SPE

Society of Petroletnl Engineel's of AIME

SPE 12914

Reservoir Characterization by Analysis of Light

Hydrocarbon Shows
by J.H. Haworth,* M.P. Sellens, and R.L. Gurvis, * Exploration Logging Inc.
*Members SPE-AIME

Copyright 1984 Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME

This paper was presented at the 1984 Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting held in Casper, WY, May 21-23, 1984. The material is subject to correction by
the author. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Write SPE, 6200 North Central Expressway, Drawer 64706, Dallas,
Texas 75206 USA. Telex 730989 SPEDAL.

ABSTRACT Prior to being drilled, reservoirs are in a

steady-state condition. This steady-state is con-
The use of mathematical treatments of light hydro- trolled by many factors, such as pressure, temper-
carbon gas shows in the qualitative analysis of ature, relative fluid saturations, phase condi-
reservoir characteristics has been attempted by tions and many more; suffice it to say that no two
many authors over the years. Most of the tech- reservoirs are exactly the same. The surface ex-
niques were originally designed for steam-stilled pressions of similar reservoirs as far as gas
mud samples or drillstem test analysis and then character is concerned, however, do have strong
adapted for mudlog shows. They have, however, similarities; generalizations can therefore be
been limited by the number of samples it is possi- made from specific data.
ble to plot on the specialized grids without los-
ing interpretational value. Even before penetration by the drill bit, the
drilling process disrupts the reservoir equilib-
A study using a large number of mudlogs from many rium by flushing the formation with drilling
different geological environments, including the fluid. The amount of flushing again depends on
Overthrust Belt and Williston Basin, was conducted various factors such as porosity, permeability,
using computer-generated plots of the various differential between mud hydrostatic and reservoir
mathematical treatments of mudlog gas shows. The pressures, etc. Even in extreme flushing, how-
aim of the study was to produce a method of reser- ever, not all of the reservoir fluids are forced
voir chracterization using hydrocarbon gas shows away from the borehole and some do enter the well
that was relatively simple to calculate, plot and either entrained in the drilling fluid or retained
interpret. The method should also be capable of within the cuttings.
integration with other data such as wireline logs
and mudlogs; hence it should be able to be plotted As the drilling fluid returns to surface, the
on a depth log without losing any interpretational entrained reservoir fluids may undergo physical
value. changes due to decreasing temperature and pres-
sure. Phase changes may occur along with gas
From this study a new method was evolved which expansion, so that the fluids seen at surface will
employs mathematical treatment of mudlog chromato- not be in the in situ fluid state. Once the dril-
graph data which can be performed at the wellsite ling fluid reaches the surface, the volatile gases
during drilling; by study of the signature pro- will disperse at a rate dependent on volatility
duced, initial evaluation of reservoir character- and mud rheology. Thus, an unknown quantity of
istics is possible. reservoir fluid can be· 11 lost 11 between the bell
nipple and the ditch.
I NTRODU CTI ON
The gas trap is usually located near the entrance
When discussing gas analysis and evaluation, an of the flowline to the ditch. Most traps agitate
understanding of the processes involved in dril- the drilling fluid in an enclosed space, thereby
ling a hole and their effects on reservoir fluids releasing the gas from the drilling fluid. The
is required. gas is then extracted, by vacuum, from the
enclosed space, and via flexible piping, sent to
the logging unit and gas analyzers.
As can be seen, the whole system is fraught with
ill-defined variables -- thus quantitative gas
References and illustrations at end of paper. analysis is difficult. Present-day mudlogging

199
2 Reservoir Characterization by Analysis of Light Hydrocarbon Shows
techniques compare trends in gas analysis and,
from these trends, make qualitative evaluations;
furthermore, the proposed method does not rely on
the absolute quantities of each hydrocarbon compo-
nent -- only the relative concentrations.
Along with gas, other formation fluids and drill
cuttings are released at the ditch and normal
mudlogging procedures routinely check these cut-
tings for lithology, oil stain, fluorescence and
solvent cut. The cuttings are also analyzed for
gas entrapped due to low permeability or porosity;
this analysis gives an indication of the amount of
fluid retention by the formation -- the higher the
cuttings gas readings, the lower the permeability
and porosity.
An overall character of the reservoir can be com-
piled from all this data; the following is a
description of one facet of this character.
The basic theory behind any relative gas analysis
method is that increasing fluid density manifests
itself in increasing gas density. While absolute
correlations are very difficult, definite trends
have been observed in field data over the years
which have demonstrated this theory.
DESCRIPTION
A study was conducted whereby chromatograph data
from many wells covering a variety of geological
environments were used to compare and evaluate
several mathematical chromatograph ratio meth-
ods. The ratios were evaluated by the following
criteria:
a. Ease of calculation. Could the ratio be
easily computed on a hand-held calculator.
b. Ease of interpretation. When plotted on a
depth prof1le log format, were the ratios easy
to interpret (i.e., did not require excessive
interpretational guidelines and restrictions).
c. Reproducibility of trends. What confidence
could be placed on the ratios as regards
reproducibility of trends for similar forma-
tion fluids in different regions.
The raw data and ratios were stored on magnetic
disk so that various plots and scales could be
generated on all ratios studied.
The study was designed in two phases. Phase one
was to remove all unnecessary or unreliable gas
component ratios that failed to characterize the
reservoir under the above restrictions. The
second phase was to take the remaining ratios and
extensively evaluate them as to reliability and
interpretational setpoints.
From this study, three ratios were chosen which
met the above restrictions and when plotted on
certain scales on a depth log produced interpre-
table trends and characters. When integrated with
wireline or mudlog data, these ratios helped to
give an overall picture of the reservoir.
200
SPE 12914
The ratios chosen were:
a. X 100 ( 1)
Called the Gas Wetness Ratio (GWR%), expressed
as a percentage, this ratio has been observed
to increase with increasing gas and oil den-
sity and has been used over the years by some
geologists and geochemists. The setpoints
established by this study are:
GWR % Fluid Potential
< 0.5 Non-potential dry gas.
0.5 - 17.5 Potential gas -- increasing
density with increasing GWR%
17.5 - 40 Potential oil -- increasing
density with increasing
GWR%.
> 40 Residual oil.
b. (2)
Called the Light to Heavy Ratio (LHR), this
ratio shows a decreasing trend with increasing
fluid density. With methane and ethane com-
bined, gas produced by coal beds will not
affect the LHR ratio, thus excluding this
anomaly. When the GWR% and LHR are plotted on
a compatible scale, definite trends have been
observed which can be related to the reservoir
fluid potential (see Interpretation).
c. (3)
Called the Oil Character Qualifier (OCQ).
During initial testing of the GWR% versus LHR
curves, it was noted that whenever a gas cap
or dual gas/oil production occurred, the GWR%
and LHR curves indicated gas potential rather
than the actual oil potential. This was due
to the excessive methane content relative to
propane through pentane. It was also noted,
however, that butane and pentane values also
increased relative to propane in a predictable
form in these gas/oil situations. Therefore,
this curve was designed to be used in these
borderline cases.
INTERPRETATION
Interpretation of these ratios is a visual study
of the relationship of the GWR%, LHR and OCQ
curves.
SPE 12914 J. H. Haworth, M. P. Sellens, and R. Gurvis
The first step in interpretation is to study the
GWR% curve position using the previously mentioned
setpoints to determine potential fluid character
(see Figure 1) •
Secondly, comparing the relative position of the
LHR curve to the GWR% curve will confirm fluid
character in the following manner:
a. If LHR is > 100, zone is excessively dry gas
(probably unproductive).
b. If GWR% is in gas phase and LHR > GWR%, the
closer the curves, the denser the gas.
c. If GWR% is in gas phase and LHR < GWR%, gas/
oil or gas/condensate is indicated.
d. If GWR% is in oil phase and LHR < GWR%, the
greater the separation, the denser the oil.
e. If GWR% is in residual oil phase and LHR <
GWR%, residual oil is indicated.
After comparing the GWR% and LHR curves, the OCQ
curve is then checked if situations (b) or (c)
occur and evaluated as follows:
a. If OCQ < 0.5, gas potential is indicated and
GWR% vs. LHR interpretation is correct.
b. If OCQ > 0.5, gas/light oil or condensate is
indicated.
Certain conclusions can be made on the gravity of
the oi 1 by the separation of the curves. These
conclusions have been made by studying several
wells and observing the curve relationship for
oils of similar gravity.
In Figure 1, typical curve relationships have been
drawn to show these phenomena. In Figure 1-A, a
light dry gas is shown, the gas consisting only of
methane and ethane. Thus, while the GWR% curve
increases, the lHR curve is not affected.
The boundary of 99% methane/ethane content versus
1% (c 3 + c4 + c5) content was chosen due to the
former being the most frequent cut-off point
observed during the study; such a content corre-
sponds closely to cut-offs observed by other gas
ratio treatments.
In Figure 1-B, an idealized medium density gas is
shown, where the GWR% is mid-point between 0.5 and
17.5 and the LHR is greater than the GWR% but less
than 100. In this circumstance, the third OCQ
curve would be checked to inspect for gas asso-
ciated with oil. If the OCQ is below 0.5, then
gas is indicated (the 0.5 setpoint was set after
observing movement of the ratio over several
wells).
In Figure 1-C, an idealized gas cap or gas/oil
potential is shown. In this case excessive
methane has caused retardation of the GWR% vs. LHR
curve movement, indicating medium density gas
rather than oil. The OCQ, however, being greater
than 0.5, indicates the gas is associated with
oil.
201
3
Figure 1-D shows an idealized plot for a medium
gravity oil. Here the LHR is less than the GWR%
and the GWR% is greater than 17.5 and less than
40. In this situation, separation of the LHR and
GWR% curves will indicate the type of oil. After
using the method, the experienced operator will be
able to identify certain density ranges of oils
with the separation of the curves.
In Figure 1-E, a residual oil is indicated. It
has been observed that when the GWR% is greater
than 40, the gas has been associated with tars,
asphaltenes or very dense oils. Thus, the methane
content is quite low (less than 60% methane),
reflecting a low volatile content in the total
hydrocarbon fluid.
When reaching the oil/water contact, the three
ratios change trend significantly. The movement
of this trend, however, is unpredictable: differ-
ing parameters can cause either an excessive
release of propane through pentane vs. methane,
11
causing a residual oil character, or methane and
11
ethane may be in excess, causing the curves to
separate into the gas character. As the param-
eters controlling this movement are complex and
varied, all that can be safely said is that trend
changes will occur.
When evaluating gas ratio characterizations, the
geologist must integrate this data with other
factors, as no gas ratio method is a stand-alone
system. The ratio method is only one parameter in
evaluating a potential reservoir. Although quan-
tities of gas released may change between the
~oir and adjacent formations, the character
of the gas may not. Thus, an inspection of litho-
logy is imperative along with changes in the rate
of penetration. Production potential may also be
indicated by observation of the total gas curves
showing how much gas was released. Also required
is a comparison with cuttings gas data to evaluate
retention of gas and oil fluorescence; solvent cut
should also be checked.
Thus, when all parameters are combined, a full
reservoir character can be developed which can be
even more enhanced by wireline logs or the use of
wellsite pyrolytic geochemical analysis and other
pertinent data.
APPLICATIONS
Gas ratios can help determine reservoir fluid
character during drilling and can thus be used in
locating and evaluating potential zo·nes of inter-
est. The method does not rely on absolute gas
quantities, thus indicating zones where normal
procedures of gas trend evaluation would show no
zones of interest.
In certain areas, for example in the case of some
formations in the Willeston Basin where porosity/
permeability changes are the main controls on
production index, the ratio method helps evaluate
source rock and reservoir potential for the entire
section. Thus, when combined with the porosity
indicators, utilizing such a method gives a full
evaluation of the zone.
4 Reservoir Characterization by Analysis of Light Hydrocarbon Shows SPE 12914

When the oil/water contact is intersected, signi- CONCLUSION

ficant shifts in the GWR%, LHR and OCQ trends
occur. Thus, approximate oil/water contact depths
can be found using this method.
Finally, the ratio method can be used in geochemi-
cal research for indications of migration patterns
and gas depletion by diffusion effects.
When used prudently, the ratio method combined
with other mudlog and drilling data can be used to
help determine locations for coring, production
testing and specific wireline logging, thus help-
ing reduce overall well costs.
EXAMPLES
Example 1: {Figure 2}
In Figure 2, a section of the Red River 11 C11 forma-
tion in the Williston Basin is shown. This is a
limestone, anhydrite, dolomite formation with oil
accumulations associated with zones where dolomi-
tization, diagenetic calcite solution and micro-
fracturing have altered porosities. The section
is from a well showing by the ratios, light oil
potential {approximately 40° API gravity} for the
full section. However, upon entering the dolomite
zone, {Section A} penetration rate and total gas
changes indicate an area of possible production.
In fact, the DST for Zone XX634-XX700' {Section A}
produced a 47° API gravity oil, showing the ratio
indicator to be close to the actual oil gravity,
thus proving the need to correlate the gas ratio
indications with lithology and porosity indica-
tors.
Example 2: {Figure 3}
This well, drilled in the Williston Basin, Mon-
tana, near the Mineral Bench field, showed one
maJor zone of interest between X320-X360' {Section
A}. The curves suggest a light oil potential with
an oil/water contact shown at X340' by changes in
the trends. Porosity indicators suggest a low
porosity/permeability and fluorescence data con-
firms the section as being water-wet. Thus, while
an oil potential is indicated, the section does
not have a high productivity potential. A DST was
run over the section, which produced gas and
The gas ratio method described has shown, over the
data used so far, a constant and predictable move-
ment in ratio trends when approaching zones of
potential interest. It has shown that with pru-
dent use and integration of other valid data a
reservoir character is obtainable soon after drill
returns have reached surface and, when used by
experienced personnel, can help reduce well costs
by evaluating reservoir potential fluid character
prior to testing.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors thank the management of Exploration
Logging Inc. for permission to publish this
paper. We gratefully acknowledge the permission
granted from the oil companies concerned for
inclusion of their mudlog data. Thanks also are
due to Alun Whittaker, Jerry Knobla, Ed Guenard,
Patrick Keenan and Victoria Davis for their
assistance in preparing and improving the manu-
script.
REFERENCES
1. Exploration Logging, Inc.: Mudlogging: Princi-
ples and Interpretation {1979).
2. Exploration Logging, Inc.: Geochemical Inter-
pretation {1981}.
3. Ferrie, G.H. and Pixler, B.O.: 11 Wellsite For-
mation Evaluation by Analysis of Hydrocarbon
Ratios, .. Pet. Soc. of CIM {May 1981} Preprint
Paper No. 81-32-20.
4. Hunt, J.M.: Petroleum Geochemistry and Geol-
~' W.H. Freeman and Co., san Franc1sco
{1979}.
5. Tissot, B.P. and Welte, D.H.: Petroleum Forma-
tion and Occurrence, Springer-Verlag, New York
( 1978).
OCQ RATIO GWR% VERSUS
LHR PLOT
a
2 1~7t jo i
00.1 3 4 I 0

water, again confirming the low porosity for the

section.
A
VERY LIGHT
DRY GAS
!
I
i
lr"' i i I LHRl

i i
Example 3 {Figure 4} i I(,
~
B

This well was drilled in the UK sector of the

POTENTIAL
LIGHT GAS l . I·
! ~,

>
North Sea in a sandstone, chalk, claystone
c ~j/
sequence. The gas ratio curves indicate two major "
v~
-- ~'+L
GAS/LIGHT OIL
zones where approximately 30° API gravity oil
potential is shown. The top {chalk} zone from
POTENTIAL
i i +,
X320' to X440' {Section A} has a gas cap with oi 1 r--.
! ~rr
D
-- shown by separation of LHR and GWR% curves and MEDIUM ·~~
.J:i~ +-
GRAVITY OIL
movement of OCQ curve above 0.5. Fluorescence and
lithology confirm this but ROP suggests the best
POTENTIAL L• .......-- ~ _..+,
~ ~·~+
E 't»
~
~ ~P>
zone is X330-X360'. The lower sandstone zone RESIDUAL OIL
{Section B) again indicates a 30° API gravity POTENTIAL ~
v~ ~ j':'-.....
oil. Field data information shows these zones to MA 121-1
contain a 33.6° API gravity oil. ©COPYRIGHT 1984 BY
EXPLORATION LOGGING, INC.
Fig. 1-Typical gas ratio curve responses for
common reservoir types.
202
 0 CHROMATOGRAPH OCQ PLOT GWR% VS LHR
ROP m TOTAL GAS
lt/hr "tJ units ANALYSIS PLOT
-1
1~ • j~oo
0 7 6
:X: ppm
24 12 e 3 o;. 1 2 3 4 &

~ ....... T- ~
f--
8

fl
8
I
~

2 11
-f.'
I ~ i
1/
! ~
~
i
I ~ I
r I ~ I
><
0'
0
r--1--
I
I
.I
~ l
0 l
i VI j
~
r
I
<'\Vj~-~.

1 ! ~;!
I
I ~%I
l ~i
t;·
r-...
~ I
I I ~~!
r-- If
If
II
rr I ~%I
(0 .

IT ~ ~I C/)

\~ ~I
m
I I
()

' I
I i ~ ~1 - :::!z
0
~-~·
'" X 0 I :31
T
z 1 I
~-~'
)>o

.. ..,.,. I I ~~I
--J I '~-~-
0
0
--I
;;;;;= \7!
I
~
it'
~ /;
MA 121-1
© COPYRIGHT 1984 BY
EXPLORATION LOGGING, INC.

Fig. 2-Example 1-Well drilled in Red River C formation, Williston Basin.

TOTAL GAS
ROP 0
m
CHROMATOGRAPH & oca GWR %VS LHR
lt/hr ANALYSIS PLOT
"tJ
-1
:X:
ppm 0 0
0
0
g 17.5 40
0 I I
12 0;. 1 2 3 4 5 1 10 1 11oo

ll !!
~~ ----...... t>iI Ls
I

----
I
1
![ ! !
I )TOTAL II
I GAS
~i<
!; II
H+H+++l-l-hi'H+++l-H++++H ~.
Iil Ii
i i
§ l1 ! I

I' II
:I
I~
"> - -t+,/ iI
:oca

H
~
!"I ., "" ~.
I 2
f-
r-1 t,l
(j
l)
~~!
f-., '[ v. 4+ )>o

r
.J

I
I/
I ~
1
i1
~+r

I i i
I i i
i i i
MA 1211-2
©COPYRIGHT 1984 BY
EXPLORATION LOGGING, INC.

Fig. 3-Example 2-Well drilled in Williston basin, Montana.

SPE1291L~
 ROP TOTAL GAS CHR OMATOGRAPH OCQ PLOT ·GWR% VS LHR
0 units PLOT
ft/hr m ANALYSIS
"'C ppm
-I _. _. _. _.N
c; .... 01 II)
::!
0~ 0.:.... 0 ~ 0. :...o 17.6
10
40
100
0 (II 0 01 001 0 01 0 01 0 010
0
c &--1 1-1-11--j i -
- "

----.... I~

......,--
c - ...... 1-z ... J
en
m
')
X
..,.,.. [.J
()
~ -I
0
)(
.j:-
z
c >
0

- I
(.I
....- ) i
I I
...... \ I
)(
\.n
0 ~
i
c
~

... .....
·, ..-.:. I
1/
I
It!'
'
1/
I en
m
' I ()
-1
I
J i 0
z
)(
(}\
0
i tD

' I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I I
)(
--J I
@ COPYRIGHT 1984 BY
EXPLORATION LOGGING, INC.

Fig. 4-Example 3-Well drilled in Brae field, North Sea.

SPE129ll~