Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Petrophysical Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Summary
Objectives
1. Reservoir Description
2. Data Preparation
3. Log Analysis
3.1 Shale volume estimation
3.2 Archie parameters
3.3 Formation water resistivity
3.4 Matrix density
3.5 Porosity estimation
3.6 Saturation estimation
4. Summary of results
170
Appendix 1
Summary
Well Wiley7 was drilled during NovemberDecember 2014 to appraise the
Blackwell Group in a new fault block to the SW of the main field. The well
reached a total depth of 2160m in the Blackwell shale, having penetrated
177m of hydrocarbonbearing Wiley Formation. The reservoir comprises sands,
shales and coal deposits typical of the regional coastaldeltaic depositional
model (TableA1.1).
Table A1.1 Wiley7 header information.
Well
Field
Operator
Block
Country
Elevation
TD Driller (MD)
Top Interpretation Interval
Base Interpretation Interval
Bit Size
Mud Weight
RM and Temperature
RMF and Temperature
RMC and Temperature
Delta T Shale
RhoB Shale
PhiN Shale
GR Min/Max
BHT
Rw and Temperature
m and n
Wiley7
Blackwell
Coyote
20/15
UKLAND
33.2m
2160m
2044m
2161m
12.25ins
8.0lb/g
3.00ohmm
3.00ohmm
3.00ohmm
100.00s/ft
2.55g/cm3
35p.u.
10GAPI
120.00F
0.062ohmm
1.8
80.0C
80.0C
80.0F
90GAPI
80.0C
1.8
The nettogross ratio in the well is ~40% with an average net sand porosity
of 13.8% and a net water saturation of ~22%. Permeability has not been estimated for this well. No core was acquired in the well; however, the general
field parameters established in Wiley2 are applied to this interpretation.
Objectives
Well Wiley7 was drilled to appraise the nature and hydrocarbon potential of
the Wiley Formation in a separate compartment of the Blackwell Field.
Sufficient fieldwide data already exist, making minimum data acquisition a
key objective: no cores were cut and the logging suite was simplified from
previous wells.
Appendix 1 171
1. Reservoir Description
The Wiley Formation is part of the Blackwell Group; the regional
depositional model is of a sequence of coastaldeltaic sediments
172
Appendix 1
Curve category
Curve minimum
Curve maximum
Average
MD
BS
CALI
GR
RHOB
DRHO
DT
NPHI
ILD
LLD
LLS
MSFL
2040
12.25
11.82
0.80
1.47
0.12
51.5
2.17
3.45
2.922
2.48
0.517
2160
12.25
19.91
125
2.71
0.26
124.4
56.3
73.71
158.60
103.63
214.37
13.15
54.0
2.35
0.08
77.1
25.0
11.34
16.565
14.146
15.481
140
6
0
Sonic (DT)
(u8/f)
40
Caliper (CALI)
(in)
16
Gamma Ray (CALI)
150
(GAPI)
Porosity logs
M. DEPTH (m)
Lithology
Resistivity profile
MSFL
(ohmm)
2000
ILD
(ohmm)
2000
2100
Figure A1.1 Composite log over the Wiley Formation interval in Wiley7.
Appendix 1 173
174
Appendix 1
Skewness: 0.06428
Variance: 756.32
kurtosis: 0.7087
Min. of data: 0.8
768
11
100
Cumulative count
97
Sample count
84
57
55
45
43
44
33 33
40
31
20
17
19
12
2
0
13
30
60
90
GR[Unknown];1 (GAPI) - Gamma Ray
7
2
120
00
150
Figure A1.2 Gamma ray histogram plot for Wiley Formation interval in Wiley7.
The regression should be carried out for both oilleg and waterleg
separately, but in this case there is no waterbearing sand penetrated.
The apparent oil density is 0.81g/cm3 and the default water density
for the field is 1.03g/cm3. The hydrocarbon corrections were carried
out automatically in the porosity calculation.
3.5 Porosity estimation
Initially two porosity estimations were made using the density log
alone and the neutrondensity combination; this was because of
observed washouts in the well. A third, sonic porosity, was calculated
Appendix 1 175
DEN =
matrix corrected
matrix fluid
E = ( 1 Swc )T
TshVsh
T
or
E = T shVsh
Simandoux:
aRw n
Sw =
m
Rt
1
aR ( 1 V ) V aR ( 1 V ) 2 2 V aR ( 1 V )
sh
w
sh
sh
sh
Sw = w m
+ sh wm
m
2
R
R
R
2
sh
t
sh
16
Major Petra
M. DEPTH (m)
Caliper (CALI)
(in)
0.2
(GAPI)
Micro Spherically
Focussed Log (MSFL)
(ohmm)
150
(ohmm)
2000
(g/cc)
(%)
PHIE-OK
1
2.95
BVW-OK
(frac)
15 1
(frac)
(frac)
Sandstone (SS)
SW-OK
0
(frac)
0
TOP WILEY A
2050
TOP WILEY MID SHALE
TOP WILEY B
2100
2150
Appendix 1 177
Table A1.3 Final petrophysical interpretation of the Wiley Formation interval in Wiley7.
Unit
Interval (m)
Net
reservoir(m)
Wiley A Sand
Wiley MidShale
Wiley B Sand
Wiley Coal Member
Wiley Formation
20442060
20602071
20712086
20862161
20442161
15.39
Nonreservoir
5.57
15.09
36.0
Net:gross
Net pay
total
Vsh
Sw
0.953
8.99
0.144
0.07
0.26
0.364
0.200
0.31
2.59
2.59
14.2
0.126
0.130
0.138
0.11
0.18
0.10
0.26
0.26
0.26
Values for the Archie parameters and formation resistivity have been
described earlier and can be used directly in the software algorithms.
A comparison of the Archie and Simandoux results shows a strong
correspondence in the clean sand intervals, as expected. The Archie
equation overestimates water saturation in the shaly intervals; therefore,
the Simandoux equation was used throughout.
A bulk water volume (BVW) was calculated from the interpreted water
saturation and porosity primarily for display purposes.
4. Summary of results
The final results are presented as a computerprocessed interpretation
(CPI) (FigureA1.3). The following cutoffs were applied to establish the
net reservoir rock in the interval:
Volume of shale <0.30
Water saturation <0.40
Total porosity <0.25
The net reservoir in the total interval (117m) is 36m, giving a net to
gross ratio of 31%: net pay, based on the cutoffs, is 14.2m. Within the net
reservoir, mean porosity is 13.8%, mean Vsh is 1% and mean Sw is 26%.
TableA1.3 shows the same information for each interval.