area
0 100m in blue not longer exist)

Figure 4a. Top: Photomosaics made of pictures taken in 1993 of the west wall upper section with and without interpretation. Same
procedure was applied to photographs from 1997 and 2004 to construct 2D panels for development of the first 3D model. Bottom: base
map of Hollywood Quarry showing the area (black rectangle) where interpretations were made on photomosaics from 1993, 1997, and
2004. Tan (A), purple (B), and blue (C) lines within the black rectangle represent the geographic locations of panels A, B, C shown in
figure 19b.

A (2004) B (1997)

C (1993) D (First 3D Model)

Figure 4b. Interpreted photomosaics of north area (black rectangle on bottom figure 19a) of the west wall between 1993 and 2004 with
partial stratigraphic and structural interpretation. The interpreted panels are presented backward in time from 2004 (A), going through
1997 (B), up to 1993 (C). (D) First 3D model showing interpretation of faults 2, 3, and 4 in the west quarry area removed between 1993 and
2004.
V INGEPET 2005 (EXPL-1-JG-162) 18

S S’

10 m

S’ N

10 m

S S’

10 m

S’ N

10 m

Figure 5a. 380m (1250ft) long exposure of amalgamated sandstones overlain by layered sheet sandstones on the west wall of quarry. Red box denotes detailed area (figure 5b).
Structure below wall is revealed by high resolution seismic line 1 at wall’s base where faults can be interpreted.

Casing
S2

S1

M2
S1
M1
Fault 4A C1 Fault 4
10 m

25 m
Fig. 6 S2
S2
100
5 S1
S1
M2
200
10 M2
S1
[ns]
[m]

S1
M1
300
15 M1
C Fault 4
C1 Fault 4 10 m
400 Quarry Floor
20

Figure 5b. Top left picture presented uninterpreted and right interpreted, where interpretation of faults 4 and 4a, facies boundaries (C1, M1, S1, M2, S1, and S2), core
description, and casing hanging on wall of previous behind-outcrop well are displayed. GR log superimposed on wall is presented in blue display. High GR measurements
correspond with “hot” shales M1 and M2 in core description and wall photomosaic lithology. Bottom pictures are first inline of the 3D GPR and SHRS showing bed correlations
and small faults across the 20m (66ft) thick stratigraphic interval.
V INGEPET 2005 (EXPL-1-JG-162) 19

o
Figure 6. South wall photomosaic with measured section 18 and GR log superimposed (blue). Beds dip 37-40 SW at this
location.
V INGEPET 2005 (EXPL-1-JG-162) 20
V INGEPET 2005 (EXPL-1-JG-162) 21

0 1 km

40o
PJ

75o

40o 60o

PJ

45o Hollywood Quarry

14o
58o
85o
60o

PJV 68o
68o

65o PAL
50o

PAL A

Figure 8. (A). Major structural elements around Hollywood Quarry. (Modified after Stone, 2004, personal communication).
Hollywood Quarry area shown in blue. Key to stratigraphic units: PJ = Jackfork Sandstone; PJV = Johns Valley Shale; PAL =
Lower Atoka Fm. (B). Sketch showing relative structural position of Hollywood Quarry at top of a west-plunging anticlinal
fold. No scale is implied (after Slatt et al., 1994).
V INGEPET 2005 (EXPL-1-JG-162) 22

Cummulative

Cummulative

Sandstone
Thickness

Thickness
Grain Sizes
Architectural 33.53 110

Fossils
Color
(m) (ft) VC C M F VF Silt CL
Elements
1.524 5 35.05 115

3.048 10
S2 36.58 120

4.572 15 38.1 125

6.096 20 39.62 130

7.62 25
S1 41.15 135

9.144 30 42.67 140

10.67 35 44.2 145

12.19 40 45.72 150

13.72 45
S1 47.24 155

15.24 50 48.77 160

M1
16.76 55 50.29 165

18.29 60 51.82 170

19.81 65 53.34 175

Quarry Floor
21.34 70 54.86 180

22.86 75 56.39 185

24.38 80 57.91 190

C1
25.91 85 59.44 195

27.43 90 60.96 200

28.96 95 62.48 205

30.48 100 64.01 210

32 105 65.53 215

33.53 110 67.06 220

V INGEPET 2005 (EXPL-1-JG-162) 23

LEGEND COLOR CHART

Parallel bedding Tan stained sandstone
Fluid scape pipes

cross lamination
Air escape structure White sandstone
dishes
scour surface
Trace fossils
Planolites Gray sandstone
loadcasting structure
Plant remains

slumping Reddish purple

organism tracks & trails

pull-over flame structure

Burrows Purple

planar bedding
Floating grains
stylolite

Shale clasts
Fractures

Mineralization
Fault

Figure 9. Stratigraphic column of the Jackfork sequence exposed in the Hollywood Quarry. 47m (154ft) of section are from
core behind-outcrop of the west wall (Mr. Scott McGeorge, President of Pine Bluff Sand and Gravel Co. kindly allowed R. M.
Slatt access to this core for description. The core was obtained by Schlumberger-Chevron-Texaco).

[m]

[m]

]
[m

Line 1 Lin
e 2
e3
Lin
travel time

Li n
e4

Figure 10. In the data display above, travel time has been converted to depth using a calculated wave speed of 3000 meters per second (from seismogram). In addition, a
“pixel fill” display is used where amplitude values are assigned a color (bottom right box). Receivers (geophones) are spaced at 4 m intervals. The recorded data for each
geophone is amplitude as a function of travel time, shown to the right as a “wiggle trace”. Fault interpretations are shown as black dash lines. Vertical and horizontal scales
are in meters.
V INGEPET 2005 (EXPL-1-JG-162) 24

E W

M1
?

10 m
Quarry Floor

20 m

Figure 12. Fault zone at fault 9. Dips of beds increase dramatically near both sides of the fault. Segment of seismic line 3
at the base of the south wall shows the subsurface extension of the fault.
V INGEPET 2005 (EXPL-1-JG-162) 25

NW SE

S1

M1

2m

Figure 4. Upper exposure on the east wall showing M1 “hot” shale and layered sandstone S1 with measured section
superimposed.
V INGEPET 2005 (EXPL-1-JG-162) 26

Sandstone
Sandstone

Shale Pit

Fault

100 300
cps

Shale Pit
2m B

Figure 5. Top picture (A): Shale pit at the northeast end of Hollywood Quarry. Yellow lines represent sandstone bedding
direction, and green line represents the fault trace. As an example of the stratigraphic and structural complexity at
Hollywood Quarry, within 5m (16ft), massive sandstones are roughly horizontal on the right side of the fault, and are
almost vertical on the left side of the fault. The shale to the left of the fault correlates to the shale in the bottom
photograph. Bottom picture (B): Shale pit at northwest end of Hollywood Quarry showing a very high GR reading (blue
line). The reading slightly decreases up section. The contact between the sandstone at the top of the bed and the shale
shows a drastic drop in GR counts. In red, evidence of possible soft sediment deformation.
V INGEPET 2005 (EXPL-1-JG-162) 27

Figure 6. Fault 1A (see figure 7 for location) with GR logs (blue lines) at each side of the fault plane. As is the case in figure
16a, the change from horizontal to vertical bed attitude is very abrupt. Gauge zone detail (dashed area) is shown in figure
18b.

2m
20 cm

Figure 7. Left: Picture showing the inner face of the uppermost sandstone unit on the right side of fault 1A shown in figure
17. Black arrows denote slickensides formed on the surface of the sandstone. Right: Cataclasis or fault gauge in the fault
zone. This zone of rock deformation is up to a meter in thickness, and it contains a very large proportion of argillaceous
material with some sandstone clasts as a result of mechanical deformation by shearing and granulation due to lateral
movement.
V INGEPET 2005 (EXPL-1-JG-162) 28

Figure 8. Reconstruction of the quarry interior. A set of height, strike, and dip measurements were taken at various quarry
locations and three of them are presented here (their locations within the quarry area are shown in the quarry base map at
the bottom right square). “A” is located at the west quarry wall, “B” at the new exposure (pond), and “C” at the east quarry
wall. Core location and its description are also presented here. Core description and measurements taken at locations
“A”, “B”, and “C” are projected to the cross-section X-X’ for bed reconstruction. Projection of core main facies
boundaries (C1, M1, S1 & S2) to the east match with data measurements of points “A”, “B”, and “C”. Quarry floor is
displayed noting its representation in the “reservoir” model as a HWC.

A B

Figure 9. Schematic workflow for 3D geologic modeling: (A) defining key stratigraphic surfaces that represent facies
boundaries; (B) defining stratigraphic zones bounded by key surfaces; and (C) gridding the zones into numerous grid
blocks (cells) in which petrophysical and geologic parameters are placed numerically.
V INGEPET 2005 (EXPL-1-JG-162) 29

A B

OWC

Figure 10. 3D geological modeling at Hollywood Quarry: from key surfaces (A) and stratigraphic zones (B) to grid blocks
(C). Figure 19a: vertical cut of the key stratigraphic surfaces that define facies boundaries at Hollywood Quarry with a
screen shoot of the central section of the quarry west wall photomosaic. Figure 19b: an east to west view of the
stratigraphic zones at Hollywood Quarry showing the asymmetrical anticline at the southeast corner and the GPS
measurements of the quarry base outline (orange points). Figure 19c: initial grid of 117,000 cells with color-coded facies
zones and horizontal OWC surface.
V INGEPET 2005 (EXPL-1-JG-162) 30

A
12-14o

13-15o

79-85o
37-40o

Figure 20. Flow boundaries defining four-way closure of the quarry 3D model. A) Quarry beds dipping towards the west; B)
steep beds at south forming an asymmetrical anticline; C) a sealing pseudo-fault at east end; and D) east-west trending
fault with shale to the north defined by shale pits (green points). Structural horizon of the top of the lower amalgamated
massive sandstone (C1) is shown in yellow. GPS quarry base outline (orange), and new pond exposure GPS outline
(yellow) are shown.
V INGEPET 2005 (EXPL-1-JG-162) 31

S1 & S2
M1
C1

Hydrocarbon
water contact

Fault 4

Fault 9

Figure 21. Southeast view of Hollywood Quarry 3D grid with faults 4 and 9. Top picture shows stratigraphic units C1, M1,
and S1 and S2, as well as a horizon which delimits the HWC for the “reservoir” model. Bottom picture incorporates faults
4 and 9 planes in a semi-transparent display.
V INGEPET 2005 (EXPL-1-JG-162) 32

FOPT
FGPT

Figure 22. “Reservoir” simulation production results for ‘Grid-V / water drive / partially sealing-I / two vertical wells’ case.
6
Oil total production (FOPT -Field Oil Total Production-) is 1.2x10 STB and gas total production (FGPT -Field Gas Total
6
Production-) is 1.0x10 MSCF for a 10 year simulation. By the production curve trends on the graph, three particular
periods of time should be noted: from time zero to approximately 3.8 years (1387 days) (period I), from 3.8 to 8.5 years
(3102 days) (period II), and from 8.5 to 10 years (3650 days) (period III). The high and constant total production curves at
period I are due to constant rates of 600 STB/D and 510 MSCF/D. At the beginning of period II, because field pressure gets
to a lower permissible limit of well production, well control is changed from constant rate to constant BHP (borehole
pressure), therefore production rates decline drastically to 260 STB/D and 210 MSCF/D, and continue a progressive decline
until they reach 183 STB/D and 115 MSCF/D. Period III starts, and at this point, high amounts of gas released due to a
decrease in pressure have increased the gas saturation to a point that one well presents mechanical problems and it is no
longer productive. Consequently, it is closed. Production rates are 80 STB/D and 60 MSCF/D until the simulation is
finished.
33

F a u lt 9 F a u lt 4
O il S a tu ra tio n
N o n -s e a lin g fa u lts
A
F a u lt 9 F a u lt 4
V INGEPET 2005 (EXPL-1-JG-162)

O il S a tu ra tio n
P a rtia lly -s e a lin g fa u lts
B
 F a u lt 9 F a u lt 4

N oG n a - ss eS aa l ti un rg a tf iao u n l t s
C
V INGEPET 2005 (EXPL-1-JG-162)

F a u lt 9 F a u lt 4

P a r t Gi a al lsy S- s ae t au l ri an t gi o f na u l t s D
Fn oi gn u- sr ee a 2l i3n . g C/ oo nm e p va er ri ts ioc na l b we te wl l ’e e( nA ga rn i dd s C a ) f ta e nr d 1 ‘0 G yr ei da r- Vs o/ f w s ai mt e ur l ad tr i iov ne f/ o pr a cr at isae l sl y ‘ Gs e ra i ldi n- Vg - I/ w/ oa nt ee r v de rr it vi ce a /l
wf a eu l ll t’ s .( BD ea c nr de a Ds e) . o (nA o) i lF si na ta ul r oa i tl i os na t au tr at ot ipo no f d s i ts rp u l ac ty u rw e h ien r ee a f ca hu lot sf t4 h ea nt hd r e9 e h ba l vo ec k b s e ie s n d su e e t t ao s g na os n r - es le e aa l si ne dg
fb r e oe mn s oe it l aa s n pd a sr ut iba sl le yq - us ee an lt i n i ng c f ra eu a l st es . iDn e gc ar es a ss ae t uo rn a ot ii ol ns a. t u( Br a) t iSo an m a et fd a i us pl tl ap y r ob xu i tm ni toi ew s if sa ud lut se 4t o a i nn dc r e9 a hs ea vi ne
gn ao sn -s sa e t au l ri na gt i oc na .s eD ( eAc )r . e Aa s ep oo sn s i ob il le s ea x t pu lr a a nt ai ot ni o na t i st ot ph a ot f p s at rr tu i ca tl ul yr - es e i an l i en ag c hf a ou fl t st h pe r et hv re en et ab l ro ac pk is d il sy lpe rs es s ts hu ar ne
dp ie c c t ru er ae ss e w, ht he ne r l eo fo o k r i en g l e a s ts t hs oi sl ud ti is op nl a gy .a s ( Ci s ) rG e al e s a ss ae td u . r Na to i toe n: aR f et fe e r r 1 t 0o yO e ial Sr sa to fc os il mo r u sl ca at il oe n a. t F tah ue l tbs o 4t t oa mn d o 9f at hc et
as ts r nu oc tn u - rs ee a i lni n eg a fc ah u ol tf s .t hN e o tt he r s eme ab l ll o t co k zs e. r (o D g ) a Ss as ma t eu rg aa ts i os na t au gr aa itni os tn ,f ab uu l tt s t, h a i ns dt i mh i eg hf a g u a l st s s a4 t ua nr ad t i9o nh aa vt e t ob pe eo nf
ss et rt u a c s t up ra er t ii na l le y a cs eh a lo i fn gt h f ea u t lht rs .e eN ob tl eo ch ki gs h c og ma s p sa a r t eu rt ao 2t i3toh ne a ng oa ni n- ss et a f lai nu gl t s f , a au nl td s l ce es ns ag ra i so s (a Ct u) .r aN t oi ot en : a Rt e t foe pr ot of
G a s S a t c o lo r s c a le a t th e b o tto m o f th e d is p la y s .
34