Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Rock Man on October 31, 2018 at 17:19

I checked out the log header to see what other open hole surveys were run by Baker on this well.

In addition to the triple combo (density / Neutron / resistivity with GR and PE/ lithology recorder), EOG ran the latest version of the dipole sonic tool (for geomechanical analysis and evaluation / ID key frac parameters), the MREX tool (magnetic resonance tool / ID's porosity and perm via MRI technology) and the FTEX (a tool that is used to get formation pressures at specific intervals / the pressure build up rate can be used to calculate permeability in the zone being tested).

I highly doubt that we will not see any of these tools / logs / results in SONRIS. But EOG is using this open hole log data with what I assume is a whole core to evaluate the AC in this wellbore.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rock Man on October 31, 2018 at 9:28

Wish there was a 5" large scale log posted so as to see the porosity info in the AC section. I am assuming that SONRIS does not require that ALL log info be submitted for filing - but only require a single smaller scale log to fulfill filing requirements.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rock Man on October 31, 2018 at 15:05

What is the porosity range? Specifically in the Lower part of the AC.

Thanks

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rock Man on November 1, 2018 at 4:33

Jay,

Thanks - the NuList summary is perfect summary for this info.

Did you run Frac Id analysis too?

Permalink Reply by Chopman on November 5, 2018 at 11:26

Jay,

Is that 4.5% number the Nutech calculated effective porosity or is it just a normal density porosity reading?  I know Nutech tries to net down the porosity to remove the effect of the organic content. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rock Man on November 5, 2018 at 12:47

Based on my experience with NuTech, this is the TOC corrected porosity of the reservoir.

Jay - Attached is a format that I use to take NuTech's NULIST info and present it in a format that shows the values across any given section (AC example from my August NARO presentation). Basically just using EXCEL to present the NuTech info in a foot by foot format to "see" variability across the section in question.

Thanks for the info

Attachments:

• NuList Presentation Example AC.pdf, 234 KB

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Richard Davis on November 5, 2018 at 13:35

For the laymen amongst us, is that a good or bad number for the prospects of the play in that vicinity?

Permalink Reply by Rock Man on November 5, 2018 at 13:50

Comment on this question from Richard Davis (ran out of "reply" options on that thread):

"For the laymen amongst us, is that a good or bad number for the prospects of the play in that vicinity?"

This is only a single data point / well point - nothing to compare it to as what the AC looks like as to reservoir quality in this area or anywhere else in the Louisiana trend right now.

Key here is to take the petrophysical work for the AC and plot it (similar to what I included in post a couple of hours ago) to show porosity / SW / Perm / VClay / Oil or gas in place throughout the section to ID the best intervals for "best" O&G in place. This is then the target interval / landing zone for a lateral.

Remember - a horizontal well is not testing the entire AC section. It is only capable to targeting and frac'ing a part of the AC based on frac barriers and other issues. Normally 100' to 200' in thickness.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Richard Davis on November 5, 2018 at 13:59

Thanks, very helpful to this layman!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rock Man on November 5, 2018 at 14:03

No problem - in the example PDF I posted, the 30' thick sweet spot is where I would put the lateral and try to stay in that interval for the total length of the horizontal (assuming that the "sweet spot" maintains its quality for the entire lateral section).

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Galen Dillewyn on November 8, 2018 at 4:52

We also correct the porosity logs for clay content in addition to mineralogical variances.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Galen Dillewyn on November 8, 2018 at 4:52

We also correct the porosity logs for clay content in addition to mineralogical variances.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 20
• 21
• 22
• 23
• 24
• …
• 28
• Next ›
• Page