SPWLA 57th Annual Logging Symposium, June 25-29, 2016

ADVANCED LOG INTERPRETATION IN FIELD DEVELOPMENT

Richard Merkel, Denver Petrophysics; and Margaret Lessenger, Rimrock Petrophysics and Analytics
Copyright 2016, held jointly by the Society of Petrophysicists and Well Log
Analysts (SPWLA) and the submitting authors.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPWLA 57th Annual Logging
Symposium held in Reykjavik, Iceland June 25-29, 2016.

wells and intervals should be converted from producer

to injector. Examples show the log response, analysis,
and results in many of the independent and/or isolated
producing sands in Monument Butte, and how RFT
down hole pressure measurements and core analysis
aided and verified the interpretation.

ABSTRACT
Historically, as reservoirs have gone from an
exploration stage into development, operators reduce
costs by significantly reducing the amount of logging
data obtained at new drill locations. Many development
wells are logged only with cased-hole tools. The
authors were involved in a project in the Monument
Butte field in the Uinta Basin (Utah, USA), to evaluate
the potential of reducing well spacing from 20 acres to
10 acres in a field where a secondary water flood has
been in effect for a number of years. Water injection is
co-mingled in highly discontinuous sand intervals in
more than 25 stratigraphic units. Advanced dielectric
logging in addition to NMR and triple combo logs
proved beneficial for field development.

INTRODUCTION
The Uinta Basin is approximately 120 miles long and
100 miles wide and is situated in eastern Utah, USA.
Details of the Basin and the Monument Butte Field are
explained in Ramakrishna et al (2012) and Lessenger et
al (2013). The formations examined in this study are
lacustrine sands within the Eocene Green River
formation. The basin depositional environment created
numerous sand bodies, most of which are discontinuous
between well locations. Water flooding was started
many years ago to increase oil recovery by sweeping
the reservoirs and to maintain reservoir pressure. After
reduced spacing of the vertical wells from 20 acres to
10 acres was approved, a logging program for the infill
wells was designed to better understand the nature and
efficiency of the waterflood.

The initial objective of our project was to test if

dielectric logs could identify where the low salinity
water flood breakthrough occurred. Since dielectric log
interpretation gives bulk volume water (BVW)
somewhat independent of water salinity, we hoped to
identify sands with breakthrough of low-salinity
injection water. Reservoir sands are highly
discontinuous and waterflood injection maturity highly
variable. We hoped to identify zones of water
breakthrough for improved field development. If
identified, completions engineers could avoid these
zones when completing the infill producing well. We
designed an initial testing program using dielectric,
NMR, and triple combo data combined with rotary
sidewall core and RFT measurements.

The salinity of the injected water was (is) quite low

(<12,000 ppm), which led us to use dielectric and NMR
logs in the infill wells because both tool types measure
water volume somewhat independent of water salinity.
Flood water breakthrough had been observed between
injectors and producers only along fracture systems and
was relatively instantaneous. As a result, oil sweep
efficiency of the sand matrix was not known.
Along with the infill logging program, rotary sidewall
cores were taken in intervals selected using the open
hole logs to characterize mineralogy, porosity,
permeability, saturation, NMR T2 and T1 distribution,
and fluid sensitivity. A thorough analysis of these data
can be found in Lessenger et al (2015). In selected
wells reservoir pressures were measured through a
downhole RFT tool. These pressures were then used to
better understand and confirm the log and core
measurements.

The additional logging, core, and pressure data on infill

wells partially met the original objectives, but also were
used to determine pay interval; 1) wettability, 2)
relative permeability, 3) saturation, and 4) reservoir
pressure (depleted, native state, and water flood over
pressure). The log and core measurements also were
instructive in determining clay bound water parameters
including volume, Archie m, and salinity. These results
narrowed which shaly sand models could be used in the
field. Each of these factors provided input in the
completion of the infill oil producers, as well as which

To summarize, the infill well logging program had two

components.
For all wells:
1

SPWLA 57th Annual Logging Symposium, June 25-29, 2016

Triple combo with laterolog/MSFL

Dielectric log
Spectral gamma for clay typing
For selected wells:
NMR with continuous T1, T2, and diffusion
for fluid typing
Rotary sidewall core
Electric imaging for fracture orientation and
frequency
RFT pressure measurements
Dipole sonic for rock mechanics and formation
anisotropy
DIELECTRIC MODEL
In this study, we used the CRIM dielectric inversion
model as described in Bittar et al (2010) and
Ramakrishna et al (2012). This model requires
knowledge of mineral volumes, the dielectric constants
of each mineral, and the dielectric constant of the water
affected by the EM field. The real and imaginary
components of the 1.0 GHz signal as a function of
temperature and salinity are show in Figures 1 and 2
respectively (Quirein 2013). Water dielectric constant
used in the modeling is the vector sum of the real and
imaginary components.

Figure 2; Imaginary water dielectric constant for

variations in salinity and temperature.
Because of the mixed wettability of the Green River
sands, formation resistivity varies between 1.0 ohmm
and over 20,000 ohmm (5 orders of magnitude). This
variation and high resistivity requires a laterolog tool to
characterize the sands and carbonates. Figure 3 gives an
example log in the lower Green River showing the
resistivity variation. It was observed in some of the
thicker sands that upper portion of the sand appeared oil
wet (Rt > 2,000 ohmm and n > 2.5) and the lower
portion mixed wet (Rt < 500 ohmm and n < 2.1).

Figure 1; Real water dielectric constant for variations in

salinity and temperature.

SPWLA 57th Annual Logging Symposium, June 25-29, 2016

is dictated by the source to detector spacing. For

example, at 1.0 GHz, the skin depth (hence depth of
investigation) of the dielectric tool is less than 2.0
inches for a formation resistivity less than 100 ohmm.
Similarly, at 100 ohmm and a frequency of 30 MHz, the
depth of investigation of a logging tool is dictated by
the tool geometry and is less than the 11.4 inch skin
depth. This figure shows that by choosing a dielectric
frequency of 1.0 GHz for this study, it gives the depth
of investigation most similar to the MSFL over the
wide range of formation resistivity in the Lower Green
River formations (shown in Figure 3). This is
important since the MSFL is used in combination with
the dielectric tool for electrical parameter and properties
modeling.

Figure 3: Typical Lower Green River log suite

measurements.
Electromagnetic radiation traveling in a conductive
media has a predictable depth if investigation known as
the skin depth. This skin depth is a function of the EM
frequency, and the electrical and magnetic properties of
the conductor. Skin depth () is defined as the depth at
which the current density falls to 1/e of the value near
the surface. This means the 63% of the current is within
one skin depth and 98% is within 4 * . For frequencies
less than 10 GHz, the definition of skin depth reduces
to (Jordan 1968):
_____
= 2/
Equation
1

Figure 4: Electromagnetic skin depth as a function of

formation resistivity and frequency.
INTERPRETATION RESERVOIR
Wells drilled at the Monument Butte field were done at
very low mud weights, which reduced mud filtrate
invasion into the formation. We were able to take
advantage of this by analyzing the CRIM inverted
dielectric data where the laterolog resistivity profile
showed no invasion. A Pickett Plot over these intervals
with CRIM bulk volume water (BVW) as porosity
and MSFL as resistivity could be interpreted for Archie
m and Rw. An example of the hundreds of this type of
plot filtered on low GR can be seen in Figure 5. At the
onset of this study it was anticipated that where
waterflood breakthrough occurred, it could be detected
by observing the increase in the Rw intercept on this
type of plot.

Where
= formation resistivity
= angular frequency
mr = formation relative magnetic permeability
mo = permeability of free space
= mr * mo
Figure 4 shows a graphic representation of Equation 1
for varying formation resistivity and frequency for a
formation with a relative magnetic permeability of 10.
These data should indicate the lower bound of the depth
of investigation of the dielectric tool. The upper bound
3

SPWLA 57th Annual Logging Symposium, June 25-29, 2016

Figure 5: Pickett Plot of CRIM BVW vs. MSFL

resistivity to determine Archie m = 1.3 and formation
Rw = 0.23 ohmm. (After Ramakrishna et al 2012)

Figure 6: Determination of the saturation exponent, n,

when the formation is at irreducible water saturation.
(after Lessenger et al 2013)

Once m and Rw (Ro line) are established with the

dielectric data, a Pickett Plot of porosity and deep
resistivity often can be used to determine the saturation
exponent n. A line intersecting the Ro line at BVWI can
be used to determine n by calculating the slope of the
line (which is a function of m and n). If the formation is
at irreducible water saturation, the porosity-resistivity
data will lie on a straight line, as shown in Figure 6.
The intercept on the Ro line is irreducible bulk volume
water (BVWI).

When the formation is not at irreducible water

saturation, n can often be estimated by fixing the BVWI
point on the Ro line with either NMR analysis,
minimum CRIM BVW, core, or offset well analysis.
Figure 7 depicts this process using CRIM dielectric
water data to establish BVWI, and then connect to data
with the maximum resistivity on the Pickett Plot. This
technique assumes that there are not changes in
wettability in the interval analyzed. Note in this figure
that there are low porosity sands that are at 100% water
since they lie along the Ro line.

SPWLA 57th Annual Logging Symposium, June 25-29, 2016

Figure 7: Determination of the exponent n when the

formation is not at irreducible water saturation, but
supplemental data establish the BVWI intercept on the
Ro line.

Figure 9: Distribution of calculated n values in the

Lower Green River sands using both the dielectric and
triple combo data. The red arrow denotes the default
value of n=2. (after Merkel and Lessenger 2014)

With the application of the processes outlined above,

Archie exponents m and n were determined for each
sand body in the Lower Green River formation at
Monument Butte that then could then be applied to a
shaly sand saturation model in wells where dielectric
and NMR logs were not run. Histrograms of most of
these data are shown in Figures 8 and 9, with red
arrows shown in each figure indicate the default m=n=2
value. The defaults would grossly underestimate OIP,
since decreases in either m or n, decreases calculated
water saturation.

There are several important implications that are

associated with Figures 8 and 9. The most obvious is
how incorrect one would be in an OIP calculation by
applying a constant m and n. The mode values are 1.62
for m and 1.66 for n. Second, since the oil wet
carbonates were not included in these plots the high n
values show that some sands are oil wet. In reality, any
n values over 1.8 likely indicates mixed wet or oil wet
reservoir. From the perspective of field development,
water flood efficiency is quite different in water wet
sands than in oil wet sands. Third, there was only one m
data point (out of 265) with a value less than 1.4. This
would indicate that fracturing (m=1.0) has little effect
on the log saturation calculations. Fourth, obtaining 265
m values and 108 n values from core would have been
cost prohibitive, especially done at reservoir
temperature and pressure. Moreover, cleaning processes
in core often alter the rock wettability (decreasing n)
and clay fabric (increasing m) especially in these low
permeability sands since fluid substitution is required
for m and n measurements. Lastly, it was found that the
m and n distribution has a depositional environment
imprint on it, depending upon whether the sand was
deposited in a landward-stepping or a lakewardstepping interval. Details of this analysis can be found
in Lessenger et al 2013.

Figure 8: Distribution of calculated m values in the

Lower Green River sands using the dielectric data
interpretation. The red arrow denotes the default value
of m=2. (after Merkel and Lessenger 2014)

INTERPRETATION NON-RESERVOIR
In shales that are void of any conducting minerals and
effective porosity, the main (or only) electrical
conducting path is through the clay bound water
(VCBW). When the total water volume measured by
the dielectric tool is plotted in a Pickett Plot as porosity
5

SPWLA 57th Annual Logging Symposium, June 25-29, 2016

verses shallow resistivity (similar to Figure 5), an

equivalent shale m and CBW salinity can be calculated.
Figure 10 shows this relationship in the Green River
sands at Monument Butte. Also shown in this figure is
the clay bound water calculated from an NMR log run
over the same interval, showing identical Ro lines.

minerals or effective porosity, the main conductive path

is in the CBW. Figure 11 shows that this type analysis
applies to data in a Cretaceous gas sand in New
Mexico.

Figure 10: The relationship between VCBW and

shallow resistivity (MSFL) for both the dielectric
(CRIM) and NMR calculated water volumes. (after
Ramakrishna et al 2012)
Two important results come from plots of this type: 1)
The first is that the intercept at 100% VCBW typically
converts to a water salinity in the 3,000-5,000 ppm
eNaCl range. This is much lower than is typically used
in shaly sand models, and is more than an order of
magnitude below the original formulation of models
like the dual water model. 2) The second result is the
Archie m=1.0 for the clay component. This means that
many of the shaly sand models need to have separate
ms for the clay component in the reservoir rock than
for the reservoir rock itself. In their present form most
shaly sand models do not have this flexibility, which
may explain why they can become so unstable when
calculating water saturation.

Figure 11: VSHALE resistivity relationship in a

Cretaceous sand, showing the -1.0 slope.
Plots of this type are useful in determining Rsh and
identifying where there is a change in clay mineralogy.
Different clay types are offset but retain a slope of -1.0.
Also, one can see at what low VSH values higher
resistivity from gas can be seen to have an influence
(VSH <30% in this case).

The authors of this paper have found that this

relationship with clay bound water is very consistent in
the Rocky Mountain Region of the USA. Moreover, we
have examined reservoirs ranging in age from the
Ordovician (450 MMY) to Eocene (50 MMY) with the
same value of m=1.0 for the clay component. As
mentioned above, there appears to be some slight
variation in CBW salinity, which may be related to clay
type, but m does not appear to change.

There is a linear relationship between VCLAY and

VCBW, which is clay mineralogy specific. This
relationship can be seen in Figure 12 for the four most
prevalent clay types. These relationships become
valuable in working in the forward direction
(calculating VCLAY from VCBW) using VCBW
determined from dielectric or NMR data. These clay
values are compared to laboratory clay measurements
such as XRD, FTIR, and XRF. Alternatively, as will be
shown later in this paper, these relationships can be
used in the reverse direction to calculate VCBW from
those lab measurements of VCLAY. An inconsistency
between these results is what led the authors to

Most fields do not have multiple dielectric or NMR

logs, which can measure VCBW directly. As a result
VSH calculations are more prevalent than Vclay.
Again, in shale intervals where there are no conductive
6

SPWLA 57th Annual Logging Symposium, June 25-29, 2016

recognize that some clays are oil wet (see Lessenger et

al 2015). Examples of this technique in the Monument
Butte sands are shown in the examples that follow
below.

Some of the sands that were drilled and logged in this

study were partially depleted. As a result, fairly fresh
filtrate invasion rendered the flushed zone rock to Sor.
Knowing Swi from the NMR or the probabilistic model
analysis and Sor from the CRIM model, endpoints for a
relative permeability curve could be established for
these sands. A plot of these data for two wells is shown
in Figure 14. Also shown in this figure is the core line
determined in Figure 13. Trends to the oil-wet lower
left quadrant are not obvious. However, when being
flushed with fresh water, rock tends to become more
water-wet. This figure may confirm this finding and
indicate what is occurring in the water flood areas in the
field.

Figure 12: The relationship between VCLAY and

VCBW for the four major clay minerals. The slopes of
the lines are denoted by E. Therefore VCLAY = E *
VCBW for each clay mineral.
Analysis of special core analysis (SCAL) done at
Monument Butte is shown in Figure 13. Unfortunately,
over the years of the analysis and laboratories doing the
analysis, there was little consistency in the technique.
However, a basic trend between water-wet and oil-wet
core samples was observed. The break in the data to the
lower-left (positive slope) of the plot is interpreted as
oil wet core samples.
Figure 14: Log measurements of Sor and Sw compared
to core shown in Figure 13. these data were used to
establish endpoints for relative permeability curves for
each sand. (after Merkel and Lessenger 2014)
RESERVOIR EXAMPLES
Example #1 shown in Figure 15 is of sand package
consisting of three lobes in the Lower Green River, and
shows numerous log and core data:
Track 1 shows the probabilistic mineralogy
inversion from the triple combo data along
with the total clay volumes (red dots)
determined with XRD on core.

Figure 13: Core analysis of Swi vs. Sor. (after Merkel

and Lessenger 2014)
7

SPWLA 57th Annual Logging Symposium, June 25-29, 2016

Track 2 is a cluster-based eFacies model

indicating sand quality. Depth increments are 1
foot.
Track 3 is depth with red bars indicating points
where sidewall cores were cut.
Track 4 gives RFT measured pressure
gradients (red dots) along with curves
depicting gradients of 0.3 psi/ft (purple
under pressure), 0.43 psi/ft (blacknormal)
and 0.5 psi/ft (redoverpressure).
Track 5 is the Indonesian Model fluid
distribution with clay and total water to the
right. An overlay shows the CRIM BVW
calculation in the blue dashed line.
Track 6 are the resistivity curves showing
filtrate invasion between 5041 and 5043 feet.
Track 7 are the quad combo log data.
Track 8 is the core calibrated permeability
from a modified Coates model of the NMR
data.

The NMR data over the same interval is shown in

Figure 16. Tracks 1-4 are those shown in Figure 15.
Track 5 shows the calculated VCBW from both the T2
and T1 log data shown in Tracks 6 and 7, respectively.
Note the absence of clay bound signal in either the T2
or T1 arrays in the sands. Also shown in Track 5 are
VCBW (blue dots) calculated from the XRD data
shown in Track 1 and using the relationships shown in
Figure 12. The mismatch in Track 5 is what lead us to
examine clays with pore scale imaging to determine
that they could be oil wet (Lessenger et al 2015).

Note in this figure that the measured pressures are at

either normal gradient or overpressured from the
waterflood. Where the resistivity log indicated filtrate
invasion (5041-43 feet) the CRIM model does not fit
the Indonesian model and the RFT pressure is slightly
below normal. This also occurs where the calculated
permeability is high, deep resistivity is over 200 ohmm,
and sand quality the best (Tracks 1 and 2).

Figure 16: The same interval as in Figure 15 with the

addition of NMR data and analysis. The NMR
calculated VCBW for both T1 and T2 show little or
none in the sands whereas the XRD and log mineralogy
inversion show that it should be there. This is an
indication of oil wet clay.
Example #2, shown in Figure 17, gives results in a
depleted sand sequence. The format of the log and core
presentation in this figure is the same as in Figure 15.
Note that both upper sands are at a measured pressure
gradient of 0.3 psi/ft, and the MSFL indicates some
invasion. However, the upper two sands have a major
mismatch between the Indonesian Model water and the
dielectric CRIM model. This is particularly true at very
high permeability values shown in Track 8. The lower
permeability sand at 5370-5375 feet gives no indication
of invasion on the resistivity data and the CRIM and

Figure 15: Core and log measurements and calculations

in a Lower Green River sand sequence.
8

SPWLA 57th Annual Logging Symposium, June 25-29, 2016

Indonesian Models have BVW agreement. Therefore

this sand is interpreted as being at normal pressure.

shown in Track 5, has a fairly good fit to the VCBW

calculated with T1 and/or T2 of the NMR log. Unlike
Figure 16, the T1 and T2 arrays in Figure 18 show the
presence of clay water. This suggests that the clay in
this sand is not as oil wet as those shown in Figure 16.

Figure 17: Core and log data for a depleted sand

sequence.
One can see in Figure 17 that there is disagreement
between the CRIM BVW and the Indonesian Model
VOL_XWAT in the depleted sands below 5325 feet.
This is because the formation water in the flushed zone
calculation used connate water salinity rather than the
mixture of connate and filtrate water. Flushed zone
water salinity is a combination of connate water and
filtrate, and depends upon rock permeability and degree
of flushing. As a result, the resistivity of the mixed
water in this zone is most often unknown. However,
with the dielectric tool CRIM inversion, it can be
calculated. We found that when this was done, CRIM
BVW compared well to total water calculated with a
shallow resistivity tool (VOL_XWAT +
VOL_UBNDWAT).

Figure 18: NMR response over the interval shown in

Figure 17 showing the difference in log response for
clays that are more water wet than in Example #1. It is
interesting to note that where the deep resistivity gets
above 100 ohmm, clay signal decreases in T1 and T2
and the difference between log and core in Track 5
increases.
Core plugs from Figure 15, which are normally
pressured and from Figure 17, where the sand was
underpressured (and flushed) are shown in Figure 19.
The difference in flushing of the sidewall core is
apparent in white light, but dramatically different under
UV. Both plugs have about the same porosity,
permeability, and clay content. What is dramatic is UV
going from a measured BVO of about 8.8pu to a BVO
of 5.0pu all but eliminating the UV signature.

Figure 18 has the same display format as Figure 16.

What can be noted in this figure is that the inversion of
the XRD clay data (shown in Track 1) to VCBW as
9

SPWLA 57th Annual Logging Symposium, June 25-29, 2016

The rock mechanics aspect of reservoir completion was

not included in this paper for reasons of brevity.
However, in a fractured reservoir, image analysis is
critical to better understand open fracture orientation
and how fractures control the flood pattern. Numerous
short laterals were drilled and logged with image tools.
Fracture frequency and direction were mapped for
much of the field and were used to help determine the
injector pattern. Also, dipole sonic logs were run to
calculate the elastic moduli of the rock to help
determine hydraulic fracture direction and height.
CONCLUSIONS

Figure 19: White light and uv from sidewall core plugs

obtained in a normally pressured zone and in a depleted
sand. both plugs have about the same porosity,
permeability, and clay content.

DISCUSSION

In a previous study of a Cretaceous gas reservoir,

Merkel and Gegg (2009) found that for a given pressure
difference between mud weight and reservoir pressure,
there is a permeability threshold below which filtrate
invasion does not occur. They were able to determine
this by examining core where the mud was doped and
analyzed for invasion. The hydrocarbon in this study is
Eocene oil, where relative permeability and wettability
become a factor in invasion. However, in the well
shown in Example 2 (Figure 17), it can be seen that for
the mud-reservoir pressure difference, invasion does
not occur once the matrix permeability approaches 0.1
mD.

The use of dielectric and NMR logs to monitor

waterflood breakthrough conceptually worked,
although none was observed. Breakthrough
was not through the rock matrix, but rather
through the fracture system.
The dielectric logs allowed us to determine the
Archie m and n exponents in each productive
sand, which refined our OIP model and
identified favorable injection and producing
targets.
Analysis of the dielectric data helped identify
depleted sands to be avoided in completion.
End points for relative permeability plots were
established in invaded depleted zones using
dielectric modeling saturations.
Calculated values of the saturation exponent,
n, gave an indication of sands that were likely
mixed wet (1.8 < n < 2.1) and oil wet (n > 2.1).

REFERENCES
Bittar, M., Li, jing, Kainer, G., Cherry, R., and Torres,
D., 2010, A modern Microwave Formation Evaluation
Sensor and its Applications in Reservoir Evaluation,
SPWLA 51st Annual Logging Symposium
Transactions, paper B
Jordan, Edward Conrad, 1968, Electromagnetic Waves
and Radiating Systems, Prentice Hall, ISBN 978-0-13249995-8

The initial primary objective of the advanced logging

program in this field development was to determine
where and to what extent waterflood water was
breaking through by using dielectric log analysis. As
outlined in this paper, there were multiple findings in
the course of the data analysis that were of equal or
more value to the field development. Many of these
were not anticipated at the time of the original log
acquisition. As a result, the logging program expanded
as the study progressed.

Lessenger, M., Merkel, R., Sullivan, B., and Burton, D.,

2013, Application of Dielectric and Standard Logging
Suites to Characterize the Stratigraphic and Lithologic
Variations in Archie Parameters Within the Green
River Formation of the Greater Monument Butte Field,
Uinta Basin, Utah, USA: SPWLA 54th Annual Logging
Symposium Transactions, paper QQ
10

SPWLA 57th Annual Logging Symposium, June 25-29, 2016

Lessenger, M., Merkel, D., Rojelio, M., Ramakrishna,

S., Chen, S., Balliet, R., Xie, H., Bhattad, P., Carnerup,
A., and Knackstedt, M., 2015, Subsurface Fluid
Characterization Using Downhole and Core NMR T1T2 Maps Combined With Pore Scale Imaging
Techniques: Petrophysics, vol. 56, no.4, p. 313-333

techniques for their application in Marathons

reservoirs. Dick has a BS in physics from St. Lawrence
University and a MS and Ph.D. in geophysics from
Penn State. He is a past president of SPWLA, the
SPWLA Foundation, and DWLS, and also belongs to
SPE, SCA, and SEG.

Merkel, R.H., and Gegg, J.F., 2009, NMR Core/log

Data in Tight Gas Sand Petrophysical Model
Development: Petrophysics, vol. 50, no.2, p. 130-139
Merkel, R., and Lessenger, M., 2014, Characterizing
the Oil Reservoirs in the Uinta Basin: SPE Paper No.
SPE-169510-MS, Proceedings of the 2014 SPE
Western North America and Rocky Mountain Joint
Regional Meeting.
Ramakrishna, S., Merkel, D., and Balliet, R., 2012,
Mineralogy,
Porosity,
and
Fluid
Property
Determination of Oil Reservoirs of the Green River
Formation in the Uinta Basin: SPWLA 53rd Annual
Logging Symposium Transactions, paper K.
Quirein, J.A., 2013, Personal Correspondence

Margaret Lessenger is a consulting petrophysicist at

Rimrock Petrophysics and Analytics in Denver with
over 30 years of experience as a geophysicist, geologist
and petrophysicist working in various basins in the
Rockies, North Sea and Gulf of Mexico. She has
worked for the Superior Oil Company, ARCO Oil and
Gas, Platte River Associates, the Colorado School of
Mines Department of Geology, Williams Exploration,
and Newfield Exploration. Lessenger holds a BS in
Geophysical Engineering, MS in Geophysics, and PhD
in Geology from the Colorado School of Mines. She is
a member of SPWLA, AAPG, SPE and SCA.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Dick Merkel is President of Denver Petrophysics LLC,

which is a consulting firm dedicated to developing core
and log analytical techniques for petrophysical models
tied to completion and production data in complex
reservoirs. As a petrophysicist for Newfield Exploration
Company, he worked for six years on teams that
developed reservoir models for unconventional oil and
gas reservoirs in the Rocky Mountains. Prior to its
closing in 2000, he was a Senior Technical Consultant
at Marathon Oil Companys Petroleum Technology
Center in Littleton, CO where he worked on evaluating
new logging tools and technology, and developing
11