See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/254532872

Developed Approach for Better Understanding of Low Resistivity Pay Carbonate

Reservoirs

Article · July 2015

DOI: 10.2118/137663-MS

CITATIONS READS
5 524

3 authors, including:

Adel Obeidi
Qatar Petroleum
67 PUBLICATIONS   273 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Google Scholars link: View project

Murzuq Basin, SW Libya View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Adel Obeidi on 08 November 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

SPE 137663

Developed Approach for Better Understanding of Low Resistivity Pay

Carbonate Reservoirs
Adel Obeidi, Fatema Al Aryani, and Mohsen Al Amoudi; ADCO

Copyright 2010, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition & Conference held in Abu Dhabi, UAE, 1–4 November 2010.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been reviewed
by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or
members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is
restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract (minimum invasion). LWD drill and wipe passes evidently

Some of the Middle East UAE lower Cretaceous Thamama
Carbonate reservoirs are characterized by low resistivity pay
phenomena, on which log analysis results in high water
saturation computation; on the contrary, production tests
confirm dry oil.
The Sedmintological investigation on thin sections have
shown significant percentage of Micro-porous (occluded
porosity or non-efficient porosity) network traps irreducible
hyper-saline formation water which responds to a low
resistivity, even if the oil is occupying the larger size of
porosity (efficient porosity).
This paper presents a simple and cost-effective approach for
better identification and evaluation of low resistivity pay
carbonate reservoirs. The approach utilizes the pulsed
neutron capture log (PNCL) in real-time logging in proper
identification and formation evaluation in these reservoirs
through case studies in the Middle East-UAE Carbonate
reservoirs.
Through number of wells that have recently been drilled
using different types of mud and were logged by LWD
PNCL; the results have clearly shown the benefit of
minimizing evaluation uncertainties compared to those
logged without LWD PNCL.
For decades, the combination of conventional logs i.e.
neutron, density and resistivity are undoubtedly proven
technologies to evaluating homogenous reservoirs. Unlikely,
accurate determination of Petrophysical parameters and
water saturation evaluation would rather be difficult to show
especially in so-called low resistivity pay reservoirs.
Since the PNCL (Sigma log) provides a resistivity
independent water saturation evaluation, the PNCL has
become an integral part of the evaluation program in these
low resistivity pay reservoirs, particularly using OBM with
relatively high rate of penetration, so that well bore
surrounding environment would not be greatly altered
demonstrate that the different between logs can be caused
only by reservoir fluid change.
Introduction
In Carbonate, reservoir heterogeneity is the key player in the
flow performance, and in so-called low resistivity pay
reservoirs, the rock contains pores of a significant varying
pore sizes, most of these pores are micro-pores resulted from
large abundance in Peloids and micritized organisms (Figure
1) and has a bi-modal or even tri-modal distribution on
mercury injection data (Figure 2). The entry pressure of the
smaller pores is thus such that oil cannot enter them and they
remain water filled and contained irreducible connate
formation water which is very saline, as saline as 200,000
ppm NaCl. Test results were very encouraging despite the
fact that log derived saturations are very pessimistic in terms
of oil saturations; on test oil in the large pores may flow,
while capillary bound water in micro-pores network remains
immobile and would deliver a low resistivity answer to the
resistivity measurements, logs resistivity are in the order of
0.3 -0.5 Ohmm. It has often been assumed that micritized
grains containing water may be able to “short circuit” the
resistivity measuring current.
This very low resistivity reading misleads high computed
reservoir water saturation which can bypass of a potential
hydrocarbon in the reservoirs.
The average reservoir thickness is around 50 ft. The
reservoir is heterogeneous characterized by an average
permeability of 3-4 mD with two very thin (3 ft) flow units
(high-k streaks) in the Upper and Lower sections in some
reservoirs. These flow units have average permeabilities in
the order of 360 and 16 mD respectively. Analytical
calculations suggest that these flow units combined are
responsible for 90% of the flow capacity in some of these
reservoirs. The remaining 10% of the flow are derived from
2 SPE 137663
90% of the rock storage capacity, with an average
permeability of 3-4 mD.
This paper illustrates pragmatic logging methods used in
Low resistivity pay starting with an accurate methodology
for hydrocarbon presence identification in these suspicious
reservoirs particularly in the absence of mud logging system.
By using logging while drilling (LWD) technique with wipe
logs in order to identify the type of movable phase in the
reservoir. Also some other simple techniques for evaluating
and understanding these LRP reservoirs are described here
including Sigma saturation and Archie exponents
computations, NMR permeability, Primary and secondary
porosities advantages in saturation computation.
Sigma (logging while drilling) advantages
The thermal decay time log is a record of the rate of capture
of thermal neutrons in a formation after it is bombarded with
a burst of 14 Mev neutrons. Sigma is a part of the Pulsed
Neutron Capture (PNC) measurements (formation sigma,
porosity, borehole fluid salinity); the capture cross section
SIGMA is defined as the relative ability of a material to
"capture" or absorb free thermal neutrons, and the
attenuation (sigma) depends upon the elements contained in
the formation and its pore system; in particular, a strong
neutron stopper is Chlorine, typically present in brine;
therefore, when calibrated, the tool can be used as a Sw
indicator the sigma provides a resistivity independent
(Archie independent) access to saturations.
Typically,
Σbulk= (1-φ)•Σmatrix+φ•Σfluid=(1-φ)•Σma+ φ•(Sw•Σw +(1-
Sw)•Σo);
from which we can calculate
Σ − Σ ma − φ ( Σ h − Σ ma )
Sw = fm
φ (Σ w − Σ h )
As it relies on the presence of Cl, the tool works best in
high-salinity waters; it requires low invasion, LWD solution
in OH is very attractive, allowing to measure sigma prior to
significant invasion.
The pre-invasion (LWD) and post-invasion (wipe) Sigma
logs can be acquired and utilized as a quick-look method to
investigate the presence of water in the suspected Low
Resistivity Pay Zones, this method was applied in both type
of drilling mud OBM & WBM to assess their impact.
Hypothetically, in the wells drilled by OBM; both OBM and
formation oil have almost identical oil sigma; consequently
any difference in sigma between LWD and wipe logs would
indicate to a potential of higher water saturation in that
specific zone and the moving phase in this case is the water,
the wipe sigma log would read less values than drill pass
sigma log due to the invasion effect of OBM to the
formation water, examples in (Figures 4, 5, &6). Conversely,
with a well drilled by WBM, any difference between the
LWD and wipe sigma would yield to a higher Oil saturation
that higher sigma value could be recorded by the wipe log
due to WBM invasion into the reservoir indicating oil as the
movable phase (Figures 7& 8), taking into account the
salinity of the mud is similar or close to the formation water
salinity.
The example in (Figure 9) illustrates the advantages of LWD
technique in evaluating of LRP reservoirs and showing the
invasion effect on the wipe logs data, eventually the well
was logged a year later and the response of Sigma wireline
log (red curve) was almost as same as Sigma wipe log
(dotted green curve on the first track from right), this
demonstrates the effect of mud invasion when taken place in
a reservoir that could stand for long time before the
progression of mud dissipation and also highlight the
necessity of LWD data for better evaluation process. On
other hand, the rate of penetration is also an important factor
for the quality of LWD data, example in (Figure10) shows
the effect of OBM on the LWD data in the wet zone (water
is the movable phase), Sw here was composed of Sw-Sigma
in the pay zone (no effect of OBM in the oil zone) and Sw-
Resistivity in the water zone (OBM invaded the formation
water).
Archie parameters sensitivity analysis
Archie equation is an empirical equation for consolidated
sandstones relating several formation parameters, such as,
porosity and water saturation and their exponents (m) and
(n) respectively. Carbonate reservoirs (LRP in particular)
probably do not behave like Archie rocks, because formation
parameters (m, n) are functions of changes in the pore
geometry, wettability, clay content, tortuosity of the pores,
as well as formation pressure. The Archie equation is valid
only when the rock is strongly water wet and clay free,
which is not the case in carbonate rocks.
However, if we assume that they do however, we observe
that the parameters used in Archie’s equation introduce
significant uncertainty
Archie’s equation is states:
a 1
Rt = Rw • • , from which we can calculate
φ m
S wn
a Rw
Sw = n •
φ m
Rt
In attempt to assess the Archie parameters accurately;
selective wells have been studied according to the pre-
defined OWC from previous history. A straightforward
equation has been used to estimate Formation Factor from
open hole logs, and a plot was used to determine the (m)
parameter. Results showed that cementation (tortuosity)
factor (m) can vary from location to another in same wet
reservoirs and subzones, so even using the (m) data from
SCAL would not be sufficient to use it in other areas.
On the other hand there is no linear or direct correlation
between resistivity index (IR) and formation water saturation
in the carbonate rocks. Therefore, the Archie equation
SPE 137663
cannot be generalized over the entire carbonate reservoir.
There are number of factors affecting the relationship
between saturation and resistivity (value of the saturation
exponent n) including wettability, rock structure, presence of
clay, history of fluid displacement, looking for the previous
extensive studies on this relationship, it appears that
wettability is the most controlling factor on the saturation
exponent.
In LRP reservoirs, the water saturation is always high and
this means that Archie is operating in a region where “n” is
of limited impact. This has been verified by SCAL data
results that illustrated a relatively wider range of (m) factor
values (1.61 to 2.49) versus (n) exponent values (1.83 –
2.11). In addition, a sensitivity analysis using Murphy risk
assessment technique has been applied; it was noticeable
that ‘m’ had the most probable erroneous impact for
induction resistivity log factor with a great influence on
saturation computation (Figure 3). Nevertheless, risk
assessment on Archie parameters can be ranked as (m>
PHI> Rw> n> Rt).
It was revealed from the basic equation used to compute
hydrocarbon accumulations (HIP=C•φ• (1-Sw) •H•A), that a
5% error on calculated Sw could result in 15 to 20% of error
in HC accumulations; moreover, (m) is the parameter in
which error is the most sensitive.
It is normal to use different Archie parameters for different
layers and/or rock types. Even in the event of a strong
variation of (m) with porosity a sufficiently detailed
subdivision can always be found that allows (a) and (m)
values to be used that are in agreement with the core
measurements; other than still the finest technique is to use
this tortuosity (cementation factor) parameter (which has the
greatest impact on the saturation computation) at the same
reservoir conditions and as a variable input (continuous
values as log data) for every single depth. This can only be
obtained by back calculating (m) exponent from Archie
equation in case we have a reliable saturation data, which
(saturation) can be obtained from a resistivity independent
technique like Sigma capture log. Eventually, available
methods can not define (m) and (n) concurrently, therefore
one of these two parameters is kept constant across subject
reservoir.
(Figure 11) is an example from horizontal well where Sw-
archie using (m=n=2, black curve) did not show a reliable
saturation profile consistent with Sxo-Sigma or production
data, Sw (calculated with variable ‘m’, red curve) has more
representative profile and consistent with Sigma saturation
and production hold-up data (with respect to the hole
trajectory that affected and masked the spinner and water
flow log data across some areas of the hole trajectory due to
the stagnant fluids).
(Figure 12) showing the advantages of an accurate Sxo data
(calculated from Sigma) and variable cementation factor (m)
data (calculated from Sxo), therefore a reliable Sw (archie)
was achievable (calculated with variable ‘m’ data) and more
3
consistent. Examples from both (Figures 11&12)
demonstrate this simple approach of applying variable
cementation factor (m) calculated from Sxo-Sigma in Archie
equation yields results of a better conformance with CH
data, Core data, and with production data.
NMR permeability advantages in Sw computation
Permeability estimations are some of the principals NMR
deliverables. There are two primary approaches (equations)
for predicting permeability from NMR data; one is based on
the irreducible water saturation and other on the estimation
of an average pore size.
The first equation is based on the studies that have shown
that permeability is related to the irreducible brine
saturations. The Timur-Coates, Coates (1991), model uses
the free fluid to the bound fluid ratio, determined from the
T2 distribution, and the porosity to predict the permeability:
KTC = a. φ4 (FFV/BVF)2
Where, φ the porosity (%), FFV is the Free Fluid Volume,
BFV is the Bound Fluid Volume, and (a) is a constant that
are obtained empirically from cross plot.
The second equation is the SDR (Schlumberger-Doll
Research), Kenyon et al (1986), or average pore size
approach, relays on the T2 distribution, measured by the
NMR tool, as being a pseudo-pore size distribution of the
formation, short T2 values are associated with small pores
and long T2 with the larger ones. Therefore, the SDR model
uses the logarithmic mean the T2 distribution (T2LM), as a
representation of the average pore size, and the porosity to
predict the permeability:
KSDR = b. φ4 (T2LM)2
Where, φ the porosity (%), T2LM is the logarithmic Mean T2,
and (b) is a constant that are obtained empirically from cross
plot, ideally using core data.
From experience in carbonate reservoirs, SDR equation
predicted an overestimated permeability due to the fact that
it is based on average pore size (logarithmic mean of T2
distribution) which is counting for unconnected pores
consequently the permeability would be over estimated
because some of these vugs (if not all) are not contributing
to the flow regime (this is not the case in siliclastic
reservoirs).
The approach of Sw computation here was simple and based
on the fact that the oil tends to occupy larger pores network
only where can flow easily during the production test.
Using mercury injection data, the value of 0.9 (µm) on the
pore throat size distribution diagram (Figure 2) was
appropriate value to discriminate the micro porous
(occluded) from the efficient porosity. This reservoir rock
type (<0.9 µm) was characterized as (permeability < 1mD)
on the Poro-Perm chart (Figure 2). Using KTC (Timur Coates
Permeability) data that estimated form NMR, was simply to
discriminate the pore volume distribution in the interpreted
oil zone into pores with (KTC >1 mD) that filled by oil and
the rest of pore volume (KTC <1 mD) would remain wet.
4 SPE 137663

Example in (Figure 13) showing the total porosity log (black Acknowledgements
curve), the bulk water saturation (blue curve) and the new The authors would like to thank ADCO and ADNOC
bulk water saturation (red curve) based on the cutoff (KTC >1 managements for authorizing the publication of the data in
md), so only the area shaded in green can flow oil. this paper.

Primary and secondary porosities in Saturation Nomenclature

computation LRP: Low Resistivity Pay
Another quick method was applied in evaluating LRP LWD: Logging While Drilling
reservoirs using conventional logs; neutron and density logs WBM: Water Base Mud
are responses to pores of all sizes. However, the sonic log is OBM: Oil Base Mud
a measure of inter-particle (inter-granular and inter- Φ: Porosity (%)
crystalline) porosity but is largely insensitivity to either PHIT: Total porosity
fractures or vugs. This discrimination can be explained SPHI: Sonic porosity, also known as primary porosity
largely by the way that the sonic tool measures transit time RT: True Resistivity in un-invaded zone
by recording the first arrival waveform which often RW: Formation Water Resistivity
corresponds to a route in the borehole wall free of fractures SW: Water Saturation
or vugs. M: Cementation Factor
When sonic porosities are compared with neutron and N: Saturation Exponent
density porosities, the total porosity can be subdivided K: Permeability (mD)
between “primary porosity” (inter-particle porosity) IR: Resistivity Index
recorded by the sonic log and “secondary porosity” (vugs OWC: Oil Water Contact
and/or fractures) computed as the difference between the ∑fm: Sigma Formation
sonic porosity and the neutron and/or density porosity. ∑ma: Sigma Matrix
Typically, moderate values in secondary porosity are caused ∑h: Sigma Hydrocarbon
by vugs, because fracture porosity does not usually exceed 1 ∑w: Sigma Water
to 2% by volume. HIP: Hydrocarbon in Place
The log example (Figure 14) shows the averaged neutron- H: Height
density porosity log together with a sonic log. They are both A: Area
scaled in limestone equivalent porosity units. Notice how the KTC: Timur-Coates Permeability
neutron-density and sonic porosity logs track fairly closely FFV: Free Fluid Volume
with about 2 to 5% porosity different. BFV: Bound Fluid Volume
Similar to the previous assumption (using the Permeability KSDR: Schlumberger-Doll Research Permeability
data) only large and connected pores can flow oil. In this T2LM: Logarithmic Mean T2
approach, using sonic data with Neutron and Density data,
the secondary porosity was estimated, and two bulk water References
saturation curves were computed (using primary and total 1- Archie, G.E.”Electrical Resistivity as an Aid in Core
porosities) and the oil in the connected pores was determined Analysis Interpretation”, AAPG Bulletin 31 (1947),
Schlumberger Technical Review, volume 36, Number3.
as the only oil volume can flow (light greed shaded).
2- Coates, G.R., Marschall, D., Mardon, D., Galford, J., “A
New Characterization of Bulk-volume Irreductible Using
Conclusions Magnetic Resonance”, Annual Logging Symposium of the
1. In absence of mud logging, LWD and wipe logs are SPWLA, (1997).
viable to identifying the fluid types in the suspected 3- Coates, G.R., Miler, M., Gillen, M., and Henderson, G.,
LRP reservoirs. “The MRIL in Conoco 33-1: An Investigation of a New
2. Invasion process still has effect even in LWD logging Magnetic Resonance Imaging Log”, Annual Logging
(OBM in particular) and Sw must be computed Symposium of the SPWLA, (1991).
carefully. 4- Kenyon, W.E., Day, P.I., Straley, C., and Willemsen, J. F.,
3. Permeability and porosity data can be used to “A Three-Part Study of NMR Longitudinal Relaxation
Studies of Water Saturated Sandstones”, SPE Formation
discriminate between the pore sizes in the reservoir; Evaluation, (1986).
therefore the micro-porous network volume can be 5- M.J.C. Petricola and M. Watfa “Effeect of Microporosity in
calculated and excluded from the oil volume in the Carbonates: Introduction of a Versatile Saturation
pay zone. Equation”, SPE 29841.
4. In conclusion, porosity system plays major role in low 6- Murphy D.P.,“Formation Evaluation – Development in
resistivity pay reservoir. Petroleum Science”, volume 44, part2, 1996.
7- Smart, Chris. Personal communication on low resistivity
pays reservoirs, ADCO, 2009.
8- Talia Shamsi, Soran Talabani, H.H. Vaziri, and M.R.
SPE 137663 5

Islam”In-Depth Investigation of the Validity of the Archie

Equation in Carbonate Rocks”, SPE 67204.
9- Thomas D. Barber, and Frank Shray “Case Studies Using
Advanced Interpretation Techniques for Induction Logs”,
SPE 71707.
10- Vinicius, F.M., Rodrigo, V.A., Paulo, F.R., Marcio, R.C.,
and Sandra, R.C.”A NMR Permeability Model Based on
Partial Least Square (PLS) Regression Analysis for a Low
Permeability Gas Sand in Santos Basin”, Symposium of the
Society of Core Analysts, Abu Dhabi, (2008).
6 SPE 137663

Appendix: Figures 1 to 14

Figure 1: High micro-porous facies, abundance in Peloids & micritized organisms.

Figure 2: Mixed of pore sizes distributed on different reservoir rock types (RRT).
SPE 137663 7

Figure 3: Archie equation, most probable error estimation for induction resistivity log (D. P. Murphy 1996-2007)

Wet zones

Figure 4: OBM invasion effect on the wipe logs in Thamama carbonate reservoirs
8 SPE 137663

Figure 5: OBM invasion effect on the wipe logs in Thamama carbonate reservoirs

Figure 6: OBM invasion effect on the wipe logs in Thamama carbonate reservoirs
SPE 137663 9

Oil zone

Wet zone

Figure 7: WBM invasion effect on the wipe logs in Thamama carbonate reservoirs

Figure 8: WBM invasion effect on the wipe logs in Thamama carbonate reservoirs
10 SPE 137663

Figure 9: WBM invasion effect on the wipe logs in Thamama carbonate reservoirs

OWC

Figure 10: Modified Sw for better evaluation of LRP reservoir.

SPE 137663 11

Figure 11: Variable cementation factor from Sigma in Archie equation

Figure 12: Variable cementation factor from Sigma in Archie equation

12 SPE 137663

Figure 13: Advantage of Permeability in LRP saturation evaluation.

Figure 14: Porosity discrimination and the associated fluids in LRP.

View publication stats