NORTHWEST ASPHALT RIDGE TAR SAND DEPOSIT WELL LOGGING...

DOE/LC/RI-83-3 (DE83009233)

Distribution Category UC-91

NORTHWEST ASPHALT RIDGE TAR SAND DEPOSIT WELL LOGGING AND CORING COMPARISON

By L. John Fahy

Charles G. Mones Norman W. Merriam

March 1983 Date Published

Laramie Energy Technology Center Laramie, Wyoming

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES iv

LIST OF FIGURES V

ABSTRACT 1

INTRODUCTION 2

SITE GEOLOGY 2

LOGGING PROGRAM 4

POROSITY AND FLUID SATURATION LOGGING 6

Volume of Shale and Porosity 6

Water Saturation 8

Gas Saturation 10

Saturation Profiles 11

Permeability 11

CARBON/OXYGEN LOGGING 12

ELASTIC ROCK PROPERTIES LOGGING 13

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 14

DISCLAIMER 15

REFERENCES 16

TABLES 18

FIGURES 27

iii

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE Page

1 LETC WELL LOGGING AND CORING SUMMARY 18

2 WELL 4P3B VOLUME OF SHALE COMPARISON 19

3 INDIVIDUAL WELL AVERAGE POROSITY COMPARISON 20

4 RIMROCK SANDSTONE MEMBER AVERAGE POROSITY COMPARISON . . 21

5 INDIVIDUAL WELL AVERAGE R SUMMARY 22 w

6 UNEFFECTED RIMROCK SANDSTONE MEMBER R,, SUMMARY 23 w

7 INDIVIDUAL WELL AVERAGE WATER SATURATION COMPARISON . . . 24 8 RIMROCK SANDSTONE MEMBER AVERAGE WATER

SATURATION COMPARISON 25

9 WELL 4P3B CARBON/OXYGEN AVERAGE OIL SATURATION COMPARISON 26

iv

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

LETC Tar Sand Well Locations 27

Rimrock Sandstone Member Gamma Ray

Correlation . . . . 28

Rimrock Sandstone Member Gamma Ray

Correlation (con't.) . . 29

Well 3P3 Density/Neutron Porosity 30



Well 5T1 Density/Neutron Porosity 33

Well 5T3 Density/Neutron Porosity 34

Well 3P3 Porosity Comparison 35

Well 4P5 Porosity Comparison 36

Well 5T1 Porosity Comparison 37

Well 5T3 Porosity Comparison 38

Well 3P3 Shale Corrected Porosity Comparison 39

Well 5T1 Crossplot Porosity Comparison . . . 40

Well 3P3 Water Saturation Comparison . . . . 41

Well 4P5 Water Saturation Comparison . . . . 42

Well 5T3 Water Saturation Comparison . . . . 43

Well 3P6 Water Saturation 44

Well 5T1 Water Saturation Comparison (R,, = 0.25) . . 45 w

Well 5T1 Water Saturation Comparison (R , = 0.07) . . 46

Resistivity Graph for NaCl Solutions . . . . 47

v

gure

22 Well 4P5 Gas Saturation Comparison 48

23 Well 5T1 Gas Saturation Comparison 49

24 Well 5T3 Gas Saturation Comparison 50

25 Well 3P3 Saturation Profile 51

26 Well 4P5 Saturation Profile 52

27 Well 5T1 Saturation Profile 53

28 Well 5T3 Saturation Profile 54

29 Well 311 Porosity 55

30 Well 3P8 Porosity 56

31 Well 311 Carbon/Oxygen Oil Saturation . . . . 57

32 Well 3P8 Carbon/Oxygen Oil Saturation . . . . 58

33 Well 4P3B Core Porosity 59

34 Well 4P3B Carbon/Oxygen Oil Saturation

Comparison . . . 60

35 Well 3P3 Sonic Velocity Comparison 61

36 Well 3P3 Young's Modulus Comparison 62

37 Well 3P3 Poisson's Ratio Comparison 63

38 Well 3P6 Sonic Velocity 64

39 Well 3P6 Young's Modulus 65

40 Well 3P6 Poisson's Ratio 66

41 Well 5T3 Sonic Velocity 67

42 Well 5T3 Young's Modulus 68

43 Well 5T3 Poisson's Ratio 69

vi

ABSTRACT

Quantitative well logging techniques were performed on four wells used

to conduct a small scale tar sand steamflood and four additional wells

used to provide reservoir data for the design of a fourth field experi

ment near Vernal, Utah. The purposes of this study were to: summarize

and present the log derived information; determine how accurately the

log data matched the core data; and estimate values for R,, in the 3 w Rimrock Sandstone Member.

A gamma, sidewall neutron, density, SP, induction and caliper log suite

was utilized in determining porosity and water saturations. A sonic log

was utilized in determining the elastic rock properties; pressure velo

city, shear velocity, Young's modulus and Poisson's ratio. Carbon/oxygen

logs were also run to determine hydrocarbon saturation.

The density log was determined to be the best logging source of porosity.

Crossplotting and shale corrections did not improve the porosity quality.

Formation water resistivity was estimated from the Archie equation using

the core porosity and water saturations and using the induction log for

mation resistivity. Generally, good porosity information was determined

from the density log. Water saturations were acceptable but did not

match the core data as well as desired. Elastic rock properties derived

from the sonic logs also matched core derived values. Carbon/oxygen

logs have proven to be a good method of detecting changes in formation

oil saturation. Oil saturation values derived from the carbon/oxygen

log may be conservative due to a lack of a clean unsaturated sandstone

zone to use as a reference point.

1

INTRODUCTION

Geophysical well logs have been utilized in evaluating tar sand deposits f 1-2}

for many years, particularly in Canada/ ' In some instances, a

certain amount of controversy has occurred over the use of core analysis (3)

or log data. '

Prior to 1979 the Laramie Energy Technology Center (LETC) drilled 50

shallow wells on 10 acres owned by the Sohio Shale Oil Company near

Vernal, Utah. These were located in the Northwest Asphalt Ridge tar

sand deposit and were used to conduct and evaluate two small tar sand in (4-5)

situ combustion experiments/ ' All of these wells were cored and

routinely analyzed for permeability, porosity, oil and water saturation

and density. The only well logging done consisted primarily of gamma

ray logs which were used for lithologic correlation. After completion

of the two combustion experiments the decision was made to begin supple

menting the coring with more quantitative logging and, if possible,

reduce the number of wells cored by relying on log data.

For this study, data were available for eight wells. Core and log data

were available for comparison on five wells and three wells had reser

voir data derived entirely from logs. These wells were used to conduct

a steamflood experiment^ ' and provide reservoir data for the design of

a fourth field experiment. Figure 1 is a map of the final LETC 26 acre

site locating the eight wells under discussion.

The purposes of this study were to: summarize and present available log

data; determine how accurately the log data matched the core data; and

estimate values for R,, in the Rimrock Sandstone Member. w

SITE GEOLOGY

The log and core data under discussion is from the Rimrock Sandstone

Member of the Cretaceous Mesaverde Formation. The Rimrock Sandstone

Member dips to the southwest at observed angles varying between 19° and

2

45° and outcrops less than a mile north of the site. Several high angle

faults have also occurred within the area. ' Overall thickness varies

between 150-230 feet within the site area.

The Rimrock Sandstone Member is a highly saturated sandstone with many

low saturated claystone, siltstone and shale intervals interrupting the

tar sand and is variable in its degree of consolidation. Thin sections

indicate the sandstone contains 60% chert, 37% quartz and other minor

minerals. The cementing material is primarily calcite with a lesser (8)

amount of quartz. ' The sand is also fine grained. Sieve analyses

indicate that on an average 70 percent of the sand will pass a 35 mesh

screen, 25 percent will pass a 60 mesh screen and 3 percent will pass a

120 mesh screen.

For purposes of this study, the Rimrock Sandstone Member has been

divided into five zones. These intervals were differentiated based on a

combination of drill cuttings, core data, and well log information. In

general, three zones are relatively clean tar sand zones while two are

shaly or interbedded. The first zone, called the upper tar sand zone,

is a fairly continuous highly saturated tar sand interval. It appears

to vary in thickness from 30 to 85 feet within the site. This variation

is caused by an erosional unconformity between the overlying Tertiary

Duchesne River Formation and the Rimrock Sandstone Member. The second

zone, called the interbedded zone, varies in thickness from 35 to 55

feet. This zone is a combination of tar sand and low saturated silt-

stone intervals, which vary in thickness from a few inches to several

feet. The third zone is the LETC tar sand test zone. Part or all of

this interval was utilized for the three field experiments conducted by

LETC. This interval is characterized by acceptable permeability and

high oil saturation. The saturation appears to decrease drastically in

the down dip direction, however. The LETC tar sand test zone is about

50 feet thick. The fourth zone, commonly referred to as the shale zone,

consists of 6 to 10 feet of shale or siltstone and is characterized by

low permeabilities and low oil saturations. The fifth interval is

referred to as the lower tar sand zone. This is a 45 to 55 foot thick

3

tar sand interval characterized by low oil saturation and high perme

ability. Part of this zone has been logged and cored in all 8 wells.

Unfortunately, log and core data for the entire lower zone were avail

able for only one well (well 5T3). Figures 2 and 3 are correlations of

the area under consideration utilizing the gamma ray logs from the eight

wells.

LOGGING PROGRAM

An attempt was made by LETC to develop a general logging program that

would provide data normally obtained from cores. The final logging

program can be divided into four categories. The first category con

sisted of running gamma or gamma/neutron logs to assist in lithologic

correlations. This phase will not be addressed in this study. The

second category consisted of a suite of logs run to determine primarily

porosity and fluid saturations. This suite of logs consisted of gamma,

neutron, density, spontaneous potential (SP), induction and caliper

logs. The third category consisted of the use of carbon/oxygen logs.

These logs were run in conjuction with a gamma/neutron log to give a

"quick look" evaluation of hydrocarbon saturation before the core

analysis was completed. Also an attempt was made to use the carbon/

oxygen log to determine oil saturation before and after a well was

produced. The fourth category was for determining elastic rock pro

perties. This category simply required that a sonic log be run with the

second category log suite.

The five cored wells discussed in this study were cored with an air or

air/mist system. Problems occurred in well 4P5 and a change to a gel-

water mud system was necessary to finish the hole. The three wells that

were not cored were drilled with the gel-water mud system. After coring

all wells were circulated and conditioned with the gel-water mud system

and then logged open hole. The carbon/oxygen logs were the only logs

run in a cased hole.

4

The first two wells drilled and logged were wells 3P3 and 3P6. Only

well 3P3 was cored. These two wells were used as production wells for

the LETC steamflood experiment. Both wells were logged with the fourth

category log suite. Problems existed with the compensated neutron log.

Porosity values presented on the limestone base were high compared to

the core data. Conversion to the sandstone base would have made the

porosity values even higher. Discussions with the logging company

indicated that this particular tool's most accurate operating range was

for porosities between 15 to 20 percent. Since the Rimrock Sandstone

core porosity was approximately 30 percent, it was concluded that the

compensated neutron log porosity might not be accurate enough and the (9)

values should be treated as estimates only.v ' In an attempt to alleviate the problem, future wells were logged using a sidewall neutron log.

The next two wells considered were wells 311 and 3P8. These wells were

used as injection and production wells respectively during the LETC

steamflood experiment. The wells were each logged with a gamma and a

carbon/oxygen log. Well 3P8 was also relogged with the carbon/oxygen

log after the steamflood experiment to determine the change in oil

saturation near the wellbore. Injection well 311 could not be logged

after the experiment due to mechanical problems.

Wells 4P3B and 4P5 were cored, logged and completed for production. The

wells were used to conduct a series of air injection tests and then

abandoned. Well 4P3B was logged with a gamma/sidewall neutron log and a

carbon/oxygen log. This was done to give a quick estimation of reservoir

properties. Well 4P5 was logged using the second category log suite.

Well 5T1 was drilled after the steamflood experiment and was used to

help determine the steamflood sweep efficiency. This well was drilled,

cored, logged and plugged. Well 5T1 presented some interesting inter

pretation problems because part of the reservoir was hotter than normal.

Residual steam temperatures of 200°F were present, whereas, the Rimrock

Sandstone Member normally has a temperature of 55°F. Well 5T1 was

5

logged using the second category log suite. A differential temperature

log was also run.

The last well considered was well 5T3. This well was drilled strictly

to evaluate a particular area of the LETC 26 acre tract. Well 5T3 was

drilled, cored, logged and plugged. It is also the only well that has

a core and a log evaluation for the entire Rimrock Sandstone Member.

The logs run on this well consisted of the fourth category log suite.

Table 1 is a summary of the logging and coring program conducted on the

eight wells.

POROSITY AND FLUID SATURATION LOGGING

The gamma, neutron, density, SP, induction and caliper log suite was

used primarily to provide reservoir data comparable to the core analysis.

Evaluation of this logging data can be divided into five categories: 1)

volume of shale and porosity, 2) water saturation, 3) gas saturation, 4)

saturation profiles, and 5) permeability.

Volume of Shale and Porosity

Comparisons of log and core derived porosities were the first step in

evaluating the log data accuracy. Four wells (3P3, 4P5, 5T1, and 5T3)

had neutron porosity, density porosity and core porosity data available

for evaluation. Due to the problems encountered with well 3P3's compen

sated neutron log, the decision was made to base this well's log porosity

on the density log only and forego any crossplot techniques.

Before doing any porosity determinations it was necessary to estimate

the volume of shale present in the tar sand. This was done using the

gamma log for all four wells and by doing a shale crossplot for wells

4P5, 5T1 and 5T3. Average shale volumes calculated for the three tar

sand zones were approximately 30 percent from the gamma log and 20

percent from the shale crossplot. This was high compared to the core

analysis that indicated a sand content near 97 percent. However, it is

generally accepted that if the log derived volume of shale is greater

6

than 10-15 percent corrections should be done. Shale corrections were

done both for the density log and by crossplotting the density and

neutron log. ' The shale corrected porosities were significantly

lower than the core porosity, except for well 3P3. Due to problems in

determining a clean sand and a clean shale from the gamma log and

because of the low shale corrected porosities, the logging company

engineers concluded that the calculated volumes of shale were probably

too high and that shale was not a problem and could be ignored, parti-(11) cularly for the three relatively clean tar sand zones. ' Table 2 is a

comparison of shale volumes calculated from the gamma log and shale (12)

volumes calculated from the carbon/oxygen log for well 4P3B. ' The

gamma log shale volume averages are typical for the eight tar sand wells

under discussion. The shale volumes from the carbon/oxygen log are

significantly lower than the gamma log values or the typical crossplot

shale volumes but agree favorably with the core data. Based on all the

information it was concluded that shale was not a problem and shale

corrections were ignored in all future calculations.

The next step was to perform a sandstone/limestone porosity crossplot of

(13)

the density and the sidewall neutron log data/ ' The density log por

osity was the best overall match with the core porosity. Table 3 is a

comparison of the average porosity data by zone and by well. Linear

regression analysis was done on the core and log data. The correlation

coefficients in Table 3 indicate significant variation existed randomly

between individual data points, but zone averages appear to match closely

(Table 4). Figures 4 through 8 are neutron/density porosity plots for

wells 3P3, 3P6, 4P5, 5T1, and 5T3. Note the porosity decreases from left

to right in Figures 4 through 8. This is similar to the standard neutron/

density log presentation of the porosity data. Also, the sidewall neutron

log for wells 4P5, 5T1 and 5T3 are on the sandstone base while the compen

sated neutron logs for wells 3P3 and 3P6 are on the limestone base.

Based on these porosity evaluations it was concluded that the straight

density log, with a sand matrix density of 2.65 gm/cc, will provide the

best overall match with the core porosity for the Rimrock Sandstone

Member, particularly for the three relatively clean tar sand zones. To

7

accurately match the two interbedded zones some type of correction would

probably be necessary. A sand grain density of 2.65 gm/cc also matched

the average density calculated from the core analysis of the four wells.

Figures 9 through 12 are the density log porosity and core porosity

comparisons for wells 3P3, 4P5, 5T1 and 5T3. Figure 13 is a shale

corrected density log porosity and core porosity comparison for well

3P3. Figure 14 is a crossplot log porosity and core porosity comparison

for well 5T1. In these two wells the corrections applied enhanced the

log/core porosity match. Because the straight density log porosity

generally gave the best porosity match, it was used for all future

calculations.

Water Saturation

At this time, no laboratory measurements have been done to determine

accurately the Archie equation constants necessary to calculate water (14)

saturations from the induction logs. ' Values for cementation factors

and saturation exponents have been experimentally developed for various (151

reservoir rock types. ' Because of its applicability to granular

sandstone systems, the Humble equation and constants were used in the

water saturation calculations/ ' The Fertl equation is often used to (17)

correct the Archie equation if shale is a problem/ This technique

was considered but not used in the final calculations as it is believed

that shale was not a problem based on the porosity investigations done

earlier.

Determination of the formation water resistivity (R ) in ohm-meters has

been a major problem in calculating water saturations. The Rimrock

Sandstone Member has no mobile water and no representative sample has

been collected to measure R, directly. It was attempted to estimate R w r w

by calculating an apparent formation water resistivity (R,,J and by (18)

using the SP log.v ' As no water zone is available, the R values Wcl

were considered unreliable. The SP log derived R values typically

ranged between 0.45 and 0.75 for well 5T1 and were approximately 1.0

for the remaining wells. The significant variation in the R values for

8

well 5T1 was due to the elevated reservoir temperatures caused by the

steamflood. Because of the temperature difference, it was decided to

treat well 5T1 separately. Water saturation values were calculated

based on the SP log derived R values. These values for water satur-3 w

ation were significantly higher than the core analysis water saturations.

As it is believed that the core analysis water saturations are a relatively

accurate representation of the true water saturation, it was concluded

that SP log derived R, values were not reliable. J w

An attempt was then made to estimate R using core porosities, core

water saturations, and using the induction log values for formation

resistivity (R +). This approach was basically to back calculate what R

should have been to provide the measured core water saturations. Table

5 is a summary of average R values calculated for individual zones and wells. Significant variations in R, occurred between wells and between 3 w tar sand and interbedded zones. In some cases, large variations occurred

in a well between the three relatively clean tar sand zones. Table 6

contains average R values calculated for the individual zones and the

overall Rimrock Sandstone Member.

An R, value of 0.25 for wells 3P3, 3P6, 4P5, and 5T3 was used for water w

saturation calculations. This value approximates the average value calculated for the three relatively clean tar sand zones. Using this R. water saturations calculated in the interbedded zones do not match w the core water saturations as well as in the so called clean tar sand

zones. However, the best matches for the three main tar sand zones were

achieved. Figures 15 through 17 are plots of the core and log water

saturation comparisons for wells 3P3, 4P5 and 5T3. Figure 18 is the

calculated log water saturation for well 3P6. Table 7 is a comparison

of the average water saturation values for each zone and each well.

Table 8 is an overall Rimrock Sandstone Member average water saturation

comparison. The water saturation data indicated significant random

variations between individual core and log data points. These averages

varied more than for the porosity data. In an attempt to reduce vari

ations between the core and log derived water saturations, rolling or

9

moving averages were done on three foot intervals for all available (19)

porosity and water saturation data/ ' There was little or no change

in the variations observed and the technique was abandoned.

Figures 19 and 20 present core and log water saturation comparisons for

well 5T1. An R of 0.07 was calculated for the two steamed tar sand w

zones (Table 5). The LETC tar sand test zone, the shale zone and the

lower zone were all affected by the steamflood. The lower zone con

tained the highest temperature of 200°F when the well was drilled. In

Figure 19, the upper zone which was not affected by steaming, has a

better match using an R of 0.25. Conversely in Figure 20, the two

lower tar sand zones that were steamed have a better match using an R 3 w

of 0.07. It would appear that 0.25 is a reasonable R value for the w

Rimrock Sandstone Member at normal conditions. However, 0.07 was a

better value for temperatures near 200°F. Interestingly, an R of 0.25

at 55°F (the approximate Rimrock temperature) and an R of 0.07 at 200°F

correspond closely to the 35,000 ppm NaCl line of Figure 21. Conse

quently, it is believed that a reasonable estimation of R is now avail-

^ J w able for the three relatively clean tar sand zones.

The log derived water saturation data for the heated lower tar sand zone

in well 5T1 was of interest. Since it was highly probable that the hot

cores would lose significant amounts of water before being preserved and

analyzed, log derived water saturations may be more accurate than core

values. Because of significant core losses in the heated zone no core

water saturation averages were available for comparison.

The well 5T3 log water saturations for the LETC tar sand test zone and

the lower tar sand zone varied significantly from the core data, while

the porosity log data was a very good match (Figures 12 and 17). The

reason for this is unknown.

Gas Saturation

Gas saturation (S ) in the Northwest Asphalt Ridge Rimrock Sandstone

Member has been a source of concern for some time. The measurement of

10

gas saturation has always been done by difference using the Dean Stark

method of extraction/ ' While this method indicates the presence of a

gas phase, flowing gas has been encountered in only two wells drilled on

the 26 acre site and shut in wellhead pressures were recorded in ounces/

square inch. Analysis of the gas encountered was approximately 50%

nitrogen and 40% methane with small amounts of other hydrocarbons.

From the logs run on wells 4P5, 5T1, and 5T3, an attempt was made to (2U

calculate formation gas saturation/ ' Gas saturation calculations

were not done for wells 3P3 and 3P6 because of the unreliability of the

compensated neutron logs. Figures 22 through 24 are plots comparing gas

saturations derived from the logs and the core analysis for wells 4P5,

5T1 and 5T3. Gas saturations were calculated only where the neutron log

porosity crossed over and was lower than the density log porosity. Log

crossover occurred in only a small percentage of the formation, while

the core data indicated some gas saturation in almost the entire Rimrock

Sandstone Member. Since the log derived gas saturations varied signifi

cantly from the core data, the log data was used qualitatively only.

Saturation Profiles

Figures 25 through 28 are the gas, oil, and water saturation profiles

developed from the log and core data for wells 3P3, 4P5, 5T1 and 5T3.

These figures depict what percentage of the pore space is filled with

the three fluids. Water saturations (S ) were presented for the core

and log data while only the core gas saturations were used. Oil satur

ations are determined by difference. These saturation profiles are

similar to the computer generated outputs typically provided by the

logging company.

Permeability

An estimation of formation permeability can be calculated based on a

correlation between porosity and water saturation/ ; These calcu

lations could only be used qualitatively, therefore, no attempt was made

to compare log and core analysis permeability data.

11

CARBON/OXYGEN LOGGING

As stated earlier, carbon/oxygen (C/0) logs were run on wells 311, 3P8

and 4P3B. These logs were used to provide reservoir data before and

after a pilot steamflood in wells 311 and 3P8. In the case of well 4P3B

the C/0 log was used to give a "quick look" approximation of the oil

saturation while waiting for the core analysis.

Figures 29 and 30 are plots of the porosity curves used for wells 311

and 3P8 respectively. No core or log porosity data were available for

these two wells. An average test pattern porosity curve was developed

by correlating and averaging all available core and log data on a foot

by foot basis. This pseudo porosity was used to calculate the C/0 log

oil saturations for wells 311 and 3P8 (Figures 31 and 32). These oil

saturation curves were derived using the overlay technique described in

reference 12.

Figure 32 presents an interesting use of the C/0 log. Carbon/oxygen

logs have been used in thermal recovery projects to monitor the change (23) in oil saturation as the pilot or field is produced. LETC ran the

C/0 log before and after producing well 3P8 to evaluate how well the C/0

log would detect changes in oil saturation and also to provide residual

oil saturation information for the steamflood experiment. From Figure

32 it is evident that the C/0 log can detect changes in oil saturation.

As mentioned in the introduction, a post test C/0 log could not be run

on well 311 because of mechanical reasons.

Well 4P3B was the only well that had both core analysis and carbon/

oxygen log data. Initially, a sidewall neutron log was run and used

with the C/0 log for a "quick look" estimation of porosity and oil

saturation. As no density log was run, it was decided to use only the

core porosity data for comparing core and C/0 log results. Figure 33 is

a plot of the core porosity used for the comparison of the core and log

oil saturation data.

12

Figure 34 is a comparison of the core and C/0 log oil saturation data

for well 4P3B using the overlay technique. Table 9 is a comparison of

the core and log oil saturation data for each interval. Well 4P3B was

drilled in an area where the LETC tar sand test zone oil saturation was

abnormally low, consequently, the upper zone is probably the only good

basis for comparison of the core and C/0 log data from a typical clean

Rimrock tar sand zone. The well 4P3B comparison plus inspection of the

C/0 log data for wells 311 and 3P8 tend to indicate the C/0 log data is

probably conservative for a typical Rimrock tar sand. These differences

in oil saturation could be caused by a lack of a clean, unsaturated sand

in the Rimrock Sandstone Member. Such an interval is helpful in using

the overlay technique to determine a zero saturation point of reference.

In an attempt to improve the core and C/0 log match, the computerized

(24)

Epilog analysis was done on well 4P3B. ' As mentioned earlier, accep

table data was derived for shale content, but Epilog saturation data was

unrealistic and was not used. More work must be done to improve the

Epilog interpretation in the Rimrock Sandstone Member.

ELASTIC ROCK PROPERTIES LOGGING

A sonic log was run on wells 3P3, 3P6 and 5T3 to provide elastic rock

properties for the Rimrock Sandstone Member. This information was

needed to assist in the design of hydraulic fracturing tests and also to

help interpret high resolution seismic studies conducted in the area.

How accurately the sonic logs could measure these physical properties

was of interest to LETC.

Core and log elastic rock properties were measured on well 3P3 and were (25)

available for comparison/ ' Four properties, pressure velocity, shear

velocity, Young's modulus and Poisson's ratio have been presented for

comparison in Figures 35 through 37 for well 3P3. In general, good

agreement existed between core and log values for the pressure and shear

velocity data. One exception occurred at 427 feet. The core velocity

data is significantly higher than the log data. This also affected the

13

Young's modulus and Poisson's ratio match. While the core and log sonic

velocity data matched well, the Young's modulus core data were higher

than the log data. Conversely, the Poisson's ratio core data were lower

than the log data.

Figures 38 through 43 present the sonic log pressure velocity, shear

velocity, Young's modulus and Poisson's ratio data for wells 3P6 and

5T3. Based on the core and sonic log data from well 3P3 and the sonic

log data from well 3P6 and 5T3, it appears that sonic logs will provide

an acceptable measurement on the Rimrock Sandstone Member's elastic rock

properties.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Because sufficient logging data is lacking on U.S. tar sand deposits,

particularly in Utah, two objectives of this study were to present

available information and to compare the core and log information in an

unbiased manner. Based on the information available, the following may

be concluded. If a tar sand deposit is to be evaluated for any reason,

a certain amount of coring and core analysis is essential. Proper core

analysis is necessary for comparison with the log data. The core infor

mation is helpful in determining constants necessary for interpretation

of the log data. The cores will also be necessary in evaluating the

lithology and stratigraphy of the area and in providing data, such as

permeability, which cannot be measured quantitatively with logs.

While the core analysis data is important, log data is also important.

In some instances, accurate information can only be obtained by in situ

measurements. Examples might be water saturation after heating the

reservoir or change in oil saturation at a particular monitor well as

the reservoir is depleted. Log data is also helpful in providing infor

mation where cores were lost or not taken. Only one reliable logging

company should be used to run a particular suite of logs needed in the

reservoir study.

14

In some instances good agreement existed between core and log data for

these Rimrock Sandstone Member wells. In other cases, such as log

derived water saturations, the core and log data agreements were not as

good as desired. Some variations could be explained, however, more work

is necessary to understand other descrepancies.

Another objective of this study was to determine formation water resistivity (R ) Direct measurement of R, was not possible since the

J v w w K

Rimrock Sandstone Member was at irreducible water saturation. For this

study R was obtained by rearranging the Archie equation and solving for w

R using core values for water saturation and porosity and using induc

tion log values for the formation resistivity (Rf). Values for cemen

tation factors and saturation exponents were assumed for a granular

sandstone system. The overall formation R was obtained by averaging

values from all wells. The R for well 5T1 was calculated separately

due to the elevated temperatures encountered. All average formation R

values appear to correspond to the resistivity of a 35,000 ppm NaCl

solution.

Within the last few years, more sophisticated logging techniques have

been developed. For example, the electromagnetic propagation tool (EPT)

has been run in tar sand deposits with good results/ ' Any future

evaluation work should include these newer logging techniques.

DISCLAIMER

Mention of specific brand names or companies is made for information

only and does not imply endorsement by the Department of Energy.

15

REFERENCES

1. Collins, H. N. Log-Core Correlations in the Athabasca Oil Sands. Journal of Petroleum Technology, vol. 28, No. 10, October 1976, pp. 1157-1168.

2. Fetzner, R. W., W. L. Henson, and F. J. Feigl. Athabasca Oil Sand Evaluation Using Core and Log Analysis and Geological Data Processing Methods. Seventh SPWLA Logging Symposium Transactions, 1966, 14 pp.

3. Zwicky, R. W. and J. R. Eade. The Tar Sands Core Analysis Versus Log Analysis Controversy - Does It Really Matter? Published in The Oil Sands of Canada-Venezuela, The Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 1977, pp. 256-259.

4. Land, C. S., C. Q. Cupps, L. C. Marchant, and F. M. Carlson. Field Test of Reverse Combustion Oil Recovery from a Utah Tar Sand. The Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, vol. 16, No. 2, April-June 1977, pp. 34-38.

5. Johnson, L. A., L. J. Fahy, L. J. Romanowski, Jr., R. V. Barbour, and K. P. Thomas. An Echoing In Situ Combustion Oil Recovery Project in a Utah Tar Sand. Journal of Petroleum Technology, vol. 32, No. 2, February 1980, pp. 295-305.

6. Johnson, L. A., Jr., L. J. Fahy, L. J. Romanowski, Jr., K. P. Thomas and H. L. Hutchinson. An Evaluation of a Steamflood Experiment in a Utah Tar Sand Deposit. Journal of Petroleum Technology, vol. 34, No. 5, May 1982, pp. 1119-1126.

7. Campbell, J. A. and H. R. Ritzma. Geology and Petroleum Resources of the Major Oil-Impregnated Sandstone Deposits of Utah. Published in the Future of Heavy Crude Oils and Tar Sands, First Unitar International Conference, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, June 4-12, 1979, pp. 237-253.

8. Sinks, D. J., L. A. Johnson and L. J. Fahy. Geologic Controls of In Situ Processing of Tar Sands, Northwest Asphalt Ridge, Utah. Presented at the AAPG Convention, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, June 27-30, 1982.

9. Caldwell, John. Birdwell Division, Seismograph Service Corporation. Personal Communication, Tulsa, Oklahoma, December 1, 1982.

10. Hilchie, D. W. Applied Openhole Log Interpretation. Douglas W. Hilchie, Inc., Golden, CO, 1978.

11. Kessler, Calvin. Welex, A Halliburton Company. Personal Communication, Houston, TX, December 14, 1982.

12. Hertzog, R. C. Laboratory and Field Evaluation of an Inelastic Neutron Scattering and Capture Gamma Ray Spectometry Tool. Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal, vol. 20, No. 5, October 1980, pp. 327-340.

16

13. Schlumberger, Ltd. Log Interpretation Principles, Schlumberger Limited, New York, NY, 1969, pp. 72-75.

14. Archie, 6. E. The Electrical Resistivity Log as an Aid in Determining Some Reservoir Characteristics. Transactions AIME, vol. 146, 1942, pp. 54-62.

15. Gatlin, C. Petroleum Engineering Drilling and Well Completion. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1960, p. 202.

16. Winsauer, W. 0., H. M. Shearin, P. H. Masson and M. Williams. Resistivity of Brine Saturated Sands in Relation to Pore Geometry. AAPG Bulletin, vol. 36, No. 2, February 1952, pp. 253-277.

17. Fertl, W. H. and G. W. Hammack. A Comparative Look at Water Saturation Computations in Shaly Pay Sands. Twelfth SPWLA Logging Symposium Transactions, 1971, 18 pp.

18. Welex. An Introduction to Well Log Analysis. Wei ex Publication, Houston, TX, 1978, 48 pp.

19. Dosher, T. M. and E. C. Hammershaimb. Field Demonstration of Steam Drive with Ancillary Materials. Journal of Petroleum Technology, vol. 34, No. 7, July 1982, pp. 1535-1542.

20. Rail, C. G. and D. B. Taliaferro. A Method for Determining Simultaneously the Oil and Water Saturations of Oil Sands. BuMines RI 4004, 1946, 16 pp.

21. Schlumberger, Ltd. Log Interpretation Principles. Schlumberger Limited, New York, NY, 1969, pp. 91-92.

22. Pirson, S.J. Handbook of Well Log Analysis for Oil and Gas Formation Evaluation. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1963, pp. 264-266.

23. Schultz, W. E. and H. D. Smith, Jr. Carbon/Oxygen Log Monitors Athabasca Tar Sands Recovery. Oil and Gas Journal, December 31, 1979, pp. 165-168.

24. Dresser Atlas. Log Interpretation Fundamentals. Dresser Atlas Division, Dresser Industries, Inc., 1975, Chapter 12, pp. 1-5.

25. Sinha, K. P., A. S. Abou-Sayed and A. H. Jones. The Design and Analysis of a Hydraulic Fracture in the Tar Sand at Northwest Asphalt Ridge, Utah. U.S. Department of Energy, D0E/LETC/10066-T1, September 1979, 106 pp.

26. Freedman, R. and J. R. J. Studlick. How a Texas Heavy Oil Prospect was Evaluated. Oil and Gas Journal, Nov. 30, 1981, pp. 63-76.

17

Table 1

LETC WELL LOGGING AND CORING SUMMARY

Well Name Logging Suite Well

Well 3P3 Gamma, Compensated Neutron, Density, SP, Y Induction, Caliper, Sonic

Well 3P6 Gamma, Compensated Neutron, Density, SP,

Induction, Caliper, Sonic

Well 4P3B Gamma, Sidewall Neutron, Carbon/Oxygen Y

Well 4P5 Gamma, Sidewall Neutron, Density, SP, Y Induction, Caliper

Well 5T1 Gamma, Sidewall Neutron, Density, SP, Y Induction, Caliper, Differential Temperature

Well 5T3 Gamma, Sidewall Neutron, Density, SP, Y

Induction, Caliper, Sonic

Well 311 Gamma, Carbon/Oxygen

Well 3P8 Gamma, Carbon/Oxygen

18

Table 2

Interval

Upper Tar Sand Zone

Interbedded Zone

LETC Tar Sand Test Zone

Shale Zone

Lower Tar Sand Zone

Overall Average

IME OF SHALE COMPARISON

Gamma Log Volume of Shale

24.7

44.1

18.2

22.3

25.9

Carb Vol

on/Oxygen Log ume of Shale

7.2

12.6

6.0

7.8

7.8

19

Table 3

Interval/Well

Well 3P3

Upper Tar Sand Zone Interbedded Zone LETC Tar Sand Test Zone Shale Zone Lower Tar Sand Zone Overall Average

Well 4P5

o


Well 5T1

INDIVIDUAL WELL AVERAGE

Core Average

30.7 22.6 28.3 19.1 31.0 25.6

29.7 27.2 31.1 28.3 27.9 29.6

31.7 23.8 30.2 28.5 22.8 27.8

29.8 22.3 29.8 16.1 26.4 27.6

Density Log Average

32.1 26.1 31.6 28.8 38.2 29.3

28.8 21.5 32.1 18.0 30.8 29.3

26.4 17.3 25.1 19.1 17.9 22.3

30.3 23.1 31.9 15.9 24.2 27.9

POROSITY COMPARISON

Crossplot Average

----

"

33.3 27.1 30.6 24.6 29.5 31.5

30.4 25.3 28.9 26.1 24.0 27.7

31.8 27.1 32.4 25.2 28.3 30.3

Shale Corrected Density Log Average

30.2 23.9 29.6 25.3 35.9 27.1

26.5 16.8 29.4 12.5 28.4 26.7

23.8 12.3 22.1 13.6 12.0 18.5

27.6 19.5 29.7 10.0 21.2 25.0

Correlation*^ Coefficient^ )

0.098 0.116 0.005 0.460 0.411 0.295

0.126 0.073 0.005

-0.093 0.071

0.164 0.136 0.089

-

0.018 0.431

0.510 0.218 0.302

-

0.442 0.542


Well 5T3


•Correlation coefficients are for the core analysis data and density log data for wells 4P5 and 5T3, the core analysis data and shale corrected density log data for well 3P3 and the core analysis data and crossplot log data for well 5T1.

Table 4

RIMROCK SANDSTONE MEMBER AVERAGE POROSITY COMPARISON

Interval

Upper Tar Sand Zone

Interbedded Zone


Shale Zone

Lower Tar Sand Zone

Overall Rimrock Average

Core Average Porosity

30.5

24.0

29.9

23.0

27.0

27.6

Density Log Average Porosity

29.4

22.0

30.2

20.5

27.8

27.1

Difference

-1.1

-2.0

+0.3

-2.5

+0.8

-0.5

21

Table 5

INDIVIDUAL WELL AVERAGE R SUMMARY w

Interval/Well

Well 3P3


Well 4P5


Well 5T1

Upper Tar Sand Zone Interbedded Zone LETC Tar Sand Test Zone Shale Zone Lower Tar Sand Zone LETC Test Zone & Lower

Zone Average Overall Average

Average

0.12 0.74 0.45 1.15 0.48 0.58

0.36 0.10 0.19 0.05 0.11 0.26

0.33 0.09 0.08 0.05 0.05

0.07 0.15

Standard Deviation

0.08 1.46 0.52 1.35 0.46 1.11

0.50 0.07 0.21 0.05 0.06 0.39

0.12 0.06 0.04

0.03

0.14

Well 5T3


0.34 0.15 0.08 0.09 0.04 0.18

0.17 0.12 0.10 0.04 0.03 0.18

22

Table 6

UNEFFECTED RIMROCK SANDSTONE MEMBER R SUMMARY w

Interval Average

Upper Tar Sand Zone

Interbedded Zone


Shale Zone

Lower Tar Sand Zone

Upper, LETC, and Lower Tar

Overall Average

Sand Zones

0.29*

0.27*

0.21

0.45

0.23

0.25

0.34

*Includes Well 5T1. Well 5T1 data not used in remaining entries because of elevated temperatures.

23

Table 7

INDIVIDUAL WELL AVERAGE WATER SATURATION COMPARISON

Interval/Well*

Well 3P3


Well 4P5


Well 5T1**


Well 5T3


Core Average

4.8 21.9 13.3 39.3 15.7 17.6

10.1 10.4 8.1

6.6 9.1

11.6 13.2 8.0

11.3

9.2 16.9 7.2 23.5 7.1 10.1

Log Average

7.0 14.0 9.5 13.6 12.5 11.5

10.0 23.1 11.6

8.9 11.4

6.6 19.1 10.0

17.0 13.4

8.4 19.8 13.8 41.2 20.9 14.9

Correlation Coefficients

0.024 0.120 0.115 0.215 0.142 0.143

0.001 0.018 0.002

0.066

0.016 0.026 0.035

0.035

0.274 0.067 0.033 0.412 0.313 0.188

*R = 0.25 w **R, = 0.07 w

24

Table 8

RIMROCK SANDSTONE MEMBER AVERAGE WATER SATURATION COMPARISON

Core Log Percent Interval Average Average Difference Change

Upper Tar Sand Zone 8.9 8.0 -0.9 -10.1

Interbedded Zone 15.6 19.0 +3.4 +21.8

LETC Tar Sand Test Zone 9.2 11.2 +2.0 +21.7

Shale Zone -

Lower Tar Sand Zone 10.9 16.5 +5.6 +51.4

Overall Rimrock Average 12.0 12.8 +0.8 +6.7

25

Table 9

WELL 4P3B CARBON/OXYGEN AVERAGE OIL SATURATION COMPARISON

Interval

cr>

Upper Tar Sand Zone

Interbedded Zone


Shale Zone

Lower Tar Sand Zone

Overall Average

Core Average

76.6

44.2

42.6

24.6

57.0

Carbon/Oxygen Log Average

52.1

48.2

38.6

41.5

47.0

Difference

-24.5

+ 4.0

- 4.0

+16.9

-10.0

Percent Change

-32.0

+ 9.1

- 9.4

+68.7

-17.5

Co Co rrelation efficients

0.043

0.095

0.019

0.366

0.090

LETC ORIGINAL 10 ACRE SITE

3P3© Q3P8 ©311

3P6°

o5T1

I N

LETC ADDITIONAL 16 ACRE TRACT

'4P3B O 4P5

n5T3

FIGURE 1 - LETC Tar Sand Well Locations

27

WELL 3P3 WELL 3P8 WELL 311 WELL 3P6

5 5 8 0 T

IV) oo

5600n 558CH 5570 T

5340- 5360- •5340 5330-

FIGURE 2 - Rimrock Sandstone Member Gamma Ray Correlation

WELL 5T1 WELL 4P3B WELL 4P5 WELL 5T3

5570 n

5330-

5500 -t 5 5 3 0 T 5410-

5260- 5290 5170-

FIGURE 3 - Rimrock Sandstone Member Gamma Ray Correlation (con't)

400-1

420-

440-

460-

480-

fc] 500-UJ L_ I I 520-1

Q_ S 540-1

560-

580-

600-

620-

640-50

—1 1 40 30

POROSITY—% 20 10

Legend DENSITY

NEUTRON

FIGURE 4 - Well 3P3 Density/Neutron Porosity

30

380-t

400 H

420 H

440H

460 H

t 480i LJJ

I I 5 0 0 H

a 520H

540 H

560-

580-

600 H

620-50

- 1 1 40 30

POROSITY—%

Legend DENSfTY

NEUTRON

20 10


31

440-i

460-

480-

500-

520-

540-

560-I I

X t ^ 580-1

600-

620-

640-

660-

680-50 40 30 20 10

Legend DENSfTY

NEUTRON

poRosrry—%


32

400-j

420-

440-

460-

480-

t i 500-

I I 520H

Q_

^ 540H

560-

580-

600-

620-

640-

Legend DENSfTY

NEUTRON

50 _1 ! ^ 40 30 20

POROSITY—% 10

FIGURE 7 - Well 5T1 Density/Neutron Porosity

33

540-i

560-

580 -

600-

620-

I] 640-xl j _

I I 660-

Q_ Q 680-4

700-

720-

740-

760-

780-50

~1— 40 30

POROSITY—%

—r-

20 10

Legend DENSITY

NEUTRON

FIGURE 8 - Well 5T3 Density/Neutron Porosity

34

400-1

420-

440-

460-

480 -

ti 500" I I 5 2 0 -

S 540 H

560-

580 -

600-

620-

640

• i ^

-

0 10 I 1

20 30 POROSITY—%

i 40

i 50

Legend CORE

DENSITY

FIGURE 9 - Well 3P3 P o r o s i t y Comparison

35

440n

460-

480-

500-

520-

L 540-1 j j

I I 560 H

I ^ 580

600-

620-

640-

660-

680-

-

0 10 1

20 I

30 i

40 I

50

Legend CORE

DENSfTY

POROSITY—%

FIGURE 10 - Well 4P5 Porosity Comparison

36

400 n

420 A

440H

460 -\

480 H

D 500 A

I szo-\

Q 540-1

560 H

580 H

600 H

620 -\

640-

-

0 10

'^^^^—-———^

1

20 l

30 I

40 I

50

Legend CORE

DENsmr

POROSITY—%

FIGURE 11 - Well 5T1 Porosity Comparison

37

540-

560-

580-

600-

620-

640-

I 660-|

E

700-

720-

740-

760-

780

Legend CORE

DENsmr

10 — i

20 POROSITY—%

—r-30 40

—l 50

FIGURE 12 - Well 5T3 Porosity Comparison

38

400 -i

420

440-

460-

480-

n 5 0°" I I 520 H X

t a 540H

560-

580-

600-

620-

640 0 10

1 20

i 30

i 40 50

Legend CORE

LOG

POROSITY—%

FIGURE 13 - Well 3P3 Shale Corrected Porosity Comparison

39

400-1

420 H

440H

460 H

480 H

h 500H

I 520 H

a 5*0H

560 H

580 H

600 H

620 4

640- —r-

10 — I 1 —

20 30 poRosrrY—%

- T -

40

Legend CORE

LOG —i 50

FIGURE 14 - Well 5T1 Crosspiot Porosity Comparison

40

400-1

420-

440 H

460 -\

480-

UJ L_ I I 520-

X h-Q_ S 540-

560 H

580 H

600 H

620 H

640-25 50

WATER SATURATION-75

Legend CORE

LOG

100

FIGURE 15 - Well 3P3 Water S a t u r a t i o n Comparison

41

440-1

460-

480-

500-

520-

I I 560-

X

£ S 580 H

600-

620-

640-

660-

680-25 50

WATER SATURATION—%

- r ~ 75

Legend CORE

LOG

100

FIGURE 16 - Well 4P5 Water Saturation Comparison

42

54-0 -i

Ld Ld

560 H

580 H

600-

620 H

640 H

6604

Q_

Q 680 H

700 H

720 H

740 H

760 -\

780-

Legend CORE

LOG

25 50

WATER SATURATION—% 75 100

FIGURE 17 - Well 5T3 Water S a t u r a t i o n Comparison

43

380-1

400-

420-

440-

460-

t j 480-LU

I I 500-

Q. a 520-1

540-

560-

580-

600-

620-25 50


n 75 100

FIGURE 18 - Well 3P6 Water Saturation

44

400-1

420 A

440 H

460 H

480 -\

C 5 0 01 UJ Li_ I I 520 4

X f—

560 H

580 H

600 H

620 H Legend

CORE

LOG 640-

25 50 75

WATER SATURATION—% 100

FIGURE 19 - Well 5T1 Water S a t u r a t i o n Comparison (Rw - 0.25)

45

400-,

420-

440-

460-

480 -

C 5 0 ° -Ld

520-

Q_

g 540 H

560-

580 -

600 -

620-

640-

Legend CORE

LOG

25 50


i 75 100

FIGURE 20 - Well 5T1 Water Saturation Comparison (R = 0.07)

46

C O N C E N T R A T I O N

I N G / G

- 3 0

- 2 5

- 2 0

0.1 R E S I S T I V I T Y OF SOLUTION 1.0 FIGURE 21 - Res is t i v i t y Graph fo r NaCl Solutions

Res is t i v i t y of water as a funct ion of s a l i n i t y and temperature, s a l i n i t i e s are in terms of NaCl concentrat ion. Courtesy Schlumberger Well Services.

Legend

LOG 1 1 1 1

0 25 50 75 100 GAS SATURATION—%

FIGURE 22 - Well 4P5 Gas Saturation Comparison

48

380 -i

400 -

100 OIL SATURATION-

FIGURE 31 - Well 311 Carbon/Oxygen Oil Saturation

57

360 n

OIL SATURATION—%

FIGURE 32 - Well 3P8 Carbon/Oxygen Oil Saturation

Legend PRE TEST

POST TEST

58

400 -i

420-

440-

460-

480-

b 50°" It!

I I 520-

X H-Q_

S 540-

560-

580-

600-.

620-

640- - 1 -

25 50

Legend CORE

LOG

75 100 GAS SATURATION—%

FIGURE 23 - Well 5T1 Gas Saturation Comparison

49

54-0-.

5604

Legend CORE

LOG

100 GAS SATURATION—%

FIGURE 24 - Well 5T3 Gas Saturation Comparison

50 i

400-1

420-

440 ~ " •"> ' •< IVI «»V:V:V:":"^T

Q_

S 540.

560

580-

600-

620-

640

.He •••;::.

ISSS3111 t i n • • • • • • •

- M * * » ^ / W * . " I

•;.*.'f.*.*.'.'.'.'.'««tV.v.v.v.v • *.%%%%%%%%«%%««««»«««** v

«»ii::i:::::;:::::i::";-.;;

—r~ 25

—T~ 50 75 100

GAS SATURATION %

Legend CORE SW

LOG_SW__

CORE SG

100 75 50 25

WATER SATURATION — %

FIGURE 25 - Well 3P3 Saturation P r o f i l e

CI

440-1

460-

480 -

5 0 0 -

520-

U 5 4 0 1 u I I 560 -

^ 5 8 0 -

600 -

620-

640-

660-

680-

::UiP"

• . « "

— „ n ^ ~ ~ . f £ « « « " ™ ~ ~ » - - - -

——J-rf-^.-J'.*."."."«-_•_ . .

25 50

GAS SATURATION--% 75 100

Legend CORE sw

LOG_SW__

CORE SG

50 25 ~l 0 100 75

WATER SATURATION %

FIGURE 26 - Well 4P5 Saturation Profile

52

400 n

420-

440-

460-

480-

ts 5 0 ° -I I 520-^

Q_ S 540-1

560-

580-

600-

620-

" ' ^ : : - . . • *

r * • **'

640-

''.•£.'. ._«.;;; : . : .u : . ' / . -.-.-.••••-------•-•--.--..

:'::''i;;;;;:-:-:-:::::v.v.v -.-.-.-.-.•..•.---.-.•.•.•.•:-.Vi -5

"Vr..

25 50 — J — 75 100

Legend CORE sw

LOG_SW__

CORE SG

GAS SATURATION—%

100 75 50 25


FIGURE 27 - Well 5T1 Sa tu ra t i on P r o f i l e

53

540-1

560-

5 8 0 -

600 -

620-

fcj 6 4 ° "

660-

0_ S 680-1

700-

720-

740-

760-

780-

«»;V :v,v;:: ••••" " ^ '

• - • • • • • • • • t * i t t c : — « — — — _ _-,* *+*«|iv3sS±:

—r-

25 50 75

GAS SATURATION — % 100

Legend CORE sw

LOG_SW__

CORE SG

T T 1 0 100 75 50 25

WATER SATURATION — %

FIGURE 28 - Well 5T3 Saturation Profile

04

380-1

400-

420-

440-

460-

tj 4 8°" UJ U.

I 500-1 X

B 520-1

540-

560-

580 -

600 -

620- — I 1 20 30

POROSITY—% 50 10

i 40

FIGURE 29 - Well 311 P o r o s i t y

55

360 -i

380-

400-

420-

440-

ti 460-

I I 480-

T. h-Q_ g 500-1

520-

540-

560-

580-

600-10

- r -

20 30 40 50 POROSITY—%

FIGURE 30 - Well 3P8 Porosity

56

UJ UJ

480-i

500-

520-

540-

560-

580 -

600-

Q_ a 620-1

640-

660-

680-

700-

720-10

1 1 20 30

POROSITY—%

-r~ 40

i 50

FIGURE 33 - Well 4P3B Core Porosity

59

480

500-

520

540-

560-

[7. Ld L_ 1 1

X I— 0_ UJ Q

580

600

620

640-

660-

680-

700-

720

Legend CORE

LOG

100 OIL SATURATION—%

FIGURE 34 - Well 4P3B Carbon/Oxygen Oil Saturation Comparison

60

400 1 i

i i

) I I t

/ I

» \

t \ \ I

\ I

620-

Legend LOG P WAVE

LOG_SWAVE_

A CORE P WAVE

X CORES WAVE

3000 6000 9000 SONIC VELOCITY—FEET/SECOND

12000

FIGURE 35 - Well 3P3 Sonic Velocity Comparison

61

400-1

420-

440-

460-

4B0-

fcj 500-

I I 5 2 0 -

I O 540-1

560-

580-

600-

620-

640-1

T 2

T 3

YOUNG'S MODULUS—MILLION PSI

Legend LOG

A CORE n 4

FIGURE 36 - Well 3P3 Young's Modulus Comparison

62

400-1

420-

440-

X

X

460- X

480-

t 500-UJ

I 520-X h-0_ a 540-1

X

560-

580-

600-

620-

640-0.2

— r 0.3

Legend LOG

x CORE

0.4 POISSON'S RATIO

— I 0.5

FIGURE 37 - Well 3P3 Poisson's Ratio Comparison

63

380-1

400-

420-

440-

460

tn i 1 1 H

t-Q_ L±J

480-

500-

520-

540-

560-

580-

600-

620

Legend LOG P WAVE

LOG S WAVE


— i 12000

FIGURE 38 - Well 3P6 Sonic Veloci ty

64

380-1

4 0 0 -

420-

440-

460-

UJ

I 5 0 0 -X

t Q 520-1

540-

560-

580-

6 0 0 -

620- T 1

1 2


T " 3

n 4

FIGURE 39 - Well 3P6 Young's Modulus

65

380- i

400-

420-

440-

460-

fc 480-UJ Li_

I I 500-1

X h-Q_

S 520-1

540-

560-

580 -

600 -

620-0.2

T 0.3

POISSON'S RATIO 0.4 0.5

FIGURE 40 - Well 3P6 Po isson 's Ra t io

66

540-,

560-

580-

600-

620-

LLJ LLJ

1 1 1 X

h-D-LJ

640-

660-

680-

700-

720-

740-

760-

780

Legend LOG P WAVE

LOG S WAVE


— i 12000

FIGURE 41 - Well 5T3 Sonic Ve loc i ty

67

540-1

560-

580-

600-

620-

640-

660-

S 680 -4

700-

720-

740-

760-

780- 1 1 1 1 2 3


FIGURE 42 - Well 5T3 Young's Modulus

68

540-1

560-

580-

600-

620-

I I 660 H

0_ S 680-1

700-

720-

740-

760-

780-0.3 0.2 0.4

POISSON'S RATIO

— i 0.5

FIGURE 43 - Well 5T3 Poisson's Ratio

is U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1983-646-069/654 69

Date post:	13-Mar-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

NORTHWEST ASPHALT RIDGE TAR SAND DEPOSIT WELL LOGGING...

Documents