Gas Bearing

Formation Interpretation

Lecture notes for PET 370

Spring 2016
Prepared by: Thomas W. Engler, Ph.D., P.E.
Gas-Bearing Formation Interpretation Impact

Effect of gas on neutron log response

lower hydrogen content than calibrated value, thus higher count rate
resulting in low a.
Shale effect is opposite to the gas effect, makes detection extremely
difficult

Effect of gas on density log response

presence of gas reduces bulk density, resulting in a high apparent porosity.
shale effect can increase or decrease bulk density, dependent on shales
bulk density.

Effect of gas on sonic log response

increase in sonic log porosity in poorly-consolidated sands.
not quantitative or predictable
 Gas-Bearing Formation Interpretation Background

Log response is function of different depths of investigation of the FDC

CNL tools and the degree of invasion.
Geometric factor

0.8
FDC

0.6 CNL
0.4

0.2

2 4 6 8 10

Distance from borehole wall, in

Gas-Bearing Formation Interpretation classification

Type I: mirror image,

gas crossover
(both FDC and CNL investigate same
Saturation profile)

Type II: asymmetric

gas crossover

Type III: Shaly gas sand

Idealized example of saturation effects on density and neutron logs.

(Helander,1983)
Gas-Bearing Formation Interpretation Example

Density neutron log

illustrating Type I gas effect
(Hilchie, 1978)

- deep invasion, or
- Extremely shallow invasion
Gas-Bearing Formation Interpretation Example

Density neutron log illustrating

the effect of shallow to moderate
invasion. (Type II)
(Bassiouni, 1994)
Gas-Bearing Formation Interpretation Example

Density neutron log illustrating

a gas-bearing shaly sand. (Type III)
(Hilchie, 1978)
Gas-Bearing Formation Interpretation False Gas Effect
Gas-Bearing Formation Interpretation Porosity Determination

Assume invasion extends beyond the density tool,

b (1 )ma [Sxo mf (1 Sxo )g ] (1)

In terms of porosity, Eq (1) can be written as

D [Sxo (1 Sxo )(D )g ] (2)

where
ma g
( D ) g
ma mf (3)

* gas density is f(P,T,g)

* Mud filtrate density is f(salinity)
mf 1 0.73n (4)

Where n is fractional salinity (Cppmx10-6)

Gas-Bearing Formation Interpretation Porosity Determination

Assume invasion extends beyond the zone of investigation of the neutron

tool,
N (1 )H ma [Sxo H mf (1 Sxo )Hg ] (5)

Where,
Hma, Hmf and Hg are hydrogen indices for matrix, filtrate and gas,
respectively,
H mf (1 n ) mf (6)

4 2.5g
H g 9 g (7)
16 2.5g
H ma 0 for pure ss, lms, or dolomite. (8)
Gas-Bearing Formation Interpretation Porosity Determination

Case I: Fresh mud, low pressure reservoir

Consider the simple case of:

1. fresh mud mf = 1, Hmf = 1
2. Low pressure g 0, Hg 0
solve for porosity,
( ma b ) N
= , or (9)
ma
1
= ma D N (10)
ma ma
solve for flushed zone saturation,

S xo N
(11)
Gas-Bearing Formation Interpretation Exercises

13.1 A clean sandstone, suspected to be gas bearing, had the following

recorded log readings: a lithology-correct N = 5% and a b = 2.00
gm/cc. Assuming the gas is low density and the mud is fresh mud,
determine the true porosity and the flushed zone saturation.
Gas-Bearing Formation Interpretation
General case

Empirical derivation, applicable for any g.

2 2
2 = D N
(12)
2[1 .12(1 S xo )]2 [1 .5n (1 S xo )]2

If fresh mud,
2 2
2 = D N
(13)
2[1 .12(1 S xo )]2

Further reduce by assuming Sxo is large, such that ,12(1-Sxo) 0,

1/2
2 2

= D N
(14)
2

Gas-Bearing Formation Interpretation Exercises

13.3 A clean, gas-bearing sandstone exhibited neutron and density

porosity readings of 10 and 20 %, respectively. Assume a fresh
mud filtrate. Investigate the effect of gas density on the resulting
true porosity and flushed zone saturation by considering two
separate cases: (1) with a gas density assumed to be zero, and (2) a
gas density = 0.25 gm/cc. Ignore excavation effect.
Gas-Bearing Formation Interpretation Excavation Effect

properly calibrated neutron log will respond to hydrogen in water and

hydrocarbons.

Due to low H2 content of gas,

the neutron log responds to
the water fraction, only.

Difference between two

formations is the Excavation
of 15% by volume of matrix
material and replaced by gas.

Magnitude of excavation effect

dependent on hydrocarbon
saturation and fluid HI.
Gas-Bearing Formation Interpretation Excavation Effect

* Empirical correction,

Nex = k(2 2Swh + 0.04)(1- Swh ) (15)

Where,
2
(16)
k = ma
2.65

Swh is the equivalent saturation based on the hydrogen content of the pore
fluids,
Swh Sxo H mf (1 Sxo )H g (17)

When fresh mud and low pressure gas are assumed, then Swh = Sxo

* Add correction to neutron log reading,

Nc N Nex (18)
 Gas-Bearing Formation Interpretation Excavation Effect

Example
Swh = Sxo = 0.5, fresh mud, Hgas = 0
Measured Neutron porosity =
24%

Excavation effect, Nex = 6%

Corrected neutron porosity =

24 + 6 = 30%

Typical excavation effect curve:

Dolomite, = 30%, Hgas = 0
Gas-Bearing Formation Interpretation Exercises

13.2 Repeat Ex. 13.1 but include the excavation effect. Compare with
the answers to Example 13.1.
Gas-Bearing Formation Interpretation Gas effect on crossplot

On density logs:

g (1 Sxo )( mf g )
Or (19)

Dg (1 Sxo )(1 Dg )
(20)

On neutron logs:
Ng (1 Sxo )(H mf H g ) Nex (21)
Gas-Bearing Formation Interpretation Flowchart
INPUT DATA
{ma, N, b or D,
Cppm, P,T,g}

INITIAL GUESS
Sxo
{crossplot} {Eq.11}

GAS DENSITY Hydrogen Indices

{EOS} Hmf {Eq.6} Hg {Eq.7}

g or Dg SwH {Eq.17}
{Eq 19} {Eq. 20}

Excavation Effect
{Eq.15}

d n Ng {Eq.21}
; S xo
2

Update and Sxo

N < TOL?
Mineral Fractions
Y
maa
STOP
END
Gas-Bearing Formation Interpretation Exercises

13.4 In Example 13.3, consider the porosity readings are on a limestone

matrix. Determine the true porosity and flushed zone saturation.
What is the effect in change of matrix type?
Gas-Bearing Formation Interpretation References

Theory, Measurement, and Interpretation of Well Logs, Bassiouni, SPE

Textbook Series, Vol. 4, (1994)

Chapter 16 Evaluation of Gas-Bearing Formations