See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266668711

Cased-Hole Reservoir Saturation Monitoring in

Mixed Salinity Environments - A New Integrated
Approach

Article March 2005

DOI: 10.2118/92426-MS

CITATIONS READS

11 103

4 authors, including:

Shouxiang Ma Raghu Ramamoorthy

Saudi Arabian Oil Company Schlumberger Limited
79 PUBLICATIONS 727 CITATIONS 54 PUBLICATIONS 160 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

JPT Subject Matter Editor View project

Best practices in core analysis View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Shouxiang Ma on 09 March 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
SPE 92426

Cased-Hole Reservoir Saturation Monitoring in Mixed-Salinity Environments

A New Integrated Approach
S.M. Ma, A.A. Al-Hajari, and G. Berberian, Saudi Aramco, and R. Ramamoorthy, Schlumberger

Copyright 2005, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

Introduction Reservoir Saturation Monitoring
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 14th SPE Middle East Oil & Gas Show and
Conference held in Bahrain International Exhibition Centre, Bahrain, 1215 March 2005.
Resistivity vs. Nuclear Logging
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
Traditionally, two types of measurement have been used for
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at mature reservoir saturation monitoring (RSM); resistivity
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper (openhole or cased-hole) and nuclear [neutron capture sigma
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to a proposal of not more than 300 () or neutron inelastic spectral carbon-oxygen (C-O)]. As
words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
shown in Table 1, C-O logging is independent of formation-
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435. water salinity, but its shallow depth of investigation (DOI) is a
major limitation.

Abstract Formation resistivity (RT) logging has a much deeper DOI, but
interpretation of resistivity logs requires detailed knowledge of
For mature-reservoir description, accurately monitoring oil formation-water salinity as well as rock electrical properties.
saturation is a major challenge. Traditional methods for Sigma logging has a slightly deeper DOI than CO logs, but its
cased-hole saturation monitoring use either pulse-neutron measurement also depends on water salinity.
capture or spectroscopic nuclear logging tools. This paper
presents a new approach to cased-hole resistivity Table 1: Comparison of Resistivity and Nuclear Logging
measurements. This approach has an advantage over nuclear for RSM, Modified after Aulia et al.1
Condition C-O RT Remarks
logs because its depth of investigation is more than 10 times
<15% Limit on RT,max
that of any nuclear logging measurement. 15%<<30%, Csalt <20 ppk Limit on RT,max
15%<<30%, Csalt >20 ppk
Calculation of saturation from resistivity logs is difficult if High & Csalt
formation-water salinity is mixed. In this paper, we overcome Mixed-salinity
RT qualitative,
this difficulty by combining pseudo formation-water salinity unless Csalt is known
Very low Sw Limit on RT,max
from carbon-oxygen (C-O) logs with bottomhole samples.
Run in small tubing Need slim tool
Using this calibrated formation-water salinity and variable Effect on shallow
Archie saturation exponents of drainage and imbibition, Washed-out holes
nuclear logging
calculation of reservoir saturation from cased-hole resistivity Flowing wells
Effect of hold-up on
measurements becomes more accurate. C-O
Fluid contacts in hole Effect on C-O
Effect on shallow
Reservoir saturation is also calculated from C-O logs run at Near wellbore effects
nuclear logging
the same time as cased-hole resistivity logs. Wellbore fluid Deviated wells
reinvasion is identified from C-O derived saturation across Acid effect Effect on
perforation intervals. In unperforated intervals, saturation Lithology
derived from C-O compares favorably with the original
openhole log analysis, well history, and fluid-flow profiles Note: Color code in Table 1:
Red not recommended.
from production logs. Reservoir saturation is finalized by
Yellow use with caution.
integrating saturations from cased-hole resistivity and C-O Green recommended.
measurements. This paper illustrates the importance of Csalt concentration of salt (salinity).
integrating all data to obtain accurate saturation calculation of DOI depth of investigation.
producing reservoirs in mixed-salinity environments. In many situations, the tool measurements are complementary.
2 SPE 92426
Objectives of This Paper
In this paper, resistivity and nuclear logs and other
petrophysical data are integrated in reservoir saturation
monitoring. The main objective is to accurately determine
remaining oil saturation in a carbonate reservoir after more
than 10 years of production in a mixed-salinity environment
and to evaluate sidetracking potentials of existing vertical
wells.
Resistivity Saturation Monitoring
Archie2 in 1942 proposed the following equation for
calculating water saturation (Sw) from true formation
resistivity (RT) logs for clean formations.
1
R a n
S w = w m . (1)
RT
where a, m, and n are rock properties (lithology factor,
cementation exponent, and saturation exponent) determined
from laboratory measurements. These properties depend on
rock lithology, pore structure, wettability, experimental
conditions (fluids, pressure, temperature, and stress) and
displacement process (drainage or imbibition).3
Drainage vs. Imbibition
In theory, definitions of drainage and imbibition are
wettability dependent if all rock surfaces have the same
wettability. Since the majority of all reservoirs are mixed-wet,
i.e., partially water-wet (part of the rock surfaces covered with
connate water) and partially oil-wet (part of the rock surfaces
covered with original oil), the industry convention for
drainage is defined as oil displacing water and for imbibition,
water displacing oil. Then, Eq. 1 becomes:
1 formation-water salinity as required by Eq. 4, three methods
R a ndr
S w,dr = w,dr m . (2)
RT ,dr
and
1 producing wells because of the large outside diameters of
R the tools. In addition, it is usually an expensive operation.
a nimb
S w,imb = w,imb m . (3)
RT ,imb
Rw,dr is the connate water resistivity and Rw,imb is the resistivity
of injected water or mixture of connate and injected waters.
RT,dr is usually the deep openhole resistivity recorded prior to
saturation changes because of production from the reservoir,
while Rw,imb is the formation resistivity measured during
reservoir saturation monitoring in zones where the flood front
has arrived at the wellbore.
The difference between ndr and nimb is caused by hysteresis; ndr
is measured in the laboratory using oil to displace water and
nimb is measured with waterflooding. For carbonate reservoir
rocks, an example of laboratory measured ndr and nimb is
shown in Fig. 1. In this example, reservoir rock was solvents
cleaned, and drainage measurement was conducted using
reservoir brine and crude oil. The sample was then aged in
crude oil at reservoir temperature to restore reservoir
wettability before imbibition tests. The obtained ndr and nimb
for this representative sample are 1.7654 and 2.3232,
respectively.
Porosity is typically assumed to be the same as the original
formation porosity. However, if extensive acid stimulation
has been applied or if the formation pressure has dropped
significantly compared to the original reservoir pressure, this
formation porosity may change significantly, and will require
remeasurement.
If a, m, and are fixed, then we have the following simplified
Archie equation for reservoir saturation monitoring by relating
Sw with RT, Rw, and n.
S w (t ) = f [Rw (t ), RT (t ), n] (4)
That is, change of Sw with time t can be monitored by
measuring changes of RT and Rw with a known n.
In applying Eq. 4, if a reservoir interval has been flushed with
water, imbibition Eq. 3 will be used for saturation
calculations. Otherwise, the drainage Eq. 2 will be used.
Resistivity Logging in a Mixed-salinity Environment
It has always been difficult to interpret resistivity-log data in a
mixed-salinity environment. This is because no reliable and
cost-effective method of obtaining formation-water salinity is
available in the industry, especially for normal producing
wells in which the tubing has small entry restrictions.
Table 2 summarizes a brief literature survey of RSM using
resistivity logs in mixed-salinity environments. To obtain
have been used:
(1) Formation Tester Sample (FTS). This method is able to
get real formation-water salinity, but is not practical for
(2) Bottomhole Sample (BHS). It has been used to collect
samples from downhole and then to estimate formation-
water salinity. BHS can be run through tubing, and the
procedure is relatively inexpensive. However, production
logs must be acquired in conjunction with the samples in
order to estimate the water salinity from each formation
layer. Note that samples may not be representative in
cased-hole wells since samples can only be collected
across the perforations.
(3) Wellhead Sample (WHS). Samples from either the target
well or nearby producing wells are the averages of waters
with different properties, and may only be used if the
salinities of different waters are similar. On the other
hand, this data is readily available without extra cost.
In this study, both BHS and WHS were collected and used in
resistivity RSM.
SPE 92426 3

Table 3: Water Sample Salinity

Table 2: Resistivity RSM: A Literature Survey From Bottom Hole and Surface Samples, Well B-353
Reservoir/ SS Carb Carb SS SS Carb Depth Bottom Hole Sample Wellhead Sample
Completn OH OH OH OH CH OH
Location CO Saudi Saudi North Indonesia Saudi
DMT GCA DMT GCA
USA Arabia Arabia Sea Arabia ppk ppk ppk ppk
Objective Sor RSM RSM Sor RSM Sor/RSM D045 24.05 26.79 26.13 26.83
Logs OH RT OH RT OH RT OH RT CH RT OH RT D060 23.57 26.49 25.78 27.80
Rw ? FTS FTS WHS WHS FTS/BHS
Operator Chevron Saudi Saudi ENI Chevron Saudi D080 24.29 26.43 26.35 27.52
Aramco Aramco Agip Texaco Aramco D105 24.60 26.29 25.68 26.07
Year 1983 1989 1998 2004 2004 2004 Average 24.1 26.5 26.0 27.1
Reference Ref. 4 Ref. 5 Ref. 6 Ref. 7 Ref. 8 Ref. 9

Note: Carb=carbonate, SS=shaly sandstone,
OH=openhole, CH=cased-hole.
Cased-Hole Reservoir Saturation Monitoring
Cased-hole formation resistivity is a relatively new
technology.10 It was tested and evaluated by Saudi Aramco in
200211 and, since then, has been used for cased-hole reservoir
saturation monitoring in mature reservoirs in Saudi Arabia.
Case 1: Cased-Hole Resistivity Saturation Monitoring
Well B-353, located between two line injectors (Fig. 2), was
drilled in September 1992 as a vertical producer of a carbonate
reservoir. Openhole formation analysis log (FAL)
interpretation showed movable water-oil contact (WOC) at
D120 measured depth, using variable profiles of formation-
water salinity and Archie saturation exponent (Fig. 3). This
WOC was confirmed by an openhole production log (PL) run
immediately after completing the well (Fig. 4).
Note that the samples collected at surface are mixtures of oil
and waters with different salinities. Compared to surface
samples, the bottomhole samples have better vertical
resolution of water properties but still have the fluid mixing
problem (especially for upper reservoir intervals) because of
fluid accumulation effects. For cased-hole completions,
reservoir fluids can only flow to the wellbore through
perforations. This will further affect the representativeness of
the bottomhole samples.
DMT provides a quick estimation of water-sample salinity
from resistivity and temperature measurements. Accurate
measurement of water salinity is obtained from laboratory
GCA analysis, although it takes much longer than the quick
DMT test. Table 3 indicates that both the quick DMT and the
accurate GCA results are fairly consistent. Vertically, water-
salinity profile is almost a constant. Formation-water salinity
of 26.5 ppk and the imbibition n were initially assumed for
water saturation calculation, as seen in Track 4 of Fig. 5.
Saturation from Cased-Hole Resistivity

To minimize water coning, the well was cased and perforated
across the oil column (Fig. 3). After years of production,
water-cut (WC) increased and a plug-back job was required to
shut-off the water (Fig. 4). The well produced oil at 1.1
MBPD after the workover. In 2003, it was decided to run a
cased-hole resistivity log to measure the remaining oil column
thickness and evaluate the feasibility of sidetracking the well.
Formation-water Salinity Estimation
A cased-hole resistivity log was run in 2003 after milling
down the bridge plug (Fig. 5). To analyze the remaining oil
saturation in the reservoir, however, the formation-water
salinity and Archie saturation exponent profiles needed to be
determined, as required by Eq. 4.
The well was flowed to the pit to collect formation fluids
samples; bottomhole samples and corresponding wellhead
surface samples. The samples were measured for salinity with
a portable digital mud tester (DMT) and detailed geochemistry
laboratory analysis (GCA). Data of the DMT and GCA
measurements are listed in Table 3.
The original 1992 openhole resistivity log was interpreted
using variable formation-water salinity and Archie saturation
exponent n (Fig. 3). Fresher water was injected to displace the
240 ppk saline connate water. Formation-water salinity was
mixed at the beginning of water breakthrough at the well, and
became fresher with water production.
Comparing the preliminary 2003 cased-hole resistivity RSM
interpretation (Track 4 of Fig. 5) with the original FAL (Track
5 of Fig. 3), and the time lapse resistivity (Track 3 of Fig. 5),
we observe the following:
(1) Injected water has almost reached the top of the main
reservoir. Above this depth, the formation-water salinity
should still be the same as or similar to the connate water
salinity, and n should be at or close to the drainage n.
Below this depth, formation-water is a mixture of waters
and n is imbibition n (Fig. 1).
(2) The drop in cased-hole resistivity from about 80 ohmm to
about 20 ohmm across the top perforation was attributed
to the presence of the second casing string within 10 of
this depth. The extra metal along with expected hole-size
changes close to the shoe can cause perturbation of the
cased-hole resistivity measurement.
(3) In the interval from D120 to D200, named interval X,
calculated water saturation (Track 4 of Fig. 5) is almost
same as the original water saturation (Track 5 of Fig. 3).
4 SPE 92426
This is unlikely from a reservoir management point of
view. Because this interval is behind casing, formation-
water salinity is unknown. To make the calculated water
saturation higher than the original water saturation (at
least), formation-water salinity of 15 ppk was assumed in
this interval.#
(4) Calculated water saturation across the bottom perforation
at D105 is almost 100%. Normally, reservoir rocks
should always retain some residual oil, and this residual
oil can be very small (e.g., less than 10%) for mixed-wet
rocks. However, in the interval across the bottom
perforation, extensive water flushing has occurred since at
least 1993 (Track 4 of Fig. 4). This flushing should have
very high velocities because of the short perforation
interval. This extensive, high-velocity water flushing for
a very long time across a short interval may be
responsible for the extremely high water saturation.
Detailed discussions of observations 2, 3, and 4 are provided
later in this paper. By integrating all the available
information, the final reservoir water saturation is determined
as shown in Track 5 of Fig. 5. The final water saturation
shows that the top thin zone is still dry. Only a little saturation
change has occurred in the upper portion of the main reservoir,
even though the injected water has approached the top of it.
Case 2: Cased-Hole Resistivity and C-O RSM
The final saturation profile for well B-353 (Track 5 of Fig. 5)
can be explained reasonably well except in interval X in which
a fresher water of 15 ppk was assumed; by requiring that the
newly calculated Sw is higher than the original Sw. To have a
better understanding of formation-water salinity behind
casing, a C-O log was run in a nearby well, B-344. Cased-
hole resistivity and bottomhole sample were also run in the
well to provide a better reservoir saturation determination by
integrating the resistivity log with the C-O log. Both C-O and
resistivity logs were run under shut-in conditions because of
the rig and surface flow line limitations.
Well B-344 was drilled in 1992 as a vertical carbonate
reservoir producer (Fig. 2) with a dry oil column at the top of
the reservoir (Fig. 6). The well was cased and perforated in
order to minimize water coning. After years of production,
plug-back operations were required to shut-off water
production (Fig. 7).
Methods to Estimate Formation-Water Salinity
Water Sampling. Variable formation-water salinities and
Archie saturation exponents were used in the 1992 original
openhole FAL interpretation, as shown in Fig. 6. At the top
high-porosity oil column and the bottom low-porosity interval
of the reservoir, connate water salinity of 240 ppk and
drainage n were used. In the middle of the reservoir, where
original oil and saline connate water had been displaced by
injected fresher water, a formation-water salinity of 186 ppk
#
Fresh water of 10 ppk or less had been injected in this part of
the field.
and the imbibition n (Fig. 1) were used in the FAL
interpretation.
In 2004, the well was flowed to the pit after milling down the
plugs. Bottomhole samples were taken, but only one good
sample with a salinity of 106 ppk was obtained at depth
D768; across the bottom part of the perforation. Comparing
with well B-353, formation-water salinity at B-344 is much
higher due to its higher structural position.
To better understand flow of injected water, information from
surface water samples from B-344 and nearby wells was also
collected and included in Table 4. As expected, the water had
become fresher with time.
Table 4: Surface Water Samples of
Well B-344 and Its Nearby Wells
Well Name Salinity, ppk Date Remarks
B-66 132 1990
B-344 98 2000 Surface
B-108 84 2003 samples
B-28 120 2000
Nuclear Logging. Nuclear logging provides a formation-
water salinity indicator ratio (SIR), for qualitatively
identifying the presence of floodwaters of different salinities.12
YCl
SIR = (5)
YH
To improve accuracy, an algorithm was developed to compute
apparent average salinity (ASAL) from SIR based on relative
sensitivities of specific tool detectors to chlorine (Cl) and
hydrogen (H) yields. This corresponds to the apparent average
salinity of all the fluids encountered within the volume of
investigation of the specific detector for Sigma measurement.
In the case of the large-diameter C-O tool used in this
example, preferential shielding on the detector ensures that the
volume of investigation is mostly in the formation, with little
contribution from fluids in the borehole.
A SIR AYCl
ASAL = = (6)
B + SIR BYH + YCl
where A and B are tool specific sensitivity parameters. ASAL,
a ratio of salt to total fluids in the pore space (Eq. 6), is used to
estimate formation-water salinity behind casing for well B-
344, as seen in Track 4 of Fig. 8.
Formation-water salinity determined from the bottomhole
sample at D768 is also plotted on the same track as the
ASAL, and at that depth it showed close agreement between
the two. Thus, both the bottomhole sample and ASAL are
used in finalization of formation-water salinity for cased-hole
resistivity log interpretation, as shown below.
Reservoir Saturation Determination
In Track 5 of Fig. 7, the C-O derived water volume (dark blue)
is overlaid against the original water (light blue) and
remaining oil volume (red). Obvious water reinvasion of the
wellbore is observed at the top two good porosity intervals
SPE 92426
above the depth of D750 because the log was run under shut-
in conditions.
Below D800 where the reservoir had already been flushed by
floodwater when the well was drilled (Fig. 6), C-O derived
water saturation is greater than the original water saturation
with reasonable remaining oil. Saturation from C-O will be
more uncertain for reservoir rocks with porosity less than 12
pu or with a zone less than 10 thick. In the latter instance,
precision enhancement methods such as alpha processing are
affected by bed boundary and the direct yields-based C-O ratio
is preferred.
As seen in Track 4 of Fig. 9, using a formation-water salinity
profile constructed from the bottomhole sample, C-O ASAL
(Track 4 of Fig. 8), and local reservoir knowledge allows us to
obtain a reservoir saturation profile. For this saturation
profile, a fresher formation-water salinity has to be assumed
across the X interval from D800 to D885, similar to that
observed in well B-353. The profile of the ASAL log also
supports the presence of lower salinity water in this interval,
but not as dramatically as the one used for resistivity
interpretation. This is probably because ASAL is still an
indicator, not a quantitative parameter for formation-water
salinity.
Because the water salinity is assumed to be fresh, calculated
cased-hole resistivity water saturation agrees with water
saturation derived from the C-O log (Track 5 of Fig. 7), and
both are greater than the original reservoir water saturation.
Across the perforation intervals, the C-O derived water
saturation is probably greater than real reservoir water
saturation because of borehole fluid reinvasion when the C-O
log was run under shut-in conditions. Water saturation
calculated from cased-hole resistivity in the perforation
intervals should be more representative of real reservoir water
saturation than that derived from the C-O log.
Discussion
Effect of Proximity to the Second String on Cased-Hole
Resistivity Measurement
As noted for both wells B-353 and B-344, cased-hole
resistivity can be affected by proximity to the second casing
string at the top of the reservoir (Track 3 of Figs. 5 and 8).
The cased-hole resistivity tool sends a high current into the
casing string and interprets variations in current flux along the
casing in terms of leakage of current into the formation, which
indicates resistivity. Because of the presence of additional
conductive material and also the possible enlargement of hole-
diameter, incorrect estimates of formation resistivity in
proximity to the second casing string may result.
Effect of Extensive Waterflush on Residual Oil
Across the bottom perforation of well B-353, the water
saturation is very high (i.e., the residual oil is very low). This
is probably related to rock wettability and capillary number of
the reservoir rock in this interval.
5
Reservoir rocks are typically mixed-wet because of absorption
of heavy polar components of the oil by the rock surface.13
Reservoir rocks are more water-wet near the water-oil contact
and becomes less water-wet further up the structure. In a
sense, the degree of rock wettability correlates with the
amount of connate water. Capillary pressure of mixed
wettability rocks is weak.
For rocks with mixed wettability, residual oil is low.14 The
exact amount of oil retained by the rock after waterflood
depends on the balance of the displacing force and the
trapping capillary force, i.e., the capillary number, NC.
vL k
NC = (7)
k cos
where v is fluid flow velocity, fluid viscosity, L length of the
trapped residual oil blob, k permeability, porosity,
interfacial tension, and contact angle or wettability.
When the applied capillary number exceeds a critical capillary
number of the reservoir rock, residual oil may be dropped to a
very low level and may even approach zero (Fig. 5).
Electrical Properties
Archie parameters a and m are single-phase rock properties,
thus the measurements of a and m in the laboratory are relative
easy. On the other hand, n is a two-phase property and
displacing process dependent (drainage and imbibition).
Determination of n is a slow and difficult process. One
difficulty is to simulating reservoir wettability, especially
during the imbibition cycle. In addition, all rock electrical
properties are petrophysical-facies (rock type, fluids, and
reservoir conditions) dependent.
In both wells B-353 and B-344 log interpretations, a single ndr
was used for all reservoir intervals under drainage process and
a single nimb was used for imbibition. This treatment is an
improvement over the traditional single n for both drainage
and imbibition processes, but it may still introduce errors in
the saturation calculations. A better approach would be
petrophysical-facies dependent log processing.
Effect of Borehole Fluid Reinvasion on Nuclear Logging
Because of their shallow DOI, nuclear logs are affected by
many activities (e.g., borehole fluid reinvasion) that can
change near-wellbore reservoir saturation. When the C-O log
is run under shut-in conditions, borehole fluid reinvasion can
render the measurement useless (see the top two zones of
Track 5, Fig. 8).
Note that once the wetting phase invades the reservoir, it is
difficult to completely restore the original saturation state
because of capillary hysteresis.3 In this case, reservoir
saturation derived from a shallow measurement will be in
error, even though the shallow measurement is done under
flowing conditions.
6 SPE 92426
Formation-water Salinity Behind Casing.
Reservoir properties (rock and fluid properties) behind casing
can not be measured directly. They can only be inferred from
indirect measurements. Because of the physics of nuclear
logging, C-O and Sigma measurements are the most promising
for estimating formation-water salinity behind casing.
Note that SIR (Eq. 5) relates to total fluid salinity assuming
100% water saturation and is a capture measurement with a
slightly deeper DOI than the C-O measurement. If Sw<100%,
SIR (Eq. 5) and ASAL (Eq. 6) have to be normalized with
respect to Sw, i.e.:
1 YCl
SIR = (8)
S w YH
and
AYCl
ASAL = (9)
BS wYH + YCl
In theory, ASAL, output by a lithology processing algorithm,
should be a good formation-water salinity indicator when
acquired by a detector shielded from the borehole. However,
because it is an auxiliary output of inelastic capture
spectroscopy logging, it has not been sufficiently
characterized to ensure absolute accuracy. This is true for all
modern nuclear pulse neutron tools. Therefore, to have an
accurate determination of formation-water salinity, these
nuclear tools must be further characterized for fluid salinity
estimation (Eqs. 8 and 9). In addition, it should be noted that
the nuclear pulse neutron is only valid for higher porosity
reservoirs. This porosity cutoff is probably around 10 to 12
pu.
Application of RSM for Reservoir Management
Sidetracking for More Oil
Both wells B-353 and B-344 were successfully sidetracked in
the top thin dry oil interval of the reservoir with maximum
reservoir contact multi-lateral boreholes. As an example, the
openhole LWD log interpretation for well B-344 is shown in
Fig. 10.
Summary and Conclusions
Reservoir saturation monitoring is difficult, especially if the
reservoir has mixed formation-water salinity. Cased-hole
completions with perforations are more difficult to monitor
than openhole completions. Data integration is the key for any
successful RSM evaluation.
C-O logging is salinity independent. However, because of
potential borehole fluid reinvasion, the shallow DOI of C-O
logging limits its applications. In addition, converting the C-O
ratio to reservoir saturation is a complex procedure, and the
process is service-company dependent. The accuracy of C-O
derived saturation is also questionable.
Resistivity has a much greater DOI than the C-O logging, but
its interpretation is sensitive to formation-water salinity and
drainage/imbibition rock electrical properties. These effects
on resistivity interpretation are less if water saturation is low,
but can be very great if reservoir saturation is close to the
endpoint of residual oil or if the water is very fresh.
To perform cased-hole RSM, a new integrated approach has
been developed in this study. Formation-water salinity is
characterized with water samples collected at the surface as
well as at the bottom of the hole across the perforations.
Salinities derived from water samples are used to calibrate a
pseudo formation-water salinity profile derived from C-O
logs. This calibrated formation-water salinity profile can be
used to improve water saturation calculation from cased-hole
resistivity measurements.
Production logging is a simple and inexpensive physical
measurement of reservoir fluids flowing into the wellbore. It
can be very helpful in interpreting saturation monitoring logs
C-O or resistivity.
Recommendations
The best approach for accurate reservoir saturation monitoring
is fit-for-purpose logging and integrating data interpretation:
1. For wells with low water-cut (reservoir with low
depletion), a resistivity log should give fairly reliable
saturation estimation. High formation-resistivity
dominates water saturation calculation, over other factors.
2. For wells with high water-cut (reservoir with high
depletion), formation-resistivity is low, thus other factors
such as formation-water salinity and rock electrical
properties will have a larger impact on water saturation
calculations. In this case, C-O logging probably provides
a better measurement of residual oil saturation. To
minimize wellbore fluid reinvasion, C-O logs should be
run under flowing conditions.
3. If a PL is not available within the last two years of
production, a saturation monitoring log should be run
together with a PL.
4. For accurate reservoir saturation monitoring in key wells,
both resistivity and C-O should be run together with a PL.
5. C-O logging technology can be used to derive a pseudo
formation-water salinity by taking the ratio of capture
chlorine and hydrogen. But current C-O tools are not
calibrated for this application. This should be done by the
industry for future reservoir saturation monitoring and
diagnosing displacement of oil by waters with different
salinities.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Saudi Aramco for permission to publish this
paper. Special thanks go to the Reservoir Description &
Simulation Dept and the Reservoir Management Dept as well
as to Schlumberger for their support in conducting this study.
R. Black developed the variable n functionality in Geolog for
Archie Sw calculation.
SPE 92426 7

Nomenclatures
References
a Archie lithology factor
A, B Tool parameters for ASAL 1. Aulia, K., et al.: Resistivity Behind Casing, Oilfield
ASAL Apparent average salinity Review, Spring 2001, 2-25.
BHS Bottomhole sample 2. Archie, G.E.: The Electrical Resistivity Log as an Aid in
C Carbon, or salt concentration Determining Some Reservoir Characteristics, Trans.,
Carb carbonate AIME (1942) 146, 54-67.
CH Cased-hole 3. Ma, S., Mason, G., and Morrow, N.: "Effect of Contact
Cl Chlorine Angle on Drainage and Imbibition in Regular Polygonal
DMT Digital mud tester Tubes," Colloids & Surfaces, A: Physicochemical and
DOI Depth of investigation Engineering Aspect, v.117, pp.273, 1996.
FAL Formation analysis log 4. Neuman, C.H.: Logging Measurement of Residual Oil,
FTS Formation tester sample Rangely Field, CO, paper SPE 8844 JPT, September
GCA Geochemical analysis 1983, 1735-44.
H Hydrogen 5. Freeman, D.W. and Fenn, C.J.: An Evaluation of
k permeability Various Logging Methods for the Determination of
L Average length of remaining oil blobs Remaining Oil Saturation in a Mixed-salinity
LWD Log while drilling Environment, paper SPE 17976, 1989 MEOS.
m Archie cementation exponent 6. Al-Shahri, A.M., Al-Ubaidan, A.A., Kibsgaard, P., and
MBPD Thousand barrels per day Kuchuk, F.: Monitoring Areal and Vertical Sweep and
MD Measured depth Reservoir Pressure in the Ghawar Field Using Multiprobe
n Archie saturation exponent Wireline Formation tester, paper SPE 48956, 1998
N Number ATCE.
O Oxygen 7. Conti, F. and Bona, N.: Evaluation of Residual Oil
OH Openhole Saturation in the Balmoral Field (UKCS), SPWLA ALS,
PL Production logging June 6-9, 2004, paper UUU.
ppk Parts per thousand 8. Zhou, Q. and Wicaksono, A.: Proper Interpretation of
pu Porosity unit Casedhole Resistivity Logs for Better Reservoir
RSM Reservoir saturation monitoring Management, SPWLA ALS, June 6-9, 2004, paper TT.
R Resistivity 9. Eyvazzadeh, R.Y., Kelder, O., Al-Hajari, A.A., Ma, S.,
S Saturation and Al-Behair, A.M.: Modern Carbon/Oxygen Logging
SIR Salinity indicator ratio Methodologies: Comparing Hydrocarbon Saturation
SS Shaly sand Determination Techniques, paper SPE 90339, 2004
t Time ATCE.
v Velocity 10. Bartenhagen, K.J., Bradford, J.C., and Logan, D.: Cased-
WHS Wellhead sample Hole Formation Resistivity: Changing the Way We Find
WOC Water-oil contact Oil and Gas, SPE 70042, SPE Permian Basin Oil & Gas
WC Water-cut Recovery Conf., Midland, TX, May 15-16, 2001.
Y Elemental Yield 11. Ma, S., Al-Ajmi, F., Al-Shahri, A., and Al-Behair, A.:
Looking Behind Casing Evaluation and Application of
Porosity Cased-Hole Resistivity in Saudi Arabia, paper SPE
Neutron cross-sectional capture, sigma 88467, 2004 APOGCE.
Viscosity 12. Schlumberger, Cased-Hole Log Interpretation Principles/
Interfacial tension Applications, SMP-7025, Schlumberger Education
Contact angle Services, Houston, TX, USA, 1989 Edition.
13. Zhou, X., Morrow, N., and Ma, S.: Interrelationship of
Subscript Wettability, Initial Water Saturation, Aging Time, and Oil
C Capillary Recovery by Spontaneous Imbibition and Waterflooding,
Cl Chlorine SPEJ, June 2000.
dr Drainage 14. Jadhunandan, P.P. and Morrow, N.: Effect of Wettability
H Hydrogen on Waterflood Recovery for Crude-Oil/Brine/Rcok
imb Imbibition Systems, paper SPE 22597, 1991 ATCE.
max Maximum
or Residual oil
salt Salt
T True
w Water
8 SPE 92426

1000

Carbonate reservoir
Carbonate Reservoir Rcok rock
m=1.95, =14.3%
m=1.95 =2.78 g/cc k=1.22 md =0.143

100

Imbibition
n=2.3232
RI

10 Drainage
n=1.7654

Drainage Dr_fit Imbibition Imb_fit

1
Fig. 2 Location of Wells B-344 and B-353 and their nearby
0.01 0.1 1
Sw
producers and injectors.

Fig. 1 An example of drainage and imbibition Archie

saturation exponents for a Saudi Arabia carbonate reservoir.
MD)

92 FAL 92 PLT 93 PLT

DEPTH ((MD)

RDD_FAL.PHIT_1 FALMD_SALT.DCAL_1
1 V/V POROSITY 0 -1 IFF CAL
IN D IFF CAL 99
DEPTH

RDD
RDD_FA
_FAL.V
L.VOL_A
OL_AN
NHY
HYD
DR_1
R_1 FA
F ALMD
LMD_S
_SA
ALT
LT.H
.HC
C_1
_1
0 V/ V ANHYDR ITE 1 0 CORREC FLA
HC CORREC FLA G
G 20
20
FEET
FEET
DEPTH (MD)

RD
RDD_FA
D_FAL.V
L.VOL_D
OL_DOLO
OLOM_1
M_1 RDD
RDD_FA
_FAL.V
L.VOL_U
OL_UW
WAT_1
AT_1 FLM_
FLM_1992091
19920917.QT_PC
7.QT_PCT_1
T_1 FLM_1
FLM_19930417
9930417 .QT_PC
.QT_P CT_1
T_1
0 V/V DOL OMI TE 1 0.5 V// V
V VWAT
WATER
ER 00 00 OIL
OIL 11 00
00 00 OIL
OIL 11 00
00
RDD_FAL .P HIT_1 RDD_FAL.SALT_1 RDD.DRHO_1 RD
DD_FA
D_FAL.V
L.VOL_C
OL_CA
ALCITE
LCITE_1
_1 FLM_19920917.QW_PCT_1 FLM_19930417.QW_PCT_1
R RDD_
RDD_FAL.PH
FAL.P HIT_1
IT_1
1 V/V PO ROSITY 0 0 PPK 3 00 -0 .1 G/CC 0.9 0 V/V CALCITE 1 0.5 V/V OIL
V/V OIL 00 0 WATER 1 00 0 WAT ER 1 00
RDD_FAL.VOL _ANHYDR_1 RDD_FAL.SWT_1 RDD.PEF_1 RDD_FAL.RT_2 MODE
MODEL_D
L_DR.N
R.N_1
_1
0 V/V ANHYDRIT E 1 1 V/V WAT ER SAT 0 -3 B/E 7 1 OHM M, 92 O H 1 000 1 6
ET
E ET

RDD_FAL.VOL_DOLOM_1 RDD.CALI_1 RDD.NPHI_1 RDD.ILM_3 RD

RDD_FA
D_FAL.V
L.VOL_U
OL_UW
WA
AT_1
T_1 POST ARAB-D STRINGER (7031)
FE

0 V/ V D OLO MIT E 1 BASE P

BASE POST-D
OST-D STRI
STRINGER
NGER(7034)
(7034)
F

0 IN 10 0. 45 V/V -0. 15 1 OHM M, 92 O H 1 000 0.5 V/V WATER 0

RDD_FAL.VOL_CALCITE_1 RDD.GR_1 RDD.RHOB_1 RDD.RXO_1 RDD
RDD_FAL.
_FAL.P
PHHIT_1
IT_1 TOP
PARAB-D
ARAB-DZ
ZO
ONE
NE 1
1(7043)
(7043)
TO
0 V/V CALCIT E 1 0 GAPI 50 1. 95 G/CC 2 .95 1 OHM M, 92 O H 1 000 0.5 V/V OIL 0 70 50
D050

POST ARAB-D STRINGER

BASE POST-D STRINGER TOP ARAB-D ZONE 2 (7071)

TOP ARAB-D ZONE 1

7050
D050
71100
D 00
TOP ARAB-D ZONE 2

Wateer-Oil
Wat r-Oil C
Contact
o ntact

D 100
7100

D150
71 50
Wat er-O il Contact

D150
7150

72
D 00
200 TOP
TOPARAB-D
ARAB-DZ
ZO
ONE
NE 3
3(7203)
(7203)

7200
D 200
TOP ARAB-D ZONE 3

D72
250
50

D 250
7250

D300
73 00
TOP
TOPARAB-D
ARAB-DZ
ZO
ONE
NE 4
4(7304)
(7304)

D300
7300
TOP ARAB-D ZONE 4 BASE AR
BASE ARAB-D RESE
AB-D RESERVOIR
RVOIR(7342)
(7342)

Fig. 4 Well B-353 openhole and cased-hole production log

BASE ARAB-D RES ERVOIR
flow profiles.
Fig. 3 Well B-353 1992 FAL raw logs and their
interpretation.
SPE 92426 9

(MD)
(MD)
FALMD
LMD_SA
_SALT.N
LT.N_1
_1 MODE
EL.N_
L.N_1
1

DEPTH(MD)
FA
FALMD_SALT.N_1 MOD

D)
(M D)
11 66 11 66
MOD
MODE
ODEL_DR
EL_DR.N
L_DR.N_1
.N_1
_1 FALMD
FALMD_S
_SALT.S
ALT.SA
ALT_1
LT_1 FALM
FALMD_
D_SALTS
SA LTS.S
.SALT_1
ALT_1

H (M
M MODDEELL N
RD DD _F
RD _F AA L.
L. PP HH ITIT _1
_1 RRDDDD__ FA
FALL .D.DRRHHOO_1
_1 MO .N
. _1
_1
00 PPK 300 00 PPK 3000

DEPTH
1 6

DEPTH
1 6 PPK 300 PPK 30 1 V/V POROSITY 0 -0.1
-0.1 G
G/C3
/C3 0.9
0.9 1
1 6
6

PTH
RDD
R
RDD_FA
DD_FAL.S
_FAL.SALT_1
L.SALT_1
ALT_1 RDD
DD_FA
_FAL
L.V
.VO
OL_U
L_UW
WAT_1
AT_1 RD
DD.V
D.VO
OL_UWA
AT_1
T_1
R R L_UW FA LL M
FA MDD .V.V O
O LL _A
_A NN HH YD
YD RR _1
_1 RRDD DD _F
_F AA L.L.SW
SW T_
T_ 11 RRDDDD_F
_F AAL.L.PE
PE FF _1
_1 RD D _ FA L. R T _1 RDDD_F
RD _F AAL.L.SS AALT
LT _1
_1

DEPT
0
0 KPPM
KPPM 3 00
3 00 0.5
0.5 V/V WATER
V/V WATER 00 00 .5
.5 V/V WAT
V/V WATER
ER 00 1 V/VWWA
ATER
TERSSAT
AT -3
0 -3 B/E
B/E 7 0.2
7 100
2000 100 PPK
PPK 300
300
FEET
0 V/V ANHYDRITE 1 1 V/V 0 OHMM, 92OH

T
FEET

T
FEET

EE
EE
RDD
DD_FA
_FAL.V
L.VOL_U
OL_UW
WAT_1
AT_1 FALMD_SALTS.RT_B_1 FALMD
LMD_S
_SALT.V
ALT.VO
OL_UWA
AT_1
T_1 FALMD_SALTS
LTS.V
.VOL_U
OL_UW
WAT_1
AT_1 RDDD_F
_F AAL.L.VVOOL_
L_ UUWA
WAT_
T_ 11

DE
R
RDD_FAL.VOL_UWAT_1 FLM_19930417.
FLM_19930417.Q
QT_P
T_PC
CT
T__1
1 FA L_UW FALMD_
SA FA LL M
FA MD.
D. VV O
O L_
L_ DD O
O LO
LO M_
M_ 11 R D D _FA L . CA L I _1 RDDD__ FA
RD FAL.L.NNPP HHI_I_ 11 RRDDDD_F
_F AL
AL ..ILIL MM_1
_1 RD

F
100 0.2 KPPM 200 0 0.5 0.2 OHMM,
MM, 92OH
92OH 0.5
2000 0.5 V/V
/V W
WA
ATE
TER
R 0
00 00 .5
.5 V/V WAT
WATER
ER 00

F
0.5
0.5 V/V W
V/V WA
A TER
TER 0
0 00 OIL
OIL 100 0.5 V/V WATER
V/V WATER V/V 0 V/V DOLOMITE 1 4 IN 0.45
14 0.45 V/V
V/V 0.15 0
-0.15 .2 OH 2000 V 0
F LM_19930417.QW_PCT_1 RDD
DD_FA
_FAL
LP FA LL M
MDD .V.V O
O LL _C
_C AA LC
LC II TE
TE _1
_1 RR DD DD _F
_F AL
AL ..GGRR _1
_1 RRDDDD_F
_F AAL.L.RRXX OO_1
_1 RRDDDD_FA
_FALL ..PH
PHIIT_
T_ 11
RD
R
RDD_FA
DD_FAL.P
D_FAL.PH
L.PHIT_1
HIT_1
IT_1 RDD
RDD.R
.RT_1
T_1 RD
RDD_FA
D_FAL.P
L.PH
HIT_1
IT_1 R .P
.HHIT_1
IT_1 FA R D D_ FA L .R H O B _1

0 WAT ER 100 0.2 V/V 0 V/V CALCITE 1 0

0 APII
AP 50 1.95
50 0
2.95 0.2
.2 OHMM,
OHMM, 92OH
92OH 2000 0.5
2000 0.5 V/V
V /VOIL
OIL 0
0
0.5 V/V
0.5 V/V POROSIT
POROSIT Y
Y 0
0 V WAT
WATEER 200 0.5
00 00 0.5 V/V OI
V/V OI L
L 00 00 .5
.5 V/V OIL
V/V OIL 00 G/C3

Abnormal
Abnormal CHFR
CHFR reading
reading
POST
POST ARA
ARAB-D
B-D STRI
STRINGER
NGER (7031)
(7031) PPOO ST
ST AARR AABB-D
-D SS TTRRIN
INGG EERR
BASE
BASE P
POST-D
OST-D STRI
STRINGER
NGER (7034)
(7034) BBAA SE
SE PPOS
OS TT-D
-D SS TTRRIN
IN GE
GERR

TOP
TOP AR
ARAB-D
AB-D ZONE
ZONE11 ((7043)
7043)
TTO
O PP AARRAABB-D
-D ZZO
O NNEE 11
7050
D050
7050
D050

TOP
TOP AR
ARAB-D
AB-D ZONE
ZONE22 ((7071)
7071)

6D750
7 50
TTO
O PP AARRAABB-D
-D ZZO
O NNEE 22

D7100
100
7100 Massive
Massive
D 100 water
water
flushing
flushing
Water
Water-- Oil
Oil Contact
Contact

6D800
8 00
7150
D150
7150
Fresher water
Fresher water
di spl
di spl aces
aces
saltier wat
saltier wat er
er

7200
D7200
200 TOP ARAB-D ZONE3 ( 7203) D850
6 8 50

7250
D7250
250 TTO
O PP AARRAABB-D
-D ZZO
O NNEE 33

6D900
9 00

D300
7300
TOP
TOP AR
ARAB-D
AB-D ZONE
ZONE44 ((7304)
7304)

D950
6 9 50
92 FAL 93 PLT T ime -Lap se
03 CHFR 03 RSM
BASE
BASE ARA
ARAB-D
B-D RESE
RESERVOIR
RVOIR (7342)
(7342) Resistiv ity

Fig. 5 Well B-353 reservoir saturation determined from 2003 TTO

O PP AARRAABB-D
-D ZZO
O NNEE 44

cased-hole resistivity reservoir saturation monitoring logs. D70

7 0 00 0

92 FAL 93 PLT 98 PLT Fig. 6 Well B-344 1992 FAL raw logs and their
DEPTH (MD)

1
RDD_FAL.PHIT_1
V/V POROSITY 0 1
MODEL_DR.N_1
6
interpretation.
FALMD.VOL_ANHYDR_1 RDD_FAL.SALT_1
0 V/V ANHYDRITE 1 100 PPK 300
FEET

FALMD.VOL_DOLOM_1 RDD_FAL.VOL_UWAT_1 FLM_19930428.QT_PCT_1 FLM_19980504.QT_PCT_1

0 V/V DOLOMITE 1 0.5 V/V WATER 0 0 Q0% 100 0 Q0% 100
DEPTH (MD)

FALMD.VOL_CALCITE_1 RDD_FAL.PHIT_1 FLM_19930428.QW_PCT_1 FLM_19980504.QW_PCT_1

0 V/V CALCITE 1 0.5 V/V OIL 0 0 QW% 100 0 QW% 100
R DD _ F AL .P H IT _ 1 R S M0 4. C A L I_ 1
1 V/V POROSITY 0 14 IN 4
FA L MD . V O L_ A N H Y D R _ 1 R D D _ F A L . GR _ 1 FA L MD . R S T _ V U W II__ SS PP EE CC __ 11
POST ARAB-D STRINGER
0 V/V ANHYDRITE 1 0 API 50 0 .5 V/V WAT ER 0
FEET

BASE POST-D STRINGER

F A L M D . V O L _ D O L O M_ 1 R S M0 4 . G R _ C H F R _ 1 R S M0 4 .R T_ 1 L AB.SAL T _ 1 R D D _F A L . V O L_ U W A T __ 11
0 V/V DOLOM ITE 1 0 API 1 00 0. 2 OHMM, 0 4CHF R 2000 0 PPK 300 0 .5 V/V WAT ER 0
TOP ARAB-D ZONE 1 _F AA L.L.PP HH IITT __ 11
F A LM D . V O L _ C A L C I T E _ 1 R S M0 4 . G R _ R S T D _ 1 R D D _ F A L .R T _1 F AL M D.AS AL _ W AL K2 _ 1 R D D _F
0 V/V CALCITE 1 0 API 50 0. 2 OHM M, 92OH 2000 0 KPPM 300 0 .5 V/V OIL 0

D750
6750 Ab normal CHF
POST
BASE R r eadin
ARAB-D
POST-D gER
STRING
STRINGER
TOP ARAB-D ZONE 2
TOP ARAB-D ZONE1

D750
6750
TOP ARAB-D ZONE2

D800
6800

D800
6800

F resh er
w ater
D850
6850
displaces
sa ltier
6850
D850 w ater

TOP ARAB-D ZONE 3

TOP ARAB-D ZONE3

D900
6900
D900
6900

D950
6950
D950
6950

TOP ARAB-D ZONE4

Dep th T ime -L ap se F ormation C-O
TOP ARAB-D ZONE 4
D700
7000 Cor relatio n Resistiv ity water salinity satu ration

D700
7000

Fig. 8 QC of cased-hole resistivity and C-O logs and

Fig. 7 Well B-344 cased-hole production log flow profiles. estimation of formation-water salinity from C-O and BHS for
Well B-344.
10 SPE 92426

92 FAL
92 FAL 98 PLT
98 PLT 04 Rw
04 Rw &
&nn 04 RSM
04 RSM DR HB_1

D)
D)
D)
-0.05 G/C3 0.45

(M
(M
DEPTH(M
RSS M0
M0 4V
4V . PPHH I T_
T_ 11 MO D
MO DE L _ D DRR .N
.N __ 11 PHIT _1 PEB_1 DIP_ WELL _1
R
R S M0 4V .. P H II T_ 1 MO D EE LL __ D R .N _1
1
1 V/VPOROSITY
V/V POROSITY 0
0 DEPTH
DEPTH 11 66 1 FAL POR 0 -3 B/E 7 100 DEG 0
FA LL M
MDD .V
.V O
O LL __ A
ANNH
HYYD
DRR _1
_1 RDDD
D _F
_F A
A L.
L. S AA LL TT _1
_1 MO D
D E L .N N _1
_1 R S M04
M04 VV .. VV O
O L_
L_ UU W
W A T_
T_ 11
MO D EE LL .. N RR SS M04 U W AA T_

DEPTH
R L. SS A
FA
FA L MD .V O L _ AN HY DR _1 R DD _F A L T _1 MO _1 V . V O L_ 1
VO L_ ANHYDR _1 T NPH _1 R T_ 1 T VD_8
0 V/V ANHYDRITE
ANHYDRITE 1 11 00
00 KPPM 30 00 11 0.5
66 0.5 V/V WATER
WATER 00
FEET
KPPM 30 V/V
FEET
0 V/V 1
FEET

FAA LL MD
FF A
MD . V
VO
L MD .. V
O L _D
_D O
O LL _D
O LO
LO M_1
O LO
M_1
M_1
RD
R
R
DD
D __ FA
DD
FA L . V O O LL _U
_ FA LL .. VV O
_U W
L _U W
WAA T _1
_1
A TT _1
F L M_
M_ 19
FF LL M_
19 98
98 05
19 98
05 04
04 .. Q
05 04
Q T _P
_P C
. Q TT _P
C T _1
_1
C TT _1
R SM
R
R
SM 04
04 VV .. SA
SM 04
SA L T _1
_1
V . SA LL TT _1
R D D _F _F AA LL .. VO
RR DD DD _F
VO L_
A L . VO L_
L_ UU W
W A T_
T_ 11
U W AA T_ 1
0 ANHYDRITE 1 0.45 V/V -0.15 20 OHMM 2000 6860 FEET 6740
0
0 V/V DOLOM
V/V DOLOM ITE
ITE 1
1 00 .5
.5 V/VWATER
V/V WATER 00 00 Q0 %
Q0 % 100 00
100 KPPM
KPPM 33 00 0.5
00 0.5 V/V WATER
V/V WATER 00 VO L _DO LO M_ 1 RO P_1 RO BU_1 P2 2H_ UNC_ 1 SAL T_ 1 VOL _UWA T_ 1

FEET
FA LL M
MDD .. V
VOO LL __ C
CAA LC
LC I T E E _1
_1 R SS M0
M0 4V
4V .. PP H
H I T_
T_ 11 F LM
LM _1
_1 99
99 80
80 50
50 4.
4. Q
QWW _ PC C T_
T_ 1 R SS M
M 04
04 V.
V. A
A SS A
A L _W
_W A
ALK K 2_
2_ 1 R SM
SM 04
04 V . PHPH II TT __ 11
FA
FA L MD .VO L _ CA LC II TT E _1 R
R S M0 4V . P H II T_ 1 FF LM _1 99 80 50 4. Q W __ PP C T_ 11 R
R S M 04 V. A S A LL _W A LL K 2_ 11 RR SM 04 VV .. PH IT _ 1 0 DOLOMITE 1 200 MIN/FT 0 1.95 G/C3 2.95 20 OHMM 2000 300 KPPM 0 0.5 BVW 0
0
0 V/V CALCITE
V/V CALCITE 1
1 00 .5
.5 V/V OIL
V/V OIL 00 00 QW%
QW% 100 00
100 KPPM
KPPM 33 00 0.5
00 0.5 V/V OIL
V/V OIL 00 VOL _ CAL CIT E_1 G R_IM P_1 RHO B_1 P1 0H_ UNC_ 1 SWT _1 PHI T_ 1
0 CALCITE 1 0 GAPI 50 1.95 G/C3 2.95 20 OHMM 2000 1 V/V 0 0.5 HC 0
PO
POSST
TAR
ARAB
AB --D
DS
D ST
TRING
RINGER
ER
POS TAR AB - ST RINGER
B
B ASE
AS EPPO
OS
ST
T- DDSSTTRING
NGE
ER
BAS EP OST-- D ST RI
RI NGER
R

T
T
T
OP
O
O
PAR
AR
P AR
AB
AB
AB
-D Z
-D
-D
Z
ZO
ON
ON
N
E1
E
E
1
1
D720
7200
7400
D750
6750
D750
6750 TOP
PAR
ARAB -D Z
ZON
NE22
T
TO
OP ARAB
AB-D
-D ZOONE
E 2

7600
D780
7800

D800
6800
8000
D800
6800

8200

D840
8400

D850
6850 8600
D850
6850

8800
D90 0
900 0
T
T
TOP
O
OPAR
P AR
ARAB
AB
AB -DZ
-D
-D Z
ZON
O
ON
NE3
E
E 3
3

6900
D900
6900
D900
9200

9400
D960
9600

6950
D950
6950 9800

10000

T
TOP
OPAR
P AR
ARAB
AB -DZ
-D Z
ZON
ON
NE4
E 4
4
D102
10200 0
TO AB -D O E

7000
D70 0 10400
10600

Fig. 9 Well B-344 Data integration and final reservoir 108 0

1D080 0

saturation.
Fig. 10 LWD logs and their interpretation, sidetracking the
top thin zone with a 5 thickness, well B-344.

View publication stats