Single Well Study James Bowkett

-

Well B

Contents
List of Figures..................................................................................................2 List of Tables...................................................................................................2 List of Equations..............................................................................................2 Acknowledgements................................................................................................4 Executive Summary...............................................................................................4 Introduction...........................................................................................................4 Core Description....................................................................................................4 Structural/Regional Geology..................................................................................8 Petrophysics........................................................................................................10 Quality Control..............................................................................................11 Petrophysical Summary – (Figure 23)............................................................11 Core Correlation / Core Shift..........................................................................12 Borehole Corrections.....................................................................................12 Log Analyses.................................................................................................14 Shale Volume................................................................................................15 Porosity.........................................................................................................15 Permeability/Permeability Prediction from Porosity.......................................17 Water Saturation...........................................................................................18 Net Pay Analysis............................................................................................19 Poro/Perm – Excel..........................................................................................21 Conclusions..........................................................................................................25 References...........................................................................................................25 Appendices..........................................................................................................26 Appendices

1

Single Well Study James Bowkett

-

Well B

List of Figures
Figure 2- River Cross-Sections: (a) meandering; (b) anastomosing; (c) braided. Allen (1964); Smith and Smith (1980; Smith and Cant (1982)...............................5 Figure 1 - Triassic Sherwood Sandstone (Meadows & Beach, 1993)......................5 Figure 3 - Reservoir Schematic (McKie et al, 1998) Height 150m..........................6 Figure 4 - Sedimentological Description and Interpretation...................................7 Figure 5 – Depocentres and structural evolution of Southern England; a) PermoTriassic b) Jurassic-Cretaceous c) Cenozoic (Underhill & Stoneley, 1998).............8 Figure 6 – N-S Cross-Sections (Present & Late Cretaceous) through Wytch Farm Oilfield illustrating rotated fault blocks. (Underhill & Stoneley, 1998)...................9 Figure 7 - Original Data.......................................................................................10 Figure 8 - Logged Section 1639-1949 (C Koeninger). Chris’ logs were used as they coincide with a large change of GR.............................................................12 Figure 9 - Which resistivity tool to use?...............................................................13 Figure 10- Cross-plot of CPHI vs CKH...................................................................17 Figure 11 – Porosity and Permeability Histograms...............................................22 Figure 12- Lorenz Plot of Horizontal Permeability................................................23 Figure 13 - Lorenz Plot of Vertical Permeability...................................................23 Figure 14 – Cloud Variogram & Directional Variogram........................................24 Figure 15 - Sedimentary Log (1631-1636m)........................................................26 Figure 16 – Sedimentary Log (1636-1641m).......................................................27 Figure 17 - Resistivity (Recieved, Corrected, Rt/Rxo & Diameter of Invasion).....28 Figure 18 - Shale Volume (Vsh)...........................................................................29 Figure 19 - Neutron-Porosity Cross-plot...............................................................30 Figure 20 - Neutron-Sonic Cross-plot...................................................................31 Figure 21 - Porosity Analysis Curves....................................................................32 Figure 22 - Permeability Analysis.........................................................................33 Figure 23 - Water Saturation, Hydrocarbon Saturation and Moveable Hydrocarbon Saturation.......................................................................................34 Figure 24 - Final Composite (with Gross Reservoir & Net Pay)............................35

Figure 24 - Final Composite (with Gross Reservoir & Net Pay)
List of Tables
Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table 1 - Petrophysical Log Suite for Well B.......................................................10 2 - Net Pay (1610-1730).............................................................................20 3- Net Pay (1610-1730)..............................................................................20 4 - Net Pay (1620-1650) Reservoir Interval................................................21 5 - Statistical Data for the Interval 1620-1704m........................................36 6 - Statistical Data as resampled..............................................................36 7 - Permeability & Anisotropy....................................................................37 8 - Constants..............................................................................................38 8 - Constants

2

Single Well Study James Bowkett

-

Well B

List of Equations
Equation Equation Equation Equation Equation Equation Equation Equation Equation Equation Equation 1 – Preferred Resistivity Tool?...............................................................13 2 – Rw Calculation.................................................................................14 3 - Vshale (GR Index)............................................................................15 4 – Acoustic Porosity.............................................................................15 5 – Density Porosity..............................................................................16 6 - Tixier Permeability...........................................................................17 7 - Timur Permeability..........................................................................17 8 - Coates Permeability.........................................................................17 9 - Archie Equation...............................................................................18 10 – Indonesian Equation......................................................................18 11 - Simandoux Equation......................................................................19

Equation 11 - Simandoux Equation

3

Single Well Study James Bowkett

-

Well B

Acknowledgements
Hannah Beattie, Chris Koeninger, Sunday (James) Odunuga, Alessandros Tasianas, Jose Estaquio Pampuri-Barbossa, Shuzhe Tian, Arfan Ali, Patrick Corbett.

Executive Summary
Lithology: Sherwood Sandstone (Triassic) terrestrial braided arkosic sandstones. Deposited Proximal to source, elsewhere Aeolian influence is important. Reservoir Type: Fluvial Jigsaw/Layer cake. Lateral flow unimpeded over 10s/100s of metres. Vertical flow baffled over 10s/100s metres. Gross Interval Sand: 120 metres Net Pay: 18.50 metres

Introduction
This report aims to evaluate the Sherwood Sandstone as drilled in Well B. It contains a core evaluation; sedimentological and environmental interpretation as well as petrophysical evaluation of logs and statistical analysis of core plug data; porosity and permeability. By these means it is hoped to qualitatively evaluate the expected performance of the well in terms of the pay interval and moveable hydrocarbon. Flow rates are beyond the scope of this report.

Core Description
The full logged section is 40 metres (1621-1661m) of which the author of this report logged the interval between 1631-1641m (Figure 4 and Appendices; Figures 14 & 15). The author had access to the logs of other which helped in the sedimentological evaluation, and core correlation. Timely access to the following logs was secured:Hannah Beattie (1627-1637m) James Bowkett (1631-1641m)
4

Single Well Study James Bowkett

-

Well B

Chris Koeninger (1639-1649m) Sunday (James) Odunuga (1645-1655m) Alessandros Tasianas (1650-1660m) Jose Estaquio Pampuri-Barbossa (1652-1662m) The section from 1631-1641 metres shows repeated upward fining cycles of red-brown arkosic sands with frequent silty intervals, lithic fine grained clasts. An annotated description is included in the text (Figure 4) and the logs (Figures 14 & 15) themselves are included in the Appendix. The main lithological facies are coarse granulitic to finer sands, both of which show evidence of current ripples, and fine grained muds showing evidence of water escape structures. Bioturbation is observed in both coarse and fine grained sediments, all sediments are observed to be extensively cemented by irregular carbonate the cement is isolated and conjoined, rarely vertically and laterally continuous. From this it is interpreted that cements are of vadose origin. Figure 2- River Cross-Sections: (a) meandering; (b) anastomosing; (c) braided. Allen (1964); Smith and Smith (1980; Smith and Cant (1982) The interval logged is representative of semi-arid braided fluvial deposition (Figure 1) in a relatively low lying area proximal to an uplifting orogenic belt (Figure 2) from which immature sediments are derived. The arid environment and proximity to upland areas defined the formation of the sediments here; during periods of drought braided rivers will have flowed carrying high volumes of fine grained and low density material down river resulting in the formation of braided channels with associated accretionary Figure 1 - Triassic Sherwood Sandstone (Meadows &
5

Single Well Study James Bowkett

-

Well B

structures and allowing the formation of overbank deposits which show evidence of bioturbation. During flood episodes water volumes will have increased several fold causing sheet floods to flow down the width of the valley(s) carrying very large volumes of mixed material onto the outwash plain. Where dewatering structures are observed it is interpreted that current energies fell while the flows still contained a high percentage of water which is observed to have been expelled upwards under the sediment load. Fine grained sediments represent the subsiding phase of the flood cycle as fine grained material settles out of suspension while water levels fall. Meadows and Beach (1993) discuss the Sherwood sandstone of the Irish Sea Basin which they describe as a mixed fluvial, sheet flood and Aeolian sands the later are not recognised in Well B although some of the quartz sand may result from fluvial reworking of Aeolian sands.

Figure 3 - Reservoir Schematic (McKie et al, 1998) Height 150m

Reservoir architecture (Figure 3) is laterally discontinuous and vertically heterogeneous lying in fluvial channels and overbanks of the braided river system. Draping muds are unlikely to seal the reservoir but will provide baffles hindering recovery. The architectural style is Jigsaw with a significant layer cake influence from sheet flood muds. Porosity may be adversely affected by clay formation related to the arkose minerals, but
6

Single Well Study James Bowkett

-

Well B

the original high porosity at deposition may be preserved by the cements which formed in the vadose zone prior to significant compaction. Faults are not observed in the section logged; however the sediments themselves suggest proximity to actively uplifting areas.

7

Single Well Study James Bowkett

-

Well B

8

Single Well Study James Bowkett

-

Well B

Figure 4 - Sedimentological Description and Interpretation

9

Single Well Study James Bowkett

-

Well B

Structural/Regional Geology
As a means of discussing the Ceology of the well in context the Wessex Basin is here described, the Well B sediments closely approximate the sediments of the Wessex Basin Sherwood Sandstone. The Irish Sea Basin would also provide a close analogue. The Geological boundaries of the Wessex Basin are; to the West the Armorican and Cornubian Massifs, to the North the London Platform and to the South the Central Channel High. Related basins lie to the North West and North East; the Bristol Channel and Weald Figure 5 – Depocentres and structural evolution of Southern Basins respectively. England; a) Permo-Triassic b) Jurassic-Cretaceous c) Cenozoic The basins are defined as a (Underhill & Stoneley, 1998) series of post-Variscan sedimentary depo-centres (Underhill & Stoneley, 1998) reflecting Mesozoic intra-cratonic extension across Southern England and adjacent offshore areas. The Wessex Basin, in common with other UK basins, records Cenozoic contraction and structural inversion. Basin evolution is controlled by faults along an E-W trend; these formed a rift valley between the Pewsey Fault System and the Central Channel High. Basin opening originated in the West, widening to the East during the Jurassic-Cretaceous and narrowing during the Cenozoic contraction during which time major anticlines formed during tectonic inversion, confining the Hampshire Basin.
10

Single Well Study James Bowkett

-

Well B

11

Single Well Study James Bowkett

-

Well B

Basins opened by rotational normal faulting (Figure 6) from Permian - Cretaceous, filling with increasingly marine facies which thicken to the South. Permian & Triassic continental (red bed), initially filling intramontane basins resulting from the extensional collapse of the Variscan Orogenic belt followed by the Penarth Group, a Late Triassic lagoonal-marine transition (marine transgression). JurassicCretaceous fully marine Figure 6 – N-S Cross-Sections (Present & Late Cretaceous) through Wytch Farm Oilfield illustrating rotated fault blocks. (Underhill & Stoneley, 1998) successions are punctuated by a Cretaceous unconformity showing a

marked tilt of the basins to the East. Marine sedimentation resumed with the deposition of the Lower Greensand and continued until the Upper Cretaceous unconformity after which Tertiary near-shore and non-marine facies dominate East of Dorchester. Inversion formed anticlines with steeply dipping Northern limbs and a number of normal faults in the south of the area underwent significant inversion.

12

Single Well Study James Bowkett

-

Well B

Petrophysics
Electric Logs Gamma Ray GR Caliper CALI Dual Induction Log Dual Laterolog Compensated Neutron Log Bulk Density Sonic (Acoustic Slowness) ILD/IL M LLD/L LS NPHI RHOB SONI Core Data Core Porosity Core Horizontal Permeability Core Vertical Permeability

Table 1 - Petrophysical Log Suite for Well B

13

Single Well Study James Bowkett

-

Well B

Fig ure 7 - Original Data Quality Control The well logs are of reasonable quality for the most part but with clear wash-outs below 1730 metres (Figure 7). As this is in the water zone portions of the log below this depth may be disregarded. The Gamma Ray (GR) tool is observed to be unreliable and may only be used for qualitative analysis; it is adversely affected by radioactive readings from arkosic minerals (particularly Potassium Feldspar and Biotite Mica). The Recovered Core depths (Drillers Depth) are not compatible with the
14

Single Well Study James Bowkett

-

Well B

loggers depths on the electrical logs, this is a result of cable stretch during the logging run, and the core must be shifted (downward) to allow comparison of logs and core. Sonic logs are likely to be affected by cements in the formation.

Petrophysical Summary – (Figure 23) A gross interval of 120 metres was evaluated of a total 170 metre logged interval, of this 21 metres are evaluated as Net Pay. The Net to Gross over this 120 metre interval is 0.15, but this disregards the position of the oil water contact; when limited to the 30 metres of recognised may lying above 1650 metres the Net to Gross increases to 0.7. Following corrections a suite of Petrophysical Analyses were run using the downhole electrical logs (Table 1). The data was cropped to remove washout zones below 1730 metres, the Gamma Ray log was largely disregarded having been used to depth match the logs and core data. Borehole corrections of resistivity curves were run to provide Rt, Rxo and depth of invasion (Rint-9b). The resistivity of water was found by the Ratio Method. Shale volume was found using a curve (Figure 17) derived from the Neutron Density Cross-plot (Figure 18) as a result of poor readings from the GR curve. Porosity was investigated using the Neutron Porosity, Density Porosity and Acoustic Porosity, the curve used for further analyses is the Neutron-Density curve (Figure 17), derived from the N-D Cross-plot (Figure 18). Various permeability predictors (Figure 21) were run; the Linear curve of the Terrastation suite matched best and matches the method demonstrated by Arfan Ali. Of the water saturation curves (Figure 22) the Simandoux Equation was felt to provide the closest approximation of real water saturation, particularly as it provided a consistent saturation of the Sxo (invaded zone). Net Pay Analysis (Figure 23) was undertaken using the following curves; Vsh_ND, Sw_Sm, PHI_ND and K_Linear.

15

Single Well Study James Bowkett

-

Well B

Core Correlation / Core Shift In the interval 1631-1641 there are no particular excursions of GR to indicate either clean sand or shale. In the Interval (Figure 8), logged by Figure 8 - Logged Section 1639-1949 (C Koeninger). Chris’ logs were used as they Chris Koeninger,

there are two clear Gamma Ray (GR) excursions (Figure 7) representing shales/dirty sands which are interpreted to have lower PORO/PERM character or which are interpreted as sands with particularly high GR and high arkose content. The GR intervals observed are at about 1649.5 m & 1644.6 m (Figure 7); the plug PORO/PERM minimums are observed at 1642.70-1644.00 m (Figure 7) and 1646.90-1649.00 m; the intervals are observed on Chris’ sedimentary log (Figure 8) at 1642.75-1643.8 and 1646.25-1646.9 {with some core absent...}. Taking into account these values a downward shift of the core, relative to the wireline data, of 130 cm was thought to be sufficient for the aims of this report. It would be possible to apply a different shift in other parts of the well, but due to sampling frequency concerns and time constraints it was decided to use this shift alone.

Borehole Corrections Borehole corrections account for variations in borehole diameter (CALI – Figure 23) and mud cake thickness which can affect the reading of electric and radioactive logs. Many tools include automatic correction of
16

Single Well Study James Bowkett

-

Well B

measurements and provide values which do not require correction. This is the case for the Neutron Porosity (NPHI) logs used to evaluate Well B. NPHI curves are converted to decimal for the purposes of this report. Gamma Ray (GR) logs require correction; however GR readings throughout the formation interval in Well B are unreliable as a result of high potassium content in felsic minerals and micas. After correction GR curves are far too high in this formation and so are disregarded in so far as quantitative evaluation is concerned. Resistivity (ILD, ILM, LLD, LLS and MSFL) curves have been corrected for the effect of the borehole and mud cake which interferes with the accurate reading of the formation and fluids. Corrections are insufficient to accommodate variation caused by borehole collapse. The resistivity corrections applied:• • •

MICROSPHERICALY FOCUSED LATEROLOG (Rxo-3-MSFL) DUAL LATEROLOG (Rcor-2) DUAL INDUCTION (Rcor-4a) LLD-LLS-RXO (Rint-9b)

After application of corrections resistivity logs are treated as a true representation of resistivity at their representative depths of investigation. The choice of resistivity logs for use as representative of Resistivity of the Invaded Zone (Rxo) and Resistivity of the Formation (Rt) is decided according to ratio of Resistivities of mud filtrate (Rmf) and water resistivity (Rw), and the gross Rw. Laterolog is Equation ?). Figure 9 - Which resistivity tool to use?

the preferred measure of Resistivity as illustrated (Figure 9 and

17

Single Well Study James Bowkett

-

Well B

RmfRw@ 183F= 0.0290.045= 0.644 Rw<1

Equation 1 – Preferred Resistivity Tool?

The LLD-LLS-RXO correction also provides a depth of invasion profile for the well which reflects the invasion depth above the Oil Water Contact. In the water column the depth of invasion spikes where there are low porosity shales; the Schlumberger manual (Schlumberger, 1989) states “Generally, the lower the formation porosity, the deeper the invasion.”

18

Single Well Study James Bowkett

-

Well B

Log Analyses Calculation of Water Resistivity (Rw) was undertaken by the Ratio Method as porosity in the clean sand (~1725m) was not known. This requires knowledge of True/Formation Resistivity (Rt), Invaded Zone Resistivity (Rxo) and Mud Filtrate Resistivity (Rmf).

RxoRt=RmfRw

Equation 2 – Rw Calculation

1. Clean sand at 1724.14m. 2. Temperature at 0m 64.8F, T at 1816m 138F 3. Temperature Gradient 138F - 64.8F/1816m = 0.403F/m
4. Rmf at 64.8F 0.06 ohmm-1 5. Rmf at 134.3F = 0.06*((64.8+6.77)/(134.3+6.77)) = 0.0304 ohmm-1 6. At 1724.14 Rxo = 0.36; Rt = 0.53; Rmf = 0.304 7. Rw = Rmf*Rt/Rxo = (0.0304*0.53)/0.36 = 0.045 8. Using Chart Gen ? Salinity - 0.045ohmm at 134.3 = ~100,00ppm

N.B. - All values must be corrected to a standard temperature to undertake calculation of Rw by the ratio method. Resistivity – Once Rw has been found and resistivity curves corrected, they can be used qualitatively to evaluate hydrocarbon-water contacts and quantitatively to provide depth of invasion and water saturation. Visual/Qualitative Evaluation: Departure of Rxo and Rt occurs at 1655 metres and represents the Oil Water Contact. Shales above 1621 metres provide a seal for the hydrocarbon column, there seems to be a transition
19

Single Well Study James Bowkett

-

Well B

zone into shales as the Rxo and Rt curves do not meet in the interval above the oil column. Resistivity curves are used in later analyses. The Depth of Invasion curve clearly shows the position of shales in the formation, low porosity shales exert a strong imbibing force on water in the drilling mud and cause deep invasion. Shale Volume (Vsh) would usually be calculated as a function of Gamma Ray or Spontaneous Potential using formulas of the form;
Vsh=GR-GRcleanGRshale-GRclean

Equation 3 - Vshale (GR Index)

However the results from this equation proved unreliable on this occasion, greatly reducing the Net Pay zone (Vsh-Linear). An alternative method is to use the cross-plots of the porosity logs and known cutoffs for shales. Of these methods the Neutron-Density (Vsh-ND) and Density Sonic (VshDS) are felt to provide the best approximation of shale volume, of these Vsh-ND is preferred as providing a higher Net to Gross. Vsh-DS will be affected by cementation. Vsh-Resistivity is uniformly low in the pay zone and uniformly high in the water zone, clearly in error. Porosity - from acoustic, density or neutron logs. Cements in this formation will tend to cause lower apparent porosity by acoustic and density tools. Shales and bound water will raise neutron porosity. Combination of tool responses provides reasonable accuracy.
1. Acoustic - The heavily cemented matrix of this formation means

that porosity derived from the acoustic curve will be in error, cements will increase the velocity of sound in the sands and reduce apparent porosity. Cements are believed to have been deposited
20

Single Well Study James Bowkett

-

Well B

prior to deep burial and so may preserve porosity. Hydrocarbons may also slow acoustic waves and artificially raise apparent porosity.
∅=tLOG-tmatf-tma

Equation 4 – Acoustic Porosity

The acoustic porosity curve PHI_WTA is a good approximation of porosity, but may read high in the hydrocarbon zone.
2. Density - Tool investigates to a depth of approximately 6 inches

which is largely filled with mud filtrate, in this borehole fluid density was 1.1 g/cc. High bulk densities are equated with low porosity, calcite cements may raise bulk density and cause a low apparent porosity.
∅=ρma-ρbρma-ρb

Equation 5 – Density Porosity

The density porosity curve PHI_rhob1 is a good approximation of porosity but may be affected by cementation.
3. Neutron - Response reflects hydrogen concentration of the

formation, but can be adversely affected by; lithology, clay content and light hydrocarbons containing a large proportion of water. The neutron porosity tool makes corrections internally to provide a
21

Single Well Study James Bowkett

-

Well B

Neutron Porosity (NPHI) value. These NPHI should not be used independent of other logs to estimate porosity; the values may be cross-plotted with other logs to find porosity and mineralogy of complex lithologies. Light hydrocarbons in particular may cause an increase in apparent porosity, there are no light hydrocarbons in Well B. The neutron porosity curve Neutron Porosity (NPHI_dec) reads uniformly high throughout the formation seen by this well.
4. Neutron-Density – Cross-plot indicates a mixed sandstone-

limestone lithology with porosities ranging from 12-30%. The neutron-density curve PHI_ND is a good approximation of formation porosity removing some of the effect of calcite cements.
5. Neutron-Sonic – Cross-plot indicates a mixed sandstone-limestone

lithology with porosities ranging from 12-34%. The neutron-sonic curve PHI_NS has failed despite repeat attempts with varying constants, it is disregarded.
6. Density-Sonic Cross-plot – is not suitable in this formation as there

are no evaporites.

Permeability/Permeability Prediction from Porosity Terrastation includes a number of tools for conducting permeability prediction using the various equations developed relating porosity and permeability. Of these the closest match appears to be the linear equation, the other models below follow the trend of the core permeability data less accurately.

22

Single Well Study James Bowkett

-

Well B

Tixier, k0.5=250*φ3Swi Equation 6 - Tixier Permeability

Timur, k0.5=250*φ2.25Swi Equation 7 - Timur Permeability

A direct calculation of permeability from porosity was also suggested in the Terrastation tutorials, and this was also undertaken and found to closely match the Terrastation linear equation. This method involved crossplotting core porosity vs core permeability, placing a best fit line through the resultant cloud of data

23

Figure 10- Cross-plot of CPHI vs CKH

Single Well Study James Bowkett

-

Well B

and finding the slope (m) and intercept (c) of the line, these values illustrate an average difference between porosity and permeability. The values are used in the formula {K = 10**(m*X1*100+c)} to calculate permeability from a favoured porosity log.
K=10*(m*φ*100+C)

KH - PHI; m = 0.2918142, c = -3.55437. KV - PHI; m = 0.320142, c = -4.67861.

Water Saturation Three methods of water saturation measurement were used; Archie, Indonesian and Simandoux. Water saturation equations derive from the Archie Equation;
Sw=nF*RwRt F=aφm

a=0.81 Cementation Factor m=2 n=2

Equation 9 - Archie Equation

As this is a well documented basin and formation,

a and m

are known,

Rw has previously been calculated and Rt is provided by deep laterolog measurements RT_Rint-9b the water saturation can be easily arrived at. The Indonesian Equation is effective in shaly sands, having been developed for the shaly sands of the Mahakam Delta.
Sw= Vsh0.52-VshRshRt+RtRo-2n

Equation 10 – Indonesian Equation

24

Single Well Study James Bowkett

-

Well B

The Simandoux Equation is a total shale equation of quadratic form. When m and n are 2 it is solved according to the form below.
aSw2+bSw=Rt-1 Sw=VshRsh+VshRsh2+ 5*φ2Rt*Rw0.4*Rwφ2

Equation 11 - Simandoux Equation

Of these it is felt that the Indonesian provides the clearest representation of the water saturation of the formation. The Sw and Sxo above the OWC are separated in the hydrocarbon column where oil in the formation prevents ingress of water; below the OWC Sw and Sxo are close to 1 indicating the water saturated condition of the formation. Sw/Sxo is used to define whether the hydrocarbons are expected to flow, the Moveable Hydrocarbon Saturation which can be seen on Figure? The MHS curve is believed here to be incorrect although there may be residual hydrocarbon in the system. Improved parameters should help remove the effects of any inaccuracies which lead to this high residual oil/moveable oil in the water leg.

Net Pay Analysis Net Pay Analysis (Figure 18) used the best curves from the previous analyses to create Pay Curves as presented in Figure 18 and in the Net Pay Report. Below are tables of the values resulting from the Net Pay Analysis; limiting window to oil leg provides a very different Net to Gross. For the purposes of selling to management the 2nd set of data may be more positive.

25

Single Well Study James Bowkett
Well Name: Depth : Well B UWI: B

-

Well B

RR ARITH AVG SW (Sw_Sim) PAY ARITH AVG SW (Sw_Sim)

0.7952 0.3330

1610.00 to 1730.00 by 0.050
meters

Surface X, Y: -999.000000, -999.000000 Depth reference: M.Depth[Raw];1 Curve Type Curve Name value(s) Method Cutoff

RR MINIMUM SW (Sw_Sim) PAY MINIMUM SW (Sw_Sim) RR MAXIMUM SW (Sw_Sim)

0.1483 0.1483 1.0000

---------- ------------------------------------- --------------------Vshale Vsh_ND[Kobra];1 LT Sw Sw_Sim[Kobra];1 LT Porosity PHI_ND[Kobra];1 GT Perm. K_linear[Kobra];1 GT 0.1000 0.4000

PAY MAXIMUM SW (Sw_Sim)

0.4988

PAY HYC THICKNESS

(M)

3.2955

0.5000

PAY SW (phi-wt)

0.3289

LOWER PHI (PHI_ND) CUTOFF

0.1000

0.0000

UPPER PHI (PHI_ND) CUTOFF

0.0000

Reservoir rock flag curve: Res. Rock[Kobra];1 Net pay flag curve: NetPay1[Kobra];1 TOP INTERVAL BASE INTERVAL GROSS INTERVAL (M) 1610.0000 (M) 1730.0000 (M)

RR ARITH AVG PHI (PHI_ND) PAY ARITH AVG PHI (PHI_ND) RR MINIMUM PHI (PHI_ND) PAY MINIMUM PHI (PHI_ND) RR MAXIMUM PHI (PHI_ND)

0.2213 0.2344 0.1006 0.1055 0.3140

120.0500
RR THICKNESS RR/GROSS RATIO NET PAY THICKNESS (M)

99.3500 0.8276
(M)

PAY MAXIMUM PHI (PHI_ND) RR POROSITY THICKNESS 21.9899 PAY POROSITY THICKNESS 4.9107

0.3136 (M)

(M)

20.9502

Table 2 - Net Pay (1610-1730)

26

Single Well Study James Bowkett
Well Name: Well B UWI: B Depth : 1620.00 to 1650.00 by 0.050 meters Surface X, Y: -999.000000, -999.000000

-

Well B

PAY ARITH AVG SW (Sw_Sim) 0.3224 RR MINIMUM SW (Sw_Sim) PAY MINIMUM SW (Sw_Sim) RR MAXIMUM SW (Sw_Sim) 0.9668 PAY MAXIMUM SW (Sw_Sim) 0.4988 PAY HYC THICKNESS PAY SW (phi-wt) LOWER PHI (PHI_ND) CUTOFF 0.1000 UPPER PHI (PHI_ND) CUTOFF RR ARITH AVG PHI (PHI_ND) PAY ARITH AVG PHI (PHI_ND) RR MINIMUM PHI (PHI_ND) PAY MINIMUM PHI (PHI_ND) RR MAXIMUM PHI (PHI_ND) (M) 0.1483 0.1483

Depth reference: M.Depth[Raw];1 Curve Type Curve Name Cutoff value(s) Method ---------- ------------------------------------- --------------------Vshale Vsh_ND[Kobra];1 0.4000 LT Sw Sw_Sim[Kobra];1 0.5000 LT Porosity PHI_ND[Kobra];1 0.1000 GT Perm. K_linear[Kobra];1 0.0000 GT Net pay flag curve: NetPay1[Kobra];1 TOP INTERVAL BASE INTERVAL GROSS INTERVAL (M) 1620.0000 (M) 1650.0000 (M) (M) (M)

2.9181

0.3168

0.0000 0.2151 0.2309 0.1007 0.1055 0.3136 (M) (M) 0.3136

30.0500
RR THICKNESS RR/GROSS RATIO NET PAY THICKNESS

23.3500 0.7770

18.5001 0.6156
NET PAY/GROSS RATIO PAY ARITHMETIC AVG KSWIS 0.0000 PAY GEOMETRIC AVG KSWIS 0.0000 PAY HARMONIC AVG KSWIS 0.0000 GROSS SAND THICKNESS

PAY MAXIMUM PHI (PHI_ND) RR POROSITY THICKNESS 5.0223 PAY POROSITY THICKNESS 4.2715 LOWER K (K_linear) CUTOFF UPPER K (K_linear) CUTOFF RR ARITH AVG K (K_linear)

0.0000 0.0000 364.7267 440.2858 216.6362 318.8704 95.9247 212.6183 (M) 8516.3760 (M) 8145.3081

(M)

PAY ARITH AVG K (K_linear) RR GEOM AVG K (K_linear) PAY GEOM AVG K (K_linear)

24.6500 0.1577
HYDROCARBON PORE VOLUME PAY/RR RATIO LOWER VSH (Vsh_ND) CUTOFF 0.4000 UPPER VSH (Vsh_ND) CUTOFF 0.0000 RR ARITH AVG VSH (Vsh_ND) 0.0427

0.7923

RR HARM AVG K (K_linear) PAY HARM AVG K (K_linear) RR K THICKNESS PAY K THICKNESS

Table 4 - Net Pay (1620-1650) Reservoir Interval

Poro/Perm – Excel Core data for the interval 1620-1704m are available and of these were made statistical analyses to quantify the degree of heterogeneity in the system. Below is a table of statistical results for the dataset. The coefficient of variation (Cv) illustrates the high degree of heterogeneity in the permeability data set, whilst porosity with a Cv of 0.4 shows a low degree of heterogeneity. (Table 1)

27

Single Well Study James Bowkett

-

Well B

The data set was resampled for statistical tools requiring comparison of permeability and porosity at specific depths this resulted in fewer data points and show a much greater degree of heterogeneity. (Table 2) The dataset is observed to be anisotropic and irregularly heterogeneous according to the rules; KH ≠ KV and KH/KV is variable. (Table 3)

Histogram

Histograms of Porosity and Permeability – The porosity can be seen to be a single population. The permeability seems to show evidence of two populations in the data; this can be interpreted as shale and sand layers and therefore indicates layered as opposed to dispersed shale.

Figure 11 – Porosity and Permeability Histograms

Sampling interval is sufficient for the gross data set (Table 1) but the resampled data set has very high sampling sufficiency values and a low number of samples (Table2) which suggests that the re-sampled data set, used for the Lorenz Plot is not representative of the formation.

The Lorenz Plot shows a high degree of heterogeneity and layering in the system (Figures 10 & 11). Figure 12- Lorenz Plot of Horizontal Permeability
28

Single Well Study James Bowkett

-

Well B

Figure 13 - Lorenz Plot of Vertical Permeability

The Variogram (Figure 13) plotted with Variowin does not give a clear indication of vertical heterogeneity or of the scale of heterogeneity/layering in the system. h is the lag and gamma the variance, it is clear from these plots that there is little layering at a scale which can be visualised by the data.

Figure 14 – Cloud Variogram & Directional Variogram

29

Single Well Study James Bowkett

-

Well B

Conclusions
The Well B section logged is medium porosity sandstone laid down in an arid environment as a braided fluvial system. It is laterally and vertically heterogeneous and anisotropic, horizontal flow dominating. Recover from these facies would be complex as flow will be baffled but not sealed by the heterogeneous subsurface. The Net Pay interval in Well B is between 18-20 metres, laterally these layers may extend up to 10s/100s of metres, but beyond this the sands are likely to be baffled. The large difference between Sw and Sxo indicates that the well will flow, the rate of flow is beyond the scope of this report. Faulting though not directly observed may be inferred from the sedimentological evaluation.

References
• Collinson, J. D. (1986) Alluvial sediments. In Reading, H. G. (ed.) Sedimentary environments and facies (2nd edn), pp. 20–62.

Blackwell Scientific
• •

Publications, Oxford. Collinson, J. D. and Lewis, J. (1983) Modern and ancient fluvial systems. International Association of Sedimentologists, Special Publication No. 6.

Read more: fluvial sediments - Fig. 1., J. Sed. Pet, J. Sed. Pet., point bars http://science.jrank.org/pages/47592/fluvialsediments.html#ixzz0hJ0euPPK

UNDERHILL, J. R. & STONELEY, R. 1998. Introduction to the development, evolution and petroleum geology of the Wessex Basin. In: UNDERHILL, J. R. (ed.) Development, Evolution and

30

Single Well Study James Bowkett

-

Well B

Petroleum Geology of the Wessex Basin,Geological Society, London, Special ublications, 133, 1-18.

MCKIE, T., AGGETT, J. & HOGG, A. J. C. 1998. Reservoir architecture of the upper Sherwood Sandstone, Wytch Farm field, southern England. In: UNDERHILL, J. R. (ed.) Development, Evolution and Petroleum Geology of the Wessex Basin, Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 133, 399-406.

Schlumberger, 1989. Log Interpretation Principles/Application, 7th Edition. Sugar Land, Texas.

31

Single Well Study James Bowkett

-

Well B

Appendices

32

Single Well Study James Bowkett

-

Well B

Figure 15 - Sedimentary Log (1631-1636m)

33

Single Well Study James Bowkett

-

Well B

Figure 16 – Sedimentary Log (1636-1641m)

34

Single Well Study James Bowkett

-

Well B

Figure 17 - Resistivity (Recieved, Corrected, Rt/Rxo & Diameter of Invasion)
35

Single Well Study James Bowkett

-

Well B

Figure 18 - Shale Volume (Vsh)
36

Single Well Study James Bowkett

-

Well B

Figure 19 - Neutron-Porosity Cross-plot

37

Single Well Study James Bowkett

-

Well B

Figure 20 - Neutron-Sonic Cross-plot

38

Single Well Study James Bowkett

-

Well B

Figure 21 - Porosity Analysis Curves

39

Single Well Study James Bowkett

-

Well B

40

Single Well Study James Bowkett

-

Well B

Figure 22 - Permeability Analysis

41

Single Well Study James Bowkett

-

Well B

Figure 23 - Water Saturation, Hydrocarbon Saturation and Moveable Hydrocarbon Saturation

42

Single Well Study James Bowkett

-

Well B

43

Single Well Study James Bowkett

-

Well B

Figure 24 - Final Composite (with Gross Reservoir & Net Pay)

44

Single Well Study James Bowkett

-

Well B

Ns MODE MEDIAN AVERAGE GEOMEAN HARMEAN ST DEV VAR Cv N0=(10*Cv)2 Ps=(200*Cv)/SQ RT(Ns)

KH 271 0.04 49 576.4422 878 #NUM! 0.242326 409 1032.000 892 1065025. 842 1.790293 52 320.5150 887 21.75051 728

KV 60 0.01 2.55 208.4811 667 3.117522 57 0.056963 732 412.7119 144 170331.1 243 1.979612 456 391.8865 476 51.11337 382

PHI 283 9.4 16.1 16.26537 102 #NUM! 12.55723 75 6.881473 905 47.35468 311 0.423075 127 17.89925 627 5.029841 166

Table 5 - Statistical Data for the Interval 1620-1704m

ARMEAN( GEOMEAN( HARMEAN( KH Ns MODE MEDIAN ARMEAN GEOMEAN HARMEAN ST DEV VAR Cv=SD/ARMEAN 60.0 0.0 44.0 383.4 13.4 0.2 703.8 KV 60.0 0.0 2.6 208.5 3.1 0.1 412.7 K) 60.0 0.0 41.0 295.9 12.1 0.2 524.4 K) 60.0 0.0 13.1 240.0 6.5 0.1 489.8 K) 60.0 0.0 4.3 220.0 3.5 0.1 466.3 PHI 60.0 9.1 16.1 16.2 14.3 12.3 7.2

495290.7 170331.1 274994.9 239896.0 217478.9 51.9 1291.8 817.0 929.2 999.6 988.5 3.2

16688742 6675047 8634654 99926628. 97705350. 1030 N0=(10*Cv)2 Ps=(200*Cv)/SQR T(Ns) 33355.4 21095.1 23992.6 25810.4 25521.9 82.9 6.9 6.2 5.9 1 4 .9

45

Single Well Study James Bowkett

-

Well B

Table 6 - Statistical Data as resampled

KHDepth 1664 1649 1657 1671 1680 1652 1679 1668 1647 1656 1678 1635 1631 1681 1643 1626 1682 1632 1629 1648 KV 0 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.02 0 -0.45 0.06 0.1 85.87 0.13 0.15 0.24 0.29 -0.23 -0.96 0.37 0.21 0.85 KV/KH 1 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.75 0.666666667 1 7.428571429 0.25 0.090909091 661.5384615 0.1875 0.166666667 0.111111111 0.033333333 1.71875 3.823529412 0.026315789 0.522727273 0.095744681 Depth 1663 1636 1685 1670 1653 1662 1684 1690 1642 1666 1688 1622 1692 1700 1628 1623 1667 1625 1686 1633

KHKV -0.22 0.86 0.57 -23.1 -11.9 8.1 13.97 -54 -17 5 26 28 78 -79 81.99 100.9 151.8 180.1 178.9 -307 KV/KH 1.224489796 0.14 0.62 5.714285714 2.469135802 0.024096386 0.002142857 4 1.5 0.868421053 0.48 0.490909091 0.025 1.9875 0.000121951 0.010784314 0.007843137 0.015846995 0.043315508 2.632978723 Depth 1689 1624 1658 1627 1639 1676 1701 1641 1693 1672 1692 1644 1651 1677 1646 1674 1659 1650 1696 1645 KH-KV 185.9 205.3 -87 224 -675 -429 206 460 257 825.6 -185 910.3 220 230 1413 1853.85 750 1020 560 2273 KV/KH 0.016402116 0.012980769 1.393665158 0.066666667 3.721774194 2.088832487 0.491358025 0.08 0.584142395 0.002898551 1.221556886 0.010543478 0.838235294 0.867052023 0.224052718 8.09061E-05 0.609375 0.514285714 0.734597156 0.291900312

Table 7 - Permeability & Anisotropy

46

Single Well Study James Bowkett

-

Well B

Name MD TD INCREMENT ELEV RMC TRMC RM TRM RMF TRMF RW TRW BHT MEAN SURF TEMP T-GRADIENT ARCHIE A ARCHIE M SAT EXP (N) R SHALE TD OF REC. BHT

Units m m m m ohmm degF ohmm degF ohmm degF ohmm degF degF degF degF UNKN UNKN UNKN ohmm m

Valu e 1610 1780 0.05 33.5 0.16 64.7 0.08 64.8 0.06 64.8 0.04 04 134. 5 138 64.8 0.04 03 0.81 2 2 0.9 1816

Name BIT SIZE MUD WEIGHT FM SALINITY BH SALINITY STANDOFF (IL) STANDOFF (NEUT) SURF TEMP MD GR MATRIX RHO MATRIX DT MATRIX CNL MATRIX GR SHALE RHO SHALE DT SHALE CNL SHALE GR FLUID RHO FLUID DT FLUID CNL FLUID DT MATRIX SHALE

Unit s in lb/g ppm ppm in in m GAPI g/cc us/f pu GAPI g/cc us/f pu GAPI g/cc us/f pu us/f

Valu e 12.25 9.67 1000 00 5000 0 0.125 0.125 0 NULL 2.65 47.5 0.05 NULL 2.45 90 0.3 NULL 1.1 185 1 82

Table 8 - Constants

47

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful