1. The Geomodeling Network Newsletter March 2009
A very warm Spring 2009 welcome to all of our Geomodeling Network
members wherever you are. Earlier on this month it was looking like the
newsletter was going to be delayed through a lack of articles. However I am
pleased to say that after some online harassment, our members rallied and the
articles magically appeared just in the nick of time – so a big thank-you for those
of you who have taken the time to contribute.
I am always open to suggestions regarding our growing network and the shape
and direction in which it takes us. Bearing this in mind, I have had a few
members bending my ear recently who are concerned about the growing
influence of online recruiters using the Geomodeling Network for their own
commercial purposes.
Whilst I am not totally adverse to some forms of commercialism in our group
(you may even have spotted the subtle Blueback advertising throughout our
newsletters); the intention is that this plays a minor role in what our Network is
trying to accomplish. Indeed if you carry on reading this month’s newsletter you
will see that there are articles from a number of software vendors (Halliburton,
Schlumberger etc) which I think are interesting, relevant and provide a lot of
value to the group.
That said, I will keep my beady eye on the group as to what is being posted and
will take great pleasure in removing articles (and members) if they are starting
to become a nuisance.
Mitch Sutherland
mitch.sutherland@blueback-reservoir.com
Page 1 The Geomodeling Network – Sponsored by Blueback Reservoir www.blueback-reservoir.com
2. The Geomodeling Network Newsletter March 2009
Table of Contents
Member Articles, Reviews & Questions
1. Property Modeling within modeled objects .... defining that
thalweg!
Has anyone successfully modelled rock properties at specific locations within
facies objects?
Juan Cottier, Subsurface Manager at Blueback Reservoir AS
This has been taken from the Geomodeling Network discussion board and is a good
example of how the board can be utilized to pose questions. Page 3
2. A faster and more accurate Gaussian method for property
modelling in Petrel
Colin Daly – Petrel product champion, geological modelling, Schlumberger
Sandra Quental – Petrel product analyst, geological modelling, Schlumberger
There were questions asked recently on the discussion board about the Gaussian method
– this is timely input from Schlumberger!
Page 5
3. Geology & Technology
What kind of technology will geologists be using in 2025? An example of
technology that today is in its infancy, but which may be more prevalent in the
future.
Simon Haworth - Geologist at Nexen Page 11
“Civilization exists by 4. High Frequency Characterization of an Outcropping Sinuous
Leveed-Channel Complex, Dad Sandstone Member, Lewis
geological consent,
Shale, Wyoming
subject to change This paper presents the results of data collection, analysis and integration to
without notice.” build a 3D geological model of an outcropping leveed channel complex.
Staffan Van Dyke - Geologist at Nexen Page 14
(Abstract only – see end of article on how to access the complete paper)
-Will Durant
Page 2 The Geomodeling Network – Sponsored by Blueback Reservoir www.blueback-reservoir.com
3. The Geomodeling Network Newsletter March 2009
“Rocks are records of 5. Free Petrel Plugin’s!
What idiot said “you get nothing for free in this world?” Check out the latest
events that took place free downloadable Petrel plugin’s now available from the Blueback Reservoir
at the time they formed. software development team.
Blueback Reservoir Page 14
They are books. They
have a different
6. Geo2Flow
vocabulary, a different Reserves Estimation – software that allows you to answer 3 crucial questions:
alphabet, but you learn How much? How fast? And How connected?
how to read them.” Dan O’Meara – Owner, O’Meara Consulting Page 17
-John McPhee
7. Requests for newsletter No5 Page 20
Member Articles, Reviews & Questions
1. Property Modeling within modeled objects .... defining
that thalweg!
Has anyone successfully modeled rock properties at specific locations within
facies objects?
Juan Cottier, Blueback Reservoir AS
Clearly some further information is required here .....
For example, I want to be able to place certain poroperm values at certain
locations within channels. I am working on the UK Forties fairway and I have
been provided with some excellent facies work (facies logs, facies associations
and very well integrated field analogues). The challenge is that within a
distribution of porosity values I want to be able to place the very best
poroperms at the centre of the channels and at the top of the channels, where
as the poorest poroperms go at the base and sides.
there are plenty of ways of trendng/cross correlating/analysing data per
zone/layer within PETREL but there does not seem to be any quot;understandingquot; of
the geometry of the bodies.
Page 3 The Geomodeling Network – Sponsored by Blueback Reservoir www.blueback-reservoir.com
4. The Geomodeling Network Newsletter March 2009
Schlumberger Support, though very helpful, have no straight forward answer to
this question.
I have already created a workflow that allows me to define channel edges per K-
layer and then use the distance from the channel edge to control levee or
channel porosity distributions. It works exactly as I wish it to ... except ... it is
cumbersome, ineffcient, requires conformable layering, requires precise set-up
and is impractical beyond a certain number of k-layers.
Beautiful results but not at all practical ...... rather like an Alfa Romeo.
Any ideas?
Or
solutions?
Thanks.
Juan.
Dave Hardy
Reservoir geologist and reservoir modeller
Juan,
Use RMS ;-). It 'knows' about modelled objects. Intrabody trends are very easy to
set up in all directions and work really well. In the old days before RMS had this I
have used a facies object ID parameter and a script to define a vertical trend
(loop trhough the layers and reset the distance every time the code changes).
The script approach does not handle erosion terribly well and horizontal trends
are tricky unless the objects are aligned with the grid but it was passable. I have
no idea if that approach would be possible in PETREL or if it is any better than
the solution you already have.
Russell Cooper
Geologist at OXY Permian
Juan,
Assuming you have a 'center of channel' and 'top of channel' poroperm equation
to distinguish these areas from the rest of the model, perhaps respective of
facies as well, you could use zone/layer filters in combination with a polygon(s)
in geometrical modeling to create a center of channel and top of channel
property and use these as references in a nested 'IF' equation to derive the
desired permeability property.
Page 4 The Geomodeling Network – Sponsored by Blueback Reservoir www.blueback-reservoir.com
5. The Geomodeling Network Newsletter March 2009
2 A faster and more accurate Gaussian method for property
modelling in Petrel.
to remember the order of Colin Daly & Sandra Quental – Schlumberger
the geological time Petrel 2009.1, released last February, brings a new Gaussian simulation
periods: “Cows Often Sit algorithm that will please our modeling community. The so-called Gaussian
Down Carefully. Perhaps random function simulation (GRFS) differs substantially from the Sequential
Gaussian simulation (SGS) from GSLIB: it is not sequential; it is parallelized and
Their Joints Creak? hence typically faster than SGS. Plus it has an option to run a fast collocated co-
Persistent Early Oiling simulation, with an interactive correlation coefficient slide bar.
Might Prevent Painful The GRFS works using the well known decomposition which states:
Rheumatism.”
CONDITIONAL SIMULATION = KRIGING + UNCONDITIONAL SIMULATION
For the kriging part of the equation, Petrel uses the parallel kriging algorithm
introduced in 2008. This kriging algorithm is substantially faster than the old
kriging algorithm in Petrel, particularly in the case of a lot of well data, and so
makes use of the above decomposition practical and beneficial. (For example, on
a test case with 3 million cells and 500 wells, the new algorithm runs in about 10
seconds compared to about 36 minutes for the old GSLIB based algorithm for
identical results). The unconditional simulation term uses a Fast Fourier
Transform based algorithm which gives good variogram reproduction for a wide
class of variograms.
If using the collocated cosimulation option with GRFS, the user will notice that
there isn’t any systematic bias in the degree of variability of the simulated
variable or in the correlation between the simulated variable and the secondary
variable. For SGS, it is often found that the variance of the simulated primary
variable is systematically different to the desired input variance. In the typical
case where the secondary variable is smoother than the primary (often the
secondary variable is a smooth seismic data volume), then SGS simulations will
generally have higher variability than expected. Furthermore, the calculated
correlation between the simulated primary variable and the secondary variable
is not equal to the input correlation. This is a problem associated to the
sequential nature of SGS. Within Petrel’s GRFS there is a mechanism to
overcome such a bias, called the ‘Variance Reduction Factor’, which can be used
to partly remove the bias. This is no longer necessary with GRFS.
Page 5 The Geomodeling Network – Sponsored by Blueback Reservoir www.blueback-reservoir.com
6. The Geomodeling Network Newsletter March 2009
Another nice feature implemented for the GRFS is the fast collocated
cosimulation. This is based on a new algorithm that extends a well known
decomposition from the literature (e.g. Chiles and Delfiner, Geostatistics, Wiley,
1999). This decomposition states that collocated cokriging can be split into a
kriging that is done once and a simple Bayesian cokriging update. We have
further developed this by coupling it with a correctly chosen unconditional
cosimulation of primary and secondary variables. It can be shown that this gives
an exact collocated cosimulation. Updating to try a new correlation between
primary and secondary variables is quite fast, so this has been implemented on a
slider bar within Petrel so that the modeler can interactively see the results
when changing the correlation (Figure 1). For the 3 million cell model mentioned
above, the updating takes about 0.2 seconds so is fast enough to work on the
slider bar.
Secondary property = porosity
cc = 0.85
Permeability models using
cc = 0.15 GRFS with cosimulation
Figure 1 – Using the new slider bar available for cosimulation with GRFS, it is
possible to change the correlation coefficient (cc) and see the results on the fly in
visualization windows.
Page 6 The Geomodeling Network – Sponsored by Blueback Reservoir www.blueback-reservoir.com
7. The Geomodeling Network Newsletter March 2009
Also new in Petrel 2009 is the ‘layer declustered search’ option, which is used in
the kriging component of the Gaussian simulation (thus also present for the
kriging method). When this is active, it ensures that the when the kriging
algorithm is searching for nearest neighbours of a cell which is to be kriged, it
preferentially searches for neighbours in the current layer and then
progressively for neighbours in nearby layers. If selected, this overrides the
default mechanism which searches for neighbours according to variogram
weighted distance. The primary application of this is when the variogram
exhibits a long correlation in the vertical direction. In this case, the standard
search would tend to find many highly correlated neighbours along vertical, or
near vertical wells. This situation, when many of the data used for kriging are
highly correlated between themselves, is similar to a situation in standard
regression theory called collinearity. A typical solution used for kriging is to
perform a declustering of the data and to choose neighbours which are less well
correlated between themselves. The layer declustered search is a simple but
often effective method to perform such a declustering in the case of near
vertical wells with a long vertical range. The effect is that a better spread of
neighbouring data, with less correlation between one another are used for the
kriging, eliminating common artifacts generated by the traditional search
methods used in the market (Figure 2).
Keeping long
vertical variogram
range
Applying layer
declustered search
Applying layer
declustered search
Figure 2 – A very simple example showing a kriged porosity model using three wells.
Left: common kriging artifacts are due to a long vertical variogram range
Right: layer declustered search has been applied, eliminating the artifacts.
Page 7 The Geomodeling Network – Sponsored by Blueback Reservoir www.blueback-reservoir.com
8. The Geomodeling Network Newsletter March 2009
Another expert option for kriging and GRFS is the ‘approximate search’, which
provides a search algorithm that can often be substantially faster than the
standard search algorithm. It is however not as accurate and must be used with
some care. A typical application will be when used to create many realizations
for kriging or Gaussian simulation. The user should test that the fast search is
giving results of acceptable quality on a trial realization. If it works well for one
realization then it will work just as well for all realizations using the same
parameters. So when, for a choice of kriging parameters and neighbourhood
size, it is deemed to be working acceptably, this option can be switched on for
the time consuming activity of generation of many realizations.
Finally the ‘factor of simulation extent’ is a variable associated with the
unconditional simulation. When the range of the variogram becomes longer
than the sides of the model, the Fast Fourier Transform based model will not
give a good reproduction of the variogram (due to aliasing). This can be
improved by simulating on a larger volume and then ‘cutting out’ the region of
interest. The factor of simulation extent can be used in such a case. Typically the
value of 1 will be good enough, but if the correlation length becomes long, then
it may need to be increased to a length of 2 or 3. Very high values can cause
memory problems for the machine. It should be noted that there is little reason
for using correlation lengths much longer than the extent of the field as this type
of low frequency variability is usually better treated as a trend.
Schlumberger Information Solutions strongly suggest Petrel geomodelers to
start using the new GRFS in workflows where SGS is usually applied. In large
grids and/or in an uncertainty study context, if running various realizations of
petrophysical properties, a great time gain will be observed, as well as a visible
improvement in achieving the desired distribution statistics.
An example comparing SGS and GRFS results on volume distribution
We now look at an example which shows that GRFS does a better job at
modeling the uncertainty in the total pore volume of the reservoir than SGS.
In a test project with a regular grid of 90x90x200=1.62 million cells of 100 x 100
x 1 meters size, 200 realizations were run on the porosity model, 100 of them
using GRFS and the other 100 using SGS. Only the seed has been changed, all
other parameters were kept the same. The variogram was spherical with ranges
Page 8 The Geomodeling Network – Sponsored by Blueback Reservoir www.blueback-reservoir.com
9. The Geomodeling Network Newsletter March 2009
2000, 2000, 5 in the X, Y and Z directions respectively. The mean porosity was
0.15 with standard deviation of 0.05.
Our objective is to calculate the distribution of pore volume for each realization
and then look at the distributions of such volumes for both GRFS and SGS. The
resulting distributions are shown in figure 3. There is clearly a difference
between the GRFS case and SGS case. Which gives the better result? Well, if we
knew the expected standard deviation of the distribution we could just check
and see.
To help us with this, we remember from basic statistics that if we have n
independent points following the same distribution then the variance of the
mean of those values is just variance of a single point divided by the number of
points ( V = 2/N where V is the variance of the mean reservoir porosity, the
variability being from one realization to the next). We have 1.62 million points
and we know that the mean of the porosity distribution is 0.15 with standard
deviation of 0.05. However, we cannot just choose N=1.62M because not all the
What did the rock do all
data are independent (the resulting simulation is not just a pure nugget effect or
day? Nothing..... white noise simulation so the values are correlated to one another). Roughly
speaking we can consider points to be independent of one another when they
......I’ll get my coat!
are separated by a distance equal to the range of the variogram. More
accurately there is a known method in geostatistics for calculating the
approximate number of truly independent points and then we can use that
formula. It is called the method of integral range. We won’t go into the details
here (see Lantuejoul, C., Ergodicity and Integral Range, Journal of Microscopy,
161(3)) but the integral range for a spherical variogram is A = a3 where a is
the range of the variogram and the number of equivalent data is then N = V/A
where V is the bulk rock volume of the reservoir. In this case we find that
N=1600 approximately. We can then use the formula V = 2/N to calculate the
variability we might expect over the reservoir volume. This gives the standard
deviation V=0.00125. In a normal distribution, the size of the 95% confidence
interval is twice the size of the standard deviation. Combining these results we
should get 95% of our realizations having a mean porosity for the total reservoir
of between 0.15 – 2*(0.00125) and 0.15 + 2*(0.00125), that is in the interval
[0.1475,0.1525]. Since the total rock volume of the reservoir is
(1.62x106)*100*100*1 = 16.2x109 m3 (number of cells multiplied by volume of
cell), then the expected range of pore volumes is approximately [2.389x109,
2.471x109]. Looking at the results of figure 3 we can see that the 100 realizations
of the GRFS are consistent with this estimate while the results from SGS show
considerably more variability than one would expect from the theory. The
following table gives a resume of the results:
Page 9 The Geomodeling Network – Sponsored by Blueback Reservoir www.blueback-reservoir.com
10. The Geomodeling Network Newsletter March 2009
Lower 95% conf interval Upper 95% conf interval
Theoretically correct result 2.389 2.471
GRFS – observed result 2.386 2.482
SGS – observed result 2.350 2.502
Table 1. Confidence Intervals for the Total Pore volume variation for the reservoir.
9 3
Results are in units of 10 m .
Overall, this shows that the GRFS simulation gives results that are more
consistent, in terms of total pore volume modeled, with the information used to
develop the model (in this case the variogram, mean and standard deviations of
any well data). This becomes especially important in the case where we are
conditioning to well data where the GRFS does a better job of modeling the
expected variability around the distributions of porosity observed in the wells.
Page The Geomodeling Network – Sponsored by Blueback Reservoir www.blueback-reservoir.com
10
11. The Geomodeling Network Newsletter March 2009
Figure 3 – Above: pore volume distribution after running 100 porosity realizations using
SGS. Below: pore volume distribution after running 100 porosity realizations using GRFS.
“It was with unalloyed The histogram for GRFS is less spread than for SGS, because SGS tends to give higher
Career Networking
pleasure that I became variance results than the one from the input distribution (in this case higher porosity
variance, hence higher pore volume variance).
aware that a vigorous
earthquake was in
progress.”
3. Geology & Technology
-G.K. Gilbert on the 1906 San Simon Haworth – Nexen
Francisco earthquake.
Have you ever wondered what it might be like working in an oil company
in 2025? Will we still be working with computers and bulky, costly
computer screens? What if desks were your screens? And all you had
was an internet connection?
There are many more questions like this, but if I wrote them all down it
wouldn‟t make for an enthralling article.
I‟m an avid believer that one day, in the not so distant future, we will be
working, in fact geomodelling, on the walls of our office. Not just by
hanging a plasma screen on it, but by interacting with the wall itself.
Consider yourself interacting with digital experiences that move beyond
digital tradition, that blur the boundaries between art and science, and
transform social assumptions. We are already in an era where current
technology offers insights into interactive techniques, projects that explore
science, high-resolution digital-cinema technologies, and interactive art-
science narrative.
Most people have seen Minority Report- a Steven Spielberg special in
which cyber cop Tom Cruise manipulates wall-sized displays powered by
gesture recognition, and seamless information convergence: it‟s the stuff
that interface designer dreams are made of. So how did Tom Cruise get
such a nice set up? It turns out that Microsoft Research, MIT, and several
design shops had a say in the interface designs found in the film.
Page The Geomodeling Network – Sponsored by Blueback Reservoir www.blueback-reservoir.com
11
12. The Geomodeling Network Newsletter March 2009
Why did the biker carry
a large piece of an
extrusive, pyrclastic,
igneous
rock composed chiefly of
volcanic ash as on his
motorcycle? Hand and touch screen recognition devices already exist but how can we
get involved?
So, if the big boys are cleverly adapting and developing the hardware,
He wanted to act tuff. which oil service companies are going to get their mitts on it first? Cost is
likely to be an issue- nobody wants to venture into a novel arena because
there is some likelihood the adaptation and, more importantly, uptake
could flop. On the other hand, it could be a resounding success- „Qui
Audet Adipiscitur („He who Dares Wins‟).
The willingness to embrace change is heavily dependent on the decision
makers and their own visions for the future. The demography of the
industry is changing so rapidly that geoscience and engineering
professionals are taking on more and more responsibility at a young age.
It is seemingly more possible that the fully loaded virtual office will
become a reality therefore allowing the industry to leverage the
experience of others from the comfort of their own home. Less office
space in prime locations means lower overheads. Meetings will take place
in your living room with the aid of holographic projections (ref. Cisco‟s
Page The Geomodeling Network – Sponsored by Blueback Reservoir www.blueback-reservoir.com
12
13. The Geomodeling Network Newsletter March 2009
Telepresence) just like R2D2‟s relay of the all important message to Luke
Skywalker in Star Wars.
quot;...And yet it does move.quot;
- Galileo (referring to the Earth)
To sum up, the technology already exists- the software doesn‟t. I‟d like to
see more of an uptake in the design and adaptation of the technology for
the oil industry. Petrel, RMS and others are great tools- it‟s how we use
them that matters.
Mitch has kindly offered to publish this article so that I can gauge interest
amongst other Geoscience professionals and Software Developers alike
who share my vision for taking this further. My initial thoughts are to bring
together software, technology and geology professionals in a combined
Special Interest Group with a view to development of bigger concepts and
product development in an arena which is under-explored and under-
funded. Please email me with any comments, thoughts and ideas.
There are numerous societies with SIGGRAPH (Special Interest Group on
GRAPHics and Interactive Techniques) being a key organisation. For
anyone interested, this year‟s conference is being held in New Orleans
(3rd-7th August 2009). Further details can be found below
http://www.siggraph.org/s2009/.
“Dreams will get you nowhere; a good kick in the pants will take you a long way”.
Page The Geomodeling Network – Sponsored by Blueback Reservoir www.blueback-reservoir.com
13
14. The Geomodeling Network Newsletter March 2009
4. High Frequency Characterization of an Outcropping
Q: What is the
Sinuous Leveed-Channel Complex, Dad Sandstone
difference between a
Member, Lewis Shale, Wyoming (Abstract only)
geologist and a chemist? Staffan Van Dyke – Nexen
A: A chemist will drink This paper presents the results of data collection, analysis and integration to
build a 3D geological model of an outcropping leveed-channel complex. Data is
anything that is from more than 120 standard measured stratigraphic sections, behind-outcrop
distilled. drilling/logging/coring, ground-penetrating radar and electromagnetic induction
surveys and 2D shallow seismic reflection acquisition.
A geologist will drink
This leveed-channel complex, which is part of the Dad Sandstone Member of the
anything that is Cretaceous Lewis Shale, Wyoming, consists of ten channel-fill sandstones,
fermented.... confines within a master channel. The complex is 67m (200ft) thick and 500m
(1500ft) wide and has a net sand content of approximately 57%. Individual
channel-fills are internally lithologically complex, but in a systematic manner
which provides a means of predicting orientation and width of sinuosity.
Although it has not been possible to completely document the three
dimensionality of the system, the 3D model that has evolved provides
information on lithologic variability at scales which cannot be verified from
conventional 3D seismic of subsurface analog reservoirs. This vertical and lateral
variability can provide realistic lithologic input to reservoir prediction. An
outcome of this study has been knowledge gained of the extent of manipulation
required to obtain the spatially correct geometry and architecture of strata
when integrating outcrop and shallow, behind-outcrop data sets.
If anyone is interested in reading the complete paper, simply click on the link
below and find the presentation called “GCS-SEPM Lewis Shale”
http://www.linkedin.com/osview/canvas?_ch_page_id=1&_ch_panel_id=1&_ch
_app_id=7544200&_applicationId=1200&appParams=%7B%22from%22%3A%22
owner_network_slideshows_home%22%2C%22view%22%3A%22canvas%22%2C
%22page%22%3A%22owner_minifeed%22%7D&_ownerId=8140385&completeU
rlHash=GMNx
5. The Blueback Toolbox
Blueback Reservoir (www.blueback-reservoir.com)
(Full download instructions for the Blueback Toolbox can be found at the end of this
article)
The latest software product from the software development team in Blueback
Reservoir is our new Toolbox. The Blueback Toolbox is a set of smaller Petrel
plug-ins for solving specific problems not supported in standard Petrel.
Page The Geomodeling Network – Sponsored by Blueback Reservoir www.blueback-reservoir.com
14
15. The Geomodeling Network Newsletter March 2009
The aim with the Toolbox is to facilitate faster workflows and to provide Petrel
users with functionality not already in available in Petrel.
The current Toolbox is available for FREE – just send us an email with your
details.
The content of the Toolbox is increasing all the time as we keep adding new
plug-ins to it. Most of the plug-ins have been developed upon direct requests
from Petrel users, and in most cases resulting in functionality we make available
to all Toolbox users.
The Toolbox functionality as of 1 March’09:
Make Cube
Generates a seismic cube data object from a point data set. Specify
resolution, min/max values and interpolation algorithm.
Import/Export
Support for new data formats.
Export of navigation data for a seismic survey.
Import of IESX interpretations as points.
Import 3D seismic interpretations from a general ASCII format.
Import ASCII files into a seismic cube.
Sample Attribute
Sample points from a seismic cube. Using a point set to sample values from
a seismic cube. The sampled values will be appended as an attribute to the
point set
Page The Geomodeling Network – Sponsored by Blueback Reservoir www.blueback-reservoir.com
15
16. The Geomodeling Network Newsletter March 2009
Comments to data objects
Easy addition of comments to the Info tab in the Settings dialog of a
selected data object. No need to open the Settings dialog
“The elements that unite
to make the Grand Extracts points from cube
Creates a point set from a seismic cube. One point per sample in the cube.
Canyon the most sublime Limited by a top and bottom surface
spectacle in nature are Created point set located in the same survey folder as the input cube
multifarious and
One of the key things about this Toolbox is that we at Blueback see it as an
exceedingly diverse.” evolving set of tools. As such, the contents are expected to change quite
dramatically over time when new functionality is requested and added.
-John Wesley Powell
For this reason it is important that all users of the Toolbox provide feedback to
Blueback as without this feedback we will not be in a position to make any
changes or amendments. We would therefore like to know if you find the
functionality useful or whether you would like to see any tweaks made to what
is already there.
Also, we would like to know if you have any suggestions for any additional
functionality that you would like us to add to the Toolbox, which would benefit
the Petrel user community.
If one of these suggestions makes it into the official Blueback Toolbox then I will
happily send that member a Blueback iPod.
How to download the Blueback Toolbox
The Toolbox is now on our FTP site.
Page The Geomodeling Network – Sponsored by Blueback Reservoir www.blueback-reservoir.com
16
17. The Geomodeling Network Newsletter March 2009
ftp.blueback-reservoir.com
User: TOOLBOX
Passwd: xxToolbox2009
There are 3 files there:
1 –“ TOOLBOX 1.1 2008.1-306-110209.zip”. This is the installation file if you are
running Petrel 2008 on XP.
2 – “TOOLBOX 1.1 2009.1 32bit-398-180309.zip”. This is the installation file if
you are running Petrel 2009 on Vista or XP 32 bit.
3 – “TOOLBOX 1.1 2009.1 64bit-398-180309.zip”. This is the installation file for
those running Petrel 2009 on Vista 64 bit.
Download the file you need, unzip it and run the installation. Then start Petrel
and open the Blueback License dialog from the HELP pulldown menu. To
activate the Toolbox – you must send to support@blueback-reservoir.com the
COMPUTER CODE. This is found if you click the Manage Licenses button.
This download information can be forwarded to anyone interested in taking a
look at the Toolbox.
Geo2Flow
Dan O’Meara
For those of you who have been a member of the Geomodeling Network for a
wee while you will probably recognise the name Dan O’Meara. Dan is the chap
who has contributed some very eloquent articles for discussion on our very
informative discussion page.
To prove to you all that Dan does not spend all of his time posing technical
questions to our network and that he does have an actual day job, Dan has
contributed an excellent article on Geo2flow.
Geo2Flow is a software product developed by O‟Meara Consulting who have
gained respect for developing leading-edge, interdisciplinary tools that “raise the
bar” technically in the arena of reservoir characterization.
Geo2Flow uses patented technology for identifying reservoir compartments, for
calculating 3D permeabilities that are consistent with saturation logs and for
ensuring that 3D saturations match their corresponding logs exactly. Integrating
Geo2Flow into your workflow ensures that your method for estimating reserves is
“best in class”
Page The Geomodeling Network – Sponsored by Blueback Reservoir www.blueback-reservoir.com
17
18. The Geomodeling Network Newsletter March 2009
Page The Geomodeling Network – Sponsored by Blueback Reservoir www.blueback-reservoir.com
18
19. The Geomodeling Network Newsletter March 2009
Page The Geomodeling Network – Sponsored by Blueback Reservoir www.blueback-reservoir.com
19
20. The Geomodeling Network Newsletter March 2009
Requests for the newsletter No5
The next newsletter is planned for a May 2009 release, so please send any
articles to me at the following email address for inclusion
(mitch.sutherland@blueback-reservoir.com).
Finally, please take advantage of the Geomodeling Network discussion board on
LinkedIn to initiate comments on any Geomodeling subject of interest to you, or
to respond to any of the articles in this newsletter – all I ask is that you respect
other people’s opinions.
Fin
Page The Geomodeling Network – Sponsored by Blueback Reservoir www.blueback-reservoir.com
20