Project Example 1: Derisking Exploration Targets
In many exploration settings, there is often ambiguity on what the modelled results truly reflects and how much emphasis can be placed on it.
Deterministic vs Elastic Models
In the example shown on the X-section, the deterministic model indicates gas below structural closure, whilst the elastic model suggest otherwise. Although not entirely impossible to have gas below structural closure, there were concerns about limitations of deterministic models, as such the elastic model was run. Drill ahead was contingent on which model was accurate. Well results confirmed the elastic model was correct, as such drilling operations was concluded in a timely fashion leading to huge savings
Stochastic Models- Facies and Fluid layer maps
Accompanying the X-sections are stochastic fluid and facies maps. The facies map show a subtle transition from gas to brine leg to the SW, coincident with structural spill. Further analysis of average gas isochore maps extracted in the layers above and below the mapped structural spill suggest there is no gas below the FWL, further reinforcing the elastic model observation.
Project Example 2: Reservoir Characterisation Offshore NWS, Australia
Available 3D Seismic and well data with reasonably similar stratigraphy is analysed using a series of workflows. as shown in the postage stamp maps and x-sections. The acoustic pattern observed strongly points to fluid presence.
2a. A Comparison of Direct Hydrocarbon Indicators (DHI)
There are limitations with direct reflectivity amplitude extractions whenever high contrast end members like volcanics, coal, oozes, carbonate, salt etc) are present. By applying Bayesian separation, we can minimize the impact of coals on the seismic signal to prevent overestimate of in place volumes. The observation from the map show that downdip areas with the lowest impedance correspond to coals, but the thickness of gas sand downdip is relatively small, as such the impact of coal on the downdip gas volumes is small.
2b-i. DHI in Multiple Reservoir Units
A common technique when multiple reservoirs are present is in a trap is to check if all reservoirs have a common amplitude switch off depth. This can assist in understanding the presence of a single connected tank or possibility for multiple reservoir seal pairs. The presence of bonafide AVO goes beyond indicating the presence of hydrocarbon and may tell you more about the trap style, reservoir seal pairs, column height, fill-spill chain
2b-ii. Estimating Common Contact from DHI
When amplitude is extracted as shown in the maps above and all the reservoir units have a common amplitude switch off accompanied by a conformance to same depth contour, then it is likely that we have a single connected hydrocarbon tank.
Project Example 3: Hydrocarbon Validation in Low NtG Sand
Sometimes bonafide low net to gross opportunities are missed because of mis-characterization or mis-calibration with higher NtG pay. By leveraging techniques that have explicit trends for different type end members, this problem can be easily solved
Net Gas Sand Map
In the example here, we have a previously unseen ~100mmBoe exploration opportunity (initially thought to be non-amplitude supported). A carefully thought out solution that utilized properties and operator from a lower ntg sand, was able to resolve the prospect within the mapped geological constraints in high confidence.