اطياف

Republic of Iraq
Ministry of Higher Education and

Scientific Research
University of Baghdad
College of Engineering
Department of Petroleum Engineering
3D Static Model for Mauddud Formation in

Ratawi Field
A THESIS
SUBMITTED TO THE COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
UNIVERSITY OF BAGHDAD IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE
IN
PETROLEUM ENGINEERING
BY
Atyaf Sameer Mohammed
2013
B.Sc. 2007

Dedication
To my husband "Faisal"
The one who believes in me even more than I

believed in myself and for his great patience and
support at all the difficult times that I have faced
in this study.
To my lovely, pretty daughter "Noor"
The one who gives me the hope and motivation to

continue this study.
Acknowledgement
First of all, it would not have been possible to write this Master thesis
without the help and support of the kind people around me.
This thesis would not have been possible without the help, support and
advice of my principal supervisor, Dr. Sameera Hamdulla. The good
advice, support, patience and encouragement of my second supervisor,
Dr. Sameer Noori, a senior reservoir geologist in the Ministry of Oil, has
been invaluable on both an academic and a personal level, for which I am
extremely grateful.
I would like to express my sincere thanks to the University of

Baghdad/ Petroleum Engineering Department and its staff especially the
head of the department Dr. Maha R. Abedulameer, and my grateful
thanks to Dr. Nada S. Alzubaide for her kindness and support in all times.
I would like to acknowledge the financial and technical support of the

Ministry of Oil and its staff ,particularly for Studies, planning and flow
up directorate / gas department.
Last, but by no means least, I thank everyone assist me to achieve this
study .
I
Abstract
Abstract
A 3D static model has been carried out for Mauddud Formation in
Ratawi Oil Field in Sothern Iraq. Well logs and core data analyses were
used to achieve this study. The available logs data digitized, using Didger
Software Package 3.03. The environmental corrections and the
interpretations have been achieved using Interactive Petrophysics
Program v3.5.
Pickett plot method has been used to determine Archie's parameters
(the tortuosity factor (a), the saturation exponent (n), and the cementation
exponent (m)) by using Interactive Petrophysics Program,(a) value is
rounded between(1 to 1.05),(m) between (1.26 to 1.81) and (n)exponent
is about (2).
M-N cross plot for mineralogy identification and Matrix Identification
(MID) and density neutron cross plots indicate that Mauddud formation
consist mainly of calcite and some dolomite. Density neutron cross plot
for lithology identification shows that Mauddud formation consists
mainly from limestone with little shale.
Logs interpretations were made including the calculation of the total
porosity and effective porosity, water saturation, mud filtrate saturation
, water bulk volume, bulk volume of mud filtrate zone, residual
hydrocarbon and movable hydrocarbon. Secondary porosity has been
calculated which shows that primary porosity is the main porosity in the
formation.
The permeability has been predicated by using classical, Gomez and
flow zone indicator methods. A comparison between these three methods
Abstract
shows the superiority of the FZI method correlations for six wells in
Ratawi field. These correlations are used to estimate permeability in un-
cored wells with a good approximation.
The 3D static model for Mauddud formation in Ratawi field has been
built by using Petrel software. Structural contour maps of the five
reservoir units MA, MB, MC, MD and ME have been induced. Unit MA
is divided into (2) layers, unit MB, which is considered the main reservoir
in the Mauddud formation, into (6) layers, unit MC into(3) layers, unit
MD which is also considered reservoir unit into(6) and unit ME into(1)
layer. Water saturation, porosity, permeability and net to gross models
have been built for the formation which show that the perophysical
properties improved towards the north direction and to the flanks better
that the crest.
The current study shows that the volume of Initial Oil in Place (OIIP)
in the Mauddud formation of Ratawi field is (6,749) million barrels and
that number is very close to that of JOCMEC study (2009) which is the
most recent study.
No. Subject Page
Acknowledgement
Abstract
Table of content
Nomenclature
Abbreviations
Chapter one
Introduction
1.1 Preface 1
1.2 Area of study 1
1.3 The aim of this study 2
1.4 Study work flow 6
1.5 Available data 7
Chapter Two
Literature Survey and Theoretical Background
2.1 Introduction 8
2.2 The stratigraphy of the Mauddud formation 8
2.3 Mauddud formation in Ratawi field 8

2.4 The importance of well logging 11
2.4.1 Spontaneous Potential (SP) log 11
2.4.2 The Gamma ray Log 14
2.5 Well log interpretation 15
IV
2.5.1 Archie equation 15
2.5.2 Dual-Water model 16
2.5.3 The Waxman Smits equation 17
2.5.4 Indonesia formula 18
2.6 Methods to determine Archie's parameters (a, m, n) 18
2.6.1 Borai's correlation 18
2.6.2 Shell Hard Rock relationship 19
2.6.3 Aldoleimi, A.M. and Berta, D. technique 19
2.6.4 Pickett plot 19
2.6.5 Factors affecting (a) and (m) 22
4.7 Resistivity 22
2.8 Permeability prediction 24
2.8.1 Classical method of porosity correlation 25
2.8.2 Role of flow units in permeability prediction 26
2.8.3 Empirical models for determining permeability from well 30

logs
V
Chapter Three
Log Interpretation
3.1 Preface 32
3.2.1 Resistivity logs 33
3.2.2 Porosity logs 36
1. Density log 36
2. Neutron log 36
3. Sonic log 37
3.3.3 Gamma ray log 39
3.3 Shale volume determination 40
3.4 Determination of lithology and mineralogy 42
3.4.1 The Matrix Identification (MID) plot 42
3.4.2 M-N cross plot for mineral identification 43
3.4.3 Density - Neutron cross plot for Lithology 45
3.5 Determination of porosity 46
3.6 Determination of formation water resistivity RW and mud 49

filtrate resistivity Rmf
3.6.1 Spontaneous potential (SP) log method 49
VI
3.6.2 Determination of Rw from salinity 52
3.7 Determination of Archie parameters using pickett's method 53
3.8 Fluid and formation analysis 55
3.8.1 Fluid analysis 55
3.8.2 Formation analysis (Bulk Volume Analysis) 56
Chapter Four
Formation evaluation and Permeability Predication
4.1 Introduction 58
4.2 Formation evaluation 58
4.2.1 Core analysis 58
4.2.2 Cutoff calculations 59
1. Porosity cutoff 59
2. Water saturation cutoff 61
3. Net to gross 62
4.3 Permeability prediction 63
4.3.1 Porosity correlation for permeability 63

determination(classical Approach)
4.3.2 Gomez method 66
4.3.3 Flow Zone Indictor (FZI) approach for permeability 68

prediction
VII
4.4 Results of permeability prediction 73
Chapter Five
3D static model and volumetric calculations
5.1 Introduction 75
5.2 Model design 75
5.3 Import data 76
5.4 Well correlation 76
5.5 80
Structural modeling
5.6 Pillar gridding 81
5.7 82
Make horizons
5.8 83
Layering
5.9 84
Scale up of well logs
5.10 Petrophysical modeling process 85
1. 86
Porosity model
2. 87
Water saturation model
3. 88
Net gross reservoir estimation
5.11 89
Oil Water Contact
5.12 91
Volumetric calculations
VIII
Chapter Six
Conclusions and Recommendations
6.1 Conclusions 93
6.2 Recommendations 95
List of figures
Figures of Chapter One

Fig. 1.1 Location of Ratawi field. 3
Fig. 1.2 4
Structure Contour Map of Top of Mauddud Formation.
Fig. 1.3 Location Map of Ratawi wells. 5
Figures of Chapter Two

Fig. 2.1 Stratigraphic section in the southern part of Iraq. 11
Fig. 2.2 Idealized and real SP log for Mauddud formation RT-6. 14
Fig. 2.3 Idealized Pickett Plot. 22
Fig. 2.4 The distribution of fluids and resestivites near the well 25
(Schlumberger, Log Interpretation Charts, 1988).
ig. 2.5 Schematic of empirical law of porosity correlation (R. 27

Desbrandes, 1985).
Fig. 2.6 Porosity versus permeability plot showing different pore 29
throat lines and different rock type (After J. C. Porras ,
2001).
IX
Figures of Chapter Three
Fig. 3.1 The environment corrections for resistivity tools; for well 36
RT7.
Fig. 3.2 The environment corrections for porosity log well RT-5. 39
Fig. 3.3 The environment corrections for wells RT-2 and RT-4. 40
Fig. 3.4 Vshale for wells RT-3 and RT-4 in Mauddud formation. 42
Fig. 3.5 MID plot for Mauddud formation in Rt-4. 44
Fig. 3.6 M-N cross plot for Mauddud formation in Rt-6. 45
Fig. 3.7 cross plot for Mauddud formation in Rt-5. 46
Fig. 3.8 Effective and secondary porosity index for R-4 and RT-7 49
wells.
Fig. 3.9 Depth matching for RT-4 and RT-6 wells. 50
Fig. 3.10 Flow chart for Rw determination from SP-curve (Bateman 52

and konen, 1977)
Fig. 3.11 Pickett plot for Mauddud formation, well RT-6. 56
Fig. 3.12 C.P.I. analyses of well RT-7. 59
Figures of Chapter Four

Fig. 4.1 Core porosity cut off for MA unit. 61
Fig. 4.2 Log porosity vs. core porosity for MA unit. 62
X
Fig. 4.3 Water saturation cutoff for MB unit. 63
Fig. 4.4 Permeability porosity relationship for Mauddud formation. 65
Fig. 4.5 Core permeability vs. predicted permeability for Mauddud 66

formation.
Fig. 4.6 Core permeability vs. predicted permeability for Mauddud 68
formation.
Fig. 4.7 Permeability vs. porosity for Mauddud Formation. 71
Fig. 4.8 ROI vs z for Mauddud formation. 72
Fig. 4.9 Depth vs. permeability for Mauddud formation. 73
Figures of Chapter Five

Fig. 5.1 W-E cross section for(RT-3,RT-4 and RT-6)in Mauddud 78
formation
Fig. 5.2 N-S cross section for(RT-3,RT-4 and RT-6)in Mauddud 79
formation
Fig. 5.3 Structural contour map for MC unit. 80
Fig. 5.4 The Skeletons of the Mauddud formation. 81
Fig. 5.5 Main zones of Mauddud formation. 82
Fig. 5.6 The layering in the Mauddud formations. 83
Fig. 5.7 Scale up for well RT-3 in Mauddud formation. 85
Fig. 5.8 Porosity model for MB unit in Mauddud formation. 87
Fig. 5.9 Water saturation model for unite MD in Mauddud 88

formation.
XI
Fig.5.10 Permeability model for unite MA in Mauddud formation. 89
Fig. 5.11 N/G model for unite MB in Mauddud formation. 90
Fig. 5.12 Oil water contact for Mauddud formation. 91
Nomenclatures
Symbol Description Unit
a Tortuosity coefficient ---
DT Sonic transit time s/ft
F Formation factor ---
IGr Gamma ray index ---
K SP coefficient ---
k Permeability md
m Cementation exponent ---
n Saturation exponent ---
q Volumetric flow rate cc/sec
Rm Resistivity of mud ohms.m
Rmc Resistivity of mud cake ohms.m
Rmfe Equivalent resistivity of mud filtrate ohms.m
XII
R Correlation coefficient ---
Ro Resistivity of the 100% water-saturated rock ohms.m
Rt True formation resistivity ohms.m
Rtirr True formation resistivity at irreducible ohms.m
Rw Formation-water resistivity ohms.m
RWe Equivalent resistivity of formation water ohms.m
Rxo Flushed-zone resistivity ohms.m
PSP Pseudo Spontaneous Potential millivolts
SP Spontaneous Potential millivolts
SSP Static spontaneous potential millivolts
Sw Water saturation ---
Swirr or Swi Irreducible water saturation ---
Sxo Mud filtrate saturation ---
Tf Formation Temperature F
Tmf Temperature of mud filtrate F
b True bulk density gm/cc

bCorr Corrected true bulk density gm/cc
XIII
f Density of fluid gm/cc
h Density of hydrocarbon gm/cc
ma Density of rock matrix gm/cc
Formation water and Hydrocarbon density respectivily gm/cc

w and o
tf Acoustic travel time in fluid sec/ft
tma sonic transit time in rock matrix sec
Porosity ---
D Density log porosity ---
e Effective porosity ---
NCorr Corrected neutron log apparent porosity ---
ND Neutron density log porosity ---
Nf Neutron log equivalent porosity of fluid di
S Sonic log apparent porosity ---
ta Apparent total porosity ---
Vsh Shale volume ---

Abbreviations
Symbol Description
API American Petroleum Institute
F.G.R Final Geological Report
G.R Geological Report
MOO Ministry Of Oil
N/G Net to Gross
OWC Oil Water Contact
OIIP Initial Oil In Place

Introduction
Chapter One
Introduction
1.1 Preface
In the oil and gas industry, reservoir modeling involves the construction
of a computer model of a petroleum reservoir, for the purposes of improving
estimation of reserves and making decisions regarding the development of the
[57]
field . Reservoir modeling is playing an increasingly important role in
developing and producing hydrocarbon reserves. One of the key challenges in
reservoir modeling is accurate representation of reservoir geometry, including
[29]
the structural framework and detailed stratigraphic layers . Mauddud
formation in Ratawi field is considered as an important formation in the field,
it's from old rock type (Cretaceous age). 3D static model has been built for
this formation using the data of all the six wells that penetrate the formation
with the logs, core, final geological reports and available previous studies.
1.2 Area of Study

Ratawi oil field is located about 70 km North West of Basrah in southern
Iraq. Figure (1.1) shows the location of the field, the area of the field is
(29.5 km length*14.9 km width), altitudes (3386000-3373000) and
longitude (704000-696000). The first exploration well in Ratawi field
was drilled by South oil company (SOC) in 1984. The number of wells that
penetrate the formation is six wells, figure (1.3) shows the location map of
these wells. Tests carried out on Mishrif, Mauddud and Nahr Umar,
formations showed that the crude in these reservoirs were of the heavy
type. Mauddud formation, which is a heterogeneous carbonate reservoir,
consists of limestone rock with a thickness that ranges from 104 to 210 m.
The formation is generally consist of three reservoir layers in wells RT-3,
RT-4, R-5 and RT-6 while there are more than three reservoirs in RT-2.
1
Introduction
All the extra layers (more than the three reservoirs layers) in RT-2 have
been joined and formed one layer [64].
In current study Mauddud formation has been divided into five layers;
MA, MB , MC ,MD and ME depending on petrophysical properties from
logs and core data, Mauddud formation consists of one anticline dome
(figure (1.2)).
1.3 Aim of study

The following steps are aimed to be achieved for Mauddud formation
in Ratawi field.
1. Well log interpretation and determination of the main petrophysical

properties (porosity, water saturation and Archie parameters (m, n
and a) and the main lithological components in the study area).
2. Determination of the permeability by using well logs and cores data
to define permeability in un-cored intervals.
3. Constructing well correlation in selected wells in the Mauddud
formation to study the vertical and horizontal change in the
petrophysical properties.
4. Building a 3D static model (structure model), which represent
three-dimensional of the reservoir (3D-grids).
5. Building 3D petrophysical model and distributes the petrophysical
properties to illustrate the variation in Mauddud formation.
6. Volumetric calculations of oil in place, which is considered as an
important stage in the process of economic evaluation of the
carbonate reservoir.
2
Introduction
Figure (1.1) location of Ratawi field.
3
Introduction
692000 696000 700000 704000 708000
-2 Depth
3396000
6 40 -2420
-2440
-2460
40
-2480
-26
- 26
-2500
-2520
40
-2540
-2560
3392000
6 40 -2540
-2580
-2600
-2640
-2
RT-5 -2620
40
-2640
-2540
-25
-2660
0
-2680
-264
-2700
-2720
40
-2640
3388000
-25
-254
0
-264
0
0
44
-2440
-2540
-2
-26
RT-6 RT-3 -254
40
3384000
RT-4
-244
0
-2440
-2540
-254
-24
0
3380000
40
40
-254
-24
-2540
0
-2
3376000
54
RT-2
40
0
-25
-2
-26
54
0
40
0
54
-25
-2
40
3372000
RT-7
-264
0
40
-26
0 10002000m -26
40
3368000
1:115540
Fig.(1.2): Structure Contour Map of Top of Mauddud Formation.
4
Introduction
Fig. (1.3): location Map of Ratawi wells.
5
Introduction
1.4 Study work flow

1. Gathering the available data for all wells that penetrate Mauddud
formation in the Ratawi oil field.
2. Using Didger software for digitizing well logs one reading per
0.25m depth.
3. Using Interactive Petrophysics software (IP) for the environmental
correction, lithology and mineralogy identification and for logs
interpretation.
4. Determination of water resistivity (Rw and Rmf) and Archie
parameter (a, m, n).
5. Permeability prediction by using three methods (Classical, Gomez
and FZI).
6. Using petrel software for constructing structural maps and 3D
geological modeling and distribute the petrophisical properties in the
study area.
7. Calculation of Initial Oil in Place (OIIP) for the formation.
6
Introduction
1.5 Available data

One of the most important challenges that has been faced in the current
study that the available data for the formation is very little and old (un
updated) ,especially core data which's available only for two wells(RT-4
andRT-6).Table 1.1 shows the available data that used to achieve this
study.
Table 1.1 available data for Mauddud formation in Ratawi field.
Wells LLD LLS CNL FDC SONIC GR Core F.G.R F.W.R Well
Data test
RT-2 * * * - * * - * - *
RT-3 * * * * * * - * - -
RT-4 * * * * * * * * - -
RT-5 * * * * * * - * - -
RT-6 * * * * * * * - -
RT-7 * * * * * * - * - -
(*) represents the available data and (-) represents missing data.
7
Literature Survey
Chapter Two
Literature Survey and Theoretical Background
2.1 Introduction
Geomodel is the numerical equivalent of a three-dimensional
geological map complemented by a description of physical quantities in
the domain of interest. Geomodelling is commonly used as main
applications to oil and gas fields and managing natural resources and
natural hazards and quantifying geological processes . The aim of a
geological reservoir model is to provide a complete set of continuous
reservoir parameters (i.e. porosity, permeability and water saturation) for
each cell of the 3D grid [24].
In geological models a geological unit is bounded by 3-dimensional
triangulated or gridded surfaces. For the purpose of property or fluid
modeling these volumes can be separated further into an array of cells,
often referred to as voxels (volumetric elements). These cells of
geological model are filled by geophysical and petrophysical reservoir
properties like: well logs, core data, wells tops and wells head [55].
2.2 The Stratigraphy of the Mauddud formation

Mauddud formation consists mainly of limestone with some shale
and dolomite. Mauddud formation located between Ahmadi (limestone
with some shale) formation from top and Nahr Umar (sandstone reservoir
bounded by stable and tight limestone bed) from the bottom. Figure (2.1)
shows the Stratigraphic of Ratawi field.
2.3 Mauddud Formation in Ratawi Field

In this study, Mauddud Formation has been divided into five units. The
following is a description of these units[64]:
8
Literature Survey
Unit MA:
This unit is the upper part of Mauddud formation and consists of
limestone (which is mostly dense) and wackestone. The thickness
of this unit is about 21 m. This unit has intermediate reservoir
properties.
Unit MB:
This unit is the second part of Mauddud formation and it has a
good reservoir properties. Unit MB is considered as an oil bearing
zone, the oil accommodate in large pores vuggs, cavities, fissures.
This unit consists of granular, bioclastic limestone, commonly
wackestone. The thickness of this unit is about 35 m.
Unit MC:
This unit is the third part of Mauddud formation and considered
not important from the reservoir properties standpoint. Unit MC
consists of limestone (mostly dense) and Wackestone. This unit
shows increasing in thickness towards the flanks of the structure
(especially in the west flank).The thickness of this unit is about
28m.
Unit MD:
This unit is the forth part of Mauddud formation its oil bearing
zone at crustal area. The oil is heavy, residual, accommodate in
large pores, vuggs, joints and intergranular pores. Lithologically,
this unit consists of Limestone interbedded with dense, commonly
Wackestone. The thickness of this unit is about 35 m.
Unit ME:
This unit is the last part of Mauddud formation which consists of
limestone (mostly dense) and wackestone, this unit shows increasing in
thickness towards the flanks of the structure. The thickness of this unit is
9
Literature Survey
about 15 m. This unit is considered the worst from the reservoir

properties standpoint.
Fig.(2.1) Stratigraphic section in the southern part of Iraq (After Al-

.Ameri, 2009)
10
Literature Survey
2.4 The importance of well logging

Well logging is alternative and very effective approach to obtain
porosity, lithology, hydrocarbons and other rock properties of interest to
the geologist which help him to define and locate the oil and gas
accumulations area. Well log measurements have firmly established
applications in the evaluation of properties and saturations of reservoir
rocks, and for reservoir correlations .Through logging a number of
physical parameters related to both the geological and petrophysical
properties of the strata that have been penetrated can be measured,
properties which are conventionally studied in the laboratory from rock
samples. In addition well logs can tell us about the fluids in the porous of
the reservoir rock [40].
2.4.1 Spontaneous Potential (SP) log

The SP log is a measurement of difference between the electrical
potential of a movable electrode in the borehole and the electrical
potential of a fixed surface electrode [50].
In this study SP log was used to:
1. Define bed boundaries.
2. Give an indication of shaliness (maximum deflection is clean;
minimum is shale).
3. Determine of formation water resistivity (Rw).
Shale Baseline and SSP
SP has no absolute values and thus treated in terms of deflection,
which is the amount the curve moves to the left or to the right of a
defined zero. The definition of the SP equal to zero, called "shale
baseline", and is made on thick shale intervals where the SP curve does
not move. All values are related to the shale baseline, figure (2.2) shows
the idealized SP log and the real SP log for well RT-6. The theoretical
11
Literature Survey
maximum deflection of the SP opposite permeable beds is called the

static SP or SSP. It represents the SP value that would be measured in an
ideal case with the permeable bed isolated electrically. It is the maximum
possible SP opposite a permeable, water-bearing formation with no shale.
The SSP is used to calculate formation-water resistivity (Rw)[50].
Rm fe
SSP k log
Rwe
SSP (Static SP) = the maximum SP value in a clean sand zone.

Rmfe = equivalent mud filtrate resistivity: closely related to Rmf.
Rwe = equivalent formation water resistivity: closely related to Rw.
K = temperature-dependent coefficient.
K = 61+ (0.133 x T)
T = temperature in F.
12
Literature Survey
Fig. 2.2 idealized and real SP log for Mauddud formation RT-6.
13
Literature Survey
2.4.2 The Gamma Ray Log

The gamma ray (GR) log is a recording of the natural radioactivity of
the formations. There are two types of GR logs. One, the standard GR
log, measures only the total radioactivity. The other, the NGS (Natural
Gamma Ray Spectrometry) log, measures the total radioactivity and the
concentrations of potassium, thorium, and uranium producing the
radioactivity. GR log normally reflects the shale content of the
formations. This is because the radioactive elements tend to concentrate
in clays and shales[50].
In particular, shales usually emit more gamma rays than other
sedimentary rocks, such as sandstone, gypsum, salt, coal, dolomite, or
limestone because radioactive potassium is a common component in their
clay content. This difference in radioactivity between shales and
sandstones/carbonate rocks allows the gamma tool to distinguish between
[54]
shales and non-shales . Gamma radiation is usually recorded in API
units, a measurement originated by the petroleum industry. Gamma logs
are affected by the diameter of the borehole and the properties of the fluid
filling the borehole. An advantage of the gamma log over some other
types of well logs is that it works through the steel and cement walls of
cased boreholes. Although concrete and steel absorb some of the gamma
radiation, enough travels through the steel and cement to allow
determinations. Gamma ray logs are also used in mineral exploration,
especially exploration for phosphates, uranium, and potassium salts [54].
14
Literature Survey
2.5 Well Log Interpretation

The primary goal of well log interpretation; is to determine the
presence of hydrocarbons and how much oil can be recovered. Also used
[18]
to determine the economic viability and profitability of the well .
Conventional techniques, have been used to detect hydrocarbon bearing
zones and, estimate rocks properties (porosity, grain density,
permeability, and lithology.etc.), other parameters and information are
necessary to perform log interpretation .The optimum interpretation
technique for analyzing a formation, depends on the quality, and quantity
of the data available, the principles of these techniques depend on error
[60]
minimization by iterative methods . Saturation models like(Archie,
Waxman Smits ,Dual-Water Model, Indonesia etc.), are used to
calculate the hydrocarbon saturation from resistivity log, as these
equations contain empirical constants[50].
2.5.1 Water saturation models
Archie Equation
In 1942, Archie derived two empirical relationships, namely, resistivity
index and formation factor. His first equation introduces a relationship
between the resistivity index (RI) and water saturation (Sw) which is given
in eq. (2.1) [11].
RI = = Sw-n (2.1)
Where:
Rt= True resistivity of the rock saturated with both formation water and
hydrocarbons.
Ro= Resistivity of a 100% water (brine) - saturated sandstone.
n=is the saturation exponent.
15
Literature Survey
Archies second equation gives the correlation between the formation

factor (F) and porosity (), given in eq. (2.2)
F= = (2.2)
Where,
Rw= Water (brine) resistivity
m= Cementation factor.
a= Tortuosity factor.
Combining eqs. (2.1) and (2.2) gives Archies well known equation for
water saturation.
Swn = (2.3)
Dual-Water Model
Based on extensive laboratory work and theoretical study Waxman and
Smits proposed (1968), a saturation resistivity relationship for shaly
formation that related the resistivity contribution of the shale [19].
Waxman-Smits relationship is:
1 S2 B.Qv.SW
W (2.4)
Rt F .RW F*
Where:
F*= Formation factor of interconnected porosity.
B = Equivalent conductance of the sodium clay- exchange cations as a

function of the formation water resistivity.
1.28 0.225T 0.000405.T 2

B (2.5)
1 (0.27 0.045.T ) RW1.23
QV = Cation exchange capacity of the rock per unit pore volume

expressed in meq/100g dry clay.
16
Literature Survey
1
Qv CEC g (2.6)
100
Where:
g =grain density in gm/cc.
=total porosity.
CEC=Cation exchange capacity expressed in meq/ml pore volume.
Waxman Smits Equation

Although the actual Waxman Smits equation, is the general one
for didactic purposes, it is easier to first start with the equation for
fully water bearing rock [18].

Rw
S wn* (2.7)
R m* (1 R .B Qv )
t w
S w

Where:
m* = cementation exponent in the Waxman Smits equation.
B= Cation mobility.
1.28 0.225T 0.0004059T 2

B (2.8a)
1 (0.27 0.045T ) Rw1.23
1
Qv CEC g (2.8b)
100
CEC = Cation exchange capacity.
g = Grain density.
= Total porosity, T= Temperature.
17
Literature Survey
Indonesia Formula
Poupon and Leveaux (1971) model, was developed to overcome
constraints of other models in reservoirs, containing comparatively fresh
formation waters, and high degrees of shaliness [30].
Vd 0. 5 m
S w0.5 ( Rt ) 0.5 cl0.5 (2.9)
Rcl (aRw ) 0.5
2.5.2 Methods to Determine Archie's Parameters (a, m,n)

The conventional methods for determining Archie parameters (a, m
and n), was first presented by Archie. When Archie equation
introduced these methods has remained unchanged, except that
sometimes a constant (a) is added to the formation factor equation ,
below a review about several methods used to calculate Archie
parameters will be presented [39].
Shell Hard Rock Relationship

Dresser Atlas (1986) present a relationship that adjusts the basic F
versus model (F=a -m), to more realistic evaluation of low porosity
carbonate rocks [22].
m 1.87 0.019 1 (2.10)
Borai's Correlation
Borai 1985 correlation is based on both core, and log measurements,
in offshore Middle East carbonate reservoirs of low porosity [22].
m 2.2 0.035( 0.042) 1 (2.11)
The difference between shell hard rock relationship, and Boria

correlation, is the cementation exponent (m),which is increased with
lower porosity in shell hard rock relationship , and the opposite trend
occur when using the Boria equation.
18
Literature Survey

Aldoleimi and Berta Technique
Aldoleimi and Berta, suggested a new approach technique in
determining the parameters of the Archie's equation (a, m, n), based on
the use of water saturation from the core, and the resistivity of the
formation [1].
The proposed method, is an extension to a 3D-space of the usual

regression technique used in a plane, as the laboratory determination, of
m and n both a spatial visualization and regression, may used to obtain
the Archie's parameters.
Pickett Plot
Pickett's (1966) suggested a method that depends on a cross plot
between resistivity vs. porosity to calculate (m) and/or (a) from well
logs [45]:
(2.12)
Where,
Sw: the water saturation (fraction),
Rw: the water resistivity (ohm-m),
Rt : formation resistivity (ohm-m), and,
a, n, and m: Archies parameters (dimensionless).
Becomes with the use of logarithms:
logRt =mlog + logaRw nlogSw (2.13)
In a water-bearing zone Sw = 1:
logRt = m log + log a Rw (2.14)
19
Literature Survey
Equation (2.14) is a straight line on log-log plot, where m is the slope and
(a.Rw) is the intercept at =1. As Rw is known from other sources (SP
usually), (a) can easily found.
Pickett's method is also very useful in calculating the saturation exponent
(n); the theoretical base can be derived as follows.
According to Pickett (1966):
(SW)n = aRW / m Rt (2.15)
For irreducible water levels Archie's equation is:
(SWi) n = aRW / m Rtirr (2.16)
In a 100% water bearing formation (SW =1.0); thus, Eq. (2.15) is reduced
to:
aRW = mRt (2.17)
Morris and Bigges (1968) observed that the multiplicand of the water
saturation and the porosity for the levels that fall on the hyperbola in S w
vs. would have a constant value, i.e.:
(.SW) = Constant (2.18)
Coates and Dumanoir(1974) concluded from studies of core analysis
that the assumption of (n = m) in irreducible water levels is fair. If this
assumption is used, then with (m = n), Eq. (2.16) may be reduced to:
( SWi) n = aRW/ Rtirr (2.19)
By substituting Eq. (2.19) into Eq. (2.16) and rearranging we get:
Rt = (SWinRtirr) n-m (2.20)
Taking the logarithm of both sides of Eq. (2.20) yields, ( Morris and
Bigges ,1968):
Log (Rt) = Log (SWinRtirr) + (n-m) Log () (2.21)
Equation (2.21) is a straight line on log-log plot with Rt on the y-axis and
on the x-axis. The intercept is (SWin.Rtirr) with a slope of (n-m). The
importance of this plot is to calculate (n) as (m) is known from Pickett
plot. It must be noted, however that as the derivation of Eq. (2.16)
20
Literature Survey
depends on irreducible levels so only the levels of irreducible water

saturation will be plotted on it. Morris and Bigges (1968) stated, that can
be done by plotting SW against the porosity on a linear scale. Then, a
hyperbola is drawn for the minimum water saturation, and the levels that
fall on this hyperbola, which represents the irreducible water saturation,
are selected.
Fig (2.3) idealized Pickett Plot.
21
Literature Survey

Factors Affecting (a) and (m)
The flowing is a summary of the factors affecting on Archie
parameters (a) and (m) [23]:
1. Overburden pressure - during early lab. Fatt (1957) noted that the
error in water saturation calculation when neglecting overburden
[1]
pressure effects on formation factor could be significant . He
observed an increase in formation factor and a decrease in
porosity as pressure was applied. Helander and Campbell (1966)
hypothesized, that this behavior was due to decreased pore throat
size, (especially the smaller pore throats) and increasing
tortuosity as same current flow paths were closed.
2. Reservoir temperature - Helander &Campbell (1966) and

Brannan and Von Gonten (1973), showed that as temperature
raises the formation factor increases ("a" increases and "m"
decreases).
3. Brine resistivity - Brannan and Von Gontoen (1973), Vineger and

Waxman (1984) founded formation factor increase ("a" decreases
and "m" increases) as the brine salinity increases.
4. Lithology, particle shape, and pore and pore throat geometry.
2.6 Resistivity
The resistivity of a formation is a key parameter in determining
Hydrocarbon saturation. Electricity can pass through a formation only
because of the conductive water it contains (resistivity of a formation is
the ability of its constituents to transmit electricity).So saturations of
water should be calculated.
The tools used for resistivity logging are classified within depth of
investigation as follows;
22
Literature Survey
Deep resistivity tools for uninvaded zones.

Shallow resistivity tools for transition zones.
Micro resistivity tools for flushed zones.
The most common resistivity tools in use can be classified as;
Dual Laterolog Tool.
Dual Induction Tool.
Micro Spherically Focused Log.
Microlog.
The true resistivity of the formation (Rt) is the resistivity of a formation
with its matrix and fluid (water and hydrocarbon) and in the pores. The
water in the pores of formation before it drilled is the formation water
saturation (Rw). After a drilling operation, drilling mud invades and this
affects the vicinity of the borehole forming different zones with different
resistivities. This zonation is shown in figure (2.4). Sw is the original
water saturation and only valid for the uninvaded zone of the formation.
The flushed zone is totally invaded with mud with a resistivity of Rmf, and
the saturation of this zone is shown as Sxo.
Rt is used for the determination of Sw in the Archie saturation model,
that considered the resistivity of a formation far enough from the
borehole which unaffected by invasion.
Rxo is used to obtain the saturation in the flushed zone (S xo)(represent the
resistivity of the flushed zone near the borehole).
For favorable conditions, the focused deep-reading tools [the laterolog
(LLd) and the deep induction (ILd)] may give measurements very close
to (Rt) even without correction because they have the largest depths of
investigation in most conditions [48]. The flushed zone resistivity (Rxo) can
be measured directly with micro tools.
23
Literature Survey
However, the correction for the skin effect must be made to obtain
accurate values.
Figure (2.4): the distribution of fluids and resestivites near the well
(Schlumberger, Log Interpretation Charts, 1988).
2.7 Permeability prediction
Permeability is an important rock property and one of the most difficult
of all petrophysical properties to determine and predict [28].
For a petroleum engineer, an accurate estimate of permeability is
essential because permeability is a key parameter that controls strategies
of well completion, production, reservoir management; and thus it affects
the economy of the development and operation of a field [33].
Permeability is a function of effective porosity and irreducible water
saturation. Thus, in many cases, estimates of permeability are obtained
from porosity values. The most reliable local permeability values may be
obtained from core analysis. In general, core data are available only from
some wells in the field, and for some intervals in each cored well. The
permeability of the whole field is usually estimated from such sparse
information.
24
Literature Survey
To obtain more reliable and representative permeability values,

attempts have been made over the years to estimate permeability by
different techniques. One of the comparatively inexpensive and readily
[31]
available sources of inferring permeability is from well logs .There is
many different methods and techniques that used to estimate and predict
permeability.
2.7.1Classical Method of Porosity Correlation
A linear or bilinear relationship is obtained between the logarithm of
the permeability and porosity. A schematic example is given in figure
(2.5).
A regression line whose equation [48]:
log k = a* +b (2.22)
Is found for low porosity values.
Another line whose equation:
log k = * + b (2.23)
Is obtained for high porosity values.
In which:
, a, b and b are parameters dependent on rock type and can be
determined by correlation with core data.
k : Permeability (md).
: Porosity (fraction).
Generally, a > and b < b. Where a, b, and b can be determined for a

given case of study. Two values of k may be obtained, and the maximum
may be determined.
25
Literature Survey
Fig. (2.5): Schematic of empirical law of porosity correlation (R.

Desbrandes, 1985).
2.7.2 Role of Flow Units in Permeability Prediction
An improved technique based on the concept of hydraulic flow units

(HU) is presented to calculate permeability distribution in uncorred wells.
Graphical probability methods, nonlinear regression, and the Ward's
analytical algorithm are presented to perform cluster analysis on core data
and identify prevailing HU's in a formation. Estimation of permeability in
uncorred but logged wells is a generic problem common to all reservoirs.
Any field-scale reservoir characterization study inevitably requires
knowledge of petrophysical properties at drilled wells for its starting
point. Therefore, scientifically sound and geologically compatible
procedures must be sought to allow for reliable calculation of
permeability distributions in wells [61].
Several definitions of a flow unit may be found in the literature. Bear
(1972) defined the flow unit as the representative, elementary volume of
the total reservoir rock within which the geological and petrophysical
26
Literature Survey
properties of the rock volume are the same. Hear et al (1984) defined the
flow unit as a reservoir zone that is laterally and vertically continuous,
and has similar permeability, porosity, and bedding characteristic. Ebank
(1987) defined the hydraulic flow unit as a map-able portion of the
reservoir within which the geological and petrophysical properties that
affect the flow of fluid are consistent and predictably different from the
properties of other reservoir rock volume. Gunter et al. (1997) defined the
flow unit as a stratigraphically continuous interval of similar reservoir
process that honors the geologic framework and maintains the
characteristic of the rock type. The concept of hydraulic flow units can be
used to predict permeability with reliable accuracy.
The term flow unit is used to designate a co-relatable and map-able
zone of appreciable lateral extension within a reservoir, which controls
fluid flow and have practically similar reservoir properties that differ
significantly from those of adjacent layers. Each flow unit is
characterized by a flow zone indicator (FZI). Thus, with the use of flow
zone indicator and identification of flow units, reservoir zonation can be
employed for evaluating the reservoir quality on the bases of porosity-
permeability relationships. Several authors showed that, for the same
porosity, rocks permeability could vary in several orders of magnitude
depending on type of rock, depositional environment, and diagenetic
process. Kozeny (1927) described permeability as function of porosity
and specific surface area per unit grain volume.
Rock types are defined as the units of rock deposited under similar
conditions, which experienced similar diagenetic processing resulting in a
unique porosity-permeability relationship. Large amount of scattering, as
shown in figure (2.6), indicates variations in particle size and sorting
within each rock type; which give rise to variations in pore throat sizes
that control permeability.
27
Literature Survey
Fig. (2.6): Porosity versus permeability plot showing different pore

throat lines and different rock type (After J. C. Porras ,2001).
The data of flow zone indicator is required for determining HFU in
uncorred wells/intervals. Having FZI and effective porosity, one can
determine permeability in each HFU with sufficient accuracy .The
relationship between permeability, effective porosity and FZI in hydraulic
flow units is presented in equation (2.24).
RQI = FZI. z (2.24)
Equation (2.24) can also be written as:
0.0314 = (2.25)

Where:
k = permeability (md),
28
Literature Survey
= effective porosity,
Fs = shape factor,
= tourtosity factor and Sgv= contact surface/volume of grain.
Equation (2.26) can be derived from Equation (2.25) and used for
determining permeability (k) in each hydraulic flow unit
K=1014*(FZI mean) (2.26)
Where:
FZI mean is the average flow zone indicator.
Flow zone indicator may have measurement errors which are
dependent on inappropriate specimens and systematic measurement
errors. Thus, in contrary to the theory of HFU, specimens belonging to a
certain hydraulic flow unit may give different flow zone indicators.
Therefore FZI mean should be used to determine permeability in each
hydraulic flow unit. After calculating FZI in uncorred wells, having
effective porosity from well logs, permeability can be determined for
each HFU using equation (2.26). Flow zone indicator is a suitable
parameter for determining hydraulic flow units because it depends on
geological conditions and geometry of porous medium.
29
Literature Survey
2.7.3 Empirical models for Determining Permeability from

Well Logs
In empirical modeling, the permeability is determined by measuring
porosity and irreducible water saturation of the cores and developing
mathematical models relating porosity and irreducible water saturations
to predict permeability. The next step in this approach is to get the best
estimate of porosity and irreducible water saturation from logs and then
use them to predict permeability values for the un-cored sections [9].
Several investigators attempted to grasp the complexity of the
permeability function into a model with general applicability. Coates and
[12]
Dumanoir (1974) developed an improved empirical permeability
model based on core and log studies. They adopted a common exponent
(w) to set equal to the saturation exponent and cementation exponent
(m=n=w). They proposed a relationship between (w) value, porosity, and
formation resistivity at irreducible water saturation. Their final equation
was expressed as follows:
= (2.27)
with:
c=23+456h-188h2 (2.28)
w=3.75- + (2.29)
Where,
k: permeability (md).
: Porosity (fraction).
Rtirr: Formation resistivity at irreducible water saturation (ohm.m).
h: Hydrocarbon density (g/cc).
Gomez (1977) [21] discussed some considerations for the possible use
of the parameter (a) and (m) as a formation evaluations tool using well
logs. He developed an improved empirical permeability model from a
30
Literature Survey
combination of measurements of porosity and irreducible water

saturation; that can be used for detecting permeable zones from the
following relation:
2
k= ( (2.30)
Coates and Denoo (1981) proposed the following formula for the
determination of permeability from porosity and irreducible water
saturation [53]:
k=100 (2.31)
Where,
k: is the permeability (md).
This formula also satisfies the condition of zero permeability at zero
porosity and Sw =100%. The formula must be at irreducible water
saturation.
31
Log Interpretation
Chapter Three
Log Interpretation
3.1 Preface
Log Interpretation is the explanation of logs RHOB, GR,
Resistivity, etc. in terms of well and reservoir parameters, zones,
porosity, oil saturation, etc [48].
This chapter deals with the pre-interpretation and then explains the
second steps to deal with interpretation of well logs. As a first step,
the available logs were scanned and digitized. The Didger Software
Package 3.03 program was used for the digitization of the logs. One
reading per 0.25m depth was selected for recording the input data
measurements, which was used in this study. This step is followed
by checking the digitization results and carrying environmental
corrections to the log readings.
The corrections and interpretations of well logs were achieved by using
Interactive Petophysics software (IP) version (3.5). It was found that the
differences between the original logs readings and the corrected logs
readings of resistivity logs, density log, Neutron and sonic logs and gamma
ray log were negligible.
Accordingly, the corrected log sets were used as input data to evaluate
Mauddud Formation in Ratawi oil field .The pre-interpretation also includes
the determination of effective porosity (corrected to shale effects) and all the
parameters that are required in the interpretation processes.
Ratawi field has six drilled wells all of them penetrate Mauddud
formation and have available data which were used in this study. All the six
wells have logs and the core data are available just for two of them (RT-4
32
Log Interpretation
and RT-6), table (3.1) shows the tops of Mauddud formations in Ratawi
field.
Table (3.1): Tops of Mauddud Formation units in the Ratawi field (from
RTKB*).
TOP OF TOP OF TOP OF TOP OF TOP OF TOP OF
WELL MA MB MC MD ME NHRUMR
NO. (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m)
RT-2 2493.4 2508 2541.57 2564.37 2606 2612.56
RT-3 2458.5 2471 2506 2523.3 2557.3 2583
RT-4 2554 2571.3 2603.5 2631 2669.5 2680.5
RT-5 2568.5 2584.8 2622 2653.3 2679.3 2688.5
RT-6 2575 2589 2612.5 2638.5 2669.5 2691
RT-7 2566.75 2584 2612.5 2631 2665 2674.5
*R.T.K.B: Rotary Table Kelly Bushing
3.2 The environment correction of well logs

3.2.1 Resistivity logs
Resistivity is a basic measurement of reservoirs fluid saturation and is a
[4]
function of porosity . Flushed zone resistivity (Rxo) is a parameter of
interest because a comparison of flushed zone resistivity (Rxo) and true
resistivity (Rt) may indicate hydrocarbon movability[48].
An Interactive Petrophysics programs v.3.5 were used to carry out
environmental corrections (hole-size, mud cake and invasion
effects). Figure (3.1) shows environmental corrections for resistivity
33
Log Interpretation
logs for well RT-7. The results of the other wells are given in
Appendix (A).
The environmental corrections for resistivity show that the differences
between the original logs readings (RXO and Rt) and the corrected ones
(RXOc. and Rtc.) were negligible.
34
Log Interpretation
Scale: 1: 500 RT-7

DEPTH (2566.75M - 2674.5M)
DEPTH Rt (ohm.m) Rt (ohm.m) Rxo (ohm.m)

(M) 0.2 2000. 0.2 2000. 0.2 2000.
Rtc (ohm.m) Rxo (ohm.m) Rxoc (ohm.m)
0.2 2000. 0.2 2000. 0.2 2000.
2600
2650
Fig. (3.1): The environment corrections for resistivity tools for well RT7.
35
Log Interpretation
3.2.2 Porosity logs

1. Density log
Density logging is a well logging tool that can provide a continuous
record of a formation's bulk density along the length of a borehole. In
geology, bulk density is a function of the density of the minerals forming a
rock (i.e. matrix) and the fluid enclosed in the pore spaces. Assuming that
the measured bulk density ( ) only depends on matrix density ( ) and
fluid density ( ), and that these values are known along the
wellbore, porosity () can be inferred by the formula, [44].
D= (3.1)
Where,
D: density derived porosity (fraction),
ma: matrix density, [whose value is 2.71 (gm/cc) for limestone].
b: is the formation bulk density, (gm/cc) and,
f: is the fluid density.
2. Neutron logs
The neutron log is sensitive mainly to the amount of hydrogen
atoms in a formation. Its main use is in the determination of the
porosity of formation. In clean formations (i.e., shale-free), where
the pores are filled with water or oil, hydrogen in a porous formation
is concentrated in the fluid-filled pores. Energy loss can be related to
[4].
the formations porosity Whenever shale is part of the formation
matrix the reported neutron porosity is greater than the actual
formation porosity. This occurs because the hydrogen that is within
36
Log Interpretation
the shales structure and in the water bound to the shale is sensed in
addition to the hydrogen in the pore spaces [6].
Sonic log
Sonic logging is a well logging tool that provides a formations interval
transit time, designated as (t), which is a measure of a formations capacity
to transmit compressional sound wave. (t) depends upon both lithology and
porosity. Many relationships between travel time and porosity have been
proposed, the most commonly accepted is the Wyllie time-average equation.
The equation basically holds that the total travel time recorded on the log is
the sum of the time the sonic wave spends travelling the solid part of the
rock, called the rock matrix and the time spent travelling through the fluids
in the pores. This equation may be written as [4]:
(3.2)
Where,
s: sonic-derived porosity, fraction,
tma: interval transit time in the matrix [whose value is 47.5

(sec/ft) for limestone],
tlog: interval transit time in the formation, sec/ft; and

tf: interval transit time in the fluid within the formation [For fresh
water mud = 189 (sec/ft); for salt-water mud = 185(sec/ft).
Figure (3.2) shows the environment corrections for density, neutron and
sonic logs for well RT-5.The results of the other wells are given in
Appendix (A).
37
Log Interpretation
Scale : 1 : 500 RT-5

DB : NEW PRIJECT (4) DEPTH (2568.5M - 2688.5M) 14/02/2013 11:01
DEPTH NPHI (dec) RHOB (gm/cc) DT (uSec/ft)

(M) 0.45 -0.15 1.95 2.95 140. 40.
NPHIC (dec) RHOC (gm/cc) DTC (uSec/ft)
0.45 -0.15 1.95 2.95 140. 40.
2600
2650
Fig. (3.2) The environment corrections for porosity log well RT-5.
38
Log Interpretation
3.3.3 Gamma ray log

The GR log is particularly useful for defining shale beds when the SP is
distorted. The GR log reflects the proportion of shale and, in many regions,
can be used quantitatively as a shale indicator. It is also used for the
detection and evaluation of radioactive minerals [51].
An interactive perophysics program used to make the environmental
correction for gamma ray log. Figure (3.3) shows the corrections for wells
RT-2 and RT-4. Figures for the others wells are shown in appendix A.
RT-4
DEPTH (2554.M - 2680.5M)
1 2
DEPTH GR (A PI)
(M) 0. 150.
GrC (A PI)
0. 150.
2600
2650
Fig. (3.3) the environment corrections for wells RT-2 and RT-4.
39
Log Interpretation
3.3 Shale Volume Determination

Shale content; or volume of shale, is an important quantitative parameter
in results of log analysis. The mathematical method for finding shale volume
is the same for all the shale distribution types [57].
Since a gamma ray log is almost invariably recorded in all wells, this
simplest independent estimation of reservoir shaliness (Vsh ) is obtained by
using this log data. Since the radioactive elements tend to concentrate in
clays and shales, for that gamma ray log normally reflects the shale content
[48]
of the formations . So the increasing of gamma ray log that mean the
[4]
shale content increases also . In the present study, the corrections of
gamma ray for non-barite, borehole (caliper log), and open hole were made
to calculate the shale volume (Vsh) from the gamma ray log, the following
equation was used for old rocks, [46]:
(3.2)
For Mauddud formation old rock method was used Vsh as the formula:
( ) (3.3)
Where,
: gamma ray index.
Gr: gamma ray log reading in zone of interest (API units),
Gr min: gamma ray reading in clean zone, (API units), and
Gr max: gamma ray reading in shale zone, (API units).
An Interactive petophysices program was used to determine Vsh,
figure (3.4) shows the calculated Vsh for wells RT-4 and RT-3. The
other figures of Ratawi wells are shown in appendix A.
40
Log Interpretation
Fig. (3.4) Vshale for wells RT-3 and RT-4 in Mauddud formation.
41
Log Interpretation
3.4 Determination of Lithology and Mineralogy

3.4.1 The Matrix Identification (MID) Plot
Identifications of the matrix can be made by use of the MID (matrix
identification) plot. Determination of lithology is readily accomplished by
comparison of the apparent lithology values with the apparent density of
matrix (maa), and apparent transit time in rock matrix (tmaa). To use the
MID plot, three logs are required (the sonic, neutron, and density logs).
These logs are sensitive to lithology. The apparent total porosity (ta) must
be determined using the derived neutron-density. The values of the apparent
density of matrix (maa) and the apparent transit time (tmaa) are
determined from the following equations [50]:
maa = (3.4)
tmaa= (3.5)
Where,
maa : apparent density of matrix (gm/cc),
tmaa : apparent transit time in rock matrix (sec/ft), and,
ta : apparent total porosity (fraction).
The matrix was determined by the matrix identifiers (MID) crossplot
(maa and tmaa) for Mauddud Formation as shown in figure (3.5) for well
RT-4. Figures of other wells are shown in appendix (B). It may be observed
that, the range of matrix density value is 2.68-2.87 gm/cc; and the matrix
velocity ranges between 43s/ft and 55s/ft. This means that all the crossed
sections consist mainly of limestone with some dolomite, and that it is
highly fit the geological knowledge of the crossed formations. Moreover, it
proves the accuracy of the matrix identifiers calculation.
42
Log Interpretation
Fig. (3.5) MID plot for Mauddud formation in Rt-4.

3.4.2 M-N cross plot for mineral identification
The demonstration procedure of this type of crossplots for mineral
identification was presented by Schlumberger [4].
It is a two-dimensional display of all three porosity log responses in
complex reservoir rocks [50].
An (M-N) crossplot can be used for lithology determination, gas
detection, clay minerals classification, etc. Each mineral has unique set of
(M, N) values. However,
-
M= * 0.01 (3.6)
-
43
Log Interpretation
N= (3.7)
Where, N = 1.0.
From the M-N crossplots for Mauddud formation, in figure (3.6) for well
RT-6, it has been observed that the formation consists from limestone
(represented by calcite region) with some dolomite which's also proved
earlier by (MID) crossplot, and there is no evidence of gas detection in the
formation but there is a clear direction for secondary porosity in all wells,
which is shown in appendix (B).
Fig. (3.6) M-N cross plot for Mauddud formation in Rt-6.
44
Log Interpretation
3.4.3 Density - Neutron cross plot for Lithology:

This cross plot is used in log analysis for determination of porosity and
lithology from neutron porosity and bulk density. Neutron porosity is only
valid after making appropriate corrections and when used in a specific
limestone matrix. This cross plot provides satisfactory resolution of porosity,
good lithological resolution for quartz, calcite, and dolomite. The matrix
density differences between the three standard rock types and the neutron
lithology effect, the separations between the quartz, limestone, and dolomite
[4]
lines indicate good resolution for these lithologies . Figure (3.7) for well
RT-5 indicates that the matrix of Mauddud formation is limestone where
most of points fall on limestone line, the results of the other wells are given
in Appendix (B).
Fig. (3.7) Density-Neutron cross plot for Mauddud formation in Rt-5.
45
Log Interpretation
3.5 Determination of Porosity

The fluids stored in the pore spaces within the reservoir rocks could be
gas, oil, and water. High porosity values indicate high capacities of the
reservoir rocks to contain these fluids, while low porosity values indicate the
opposite [37].There are three types of porosity:
Total porosity:
Total porosity is defined as the ratio of the entire pore space in a
[38]
rock to its bulk volume . The combination of density and neutron
logs is now used commonly as means to determine porosity. By
averaging the apparent neutron and density porosities of a zone, the
total porosity may be estimated by applying the following equation
[51]
:
(3.8)
Effective porosity:
Effective porosity is the total porosity less the fraction of the pore
space occupied by shale or clay [37].
e = t (1-Vsh) (3.9)
Secondary porosity
Secondary porosity is porosity formed within a reservoir after

deposition; secondary porosity can be calculated by using secondary
porosity index SPI [51].
SPI= e - sonic (3.10)
46
Log Interpretation
Density and neutron logs combination have been used to estimate

total porosity then effective porosity calculated by using (equation
3.9) and secondary porosity by using secondary porosity index
(equation 3.10). It's found that secondary porosity for the formation
under study is small but existed as shown in (M-N) crossplot for
lithology determination. An interactive petrophysics program v (3.5)
is used to calculate porosity from neutron and density log, and then
calculate effective porosity, figure (3.8) shows the effective porosity
and secondary porosity index for wells (RT-4 and RT-7) for
Mauddud formation, other figures are shown in appendix A.
47
Log Interpretation
Fig. (3.8) effective and secondary porosity index for R-4 and RT-7 wells.
48
Log Interpretation
3.6 Determination of Formation Water Resistivity RW and Mud

Filtrate Resistivity Rmf
A precise knowledge of formation water resistivity (Rw) and mud
filtrate resistivity (Rmf) are essential to determine water saturation in
virgin and flushed zones correctly. It is therefore important to take
great care in its determination by matching and comparing the results
obtained from various methods to choose the best one.
3.6.1 Spontaneous Potential (SP) Log method

This is one of the most important and widely used methods to
determine formation water Resistivity (Rw) from spontaneous
potential (SP) log. Determination of Rw from (SP) log depends on
the following relationship between Rw and SSP [50]:
SSP = ( ) (3.11)
Where,
SSP: Static Spontaneous potential (mv),
Rmf : equivalent mud filtrate Resistivity (ohm-m),
Rw: formation water Resistivity (ohm-m) and,
K: SP coefficient.
Before applying the method, certain preparatory steps are required:
1- The shale baseline of the SP log must be identified; if necessary

by referring to the gamma ray to locate the shale patches in the
section.
49
Log Interpretation
2- The maximum deflection of the static spontaneous potential (SSP)

opposite 'clean', thick beds must be recorded the SSP for each
formation is shown in table (3.2).
3. The temperature at the point where the SSP was read (table (3.2)).
Flow chart describes steps of calculation is shown in figure (3.9),
table (3.3) shows the comparison between values of Rw and Rmf
from present work and reports.
Fig. (3.9): flow chart for Rw determination from SP-curve (Bateman and
konen, 1977).
50
Log Interpretation
Table (3.2): Result of Rw and Rmf values from SP-log method.
Wells K Rw - SP Tf inF Rmf@Tf Rm@Tf SSP(mv) Gradient

F/100ft
RT-2 82.7 0.0278 163 0.1878 0.28 -80 0.9910
RT-3 82.5 0.0258 162 0.2400 0.18 -100 0.9910
RT-4 83 0.0241 164 0.2091 0.37 -100 0.9910
RT-5 83 0.0242 165 0.1186 0.21 -75 0.9910
RT-6 83 0.02 166 0.2730 0.44 -100 0.9910
RT-7 75.1 0.0286 106 0.193 0.36 -100 0.991
Table (3.3) A comparison between Rw and Rmf values for the current
study and MOO reports.
Wells Rw - SP Rw - reports Rmf - Rmf - reports

SP
RT-3 0.0258 0.023 0.24 0.236
0.02 0.017 0.27

RT-6 0.273
51
Log Interpretation
3.6.2 Determination of Rw from Salinity

Rw can be calculated from salinity; TDS (total dissolved solids in
water) in ppm of NaCl equivalent which can be found by the
following equations [51]:
Nacleq =10x (in ppm) (3.12)
( )
X= (3.13)
Rw75 = Rw* (3.14)
A more general equation for any temperature may be derived by the

substitution of equation (3.14) into equation (3.12); the resulting equation
may be approximated by:
Nacl = (in ppm) (3.15)
Y = 3* ( )
(3.16)
( )
Rw for RT-2 is calculated and the result is shown in table (3.4).
Table (3.4): Rw calculated from salinity.
Well TDS(PPM) Tf Rm Rw
RT-2 29000 163 0.28 0.24
From the above result obviously there is a big difference between Rw value
from SP log and Rw from salinity. Thats because the value of salinity of
29000 ppm which is measured in RT-2 in interval (2507.29-2512.78)
(F.G.R, RT-2, 1973) considered very low thus high Rw value is obtained.
52
Log Interpretation
3.7 Determination of Archie parameters Using Pickett's Method

Pickett plot method is a graphical solution to Archies equation so that
plotting resistivity against porosity (both on logarithmic scales) will produce
linear arrangements of the data, this method was used to calculate m and a
from well logs by the following equation [48]:
Log Rt = m log + log a Rw (3.17)
By plotting Rt vs. e on log-log scale, m is the slope of the line (which

represents the points with Sw =100%) and aRw is the intersection point with
y-axis at e = 1.With known Rw from other sources (a) can be easily found.
Pickett's method is also very useful in calculating the saturation exponent (n)
depending on the irreducible water saturation levels, exponent (n) can be
determined from the following equation [48]:
Log (Rt) = Log (SWin.Rtirr) + (n-m) Log () (3.18)
The above equation is a straight line on log-log plot, the intercept is

(SWin.Rtirr) with a slope of (n-m) and since (m) can be found from Pickett
plot, (n) can be determined. Figure (3.10) show the picket plot for well RT-
6, the results of the other wells are given in Appendix (A). Table (3.4) shows
the values of the tortousity factor (a), saturation exponent (n) and the
cementation factor (m) which is obtained by the above technique.
53
Log Interpretation
Fig (3.10) Pickett plot for Mauddud formation, well RT-6.
Table (3.4) Archie parameters.
Wells a m n
RT-2 1.01 1.81 2
RT-3 1 1.64 2
RT-4 1 1.71 2.01
RT-5 1.03 1.4 2
RT-6 1.05 1.26 2
1 1.41 2
RT-7
54
Log Interpretation
3.8 Fluid and Formation Analysis

3.8.1 Fluid Analysis
All the previous steps which have been carried out to prepare the
information for this step. This step considered the final and the most
important step in the static formation evaluation to get more accurate water
and hydrocarbon saturations for each level.
To estimate hydrocarbon saturation, at the first, water saturation must be
calculated. By using Archie equation water saturation is calculated, which
can be expressed as [5]:

SW = [ ] (3.19)

Sxo = [ ] (3.20)
Where,
Sxo: water saturation in the flushed zone, fraction.
After calculating the water saturation in flushed zone, the residual oil
saturation and moveable oil saturation can be calculated using the following
equations [48]:
Sor= [*(1-Sxo)] (3.21)
Shr = [ *(Sxo-Sw)] (3.22)
Where,
Sor : The residual oil saturation, fraction; and,
Shr : movable hydrocarbon saturation, fraction.
55
Log Interpretation
4.8.2 Formation Analysis (Bulk Volume Analysis)
The matrix identifiers and lithology crossplot indicates that the matrix
density has a range value of (2.68-2.87 gm/cc). This means that Mauddud
formation consist mainly of limestone with some dolomite and shale.
The formation analysis result for well RT-7 is given in Figure (3.11) in the
bulk volume analysis track. This figure, which represents Computer
Processed Interpretation (CPI), depicts as composite the followings:
1- Porosity analysis track, which is divided in to effective porosity (e),
water filled porosity in the invaded zone (e.Sxo), and water filled porosity in
the un-invaded zone (e.Sw). The area between (e.Sxo) and (e.Sw)
represents the movable hydrocarbon, but the area between ( e) and (e.Sw)
represents the total hydrocarbon.
2- Bulk volume analysis is divided in to effective porosity ( e), percentage
of shale (Vsh), and percentage of non-shale matrix (Vmatrix).
The figures of fluid and formation analyses of the other wells are given in
Appendix (A).
56
Log Interpretation
Fig. (3.11) C.P.I. analyses of well RT-7.
57
Chapter Four
Formation Evaluation and Permeability Predication
4.1 Introduction
The petrophysical properties needed to evaluate a petroleum reservoir are
its permeability, porosity, fluid saturation, and the extensions and thickness
of the producing zones. These parameters can be estimated from three main
sources: core analysis, geophysical and well log data, and pressure test
analysis [43].
4.2 Formation evaluation

The aim of formation evaluation is to evaluate the potential productivity
of porous and permeable formations encountered by drilling. Successful
logging program, along with core analysis, can supply data for the
determination of the physical properties, define the lithology, identify the
productive zones and accurately describe their depth and thickness,
distinguish between oil and gas, and permit a valid quantitative and
qualitative interpretation of reservoir characteristics[50].
4.2.1 Core analysis
Core analysis provides a direct measurement of reservoir-rock properties
that determine hydrocarbon production and is an essential step in formation-
evaluation and production engineering [55].
Core analysis can be divided into two categories: Conventional core analysis
and Special core analysis. Conventional core analysis provides information
on lithology, residual fluid saturation and grain density. Special core
analysis provides the following information: capillary pressure, wettability
58
and relative permeability, rock compressibility, electrical properties such as

formation factor and resistivity index and well performance.
4.2.2 Cutoff calculations
The cutoff value applied to specific reservoir parameter (porosity,
permeability and water saturation) in order to split the formation into pay
[32]
and non pay sections . From the available core data for two wells (RT-4
and RT-6) and well logs data for all the six wells, cutoffs for the formation
units have been determined as the following:
1. Porosity cutoff
The available core data analyses have been used to determine the cutoff
of core porosity, a plot of permeability (log scale) versus porosity (linear
scale) with the intersection of straight line at permeability value of (0.1 md)
with the best fit line was used in this purpose. The porosity cutoff of MA is
6%, MB and MC units are 5% and for MD unit is 6.6 %. Figure (4.1) shows
the core porosity cutoff for (MA) unit, figure (4.2) shows core porosity and
log porosity cross plot for (MA) unit. Figures for other wells are shown in
appendix (B).
59
10.0
1.0
K (md)
0.1
0.0
0 0.05 0.06 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
PHI (%)
Figure (4.1) core porosity cut off for MA unit.

0.25
0.2
0.15
PHI core (%)
0.1
0.06
0.05
0
0 0.05 0.06 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
PHI log (%)
Figure (4.2) log porosity vs. core porosity for MA unit.
60
2. Water saturation cutoff

To identify water saturation cutoffs values, cross plot between water
saturation and log porosity for the reservoir units of Mauddud formation has
been done, taking log porosity cutoff value and intersecting it with the drawn
curve to fined water saturation cutoff. Water saturation cutoff is equal to
50% for MA and MD units, 56% for MB unit and 60% for MC unit Figure
(4.3) shows the water saturation cut off for MB unit. Figures of the other
wells are shown in appendix (B).
0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
PHI CORE
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.56 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
SW
Figure (4.3) water saturation cutoff for MB unit.
61
3. Net to gross
Net to gross defined as the thickness of productive reservoir rocks (net)
within the total reservoir (gross) thickness [16].
For Mauddud formation net to gross has been determined by using porosity
and permeability and water saturation cutoffs, table (4.1) show the cutoffs
and net to gross values for formation units. Gross thickness has been
determined as the difference in depth between the top and bottom of the unit
and the net pay calculated as the sum of points that verify the cutoffs limits,
net to gross is the ratio of net to gross values.
Table (4.1) cutoffs and net to gross values for Mauddud units.
unit Porosity Permeability Water Gross Net pay N/G

cutoff cutoff saturation
cutoff
MA 0.06 0.1 0.5 77.35 67 0.87
MB 0.05 0.1 0.56 156.8 153.25 0.98
MC 0.05 0.1 0.6 120.3 86.75 0.72
MD 0.06 0.1 0.5 163.5 109.5 0.67
62
4.3 Permeability prediction

Rock formation permeability is the most important parameter that's indicate
how efficient fluids flow through the rock pores to the well bore. Regardless of
operation available down hole, its importance is reflected by the number of
available techniques (core measurements and well log evaluation) typically
used to estimate it [7].
4.3.1 Porosity Correlation for Permeability Determination
(classical Approach)
Permeability can be derived from porosity values in direct way.
Permeability-porosity correlations are generated from core analysis and
transformed to the corresponding well-log data. The general expression for
the conventional permeability-porosity relations is usually expressed as [46]:
Log (k) = a + b (4. 1)
Where:
K: the permeability (md),

: the porosity (fraction),
a and b: the constants to be fitted to the case study.
The available core data for wells (RT-4 and RT-6) have been used to predict
the permeability. Table (4.2) shows the formula equation with correlation
coefficient of (0.64). This value of correlation coefficient consider low
because the available core data about the formation is too little and
inadequate.
63
Table (4.2): Formula and correlation coefficient for RT-4 and RT-6.
Well s Formula Correlation coefficient (R)
RT-4 and RT-6 K = y = 0.1068e25.941 0.64
Figure (4.4) shows a plot of permeability versus porosity for core data for
RT-4 and RT-6, which was used in the derivation of porosity-permeability
model by getting the values of (a and b) and use these values in equation
(4.1) to predict permeability. The accuracy of permeability results needs
more than parameters, accordingly, it is necessary to look for an alternative,
general method that may be used to predict more acceptable permeability
values. This requires greater knowledge about the factors governing the
permeability, and encompassing such factors in its computation.
1000
y = 0.1068e25.941x
R = 0.6354
100
10
K
0.1
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
PHI
Figure (4.4 ) permeability porosity relationship for Mauddud formation.
64
Figure (4.5) shows a comparison between the measured and predicted

permeability values by applying the equations which are presented in Table
(4.2) for Mauddud formation.
2640
2630
2620
2610
2600
DEAPTH
2590 K-CORE
K-PRED.
2580
2570
2560
2550
0.1 10 1000
K
Figure (4.5) core permeability vs. predicted perneability for Mauddud

formation.
65
4.3.2 Gomez method

Gomez (1977) [21], discussed some considerations for the possible use of
the parameter (a) and (m) as a formation evaluations tool using well logs.
He developed an improved empirical permeability model from a
combination of measurements of porosity and irreducible water saturation;
that can be used for detecting permeable zones from the following relation:
K= ( )2 (4.2)
The predicted permeability from Gomez method (figure 4.6) shows that in
general, the core and the computed permeability values are differ from each
other when the actual coefficients (Archies coefficients) (chapter4)were
used in Eq.(4.2). As may be noticed, the Archies coefficients play an
important role in results accuracy.
66
2640
2630
2620
2610
2600
DEAPTH
K-CORE
2590 K-PRED.
2580
2570
2560
2550
0.001 0.1 10 1000
K
Figure (4.6) core permeability vs. predicted permeability for Mauddud

formation.
67
4.3.3 Flow Zone Indictor (FZI) approach for Permeability

Prediction
The Flow zone indicator is a function of reservoir quality index and void
ratio. A multiple regression technique was applied to develop a relationship
between log responses with Flow Zone Indictor (FZI) to predict the
permeability of the reservoir units for all the wells under study, FZI can be
determined from the following equations[27]:
RQI = 0.0314 (4.3)
Where
RQI: reservoir quality index.
z = ( )
(4.4)
Where
z: pore volume to grain volume ratio.
effective porosity
The above parameters were derived from a modified form of the Kozeny-
Carmen relation. However in reality the reservoir pores are not straight but
twisted in hundreds of ways. Kozeny and later Kozeny - Carman developed
a realistic model of a porous medium where the connected pores are not
straight defining Flow Zone Indicator, FZI and Reservoir Quality Index,
from above equations:
RQI = z *FZI (4.5)
or
log (RQI) = log (z) +log (FZI) (4.6)
Thus the value of FZI can be calculated from the above equations for a point
in a formation if the values of permeability and porosity are known for that
68
point. A log-log plot of RQI vs. z produce a straight line with a slope of
FZI.
From the above equation it can be said that samples with different
FZI values will fall on different line parallel to one another with a
unit slope. The mean FZI for a set of similar samples can be found
out by knowing the intercept at the coordinate z = 1. The basic idea
of how to classify FZI is the identification of straight lines with slope
on log-log plot of RQI vs. z.
Equations (4.3) through (4.6) are used to compute the functions
for preparing a log-log plot of RQI versus z for Mauddud
formation. The permeability can be computed for those points on the
same straight line (with same FZI) using the equation:
2
k =1014 FZI (4.7)
( )
Figure (4.7) shows a crossplot of the logarithm of permeability vs.

porosity data obtained from core analyses. The scattering in pore
throat sizes indicates large variations in particle size and sorting
within each rock type; that in turn control permeability.
69
0.1
K
0.01
0.01 0.1 1
PHI
Figure (4.7) permeability vs. porosity for Mauddud Formation.
Figure (4.8) shows a crossplot of the logarithm of the reservoir

quality index (RQI) versus the logarithm of the normalized porosity
(z) for various values of the Flow Zone Indicator (FZI). All the data
points that fall on the same (FZI) straight line can be considered to
have similar pore throat attributes. Figure (4.7) shows the existences
of three distinct rock types, each of these groups is characterized by
a certain average FZI value.
70
1
RQI
0.1
0.01
0.01 0.1 1
Z
Figure (4.8) ROI vs z for Mauddud formation.
Table (4.3) gives the Formula between k& for each hydraulic unit with the
correlation coefficient(R), this table shows a very good correlation, reflected by
the good values of correlation coefficient.
Table (4.3): Formula and correlation coefficients for Mauddud formation.
FZI groups
Correlation
For Mauddud Formula
coefficient (R)
formation
FZI=0 k = 0.0251e20.028 0.861
FZI=1 k = 0.0958e23.446 0.837
FZI=2 k = 0.269e27.67 0.907
71
The results of permeability calculation from this method are shown in figure
(4.9). The comparison between the computed and measured core
permeability values indicates that acceptable results are obtained by use of
FZI method.
2640
2630
2620
2610
2600
k-pred.
k core
2590
2580
2570
2560
2550
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Figure (4.9) core permeability vs. predicted permeability for

Mauddud formation.
72
4.4 Result of permeability prediction

The evaluation of permeability in heterogonous formations from well log
data represents difficult problem because a simple correlation between
permeability and porosity is difficult to develop in such formations [61].
The Comparison between the results of the three methods that have been
used to predict permeability is shown in fig. (4.10). As may be noticed from
this figure, the permeability estimated from FZI method are best match to the
measured values from the other methods, that's because in classical method
the porosity value is not the only parameter affecting permeability and Gomez
method is an empirical method. From here the results show the superiority of
the FZI method correlations on the other used methods.
73
FZI Gomez Classical
2640 2640 2640
2630 2630 2630
2620 2620 2620
2610 2610 2610
2600 2600 2600
DEAPTH
DEAPTH
DEAPTH
K-CORE K-CORE
K-PRED. K-PRED.
2590 2590 2590
2580 2580 2580
2570 2570 2570
2560 2560 2560
2550 2550 2550

0.001 1000 0.1 1000 0.1 1000
K K K
Figure (4.10) Comparison between permeability prediction methods

results.
74
Chapter Five
3D Static Model and Volumetric Calculations
5.1 Introduction
The most important phase of a reservoir study is probably the
definition of a static model of the reservoir rock, given both the large
number of activities involved, and its impact on the end results. As we
know, the production capacity of a reservoir depends on its
geometrical/structural and petrophysical characteristics. The availability
of a representative static model is therefore an essential condition for the
subsequent dynamic modeling phase; static reservoir study typically
involves four main stages: Structural modeling, Stratigraphic modeling,
lithological modeling and Petrophysical modeling, carried out by experts
[33]
in the various disciplines . Identifying and recovering hydrocarbons
require accurate, high-resolution geological modeling of the reservoir
structure and stratigraphy [54].
5.2 Model design
[53]
Petrel is a Schlumberger owned Windows PC software application
intended to aggregate oil reservoir data from multiple sources. It allows
the user to interpret seismic data, perform well correlation, build reservoir
models suitable for simulation, submit and visualize simulation results,
calculate volumes, produce maps and design development strategies to
maximize reservoir exploitation. It addresses the need for a single
application able to support the "seismic-to-simulation" workflow,
reducing the need for a multitude of highly specialized tools. By bringing
the whole workflow into a single application, risk and uncertainty can be
assessed throughout the life of the reservoir.
75
5.3 Import data

Data Prepared in files, one file for each data object, are imported by
petrel program. All input data and generated models are organized in the
Petrel Explorer. Import data describes the data import procedure and the
various data formats supported. These data include:
1. Well heads: include the position of each well in 3-dimensions, and the
measured depth along the path.
2. Well tops: markers representing significant points (well picks along

the well path, normally a change in stratigraphy.
3. Well logs and core data: include raw and interpreted data like effective
porosity, and water saturation values along the well path and core data
which include core porosity and core permeability.
5.4 Well Correlation

Well correlation in Petrel display and organize logs in a flexible 2D
[54]
visualization environment . Well correlation allows the possibility to
bring up multiple wells in a well section, create marker picks and bring
[56]
up new wells to compare with already correlated wells . In this study,
well correlation has been applied as a relatively easy method to give an
idea and allow simple visualization of the changes in the thickness within
Mauddud units and the change of the petrophysical properties of the
various units of Mauddud Formation. Figures (5.1) and (5.2) show the
lateral and vertical well correlations in the Ratawi field.
Figure (5.1) shows the thickness of the units (MA, MB, MC and MD)
increases to the east of the field, while the thickness of the unit (ME) is
increased to the west of the field, effective porosity for unite MA
increases from well RT-6 to RT-4(from west to east) while for (MB and
76
MC) units increased from well RT-6 to RT-3 the increasing continue to
RT-4 in some area and decreasing in some portions, in units MD and ME
the effective porosity increasing from RT-6 to RT-3 and return to
decrease in RT-4 .Water saturation for units (MA and MB) increasing
from RT-6 to RT-4 while for units (MC , MD and ME) the increasing
begin from RT-6 but decreasing in RT-3then return to increasing in RT-4,
in MD unit.
Figure (5.2) show the thickness of the units is generally increase to the
west of the east (i.e. from Rt-7 to Rt-5), effective porosity increases from
the west to the east for all formation units. Water saturation increases in
Rt-5 then decrease in RT-3 and return to increasing in Rt-7.
77
RT-6 [SSTVD] RT-3 [SSTVD] RT-4 [SSTVD]

SSTVD 0.00 GR 100.00 40.00 DT 140.00 -0.15 NPHI 0.45 1.95 RHOB 2.95 0.02 RXO 200.00 SSTVD 0.00 GR 100.00 40.00 DT 140.00 -0.15 NPHI 0.45 1.95 RHOB 2.95 0.02 RXO 200.00 SSTVD 0.00 GR 100.00 40.00 DT 140.00 -0.15 NPHI 0.45 1.95 RHOB 2.95 0.02 RXO 200.00
0.02 RT 200.00 0.02 RT 200.00 0.02 RT 200.00
MA
MA
MA
MA MA
MB
MB
MB
MB
MB
MC
MC
MC
MC
MC
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
ME
ME
ME
top-nuhr-umr
top-nuhr-umr
ME
ME
top-nuhr-umr
top-nuhr-umr
top-nuhr-umr
Figure (5.1) W-E cross section for (RT-3, RT-4 and RT-6 ) in Mauddud formation.
78
RT-5 [SSTVD] RT-3 [SSTVD] RT-7 [SSTVD]

SSTVD 0.00 GR 100.00 40.00 DT 140.00 -0.15 NPHI 0.45 1.95 RHOB 2.95 0.02 RXO 200.00 SSTVD 0.00 GR 100.00 40.00 DT 140.00 -0.15 NPHI 0.45 1.95 RHOB 2.95 0.02 RXO 200.00 SSTVD 0.00 GR 100.00 40.00 DT 140.00 -0.15 NPHI 0.45 1.95 RHOB 2.95 0.02 RXO 200.00
0.02 RT 200.00 0.02 RT 200.00 0.02 RT 200.00
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MB
MB
MB
MB
MB
MC
MC
MC
MC
MC
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
ME
ME ME
ME
ME
top-nuhr-umr
top-nuhr-umr top-nuhr-umr
top-nuhr-umr
top-nuhr-umr
Figure (5.2) N-S cross section for (RT-5, RT-3 and RT-7) in Mauddud formation.
79
5.5 Structural Modeling

Structural modeling is subdivided into three processes as follows: fault
modeling, pillar gridding, and vertical layering. All the three operations
were performed one after the other to form one single data model ([53].
Five contour maps have been built for the five units of Mauddud
formation; these contour maps have been done by digitizing the old
contour map from the previous studies of the field. Contour maps have
been built from the tops of the formation. In constructing these maps, old
contour map direction is considered as a general direction in building the
new contour maps.
These contour maps illustrate that the Mauddud formation consist of
fold with one anticline dome. Figure (5.3) shows contour map for MC
unit, the figures of the other units are given in Appendix (C).
Figure (5.3) structural contour map for MC unit
80
5.6 Pillar Gridding

Pillar Gridding is the process of making the Skeleton Framework.
The skeleton is a grid consisting of a Top, a Mid and a Base skeleton
grid, each attached to the Top, the Mid and the Base points of the Key
Pillars[53].
A 3D grid construction is the first step to build the 3D model. In simple
terms, a 3D grid divides a model up into boxes. Each box is called a grid
cell and will have a single rock type, one value of porosity, one value of
water saturation, etc. These are referred to as the cell's properties. In
addition to the three skeleton grids, there are pillars connecting every
corner point of every grid cell to their corresponding corners on the
adjacent skeleton grids.
Mauddud formation was represented by three dimensional grid systems
of 100 grid elements along the x-axis and 100 along the y-axis. The result
from the Pillar Gridding is the main skeletons in top, mid and base
skeletons as seen in the figure (5.4).
Top skeleton
Base skeleton
Mid skeleton
Figure (5.4) The Skeletons of theMauddud formation.
81
5.7 Make horizons

Make horizons process step was the first step used in defining the
vertical layering of the 3D grid in Petrel. This presented a true 3D
approach in the generation of 2D surfaces which were gridded in the
same process and keeping the well control (well tops), when introducing
the horizons to the set of pillars generated in the Pillar Gridding process;
all intersections between the pillars and the horizons become nodes in the
3D grid[53].
The five horizons that have been built for the formation were built by
entering main structural maps that had been built in (Structural
modeling). Figure (5.5) shows the main zones of Mauddud formation.
Figure (5.5) Main zones of Mauddud formation.
82
5.8 Layering
The 3D grid could have as many main layers as number of horizons
inserted into the set of pillars. The layering allowed the definition of the
final vertical resolution of the grid by setting the cell thickness or the
number of desired cell layers. The top and bottom of this specific unit
were identified within the cell sections and well tops inserted to be
displayed within the well section in 3D. Three-dimensional (3-D)
geologic models are increasingly the best method to constrain geology at
[52]
depth , each reservoir unit has been divided into many layers
depending on petrophysical properties. Figure (5.6) shows the layering of
Mauddud formation , where MA is divided into (2) layers, MB into (6)
layers, because of its importance since it has good reservoir properties,
MC into(3) layers, while MD unit has been divided into (6) layers
(reservoir unit) and ME into(1)layer because it is not reservoir layer.
Figure (5.6) the layering in the Mauddud formations.
83
5.9 Scale up of Well Logs

When modeling petrophysical properties, the modeled area is divided
up by generating a 3D grid. Each grid cell has a single value for each
property. As the grid cells are often much larger than the sample density
for well logs, well log data must be scaled up before they can be entered
into the grid. For each grid cell, all log values that fall within the cell will
be averaged according to the selected algorithm to produce one log value
[54]
for that cell. This process is also called blocking of well logs , an up
scaled property will have its name in the Property folder. There are many
statistical methods used to scale up such as (arithmetic average,
harmonic, and geometric method). The porosityand water saturation and
net to gross values have been scaled up using the (arithmetic average).
The geometric method is used for scaling up permeability. Figure (5.7)
shows the scale up for RT-3 in Mauddud formation.
84
RT-3 [SSTVD]
SSTVD -0.0419 PHIE 0.4617 0.1216 PHIE [U] (From property) 0.3238
-0.0989 SW 1.0999 0.0030 SW [U] (From property) 0.2367
MA
MA MA
MB
MB MB
MC
MC MC
MD
MD MD
ME
ME ME
top-nuhr-umr
top-nuhr-umr top-nuhr-umr
Figure (5.7) Scale up for well RT-3 in Mauddud formation.
85
5.10 Petrophysical Modeling process

Petrophysical property modeling is the process of assigning
petrophysical property values (porosity, permeability, etc.) to each cell of
the 3D grid. Petrophysics model was built using geostatistical methods
[54]
. The petrophysics models include:
1. Porosity model
Porosity model was built depending on the results of porosity logs
(density, neutron, and sonic logs) which have been corrected and
interpreted in the IP software. Statistical sequential Gaussian simulation
algorithm was used as a statistical method which fits with the amount of
available data. Figure (5.8) shows the porosity model for MB unit.
Figures of the other units are given in Appendix (C). It has been observed
that the porosity in MA unit porosity increases in the east and west
direction from the crest towards the flanks. In MB reservoir unit the
porosity values increases in the flanks towards north-east direction while
in MC unit porosity values increases in the flanks from north-east towards
south west. In MD reservoir porosity improved from the crest towards the
flanks in north-east direction while in ME unit the porosity values is not
good in general spatially in the flanks from all directions. Generally it has
been noticed that porosity values in Mauddud formation increases in the
flanks and towards north east direction.
86
Figure (5.8) Porosity model for MB unit in Mauddud formation.
2. Water saturation model
Water saturation model was built after the scale up of water

saturation that exports from IP software for each reservoir unit of the
Mauddud formation in the Ratawi field. The same Geostatistical
method was used in the porosity model (Statistical sequential
Gaussian simulation algorithm), according to available data. Figure
(5.9) shows the water saturation model for (MD) unit, figures for other
units are given in appendix (C). These figures show that the water
saturation in the MA unit reach to 60% and decreases in the crest and
increases in the flanks, while in the MB unit it ranges between 10-55%
and decreases in the flanks towards south-east directions. In MC unit
water saturation is 50% and decreases towards the flanks, in MD unite
reach 60% and improved from the crest towards the flanks in the south
direction, and in ME unite reaches 55%.
87
Figure (5.9) Water saturation model for unite MD in Mauddud

formation.
3. Permeability model
FZI method was used to determine permeability in uncorred wells

using well records. Figure (5.10) shows the permeability model for
(MA) unit, figures for other units are given in appendix (C).These
figures show that permeability in MA unit increases to the south west
and improved from the crest towards flanks, in MB unit permeability
increases to the east direction and in the flanks better than crest.
Permeability values in MC unit increases in the south east direction
and in the crest better than flanks while in MD unit permeability is
very good in south east direction and in the flanks better than crest and
in ME unit permeability improved in the flanks.
88
Figure (5.10) permeability model for unite MA in Mauddud formation.
4. Net to Gross reservoir estimation
Net to gross refers to the sum of productive intervals of a reservoir and

is determined by the application of cutoffs of porosity, permeability and
water saturation which is a specified limit below which a formation
would be unable to achieve or sustain commercial production [57].
Geostatistical method was used in the net to gross model (Statistical
sequential Gaussian simulation algorithm).
Net to gross model has been built by using Petrol software and after
determining cutoffs values (for porosity and water saturation). Figure
(5.11) shows the N/G model for (MB) unit, and other figures for other
units are given in appendix (C). From these figures, increasing of N/G
can be seen in the north east and decreasing towards south west. In
addition, it improved in the flanks. In MA unit and MB, N/G increases in
the flanks from the north direction to the south. The N/G in MC unit
89
improves towards the flanks, while in MD unit N/G decreases in the

flanks in the north direction and increases in the south direction. Finally
in ME unit N/G increases in the north east and south east while decreases
in the north west.
Figure (5.11) N/G model for unite MB in Mauddud formation.
90
5.11 Oil Water Contact

Oil water contact is the lowest level of producible oil, oil and water are
produced above this reservoir height until the relative permeability to
water becomes extremely low and only oil will flow [22].
After studying well logs for Mauddud formation it has been noticed
that the (O.W.C) level is not clear and undetectable, so the (O.W.C) has
[62]
been adapted from previous studies as (2600 m) . Figure (5.12) shows
the oil water contact for Mauddud formation.
Figure (5.12) Oil water contact for Mauddud formation.
91
5.12 Volumetric Calculations

Oil in the ground is usually measured by the volume of oil in place
which is defined as the amount of crude oil that is estimated to exist in a
reservoir and that hasn't been produced, which is the acre-feet of pore
multiplied by the percentage of oil saturation [10].
After building porosity, water saturation and net to gross models and
determining the oil water contact (OWC), Petrel software has been used
to calculate the initial oil in place (OIIP) for Mauddud formation in
Ratawi field. Its determined as (1157) million cubic meter, (6,749)
million barrel. The results of (OIIP) from previous studies are shown in
table (5.1) with that of present study. It can be noticed that the OIIP of
current study is too close to that of (JOCMEC) [27] study which is the most
recent one.
Studies OIIP (million bbl)
Current study 6,749
JOGMEC" study for Ratawi Field", 2009. 6,485
Geologic study for (Mauddud, Nahr Umar 5,743
and Mishrif) formations/SOC,1992.
Annual report for producing and un 5,319
producing reservoirs, 1998.
Table (5.1) compression between oil in place of current study with
previous studies.
92
Chapter six
3D static model and formation evaluation has been carried out for
Mauddud formation in Ratawi field, well logs of six wells and core
analysis data of tow wells have been used to represent this study.
From the present study, the following conclusions may be drawn; and
a number of recommendations are suggested.
6.2 Conclusions
1. The Matrix Identification (MID), M-N and Density-Neutron
crossplots indicates that Mauddud formation consists mainly of
limestone with some dolomite.
2. Determination of Archie's parameters using Pickett plot method by
Interactive Petrophysics program, it is found that the maximum
difference in the (m) values from well to well in Mauddud
formation is 2.77%, about 1% in the values of (n), and 0.09% in the
values of (a).
3. FZI method has superiority over other used method for determining
of permeability.
4. The analyses that were based on the Flow zone indicator (FZI)
show the existence of three distinct groups within the cored
interval.
5. The lateral and vertical well correlation clarify that the thickness of
the units (MA, MB, MC and MD) increases to the east of the field,
while the thickness of the unit (ME) is increased to the west,
effective porosity improved from east to the west direction while
water saturation decreases also from east to the west direction.
6. Porosity, water saturation and net to gross models that have been
built for the five units show that the porosity in general increases in
93
the flanks better than on the crust and in the north east direction.
Water saturation model shows decreasing in (SW) values in the flanks
and increasing in crust. N/G model shows that the N/G increases to
the north east and decreases towards south west and improved in the
flanks better than the crust.
7. Initial oil in place (OIIP) for Mauddud formation of Ratawi field is
(6,749) million barrel.
6.3 Recommendations
1. It is recommended that more core measurements to be taken in all
wells that's penetrate the formation and in large intervals , one of
the most difficulties challenges which is faced in current study is
the unavailability of core data and even the available one is too
little and in short intervals .
2. Drilling more wells with using advanced and modern logging tools
such as EPT log, NMR log, etc. to get more accurate results.
3. Building advanced geological models based on modern 3D seismic
data to evaluate the accurate depth of the top and bottom of
Mauddud formation.
94
References
References
1. A.M. Aldoleimi and D. Berta A new technique for deriving the resistivity
parameters of Archies equation from combination of logs and core
measurements, SPE 17942, 1989.
2. Aghazadeh Naser, Rahimpour-Bonab Hussein and Kadkhodayee-ilkhchi Ali

Identification of petrophysical rock types with the use of flow units concept
and cluster analysis: A case study from the South Pars gas field, Iran,
Geophysical Research Abstracts Vol. 12, EGU2010-68-1, 2010
3. Alam M. Mohammad, Sharma Ravi, Fabricius Ida L. 1, and Prasad Manika
Permeability Prediction in Chalks, AAPG Annual Convention, Denver,
Colorado, June 7-10, 2009.
4. Asquith, G., and Gibson, C. Basic Well Log Analysis for Geologists,
Methods in Exploration Series, AAPG, 1982.
5. Archie, G.E.: Electrical Resistivity an Aid in Core-Analysis Interpretation,
Bulletin of AAPG, Vol 31, No. 2, pp 350 366, 1947.
6. Avedisian, A. M. Well Log Analysis: for Oil & Gas Formation
Evaluation, Printed University of Mousal, 1988.
7. A. Aziz A. Kadir, M. Fauzi Hamed, AzmanIkhan "Permeability Prediction
Core versus log Derived Value", 1995.
8. Bear, J. Dynamics of Fluids in Porous Media. Elsevier, New York, 1972.
9. Balan, B., Mohagheg, S., and Ameri, S.: "State of the Art in Permeability
Determination from Well Log Data: A Comparative Study, Model
Development", paper SPE 30978 presented at SPE Eastern Regional
Conference & Exhibition held in Morgantown, West Virginia, U.S.A., 17-21
Sep., 1995.
95
References
10. Baker Hughes "Petroleum Geology", 1999.

11. Chantsalmaa Dalkhaa: Study of Modeling of Water Saturation in Archie
and Non-Archie Porous Media, Ms.c. thesis, Middle East Technical
University, 2005.
12. Coates, G.R. and Dumanoir, J.L.: A New Approach to Improved Log
Derived Permeability, the Log Analyst (Jan Feb), 1974.
13. D.W. Freeman and K.C. Henery Improved saturation Determination with
EPT SPE 11466, March, (14-17), 1983.
14. Ebanks, W.J., Scheihing, M.H., Atkinson, C.D., Flow Units for Reservoir
Characterization , AAPG Bulletin, p. 282-289, 1984.
15. Ebanks, W. J. The Flow Unit Concept-An Integrated Approach to
Reservoir Description for Engineering Projects, Am. Assoc. Geol.Annual
Convention, 1987.
16. Frank Jahn, Mark Cook and Mark Graham "Hydrocarbon Exploration and
Production", second edition, 2008.
17. F. Jerry Lucia" Carbonate Reservoir Characterization an Integrated
Approach" Second Edition, 2007.
18. G.G. Bakker and R.G. Lippincott ''overview of petrophysics'', shell
international Exploration and Production, July 2004.
19.George R. Coates and Yves Boutemy and Christain Clavier ''A Study of the
Dual water model on log data'', SPE 10104, OCT. (5-7), 1981.
20. Gunter, G. W., Finneran, J. M., Hartman, D. J. and Miller, J. D. Early

Determination of Reservoir Flow Units Using an Integrated Petrophysical
Method, SPE 38679. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
San Antonio, TX, 5-8 October 1997.
96
References
21. Gomez-Rivero, O. Some Considerations about the Possible Use of the

Parameters (a) and (m) As A Formation Evaluation Tool through Well
Logs, SPWLA, Part J, 1977.
22. H. Fertl and A.K. Sinha James G. McDougall ''Advances in complex
reservoir evaluation based on geophysical well logs'', CWLS Journal
SEP.1988.
23. Hear, C. L., Ebanks, W. J., Tye, R. S. and Ranganatha, V. Geological

Factors Influencing Reservoir Performance of the Hartzog Draw Field,
Wyoming, J. of Petrol. Tech, Aug. 1984.
24. Jean-Paul Bellorini, Johnny Casas, Patrick Gilly, Philippe Jannes, Paul
Matthews, David Soubeyrand, and Juan-Carlos Ustariz" Definition of a 3D
Integrated Geological Model in a Complex and Extensive Heavy Oil
Field",2003.
Cosentino L." Integrated reservoir studies, Paris, Technip",(2001).
25. Jennings W. James, Lucia Jerry F. Predicting Permeability From Well
Logs in Carbonates With a Link to Geology for Inter well Permeability
Mapping , paper SPE 84942 presented at Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers held in Texas, 14-20 April
2003.
26. JOCMEC "Joint Study and Training program Between MOO and
JOGMEC/The Ratawi Field/Technical Report (Final)/Geophysical and
Geological Evaluation", July 2009.
27. Jude O. Amaefule, Mehmet Altunbay, Djebbar Tiab, David G. Kersey and
Dare K. Keelan.," Enhanced Reservoir Description: Using Core and Log
Data to Identify Hydraulic (Flow) Units and Predict permeability in
97
References
Uncorred Intervals/ Wells" , Paper SPE 26436 presented at the 68th Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers
held in Houston, Texas, 3-6 October 1993.
28. Kumar Nitesh and Frailey M. Scott Using Well logs to Infer Permeability:
Will There ever be A Permeability log, Center for Applied Petrophysical
Studies, Texas Tech University, 2003.
29. Larisa V. Branets, Sartaj S. Ghai, Stephen L. Lyons and Xiao-Hui Wu
"Challenges and Technologies in Reservoir Modeling", 2008.
30. Lee M. Etnyre ''Comparative performance of A Dual water model equation
in laminar shaly sands'', SPWLA 34th Annual logging symposium June 13-
16, 1993.
31. Lacentre E. Pablo and Carrica M. Pablo A method to estimate permeability

on uncorred wells: the method, based on cores and log data, has been shown
to outperform standard-regression techniques, as well as the hydraulic-flow-
unit approach , Cengage Learning, 2008.
32. Luca cosentino Integrated Reservoir Studies", 2001.
33. Mohaghegh, S., Balan, B. and Ameri, S.," Permeability Determination From
Well Log Data," Paper SPE 30978presented at the SPE Eastern Regional
Conference and Exhibition held in West Virginia, U.S.A., September, 1997.
34. M. Taslimia, B. Bohlolia, E. Kazemzadehb And M.R. Kamali Determining
Rock Mass Permeability in a Carbonate Reservoir, Southern Iran Using
Hydraulic Flow Units And Intelligent Systems , International Conference
On Geology And Seismology (Ges '08), Cambridge, Uk, February 23-25,
2008.
35. Morries R. L. & Biggs W. P. Using Log-Derived Values of Water

Saturation and Porosity, SPWLA 1968.
98
References
36. Mohammed Zouhry El-Helu"Dictionary of Petroleum Engineering",

November, 2000.
37. Nnaemeka Ezekw "Petroleum Reservoir Engineering Practice: Porosity of
Reservoir Rocks", 2010.
38. Noaman EL.Khatib "A Fast and accurate method for parameter estimation
of Archie saturation equation", SPE 37744, March, 1997.
39. Paulo Sergio Denicol "Effects of pore geometry on log derived
cementation exponents in carbonate reservoirs", SPWLA 34 th Annual
logging symposium, June (13-16), 1993.
40. O.Serra, Fundamentals of Well Log Interpretation Volume 1: "The
Acquisition of Logging Data" Developments in Petroleum Science, Elsevier,
Amsterdam, 1984.
41. Perez Rosales, C. "On the relationship between formation resistivity
factor and porosity", SPE 19821, August, 1982.
42. Poupon, C. Clavier, J. Dumanior, R. Gaymard & A. MiskLog Analysis of
Sand-Shale Sequences a Systematic Approach, SPE2897, 1970.
43. Porras J. C., PdvsaEpm, and O. Campos Rock Typing: A Key Approach
for Petrophysical Characterization and Definition of Flow Units, Santa
Barbara Field, Eastern Venezuela Basin, Society of Petroleum Engineers
Inc, SPE 69458, This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Latin
American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference held in Buenos
Aires, Argentina, 2528 March 2001.
44. Pirson, S.J.," Handbook of Well Log Analysis", Englewood Cliffs, N.J.,
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1963.
45. Pickett, G. R. A Review of Current Techniques for Determination of Water
Saturation from Logs SPE 1446, 1966.
99
References
46. R. Desbrandes Encyclopedia of Well Logging, 1985.

47. Raoul Letham "Improved saturation Determination with the EPT in western
Canadas vugular dolomitic carbonates", March, 1987.
48. Schlumberger, Log InterpretationVol.1 Principles, 1972.

49. Schlumberger; Watfa, M Carbonate Interpretations, 1987.
50. Schlumberger Log Interpretation Principles/Applications, Houston, 1989.
51. Schlumberger ''Cased Hole Log Interpretation principles and Applications''.
Handbook, 1989.
52. Schlumberger" petrel property modeling course", 2005.
53. Schlumberger Petrel Manual and applications, 2008.

54. Schlumberger Petrel geology and geological modeling, 2013.
55. Servet Unalmiser, SPE, and James J. Funk, SPE, "Engineering Core
Analysis" Saudi Aramco, 1998.
56. Stephen Tyson" An Introduction to Reservoir Modeling", 2007.
57. Spectrum "Carins petrophysical". Handbook, 2005.
58. W.H. Fertl and A.K. Sinha James G. McDougall ''Advances in complex
reservoir evaluation based on geophysical well logs'', CWLS Journal SEP,
1988.
59.W. Focke and D. Munn cementation Exponents in middle Eastern
Carbonate reservoirs SPE 13735, June, 1987.
60. Zaki Bassiouni "Theory, Measurement and Interpretation of well logs".
Handbook, 1994.
61. Zanhg, Y. J. Lollback, P.A, Rojahan, J. S., "A methodology for estimation
permeability from well logs in a formation of complex lithology", October
1996.
100
References
62.Geophysical and geological study, MOO, 2010.

63. Final geological report of Mauddud formation, 1979.
64.Geological reports, MOO, 1978.
101
Well log Plots and Interpretation Profiles
Appendix (A)
Well log Plots and Interpretation

Profiles
A1
Scale : 1 : 500 RT-2

DB : NEW PRIJECT (5) DEPTH (8180.25FT - 8571.5FT) 30/09/2012 11:26
DEPTH RT (ohm.m) RT (ohm.m) RXO (ohm.m)

(FT) 0.2 2000. 0.2 2000. 0.2 2000.
RTC (ohm.m) RXO (ohm.m) RXOC (ohm.m)
0.2 2000. 0.2 2000. 0.2 2000.
8200
8300
8400
8500
Fig. (A.1): The environment corrections for resistivity tools; for well
RT-2.
A2
Scale : 1 : 500 RT-3

DB : NEW PRIJECT (3) DEPTH (2458.5M - 2583.M) 30/09/2012 11:24

(M) 0.2 2000. 0.2 2000. 0.2 2000.
0.2 2000. 0.2 2000. 0.2 2000.
2500
2550
RT-3.
A3
Scale : 1 : 500 RT-4

DB : NEW PRIJECT (2) DEPTH (2554.M - 2680.5M) 30/09/2012 11:23

(M) 0.2 2000. 0.2 2000. 0.2 200.
0.2 2000. 0.2 2000. 0.2 200.
2600
2650
RT-4.
A4
Scale : 1 : 500 RT-5


(M) 0.2 2000. 0.2 2000. 0.2 2000.
0.2 2000. 0.2 2000. 0.2 2000.
2600
2650
RT-5.
A5
Scale : 1 : 500 RT-6

DB : NEW PRIJECT (1) DEPTH (2575.M - 2691.M) 30/09/2012 11:22
1 2 3 4
(M) 0.2 2000. 0.2 2000. 0.2 200.
0.2 2000. 0.2 2000. 0.2 200.
2600
2650
RT-6.
A6
RT-5 RT-3
DEPTH (2568.5M - 2688.5M) DEPTH (2458.5M - 2583.M)
DEPTH GR (API) DEPTH GR (API)

(M) 0. 150. 0. 150.
(M)
GrC (API) GrC (API)
0. 150. 0. 150.
2600
2500
2650
2550
Fig. (A.6) the corrections plots of the gamma ray log for well RT-3 and
RT-5.
A7
RT-7 RT-6
DEPTH (2566.75M - 2674.5M) DEPTH (2575.M - 2691.M)
1 2 1 2
DEPTH GR (API)
DEPTH GR (API) 0. 150.
0. 150. (M)
(M) GrC (API)
GrC (API) 0. 150.
0. 150.
2600
2600
2650
2650
Fig. (A.7) the corrections plots of the gamma ray log for well RT-6 and
RT-7.
A8
Scale : 1 : 500 RT-4


(M) 0.45 -0.15 1.95 2.95 140. 40.
0.45 -0.15 1.95 2.95 140. 40.
2600
2650
Fig. (A.8) the corrections plots of the density, neutron and sonic logs
for well RT-4.
A9
Scale : 1 : 500 RT-6


(M) 0.45 -0.15 1.95 2.95 140. 40.
0.45 -0.15 1.95 2.95 140. 40.
2600
2650
for well RT-6.
A10
Scale : 1 : 500 RT-7


(M) 0.45 -0.15 1.95 2.95 140. 40.
0.45 -0.15 1.95 2.95 140. 40.
2600
2650
for well RT-7.
A11
RT-5 RT-2
DEPTH (2568.5M - 2688.5M)
DEPTH (8180.25FT - 8571.5FT)
DEPTH VSHALE (Dec)
(M) 0. 1. DEPTH VSHLE (Dec)
(FT) 0. 1.
8200
8300
2600
8400
2650
8500
Fig. (A.11) Shale for wells RT-2 and RT-6 in Mauddud formation.
A12
RT-7 RT-6
DEPTH (2566.75M - 2674.5M) DEPTH (2575.M - 2691.M)
DEPTH VCL (Dec) DEPTH V SHALE (Dec)

(M) 0. 1. (M) 0. 1.
2600
2600
2650
2650
Fig. (A.12) Vshale for wells RT-6 and RT-7 in Mauddud formation.
A13
RT-5
3.
maa /tmaa
2.9
maa Dolomite
2.8
2.7 Calcite
Quartz
2.6
2.5
30. 40. 50. 60. 70. 80.
tmaa
Fig. (A.13) MID plot for well RT-5.
RT-6
DTMatApp / RhoMatApp
3.
2.9
Dolom ite
2.8
RhoMatApp
2.7 Calcite
Quartz
2.6
2.5
30. 40. 50. 60. 70. 80.
DTM atApp
A14
RT-7
DTMatApp / RhoMatApp
3.
2.9
Dolom ite
2.8
RhoMatApp
2.7 Calcite
Quartz
2.6
2.5
30. 40. 50. 60. 70. 80.
DTM atApp
Fig. (A.16) M-N cross plot for well RT-4.
A15
Fig. (A.17) M-N cross plot for well RT-5.
(A.18) M-N cross plot for well RT-7.
A16
(A.19) Density-Neutron cross plot for well RT-4.
A17
Fig (A.22) Calculated (a, m and n) by Pickett method for Mauddud

formation, well RT-2.
A18
Fig (A.23) Calculated (a, m and n) by Pickett method for Mauddud

formation, well RT-5.
Fig (A.24) Calculated (a, m and n) by Pickett method for Mauddud formation,
well RT-7.
A19
Scale : 1 : 500 RT-2

DB : NEW PRIJECT (5) DEPTH (8180.25FT - 8571.5FT) 14/09/2012 10:54
DEPTH NPHI (dec) RT (ohm.m) SW (Dec) PHIE (Dec) PHIE (Dec)

Porosity / Sw
(FT) 0.45 -0.15 0.2 2000. 1. 0. 0.5 0. 1. 0.

RXO (ohm.m) SXO (Dec) BVWSXO (Dec) GR (API)
0.2 2000. 1. 0. 0.5 0. 0. 150.
BVW (Dec)
0.5 0. Clay
Res.Oil Matrix
Movable Oil
Water
8200
1
8300
8400
8500
Fig. (A.25) C.P.I. analyses of well RT-2.
A 20
A21
Scale : 1 : 500 RT-4

DEPTH Porosity / Sw DT (uSec/ft) RT (ohm.m) SW (Dec) PHIE (Dec) PHIE (Dec)

(M) 140. 40. 0.2 2000. 1. 0. 0.5 0. 1. 0.
RHOB (gm/cc) RXO (ohm.m) SXO (Dec) BVWSXO (Dec) GR (API)
1.95 2.95 0.2 2000. 1. 0. 0.5 0. 0. 150.
NPHI (dec) BVW (Dec)
0.45 -0.15 0.5 0. Clay
Res.Oil Matrix
Movable Oil
Water
2600
2650 4
A22
Scale : 1 : 500 RT-5

DEPTH DT (uSec/ft) RT (ohm.m) SW (Dec) PHIE (Dec) PHIE (Dec)

Porosity / Sw
(M) 140. 40. 0.2 2000. 1. 0. 0.5 0. 1. 0.
RHOB (gm/cc) RXO (ohm.m) SXO (Dec) BVWSXO (Dec) GR (API)
1.95 2.95 0.2 2000. 1. 0. 0.5 0. 0. 150.
0.45 -0.15 0.5 0. Clay
Res.Oil Matrix
Movable Oil
Water
2600
2
2650
A23
Scale : 1 : 500 RT-6

DEPTH DT (uSec/ft) RT (ohm.m) SW (Dec) PHIE (Dec) PHIE (Dec) GR

Porosity / Sw
(M) 140. 40. 0.2 2000. 1. 0. 0.5 0. 1. 0. 0.150.

RHOB (gm/cc) RXO (ohm.m) SXO (Dec) BVWSXO (Dec) GR (API) DEPTH
1.95 2.95 0.2 2000. 1. 0. 0.5 0. 0. 150. (M)
0.45 -0.15 0.5 0. Clay
Res.Oil Matrix
Movable Oil
Water
2600 2600
2
2650 2650
4
A24
Appendix (B)
Formation evaluation and Permeability

Predication
B1
Figure (B.1) core porosity cut off for MB unit.
Figure (B.2) core porosity cut off for MC unit.

B2
MD
10.00
1.00
K
0.10
0.01
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
PHI
Figure (B.3) core porosity cut off for MD unit.
Figure (B.4) log porosity vs. core porosity for MB unit.

B3
Figure (B.5) log porosity vs. core porosity for MC unit.
MA
0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
PHI LOG
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.06
0.05
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
SW
Figure (B.6) water saturation cutoff for MA unit.
B4
MC
0.5
0.45
0.4 C
0.35
0.3
PHI LOG
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1
SW
Figure (B.7) water saturation cutoff for MC unit.
Figure (B.8) water saturation cutoff for MD unit.
B5
Appendix (C)
3D Static Model and Volumetric

Calculations
C1
Figure (C.1) structural contour map for MA unit.
Figure (C.2) structural contour map for MB unit.
C2
Figure (C.3) structural contour map for MD unit.
Figure (C.4) structural contour map for ME unit.
C3
Figure (C.5) Porosity model for MA unit in Mauddud formation.
Figure (C.6) Porosity model for MC unit in Mauddud formation.
C4
Figure (C.7) Porosity model for MD unit in Mauddud formation.
Figure (C.8) Porosity model for ME unit in Mauddud formation.
C5
Figure (C.9) Water saturation model for unite MA in Mauddud

formation.
Figure (C.10) Water saturation model for unite MB in Mauddud

formation.
C6
Figure (C.11) Water saturation model for unite MC in Mauddud
formation .
Figure (C.12) Water saturation model for unite ME in Mauddud

formation.
C7
Figure (C.13) net pay model for unite MA in Mauddud formation.
Figure (C.14)net pay model for unite MC in Mauddud formation.
C8
Figure (C.15) net pay model for unite MD in Maud dud formation.
Figure (C.16) net pay model for unite ME in Maud dud formation.
C9
Figure (C.17) permeability model for unite MA in Maud dud formation.
Figure (C.18) permeability model for unite MB in Maud dud formation.
C10
Figure (C.19) permeability model for unite MC in Maud dud formation.
Figure (C.20) permeability model for unite MD in Maud dud

formation.
C11
Figure (C.21) permeability model for unite ME in Mauddud formation.
C12

.
.
( )Didger Software 3.03

. Interactive Petrophysics Program v3.5
( )Pickett plot ( ) ,(a

) (n ) ) (m ,Interactive Petrophysics Program
( 1 ,)1..1 ) (m ( 1..1 )1..1 ) (n
(.).
( )M-N cross plot ( (MID cross plot

, (densityneutron cross
)plot
.
, ,
, ,
.
.
( Gomez ,Classical ) Flow zone indicator

( (flow zone indicator

.
( (Petrel software
( )MA, MB, MC, and ME ( )MA
, ( )MB ( )1 , ( )MC
( )3 , ( )MD ( )1 ( )ME
.
( )1,7,6
JOCMEC ...6
.

3102

اطياف

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

اطياف

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Republic of Iraq

Ministry of Higher Education and

3D Static Model for Mauddud Formation in

The one who believes in me even more than I

To my lovely, pretty daughter "Noor"

The one who gives me the hope and motivation to

I would like to express my sincere thanks to the University of

I would like to acknowledge the financial and technical support of the

2.2 The stratigraphy of the Mauddud formation 8

2.3 Mauddud formation in Ratawi field 8

2.4.1 Spontaneous Potential (SP) log 11

2.4.2 The Gamma ray Log 14

2.5 Well log interpretation 15

2.5.2 Dual-Water model 16

2.5.3 The Waxman Smits equation 17

2.5.4 Indonesia formula 18

2.6 Methods to determine Archie's parameters (a, m, n) 18

2.6.1 Borai's correlation 18

2.6.2 Shell Hard Rock relationship 19

2.6.3 Aldoleimi, A.M. and Berta, D. technique 19

2.6.4 Pickett plot 19

2.6.5 Factors affecting (a) and (m) 22

2.8 Permeability prediction 24

2.8.1 Classical method of porosity correlation 25

2.8.2 Role of flow units in permeability prediction 26

2.8.3 Empirical models for determining permeability from well 30

3.2.1 Resistivity logs 33

3.2.2 Porosity logs 36

3.3.3 Gamma ray log 39

3.3 Shale volume determination 40

3.4 Determination of lithology and mineralogy 42

3.4.1 The Matrix Identification (MID) plot 42

3.4.2 M-N cross plot for mineral identification 43

3.4.3 Density - Neutron cross plot for Lithology 45

3.5 Determination of porosity 46

3.6 Determination of formation water resistivity RW and mud 49

3.6.1 Spontaneous potential (SP) log method 49

3.7 Determination of Archie parameters using pickett's method 53

3.8 Fluid and formation analysis 55

3.8.1 Fluid analysis 55

3.8.2 Formation analysis (Bulk Volume Analysis) 56

4.2 Formation evaluation 58

4.2.1 Core analysis 58

4.2.2 Cutoff calculations 59

2. Water saturation cutoff 61

4.3 Permeability prediction 63

4.3.1 Porosity correlation for permeability 63

4.3.3 Flow Zone Indictor (FZI) approach for permeability 68

5.2 Model design 75

5.3 Import data 76

5.4 Well correlation 76

Figures of Chapter One

Figures of Chapter Two

Fig. 2.3 Idealized Pickett Plot. 22

ig. 2.5 Schematic of empirical law of porosity correlation (R. 27

Fig. 3.5 MID plot for Mauddud formation in Rt-4. 44

Fig. 3.6 M-N cross plot for Mauddud formation in Rt-6. 45

Fig. 3.7 cross plot for Mauddud formation in Rt-5. 46

Fig. 3.9 Depth matching for RT-4 and RT-6 wells. 50

Fig. 3.10 Flow chart for Rw determination from SP-curve (Bateman 52

Fig. 3.11 Pickett plot for Mauddud formation, well RT-6. 56

Fig. 3.12 C.P.I. analyses of well RT-7. 59

Figures of Chapter Four