IPA22-G-19

PROCEEDINGS, INDONESIAN PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION

Forty-Fifth Annual Convention & Exhibition, September 2022

APPLICATION OF PULSED-NEUTRON SPECTROSCOPY LOGGING AS CRUCIAL DATA

INPUT TO MODIFY RESERVOIR CHARACTERIZATION UNDERSTANDING: CASE STUDY
IN CARBONATE RESERVOIR, INDONESIA

Didit Kusuma*
Giano Zulsabi*
Dendy Wicaksana*
Khairil Anuar B Md Yunos*
Taufik B Noordin*

ABSTRACT are 16 wells that penetrate this interval, consisting of

Bukit Tua field is located in the north of Madura
Island & its main reservoir are Kujung 1 & Kujung-
2 which are consist of isolated patch reef with
carbonate stringer. Pulsed-Neutron Spectroscopy
Logging (PNL) was planned since this field enter
next development stage, the formation oil/gas
saturation & fluid contacts movement is crucial for
development planning and behind casing
opportunities.
PNL can accomplish the objective since its building
on the three types of nuclear reactions between
neutrons and formation, four kinds of pulsed neutron
logging modes are commonly utilized: sigma mode
which based on the thermal neutron capture &
primarily measure the time decay of the capturing
process; C/O which based on the fast neutron
inelastic scattering reactions; Ratio-Based Gas
Saturation and 3-Phase Saturations. Sigma
processing result can be specifically calculated from
Sigma equation, but the C/O and Ratio-Based Gas
Saturation and 3-Phase Saturation data processing
need to apply the Monte Carlo models to eliminate
the impact of the downhole environment to the log
data.
This paper introduces a novel pulsed-neutron log
design that was successfully practiced in Bukit Tua,
where it took the advantages from Sigma log modes
to efficiently overcome the challenges of defining or
to monitor hydrocarbon sweep and Gas-water
contact movement. PNL was run in the Kujung-1
interval with activated sigma mode. This interval is
known as a thick build-up platform carbonate with
95 feet TVT of gas column. Previous understanding
was that the Kujung-1 reservoir was connected and
there was no fault or facies compartmentation. There
6 exploration wells, 6 non-producing wells and 4
producing wells. X1 well has produced since 2017,
followed by X6 well in 2018. X11 well was drilled
in 2020 and showed the GWC higher by 15 feet from
the initial GWC. But surprisingly, two other wells
(X8 & W2) drilled in 2020 and 2021 and penetrating
the Kujung-1 interval showed original gas water
contact but with pressure data below original
pressure. To answer this anomaly, the surveillance
PCINO team proposed to run PNL in two wells that
are located in the X11, X6 & X1 area. X4 and X1
well were selected to represent a producing and non-
producing well.
PNL was run successfully in X4 and X1 wells, with
three pass data that showed good repeatability. X4 is
an oil well, and SGS data acquisition was run to
confirm fluid annulus that will affect PNL data
interpretation. X4 results show that the current GWC
has risen by 17 feet, close to data from X11 which
showed GWC higher by 15 feet. Meanwhile, X1 as
producing well shows that the current GWC has risen
by 23 feet, which is higher than the other data and
possibly affected by water coning. Based on this
PNL reservoir data, the previous understanding that
Kujung-1 intervals are defined as connecting
reservoir should be revised and thus will have
implications for OGIP and reserve calculation.
INTRODUCTION
Bukit Tua field is a productive oil and gas field
located north of Madura Island. This field has been
producing since 2015 from multiple carbonate
reservoir layers. The main productive reservoir
layers consist of CD Carbonate interval and Kujung
interval. CD is the main oil reservoir producer with
karst occurrences, and Kujung-1 is the main gas
reservoir producer and is currently on production and
will be the focus of this paper.
Kujung-1 reservoir is a thick build up platform
carbonate with 95 feet TVT of gas column. The drive
mechanism in this reservoir is identified as strong
water drive reservoir with bottom water as aquifer
support. This carbonate was deposited in Early
Miocene (Figure 1) in regressive phase due to
eustatic and compressive tectonic. There are 16 wells
penetrating this interval, consisting of 6 exploration
wells, 6 non-producing wells and 4 producing wells.
GWC was identified based on pressure data in Y-4
exploration well. This GWC was obtained from 6
valid RFT samples and supported by log
characterization to identify GWC at x675 feet
TVDSS (Figure 2).
A geological model was built with a single GWC and
with connected reservoir from West to East area as
the understanding at the time (Figure 3). This
interpretation was also supported by seismic
impedance which showed a connected reservoir with
less likelihood of compartment from West to East
area (Figure 4).
The first producing well from Kujung-1 interval was
X1 well in 2017, located in the West area, with
almost 0% water cut, and followed by X6 well in
2018 with low water cut. There was no saturation
reservoir monitoring in this period until X11 well
was drilled in 2020, 4 years after first production.
The GWC observed in X11 well had risen by 15 feet
from the original GWC, from X675 feet TVDSS to
X660 feet TVDSS. In 2021 X8 well was drilled,
followed by W2 well. Both surprisingly showed that
the GWC was still maintained at the original interval
but at lower than original pressure. These two wells
are in the eastern area compared with X11, X1 & X6
wells.
To answer this anomaly, the team proposed to run
PNL in two wells located in the X11, X6 & X1 area.
X4 and X1 well were selected to represent a
producing and non-producing well in Kujung-1
interval. The PNL acquisition program, the results,
and the new reservoir interpretation understanding
will be explained in this paper. The change in
geological understanding from this work have a
significant impact on Gas in Place calculation for
reservoir development plan.
METHODOLOGY
To tackle the challenges and uncertainties of the
available data, PNL was run in two wells (X4 and
X1) in the west area. With new GWC data, new
geological understanding can be explained.
Pulsed-Neutron Spectroscopy Logging (PNL) is
commonly run in mature fields to identify current
saturation hydrocarbon and fluid movement in
producing reservoir intervals. The C/O (Carbon
Oxygen Ratio) mode is activated to identify
remaining oil saturation, and the Sigma mode is used
to identify gas water contact and current saturation.
PNL in the chosen wells was run with 3 passes with
a stable speed winch of 10 ft/min. The data showed
good repeatability from three different passes (Figure
5), indicating there was no anomaly along the
borehole. Long-spaced detector and short-spaced
detector also indicated good data to be used for
properties calculation later during data processing.
The next step was to identify borehole fluid inside
the tubing. This was a crucial step as it would have a
significant effect when interpreting and calculating
results. In X4 well, the fluid inside tubing was gas,
as indicated by FCAP (Fluid Capacitance) and
pseudo density from pressure data. FCAP showed
low values at 582 cps, and pseudo density from
pressure data corrected for deviation (DPDZ_Cor)
read 0.05 g/cc (Figure 6). Sigma processing was done
to calculate gas saturation in formation with the
weight average Sigma curve (SGFCAV) from three
passes used as input, followed by sigma parameters
including sigma water: 28.6 cu (estimated for 19,000
ppm of water salinity), sigma gas: 2.8 cu (estimated
for CH4 gas at 190 degF & 1400 psi, Figure 7), and
sigma matrix: 7 cu & sigma shale: 16 cu.
After the data was processed, comparison data
between original open hole (OH) log and cased hole
(CH) during PNL job was displayed and overlaid to
see differences between initial reservoir condition
and current condition including fluid in the tubing &
annulus (Figure 8).
RESULTS
Based on PNL using Sigma mode that was run in X4
and X1 wells, there was GWC movement of 15 feet
in X4 well and 23 feet in X1 well compared with
initial GWC. In X1 well, GWC movement had risen
higher when compared to GWC in X4 well. One of
the possible interpretations is as X1 well has been
producing from Kujung-1 interval, there was
possibility of water coning occurring around X1
well.
Calibration using short-spaced detector (SSP) and
long-spaced detector (LSP) helped identify current
GWC. Comparison between previous with current
contact in X1 well can be seen in Figure 9. On the
other hand, X4 wells showed a slightly lower rise in
GWC compared to X1 (Figure 10), possibly caused
by this well is not producing from Kujung-1 interval.
Based on PNL results from X4 and X1 wells, we are
updating the data by using stick plot (Figure 11). It
shows that the east area, consisting of five wells,
including two producing wells (X8 & X10), has
maintained original contact but in the west area
GWC has risen by 15 to 23 feet. This increasing
GWC is caused by production from X1 and X6 wells.
The interesting observation is that pressure in the east
area shows a decrease although it has maintained
GWC in its original interval. This means that there is
a possibility that both the east and west areas are still
partially connected. The new geological concept is
shown in Figure 12 which explains there is
possibility of barriers between east and west.
However, this barrier doesn’t separate the east and
west area. Low quality rock can be a barrier between
the areas. This low-quality rock may not block the
reservoir to still connect between the east and west
area.
CONCLUSIONS
The understanding on Kujung-1 interval, which was
previously understood to have connected volume
from west to east area, possibly needs to be revised
based on these results. It will have an impact on
future development projects in this area. New
geological concepts should be applied to re-calculate
OGIP based on the partial connection theory
explained in this paper. Additionally, these results
could help in improving dynamic modeling during
history matching and in the better understanding of
GWC and pressure anomalies in Kujung-1 reservoir
interval.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors thank PETRONAS, SKK Migas &
Ditjen Migas management for their support and
permission to publish this paper.
REFERENCES
Ellis, D., and Singer, J., 2007, Well Logging for
Earth Scientists, second edition, 333–335, 384–395,
Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. DOI:
10.1007/978-1-4020-4602-5
Herron, S.L., and Herron, M.M., 2000, Application
of Nuclear Spectroscopy Logs to the Derivation of
Formation Matrix Density, Paper JJ, Transactions,
SPWLA 41st Annual Logging Symposium, Dallas,
Texas, USA, 4–7 June.
Kusuma, D., Nordin, T., Wijaya, A., Johari, A.,
Ernando, Z., Ismail, .R, Hilman bin., Tanjung, H.
Iglesias, Jorg.G., Dewanda, R., and Piko S.
"Advance Pulsed Neutron Logging – An Optimized
Solution in PMCD Well: Case Study of Oil
Discovery in Indonesia." Paper presented at the
Offshore Technology Conference Asia, Virtual and
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, March 2022. doi:
https://doi.org/10.4043/31506-MS
Mudjiono, R. & Pireno, G.E., 2001, Exploration of
the North Madura Platform, Offshore East Java,
Indonesia. Proceed. Indon. Petrol. Assoc. 28th Ann.
Conv.& Exhib.
Satyana, A.H, 2002, Olio-Miocene Reefs ; East
Java’s Giant Fields : Proceedings Giant Field and
New Exploration Concepts Seminar, IAGI, Jakarta,
Indonesia, 17 October 2002.
Sribudiyani, Muchsin, N., Ruacudu, R., Kunto, T.,
Astono, P., Prasetya, I., Sapiie, B., Asikin, S.,
Harsolumakso, A.H. & Yulihanto, I., 2003, The
Collision of the East Java Microplate and its
Implication for Hydrocarbon Occurrences in the East
Java Basin. Proceed. Indon. Petrol. Assoc., 29th Ann.
Conv. & Exhib.
Figure 1 - Stratigraphy of Kujung Formation.
Figure 2 – Pressure plot and log characteristic of Kujung-1 Interval.
Figure 3 - Depth structure map with connected interpreted reservoir in Kujung-1 reservoir from east along to the west area.
Figure 4 – Acoustic impedance in Kujung-1 interval.
Figure 5 - Data reading from three different pass during PNL run shows good repeatability.
Figure 6 - Fluid Capacitance and pseudo density show that fluid inside tubing was filled by gas.
Figure 7 - Determination of Sigma CH4 at 190 degF & 1400 psi.
Figure 8 - PNL results in X1 well.
Figure 9 - GWC movement in X1 well up to 23 feet.
Figure 10 - GWC movement in X4 well up to 15 feet.
Figure 11 - Stick plot correlation after running PNL and compared with original GWC.
Figure 12 - Schematic illustration from west to east well location that shows both areas partially connected and confirmed by decreasing pressure in east area
although having different current GWC.