Wessex Basin 2011 Feedback

by Hayley Allen, Claire Huck, Alastair Fraser, Matthew Jackson & Howard Johnson

Wednesday 22nd November 2011

We wish we were back in the field..!

How about you..?

Hayley does.

Ive just finished marking all the Geoscience Wessex Basin worksheets!

Wessex Basin Assessment Results for 2011

Marks Range Average (%) 70 62 64 Distinction (%) 46 50 51 Merit (%) 43 25 30 Pass (%) 11 25 19

Geoscience Geophysics Engineering

50-88% 35-78% 50-77%

Student Numbers: Petroleum Geoscience: 54 students Petroleum Geophysics: 24 students Petroleum Engineering: 53 students Assessment by: Hayley Allen (Geoscience) Claire Huck (Geophysics & Engineering) Alastair Fraser (Geoscience) Matt Jackson (Geophysics & Engineering) Howard Johnson (Geoscience)

Marks based on Day 2: Triassic Budleigh Salterton-Ladram Bay-Sidmouth (Geoscience + Tecton-stratigraphic chart) Marks categories: Distinction: >70% Merit: 60-69% Pass: 50-59% Fail: <50%

Wessex Basin Assessment Results for 2011

Highlights: 1. Completed worksheets 2. Numerous personal observations & interpretations 3. Clear & well-annotated field sketches 4. Neat, concise & annotated vertical logs 5. Evidence of independent analysis 6. Work is neatly presented and legible Lowlights: 1. Worksheets only partly completed and often many gaps but hampered by poor weather! 1. Recycling of discussion items, without independent data 2. Field sketches lack scale & orientation, too schematic (stylistic) & lacking detail: only record what you can see! 3. Vertical logs either missing or grossly simplistic 4. Lack of evidence of independent analysis 5. Work lacks attention to detail &/or suffers from poor legibility

Wessex Basin Feedback Objectives

Main Objectives: 1. Briefly review Day 2 of the field trip 2. Highlight good practice in field work 3. Sherwood Sandstone reservoir geology: revision session 4. Preparation for the Wytch Farm Field development Project

Wessex Basin: Loca.on Map

1
Days 1-2

2
Days 3

Days 4-5

Stoneley & Selley, 1991 1 Permian-Triassic reservoirs; 2 Jurassic reservoirs, source rocks & seals; 3 Cretaceous-Ter<ary & tectonics & HC occurrences 7

Stra.graphic Summary North Wessex, Weald and Channel Basins

8 From Hawkes et al., 1998

Note: 4 main megasequences/plate cycles; mu<ple syn-riM/post-riM cycles

Permo-Triassic isopach map

Outcrop Area

Wytch Farm Area

From: Underhill & Stoneley, 1998

White Lias (c. 10 m)

Triassic of the Wessex Basin: Winterborne Kingston Well

The Sherwood Sandstone-Mercia Mudstone Forms an extremely effective reservoir-seal pair, Both in the Wessex Basin and elsewhere in NW Europe
Mercia Mudstone Group (c. 700 m)

Legend Limestone (White Lias) Mudstone Siltstone

Sherwood Sandstone (c. 175 m)

Halite Sandstone (Sherwood)

Reservoir zonation scheme, Sherwood Sandstone Group, Wytch Farm Field

From McKie et al., 1990

Sherwood Sandstone Group, Wytch Farm Field: Outcrop Analogues

Sidmouth

Ladram Bay

Budleigh Salterton

From McKie et al., 1990

Sherwood Sandstone Outcrop Analogue Locations

Upper Greensand/Chalk
Regional unconformity

Mercia Mudstone Group Otter Sandstone Budleigh Salterton Pebble Bed Permian

Sherwood Sandstone Group

Budleigh Salterton Pebble Bed

Log & sketch courtesy Stefan Froud (2010)

50 m

Rhizocretions (= Palaeo-soil horizons)

1m

1. Triassic floodplains were vegetated by trees containing carbonate-secreting tap roots. 2. These roots (rhizocretions) provided an important intra-basinal source of carbonate

Ladram Bay

1. The Otter Sandstone is a close analogue for the middle part of the Sherwood Sandstone reservoir at Wytch Farm. 2. Hence, we can expect similar types of (1) sandstone body, and (2) heterogeneities, both with similar dimensions, shapes and lengthscales. 3. Use this knowledge when constructing your reservoir models, predicting effective flow properties and when thinking about waterflood sweep/oil recovery, etc. 4. Also, think about which of these features are measurable in the subsurface and which are not.

Typical Vertical profile through the Sherwood Sandstone at Ladram Bay

Log courtesy Stefan Froud (2010)

Otter Sandstone: Internal Reservoir Body Dimensions & Geometries

5m

Internal Reservoir Body Dimensions & Geometries: Major Channel Forms

5m

Otter Sandstone Internal Stratification: Lateral & Downstream Fluvial Bar Accretion

5m

Otter Sandstone (Ladram Bay) Field Sketch

Courtesy Jeremy Hugall (2010)

Reservoir Heterogeneity Type 1: Cemented Channel Lags

Cross-bedded fluvial channel sandstone

Carbonate cemented channel lag

Reservoir Heterogeneity Type 2: Abandoned Channel Mudstones

Sherwood Heterogeneity Type 2: Abandoned Channel Mudstones

Mud plug

Sherwood Reservoir Heterogeneity at Ladram Bay

Courtesy Clare Hobday (2010)

Shale Layer Frequency versus Shale Layer Length

Use field observations to predict the impact of reservoir heterogeneities on effective flow properties
from Begg et al., 1985

Effective vertical permeability variations based on the number and length of discontinuous shale layer baffles

from Begg et al., 1985

Deterministic vs Probabilistic Shales

Haldorsen & Lake, 1984

Deterministic vs Probabilistic Shales

Haldorsen & Lake, 1984

Sherwood Sandstone Outcrop Analogue Locations

Upper Greensand/Chalk
Regional unconformity

Mercia Mudstone Group Otter Sandstone Budleigh Salterton Pebble Bed Permian

Sherwood Sandstone Group

Sidmouth Overview

Mercia Mudstone

Chalk-Upper Greensand

Sherwood Sandstone

Sidmouth Structural Cross-Section

Sidmouth Stratigraphic Overview

Note the gradational nature of the boundary between the Sherwood Sandstone (base of cliff) And the Mercia Mudstone (upper half of the cliff)

Top Sherwood Sandstone Group, Winterborne Kingston well

GR Sonic

Note the gradational contact

Top Sherwood Sandstone Group, Wytch Farm

Sherwood-Mercia Transition at Sidmouth

Details in following two slides

Single Fluvial Channel Sand Bodies, Sherwood-Mercia Transition (Sidmouth)

Single Fluvial Channel Sand Bodies, Sherwood-Mercia Transition (Sidmouth)

Lacustrine Mudstone

Fluvial Channel Sandstone

Floodplain Mudstone

Fluvial Channel Sandstone

Note: (1) the irregular erosion surface at the base of the fluvial channel sand body, (2) planar top surface, & (3) channel-on-channel connectivity to the left (yellow arrow), and (4) channels separated by intercalated mudstone to the right (blue arrow)

Analogue Depositional Models for the Lower Triassic

Sherwood Sandstone Depositional Environment Playa mud at Terminal splay

Lake Eyre, Australia

Sabkha Delta Shoreline Eolian sand sheet

Upper

Middle

Okavango, Botswana

Dune eld Lower Alluvial fan

Mountain Belt/Hinterland
Courtesy Tom Mckie (Shell UK E&P)

Seasonal discharge, dry basin, intermi`ent ow from we`er catchments

Now for something stressful!

Sub-Seismic Faulting at the Sherwood-Mercia Transition

Mercia Mudstone

Sherwood Sandstone

Sub-Seismic Faulting at the Sherwood-Mercia Transition

Mercia Mudstone

Sub-Seismic faults (c. <10 m vertical displacement) may further decrease reservoir continuity, especially in the upper part of the Sherwood reservoir. Faults may also compartmentalise the reservoir, or reduce lateral connectivity, if the fault planes are lined by impermeable material, which can results from: clay smear cataclasis cementation

Sherwood Sandstone

Impact of Reservoir Heterogeneity & Reservoir Architecture on Waterflood Sweep Efficiency: What the outcrops were showing?

Koen Weber, 1993 Connected permeable pathways through the major sandstone reservoir types. Key heterogeneities that influence fluid flow are highlighted. Water breakthrough is shown as a function of aquifer strength, permeability profile and the buoyancy of oil (and gas) with respect to water. After Weber, 1993.

White Lias (c. 10 m)

Wytch Farm Field Development Plan

Now use your knowledge of the Triassic rocks in the Wessex Basin to your help your descriptions and interpretations of the Sherwood Sandstone reservoir at Wytch Farm. Good luck!
Legend
Mercia Mudstone Group (c. 700 m)

Limestone (White Lias) Mudstone Siltstone

Sherwood Sandstone (c. 175 m)

Halite Sandstone (Sherwood)

Yes, we would love to go back into the field and fill out some more worksheets!

Worksheets with Answers for Sidmouth & Ladram Bay

Feedback on Sidmouth: Sheet 1

LOCALITY 1: SIDMOUTH 1. What is the age of the rocks exposed at this locality? Period: Triassic [1 mark] Age (Ma): ~ 240 Ma [1 mark] 2. What are the lithostratigraphic names of (1) the rock unit at this outcrop, and (2) the analogous rock unit in the subsurface of the Wessex Basin? Local rock unit: Otter sandstone (part of Sherwood Sandstone Group), Mercia Mudstone [1 mark] Wessex Basin rock unit: Sherwood Sandstone Group, Mercia Mudstone [1 mark] 3. What are the main types of lithology exposed here (e.g. sandstone, mudstone, etc.)? Sandstone, mudstone [2 marks] 4. What is the main reservoir lithology? Sandstone [1 mark] Describe the following rock characteristics: Colour Red (sandstone); red (mudstone) Grain size Fine- to medium-grained sandstones (sandstone) Sorting Poor Small-scale (mm-cm-scale) stratification Lamination Large-scale (m-scale) stratification Cross-bedding (sandstone), mudstone lenses encased in sandstone (in lower part of cliff face) and sandstone channels encased in mudstones (in upper part of cliff face) [8 marks] Estimate the rock properties: Porosity: c. 20% in sandstones Permeability: c. 100-400 mD in sandstones, <1 mD in mudstones Net/gross: decreases from base (100%) to top (0%) of cliff face; average c. 65% [5 marks]

Feedback on Sidmouth: Sheet 2

5. Select an appropriate vertical scale and draw a simplified vertical profile through the rocks exposed here on the logging sheet (page 4). Pay particular attention to the nature of contacts between different lithological units (e.g. erosive, sharp, gradational). Next to your profile, draw a schematic Gamma Ray (GR) log through the section. [12 marks]: Suggest 1 for suitable vertical scale, 2 for suitable range of grain size, 2 for capturing variation in range of grain size between sandstone and mudstone, 1 for capturing upwards decrease in sandstone frequency, 1 for capturing upwards decrease in sandstone thickness, 1 for capturing sharp nature of basal contacts between sandstone and mudstone, 1 if have added lithology in the appropriate column, 1 for any sedimentary structures recorded, 2 for featureless gamma ray log (or gamma ray higher in mudstone than sandstone)] 6. Make a simplified, annotated scaled sketch of a selected part of the outcrop face on page 5 (use landscape page format), with emphasis on the nature and geometry of reservoir and nonreservoir rock types. Make sure that the true aspect ratio is retained (i.e. keep the same vertical and horizontal scales). From your sketch describe the following: [12 marks]: Suggest 2 for suitable horizontal and vertical scales, 1 for having described orientation of sketch, 1 for capturing channelized nature of sandbodies, 1 for capturing upwards decrease in sandstone frequency, 1 for capturing upwards decrease in sandstone thickness and lateral extent, 1 for any sedimentary structures captured (e.g. cross-beds/accretional surfaces), 2 for capturing fault(s) with correct sense of throw, 3 for overall presentation and neatness] Thickness: Facies/rock types: Large-scale geometrical features: Primary sedimentary structures: Major stratal surfaces (nature & geometry): What is the depositional origin of the features described? Fluvial Justify these interpretations: Presence of cross-bedding

Feedback on Sidmouth: Sheet 3

7. This outcrop shows the upper part of the Sherwood Sandstone Group and its boundary with the overlying Mercia Mudstone Group. What is the nature of this contact: Gradational, or [1 mark] Sharp, or Erosional? 8. How would you recognise this contact on well logs: Drill cuttings: Sand grains, mudstone chips Drilling rate: Slower in sandstone, faster in mudstone GR log: Higher GR in mudstones (although also high in sandstones because contain feldspar). Spiky gamma ray reflects interbedded sst and mst & gradually increasing upwards. Density log: Higher density in mudstones spiky signature gradually increasing upwards Sonic log: Smaller transit-time in mudstones spiky signature gradually decreasing upwards Borehole image log: Recognize sandstone and mudstone lithologies observe frequency and thickness of mudstone beds increasing upwards, and frequency and thickness of sandstone beds decreasing upwards [12 marks] 9. How would you recognise this contact on seismic sections? Expect reflection because of contrast in acoustic properties between sandstone and mudstone, but weak and diffuse due to gradational nature of contact, and difficult to trace laterally. [4 marks] 10. What implications would this contact have for reservoir management? Explain your answer. Difficult to recognize and map top reservoir surface in seismic uncertainty in calculating initial oil-in-place Difficult to predict connectivity of sandbodies decreases upwards with decreasing net-to-gross so difficult to predict efficiency with which hydrocarbons will be drained / swept uncertainty in predicting reserves. Bypassed / remaining hydrocarbons likely to be left in this upper part of the reservoir target for IOR / infill drilling. [6 marks] 11. How would you rate the potential of the Sherwood and the immediately overlying Mercia Mudstone in relation to the following: Reservoir: Sherwood sandstone moderate to poor Seal: Mercia mudstone excellent seal Source rock: None observed [3 marks] This locality marked from a total of 70.

Feedback on Ladram Bay: Sheet 1

1. What is the age of the rocks exposed at this locality? Period: Triassic [1 mark] Age (Ma): ~ 240 Ma [1 mark] 2. What are the lithostratigraphic names of (1) the rock unit at this outcrop, and (2) the analogous rock unit in the subsurface of the Wessex Basin? Local rock unit: Otter Sandstone (or Sherwood) [1 mark] Wessex Basin rock unit: Sherwood Sandstone [1 mark] 3. What are the main types of lithology exposed here (e.g. sandstone, mudstone, etc.)? Sandstone, mudstone [2 marks] 4. What is the main reservoir lithology? Sandstone [1 mark] Describe the following rock characteristics: Colour Red sandstones, greeny-black mudstones. Grain size Fine- to medium-grained sandstones; coarser-grained channel lags (pebble-sized clasts); clay-sized grains (mudstones) Sorting Poor Small-scale (mm-cm-scale) stratification mm-scale laminations in both sandstones and mudstones Large-scale (m-scale) stratification cm-scale trough crossbedding; erosive channel bases (often picked out by cemented lag deposits) c.10s m wide and ms deep; planar laminations in mudstones. [8 marks] Estimate the rock properties: Porosity: c. 20 % Permeability: c. 100-400 mD Net/gross: 70-80 % [5 marks]

Feedback on Ladram Bay: Sheet 2

5. Select an appropriate vertical scale and draw a simplified vertical profile through the rocks exposed here on the logging sheet (page 10). Pay particular attention to: Vertical & lateral changes in grain size The nature of contacts between different lithological units (e.g. erosive, sharp, gradational) Next to your profile, draw a schematic Gamma Ray (GR) log through the section. [12 marks] Suggest 1 for suitable vertical scale, 3 for suitable range of grain size, 3 for capturing variation in range of grain size between sandstone, mudstone and channel lag, 1 for capturing sharp nature of basal contacts between sandstone / channel lag and underlying unit, 1 if have added lithology in the appropriate column, 1 for any sedimentary structures recorded, 2 for featureless gamma ray log (or gamma ray higher in mst than sst)] 6. Make a simplified, annotated scaled sketch of a selected part of the outcrop face on page 11 (use landscape page format), with emphasis on the nature and geometry of reservoir and nonreservoir rock types. Make sure that the true aspect ratio is retained. [12 marks: Suggest 2 for suitable horizontal and vertical scales, 1 for having described orientation of sketch, 1 for capturing channelized nature of sandbodies, 1 for capturing channelized nature of abandoned channel fill mudstones, 1 for capturing channel lags at channel bases, 2 for any sedimentary structures captured (e.g. crossbeds/accretional surfaces), 4 for overall presentation & neatness] 7. Now consider the same 2D panel in terms of its reservoir characteristics: Sand body width: 10-100 m Sand body thickness: 1- 5 m Channel lag width: 2-20 m Channel lag thickness: 0.5-2 m Abandoned channel-fill width: 10-100 m Abandoned channel-fill thickness: 1-5 m [12 marks (1 each for upper and lower estimates be reasonable with these)] 8. Using your sketch on page 11, review the impact of reservoir heterogeneity on vertical permeability/vertical flow paths. Mudstone channel-fill and cemented channel-lag deposits are barriers to flow; reduce vertical permeability because increase tortuosity of fluid flowpaths; little impact on horizontal permeability. [3 marks]

Feedback on Ladram Bay: Sheet 3

9. Do you think you would be able to represent the reservoir heterogeneity observed here explicitly in: A geological (static) reservoir model with typical grid block size 100 x 100 x 1m No. Sand body widths often smaller than areal dimension of grid blocks; at best, may be able to capture the largest sand bodies with 1-2 grid blocks. Need more grid blocks than this to properly capture the connectivity of sand bodies. Barriers to flow have similar lateral dimensions to sand bodies but are often much thinner than grid blocks (channel lags); these could not be captured explicitly because of the limited areal and vertical grid resolution. [3 marks students may not have captured all of this] A dynamic (simulation) model with typical grid block size 500 x 500 x 10 m? Explain your answer. No. Problem even worse as grid block resolution so much lower in simulation model. May attempt to use upscaling to capture impact of heterogeneity captured in finer geological model in coarser simulation model, but need to recognise that fine geological model may not have properly captured heterogeneity observed in outcrop. Result is simulation models which are too homogenous. [3 marks students may not have captured all of this] 10. Based on your observations and using Figure 1 where appropriate, estimate the ratio of vertical-to-horizontal permeability (kv/kh ratio) at the following scales: A core plug (2 x 2 x 10 cm): Close to one; may be lower because platy clay minerals tend to be oriented parallel to bedding. [2 marks] A geological (static) model grid block: Extreme fluctuations between 0 and close to 1, depending upon whether the fine grid block contains an abandoned channel mudstone or cemented lag. The lateral dimensions of these barriers to flow are very similar to the areal grid block size; vertical dimensions are similar to or smaller than grid block thickness. [2 marks] A simulation (dynamic) model grid block: Significantly lower than one, because each grid block contains a mixture of sandstone, mudstone and cemented channel-lags. Estimated from figure 1, the kv/kh ratio is c. 0.05 or 5%. [2 marks] A pressure transient test: Samples several tens of hundreds of meters laterally from well, and several tens of metres vertically. Similar values to simulation model grid block. [2 marks]

Feedback on Ladram Bay: Sheet 4

11. How would you recognise this type of rock unit in the subsurface: Drill cuttings: Recognize sandstone and mudstone lithologies and cemented sandstone. Drilling rate: Variations through different lithologies and noncemented vs. cemented sandstone. GR log: Spiky signature, generally higher in mudstone and lower in sandstone, but no clear distinction between lithologies because of feldspar in sandstone. Density log: Higher in mudstone and cemented sandstone Sonic log: Lower in mudstone and cemented sandstone Borehole image log: Recognize variations in lithology, plus larger cross-beds Seismic: Features too small to resolve [14 marks] 12. Would you be able to determine the geometry and lateral extent of the heterogeneities using only subsurface data? Explain your answer. No. Too small to resolve on seismic and cannot correlate between wells. Could use quantitative data obtained from suitable outcrop analogues to constrain geometry and dimensions. [3 marks] 13. How do the reservoir characteristics of the Middle Sherwood, as seen in this section, compare with those seen in the Upper Sherwood (e.g. at Sidmouth)? Higher net-to-gross, relatively uniform over vertical extent of cliff faces. Higher connectivity of channel sandbodies; higher kv / kh ratio. Overall higher quality. [3 marks] 14. In several parts of the western British Isles, this rock unit is a major petroleum reservoir. Do your field observations support this? Yes. Unit has moderate porosity, permeability and net-to-gross. [2 marks] 15. Can you suggest a gross depositional environment for these rocks? Explain your reasoning. Braided fluvial. Vertically and laterally stacked channel sandbodies. [2 marks] 16. How would you rate the potential of this and the immediately overlying rock unit in relation to the following: Reservoir: Moderate to good Seal: None observed Source rock: None observed [3 marks] This locality marked from a total of 100. Overall mark from a total of 170. NB: Localities 3 and 4 not marked.