Extended Abstract for TOP BON

Name: Satishvaran Ragu Chandran ID: 23381

Group 16
1. Identify facies and clean water wet sands
From the data presented, we must identify facies and clean water wet sands as our first
objective for this project. First, we must distinguish our sand, silt, clay, and shale facies from
the gamma ray (GR) log data.
Because of the radioactive processes, shale and clays produce a lot of gamma rays. Shale-free
sandstones and carbonates have low radioactive material concentrations and provide low
gamma ray measurements. If the sandstone includes potassium feldspars, micas, glauconite,
or uranium-rich fluids, clean sandstone (i.e., with little shale concentration) may likewise
yield a strong gamma ray reaction. This method may detect various types of lithology by
monitoring the radioactivity of subsurface equipment in the wellbore, gamma ray logs.
Finding the data's greatest and lowest GR values confirms this.
By finding the least and greatest values of our GR log, which are (23.4 API) for the lowest
and (78.4 API) for the largest.
We can also retrieve the difference values from these two values, which is 55 API, which is
the range of GR values for all four facies in the centre part of our BON Top well. Then,
because there are four sections to identify, namely sand, silt, clay, and shale, the 55 API value
will be divided by four, yielding a value of 13.75 API.
MIN GR 23.4 API Sand 37.15

MAX GR 78.4 API Silt 50.9

MARGIN 55 API Clay 64.65

INTERVA 13.75 API Shale 78.4

L
Following the determination of all facies, the volumes of sand (Vsand), silt (Vsilt), clay
(Vclay), and shale (Vshale) must be calculated using the following equations:
 Figure 1 Gamma Ray Log with showing the lithology located

Next, after determined the sand facies, water wet sand facies are determined by observing the
(RESD) deep resistivity log. RESD log are good in identifying the wet sands zone intervals.
Water has been as high conductivity. In contrast, hydrocarbon sand will show high resistivity
(Smithson 2016). Since sand intervals have already been identified. So, the resistivity deep
logs are used to apply the cut off on the sand intervals only. Based on data given for our
reference, a RESD value of less than 3.35 Ohm-m would consider as water wet zone while
value greater than 3.35 Ohm-m known as hydrocarbon-charged zones.

The data is depicted below.

Min RESD 1
water 3.35

Max 5.7
RESD
HC 5.7
Margin 4.7

Interval 2.35

Figure 2 RESD with water and HC cut off

According to Smithson (1996), high resistivity indicates the existence of hydrocarbons,
whereas low resistivity indicates the presence of water. But there's a catch: this method
won't tell you the difference between rocks that contain hydrocarbons and those that don't,
because both will have high resistivity. Density and sonic porosity logs are used together to
estimate porosity since they are unable to precisely evaluate porosity. As a result, we can
compute the total porosity of reservoir intervals using a cross-plot of density vs neutron
porosity and sonic vs neutron logs. One issue to bear in mind is that the cross-plot should be
done primarily on clean water wet sand to create the polynomial equation for porosity value
evaluation. After finding the clean water wet sand zone, the values of density (DPHI) and
neutron porosity (NPHI) from the clean water wet sand zone are used as input data to create
a density-neutron cross-plot.
A trend line can alternatively be displayed using a polynomial 2nd order equation, as seen
below.

R2 value indicates the data points plotted has a degree of reliability of 75%

Figure 3
Neutron VS Density cross-plot
 3. Cross plot Sonic VS Neutron logs for clean wet sands

This sonic-neutron cross-plot also same by taking the values from the clean water wet sand
zone. For this, we need to use the equation in below:

This R2 result indicates that the data points are 86.7 percent reliable.

Figure
4 Neutron VS Sonic plot
4. Interpret and construct density porosity and sonic porosity depth profile

These three porosity logs were generated after computing (DPHI) density porosity and
(SPHI) sonic porosity depth profiles, as well as (NPHI) neutron porosity log. Combining
these three logs allows us to more accurately predict lithologies and porosity. The NPHI has
the greatest porosity value, followed by SPHI and DPHI, based on the combination of logs.
There are a few cross-overs between the NPHI and DPHI logs, but they are relatively only
minor, thus the effect is likewise minor. To get the so-called Effective Porosity, we first
compute the Total Porosity (PHIT) (PHIE).

5. Calculate and interpret intervals of effective porosity

When compared to density, sonic, and neuron porosity, total porosity is the greatest. After
obtaining the total porosity (PHIT), the effective porosity (PHIE) for the whole depth interval
is calculated. The following equation is used to compute PHIE:

PHIE = PHIT - (Vclay * Shale Porosity)

Whereas shale porosity is the constant that varies according to the facies type: 0.12 for sand, 0.10 for silt and
0.08 for shale facies respectively.

According to the data, shale has an effective porosity ranging from 26 to 34 percent, whereas
sand has an effective porosity ranging from 16 to 32 percent. Clay has effective porosity
ranging from 21% to 36%, whereas silt has effective porosity ranging from 32% to 18%.
Based on the data acquired, we can determine that clay and silt have greater mean effective
porosity. This is most likely due to reservoir cracks, which allow erroneous data to be
acquired in areas where sand should have the highest porosity value.
A low value of 16.0 percent and a high value of 36.0 percent define effective porosity.
Furthermore, the effective porosity is 27.2 percent on average. Due to the existing volume of
hydrocarbon contained inside the reservoir capacity, PHIE intervals are considered crucial in
identifying prospective reservoirs.
 6. Determine permeability of the effective porosity
Next is to calculate permeability for depth section using this equation:

The permeability of rock can be influenced by a number of factors, including heterogeneous

mineralogy, porosity (pore type/size and structure), and rock compaction with depth.
It can be seen that the top reservoir has been anticipated to have a modest amount of
permeability and a significant level of effective porosity. Looking down into the reservoir,
the permeability pattern is increasing in the centre and bottom of the well, but the effective
porosity trend is decreasing.
That being said, the permeability values of sands are greater in comparison to silt, clay, and
shale, as evidenced in the well logs shown in the figure above. This may be validated because
sand is known to have a larger pore area.
The sand will become an excellent reservoir rock as a result of these factors. The
permeability of shale is the lowest, implying that no fluid can pass through. This indicates
that shale can act as a seal rock, preventing hydrocarbons from migrating upwards but
making recovery of economically viable hydrocarbons difficult.
 7. Interpret flow unit intervals
Flow units are the mappable portions of the total reservoir within in which the
geological and petrophysical properties that affect the flow of fluids are consistent and
predictably different from the properties of other reservoir rock volumes. Flow units are
deterministic elements in a reservoir description. Stratigraphic Modified Lorenz Plot
(SMLP) is a plot of percent flow capacity versus percent storage capacity ordered in
stratigraphic sequence. It offers a guide to determine how many flow units are there. There
are in total 18 flow units that are determined from the SML P. This top BON data shows a
high cumulative porosity, suggesting that the reservoir has a lot of porosity and storage
capacity. In conclusion, the steeper slopes indicate a high permeability.
Flow Capacity = FC1 = Depth Interval * Permeability Storage Capacity =

SC1 = Depth Interval * Effective porosity

W
e can see that (7,8,13,16) are on the steeper slopes based on the graph plot. As a result, we
may deduce that (7,8,13,16) is a suitable flow capacity.
 8. Evaluate flow units with regards to storage and flow capacity

The graph of cumulative storage

capacity vs. cumulative flow capacity is created, and then the reservoir's zoning is
determined to evaluate the flow units which is shown in the figure above.

Table shows the depth, avg porosity, avg permeability, storage capacity and flow capacity.

Legend
Sand
Silt

Shale

Despite being of distinct facies types, all of the flow units appear to exhibit high porosity.
However, just because the porosity is good doesn't indicate the permeability is as well.
According to Table 1, the average permeability of flow units one through five is low when
compared to the other flow units. This might be due to the many types of lithology present, as
well as the compaction impact on each facies. Furthermore, all of the sandy facies have high
porosity and permeability values, implying that the sandy facies have good reservoir quality.
 9. Evaluate the reservoir quality with respect to flow unit for each well

Through using flow zone indicator, the Reservoir Quality Index (RQI) is a convenient way to
measure a reservoir's flow character (FZI). FZI is ultimately determined by the rock's flow
and storage capacity. On top of all that, reservoir quality is influenced by permeability, fluid
types, lithologies, and effective porosity.
Reservoir quality (RQ) is then calculated using the equation as follow:

Following the calculation of reservoir quality, the reservoir quality (RQ) graph is drawn and
compared to the Gamma Ray (GR) and Cumulative Permeability (CP) ( percent KH). There
are a total of 18 flow unit zones obtained as shown in figure above previously.

It is clear that the higher the gradient in the cumulative permeability graph, the higher the
permeability. Low permeability and reservoir quality can be seen in zones 1 to 5. This might
be due to the fact that the lithology is dominated by shaly facies.

Shaly facies may have sufficient porosity to hold any fluid, but permeability is a different
storey. Because of its grain size, shale has a poor permeability, which can restrict the flow of
any fluid, particularly hydrocarbons. Because it is a sandy facies, zone 6 has an extremely
high permeability gradient. Intervals with a high RQI are also referred to be sand units.

This suggests that zones 6 through 18 are the best places to look for hydrocarbons because of
high RQI. The reservoir quality, permeability, and porosity are better in the lower zones than
in the top zones, it is reasonable to assume that zone 6 to 18 is the optimum place to search
for hydrocarbons prospect.
Conclusion

In the nutshell, the data from the TOP BON well logs were utilized to generate formulae and
graphs in Microsoft Excel to investigate rock properties. Reservoir features such as facies,
effective porosity and permeability, flow units, and RQI were disclosed via the graphs and
cross plots developed. A correlation of permeability with effective porosity, gamma ray log,
and resistivity log can be used to find the greatest permeability facies. It is easy to link
excellent permeability to the best reservoir for oil or water.
According to our data, there are seven different sandy facies that might potentially be suitable
hydrocarbon sources. Zones 6, 11, and 12, as well as zones 15 through 18, are all identified to
have good quality reservoir. In comparison, zone 6 would be the best conceivable reservoir
with the most potential. It has the greatest average porosity and permeability values, with a
total thickness of 31.9m.
In addition, this potential reservoir is also conveniently overlain by layers of silts and shales
which prominently acts as the seal elements.