Disc Contents © IPA, 2006 - 8th Annual Convention Proceedings, 1979
Contents
PROCEEDINGS INDONESIAN PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION
Eighth Annual Convention, June 1979
Search
LOG INTERPRETATION IN RELTAIC SEQUENCES
ABSTRACT
TOTAL INDONESIE has drilled numerous
wells in the Mahakam Delta area of East Kali-
mantan, and is currently producing 210 000
BOPD from multiple pays within a deltaic se-
quence of Miocene age at Handil and Bekapai
A complete logging programme is run on all
wells although there are differences in the logs
run for exploration and development wells.
Apart from the relatively straightforward
problems of correlation within the fields, the
log analyst has to overcome certain awkward
problems in’order to define as clearly as possi-
ble the fluid contacts and reservoir parameters
within the many different and laterally varia-
ble reservoirs.
For instance :
- Within the different reservoirs the con-
tents of clay varies greatly, which can have a
very large effect on the reservoir quality. Coring
programmes have helped the analyst t o Cali-
brate the logs. The relationships between poro-
sity (@)and shaliness (Vsh), and permeability
(K) and porosity ($), have been closely studied.
Permeability can be estimated in the cleaner
reservoirs.
- The formation water salinity changes wi-
thin the reservoirs which complicates the detec-
tion and definition .of the pay zones. Fluid de-
termination is illustrated by several examples
which serve also to identify the pitfalls in log
interpretation.
The experience gained in the producing
fields is very usefully applied to the interpre-
tation of exploration wells drilled in deltaic
sequences elsewhere.
INTRODUCTION
In 197 1, TOTAL INDONESIE, a subsidiary
of Compagnie Francaise des Petroles, farmed in
TOTAL INDONESIE
"Reprinted by photo-litho process. Some figures reproduce original poor quality"
247
P. LALOUEL *
to the JAPEX (now INPEX) Mahakam produc-
tion sharing permit (fig. 1). Since then nume-
rous wells have been drilled in the Mahakam
Delta area of East Kalimantan, and two major
oil fields have been discovered: Bekapai (1 972)
and Handil (1974). Since the end of 1976, TO-
TAL INDONESIE has produced more than 200
000 BOPD from multiple pays in deltaic se-
quences of Miocene age in these fields.
All the examples given here, in order to illus-
trate the log interpretaion problems in deltaic
sequences, have been taken from Handil wells.
Handil is an anticlinal structure with a clos--
ed area of 40 sq km and a vertical closure of
about 300 m (fig. 2) where more than 200 dis-
crete sand horizons have been identified be-
tween 450 and 2900 m. These sands belong to
a deltaic sequence of Miocene age and are in-
terbedded with massive organic rich shales and
coal beds. Well to well correlations are based
on the continuity of the lignite and coal beds
which provide a very helpful frame for reservoir
correlations. Around 150 independent hydro-
carbon bearing reservoirs, with their own gas-
oil and oil-water contacts, have been defined
in this way (fig. 3).
As for any other log interpretation the ana-
lyst has to determine the shaliness, porosity,
water saturation and fluid content of the per-
meable beds; but in this type of deltaic sequence
where the numerous reservoirs have different
and variable shaliness and formation water sa-
linities, and as the vertical distribution of the
fluids from one reservoir to the other is parti-
cularly complex, the log analyst has to over-
come certain awkward problems, some of
which will be illustrated in this paper.
We consider the calibration of log responses
by core data to be extremely important. In this
paper we confine ourselves to qualitative aria-
248
lysis and we shall not go into detail about qu-
antitative interpretation which is based on sing-
le lithology programmes using classical formula
with some constants and parameters which have
been empirically defined for each field or area,
and some of our own corrections such as for
the computation of fresh water resistivities with
a high amount of bicarbonates.
A complete logging programme, is run on all
wells although there are few differences in the
logs run for development and exploration wells
(fig. 4).
As resistivity tool, the DLL * with SP and
GR is now generally used without any micro-
resistivity device. The DLL has better vertical
definition than the IES and gives better results
for moderate to high resistivities and low Rmf/
Rw ratios. For porosity measurements and
fluid determination the norma? FDC-CNL-GR-
Caliper combination tool is run and for struc-
tural and sedimentological studies we run an
HDT tool in all our wells. Besides this typical
programme the BHC Sonic tool in vertical de-
velopment wells is used, principally for geo-
physical purposes, and RFT when a fluid deter-
mination needs to be confirmed, or for pressure
measurements and sometimes when we want a
sample of the fluid for analysis.
In exploration wells, the logging programme
does not differ greatly from that cited above.
The Sonic is always run not only for geophy-
sics but also for porosity control and abnormal
pressure detection. The ML-MLL is added if
Rxo is required and sidewall cores are taken if
unusual lithologies are found, or for geoche-
mical purposes.
SHALE AND SHALINESS
Nature and type of distribution
At Handil, cores have been taken at different
depths in several wells so that we have got a
reasonable sampling of the different types of
deltaic environments encountered between 800
and 2600 m.
Mineralogical studies of the shales have
shown that the shales interbedded with the
sand as well as dispersed or in thin laminations
within the reservoirs, belong to the same type.
They are mainly composed of kaolinite, illite
List of abbreviations and symbols in appendix.
and mixed-layered clay minerals with relatively
constant composition.
However they have different types of dis-
tribution in the reservoirs which have different
effects on the logs. The three main types of
distribution are: thin intercalatio2s of shale in
very fine to fine sands (medium grain size bet-
ween 80 to 120 p ) , laminations of .5 to 3 cm
thick in fine to medium sands (100 to 250 p )
and dispersed clay in the sands of all grain size
(80 to 500 p )
A cross plot of the Gamma Ray readings
versus the shale percentage measured on plugs
(fig. 5 ) shows there is a good correlation bet-
ween GR and Vsh above 30% of shale and no
correlation below 30%. This is due to the fact
that the plugs have been taken selectively in
the sand intercalations whenever possible and
the corresponding readings of the Gamma Ray,
which integrate over at least 30 cm, give the
bulk shaliness over 30 to 50 cm of sand and
shale intercalations. So, for a sand which has
less than 25% of dispersed clay which is inter-
bedded with shale the total clay content read
on the Gamma Ray must be related to the cu-
mulative thickness of the shale laminations.
The percentage of laminations can be de-
termined by counting the cumulative thick-
ness of the laminations of shale every 50 cm on
cores. A plot of the GR readings versus these
percentages gives a fairly good correlation
(fig. 6 ) .
In fact the GR reads a bulk shaliness which
corresponds t o the total amount of clay includ-
ed in the shale laminations and dispersed in the
sand over an interval of about 50 cm. Moreover,
as the silt content of the shale laminations
never decreases below 15% we can expect a re-
lation of the type :
Vsh=0.85 L + ( 1 - L ) D
where L is the percentage of laminations aqd
D the percentage of dispersed clay in the sand.
A plot of this shale percentage calculated on
cores versus GR (fig. 7) shows a good correla-
tion especially for Vsh < 60%, i.e. for the for-
mations which have any significant permeabili-
ty.
All this emphasizes the importance of the
shale distribution and before looking at the

main effects of shaliness on logs we should add
that the dispersed clay in a sand level never
exceeds 25% except in certain storngly bio-
turbated layers.
Shale effects on logs
The amount of shale in these shaly sands can
be very high in a formation which however, can
still have reservoir properties and, although
the effects of the shaliness are generally well
known, we give two examples.
First, the effect on the SP which must be
kept in mind since salinites change very often
from one reservoir to another. For fresh waters
this effect is very strong (fig. 8), a slight in-
crease of shaliness induces a strong decrease in
the SP reading. When there is no clean point
in a reservoir, this can lead to misinterpretation
of Rw because very often nearby reservoirs do
not have the same formation water resistivity.
To avoid such errors, as a matter of routine,
plots are made of SP versus GR by intervals
(fig. 9). For the shaly reservoirs, these plots
serve to quickly give the SSP (SP in clean and
thick enough reservoir) by extrapolating the
trend up to the normal GR min at the corres-
ponding depth.
The second important effect is on porosity:
the higher the shaliness, the lower the porosity.
We have compared @ measured on plugs and @
calculated from logs (fig. 10).
When the shaliness is mainly represented by
dispersed clay the plugs are roughly represen-
tative of levels thicker than 50 cm. For high
porosities (low shaliness) the difference
between @ plug and @ log is less than 2% which
is a standard deviation of the porosity around
a mean value for a high porosity sand. This dif-
ference decreases for the low porosities which
correspond to bioturbated levels whose petro-
physical properties are more constant over a
short interval.
When the shaliness is composed of dispersed
clay and thin shale lamination within the sand,
Q, log does not correspond to plug. In fact, as
I@
the plugs are taken selectively in the sand in-
tervals they do not represent the whole forma-
tion and they always give higher porosities than
the average over 50 cm as seen by the logs.
Core studies are very useful, for calibrating
the porosity and shaliness, arid to demostrate
the relationship between these two parameters.
249
POROSITY CALIBRATION AND
TENTATIVE PERMEABILITY ESTIMATION.
Porosity calibration
As we have seen above, @ log is equal to Q,
plug when there is no lamination and @ log is
lower than 4 measured on selected plugs when
there are laminations within the interval. Seve-
ral reservoir studies have shown that in these
areas $I is underestimated but the pay thick-
nesses seen by the logs are overestimated be-
cause they include the cumulative thickness
of the shale laminations. Finally since the vo-
lume hu x @ log is nearly equal to the reservoir
volume h sand x 4 plug, then the volumes of
the reservoirs calculated from the logs are accu-
rate enough for the computation of the hydro-
carbon reserves.
@ is also a function of depth. The porosity
of the clean sand (Vsh < 3%) decreases with
depth and there is a good relation between
maximum porosity, and depth (fig. 11). More-
over, since @ is also function of Vsh, for any
given interval there is a relation between @, @
Max and Vsh (fig. 12):
I$ = @ Max ( 1 - Vsh).
So with the depth and the Gamma Ray you
can easily estimate the porosity of any level.
Permeability estimation
We have tried to estimate the permeability
from logs but the main difficulty remains the
fact that plugs give a local measurement of the
permeability whereas logs integrate the reservo-
ir characteristics over a deeper and thicker in-
terval. Nevertheless a cross plot between GR
and horizontal permeabilities measured on
plugs shows that below 45 API the reservoir has
a good porosity and generally a high permeabili-
ty which increases when GR reading decreases
(fig. 13). Above 45 MI there is no relationship:
a point with more than 45 API may correspond
to a bioturbated level with a high proportion
of dispersed clay and thus a low porosity, or
to a reservoir composed of alternances of shale
laminations and shaly sand which still has a
fair horizontal permeability.
A cross plot between plug porosity and plug
permeability shows that there is a better corre-
lation between Q, and K when Q, is higher than
18% (fig. 14). For porosities lower than 18%
250
the permeability cannot be estimated and de-
pends on lithology and facies.
Detailed statistical studies give a better
approximation of the permeability in any given
reservoir, but any empirical formula cannot be
extrapolated from one area to another without
a new calibration of the coefficients and cons-
tants used in these formulas being made.
The main point is that in such deltaic seri-
es reservoirs may have a high shale content and
low bulk porosity but still enough horizontal
permeability to produce hydrocarbons. In one
well, we tested a 5 m thick zone with no mud
cake which had more than 35% shale and 4
lower than lo%, and it still produced enough
to be competed (fig. 15).
FORMATION WATERS
Formation waters and SP
As anywhere else, formation water resis-
tivity is used with porosity and shaliness to
compute the water saturation of the permeable
beds. We have seen that Vsh and 4 have beep
properly calibrated and thus the main remain-
ing problem is the determination of the water
salinity.
In these kinds of deltaic sequences the sa-
linity of the water changes very often from oqe
reservoir to another. A resistivity log of any
Handil well shows abrupt changes of the SP,
these changes corresponding to variations of
the salinity of the formation water. In this
field, salinities range from 500 to 18000 pprn
and while these are always considered as fresh
waters, a slight change of the concentration
within this range of salinity induces a strong
change of the water resistivity (roughly from
2 S2 m at 75" F for 500 ppm to 0.07 S2 m at
75" F for 18000 ppm).
Moreover, salinity changes within the same
reservoir from well to well, not as a function
of the geographical locatiQn of the well, but in
relation with the fluid content of the reservoir.
Figures 16a and b illustrate clearly this change:
these two wells (H-3 and HE-1) were drilled
with the same type of mud and mud filtrates
which have nearly the same salinities; in the re-
servoir 17-5 the SP is positive in H-3 where it is
water bearing and negative in HE-1 where the
same reservoir is gas bearing. The corresponding
equivalent NaCl salinities are respectively 3000
and 17000 ppm. This would seem to indicate
a change of salinity due to the presence of hy-
drocarbons.
Analyses have shown that the water asso-
ciated with hydrocarbons is always saltier than
the water within the aquafero. In these forma-
tions, as permeabilities are generally high, con-
tacts between fluids are sharp and there is no
transition zone. Each gas-water contact (fig.
17) or oil-water contact (fig. 18). is marked by
a gradational change of the SP which decreases
when entering the hydrocarbon zone. In the
examples given, contacts are obvious and the
decrease of the SP corresponds to a progressive
change of salinity as if there was an exchange
of ions over 10 to 15 m between two waters of
different salinities.
This fact cannot be attributed to an effect
of the hydrocarbons on the SP because in some
wells drilled with an appropriate mud; contacts
are. marked by a change of sign of the SP. Such
changes of sign were previously used to help
locate the hydrocarbon pay zones. At that time
wells were drilled with mud filtrate salinities
between 6000 and 8000 ppm, so that the aqui-
fers were fresher than the mud filtrate and thus
marked by a positive SP deflection (fig. 19a),
whereas hydrocarbon bearing sands were
marked by a negative deflection of the SP as
their formation waters were saltier than the
mud filtrate (fig. 19b). The log of HG-1 shows
clearly how the SP can be used to locate the
beginning of the pay zone; as soon as the SP
is nil or negative the reservoir is considered as
being probably hydrocarbon bearing.
Water analysis
Analyses carried out on water obtained
either by DST or by string from production
have greatly helped us to understand these vari-
ations of salinity.
Firstly, when the formation waters are very
fresh (less than 2000 ppm) and the SP deflec-
tion higher than 40 mv (fig. 20) standard Rw
calculations from the SP give water saturations
which are still consistent with the presence of
hydrocarbons although no hydroqarbons are
present. In fact, for these levels, Rw is under-
estimated for two reasons: firstly, above
40 mv the SP becomes rather inaccurate for
very fresh water; secondly, it generally corres-
ponds to fresh waters rich in bicarbonates with

a bicarbonate/chloride ratio up to 7 or 10.
In these cases, we compute Rw from the SP
by an empirical formula which has been Cali-
brated on several water anallyses and gives sa-
tisfactory results.
In addition, analyses of the water produced
with oil .have confirmend that waters associated
with the hydrocarbons have salinities ranging
from 6000 to 16000 ppm and waters from the
aquifers have salinities lower than 5000 ppm.
In fact, when a reservoir is producing with a
low water-oil ratio ((WOR) the salinity is high
(above 6000 ppm). As soon as the WOR in-
creases, which means the water table has risen
and reached that well, the salinity of the water
produced decreases to less thaln 5000 ppm and
very often to around 2000 ppm. So there is
absolutely no doubt that the waters associated
with the hydrocarbons are saltier than waters
from the aquifers. When a reservoir contains no
hydrocarbons even in its highest structural po-
sition, it always contains fresh water. More-
over, while this has only been studied in detail
on Handil field it apperas to be the case for all
the wells we have looked at whlether at Bekapai,
Nilam or Badak and also all exploration wells
in the delta of the Mahakam.
This phenomenon can be explained by mi-
gration of hydrocarbons from1 deeper horizons
associated with salty waters. So one must be
very careful not to consider as water bearing
any reservoir where the SP is lower then else-
where even if the resistivity rernains low and log
interpretation indicates water. In Bekapai some
reservoirs with resistivities lower than 3 R m
and apparent water saturation of 70% have
produced dry oil.
FLUID IDENTIFICATION
AND RFT APPLICATIONS
Hydrocarbon identification
While the SP is very useful for the detec-
tion of hydrocarbons in deltaic sequences, it
does not indicate their nature. But in reservoirs
with such high porosities, since apparent po-
rosities from FDC and CNL are affected diffe-
rently by gas, the FDC-CNL permits quick iden-
tification of gas a long as the reservoirs are rea-
sonably clean. When the toall has been well
calibrated in front of a clean water bearing sand
(4 to 5 p.u. of separation for 1% log recorded in
25 1
limestone porosity units) there is a large po-
sitive separation between the two curves in
front of clean gas sands and a smaller one (5 to
9 p. u.) for clean oil bearing reservoirs (fig. 21).
Very often it is not as celar as it is in this
example because the reservoirs are relatively
shaly and the shale effect on FDC and CNL
reduces the separation between the curves.
Plots of GR reading versus the difference bet-
ween porosities as seen by density and neutron
are very helpful. Since the gas effect decreases
with depth we have prepared these plots over
large depth intervals using controlled points
where the reservoir fluid is known (fig. 22).
Of course these plots do not solve all the
problems especially when the formations are
very shaly or when the point falls between the
oil and the gas area. In these cases, when it is
a major problem, we generally test the formati-
on by RFT. For example, on the well HA-327
if the DLL shows that the 21-1 reservoir is
obviously hydrocarbon bearing (fig. 23), the
FDC-CNL does not clearly indicate that there
is no gas effect (fig. 24). As this reservoir in
that well was structurally located in between its
previous low proven gas and high proven oil we
decided to test it by RFT. This test confirmed a
new high proven oil (fig. 25).
Oil or water problems
As has been stated above, each level with a
lower SP than the other reservoirs must receive
special attention.
H-260s is a good example. In this well no
oil was expected above 1600 m and at 1480 m
in the reservoir 12-2 there is a smaller SP than
elsewhere (fig. 26). This reservoir is more shaly
and has a lower resistivity than reservoirs 11-6
and 11-8. The decrease of the SP could be attri-
buted to the increase of shaliness. The FDC-
CNL does not show any hydrocarbon effect
(fig. 27) but as we were aware of this kind of
problem we decided to test this zone. The RFT
recovered almost 15 liters of oil which confirm-
ed that it was oil bearing (fig. 28).
Very often there is rather less oil recovery
and it is only because the salinity of the recover
ed fluid is nearly the same as that of the mud
filtrate that the RFT is interpreted as oil test.
When the reservoir is shaly, the resistivity keeps
log (fig. 29), the invaded zone is generally wider
and the recovered fluids contain a lot of filtrate
25 2
(fig. 30). Nevertheless in the example chosen,
since the test gave 200 m3 of oil and filtrate
it was interpreted as an oil test. Later on this
reservoir was put on production and produced
at more than 600 BOPD on 32/64" choke.
Other RFT applications
RFT's do not always give a conclusive ans-
wer, for even if the seal with the formation is
good the chamber may be full of filtrate (fig.
31 and 32). When this happens you can either
run another RFT with a bigger chamber or
make a segreated test.
Nevertheleqit is the most appropriate tool for
testing fluids in multiple pay deltaic sequences.
The RFT can be also used as a sampling tool
when a fluid sample is needed for primary che-
mical analysis.
In the well HL-275s oil was found for the
first time above 500 m. Actually the presence
of oil was not very obvious and was detected by
a decrease of the SP in association with an in-
crease of the resistivity, just below a series of
fresh water sands which have salinity decreasing
with depth (fig. 33). Since the FDC-CNL did
not show any gas effect which would be very
strong at that depth (fig. 34) an RFT was run
in order to obtain a sample of the oil for fur-
ther analysis. Although the formation was very
loose, results were good and sufficient oil was
obtained for laboratory analysis (fig. 35).
The RFT tool with its pre-test chambers also
anables a permeability estimation to be made
and permeabilities are very local it gives a rela-
tively good idea of the potential of the reservoir.
One last application of this tool is for pres-
sure measurements. These measurements may
be needed in development wells to confirm
continuity or the presence of a permeability
barrier in a reservoir as well as in exploration
wells to check the pressure gradient by a mea-
sure of the formation pressure of the deepest
reservoir drilled when abnormal pressures are
expected.
CONCLUSIONS
While this paper does not develop any new
concepts or any advanced method of log in-
terpretation, we hope it shows the importance
of the calibration of the log responses by cores
and above all the consequences of a detailed
qualitative interpretation.
The various examples given and the form in
which they are presented may seem a little bit
too simplistic for those regularly involved in
well logging analysis, but they correspond to
actual cases and may be used as an introduction
to the interpretation of deltaic sequences or
as examples of regional problems.
Moreover, since the hydrocarbons found in
the deltaic sequences of the Kutei basin seem to
be always associated with waters of higher sa-
linity than those found in the aquifers, changes
of the spontaneous potential in permeable in-
tervals in an exploration well must be regarded
as possibly being due to the presence of hydro-
carbons.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This paper is written after 5 years of subsur-
face and sedimentologicaf studies on the Han-
dil field in which many more people have been
involved than can be properly acknowledged.
However, I would like to thank my colleagues
of the past 4 years, especially J.M. FONCK who
was in charge of the geological departement of
TOTAL INDONESIE in Kalimantan at that
time, and D. LAURIER, who helped undertake
the description of the cores and played a large
role in the calibration of the logs.
I would like to thank PERTAMINA for per-
mission to publish the data included in this
paper.
TOTAL INDONESIE (subsidiary of Com-
pagnie Francaise des Petroles) and INPEX IN-
DONESIA LTD. kindly gave permission to pre-
pare and present this paper.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
P. LALOUEL undertook geological studies
after two years of advanced studies in Mathe-
matics in Paris.
He received his Master Degree in Geology at
the Orsay University in 197 1, then undertook
advanced studies in Sedimentology and finaIly
received a Master Degree of Applied Petroleum
Geology in 1973.
He joined CFP in 1973 and after two years
as Well Site Geologist in various countries and
Log Analyst, he was moved to Balikpapan
where he was put in charge of Handil field geo-
logy from 1975.
P. LALOUEL is a member of the Society
of Professional Well Log Analyst.
 253

APPENDIX thickness of the pay zone (450 to 2800 m) the

1. Marker Nomenclature
More than 70 markers have been defined
between 450 and 2900 m and most of them are
lignites, coal beds or organic shale. They provide
a very helpful frame for reservioir correlations.
These markers are called RI to R27 for the
main markers and R2-2 or R2-6 for the inter-
mediate markers located €or example between
R2 and R3.
2. Reservoir Nomenclature
The reservoirs have names coming from the
depth at which they are reached (or would have
been reached for reservoirs which are not pre-
sent) in a reference well (H-6). For example:
reservoir 17-5 is at 1750 m in this reference
well.
3. Lithology
For all the logs, the lithological symbols
effect of compaction on porosity cannot be
neglected and cut-off on porosity changes with
depth.
A is the better quality, B intermediate and
C the poorest quality (volumes of C type re-
servoir are not taken into account for reserve
calculations).
4. List of Abbreviations and Symbols
BHC 3 : Bore Hole Compensated Sonic
CNL 11: : Compensated Neutron Log
DLL ';i $ : Dual Laterolog
FDC y, 5 : Formation Density Compensated
HDT : High Resolution Dipmeter Tool
ML p 3 : Microlog
MLL b I * Micro-Laterolog
RFT ' I Repeat Formation Tester
swc J : Side Wall Core
D : Percentage of dispersed clay
DST : Drill stem test
GOC : Gas-oil contact

-
used are as follows: GR : GammaRay

- GWC : Gas-water contact

lignite or coal beld hu : useful thickness
K : permeability
organic shale Kh : horizontal permeability
wrA A type L : percentage of shale Iamination
L..........']type
. . . . . . , a .
mf
@
: mud filtrate
: porosity
3- c type p.u. : porosity unit
rf : recovery fluid
Sands have been subdivided into three reser- Rw : resistivity of formation water
voir types according to their petrophysical SP : spontaneous potential
characteristics. We have defined cut-sffs on PO= SSP : static spontaneous potential
rosity and shaliness so that the type could be Vsh : shale percentage
deduced form logs. Due to the uncommon WOK : water-oil ratio
254

FIGURE CAPTIONS

Fig. 1 : Index Map showing the delta of the Mahakam river and Handil field where the examples
have been taken
Fig. 2. : Structural Map of Handil
Fig. 3. : North-South cross section of Handil (location on fig. 2)
Fig. 4 : Logging programme used since 1976
Fig. 5 . : Crossplot of Gamma Ray readings versus the shaliness measured on selected plugs
Fig. 6 : Crossplot of Gamma Ray readings versus the percentage of laminations counted on cores
Fig. 7. : Cossplot of Gamma Ray readings versus shaliness calculated by an empirical
formula (L represents the percentage of shale laminations and D the percentage of
dispersed clay).
Fig. 8 : : Effect of shaliness on the SP (lithological symbol in Appendix).
Fig. 9. : SP versus GR crossplot foi a water bearing sand
Fig. 10. : @ measured on selected plugs versus @ calculated from logs cossplot showing the
shale effect.
Fig. 11 : Evolution of the maximum porosity with depth
Fig. 12 : Empirical relation between porosity maximum porosity and shaliness for a given
interval. This relation is valid for Vsh < 50% and a better fit is obtained with
@ = @ max (l-Vsh)2.

Fig. 13 : Crossplot of Gamma Ray readings versus horizontal permeability

Fig. 14 : Crossplot of the horizontal premeability and the porosity both measured on plugs
Fig. 15 : Example of test result of a shaly reservoir
Fig. 16a : IEDof well H-3: reservoir 17-5 has a positive SP and is water bearing.
Fig. 16b : IES of well HE-1 : reservoir 17-5 has a negative SP and is hydrocarbon bearing.
Fig. 17 : Example of SP change at a gas-water contact in reservoir 17-3.
Fig. 18 : Example of SP change at an oil- water contact in reservoir 14-1.
Fig. 19A : SP positive deflection for water bearing zone in a well drilled with a m u d
filtrate salinity of 8000 ppm
Fig. 19B : SP negative deflection in front of hydrocarbon bearing reservoirs in the same
well as on fig. 19A
Fig. 20 : Example o f SP deflection for very fresh waters
Fig. 21 : Example of Density-Neutron separation
Fig. 22 : Standard crossplot of the Gamma Ray versus @ D d N used for fluid determinations
within the Upper and Shallow pay zones (see fig. 3)
Fig. 23 : DLL of HA-327: reservoir 21-1 hydrocarbon bearing.
Fig. 24 : FDC-CNL of HA-327 : knowing that reservoir 20-9 is gas bearing, reservoir
21-1 would seem to be also gas bearing.
Fig. 25 : Results of the RFT run in reservoir 21-1 (wellHA-327).
Fig. 26 DLL of H-260s: example of oil bearing reservoir with a low resistivity detected
by the decrease of the SP (reservoir 12-2).
Fig. 27 : FDC-CNL of H-260s showing no hydrocarbon effect in reservoir 12-2.
Fig. 28 : Results of the RFT run in reservoir 12-2 (well H-260s).
Fig. 29 : DLL of H-615 : example of difficult oil-water identification (reservoir 19-7).
Fig, 30 : Results of the RFT run in reservoir 19-7 (well H-615)
Fig. 31 : DLL of H-615: example of difficult oil-water identification (resiivoir 21 -8).
Fig. 32 : Results of the RFT run in reservoir 2 1-8 (well H-615).
Fig. 33 : DLL of HL-275:; showing the shallowest oil bearing reservoir found in
Handil (reservoir 4-(?).
Fig. 34 : FDC-CNL of HL-275s over reservoir 4-9.
Fig. 35 : Results of the RFT run in reservoir 4-9 (well H-27.5s).
256

X
W
c3
 257

117'15' 117"16' 117017' n7'18'

IEL0
lATHS
;17"i5' ]17"W 117'17'

1 1 ';°
FIGURE 2
• i
 S O U l H COMPARlMfNl- - NORlH COMPARlMfNl

t
RO-01-

RO 02 -*

RO-05 __

+
I ) 0-0.9

Rl -
R4-3 -
Rf -

R 2 I -*

RZ7 --.

FIGURE 3
 259

".
w
-1
-1 PI
w E
E
m
b
a
0
L
R
9

PI
E
u m
v9

f
c-
W
5
a
D
-.I
w
V
Y
c1
260

Gamma Ray
[A.P.
90

60

30

0 1 I I 1 ' * m eVasshu %r e d
0 20 40 60 80 100 on p l u g s

FIGURE 5

Gamma Ray
(A.p.1)~
90 -
60 -

Laminations
0 I I 1 I I )%
0 20 40 60 80 100

FIGURE 6
 26 1

m
E
E
m
u
262

E
^I

E
B
!2

a
Lu
a

ca
0
I-1
 263

W P

I
I
I
I
d I
264

SHALE EFFECT
(HR-I)

@P

30

#
#
* *
#
20
t t
a
z x a

10 i
*With lamination9

0 Without l a m i n a t i o n

@ Log
0 I I I b
0 20 30

FIGURE 10
 265

@ max
@ l o g for Vsh s 3 %
... 0

30

20

+ H-8
o HQ-1
10 H-502
+E H - 6 1 5

Depth
0 I 1 1 b
0 loo0 2000 3000 Im l

FIGURE 11
266

a:@m a x ( 1 4 s h )
( P o i n t s a r o u n d 1000m)
30

20

10

Vs h
0

FIGURE 12
 267

(A.P.11 L. +GOOD POROSITY .

.I)

120 - I
I
10 w I

901 - - -
PERMEABILITY '
I <
H16W
P E R MEABl L l T Y
I I

60 - 0 .

30 -
I
I
0 - I I .
) Kh
1 I 1 I

FIGURE 13

Kh
(mu1
1000

100

10

0 6 12 18 24 30 (XI

FIGURE 14
 60 !O API 100 1c 1 m

HD -1 19 - 7

INDUCTION
ELECTRICAL 2050rn 20 - 0

LO6 DST
- 20-3
TEST
ON C TYPE 20-4
RESERVOIR

FLUIDS
- T E S T RESULTS
1-1 GAS Q 32 164,' : 923 BOPD
GOR : 123 m 3/ m3
OIL
WHFP 43 Bars
1- WATER K 81 m i l

FIGURE 15
 269

- E
Q
In
E
0
0
E
0
m
e s z P
0
2!
0
LD

0
270

E E
0 0
 271

0
0
0,

0
P

0,

-
p. E E
0
E
0
U 0
0
2
kz s 0
9

0
W

0
27 2

E
u
N

E E
0 0
0 v)
s s
 273

I
E E E
om 0 0 0
U
0
$!

0
(0

0
274

I
 275

E c
-
L
0
v9
e
0
a
E
0
!n
4 s 52 z
0
N
c

0
(0

ce
Y
276
 277

3 =
-
c
I
B

II:**/
-x-

z
/
m
z
278

E
C

E
c3
0
E
0
i
N a

r-
cv
m m
c1
a
A Sl
0
 279

a
U
0
E
0
Q
N
err
.I
=
E
0
Ln
N
N

Ilr oe
cu w
 CHAMBER : 2 34 gal a t 2 217 m

RECOVERY: .GAS : 7 . 3 cuft

.OIL : 2 5 0 0 cm3
HA-327 .WATER: 7 2 0 0 cm3

R F T la -rf : 18500 ppm

Salinity
Results i-rnf : 24000 PPm
Pour p o i n t : 37'C
Oil d e n s i t y : 0 . 8 5 g r / c m 3 a t 81'F

OILTEST : GOR : 8 3 m3/rn3

K : 18 mD

FIGURE 25
 28 1

I I I I
I
282

v3
0
cp
 283

c1
E
E u
0 0 0 0 0 0 - - m
m 0 0 v ) m - 0 0 V)m
w W N - 0 0
' 0
c w- m
.
0 -
N N
c
m
-
m,
..
-
c1,
A
(D
0

.. a -
0 .- ..
a - 0 c
W m
m w
€ c
4
z
0
-
-J

0
284

ua e
 CHAMBER : 2 314 gal at 2 128 m

[ RECOVERY: ,GAS : 1 cuft

,OIL : 200 cm3
-615 I ,WATER: 9 2 0 0 cm3

,rf : 10500 p p m
Salinity
Results I,mf : 17000 ppm
Pour p o i n t : 25'C
O i l density : 0 . 9 gr/cm3 a t 7 5 ' F

OILTEST : GOR : 142 m?m3

K : 2 5 mD

FIGURE 30
286

- I I
!
-
eL
U
0
N
c
E
0
m
N
cu
E
0
0
m
cu
4
I&
re
a
~

0
(0

er
w
cn +
U
U
c3 3

0 1
 CHAMBER : 23/,gal at 2324 m

RECOVERY: .GAS : -
.OIL : -
H 615 ,WATER: 9 0 0 0 cm3

RFT 2b -r! : 15575 ppm

Salinity
Resu Its {.ml : 16500 p p m
ii jPour point :
)Oil d e n s i t y :

TEST :
- Nan conclusive

.
288

. .. . . ..
.......
........
.......
.......
. . . . . . a .
 289

(r
W
A c
1 U
0 3:

: n
290

c)
c E E E
E
c "
a E
en
E n n
n n
en-.
E
=
E
c 0 0 0 0 0
v) 0 0 - 0 0
w O N
C O N
c
II
c
m
-m .. .. - . .. .. .. ..
P=
P,
a
(D
c
c 0 s
b E ca
* *
--Yj
.. .. r ..
a *-
a
.-E
C
I-
W
m W .-
- v)
W
3r m
€ 0 k-
4
2
o
o
Y
a
v)

-
.A