2 reservoir issue 05 • may 2015

$10.00MAY 2015VOLUME 42, ISSUE 05Canadian Publication Mail Contract – 40070050

RETURN UNDELIVERABLE CANADIAN ADDRESSES TO:CSPG – Suite 600 640 8th Avenue SW Calgary, Alberta T2P 1G7

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

12 Call to former students and colleagues of Dr. Deborah Spratt

13 Geomodeling: A Team Effort To Better Understand Our Reservoirs Part 4: Geologists and Geomodeling

19 2014 Stanley Slipper Gold Medal

25 Go Take A Hike

2 RESERVOIR ISSUE 05 • MAY 2015

FRONT COVER

Opal Mountain, Kananaskis, Alberta. Detachment fault and associated folding in the Rundle Group, which is comprised of Mississippian aged interbedded limestone and shale.

Photo by: Mike Mueller

MAY 2015 – VOLUME 42, ISSUE 05

ARTICLES

Call to former students and colleagues of Dr. Deborah Spratt ...................................... 12

Geomodeling: A Team Effort To Better Understand Our Reservoirs Part 4: Geologists and Geomodeling ................................................................................. 13

Photo of the Month .................................................................................................................. 18

2014 Stanley Slipper Gold Medal ........................................................................................... 19

2014 Honorary Membership .................................................................................................. 21

AUGC 2014 ................................................................................................................................ 23

Go Take A Hike ........................................................................................................................... 25

2014 Partner Tracks Award ..................................................................................................... 30

DEPARTMENTS

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

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

Division Talks ................................................................................................................................. 9

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

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 Educational Trust Fund: 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.

RESERVOIR ISSUE 05 • MAY 2015 3

Leading the way with customer-driven data, integrated software and services for your upstream decision-making needs.

geoSCOUT | gDC | petroCUBE at www.geoLOGIC.com

Now, get geoLOGIC’s value-added data almost any place, any time, any way you want it. Available through gDCweb on your tablet, smartphone or computer.

With 30 years of data experience behind it, gDC is the source for high quality, value-added well and land data from across Western Canada and the Northern United States. Another plus – our data is accessible through an expanding range of industry software utilizing our own easy-to-use gDC GIS and our geoSCOUT software.

View, search, import and export well, land and production data, documents, logs and more from almost anywhere. For more informationvisit our website at www.geoLOGIC.com

Warning: Our data has gone mobile(You may never return to the office)

CSPG BOARD

PRESIDENTTony Cadrin • Journey Energy [email protected]@cspg.org 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 Ryan Lemiski, Director of Young Geoscience Professionals

Creating Membership Benefits in Challenging Times

As Tony Cadrin mentioned in the February 2015 Message from the Board, the CSPG Board of Directors is committed to delivering services to our membership that are valuable regardless of where you are in your career. We can all agree that our organization does a superb job focusing outreach on student members; however, in comparison to sister societies, the CSPG does not offer equivalent services to its early career professionals. Recent analysis of AAPG membership data indicates that the majority of students (+90%) do not renew as associate or full members after convocation. CSPG membership data has yet to be analyzed (it is on the ‘to-do’ list). These data raise many questions such as: Are we allocating outreach dollars properly? Why is it that early career professional’s do not find value in CSPG membership? Do university graduates feel welcome when they transition to full members? Are we creating proper communities for younger professionals? Of course there are many others. The goal of outreach funding is to accomplish the society’s mission and goals, as well as provide a home for geoscience professionals for the duration of their careers. As a society we need to evaluate how we bridge student members to full members because many are currently falling through the cracks.

Changing society and industry demographics have not gone unnoticed (see Astrid Arts’ oral presentation at the 2014 GeoConvention “Girl’s Guide to the Oil Patch”). Most of us are aware that the industry is dominated by the baby boomer generation (birth year between 1943 and 1964) and that ‘The Great Crew Change’ is near. The large number of soon to be retired geoscientists will be replaced primarily by the millennial generation (year of birth 1981 to present). What is interesting is the fact that a large proportion of millennials do

not see the same value in membership with professional organizations as their senior colleagues. The CSPG has long recognized this. In fact, these trends provided the rationale for creating a new directorship responsible for the Young Geoscience Professionals portfolio. Kudos to Dale Leckie, current and past Boards for their vision in helping lay the foundation for what should evolve in to fantastic CSPG member services for young professionals.

What exactly is a young geoscience professional (YGP)? The CSPG considers anyone that has graduated from a geoscience program at an institution of university standing with ten (10) or less years of industry experience as a YGP. This includes individuals that have transitioned to the geoscience profession later on in their lives.

The number one priority of CSPG’s YGP initiative is to engage all early career professionals. There’s no question that membership retention derives from an individual feeling of belonging to a community. In order to achieve this, member services will need to be developed for a demographic whose wants and needs differ significantly than those of the baby boomer generation. For instance, those born between 1943 and 1964 did not make available their career and accomplishments using LinkedIn, Facebook didn’t exist, no one had ever heard a Tweet that wasn’t from the beak of a bird, geoscientists weren’t employing Petrel to perform complex reservoir modelling, heck, Starbucks wasn’t even an option for “networking”. The Young Geoscience Professionals Committee (YGPC) has been created in order to develop services for early career professionals. The committee is in the early stages of building its structure and is seeking input from the membership.

(... Continued on page 7)

Leading the way with customer-driven data, integrated software and services for your upstream decision-making needs.

geoSCOUT | gDC | petroCUBE at www.geoLOGIC.com

Now, get geoLOGIC’s value-added data almost any place, any time, any way you want it. Available through gDCweb on your tablet, smartphone or computer.

With 30 years of data experience behind it, gDC is the source for high quality, value-added well and land data from across Western Canada and the Northern United States. Another plus – our data is accessible through an expanding range of industry software utilizing our own easy-to-use gDC GIS and our geoSCOUT software.

View, search, import and export well, land and production data, documents, logs and more from almost anywhere. For more informationvisit our website at www.geoLOGIC.com

Warning: Our data has gone mobile(You may never return to the office)

Switch toHigh Definition Workflows for Shalewith Paradigm

« TraditionalMicroseismic Analysis

« HD StimulatedFracture Network

Backed by world-class technology (EarthStudy 360®, SeisEarth®, Geolog®, SKUA-GOCAD™), Paradigm solutions and High Definition workflows are used by geoscientists and engineers to avoid non-productive acreage, optimize well planning and well spacing, target sweet spots, and improve hydrocarbon recovery.

Learn More at PDGM.com

Your Unconventional Workflow

EVALUATETHE RESERVOIR

WELL PLANNINGAND DRILLING

DESIGN COMPLETIONAND FRAC JOBS

PRODUCTIONAND OPTIMIZATION

Develop a comprehensive shale model of fractures, stresses, mineralogy, brittleness, and TOC using well logs, image logs, core data, and full azimuth seismic imaging and inversion methods

Effectively steer the well into the sweet spot using real-time data(WITSML, LWD)

Develop a single earth model using all available data – seismic attributes, interpretation, microseismic and geological data to identify sweet spots, plan wells and optimize completions

Monitor effectiveness of drilling and production through analysis of microseismic for well orientation, reservoir depletion for spacing and frac effectiveness and placement

» Patented full azimuth imaging and characterization technology for in-situ, precision fracture and stress determinations in depth

» Multi-survey interpretation to accommodate acreage and asset expansion with built-in Quantitative Seismic Interpretation (QSI) tools to enhance sweet spot detection

» Fully integrated petrophysical and formation evaluation suite for fracture determination, rock fabric modeling (brittleness, mineralogy, stress), and TOC estimation.

» Optimized horizontal drilling through petrophysical or geomechanical models

» Integrated earth modeling to accommodate all supporting field development data including seismic data, microseismic data, engineering data, well log data, and core data with animations of all time-dependent data

» Discrete fracture network modeling, fracture probability modeling, facies modeling, chronostratigraphic modeling, and a unique stimulation fracture path modeling solution to better model hydraulic flow as a function of time

What Paradigm Solutions Deliver

VISIT US AT

CALGARY

GeoConvention 2015

BOOTH 609


CORPORATE SPONSORSSAMARIUMgeoLOGIC systems ltd.DIAMONDAPEGAAGAT LaboratoriesCSPG FoundationTITANIUMTourmaline Oil Corp.ConocoPhillips Canada LimitedPLATINUMCenovus EnergyNexen ULCImperial Oil ResourcesIHS Global Canada LimitedBaker Hughes CalgaryGOLDSuncor EnergyDevon Energy CorpSeitel Canada Ltd.Enerplus CorporationHusky Energy Inc.SILVERLoring Tacore Labs Ltd.Schlumberger Canada LimitedCanadian Natural Resources LtdChinook ConsultingWeatherford Canada PartnershipCabra Consulting Ltd.CSEG FoundationArcis Seismic SolutionsMJ SystemsEmerson Process ManagementEOG Resources Canada Inc.Journey EnergyBRONZETalisman EnergySeisWareHalliburtonOsum Oil Sands Corp.Pro Geo ConsultantsQatar Shell GTL LimitedAAPG - Canada regionIkon Science Ltd.Pengrowth CorporationCrescent Point Energy TrustGeovariancesParadigmBelloy Petroleum ConsultingPason SystemGeomodeling Technology Corp.RIGSAT CommunicationsTucker Energy Services CanadaPainted Pony Petroleum Ltd.RPS Energy Canada Ltd.Encana CorporationGLJ 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.

The YGPC currently has a draft of its organization and vacant volunteer positions include: Liaison to sister societies such as AAPG, CSEG, SPE, etc., Communications and Social Media, Networking Socials, Education, Website Moderator, Technical and Soft Skills Development, Mentor Program, Industry Talks, and many more. If you have any suggestions or would like to learn more about this committee, please contact [email protected]

One of the early successes of CSPG’s YGP initiative is the creation of the Young Professional Link (YP-LINK). The YP-LINK was developed jointly between CSPG, AAPG Canada Region, CSEG, CWLS, SEG and SPE Calgary Section in order to provide young professionals more opportunities to expand their networks and learn about engineering and geosciences. This is an essential partnership that will aid in bridging the gap between engineers and earth sciences in Canada and will support young professional development. CSPG was a proud sponsor of the YP-LINK’s Young Professional Holiday Social on Monday, December 15th, 2014, at National Bowl. The event was a huge success with over 180 attendees! The YP-

LINK hopes to build on this momentum. Stay tuned for upcoming events.

Early career professionals are currently coping with their first significant low in the commodity price cycle. Many YGPs have been laid off and are contemplating their next steps. When the market finally stabilizes and hiring resumes many YGPs will fall into an interesting window where their limited experience may impact their job search. Failing immediate success these individuals may start looking at other career opportunities. The current economic reality presents an opportunity for the CSPG to demonstrate to its young members that the society is their career home. In order to keep YGPs and new graduates engaged the CSPG has recently created the New Graduate Membership program. As of April 2015 new graduates will be able to take advantage of an annual membership rate of $50 for a maximum of two years. CSPG believes that retaining our early career professionals is crucial to the long term success of the society. By supporting our young professionals during tough economic times the society can ensure that it will thrive well in to the future. After all, we need each other now more than ever.

(... Continued from page 5)

LMKR Holdings is the exclusive world-wide licensor and distributor of GeoGraphix® software. GeoGraphix® is a registered trademark of Landmark Graphics Corporation. The LMKR Logo is a trademark of LMKR Holdings.

EfficiencyDiscover your

BRING YOUR COSTS DOWN,NOT YOUR PRODUCTIONDO MORE, SPEND LESS ON YOUR CHOSEN PROSPECTS

Ÿ From data to drilling in one comprehensive package

Ÿ Common data platform for collaboration across all disciplines

Ÿ Cross domain workflows for accurate and comprehensive interpretation

Ÿ At 30% less than comparable offerings, it’s the smart solution for today’s geoscientist

www.lmkr.com/geographix

Exploration Risking and Impact of Direct Hydrocarbon Indicators: Application of scenario-based AvO classification technologySPEAKERKrzysztof M. (Chris) WojcikAAPG Distinguished Lecturer

11:30 am Tuesday, May 26, 2015 Calgary, TELUS Convention, 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, May 21st, 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.

ABSTRACTSeismic amplitude anomalies have been used for over 40 years to identify and de-risk exploration opportunities with a great degree of success. Beginning in the late 90s, the global industry portfolio of solid amplitude-supported opportunities started to get depleted in many basins. The depletion of high-confidence opportunities resulted in drilling of intrinsically riskier amplitude anomalies leading to significant exploration failures and unexpected outcomes. Some of the failures involved non-commercial hydrocarbons (low-saturation gas or residual gas), some involved anomalous lithologies (e.g. marl, ash or high-porosity wet sand) and some appeared to be related to seismic artifacts. The exploration community realized that seismic anomalies have to be rigorously verified and evaluated within a correct geological context to facilitate realistic risk assessment.

Detecting amplitude or AvO anomalies is always a significant factor in prospect evaluation. True and robust DHI’s have

large impact on prospect chance of success and drill or not drill decisions. Thus any detected seismic anomalies are sometimes streamlined as true DHI’s, creating high expectation and potentially resulting in spectacular failures. The learning from successes and failures demonstrates that potential DHI’s must be tested against a broad range of subsurface scenarios and the results must pass the consistency test against geological expectations. At a high-level, the DHI evaluation process should include four steps:

• DHI detection – constrained by previous knowledge of rock properties system and seismic analogues to define detection strategy

• DHI detection – constrained by previous knowledge of rock properties system and seismic analogues to define detection strategy

• DHI verification – inspection of pre-stack data and qualitative AvO interpretation carried out in a context of reservoir/seal stratigraphy and possible trapping configurations

• DHI assessment – detailed comparison of the observed and predicted seismic response for full range of subsurface scenarios with sensitivity analysis and quantification of scenario likelihoods Fluid contact analysis – focused on geophysical and geological consistency and reduction of volumetric uncertainties

The results of detailed quantitative interpretation studies are integrated with independent geologic risk and confidence level assessments. Good quality 3D seismic data facilitate rapid multi-attribute AvO classification and probabilistic chance factor updates. The process is guided by scenario-based forward modeling based on applicable predictive frameworks and with considerations of success and failure outcomes. This paper presents several examples of volume and scenario-based DHI assessment workflows from selected Circum-Atlantic basins, with discussion of underpinning rock properties systems and lessons learned from drilling results.

BIOGRAPHYKrzysztof M. (Chris) Wojcik currently holds a position of Geophysical Advisor with Deepwater Exploration in Shell Americas in Houston. Chris has MSc degree in Geology from the Warsaw University and PhD in Sedimentary Petrology from the University of Kansas.

Chris specializes in application of Quantitative Interpretation technologies in conventional exploration and is one of Shell’s global experts in the area of DHI assessment and integration with prospect risking. He had several exploration and technology assignments in Gulf of Mexico, Angola, Nigeria, Norway, Brazil, Guyanas and worked in many other deepwater basins. Chris was involved in a number of Shell’s discoveries over the last two decades and his is principal interest is detection of hydrocarbons with seismic methods. His areas of interest include the following:

• Geologic controls on elastic rock properties and AvO response

• Integration of geology and geophysics into scenario-based predictive workflows

• Multi-attribute interpretation and DHI detection with 3D seismic data

• Probabilistic assessment of exploration risks with seismic methods

Chris is also involved in teaching and coaching of new generations of explorers and geoscientists.


TECHNICAL LUNCHEONS MAY LUNCHEON Webcasts sponsored by

The Complex Character of Thrust Fault Zones SPEAKERWilliam Jamison The Upper Crust Inc.

12:00 Noon Thursday, May 7, 2015 Schlumberger Palliser One building, 125 – 9 Avenue S.E. (Second Floor)

ABSTRACTMajor thrust faults are commonly depicted on cross sections and in various models as discrete surfaces separating the hangingwall from the footwall. However, outcrop exposures of fault zones in the southern/central Alberta Foothills and Front Ranges often display multiple surfaces that bound lozenges of rock (historically termed “horses”) that are several tens to hundreds of metres thick. For example, the Canmore West map sheet of Price & Mountjoy (1970) shows the trace of the Rundle Thrust is decorated with “horses” for a strike distance of over 20 km.

Two processes are commonly invoked to account for the development of these fault horses, viz. (1) fault imbrications/duplexes (e.g., Boyer & Elliot; 1982 & S. Mitra, 1990) and (2) segmentation of the forelimb of a break-thrust (Willis, 1890). In general, the fault duplex model results in upright bedding within

the horse and the break-thrust model leads to overturned bedding within the horse. A third process is “detrusion” (Jamison & Pope, 1996), whereby segments of the hangingwall are “drag-folded” into the fault zone then overridden by the active fault surface.

The widespread occurrence of fault zone “horses” seen along surface fault traces may indicate “horse” development is a process that occurs repeatedly during thrust transport, plucking material from the adjacent hangingwall and/or footwall. Within a fault zone system that contains many discrete surfaces, it is not always clear which surface is the primary or most recent movement

surface. Do seismic and wellbore data in the Foothills support similar deformation at depth? Are we adequately incorporating this deformation in our subsurface interpretations and evaluations?

BIOGRAPHYWilliam (Jamie) Jamison is a consulting structural geologist. He received his B.S. from Georgia Tech, M.Sc from University of Calgary and PhD from Texas A&M University. He spent 14 years in research and exploration with major oil companies and 6 years as an associate professor at MUN before establishing his consulting company, The Upper Crust Inc., in Calgary in 1996.

Figure: Fault-bounced lozenge of rock, or “horse” along the Prairie Mtn. Thrust south of Elbow River.


DIVISION TALKS STRUCTURAL DIVISION Webcasts sponsored by

PETROLEUM INDUSTRY COURSESt e c h n o l o g y • s e i s m i c • r o c k s • m a p s • f o r m a t i o n s • l a n d • s e d i m e n t s • h i s t o r y • s e a • f o s s i l s • e n v i r o n m e n t

WHO SHOULD ATTENDNew geologists, engineers, geophysicists and landmen, as well as summer students entering the industry for the �rst time will �nd the courses a very bene�cial introduction to the petroleum industry. These courses will be extremely useful to nonprofessional and support sta� in the oil and gas industry, as well as accountants, lawyers, brokerage and �nancial personnel working primarily alongside the oil and gas industry.

TO REGISTERTo register or to obtain additional information regarding in-house and upcoming courses, please contact:

Ayrton Exploration Consulting Ltd.

Tel: (403) 262-5440

Email: [email protected]

Or visit our website:

www.ayrtonexploration.com

Contact Bill Ayrton for an in-house "Geological Walking Tour of the

buildings of Downtown Calgary"

GEOLOGY OF THE WESTERN CANADIAN SEDIMENTARY BASIN Date: June 9th, 10th & 11th, 2015Cost: $1785 (includes GST)Instructor: Bill Ayrton

Ideal for those who wish to improve their geological understanding of where and how we look for oil and gas �elds in Western Canada.• To visualize what Western Canada looked like

throughout the stages of history, for example, the position of the sea versus land, what sediments were deposited, and what type of life that existed and evolved.

• To review the importance of each major stratigraphic unit, i.e. Devonian, Mississippian, Cretaceous, etc.

• Discuss the geological and seismic expression of typical oil and gas �elds in each unit.

• To review the variety of “unconventional” oil & gas plays currently being pursued.

OVERVIEW OF THE OIL & GAS INDUSTRY IN WESTERN CANADADate: May 20th & 21st, 2015Cost: $1260 (includes GST)Instructor: Bill Ayrton

E�ective for personnel just joining the oil patch, or for �nancial, accounting, and information systems personnel.• Learn about the many facets of the industry.• Oil finding, land acquisition, drilling, seismic, well

completion, jargon and terminology.

GEOLOGY FOR NON-GEOLOGISTSDate: May 27th & 28th, 2015Cost: $1260 (includes GST) Instructor: Bill Ayrton

E�ective for geological technicians or administrative sta�, or for those who just want a better understanding of geology to appreciate the world around us.• Learn about earth structure, geologic time-scale and

processes, Western Canada geology, and interesting nearby locations.

• Participate in a rock identi�cation exercise, contouring project and a mini-�eld trip in downtown Calgary.

GEOLOGY FORNON-GEOLOGISTS

Presented by:W.G. (Bill) Ayrton

C

M

Y

CM

MY

CY

CMY

K

Ayrton Exploration Ad.pdf 1 25/03/2015 10:34:07 AM


The Charm Of Small Things: The Study Of Microvertebrate AssemblagesSPEAKERAngelica Torices Ph. D. Postdoctoral Fellow, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta

7:30 pm Friday, May 8, 2015 Mount Royal University, Room B108

ABSTRACTIn popular media, like the Jurassic Park movies, paleontologists are portrayed digging complete spectacular skeletons. The reality is that recovering these fossils is not as simple as it looks in the movies. It is rare to find perfect and complete specimens and it requires exceptional preservation conditions.

The ecosystems of the past were not only composed of gigantic animals. Among the giants of the Mesozoic there were also smaller dinosaurs, mammals, lizards, fishes and other vertebrates. Maybe their rests (what is left after part is taken away) are not as spectacular as complete skeletons but they are fundamental because they provide primary data on fossil assemblages where no other material has been found.

The techniques to find these smaller rests are very different from the ones used to dig macrovertebrates. One of the methods used is prospecting the surface of the terrain carefully and picking the fossils that our eyes can locate. The other method, called quarrying, is more intensive and implies the collection of hundreds of kilograms of sediment. This sediment is processed afterwards by screenwashing and the fossils removed manually with the help of stereo microscopes. This work is laborious and hard but the taxonomic assignation of the obtained fragmentary material is very important for paleoecological and faunal studies.

My studies have focused mainly in the microvertebrate part of the dinosaur sample, especially teeth. Isolated teeth are the most abundant remains of these animals found in all Mesozoic sediments worldwide. In some areas there are the only remains found of these carnivorous dinosaurs and have no relation to skeletal remains attributable to

any defined theropod taxon.

In my studies, I use a statistical approach to distinguish Late Cretaceous theropod taxa based on isolated teeth. With this method I have been able to identify six species of toothed theropods in the Southern Pyrenees Basin in Spain at the end of the Cretaceous. The taxa identified include two morphotypes of an indeterminate big theropod, an indeterminate coelurosaurian, cf. Paronychodon sp., cf. Richardoestesia sp., cf. Dromaeosauridae indet., and cf. Pyroraptor olympius. This study exponentially increases the number of theropod taxa known from the South Pyrenees Basin from two previously known taxa to eight species. Moreover, thanks to the establishment of a chronostratigraphical framework and the accurate placement and dating of the different sites it has been possible to assess the evolution of theropod dinosaurs at the end of the Cretaceous. In this case, apparently, theropod diversity in the North of Spain does not experience a significant decline at the end of the Mesozoic.

The same kind of analyses has been used in a recent study in the Danek Bonebed site (Horseshoe Canyon Fm.) to verify if the isolated tyrannosaurid teeth found in the bonebed belonged to Albertosaurus and Daspletosaurus. The results clearly identify the shed teeth as belonging to Albertosaurus.

The study of the wear and microwear patterns in these teeth allowed me to infer indirect evidence of diets and chewing mechanisms, independently of tooth morphologies. The microwear structures showed that the dromaeosaurs and other theropods from South Pyrenees were biting using a “grip and rip” model, removing flesh from bone selectively from larger preys or swallowing small preys whole.

This shows the value of studying microvertebrate assemblages, especially isolated teeth to reconstruct the composition of dinosaur palaeofaunas when other more complete material is not present. These studies allow us to complete the diversity of the paleofaunas and make interpretations about the paleobiology, paleogeography and evolution of their diversity through time.

.BIOGRAPHY

Angelica Torices is a Postdoctoral Researcher at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada, under the supervision of Dr. Philip J. Currie since 2011. She was born in Madrid, Spain and wanted to become a paleontologist since she was four years old. She graduated in Geology with a specialization in Paleontology by the University

Complutense of Madrid and she obtained her MSc in 2002 at the same university and a PhD in Paleontology in 2007. The research focus of her PhD was “Theropod dinosaurs from the upper Cretaceous of the South-Pyrenees Basin”. As a researcher she focuses on the study of Upper Cretaceous theropod dinosaurs from North America and their comparison with European faunas, the paleobiogeographic origin of the European theropod faunas and the evolution of the diversity of these dinosaurs in the Cretaceous. Her current research has triggered a paleoenvironmental and paleoecological study of the dinosaur fauna from Horseshoe Canyon and Dinosaur Park Formation through isotope analysis. She has been involved in several scientific projects studying paleoclimate and paleoenvironmental factors in critical periods, with special emphasis on the K/T boundary and has published 26 peer reviewed papers and 44 peer reviewed abstracts in national and international conferences.

INFORMATIONThis event is presented jointly by the Alberta Palaeontological Society, the Earth Science Department of Mount Royal University, and the Palaeontology Division of the Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists. For details or to present a talk in the future, please contact CSPG Palaeontology Division Chair Jon Noad at [email protected] or APS Coordinator Harold Whittaker at 403-286-0349 or contact [email protected]. Visit the APS website for confirmation of event times and upcoming speakers: http://www.albertapaleo.org/.


DIVISION TALKS PALAEONTOLOGY DIVISION Sponsored by

CALL TO FORMER STUDENTS AND COLLEAGUES OF DR. DEBORAH SPRATTContributions needed for a day of presentations from areas and topics related to your work with Deborah from the past or present

Friday, September 18th: Presentations Saturday, September 19th: Field Trip

This year for the fall CSPG Structural Division Field Trip we are looking to make it

a special tribute to Dr. Deborah Spratt who was a professor of structural geology at the University of Calgary from 1980-2011. Many of us have worked with her, attended talks by her or her students, or have met her on various field trips. This day of presentations will be open to anyone who wishes to attend and will be held in Kananaskis or Canmore on the 18th September. There will be an overnight stay for those also attending the accompanying field trip on the following day, 19th September.

Initially the call for presentations will be open to former students and colleagues who have worked with Deborah to present from their past or present work relating to topics that Deborah focused on in her career such as Rocky Mountain and Foothills structural geology, triangle zones, seismic expression of structural geometries and fracture patterns. Please respond to Deborah Sanderson ([email protected]) if you would like to present a talk. You should include your proposed title and write “2015 Fall Seminar Talk” in the subject line.

The field trip will be led by Deborah Spratt and will include an extended stop at one of her favourite study areas where the attendees may also be involved in some data collection for a future talk on the results. Due to logistical constraints the field trip will be limited to 21 attendees.

Costs for the day seminar and overnight stay will be determined once a booking is finalized and will be paid by the attendees. Carpooling may be the best way to handle transportation to and from the venue and on the field trip.

This event will be organized by Deborah Sanderson, the CSPG Structural Division, and others who have offered to help with these two days of celebrating Deborah’s career.

Deborah Sanderson Rob Taerum Melissa Newton and the Structural Geology Division


GEOMODELING: A TEAM EFFORT TO BETTER UNDERSTAND OUR RESERVOIRSPart 4: Geologists and Geomodeling

| By Thomas Jerome, RPS, Muhammad Nadeem, Encana Services Company and Keith Yaxley, Northern Blizzard

INTRODUCTION

The previous two papers introduced the general geomodeling workflow as well as geostatistics. This paper and the next two review how geoscientists can contribute to a reservoir modeling project. We focus this month on geologists, before looking next month at the collaboration with petrophysicists and then with geophysicists. Seismic data is not available for all reservoirs or at least not in the initial stages of most projects. For this reason, this paper and the next one on petrophysics present techniques based on wells only. These techniques will be reviewed in a few months from now in the paper on geophysics, to take seismic into account.

The role of geologists is to interpret the available well (and seismic) data to characterize the reservoir. As far as reservoir modeling is concerned, this leads to two different types of collaboration (Figure 1). On one hand, the geologist does all the interpretation before the modeling is started. Once the interpretation is complete, it is fed into the geomodeling workflow. The other approach is one where the geologist still starts his/her interpretation before the modeling begins, but he/she also uses the reservoir model and the visualization and interpretation tools embedded in the reservoir modeling software to test, improve and finalize his/her interpretation while the modeling is in progress.

The first type of collaboration is still popular as it corresponds to the traditional separation of tasks in teams: one specialist accomplishes a task and the outcomes become the input to the next specialist’s work. Unfortunately, this approach leads to less integration between specialists and sometimes it can potentially lead to misinterpretation of the reservoir.

The second type of collaboration requires more project management, as tasks are partly done in parallel. This increases the likelihood of data, ideas and knowledge integration within the team. We favour the second approach in this paper and that we will support in the subsequent papers in this series (both for collaboration with geoscientists and with engineers in the second half of the year).

In the first two sections, we illustrate the benefit of linking geological interpretation and reservoir modeling. The third section of this

paper explains how geologists can guide the geostatistical algorithms of facies modeling by defining vertical proportion curves (VPC) and facies proportion maps. It is also important that the geologist helps the modeler in capturing the ranges of uncertainties associated to these inputs. This will be the focus of the last section.

RESOLVING AN OCCASIONAL MISUNDERSTANDING BETWEEN GEOLOGISTS AND MODELERS…

Most modelers and geologists understand the benefits of collaborating one with the other. Nevertheless, problems between geologists and modelers do surface once in a while. Not often, far from that, but still enough to make it useful for us to try to resolve any misunderstanding. This is the focus of this section. Once this has been addressed, then we can talk about collaboration.

Some geologists would say that “us geologists, we do geology, you in modeling, you do mathematics”, implying that modelers focus too much on mathematics, statistics and geostatistics, and don’t create models which are “geologic enough”. Some modelers have the exact opposite view of geologists: “us modelers, we are more rigorous because we rely on mathematics, while you geologists, your results are too interpretative”.

Of course, these criticisms might be punctually true, but overall, they are largely misconceptions about what each side wants/can do.

The source of this misconception seems to be rooted in the opposition between hand-contouring and automated contouring in the 70s and 80s. Then, through the decades, this

original reciprocal suspicion has somehow impacted the relationship between geologists and 3D modelers. Reinvestigating briefly the original questions around contouring will help us going passed this misunderstanding.

Before the age of computers, geologists relied heavily on manual contouring techniques to predict rock properties between the locations where samples were available (Tearpock and Bischke, 2003). Manual contouring was applied, and is still applied today, to create everything from structural maps to property maps (porosity maps, net-to-gross maps…). As computers became more powerful and readily available, many experts looked at how they could replace the manual contouring by automated interpolation techniques (Watson, 1992). In these automated approaches, contours are no longer modeled per se. Instead, the property is interpolated at each location of a grid, using the data point as input parameters. Then, a set of contours is extracted from the property distribution on the grid, as a visual tool to review the results. Some software packages allow editing the spatial distribution by manually adjusting these contours. Otherwise, editing the maps is done by changing the input data or changing the parameters used in the mapping algorithm.

While these new techniques became progressively more common, some opposition grew. Some supporters of manual contouring concluded that computers can’t be trusted to give a realistic, geological result. Hand-drawn contours will take into account the data but also the experience of the geologist and the local geological context. Computer-geneated gridding relies too heavily on the data and only the algorithm, thereby creating mathematically correct but geologically incorrect maps. Meanwhile, some supporters of automated mapping maintained that only mathematical algorithms ensure “objective” mapping. Gridding algorithms are “free of any geological bias or interpretation” (AAPG Wiki, webpage on “contouring geological data with a computer”), which is considered an improvement over “the subjective nature of manual contouring (which) was inimical to precision in maps” (Watson, 1992, page 40). Given the same set of input data and the same gridding parameters, everyone would get the

Figure 1. Collaboration between geological interpretation and reservoir modeling. A) Traditional approach where tasks are done sequentially. B) More integrated approach where tasks are done partly in parallel.

(... Continued on page 14


same output map. Of course, proponents of automated gridding argue that gridding parameters must be selected carefully otherwise the maps might not make much sense. But at the end of the day, these subtleties were overshadowed by the more general question: who can we trust? Mankind and its intuition or machines and their advanced mathematics? This philosophical question still somehow underlies the opposition between some geologists and some modelers.

We are not suggesting that this debate can be settled in a few lines. Very humbly, we are only suggesting that one should look at this question from a different angle. Ultimately, a map is “good” if it is using the known (or assumed) geological characteristics of the reservoir to transform the input data into geological information (the map), and if it is useful in making predictions. Such a “good” map can be made by hand or by computer, in the same way that a “bad”, non-geological map can be created by hand or by computer. Yes, manual maps might be an easier way to include geological knowledge rather than mathematical algorithms. And yes, gridding algorithms are more easily repeatable (a more neutral term than “objective”) than hand-made maps. But at the end of day, as long as the resulting map is meaningful, it doesn’t really matter how it is created.

Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4 illustrate this point. A sand/shale reservoir has been sampled by approximately 20 vertical wells. The sand proportion in the reservoir varies from location to location (Figure 2) and we are asked to create a map out of this data. A grid of cell size 100m*100m is created and a simple spline interpolation algorithm is run to interpolate the sand proportion between the wells (Figure 3). The result is “objective” – to use the old-school terminology one last time: all the data points are respected, no geological “bias” has been introduced and the map is repeatable. But is it geologically-correct?

A closer inspection shows that most wells have a low sand proportion, between 10% and 30%, except for several wells which are

aligned along an approximated North-South axis in the middle of the map. There, the sand proportion rises to 55%, 70% and even 90%. Upon review of the well data, the reservoir is interpreted as a general plain with low sand content which was later incised by a single large channel rich in sand. With this in mind, it is in fact a mistake to interpolate between data points from the plain and from the channel. They must be treated separately to create a more realistic map (Figure 4). Firstly, the geologist drew a general shape for the channel (Figure 4, white lines delimiting the lateral extent of the channel). Then, the spline gridding algorithm was used first to interpolate the sand proportion in the plain and then to interpolate the sand proportion in the channel. The final map combines these two maps.

The map could be further refined, but this is not needed for us to draw our conclusions. Firstly, by “blindly” applying some default gridding algorithm, we will generate maps which are visually appealing and mathematically correct, but geologically wrong (Figure 3). But realistically, a less experienced geologist lacking any deep geological experience might have also created a very similar-looking map by doing hand-contouring. The final, “good” map required more time and effort to properly combine our understanding of the reservoir (concept of the channel) with the data. This “good” map, shown here, is created with a more complex usage of our gridding

algorithm. A geologist experienced in hand-contouring would have drawn something similar using pencil and paper.

Again, the quality of the final product (the map) is more important than the means by which it is created. Reservoir modeling can’t be done by hand, of course. Nevertheless, geologists doubting geomodeling need to realize that current modeling techniques allow for the integration of their geological expertise with the data. In return, modelers who believe that mathematics are the alpha and omega of their work must meet with geologists, listen to their understanding of the reservoir and then find ways to translate their geological concepts into mathematics. Doing so, men and computers can work together and not in opposition.

INTEGRATING GEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION AND GEOMODELING

Let’s assume that geologists are (now ☺) all convinced that modelers will be able to respect their interpretation while building their models. We are still in a situation where the interpretation is completed before the modeling is done. It is not necessarily wrong to do so, but it’s also possible to get better results by using the modeling to at least test and if needed improve the interpretation. An example illustrates this point (Figure 5 and Figure 6).

Figure 5 shows two wells A and B in cross-section, again in a sand-shale reservoir. They are part of a complete 3D dataset. The geologist decided to correlate the sand A1 of well A with the sand B1 of well B, as well as the sand A2 and B2. The sand A3 is not correlated to any sand in well B. From there, the geologist created a thickness map for the upper sand (A1-B1) as well as a thickness map for the lower sand (A2-B2) and the team starts making plans on how to develop this field. In parallel, a reservoir model was created to be fed to flow simulation (Figure 6). The two wells A and B were used in the 3D modeling, but not the geological interpretation itself due to limited communications between the geologist and the modeler: the team assumed that the model would necessarily match the geologist’s interpretation, so minimal time was spend on this. The result is drastically different from what the geologist had in mind though: in the geomodel, the sand A1 is not connected to well B, while we have two massive sands A2-B1 and A3-B2. If the model was to be sent as is to flow simulation, the team would now have two different representations of their reservoir: the one expressed in the early sand thickness maps created by the geologist and now the 3D model.

Figure 2. Location with known sand proportion values in the reservoir.

Figure 3. Gridding of the sand proportion samples with a spline interpolation technique

Figure 4. Gridding of the sand proportion samples by combining geological interpretation and the spline interpolation technique.


From our personal experience, this situation occurs more often than not and this example illustrates two important points.

Firstly, as was mentioned earlier, a model needs to be built from the data (the wells) and the geological interpretation, not just the data. The next section will give more details about this. Secondly, the model can be used to test the geological interpretation. In this example, maybe the data, once looked through the prism of geostatistics and 3D gridding algorithms, make it more geologically reasonable to connect the sands as per Figure 6 and not as the geologist first thought. A 3D model will of course not always improve on what geologists interpreted up-front. Most of the time, the model will simply concur with their analysis. But at least the model should be used to validate the geological hypotheses. Then, after looping through interpretation and modeling several times and when a unique representation of the reservoir is agreed upon by the team, it is then time to

extract some useful maps (for example) to help guide the development of our field.

GUIDING FACIES MODELING

Modeling facies is a crucial step of reservoir modeling as it conditions how the petrophysical properties will be distributed afterwards. Geologists and modelers should work together on the different aspects of this modeling.

The main depositional information should be captured in the internal geometry of the 3D grid. Were the rocks deposited parallel

to the base of the geological unit? parallel to the top maybe? Shall we go deeper and take into account some more complex trends identified by dipmeter data or by seismic interpretation? As explained in the second paper (Figure 6 and associated text in the March issue of the Reservoir), the internal geometry of the 3D grid will have a huge impact on how the facies will be distributed. For this reason, the geometry of the 3D grid must be built with care.

Once the 3D grid is built, geostatistical techniques will likely be the tools of choice for distributing the facies data. The third paper of this series explained the fundamentals behind these techniques (see the April issue of the Reservoir). As explained in the previous paper, the most common techniques for facies modeling are indicator kriging and indicator simulation. These techniques use statistics and variograms as input. They can also take into account some secondary variable which give some extra information on how the facies proportions should vary from place to place in 3D. These secondary variables are an efficient way for geologists and modelers to capture trends in facies.

Facies proportion maps, such as the one described in the first section (Figure 4), are an example of such secondary variables. These maps will guide geostatistical algorithms in terms of how the proportions of the different facies should vary aerially. On the other hand, Vertical Proportion Curves (VPCs) detail how the facies proportions vary vertically in the reservoir. VPCs are described below. VPCs and facies proportions maps are complementary. They can be combined into a 3D cube of facies probabilities. In such a cube, each cell of the grid will be assigned with the local probability of having each given facies. At last, multiple cubes can be combined together into a single cube. Some input probability cubes might be coming from well analysis while others might be coming from seismic analysis.

How VPCs are created and stored is described here through an example (Figure 7 to Figure 12).

The wells used to create the sand probability map (Figure 4) are hereafter used to populate facies in a 3D grid using indicator simulation (Figure 7). The reservoir is a box with flat top and bottom horizons. The 3D grid is made with a horizontal layering and cell sizes of 100m*100m horizontally and 2m vertically. The concept of having a large channel North-South is used here as well. It means that, in the same way that the sand proportion map was made in two separate zones (plain and channel), the geostatistics in the 3D grid will be applied in each zone individually. Instead of

using the sand proportion map, the vertical distribution of the facies is looked at and stored in VPCs.

A VPC is represented as a two-dimensional plot (Figure 8). The vertical axis represents the different horizontal layers in the 3D-grid (the different K layers – see Figure 7). For example, the top line (Figure 8, circle 1) represent the first K layer (K=1). In this specific 3D grid, the K layers are increasing from top to bottom, so the layer K=1 represents the upper two meters of the reservoir. For each K layer, the VPC captures the proportion of the different facies in that layer and this is stored in the horizontal axis of the VPC. In this VPC, the layer K=1 has about 70% of shale in average. This number is computed by looking for all the wells crossing the layer K=1 and then checking how many of them have sampled shale and sand at this depth.

In this reservoir, the proportion of shale does vary with depth. For example, from K=10 to K=15 (Figure 8, circle 2), we find about 40% of shale, while from K=15 to K=25, the proportion of shale progressively increases to 70-80% (Figure 8, circle 3). This is to compare with the global proportion of shale of 60% (Figure 8, dashed red line) which might give a false sense that one finds about 60% of shale at every depth in the reservoir.

This VPC is a global VPC as it is computed using all the data in the reservoir. Local VPCs can also be computed to check if the VPC won’t change from one side of the model to the other. Typically, one would first compute a global VPC, then split the reservoir aerially into a few blocks of same size and compute local VPCs at this scale. If each block still contains enough well data, the reservoir is split into even finer blocks. The process continues until the blocks are too small to contain enough (or any) well data. The process also stops once it is shown that the VPC are now homogeneous (splitting one more time doesn’t make any new variations to appear).

Figure 7. 3D view of the input well data used to create the sand proportion map and a 3D model.

Figure 5. Geologist’s interpretation on how the sands on two wells could be connected.

Figure 6. Reservoir model built around these two wells.

(... Continued on page 16


Without going to multiple levels of local VPCs, it is also useful to check if the reservoir is not split into several major zones of different deposition history. In our case, we have two such zones: the plain and the channel. When computing a VPC for each zone, one can see that they are quite different (Figure 9). The VPC in the channel shows a lot of sand at all depths (Figure 9A), while the VPC in the plain shows a lot of shale everywhere (Figure 9B). Because of this, the global VPC should not be used and we need to consider these two VPCs as input for our geostatistics.

VPCs are basically nothing more than statistics, but computed at each K layer. As such, we find the same problem with VPCs than with computing any global statistics: the value of a VPC in a given K layer can’t be trusted if this K layer is not crossed by enough well data point. The statistics in such K layers are undersampled. This appears in the VPC of the channel as the facies proportions tend to “jump” from one value to another from K layer to K layer. In comparison, the vertical changes are much “smoother” in the VPC for the plain. 6 wells are in the channel area while 13 are crossing the plain area. As a result, the VPC for the plain can be trusted more than the one for the channel.

Based on this analysis, facies are modeled in the channel by indicator simulation without VPC – we decide to ignore the VPC there. For the plain, two approaches are tested, to illustrate the impact of using a VPC. In a first model, the facies are modeled in the plain by indicator simulation without VPC (Figure 10). In a second model, the facies are modeled with VPC (Figure 11). Lastly, the VPC in the plain of each of these two distributions is computed

(Figure 12). Until now, we computed VPCs from the well data as part of our data analysis and our desire to feed the geostatistical algorithms with some proper input. But it’s also possible to use VPCs to check how the facies ended up being distributed in a given model. Such VPCs are computed from all the populated cells and for us, it’s a way of checking that the modeling did (or did not) respect the input VPC.

In both models, the facies are distributed the same way in the channel area (Figure 10 vs Figure 11). This is normal as, in both cases, we used the same parameters for the indicator simulation without VPC. On the contrary, and as expected, the facies are distributed differently in the plain area. Visually, it seems that the sand is distributed vertically in a more homogeneous way in the model computed without VPC (Figure 11) than in the one using VPC as input (Figure 10). The VPCs from the two models confirm this impression. The VPC of the model computed with secondary variable is very similar to the input VPC (Figure 12A vs Figure 9B). In the meantime, the VPC of the model computed without secondary variable is not as close (Figure 12A vs Figure 9B). In both models, we have 80% of shale in the plain (this was the input global proportion). But in the model computed without VPC, at each depth, we are closer to this average 80% of shale than what the VPC from the wells was showing. This test shows that even in a reservoir like this one, where many wells are available, using VPCs ensure that we respect the general geological organization of the facies better. VPCs give a better geological control to us by removing some mathematical freedom to the algorithm as to where to distribute the facies.

Geomodeler should be a lead when analysing, cleaning and selecting VPCs ; but in this process, geologist’s input is crucial to make sure that the final product looks geologically right. The same can be said for creating facies proportion maps.

GEOLOGICAL UNCERTAINTIES

When modeling facies, it is common to run multiple realizations with the indicator simulation algorithm. As explained in the previous paper, to understand the true range of uncertainty in a reservoir model, it is also useful to study the impact of using range of variograms as well as a range of global facies proportions. Uncertainty on the VPCs and facies proportion maps should also be considered.

The sand proportion map previously built (Figure 4) has two main sources of uncertainty. Firstly, we don’t know the exact lateral extent of the channel. This uncertainty can be modeled either as a set of separate scenarios (an optimistic and a pessimistic geometry where the channel is respectively as large or as narrow as possible), or as a continuous range of lateral extents from which multiple “values” are picked by statistical techniques. Secondly, geostatistical techniques to grid the maps themselves should be used instead of a deterministic spline approach.

Figure 8. Global VPC of the sand/shale proportions.Figure 9. VPC of the sand/shale proportion in the channel (A) and in the plain (B).

Figure 10. 3D distribution of the facies. No VPC used in the plain.

Figure 11. 3D distribution of the facies. VPC used in the plain.

Figure 12. VPC of the facies distribution in the plain modeled with input VPC (A) and modeled without input VPC (B).

(... Continued from page 15)


Uncertainties in VPCs are usually found in K layers with too few well input data and in K layers not crossed by any well at all. The former case was mentioned in the previous section. It is equivalent to the problem of under-sampled distributions in classical statistical studies. Figure 13 gives an example of the latter case. Only the horizontal internal layers (the K layers) are represented. The top layer (dashed red) and the deepest layer (dashed green) are not crossed by the two wells. The VPC is undefined for these K layers. It is up to the geologist to assign facies proportion values there, by extrapolation of the valid VPC values found in the other K layers. In both of these cases, the fact that a guess has to be made for some K layers might justify to create several versions of the VPC, which will change only in these problematic layers.

For fields with many wells, it is possible to build several sets of local VPCs, by splitting the domain different block sizes. Each set of VPCs could be used as one scenario. For example, how does the modeled facies really vary between using the global VPC versus using VPCs computed by splitting the domain in blocks of 5 square kilometers or by splitting the domain in blocks of one square kilometer?

Lastly, one should keep in mind that changing the internal layering of the 3D grid will completely change the VPCs. If several 3D grid geometries are tested, then each one should have its own set of VPCs.

CONCLUSION

Ideally, geomodelers should work closely with other team members, and particularly with geologists. Geologists will bring a lot of information about the reservoir as their work efficiently combine geological, petrophysical, geophysical and engineering data with considerations such as paleodepositional environments, diagenesis and burial history. Geomodelers should not replace a geological interpretation by a cold, purely mathematical logic but respectfully translate the geological interpretation in a mathematical language understood by software.

Geomodeling software provide powerful 3D visualtization tools that are helpful for geologists and other team members to improve

understanding of reservoir characteristics, also 3D models are easy to explain geological characteristics to management and non-technical stakeholders.

The next paper will focus on how petrophysicists and gemodelers collaborate together.

TO GO BEYOND

(Pyrcz and Deutsch, 2014) and (Ringrose and Bentley, 2015) contain more details about using vertical, horizontal and 3D proportion facies data in geostatistics.

This paper should be in press a few weeks before the GeoConvention in Calgary (May 12 – May 14 2015, www.geoconvention.com). The technical program contains session on geomodeling. Some of these talks might be of interest to you.

REFERENCES

AAPG Wiki. wiki.aapg.org

David, F., Watson, 1992. Contouring: A Guide to the Analysis and Display of Spatial Data. Pergamon Press. 321 pages.

Pyrcz, M.J. and Deutsch, C.V., 2014. Geostatistical Reservoir Modeling. Oxford University Press, 2nd edition. 448 pages.

Ringrose, P. and Bentley, M., 2015. Reservoir Model Design – a Practitioner’s Guide. Springer. 260 pages.

Tearpock D. J. and Bischke R.E., 2003. Applied Subsurface Geological Mapping. 2nd edition. Prentice Hall. 822 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.

Muhammad Nadeem is Senior Geologist with Encana Services Company ([email protected]). He received his BSc and MSc degrees in geology from University of the Punjab, Pakistan, and the University of Waterloo, Canada. He has co-authored five conferences and journal articles on topics such as reservoir geomodeling, petroleum geology, sequence stratigraphy, reservoir geomechanics, and the deep waste sequestration in sedimentary basins.

Keith Yaxley is senior geologist with Northern Blizzard Resources ([email protected]). He received his BSc from McGill University (Montreal, Canada) in 2000. Since, he has worked as an exploration and development geologist in the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin, US Rockies and Southern US.

Figure 13. 3D grid in which some K-layers (dashed red and dashed green) are not crossed by any well.

CRAINʼS LOGANALYSISCOURSESFor 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]=== ===


PHOTO OF THE MONTH

The deltaic coastal plain and marine sands in white are interbedded with deltaic coals, muds and soils in purple and brown. The Horseshoe Canyon is near Drumheller Alberta an early source of coal for the settlers. - John Andersen


2014 STANLEY SLIPPER GOLD MEDAL The Stanley Slipper Medal is the C.S.P.G.’s highest honour.

The Gold Medal is presented annually for outstanding contributions to oil and gas exploration in Canada. The contributions of the winner of this award should encompass a number of activities related to aspects of petroleum exploration. Such activities include: initiating and/or leading exploration programs, significant discoveries on new or existing exploration trends, teaching and/or training of explorationists, and involvement in and leadership within geological societies and professional organizations.

The recipient for 2014 is Wayne Kim Foo.

Wayne Kim Foo was born in Hardisty, Alberta and raised primarily in Calgary. His introduction to the petroleum industry began at an early age when he worked for his father’s geophysical acquisition company and as a summer student with both Mobil and Shell. He has been engaged with the industry throughout his life and has made considerable contributions in a number of sectors.

Wayne earned his B.Sc. in Geology from the University of Calgary, Alberta and his M.Sc. in Geology from Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario. His M.Sc. thesis, related to stratigraphy and tectonics in the vicinity of the Rocky Mountain Trench, was entitled “Evolution of transverse structures linking the Purcell Anticlinorium to the western Rocky Mountains near Canal Flats, British Columbia” and was done under the supervision of Ray Price (Queen’s) and Geoff Leech (G.S.C.).

He returned to Calgary in late 1979 and began work with Chevron Canada in the southern Foothills through 1980 and 1981 before leaving to participate in a start-up venture for two years. Afterwards, he returned to Chevron in late 1983 to oversee the company’s farmouts under

the National Energy Program. These included the discovery and successful exploration program at Fort Liard, where the sidetrack of the initial well led to first production in May 2000. His Northwest Territories responsibilities also included playing a role in the pursuit of Devonian reefs near Fort Good Hope and in the Mackenzie Delta where Chevron’s Ellice program tackled the complex and partially-breached transpressional structures in the Adgo Field. In 1987 he returned to the W.C.S.B. and directed efforts in the Gilwood play. In 1988, in recognition of his skills and aptitudes, he was transferred to San Ramon, California and was instrumental in Chevron’s successful oil discoveries and development of the first oil fields in the Papua New Guinea fold and thrust belt. In 1990, another transfer took Wayne to Houston as Supervisor of Chevron’s Onshore Alaska exploration program before returning to Calgary in 1992 where he became Manager of Northern Exploration in that year, Manager of the Mitsue Business Unit in 1993 and Manager of the Western Canada Business Unit in 1994.

Wayne’s employment by small and midsize E&P companies had started with a short sojourn from Chevron in 1981-1983 when he was employed by Corexcana, part of the Paribas Group. It resumed in earnest in 1996 when he left Chevron and became Vice-President – Exploration for Archer Resources where he ultimately became President and C.O.O. until its sale in 1998. The purchasing company, Dominion Energy Canada, retained Wayne as President and C.E.O. of the merged entity where he pursued acquisitions, asset reorganization and exploration (including the Nisku Shelf play) until 2002.

At that point, Wayne began consulting and advisory activity including some well-recognized work for C.A.P.P. and the Province of British Columbia on Stewardship and First Nations Policy. Implementation of the results paved the way for better working relationships and the pursuit of a number of important investments by industry in the unconventional fairways of that province.

During this period, Wayne also found time to incorporate two new companies – Brigantine Energy (to pursue opportunities in Western Canada) and Petro Andina Resources (to pursue exploration in South America).

Since 2004 Wayne has been focused on the opportunities of this southern continent. He recognized the similarity between the Western Canada Basin and the foreland of the

Andes and with his partners positioned Petro Andina to exploit a heavy oil and shallow gas trend in the northern part of the Neuquén Basin in Argentina. Staked with minimal initial investment and with Wayne’s leadership as President and C.E.O., this play grew with the eventual recognition of 1 billion barrel OOIP and an initial development of 30,000 bbl/d. The company had, with only 130 people, grown to have the capacity to drill 250 wells/year by 2009 when these Argentine assets were sold to a larger player.

Despite the disappointment of leaving behind this new success in Argentina, Wayne landed on his feet. Having taken a diversified approach to the available opportunities during the growth of Petro Andina, Wayne and his management team negotiated the retention of several Petro Andina assets elsewhere in South America, primarily in Trinidad and the Llanos Basin of Colombia. These became a new spinoff company, Parex Resources, of which Wayne is currently President and C.E.O.

Wayne is widely recognized for his ability to create and motivate both small and large teams engaged in exploration and production ventures. This has been demonstrated in both the Canadian and international arenas.

Wayne has also found time to engage with the C.S.P.G. His early years involved work with luncheon sales, field trips, the Structure Division and Continuing Education. He has been engaged with a number of conventions including the 1982 event (joint with A.A.P.G., Finance role), 1989 event (initial Technical Program) and 2003 (C.S.P.G. General Chair). He was recognized with the President’s Award for this last named volunteer contribution. In 1999-2000 he was also Chair of the Advisory Board to establish a Geoscience Professional Development Centre at the University of Calgary, providing a venue for industry course providers and enhancement of teaching facilities in the Department of Geology and Geophysics.

Wayne is a Professional Geologist as a member of A.P.E.G.A.

Wayne Kim Foo is an excellent selection for the C.S.P.G. Stanley Slipper Gold Medal for 2014. Presentation of this award is highly deserved.

Awards will be presented at the CSPG Awards Ceremony on Monday, May 4 starting at 6:00 pm at the Hyatt Regency Calgary. All are welcome to attend. Please register (no charge) at www.cspg.org (click events)


2014 HONORARY MEMBERSHIPIn 2013 the CSPG bestowed upon all of the CSPG Past Presidents Honorary Member status for their dedicated service to the CSPG over the years.

The 2014 Honorary Membership is awarded to 2013 CSPG President Paul MacKay.

Paul MacKay received a B.Sc.(honours, geological sciences) from Queen’s University in 1980 and a Ph.D. from the University of Calgary (1991). He initially worked for Amoco Canada then moved to Morrison Petroleums, Northstar Energy, and Devon Canada before beginning an international consulting practice. He is currently President of Shale Petroleum Ltd. a private oil company based in Calgary, Alberta. His expertise is in fracture systems, petroleum exploration and development in structurally complex reservoirs. He teaches field courses in Structural Geology/Geophysics in the Canadian Rockies and field seminars on Fractured Reservoirs in Wyoming. He is an Adjunct Professor in the Department of Geology and Geophysics at the University of Calgary.

Paul is a long-time CSPG member and started his CSPG volunteer career in 1994. He has served on the Structural Geology Technical

Division, twice on the Board of Directors and most recently as a Trustee of the CSPG Educational Trust Fund. He was Co-Chair of the GeoConvention: recovery 2011 which set a new standard not just for CSPG’s own Scientific Program, but for Canadian Earth Sciences in general. Paul has provided new course offerings to the Continuing Education program on the subject of fracturing. He has provided leadership and instruction in the field at CSPG Division meetings, Technical Luncheons, at Symposia and through peer-reviewed technical publications, most notably with his contributions to the Triangle Zone volume of the BCPG, and with a series of articles in the Reservoir.

Paul will be presented with his Honorary Membership award at the CSPG Long Time Members Reception on Tuesday, May 5, 2015 (by invitation only).


AUGC 2014 | By Mark Vangel

The Fredericton Campus of the University of New Brunswick (UNB) was host to the 64th annual Atlantic Universities Geoscience Conference (AUGC) this year. The three day conference began on Thursday October 23rd with an informal social held at the Wu Centre and the CSPG sponsored Challenge Bowl, this year won by the host university.

On Friday the 24th the attending students had a choice of five field trips that they could attend. Dr. David Keighley P.Geo (UNB) led an informative excursion to explore the sedimentology of the McCully gas field. The trip began with a visit at a gas-processing plant at the gas field which provides energy to the adjacent potash mine (Potash Corp.) in Sussex, NB. Following this the students travelled ~15 west to explore the reservoir rocks of the Albert Formation where these energy-bearing rocks are exposed in road-cut outcrops. With upright tree fossils, sand volcanoes, trough cross-bedded and wave-rippled sandstone, and recumbently folded (slumped) dolostones amongst other sedimentary structures Dr. Keighley expertly suggests that the Albert Formation was deposited in an intermontane lake and fluvial floodplain environment.

On Saturday the undergraduates from the six Atlantic universities (Dalhousie University, Saint Francis Xavier University, Saint Mary’s University, Memorial University, and host UNB) presented theses either through an oral presentation or by poster. This year the conference was attended by CSPG liaison Sonia Brar who talked about our industry and the effects that will be felt due to the declining

price of oil. The judges for the presentations included Robin Adair P.Geo, Annie Daigle, Dallas Davis, and Greg Godek. Dillion White of Saint Mary’s University was the recipient of the CSPG Award with his talk entitled Variation in style of overpressure in Scotian Shelf wells, Scotian Basin. Dillon had this to say about receiving this award:

“I would like to thank the CSPG for the award I received at the 2014 AUGC conference. It is nice to receive recognition for the hard work students, like myself put into our Honours projects. I plan to go into the petroleum

industry after graduation in the spring, and I believe this award will help get my foot in the door. The money that goes along with the award will go towards my tuition. The CSPG does a really great job in offering so much to students like myself and this is why I am proud to be a part of it.”

This annual conference is a great opportunity for undergraduate students to present their theses in front of their peers from the region and to gain perspective on the geoscience community through representative from CSEG, Imperial Oil, Quest Rare Minerals, and of course CSPG. Sandra Brar also had a booth at the conference so that she could directly engage with the students at the event.

It is particularly encouraging to see the enthusiasm of these young geoscientists infused into their work as this trait is always welcome in our industry. The organizing committee of this year’s AUGC – led by Colin Padget and with help from Mark Vangel and Brittany Charnley – certainly deserve a wealth of recognition for their hard work to welcome almost 100 delegates to their city and to execute such a flawless conference.

Dillion White (St. Mary’s University) accepting the CSPG Award from Sonia Brar for his project on the overpressure in Scotian Shelf Wells

Students from the Atlantic provinces viewing reservoir sandstone exposed in outcrop roughly 15 km west of the McCully gas field, Sussex NB



Register online today at www.cspg.org

Leduc #1 on February 13, 1947. Photo courtesy of Glenbow Museum and Archives

GO TAKE A HIKEParker Ridge Trail, Banff Park, Alberta

| By Gary Prost

Trailhead: 41 km north along the Icefields Parkway (Hwy 93) from Saskatchewan River Crossing and 4 km south of the Jasper-Banff Park boundary. Alternatively, it is 5 km southeast of the Columbia Icefields Tourist Centre.

Distance: ~5.5kmloop.2-3 hours round trip. Bring water, lunch, camera, boots, sweater, windbreaker, hat, sunglasses.

Elevation Gain: 275 m.

The Parker Ridge trailhead is located at a parking lot on the west side of the Icefields Parkway (Figure 1). The first kilometre of the trail climbs across avalanche paths and stands of stunted alpine fir. Wildflowers are abundant here, watered by melting snowpack that lingers into July. At an elevation of around 2,100 metres the trail switchbacks above the last stunted spruce and fir trees and emerges in the alpine zone. Here ground-hugging wildflowers like moss campion, western anemones, rock jasmine, white mountain heather, purple saxifrage, mountain avens, buttercups, and forget-me-nots grow in a barren, wind-blasted landscape. The crest of the ridge is inhabited by pikas, small rock dwelling rodents, and hoary marmots. Watch for birds, including the white-tailed ptarmigan, Clark’s nutcracker, gray jay, mountain bluebird, and golden eagle. The steady uphill climb ends after 2.1 kilometres as the trail reaches the summit and angles both left and right to viewpoints for the Saskatchewan Glacier (blue dot). In addition to the glacier, from the ridge top one can see Mount Castleguard, Mount Bryce, Hilda Peak, Mt. Athabasca (orange dot), the headwaters of the North Saskatchewan River, and Sunwapta Pass (yellow dot).

Parker Ridge itself is a fossilized reef. The ground is covered with rugose corals including the colonial disphyllids, Pantophyllum, Argutastraea, Hexagonaria, Whittakeria, and Kuangxiastraea, as well as stromatoporoid sponges (red dot). These occur in limestones and coarsely crystalline dolomites of the late Devonian (Frasnian) Southesk Formation. Patch reefs in the Southesk tend to be a few tens of meters thick and several hundred meters wide. The Southesk is equivalent to the Nisku Formation in the subsurface of the Alberta basin to the east. Southesk carbonates and shales were deposited on a gently sloping carbonate ramp or platform, with scattered patch reefs, in a shallow subtidal to peritidal environment.

Looking west from the summit the Saskatchewan glacier, the longest tongue of ice (9 km) flowing from the Columbia Icefield, is clearly visible. The peaks and waterfalls surrounding the valley are sheer and precipitous. Cliffs on the south side of the valley reach 600 m. It is a classic example of an outlet valley glacier. This glacier reached its maximum extent during the Little Ice Age (~950 -1500 AD) and is currently receding at a rate of about 15 to 20 m/year. This glacier has retreated a total of 1.4 km between 1893 and 1953. The greatest thickness recorded is 442 m near the centre line about 8 km from the terminus. The maximum down valley velocity of glacial ice movement was 0.37 m/day in mid-glacier. Five different kinds of crevasses have been described. By far the most common crevasse has a curved trace concave up-glacier and changes from longitudinal near the centre to a 45 degree transverse orientation near the margin. In late August 1999 a severe rainstorm resulted in erosion of over 6 m of till and outwash deposits along the northern margin of the glacier. At the channel base were found in situ stumps in a well-preserved paleosol. Radiocarbon dating shows these trees were killed by advance of the glacier between 2910 and 2830 years BP. This provides the approximate position of the glacial front 3000 years ago.

Directly below the ridge to the west this U-shaped glacial valley is filled with glacial outwash. Looking northwest one can see 3490 m high Mt. Athabasca and 3060 m Hilda Peak, a classic glacial horn created by ice scouring from all sides. Both these peaks consist of Cambrian Eldon Fm. dolomite carried east over Ordovician and Devonian units by the Simpson Pass thrust, which cuts across the eastern base of Hilda Peak. The thrust cuts the surface about 1 km west of where the trail tops out on Parker Ridge.

1 km P

Above: Location map showing the Parker Ridge trail and views that can be seen from the summit. From Nelson, et al., 2007, Columbia Icefield, 1:75,000.

1 km P

Centre Left: View west toward the Saskatchewan glacier, Mt. Bryce, and Castleguard Mountain. These peaks consist of Cambrian limestone and dolomite of the Cathedral through Lynx Formations.

1 km P

Bottom Left: Mt. Athabasca and Hilda Peak consist of Cambrian carbonates (Cathedral and Eldon Formations) carried in the hanging wall of the Simpson Pass thrust.


Top Left: View northwest toward Sunwapta Pass (2,035 m). Nigel Peak (3,211 m) consists of Devonian through Mississippian carbonates (Palliser, Banff, and Rundle Formations) carried in the hanging wall of the Pipestone Pass thrust. Top Right: Devonian rugose corals developed in a reef setting in the Southesk Formation. Right: 600 m high falls along southern valley rim. Bottom Right: Glacial outwash fills the valley floor along the headwaters of the braided North Saskatchewan River.

Mt. Bryce (3507 m) and Castleguard Mountain (blue dot) both consist of Cambrian strata. Castleguard Mountain (3090 m) lies on the Continental Divide and towers over the Saskatchewan Glacier. It is composed of Cambrian limestone and dolomite of the Cathedral, Stephen, Eldon, Pika, and Lynx Formations.

When your gaze passes by Castleguard Mountain, give thought to Castleguard Cave near its base. This cave has over 20km of passages and is the longest in Canada. Most of the cave lies within the Cathedral Formation, but its head is within the overlying shaly carbonates of the Stephen Formation. The cave ascends slightly from its entrance, following the bedding and terminates at an ice plug under the Columbia Icefield over 380m below the ground. The ends of the cave have complex passages but the central portion consists of a long passage which may be following a weakness created by a structural feature. The cave is fairly straight over its length and is oriented NW-SE lending support to the theory of structural control. Most of the cave is dry but the entrance often floods in the summer. The entrance also contains glacio-fluvial sediments that date back over 140,000 years, evidence at the entire cave was once over-ridden by the ice (Schroeder and Ford, 1983). Uranium/Thorium radio-dating on speleothems indicate an age of 720,000 years (Gascoyne et al., 1983), but Miocene fossil pollen in the cave sediment suggests parts of the cave may be as much as 10 million years old (Gadd, 2009).The cave is the home of unusual unpigmented and blind isopods and amphipods which appear to have survived isolated in this refugia, even through the glaciationwhen the cave was completely blocked by ice.

References:

Ford, D.C., Harmon, R.S., Schwarcz, H.P., Wigley, T.M.L and Thompson, P., 1976. Geo-Hydrologic and Thermometric Observations in the Vicinity of the Columbia Icefield, Alberta and British Columbia, Canada. Journal of Glaciology, Vol. 16, No. 74, 1976

Ford, D. C., Smart,P. L. and Ewers, R. O. 1983. The Physiography and Speleogenesis of Castleguard Cave, Columbia Icefields, Alberta, Canada. In Castleguard Cave and Karst, Columbia Icefields Area, Rocky Mountains of Canada: A Symposium, Arctic and Alpine Research Vol. 15, No. 4, Nov., 1983, (pp. 437-450) .

Gadd, B., 2009. Handbook of the Canadian Rockies. Corax Press.

Gascoyne, M., Latham, A. G., Harmon, R. S. and Ford, D. C., 1983. The Antiquity of Castleguard Cave, Columbia Icefields, Alberta, Canada . In Castleguard Cave and Karst, Columbia Icefields Area, Rocky Mountains of Canada: A Symposium, Arctic and Alpine Research Vol. 15, No. 4, Nov., 1983 . (pp. 463-470)

Schroeder, J., and Ford, D. C. 1983. Clastic Sediments in Castleguard Cave, Columbia Icefields, Alberta, Canada. In Castleguard Cave and Karst, Columbia Icefields Area, Rocky Mountains of Canada: A Symposium, Arctic and Alpine Research Vol. 15, No. 4, Nov., 1983, (pp. 451-461).

MHMHMH

MH


CSPG at GeoConvention! Awards Reception

Monday, May 4, 2015

6:00 pm – 7:30 pm Hyatt Regency Calgary | Imperial Ballroom

Long Time Members Reception Tuesday, May 5, 2015

5:30 pm – 7:30 pm The Fairmont Palliser | Alberta Room

**Attendance is by invitation only

CSPG Intl./CGEF Networking Reception Wednesday, May 6, 2015

4:00 pm – 7:00 pm Libertine Lounge

CSPG Core Meltdown Friday, May 8, 2015

2:00 pm – 6:00 pm University of Calgary Campus

Visit www.cspg.org for more information

CSPG Core Conference Thursday, May 7, 2015

8:00am - 4:00pm

Friday, May 8, 2015

8:00am - 3:00pm


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

The Athabasca Oil Sands Area from Basin to Molecular Scale – 4D Observations from Inside the Reservoir

START DATE

June 16

LENGTH

2 days

INSTRUCTORS Rudy Strobl, Milovan Fustic

& Daryl Wightman

PDH Credits

17 Hours

CONTINUING EDUCATION Upcoming CSPG Field Seminars

Course Content: Stops include outstanding 2D to 3D exposures illustrating a range of depositional environments including open estuarine, large scale single and stacked channel point bar deposits, multiple cut and fill channel deposits; a variety of IHS deposits; different reservoir configurations including continuous, and laterally and vertically compartmentalized reservoirs as well presence and/or absence of bottom water, top gas, top water and multiple gas and/or lean zones throughout the reservoir column. At each stop participants will discuss risks for SAGD development and group exercises will define SAGD top and base and optimal well pair placement. Applicability and limitations of a variety of tools for subsurface interpretation and mapping will be demonstrated with a focus on geophysical logs, dipmeter, FMI, seismic, and geochemical logs. Additionally, at most stops outcrop exposures will be compared to nearby well data. At each stop leaders will identify an existing production analog and analyse public production data in context of SAGD risks.

Additional Information: Lunches and a group dinner are provided. Participants are responsible for their own flights and paying for their hotel room for 2 nights in Fort McMurray. A block of rooms at the Sawridge Inn and Conference Center, has been put aside under the name CSPG for the nights of June 15th and 16th with discounted rates. When booking return flights on June 17th, please book them for after 6:00 PM to ensure enough time to finish the second day activities. Please be prepared for variable weather conditions, hiking on steep slopes and wearing appropriate field clothing with sturdy hiking boots. An evening seminar on the first evening, beginning at 7:30 PM at the hotel provides an opportunity for a field safety briefing, video coverage of outcrops that will be visited, recap of SAGD fundamentals and a venue for questions and discussion.

Topic(s): Oil Sands, McMurray Formation

Location: Fort McMurray, Alberta

Vehicle(s) Used: Field vehicles and jet boat Who Should Attend: This course is recommended for geologists, geophysicists, geomodelers, reservoir and production engineers and technical managers who wish to gain insight into in-situ oil sands operations.

Why Should You Attend: Developing a 3D view of representative oil sands deposits, understanding the impact of reservoir heterogeneity on steam chamber growth and identifying challenges with associated production are important considerations for developing optimal recovery strategies?

Pre-requisites: It is recommended that participants attend the associated short course SAGD Fundamentals.

Objectives: This two day field study focuses on integrating SAGD fundamentals with reservoir characterization of the McMurray Formation.

Register online at www.cspg.org


Rock Shop

CORPORATE SUPPORTERS

CL ConsultantsExova Canada IncBig Guns Energy ServicesEarth Signal Processing Ltd.McDaniel & Associates Consultants Ltd.Pulse Seismic IncCanada Brokerlink Inc.Energy NavigatorGolder AssociatesNalcor EnergyParamount ResourcesEDGE TechnologiesCanadian Discovery Ltd.Compass Directional ServicesEV Cam Canada Inc.Lee Energy SystemsRoke Technologies Ltd.Petrocraft Products Ltd.Sigma ExplorationsCanacol Energy Ltd.ExplorJapan Canada Oil Sands Ltd.Target Data Ltd.Birchcliff Energy Ltd.Cabra Enterprises Ltd.Cougar Consultants, Inc.Waterline ResourcesSerpa Petroleum Consulting Ltd.National Oilwell VarcoSignature Seismic Processing Inc.Sensor Geophysical Ltd.Cossack Land Services Ltd.Deloitte Petroleum Services GroupEPI GroupGeoTir Inc.Hurry HydrocarbonsNExT- A Schlumberger CompanySpectrumMundiregina Resources CanadaMcleay Geological Consultants Ltd.HEF Petrophysical Consulting Inc.Enviro-Tech Surveys LtdCaracal Energy Inc.Regent ResourcesSAExploration3e RoyaltiesBounty Developments Ltd.Brasoil Corp.DualEx Energy InternationalFranconia GeoscienceGran Tierra Energy Inc.Jenner Geoconsulting Inc.Korean National Oil CompanyLong Reach Resources Ltd.Lorne LeClerc & AssociatesMadison Petrogas Ltd.PetroamericaSherritt International CorporationTretio Exploration Ltd.Valeura Energy

Company PatronJourney Energy Inc.Rife Resources Ltd.

AS OF MARCH 30, 2015

2014 PARTNER TRACKS AWARDThe Partner Tracks Award is CSPG’s newest award. It is granted to Associations, Companies or Institutions That Have Contributed to the Society’s Pre-eminence, Welfare and Reputation. The 2014 award is bestowed upon the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA) and geoLOGIC systems.

With this partnership award, the Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists (CSPG) recognizes the responsibility it shares with the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA) to ensure that petroleum geoscientists in Alberta are both knowledgeable and professionally ethical in their practice.

The two organizations were established independently to address unscientific and unethical activities that were common in the oil and gas industry from the discovery of Turner Valley to the boom years following the First World War. Many of the same individuals were involved in creating the two organizations, far-sighted individuals who recognized that knowledgeable and ethical practice of geoscience and engineering must go hand in hand if the public was to be protected from charlatans.

While CSPG has focussed on improving the knowledge of its members, APEGA has provided the legal regulatory framework that ensures geoscientists are legally and ethically committed to applying and maintaining that knowledge. This is a partnership that benefits all Albertans, one that has lasted for almost a century, and is the basis for the CSPG Partnership Award to APEGA.

APEGA and its Members serve the public interest. It is vital that professionals in Geoscience attain and maintain the highest level of efficiency, productivity and ethical conduct possible. For geoscientists this includes being licensed with The Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA).

The designations P.Geo., P.Geol., P.Geoph., or a Permit to Practice in the case of a company, ensure that legal, academic and experience requirements to practice have been met. They also signify adherence to the high standards and ethics of the profession. Only those

individuals licensed with APEGA can practice or use titles relating to the geoscience profession in Alberta.

Working on behalf of Members – including more than 6,500 geoscience Members – APEGA has established practice standards and developed codes of professional conduct and ethics. This fulfills the mandate given to it by The Engineering and Geoscience Professions Act and helps keep Alberta safe and strong.

For more information on APEGA and Geoscience licensure, visit http://www.apega.ca/members/geoscience/toc.html

geoLOGIC systems has formed numerous partnerships over the years with corporations who share our values and vision. As a forward-thinking company, we seek partnerships with companies, organizations, and institutions

that are pioneers in their field. Our superior products and services are built with the support of our many valued partners.

geoLOGIC systems and our partners know the importance of providing first-class software solutions to customers. With their help, geoLOGIC is able to deliver high quality products that are built on innovation, research, and the ever-changing needs of the oil and gas industry.

Not only do we value progress in the oil and gas industry, but geoLOGIC’s corporate philosophy extends into supporting the growth and development of the communities we do business in as well as providing future oil and gas professionals with the best tools to succeed.

geoLOGIC and the CSPG have partnered on dozens of events including technical luncheons, webcasts, holiday socials, golf tournaments and much more. We take pride in our wonderful working relationship and like-minded approach to the oil and gas industry.

We highly value our more than a decade long partnership with the CSPG and graciously accept this recognition.

Awards will be presented at the CSPG Awards Ceremony on Monday, May 4 starting at 6:00 pm at the Hyatt Regency Calgary. All are welcome to attend. Please register (no charge) at www.cspg.org (click events)


Each year the CSPG awards the Medal of Merit to authors of the best peer-reviewed paper published during the previous year on a subject related to the petroleum geology

of Canada. A sterling silver medal is presented to each of the authors. The list of previous winners can be seen under awards on the CSPG website.

The Medal of Merit Committee searches the literature for potential candidates and

selects the best paper, favouring well written and illustrated papers with novel ideas that have relevance to Canadian petroleum geology and/or the broader practice of petroleum geology. The committee will be evaluating papers published during the

calendar year 2014 for the 2015 award. In addition to papers from academic journals, papers which form part of a special publication are also eligible. If you know of a 2014 peer-reviewed paper that the committee should consider, please submit the details by

July 31, 2015 to:

Ian Kirkland, Chair Medal of Merit Committee [email protected]

(403) 294-5548

Medal of Merit Call For Nominations


MAPPING STANDARDS:A CORE COMPETENCY

OF EVERY GEOSCIENTIST

D1003

In exploring the subsurface, maps serve a number of important purposes; recording and storing information; supporting the analysis of a range of subsurface data; and presenting and communicating information and understanding. Map creation should be a core competency of every geoscientist, used to express complex situations to help support difficult decisions.

Our consultants can help E&P companies define and implement appropriate mapping standards that will help geoscientists present a clear, consistent and concise suite of maps for a variety of purposes where having defined mapping standards has enabled the geoscientists to spend more of their time focusing on the technical content.

Petrosys is a powerful sub-surface mapping system that brings all your critical knowledge together on one mapping canvas, our approach to surface modeling enables you to resolve complex challenges and to communicate geological information necessary for decision makers to take the right action.Learn more at www.petrosys.com.au/transcend.

Maps are a canvas used to express complex situation to help support difficult decisions.

VISIT US AT GeoConvention

2015 May 4-8, 2015

Booth # 519/521

PETROSYS CSPG RESERVOIR 2015.indd 1 20/02/2015 9:35 am

2 reservoir issue 05 • may 2015

Documents