11 International Networking Event 14 Geomodeling: A Team ... files/pdfs... · Terrains Field Seminar Montana Seismic Interpretation in Fold- and Thrust- July 19-25, 2015 Belts Field

$10.00JULY/AUGUST 2015VOLUME 42, ISSUE 07Canadian Publication Mail Contract – 40070050

RETURN UNDELIVERABLE CANADIAN ADDRESSES TO:CSPG – 110, 333 - 5 Avenue SW Calgary, Alberta T2P 3B6

AddresseeAdditional Delivery InformationStreet AddressPostal Box Number and Station InformationMunicipality, Province/Territory Postal Code

11 International Networking Event

14 Geomodeling: A Team Effort To Better Understand Our Reservoirs

24 Go Take A Hike

29 CSPG Core Conference 2015

Subsurface Contouring: The Secrets to Optimizing Your Maps for Oil & Gas Exploration

Concepts, Models and Case Studies of Dolomitization, with Applications to Hydrocarbon Exploration and Development

The Petroleum System: An Investigative Method to Explore for Conventional and Unconventional Hydrocarbons

Fundamentals of Siliciclastic Sequence Stratigraphy Rock/Fluid Interactions and Natural Fracture

Development and Alteration RQ Toolkit: Using Rock Data for Reservoir Quality

Assessment Reservoir Engineering for Petroleum Geologists Practical Geomechanics Quick Guide to Carbonate Well Log Analysis Clay Minerals in Reservoir Evaluation Risk Reduction for Plays & Prospects Using

Quantitative Show

Courses Include:

Fundamentals EducationConference 2015

10TH ANNUAL

Fundamentals Education Conference

Hosted by:Norris Conference Center- Westchase9990 Richmond Ave., Suite 102 Phone: 713-780-9300Houston, TX 77042 Fax: 713-780-9490

Registration and InformationCall AAPG toll free in the U.S. andCanada at 888.338.3387 or 918.560.2650F: 918.560.2678 • E: [email protected] W: www.aapg.org/career/training/in-person/education-conference

Upcoming Education Courses

www.aapg.org/career/training/

Education

2015 Courses:LAST CHANCEBasic Well Log Analysis July 13-17, 2015 Golden, COFractures, Folds and Faults in Thrusted July 13-18, 2015Terrains Field Seminar MontanaSeismic Interpretation in Fold- and Thrust- July 19-25, 2015Belts Field Seminar CanadaAssessment, Forecasting, and Decision-Making July 18-19, 2015Unconventional Resource Plays (with URTeC) San Antonio, TXGeomechanics for Completion Optimiziation July 18, 2015(with URTeC) San Antonio, TXIntroductory Geochemistry for Condensate-Rich July 19, 2015Shales and Tight Oil (with URTeC) San Antonio, TX

Early-bird Rates Expire Soon:Geology in Montana along the Missouri River: August 17-21, 2015Canoeing with Lewis & Clark Field Seminar MontanaDevonian Reef Facies Models, Hydrothermal Aug. 31-Sept. 4, 2015Dolomitization, and Tight-Carbonate Reservoir CanadaAnalogues Field SeminarFractured Reservoirs: From Geologic August 24-28, 2015Concepts toReservoir Models - course plus field trip Casper, WYGeochemistry & Modeling of Unconventional September 13, 2015Petroleum Systems (with AAPG ICE) Melbourne, Australia

SHORT COURSESFundamentals Education Conference November 9-13, 2015 Houston, TXPractical Salt Tectonics December 1-4, 2015 Houston, TX

FIELD SEMINARSModern Terrigenous Clastic September 8-15, 2015Depositional Systems S. CarolinaComplex Geology of the Spanish Pyrenees: September 14-18, 2015Folding, Thrusting & Syntectonic Sedimentation Barcelona, SpainLacustrine Basin Exploration September 20-27, 2015 UtahSedimentology & Sequence Stratigraphic September 23-30, 2015Response of Paralic Deposits Colorado/UtahComplex Carbonate Reservoirs Sept. 26-Oct. 2, 2015 ItalySequence Stratigraphy, Facies Architecture October 2-9, 2015& Reservoir Characterization of Fluvial, UtahDeltaic and Strand-Plain Deposits

HOUSTON, TEXASNOVEMBER 9-13, 2015

November 9-13, 2015 - Houston, Texas

2 RESERVOIR ISSUE 07 • JULY/AUGUST 2015

CSPG OFFICE

#110, 333 – 5th Avenue SW Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2P 3B6 Tel: 403-264-5610 Web: www.cspg.orgPlease visit our website for all tickets sales and event/course registrations Office hours: Monday to Friday, 8:00am to 4:30pm The CSPG Office is Closed the 1st and 3rd Friday of every month.

OFFICE CONTACTSMembership Inquiries Tel: 403-264-5610 Email: [email protected]

Technical/Educational Events: Biljana Popovic Tel: 403-513-1225 Email: [email protected]

Advertising Inquiries: Emma MacPherson Tel: 403-513-1230 Email: [email protected]

Sponsorship Opportunities: Candace Seepersad Tel: 403-513-1227 Email: [email protected]

Conference Inquiries: Candace Seepersad Tel: 403-513-1227 Email: [email protected]

CSPG Foundation: Kasandra AmaroTel: 403-513-1234 Email: [email protected] Inquiries: Eric Tang Tel: 403-513-1232 Email: [email protected]

Executive Director: Lis Bjeld Tel: 403-513-1235, Email: [email protected]

EDITORS/AUTHORSPlease submit RESERVOIR articles to the CSPG office. Submission deadline is the 23rd day of the month, two months prior to issue date. (e.g., January 23 for the March issue).To publish an article, the CSPG requires digital copies of the document. Text should be in Microsoft Word format and illustrations should be in TIFF format at 300 dpi., at final size.

CSPG COORDINATING EDITOREmma MacPherson, Communications Coordinator, Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists Tel: 403-513-1230, [email protected] RESERVOIR is published 11 times per year by the Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists. This includes a combined issue for the months of July and August. The purpose of the RESERVOIR is to publicize the Society’s many activities and to promote the geosciences. We look for both technical and non-technical material to publish.

The contents of this publication may not be reproduced either in part or in full without the consent of the publisher. Additional copies of the RESERVOIR are available at the CSPG office.

No official endorsement or sponsorship by the CSPG is implied for any advertisement, insert, or article that appears in the Reservoir unless otherwise noted. All submitted materials are reviewed by the editor. We reserve the right to edit all submissions, including letters to the Editor. Submissions must include your name, address, and membership number (if applicable).The material contained in this publication is intended for informational use only.

While reasonable care has been taken, authors and the CSPG make no guarantees that any of the equations, schematics, or devices discussed will perform as expected or that they will give the desired results. Some information contained herein may be inaccurate or may vary from standard measurements. The CSPG expressly disclaims any and all liability for the acts, omissions, or conduct of any third-party user of information contained in this publication. Under no circumstances shall the CSPG and its officers, directors, employees, and agents be liable for any injury, loss, damage, or expense arising in any manner whatsoever from the acts, omissions, or conduct of any third-party user.

Designed and Printed by McAra Printing, Calgary, Alberta.

FRONT COVER

Sunrise over Badwater Basin, Death Valley, with salt polygons formed by evaporation at the lowest point in North America, some 86 metres below sea level. Up to 13 kilometres of sediment has accumulated in the valley, formed by stresses associated with subduction of the Pacific Plate. Photo by: Jon Noad

JULY/AUGUST 2015 – VOLUME 42, ISSUE 07

ARTICLES

International Networking Event ............................................................................................. 11

Photo of the Month .................................................................................................................. 12

27th Annual CSPG/CSEG 10KM/5KM Road Race and Fun run ...................................... 13

Geomodeling: A Team Effort To Better Understand Our Reservoirs ............................ 14

Honorary Member Bruce McIntyre ...................................................................................... 23

Go Take A Hike ........................................................................................................................... 24

Honorary Member Dr. Brad Hayes ....................................................................................... 27

CSPG Core Conference 2015 ................................................................................................ 29

DEPARTMENTS

Message from the Board ............................................................................................................ 5

Technical Luncheons ................................................................................................................... 8

Rock Shop ................................................................................................................................... 28

RESERVOIR ISSUE 07 • JULY/AUGUST 2015 3

CSPG BOARD

PRESIDENTTony Cadrin [email protected] Tel: 403.303.3493

PRESIDENT ELECTGreg Lynch • Shell Canada [email protected] Tel: 403.384.7704

PAST PRESIDENTDale [email protected]

FINANCE DIRECTORAstrid Arts • Cenovus [email protected] Tel: 403.766.5862

FINANCE DIRECTOR ELECTScott Leroux • Long Run [email protected] Tel: 403.802.3775

DIRECTORMark Caplan • Athabasca Oil Sands [email protected] Tel: 403.975.7701

DIRECTORMilovan Fustic • Statoil Canada [email protected] Tel: 403.724.3307

DIRECTORMichael LaBerge • Channel Energy [email protected] Tel: 403.301.3739

DIRECTORRyan Lemiski • Nexen Energy [email protected] Tel: 403.699.4413

DIRECTORRobert Mummery • Almandine Resources [email protected] Tel: 403.651.4917

DIRECTORDarren Roblin • Kelt [email protected] Tel: 587.233.0784

DIRECTORJen Russel-Houston • Osum Oil Sands [email protected] Tel: 403.270.4768

DIRECTOREric Street • Jupiter [email protected] Tel: 587.747.2631

EXECUTIVE DIRECTORLis Bjeld • [email protected] Tel: 403.513.1235


Message from the BoardA message from Eric Street & Mark Caplan, Directors

Conference and Education Update: Knowledge is Enlightenment!

Nobody reading this article needs to be reminded of how bad the energy sector has been hit lately. Oil prices have fallen precipitously by over 50% since August, 2014, and the speculated rebound in commodity price hasn’t yet materialized. The reaction from Canadian and global energy companies has been to dramatically cut capital spending, reduce investment in long-term projects, cut G&A costs and, above all, reduce staff numbers. Unfortunately, reducing G&A costs often translates into smaller training and conference budgets.

As the pace of drilling has slowed, E&P companies are spending more time on technical evaluations of their portfolios. This is where CSPG short courses, conferences and field seminars can lead to improvements in knowledge and geoscience awareness. We will address these areas in terms of accomplishments and future plans.

Beginning with conferences, we are impressed by the quality and quantity being offered either jointly with other societies or independently. Our goal is to host world-class technical events where participants can freely exchange ideas and grow their networking base. Noteworthy recent conferences include the joint CSPG-AAPG Playmaker Forum held on March 31st, and GeoConvention 2015, the joint CSPG-CSEG-CWLS marquee petroleum geoscience conference held May 4-8th. The Playmaker Forum covered varied subject matter from oil shale exploration to the application of new technologies in unlocking unconventional plays. Many of the presentations are available as slide decks and webcasts through the CSPG website (see URL below). GeoConvention 2015 hosted an impressive number of delegates that attended a broad scope technical presentations and the ever-popular Core Conference. Too numerous to mention, the technical presentation abstracts can be accessed through the CSPG website at http://www.cspg.org/cspg/conferences.

On the horizon our members can look forward to many events, some still in the early

planning stages, all aimed at enriching their technical knowledge base. We are pleased to share a selection of these that the CSPG is currently involved with planning:

1) Mountjoy Carbonate Conference “Advances in Characterization and Modeling of Complex Carbonate Reservoirs”; (CSPG/SEPM) is taking place from 23rd-28th August, 2015 in Banff. Technical sessions include dolostones, diagenesis, fracturing, structuration, modeling, and unconventional carbonates. Additionally, short courses and field trips as well as a mini-carbonate core conference at the Core Research Centre will be offered.

2) Gussow Conference ”Fine-Grained Rocks; Resources to Reserves” (CSPG) takes place from 13th-15th October, 2015 in Banff. This workshop format conference will follow the life cycle of fine-grained reservoirs from exploration concept through to booking reserves.

3) The CSPG-CSEG-CWLS consortium will host GeoConvention 2016 from March 7th to 11th, and planning is well underway.

4) AAPG ACE annual conference, co-hosted with the CSPG and SEPM, will be held in Calgary from June 20th to 24th, 2016. In addition to 10 riveting technical themes an assortment of short courses and field trips are being planned. An International Core Conference that we expect will be one of the biggest and best will also be held.

5) CSPG Gussow 2016 Conference will be held in Banff from October 11th to 13th, 2016. The theme will be Clastic Sedimentology.

Often run in conjunction with conferences, the CSPG is proud to have held 7 short courses, 2 field seminars, and the Student Industry Field Trip (SIFT) in spring 2015. Short course subject matter included SAGD

(... Continued on page 7)


CORPORATE SPONSORSSAMARIUMgeoLOGIC systems ltd.AGAT Laboratories

DIAMONDCSPG Foundation

TITANIUMTourmaline Oil Corp.APEGA

PLATINUMCenovus EnergyConocoPhillips Canada LimitedNexen ULCImperial Oil Resources

GOLDSuncor EnergyIHS Global Canada Limited

SILVERLoring Tacore Labs Ltd.Weatherford Canada PartnershipCanadian Natural Resources LtdSeitel Canada Ltd.Devon Energy CorpCabra Consulting Ltd.Emerson Process ManagementEnerplus CorporationHusky Energy Inc.

BRONZEArcis Seismic SolutionsTalisman EnergyHalliburtonPro Geo ConsultantsOsum Oil Sands Corp.ParadigmLong Run ExplorationQatar Shell GTL LimitedChinook ConsultingPengrowth CorporationExxonmobil Exploration Co. Ltd.Crescent Point Energy TrustBelloy Petroleum ConsultingIkon Science Ltd.Geomodeling Technology Corp.Baker Hughes CalgaryTucker Energy Services CanadaMJ SystemsGLJ Petroleum Consultants Ltd.Sproule Associates LimitedStreamsim Technologies, Inc.As of March 30, 2015 A Special Thanks to Geologic Systems Ltd., CSPG’s Top Sponsor of the Month.

fundamentals, clastic diagenesis, source rock evaluation, facies architecture and sequence stratigraphy in deltaic systems, Mannville stratigraphy and sedimentology, the evaluation and exploitation of tight carbonate reservoirs, and the evaluation of natural fracture systems in reference to resource plays. Field seminars focused on the Athabasca oil sands area from basin to molecular level and the history of the infamous Leduc oilfield. SIFT, the CSPG’s premier platform for introducing aspiring geoscientists to the petroleum industry, was held from May 4th-17th. The program brought together successful candidates from Canadian universities to learn the history of the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin and broaden their understanding of petroleum geoscience career possibilities. Included in the 2 week event were a 4 day mountain traverse and the petroleum exploration game where teams of students competed against one another in a real world E&P company scenario.

The fall 2015 and spring 2016 short course and field seminar programs are currently being built. The CSPG endeavors to offer an integrated program that caters to the needs of our members. Please refer to the education heading of the CSPG website for upcoming offerings.

Although we face tough economic times, we believe the following are some of the many reasons to continue attending conferences and technical events when circumstances permit:

1) For those who have unfortunately been the casualty of this negative economic climate, it is crucial that you maintain/improve your technical skills. This will better-position you for success once the energy cycle begins to improve.

2) Conferences, short courses, and CSPG luncheons are excellent ways to keep current with the technical aspects of

the industry and represent excellent networking opportunities.

3) The opportunity to learn about industry best practices and game-changing approaches to problem solving.

4) Most CSPG training and technical events qualify for APEGA’s Continuing Professional Development Program, contributing to Professional Development Hours (PDH).

5) Calgary is privileged to have the world’s best core-viewing facility – our core conferences are ranked with the best and biggest in the world.

6) A wide selection of educational short courses and field trips are offered.

Companies can also help to support the geological community by continuing to sponsor technical events and conferences. Please contact the knowledgeable CSPG office staff who will be happy to explain the benefits of corporate sponsorship, or please refer to the CSPG website and go to the “Sponsorship” page.

As we sign off we would like to thank the enthusiastic CSPG volunteers and staff. Without them, the aforementioned events would not exist. Please continue to support the CSPG and its events: this is your organization. Please remember to sign up for upcoming conferences at http://www.cspg.org/cspg/conferences. We can help to make a rosier future for us all. Knowledge is enlightenment.

We wish you a wonderful summer and hope that you sign up for many of our upcoming technical events.

Mark Caplan [email protected]

Eric Street [email protected]

(... Continued from page 5)

Rock Shop

Connectivity within and between fluvial channel belt reservoirs: A trip down the MississippiSPEAKERJohn Holbrook Texas Christian University, Co-Investigator, Fluvial Research Group

11:30 am Tuesday, September 15th, 2015 Calgary, TELUS Convention Centre, MacLeod Hall C/D, Calgary, Alberta

Please note: The cut-off date for ticket sales is 1:00 pm, three business days before event. [Thursday, Sept 10, 2015]. CSPG Member Ticket Price: $45.00 + GST. Non-Member Ticket Price: $47.50 + GST.

Each CSPG Technical Luncheon is 1 APEGA PDH credit. Tickets may be purchased online at www.cspg.org

ABSTRACTAssessment of potential for draining un-penetrated but closely stacked channel-belt reservoirs from an existing belt penetration depends upon an understanding of the methods of and the likelihood for connectivity between otherwise isolated reservoirs. Knowledge of both the variability

in scour depth beneath belts and the belt lithofacies and architecture is critical for making such assessments, yet is very poorly understood. We reviewed a collection of over 300 driller’s records and over 300 hand-augered boreholes along a 75 mile stretch of an active Mississippi River meander belt. We divided the lithofacies into genetic units and recorded the depth of significant surfaces between units. Two trends are evident: 1) The variability of the basal scour surface of the belt mimics the variability of the modern channel thalweg depth through the studied belt, and 2) While the Mississippi River is the classic example of a mud dominated fluvial system with abundant abandoned meanders, much of the lower abandoned channel fill is not composed of passive-fill clays, but rather a grittier mix of active-fill mud and sand of variable permeability. Our results suggest that, if channel-belt reservoirs are vertically separated by the thickness equivalent of one-half the average thalweg depth (average channel-fill or belt thickness as proxy) they should be able to connect through the scour surface across 15% of the overlapping belt area. As the thickness of the separating unit approaches the equivalent of the average thalweg depth, the likelihood of connectivity between potential reservoirs decreases to less than 1%. Once connected by the scour surface, communication between stacked channel-belts also depends on the reservoir quality. Our study shows that, even in muddy systems, the material into which a fluvial surface scours is likely to have sufficient quality to permit reservoir communication. In addition, channel fills typically contain sand in the lower portions that facilitate connectivity between point bar reservoirs within channel belts. This abstract is from

the PhD dissertation of Neal Alexandrowicz, supervised by John Holbrook.

BIOGRAPHYDr. John Holbrook is a Professor in the Department of Geology and the Energy Institute at Texas Christian University. He previously served as a Professor at University of Texas at Arlington and Southeast Missouri State University. His research interests are field oriented, focusing mostly on both modern and ancient fluvial systems and physical stratigraphy. Current interests include basin permeability architecture and connectivity of flow paths, mechanics of discontinuity surfaces, and tectonic and climatic impact on river processes. He applies his research widely across petroleum, geothermal, and environmental issues. He gained his B.S. at the University of Kentucky, his M.S. at the University of New Mexico, and his Ph.D. at Indiana University, all in Geology. He chairs the NSF Research Coordination Network for research in geothermal energy from sedimentary basins. He has served on several committees at SEPM, GSA, and AAPG. He is a member of GSA Council, past Chair of the GSA Sedimentary Geology Section, and is a GSA Fellow. He has served SEPM on SEPM Council and as President of Gulf Coast and Mid-Continent section, and he teaches short courses and serves/chairs committees for AAPG. He recently served as vice chair on the Board of Geologist Registration in Missouri.

Dr. Holbrook’s research interests are broad, but have a common theme centered about fluvial sedimentology. Most particularly, current research interests focus on the factors controlling fluvial geomorphology and resultant fluvial depositional architecture. As such, a high concentration is placed on the factors linking fluvial surficial processes and preservation of fluvial sediments.

TECHNICAL LUNCHEONS SEPTEMBER LUNCHEON Webcasts sponsored by


Reservoir Geochemistry Tools to Support Engineering Practices: A review of the State of the ArtSPEAKERNorka BalliacheProfessor of Natural History & Director of the Interdisciplinary Centre for Ancient Life, University of Manchester

11:30 am Tuesday, September 29th, 2015 Calgary, TELUS Convention Centre, MacLeod Hall C/D, Calgary, Alberta

Please note: The cut-off date for ticket sales is 1:00 pm, three business days before event. [Thursday, Sept 24, 2015]. CSPG Member Ticket Price: $45.00 + GST. Non-Member Ticket Price: $47.50 + GST.

Each CSPG Technical Luncheon is 1 APEGA PDH credit. Tickets may be purchased online at https://www.cspg.org/eSeries/source/Events/index.cfm.

ABSTRACTMost processes in petroleum systems generate heterogeneous fluids in space and time. Main controls on oil composition in the reservoir include source facies, source(s) maturity, multiple phases of petroleum charging, in reservoir alteration and PVT fractionation during migration. An understanding of the distribution of fluids in the reservoir allows designing and optimizing recovery strategies.

Reservoir geochemistry provides practical tools to support reservoir engineering practices (Larter and Aplin, 1995; Larter et. al., 1997; England, 2005). Applications of reservoir geochemistry aim at increasing the level of understanding of compositional gradients across the reservoir, identifying barriers to the fluid communication that could impact oil and gas production, production allocation and monitoring recovery, among others. To take full advantage of geochemistry applications to reservoir characterization and management, a detailed baseline study before starting the production operations is strategic.

The integration of data available from multiple disciplines is also key in generating solutions.

Commonly utilized geochemical analytical techniques include gas chromatography oil fingerprinting, oil molecular composition by gas chromatography mass spectrometry, isotopic composition of gases and liquids, bulk oil composition and metals analysis. Reservoir geochemistry also allows the use a variety of sample types, such as produced oil, water and gases, core extracts and cuttings.

This presentation will review reservoir geochemistry methods and applications in the context of reservoir characterization and engineering problems. Case studies from around the world will be discussed to illustrate the concepts.

BIOGRAPHYNorka Marcano is a petroleum geochemist with more than ten years of experience in petroleum reservoir characterization. She holds a Ph.D. degree from the University of Calgary. Her research and technical interests include: petroleum systems evaluation, oil post-expulsion alternation processes, oil charge mixing analysis, monitoring thermal recovery of heavy oil and oil sands using oil molecular composition and biodegradation modeling. Prior to working at Schlumberger, Norka was project manager with Gushor Inc., and worked as a geochemist at PDVSA, the Venezuelan national oil company.

TECHNICAL LUNCHEONS SEPTEMBER LUNCHEON Webcasts sponsored by


Fluvial systems and their deposits – from point bars to stratigraphy In

honour of Derald G. Smith

START DATE

23-Sept -15

LENGTH 2 days

INSTRUCTORS Jenni Scott &

Stephen Hubbard

PDH Credits 16 Hours

Register online today at www.cspg.org

CONTINUING EDUCATION Upcoming CSPG Field Seminar

Course Content: Inspired by the work of Professor Derald G. Smith, this course investigates fluvial and fluvial-estuarine deposits in spectacular outcrops at Dinosaur Provincial Park, and applies this knowledge to mapping subsurface reservoirs in analogous deposits. Recognition of various heterolithic deposits is emphasized, including their effects on fluid flow. Examples from the 3-D exposures of the Dinosaur Park Formation, including Derald Smith’s classic outcrops at Steveville, will be applied to interpreting core and subsurface logs from the Belly River Group and McMurray Formation. Field stops are within areas of the Park accessible only by permitted researchers. The examples viewed in outcrop begin with braided channel deposits (Oldman Fm.), through sandy laterally accreting channel deposits, to the meandering fluvial system deposited during a transgression of the Western Interior Seaway (Dinosaur Park Fm.). Meandering channel sandstone bodies are up to ~20 m thick and associated with the complex stratigraphic architecture characteristic of meanderbelts over an area of 5 km2. Sandy point bar deposits are interspersed with other more heterolithic meanderbelt elements including abandoned channel fills and counter point bar deposits. Collectively, these units represent a typical meanderbelt succession, such as that present in the McMurray Formation of the Athabasca Oil Sands. Characterization of the outcrop belt emphasizes distinguishing sedimentological and ichnological information from the various meanderbelt components. The origin of facies is linked to developing an understanding of formative sedimentary processes, including the controls on morphology of surfaces and resultant stratigraphic architecture. The controls on fluvial systems will be considered, including paleotopography, tectonics, and sea level. This course places the details into context for the various fluvial-estuarine examples considered.

Topics: Fluvial and fluvial-estuarine sedimentology

Location: Dinosaur Provincial Park (near Brooks)

All costs for the field seminar are included in the registration: Hotel, transportation, lunches, dinner, printed manual… We will leave Calgary for Dinosaur Provincial Park on the morning of Wednesday, Sept. 23 and return in the early evening of Thursday, Sept. 24.


INTERNATIONAL NETWORKING EVENTBALLROOM BLITZ, Libertine Lounge, Calgary, 6th May

Jürgen Kraus ([email protected]) Co-Chair CSPG International Division Director (Membership), CGEF

Following last year’s much talked-about success, CSPG International Division and the Canadian Global Exploration Forum (CGEF) hosted their 2nd annual joint networking reception at the Libertine Lounge on Wednesday, 6th May, 4–7 pm. Goal was to bring geoscientists and other technical staff and consultants and the management of internationally operating E&P companies together for three happy hours in a casual lounge environment. Government geologists and university students complemented the crowd.

Thanks to our sponsors including the CSPG, the event was again free and no membership or registration for Geoconvention was required – although the event benefitted from the end of the technical program.

The Libertine Lounge attracted more than 150 thirsty people. Most of them mingled around tall bistro tables and the large bar, while others preferred the comfort of the lounge sofas. The place offered a bright ambience at the front overlooking Stephen Avenue, as well as a dimmer-lit back area, where a variety of delicious foods was served – and plenty of it. And the bar excelled in a great selection of suds on tap. The overall atmosphere was once again great and many business cards changed hands over animated conversations. “It was fun to re-connect with old colleagues and meet new international players” was one of the feedbacks.

In summary, the balanced mix of professionals in the relaxed setting of the Libertine Lounge worked once again. Everybody had a good time. No, wait: a great time.

The organizers thank the sponsors for their generous support and the volunteers for helping out with only short notice. We also again thank the Libertine and its friendly and helpful staff.

A word on the two hosts, CGEF and CSPG International Division.

CGEF (cgef.org) is the only Canadian organization that serves and promotes Canadian-based international oil and gas E&P. CGEF members meet every 2nd month for lunch talks and networking and once annually for a two-day conference in Calgary, usually in October. CGEF helps establish and extend business and government networks and liaisons. Members can access CGEF’s international relationships. In the big picture, CGEF aims to establish Calgary as an international oil and gas hub by attracting business and capital & resources, and therefore creating a larger market for and exporting Canadian technologies. There are currently ca. 160 internationally operating E&P companies out of Calgary (250 incl. the US), of which ca. 40 are CGEF members.

If your company would like to try CGEF out for free and participate in one of our

luncheons at the Petroleum Club or is interested in sponsorship opportunities, please contact me. The next luncheon will be in September.

CSPG’s International Division has existed since 1985. We offer a round of brown-bag lunchtime talks every second Wednesday of the month at Nexen Theatre, and two socializers per annum at Buzzards Restaurant. The current co-chairs are Kevin Morrison and Jürgen Kraus, supported by advisors James Duggan, Nanna Eliuk, and Jon Noad. We are open for growth and would like to attract more mid-career technical people and middle management to our events. We also welcome presentations for the second half of the year and beyond. If you would like to talk 30 minutes about a geoscience topic or 10 mins about anything else, please contact one of us. You find more information on the Division’s website.

There are five ways to stay informed about the International Division’s activities:

1. Subscribe to the Division’s linkedin group page with more than 360 members

2. Join the email list by sending a request to Biljana Popovic ([email protected]).

3. Visit the Division’s website.

4. Have a look at the Facebook site: www.facebook.com/cspginternational This is the most compact and visual way as the page hosts many pictures.

5. Attend our events!

We look forward to seeing everybody again at The Libertine next year.


PHOTO OF THE MONTH

The Okotoks “Big Rock” is a large Glacial erratic located about 500km from its original location in Jasper National Park. The Rock is an orthoquartzite with some garnets indicating metamorphism, and being conglomeratic in part, with the original bedding intact. This photo shot after midnight during a bright moonlit night, showing the north face of the Big Rock. Photo by John P. Andersen


27TH ANNUAL CSPG/CSEG 10KM/5KM ROAD RACE AND FUN RUNWednesday, September 23, 2015

On your mark! Get ready! CSPG and CSEG will be running our annual Road Race and Fun Run this September.

Once again we are offering both a 10km and a 5km race. We have secured Winning Time to provide chip timing and the CSPG will be providing easy online registration.

The run will take place on Wednesday, September 23, 2015. Start time is 6:00pm just north of the Eau Claire YMCA. The route will take you on an out-and-back course along the beautiful Bow River pathway, finishing at the Eau Claire YMCA. Following the race all racers, volunteers and guests are invited to gather at the Calgary Curling Club, just north

of Princess Island for awards, draw prizes, refreshments and some friendly camaraderie. If you are looking for a competitive race or just want to have fun, come join us!

The race is open to all members of the CSPG and CSEG as well as the general public. Space is limited to 200 participants so register early to avoid disappointment! There will be NO registration on race day. For more information or to register visit the CSPG Events website www.cspg.org/cspg/events. For sponsorship opportunities please contact: Jason Kangarloo [email protected], Shirley Fleming 403-806-3212 [email protected] or Jocelyn Frankow 403-708-6404 [email protected]

To help you, Gord Hobbins of Gord’s Running Store has developed a 10km race training guide for novice runners. Try it out and benefit from some expert advice; you may be surprised how easy it can be to gently get yourself into condition for your first race.

Guidance/Tips: For novice runners who wish a do-it-yourself program at your leisure. -Run for short durations between 3 and 5 times per week according to schedule, with your long run days being the key to your training program. -If your running shoes are giving you some problems, get some which fit and match your gait. -Guide allows for a gradual increase to a comfortable load; your legs may need some conditioning at first. -Yes, times are in minutes. The secret is to be regular and not beat yourself up. -Wear a hat and cool shades. Keep well hydrated. It really helps. -Gently stretch those calves and quads afterwards. -Take along a friend and convince them to sign up for CSPG, CSEG and the RoadRace as well.

Many thanks go out to our sponsors and volunteers who make this event possible each year!

We hope to see you there! Armin Schafer, Race Director.

July 6-12 - 10-15 min - 10-15 min - - 15 minutes

July 13-19 - 10-15 min - 10-15 min - - 20 minutes

July 20-26 - 10-20 min 0-10 min 10-20 min - - 25 minutes

July 27-Aug 2 - 10-20 min 0-10 min 10-20 min - - 30 minutes

Aug 3-9 - 10-20 min 0-10 min 10-20 min 0-10 min - 25 minutes




Aug 31-Sep 6 - 15-25 min 0-10 min 15-25 min 0-10 min - 25 minutes

Sep 7-13 - 15-25 min 0-10 min 15-25 min 0-10 min - 45 minutes

Sep 14-20 - 20-30 min 0-10 min 15-25 min 0-10 min - 25 minutes

Sep 21-23 - Rest 10 KM RUN

Week Mon Tues Wed Thur Fri Sat Sun

Gord’s 12 Week Training Guide for Novice Runners Minutes of running per day:


GEOMODELING: A TEAM EFFORT TO BETTER UNDERSTAND OUR RESERVOIRSPart 5: Petrophysicists and Geomodeling| By Thomas Jerome, RPS, J. Kim McLean, independent petrophysicist and Laverne Chan, Enerplus

INTRODUCTION

Can you export for me the vshale (VSH), porosity, water saturation (SW) and permeability (PERM) logs? Thanks in advance for your help!

Such request is too often the only type of collaboration between petrophysicists and geomodelers. Of course, it’s not true in every company nor every project, but it does happen more often than it should. Geologists, geophysicists and geomodelers can talk for days, if not weeks, about the structure, the stratigraphy and the facies distribution. But we tend to order logs the way we order take-away at a restaurant: we want our order fast, we want it in LAS format and we don’t really care about how the logs were cooked in the kitchen.

That’s unfortunate. All the properties that we need to model in 3D (porosity, SW…) are some expression of the rocks’ and fluids’ characteristics such as pore size, mineralogy and/or fluid composition. They are here to quantify how the rocks will behave when we attempt to produce and all these properties that we need to model are inter-connected one to the other to some degree. A good petrophysical analysis will properly capture the correlations between these different reservoir properties. As geomodelers, we must also respect these correlations when we model petrophysical logs in 3D. For example, if a rock’s characteristics are such that low porosity values are necessarily correlated to low permeability and high water saturation, we must make sure that we respect this relationship in every cell of our 3D grid. We don’t want to have cells with a mix of interpolated low porosity values, high permeability and low water saturation. It would contradict the nature of the reservoir and it might jeopardize the analysis engineers will derive from our models.

As geomodelers, we tend sometimes to consider that the challenges of the geomodeling process are building the grid and populating facies. Once this process is properly done, populating petrophysics is “easy”. The aim of this paper is to show that an appropriate amount of time must in fact also be dedicated to distributing the petrophysical analysis in 3D correctly, and in a way that respects the nature of the rocks.

This goal is easier to achieve if we keep our petrophysicists in the loop instead of trying to do it on our own.

Firstly, this paper reviews some basic definition of VSH, porosity, SW and permeability before looking at how the logs are being upscaled (blocked) into the 3D grid. It then looks at a question sometimes asked: will it really change something if I was just to model my logs in 3D without losing time modeling facies? At last, 3D petrophysical modeling itself is covered as well as some aspects of integrating petrophysical uncertainties into the geomodel.

SOME DEFINITIONS

Petrophysics is a vast domain which can’t be summarized in a few paragraphs. Each rock requires specific petrophysical equations, or at least specific values for the parameters of these equations. Also, as for any other sciences, practitioners have developed multiple techniques to compute any given petrophysical log, different techniques requiring a different set of input logs or different techniques being based on a different conceptual understanding of the intrinsic characteristics of the rock. At last, the list of reservoir properties requested by engineers might be different from one study to the next (conventional vs unconventional, natural fractures to be modeled or not…). As it is impossible to cover everything in one paper, we have decided to focus on a simple set of petrophysical logs: VSH, porosity, SW and permeability. Discussion between your geomodeler and your petrophysicist will allow you to adapt what is proposed hereafter to your specific reservoir and your specific petrophysical analysis. In complement, we invite you to refer to one of the many excellent books available for more details about well logging (Ellis and Singer, 2007) and petrophysics (Doveton, 2014).

The purpose of well logging is to measure how the rocks and fluids in the vicinity of the wellbore react to different stimuli such as electricity (resistivity logs…), nuclear emission (density logs…) and acoustic waves (sonic…). Well logging provides an essential input to formation evaluation but also to completion evaluation. Among other things, once processed, cleaned and calibrated, well logs help to answer questions

about the nature, location and quality of the hydrocarbons. Well logs are also used to quantify important rock and fluid properties such as VSH, porosity, permeability and SW, through the process of petrophysical analysis. These petrophysical logs are in turn needed as input to engineering studies, and so as input to geomodeling.

VSH quantifies the part of the rock that is “ineffective” in the sense that it will slow down or prevent the good flow of the hydrocarbons. GR is used as the base line for quantifying VSH as some clays such as illite contain radioactive minerals such as potassium which are detected by the GR log. Some clays such as kaolinite does not contain any of the radioactive minerals (potassium, uranium, and thorium), detected by the GR log, and are therefore not visible to this log. The presence and proportion of each type of clay, among which those not visible to GR, can be observed and measured in core samples and then used to correct the VSH logs as needed.

Two main types of porosity are defined: total porosity (PHIT) and effective porosity (PHIE). PHIE is the percentage of the rock volumes which represents the connected porosity. It is made of all the pores that are connected and form the pore network. Only fluids in the pore network can be moved through production (unless some recovery techniques are used to connect some of the non-connected pores to the pore network). The total porosity is the fraction of the rock made of all the pores, both connected and non-connected. PHIT includes PHIE and mathematically PHIT is always greater or equal to PHIE.

Total water saturation (SWT) and effective water saturation (SWE) are associated respectively to PHIT and PHIE. The water saturation represents the percentage of the pore volume (total or effective) filed with water.

Most engineers want to see PHIE and SWE modeled in 3D, as these are important input parameters to their own computations (flow simulation, volumes). That being said, some recovery techniques are influenced by the total pore volume, not just the connected pore volume. As such, geomodelers should always check with their engineers what type of porosity and SW are needed (if not both). It should also be noted that initial SW is needed


for flow simulation and the current SW might be different to the initial SW. Initial means the state of SW in the reservoir before any production or enhanced recovery technique occurred. SW logs based on well logging done after EOR techniques, like waterflooding, were applied must be corrected or discarded. Waterflooding will increase SW in the vicinity of the water injectors and the SW logs will show higher values than were prevailing in the initial condition of the reservoir.

The discussion about which the type of porosity and SW needed (effective and/or total) must involve the petrophysicist as this request might change the way he/she will complete his/her petrophysical analysis.

For some reservoirs, measuring total properties on core is more easily done (or simply feasible) than measuring effective porosity. For some reservoirs, it is the reverse. The key to a good petrophysical analysis is the capacity to calibrate it back to some reliable core measurements. If core studies measured total properties, the petrophysicist will compute PHIT and SWT from the logs, calibrate them to the core measurements, and then, if needed, the petrophysicist will derive PHIE and SWE properties from PHIT and SWT. If core studies measured effective properties, the petrophysicist will do it the other way around. VSH is one of the parameters linking PHIE and PHIT. Any uncertainty on VSH (because of clays not seen by the GR for example) will add uncertainty in the porosity computation.

SW is the most difficult log to quantify because the coring process doesn’t preserve SW well. SW core measurement can be very unreliable. In conventional reservoirs, capillary pressure is extremely useful to quantify SW, but such technique can’t always be applied in unconventional reservoirs. Also, SW being partly connected to the porosity, any porosity uncertainty (coming from VSH uncertainty among other things), will also create uncertainty in the estimation of SW.

Permeability values change depending on the direction considered. The vertical permeability quantifies how the fluids move in the vertical direction, while the horizontal permeability quantifies how the fluids move in the plane of deposition. For flat to near-flat reservoirs, “horizontal” does mean horizontal. In complex structural reservoirs (folds, faults, tilted blocks…), the plane of deposition might not be “horizontal” anymore. The same can be said for the “vertical” permeability. For reservoirs with natural and/or induced fractures, a more complex horizontal permeability field must be considered as fluids will move with more ease in the direction parallel to the fractures (if they are open) than perpendicular to them.

Geomodels usually contain two permeabilities (vertical, horizontal). Some studies consider three permeabilities when two orthogonal horizontal permeabilities are needed. In this paper, we consider just one permeability as the message is about the general workflow, not about the specifics of any given type of reservoir. A discussion in your team will clarify what is needed in your case.

For consolidated reservoirs, permeability can be measured on core with some level of confidence. Cross-plots between core porosity and core permeability are used to define a mathematical relationship between the two properties. Once porosity logs are available (and calibrated to the core porosity measurements), the mathematical relationship porosity-permeability is used to compute permeability logs from the porosity logs. Permeability is very hard to measure, especially in non-consolidated rocks. As such, the porosity-permeability relationship contains a lot of uncertainty.

DEFINING THE RESOLUTION OF THE 3D GEOLOGICAL GRID BY UPSCALING THE WELL LOGS

One of the first tasks of a geomodel project is to decide at which resolution the model will be built. Shall we use cell size of 100m*100m horizontally? Finer maybe? 50m*50m? Coarser, such level of details being unnecessary? 250m*250m maybe? And what about the vertical cell size? 5m? 1m? 0.1m? Some geomodelers use the resolution that engineers will need for their 3D simulation grid. Simulation engineers might for example decide up-front for a cell size of 100m*100m by 1m vertically in the 3D simulation grid because it will limit the number of cells to a level manageable by the flow simulator. Experience shows though that it is wiser to select a cell size based on the expected spatial heterogeneity of the reservoir, and especially of the facies. If the reservoir contains geobodies of a few hundred meters width, then it is a good idea to have smaller cell size, maybe at 50m*50m or even less. There will always be time later to upscale the whole 3D geological grid to the resolution the engineers need for their own 3D grid. At that time, the then-built geomodel might even prove that the cell size asked by the engineers might oversimplify the complexity of the reservoir. The upscaling of a geological grid into a simulation grid will be covered in the paper on Flow Simulation and Geomodeling, in two issues from now. For the vertical cell size, we should use the upscaling the well logs as a means to decide what to do.

Facies data and petrophysical data are all physically stored as data along each of the object well of our project. In the meantime, we need to use these data to populate a

different physical object: the 3D geological grid. While some geomodeling packages allow running geostatistics with wells directly as input, it is wiser to first upscale the facies and the petrophysical data into the 3D grid (step also known as blocking the well data in some packages – both terms are used hereafter). The 3D geological grid must be refined enough to capture the spatial characteristics of the reservoir, and this starts with respecting the characteristics of the reservoir along the wells. The logs are upscaled to the resolution of the 3D grid and the upscaled logs are compared to the original well logs. If they are close enough, the vertical cell size is good. If the upscaled logs have lost too much important detail shown on the original logs, the 3D grid must be refined vertically.

A typical workflow can go as follows. Firstly, the well data (facies and petrophysics) are analyzed to find the average thickness of the facies. This thickness gives an original vertical cell size. The well data are blocked into the 3D grid and compared to the original well data. At this stage, we can face two situations. If it is matching perfectly, we should go with a coarser cell size (maybe 2m instead of 1m originally) and we repeat the process until we reach a level where the upscaling doesn’t respect the log data well enough anymore. The vertical cell size to use is the last one that worked well: it is the coarser cell size that respects the well data. On the contrary, if there is not a good-enough match, then the original vertical cell size was too coarse, and we need to refine progressively until no improvement can be seen. Once the vertical cell size captures the data resolution very well (ie going any finer doesn’t improve the resolution, while it needlessly increases the number of cells in the model) we have found the cell size we need.

Comparing the original logs to the upscaled values can be done qualitatively or quantitatively. If the project contains only a few wells, displaying original and upscaled values side by side on a well display is a good way to analyze the results. A snapshot of such a display can help to explain this process in a report. When the project contains many wells, such qualitative approach becomes tedious if not impossible. An alternative is to compare the statistics of the original logs with the statistics of the upscaled values. If the upscaling worked well, then the original and the upscaled logs should have similar distributions and so similar percentiles, mean and standard deviation. Such analysis is enough to validate the vertical cell size. Nevertheless, it might be more interesting for your team that you analyze also the statistics of the meta-data of each well. Under the term meta-data, we are



grouping any type of computation your team has done on the well logs, independently from your work on the geomodel. Maybe a net-pay thickness has been computed at each well as well as a net porous thickness and an oil-column thickness. Those numbers computed at each well might have already been used by your team to make decisions about the next steps of the whole project. Proving that the blocked well data does respect these crucial results is a great way to have your team support your geomodeling project.

Many mathematical techniques exist to block the well data. Usually, the vertical cell size (25cm to 1m) is coarser than the log resolution (10cm if not less). So all these techniques correspond to some sort of averaging. For discrete properties like facies, the most common approach is to keep the facies which was “the most preponderant”. For example, if in a given cell of 50cm height, the well shows 40cm of Sand and 10cm of Shale, it makes sense to assign the facies Sand to this cell. Is the “loss” of 10cm of Shale important? As long as it doesn’t impact the statistics along the well, probably not.

Once the facies are blocked, the petrophysical logs are upscaled. It makes sense to do it in this order as each facies usually shows a specific range of values for each petrophysical property. But what values shall we block? Only those associated to the blocked facies or shall we average over all the values, no matter what facies they belonged to? In the previous facies example, shall we defined a blocked (averaged) porosity from the porosity values only from the 40cm of Sand, as Sand was defined as the blocked facies value? Or shall we do the averaging by including also the values from the 10cm of Shale? In the first case, we make sure that a blocked Sand has a value of blocked porosity that belongs to the expected range of porosity for this type of facies. But by doing so, we have increased the average porosity in those 50cm. In the second case, we use all the values, so the averaged porosity is a closer representation of the spread of porosity along these 50 cm. But we have now a “dirty” blocked Sand with a value of porosity belonging neither to a Sand nor to a Shale. Each approach has its pros and cons. To get past this problem, we suggest the following approach. Firstly, apply the idea that if a Sand is the blocked facies in a cell, then the average values of the petrophysical properties are defined from the portion of the well which was a Sand to start with. Then analyze your statistics. If everything is well and fine, you have made the right call. If the reservoir is laminated though and many blocked cells shows that the input facies log is close to 50/50 percent of Shale and Sand,

the cell size might simply not be appropriate: you need a finer resolution. For an extremely laminated reservoir, this fine resolution might not be a valid option though, unless you are ready to work with a 3D geological grid made of tens if not hundreds of millions cells. An alternative is to revise the facies description on the wells and see if all the zones showing lamination of Sand/Shale can’t be renamed as a third facies Laminated Sand or Shaly Sand (for example). This new facies is understood to be a mixed of Sand and Shale and as such it shows petrophysical values being averages of those found in pure Sand and pure Shale facies. In this example, moving from a 2-facies classification to a 3-facies classification allows going around our problem. The cells with 50/50 Sand/Shale are now 100% made of this third facies. Once the new classification is applied, we can go back to upscaling the petrophysical logs by facies.

With modern geomodeling packages, it is possible to run the process of well upscaling in a few minutes. Nevertheless, we recommend that you work on this step with great care as any error here will be felt everywhere for the remaining of the project. This step should be used to validate the vertical cell size as well as optimizing the blocking. It makes sense for the geomodeler and the petrophysicist to work together on this step, defining the objectives, which statistics to look at, which numbers to match, and ultimately proving to the team that the blocked data are a very good starting point to both 3D facies and petrophysical modeling in the geomodeling project.

DO WE REALLY NEED TO MODEL FACIES?

The workflow promoted in the whole series is to populate facies in 3D and then to populate petrophysics by facies. The present section gives us the occasion to illustrate what might go wrong if the petrophysics is interpolated without a facies framework in place.

Let’s consider two wells with facies and VSH information (Figure 1). Well 1 shows 50m of Shale at the top followed by 30m of Sand, 20m of Shaly Sand and at last 10m of Sand. Well 2 is Sand all along except for 20m of Shaly Sand near the base of the reservoir. The Shaly Sand is interpreted as a continuous facies zone across the area while the Shale is believed to be of limited lateral extent. No data can tell where the Shale exactly stops between the two wells though. Each facies shows a specific range of VSH: the Sand is associated to VSH less than 30%, the Shaly Sand has VSH between 30% and 70% and the Shale is associated to VSH superior to 70%. We need to model the VSH and the facies in 3D while respecting our interpretation of the reservoir. Ideally, we need to be able

to create multiple models showing different lateral extent of the Shale between the two wells. For an initial path, we would like a Shale ending approximately half-way between the two wells. To do the modeling, we have a 3D grid refined enough to capture these three facies’ spatial distribution.

We decide to test two different modeling approaches. On one hand, we model VSH in 3D with a geostatistical algorithm and then we apply the VSH cut-offs to assign a facies code everywhere (Figure 2). On the other hand, we follow what we have advocated since the beginning: we model the facies in 3D with a geostatistical algorithm and then we model the VSH by facies, also with a geostatistical approach (Figure 3). Which approach gives the more reasonable results?

Both models show the proper relationship between facies and VSH (we don’t have high values of VSH in the Sand for example). Both models also show the same lateral extent of the lower Shaly Sand zone. But the two models differ drastically in the upper part of the unit. When we model the facies first, we have what we expected: a sharp transition between Shale/Sand approximately half-way between the wells (Figure 3). We also know from experience that if we were to use a smaller variogram range for modeling the Shale, we will be able to “place” the limit Shale/Sand closer to well 1 or to well 2. We have an algorithm with which it will be easy to manage this uncertainty in multiple realizations. On the contrary, the other approach creates a lateral transition Shale/Shaly-Sand/Sand that we didn’t interpret to start with (Figure 2). Why is that?

VSH is a continuous property which can takes a continuous range of values between 0% and 100%. All interpolators of continuous properties (as far as we know) create by definition models which vary continuously across the 3D grid. In the upper part of the unit, VSH will necessarily change progressively from 80% in average in the Shale on well 1, to 70%, 60%, 50%, 40% and 30% to finish around 20% in average in the Sand of well 2. It is unavoidable. When facies are calculated based on the cut-offs, it creates this halo of Shaly-Sand not observed at the wells. If the well data were showing that Shale and Sand

Figure 1. Schematic Shale, Shaly-Sand, Sand reservoir. Input data (Facies + VSH) and geological interpretation.



are never in direct contact but instead are always separated by a zone of Shaly Sand, and VSH smoothly transition from high values to low values, then seeing Shaly Sand and a smooth VSH transition between the wells would be reasonable. But that is not what the wells are showing. Well 1 shows that VSH changes without transition between high and low values (limit Shale/Sand), but also between low and average values (limit Sand/Shaly Sand). The smooth VSH model (Figure 2) and the forced succession Shale – Shaly Sand – Sand are not backed up by the well data.

Even for models which must ensure a specific lateral succession of facies, modeling facies first makes more sense as we have algorithms in our geostatistical toolbox which gives us a lot of control on the process (plurigaussian simulations). It would still be much more preferable than modeling the VSH first.

In conclusion, only model continuous properties such as VSH, porosity, SW or permeability within domains in which they

smoothly vary. Those domains will often be based on the subdivision of each geological unit into different facies zones. So, model your facies first and then model the continuous properties by facies.

MODELING PETROPHYSICS IN 3D: RESPECTING THE ROCKS AND FLUIDS CHARACTERISTICS

We have validated our choice of cell size. The well data are blocked in the 3D geological grid and we are even comforted in our workflow. It is time now to distribute the petrophysical properties… by facies of course ☺.

The previous two papers talked about the geostatistical algorithms in general terms and about some specifics for modeling discrete properties. Much of what was covered previously also applies to modeling continuous properties such as VSH or porosity. The main algorithms are again kriging for interpolation and Gaussian simulation for generating multiple realizations. Both use variograms and some statistical parameters as input (mean value for the kriging, distributions for the simulation algorithms). Both can also take into account different types of secondary variables. Vertical Trend Curves (VTC) are the equivalent of the Vertical Proportion Curves (VPC) for discrete properties. They capture how the mean of a given continuous property varies with depth (see Figure 5 and Figure 11 for some examples). By depth, we mean by horizontal layer in the 3D geological grid. For example, VTCs would spot a decrease of porosity with depth due to compaction. Sometimes, continuous properties also show horizontal trends. Maybe the VSH increases from the North East corner to the South West for example. Such information can be captured as a map which can be taken into account by the geostatistical algorithms, in the way facies proportion maps are used to guide the modeling of facies. VTCs and trend maps capture how a property should vary spatially. It is also recommended to look at how properties are correlated one with the other. For example, if a cross-plot porosity versus VSH shows that the two properties are highly correlated, we can model first the VSH and then use the 3D distribution of VSH as a guide (a secondary variable) to model the porosity in 3D.

Ultimately, the key is to understand how each property varies spatially, how the different properties are connected one to the other and to convert all this knowledge into secondary data for the geostastistical algorithms. The geologist can help interpreting spatial trends while the correlations between properties are of course deeply rooted in the petrophysical analysis. While a geomodeler might guess

them all properly, it is much more efficient to identify the meaningful correlations with the team’s petrophysicist.

We illustrate the whole workflow hereafter with a real dataset. Carbonate or sandstone, conventional or unconventional, Canadian or international, none of this matters here as the general methodology can be easily adapted to any reservoir. For that reason, we won’t detail any specifics. Similarly, it is nearly impossible to read the values on the axes of many of the associated pictures. This is done on purpose as the key is to focus on how one graph compares to another globally. Specific numbers won’t add anything. You will be able to adapt it to your project by working with your team to identify what petrophysical properties should be modeled. In fact, we might have as well called our logs A, B, C and D instead of VSH, porosity, SW and PERM for this example.

Looking at a geomodel in 3D views, in cross-section and in map view is important of course. Such views must be used to validate the 3D petrophysical distributions of course. But sometimes, we conclude that because it looks good in 3D (or 2D), it is correct. This conclusion can be misleading when dealing with petrophysical modeling. In the example below, consider that every distribution we created did “look good” in 3D. Such displays did not help us improve our workflow. For that, we had to rely on three other types of views, which we believe geomodelers do not always use as much as we should: histograms (Figure 4), VTCs (Figure 5) and cross-plots between the different petrophysical properties (Figure 6, Figure 7 and Figure 8). On each of these three displays, the black colour is used for the original log data, while the blue and the red are used respectively for the blocked data and the 3D model. For each type of display, we should look at how the display from the original log data compares with the display of the blocked values and then how both compare with the display of the 3D distributed values. The first comparison relates to our discussion in the section about upscaling the well logs: a good well blocking will respect the original statistics of the different properties. Similarly, a good 3D petrophysical model should also respect the input statistics. By lack of space we did not include figures nor any discussion about trend maps, but those should be looked at as well, at the least to check if such trends exist or not, and if some do, to use it/them.

In this example, an initial modeling workflow is defined, run and the computed model is analyzed (Figure 4 to Figure 8). A few problems are found which lead us to modify the workflow. Figure 9 to Figure 12 illustrate the improvements we gained in doing so. This loop should be

Figure 2. Initial model. Modeling first the VSH (A) and then the Facies from the VSH model (B).

Figure 3. Improved model. Modeling the Facies (A) and then the VSH by Facies (B).



repeated until no more fine-tuning is needed and the team considers that the geomodel does properly capture the characteristics of the petrophysics in this reservoir.

Firstly, the well data were blocked. The distributions of the blocked VSH and PERM

are very similar to the distributions of the original well logs (Figure 4, first two rows). The blocked porosity and SW are close as well, but they show some suspicious bars at (porosity=0%) and at (SW=100%). This is the kind of thing to look for; discrepancies

between original and blocked statistics. In this case, it is normal in fact: a post-process was applied to assign these values in some specific K layers. As it relates to something specific to this dataset and it does not add anything to the overall workflow, no more details will be given here. The VTCs (Figure 5) and the cross-plots (compare Figure 6 and Figure 7) confirm that the upscaling was done correctly as the plots on the blocked cells match the plots of the original logs. The cross-plots of porosity-permeability show that the permeability is obviously a mathematical function of porosity. At this time though we will ignore that fact and we treat the permeability like the other three properties. It can be spotted that something is a little suspicious already though: the cross-plot of the blocked values show that the mathematical relationship is not respected at 100% anymore (Figure 7, zoomed in area). But as it concerns only a few points, we decide to ignore this at first.

Gaussian Simulation was used for modeling VSH, porosity and SW, both in the original workflow and the modified workflow. What changed is which secondary variables we used. In the original workflow, VSH is modeled without any secondary variable, while their respective VTCs were used as input for modeling both the porosity and SW. The initial workflow did not use any of the cross-plots as input. In the initial workflow, permeability is also modeled by Gaussian Simulation, without any secondary variable (one might have argued that using porosity could have made sense).

The statistics of the resulting model of VSH, porosity, SW and PERM are then compared to the statistics from the blocked values. The histograms are well preserved (Figure 4) expect for the VSH. The VTCs for the porosity, SW and the PERM are also well respected (Figure 5), which is interesting for the permeability, considering that this VTC was not used as input. This illustrates something important about geostatistics: always run your workflows without secondary variables first; then add the secondary variables and see their impact on the model. In some instances, the well data are all you need to get it right. In others, the statistics of the model without secondary data will contradict the secondary data you intended to use. Which one is correct then? It depends on the reservoir. At the least, you should look into it instead of just adding the secondary variable without giving it any thought. In our example, the VSH model looks problematic again as its VTC really does not match the vertical trend from the data. At last, we look at the different cross-plots (Figure 8, the blue dots are the points from the blocked data; they are displayed here to help visualize the differences with the cross-plot from the

Figure 4. Comparing the distribution of each petrophysical properties (VSH, Porosity, SW and Perm) as logs, as blocked values and in the 3D petrophysical model.

Figure 5. Comparing the VTC of each petrophysical properties (VSH, Porosity, SW and Perm) as logs, as blocked values and in the 3D petrophysical model.



3D modeled distributions). Most of the cross-plots do not match the relationship seen on the input blocked data. This seems normal as we did not use any cross-plot correlation as secondary variable. In the first path at editing our workflow, we will focus on the problem with two cross-plots: porosity versus SW and porosity versus PERM.

For the first cross-plot, the blocked data showed a clear negative correlation while the modeled properties show a positive

correlation. This means that we have cells with values of porosity and SW that are not supposed to be associated together in this reservoir. We need to fix this incorrect association. We decide to ignore the SW VTC and instead to use the porosity model as a secondary variable. The porosity is modeled as before, with the porosity VTC as a secondary variable.

For the second cross-plot, the blocked data were showing that the permeability was

defined as a function of porosity (as confirmed by our petrophysicist). We can still recognize the relationship in the cross-plot from the 3D model. But many cells do not respect it at all. Of course, this might be fine as the relationship itself has some uncertainty in it. So the current cross-plot could be the sign that we have included some uncertainty in the model. This is true, but not what we intended, and clearly we did not control it. If uncertainty might be needed, maybe it is better to apply a range of mathematical relationships. As stated earlier, using the porosity model as a secondary variable would improve the permeability model, but not as well than if we simply apply directly the mathematical relationship PERM=function(porosity) defined by our petrophysicist. Once we have modeled the porosity in 3D, we apply the function to get permeability everywhere in the 3D grid. This approach is applied in the modified workflow.

In this path, we do not edit how the VSH is modeled. It would still need to be taken care of in another loop.

Analyzing the edited SW and PERM models shows that the problematic cross-plots are now cleaned (Figure 9 for porosity-SW, Figure 10 for porosity-PERM). Interestingly, the new SW model still respects well, and in fact slightly better, the vertical trend captured by the VTC (Figure 11) than the original SW model did, even while this VTC is not used anymore to model the SW. When looking into it, it does make sense. Porosity and SW are negatively correlated: in average, the higher the water saturation, the lower the porosity. The porosity and the SW VTCs show similar relationships (Figure 5): if a K layer has a high average water saturation value, it tends to have a low average porosity value. Our modified workflow still respects the porosity VTC and it now uses the porosity-SW correlation. This modification turned out to be enough to see the vertical trend from the SW VTC respected too.

Similarly, it is interesting to see that the cross-plot of SW-permeability has improved too, even if it was not used as input. SW and PERM have now better distributions and a side-effect was to fix that cross-plot as well.

As mentioned earlier, the work on this specific workflow should be continued and maybe looped a few more times to see if certain displays can be improved even more. Fixing the VSH would be a priority. This work is beyond the scope of this paper as it would mean applying the same approach already described here.

Figure 6. Cross-plots between the different petrophysical properties (VSH, Porosity, SW and Perm) as logs on the wells (reservoir zone).

Figure 7. Cross-plots between the different petrophysical properties (VSH, Porosity, SW and Perm) as upscaled values in the 3D grid.



INTEGRATING PETROPHYSICAL UNCERTAINTY

Like all of us, petrophysicists are dealing daily with uncertainty. Well logging is not error free. Interpreting the logs can be challenging. The core measurements might be inconclusive. And above all remains the fact that we work with a very limited dataset to understand a very complex environment – our reservoirs.

It does make sense to include the petrophysical uncertainty in our geomodeling workflows, as we do with geological or geophysical uncertainty. In practice though, few studies seem to consider this uncertainty. If you have

to prioritize, we recommend that you first check if your geomodeling workflow properly takes into account the complex relationship between the properties as described in the previous section. Then, once checked, and fixed if needed, look at the petrophysical uncertainty.

As described in this paper, we should ask for three types of input from our petrophysicist: well logs of course, a description of the complex relationships between the different properties (what log was modeled from what log) and the mathematical equations linking some of these properties (if any). Each of these data can carry some uncertainty.

Instead of one version of the log curves, you could ask for several versions them. SW is a good candidate for this request. It is a complex property to model and your petrophysicist might want to see the impact of using slightly different values for the parameters of the Archie’s equation. He could generate for you several logs of SW. The overall relationship between the properties (what log was computed from what log) is the least likely to change in a project. But it could be good to ask about, just in case. At last, your petrophysicist might decide to give several versions of the mathematical equations he is using (different porosity-permeability functions maybe).

Ultimately, these three types of uncertainty can be used, either through simple editing of your current geomodeling workflows, or in extreme cases, in defining several workflows, each one capturing a different petrophysical analysis.

CONCLUSION

While we easily involve the geologist and the geophysicist in our work, we tend to do it less with our petrophysicist. Many geomodelers

Figure 8. Cross-plots between the different petrophysical properties (VSH, Porosity, SW and Perm) as 3D petrophysical model

Figure 9. Cross-plots Porosity vs SW. (A) Original incorrect 3D SW model. (B) Corrected 3D SW model.

Figure 10. Cross-plots Porosity vs Perm. (A) Original incorrect 3D Perm model. (B) Corrected 3D Perm model.

Figure 11. VTC of the 3D SW model. (A) Original incorrect 3D model. (B) Corrected 3D model.

Figure 12. Cross-plots SW vs Perm. (A) Original incorrect 3D SW and Perm models. (B) Corrected 3D SW and Perm models.



are geologists or geophysicists by background. Maybe it leads us to spend more time on building the horizons, the faults and then facies distribution in 3D, and less on the challenges of populating the petrophysics in 3D.

It would be a mistake to not consider the complex relationship existing between the different properties (cross-plots). Our petrophysicist can help us a lot to understand these relationships. Many would be happy to open their kitchen and answer to all the questions we might have about their work.

The next paper will focus on the relationship between geophysics and geomodeling.

TO GO BEYOND

The CSPG and the CWLS are great sources of information about petrophysics, with their courses, their technical presentations and the papers they published.

The Reservoir magazine houses several papers or series of papers about petrophysics through the year. Among them we have a series on FMI data published in 2015 and the always popular papers written by our colleague Ross Crain for years now.

Ross’ website is also considered a very good source of information by the many in our industry. It is definitely worth a look (www.spec2000.net).

REFERENCES

Crain, R. Crain’s Petrophysical Handbook. www.spec2000.net

Doveton, J.H., 2014. Principles of Mathematical Petrophysics. Internal Association for Mathematical Geosciences (IAMG). Studies in Mathematical Geosciences No. 9. Oxford University Press. 248 pages.

Ellis, D. V. and Singer, J.M.Well, 2007. Logging for Earth Scientists. 2nd edition. Springer. 692 pages.

THE AUTHORS

Feel free to contact the authors about this paper or about the series.

Thomas Jerome is the Calgary manager of the Reservoir Modeling team in RPS ([email protected]). Geologist by background, Thomas has spent the last 15 years working on geomodeling projects, first in Middle-East and in Calgary, Canada, since 2008. He has worked on conventional and unconventional reservoirs, both Canadian and international. Thomas is leading this CSPG’s series on Geomodeling.

J. Kim McLean is an independent petrophysicist ([email protected]). Kim attended the University of New Orleans for her Bachelor’s of Science degree in geology, and

decided she liked geology so much that she attended Central Washington University to get a Master’s of Science in Geology with a focus on structural geology. After completing her graduate studies, she eventually landed at Paradigm, where she learned a great deal about petrophysics while supporting and mentoring clients on a formation evaluation software application. Kim then transitioned to the operator side, working as a petrophysicist for an oil sands asset in Canada.

Laverne Chan is a petrophysicist for a North American E&P Company, Enerplus, ([email protected]), and has spent the last 10 years of her career in the oil and gas industry in Western Canada. After receiving her B.Sc. in Mechanical Engineering from the University of the West Indies in 2005, Laverne spent the first 4 years of her career as a Wireline Logging Engineer working in the fields of Western Canada. During that time, Laverne returned to the University of the West Indies where she completed her M.Sc. in Petroleum Engineering after which she continued her career in the role of Formation Evaluation Engineer and Petrophysicist in Calgary. While in the role of Petrophysiscist, Laverne went on to complete her M.Eng. in Reservoir Characterization at the University of Calgary and continues to work today in both conventional and unconventional reservoirs in North America.

www.geoconvention.com

GeoConvention 2016

GeoConvention is a geoscience-focused annual convention with over 4000 delegates, 110 exhibitors, 300 technical talks, networking events,

poster sessions and the Core Conference. The theme this year is

Optimizing Resources. Please join us as an exhibitor, sponsor or attendee to learn from, and network with a

premier community of geoscientists.

GeoConvention News On the heels of a very successful 2015 program, the GeoConvention Partnership Board would like to thank all of our sponsors, exhibitors, presenters, session chairs and volunteers who helped us exceed expectations, delivering a best-in-class technical program with amazing exhibitors, networking and luncheon events. Thank you! In looking forward, GeoConvention 2016 is taking place March 7-11, 2016. Our technical program and exhibition floor are at the Telus Convention Centre from March 7-9 with additional activities and events planned for March 10th and 11th. With low commodity prices and an ever changing economic and business environment, it is imperative that the industry optimize the way in which it operates. Whether enhancing recovery methods or finding the optimal path for a horizontal well; maximizing the return of capital employed or simply, Optimizing Resources, the theme for GeoConvention 2016, is key to success. Please join us and contribute as speaker, exhibitor or sponsor.

Sponsorship and Advertising opportunities are available - contact Elwin Reichert at

[email protected]

Our exhibit floor is already filling up fast - contact Vic Urban to reserve your spot! [email protected]

MARK YOUR CALENDAR: GeoConvention 2016 is March 7 – 11!


26th Annual CSPG Mixed Golf

Tournament

August 21, 2015 Lynx Ridge Golf Club

Join us and have fun in this four golfer best

ball tournament. Your cost includes a round of golf, meals, plenty of hospitality and good

times, and a chance to network with your

colleagues and industry sponsors

Registration Rates: CSPG member: $90.00+gst Non-member: $130.00+gst

For more information and to register today please go to www.cspg.org


HONORARY MEMBERBruce McIntyre

Bruce McIntyre graduated from Carleton University with a B.Sc. in Honours Geology in 1979, and then in 1990, attended the School of Business’s Executive Program at Queen’s University. Bruce joined the CSPG in 1979, and joined the Index Publications Committee in 1982. He became Committee Chair in 1986 and again in 1991. Over the next two years, he was a member of the AAPG House of Delegates and the Mixed Golf Tournament Committee Chair. In 1994, Bruce was very busy, as he was the Assistant Business Manager, the Index Publications Committee Chair and earned a Service Award. The next year, he was the Business Manager and an Index

Publications Committee Member. In 2001, he began his three year term on the Executive, and started another three year stint on the Index Publications Committee, which earned him another Service Award in 2002. He won three more Service Awards, in 2005, 2011 and 2012, the final one after serving as the Chairman of the Trust. During his 2002 Presidential term, he worked closely with CSPG staff and Executive to provide business acumen and a planning focus to the Society. As Chair of the Education Trust fund, he restructured the fund to be a more philanthropic fund, searching for donors for specific projects important to the geoscience community.

Mr. McIntyre began his career in 1977 as a geologist with the Government of Canada, in the Energy, Mines and Resources Department. Two years later he moved to Union Oil and two years after that he became a senior geologist at Tricentrol Oils. From 1985 to 1986, he worked for Star Oil and Gas as a district geologist before moving to Gascan Resources as exploration manager in central and northern Alberta. In 1993, Bruce cofounded BXL Energy, becoming the President and CEO the next year. Under his leadership, the company grew from a startup to a 100 million dollar enterprise before being sold to Viking Royalty Trust in 2001. Next, he was president of Sommer Energy, drilling 19 shallow natural gas wells before a reverse takeover with TriQuest Energy, which took the company public. Bruce started out as Vice President of TriQuest before coming the President and CEO in

2002. Two years later, the company was sold, and Mr. McIntyre became President and CEO of Sebring Energy, a primarily central Alberta natural gas company. Sebring was sold in 2007, and Bruce moved on to Wexford Energy where he helped other companies with their acquisition and divestiture strategies. Since 2010, he has been a Member of the Board of Directors and held various senior management positions with New Zealand Energy, a company with exploration and production assets in New Zealand.

He has also served on the Board of Hemisphere Energy since 2008, and volunteered on the Hotchkiss Brain Institute’s Community Advisory Board from 2006 through 2010.

Throughout his career, Bruce has sought out young earth science and business professionals, mentored them and helped them succeed, sometimes even bringing them in to his business ventures. His genuine caring and friendly personality are well regarded, as is his keen business sense and leadership skills. His excellent memory is as well-known as his strong sense of ethics which always drive him regardless of the consequences. Mr. McIntyre’s deep understanding of the energy business have helped many geoscientists to better understand why you need more than good science skills to be a success in our competitive industry. He is a leader, an entrepreneur, a respected board member, a mentor and an excellent geoscientist. CSPG is proud to welcome Bruce McIntyre as an Honorary Member.


GO TAKE A HIKEWood Buffalo National Park: KarstlandLoop Trail

| By Chris L. Schneider and Andres Altosaar

Karst processes are active in Wood Buffalo National Park. Of all karst features, sinkholes are by far among the most abundant, and new sinkholes open within and outside of the park occasionally. In the western portion of the park, sinkholes are best observed from helicopter and airplane. Many are filled with water; some appear as a field of holes in shallow lakes. Dry sinkholes in the western portion of the park are mostly soil-covered and slumped. A few sinkholes, such as the easily accessible Angus Sinkhole along highway 5 on the western boundary of the park in the Northwest Territories, contain bare rock walls and breccia.

The main driver in karst processes within the park is the evaporitesof the Chinchaga Formation. The Chinchaga Formation in subsurface is a laminated to massive anhydrite, but at or near the surface hydrates to gypsum, which is more easily dissolved and eroded than the overlying dolostone of the Keg River Formation. The loss of evaporitesin the subsurface results in the collapse of the overlying dolostone and ultimately in the formation of caves and sinkholes.

The KarstlandLoop Trail winds down into a gypsum sinkhole and provides an excellent example of the karst in the park. This trail begins near an outcrop of the Keg River Formation and descends into the gypsum at the bottom of the sinkhole.

Trailhead: KarstlandLoop Trail. Drive to the KastlandLoop Trail; the parking area is a short walk from the trail head.

Distance: 750 m, easy.

Elevationloss: Approximately100 m

GO TAKE A HIKEWood Buffalo National Park: Karstland Loop TrailChris L. Schneider and Andres Altosaar

Trailhead: Karstland Loop Trail. Drive to the Kastland Loop Trail; the parking area is a short walk from the trail head.

Distance: 750 m, easy.

Elevation loss: Approximately 100 m

Karst processes are active in Wood Buffalo National Park. Of all karst features, sinkholes are by far among the most abundant, and new sinkholes open within and outside of the park occasionally. In the western portion of the park, sinkholes are best observed from helicopter and airplane. Many are filled with water; some appear as a field of holes in shallow lakes. Dry sinkholes in the western portion of the park are mostly soil-covered and slumped. A few sinkholes, such as the easily accessible Angus Sinkhole along highway 5 on the western boundary of the park in the Northwest Territories, contain bare rock walls and breccia.

The main driver in karst processes within the park is the evaporites ofthe Chinchaga Formation. The Chinchaga Formation in subsurface is a laminated to massive anhydrite, but at or near the surface hydrates to gypsum, which is more easily dissolved and eroded than the overlying dolostone of the Keg River Formation. The loss of evaporites in the subsurface results in the collapse of the overlying dolostone and ultimately in the formation of caves and sinkholes.

The Karstland Loop Trail winds down into a gypsum sinkhole and provides an excellent example of the karst in the park. This trail begins near an outcrop of the Keg River Formation and descends into the gypsum at the bottom of the sinkhole.

Figure 2: Edges of the sinkhole contains slumped trees in a think soil cover. Chinchaga Formation gypsum is exposed at some spots among the roots. This photo is of an enlarged joint opening into the sinkhole.

gypsum

Figure 3: The red garter snake hibernaculum is a small cave in the Keg River Formation breccia.

Figure 4: A boulder of the Keg River Formation in the north end of the trail. The boulder contains crinoids, brachiopods, and gastropods.

Figure 1: Map of the area.

Figure 2: Edges of the sinkhole contains slumped trees in a think soil cover. Chinchaga Formation gypsum is exposed at some spots among the roots. This photo is of an enlarged joint opening into the sinkhole.

Figure 3: The red garter snake hibernaculum is a small cave in the Keg River Formation breccia.

Figure 4: A boulder of the Keg River Formation in the north end of the trail. The boulder contains crinoids, brachiopods, and gastropods.

Figure 1: Map of the area.


This sinkhole is not perfectly round. The trail passes by lateral extensions of the collapse structure and adjacent sinkholes. Several features are worth noting during your hike along the KarstlandLoop Trail:

1. The start of the trail is near a garter snake hibernaculum, which is the northern-most known red-sided garter snake hibernaculum in North America. The hibernaculum is within brecciated boulders of the Keg River Formation. Please do not disturb the hibernaculum; similar small boulders of Keg River carbonate are observable within the path on the northern side of the trail. The nearest outcrops are along the Salt River and along the North Loop Trail.

2. Crevices from enlarged joints in the gypsum are bridged along the path.

3. Gypsum is exposed at the bottom of the sinkhole as a small ridge and in small knolls beneath tree roots. The gypsum is quite friable and crumbly. Bedding is chaotic, if present at all. Gypsum knolls along the trail can be observed up close; the gypsum ridge cannot be accessed and is isolated from the trail.

4. Slump in the sinkhole, in tree-trunks and a trail-side sign canted at an angle. The “Drunken Forest” is a good example of the results from thin soil cover combined with active karst processes.

5. Till containing bits of gypsum rock.

The take-away: The KarstlandLoop Trail is a good example of sinkhole processes caused by dissolving and eroding gypsum in Wood Buffalo National Park. It also provides a good example of evaporite-caused sinkholes and collapse in other regions, like the Athabasca Oil Sands area.

Acknowledgements: We would like to thank Ben Collins (University of Alberta), Matt Grobe(Alberta Geological Survey), Sharon Irwin (Wood Buffalo National Park), Aurora Irwin, Peter Vermeulen(Suncor), and Jeffrey Bever(Suncor) for field assistance.

Figure 9: Till exposed near the path at higher elevation.

Figure 7: Crevice along a joint in the gypsum, under a bridge.

Figure 6: Tree roots in an exposed knoll of gypsum near the base of the sinkhole.

Figure 5: Tree roots in gypsum along the trail.

Figure 8: One face of the ridge of gypsum at the base of the sinkhole. The back side of this ridge can be seen along the trail at a slightly higher elevation.


HONORARY MEMBERDr. Brad Hayes

Dr. Brad Hayes graduated with a B.Sc. Honours in Geology in 1978 from the University of Toronto, and earned his Ph.D. in 1982 from the University of Alberta, with a thesis on Jurassic-Cretaceous stratigraphy of southern Alberta and northern Montana. Brad joined the CSPG in 1978 and joined his first committee, the Field Trip Committee, in 1982. Since then, he has sat on numerous committees, including the Technical Program Committee, the Honorary Address Committee, the Medal of Merit Committee, and as well was the Founding Chair of the University Outreach Committee. Brad also served on the Executive for four years, first as the Secretary (1985) and later a three year term centred on his Presidential year (2001). He was the Associate Editor of the Bulletin (1988 – 1991, 2003 – 2006), Director of the Poster Session (1995 CSPG Conference), , and served on the Board of Directors for the Educational Trust Fund (2003 – 2004). Most recently, Dr. Hayes has been a Visiting Lecturer with the University Outreach Program (2005, 2011, 2014). Brad has earned two Tracks Awards, four Service Awards, and two Volunteer Awards with the Society.

Dr. Hayes began working as a geologist in 1981, and over the next 15 years worked at several companies, including Chauvco Resources, Canadian 88 Energy, Canadian Hunter Exploration and Shell Canada. He worked on exploration mapping and generation of exploration prospects, and during this time, he supervised drilling on more than 50 wells. In 1996, Brad moved to Petrel Robertson Consulting, and becamePresident in 2007,

a role he still holds. He is responsible for supervision and execution of multidisciplinary exploration studies, in locations around the world including India, New Zealand, South America, and Kazakhstan. He has specialized in clastic petroleum reservoirs, and in particular unconventional resource plays ranging from oil sands to shale gas. As well, he has been an expert witness in the courtroom and in regulatory hearings for cases involving exploration and development valuations and strategies and geoscience technical evaluations. Brad has served on several Board of Directors, including Tuzo Energy (2011), Petrel Robertson (1998 – Present), and as an APEGA Councillor (2013 – 2015). He has also served as a strategic advisor to the Premier of Alberta’s Competitiveness Review, to Provincial and Territorial regulatory agencies, and as a member of the Expert Panel on Hydraulic Fracturing in Nova Scotia.

Dr. Hayes is a prolific writer and presenter. He was written or co-authored more than 40 scientific publications, including papers on exploration assessments of conventional plays, aquifer characterization, unconventional resource assessments, and various exploration scoping studies. He has presented at almost every CSPG Annual Convention since 1998, seven times at the AAPG Annual Convention

and four times at the BC Unconventional Gas Technical Forum. He has been Session Chair of various conventions, including APPG, CSPG/SEPM and GeoCanada 2010. Brad has led numerous core seminars and field trips through Petrel Robertson. He is also active in his community, particularly in his sons’ extracurricular activities. Over the years, Brad has been a Scout Leader; a soccer coach and manager; and a hockey coach, manager and division coordinator.

Dr. Hayes has spent more than 30 years working as a geoscientist, becoming a technical specialist in clastic petroleum reservoirs and unconventional resource plays, and a well-known exploration analyst and strategist. His volunteerism, particularly in the CSPG, is exemplary. He is a prolific writer and frequent speaker. The CSPG is pleased to welcome Dr. Brad Hayes in to the ranks of Honorary Members.

CRAINʼS LOG ANALYSIS COURSESFor Engineers, Geologists, Geophysicists, and Technologists

Every April and October in CalgaryDetails / Registration at www.spec2000.net/00-coursedates.htm

-Slide Shows, Reference Manuals, and Exercises Included

AV-01 Practical Quantitative Log AnalysisAV-02 Advanced Quantitative Log Analysis

AV-03 Analysis of Unconventional ReservoirsDetails / Order Online at: www.spec2000.net/00-av-training.htm

Single-User, Corporate, and Academic Licenses AvailableIndividual Reference Manuals and Slide Shows Available Separately

Shareware Petrophysical Encyclopedia at www.spec2000.net50+ Years Of Experience At Your Fingertips

===E. R. (Ross) Crain. P.Eng.

1-403-845-2527 [email protected]=== ===


Rock Shop

elizabeth macey, B.A., cartographer. .403 993 0055

[email protected]/elizabethmacey

. .presentations posters graphics

.maps technical illustrations

RESERVOIR ISSUE 02 • FEBRUARY 2015 9

Geomechanical Controls on Fault and Fracture Distribution with Application to Structural Permeability and Hydraulic Stimulation

SPEAKERScott Mildren Ikon GeoMechanics

11:30 amThursday, February 5, 2015TELUS Convention Centre Exhibition Hall D, North BuildingCalgary, Alberta

Please note: The cut-off date for ticket sales is 1:00 pm, three business days before event. (Monday, Feb. 2nd, 2015). CSPG Member Ticket Price: $45.00 + GST. Non-Member Ticket Price: $47.50 + GST.

Each CSPG Technical Luncheon is 1 APEGA PDH credit. Tickets may be purchased online at https://www.cspg.org/eSeries/source/Events/index.cfm.

AbstractFracture and fault observations at different scales reveal dramatic changes in density and orientation over small relative distances. This variation has previously been explained by variable rock properties or variation in the applied stress. The poroelastic strain relationship describes the coupling of the elastic properties with the way stresses are distributed and when this is combined with an understanding of the material strength we can also better predict failure which manifests itself as the creation of structural elements (faults and fractures).

When considering permeability of fractures or placement of hydraulic fractures to stimulate production, we are effectively evaluating failure of the medium. This presentation looks at the relationship between elastic properties, rock strength and stress distribution with the aid of real world examples, and demonstrates the parameters that we need to consider to better understand geomechanical failure. This approach is then considered in the context of various petroleum related applications that include:

• predicting permeable fractures;

• discriminating natural fractures from drilling induced fractures;

• hydraulic fracture placement and containment, and;

• explaining variable fracture gradients.

BIOGRAPHYScott is a geoscientist with 15 years of consulting experience in petroleum geomechanics and image log services. On completion of his PhD he spent time with Z&S (Asia) Ltd performing stress, structural and sedimentological interpretation of image log data. Subsequently, he was among the academic staff at the Australian School of Petroleum researching various geomechanical issues such as fault and cap rock seal integrity, fractured reservoirs, wellbore stability and trap risk before founding his own geomechanics and image log service company, JRS Petroleum Research. JRS was merged with Ikon Science in 2012 and Scott is now a Senior Vice President of Ikon Geomechanics at Ikon Science based in London.

TECHNICAL LUNCHEONS FEBRUARY LUNCHEON Webcasts sponsored by

ROCK SHOP

• Domestic and International wellsite supervision • Conventional and Unconventional wells • Extensive Hz experience • Customized corporate solutions available

(403) 250-3982 [email protected] www.clconsultants.ca

Wellsite Geologists Inc.the Rock Solid Choice

Wellsite SupervisionProject ManagementGraphic Well ProfilesVerticals / HorizontalsEUB Sample / Core StudiesConventional / Un-conventional

1350, 734 - 7th Ave SWCalgary, AB T2P 3P8B 403.234.7625, www.WellsiteGeologists.comC 403.660.9883, [email protected]

1602 – 5th St N.E.

Calgary, AB. T2E 7W3 Phone: 403-233-7729

www.tihconsulting.com e-mail: [email protected]

T.I.H. Consulting Ltd. Geologic Well-Site

Supervision

Domestic and InternationalConventional Vertical and Horizontal WellsOil Sands - SAGD/Coring Programs

Shale Gas/Oil ShalesCoal Bed MethaneProject Supervision

Email: [email protected] Tel: (403) 262-9229 Fax: (403) 265-0377Website: www.progeoconsultants.com

CSPG CORE CONFERENCE 2015| Adam Pugh & Rachael Acker – Core Conference 2015 Committee Co-Chairs

The annual CSPG Core Conference was held again at the AER Core Research facility May 7-8th, 2015 here in Calgary and was a great success. Our focus this year was to provide delegates with insights into the newest plays and prospects and with an estimated 500 attendees each day, the conference attracted a great deal of attention and conversation hosting the most out-of-system, or non-AER, core compared to past years conferences. The program consisted of eighteen presentations with core from across Canada, three of which were technical presentations from AGAT Laboratories, Weatherford and Core Laboratories marking a first and very well received display of new technology in core research and analysis. With sessions spanning Clastics and Carbonates to Oil Sands, Frontiers and Geophysical Integration, the breadth of knowledge presented this year was nothing short of extensive.

Its success would not have been possible without our sponsors; Tourmaline, AGAT Laboratories, Weatherford, Core Laboratories, Loring Tarcore, and the Alberta Energy Regulator, for which we are extremely thankful for their ongoing support. We would also like to extend our thanks to the CSPG staff and especially Candace Seepersad for organizing the logistics of the conference, Ray Geuder for his continued and experienced support, Briana Kaspers and David Geuder for their logistical help ordering core, and Ashley Moisson and the staff at the AER. Finally, many thanks to all of the presenters, without which we would not have a world class technical program.

Next year, the CSPG Core Conference will be held during the AAPG ACE 2016 Convention from June 23rd- 24th, for a diverse and international display of core and talks. So mark your calendars, we look forward to seeing you all there!

We would like to congratulate this year’s Core Conference Award winners:

Best Core Presentation:

Michael Ranger- for Brion Energy

Abstract Title: Reservoir Heterogeneity in Marginal Marine Settings of the Athabasca Oil Sands: Apparent Continuity of Mud Beds Between Closely Spaced Cores

Tied winners of the Best Student Core Presentation:

Alina Shchepetkina

Abstract Title: Sedimentary Fabrics of the Inner Estuary and Fluvio-Tidal Transition Zone of the Petitcodiac River Estuary

David Herbers

Abstract Title: A Storm-Influenced Shoreface Succession within the Cambrian Mount Clark Formation of the Colville Hills Region, Northwest Territories


Rock Shop

CORPORATE SUPPORTERS

CL ConsultantsRIGSAT CommunicationsPason SystemRPS Energy Canada Ltd.Big Guns Energy ServicesEarth Signal Processing Ltd.McDaniel & Associates Consultants Ltd.Golder AssociatesCanada Brokerlink Inc.Energy NavigatorExova Canada IncNalcor EnergyParamount ResourcesCanadian Discovery Ltd.EDGE TechnologiesPetrocraft Products Ltd.Compass Directional ServicesEV Cam Canada Inc.Lee Energy SystemsRoke Technologies Ltd.ExplorJapan Canada Oil Sands Ltd.Painted Pony Petroleum Ltd.Target Data Ltd.Birchcliff Energy Ltd.Cabra Enterprises Ltd.Cougar Consultants, Inc.Waterline ResourcesSerpa Petroleum Consulting Ltd.National Oilwell VarcoSignature Seismic Processing Inc.CSEG FoundationGeovariancesHurry HydrocarbonsNavigator Resource ConsultingNExT- A Schlumberger CompanyValeura EnergyStatoil CanadaMundiregina Resources CanadaMcleay Geological Consultants Ltd.HEF Petrophysical Consulting Inc.Enviro-Tech Surveys LtdGaffney, Cline & AssociatesBounty Developments Ltd.Franconia GeoscienceGeoChemTech Inc.Prospect Drivers Inc.

Company PatronJourney Energy Inc.Rife Resources Ltd.

AS OF JUNE 12, 2015

The Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists (CSPG),

Canada’s Energy Geoscientists

to the Board of Directors 2016

CSPG is a not-for-profit corporation registered under the NFP Act. Our mission is: To advance the professions of the energy geosciences – as it applies to geology; foster the scientific, technical learning and professional development of its members; and promote the awareness of the profession

to industry and the public.

Directors hold office for two years; commencing January 14th, 2016. Nomination forms are available on www.cspg.org/Society/Governance.

Nominations for Directors close September 15th, 2015.

CSPG is calling for nominations for the Executive Committee:

President Elect – who will continue to serve a total of three (3) years comprised of the first year as President Elect, the second year as President and the third year as Past President.

Finance Director Elect – who shall serve a two (2) year term comprised of the first year as Finance Director Elect and the second year as Finance Director

Three Directors At Large – each year CSPG elects Directors to fill portfolios. For 2016, CSPG is interested in attracting three new Directors to cover such portfoli-os as Outreach, Member Services and Digital Media and Publications. Please express your interest on the Nomination form.

Please not that only FULL Members of CSPG can be nominated. Candidates can be nominated by completing the online forms and submit to [email protected] to the attention of Past President, Dr. Dale Leckie.

The Nomination Process:

CSPG Nominating Committee recruits for potential directors. You may submit your nomination for their consideration. Alternatively, if you support your nomi-nation with 25 Full Member signatures, you can stand for election.

The Nomination form and Nomination Signature form must be submitted by September 15th, 2015 to [email protected] to the attention of Past President, Dr. Dale Leckie.

Please direct any questions to Lis Bjeld, CSPG Executive Director at 403-513-1235.


Practical Risk, Resource and Reserves for

Geoscientists

START DATE

18-Nov -15

LENGTH 1 day

INSTRUCTORS Dave Russum & Andrew Botterill

PDH Credits 8 Hours

Register online today at www.cspg.org

CONTINUING EDUCATION Upcoming CSPG Short Course

Course Content: Resources and reserves are largely misunderstood by all but a small portion of the engineering community and yet they are a vital scorecard for oil and gas companies. Understanding the principles, the timing of reports, as well as ensuring the best information is provided are critical to appropriate evaluations. All disciplines need to be involved in this process. This short course is designed to provide geoscientists with the information they need to provide effective input to these evaluations.

This 1 day course will cover the regulatory requirements of evaluations, resource and reserve categorization, risk, production forecasting and the impact of pricing. Practical examples from conventional and unconventional reservoirs in the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin will be used as learning tools.

Instructors: Dave Russum has spent his career finding and developing oil and gas for E&P companies (Amoco and Crestar Energy) and providing independent evaluations and advice (Geo-Help Inc., AJM Petroleum Consultants and Deloitte). His background provides a very broad view of the industry and the expansion of unconventional activity. He is a former Technical Director of the CSPG and a member of the CSPG, AAPG and APEGA. He is currently Director of Geoscience for Deloitte Resource Evaluation and Advisory where he and his team provide geoscience services in North America and on a global basis.

Andrew Botterill is a graduate of the University of Calgary with nearly 15 years of experience in reservoir engineering with AJM Petroleum Consultants and Deloitte. He is a former partner in AJM Petroleum Consultants and is currently a Senior Manager in Deloitte’s Resource Evaluation and Advisory practice. He has evaluated oil and gas assets for more than 160 international and domestic clients. He is an expert in probabilistic resource evaluation and provides advisory services for many clients particularly in the area of mergers and acquisitions. Andrew also leads the team that prepares Deloitte’s quarterly oil and gas price forecasts.


SPONSORS:

MacdonaldCole Inc.

WEDNESDAYNOVEMBER 18th

SPEAKERS:MATT GOLOMBEK

Mars Exploration Rover Project ScientistJet Propulsion Laboratory

California Institute of Technology

DON HLADIUKPast-President

Royal Astronomical Society of Canada

DOORS OPEN: 4:30 PMAPPETIZERS/CASH BAR: 5:00 PM

EVENT: 6:00 PM

ARTS COMMON205 - 8th Avenue SE Calgary AB

Adults: $25.00Students: $10.00

Children (12 & under) FREE

www.cspg.org

PLANETARY GEOLOGYExploring Mars

2015

CSPGPosterHonAdd2015mciLogo.indd 1 2015-04-30 11:20 AM

Documents

11 International Networking Event 14 Geomodeling: A Team ... files/pdfs... · Terrains Field Seminar Montana Seismic Interpretation in Fold- and Thrust- July 19-25, 2015 Belts Field