Chapter 13 Gas Bearing

Formation Interpretation
Lecture notes for PET 370
Spring 2011
Prepared by: Thomas W. Engler, Ph.D., P.E.
Gas-Bearing Formation Interpretation
Effect of gas on neutron log response
lower hydrogen content than calibrated value, thus higher count rate
resulting in low |
a
.
Shale effect is opposite to the gas effect, makes detection extremely
difficult

Effect of gas on density log response
presence of gas reduces bulk density, resulting in a high apparent porosity.
shale effect can increase or decrease bulk density, dependent on shales
bulk density.

Effect of gas on sonic log response
increase in sonic log porosity in poorly-consolidated sands.
not quantitative or predictable

Impact
Gas-Bearing Formation Interpretation
Log response is function of different depths of investigation of the FDC
CNL tools and the degree of invasion.
Background
2 4 6 8 10
Distance from borehole wall, in
G
e
o
m
e
t
r
i
c

f
a
c
t
o
r

0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
FDC
CNL
Gas-Bearing Formation Interpretation
Idealized example of saturation effects on density and neutron logs.
(Helander,1983)
classification
Type I: mirror image,
gas crossover
(both FDC and CNL investigate same
Saturation profile)
Type II: asymmetric
gas crossover
Type III: Shaly gas sand
Gas-Bearing Formation Interpretation
Example
Density neutron log
illustrating Type I gas effect
(Hilchie, 1978)


- deep invasion, or
- Extremely shallow invasion
Gas-Bearing Formation Interpretation
Example
Density neutron log illustrating
the effect of shallow to moderate
invasion. (Type II)
(Bassiouni, 1994)
Gas-Bearing Formation Interpretation
Example
Density neutron log illustrating
a gas-bearing shaly sand. (Type III)
(Hilchie, 1978)

Gas-Bearing Formation Interpretation
False Gas Effect

Gas-Bearing Formation Interpretation
Assume invasion extends beyond the density tool,


where

g
is apparent gas density seen by the density log
In terms of porosity, Eq (1) can be written as


where


* gas density is f(P,T,)
* Mud filtrate density is f(salinity)


Where n is fractional salinity (C
ppm
x10
-6
)
Porosity Determination
n 73 . 0 1
mf
+ =
]
g
)
xo
S 1 (
mf xo
S [
ma
) 1 (
b
+ | + | =
]
g
)
D
)(
xo
S 1 (
xo
S [
D
| + | = |
mf ma
g ma
g
)
D
(


= |
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Gas-Bearing Formation Interpretation
* Assume invasion extends beyond the zone of investigation of the neutron
tool,


Where,
H
ma
, H
mf
and H
g
are hydrogen indices for matrix, filtrate and gas,
respectively,
]
g
H )
xo
S 1 (
mf
H
xo
S [
ma
H ) 1 (
N
+ | + | = |
dolomite. or lms, ss, pure for 0
ma
H
g
g
5 . 2 16
g
5 . 2 4
9
g
H
mf
) n 1 (
mf
H
=

(
(

=
=
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
Porosity Determination
Gas-Bearing Formation Interpretation
Consider the simple case of:
1. fresh mud
mf
= 1, H
mf
= 1
2. Low pressure
g
~ 0, H
g
~ 0
solve for porosity,




solve for flushed zone saturation,

Case I: Fresh mud, low pressure reservoir
ma
N
D
ma
1
ma
=
or ,
ma
N
)
b ma
(
=

|
+ |
|
|
.
|

\
|

| +
|
|
|
=
N
xo
S
(9)
(10)
(11)
Porosity Determination
Gas-Bearing Formation Interpretation
Empirical derivation, applicable for any
g
.



If fresh mud,



Further reduce by assuming S
xo
is large, such that ,12(1-S
xo
) 0,

1/2
2
2
N
2
D
=
|
|
|
.
|

\
|
| + |
|
General case
2
)]
xo
S 1 ( n 5 . 1 [
2
)]
xo
S 1 ( 12 . 1 [ 2
2
N
2
D
=
2
+ +
| + |
|
2
)]
xo
S 1 ( 12 . 1 [ 2
2
N
2
D
=
2
+
| + |
|
(12)
(13)
(14)
Gas-Bearing Formation Interpretation
properly calibrated neutron log will respond to hydrogen in water and
hydrocarbons.

Due to low H
2
content of gas,
the neutron log responds to
the water fraction, only.

Difference between two
formations is the Excavation
of 15% by volume of matrix
material and replaced by gas.

Magnitude of excavation effect
dependent on hydrocarbon
saturation and fluid HI.


Excavation Effect
Gas-Bearing Formation Interpretation
* Empirical correction,


Where,


S
wh
is the equivalent saturation based on the hydrogen content of the pore
fluids,


When fresh mud and low pressure gas are assumed, then S
wh
= S
xo

* Add correction to neutron log reading,

Excavation Effect
Nex N Nc
| A + | = |
)
wh
S - )(1 0.04 +
wh
S
2
k(2 =
Nex
| | | A
2
2.65
ma
= k
|
.
|

\
|

g
H )
xo
S 1 (
mf
H
xo
S
wh
S + =
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
Gas-Bearing Formation Interpretation
Example
S
wh
= S
xo
= 0.5, fresh mud, H
gas
= 0
Measured Neutron porosity =
24%

Excavation effect, A|
Nex
= 6%

Corrected neutron porosity =
24 + 6 = 30%


Excavation Effect
Typical excavation effect curve:
Dolomite, | = 30%, H
gas
= 0
Gas-Bearing Formation Interpretation
On density logs:


Or







On neutron logs:
Gas effect on crossplot
Nex
)
g
H
mf
H )(
xo
S 1 (
Ng
| A + | = | A
)
Dg
1 )(
xo
S 1 (
Dg
| | = | A
)
g mf
)(
xo
S 1 (
g
| = A
(19)
(20)
(21)
Gas-Bearing Formation Interpretation
Flowchart
INPUT DATA
{
ma
, |
N
,
b
or |
D
,
Cppm, P,T,}
INITIAL GUESS
| S
xo

{crossplot} {Eq.11}
GAS DENSITY
{EOS}
Hydrogen Indices
Hmf {Eq.6} Hg {Eq.7}
A
g
or A|
Dg
{Eq 18} {Eq. 19}
S
wH
{Eq.17}
Excavation Effect
{Eq.15}
A|
Ng
{Eq.20}
Update | and S
xo
< TOL?
STOP
END
Y
N
|
| | |
|
n
xo
S
n d
=
+
= ;
2
Mineral Fractions

maa
Gas-Bearing Formation Interpretation
13.1 A clean sandstone, suspected to be gas bearing, had the following
recorded log readings: a lithology-correct |
N
= 5% and a
b
= 2.00
gm/cc. Assuming the gas is low density and the mud is fresh mud,
determine the true porosity and the flushed zone saturation.


Exercises
Gas-Bearing Formation Interpretation
13.2 Repeat Ex. 13.1 but include the excavation effect. Compare with
the answers to Example 13.1.



Exercises
Gas-Bearing Formation Interpretation
13.3 A clean, gas-bearing sandstone exhibited neutron and density
porosity readings of 10 and 20 %, respectively. Assume a fresh
mud filtrate. Investigate the effect of gas density on the resulting
true porosity and flushed zone saturation by considering two
separate cases: (1) with a gas density assumed to be zero, and (2) a
gas density = 0.25 gm/cc. Ignore excavation effect.



Exercises
Gas-Bearing Formation Interpretation
13.4 In Example 13.3, consider the porosity readings are on a limestone
matrix. Determine the true porosity and flushed zone saturation.
What is the effect in change of matrix type?



Exercises
Gas-Bearing Formation Interpretation References
Theory, Measurement, and Interpretation of Well Logs, Bassiouni, SPE
Textbook Series, Vol. 4, (1994)

Chapter 16 Evaluation of Gas-Bearing Formations