Reindeer Field

8. Petrophysical Modelling
Water Saturation & J-function curves
100.0 • 9 SCAL plugs
Reindeer -1 • Air-brine Capillary Pressure by centrifuge
Height above FWL vs Swj at 3540 PSI NOBP
90.0
• The plugs are from shoreface & fluvial
channels facies, actually one facies;
80.0 one sample in shale
1 1 • Water saturation (Sw) was propagated in
21
23 Swj average used for 21
23
the model using the J-function curves
70.0 30 shoreface, fluvial channel & 30
deltaic facies • a, b & c derived from Linest Matrix - Excell
45 45
50
51 50
51
60.0
Height above FWL(m)

62 62
Swj average used for
50.0 levee & deltaic-
1
argillaceous facies
1j
H (m) = Pc res/((rbr - rhc) x 0.433 x 3.2808)
21

40.0
21j J (Sw) = Pcres x SQRT(K/Por)/σcosθres
23
23j
30
Swj = aJb + c
30.0 30j
45
45j
50
20.0 50j
51
51j
62
10.0 62j
Shoreface & Fluvial

0.0 σcosθ lab=72 dynes/cm

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
σcosθ res =50 dynes/cm
Fluvial channel
Shoreface sand sand Swj
2. Shale r br=1.014g/cm3
2
r hc=0.152 g/cm3
8. Petrophysical Modelling
Water Saturation & J-functions
1 1j
21 21j
Model Sw by wells Model Swj by facies
23 23j
120.0
Sw = f (J-curve average)
Reindeer
30 -1 SCAL 30j -shoreface
Height
45 above FWL vs
45j Sw or Swj -fluvial channel
50 50j -deltaic
62 62j Sw =f (J-curve Sample 30)
51 51j
-levee
-deltaic argillaceous
Shoreface & Fluvial Reindeer 1 SWT Log
100.0
Caribou 1 SWT Log Gnu 1 SWT Log

80.0
1 1
21 21
Height above FWL(m)

23 23
30 30
45 45
50
51 50
51
60.0
62 62
3802620

40.0

20.0

0.0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Sw or Swj
3. 3
 Wackett Field

4
5. Petrophysical Model - Water Saturation
80 7
• Data: Wackett 9 - Capillary Pressure Best Facies SW vs J
Sw j vs J
Better Facies SW vs J
Sw j vs J

Analyses 70
6

60

• Method 1. Calculated Sw in the model 5

using the J-function by facies 50

4

J-Function

J-Function
40

30

2
20

1
10

0 0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

Sw /Sw j (%) Sw /Sw j (%)

2.0 0.7
Second to Worst Facies SW vs J Worst Facies SW vs J
Sw j vs J Sw j vs J
1.8
0.6

1.6

0.5
1.4

1.2
0.4
J-Function

J-Function
1.0

0.3
0.8

0.6 0.2
In Petrel:
0.4

0.1
0.2

where a, b and c coefficients result from fitting Swj vs J-function curve 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
to the measured SW vs J-function curve, in each facies
Sw /Sw j (%) Sw /Sw j (%)
5
5. Petrophysical Model - Water Saturation
• Method 2. Used the
correlation between SWT
logs and J-function on a
log-log scale
• There is a linear
relationship between
log10(J) vs log10SWT

Linear relationship: y=a*x+b or

log(Y) = -0.201263 * log(X) - 0.358718
Log10SWT=a*log10 (J)+b
SWT=10 (a*log10(J)+b) a b
If we want to match Swj with SWT, than
Swj=SWT=10 (a*log10(J)+b)
a =slope from J vs SWT regression
b=intercept from J vs SWT regression

In Petrel:

• The linear relationship was

evaluated
• using all the upscaled points
from the reservoir facies (Fig.
1)
• removed some isolated points
 From the Petrophysical review of the Permian-Stokes
in the reservoir facies
Field ATP 259P Queensland, P.N. Theologou
• edit the linear function for a
 Strong linear relationship between log of
core SWT and log of J-function; in Wackett better visual fit (Fig. 2)
Field, we used the relationship between log
of SWT Log and log of J-function instead.

6
 5. Petrophysical Model - Water Saturation
Swj Bes t facies
Wackett 9 J-Functions from the Capillary Pressure Analysis
Samp le 9 Swj
350
Swj Better facies

Swj Second to wo rs t
facies
Swj Wo rst facies

300 4

Wackett 3 6

SWT log 7

250 9

12A
Wackett 9
SWT log 15B

Samp le 15B

Samp le 9
200
Height above FWL(m)

Samp le 8

Samp le 6
42 2
12A
12A
6 Samp le 12 A 4
67
15B
7
8 Samp le 4 15B
150 Wackett 4 89
9 SWT log Samp le 7

Samp le 2

Wackett 9 SWT lo g

Wackett 4 SWT lo g
100
Wackett 3 SWT lo g

50

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Log
Sw or Swj (%)
Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3 Fig. 4
 Method 1 – Swj calculated from the J-functions by facies
 There is not a perfect match between the SWT Log and the J-functions (from core data), see Fig 1 and 2.
Using the J-function by facies in the Swj calculation (Fig. 3), will result in higher Sh in the best facies and
less Sh in the second to worst and worst facies; there is a good fit of the Swj with SWT logs in the better
facies.
 Method 2 - linear relationship between log J-function and log SWT (no facies discrimination)
 Best fit with the SWT Logs is the Swj calculated from the modified log SWT vs log J-function relationship
(Fig. 4)
 Difference between various Swj calculated and the SWT Log vary from -2.3% to 1.1% (cells were filtered
for the reservoir facies only and above the FWL.
 Swj in shale/coal=1
7
 Stag Field

8
 Five sandstone capillary families (+ grey silt/shale) easily
identified
300
Centaur 1, Stag 2, Stag 4 & Stag 5
C1-14 R, 73 0 .4 8 mM D,
0 .2 0 2 , 9 9 , 8 0 0 p si, LSC
60
Height above FWL vs Water Saturation
C1-2 5R, 73 5.8 2 mM D, All J-Functions by Facies
0 .3 3 , 73 8 , 8 0 0 p s i, LSC Facies 1 - Sst very clean
C1-3 3 R, 73 9 .8 2 mM D,
0 .3 1, 553 , 8 0 0 p s i, LSC
Samples were tested at reservoir conditions C1-11R, 72 8 .4 5 mM D,
Sst clean
Facies 2 - Sst clean/little clay
0 .3 2 3 , 750 , 12 0 0 p si, PP
C1-2 2 A, 73 4 .53 mM D, Facies 3 - Sst with clay
0 .3 0 7, 72 4 , 12 0 0 p si, PP Sst clean/little clay
250 C1-2 9 R, 73 7.8 2 mM D, 50 Facies 4 - Sst with siderite & clay
0 .3 2 8 , 10 3 0 , 12 0 0 p si, PP
S2 -2 R, 718 .6 mM D, 0 .3 18 , Facies 5 - Sst with lots of siderite
12 4 8 , 8 0 0 p s i, LSC Sst with clay
S2 -5R, 72 1.3 5 mM D, 0 .3 ,
2 6 9 , 8 0 0 p s i, LSC Siltstone
S2 -7R, 72 2 .4 mM D, 0 .2 6 6 .
56 , 8 0 0 p si, LSC Claystone Sst with Clay and
S2 -1R, 718.1 mM D, 0 .3 4 8 ,
13 9 8 , 12 0 0 p si, PP
Siderite
200 40
S2 -3 R, 719 .15 mM D, 0 .3 2 6 ,
9 71, 12 0 0 p s i, PP
Sst with Siderite
S2 -9 R, 72 3 .3 5 mM D,
H (m)

0 .3 17, 2 0 5, 12 0 0 p s i, PP
S2 -12 R, 72 4 .8 5 mM D,
0 .3 4 , 3 9 2 , 12 0 0 p si, PP
S4 -4 R, 72 1.2 mM D, 0 .3 72 ,

J-Function
16 6 5, 8 0 0 p si, LSC
S4 -7R, 72 6 .7 mM D, 0 .2 6 2 ,
150 6 .5, 8 0 0 p si, LSC 30
S4 -6 A, 72 1.7 mM D, 0 .3 77,
14 8 0 , 12 0 0 p si, PP
S4 -8 R, 72 7.55 mM D,
0 .2 8 8 , 71, 12 0 0 p si, PP
S4 -14 R, 72 9 .55 mMD, 0 .3 5,
3 2 3 , 12 0 0 p s i, PP
S5-1XC, 72 7.6 mM D,
0 .3 4 9 , 8 2 0 , 12 0 0 p si, LSC
100 S5-2 XC, 72 9 .9 3 mM D, 20
0 .3 8 , 18 0 0 , 12 0 0 p si, LSC
S5-3 XC, 73 7.75 mM D,
0 .3 13 , 19 , 12 0 0 p s i, LSC
S5-1XR, 72 7.6 mM D,
0 .2 8 3 , 3 .58 , 12 0 0 p s i, LSC
S5-2 XR, 72 8 .9 3 mM D,
0 .3 8 , 19 0 0 , 12 0 0 p si, LSC
S5-3 XR, 73 7.75 mM D,
50 0 .2 9 3 , 2 1, 12 0 0 p si, LSC
S5-5H, 72 9 .0 5 mM D, 0 .3 59 , 10
16 2 9 , 12 0 0 p si, LSC
S5-9 H, 73 0 .0 5 mM D, 0 .3 5,
13 19 , 12 0 0 p si, LSC
S5-15A, 735.3 8 mM D,
0 .2 55, 6 .9 3 , 12 0 0 p si, LSC
S5-11H, 73 1.3 mM D, 0 .3 6 2 ,
12 70 , 12 0 0 p s i, LSC
S5-19 H, 736 .55 mM D,
0 0 .3 3 5, 4 56 , 12 0 0 p si, LSC 0
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 S5-2 3 H, 73
0.80 7.8 5 mMD,1.00
0.90 2 7.3 ,
9. 9 Sw
11.3 , 12 0 0 p si, LSC
S5-2 7H, 72 7.9 7 mM D,
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50
Sw
0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
0 .3 2 6 , 6 6 5, 12 0 0 p s i, LSC
 Facies Modelling
• Lithofacies plot into distinct poro-perm
groups – confirming their suitability as
reservoir units
• 5 sandstone lithofacies and one non-
reservoir lithofacies
1-Best Facies - Glauc Sst – very clean
(red)
2-Second Best Facies - Glauc sst
clean/little clay (yellow)
3-Middle Facies - Glauc Sst – with clay
(orange)
4-Second Worst Facies Glauc Sst – with
clay and/or Siderite (blue)
5-Worst Facies Glauc Sst – with lots of
siderite (purple)
6- non-reservoir: silt/shale (grey)

Facies classification is based on:

• J-function curves
• Core, SWC and mudlogs description
• Wireline logs signature
• Por vs Perm cross-plot

• Only in the vertical wells

10. 10
 Facies J curves
Equation of the J-curve is: Swtj = aJ c + b
c
Swjt = a x (0.00605935 x SQRT(PERM/PHIT) x Height above OWC) + b

0.00605935 = function of scosθ res, difference between fluids specific gravity and conversion factors
The equations for each facies were loaded into Petrel using facies specific a, b and c’s.
Facies 1 Facies 2 Facies 3 Facies 4 Facxies 5 Facies 6
Clean Sst Sst with little clay Sst with clay Sst with clay & siderite Sst with high siderite Silts/Clayst
a 0.403624 0.463338 0.45576 0.769048 0.827358
b 0.176871 0.150475 0.28 0.04 0.01 Sw=1
c -0.603527 -0.295064 -0.395627 -0.118263 -0.0743468

140 60
100 40 Facies 4 - Ss t w ith clay and siderite
Facies 2 - Clean Sst /very small clay anount Facies 3 - Sst w ith clay 20
J-function vs Sw J-function vs Sw Facies 5 - Sst with lots of Siderite
Facies 1 - Sst very clean
J-function vs Sw J-function vs Sw
J-function vs Sw Facies 4 - Sst w ith clay and siderite -
120 Facies 2 - Sst clean/very small clay amount - Sample Sample
Facies 3 - Sst w ith clay - Sample J-Function calculated Facies 5 - Sst w ith lots of Siderite - Sample
Facies 1- Sst very clean - Sample J-Function calculated 50
J-Function calculated J-Function calculated
80 J-Function calculated
30
100

40

60
80

J-Function
J-Function

J-Function
J-Function

J-Function

30 20 10

60
40

20

40
10

20
10
20

0 11. 11 0
0
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
0
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
0
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Sw Sw Sw Sw Sw
 Water Saturation Model
25 J-functions by Facies and SWT logs vs Height above
Field OWC (-696.6 mSS)
Swtj in the model vs
Height above
contact and J-
20 curves by facies

15
Height above FWL (m)

10

5 Clean Sst
Sst with little clay
Sst with clay
Sst with clay & siderite
Sst with siderite
S-4
S-5 Difference between Swj in the model
S-2
C-1 and J-functions is that the J-functions
0 were build using average porosity and
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 permeability from the samples with
Swj/SWT capillary pressure analyses while in the
model, the Swj uses the PHIT and
12. PERM properties distributed from the
12 logs in each cell.
 Water Saturation Model

Swej= f(Swtj)
SWT log vs SWE log
Swej=1.31302 x Swtj – 0.321711
Swej=1.31302 x Swtj – 0.321711

Swej vs SWE log

Swtj vs SWT log
13. 13