SPWLA 54th Annual Logging Symposium, June 22-26, 2013
FORMATION EVALUATION CHALLENGES IN TAMAR FIELD,
OFFSHORE ISRAEL
Christopher J. Christensen and Garwin Powers, Noble Energy, Inc.
Copyright 2013, held jointly by the Society of Petrophysicists and Well Log
Analysts (SPWLA) and the submitting authors.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPWLA 54th Annual Logging
Symposium held in New Orleans, Louisiana, June 22-26, 2013.
ABSTRACT
The Tamar-1 gas discovery in early 2009 was the first
in a series of successful exploration wells drilled by
Noble Energy and its partners in the deepwater Levant
Basin (Eastern Mediterranean Sea). Noble estimates
recoverable gas resources from Tamar Field of 10 TCF.
Field appraisal has been integrated with the Phase 1
development program and initial production from
Tamar Field began on March 31, 2013. Phase 1
production is supplied from five production wellbores,
each designed to produce up to 250 MMscf/day.
The Oligocene-Miocene reservoir section in Tamar
Field is a sequence of deepwater turbidite sandstones
interbedded with variable amounts of siltstone and
mudstone. Clean end-member sands are quartz arenites
(>=95% quartz), with porosity > 20% and permeability
> 500 mD. Although evaluation of Tamar reservoirs is
a classic shaly sand analysis problem, there are two
factors that make application of many industry-standard
evaluation methods problematic. The first complicating
factor is the impact that high-salinity, water-based mud
has on logging tool responses. The second major
interpretation issue is the presence of complex, variable
mudstone lithology, which breaks the fundamental
assumption of uniform shale properties used in many
log-based evaluation techniques. Failure to understand
and account for these issues has a significant, material
impact on gas-in-place estimates.
Conventional core acquired in the first appraisal well
was instrumental in identifying the formation
evaluation issues above. Addition of NMR logging
measurements to formation evaluation programs in
subsequent wells has led to significant improvements in
log-based estimates of both lithology and porosity.
INTRODUCTION
The Tamar gas field is located in the Eastern
Mediterranean Sea, offshore Israel, in approximately
1700 m of water (Figure 1). The trap for the field is a
large four-way anticline, cross-cut by multiple faults.
1
Including the discovery well, five key appraisal wells
have been drilled and logged. Conventional cores were
acquired in three of these wellbores and a total of 143
meters of core has been captured to date.
Triple-combo wireline logs from the key appraisal well
used to build the core-calibrated log analysis workflow
discussed in this paper are shown in Figure 2. As the
discussion of reservoir and fluid properties that follows
will show, display of density and neutron porosity logs
on a sandstone matrix / fresh water scale is appropriate.
However, many of the quicklook log interpretations
one might make on data displayed in this manner are
artifacts of either mudstone lithology variation or
environmental effects on log responses associated with
the high-salinity, water-based drilling mud.
ROCK AND FLUID PROPERTIES
Temperature & Pressure - Both reservoir temperature
and pressure in the Tamar Field reservoir section are
relatively benign. Formation temperature in the
reservoir section is less than 200 F and the objective
interval has been logged with mud weights ranging
from 11.0 to 11.4 ppg.
Drilling Fluids - There is a ~1500 m thick evaporite
sequence in the shallow overburden above Tamar Field
that consists mostly of salt (halite), with some
interbedded anhydrite and clastics (Figure 1). All
drilling to date in Tamar Field has been performed with
a water-based mud that is pre-saturated with salt prior
to drilling the evaporite section. After the evaporite
section has been drilled and cased off, mud salinity is
still maintained at a high level, for wellbore stability
purposes. There are smectite-rich, swelling clays in the
mudstones between the base of the evaporites and the
top of the reservoir section and high mud salinity
retards shale reactivity relative to lower salinity mud.
As a result, the reservoir interval in Tamar Field has
been logged with mud filtrate salinity in the 230-240
kppm range in all five appraisal wells. At down-hole
temperature and pressure, this high salinity results in a
mud-filtrate with a calculated density of 1.17 to 1.18
g/cc and a calculated hydrogen index of 0.89.
Reservoir Fluids - The gas in Tamar Field is dry gas
with low condensate yields (< 5 stbbl / MMscf). Gas
SPWLA 54th Annual Logging Symposium, June 22-26, 2013
properties calculated using the gas gravity of methane
(0.554), reservoir temperature, and reservoir pressure,
match insitu density estimates from pressure gradients
of 0.256 g/cc (0.111 psi/ft).
Formation water salinity in Tamar Field is relatively
fresh (< 20 kppm), but cannot be accurately measured
from samples captured to date with wireline testing
tools, due to unknown amounts of high-salinity mud-
filtrate contamination.
Reservoir Properties - Within reservoir intervals,
lithology and mineralogy is relatively simple, with
reservoir units made up of variable mixtures of two
end-member lithologies: clean sands and shales (clay-
rich mudstones). Clean end-member sands are greater
than 95% quartz, with minor amounts of feldspar and
other minerals. Clean sands have porosities greater
than 20% and permeabilities greater than 500 mD.
Sands are unconsolidated to slightly-consolidated and
there is no significant change in reservoir quality across
the gas water contact.
End-member shales are ~60% clay minerals. Within
reservoir intervals, there is a good correlation between
shale volume defined on a grain size basis and total clay
mineral volume calculated from core X-ray diffraction
(XRD) mineralogy data.
Mudstone Lithology - There is a major mineralogy
change between mudstones interbedded with reservoir
sands and bounding mudstones above and below
reservoir intervals. While mudstones interbedded with
reservoir sands are true shales (clay minerals as the
most abundant mineral fraction), bounding mudstones
are marls (carbonate minerals as the most abundant
mineral fraction). This lithology change invalidates the
primary assumption used in many shaly sand log
analysis techniques, that parameters selected in
bounding mudstones can be applied in analysis of
reservoir intervals.
LOG ANALYSIS ISSUES
Lithology - The high-salinity water-based mud used in
all Tamar wells drilled to date severely limits wireline
logging service options for lithology identification.
Mud weights and barite concentrations in drilling muds
have been high enough that photoelectric (PE) based
methods dont work (over-estimation of calcite volumes
due to barite effects). Natural gamma-ray spectroscopy
methods are problematic, as invasion of potassium
chloride (KCl) in mud-filtrate causes a large tail in the
potassium (K) spectrum that overlaps with uranium (U)
and thorium (Th) spectrums. As a result, there is no
2
correlation between clay volume from core analysis and
Th concentration reported in spectral gamma-ray
service field deliverables. Neutron / density based
methods cant be used in the gas leg due to hydrocarbon
effects on both logs. Elemental analysis via neutron-
induced, gamma-ray spectroscopy is not an option, as
logging tools will not work in high-salinity mud.
Within reservoir intervals, there is a linear relationship
between total gamma ray (GR) and core shale volume
defined on a grain size basis (Figure 3). However, the
clay-rich shales interbedded with reservoir sands are
never thick enough to be fully resolved by logging
tools. If a GRshale baseline is selected in the bounding
marls above or below the reservoir sands, resulting GR-
based calculations significantly overestimate shale
volume and under-estimate net-to-gross.
Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) based lithology
identification is the only method tested to date that
allows for consistent lithology identification from logs,
without the need for well-specific calibration to core.
Following fluid corrections to NMR total porosity
(methodology discussed in the next section of this
paper), the ratio of NMR clay bound water volume
(standard 3 msec T2 cutoff) to total porosity, rescaled
between 0 (clean sand) and 1 (mudstone) does a good
job in matching core shale volume defined on a grain
size basis. (Figure 4). This is due to the strong
relationship between grain size and pore size
distributions in unconsolidated to slightly consolidated
clastics.
As NMR logs are expensive to acquire, due to slow
logging speeds and the high cost of associated
deepwater drilling rig time, acquisition to date has been
primarily limited to the gas column. Short sections of
the capping mudstones and underlying aquifer sands
have been included in logged intervals, for analysis
calibration and parameter selection purposes.
In Nobles current log analysis workflow, final shale
volume is defined on a grain size basis and is
calibrated to measurements made on core. As the
shale volume definition used is grain size rather than
mineralogy based, it includes both true shales (clay-rich
mudstones) and marls (carbonate-rich mudstones).
Final log-based calculations are gamma-ray (GR)
based, with the objective section zoned into separate
non-reservoir (marls) and reservoir (sands and shales)
intervals. Shale volume estimates based on NMR logs
are used to guide GR baseline picks in the gas column,
on an interval-by-interval basis. Outside the gas
column, neutron / density porosity separation (NDS) is
used as a guide for GR-based interpretations.
 SPWLA 54th Annual Logging Symposium, June 22-26, 2013
Porosity - Invasion of high-salinity mud-filtrate into the
formation is deep enough to affect all logging
measurements used in porosity calculations. In the
water leg, a good match between neutron and density
porosity can be obtained in clean thick-bedded sands, if
both logs are calculated on a sandstone matrix,
assuming all fluid seen by the tools is high salinity
mud-filtrate (Figure 5).
However, in shaly intervals in the gas leg, log-based
porosity calculations are a complicated, three fluid
interpretation problem: (1) immobile formation water
with very low salinity, (2) high-salinity mud filtrate that
invaded the formation, and (3) gas. The interaction of
non-linear gas effects, non-linear water salinity effects,
and clay effects on the neutron log are such that no
deterministic or empirical neutron / density based
methods tested worked without well-specific calibration
to core.
Several other methods tested yield poor matches to core
porosity. Sonic based methods are problematic, since
fluid effects dominate log responses. Accurate
estimates of porosity and flushed-zone fluid volumes
are required to correct sonic log responses to insitu
conditions, not vice-versa. Using bulk density and
flushed-zone resistivity (Rxo) for simultaneous solution
of porosity and flushed-zone saturation yielded poor
results, due to environmental effects on microlaterolog
tool response. The microlaterolog tool used for Rxo
estimates is hypersensitive to minor standoff from the
wellbore / formation interface, and reads values closer
to Rmud or Rmudcake, than Rxo. NMR-only processing
products delivered by the logging vendor significantly
under call porosity relative to core. Vendor processing
methodology, assumptions, and inputs are poorly
documented, so it is not clear whether this issue is
inherent in the method used or due to poor input
assumptions.
The Density Magnetic Resonance (DMR) porosity
method (Freedman, et al., 1998) is the only log-based
method tested to date that yields consistent results
without well-specific calibration to core. For DMR
calculation purposes, the standard NMR clay bound
water (T2 < 3 msec) and bulk volume irreducible (3 <=
T2 < 33 msec) volumes are given formation water
properties and the free fluid volume is assumed to be a
mixture of high-salinity water-based mud-filtrate and
formation gas. The true T2 cutoff for bulk volume
irreducible (BVI) at Tamar has not been established via
core-to-log integration to date; however, using the
standard value of 33 msec for sandstones appears to be
adequate for the purposes of fluid-corrected, total
porosity calculations via the DMR method (Figure 6).
3
Water Saturation - Water saturation is the most
significant remaining petrophysical source of
uncertainty in Tamar Field gas-in-place estimates. No
direct core calibration data exists, as measurement of
insitu (unflushed) water saturation is not possible with
the water-based mud system currently in use and no
attempt at tracing the mud-filtrate and correcting for
core invasion has been made to date.
The dominant shale habitat in Tamar reservoirs is
dispersed, pore-filling shale (Figure 7). With the
combination of dispersed shale and low salinity
formation water, the Waxman-Smits (1968) model is
required for rigorous resistivity-based water saturation
estimates. Electrical properties measurements required
for implementation of this method are currently in
progress, but the existing special core analysis (SCAL)
database is inadequate for application of the Waxman-
Smits (1968) model.
In the absence of core-calibrated electrical properties in
shaly sand intervals, the normal log interpretation
approach would be to estimate shale properties from
bounding mudstones, with a method like the Juhasz
(1981) Normalized Qv approach. However, it is
unlikely such approaches yield valid results in Tamar.
As noted earlier, bounding mudstones are marls with
significantly lower clay content than the clay-rich
shales that are interbedded with reservoir sands (Figure
4).
After gaps in the Tamar core electrical properties
database are addressed by ongoing SCAL programs,
there are still some sources of resistivity log-based
saturation uncertainty that cannot be resolved without
switching mud systems. Issues with resistivity
suppression by thin-bedded shales cannot be resolved
with modern 3D array induction resistivity log methods,
as these tools cannot be run in high conductivity muds.
Formation water salinity and resistivity estimates are
likely well constrained in clean, thick water bearing
sands, with both core-calibrated porosity and measured
electrical properties as inputs to apparent water
resistivity calculations. However, this cannot be
confirmed without salinity measurements from
uncontaminated water samples.
A saturation / height modeling workflow, based on core
measurements of air-brine (porous-plate) capillary
pressure (Pc), has been employed to get around issues
with resistivity-log based interpretation. Nobles
current saturation / height modeling workflow is based
on a Brooks-Corey (1964) capillary pressure model,
with model parameters (shape exponent, entry pressure,
and irreducible water saturation) all estimated from
SPWLA 54th Annual Logging Symposium, June 22-26, 2013
porosity and permeability. The fluid contact is well
constrained, so the only significant sources of
uncertainty in Pc-based saturation estimates are the
somewhat limited dynamic range in reservoir quality
sampled to date (5% < Swirr < 40%) and minor errors in
modeled verses measured capillary pressure curves.
Saturation / height modeling is basis for Nobles current
gas-in-place estimates and models will be refined /
updated when ongoing SCAL programs are complete.
IMPACT OF CORE CALIBRATION ON GAS-IN-
PLACE ESTIMATES
Total hydrocarbon pore volume thickness (HCPV-H)
estimates in the Tamar wells have increased
significantly following development of the core-
calibrated log analysis workflow discussed in this
paper. HCPV-H in the Tamar-1 discovery well has
increased ~12% relative to initial post-well evaluation.
However, not all input components to HCPV-H
calculations have gone up. Net-thickness estimates
have gone up, with knowledge from core data showing
how clean sands are and development of a log analysis
workflow to honor this data. Porosity estimates have
gone down, as the impact invasion of high-salinity
water-based mud-filtrate has on porosity log response is
now understood and properly handled during log
analysis. Gas saturation estimates have gone up, with
implementation of a capillary pressure-based, saturation
/ height modeling workflow, in place resistivity log-
based estimates.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank management of the
Tamar partner group (Noble Energy, Delek Drilling,
Isramco, Avner Oil and Gas, and Dorgas) for
permission to publish this paper. This work would not
have been possible without the core calibration dataset
included in initial appraisal well by former Noble
Tamar subsurface team members Owen Stephens and
Jonathan ffrench. Special thanks go out to current
members of the Noble Tamar subsurface team, Dan
Needham, Jim Hosler, and Stephanie Nowak, for
supporting both the technical work presented in this
paper and recommended changes in subsequent logging
and core analysis programs.
REFERENCES
Brooks, R. H. and Corey, A. T., 1964, Hydraulic
Properties of Porous Media: Colorado State University
Hydrology Paper Number 3, 37 p.
4
Freedman, R., Minh, C. C., Gubelin, G., Freeman, J. J.,
McGinness, T., Terry, B., and Rawlence, D., 1998,
Combining NMR and Density Logs for Petrophysical
Analysis in Gas-Bearing Formations: SPWLA 39th
Annual Logging Symposium, Paper II.
Juhasz, I., 1981, Normalized Qv the key to shaly sand
evaluation using the Waxman-Smits equation in the
absence of core data: SPWLA 22nd Annual Logging
Symposium, Paper Z.
Thomas, E. C., and Stieber, S. J.,1975, The distribution
of shale in sandstones and its effect upon porosity:
SPWLA 16th Annual Logging Symposium, Paper T.
Waxman, M. H. and Smits, L.J.M, 1968, Electrical
conductivities in oil bearing shaly sands: SPE Journal
(June), pp. 107-22.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Christopher J. Christensen is a Petrophysical Advisor
with Noble Energy, Inc., based in Houston, Texas
(USA). Since joining Noble in January 2011, he has
been embedded in the Eastern Mediterranean business
unit, providing petrophysical support for exploration,
appraisal, and development projects offshore Israel and
Cyprus. He has 22 years of industry experience and has
worked for Amoco, BP, Newfield Exploration, and
Shell. He received a MS degree in Geological Sciences
from the University Southern California in 1991 and
joined Amoco Production Company as an exploration
geologist the same year. He attended Amocos
Petrophysics Training Program in 1997-1998 and has
been a full-time, practicing petrophysicist ever since.
As a petrophysicist, his primary focus has been core-to-
log integration and other petrophysical aspects of multi-
discipline, integrated reservoir modeling projects. He
has worked on clastic reservoirs ranging in quality from
micro-Darcy tight gas sands, to multi-Darcy
unconsolidated sands. He has worked on projects in a
wide range of clastic depositional environments,
including fluvial, deltaic, shallow marine, and
deepwater marine systems, and a wide range of
geographical locations including SW Wyoming (Jonah
Field & Pinedale Anticline), the Anadarko Basin in
Texas / Oklahoma (Granite Wash), Offshore Trinidad,
US Gulf-Coast (onshore, shelf, and deepwater), and
Nigeria (deepwater).
Garwin Powers is Manager of Petrophysics at Noble
Energy and is based in Houston, Texas (USA). He
began his industry career in 1981 working for Amoco
Production Company at their Tulsa Research Center.
He completed his Master Degree in Geology from the
 SPWLA 54th Annual Logging Symposium, June 22-26, 2013

University of Tulsa in 1992 while working for Amoco. RTM Formation resistivity (field inversion
He started focusing on petrophysics after completing a provided with Rt Explorer service)
year in Amoco's petrophysics schools soon after that. ZCOR Bulk density correction
Since then he has had stops at Statoil, Landmark, and
ZDEN Bulk density
Burlington/Conoco-Philips working as a petrophysicist.
He landed at Noble Energy in 2007 where he worked ZDNC Bulk density (borehole corrected)
their string of large discoveries in West Africa, Eastern
Mediterranean and deep water Gulf of Mexico, before Calculated / Edited Curves
moving into his current position.
DIFCAL Differential Caliper (Caliper
APPENDIX: LOG NMENOMICS ON FIGURES Bitsize)
DPHIS_MF Density porosity calculated on a
Vendor-Supplied Wireline Logs (Baker Hughes) sandstone matrix with mud filtrate
fluid density.
CHAD Characteristic Hole Diameter NDS Neutron / Density Porosity Separation
CNCF Neutron Porosity (Series 2446 CN (NPHIS_MF DPHIS_MF)
Tool); Sandstone Matrix / Freshwater NPHIS_MF Environmentally corrected neutron
Scale porosity (sandstone matrix), with
GR Gamma ray (Total) mud-filtrate salinity used in formation
MBVIC Magnetic resonance bulk volume salinity correction
irreducible (MR Explorer Tool; PHIE_DMR_3F Effective porosity after fluid
NMR110 Processing Service) corrections using the Density
MLR#C Array laterolog resistivity Magnetic Resonance method
(shallowest=1; deepest = 4; Rt (modified 3 fluid version)
Explorer tool) PHIT_DMR_3F Total porosity after fluid corrections
MPHEC Magnetic resonance effective porosity using the Density Magnetic
(MR Explorer tool; NMR110 Resonance method (modified 3 fluid
processing service) version)
MPHSC Magnetic resonance total porosity VSH_NMR Shale volume calculated from the
(MR Explorer tool; NMR110 ratio of NMR clay bound water
processing service) volume to total porosity (after fluid
corrections). Unclipped version is
RD Deep resistivity (Dual Laterolog tool)
VSH_NMR_UNCL
RMLL Microlaterolog resistivity
*_clean Edited vendor-supplied curves with
RS Shallow Resistivity (Dual Laterolog values set to null in bad data intervals
tool)

5
SPWLA 54th Annual Logging Symposium, June 22-26, 2013

Figure 1: Overview of Tamar Field showing (A) location map, (B) structure map (top of reservoir), and (C)
structural cross-section (NW to SE) thru the Tamar-1 discovery well (T-1).

6
7
Figure 2: Triple-combo field data from the key appraisal well used to develop the core-calibrated formation evaluation workflow discussed in this
paper (same log plot left and right with and without annotations). Reservoirs and cored intervals are displayed on the left.
SPWLA 54th Annual Logging Symposium, June 22-26, 2013
8
SPWLA 54th Annual Logging Symposium, June 22-26, 2013

Figure 3: Plot on the left is a frequency distribution of core shale volume measurements and shows a bimodal distribution with separate clean sand and
grain-size-defined shale modes. Plot on the right is a cross-plot of shale volume calculated from NMR (rescaled ratio of clay-bound water to fluid-
corrected total porosity) vs total gamma-ray. Data points on the crossplot are colored by neutron / density porosity separation. Although there is a trend
of increasing GR with increasing shale volume in reservoir units, interbedded shales are never thick enough to make a GRshale pick in these intervals. If
a GRshale pick made in bounding mudstones (marls) is applied to reservoir intervals, net-to-gross is significantly underestimated.
9
Figure 4: Plots on the right highlight lithology / mineralogy difference between bounding mudstones (marls) and interbedded mudstones (shales). Shale
volume calculated from NMR data (VSH_NMR in right most log track) gets around this issue and is easily rescaled to match core shale volume from grain
size measurements (single linear rescale works in entire NMR log interval).
SPWLA 54th Annual Logging Symposium, June 22-26, 2013
SPWLA 54th Annual Logging Symposium, June 22-26, 2013

Figure 5: Density and neutron porosity (sandstone matrix), re-calculated assuming all fluid seen by tools is mud
filtrate (log track 5), compared to original field data provided on a fresh water scale.

10
11
Figure 6: Blind test of total porosity calculated via the Density Magnetic Resonance (DMR) method to new core measurements completed after initial log
calculations. Data points on the cross-plot are limited to just reservoir intervals, where matrix density estimates from initial core calibration are valid.
Best-fit line with forced intercept of zero has a slope very close to 1. Data scatter is mostly due to vertical resolution differences.
SPWLA 54th Annual Logging Symposium, June 22-26, 2013
12
SPWLA 54th Annual Logging Symposium, June 22-26, 2013

Figure 7: Modified Thomas-Stieber (1975) crossplot of core porosity vs cores shale volume from grain size measurements (plot on right) suggests
dispersed shale is the dominant shale habitat in Tamar reservoirs, at least at the core plug scale. This is verified by thin-section analysis of end-trim
material from core plugs (plot on left).