| 
					
					
					 CaSE HISTORY - FRACTURED GRANITE Reservoir Most people
					forget that there are many unconventional reservoirs in the
					world, including igneous, metamorphic, and volcanic rocks.
					Granite reservoirs are prolific in Viet Nam, Libya, and
					Indonesia. Lesser known granite reservoirs exist in
					Venezuela, United States, Russia, and elsewhere. Indonesia
					is blessed with a combination sedimentary, metamorphic, and
					granite reservoir with a single gas leg. Japan boasts a
					variety of volcanic reservoirs.
 This
			example is from the Bach Ho (White Tiger) Field in Viet Nam. Log
			analysis in these reservoirs requires good geological input as to
			mineralogy, oil or gas shows, and porosity. A good coring and sample
			description program is essential, and production tests are
			essential. The analyst often has to separate ineffective
			(disconnected vugs) from effective porosity and account for fracture
			porosity and permeability. All the usual mineral identification
			crossplots are useful but the mineral mix may be very different than
			normal reservoirs. Many such reservoirs seem to have no water zone
			and most have unusual electrical properties (A, M, N), so capillary
			pressure data is usually needed to calibrate water saturation.
			 Because
			the porosity is usually low and mineral mix quite variable, the key
			to a good fractured reservoir analysis is careful attention to both
			calculations, as described below. 
 
 
			
				 
   
			Ternary
			Diagram for Granite  In the
			example below, the granitic mineral assemblage was defined by the
			ternary diagram at right. The three minerals (quartz, feldspar, and
			plagioclase) were computed from a modified Mlith vs Nlith model, in
			which PE was substituted for PHIN in the Nlith equation. If data
			fell too far outside the triangle, mica was exchanged for the
			quartz.  Three
			rock types, granite, diorite, and monzonite, were derived from the
			three minerals. A trigger was set to detect basalt intrusions. A
			sample crossplot below shows how the lithology model effectively
			separates the minerals. 
			
				 Mlith vs Plith crossplot for
			granite (micaceous data excluded)
 
			
			
			 Raw data curves are
			shown in Tracks 1, 2, and 3 with porosity, water saturation, and
			 permeability in Tracks 4, 5, and 6. The mineral model calculated
			from the log analysis is in Track 7 and the rock type model
			calculated from the minerals using the ternary diagram is in Track
			8. Basalt was triggered from high density or high PE or both.
			Effective porosity (PHIT on log heading) and matrix porosity (PHIM)
			were calculated from the Aquilera dual porosity model. The
			difference between them is the sum of solution and fracture
			porosity.
 
			To test the
			mineral model and as preparation for calculating the partitioning
			factor for the dual porosity model, neutron, density, and sonic
			matrix values, corrected for mineral composition as determined
			above, were calculated.  Neutron, sonic and density porosity were
			re-calculated using these matrix values..
 Total porosity (PHIt) was taken from the neutron porosity.  Neutron
			and density were corrected for ineffective matrix porosity,
			typically 2% for neutron and 5% for density, by comparing log
			analysis results to available core data. Matrix porosity (PHIm) was
			then computed from the neutron density crossplot.
 
			Fracture
			porosity (PHIf) was calculated from the difference between total and
			matrix porosity. Porosity partitioning coefficient (V) was computed
			from the ratio of fracture porosity to total porosity. A maximum
			limit of 0.4% was assumed for fracture porosity. Effective porosity
			was calculated as the sum of effective matrix and fracture porosity. 
			Combined M
			for water saturation (Md) was calculated from the
			partitioning coefficient and the Aguilera formulae. Fracture water
			saturation was calculated based on oil and water viscosity and oil
			formation volume factor. Matrix permeability was calculated from an
			equation based on core (matrix) porosity versus permeability.
			Fracture permeability was calculated from fracture porosity assuming
			a constant aperture of 0.2 mm.   Fracture
			porosity from resistivity micro scanner logs was also computed where
			available to help control the open hole work. A black and white
			resistivity image log below shows some of the fractures. Both high
			and low angle fractures co-exist. 
			
				 Resistivity micro scanner image
			in granite reservoir
 
 |