| 
					
					
					 OIL SAND AND DEPLETED GAS ZONE This case history shows an
					unusual fluid distribution. Here we have gas over water over
					oil (oil or bitumen) over another water zone, all in the
					same continuous pressure regime. The oil lies under a water
					zone because the oil is heavier than water OR because the
					sediments that now contain water and gas were deposited
					after the oil was degraded to become immoveable. In some areas,
					bitumen
					sits near the surface and can be mined in open pits after
					the glacial till is stripped off. Where the oil zone is
					deeper, it is extracted by steam assisted gravity drainage (SAGD)
					or by fire flood coking. Reservoir continuity vertically and
					horizontally is an important economic factor, so detailed
					petrophysics in closely spaced evaluation wells is a
					critical step.
 
 
 
			 Oil sands at 63 times magnification:
			shaly sand (left) with Vsh > 35%,
 clean sand (right) with Vsh < 5%.
 Shale breaks and thick low grade
			oil are unattractive targets for mining or in-situ production. In
			the example below, two wells are shown that are less than 100 meters
			apart. In the oil zone, the individual shale lenses are not correlatable over even this short distance. They act as baffles to
			the flow of steam upward and to the flow of oil downward to the
			collector wells. This example shows wells with reasonable quality
			reservoir characteristics. More shale on average is less attractive;
			less shale would be better. Note that these logs are on a highly
			compressed vertical scale, making them harder to see than other
			examples in this Handbook. The gas zone above the oil sand is
			also interesting. In the well on the left below, the gas crossover
			is clearly visible, shaded red, on the density neutron logs. The
			resistivity, shaded blue, is relatively high, even though the zone
			is somewhat shaly on the gamma ray. Contrast this with the well on
			the right, drilled 5 years later, but less than 100 meters away.
			There is still crossover on the entire gas interval, but the high
			resistivity covers only the top half of the zone. The lower half of
			the gas zone now has low resistivity - it is wetter than before,
			indicating that some of the gas has gone. Production from other
			wells has partially depleted this reservoir. Crossover still exists
			in the depleted zone because of residual gas. In fact, residual gas
			in a depleted zone is about the same as residual gas in an invaded
			zone, so unless recovery factor is extremely high, depleted gas
			zones will have some crossover, if they are clean enough to show
			crossover at all. The water between the gas and oil
			is called "top water" by the oil explorationist, to distinguish it
			from the "bottom water" below the oil. Either or both of the gas and
			top water zones may be missing in this region.  The moral of the tale is that gas
			crossover can be misleading. First, prove it is gas and not bad hole
			condition or sandstone on a limestone scale. Second, check that the
			zone is resistive enough to still have a reasonably attractive water
			saturation. Then test the zone to be sure.  
			  Oil sand (both wells) with gas above water (top left) and partially
			depleted gas (above right).
 
			 
   Petrophysical analysis results for gas over water over oil over
			water example. Top water is thicker in the well at right due gas
			depletion. Bottom water contact is tilted due to movement after oil
			became immobile and before gas was trapped (horizontal original gas
			water contact).
 
			 
  This is a different well showing the match between log analysis and
			core analysis results. The porosity track shows oil in green and
			water in blue with core data as black dots. The core porosity
			matches log analysis total porosity (PHIt) not effective porosity (OHIe),
			because the core assay is done using the Dean-Stark Method. 
			Core oil saturation is plotted on (1 - SW). The match is not perfect
			as the SW is the effective saturation and core is based on total
			porosity. However, the oil mass in Track 1 matches quite well, as
			both core and log analysis methods reconcile their differences
			inside the equations. A small fix to a lower RW would shift the log
			curves to an even better match.
 
 |