SPE 93253

Peciko Geological Modeling: Optimizing Fluid Distribution and Model Resolution of a

Giant Gas Field in a Shale-Dominated Deltaic Environment
P. Samson, T. Dewi-Rochette, and M. Lescoeur, Total E&P Indonsie

Copyright 2005, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2005 Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and
Exhibition held in Jakarta, Indonesia, 5 7 April 2005.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to a proposal of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Change in model vertical scale plays a major role in improving

the field heterogeneity modeling and understanding.
Sand distribution & Modeling
The main difficulty in evaluating a shale dominated deltaic
environment is the sand distribution and its consequences on
fluid distribution and reservoir dynamic behavior.
Peciko mainly consists of triangular mouth bars deposit
which are stacked downstream of distributary channels.
Mouth bars are sand bodies of limited extension (1.5 to 4.5
km width and 1 to 3 m thick) as illustrated in fig. 1.
1- 3 m thick

Abstract
A Geological model is the image of the understanding of a
field according to available data. Through time new data allow
generating more detailed models. Peciko Gas field is
interpreted as complex shale dominated deltaic environment
deposit. Modeling strategy is pragmatic, based on a 2D
approach. Its resolution is optimized through time.
Methodology focuses on multi-disciplinary data integration for
interpreting and modeling fluid distribution. Final goal is to
provide reservoir model with major flow barriers.

1500-4500 m wide SINGLE BAR

10- 30 m thick

5000-15000 m wide

STACKED BARS

Introduction
Peciko is a giant gas field south east of the Mahakam Delta. It
covers 250km2 with a gross reservoir column of 2000m.
It is interpreted as shale dominated deltaic environment
deposit. If the fluid content is relatively simple - gas or water its organization appears more difficult to evaluate.
The objective of this paper is to illustrate these difficulties
and how they can be, at least partly, overcome through
integration of petrophysics, geology & reservoir.
This paper focuses on:
1. Sand: sedimentological organization, identification and
modeling for NetSand evaluation
2. Fluid status: analysis and distribution for NetPay
evaluation in a context where no regional GWC can be
identified
3. Saturation: estimate and modeling
4. Describing the global modeling workflow. Where
NetSand, NetPay and Saturation fit in this workflow and
what are the remaining issues.
It also illustrates how the modeling of these parameters is
optimized through time according to the available data.
fig. 1.

Sand deposit organization into mouth bars

SPE 93253

Net to Gross varies from 5 to 42 % with an average of

17%.
In such shale dominated environment the sand continuity
(bars extension, bars vertical and lateral connection) is a major
factor controlling the fluid distribution.
Sand definition
Non reservoir

C sand

mudstone

B sand
Laminated
sandstone

Burrowed
mudstone
to
siltstone

bioturbated
sandstone
and
mudstone

A sand

bioturbated C sands are expected to have very poor flow

characteristics
Unfortunately standard logs cannot discriminate laminated
from bioturbated C sands.

bioturbated
C sand

Laminated
C sand

clean
sandstone
with few
clay
drappes

Thin
bedded
burrowed
sandstone
and
mudstone

fig. 2. Schematic prograding mouth bar cross section

4 main qualities of sands (see fig. 2) are identified on

cores: clean sandstones, laminated sandstones, thin bedded
sandstones and mudstones, bioturbated sandstones and
mudstones.
3 electrofacies are defined through cut offs on porosity and
wet clay logs (see fig. 3):

Phi 9.5% > Phi 7.7%

K 0.05mD < K 0.53mD
fig. 4. Bioturbated vs. Laminated C sands impact on
permeability

Sand distribution
Once sands are defined at the wells, using log
interpretation calibrated with cores, sand is spatially correlated
based on a layering.
Peciko gross reservoir column is about 2000m thick.
Within this interval 7 Units based on correlation with other
existing fields and pressure regimes have been defined. Each
Unit is subdivided into layers for a total of 39 layers. Each
layer is itself subdivided into deltaic cycles for a total of 97
deltaic cycles.
Until recently, modeling was done at layer scale and is
now done at deltaic cycle scale to better constrain the reservoir
flow model.

fig. 3. Sand definition through Phie & WetClay logs cut-offs

A sands: massive sands with porosity higher than 13 p.u.

and shalliness lower than 35%. It corresponds to the clean
sandstone core facies.
B sands: non A sands with porosity higher than 9 p.u. and
shalliness lower than 40%. It is associated to laminated
sandstones
C sands: non A nor B sands, corresponding to laminated
or bioturbated sands with porosity higher than 5 p.u. and
shalliness lower than 45%. It includes both laminated and
bioturbated sandstones and mudstones core facies.
Laminated and bioturbated C sands are clearly different on
cores (see fig. 4). They are expected to have very different
flow behaviors:
laminated C sands probably preserve a good horizontal
permeability

Modeling techniques vs. scale of work

Modeling can be done:
either in 2D, through sand thickness mapping
or in 3D, typically through object modeling
In the case of Peciko today modeling is done in 2D with a
change of scale from layer to deltaic cycle.
The choice of the modeling methodology depends on the key
heterogeneity and the comprehension of the field according to
log spacing.
Layering Scale
With only delineation wells (well spacing from 2 to 4 km),
the reachable vertical correlation resolution did produce layer
scale intervals (20 to 100m layer thickness).
This layering scale is now well constrained and validated with
available production wells (spacing 1.4 km). Therefore, it has
been possible to refine this layering to reach a homogeneous
geological scale: deltaic cycle. Within such an interval sand

SPE 93253

distribution follows a deposit logic related to active

distributary channels.

fig. 5. Layer vs Deltaic Cycle Scale

The layering is based on regional shally events that can be

correlated all over the field and therefore act as global
horizontal barriers preventing vertical flow. Maximum
shalliness correlated at deltaic cycle scale is not so stable and
may not have a clear regional continuity. Therefore, even if it
is rare, flow barrier between deltaic cycles might be only
partial (see fig. 6).

fig. 6. Layer, deltaic cycles limits and their flow barrier

potential

20 km
fig. 8. Sketch of
organization

layer,

deltaic

cycles,

mouth

bars

Different modeling scales give very different images of the

field:
At layer scale (2D model) sand appears very continuous
as shown by fig. 9
CURRENT MODEL
60 m

Globally the deltaic cycle scale is a huge improvement for

fluid organization (see 0). At layer scale water gas cycles stack
within an interval, at deltaic cycle scale this is seldom the
case. Deltaic cycle scale is clearly a better scale for fluid
organization understanding and therefore for reservoir
discrimination. At this scale, perched water can be
discriminated from stacked disconnected reservoirs.

C
B
A

fig. 9. 2D model at layer scale

Sand Mapping
Methodology

3c-0

Impact of modeling scale on apparent sand continuity

Lets consider the sketch from fig. 8. It shows a layer,
made of deltaic cycles within which individual mouth bars are
organized into stacks of mouth bars.

1 cell

Deltaic cycle

3a-3

Deltaic
cycle

Deltaic cycle

3a-2

Layer

3a-1

3D modeling alternative
3D object modeling scale is an even thinner resolution. It
consists in modeling sand bodies distribution within an
interval. The proper interval is the deltaic cycle scale as mouth
bars stack downstream from a distributary channel which is
active during the deltaic cycle phase. Lateral distribution is to
be controlled through trend maps (probability of presence of
sand bodies). At layer scale (which stacks several deltaic
cycles) trend maps would be too homogeneous due to
compensation effects between stacked deltaic cycles.
Therefore 3D modeling requires a good understanding of the
deltaic cycle scale which can be reached only through the
generation of a 2D model at deltaic cycle scale prior to the 3D
model construction.

15 to 120 m

Flow barrier?

Layer

3a-0

Deltaic cycle Deltaic cycle

fig. 7. Fluid status consistency at Deltaic Cycle Scale

At deltaic cycle scale (2D model too), sand appears

disconnected, see fig. 10.
1 cell

Well with Sand

Well No Sand

Sand Mapping
Methodology

SPE 93253

fig. 10. 2D model at deltaic cycle scale

This model reproduces the stack of mouth bars from fig. 8.

3D object modeling can go down to the individual mouth
bar resolution, as shown by fig. 11 (or even thinner by
modeling the internal organization of each mouth bar).
Deltaic Cycle 1g-0

Deltaic Cycle 2e-1

Object
Modeling

1 or more cells

fig. 13. Examples of NetSand Maps at Deltaic Cycle Scale

fig. 11. 3D Object model controlled by deltaic cycle layering

With today understanding of Peciko connectivity, and

considering the fluid is gas, one expects to find major flow
barriers between stacks of mouth bars. Therefore deltaic cycle
scale is the scale of the anticipated major heterogeneity.
Furthermore today geological understanding would not allow
constraining individual mouth bars distribution well enough to
bring key reliable information regarding flow barrier
distribution.
NetSand mapping
This process, both at layer scale and deltaic cycle scale, is
a very interpretative work mainly done by hand in order to
input the field geological understanding.

fig. 13 shows two deltaic cycle maps that are very different
in term of sand distribution.
The difference between these two maps is explained by the
following key values: only 45% of the wells are sand bearing
in deltaic cycle 1g-0 and the average Net To Gross (NTG) in
these sand bearing wells is 10%. On the other hand, for deltaic
cycle 2e-1, 96% of the wells are gas bearing and their average
NTG is 34%. Basically, such differences can highly impact
production.
Fluid identification & distribution
To be able to go from NetSand to NetPay (i.e. from Sand to
Gas Bearing Sand) one must be able to identify and distribute
fluids within the reservoirs. In Peciko gas field, only 2 fluids
are discriminated: water and gas.
Identification techniques
A series of techniques are available to identify fluid within
the formation.

Layer 3a
NetSand ABC
fig. 12. Example of a NetSand Map at Layer Scale

If sand thickness maps appear very continuous at layer

scale, mapping at deltaic cycle scale reveals that layers are
hiding both a vertical and a lateral heterogeneity in term of
sand continuity.

Log interpretation
Logs are indirect measurements of the formation content
(rock and fluid). By combining different logs information and
through interpretation one can perform a fluid status.
In the case of Peciko, fluid interpretation leads to 4
possible statuses:
Water
Gas
Possible Gas: interpretation is not clear enough and an
uncertainty remains.
Water Rise: fluid is interpreted as water but initially was
gas bearing. Water rise is the result of depletion from
surrounding production wells. Today in the case of Peciko
Water Rise is not a major issue but this is expected to
change in the future as production and therefore depletion
increase. Geological model considers fluid status prior to
production start (i.e. before water rise) allowing reservoir
engineers to history match the model and simulate the
water rise. Therefore in the geological model water rise is
interpreted as Gas.
Peciko Fluid status analysis is based on the following log
interpretation rules (fig. 14):

SPE 93253

proven water. This is possibly due to lower salinity compared

to the upper stratigraphic units.

OFA: W

fig. 15. Log anomaly on deeper layer. Clean GR with Rt

opposite to R0, Rt superimposed with Rxo, slightly gas
show but fluid analysis proves water

fig. 14. Fluid identification (a) gas interval; (b) water interval

Resistivity logs
A synthetic resistivity log R0 is created to discriminate
gas bearing reservoirs from water bearing reservoirs. R0
is computed based on 100% water saturation in reservoirs.
High values on Rt (measuring the uninvaded zone)
indicate hydrocarbon presence.
Comparison between Rt and R0 gives a strong indication
of the presence or absence of hydrocarbons. In thick gas
bearing reservoir, R0 is opposite to Rt while in thick
water bearing reservoirs, R0 is superimposed or parallel to
Rt. Ambiguity for reservoir fluid determination appears in
thin sand reservoir context. Fluid change cannot be
detected by the logs resulting in a major uncertainty on
fluid identification.
Comparison between Rxo (measuring the invaded zone)
and Rt helps confirm fluid identification. High Rxo (wells
drilled with oil based mud) compared to Rt gives water
bearing reservoirs indication. On the other hand, Rxo and
Rt are superimposed in gas bearing reservoirs.

Gas While Drilling

A high total gas reading (available on all wells) can be an
indication of hydrocarbon presence.
A full analysis of GWD data enables to better validate the
fluid interpretation done by conventional logs. For the
time being, only few wells have been processed.

Interpretation
Different reservoir petrophysical properties result in
different log responses for the same fluid status. On the other
hand, the same resistivity response can be associated to
different fluid status as it is sensitive to other parameters.
Fluid status analysis is an interpretation which requires
deconvolving imbricated parameters (reservoir quality, fluid
status and saturation). This interpretation is particularly
difficult for thin reservoirs.
Some anomalies on logs behavior (see fig. 15) are found in
deeper stratigraphic unit. Log responses that would be
confidently interpreted as Proven Gas in upper units were

Fluid status correlation

To reduce uncertainty associated to fluid status a simple
technique consists in validating the well interpretation through
correlation with neighboring wells taking into account relative
structural position. The reliability of this work depends on the
reliability of the layering correlation.
Inconsistent fluid correlation within a layer between 2
wells may result in fluid status adjustment, layering revision,
or reveal lateral distribution of independent reservoirs
Pressure measurement & optical fluid analysis
The best way to locally reduce uncertainty on fluid status
is to be sure of the fluid the formation contains!
Logging contractors have tools that pump locally from the
formation. These tools allow to:
Measure the formation pressure
Perform fluid analysis through optical absorption
Take fluid samples.
Only a limited number of fluid samples can be taken.
However, these samples are not mandatory to discriminate gas
from water as optical fluid analysis is sufficient for that.
Optical fluid analysis is a pinpoint measurement. One must
first define where to take measurements.
These measurement points are defined based on rush
interpretation of the logs before placing the tool in front of the
formation.
During measurement tool stands still. These measurements
are time consuming and may fail for several reasons such as
probe actual location (relatively to thin bed reservoir), tight
sand, stuck tool. For key points several attempts can be done.
Measurements can be done either while tool is traveling down
or up. If measurement fails when going down and result in a
lack of key information, additional measurements in the area
can be planned when going up.
Optical Fluid Analysis is a way to reduce uncertainty on
fluid status. Therefore measurements are carefully chosen in
order to validate a full zone. Establishing an acquisition
strategy to target ambiguous response in order to deconvolve
fluid from lithology effects is key to optimize the benefit of
these local and time consuming measurements (see program
example on fig. 16).

SPE 93253

To assess continuity of sand and therefore connectivity

within the reservoir several indirect information is used:
Consistent fluid status
Gas Water Contact
Pressure data
Fluid distribution compatibility
Sand correlation reliability can be re-inforced when fluids
are consistent between wells and when Gas Water Contacts
are compatible. However compatible Gas Water Contact is a
relative criterion. Usually this contact is not precisely defined
but is only limited by a Gas Down To and/or a Water Up To
(see fig. 18 & fig. 19). In Peciko shale dominated environment
the uncertainty interval between Gas Down To and Water Up
To can be quite important.

PT - FA
#1
#2
PT FA
if #1
tight/water

fig. 16. Optical Fluid Analysis measurement program: pressure

and fluid analysis are performed on measurement #1. If
pressures are done systematically on measurements #2,
#3 & #4, fluid analysis is conditioned to previous point
result.

The detection of water rise (see fig. 17) is complex and

corresponds to confusing log responses:
Rt and R0 are not superimposed but are not anticorrelated.
Rxo > Rt (movable water displaced by oil based mud
filtrate).
In such a case, gas show is not a criterion as even initial water
bearing zones can contain some trapped gas.
Therefore lateral correlation with surrounding producing
wells, good reservoir quality (usually A or B sands) and
pressure data showing significant reservoir depletion are key
qualitative criteria to interpret water rise.

Proven Gas

Water

GWC

Proven Gas
Gas Down To

Possible Gas

Water Up To

Water

Deltaic Cycle

#4
PT FA
if #3
tight/water

Deltaic Cycle

#3
PT FA
If #2 gas

fig. 18. Gas Water Contact vs. Gas Down To / Water Up To

fig. 19. Single fluid Deltaic cycle intervals

OFA: W
OFA: W

fig. 17. Water rise interval

Fluid distribution issue

As explained earlier the elementary sand organization is
the mouth bar. Mouth bars have limited extension and
therefore the way mouth bars are distributed within a
stratigraphical interval controls sand continuity. This sand
continuity is a major issue as Peciko field develops in a shale
dominated environment.
Well spacing, compared to sand bodies extension does not
generally allow correlating sand bodies.

Pressure data
Within a connected reservoir initial pressures are at
equilibrium. After production starts things can be different.
Away from producing wells a pressure trend appears. When a
new well goes through already produced reservoirs, pressure
measurements show depletions. The degree of depletion
depends on parameters such as: for how long the reservoir has
been produced, reservoir size, reservoir quality (connectivity),
and distance to producing wells. Therefore, today on Peciko,
depending on when well was drilled, pressure can either be:
Initial pressure: i.e. pressure data from well drilled before
production start. This category can be extended to layers
or reservoirs that are not yet perforated. For example in
Peciko upper reservoirs are not perforated yet. Therefore
pressure measurements in these layers, even from recent
wells, are still initial pressure data
Depleted pressure: i.e. pressure data taken after
production start: such pressure measurements potentially

SPE 93253

Sand Mapping Scale vs. Geological Pressure Units

It is clear that layer scale generates a model too coarse to
provide lateral flow barrier (see fig. 9 and fig. 12).
Even if sand thickness varies laterally, layer scale NetSand
maps are continuous and sand thickness reduction does not
necessarily correspond to reduction in sand quality that could
be interpreted as flow barriers.
When NetSand maps are generated at deltaic cycle scale it
might be different. Depending on the cycles, the resulting
maps might be still continuous or disconnected revealing the
major Geological Pressure Units, as shown by fig. 13.
From NetSand to NetPay
At deltaic cycle scale NetSand maps can only show the
major GPU extensions revealed by shally zones over the
whole interval and confirmed by initial pressure analysis.
Pay is the gas bearing sand. NetPay thickness is therefore
less or equal to NetSand thickness and NetPay extension is at

most equal to NetSand extension. What limits the NetPay

extension is therefore:
The Gas Down To
The Sand discontinuities either seen on NetSand maps or
not if it corresponds to a thin or to a non vertical flow
barrier that separates 2 GPUs not revealed by NetSand
maps (see fig. 20).

Barrier visible on NetSand Map

Barrier non visible on NetSand Map

fig. 20. GPU limits visible on NetSand maps or not

NetPay mapping challenge is to reveal all GPUs either based

on sand discontinuity, on fluid status changes or on Pressure
trends.
Gas Water Contact Issue
When analyzing fluid status, no clear flat gas water contact
(GWC) can be identified (see fig. 21) as fluid status includes:
Tilted aquifer; due to a hydrodynamism powered by water
expulsion from shales.
Gas Down To significantly varying between Geological
Pressure Units
Trapped or Perched Water related to discontinuous sand
deposit.
Layer 1h
G
D
w Tc
ith o
st nsi
ru st
ct en
ur t
e

Wells
Water bearing
Gas bearing

Layer 3g

G
th DT
e
st cro
ru
ct ss
ur
e

show depletions, the range of depletion is highly variable

as explained here-above.
The main differences between these two data are that in order
to establish correlation between wells:
Initial pressures can be used quantitatively while Depleted
pressures are used qualitatively (as geological model
models initial status). A depleted value can only belong to
a reservoir which initial pressure was higher than the
measured value (there is no injection in Peciko field!)
On the other hand compatible initial pressure does not
prove wells are connected (especially when pressure is
hydrostatic); while depletion in a well proves that the
reservoir is already being produced.
Therefore, when considering pressure, one must be aware of
the kind of pressure one is dealing with to prevent mixing
them and possibly reach wrong conclusion.
Furthermore these 2 kinds of data do not relate to the same
connection. For initial pressure, equilibrium within a reservoir
has been reached through geological time; very poor
connectivity is required to reach this equilibrium. Such
reservoirs are called Geological Pressure Units (GPU). On
the other hand depletion is related to production start. It has
occurred over a short period (a few months or years); the time
frame is not the geological time but the reservoir production
time. The reservoirs identified through depletion information
reveal a much better connectivity; they are called Reservoir
Pressure Units (RPU).
GPU identification is a geological concept while RPU
definition comes from reservoir. A GPU is usually made of
several RPUs. RPUs are limited by transmissibility reduction
which act as barrier at reservoir production time scale but were
not strong enough to be barriers at geological time scale.
Classically a geological model would focus on GPUs but
after production starts the geological model is the input to the
reservoir model to be history matched and should help
constrain flows. Transmissibility reductions generating the
RPUs are linked to geology through poor facies quality zones.
One key question controlling the required geological model
resolution is what these barriers are and how they correlate,
i.e.: what is the main heterogeneity controlling flow?

Hydrodynamism
shifts Gas Pool
towards NW flank
of the structure?

fig. 21. Regional Aquifer challenges: multiple GPUs,

Hydrodynamism

This issue together with the 2D mapping approach led to the

use of Filling Ratio to model fluid status.
At the well: FillingRatio = NetPay
NetSand
Filling Ratio (FR) is then mapped to deduce NetPay map:
NetPay = NetSand FillingRatio
Filling Ratio Mapping
Filling Ratio represents the proportion of sand that is gas
bearing regardless of the relative fluid location. It allows
mixing different fluid distributions (stacked GPUs when
layering does not allow separating them, perched water).
Filling Ratio mapping, as well as NetSand mapping is a
highly interpretative work.

SPE 93253

Filling Ratio limit

The mapping process starts with the identification of the
GPUs and the manual drawing of the FR limit. To do so
Pressure data trends are identified on Water Head
(overpressure) plots and spatially validated.
-40

Water Head
0

-20

20

40

2700
WaterHead Layer 2a-a
Initial Gas
Initial Possible Gas
Initial Water
C

2800

d C
ren
T
A
s
Ga
E
m? F
s
i
E
nam
U
GPydrody
E
h
t
r
H
No
E

North GPU

Trend

Depth

?
ter
Wa
d
e
B
ch
Per

Water

2900

C
F

B
Water bearing
Gas bearing

A
3000

fig. 22. Water Head Plot

Pressure Trends (see fig. 22) together with shally or water

bearing wells help define GPUs and their extension. Next,
their limit is drawn on structural maps using fluid depth
information at the wells (GWC, GDT, WUT).
100

Water Head
300

200

Ce
ntr
al

GP
U

3200

No
rth
GP
U

WaterHead Layer 3f
Initial Gas
Initial Possible Gas
Initial Water

400

D epth

J
I

3400

K
3500

Fl
GP
U

ow

Ba
rri
e

So
ut
hG
PU

F E

Ce
nt
ra
l

G
D
C

No
rth
GP
U

500

H
I
I

Water bearing
Gas bearing

G H

Filling Ratio Interpolation

The identified limit is a mix of NetSand extension limit,
flow barriers, fluid contact. These different zones of the limit
do not impact the Filling Ratio in the same way:
Fluid contact areas are used as a 0 limit
NetSand extension does not directly affect the Filling
Ratio limit. As NetSand map is reaching 0 toward this
limit, by definition NetPay will reach 0 even if Filling
Ratio does tends toward 0. Forcing the Filling Ratio in
these zones would be equivalent to fill the limit of
NetSand with water and therefore apply a double
reduction in NetPay. In this area there is no Water
Contact, gas proportion may decrease but this would be
shown by Saturations and not by water contact.
Flow barriers may either be modeled as:
o a 0 limit in the Filling Ratio map (this would
typically be a 1P approach as it is conservative
through the introduction of water zones in between
wells as shown on fig. 23 for layer 3f 1P map)
o or a flow barrier in the reservoir simulator (this
approach which does not downgrade Pay vs. Sand
would be a 2P or 3P methodology as shown on fig.
24 for layer 3f 2P map).

Possible Gas
related to
South GPU?

3300

are disconnected due to fluid status as a series of water bearing

wells spatially separate the two GPUs.

So
ut
hG
PU

Water bearing
Gas bearing A

fig. 23. GPUs limits, example of layer 3f (1P map)

On layer 3f (fig. 23), 3 main GPUs are identified. North

and Central GPUs are disconnected based on Pressure trend as
shown by Water Head Pressure plot. South and Central GPUs

fig. 24. GPUs limits, Layer 3f, 2P Map

The interpolation is done within this limit using Fluid

contact as 0 limit and a Maximum value of 100% for Filling
Ratio map.
Saturation Estimate and Modeling
Saturation measurement
Saturation is computed from Archie law using porosity,
Vshale and resistivity logs.

SPE 93253

Saturation modeling
Gas saturation modeling is one more fluid related
challenge in such a complex environment.
In term of modeling, a grid cell does not have the same
significance when considering a 3D model or a 2D model.
In a 3D model a cell is a subdivision of the layer or deltaic
cycle. The stack of cells subdividing the layer allows to model
vertical variability. Considering fluid, deeper cells might be
water bearing, upper cells gas bearing and toward uppermost
cells gas saturation might increase modeling the transition
zone.
In a 2D model it is very different as one cell represents the
whole layer thickness. Therefore parameters such as porosity
or saturation are average parameters hiding the variability
within the column.
The main issue for 2D modeling saturation is the
management of the transition zone and the predictivity of the
resulting map.

LAYER

Transition zone issue

A classical Gas saturation modeling methodology consists
in defining a gas zone, a transition zone and a water zone. In
the water zone gas saturation is equal to 0. The gas zone is the
area where saturation is not affected by the aquifer influence.
The transition zone is the area in between where saturation is
decreasing toward the GWC.
In a 2D model, defining a proper transition zone is a
challenge. In fact at this scale one does not know vertically
where the sand is located within the layer. NetSand maps
provide thickness information, NetPay gives information
regarding the amount of sand above the water contact but one
does not know if this sand is directly in contact with the water
or not. The only transition zone that can be defined represents
a maximum transition zone that is directly related to the layer
gross thickness and the gas down to depth as shown in fig. 25.

Gas zone
GWC

Well A

Water
zone

Apparent transition zone

at layer scale
fig. 25. Gross Thickness based Transition Zone

However the sand body in this example (fig. 25) is not

representative of the typical sand organization. Compared to
classical sand body it is thick and it includes a GWC. Standard
cases present much thinner sand bodies and no GWC is
identified. Sand bodies are mono fluid either gas or water. Gas
Water Contact would be between a Gas Down To defined by
the bottom of a sand body and the Water Up To defined by the

top of a deeper sand body (sand bodies with possible gas may
exist in between) as shown in fig. 26.
LAYER

Water Resistivity computation depends on salinity. Peciko

gas column is over 2000m. Along this column salinity varies.
Specific zones, such as fresh water sands, are identified. Water
resistivity depends on salinity and temperature. Uncertainty on
salinity is a key parameter impacting saturation estimate.

Gas zone

GWC
Water
zone

Well B
Apparent transition zone at layer scale

fig. 26. Transition zone definition in a standard well

Now when looking at the Saturation logs (see fig. 27),

saturation behavior is very different between well A shown
in fig. 25 and well B used for fig. 26:
NO TRANSITION ZONE
TRANSITION ZONE
Associated to GWC

Well A

Sand
quality

Sg

Well B

Sand
quality

Sg

fig. 27. Transition zone analysis:

Sg vs. Sand quality above contact

On well A, GWC is identified and corresponds to a

thick sand body. A clear Sg trend is visible and this Sg
trend is opposite to the sand quality trend. Even if sand
quality decreases towards the upper part of the layer the
saturation increases. This Sg evolution can therefore be
quite confidently interpreted as a transition zone.
On well B, only a Gas Down To and a Water Up To are
identified. This well corresponds to a more typical sand
organization and proportion for Peciko field (lower NTG
and thinner sand bodies compared to well A). In this
case no transition zone can be identified. Saturation trend
is basically following the sand quality.
Furthermore, when analyzing spatial organization of average
saturation per layer at the wells related to Filling Ratio limit
(i.e. Gas Down To) no consistent saturation decreasing trend is
observed toward this limit.
This tends to show that no significant transition zone develops
on Peciko. Therefore Gas Saturation mapping within the Gas
bearing zone is done without forcing a transition zone nor
setting the Gas bearing limit as 0 Sg.
Water rise issue
On a recent well, water rise has been identified (see fig.
28).

10

SPE 93253

5.

Gas Pore Thickness map is then computed:

GasPoreThickness = NetPay Porosity
6. Gas Saturation mapping (Sg)
Initial Gas In Place down hole condition is then computed:
IGIPdhc = GasPoreThickness Sg

WATER

fig. 28. Water rise issue, example of a recent well

As explained earlier the geological model represents the

fluid status prior to production start. Basically it means that:
fluid is gas or water,
water rise is therefore set to gas,
saturation is initial saturation.
If it is simple to consider the Water Rise status as Gas,
saturation is another study. Gas saturation measured in Water
Rise zones is saturation at logging time. Thus, measured
saturation is not representative of the initial saturation. These
gas saturations are therefore pessimistic and a minimum for
initial saturation.
Today this is not an issue as water rise are very rare.
However this could become a major one as production life
expends, well spacing decreases and drilling includes flank
wells which are potentially more sensitive to water rise.
Global modeling workflow
The Sand and Pay interpretation techniques shown here above
are part of a global modeling workflow (see fig. 29). This
global workflow is as follow:
ol
Ge
i
og

modeled
modeled

on
lC
ca

NetSand (Sand thickness)

derived
derived

pt
ce

Filling Ratio

&
d

NetPay (Gas Bearing Sand)

ui
Fl

(% of Gas bearing Sand)

in
n
io
at
rm
fo

Phie
Gas Bearing Pore Volume
Sg (Gas Saturation)
HPM Gas In Place Down Hole Condition
Bg (Gas Compression Factor)

IGIP Initial Gas In Place Surface Condition

fig. 29. Global 2D Modeling Workflow

1.
2.

3.
4.

NetSand mapping
Filling Ratio mapping
a. Filling Ratio limit
b. Filling Ratio interpolation
NetPay map is then computed:
NetPay = NetSand FillingRatio
Porosity mapping (using NetSand limit as a 5 p.u. limit)

Conclusion
Updating and improving the geological model of a giant field
in such a complex shale dominated deltaic environment is a
challenge and requires a pragmatic approach to meet the
development deadlines. Peciko is modeled with a 2D mapping
methodology with increasing vertical resolution between
generations. These models are clearly flow driven and
constructed in the frame of an integrated geology reservoir
team.
Before production starts and based on exploration and
delineation wells, a 2D model at layer scale was the optimal
achievable vertical resolution.
The addition of production wells geological interpretation
together with production data improved the geological
understanding of the field. It revealed weaknesses of the layer
scale model: specifically inadequacy between vertical scale
and fluid organization. This led to initiate a model at deltaic
cycle scale. This model is expected to provide reservoir model
with geologically constrained flow barriers.
Further down the road of the field life modeling might be
done in 3D. This would require a highly geologically
controlled object modeling approach in the frame of an
integrated uncertainty study. This is not feasible today by lack
of geological understanding at infra deltaic cycle scale to
properly constrain the stochastic distribution of mouth bars
and related flow barriers.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank TOTAL, TOTAL E&P
INDONESIE, BP-MIGAS and INPEX for their permission to
publish this paper.
Special thanks to all Peciko asset members whose daily
work made Peciko models possible, and therefore this paper!
The authors also want to thank the petrophysics, the
reservoir transverse teams and the exploration team from
TOTAL E&P INDONESIE in Balikpapan for their valuable
collaboration.