TRMLN Field

The TRMLN Field is wholly contained within Concession Block 405a and consists of eight
fields located in eastern Afrika. The greater TRMLN Field was discovered by the TRMLN-1
well in 1996. Further exploration on Concession Block 405a yielded seven additional field
discoveries in the northern part of Block 405a, which are satellite discoveries to the
TRMLN Field. Figure 2-1 shows map of greater TRMLN.

Figure 2-1

Concession block TR 405a fields

Production in the Greater TRMLN Field is derived from three reservoirs: the Triassic Argileux
Greseux-Inferior (TAG- I), and the Carboniferous F Sands (F1 and F2 sands). Production
commenced in June 2003, with three reservoirs on partial pressure maintenance (TRMLN
F1, TRMLN TAG-I and TRMLNW F1) and five on primary depletion, (TRMLC TAG-I,
TRKMD TAG-I, TRMLNW TAG-I, TRMLW F1 and TRMLNW F2). In 2008, gas injection
commenced in all fields for full pressure maintenance (FPM), with the exception of
MLNWTR TAG-I reservoir. As of December 2012, the wells have produced 14,562 Ksm 3 of
oil and condensate. The oil and condensate are mixed and processed through the MLN TR
Central Processing Facility (CPF) before being exported to the OH-3 pipeline. Oil and
condensate gravities in the five fields range from 40 to 51 API gravity, resulting in a current
average export gravity of 49 API gravity.
Three historical drilling campaigns have taken place in the Greater TRMLN Field. Burlington
Resources conducted the Phase 1 drilling campaign (1996-2004), which was carried out
during the exploratory, appraisal, and early development stages. This entailed the drilling of
16 producers and five gas injectors. In 2005 and 2007, Burlington Resources submitted
revised development plans (RDPs) recommending FPM for all but one of the greater
TRMLN Field reservoirs in order to increase oil recoveries. Based on technical and
economic analyses, it was determined that the future development of seven TRMLN
reservoirs be revised to FPM via gas injection. It was recommended that the eighth
reservoir, the TRMLNW TAG-I, continue to be based on primary depletion.
This necessitated the Phase 2 drilling program (2005-2007) consisting of four oil producers,
five gas injectors, four existing producers converted to gas injectors, and one oil producer
completed to an alternative zone. When implemented, the Phase 2 program would increase
the total well count to 16 oil producers and 15 gas injectors throughout the greater TRMLN
Field. The drilling program was designed to provide FPM support to optimize economic
recovery. Burlington Resources initiated the drilling program and company assumed control
midway through the program in June 2006. At the conclusion of the Phase 2 drilling
program, the total well count consisted of 19 oil producers and 12 gas injectors.
The conversion to FPM necessitated make-up gas (MUG), which was provided from two
unassociated gas fields, the TRMLSE 4/6 TAG-I and TRMLSE RKF, located approximately
30 km south of the Greater TRMLN Field. ELAs for TRMLSE 4/6 TAG-I and TRMLSE RKF
fields were submitted and approved in 2005.
The MUG requirement created the need to expand the existing TRMLN CPF, which
included the installation of a second train for gas treatment and re-injection in order to
increase gas injection capacity. The expansion project doubled the gas processing
capability of the plant, which allowed gas injection into the Greater TRMLN Field to increase
ultimate oil recovery. The gas expansion project required the drilling of new gas injection
wells to inject gas into both a) reservoirs that were on primary depletion and b) production
wells to improve the sweep of the reservoir. Reservoir simulation model results justified the
additional wells. Full pressure maintenance commenced in August 2008. Currently, the
seven reservoirs approved for FPM are on gas injection. The eighth reservoir, the TRMLNW
TAG-I, remains on primary depletion.
The Phase 3 drilling program conducted from 2010 to 2011 consisted of drilling six
producers and four gas injectors. In addition, one existing producer was converted to a gas
injector and another was completed and tied-back into production. The new wells were
designed to access areas of the fields that were not being drained effectively by the existing
wells. The new wells would improve pressure maintenance and capture oil volumes that
otherwise would have been unrecovered. No upgrades were needed to the TRMLN CPF for
this program. In 2012, a fourth TRMLSE well, the TRMLSE-7, was equipped for production
and currently provides TRMLSE MUG production. The total well count at the end of the
Phase-3 drilling campaign was 26 producers and 17 gas injectors.

3.1

Regional Geologic Setting

The greater TRMLN Field is located in Concession Block 405a in the Saharan
Platform tectonic province in the Berkine Basin. Concession Block 405a lies in
the central part of the basin, which is part of the greater intracratonic
Ghadames Basin on the Saharan Platform.The Berkine Basin covers an area of
approximately 70,000 km 2 in the eastern central region of the Sahara Desert,
bordered to the south by the Illizi Basin, to the west by the Amguid-El Biod ArchHassi Messaoud Ridge, and to the north by the Telemazene Arch.
The Berkine Basin was a sedimentary depocenter throughout most of the
Paleozoic to Mesozoic and individual sedimentary units tend to be widespread.
A thin veneer of Tertiary sediments overlie a thick sequence of clastics,
carbonates, and evaporites of Cretaceous to Triassic age, which in turn lie
unconformably on an eroded, dominantly clastic, Carboniferous to Cambrian
section. The Hercynian Unconformity separates the Carnian-aged Triassic
deposits from the underlying Visean and older Tournaisian-aged Carboniferous

Figure 3-1

Generalized stratigraphic section for concession block TR405a

sediments. The Carboniferous deposits overlie Strunian-aged Devonian and

Frasnian-aged Silurian sediments. The total sedimentary section is up to 7,000
meters thick.

3.1.1

Structural Events
Several tectonic-orogenic episodes in the structurally complex Berkine Basin
affected structural styles and trap formation. Three of these episodes
particularly influenced the vicinity of Concession Block 405a. The first major
event that defines the Sahara platform structures is the Pre-Cambrian Pan-

African collision. The suturing together of West Africa Craton and the East
Saharan Craton created the north-to-south trending, deep basement structures
that have periodically become reactivated. The first key episode in the late
Carboniferous Hercynian Orogeny resulted in an uplift event that induced a
major regional tilt of the Paleozoic sequence to the east with deep erosion of
successively older rocks to the west. This 60-million-year erosional episode
removed the Paleozoic almost entirely in some regions, and likely removed the
entire Permian and a portion of the Carboniferous within Concession Block
405a. The event preserved an easterly thickening Carboniferous section from a
truncation line running across the western portion of Concession Block 405a
(Figure 3-2).

Figure 3-2

Structural cross-section E-W

In the second episode, late Triassic to early Jurassic rifting created the primary
structural traps within the pre-Hercynian sequences and eventually resulted in
a northward thickening wedge of Triassic sediments sourced from the uplifted
Hercynian Highlands to the south and southwest. Deposition included the
fluvial channel sands, floodplains, siltstones and paleosols associated with the
TAG-I formation.
The third episode occurred during the late Cretaceous when a collision
between the African and European plates created the Atlas Mountains and a
compressional regime across North Africa. This resulted in transpressional
movement and inversion, often along the pre-existing Triassic faults that were
aligned on older northeast-southwest Paleozoic trends.

3.1.2

Source Rocks
The Berkine Basin petroleum system contains two major source rocks. The
Frasnian Meden Yahya Formation serves as the principal oil source rock for the
Central Berkine Basin, with the deeper Silurian

Tannezuft hot shale of Gothlandian age providing a major source of dry gas.

Both source rock shale sequences have generated large volumes of

hydrocarbons since the Kimmerian and late Lower Cretaceous structural
episodes.
The entrapped hydrocarbons appear to be dependent on migration routes,
whether by TAG-I or Tournaisian/Visean carrier beds or along faults that
penetrate these sections. The Frasnian source shales, which subcrop the
Hercynian Unconformity along the western edge of Concession Block 405, are
approximately 100 meters thick in the mid-to-late mature oil window to earlygas-condensate window.
The Triassic Carbonate shales in Concession Block 405a seal the Triassic
TAG-I Sandstones both vertically and laterally. The Upper, Middle and Lower
TAG-I Sandstones may be sealed independently by laterally extensive internal
shales, which would separate the sand intervals. Conversely, the fluvial
channels may cut down through these shales and connect the sand packages
locally.
The thick sequence of Jurassic salts and evaporites forms the ultimate top seal
for the hydrocarbon system in Concession Block 405a. The Carboniferous
reservoirs of the Visean RKF sands and the Tournaisian F Sands are sealed by
intra-formational marine mudstones, namely the overlying Visean and
Tournaisian shales. Condensate and gas within the Visean RKF sands and the
Tournaisian F Sands most likely migrated vertically up the faults, linking these
reservoirs to the Frasnian source rock.

3.2

Regional TAG-I Stratigraphy

The TAG-I Sandstones lies over a large part of the Berkine Basin, lying
unconformable over the Visean sands and shales of the Carboniferous.
Literature indicates that the TAG-I interval is comprised of three major
stratigraphic units: the Upper, Middle and Lower members. The members
correspond to major depositional sequences and are probably attributable to
separate tectonic pulses with the Lower TAG-I quartz arenites derived from
Paleozoic siliciclastic rocks, and the Middle and Upper TAG-I sub-arkoses
originating primarily from metamorphic terrains.

3.2.1

TRMLN TAG-I reservoirs

Within the greater MLN Field, the TAG-I members are subdivided into a series
of sandstone and claystone subunits. The sands have been classified as the
TAG-I A, B, C, and D sands (Figure 3-3). The A and B sands represent the
Upper TAG-I, the C sands represent the Middle TAG-I, and the D sands
represent the Lower TAG-I. The intervening claystone subunits are classified
as A/B Shale, B/C Shale and C/D Shale, which generally consist of red-brown
and grey-green claystones. This current TAG-I zonation scheme has changed
slightly compared to the 2005 RDP, which divided the TAG-I reservoir into five
main units: A, B, C, C/D and D. A further subdivision generated 24 reservoir
flow units, 13 of which were treated as active for reservoir modeling.

Figure 3-3

TAG-I log type section (MLC-1)

Well control throughout the greater TRMLN Field encountered TAG-I gross
intervals ranging from 51-84 m in thickness. The average well porosities of the
sandstones derived from petrophysical analysis range from 10-16%. Air
permeabilities measured from conventional core analysis range from 0.01-1900
mD.

3.3
Regional CarboniferousTournasian
Stratigraphy (F Sand)
The early Carboniferous Tournaisian F1 and F2 sands form significant
reservoirs in Concession Block 405a of the Berkine Basin. The sediments were
deposited in a broadly shallow marine environment on the passive margin of
the North African Platform. Characteristic sub-environments included distal
offshore, offshore transition, and proximal shoreface settings.
Unlike the prolific TAG-I reservoirs in this part of the basin, the Tournaisian
sandstones are geographically restricted. To the south and east, the sands
grade into non-reservoir muddy facies, while to the north and west they have
been eroded by the Hercynian Unconformity.

3.3.1

TRMLN carboniferous Tournasian reservoirs

Within the greater MLN Field, the interpreted depositional facies of the upper
F1 Sand (F1 Sand) is shallow marine, upper shoreface and tidal channel within
either a barrier bar or tidal flat/tidal channel/ bar complex. The F1 Sand is
truncated by the Hercynian Unconformity at the TRZTH-1 well in the west and
shows variable facies development to the east.
Well control throughout the greater MLN Field has encountered F1 gross
intervals ranging from 11-21 m in thickness. Well porosities of the F1
Sandstones derived from petrophysical analysis range from 13-25%. Air
permeabilities measured from conventional core analysis range from 0.01-1211
mD.
The Tournaisian lower F Sand (F2 Sand) is the culmination of a prograding,
wave-dominated shoreline succession with lower shoreface, middle shoreface
and upper shoreface facies environments. The F2 Sand is often capped by
a thin transgressively reworked interval before a
return to offshore clay
9

d
W
F

3.5

4.1

Wells Drilled Since 2005

Petrophysical Database and Calculations
Well log and laboratory core analyses, including routine core plug analyses,
were performed on all wells using standard interpretation and measurement
techniques to derive porosity, water saturation, permeability and various other
petrophysical parameters. The full-field analyses took advantage of an
extensive core and open-hole log database and included data from all wells in
the greater TRMLN Field. With limited well control in the eight fields, this
approach ensured that the petrophysical model could be used without undue
influence from biased core sampling, uncalibrated logs, or laboratory error in a
single well. All logs were spliced and depth-shifted. The density log was
environmentally corrected. The logs were processed in two stratigraphic
intervals: (1) Triassic Carbonate to Hercynian Unconformity and (2) Hercynian
Unconformity to the base of the F2 Sand.
The petrophysical database includes data from the Phase 1, Phase 2, and
Phase 3 drilling programs.

4.2

Petrophysical Model
The following sections describe the basic petrophysical interpretation applied
to all the wells. The methodology included calculation of the volume of shale,
porosity, water saturation, and two different approaches for permeability. Due
to similar methodologies and the calibration of both sets of calculations to core
data, the basic model for volume of shale, porosity, and water saturation
yielded results equivalent to those of the 2005 RDP. The F1 and F2 sands
contain minerals that could not be accounted
for
using the
basic
interpretation: siderite, with a high grain density that strongly affects .
computed density porosity; and grain-coating and pore-lining chlorite, which
reduces formation resistivity and increases computed water saturation. These
methods and results differ from the 2005 RDP, which did not account for the
impacts of siderite and chlorite. The corrections for siderite and chlorite have the
effect of increasing oil-in-place for the F1 and F2 sands.

4.2.1 Volume of shale

Volume of shale (Vsh) was computed from the borehole-corrected CGR curve,
if available, to eliminate the influence of rare uranium "hot spots." The
computations used clean sand and shale endpoints selected from a
cumulative percent frequency plot of CGR at the 2% (GRss 2) and 98% (GRsh3)
points within each of the two stratigraphic intervals (Figure C-1). The sand
and shale points were obtained using CGR values of less than 160 API units
to eliminate the influence of abnormally high CGR readings (which are rare).

4.2.2

Porosity
Total porosity (Phit) in the 2014 RDP model uses an iterative solution that
minimizes the error between measured and calculated RHOB4. This solution
does not solve for porosity explicitly, but derives it in an iterative fashion until

the computed value of RHOB from the model matches the measured log
RHOB. Using this method, RHOB is computed using grain density, porosity,
and fluid density. Fluid density is computed using a water saturation obtained
with Archie's equation.
Some wells exhibit abnormally small values of RHOB due to borehole
washouts in the shale intervals. To correct for this, the value of Phit is limited
to a value based on the Vsh curve.
The value of Phit obtained as described earlier is then reduced using the
factor 0.96875 to account for the final overburden correction as described in
Section 4.2

4.2.3 Water saturation

The calculation of log water saturation for the 2014 RDP was updated from the
2005 RDP based on the use of a different log saturation equation. Water
saturations were calculated previously using a standard Archie-type
relationship with the following parameters (m = 1.86, n = 2.0 and a = 1.0).
Water saturation in the 2014 RDP model (Sws) was computed from deep
resistivity induction curves using the standard Simandoux water saturation
equation
The Rw value used is based on the measured value of 0.057 ohm-m at 60F,
which is then corrected to formation temperature for use in Archies equation.
The value of Rw is equivalent to approximately 190,000 ppm NaCl, according
to the Schlumberger chart book.

4.2.4

Permeability
The two approaches to calculate log permeability included:

A standard regression between core permeability and core porosity based on

different subintervals

The use of Swansons mean averaging technique, which is thought to produce

permeability values that represent reservoir performance more closely. This
approach marks a significant departure in methodology, and is based on a recent
publication (Roadifer and Scheihing, 2011, SPE 146574).
4.2.4.1

Regression permeability
Figure C-2 to Figure C-8 show crossplots comparing the TAG-I and
F sands core permeability/ porosity trends for the various zones. An
in-depth analysis of the core porosity versus permeability data
between zones and various facies was based on undamaged core
plugs and points where log Vsh was less than 40%. This analysis
derived porosity-permeability transforms for use in predicting
permeability in uncored log intervals. These transforms were
developed in advance of the final core overburden corrections. The
transforms were reapplied using a procedure that accounts for the
final overburden corrections to 4,000 psi:
1. Divide by 0.96875 to undo the second porosity correction.
2. Apply the porosity-permeability transforms.
3. Apply the core overburden corrections for permeability to the
computed permeability logs.
4. Penalize points with high volumes of shale.
The procedure results in air permeability of 4,000 psi net
overburden pressure.

The TAG-I and F sands reservoir intervals were subdivided into

five subintervals for the purpose of designing permeability
transforms.

TAG-I A and A/B Shale

TAG-I B, and TAG-I B/C Shale

TAG-I C, C/D Shale, and TAG-I D

F1, F1 Shale, and F2

UF1b, UF1b Shale, LF1b, and LF1b Shale

Because they are based on horizontal core plugs, the porositypermeability transforms predict horizontal permeability.

4.2.4.2

Swansons mean permeability

This method uses arithmetic averaging of the core permeability and
porosity data contained within a moving window to define a
smoothed representation of the data. This type of averaging put
high importance on higher permeability points that will strongly
influence fluid flow and places low importance on low-porosity
values.
The data used to develop this model included undamaged,
horizontal core porosity and permeability data corrected to
overburden pressure of 4,000 psi. Broken and fractured core plug
data were excluded. Furthermore, the core data were filtered to
include only those points with log Vsh less than 0.40, one of the
cutoffs used to define net sand. The data were grouped as follows:

TAG-I A, A/B Shale, TAG-I B, and B/C Shale

TAG-I C, C/D Shale, TAG-I D

All F Sands intervals were subdivided into two sub-groups

based on Vsh < 0.2 and 0.2 <= Vsh < 0.40.

The methodology used the following steps:

1. Construct a crossplot of core permeability versus core porosity.
2. Define a porosity bin (data with porosity between minimum and
maximum values).
3. For the porosity and corresponding permeability data within
the porosity bin, compute the Swansons mean value X
4. After computing X for both permeability and porosity for the
first porosity bin, shift the bin by a small increment (for example
0.005), and repeat the process.
5. Finally, crossplot the average permeability values versus the
average porosity values, and fit a smooth line through the
data.
The results depend on the bin size, bin shift distance, and the
amount of data within the bin in each position. If the results are
noisy, the bin size can be increased or the starting and ending bin
positions can be changed to eliminate positions with insufficient
data at the porosity extremes. The results work best for a single
rock or pore type, and the analysis should focus on data that
represents reservoir intervals, and should ignore non-reservoir
data.

4.3

Facies Definition and Prediction

Construction of the geologic model required facies logs to be predicted for each well
Using the core escriptions, 17 different categories were developed based on texture

and composition. These categories were combined into a total of three facies that could be
used for geologic model construction: sand, low-porosity sand, and clay-rich
rocks.
After combining the core description data into the three categories, a clustering
algorithm in the Geolog program Facimage was trained using the core data.
This allowed Facimage to predict these three facies based on the input logs for
Vshale, NPHI, and RHOB. The models were derived separately for the TAG-I
and the F sands. Figure C-12 to Figure C-13 shows an example for the TAG-I
interval and the F1 and Lower F1b intervals.

4.4

Reservoir Well Summaries

Table C-4 to Table C-8 respectively summarize the petrophysical analyses for the
TAG-I and the F1 and F2 reservoir intervals. Net pay cutoffs that apply for each
interval include:

5.1

TAG-I

Phit >/= 0.08

Vsh </= 0.4

Sws </= 0.5

F1, F2

Phit >/= 0.06

Vsh </= 0.4

Sws </= 0.5

Structural Framework
The geomodel was subdivided into sector models for the reservoir simulation.
The full-field TAG-I model was divided into four sector models: TRMLC-TAG-I,
TRKMD-TAG-I, TRMLN-TAG-I, and TRMLNW-TAG-I. Similarly, the F-sand fullfield model was divided into four sector models: F1-TRMLW, F1-TRMLNW, F1TRMLN, and F2-TRMLNW.
key pillars were modeled into faults during the pillar gridding process. These
faults form the basis of the model grid. To simplify numerical reservoir
simulation, faults in the 2014 model are linear and zigzag and the grid was
rotated 35 degrees. After fault pillars were edited and connected, the pillar grid
was created with the goal of generating an orthogonal grid suitable for
simulation

Figure 5-3 Make horizon and zones of the 2014 TAG-I model geocellular models

5.3

Water Saturation Modeling

This section summarizes data used in the water saturation modeling for this RDP.

5.3.1 Capillary pressure

Core-derived SCAL data of capillary pressures and relative permeability was
available for TAG-I sands, include individual sand units (TAG-I A-sand, TAG-I Bsand, TAG-I C-sand), and for the F1 sand, but not the F2. Since both the F1 and
F2 sands were of similar depositional environments (hydraulic flow units), the
F1 capillary pressures and relative permeabilities were used for the F2 sand.
Most of the samples were obtained from preserved core. The 2005 RDP
capillary pressure modeling of the TAG-I and F1 sands were represented by a
single J-function curve.
In the 2014 RDP, saturation-height models is developed by using hydraulic flow
units and based on Leverett J-functions for the TAG-I and F1 sands in a
reservoir simulator. The capillary pressure was converted to J- functions. J
functions for each reservoir were modeled using the Skelt-Harrison method.
Flow Zone Indicators (FZI) were used to define J-functions based on hydraulic
units for each of the reservoirs using capillary pressure data. Capillary
experiments included centrifuge, porous plate and Hg-air capillary data.
Unit slope line of RQI versus Phiz. The FZI is defined by the intersection of the
Unit Slope line at Phiz = 1 (Equation 5-1).

Figure 5-14

Rock typing techniques for determining FZI

For the F1/F2 sands, four J-function curves were developed to represent the
different hydraulic units. Similarly, previous F1 and F2 models used a single JFunction curve. See Figure 5-15 and Figure 5-16.

Figure 5-15
composite

Figure 5-16

Function curves for TAG-I sands, TAG-I

Function curves for TAG-I sands, F1 composite

5.3.2

Oil-Water Contacts
The oil-water contacts in the 2014 greater MLN model remained the same as
those in the 2005 model except for TRMLC TAG-I, and TRMLNW TAG-I
(Table 5-3).
Table 5-3 Oil-water contacts in TRMLN ELA Block
405a
Oil Water Contacts (TVDSS)
Field

2005

2014

TRMLN TAG-I

-3101

-3101

TRMLN F1

-3301

-3301

TRMLNW F1

-3270

-3270

-3351.5

-3351.5

TRMLW F1

-3278

-3278

TRKMD TAG-I

-3087

-3087

TRMLC TAG-I

-3069

-3063

TRMLNW F2

Region
Eastern
Central
Western

6.1.

Oil Water Contacts

(TVDSS)
-3107
-3128
-3118

Note
TRMLNW-3 (A-sand) & TRMLNW-5 (B-sand)
TRMLNW-8 (B-sand) & TRMLNW-10 (C-sand)
TRMLNW-2 (B-sand) & TRMLNW-6 (A-sand)

Petrophysical Evaluations

6.1.1.

Fluid Contacts
Reservoir contacts were evaluated on the basis of log and pressure
data. Figure G-10 and Figure G-11 in Appendix G show individual
pressure plots. Table 8-2 summarises contact estimates:
Table 8-2 TRMLSE Contact Depths
Member Name

Area

TAG-I

4/6

URKF

1/3
4/6

URKF (Main)

Contact Depth
(m TVDSS)
-2675

Contact Source

Key Well (s)

ODT

TRMLSE-4

-2966

RCI + LOG

TRMLSE-34/6

-2970

RCI

5/7

-2970

RCI

TRMLSE-7

TRMLSE-1 / 2 &

-2986

RCI+LOG

TRMLSE-3

TREMN3

TREMN-3

TRMLSE-3

-2992

RCI+LOGS

TRMLSE-3

4/6

-2986

RCI+LOG

TRMLSE-4

5/7

-2986

RCI+LOG

TRMLSE-7

Figure 8-1
TRMLSE TAG-I
Hydrocarbon Contact

8.3.3.3

Net Sand Average Properties

Net sand flags, plus net averages were initially computed for the
gross intervals in each reservoir, using the following cut-offs
shown in Table 8-3:

Table 8-3 Petrophysical Property Cut-offs

Reservoir Unit

Fluid Type

Porosity (%)

Vshale (%)

TAG-I

Gas-Condensate

40

URKF

7.5

URKF Main

Figure C-2
Multi-well porosity-permeability crossplots of valid data showing differences in
trends between TAG-I
and F sands

T
a
b
l
e
C
5
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
r
e
s
e
r
v
o
ir
p

roperties

Reservoir
Property

TAG-I
Range

Average

Gross thickness (m)

46 - 84

64

Net reservoir (m)

2 - 47

24

Net-to-gross (%)

4 - 68

37

Sand porosity (%)

10 - 15

12.0

Net pay (m)

0 - 27

11.8

Pay porosity (%)

10 - 15

12.4

Core perm (md)

.01 - 1862

36

Pay initial Sw (%)

14 - 52

24

Table C-8
Reservoir

Average reservoir properties

F1

LF1b

F2

Property

Range

Average

Range

Average

Range

Average

Gross thickness (m)

11 - 21

15

14 - 22

19

1 - 23

12

Net reservoir (m)

5 - 18

10

2 - 18

11

0 - 21

11

Net-to-gross (%)

35 - 96

67

13 - 90

56

0 - 98

74

Sand porosity (%)

13 - 25

19.3

7 - 12

9.5

8 - 22

18.4

Net pay (m)

0 - 19

9.1

0 - 10

0 - 13

7.1

Pay porosity (%)

13 - 26

19.3

8 - 20

11.5

8 - 22

17.5

Core perm (md)

.01-1211

108

.01 - 16

1.4

.01 -657

83

Pay initial Sw (%)

24 - 49

36