ASEG Extended Abstracts

ISSN: 2202-0586 (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/texg19

Using mud gas components to quantify

hydrocarbon liquid yields for gas zones in the
Patchawarra Formation of the Western Flank,
Cooper Basin

Christopher Webb, Belinda Wong & Regie Estabillo

To cite this article: Christopher Webb, Belinda Wong & Regie Estabillo (2019) Using mud
gas components to quantify hydrocarbon liquid yields for gas zones in the Patchawarra
Formation of the Western Flank, Cooper Basin, ASEG Extended Abstracts, 2019:1, 1-6, DOI:
10.1080/22020586.2019.12072922

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/22020586.2019.12072922

Published online: 11 Nov 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 859

View related articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=texg19
Using mud gas components to quantify hydrocarbon liquid yields for
gas zones in the Patchawarra Formation of the Western Flank,
Cooper Basin
Christopher Webb Belinda Wong*
Kite Exploration Ltd Beach Energy Ltd
1A Winchester Drive, Maidenhead, 25 Conyngham Street, Glenside,
Berkshire, U.K. SL6 3AH Adelaide, SA 5065
chris.webb@kitexploration.co.uk belinda.wong@beachenergy.com.au
SUMMARY
The Patchawarra Formation is a Permian age fluvial sand
and coal measure system deposited in the Cooper Basin
of Central Australia. Fluvial sand channels up to 20 m
thick form conventional gas reservoirs and are inter-
bedded with seal and hydrocarbon source play
components of overbank silts, clays and coal seams. This
stacked play system presents a challenge to completion
optimization and efficiency, which are critical
components for achieving an economic well. A key
driver to the success and economics of a well is the
presence of liquid hydrocarbons (LPG; Propane and
Butane and condensate; Pentane plus). As the liquid
yields composition varies significantly throughout the
Cooper Basin, estimating the liquid yield in new gas
zones is vital to valuations of any potentially commercial
development in this area.
This paper will present a new quantifiable method to
forecast the liquid yields of specific gas zones utilizing
mud gas logs. The method uses simple formulas applied
to mud gas ratios to provide estimates of liquid yield per
individual gas zone. Examples demonstrate the
application of the method, calibration of fluid estimates
to real PVT samples from corresponding gas zones and
how the results have successfully optimized completion
strategies in the Beach Energy operated Western Flank
gas area. It is anticipated that with continued application,
this simple method will become a useful tool in assessing
the commerciality of gas wells and assist in identifying
future exploration/appraisal and development targets.
Key words: mud gas ratios, hydrocarbon liquids yields,
completion optimisation
INTRODUCTION
In the Beach Energy operated Western Flank gas permits
(Figure 1), there is a rich legacy of gas wells that have been
drilled in full evaluation mode, with logs, open-hole drill stem
tests (DST), down-hole wireline sampling, and extended
production tests (EPT). Recently, commercial pressure to
reduce costs has resulted in increased requirements to estimate
and quantify the potential yields and commercial value of gas
zones with less evaluation data.
Mudlogs are fundamental industry standard formation
evaluation tools that represent the first opportunity for
AEGC 2019: From Data to Discovery – Perth, Australia
Regie Estabillo
Beach Energy Ltd
25 Conyngham Street, Glenside,
Adelaide, SA 5065
regiebrando84@gmail.com
evaluating the potential economic viability of a well or
prospect. Recent internal studies have indicated that mud gas
data could be analysed in a similar manner to laboratory-based
PVT sample analysis. This has resulted in new quantitative
methods that use the mud gas components and their ratios to
derive quantifiable estimates of hydrocarbon liquids yield
which can be used in commercial evaluation of potential gas
pay zones.
The normal mud log records the total mud gas and
chromatograph analysis of the methane (C1) to Pentane (C5)
gas components as separate log curves. Haworth et al. (1985)
in a seminal piece of work took these data to a qualitative
level of assessment using ratios of the various gas components
to establish bands of likely dry gas, light gas, medium gas/oil
and oil. McCaffrey and Walker (2010) (Weatherford
Laboratories) took this further and assigned the mud gas ratios
labels including; Gas Wetness Ratio (GWR); Light-to-Heavy
Ratio (LHR) and Oil Character Ratio (OCR) which can be
used to help identify liquids in zones of interest (Figure 2).
In this paper, we extend the previous work to present a new
qualitative ratio (the LPG to Sales Gas ratio) that is useful for
log display visualization of a portion of the liquids in the mud
gas. In addition, we define four new quantitative equations
that use the mud gas components and their ratios to derive
quantifiable estimates of 1) LPG (propane + butane) and 2)
Condensate (pentane + heavier gases) yields within gas pay
zones in units that are used in commercial evaluation.
The quantitative liquid yields method has proven to be robust
within the bands of liquid measurement uncertainties needed
for current commercial requirements in the Western Flank.
The ability to estimate the liquids contribution of individual
zones has proven particularly valuable in Patchawarra
producing wells that have multiple producing gas zones co-
mingled into a single production manifold stream.
GEOLOGICAL SETTING
The geological setting for the Patchawarra gas play is
summarised in this paper. Readers are referred to Webb
(2015) and Soares and Webb (2018) for a detailed review of
the geology and additional reading.
The Cooper Basin is a Carboniferous – Middle Triassic intra-
cratonic basin located over the state boundary between
northeast South Australia and southwest Queensland,
Australia.
The Patchawarra Formation is a widespread Permian aged
fluvio-lacustrine inter-bedded sandstone, siltstone, shale and
1
Using mud gas components to quantify liquid yields for gas zones
coal measure system, which was deposited close to the base of
the Cooper Basin succession. Gas (sales gas – methane and
ethane), LPG (propane plus butane) and condensate (pentane
plus heavier hydrocarbons) are locally sourced from peat
swamp beds (now coal) and migrate into stacked fluvial
channel belts up to 20 m thick that form conventional
sandstone reservoirs. In the study area, the Patchawarra
Formation is at average depths of 2500 m subsea and has an
average thickness of 300 m. Beach Energy’s operated gas
permits are largely located on the Western Flank of the
Patchawarra Trough within South Australia (Figure 1).
METHOD
Example wells
The three Patchawarra gas exploration wells, Brownlow 1,
Lowry 1 and Canunda 3, were chosen to represent the range in
liquid yields seen in the study area (Figure 1, Table 1). Each
well has mud gas logs (chromatograph analysis of C1 to C5
components), standard open hole wireline logs and full stream
PVT samples from gas bearing reservoirs.
Table 1. Example wells from the Western Flank and the
range in liquid yields they represent. It is important to
note that LPG yields increase as condensate yields
increase.
Mud gas logs and derived yield equations
The basis of the mud gas yield method uses equations derived
by Beach reservoir engineers from first principles as described
in Bradley (1987). The method uses the mud gas components,
standard gas molecular weights and gas densities based on
ideal gas behaviour at surface conditions (Silz, 2017).
Similarly, third party PVT laboratory compositional analysis
of individual gas zone samples uses the same formula to
independently assess the liquid yields (PETROLAB, 2017).
This PVT control set database provides the full stream PVT
yield estimates of sales gas, LPG and condensate and inert gas
(principally carbon dioxide and nitrogen).
Four liquid yield equations were derived through analysis of
the mud gas components and recombined full stream PVT
analysis. We informally designate these yields calculations as:
LPG Yield 1: Regarded as a best estimate. Calculated yield
from C3+C4 mud gas ratio yield.
LPG Yield 2: Regarded as a high side estimate. Calculated
yield based on linear function fit to a cross plot of mudlog
derived C3+C4 yields to PVT LPG full stream yields.
Condensate Yield 1: Regarded as a best estimate. Calculated
yield based on power function fit to a cross plot of mudlog
derived C5 yield to PVT LPG full stream yield.
Condensate Yield 2: Regarded as a low side estimate.
Calculated yield based on linear function fit to a cross plot of
mudlog derived C5 yields to PVT Condensate full stream
yields.
AEGC 2019: From Data to Discovery – Perth, Australia
Webb, Wong and Estabillo
The mud gas ratio for a particular zone is based on an
interpreter selecting a representative portion of the mud gas
logs and their drill depths compared to the wireline log depth.
Care must be taken to ensure mud gas readings correspond to
the wireline log depth zone of interest. In the Patchawarra
Formation, coal gas peaks are generally distinctive and useful
to delineate the wireline log depth shift relative to the mud gas
peaks.
MUD GAS RATIOS AND LIQUID YIELDS
EQUATIONS
The formulas, definitions, labels and coding are informal and
specific to Beach Energy Ltd and are used in PETREL
workflow software and calculator. Readers are encouraged to
derive their own methods to suit their own software.
Qualitative Mud Gas Ratios (Figure 2, Track 7)
LPG to Sales Gas (Beach Energy Ltd derived)
LPG_SG=(GAS_C3_ppm+GAS_C4n_ppm+GAS_C4i_ppm)/
(GAS_C1_ppm+GAS_C2_ppm)
Oil Character Ratio (next 3 equations Haworth et al. (1995)
and McCaffrey and Walker (2010) derived)
OCR=(GAS_C4i_ppm+GAS_C4n_ppm+GAS_C5i_ppm+GA
S_C5n_ppm)/GAS_C3_ppm
Light to Heavy
LHR=(GAS_C1_ppm+GAS_C2_ppm)/(GAS_C3_ppm+GAS
_C4i_ppm+GAS_C4n_ppm+GAS_C5i_ppm+GAS_C5n_ppm
)
Gas Wetness Ratio
GWR=(GAS_C2_ppm+GAS_C3_ppm+GAS_C4i_ppm+GAS
_C4n_ppm+GAS_C5i_ppm+GAS_C5n_ppm)/(GAS_C1_ppm
+GAS_C2_ppm+GAS_C3_ppm+GAS_C4i_ppm+GAS_C4n_
ppm+GAS_C5i_ppm+GAS_C5n_ppm)
Quantitative Liquid Yields Formulas (Figure 2, Track 8)
Step 1: Mud gas ppm to decimal ratio
C1_MUD_dec=GAS_C1_ppm/(GAS_C1_ppm+GAS_C2_pp
m+GAS_C3_ppm+GAS_C4i_ppm+GAS_C4n_ppm+GAS_C
5i_ppm+GAS_C5n_ppm)
Repeat Step 1 for C2 to C5 components.
Step 2: Molecular mass of entire C1 to C5 stream
C1toC5_molemass=C1_MUD_dec*16.04276+C2_MUD_dec
*30.06964+C3_MUD_dec*44.09652+GAS_C4i_MUD_dec*5
8.12340+GAS_C4n_MUD_dec*58.12340+GAS_C5i_MUD_
dec*72.15028+GAS_C5n_MUD_dec*72.15028
Step 3: Molecular mass of individual mud gas components
C1mass_MUD_dec=(16.04276*C1_MUD_dec)/C1toC5_mole
mass
Repeat Step 3 for C2 to C5 components using corresponding
molecular weight
Step 4: Gravity/Density terms (Modified for appropriate gas
field units from Ref: Chapter 20 in Bradley 1987 – Ref: Silz
2017)
C1toC5_density=C1toC5_molemass/28.9660α
C1toC5_density_standard=1.2250β*C1toC5_density
α The molecular weight standard air (gram/mole)
β The standard density of air (kg/m3)
Step 5: Liquids yields
YIELD_C3_kT_Bcf=(C1toC5_density_standard*1000000/35.
3147)*C3mass_MUD_dec/1000
YIELD_C4in_kT_Bcf=(C1toC5_density_standard*1000000/3
5.3147)*(C4imass_MUD_dec+C4nmass_MUD_dec)/1000
2
Using mud gas components to quantify liquid yields for gas zones
YIELD_C5_kbbl_Bcf=
(((C1toC5_density_standard*1000000/35.3147)*(C5imass_M
UD_dec+C5nmass_MUD_dec))/626)*(1000/158.86)
EQUATION 1: LPG Yield 1 (kT/Bcf)
=YIELD_C3_kT_Bcf+YIELD_C4in_kT_Bcf
EQUATION 2: LPG Yield 2 (kT/Bcf)
=0.7246*LPG Yield1+1.638 (Equation derived from cross
plot)
EQUATION 1: Condensate Yield 1 (kbbl/Bcf)
=(Pow(LPG Yield1,1.3391))*8.8112 (Equation derived from
cross plot)
EQUATION 2: Condensate Yield 2 (kbbl/Bcf)
=8.8379* YIELD_C5_kbbl_Bcf (Equation derived from cross
plot)
Equations used to calculate hydrocarbon yields from
laboratory analysis (pers. comm A. Silz, 2017)
Sales Gas = Mass Composition % (C1, C2) * Gas Density at
Standard Conditions * Heating Value (C1, C2)
LPG = Mass Composition % (C2 + C4) * Gas Density at
Standard Conditions
Condensate = Mass Composition % (C5+) * Gas Density at
Standard Conditions
RESULTS
The four derived mud gas equations used to estimate LPG and
condensate yields were used to produce four new continuous
curves (Figure 2 and Figure 3). The average mud gas derived
yield estimates for the Patchawarra zones of interest were then
compared to the field average recombined PVT sample
analysis results. The examples demonstrate a strong positive
correlation (Table 2 and Figure 3). The three examples
presented in Table 2 represent the liquid yields range seen
across fields in the Western Flank gas area.
Table 2. Full recombined gas stream PVT analysis results
and calculated LPG and condensate yield values from mug
gas logs. A range from low liquids yield (Brownlow) to a
moderate liquids yield (Lowry) to high liquids yield
(Canunda) is observed.
DISCUSSION
Qualitative versus quantitative log displays
The difference between the qualitative view of mud gas ratios
and the new quantitative view described in this paper is
demonstrated in Figure 2 and Figure 3, where Track 7
demonstrates the previously defined qualitative mud gas ratios
which indicate the potential presence of liquid hydrocarbons
and Track 8 demonstrates the newly derived quantitative
liquid yield curves in commercial units calibrated against
actual PVT data.
AEGC 2019: From Data to Discovery – Perth, Australia
Webb, Wong and Estabillo
In order to maximise the value of information, it is important
to understand the visual display of the qualitative ratio curves
versus the quantitative yields curves. With reference to Figure
2 and Figure 3, there is a range of qualitative ratio responses in
Track 7 compared to the calculated quantitative yield log
curves for the pay zones in Track 8. Flags can be set up by the
user with cut-offs appropriate to the basin to identify zones of
increased light gas or wet gas relative to background levels.
Within the study area, gas peaks associated with coals with a
LHR ratio greater than 40 are marked by the grey blocked
curve (Figure 2 and Figure 3). The coals exhibit a distinctly
different character on the qualitative mud gas ratio compared
to conventional gas zones marked by the red stars on the wells
shown in Figure 3. The quantitative values estimated for coal
zones have distinctly low LPG and condensate yields. The gas
peaks associated with conventional gas sands have variable
responses depending on the liquids content. The well Canunda
3 zone is an example of a liquids rich flag as shown by the
OCR (Green), GWR (Orange) and LPG (yellow). The
quantitative mud gas yields calculated for condensate for
Canunda 3 are over 200 bc/mmcf. In comparison, the
recombined PVT sample analysis from production tests
closely matches the mud gas yield at 214 bc/mmcf (Figure 3;
PETROLAB, 2017). Brownlow 1 and Lowry 1 represent
lower liquid yield wells which is supported by lower ratios
and thinner flags over gas bearing zones. Despite this, these
wells still show at strong correlation between mud gas and
PVT yields (Table 2). Although the yield curves are calculated
over the entire logged section, they are considered most
relevant to those zones associated with gas peaks above
background gas levels, and i.e. coals, carbonaceous shales and
gas pay zones.
Interpreting mug gas yield calculations
The three examples presented in this paper demonstrate how
the liquid yield calculation workflow has been applied to the
individual wells and the resulting log curve display, however
most importantly, the workflow demonstrates the positive
correlation between the estimated yields to actual laboratory
PVT results (Figure 3 and Table 2). Calibration of the
workflow has given confidence to the mud gas method.
Subsequently this has enabled us to apply the mud gas yield
estimates to appraisal and development activities within the
area without needing to obtain expensive test samples on
every well. Since implementation of the method in 2017, the
mud gas liquid yields workflow has been successfully used in
the evaluation of all Beach gas wells drilled.
Sales gas yields have not been calculated from mud gas logs,
as initial analysis did not show a strong correlation to the PVT
data. This is likely due to variable amounts of inert gas (CO2
principally). The inert content of mud gas is not routinely
measured, and the data is not reliable, subsequently more work
is required to understand the impact of inert gas on sales gas
yields that could be estimated from mud gas calculations. In
contrast, the LPG yield mud gas-based prediction to PVT
shows a strong positive correlation likely because it is based
on a simple ratio of LPG to sales gas. A similar ratio method
of measurement also applies to the condensate yield
calculation. In these cases, the inert gases may not affect the
calculations.
To date, a full analysis of the variance, standard deviation and
other statistical measures of the mud gas calculation results
versus the separator and production yields has not been carried
3
Using mud gas components to quantify liquid yields for gas zones
out. The full PVT composition data is based on recombined
fluid samples from individual zone tests and it is noted that the
compositional yields are close to but not identical to those
from meters run at wellhead separators and production
manifolds. This is likely due to differences in temperature and
pressure that production and separator equipment run at
compared to the samples recombined at laboratory conditions.
In addition, uncertainty associated with the actual validity of
test data should not be forgotten and the perils of obtaining
representative reservoir fluid samples are well known
(Schlumberger, 1998; De Oliveira e Melo, 2016). Uncertainty
also exists in the actual liquids yield from DST, production
separator and down-hole samples, influencing the functions
derived through cross plotting. In cases with poor fluid
sampling, mud gas data may have less uncertainty due to the
amount of repetition and continuous sampling in-built in mud
gas logging. Subsequently, it is not clear in every case if the
PVT yield value taken represents the “true” value for a zone.
In this study, we have looked at the visual closeness of mud
gas yields and PVT points as shown on logs as being the most
useful for comparisons. The ranges from the mud gas
calculations generally appear to be close to the PVT results.
Results to date in over 50 wells suggest a reasonable
confidence variance is ± 40% (for example, a condensate yield
estimate of 20 kbbl/Bcf has an uncertainty of ± 8 kbbl/Bcf).
This uncertainty range is valuable for reservoir engineering
planning. LPG yield estimates are interpreted to have a better
confidence variance of ± 20%. Further work on the variability
currently lies outside the scope of this project.
Economic evaluation and optimising completion strategy
Fracture stimulation is commonly used in the Cooper Basin to
enable economic production of hydrocarbons from tighter
reservoirs. Utilising the mud gas yield workflow presented in
this paper assists in the identification of liquids rich zones and
provides valuable information for completion engineers to
optimise the commerciality of the completion. A conceptual
case that presents the incremental economics of a completion
stage is outlined in Figure 4 and demonstrates the economic
value of understanding liquid yields per zone for completion
design and planning.
Figure 4. A conceptual economic model based on three
individual completed pay zones in a single well bore model.
Each pay is zone producing 0.1 Bcf with the cost of each
completion stage $300,000. Condensate yields vary from
AEGC 2019: From Data to Discovery – Perth, Australia
Webb, Wong and Estabillo
lean (yellow zone) at 5 bc/mmscf to rich (green zone) at 50
bc/mmcf.
In this example a single well is drilled intersecting 3 discrete
zones with varying condensate yields of 5, 20 and 50 kbbl/Bcf
respectively (Figure 4). Each zone is forecasted to produce 0.1
Bcf. The capital assumption for the economic modelling is
based on a post-drill go forward scenario that has a fracture
stimulation cost of $300,000 per zone. The results indicate that
fracture-stimulation of zone 1 which has a condensate yield of
5 kbbl/Bcf would diminish value in the well, with a resulting
NPV of -$7,900. However, as the condensate yield increases
to 20 kbbl/Bcf in zone 2 and 50 kbbl/Bcf in zone 3, the NPV
increases and is positive in both cases. To understand the
impact of the three zones on the commerciality of the well,
consider two scenarios:
Scenario 1: The completion is designed without the benefit of
the mud gas yield calculations and all three zones are fracture
stimulated (as per historical practice). The cost of this scenario
is $900,000 and the resulting total NPV is $328,000.
Scenario 2: The completion is designed with assistance from
the mug gas yield equations to determine the potential
condensate yields in each zone (i.e. zone 1 = 5 kbbl/Bcf, zone
2 = 20 kbbl/Bcf, zone 3 = 50 kbbl/Bcf). With this data, the
completion engineer is able to conduct an economic analysis
which identifies that zone 1 would yield a negative NPV, and
subsequently decides to complete zone 2 and zone 3 only. The
cost of this scenario is $600,000 and the resulting total NPV is
$336,000.
In this example, scenario 2 yields a higher NPV. However,
despite the difference in NPV between the scenarios being
marginal at $10,000, the capital expenditure is $300,000 less
in scenario 2 at $600,000 compared with $900,000 in scenario
1.
In the future as the method evolves, it is anticipated that the
mud gas yields workflow will assist in field development and
reservoir characterisation. The Cooper Basin is a stacked play
system that presents a challenge to appraising and
characterising individual intervals, as testing separate intervals
is a cost prohibitive exercise. Therefore, being able to extract
reliable liquids yield estimates from mud logs, that are run as
standard in every well, is a cost effective and useful additional
tool to assist in designing completions and achieving an
optimal economic outcome.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The mud gas yield workflow provides reasonably reliable
estimates of liquids content of potential pay zones.
2. Visualization of the mud gas yields as log curves is a
useful technique to assess pay zones.
3. The additional information from the mud gas yield
calculation is another useful QC tool for hydrocarbon
sample validity and representativeness.
4. Calculating liquids yield estimates from standard mud gas
logs appears to be a cost effective and useful tool to help
assess commerciality.
5. Determining the liquids yields in each of the zones
influences the completion design of the well, i.e. which
intervals are worth completing and are of material
economic value.
6. It is likely that with continued application of the mud gas
yield method, improvements of the current and better
4
Using mud gas components to quantify liquid yields for gas zones Webb, Wong and Estabillo

formulas may evolve to suit individual play systems here Petroleum Geologists Bulletin V. 69, No. 8(August 1985). P.
and in other areas. 1305-1310.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Soares, J., Webb, C., 2018. Evolving exploration methods in

To our many colleagues at Beach Energy Ltd and the gas
teams for their generous help and support in discussions.
Special thanks go to Alex Silz for his advice and help and
generously sharing his PVT calculator spread sheet and James
Sobey and Scott Delaney for their pressure and test analysis
expertise. Final thanks go to Beach Energy Ltd for permission
to publish.
the hydrocarbon play within the Patchawarra Formation on the
Western Flank, Cooper Basin. Australasian Exploration
Geoscience Conference/EABS 2017
McCaffrey, M, A., Walker, P. R., 2010, Reducing Exploration
and Development Risk Using Mud Gas Compositional and
Isotopic Data, Weatherford Laboratories Website publication,
www.weatherford.com.

REFERENCES PETROLAB., 2017, Compositional Report, Well Canunda 3,

Bradley, B. (Editor)., 1987, Petroleum Engineering Handbook,
2nd Edition Printing (1989). Published 1987 by Society of
Petroleum Engineers, Richardson, TX, USA.
De Oliveira e Melo, B, A., 2016, Thesis to obtain the Master
of Science Degree in Petroleum Engineering. Tecnico Lisboa
(IFT)
Patchawarra Formation. Report for Beach Energy Limited. B-
17006.
Schlumberger Wireline and Testing., 1998, Introduction to
Well Testing. Bath, England: PHI solutions.
Silz, A., 2017, (pers. comm.) Reservoir Engineer. Beach
Energy. Spread sheet calculator for PVT analysis of gas zones.

Hall, L. S., Hill, A., Troup, A., Korsch, R., Radke, B., Nicoll,
R. S., Palu, T., Wang, L. and Stacey, A. 2015. Cooper Basin
Architecture and Lithofacies: Regional Hydrocarbon
Prospectivity of the Cooper Basin, Part 1. Record 2015/31.
Geoscience Australia, Canberra.
http://dx.doi.org/10.11636/Record.2015.031
Webb, C., 2015, Seismic and well interpretation of fluvial
clastic and coal packages for stratigraphic traps within the
Patchawarra Formation, Cooper Basin, in Lodwick W. (Ed)
2015. Eastern Australian Basins Symposium, A Powerhouse
Emerges: Energy for the Next Fifty Years, Petroleum
Exploration Society of Australia, Special Publication, p29-44.

Haworth, J.H., Sellens, M., Whittaker, A., 1995, Interpretation

of Hydrocarbon Shows Using Light (C1-C5) Hydrocarbon
Gases from Mud-Log Data, The American Association of

Figure 1. Location of study wells in Beach Energy operated Western Flank gas fields, Cooper Basin, South Australia. Beach
Energy operated gas discoveries are pink dots and other gas field outlines are shown as pale red polygons (Source: South
Australian government). Wells are projected on an intra-Patchawarra Formation coal marker depth map in meters subsea
that demonstrates an overall dip to the east and southeast. Major northwest to west trending faults occur as thick grey
dashed lines and subtle northeast trending faults occur as thin black dotted lines. Permit boundaries are white and the 3D
seismic survey outline is blue. The map to the right shows the location of the study area within the Cooper Basin. Figure
adapted from Soares and Webb (2018).

AEGC 2019: From Data to Discovery – Perth, Australia 5

Using mud gas components to quantify liquid yields for gas zones Webb, Wong and Estabillo

Figure 2. Eight track log display, scales and legend used in Figure 3. Track 1: Gamma ray log curve blocked with lithology
colour and total porosity flags. Lithologies labelled. Track 2, 3: Depth in metres: measured depth wireline log (track 2) and
true vertical subsea depth (track 3). Track 4: Density and neutron logs with crossover shaded yellow as net sand indicator
and density less than 1.95g/cm3 shaded grey. Track 5: Log scale mud log total gas curve (shaded pink) overlain on log scale
deep and shallow resistivity with colour shading (blue/green=low to green/red=med/high resistivity) with resistivity over 100
ohm-m shaded grey. Track 6: Log scale mud gas components C1 to C5. Sales gas: C1 (Red)+C2 (pink). LPG: C3
(Orange)+C4i+C4n (Lighter Greens), Lightest Condensates: C5i+C5n (Darker greens). Track 7: Log scale mud gas ratios
shaded above values that match with significant changes in gas ratios in the Patchawarra Formation in the study area.
Yellow shading is values above 0.05 for the LPG ratio, orange for values above 0.02 for GWR, green for values above 0.75 for
the OCR and grey for values above 40 on the LHR ratio. Track 8: Linear scale Liquids yields of Condensate (kbbl/Bcf) and
LPG. (kT/Bcf). Condensate: Yield 1 (solid green), Condensate Yield 2 (dashed green), LPG Yield 1(solid orange), LPG Yield
2 (dashed orange). Points labelled with values are yields from zones tested and with full PVT analysis of laboratory
recombined samples for condensate (green points), LPG (orange points).

Figure 3. Low to high liquid yields gas pay zone comparison. Track headers outlined in Figure 2. Red stars indicate the
producing gas/condensate pay zones. Total gas curve in red in track 4 shows the gas peaks associated with both
coal/carbonaceous shales and pay zones. The mud gas ratios (Haworth et al., 1987) in Track 7 give a qualitative indication of
leaner and rich gas zones. Track 8 shows the four quantitative mud gas derived liquid yield curves. Gas zone PVT points are
displayed and closely match the calculated yields derived from the mud gas workflow (Table 2). Using all eight tracks, the
pay zone character can be differentiated from the coals/carbonaceous shales and water bearing sands. The mud gas yield
curves in Track 8 give reliable and quantifiable values of the variable liquids content of the gas pay zones. This has been now
applied to over 50 wells in the Western Flank area and has revealed a wide variation of liquids content confirmed by PVT.