A reservoir engineer and geoscientist establish model purpose against an outcrop analogue
approach tends to result in large, detailed models
(generally working at the limit of the available
software/hardware), which are cumbersome to
update and difficult to pass hand-to-hand as peo-
ple move between jobs. Significant effort can be
invested simply in the on-going maintenance of
these models, to the point that the need for the
model ceases to be questioned and the purpose of
the model is no longer apparent. In the worst
case, the modelling technology has effectively
been used just to satisfy an urge for technical
rigour in the lead up to a business decision -
simply 'modelling for comfort'.
We argue that the route to happiness lies with
the second approach: building fit-for-purpose
models which are equally capable of creating
comfort or discomfort around a business decision.
Choosing the second approach (fit-for-purpose
modelling) immediately raises the question of
Modelling for Comfort?
There are two broad schools of thought on the
purpose of models:
1. To provide a 3D, digital representation of a
hydrocarbon reservoir, which can be built and
maintained as new data becomes available, and
used to support on-going lifecycle needs such
as volumetric updates, well planning and, via
reservoir simulation, production forecasting.
2. There is little value in maintaining a single
'field model'. Instead, build and maintain a
field database, from which several fit-for-pur-
pose models can be built quickly to support
The first approach seems attractive, especially
if a large amount of effort is invested in the first
build prior to a major investment decision. How-
the 'all-singing, all-dancing'