formation evaluation pete 663 - tamu · pdf fileformation evaluation pete 663. summer 2010....
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: FORMATION EVALUATION PETE 663 - TAMU · PDF fileformation evaluation pete 663. summer 2010. shaly formation issues ... well log effects - 1](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022013107/5ab7ab3e7f8b9ad3038be501/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
SHALY SAND EVALUATION - B
FORMATION EVALUATION
PETE 663
Summer 2010
![Page 2: FORMATION EVALUATION PETE 663 - TAMU · PDF fileformation evaluation pete 663. summer 2010. shaly formation issues ... well log effects - 1](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022013107/5ab7ab3e7f8b9ad3038be501/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
SHALY FORMATION ISSUES –Water Saturation
![Page 3: FORMATION EVALUATION PETE 663 - TAMU · PDF fileformation evaluation pete 663. summer 2010. shaly formation issues ... well log effects - 1](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022013107/5ab7ab3e7f8b9ad3038be501/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Obstacles with Shaly Sands
• Fresh formation water can cause conventional analysis to overestimate water saturation
• Salty formation water can cause low resistivity, meaning pay zones can be bypassed
• Thin beds may lead conventional log analysis to underestimate porosity and overestimate water saturation
![Page 4: FORMATION EVALUATION PETE 663 - TAMU · PDF fileformation evaluation pete 663. summer 2010. shaly formation issues ... well log effects - 1](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022013107/5ab7ab3e7f8b9ad3038be501/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
LECTURE A• Shales/clays have several origins and forms• Shales/clays affect:
– Porosity– Permeability– Vshale
• Estimations• Assumptions• Log responses
LECTURE B• Shales conduct electricity• Problems with Archie-based methods
– Rwa problem– Sw errors
SHALY FORMATION ISSUES
![Page 5: FORMATION EVALUATION PETE 663 - TAMU · PDF fileformation evaluation pete 663. summer 2010. shaly formation issues ... well log effects - 1](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022013107/5ab7ab3e7f8b9ad3038be501/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
WELL LOG EFFECTS - 1• Well “X”• Water leg
– OWC @ 150 ft• Shaly interval
– 220 - 230 ft.– Resist. increase– Sonic Δ t
increase– Density ρ b
increase
![Page 6: FORMATION EVALUATION PETE 663 - TAMU · PDF fileformation evaluation pete 663. summer 2010. shaly formation issues ... well log effects - 1](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022013107/5ab7ab3e7f8b9ad3038be501/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
WELL LOG EFFECTS - 2
• HC zone– OWC @ 150 ft
• Shaly interval– 115 - 130 ft.– Resist. decrease– Sonic Δt increase– Density ρb
increase– Neutron φN
increase
![Page 7: FORMATION EVALUATION PETE 663 - TAMU · PDF fileformation evaluation pete 663. summer 2010. shaly formation issues ... well log effects - 1](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022013107/5ab7ab3e7f8b9ad3038be501/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
FCC
FRR
wo
wo
=
=or
shaleWithout
wC
oCF1
![Page 8: FORMATION EVALUATION PETE 663 - TAMU · PDF fileformation evaluation pete 663. summer 2010. shaly formation issues ... well log effects - 1](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022013107/5ab7ab3e7f8b9ad3038be501/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
XF
CC wo +=
shaleWith
The factor X is the excess conductivity caused by the fact that the clays and shales are conductors of current
wC
oCF1
X
![Page 9: FORMATION EVALUATION PETE 663 - TAMU · PDF fileformation evaluation pete 663. summer 2010. shaly formation issues ... well log effects - 1](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022013107/5ab7ab3e7f8b9ad3038be501/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Grain Brine
Pore
Pore Throat
Current
ELECTRICAL CURRENT FLOWING THROUGH BRINE – CLEAN SANDSTONE
![Page 10: FORMATION EVALUATION PETE 663 - TAMU · PDF fileformation evaluation pete 663. summer 2010. shaly formation issues ... well log effects - 1](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022013107/5ab7ab3e7f8b9ad3038be501/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
SCHEMATIC - ELECTRICAL CURRENT FLOWING THROUGH DISPERSED CLAY COATING AND BRINE, SHALY SANDSTONE
Grain Brine Clay Coat
Total Conductivity =
What is the effect of dispersed clayon resistivity when pores arefilled with brine?
![Page 11: FORMATION EVALUATION PETE 663 - TAMU · PDF fileformation evaluation pete 663. summer 2010. shaly formation issues ... well log effects - 1](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022013107/5ab7ab3e7f8b9ad3038be501/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
ELECTRICAL CURRENT FLOWING THROUGH DISPERSED CLAY COATING, SHALY SANDSTONE
Grain Oil Clay Coat
Electrical Current
What is the effect of dispersed clay on resistivity when the pore-filling fluid is oil rather thansaline water?
![Page 12: FORMATION EVALUATION PETE 663 - TAMU · PDF fileformation evaluation pete 663. summer 2010. shaly formation issues ... well log effects - 1](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022013107/5ab7ab3e7f8b9ad3038be501/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
SILICATE TETRAHEDRON SILICATE
MINERALS
Modified from Grim, 1968
SiO2
• Silicates are the most abundantminerals
• Basic building block is thesilicate tetrahedron (SiO4)
Si+ 4 O- 2,Oblique View
Map View
![Page 13: FORMATION EVALUATION PETE 663 - TAMU · PDF fileformation evaluation pete 663. summer 2010. shaly formation issues ... well log effects - 1](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022013107/5ab7ab3e7f8b9ad3038be501/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
MONTMORILLONITE STRUCTURE
9.7 – 17.2
n – H2O & Mg, Na, Ca
n– H2O & Mg, Na, CaModified from Halliburton, EL-1007
![Page 14: FORMATION EVALUATION PETE 663 - TAMU · PDF fileformation evaluation pete 663. summer 2010. shaly formation issues ... well log effects - 1](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022013107/5ab7ab3e7f8b9ad3038be501/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Montmorillonite
![Page 15: FORMATION EVALUATION PETE 663 - TAMU · PDF fileformation evaluation pete 663. summer 2010. shaly formation issues ... well log effects - 1](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022013107/5ab7ab3e7f8b9ad3038be501/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
From Grim, 1968
MUSCOVITESTRUCTURE
(Similar to Illite)
Electrical CurrentAluminum replacessilicon
• Mobile cations; • Includes Helmholtz
Planes
![Page 17: FORMATION EVALUATION PETE 663 - TAMU · PDF fileformation evaluation pete 663. summer 2010. shaly formation issues ... well log effects - 1](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022013107/5ab7ab3e7f8b9ad3038be501/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
WHAT IS SHALE?
• Clay + silt + other• Clays
– Plate-like form– Large surface area– Contain Al+3 and
Si+4
– Substitution by Mg+2
– Negative charge results
– Attraction by water and cations
AbsorbedWater
HydrationWater
Sodium Ion
Water
SchematicWater
MoleculeOuterHelmholtz
Plane
xH
ClayCrystal
![Page 18: FORMATION EVALUATION PETE 663 - TAMU · PDF fileformation evaluation pete 663. summer 2010. shaly formation issues ... well log effects - 1](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022013107/5ab7ab3e7f8b9ad3038be501/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
DIFFERENT MODELS OF DIFFUSE LAYER
AbsorbedWater
HydrationWater
Sodium Ion
xH
ClayCrystal
H+
H+O
SalineWater
Na+
Cl-
0 Xd
Distance FromClay Surface
Ionic ConcentrationIn NaCl Solution
)(106.3n
X d =
Gouy profile of diffuse layer,
thickness
increases as salinity decreases.
Model of exclusion layer(Helmholtz Plane)sodium ionsexcluded from surface layer bydielectric properties of water
SalineWater
(XH / 6.18 A)
ClayCrystal
![Page 19: FORMATION EVALUATION PETE 663 - TAMU · PDF fileformation evaluation pete 663. summer 2010. shaly formation issues ... well log effects - 1](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022013107/5ab7ab3e7f8b9ad3038be501/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
SPECIFIC SURFACE AREAS OF SOME MINERALS
Mineral Ft^2/ft^3
Sand 4.3-8.7 thousand
Kaolinite 15.2 million
Illite 85.4 million
Montmorollinite 274 million
• Clays have extremely large surface areas
• Surface area varies greatly among clay minerals
![Page 20: FORMATION EVALUATION PETE 663 - TAMU · PDF fileformation evaluation pete 663. summer 2010. shaly formation issues ... well log effects - 1](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022013107/5ab7ab3e7f8b9ad3038be501/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
SURFACE AREA vs CEC
![Page 21: FORMATION EVALUATION PETE 663 - TAMU · PDF fileformation evaluation pete 663. summer 2010. shaly formation issues ... well log effects - 1](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022013107/5ab7ab3e7f8b9ad3038be501/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
WATER SATURATION –SHALY SANDS
![Page 22: FORMATION EVALUATION PETE 663 - TAMU · PDF fileformation evaluation pete 663. summer 2010. shaly formation issues ... well log effects - 1](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022013107/5ab7ab3e7f8b9ad3038be501/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
• Shales/clays have several origins and forms• Vshale
– Estimation– Assumptions– Log responses
• Shales/clays affect formation– Permeability– Porosity
• Shales conduct electricity– Problems with Archie-based methods– Rwa problem– Sw errors
Shaly Formation Issues –Water Saturation
![Page 23: FORMATION EVALUATION PETE 663 - TAMU · PDF fileformation evaluation pete 663. summer 2010. shaly formation issues ... well log effects - 1](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022013107/5ab7ab3e7f8b9ad3038be501/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
WATER SATURATION EQUATIONS
• Many different water saturation equationshave been developed
• Archie’s model for a clean formation is:
• All other models are for shaly formationswhere the rock is not a perfect insulator
t
wnw R
RFS =
![Page 24: FORMATION EVALUATION PETE 663 - TAMU · PDF fileformation evaluation pete 663. summer 2010. shaly formation issues ... well log effects - 1](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022013107/5ab7ab3e7f8b9ad3038be501/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
XF
CC wo +=
shaleWith
The factor X is the excess conductivity caused by the fact that the clays and shales are conductors of current
wC
oCF1
X
![Page 25: FORMATION EVALUATION PETE 663 - TAMU · PDF fileformation evaluation pete 663. summer 2010. shaly formation issues ... well log effects - 1](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022013107/5ab7ab3e7f8b9ad3038be501/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Commonly used formulas to account forshale:
“Vsh” Models– Simandeaux (better with saline fm water)
– Indonesia (developed for fresher fm water)
“Double-layer” model (Attempt to avoid using Vsh)
– Waxman-Smits
– Dual water
![Page 26: FORMATION EVALUATION PETE 663 - TAMU · PDF fileformation evaluation pete 663. summer 2010. shaly formation issues ... well log effects - 1](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022013107/5ab7ab3e7f8b9ad3038be501/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
CO vs CW in Shaly and Clean Sands
Slope = 1 / F
CO
CW
Non-LinearRegion
LinearRegion
(IndonesianEquation)
(Simandoux Equation)
Modified from Halliburton, EL-1007
![Page 27: FORMATION EVALUATION PETE 663 - TAMU · PDF fileformation evaluation pete 663. summer 2010. shaly formation issues ... well log effects - 1](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022013107/5ab7ab3e7f8b9ad3038be501/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
CW
CW
CO
Clean Sand, F = aφ-m
Cw/Co Variation with Cw and Vcl
Modified from Halliburton, EL-1007
![Page 28: FORMATION EVALUATION PETE 663 - TAMU · PDF fileformation evaluation pete 663. summer 2010. shaly formation issues ... well log effects - 1](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022013107/5ab7ab3e7f8b9ad3038be501/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
• Archienw
me
wt SA
CC φ=
( ) shshnw
sh
nw
mew
t CVSVASCC 1
1−+
−=
φ• Simandeaux (better with saline water)
– All Vsh models are similar: total C = clean C + shale C
• Indonesia (better with fresh water)
2/)2/(12/ nwsh
Vsh
nw
wt SCVS
FCC sh−+=
![Page 29: FORMATION EVALUATION PETE 663 - TAMU · PDF fileformation evaluation pete 663. summer 2010. shaly formation issues ... well log effects - 1](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022013107/5ab7ab3e7f8b9ad3038be501/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Waxman-Smits model
Where:
Note independent conduction paths by free water and bound water
nwt
mt
wt SA
CC φ'=
wt
vww S
QBCC +='
![Page 30: FORMATION EVALUATION PETE 663 - TAMU · PDF fileformation evaluation pete 663. summer 2010. shaly formation issues ... well log effects - 1](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022013107/5ab7ab3e7f8b9ad3038be501/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
New terms– BQV: conductivity of bound water– QV: cation exchange capacity (meq/gm dry clay)
• 1 meq = 6E20 atoms• measures how many cations are present• different clays have different CEC’s
– kaolinite 0.03 to 0.06– chlorite 0 to 0.1– illite 0.1 to 0.4– montmorillonite 0.8 to 1.5
– B is: specific counterion conductivity (mho/m per meq/cc)
• Counterions are the charge-balancing Na cations• B is a per unit measure• Measures how effectively cations conduct electricity
![Page 31: FORMATION EVALUATION PETE 663 - TAMU · PDF fileformation evaluation pete 663. summer 2010. shaly formation issues ... well log effects - 1](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022013107/5ab7ab3e7f8b9ad3038be501/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Waxman-Smits Swt obtained by iteration
where Swt0 is the initial guess, Swt1 is the next guess, etc., and
Note: Rw in B equation is at 75°F.
( )
n
wtvw
twt
i
iSBQ
R
RF
S
1
11
⎥⎥⎥⎥
⎦
⎤
⎢⎢⎢⎢
⎣
⎡
+
⎟⎟⎠
⎞⎜⎜⎝
⎛
=+
( )[ ] max5.083.01 BeB
AF
wR
mt
−−=
=φ
![Page 32: FORMATION EVALUATION PETE 663 - TAMU · PDF fileformation evaluation pete 663. summer 2010. shaly formation issues ... well log effects - 1](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022013107/5ab7ab3e7f8b9ad3038be501/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Maximum Equivalent Conductance of Sodium-Exchange Ions, λNA′ or Bmax vs Temperature
020 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Temperature, °C
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
λ°N
Aor
Bm
ax, m
ho -
cm-2
mca
-1
![Page 33: FORMATION EVALUATION PETE 663 - TAMU · PDF fileformation evaluation pete 663. summer 2010. shaly formation issues ... well log effects - 1](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022013107/5ab7ab3e7f8b9ad3038be501/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
• Graphing values of Bmax vs. temperature(°R and/or °F) on various types of graphpaper, one finds that Bmax vs. log (T°R) ismore or less linear:
( ) 2.317ln)31.51(max −°= RTB
![Page 34: FORMATION EVALUATION PETE 663 - TAMU · PDF fileformation evaluation pete 663. summer 2010. shaly formation issues ... well log effects - 1](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022013107/5ab7ab3e7f8b9ad3038be501/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
• Approximate values for Qv are:
Very shaly Qv = 1.5Moderate shale Qv = 1.0Medium shale Qv = 0.5Low shale Qv = 0.25No shale Qv = 0
• CEC or Qv should, however, be lab measured
• Qv may correlate with logs (e.g., GR)
![Page 35: FORMATION EVALUATION PETE 663 - TAMU · PDF fileformation evaluation pete 663. summer 2010. shaly formation issues ... well log effects - 1](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022013107/5ab7ab3e7f8b9ad3038be501/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
• Dual water model
where
The dual-water model is a more general form of the Waxman-Smits model.
– The “free water” salinity can be different than the salinity of the “claybound” water.
– To determine Sw, use iterative method, like W-S
nwt
mt
wt SA
CC φ″=
wfwt
bwb
wt
bw C
SSC
SSC ⎟⎟
⎠
⎞⎜⎜⎝
⎛−+=″ 1
![Page 36: FORMATION EVALUATION PETE 663 - TAMU · PDF fileformation evaluation pete 663. summer 2010. shaly formation issues ... well log effects - 1](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022013107/5ab7ab3e7f8b9ad3038be501/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
The Cotton Grove is identified as the interval from 6542’ to 6620’. Sample shows calcareous shaly sandstone. Calculate Sw at 6566 and 6680 ft.
Conventional Analysis
Rw = 0.05 @ Tf
F = 0.81/ф2
Rmf = 0.47@Tf
ρρρρ
φ−
−=
ma fl
ma bD
2
22ND
eφφφ +=
ρf = 1.0 gm/cc
ρma = 2.68 gm/cc
Case study 1. Pennsylvanian Cottage Grove Sandstone
Shaly sand
![Page 37: FORMATION EVALUATION PETE 663 - TAMU · PDF fileformation evaluation pete 663. summer 2010. shaly formation issues ... well log effects - 1](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022013107/5ab7ab3e7f8b9ad3038be501/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
At depths 6566’ and 6580’
6566’
6680’
![Page 38: FORMATION EVALUATION PETE 663 - TAMU · PDF fileformation evaluation pete 663. summer 2010. shaly formation issues ... well log effects - 1](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022013107/5ab7ab3e7f8b9ad3038be501/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Depth φd φn φxp ρb φd Sw 6566 .135 .145 .14 2.47 .125 0.66 6580 .15 .145 .14 2.45 .137 0.61
• Conventional Analysis (Archie’s method)
gives the results below
• Sw Results are high (60%), which could
make one cautious about developing the well
Calculate Sw at 6566 and 6680 ft.
![Page 39: FORMATION EVALUATION PETE 663 - TAMU · PDF fileformation evaluation pete 663. summer 2010. shaly formation issues ... well log effects - 1](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022013107/5ab7ab3e7f8b9ad3038be501/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
shshappcorr V φφφ −=
2
22NcorrDcorr
corrφφφ +=
ρρρρ
φ−
−=
ma fl
ma bD
MINMAX
MINSH GRGR
GRGRI−
−= )12(33.0 *2 −= shI
shV
Shaly Sand Analysis -Steps
1.
2.
3.
4.
⎥⎥⎦
⎤
⎢⎢⎣
⎡⎟⎟⎠
⎞⎜⎜⎝
⎛−
⎥⎥⎦
⎤
⎢⎢⎣
⎡⎟⎟⎠
⎞⎜⎜⎝
⎛+=
SH
SH
SH
SH
tw
e
e
wwe R
VRV
RRRS
22
2 **5*4.0 φ
φ5.
Simandoux Equation
![Page 40: FORMATION EVALUATION PETE 663 - TAMU · PDF fileformation evaluation pete 663. summer 2010. shaly formation issues ... well log effects - 1](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022013107/5ab7ab3e7f8b9ad3038be501/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
Using Simandoux Equation for shaly sand analysis we have:
Depth φd ρb GR IGR Vcl
6566 .125 2.47 45 0.33 0.196580 .137 2.45 45 0.33 0.19
Depth φnc φdc φe Swe 6566 0.092 .119 .106 0.51 6580 .067 .135 .107 0.45
Comparison of Sw values:
with shaly sand analysis Sw = 0.45 - 0.51
without shaly sand analysis Sw = 0.61 – 0.66
![Page 41: FORMATION EVALUATION PETE 663 - TAMU · PDF fileformation evaluation pete 663. summer 2010. shaly formation issues ... well log effects - 1](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022013107/5ab7ab3e7f8b9ad3038be501/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Case Study 2. Permian Basin, Spraberry Sandstone, Midland Basin
Deep Spraberry sandstone was encountered at a depth of 7720’ to 7750’.
The formation is not very clean, as is evident from the log sandstone
![Page 42: FORMATION EVALUATION PETE 663 - TAMU · PDF fileformation evaluation pete 663. summer 2010. shaly formation issues ... well log effects - 1](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022013107/5ab7ab3e7f8b9ad3038be501/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
Log Analysis of Depths 7724’,7732’,7738’
7724’
7238’7732’
![Page 43: FORMATION EVALUATION PETE 663 - TAMU · PDF fileformation evaluation pete 663. summer 2010. shaly formation issues ... well log effects - 1](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022013107/5ab7ab3e7f8b9ad3038be501/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
Conventional log analysis produced the following results:
ρ f = 1.0 gm/cc
ρ ma = 2.68 gm/cc
Depth φd φn φxp ρb φd Rt Sw 7724 0.18 0.22 0.20 2.39 0.17 2.6 0.66 7732 0.23 0.23 0.23 2.32 0.21 2.9 0.50 7738 0.24 0.25 0.245 2.30 0.23 2.0 0.55
The saturations obtained are 0.50 to 0.66, which is fairly high
![Page 44: FORMATION EVALUATION PETE 663 - TAMU · PDF fileformation evaluation pete 663. summer 2010. shaly formation issues ... well log effects - 1](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022013107/5ab7ab3e7f8b9ad3038be501/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
Shaly sand analysis produced the following:Depth ρb φd GRLOG IGR VSH
7724 2.39 0.17 75 0.48 0.317732 2.32 0.21 68 0.42 0.267738 2.30 0.23 65 0.39 0.24 Depth φnc φdc φe Swe 7724 0.136 0.127 0.132 0.477 7732 0.160 0.186 0.173 0.383 7738 0.185 0.199 0.192 0.459
Comparison of saturation values:
Without shaly sand analysis - range 0.50 - 0.66
With shaly sand analysis - range 0.38 - 0.48
![Page 45: FORMATION EVALUATION PETE 663 - TAMU · PDF fileformation evaluation pete 663. summer 2010. shaly formation issues ... well log effects - 1](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022013107/5ab7ab3e7f8b9ad3038be501/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
Detection of Secondary Porosity
![Page 46: FORMATION EVALUATION PETE 663 - TAMU · PDF fileformation evaluation pete 663. summer 2010. shaly formation issues ... well log effects - 1](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022013107/5ab7ab3e7f8b9ad3038be501/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
Vertical, Mineralized Fracture: 1U Payzone Shackelford 1-38A
![Page 47: FORMATION EVALUATION PETE 663 - TAMU · PDF fileformation evaluation pete 663. summer 2010. shaly formation issues ... well log effects - 1](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022013107/5ab7ab3e7f8b9ad3038be501/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
Mineralized Fracture: 1U Payzone Shackelford 1-38A
![Page 48: FORMATION EVALUATION PETE 663 - TAMU · PDF fileformation evaluation pete 663. summer 2010. shaly formation issues ... well log effects - 1](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022013107/5ab7ab3e7f8b9ad3038be501/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
Shackelford 1-38A (1-U in the Upper Spraberry) water saturation with different m & n compared with measured water saturation from whole core analysis. Sharp contrast between pay and non-pay is observed, by fluorescence, at a
depth of 7092 ft.
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
7083 7084 7085 7086 7087 7088 7089 7090 7091 7092 7093 7094 7095 7096Depth, ft.
Wat
er s
atur
atio
n (S
w)
Pay Non-pay
Sw (a=1, m=1.66, n=1.46)
Sw (a=0.81, m=2, n=2)
Sw (core)
![Page 49: FORMATION EVALUATION PETE 663 - TAMU · PDF fileformation evaluation pete 663. summer 2010. shaly formation issues ... well log effects - 1](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022013107/5ab7ab3e7f8b9ad3038be501/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
Fractured Zone Identification
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
7083 7084 7085 7086 7087 7088 7089 7090 7091 7092 7093 7094 7095 7096Depth, ft.
Poro
sity
Fractured Zone (pay) Non-fractured zone (Non-pay)
Porosity (neutron)
Porosity (sonic)Porosity (core)
![Page 50: FORMATION EVALUATION PETE 663 - TAMU · PDF fileformation evaluation pete 663. summer 2010. shaly formation issues ... well log effects - 1](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022013107/5ab7ab3e7f8b9ad3038be501/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
Fracture Detection
![Page 51: FORMATION EVALUATION PETE 663 - TAMU · PDF fileformation evaluation pete 663. summer 2010. shaly formation issues ... well log effects - 1](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022013107/5ab7ab3e7f8b9ad3038be501/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
Sponge Core -5U Zone O’Daniel #37
![Page 52: FORMATION EVALUATION PETE 663 - TAMU · PDF fileformation evaluation pete 663. summer 2010. shaly formation issues ... well log effects - 1](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022013107/5ab7ab3e7f8b9ad3038be501/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
FMIO’Daniel #37 5U Zone
![Page 53: FORMATION EVALUATION PETE 663 - TAMU · PDF fileformation evaluation pete 663. summer 2010. shaly formation issues ... well log effects - 1](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022013107/5ab7ab3e7f8b9ad3038be501/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
Detection of Secondary Porosity
![Page 54: FORMATION EVALUATION PETE 663 - TAMU · PDF fileformation evaluation pete 663. summer 2010. shaly formation issues ... well log effects - 1](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022013107/5ab7ab3e7f8b9ad3038be501/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
SHALY SAND ANALYSIS - INDONESIA EQUATIONWELL “X” EXAMPLE
![Page 55: FORMATION EVALUATION PETE 663 - TAMU · PDF fileformation evaluation pete 663. summer 2010. shaly formation issues ... well log effects - 1](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022013107/5ab7ab3e7f8b9ad3038be501/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
• Shale layer : 0 - 12 feet
• Clean layer: Approx from 190 – 220 feet
• Required : Water saturation at 225 feet and 47 feet using the Indonesia equation
• The matrix is sandstone
WELL “X” EXAMPLE
![Page 56: FORMATION EVALUATION PETE 663 - TAMU · PDF fileformation evaluation pete 663. summer 2010. shaly formation issues ... well log effects - 1](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022013107/5ab7ab3e7f8b9ad3038be501/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
2/)2/(12/ nwsh
Vsh
nw
wt SCVS
FCC sh−+=
INDONESIA EQUATION
![Page 57: FORMATION EVALUATION PETE 663 - TAMU · PDF fileformation evaluation pete 663. summer 2010. shaly formation issues ... well log effects - 1](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022013107/5ab7ab3e7f8b9ad3038be501/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
Porosity Estimation Using Vsh – 1
shshappcorr V φφφ −=
• Effective porosity = φcorr
• Apparent porosity, matrix adjusted = φapp
• Apparent porosity in shale = φsh
• Example...
![Page 58: FORMATION EVALUATION PETE 663 - TAMU · PDF fileformation evaluation pete 663. summer 2010. shaly formation issues ... well log effects - 1](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022013107/5ab7ab3e7f8b9ad3038be501/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
Depth Rhob ØD ØNLS ØNSS GR Vsh ØD
(corr)ØN
(corr)Rt Sw
010 2.39 15.5 37.5 41.5 88 100 - - 2.7 -
225 2.27 23 23 27.5 20 12.8 20 19.6 0.5 0.95
047 2.17 29 24 28 20 12.8 26.2 20.5 30 0.1
SHALY SAND ANALYSIS - INDONESIA EQUATION
WELL “X” EXAMPLE
![Page 59: FORMATION EVALUATION PETE 663 - TAMU · PDF fileformation evaluation pete 663. summer 2010. shaly formation issues ... well log effects - 1](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022013107/5ab7ab3e7f8b9ad3038be501/html5/thumbnails/59.jpg)
SHALY SAND ANALYSIS - INDONESIA EQUATION
Depth ρb φD φNLS φNSS CGR VSH φD corr φN corr Rt Sw
010 2.39 15.5 37.5 41.5 88 100% 2.7225 2.27 23.0 23 27.5 20 19% 20.0 19.6 0.5 0.95047 2.17 29.0 24.0 28.0 20 19% 26.2 20.5 30 0.10
WELL “X” EXAMPLE
![Page 60: FORMATION EVALUATION PETE 663 - TAMU · PDF fileformation evaluation pete 663. summer 2010. shaly formation issues ... well log effects - 1](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022013107/5ab7ab3e7f8b9ad3038be501/html5/thumbnails/60.jpg)
• New terms– W-S and Dual Water models depend
on CEC
– Without CEC, have to use nearby shale
• Sb - bound water saturation– Sb = f(CEC, Cwf)
– Sb = Vshφsh/φt
• Cwb- bound water conductivity– Cwb = g(CEC, Sb)
![Page 61: FORMATION EVALUATION PETE 663 - TAMU · PDF fileformation evaluation pete 663. summer 2010. shaly formation issues ... well log effects - 1](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022013107/5ab7ab3e7f8b9ad3038be501/html5/thumbnails/61.jpg)
• Clays are conductive – complex resistivity responses, Sw determination
• Two types of Sw models for shaly sand
– Vsh models (e.g., Simandeaux)
– Double-layer models
• Vsh models– Empirical
– Assume shale properties same as nearby shale
– All shales have same effect
• Double-layer models– Do not use Vsh
– Use electrical properties of clays (CEC)
SUMMARY