Petrophysical Analysis Report - Conventional Reservoir

SAMPLE #1
24 Month 2012

Introduction
We were requested by Some One of Company A to review the log, core, and test data on the
subject well, and to perform an independent petrophysical analysis on the A and T formations.

Available Data
Log data for this project is relatively sparse:
A Fm:
xxx - xxx m No logs
xxx - xxx m Induction, SP, Sonic, No GR or Caliper xxx - xxx m As above plus GR, Caliper,
poor quality
density
T Fm:
xxxx - xxxx m As above
An analyzed core was available just below the main porous interval in the T Fm. Reported depths
on this core appear to be 11 meters shallow (approx one pipe joint). A second, deeper core was
not analyzed. No core was taken in the A Fm.

The top of the T Fm was tested through perforations and produced some wet gas. Eight separate
intervals in the A Fm were tested through perforations, indicating wet gas in the lower 50 meters.
No Rw data was provided, so water saturation values from log analysis are somewhat conjectural.
No special core capillary pressure data is available to help calibrate water saturation.

Method
Digital log curves for the well were provided by the client. These were entered into Spectrum 2000
Mindware Ltd's proprietary log analysis program called Meta/Log.

Shale volume was determined from the gamma ray where possible and from the resistivity log
where GR was not recorded (250-550 m in A Fm). The SP is quite flat and too smooth to be a
useful shale indicator.

Porosity was determined by the sonic log corrected for shale. The density was also tried, but gave
misleading results due to poor borehole condition.

Water saturation was derived with the Simandoux equation which corrects for the effects of shale.
An Rw equivalent to 85000 ppm NaCl was used to achieve reasonable water saturations in the T
Fm. A value approximating 45000 ppm was used in the A Fm. There are no obvious water zones,
no RW data from offset wells, and no capillary pressure data to calibrate water saturation results.

A generic permeability curve using the Wyllie equation was generated but not presented on depth
plots, as core permeability is much lower than the estimated values from this method.

Reasonable cutoffs were chosen from experience in tight sands and hydrocarbon summaries
were printed. The zones that passed all cutoffs are flagged on the depth plots.

Depth plots at 1:1000 scale, brief summary listings, and this report were FAXed to Some One on
24 Month 2012. Hardcopy with plots at 1:500 scale were delivered by courier.
Results
Results are contained in the depth plots and listings supplied. Briefly these show:

Upper T Fm: xxxx - xxxx mKB Phi = 0.093, Sw = 0.43, Net = 6.4 m

This zone was perforated and tested gas.

Middle T Fm: xxxx - xxxx mKB Phi = 0.121, Sw = 0.27, Net = 6.4 m

This zone is not tested.

Lower A Fm: xxx - xxx mKB Phi = 0.113, Sw = 0.51, Net = 50.4 m

Eight zones within this interval were perforated and tested some gas. Additional intervals are
untested and are flagged on the depth plots.
Upper A Fm: xxx - xxx mKB Water saturation is speculative so no summations have been run.
Numerous resistivity bumps indicate cleaner sands in thin intervals which might be gas bearing
or they might contain fresher water, analogous to the Belly River in Alberta.

Conclusions
There are many unknowns and assumptions in this log analysis, more than in a typical project.
Lack of RW data and special core data to calibrate water saturation in any zone is a severe
handicap. Results are based on personal experience and the production tests.

The lack of adequate density and neutron log data prevents the calculation of porosity corrected
for heavy minerals. Since volcanic rock fragments can occur in large quantities in some sands,
the porosity shown here could be several porosity units too low. The sonic log was calibrated to
the core porosity in T Fm, but this core is in poor quality rock. This does not calibrate the higher
porosities. No calibration was possible in A Fm.

Lack of a uranium corrected gamma ray log (CGR) hampers shale calculations. The overall high
GR readings indicate either uranium salt precipitation (usually in fractures), feldspathic sands, or
other radioactive rock fragments. It is impossible with this data set to separate these events from
the shale content. Porosity calculations are suspect because of this.

Log character and borehole condition indicate a highly stressed, probably fractured, reservoir.

Results show many individual sands that probably contain gas. Any one of these could be leaking
through poor cement to surface, or leaking and charging lower pressure water zones uphole.

Recommendations
The recommended logging program for future wells is a multi array induction log with SP and GR,
a compensated density neutron log with PEF, GR, and caliper, a natural gamma ray spectral log,
and an array sonic log with compressional, shear, and Stoneley curves, with GR and caliper. This
suite provides sufficient redundancy to compensate for bad hole conditions, mineral variations,
fractures, and radioactive salts.

A study should be undertaken to map water resistivity versus depth in the region, since no RW
data was provided for this project.
In future wells, conventional and special core analysis to obtain capillary pressure and electrical
properties should be contracted to help calibrate water saturation.

If possible, available core should be re-analyzed, described, and special core analysis properties
obtained as soon as possible to allow recalibration of this log analysis.

Respectfully Submitted

E. R. (Ross) Crain, P.Eng.

Consulting Petrophysicist