Single Well Study - Well B

James Bowkett

Contents
List of Figures.................................................................................................................................2
List of Tables..................................................................................................................................2
List of Equations............................................................................................................................2
Acknowledgements...............................................................................................................................4
Executive Summary...............................................................................................................................4
Introduction...........................................................................................................................................4
Core Description....................................................................................................................................4
Structural/Regional Geology.................................................................................................................8
Petrophysics........................................................................................................................................10
Quality Control............................................................................................................................11
Petrophysical Summary – (Figure 23)..........................................................................................11
Core Correlation / Core Shift.......................................................................................................12
Borehole Corrections...................................................................................................................12
Log Analyses................................................................................................................................14
Shale Volume...............................................................................................................................15
Porosity........................................................................................................................................15
Permeability/Permeability Prediction from Porosity...................................................................17
Water Saturation.........................................................................................................................18
Net Pay Analysis...........................................................................................................................19
Poro/Perm – Excel.......................................................................................................................21
Conclusions..........................................................................................................................................25
References...........................................................................................................................................25
Appendices..........................................................................................................................................26

1
Single Well Study - Well B
James Bowkett

List of Figures
Figure 2- River Cross-Sections: (a) meandering; (b) anastomosing; (c) braided. Allen (1964); Smith
and Smith (1980; Smith and Cant (1982)...............................................................................................5
Figure 1 - Triassic Sherwood Sandstone (Meadows & Beach, 1993).....................................................5
Figure 3 - Reservoir Schematic (McKie et al, 1998) Height 150m..........................................................6
Figure 4 - Sedimentological Description and Interpretation..................................................................7
Figure 5 – Depocentres and structural evolution of Southern England; a) Permo-Triassic b) Jurassic-
Cretaceous c) Cenozoic (Underhill & Stoneley, 1998)...........................................................................8
Figure 6 – N-S Cross-Sections (Present & Late Cretaceous) through Wytch Farm Oilfield illustrating
rotated fault blocks. (Underhill & Stoneley, 1998)................................................................................9
Figure 7 - Original Data........................................................................................................................10
Figure 8 - Logged Section 1639-1949 (C Koeninger). Chris’ logs were used as they coincide with a
large change of GR...............................................................................................................................12
Figure 9 - Which resistivity tool to use?...............................................................................................13
Figure 10- Cross-plot of CPHI vs CKH...................................................................................................17
Figure 11 – Porosity and Permeability Histograms..............................................................................22
Figure 12- Lorenz Plot of Horizontal Permeability...............................................................................23
Figure 13 - Lorenz Plot of Vertical Permeability...................................................................................23
Figure 14 – Cloud Variogram & Directional Variogram........................................................................24
Figure 15 - Sedimentary Log (1631-1636m).........................................................................................26
Figure 16 – Sedimentary Log (1636-1641m)........................................................................................27
Figure 17 - Resistivity (Recieved, Corrected, Rt/Rxo & Diameter of Invasion).....................................28
Figure 18 - Shale Volume (Vsh)............................................................................................................29
Figure 19 - Neutron-Porosity Cross-plot..............................................................................................30
Figure 20 - Neutron-Sonic Cross-plot...................................................................................................31
Figure 21 - Porosity Analysis Curves....................................................................................................32
Figure 22 - Permeability Analysis.........................................................................................................33
Figure 23 - Water Saturation, Hydrocarbon Saturation and Moveable Hydrocarbon Saturation........34
Figure 24 - Final Composite (with Gross Reservoir & Net Pay)............................................................35

List of Tables
Table 1 - Petrophysical Log Suite for Well B.......................................................................................10
Table 2 - Net Pay (1610-1730).............................................................................................................20
Table 3- Net Pay (1610-1730)..............................................................................................................20
Table 4 - Net Pay (1620-1650) Reservoir Interval................................................................................21
Table 5 - Statistical Data for the Interval 1620-1704m........................................................................36
Table 6 - Statistical Data as resampled...............................................................................................36
Table 7 - Permeability & Anisotropy....................................................................................................37
Table 8 - Constants..............................................................................................................................38

List of Equation

2
Single Well Study - Well B
James Bowkett

Equation 1 – Preferred Resistivity Tool?..............................................................................................13

Equation 2 – Rw Calculation................................................................................................................14
Equation 3 - Vshale (GR Index)............................................................................................................15
Equation 4 – Acoustic Porosity............................................................................................................15
Equation 5 – Density Porosity..............................................................................................................16
Equation 6 - Tixier Permeability...........................................................................................................17
Equation 7 - Timur Permeability..........................................................................................................17
Equation 8 - Coates Permeability........................................................................................................17
Equation 9 - Archie Equation...............................................................................................................18
Equation 10 – Indonesian Equation.....................................................................................................18
Equation 11 - Simandoux Equation......................................................................................................19

3
Single Well Study - Well B
James Bowkett

Acknowledgements
Hannah Beattie, Chris Koeninger, Sunday (James) Odunuga, Alessandros Tasianas, Jose
Estaquio Pampuri-Barbossa, Shuzhe Tian, Arfan Ali, Patrick Corbett.

Executive Summary
Lithology: Sherwood Sandstone (Triassic) terrestrial braided arkosic sandstones. Deposited
Proximal to source, elsewhere Aeolian influence is important.
Reservoir Type: Fluvial Jigsaw/Layer cake. Lateral flow unimpeded over 10s/100s of metres.
Vertical flow baffled over 10s/100s metres.
Gross Interval Sand: 120 metres
Net Pay: 18.50 metres

Introduction
This report aims to evaluate the Sherwood Sandstone as drilled in Well B. It contains a core
evaluation; sedimentological and environmental interpretation as well as petrophysical
evaluation of logs and statistical analysis of core plug data; porosity and permeability. By
these means it is hoped to qualitatively evaluate the expected performance of the well in
terms of the pay interval and moveable hydrocarbon. Flow rates are beyond the scope of
this report.

Core Description
The full logged section is 40 metres (1621-1661m) of which the author of this report logged
the interval between 1631-1641m (Figure 4 and Appendices; Figures 14 & 15). The author
had access to the logs of other which helped in the sedimentological evaluation, and core
correlation. Timely access to the following logs was secured:-
Hannah Beattie (1627-1637m)
James Bowkett (1631-1641m)
Chris Koeninger (1639-1649m)
Sunday (James) Odunuga (1645-1655m)
Alessandros Tasianas (1650-1660m)
Jose Estaquio Pampuri-Barbossa (1652-1662m)

4
Single Well Study - Well B
James Bowkett

The section from 1631-1641 metres shows repeated upward fining cycles of red-brown
arkosic sands with frequent silty intervals, lithic fine grained clasts. An annotated description
is included in the text (Figure 4) and the logs (Figures 14 & 15) themselves are included in
the Appendix. The main lithological facies are coarse granulitic to finer sands, both of which
show evidence of current ripples, and fine grained muds showing evidence of water escape
structures. Bioturbation is observed in both coarse and fine grained sediments, all
sediments are observed to be extensively cemented by irregular carbonate the cement is
isolated and conjoined, rarely vertically and laterally continuous. From this it is interpreted
that cements are of vadose origin.

Figure 2- River Cross-Sections: (a) meandering; (b) anastomosing; (c) braided. Allen (1964);
Smith and Smith (1980; Smith and Cant (1982)

The interval logged is representative of semi-arid

braided fluvial deposition (Figure 1) in a relatively
low lying area proximal to an uplifting orogenic
belt (Figure 2) from which immature sediments
are derived. The arid environment and proximity
to upland areas defined the formation of the
sediments here; during periods of drought
braided rivers will have flowed carrying high
volumes of fine grained and low density material
down river resulting in the formation of braided
channels with associated accretionary structures
and allowing the formation of overbank deposits
which show evidence of bioturbation. During
flood episodes water volumes will have increased Figure 1 - Triassic Sherwood Sandstone
(Meadows & Beach, 1993)
5
Single Well Study - Well B
James Bowkett

several fold causing sheet floods to flow down the width of the valley(s) carrying very large
volumes of mixed material onto the outwash plain. Where dewatering structures are
observed it is interpreted that current energies fell while the flows still contained a high
percentage of water which is observed to have been expelled upwards under the sediment
load. Fine grained sediments represent the subsiding phase of the flood cycle as fine grained
material settles out of suspension while water levels fall. Meadows and Beach (1993) discuss
the Sherwood sandstone of the Irish Sea Basin which they describe as a mixed fluvial, sheet
flood and Aeolian sands the later are not recognised in Well B although some of the quartz
sand may result from fluvial reworking of Aeolian sands.

Figure 3 - Reservoir Schematic (McKie et al, 1998) Height 150m

The section seen in Well B is the same as Zone 80 above

Reservoir architecture (Figure 3) is laterally discontinuous and vertically heterogeneous lying

in fluvial channels and overbanks of the braided river system. Draping muds are unlikely to
seal the reservoir but will provide baffles hindering recovery. The architectural style is
Jigsaw with a significant layer cake influence from sheet flood muds. Porosity may be
adversely affected by clay formation related to the arkose minerals, but the original high
porosity at deposition may be preserved by the cements which formed in the vadose zone
prior to significant compaction. Faults are not observed in the section logged; however the
sediments themselves suggest proximity to actively uplifting areas.

6
Single Well Study - Well B
James Bowkett

Figure 4 - Sedimentological Description and Interpretation

7
Single Well Study - Well B
James Bowkett

Structural/Regional Geology
As a means of discussing the Ceology
of the well in context the Wessex Basin
is here described, the Well B
sediments closely approximate the
sediments of the Wessex Basin
Sherwood Sandstone. The Irish Sea
Basin would also provide a close
analogue. The Geological boundaries
of the Wessex Basin are; to the West
the Armorican and Cornubian Massifs,
to the North the London Platform and
to the South the Central Channel High.
Related basins lie to the North West
and North East; the Bristol Channel
and Weald Basins respectively.

The basins are defined as a series of

post-Variscan sedimentary depo-
Figure 5 – Depocentres and structural
evolution of Southern England; a) Permo- centres (Underhill & Stoneley, 1998)
Triassic b) Jurassic-Cretaceous c) Cenozoic
reflecting Mesozoic intra-cratonic
(Underhill & Stoneley, 1998)
extension across Southern England
and adjacent offshore areas. The
Wessex Basin, in common with other UK basins, records Cenozoic contraction and structural
inversion. Basin evolution is controlled by faults along an E-W trend; these formed a rift
valley between the Pewsey Fault System and the Central Channel High. Basin opening
originated in the West, widening to the East during the Jurassic-Cretaceous and narrowing
during the Cenozoic contraction during which time major anticlines formed during tectonic
inversion, confining the Hampshire Basin.

8
Single Well Study - Well B
James Bowkett

Basins opened by rotational normal

faulting (Figure 6) from Permian -
Cretaceous, filling with increasingly
marine facies which thicken to the
South. Permian & Triassic
continental (red bed), initially filling
intra-montane basins resulting from
the extensional collapse of the
Variscan Orogenic belt followed by
the Penarth Group, a Late Triassic
lagoonal-marine transition (marine
transgression). Jurassic-Cretaceous
fully marine successions are
punctuated by a Cretaceous
unconformity showing a marked tilt
of the basins to the East. Marine
Figure 6 – N-S Cross-Sections (Present & Late
sedimentation resumed with the
Cretaceous) through Wytch Farm Oilfield
illustrating rotated fault blocks. (Underhill & deposition of the Lower Greensand
Stoneley, 1998)
and continued until the Upper
Cretaceous unconformity after which Tertiary near-shore and non-marine facies dominate
East of Dorchester. Inversion formed anticlines with steeply dipping Northern limbs and a
number of normal faults in the south of the area underwent significant inversion.

9
Single Well Study - Well B
James Bowkett

Petrophysics
Electric Logs Core Data
Gamma Ray GR Core Porosity
Caliper CALI Core Horizontal Permeability
Dual Induction Log ILD/ILM Core Vertical Permeability
Dual Laterolog LLD/LLS
Compensated Neutron Log NPHI
Bulk Density RHOB
Sonic (Acoustic Slowness) SONI
Table 1 - Petrophysical Log Suite for Well B

Figu
re 7 - Original Data

10
Single Well Study - Well B
James Bowkett

Quality Control
The well logs are of reasonable quality for the most part but with clear wash-outs below
1730 metres (Figure 7). As this is in the water zone portions of the log below this depth may
be disregarded. The Gamma Ray (GR) tool is observed to be unreliable and may only be
used for qualitative analysis; it is adversely affected by radioactive readings from arkosic
minerals (particularly Potassium Feldspar and Biotite Mica). The Recovered Core depths
(Drillers Depth) are not compatible with the loggers depths on the electrical logs, this is a
result of cable stretch during the logging run, and the core must be shifted (downward) to
allow comparison of logs and core. Sonic logs are likely to be affected by cements in the
formation.

Petrophysical Summary – (Figure 23)

A gross interval of 120 metres was evaluated of a total 170 metre logged interval, of this 21
metres are evaluated as Net Pay. The Net to Gross over this 120 metre interval is 0.15, but
this disregards the position of the oil water contact; when limited to the 30 metres of
recognised may lying above 1650 metres the Net to Gross increases to 0.7.

Following corrections a suite of Petrophysical Analyses were run using the downhole
electrical logs (Table 1). The data was cropped to remove wash-out zones below 1730
metres, the Gamma Ray log was largely disregarded having been used to depth match the
logs and core data. Borehole corrections of resistivity curves were run to provide Rt, Rxo
and depth of invasion (Rint-9b). The resistivity of water was found by the Ratio Method.
Shale volume was found using a curve (Figure 17) derived from the Neutron Density Cross-
plot (Figure 18) as a result of poor readings from the GR curve. Porosity was investigated
using the Neutron Porosity, Density Porosity and Acoustic Porosity, the curve used for
further analyses is the Neutron-Density curve (Figure 17), derived from the N-D Cross-plot
(Figure 18). Various permeability predictors (Figure 21) were run; the Linear curve of the
Terrastation suite matched best and matches the method demonstrated by Arfan Ali. Of the
water saturation curves (Figure 22) the Simandoux Equation was felt to provide the closest
approximation of real water saturation, particularly as it provided a consistent saturation of
the Sxo (invaded zone). Net Pay Analysis (Figure 23) was undertaken using the following
curves; Vsh_ND, Sw_Sm, PHI_ND and K_Linear.

11
Single Well Study - Well B
James Bowkett

Core Correlation / Core Shift

In the interval
1631-1641 there
are no particular
excursions of GR
to indicate either
clean sand or
shale. In the
Interval (Figure
8), logged by
Chris Koeninger,
there are two
clear Gamma Ray
Figure 8 - Logged Section 1639-1949 (C Koeninger). Chris’ logs were
(GR) excursions
used as they coincide with a large change of GR.
(Figure 7)
representing shales/dirty sands which are interpreted to have lower PORO/PERM character
or which are interpreted as sands with particularly high GR and high arkose content. The GR
intervals observed are at about 1649.5 m & 1644.6 m (Figure 7); the plug PORO/PERM
minimums are observed at 1642.70-1644.00 m (Figure 7) and 1646.90-1649.00 m; the
intervals are observed on Chris’ sedimentary log (Figure 8) at 1642.75-1643.8 and 1646.25-
1646.9 {with some core absent...}. Taking into account these values a downward shift of the
core, relative to the wireline data, of 130 cm was thought to be sufficient for the aims of this
report. It would be possible to apply a different shift in other parts of the well, but due to
sampling frequency concerns and time constraints it was decided to use this shift alone.

Borehole Corrections
Borehole corrections account for variations in borehole diameter (CALI – Figure 23) and mud
cake thickness which can affect the reading of electric and radioactive logs. Many tools
include automatic correction of measurements and provide values which do not require
correction. This is the case for the Neutron Porosity (NPHI) logs used to evaluate Well B.
NPHI curves are converted to decimal for the purposes of this report. Gamma Ray (GR) logs
require correction; however GR readings throughout the formation interval in Well B are

12
Single Well Study - Well B
James Bowkett

unreliable as a result of high potassium content in felsic minerals and micas. After correction
GR curves are far too high in this formation and so are disregarded in so far as quantitative
evaluation is concerned. Resistivity (ILD, ILM, LLD, LLS and MSFL) curves have been
corrected for the effect of the borehole and mud cake which interferes with the accurate
reading of the formation and fluids. Corrections are insufficient to accommodate variation
caused by borehole collapse. The resistivity corrections applied:-
 MICROSPHERICALY FOCUSED LATEROLOG (Rxo-3-MSFL)
 DUAL LATEROLOG (Rcor-2)
 DUAL INDUCTION (Rcor-4a)
 LLD-LLS-RXO (Rint-9b)

After application of corrections resistivity logs are

treated as a true representation of resistivity at their
representative depths of investigation. The choice of
resistivity logs for use as representative of Resistivity
of the Invaded Zone (Rxo) and Resistivity of the
Formation (Rt) is decided according to ratio of
Resistivities of mud filtrate (Rmf) and water resistivity Figure 9 - Which resistivity tool to
use?
(Rw), and the gross Rw. Laterolog is the preferred
measure of Resistivity as illustrated (Figure 9 and Equation ?).

R mf 0.029
@ 183 F= =0.644
Rw 0.045
Rw <1
Equation 1 – Preferred Resistivity Tool?

The LLD-LLS-RXO correction also provides a depth of invasion profile for the well which
reflects the invasion depth above the Oil Water Contact. In the water column the depth of
invasion spikes where there are low porosity shales; the Schlumberger manual

13
Single Well Study - Well B
James Bowkett

(Schlumberger, 1989) states “Generally, the lower the formation porosity, the deeper the
invasion.”

14
Single Well Study - Well B
James Bowkett

Log Analyses

Calculation of Water Resistivity (Rw) was undertaken by the Ratio Method as porosity in
the clean sand (~1725m) was not known. This requires knowledge of True/Formation
Resistivity (Rt), Invaded Zone Resistivity (Rxo) and Mud Filtrate Resistivity (Rmf).

Rxo Rmf
=
Rt Rw

Equation 2 – Rw Calculation

1. Clean sand at 1724.14m.

2. Temperature at 0m 64.8F, T at 1816m 138F
3. Temperature Gradient 138F - 64.8F/1816m = 0.403F/m
4. Rmf at 64.8F 0.06 ohmm-1
5. Rmf at 134.3F = 0.06*((64.8+6.77)/(134.3+6.77)) = 0.0304 ohmm -1
6. At 1724.14 Rxo = 0.36; Rt = 0.53; Rmf = 0.304
7. Rw = Rmf*Rt/Rxo = (0.0304*0.53)/0.36 = 0.045
8. Using Chart Gen ? Salinity - 0.045ohmm at 134.3 = ~100,00ppm
N.B. - All values must be corrected to a standard temperature to undertake calculation of Rw
by the ratio method.

Resistivity – Once Rw has been found and resistivity curves corrected, they can be used
qualitatively to evaluate hydrocarbon-water contacts and quantitatively to provide depth of
invasion and water saturation.

Visual/Qualitative Evaluation: Departure of Rxo and Rt occurs at 1655 metres and

represents the Oil Water Contact. Shales above 1621 metres provide a seal for the
hydrocarbon column, there seems to be a transition zone into shales as the Rxo and Rt
curves do not meet in the interval above the oil column. Resistivity curves are used in later
analyses. The Depth of Invasion curve clearly shows the position of shales in the formation,

15
Single Well Study - Well B
James Bowkett

low porosity shales exert a strong imbibing force on water in the drilling mud and cause
deep invasion.

Shale Volume (Vsh) would usually be calculated as a function of Gamma Ray or

Spontaneous Potential using formulas of the form;

GR −GR clean
Vsh=
GR shale −GR clean

Equation 3 - Vshale (GR Index)

However the results from this equation proved unreliable on this occasion, greatly reducing
the Net Pay zone (Vsh-Linear). An alternative method is to use the cross-plots of the
porosity logs and known cutoffs for shales. Of these methods the Neutron-Density (Vsh-ND)
and Density Sonic (Vsh-DS) are felt to provide the best approximation of shale volume, of
these Vsh-ND is preferred as providing a higher Net to Gross. Vsh-DS will be affected by
cementation. Vsh-Resistivity is uniformly low in the pay zone and uniformly high in the
water zone, clearly in error.

Porosity - from acoustic, density or neutron logs. Cements in this formation will tend to
cause lower apparent porosity by acoustic and density tools. Shales and bound water will
raise neutron porosity. Combination of tool responses provides reasonable accuracy.

1. Acoustic - The heavily cemented matrix of this formation means that porosity
derived from the acoustic curve will be in error, cements will increase the velocity of
sound in the sands and reduce apparent porosity. Cements are believed to have
been deposited prior to deep burial and so may preserve porosity. Hydrocarbons
may also slow acoustic waves and artificially raise apparent porosity.

16
Single Well Study - Well B
James Bowkett

t log −t ma
∅=
t f −t ma

Equation 4 – Acoustic Porosity

The acoustic porosity curve PHI_WTA is a good approximation of porosity, but may
read high in the hydrocarbon zone.

2. Density - Tool investigates to a depth of approximately 6 inches which is largely filled

with mud filtrate, in this borehole fluid density was 1.1 g/cc. High bulk densities are
equated with low porosity, calcite cements may raise bulk density and cause a low
apparent porosity.

ρ ma −ρb
∅=
ρ ma −ρb

Equation 5 – Density Porosity

The density porosity curve PHI_rhob1 is a good approximation of porosity but may
be affected by cementation.

3. Neutron - Response reflects hydrogen concentration of the formation, but can be

adversely affected by; lithology, clay content and light hydrocarbons containing a
large proportion of water. The neutron porosity tool makes corrections internally to
provide a Neutron Porosity (NPHI) value. These NPHI should not be used
independent of other logs to estimate porosity; the values may be cross-plotted with
other logs to find porosity and mineralogy of complex lithologies. Light hydrocarbons
in particular may cause an increase in apparent porosity, there are no light
hydrocarbons in Well B. The neutron porosity curve Neutron Porosity (NPHI_dec)
reads uniformly high throughout the formation seen by this well.

17
Single Well Study - Well B
James Bowkett

4. Neutron-Density – Cross-plot indicates a mixed sandstone-limestone lithology with

porosities ranging from 12-30%. The neutron-density curve PHI_ND is a good
approximation of formation porosity removing some of the effect of calcite cements.

5. Neutron-Sonic – Cross-plot indicates a mixed sandstone-limestone lithology with

porosities ranging from 12-34%. The neutron-sonic curve PHI_NS has failed despite
repeat attempts with varying constants, it is disregarded.

6. Density-Sonic Cross-plot – is not suitable in this formation as there are no evaporites.

Permeability/Permeability Prediction from Porosity

Terrastation includes a number of tools for conducting permeability prediction using the
various equations developed relating porosity and permeability. Of these the closest match
appears to be the linear equation, the other models below follow the trend of the core
permeability data less accurately.

0.5 250∗φ3
Tixier, k =
Swi
Equation 6 - Tixier Permeability

0.5 250∗φ2.25
Timur, k =
Swi
Equation 7 - Timur Permeability

18
Single Well Study - Well B
James Bowkett

0.5100∗( 1−S wi )∗φ 3

Coates, k =
S wi
Equation 8 - Coates Permeability

A direct calculation of
permeability from porosity was
also suggested in the
Terrastation tutorials, and this
was also undertaken and found
to closely match the Terrastation
linear equation. This method
involved cross-plotting core
porosity vs core permeability,
placing a best fit line through the
resultant cloud of data and
finding the slope (m) and
intercept (c) of the line, these
values illustrate an average
difference between porosity and
permeability. The values are Figure 10- Cross-plot of CPHI vs CKH
used in the formula {K =
10**(m*X1*100+c)} to calculate permeability from a favoured porosity log.
K=10∗(m∗φ∗100+C)
KH - PHI; m = 0.2918142, c = -3.55437.
KV - PHI; m = 0.320142, c = -4.67861.

Water Saturation
Three methods of water saturation measurement were used; Archie, Indonesian and
Simandoux. Water saturation equations derive from the Archie Equation;

19
Single Well Study - Well B
James Bowkett

F∗Rw a
Sw=n
√ Rt
F=
φm
a=0.81 Cementation Factor m=2 n=2
Equation 9 - Archie Equation

As this is a well documented basin and formation, a and m are known, Rw has previously
been calculated and Rt is provided by deep laterolog measurements RT_Rint-9b the water
saturation can be easily arrived at.

The Indonesian Equation is effective in shaly sands, having been developed for the shaly
sands of the Mahakam Delta.
0.5 2−V sh ) −2
V sh ( Rt
Sw=
(√ R sh
Rt
+
√Ro
)
n

Equation 10 – Indonesian Equation

The Simandoux Equation is a total shale equation of quadratic form. When m and n are 2 it
is solved according to the form below.

aSw 2+ bSw=R t−1

V sh V sh 2 5∗φ2 0.4∗Rw
Sw=
( ) √( )
R sh
+
Rsh
+
)
Rt ¿ Rw φ2

Equation 11 - Simandoux Equation

Of these it is felt that the Indonesian provides the clearest representation of the water
saturation of the formation. The Sw and Sxo above the OWC are separated in the
hydrocarbon column where oil in the formation prevents ingress of water; below the OWC
Sw and Sxo are close to 1 indicating the water saturated condition of the formation. Sw/Sxo
is used to define whether the hydrocarbons are expected to flow, the Moveable

20
Single Well Study - Well B
James Bowkett

Hydrocarbon Saturation which can be seen on Figure? The MHS curve is believed here to be
incorrect although there may be residual hydrocarbon in the system. Improved parameters
should help remove the effects of any inaccuracies which lead to this high residual
oil/moveable oil in the water leg.

Net Pay Analysis

Net Pay Analysis (Figure 18) used the best curves from the previous analyses to create Pay
Curves as presented in Figure 18 and in the Net Pay Report. Below are tables of the values
resulting from the Net Pay Analysis; limiting window to oil leg provides a very different Net
to Gross. For the purposes of selling to management the 2nd set of data may be more
positive.

21
Single Well Study - Well B
James Bowkett

Well Name: Well B UWI: B RR ARITH AVG SW (Sw_Sim) 0.7952

Depth : 1610.00 to 1730.00 by 0.050 meters PAY ARITH AVG SW (Sw_Sim) 0.3330
Surface X, Y: -999.000000, -999.000000 RR MINIMUM SW (Sw_Sim) 0.1483
Depth reference: M.Depth[Raw];1 PAY MINIMUM SW (Sw_Sim) 0.1483
Curve Type Curve Name Cutoff value(s) RR MAXIMUM SW (Sw_Sim) 1.0000
Method
---------- ------------------------------------- -------------------- -- PAY MAXIMUM SW (Sw_Sim) 0.4988
Vshale Vsh_ND[Kobra];1 0.4000 LT PAY HYC THICKNESS (M) 3.2955
Sw Sw_Sim[Kobra];1 0.5000 LT PAY SW (phi-wt) 0.3289
Porosity PHI_ND[Kobra];1 0.1000 GT LOWER PHI (PHI_ND) CUTOFF 0.1000
Perm. K_linear[Kobra];1 0.0000 GT UPPER PHI (PHI_ND) CUTOFF 0.0000
Reservoir rock flag curve: Res. Rock[Kobra];1 RR ARITH AVG PHI (PHI_ND) 0.2213
Net pay flag curve: NetPay1[Kobra];1 PAY ARITH AVG PHI (PHI_ND) 0.2344
TOP INTERVAL (M) 1610.0000 RR MINIMUM PHI (PHI_ND) 0.1006
BASE INTERVAL (M) 1730.0000 PAY MINIMUM PHI (PHI_ND) 0.1055
GROSS INTERVAL (M) 120.0500 RR MAXIMUM PHI (PHI_ND) 0.3140
RR THICKNESS (M) 99.3500 PAY MAXIMUM PHI (PHI_ND) 0.3136
RR/GROSS RATIO 0.8276 RR POROSITY THICKNESS (M) 21.9899
NET PAY THICKNESS (M) 20.9502 PAY POROSITY THICKNESS (M) 4.9107
NET PAY/GROSS RATIO 0.1745 LOWER K (K_linear) CUTOFF 0.0000
PAY ARITHMETIC AVG KSWIS 0.0000 UPPER K (K_linear) CUTOFF 0.0000
PAY GEOMETRIC AVG KSWIS 0.0000 RR ARITH AVG K (K_linear) 382.6420
PAY HARMONIC AVG KSWIS 0.0000 PAY ARITH AVG K (K_linear) 463.3492
GROSS SAND THICKNESS (M) 101.9999 RR GEOM AVG K (K_linear) 253.4398
HYDROCARBON PORE VOLUME 0.1573 PAY GEOM AVG K (K_linear) 342.8680
PAY/RR RATIO 0.2109 RR HARM AVG K (K_linear) 124.4454
LOWER VSH (Vsh_ND) CUTOFF 0.4000 PAY HARM AVG K (K_linear) 228.9781
UPPER VSH (Vsh_ND) CUTOFF 0.0000 RR K THICKNESS (M) 38015.5781
RR ARITH AVG VSH (Vsh_ND) 0.0246 PAY K THICKNESS (M) 9707.2080
PAY ARITH AVG VSH (Vsh_ND) 0.0103 Performed at: 10:44:40 on 5-Mar-10
RR MINIMUM VSH (Vsh_ND) 0.0000 Performed by interpreter: james bowkett
PAY MINIMUM VSH (Vsh_ND) 0.0000 Project file name: GPIA_JEB200110
RR MAXIMUM VSH (Vsh_ND) 0.3985 Project directory: P:/TerraStation
PAY MAXIMUM VSH (Vsh_ND) 0.2804
LOWER SW (Sw_Sim) CUTOFF 0.5000
UPPER SW (Sw_Sim) CUTOFF 0.0000

Table 3 - Net Pay (1610-1730)

22
Single Well Study - Well B
James Bowkett

Well Name: Well B UWI: B PAY ARITH AVG SW (Sw_Sim) 0.3224

Depth : 1620.00 to 1650.00 by 0.050 meters RR MINIMUM SW (Sw_Sim) 0.1483
Surface X, Y: -999.000000, -999.000000 PAY MINIMUM SW (Sw_Sim) 0.1483
Depth reference: M.Depth[Raw];1 RR MAXIMUM SW (Sw_Sim) 0.9668
Curve Type Curve Name Cutoff value(s)
Method PAY MAXIMUM SW (Sw_Sim) 0.4988
---------- ------------------------------------- -------------------- -- PAY HYC THICKNESS (M) 2.9181
Vshale Vsh_ND[Kobra];1 0.4000 LT PAY SW (phi-wt) 0.3168
Sw Sw_Sim[Kobra];1 0.5000 LT LOWER PHI (PHI_ND) CUTOFF 0.1000
Porosity PHI_ND[Kobra];1 0.1000 GT UPPER PHI (PHI_ND) CUTOFF 0.0000
Perm. K_linear[Kobra];1 0.0000 GT RR ARITH AVG PHI (PHI_ND) 0.2151
Net pay flag curve: NetPay1[Kobra];1 PAY ARITH AVG PHI (PHI_ND) 0.2309
TOP INTERVAL (M) 1620.0000 RR MINIMUM PHI (PHI_ND) 0.1007
BASE INTERVAL (M) 1650.0000 PAY MINIMUM PHI (PHI_ND) 0.1055
GROSS INTERVAL (M) 30.0500 RR MAXIMUM PHI (PHI_ND) 0.3136
RR THICKNESS (M) 23.3500 PAY MAXIMUM PHI (PHI_ND) 0.3136
RR/GROSS RATIO 0.7770 RR POROSITY THICKNESS (M) 5.0223
NET PAY THICKNESS (M) 18.5001 PAY POROSITY THICKNESS (M) 4.2715
NET PAY/GROSS RATIO 0.6156 LOWER K (K_linear) CUTOFF 0.0000
PAY ARITHMETIC AVG KSWIS 0.0000 UPPER K (K_linear) CUTOFF 0.0000
PAY GEOMETRIC AVG KSWIS 0.0000 RR ARITH AVG K (K_linear) 364.7267
PAY HARMONIC AVG KSWIS 0.0000 PAY ARITH AVG K (K_linear) 440.2858
GROSS SAND THICKNESS (M) 24.6500 RR GEOM AVG K (K_linear) 216.6362
HYDROCARBON PORE VOLUME 0.1577 PAY GEOM AVG K (K_linear) 318.8704
PAY/RR RATIO 0.7923 RR HARM AVG K (K_linear) 95.9247
LOWER VSH (Vsh_ND) CUTOFF 0.4000 PAY HARM AVG K (K_linear) 212.6183
UPPER VSH (Vsh_ND) CUTOFF 0.0000 RR K THICKNESS (M) 8516.3760
RR ARITH AVG VSH (Vsh_ND) 0.0427 PAY K THICKNESS (M) 8145.3081
PAY ARITH AVG VSH (Vsh_ND) 0.0110 Performed at: 17:50:20 on 28-Feb-10
RR MINIMUM VSH (Vsh_ND) 0.0000 Performed by interpreter: james bowkett
PAY MINIMUM VSH (Vsh_ND) 0.0000 Project file name: GPIA_JEB200110
RR MAXIMUM VSH (Vsh_ND) 0.3985 Project directory: P:/TerraStation
PAY MAXIMUM VSH (Vsh_ND) 0.2804
LOWER SW (Sw_Sim) CUTOFF 0.5000
UPPER SW (Sw_Sim) CUTOFF 0.0000
RR ARITH AVG SW (Sw_Sim) 0.3828

Table 4 - Net Pay (1620-1650) Reservoir Interval

Poro/Perm – Excel
Core data for the interval 1620-1704m are available and of these were made statistical
analyses to quantify the degree of heterogeneity in the system. Below is a table of statistical
results for the dataset. The coefficient of variation (Cv) illustrates the high degree of
heterogeneity in the permeability data set, whilst porosity with a Cv of 0.4 shows a low
degree of heterogeneity. (Table 1)

23
Single Well Study - Well B
James Bowkett

The data set was resampled for statistical tools requiring comparison of permeability and
porosity at specific depths this resulted in fewer data points and show a much greater
degree of heterogeneity. (Table 2)

The dataset is observed to be anisotropic and irregularly heterogeneous according to the

rules; KH ≠ KV and KH/KV is variable. (Table 3)

Histogram
Histograms of Porosity and Permeability – The porosity can be seen to be a single
population. The permeability seems to show evidence of two populations in the data; this
can be interpreted as shale and sand layers and therefore indicates layered as opposed to
dispersed shale.

Porosity (freq) Permeability (freq)

70 KH (freq) KV (freq)
60 70
60
50
50
40 40
30 30
20
20 10
10 0
e
1

1
10

0
00

0
00
01

or
0.
00

10

00

0
0.

10

00

M
0.

10
10

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 More
PHI (%) KH (mD)

Figure 11 – Porosity and Permeability Histograms

Sampling interval is sufficient for the gross data set (Table 1) but the re-sampled data set
has very high sampling sufficiency values and a low number of samples (Table2) which
suggests that the re-sampled data set, used for the Lorenz Plot is not representative of the
formation.

The Lorenz Plot shows a high degree of heterogeneity and layering in the system (Figures 10
& 11).

24
Single Well Study - Well B
James Bowkett

KH
UNORDERED PLUG DATA ORDERED PLUG DATA
1.2

1
Cj - Storativity (CUMPHI)

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Fj - Flow (CUMK)

Figure 12- Lorenz Plot of Horizontal Permeability

KV
Unordered Plug Data Ordered Plug Data
1.2

0.8

Axis Title 0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Axis Title

Figure 13 - Lorenz Plot of Vertical Permeability

The Variogram (Figure 13) plotted with Variowin does not give a clear indication of vertical
heterogeneity or of the scale of heterogeneity/layering in the system. h is the lag and
gamma the variance, it is clear from these plots that there is little layering at a scale which
can be visualised by the data.

25
Single Well Study - Well B
James Bowkett

Figure 14 – Cloud Variogram & Directional Variogram

26
Single Well Study - Well B
James Bowkett

Conclusions
The Well B section logged is medium porosity sandstone laid down in an arid environment
as a braided fluvial system. It is laterally and vertically heterogeneous and anisotropic,
horizontal flow dominating. Recover from these facies would be complex as flow will be
baffled but not sealed by the heterogeneous subsurface.

The Net Pay interval in Well B is between 18-20 metres, laterally these layers may extend up
to 10s/100s of metres, but beyond this the sands are likely to be baffled. The large
difference between Sw and Sxo indicates that the well will flow, the rate of flow is beyond
the scope of this report. Faulting though not directly observed may be inferred from the
sedimentological evaluation.

References

 Collinson, J. D. (1986) Alluvial sediments. In Reading, H. G. (ed.) Sedimentary

environments and facies (2nd edn), pp. 20–62. Blackwell Scientific

 Publications, Oxford.
 Collinson, J. D. and Lewis, J. (1983) Modern and ancient fluvial systems. International
Association of Sedimentologists, Special Publication No. 6.
 Read more: fluvial sediments - Fig. 1., J. Sed. Pet, J. Sed. Pet., point bars
http://science.jrank.org/pages/47592/fluvial-sediments.html#ixzz0hJ0euPPK
 UNDERHILL, J. R. & STONELEY, R. 1998. Introduction to the development, evolution
and petroleum geology of the Wessex Basin. In: UNDERHILL, J. R. (ed.) Development,
Evolution and Petroleum Geology of the Wessex Basin,Geological Society, London,
Special ublications, 133, 1-18.
 MCKIE, T., AGGETT, J. & HOGG, A. J. C. 1998. Reservoir architecture of the upper
Sherwood Sandstone, Wytch Farm field, southern England. In: UNDERHILL, J. R. (ed.)
Development, Evolution and Petroleum Geology of the Wessex Basin, Geological
Society, London, Special Publications, 133, 399-406.

27
Single Well Study - Well B
James Bowkett

 Schlumberger, 1989. Log Interpretation Principles/Application, 7th Edition. Sugar

Land, Texas.

28
Single Well Study - Well B
James Bowkett

Appendices

29
Single Well Study - Well B
James Bowkett

Figure 16 – Sedimentary Log (1636-1641m)

30
Single Well Study - Well B
James Bowkett

Figure 17 - Resistivity (Recieved, Corrected, Rt/Rxo & Diameter of Invasion)

31
Single Well Study - Well B
James Bowkett

Figure 18 - Shale Volume (Vsh)

32
Single Well Study - Well B
James Bowkett

Figure 19 - Neutron-Porosity Cross-plot

33
Single Well Study - Well B
James Bowkett

Figure 20 - Neutron-Sonic Cross-plot

34
Single Well Study - Well B
James Bowkett

Figure 21 - Porosity Analysis Curves

35
Single Well Study - Well B
James Bowkett

Figure 22 - Permeability Analysis

36
Single Well Study - Well B
James Bowkett

Figure 23 - Water Saturation, Hydrocarbon Saturation and Moveable Hydrocarbon Saturation

37
Single Well Study - Well B
James Bowkett

Figure 24 - Final Composite (with Gross Reservoir & Net Pay)

38
Single Well Study - Well B
James Bowkett

KH KV PHI
Ns 271 60 283
MODE 0.04 0.01 9.4
MEDIAN 49 2.55 16.1
208.481166
AVERAGE 576.4422878 7 16.26537102
GEOMEAN #NUM! 3.11752257 #NUM!
0.05696373
HARMEAN 0.242326409 2 12.5572375
412.711914
ST DEV 1032.000892 4 6.881473905
170331.124
VAR 1065025.842 3 47.35468311
1.97961245
Cv 1.79029352 6 0.423075127
391.886547
N0=(10*Cv)2 320.5150887 6 17.89925627
51.1133738
Ps=(200*Cv)/SQRT(Ns) 21.75051728 2 5.029841166
Table 5 - Statistical Data for the Interval 1620-1704m

ARMEAN(K HARMEAN(K
KH KV ) GEOMEAN(K) ) PHI

Ns 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0

MODE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.1

MEDIAN 44.0 2.6 41.0 13.1 4.3 16.1

ARMEAN 383.4 208.5 295.9 240.0 220.0 16.2

GEOMEAN 13.4 3.1 12.1 6.5 3.5 14.3

HARMEAN 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 12.3

ST DEV 703.8 412.7 524.4 489.8 466.3 7.2

VAR 495290.7 170331.1 274994.9 239896.0 217478.9 51.9

Cv=SD/ARMEAN 1291.8 817.0 929.2 999.6 988.5 3.2

166887426.
N0=(10*Cv)2 9 66750476.286346545.9 99926628.1 97705350.4 1030.9

Ps=(200*Cv)/SQRT(Ns) 33355.4 21095.1 23992.6 25810.4 25521.9 82.9

Table 6 - Statistical Data as resampled

39
Single Well Study - Well B
James Bowkett

Dept KH- Dept KH-

h KV KV/KH h KV KV/KH Depth KH-KV KV/KH
1.22448979
1664 0 1 1663 -0.22 6 1689 185.9 0.016402116
1649 0.03 0.25 1636 0.86 0.14 1624 205.3 0.012980769
1657 0.03 0.25 1685 0.57 0.62 1658 -87 1.393665158
5.71428571
1671 0.03 0.25 1670 -23.1 4 1627 224 0.066666667
2.46913580
1680 0.01 0.75 1653 -11.9 2 1639 -675 3.721774194
0.66666666 0.02409638
1652 0.02 7 1662 8.1 6 1676 -429 2.088832487
0.00214285
1679 0 1 1684 13.97 7 1701 206 0.491358025
7.42857142
1668 -0.45 9 1690 -54 4 1641 460 0.08
1647 0.06 0.25 1642 -17 1.5 1693 257 0.584142395
0.09090909 0.86842105
1656 0.1 1 1666 5 3 1672 825.6 0.002898551
- 661.538461
1678 85.87 5 1688 26 0.48 1692 -185 1.221556886
0.49090909
1635 0.13 0.1875 1622 28 1 1644 910.3 0.010543478
0.16666666
1631 0.15 7 1692 78 0.025 1651 220 0.838235294
0.11111111
1681 0.24 1 1700 -79 1.9875 1677 230 0.867052023
0.03333333 0.00012195
1643 0.29 3 1628 81.99 1 1646 1413 0.224052718
0.01078431 1853.8
1626 -0.23 1.71875 1623 100.9 4 1674 5 8.09061E-05
3.82352941 0.00784313
1682 -0.96 2 1667 151.8 7 1659 750 0.609375
0.02631578 0.01584699
1632 0.37 9 1625 180.1 5 1650 1020 0.514285714
0.52272727 0.04331550
1629 0.21 3 1686 178.9 8 1696 560 0.734597156
0.09574468 2.63297872
1648 0.85 1 1633 -307 3 1645 2273 0.291900312
Table 7 - Permeability & Anisotropy

40
Single Well Study - Well B
James Bowkett

Name Units Value Name Units Value

MD m 1610 BIT SIZE in 12.25
TD m 1780 MUD WEIGHT lb/g 9.67
INCREMENT m 0.05 FM SALINITY ppm 100000
ELEV m 33.5 BH SALINITY ppm 50000
RMC ohmm 0.16 STANDOFF (IL) in 0.125
TRMC degF 64.7 STANDOFF (NEUT) in 0.125
RM ohmm 0.08 SURF TEMP MD m 0
TRM degF 64.8 GR MATRIX GAPI NULL
RMF ohmm 0.06 RHO MATRIX g/cc 2.65
TRMF degF 64.8 DT MATRIX us/f 47.5
RW ohmm 0.040 CNL MATRIX pu 0.05
4
TRW degF 134.5 GR SHALE GAPI NULL
BHT degF 138 RHO SHALE g/cc 2.45
MEAN SURF TEMP degF 64.8 DT SHALE us/f 90
T-GRADIENT degF 0.040 CNL SHALE pu 0.3
3
ARCHIE A UNKN 0.81 GR FLUID GAPI NULL
ARCHIE M UNKN 2 RHO FLUID g/cc 1.1
SAT EXP (N) UNKN 2 DT FLUID us/f 185
R SHALE ohmm 0.9 CNL FLUID pu 1
TD OF REC. BHT m 1816 DT MATRIX SHALE us/f 82
Table 8 - Constants

41
Single Well Study - Well B
James Bowkett

42