Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Now If we look back to the figure the second line is a non-linear relationship,
and this behaviour appears when we have the presence of clay in the rock
which contribute to the total conductivity of the rock.
We now have that the conductivity of the rock saturated with brine
Which is the original relationship between Cw and F
plus an independent term represents the shale element.
3. And also in the slide we can see all the models developed in chronological order
that tried to account for this shale element.
7. Later Waxman smiths introduces the Cation Exchange Capacity concept in his
model
and states that certain types of clays are able to
conduce more electrical current than others,
so the shale element is not dependent of the volume of shale,
but the properties of this.
Hence he has to introduce
F* = shaly sand formation resistivity ,
m* = shaly sand cementation exponent,
n* = shaly sand saturation exponent and
Cation exchange capacity that is
The quantity of cations that a clay mineral can accommodate on its negatively
charged surface (meq/100g) per unit total pore volume
→so this model demands of core laboratory measurements
and for a better understanding
the study of the type of clay minerals.
9. The dual model is derived from the inaccuracy of the W&S method
and this accuracies are corrected in their study
The stated that a shaly sandstone formation is assumed to behave as if it contains
two types of water,
bound water associated with the clay minerals
and the free water in the pore space which is the one that is preferentially
displaced by HC.
→ So it gets a little bit more complicated,
now we need to account for two water conductivities
And its volumetric average will give the equivalent fluid conductivity
plus the variables of W&S model,
but with the main advantage of this models is that neither the clay type
nor its distribution has an impact in the results.
The theoretical understanding of the models is the base for choosing a water
saturation model
and makes reliable the determination of how accurate can be a model,
so
And now the data available is coming from 4 wells. The moki formation was found
by all wells and is the green layer in the picture
Of the log correlation in MDBRT
The well appraisal Maari 1 can be used with a bit of caution since also presents an
interval were there is bad hole conditions.
And the best data available comes from the well Maari-2
The right most well
which not only count with full set of logs but also with routine core analysis and
PVT.
In the case of this well Maari 2 we counted with core data stress and depth
corrected,
so we could verify the porosity calculation and permeability which was derived
from Willi Rose method
and together with used defined variables.
Now if we look back to the slide we have a plot of total porosity vs Vsh
And by plotting this data we can define how is distributed the shale in the pore
space
…Dispersed which means shale that formed in the pore space due to
the chemical reaction of water and minerals
and greatly reduces the effective porosity and therefore the permeability.
… Or structural which are clay and silt sediments deposited along together
Anyway, with the cut offs of 5 to 40% we will be focused in having our points falling
the red box.
By this moment we must already have calculated Vsh, total porosity, from any
chosen method
and also we have to define those points.
PHImax=0.25; PHI_shale=0.05;
PHImax=0.24; PHI_shale=0.07;
PHITstr=0.28; Vshstr=0.75;
PHITstr=0.2932; Vshstr=0.76;
PHITdis=0.012; Vshdis=0.25.
PHITdis=0.0168; Vshdis=0.24.
PHImax=0.23; PHI_shale=0.08;
PHITstr=0.2916; Vshstr=0.77;
PHITdis=0.0184; Vshdis=0.23
Ones done that we plot total porosity of the part of your formation of interest that
is that part which has up to 40% shale.
And our formation resulted to have mainly shale distributed in a laminar-structural
way with most of the points falling in a porosity between 17% to 25%.
Should we use the total model which does not take into account the shale
distribution, if we are saying the way it is distributed the shale does impact in the
porosity and permeability. Well from my point of view…. No
And we have 4 out of 10 methods to try.
Pickett Plot – Rt, Cementation & Saturation Exponent and Tortuosity Coefficient
Now regarding m, n and a, we said that we obtain that from core measurements
where we plot total porosity vs Rt.
But if we don’t have core measurements
But we can use log data but now the definition of this parameters is conditioned to
find clean water bearing zones and again how reliable are the porosity and
derivation and resistivity measurement
In order to derive Rw, m, n, and a.
Pickett Plot – Rt, Cementation & Saturation Exponent and Tortuosity Coefficient
a m Application
1 2 Carbonates*
0.81 2 Consolidated sandstones*
0.62 2.15 Unconsolidated sands (Humble Formula)*
1.45 1.54 Average sands (Carothers, 1968)
1.65 1.33 Shaly sands (Carothers, 1968)
1.45 1.7 Calcareous sands (Carothers, 1968)
0.85 2.14 Carbonates (Carothers, 1968)
2.45 1.08 Pliocene sands, southern California (Carothers & Porther, 1971)
1.97 1.29 Miocene sands, Texas-Louisiana Gulf Coast (Carothers & Porther, 1971)
1 ∅e(2.05-∅) Clean granular formations (Sethi, 1979)
Considerations
a = 1 trend cannot be easily found
W&Smith or DW sensitive to non-equal to 1 a values → a = 1 should be used.
Use variable “a” values in equations like Archie, Simandoux or Indonesia.
a is generally assumed to be 1
a is generally assumed to be 1
2. In contrast we found that table in the slide
where values of a and m already derived
from specific areas and cores measurement from an specific reservoir
and that in the majority of this models a was not fixed to be 1.
a is generally assumed to be 1
So now in this table we have that well moki 2, Maari-1, and Maari 2 counted with
clean water zones to define a, m and n
And we can see that since we don’t have core measurements assumed
n=2
A 0,85 - 2
M=1,7 – 2
Juhasz and Waxman-Smiths methods derived almost the same water saturation values → average difference of 1.13% along Moki
formation and 0.47% average across HC bearing zone.
The later method being more suitable of application for our case due to the no availability of core measurements for the derivation of m*,
n* and a.
The Juhasz method all the parameters with exception of n* can be log derived. Indonesia, Simandoux Modified Simandoux, derived also
almost the same water saturation values.
A similarity between models may indicate proper estimation of the values of tortuosity factor (a), cementation factor (m), and saturation
exponent (n); or can also indicates the applicability of these models in Maari field.
The total shale model, is being discarded for comparison since it derived higher values than Archie water saturation and moreover due
since the cross plot of PHIT vs Vsh resulted in a laminated-structural distribution of shale. Hence, the comparison between the water
saturation methods is for Maari-2 is between Archie, Simandoux, Juhasz and Dual water.
This is natural since juhazs is derived from the W&S methof and in both we are
assumamin the same m, n and a.
But which is more suitable of application for our case, well Juhaz method since
at exception of n star, all parameters can be log derived.
Hence the final comparison is between Archie, Simandoux, dual water and Juhazs
Why Archie?
all the shale sandstone models will be reduced the Archie’s equation when the
shale is zero,
and for a relatively low content of shale,
all the models will give similar results.
So the Moki formation is composed for 2 cycles of deposition of sand, this is the
topmost cycle
And here we have the main inputs for the water saturation methods
Vsh
Total porosity from density,
Permeability from the willie rose methods with coefficients adjusted to we can
calibrate the log result with permeability measured in cores
And the water saturation curves.
The blue es Archie,
Yellow Simandoux
Purple dual water
And
Light blue by juhazs
Archie Model
Res 1304 1494.892 190.892 105.613 0.553 0.173 0.198 0.726 59.693
Pay 1304 1494.892 190.892 48.92 0.256 0.108 0.218 0.523 58.252
Simandoux Model
Res 1304 1494.892 190.72 105.532 0.556 0.173 0.198 0.726 59.693
Pay 1304 1494.892 190.72 61.833 0.324 0.117 0.214 0.532 53.189
Juhasz Model
Res 1304 1494.892 190.892 105.613 0.553 0.173 0.198 0.726 59.693
Pay 1304 1494.892 190.892 76.352 0.4 0.144 0.208 0.542 46.987
Laminar-structural shale distribution with most of the points falling in between the a total porosity ranging from 17% to 25%.
OWC @ 1352 m MDBRT → Point of calibration since all the shale sandstone models will be reduced the Archie’s equation when the shale is zero, and for
a relatively low content of shale, all the models will give similar results.
Juhasz and Waxman-Smiths methods derived almost the same water saturation values → average difference of 1.13% along Moki formation and 0.47%
average across HC bearing zone.
The Juhasz method all the parameters with exception of n* can be log derived.
Indonesia, Simandoux Modified Simandoux, derived also almost the same water saturation values between them.
A similarity between models may indicate proper estimation of the values of tortuosity factor (a), cementation factor (m), and saturation exponent (n); or
can also indicates the applicability of these models in Maari field.
The total shale model, is being discarded for comparison since it derived higher values than Archie water saturation and moreover due since the cross plot
of PHIT vs Vsh resulted in a laminated-structural distribution of shale.
Hence, the comparison between the water saturation methods is for Maari-2 is between Archie, Simandoux, Juhasz and Dual water.
So if we jump into the conclusions we have already mentioned some of them and
the rest are that
2. The distribution of the shale in the reservoir is laminar – structural, with more
points falling closing to the laminar zone.
3. In between the 3 last compared models, we said that the most suitable for our
available data, for application, is the model of juhaz since all terms in his model in
exception to n* are log derived, that means that the accuracy of the model is a
function of the determination of vsh, and porosity.
Recommendations
Deep understanding of the all the shaly sandstone saturation methods developed.
Fixing the value of the tortuosity factor equal to 1, as it is commonly done. However, it must be pointed out that this is an important as it
changes the trend of the slope of the plotted values and the cementation exponent value.
All methods use core derived measurement → Necessary laboratory measurements for the determination of of m, n & a