Sunteți pe pagina 1din 9

The 14th Formation Evaluation Symposium of Japan, September 29-30, 2008

Investigation of Cementation Factor in Iranian Carbonate Reservoirs


Masoud Asadollahi1, Ali Mohammad Bagheri2, Manouchehr Haghighi3, Mehran Namani4
1.

International Research Institute of Stavanger (IRIS)


2.
Research Institute of Petroleum Industry (RIPI)
3.
Tehran University
4.
National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC)

investigate the effect of cementation factor on water


saturation uncertainty in an Iranian carbonate reservoir.
The first Monte Carlo simulation was done based on the
existing laboratory and log data and the second one based
on the new correlation for cementation factor. Results
showed that application of appropriate correlations was
resulted in decreasing saturation uncertainty.
The accurate determination of cementation factor
improves the saturation determination and consequently
OOIP calculations. Also, applying the correlations
decreases the uncertainty of saturations in the reservoir
zones to increase the accuracy level of possible, probable
and proven reserves in a hydrocarbon reservoir.

This paper was selected for presentation by the JFES program committee
following the review of abstract submitted by author(s).

ABSTRACT
Cementation factor (cementation exponent) is one of the
most important parameters in saturation equation to
determine the water or hydrocarbon saturations. It acts as
a power of porosity in the most of saturation equations
which increases the importance of this parameter. The
best cementation factor data is based on laboratory
measurements and log interpretation results, but
sometimes it is considered as a constant value in oil and
gas reservoirs which causes large errors in saturation
calculations. Using a constant value for cementation
factor in saturation equations may cause large errors and
uncertainties in hydrocarbon saturation determination
because it is dependent to porosity value, type of porosity
and pore types, pressure and lithology. Correlations are
the best alternatives when there are not sufficient
laboratory measurements or accurate log interpretation
values.
The effect of cementation factor on saturation was
investigated. It was shown that cementation factor has
almost the same values in porosities more than 5 percent
but there are completely different values in porosities less
than 5 percent. Investigation of pressure, porosity and
lithology effects on cementation factor from the
laboratory measurements and log interpretation in Iranian
carbonate reservoirs was resulted in a new correlation for
Sarvak, Kangan and Dalan formations. In the new
correlation, cementation factor was plotted versus
porosity to compare with the most famous existing
correlations like Shell and Borai. The most common
correlation which is being used in Iranian reservoirs is
Shell formula whereas it has completely different trend
compared to the new correlation in low porosities. Also a
couple of Monte Carlo simulations were used to

INTRODUCTION
Before 1942, core samples using oil base mud were the
only sources to measure the saturations in the reservoir
intervals. The method was difficult and expensive, so
there were a few points of measurements. In 1942,
Archie established a relationship between porosity, water
resistivity, formation resistivity and water saturation in
clean formations. Archie's method was easy and quite
cheaper than the previous methods. Also this method had
the ability of continuous determinations of saturation
through whole reservoir interval because he used log data
for the saturation equation calculations. The equation is
as follows:
S wn F

Rw
... (1)
Rt

where R w : the formation brine resistivity, R t : the true


formation resistivity (rock pores filled with brine water
and hydrocarbon) and F is the formation resistivity factor
as follows:
a
F m .... (2)

where a: tortuosity factor, : porosity and m: cementation


factor (cementation exponent). In above equations

-1-

The 14th Formation Evaluation Symposium of Japan, September 29-30, 2008

factor for different lithology in Iranian reservoirs.


Experiences from different fields showed that most
common values for cementation factor varies between
1.5 and 2.5, in which 1.8 to 2.0 have been vastly applied
for carbonate reservoirs while the values more than 2.0
have been applied for sand reservoirs. Bagheri et al
(2005) studied a sandstone Iranian reservoir and found
that applying a constant core derived cementation factor
(m=1.8), the calculated water saturations in the water
zones and water flooded zones are higher than 100%.
This resulted to a negative value of residual oil saturation
in some intervals in water flooded zones. Their results
stressed the application of variable cementation factor,
e.g. correlations, in hydrocarbon reservoirs. Roberto
Aguilera (1976) proved that cementation factor value
firstly is variable (i.e. constant value can not be applied
for e reservoir or a well and even for several intervals)
and secondly, in naturally carbonate fractured reservoir,
could be 1.3 for highly fractured and 1.9 for dense
carbonate rocks. Hence correlations are an alternative
method for calculation of these parameters which are
usually the best solutions to calculate the unknown
parameters in a reservoir. Also there are some innovative
methods for estimation of unknown parameters. For
example Core Archie-Parameter Estimation (CAPE) and
back calculations in water zones can estimate the
Archie's equation parameters in a reservoir. Kazemzadeh
et al (2007) presented a new approach for the
determination of cementation exponent in different
petrofacies for the carbonate Asmari formation.
Several studies, Hosseini Nia and Rezaei (2002), Bagheri
et al. (2005) and Asadollahi et al. (2006 & 2008), showed
that cementation factor could be the most important
uncertain parameter which affect saturation in Iranian
carbonate reservoirs. Figures 1,2 and 3 show water
saturation vs. total resistivity for different porosities
using Archies saturation equation. In figure 1, S w vs. R t
has plotted for a=1.0, m=2.0 and n=2.0 which are the
most common values considered in Iranian reservoirs.
The only changes in figure 2 and figure 3 are m=1.5 and
n=1.5, respectively. Comparing figures 2 and 3 with
figure 1 shows that variation of cementation factor could
be more important than saturation exponent in Archies
equation. Also it is obvious that applying common
constant values for m and n is not an acceptable method
for saturation calculations. So this study has been
focused on the investigation of cementation factor in
Iranian carbonate reservoirs. The cementation exponent

porosity and R t can be determined based on well log data.


R w is calculated from appropriate tables using brine
salinity and reservoir temperature. At last a, m and n
should be calculated based on special core analysis data.
Since special core lab data are not available in all
reservoir studies, a number of methods developed to
determine these parameters but still core lab
measurements are the most accurate one. The
conventional determination method of a, m and n will be
described here and then the study will be focused on
cementation factor investigation.
Conventional method for a and m determination:
equation (2) on log-log plot would be as follows:
log F log a m log ..... (3)

Plotting formation resistivity factor (F) versus porosity


on a log-log scale and fitting a straight line through the
data yields a line with a slope of m. Also a is given from
the intercept of the line at =1 in the same plot but it
usually considered as 1.00 in petrophysical evaluations.
Archies noted, without presenting data to prove it, m
was around 1.3 for unconsolidated sands. Since he had
observed m around 2 in Gulf Coast sandstones, this made
it likely that m would increase as sand grains became
cemented.
Conventional method for determination of n: equation (1)
is rewritten as:
n log S w log F

Rw
(4)
Rt

where the only unknown parameter is n and the other


parameters should be measured in core lab so classically
n can be determined from the slope of an appropriate
bi-logarithmic plot.
Since special core lab, especially saturation exponent,
measurements are expensive and time consuming; they
may not be available for all reservoirs or during the
primary studies of a hydrocarbon reservoir. So some
other methods were developed to determine cementation
and saturation exponents for reservoir studies.
Considering some common constant values for
cementation factor and saturation exponent is the first
solution. In Iranian reservoirs both of them are usually
considered about 2.00 for most of the reservoir studies.
Tabibi et al. (2003) studied the values of cementation

-2-

The 14th Formation Evaluation Symposium of Japan, September 29-30, 2008

m is affected by a large number of factors, including:


shape, sorting and packing of the particulate system, pore
configuration and size, constrictions existing in a porous
system, tortuosity, type of pore system (intergranular,
intercrystalline, vuggy, fractured), compaction due to
overburden pressure, presence of clay minerals, and
reservoir temperature.
In the following sections, the uncertainty of water
saturation has been evaluated in one of giant Iranian
carbonate reservoirs. Then based on available data a
correlation has been presented for cementation factor in
clean carbonate reservoirs with special focus on Sarvak
formation and it has been compared with the Borai
correlation and Shell formula. Finally the correlation has
been applied for re-evaluation of water saturation
uncertainty and compared with initial uncertainty
analysis. The results of uncertainty analysis showed that
application of appropriate correlation decreases the
uncertainties in formation evaluations.

CORRELATION
In cases including lack of laboratory measurements,
correlations from the same type of reservoirs, are the best
solutions to estimate the unknown parameters. Since
there is no correlation for cementation factor in Iranian
hydrocarbon reservoirs, it has been tried to find an
appropriate one based on available data from core and
log data. The log cementation factors has been calculated
using back calculation method in aquifer zones, S w =1, of
this reservoir by considering n=2.0. The calculated
cementation factors, by this method, had a good
consistency with core lab data. Then the effect of
different parameters on cementation factor has been
investigated to find an appropriate relation between
cementation factor and other available reservoir
parameters such as pore type, confining pressure,
reservoir temperature, lithology and porosity. Based on
geological reports, pore types did not have any effect on
cementation factor in this carbonate reservoir.

UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS

Pressure effect: Confining pressure is one of the most


important factors that could affect cementation factor.
Behin (2004) studied the effect of cementation factor in
two different Iranian oil reservoirs and he found two
different cases for those reservoirs. In one of the
reservoirs cementation factor was independent of
confining pressure whereas in the other one it was a
function of confining pressure. The effect of confining
pressure was investigated using core lab data. Figure 7
shows the plot of cementation factor vs. confining
pressure. In fact cementation factor is independent of
confining pressure for pressures higher than 2000 psi and
it has a constant value. The proposed reservoir pressure is
about 2500 psi so cementation factor can not be
presented as a function of confining pressure.

Three wells from an Iranian carbonate reservoir was


selected for uncertainty analysis. Based on petrophysical
and geological properties, reservoir interval in each well
was divided to eight zones for the analysis. The reservoir
was clean carbonate so Archie's equation was used for
water saturation calculations.
Then saturation exponent considered as a constant value
(equal to 2.00) in this study because there were no
measurements for this parameter. Also since tortuosity
factor did not show any important effect on water
saturation in previous studies, a constant value of 1.00
was taken into account in calculations.
In the next step, the appropriate distributions were fitted
to available data in each oil zone. Because of the large
number of distributions, the distributions have not been
presented in this text and only their results have been
used. Monte Carlo simulation method has been applied to
evaluate the water saturation uncertainty and P 5 , P 50 and
P 95 have been considered as possible, probable and
proved S w values. Figure 4 shows the uncertainty results
for well no. 1. The probable water saturations have been
shown with a line in center and the possible and proved
water saturations have been shown with the primary
shaded area around the probable value. Figures 5 and 6
show the uncertainty analysis results in wells no. 2 and 3
of the reservoir, respectively.

Lithology effect: Cementation factor can be different for


different lithologies. Based on log data, the lithology
variations was investigated in this reservoir using
appropriate cross plots with Geolog software. The results
were consistent with geological reports and the dominant
lithology in the reservoir was clean carbonates. Figure 8
up to 10 show these cross plots which indicate clean
carbonate formation. So in this reservoir, there is no
classification for cementation factor as a function of
lithology.
Porosity effect: Cementation factor vs. porosity has been

-3-

The 14th Formation Evaluation Symposium of Japan, September 29-30, 2008

m 1.87

plotted to investigate the relation between these


parameters. The investigation showed that cementation
factor is a function of porosity in the reservoir, especially
in low porosity zones. So it has been tried to present a
correlation between cementation factor and porosity.
Since proposed reservoir was a high porosity reservoir;
there was not sufficient data for low porosities to present
a correlation. So the data from the same formation in
neighboring oil fields have been used to find an
appropriate correlation for Sarvak formation. Also the
data form Kangan and Dalan formations have been
included to present a qualified relation between
cementation factor and porosity in Iranian carbonate
formations, both low and high porosity reservoirs. The
cementation factor data from neighboring oil fields had
the same conditions as the proposed oil field such as the
same pore type, reservoir temperature, confining pressure
and lithology. A number of different functions were fitted
to the data and the best relation was selected for Iranian
carbonate reservoirs. There are some reasons for the
selection of this function. First of all, there is an
acceptable match to the data (R2=0.88). Secondly, this
function showed better prediction of cementation factor
for both low and high porosity reservoirs. The fitted
function has a reasonable estimation for low porosity
carbonate in consistency with Aguilera (1976) and also
for high porosity reservoirs in consistency with
measurements in Iranian carbonate reservoirs. Figure 11
shows the fitted line to the data as follows:

RE-EVALUATION OF UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS

The uncertainty analysis was re-evaluated in the reservoir


using new correlation. First, all appropriated distributions
in oil zones have been generated for the cementation
factor. Then Monte Carlo method has been applied to
re-evaluate the uncertainty analysis in the reservoir
intervals. The only difference with the previous
uncertainty analysis was cementation factor distribution.
In previous uncertainty analysis, there was not sufficient
data for cementation factors so a unique distribution has
been used in all oil zones of the reservoir. In the current
case, the proper cementation factor distributions
generated based on new correlation for each well and oil
zone separately. Figures 13, 14 and 15 show the results of
re-evaluation. Water saturation variations vs. oil zones
have been plotted to investigate the results of analysis.
Comparison of the current with previous uncertainty
analysis results showed that application of new
correlation decreases the uncertainty level of water
saturation. As an example, the uncertain levels of water
saturation (as P 5 and P 95 ) in zone 7 of well no. 3 were 17
and 57 percent whereas in new evaluation, they were 22

which will be compared with the common famous


correlations in the next section. Since a large number of
core measurements (357) and log data (321) from
different reservoirs have been used to present the new
correlation, it could be used vastly in Iranian carbonate
reservoir studies with the same reservoir rock properties.
Comparison with other correlations: Borai correlation
and Shell formula are two famous common correlations
which are widely used in petrophysical studies. The
Borai correlation is:

0.042
0.035

.... (7)

Seraji and Emadi (2003) investigated different


correlations using 18 core samples data for an Iranian
clean vuggy carbonate reservoir. They concluded that
Shell formula is the best correlation to estimate the
cementation factor and Borai correlation had very close
results to Shell formula. In fact all of their samples were
from high porosity reservoirs and both Borai and Shell
formula have almost the same value and trend for high
porosity reservoirs. As shown in Figure 12, the main
differences between these correlations are for porosities
lower than 5 percent. New correlation for Iranian
carbonate reservoirs showed the same trend as Borai
correlation whereas Shell formula is still applying for
some of Iranian carbonate reservoir studies. Also, the
new correlation showed that cementation factor is more
dependent to porosity for porosities lower that 5 percent
whereas this dependency decreases for porosities higher
than 5 percent.
However the correlations should be applied carefully
with sufficient reasons for the reservoirs. The best
correlation can be chosen by comparing the properties of
a reservoir rock and the conditions in which the existing
correlations have been developed.

1.0
........ (5)
0.36 0.08 ln

m 2.2

0.19

..... (6)

and Shell formula is:

-4-

The 14th Formation Evaluation Symposium of Japan, September 29-30, 2008

Asadollahi, M., Keramati, M., Bagheri, A.M. and


Haghighi, M., 2006, Investigation of the effect of
cementation factor on OOIP in an Iranian carbonate
reservoir: GEO 2006 Middle East Conference and
Exhibition (March 27-29).

and 39 percent, respectively.


It should be considered that there was no considerable
difference for the cementation factor in different oil
zones of this reservoir. The global cementation factor
distribution of the reservoir showed 0.2 differences
between P 5 and P 95 in this carbonate reservoir. This
value may increase to 1.0 in some Iranian fractured
carbonate reservoirs. Because of the importance of this
parameter for saturation calculation, it can highly affect
these calculations in reservoirs with wider variations of
cementation factor, especially in fractured carbonate
reservoirs.

Asadollahi, M., Bagheri, A.M., Haghighi, M. and


Namani, M., 2008, Cementation factor effect on OOIP in
Iranian carbonate reservoirs, a Monte Carlo approach:
The 14th Formation Evaluation Symposium of Japan,
SPWLA (29-30 Sep.).
Bagheri, A. M., Aloki Bakhtiari, H., Fasih, M., Bagheri
Rezazadeh, S. H., Rsaasen, T., Fllo, L.H. and Azedi, A.
R., 2005, Effect of uncertainty in water saturation equation
and parameters on estimated residual oil saturation: 13th
Oil, Gas and Petrochemical Congress, 4th international
IOR Conference.

CONCLUSION

Investigation of cementation factor in Iranian carbonate


reservoirs showed that:
Cementation factor is highly important in saturation
calculations. Small variation in cementation factor
values can affect the results of water saturation
determination considerably.
Using appropriate correlations can decrease the
uncertainty level of saturation calculations in
petrophysical studies. Applying correlations is a
simple and useful method which decreases the
uncertainty levels in reservoir studies.
The cementation factor correlations in Iranian
carbonate reservoirs can be case dependent so, a
unique correlation should not be applied for all
Iranian reservoirs.
In case of clean Iranian carbonate reservoirs, the new
correlation showed that Borai correlation can
estimate the cementation factor better than Shell
formula and common constant values method which
are still applying for saturation calculations in some
studies of Iranian reservoirs.

Behin, R., 2004, Investigation on the effect of stress on


cementation factor of Iranian carbonate oil reservoir
rocks: International Symposium of the Society of Core
Analysts held in Abu Dhabi, UAE, SCA 2004-41.
Boraei A.M., 1985, A new correlation for cementation
factoring low-porosity carbonates: SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition held in Las Vegas, SPE
21316.
Focke, J.W. and Munn, D., 1985, Cementation exponent
in Middle Eastern carbonate reservoirs: SPE Middle East
Oil Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Bahrain,
SPE 13735.

REFERENCES

Hamada, G.M. and Al-Awad, M.N., 2001, Evaluating


uncertainty in archies water saturation equation
parameters determination method: SPE Middle East Oil
Show, Bahrain, SPE 68083.

Adisoemarta, P.S., Anderson, S.M., Fraily, S.M. and


Asquith, G.B., 2000, Historical use of m and a in well log
interpretation: is conventional wisdom backwards?:
Permian Basin Oil and Gas Recovery Conference in
Midland, Texas, SPE 59699.

Hamada, G.M., Al-Awad, M.N. and Alsughayer, 2002,


Variable saturation exponent effect on determination of
hydrocarbon saturation: SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas
Conference and Exhibition, Melbourne, Australia, SPE
77887.

Aguilera, R., 1976, Analysis of naturally fractured


reservoirs from conventional well logs: Journal of
Petroleum Technology, July 1976, p.764-772.

Hamada, G.M., Assal, A.M. and Ali, M.A, 1996,


Improved technique
to
determine
Archie's
parameters and consequent impact on the exactness of

-5-

The 14th Formation Evaluation Symposium of Japan, September 29-30, 2008

hydrocarbon saturation values: Intl. Symposium of SCA,


Sept. 8-10, Montpellier, France, SCA 9623.

Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, vol.24,


p.243-253.

Hosseini Nia, T. and Rezaei, M.R., 2002, Investigation of


different petrophysical parameters sensitivity on water
saturation in oil reservoirs: Tehran University Journal,
vol. 28, p.69-91.

Stalheim, S.O., 2004, Water saturation calculations in


thinly interbedded sandstone/mudstone reservoirs: Statoil
ASA Technical Report, Bergen, Norway.
Tabibi, M. and Emadi, M.A., 2003, Variable Cementation
Factor Determination (Empirical Methods): 13th Middle
East Oil Show & Conference in Bahrain, SPE 81485.

Jing, D. and Archer, J.S., 1991, Improved hydrocarbon in


place determinations of shaly rocks from laboratory
electrical resistivity measurements at reservoir
conditions: Offshore Europe Conference held in
Aberdeen, SPE 23103.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS


Masoud Asadollahi is a PhD student in International
Research Institute of Stavanger (IRIS). E-mail:
Masoud.Asadollahi@iris.no. Prior to starting his PhD in
IRIS, he worked two years for Research Institute of
Petroleum Industry (RIPI) and one year for Petropars Oil
and Gas Institute (POGI) as a reservoir engineer. His
research interests are reservoir characterization, reservoir
simulation, enhanced and improved oil recovery and
production optimization. Masoud holds a BSc degree in
petroleum engineering from Petroleum University of
Technology (PUT) and a MSc degree in reservoir
engineering from Institut Francais du Petrole (IFP
School). Ali Mohammad Bagheri is a senior researcher
in petrophysical department of Reseach Institute of
Petroleum Industry (RIPI). E-mail: Bagheriam@ripi.ir.
Ali joined to RIPI in 1999 and holds a BSc degree in
mining exploration from Shahrood Univesity and a MSc
degree in petroleum engineering from Tehran
Polytechnic University. Manouchehr Haghighi is an
Associate Professor in Petroleum Department of Tehran
University. E-mail: Haghighi@ut.ac.ir. His research
interests are reservoir characterization, reservoir
simulation and heavy oil recovery. Mehran Namani is a
reservoir engineer in National Iranian Oil Company
(NIOC). E-mail: M.Namani@gmail.com. He worked for
Research Institute of Petroleum Industry (RIPI) for two
years. His research interests are reservoir characterization,
reservoir simulation, enhanced and improved oil
recovery and reservoir management. Mehran holds a BSc
degree in reservoir engineering from Petroleum
University of Technology (PUT) and a MSc degree in
reservoir engineering from Institut Francais du Petrole
(IFP School).

Kazemzadeh, E., Nabi-Bidhendi, M., Keramati


Moezabad, M., Rezaee, M. R. and Saadat, K., 2007, A
new approach for the determination of cementation
exponent in different petrofacies with velocity deviation
logs and petrographical studies in the carbonate Asmari
formation: Journal of Geophysics and Engineering, vol. 4,
p.160-170.
Maute, R.E., Lyle, W.E. and Sprunt, E.S., 1992,
Improved data analysis method determines Archie
parameters from core data: Journal of Petroleum
Technology, January 1992, p.103-107.
Regland, D.A., 2002, Trends in cementation exponent
(m) for carbonate pore systems: Journal of Petrophysics,
September-October 2002.
Salem, H.S., 1993, Derivation of the cementation factor
(Archies exponent) and Kozeny-Carman constant from
well log data, and their dependence on lithology and
other physical parameters: SPE 26309.
Saraji, S. and Emadi, A.R., 2003, Investigation of
Archies parameters: 1st SPE Students Conference in
Iran.
Shouxiang, M. and Xiaoyun, Zh., 1994, Determination
of Archie's cementation exponent from capillary
pressure measurements: Intr. Symposium on Well
Logging Technology, X'ian, China, p.83-103.
Stalheim, S.O., Eidesmo, T. and Rueslatten, H., 1999,
Influence of wettability on water saturation modeling:

-6-

The 14th Formation Evaluation Symposium of Japan, September 29-30, 2008

FIGURES

Figure 3: S w vs. R t for different porosities at m=2, a=1


and n=1.5
Figure 1: S w vs. R t for different porosities at m=2, a=1
and n=2

Well 1
0.8

Sw

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
Sw / Z1

Sw / Z2

Sw / Z3

Sw / Z4

Sw / Z5

Zone 1-8

Sw / Z6

Sw / Z7

=Mean,+1/-1SD

Sw / Z8

=+95%,-5%

Figure 4: Water saturation uncertainty in well no. 1


Well 2
0.8

Sw

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
Sw / Z1

Sw / Z2

Sw / Z3

Sw / Z4

Sw / Z5

Zone 1-8

Figure 2: S w vs. R t for different porosities at m=1.5, a=1


and n=2

Sw / Z6

Sw / Z7

=Mean,+1/-1SD

Sw / Z8

=+95%,-5%

Figure 5: Water saturation uncertainty in well no. 2


Well 3
0.8
0.7
0.6

Sw

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
Sw / Z1

Sw / Z2

Sw / Z3

Sw / Z4

Zone 1-8

Sw / Z5

Sw / Z6

Sw / Z7

=Mean,+1/-1SD

Figure 6: Water saturation uncertainty in well no. 3

-7-

Sw / Z8

=+95%,-5%

The 14th Formation Evaluation Symposium of Japan, September 29-30, 2008

DT cross-plot
2.5

Cementation Factor

2.25
2
1.75
1.5
1.25

Forced Fit
Free Fit

1
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Pressure

Figure 7: Confining pressure effect on cementation factor

Figure 10: Evaluation of formation lithology from well


log data

Figure 8: Evaluation of formation mineralogy, MLITH vs.


NLITH cross-plot

Figure 11: Figure 41: New correlation for Iranian clean


carbonate reservoirs

Figure 12: Comparison of new correlation with Shell


formula and Borai correlation
Figure 9: Evaluation of formation mineralogy, RHO vs.

-8-

The 14th Formation Evaluation Symposium of Japan, September 29-30, 2008

Well 1-Uncertainty Analysis using New Correlation


0.8

Well 3-Uncertainty Analysis using New Correlation


0.8

0.6

Sw

Sw

0.6
0.4
0.4

0.2
0.2
0.0
Sw / Z1

Sw / Z2

Sw / Z3

Sw / Z4

Sw / Z5

Zones 1-8

Sw / Z6

Sw / Z7

=Mean,+1/-1SD

Sw / Z8

=+95%,-5%

Well 2-Uncertainty Analysis using New Correlation

Sw

0.6

0.4

0.2

Sw / Z3

Sw / Z4

Zones 1-8

Sw / Z5

Sw / Z6

=Mean,+1/-1SD

Sw / Z7

Sw / Z3

Sw / Z4

Sw / Z5

Sw / Z6

=Mean,+1/-1SD

Sw / Z7

Sw / Z8

=+95%,-5%

Figure 15: Re-evaluation of water saturation uncertainty


using new correlation in well no. 3

0.8

Sw / Z2

Sw / Z2

Zones 1-8

Figure 13: Re-evaluation of water saturation uncertainty


using new correlation in well no.

0.0
Sw / Z1

0.0
Sw / Z1

Sw / Z8

=+95%,-5%

Figure 14: Re-evaluation of water saturation uncertainty


using new correlation in well no. 2

-9-