Improved Stochastic Simulation Using Stratigraphic Forward Modeling: A Case Study of the Lithological Distribution of Tide-Dominated Estuary in JE-AW Oil Field, Ecuador

  • Kexin ZhangEmail author
  • Hong Huo
  • Heping Chen
  • Xuepeng Wan
  • Huiying Liu
  • Chaoqian Zhang
  • Yusheng Wang
  • Songwei Guo
  • Zheng Meng
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Series in Geomechanics and Geoengineering book series (SSGG)


Stochastic simulation of lithology is critical in geological modeling, and the result quality relies on the well data analysis. The traditional method may involve too many uncertainties due to the limited wells. This paper introduces a new method to improve the simulation of lithology distribution of tide-dominated estuary using probability volume generated by stratigraphic forward modeling as key input for trend model. Based on the core analysis and investigation on regional geology, the stratigraphic forward modeling approach generates an initial model by using the sequence stratigraphic scheme. And the sensitivity analysis provides an indication of adjusting the influencing parameters which control the sand and shale distribution. The models will be compared with the well data, geological concept, and seismic attribute. The selected model will be resampled into geological grid to generate the trend volume combined with seismic inversion data. Further, the lithology distribution can be simulated by using stochastic method with the trend volume. This approach has been successfully applied in JE-AW oil field to improve the geological model of M1. Typical tidal sedimentary structures, such as mud drapes, and wavy bedding shown in core and overall upward fining shown in logs, reveal the tide-dominated estuary environment during the deposition of M1. Three sub-zones (layers) of M1 are identified and correlated. Based on the sensitivity analysis, the sediment input and subsidence is adjusted for reliable stratigraphic forward modeling. The trend model is generated by inputting the result from stratigraphic forward modeling and seismic inversion. Finally, the lithology distribution is simulated using the trend model. This method improves the lithology stochastic simulation of tide-dominated estuary honoring the well and seismic data. This method reduces the uncertainties of stochastic modeling caused by limited wells and improves the predictability of lithology model.


Stratigraphic forward modeling Tide-dominated estuary Stochastic simulation Lithology distribution 



We would like to thank Yin Xiangdong, Yang Jinxiu, and Tang Mingming (China University of Petroleum, Huadong) for supporting the stratigraphic forward modeling and sedimentary analysis. They also provide very useful suggestions for the improvement of this paper.


  1. 1.
    Xinghe Y (2008) A review of development course and prospect of petroleum reservoir characterization and stochastic modelling. Earth Sci Front 15(1):1–15Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yong H, Xinghe Y, Shengli L, Gongyang C, Yanli Z, Zhaopu G (2014) Improving the accuracy of geological model by using seismic forward and inversion techniques. Pet Explor Dev 41(2):190–197Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Shenghe W, Ying L, Zheng F, Yanchun S, Wei Y, Guoming Z, Li G (2003) 3D stochastic modeling of sedimentary microfacies with geological and seismic data. J Palaeogeogr 5(4):439–449Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Xinghe Y, Shengli L, Shu Z, Jianyang C, Guowei H (2008) The constraining method on stochastic modeling for fluvial petroleum reservoir controlled by depositional facies integrating wells with seismic data. Earth Sci Front 15(4):33–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gongyang C, Yong H, Yanli Z, Donghong L, Wei L, Wei Z (2012) Methods and practices of reservoir geologic modelling constrained by seismic impedance. Earth Sci Front 19(2):67–73Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Xiang L (1994) Computer simulation of sedimentary basin fill. Geoscience 8(4):393–402Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Weipeng Y, Hongwen D, Hongliang W (2004) Progress in computer modeling of sequence stratigraphy. Oil Gas Geol 25(5):596–602Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Xiangdong Y, Wenhui H, Shuangfang L, Pengfei W, Wei W, Lu X, Tongyun Y (2016) The connectivity of reservoir sand bodies in the Liaoxi sag, Bohai Bay basin: Insights from three-dimensional stratigraphic forward modelling. Mar Pet Geol 77:1081–1094CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Weili Y, Yi W, Zhongchen Z, Chen L, Jingchang L (2017) A three-dimensional numerical sedimentary simulation model for the lower-middle Ordovician of Shunnan area, Tarim basin. Acta Sedimentol Sin 35(1):117–123Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shiwang C, Zaixing J, Binbin T, Dejun X (2012) New understanding of sedimentation and reservoir characteristics of M1 zone in Cretaceous strata of Oriente Basin, Ecuador. Earth Sci Front 19(1):182–186Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shiwang C, Zaixing J, Jijun T, Lanzhi Q, Xiaolin X (2008) Sedimentary characteristics in the South Block of Oriente Basin, Ecuador. Offshore Oil 28(1):32Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zengyong D, Wenxue C, Yanlou G, Yi L, Shiwang C, Yingjie Y, Boyu Z (2000) Tidal microfacies of Napo formation of Horm-Nantu oilfield, Oriente Basin, Ecuador. Marine Geol Quat Geol 84(5):652–654Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chang L, Qin Z, Yinfu X, Jingyu Q, Jiefu S, Xiaohan M (2014) Sequence stratigraphic framework and development model of the Cretaceous in Northeast Block, Oriente Basin, Ecuador. Acta Sedimentol Sin 32(6):1123–1131Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cross TA (1994) High-resolution stratigraphic correlation from the perspective of base-level cycles and sediment accommodation. In: Proceeding of Northwestern Europian sequence stratigraphy congress[c], Holland, Elsevier, 1994, pp 105–123Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hongwen D (1995) A new school of thought in sequence stratigraphic studies in U.S.: high-resolution sequence stratigraphy. Oil Gas Geol 16(2):89–97Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jinfeng W, Benzhong X, Yuanqi S, Liqiang Y (2011) Palaeobathymetric reconstruction based on natural gamma ray spectrometry logging data-by taking Bachu formation in region 4 of Tahe oilfield for example. J Oil and Gas Technol 33(6):98–103Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Minfang W, Yangquan J, Jianye R, Weifeng Y, Jiangfeng Y, Zhicheng X (2006) Method and thinking of Palaeogeomorphologic reconstruction in sedimentary basin—example from depositional stage of Xishanyao Formation in Junggar Basin. Xinjiang Geol 24(3):326–330Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Min J, Shangxu W, Shuangquan C (2006) Application of optimum seismic attributes in development of oilfield. OGP 41(2):183–187Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yonggang W, Dong X, Youxi Y, Wei L (2003) Application of seismic attribute analysis technology in reservoir prediction. J Univ Pet China 27(3):30–32Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kaiyan W, Qingyan X, Guifang Z, Moucun C, Peihai L (2013) Summary of seismic attribute analysis. Prog Geophys 28(2):815–823Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Huajun G, Qingcheng L (2008) The discussion of Earthquake attribute technology’s history, present situation and development tendency. Geophys Geochem Explor 32(1):19–22Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kexin Zhang
    • 1
    Email author
  • Hong Huo
    • 2
  • Heping Chen
    • 1
  • Xuepeng Wan
    • 3
    • 4
  • Huiying Liu
    • 1
    • 5
  • Chaoqian Zhang
    • 1
  • Yusheng Wang
    • 1
  • Songwei Guo
    • 1
  • Zheng Meng
    • 1
  1. 1.Research Institute of Petroleum Exploration and DevelopmentBeijingChina
  2. 2.Petroleum Exploration and Production Research Institute China Petroleum & Chemical Corporation (SINOPEC)BeijingChina
  3. 3.China National Oil and Gas Exploration and Development CorporationBeijingChina
  4. 4.Andes Petroleum Ecuador Ltd.QuitoEcuador
  5. 5.Sinopec Star Petroleum Co., Ltd.BeijingChina

Personalised recommendations