Green fields today mostly can be regarded as marginal fields and successfully developed. It covers the complete assessment of the oil and gas recovery potential from reservoir structure and formation evaluation, oil and gas reserve mapping, their uncertainties and risks management, feasible reservoir fluid depletion approaches, and to the construction of integrated production systems for cost effective development of the green fields. Depth conversion of time interpretations is a basic skill set for interpreters. There is no single methodology that is optimal for all cases. Next, appropriate depth methods will be presented. Depth imaging should be considered an integral component of interpretation. If the results derived from depth imaging are intended to mitigate risk, the interpreter must actively guide the process.
The field was discovered in 1992. It produces oil and associated gas from two reservoir sub units of the Upper Shuaiba USh3F1 and USh3F2, and exhibits both structural and startighraphical traps. The reservoir units are compartmentalized by NW-trending normal faults into five fault blocks within the same field towards the North East. They are vertically separated by non-reservoir low permeability mudstone facies. US3F2 is setting above Orbitolina shale. The objective is to build a new geological model in a very complex carbonate reservoir, to allow for better reservoir development, and adding new field opportunities using state of art seismic data.
Lower unit (US3F2) consists of an aggradational sequence skeletal peloid-foram packstone/wackestone, and in-situ rudist-algal boundstone/packstone build-ups, which is localized to the NE-trending axis of the field. These sequences are deposited in a low to moderate energy environment. US3F2 reaches a maximum thickness of 50 ft in the rudist build-ups, but the width of the rudist-algal boundstone facies parallel to depositional dip (SE) is only 0.5–0.7 km. Cores exhibit abundant secondary porosity with an average of 30% and permeability up to 700 mD suggesting early subaerial exposure and leaching.
Upper unit (US3F1) is either absent or very thin across the crest and thickens to over 20 ft basinward; downdip, it is separated from US3F2 by a shale unit. US3F1 consists of an upward-shallowing deposits of Orbitolina mudstone, reworked stromatoporoid-rudist floatstone, small rudist floatstone, and fine skeletal grain-dominated packstone with rudist fragments.
3D model was generated covering large area of about 15x9km of the field. The new seismic horizon and faults interpretation were used in the 3D structural modeling. Cores descriptions and photos were used to define core facies, depositional environments and vuggy intervals. Rudist buildups direction of progradation was also defined based on BHI.
Reservoir rock Fabric number (RFN) was defined based on Lucia method and populated using veriogram per zone for the vertical wells using moving average method followed by Gaussian Random simulation, co-kriged with the moving average properties as a trend, for both vertical and horizontal wells. Porosity was populated with the same method. Water saturation and permeability were calculated using Lucia height function method.
Understanding of the reservoir heterogeneity, architecture and 3D modeling using RFN based on Lucia method allowed a better distribution of reservoir properties to be used in dynamic simulation for better history match, predict waterflood performance and adding new development areas.