Prediction the Liquid Petroleum Products Viscosity

Grigoriev, B.A.; Evdokimov, A. A.; Koldaev, A.I.

doi:10.1088/1755-1315/979/1/012136

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Generally, Shale volume is estimated utilizing the 𝜸 −ray logs, as they are direct measurements of reservoir shale radioactive content (Al-Azazi and Albaroot 2022). This doesn't imply that other well logs signatures do not show records of the existence of shale, it only means that they cannot be easily interpreted as the ones done with only 𝜸 −ray logs (Boldyrev et al, 2022). The Niger Delta basin is highly rich in petroliferous products.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of Three Non-Linear Approaches of Estimating the Shale Volume Over Yewa Field, Niger Delta, Nigeria

Adepehin¹,

Magi²,

Omokungbe³

et al. 2022

USci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Accurate shale volume estimation is an important approach in reservoirs characterization as it forms the basis upon which evaluators can ascertain the hydrocarbon content of the reservoirs. The porosity, gamma ray, neutron-density and deep induction logs data were used to arrive at suitable shale volume estimates of the field studied. Analysis of well logs data was done using the TECHLOG Exploration software. Delineation of reservoirs was carried out with OpendTect software. The Microsoft excel spreadsheet was utilized to accurately estimate other suitable petrophysical parameters such as the permeability, water saturation, hydrocarbon saturation and the porosity. Three different non-linear shale volume models, the Larionov, the Steiber and the Clavier models were used to determine the reservoirs’ shale content across three wells of Yewa reservoirs characterized by varying thicknesses. Variation in the depths down hole for each of the methods revealed that shale volume estimates with the Larionov model was determined across thickness 142.646 m with top and bottom depths of 1946.605 m and 2089.252 m respectively in well Y1, thicknes 90.678 m with top and bottom depths of 2164.690 m and 2255.368 m respectively in well Y2 and thickness 107.290 m with top and bottom depths of 2303.374 m and 2410.663 m respectively in well Y3. The estimates with Steiber model were respectively determined across thicknesses 85.649 m, 95.098 m and 121.371 m for Y1, Y2 and Y3 reservoirs, and top and bottom depths of 1947.571 m and 2033.219 m in well Y1, 2041.754 m and 2136.851 m in well Y2 and 2144.979 m and 2266.442 m in well Y3 and the one with Clavier model were respectively determined across thicknesses 146.456 m, 147.752 m and 94.869 m for Y1, Y2 and Y3 reservoirs and top and bottom depths of 1760.601 m and 1907.057 m in well Y1, 1920.312 m and 2068.068 m in well Y2 and 2078.812 m and 2173.681 m in well Y3. The lowest shale volume average estimate was recorded from the Larionov model. Nevertheless, one cannot conclude that the Larionov model is the most reliable as values obtained may be because of instability in the sensitivities of utilized well logs and the complexities in the properties of wells down hole. A further investigation of the sensitivities of the well logs and the down hole properties of the wells showed that the Larionov method gives reasonable, consistent, and repetitive intervals when compared with the Steiber and the Clavier models. The Larionov model is hereby recommended for use in the study area.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%