Você está na página 1de 19

SPE

Society of PetroleumEngIneers
SPE 30092
Stress Sensitivity In The Dulang Field - How It Is Related To Productivity
Zarool Hassan Bin Tajul Amar, Mehmet Altunbay*, Duncan Barr*I
Petronas Carigali Sdn. Bhd., Core Laboratories Sdn. Bhd.
SPE Member
Copyright 1995, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE European Formation Damage Conference held in Hague, May 15 - 16, 1995.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee followin9 review of Information contained In an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of Ihe 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 nol necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroieum Engineers, Its officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE meetings are SUbject 10 publication review by Editorial Committees of the
Society of Petroleum Engineers. Permission to copy Is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper Is presented. Write Librarian. SPE, P.O. Box 833836. Richardson, TX 75083-3836 U.S.A. Telex, 730989 SPEDAL.
ABSTRACT
All rocks are sensitive to changes in stress. In the
Dulang Field sandstones, stress sensitivity is
affected by differences in texture, mineralogy and
clay type. In this study, we present the results of
astudy that shows how stress sensitivity is related
to the make up of a rock and how it affects the
productivity. 111e sensitivity of permeability - and
therefore transmissivity - to stress in the Dulang
Field strongly correlates with the general
classification of reservoir quality' with better
quality rocks showing lesser sensitivity to stress.
However, there are some anomalies in the stress
sensitivity of porosity. While the sensitivity of
permeability to stress increases with decreasing
rock quality, the same does not hold for the
sensitivity of porosity to stress. These deviations
are explained by changes in cementation, clay
type, clay morphology and clay locations in the
pore structure.
Understanding why stress sensitivity changes in
the Dulang Field is essential for its future
development. Knowing the reasons behind
reservoir behaviour allows better prediction and
control of future production. Some zones will
compact differently from others as the field
produces. Differences in compaction are due to
the different make up of the reservoir rocks.
Heterogeneity in compaction affects the
productivity irregularly, and therefore, the
economics of the field. By knowing which zones
are likely to compact first, production rates and
scheduling can be adjusted to reduce the
stress-induced damage. The findings of this study
can be used to make more realistic prediction of
future production rates via numerical simulators,
thus providing a tool for improving field
management and company profits. This is
important not only for the Dulang Field, but also
for any field where changes in stress are likely to
affect production due to heterogeneous
compaction ofthe reservoir.
INTRODUCTION
Reservoir compaction during fluid withdrawal is
simply a response to change in in situ stress
conditions. Owing to the production of fluids
from a reservoir, pore pressure declines while
overburden stresses remain constant. The relative
increase in stress caused by production alters all
physical properties of rocks. The degree of
alteration in rock properties is heterogeneous
owing to the heterogeneous make up of the rocks.
The varying degree in compaction manifests itself
as different percentages of reductions in porosity
and, most importantly, lessening of
transmissivity. The direct effect of reduction in
transmissivity is a drastic decline in fluid flow
through the rock. This study generates a
stress-sensitivity profile that shows vertical
variation in the proneness of the reservoir to
compaction. This provides a tool for adjusting
and scheduling production rates to prevent
damage.
2 STRESS SENSITIVITY IN THE DULANG FIELD-
HOW IT IS RELATED TO PRODUCTIVITY
SPE 30092
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
The reduction in hydraulic quality due to
increases in relative stress is not the same
throughout the reservoir. Therefore, it is
important that the stress sensitivity of a producing
formation be assessed to see where compaction is
likely to occur, and by how much, These trends
must be vertically profiled to sliow the location of
the zones that are most prone to stress-induced
compaction. By zoning the reservoir according to
stress sensitivity, the operator can control
production rates to avoid premature increases in
relative stress, thus preventing early reductions in
production performance.
METHODOLOGY
To generate a vertical profile of stress sensitivity,
or to access its effect on productivity,
petrophysical data must be' correlated with
wireline logs. Stress sensitivity of the reservoir
rock should be studied by using core plugs. Core
plugs provide discrete point data, covering the
cored interval only. Therefore, a transformation
procedure is needed to extrapolate the findings
from the cored interval into uncored sections of
the subject well. The hydraulic delineation
procedure provides a sound statistical foundation
for integrating core analysis and wireline log data
to do this. This procedure allows core plug data
to be scaled up to reservoir scale, so that gaps in
the core record can be filled.
The methodology followed for the Dulang Field
study required the following steps in the order
given below :
Identify "Hydraulic Units" based on core data,
Select samples from each hydraulic unit for
stress sensitivity study.
Measure permeability and porosity changes
under different overburden conditions,
Study stress sensitivity for each hydraulic unit
by calculating the ratio of :
[
kstress ] [<Pstress ]
kambient ' <I> ambient
and fitting the eXperimental data to the following
double-exponential equation :
kstress _ Exp [-b (I-Exp (-%]
kambient [I+d cr]
<Pstress _ Exp [-b (I-Exp (-%]
<Pambient [I+d cr]
Generate trend curves and analyze them for
.anomalies.
Evaluate petrological controls of stress
sensitivity for each hydraulic unit and explain
the observed anomalies.
Make qualitative predictions of hydraulic units
for the uncored .sections of well by using
wireline log signatures for each hydraulic unit
and by generating a probabilistic algorithm.
Derive permeability transform equations based
on core data as a function of wireline logs.
Generate permeability predictions for the
uncored sections by assigning transform
equations to the predicted hydraulic units
profile.
Calculate predicted permeability for different
overburden conditions by using the stress
sensitivity equations derived earlier.
Calculate Productivity Index (PI) profiles for
the subject well for different permeability
profiles obtained for different relative stress
conditions.
Compute production rates for different
drawdown pressures and different stress
conditions.
Compare results to set up guidelines for
avoiding premature compaction.
SPE 30092 ZAROOL HASSAN BIN TAJUL AMAR,
MEHMET ALTUNDAY, DUNCAN BARR
3
CASE STUDY, DULANG B-20
Hydraulic delineation revealed eight distinctively
different flow units in the core data from Dulang
B-20 (Figure 1 and Figure 2). These units were
ranked according to their Reservoir Quality Index
(RQI). HU1 was named as the best quality rock
and HU8 as being the worst quality rock. Sample
selection was based on hydraulic unit framework,
and a minimum of five samples were taken from
each unit. Penneability and porosity values of
samples were measured at three different
overburden pressures. Values of kstres,/kambient and
eDstres,/eDambient were calculated and fitted with the
Langmuir type double exponential equation by
using Marquardt's Compromise technique.
Coefficients for the stress sensitivity equations are
tabulated in Table 1 and Table 2.
Stress sensitivity curves were plotted as illustrated
in Figure 3 and Figure 4. The reduction in
penneability due to stress increases as reservoir
quality decreases, as expected. The impact of
increasing stress on penneability is drastics,
starting from HU5, and worsens through to HU8.
This observation shows that compaction of
intervals with penneability values ranging 70 to
100 milidarcies will be highly detrimental to
production if production rates are not carefully
controlled.
Stress sensitivity of porosity for Dulang B-20
showed more complex behaviour. Porosity in
some poorer quality rocks shows less sensitivity
to stress than in better quality rocks (see Figure
4). These anomalies must be explained before the
stress sensitivity profile can be applied to
productivity forecasts. A detailed petrological
study was therefore undertaken to resolve this
problem.
PETROLOGICAL EVALUATION
Rock type, texture, clay volume and clay position
within the pore network decide stress sensitivity
in the Dulang reservoir. They also explain the
apparently anomalous behaviour of porosity stress
sensitivity.
To study this behaviour, thin section, X-ray
diffraction, scanning electron microscopy, and
Mineralog Fourier transfonn infrared
spectroscopy were used to characterise the
petrology of each Hydraulic Unit (HU). The main
findings are :
The reservoir is highly laminated and
heterogeneous, even on a microscopic scale.
Rock type varies from faintly laminated
sandstones (Hydraulic Units 1 and 2) through
laminated sandstones (Units 3, 4 and 5), to
heterolithic claystone with sandstone laminae,
and siltstones (Units 6, 7 and 8).
Grain size is generally upper very fine in Units
1, 2 and 3, lower fine in Unit 4, and silt-sized
to lower very fine in Units 5, 6, 7 and 8.
Total clay content generally increases with
increasing Unit number, except in units 6 and
8, which show anomalously low clay content
(Figure 5).
Clay occurrence changes from pore-filling and
laminar in Units 1, 2, 3 and 4, to mainly
laminar in Hydraulic Units 5, 6, 7 and 8.
The main clay type is illitic, with subordinate
kaolinite. Detrital clay is dominant
throughout.
The sensitivity of penneability to stress increases
with decreasing rock quality, as expected. The
sudden increase in penneability stress sensitivity
shown by Hydraulic Unit (HU) 6 can be explained
by changes in rock type, grain size and clay
mineralogy. HUs 6 through 8 are mainly
argillaceous siltstones and claystones with thin
sand laminae and lenses. HU 6 therefore marks a
departure from the laminated sandstones ofHUs 1
through 5. Grain size also changes, generally
reducing from upper very fine grained in HUs 5
through 8. However, there is greater variety of
grain size within individual sand laminae in these
4 STRESS SENSITIVITY IN THE DULANG FIELD -
HOW IT IS RELATED TO PRODUCTIVITY
SPE 30092
poorer quality rocks, with grain size varying from
silt to fine grained. Also, the mode of clay
occurrence changes from mainly dispersed,
pore-filling in HUs 1 through 4 to mainly laminar
in HU 5.
The change in clay mode corresponds to a trend of
generally increasing clay volume with decreasing
rock quality (Figure 5).
However, HUs 6 and 8 buck the trend, with lower
than expected total clay volume. These are the
two rock units where porosity shows anomalous
sensitivity to stress.
The variation in total clay column with respect to
rock quality shown by these poorer quality rocks
depends on their laminated, heterogeneous
texture. In the better quality rocks, rock quality
directly relates to the volume of clay, as the clay
is mainly dispersed and fills interstices between
grains. In the poorer quality rocks, the clay is
mainly laminar, so rock quality (parti.cularly with
respect to pernleability) is as much a function of
individual sandstone layers and lenses than of
total clay volume. Consequently, porosity stress
sensitivity is heterogeneous. While permeability
is a largely a function of pore size and pore
distribution within individual sand layers,
effective porosity depends on the volume of
porous sand layers within the rock. When
compacted down, a sample consisting ofthin sand
lenses interbedded with common clay laminae
(with high clay-associated microporosity) will
show less reduction in porosity than in
permeability. Permeability in a poor quality rock
can therefore show high sensitivity to stress, while
total porosity remains relatively insensitive to
stress.
The Dulang reservoir's heterogeneity makes
interpretation of petrographic work difficult. One
major problem is the scale of the heterogeneity,
and the use of plug trim ends for petrography.
Normally, plug trim ends correspond well to core
plugs. Here, however, the heterogeneity is on
such a small scale that plug trim ends sometimes
fail to represent the lithology of the plug upon
which petrophysical tests were done. However,
when data is averaged for each hydraulic unit,
trends soon become apparent, as shown by the
averaged mineralogical data shown in figure 5.
The apparently anomalous porosity sensitivity
shown by the poorer quality intervals within the
Dulang reservoir is due to its highly laminated
and heterogeneous lithology. The effects that
texture, mineralogy and rock type have on the
performance of the field can now be quantified,
provided the intervals can be classified as payor
non-pay.
GENERATION OF STRESS SENSITIVITY
PROFILE
Wireline log signatures for each hydraulic unit
were compiled. A multi-dimensional histogram,
relating each hydraulic unit with its associated
pattern of log responses was then created in
n-dimensional space (n number of logs). By
inferring from the histogram and using a
probabilistic algorithm, HU profile for the
uncored sections was generated. The probability
of having a predicted HU at a specific depth in the
uncored sections was then calculated. Predictions
with relia1:?ilities ofless than 75% were eliminated
from the generated HU profile for the uncored
sections.
Permeability transform equations were derived by
correlating core and wireline log data via multiple
linear regression, using quadratic models. These
equations were assigned to the predicted HU
profile for the uncored sections to derive
permeability values. Predicted permeability
values were then transformed to different
overburden conditions by using stress sensitivity
equations derived earlier (for the coefficients,
please refer to Tables 1 and 2). Productivity
Index was calculated based on the following
equation and assumptions :
PI ~ 9.3 x 10-
4
[ 1 l : ~ J
SPE 30092 ZAROOL HASSAN BIN TAJUL AMAR,
MEHMET ALTUNDAY, DUNCAN BARR
5
Spacing
Wellbore diameter
40 acres
= 8 inches
Pp
OB
:::: Pore Pressure, psi
= Overburden Pressure, psi
where:
PI = Productivity Index, bpd/psi
k = Permeability, md
h = Thickness, feet
= Oil Viscosity, cp
B
o
= Oil Fomlation Volume Factor, bbls/stb
PI was calculated for each incremental depth level
by using a thickness of 0.25 ft PI was also
calculated for each permeability profile generated
for different stress levels. Cumulative
productivity index was calculated for the zones
with appreciable permeability.
To illustrate the economic implications of stress
sensitivity, a water free production was assumed
for the subject interval (80 meters of net open
hole). Different production rates were calculated
for different drawdown pressures at different
stress levels (Table 3). At varying crude oil prices
ranging from USDI4/bbl to USDI8/bbl, revenues
per day for the subject interval were calculated
(Table 4). As an altemative, Table 5 showed the
lost revenues per day due to the stress induced
premature compaction. Potential cumulative
production rates at different stress levels were
then plotted against various drawdown pressures
(Figure 6 and Figure 7). A three-dimensional
model equation was derived correlating
production rate to drawdown pressure and relative
stress for the subject interval (Figure 8). This
equation is as follows :
1 Q= 1.89xl0
3
+ 7133.43
n. 1n1l %
_ 1.697xl0
5
+ 2.316xl0
6
Il 1l1.5
where:
Q = bbls/d/selected interval
Drawdown Pressure, psi
o = Relative Stress, psi
The results of cumulative productivity index and
rate calculations for different stress levels and
drawdown pressures were plotted in Figure 9 and
Figure 10.
CONCLUSIONS
Production rates and productive life of a reservoir
can be severely affected by premature
compaction.
Poorer quality intervals in the Dulang reservoir
show very high sensitivity of permeability to
stress.
Some poor quality zones - in spite of having high
sensitivity of permeability to stress - show
anomalously low sensitivity of porosity to stress.
This can be explained by the highly
heterogeneous laminated lithology.
The results of this study reiterate the need for
intensive sampling and analytical programs to
describe reservoir behaviour better in complex,
laminated formations.
Premature compaction can cost over US$ 5,000
per day in lost production if production rates are
not carefully controlled, even at a low drawdown
pressure of 50 psi across the subject interval. This
amounts to nearly US$ 2 million per year.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors thank the management of Petroliam
Nasional Berhad (PETRONAS) Petronas
Carigali Sdn. Bhd., Esso Production Malaysia Inc.
and Core Laboratories Malaysia Sdn. Bhd. for
permission to publish this paper.
6 STRESS SENSITIVITY IN THE DULANG FIELD -
HOW IT IS RELATED TO PRODUCTIVITY
SPE 30092
NOMeNCLATURE
k = Petmeability, md
in Uncored Intervals/Wells", SPE 26436, 68th
Annual SPE Conference, Oct. 1993
Q = bbls/d/selected interval
flo = Oil Viscosity, cp
B
o
= Oil Fotmation Volume Factor, bbls/stb
h
= Porosity
= Thickness, feet
Amaefule, J.O., D.G. Kersey; D.M. Marschall;
J.D. Powel; L.E.' Valencia; D.K. Keelan,
''Reservoir Description: A Praotical Synergistic
Engineering and Geologioal Approach Based on
Analysis ofCore Data", SPE No: 18167
D.M. Tetzlaff, E. Rodriguez, R.L. Anderson,
''Estimating Facies and Petrophysioal Parameters
from Integrated Well Data", Western Atlas
International, Inc., Houston, Tx.
.1P = Drawdown Pressure, psi
8 = Relative Stress, (Pp OB), psi
Pp = Pore Pressure, psi
OB = Overburden Pressure, psi
HU = Hydraulic Unit
RQI = Reservoir Quality Index, micron
= 0.0314*(k/<I0.5
PI = Productivity Index, bpd/psi
Porosity
group = [ <1>/ (1- <1]
In = Natural Log
REFERENCES
Amaefule,J.O.,Altunbay,M.,Ohen,
H.,Kersey,D.G.,Lane,P.;"A Hydraulic (Flow)
Unit-Based Approaoh for Predicting Formation
Damage Profiles in Uncored Intervals/Wells
Us,ing Core/Log Data", SPE 27365
Amaefule,J. 0 .,Altunbay,M.,Tiab,D.,Kersey,
D.G.,Keelan,D.K.;"Enhanoed Reservoir
Desoription: Using Core and Log Data to Identify
Hydraulic (Flow) Units and Predict Permeability
Draper, N.R. and Smith, H. (1966). ''Applied
Regression Analysis", New York, NY:John Wiley
and Sons
Ebanks, WJ.,Jr., ''Flow Unit Conoept-Integrated
Approach to Reservoir Description for
Engineering. Projects ", ARCa Oil and Gas
Company, Plano, Tx.
Jones, S.C., "Two-Point Determination of
Permeability and PV vs. Net Confining Stress",
SPE Fotmation Evaluation, March 1988, pp
235-241
Kartikay Sonrexa, Azly Aziz, GJ. Solomon,
Malvinder Bandal, Mohd. Khalid Embong,
Hashim Wahir, ''Role of Reservoir Simulation in
Development and Management of
Multiple-Reservoir Dulang
Filed, Offshore Malaysia: Holistic Strategies",
SPE No: 29855
Zarool Hassan Bin Tajul Amar, E.O. Egbogah,
A.R.B.Nurdin, Data Integration for
Improved Formation Evaluation in the Dulang
Field, Offshore Peninsular Malaysia", SPE No:
29262
Table 1 Coefficients Table For Permeability
75.56
104.26
15.45
0.92
54.17
88.65
97.94
26.28
2.26E+6
2.24E+6
3.19E+5
2.60E+4
6.74E+5
3.13E+5
3.19E+5
6.79E+4





4.52E-7
3.03E-7
1.84E-6
2.76E-5
2.22E-6
2.34E-6
2.24E-6
2.80E-5
Table 2 Coefficients Table For Porosity



1 0.13
2 18.82
3 2.04
4 15.3
5 0.19
6 13.47
7 19.11
8 21.37
2.32E+4
2.31E+6
2.32E+5
1.05E+6
6.16E+4
1.42E+6
6.93E+5
1.42E+6

3.31E-6
2.23E-7
4.03E-6
7.30E-7
1.05E-5
6.11E-7
6.75E-7
6.83E-7
Table 3 production Rates Calculated FQr Different Drawdown
Pressures At Various Stress Levels
.
2000 1188 2375 3563 4751 5938
3000 980 1961 2941 3921 4902
4000 925 1850 2774 3699 4624
4500 899 1798 2697 3596 4494
5000 874 1748 2622 3497 4371

7126
5882
5549
5393
5245
Table 4 Reyenues Per Day For The Subject InterYal
Due To Stress-Induced Premature Compaction
Crude Oil Price at 14 USD/BBL
2000 16632 33250 49882 66514 83132 99764
3000 13720 27454 41174 54894 68628 82348
4000 12950 25900 38836 51786 64736 77686
4500 12586 25172 37758 50344 62916 75502
5000 12236 24472 36708 48958 61194 73430
Crude Oil Price at 15 USD/BBL
2000 17820 35625 53445 71265 89070 106890
3000 14700 29415 44115 58815 73530 88230
4000 13875 27750 41610 55485 69360 83235
4500 13485 26970 40455 53940 67410 80895
5000 13110 26220 39330 52455 65565 78675
CrUde Oil Price at 16 USD/BBL
2000 19008 38000 57008 76016 95008 114016
3000 15680 31376 47056 62736 78432 94112
4000 14800 29600 44384 59184 73984 88784
4500 14384 28768 43152 57536 71904 86288
5000 13984 27968 41952 55952 69936 83920
Crude Oil Price at 17 USD/BBL
2000 20196 40375 60571 80767 100946 121142
3000 16660 33337 49997 66657 83334 99994
4000 15725 31450 47158 62883 78608 94333
4500 15283 30566 45849 61132 76398 91681
5000 14858 29716 44574 59449 74307 89165
Crude Oil Price at 18 USD/BBL
2000 21384 42750 64134 85518 106884 128268
3000 17640 35298 52938 70578 88236 105876
4000 16650 33300 49932 66582 83232 99882
4500 16182 32364 48546 64728 80892 97074
5000 15732 31464 47196 62946 78678 94410
Table 5 Lost Reyenues Per Day For The Subject Interval
Due To Premature Compaction
Crude Oil Price at 14 USD/BBL
2000 0 0 0 0 0 0
3000 2912 5796 8708 11620 14504 17416
4000 3682 7350 11046 14728 18396 22078
4500 4046 8078 12124 16170 20216 24262
5000 4396 8778 13174 17556 21938 26334
Crude Oil Price at 15 USD/BBL
2000 0 0 0 0 0 0
3000 3110 6221 9331 12442 15552 18663
4000 3944 7888 11832 15776 19720 23664
4500 4332 8664 12997 17329 21661 25993
5000 4703 9407 14110 18813 23516 28220
Crude Oil Price at 16 USD/BBL
2000 0 0 0 0 0 0
3000 3318 6636 9953 13271 16589 19907
4000 4207 8414 12621 16828 21035 25242
4500 4621 9242 13863 18484 23105 27726
5000 5017 10034 15050 20067 25084 30101
Crude Oil Price at 17 USD/BBL
2000 0 0 0 0 0 0
3000 3525 7050 10576 14101 17626 21151
4000 4470 8940 13410 17880 22350 26819
4500 4910 9820 14729 19639 24549 29459
5000 5330 10661 15991 21322 26652 31982
Crude Oil Price at 18 USD/BBL
2000 0 0 0 0 0 0
3000 3733 7465 11198 14930 18663 22395
4000 4733 9466 14199 18931 23664 28397
4500 5199 10397 15596 20795 25993 31192
5000 5644 11288 16932 22576 28220 33864
Figure 1 Hydraulic Delineation of Core Data
HU1

HU2

HU3
* HU4

HU5

HU6
II
HU7

HU8

1 0.1
Porosity Group, Phi I (1-Phi)
I I
I
__--l..-
---C.-J-
.- ---
I
-
-,..;;;--
I -- ----- -- ..-.....

v .
..-1--- ---- l---V'""--- I
....... _...- - -
- - - --- ---- ---- - ----
--- ----- -- ------ -- -- -- ------.
:--- ___l.--
l-----'" ---- ----;-
:::....---- ----- ---- ------ I
-' .--"'" :
- -I I I
--

I I I
10
0.001
0.01
1
-
fIJ
C
0
L..
CJ
E 0.1
-
-
CJ
0::
0.01
Well : Dulang 820
Figure 2 Permeability versus Porosity Plot of Core Data
with Hydraulic Delineation
-.: --
...-;
r-
-----
........
-
~
.'
--
....-v ~ . . - - : : ~
---
-
.'
v ~
-
/' /';/
--
--
/
'//// ~
-1
~ - - - - -
/// / /' :.i'" ....- ...
1//// /' /" ~
I, / / /'
~
11/ /'
/ /
I, '1/
10,000
1,000
100
- 10 "C
E
-
~
1
0.1
0.01
0.001
o
Well : Dulang 820
0.1 0.2
Porosity (decimal)
0.3 0.4
HU1

HU2

HU3
* HU4

HU5
HU6

HU7

HU8
*
Figure 3 Stress Sensitivity
Curves of Porosity
Figure 4 Stress Sensitivity
Curves of Permeability
1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
Stress (psi)
oII! I ,
o
Well : Dulang 820
0.85 I! !! I
o 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
Stress (psi)
Well: Dulang 820
1 ....... 1 1 1 1 I I 1
HU1
-
-
HU2
t:
Q)
-
:c
HU3 I 0.8 I
1\ '" I
I I I "l:: I --, ... I HU3
E
co

HU4
+-' I I i I I I I HU4
-
I::
- 0.95 Q)
en
HU5
0.6
1 I 1'\ i I I I I I I HU5
0
a:: -
co
0 HU6

I I I l\. 1\.'-.1 1 II HU6


ll.
-
-
-en HU7
en
I 1 I
'"
1'-."1... I II HU7
en
en
- 0.4
Q)

HU8
+-'
1 l'.. .. II HUB
-
en
I en
>-
0.9
-

!:::
en
0
I I I I I I I I '\. I 0.2
a::
0
ll.
Figure 5 Mineralogical make-up of Hydraulic Units
HU1
HU2
HU3
HU4
HU5
HU6
HU7
HUB
80
60
...
c
(J)
40 e
~
20
- 0
Well : Dulang 820
Cal Fe-Dol Sid K-Feld Kao III+Smec Qtz
0 0
c
-
o
t
n
L
{
)
0
c
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
0
L
{
)
.
-
0

e
t
n
L
{
)
S
.
q
-
;
:
]
t
n
t
n
t
n
0
e
(
J
)

0
C
-
o
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
q
-

C
f
)

0
0
0
'
"
C
+
:
i
0
0
3
:
c
o
0
N
c
o
Q
)
C
'
?
L
.
.

C
0 0 0 N
o o o L
{
)
o L
{
)
N o o
0
C
'
?
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
C
'
?
N

r
J

/
I
l
/
,
'
!
-
0
I
I
,
i
l
'
0

0 0 0
J
1

j
C
'
f
)
0 0
V
N
J
J
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
e
x
:
>
r
-
-
-
(
0
L
{
)
.
.
q
-
.
-
u
.
(
a
I
O
H
u
a
d
O
W
0
9
I
A
B
a
I
S
1
8
8
)
U
O
J
1
0
n
p
O
J
d

I
B
n
u
a
l
O
d
Figure 7 Q as a function of Relative Stress
~
---------
i
r--------.
300
r---.
I
250
-
I
200
I
I
J
150
-
I
100 !
I
I 50
..
I
!
c:
0
- ~
CD
(,)
0
::::J
:c
"C
e
c:
CD
iL
0-
CD 0
>
E
~
co
0
-
::::J
eX)
E ......
E
. ~
::::J
0 0
......
co
(fJ
.-
c: ..J
CD
m
.-
m
0
a.
-
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
o
2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Re.lative Stress (psi)
Drawdown .(psi)
50 100 150 200 250 300
4500 5000
Figure 8 3-D Diagram of Q as a function of Relative Stress
and Drawdown Pressure
DULANGB-20
Inz=a+blnx+cllny+d/yO.5+e/y+fJy2
[2=1 DF Adj r
2
=1 FitStdErr=O.00028684449 Fstat=2.1552692e+14
10000
-;;;
t:
ll)
.13

-0
--
'"
:0
.D
6
1000
100
AP, psi pressure)
3, psi (relative stress)
Vel
Vel
o
POROSITY
Phi (neutron)
100.0 0.4 o
Rxo. RHOB
RllO
PERMEABIUTY
PRODUCTIVITY
'INDEX
bbls/d/ps
POTENTIAL I DULANG 8-20
CUMULATIVE I HYDRAUUC UNITS
PRODUCTION l-!U 1=Best Quality
Drawdown=100 psi l-!U 8=Worst Quality
- _ ._. - ,-,. -.- ~ ~ . .,.1,. -. ~ . - - . - . ~ .._ .~ . , ~ . , - -~ ~ . . .
Predicted
.'
Phi (core)
o 0.4 2 .3 k-core. md PI. al Relative
------ 0.01 1000 'Sl.ress, of:
2000 psi
0.001 10
i JOOO psi
;0.001 10
I
I 4000 psi
'0.001 10
I
,
'I' 5000 psi
0.001 10
Delermined
Q. at Relative 0 8
slress of:
2000 psi
1000
JOOO r>si
1000
4000 psi
1000
5000 psi
1000
Figure 9
"
,.
. ~ ~ - - - - -
Productivit Index and Potential Cumulative [\
Production Logplot ~
8
Predicted
Determined
HYDRAULIC UNITS
HU 1=Best Quality
HU 8=Worst Quality
o
X reduction
PERCENT
REDUCTION IN k
AT .1500 psi
COMPACTION
PERhAEABIUlY SEVERllY
AT .1500 psi
-----------t----------.. _._ ~ .
k-predicted. md 1=Minimol
2000 psi I 2,3-Moderote . 0 100 0
0.01 1000 4=Severe r------------------
o 4;
k-core. md
0.01 1000
T
~ !
~ I
Phi (core)
0.4
POROSllY
Phi (neutron)
0.4 100 0
Vel
o
DUlANG 8-20
Vel
o
..".,.........
i
I
-------+----- -h_+-- ,--- ---+--------------..+----- - .
71"",.,0 1 n

Você também pode gostar