Petrophysics of Carbonates

Presented by
Michael Holmes, Digital Formation
Presentation and graphics by:
Jennifer Bartell, Digital Formation
Analysis and output created in LESA, Digital Formation Petrophysical Software

Outline

Calculating VSH

GR
SP
Porosity

Lithology
Interpretation
Cores vs. Wells Logs
Carbonates and Seismic
Reservoir Characterization

GR

Gamma ray identify clean formation and shale volume

Measures naturally occurring gamma ray activity in the
formation from:
Potassium: clay minerals, evaporates
Thorium: clay minerals
Uranium: minerals and organic matter (uranium not
necessarily associated with clay)
Regular (non-spectral) GR measures all activity, and is
most common GR run
Spectral GR separates and isolates K, Th, and U
responses, can be very beneficial in distinguishing clay
minerals from charging by the presence of uranium

Calculating VSH: GR
For each zone, GRclean and
GRshale baselines are chosen
by the interpreter
Two common models to
calculate shale volume (VSH)
using GR:

Krygowski, 2012i

Calculating VSH: SP

Clean baseline

Shale baseline

Krygowski, 2012

Identify intervals of clean formation

and shale volume
Identify permeable intervals
Estimate formation water salinity,
knowing mud filtrate resistivity
Correlate formations from well to
well
As with GR, the interpreter must
chose SPshale and SPclean baselines
The common model used to
calculate VSH from SP:

Porosity

Sonic/Acoustic (DT) reciprocal speed of sound

in the formation, microseconds/ft (or meter)

Density (RhoB) bulk density of the rock, gm/cc

Neutron (NPhi) measures hydrogen

concentration in formation, lithology specific

Free porosity and clay porosity

Pe measures photo electric adsorption cross

section. Used in combination with other porosity
logs to determine lithology.

Porosity

Cross plots of density vs. neutron and sonic vs.

neutron yield porosity with no requirement for
matrix and fluid input
VSH is also available from a density/neutron
combination:

This calculation is unreliable in gas-bearing

formations

Porosity

All porosity logs measure total porosity

Of equal, probably greater importance, is
effective porosity
The two porosity measurements are related as
follows:
Total Porosity = Effective Porosity + (VSHShale Porosity)

This means that effective porosity is influenced

by both the choice of VSH and of shale porosity
As well as any influence of changing matrix and
fluid properties in the total porosity calculation

Porosity

A good way to verify the integrity of calculations

is to compare all porosity calculations (total and
effective) on a depth plot
In an ideal world, all effective porosity
calculations should converge
Reasons for non-convergence of effective
porosities include:

Incorrect fluid and matrix input for the single porosity

log calculations
The way in which porosity is distributed

Moldic Porosity

Density/neutron porosity measures

the entire pore network where as
acoustic porosity is directional and
does not see moldic porosity

The example shows where acoustic

porosity is less than
density/neutron porosity, implying
moldic porosity illustrated with
yellow color fill

Probable Shale

Interpretations Porosity, Density vs. Neutron

Niobrara, Colorado

Interpretations Density vs. Pe

Niobrara, Colorado

Probable Shale

Interpretations Density vs. Sonic

Niobrara, Colorado

Probable Shale

Interpretations Sonic vs. Neutron

Niobrara, Colorado

Lithology

As with porosity calculations, the starting point

for lithologic differentiation are porosity cross
plots:

Density vs. neutron

Acoustic vs. neutron
Density vs. Pe
Rho matrix vs. DT matrix
Rho matrix vs. U matrix

This presentation focuses on the Density vs.

Neutron and Rho matrix vs. U matrix plots since
they give the most rigorous results

Lithology Density vs. Neutron

The density vs. neutron is the most commonly

used
Wide-spread application because of abundance
of measurements

Most wells since the 1980s have these measurements

In addition to a good measure of cross plot

porosity, the plots yield lithologic information
Sandstone, limestone, dolomite, and anhydrite
each have distinct grain densities extrapolation
to zero porosity

Lithology Density vs. Neutron

Pitfalls of using this plot in isolation:

Gas effects reduce apparent grain densities

In the absence of other information, gas bearing
limestones can be misinterpreted as sandstone, and
gas-bearing dolomite as limestones. In the case of
very high gas saturation, as sandstones.
Dolomite cemented sandstones will be misinterpreted
as carbonates with no silica

Lithology Rho matrix vs. U matrix

Rho matrix vs. U matrix is the most powerful

cross plot for lithologic differentiation

Caveat being the Pe issue with barite drilling mud

Quantitative distinction among quartz, calcite,

dolomite, and anhydrite are possible
Dolomite-cemented sandstone can be
unequivocally distinguished from carbonate only
assemblages

Lithology
Example of a calcium carbonate sequence Kansas

Mostly limestone,
minor sandstone
and dolomite

Courtesy of Lynn Watney, KGS

Lithology
Example of a dolomitic carbonate sequence from the Niobrara of
Colorado

Mostly limestone
and dolomite

Lithology
Example of a cherty carbonate sequence from Kansas
Mostly dolomite and
quartz, minor
limestone

Courtesy of Lynn Watney, KGS

Archies Equation

Archies equation in conjunction with the Pickett

Plot is used to determine water saturation and
ultimately hydrocarbon saturation

Sw = water saturation
Rw = resistivity of formation water
n = saturation exponent, starting point 2.0
a = saturation constant, often accepted as 1.0
m= cementation exponent, starting point 2.0

Pickett Plot Resistivity vs. Porosity

Pickett Plot Resistivity vs. Porosity

Saturation Determination

Effective water saturation

using Dewans equation:

is calculated

Permeability

Permeability is determined using a modified

Timur equation:

is the lower of log-calculated

or
theoretical
from a Buckles equation:

Interpretation Example

Niobrara, Colorado

Cores vs. Well Logs Porosity

Most likely a measurement of connected

porosity only
There are no service company standards in place,
as a result, procedures for measuring porosity
vary
Generally, core porosities equates well with
petrophysically defined effective porosity

Cores vs. Well Logs Fluid Saturation

Measurements are made at the surface, following

decompression as the core is brought to the surface
In general, one might anticipate:

Oil saturation to be reduced due to mud filtrate invasion

Gas saturation to be increased in volatile oil reservoirs, due to
gas generation as pressure is reduced
Water saturation to increase do to mud filtrate invasion as well

Cores vs. Well Logs Grain Density

Core measurements clearly eliminate any

influence of fluid saturation (gas effect)
Closest comparisons should be in in clean oil or
water bearing sandstones and carbonates

Cores vs. Well Logs Permeability

There are many different ways of measuring

core permeability:

Air, at ambient conditions

Klinkenberg extrapolation to infinite pressure. This
is preferred, and will be lower than air permeability
Permeability at various overburden pressure

Can have extreme influence, reducing permeabilities by

orders of magnitude in tight gas sand

Cores vs. Well Logs Permeability

Correlation with petrophysically-defined

permeability is hazardous
Petrophysical estimates involve empirical
relations between porosity and irreducible water
saturation

This is only applicable when the reservoir is indeed at

Swi

Core Shifting

It is imperative to try to shift the core data to

agree with logs
For sidewall cores, this should not be an issue
For continuous coring it is essential

Core depth made by the driller may have discrepancies with log depth
sometimes up to 10 feet or more!
For core recoveries of less than 100%, the assumption is frequently
made that loss has occurred at the base of the cores as the core barrel
is brought to the surface. This might not be a valid assumption as loss
could occur by rubble-izing incomplete levels at any location

Core vs. Log Scale

Core plug samples are usually about 2 cubic

inches (33 cubic cm) in volume. On the other
hand, log measurements sample at least a cubic
foot (0.03 cubic meter) at a time.
The difference in volume measurements, logs to
cores is at a minimum close to 1000. For some
logging tools with poor vertical resolution and
deeper depths of investigation, that difference
could be as high as 1,000,000!

Vertical Resolution of Wireline Logs

Courtesy of Schlumberger

Vertical Resolution of Wireline Logs

Approximate volumes measured by wireline

logs:
Log

Vertical, ft.

Depth, ft.

Approximate
Volume, ft3

GR

0.75

2.36

Density

0.5

0.78

Neutron

0.75

3.53

Acoustic

25.13

Laterolog

100.5

Induction

1077.56

Methodology of Upscaling

The basic methodology is to "upscale" the core

data measurements to the approximate level of
the log measurements, to improve the
correlations between the core and log data
Evaluation of correlation coefficients between
the upscaled core data and the log
measurements to find suggested depth shifts in
a rigorous manner

Applications

Aid in depth shifting

The upscaled core data output is a continuous
curve it is much easier to compare wireline
logs with upscaled core curves rather than
discrete core data points

Data shift

Data shift

Example
Texas Panhandle

Carbonate Unconventional Reservoirs

The Bakken and Niobrara are two examples of

carbonate reservoirs undergoing active
development
Both produce from carbonate intervals with
organic-rich shales in close proximity

Carbonate Unconventional Reservoirs

Carbonate conventional reservoir model:

Matrix

Effective Porosity

Water

Oil/Gas

The Reservoir

Shale

Carbonate Unconventional Reservoirs

The Reservoir
Shale

Clay Solids

Matrix

Effective
TOC
Porosity

Clay Water

Elements of unconventional reservoirs, both carbonate

and clastic:
Free Shale
Porosity

Silt

Carbonate Unconventional Reservoirs

Digital Formation has developed a deterministic

petrophysical model, which is designed to
identify four porosity components:

Effective Porosity
TOC
Clay Porosity
Free Shale Porosity

Both adsorbed and free hydrocarbons are also

determined

Carbonate Unconventional Reservoirs Example

Output
Niobrara, Colorado

Adsorbed oil in
Niobrara Shale
intervals

Carbonate Unconventional Reservoirs Example

Output, Adsorbed vs. Free Hydrocarbons
Niobrara, Colorado

Carbonate Unconventional Reservoirs Example

Output
Bakken, Montana

Adsorbed oil in
Bakken Shale

Carbonate Unconventional Reservoirs Example

Output, Adsorbed vs. Free Hydrocarbons
Bakken, Montana

Rock Physics Modeling

The Rock Physics Model Digital Formation has

developed involves solution to the Gassmann
and Krief geophysical models
The Rock Physics Model uses density and
neutron logs to mimic both compressional and
shear acoustic data
In the absence of shear measurements, the
pseudo shear log can be reliable

Texas Panhandle

Rock Physics Modeling

By applying changing fluid properties to both

density and neutron curves, which is particularly
important in gas reservoirs, the effects of fluid
substitution can be quantified
This technique can also be applied to the effects
of pressure reduction on pseudo log responses
From the pseudo acoustic and density logs,
synthetic seismograms at different saturation or
pressure levels can be created, and related to
measured seismic responses
Texas Panhandle

Rock Physics
Modeling

Actual data is
shown in black
Actual data is
incomplete
Interpolation
using pseudo
logs to create a
continuous curve
shown in red

Texas Panhandle

Reservoir Characterization

In a reservoir sequence, levels at irreducible

water saturation (and a singular rock type) can
be distinguished from other levels:

Belonging to a different rock type

Due to the presence of mobile water

Can be shown on a log Phi vs. log Sw cross plot

Texas Panhandle

Lower quality
rocks

Higher
quality
rocks

Reservoir Characterization
Basic example of log Phi vs. Log Sw plot used to determine rock quality
level-by-level

Reservoir Characterization Example

Log Phi vs. Log Sw

Core Porosity vs. Core Permeability

Lower quality
rocks

Higher
quality
rocks

Higher
quality
rocks

Lower quality
rocks

West Texas

References

Bond, D.C. "Determination of residual oil saturation." Oklahoma City, Interstate Oil
Compact Commission Report (1978): n. pag. Print.
Buckles, R.S. "Correlating and averaging connate water saturation data." Journal of
Canadian Petroleum Technology 9.1 (1965): 42-52. Print.
Chilingar, George V, Robert W. Mannon, and Herman H. Rieke. Oil and Gas Production
from Carbonate Rocks. New York: American Elsevier Pub. Co, 1972. Print.
Dewan, John T. Essentials of Modern Open-Hole Log Interpretation. Tulsa, Okla:
PennWell Books, 1983. Print.
Doveton, John H. Geologic Log Analysis Using Computer Methods. Tulsa, Okla:
American Association of Petroleum Geologists, 1994. Print.
Ellis, Darwin V, and Julian M. Singer. Well Logging for Earth Scientists. Dordrecht:
Springer, 2007. Print.
Holmes, Michael, et al. "A Petrophysical Model to Estimate Relative and Effective
Permeabilities in Hydrocarbon Water Systems." Oral presentation given at the SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in San Antonio, Texas, USA, 8-10
October (2012): n. pag. Print.
Holmes, Michael, et al. "A Petrophysical Model to Estimate Free hydrocarbons in
Organic Shales." Poster Prestentation given at the AAPG Annual Conference and
Exhibition, Houston, TX (2011): n. pag. Print.

References

Holmes, Michael, et al. "Relationship Between Porosity and Water Saturation:

Methodology to Distinguish Mobile from Capillary Bound Water." Oral presentation
given at the AAPG ACE, Denver, Colorado 7-10 June (2009): n. pag. Print.
Krygowski, Dan. Basic Openhole Log Interpretation. Golden, CO: Petrolium Technology
Transfer Council, 2013. Print.
Morris, R.L., and W.P. Biggs. "Using log-derived values of water saturation and
porosity." ransactions of the SPWLA 8th Annual Logging Symposium Paper X, 26
p (1967): n. pag. Print.
Passey, Q.R., et al. "From Oil-Prone Source Rock to hydrocarbons-Producing Shale
Reservoir ? Geologic and Petrophysical Characterization of Unconventional Shalehydrocarbons Reservoirs." SPE 131350 (2010): n. pag. Web.
Passey, Q.R. "A Practical Model for Organic Richness from Porosity and Resistivity
Logs." AAPG Bulletin 74.12 (1990): 1777-1794. Print.
"Shale Petrophysics." Denver Well Logging Society 2010 Fall Workshop, Golden
CO (2010): n. pag. Print.
"Special Core Analysis." DWLS Spring Workshop, Golden CO (2008): n. pag. Web.

Petrophysics of Carbonates
Q&A
Presented by
Michael Holmes, Digital Formation
Presentation and graphics by:
Jennifer Bartell, Digital Formation
Analysis and output created in LESA, Digital Formation Petrophysical Software