Auditorium worksession 10 October
Objective: Review set of reservoir logs following guidelines shown below. Be able to
identify the permeable zones, their fluid content and hydrocarbon saturation.
Workflow
Data availability
Permeable beds
Lithology
Fluid type
Porosity
Water resistivity
Water saturation
This presentation will step through
these 7 seven stages look out for
the Workflow Summary shown
below, indicating the stage being
discussed.
Workflow
Data availability,
Permeable beds,
Lithology
Fluid type
Porosity
Water resistivity
Water saturation
B a s a l Q u a r t z N o .1
Rmf = 0.6 ohm m at 150 degC
D EPTH
FT
0 6 /2 8 /2 0 0 2 1 0 :0 2 :0 6 A M
G R ( G A P I)
0 .
IL D ( O H M M )
1 5 0 .
0 .2
C A L I ( IN )
6 .
5 4 0 0
5 5 0 0
5 6 0 0
-2 0 0 .
0 .4 5
IL M ( O H M M )
1 6 .
0 .2
S P (M V )
1 :5 0 0
P H ID ( V / V )
2 0 0 0 .
2 0 0 0 .
S FL (O H M M )
0 .
0 .2
- 0 .1 5
P H IN S S ( V / V )
2 0 0 0 .
0 .4 5
- 0 .1 5
B a s a l Q u a r t z N o .1
Rmf = 0.6 ohm m at 150 degC
D EPTH
FT
0 6 /2 8 /2 0 0 2 1 0 :0 2 :0 6 A M
G R ( G A P I)
0 .
IL D ( O H M M )
1 5 0 .
0 .2
C A L I ( IN )
6 .
1 6 .
5 4 0 0
-2 0 0 .
0 .2
2 0 0 0 .
0 .2
Understand the data provided.
Deep resistivity (for Rt) , and SFL
(which can be used as an Rxo).
Understand the data provided.
5 6 0 0
- 0 .1 5
P H IN S S ( V / V )
0 .4 5
- 0 .1 5
S FL (O H M M )
0 .
5 5 0 0 and GR all obvious.
SP, CALI
No bit size.
0 .4 5
IL M ( O H M M )
S P (M V )
1 :5 0 0
P H ID ( V / V )
2 0 0 0 .
2 0 0 0 .
Understand the data provided.
This composite log assumes
formation is sandstone, and density
and neutron logs are displayed as
porosity, using the standard
transforms from log readings to
porosity.
PHID Density porosity, (assuming
sandstone matrix, and water fluid)
PHIN SS Neutron porosity corrected
for sandstone
Note: no Pef, but we know from
external information that formation is
sandstone.
B a s a l Q u a r t z N o .1
Rmf = 0.6 ohm m at 150 degC
D EPTH
FT
0 6 /2 8 /2 0 0 2 1 0 :0 2 :0 6 A M
G R ( G A P I)
0 .
IL D ( O H M M )
1 5 0 .
0 .2
C A L I ( IN )
6 .
1 6 .
5 4 0 0
5 5 0 0
5 6 0 0
-2 0 0 .
0 .2
- 0 .1 5
P H IN S S ( V / V )
2 0 0 0 .
0 .4 5
S FL (O H M M )
0 .
0 .2
Workflow
0 .4 5
IL M ( O H M M )
S P (M V )
1 :5 0 0
P H ID ( V / V )
2 0 0 0 .
Data availability,
Permeable beds,
Lithology
Fluid type
Porosity
Water resistivity
Water saturation
2 0 0 0 .
All log curves identified?
Yes
Are these logs useable (no washouts?) Yes
Do we have Rmf information
Yes
Other wireline or LWD logs
No
Mud log (should exist, but not available)
Core data
No
- 0 .1 5
B a s a l Q u a r t z N o .1
0 6 /2 8 /2 0 0 2 1 0 :0 2 :0 6 A M
D EPTH
FT
G R ( G A P I)
0 .
IL D ( O H M M )
1 5 0 .
0 .2
C A L I ( IN )
6 .
1 6 .
5 4 0 0
5 5 0 0
5 6 0 0
-2 0 0 .
0 .2
- 0 .1 5
P H IN S S ( V / V )
2 0 0 0 .
0 .4 5
S FL (O H M M )
0 .
0 .2
Workflow
0 .4 5
IL M ( O H M M )
S P (M V )
1 :5 0 0
P H ID ( V / V )
2 0 0 0 .
Data availability,
Permeable beds,
Lithology
Fluid type
Porosity
Water resistivity
Water saturation
2 0 0 0 .
Look for evidence of permeable beds
mudcake
separation of Rxo and Rt
SP deflection
low gamma ray, combined with good
porosity
density-neutron reading similar porosity
- 0 .1 5
B a s a l Q u a r t z N o .1
0 6 /2 8 /2 0 0 2 1 0 :0 2 :0 6 A M
D EPTH
FT
G R ( G A P I)
0 .
Possible
mudcake
C A L I ( IN )
6 .
SP deflection
S P (M V )
1 :5 0 0
-2 0 0 .
low gamma ray,
combined with good
porosity
IL D ( O H M M )
1 5 0 .
0 .2
P H ID ( V / V )
2 0 0 0 .
0 .4 5
IL M ( O H M M )
1 6 .
0 .2
2 0 0 0 .
0 .4 5
0 .
0 .2
2 0 0 0 .
density-neutron
reading similar
porosity
Separation of
Rxo and Rt
Workflow
5 6 0 0
- 0 .1 5
S FL (O H M M )
5 4 0 0
5 5 0 0
- 0 .1 5
P H IN S S ( V / V )
Data availability,
Permeable beds,
Lithology
Fluid type
Porosity
Water resistivity
Water saturation
B a s a l Q u a r t z N o .1
0 6 /2 8 /2 0 0 2 1 0 :0 2 :0 6 A M
D EPTH
FT
G R ( G A P I)
0 .
IL D ( O H M M )
1 5 0 .
0 .2
C A L I ( IN )
6 .
1 6 .
5 4 0 0
5 5 0 0
5 6 0 0
-2 0 0 .
0 .4 5
IL M ( O H M M )
0 .2
S P (M V )
1 :5 0 0
P H ID ( V / V )
2 0 0 0 .
- 0 .1 5
P H IN S S ( V / V )
2 0 0 0 .
0 .4 5
- 0 .1 5
S FL (O H M M )
0 .
0 .2
2 0 0 0 .
Workflow
We know from external information that any
permeable reservoir rock is sandstone.
Briefly try identify if there is more than one type
of nonreservoir rock as this may help to
identify rock that was initially thought to be nonpermeable, but is actually permeable (for
example a micaceous sand, although these are
not seen in this well).
Data availability,
Permeable beds,
Lithology
Fluid type
Porosity
Water resistivity
Water saturation
Workflow
B a s a l Q u a r t z N o .1
0 6 /2 8 /2 0 0 2 1 0 :0 2 :0 6 A M
D EPTH
FT
G R ( G A P I)
0 .
C A L I ( IN )
6 .
S P (M V )
1 :5 0 0
-2 0 0 .
Data availability,
1 5 0 . 0 .2
Permeable beds,
6 . 0 .2
1Lithology
0 . 0type
.2
Fluid
Porosity
Water resistivity
Water saturation
IL D ( O H M M )
P H ID ( V / V )
2 0 0 0 .
0 .4 5
IL M ( O H M M )
- 0 .1 5
P H IN S S ( V / V )
2 0 0 0 .
0 .4 5
S FL (O H M M )
2 0 0 0 .
5 4 0 0
Sand, (low GR, SP on clean baseline,
some separation on resistivity, densityneutron porosities similar)
Shale type 1 (overlay of resistivity, high GR,
SP on shale baseline, neutron porosity
>>neutron porosity)
5 5 0 0
Shale type 3
Shale type 2
5 6 0 0
- 0 .1 5
B a s a l Q u a r t z N o .1
0 6 /2 8 /2 0 0 2 1 0 :0 2 :0 6 A M
D EPTH
FT
G R ( G A P I)
0 .
IL D ( O H M M )
1 5 0 .
0 .2
C A L I ( IN )
6 .
1 6 .
-2 0 0 .
5 4 0 0
Workflow
5 5 0 0
Data availability,
Permeable beds,
Lithology
Fluid type
Porosity
Water resistivity
Water saturation
0 .4 5
IL M ( O H M M )
0 .2
S P (M V )
1 :5 0 0
P H ID ( V / V )
2 0 0 0 .
- 0 .1 5
P H IN S S ( V / V )
2 0 0 0 .
0 .4 5
0 .
0 .2
2 0 0 0 .
If we see a large variation in deep resistivity in
permeable formations of similar porosity, we can
reasonably expect that:
High resistivity likely hydrocarbon
Low resistivity likely water
Likewise if we see a large change in the separation
between the Rt (deep) and Rxo (shallow) resistivity
logs, we should expect hydrocarbon where the Rt/Rxo
ratio is higher, and water where the ratio is lower.
Finally if in hydrocarbon zones we see a large
increase in separation between density and neutron
log (with density to left of neutron) with no obvious
change in lithology, we should suspect a gas-oil
contact.
5 6 0 0
- 0 .1 5
S FL (O H M M )
Workflow
B a s a l Q u a r t z N o .1
0 6 /2 8 /2 0 0 2 1 0 :0 2 :0 6 A M
D EPTH
FT
G R ( G A P I)
0 .
C A L I ( IN )
6 .
S P (M V )
1 :5 0 0
-2 0 0 .
Data availability,
1 5 0 . 0 .2
Permeable beds,
6 . 0 .2
1Lithology
0 . 0type
.2
Fluid
Porosity
Water resistivity
Water saturation
IL D ( O H M M )
P H ID ( V / V )
2 0 0 0 .
IL M ( O H M M )
S FL (O H M M )
0 .4 5
- 0 .1 5
P H IN S Sseen
( V / V ) in
Low2 0and
high resistivity
0 0 . 0 .4 5
- 0 .1 5
2 0 0 0 .
permeable
zones of constant porosity,
so hydrocarbon likely present in high
resistivity zone, and water in low
resistivity zone.
5 4 0 0
Change in Rt/Rxo separation, so
hydrocarbon likely present in
high resistivity zone, and water
5 5 0 0
in low resistivity zone.
Possible
hydrocarbon zone
Possible water zone
5 6 0 0
10
B a s a l Q u a r t z N o .1
0 6 /2 8 /2 0 0 2 1 0 :0 2 :0 6 A M
D EPTH
FT
G R ( G A P I)
0 .
IL D ( O H M M )
1 5 0 .
0 .2
C A L I ( IN )
6 .
1 6 .
-2 0 0 .
0 .4 5
IL M ( O H M M )
0 .2
S P (M V )
1 :5 0 0
P H ID ( V / V )
2 0 0 0 .
- 0 .1 5
P H IN S S ( V / V )
2 0 0 0 .
0 .4 5
- 0 .1 5
S FL (O H M M )
0 .
0 .2
2 0 0 0 .
Here individual porosities from density
and neutron are provided.
5 4 0 0
5 5 0 0
5 6 0 0
11
Workflow
Data availability,
Permeable beds,
Lithology
Fluid type
Porosity
Water resistivity
Water saturation
Normally you will need to determine
porosity yourself, using density,
neutron and/or sonic using the usual
methods. In sandstones the density
porosity is usually the best porosity to
choose.
To help in situations of hydrocarbon, or
complex lithology, ideally use a densityneutron crossplot, with appropriate gas
correction if needed, or constant
porosity lines between two lithologies
if both present.
B a s a l Q u a r t z N o .1
0 6 /2 8 /2 0 0 2 1 0 :0 2 :0 6 A M
D EPTH
FT
G R ( G A P I)
0 .
IL D ( O H M M )
1 5 0 .
0 .2
C A L I ( IN )
6 .
1 6 .
5 4 0 0
5 5 0 0
5 6 0 0
12
-2 0 0 .
0 .2
- 0 .1 5
P H IN S S ( V / V )
2 0 0 0 .
0 .4 5
- 0 .1 5
S FL (O H M M )
0 .
Workflow
0 .4 5
IL M ( O H M M )
S P (M V )
1 :5 0 0
P H ID ( V / V )
2 0 0 0 .
Data availability,
Permeable beds,
Lithology
Fluid type
Porosity
Water resistivity
Water saturation
0 .2
2 0 0 0 .
Determining Rw is the most critical part
of most interpretations.
The first stage is to identify a water
zone. Using the process shown earlier
in the Fluid type section, identify the
likely water bearing zones.
If the porosity is constant in all these
zones, choose the lowest resistivity
zone to represent the water zone.
B a s a l Q u a r t z N o .1
0 6 /2 8 /2 0 0 2 1 0 :0 2 :0 6 A M
D EPTH
FT
G R ( G A P I)
0 .
IL D ( O H M M )
1 5 0 .
0 .2
C A L I ( IN )
6 .
1 6 .
5 4 0 0
5 5 0 0
5 6 0 0
13
-2 0 0 .
0 .2
- 0 .1 5
P H IN S S ( V / V )
2 0 0 0 .
0 .4 5
- 0 .1 5
S FL (O H M M )
0 .
Workflow
0 .4 5
IL M ( O H M M )
S P (M V )
1 :5 0 0
P H ID ( V / V )
2 0 0 0 .
Data availability,
Permeable beds,
Lithology
Fluid type
Porosity
Water resistivity
Water saturation
0 .2
2 0 0 0 .
Determining Rw is the most critical part
of most interpretations.
The first stage is to identify a water
zone. Using the process shown earlier
in the Fluid type section, identify the
likely water bearing zones.
If the porosity is constant in all these
zones, choose the lowest resistivity
zone to represent the water zone.
Workflow
B a s a l Q u a r t z N o .1
0 6 /2 8 /2 0 0 2 1 0 :0 2 :0 6 A M
D EPTH
FT
G R ( G A P I)
0 .
C A L I ( IN )
6 .
S P (M V )
1 :5 0 0
-2 0 0 .
Data availability,
1 5 0 . 0 .2
Permeable beds,
6 . 0 .2
1Lithology
0 . 0type
.2
Fluid
Porosity
Water resistivity
Water saturation
IL D ( O H M M )
P H ID ( V / V )
2 0 0 0 .
0 .4 5
IL M ( O H M M )
- 0 .1 5
P H IN S S ( V / V )
2 0 0 0 .
0 .4 5
- 0 .1 5
S FL (O H M M )
2 0 0 0 .
Chosen water zone
5 4 0 0
Here are the possible water zones identified earlier.
If you assume Rw is constant over such a short interval, the most representative water zone is
5 5 0 0
the one with the lowest resistivity, particularly if the porosity is fairly similar in all zones.
If it is not too obvious which is the best water zone, you may have to compute Rw in all the
zones, and choose the lowest value to use for further evaluation (i.e. saturation computation).
Here the zone at 5437 is chosen to represent a good water zone. (lowest resistivity zone)
5 6 0 0
14
Workflow
B a s a l Q u a r t z N o .1
0 6 /2 8 /2 0 0 2 1 0 :0 2 :0 6 A M
D EPTH
FT
G R ( G A P I)
0 .
C A L I ( IN )
6 .
S P (M V )
1 :5 0 0
-2 0 0 .
Data availability,
1 5 0 . 0 .2
Permeable beds,
6 . 0 .2
1Lithology
0 . 0type
.2
Fluid
Porosity
Water resistivity
Water saturation
IL D ( O H M M )
P H ID ( V / V )
2 0 0 0 .
0 .4 5
IL M ( O H M M )
- 0 .1 5
P H IN S S ( V / V )
2 0 0 0 .
0 .4 5
- 0 .1 5
S FL (O H M M )
2 0 0 0 .
Chosen water zone
5 4 0 0
5 5 0 0
There are 3 independent methods available to determine Rw at this depth:
Solve Archie equation with Sw=1
Solve Resistivity ratio equation, as we know Rmf (mud filtrate salinity)
Use the SP, as we know Rmf at reservoir temperature.
5 6 0 0
15
Rw Determination using Archie Equation
Sw = n
a Rw
Rt
When Sw = 100% and if a = 0.8 in
sandstones
m
Rt
Rw =
0.8
Rw from Archie
Induction Principles
B a s a l Q u a r tz N o .1
0 6 /2 8 /2 0 0 2 1 0 :0 2 :0 6 A M
D EPTH
FT
G R ( G A P I)
0 .
IL D ( O H M M )
1 5 0 .
0 .2
C A L I ( IN )
6 .
1 6 .
0 .2
S P (M V )
1 :5 0 0
-2 0 0 .
5 5 0 0
0 .4 5
- 0 .1 5
P H IN S S ( V / V )
2 0 0 0 .
0 .4 5
0 .
0 .2
2 0 0 0 .
-Density porosity = 18pu
= .18 * .18 * 0.8 / 0.8
= 0.0324
~ 0.032 ohm m
17
5 6 0 0
- 0 .1 5
S FL (O H M M )
-Rt = 0.8
5 4 0 0
P H ID ( V / V )
2 0 0 0 .
IL M ( O H M M )
from Resistivity Ratio
InductionRw
Principles
Rt = F . Rw / Sw2 ---------------------Eq-1 Archie
uninvaded
Rxo = F . Rmf / Sxo2 ---------------------Eq-2 Archie
invaded
In Water Zones, Sw = Sxo
By Dividing Eq-2 by Eq-1 , We Get :
Rxo / Rt = Rmf / Rw
Therefore, Rw = Rmf . Rt / Rxo
from Resistivity Ratio
InductionRw
Principles
B a s a l Q u a r tz N o .1
0 6 /2 8 /2 0 0 2 1 0 :0 2 :0 6 A M
D EPTH
FT
G R ( G A P I)
0 .
IL D ( O H M M )
1 5 0 .
0 .2
C A L I ( IN )
6 .
1 6 .
0 .2
S P (M V )
1 :5 0 0
-2 0 0 .
P H ID ( V / V )
2 0 0 0 .
0 .4 5
IL M ( O H M M )
- 0 .1 5
P H IN S S ( V / V )
2 0 0 0 .
0 .4 5
- 0 .1 5
S FL (O H M M )
0 .
0 .2
2 0 0 0 .
Rmf = 0.6 ohm m at 150 degC
-Rt = 0.8
-Rxo = 16
5 4 0 0
5 5 0 0
Rw = Rmf . Rt / Rxo
= 0.6 * 0.8/16
= 0.03
19
5 6 0 0
Rw =
~ 0.03 (Ratio)
Rw from SP
Induction Principles
B a s a l Q u a r tz N o .1
0 6 /2 8 /2 0 0 2 1 0 :0 2 :0 6 A M
D EPTH
FT
G R ( G A P I)
0 .
IL D ( O H M M )
1 5 0 .
0 .2
C A L I ( IN )
6 .
1 6 .
0 .2
S P (M V )
1 :5 0 0
-2 0 0 .
2 0 0 0 .
0 .
0 .2
5 4 0 0
5 5 0 0
20
5 6 0 0
0 .4 5
Shale
baseline
- 0 .1 5
P H IN S S ( V / V )
S FL (O H M M )
Sand
baseline
-140 mV
P H ID ( V / V )
2 0 0 0 .
IL M ( O H M M )
2 0 0 0 .
0 .4 5
- 0 .1 5
B a s a l Q u a r t z N o .1
0 6 /2 8 /2 0 0 2 1 0 :0 2 :0 6 A M
D EPTH
FT
G R ( G A P I)
0 .
IL D ( O H M M )
1 5 0 .
0 .2
C A L I ( IN )
6 .
5 4 0 0
5 5 0 0
5 6 0 0
21
-2 0 0 .
0 .4 5
IL M ( O H M M )
1 6 .
0 .2
S P (M V )
1 :5 0 0
P H ID ( V / V )
2 0 0 0 .
2 0 0 0 .
S FL (O H M M )
0 .
0 .2
- 0 .1 5
P H IN S S ( V / V )
2 0 0 0 .
0 .4 5
- 0 .1 5
What RAreFrom
Typical
Resistivity?
SP Values
Log - of
Example
of steps 2-5
w
2) Convert Rmf to
correct value at
reservoir temperature
(if needed).
1) Find Rmf and
temperature from
log heading.
Rcorr9
SP1
SP2
SP2
3) Input Rmf to
get Rmfeq
4) Input SSP,
temperature and Rmfeq
to get Rweq
5) Input Rweq to
get Rw
Rw from SP Step 2: Get salinityExercise
of Rmf
If Rmf = 0.6 ohm m and
Temperature = 150 degC,
What is salinity?
(Answer= 2000 ppm)
Now use this value as
input to next Chart.
Rw from SP Step 3: Get Rmfeq from Rmf
- Example
Exampl
If Salinity is < 70KPPM
use Rmfeq= 0.85 Rmf
Exampl
e
If Salinity is > 70KPPM
e
Estimate Rmfeq from this
Chart (SP-2)
SP-2
0.4
Input data:
Salinity=2000
Rmf = 0.6 at BHT
So...
Use Rmfeq=.85*Rmf
Rmfeq ~= 0.51
Now use this value
as input to next
Chart.
24
What Are Typical Values of Resistivity?
Rw from SP Step 4: Get Rweq from SSP - example
Rmfeq
Rweq
Inputs:
SSP= -140 mV
T = 150 oC
Rmfeq = 0.51
Outputs:
Rweq = 0.02
SSP Static Spontaneous Potential
Now use this
value as input to
next Chart.
What Are Typical Values of Resistivity?
Rw from SP Step 5: Get Rw from Rweq example
Exampl
e
Rweq or
Rmfeq
Inputs:
T = 150 oC
Rweq = 0.02
0.02
Outputs:
Rw = 0.026
SP-2
0.026
26
Rw or Rmf
Rw from
3 independent methods
Induction
Principles
B a s a l Q u a r tz N o .1
0 6 /2 8 /2 0 0 2 1 0 :0 2 :0 6 A M
D EPTH
FT
G R ( G A P I)
0 .
IL D ( O H M M )
1 5 0 .
0 .2
C A L I ( IN )
6 .
1 6 .
0 .2
S P (M V )
1 :5 0 0
-2 0 0 .
P H ID ( V / V )
2 0 0 0 .
0 .4 5
IL M ( O H M M )
- 0 .1 5
P H IN S S ( V / V )
2 0 0 0 .
0 .4 5
- 0 .1 5
S FL (O H M M )
0 .
0 .2
2 0 0 0 .
Rw =
~ 0.032 (Archie)
5 4 0 0
Rw =
~ 0.03 (Ratio)
5 5 0 0
Rw =
~ 0.026 (SP)
Well choose a value of 0.03 ohm m (for ease of calculation!)
Normally we would use a weighted average, dependent on the reliability of each
result, which usually closely matches the Archie method. Eventually a good water
sample would be acquired, which then determines the official Rw using lab
27
measurements.
5 6 0 0
B a s a l Q u a r t z N o .1
0 6 /2 8 /2 0 0 2 1 0 :0 2 :0 6 A M
D EPTH
FT
G R ( G A P I)
0 .
IL D ( O H M M )
1 5 0 .
0 .2
C A L I ( IN )
6 .
1 6 .
5 4 0 0
5 5 0 0
5 6 0 0
28
-2 0 0 .
0 .4 5
IL M ( O H M M )
0 .2
S P (M V )
1 :5 0 0
P H ID ( V / V )
2 0 0 0 .
- 0 .1 5
P H IN S S ( V / V )
2 0 0 0 .
0 .4 5
- 0 .1 5
S FL (O H M M )
0 .
0 .2
2 0 0 0 .
Workflow
Data availability,
Permeable beds,
Lithology
Fluid type
Porosity
Water resistivity
Water saturation
For manual interpretation, just a few
representative zones are chosen to
compute water saturation.
Here we will choose the hydrocarbon
zones identified earlier, and one of the
possible water zones.
Workflow
Data availability,
Permeable beds,
Lithology
Fluid type
Porosity D EFPTT H
Water resistivity
Water saturation
1 :5 0 0
B a s a l Q u a r tz N o .1
0 6 /2 8 /2 0 0 2 1 0 :0 2 :0 6 A M
G R ( G A P I)
0 .
IL D ( O H M M )
1 5 0 .
0 .2
C A L I ( IN )
6 .
1 6 .
0 .2
S P (M V )
-2 0 0 .
P H ID ( V / V )
2 0 0 0 .
0 .4 5
IL M ( O H M M )
- 0 .1 5
P H IN S S ( V / V )
2 0 0 0 .
0 .4 5
- 0 .1 5
S FL (O H M M )
0 .
0 .2
2 0 0 0 .
-Density porosity = 18pu
5 4 0 0
Rw = 0.03
-Rt = 20 ohm m
5 5 0 0
29
5 6 0 0
1/2
.8
*
.03
=
.18 * .18 * 20
(0.037 ) ^ .5
0.19
B a s a l Q u a r t z N o .1
Workflow
D EPTH
DataF availability,
0 .
T
Permeable beds,
6 .
Lithology
1 :5 0 0
-2 0 0 .
Fluid type
Porosity
Water resistivity
Water saturation
0 6 /2 8 /2 0 0 2 1 0 :0 2 :0 6 A M
G R ( G A P I)
IL D ( O H M M )
1 5 0 .
0 .2
C A L I ( IN )
P H ID ( V / V )
2 0 0 0 .
0 .4 5
IL M ( O H M M )
1 6 .
0 .2
S P (M V )
- 0 .1 5
P H IN S S ( V / V )
2 0 0 0 .
0 .4 5
- 0 .1 5
S FL (O H M M )
0 .
0 .2
2 0 0 0 .
1/2
.8
*
.03
=
.14 * .14 * 15
5 4 0 0
Rw = 0.03
(0.08 ) ^ .5
0.28
5 5 0 0
-Rt = 15 ohm m
-Density porosity = 14pu
5 6 0 0
30
B a s a l Q u a r t z N o .1
Workflow
D EPTH
DataF availability,
0 .
T
Permeable beds,
6 .
Lithology
1 :5 0 0
-2 0 0 .
Fluid type
Porosity
Water resistivity
Water saturation
0 6 /2 8 /2 0 0 2 1 0 :0 2 :0 6 A M
G R ( G A P I)
IL D ( O H M M )
1 5 0 .
0 .2
C A L I ( IN )
P H ID ( V / V )
2 0 0 0 .
IL M ( O H M M )
1 6 .
0 .2
S P (M V )
- 0 .1 5
P H IN S S ( V / V )
2 0 0 0 .
0 .4 5
- 0 .1 5
S FL (O H M M )
0 .
0 .2
2 0 0 0 .
5 4 0 0
Rw = 0.03
5 5 0 0
0 .4 5
-Rt = 2 ohm m
.8 * .03
.17 * .17* 2
(0.45 ) ^ .5
0.65
1/2
-Density porosity = 17pu
5 6 0 0
31
B a s a l Q u a r t z N o .1
Workflow
D EPTH
DataF availability,
0 .
T
Permeable beds,
6 .
Lithology
1 :5 0 0
-2 0 0 .
Fluid type
Porosity
Water resistivity
Water saturation
5 4 0 0
0 6 /2 8 /2 0 0 2 1 0 :0 2 :0 6 A M
G R ( G A P I)
IL D ( O H M M )
1 5 0 .
0 .2
C A L I ( IN )
P H ID ( V / V )
2 0 0 0 .
0 .4 5
IL M ( O H M M )
1 6 .
0 .2
S P (M V )
2 0 0 0 .
0 .4 5
S FL (O H M M )
0 .
0 .2
2 0 0 0 .
Sw = 0.19
Sw = 1
5 5 0 0
Sw = .28
5 6 0 0
32
- 0 .1 5
P H IN S S ( V / V )
Sw = .65
- 0 .1 5
B a s a l Q u a r t z N o .1
0 6 /2 8 /2 0 0 2 1 0 :0 2 :0 6 A M
D EPTH
FT
G R ( G A P I)
0 .
IL D ( O H M M )
1 5 0 .
0 .2
C A L I ( IN )
6 .
-2 0 0 .
0 .4 5
IL M ( O H M M )
1 6 .
0 .2
S P (M V )
1 :5 0 0
P H ID ( V / V )
2 0 0 0 .
2 0 0 0 .
0 .4 5
S FL (O H M M )
0 .
0 .2
2 0 0 0 .
Net
Sand
5 4 0 0
Sw
Sw==0.19
0.19
Sw = 1
5 5 0 0
Sw = .28
5 6 0 0
33
- 0 .1 5
P H IN S S ( V / V )
Sw = .65
- 0 .1 5
B a s a l Q u a r t z N o .1
0 6 /2 8 /2 0 0 2 1 0 :0 2 :0 6 A M
D EPTH
FT
G R ( G A P I)
0 .
IL D ( O H M M )
1 5 0 .
0 .2
C A L I ( IN )
6 .
Net
Pay
-2 0 0 .
0 .4 5
IL M ( O H M M )
1 6 .
0 .2
S P (M V )
1 :5 0 0
P H ID ( V / V )
2 0 0 0 .
- 0 .1 5
P H IN S S ( V / V )
2 0 0 0 .
0 .4 5
- 0 .1 5
S FL (O H M M )
0 .
0 .2
2 0 0 0 .
Net
Sand
5 4 0 0
5 5 0 0
Sw = 0.19
Sw =value
1 is delivered.
Often a net sand and a net pay
Here the net sand matches the porous and permeable
intervals identified earlier.
Net pay is typically where porosity exceeds about 10pu,
and Sw < 60%, but these values normally need calibration
with core permeability production results.
Sw = .28
5 6 0 0
34
Sw = .65
B a s a l Q u a r t z N o .1
0 6 /2 8 /2 0 0 2 1 0 :0 2 :0 6 A M
D EPTH
FT
G R ( G A P I)
0 .
IL D ( O H M M )
1 5 0 .
0 .2
C A L I ( IN )
6 .
Net
Pay
-2 0 0 .
0 .4 5
IL M ( O H M M )
1 6 .
0 .2
S P (M V )
1 :5 0 0
P H ID ( V / V )
2 0 0 0 .
2 0 0 0 .
0 .4 5
S FL (O H M M )
0 .
0 .2
2 0 0 0 .
Net
Sand
5 4 0 0
Sw = 0.19
Sw = 1
5 5 0 0
Sum up the intervals to give:
Net sand is ~75, and net pay is ~ 48
Sw = .28
5 6 0 0
35
- 0 .1 5
P H IN S S ( V / V )
Sw = .65
- 0 .1 5
B a s a l Q u a r t z N o .1
0 6 /2 8 /2 0 0 2 1 0 :0 2 :0 6 A M
D EPTH
FT
G R ( G A P I)
0 .
IL D ( O H M M )
1 5 0 .
0 .2
C A L I ( IN )
6 .
5 4 0 0
5 5 0 0
5 6 0 0
36
-2 0 0 .
0 .4 5
IL M ( O H M M )
1 6 .
0 .2
S P (M V )
1 :5 0 0
P H ID ( V / V )
2 0 0 0 .
2 0 0 0 .
S FL (O H M M )
0 .
0 .2
- 0 .1 5
P H IN S S ( V / V )
2 0 0 0 .
0 .4 5
- 0 .1 5
