Siginificant of Core Analysis and Gamma-Ray Trends in Depositional Facies Interpretation

Journal of King Saud University – Science xxx (xxxx) xxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of King Saud University – Science

journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com
Significance of core analysis and gamma-ray trends in depositional facies

interpretation and reservoir evaluation of Cenomanian sequence, Alam
El-Shawish East Oil Field, North Western Desert, Egypt
Adel Abdelmoneim El-Tehiwy a,⇑, Mohamed Ibrahim El-Anbaawy a, Nabil Hussein Rashwan b
a
Geology Department, Faculty of Science, Cairo University, Egypt
b
Naftogaz of Ukraine Petroleum Company, Egypt
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: The present paper aims to evaluate the sedimentological model of the study Cenomanain sequence in
Received 15 August 2018 terms of electrofacies interpretation and depositional facies architecture to reveal the spatial distribution
Accepted 4 December 2018 of the reservoir facies characterization. The influence of depositional lithofacies types on reservoir char-
Available online xxxx
acterization of the Cenomanian Bahariya Formation and Abu Roash ‘‘G” Member was investigated using
the integration of available core data and petrophysical evaluation from seven wells in Alam El-Shawish
Keywords: East Oil Field, North Western Desert, Egypt. Careful log interpretation and correlation enable differenti-
Cored facies architecture
ation of the study sequence into ten sedimentary cycles. The stacking of the recognized facies types in the
Gamma-ray trends
Sedimentary cycles
available cored interval, form fifteen depositional facies associations from which fluvial, estuarine and
Depositional environment shoreline-shallow shelf models were constructed. This facies information has been used to calibrate
Reservoir evaluation the log response, particularly the gamma-ray trends, as an aid to interpret the depositional environment
of the non-cored intervals. However, the generalized log pattern shows micro-variations in log shape and
trend based on the location relative to depositional environment and consequently major modified
gamma-ray patterns were proposed depending on the cored facies architecture. Therefore, precautions
must be taken into consideration in extrapolating the present patterns to any similar heterogeneous
sequence due to the effects of variable diagenetic and facies type constraints on log response. It is indi-
cated that hydrocarbons could be accumulated within shoreface and barrier tidal inlet complex near or
within the depositional sequence boundary surfaces along the Upper Bahariya Member and the upper
unit of Abu Roash ‘‘G” Member. The associated fine siliciclastics (mudstone and shale) of tidal lagoon
and/or shoreface delta facies may be acted as local source rock and trap seals. Based on reservoir charac-
terization data supplemented by well logs interpretation of the cored and non-cored intervals, further
reservoir beds could be recommended as potential prospecting targets.
Ó 2018 The Authors. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of King Saud University. This is an
open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
1. Introduction possesses many challenges; because it mostly comprises reservoir

rocks with several lateral and vertical seals which are character-
The present research deals with facies analysis of Cenomanian ized by erratic thickness and complicated geometrical and rapid
sequence including Bahariya Formation and Abu Roash ‘‘G” Mem- facies changes. So, to assess the potential of this sequence, some
ber as an important hydrocarbon reservoirs in North Western petrophysical and core data were derived from seven wells in Alam
Desert, Egypt. This sequence is heterogeneous in lithofacies and El-Shawish East oil field which is considered as a part of Abu Sen-
nan sub-basin in Abu Gharadig tectonic major basin in the North
Western Desert (Fig. 1).
⇑ Corresponding author.
The facies identification was based on types of sedimentary
E-mail address: aabdelmoneim@sci.cu.edu.eg (A.A. El-Tehiwy).
structure, grain size distribution, mineralogical composition and
Peer review under responsibility of King Saud University.
other textural features. Well logs, particularly the gamma-ray
trends (Van Wagoner et al., 1990; Slatt et al., 1992; Cant, 1992;
Parkinson, 1996; Posamentier and Allen, 1999; Catuneanu, 2006;
Production and hosting by Elsevier Siddiqui et al., 2013) are used to support the depositional environ-
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksus.2018.12.002
1018-3647/Ó 2018 The Authors. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of King Saud University.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Please cite this article as: A. A. El-Tehiwy, M. I. El-Anbaawy and N. H. Rashwan, , Journal of King Saud University –
Science, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksus.2018.12.002
2 A.A. El-Tehiwy et al. / Journal of King Saud University – Science xxx (xxxx) xxx
Fig. 1. Index map showing the spatial distribution of the main sedimentary basins and major tectonics in the North Western Desert, modified after Bayoumi (1996) with
location map for the study wells.
ment interpretation of the recognized facies associations. The members respectively. The Abu Roash ‘‘G” Member is divided into:
study succession comprises depositional facies sequences belong- lower unit (Middle Cenomanian) and upper unit (Late Cenoma-
ing to three proposed sedimentary models or mixture of them nian). The study rock units are composed of siliciclastics-
(Walker, 1984; Boyd et al., 2006). carbonate facies sequence showing general overall transgressive
Gamma-ray log patterns (electrofacies patterns) were basically sedimentary cycles and system tracts (EL-Tehiwy, 2018).
interpreted approximately according to the models of Cant (1992) Detailed study of seismic cross sections and structural maps of
and Siddiqui et al. (2013) and others with major modification that the study area as a part of Abu Gharadig basin, indicates that the
based on the present facies architecture and facies types interpre- study area has complex structural features with frequent faulting
tation. The core information has been used to calibrate the log and folding that may be related to the rifting or inversion phases
response which was used to interpret the non-cored wells. (El-Tehiwy, 2018). The faults are mostly normal faults with few
The main objective of this paper is trying to build a model for strike slip movements. The majority of the folds are asymmetrical
depositional facies associations by calibration of gamma ray trends doubly plunging anticlines oriented in directions that are mainly
with the recognized facies types in the available cored intervals to controlled by the faults orientation (El-Tehiwy op. cit.). These anti-
expect or anticipate the different depositional environment of the clines, as well as tilted fault blocks form the main hydrocarbon
non-cored intervals, we recommended some sandstone intervals traps in Bahariya Formation and Abu Roash ‘‘G” Member. In this
within shoreface facies and clastic barrier inlet facies that are most respect the trap seal rocks are shale interbeds with the sandstone
promising reservoir beds and some non-cored intervals of tidal reservoir as well as the carbonate cap rock of Abu Roash ‘‘F” Mem-
barriers in the Middle Bahariya Member and tidal sand flat and ber which prevents further upward migration of the hydrocarbons.
channel in the Lower Bahariya Member in some wells that could
be recommended as potential prospecting targets.
3. Aims and methods of the study
2. Geological setting and petroleum system The composite well logs of the available seven wells, namely;
WHG 2/1, WHG 1/1, HG 34/4 (northern sector), Sedfa-1X, Hend-
Sedimentological and tectonical setting, hydrocarbon evalua- 1X, Mosaad-1X (southern sector) and Karima-1X (eastern sector)
tion, surface and subsurface litho-stratigraphic sequence of the are shown in Fig. 1. Wireline log patterns and trends with the help
Bahariya and Abu Roash formations in the northern part of the of the conventional core information and facies interpretation
Western Desert, have been studied by several authors, of them: were applied as a guide and starting point for construction of depo-
Darwish et al. (1994), Ibrahim and Aly (1994), Bayoumi (1996), sitional models. Lithostratigraphic correlation of the study rock
Moustafa et al. (2003), Catuneanu et al. (2006), Darwish et al. units with the equivalent units in the nearby wells and oil fields
(2008), Moustafa (2013), Abd Elhady et al. (2014), Dolson et al. have been carried out using the regional geological studies (e.g.
(2014) and El-Anbaawy et al. (2017). It is worth to mention that Darwish et al., 1994; Ibrahim and Aly, 1994). Evaluation of reser-
the most related recent study is that of El-Tehiwy (2018). He dis- voir characteristics was carried out using the petrophysical param-
cussed the stratigraphic sequences, the rock typing, diagenetic his- eters (e.g. Shale content, water saturation, hydrocarbon saturation
tory and the reservoir characteristics of the study sequence. and net-pay thickness). Integration of all results and their interpre-
The Bahariya Formation is divided into Lower (Late Albian), tations were carried out to evaluate the hydrocarbon potentiality
Middle (Early Cenomanian) and Upper (Early-Middle Cenomanian) of the study wells.
A.A. El-Tehiwy et al. / Journal of King Saud University – Science xxx (xxxx) xxx 3
4. Results petrophysical signatures but also on the sedimentological back-

ground of the facies studies of each subunits.
4.1. Sedimentary cycles The high gamma-ray reading combined with the density log
that indicates mudstone or shale thin beds, represent log markers
The detailed examination of the wireline logs detection of the at the tops of cycles (1), (2), (3) and (4) which compose the Lower
marker log signatures and careful log correlation particularly those Bahariya Member, while cycle (5) that represents the Middle
of the total gammy-ray log mirror images (Figs. 2a and 2b), enable Bahariya Member, is bounded by two distinctive litho-log markers.
differentiation of the Bahariya Formation and Abu Roash ‘‘G” Mem- The Upper Baharyia Member represented by cycles 6 and 7, is
ber into ten distinctive sedimentary cycles that are assigned from unconformably underlain by the Middle Bahariya Member.
base to top, by numbers 1–10 (Figs. 2a and 2b). These cycles are The log correlation (Figs. 2a and 2b) enables differentiation of
easily differentiated, not only on the basis of their characterized the Abu Roash ‘‘G” Member into three sedimentary cycles; the
Fig. 2a. Stratigraphic correlation panel of the sedimentary cycles recognized in the Bahariya Formation and Abu Roash ‘‘G” Member in Alam El-Shawish area (Central Block).
Fig. 2b. Stratigraphic correlation panel of the sedimentary cycles recognized in the Bahariya Formation and Abu Roash ‘‘G” Member in Alam El-Shawish area (Block II).
lower two cycles (8 and 9) compose the lower unit, while the third delta mudstone (8a), tidal lagoonal silty shale (8b) environments
one (cycle 10) composes its upper unit. The top of the upper unit belonging to fluvial, tidal and wave dominated estuary system
(cycle 10) is determined by the high gamma-ray marker which respectively (Table 2).
underlies the laterally persistent Abu Roash ‘‘F” carbonate beds. Bell pattern formed by the increasing upward consistently
from a minimum gamma-ray values usually indicated an increas-
4.2. Electrofacies pattern and facies types ing in shale content. In the study sequence the bell shape or fining
upward trend are formed in tide dominated (tidal channel, 10)
The interpretation of the depositional environment in the study which corresponds to a retreating shoreline shelf system with
Cenomanian sequence was carried out based on the characteristics decreasing energy. It is also formed in fluvial point bar (9).
of the identified facies types (Table 1) as well as on the well logs, Left bow pattern is developed by a cleaning upward overlain
particularly the gamma-ray log responses. The study facies types by dirtying up trend of similar grain size and with no sharp breaks
can be categorized into coarse siliciclastics, fine siliciclastics and between the two, shows left bow shape (Siddiqui et al., 2013). In
carbonates lithofacies types (Table 1). On the other hand, from the study well sequences, this trend form different deposition
the gamma-ray log trend patterns, an electrofacies approach will facies such as mixed muddy tidal flat (11), reworked offshore car-
be developed and applied for discriminating depositional environ- bonate bar (12), shoreface delta (13), brecciated barrier tidal inlet
ment. Therefore, well logs can be used to support the depositional (15a), clastic barrier tidal inlet (15b) and sandy carbonate barrier
environment interpretation where they provide information on tidal inlet (15c) that belonging to variable environmental setting
physical rock properties, but not a pure straight explanation of (Table 2). Occasionally, the log shows blocky to fining upward
lithology. overlain by coarsening upward to form ‘‘hour glass” shape of the
Major modification has been carried out trying to avoid the lim- well log. This case of gamma-ray trend is very common character-
itations of Cant (1992) and Siddiqui et al. (2013) electrofacies izes the barrier tidal inlet containing carbonate sand shoals pack-
applications. According to the applications and modifications of age which is altered from well to well along their vertical
the previously mentioned models as well as the facies types inter- sequences. The coarsening upward pattern indicates a gradual shift
pretation and the log response calibration that based on the avail- toward progressively higher energy depositional environment
able core information on the study wells, seven major log patterns (Catuneanu, 2006). This variety of left bow pattern is usually com-
were suggested to include the interpreted depositional environ- plicated case showing variable changes in log trend according to
ments (Numbers 1–20 inclusive), as given in Table 2. The following lithological variation and thickness of package as well as the glau-
is brief description of the recognized gamma ray patterns. conitic and calcareous (shell fragments) material contents.
Blocky boxcar (left) pattern normally suggests a constant Right bow pattern is the opposite of left shape; the trend is
energy level (high in clastic systems and low in carbonate environ- right bow shape in which sand bodies with medium to coarse
ments) and constant sediment supply and sedimentation rates. grained overlying and underlying by muddy deposits without
This pattern with low gamma-ray value forms in upper-middle internal structure. In the study well sequences this trend form in
shoreface (1a) and lower middle shoreface (1b) of wave dominated mixed sandy dominated tidal flat (14).
shallow marine environment. It also points to carbonate facies rep- Irregular/serrated pattern represents the fluctuated gamma-
resenting by carbonate outer ramp of transition storm shelf, where ray reading with high and low values (Table 2). It could be subdi-
it shows low gamma-ray with high resistivity, high density and vided into three groups according the gamma-ray values ranges.
low porosity. This trend is formed in silty mud tidal flat (16) that belonging to
Boxcar right pattern normally suggests low energy showing group (a), with thin laminated silty mud intercalation having rare
high gamma-ray values (Table 2). The boundaries with the overly- planner cross-stratification. The gamma-ray fluctuating in group
ing and underlying reading are abrupt in tidal dominated mud tidal (b) is smaller than group (a) where it is formed in silty sand tidal
flat environment (3) and in fluvial overbank mud environment (2). flat (17). This pattern of the gamma-ray trend (group c) is formed
This pattern also points to offshore mud of shallow shelf (4) where in fluvial flood plain (18), storm dominated inner shelf (19) and
it forms sharp boundaries with very small internal irregularities or lower shoreface (20) environment belonging to the depositional
changes in the high gamma-ray. macroforms of fluvial, transition storm shelf and shallow marine
Funnel Pattern shows upward decrease of gamma-ray values shelf respectively (Table 2).
consistently from maximum value, usually indicating decreasing
shale content to form coarsening upward trend. This shape related 4.3. Depositional macroforms
to a transformation from shale to shale-free
lithologies due to upwardly increasing depositional energy The recognized facies types (Table 1) and the interpreted depo-
(Siddiqui et al., 2013). In the study well sequences, this pattern is sitional environments (Table 2) of the study sequence associate
formed in channel crevasse splay (6), tidal sand bar (7), flood tidal together in different proportion and stacking pattern forming six
Table 1
Facies types of the Bahariya Formation and Abu Roash ‘‘G” Member in the study area.
Facies types Facies types

PXS Planner cross-flat bedded sandstone LSH Laminated silty shale
FCS Flaser bedding-cross laminated sandstone TLS Thin laminated siltstone
LTS Laminated-trough-lenticular cross-bedded glauconitic sandstone BSM Banded sandy mudstone
WRS Wave lenticular-current rippled bedded cross laminated sandstone LHM Laminated-hummocky flaser bedded fine sandy mudstone
BLS Banded-Laminated ferruginous sandstone BSH Banded silty shale
HLS Hummocky-lenticular cross bedded-laminated glauconitic sandstone MBM Massive bioclastic sandy mudstone
BWS Bioturbated-wavy lenticular cross-laminated glauconitic sandstone LBM Laminated-banded bioclastic silty mudstone
LRS Laminated-current rippled -bedded bioturbated muddy sandstone MLS Massive cross-bedded sandy fossiliferous limestone
FLS Flaser-cross laminated bioclastic sandstone NLS Bioturbated-nodular fossiliferous limestone
MFS Mottled-flaser cross laminated glauconitic sandstone CLS Cross-laminated fossiliferous silty limestone
CHS Cross-laminated-hummocky cross bedded muddy sandstone LLS Laminated-massive bioclastic silty chalky limestone
MSM Massive silty mudstone ILS Irregular (hummocky) cross laminated fossiliferous sandy chalky limestone
Table 2
Summary of gamma-ray trends and depositional environment (modified after Cant, 1992; Siddiqui et al., 2013).
macroforms. These are fluvial (F), tidal-dominated estuary (TE), muddy sandstone or sandy mudstone (Fig. 4b). The clastic (sand-
wave-dominated estuary (WE), wave-dominated shallow marine stone) barrier tidal inlet (Table 2) is dominated by flaser cross lam-
(shorefaces) (WM), transition storm (TS) and shallow marine shelf ination and bioclastics framework. It is usually intercalated with
(SH) (Table 3). Some of these macroforms are compiled together to laminated silty shales of tidal delta wave dominated estuary (facies
form new mixed macroforms (as given in Table 3). Each of these association A6c, Table 3 and Fig. 4a). The sandy carbonate barrier
macroforms contains a facies association or more (A1-15), which tidal inlet is composed of calcareous fine sandy laminated glau-
inturn contains a vertical stacking of the associated facies types. conitic limestone. It is usually associated with laminated hum-
The succession of the interpreted depositional environments, facies mocky flaser bedded fine sandy mudstone of tidal flat
associations, sedimentary cycles, subcycles associated with sets of depositional facies or with tidal delta mudstone.
gamma-ray trends are shown in Figs. 3a and 3b as examples of the Facies analysis of the cored reservoir intervals of the Abu Roash
reservoir sequences in WHG 2/1 well. ‘‘G” Member (mainly within the sedimentary cycle 10) indicates a
deposition in wave-dominated estuary and shallow marine macro-
4.4. Reservoir facies forms (Table 3, Figs. 3b, 5a and 5b). Occasionally, the estuarine
environment is invaded by transition storm shelf condition partic-
The facies analysis of the cored reservoir intervals of the Upper ularly along the basal part of the sedimentary cycle 10 (Figs. 5a and
Bahariya Member indicates a deposition in wave-dominated shal- 5b). The top of this cycle (non-cored interval) is dominated by
low marine (WM) and to subordinate a deposition in wave- shoreface delta clastic sequence (Fig. 3b). The main reservoir which
dominated estuary (WE) (Tables 2 and 3). The upper-middle shore- belongs to cycle 10 is represented by several periods of repeated
face (Table 2) is mainly sandstone with lenticular cross bedding deposition of clastic barrier tidal inlet sediments intercalated with
and hummocky structure. It is associated with shoreface delta sed- tidal lagoonal silty shale (Table 3 and Fig. 3b). The basal reservoir
iments consisting of laminated-current rippled bedded bioturbated interval is represented occationally by brecciated barrier tidal inlet
Table 3
Distribution of facies types & associations and their interpreted depositional environments in the study rock units.
Facies Facies types Interpreted depositional environments* Sedimentary cycles & Depositional macroforms
associations subcycles
A1 PXS, LSH, MSM (9) fluvial point bar, (18) fluvial flood plain, (2) 1a, b, 2a, 3a (F) Fluvial
overbank mud
A2 FCS, MSM (6) Channel crevase splay, (2) overbank mud 1c, 2b
A3 TLS, BSM (3) mud tidal flat, (11) mixed muddy tidal flat 4c, 4e, 7b, 7d (TE) Tidal-dominated estuary
A4 WRS, TLS (17) silty sand tidal flat, (16) silty mud tidal flat, (3) 3b, 4a
mud tidal flat
A5 LTSa, LTSb (10) tidal channel, (7) tidal sand bar 4b, 4d
A6a LHM, LLS (8a) flood tidal delta mudstone, (15c) sandy 5a, 6a (WE) Wave-dominated estuary
carbonate barrier tidal inlet

A6b BSH, FLS (8b) tidal lagonal silty shale, (15b) clastic barrier tidal 10c, d, e
inlet
A6c FLS, LHM (15b) clastic barrier tidal inlet, (8a) flood tidal delta 7f
mudstone
A7 MFS (15a) brecciated barrier tidal inlet Basal parts of cycles 4,
5, 7, 10

A8 LRS, HLS (13) shoreface delta, (1a) upper-middle shoreface 6b, 7c, 7e (WM) Wave-dominated shallow
A9 CHS (20) lower shoreface 10g marine (shoreface)
A10 ILS (19) storm dominated inner shelf 9a, 10b (TS) Transition storm shelf
A11 MBM, CLS (4) offshore mud, (12) reworked offshore carbonate 6c (SH) Shallow marine shelf
bar
A12 BLS, LLS (14) sandy tidal flat, (15c) sandy carbonate barrier 7a Mixed TE + WE
tidal inlet macroforms

A13 BWS, FLS (16) lower-middle shoreface, (15b) clastic barrier 8a, 8b WM + WE
tidal inlet

A14 LRS, FLS (13) shoreface delta, (15b) clastic barrier tidal inlet 10h WM + WE
A15 NLS, MLS, LBM, (5) carbonate outer ramp, (4) offshore mud 5b, 8a, 8b, 8c, 9a, 9b SH + TS
MBM
For the number of depositional environments (see Table 2).

*
Based on facies type characteristics and gamma-ray trends.

Contain currently oil shows or promised to contain oil shows.
(Table 2). This reservoir rock is mottled flaser-cross laminated Siddiqui et al. (op.cit.) the tide-dominated major environment
glauconitic (pyritic) bioclastic sandstone that characterized by shows blocky left boxcar, funnel shaped, bell shaped, right boxcar
low porosity and moderate permeability showing low oil satura- and irregular gamma-ray trends, while the wave-dominated major
tion (Fig. 5b). environment shows left and right boxcar, funnel shaped and irreg-
ular trends. The main difference between the tide and wave-
dominated depositional environments is the fluctuating GR values
4.5. Petrophysical evaluation of oil shows
(Siddiqui et al., 2013). According to Cant (1992) cylindrical (blocky
boxbar) gamma-ray pattern characterizes many depositional envi-
Based on the petrophysical data, several representative reser-
ronments (e.g. eolian, braided fluvial, channel-fill, submarine
voir intervals were tested and cored as given in Table 4. The peto-
canyon-fill). Funnel and bell-shaped patterns characterize crevasse
physical evaluation of the studied wells revealed an existence of
splay, river mouth bar, delta front, shoreface, submarine fan, fluvial
hydrocarbon accumulation or oil shows in the permeable zones
point bar, tidal point bar, deep tidal channel fill and tidal flat,
of the Upper Member of the Bahariya Formation as well as in the
respectively. The hour glass (symmetrical prograding and retro-
Abu Roash ‘‘G” Member in WHG 2/1, WHG 1/1 and HG 34/4 wells
grading) gamma-ray trend indicates reworked offshore bar, regres-
(representing the northern sector) and Karima-1X well (represent-
sive to transgressive storm face delta (Cant, 1992).
ing the eastern sector). This evaluation has revealed also, an exis-
He also concluded that serrated (irregular) trend may character-
tence of water accumulation in the dry wells in Sedfa-1X, Hend-
ize fluvial floodplain, storm-dominated shelf, deep marine slope. In
1X and Mosaad-1X wells which are located in the southern sector
conclusion electrofacies are characterized and grouped into sub-
of the study area as given in Table 4. The representative litho-
populations which would provide a method for estimating the
saturation cross-plots of the study reservoir intervals in WHG 2/1
lithologic characteristics of the formation and ultimately to distin-
are shown in Figs. 6a and 6b.
guish it from surroundings. Furthermore, the environmental inter-
pretation of the cored sequences in the study wells (WHG 2/1, HG
5. Discussion 34/4, Hend-1X and Sedfa-1X) is used as a guide and starting point
for the construction of the depositional model in this study. The
5.1. Significance of gamma-ray trends core information has been used to calibrate the log response which
was used to interpret the non-cored wells. However, the general-
The application of electrofacies patterns in the study succession ized log pattern shows micro-variations in log shape based on
is limited to recognize the micro-variations in heterogenetic litho- the location relative to depositional environment. Accordingly,
logical characteristics of both siliciclastics and carbonates. The major modification has been carried out trying to avoid the limita-
gamma-ray logging may loss the accuracy to differentiate the tions of Cant (1992) and Siddiqui et al. (2013) electrofacies appli-
lithology and its radioactive minerals (e.g. in highly glauconitic cations. The result of this modification is given in Tables 2 and 3.
sandstone intervals). Another important limitation was concluded According to the applications and modifications of the previously
by Siddiqui et al. (2013); that the gamma-ray trend in each depo- mentioned models (e.g. Cant, 1992; Siddiqui et al., 2013) as well
sitional environment shows different shape/trend that may be sim- as the facies types interpretation and the log response calibration
ilar within two or more depositional environments. According to that based on the available core information on the study wells,
Fig. 3a. Graphic sedimentary log with facies interpretation of upper part (Cycles 6&7) of the Bahariya Formation.
seven major log patterns were suggested to include the interpreted wireline log, core and borehole studies, have been incorporated
depositional environments (Numbers 1–20 inclusive), as given in into depositional facies models since the middle of the twentieth
Table 2. century (Boyd et al., 2006). The facies analysis and the interpreted
facies associations revealed that the study Upper Albian-
5.2. Modeling of depositional setting Cenomanian succession of the Bahariya Formation and AR/G
Member is one of the best representative’s ancient depositional
The field of facies models is still a relatively young field with a records for fluvio-marine facies models. Much siliciclastic and
history of less than forty years where observations which were col- carbonate sediments of these rock units were deposited along
lected through measurements in modern environments, outcrops, fluvial, estuarine and marine shoreline-shallow shelf mixed
Fig. 3b. Graphic sedimentary log with facies interpretation of AR/G Member (Cycles 8, 9 and 10).
Fig. 4a. Reservoir characterization of Upper Member of Bahariya Formation and lower unit of AR/G Member (cycle 8) in well WHG 2/1 (Core 2), 3250–3277.8 m.
Fig. 4b. Reservoir characterization of Upper Member of Bahariya Formation in well HG 34/4 (Core 2), 3255–3283 m.
environments. Along these environmental setting, sediment sup- Try to applying the concepts of distillation and simplification of
ply, tidal range, wave action and storm frequency are generally Walker (1984) and Boyd et al. (2006) respectively, the study suc-
discussed. The effects of external and internal factors (e.g. sea- cession comprises depositional facies sequences belonging to three
level changes, tectonic setting and climatic conditions) on the sed- proposed sedimentary models or mixture of them; they are: Fluvial
imentation of the study succession in terms of facies sequences sedimentary model, Estuarine sedimentary model and Marine
and evolution were discussed (El-Tehiwy, 2018). Most of the shoreline-shallow shelf model.
ancient environments deviate in some way from the idealized Many factors influence the nature of the spatial changes in
models due to such factors in addition to mixed influence of depositional facies models, from fluviatile model of sedimentary
marine and fluvial processes. cycle (1), (2) and lower part of (3) of Bahariya Formation to tidal
Fig. 5a. Reservoir characterization of upper unit of AR/G Member in well WHG 2/1 (Core 1), 3135–3162.7 m.
Fig. 5b. Reservoir characterization of upper unit of AR/G Member in well HG 34/4 (Core 1), 3083–3110 m.
estuarine to shoreface and offshore shallow shelf models of Abu tional basin of sub-basins and/or substantial variations in the rate
Roash ‘‘G” Member, however, the most important factor is the sediment supply.
impact of sea level sequence changes. This changes are controlled It is not by chance the majority of hydrocarbon accumulation
by combination of eustatic changes, subsidence/uplift of deposi- with moderate to good reservoir quality, occur within the barrier
Table 4
Distribution of oil shows in permeable zones of the Upper Bahariya and Abu Roash ‘‘G” reservoirs.
Structural sector Well No. Core & test interval Reservoir units Hydrocarbon potentiality
Bahariya Fm. Abu Roash ‘‘G”
Northern WHG 2/1 test 3323.5–3326.5 3115–3119 Fair to good in Bahariya and AR/G
core 3250–3278 3135–3162.7
Hydrocarbon accumulation Hydrocarbon accumulation
WHG 1/1 test 3264–3271 3338–3355 Faulted out Fair to good in Bahariya
core Side well cores 3196–3440.4
Hydrocarbon accumulation
HG 34/4 test 3266–3273 – Good reservoir in Bahariya and AR/G
core 3255–3283 3083–3113
Hydrocarbon accumulation Hydrocarbon
Eastern Karima-1X test 2247–2252.5 1889–1912.5 Good reservoir in AR/G
core no core no core
Negligible Hydrocarbon Hydrocarbon accumulation
Southern Sedfa-1X test 1963–1980 1825–1850 dry well
core 1903–1930.5 1837–1865
Water accumulation Water accumulation
Hend-1X test 1953–1980 1736–1751 dry well
core 1857–1885 1742–1770
Mosaad-1X Test – – dry well
core No core No core
test = petrophysical tested interval.
Fig. 6a. Litho-saturation cross-plot of Upper Member of Bahariya Formation in WHG 2/1 well, showing hydrocarbon sub-reservoir interval.
tidal inlet complex. The majority of the identified deposional facies 6. Conclusion
associations (e.g. A6a, A7, A8; Table 3) essentially exist within or
near the unconformity sequence boundary surfaces. Exceptionally, The interpretation and correlation of the available core data and
the oil shows occur within sandy-silty tidal flat representing mixed wireline logs particularly the gamma-ray logs patterns of the study
marine estuarine facies that may be developed upon the wave sequence show internal cyclicity that was confirmed by the facies
ravinement surface. analysis and modelling. The recognized twenty four facies types
Fig. 6b. Litho-saturation cross-plot of upper unit of Abu Roash ‘‘G” Member in WHG 2/1 well, showing hydrocarbon sub-reservoir interval.
can be categorized into coarse and fine siliciclastics and carbonate reservoir. However, some non-cored intervals of tidal barriers in
lithofacies types. The integration of the core information and the the Middle Bahariya Member and tidal sand flat and channel in the
calibrated log responses lead to revealing twenty depositional Lower Bahariya Member in some wells could be recommended as
environments. It is indicated that the study siliciclastic and carbon- potential prospecting targets. So it’s recommended to drill explora-
ate sediments were deposited along fluvial, estuarine and marine tory wells in the northern sector to completely evaluate the study
shoreline-shallow shelf mixed environment models. However, rock units taking the present conclusion into consideration.
most of the interpreted depositional environments deviate in some
way from the idealized models due to the effects of external and Acknowledgement
internal factors (e.g. sea-level condition) in addition to further
mixed influence of marine and fluvial processes. Therefore, precau- The authors extend grateful thanks to the Egyptian General Pet-
tion must be taken in extrapolating the present conclusion to the roleum Corporation (EGPC) and to the Naftogaz of Ukraine Petro-
nearby subsurface extensions. leum Company for data release and permission to publish this
The study provides a trial to find reasons for the absence of article.
hydrocarbon in the southern sector block including Sedfa-1X,
Hend-1X and Mosaad-1X wells, through reviewing and integration References
of the concerned facies analysis, seismic data and well logging
interpretation. This trial results in the following conclusions: Abd Elhady, M.A., Hamed, T.A., Abdelwahhab, M.A., 2014. A new hydrocarbon
prospect determination through subsurface and petrophysical evaluation of
Abu Roash ‘‘G” Member in Abu Sennan area, north Western Desert. Egpt. Nat.
a) The reservoir facies characteristics are not causative factor Sci. 12 (11), 199–218.
controlling the hydrocarbon absence from the southern sec- Bayoumi, T., 1996. The influence of interaction of depositional environment and
tor wells. synsedimentary tectonics on the development of some Late Cretaceous source
rocks, Abu Gharadig Basin, Western Desert, Egypt. In Proceedings of the EGPC
b) The structural trapping condition which was suitable for 13th Petroleum Exploration & Production Conference, Cairo (Vol. 2, pp. 475–496).
hydrocarbon accumulation in the wells of the northern sec- Boyd, R., Dalrymple, R.W. and Zaitlin, B.A., 2006. Estuary and incised valley facies
tor was not available in the southern sector wells. Therefore, models. In: Posamentier, H.W., Walker, R.G. (Eds.), Facies Models Revisited.
SEPM Special Publication, vol. 84, pp. 171–234.
the difference in the structure style between the different
Cant, D.J., 1992. Subsurface Facies Analysis, In: R. G. Walker and N. P. James, Eds.,
sectors is considered herein the main reason for the varia- Facies Models: Response to Sea Level Change, Geological Association of Canada,
tion in reservoir potentialities. GeoText 1, pp. 27-45.
Catuneanu, O., 2006. Principles of Sequence Stratigraphy. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
c) Based on the data supplemented during this trial further
Catuneanu, O., Khalifa, M.A., Wanas, H.A., 2006. Sequence stratigraphy of the lower
reservoir beds could be predicted within the study rock cenomanian bahariya formation, bahariya oasis, western desert Egypt. Sedimen.
units. Geol. 190 (1–4), 121–137.
Darwish, M., Abu Khadra, A.M., Abdel Hamid, M.L., Hamid, A., 1994. Sedimentology,
environmental conditions and hydrocarbon habitat of the Bahariya Formation,
It is found that the sandstone intervals within shoreface facies Central Abu Gharadig Basin, Western Desert, Egypt. In: EGPC 12th Petroleum
and clastic barrier inlet facies are most promising beds as a good Exploration and Production Conference, pp. 429–449.
Darwish, M., Abou Khadra, A.M. and Sami, M., 2008. Lithostratigraphy, Parkinson, D.N., 1996. Gamma-ray Spectrometry as a Tool for Stratigraphical
sedimentology and reservoir zonation of Abu Roash ‘‘G” Member, Wadi Rayan Interpretation: Examples from the Western European Lower Jurassic. In:
Area, Egypt. 9th Intern. Conf. Geol. Arab. World, Cairo Univ., Egypt (Abst.), p. 7. Hesselbo, S.P. and D.N. Parkison (Eds.), Sequence Stratigraphy in British
Dolson, J.C., Atta, M., Blanchard, D., Sehim, A., Villinski, J., Loutit, T. and Romine, K., Geology. Geological Society Special Publication, S.l., pp: 277.
2014. Egypt’s future petroleum resources: A revised look into the 21st century, Posamentier, H.W., Allen, G.P., 1999. Siliciclastic Sequence Stratigraphy: Concepts
in L. Marlow, C. Kendall and L. Yose, eds., Petroleum systems of the Tethyan and Applications Vol. 7. SEPM (Society for Sedimentary Geology), Tulsa,
region: AAPG Memoir 106, p. 143–178. Oklahoma, p. 210.
EL-Anbaawy, M.I., Amin, A.T., Osman, O.A., 2017. Reservoir quality of Upper ‘‘G” Siddiqui, N.A., EL-Ghali, M.A., bin Abd Rahman, A.H., Mijinyawa, A., Ben-Awuah, J.,
Member sandstone of Abu Roash Formation, Azhar Field, Beni Suef basin, Nile 2013. Depositional environment of shallow-marine sandstones from outcrop
Valley, Egypt. IOSR J. Appl. Geol. Geophys. (IOSR-JAGG) 5 (6), 10–23. gamma-ray logs, belait formation, meragang beach, brunei darussalam. Res. J.
El-Tehiwy, A.A., 2018. Sedimentological Model and Reservoir Evaluation of the Environ. Earth Sci. 5 (6), 305–324.
Cretaceous Succession in Alam El-Shawish East Oil Field, Western Desert, Egypt, Slatt, R.M., Jordan, D.W., D’Agostino, A.E., Gillespie, R.H., 1992. Outcrop gamma-ray
with Special Emphasis on Cenomanian Sequences Unpublished PhD. Thesis. logging to improve understanding of subsurface well log correlations. Geol. Soc.
Geology Department, Cairo University. Lon. Spec. Publ. 65 (1), 3–19.
Ibrahim, M. and Aly, M., 1994. The impact of environmental problems on open hole Van Wagoner, J.C., Mitchum, R.M., Campion, K.M., Rahmanian, V.D., 1990.
log evaluation of Bahariya Formation, Western Desert, Egypt. Proc. EGPC l2th Siliciclastic Sequence Stratigraphy in Well Logs, Cores, and Outcrops:
Petrol. Expl. Prod. Conf., Cairo, II, pp. 248-262. Concepts for High-Resolution Correlation of Time and Facies. American
Moustafa, A.R., 2013. Fold-related faults in the Syrian Arc belt of Northern Egypt. Association of Petroleum Geologist, Tulsa, Ok., USA, p. 55.
Mar. Petrol. Geol. 48, 441–454. Walker, R. G., 1984. Shelf sands and shallow marine sands, In: Walker, R. G., (ed.),
Moustafa, A.R., Saoudi, A., Moubasher, A., Ibrahim, I.M., Molokhia, H., Schwartz, B., Facies models, second edition: Geoscience Canada, reprint series 1, p. 141–170.
2003. Structural setting and tectonic evolution of the Bahariya Depression,
Western Desert. Egypt. GEOARABIA-MANAMA 8, 91–124.

Siginificant of Core Analysis and Gamma-Ray Trends in Depositional Facies Interpretation

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

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

Siginificant of Core Analysis and Gamma-Ray Trends in Depositional Facies Interpretation

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Journal of King Saud University – Science xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of King Saud University – Science

Significance of core analysis and gamma-ray trends in depositional facies

1. Introduction possesses many challenges; because it mostly comprises reservoir

4. Results petrophysical signatures but also on the sedimentological back-

Facies types Facies types

For the number of depositional environments (see Table 2).

test = petrophysical tested interval.

Вам также может понравиться