Fresh Formation Water in Tight

Reservoir Rocks Creates Contention

Between Petrophysics and Geoscience

Ko Ko Kyi and Abbel Alexius Kiob

PETRONAS Carigali Sdn. Bhd.

EAGE/FESM Regional Technical Conference

17 – 18 February 2014
Open
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
 INTRODUCTION

• Positive identification of a water bearing interval is crucial

to evaluating hydrocarbon bearing reservoirs in a well.

• Accurate estimation of formation water resistivity is

critical for proper computation of reservoir parameters
used in hydrocarbon resource assessment.

• In reservoirs with high formation water salinity, it is

relatively easy to differentiate water bearing zones from
those bearing hydrocarbon.

Open
 INTRODUCTION

• In low salinity environment, close to being fresh water, it

becomes difficult to positively identify a water bearing
reservoir, since the formation resistivity is relatively high.

• In some cases, a fresh water bearing interval may be

misinterpreted as a hydrocarbon zone.

• In the Malay basin, there are several reservoirs which

contain relatively fresh formation water, making it
difficult to evaluate the well logs from these reservoirs.

Open
 INTRODUCTION

Map of the Central Malay Basin
Central production fairway with
contours of salinity for the J-
Reservoirs. Values as low as
1kppm NaCl equivalent have been
analyzes in the Tapis field.
Example of a Stiff diagram for the
Malay Basin, with a characteristic
peak of HCO3- typical of fresh water
environments. The low conductivity
multiplier (0.3) for conversion to
NaCl equivalent has a large effect at
low TDS.

Open After Heavysege, SPWLA 43rd Annual Logging Symposium, 2002

 INTRODUCTION

• Some of these reservoirs are deep and have low porosity,

which in combination with low water salinity, leading to
relatively high formation resistivity.

• In certain reservoirs, there may even be some hydrocarbon

shows, such as an oil stain on cuttings, which may have
been due to residual hydrocarbon effects.

• The above often cause confusion and uncertainty in

interpreting the fluid type in these reservoirs.

• This creates a contention between geoscientists and

petrophysicists.

Open
 INTRODUCTION
• Logs, such as the Dielectric log and Nuclear Magnetic
Resonance log, may help in resolving this issue, oftentimes
they are not available.

• The simple but useful Spontaneous Potential SP log, which

can identify fresh formation water, is not available in wells
drilled with Oil Base Mud or in those where log data is
acquired while drilling with LWD tools.

• Formation Tester tools can identify fluid type and

acquire samples, but the tight nature of the reservoir
rocks poses additional challenges in getting reliable
fluid gradients and samples.

• Several attempts to take formation fluid samples using

wireline formation tester either failed or were
inconclusive.
Open
 INTRODUCTION

• In some wells, Drill Stem Tests were carried out to acquire

fluid samples and determine well deliverability if any.

• Most of these tests resulted in a very small influx of

formation water into the well bore with little or no flow at
the surface.

• Consequently, there was a contention about the validity of

the well tests and the conclusion on the fluid type.

• Bottom-hole samples taken during the tests indicate that

the produced fluid from tested reservoirs was fresh
formation water.

• Static Gradient Surveys carried out in these wells also

confirmed some influx of fresh formation water.

Open
 Well Logs From Exploration Well: AX-1

Open
 Mud Log From Exploration Well: AX-1

Open
 Interpretation of Exploration Well: AX-1

Interpretation carried out using water salinity of 5,000 ppmNaCl

Open
 Wireline Formation Tester Result: Well AX-1
Hydrostatic Formation Hydrostatic
Depth Depth Gauge Mobility
Pressure Pressure Pressure Remarks
mMDDF mTVDSS Type (md/cp)
Before (psia) (psia) After (psia)
Super
x173.0 x137.14 Quartz 9979.30 - 9987.94 -
charged
x177.0 x141.17 Quartz 9999.80 9354.71 10000.40 0.3 Valid
Super
x183.6 x147.77 Quartz 10020.90 - 10021.10 -
charged

Recovery Visual
Depth Oil Show
No. Lithology Porosity Detailed Description
(mMD) cm Cond (Tr, P, F, G)
(P. F. G)
Clear, transparent to translucent, light grey, light
1 x173 4.2 Good Silty Sand No Show P brown, occasionally off white, loose quartz grain,
hard consolidated core, very fine grain, graded to
silty, sub angular to sub rounded, moderately
sorted, poor visible porosity. No show.
Clear, transparent to translucent, light grey, light
2 x177 4.7 Good Silty Sand No Show P brown, occasionally off white, loose quartz grain,
hard consolidated core, very fine grain, graded to
silty, sub angular to sub rounded, moderately
sorted, poor visible porosity. No show
Clear, transparent to translucent, light grey, light
3 x179 1.9 Mod. Silty Sand No Show P brown, occasionally off white, loose quartz grain,
hard consolidated core, very fine grain, graded to
silty, sub angular to sub rounded, moderately
sorted, poor visible porosity. No show.

Open
Rotary Side Wall Core description for well AX-1
 Pressure and Temperature Production Rate Fluid Properties
Duration Choke
Bottomhole Wellhead Cond. Water SG BSW H2S CO2 Hg

hr:min /64” BHP BHT WHP WHT bbl/d bbl/d % ppm % ppb

psia degF psig degF

Clean Up Flow Period on Multiple Choke Size
22:00 16 1689 335 68 89 - - 0.782 - 1 10 -
Main Flow Period on 12/64” Adjustable Choke
12:00 12 1846 336 1908 157 - - 0.778 0 0 10 23.39
First Main Build Up Period
48:00 S/I 5739 338 3173 338 - - - - - - -
Second Clean Up Flow Period on Multiple Choke Size
12:00 12 1400 339 24 82 - - 0.84 0 0 8 -
Second Main Build Up Period
161:15 S/I 8612 341 6035 85 - - - - - - -
Summary of Well Test data for well AX-1

Open
 Case History #2

Open
 CASE HISTORY #3
0 V/V 1

VSAND
0 V/V 1

• The target sand has high resistivity

VSILT
0 V/V 1

HDRA VLIME
-0.25 G/C3 0.75 0 V/V 1

bs pe VDOLO
4 IN 24 0 20 0 1

readings and small possible gas

DEPTH HCAL RT NPHI PHIE SWSKELT VCLB
METRES 4 IN 24 0.2 OHMM 200 0.45 V/V -0.15 0 V/V 0.5 0 V/V 1 0 V/V 1

GR RS RHOB PHIT PERM SWTF VCLD

0 GAPI 200 0.2 OHMM 200 1.85 G/C3 2.85 0 V/V 0.5 0.2 OHMM 200 0 V/V 1 0 V/V 1

2890

2900
crossover
2910

• Log interpretation using Rw of 0.16

ohmm @ 150oC indicates some
2920

2930

2940

2950
possible hydrocarbon
• Water sample recovered from
2960

2970

2980
bottomhole has Rw of 0.35 ohmm
@ 150oC (4,050ppmNaCl
2990

3000

3010
equivalent)
3020

3030

3040

Open
 CASE HISTORY #4

0 V/V 1

VSAND

• An oil sample was recovered

0 V/V 1

VSILT
0 V/V 1

drho VLIME
-0.25G/C3 0.75 0 V/V 1

bs pe VDOLO

with WFT in the upper Sand-G

4 IN 24 0 20 0 1

DEPTH CALI RT NPHI PHIE SWSKELT VCLB

METRES 4 IN 24 0.2 OHMM 200 0.45 V/V -0.15 0 V/V 0.5 0 V/V 1 0 V/V 1

GR RS RHOB PHIT PERM SWTF VCLD

0 GAPI 200 0.2 OHMM 200 1.85 G/C3 2.85 0 V/V 0.5 0.2 OHMM 20000 0 V/V 1 0 V/V 1

Sand_F Bottom
3060
Sand_G

3070
with similar log character
3080

3090
• High resistivity readings in Sand-
3100

Sand_G Bottom
H (up to 50 ohmm) indicates
possible oil bearing zone
3110

3120

3130

3140

• Interpreted logs with water

saturation SWTF computed with
3150

Sand_H
3160

3170
Rw of 0.2 ohmm @ 145oC
3180

3190

3200

3210

Open
 CASE HISTORY #4

0 V/V 1

VSAND
0 V/V 1

VSILT
0 V/V 1

drho VLIME
-0.25G/C3 0.75 0 V/V 1

SAMPLING
• Interval (3157-3184mMD) was
bs pe VDOLO
4 IN 24 0 20 0 1

DEPTH CALI RT NPHI PHIE VCLB

METRES 4 IN 24 0.2 OHMM 200 0.45 V/V -0.15 0 V/V 0.5 0 V/V 1

GR RS RHOB PHIT PERM SWTF VCLD

0 GAPI 200 0.2 OHMM 200 1.85 G/C3 2.85 0 V/V 0.5 0.2 OHMM 20000 0 V/V 1 0 V/V 1

tested and produced 1,600

Sand_F
3060
Bottom
Sand_G

3070

3080
bbl/day of water with salinity of
1,800 ppmNaCl equivalent
3090

3100

Sand_G Bottom

3110

3120

3130

3140

3150

• Log interpretation with water

Sand_H
3160

3170

3180
saturation computed using Rw
of 0.66 ohmm @ 145oC
3190

3200

3210

3220

Open
 CASE HISTORY #5

• The well was drilled to test the

target sand J25/30.
• Mud log indicates oil show
• The target interval was tested
and high gas reading in the
• Well did not flow even after
tested interval of J25/30
lifting with nitrogen.
sands.

Open
 CONCLUSIONS
• Several case histories highlight the challenges encountered in
evaluating fresh water bearing formations.

• Oil shows or high gas readings on the mud log can

sometimes be misleading and should be treated with caution
to avoid unnecessary fluid sampling and well testing
operations.

• The occurrence of fresh water in the aquifer can have a

significant implication on the estimation of water saturation
in the hydrocarbon bearing zones.

• The presence of fresh formation water in low porosity (tight)

reservoirs can create contention between petrophysicists
and geoscientists with regards to fluid typing.
Open
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to acknowledge their gratitude to

PETRONAS and PETRONAS Carigali management for their
permission to present his paper.

Open