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

net/publication/309726326

SPE-182912-MS Evaluating a Complex Low-Resistivity Pay Carbonate Reservoir

Onshore Abu Dhabi: From model to Implementation

Conference Paper · November 2016

DOI: 10.2118/182912-MS

CITATION READS

1 453

5 authors, including:

Ayham Ashqar Andi Baiquni Salahuddin

University of Leeds Abu Dhabi National Oil Company
24 PUBLICATIONS   7 CITATIONS    8 PUBLICATIONS   7 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Saheed Olawale Olayiwola Adedapo Awolayo

University of Wyoming The University of Calgary
13 PUBLICATIONS   48 CITATIONS    19 PUBLICATIONS   100 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Properties of nanoparticles View project

Unconventional reservoir View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ayham Ashqar on 06 November 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

SPE-182912-MS

Evaluating a Complex Low-Resistivity Pay Carbonate Reservoir Onshore

Abu Dhabi: From model to Implementation
Ayham Ashqar, Miho Uchida, Andi A. Salahuddin, Saheed O. Olayiwola (Adco), Adedapo N. Awolayo (University
of Calgary)

Copyright 2016, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference held in Abu Dhabi, UAE, 7–10 November 2016.

Abstract
Early identification of low resistivity pay (LRP) reservoir is vital in assessing its prospect and
capability. Productive reservoirs may exhibit low resistivity and consequently, their potential is
simply overlooked. Remapping these intervals can have significant production and reserve
implications. Traditionally, resistivity logs are used to identify pay intervals due to the resistivity
contrast between oil and formation water. However, when pay intervals exhibit low resistivity,
such logs return low confidence in defining hydrocarbon potential.
Due to the complexity of low resistivity pay (LRP), its cause and proper mitigation should be
determined prior to applying a solution. Researchers have identified several reasons responsible
for this occurrence; among which are the presence of heterogeneous pore structures specifically
micro-porosity, fractures, paramagnetic minerals, and deep conductive mud invasion.
Almost all preceding publications assume a technique will work but not the other. However, this
is the first time, to our knowledge; an integrated approach is used to develop LRP assessment
workflow. We have integrated the information coming from geology (e.g., thin-section, XRD),
formation pressure and well tests, NMR, MICP, and dean stark data. The integration successfully
identified and remapped the carbonate low resistivity reservoir. This model was validated in an
appraisal well on Abu Dhabi mainland, for that an extended data was acquired.
Thereafter, the integrated LRP model was compared with the computed water saturation from
conventional resistivity tools. The validation was successful in terms of confirming the prognosis.
Interpreting the results from the multidisciplinary integrated model confirms a deeper Free Water
Level (FWL), hence oil pool extension. Further analysis showed that the causes of LRP in this
considered formation was limited to presence of micro-porosity and high saline mud invasion.
2 SPE-SPE-182912-MS-MS

Introduction
Low resistivity pay (LRP) reservoir was first discovered in a sandstone reservoir within the Gulf
of Mexico (Boyed et al., 1995) and has increasingly been at the frontline of industry’s concern in
several projects which includes deep water exploration and brown-field development. It is
described as hydrocarbon bearing zone that appear as water interval based on open-hole
resistivity measurements. While other type of measurements such as mud logs shows indication
of hydrocarbon. Such zone is known to produce petroleum with little or no water cut (Pittman,
1971; Keith and Pittman, 1983; Worthington, 2000). Occasionally, LRP intervals were
accidentally reported as a transition zone where both water and hydrocarbons co-exist (Griffiths
et al., 2006; Obeidi et al., 2010).
Typically, LRP zones are characterized by formation interval, with moderate to high porosities,
showing extremely low resistivities that are often less than 3 ohm-m and most frequently
encountered in areas with high salinity formation water (Worthington, 2000; Uchida et al., 2015).
Boyed et al, (1995) proposed a resistivity range of 0.5-5 Ohm-m. Other researchers identified
LRP by the ratio between the pay zones to the water bearing zone to be in the range of 2 (Zhao
et al., 2000). The low resistivity reading leads to interpretation of high water saturation, which
makes the reservoir of low interest and diminish reserves estimates so they are discarded as
attractive to appraise, particularly when oil prices are low.
LRP is not limited to one type of reservoir, it happens in both sandstones and carbonates, and
can be a resultant of different occurrences. For instance, the presence of conductive clay in the
sandstone formation masks the hydrocarbon, resulting in low electric resistivity response. Due
to the absence of clay in carbonate reservoirs, other impactful occurrences can be due to the
presence of paramagnetic minerals, micro-porosity, and deep invasion of high saline mud
(Uchida et al., 2015). Several causes have been identified for LRP zones, most of which are
related to the inherited geological complexity. Many studies were conducted in the past decades
to address the occurrence of LRP, yet this issue still persists with no unique technique
established particularly in carbonate reservoirs. The discrepancy between the resistivity derived
saturation and well test results requires in-depth study to identify the main cause of such
disagreement reservoir-specific. Below, we make a summary of the reported LRP causes and
the corresponding solution that’s been proposed.
- Deep invasion by high saline muds
Most often when wells are drilled with high saline muds, deep invasion occur and affect
especially deep resistivity logs. As a result, high water saturation is computed due to the low
resistivity reading as the influence of mud filtrate invasion is too difficult to ascertain (Souvick,
2003). Deep invasion problem could be tackled by running resistivity logging-while-drilling (LWD)
as a chance to avoid the deep invasion, since the time for LWD is less compared to its wireline
equivalent (Boyed et al., 1995). Obiedi et al., (2010) proposed to use Pulse Neutron capture
(PNC) as a method to identify LRP, however knowing that chlorine controls the rate of which
thermal neutron are captured in the formation, and with the technique shallow depth of
investigation, then such suggestion may not be suitable to ascertain LRP prospect. Similarly,
open fractures, either induced or natural, can cause LRP zone. High saline muds from the
wellbore can easily penetrate through them, thereby reducing the formation resistivity (Asquith,
1984). Borehole imaging tools are capable of revealing these fractures. An integration of these
tools with resistivity log could improve the estimation of the hydrocarbon saturation (Souvick,
2003; Petricola, 2002).
SPE-SPE-182912-MS-MS 3

- Micro porosity
Pittman (1971) discovered the presence of bimodal pore systems in carbonates as a common
factor contributing to LRP. The high capillary bound water is mainly associated with rock grain
size. The smaller the grain size, the higher the surface to volume ratio, and the greater the
tendency for grains to hold significant volume of water. Typically, in carbonate reservoirs, the
macro-pores - hold and produce the moveable hydrocarbons due to their lower entry capillary
pressure, which are adjacent to micro-pores holding the immobile highly saline formation water
as a result of the high entry capillary pressure. Such micro-pores can be present in different
forms as highlighted by Uchida et al., (2015) and Salahuddin et al., (2015). Hassan and Kerans
(2013) investigated the geological consequences of LRP in carbonate reservoirs and reported
an average micro-porosity of 70% of the total porosity in all facies studied from 14 core plugs.
They concluded that these microporous zones contain capillary bound formation brine which
provides a continuous path for electric current, hence masks the available hydrocarbon and
causes a significant underestimation of the true oil saturation. One of the proffered solution is to
use core measured cementation exponent (m) and saturation exponent (n) if no deep invasion
was encountered. The nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) differentiates bound water (in micro-
pores) from free water.
- Presence of paramagnetic minerals
Paramagnetic minerals such as pyrite can reduce the log resistivity reading. Their effects seem
to vary with their morphology and distribution. The solution that’s been proffered involved
computation of the mineral volume, while assigning the mineral conductivity in order to finally
estimate the accurate hydrocarbon saturation. Lithology identification log has commonly been
used to estimate the volume of different minerals, while X-ray diffraction (XRD) has been used
to compute the minerals relative fraction.
- Laminated formations
Another common cause is laminated formations below the resolution of conventional logging
tools. A typical example includes a Thin-bedded formation with an alternation of fine-grained
with coarse-grained carbonates. Fine-grained (like mud-dominated packstone wackestone,
mudstone) often saturated with formation water due to their high entry capillary pressure, while
coarse-grained (e.g. grain-dominated packstone and grainstone) are usually filled with
hydrocarbon due to associated low entry capillary pressure. The resistivity response of the
hydrocarbon layer is often averaged with the surrounding muddy layers by the resistivity tool,
leading to low resistivity and consequently high water saturation. This occurs when the bed
thickness is equal or less than the vertical resolution of the resistivity tool (Hassan and Kerans,
2013).
Gyllensten et al., 2007 observed a LRP carbonate reservoir and suggested that the impacts of
micritized grains are same as the laminated shale on a sandstone reservoir. Figure 1 illustrates
Gyllensten et al., 2007 model. The proposed model shows micro-porosity accumulating only as
thin layers separating the main reservoir. Consequently, they proposed the use of a resistivity
that is perpendicular to the bedding to identify such a reservoir. However, this is not always the
case, microporous pore space is known to distribute in other shapes such as dispersed. Vertical
resistivity (RV) will not lead to the detection of dispersed micrities.

With carbonate reservoirs holding a larger percentage of the world’s proven reserves (Awolayo
et al, 2015), their characterization will continue to remain enormously difficult due to LRP among
other concerns. As a result, to map the LRP, its cause first needs to be identified. This is
4 SPE-SPE-182912-MS-MS

performed via integration of core studies, pressure and production tests, which holds better
chance to identify such reservoirs.
Uchida et al., (2015) proposed a novel workflow to map LRP reservoirs, and develop a robust
model to unveil the reservoir potential. The developed work flow (Figure 2) is aimed to be the
best practice to define hydrocarbon saturation through an interdisciplinary study by integrating
conventional logs, core analysis (porosity, permeability, Dean-Stark, MICP, Porous Plate, and
Centrifuge capillary pressures), wireline formation tester (WFT), and drill stem test (DST) results.
In order to validate the new model developed based on this work flow, a well was drilled to the
newly identified FWL.
This paper discusses the results coming from the well logging and coring and validate the
concept highlighted in study presented by Uchida et al. 2015.

Case study
The reservoir is part of the Lekhwair Formation belonging to Thamama Group which was
deposited during Lower Cretaceous epoch. This reservoir is highly heterogeneous with
moderate to good porosity as high as 23% while the permeability ranges from 0.02 mD to more
than 1 D (Salahuddin et al., 2015; Uchida et al., 2015). The low pay reservoir was noted in late
1990 when a well-produced oil with zero percent water-cut, though logs interpretation indicated
high water saturation, formation pressures taken across this interval showed an oil gradient and
strong shows was reported from mud logs.
The reservoir was divided into 5 fifth-order High Resolution Sequence Stratigraphic (HRSS) sets
namely as X1, X2, X3, X4, and X5 (Rebelle, 2006). The HRSS sets comprised three Highstand
System Tracks (HST) separated by two Transgressive System Tracts (TST). Core facies
description indicated that the reservoir consisted of three lithofacies based on modified
Dunham’s classification (1962) namely:
 PBP (Peloidal Burrowed Packstone): Brownish Wackestone-Packstone with abundant
Peloids.
 BF (Bacinella Floatstone): Floatstone with Bacinella, associated with Bivalves, Rudists
and Echinoids.
 OBG (Ooid Bacinella Grainstone): Ooids with Bacinella, Peloids, Foraminiferas,
Bivalves and Echinoids.
The interpreted depositional environment ranges from inner lagoon to inner shoal is simply
illustrated in Figure 3.
The identified diagenetic process that took place includes micritization, cementation,
replacement (piritization), and burial compaction. Wells within the studied reservoir are drilled
with water base mud (WBM), and logged using triple combo (GR, Neutron/Density, and
resistivity). Porosity was interpreted from neutron density cross plot, while the fluid saturation
was computed through Archie’s method. Core was cut across the reservoir and dean stark water
saturation was measured. Routine core analysis, MICP and NMR were acquired on these cores
and used to characterize the reservoir properties. The comparison between resistivity computed
saturation and core measured saturation confirmed that the resistivity-based saturation
undermined reservoir potential (Figure 4). The interpreted high water saturation was as a result
of one or more of the following factors:
 Deep mud invasion
 The presence of paramagnetic minerals (e.g., Pyrite)
SPE-SPE-182912-MS-MS 5

 High bound water trapped in the microspores

Acquired formation pressure indicated an oil gradient of 032 psi/ft., water gradient of 0.49 psi/ft.,
as a result water oil gradient was identified to be deeper than what was indicated by the logs
(Figure 5). Drill Stem tests (DST) produced oil with low water cut as illustrated in Figure 5.
Consequently, FWL was inferred to be a depth between XX50-XX75 ft. with uncertainty of +/-
10 ft.
Having identified the presence of LRP reservoir, and the discrepancy between log Sw data and
other sources like core, pressure and DST results. A low confidence was given to the calculated
saturation from the resistivity and a model was developed based on the core saturation keeping
in mind the newly derived FWL. The saturation model was developed from mercury injection
capillary pressure (MICP) data. Uchida et al., (2015) illustrated the consistency between the
capillary pressure, dean stark and test results, these data were used as a base for the developed
model. The saturation height function model was tuned to honor well test results, dean stark
saturation and formation pressures. The developed model was used as base to distribute the
saturation across the modelled reservoir. The old simulation model was based on the FWL
assessment found by the logs, which does not consider integrating all available data. The old
model simulated a shallower OWC and a small oil pool. Figure 6 compares the old and new
FWL. The new extends the oil STOIIP than the old model as well as increase in the oil saturation.
The color gradient variation is from deep blue to deep red with blue representing water and red
representing oil.
As a result of using the previous approach Uchida et al., (2015) reported a potential increase in
reserves oil in place (Figure 7), and hence the validation of the new approach results is required.
Well XXX (Figure 7) was planned to be drilled close the newly defined FWL and below the
previous FWL towards the south east part of the reservoir. The location of well XXX was found
as 100% water based on old simulation model, being so close to FWL and below the OWC.
However, the new model showed deeper FWL.
Data acquisition consisted of triple combo, NMR, and traced coring. Logging was done on LWD
after cutting core across the reservoir. The well was drilled with water base mud traced by D 2O
to allow saturation determination, mud salinity was 200KPPM. Figure 8 illustrates the acquired
data. Resistivity across the reservoir varied between 0.3-0.4 Ohm-m. These low values indicated
no hydrocarbon across the reservoir, bringing the reservoir to be 100% water bearing at this
level. The NMR log profile showed unimodal pore system, with little fluctuation indicating, if
correct it reflects a homogeneous properties with single pore space. However, within the lower
part of the reservoir NMR indicates a change in the pore size distribution (Figure 8).
Fifty feet (50 ft.) of conventional core were cut. The core was traced using a known concentration
of D2O. Soon as the core reached the surface, it was cut to 3 ft. sections, wax preserved and
shipped to the laboratory. Measurements commenced soon as the core arrived. Plugs were
selected to cover the whole reservoir interval, with dean stark plugs cut using liquid nitrogen and
conventional plugs using saline water. Samples were cleaned, dried, and conventional porosity
and permeability measurements were carried out. Figure 9 shows a comparison between log
analysis, and core measurements. Core porosity showed an excellent match with the log
porosity, the histogram comparison in Figure 10 confirms around 1 porosity unit difference
between the two techniques, and this is considered an excellent match. However, saturation
exhibited different results: Dean stark analysis indicated 80% water saturation in comparison
with 100% water saturation computed from logs. The results from dean stark measurement were
confirmed qualitatively using UV light of the slabbed core. Figure 11 shows a slabbed core
photograph under normal and UV light, oil staining is clearly noticeable. The two source of
6 SPE-SPE-182912-MS-MS

information (UV light and dean stark) verified the presence of HC and the reservoir is a LRP.
Uchida et al, 2015, argued that the cause of LRP in their studied carbonate formation was related
to:
- High conductive mud invasion.
- The presence of micro porosity and hence high bound water.
- The presence of metallic minerals (e.g., Pyrite).
Further analysis on the core was performed to ascertain the cause of the LRP. X-ray diffraction
(XRD) analysis was performed on selected samples of the core throughout the formation. The
result showed a mix of minerals with calcite being the dominant lithology, dolomite ranged
between 2-20%, worthy of note was 2-4% of pyrite measured infrequently (Figure 12).
Paramagnetic minerals such as pyrite is one of the causes of LRP. However, it needs to be
present in high percentage, i.e., more than 5%, to have sensible impact on resistivity. Clavier et
al. (1976) found that the effect of pyrite on resistivity logs depends on their electrical continuity,
and to provide such continuity they needed to be in excess of 5%.
The acquired nuclear magnet resonance (NMR) log showed a unimodal system represented by
one peak across the reservoir aside the lower section as seen in Figure 8, where a possible dual
modal could be interpreted. However, the core NMR response exhibited a different signature.
The discrepancy between the log and core NMR could be a result of the high salinity mud
dominating the log NMR signal. This means that the log NMR was responding to the mud rather
than the formation pore size, and as a result demonstrated no change of NMR log signal
throughout most of the section. XRD indicated variation in the minerals distribution as against
similar distribution displayed by the NMR log, which is a sign of varying pore type. Core NMR
measurements were performed on saturated samples. The measurement showed variation in
pore size distribution (PSD) as illustrated in Figure 13.
The PSD across the formation can be divided into different patterns, which are categorised as
follows:
- Samples showing unimodal PSD (Figure 14-A)
- Samples showing bimodal system, these are sub divided into the following.
o Samples with the pore distribution dominated by the large pores. (Figure 14-B)
o Samples with equal micro-pores and large pores (Figure 14-C)
o Samples with the pore system dominated by micro-pores (Figure 14-D)
The variation in the pore distribution signature shows the complexity of the candidate carbonate
reservoir, as such minimum of four rock types could be identified from the studied reservoir. The
four different PSD show different cut-off between the free and bound fluid represented by the
micritic type with the cut-off range between 20-170 mS.
SPE-SPE-182912-MS-MS 7

Conclusions
Low resistivity pay has many causes as discussed earlier, which is solved by integrating
geological, petro-physical and reservoir engineering data. A comprehensive study was carried
out to characterise the property of the candidate LRP reservoir. The study led to increase in oil
pool with the newly defined FWL. For such increase to be substantiated and obtain viable
evidence for the causes of LRP, a new well was drilled deeper with high saline traced WBM.
Based on variation observations we have made in this study; therefore, the following conclusions
are drawn:
 Understanding the cause of LRP is an important element in unlocking the capability of
such zone. The developed integrated approach allows the capability to address every
uncertainties and provides a consistent approach to evaluate the reservoir.
 This approach shows that all available data from various sources needs to be considered
for saturation evaluation as well as giving careful consideration to their range of
uncertainties and associated errors.
 NMR logging indicated single PSD, with small variation at the lower part of the reservoir,
this is thought to be a result of the high saline mud masking the NMR formation signal.
Whereas NMR on core samples showed the presence of micro-porosity which sometimes
dominates the pore system.
 XRD showed the presence of less than 5% paramagnetic mineral (pyrite). This low
concentration is thought to be of low effect on the log measurements. Hence, presence
of paramagnetic materials as the cause of LRP in the candidate formation was discarded.
 The existence of oil at the new well location was confirmed by fluorescence and dean
stark results, though conventional logs showed the well as 100% water. The accuracy of
new FWL, and new saturation model was confirmed through the analysis of this cored
well. Hence, STOIIP is increased significantly compared with previous model
 Further analysis confirmed that the reason behind LRP in the candidate formation is
related to micro-porosity and high saline mud invasion.
8 SPE-SPE-182912-MS-MS

References
- Awolayo, A., Sarma, H., and AlSumaiti, A. (2015). An Experimental Investigation into the
Impact of Sulfate Ions in Smart Water to Improve Oil Recovery in Carbonate Reservoirs.
Transport in Porous Media, 111(3), 649-668.
- Boyd A., Darling H., Tabanou J., (1995). The lowdown on low-resistivity pay. Schlumberger
Oil field Review, 7(3), 4-18.
- Clavier, C., Heim, A., Scala, C., 1976, Effect of pyrite on resistivity and other logging
measurement, SPWLA Seventeenth annual logging symposium.
- Gyllensten, A., Radwan, E.S., Al Hammadi, M., I., Maskary, S. S., (2007) A new saturation
model for low resistivity pay in carbonates, SPWLA, PP7.
- Hassan, A., and Kerans, C. (2013). Rock fabric characterization in a low resistivity pay zone
from a Lower Cretaceous carbonate reservoir in the Middle East. In 2013 SEG Annual
Meeting. Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
- Petricola, M. J., Takezaki, H., and Asakura, S. (2002). Saturation Evaluation in Micritic
Reservoirs: Raising to the Challenge. In Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and
Conference. SPE 78533 Society of Petroleum Engineers.
- Pittman, E. D. 1971. Microporosity in carbonate rocks. AAPG Bulletin, v. 55, no. 10, p. 1873-
1881.
- Rebelle, M. and Al Nuaimi, M.A. (2006). Lithofacies, Depositional Environment, and High-
Resolution Sequence Stratigraphy interpretation of Reservoir-X, Field A. ADCO Internal
Report.
- Salahuddin, A.A., Gibrata M.A., Uchida. M., Al Hammadi, K.E., Binmadhi, A.K. (2015).
Innovative Integration of Subsurface Data and History Matching Validation to Characterize
and Model Complex Carbonate Reservoir with High Permeability Streaks and Low Resistivity
Pay Issues, Onshore Abu Dhabi. SPE Reservoir Characterisation and Simulation
Conference and Exhibition. SPE-175682.
- Souvick, S. (2003). Low-resistivity pay (LRP): ideas for solution. In Annual SPE International
Conference and Exhibition, Abuja, Nigeria. SPE 85675 Society of Petroleum Engineers.
- Uchida, M., Salahuddin, A.A., Ashqar, A., Awolayo, N.A., Olayiwola, O.S., Al Hammadi E.K.,
2015, Evaluation of Water Saturation in a Low-Resistivity Pay Carbonate Reservoir Onshore
Abu Dhabi: An Integrated Approach, SPE 177709MS.
- Worthington, P. F., 2000, Recongintion and evaluation of low-resistivity pay: Petroleum
Geoscience, 6, 77–92.
- Zhao Z. Z., Ouyang J., Liu D. L., (2000) Logging Technology and Interpretation Techniques
for Low-Resistivity Pay in Bohai Bay Basin. Beijing: Petroleum Industry Press.
SPE-SPE-182912-MS-MS 9

Figure -1 Vertical and horizontal resistivity of a layered system with alternating water and oil
intervals (Gyllensten et al., 2007).

Figure -2 Interdisciplinary study workflow, Uchida et al., 2015

10 SPE-SPE-182912-MS-MS

Figure -3 Paleobathymetric profile showing the interpreted Depositional environment and

lateral facies distribution. PBP (Peloidal Burrowed Packstone); BF (Bacinella Floatstone); OBG
(Ooid Bacinella Grainstone), (Salahuddin et al., 2015).
SPE-SPE-182912-MS-MS 11

Well 9
Core Core & Log Archie Sw
Permeability Porosity 1 ----------------- 0
Dean Stark Sw
1 0

X1

X2

X3

X4

X5

Figure -4 Comparison of core measurements and log interpretations across the LRP reservoir.
Track 1: core permeability, track 2: core and log porosities, track 3: deep resistivity, track 4:
neutron and density logs, track 5: Archie saturation and core dean stark saturation.
12 SPE-SPE-182912-MS-MS

Figure 5 formation pressure points with contacts and well test results (Uchida et al., 2015).

Figure 6 comparison between old and new models.

SPE-SPE-182912-MS-MS 13

Figure-7 illustration of the reservoir map showing in light blue the old FWL, and in dark blue the
new FWL. Well XXX is below the old FWL and close to the newly defined FWL.

Figure- 8 Well XXX acquired logs and log analysis results. Track 1: Coring interval, track 2:
GR, track 3: deep resistivity, track 4: density, neutron porosity, track 5: NMR distribution, track
6: log calculated porosity, track 7: log calculated water saturation.
14 SPE-SPE-182912-MS-MS

Figure- 9 Well XXX log and core analysis results. Track 1: Coring interval, track 2: GR, track 3:
deep resistivity, track 4: density, neutron porosity, track 5: NMR distribution, track 6: log
calculated porosity and core measured porosity, track 7: log calculated water saturation, and
core measured saturation, track 8: core measured permeability.

Figure 10 a histogram shows porosity distribution compare between log and core
measurements.
SPE-SPE-182912-MS-MS 15

Figure 11. Three feet of slabbed core, the left core image is the normal light, right side shows
the core under UV with oil staining.

Figure 12 XRD results showing the mineral fraction of 15 samples across the reservoir
 16 SPE-SPE-182912-MS-MS

Figure 13 core NMR pore size distribution across the reservoir

Figure 14 core NMR pore size distribution across the reservoir

View publication stats