Integrating Permeabilities from NMR, Formation Tester, Well Test and Core Data
Abstract: TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435. AbstractPermeability is a critical reservoir parameter that defines well and reservoir performance. An accurate knowledge of permeability is critical to forecasting rates and designing production facilities. The permeability determined from different sources can vary significantly, resulting in inconsistent estimates of well and/or reservoir performance.In this paper, permeability values and evaluation methods, are discussed and verified with field data. It is shown … Show more
Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
Cited by 3 publications
References 2 publications
The Fuji Prospect is located in the Green Canyon Blocks 505 and 506 approximately 180 miles south-southwest of New Orleans in a water depth of 4,280 ft. The discovery well, Fuji Well #1 (Green Canyon 506 Well #1) encountered 182 ft of oil pay in four Lower Pliocene age sandstones and was temporarily abandoned in 1995. The second well, Fuji Well 2 (Green Canyon 505 Well #1) was drilled in 1997. The well encountered 214 ft of oil pay, in sands equivalent to the pay sands and some wet sands seen in the discovery well. Well tests were performed on two pay sands. Both tests had low productivity rates of less than 5000 BOPD and recorded pressure depletion. The 1st test indicated a small compartment. The 2nd test was inconclusive and could be explained by either a small compartment with high permeability or a larger compartment with very low permeability. The Fuji Well 3 (Green Canyon 506 Well No. 2) was drilled next, in a structural position between Fuji Wells 1 and 2 in order to confirm stratigraphic continuity of the reservoirs. It penetrated 227 ft total of oil pay sands and 123 ft of oil pay in the shallower interval. The main field pay sand was the Magenta Sand, which was tested in Fuji Well 3 at a rate of 7,192 BOPD. The Magenta Sand in Fuji Well #3, however, showed pressure depletion during the test. Fuji Well #3 was temporarily abandoned in March 1998. The Fuji #2 and Fuji #3 well test design and results will be presented. Pressure transient interpretation challenges and conclusions will be discussed. This work will also demonstrate the impact of well testing on determining stratigraphic continuity and reserves calculations. Introduction Reservoir geologic models are often built based on available seismic and log data. Reservoir pressure and permeability data also might be available from several sources, such as wireline testing, NMR or well testing1,2. Reservoir stratigraphic continuity is often based on defining sealing barriers evident from seismic and log data. This paper is intended to provide a field study example that demonstrate that seismic, log and pressure data alone, may not have enough resolution and/or measurement depth and extent to predict all types of reservoir compartmentalization. Extended well testing3 provide a dynamic measurement that can extended further into the reservoir and help in better defining reservoir continuity. Integrating1,2,4 well test results with any other available data, such as seismic, log and core data, will usually lead to a better reservoir continuity characterization. This work is based on well test design and results from the Fuji deepwater field in the Gulf of Mexico. A brief description of the Fuji field is provided in the following sections1,2. Subsurface System Overview. Introduction to Fuji Prospect1, Green Canyon Blocks 505 and 506 are located 180 miles south-southwest of New Orleans in a water depth of 4,280 ft (see Fig. 1). The discovery well, Fuji Well #1 (Green Canyon 506 Well #1) encountered 182 ft of oil pay in four Lower Pliocene age sandstones (as shown in Fig. 2) and was temporarily abandoned in 1995. The second well, Fuji Well 2 (Green Canyon 505 Well #1) was drilled in 1997. The well encountered 214 ft of oil pay, in sands equivalent to the pay sands and some wet sands seen in the discovery well. Production tests were performed on two pay sands. Both tests had low productivity rates of less than 5000 BOPD and recorded pressure depletion. The 1st test indicated a small compartment. The 2nd test was inconclusive and could be explained by either a small compartment with high permeability or a larger compartment with very low permeability. Introduction to Fuji Prospect1, Green Canyon Blocks 505 and 506 are located 180 miles south-southwest of New Orleans in a water depth of 4,280 ft (see Fig. 1). The discovery well, Fuji Well #1 (Green Canyon 506 Well #1) encountered 182 ft of oil pay in four Lower Pliocene age sandstones (as shown in Fig. 2) and was temporarily abandoned in 1995. The second well, Fuji Well 2 (Green Canyon 505 Well #1) was drilled in 1997. The well encountered 214 ft of oil pay, in sands equivalent to the pay sands and some wet sands seen in the discovery well. Production tests were performed on two pay sands. Both tests had low productivity rates of less than 5000 BOPD and recorded pressure depletion. The 1st test indicated a small compartment. The 2nd test was inconclusive and could be explained by either a small compartment with high permeability or a larger compartment with very low permeability.
The Fuji Prospect is located in the Green Canyon Blocks 505 and 506 approximately 180 miles south-southwest of New Orleans in a water depth of 4,280 ft. The discovery well, Fuji Well #1 (Green Canyon 506 Well #1) encountered 182 ft of oil pay in four Lower Pliocene age sandstones and was temporarily abandoned in 1995. The second well, Fuji Well 2 (Green Canyon 505 Well #1) was drilled in 1997. The well encountered 214 ft of oil pay, in sands equivalent to the pay sands and some wet sands seen in the discovery well. Well tests were performed on two pay sands. Both tests had low productivity rates of less than 5000 BOPD and recorded pressure depletion. The 1st test indicated a small compartment. The 2nd test was inconclusive and could be explained by either a small compartment with high permeability or a larger compartment with very low permeability. The Fuji Well 3 (Green Canyon 506 Well No. 2) was drilled next, in a structural position between Fuji Wells 1 and 2 in order to confirm stratigraphic continuity of the reservoirs. It penetrated 227 ft total of oil pay sands and 123 ft of oil pay in the shallower interval. The main field pay sand was the Magenta Sand, which was tested in Fuji Well 3 at a rate of 7,192 BOPD. The Magenta Sand in Fuji Well #3, however, showed pressure depletion during the test. Fuji Well #3 was temporarily abandoned in March 1998. The Fuji #2 and Fuji #3 well test design and results will be presented. Pressure transient interpretation challenges and conclusions will be discussed. This work will also demonstrate the impact of well testing on determining stratigraphic continuity and reserves calculations. Introduction Reservoir geologic models are often built based on available seismic and log data. Reservoir pressure and permeability data also might be available from several sources, such as wireline testing, NMR or well testing1,2. Reservoir stratigraphic continuity is often based on defining sealing barriers evident from seismic and log data. This paper is intended to provide a field study example that demonstrate that seismic, log and pressure data alone, may not have enough resolution and/or measurement depth and extent to predict all types of reservoir compartmentalization. Extended well testing3 provide a dynamic measurement that can extended further into the reservoir and help in better defining reservoir continuity. Integrating1,2,4 well test results with any other available data, such as seismic, log and core data, will usually lead to a better reservoir continuity characterization. This work is based on well test design and results from the Fuji deepwater field in the Gulf of Mexico. A brief description of the Fuji field is provided in the following sections1,2. Subsurface System Overview. Introduction to Fuji Prospect1, Green Canyon Blocks 505 and 506 are located 180 miles south-southwest of New Orleans in a water depth of 4,280 ft (see Fig. 1). The discovery well, Fuji Well #1 (Green Canyon 506 Well #1) encountered 182 ft of oil pay in four Lower Pliocene age sandstones (as shown in Fig. 2) and was temporarily abandoned in 1995. The second well, Fuji Well 2 (Green Canyon 505 Well #1) was drilled in 1997. The well encountered 214 ft of oil pay, in sands equivalent to the pay sands and some wet sands seen in the discovery well. Production tests were performed on two pay sands. Both tests had low productivity rates of less than 5000 BOPD and recorded pressure depletion. The 1st test indicated a small compartment. The 2nd test was inconclusive and could be explained by either a small compartment with high permeability or a larger compartment with very low permeability. Introduction to Fuji Prospect1, Green Canyon Blocks 505 and 506 are located 180 miles south-southwest of New Orleans in a water depth of 4,280 ft (see Fig. 1). The discovery well, Fuji Well #1 (Green Canyon 506 Well #1) encountered 182 ft of oil pay in four Lower Pliocene age sandstones (as shown in Fig. 2) and was temporarily abandoned in 1995. The second well, Fuji Well 2 (Green Canyon 505 Well #1) was drilled in 1997. The well encountered 214 ft of oil pay, in sands equivalent to the pay sands and some wet sands seen in the discovery well. Production tests were performed on two pay sands. Both tests had low productivity rates of less than 5000 BOPD and recorded pressure depletion. The 1st test indicated a small compartment. The 2nd test was inconclusive and could be explained by either a small compartment with high permeability or a larger compartment with very low permeability.
TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435. AbstractKing Field is located in the Deepwater Gulf of Mexico (GOM) about 110 miles SE of Venice, Louisiana in Mississippi Canyon blocks 84, 85, 128, and 129 (Fig. 1). The main sand, the Upper Miocene 70 (UM 70), is an undersaturated oil reservoir. The sands were deposited by gravity flow processes within an intraslope basin. The formation is highly porous and permeable (31%, 1000md). Lateral and vertical heterogeneities identified by seismic amplitudes and Amplitude Versus Offset attribute analyses have been confirmed by, and calibrated to, well logs, cores and flow tests. Sedimentary facies studies have shown that at least two different styles of deposition are present; lower massive sheet sand, and an upper sand which is more variable and probably channelized. The trap is a three-way antiformal closure against a major fault with a hydrocarbon column of 1400 ft.Permeability and pressure data were obtained from core, nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) measurement, MDT* Modular Formation Dynamic Tester, closed chamber, flowback and recent permanent gauge data. This paper compares and demonstrates the utilization of results from each source of measurement on different wells. Differences and agreements of these data are discussed. 1 This work demonstrates the use of these data to define a geologic model and better predict well productivity and reservoir continuity. Lessons learned from integrating these multiple sources are summarized.
TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435. AbstractInterval Pressure Transient Testing (IPTT) with an advanced formation tester has been widely applied to measure vertical and horizontal permeabilities. The principles behind IPTT may appear straightforward. But the interpretation of IPTT in complex reservoirs, such as carbonates presents many challenges, most of which are related to uncertainties arising from the heterogeneous nature of such reservoirs.A novel, generally applicable approach is proposed for interpretation of IPPT tests. The approach is integrated and efficient, and ensures that the most probably valid and/or valuable information is used and revealed by IPTT. The approach standardizes the complete interpretation procedure of IPTT in a heterogeneous reservoir, using if available, modern wireline logs (such as NMR and Imaging), dynamic data from wireline formation testers and any other relevant information (such as geological description, core data and local knowledge) as constraints on the interpretation. IPTT is also a multi-layer testing technique. An iterative method to define layering is incorporated in the approach to determine the most probable layering. Many types of possible information that can be used to constrain layering definition are classified. Principles and guidelines on using different sources of information to define and refine the layering are recommended. An advanced regression technology is used to get optimized horizontal and vertical permeabilities of reservoir layers. The key is to find as much useful information as possible to guide the regression. To this end, different sources of permeability are classified and used as initial estimates, for input to the regression. Practical skills to perform IPTT regression are also summarized. In many cases, the operating sequences of the formation tester are primarily designed for downhole sampling rather than IPTT. The complicated downhole sampling sequences can make the pressure responses of gauges complicated and noisy. Hence, a Quality Check (QC) procedure is also included into this integrated approach.Examples from a carbonate reservoir are presented * Trademark of Schlumberger
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
Contact Info
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Product
Resources
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.
