Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.

org/ at Universite Cheikh Anta Diop de Dakar, Senegal on April

7, 2016

Reservoir compartmentalization: an introduction

S. J. JOLLEY1*, Q. J. FISHER2 & R. B. AINSWORTH3
1
Shell Canada Energy, 400 4th Avenue S.W., Calgary, Alberta T2P 0J4, Canada
2
Centre for Integrated Petroleum Engineering and Geoscience, School of Earth and
Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK
3
Australian School of Petroleum, University of Adelaide, Adelaide 5005, Australia
*Corresponding author (e-mail: steve.jolley@shell.com)

Reservoir Compartmentalization – the segregation technology – enabling operating companies to

of a petroleum accumulation into a number of indi-
vidual fluid/pressure compartments – occurs when
flow is prevented across ‘sealed’ boundaries in
the reservoir. These boundaries are caused by a
variety of geological and fluid dynamic factors,
but there are two basic types: ‘static seals’ that are
completely sealed and capable of withholding (trap-
ping) petroleum columns over geological time; and
‘dynamic seals’ that are low to very low per-
meability flow baffles that reduce petroleum cross-
flow to infinitesimally slow rates. The latter allow
fluids and pressures to equilibrate across a boundary
over geological time-scales, but act as seals over
production time-scales, because they prevent cross-
flow at normal production rates – such that fluid
contacts, saturations and pressures progressively
segregate into ‘dynamic’ compartments.
Thus, reservoir compartmentalization impacts
the volume of moveable (produceable) oil or gas
that might be connected to any given well drilled
in a field, which restricts the volume of reserves
that can be ‘booked’ for that field. Booking of
reserves is tightly regulated by government auth-
orities because it is a key measure used by stock ana-
lysts and investors to value an oil company. This
places reservoir compartmentalization studies, and
the predictive science and technology applied to
them, at the heart of company valuation. Unex-
pected compartmentalization can also seriously
impact the profitability of a field: with more data
acquisition, more study, more wells, more time
being required to produce less oil and gas than
was originally anticipated. In extreme cases, this
might even lead to early field abandonment.
However, unexpected or misunderstood reser-
voir compartmentalization has been an industry-
wide experience for over 30 years, and it is clear
that there is great value in learning from past,
often expensive mistakes (e.g. Smith 2008).
This learning process has often driven develop-
ments in geoscience, engineering and related
identify and predict ‘new’ untapped volumes in
old fields, make general improvements to field man-
agement (e.g. Gainski et al.; Wonham et al.), and
apply this knowledge to other similar, but less-
mature fields in their portfolio.
Reservoir compartmentalization is therefore a
major uncertainty that should be accurately assessed
during the appraisal of petroleum reservoirs, in
order to avoid unexpected compartmentalization at
the production stage. In the past few decades, there
have been major advances in data, detection and
surveillance methods, and our geoscience and reser-
voir engineering approaches. However, reservoir
compartmentalization can still be underestimated
during field appraisal, and can still give surprises
that force a re-think of the field development and
production plan (e.g. Smith 2008). This is not
necessarily a defect in the science or technology –
but, rather, it may also be a result of ineffectual
data appraisal or discipline integration within sub-
surface workflows. Thus, it is not unusual for sub-
surface teams to place too much emphasis on one
aspect of the evidence, or to make early assumptions
that bias data acquisition, analyses and interpret-
ations later on. For example, Fisher & Jolley
(2007) point out that non-existent faults or improb-
able fault seal capacities might be invoked to
explain variable petroleum contacts and dynamic
fluid/pressure behaviour – when an alternative or
combination of factors, or other unrelated expla-
nations might be more appropriate for the data
(e.g. hydrodynamic tilting of petroleum contacts,
Tozer & Borthwick).
Research initiatives and collaborations between
oil companies, service groups and academic insti-
tutions vary considerably in scope and content,
and there is often a creative tension between the
competitive advantages, motivations and knowl-
edge gaps perceived by the sponsoring companies
and their research partners. In addition to this, the
scientific insights that can be gained from the

From: Jolley, S. J., Fisher, Q. J., Ainsworth, R. B., Vrolijk, P. J. & Delisle, S. (eds) Reservoir
Compartmentalization. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 347, 1– 8.
DOI: 10.1144/SP347.1 0305-8719/10/$15.00 # The Geological Society of London 2010.
 Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ at Universite Cheikh Anta Diop de Dakar, Senegal on April
7, 2016
2 S. J. JOLLEY ET AL.
experience of operating compartmentalized fields,
are often under-valued and/or infrequently pub-
lished. However, it has become increasingly
apparent that reservoir compartmentalization is a
consequence of many factors, such that the success-
ful approach is almost always the integrated one.
The aim of this book (and the conference it was
inspired by) has therefore been to bring papers
together from different areas of the compartmentali-
zation theme, in order to see the ‘bigger picture’;
and to highlight both the necessity for effective
specialist discipline integration, and the value of
learning from operational experience of reservoir
compartmentalization. This is reflected in the
integrated nature of the data and science described
in the papers within this book. This particular
paper aims to provide the reader with a brief
introduction into the topic of reservoir compart-
mentalization; a basic context for the papers; and
a taste of their content (papers cited in bold here,
are those presented in this book). For ease of discus-
sion, we have sub-divided the papers in this
introduction, into the dominant themes of: (a) detec-
tion and monitoring of compartmentalization;
(b) stratigraphic and mixed-mode compartmen-
talization; and (iii) fault dominated compart-
mentalization.
The paper by Fox & Bowman presents a high-
level summary of technical challenges and lessons
learnt from practical experience of appraising and
operating compartmentalized fields. The paper,
which speaks on behalf of the oil and gas industry,
gives BP’s perspective, written in a way that will
resonate with many readers. The authors emphasize
the need for compartmentalization to be evaluated
in the early appraisal stages of the E&P workflow,
in order to avoid surprises later in the development
stage. They explain the importance of acquiring
surveillance data early and continuously throughout
the field life-cycle; and they describe the value of
integrated workflows that capture the range of sub-
surface scenarios and uncertainties. The style of
static and dynamic compartmentalization varies
dramatically between different fields and geological
settings – and the compartmentalization behaviour
of a field evolves, driven by production-induced
geomechanical and relative permeability changes
for example. Inadequate data, inflexible develop-
ment planning, and over-standardization of work-
flows and toolkits can therefore hamper efforts
to evaluate, track and respond to the evolving,
situation-specific nature of reservoir compart-
mentalization. Finally, the authors urge us to exer-
cise our science and experience in assessing and
planning for reservoir compartmentalization –
pointing out that reservoir modelling tools are ‘. . .
not a proxy for generating well thought-out geologi-
cal scenarios’.
Detection and monitoring of
compartmentalization
Fluid properties (e.g. pressure, chemistry, density,
viscosity, etc.) are commonly used in an attempt
to assess the level of compartmentalization and
identify the position of compartment boundaries
during the appraisal and production of petroleum
reservoirs. Indeed, it is often assumed that a reser-
voir is compartmentalized as soon as fluid-property
differences are observed between wells or between
reservoir units in a single well. However, this
assumption can be misleading. Four papers pub-
lished within this volume provide a more sophisti-
cated insight as to how fluid-property data should
be interpreted in terms of their implications for
reservoir compartmentalization. Chuparova et al.;
Gill et al.; Paez et al.; and Smalley & Muggeridge
provide excellent insights into how fluid data can be
used to improve understanding of reservoir com-
partmentalization from the appraisal to the pro-
duction stage of development – and also show the
importance of modelling fluid data to avoid
jumping to erroneous conclusions about the level
of reservoir compartmentalization. In particular,
these papers show how differences in fluid compo-
sition may exist within reservoirs that are not signifi-
cantly compartmentalized (also Scott et al.). It
should also be emphasized that the contrary is also
true – highly compartmentalized reservoirs may
have very uniform fluid compositions. In other
words, provided fluid data is interpreted with great
care, it can be a cheap and very useful tool to ident-
ify compartment boundaries and assess the level of
compartmentalization of a field.
Smalley & Muggeridge describe the impact of
reservoir compartmentalization on oil recovery.
They argue that it is important to identify the
extent of compartmentalization at an early stage in
the appraisal and development of a reservoir. The
authors use simple analytical equations to determine
the time taken for a variety of fluid properties (e.g.
pressure, density, composition, etc.) to equilibrate.
Some properties, such as pressure differences
within aquifers, are shown to equilibrate very
rapidly (e.g. ,10 years). On the other hand, other
fluid properties, such as the isotopic composition
of pore fluids, would be expected to take tens of
millions of years to equilibrate throughout a reser-
voir. The implication of these calculations is that
one would expect to find differences in fluid proper-
ties that are slow to equilibrate even in reservoirs
that are not compartmentalized. However, if there
are differences in fluid properties that should equili-
brate rapidly, they should be taken as a serious
indication of reservoir compartmentalization. Páez
et al. present several examples from offshore West
Africa that highlight the importance of thoroughly
 Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ at Universite Cheikh Anta Diop de Dakar, Senegal on April
7, 2016
INTRODUCTION
understanding Pressure –Volume–Temperature
(PVT) behaviour, when using petroleum fluid
phase compositional data in early assessment of
compartmentalization in reservoirs containing criti-
cal or near-critical fluids. It is argued that processes
such as gravity segregation can occur within
near-critical fluids, which can result in a reservoir
containing a spectrum of fluid compositions from
the crest to the petroleum –water contact. In such
cases, it might be easy to misinterpret the fluid
data as indicating compartmentalization between
wells, whereas careful application of PVT model-
ling would show that compositional differences
can be expected even in a non-compartmentalized
reservoir. An example is provided from a reservoir
in which the fluids taken from three wells had very
large differences in their gas –oil ratio (i.e. 2500 to
8500). A gravity-segregation model can explain
these data in terms of a highly connected reservoir
with a gas condensate gradually transitioning to a
volatile oil. Chuparova et al. describe how the inte-
gration of time-lapse organic geochemistry with 4D
seismic data can be used to improve understanding
of fluid communication within petroleum reservoirs.
The authors illustrate the method using data from
the Auger Field in the deep water Gulf of Mexico.
Fluids were regularly sampled and analysed from
wells across the field. Statistical analysis of the evol-
ution of fluid compositions with time provides evi-
dence for the gradual mixing of oil and condensate
from two reservoir units that were believed to be
separate prior to the start of production. The geo-
chemistry results were integrated with 4D seismic
to up-date both the static and dynamic geocellular
reservoir models, which provided the basis for
improving the field development strategy. Gill
et al. present an example of how time-lapse water
geochemistry data can be used to improve under-
standing of reservoir compartmentalization. The
paper focuses on the use of the inorganic compo-
sition of produced water, particularly the chloride
ion concentration, from the turbidite reservoirs of
the Nelson Field in the North Sea. The chemistry
of the produced water is used to identify drainage
cells within the field. The data is then used to
create drainage charts that provide a framework
for identifying regions within the reservoir that are
likely to contain bypassed oil.
The time-lapse (4D) seismic technique involves
repeating 3D seismic surveys over a producing
field – replicating exactly the acquisition and pro-
cessing that was used for the original ‘base’ survey.
Given this ‘repeatability’, differences (seismic
amplitudes, two-way-time arrivals) between the
base and monitor data cubes are related to
production-induced fluid and pressure effects (e.g.
Landrø 2001; Tura et al. 2005) – that are used to
map fluid movement, identify flow barriers, and
3
‘condition’ integrated reservoir modelling work-
flows. Gainski et al. describe the 4D seismic
method, and its integration with other surveillance
data to identify, map and ‘condition’ modelling of
compartmentalization in the turbidite reservoirs of
the Schiehallion Field (west of Shetlands, UKCS).
They discuss how this 4D integrated reservoir mod-
elling, and a dedicated surveillance data acquisition
programme has helped to decode the unexpected
complexity of compartmentalization, caused by a
combination of channel and sheet turbidite sand-
body architectures and sealing faults. This work
has extended field life and ultimate recovery by
identifying unswept infill drilling targets. The
paper provides a fascinating account of lessons
learnt, and technologies and workflows devel-
oped from the reservoir compartmentalization
experience.
Variation of petroleum –water contact (PWC)
heights around a field can result from hydrodynamic
tilting of the contact, driven by water flowing out of
a pressure dynamic acquifer (e.g. Dennis et al. 2000,
2005). Such contact variations could easily be mis-
interpreted as evidence for compartmentalization.
Tozer & Borthwick describe pressure variations
and the tilting of a PWC by this phenomenon, in
the fluvio-deltaic reservoirs of the Azeri Field,
Caspian Sea. Earlier workers on the field had pro-
posed fault sealing to explain water pressure and
oil –water contact (OWC) variations, however,
the lack of seismic scale faulting and the high
net-to-gross of the reservoir sequence preclude
a fault sealing mechanism. Having projected
the pressure data to a common seal-level datum,
the authors were able to fit a planar grid surface to
the data to determine the gradient and trend direc-
tion of the aquifer overpressure; and to convert the
grid surface to a calculated OWC. There is good cor-
respondence between the calculated OWC surface
and a ‘best-fit plane’ that passes through the pet-
roleum contacts measured in the field; and good
correspondence between the line of intersection of
that best fit plane with top reservoir – and the line
of an abrupt change in seismic amplitude. The
authors conclude that the contact was tilted by
water flowing outwards from the compacting, over-
pressured basin centre. The paper provides a splen-
did example where a compartmentalized inter-
pretation of fluid data variations might in fact
be misleading.
Stratigraphic and mixed-mode
compartmentalization
In the second section of the book stratigraphic and
mixed-mode (combined stratigraphic and structural)
compartmentalization aspects (Bailey et al. 2002;
 Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ at Universite Cheikh Anta Diop de Dakar, Senegal on April
7, 2016
4 S. J. JOLLEY ET AL.
Ainsworth 2006) are addressed in a series of papers
that range from detailed studies of compartmenta-
lized fields to suggested methods for predicting
compartmentalization potential, and theoretical
modelling studies.
Some fields that have hydrodynamically tilted
PWCs may also be partially compartmentalized –
these being the most difficult to interpret. For
example, the explanation for variation in PWC
heights in the salt-domed Pierce Field, central
North Sea, has been an active debate for over a
decade. This is an unusual and interesting case,
because the debate can be tracked within public
domain literature. The PWC variation has pre-
viously been explained by simple hydrodynamic
tilting (Dennis et al. 2000, 2005); fault sealing
(e.g. Hempton et al. 2005); or a combination of
similar mechanisms (e.g. Fisher & Jolley 2007 and
references therein). The paper by Scott et al.
describes the most recent evolution of ideas on
Pierce. They show how the depositional architecture
of the deep marine Forties Sandstone reservoir, was
influenced by contemporary salt diapir movement.
In addition to PWC variations, the authors describe
differences in fluid composition between wells in
the field. The wells, drilled into the steep flanks of
the field’s twin salt domes, sample different parts
of the fluid column – with variations reflecting
filling history and compositional segregation rather
than indicating the presence of compartments. The
authors attribute the PWC variations and stratified
oil compositions to the interplay between the archi-
tecture of the channelized reservoir, the petroleum
charge/filling history, and hydrodynamic flow of
the aquifer. They conclude that the dynamic
aquifer water and production flow are mainly con-
trolled by the sand-body architectures (with
limited influence from fault seal in one quadrant
of the field) – to create a modified tilted contact
pre-production and local flow compartmentalization
during production.
Wonham et al. provide an important dataset –
in which they detail a study of compartmentaliza-
tion in a mixed siliciclastic and carbonate marginal
marine reservoir from offshore Congo, west Africa.
Compartmentalization in the N’Kossa Field is
attributed to combined stratigraphic and structural
mechanisms. Multiple laterally extensive strati-
graphic barriers to vertical fluid flow are recognized
whilst large throw faults compartmentalize the
reservoir laterally. However, prior to initial pro-
duction, compartmentalization was not considered
to be an issue in this field. After eight years of
production, multiple problems were being encoun-
tered and it was very clear that the field was
indeed compartmentalized. This study therefore
clearly demonstrates the value of assessing poten-
tial compartmentalization issues prior to field
development. However, it also illustrates how rela-
tively late recognition of compartmentalization
during production can sometimes be addressed
and development plans changed to mitigate these
issues. In this example, a very detailed field
review and integration of static and dynamic data
permitted a revision of the reservoir management
plan and modifications to the field development
strategy. McKie et al. examine the stratigraphic-
and fault-related controls on compartmentalization
of Triassic dryland fluvial reservoirs in the HPHT
Heron cluster fields (Central North Sea). They
describe an integrated study of the sedimentology
and structural geology, 3D– 4D seismic, fluid
pressure and geochemistry within the field cluster
and the wider region. They conclude that reservoir
compartmentalization is essentially stratigraphic in
nature, being controlled by the deposition of a later-
ally extensive shale package during a major
regional change in palaeo-environmental con-
ditions. The fields in the cluster all show the same
change in fluid chemistry and fluid pressure across
this shale boundary – with the integrity of the stra-
tigraphic compartments being preserved despite
faulting in the fields. The authors point to extrinsic
environmental factors as being a key control on the
deposition of potential stratigraphic barriers at
major gradational sequence boundaries in dryland
fluvial systems. They also conclude that that smear-
ing of the composite sand-shale reservoir sequence
during early fault movement in the fields was
the likely deformation mechanism, explaining
why the integrity of the stratigraphic compartments
was preserved despite the widespread intra-
reservoir faulting (i.e. the faults do not breach the
shale boundaries or induce significant porosity/
permeability collapse in the sands).
Since stratigraphic connectivity and compart-
mentalization is a complex three-dimensional
problem, 3D reservoir models are the norm for ana-
lysing these issues. There are three basic steps that
are required before a reliable 3D reservoir model
can be generated: (a) determine key depositional
processes and environments; (b) determine the
range of sand-body and heterogeneity geometries;
and (c) generate multi-scenario 3D–4D deposi-
tional concept models. Ainsworth presents a
methodology for predicting and ranking the strati-
graphic compartmentalization potential of silici-
clastic marginal marine deposits. The author
reviews and synthesizes a number of ideas that
have until now been scattered within the literature
– and integrates them with his own work into a
clear, conceptual framework. The paper uses a hier-
archical approach, displayed as a matrix, and relies
on depositional process-based interpretations, com-
bined with accommodation-to-sediment supply
ratio information. This results in a tool that is easy
 Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ at Universite Cheikh Anta Diop de Dakar, Senegal on April
7, 2016
INTRODUCTION
to understand and use, which ranks stratigraphic
compartmentalization potential. This ranking
approach is particularly useful when a series of pro-
spects are available or perforation strategies are
being designed for multiple reservoir zones within
a field. Hovadik & Larue analysed and modelled
both stratigraphic and structural connectivity.
They suggest that static connectivity is the best
parameter to assess, and that dynamic connectivity
should be avoided where possible since it is depen-
dent upon fluid type, permeability heterogeneity,
time and other factors, and hence confuses connec-
tivity with tortuosity, sweep- and displacement-
efficiency. They also suggest that from percolation
theory experiments, the most important factor
addressing stratigraphic connectivity is a net-
to-gross threshold ranging from 30 to 45%. For a
range of depositional geometries, their studies indi-
cate that above this threshold connectivity is gener-
ally good, whilst below this threshold connectivity
is generally poor. A flow diagram for analysing con-
nectivity uncertainty is presented. This diagram can
be utilized as a useful tool for defining key uncer-
tainties regarding both potential stratigraphic and
structural connectivity of a reservoir, and could be
very useful in the appraisal and data acquisition
phase of field development.
Fault dominated compartmentalization
Fault compartmentalization is generally considered
on two levels: static (geological time-scale) sealing
in which the fault sealing capacity is sufficient to
trap a petroleum column; and dynamic (production
time-scale) sealing in which a fault might ‘leak’
on geological time-scales, but prevents cross-fault-
flow at commercial production rates. There are
many published and proprietary approaches to
fault seal analysis, and a huge literature has devel-
oped on the topic. Sealing and baffling of cross-
fault-flow is controlled by juxtaposition between
reservoir and non-reservoir rocks across a fault.
This, together with the 3D geometry of the reservoir
architecture and its structural form (e.g. folding),
defines the essential ‘plumbing’ of the field.
Cross-fault-flow is also controlled by capillary
sealing or baffling of flow due to the reduced poros-
ity, permeability and relative permeability of fault
rocks to different fluid phases.
It is now well established that there is a relation-
ship between sealing capacity of a fault and the clay
content of lithic fragments and fault rocks it contains
(e.g. see Fisher & Knipe 2001; Sperrevik et al. 2002
and references therein). Consequently, many fault
seal algorithms calculate the clay content of
seismic-scale faults by integrating fault throw with
the clay content of host stratigraphy – e.g. Shale
5
Gouge Ratio (SGR, Yielding et al. 1997); Clay
Smear Potential (CSP, Bouvier et al. 1989); Shale
Smear Factor (SSF, Lindsay et al. 1993); Probabil-
istic Shale Smear Factor (PSSF, Childs et al.
2007); Effective Shale Gouge Ratio (ESGR,
Freeman et al.). Yielding et al. provide a review
of fault rock capillary seal mechanisms and industry
standard clay-content prediction algorithms, and
they compare and contrast deterministic and empiri-
cal approaches to predicting static fault sealing
potential. The deterministic approach correlates
laboratory-measured capillary threshold pressure
and clay content of fault rock samples – with pre-
dicted clay content of seismic-scale faults (e.g. by
using modelled SGR values as a proxy for clay
content). The empirical approach compares SGR
values modelled on known sealing faults in a field,
with PWC and pressure differences measured in
the field. Building on the work presented in
Yielding (2002), the authors show that there is
some similarity in the results from these two cali-
bration methods, which might be coincidental,
given the heterogeneous nature of fault zones.
They conclude that whilst further work is needed
to improve understanding of fault zone heterogen-
eity, the deterministic and empirical approaches
are not mutually exclusive – but, rather, on a prac-
tical level they provide alternative scenarios within
an acceptable range of subsurface uncertainty.
In recent years, there have been major advances
in our understanding and modelling of 3D deposi-
tional architectures and the heterogeneity of fault
damage zones and fracture arrays. It is now
common practice for appraisal and development
teams to work on a range of complex geological
concepts and for them to construct detailed model
scenarios – in order to capture subsurface uncer-
tainty. Freeman et al. address the characterization
and visualization of fault zone heterogeneity in
fault seal analysis and reservoir modelling. It has
been possible to incorporate some of these com-
plexities into existing modelling tools (e.g.
Manzocchi et al. 2010). However, the authors
contend that new analytical and intuitive visualiza-
tion methods are needed to enhance or replace those
that were developed over a decade ago when
requirements were simpler. The paper presents
enhanced visualization techniques – and provides
a formal definition of the ESGR algorithm
(evolved from SGR) – in the context of a detailed
comparative review of commonly used clay-
prediction algorithms (SGR, ESGR, CSP, SSF,
PSSF). The authors also introduce ‘intuitive’ par-
ameters, such as fault hydraulic resistance, and
Effective Cross Fault Permeability and Transmissi-
bility (ECFP, ECFT) – that take into account
the flow properties of the host reservoir, and the
complex flow properties of the fault zone, and the
 Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ at Universite Cheikh Anta Diop de Dakar, Senegal on April
7, 2016
6 S. J. JOLLEY ET AL.
fault-damaged hanging wall and footwall rock
volumes. When tested in a flow simulator, these
parameters provide a more robust correlation with
cross-fault fluid flux than host- or fault rock perme-
abilities alone. Irving et al. note that a key problem
with modelling fluid flow in petroleum reservoirs is
that subsurface data used to populate models is
limited to spatially extensive low resolution
seismic data or sparse high resolution well data.
A workflow is presented to fill this sampling gap
by the generation of multiple realizations in which
fault geometry and properties can be varied in geo-
logical models so the impact of these uncertainties
on production forecasts can be assessed. Static
properties such as total connected gas volume are
calculated for each model. A selection of these
models was then incorporated into production simu-
lation models to allow the assessment of structural
uncertainty on predictions of the dynamic behav-
iour of the reservoir. The workflow is applied to a
North Sea reservoir, in which it is shown that
fault geometry and permeability are the most
important properties although the relative signifi-
cance of these properties varies throughout field
life. Although a reasonably good ‘history match’
(i.e. a correspondence between numerically simu-
lated and actual time-lapse production data) is
achieved using the workflow, the paper indicates
that further improvements may be achieved by
incorporating stress and saturation dependent fault
properties into the simulation model.
The giant and prolific gas fields of the Permian
Rotliegend Group were discovered in the Nether-
lands c. 50 years ago, and the Energie Beheer Neth-
erland (EBN) organization was formed to represent
the national interest in developing these fields and
managing their production. Today, EBN partici-
pates in over 250 fields, and has been able to study
the compartmentalization of these high net-to-gross
fluvio-aeolian sandstones across a wider acreage
than any individual operating company has avail-
able. Van Hulten provides a summary of EBN’s
review of the mechanisms controlling reservoir
compartmentalization in the Rotliegend fairway.
Compartmentalization was not considered in early
development plans or recognized as a common
experience for over a decade after initial develop-
ment drilling in the region. Since that time,
however, there has been an active proprietary and
literature debate on Rotliegend compartmentaliza-
tion. The study that Van Hulten describes, was
aimed at identifying the key controls on compart-
mentalization, and mapping them out across the
Netherlands acreage. He describes a basic consen-
sus amongst industry and academic workers, that
there are three major controls: (a) the dominant
mechanism being fault compartmentalization –
with juxtaposition of reservoir to non-reservoir
rocks accounting for c. 75% of the compartment
boundaries, and sealing at sand-sand fault contacts
(caused by capillary rise of water into tight cataclas-
tic fault rocks) accounting for c. 25% of the bound-
aries; (b) stratigraphic barriers are developed in a
narrow east –west belt across the region, where the
upper reservoir sands shale-out towards a sabkha
lake in the basin centre; and (c) a similar belt
of diagenetic impairment, with authigenic mineral
growth being associated with specific facies belts
developed close to the sabkha shoreline.
There is a general literature consensus, that
structural configuration, depositional architectures
and fault juxtapositions define the basic ‘plumbing’
of a reservoir – and that this is a critical framework
for understanding and modelling reservoir compart-
mentalization in any reliable sense (e.g. see worked
‘real field’ examples in Jolley et al. 2007a, b).
Approaches such as the ‘stochastic multi-fault’
method (James et al. 2004; Corona et al.), and
Reservoir Connectivity Analysis (RCA, Vrolijk
et al. 2005; Richards et al.) emphasize the control
of the basic fluid pressure ‘plumbing’ of the reser-
voir system on compartmentalization behaviour.
Whilst many methodologies have been proposed
for estimating the fluid flow properties of faults
over geological time-scales (e.g. Allan 1989;
Knipe et al. 1997; Yielding et al. 1997; James
et al. 2004), few studies are published that discuss
the success of these methodologies. The paper by
Corona et al. is therefore refreshing in that as
well as describing a methodology for assessing the
sealing capacity of faults, it also provides statistics
as to how successful the methodology has been
when applied to a range of ‘real field’ examples.
The fault seal methodology uses a stochastic
juxtaposition-based approach (James et al. 2004),
that identifies and tracks the myriad of spill –leak
points within 3D geological models, to provide a
quantitative prediction of petroleum contacts in
structurally complex reservoirs with stacked sands
and a variety of fault densities. The study is based
on the analysis of 41 prospects from different parts
of the world, with detailed description of examples
from the Dutch Rotliegend fairway (cf. Van
Hulten). Comparison of pre-drill predictions and
post-drill results in these cases, showed that the
methodology had a 76% success rate – leading the
authors to conclude that the most important fault
seal process is cross-fault juxtaposition, and that
examples of capillary sealing by fault rocks are
fewer and more difficult to predict. Richards et al.
present a detailed ‘real field’ example of Reservoir
Connectivity Analysis (RCA, Vrolijk et al. 2005),
being used to define connections between reservoir
compartments in the structurally and stratigraphi-
cally complex Terra Nova Field, offshore eastern
Canada. The reservoir is composed of a stack of
 Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ at Universite Cheikh Anta Diop de Dakar, Senegal on April
7, 2016
INTRODUCTION
six fluvial sand packages, separated by laterally per-
sistent shales. Major compartments are defined by
faults and stratigraphic barriers, with diagenetic
mechanisms also playing a role in the compartmen-
talization of the field. The distribution of reservoir
fluids in this field is unusual when compared to
others in the Jeanne d’Arc Basin. However, the
connectivity diagram approach of RCA allows
an understanding of the fluid distributions by sys-
tematically describing the multiple compartments
and connections within the field and thereby
driving key reservoir management decisions.
This book and the energy to create it, were inspired by the
presentations and stimulating debate that occurred at a
2-day international conference on ‘Reservoir Compart-
mentalization’ (March 2008, The Geological Society,
Burlington House, London). SJJ thanks Shell and John
Marshall, in particular, for encouraging and supporting
this enterprise. We thank our authors for investing their
time and science in this book – and for their perseverance
in getting their manuscripts and revised manuscripts
through their company external publication approval
processes – and those of their partner companies . . . we
appreciate this took time and effort. We also give sincere
thanks to the people who gave their free time and expertise
to reviewing manuscripts for us: Jennifer Adams, Andy
Aplin, Wayne Bailey, Mark Bentley, Knut Bjorlykke,
Bryan Bracken, Alton Brown, Chris Cornford, Tony
Crook, Russell Davies, Steve Dee, Pete D’Onfro, Fred
Dula, John Fisher, Quentin Fisher, Martha Gerdes,
Carlos Gattoni, Gary Hampson, Peter Hennings, Steve
Jolley, Bob Krantz, Paul Mankiewicz, John Marshall,
Tom McKie, Trey Meckel, Don Medweffe, Steve Naruk,
Tim Needham, Michael Poppelreiter, John Snedden, Rob
Staples, Dick Swarbrick, Woluter van der Zee, Paul
Ventris, Jennifer Wadsworth, Chris Wibberley, Peter
Winefield, and several referees who asked to remain
anonymous.
Colour production of this book was funded from gener-
ous sponsorship provided to the original conference for
this purpose by BP, Chevron, Total, Shell, ExxonMobil,
StatoilHydro, Rock Deformation Research Ltd, and
Badley Geoscience Ltd.
References
Ainsworth, R. B. 2006. Sequence stratigraphic-based
analysis of reservoir connectivity: influence of seal-
ing faults – a case study from a marginal marine
depositional setting. Petroleum Geoscience, 12,
127–141.
Allan, U. S. 1989. Model for hydrocarbon migration and
entrapment within faulted structures. American
Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 73,
803–811.
Bailey, W. R., Manzocchi, T. et al. 2002. The effect of
faults on the 3D connectivity of reservoir bodies: a case
study from the East Pennine Coalfield, UK. Petroleum
Geoscience, 8, 263–277.
Bouvier, J. D., Sijpesteijn, K., Kleusner, D. F.,
Onyejekwe, C. C. & Van der pal, R. C. 1989.
7
Three-dimensional seismic interpretation and fault
sealing investigations, Nun River field, Nigeria.
American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulle-
tin, 73, 1397–1414.
Childs, C., Walsh, J. J. et al. 2007. Definition of a fault
permeability predictor from outcrop studies of a
faulted turbidite sequence, Taranaki, New Zealand.
In: Jolley, S. J., Barr, D., Walsh, J. J. & Knipe,
R. J. (eds) Structurally Complex Reservoirs. Geologi-
cal Society, London, Special Publications, 292,
235– 258.
Dennis, H., Baillie, J., Holt, T. & Wessel-berg, D.
2000. Hydrodynamic activity and tilted oil –water
contacts in the North Sea. In: Ofstad, K., Kittilsen,
J. E. & Alexander-Marrack, P. (eds) Improving the
Exploration Process by Learning from the Past.
Norwegian Petroleum Society, Special Publication,
Elsevier, Singapore, 9, 171–185.
Dennis, H., Bergmo, P. & Holt, T. 2005. Tilted oil –
water contacts: modelling the effects of aquifer
heterogeneity. In: Doré, A. G. & Vining, B. A. (eds)
Petroleum Geology: North-West Europe and Global
Perspectives. Proceedings of the 6th Petroleum
Geology Conference. Geological Society, London,
145– 158.
Fisher, Q. J. & Jolley, S. J. 2007. Treatment of faults in
production simulation models. In: Jolley, S. J., Barr,
D., Walsh, J. J. & Knipe, R. J. (eds) Structurally
Complex Reservoirs. Geological Society, London,
Special Publications, 292, 219–233.
Fisher, Q. J. & Knipe, R. J. 2001. The permeability of
faults within siliciclastic petroleum reservoirs of the
North Sea and Norwegian Continental Shelf. Marine
and Petroleum Geology, 18, 1063–1081.
Hempton, M., Marshall, J., Sadler, S., Hogg, N.,
Charles, R. & Harvey, C. 2005. Turbidite reservoirs
of the Sele Formation, Central North Sea: geological
challenges for improving production. In: Doré, A. G.
& Vining, B. A. (eds) Petroleum Geology: North-West
Europe and Global Perspectives. Proceedings of the
6th Petroleum Geology Conference. Geological
Society, London, 449– 459.
James, W. R., Fairchild, L. H., Nakayama, G. P.,
Hippler, S. J. & Vrolijk, P. J. 2004. Fault-seal analy-
sis using a stochastic multifault approach. American
Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 88,
885– 904.
Jolley, S. J., Barr, D., Walsh, J. J. & Knipe, R. J. (eds)
2007a. Structurally Complex Reservoirs. Geological
Society, London, Special Publications, 292.
Jolley, S. J., Dijk, H., Lamens, J. H., Fisher, Q. J., Man-
zocchi, T., Eikmans, H. & Huang, Y. 2007b. Faulting
and fault sealing in production simulation models:
Brent province, northern North Sea. Petroleum
Geoscience, 13, 321–340.
Knipe, R. J., Fisher, Q. F. et al. 1997. Fault seal analysis:
successful methodologies, application and future direc-
tions. In: Møller-Pedersen, P. & Koestler, A. G.
(eds) Hydrocarbon Seals: Importance for Exploration
and Production. Norwegian Petroleum Society,
Special Publication, Elsevier, Singapore, 7, 15– 40.
Landrø, M. 2001. Discrimination between pressure and
fluid saturation changes from time-lapse seismic data.
Geophysics, 66, 836– 844.
 Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ at Universite Cheikh Anta Diop de Dakar, Senegal on April
7, 2016
8 S. J. JOLLEY ET AL.

Lindsay, N. G., Murphy, F. C., Walsh, J. J. &
Watterson, J. 1993. Outcrop studies of shale
smears on fault surfaces. In: Flint, S. T. & Bryant,
A. D. (eds) The Geological Modelling of Hydro-
carbon Reservoirs and Outcrop. International Asso-
ciation of Sedimentologists, Special Publication, 15,
113– 123.
Manzocchi, T., Childs, C. & Walsh, J. J. 2010. Faults
and fault properties in hydrocarbon flow models.
Geofluids, 10, 94– 113.
Smith, P. 2008. Studies of United Kingdom Continental
Shelf fields after a decade of production: how does pro-
duction data affect the estimation of subsurface uncer-
tainty? American Association of Petroleum Geologists
Bulletin, 92, 1403– 1413.
Sperrevik, S., Gillespie, P. A., Fisher, Q. J.,
Halvorsen, T. & Knipe, R. J. 2002. Empirical
estimation of fault rock properties. In: Koestler,
A. G. & Hunsdale, R. (eds) Hydrocarbon Seal
Quantification. Norwegian Petroleum Society,
Special Publication, Elsevier, Singapore, 11, 109– 125.
Tura, A., Barker, T. et al. 2005. Monitoring primary
depletion reservoirs using amplitudes and time shifts
from high-repeat seismic surveys. The Leading Edge,
24, 1214–1221.
Vrolijk, P. J., James, B., Myers, R., Maynard, J.,
Sumpter, L. & Sweet, M. 2005. Reservoir connec-
tivity analysis – defining reservoir connections and
plumbing. Society of Petroleum Engineers, SPE
Paper 93577.
Yielding, G. 2002. Shale Gouge Ratio – calibration by
geohistory. In: Koestler, A. G. & Hunsdale, R.
(eds) Hydrocarbon Seal Quantification. Norwegian
Petroleum Society, Special Publication, Elsevier,
Singapore, 11, 1 –15.
Yielding, G., Freeman, B. & Needham, D. T. 1997.
Quantitative fault seal prediction. American Associ-
ation of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 81, 897– 917.