Petroleum Formation Evaluation -7

PANDIT DEENDAYAL PETROLEUM UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY B.TECH. SEMESTER - VI ASSIGNMENT - 8

Course: Petroleum Formation evaluation (PE 308) LOG INTERPRETATION - 1

1. Zone the log putting the zone boundaries in track 1. Indicate (a) The possible lithology and (b) Where permeable, the potential/probable fluid contents 2. Determine the probable lithology within the intervals 11410, 11510, 11655 and 12165 feet by plotting 1 data points per depth on both a Neutron-Density cross-plot and a M-N plot. If any ambiguity is seen, suggest potential causes and at least one solution. 3. Determine the appropriate Rw at 12165 feet using the Rwa method and the humble equation. Determine a neutron-density porosity. Highlight any possible source of error 4. Determine the invasion profile and Rt from the attached Tornado chart and the resistivity profile between 11590 and 11600 feet. 5. Determine the gamma ray shale index (IGR) at 11890, using a clean value at 12180 feet and your choice of the most appropriate shale value on the log. What implication does this have for the choice of water saturation equation and the calculation of Rw from Rwa? Attached (1) Neutron-Density cross plot template (2) M & N plot template (3) Tornado chart (4) Gen-9 (5) SP-2

LOG INIERPRETATION 2: Following logs are supplied – 3 in number with different combination. The hole size is 8.5 inches and the mud is water based. The zones of interest are from 6410 – 6510 feet. The formation temperature at 6500 ft is 1850F. Mud properties are Rmf = 0.36 ohm.m @ 750F Rmc = 0.40 ohm.m @ 750F

1. Zone the log on the neutron and density porosity log gamma ray trace. Indicate (a) The possible/probable lithology (b) Where permeable, the potential/probable fluid contents

2. Determine the lithology within the intervals 6390-6400; 64326440; 6460-6470 and 6490-6500 feet by plotting a data point per interval on both a Neutron-Density cross-plot and a M & N plot. Does the Pe curve back up your analysis? If any ambiguity is seen, suggest potential causes and at least one solution. 3. Determine the appropriate Rw at both 6396 and 6500 feet using the SP and Rwa methods. Highlight any possible causes of discrepencies if you observe them. 4. Briefly discuss why the EPT porosity data show distinct separation from the computed total porosity curve. Do these separation enhance your understanding of this log suite?

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful