RHUM FIELD

RHUM PETROPHYSICAL RESERVOIR EVALUATION

Simon Kay

July 2002

BP Exploration Operating Company Limited Dyce, Aberdeen E:\BACK UP\SCAN\Petrophysics\Rhum Petrophysical Reservoir Evaluation .doc

MNS Developments v1.0 13/08/2005

RHUM FIELD RHUM PETROPHYSICAL RESERVOIR EVALUATION
SIMON KAY

July 2002

BP Exploration Operating Company Limited Dyce, Aberdeen E:\BACK UP\SCAN\Petrophysics\Rhum Petrophysical Reservoir Evaluation .doc

MNS Developments v1.0 13/08/2005

Rhum Petrophysical Reservoir Evaluation: v1.0 13/08/2005

TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures List of Tables List of Enclosures 1. 2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................... 4 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE..................................................................................................... 7 2.1. 2.2. 3. 4. 5. Workscope ........................................................................................................................ 7 Depth Conventions............................................................................................................ 8

FIELD AND WELL DATABASE..................................................................................................... 9 FIELD TEMPERATURE AND PRESSURE ................................................................................ 11 WELL – BY – WELL EVALUATION ............................................................................................ 13 5.1. 3/29a – 4 Review ............................................................................................................ 13 5.1.1. 3/29a – 4 Data .................................................................................................. 13 5.1.2. Review of PGL Analysis.................................................................................... 14 5.1.2.1. Environmental Corrections ..................................................................... 14 5.1.2.2. Shale Volume (VSH) .............................................................................. 15 5.1.2.3. Effective Porosity (PHIE) ........................................................................ 15 5.1.2.4. Water Saturation (SW) ........................................................................... 15 5.1.3. MRIL Processing............................................................................................... 15 5.1.4. New Petrophysical Analysis.............................................................................. 16 5.1.4.1. Environmental Corrections ..................................................................... 16 5.1.4.2. Analysis .................................................................................................. 16 5.1.4.3. VSH ........................................................................................................ 16 5.1.4.4. PHIE ....................................................................................................... 18 5.1.4.5. SW .......................................................................................................... 20 3/29a – 2 Review ............................................................................................................ 21 5.2.1. New Petrophysical Analysis.............................................................................. 21 5.2.1.1. VSH ........................................................................................................ 21 5.2.1.2. PHIE ....................................................................................................... 21 5.2.1.3. SWE........................................................................................................ 21 5.2.1.4. Lower Reservoir Section ........................................................................ 21

5.2.

6.

LITHOLOGY ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................. 23 6.1. 6.2. Methodology.................................................................................................................... 23 Validation......................................................................................................................... 25

7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

PERMEABILITY ANALYSIS........................................................................................................ 27 PRESSURE ANALYSIS AND FREE WATER LEVEL ................................................................ 31 SATURATION-HEIGHT FUNCTIONS ........................................................................................ 35 ZONE AVERAGES ......................................................................................................... 37 RHUM ROCK PROPERTIES.......................................................................................... 38 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................... 39 REFERENCES................................................................................................................ 40

Page 1

Rhum Petrophysical Reservoir Evaluation: v1.0 13/08/2005

List of Figures Figure 1.1. Figure 1.2. Figure 2.1. Figure 4.1. Figure 4.2. Figure 5.1. Figure 5.2. Figure 6.1. Figure 6.2. Figure 6.3. Figure 6.4. Figure 6.5. Figure 6.6. Figure 6.7. Figure 7.1. Figure 7.2. Figure 7.3. Figure 8.1. Figure 8.2. Figure 8.3. Figure 9.1. 3/29 – 2 Rhum Well Summary – Reservoir Section ................................................ 5 3/29a – 4 Rhum Well Summary – Reservoir Section .............................................. 6 Rhum Field Location Map.......................................................................................... 8 3/29a – 4: Temperature Gradient used in Log Analysis ....................................... 11 Rhum Field Formation Pressures ........................................................................... 12 GR Response Histograms ....................................................................................... 17 3/29a – 4 Core Porosity vs Log Density Crossplot in the Gas Leg ..................... 19 GR vs Depth Plot: 3/29 – 2 & 3/29a – 4. .................................................................. 24 RHOB vs Depth Plot: 3/29 – 2 & 3/29a – 4. ............................................................. 24 Crossplot – RHO_MAA vs U_MAA: 3/29a – 4 Reservoir ...................................... 24 Crossplot – PHIT vs RHO_MAA: 3/29 – 2 and 3/29a – 4 Reservoir...................... 24 RHOB Histogram: 3/29 – 2 & 3/29a – 4. .................................................................. 25 RHO_MAA vs VSH Cross Plot: 3/29 – 2 & 3/29a – 4. ............................................. 25 3/29a – 4 UMR2 Zone Log Resolution .................................................................... 26 3/29 – 2 Poroperm Relationship .............................................................................. 28 3/29a – 4 Poroperm Relationship ............................................................................ 29 3/29a – 4 Log Permeability Compared with Core Permeability ........................... 30 3/29a – 4: RCI and FMT Formation Pressure Plot ................................................. 32 Rhum Field Formation Pressure Plot ..................................................................... 33 Well Corellation in True Vertical Depth Indicating FWL Position in Reservoir .. 34 3/29a – 4 Sw – Height Functions ............................................................................. 36

List of Tables Table 3.1. Rhum Field Data............................................................................................................. 9 Table 3.2. Data Availability – Rhum Area Wells Loaded to Geolog .............................................. 10 Table 3.3. Rhum Sand Reservoir Zone Tops................................................................................ 10 Table 5.1. Well 3/29a – 4 Log Data Summary for Zones of Interest............................................. 13 Table 5.2. Well 3/29a – 4 Test Data.............................................................................................. 14 Table 5.3. CNC Log Environmental Correction Parameters ......................................................... 15 Table 5.4. Log Analysis Constants................................................................................................ 18 Table 5.5. 3/29a – 4 DST1B Water Analysis................................................................................. 20 Table 5.6. 3/29a – 4 RW from Core Brine Extracts....................................................................... 21 Table 6.1. Comparison of Core vs Log Defined Sands................................................................. 25 Table 8.1. Rhum Formation Pressure Data................................................................................... 31 Table 9.1. Saturation-Height Functions Derived from Air-brine Capillary Pressure Measurements. ........................................................................................................................................................ 35 Table 10.1. 3/29-2 Reservoir Properties ....................................................................................... 37 Table 10.2. 3/29a-4 Reservoir Properties ..................................................................................... 37 List of Enclosures 1. 3/29a –4 Detailed CPI, 1:500 2. 3/29a –4 Simplified CPI, 1:500 3. 3/29 – 2 CPI, 1:500

Page 2

SCAL Results Page 3 . Core Data Listings A3.0 13/08/2005 APPENDICES A1.Rhum Petrophysical Reservoir Evaluation: v1. Geolog Database Structure A2.

5 to 12 mD and NTG 4 to 96%. confirmation of formation water resistivity and saturation-height data. Page 4 . and was terminated 3 metres into the sand. The well took a gas kick. with 100% net-to-gross (NTG) averaging 16. drilled in 2000. The highest porosity and permeability was seen in the Upper Reservoir (UR) zone of 3/29 – 2. The sands are informally named as the Rhum Sand and belong to the J74 to J62 sequences. a comprehensive suite of log and pressure data was acquired. Although the direct core saturation data agreed with the MRIL saturations. Thus the best tool for determining gas saturation and sand volume overall was the Magnetic Resonance Imaging Log (MRIL). Extensive core indicates that the reservoir is either fine to medium-grained sand or shale and a simple sand flag was devised to describe net. and was successfully tested. drilled through a gas-water contact. This report details log analysis incorporating special core analysis (SCAL) data from 3/29a – 4 and includes a re-analysis of 3/29 – 2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Rhum Field contains high pressure and high temperature (HPHT) dry gas in late Jurassic thinly-bedded turbidite sands. Special core analysis of 3/29a – 4 core provided refined Archie parameter values. based on matrix density and shale volume.1 mD. It was difficult to get an accurate measure of water saturation from log and core data. out of 191 metres of reservoir (nearly half the entire reservoir sequence). The well was not tested because suitable HPHT test equipment was not developed at the time of drilling (1977). Individual beds in the UMR exhibit Darcy-scale permeability. while individual thin bed quality was best measured by high-resolution density logs. 3/29 – 2 and 3/29a – 4.4m thick sand. The selected logging program was largely successful in 3/29a – 4 and did improve thin sand definition. the total net reservoir thickness is similar in both wells.Rhum Petrophysical Reservoir Evaluation: v1. 93 metres of core were cut. was not logged across the reservoir. other indicators (log SW and capillary pressure data) suggest higher water saturations in the gas leg. encountered 191 metres of gross Rhum reservoir. The field has only three well control points: 3/29 – 1.8 and 11. Reliable pressure data were obtained that define gas and water gradients and a free water level (FWL) at 4745mTVDSS. In 3/29 – 2 the entire 148-metre gross thickness Rhum Sand reservoir was gas-bearing.0 13/08/2005 1. sand beds were seen in core that are not detectable on logs but are likely to contribute to production. The Upper Main Reservoir (UMR) zone ranges in porosity between 3. The FWL indicated by formation pressure and core data is consistent with the log data. Only two valid Repeat Formation Tester (RFT) pressure points were obtained. A single 14-metre core was cut in a thinly-interbedded sand interval. porosity and permeability data corrected for reservoir pressure and overburden. In order to resolve and quantify reservoir quality in the thinly-bedded sequence. Despite the variability between reservoir zones. less than 1 PU and 0.4 porosity units (PU) and 255 millidarcies (mD) (zonal averages) in a 3. It is important to have a range of logging tools to address separate but related aspects of reservoir quality. Given the HPHT nature of the gas volume. Core saturation data should be reviewed. Net sand is therefore defined as equivalent to gross sand. but the same sand in 3/29a – 4 is only 1m thick with 50% NTG.4 PU. permeability 0. Core indicated that the reservoir was a thinly-bedded turbidite sequence. Rhum Sand reservoir quality is variable. 3/29a – 4. cm-scale. Core saturation data in 3/29a – 4 indicated very low water saturations in the gas leg. 3/29 – 1 encountered sands below Cretaceous mudstones that are of inferred late Jurassic age but cannot be dated conclusively. even low permeability sands are likely to contribute to production. being generally moderate but ranging from poor to good (Summary Figures 1 and 2). being 108m in 3/29 – 2 and 95m in 3/29a – 4. Very thin. A basic gamma ray-density-resistivity-sonic log suite was obtained. and the 3D Explorer Induction Log (3DEX) tensor resistivity tool.

15 ILD 2.1 1 0..3 IN CPOR V/V PHIE V/V 0 NET 0 10 0 1 METRES SWE V/V 0 1 0 0 1 PHIE V/V BVW V/V VSH V/V 0 K 0 0.4 100 96 65 91 88 16.45 16 1.2 19.4 11. m NTG. mD Reservoir UR TVDSS METRES METRES 3. mD Geom.4 29.4 BS 6 6 0 IN CALI IN GR 16 0. 3/29 – 2 Rhum Well Summary – Reservoir Section 3/29 – 2 Reservoir Properties Zone DRHO -0.1.4 20. Perm.8 669 250 85 14 4 255 9 11 1 0.2 11.1 -0.2 40 0.5 3.4 2.9 50.95 G/C3 NPHI V/V RHOB G/C3 DT US/F 0. % Arith.2 OHMM SFLU OHMM 200 200 Gross.Rhum Petrophysical Reservoir Evaluation: v1.3 0.0 12.4 28.95 0.1 Depth Zone CORE 10 0.1 44.4 7. Perm.1 MD 10000 CKHA MD 10000 UMR1 UMR2 UMR3 LMR GAPI 200 140 4510 4515 4520 4525 4530 4535 4507 4540 4511 4545 4480 4485 4490 4495 KCF 31 4500 4505 4510 4515 4520 4525 4530 4535 4540 4545 UR IRS 20 Averages on total sand flag 4550 4555 4560 4532 4565 4570 4575 4580 4585 4590 4561 4595 Top Main Rhum Reservoir Reservoir not flow tested UMR1 29 4550 4555 4560 4565 4570 4575 4580 4585 4590 4595 UMR2 19 4600 4605 4610 4580 4615 4620 UMR3 21 4601 4625 4630 4635 4640 4645 4600 4605 4610 4615 4620 4625 4630 4635 4640 4645 4650 4655 LMR 50 4660 4665 4670 4675 4680 4685 FWL below base reservoir at 4745 mTVDSS Page 5 .. % Porosity.0 13/08/2005 Figure 1. m Net.7 19.

4 12 0.0 47.9 26.1 1 0.5 3. % 30 30 0. Perm.0 10.5 0.1 0. 10 ppm H2S Averages on total sand flag 4750 4755 4760 4765 4770 4775 4780 4785 4790 4795 LMR 61 4800 4805 4810 4815 4820 4825 4830 4806 4835 4840 4845 DST 1B upper • 3096 bbl water/d 4800 4805 4810 4815 4820 4825 4830 4835 4840 4845 4850 LR 48 4855 4860 4865 4870 4875 4880 4850 DST 1B lower • No flow Page 6 .0 13/08/2005 Figure 1.1 15.6 0.2 OHMM RV OHMM 200 200 CORE 10 TVDSS METRES METRES Depth Zone IN COREPHIH1 % COREICPHI1 % PHIE V/V 0 PHIE 0 NET 0 10 0 1 METRES SWE V/V 0 1 0 0 1 V/V BVW V/V VSH V/V 0 K 0 0.4 BS 6 6 0 IN CAL IN GR 16 0.3 0.2 40 0.3 12.2.95 0.4 7.5 1 0..4 45.3 Arith.4 50 4 67 22 81 74 32 0.Rhum Petrophysical Reservoir Evaluation: v1.9 5.2 0.9 6.5% CO2.1 -0.8 9.95 G/C3 NPHI V/V RHOB G/C3 DT US/F 0.1 MD K MD 10000 10000 Zone Gross. m NTG. mD Geom.45 16 1.0 17.8 6.2 GAPI 200 140 4640 4610 4615 4620 4625 4630 4635 4640 4645 KCF 33 4645 4650 4655 4660 4665 UR 4639 4670 4675 4680 4685 4665 4690 4695 IRS 25 4650 4655 4660 4665 4670 4675 4680 4685 4690 4695 4700 4705 4710 4715 4720 4725 4730 4710 4735 4740 4745 Top Main Rhum Reservoir • • • • FWL LMR LR UMR1 45 4700 4705 4710 4715 4720 4725 4730 4735 4740 4745 UMR2 22 4750 4755 4732 4760 UMR3 13 4745 4765 4770 4775 4780 4785 4790 4795 DST 2 45 mmscfg/d 270 bbl cond/d CGR 6 bbl/mmscf 6.8 22.9 61.7 17. m Net. 3/29a – 4 Rhum Well Summary – Reservoir Section 3/29a – 4 Reservoir Properties Reservoir DRHO -0.2 6.1 0. Perm.2 3 70 1 18 4 1.. % Porosity. mD UR UMR1U UMR1L UMR2 UMR3 1.15 M1RX 2.

Use core data to calibrate log-derived porosity and permeability. In 3/29 – 2 the entire 148-metre gross thickness Rhum Sand reservoir was gas-bearing. The BA report should be consulted for log processing details.0 13/08/2005 2. Determine best net sand flag. Confirm free water level. 3/29a – 4. The sands are informally named as the Rhum Sand and belong to the J74 to J62 sequences.XMAC Elite) data. 3/29 – 1 encountered sands below Cretaceous mudstones that are of inferred late Jurassic age but cannot be dated conclusively. Only two valid repeat formation tester (RFT) pressure points were obtained. and was terminated 3 metres into the sand. Evaluate whether higher resolution density and resistivity tools have added value to well results and aided net definition.3DEX) logs were acquired by Baker Atlas GeoScience (BA). 2001). 3/29 – 2 (off-crest) and 3/29a – 4 (flank) encountered complete Rhum Sand sequences. and 3D Explorer induction log tensor resistivity tool . drilled through a gas-water contact. neutron. Re-evaluate 3/29 – 2 logs using Archie parameters derived from 3/29a – 4 SCAL. The field has only three well control points: 3/29 – 1. drilled in 2000. electric and magnetic resonance imaging logs) and matched to core data. Determination of apparent fluid volumes from MRIL.1). check environmental corrections and load necessary additional data including PGL curves and SCAL-corrected core data. A single 14-metre core was cut in a thinly-interbedded sand interval. 93 metres of core were cut. Comparison of porosity and water saturation analysis derived from different tools (nuclear. Extraction of horizontal (RH) and vertical (RV) components of resistivity from 3DEX data via inversion. An operations preliminary log interpretation was performed by Production Geoscience Limited (PGL) (Whitehead. This analysis will improve thin sand bed resolution and water saturation determination. The well took a gas kick. • • Enhancement of vertical resolution of density. bad data repair and log compositing. Generate permeability logs. was not logged across the reservoir. Recognising from 3/29 – 2 core that the reservoir was thinly bedded.Rhum Petrophysical Reservoir Evaluation: v1. The well was not tested because suitable HPHT test equipment was not developed at the time of drilling (1977). together with Magnetic Resonance Imaging Log (MRIL) and sonic (Cross Multipole Array Acoustilog . 2. BA performed in-house processing and interpretation of the data (Page. A comprehensive suite of logs and pressure data were acquired. 3/29 – 2 and 3/29a – 4 (Figure 2. INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE The Rhum Field contains high pressure and high temperature (HPHT) dry gas (88. high resolution density (ZDL) and resistivity (High Definition Induction Log – HDIL. and HDIL logs. Update analysis of 3/29a – 4 with previously uninterpreted high resolution log data and new SCAL data. A basic gamma ray-densityresistivity-sonic log suite was obtained. out of 191 metres of reservoir (nearly half the entire reservoir sequence). The scope of work comprised: • • • • • • • • • • Quality check and update Geolog database. Review of PGL petrophysical analysis of 3/29a – 4. 2001).1.8 mol% methane) in late Jurassic thinly-bedded turbidite sands. Page 7 . Workscope This report details the updated log analysis incorporating special core analysis (SCAL) data from 3/29a – 4 and also includes a re-analysis of 3/29 – 2. specifically: • • Depth shifting. encountered 191 metres of gross Rhum reservoir. and was successfully tested. Correct core porosity data for overburden and core permeability data for reservoir conditions.

Rhum Petrophysical Reservoir Evaluation: v1.0 13/08/2005 • • Generate reservoir zone averages. Drilled depths are indicated as mDD. mTVDDD or mTVDSSDD. Export data for RMS 3D geological model build.1. Rhum Field Location Map B 23a 19b 24c C 25c Nuggets 21 25b 10a 11a 11c 23b 24b 24a D HWC 28a 28b 28c 29a 29d 30a 30b 29b 29c 26 Rhum 5b 5a 11b a Bressay 3a 3b 4a 4c 10/1 1b 25/1a 2a 2c 3/29a-4 4b 4d Frigg 3/29-2 8b 8a 9c 9b 9a 10a 10c 4b 4c 6 15a 4a 5b 6 3/29-1 9d 13e 13d 14a Bruce 10b 1km Page 8 . True logged vertical depth below reference datum and true logged vertical depth subsea are indicated as TVD and TVDSS respectively. Depth Conventions 2.2. Figure 2. All depths and thicknesses are quoted in metres (m) and unless otherwise specified are logged depth below reference datum.

12) 45 (0.65 0.3 mmbbl (p90-p10) Base case.28 E+09 m3) Probable transition zone above FWL @4745m (welltest Pi 12350psia @4619m) Some evidence for higher pressures in aquifer Reservoir gradient (PVT gradient closer to 0.76E-07 7. ZONE.SEQUENCE. P90-P50-P10) Probabilistic (Range 2.23-4.varies laterally and by reservoir unit Extent of qtz.Rhum Petrophysical Reservoir Evaluation: v1. range 4. 35km NW of Frigg 3/29a-4 location 3/29a-4 location MSL .530) 86 metres fraction v/v mD % Analogous to Brae.87-2.3 list basic Rhum Field information and data availability. identifying the names of best log and core datasets.GROUP. range 703-1720 Bcf (p90-p10) Mean case.FORMATION and ZONE. FIELD AND WELL DATABASE Tables 3.45km N of Bruce. Rhum Field Data PROPERTY LOCATION Field / Block Latitude Longitude Water Depth TRAP Type Area Gross Rock Volume Depth to Crest Lowest closing contour GWC FWL Gas Column Oil Column Original Pressure @ datum Current Pressure @ datum Pressure Gradient Original Temp Datum Depth RESERVOIR Formation Age Type Gross Thickness Net:Gross Porosity average (range) Permeability average (range) Hydrocarbon saturation average (range) WELL TEST PERFORMANCE AOFP Test Kh Test Rate PETROLEUM Gas Gravity Condensate Density Condensate Viscosity Water Viscosity Dew point CGR Gas Expansion Factor Water Formation Volume Factor Condensate Compressibility Water Compressibility Formation Compressibility FORMATION WATER Salinity Resistivity FIELD CHARACTERISTICS GIIP STOIIP (condensate) Recovery Factor (gas) Recovery Factor (condensate) Drive Mechanism Recoverable Gas Recoverable Condensate VALUE UNITS NOTES 3/29a 60 08' 13" 01 42' 50" 108.00E-06 air=1 g/cm3 cp at Pi cp at 146deg C psia at 148deg C stb/mmscf scf/rcf rb/stb not yet determined 1 / psia 1 / psia From SCAL on core samples from well 3/29 a4 15800 0.ZONE. cement controls resr.01 .06-0. 1/2" choke 0. Note that complete sequence.25 0. quality From core in 3/29a-4 SCAL measurements .thickens on western flank Average . DST2. formation and reservoir zone tops from surface to TD are included in the Geolog database as ZONE. group.no significant variation across field 4 way dip closure 3.5 N E metres ca.03 5. unreliable in thin sands 297 1450 45 mmscf/d 3/29a-4 performance mDm 3/29a-4. drawdown 575psi. temp grad. DST2 mmscf/d 3/29a-4.23 Bcf mmbbl % % Bcf mmbbl Mean case.0 13/08/2005 3.14 psi/ft) @ 4745 mTVDss (6 Deg /100m apparent res.1.log satns.6 4745 m2 m3 mTVDSS mTVDSS mTVDSS mTVDSS mTVDSS mTVDSS psia psia psi/ft Reservoir interval drapes Triassic fault block Dimensions approx 10km (N-S) by 5km (E-W) Base Case (range 1. P90-P50-P10) Page 9 . but a separate sand system Intra-Kimmeridge Thin-bedded sand units within basin-floor fan Approx . deg C (From Horner plots of wireline logs)) mTVDSS FWL Rhum Sand Late Jurassic Turbidite Sands 200 0.17 149.09 (0. range of scenarios considered Aquifer movement less significant than gas blowdown Probabilistic (Range 458-803-1072 Bcf.25 5640 6 384 1.99E+09 4400 4880 ?4731 4745 345 0 12418 12418 0.2 -10. @140deg C 1168 7 70 60 Gas expansion 803 4. ZONE.1 to 3.34 Bcf.075 mg/l ohmm chlorides -unusually low salinity for UJ marine resr.25 0.75-4.788 0. Table 3.50E+07 1. Geolog database listings are provided in Appendix 1.

RHOB.5 4606 UR 4540 4507 4666.5 4710 UMR3 4615 4580 4760 4732 LMR 4636. DT MWD plus high resolution wireline ZDL density.2 23.5 4640 UMR1U 4692. NPHI. RHOB.2 Thin sands Table 3. mamsl 22 24 26. Zone Name Page 10 . IRS – Inter Reservoir Shale.0 13/08/2005 Table 3. UMR – Upper Main Reservoir. NPHI. 3DEX and HDIL resistivity tools. RHOB.2. UR – Upper Reservoir. Rhum Sand Reservoir Zone Tops 3/29 – 2 3/29a – 4 Zone Top. NPHI. thin sands V. LLD-LLS-MSFL. ILD-SFLU. DT GR.Rhum Petrophysical Reservoir Evaluation: v1.5 34 25. mMD mTVDSS mMD mTVDSS KCF 4508 4476 4633. NPHI.5 4601 4773 4745 LR 4834. DT None GR. Zone Top.5 Late Jurassic Reservoir Presence No late Jurassic reservoir – Shetland Platform well Gas shows in v. ILD. MRIL GR. Data Availability – Rhum Area Wells Loaded to Geolog Well 3/24b – 2 3/25a – 3 3/25a – 4 3/29 – 1 3/29 – 2 3/29a – 4 Date 1986 1977 1985 1973 1977 2000 Log Data over Reservoir N/a GR. CBIL imager. DT Mud Type OBM OBM OBM WBM WBM OBM RTE. thin sands Probably drilled 3m into reservoir Rhum discovery well Suspended gas producer 3/29b – 3&S1 1992 WBM 26. LR – Lower Reservoir. LLD-LLSMSFL. LMR – Lower Main Reservoir.3. ILD.5 4665 UMR1 UMR1L 4565 4532 4710 4683 UMR2 4595 4561 4737.5 4639 IRS 4544 4511 4667. Zone Top.5 4806 Heather 4688 4651 4883 4855 Devonian 4852 4810 Basement 5147 5105 TD 5165 5123 5060 5031 KCF – Kimmeridge Clay Formation. XMAC Elite sonic. Zone Top. RHOB.

5. The maximum downhole pressure in the gas leg was 12.418 psi at 4.Rhum Petrophysical Reservoir Evaluation: v1.919. The highest reliable corrected bottom hole temperature (BHT) registered while logging in 3/29a – 4 was 155oC at 4.493 psi at 4.94oC/100m was computed from BHT data from Runs 3 and 4 (Watts.8 psi/ft hydrostatic gradient are considered high pressure (Baird et al. For log analysis purposes. 2001). The maximum downhole pressure in the water leg was 13..060 m) of 163. A temperature gradient for the Jurassic and Devonian interval of 5. This would yield an extrapolated BHT at total depth (TD . TD logging Run 5 registered 141. Wells with undisturbed bottomhole temperature above 150oC (302oF) are classed as high temperature. degC Page 11 TD @ 5031m Run 5 log temp – 141. 3/29a-4 -4550 100 -4600 -4650 -4700 -4750 Depth.2).4 m (Run 4A in 8. TVDSS -4800 -4850 -4900 -4950 -5000 -5050 -5100 Temp.745 mTVDSS in 3/29a – 4. FIELD TEMPERATURE AND PRESSURE As stated in the Introduction.0 13/08/2005 4. 1998).1degC @ 4927m Top UMR1 Sand 110 120 130 140 Top KCF 150 160 170 Jurassic temperature gradient 5.5-inch hole).190 psi. Those with wellhead pressure greater than 10.1. Figure 4.1).927mTVDSS after 22.3oC (Watts.000 psi or a maximum anticipated downhole pore pressure exceeding an 0. the near-bore formation temperature at time of logging is more important.6 hours no circulation and this value was combined with the temperature gradient data to determine nearbore reservoir temperature distribution at time of logging (Figure 4. More information on formation pressure is given in Section 8.94 degC/100m .1oC at 4. 2001).. 3/29a – 4: Temperature Gradient used in Log Analysis Temperature Gradient.838 mTVDSS in 3/29 – 2 (Figure 4. The maximum measured shut in pressure recorded at the wellhead in 3/29a – 4 was 10. Rhum is considered to be an HPHT field.

Rhum Field Formation Pressures Rhum Reservoir Pressure psi 12000 4300 12200 12400 12600 12800 13000 13200 13400 13600 4400 4500 depth tvdss crest 4600 3/29-1 3/29-2 3/29a-4 4700 4800 4900 Page 12 .2.0 13/08/2005 Figure 4.Rhum Petrophysical Reservoir Evaluation: v1.

9-4882 Failed – no data 4900-4675 4788-4851. Page 13 . Key input curves and data are plotted on the CPI.5 4717. Log curve mnemonics are listed in Appendix 1. Well 3/29a – 4 Log Data Summary for Zones of Interest Run No.5 8. 5.5 8. not reaching the well TD of 5060m. The water recovered on test allowed refinement of the RW value used in this updated analysis.5 8. mMD 4525-4961 4664-4693. Table 5.1.0 13/08/2005 5.5 8. ICCS data were generally considered to be of better quality and were used for log calibration purposes.2). with multiple runs being made.5 4790-4859 4784.5 8.5 8. then 3/29 – 2 was reanalyzed using the SCAL data from 3/29a – 4.5 8.1. TD logs were of better quality although there were still zones of sticking and TD logs only reached a maximum depth of 4980m. Log and test data are listed below (Tables 5.5 8.1 and 5.5 8. Enclosure 1. 3/29a – 4 Data 3/29a – 4 was drilled with a synthetic oil-based mud (SOBM). 93m of core were cut and cored intervals are listed in Appendix 2. Log data were loaded to Geolog (Appendix 1).5-4834.5-4783.5 8. 3/29a – 4 was evaluated first.5 8.5 WL4B MRIL-GR-TTRM WL4D RCI-GR-TTRM WL4E RCI-GR-TTRM WL4A HDIP-CBIL-GR-TTRM WL5A GR-HDIL-XMAC-ORIT-TTRM* WL5A ZDL-CN-DSL-TTRM* WL5A DMAG-GR* *TD logs marked with an asterisk.7 degrees at 4947m). Intermediate logs suffered from tool sticking.5 8.5-4861. Conventional and SCAL core analyses were conducted by Corex and Integrated Core Consultancy Services Limited (ICCS).5 8. Logging was conducted by BA and was problematic.6 4717.1. LWD 1215 WL3A WL4A WL4A WL4A WL4A WL4B WL4C WL4B WL4C WL4A Logs Run GR-MPR-MAP-DIR (+CCN-ORD on run 14) FMT-GR-CHT GR-HDIL-3DEX-ORIT-XMACIITTRM ZDL-CN-DSL-TTRM FMT-GR-CHT RCI-GR-TTRM RCI-GR-TTRM RCI-GR-TTRM FMT-GR-CHT FMT-GR-CHT MRIL-GR-TTRM Interval Logged. WELL – BY – WELL EVALUATION This section describes the updated petrophysical evaluations conducted on 3/29a – 4 and 3/29 – 2.1.5 8.5 8. Deeper intervals were perforated and tested because the initial evaluation conducted by PGL indicated deeper hydrocarbons. The well reached TD at 5060m in the Heather Formation.8 4733. inches 8. 3/29a – 4 Review 5. Note that only the UMR zone flowed gas.5 4835 4910-4514 4980-4650 4915-4776 4510-130 Date Run 11/1029/11/00 17/10/00 30/11/00 1/12/00 1/12/00 1/12/00 2/12/00 2/12/00 3/12/00 3/12/00 4/12/00 4/12/00 5/12/00 5/12/00 6/12/00 11/12/00 11/12/00 12/12/00 Hole Size. The cause of this was use of an incorrect estimated formation water resistivity (RW) value. Hole deviation is low (maximum 5.5 8.Rhum Petrophysical Reservoir Evaluation: v1.5 8. SCAL data are reviewed in Appendix 3.6 4963-4514 4910-4514 4717-4880. Four intervals were perforated and tested.

2.4 stb/mmscf Log data were loaded to Geolog by previous users during well operations. GR_REF should not be used for analysis since it is a mix of centralized and decentralized sensor data and is for depth reference purposes only. mMD 4883 4829. 15800 mg/l salinity UMR zone – 45 mmscfgpd. BA made necessary environmental corrections but PGL additionally corrected the neutron CNC log for pressure.CNCC) as a check on the PGL method. PGL believed that BA had made all other required corrections but this was not the case. Corrections are required for mud weight to the GR.2. including environmental corrections and core shifts applied are provided in Appendix 1 and 2. Resistivity logs were boreholecorrected in real-time.CNHR curves. The same corrections were applied to the BEST. As a background check on the PGL method and software the PGL analysis was partially duplicated. The CNCC log is additionally corrected for pressure. All the curve data provided by PGL are retained in the Geolog dataset called PGL (input curves and calculated curves).1. DST1A DST1B DST2A Top of Perforated Interval. density and PE logs.CNCC) was duplicated in Geolog (BEST_PGL. SPF 6 6 6 6 Result LR zone – no flow LMR & LR zones – 3096 BWPD. Both BA and PGL spliced logs to obtain coverage over bad data areas. Page 14 . Calculated curves are in the CALC_PGL data set.1. This was used to check we had the correct PGL data set. 5. The best set of logs are the ones in sets prefixed BA_FINAL. mMD 4844 4777 4844 4692 Bottom of Perforated Interval.Rhum Petrophysical Reservoir Evaluation: v1.3 lists the input parameters derived from the Run 5A log header. 2001) with BA Geoscience conducting additional studies (curve processing and corrections. Database specifics.NPHI and BEST. Operations petrophysical analysis was performed by PGL (Whitehead. There was good agreement between the two curves.layout). Review of PGL Analysis A layout was built to show PGL results (SK_329A_4. and key logs have been copied from BA_FINAL sets to a single BEST set.5 4833 4735 Shot Spacing. Input curves matching those used by PGL are in the BEST_PGL dataset. The BA composited logs were used in the PGL analysis. The PGL environmental correction (PGL. CGR 6. 5. Best datasets are depth-referenced to the Run 5A down log (BA_FINAL_LORES_GR_REF_1 or BEST. mud weight and borehole temperature. Table 5.GR_REF_1 reference gamma ray log). The CNC log is borehole-corrected compensated (caliper and salinity) neutron logs.2. MRIL data analysis and thin bed resistivity modelling). Existing naming conventions were confusing and have been updated (see Appendix 1). Environmental Corrections Note that the only environmental correction made by PGL was to the CNC log.0 13/08/2005 Table 5. Well 3/29a – 4 Test Data Test No. The first step in this review was to understand the origin and significance of existing Geolog data and to update the database with formation tops from OpenWorks and with perforations/test data. mud weight and borehole temperature (curve named CCNC).1. A petrophysical database was constructed within Geolog. SCAL results are provided in Appendix 3.

the HDIL 120-inch depth of investigation (M2RX) curve was used for RT. 5. MRIL data are loaded in Geolog in the set BA_FINAL.1.3.750 38. CNC Log Environmental Correction Parameters Parameter CNC Tool Type Standoff Top Log Interval Temperature (TLT) Top Log Interval Depth (TLI) Bottom Log Interval Temperature (BLT) Bottom Log Interval Depth (BLI) Mud Weight (DFD) Bit Size (BS) Mud type Mud oil/water ratio Whole mud chlorides Mud salinity Mud contains barite? Units Inches O F Metres MD O F Metres MD Lb/gal Inches Mg/l Mg/l Value 2446XA Decentralized 60. However.1. 2001.229 Yes. Note that the MRIL curves displayed have been summed to indicate the different fluid fractions: • PHS. Good agreement with PGL curves. 5. Since this method was not valid it was not repeated. Shale Volume (VSH) Computed by reservoir interval using input parameters listed in PGL report (Whitehead. VSH computed using gamma ray from resistivity logs (VSHGR).5 SOBM 82/18 23. Resulting curve (CALC.2. Enclosure 1).3.4.65% 5. effective porosity = MBVI + MFFI MPHI is the sum of capillary-bound water (MBVI) plus free fluids (MFFI). total porosity = MCBW + MPHI PHS is the sum of clay-bound water (MCBW) plus mobile fluids or effective porosity (MPHI).1. MRIL Processing MRIL analysis method is described by Page (2001). The result would tend to underestimate SW.2. neutron (VSHN) and neutron/density (VSHDN). Below the UMR1. RH) over the UMR1.RTCOMP.PGL_PHIE) is very similar. The curve is PGL.2. • • MFFI may be mobile water (MWATER).1. MWATER = MBVI + MRIL_WATER Page 15 . 5. PGL comparison is in CALC_PGL. The 3DEX data must be interpreted using BA software with informed user input. for true formation resistivity (RT) as input to the Indonesia Equation (RV gives a better measure of thin bed resistivity than horizontal resistivity.94 8.Rhum Petrophysical Reservoir Evaluation: v1.8 128 286 4899 15.3. RV. 30. Water Saturation (SW) The PGL petrophysical analysis was run using the 3DEX vertical resistivity component.0 13/08/2005 Table 5. MRIL curves are displayed on the enclosed CPI (track 16.MRIL. oil (MOIL) and gas (MGAS). • MPHI. the RV curve cannot be used to compute saturations using the Indonesia Equation because the Indonesia Equation is designed to use horizontal resistivity measured in parallel along beds rather than in series across beds. Appendix 2). Effective Porosity (PHIE) Effective porosity computed using PGL constants and Bateman-Konen density-neutron method.2.

1) and constants table for input values. and the Devonian analysis should be considered quick-look only.0 13/08/2005 • • • MOIL = MWATER + MRIL_OIL MGAS = MOIL + MRIL_GAS PHS also equals MGAS + MCBW (in this case the sum MGAS equals MPHI) In this case MOIL represents the invaded phase of the oil-base mud and not oil in the formation. which included the Rhum reservoir sands and the underlying Devonian interval. The corrected curve is BEST.M1R) data were used for the updated analysis. and therefore only indicates true SW above the free water level.4.4. Note that PGL. Enclosure 1).DNHR).4. Page 16 .Rhum Petrophysical Reservoir Evaluation: v1. Input constants are listed in Table 5. Different matrix and shale constants were used for the LR zone that exhibited a considerably higher GR than the rest of the reservoir. neutron (BEST.1.VSH_GR (track 17. See GR histogram (Figure 5. and renamed as NPHI.GRR.3. Where the same value is indicated in the table this is because there was insufficient difference or data to vary the constants between intervals.1. HDIL curves were corrected by BA for borehole conditions. 5. CNHR log corrected as described above. Analysis The petrophysical analysis was run from top Kimmeridge Clay Formation to TD. 5.MRIL_SW (track 14. Resulting curve is CALC.CNHR) and HDIL induction log (BEST. DNHR and PE curves were corrected for borehole size. and not due to invasion. 5. neutron and GR methods is flawed in gas reservoirs where the gas effect will cause underestimation of shale on the neutron and density logs. 5. Enclosure 1) measures irreducible SW. VSH is computed from BEST.1. DNHR was renamed as RHOB (bulk density). The MRIL tool has a 2-foot vertical resolution and the resultant curves are very smooth compared to electric log curves. indicating a different shale type.GRR.1. New Petrophysical Analysis Best input curves are located in the BEST Geolog dataset. Computer-processed log interpretation (CPI) plots are enclosed (Enclosure 1 – detailed analysis. Environmental Corrections The gamma ray (GRR) log is corrected for hole size and mud weight since there is no evidence of prior corrections having been made. Note that the same input parameters were applied to the Devonian interval as for the Rhum Sand. Zones where HDIL component curves do not overlie each other are likely due to stick and pull effects. Summed curves are located in the set PGL. The common method of taking the minimum of VSH from density. VSH The best VSH method was considered to be a normalized gamma ray because density and neutron logs could be affected by gas in the shales that is not easily detected or corrected for using Geolog. Enclosure 2 – simplified display). High resolution density (BEST.4.2.4. which were corrected as far as possible.1.

0 0.41034 26.Rhum Petrophysical Reservoir Evaluation: v1.87954 145.87826 42.025 1.1 0.GR_1 Well: 3_29-2 Intervals: KCF.6 0.56522 1776.2 0.3 0.4 0.00152 128.020 0.25000 GR_MA 24 GR_SH 183 GR_MA 27 GR_SH 233 Page 17 . LMR.0 METRES Filter: 0.9 0.7 0.000 0 105 140 175 210 245 280 315 350 35 70 MA SH 0.2 0.0 0.59800 189.015 0.05 0.42571 80. LKCF Filter: Frequency Histogram of BEST. UR.15303 -1.31250 171.07035 168.8 0.82709 321. UMR2.03500 139. UMR3.GRR_COR_1 Well: 3_29A-4 4633.23745 95.00 0 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 25 50 75 MA SH 0.1.6 0.30654 6405. INTER RES SHALE.01 Statistics: Possible values Missing values Minimum value Maximum value Range Mean Geometric Mean Harmonic Mean Variance Standard Deviation Skewness Kurtosis Median Mode 242 0 14.82192 156.00517 341. GR Response Histograms Frequency Histogram of BEST.005 0.1 0.5 0.05039 2.4894.25000 Statistics: Possible values Missing values Minimum value Maximum value Range Mean Geometric Mean Harmonic Mean Variance Standard Deviation Skewness Kurtosis Median Mode 6837 0 20.63300 175. LR.0 0.06 1.7 0.4 0.03390 -0.5 .5 0.62461 126.02 0.46019 4.010 0.97939 99.0 13/08/2005 Figure 5.03 0. UMR1.04 0.0 0.8 0.9 0.3 0.

5 90 210 43 318 1.9 N/A 2.7 N/A 2.3 0.1 55.1 UMR3/LM R Water 1.052 7.1 UR/Int.3 N/A 2.9 SOBM N/A 1.559 0.7 1 -0.647 2.66 0.017 0.9 SOBM N/A 1.7 2.7 1 -0.052 6.5 90 210 27 233 1.5 90 210 27 233 1.1 N/A 2.647 2.075 140 0.6 N/A 2.2/1.1 US/F T US/F T US/F T GAPI GAPI V/V V/V V/V V/V V/V V/V OHM -M G/CC G/CC G/CC G/CC G/CC G/CC OHM -M o C V/V Underlined values are derived from core.1 55. 5.2 N/A 2. using the Teeuw (1971) method (Appendix 3).9/2.5 90 210 27 233 1. Log analysis matrix and fluid constants are included in Table 4.1 55.4. The best match to core data was obtained using the density method (track 12.3 0.017 0. Overburden-corrected data sets are suffixed _OBC.9 SOBM N/A 1.052 7.39 2.647 2.647 g/cc except for a small percentage of lower grain densities in the range 2.7 1 -0. Enclosure 1). Log Analysis Constants Parameter Fluid Type A DT_MA DT_SH DT_FL GR_MA GR_SH M MUD TYPE NPHI_COAL N NPHI_FL NPHI_MA NPHI_SH PHIE_MAX PHIT_SH RES_SH RHO_COAL RHO_DS RHO_FL RHO_MA RHO_SH RHO_W RW RW_TEMP SPI_MAX Units KCF Gas 1.4.559 0.052 5. Core porosities were corrected for overburden using a factor of 0.573 1 0. This is a very small correction reflecting the well-cemented nature of the rock.3 0.075 140 0.3 0.559 0.5-inch sampling) were used as input.647 2.66 0. Res Sh Gas 1.573 1 0. Enclosure 1). Computed log porosities were calibrated against core.7 1 0. The water leg match could not be improved without reducing reservoir fluid sonic travel time (DT_FL) excessively.66 0.1 55.052 5.573 1 0.1 55.017 0. There are no coals in the reservoir.1 55.1 UMR1 Gas 1.39 2.1 55.9 SOBM N/A 1. with bad data gaps infilled by lower resolution data (track 6. Core grain density values are predominantly around 2.2 N/A 2.017 0.5 85 210 27 233 1.075 140 0.3 0.075 140 0.39 2.66 0. Sonic porosity gave a good match to core in the gas leg.7 1 -0. Page 18 .559 0.017 0.7 1 -0.573 1 0.573 1 0. density/neutron (Bateman-Konen method) and sonic (Wyllie method) logs.3 0.075 140 0.66 0.017 0.7 1 -0.647 2.1 SOBM N/A 1.1.1 LR Water 1.5 85 210 43 318 1.647 2.39 2.9 SOBM N/A 1.1 LKCF Water 1. High resolution density and neutron logs (DNHR and CNHR with 1.075 140 0. PHIE Porosity was computed from density.Rhum Petrophysical Reservoir Evaluation: v1.972 obtained from 3/29a – 4 SCAL analysis.4.559 0.48 g/cc to 2.4.58 g/cc (track 7.66 0.7 2.573 1 0. Enclosure 1).052 3.9 SOB M N/A 1.052 7.559 0.017 0.5 95 210 27 233 1.7 2.1 UMR2 Gas 1. The density porosity calculation assumes a matrix density (RHO_MA) of 2.559 0.647 g/cc.075 140 0.573 1 0.0 13/08/2005 Table 5. but was too low in the water leg.66 0.3 0.647 2.

70 100 90 80 3. 2001) computed an effective sand fraction porosity (see Geolog curve BA_FINAL_REPORT.44.COREICPHI1_OBC_1 vs. Enclosure 1).17 psi/ft (equivalent to 0.7 g/cc. CORE.PHIE_SON (Wyllie sonic method). comparing the PESD curve to core description indicates that the PESD curve over-estimates porosity in thick shaly units. 3/29a – 4 Core Porosity vs Log Density Crossplot in the Gas Leg CORE.10 2. Given the difficulty of identifying these sands with conventional log analysis it is recommended that the entire reservoir interval including the KCF is perforated if possible.058 . Therefore the PESD curve should be treated with caution.2.628980 y = (117. However. The water leg RHO_FL value was selected based on an SOBM density of 0.00 0. BEST. In the KCF a number of thin sands with 15 PU porosity are identified by this method that would be productive. MRIL porosities are lower. A porosity of 5 PU can be matched by reducing RHO_MA to 2.DNHR_1 (G/CC) Functions: gasdens : Regression Logs: BEST.20 1.10 2.00 CORE. CC: 0. In thicker sands the result matches the density porosity.80 2.40 2. 2002) did not identify significant amounts of lower density material such as clays. This is intended to give a better volumetric characterization of porosity in thin sands by removing thin laminar shale effects.5 g/cc.80 2. using a core porosity to log density regression (Figure 5. There were insufficient core data to get a reliable RHO_FL value in the water leg.20 1.39 g/cc in the gas leg.MPHIE.5 .60 0.00 0.PHIE_DEN or CALC. BA (Page.39 g/cc).50 1. Figure 5. the computed porosity will also be too high.COREICPHI1_OBC_1. laminar shaly sand model utilizing the 3DEX data. organic material or residual hydrocarbons in any of the core samples.1727*(x)) Page 19 0 . This matches the measured pressure gradient of 0.0 METRES Filter: 0 0 32 32 0 0. If a value of RHO_MA is used that is too high. Computed porosity curves are named CALC.2). track 16. and the anomaly remains.0 13/08/2005 Note that the lower the grain density the lower the computed porosity. Petrographical studies (Paintal.00 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0. This is relevant because the Lower Reservoir interval 4850 – 4865 m contains four beds with computed porosity in the 15 to 20 porosity unit (PU) range. However.60 0.DNHR_1.PESD_1.90 1.COREICPHI1_OBC_1 () 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 BEST.PHIE (density method). track 13 on Enclosure 1) based on an anisotropic thin bedded.Rhum Petrophysical Reservoir Evaluation: v1. felspar.PHIE_DN (density-neutron method) and CALC.40 2. There was not therefore a good case for lowering RHO_MA. The MRIL log indicates that SOBM is the invaded phase.30 0.90 1. around 5 PU (curve PGL.50 1.4760. Reservoir fluid density (RHO_FL) was computed at 0.30 0.DNHR_1 Crossplot Well: 3_29A-4 4633.70 3. CALC.

Such a low value would increase the hydrocarbon saturation in the LMR. The measurement was presumably made on a water sample using a conductivity meter. m=n=2. The 1.79 for UMR3.075 ohm-m at 140oC was used in the computation of SW.7 value is the mid point of this range.062 ohm-m at 140oC.7 was selected for all zones. As explained in Section 4.1). Both methods made use of new SCAL parameters (Table 5. This was obtained from a DST1B water sample in 3/29a – 4. Earlier analysis by PGL had used an RW of 0. This would give an RW of 0.4 and Appendix 3). in a zone which did not flow any gas on test.61 for UMR1 and 1.25 Page 20 . The measured range is actually quite small in this case: the difference between Sw computed using 0.4 16130 80.5 saturation units (SU).2.1.075 ohm-m in the PGL report (PGL. SCAL parameters are interpolated to the appropriate confining pressure.Rhum Petrophysical Reservoir Evaluation: v1.075 ohm-m is approximately 1. The average of the core extract RW is the same as the test water analysis RW.12. although there was a range on measured values.0 13/08/2005 5. An ‘n’ value of 1. The most reliable measurement of RW is by direct meter reading. The RW value equates to a salinity of 22. M1RX curve is 120-inch depth of investigation and 1-foot sample rate.6).2). An ‘a’ value of 1.5. RW measurements were also made on brine extracted from core samples (Table 5. The previous PGL interpretation used defaults a=1. Laboratory water analysis data are presented in Table 5.4 3. 2001).500 mg/l NaCl.035 ohm-m at 140oC (the same value as quoted in a BP file note on 3/29 – 2 petrophysical analysis. Although this value was corrected to 0. but this was rejected as unlikely. The SCAL data indicated n=1.2 175.062 ohm-m compared to 0.4. The equivalent salinity expressed as NaCl is approximately 27.5.5.02 ~27500 7. The LMR ‘n’ value was very low at 1. 3/29a – 4 DST1B Water Analysis Ion Na K Mg Ca Fe Sr Ba Cl Br SO4 HCO3 Total Dissolved Solids Equivalent NaCl salinity PH Reference: McBride and Cook. Concentration mg/l 10340 116 35. 2001.8 350.1. Note that PGL analysis used an incorrect hybrid of M2RX (2-foot sample rate curve) and RV curve from the 3DEX. Table 5. author and date unknown).2 245. • • SW Two approaches were applied to SW determination: Use 3DEX RV data and process using method developed in-house by BA. An ‘m’ value of 1.500 mg/l. this approach is not endorsed by BA. PGL used the 3DEX Rv curve as an RT input to the Indonesia Equation.02 0 1075 28551.9 was used for all zones except the UMR3 (m=2. Use M1RX high resolution data from HDIL tool for comparison with 3DEX results. An RW of 0.1 was used for all zones except the UMR3 (a=1.

1 g/cc.1. The resulting curve is CALC. As noted in Section 5. The computed curve is CALC. The hole is vertical. 5. the resulting curve is called CALC. The MRIL computed SW is PGL.1. The well reached TD at 5165m in the Devonian.1.4.Rhum Petrophysical Reservoir Evaluation: v1. 3/29a – 2 Review 3/29 – 2 was drilled with a water-based mud (WBM). The curves are compared on the CPI log (track 14.083 RW at 20oC. mbrt 4762. this curve is CALC. VSH VSH was computed as a normalised GR.075 ohm-m at 140oC. New Petrophysical Analysis Input and calculated curves are plotted on the CPI (Enclosure 3).3.3.1.537 g/cc. with GR_MA of 24 GAPI and GR_SH of 183 GAPI (Figure 5. from 4711m to TD.077 0.1.66 g/cc. 5. Other input parameters are the same as 3/29a – 4. a. are the MRIL values. the MRIL SW curve represents irreducible SW and is not valid below the free water level of 4745m TVDSS.44 Reference: Mitchell. Since. none of the SCAL samples exhibited significant electrical shaliness. PHIE PHIE was calculated from the density log. The log curve cannot match core porosities because the density log cannot resolve the very thin sands (15 to 20cm) in UMR2. RHO_SH 2. Note that the previous 3/29 – 2 interpretation used an RW of 0. RHO_FL of 1.048 0.188 0.6. Log curves were already loaded to Geolog by previous workers and it is assumed that the curves have been corrected appropriately.55 4769. Lower Reservoir Section There is very little reservoir potential below the Lower Reservoir in 3/29-2. 2001). 5. and included new SCAL parameters (Table 5. Page 21 . SWE Input parameters Rw. Input RT was the deep induction (ILD) curve. The HDIL under-estimates gas saturations. 2001).035 ohm-m instead of the preferred 0.2. 3/29a – 4 RW from Core Brine Extracts Depth.1.2. the Archie Equation would have yielded the same result. m and n were as 3/29a – 4.PHIE_WCORE. The highest gas saturations.063 0.2.1) for all zones. which match the core SW. Note that this well does not have a LR unit.0 g/cc for water-base mud was used. Input parameters used were: RHO_MA 1. Log data were re-analysed using the input parameters derived from 3/29a – 4 SCAL.SWE. 2001.2. 5.SWE_3DEX. ohm-m 0.25 4779. The resulting curve is CALC.2.VSH_GR. RHO_FL 1. The Indonesia Equation was used to compute effective SW (SWE) from the M1RX log.064 0.299 0. SWE_3DEX was computed using the Waxman-SmitsThomas Equation (Page. ohm-m 0. The 3DEX SWE matches MRIL gas saturations in thicker sands but not in the thinly-bedded UMR2. SWE computed from 3DEX data by BA is CALC. CALC. Enclosure 1).BVW is the unflushed zone volume of water. 5.4).PHIE.2.0 13/08/2005 Table 5.063 5.SWE. with the reservoir shale contribution to total conductivity under fully water saturated conditions being under 10% (ICCS.081 0.250 Average: RW at 140oC. fraction 0. Filtrate Invasion.MRIL_SW.2.1. Core data are used to replace the porosity curve over the UMR2.

Archie parameters as for main reservoir (Table 5.5m (log depth) was cored. GR and resistivity are relatively low and cuttings descriptions indicate that the lithology may be a soft limestone. average 1. DT_FL 155 us/ft.075 ohm-m at 140oC). The interval 4720 to 4724m has slower sonic (from 60 to 90 us/ft) than the sand immediately above. Specific intervals of potential interest are: • Heather Sand from 4711 to 4720m: Tight sand with density porosity less than 5 PU and sonic porosity up to 9.02 mD to 0. but density porosity is zero (the porosity curve CALC.5 to 4870. The interval from 4861. assuming the same RW as in the main Rhum reservoir.6 PU. up to 16. with a geometric average of 0. The rest of the Devonian interval has zero log porosity. Devonian Sand from 4852 to 4870m MD: The density log is missing over 4840 to 4856m. DT_SH 100 us/ft.0 13/08/2005 DT_MA 55 us/ft. Core permeability range is 0. The slow sonic gives higher apparent porosity. but average Devonian porosity is very low. which is optimistic but highlights potential thin sands).2%.Rhum Petrophysical Reservoir Evaluation: v1. SW is 100 SU throughout the Devonian interval.31 mD.028 mD (all Klinkenberg corrected). Sonic porosity up to 4 PU maximum is in line with core data. • Page 22 .4).9%.6 to 2. All intervals are waterbearing assuming the same RW as the main Rhum reservoir (0.PHIE_WCORE on Enclosure 3 indicates sonic porosity spliced in below top LR. Core porosity is in the range 1.6 PU.

It can be a useful parameter for differentiating minerals in a U_MAA vs RHO_MAA cross plot (Doveton. VSH was computed as described in Section 4. An alternative Page 23 . Well 3/29a – 4 cored 93m of 191m gross reservoir (nearly 50 percent of the gross reservoir interval). Well 3/29 – 2 had 14m of core in the UMR2 zone only. RHO_DSH is dry shale density (2. Thus a binary sand/shale description matched the actual reservoir lithology. apparent matrix density (RHO_MAA) and total porosity (PHIT). A plot of RHOB against depth (Figure 6.lls loglan module.1). The apparent matrix photoelectric absorption (U_MAA) is generated by the Geolog appmat.Rhum Petrophysical Reservoir Evaluation: v1.02 g/cc based on 22. The shale baseline is derived from the Kimmeridge Clay above and below the turbidite sand intervals. Methodology The sand/shale flag was obtained from a cross-plot of derivative curves VSH. 1994). the validity of the U_MAA data was uncertain. LITHOLOGY ANALYSIS Core description indicates that all of the cored Rhum reservoir consisted of white fine to medium grained sand or dark grey organic-rich pyritic mudstones.647 g/cc). A sand/shale flag was required as the net flag. matching the resulting output to core porosity data by varying RHO_FL. RHO_SH is shale density (2. and to calibrate seismic attribute maps of sand/shale distribution. so that the VSH plots should be directly comparable although the GR plots are not. RHO_FL the mud filtrate density (based on match to core data. and curve normalization was not considered necessary. shale points fall slightly to the right of the main kaolinite-illite field. The log is a continuous flag curve of the form 0 = shale and 1 = sand. Figure 6. However. from the GR log only. Required inputs are: • • • • • • RHO_MA matrix density from core (2. The RHO_MAA/U_MAA/VSH cross plot (Figure 6.1. Porosity is computed from RHOB alone. Apparent matrix properties such as RHO_MAA are generated in Geolog by the Apparent Matrix Properties module (appmat.1) indicates a response difference between the two wells across the reservoir. 6. Sand points fall between quartz and calcite.3 is a crossplot of RHO_MAA vs U_MAA with the positions of key minerals indicated. A plot of GR against depth (Figure 6.lls) to be found under Petrophysics/Parameter Picking.0 g/cc in the water leg of 3/29-2). RHO_W is formation water density (1. since in this type of HPHT reservoir even low permeability rock contributes to gas flow.3) could be used directly to generate a sand/shale flag. The shales contain finely disseminated pyrite and the iron in the pyrite would increase the U_MAA values (in a comparable way to presence of iron-rich chlorite).66 g/cc). It is computed as U /(1-PHITapparent) where U is the volumetric photoelectric absorption.0 13/08/2005 6. Note that the RHO_MAA range for sands and shales is as expected from mineral types. The Rhum Field wells have very good core coverage: 50% of the gross reservoir interval in 3/29a – 4 is cored and this includes the entire gas-bearing zone.573 g/cc). This section describes the method used to derive the sand/shale flag and QC against core data.39 g/cc in the gas leg of 3/29a-4 and 1. RHOB from the density log.2) indicates a similar response between the two wells across the reservoir. Note that the high density zone in 3/29 – 2 between 4650 and 4700 mTVDSS is a dense pyritic shale below the reservoir interval. However. RHO_MAA is computed by Geolog as (RHOB – PHIT*RHO_FL)/(1-PHIT). this varied between 0. with no other significant lithologies. The sand/shale flag was also developed as part of the RMS geological model build for Rhum. The Z-axis is VSH. However the VSH from GR is normalized based on sand matrix and shale end-points for each well (Figure 5.500 mg/l NaCl). the U_MAA values could be shifted to the right due to inaccuracies in the computation parameters.

05 2.35 2.0 45.95 2.875 2.GR_COR Crossplot Well: 3_29-2 3_29A-4 Range: Intervals Filter: 0 0 7949 8169 0 1.65 2.888 2.55 2.025 3.0 50.85 4400 4450 4500 4550 4600 4650 4700 4750 4800 4850 4900 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 30 60 4400 4450 4500 4550 4600 4650 4700 4750 4800 4850 4900 90 0 4400 4450 4500 4550 4600 4650 4700 4750 4800 4850 4900 1.220 10.998 3.TVDSS (METRES) 300 30 60 90 0 35.0 20.175 3. There is no PHIT distinction between sand and shale.2.25 2.100 3.TVDSS (METRES) 0 2 0.060 0.4.HT IL Figure 6.300 2.85 2.0 2.0 30.943 2.45 2.0 0.611 2.575 2.722 2.875 2.722 2.250 CHLORITE 0.Rhum Petrophysical Reservoir Evaluation: v1.75 2.HTIL)3C /G( 1 _AA M_OHR .054 2.RHO_MAA (G/C3) 2.8. and having Geolog compute a sand/shale log from this.666 2.240 0.RHOB Crossplot Well: 3_29-2 3_29A-4 Range: Intervals Filter: 220 REFERENCE.888 2.5 . BEST.15 2.PHIT (V/V) 0 Color: LITH. RHOB vs Depth Plot: 3/29 – 2 & 3/29a – 4. The sand/shale flag was generated by drawing a polygon around the shale points in the region RHO_MAA>2. LITH.0 0 BEST.270 10.25 2.000 0.RHO_MAA vs.55 2.060 0.800 2.120 0.VSH_GR Well Legend: 3_29-2 3_29A-4 1 Page 24 25.054 3. LITH.GR_COR (GAPI) Well Legend: 3_29-2 3_29A-4 Well Legend: 3_29-2 REFERENCE.500 2.650 0.950 3. Crossplot – RHO_MAA vs U_MAA: 3/29a – 4 Reservoir LITH.0 45.800 2.180 0.650 2.270 LITH.832 2.090 0.175 3.0 0.180 0.210 0.575 2. Figure 6.943 2.1.030 0. BEST.0 20.150 0.832 2.0 15.0 0 4633.777 2.725 2.555 2. REFERENCE.0 METRES 1 35.RHO_MAA_1 vs.500 2.000 0.05 2.109 3.4.120 0.210 0.998 3.TVDSS vs.U_MAA_1 CrossplotWell: 3_29A-4 0 6438 6440 0 )3C/B( 1_AAM_U.45 2.4).95 4400 4450 4500 4550 4600 4650 4700 4750 4800 4850 4900 0 7480 7527 0 47 120 150 180 210 240 270 REFERENCE.4894.611 2.95 2.PHIT Crossplot Well: 3_29-2 3_29A-4 Range: Intervals Filter: 8169 .220 3.025 3.0 ILLITE DOLOM SMECTITE ANHYDR ORTHOCL QUARTZ CALCITE 5.0 2.95 2.4 and PHIT<0.240 0. Figure 6.8 and VSH>0.0 15. VSH>0.0 5.15 2.666 2.150 0.75 2.RHOB (G/C3) 3_29A-4 Figure 6.165 3.777 2.165 3.0 30.14.0 KAOLIN 25.0 40.300 0 0 BEST.725 2. GR vs Depth Plot: 3/29 – 2 & 3/29a – 4.0 13/08/2005 RHO_MAA/PHIT/VSH cross plot was investigated (Figure 6. The VSH colour fill indicates that shale tends to have RHO_MAA>2.3.65 2.090 0. Crossplot – PHIT vs RHO_MAA: 3/29 – 2 and 3/29a – 4 Reservoir LITH.500 2.35 2.950 3.109 3.500 2.TVDSS vs.555 2.0 40.250 LITH.030 0.100 3.0 50.0 0.

8 2.04 3.020 1.6 0.025 3. Note that the high density ‘tail’ in the 3/29a – 4 distribution is a shale unit not present in 3/29 – 2. IRS. Figure 6.010 0. In order to put the differences in perspective.87234 0.00 0. LR Filter: 1.VSH_GR Crossplot Well: 3_29-2 3_29A-4 Range: Intervals Filter: 0 0 7527 7527 0 Frequency Histogram of LOG_LITH.VSH_GR (V/V) Well Legend: 3_29-2 3_29A-4 6.64 2.80 2.20 3.0 13/08/2005 The key discriminant in the cross plot method is RHO_MAA.5.RHO_MAA (G/C3) 2.250 0.800 2.67200 Wells: 1.650 0.500 2.87660 2.1 0. This is because many of the thinly interbedded sands are tightly cemented with quartz and are low porosity.8 g/cc cut off point is confirmed by plotting RHO_MAA for both wells as a histogram (Figure 6.89515 2.035 0.50 0.60 0.0 Statistics: Possible values Missing values Minimum value Maximum value Range Mean Geometric Mean Harmonic Mean Variance Standard Deviation Skewness Kurtosis Median Mode 7311 477 2.025 3. The 2.100 3.000 2. UMR1.20 0. 3_29A-4 LITH.10 0.4 2.60 0.RHO_MAA_1 Well: 3_29-2 3_29A-4 Intervals: KCF.040 0. % + 1. A visual comparison with core description indicated that sand/shale in the core description was matching the sand/shale log.3 0.30 0.250 1.15634 -0.Rhum Petrophysical Reservoir Evaluation: v1. 3_29-2 2.90 0. sand thicknesses were computed for the cored reservoir zones and compared to the log-derived sand.0 . Results are as tabulated below (Table 6. UMR2.005 0.RHO_MAA vs.015 0. The VSH distribution is diffuse although showing a clear trend (Figure 6. RHOB Histogram: 3/29 – 2 & 3/29a – 4.00 2.10 0.40 0.5 0.1. Figure 6.725 2.575 2.2.70 0.2 0 .88 2.0 0.1).8.20 0.0 . m 9 17 2 11 20 Interval GIIP.40 0.12 3.69666 2.50260 3.96 3.6) and a VSH cut-off alone will not separate sand from shale. but on inspection these turned out to be either sand or shale.02444 0.175 3.70 0. bcf 92 630 92 169 284 Percentage Change in GIIP.950 3. LITH.045 0.5).56 2. the changes to gas initially in place (GIIP) are indicated.950 3.175 3.875 2. LMR. LITH.90 0.9 0.00 0. As stated above.28 0.800 2.72 2.025 0.6. The core description was coded and loaded to Geolog.030 0.63642 2. UMR3.7 LITH.50 0.8 g/cc cut off 0. In addition.100 3.19926 0. UR.500 2.2.575 2.00 0. m 15 28 21 13 29 Core Sand Count.725 2. PHIT does not differ sufficiently between sand and shale.875 2. Table 6.30 0.80 0.4. Validation The core descriptions included a number of facies. Comparison of Core vs Log Defined Sands Well & Interval 3/29-2: UMR2 3/29a-4: UMR1L UMR2 UMR3 LMR Gross Interval. INTER RES SHALE.2 0.03456 1. RHO_MAA vs VSH Cross Plot: 3/29 – 2 & 3/29a – 4.88086 2. m 8 20 5 11 22 Page 25 Log Sand Count.7 0 .650 2.80 0.

On Figure 6. This effectively solves the problem of log resolution in the UMR2 zone since this is the only reservoir zone with sand beds below log resolution. A reasonable match was seen in all cored zones except for the UMR2 in 3/29a – 4.7 the core sand grain density in track 3 matches RHO_MAA in sand beds in the zones above and below UMR2. with most beds 15cm to 20cm. UMR3 and lower part of the LMR (50% of the entire reservoir interval). with sand beds thicker than 25 cm to greater than 1m. The main reservoir in Rhum is the UMR1L and UMR3. Log-derived lithology is stored as LOG_LITH. over cored intervals the core sand/shale description was overwritten in the sand/shale log. Note that the neutron/density curves in track 2 only show crossover at the thickest bed. However. Figure 6. The core to log match is proportional to sand bed thickness. UMR3 is predominantly sandy with beds 0.7). The lithology flag will not indicate sand where bed thickness is less than 10 cm. some of this error will be caused by the difficulty of exactly depth-matching core to log in thinly interbedded units as well as log resolution issues. 3/29a – 4 UMR2 Zone Log Resolution 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Page 26 . UMR2. The thicker black lines in track 7 are thin sands in the core that are below display resolution.Rhum Petrophysical Reservoir Evaluation: v1. In order to refine the sand/shale log further. For interbedded UMR1L and UMR3 zones and UMR2 in 3/29 – 2. The UMR2 in 3/29 – 2 has 80 percent of sand beds thicker than 10 cm.7. Core lithology descriptions are stored in Geolog as CORE_LITH.0 13/08/2005 Core and log-derived lithologies are displayed on Enclosures 1 and 3. The density log in 3/29 – 4 UMR2 fails to resolve the very thin sand beds (predominantly less than 10 cm thick in core) and sees predominantly shale (Figure 6.CORE_LITH.LOG_LITH. In sandy units (UMR3) the lithology flag works very well. In 3/29 – 2 this is the UMR2 description and in 3/29a – 4 this is the UMR1L. UMR1L and LMR are thinly interbedded sand and shale zones. However in UMR2 the RHO_MAA consistently indicates shale and does not meet any of the sand grain density points except in the thickest bed. Tracks 6 and 7 illustrate the log and core derived sand/shale flag. an error bar of +/-15% may be appropriate. Within the shales there are very thin (<1cm) sands that will not be seen by the logs.5m to several metres thick.

This relationship gave a fit to core data similar to the simple transform (Figure 7. data in Geolog for 3/29a – 4 is in the set Core poroperm cross plots are included (Figure 7. mD = 10**(-1.310255PE + 21.K_GAS_CORR.13677 + 27.00299236RT + 0. Page 27 .02028 * LnKklinkenburg)) The ‘best’ set of permeability GASPERMS. A multiple regression transform was substituted for the simple regression in order to remove the anomalies. Poroperm transforms are: Well 3/29 – 2 3/29a – 4 Transform K.3). PERMEABILITY ANALYSIS Descriptions of available core analysis data are included in the Appendices (Appendix 2 and 3). The transforms quoted above are adequate for permeability log generation. For the IRMS model input a maximum upper limit of 1500 mD was applied to the permeability logs (maximum permeability in core was 1300 mD).Rhum Petrophysical Reservoir Evaluation: v1.0 13/08/2005 7.08097 + 0. but the 3/29a – 4 transform gave anomalously high value spikes in places. mD = 10**(-7.2).1 and 7.0001 mD.0513*(PHIE)) PHIE is a decimal. It is recommended that these Appendices are read carefully before using core-derived permeability data stored in Geolog because the data are of variable quality.1147PHIE). mD = 10**(-2.6912*(PHIE)) K.1294 + 0. In 3/29a – 4 permeability data are fully corrected for reservoir conditions. Permeability data in 3/29 – 2 are Klinkenberg-corrected air values.0538037DT + 0. The regression equation is: K. All shale values were set to 0. using the equation: Kreservoir = Kklinkenberg * ((deviatoric stress/test pressure) ^ (-0.97738 + 29.

CPOR_OBC_1 Crossplot Well: 3_29-2 4508.0 . CORE.Rhum Petrophysical Reservoir Evaluation: v1.6912* PHIE) .210 0.240 0.CKHL_2.270 10000 0.120 0.030 0.1 Page 28 .090 0. mD = 10**(-2.300 0.0 13/08/2005 Figure 7. CORE.13677 + 27.240 0.120 0.270 CORE.150 0.060 0.6912*(x)) 0.5 METRES Filter: 0 0 33 35 2 0.090 0.000 0.CPOR_OBC_1 (V/V) Functions: coreporoperm : Regression Logs: CORE. 3/29 – 2 Poroperm Relationship CORE.CKHL_2 vs.1 0.porosity is a decimal Note: This was used to generate permeabilities in this well only.4688.210 0.060 0.180 0.180 0. 10 10 1 1 0.CPOR_OBC_1.903804 y = 10**(-2.000 0.13677 + 27. CC: 0.150 0.030 0.CKHL_2 (MD) 0 100 100 Poroperm Transform: Kh.1.300 10000 1000 1000 CORE.

01 10.0 8.0 20.0 16.K_GAS_CORR_1 (V/V) 100 100 0 Poroperm Transform: 10 10 1 1 Kh. 0.0 6.0 6.0 2.0 0.0 13/08/2005 Figure 7.0 12.97738 + 0.0 14. 3/29a – 4 Poroperm Relationship ASPERMS.1 0.porosity in % Note: This relationship was not used to generate permeabilities in the IRMS model.0 4.0 12.0 METRES Filter: 0 0 107 123 16 10.0 0.97738 + 0.0 1000 GASPERMS.290513* PHIE) .COREPHIH1_OBC_1.0 14.K_GAS_CORR_1 vs. CORE.1 0.0 18.0 18.5 .0 2.0 0. fitting core data to a suite of log curves.01 CORE.0 4.802344 y = 10**(-1.0 16. Instead a multiple regression was made. GASPERMS.0 1000 8.COREPHIH1_OBC_1 Crossplot Well: 3_29A-4 4633.Rhum Petrophysical Reservoir Evaluation: v1. mD = 10**(-1.COREPHIH1_OBC_1 () Functions: poroperm : Regression Logs: CORE.290513*(x)) Page 29 .2.K_GAS_CORR_1 0.0 20.4894.

K_LOG_1 Crossplot Well: 3_29A-4 4630.0 13/08/2005 Figure 7.0074497 + 0. CORE.Rhum Petrophysical Reservoir Evaluation: v1.0538037DT + 0.01 10000 1000 0.1 10 1 10000 1000 1000 0 CORE.5 .K_LOG_1 (MD) Functions: test : Regression Logs: CALC.1 0.0 METRES Filter: 6 0 114 133 13 10000 10000 1000 0.1147PHIE) 10 10 1 1 0.1 0. CC: 0. 3/29a – 4 Log Permeability Compared with Core Permeability CORE. CALC.818829 y = 10**(-0.01 100 0.01 CALC.3.08097 + 0.COREKH1_1 vs.310255PE + 21.COREKH1_1.955859*log10(x)) Page 30 .01 100 0.K_LOG_1.1 10 1 0.COREKH1_1 () 100 100 Poroperm Transform: Kh.00299236RT + 0. mD = 10**(-7.4897.

0 13/08/2005 8.0 4834. Modelling of direct core water saturation data gave a FWL of 4744mTVDSS. Table 8. PRESSURE ANALYSIS AND FREE WATER LEVEL Valid RFT.00 13493. 2002).0 - FMT or RCI.151 psi/ft can be defined.00 13300.2 - Formation KCF UR UMR1 UMR3 LMR LR Devonian Devonian MD. Forcing a water gradient of 0. m 4515. Note the TVDSS in the well evaluation report (4664m) is wrong and assumes a vertical well. A gas gradient of 0. In 3/29 –2 a gas gradient of 0.0 4773.0 4565. m 4633.00 - The pressure data in 3/29a – 4 are plotted on the attached figure (Figure 8.0 3/29a – 4 TVDSS. at 4689mBRT or 4651mTVDSS. defining the free water level (FWL).3 4854. The FWL is the elevation of the gas-water contact free of capillary effects.40 12500.16 12412.1. It can be defined as the depth in the reservoir where the pressure in the gas phase is equal to the pressure in the water phase.5 4666.26 12381.92 12369. m 4539. The relative position of the reservoir and FWL in the two Rhum wells is illustrated by Figure 8. In 3/29-2 there is gas-down-to (GDT) base reservoir.85 psi/ft.3.0 4852. 2001). the level of the fluid contact in a very wide borehole.7 4692.0 4862. Rhum Formation Pressure Data 3/29 – 2 TVDSS. with estimated gradients as high as 0.9 4664. m 4605.1).00 MD. Gas gradients of 0. On test.5 4638. Page 31 .e.2). free water will not be produced above the FWL.1). 2001).8 4806. i.0 RFT.8 4732. psi 12296. psi 12353. Both the reservoir and surrounding formations are overpressured.00 12456. in very close agreement with the formation pressure data (Mitchell. In the reservoir.0 4838. Overpressure in the envelope formations is higher than in the reservoir.Rhum Petrophysical Reservoir Evaluation: v1. Hydrocarbon shows while drilling 3/29a – 4 were generally poor and do not help in defining the FWL (Watts.139 psi/ft from the difference between downhole gauge and wellhead pressure.145 psi/ft were computed from PVT analysis of gas density and 0.433 psi/ft through the uppermost FMT Run 1 pressure point in the LMR gives a water and gas gradient intercept at 4745m TVDSS.5 4541.17 psi/ft can be fitted to three FIT pressure points in the gas leg (Figure 8. the fluid contact as indicated by electric logs (the gas-water contact or GWC) may be shallower because of capillary effects in the reservoir rock giving higher water saturations above the free water level.5 4828. This figure also illustrates the rapid pressure increase in the water leg with depth (Watts.00 12281.0 4760. RCI and FMT pressure points are tabulated below (Table 7.

Rhum Petrophysical Reservoir Evaluation: v1.0 13200. 3/29a – 4: RCI and FMT Formation Pressure Plot 3/29a-4 Formation Pressure Plot (All Runs) 4660.0 UMR 1 Gas gradient 0.0 12900.1m MD 4760.0 LR 4860.1m TVDSS 4773.0 13300.0 12600.0 Water gradient set at 0.0 13/08/2005 Figure 8.0 13000.0 12500.0 13100.0 12800.0 4700.0 UMR 3 4740.0 Formation Pressure (psi) Page 32 .0 12400.151 psi/ft or 0.0 12300.1.433 psi/ft T run1 point in LM R Forced through FM 4800.0 12700.0 Depth (m tvdlat) Contact 4745.0 LMR 4780.0 4680.411 gm /cc fit through FM T run1 points UM R1 and UM R3 4720.0 LR 4840.0 FM T run 1 RCI run 1 RCI run 2 RCI run 3 FM T run 2 FM T run 3 RCI 4&5 Data Gas Gradient Water Gradient 4820.

0 4930.0 13/08/2005 Figure 8.0 14100.0 12500.0 Formation Pressure (psi) Page 33 .0 13900.Rhum Petrophysical Reservoir Evaluation: v1.0 RCI 2 ( 3_29a-4) RCI 3 ( 3_29a-4) FMT 2 (3_29a-4) FMT 3 (3_29a-4) RCI 4 ( 3_29a-4) Regional Pressur e Gradient Water Gradient Re gional Pres s ure Gradient 1.0 Break depth to "proper" over-pressur e trend in "aquifer" = "regional" pressure ? 4830.0 FWL @ 4745 4780.0 0. Rhum Field Formation Pressure Plot Rhum Field Formation Pressure Plot 4480.0 FMT 1(3_29a.0 12900.0 12300.0 12700.0 RFT (3_29-2) FIT (3_29-2) 4530.0 13300.0 12100.0 4730.172 psi/ft (~Gas Gradie nt ) 4630.0 13500.92 s g Linear ( FIT (3_29-2)) D epth (m tvdss) 4680.0 13100.2.4) RCI 1 ( 3_29a-4) 4580.0 Wat er Gradie nt Over-pressur e aquifer trend (or return to regional "overpressure") ? 4880.0 13700.

BVW_1 1 1 V/V CALC.PHIE_1 0 GR 0 GAPI 250 0 V/V 0 CALC.VSH_GR_2 V/V 1 UMR3 21 4590 4595 4600 4606 4605 4610 4615 4620 4625 4630 4635 4601 4600 4605 4610 4615 4620 KCF 33 LITHOLOGY TVDSS LMR 50 4625 4630 4635 4640 4645 UR IRS 25 4639 4640 4645 IRS 4650 4655 4660 4651 4650 4655 GDT 4651 m in 3/29-2 GWC 4745 m in 3/29a-4 LR 22 4673 4660 4665 4670 4675 4680 4665 4665 UMR1U UMR1U 18 4683 4670 4675 4680 4685 4690 4695 10 HEATHER UMR1L UMR1L 27 4700 4705 4710 4710 4715 UMR2 UMR3 UMR2 22 4720 4725 4730 4735 4740 4732 UMR3 13 4745 4745 4750 4755 4760 4765 4770 LMR LMR 61 4775 4780 4785 4790 4795 4800 4806 4805 4810 4815 4820 4825 4830 LR LR 59 4835 4840 4845 4850 4855 4860 4866 4865 4870 Heather 10 Page 34 .Rhum Petrophysical Reservoir Evaluation: v1.VSH_GR_1 V/V 1 4470 4476 4475 4480 4485 KCF 32 4490 4495 4500 UR 4511 4510 4515 4508 4505 IRS 20 4532 4520 4525 4530 4535 4540 3/29A-4 Reservoir LITHOLOGY UMR1 29 4545 4550 4555 4561 4560 4565 UMR2 19 4570 4575 TVDSS METRES Zone CALC.3.PHIE_1 0 4580 4580 4585 GR 0 GAPI 250 0 V/V 0 CALC.BVW_1 1 1 V/V CALC.0 13/08/2005 Figure 8. Well Corellation in True Vertical Depth Indicating FWL Position in Reservoir 3/29-2 Reservoir METRES Zone CALC.

234 * K – 0. SWE from the HDIL and SWE_3DEX from the 3DEX). The agreement of model data with log data is reassuring. Table 9. Curves are compared with core direct SW (COREICSW1). The green dashed line is the ICCS (2001) curve for a 7% porosity case. The various saturation – height curves are plotted on Figure 9. but the reasons for very low core SW data should be investigated further. This overlies the 8 – 10% porosity class curve. blue.451703*H-0. Saturation-Height Functions Derived from Air-brine Capillary Pressure Measurements. The four porosity (Φ) class functions were used in the faulted geological and simulation RMS models (Southwood.233628 Sw = (0.265 Sw = 0.00481 Sw = (0.367*H-0.1.37 Since the permeability and porosity term is in-built in these equations they should better describe water saturation than the terms listed in Table 9.2004)-0.0 13/08/2005 9. 2001).167 * Φ – 1. so it is reasonable that these curves overlie.3407)-0. Average overall reservoir porosity is 7% (see Section 10).943*H – 0. Note that the all rock types equation does not have a porosity term and is thus a smooth curve on the log. This displays the four porosity class functions in brown. Irreducible Sw. The results are displayed on the CPIs (Enclosures 1 and 3). The sets of data from the two wells were comparable for the same porosity classes.Rhum Petrophysical Reservoir Evaluation: v1. The MRIL_SW and COREICSW1 data show the lowest SW. Rock Type All rock types Φ >10% Φ =8-10% Φ =6-8% Φ <6% Saturation-Height Function Sw = 0. For 3/29a – 4 (Enclosure 1) track 14 on the CPI displays log-derived SW (MRIL_SW from the MRIL tool. The ICCS equation and the all rock types equation were input to Geolog and used to compute SW. The two model curves show reasonable agreement and also agree with the 3DEX and HDIL-derived SW curves. In addition to the functions used in the RMS model. 2001). In track 15 on the CPI the COREICSW1 data are compared with two of the model curves: SW_MODEL_ICCS is computed from the ICCS (2001) porosity/height/SW equation.4169*H-0. Note that both these datasets are only good above the FWL (see Mitchell.10 v/v.1. ICCS (2001) subsequently computed single saturation – height functions from the same dataset. The ‘H’ term is height in metres above the FWL. green and red. track 12) the model SW curves give considerably lower SW values than the log SWE curve (whether derived from Page 35 . The all rock types curve is plotted in pink. Mercury injection data were also available from 3/29 – 2.2102*H-0. 2001). Swi. Air-brine measurements were used to determine saturation-height functions for a set of porosity classes (Cameron.0121*H – 0. 2001 for discussion of data quality).00159 The All Rock Types function was used in the non-faulted geological grid RMS model to compute water saturation. In fact COREICSW1 data appear to be unreasonably low. was estimated to have a most likely value of 0.1. incorporating Klinkenberg permeability (K) and porosity (Φ) into the saturation – height term: Sw = 0.1992*H-0. The derived functions are listed in Table 9. In 3/29 – 2 (Enclosure 3. and lies between the 6 to 8% and 8 to 10% Cameron curves. SATURATION-HEIGHT FUNCTIONS Water saturation and capillary pressure measurements were made using mercury injection and air-brine porous plate methods on preserved core samples from 3/29a – 4 (Cameron.14 v/v and a potential upside of 0.1518)-0.1. SW_MODEL_CAMER is computed from the Cameron (2001) all rock types equation.1507)-0.00812 Sw = (1.0302 Sw = (1.

167)*(0.0302 Core Data Phi 7% Sw = (0.6 0. Figure 9. 3/29a – 4 Sw – Height Functions Sw-height function (by porosity classes) 120 110 100 Height (m) above FWL 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 0.Rhum Petrophysical Reservoir Evaluation: v1.00159 All rock types Sw = (0. since in this well the SW/height equations give very low SW values in the gas leg.1.451703*(H^-0.1518))-0. The discrepancy should be investigated further – it may be that the resistivity log data require environmental correction or else the SW/height equations should be modified.7 0.1 0.4169*(H^-0.0 13/08/2005 the LLD or ILD resistivity data).4 0.07^-1.37)) Phi 8-10% Sw = (0.233628)) 0.367*(H^-0.1507))-0.2102*(H^-0.00812 Phi < 6% Sw = (1.2004))-0.1992*(H^-0.3407))-0.2 0. There are no core saturation data available.5 Sw (frac) Phi >10% Sw = 0.3 0.9 1 Page 36 .8 0.0121*(H^-0.00481 Phi 6-8% Sw = (1.

mTVDSS Gross.9 26.0 0. m Net.7 19..2 19.4 29.9 5.1.4 107. All sand beds are included as net.LOG_LITH_BIN as the net flag. Perm.1 15. mD Geom. mD Geom. 3/29-2 Reservoir Properties 3/29 – 2 Reservoir Properties Zone Zone Top.Rhum Petrophysical Reservoir Evaluation: v1.3 12. m Net.4 11. ZONE AVERAGES Reservoir zone averages are computed using the binary lithology flag LOG_LITH.1 0. mD UR UMR1 UMR2 UMR3 LMR 4540 4565 4595 4615 4636.4 20.5 123.1 and 10.2 6. Perm.0 13/08/2005 10.5 4806 47..5 1 0.4 45. m NTG.2 LR 4834. Averages are tabulated below (Tables 10. m Zone Top.4 12 0.6 0.7 17.2 0.9 6.8 9.9 61. Page 37 . mTVDSS Gross.5 4760 4773 4639 4665 4683 4710 4732 4745 1.0 12.1 12 Totals Note: entire reservoir in gas leg Table 10.2).0 10.8 22.5 0.5 zones Totals – 81 gas leg Totals – water 108.5 leg Note: gas leg extends from UR to base UMR3. m NTG. % Porosity.2 3 70 1 18 4 1.5 4692.3 0.5 4710 4737. m Zone Top.. 3/29a-4 Reservoir Properties 3/29a – 4 Reservoir Properties Zone Zone Top.8 7.5 4507 4532 4561 4580 4601 3.6 100 96 65 91 88 87 16. % Porosity.4 3.4 2.0 669 250 85 14 4 100 255 9 11 1 0.1 44.3 6.4 95 35 60 50 4 67 22 81 74 32 50 43 55 0. Table 10.4 28.2 2.0 17.8 6.8 7.5 6.5 3. mD UR UMR1U UMR1L UMR2 UMR3 LMR 4666. % Arith.6 Totals – all 189.2.9 50.2 11.4 7.1 6.6 0.. Perm.4 7. % Arith. Perm.3 17 42 3.

The differentiation of reservoir quality (porosity) is more problematic and probably not possible. Where porosity is high enough (above 10 – 12 PU) the difference between brine-filled sands and gas-filled sands should be detectable with changes in acoustic impedance and fluid impedance. The dataset used in the modeling study is of varying vintages. The properties of the shales are reasonably consistent in the offset wells. • • • • Page 38 . quality and instrument technology. Determine how consistent the sand and shale properties are in offset wells. The rock properties study is documented in Keir (2001). Determine whether lithology impedance can be used to map variations in reservoir quality and hence the distribution of the UMR and the LMR. Determine whether the gas/water contact is seismically detectable. RHUM ROCK PROPERTIES A rock properties study was conducted to: • • • • Investigate the feasibility of using a lithological impedance (LI) cube to discriminate between sand and shale. If the reservoir more closely resembles that encountered in the 3/29 – 2 well or the properties of the underlying shales are similar to those encountered in the 3/29 – 2 well.0 13/08/2005 11.Rhum Petrophysical Reservoir Evaluation: v1. Whilst the data has been verified as meeting the QC standards as set by the logging contractors. a systematic error could exist which may influence the observed differences in rock properties across the field. The study concluded: • The application of LI maps to discriminate between the UMR and LMR sands and the overlying shales is possible but depends very much on the reservoir architecture being similar to that of the 3/29a – 4 well. with the exception of the 3/29 – 2 well. then application of LI will most probably not allow discrimination between sands and shales.

0 13/08/2005 12. Given the resolution limitations.4m thick sand.8 and 11.1 mD.4 PU and 255 mD (zonal averages) in a 3. The MRIL log indicated much lower porosity in the same zone. Some low grain density data points were measured in core plugs in the overlying LMR. Page 39 . cm-scale. The most likely explanation for the difference is that grain densities in the LR are lower than typically encountered higher in the reservoir. Core saturation data should be reviewed. It was difficult to get a definitive measure of water saturation from log and core data. Despite the variability between reservoir zones. less than 1 PU and 0. the total net reservoir thickness is similar in both wells. All sand was counted as net. Anomalously high porosities and. The selected logging program was largely successful and did improve thin sand definition. even low permeability sands are likely to contribute to production. it may be preferable to perforate the entire gas-bearing zone. Rhum Sand reservoir quality is variable. It is important to have a range of logging tools to address separate but related aspects of reservoir quality. based on matrix density and shale volume. being 108m in 3/29 – 2 and 95m in 3/29a – 4. Thus the best tool for determining gas saturation and sand volume overall was the MRIL. In order to resolve and quantify reservoir quality in such a thinly-bedded sequence. However. Reliable pressure data were obtained that define gas and water gradients and a FWL at 4745mTVDSS. a comprehensive suite of log data was acquired in the subsequent appraisal well 3/29a – 4. confirmation of formation water resistivity and saturation-height data. petrography studies failed to identify the nature of the low density material.4 and RHO_MAA<2. while individual thin bed quality was best measured by high-resolution density logs and the 3DEX tensor resistivity tool. gas saturations. so that the porosity model over the LMR and LR can be refined. The highest porosity and permeability was seen in the UR zone of 3/29 – 2.5 to 12 mD and NTG 4 to 96%. Thus no significant reservoir intervals could be seen on the logs below base Rhum Sand. The importance of good core data cannot be overstated and some reservoir features would have gone unnoticed if core had not been available.Rhum Petrophysical Reservoir Evaluation: v1. being generally moderate but ranging from poor to good. but these were water-bearing and tight. all other data (log SW and capillary pressure data) indicated higher water saturations in the gas leg. Core saturation data in 3/29a – 4 indicated very low water saturations in the gas leg.4 PU. Net sand is therefore defined as equivalent to gross sand. It would also be worthwhile in future wells to get core over the LR to establish if low grain density material exists in this zone also. from top KCF down to the FWL. execution and interpretation. with 100% NTG averaging 16. For example. special core analysis of 3/29a – 4 core provided refined Archie parameter values. However. were computed from the density log in the LR Zone in a zone that did not flow on test. The UMR zone ranges in porosity between 3. Very thin. using cutoffs of VSH<0. Core plugs should be reexamined in order to rectify this. but the same sand in 3/29a – 4 is only 1m thick with 50% NTG. Given the HPHT nature of the gas volume. Although the direct core saturation data agreed with the MRIL saturations. Extensive core indicates that the reservoir is either fine to medium-grained sand or shale and a simple sand flag was devised to describe net. Individual beds in the UMR exhibit Darcy-scale permeability. Core indicated that the reservoir was a thinly-bedded turbidite sequence. 3/29 – 2 penetrated deeper Jurassic (Heather) and Devonian sand sequences. porosity and permeability data corrected for reservoir pressure and overburden. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Rhum Field gas accumulation was discovered by the 3/29 – 2 well in 1977. consequently. sand beds were seen in core that are not detectable on logs but are likely to contribute to production. the 3DEX data cannot be interpreted in-house and it is important to involve the logging company in job planning.8 g/cc. The FWL indicated by formation pressure and core data data is consistent with the log data. permeability 0.

Watts. Keir.Sub surface pressures. Petrophysical Analysis of Rhum 3/29a – 4. Langseth. Teeuw. 3/29a – 4 End of Well Geological Operations Report. Well 3/29a – 4. Martin.Rhum Development Xmas Tree Rating . Whitehead.Rhum Petrophysical Reservoir Evaluation: v1. August 2001. 2002. Production Geoscience Page 40 . IAS Limited. Gautam Paintal. Reservoir Quality and Fluid Inclusion Characterisation of Well 3/29a – 4.. 1971. GEOScience. T. D. 2001. Page. SPE 2973/SPE Transactions vol 251 September 1971. T. P. T. Baker Atlas Paintal. 1994: Geologic Log Analysis Using Computer Methods. T. UKCS. No. May 2001. 2. REFERENCES Baird. Phil Mitchell. BP April 2001. 2001.J. Prediction of Formation Compaction from Laboratory Compressibility Data. D. ICCS March 2001. Integrated Core Consultancy Services Limited (ICCS). Petrophysical Analysis. Petrophysical SCAL Study: Well 3/29a – 4 (Rhum). Rhum Rock Properties. McBride. N.. July 2001. G. Upstream Technology Group. Rhum Saturation – Height Modelling. F. Statement of Requirement . 2001. Technical File note. 2001. D. 2001. L. G.H. Mathison. and Cook. Perforating and Testing.. J. A Petrographical. ROXAR. March 2002..E. February 2001. Direct Water Saturation from Core Study: Well 3/29a – 4. 2001. Fields. A. R. Rhum Field. Watts. Limited. Southwood. Cameron..0 13/08/2005 13. AAPG Computer ICCS. High-Pressure. Drummond. 2001. Doveton. Rhum Field. Silipigno.. 1998. Strontium Isotope Residual Salt Analysis (SrRSA) and Chemical and Isotope Analysis of DST Waters from Well 3/29a – 4. Summer 1998. 2001. D. Mitchell. 2002. Rhum Field 3D Geological Modelling and Volumetric Sensitivities.. High-Temperature Well Logging. 2001. Badley Ashton & Associates Ltd. G. and a Quick-Look Petrographical Review and Fluid Inclusion Study of Well 3/29 – 2. J. Oilfield Review. BP. October 2001. Applications in Geology. B.