IPTC-17971-MS

Characterization of Volcanic Reservoir - New Integrated Approach: A Case

Study from Raageshwari Deep Gas Field, Rajasthan, India
Manabesh Chowdhury, Rupdip Guha, Surender Singh, Sumil Verma, and Rohit Tandon, Cairn India Ltd;
Thomas Gould and Andrew Taylor, Ichron Ltd; Ian Goodall, Goodall Geoscience Ltd.

Copyright 2014, International Petroleum Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the International Petroleum Technology Conference held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 10 –12 December 2014.

This paper was selected for presentation by an IPTC Programme Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s).
Contents of the paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the International Petroleum Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s).
The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the International Petroleum Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Papers
presented at IPTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor Society Committees of IPTC. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the International Petroleum Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted
to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper
was presented. Write Librarian, IPTC, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax ⫹1-972-952-9435

Abstract
The Raageshwari Deep Gas Field is located in the Central Basin High, in the southern part of the Barmer
Basin, Rajasthan, India. The major reservoirs are eruptive volcanics and subsequently deposited clastics
of Cretaceous - Early Tertiary age. The reservoirs are micro porosity-low permeability gas condensate
systems. Exploration wells were conventionally tested with gas production rates of 2-4 MMScf/day at
high drawdowns. In the development phase, deviated wells with multi-stage hydraulic fracturing have
shown multi-fold improvement in production performance.
Volcanic reservoirs are characterized by quick changes of lithofacies both laterally and vertically
resulting in strong vertical and horizontal heterogeneity. Unpredictable distributions of pore and fracture
networks resulted in variable well performance and productivities. Difficulties in reservoir characteriza-
tion pose an immense challenge to effective well and reservoir management.
Comprehensive reservoir characterization studies were undertaken to unravel the complexity of the
volcanic reservoirs and to capture the uncertainties. The workflow integrates data from volcanic outcrop
analogues, conventional core (visual description, thin section petrography, geochemistry, RCA, Dean
Stark and SCAL), mudlogs (gas shows and chromatography), and wireline logs including dipole sonic,
image and NMR logs. Productive reservoir units deliverability was validated with production logs,
whereas the effectiveness of hydraulic fracturing was matched with micro-seismic data coupled with
seismic attributes (AntTrack volume). Matrix permeability coupled with fracture characterization was
used to match well performance. Spatial distributions of reservoir properties were populated by geostatis-
tical techniques incorporating available geometries and flow unit dimensions from analogues and well
information.
The validity of this approach has been confirmed with most recent wells as blind tests and a successful
production test from a deeper unit. The approach also emphasises the importance of integrating different
datasets for detailed reservoir characterization leading to increased confidence in effective reservoir
management of this complex reservoir.
Keywords volcanic reservoir · gas condensate · integrated reservoir characterization · reservoir management
2 IPTC-17971-MS

Figure 1—Location Map of Raggeshwari Deep Gas Field with major oil and gas fields of Rajasthan Block

Introduction
The Raageshwari Deep Gas (RDG) Field is situated in the southern part of Barmer Basin in the state of
Rajasthan, India. This is a low permeability gas condensate reservoir, with excellent gas quality of
approximately 80% methane, low CO2 and no H2S. There are two major reservoir lithofacies in this field
- volcanics and clastics and the field was discovered in 2003. Barmer Basin is one of the most prolific
hydrocarbon basins of India and Cairn is the operator of the Rajasthan block having thirty three
discoveries till date. The three main oil fields (Mangala, Bhagyam and Aishwariya) are situated in the
northern part of the block (Figure 1) and are currently in production of more than 180,000 bbls/day. The
Field Development Plan for Raageshwari Deep Gas Field (2005) captures drilling of 35 development
wells (32 new and 3 existing E&A Wells) in different phases.
Reservoir and fluid predictability is a challenge in the volcanic and volcaniclastic reservoirs. In the
following individual sections the reservoir architecture, production performance and challenges in
reservoir characterization in the RDG Field are discussed, followed by the integrated approach adapted for
better characterization and predictability of this complex reservoir.

Reservoir Geology
The Raageshwari Deep Gas Field is situated in the southern part of Barmer Basin, at the northern end of
Central Basin High (CBH) - a 40km-long composite feature of elevated North-South-oriented fault
terraces, arranged en echelon within the Southern Barmer Basin. The CBH structure is divided into many
major horst blocks, and the RDG horst block is the northernmost and shallowest among them (Figure 2)
(Crighton et.al., 2011).
IPTC-17971-MS 3

Figure 2—Schematic cross section of the Central Basin High with Raageshwari horst block (modified after Crighton et.al.,2011)

Figure 3—Conceptual schamatic cross section Raggeshwarl Deep Gas Field (modified after Jha et.al., 2010)

A conceptual section illustrating the principal geological features of the Raageshwari Horst is shown
in Figure 3. A basic summary of the key events in the RDG horst block are:
● Eruption and deposition of basic and acidic volcanic flows and associated sediments.
● Tilting and erosion of volcanic deposits driven by ENE-WSW trending faults.
● Onlap of Fatehgarh fluvial and lacustrine sediments deposited onto the volcanic high during
syn-rift faulting created by the dominant N-S faults.
● Silts and muds of the Barmer Hill and Dharvi Dungar Formations create a regional seal for the
structure.
In the Raageshwari Deep Gas Field, 7 wells were drilled in the exploration and appraisal phase.
Subsequently, 27 development wells were drilled maximum up to a maximum depth of 3500m TVDSS
from 4 well pads. All wells encountered gas bearing reservoirs in clastic and volcanics sections.
4 IPTC-17971-MS

Figure 4 —Drilled well locations in Raageshwari Deep Gas Field and key well locations

Stratigraphically the clastic reservoir is in the Fatehgarh Formation, and as the volcanic units currently do
not have any formal stratigraphic status, lithostratigraphic nomenclature (Felsic & Basalt) is being used
for this field. The Figure 4 shows the well positions in the field and Figure 5 shows the typical log
signature of the different reservoir units.
The key wells which are used in this study with conventional core, image logs, production data has also
been shown in Figure 4 and is also summerized in Table 1.
The general lithological characteristics of these reservoir units are described below and these are the
basic building block for the detailed reservoir characterization:
Basalt
Basalt is a dark coloured igneous rock, composed primarily of calcic plagioclase and pyroxene, formed
by the eruption of magma onto the Earth’s surface, where it cools and crystallises. Basaltic magmas
typically have significant eruption volumes, low viscosities and low amounts of dissolved volatiles. They
commonly form relatively extensive ribbon- and tabular-shaped flows.
In RDG, the main features of the basalts are captured in the visual core descriptions and are described
on the basis of the percentage of phenocrysts, the crystal size and the percentage of vesicles, along with
the degree of alteration. The conventional core from different wells together with the rotary sidewall cores
(MSCT) of the Basalt section shows a variety of basaltic lavas and scoriaceous rubble containing vesicles,
amygdales and local, post-emplacement authigenic minerals (i.e. zeolites and chlorite). Major lithofacies
IPTC-17971-MS 5

Figure 5—Typelog of the Raageshwari Deep Gas reservoirs

observed are phyric (porphyritic) basalt, brecciated basalt, amygdaloidal phyric basalt, vitreous basalt,
minor peperite and weakly welded lithic lapilli tuff (Figure 6). An integrated study of the core and MSCT
samples in conjunction with the image and conventional wireline logs has revealed a stacked succession
of 15-40 m thick cycles of lavas, many with brecciated tops, that are intercalated with associated
pyroclastic facies. The maximum thickness of the drilled basalt section in RDG is approx. 690m.
The basalts are commonly porphyritic (altered), containing plagioclase and clinopyroxene phenocrysts
with isolated amygdales filled with secondary minerals like zeolites and carbonates (Figure 7). The
lithoclasts in the brecciated zones vary in size from sub-cm to locally larger than the core diameter. The
current emplacement or depositional model is that of a flowing but cooling lava flow which develops a
chilled solid crust. The hot lava beneath the crust continues to flow, creating a rubbly surface by a process
of auto-brecciation. The lava eventually cools to form a hard layer often containing vesicles which are
later filled to become amygdules. The rubbly surface may be colonised by small plants and thin soils may
develop until a subsequent eruptive event buries the surface beneath another lava flow. The conventional
core also reveals the presence of higher natural fractures in phyric, amygdaloidal and brecciated basalts
than vitreous basalt and welded lithic lapilli tuff.
6 IPTC-17971-MS

Table 1—Data avalibility of the key wells of RDG used for integrated study

Figure 6 —Lithological characteristic of Basaltic reservoirs of RDG

Felsics
The Felsic volcanic rock is an igneous rock composed of light coloured minerals with a mineralogy
dominated by feldspar and silica (usually quartz). In RDG, most of the wells observed a change to a very
high GR lithology in the top of the Felsic unit. The Well-4 core in the top of the Felsic unit is a poorly
sorted altered pumice-rich deposit with variable proportions of lithic clast of porphyritic silicic nature with
eutaxitic textures (Figure 8). The detailed description of the conventional core data, and mineralogical
analysis revealed that the top for Felsic is primarily an ignimbrite which is a pumice-rich pyroclastic flow
deposit. It is poorly sorted with fragments ranging from ash size (⬍ 2mm to blocks (⬎ 64mm) of pumice
and a variable proportion of lithoclasts. Whereas the in the deeper section this unit is more mafic in
composition (Figure 9).
In previous literature there is reference of sub-felsic unit/undifferentiated volcanics (Figure 3, Jha et.
al., 2010) but with current data integration the relevance of the subdivision was not established through
cutting samples, wireline logs and seismic signature and therefore the subdivision will not be used further.
The maximum thickness of the drilled felsic section in RDG is approx. 545m, however the base of the
felsics hasn’t been drilled yet in this field.
IPTC-17971-MS 7

Figure 7—Petrographic characteristic of the basaltic reservoirs of RDG

Figure 8 —Lithological characteristics of top of Felsic reservoirs of RDG

The reservoir quality is better in the Basalt than in the Felsics, which is also inferred from the PLT data
of the producing wells. The conventional core also reveals the presence of higher natural fractures in lower
Felsic unit than the upper ignimbrite unit.
Clastic (Fatehgarh Formation)
The clastic reservoir interval in the RDG field is the Fatehgarh Formation, which is the major hydrocarbon
bearing reservoir of the basin. The Fatehgarh Formation in RDG field had been subdivided into three
units: Upper, Middle and Lower Fatehgarh.
The Upper Fatehgarh is correlatable within the Raageshwari area and the unit has relatively uniform
properties and more or less uniform isochore up to the crestal pinchout. The Upper Fatehgarh is
interpreted to be stacked small distributary mouth bars and channels in a lacustrine to fluvial depositional
environment based on the core description. The units are correlatable in nature, characteristic cleaning-
upward GR profile, gastropod coquinas seen in the mudstones of Well-4 core.
8 IPTC-17971-MS

Figure 9 —Lithological variations within the Felsic reservoirs

The Middle Fatehgarh is dominated by red pedogenically modified mudstones with incipient calcretes
(and common glaebules). Thin cross-bedded sandstones also occur and appear to be concentrated at the
base and middle of the unit. The Middle Fatehgarh is encountered most of the wells and has a uniform
isochore up to the crestal pinchout in the northeastern part of the Ragheeshwari Horst Block. The interval
is interpreted as lower alluvial plain with thin fluvial channel sands and channel margins. Though from
the log signature, the Middle Fatehgarh is divided into lower and upper unit where the Lower Middle
Fatehgarh is inferred to be multi-storey fluvial channel and the Upper Middle Fatehgarh contains
single-storey fluvial channels.
The Lower Fatehgarh in different wells shows a highly variable nature due to the on-lapping
relationship of the Fatehgarh onto a volcanic paleo-high. The coarse-grained and highly lithic nature of
the sands and their red colouration are indicative of a proximal alluvial fan setting with considerable
clastic input derived from the local volcanics.
The thickness of Fatehgarh Formation varies in the RDG field up to 120m and has the best reservoir
quality among the three reservoir units.
Production Performance
Raageshwari Deep Gas Field is a gas condensate reservoir, with excellent gas quality of approximately
80% methane, low CO2 and no H2S. The gas has net calorific value of about 1070 BTU/SCF and the
condensate gravity is approximately 56°API.
This field started production in 2010, and initialy the gas was being utilized for internal fuel
consumption and the test gas sales started in April 2013. A total of 10 wells have been hydraulically
fractured, out of these 10 wells, 5 to 8 wells are currently put online for gas production.
The major observations of the last 4 years of production performance are as follows:
● It has been observed that the shut in tubing head pressures continued to increase even after more
than a year of shut in, which proves the basic concept that low permeability reservoirs have long
transient flow periods and low effective drainage areas.
● The differences observed in the condensate gas ratio (45-75 stb/MMscf) in the different wells.
● No pressure interference has been observed between wells which are approximately 600 m apart.
IPTC-17971-MS 9

Figure 10 —Lithological charactaristics of Clastic reservoirs of RDG

Table 2—Compilation of production log contributions from different zones of the wells

Various production logging surveys have concluded that hydraulic fractures from all the reservoirs
zones are contributing to production. The individual zone contributions are shown in Table 2 below for
different wells in August, 2014. In Table 2, the number mentioned in the parentheses represents the
number of hydraulically fractured intervals in each individual zone.
The production data shows that clastic reservoir (Fatehgarh Formation) has better productivity
compared to volcanics (Basalt and Felsic), but the interesting point to note is is that the volcanic reservoir
units are flowing 15-50% of the average rate of the individual wells. As the thickness of the volcanic units
is significant, it requires a special emphasis on the reservoir charecterization and predictibilty.

Challenges in Volcanic Reservoir Characterization

The major challenges in reservoir characterization of volcanic reservoir are two fold: predictability of the
reservoir and the reservoir fluid identification. The geological scenarios of volcanic reservoirs are
extremely complex, which is featured by quick changes of lithofacies, thickness, distributions of
pores/vugs & fractures, plus strong vertical and horizontal heterogeneities. Whereas fluid identification
from resistivity log is difficult as the resistivity response is dependent upon the mineralogy, volcanic rock
types and inter-trappeans. The challenges in the characterization are also demonstrated in many fields in
well productivities among different wells. The difficulties of reservoir characterization pose a great
technological challenge on effective reservoir management of volcanic reservoirs. In the RDG Field also,
similar challenges exists; though in every wells different units which are hydraulically fractured flowing
gas but different units are having variability in the production performance as well as variable condensate
gas ratio (CGR) in the different wells.
10 IPTC-17971-MS

Figure 11—TAS diagram of different RDG reservoirs

To reduce the uncertainty in the reservoir predictability, a comprehensive reservoir characterization

studies were undertaken to unravel the complexity of the volcanic reservoirs and to capture the
uncertainties. The work process flow integrates understanding of volcanic outcrop analogues, data from
conventional core (visual description, thin section petrography, geochemistry), detailed interpretation of
wireline logs including dipole sonic, image and NMR logs and mudlogs (gas shows and chromatography).
Productive reservoir units deliverability was validated with production logs, whereas the effectiveness of
hydraulic fracturing was matched with limited micro-seismic data (Mishra, et. al, 2011). Matrix perme-
ability coupled with fracture characterization was used to match well performance. Spatial distributions
of reservoir properties were populated by geostatistical techniques.

Integrated Reservoir Characterization Approach

Geological Analysis
In this current study major emphasis was given on understanding of the eruption history and fracture
identification within the volcanic reservoirs. Understanding of eruption history is important as rock
generated from the different eruptions will exhibit different characteristics and physical properties. This
will also impact the reservoir modelling approach for this type of reservoir.
For elemental composition of different rocks, Inductively Coupled Plasma Optical Emission Spec-
trometry & Mass Spectrometry (ICP-OES & ICP-MS) analysis of seven samples were analysed from
different units. They were taken from the fine grained and least altered parts of the core, so that they would
give the best possible indication of the original magma composition. Two samples were taken from the
lavas in Well-1 basaltic section; two samples from the vitrophyric, and welded bases of the felsic
pyroclastic flows in Well-2 (top part of the Felsic Unit), one each sample from the deeper section of the
Felsic and Basalt unit from Well-4. The composition of the rocks has been plotted on the TAS diagram
of Le Bas et al. (1986) (Figure 11). This plots the total alkali vs. silica and gives an indication of the
IPTC-17971-MS 11

Figure 12—Rare Earth Elemental (REE) analysis plot in different RDG volcanic reservoir units

composition and thus allows a more accurate determination of the rock type, rather than the hand
specimen classification of ‘basalt’ for a fine grained mafic rock.
This analysis revealed that the two stratigraphically deeper samples in Well-2 have a composition
either of tephrite or basanite, which was previously included in the Felsic unit. Whereas from the same
well, the top of the Felsic unit more trachytic/silica rich in nature. The detailed core description also
confirmed the dark mafic in the deeper section of the Felsic unit. Thus, the shallower rocks in Well-2
represent a change to magmas of acidic composition (trachyte) and explosive eruptions to produce a thick
pyroclastic deposit with numerous flow units and lava clasts.
Rare Earth Elemental analysis has carried out from comparable wells (Well-1, 2 & 4) to understand the
source of the magma of these two units (Basalt and Felsic). The rare earth plot (Figure 12) for the samples
suggests that they are likely to have been sourced from the same magma. All samples display similar REE
curves, which suggest a similar source but the deeper interval went through more fractionation and led to
the formation of ultramafic lavas (Well-4, Well-2 deeper units) and minor ultramafic pyroclastics.
There is likely to be a certain amount of crystallisation in the magma chamber resulting in acidic
ignimbrites overlying tephrite/basanite lavas and some of these crystals are included in the ignimbrites
(alkali and plagioclase feldspars, with minor hornblende and clinopyroxene). The composition suggests
that the acidic rocks in the upper core represent fractionation of the melt and eruption of a more explosive
magma than the lavas underlying them.
This information helped to conceptualize the eruption cycle and eruption period of the RDG volcanic
reservoirs. Volcanic “eruption cycle” is an assemblage of rocks with the same source generated from calm
to eruption and again to calm stage. Whereas “eruption period” is the basic unit of a volcanic cycle and
composed of an assemblage of volcanic rocks formed by relatively continuous eruptions inside a volcanic
cycle (Ran et. al., 2006). The cored lithofacies in Well-1 also represent different parts of lava flows, with
minor interaction of the lava and wet sediment and some eruption of more explosive lava to form tuffs,
mostly of “pahoehoe” with minor “aa” lava. As the solid lava cools, a network of vertical and horizontal
joints may develop. Multiple eruptions lead to stacked layers of alternating massive basalt and basalt
rubble with minor associated pyroclastic and sedimentary deposits. The gas-bearing basaltic sequence can
therefore be simplified to a binary system of gas-bearing, porous rubble layers interleaved with tight,
fractured basaltic lava.
12 IPTC-17971-MS

Conceptually, the discrimination of the units could be sedimentary rocks, weathered zone or change of
properties of lava components, however from formation evaluation there were no signatures of the
sedimentary units till date. The compilation of core data, geochemistry, and wireline logs infers a
well-defined sequence - from bottom to top. The typical eruption facies units are a mafic base surge,
followed by a pyroclastic flow and finally followed by multiple surges. Figure 13 shows the eruption units
in the volcanic sequence from Well-A, which shows multiple eruptive units within Felsic and Basaltic
reservoirs.
The natural fracture characterization is another important aspect of the volcanic rocks, as these
fractures will act as possible pathways for fluid flow and contribute to the formation’s permeability. In
RDG, image log from wells in combination of conventional core data has been integrated for the
understanding of the natural fracture characteristics. As most of the wells were drilled with SOBM; there
is an inherent challenge of identifying the open vs. cemented natural fractures from the image logs,
especially where borehole conditions are poor. In order to maximise the value of the image data the
approach used is to identify and classify fractures was to integrate the data derived from the resistivity
imager (e.g. Dual-OBMI, Earth Imager, STAR) and acoustic amplitude (e.g. CBIL) images. Fracture
identification uses both data sources in order to provide a better understanding of the fracture type and
their fluid flow properties.
Natural fracturing is intense within the volcanic sections drilled by different wells; however the
intensity spatially varies within the field (Table 3).
It was observed that, the natural fractures are mostly concentrated in the damage zones closer to the
identified faults and in mechanically brittle lava flows. The core calibration demonstrates that natural
fractures have either calcite/quartz/epidote or chlorite/zeolite fills and fractures have dominant NW-SE to
NNW-SSE strike orientations similar to that of mapped seismic-scale faults that bound and cross the
Raageshwari Field. In Well-1 & 3, a NW-SE striking fracture population is also apparent (Figure 14)
which is oriented parallel to a cross fault mapped. Natural fracture populations have similar orientations
in other wells (Well-2, -4, -5, -6 and -7). The Well-4 was drilled slightly underbalanced leading to
breakouts resulting from well failure in compression and these breakouts principally strike NE-SW
(Figure 15), similar observation is also inferred from Well-1, 2. The orientation of the breakout direction
indicates the present day in-situ maximum horizontal stress has a mean orientation ranging 010°-022°
from different wells.
These informations are very critical for the static geocelluar model building and used for better
reservoir predictability. It is also evident that the complicated depositional system, presence of unusual
minerals, exotic rock fabric, and primary and secondary porosity development in volcanic reservoirs in
RDG leads to a different petrophysical approach to integrate this geological understanding and better
predictibility of this complex reservoir.

Petrophysical Analysis
Understanding log responses of gamma ray, resistivity, density, neutron, sonic, photo-electric factor (PEF)
brings in new challenge to volcanic rocks. These rocks contain minerals like quartz, feldspar, mica,
hornblende, olivine, pyroxene as major minerals and epidote, augite, zeolite, zircon, rutile, etc as minor
minerals in composition. Mineral assemblages and abundances are dictated by the composition of the lava,
the mechanism of emplacement, the cooling and geothermal history and weathering. Weathering and
hydro-thermal alteration gives rise to zeolite, and clay minerals from alteration of feldspar. This gives rise
to a complex mineralogy and the system is no longer restricted to more simple sand-shale or carbonate-
shale lithology systems. The process of development of porosity, permeability and storage of hydrocarbon
helps us to design and define the petrophysical workflow. Porosity development is due to de-gassing from
the lava, weathering of minerals, alteration due to interaction with hydro-thermal fluids, cooling and
dessication, fracturing, etc. Permeability is due to fracture and connectivity due to hyro-thermal fluids.
IPTC-17971-MS 13

Figure 13—Conceptualized Eruption History Model of RDG volcanic reservoir from Well-A
14 IPTC-17971-MS

Table 3—Natural fracture charecterization from image log data of RDG field

Figure 14 —Natural fracture populations of the RDG Field identified from image log data
IPTC-17971-MS 15

Figure 15—Maximum horizontal stress direction of the RDG Field identified from image log data

Figure 16 —Generalized Petrophysical Workflow Adopted in RDG

The degree of alteration of the volcanic rock is the key to reservoir development. The petrophysical
workflow used in the RDG Field is presented below (Figure 16), which aims to characterize the lithology
assisted flow units prediction.
Porosity determination is a big challenge in volcanic rocks when rock composition variation is
frequent. The porosity types in these reservoirs vary from micro-pores to macro-pores, including vugs and
fractures. Mineral assemblages govern the grain density of the rock. Often it was observed that grain
density variation is too large (2.66-3.1 gm/cc) to assume the average fixed value to be used as 2.9gm/cc
for porosity calculation from the density log. Continuous grain density from spectroscopy measurements
are also of limited use due to the complex mineralogy and inversion algorithm. NMR remained the only
method to obtain the porosity independent of lithology to represent all porosity types. Quality control of
the NMR data was performed and transverse relaxation time up to 2200ms was found to be suitable. The
remaining part of the data was found to add little signal and more noise.
Another aspect that remains debated is the total and effective porosity in general and attempting to
calculate these accurately in complex volcanic reservoirs which adds further complexity to the petro-
physical workflow. The most commonly used method to determine effective porosity is correction of clay
16 IPTC-17971-MS

/ shale porosity multiplied by its volume from the density / density-neutron calculated total porosity.
Because there are no shales in volcanic rocks, clay proportions are low and hence minor differences arise.
Another method is to use a clay bound water correction to NMR total porosity. This is widely accepted
methodology however it is seen that these rocks are often micro-porous. In most NMR analysis, this
micro-porosity is treated as clay bound and 3 ms cutoff is applied to obtain it. Whether that 3 ms cutoff
is valid in volcanic rocks needs to be seen. The micro-porosity causes enhanced surface relaxation as seen
in the NMR measurement. The presence of iron minerals in the volcanic stratigraphies further accentuated
the surface relaxation process. NMR total porosity minus clay bound porosity gives the effective porosity
that most people are comfortable of, irrespective of presence of clay or not and fracturing remains the only
way for exploitation.
Rock Class / Facies: Logging tools are calibrated in the laboratory in order to measure the physical
properties of limestone and sandstone reservoirs. The tool response correction charts are designed to
account for the effects of fluids and limestone / sandstone lithology. It is difficult to calibrate the tool
response in volcanic rocks with variable compositions and lithological variation. Gamma ray responses
are greatly affected by feldspar and its alteration minerals (clay) and feldspar is the second most abundant
mineral after quartz. Small proportion of heavy minerals including zircon, rutile and monazite also
contribute to high gamma ray values. Density-neutron logs along with PEF are another indicator of
lithology. They show wide separation similar to a shale response. There is anti-correlation of gamma ray
and density-neutron response to predict lithology as shown in Figure 17. Deterministic methods to
calculate volume of shale from either from single / combination of logs can’t be used when there is no
shale in volcanic rocks. Probabilistic methods are limited by the number of input curves vis-a-vis minerals
that can be modeled. It is dependent on the interpreter and assumptions must be made to group the
minerals together to predict the measured log responses. Availability of limited number of input curves
and variability of mineral abundances both aerially and vertically renders limited use of this method in the
full field study.
Considering all these challenges, the objective of rock classification was to build a model that responds
to flow, is robust and simple keeping in mind the uncertainty and less knowledge about the spatial and
vertical heterogeneity of the rock. To achieve the objective, net overburden corrected porosity- permea-
bility data was used. QC of the core poro-perm data has been carried out with elimination of the fractured,
broken edged plugs and data with measurement instrument limitations. This resulted in consideration of
the matrix permeability only. It was observed that the permeability changes by 3-orders of magnitude for
a given porosity especially in Fatehgarh and Basalt. Felsic rocks rather showed a general linear trend of
reduction of permeability with reduction in porosity. However, as geologically it was proved that Felsic
and Basalt were from the same source of magma, same methodology in Felsic rock classification has been
adopted. The classification scheme was to be used for flow prediction, and then pore throat was the
method of choice. Winland (R35) method was used to classify the rock. The equation is given below as

Poro-Perm transformation was generated for each rock class in a given formation as shown in Figure
18.
To validate the outcome, an attempt was made to tie rock class to geology of the formation using
petrography data. In Fatehgarh Formation, the reservoir rock class 1 (F1) is represented by intergranular
porosity and good permeability while the non-reservoir rock is devoid of such property as shown in Figure
19.
In Basalt, visual description of ‘alteration index’ was observed to match quite well with petrophysical
rock classes. Rock class 3 and 4 could easily be seen to reflect low degree of alteration where porosity
and permeability could be measured while rock class 1 was highly altered or fractured and poorly
IPTC-17971-MS 17

Figure 17—Gamma Ray and Density Neutron Relationship in RDG Volcanic Reservoirs
18 IPTC-17971-MS

Figure 18 —Porosity-Permeability Transforms of different RDG reservoirs

Figure 19 —Rock Class and Petrographic relationship in Fatehgarh Reservoir in RDG

represented in poro-perm data. This information was carried forward to integrate log data with core. A plot
(Figure 20) of Pore Throat Radius - NMR Porosity - Bulk Density shows a clear separation of the reservoir
rock with non-reservoir or potential reservoir rock in different formations. It was also observed that that
bulk density can be used to construct a simple rock class model as this data is available in all the wells.
Water Saturation estimation is another uncertain domain in volcanic reservoir. The resistivity method
is the first approach that is often taken as “quick look”, but the conductivity measured from tool responses
are complex to simulate in these rocks. Measurement suffers also from shoulder bed effects; there were
no water samples are available to measure salinity, cementation factor and saturation exponents are not
available. Saturation equations built for sandstone / carbonate reservoirs are often applied in these types
of complex rocks to calculate water saturation. Irreducible water saturation from capillary pressure and
NMR are the other viable options. The permeability of these rocks range from 0.001 - 0.1 mD, which
results in high entry pressures. Centrifuge and Porous Plate measured data cannot be obtained due to
instrument limitation and time constraint. Another option is Mercury Injection capillary pressure (MICP)
measurements. However working with a multiple porosity system and simulating a single height function
model from the MICP data can be too simplistic to characterize volcanic rocks. NMR logs supported with
laboratory measurements are another available option to determine the irreducible water saturation. The
challenges of fluid charecterization can be mitigated by NMR fluid typing methodology in this type of
reservoirs.
IPTC-17971-MS 19

Figure 20 —Pore Throat Radius “NMR Porosity” Bulk Density Plot

Figure 21—Poresize distribution of the Different RDG Reservoiors

Even though water salinity is known in the Fatehgarh Formation at shallow depths, there is no
information of salinity in deeper depths. Using the above salinities and correcting it for temperature
effects, water saturation was estimated. For Basalt and Felsic Formations, no water salinity data is
available for reliable estimation of formation water resistivity.
An attempt were made to compute the water saturation using following methods
1. Capillary Pressure using MICP
2. Irreducible Water Saturation using NMR
Capillary Pressure using MICP: It was observed that mercury saturation followed an undulating path
as mercury entered into pore spaces with increasing pressure in most of the samples. Some of the samples
also showed fractures as mercury entered. On further investigation, it was revealed that the dominant pore
throat radius is ⬍ 0.1 (avg. 0.05) micron classifying them as ‘fine’ micro pores as shown in Figure 21.
The pore system exhibited a complex network and with permeability of ⬍0.1 mD, it was not pragmatic
to proceed further with the saturation height function modelling.
Irreducible Water Saturation using NMR: In these tight reservoirs, it was assumed that the rock is still
at its irreducible water saturated state and no change has taken place in connate water saturation due to
production. NMR data is available on 22 wells and core measurements on 18 plugs covering all the
20 IPTC-17971-MS

formations. QC was done on core data to determine the free fluid porosity and bulk volume of irreducible
water. On close examination, the data revealed that some of the plugs did not reach irreducible saturation
to have good measurement. There were a few plugs covering all formations to determine the free fluid
cut-off. A cumulative plot of transverse relaxation time (T2) to porosity for both saturated and un-
saturated plugs shows that the average T2 cut-off in the Fatehgarh is 7.61 ms and BVI of 9.8% and Felsic
of 7.1 ms and BVI of 6.5% respectively. The log NMR of 22 wells were QC’ed and are found to be good
for this purpose and NMR free fluid cut-off was taken around 10ms taking into consideration the
measurement frequency and amplitude distribution. This was used as an input to determine irreducible
water saturation. The data was well correlated with Dean Stark water saturation available from 2 wells and
cross-plot of NMR total porosity and NMR Swi was used to derive the water saturation equations for each
rock class.
The petrophycally derived rock class/flow units are well matched with with the geological under-
standing and production behaviour of the wells. The geological complexity of predicting volcanic
reservoir units was mitigated with this petrophyscically derived rock class/flow unit approach. The
geophysical attributes are evaluated to integrate the fracture characterization, porosity distribution and
production data.
Geophysical Analysis
The geological understanding and petrophysical approach was also integrated with geophysical analysis.
Seismic data can provide an efficient tool to delineate the spatial extent of the reservoir and in order to
obtain the fracture characteristics, ant track seismic attribute was generated over the variance cube.
Variance cube captured the discontinuity in the seismic data which is further highlighted on the ant track
volume. Natural fractures and faults are characterized by low values on the Ant Track volume. These low
amplitude values in the ant track volume maps the discontinuity due to lithology change, amplitude signal
inhomogeneity and areas with no features. In spite of poor quality seismic in RDG, ant track attributes
from seismic shows a reasonable match with the geological understanding and production data. The
fracture density estimated from the ant track volume infers comparatively higher fracture density in
Well-2 follwed by Well-3, Well-5 and Well-6 (Figure 22); which is in line with the image log
interpretation (Table 3). A better production rate is also expected from the highly fractured or complex
fractured region as compared to less fractured areas. The comparatively low production in Well-5 is also
well matched with the seismic volume, where almost no fractures are observed from the Ant Track
attribute. Fracture trends estimated from this attribute is consistent with the major fracture trend observed
at the wells, however, relatively poor quality of seismic data in some parts of the field constraint the full
usability of these attributes for reservoir characterization.
The micro-seismic data (Well-B as treatment well and Well-E as monitoring well) also well matched
with the seismic attribute map, reservoir units deliverability and effectiveness of hydraulic fracturing
(Figure 23). The Well-B was hydraulically fractured in two zones in Felsic and one zone in Basalt and
currently producing at a higher average rate from other wells.
These informations have been also integared for the integrated reservoir characterization and modeling
purpose.
Geological Modeling Approach
The static geocellular model was built in RDG in order to predict the reservoir properties spatially in the
field and these models (P10-P50-P90) were built on the input data and integrated concepts described in
the previous sections and capturing the uncertainity. The static reservoir model built on the geostatistical
concepts is used for reservoir characterization, property population, simulation modelling and future
development planning. The models ware constructed with a network of 6 dipping normal faults tied to
depth-converted fault sticks interpreted from seismic interpretation. The major stratigraphic horizons
incorporated are: top Fatehgarh, top Basalt and top Felsics. The seismic horizons are well tied with all the
IPTC-17971-MS 21

Figure 22—Integration of Image log interpreted Natural Fracture with Seismic Attribute

Figure 23—Integration of Seismic Attribute, Microsiscmic Data and Induced Hydaulic Fracture charecteristics

drilled well data. For the different models the structural uncertainties were addressed by different depth
surfaces, which are due to the velocity uncertainties in the field. Till date, there was no formation water
encountered in this field, so there is no formation pressure data in water bearing zones leading to an
uncertainty in Free Water Level (FWL) and Gas Water Contact (GWC) in the Raageshwari Field.
The facies modelling in the RDG Field is quite challenging due the heterogeneous nature of the rock
properties. There are different approachs have been considered for the facies classification and distribution
(e.g. electrofacies characterization, artificial neural network, etc.) but after integrating different datasets
22 IPTC-17971-MS

Figure 24 —Predictibility of Good Reservoir by Integrating multiple dataset

it was inferred that a combination of density-sonic-NMR data is quite a good match with production
behaviour and total gas (from mudlogging), which is a direct indication of porous reservoir units. The rock
class/flow unit classification from the petrophysical analysis used in each well and populated statisticaly
in the field (as elaborated in petrophysical analaysis approach). The rock class sub-division used for each
of the geo-cellular zones is based on core calibrated data. The population of the rock class was performed
by the Sequential Indicator Simulation (SIS) algorithm. Though the lateral extent of the volcanic
events/packages (if Basalt & Felsics are considered as a single package) can be more than kilometres or
more, but the short variogram was considered as rock classes/flow units within these units may not be very
extensive, evident from the surface outcrops.
The porosity modelling was based on NMR porosity calibrated with core measured porosity, as
elaborated in the petrophysical analysis methodology. The porosity modelling is performed by Gaussian
Random Function Simulation Technique. The porosity distributions were defined per zone, per facies
type, by generating smoothed porosity histograms through the subdivided well data. The model was then
populated using Sequential Gaussian simulation.
Net to Gross parameter was discriminated by facies as reservoir versus non-reservoir, multiple data has
been integrated to choose all potential reservoir facies in both the Fatehgarh and Volcanic zones to ensure
that zones proven to flow gas are incorporated into the model.
For water saturation population, NMR derived irreducible water saturation is computed and porosi-
ty-Sw transform is applied in different facies.
Permeability models were based on the overburden corrected (porosity-permeability) core data.
Regressions for each zone were derived from the core data and the model was populated based on these
regressions and the simulated porosity.
IPTC-17971-MS 23

As in this type of reservoir, the presence of natural fractures is common, both single porosity (matrix)
& Discrete Fracture Network models (DFN) have been built. However, as some of the major input
parameters of the DFN (e.g. fracture width, length) is not available, as well as the major faults & fractures
are trending NW-SE orientation, which is almost parallel to the borehole breakout orientation (or SHmin),
it is likely that they fractures will be closed and therefore for the purposes of modelling it has been
assumed that these fractures may not contribute to flow (single porosity model compared to dual porosity
model).
Results
This integrated approach considering geological, petrophysical and geophysical integration helped to
understand the spatial distribution of the rock properties throughout the field. Among the 10 wells, which
are hydraulically fractured, 3 wells has been used as “blind” wells, and to prove the concept further the
Well-X was perforated in the deeper section (Figure 24) and hydrocarbon was flowed to the surface. This
well gave a good confidence of predicting the producible reservoirs in the field. The fluid characterization
in the reservoir will be a challenge in this type of reservoir but with recent advancement of wireline
logging technology (e.g. fluid characterization through NMR tool) can mitigate this uncertainty.

Conclusions
Due to the unusual reservoir geology, geological scenarios of volcanic gas reservoirs are extremely
complex, which is featured by quick changes of lithofacies, thickness, distributions of pores/vugs &
fractures, strong vertical and horizontal heterogeneities, and changes of gas well productivities among
different wells, etc. The difficulties of reservoir characterization pose a high degree of uncertainty. These
uncertainties impact directly on resource estimates of this field and future production forecasting. This
integrated reservoir characterization methodology for rock class/flow unit predictability in RDG con-
firmed the success of this approach. This approach also emphasises the importance of integrating different
datasets for detailed reservoir characterization leading to increased confidence in effective reservoir
management of this complex reservoir.

Acknowledgements
The authors like to thank the management of Cairn India Ltd and Oil and Natural Gas Corporation for
giving permission to publish and present this paper. They would also like to acknowledge the significant
contributions from our geoscience and engineering colleagues in Cairn who have helped to unfold the
different aspects of Raageshwari Deep Gas Field reservoirs.

REFERENCES
1. Abbaszadeh, M. Corbett, C. Broetz, R. Wang, J. Xue, F. Nitka, T. Zhang, Y. and Liu, Y 2000:
“Development of an Integrated Reservoir Model for a Naturally Fractured Volcanic Reservoir in
China”; SPE 59439; SPE Asia Pacific Conference on Integrated Modelling for Asset Manage-
ment, Yokohama, Japan, 25-26 April 2000.
2. Crighton, A. Peytchev, P. Upadhyay, A. Doodraj, S. Malik, S.D. Varghese, R. Sawyer, G.
Lochhed, I. and Meempat, B.G. 2011: “Slimhole Wells at Raageshwari Deep Gas Field”; SPE
147772; SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Jakarta, Indonesis, 20-22
September 2011.
3. Hydrocarbon Potential - A Case history from Well Padra-42, Padra field, South Cambay Basin,
India. Proceedings of Petrotech Conference, New Delhi, 2003.
4. Jha, M. Singh, R. and Vermani, V. 2010: “Monobore Design Optimises Slim Hole Raageshwari
Deep Gas Development”; SPE 128394; SPE Oil and Gas India Conference and Exhibition,
Mumbai, India, 20-22 January 2010.
24 IPTC-17971-MS

5. Kawamoto, T. and Sato, K. 2000: “Geological Modelling of a Heterogeneous Volcanic Reservoir

by the Petrological Method”; SPE 59407; SPE Asia Pacific Conference on Integrated Modelling
for Asset Management, Yokohama, Japan, 2526 April 2000.
6. Mishra, S. Gupta, A. Mathur, M. Purusarthy, N. Wenk, A. 2011: “A New Dimension Added to
the Hydraulic Fracture Stimulation for a Volcanic Reservoir Based on Micoseismic Monitoring”;
SPE 143524; SPE EUROPEC/EAGE Annual Conference and Exhibition, Vienna, Austria, 23-26
May 2011.
7. Reservoir Characterization of Volcanic Reservoirs from the Raageshwari Deep Field, Rajasthan,
Proceedings of Petrotech Conference, New Delhi, 2010.
8. Ran, Q. Yuan, S. Xu, Z. Hu, Y. and Wang, Y 2006: “Reservoir Characterization of Fractured
Volcanic Gas Reservoir in Deep Zone”; SPE 10441; International Oil and Gas Conference and
Exhibition Beijing, China, 5-7 December 2006.
9. Vermani, S. Gupta, A. Stolyarov, S. Arora, G. Dean, G. 2010: “The Fracturing of Deep
Non-Convemtional Volcanic Reservoir - A Case History History Raageshwari Gas Field, Onshore
India”; SPE 132932; SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Florence, Italy, 19-22
September 2010.
10. Yan, L, Qiquan, R, and Yongle, H; 2010: “A New Method to Describe the Formation Framework
of the Volcanic Gas Reservir Hierarchically”; SPE 131932; International Oil and Gas Conference
and Exhibition in China, Beijing, 8-10 June 2010.