Click to edit Master title style

Petrophysical analysis of the reservoir intervals

in Kahi-01 well, Kohat Sub-Basin, Pakistan

NAME: FATIMA BABAR

CLASS: BS-6 (GEOPHYSICS)

1
TABLE OF CONTENT 2
Click to edit Master title style

ABSTRACT 03

ABBREVIATIONS 04

INTRODUCTION 05-06

METHODOLOGY 07-09

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 10-27

CONCLUSIONS 28
2
Abstract 3
Click todeals
 This study editwithMaster titleanalysis
the petrophysical style of the Kahi-01 well in Kahi village in the Kohat Sub-Basin (Upper Indus
Basin) for evaluating the reservoir potential.

 Three formations namely: Lockhart Limestone, Hangu and Lumshiwal Formations have been selected for further
investigation keeping the fact that they have acceptable ranges for porosity, water saturation and shale volume.

 The 36 m thick Lockhart Limestone with dominant limestone content, vuggy and crystalline porosities is appreciated
as a hydrocarbon bearing formation.
 The underlying 50 m thick Hangu Formation with dominant sandstone content shows that the grain size is coarser.
 The underlying Lumshiwal Formation has 75 m thickness and is dominantly represented by fine to coarse grained
sandstone.

 There are three prospective zones identified as; A1, A2, and A3 with comparatively high hydrocarbon saturation and less
shale content having the thickness of 7m, 15m and 22m respectively, in which A3 zone seems more promising.

 Unlike Hangu and Lockhart formations, the Lumshiwal Formation has only few probable zones for hydrocarbon
accumulation, however due to the lesser effective porosity values, the formation is not very promising. 3
Abbreviations
4
Click to edit Master title style

• GRlog = Gamma ray reading at the depth of • Sh = Hydrocarbon saturation

interest • Vbw = Bulk volume of water
• GRmin = Minimum gamma ray reading
• a = Tortuosity factor
• GRmax = Maximum gamma ray reading
• m = Cementation exponent
• ρmatrix = Density of matrix
• n = Saturation exponent
• ρlog = Density reading from the log curve
• A= Gas correction factor
• ρfluid = Density of the fluid
• LLs = Shallow lateral log
• Vsh = Volume of shale
• ILD = Deep-induction log
• Rt = True resistivity
• ILM = medium-induction log
• Sw = Water saturation

4
Introduction
Click to edit Master title style
Fig 1. Map showing
the location of
Kahi-01 well

5
5
 6
Click to edit Master title style
Fig.2 . The stratigraphic
succession exposed within the
Kahi-01 well.

6
Methodology 7
Click to edit Master title style
 The quantitative and qualitative analysis of these properties along with the identification of the reservoir intervals within
Kahi-01 well is achieved by addressing volume of shale, water and hydrocarbon saturation, porosities, water resistivity and
gas effect by suits of wireline logs i.e., self-potential, dual induction focused (ILD & ILM), gamma ray, neutron, density and
resistivity logs for a total depth of 2067 m.

 The neutron porosity (фN), density porosity (фD), total porosity (фT) and effective porosity (PHIE / фE) were calculated
using the following formulae:

1. фN = (1.02 × фN log ) + 0.0425

2. ф density =ρmatrix – ρlog/ ρmatrix- ρfluid

3. фT = ( фD + фN ) / 2

4. фE = фT × (1-Vsh)
7
Cont.
Click to edit Master title style
8

 VOLUME OF SHALE (Vsh)  SATURATION FOR A PORE FLUID (Sw and Sh)

 Gamma ray index (IGR)  Saturation for water (Sw)

 IGR= GRlog – GRmin / GRmax – GRmin

 S = [(a/ ф m) × (Rw/Rt)]1/n
 IGR= Gamma ray index

 Putting value of IGR for calculating Vsh  Saturation for hydrocarbon (Sh)

 Vsh = 0.083 × (23.7×IGR −1) for the tertiary rocks

 Sh = (100 – Sw) %
 Vsh = 0.33 × (22×IGR−1) for older rocks
8
Cont.
Click to edit Master title style
9

 BULK VOLUME OF WATER  The lithology was determined from bulk density
(RHOB) and neutron porosity (NPHI) curves.

 Vbw = ф e × Sw
 The following cut-offs were used to identify 3
intervals for more detailed petrophysical analysis:
 THE GAS EFFECT
 Volume of shale (Vsh) < 35%
 Gas effect =A* фD + (1-A)* фN /A (2)
 Water saturation (Sw) < 70%
 WATER RESISTIVITY (RW)
 Effective porosity (фE) > 7 %
 Rw calculated through SP method is 0.028,
0.027 and 0.025 for Lockhart Limestone, Hangu
Formation and Lumshiwal Formation
respectively.

9
Results and
Click to edit Discussion
Master title style
1
0

IDENTIFICATION OF RESERVOIR INTERVALS

 For identification of a potential reservoir zone in a borehole low GR log values, high effective porosity values and high
neutron porosity values are used.
 The Lockhart Limestone, Hangu Formation and Lumshiwal Formation fulfil the criteria of cut off factor so these formations
were selected to determine petrophysical parameters.

 Table 2. Max and Min log curve values for the various rock units encountered in Kahi-01 well.
10
 Cont.
Click to edit Master title style
PETROPHYSICAL INTERPRETATION OF
LOCKHART LIMESTONE

 Total thickness is 36 m depth range from 1655-

1691 m.

 NPHI and RHOB cross plot showing the

dominant lithology type is limestone.

 Bulk volume of water ranges from 0.024 which

indicates vuggy to crystalline type porosities.

 The overall formation can be considered as

hydrocarbon wet.
Vugular porosity

11
11
 Click to edit Master title style

Table 3. The average values for the total Table 4. The volume of shale in Lockhart
porosity in Lockhart Limestone. Limestone at different

12

12
Click to edit Master title style

 Table 5. Water (Sw) and hydrocarbon (Sh) saturation at different depths for Lockhart Limestone.

 Computer processed logs interpretation of the Lockhart Limestone in the Kahi-01 well. (fig 3) (fig 4)

13

13
Cont.
Click to edit Master title style
14

PETROPHYSICAL INTERPRETATION OF
HANGU FORMATION

 Total thickness is 50 m depth range from

1691-1741 m.

 NPHI and RHOB cross plot showing the

dominant lithology type is sandstone.

 Bulk volume of water ranges from 0.01 to

0.03 which indicates that the grain size within
this formation is dominantly coarse sand.

14
Cont.
15
Click to edit Master title style
 Table 6. Three zones (A1, A2 and A3) marked in Hangu formation.

 Zone A3 is best among zone A1 and A2.

Zone Thickness Depth Effective Total Volume of Hydrocarbon

(m) (m) porosity porosity shale saturation
(фE) (Vsh) (Sw)

A1 7M 1692-1698m 3.4% 5.5% 24.4% 76%

A2 15m 1701-1716 5.5% 6.4% 22.4% 82%

A3 22m 1718-1740 6.8% 9% 8.33% 86%

15
Click to edit Master title style

Table 7. Volume of shale in Hangu Formation Table 8. Total Neutron and Density porosity
at different depth. average values for the Hangu Formation.

16

16
Click to edit Master title style

 Table 9. Water (Sw) & hydrocarbon (Sh) saturation and bulk volume of water values at different
depths for Hangu Formation.

 Computer processed logs interpretation of the Hangu Formation in the Kahi-01 well. (fig 5) (fig 6)
17
17
 Cont.
Click to edit Master title style
18

PETROPHYSICAL INTERPRETATION OF
LUMSHIWAL FORMATION

 Total thickness is 133 m depth range from

1837-1970 m.

 NPHI and RHOB cross plot showing the

dominant lithology type is sandstone and
limestone .

 Bulk volume of water ranges from 0.01 to 0.6

which indicates that the grain size within this
formation is dominantly fine to coarse grain.

18
Cont.
Click to edit Master title style
19

 Table 10. Reservoir zone:

19
 Click to edit Master title style

 Table 11. Volume of shale, effective porosity, bulk volume of water and water saturation values at different
depths for Lumshiwal Formation.

 Computer processed logs interpretation of the Lumshiwal Formation in the Kahi-01 well. (fig 7) (fig 8) (fig 9) 20
20
CONCLUSIONS 2
8
Click to edit Master title style
 The Lockhart Limestone with dominant lithology of limestone with vuggy and crystalline type of porosities having 36m
thickness is considered to be hydrocarbon wet.

 The Hangu Formation dominant lithology of sandstone and the grain size is coarse having thickness of 50m.

 Three zones were identified as A1, A2, and A3 with high hydrocarbon saturation and less shale content having the thickness
of 7m, 15m and 22m respectively, in which A3 zone is more promising than the rest.

 The reservoir zone in Lumshiwal Formation has a thickness of 75m, with dominant lithology of fine to coarse grained
sandstone.

 The prospects as compared to the intervals identified within Lockhart Limestone and Hangu Formation are not much
promising due to the lesser PHIE values, however, with fair amount of hydrocarbon saturation and coarseness of the grain
size of the sandstone suggests it be a significant one.

28
Click to edit Master title style

Thank You

29