Scribd
Upload
2K views22 pages

Chapter 13 - Gas Bearing Formation Interpretation

This document discusses gas-bearing formation interpretation from well logs. It describes how gas affects neutron, density, and sonic logs. Gas lowers neutron counts and density readings, complicating determination of porosity and saturation. Three types of gas crossovers on density-neutron plots are defined. Equations are provided to calculate porosity and saturation from log readings accounting for gas, along with examples and exercises.

Uploaded by

1234abcd
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
2K views22 pages

Chapter 13 - Gas Bearing Formation Interpretation

This document discusses gas-bearing formation interpretation from well logs. It describes how gas affects neutron, density, and sonic logs. Gas lowers neutron counts and density readings, complicating determination of porosity and saturation. Three types of gas crossovers on density-neutron plots are defined. Equations are provided to calculate porosity and saturation from log readings accounting for gas, along with examples and exercises.

Uploaded by

1234abcd
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 22

Chapter 13 Gas Bearing

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

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

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

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

f
a
c
t
o
r

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


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

Gas-Bearing Formation Interpretation
False Gas Effect

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


where

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


where


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


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


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


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

(
(



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




solve for flushed zone saturation,

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

|
+ |
|
|
.
|

\
|

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



If fresh mud,



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

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

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

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

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

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


Excavation Effect
Gas-Bearing Formation Interpretation
* Empirical correction,


Where,


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


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

* Add correction to neutron log reading,

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

\
|

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

Excavation effect, A|
Nex
= 6%

Corrected neutron porosity =
24 + 6 = 30%


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


Or







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

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

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


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



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



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



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

Chapter 16 Evaluation of Gas-Bearing Formations

You might also like