Impact of Dynamic Mud Invasions on S, Estimation in Fresh Water Formations
ure 17) and variation of fluid resistivity R, with distance
from the bohehole r, and with time (Figure 18). More accu-
rate S, can be derived as an estimation of true formation
resistivity (R,) extrapolated using the software.
Resistivity simulation results of Unity-3 1 for the Bentiu
oil zone indicates that reserves could be significantly
under-estimated as compared with reserves calculated from
S, based upon the first and the second logging runs.This is
illustrated from resistivity simulation results (Figure 16) as
in Table 1. The Bentiu formation mentioned above is one of
major clean-sand oil producing zones in the Unity oil field.
Water saturation is easily derived from the Archie equa-
tion
-1
sw =(&J
Based on experience I used m = 2, n = 2, R, = 390 ohm-m
and 200 ohm-m (deep formation resistivity), R, = 1.8 (resis-
tivity of formationwater) and 9 = 0.26 (formation porosity).
The result: Swl = 0.254 when R, = 390 ohm-w Sw2= 0.355
when R,= 200 ohm-m.
The resistivity simulation result using the Dynamic
Response of Resistivity Logs software is 582 ohm-m (as
shown Figure 16), which is the projectedR,(t = 0.10 day). It
is the last point with LLD reading close to LLS reading.
Hence, the water saturation of the simulationis 2 1.3 percent,
which is similar to a calculationusing the J-function for the
Unity oil field, representing water saturation without inva-
sion.
During the process of simulation, there is the possibility
of a non-unique solution. However, the process of invasion
n
5
8
f
6AB
4a0
9P4
161
Unity31
I
n.b: Very rapid and severe mud invasion ocam in the first3
days of open hole. Invasion proczs complctcs in about 10
days. ?he maximum depth of i n d o n is about 8m.
FIG.17 Depth invasion simulation resultsfor Unity-31.
MayJune 2001
is controlled by many factors. I adjusted input parameters
until output parameters are reasonable and unique. Input
parameters of the simulation are associated with formation
and fluid properties. For the formation above, input parame- '
ters include formation permeabilityK = 1500md, formation
porosity 9 = 0.26, formation temperature T = 85"C, cemen-
tation exponent m = 2, saturation exponent n = 2, wellbore
pressure Pweii= 20 Mpa, original reservoir pressure Pf= 16
Mpa, oil viscosity ,u = 6 cp and mud-cake permeability
K, = 0.01 md.
If the second log run (12 days open hole) is used for Sw
calculation, it is found thatSois 15 percent under-estimated
as compared with the first log run (two days open hole) and
20 percent under-estimated as compared with simulation
results (projectedback to within the first day of open hole).
As such, the use of resistivity simulation results for S,
calculation could further increase the current GNPOC's
booked reserves by up to 20 percent as compared with S,
derived directly from resistivity log with prolonged open
hole time.
New logging instruments
GNPOC is currently conducting a study to obtain more
accurate S, estimation using the following methods:
Magnetic resonance imaging log (MRIL). MIUL uses the
principle of nuclear magnetic resonance relaxation to pro-
vide petrophysical data including porosity, irreducible water
saturation, and permeability, grain-size and pore-size distri-
bution. High irreducible water saturation is one of reasons
for low resistivity in oil-bearing zones.
High Definition Induction Log (HDIL). The HDIL meas-
ures formation conductivity with six different depths of
investigation (10 in., 20 in., 30 in., 60 in., 90 in., 120 in.).
The measurement can be used to determine the conductivity
FIG. 18 Variation of ffwand R, with time for Unity-31.
PETROPHYSICS 219