TM 4217

NATURAL GAS ENGINEERING

PROJECT 1: WELL LOG INTERPRETATION

Name : Nur Rahmi SR (12215092)

Nevi Cahya Winofa (12215093)
Christofer Devlin (12215094)
Bayu Aji Purbantanu (12215095)
Muhammad Haidar Rochim (12215096)
Lecturer : Prof. Ir. Doddy Abdassah, M.Sc., Ph.D.
Dr. Ir. Taufan Marhaendrajana, M.Sc.
Assistant : Kharisma Idea
Steven Chandra
Hanif Farrastama Yoga
Submission Date : 28th of January 2019

PETROLEUM ENGINEERING STUDY PROGRAM

FACULTY OF MINING AND PETROLEUM ENGINEERING
INSTITUT TEKNOLOGI BANDUNG
2019


LIST OF CONTENT

LIST OF CONTENT ................................................................................................................................ i

FIGURE LIST .........................................................................................................................................ii
TABLE LIST ......................................................................................................................................... iii
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Problem Statement ..................................................................................................................... 1
CHAPTER II DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................... 2
2.1 Data Quality ........................................................................................................................... 2
2.2 Identification of Formation Reservoir ................................................................................... 2
2.3 Identification of Interest Zone ............................................................................................... 5
2.4 Calculation and Determination of Vshale .............................................................................. 8
2.5 Determination of Petrophysical Parameters ........................................................................... 8
2.6 Calculation and Determination of Log Porosity .................................................................. 11
2.7 Calculation and Determination of Water Saturation ............................................................ 13
2.8 Petrophysical Parameters for Water Saturation Calculation ................................................ 13
2.8 Fluid Contact Calculation .................................................................................................... 20
2.9 Calculation of Pay Zone....................................................................................................... 21
2.10 Pay Summary ..................................................................................................................... 22
CHAPTER III CLOSING ...................................................................................................................... 23
3.1 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 23
3.2 Recommendation ..................................................................................................................... 23
3.3 Team Work Evaluation ............................................................................................................ 23
3.4 Reference ................................................................................................................................. 24

FIGURE LIST

Figure 2.1 Baker Hughes Typical Lithology .......................................................................................... 4

Figure 2.2 Crossover TM-1 .................................................................................................................... 6
Figure 2.3 Crossover TM-2 ................................................................................................................... 6
Figure 2.4 Crossover TM-3 .................................................................................................................... 6
Figure 2.5 TM-1 Clay Volume Result .................................................................................................... 9
Figure 2.6 VclSp plot TM-2 ................................................................................................................. 10
Figure 2.7 VclSp plot TM-3 ................................................................................................................. 10
Figure 2.8 Log Porosity TM-1 .............................................................................................................. 12
Figure 2.9 Log Porosity TM-2 .............................................................................................................. 12
Figure 2.10 Log Porosity TM-3 ............................................................................................................ 13
Figure 2.11 Pickett Plot TM-1 .............................................................................................................. 14
Figure 2.12 Resistivity vs Vwcl Plot TM-1 .......................................................................................... 15
Figure 2.13 ND Plot TM-2 ................................................................................................................... 16
Figure 2.14 Resistivity Plot TM-2 ....................................................................................................... 16
Figure 2.15 Picket Plot TM-3 ............................................................................................................... 18
Figure 2.16 Resistivity Plot TM-3 ........................................................................................................ 19
Figure 2.17 GWC Contact .................................................................................................................... 21

ii



TABLE LIST

Table 2.1 Data Quality ............................................................................................................................ 2

Table 2.2 Bulk density ............................................................................................................................ 3
Table 2.3 RCALData .............................................................................................................................. 3
Table 2.4 Depth summary ....................................................................................................................... 8
Table 2.4 Clay Volume Result TM-1 (ND crossplot)............................................................................. 9
Table 2.5 Clay Volume Result TM-2 & TM-3 ..................................................................................... 11
Table 2.5 Water Saturation Summary ................................................................................................... 20
Table 2.6 Fluid Gradient of RFT Data TM-1 ....................................................................................... 21
Table 2.6 Pay Summary ........................................................................................................................ 22

iii



CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

1.1 Problem Statement

a) Well: TM-01, TM-02, TM-03

b) Log type: SP, Gamma Ray, Density, Sonic, Neutron and Resistivity Logs
c) Additional Data Used: DST

The task given is to do an interpretation of log data provide. The interpretation includes:

1. Data Quality
2. Identification of Formation and Reservoir
3. Calculation and Determination of Vshale
4. Determination of Petrophysical Parameters
5. Calculation and Determination of Log Porosity
6. Calculation and Determination of Water Saturation
7. Petrophysical Parameters for Water Saturation Calculation
8. Fluid Contact Calculation
9. Calculation of Pay Zone
10. Pay Summary

CHAPTER II DISCUSSION

2.1 Data Quality

In order to compute reservoir properties, petrophysical interpretation has been done first.
There were three wells which are provided by modern log data. Quality control is done to
make sure all data are good enough thus the interpretation could be done. Hence, Table 2.1
shows the summary of data quality control of TM-1, TM-2, TM-3.
Table 2.1 Data Quality
Log Data TM-1 TM-2 TM-3
√ √ √
Depth
(need to be corrected to TVD)
Temperature √ √ √
Gamma Ray √ √ √
SP X √ √
Density √ √ √
Neutron √ √ √
Deep Resistivity √ √ √
Shallow
√ √ √
Resistivity
Caliper √ √ √

Based on the table above, it can be said that the data are pretty good, thus the next step of
interpretation could be done.

2.2 Identification of Formation Reservoir

a. Lithology Evaluation
A fundamental thing in making petrophysical interpretation is determining the lithology of
the formation. Because the geological evaluation data is not fully provided, the lithology
evaluation could be done from the log data provided only. All the information that is obtained
from the lecture about the formation is reservoir lithology (carbonate), there were no
information further what type of carbonate that the reservoir is. So the determination of
whether the reservoir is limestone or dolomite is needed to be done. Using a simple density
porosity model, here is the comparison method:

𝜌! = 𝜌!" 1 − 𝜙 + 𝜌! (𝜙) (1)

With an assumption that reservoir porosity is 100% filled by the hydrocarbon gas (𝜌! =
0.685, 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝐷𝑆𝑇 𝑓𝑖𝑙𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑇𝑀𝑇 − 1), Table 2.2 shows the result.

Table 2.2 Bulk density

Rhob Rhob
No. Depth Porosity Rhob
(LS) (Dol)
1 2003.3 0.112 2.335 2.4832 2.62528
2 2060.67 0.107 2.216 2.493325 2.636205
3 2106.56 0.154 2.264 2.39815 2.53351

From the table above, it can be concluded that bulk density which calculated with matrix
density of limestone are quite more alike with the measured bulk density than the bulk
density which calculated with matrix density of dolomite. Then the validation using RCAL
data is done to validate the argument.

Table 2.3 RCAL Data

Sample Depth Permeability Porosity G.D
No. meters Horizontal % gr/cc
(md)
1 2075.08 27 28.33 2.711
1A 2075.08 27.55 28.72 2.713
2 2075.38 26 21.24 2.71
5 2076.05 9.39 22.69 2.705
5A 2076.05 7.68 22.62 2.712
5B 2076.05 32.15 22.99 2.707
6 2076.05 13 22.74 2.725
7 2076.84 13 23.5 2.712
7A 2076.84 13.13 23.3 2.715
7B 2076.84 8.64 22.87 2.712
8 2077.27 27 24.03 2.713
8A 2077.27 19.57 24.06 2.717
8B 2077.27 23.88 28.33 2.71
9 2077.41 63 28.89 2.707
11 2078.65 52 24.52 2.724
12 2078.97 25 22.87 2.713
15 2080.06 8.7 22.5 2.729
15A 2080.06 7.46 14.97 2.727
15B 2080.06 6.33 21.89 2.72
17 2080.77 4.19 13.65 2.707
17B 2080.77 2.39 20 2.711
18 2081.22 21 21.21 2.7

19 2081.45 55 24.79 2.703

20 2081.86 15 23.48 2.701
21 2082.12 9.27 22.6 2.701
21A 2082.12 9.2 22.29 2.716
21B 2082.12 8.61 21.37 2.7
22 2082.37 58 24.44 2.717
23 2082.62 11 20.2 2.706
23A 2082.62 11.17 20.3 2.706
23B 2082.62 14.25 18.08 2.724
24 2082.96 78 17.73 2.718
25 2083.4 4.29 18.39 2.703
25A 2083.4 4.14 13.75 2.708
25B 2083.4 14.48 23.73 2.712
27 2084.2 5.08 15.94 2.703
27A 2084.2 4.14 15.46 2.718
27B 2084.2 5.637 22.06 2.713

Beside of that, the quick up lithology evaluation is done using this parameter from Baker
Hughes. The reservoir has low GR and approximately 2.71 g/cc density.

Figure 2.1 Baker Hughes Typical Lithology

Hence, it is validated that the reservoir is a limestone reservoir. For identifying the
sedimentation environment, based on the data provided, it can be concluded that the reservoir
is deposited in shallow sea. In assumption that the limestone is biogenic type, so it is corral
deposited then its possible sedimentation environment is in sea within less than 50 meters
depth (shallow sea).

2.3 Identification of Interest Zone

There are many ways to determine which zone is the zone of interest, based on log data
provided. More log data provided, more accurate in identifying the zone of interest. As it is
provided by Gamma Ray Log, Resistivity Log, Neutron Log and Density Log, so the
identification of the reservoir zone of interest by those combination of log data is done.

In order to find layer which filled by hydrocarbon, it needed to fulfill this requirements:
1. Read by low GR Log (High GR Log represents shale, something that needs to be
avoiding to)
2. Read by high Neutron Log (High Neutron Log represents high porosity)
3. Read by high Resistivity Log (Hydrocarbon has high resistivity, gas > oil > water)
4. Deep resistivity is higher than low resistivity log reading (represents permeable layer)
5. Found with “crossover” in them (represents pore which are fulfilled by other than
water)

Requirement number 5 is the most important one. Crossover is phenomenon from Neutron-
Density Log reading where Density Log is decreasing (to the left) and Neutron Log is
decreasing too (to the right). Decreasement of Density Log represents higher porosity. While
porosity increases, if the assumption of those porosity is filled with water, Neutron Log must
be increasing, but the fact is not. It represents that the porosity is fulfilled by another fluid.

Figure 2.2 Crossover TM-1

Figure 2.3 Crossover TM-2

Figure 2.4 Crossover TM-3

Based on those requirements, zone 2 is the one which fulfilled those all 5 requirements. It
indicates that zone 2 is filled by gas (high resistivity), has relatively high porosity, has
relatively high permeability and there is crossover there in zone 2. It can be concluded that
zone 2 is the zone of interest in TM-1. TM-3 have same trend data with TM-1. The zone
interest in all wells named zone 2.

Something anomaly is found in TM-2. It can be said that zone 2 (depth m – depth m) is one
of the interest zones in TM-2. But there is something anomaly in zone 2. There has come a
hypothesis that a layer between the reservoir in zone 2 is layer that impermeable, but because

A lack of further information, the decision of what kind of layer it is could not be done. It can
only be said that its layer is impermeable. The assumption that its impermeable zone is kind
of dolomite that has much radioactive elements. Because its GR Log reading relatively higher
than two layers of the reservoir in zone 2.

Another abnormal thing that found in TM-2 is, there is a layer that potentially filled by
hydrocarbon (the presence of crossover) on the top of log reading data. Because there were
no further information of it, it cannot be decided whether it can be the interest zone or not.
Table 2.4 shows the depth summary of reservoir.

Table 2.4 Depth summary

Well Zone Top Depth Gross Thickness
TM-1 2 1994.48 2118.92 124.44
TM-2 2 1854 1872.7 18.7
TM-3 2 2147.5 2250.6 103.1

2.4 Calculation and Determination of Vshale

As the reservoir has been identified as limestone reservoir, so Gamma Ray Log is not a good
choice to be used in shale volume calculation. Because Gamma Ray is not sensitive with
carbonate type of stone (Carbonate usually has low clay content, so radioactivity of carbonate
is low). The best choice in calculating shale volume is using SP Log. Just because TM-1 is
unprovided by SP Log, Double clay indicator Neutron-Density Log can be the alternatives.

𝐷𝒆𝒏𝑪𝒍𝟐 − 𝑫𝒆𝒏𝑪𝒍𝟏 × 𝑵𝒆𝒖 − 𝑵𝒆𝒖𝑪𝒍𝟏

− 𝑫𝒆𝒏 − 𝑫𝒆𝒏𝑪𝒍𝟏 ×(𝑵𝒆𝒖𝑪𝒍𝟐 − 𝑵𝒆𝒖𝑪𝒍𝟏)
𝑽𝒄𝒍𝑵𝑫 = (2)
𝑫𝒆𝒏𝑪𝒍𝟐 − 𝑫𝒆𝒏𝑪𝒍𝟏 × 𝑵𝒆𝒖𝑪𝒍𝒂𝒚 − 𝑵𝒆𝒖𝑪𝒍𝟏
− 𝑫𝒆𝒏𝑪𝒍𝒂𝒚 − 𝑫𝒆𝒏𝑪𝒍𝟏 ×(𝑵𝒆𝒖𝑪𝒍𝟐 − 𝑵𝒆𝒖𝑪𝒍𝟏)

For TM-2 and TM-3, Because there were SP Log Data, the SP Log can be used to calculate
shale volume of the reservoir. Because SP Log is sensitive enough to be used in shale volume
calculation in, especially, carbonate reservoir.

𝑺𝑷 − 𝑺𝑷𝑪𝒍𝒆𝒂𝒏
𝑽𝒄𝒍𝑺𝑷 = (3)
𝑺𝑷𝑪𝒍𝒂𝒚 − 𝑺𝑷𝑪𝒍𝒆𝒂𝒏

2.5 Determination of Petrophysical Parameters

Double clay indicator works on principle of defining a clean line and a clay point. Because
Neutron-Density log is chosen as the double clay indicator in TM-1, the calculation of the
clay volume through Neutron-Density crossplot and do the correction on it (RHOZ as the
Density input and TNPH as the Neutron input).

Figure 2.5 TM-1 Clay Volume Result

Table 2.5 shows result of clay volume calculation using double clay indicator (ND crossplot):

Table 2.5 Clay Volume Result TM-1 (ND crossplot)

Vcl Logic Clay
Well Zone ND Neu ND Den ND Den ND Den ND Neu ND Neu Rho Wet Neu Wet Rho Dry Res
Clay Clay Clean 1 Clean 2 Clean 1 Clean 2 Clay Clay Clay Clay
TM-1 2 0.013 2.704 2.707 2.265 0 0.259 2.704 0.013 2.78 2.113

For TM-2 and TM-3 that use SP clay volume calculation. It still do the correction on this SP
Log data in Histogram.

Figure 2.6 VclSp plot TM-2

Figure 2.7 VclSp plot TM-3

10


So here the result summary in clay volume calculation.

Table 2.6 Clay Volume Result TM-2 & TM-3

Vcl Logic
Well Zone SP
Clean Clay
TM-2 2 -30.6 25
TM-3 2 -51.8 25.2

2.6 Calculation and Determination of Log Porosity

For calculating porosity, it is currently use Neutron-Density Log as the reference same with
clay volume calculation. Because volume of clay has correlation with value of porosity. The
correction of Neutron Density crossplot in porosity input track is done to determine the
density of wet clay and dry clay.

Because the reservoir are limestone reservoir, and the assumption of 100% clean sand is used,
it can be said that almost zero clay volume in the reservoir. So it needed to have correction
and make no distance between dry clay point and wet clay point. From the crossplot, software
will calculate automatically the porosity value.

𝜙𝑛𝑒𝑢 − 𝑉𝑐𝑙×𝑁𝑒𝑢𝐶𝑙 + 𝑁𝑒𝑢𝑀𝑎𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑥 + 𝐸𝑥𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡 + 𝑁𝑒𝑢𝑆𝑎𝑙 (4)

𝜙=
𝑆𝑥𝑜 + 1 − 𝑆𝑥𝑜 ×𝑁𝑒𝑢𝐻𝑦𝐻𝐼

𝜌𝑚𝑎 − 𝜌𝑏 − 𝑉𝑐𝑙×(𝜌𝑚𝑎 − 𝜌𝑐𝑙) (5)

𝜙=
𝜌𝑚𝑎 − 𝜌𝑓𝑙×𝑆𝑥𝑜 − 𝜌𝐻𝑦𝐴𝑝×(1 − 𝑆𝑥𝑜)

𝜙𝑁1 − 𝜙𝐷1 (6)

𝜙 = 𝜙𝐷1 +
1 − (𝜙𝑁1 − 𝜙𝑁2)/(𝜙𝐷1 − 𝜙𝐷2)

11


Figure 2.8 Log Porosity TM-1

Figure 2.9 Log Porosity TM-2

12


Figure 2.10 Log Porosity TM-3

2.7 Calculation and Determination of Water Saturation

With an assumption that the reservoir is limestone reservoir (almost zero clay volume), so
Archie’s Basic Water Saturation Model is used to calculate water saturation because Archie’s
Basic Water Saturation Model assume 100% clean sand in the reservoir. It correspondences
with the almost zero clay volume limestone reservoir assumption.

𝒏 (𝒂×𝑹𝒘)
𝑺𝒘 =
𝑹𝒕×𝑷𝒉𝒊𝒆𝒎

2.8 Petrophysical Parameters for Water Saturation Calculation

From an “Classic Interpretation Problems: Evaluating Carbonates – Schlumberger”
(www.slb.com), cementation factor (m) and saturation exponent (n) in Water Saturation
Calculation varies based on the structure of the reservoir (whether it is fractured or vuggy).

13


Because there were no further information about geological structure of the reservoir, the
assumption of the reservoir is fulfilled the convention is used (there is only primary porosity).

On Pickett Plot, it is found that the assumption is approved. Data trend of the reservoir Picket
Plot is matched with convention assumption value of cementation factor (m=2) and saturation
exponent (n=2).

The Rw value is obtained from Pickett Plot. Because there were no further information, it is
assumed that data on the very left of the plot are the reference obtained for Rw value.

Figure 2.11 Pickett Plot TM-1

Meanwhile resistivity and clay volume crossplot, it is assumed that data on the very bottom
of the plot are the reference of clay resistivity. It is assumed that the very bottom of the plot is
the clay. Because clay have clay bound water (water have low resistivity). It is assumed the
bottom data is the clay bound water of clay minerals.

14


Figure 2.12 Resistivity vs Vwcl Plot TM-1

The hydrocarbon density is used based on DST file obtained. It is written that the
hydrocarbon density is 0.12.

15


TM-2 have different trend with TM-1. So, the interpretation is done in a different way.

Figure 2.13 ND Plot TM-2

Figure 2.14 Resistivity Plot TM-2

16


the hydrocarbon density used in TM-2 0.1242 from DST file of TM-2.

The hypothesis found that a layer among the reservoir layer is an aquifer. Because the layer
have slightly same resistivity between LLS (shallow resistivity) and LLD (deep resistivity). It
is assumed that LLS are measuring shallow resistivity that happening in the near borehole.
Because the assumption that mud filtrate was invading the near borehole, it can be concluded
that “fluid” in the deep measurement resistivity is the same fluid with the mud filtrate.

This zone is something that is avoiding to, so it needed to isolate this layer and make sure it
install multilayer completion in this well TM-2. The perforation of the upper layer and lower
layer (middle layer is aquifer) is done.

TM-3 somehow have a same trend with TM-1. From Pickett Plot, it is found that a thin water
layer. Because it is found that its neutron and density plot are slightly coincide. it can be
concluded that it is a layer that have most water in zone 2.

17


Figure 2.15 Picket Plot TM-3

About resistivity plot in TM-3, it can be said that there is no different interpretation with
other wells. So it can be said that bottom of the data is the clay mineral

18


Figure 2.16 Resistivity Plot TM-3

It can be seen that data trend in TM-3 is alike with TM-1 data trend. So the determination of
interest zone in TM-3 using reference in determination in TM-1 too. The analyzation of the
caliper log data is done from hydrocarbon density in TM-3 (0.1233) from DST file of TM-3.

19


Table 2.7 Water Saturation Summary

Here are the summary of water saturation interpretation of 3 wells:

Sw Logic Water
Well Zone
a m n Rw Rw Temp Salinity

TM-1 2 1 2 2 0.412 25 27000

TM-2 2 1 2 2 0.197 60 (F) 2000

TM-3 2 1 2 2 0.326 60(F) 27000

2.8 Fluid Contact Calculation

To determine fluid contact, one of the data test that can be used is Repeat Formation Tester
(RFT). The data obtained from RFT tool is processed in the form of a plot between the depth
and pressure. If the data is extended, the plot will produce an intersection point which is fluid
contact. To determine the type of fluid, the reference is that gas pressure gradient is less than
0.1 psi/ft, oil pressure gradient is between 0.25 -0.35 psi/ft, and water pressure gradient is
between 0.4 – 0.55 psi/ft (petrowiki.org).

20


Table 2.6 Fluid Gradient of RFT Data TM-1

FLUID GRADIENT RESULT

Gradient
Depth (ft) Remark
(psi/ft)

7436-7793 0.06607843 Gas

7822-7990 0.36904762 Water

Figure below shows an intersection point of a plot from RFT data.

Figure 2.17 GWC Contact

Based on the above figure, the Gas-Water contact obtained is 7837.59 ft or 2389.51 ft. it is
assumed that GWC of the field has the same value. So the calculation in TM-1 can be applied
in other wells (TM-2 and TM-3)

2.9 Calculation of Pay Zone

As the carbonate reservoir and skim all the logging data, it is decided to take pessimistic
scenario on the cutoff interpretation. The 0.1 as the porosity cutoff is chosen, and 0.65 as the
water saturation cut off, 0.4 as the clay volume cutoff. Meanwhile the default that provided in
software in deciding reservoir cutoff.

21


2.10 Pay Summary

Table 2.8 Pay Summary
Well Zone Gross Net N/G Av Phi Av Sw Av Vcl

TM-1 2 124.44 109.5072 0.88 0.2 0.155 0

TM-2 2 18.7 12.55 0.671 0.206 0.253 0.087

TM-3 2 103.1 52.2 0.506 0.163 0.207 0

Well Zone Phi*H Phi*So*H

TM-1 2 21.90144 18.50672

TM-2 2 2.5853 1.931219

TM-3 2 8.5086 6.74732

22


CHAPTER III CLOSING

3.1 Conclusion

TM-1 and TM-3 have same trend data and almost both interpretation result are alike.
Here are the pay summary result of TM-1, TM-2, TM-3

Well Zone Gross Net N/G Av Phi Av Sw Av Vcl

TM-1 2 124.44 109.5072 0.88 0.2 0.155 0

TM-2 2 18.7 12.55 0.671 0.206 0.253 0.087

TM-3 2 103.1 52.2 0.506 0.163 0.207 0

3.2 Recommendation

1. Because we have different data provided between those 3 wells, the interpretation
needs further evaluation so it can represent the real condition of the reservoir.

2. TM-2 has very different logging data trend compared to other wells (TM-1 and
TM-3), hence we found other hydrocarbon potential along the logging data, because
we have no other data, we decided to make it only as a potential (which needs further
interpretation) and not include it on the zone of interest.

3. TM-2 needs to be reevaluated more, because it has a layer in the middle of the
interest zone. We have to be very careful in make next decision on what to do next in
TM-2 (one of it we suggest to choose commingle completion with isolating the
middle layer)

3.3 Team Work Evaluation

The team has done a great communication, and dividing jobdesc

Nur Rahmi SR TM-1 Analysis

Nevi Cahya Winofa TM-1 Analysis
Christofer Devlin TM-2 Analysis
Bayu Aji Purbantanu TM-2 Analysis

23


Muhammad Haidar Rochim TM-3 Analysis and Finalization

3.4 Reference

“Classic Interpretation Problems: Evaluating Carbonates – Schlumberger”

(www.slb.com)
Baker Hughes Lithology Evaluation

24