Section Oil and Gas Exploration

IDENTIFICATION OF FLUID CONTACTS BY USING FORMATION

PRESSURE DATA AND GEOPHYSICAL WELL LOGS

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Bogdan-Mihai NICULESCU 1

2
Ph.D. candidate Constantin-
1
University of Bucharest, Department of Geophysics, Romania
2
University of Bucharest, Doctoral School of Geology, Romania

ABSTRACT
The identification of fluid contacts (gas-water contact – GWC, oil-water contact – OWC
and gas-oil contact – GOC) is essential for field reserve estimates and field development
and, also, for detailed formation evaluation. For the accurate calculation of some
petrophysical parameters, such as porosity, the reservoir interval has to be zoned by
fluid type, to account for differences in fluid saturations and fluid properties (e.g.,
hydrogen index, density, sonic transit time) in the various intervals: gas cap, oil column
and aquifer zone. The fluid contacts may vary over a reservoir either because of faults,
semipermeable barriers, rock quality variations / reservoir heterogeneity, hydrocarbon-
filling history or a hydrodynamic activity. Horizontal contacts are typically taken into
consideration, although irregular or tilted contacts occur in some reservoirs.
The methods used for determining the fluid contacts include fluid sampling, water and
hydrocarbons saturation estimation from geophysical well logs, analyses of
conventional or sidewall cores, and formation pressure measurements. The pressure
profiles obtained with various formation testing tools over reservoir intervals are,
frequently, the primary source of data for defining the fluid contacts. When good quality
pressure data can be collected, the fluid contacts can be determined by identifying the
depths at which the pressure gradients (pressure versus depth trends) change.
This study addresses some issues related to the identification of GWC for two gas fields
of Early Pliocene age (Dacian stage), belonging to the biogenic hydrocarbon system of
western Black Sea basin - Romanian continental shelf. We show that the identification
of these contacts based exclusively on pressure gradients analysis is uncertain or may be
inaccurate. The pressure gradients approach should be checked against the results of the
conventional interpretation of geophysical well logs (e.g. changes in the computed fluid
saturations as a function of depth) and, if available, the results of nuclear magnetic
resonance (NMR) log investigations, which are able to indicate the intervals with clay-
bound water, capillary-bound water and movable fluids.
Keywords: biogenic gas, Black Sea, fluid contacts, geophysical well logs, pressure
gradients

https://doi.org/10.5593/sgem2019/1.2 897
19th International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference SGEM 2019

INTRODUCTION
The identification of fluid contacts (gas-oil contact – GOC, gas-water contact – GWC,
and oil-water contact – OWC) is essential for field reserve estimates and field
development, reservoir simulation and management, and detailed formation evaluation
from geophysical well logs [1 – 3]. For the accurate calculation of some petrophysical
parameters, such as porosity, reservoir intervals has to be zoned by fluid type, to
account for differences in fluid saturations and fluid properties (e.g. hydrogen index,
density, sonic transit time) in the various intervals: gas cap, oil column and aquifer
zone. The fluid contacts may vary over a reservoir either because of faults,
semipermeable barriers, rock quality variations / reservoir heterogeneity, hydrocarbon-
filling history or a hydrodynamic activity. Horizontal contacts are typically taken into
consideration, although irregular or tilted contacts occur in some reservoirs.
The methods used for determining the fluid contacts include fluid sampling, water and
hydrocarbons saturation evaluation from geophysical well logs, analyses of
conventional or sidewall cores, and formation pressure measurements [1 – 6]. The
pressure profiles obtained with various formation testing tools over reservoir intervals
are, frequently, the primary source of data for defining the fluid contacts and, also, for
the identification of in-situ fluid type [1, 3, 4, 5, 6]. When good quality pressure data
can be collected, the fluid contacts can be determined by identifying the depths at which
the pressure gradients (trends of pressure vs. true vertical depth – TVD) change.
Sometimes the gradients must be extrapolated to estimate fluid contacts, if the contacts
cannot be directly identified by the pressure profiles recorded in each wellbore (Fig. 1).

Figure 1. Principle of fluid contacts identification by using formation pressure

surveys. This example shows two wells which do not cross the gas-water contact
(GWC), the GWC position being estimated from the pressure gradients intersection.

898
 Section Oil and Gas Exploration

Reservoir fluids occur in a wide range of compositions. Typical density ranges are
0.007–0.30 g/cm3 for gas, 0.40 to over 1.00 g/cm3 for liquid hydrocarbons and 1.00–
1.15 g/cm3 for formation waters. The normal pressure gradients ranges are 0.003–1.130
psi/ft (0.0007–0.256 bar/m) for gas, 0.174–0.486 psi/ft (0.039–0.110 bar/m) for liquid
hydrocarbons and 0.433–0.500 psi/ft (0.098–0.113 bar/m) for formation waters.
A lot of factors can affect the computation accuracy of the pressure gradients, such as
the reservoir heterogeneity and complexity, the mudcake buildup and filtrate invasion,
the pressure measurement error in each tool station, the number of measurement stations
and the distance between them, and the connectivity between formations [2, 4, 5].
The acoustic impedance contrasts between gas-, oil- and water-bearing formations,
identified by means of surface seismic surveys, are increasingly used for delineating the
top of the reservoirs, the GOC, GWC and OWC. The impedance is dependent on the
density and acoustic velocity of each fluid and many reservoirs exhibit a significant
change of acoustic impedance at the fluid contacts. If the fluid contacts can be defined
more precisely in several wells by using pressure measurement and geophysical well
logs interpretation, then the contacts estimated from seismic surveys can be propagated,
with well data control, into the undrilled areas of the reservoirs.
This study addresses some issues related to the identification of GWC for two gas fields
of Early Pliocene age (Dacian stage), belonging to the biogenic hydrocarbon system of
western Black Sea basin – Romanian continental shelf. The geology, tectonics,
evolution, hydrocarbon systems and hydrocarbon potential of this region have been
studied and presented, among other authors, by [7] – [12]. We analyzed and interpreted
geophysical well logging and formation pressure data made available by the Romanian
oil and gas industry for several exploration and appraisal wells that targeted the Dacian
gas-bearing reservoirs. We show that the identification of fluid contacts and fluid
densities based exclusively on pressure gradients analysis is uncertain or may be
inaccurate. The pressure gradients approach should be checked against the results of
geophysical well logs interpretation (e.g. by comparison with the changes in the
computed fluid saturations as a function of depth) and, if available, against the results of
nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) log investigations. The NMR logs are able to
clearly indicate the intervals with clay-bound water, capillary-bound water and movable
fluids, being also useful for hydrocarbon typing.

GEOLOGICAL–TECTONIC FRAMEWORK AND HYDROCARBON

SYSTEMS
The Romanian part of the western Black Sea basin (Fig. 2) is an important hydrocarbon-
bearing region in SE Europe. This margin of the Black Sea comprises three main
geotectonic units, separated by major faults. The Scythian and Moesian platforms in the
Carpathian foreland, located south of the East European Platform, and in between these
platforms the North Dobrogea Orogen, representing an Early Alpine (Cimmerian) fold
and thrust belt [7]. Geophysical and borehole data show that the current structure of the
Black Sea margin in Romania resulted through displacements along major faults,
striking WNW–ESE and extending NW to the East Carpathians bend zone: Sfântu
Gheorghe fault, Peceneaga–Camena fault, Capidava–Ovidiu fault and Intramoesian
fault.

https://doi.org/10.5593/sgem2019/1.2 899
19th International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference SGEM 2019

Figure 2. Location map of the Romanian Black Sea shelf showing the main plays and
leads. 1 – Pelican, 2 – Sf. Gheorghe, 3 – Sacalin, 4 – Sturion, 5 – Egreta, 6 –
, 7 – Heracleea, 8 – Venus, 9 – Sinoe, 10 – -W, 11 – -E, 12 –
Minerva, 13 – Albatros, 14 – Iris, 15 – Lotus, 16 – Tomis, 17 – Ovidiu, 18 –
, 19 – Vadu, 20 – Corbu, 21 – Midia, 22 – Meduza, 23 – Neptun, 24 –
Neptun-E, 25 – Delfin, 26 – Jupiter, 27 – , 28 – Doina, 29 – Ana, 30 –
Muridava (Olimpyska), 31 – Domino, 32 – Eugenia. SGF – Sfântu Gheorghe fault,
PCF – Peceneaga–Camena fault, COF – Capidava–Ovidiu fault, IMF –
Intramoesian fault, RF – Razelm fault. (adapted from [10], [11] and [13])
Seismic studies in the Black Sea have identified the prolongation of major crustal faults
on the continental shelf, as well as secondary NW–SE faults of the same fault systems.
This system is affected by another system of major faults oriented approximately N–S
or NNE–SSW, such as Razelm, Lacul Ro West Midia faults [10, 12], generating a
block structure with vertical displacements.

900
 Section Oil and Gas Exploration

Up to now, on the Romanian continental shelf, the main area of interest from the
perspective of hydrocarbons potential is the Histria Depression (Fig. 2), a post-tectonic
cover superimposed over the North Dobrogea Orogen, formed by extension beginning
with Aptian–Albian and until Eocene, then followed by subsidence [9 – 11].
This sedimentary basin, located in the central area of the Romanian continental shelf,
gradually expands and deepens towards SE and merges with western Black Sea basin
floor [9, 10, 12]. In this region, oil-bearing reservoirs have been identified in Albian,
Late Cretaceous (Turonian, Coniacian, Santonian), Eocene and Oligocene formations,
whereas gas shows or commercial gas accumulations are located in Cretaceous, Eocene
and especially Late Miocene–Early Pliocene (Pontian and Dacian) formations [8, 10,
11, 12, 13]. In the pre-Oligocene and Oligocene formations, the traps are either tectonic
(anticlines, faulted anticlines) or stratigraphic (pinchouts, drape anticlines). In the post-
Oligocene formations, the traps are of stratigraphic type, such as depositional fans or
anticlines of differential setting, extended over wide areas and sometimes affected by
gravity faults and growth faults.
11], four thermogenic petroleum systems and one biogenic gas
system are present in the Romanian continental shelf area of the western Black Sea. The
biogenic system comprises the Midia, Ovidiu
fields. Gas is reservoired in Pontian–Dacian sands; the source rocks are considered to be
the Middle–Late Miocene (Sarmatian or Early Pontian) pelitic deposits and the seals can
be represented by all pelitic Pliocene intervals. The traps for the biogenic gas system
include drape anticlines, roll-over anticlines, monocline beds affected by listric faults
and stratigraphic traps (pinch-outs, depositional fans).
The gas discoveries considered in this study are hosted in four-way closure dome
structures by Dacian sands, the reservoirs tops being located at approximately 1100 m
true vertical depth subsea (TVDSS). The sands are immature, poorly consolidated (little
or no authigenic or diagenetic cements), fine to very fine grained, muddy to silty,
sometimes thinly bedded. The overall depositional environment is probably shallow
marine, in water depths between 25 and 100 m (lower shoreface to upper offshore
regime), with frequent sediment influx being provided from a delta system situated
approximately to the NW. The wells drilled on these structures revealed a vertical
variability of the reservoir intervals grain size, allowing their separation into a "Sand"
upper facies (good reservoir quality, fine sands) of 15–28 m thickness and a "Silt"
bottom facies (poor reservoir quality, silty sands, silts and muddy silts) of 14–47 m
thickness. This vertical distinction is more clear in Field A (located towards SW in the
exploration block taken into consideration) than in Field B (located towards NE in the
exploration block), where the reservoir quality is lower, with higher silt and clay
contents and fewer thick sand intervals.

METHODOLOGY
The data analyzed and interpreted in this study were recorded in six gas exploration
wells, two wells being located in Field A and four wells in Field B. All the wells were
drilled with water-based KCl muds (mud density: 1.15–1.20 g/cm3) and generally show
good hole conditions. The data consisted of wireline geophysical logs, formation tester
pressure measurements and fluid samples (FMT – Formation Multi-Tester, RFT –
Repeat Formation Tester and MDT – Modular Formation Dynamics Tester), and
laboratory petrophysical measurements on cores.

https://doi.org/10.5593/sgem2019/1.2 901
19th International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference SGEM 2019

A total of 103 successful pressure measurements carried out with wireline formation
testers were available for the wells from Field A and Field B. The Dacian reservoir
pressures ranged from 1686 to 1719 psia (116.2–118.5 bar) in Field A and from 1600 to
1716 psia (110.3–118.3 bar) in Field B. The gas samples collected during wireline
testing operations in three wells from both fields show that it has a very high methane
content (99.7–99.9 %). At the reservoirs pressure and temperature (38–40 °C, measured
during the wireline logging and formation tester runs), the estimated gas density is
approximately 0.08 g/cm3.
The wireline well logging suites recorded over the 8.5 inch diameter final sections of
the wells included total gamma ray, apparent resistivity (Dual Laterolog, Laterolog
Array and focused microresistivity tools), neutron porosity, litho-density (bulk density
and photoelectric factor) and compressional sonic transit time. For some of the recently
drilled wells, electrical imaging (FMI – Fullbore Formation Microimager) and nuclear
magnetic resonance (CMR – Combinable Magnetic Resonance Tool) logs were also
available.

Figure 3. Wireline geophysical well logs and formation pressure measurements

recorded in a gas exploration well from Field A (well A2).

902
 Section Oil and Gas Exploration

Figure 3 shows an example of geophysical well logs and formation pressure

measurements recorded in an exploration well from Field A, over the main reservoir
intervals: track 1 – measured depth (MD); track 2 – true vertical depth sub-sea,
referenced to mean sea level (TVDSS); track 3 – zonation of reservoir intervals; track 4
– natural gamma-ray (GR), caliper (HCAL), bit size (BS) and borehole's temperature
(HTEM); track 5 – apparent resistivities from Laterolog Array tool (RLA1 to RLA5) and
flushed zone resistivity from a microresistivity tool (RXOZ); track 6 – limestone neutron
porosity (TNPH), formation bulk density (RHOZ) and photoelectric absorbtion factor
(PEFZ) curves overlay on a limestone compatible scale; track 7 – sandstone neutron
porosity (TNPH_SS) and formation bulk density (RHOZ) curves overlay on a sandstone
compatible scale; track 8 – compressional sonic interval transit time (slowness)
(DTCO); track 9 – nuclear magnetic resonance (CMR) T2 transverse relaxation time
distribution (T2_NORM); track 10 – formation tester pressure readings (PRES).
In the wells drilled in Field A, the main reservoir consists of a 26–27 m thick upper
interval ("Sand" unit) with significant gas crossover on the density-neutron overlay,
deep resistivities reaching 170–384 T2
distribution (large T2 t response of 170–200
– recorded in the adjacent non-reservoir intervals),
indicating gas-bearing formations. In the wells drilled in Field B, the "Sand" main
reservoir unit, 15–28 m thick, shows few and thinner intervals with density-neutron gas
crossover and much lower deep resistivities (maximum readings of 16–
again, distinct sonic responses suggesting gas- t reaching 180–190
main reservoir compared to 125– -reservoir intervals).
The GR logs from all the analyzed wells exhibit a suppressed response, i.e. an unusually
low contrast between reservoir and non-reservoir intervals. The increased radioactivity
of the reservoir rocks may be explained by a higher adsorption of radionuclides in the
very fine sands and silts and, also, by the presence of potassium-bearing mica.
Generally, the subtle GR log trends observed along the reservoir intervals in all the
wells are of coarsening-upward type (deltaic progradation sequences).
The quantitative log interpretation was carried out by using a deterministic workflow,
with the clay volume evaluated from GR log and calibrated against the density-neutron
crossplot clay volume, and the effective porosity computed from a density-neutron
crossplot. Water saturations in the uninvaded and flushed zones of the reservoirs were
computed with the "Indonesia" shaly sands saturation model [14], the Archie parameters
[15] being measured on core plugs, at a confining pressure representative for reservoir
conditions. For Field A the average values of these parameters were a = 1.0
(tortuosity factor), m = 1.71 (cementation exponent), n = 1.67 (saturation exponent)
and for Field B the average parameters were a = 1.0, m = 1.54, n = 1.33. The clay
parameters involved in effective porosity and water saturation evaluation were
statistically selected from the logs, resulting clay neutron porosities Nclay = 0.45–0.50,
clay densities clay = 2.25–2.26 g/cm3 and clay resistivities clay = 5.2–
Formation water resistivities ( w) were estimated from effective porosity vs. true
resistivity Pickett crossplots [16], i.e. log( ) = f(log( t)), approximating t with the
deepest investigation apparent resistivity curves, corrected for environmental effects.
For the wells of Field A we obtained w = 0.5–
corresponding to equivalent NaCl salinities of 6600–9100 ppm. For the wells of Field B

https://doi.org/10.5593/sgem2019/1.2 903
19th International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference SGEM 2019

we obtained w = 0.9– equivalent

NaCl salinities of 3400–4700 ppm.
The CMR T2 transverse relaxation time distribution was processed to compute clay-
bound water, capillary-bound water and free fluid volumes (T2 cutoffs of 3 ms and 33
ms, typical for sands / sandstones, were used to separate the three types of pore fluids),
as well as a CMR-derived water saturation.
Linear regression analysis was performed on the good quality formation pressure data,
in order to derive the pressure gradients ( p H, where p – measured formations
pressure, H – true vertical depth), the formation fluids in-situ densities and to identify
the probable gas-water contacts (GWC). The pressure stations coverage was variable:
well A1 (Field A) – 19 measurements on the 1115.4–1214.0 m TVDSS interval, well
A2 (Field A) – 28 measurements on the 671.9–1206.3 m TVDSS interval, well B1
(Field B) – 18 measurements on the 773.4–1787.4 m TVDSS interval, well B2 (Field B)
– 17 measurements on the 965.6–1238.1 m TVDSS interval, well B3 (Field B) – 7
measurements on the 971.7–1205.5 m TVDSS interval, well B4 (Field B) – 14
measurements on the 981.7–1197.8 m TVDSS interval.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table 1 and Table 2 show the results of formation pressure data processing for
individual wells from A and B fields: pressure (psia) vs. depth (m TVDSS) linear
regression expressions for the identified pressure / fluid trends ("Fluid 1" – water,
"Fluid 2" – gas), the fluid in-situ densities estimated from the pressure gradients and the
approximate GWC depth estimated from the pressure trends intersection. For A1, A2,
B2 and B4 wells, the pressure data analysis indicated the presence of two pressure /
fluid trends, corresponding to the hydrocarbon (gas) pressure gradient and the
hydrostatic / formation water pressure gradient. For B1 and B3 wells, only one pressure
gradient and fluid type (formation water) could be defined, as a result of insufficient
coverage with measurements of the "Sand" and "Silt" reservoir intervals.

Table 1. Formation pressure data processing results for individual wells: computed
pressure (psia) vs. depth (m TVDSS) gradients.
Number Fluid 1/water Fluid 2/gas
Gas field Well
of points pressure trend pressure trend
A1 19
1.371669 + 106.352600 0.197287 + 1465.902000
A
A2 28
1.227311 + 275.749300 0.304506 + 1344.683000
B1 18
n/a
1.441598 + 30.645500
B2 17
1.443724 + 18.130880 0.090167 + 1540.003000
B
B3 7
n/a
1.453114 + 2.950255
B4 14
1.450661 + 0.798356 0.229725 + 1380.782000

904
 Section Oil and Gas Exploration

Table 2. Formation pressure data processing results for individual wells: fluid
densities and GWC depths estimated from the pressure gradients slope and intersection.
Number Fluid 1/water Fluid 2/gas GWC depth
Gas field Well
of points density (g/cm3) density (g/cm3) (m TVDSS)
A1 19 0.964 0.139 1157.7
A
A2 28 0.863 0.214 1158.4
B1 18 1.014 n/a n/a
B2 17 1.015 0.064 1124.4
B
B3 7 1.022 n/a n/a
B4 14 1.020 0.162 1130.3

As observed in Table 2, for the wells of field A the fluid densities estimated from the
pressure gradients are significantly higher and, respectively, lower than the true
densities of gas 0.08 g/cm3) and formation water (> 1 g/cm3). For the wells of field
B, the estimated water densities were realistic, ranging from 1.014 to 1.020 g/cm3, but
the estimated gas densities were either lower or higher than the expected values.

Figure 4. Formation pressure data analysis for the exploration wells from Field A.
Two pressure vs. depth trends corresponding to formation water and, respectively,
gas can be observed, the intersection of the pressure gradients indicating a gas-water
contact (GWC) at 1157.5 m TVDSS.

https://doi.org/10.5593/sgem2019/1.2 905
19th International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference SGEM 2019

Figure 4 shows the results of linear regression analysis carried out on the joint pressure
dataset from the A1 and A2 wells (47 pressure points). Two trends can be identified:
one of them corresponds to formation water and has the expression Pressure (psia) =
TVDSS (m) 1.298279 + 192.363500, the other one corresponds to gas and is defined by
Pressure (psia) = TVDSS (m) 0.231458 + 1427.163000. The computed pressure
gradient of the formation water is 0.39572 psi/ft (0.08951 bar/m), implying a density of
0.913 g/cm3, lower than the true water density. The computed pressure gradient for gas
is 0.07055 psi/ft (0.01596 bar/m), indicating a gas density of 0.163 g/cm3, higher than
the expected 0.08 g/cm3. The pressure gradients intersection suggests a GWC at 1157.5
m TVDSS (1446.7 m MD). Considering the inaccuracies regarding fluids density
estimation from pressure data, this GWC depth could be, consequently, uncertain.
To check the validity of GWC depth estimated from pressure gradients, it was compared
with the results of geophysical logs interpretation for the exploration well A2 (Fig. 5).

Figure 5. Results of quantitative log interpretation for a gas exploration well from
Field A (well A2). The GWC level marks the gas-water contact suggested by the
intersection of the pressure gradients at 1158.4 m TVDSS (1446.7 m MD).

906
 Section Oil and Gas Exploration

In Fig. 5: track 5 – computed water saturations in the uninvaded and flushed zones (SW,
SXO), track 6 – computed effective porosity (PHIE), bulk volume fractions of water in
the uninvaded (BVW) and flushed (BVWSXO) zones, together with the movable and
residual (immobile) gas volume fractions, track 7 – lithology analysis (volume fractions
of clay, silt, sand and the effective porosity), track 8 – processed nuclear magnetic
resonance (CMR) data showing the volumes of clay-bound water, capillary-bound water
and free fluids, track 9 – computed pressure gradients and estimated formation fluids
densities based on A2 well pressure data (28 pressure points). Two distinct gas-bearing
reservoirs resulted from interpretation in the "Sand" and "Silt" units, on the 1391.6 –
1425.5 m MD (1119.8 – 1143.6 m TVDSS) and, respectively, 1458.6 – 1466.7 m MD
(1166.7 – 1172.3 m TVDSS) intervals. The main, 23.8 m thick, upper reservoir has an
average porosity of 15.6%, locally reaching 31.9%, the minimum computed water
saturation being 4.4% (a maximum gas saturation of 95.6%). The 5.6 m thick secondary
reservoir has an average porosity of 14.8%, locally reaching 24.2%, and a minimum
computed water saturation of 49.7% (50.3% maximum gas saturation).
The apparent GWC resulted from the pressure gradients intersection at 1158.4 m
TVDSS (1446.7 m MD) is located between the two identified gas-bearing reservoirs, at
a depth where the processed CMR data show no indication of free fluids but only bound
(immobile) water, i.e. in an impermeable shale/mudstone interval. The results of the
geophysical logs processing and interpretation suggest that, in fact, individual gas-water
contacts should be taken into consideration within each of the identified reservoirs.
For the analyzed exploration wells, one of the possible causes for the differences
between true and estimated fluid densities may consist in the formation testers not
reading pressures corresponding to pure fluids, but to mixtures of gas and water or
water and gas (especially in the case of Field A, where the reservoirs are thicker, of
much better quality, and with higher gas saturations than the reservoirs of Field B). In
this case, the GWC depths inferred solely from pressure gradients may be inaccurate or
not realistic, leading to errors in the volumetric estimation of gas resources.

CONCLUSIONS
This study, carried out on six gas exploration wells drilled on the Romanian continental
shelf of the western Black Sea basin, revealed some issues related to the identification
of reservoir fluid contacts and fluid densities based on formation pressure
measurements. This illustrates the necessity of an integrated approach, by using
geophysical well logs interpretation to check and validate or to correct the results of
formation pressure data analysis.

REFERENCES
[1] Gunter J.M., Moore C.V., Improved Use of Wireline Testers for Reservoir
Evaluation, Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), International Meeting on
Petroleum Engineering, Beijing, China, 1986.
[2] Jackson R.R., Carnegie A., Dubost F.X., Pressure Measurement and Pressure
Gradient Analysis: How Reliable For Determining Fluid Density and
Compositional Gradients?, Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), Nigeria Annual
International Conference and Exhibition, Abuja, Nigeria, 2007.

https://doi.org/10.5593/sgem2019/1.2 907
19th International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference SGEM 2019

[3] Kelly F.N., Rahim Z., Neumann P.M., Logan S.A., Agrawal V., Formation
Pressure While Drilling Measurements for Reservoir Management Applications -
Case Studies from Saudi Arabia, International Petroleum Technology Conference,
Doha, Qatar, paper IPTC-13134-MS, 2009.
[4] Proett M.A., Chin W.C., Manohar M., Sigal R., Wu J., Multiple Factors That
Influence Wireline Formation Tester Pressure Measurements and Fluid Contacts
Estimates, Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A., paper SPE-71566-MS, 2001.
[5] Wang C., Cao W., Wang X., Pressure gradient computation and application of the
wireline formation tester, Petroleum Exploration and Development, vol. 35/issue
4, pp. 476-481, 2008.
[6] Satter A., Ghulam M.I., Reservoir Engineering: The Fundamentals, Simulation,
and Management of Conventional and Unconventional Recoveries, Gulf
Professional Publishing, U.S.A., ISBN 978-0128002193, 2015.
[7]
Bucharest, Romania, 1984 (in Romanian).
[8] Ionescu G., Sisman M., Cataraiani R., Source and reservoir rocks and trapping
mechanism on the Romanian Black Sea shelf, In: Dinu C. and Mocanu V. (eds.),
Geology and Tectonics of the Romanian Black Sea Shelf and its Hydrocarbon
Potential, Bucharest Geoscience Forum, Bucharest, Romania, Special Volume 2,
pp. 67–83, 2002.
[9] l
characteristics of the Romanian Black Sea shelf, Tectonophysics, vol. 410/issues
1–4, pp. 417– 435, 2005.
[10] Romanian Continental Plateau of the Black Sea: Tectonic-
Sedimentary Evolution and Hydrocarbon Potential, Oscar Print Publishing House,
Bucharest, Romania, ISBN 978-973-668-167-7, 2007.
[11] The hydrocarbon potential of the Romanian Black Sea continental
plateau, Romanian Journal of Earth Sciences, vol. 86/issue 2, pp. 91–109, 2012.
[12] Georgiev G., Geology and Hydrocarbon Systems in the Western Black Sea,
Turkish Journal of Earth Sciences, vol. 21, pp. 723–754, 2012.
[13] Niculescu B.M., Andrei G., Formation Evaluation Challenges in Pliocene Gas-
bearing Reservoirs from the Romanian Western Black Sea Shelf, 4th International
Conference on Applied Geophysics "APPLIED GEOPHYSICS 2018",
Conference Proceedings, E3S Web of Conferences (eISSN 2267-1242), vol. 66,
article 01004, 10 pp., https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/20186601004, 2018.
[14] Poupon A., Leveaux J., Evaluation of water saturation in shaly formations, The
Log Analyst, vol. 12/issue 4, pp. 3–8, 1971.
[15] Archie G.E., The Electrical Resistivity Log as an Aid in Determining Some
Reservoir Characteristics, American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and
Petroleum Engineers (AIME), Transactions, vol. 146/issue 1, pp. 54–62, 1942.
[16] Pickett G.R., Pattern Recognition As A Means Of Formation Evaluation, The Log
Analyst, vol. 14/issue 4, pp. 3–11, 1973.

908