10,372
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 59:
Line 59: + + + − − [[file:predicting-reservoir-system-quality-and-performance_fig9-94.png|thumb|{{figure number|9-94}}. Copyright: Hartmann and Coalson, 1990; courtesy RMAG.]]
Petrophysical analysis of Sorrento field wells (view source)
Revision as of 21:37, 14 February 2014
, 21:37, 14 February 2014→Well 1
==Well 1==
==Well 1==
[[file:predicting-reservoir-system-quality-and-performance_fig9-94.png|thumb|{{figure number|5}}. Copyright: Hartmann and Coalson, 1990; courtesy RMAG.]]
Well 1 is similar to well 8, except that flow unit 2 of well 1 shows an anomalous low resistivity. The interval tested 32 bo/d and 15 Mcfg/d (5 m<sup>3</sup> oil and 425 m<sup>3</sup> gas per day) with no water. Therefore, the zone by definition is at immobile water saturation (S<sub>wi</sub> = 40%). The discrepancy suggests that the log resistivity was too low due to bed resolution problems. If true resistivity is 9 ohm-m<sup>2</sup>/m (used for the calculation), then the true water saturation is less than 40%.
Well 1 is similar to well 8, except that flow unit 2 of well 1 shows an anomalous low resistivity. The interval tested 32 bo/d and 15 Mcfg/d (5 m<sup>3</sup> oil and 425 m<sup>3</sup> gas per day) with no water. Therefore, the zone by definition is at immobile water saturation (S<sub>wi</sub> = 40%). The discrepancy suggests that the log resistivity was too low due to bed resolution problems. If true resistivity is 9 ohm-m<sup>2</sup>/m (used for the calculation), then the true water saturation is less than 40%.
==Caveat==
==Caveat==