Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
×
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Petrophysical Evlaution of July Field Gulf of Suez by Gamal Ragab Gaafar

Petrophysical Evlaution of July Field Gulf of Suez by Gamal Ragab Gaafar

Ratings: (0)|Views: 647|Likes:

More info:

Published by: Dr. Gamal Ragab Gaafar on Jan 28, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See More
See less

01/28/2012

pdf

text

original

 
Second International Conference on the Role of Applied Geology in Environmental Development, Dec. 2009 P. 1 - 21
 1
PERTROPHYSICAL EVALUATION OF RUDEIS RESERVOIR IN JULY OIL FIELD,GULF OF SUEZ, EGYPTGamal. R. Gaafar*, Gamal Attia**, Khaled A. Khaled** and Sameh. M. Ibrahim*** 
 
Senior Petrophysicist, Petronas Carigali, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia**Geology Department, Faculty of Science, Helwan University, Helwan, Egypt.*** Geophysicist, PGS Data Processing ME, Cairo, Egypt.
ﻮﻴﻟﻮﻳ
 
ﺖﻳز
 
ﻞﻘﺤﺑ
 
ﺲﻳدور
 
ناﺰﺨﻟ
 
ﻲﻘﻳﺰﻴﻓوﺮﺘﺒﻟا
 
ﻢﻴﻴﻘﺘﻟا
,
ﺲﻳﻮﺴﻟا
 
ﺞﻴﻠﺧ
,
ﺮﺼﻣ
. 
ﺔﺻﻼﺨﻟا
:
ﻮﻴﻟﻮﻳ
 
ﺖﻳز
 
ﻞﻘﺤﺑ
 
ﺲﻳدور
 
ناﺰﺨﻟ
 
ﻲﻘﻳﺰﻴﻓوﺮﺘﺒﻟا
 
ﻢﻴﻴﻘﺘﻟا
 
 ﺔﺳارد
 
ﺚﺤﺒﻟا
 
اﺬه
 
لوﺎﻨﺘﻳ
,
ماﺪﺨﺘﺳا
 
لﻼﺧ
 
ﻦﻣ
 
ﻚﻟذو
 
ﺲﻳﻮﺴﻟا
 
ﺞﻴﻠﺧ ﺼﻟا
 
تﺎﻨﻴﻌﻟا
 
و
 
رﺎﺑﻵا
 
تﻼﻴﺠﺴﺗ
 
تﻼﻴﻠﺤﺗ
 
ﻲﻠﻋ
 
ةﺪﻤﺘﻌﻣ
 
 ﺔﻔﻠﺘﺨﻤﻟا
 
 ﺔﻴﻠﻴﻠﺤﺘﻟا
 
تﺎﻴﻨﻘﺘﻟا ﺔﻳﺮﺨ
.
ﺺﺋﺎﺼﺨﻟا
 
ﻦﻣ
 
ﺪﻳﺪﻌﻟا
 
 طﺎﺒﻨﺘﺳا
 
ﻢﺗ
 
ﺪﻘﻟ
 
و ﺔﻴﻘﻳﺰﻴﻓوﺮﺘﺒﻟا
,
 ﺔﻴﺳأﺮﻟا
 
 ﺔﻴﻧﺎﻴﺒﻟا
 
مﻮﺳﺮﻟا
 
ﻦﻣ
 
ﺪﻳﺪﻌﻟا
 
لﻼﺧ
 
ﻦﻣ
 
ﺎﻬﻠﻴﺜﻤﺗو
 
ﻊﺋﺎﻤﻟا
 
تﺎﻌﺒﺸﺗ
 
وﺔﻴﻧﺪﻌﻤﻟا
 
و
 
 ﺔﻳﺮﺨﺼﻟا
 
تﺎﻳﻮﺘﺤﻤﻟا
)
و
 
 ﺔﻴﺟﻮﻟﻮﺜﻴﻠﻟاﻊﺒﺸﺘﻟا
(
 ﺔﻴﺒﻧﺎﺠﻟا
 
ﻊﻳزﻮﺘﻟا
 
 ﻂﺋاﺮﺧ
 
و
 
ﺮﺌﺑ
 
ﻞﻜﻟ
.
 ﺨﻟا
 
ﺺﺋﺎﺼﺧ
 
ﻲﻠﻋ
 
 ﺔﻴﻨﻴﻄﻟا
 
ندﺎﻌﻤﻟا
 
ﺮﻴﺛﺄﺗ
 
 ﺔﺳارد
 
ﻢﺗ
 
ﺎﻤآمﻮﺳﺮﻟا
 
ﻦﻣ
 
ﺪﻳﺪﻌﻟا
 
لﻼﺧ
 
ﻦﻣ
 
ناﺰﺖﻴﻧﻮﻠﻳرﻮﻤﺘﻧﻮﻤﻟا
 
ﺮآﺬﻟا
 
ﻞﻴﺒﺳ
 
ﻲﻠﻋ
 
ندﺎﻌﻤﻠﻟ
 
 ﺔﻄﻠﺘﺨﻤﻟا
 
 ﺔﻌﻴﺒﻄﻟا
 
تﺮﻬﻇأ
 
ﻲﺘﻟا
 
و
 
 ﺔﻴﺿرﺎﻌﺘﻟا
 
 ﺔﻴﻧﺎﻴﺒﻟا
,
عﻮﻨﻟا
 
ﻦﻜﻟو
 
ﺖﻴﻨﻴﻟوﺎﻜﻟا
 
و
 
ﺖﻳرﻮﻠﻜﻟاﺮﺜآﻻا
)
ﺖﻳرﻮﻠﻜﻟا
 
و
 
ﺖﻴﻨﻴﻟوﺎﻜﻟا
(
ﺎﻤﻟﺎﺑ
 
ناﺰﺨﻟا
 
ﻊﺒﺸﺗ
 
ةدﻮﺟ
 
ﻲﻠﻋ
 
ﻲﻟﺎﺘﻟﺎﺑ
 
و
 
 ﺔﻴﻣﺎﺴﻤﻟا
 
ﻲﻠﻋ
 
ﺮﻴﺒآ
 
ﺮﻴﺛﺂﺗ
 
 ﻪﻟ
 
ﺲﻴﻟ
 
ﺪﺟاﻮﺗﻊﺋ
.
و
 
ﻢﻴﻴﻘﺗ
 
ﻦﻜﻣأ
 
ﺎﻤآ
 
لﻼﺧ
 
ﻦﻣ
 
ﻚﻟذو
 
قﺎﻄﻧ
 
ﻞﻜﻟ
 
 ﺔﻴﻘﻳﺰﻴﻓوﺮﺘﺒﻟا
 
ﺺﺋﺎﺼﺨﻟا
 
ﻲﻠﻋ
 
اءﺎﻨﺑ
 
تﺎﻗﺎﻄﻨﻟا
 
ﻦﻣ
 
ﺪﻳﺪﻌﻠﻟ
 
 ﻪﻤﻴﺴﻘﺗو
 
ناﺰﺨﻟا
 
ﺲﻧﺎﺠﺗ
 
مﺪﻋ
 
 ﺔﺟرد
 
و
 
ةدﻮﺟ
 
 ﺔﺳارد ﺔﻳﺮﺨﺼﻟا
 
تﺎﻨﻴﻌﻟا
 
ﻞﻴﻠﺤﺗ
 
تﺎﻧﺎﻴﺑ
. 
ABSTRACT
July oilfield is one of the most prolific fields on the Gulf of Suez; it is located in the central part of the Gulf of Suez. It is delineated by latitudes 28° 13
\
and 28° 18
\
to the north, and longitudes 33° 11
\
and 33° 17
\
to theeast. Rudeis reservoir encountered of the main reservoirs in the central part of Gulf of Suez in general and in Julyoilfield in particular.Petrophysical characteristics of Rudeis reservoir had been evaluated using different analytical techniquesbased on well logging and core sample analyses. Different deduced petrophysical parameters, lithological andmineralogical constituents, and fluid saturations were estimated and represented in a number of vertical Litho-Saturation crossplots and lateral distribution maps.The identification of the matrix components is well defined through the crossplot technique. The basic idea of such a technique is the different types of matrix that appear by combining different well log parameters (
ρ
b
N
,M-N and U
ma
-P
ma
).Effect of clay minerals on reservoir properties have been studied by applying number of crossplots (P
e
-K,P
e
-Th/K ratio and Th-K) reflecting a mixed nature of minerals such as montmorillonite, mixed layer clays, chloriteand kaolinite. Therefore, the major type existed is kaolinite which has less affecting the porosity of the reservoir.Reservoir quality and heterogeneity have been studied through the hydraulic unit concept. The reservoir could be subdivided into distinct petrophysical types; each distinct reservoir zone has a unique Flow ZoneIndicator (FZI) value, Reservoir Quality Index (RQI), and Normalized Porosity Index (NPI). The combination of porosity and permeability data in terms of FZI, RQI, and NPI was convenient for use with routine core analysisdata, giving a tremendous advantage in addressing the differences between reservoir core samples and reservoir zones at a particular depth.
INTRODUCTION
The geology and stratigraphy of the Gulf of Suez have been attracted the attention of a large number of authors, out of them in addition to mentioned before, Ghorab, (1961); Said and El-Hiny, (1967); Abd El-Gawad,(1970); Bartov, et al.,(1980); Evans, (1990); Zahran and Meshref, (1988); Hassouba, et al. (1994), and Zein El-Din et al., (1995 and 1997).The petrology and petrophysical characteristics of the reservoir rocks in the Gulf of Suez have beendiscussed by Pittman and Hozayen, (1982); El Shaarawy, (1987); Metwalli et al. (1987); El-Kodsh, (1997);Gaafar, (1998); Mahmoud, (2000); and Gouda, (2002).July oilfield is located in the central part of the Gulf of Suez, Egypt. It is delineated by latitudes 28° 13
\
and 28° 18
\
 to the north, and longitudes 33° 11
\
and 33° 17
\
to the east (Fig. 1). The study area is located 18 km from Ras-Gharib Town and approximately 20 km from El Morgan oil field. The field is the fifth largest oil field in Egypt.The Rudeis Formation overlies the Nukhul Formation and is composed essentially of highly fossiliferousshales and marls referred to as the Globigerina Marls, (Globogerina Marl of Moon and Sadek, 1923) and thesandstones. This formation is oil bearing in Belayim Land, Belayim Marine, Morgan and other fields. The RudeisFormation grades upwards into the Kareem Formation across a laterally extended anhydritic level (Schlumberger,1984). This study shed light on petrophysical characteristics and storage capacity properties of Rudeis reservoir 
 
Gaafar, G.R.et al.
2
by using different analytical techniques based on well logging and core sample analyses.The reservoir quality discrimination was carried out by using the technique published by Amaefule et al.(1993) which allows a more precise definition of reservoir discrimination through a combination of the permeabilityand porosity data.
Lithostratigraphy
The generalized stratigraphy of the study area and the Gulf of Suez for which three depositional phasesare generally assumed (Fig. 2). Said, (1990) mentioned that, the stratigraphic sequence in the Gulf of Suezprovince is characterized by three depositional phases related to the Miocene rifting events. These are: Pre-riftphase (Early Paleozoic to Eocene); Syn-rift phase (Early-Middle Miocene) and Post-rift phase (Late Miocene andPliocene).The first phase comprises the deposition of formations ranging in age from a postulated Devonian toEocene. These formations, which include the Nubia sands, are important as reservoir rocks and to a lesser extentas source rocks. The second phase is represented by the Lower Miocene and is characterized by its overallexcellent qualities as source, reservoir and seal rocks. The third phase, of the Upper Middle Miocene to Upper Miocene and Pliocene age in essence and is characterized by its evaporite seal. It closes the depositional historyof the Gulf of Suez graben area (Darwish and El Araby, (1993)).Ouda and Massoud, (1993) stated that “the Burdigalian sediments are distinguished into two distinctfacies: a) Deep water clastic facies deposited along the entire stretch of the Gulf of Suez basins, in which whoseaxes were more or less coincident with the axes of the present Gulf, and b) Shallow water carbonate facies withtendencies for reefal development toward both sides of the Gulf”.GUPCO subdivided the Rudeis Formation into Lower and Upper Rudeis using the biostratigraphicevidences only. According to the NSSC, (1964 and 1974) and Hosny et al., (1986), Rudeis Formation could bedistinguished into four members Muheiherat, Hawara, Asl and Mreir.Within the study area, the Rudeis Formation is encountered in all wells drilled in the area, with thicknessranging from 36 ft in J25-28A well to 2265 ft in J22-22 well (Figs. 3, 4).The Upper Rudeis Formation at July field consists of deposits of a submarine-fan system that was sourcedfrom the western rift shoulder and transported through the Morgan structural transfer zone. In areas of the Suezrift not near structural transfer zones, the Upper Rudeis Formation is predominantly fine grained, supporting theidea that structural transfer zones control the distribution of coarse-grained facies in rift basins. (Lambiase andBosworth, 1995).
Structural Features And Outlines Of July Oilfield
July field is a large, asymmetric, generally northeast-dipping horst bounded to the southwest bysouthwest-dipping, large-displacement normal faults and to the northeast by northeast-dipping, smaller displacement normal faults (Figures 5, 6). The July-B fault is the major southwest-dipping, block-bounding faulthas about 1200m (<3900 ft) of throw at the pre-Miocene level (Fig.6). A series of synthetic faults is present in thehanging wall of the July-B fault, including the west July fault, which has about 500 m (1600 ft) of throw at pre-Miocene level (Fig. 6). Faults that strike north-northeast and northeast (cross faults) also occur in the mainstructural block and commonly serve as linking faults between northwest-striking, rift-parallel faults (e.g., Patton etal, 1994).
Well Logging Data Analysis
 Application of the computer processed interpretation for nine wells in study area has been done by“GEOLOG” Formation Evaluation program. The logging tools that used in the computer-processed interpretationin the study area are SP, caliper, resistivity, density, neutron, sonic, gamma ray logs.
A- Litho-Saturation crossplot
The litho-saturation crossplots are constructed for Rudeis reservoir in nine wells J4-4, J10-70, J15-98,J25-28A, J37-93, J58-82, SG310-5A, SG310-5C and GS302-3 drilled in the studied area.The litho-saturation crossplot (Fig. 7) represents the interval from depth 11145 ft to 11745.5 ft. The Rudeisreservoir rock composed mainly of sandstone with intercalations of shale and limestone.The shale content in the Rudeis reservoir ranges from none to 8% except in the uppermost part of thestudied section and in the lowermost where it reaches up to 50%.The gross sand in this well is about 142 feet with a net pay of 55 feet. The effective porosity of thisreservoir rock is found to be good at most levels and varies from 12% to 13.4% with an average value of 12.7%.Such a porosity level may store commercial quantities of hydrocarbons with hydrocarbon saturation of 61% andwater saturation of 39%.
 
PERTROPHYSICAL EVALUATION
 
3
B- Horizontal distribution of Petrophysical parameters and Hydrocarbon Occurrences
The horizontal distribution of petrophysical parameters and hydrocarbon occurrences can be presentedand explained through Petrophysical Iso-parametric maps. These maps represent the various distribution mapsas cumulative presentation of the areal extension of each of the petrophysical and fluid saturation parameters(gross sand, net pay, shaliness, effective porosity, hydrocarbon saturation and water saturation) in theinvestigated area. Average reservoir parameters for Rudeis reservoir rock encountered in the July oil field areshown in table (1).
Gross Sand Distribution Map
The Gross Sand Distribution Map of the Rudeis reservoir rock (Fig. 8), shows variation in gross sandvalues from (75ft) at well GS302-3 to (864ft) at well J10-70 and also illustrates two focal areas of maximum grosssand thickness around wells J37-93 and J10-70 in the central part of the map. Therefore, it is clear that the grosssand thickness increases toward the central part of the map. The changes of the thickening confirming thestructural setting of the area, where the presence of cross faults affecting the area.
Net Pay Distribution Map
The Net Pay Distribution Map of the Rudeis reservoir rock (Fig. 9), has the same configuration and trendas in the gross sand distribution map. Therefore, it is clear that the net pay thickness increases toward the centralpart of the map. The values of net pay thickness graded from minimum value (55ft) at well SG310-5A tomaximum value (675ft) at well J10-70. Also as in gross sand distribution map, the changes of the thickening of net pay confirming the structural setting of the area where the presence of cross faults affecting the area.
Shale Volume Distribution Map
The Shale Volume Distribution Map of the Rudeis reservoir rock (Fig. 10), shows non to less considerableshale occurrences where the values of shale volume percentage graded from minimum value (1.46%) at wellJ15-98 to maximum value (9.49%) at well J37-93. Such changes are trending toward the central part of the areain a way confirming the distribution of the effective porosity, gross sand and net pay.
Effective Porosity Distribution Map
The Effective Porosity Distribution Map of the Rudeis reservoir rock (Fig. 11), show variations of theeffective porosity values varies from (10.40%) at well SG310-5C to (18.18%) at well J10-70. Such a trend isnearly matching with the gross sand and net pay distribution maps.
Hydrocarbon Saturation Distribution Map
 The Hydrocarbon Saturation Distribution Map of the Rudeis reservoir rock (Fig. 12) has the sameconfiguration and trend as in the effective porosity distribution map. The Hydrocarbon saturation values variesfrom (61 %) at well SG310-5A to (78 %) at well SG310-5C.
Water Saturation Distribution Map
The Water Saturation Distribution Map of the Rudeis reservoir rock (Fig. 13) has the same configurationand trend as in the effective porosity distribution map and gives a reverse relation with hydrocarbon saturationdistribution map. The water saturation values varies from (22 %) at well SG310-5C to (39 %) at well SG310-5A.
Lithologic Components Identification
The identification of the matrix components is well defined through the different crossplot technique. Thebasic idea of such a technique is that different types of matrix appear by combining different well log parameters.These are
ρ
b
N
, M-N and Uma-Pma. By this way, the rock types of the Rudeis Formation on the availablestudied wells can be illustrated as follows:
J25-28A Well:
The
ρ
b
N
crossplot (Fig. 14) shows that the major lithology is sandstone with some effect of presence of shale shifted the points downwards. The porosity values ranging from 10% to 20%.The M-N crossplot (Fig. 15)shows also that the major lithology is sandstone with cementation of limestone.The Uma-Pma crossplot (Fig. 16),confirming that the major lithology is sandstone with amount of limestone as cement.
J37-93 Well:
The
ρ
b
N
crossplot (Fig. 17), shows that the major lithology is sandstone with amount of limestone andthere is a trend of points toward shale. The porosity values ranging from 5% to 21%. The Uma-Pma crossplot(Fig. 18), confirming that the major lithology is sandstone with limestone and the remaining points suggest theexistence of shale and heavy minerals. The
Φ
N
-
Φ
D
crossplot (Fig. 19), shows that the clay contamination with theexamined interval is of dispersed to laminated habits with heavy mineral and hydrocarbon effects.
SG310-5A Well:
The
ρ
b
N
crossplot (Fig. 20), shows that the major lithology is calcareous sandstone and there is a trend of points toward shale. The porosity values ranging from 5% to 12%. The Uma-Pma crossplot (Fig. 21), confirming that

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->