SPE-178730-STU

Petrophysical Evaluation and 3D Geostatistical Reservoir Modeling of

Okati Field for Development, Shallow Offshore, Niger Delta
Bibobra Michael Alabrah, Obafemi Awolowo University

Copyright 2015, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE international Student Paper Contest at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Houston,
Texas, USA, 28 –30 September 2015.

This paper was selected for presentation by merit of placement in a regional student paper contest held in the program year preceding the International Student Paper
Contest. Contents of the paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The
material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution,
or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to
an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
In order to ensure optimal hydrocarbon recovery and sustained production, it is imperative to carry out
reservoir characterization and modeling, that is aimed at facilitating a holistic field evaluation geared
towards effective development strategies and optimal field performance.
Okati field located on the continental shelf in water depths of 210-250 feet in shallow Offshore, Eastern
Niger Delta, was investigated to determine the petrophysical properties of the reservoirs, and model the
3D spatial distribution of the properties of H3 reservoir using geostatistical techniques. Well logs, core,
and pressure data were analyzed and interpreted in order to assess the hydrocarbon potential of these
reservoirs.
The structural 3D grid surface and models were generated with inputs of the interpreted petrophysical
parameters using Petrel and Interactive Petrophysics. These parameters were upscaled to provide discrete
facies and continuous properties. The reservoirs (H1, H2, H3, H4, H5 and H6) have good effective
porosities that range from 12 to 27%, high net-to-gross values that range from 55 to 89%. It was deduced
that, the field has very good hydrocarbons saturation (range from 55 to 88%). The porosity and
permeability models built indicate that, wells 2 and 3 have better storage and flow capacities relative to
well 1. The fluid contact and water saturation models however, show that, well 3 is close to the
oil-water-contact and has high water saturation which makes it a poor candidate for completions to avoid
early water breakthrough. The volumetric assessment indicates 38.4MMBO of STOOIP.
It is concluded that, apart from H1, all the other five reservoirs have good petrophysical properties,
hence, from a petrophysical standpoint; they are prospective candidates for future completions and
development.
Key Words: Evaluation · petrophysics · modeling · lithology · porosity · permeability · saturation

Introduction
Okati field located Shallow Offshore Niger Delta was examined to determine its hydrocarbon potentials
by estimating the field Petrophysical parameters, fluid type, and also build 3D facie and petrophysical
models to predict the inter-well distribution of these properties as they affect field development plans and
also perform volumetric assessment.
2 SPE-178730-STU

Well log data from four wells, core data from well 3 and pressure data from well 4 were evaluated to
characterize the porosity, permeability, hydrocarbon saturation, and hydrocarbon volume in place.

LOCATION AND FIELD GEOLOGY

Okati field is located in the shallow offshore depobelt on the continental shelf of the Cenozoic Niger Delta
(Fig. 1) in water depths of 210 feet to 250 feet. The geology of the tertiary Niger Delta is divided into three
distinct formations, namely: Benin Formation, the paralic Agbada Formation, and the marine shales of the
Akata Formation. The Benin Formation consists of fresh water continental sands (aluvial and upper
coastal plain) deposited in an upper deltaic plain environment; they range from Eocene to Recent in age.
Underlying the Benin Formation is the paralic Agbada Formation which is characterized by sand-shale
intercalation; the sandy parts of this formation constitute the main reservoirs. The Akata Formation
underlies the Agbada Formation and consists of thick marine shale sequences and its considered the source
rock; it also contains turbidite sands that are considered reservoirs in deep offshore.

Figure 1—Map of Niger Delta showing location of Okati field

OBJECTIVES
● To use well log data to estimate field petrophysical parameters and use Buckles plot to assess
reservoir quality.
● To build 3D facies and petrophysical models to predict inter-well distribution of these properties
and how they affect future production performance.
● Carry out volumetric assessment and generate Stock Tank Oil Originally in Place (STOOIP) map
and delineate stratigraphic intervals with the highest concentration.
● To recommend field development strategies.

DATA COLLECTION AND METHODOLOGY

Petrel and Interactive Petrophysics softwares were used to interpret the well logs, carry out reservoir
quality assessment and build the 3D geologic models.
Well logs (gamma ray, resistivity, density, and neutron), core data in ASCII format, coordinates in XY
format describing the location of the wells (Okati 1, 2,3, and 4), seismic surface for the H3 reservoir, and
pressure data were available for this investigation. Table 1 shows the data sets available for this study.
SPE-178730-STU 3

Table 1—Data collection

Geological Analysis
● Lithologic Description: the gamma ray log was used to differentiate reservoirs from non-
reservoirs. Stratigraphic intervals with gamma ray log values less than or equal to 65 API were
interpreted as reservoirs (sand) while intervals with values greater than 65 API were classified as
non-reservoirs (shale).
● Well-to-Well Correlation: sequence stratigraphic correlation of the field was performed using
GR log motif (Fig. 2). The gamma ray and resistivity logs were used to identify the hydrocarbon
bearing sands (zones with low GR and high resistivity); using shale as the marker bed, six
reservoirs were correlated across the field.

Figure 2—Sequence Stratigraphic Correlation Panel. Gamma ray curve (grey when GR > 65 API and yellow when GR < 65 API) of all
the wells used in the study.

Petrophysical Analysis
● Fluid Characterization: the reservoir fluids were characterized using RHOB/NPHI and DPHI/
NPHI overlays (Figures 3–6) for H1, H2, H3, H4, and H5 reservoirs while the pressure data
obtained from RFT was plotted against depth and the pressure gradient was estimated to determine
the fluid type in H6 reservoir. Fluid typing using RHOB/NPHI overlay was achieved by only
4 SPE-178730-STU

observing the degree of separation, with very large separation interpreted as gas, medium as oil and
small separation as water.

Figure 3—composite log for H1 reservoir with Z1 top picked at 7852 feet and Z2 top picked at 7875 feet. The owc was clearly delineated
by the deep resistivity/porosity logs overlay (circled with black).

Figure 4 —composite log for H2 reservoir: well 1 fully saturated with oil while well 2 has a gas cap.

Figure 5—composite log for H3 reservoir

SPE-178730-STU 5

Figure 6 —composite log for H4 reservoir

● Fluid Contact: to delineate the fluid contacts, I used a resistivity cut-off of 3 Ohmm and the cross
over between the bulk density log and the neutron log. A relatively new method which involved
the cross over between the deep resistivity log and density and neutron logs was also used; pressure
data obtained from the Repeat Formation Tester (RFT) was employed in conjunction with the
aforementioned techniques to determine the position of the free water level (FWL), and oil-water-
contact (OWC) of the H6 reservoir. This was achieved by plotting the pressure data on the x-axis
versus depth on the y-axis; typically, all the pressures of a given stratigraphic interval lie on a
straight line as a function of fluid density and depth, hence, if there is pressure and fluid density
differential, two or more lines (depending on the fluids present, in this case, oil and water) intersect
each other at the contacts. From the pressure versus depth plot for the H6 reservoir, the two lines
intersect at 13,050 feet, hence, the OWC.
● Vsh Estimation: since the Niger Delta exhibits non-linear characteristics and only the tertiary
sediments are producing, the Larionov tertiary rocks (Eq. 2), Clavier (Eq. 3), and Stieber (Eq. 4)
models were used to calculate the volume of shale and comparative analysis was carried out to
establish which model overestimates, underestimates and which model gives a mid case. Stieber
model was observed as the mean, Larionov as the optimistic, and Clavier as the pessimistic. All
three methods were utilized in the estimation of effective porosity.
(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

● Porosity Estimation: total porosity was estimated using the bulk density log (Eq. 5); the neutron
porosity was used to correct for gas effect (Eq. 6) in gas zones. A grain density of 2.65g/cc, fluid
density of 0.85g/cc (since synthetic oil base mud was used) was used for all calculations. The fluid
density is interpreted to result from a combination of high salinity connate water and lower salinity
mud filtrate which is present in the invaded zone. A comparative analysis was carried out between
the log derived porosity and core porosity, that is, density uncorrected porosity versus core
measured porosity, and density corrected for hydrocarbon effect with neutron porosity versus core
measured porosity.
(5)
6 SPE-178730-STU

Where: ⌽ ⫽ porosity derived from density log; ␳ma ⫽ (2.65) density of rock matrix; rhob⫽ Bulk
density obtained from log;
Rhofl ⫽ Density of fluid occupying the flushed zone.
Correction for gas effect:
(6)

Equation 7 was used to estimate the effective porosity of the reservoirs.

(7)

Permeability Estimation: permeability was only estimated for the H3 reservoir given its unreliability
when logs are used. Because the H3 reservoir was cored in well 3, a porosity-permeability crossplot (Fig.
22a) was carried out and a transform was generated. The transform was then used to estimate the
permeability in the other two uncored wells and was subsequently upscaled and modeled (Fig. 22b) to
analyze its inter-well distribution and how it might affect future production performance.
Water Saturation Estimation: the Archie water saturation equation was used to estimate the water
saturation and hydrocarbon saturation with the corrected porosity and resistivity logs. The following
equations were used.
(8)

Where: Rwis water resistivity; Ro is the resistivity of the water bearing formation; ␾m is the porosity
in the water zone; ‘a’ is tortuosity assumed to be 1.
(9)

Where: m is the cementation factor ⫽ 2; n is the saturation exponent ⫽ 2; Sw is total water saturation;
Rt is the true resistivity.
(10)

Where: Swe is effective water saturation.

RESERVOIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT USING THE BUCKLES PLOT

The Buckles plot (Buckles, 1965) is a graph of porosity versus water saturation either on a linear scale
or logarithmic scale with porosity on the X-axis and water saturation on the Y-axis. Intervals with constant
Bulk volume water (BVW) are interpreted as zones of uniform lithology and at irreducible water
saturation indicating that, the water is held to the grains of the rock by capillary forces while intervals that
are scattered indicate variation in pore geometry and mobile water.
Stratigraphic intervals at irreducible water saturation would produce hydrocarbons free of water
(Morris and Biggs, 1967) which is a very good thing since water is undesirable.
Effective water saturation was calculated from the Archie equations and plotted against effective
porosity on a logarithmic scale to ascertain field reservoir quality and predict future performance.
Typically, stratigraphic intervals at irreducible water saturation plot on a straight line (logarithmic scale)
in a homogeneous reservoir while intervals with mobile water and varying pore geometry are usually
scattered and have higher buckles number.
SPE-178730-STU 7

GEOLOGICAL MODELING
I used Schlumberger Petrel software to build the 3D structural model for the H3 reservoir. The process
involved the creation of surfaces, horizons, zones, and I inserted layers with the flow units as my guide,
consequently, a 50 x 50m (164 x 164) grid was generated.

FACIES AND PETROPHYSICAL MODELING

I upscaled the raw log data using the ‘most of’ averaging method for the facie which is a discrete property,
and the ‘arithmetic’ (neighbor cell) for the continous properties so that each cell that is penetrated by the
wells gets a single value for each property. The facie model was built using the Sequential Indicator
Simulation (SIS) while the effective porosity models with Larionov, Stieber, and Clavier volume of shale
as inputs and the permeability model constrained to the facie model were built using the Sequential
Gaussian Simulation (SGS).
The ‘Above contact’ property was used to generate the ‘saturation height’ function to build the water
saturation model.

VOLUME CALCULATION (STOOIP)

The stock tank oil originally in place (STOOIP) was estimated in the 3D grid with the boundary (polygon),
zones, segments, properties (NTG, ␾e, Swe), FVF (Bo ⫽ 1.05 assumed) and fluid contact (OWC) as input
data.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Based on gamma ray and resistivity curves analyses, six reservoir units namely; H1, H2, H3, H4, H5, and
H6 were identified and analyzed (see Figs. 3–8). The sequence stratigraphic correlation (Fig. 2) showed
that, all these reservoirs occurred in the lowstand system tract with H4 reservoir the only exception that
occurred in the transgressive system tract.

Figure 7—composite log for H5 reservoir.

8 SPE-178730-STU

Figure 8a—composite log for H6 reservoir. Here the overlay of deep resistivity and density log resolved the oil-water-contact accurately
relative to the other overlays.

Figure 8b—H6 reservoir depth converted from MD to TVDSS. OWC picked at 13,050 feet.

Stacking patterns: fining upward GR log signature interpreted as Transgressive System Tract (grey),
coarsening upward GR log signature interpreted as Highstand System Tract (red), and blocky interpreted
as Lowstand System Tract (yellow).
I used a relatively new approach to delineate the fluid contacts. The cross over between the deep
resistivity and the bulk density log and neutron log was observed to be a very good tool for this purpose.
The cross over of the deep resistivity log to the right and the density and neutron logs to the left, indicates
the top of the hydrocarbon bearing sand; while the cross over of the deep resistivity to the left of both logs
indicates the bottom and oil-water-contact of the hydrocarbon bearing sand. This approach however, did
not exhibit different characteristics from the other conventional log overlays in the gas interval.
I estimated the gross pay thicknesses using a deep resistivity cut-off of 3 ohm.m, effective porosity
cut-off of 0.1, and volume of shale cut-off of 0.5. In addition to these cut-offs, an effective water saturation
cut-off of 0.35 was applied to estimate the net pay thicknesses (these are the thicknesses considered to
possibly produce hydrocarbon free of water because of the low water saturation). This is however, not a
standalone tool because in the past, reservoirs with very low water saturation have produced less
hydrocarbons with high water cut and vice versa, hence, the reason why the Buckles plot was utilized in
evaluating the reservoirs.
The reservoirs are fairly clean with the average net-to-gross pay values ranging from 79-89%; H4
reservoir is however, shaly given the net-to-gross pay value of 55%.
To effectively characterize the reservoir fluids, the RHOB/NPHI overlay was used, this tool however,
did not resolve the oil and water intervals; it best separates gas zones from liquid zones. In order to
delineate the gas, oil, and water zones, the density porosity and neutron porosity (DPHI/NPHI) overlay
was used. The Dphi and Nphi overlay (see data in Figs. 3–8 above) scaled in the same porosity units,
indicated that, both curves fairly matched themselves in clean water bearing zones, with medium
separation in the oil zone and wide separation in the gas zone. Quantitatively, intervals with low neutron
porosity and high density porosity values were interpreted as gas (H2 reservoir had NPHI of 0.05 and
DPHI of 0.19 at a depth range of 7934-8086 feet indicating gas), while intervals with very close NPHI
SPE-178730-STU 9

and DPHI values were interpreted as liquid, then in conjunction with resistivity and pressure gradients, the
liquid was characterized into oil and/or water (H6 reservoir had NPHI of 0.17 and DPHI of 0.23 with
pressure gradient of 0.24psi/ft at 13,042-13,137 feet) interpreted as oil while the free water level (FWL)
had a pressure gradient of 0.44psi/ft.

Figure 9 —Plot of Formation Pressure Versus Depth for H6 Reservoir showing the oil-water-contact at 13,050 feet.

The estimated total porosities range from 21-28% while effective porosities range from 19-27%
decreasing with depth. The resulting porosity values indicate that, the reservoirs are of good to very good
quality. The density porosity uncorrected for hydrocarbon effect was observed to be underestimated when
compared to the core porosity; however, the corrected density porosity fairly matched the core porosity
(see data in Fig. 10).

Figure 10 —Core Porosity (blue) versus Density Log Porosity (dark red). Comparative analysis between core porosity and density
porosity uncorrected (left) shows that, the density uncorrected underestimates the porosity; while the density porosity corrected for
hydrocarbon effect versus core porosity (right) indicate that, they both fairly match.

The average effective water saturation values range from 12-45% indicating that, the reservoirs have
good hydrocarbon saturation.
Table 2 below shows the estimated average Petrophysical parameters for the six reservoirs.
10 SPE-178730-STU

Table 2—Estimated field petrophysical parameters.

The Buckles plot in the Okati field was observed to be scattered indicating variation in the pore
geometry and possibly mobile water; this could be as a result of shale intercalation within the reservoirs.
Stratigraphic intervals plotted on the Buckles plot that range from 0.01 to 0.05 were interpreted as
zones at irreducible water saturation and will likely produce water free oil, while zones with higher
Buckles number were interpreted as intervals with mobile water. The Buckles plot indicated that, H1
reservoir (see data in Fig. 11) is not at irreducible water saturation and would produce mostly water. H2,
H3, H5, and H6 reservoirs (see data in Figs. 12, 13, 15, and 16) have some intervals at irreducible water
saturation and some mobile water; H4 reservoir is at irreducible water saturation in wells 1, 2, and 4, some
intervals have both irreducible and mobile water in well 3 (see data in Fig. 14).

Figure 11—Buckles plot for H1 reservoir indicating mobile water (data points plot on Buckles number greater than 0.05).
SPE-178730-STU 11

Figure 12—Buckles plot for H2 reservoir. (a) reservoir 2 penetrated by Okati 1 with data points plotted above the BVW ⴝ 0.05 line
indicating mobile water (blue circle); and other points plotted on/below the 0.05 BVW line (red circle) indicating irreducible water
saturation; (b) oil zone in okati 2 and (c) gas zone in okati 2 all plotted above the BVW ⴝ 0.05 line indicating mobile water.

Figure 13—Buckles plot for H3 reservoir as penetrated by Okati 1(A), Okati 2(B), and Okati 3(C) with the red circles showing intervals
at irreducible water saturation and the blue circles showing intervals with mobile water.

Figure 14 —Buckles plot for H4 reservoir as penetrated by Okati 1(A), Okati 2(B), Okati 3(C), and Okati 4(D) with the red circles showing
intervals at irreducible water saturation and the blue circles showing intervals with mobile water.
12 SPE-178730-STU

Figure 15—Buckles plot for H5 reservoir as penetrated by Okati 1(A), Okati 2(B), and Okati 3(C) with the red circles showing intervals
at irreducible water saturation and the blue circles showing intervals with mobile water.

Figure 16 —Buckles plot for H6 reservoir indicating intervals with irreducible water (red circle) and mobile water (blue circle).

The oil-water contact (Fig. 17) was constructed using a constant value of -9788 feet picked from the
well logs. The structure showed that, no well penetrated the other side of the fault; the implication
therefore, is if the fault is sealing, the reservoir would be compartmentalized thereby impeding the flow
of oil to the wells. A fault seal analysis is therefore required to ascertain the status of the fault; this is
absolutely important in order to decide on the most effective measures to deplete the reservoir optimally.
From the model, well 3 is very close to the OWC with the implication of having high water saturation.

Figure 17—oil-water-contact structure for H3 reservoir shows no well across the fault, wells 1 and 2 saturated with oil in all layers while
well 3 saturated with oil in only the first three layers.

The facies model (Fig. 18) was first built to avoid leaving the geology out of the petrophysical models.
Constraining the petrophysical models to the facie model helped in integrating the geology and ensured
SPE-178730-STU 13

consistency. This is important because, it affects reservoir fluid distribution and hence, its estimation and
field development planning in terms of optimal well placements in cases of compartmentalization. The
facies model showed that H3 reservoir could be compartmentalized around well 1 and 2 given the
variation in facies and pore geometry.

Figure 18 —Facies Model using Sequential Indicator Simulation method for the H3 reservoir. The facies distribution indicate that, the
reservoir could be compartmentalized around well 1 and well 2.

The effective porosity models indicate that, the one constrained to Clavier volume of shale method
(Fig. 21) is pessimistic; Stieber volume of shale method (Fig. 20) is the mean while the model constrained
to the Larionov volume of shale method (Fig. 19) is the optimistic estimate; effective porosity decreased
with increasing volume of shale.

Figure 19 —Effective Porosity Model using Larionov Tertiary volume of shale for the H3 reservoir.
14 SPE-178730-STU

Figure 20 —Effective Porosity Model using Stieber volume of shale method for the H3 reservoir.

Figure 21—Effective Porosity Model using Clavier volme of shale method for H3 reservoir.

As highlighted earlier, the permeability model (Fig. 22b) was built using the porosity/permeability
transform (Fig. 22a) generated from Okati 3.

Figure 22a—

Figure 22b—Stochastic (SGS) Permeability Model for the H3 reservoir.

SPE-178730-STU 15

The water saturation model (Fig. 23), indicates high water saturation around well 3 which makes it a
poor candidate for future completions and development, it is therefore, seen as a future injection well.
Okati 1 and 2 are however, considered very good candidate wells for future completions and development
because of their low water saturation.

Figure 23—Water Saturation Model for the H3 reservoir.

The stock tank oil originally in place model (Fig. 24) was built to determine the interval where it is
most concentrated. It was constrained to the effective porosity models using the three different methods.
All three models demonstrated that, the oil is concentrated around well 1 and 2 but mostly around well
2.

Figure 24a—STOOIP model constrained to the effective porosity using Larionov Tertiary rock Vsh method.

Figure 24b—STOOIP model constrained to the effective porosity using Stieber Vsh method.
16 SPE-178730-STU

Figure 24c—STOOIP model constrained to the effective porosity using Clavier Vsh method.

Conclusions
In this study, six hydrocarbon-bearing reservoirs (H1, H2, H3, H4, H5 and H6) were delineated and
analyzed; sequence stratigraphic analysis revealed that H1, H2, H3, H5, and H6 reservoirs are in the
Lowstand systems tract while H4 is in the transgressive system tract. The effective porosity values (0.19
-0.26) showed that, the reservoirs have good to very good storage capacities; high net-to-gross that range
from 55% to 89%, the hydrocarbon intervals have good thicknesses that range from 44 feet to 302 feet.
The field has very good hydrocarbons saturation which implies low water saturations; H1 reservoir that
has a gas cap has 55% effective gas saturation and 57% effective oil saturation; while the other reservoirs
which are all oil bearing have average effective oil saturation values that range from 55-88%.
The results also showed that, volumetric assessment that utilized the effective porosity model con-
strained to Stieber is the mid case, while Larionov young is the optimistic scenario with Clavier method
as the pessimistic case.
The permeability model built is associated with high degree of uncertainty away from well 3 because,
core data was only available for Okati 3 hence; the porosity-permeability crossplot was used to generate
the function that enabled the estimation of the permeability in the other wells.
The facies model showed that, H3 reservoir could be compartmentalized around Okati 1 and 2 but no
concrete conclusions could be made because neither pressure survey nor fluid sampling was carried out.
The water saturation model showed that, the wells with the lowest water saturation are Okati 1 and 2
while Okati 3 have very high water saturation making it a poor candidate for future completions to avoid
early water breakthrough. The STOOIP map showed that it is more concentrated around Okati 2.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Having carried out a detailed petrophysical analysis and evaluation of the six delineated reservoirs and
modeled reservoir 3, the following recommendations are made:
1. Apart from H1reservoir, the petrophysical properties and reservoirs quality are good, hence, they
are recommended for future completions and development.
2. Wells 1 and 2 of H3 reservoir are recommended for completions.
3. Pressure survey or fluid sampling should be carried out in H3 reservoir to ascertain reservoir
connectivity.
4. In the absence of core data, the corrected porosity should be used instead of the density porosity
uncorrected.

Acknowledgement
I greatly appreciate the financial support of Mr. Alabrah Andi Emomotimi and Mrs. Alabrah Elizabeth,
SPE-178730-STU 17

I am also grateful to Dr. Adepelumi Adekunle Abraham and the department of Geology, Obafemi
Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, and the Nigerian Petroleum Development Company Limited; for providing
the data used for this study.

KEY REFERENCES
Archie, G. E. 1941. The Electrical Resistivity Log as an Aid in Determining Some Reservoir
Characteristics. Dallas meeting, October, 1941.
Archie, G. E. 1950. Introduction to petrophysics of reservoir rocks. Bulletin of American Association
of Petroleum Geologists 34, 943–961.
Asquith, G. and Krygowski, D. 2005. Basic Well Log Analysis. AAPG Methods in Exploration Series.
Benedictus, T. 2007. Determination of petrophysical properties from well logs of the Offshore
Terschelling Basin and Southern Central North Sea Graben region of the Netherlands.
Buckles, R. S. 1965. Correlating and averaging connate water saturation data. Journal of Canadian
Petroleum Technology, v.9, no.1, p.42–52.
Chris, L. E., and Jerry, L. J. 2009. Data Integration, Petrophysics, and Geomodeling: Wabamun Area
CO2 Sequestration Project (WASP). Final Report presented to Energy and Environmental Systems
Group (December 22, 2009).
Chiaberge, C., Joachim, T., Anne-Gaelle, B., and Audigane, P. 2012. Modeling of the CO2 Geological
Storage at the S3 Site (SIM-SEQ Comparative Project). PROCEEDINGS, TOUGH Symposium
2012: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California, September 17-19, 2012.
Clavier, C., Coates, G., and Dumanoir, J.: Theoretical and Experimental Bases for the Dual-Water
Model for Interpretation of Shaly Sands. SPE-6859, 52nd annual meeting [Denver] preprint 16 p.,
1977.
Clayton V, Deutsch 2002. Geostatistical Reservoir Modeling. Oxford University Press.
Darren, K. 2012. Stratigraphy and Porosity Modeling of Southern Central Illinois Chester (Upper
Mississipian) Series Sandstones in Petrel. MSc. Thesis, Illinois State University, 2012.
David, A. 2012. Integrated Reservoir Modeling of the Norne Field. MSc. Thesis, Norwegian
University of Science and Technology (June 2012).
Doust, H. and Omatsola, M. E. 1990. Niger Delta. “Divergent/passive Margin Basins”. AAPG Memoir
48: 239 –248.
Ekine, A. S.; Iyabe, Paul (2009): Petrophysical Characterization of the Kwale Field Reservoir Sands
(OML60) from Wire-line Logs, Niger Delta, Nigeria.
Evamy, B. D., Haremboure, J., Kamerling, P., Knaap, W. A., Molloy, F. A., Rowlands, P. H. (1978):
Hydrocarbon habitat of Tertiary Niger Delta. American Association of Petroleum Geologists
Bulletin.
Harrisson, B. and Jing X. D. Saturation Height Methods and Their Impact on Volumetric Hydrocarbon
in Place Estimates. SPE 71326.
Joseph, T. C. 2002. Petrophysical Analysis and Geologic Model for the Bullwinkle J Sand with
Implication for Time-Lapse Reservoir Monitoring, Green Canyon Block 65. MSc. Thesis, The
Pennsylvania state University (May 2002).
Krygowski, D. A and Cluff, R. M. 2012. Pattern Recognition in a Digital Age: A Gameboard
Approach to Determining Petrophysical Parameters. AAPG ACE 2012: Panel 2.
Morris, R. L., and Biggs, R. W. 1967. Using Log-Derived Values of Water Saturation and Porosity.
Transactions of the SPWLA 8th Annual Logging Symposium, Paper X, 26p.
Schlumberger, 1989. Log Interpretation Principles/Applications