See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/254502940

Formation evaluation of fractured basement, Cambay Basin, India

Article in Journal of Geophysics and Engineering · April 2012

DOI: 10.1088/1742-2132/9/2/162

CITATIONS READS

23 7,978

3 authors:

Saurabh Datta Gupta Rima Chatterjee

Indian Institute of Technology (ISM) Dhanbad Indian Institute of Technology (ISM) Dhanbad
16 PUBLICATIONS 175 CITATIONS 112 PUBLICATIONS 1,802 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Mohammad Yusuf Farooqui

Infinity Natural Resources FZC UAE
14 PUBLICATIONS 173 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Rima Chatterjee on 18 July 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Home Search Collections Journals About Contact us My IOPscience

Formation evaluation of fractured basement, Cambay Basin, India

This article has been downloaded from IOPscience. Please scroll down to see the full text article.

2012 J. Geophys. Eng. 9 162

(http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-2140/9/2/162)

View the table of contents for this issue, or go to the journal homepage for more

Download details:
IP Address: 115.118.241.37
The article was downloaded on 08/02/2012 at 01:55

Please note that terms and conditions apply.

IOP PUBLISHING JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICS AND ENGINEERING
J. Geophys. Eng. 9 (2012) 162–175 doi:10.1088/1742-2132/9/2/162

Formation evaluation of fractured

basement, Cambay Basin, India
Saurabh Datta Gupta 1 , Rima Chatterjee 2 and M Y Farooqui 1
1
Gujarat State Petroleum Corporation Limited, Gandhinagar 382011, Gujarat, India
2
Department of Applied Geophysics, Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad 826004, Jharkhand, India
E-mail: saurabhd@gspc.in and rima_c_99@yahoo.com

Received 6 July 2011

Accepted for publication 12 January 2012
Published 6 February 2012
Online at stacks.iop.org/JGE/9/162

Abstract
Unconventional reservoirs such as fractured basalts, shale gas and tight sand are currently
playing an important role in producing a significant amount of hydrocarbon. The Deccan Trap
basaltic rocks form the basement of the Cambay Basin, India, and hold commercially
producible hydrocarbon. In this study two wells drilled through fractured basalts are chosen
for evaluating the lithology, porosity and oil saturation of the reservoir sections. Well logs,
such as gamma ray, high resolution resistivity, litho density, compensated neutron and
elemental capture spectroscopy, have been used in cross-plotting techniques for lithology and
mineral identification. Formation micro imagery log data have been analysed to quantify the
fractures and porosity in the fractured reservoirs for a well in the south Ahmedabad block of
the Cambay Basin. The results of the analysis of two wells are presented and discussed and
they are found to be in good agreement with geological and production data.

Keywords: Cambay Basin, fractured basement, basaltic reservoir

(Some figures may appear in colour only in the online journal)

Introduction Wangjiatun, Changde, Shengping, Xingcheng and Changling

In petroleum exploration and development, formation
evaluation, including porosity, permeability and water
saturation measurements, is a very important stage in reservoir
characterization and hydrocarbon reserve estimation. Oil
has been obtained from many volcanic naturally fractured
reservoirs around the world such as the Jatibarang field in
Indonesia, where production has been obtained from Eocene
and Oligocene lavas, the Jatibonico pool in Cuba, where more
than 1200 wells were drilled in fractured serpentines, the Pina
reservoir in Cuba, where production has been achieved in
Upper and Lower Cretaceous tuffites, the Hilbig pool in Texas,
which produced from Cretaceous palagonites, the McArthur
River field, Cook Inlet in Alaska, which produced oil from
Jurassic tuffites and volcanic sands and the Kora oil field in
New Zealand, which found producible oil in an Upper Miocene
volcanic zone (Aguilera 1995, Bergman et al 1992, Kalan et al
1994). In recent years, a few volcanic gas reservoirs have been
found in the Songliao Basin, north-east China, such as the
reservoirs (Ran et al 2006). The Deccan Trap basalts, laid
down by multiple lava flows during the Paleocene to Upper
Cretaceous, are extensive in the western part of the Cambay
Basin. In recent years, the basaltic basement has become a
proven hydrocarbon producer in some fields such as Padra
and Gamji of the Cambay Basin (Kumar et al 2002, Kumar
2006).
The Cambay Basin, a rich hydrocarbon-producing
province, is a narrow elongated rift extending N–S on the
western margin of India (figure 1). The basin has over 30
years of exploration history. The total area of the basin is
51 000 sq km including 2500 sq km in the shallow water of the
Gulf of Cambay. The entire basin is divided into five tectonic
blocks based on transverse fault systems, namely Narmada and
Jambusar–Broach in the South Cambay Basin and Cambay–
Tarapur, Ahmedabad–Mehsana and Patan–Tharad–Sanchor in
the North Cambay Basin (Biswas 1982, 1987). The study area
containing the two exploratory wells (A#1 and A#2) is located
at the southern part of the Ahmedabad–Mehsana block. The

1742-2132/12/020162+14$33.00 © 2012 Nanjing Geophysical Research Institute Printed in the UK 162


Figure 1. The study area location in the Cambay Basin, India, with distribution well location in the south Ahmedabad–Mehsana block.
basin is filled with Tertiary and Quaternary sediments laid
down on the irregular surface of the Deccan Trap. Exploration
for hydrocarbons in this basin was started by ONGC (Oil and
Natural Gas Corporation Ltd) around 1956. The generalized
stratigraphy of the Cambay Basin (figure 2) exhibits rocks
from Cretaceous to recent. The Deccan basalts constitute the
basement rock for the major part of the Cambay Basin and are
overlain by a thick sedimentary succession of clastic reservoir
rocks and shale barriers including the Cambay shale—the
major source rock and the coal beds. Hydrocarbons are
produced from the entire Tertiary sequence and are mainly
structurally controlled. Important producing zones are located
within Middle Eocene and Oligocene sequences. However, the
presence of oil in late Early Eocene rocks is not uncommon.
Some indications of oil have also been noted in Miocene rocks.
This paper presents the results of an integrated study carried out
to identify and evaluate the hydrocarbon-bearing intervals of
the basaltic basement which are being used as unconventional
reservoirs in this part of the study area.
Formation evaluation of fractured basement, Cambay Basin, India
Methodology for evaluation of basaltic reservoirs
Through fractures and weathering, basaltic basement rocks
form important hydrocarbon reservoirs in a number of oil fields
all over the world (P’an 1982, Landes et al 1960, North 1985).
The development of reservoirs in basaltic rocks is delicate
due to their mineralogy and the way they are affected by
weathering. The fractures in basalts are likely to be filled up by
precipitation released by the leaching of the mafic and Ca-rich
plagioclase present in the basaltic rock. As per core studies
provided by previous authors (Kumar et al 2002, Kumar
2006), Deccan basalts can be classified into three categories:
slightly altered to fresh basalt, moderately altered basalt and
highly altered basalt depending on the degree of alteration.
The moderately altered basalts showing presence of spheroidal
weathering host effective porosity and permeability and are the
probable reservoir rock. In this study fractured and weathered
basalts are the hydrocarbon producing reservoir in wells A#1
and A#2 in the south Ahmedabad block of the Cambay Basin.
The well data in general comprise the following: gamma
163
S D Gupta et al
Figure 2. The generalized stratigraphy of the Cambay Basin (after Banerjee et al (2002) and Kundu et al (1997)).
ray; spontaneous potential (SP); micro spherical focussed log
(MSFL); lateral log deep (LLD), deep resistivity tool; lateral
log shallow (LLS), shallow resistivity tool; formation density
and compensated neutron logs. The logs are first depth matched
with respect to the resistivity log. The raw logs are then
corrected for the environmental effects as mentioned below.
(i) LLD and LLS for borehole effects.
(ii) MSFL for the mud-cake effect.
(iii) Neutron porosity (NPHI) for temperature, pressure,
salinity and borehole effects.
(iv) Density and gamma ray for the borehole size.
164
(v) The hole and bed thickness corrected resistivity log is used
to determine true resistivity (Rt) of the uninvaded zone,
flushed zone resistivity (Rxo) and the invasion diameter.
The gamma ray log is used to determine the lithology
of the reservoir and non-reservoir rocks. Resistivity logs
are analysed for hydrocarbon saturation. Porosity is calculated
by both density and neutron logs. Porosity is obtained from
the density log and then corrected by clay volume and
hydrocarbon fluid content. Water saturation (Sw) is calculated
from the following formulae (Setyowiyoto and Samsuri
2008).
 Formation evaluation of fractured basement, Cambay Basin, India

Figure 3. The processed logs at the reservoir interval of well A#1 in the Cambay Basin.

Determination of porosity:
Shr = 1 − Sxo,
D = (Rhoma − Rhob)/(Rhoma − Rhof ), (1) √
Sxo = 1/Rxo ((Vsh(1−Vsh/2) Rsh) + (Dc1 /aRmf )),
where D is the porosity from the density log (%), Rhoma is where Dc2 is the hydrocarbon fluid corrected porosity (%),
the matrix density, Rhob is the bulk density and Rhof is the Dc1 is the Vsh-corrected porosity (%), Shr is the residual
fluid density. hydrocarbon saturation, Sxo is the water saturation in the flush
Determination of porosity, corrected by Vsh content: zone, Rxo is the water resistivity in the flush zone, Vsh is the
shale volume, Rsh is the resistivity in the shale zone, a is the
Dc1 =  − (Vsh ∗ Dsh), (2)
cementation constant and Rmf is the resistivity of the mud
where Dc1 is the corrected porosity by Vsh (%),  is the filtrate.
porosity (%), Vsh is the shale volume (%) and Dsh is the Determination of water saturation (Sw)/hydrocarbon
log-density-derived porosity in the shale zone (%). saturation (Sh):
√
Determination of porosity, corrected by hydrocarbon fluid Sw = 1/Rt ((Vsh(1−Vsh/2) /Rsh) + (Dc2 /aRw)), (4)
content:
Sh = 1 − Sw, (5)
Dc2 = Dc1 − (1 − 0.1Shr), (3) where Rt is the true resistivity and Rw is the water resistivity.

165
S D Gupta et al

Table 1. Results from the cross-plots and from well logs for well A#1.
Sl no Interval (m) Interpretation
1 1650–1780 This interval is marked by the presence of shale/carbonaceous
shale layers. The resistivity of shale is 2–4  m and that of
carbonaceous shale is 8–20  m.
2 1780–1834 Shale and siltstone with some limestone are reported in this
interval. The resistivity of shales is around 3–4  m and
that of silty layers is 10–20  m. The maximum effective
porosity of the layers is around 10% and water saturation
(Sw) is 100%.
3 1834–1950 This section is mainly basalt/weathered basalt. A few limestone
(calcareous) and laterite layers are also observed. The resistivity
of basalt varies over a wide range (10–100  m). The
computed effective porosity is 5–22%. The average Sw for the
hydrocarbon intervals is ∼50%.
Remarks
The entire interval is not interesting
from a hydrocarbon point of view.
This interval also appears not to be interesting
from a hydrocarbon point of view. However
a few isolated porosity patches have been
noted in between the impermeable layers.
Considering Cambay shale as the source
rock, the depth interval of 1811.5 to 1818 m
has been put to the test.
The following intervals appear to be
hydrocarbon bearing:
1837–1841.5 m,
1849.5–1889.5 m,
1895.5–1921.5 m and 1932–1943 m.

Figure 4. Density versus neutron porosity: the cross-plot colour coded with gamma ray indicates that the interval of 1650–1780 m contains
mostly shales/carbonaceous shales.

166

Figure 5. Density versus neutron porosity: the cross-plot colour coded with gamma ray indicates that the interval 1780–1834 m contains
shales/silty shales.
Interpretation for well A#1
Well A#1 has been drilled down up to the fractured basaltic
formation where oil was encountered in the fractured reservoir.
Well log data for the selected depth intervals from 1650
to 1950 m for well A#1 are shown in figure 3. To
further know the lithology, cross-plots between density and
neutron porosity have been used for three depth intervals,
namely 1652–1780 m 1780–1834 m and 1834–1950 m
(figures 4–6). The lithology interpretations for these depth
intervals are given in table 1.
Interpretation for well A#2
Well A#2 has been drilled in the mid-Cambay Basin and also
reached the fractured basement where hydrocarbon was en-
countered. Potential reservoirs are identified in well A#2 which
is located in the middle of the Cambay Basin. The strati-
graphic sequence encountered in this well is given in table 2.
Formation evaluation of fractured basement, Cambay Basin, India
Similar to the previous interpretation, we have considered
well logs of gamma ray, shallow resistivity, deep resistivity
and flushed zone resistivity, density, neutron porosity, along
with elemental capture spectroscopy (ECS) and photoelectric
factor (PEF) log (figure 7). Figure 7 indicates the presence
of minerals within the reservoir sections. The mineral model
at this depth interval comprises quartz, calcite, coal, pyrite,
siderite, a special mineral (ferruginous oolite) kaolinite, and
montmorilonite. The lithology and well log interpreted results
are provided in table 3. The cross-plots for the depth interval
of 1205–1855 m between density and neutron porosity colour
coded with depth, gamma ray, dry weight of silicon content
and dry weight of iron content are shown in figures 8–11, re-
spectively. The various density–neutron cross-plots shown in
figures 8–11, the ECS log and the cuttings report indicate that
the dominant lithology is shaly sand and shale. The main clay
minerals found from the x-ray powder diffraction (XRD) ex-
periment are kaolinite and montmorilonite. The cuttings report
167
S D Gupta et al

Figure 6. Density versus neutron porosity: the cross-plot colour coded with resistivity indicates that the interval 1834–1950 m contains
weathered basalt and serves as the main fractured reservoir.

Table 2. Stratigraphic sequence encountered in well A#2.

Age Formation (Fm) Depth (m)

Post–Miocene Guj. Alluvium 0–175

Jambusar Fm 175–292
Broach Fm 292–421
Miocene Jhagadia Fm 421–639
Kand Fm 639–871
Babaguru Fm 871–1064
Up. Eocene–Oligocene Tarapur Fm 1064–1142
Lr To Md Eocene Kalol Fm 1142–1249
Lr To Md Eocene Cambay Shale Fm 1249–1736
Dholka Middle Pay (DMP)–member 1441–1475
Paleocene Olpad Fm 1736–1775
Up Cretaceous to Paleocene Deccan Trap 1775–1896

168
 Formation evaluation of fractured basement, Cambay Basin, India

Figure 7. Processed log at the reservoir interval of well A#2 in the Cambay Basin.

169
S D Gupta et al

Table 3. Results from the cross-plots and from well logs for well A#2.
Sl no Interval (m) Observations Remarks
1 1205–1250 The ferruginous oolite is present across this section. Hydrocarbon-bearing zones, but not
The depth interval 1246–1249 m shows a commercially viable.
resistivity of 10  m. Hydrocarbon saturation of
40–60% is observed across this section. Hydrocarbon
saturation of 40–60% is observed at 1208–1214 m.
2 1630–1728 This interval is silty with relatively high clay content Hydrocarbon-bearing zones, but
and is capped by carbonaceous shale. The depth not commercially viable.
interval 1635–1728 m is hydrocarbon bearing with
an average hydrocarbon saturation of 30%. Effective
porosities are low in the range of 8–10%. The depth
interval 1662–1686 m is relatively cleaner with
a slight increase in effective porosity which is in the
range of 12–13%.
3 1736–1775 The main hydrocarbon-bearing zone lies between The hydrocarbon-bearing zone from 1761.8–1775 m
1761.8 and 1775 m. A hydrocarbon saturation of is commercially viable. The average
60–80% is observed in this interval. The effective oil flow rate is 150 m3 d−1 and the
porosity is approximately 25%. Minor hydrocarbon average gas flow rate is 3300 m3 d−1.
saturation of 10–20% is observed between 1740 and The other zones are not
1745 m and between 1748 and 1761 m. commercially viable.
4 1802–1850 The main hydrocarbon-bearing zone Viscous oil of 2 m3 d−1
lies between 1804 and 1825 m. is observed. Testing is ongoing.
A hydrocarbon saturation of 60–80% is
observed in this interval. The effective
porosity ranges from 10% to 12%.
The depth intervals of 1838–1840 m and 1845–1850.5 m
show hydrocarbon saturation of 20–40%.
The effective porosity for the depth intervals
of 1838–1840 m and 1845–1850.5 m
range from 20% to 22%.

Figure 8. Density (RHOZ)–neutron porosity (TNPH) cross-plot with colour-coded depth.

170
 Formation evaluation of fractured basement, Cambay Basin, India

Figure 9. Density (RHOZ)–neutron porosity (TNPH) cross-plot with colour-coded gamma ray response.

Figure 10. Density (RHOZ)–neutron porosity (TNPH) cross-plot with colour-coded dry weight silicon percentage from the ECS tool.
171
S D Gupta et al
Figure 11. Density (RHOZ)–neutron porosity (TNPH) cross-plot with colour-coded dry weight iron percentage from the ECS tool.
also indicates the presence of ferruginous oolites for certain
intervals in the Kalol formation.
Fracture identification from the FMI log
Reservoirs have been identified in fractured basalts along with
the presence of other minerals for two wells in the study
area. The foregoing logs are incapable of indicating fractures
in this reservoir. To identify the fractures in the identified
reservoir of well A#2, a formation micro imagery (FMI) log
has been chosen for the selected depth interval 1761.5 to
1824.5 m and is shown in figure 12(a). Recent studies of
fractured reservoir indicate that the performance of fractured
reservoirs is controlled by the in situ state of stress and by
the distribution and orientation of natural fractures and faults.
Local variations in effective stress can significantly impact
on reservoir production (Tezuka et al 2002). Fluids prefer
to flow along fractures that are orientated parallel to the
maximum in situ horizontal stress direction (Rogers 2003).
The fracture orientation direction (NE–SW) matches well with
the regional maximum horizontal stress direction (Farooqui
et al 2011). Four types of fractures are identified in these
Deccan basalts: (a) conductive, (b) partially conductive,
(c) resistive and (d) drilling-induced fractures. Well A#2
encounters various facies, namely vesicular basement with
fractures, volcaniclastics, vesicular basement, fractured
basement and weathered basement. The most dominant facies
in this well is the fractured basement with lots of conductive
172
and resistive fractures. A detailed facies description is shown
in figure 12(b). These fractures enhance the porosity in this
fractured basement reservoir. The fracture porosity is defined
as the percentage of the borehole wall which is represented by
the fracture. This porosity is derived from the fracture aperture,
trace length and the borehole coverage of the images. It is noted
that the fracture porosity value is applied only to the facture
void space not the matrix porosity. A summary of the detailed
fracture properties of well A#2 is mentioned in table 4. The
depth interval 1762–1767 m containing conductive fractures
produces more hydrocarbons than the weathered basaltic depth
interval 1767–1774 m for which the FMI log has not indicated
any fractures.
Discussion
This paper describes the utilization of recent logging
techniques to successfully characterize the volcanic fractured
reservoirs in the Cambay Basin. Well data from the
south Ahmedabad–Mehsana block highlight the formation
evaluation from oil-bearing fractured reservoir combining
conventional logging measurement with FMI, PEF and
ECS logs. The reservoir consists mainly of fractured and
weathered basalt. The ECS tool provides a continuous
lithology description. Three main facies, namely vesicular
basalt, nonvesicular basalt and volcanicalstic rocks, have been
identified previously from the FMI log and hand specimens
of basalt from this block of the Cambay Basin (Farooqui
 Formation evaluation of fractured basement, Cambay Basin, India

(a)

(b)

Figure 12. (a) FMI log of well A#2 in the Cambay Basin indicating four types of fractures and (b) the analysis of the FMI log in relation to
hydrocarbon production.

173
S D Gupta et al
Table 4. Fracture property analysis for well A#2. Fracture porosity = width × trace length × 1/coverage.
Well Fracture density (m−1) Fracture aperture (mm)
A#2 Low fracture density. The maximum fracture Medium fracture aperture. In the perforated
density in the perforated section zone (1762–1774 m) it is 0.3 mm.
(1762–1774 m) is 7.
The maximum value in the study well is 10. The maximum value in the study well
is 5 mm (1845–1856 m).
et al 2009). The target section in well A#2 shows a variety
of facies along with different sets of fractures, including
conductive as well as resistive fractures. Textural information
from the FMI log provides the basis for distinguishing rock
types and correlating with that from other wells. The PEF
log gives additional information to complete the lithology
classification. The presence of open fractures and vesicles
(figure 12) creates a good quality reservoir with a dual porosity
system (fracture porosity of 1.18%) and a fracture network
enhances permeability. The orientation of conductive fractures
towards the NE–SW direction can play a major role as fluid
conduits and a detailed analysis to determine the orientation
of the fractures is of utmost importance. Clay usually consists
of one (or more) of the following minerals: chlorite, illite,
kaolinite and smectite. In contrast to sand, these materials
are electrically conductive and resistivity will be lowered
relative to the ‘clean sand’ value and thereby give rise to a
pessimistic Sw (Archie). The presence of clay will also affect
the porosity determination, and the composite correction for
effects on both porosity and saturation. The corrected porosity
has been used in reservoir sand in different intervals. The low-
permeability structure and the response to overburden stress
have a strong impact on the low-permeability structure and
the relative permeability relationships. In low-permeability
reservoirs there can be a broad range of water saturations
in which neither gas nor water can flow. In some very low-
permeability reservoirs, there is virtually no mobile water
phase even at very high water saturations (Gonfalini 2005).
In this kind of reservoir the following analysis will reduce the
risk for hydrocarbon exploration.
(1) Strong diagenetic effects and clay filling by chlorite and
illite need to be studied by means of ad hoc petrophysical
models and specialized lithology logs.
(2) Low resistivity contrasts affect water saturation
evaluation.
(3) Good total porosity determination using density, neutron
and sonic.
(4) NMR logging: good  estimation, poor K estimation.
(5) Extensive laboratory analysis of the Archie parameters
(especially n) is required.
The study has been conducted only in the fractured
basement, considering the two wells which are producing
hydrocarbon. The main depth intervals which are producing
hydrocarbon are all located in the fractured basement.
Conclusions
The fractured basaltic basement in the south Ahmedabad–
Mehsana block of the Cambay Basin is acting as a reservoir
174
Fracture porosity (%)
Low fracture porosity. In the perforated
zone (1762–1774 m) it is 0.05–0.13%.
The maximum value in the study well
is 0.2–1.18% (1845–1856 m).
rock and shale/silty shale is acting as cap rock. In this
fractured basaltic reservoir, the density ranges from 2.4 to
2.6 gm cc−1 and the neutron porosity log indicates a porosity
of 20%. The resistivity varies from 25 to 30  m and the PEF
log shows a value of 6 in these two wells. Good self potential
has been developed for this reservoir. It is possible to estimate
porosity and saturation through well logs using conventional
empirical relationships. The cross-plots and ECS tool provide
the mineralogical composition of the reservoir in well A#2.
The main hydrocarbon zones are in the intervals 1834–1950 m
in well A#1 and 1761.8–1774.5 m in well A#2. The FMI log
clearly indicates the fractures in the basaltic basement and the
fracture porosity which in turn serve as a good hydrocarbon-
producing reservoir. The results are also found to be in good
agreement with well test data.
Acknowledgments
We gratefully acknowledge the Gujarat State Petroleum
Corporation Ltd, Gandhinagar, regarding the various data
support and analysis. We also acknowledge M/s Schlumberger
and HLS Asia Ltd for their detailed study in this area.
References
Aguilera R 1995 Naturally Fractured Reservoirs 2nd edn (Tulsa,
OK: PennWell) p 521
Banerjee A, Pahari S, Jha M, Sinha A K, Jain A K, Kumar N,
Thomas N J, Misra K N and Chandra K 2002 The effective
source rocks in the Cambay Basin, India AAPG Bull. 86
433–56
Bergman S, Talbot J P and Thompson P R 1992 The Kora Miocene
submarine andesite stratovolcano hydrocarbon reservoir,
Northern Taranaki Basin, New Zealand New Zealand Oil
Exploration Proc. pp 178–206
Biswas S K 1982 Rift basins in the western margin of India and
their hydrocarbon prospects AAPG Bull. 66 1497–513
Biswas S K 1987 Regional tectonic framework, structure, evolution
of the western marginal basins of India Tectonophysics
135 307–27
Farooqui M Y et al 2009 Evaluating volcanic reservoirs Oilfield Rev.
21 36–47
Farooqui M Y et al 2011 Integrated subsurface analysis for
conceptual geological model development of basement, Ingoli
field, Cambay Basin, India Int. Petroleum Technology Conf.
(Bangkok, Thailand, 7–9 February 2012) Paper no
IPTC-14802-PP
Gonfalini M 2005 Formation evaluation challenges in
unconventional tight hydrocarbon reservoirs SPE Italian
Section slide#15 and 25
Kalan T, Sitorus H P and Eman M 1994 Jatibarang field, geologic
study of volcanic reservoir for horizontal well proposal 23rd
Annu. Convention Proc. Indonesian Petroleum Association
(Indonesia, October) pp 230–1

Kumar A 2006 Formation evaluation of unconventional basaltic
Deccan Trap basement reservoir of Gamij field, Cambay Basin
India 6th Int. Conf. and Exposition on Petroleum Geophysics
Organized by Society of Petroleum Geophysicist, India
pp 534–8
Kumar A, Narayan J P, Pabla S S, Mahanti S and Lakhera S 2004
Formation Evaluation of Kalol, Chhatral, Olpad and Deccan
Basement Reservoirs of Gamij Field, Cambay Basin (Dehra
Dun: ONGC, KDMIPE)
Kumar A, Pendkar N and Sangeeta 2002 Delineation and
evaluation of basaltic Deccan basement reservoir of Padra field,
Cambay Basin, India—a field study SPWLA 43rd Symp.
Paper AA
Kundu J, Prakash A and Prasad B 1997 Structural framework and
distribution of synrift depocentres in Cambay rift basin,
western India AAPG Bull. 81 1392–3
Landes K K, Amoruso J J, Charlesworth L J, Heany F
and Lesperance P J 1960 Petroleum resources in basement
rocks AAPG Bull. 44 1682–91
North F K 1985 Petroleum Geology (Boston: Allen and Unwin)
p 607
View publication stats
Formation evaluation of fractured basement, Cambay Basin, India
P’an C H 1982 Petroleum in basement rocks AAPG Bull.
66 1597–643
Pendkar N and Kumar A 1999 Delineation of reservoir section in
Deccan Trap basement, example from Padra field, Cambay
Basin ONGC Bull. 36 83–8
Ran Q, Yuan S, Xu Z and Wang Y 2006 Reservoir characterization
of fractured volcanic gas reservoir in deep zone Int. Oil and
Gas Conf. and Exhibition in China (Beijing, China, 5–7
December) Paper no 104441-MS
Rogers S F 2003 Critical Stress-Related Permeability in
Fractured Rocks vol 209 (London: Geological Society of
London) pp 7–16 Special publications
Setyowiyoto J and Samsuri A 2008 Formation evaluation:
correlation between clay volume and porosity based on well
logging data Scientific Conf. 3rd—Universiti Kebangsaan
Malaysia (UKM) (Bangi, Malaysia)
Tezuka K, Namikawa T, Tamagawa T, Lewis A and Barton C 2002
Roles of the fracture system and state of stress for gas
production from the basement reservoir in Hokkaido, Japan
SPE Gas Technology Symp. (Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 30
April–2 May) Paper no SPE 75704
175