There is no charge. Non-members of the CSPG are also welcome. Please bring your lunch. For details or to present a talk in the future, please contact Weishan Ren via email at

Geomodeling Committee

Weishan Ren | Chairperson         Tom Cox                      Hayley Silberg             Eric Niven 
David Garner | Co-chair              Anthony Wain              Amir Hosseini              Sonia Brar 

Olena Babak                              Damien Thenin            Sasan Ghanbari           Darcy Novak

Upcoming Division Talks

Decision of Stationarity in Geomodeling: Using Trends, Local Anisotropy, and Automatic Facies Groupings 
Speaker: Dr. Jeff Boisvert, Centre for Computational Geostatistics, University of Alberta 

Tuesday February 28, 2017- 12:00 Noon 
Husky Conference Room A, 3rd Floor, +30 level, South Tower, 707 8th Ave SW, Calgary AB 

Stationarity is an assumption made to permit geostatistical uncertainty characterizations from geological datasets. However, many geological domains are non-stationary – that is, the statistical properties (mean, variogram) of the variable of interest vary throughout the domain. Moreover, the actual facies or categorical groupings of samples can be uncertain.  Advances in automatic sample grouping using novel spatial clustering algorithms will be discussed.  Accounting for non-stationarity with modified geostatistical modeling workflows allows practitioners to generate accurate, unbiased and geologically reasonable models. This allows for better characterization of the contained resources and a more realistic assessment of the risks related to further development. 

Trends in the mean are the most common form of non-stationarity resulting from geological processes; for example, vertical facies proportion curves often show non-stationarity in proportions. The main considerations for modeling with a trend are: 1) is a trend required? 2) how is the trend modeled from the data? and 3) how does the modeling technique incorporate the trend? These will be discussed in the context of common modeling techniques such as sequential indicator simulation (SIS), truncated pluriGaussian simulation (TPGS) and sequential Gaussian simulation (SGS). 

Trends in the mean are important, but trends in the variogram are often overlooked.  In this case, locally varying anisotropy (LVA) in the variogram must be modeled.  The main considerations for modeling with a trend in the variogram are: 1) is there LVA? 2) is there a simple way to incorporate LVA such as stratigraphic coordinates or other transformations? 3) can we model complex LVA? and 4) How do we incorporate complex LVA features?  LVA can be incorporated into numerical models through various methods of increasing complexity depending on the form of the LVA and the type of information available to model LVA. 

All modeling methods require a decision of sample grouping from which to infer basic statistics, trends and complex curvilinearity. This initial decision precedes much of the typical geostatistical workflow and has far reaching implications on model quality and ultimately decision making with geostatistical models.  

Dr. Jeff Boisvert is an associate professor in the School of Mining and Petroleum Engineering at the University of Alberta and co-directs the Centre for Computational Geostatistics (CCG).  Dr.Boisvert’s research focus is on numerical modeling and uncertainty management, he currently has over 50 publications.

Unconventional fracture modeling with new seismic to stimulation workflows: toward understanding the science behind shale

Speaker: Venkateshwaran Ramanathan | Technology Integration Group Leader / Stimulation Domain Manager - Schlumberger Canada

Thursday, March 30th, 2017 - 12:00 Noon

Husky Conference Room A, 3rd Floor, +30 level, South Tower, 707 8th Ave SW, Calgary, Alberta

Stimulating Shale Gas Wells has become a mundane activity with very little or no customized engineering. As the industry has focused on reducing costs and increasing efficiencies of operations, there has been seldom time for fracture design or well positioning engineering.  The lack of any horizontal logging information and the assumption that rock quality does not change has led to spreadsheets providing the fracture designs based on mass balance computations. This results in the same fracture treatment being pumped stage after stage, well after well. The industry has not been modelling the complex fractures being generated and has moved away from fundamental fracture design. This trend has resulted in unexplained large variation in the productivities of the wells and a significant percentage of the wells drilled in unconventional formations not reaching expected profitability.  
This talk details the planning, design and evaluation processes in the application of a new workflow called the Unconventional Reservoir Optimized Completion workflow. This revolutionary seismic to stimulation workflow migrates, a well centric process to a reservoir centric process. By integrating the well logs, and seismic attributes into a model of reservoir parameters, regional geomechanical stresses and local nature fracture networks, a significant step change in induced fracture modelling has been achieved. These models, when validated using micro-seismic and calibrated with production, become a powerful predictive tool for fracture stage placement and even well positioning and spacing. Examples of the application of unconventional fracture models with the ability to model complex fractures and the impact on production experiences and lessons learned will be presented. 

Figure 1: An unconventional horizontal well with predicted complex hydraulic fractures, calibrated with micro-seismic events.

Mr. Venkateshwaran (Venky) has been working with hydraulic fracturing stimulations and completions for Schlumberger since 1998 in various locations around North America. Since 2013, he is working to improve the production return on investment of hydraulic fracturing operations in the unconventional plays of the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin. Venky has a Master’s degree in Petroleum Engineering from West Virginia University in USA and a Bachelor’s degree in Chemical Engineering from Annamalai University in India.

Division Profile
The mandate of the Geomodeling Division is to provide CSPG members with opportunities for education and information related to technical developments in the subject areas of geomathematics and computer technologies as they are used in the pursuit of petroleum exploration and development. As a main contribution of the division, technical luncheon presentations are held once a month, usually on the last Wednesday of the month. 

The subjects that are presented in these technical talks include, for example, The latest developments in geomathematical applications, Geological modeling technology, Geostatistical approaches to modeling and risk analysis, Geological case studies using computer technology and the benefits, Digital data organization - storage and retrieval. In addition, ad hoc forums may be organized where members can discuss geomathematical and geological computer issues with experts in the field.The Geomodeling Division does not endorse or promote the use of specific commercial software products, nor does it perform any testing or comparative studies of such products.We do encourage volunteers to present public talks on case histories that illustrate the use of technology and methods.

The success of the Division depends on volunteer participation. CSPG members are encouraged to attend the activities of the Geomodeling Division and to be involved in organizing these activities. Division meetings are held once a month over lunch. If you are interested in joining this committee or if you have suggestions for luncheon talks or other activities, please contact any members of the committee.

Supported by: