You are on page 1of 3

Geology & Geophysics Applied in Industry

FWS

Exercise 4: Well Log Correlation EXERCISE 4: Well Log Correlation In the lecture, slides 19 and 20 introduce this exercise. Slide 21 is the uninterpreted log cross-section Slide 22 is the answer for the first part of the exercise - a lithostratigraphic correlation Slide 23 is the answer for the second part of the exercise - a chronostratigraphic correlation SLIDE 19 This slide shows where the wells are in a map view and the well logs for well 5 You may have to explain the logs and how to interpret them SP in the left track - it is like the gamma ray log we looked at earlier You look at high values (excursions to the right) and define a shale baseline Values significantly less = sands Intermediate values = silts Resistivity is in the right track There was only one log - it is shown using 2 gain settings In the shale zones, the resistivity curve has a lot of character somewhat unique highs, lows, and transitions from highs to lows Several unique "patterns" are marked in well 5 labeled A to H As long as the interval remains shale, we interpret that these resistivity patterns are due to slight changes in shale properties associated with different shale layers Based on this, when we correlate these resistivity markers, the correlations can be taken as time stratigraphic ALSO note that there is a regional unconformity marked on all 5 well logs

Correlation 1: Lithostratigraphy On the first copy of the uninterpreted log cross-section: First identify the regional unconformity on all 5 wells and correlate this unconformity (draw a line connecting the unconformity surface) Define a shale baseline for the SP log (left track) for each well Use a yellow pencil or highlighter to mark the sand intervals in each well (where the SP curve is far to the left of the baseline) Now correlate the sand layers from well to well (i.e., draw lines connecting similar sand layers)
1

Geology & Geophysics Applied in Industry

FWS

Exercise 4: Well Log Correlation

Correlation 2: Chronostratigraphy On the second copy of the uninterpreted log cross-section Again identify the regional unconformity on all 5 wells and correlate this unconformity Now for well 5 look at the resistivity "character" or "pattern" for the A, B and C markers use these patterns to correlate A, B, and C from well 5 to well 4 Next try correlating the other markers given in well 5 to well 4 Now try to correlate A, B, and C from well 4 to well 3 to well 2 to well 1 Think about the thickness changes in the intervals , e.g., from A to B, B to C, etc. You should find that the A to B interval thickness is about the same in all 5 wells Similarly the B to C and the C to D interval thickness is relatively constant However, the sediment thickness from D to the unconformity in well 5 is about twice the thickness in well 1 It is difficult to correlate markers G and H this is because these intervals change from shale (in well 5) to sand (in well 4 or well 3) What is the most reasonable way to account for the thinning of the D to unconformity interval from well 5 to well 1?

Discussion You may want to have a volunteer post his/her interpretation on the wall and talk about what he/she found. For part 1: They should have found that sands lie immediately above the unconformity in each well This sand might be called a basal sand unit There are 2 or 3 sands in each well just above the regional unconformity The details as to how the sand tops are correlated are not too important Slide 22 gives a reasonable interpretation The main point is that this correlation is based on lithology The correlation lines tend to parallel the unconformity surface

Geology & Geophysics Applied in Industry

FWS

Exercise 4: Well Log Correlation For part 2: The upper resistivity markers are not too difficult to correlate The lower markers are more 'challenging' Intervals transition from shale to sand Total thickness between "F" and the unconformity decreases about 50% from well 5 to well 1 Note how the intervals (A to B, etc.) from marker A to marker F remain about the same thickness There are 3 ways to handle the thickness change between "F" and the unconformity All markers are in all wells - each interval thins to the NE The lower markers loose their diagnostic characteristics as they become 'sandy' and thin to zero thickness (wedge or onlap out) Intervals somewhere in the middle of "F" to the unconformity wedge out between well 5 and well 1 Perhaps the most reasonable explanation is the second one - units onlap against the unconformity We hypothesize: o There was a 'tectonic' event that caused the regional unconformity perhaps with some tilting down to the SW o As the area was reflooded and deposition resumed, sand was deposited at the location of Well 5 while the other locations were above sea level and hence subaerially exposed - no deposition o As sedimentation continued, there was a marine transgression o As sand deposition started at Well 4 less and less sand made it to Well 5 o When sand deposition started at Well 1, sand made it out to the positions of Wells 2 and 3, but offshore/marine shales were being deposited at the positions of Wells 4 and 5 o Thus we have time-transgressive facies boundaries o The sands just above the unconformity at Well 5 are older than the sands deposited at Wells 3, 2, and 1 Slide 22 gives a reasonable interpretation

If you compare the lines on the 2 sheets, they are not the same The correlation line for the top of the sand cuts across the marker
correlations - which are taken to be geologic time lines