4.7 Article

Fracture and fluid flow paths analysis of an offshore carbonate reservoir using oil-based mud images and petrophysical logs

期刊

MARINE AND PETROLEUM GEOLOGY
卷 109, 期 -, 页码 349-360

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2019.06.021

关键词

Fracture; Bedding plane; Carbonate reservoir; Image log; Persian Gulf

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hydrocarbon production and development of carbonate reservoirs mainly depend on fractures that cross wells. Therefore, quantification of their characteristics has a crucial role in reservoir management. In this research, bedding planes, faults and different types of fractures of a Cenomanian-Turonian carbonate reservoir in the Persian Gulf were studied. Image logs including the oil-based mud image (OBMI) and the ultrasonic borehole image (UBI) were used. The results from conventional petrophysical log suites were compared to the image logs results. Based on the image logs, structural characteristics of bedding planes were reconstructed by estimating their strike, dip, dip direction and layer thickness. Fracture types and their distribution and the geometry in the well were determined. Also, fault zone geometry and type of faults were evaluated. The results indicate that majority of the bedding planes have a N58W strike with an average dip of 18 degrees towards NE. Furthermore, both tensile and shear fractures were distinguished, although shear fractures dominated and the 328/36SW and 29/45NW were found to be the prevalent orientation of fractures. Based on petrophysical logs analyses, four fades groups are distinguished and two statistical relationships are proposed for estimation of discontinuities. The proposed index for evaluation of fractures using petrophysical logs shows good performance and it could be used for wells when no image log is available. Especially in offshore reservoirs, lack of outcrop and unavailability of image logs of old wells lead to unknown fractures characteristics which will be addressed by the suggested equations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据