Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
GENERAL
The Ramos Field is located in the thrusted and folded belt of the Subandean System of Northwestern
Argentina and Southern Bolivia. It consists in a NNE-SSW trending anticline structure of large longitudinal
extension, which may be observed in the attached images. Fig. 1 show Ramos Field located in Northwestern
Argentina thrust and fold belt.
In this basin, which was interpreted as a foreland basin (Uliana, Legarreta et al. 1999), Early SilurianJurassic sediments deposited overlying a Cambrian-Ordovician basement (Starck 1999).
Stratigraphy
The Silurian-Devonian sediment cycle in the stratigraphic column (Fig. 2) is the most important one from the
petroleum point of view, since it contains the source rock and major reservoirs, consisting in the gas-andcondensate bearing fractured quartzites of the Huamampampa, Icla and Santa Rosa formations, mentioned
in increasing order of importance. These rocks underlie the Carbonic sediments represented in the Ramos
Field by the oil-bearing Tupambi and Tarija Formations. These formations were exploited at the beginning
of the 20th century, but turned out to be of no commercial interest.
The main Formations of the stratigraphic column penetrated by Ramos wells are described below:
Kirusillas Lipeon Fms.: predominantly Silurian shales, with hydrocarbon source rock characteristics,
currently in the gas window (Cruz et al. 2001). It remains undrilled within the field area.
Santa Rosa Fm.: predominantly psammitic rocks of the Lower Devonian, which forms a thicking-up and
normal grading bed sequence. It has been reached by a total of 6 wells, two of which are currently productive.
Ramos Area
- Well tests
- Borehole images and other logs
- Structural model in use
- Structural position
- Bedding inclination
- Fracture sets attitude.
- In-situ stress model.
Model Adjustment to actual
data:
- Image logs
- Wellsite interpretation.
- Fracture orientation rose plots
- Well path trajectory
modification.
Development of a reservoir
model to be used in reservoir
characterization.
The authors believe the resistivity image by itself is optimistic in the number of open fractures it detects.
When compared to travel time, some conductive fractures observed in the resistivity image may have little
or no expression on travel time, and they should consequently be interpreted as partially open or closed
fractures. Even when travel time is a lower quality image, it may be greatly useful to characterize fractures.
On the other hand, the electrical image makes it possible to confirm the continuity of the fractures detected
on the borehole wall by the CBIL, within the formation.
Another feature of this reservoir is the existence of large fractures. Fig. 5 shows an example of these
fractures which are confirmed by the acoustic log (MAC) full waveform attenuations. Even when Stoneley
wave permeability indexes were also computed, the examination of the full waveform raw data was also very
useful.
From the borehole breakout analysis, the minimum horizontal stress direction was determined at five vertical
borehole sections from 151 to N-S azimuth, and is consistently with a WSW stress, probably related to the
present-day Nazca plate thrust.
FRACTURE ANALYSIS
The relationship between the fractures and the structure must be considered to properly understand the
reservoir.
CASE STUDIES
There follow three case studies showing the application of the above described methodology and the way
borehole-image-based fracture interpretations were used to optimize well path trajectory. The structural
map on Fig. 8 shows well locations and cross-sections.
Fig. 8: Structural map at the top of Huamampampa Fm., the main Ramos Field reservoir, with the location
of each cross section.
Huamampampa Formation: Well R-1010
To better understand the text, refer to Fig. 8 (Structural Map), Fig. 9 (Cross-section and Plain View) and
the different runs presented on Figs. 11a and 11b (Rose Plots).
Fig. 9: Well R.-1010 structural cross-section with west and east branches, and fracture
distribution rose diagrams along the well path.
A bilateral wellbore was projected for the Huamampampa
Fm. in well R-1010. With the purpose of determining the
direction of both branches, a pilot well was drilled in the
western limb of the structure, near the crest.
Fig. 10 presents and acoustic image of the pilot well. Open
fractures detected are Type II, being the East and West
directions the most suitable directions to drill the sidetracks.
Following the drilling chronology, run #4 was drilled in an
initial NW direction, and after 653 meters a CBIL was
logged. Compared to the pilot well, a relative increase in
Type I fracture is observed in this run (4.2% vs. 37.3%); this
was logical since on the anticline western limb, from an
initial position near the axis drilling directed to the limb (see
Fig. 13a).
It must be remembered that Type I fractures are more
frequent on limbs.
Considering drilling would continue towards the western
limb, an increase of Type I fractures and a reduction of Type
II fractures were expected. For this reason, drilling direction
was changed NNW so as to reach as many fractures as
possible, and 305 meters of horizontal drilling were
completed.
Western Limb
WNW
ESE
Run #5
Run #4
Type I
25 %
14 %
8%
6%
Fractures Nr 1 (4.2%)
38 %
Fractures Nr 74 (87.1 %)
3%
Fractures Nr 11 (12.9 %)
Type II
38 %
Pilot Well
14 %
25 %
Fractures Nr 23 (95.8%)
Fig. 11a: Rose diagrams with fracture distribution in R.-1010 west branch. The figure shows Type I
fractures in red and Type II fractures in green, depending on the structure location along the well path for
each logging run. All Open fractures are printed in blue.
Axial
Zone
Eastern
Limb
WNW
ESE
Run #6
25 %
7%
8%
5%
Fractures Nr 5 (8.8%)
15 %
Fractures Nr 26 (54.2%)
No
Type II
Fractures Nr 1 (4.2%)
17 %
Fr
ac
tu
re
s
5%
Op
en
Type I
di
ffe
re
nt
iat
ed
Pilot Well
25 %
Fractures Nr 23 (95.8%)
19 %
Fractures Nr 52 (91.2%)
17 %
Fractures Nr 22 (45.8%)
Fig. 11b: Rose diagrams with fracture distribution in R.-1010 East branch.
Well R-1003
To better understand the text, refer to Fig. 12 (Cross-section & Plain View) and the different runs on Fig.
13 (Rose Plots).
Well R-1003 was drilled on the eastern limb of the structure. Runs #4 and #5 subvertically tested the Icla
Fm. and the top of Santa Rosa Fm. as a pilot well.
A sidetrack (run #6) was initiated in the Icla Fm in a WSW direction up to Santa Rosa Fm at a 64
inclination. Drilling continues through the Santa Rosa Fm in the same direction with a horizontal well (run
#7) across the axial plane and part of the anticline western limb.
After drilling each section, an image was logged and interpreted to monitors the evolution of fracture
distribution.
The fracture distribution analysis reveals that Type I fractures are abundant (70%) in the pilot well, and
decrease relatively in number towards the structure axis: 67.6% in run #6, 43.7% in run #7, still on the
eastern limb (near the axial zone), and 48.6% on the axial zone.
Finally, in run #7 section, which tests the western limb, the number of Type I fractures remarkably
increases representing 77% of the total number of open/partially open fractures.
Fig. 12: Structural cross section with well path for R.-1003 well, with the horizontal branch in Santa
Rosa Fm. The figure shows the rose diagrams for fracture distribution along the well path.
Axial
Zone
Western
Limb
Eastern Limb
WSW
ENE
Run #7
17 %
Type I
17 %
Type II
5%
13 %
Fractures Nr 49(43.7%)
9%
Fractures Nr 54 (51.4%)
13 %
Fractures Nr 63 (56.3%)
9%
15 %
Fractures Nr 46 (67.6%)
15 %
16 %
Pilot Well
13 %
Fractures Nr 51 (48.6%)
16 %
Fractures Nr 34 (23 %)
Run #6
9%
Fractures Nr 98 (70%)
12 %
Fractures Nr 22 (32.4%)
8%
Fractures Nr 42 (30%)
Figure 14: Structural cross-section with R.-1011 well path. The figure shows the rose diagrams for fracture
distribution along the well path.
Run #4 drilled the Icla Fm. and the Santa Rosa Fm. upper section, on the structure limb, in a WNW
direction. Type I fractures clearly prevail over Type II fractures (70.6% versus 29.4%).
In run #5, the hole was gradually NW deviated because of the number of Type I fractures encountered in
the previous run. However CBIL analysis reveals at this section a gradual increase of Type II fractures.
The last section (run #6) of the drilled hole and the subsequent analysis of its image confirmed this trend.
The analysis of the different sections of hole shows that as we move from a limb location (run #4) to a
location nearer the structure axis (run #6), the number of Type II fractures (29.4%, 41.5% y 79.7%)
gradually increases over Type I fractures.
The comparison of wells R-1011 and R-1003 interestingly reveals some similarities with reference to their
drilling trajectory. R-1011, in its closest position to the structure axis (run #6) shows a clear predominance
of Type II fractures (79.7%).
In the case of R-1003 (run #7), the percentage of Type II fractures in the same structural position reaches
56.3%, and 51.4% in the axial zone.
The relatively greater number of Type II fractures (in theory, more numerous in the axial zone) in R-1011
is presumably due to the fact that it is near the structure culmination (maximum curvature), whereas R1003, which is more towards the North, is located on the plunge.
Axis Direction
Eastern Limb
WNW
ESE
Run #6
Run #5
14 %
Type I
5%
Fractures Nr 41 (20.3 %)
14 %
11 %
Type II
Run #4
15 %
11 %
Fractures Nr 83 (58.5%)
7%
Fractures Nr 59 (41.5%)
15 %
6%
Fractures Nr 96 (29.4%)
Figure 15: R-1011 Rose plots with fracture distribution showing all open fractures in blue, Type I fractures
in red and Type II fractures in green, related to structure location along the well path for each logging run.
CONCLUSIONS
Borehole image logs proved to be the main logging tool to drill wells directionally. The combination of
resistivity images with acoustic images is considered to be optimum. However, whenever the operation
restricted logging to one image, CBIL was preferred.
The full wave acoustic log (MAC) verified fractured zones and provided fracture permeability indexes, but
did not replace borehole imaging because the proposed methodology is based on the knowledge on fracture
orientations.
In general terms, the paradigm that Type I fractures are more frequent on anticline limbs and Type II
fractures on the axial zone was confirmed throughout the study. However, as some exceptions and
variations have been encountered, it should not be taken as law. This is where the validity of this method
lies -the evolution of the different sets of fractures is monitored while drilling the successive sections of a
wellbore.
Whenever horizontal drilling was planned, the information provided by the pilot well with reference to
image interpretation was crucial to determine the direction of the branch.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author thank to PLUSPETROL S.A. and BAKER ATLAS for permission to publish the paper.