SPE 158003

Fresh Water Conundrum in Oil and Gas Reservoirs of Malaysia

Ko Ko Kyi, SPE, and Hazlina Hashim, PETRONAS Carigali Sdn. Bhd.

Copyright 2012, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition held in Perth, Australia, 22–24 October 2012.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract

Positive identification of a water bearing interval is crucial to evaluating hydrocarbon bearing reservoirs in a well. Accurate
estimation of formation water resistivity is also critical for proper computation of reservoir parameters used in hydrocarbon
resource assessment. In reservoirs with high formation water salinity, it is relatively easy to differentiate water bearing zones
from those bearing hydrocarbon. However, when the salinity of formation water is low, close to being fresh water, it becomes
difficult to positively identify a water bearing reservoir, since the formation resistivity is relatively high. In some cases, a
fresh water bearing interval may be misinterpreted as a hydrocarbon zone. In the Malay basin, offshore Malaysia, there are
several reservoirs which contain relatively fresh formation water, making it difficult to evaluate the well logs from these
reservoirs. Furthermore, some of these reservoirs are deep and have low porosity, which in combination with low formation
water salinity, lead to relatively high formation resistivity. In certain reservoirs, there may even be some hydrocarbon shows,
such as an oil stain on cuttings, which may have been due to residual hydrocarbon effects. These often cause confusion and
contention in interpreting the fluid type in these reservoirs. Several case histories are presented in this paper, highlighting the
importance of proper identification of fresh water bearing formation in evaluating well log data. In one of the case histories, a
fresh water bearing interval was misinterpreted as a hydrocarbon zone and tested accordingly, resulting in substantial flow of
formation water with extremely low salinity. In the others, the formations tested had low porosity and permeability, resulting
in very small influx of formation water into the well bore with practically no flow at the surface. Since some of these zones
had hydrocarbon shows and the formation water did not flow to the surface during the tests, there was much contention about
the validity of the well tests and the conclusion on the fluid type. The authors have proposed a “what-if scenario” method,
whereby a synthetic water saturation curve is computed using generic capillary pressure data, assuming that these zones are
hydrocarbon bearing. The resulting water saturation curves are then compared with those computed using the resistivity logs
from these zones. The possible presence of hydrocarbon may then be inferred from the difference between these water
saturation curves.

Introduction

The common petrophysical method of evaluating hydrocarbon bearing reservoirs uses resistivity logs in combination with
porosity logs, such as the bulk density and neutron porosity logs, to identify the possible hydrocarbon bearing zones and the
type of fluid contained therein. This method relies heavily on the positive identification of a water bearing zone, so that the
hydrocarbon bearing interval may be evaluated properly with regards to the type and amount of hydrocarbon present. The
standard procedure is to identify a possible hydrocarbon bearing interval in a well, by looking at the resistivity logs in
combination with porosity logs. The presence of hydrocarbon in a reservoir is usually detected by high resistivity readings in
porous intervals of the reservoir being interpreted. This is usually true in reservoirs containing formation water with high
salinity, since the high resistivity readings reflect the presence of hydrocarbons. However, in reservoirs containing formation
water with low salinity, sometimes as low as fresh water, this method becomes unreliable. When the salinity of formation
water is low, close to being fresh water, it becomes difficult to positively identify a water bearing reservoir, since the
formation resistivity is relatively high due to low conductivity of the formation water. In some cases, a fresh water bearing
interval may be misinterpreted as a hydrocarbon zone. There have been many instances in the oil and gas fields of Malaysia,
where a fresh formation water bearing reservoir has been interpreted as hydrocarbon bearing.
2 SPE 158003

Formation water with low salinity causes two possible problems in petrophysical evaluation, namely missed pay zones due to
lack of resistivity contrast between hydrocarbon and fresh water, and misinterpretation of fresh water bearing zone as a
hydrocarbon bearing one. In the first case, if the formation is hydrocarbon bearing and contains low salinity formation water,
the lack of resistivity contrast between the hydrocarbon bearing interval and the water bearing zone may cause the former to
be misinterpreted as being water bearing. This is especially true when the computed water saturation, based on resistivity
logs, is very high due to the high formation water resistivity Rw value used in the computation. Obviously, this will result in
the pay zone being underestimated of entirely missed. On the other hand, if the formation is entirely water bearing and
contains formation water with very low salinity, it may be misinterpreted as hydrocarbon (oil) bearing due to the relatively
high resistivity seen on the logs. This can possibly result in unnecessary and potentially expensive well tests to confirm the
type of fluids contained in the reservoir

In such cases, another suitable type of well log such as an SP (Spontaneous Potential) log may be used to possibly
differentiate between hydrocarbon and fresh formation water. Since the SP log responds primarily to the contrast in salinities
between the mud filtrate and the formation water, it can help in estimating the salinity of the formation water, thereby
possibly identifying a fresh water bearing formation (Figure 1). Another common method, to identify formations with water
salinity lower than that of the mud filtrate, is the use of a micro-resistivity log in combination with deeper reading resistivity
logs to observe the invasion profile of the formation, which has been invaded by the saline mud filtrate. Both the SP and
micro-resistivity logs can only be recorded in wells which are drilled with water base mud (WBM). Furthermore, these logs
are not available on Logging While Drilling (LWD) tools. Since many of the present day wells are drilled using oil base mud
(OBM) or synthetic oil base mud (SBM), these methods of identifying fresh formation water bearing reservoirs cannot be
used. The Dielectric Log, based on the principle of electromagnetic wave propagation, is claimed to be less sensitive to
changes in formation water salinity. This log has been promoted as being able to differentiate between oil bearing formation
and fresh (low salinity) water bearing formation. Another possibility is the use of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) logs
to distinguish fresh water bearing formations from those bearing oil. Oftentimes, the petrophysicist does not have the benefit
of these modern logs and has to make do with basic logs to evaluate the well. This poses a major challenge in recognizing the
possible presence of formations with low water salinity in the well, especially in previously undrilled or exploratory areas. In
addition to the difficulty of interpreting reservoirs with low formation water salinity, he/she also faces the daunting task of
convincing his/her geoscientist colleagues and superiors that the high resistivity readings seen in the water bearing zones are
caused by the low salinity of the formation water rather than the presence of hydrocarbons. This is indeed a formidable task
and the petrophysicist often ends up at the losing side of the argument. This usually results in extensive formation pressure
testing and sampling activities, sometimes leading to expensive well testing operations.

This paper illustrates the difficulty of evaluating reservoirs having low formation water salinity with several case histories
from the oil and gas fields in Malaysia. In one example, very high resistivity readings were seen over several porous intervals
in the well. There were also two intervals where the resistivity readings were very low, indicative of a typical water bearing
formation. Conventional interpretation, taking the formation water resistivity Rw from these intervals, would have resulted in
low water saturation (hence high hydrocarbon saturation) in the zones having high resistivity readings on the logs. However,
the mud log did not indicate any oil shows or high gas readings over these intervals. The well was drilled with synthetic oil
base mud (SBM). Identification of formation oil stains or differentiating them from SBM-stain can ve difficult when
SBM/OBM is used to drill a well. Although the high resistivity zones were interpreted to be water bearing, it was decided to
take formation pressures and perform fluid identification operations using the wireline formation tester (WFT), as the well
was an exploratory one. The results of the WFT operations proved that the high resistivity intervals were indeed fresh water
bearing, with the resistivity of the recovered water sample being 4.66 ohmm @ 33oC (around 900 ppmNaCl equivalent).

In the second example, an interval with resistivity about 30-40 ohmm with an average porosity of 15% has been interpreted
as a possible oil bearing zone, based on the fact that an oil sample has been obtained with the WFT in an interval above with
similar resistivity and porosity values. An attempt to take a pressure or sample in the targeted zone was not successful.
Although there was no hydrocarbon show on the mud log in this zone, it was decided to conduct a Drill Stem Test over this
interval. The well test resulted in water production of 1000 bbl/day with the produced water salinity around 1800 ppmNaCl
equivalent, proving that the zone contains formation water with low salinity.

In the remaining examples, reservoirs with relatively low porosity and low formation water salinity exhibit similar character
as hydrocarbon bearing formations. Furthermore, there were some oil shows on the mud logs in these wells, leading to
expectations that they may be hydrocarbon bearing. Some of these zones have been tested and did not flow any reservoir
fluids to the surface, even after lifting with nitrogen using coiled-tubing. Since there was no production at surface, the well
tests were considered inconclusive. However, based on Static Gradient Surveys conducted in these well, there was influx of
formation water into the wellbore, although the fluid level did not rise high enough in the well. The salinity measurements
taken on the downhole water samples indicate low salinity values. Therefore, it may be concluded that these reservoirs are
tight and water bearing reservoirs with low formation water salinity.
SPE 158003 3

Background

The occurrences of fresh or low salinity formation waters in Malaysian oil and gas reservoirs have been recognized and
documented before. It has been reported that in the Malay Basin, offshore Peninsular Malaysia, the formation water salinity
can range from as low as 1,000 to 30,000 ppmNaCl equivalent1 (Figures 2 to 4). Generally, the salinity of formation water in
the Malaysian reservoirs decreases with increasing depth, resulting in lower formation water resistivity values in shallower
reservoirs and get higher in the deeper reservoirs. The environment of deposition in the Malay Basin is marine environment.
Therefore, it has been suggested that the fresh water may have encroached into the central portion of the basin at some time
after deposition1. Therefore the sampled aquifer water may have different salinity from that of the irreducible connate
reservoir water1. In addition to the difficulty they pose on fluid identification, these fresh (low salinity) formation water
bearing reservoirs cause underestimation of hydrocarbon resources in reservoirs containing hydrocarbons. Conventional
methods of computing water saturation, based on resistivity logs, require accurate estimation of the formation water
resistivity (Rw) values. An error in the Rw value has a huge impact on the computed water saturation (Sw) and hence the
hydrocarbon saturation Sh. It is never an easy task to accurately estimate the Rw of a fresh water bearing formation, since it
cannot be identified a priori to evaluating the reservoir. Several papers have been published, proposing various methods to
evaluate and overcome this problem of overestimating water saturation in formations with low water salinity or fresh water.

The problem faced in the case studies presented in this paper is differentiating fresh water bearing reservoirs from those
bearing hydrocarbon (specifically oil). Based on mud logs and analogs from other wells, it was suspected that the cases
presented were water bearing. However, the well logs could not definitively confirm that the reservoirs of interest were wet.
There were high resistivity events accompanied by increasing porosity in the subject intervals, exhibiting typical response of
possible hydrocarbon bearing formations. Since the well logs in most of these wells were acquired using LWD (Logging
While Drilling) tools, the SP and micro-resistivity logs were not available. This simple SP log could have helped in
identifying the nature of the formation water. Furthermore, some of the wells were drilled using synthetic base mud, which
also precluded the recording of SP and micro-resistivity logs. Therefore, it was not possible to observe the invasion profile in
the flushed zone, which could have helped in identifying the fresh water bearing formations. As these wells are of
exploratory nature, extra steps such as pressure measurements and formation fluid sampling activities had to be carried out
using the WFT and downhole fluid analyzer instruments. In the case, where the WFT results were not conclusive or not
obtained, Drill Stem Tests were performed to confirm the fluid type and production rates. In most of the wells, where WFT or
well test results were available, it was proven that these wells were fresh water bearing. In two of the wells, there was no
production at the surface and the well test results were deemed inconclusive. However, static gradient surveys indicated that
there was influx of formation fluid into the wellbore and the recovered downhole fluid samples confirmed that fresh or low
salinity formation water was produced into the wells.

Since it is rather difficult to identify the reservoir fluid type in fresh water bearing formations, an evaluation method
independent of resistivity logs has been proposed. A “what if” scenario has been developed to see what the water saturation
Sw profile would look like if the reservoir of interest is indeed oil bearing. A saturation height function (SHF) based on
generic capillary curves, generated using actual capillary pressure data from several core samples, is used to create a water
saturation curve. The SHF is hung at the base of the reservoir (assumed to be the highest Free Water Level) to derive a most
pessimistic water saturation curve. The SHF derived water saturation is then compared with the resistivity based water
saturation curve. From the difference between these two water saturation curves, it can be inferred that the reservoir of
interest is fresh water or hydrocarbon bearing. The methodology used is outlined in the following section.

Lithology and Porosity Derivation

Although the proposed methodology makes use of workflow processes and software programs which have been developed by
PETRONAS Carigali for internal use, similar processes can be implemented using any commercially available petrophysical
software. After making necessary data editing and corrections, the density and neutron logs are used to determine the
lithological composition and subsequently the total porosity of the reservoir, using the in-house Sand-Silt-Clay (SSC) model2.
The lithological components consist of volume of sand (Vsand), volume of silt (Vsilt) and volume of clay (Vclay). Based on the
volumes of these dry rock components, a continuous grain density g curve is generated. This grain density is then used as an
input parameter to compute total porosity  from the corrected bulk density log as follows:

1 = Vsand + Vsilt + Vclay Eqn.1

g = sand*Vsand + silt*Vsilt + clay*Vclay Eqn.2
 = (g – b)/ (g – f) Eqn.3

Where, Vsand = volume of dry sand (decimal fraction)

4 SPE 158003

Vsilt = volume of dry silt (decimal fraction)

Vclay = volume of dry clay (decimal fraction)
porosity (decimal fraction)
g = grain density (gm/cc)
b = bulk density (gm/cc)
f = fluid density (gm/cc)

Permeability Estimation

The formation permeability is then estimated using Choo’s permeability equation3, which has been approximated in the form
as follows:

k = (c*107*6.243)/10(6Vclay+3Vsilt) Eqn.4

Where, k = permeability (md)

 = porosity (decimal fraction)
c = empirical constant
Vclay = volume of dry clay (decimal fraction)
Vsilt = volume of dry silt (decimal fraction)

Water Saturation Computation

Water saturation Sw is computed using Waxman Smits equation using appropriate formation water resistivity Rw values, as
well as by using the Saturation Height Function4 based on generic capillary curves, generated from extensive core data
collected in the Malay Basin based on Skelt-Harrison capillary pressure equation as follows:

 a 2  a3
 
 Pc  a 4 
100  a1.e
SW _ SKELT 
100
Eqn.5

Where a1, a2, a3 and a4 are curve fitting parameters derived as functions of the Rock Quality Index (RQI) of the core plugs
used in the derivation of the SHF equation and have the following relationship. The slope b and offset c are derived for each
parameter a, by crossplotting the “a” values (obtained from actual capillary curves) versus the RQI of each corresponding
core plug, thereby establishing a relationship between a1, a2, a3 and a4 with the RQI of the rock.

an = bn*ln + cn Eqn.6

Pc = (gw – gh).H Eqn.7

Where, k = permeability (md)

 = porosity (decimal fraction)
Pc = capillary pressure (psi)
gw = water pressure gradient (psi/ft)
gh = hydrocarbon pressure gradient (psi/ft)
H = height above the Free Water Level (FWL) in feet.
H = (FWL – Depth) in feet

In the absence of a known Free Water Level (FWL), the saturation height function is hung at the base of the reservoir to
derive a continuous water saturation curve. This SHF derived water saturation is then compared with the one computed from
resistivity logs. The difference in the profiles between these two water saturation curves is then used to infer the fluid type in
the reservoir of interest. The SHF derived water saturation indicates the possible water saturation profile in the reservoir if it
contains oil. The resistivity derived water saturation should be similar or lower than the SHF derived water saturation if the
formation of interest is indeed oil bearing. However, this is still not a foolproof method since the resistivity derived water
saturation depends on the correct Rw value used, which is again dependent on the formation water salinity.
SPE 158003 5

Case Histories

Five case histories are presented to illustrate the problems faced in identifying fresh water bearing reservoirs in the oil and
gas fields offshore Malaysia. The problem is two-fold in a sense that, firstly the fresh water bearing zone must be correctly
identified, and secondly the computed water saturation using resistivity logs must also agree with the interpreted fluid type.
In essence, the indentified fresh water bearing zone should have had water saturation values around 100%. This can only be
achieved if a truly representative formation water resistivity Rw values can be obtained. This can be implemented by taking
representative formation water samples either by wireline formation tester or during a drill stem test. Alternatively, once the
fluid type has been confirmed to be fresh water, an appropriate method such as a Pickett plot can be used to derive the Rw
value across the water bearing interval. This will ensure that the computed Sw values are close to 100% reflecting the nature
of the formation fluid in the reservoir. However, the Rw value selected using such a crossplot method needs to be confirmed
with resistivity measurements on physical samples to remove any doubt on the interpretation of the fluid type in the fresh
water bearing formation.

Case History #1

The exploration well CH-X1 (Figures 5 to 7) was drilled with synthetic oil base mud and Induction Resistivity, Density,
Neutron and Gamma logs were recorded in the 17 ½ inch hole section. The hole was in relatively good condition, although
there were washouts in some of the sand sections, affecting both the density and neutron logs. The resistivity logs were
reading relatively high throughout the interval from 714 to 924mMD. The formation porosity was also reasonably good,
ranging around 18 to 20 p.u. In these intervals, the deepest resistivity AT90 was reading higher than the shallowest resistivity
AT10, indicating that the formation could contain fluids with low conductivity, possibly oil since there was no apparent gas
crossover seen on the neutron and density logs. However, there were no oil shows or high gas readings across these intervals
on the mud log. From 926 to 1000mMD, the resistivity readings decreased indicating that these intervals were probably
saline water bearing. The profile of the resistivity logs had also changed, with the deepest resistivity AT90 now reading lower
than the shallowest resistivity AT10, indicating resistive invasion with oil filtrate from the mud. The resistivity readings then
increased again from 1000mMD onwards. Based on the mud log and analog wells from a nearby field, this section in the well
was interpreted to be fresh formation water (low salinity water) bearing. There are no other logs, such as NMR or dielectric
log available in this section. When a formation water resistivity Rw was estimated from the apparently saline water bearing
interval above 1000mMD was used compute water saturation in the zones with high resistivity, the computed Sw resulted in
very low values, indicating high hydrocarbon saturation in these intervals. Since the well was an exploration well it was
decided to carry out pressure measurements, downhole fluid identification and sampling activities to avoid missing any
possible hydrocarbon zones. Several pressure and downhole fluid identification tests taken at different sands indicated that
these sands were indeed water bearing. The pressure points were generally falling on one pressure trend with a gradient of
0.429psi/ft. However these reservoirs are over-pressured by about 430 psi above the normal hydrostatic pressure trend. The
resistivity of a water sample taken at 874mMD, measured at surface temperature was 4.66 ohmm @ 33oC (salinity around
900 ppmNaCl equivalent). This resistivity value was then extrapolated to bottomhole temperature and used as Rw to calculate
water saturation in the reservoirs of interest. The resulting Sw values are around 100%, which correspond with the interpreted
formation fluids. A water saturation curve based on generic capillary pressure data was computed to see the possible trend of
Sw profile if the sands had been oil bearing.

Case History #2

The exploration well CH-X2 (Figures 8 to 9) was drilled with water base mud and well log data consisting of Resistivity,
Density, Neutron and Gamma Ray logs were recorded using LWD (Logging While Drilling) tools. The interval 3157-
3183mMD in Sand-H, exhibited high resistivity readings, with the highest resistivity around 50 ohmm at 3175mMD. The
porosity was ranging from 15 to18 p.u. An oil sample was recovered using a wireline formation tester in the upper Sand-G,
with similar resistivity and porosity characteristics. An attempt to obtain a fluid sample in this Sand-H was not successful. A
formation water resistivity value Rw derived from a water bearing sand (below the Sand-H), having a salinity of around 8,000
ppmNaCl equivalent was used to estimate the water saturation in Sand-H. The profile of the Sw curve indicated that Sand-H
could be oil bearing, although there was no oil show on the mud log. Since the upper sand with similar characteristics was
proven to be oil bearing, it was decided to carry out a Drill Stem Test in the Sand H over the interval 3157-3184 mMD. The
tested interval produced 1,600 bbl/day of water, with a measured salinity of 1,800 ppmNaCl equivalent. When this salinity
value (equivalent Rw of 0.66 ohmm @ 145oC) is used to recompute the water saturation in Sand-H, the resulting Sw profile
shows that this sand is fresh water bearing. A water saturation curve based on generic capillary pressure curves has also been
plotted to see the possible Sw profile if this sand is actually oil bearing.
6 SPE 158003

Case History #3

An appraisal well CH-A1 (Figures 10 to 11) was drilled using water base mud to further appraise a discovered oil and gas
field offshore Peninsular Malaysia. The profile of the well logs, resistivity and density/neutron logs, indicated distinct
characteristics of gas bearing intervals in the upper sands. However, the resistivity in the water bearing zone was relatively
high, with values around 8 ohmm with good porosity around 20-25 p.u. If this sand were to be evaluated on its own, it could
have been misinterpreted as a possible gas bearing zone. The formation water resistivity Rw value derived from the water
sample taken in that interval is 0.45 ohmm @ 147oC, translating into a salinity of 3,200 ppmNaCl equivalent. Although, it
was relatively straight forward to interpret the Sand-K in identifying the fluids contained therein, it has been illustrated that
the sand contains fresh water (low salinity water) in the reservoirs. A comparison with the water saturation curve derived
from generic capillary pressure data is also plotted to see the match with the resistivity based water saturation curve.

Case History #4

An exploration well CH-X3 (Figures 12 to 13) was drilled with synthetic oil base mud and well logs were acquired using
LWD (Logging While Drilling) tools. The interval 2980-3015mMD in the Sand-L70 had relatively high resistivity readings
with porosity around 12 to 14%. There was some apparent gas crossover in some intervals seen on the neutron and density
logs. Attempts to take pressure tests across this interval were not successful, resulting in tight tests. The interval was
interpreted to be tight water bearing. As the L70 sand was a target reservoir, it was decided to conduct a drill stem test by
perforating 2980-3020mMD interval in this sand. The well did not flow anything, even after lifting with nitrogen using coiled
tubing. A Static Gradient Survey was performed and found that there was a rise in fluid column inside the well, although
there was no production at the surface, indicating that there was an influx of formation fluid into the wellbore. The SGS
survey indicated that the fluid column was water and the downhole fluid sample revealed it to be fresh water. In this case
history, it was a combination of low formation porosity and fresh formation water, which caused the resistivity readings to be
high, rather than the presence of hydrocarbon in the formation. However, since the well did not produce anything at the
surface, the well test was considered to be inconclusive. There is still an ongoing debate on the fluid type in the reservoir.

Case History #5

An appraisal well CH-A2 (Figures 14 to 15) was drilled adjacent to a discovered oil field to appraise the eastern fault block
of the discovery. The target J Sand was found to relatively resistivity around 9 ohmm with an average porosity about 11p.u.
There were oil shows on the mud log over the zone of interest with relatively high gas readings. Since this sand was a major
reservoir in the adjacent field, it was decided to conduct a full drill stem test to confirm the reservoir fluid type and assess
productivity of the well. However, the well did not flow even after lifting with nitrogen using coiled tubing. Although the
tested interval was interpreted to be possibly water bearing, since the well did not flow the well test was considered to be
inconclusive. It is believed that the combination of low permeability and low salinity formation water (formation water)
caused the reservoir to have relatively high resistivity readings. A Static Gradient Survey taken in the well indicated that was
an influx of formation formation water (probably fresh) into the wellbore. The oil shows on the cuttings could have been due
to residual oil, as this reservoir does contain oil in the adjacent fault block. This again illustrates that fresh formation water
can result in the reservoir to be interpreted as hydrocarbon bearing, resulting in costly well testing operations.

Conclusions

 Fresh formation water is present in several oil and gas reservoirs offshore Malaysia, especially in deeper reservoirs.
 Fresh formation water poses a challenge to the evaluation of these reservoirs, especially in the positive identification
of reservoir fluid type and accurate computation of water saturation.
 Positive identification of reservoir fluid types during drilling is crucial for efficient and cost effective operations, so
that unnecessary and costly well testing activities can be avoided.
 Several case histories have been presented to highlight the challenges encountered in evaluating fresh water bearing
formations.
 A method to verify the possible presence of hydrocarbons using a resistivity-independent approach of water
saturation based on generic capillary pressure data has been tested with some success.
 Oil shows or high gas readings on the mud log can sometimes be misleading and should be treated with caution to
avoid unnecessary fluid sampling and well testing operations.
 The occurrence of fresh water in the aquifer can have a significant implication on the estimation of water saturation
in the hydrocarbon bearing zones, especially if the connate water has a higher salinity that the aquifer water.
SPE 158003 7

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to express their gratitude to the management of PETRONAS and PETRONAS Carigali for granting
permission to present this paper. Acknowledgement is also made to colleagues in the Petrophysics Department of
PETRONAS Carigali for providing examples for the case studies presented in this paper.

References

1. Heavysege R. G., Formation Evaluation of Fresh Water Shaly Sands of the Malay Basin, Offshore Malaysia. Paper-
SS, SPWLA 43rd Annual Logging Symposium, 2002.

2. Asari A.H. and Ko Ko Kyi, Sand Silt Clay Petrophysical Model for Evaluating Shaly Sand Reservoirs in the Malay
Basin, SPWLA 2008 South East Asia Regional Technical Conference.

3. Chiew F.C., State of the Art Permeability Determination from Well Logs to Predict Drainage Capillary Water
Saturation in Clastic Rocks, SPWLA 51st Annual Logging Symposium, 2010.

4. Ko Ko Kyi and Asari A.H., Water Saturation from Generic Capillary Pressure Data, the 17th Formation Evaluation
Symposium of Japan, 2011.

5. Skelt, C and Harrison R., 1995, An integrated approach to saturation height analysis: SPWLA 36th Annual Logging
Symposium, paper NNN.

6. Worthington, P.F., Improved Petrophysical Evaluation of Freshwater Hydrocarbon Reservoirs, SPWLA 2008 South
East Asia Regional Technical Conference.

About the authors

Ko Ko Kyi is a Principal Petrophysicist with PETRONAS Carigali Sdn. Bhd. and has over thirty years of experience in the
petroleum and energy industries, having started his career in the oil patch as an engineer with Schlumberger. He has worked
in several countries in various capacities, as a service company personnel, consultant and staff with operating companies. He
has a Bachelor of Engineering degree from the Rangoon Institute of Technology. He is a member of SPWLA and SPE.

Hazlina Hashim is a Petrophysicist with PETRONAS Carigali Sdn. Bhd. She graduated from the University of Western
Australia in 2008, with a B.E. degree in Petroleum Engineering. She joined PETRONAS Carigali Sdn. Bhd. after graduation
and has been working as an Operations Petrophysicist in Malaysia, Mauritania and Australia. She is currently a Reservoir
Evaluation Petrophysicist working on Full Field Reviews and Field Development Plans.
8 SPE 158003

Figure 1. Typical logs from a well offshore Malaysia, with positive SP deflections indicating that the formation
water is fresher (less saline) than the mud filtrate. The SP log is a good hydrocarbon indicator, having a maximum
deflection in the water bearing zone and smaller deflections in the hydrocarbon bearing intervals.

Figure 2. Map of the Central Malay Basin
production fairway with contours of salinity for the
X-Reservoirs. Values as low as 1 Kppm NaCl
equivalent have been analyzes in the Tapis field.
Figure 3. Example of a Stiff diagram for the Central
Malay Basin, with a characteristic peak of HCO3-
typical of fresh water environments. The low
conductivity multiplier (0.3) for conversion to
NaCl equivalent has a large effect at low TDS.

(After Heavysege, SPWLA 43rd Annual Logging Symposium, 2002)

SPE 158003 9

1) >800 bopd from X-25 sand Completely WET!

2) >3000 bopd from X-24/25/30 sands Ro = 5 ohmm

Figure 4. The middle reservoir is an excellent example of low contrast pay. The well on the left produced 800 BOPD
and the well on the right is completely wet in spite of the fact that both zones have approximately 5-6 ohmm.

(After Heavysege, SPWLA 43rd Annual Logging Symposium, 2002)

Figure 5. Pressure plot for well CH-X1, indicating all the pressure points are falling on 0.429psi/ft gradient line
10 SPE 158003

Exploration Well: CH-X1

VSAND
0 V/V 1

VSILT
0 V/V 1

drho VLIME
-0.25 G/C3 0.75 0 V/V 1

BS pe VDOLO
4 IN 24 0 20 0 1

DEPTH CALI AT90 NPHI PHIE SW VCLB

METRES 4 IN 24 0.2 OHMM 200 0.6 V/V 0 0 V/V 0.5 0 V/V 1 0 V/V 1

GR AT10 RHOB PHIT PERM SWTF VCLD

0 GAPI 200 0.2 OHMM 200 1.6 G/C3 2.6 0 V/V 0.5 0.02 MD 20000 0 V/V 1 0 V/V 1

860

870

880

890

900

910

920

930

940

950

960

970

980

990

1000

1010

1020

1030

Figure 6. Interpreted logs using Rw of 0.194 @ BHT, taken from the water sand above 1000mMD.
SPE 158003 11

The high resistivity intervals above 920mMD are being interpreted as oil bearing when this Rw value is used.

Exploration Well: CH-X1

0 V/V 1

VSAND
0 V/V 1

VSILT
0 V/V 1

drho VLIME
-0.25 G/C3 0.75 0 V/V 1

BS pe VDOLO
4 IN 24 0 20 0 1

DEPTH CALI AT90 NPHI PHIE VCLB

METRES 4 IN 24 0.2 OHMM 200 0.6 V/V 0 0 V/V 0.5 0 V/V 1

GR AT10 RHOB PHIT PERM SWTF VCLD

0 GAPI 200 0.2 OHMM 200 1.6 G/C3 2.6 0 V/V 0.5 0.02 MD 20000 0 V/V 1 0 V/V 1

860

870

880

890

900

910

920

930

940

950

960

970

980

990

1000

1010

1020

1030

Figure 7. Interpreted logs using Rw of 4.6 ohmm @ 33oC (900 ppmNaCl equivalent), measured
12 SPE 158003

from the water sample recovered at 874mMD. All the high resistivity intervals are now wet.

Exploration Well: CH-X2

0 V/V 1

VSAND
0 V/V 1

VSILT
0 V/V 1

drho VLIME
-0.25G/C3 0.75 0 V/V 1

bs pe VDOLO
4 IN 24 0 20 0 1

DEPTH CALI RT NPHI PHIE SWSKELT VCLB

METRES 4 IN 24 0.2 OHMM 200 0.45 V/V -0.15 0 V/V 0.5 0 V/V 1 0 V/V 1

GR RS RHOB PHIT PERM SWTF VCLD

0 GAPI 200 0.2 OHMM 200 1.85 G/C3 2.85 0 V/V 0.5 0.2 OHMM 20000 0 V/V 1 0 V/V 1

Sand_F
3060
Bottom
Sand_G

3070

3080

3090

3100

Sand_G Bottom

3110

3120

3130

3140

3150

Sand_H
3160

3170

3180

3190

3200

3210

3220

3230

3240

3250

3260

3270

3280

Figure 8. Interpreted logs with water saturation SWTF computed with Rw of 0.2 ohmm @ 145oC.
Saturation Height Function derived water saturation SWSKELT is shown in RED colour.
High resistivity readings in Sand-H (up to 50 ohmm) indicates possible oil bearing zone.
An oil sample was recovered with WFT in the upper Sand-G with similar log character.
SPE 158003 13

Exploration Well: CH-X2

0 V/V 1

VSAND
0 V/V 1

VSILT
0 V/V 1

drho VLIME
-0.25G/C3 0.75 0 V/V 1

SAMPLING
bs pe VDOLO
4 IN 24 0 20 0 1

DEPTH CALI RT NPHI PHIE VCLB

METRES 4 IN 24 0.2 OHMM 200 0.45 V/V -0.15 0 V/V 0.5 0 V/V 1

GR RS RHOB PHIT PERM SWTF VCLD

0 GAPI 200 0.2 OHMM 200 1.85 G/C3 2.85 0 V/V 0.5 0.2 OHMM 20000 0 V/V 1 0 V/V 1

Sand_F
3060
Bottom
Sand_G

3070

3080

3090

3100

Sand_G Bottom

3110

3120

3130

3140

3150

Sand_H
3160

3170

3180

3190

3200

3210

3220

3230

3240

3250

3260

3270

3280

3290

Figure 9. Interpreted logs with water saturation computed using Rw of 0.66 ohmm @ 145oC.
Interval (3157-3184mMD) was tested and produced 1,600 bbl/day of water with salinity of 1,800 ppmNaCl equivalent.
14 SPE 158003

Appraisal well: CH-A1

0 V/V 1

VSAND
0 V/V 1

VSILT
0 V/V 1

DRHO VLIME
-0.25 G/C3 0.75 0 V/V 1

bs pe VDOLO
4 IN 24 0 20 0 1

DEPTH cali RT NPHI PHIE SWSKELT VCLB

METRES 4 IN 24 0.2 OHMM 200 0.45 V/V -0.15 0 V/V 0.5 0 V/V 1 0 V/V 1

GR rxo RHOB PHIT PERM SWTF VCLD

0 GAPI 200 0.2 OHMM 200 1.85 G/C3 2.85 0 V/V 0.5 0.2 OHMM 20000 0 V/V 1 0 V/V 1

Mid Trengganu seismic marker_A

K-20 mfs_A
2030

2040

2050

2060

2070

2080

2090

2100

2110

2120

2130

2140
Top Lower K

2150

2160

2170

Figure 10. Interpreted logs using Rw value of 0.1 ohmm @ 147oC (15,700 ppmNaCl equivalent),
compared with SWSKELT curve based on generic capillary pressure data.
SPE 158003 15

Appraisal well: CH-A1

VSAND
0 V/V 1

VSILT
0 V/V 1

DRHO VLIME
-0.25 G/C3 0.75 0 V/V 1

bs pe VDOLO
4 IN 24 0 20 0 1

DEPTH cali RT NPHI PHIE VCLB

METRES 4 IN 24 0.2 OHMM 200 0.45 V/V -0.15 0 V/V 0.5 0 V/V 1

GR rxo RHOB PHIT PERM SWTF VCLD

0 GAPI 200 0.2 OHMM 200 1.85 G/C3 2.85 0 V/V 0.5 0.2 OHMM 20000 0 V/V 1 0 V/V 1

Mid Trengganu seismic marker_A

K-20 mfs_A
2030

2040

2050

2060

2070

2080

2090

2100

2110

2120

2130

2140
Top Lower K

2150

2160

2170

Figure 11. Interpreted logs using Rw value of 0.1 ohmm @ 147oC (15,700 ppmNaCl equivalent),
compared with Sw curve based on generic capillary pressure data.
16 SPE 158003

Exploration Well: CH-X3

0 V/V 1

VSAND
0 V/V 1

VSILT
0 V/V 1

HDRA VLIME
-0.25 G/C3 0.75 0 V/V 1

bs pe VDOLO
4 IN 24 0 20 0 1

DEPTH HCAL RT NPHI PHIE SWSKELT VCLB

METRES 4 IN 24 0.2 OHMM 200 0.45 V/V -0.15 0 V/V 0.5 0 V/V 1 0 V/V 1

GR RS RHOB PHIT PERM SWTF VCLD

0 GAPI 200 0.2 OHMM 200 1.85 G/C3 2.85 0 V/V 0.5 0.2 OHMM 200 0 V/V 1 0 V/V 1

2890

2900

2910

2920

2930

2940

2950

2960

2970

2980

2990

3000

3010

3020

3030

3040

Figure 12. The target sand L-70 at 2980-3020mMD has high resistivity readings and small possible gas
crossover. Interpreted logs using Rw of 0.16 ohmm @ 150oC indicates some hydrocarbon.A comparison
has also made with the water saturation SWSKELT derived from generic capillary pressure curves
SPE 158003 17

Exploration Well: CH-X3

VSAND
0 V/V 1

VSILT
0 V/V 1

HDRA VLIME
-0.25 G/C3 0.75 0 V/V 1

bs pe VDOLO
4 IN 24 0 20 0 1

DEPTH HCAL RT NPHI PHIE VCLB

METRES 4 IN 24 0.2 OHMM 200 0.45 V/V -0.15 0 V/V 0.5 0 V/V 1

GR RS RHOB PHIT PERM SWTF VCLD

0 GAPI 200 0.2 OHMM 200 1.85 G/C3 2.85 0 V/V 0.5 0.2 OHMM 200 0 V/V 1 0 V/V 1

2890

2900

2910

2920

2930

2940

2950

2960

2970

2980

2990

3000

3010

3020

3030

3040

Figure 13 Interpreted logs using Rw of 0.35 @ 150oC (4,050 ppmNaCl equivalent)

from botton hole water sample indicated that the target sand L-70 is wet.
18 SPE 158003

Appraisal well CH-A2

Figure 14. The well was drilled to test the target sand J25/30.
Well did not flow even after lifting with nitrogen.
SPE 158003 19

Appraisal well CH-A2

Figure 15. Mud log indicates oil show and high gas reading in the tested interval of J25/30 sands.