Characterization of stratigraphic architecture and its impact on fluid flow in a fluvial-dominated deltaic reservoir analog: Upper Cretaceous Ferron Sandstone Member, Utah

Three-dimensional modeling of clinoforms in shallow-marine reservoirs: Part 2. Impact on fluid flow and hydrocarbon recovery in fluvial-dominated deltaic reservoirs

“…The clinoform-modeling algorithm demonstrated in a companion article (Graham et al, 2015, this volume) is used to incorporate multiple clinoform surfaces into a suite of reservoir-scale, surface-based 3-D geologic models containing several stacked delta lobes of varying azimuthal orientation. The models are based on data and an existing, high-resolution outcrop model from an outcrop analog, the Ferron Sandstone Member, central Utah (Deveugle et al, 2011), and serve as a case study for fluvial-dominated reservoirs.…”

“…The application of sequence stratigraphic terminology to shallow-marine tongues and their constituent delta-lobe deposits has been ambiguous in the Ferron Sandstone Member and likely also in other deltaic strata. Shallow-marine tongues have been interpreted as either parasequences (e.g., Anderson and Ryer, 2004) or as parasequence sets in which their constituent delta-lobe deposits represent parasequences (e.g., Garrison and Van den Bergh, 2004;Deveugle et al, 2011). Here we follow the latter nomenclature, with each shallow-marine tongue assigned to a parasequence set and each delta-lobe deposit to a parasequence.…”

“…The presence of FC sandbodies is inferred from regional mapping outside the study area, where the basal contact of the coastal plain interval is interpreted as a sequence boundary marked by channelized sandbodies (Deveugle et al, 2011). The presence of FC sandbodies in subsurface fluvial-dominated deltaic reservoirs is subject to similar uncertainties in interpretation (e.g., Tye, 2004).…”

“…However, even if channels are interpreted to be present in the model area, there is still considerable uncertainty in how the FC sandbodies are represented in reservoir models (e.g., Howell et al, 2008a). These sandbodies were populated in the model of Deveugle et al (2011) using a single, stochastic, object-based modeling realization constrained by published data on sandbody dimensions (Reynolds, 1999;Tye, 2004). However, if further stochastic realizations of the model were generated, the position, geometry, and orientation of the channelized sandbodies would change with each realization, such that FC sandbodies may not be present in the study area ( Figure 3E).…”

“…However, most studies investigated the effects of heterogeneity along clinoforms using either two-dimensional (2-D) models (e.g., White and Barton, 1999), which overestimate the impact of permeability contrasts along clinoforms because they are assumed to be continuous in the third dimension (Jackson and Muggeridge, 2000), or three-dimensional (3-D) models of volumes much smaller than most reservoirs (Forster et al, 2004;Mattson and Chan, 2004;. Deveugle et al (2011) created a reservoir-scale, 3-D model of multiple stacked deltalobe deposits in an outcrop analog and found that sweep efficiency in stacked delta-lobe deposits is controlled by the orientation, continuity, and permeability of channelized sandbodies and by the vertical permeability of laterally extensive heterolithic distal delta-front deposits that form the lower part of each lobe. However, their models did not include clinoform their preserved stratigraphy and in applying this knowledge to reservoir characterization.…”