UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MARA

FAKULTI KEJURUTERAAN KIMIA

GEOLOGY AND DRILLING LABORATORY
(CGE 558)

EXPERIMENT : WELL CORRELATION

DATE PERFORMED : 06/12/2017
SEMESTER :3
PROGRAMME/CODE : GEOLOGY AND DRILLING LABORATORY / CGE 558
GROUP : EH2433

NAME STUDENT NO
SITI NUR IZZATY BINTI NAZAR 2016691684

No Title Allocated Marks % Marks

1 Abstract/Summary 5
2 Introduction 5
3 Aims/Objectives 5
4 Theory 5
5 Apparatus 5
6 Procedures 10
7 Result 10
8 Calculations 10
9 Discussion 20
10 Conclusions 10
11 Recommendations 5
12 References 5
13 Appendices 5
TOTAL 100

REMARKS :

CHECKED BY :
TABLE OF CONTENT

CONTENT PAGES

ABSTRACT/SUMMARY 1

INTRODUCTION 2

AIMS/OBJECTIVES 2

THEORY 3-4

APPARATUS/MATERIAL 5

PROCEDURES 5

RESULT 6

DISCUSSION 7

CONCLUSIONS 8

RECOMMENDATIONS

REFERENCES

APPENDICES
SUMMARY

This experiment has been conducted to correlate between the well logs. The well logs
correlation is an important step for the identification and connection of equivalent patterns or values
between log curves of adjacent wells. We had given three different well logs for this experiment.

In this experiment, the well logs of gamma ray log and acoustic/sonic log are given for the well
correlation and geologic interpretation. Firstly, we had combines these three logs with the same TVD
(feet) and we had create the boundaries base on its shape and environment. From the gamma ray log,
we can define how its shape and environments. So, from this, we also interpret the lithofacies based
on the log patterns. Other than that, we can know the permeable and non permeable zone for this log.
Next, from the sonic log we can determine its porosity of reservoir rock.

1
INTRODUCTION

The proper knowledge of the petrophysical properties of a reservoir depends on the investment
in coring or well logging. Logging allows the access to physical data of the formations while drilling
occurs, sending it to the surface to be analyzed through the drilling fluid.

During drilling operations one can obtain, with coring, mud-logging and well logging, all the
information needed to study a formation in terms of its physical characteristics. With well logging
data concerning resistivity, gamma radiation, density, porosity, existing faults, underground wave
velocity and dips is recovered and send up to the surface during and after drilling. Well logging
methods allow the establishment of porosity, saturation and, indirectly, permeability parameters in
order to take conclusions about the existence and location, along the drilled hole, of pay zones rich in
hydrocarbon to exploit.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of the experiment is to correlate between well logs.

2
THEORY

Well logging, also known as borehole logging is the practice of making a detailed record (a well
log) of the geologic formations penetrated by a borehole. The log may be based either on visual
inspection of samples brought to the surface (geological logs) or on physical measurements made by
instruments lowered into the hole (geophysical logs). Some types of geophysical well logs can be
done during any phase of a well's history: drilling, completing, producing, or abandoning. Well
logging is performed in boreholes drilled for the oil and gas, groundwater, mineral and geothermal
exploration, as well as part of environmental and geotechnical studies.

Wireline logging is performed by lowering a 'logging tool' ‐ or a string of one or more

instruments ‐ on the end of a wireline into an oil well (or borehole) and recording petrophysical
properties using a variety of sensors. Logging tools developed over the years measure the natural
gamma ray, electrical, acoustic, stimulated radioactive responses, electromagnetic, nuclear magnetic
resonance, pressure and otherproperties of the rocks and their contained fluids. Wireline logs can be
divided into broad categories based on the physical properties measured.

3
Resistivity log: resistivity logging measures the subsurface electrical resistivity, which is the ability
to impede the flow of electric current. This helps to differentiate between formations filled with salty
waters (good conductors of electricity) and those filled with hydrocarbons (poor conductors of
electricity). Resistivity and porosity measurements are used to calculate water saturation. Resistivity
is expressed in ohms or ohms\meter, and is frequently charted on a logarithm scale versus depth
because of the large range of resistivity

Porosity logs: porosity logs measure the fraction or percentage of pore volume in a volume of rock.
Most porosity logs use either acoustic or nuclear technology. Acoustic logs measure characteristics of
sound waves propagated through the well‐bore environment. Nuclear logs utilize nuclear reactions
that take place in the downhole logging instrument or in the formation.

Density: the density log measures the bulk density of a formation by bombarding it with a radioactive
source and measuring the resulting gamma ray count after the effects of compton scattering and
photoelectric absorption. This bulk density can then be used to determine porosity.

Neutron porosity: the neutron porosity log works by bombarding a formation with high energy
epithermal neutrons that lose energy through elastic scattering to near thermal levels before being
absorbed by the nuclei of the formation atoms.

Lithology logs: gamma ray: a log of the natural radioactivity of the formation along the borehole,
measured in api, particularly useful for distinguishing between sands and shales in a siliciclastic
environment. This is because sandstones are usually nonradioactive quartz, whereas shales are
naturally radioactive due to potassium isotopes in clays, and adsorbed uranium and thorium.

Self/spontaneous potential: the spontaneous potential (sp) log measures the natural or spontaneous
potential difference between the borehole and the surface, without any applied current. It was one of
the first wireline logs to be developed, found when a single potential electrode was lowered into a
well and a potential was measured relative to a fixed reference electrode at the surface.

4
APPARATUS

 Pencil
 Ruler
 Well log
 Well log notes as references

PROCEDURE

1. Firstly, we had combine the three logs given based on their depth.
2. Then, we draw the boundary at the log based on their shape and pattern.
3. After that, we had interpreted the lithofacies based on the shape at each boundary.
4. Then, we also interpret the environment at each boundary.
5. We had referred to gamma ray log to interpret between permeable and non-permeable zone.
6. Lastly, we had referred to sonic log to fine it porosities.

5
RESULT

The three wells were named “Well 1”, “Well 2” and “Well 3”. Logs of Gamma Ray and Sonic logs
were analyzed for the three wells. The depths analyzed are between 12600 and 13300 meters, in
measured depth.

Well 1

The porous and permeable zones are located around 12630, 12700, 12730, 12810, 12900 and
12980 meters depth. The Gamma Ray log shows low values as well, around 12 gAPI. The sonic time
logs indicate a higher time of response in the indicated depths, around 140 µs/f.

Well 2

The porous and permeable zones are located around 12980, 13400, 13100 and 13200meters
depth. The Gamma Ray log shows low values as well, around 15 gAPI. The sonic time logs indicate a
higher time of response in the indicated depths, around 110 µs/f.

Well 3

The porous and permeable zones are located around 12740, 12850 and 12950 meters depth. The
Gamma Ray log shows low values as well, around 15 gAPI. The sonic time logs indicate a higher
time of response in the indicated depths, around 100 µs/f.

6
DISCUSSION

The depth measure used in the correlation was standard true vertical depth. The correlated logs
in figure are gamma ray and sonic logs. Horizons were placed to determine different formation. All of
the horizons show it has cylinder shape.

At horizons 1, there are low Gamma ray log show values around 15 gAPI. Sonic log shows
value around 110 µs/f. So, we can say that the horizon contains low Gamma Ray that indicates the
formation is permeable and high porosity if we refer to the sonic log. The formation at horizon 1 can
be sandstone or limestones. Horizon 1 also shows the environment like Aeolian dunes, tidal sands and
fluvial channels. For lithofacies, this horizon show that it has a stacked up of bell shape (coastal
barrier bar) and funnel shape (fluvial/tidally influence channel sand). It interpret undifferentiated
continental deposits (Benin Formation)

At horizons 2, there are low Gamma ray log show values around 12 gAPI. Sonic log shows
value around 90 µs/f. So, we can say that the horizon contains low Gamma Ray that indicates the
formation is permeable and high porosity if we refer to the sonic log. The formation at horizon 2 can
be sandstone or limestones. Horizon 2 also shows the environment like deltaic distributaries, turbidite
channels and proximal deep-sea fans. For lithofacies, this horizon show that it has a funnel shape
morphology with average thickness of about 50m bounded at the basal part by candidate sequence
boundary or transgressive surface. It interpret coastal barrier bar.

At horizons 3, there are low Gamma ray log show values around 12 gAPI. Sonic log shows
value around 100 µs/f. So, we can say that the horizon contains low Gamma Ray that indicates the
formation is permeable and high porosity if we refer to the sonic log. The formation at horizon 3 can
be sandstone or limestones. Horizon 3 also shows the environment like deltaic distributaries, turbidite
channels and proximal deep-sea fans. For lithofacies, this horizon show that it has a funnel shape
morphology with average thickness of about 50m bounded at the basal part by candidate sequence
boundary or transgressive surface. It interpret coastal barrier bar.

At horizons 4, there are low Gamma ray log show values around 15 gAPI. Sonic log shows
value around 80 µs/f. So, we can say that the horizon contains low Gamma Ray that indicates the
formation is permeable and high porosity if we refer to the sonic log. The formation at horizon 4 can
be sandstone or limestones. Horizon 4 also shows the environment like Aeolian dunes, tidal sands and
fluvial channels. For lithofacies, this horizon show that it has a stacked up of bell shape (coastal
barrier bar) and funnel shape (fluvial/tidally influence channel sand). It interprets undifferentiated
continental deposits (Benin Formation).

7
CONCLUSION

We can say that all of the formation at horizon 1, 2, 3 and 4 is most porous and permeable,
consisting of maybe sandstone or limestone. There is a visible formation correlation between the three
wells, with some minor differences in depth, as seen in the logs, so the geology of the sites drilled is
roughly the same.

We find that the environment and the lithofacies at horizon 1 and 4 share the same formation
characteristics which are for the environment; it has the environment like Aeolian dunes, tidal sands
and fluvial channels. While, the lithofacies is it has a stacked up of bell shape (coastal barrier bar) and
funnel shape (fluvial/tidally influence channel sand). It also interprets undifferentiated continental
deposits (Benin Formation).

While, horizon 2 and 3 share the same environment and lithofacies for formation
characteristics. Which is for the environment, it has the environment like deltaic distributaries,
turbidite channels and proximal deep-sea fans. While, the lithofacies is it has funnel shape
morphology with average thickness of about 50m bounded at the basal part by candidate sequence
boundary or transgressive surface. It also interpret coastal barrier bar.

8
RECOMMENDATION

1.

REFERENCES

9
APPENDICES