Back to Menu

IPA10-G-224

PROCEEDINGS, INDONESIAN PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION

Thirty-Fourth Annual Convention & Exhibition, May 2010

DRY HOLE REVIVAL THROUGH WELL POST MORTEM EVALUATION

Andang Bachtiar*
Yudi S. Purnama*
Bayu Nugroho**
Maradona Mansyur***

ABSTRACT column as well as to determine possible

Basically, a well postmortem is carried out in order
to find out as to why there is no producible
hydrocarbon in a well despite the existence of
favorable geological factors and convincing
hydrocarbon shows either during drilling or based
on well evaluation of E-logs. Subsequently, result
of the postmortem can then be used to determine
strategy for the next exploration/appraisal plan. A
well postmortem often come up with findings that
geologically the well is not really dry but was either
considered as dry or inconclusive due to non-
geological related factors.
This paper describes methods, case studies and
implication of a well postmortem. Postmortem
procedures applied in this study consist of Mudlog
review, Pressure Analysis of drilling and testing
data, Geochemical analysis of laboratory results as
well as test result verification using chloride
matching analysis and test curve review. All
procedures are complemented by log analyses of
case studies.
Mudlog review of oil and gas shows derives
conclusiveness of the reservoir content. It is noted
+
that the first occurrence of C 3 indicates either the
penetrated section starts to enter early mature
window for oil generation or, hydrocarbon has
migrated to shallower section. Moreover, the
occurrence of C4 and C5 in may also be considered
as oil fraction indicator. Oil show characters also
give direct clues to hydrocarbon type such as
blooming means possible oil with gas accumulation.
Pressure analysis combined with hydrocarbon
shows, help to understand the relationships of
overbalance with formation damage, of
overpressure/subnormal pressure and hydrocarbon
* Exploration Think Thank Indonesia
* Harvest Natural Resources
* Salamander Energy
hydrocarbon column. Test result verification is
crucial especially in concluding the conclusiveness
of a tested zone. There are practical clues in test
verification, such as water salinity analysis which
often misinterpreted as formation water, pressure
chart that shows characters of formation damage or
tight formation. Geochemical analyses results of
well cuttings and/or fluids from well testing -if
available- are also key elements in a well
postmortem, in order to understand how the
petroleum system works in the area. The clues are
determined by comparing hydrocarbon shows (i.e.
C3 and C4 readings from mudlog) against Vitrinite
Reflectance (in order to verify Top Oil
Window/early oil generation) and by resolving
hydrocarbon origin of tested zones.
Results of postmortem evaluations of three areas
may potentially change the chance-of-success ratio
from 14% to 86% in Central Sumatra Basin Highs,
from 50% to 73% in Jambi Sub -Basin, and from
13% to 50% in South Sumatra Mountain Front.
Immediate implication of postmortem result is, the
originally considered inconclusive wells may in fact
turn out to be candidates for re-entering, re-test or
even re-drill with minimum cost and effort to
possibly give new reserve or even increase in oil
production.
INTRODUCTION
Postmortem is a forensic term, meaning exami-
nation of a body especially to find the cause of
death. In exploration context, the term is widely
used as an unofficial term to describe “dry hole
analysis”. Generally, well postmortem or dry hole
analysis, is carried out after drilling a well to answer
as to why there was no commercial hydrocarbon,
particularly in marginal discovery case or as a must
in due diligent case prior to relinquishment or farm
out plan.
Back to Menu
Postmortem analyses, however, often come up with
findings that geologically the well is not really dry.
Instead, it can geologically be categorized as
inconclusive well due to non-geological factors. For
example, many dry holes were neither tested nor
properly evaluated due to silly arguments such as
tight formation, hydrocarbon were flushed and no
matured zone. Based on authors’ experience,
postmortem procedures applied in the study consist
of Mudlog review, Pressure analysis, Test result
verification and geochemical analysis.
METHOD
A. MUDLOG REVIEW
Mudlog review of oil and gas shows plays an
important role in defining the conclusiveness of
reservoir content. The presence of hydrocarbon
show means a possible zone of interest is waiting to
be evaluated thoroughly. In this context, Mudlog
review encompasses gas show from gas
chromatogram with its derivative analysis and oil
show. Both of them are important to ascertain there
is no bypassed zone or to confirm conclusiveness of
a formation test.
Gas show; in case of no geochemical analysis or no
sampling was conducted in the well, the most
important gaseous component to ensure that
+ formation pressure of a zone is higher than its water
thermogenic processes have taken place is the C 3 .
The first occurrence of C 3+ -in unfractured shale
section- indicates either the section penetrated starts
to enter early mature window for oil generation or
thermogenic migration (Figure 1). More over, the
occurrence of C4 and C5 in gas chromatogram may
also be considered as an indicator of oil fraction
presence in the formation.
Oil show; it is important to examine closely the
nature of the show such as odor, stain, fluorescence,
cut fluor and/or crush cut. Basically, in cases where
an oil show is present over a certain depth interval
but it is not supported by well logs, this will tell us
that hydrocarbon migration already occurred which
implies that the petroleum system works. For
example, solvent cut fluorescence tell us indirectly
about fluid mobility and fluid composition.
Streaming cut fluorescence indicates moveable
hydrocarbon in the vicinity. Slow or even no
streaming cut fluorescence indicates dead oil in the
vicinity. Blooming cut fluorescence suggests
possible oil with gas contamination. Crush cut
fluorescence relates to contamination effect of mud
materials such as Soltex, OBM Diesel, Gilsonite or
the presence of some minerals/rock such as calcite,
dolomite or halite. In carbonate rocks this
techniques is common practice, i.e. if spotty then
the penetrated interval worth to be tested.
B. PRESSURE ANALYSIS
The aim of pressure analysis is to understand all
kind of pressures in the bore hole. This analysis
makes use of mud weight data, leak-off test, and
formation pressure data from formation testing such
as RFT, MDT, DST, combined with gas and oil
show and also well kick. Finally, integration of
pressure analysis is useful to define the
conclusiveness of a tested zone or to nominate
bypass zone.
Overbalance and Formation Damage; Over-balance
drilling occurs when the mud weight used to drill an
interval exceeds the formation pressure (derived
from formation testing) of the interval. Drilling
problems arise when the mud weight used to drill an
interval is too heavy which often can cause
formation damage. Based on experience, pressure
difference of more than 200 Psi to 250 Psi could
lead to formation damage. Tool plugging during
long periods of formation test may suggest
formation damage. Those facts might be considered
as inconclusiveness/invalidity of a tested zone.
Overpressure and Hydrocarbon column; when the
gradient, then the zone is overpressure. Care must
be taken whether the formation pressure is caused
by regional overpressure or by hydrocarbon column.
Techniques such as D-exponent or shale sonic plot
can be used to confirm the existence of regional
overpressure zone. Gas chromatogram or oil show
information can be used to bring to conclusion that
hydrocarbon column exists within the depth interval
of the zone. Therefore, the reservoirs need further
careful examination. During successful test,
reservoir content in overpressure zone will flow
easily than in subnormal pressure zone. In case of
no well test is conducted, the analysis is useful to
nominate bypassed zone. Moreover, mature source
rock in overpressure zone can be treated as
indication that hydrocarbon has been generated.
Subnormal pressure and hydrocarbon column;
during a well test, there is unique fluid behaviour
within a reservoir located in a subnormal pressure
regime. Fluid will not flow easily. It will remain in
the string and need artificial lifting to produce the
oil. In most cases, it shows that the tested zone is
considered as uneconomic hydrocarbon bearing
without any idea about the existing pressure regime.
Back to Menu
Pressure gradient and possible hydrocarbon column,
type, and contact; each hydrocarbon type has unique
pressure gradient. The range of gas gradient is from
0.06 – 0.28 Psi/ft, for oil is from 0.28 – 0.433 Psi/ft
and for fresh water the gradient is 0.433 Psi/ft. By
plotting pressure data from well tests (i.e. DST,
RFT, MDT, etc), one can utilize it to deduce gross
thickness of possible hydrocarbon column, its type,
and its contact (Figure 2). In cases where pressure
gradient of a tested zone can not be constructed,
probably it is caused by formation damage, aborted
pressure sampling or tight formation.
Gain, Kick, and Loss; those phenomena usually
mean drilling problems. However, the same
phenomena may also indicate the presence of zones
of interest. Gain and kick, accompanied by oil or
gas show, might indicate zone of interest and
formation pressure value, while mud loss basically
indicate the presence of permeable zone.
C. TEST VERIFICATION
Test verification is very important in assuring the
conclusiveness of a formation test/tested zone. The
clues in test verification are water salinity analysis,
pressure test’s chart analysis, under-balanced
reservoir test (swab), and tool failure. The
postmortem analysis will also discuss the character
of tight formation during a test. Test result
verification verifies fluid content and flow rate.
Judgment of Test Verification; a conclusive test is
judged by the reservoir natural content regardless
what kind of fluid it is. Whereas a conclusive rate is
judged by the content’s flow rate (Figure 3).
Inconclusive content or inconclusive test is so
regarded if the testing tool recovers nothing.
Whereas content’s conclusiveness or conclusive test
is regarded when the testing equipment recovers
sufficient formation fluid, regardless what kind the
fluid is. If a test is regarded as a conclusive test, it is
also necessary to indicate whether the test is
conclusive oil, conclusive gas, conclusive
condensate or conclusive water test.
An inconclusive (hydrocarbon flowing) rate or
inconclusive rate is judged when the volume of the
recovered hydrocarbon in the tool chamber is
considered insufficient, for instance due to tool
failure, tool plugging or formation damage. On the
other hand, conclusiveness of (hydrocarbon) rate or
simplified as conclusive rate is judged if the fluid in
the tool chamber is considered sufficient/more than
enough. However, if the tested reservoir is
considered tight even though it contains
hydrocarbon, then the reservoir can be regarded as
conclusive tight (with hydrocarbon indication).
Furthermore, re-evaluation of a tested zone can
eventually improve a well status which initially was
classified as a dry hole. For example, if a tested
zone was considered based on an inconclusive test
or, there were possible/ probable pay in bypassed
zone, then the well status can be stated as
inconclusive well.
Water Salinity Analysis; the use of tracer ions in
drilling fluids will, in most cases, conclusively
determine the origin of the recovered water.
However, in cases where no tracer was added to the
mud system, recovered water sample determination
would not be easy: is it formation water or mud
filtrate? Therefore, general knowledge of reservoirs
water salinities and reservoirs facies can be useful
in predicting how much chloride would be expected
in the recovered water sample.
Buried formation water –entrapped during
lithification process- is saltier than the initial
salinity due to salt sieving and osmosis process. For
example, braided sediments situated in fresh water
environment show chloride concentration of about
100 – 500 ppm. After deep burial, it would have
about 500 – 1000 ppm chloride. Table 1 is prepared
based on authors’ experience to depict salinity range
of different depositional setting.
Basement rocks and limestone as hydrocarbon
reservoirs have unique salinities. Limestone (also
dolomitic limestone and dolomite) which has
secondary porosity from dissolution by contact with
meteoric water, typically contains formation water
with chloride concentration range of 10,000 –
20,000 ppm maximum which is less than original
seawater chloride (i.e. 22,000 ppm). Basement
reservoirs (fractured or weathered igneous and/or
metamorphic rocks) typically have fresher
formation waters, e.g. 500 – 5,000 ppm of chloride
concentration. This is due to geological processes
(which created its porosity/permeability) related to
uplifting and/or initial exposure of basin margin on
the horst side and hence, prone to meteoric water
invasion.
Pressure test chart; a pressure chart (Time versus
Pressure cross plot) is required to verify the
conclusiveness of a well test. There is special
character on the graph such as decreasing pressure
or plugging that lead to formation damage
interpretation. Tool plugging (which is common in
Back to Menu
pressure test) is indicated by pressure decrease, i.e.
when the Final Shut In Pressure/FSIP is much lower
than initial pressure/ISIP. Other indicator of tool
plugging is pressure curve steepness of build up
pressure. If the pressure curve shows no build up
pattern at all, it can also be interpreted as caused by
tool plugging. The pressure build up curves are also
clues for flow rate inconclusiveness of a tested
zone.
Tight formation means the reservoir has a very low
or no permeability at all, or flow a very small
amount of fluids. Typical pressure chart of tight
formation shows the pressures will not increase
while shut-in, or increasing slowly, or low pressure
gradient and sometimes show supercharge event
(measuring mud pressure).
Underbalance reservoir test; production by
swabbing method is commonly applied to reservoir
which will not flow naturally. Mostly, is done in
shallow reservoir –down to 1000 ft (Greig, 1958)-
with subnormal pressure. For deep reservoirs, if
swabbing is unsuccessful after being attempted for
several times, then this condition can be regarded as
inconclusive test (due to plugging or damaged).
Tool failure; if tool failure is mentioned in the well
test report, it can then be regarded as inconclusive
content or inconclusive rate. If hydrocarbon has
been collected but tool failure occurred then it can
be regarded as conclusive content (oil, gas or
condensate) with inconclusive rate. However, if no
hydrocarbon is collected, it can be regarded as
inconclusive test.
D. GEOCHEMICAL ANALYSIS
Geochemical analysis refers to laboratory analysis
of well cuttings or hydrocarbon samples. Result of
this analysis must be integrated to the well
postmortem in order to understand how the
petroleum system works in the area. The clues are
determined by comparing hydrocarbon shows (i.e.
C3 and C4 readings from mudlog) against Vitrinite
Reflectance (in order to verify Top Oil
Window/early oil generation) and by resolving
hydrocarbon origin of tested zones.
Early oil generation resolution. It has been
mentioned earlier that the rule of thumb for early oil
generation (or top oil window) determination is by
+
marking the first appearance of C3 on mud log.
However, if Vitrinite Reflectance (VR) information
from the well is available, then the top of oil
window should be resolved based on VR data. In
other words, oil window generation interpretation
based on VR gives definite result than the mud log.
As examples, let us consider Case-1: if depth of
early oil generation determined by VR is deeper
than depth of first appearance of C 3 from mudlog,
then the first appearance of the C 3 is caused by
hydrocarbon upward migration. Case-2: if depth of
early oil generation from VR is shallower than the
C3 first appearance on mud log, then the depth
interval between the two should be regarded as poor
Total Organic Carbon (TOC, Figure 4). Case-3: if
there is no thermogenic gas detected on mudlog but
early oil generation based on VR present, then the
depth below the early oil generation derived from
VR should be inferred as poor TOC.
Hydrocarbon origin. In order to determine
hydrocarbon origin (whether originated from source
rock close to the well/surrounding area or migrated
from far away locations), we must consider the
early oil generation’s depth with respect to
hydrocarbon column’s depth. If hydrocarbon
column’s depth is shallower than early oil
generation depth (derived from mud log and/or
VR), then the hydrocarbon is migrated hydrocarbon.
However, if the hydrocarbon column’s depth is
below the depth of early oil generation, then it can
be derived either from close by located or far away
located source rocks.
CASE STUDY
In this context, we will discuss three cases:
inconclusive test, conclusive test with inconclusive
rate, and conclusive tight. The conclusion is based
on analyses which have been discussed in previous
sub chapter and has been integrated with log
analysis.
The inconclusiveness of fluid content or its flow
rate is due to a lot of things. Several clues can be
used to judge inconclusiveness. Firstly, some well
test yield hydrocarbon but it also recovered mud
filtrate or completion fluid which implies that the
hydrocarbon flow is in inconclusive rate. Secondly,
formation damage due to plugging. Partial plugging
or complete plugging could lead to inconclusive rate
because mud filtrate tends to reduce the reservoir’s
permeability. Formation damage such as plugging
caused by overbalance drilling, i.e. the occurrence
of reasonable high pressure difference between mud
pressure and formation pressure, for example more
than 200 Psi. Thirdly, mechanical failure while
testing is another cause for inconclusiveness.
Examples are, packer lost or tool failure can cause
no test result or yield low fluid
Back to Menu
rate. Fourthly, when the Mudlog shows excellent to
good hydrocarbon show followed by presence of
C3+, iC4, nC4 and even C5+, backed by log analysis
which shows pay zone but on testing there is no
result or yield negligible hydrocarbon amount
despite no mention about any mechanical failure, it
can be regarded as inconclusiveness. Judgment of
conclusive tight is based on clues such as low
pressure gradient, low hydrocarbon mobility or low
calculated permeability.
Bypassed zone is untested zone which is believed to
contain hydrocarbon. Mudlog data such as oil show
and gas chromatogram –in conjunction with log
analysis- are important in identifying bypassed
zones.
Case study of an Inconclusive Test; A-1 well; DST-
1 was on the Gumai Formation at depth of 1,790 –
1,796 m. In its pressure plot (Figure 5 upper right),
it shows that pressure from DST-1 is far less than
the water gradient while pressure from DST-2 is
closer to the water gradient. Both pressures were
recorded from DST of the same Gumai Formation.
The significant pressure difference probably due to
either DST-1’s pressure is sub-normal compared to
the normal DST-2’s pressure or, DST-1’s pressure
was taken on tight interval. Oil show present at
depth interval 1,780 – 1,790 m on well cuttings and
in sidewall cores from depth interval 1,790 – 1,795
m (SWC; Figure 5, upper left). C3+ and iC4 also
present in gas chromatogram (Figure 5, bottom
left). Wireline log responses are low GR, and high
resistivity (Figure 5, bottom left). DST-1 on Gumai
Formation sandstone recovered only gas bubble
with maximum surface pressure of 3 Psi containing
10% - 45% gas derived from explosive charge. First
test yielded 525 cc fluids in chamber with 2,165
ppm chloride, SG of 1.032 and pH of 8.5. Swab test
recovered 3,460 Liters in string with 30,625 ppm
chloride. Completion fluid used contained 36,000
ppm chloride. Pressure chart indicates plugging
when pressure gradients differ although flowing
pressure increasing (Figure 5, bottom right).
Case study of a Conclusive Test but Inconclusive
Rate; B-1 well; DST-1 on Talang Akar Formation at
depth interval of 1,580 – 1,582 m. Mudlog and
SWC indicate oil show. Log responses show low
GR, high resistivity with deep and shallow
resistivity separation, with density and neutron
cross over (Figure 6, left). The test recovered 1.008
MMSFPD, 10.7 BCPD and 63% water.
Unfortunately, DST tool failed before the test was
completed. Pressure chart shows decreasing
pressure from first shut-in/ISIP to final shut-
in/FISIP (Figure 6, right). The pressure decrease
indicates that there was plugging which caused
hydrocarbon could not flow in conclusive rate,
although it was a conclusive oil test.
Case study of Conclusive Tight; C-1 well; RFT at
7,980 ft was conducted in Air Benakat Formation.
Log response shows low GR contrast between shale
baseline (maximum GR) and cleanest sand
(minimum GR), almost no resistivity separation
(between resistivity deep and shallow) but oil shows
present within those depth intervals (Figure 7, top).
RFT recovered only 7000 cc fluid with water cut
99.75%, flow rate 0.05 L/sec, permeability 2.53
mD. Pressure chart shows no pressure build-up/no
flowing pressure (Figure 7, bottom). Low
permeability and no flow rate infer that the test was
conclusive tight test due to tight formation.
IMPLICATION
There are many implications from well postmortem
to increase exploration strategy. For an instance,
modification of dry hole status, mapping
components of petroleum system and increase in
drilling success ratio.
Technically, dry hole means either discovers no oil
or, uneconomic discovery. It should be noted that
the use of the terminology differs between oil
companies due to economic factors/scale. A dry
hole for a company of international scale can be the
opposite for different company with small economic
scale. Therefore, if a dry hole contains inconclusive
well tests or there is no well test even though there
are oil and/or gas shows reported or the well
contains bypassed zones, then the well status should
be classified as “dry hole with hydrocarbon
indication”.
Result of postmortems can be plotted to get a
geographic relationship of the petroleum system of
the study area. As an example, we will consider a
Formation Pressure Map (Figure 8). The Map
contains plots of all of Talang Akar Fm. formation-
pressure tests. The aim was to get an idea on
pressure distribution regimes whether the wells are
in subnormal or overpressure regime. The benefit of
having such map is, it can be used as a guide line
when preparing the mud program of new wells
rather than using nearest wells as reference. Figure
8 shows there are three formation pressure regimes.
Proposed wells in subnormal pressure regime can
use mud weight of 8.33 ppg (eq. 1 SG) to 9 ppg (eq.
to 1.08 SG), in overpressure regime can use mud
weight of 9 ppg to 10 ppg (1.20 SG) and in high
Back to Menu
overpressure regime can use mud weight of 10 ppg
to 11 ppg (eq. 1.32 SG).
Well postmortem study of three basins, i.e. Jambi
Sub-Basin, Central Sumatra Basin Highs, and South
Sumatra Mountain Front come up with significant
result such as it does change the chance-of-success
ratio. Well postmortems on seven (7) Central
Sumatra Basin Highs P&A wells (6 wells were
P&A as dry holes, 1 well was P&A with oil shows),
turned out that five (5) wells can be reclassified as
inconclusive wells due to recovered water samples
contained nitrates in sufficient amount, due to
formation damage, tool failure and/or recovered
waters turned out to be mud filtrates. The findings
mean increasing chance-of-success ratio from 14%
to 86%.
A postmortem on 22 P&A wells in Jambi Sub Basin
(11 suspended oil & gas wells, 7 dry holes, 4 P&A)
turned out that five wells should be reclassified
from dry holes to inconclusive wells. Reasons for
reclassifications are invalid formation test due to
formation damage; recovered fluids were
completion fluid and inappropriate classification
was applied to the well (what did happen was, the
well blew out and the rig was badly damaged. The
well was plugged and drilling program was
discontinued). The postmortems managed to
increase the chance-of-success ratio from 50% to
73%.
In South Sumatra Mountain Front, a total of eight
P&A wells (1 suspended gas well, 6 P&A as dry
holes, 1 P&A as non commercial gas well) were
postmortem. Based on well reports and E-logs re-
evaluation, two gas wells apparently were
misclassified as dry holes. The postmortem also
found out that due to drilling problem (hole caving),
tool plugging and super charged, three wells out of
the six remaining P&A wells should be restated as
inconclusive wells. This means an increase in
chance-of-success ratio from 13% to 50%.
Immediate implication of postmortem results is,
those inconclusive wells – which originally were
classified as dry holes – could become good
candidates for Work Over program and/or as
reference well for well twinning program which
certainly will minimize cost and effort for getting
new reserves or even increase oil production of the
field.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors would like to thank Dady Hendarmin
(ETTI) for valuable discussion and reading the
manuscript.
REFERENCE
GREIG, D.A., 1958, Oil horizon in Middle East,
Habitat of Oil, AAPG Journal, p. 1182-1193.
PETERS, K.E., 1986, Guideline for Evaluating
Petroleum Source Rock Using Programmed
Pyrolysis, The American Association of Petroleum
Geologists Bulletin, V.70. No.3 (March 1986), p.
318-329.
Back to Menu

TABLE 1 - SALINITY RANGE OF VARIOUS DEPOSITIONAL SETTING

Depositional Environment Range of Chloride

Concentration (ppm)
Fresh water environment 500 - 1000
Brackish Environment 1000 - 5000
Transition (Litoral zone) 5000 – 20,000
Marine Environment 20,000 - 40,000
Sabkha (Evaporite) > 40,000
Proven limestone reservoir, 10,000 - 20,000
dolomitic limestone or dolomite
Basement (metamorphic or 500 – 40,000
(according to the
igneous rock)
overlying sediment)
Back to Menu

Figure 1 - Gas chromatogram and lithology shows top of oil generation based on first appearance of C 3+ in
unfractured shale.

Figure 2 - Pressure gradient and possible hydrocarbon column to infer gross thickness.
Back to Menu

Figure 3 - Judgment flow chart of test verification.

Figure 4 - Difference interpretation of Top Oil Window based on Vitrinite Reflectance (Ro) and Mud Log
interpretation. Depth difference interval is interpreted as Poor Total Organic Carbon (TOC).
Back to Menu

Figure 5 - Inconclusive Test case - DST-1 in A-1 well.

Figure 6 - DST data of B- 1 well for Conclusive Test but Inconclusive Rate case due to plugging as
indicated by decreasing pressure during test.
Back to Menu

Figure 7 - DST of C-1 well in Conclusive Tight case

Figure 8 - Formation Pressure plot of Talang Akar Formation shows different pressure regime within the
same formation.