Abstract: This study presents an integrated petrophysical evaluation for Nahr Umr reservoir by highlighting a
practical trustworthy approach petrophysical model for Nahr Umr reservoir in Subba oil field depending on
available data. The available data include core analysis conducted on seven core samples taken from seven wells in
Subba oil field and well set logs which include gamma ray, static spontaneous, neutron, sonic, density and resistivity
logs. Subba oil field is a giant oil field located in southern part of Iraq about 110 km Northwest Basra. Nahr Umr
formation in Subba oil field is a heterogeneous clastic reservoir. It was considered one of the most important
producing clastic reservoir in southern Iraqi oil fields. The conventional petrophysical models, by using neutrondensity cross-plot for lithology and porosity and Archie's equation for water saturation, can be adequate for
evaluating clean sands. Usually the shaly sand formations are adhere to bad hole in shale section. Facies
identification was achieved depending on core analysis data, core description data and wire line log measurements.
The calculations of permeability was based on rock types identification and using available core data measurements.
The generated permeability models can be used to calculate permeability for uncored intervals in all wells
corresponding to each facies. Porosity was calculated using Neutron-density porosity model and Sonic model for
bad hole section. Saturation model was built by utilizing the Indonesia Equation model, this model has proved its
efficiency to be applied successfully for clastic Iraqi reservoirs. The petrophysical parameters were determined on a
well-by-well basis. The formation resistivity factors (a, m) and water saturation exponent (n) have been derived
from Pickett plot and formation water salinity. Reservoir quality calculations or net pay values are based on cut-offs
values for porosity, saturation and shale volume.
Keywords: Heterogeneous shaly-sand reservoir, integrated petrophysical evaluation, nahr umr formation/subba oil
field, permeability, petrophysical parameters calculations
INTRODUCTION
Nahr Umr formation is one of the promising
reservoir in southern of Iraq. The formation
characteristic is almost the same in all southern Iraqi oil
fields. Nahr Umr formation characterized by complex
lithology, high scatter dense in permeability and
porosity and high water salinity (approximately 200000
ppm). The available data generally are old and based on
traditional measurements, the majority of logs are old
1970's vintage (Well Logs for Nahr Umr FormationSubba Oil Field, 1973-1980). Nahr Umr reservoir in
Subba oil field need to be developed by conducting and
preparing a new efficient development plan. The
development plan of this reservoir is based on
assessment of the hydrocarbon in-place, which depend
mostly on formation evaluation and petrophysics. The
absence of an accurate petrophysical model will lead
for untrustworthy predictions of the reservoir
performance. Well logs interpretation, well tests, core
data and core analysis consider the most common
petrophysical tools used to evaluate and assess the
Corresponding Author: Ahmed Khalil Jaber, SPE, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Ministry of Oil, Iraq
2388
2389
2390
ILD / PHIE
1.
0.5
PHIE
0.2
0.1
0.05
0.02
0.2
0.01
0.01
0.1
10.
1.
0.5
100.
0.3
1000.
ILD
Fig. 3: Pickett plot for well x-3
ILD / PHIE
1.
0.5
PHIE
0.2
0.1
0.05
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.1
1.
10.
ILD
2391
100.
0.2
0.3
0.5
1000.
(1 /2)
/2
where,
= The water saturation, fraction
= The flushed zone saturation
= The true resistivity at 100% water saturation,
ohm
= The water resistivity, ohm
= The clay resistivity, ohm
ILD / PHIE
0.5
0.2
PHIE
0.1
0.05
0.02
0.2
0.01
0.5
1.
(1)
100.
10.
ILD
2392
0.3
1000.
ILD / PHIE
1.
0.5
PHIE
0.2
0.1
0.05
0.02
0.01
1.
10.
0.2
0.3
0.5
1000.
100.
ILD
g
ILD / PHIE
1.
0.5
PHIE
0.2
0.1
0.05
0.02
0.01
0.5
1.
10.
100.
ILD
2393
0.3 0.2
1000.
ILD / PHIE
1.
0.5
PHIE
0.2
0.1
0.05
0.02
0.01
0.5
1.
10.
0.3
100.
0.2
1000.
ILD
Fig. 8: Pickett plot for well X-8
ILD / PHIE
1.
0.5
PHIE
0.2
0.1
0.05
0.02
0.01
0.5
1.
100.
10.
ILD
2394
0.3 0.2
1000.
ILD / PHIE
1.
0.5
PHIE
0.2
0.1
0.05
0.02
0.01
0.5
1.
10.
100.
0.2
0.3
1000.
ILD
Fig. 10: Pickett plot for well X-10
ILD / PHIE
1.
0.5
PHIE
0.2
0.1
0.05
0.02
0.01
1.
0.5
100.
10.
ILD
2395
0.3
0.2
1000.
ILD1 / PHIE
1.
0.5
PHIE
0.2
0.1
0.05
0.02
0.01
0.5
1.
10.
0.3
100.
0.2
1000.
ILD1
Fig. 12: Pickett plot for well X-12
ILD / PHIE
0.5
0.2
PHIE
0.1
0.05
0.02
0.2
0.01
0.5
1.
10.
100.
ILD
2396
0.3
1000.
ILD / PHIE
0.2
PHIE
0.1
0.05
0.02
0.3
0.5
0.01
1.
10.
100.
0.2
1000.
ILD
Fig. 14: Pickett plot for well X-14
(2)
DRT-range
15.8-14.5
14.4-13
12.9-10
<10
= 0.0314
(3)
(4)
(5)
Scale : 1 : 750
DB : Subba_IP (23)
1
GR (API)
0.
100.
SP (MV)
-100.
0.
DEPTH
(M) 0.2
TOPS
0.2
Clay
0.2
CAL
RHOB (gm/cc3)
Temp (F)
1.0E6 6.18. 1.95
2.95 100.
300.
RHOMA (gm/cc)
NPHI (limestone)
1000.
0.45
-0.15 2.5
3.
MSFL (ohm)
DRHO (gm/cc3)
1000.
-1.
0.25
DT (uS/ft)
140.
40.
ILD (ohm)
ILM (ohm)
Res
0. 3. 1.
PayF
3. 0.
6/7/2014 10:48
SWT (Dec)
VWCL (Dec)
PHIE (Dec)
1.
0. 0.
0. 0.5
Hydrocarbon
PHIE (Dec)
BVWSXO (Dec)
0. 1.
0.5
0.
Res
Oil
Clay
Pay
Mov.HC.
Sand
Sand
Water
Sand
11
10
Porosity
Shale
2450
2500
2550
2600
2650
1
GR (API)
DEPTH
100. (M) 0.2
TOPS
0.
0.2
ILD (ohm)
0.
SP (MV)
-100.
Clay
0.2
CAL
RHOB (gm/cc3)
Temp (F)
300.
1.0E6 6.18. 1.95
2.95 100.
ILM (ohm)
NPHI (limestone)
RHOMA (gm/cc)
3.
1000.
0.45
-0.15 2.5
MSFL (ohm)
DRHO (gm/cc3)
1000.
-1.
0.25
DT (uS/ft)
140.
40.
Res
0. 3. 1.
PayF
3. 0.
SWT (Dec)
Hydrocarbon
10
PHIE (Dec)
0. 0.5
BVWSXO (Dec)
0.5
1.
PHIE (Dec)
0. 1.
0.
Res
Oil
Clay
Pay
Mov.HC.
Sand
Sand
Water
Shale
Sand
Porosity
2398
11
VWCL (Dec)
0. 0.
Scale : 1 : 750
DB : Subba_IP (20)
SGR (GAPI)
DEPTH
0.2
(M)
Tops
0.2
250.
0.
3
ILD (OHMM)
150.
SP (MV)
-50.
SFL (OHMM)
Clay
Temp (F)
RHOB (GR/C3)
CALI
300.
2.95 100.
20. 6.16. 1.95
RHOMA (gm/cc)
NPHI (dec)
3.
0.45
-0.15 2.5
200.
DT (US/F)
40.
140.
Sand
ResF
0. 3. 1.
PayF
3. 0.
6/7/2014 10:29
PHIE (Dec)
BVWSXO (Dec)
BVW (Dec)
Res
0.5
Pay
50.
0.
Clay
0.
Sand
Phi_core (%)
Shale
0.
0. 1.
0.5
6000.
1. 1.
0. 0.
0. 0.5
k_Core (md)
VCL (Dec)
PHIE (Dec)
SWT (Dec)
Hydrocarbon
11
10
Oil
Sand
Movable HC
Porosity
Water
2500
OWC
2550
2600
2650
1
SGR (GAPI)
0.
DEPTH
0.2
(M)
Tops
0.2
250.
150.
SP (MV)
-50.
Clay
Temp (F)
RHOB (GR/C3)
CALI
300.
2.95 100.
20. 6.16. 1.95
RHOMA (gm/cc)
NPHI (dec)
SFL (OHMM)
3.
0.45
-0.15 2.5
200.
DT (US/F)
140.
40.
ILD (OHMM)
Sand
ResF
0. 3. 1.
PayF
3. 0.
Hydrocarbon
0. 1.
BVW (Dec)
0.5
Pay
50.
Shale
2399
0.
0.
Clay
0.
Sand
Phi_core (%)
Oil
Sand
Movable HC
Porosity
Water
PHIE (Dec)
BVWSXO (Dec)
Res
1. 1.
0. 0.
0.5
k_Core (md)
VCL (Dec)
PHIE (Dec)
0. 0.5
11
10
8
SWT (Dec)
6000.
= (2() + 10.6)
where,
k
= Permeability, md
= Effective porosity
= Normalized porosity index
= Rock quality index
= Flow zone indicator, m
(6)
2400
Fig. 20: Core permeability vs. core porosity for different rock types
3.661
(7)
28795 4.142
(8)
= 1063062
4.169
= 10
= 10570
3.215
(10)
(9)
2401
2402