Appendix 1

Petrophysical Report

PRELIMINARY PETROPHYSICAL EVALUATION

Operator: COYOTE OIL AND GAS LIMITED
Field: BLACKWELL
Well: WILEY7
Date: FEBRUARY 2015

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

Petrophysics: A Practical Guide, First Edition. Steve Cannon.

2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2016 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 Wiley7
Field Blackwell
Operator Coyote
Block 20/15
Country UKLAND
Elevation 33.2m
TD Driller (MD) 2160m
Top Interpretation Interval 2044m
Base Interpretation Interval 2161m
Bit Size 12.25ins
Mud Weight 8.0lb/g
RM and Temperature 3.00ohmm 80.0C
RMF and Temperature 3.00ohmm 80.0C
RMC and Temperature 3.00ohmm 80.0F
Delta T Shale 100.00s/ft
RhoB Shale 2.55g/cm3
PhiN Shale 35p.u.
GR Min/Max 10GAPI 90GAPI
BHT 120.00F
Rw and Temperature 0.062ohmm 80.0C
m and n 1.8 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 esti-
mated 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

comprising interbedded sands, shales and coals. The penetrated sequence
is 117m thick and made up of the following units:
a. 20442060m Wiley A Sand Member
The A Sand forms the uppermost and most productive sand in the
main field. It consists of an upward coarsening sequence of deposits
typical of deposition in beach and barrier bar environments. The unit
can be up to 30m thick and have a net to gross of 40100%. In the
main field, average porosity is 16% and permeability ranges between
50 and 500mD. The uppermost part of the unit may be heavily
cemented, indicative of the change to deeper marine sedimentation
b. 20602071m Wiley Shale Member
The Wiley Shale is a fieldwide horizon that separates the Wiley A
Sand from the underlying Wiley B Sand. The unit comprises 815m of
fossiliferous shale and represents a major drowning event.
c. 20712086m Wiley B Sand Member
The Wiley B Sand is typically 1520m thick with a net to gross ratio of
40100%. It generally consists of up to three distinct upward coars-
ening subunits starting with a finegrained transgressive siltstone
sandstone rich in siderite and shelly debris. Above it are finegrained
sandstones that pass upwards into clean, mediumgrained cross
bedded sands typical of a beach or barrier deposit. The sands are
generally of good quality although away from the main structure their
presence is less predictable.
d. 20862161m Wiley Coal Member
The lowermost member of the Wiley Formation comprises an
intercalated sequence of sandstones, siltstones, shales and coals. The
unit varies in thickness across the field and this well has the thinnest
penetrated sequence to date. The typical net to gross ratio is 620%,
with commonly three or four discrete sandstones recorded that are
interpreted as poorly connected shoestring bodies. The sandstones
have sharp erosive bases that fine upwards into mottled silty
deposits. These interbedded deposits were laid down in a freshwater
swamp cut by alluvial channels. At the top of the sequence is a
welldeveloped coal, the Wiley Coal, that represents and extensive,
lowlying swamp.
2. Data Preparation
The log data used for the interpretation of the reservoir interval in Wiley7
are fit for purpose but limited: the log data were acquired as Run 2 of the well.
The following logs with value ranges and average value are presented in
TableA1.2.
172 Appendix 1

Table A1.2 Available wireline log data from Wiley7.

Curve name Curve category Curve minimum Curve maximum Average

MD Measured depth (m) 2040 2160

BS Bit size (in) 12.25 12.25
CALI Calliper (in) 11.82 19.91 13.15
GR Gamma ray (API) 0.80 125 54.0
RHOB Bulk density (g/cm3) 1.47 2.71 2.35
DRHO Density correction 0.12 0.26 0.08
DT Sonic (s/ft) 51.5 124.4 77.1
NPHI Neutron porosity (p.u.) 2.17 56.3 25.0
ILD Deep induction (ohmm) 3.45 73.71 11.34
LLD Laterolog deep (ohmm) 2.922 158.60 16.565
LLS Laterolog shallow (ohmm) 2.48 103.63 14.146
MSFL Micro resistivity (ohmm) 0.517 214.37 15.481

Overall log quality is acceptable, although there are significant borehole

sections where the density correction is unacceptable and the sonic porosity
has been substituted. A minimal amount of editing of raw data has been
undertaken and there are no significant depth shifts required. FigureA1.1
presents a composite of the primary raw data input for the analysis.

Lithology Porosity logs Resistivity profile

M. DEPTH (m)

Sonic (DT) Bulk Density (RHOB)

140 (u8/f) 40 1.95 (g/cc) 2.95
Caliper (CALI) Neutron Porosity (NPHI) MSFL
6 (in) 16 45 (%) 15 0.2 (ohmm) 2000
Gamma Ray (CALI) Density correction (DRHO) ILD
0 (GAPI) 150 0.25 (g/cc) 0.25 0.2 (ohmm) 2000

2100

Figure A1.1 Composite log over the Wiley Formation interval in Wiley7.
 Appendix 1 173

2.1 Environmental corrections

Formation temperature was taken from the densityneutron
combination log run, as this was the maximum value measured and
coincident with the regional temperature gradient. The mean surface
temperature was taken as 14.7C, typical for this location and season.
The gamma ray, density, neutron and resistivity logs were all
corrected for borehole effects using the appropriate correction algo-
rithms provided by the service company and built into the software.
Invasion corrections were also made using mud resistivity data and a
formation salinity of 35,000ppm, equivalent to a formation resistivity
of 0.062ohm m at 80C.
3. Log analysis
Log analysis has been done in the Terrasciences TLog Version 2 software.
Both quick look and detailed interpretation workflows have been
applied; however, only the latter is reported here. The Wiley Formation
has been interpreted as a single unit; it may be appropriate at a later stage
to subdivide the interval should more core data become available.
3.1 Shale volume estimation
Vsh has been estimated from the gamma ray log using a simple min/
max approach derived from a histogram display of values over the
interpretation interval. The minimum, clean sand value is taken as
10API and the maximum shale value as 90API representing the
bulk of the data and ignoring insignificant tails (FigureA1.2).
3.2 Archie parameters
The fieldwide Archie parameters have been established from core
data and are used in this analysis: a = 1, m = 1.8, n = 1.8.
3.3 Formation water resistivity
Formation water resistivity has been obtained from water samples
taken by RFT in the main field, as there is no waterbearing sand
penetrated by the well. Formation water salinity is 35,000ppm chlo-
rides, equivalent to a formation resistivity of 0.062ohm m at 80C.
3.4 Matrix, shale and fluid properties
Matrix properties were estimated from the neutrondensity cross
plot and from core data taken from well Wiley2. Grain density is
2.65g/cm3 in the sandstone.
Shale characteristics were reviewed by examining plots of Vsh
against density, sonic and neutron logs to estimate limiting values
where Vsh= 1. Shale points for each log are given as follows:
RHOBsh = 2.55g/cm3
DTsh = 100s/ft
PhiNsh = 35p.u.
Shale corrections were automatically made in the porosity
calculation.
174 Appendix 1

Total values: 768 Skewness: 0.06428 Arith. mean: 54.04

Within range: 768 Variance: 756.32 Median: 59.12
Geom. mean: 41.4 kurtosis: 0.7087 Mode: 75.000
Standard deviation: 27.501 Min. of data: 0.8 Max. of data: 125.6
768

11

97 100

Cumulative count
84
Sample count

57 55

43 45 44
40
33 33 31

20 19
17
12 13
7
2 3 2
00

0 30 60 90 120 150
GR[Unknown];1 (GAPI) - Gamma Ray

Figure A1.2 Gamma ray histogram plot for Wiley Formation interval in Wiley7.

Hydrocarbons are present in the well and the logs should be

corrected before using them to estimate porosity. Apparent fluid
density was generated by regression analysis of overburden
corrected core porosity and logmeasured density over the
corresponding reservoir interval, in this case a comparison between
well Wiley2 and the subject well. The regression was confined to
intervals of clean sand only using the following constraints:

Calliper-bit size < 2 in and Vsh ( GR ) < 0.15

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

for intervals where neither density alone nor neutrondensity

combination returned a sensible solution. The washedout sections
were primarily in the shales and coals of the Wiley Coal Member.
Density porosity (DEN) was estimated using the shale and hydro-
carboncorrected density log values in the following equation:
matrix corrected
DEN =
matrix fluid

Neutrondensity porosity (ND) was evaluated from hydrocarbon

and shalecorrected density and neutron logs using a mathematical
solution to the conventional neutrondensity crossplot in Terrastation
using the fluid and matrix parameters described earlier.

Porosity Selection Criteria

A comparison of the different methods showed broad conformance
although the sonic porosity was generally more conservative. Where
the borehole constraint (calliper bit size <2 in) was met, the neutron
density porosity was used; elsewhere the sonic porosity was substi-
tuted. This approach gives a robust measure of total porosity in the
reservoir interval. Effective porosity can be calculated from the total
porosity and the claybound water saturation:

E = ( 1 Swc )T

and Swc is the saturation of claybound water calculated from

TshVsh
Swc =
T
or

E = T shVsh

3.6 Saturation estimation

The water saturation was evaluated using both the Archie equation
and the modified Simandoux total shale relationship.
Archie:
1
aRw n
Sw = m
Rt
Simandoux:
1
aR ( 1 V ) V aR ( 1 V ) 2 2 V aR ( 1 V )
Sw = w m sh
+ sh wm sh

sh w sh

R t 2 Rsh 2 m
Rsh

 M. DEPTH (m)

Major Petra

BVW-OK
1 (frac) 0
Micro Spherically
Caliper (CALI) Focussed Log (MSFL) Bulk Density (RHOB) PHIE-OK
6 (in) 16 0.2 (ohmm) 2000 1.95 (g/cc) 2.95 1 (frac) 0

Gamma ray (GR) Deep Induction (ILD) Neutron Porosity (NPHI) SW-OK Sandstone (SS)
0 (GAPI) 150 0.2 (ohmm) 2000 45 (%) 15 1 (frac) 0 1 (frac) 0

TOP WILEY A

2050

TOP WILEY MID SHALE

TOP WILEY B

TOP WILEY COAL

2100

2150

BASE WILEY FORMATION

Figure A1.3 CPI of Wiley Formation interval in Wiley7.

 Appendix 1 177

Table A1.3 Final petrophysical interpretation of the Wiley Formation interval in Wiley7.

Net
Unit Interval (m) reservoir(m) Net:gross Net pay total Vsh Sw

Wiley A Sand 20442060 15.39 0.953 8.99 0.144 0.07 0.26

Wiley MidShale 20602071 Nonreservoir
Wiley B Sand 20712086 5.57 0.364 2.59 0.126 0.11 0.26
Wiley Coal Member 20862161 15.09 0.200 2.59 0.130 0.18 0.26
Wiley Formation 20442161 36.0 0.31 14.2 0.138 0.10 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.