College of Engineering
Department of Petroleum and Chemical Engineering
PNGE4512
Formation Evaluation
Spring 2024
Well Log Analysis
Submitted by Group#1:
Ahmed Said Al-Balushi 135391
Majid Khamis Khalifa Al-Abri 130423
Abdullah Rashid Al-Shuraiqi 132833
Ahmed Khalfan Al-Harthi 130158
1st May 2024
Abstract:
The aim of the project is to evaluate the bearing hydrocarbon zone, calculate OIIP and
GIIP, complete a log interpretation from the given data, and state a development plan for the
well. Firstly, the permeable zone was identified to be 365 ft thick and the hydrocarbon zone is
335 ft thick. The lithology was found to be dolomite, and the net-over-gross was found to be 1.
The true porosity and true resistivity were found from the true porosity versus nutron and
tornado charts, respectively. The water resistivity was determined using the Hingle plot method
and found to be 0.032 ohm.m which was confirmed by the Pickett plot. The average porosity and
average HC saturation were calculated and found to be 15.7% and 0.923 respectively. The OIIP
was calculated to be 376613.5 RB/Acres. Finally, the perforation depth was determined based on
the saturation of hydrocarbons, and the depths below 50% water saturation were found to be
9060-9098 ft, 9136-9273ft, and 9320-9372 ft.
1
Table of Contents
Abstract:......................................................................................................................................................1
Introduction.................................................................................................................................................4
Track 1.........................................................................................................................................................6
Track 2.........................................................................................................................................................7
Track 3.........................................................................................................................................................8
Permeable Zone.........................................................................................................................................11
Porosity.....................................................................................................................................................14
True Resistivity.........................................................................................................................................15
Hingle Plot................................................................................................................................................16
Pickett Plot................................................................................................................................................18
Saturation Calculation...............................................................................................................................20
OIIP Calculation........................................................................................................................................21
Development Plan.....................................................................................................................................22
Conclusion.................................................................................................................................................23
Challenges.................................................................................................................................................24
2
Table of Figures
Figure 1: Track 1,2, &3..................................................................................................................................5
Figure 2: Track 1 in the reservoir...................................................................................................................6
Figure 3: Track 2 in the reservoir...................................................................................................................7
Figure 4: Track 3 in the reservoir...................................................................................................................8
Figure 5: Neutron Porosity vs. Density in Whole Reservoir.........................................................................9
Figure 6: Neutron Porosity vs. Density in Clear Water Zone......................................................................10
Figure 7: Permeable Zone............................................................................................................................13
Figure 8: True Porosity vs. Neutron Porosity..............................................................................................14
Figure 9: True Porosity vs. Density Porosity...............................................................................................14
Figure 10: Tornado Chart.............................................................................................................................15
Figure 11: Points outside Tornado Chart.....................................................................................................15
Figure 12: Hingle Plot..................................................................................................................................16
Figure 13: Pickett Plot.................................................................................................................................18
Figure 14: Sw vs. Depth...............................................................................................................................21
Figure 15: Hingle Plot..................................................................................................................................21
3
Introduction
Formation evaluation and well logs present a concise, detailed plot of formation
parameters versus depth. From these plots, interpreters can identify lithologies, differentiate
between porous and non-porous rock, and recognize pay zones in subsurface formations. The
ability to interpret a log lies in recognizing the significance of each measurement. These
processes utilize various technologies and techniques to gain insights into the properties of
subsurface formations, such as layer distribution, type of rock, fluid content, and reservoir type.
By analyzing information gathered from well logs and other sources like mapping, magnetic
survey, gravity survey and seismic survey, geologists and engineers can get the top, bottom, and
thickness of the reservoir. They also decide where to drill and how to extract oil and gas from the
reservoir. In addition to that, formation evaluation and log interpretation can help assess the
quality and extent of the reservoir and identify and quantify the hydrocarbon reserves.
4
The data are divided into three tracks. Track 1 displays gamma ray (GR), spontaneous
potential log (SP), and caliper log. Gamma ray and spontaneous potential are used to distinguish
between permeable and non-permeable zones or shale and non-shale. Caliper is used to measure
the wellbore diameter and can be as indication of permeable and non-permeable zone because
usually shale has a higher diameter than reservoir rock because of the presence of the mud cake
Track 2 shows resistivity logs (shallow, medium, deep), aiding in identifying water and
hydrocarbon zones by knowing that the hydrocarbon has a higher resistance than and water is
highly conductive. In addition, the resistivity log can determine the true resistivity of the invaded
zone. Track 3 contains porosity logs (neutron log, density log, and sonic), which are used to
5
differentiate between oil and gas in the hydrocarbon zone, depending on the size of the
separation between the density and neutron log. In the case of a large separation when the
neutron is larger than the density, it indicates the presence of gas. However, if a small separation
occurs, it indicates the presence of oil. Moreover, the true porosity can be obtained using
different plots, such as neutron porosity and bulk density plot.
In this report, log interpretation was performed, including theories principles behind the
various logging techniques. The data interpreted in the report included Track 1, which consisted
of gamma ray and caliper measurements, Track 2, which included shallow, medium, and deep
resistivity logs, and Track 3, which consisted of density and neutron measurements.
This report aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the of the interpretation play in
the oil and gas industry.
Track 1
The given information in this track consists of gamma ray and caliper. The purpose of
this track is to distinguish permeable zones from nonpermeable zones. 50% cut-off line was
drawn. By plotting the gamma ray data along the x-axis versus depth along the y-axis, as shown
in Figure 2. From the graph, it is difficult to identify the permeable and non-permeable zones
because there is no sensitive change in the gamma rays. The increases and decreases were slight.
In addition, the caliper log was not used to define permeable and non-permeable layer because it
is not its main function. The caliper log main function is to know the diameter of the well for the
cementation. Therefore, Gamma ray was used to provide an indication to help identify permeable
and impermeable layers. Thus, the possible scenario is the top of the reservoir (top: 9060 ft,
bottom: 9425 ft, h= 365 m).
6
Track 2
The resistivity tool was used to distinguish the HC zone from the water zone in the
permeable zone. First, the depth in the feet on the y-axis and the resistivity in ohm.m on the x-
axis (on a logarithmic scale) were used to obtain the resistivity log for shallow, deep, and
medium depths, as shown in Figure 3. From Track 2, it is very clear that from 9060 ft to 9395 ft
the resistivity is high, so this can be an indication of the presence of an HC zone, and from 9395
ft to 9425 ft the resistivity is low, which indicates a water zone.
Figure 3: Track 2 in the reservoir
Track 3
In this track, the given information is the
neutron and density logs. First of all, it has been
noticed some error in the bulk density
measurements in the hydrocarbon zone. For this
reason, density porosity could not be calculated
in the clear water zone which does not include
the transition zone. That helped to plot neutron
porosity vs. density to find the lithology. It was
found that the lithology is dolomite.
Figure 4: Track 3 in the reservoir
8
As can be noticed from the above figure, the figure is not clear due to density from the
hydrocarbon zone. Therefore, it was decided to take points from clear water zone as shown in
Figure 6.
Figure 6: Neutron Porosity vs. Density in Clear Water Zone.
As can be seen from the above figure, the figure is clear because the density is taken from
clear water zone.
where the density of the matrix is 2.85 g/cc, and the density of the fluid is 1.1 g/cc. Thus,
it is possible to plot the depth vs. density porosity and neutron porosity. There are some errors
9
due to density porosity, which gives negative value for porosity which does not make sense.
Therefore, Track 3 was not used to identify the type of hydrocarbon. That error might be due to
some mistakes while running the logging tool.
Permeable Zone
Permeable zones are defined using Track 1, either the SP log, GR log, or caliper log. In
this project, two logs were available: GR and caliper. After siding Track 1 logs, it was found that
caliper log measurements contain lots of error, which makes the measurements not consistent
with other logs like GR and resistivity. It’s known that if the caliper measurements indicate
enlargement in the well, that indicates shale lithology (the impermeable layer in general) and
well diameter shrinkage, which indicates the sand layer (the permeable zone). It was found that
there is enlargement in well diameter in the reservoir layer, which is unacceptable. Furthermore,
in many layers, there was enlargement in well diameter (impermeable one) in the low gamma ray
zone, which indicates an error in the caliper log. That error might be due to a problem while
running the caliper log. Therefore, the caliper log will not be used to identify the permeable and
impermeable zones because of the reasons mentioned before; it measures the well diameter and
helps in identifying the permeable and impermeable zones with another log. The other reason is
due to the error found in the log, so it definitely will not be used to help in identifying the zones
with the gamma ray.
A gamma ray is a log used to identify the permeable and impermeable zones. That was
done using the concept of gamma ray reading contamination of gamma in the layers. If there is
high contamination, that indicates an impermeable layer, and if there is low contamination, that
indicates a permeable layer. The cut-off line is different from company to company, so that was a
controversial topic. What is the best line that will represent the cut-off. In this GR data, 50% was
chosen to indicate the cut-off, which was chosen after studding other GR logs, which usually
chose this percentage, so more than 50% indicate an impermeable layer and less indicate a
permeable layer. Finally, brown color was used to indicate an impermeable layer in Figure 7
below.
10
Part One Part Two
11
Part Three
Figure 7: Permeable Zone
12
Porosity
True porosity versus density porosity correlation and true porosity versus neutron
porosity were used to identify the porosity in the reservoir layer. As mentioned before, there is an
error in density measurement in the HC zone, so the data used to identify the porosity is from the
water zone only without the transition zone, from 9399.386 ft to 9475.385 ft.
Firstly, the true porosity data were obtained from the density versus neutron porosity
correlation, then it was plotted versus density porosity and neutron porosity. It was found that
true porosity versus neutron porosity has a higher regression than true porosity versus density
porosity. In this case, neutron porosity is the true porosity, which is 21.8% on average. That can
be seen in the two figures below.
Figure 8: True Porosity vs. Neutron Porosity
Figure 9: True Porosity vs. Density Porosity
13
True Resistivity
It was found that an induction tool was used to log the well to measure the resistivity.
Rint-2c was used to plot the points. (Rshallow/RDeep) versus (RMedeuim/RDeep) was plotted in a log log
graph, and then the points were filled in the Rint-2c. The result is that, most of the points were
outside the graph, it was not even possible to place the points on the graph. Most of the points
are more than 2, between 2 and 5, so they can’t be pointed out in the graph.
Finally, it was confirmed that Rt=RDeep. Furthermore, RXO can be determined. The value of
Rxo= Rt/RID.
Figure 11: Tornado Chart Figure 10: Points outside Tornado Chart
Hingle Plot
14
1- The Hingle plot was prepared by plotting the true resistivity (Rt) versus true porosity (∅t)
on a semi-log graph for the permeable zone as shown in Figure 12 below, where each
point represents true porosity and true resistivity at each depth.
Figure 12: Hingle Plot
2- A line of 100% water saturation was drawn from the origin, which is the zero true porosity,
and passed through the uppermost points since it is the lowest resistivity.
3- The dolomite which has an "a" value equal to 1 and "m" value equal to 2 at porosity value
of 0.25 and the corresponding true resistivity was obtained to be 0.5 ohm.m, water resistivity
was calculated using Archie equation which is Equation 1 as shown below:
Sw =
√ a Rw
∅ Rt
2
Equation 1
2 2 Equation 2
S w ∅ Rt
Rw =
a
Calculate Rw for one point by using the Equation 2:
15
2
(1∗0.25 ∗0.5)
Rw = =0.03125 ohm. m
1
1
Therefore Rw :
Rw =0.032 ohm. m
Pickett Plot
The Pickett plot provides a visual representation of Archie’s equation. Pickett plot was used
to confirm the values of the cementation factors, a & m. The following steps was used to
determine the cementation factors:
16
1- Plot on log-log paper, using the x-axis for the true resistivity (AT90) and the y-axis
for the true porosity (NPHI) as shown in the figure below:
2- Plot the 100% Sw Line by making a line on lower most points.
3- Determine the a value from the intercept of the 100% Sw Line. Since the average Rw=0.015 (from the
0.03,
Figure 13: Pickett Plot
therefore:
Intercept=a ∙ Rw
a=Intercept / Rw
a=0.017 /0.015
a=1.1
4- Determine the m value from the slope of 100% Sw Line. Knowing that the slope =
1/m, the slope was calculated using one cycle:
log ( ∅ t ) −log (∅ t )
slope=
2 1
log ( Rt ) −log (Rt )
2 1
log ( 8 ) −log (23)
slope= =−0.46
log ( 10 ) −log (1)
m=|1 /slope|
17
m=|1 /−0.46|=2.1
The expected values of a & m, 1.1 & 2.1 respectively, are close to the standard values of the
dolomite’s cementation factor a=1. Therefore, it was confirmed that the lithology is dolomite
18
Saturation Calculation
Knowing that the Rw=0.032 ohm.m from Hingle plot. Pickett plot was used to verify a &
m values and found to be 1.1, 2.1 respectively. Therefore, Archie’s equation (Equation 1) was
used to calculate Sw taking Rt= RDeep, and true porosity is neutron porosity.
Table 1: Part of calculation of the saturation of HC in HC zone
Afterwards, calculate the average water saturation for the whole HC zone. Average HC saturation
was found to be:
S HCavg=(1−Swavg )
S HCavg=( 1−0.0765 )=0.923
19
OIIP Calculation
The variables in OIIP in Equation 3 are thickness, area, porosity, HC saturation, and net
over gross.
OIIP=7755 × A ×h ×∅ avg × N /G×(1−S wavg) Equation 3
The thickness was found by knowing the top and bottom of the permeable zone from Track 1,
then by locating the HC zone from the water zone from Track 2.
Top of HC zone is 9060 ft, the bottom of the HC zone is 9395 ft, and the the thickness of the HC
zone is = Bottom of the HC zone - Top of the HC zone = 9395-9060 = 335 ft. The area is
that zone. ∅𝑎𝑣𝑔 = 0.157. HC saturation is found to be 0.923. Net over gross represents the shale
unknown. The porosity is calculated in the HC zone only and by getting the average porosity in
layer in the HC zone. There is no shale layer in the HC zone, so N/G = 1.
By now, the only unknown is the area.
𝑂𝐼𝐼𝑃 = 7758 × 𝐴 × ℎ × ∅𝑎𝑣𝑔 × 𝑁/ 𝐺 × (1 − 𝑆𝑤)
𝑂𝐼𝐼𝑃 /𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 = 7758 × ℎ × ∅𝑎𝑣𝑔 × 𝑁 /𝐺 × (1 − 𝑆𝑤)
𝑂𝐼𝐼𝑃/ 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 = 7758 × 335 × 0.157 × 1 × 0.923
𝑂𝐼𝐼𝑃 / 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 = 376613.5 𝑅𝐵/ 𝐴𝑐𝑟𝑒
20
Development Plan
Based on the Hingle plot (Figure 15), the perforation should be done on point below 50% water
saturation. Therefore, the suitable depth to perforate are: 9060-9098 ft, 9136-9273ft, and 9320-9372 ft.
Figure 14: Hingle Plot
Figure 15: Sw vs. Depth
Conclusion
To sum up, the given data from the GR log, resistivity logs (shallow, medium, and deep),
density, neutron, and BS and HCAL logs were plotted, analyzed, and interpreted. The lithology
was determined using the cross plot and found to be dolomite. The permeable zone was
identified from 9060.39 ft to 9475.4 ft. Next, the permeable zone was separated from the HC
zone and water zone by Track 2, where the HC water contact was located around the depth of
9395 ft. The thickness of the HC zone was found to be 335 ft (9060–9395 ft). The type of HC
cannot be determined from the data given. The true porosity was agreed to be neutron porosity
because it has a higher regression number than density porosity, and the average porosity in the
HC zone was calculated to be (0.157). The true resistivity was found to be the same deep
resistivity that was confirmed by the tornado chart. The Rw value was found to be 0.032 ohm-m
from the Hingle plot. The Hingle plot was used to find water saturation lines. The Pickett plot
was used to confirm the type of lithology. The net-over-gross value was calculated from the GR
log and found to be (1). After finding the thickness, average porosity, average HC saturation, and
21
net over gross in the HC zone only, the OIIP over area was calculated and found to be (376613.5
RB/Acres). There is no shale layer in the HC zone.
Challenges
There were some challenges to coming up with this conclusion, such as:
1. There were some errors in the data of some logs, such that they were inconsistent with
the data of other logs.
2. Choosing the correct points from the water zone to represent the hingle plot in order to
give an accurate Rw value.
3. Reading true porosity values.
4. Make the decision to get true porosity.
5. Draw the uppermost line in the Hingle plot.
22
23
