Forensic Petrophysical Report

SAMPLE #3 24 Month 2012

Introduction
We were requested to review the log, core, and production test information provided by
Company B on seven wells in the Dark River area of Country C. The work was performed for
Another One of Noisy Petroleum Consultants Ltd, team leader of an integrated study to assess
development potential of a deep, tight gas reservoir. Six of the wells penetrated the gas
reservoirs to varying depths and one was an off structure exploration well (C-1). The six field
wells were N-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. The zone of interest is the P Formation of middle Jurassic age,
between approximately xxxx and xxxx meters below KB.
The P Fm is a thick sand-shale sequence with fluvial braided stream sands in the upper
layers, fluvial channel to terrestrial deposits in the middle layers, and marine sands in the basal
layers. Considerable volcanic and metamorphic minerals occur in the upper and middle P Fm.
The middle sands are moderately over-pressured and the basal sands even more so. Basal
sands appear to be more continuous than the middle sands. Upper sands are probably more
isolated due to the braided stream environment.
Porosity is typically in the range of 5 to 11 % but permeability seldom exceeds 0.10 md
even in the best sands.

Available Data
Raw data depth plots of the well logs for the seven wells were provided. These were re-plots
from a log analysis software package and not the original logs. Typical log suite included
gamma ray, SP, caliper, deep and shallow resistivity, density, neutron, sonic, and PEF (in newer
wells). No spectral gamma ray data was recorded. This would have been very useful in
accounting for the feldspar and other possibly radioactive rock fragments in the sands.
Log data quality is reasonably good, with more problems from rough hole conditions in the three
older wells (N-6, 2, and C-1). Production test information was posted on these logs, but the
information is incomplete. It is not always clear which test results belong to which zone as no
depths are recorded here. Perforation depths are contained in other documents but there was
no time available during this phase to assemble this information for use in reviewing the logs.
Some flow rates or the fact that there may have been no flow is not consistently noted.
Crossflow between zones is evident as some zones produce more when isolated than when comingled with other zones.
A composite log with the same raw data plus petrophysical computed results, as well as core
porosity and permeability, gas mud log curves, and pressures and permeability from test results
were provided. Some of the core data appears to be from sidewall cores. Core data for N-2 was
analyzed at surface and at overburden conditions and a listing of this data was provided. No
listings for core data in other wells was found but values are plotted on the composite logs.
Data from tests is mostly after fracturing or acidizing. Test results were handwritten on these
logs and mimic the information posted on the raw data plots. A graphical presentation of the

sample descriptions is included on this depth plot. In the four newer wells, this is an excellent
data set and correlates well to the log curves. On the three older wells, the match varies with
borehole condition.
A structure map and cross section with the six field wells was provided. A crossplot of core
porosity vs core permeability was provided. Data was coded by sand quality but the wells or
zones included are not listed. It is not stated whether the data is from whole core, plug, or
sidewall samples. It is probably from N-2.
Thin section petrographic analysis data for N-3, 4, and 5 describe the mineral composition and
visual porosity for a number of samples. In upper and middle sands, the volcanic rock fragments
compose 30 to 60% of the clastic material. These are termed heavy minerals in log analysis and
must be accounted for in the log analysis model. The exact definition of which volcanic minerals
are present is not given.
No special core electrical properties or capillary pressure data was provided. No water resistivity
or water chemistry for the area was provided.

Discussion of Petrophysical Computations

The petrophysical computation and display of results for five of the seven wells (N-3, 6, 7, 5,
and 4) is excellent, with one major problem, discussed below.
The model appears to use gamma ray and density neutron separation as shale indicators with
the minimum of these two methods being used as the final shale volume.
Porosity is from a shaly sand crossplot of density and neutron data. This model does not
account for heavy minerals, such as volcanic rock fragments. Since the PEF curve is available
on newer wells, it could be used to generate a heavy mineral correction. Normally, the same
result can be obtained from the density neutron crossplot in a complex lithology model, but this
is not possible (automatically) in a gas zone due to gas effect masking the heavy mineral effect.
The heavy mineral correction will raise computed porosity compared to the present values. The
correction could add 1 to 4 porosity units depending on the existing values of density, neutron,
heavy mineral content, and shale volume. Where porosity is low, this is a significant increase in
reservoir volume. Where PEF is not available, a zoned approach using a density neutron
complex lithology model with a forced matrix density greater than 2.65 gm/cc will achieve similar
results.
Since log analysis porosity is significantly less than core porosity in almost every cored well, this
correction should be attempted. As noted earlier, some of the core data is from sidewall cores,
so core porosity may be a little too high in these cases. The source of the core data should be
ascertained before a final calibration to core is attempted.
Data from the thin section analysis shows some limonite, an iron rich mineral. This may affect
stimulation success and formation damage while drilling.
Constraints for rough hole effect on the density neutron calculation were very well done. There
are very few spikes or anomalously high porosity events on these five wells.
In N-7, the sonic log corrected for shale was used for porosity as the other curves were missing.
Results compare favourably to the other four wells in this group.

Water saturation was computed from a shale corrected model, but there is no indication of
which model or what RW, temperature, or shale properties were used. The results are
reasonable compared to the porosity of these sands but are quite low when compared to the
permeability. This may be due to highly deformed pores caused by ductile minerals or infilling
with diagenetic minerals. Saturation values will change only slightly if porosity is increased with
the heavy mineral correction.
Existing thin section results would have to be studied further to gain a better understanding of
the porosity-permeability-saturation relationship. There is insufficient time allocated in this phase
for a thorough review of the thin section data. Further special core studies are also needed.
Permeability was calculated from a model that varies with the sample description. It has been
calibrated to the core and the plotted log curve matches the core very precisely. If log analysis
porosity is raised with the heavy mineral correction, this algorithm will have to be adjusted
slightly to retain the excellent fit to the core shown on these wells. The exact nature of the
permeability transform is not mentioned.
A water saturation cutoff was used on these wells to mark pay zones. The saturation cutoff
varies with the sample descriptions in the range 60 to 80%. There is no evidence that a porosity
cutoff was used, but it may have been, as a 5% cutoff was used in N-4. Choosing a net pay
cutoff in tight, deep gas sands is very difficult and may be impossible. The cutoffs on these plots
are satisfactory for identifying zones of interest, but there is no way to tell at the moment
whether they over or under estimate gas in place.
The log analysis in N-4 could be improved. There is no water saturation or permeability curve on
the plot. The scale of the BVW curve differs from the PHIe curve, so the visual interpretation of
Sw from these curves is misleading. A 5% porosity cutoff was used to identify interesting
intervals. This is different than the wells described above. This well should be recomputed with
the same model as the previous five. No flows are reported on the log plots, so this may be a
very poor well, but for gas in place calculations, it needs to be upgraded.
Well C-1 is off structure and has been computed with somewhat different model and
parameters. The shale beds are not shaly enough, so too much porosity shows in the shaly
sands. Too much porosity shows in cleaner sands where rough hole conditions affect the
results. Permeability is from a different model than other wells and is based on faulty porosity
data. It cannot be used in its present form. Sample descriptions are poor due to cavings and
there is no core data. These problems make it very difficult to repair this log analysis, but the
attempt should be made if the well is needed for aquifer assessment.

Recommendations
1. Assemble all core data, classify as to source (sidewall, whole core, plugs), and review for
consistency and usefulness. Re-plot core porosity vs core permeability. List and compare thin
section visual porosity to core porosity.
2. Summarize thin section lithology breakdown vs depth to determine the quantity of heavy
minerals and feldspar present.
3. Identify which heavy minerals are present and determine their grain density and PEF values.
Generate the properties of a generic heavy mineral that is the average of the minerals identified.

4. Re-compute log analysis with a complex lithology model using the PEF curve or a zoned
RHOMA value to correct porosity for heavy minerals. Re-compute N-4 and C-1 with the same
attention to rough hole as the other wells.
5. Adjust permeability transform to compensate for this change in the porosity model.
6. When better electrical properties or cap pressure data becomes available, recalibrate water
saturation model.
7. Run net pay, hydrocarbon pore volume, and flow capacity summations for each individual
sand body (do not co-mingle zones) using no cutoffs except shale volume < 50%.
8. Plot these sums vs test results (flow rate) on a crossplot to see if any trend exists. If there is a
trend, it will assist in choosing cutoffs for net pay. Since the permeability transform appears to
match core very well, the final cutoff may be permeability.

9. In new wells, add the gamma ray spectral log to the logging suite. This will allow a better
shale volume calculation and help distinguish feldspathic sands from shaly sands. It will also
eliminate the false indication of shale caused by uranium salts in the sands.
10. Additional core should be taken in new wells to cover representative sand bodies from all
environments, particularly those with volcanic rock fragments as a major component.
11. Existing core and chip samples should be re-described, and new core and chip samples
should be adequately described, to determine which volcanic minerals are present and in what
quantities.
12. Special core analysis to determine electrical properties, capillary pressure, and relative
permeability should be performed on existing and new core in cores from each depositional
environment. This is needed to calibrate initial water saturation and residual gas saturation.
13. New cores should be viewed with SEM and thin section petrography to determine the pore
geometry that leads to such low permeability and low water saturation in moderate porosity.

Respectfully Submitted

E. R. (Ross) Crain, P.Eng.

Consulting Petrophysicist