- Job Title:
- Staff Geologist - Structural Geologist
-
- Employer:
- Section for Reservoir Geology and Geophysics
(REB), Department for Reservoir Development, Saga Petroleum ASA,
Kjørboveien 16, N-1337 Sandvika, Norway
-
- Group:
- Member of the Structural Geology Group
-
- Company:
- Saga Petroleum ASA is one of the world´s
largest upstream oil and gas companies, continental Europe's
only pure oil and gas production and exploration firm and Norway's
biggest listed oil company, based on proved reserves. The company
has significant reserves and production on the Norwegian and
UK continental shelves (including the Atlantic Margin). The company
also has interests in Libya, Angola and Namibia. As at May 5,
1999, Saga participated in 63 licenses on the Norwegian Continental
Shelf and was operator of 21 of these. Its involvement on the
Norwegian Continental Shelf includes participating interests
in 27 producing fields, five fields under development and eight
fields under evaluation. Saga has participated in approximately
one-third of all exploration wells drilled on the Norwegian Continental
Shelf to date. As at May 5, 1999, it participated through Saga
Petroleum UK Ltd. in 34 licenses in the United Kingdom and in
Ireland, in three of which as operator. Saga has participating
interests in eight producing fields on the United Kingdom Continental
Shelf. As at December 31, 1998, Saga's proved reserves of crude
oil and natural gas were estimated at 867 million boe compared
to 925 million boe at the end of 1997. Total proved reserves
consisted of 47% crude oil proved reserves and 53% natural gas
proved reserves. Approximately 60% of the proved reserves were
under development and approximately 40% were not yet developed.
For the year ended December 31, 1998, Saga's average net daily
production of crude oil and natural gas was 180,600 boe. In 1998,
net production of crude oil accounted for approximately 85% of
Saga's average daily production.The company is listed on the
Oslo Stock Exchange and on the New York Stock Exchange. At December
31, 1997, its market value was NOK 17 billion when Saga had approximately
1,500 employees.
-
- Department:
- The Department of Reservoir Development (RE)
contributed to the continuous development, updating and use of
the company's understanding of the underground aiming on maximising
the companies reserves and production. This is a result of the
contribution of professional resources and professional results
in addition to professional development within production techniques,
reservoir techniques, reservoir geology, geophysics and formation
evaluation. The main processes to achieve this included
- Collection/interpretation of reservoir data
- Geology and Geophysics data acquisition and
modeling
- Dynamic modeling of reservoir behaviour
- Well planning
- Production management
- Recovery planning
-
- Section:
- The unit for Reservoir Geology and Reservoir
Geophysics (REB) was the reservoir group's geo-related centre,
and was responsible for the geological development in reservoir
description and reservoir modelling. The unit had the following
main duties:
- R&D in geo-related fields carrying out
geo-related development through operational activities
- Implementing geo-related development
- Actively supporting operational projects
- Establishing simple but effective procedures
(best practice document)
- Planning and carrying out studies within
the special fields of sedimentology, structural geology, geophysics
and geomodelling
- Planning and arranging training programmes,
courses and seminars in reservoir-geological fields
- Helping to make the discipline network in
geology and geophysics a success
- Carrying out quality control of the function
area's geological and geophysical products
- Be responsible for data management of well
and reservoir parameters in the corporate database BRD / Petrobank
- Establishing framework agreements and have
an overview of the consultant market in geo-related areas
- Deriving and establishing professional /
development / research alliances with one or more innovative
research institutions in the special fields connected to reservoir
geology and geophysics
-
- Job description:
- Reservoir Development Structural Geologist
(or "production geologist" or "development geologist")
analyzing detailed Structural Geology, Stratigraphy and Geophysics
around offshore hydrocarbon deposits along the Norwegian Continental
Margin to determine how to most economically recover the hydrocarbons
in the field. Work involved the methodology of the geological
description of hydrocarbon reservoirs and the analysis of reservoir
quality at both the exploration and development scales in the
North Sea. Quality control included applied reservoir quality
characterisation and modelling. Work specialised in Geological
Reservoir Characterisation from outcrop Analogues (Clastic depositional
systems, Fluvial systems, Shallow-Marine Systems, Turbidite Systems,
Carbonate Depositional Systems, Paleokarst Reservoirs, Miocene
Carbonate Reservoir Models, Fault Systems and constructional
Cross-Sections).
-
- Project title:
- Structural Modelling on the Varg oilfield,
North Sea
-
- Geologists:
- Dr. David A. Spencer and Eivind-Swensson
Aarseth
-
- Assignment:
- Varg
-
- Description:
- The Project is divide into three phases:
-
- Phase I (Autumn 1998): Structural framework
- The main challenge is to generate a consistent
structural framework comprising the important fault segments
together with faults which can act as baffles or barriers to
flow within each segment/compartment. The characteristic of these
faults must be related to test information and core data. The
sub-seismic faults will, if necessary, be implemented using stochastic
simulation in HAVANA. All the other faults must be implemented
in the geomodel prior to the generation of the flow simulation
grid. This will be done in collaboration between geophysisists
and structural geologists. The degree of detail must be agreed
upon prior to the model building. The Seismic interpretation
to optimize IRMS / ECLIPSE faults will be Top and Base Reservoir,
with the fault sticks and polygons. This will result in a Faulted
geo- and simulation model of the most likely case. Structural
analysis of time and depth maps for fault statistics, such as
throw/cum. numb., throw/length, fault frequency map, orientation
and dip direction will be made. Performed on top and base maps
together with other appropriate surfaces. This will mainly be
done on existing surfaces with the charisma environment, but
we will also use (if convenient) other programs. Further surface
data from the Varg Project will then be added, such as Top Chalk,
Base Cretaceous Unconformity, Top Reservoir and Base Reservoir
to produce Time maps, Dip maps, Azimuth maps and Correlation
maps. This will result in Fault distribution statistics to be
used in a report.
-
- Phase II (Winter 1998): Structural analysis
and special core analysis
- Consists of structural analysis and special
core analysis. The Core analysis for determination of fault zone
characteristics, i.e. permeability and deformation mechanisms.
This will be first be done on core photographs, then on chosen
cores with drilled core plugs. This work will be the basis for
the data input to the HAVANA model to be build in Phase III.
The results from Phase 1 will create an understanding of how
faults influence/effects the flow within the reservoir (between
faulted segments within each individual segment). There will
be an evaluation concerning the possibility for new fault segments
and how these will affect the present well locations. A screen
to define the most important fault parameters for fluid flow
will also be carried out. Further more, a set of permeability
measurements from core plugs to be used in Phase 2 will be available.
-
- Phase III (Spring 1999): Modelling
- Building a HAVANA model based on the results
from Phase 1. Fault properties defined by core measurements will
be put into the ECLIPSE model using the in-house software "editnnc"
which enables us to simulate on a structural model where the
fault flow properties varies in 3D. It will also be possible
to change the input parameters to preform a sensitivity study
with respect to the new fault related flow properties. The results
from Phase III will be an optimised simulation model where the
effect of the tectonic heterogeneities are included.
-
- All phases require involvement from the Varg
project with both G&G people and reservoir engineers. The
permeability analysis of the core plugs and the thin section
analyses associated with this will to a large extent be done
externally.
-
- Duration:
- Phase 1 and II: 3 months (1998)
- Phase III: 3 months (1999)
-
- Products:
- Phase 1 and II
- 31/12-98
- Structural analysis of the Varg Field
- Permeabilities and thin section analyses
- Establishing the structural framework for
Phase 2
- Documentation
-
- Phase III
- Q2 - 1999
- Havana modelling with input from Phase 1
- Revised ECLIPSE model with sensitivities
- Documentation
-
- Project was cancelled in September, 1998
due to impending drilling in the Varg field
-
- Project title:
- Fault Seal Analysis on the Eastern-Central
Snorre oilfield, North Sea
-
- Geologists:
- Dr. David A. Spencer, Jon Vold, Einar Sverdrup
-
- Assignment:
- Snorre
-
- Project No.:
- ASNODR33103
-
- Description:
- FAPS (Fault Analysis Projection System) analysis
on the Snorre Oil field, North Sea. FAPS is a system for the
interpretation, 3D display and analysis of faults and fault networks
using data from seismic interpretations, maps and wells. FAPS
is leading-edge fault analysis software that complements seismic
interpretation systems and can also be used to rebuild fault
surfaces from maps, allowing new analyses to be unlocked from
existing data. FAPS can quickly integrate seismic, map and well
data, add stratigraphic detail, generate reservoir juxtapositions,
calculate and calibrate fault seal estimates.
- Work also included predicting fracture orientations
for an injection well in Snorre field.
-
- FAPS:
- FAPS (Fault Analysis Projection System) or
Fault Seal Analysis is an advanced and successful technology
proven as a set of methodologies for predicting the sealing behaviour
of faults. Fault Seal Analysis incorporates algorithms and modes
of presentation that exploration and production geoscientists
need. With increasing sophistication of reservoir simulation,
engineers need to know cross-fault flow properties and need to
be able to predict these properties over a finite production
period. FAPS provided estimates of fault-zone permeability and
fault transmissibility modifiers. FAPS was used to provide a
solution to fault and fault seal analysis in both exploration
and production. Seismic interpretations alone did not usually
provide enough data to evaluate the significance of faults. Extra
stratigraphic detail was added so that across-fault reservoir
juxtapositions could be mapped and fault seal estimates made.
Failure to recognise the structural and hydrodynamic importance
of faults represented both lost opportunity and increased risk.
Add-on modules used in FAPS included MAPS (a tool for rebuilding
fault surfaces from ZMAP grids and fault polygons), Fault Seal
Analysis (the commercial workstation system for calculating the
sealing potential of faults) and Fault Populations (for statistical
and graphical analysis of FAPS fault data to predict the number
of faults below seismic resolution). 2D or 3D two-way-time or
depth-converted seismic sections on a workstation (e.g. SeisWorks,
GeoQuest, Charisma or Sattlegger ISP) provided the raw data for
FAPS. The basic seismic interpretations was stored in FAPS as
a set of line sections which was viewed (and edited) via the
Line Editor. FAPS did not require any special seismic interpretation
style or method. Interpretations were made as efficiently as
possible. The FAPS Line Editor was a very efficient tool for
fault picking and detailed near-fault horizon editing. FAPS also
imported depth-converted (or TWT) horizon grids (which usually
have associated fault-polygons) from mapping software (e.g. ZMAP,
CPS, IRAP). In these datasets the original fault segments on
vertical sections were generally discarded in the mapping and/or
depth-conversion process. The MAPS module was used to edit where
necessary fault-polygons, and by vertically correlation constructs
fault planes.
-
- FAPS fault analysis was based on interpretations
consisting of horizon surfaces from maps or cross-sections and
fault traces interpreted in cross-section. Bringing together
these two sets of information in a single, topologically consistent,
model was non-trivial. First the fault surface had to be modelled,
in the algorithmic sense, from the raw data, in this case the
(x, y, z) values of the traces picked on vertical sections. FAPS
used a proprietary grid-based method, referenced to a base plane,
that estimated the elevations at grid nodes from the projection
of least-squares, best-fit, planes through the control points.
Data points used in both the plane fitting and in the final,
weighted, estimation of values at the nodes were selected by
an octant search strategy. By modifying the numbers of points
required in each octant and by changing the weights, a great
deal of control was exercised over the resulting surface model.
This was important because it means that if the starting data
was good the fault model could be forced to honour the control
points very closely. On the other hand, if data quality was poor,
for example when fault traces are mis-tied, then it was necessary
to smooth through the ambiguities and picking errors. For good
quality data typically, RMS residuals between the modelled surface
and raw data were of order of a few metres or less, smaller than
the horizontal resolution of the seismic data.
-
- FAPS applied corrections to horizon interpretations
in the vicinity of a fault which ensured a single, consistent,
fault/horizon topology with no gaps or overlaps. The snapped
horizon contacts from the seismic lines was mapped onto the fault
grid. Every horizon offset on every line provided a measurement
of the local fault displacement, and this information was also
gridded over the fault surface to produce a displacement 'map'.
Three components of displacement (throw, heave and separation)
were all gridded and stored separately. The changes in stratigraphic
thickness across the fault ('growth') was similarly stored as
a grid over the fault surface. The resulting 3D model formed
the basis for fault and fault seal analysis, quantifying throw,
Gouge Ratio, thickness variations, reservoir overlap areas, etc.
The model also served as a template for refining stratigraphy
from seismically mappable scale to reservoir zone scale and for
computing pressure variations as projected from well information.
-
- FAPS was used for the evaluation of trap-critical
faults. It was also used to:
- QC fault interpretations from seismic data
or maps
- Test fault correlations using displacement
analysis
- Snap interpretations to fault surfaces
- Generate 3D consistent polygons on mapped
horizons
- View faults and horizons in a fully animated
3D volume
- Predict fault displacements in areas of poor
data quality
- Generate detailed fault-surface stratigraphic
juxtapositions
- Calculate sealing potential at reservoir
juxtapositions
- Calibrate seal factors with pressure data
- Verify fault-trap side seal
- Identify low-side fault traps
- Locate bypassed hydrocarbons in and around
existing fields
- Understand fluid and pressure differences
within fields
- Provide fault transmissibility estimates
for reservoir models
-
- Workflow:
- FAPS had applications at many different stages
of interpretation and analysis. The table below indicates the
typical workflow followed on the Snorre field.
-
- 2-D interpretation: deciding how to correlate
faults
- Imported SeisWorks interpretations into FAPS
(or used MAPS module to rebuild 3D fault surfaces from ZMAP horizon
and fault polygon data).
- Used FAPS displacement analysis techniques
to define 3D fault correlations.
- Exported correlations to SeisWorks and ZMAP.
- Defined 3D fault surfaces to constrain ZAP
- Established the 3D fault relationships, often
the key element for successful zapping of horizons even when
data quality is good. Used FAPS displacement techniques to establish
geologically realistic fault correlations and geometries.
- Exported correlated faults and/or polygons
back to SeisWorks where they were used to exclude the ZAP during
volume-infilling.
-
- Building fault surfaces for small faults
- Imported set of attribute maps from a 3D
survey (e.g. dip, azimuth maps) into FAPS MAPS module. Built
fault surfaces, analysed in FAPS and exported to SeisWorks, ZMAP,
etc.
-
- QC interpretations
- Imported the interpretation into FAPS.
- QC the fault interpretation by checking displacement
patterns on faults. Abrupt changes in the displacement pattern
indicated where the interpretation should be checked.
- Edited using FAPS Line Editor and exported
back to SeisWorks, etc.
-
- Evaluating fault closure
- Across-fault reservoir communication was
a risk factor for trap side-seal. Juxtaposition of reservoir
against non-reservoir across a fault usually provided a good
seal.
- Imported horizon and fault interpretation
into FAPS or used the FAPS MAPS module to rebuild 3D fault surfaces
from sets of fault polygons exported from a mapping application.
- Added extra stratigraphic detail (define
good, poor and non-reservoir units) between the seismic or mapped
horizons using the FAPS Stratigraphy Editor.
- Displayed juxtaposition relationships on
the fault surface using FAPS 3D Volume visualisation module,
and located all high risk leakage areas on the fault.
-
- Evaluating fault seal
- Even when reservoirs were juxtaposed across
a fault there was a chance that seal was developed at the fault.
Fault seals could provide side-seals for traps or impair fault
transmissibility to fluid flow. FAPS was the only commercially
available workstation system for calculating fault-seal. Imported
horizon and fault interpretation into FAPS.
- Defined compositional properties of reservoir
rocks based on lithology and/or petrophysics. FAPS used fault
displacement and lithological data to calculate seal factors
that are displayed on the fault-surface. Although uncalibrated
seal factors may be used to assess seal risk, specific seal factor
thresholds can only be defined if pressure data is available.
FAPS displayed pressure data at the fault (e.g. across-fault
pressure difference) and used pressure data to calibrate fault
seal estimates.
-
- Risking juxtapositions
- Seismic horizontal resolution made it impossible
to determine if an interpreted fault consists of one surface
or several closely spaced faults. What seemed a safe juxtaposition
(e.g. upthrown sand against shale across the fault) may be converted
into sand against sand if the total mapped throw on the fault
was actually accommodated on several closely spaced faults. FAPS
quantified the risk of multiple fault strands. The results of
the calculation were displayed on the fault surface and were
an important aspect of side-seal risk assessment.
-
- Predicting numbers of faults below seismic
resolution
- Imported horizon and fault interpretation
into FAPS.
- Use the FAPS Fault Populations module to
extract data from the interpretation in order to calculate the
number of faults of a particular displacement below the limit
of seismic resolution.
- Calibrated the prediction against number
of fractures in well cores and incorporated results within reservoir
modelling applications.
-
- Platforms:
- FAPS was operated on the following systems:
Sun Sparc: SunOS 4.1.x (X11R4 & X11R5) and Solaris.
-
- Project title:
- Stress-Controlled Fault Modeling in the
Snorre Field, North Sea
-
- Geologists:
- Project Manager - Dr. David A. Spencer
- Collaborators - Einar Sverdrup, Hugo Harstad,
Rolf Bratli, Eivind-Swensson Aarseth and Lars Grande.
-
- Contractor:
- FEM Engineering, Leiv Eriksson Senter, P.O.
Box 39, Pirenteret, 7005 Trondheim, Norway
-
- Assignment:
- Snorre
-
- Description:
 Published
research has demonstrated that the preferred fluid flow direction
is parallel, or sub-parallel to SHmax, the larger horizontal
principal stress. This is because this stress plane experiences
the least amount of deformation and is therefore the path of
easiest penetration for fluids. This project was established
in Saga to do specific work on the reservoir simulations, creating
a Finite Element Model using Algor to mimic the stress data obtained
from wells, and generate a map of SHmax stress trajectories,
which can be interpreted as preferred flow direction across the
entire field. In other words, we would now be able to predict
stress magnitudes and orientations across the field based on
the data that were previously obtained. The project aimed to
simulate a specific area of the Snorre field with the use of
a Finite Element Model, currently nearing development completion
in a software package known as GeoTool (which is a pre-processor
software package). An existing reservoir simulation model (Eclipse)
was imported into GeoTool so that the stress magnitudes and orientations
across the field can be predicted. The work performed and experiences
gathered from this project were directly used by the structural
geologists and the reservoir engineers in the Snorre field.
- The project began on 1 March, 1999 and lasted
for 4 months.
-
- GeoTool was used to solve challenges:
- Establish the regional and local stress regimes
of an oil field and undertake Finite Element Modelling of the
field area so as to extend Stress trajectory mapping across the
entire study area
- Indication of preferred production flow direction
based on stress mapping
- Reservoir compaction and surface subsidence
- Well bore stability based on depletion and
production flow rate scenario
- Well path determination and its optimisation
- Multilateral branch design for coil tubing
drilling
-
- GeoTool achieved this by:
- Developing FEM grids for simulating the stability
of inclined wells
- Developing FEM grids for modelling stress
magnitudes and trajectories within producing oil fields
- Developing FEM grids for modelling production
induced reservoir compaction and subsidence
- Developing FEM grids for modelling fault
zone properties
-
- The main goals of the GeoTool project were:
- To develop working methods for calculation
of oil well integrity using FEM analysis (FEM = "Finite
Element Method").
- To develop working methods for calculation
of reservoir compaction and surface subsidence
- To develop a computer software tool to automate
planning and processing of drilling and completion
-
- The GeoTool software performed the following
functions:
- Automatic conversion of reservoir data grids
to FEM analysis data grids
- Automatic refinement of data grids with respect
to mesh density
- Modelling and mesh refinement of "fault
zones"
- Automatic multilateral well path routing
and optimisation with respect to well integrity
- Prepares data grid for stress mapping across
the field, which indicates the preferred fluid flow direction
-
- The purposes of the project were to:
- Develop the Finite Element Model grid in
accordance with specific conditions. All data must be imported
from the software versions that are currently in use at Saga;
- Identify and predict the areas of most likely
sub-seismic faults and more accurately model faults in the reservoir
model.
- Obtain and export the resultant data set
from the Snorre field to software used by Saga Engineers and
Geologists;
- Accomplish a thorough knowledge of the GeoTool
program (including necessary training of personnel).
-
- To
evaluate the usefulness of the GeoTool software, a Finite Element
Model simulation of stress trajectories and magnitudes of a selected
part of the Snorre Field was made using Algor. The area to be
investigated was located in the eastern part of the field. The
reservoir was segmented by numerous faults, both large and sub-seismic
in scale (sub-seismic meaning below seismic resolution). Due
to the character of the faulted sediments (which consist of alternating
sand, silt and shales) faults are known to have severe impact
on the fluid flow in this area of the field. One of the major
challenges in this area was, therefore, to be able to predict
the number, position and orientations of faults which can not
be seen from seismic data. It is assumed that the current project
will provide important input on the possible positions and orientations
of such faults.
-
- The Stress-Controlled Fault Modeling, and
the generation of the new Eclipse grids for the Snorre Field,
was finished with an experience report written by the Contractor
in cooperation with Saga. A regular status report was be made
every second week between the Project Manager and FEM Engineering
(by e-mail). One Interim report was also provided.
-
- There was a huge potential for the successful
outcome of this project to have long term and cost effective
results. We were able to prove that the modeling of the stress
trajectories, based on Finite Element Modeling, is predictive
of the occurrence of sub-seismic faults, and if modified Eclipse
grids more accurately describe the segmentation of fields by
faults, then we had a tool to obtain vastly improved reservoir
descriptions and ultimately a better basis for decisions on recovery
strategies. We then extended this modeling to other areas where
we have a production interest on the basis of the results of
this project.
-
- Project title:
- Software development of PixAt (AttWorks)
-
- Geologists:
- Project Manager - Dr. David A. Spencer
- Collaborators - Einar Sverdrup and Eivind-Swensson
Aarseth
-
- Contractor:
- Geomodeling Corporation, 300, 840-6th Avenue,
S. W., Calgary, Alberta, T2P 3E5, Canada
-
- Assignment:
- Kristin
-
- Description:
- AttWorks was the first integrated package
to predict reservoir attributes from seismic attributes and well
data. Designed for a reservoir modeling team consisting of reservoir
geologists, geophysicists and engineers, AttWorks provided an
integrated environment optimised for data loading; on-line attribute
calculation, interactive interpretation and advanced geomodeling
toolboxes. AttWorks includes graphical user-interfaces with unprecedented
ease-of-use. AttWorks was a one-package solution for integrated
reservoir heterogeneity prediction from seismic attributes. It
consisted of 7 modules in an integrated environment. The following
models were tested:
- PixAt (Interactive calculation of pixel attributes
on seismic horizon data)
- VoxAt (Interactive calculation of 3-D seismic
attributes)
- FauTrack (Interactive tracking of fault traces
and fault planes from 2-D attribute images or 3-D cubes)
- FauModel (Interactive modeling of fault networks)
- MulSta (Multivariate statistical toolbox
for seismic attributes analysis)
- GeoSta (Multivariate geostatistical toolbox
for heterogeneity prediction from seismic attributes and well
data)
-
- PIXAT was the first seismic attribute analysis
and fault track software available for use with the Microsoft
Windows operating system. Designed for the interpretive geophysicist
and geologist, PIXAT provided an intuitive user interface optimised
for loading surface data interpreted from 3-D seismic data; real-time
surface attribute processing and analysis, fault-tracking and
editing, statistical modeling of fault networks, and fault parameter
calculations from attribute maps. PIXAT combined advanced techniques
of fault tracking and attribute analysis features with unprecedented
ease-of-use and strict adherence to Microsoft user-interface
standards.
-
- The following PIXAT Features were tested:
- Fast algorithms of attribute generation,
such as dip, dip azimuth, strike, Gaussian curvature, second-order
derivatives and local variability maps. Attributes can be calculated
for any derived attribute maps in an iterative manner (attributes
of attributes).
- Flexible and easy-to-use attribute filtering
functions, to remove noise and enhance lineament (median filter,
Gaussian filter, average filter, direction filters, and non-linear
filters).
- Grid math between any selected pair of attributes
(add, minus, min, max etc.).
- User-controlled fault-trace tracking (one-seed,
multiple seeds, and manually digitizing).
- Automatic calculation of fault parameters
along tracked fault traces (throw, dip, dip azimuth, length and
maximum displacement).
- Lively linked display of fault parameter
profiles.
- Spatial statistical modeling of fault populations
(statistical distributions of fault size, dip, dip azimuth).
- Synchronize window size and cursor positions
for any number of attribute maps.
- Cross-section views along any directions.
Synchronize cursor positions between sections and image views.
- Flexible project management functions. All
input and results in a project are organized in tree view. Press-and-click
to any attribute windows, cross plots, and cross sections and
attribute analysis results.
- Import horizon maps (e.g, two-way time and
amplitude map) from any seismic interpretation software (like
Landmark and GeoQuest systems, IRAP, and IRAP-RMS).
- Export attributes and tracked fault data
(coordinates and fault parameters) into industry standard format.
-
- The following were calculated and tested:
-
- Seismic Attributes:
- Instantaneous dip.
- Instantaneous dip-azimuth
- Instantaneous strike.
- Instantaneous Gaussian curvature.
- Instantaneous variability.
- Eigen texture vectors.
- Second-order derivatives,
-
- Lineament Enhancement and Spatial Filtering:
- Median filtering.
- Roberts gradient filtering
- Prewett filtering.
- Sobel filtering.
- Shaded relief images.
- User-defined filters.
-
- Multivariate Statistical Analysis:
- Principal components of multi-attributes.
- Factor analysis of attributes.
- Discriminate analysis of litho-facies.
- Interactive clustering analysis.
- Segmentation of attribute facies.
-
- Built-in Geostatistical Tool Box:
- Variogram modeling.
- Various kriging and co-kriging
- Conditional Simulation.
-
- Fault Tracking and Editing:
- Automatic tracking
- Interactive tracking.
- Manual interpretation
- Interactive editing
-
- Spatial Modeling of Fault Population:
- Pair correlation and L-function.
- Fault length distribution.
- Dip azimuth distribution.
- Dip distribution modeling.
- Max. Displacement distribution
- Length-displacement correlation.
-
- Flexible Input Data Format:
- 2D & 3D EG-Y files.
- Horizon data from seismic interpretation
software.
- Binary grids.
-
- Visualization:
- Synchronize multiple attributes view window
(the same cursor position and window size for all attribute display
windows).
- Cross-plots between any attributes.
- Real-time change of color-maps. 20 standard
color maps built-in. Easy to customize and edit.
- Flexible transform between attribute data
and color-map index.
-
- Project title:
- Maintenance and Technical Support Contract
of PixAt and FauModel (AttWorks)
-
- Geologists:
- Project Manager - Dr. David A. Spencer
- Collaborators - Einar Sverdrup and Eivind-Swensson
Aarseth
-
- Contractor:
- Geomodeling Corporation, 300, 840-6th Avenue,
S. W., Calgary, Alberta, T2P 3E5, Canada
-
- Description:
- Saga Petroleum bought a site license of PIXAT
PC version in 1998. In the early 1998, Saga, Statoil, and Geomodeling
Research Corp defined new features and work scope in 1998. This
work was to have been finished by the end of 1998. There was
however still a few aspects to be improved, in addition to provide
new functionality and a UNIX version on SGI IRIX platform. An
annual technical support and maintenance contract with Saga Petroleum
was proposed.
-
- Deliverable and Benefit:
- Integrate FauMod into PixAt environment.
- Receive upgraded versions of PIXAT at least
four times during 1999.
- One license of PIXAT on SGI IRIX platform.
- Fix bugs reported by the company.
- Support more data format as request by the
company.
- E-mail support for any questions of using
PixAt.
- Export results of FauMod into disk files
(e.g., fault density map and distribution models).
-
- Meetings attended:
- Structural Geology Group Meetings, Section
for Reservoir Geology and Geophysics Meetings, Section for Reservoir
Geology and Geophysics Thematic Course Meetings (e.g., Reservoir
Modeling in Saga), Saga Petroleum General Meetings, Project Meeting
(e.g., Stress-Controlled Fault Modeling in the Snorre Field,
Varg), Consultation meetings in Trondheim with FEM Engineering
and numerous Personal Meetings with visiting academics, companies,
etc.
|
