The Importance Of Litho-Facies Distinction In Determining The Most Representative Cementation Factors For Well-Log Evaluation : An Old Issue Persistently Neglected
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.29017/SCOG.34.2.800Keywords:
cementation factor, improper use, erroneous water saturation, better practiceAbstract
Cementation factor is a parameter always required in any conventional open-hole log analysis leading to determination of water saturation. Considering the central of water saturation in the estimation of hydrocarbon in place and reserves, any error in the use of the parameter may prove fatal. A common practice in the oil industry is that acquisition of laboratory-derived cementation factor has never been given a proper attention. It occurs very often that too few samples – hardly represent the rocks of reservoir of concern – are assigned for laboratory test. The practical use of the parameter in the log analysis also often draw question, in which un-representative cementation factor is arbitrarily used due to lack of the data. The effect of this practice has long been known but is often neglected – with all of its consequences – up to present day. This study tries to revive the awareness through presenting a fact that cementation factor may vary due to differences in litho-facies characteristics. Formation resistivity factor data from forty-seven limestone coreplug samples were taken from a West Java (WJ) field. Visual description over the samples has shown that they belong to several litho-facies types. Results of the study have mainly proved that different litho-facies type may have significantly different cementation factors. An averaging effect is also obvious when data from all samples are processed collectively. The effect of improper use of cementation factor is shown through the application of three water saturation models through which erroneous water saturation estimates are produced. The finding of the study is again hoped to reinforce the awareness of the use of proper and representative cementation factorReferences
Archie, G.E. (1942). The Electrical Resistivity
Log as an Aid in Determining Some Reservoir
Characteristics. Trans. AIME.
Archie, G.E. (1952). Classification of Carbonate
Reservoir Rocks and Perophysical Considerations.
Bulletin of te American Association of Petroleum
Geologists, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 278 – 298.
deWitte, L. (1950). Relations between Resistivities
and Fluid Contents of Porous Rocks. Oil and Gas
Journal, August 24.
Dunham, R. J. (1962), Classification of carbonate
rocks according to depositional texture. In: Ham,
W. E. (ed.), Classification of carbonate rocks:
American Association of Petroleum Geologists
Memoir, p. 108-121.
Embry, A.F., and Klovan, J.E. (1971), A Late
Devonian reef tract on Northeastern Banks Island,
NWT: Canadian Petroleum Geology Bulletin, v.
, p. 730-781.
Fertl, W.H. (1975). Shaly Sand Analysis in
Development Wells. Transaction, Society of Well
Log Analysts.
Hellander, D.P. (1983). Fundamentals of
Formation Evaluation. OGCI Inc., 4554 South
Harvard Avenue, Tulsa – Oklahoma 74135, p.
Hossin, A. (1960). Calcul des Saturation Eneau
par la Methode Cu Ciment Argileux (Formule
d’Archie Generalisse). Bulletin, AFTP.
Pirson, S.J. (1958). Oil Reservoir Engineering.
nd edition, McGraw-hill Boo Co. Inc. New
York.
Poupon, A., Loy, M.E. & Tixier, M.P. (1954). A
Contribution to Electric Interpretation in Shaly
Sands. Journal of Petroleum Technology, August,
pp: 29 – 34.
Waxman, M.H. & Smits, L.J.M. (1968).
Electrical Conductivity in Oil-bearing Shaly
Sands. Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal,
June.