Source Rock Evaluation and Reservoir

Characterization of Early Jurassic Formations in

Selected Wells, in Duhok Governorate, Iraqi
Kurdistan Region.

A Thesis
Submitted to the Council of the College of Science at Salahaddin
University-Erbil in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the
Degree of Master of Science in Geology

By
Hawar Anwar Zangana
B.Sc. Salahaddin University-2009

Supervised by
Asst. Professor Dr. Govand H. Sherwani

Erbil, KURDISTAN
January 2017
 DECLARATION

I declare that the Master Thesis entitled: Source Rock Evaluation and Reservoir
Characterization of Early Jurassic Formations in Selected Wells, in Duhok
Governorate, Iraqi Kurdistan Region is my own original work, and hereby certify
that unless stated, all work contained within this thesis is my own independent
research and has not been submitted for the award of any other degree at any
institution, except where due acknowledgment is made in the text.

Signature:
Student Name : Hawar A. Zangana
Date:

II
 SUPERVISOR CERTIFICATE

This thesis has been written under my supervision, and has been submitted for the
award of the degree of Master of Science in Petroleum Geology with my approval
as supervisor.

____________________ Asst. Prof. Dr. Govand H. Sherwani

Signature Name
____________________
Date 5/12/2016

I confirm that all requirements have been fulfilled.

Signature:
Name: Asst. Prof. Dr. Farhad Ahmed Muhammad
Head of the Department of Geology
Date: 5/ 12 /2016

I confirm that all requirements have been fulfilled.

Postgraduate Office

Signature:
Name: Asst. Prof. Dr. Ismail M. Maulood
Date:

III
 Examining Committee Certification

We certify that we have read this thesis: Source Rock Evaluation and Reservoir
Characterization of Early Jurassic Formations in Selected Wells, in Duhok
Governorate, Iraqi Kurdistan Region and as an examining committee examined the
student (Hawar Anwar Ibrahim Zangana) in its content, and what related to it. We
approve that it meets the standards of a thesis for the degree of MSc. in Petroleum
Geology.

Signature: Signature:
Name: Asst. Prof. Dr. Srood F. Naqshabandi Name: Dr. Rushdy S. Othman
Member Member
Date: 19/1/2017 Date: 19/1/2017

Signature: Signature:
Name: Asst. Prof. Dr. Govand H. Sherwani Name: Asst. Prof. Dr. Falah H. Al-Jubori
Supervisor Chairman
Date: 19/1/2017 Date: 19/1/2017

Signature:
Name: Asst. Prof. Dr. Herish O. Abdullah
Dean of College of Science
Date:

IV
 Dedication

To my parents, my brothers, and sisters.

For their endless love, encouragement, and support that they have provided
throughout my life, without their support, this work would not have been possible.
To all those who seek to human goodness.

V
 Acknowledgement

First and foremost, I am thankful to God for completing this study.

I am highly grateful to my guru and supervisor Dr. Govand Sherwani for his
valuable advice, unlimited support with all the plans and suggestions, and especially
for his comments and questions which were very useful in the completion of my
research. I learned a lot from his insight.
I really appreciate Mr. Mohamad Amin Atrushi (Advisor at MNR) for his
valuable support in providing data that was vital for this study. My gratitude goes to
Dr. Srood Naqshabandi for his crucial advice and notes given throughout my
research. I would like to thank Dr. Polla Khanaqa President of Kurdistan Institution
for Strategic Studies and Scientific Research (KISSSR) and Mr. Shwan Ahmed for
their assistance in running pyrolysis analysis. I would also like to thank TAQA,
HKN, and Gulf Keystone Companies for providing the available data.
As for Dr. Ali Surdashi, I am extremely grateful to him for the information
provided and for the discussions of some results presented in this thesis. I am also
grateful to Mr. Yahya Jarjees at University of Kirkuk, Department of Petroleum
Engineering, for his friendly and fruitful assistance. I would like to extend my
gratitude to my colleagues at the Department of Geology Mr. Revan Kamaran and
Mr. Abdullah Talat for their assistance and kind cooperation.
A special thanks to my beloved Dad, from the bottom of my heart. I would
like to thank him for everything he has done for me throughout my life, allowing me
to get at where I am today. I owe him all my success. I could never repay what he
has done for me and our family.
Finally, I would like to express my immense gratefulness to everyone who
assisted me during my study who I have forgotten to mention.

VI
 Abstract

Three wells: Atrush-1 (AT-1), Shaikhan-1B (SH-1B) and Mangesh-1 from

Atrush, Shaikhan and Sarsang Oilfields respectively, in Duhok Governorate, Iraqi
Kurdistan Region were selected for studying Source Rock and Reservoir
Characterization of Early Jurassic Formations. Well Logs and cuttings samples data
from these wells were used to achieve this research.

The executed Pyrolysis analysis for the studied samples has shown that the
Total Organic Carbon (TOC) content in Alan Formation at well AT-1 and SH-1B
indicated Excellent and Good source rock respectively. The organic matter of this
formation is identified as Type I kerogen. Mus Formation is considered Very Good
and Good source rock in wells AT-1 and SH-1B respectively, based on the TOC
content, and its organic matter is identified as Type I kerogen in well AT-1, and
kerogen Type II in well SH-1B. The studied samples of Adaiyah Formation, in wells
SH-1B and Mangesh-1, showed Good and Very Good source rock, with kerogen
recognized as Type II in these two wells. While, Butmah Formation expressed Fair
to Very Good source rock, with kerogen belonging to Types I, II, and II-III in well
AT-1. The same formation, in well SH-1B, obtains a value of total organic carbon
that indicated Fair source rock, with Type IV kerogen. Butmah Formation, in well
Mangesh-1, showed Poor to Good source rock, its organic matter is recognized as
Types II-III, III kerogen. The Tmax values indicated that thermal maturity of the
studied formations in three wells are probably in Immature Phase.

The Well Log data are used to study petrophysical properties of the reservoir
rocks. This task is accomplished by using Interactive Petrophysics Software Version
3.5, 2008. Log interpretation was supportive to: prediction of lithological characters,
calculation of shale volume, Total Porosity, Effective Porosity, Secondary Porosity,

VII
Water Saturation, water bulk volume, residual hydrocarbon and movable
hydrocarbon of each formation in the three studied wells.

The Neutron-Density Cross Plot and M-N Cross Plot were established, and
depending on the mud log provided by the operating oil companies to construct
General Composite column of formations for three wells. This was intended to show
the changes in lithology of Alan, Mus, Adaiyah, and Butmah Formations between
the wells. In wells AT-1 and SH-1B, Alan and Mus Formation are consistently
limestones, while at well Mangesh-1, these formations become Calcareous
Dolomite. Adaiyah Formation changes from anhydrite in wells AT-1 and SH-1B to
Dolomite in well Mangesh-1, that means these formations appear to be replaced by
the equivalent Sehkaniyan Formation in well Mangesh-1.

VIII
 List of Contents

No. Title Page

Declaration II
Supervisor Certificate III
Examining Committee Certification IV
Dedication V
Acknowledgement VI
Abstract VII
List of Contents IX
List of Figures XI
List of Tables XII
List of Nomenclature XIII
CHAPTER I : INTRODUCTION 1-12
1.1 Preface 1
1.2 Location of the study area 2
1.3 Methods of study 5
1.4 Geological Settings 6
1.4.1 Tectonics 6
1.4.2 Structural Framework 7
1.5 Previous Studies 10
1.6 Aim of the Study 12
CHAPTER II : STRATIGRAPHY 13-26
2.1 Preface 13
2.2 Butmah Formation 16
2.3 Adaiyah Formation 21
2.4 Mus Formation 22
2.5 Alan Formation 24
CHAPTER III : Source Rock Evaluation 27-45
3.1 Preface 27
3.3 Rock-Eval Pyrolysis 28
3.4 Total Organic Carbon (TOC) 31
3.5 Rocks-Eval Parameters 34
3.5.1 Hydrogen and Oxygen Indices (HI and OI) 35
3.5.2 TOC versus S2 37
IX
3.5.3 HI versus Tmax 39
3.5.4 Production Index (PI) 40
3.5.5 Genetic Potential (GP) 42
3.6 Thermal Maturition 43
CHAPTER IV : Reservoir Properties Using Well Logs 46-93
4.1 Preface 46
4.2 The Environment Correction of Well Logs 47
4.3 Principles of used Well Logs 56
4.3.1 Resistivity Logs 56
4.3.2 Porosity Logs 57
4.3.2.1 Neutron Log 57
4.3.2.2 Density Log 58
4.3.2.3 Sonic Log 60
4.3.3 Gamma-Ray Log (GR) 61
4.4 Determination of Lithology and Mineralogy 62
4.4.1 Neutron-Density Cross Plot 62
4.4.2 M-N Cross Plot for Mineral Identification 67
4.5 Shale Volume (Vsh) Calculation 72
4.6 Porosity Determination from Porosity Logs 76
4.6.1 Total Porosity 76
4.6.2 Effective Porosity 77
4.6.3 Secondary Porosity 77
4.7 Fluid Saturation 83
4.7.1 Determination of Water Saturation (Sw ) 83
4.7.1.1 Determination of Mud Filtrate Resistivity (Rmf) 85
4.7.1.2 Determination of Formation Water Resistivity (Rw) 86
4.7.2 Determination of Hydrocarbon Saturation 88
4.8 Bulk Volume of Water (BVW) 89
CHAPTER V : CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS 94-99
5.1 Conclusions 94
5.2 Recommendations 99
References R100-R104
References R100
Abstract (Kurdish) A-B

X
 List of Figures

No. Figures Page

1.1 Location Map of the studied wells. 4
Tectonic map of Northern Iraq with the main structural trends 7
1.2
(Jassim and Goff, 2006).
1.3 Structural Elements of Iraq (after Aqrawi et al., 2010) 9
Paleogeography Map of Early Jurassic ( Liassic) showing the 15
2.1 geographic distribution of the formations throughout Iraq
(Jassim and Goff, 2006).
2.2 General Composite Column for formations, in well AT-1. 18
2.3 General Composite Column for formations, in well SH-1B. 19
2.4 General Composite Column for formations, in well Mangesh. 20
Stratigraphic Correlation of Formations from wells AT-1, SH- 26
2.5
1B, and Mangesh-1.
HI vs. OI plot showing Types of Kerogen in the studied 37
3.1
formations at the three wells.
3.2 a,b S2 vs. TOC plot, showing Kerogen Types. 38
HI vs. Tmax plot, showing Types of Kerogen and Level of 40
3.3
Maturity.
3.4 PI vs. Tmax plot, showing Kerogen Maturity. 41
4.1 A graphical representation for the borehole. 48
4.2 Resistivity Logs Corrections for well AT-1. 50
4.3 GR, Neutron, & Density Logs Corrections for well AT-1. 51
4.4 Resistivity Logs Corrections for well SH-1B. 52
4.5 GR, Neutron, & Density Logs Corrections for well SH-1B 53
4.6 Resistivity Logs Corrections for well Mangesh-1 54
4.7 GR, Neutron, & Density Logs Corrections for well Mangesh-1 55
4.8 Neutron-Density cross plot for formations in well AT-1. 64
4.9 Neutron-Density cross plot for formations in well SH-1B. 65
4.10 Neutron-Density cross plot for formations in well Mangesh-1. 66
4.11 M-N cross plot for formations in well AT-1. 69
4.12 M-N cross plot for formations in well SH-1B. 70
4.13 M-N cross plot for formations in well Mangesh-1. 71
4.14 Clay Volume Variation with Depth for well AT-1. 74
4.15 Clay Volume Variation with Depth for well SH-1B. 74

XI
4.16 Clay Volume Variation with Depth for well Mangesh-1. 75
4.17 Porosity variation with depth at well AT-1. 80
4.18 Porosity variation with depth at well SH-1B. 81
4.19 Porosity variation with depth at well Mangesh-1. 82
4.20 Computer Processed Interpretation for well AT-1. 91
4.21 Computer Processed Interpretation for well SH-1B. 92
4.22 Computer Processed Interpretation for well Mangesh-1. 93

List of Tables

No. Tables Page

Geographic Coordinates of the studied wells, and thickness of 3
1.1
formations within each well.
Early Jurassic stratigraphic units in Iraq and neighboring 14
countries, showing studied stratal intervals (compiled from Van
2.1
Bellen et al., 1959; James and Wynd,1965; Buday, 1980; AI-
Omari and Sadiq, 1977; and Jassim and Goff, 2006).
Kerogen Types and Hydrocarbons products produced upon 28
3.1 thermal maturation based on summary works of (Tyson, 1987
and Merrill, 1991).
Rock-Eval Pyrolysis Data of Liassic Formations from the three 30
3.2
studied wells.
Indication of source-rock potential based on Total Organic 32
3.3
Carbon (TOC %) Values (after Peters, 1986).
The values of TOC % and their evaluation for formations in 33
3.4
well AT-1, based on the assumption of Peters (1986).
The values of TOC % and their evaluation for formations in 33
3.5
well SH-1B, based on the assumption of Peters (1986).
The values of TOC % and their evaluation for formations in 33
3.6
well Mangesh-1, based on the assumption of Peters (1986).
Genetic Potential (GP) values and their comparable source rock 42
3.7
quality according to (Tissot and Welte,1984).
3.8 Results obtained from Rock-Eval Pyrolysis. 45
4.1 Matrix densities of common lithologies. 59
4.2 Transit Time through common lithologies. 61
Zonation based on the percentage of shale volume (after 72
4.3
Ghorab, 2008)
Maximum, minimum and average Vclay values of each 73
4.4
formation in well AT-1.
XII
 Maximum, minimum and average Vclay values of each 73
4.5
formation in well SH-1B.
Maximum, minimum and average Vclay values of each 73
4.6
formation in well Mangesh-1.
4.7 Average Porosity values of each formation in well AT-1. 79
4.8 Average Porosity values of each formation in well SH-1B. 79
4.9 Average Porosity values of each formation in well Mangesh-1. 79
Average Water Saturation of Uninvaded and Invaded Zones in 84
4.10
well AT-1.
Average Water Saturation of Uninvaded and Invaded Zones in 84
4.11
well SH-1B.
Average Water Saturation of Uninvaded and Invaded Zones in 84
4.12
well Mangesh-1.
4.13 Formation Water Resistivity from Apparent Resistivity Method 88
Average Bulk Volume of Water of Uninvaded and Invaded 89
4.14
Zones in well AT-1.
Average Bulk Volume of Water of Uninvaded and Invaded 89
4.15
Zones in well SH-1B.
Average Bulk Volume of Water of Uninvaded and Invaded 90
4.16
Zones in well Mangesh-1.
Comparative Petroleum System in different literature and 98
5.1
present study.

List of Nomenclature
Symbols Definition Unit
A Tortuosity Factor dimensionless
M Cementation Exponent dimensionless
N Saturation Exponent dimensionless
Rmf Resistivity of mud filtrate Ω.m
Resistivity of mud filtrate at measured
Rmf@ T Ω.m
Temperature
Resistivity of mud filtrate at Formation
Rmf @ Tf Ω.m
Temperature
Rt True Formation Resistivity Ω.m
Rw Formation Water Resistivity Ω.m
Rxo Formation Resistivity at Flushed Zone Ω.m

XIII
 Sw Water Saturation fraction
Sxo Water Saturation in the Invaded Zone fraction
Tf Formation Temperature °C
Ts Surface Temperature °C
Vsh Shale Volume fraction
Δtma Interval Transit Time in matrix μsec/ft
Δtlog Interval Transit Time in Formation μsec/ft
Interval Transit Time in the fluid within
Δtf μsec/ft
Formation
𝛒b Bulk Density recorded by Log gm/cc
𝛒ma Matrix Density gm/cc
𝛒f Fluid Density gm/cc
Φ Porosity fraction
φD Porosity from Density Log fraction
φe Effective Porosity fraction
φN Neutron Porosity fraction
φS Sonic Porosity fraction
φsec Secondary Porosity fraction
φt Total Porosity fraction

Abbreviation Definition
API American Petroleum Institute
AT-1 Well Atrush-1
bbls Barrels
BHT Bottom Hole Temperature
BVW Water Bulk Volume
BVWxo Water Bulk Volume at Flushed Zone
CPI Computer Processed Interpretation
Fn. Formation
GP Genetic Potential
GR Gamma Ray Log
GRlog Gamma Ray Log reading in zone of interest

XIV
GRmax Maximum Gamma Ray reading in Shale Zone
GRmin Minimum Gamma Ray reading in Clean Zone
HC Hydrocarbons
H/C Hydrogen to Carbon Ratio
HI Hydrogen Index
IGR Gamma Ray Index
IP Interactive Petrophysics
LLD Latero Log Deep
LLS Latero Log Shallow
MSFL Micro-Spherical Focused Log
NPHI Neutron Log
O/C Oxygen to Carbon Ratio
OI Oxygen Index
PI Production Index
RHOB Bulk Density
RTE Rotary Table Elevation
S1 The Total Free Hydrocarbons
Amount of Hydrocarbon obtained by heating during
S2
Pyrolysis
Amount of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) released through heating
S3
Organic Matter
SH-1B Well Shaikhan -1B
SP Spontaneous Potential
SPI Secondary Porosity Index
Highest Temperature for generating maximum amount of
Tmax
Hydrocarbon during Pyrolysis
TOC Total Organic Carbon

XV
CHAPTER
ONE
Introduction
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER-I

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Preface

Petroleum is the major source of energy in the world. Iraq has outstanding
role as a supplier and as an exporter of petroleum to the global energy markets.
According to the International oil companies reports; including the "OPEC", Iraq
has the world's fourth largest oil reserves after Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and Iran,
estimated as a 140 billion barrels (bbls) (OPEC, 2015). While the Kurdistan Region,
which is located in Northern Iraq and NE of the Arabian Plate, has approximately 45
billion barrels of oil (The Economist, Nov. 2012).

This means that a one-third of Iraqi oil reserve exists in Kurdistan, making
Kurdistan Region an interest for hydrocarbon exploration. The history of
hydrocarbon exploration in Kurdistan dates back to the year 1901, when the first
exploration well was drilled on the Chia Surkh structure close to the Iranian border
in the southwestern part of Kurdistan Region of Iraq. This well represents the first
well drilled in the Middle East, the oil shows in that well after drilling was 710m in
depth. Later, between 1905 and 1922, four more wells were drilled on that structure
inside Iraq, some finding oil shows with none of them drilled deeper than 800m.
The number of wells drilled in Kurdistan Region during the following 83 years from
1922 to 2005 was only 23 wells on seven structures at; Pulkhana, Injana, Jambur,
Kor Mor, Chemchemal, Taq Taq and JariaPika (Mackertich and Samarrai, 2015).

Recently, in the last decade, Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) divided

the region into 57 exploration blocks that were exposed for foreign investments.

1
 The current research attempts to study the Source Rock and Reservoir
Characterization of some formations of Liassic Epoch in Northern Iraq from three
exploration wells (Figure 1.1).

The first well is Atrush-1 (AT-1) in Atrush Block operated by TAQA Oil
Company. With an area of 269 km2, this block is considered as one of the smallest
blocks in terms of area in the Kurdistan Region (WesternZagros, 2012).

Directly to the south of Atrush Block, lies the second well, which is
Shaikhan-1B. Well (SH-1B) is situated in Shaikhan Block that is operated by Gulf
Keystone Company (GKC). Shaikhan block includes the largest oilfield in terms of
oil reserve in Kurdistan Region, with an area of 283 km2 (WesternZagros, 2012).

Further to the north of Atrush Block, lies the third well which is Mangesh-1,
located in Sarsang Block operated by HKN Energy Ltd Company. Over an area of
1085 km2, this block is one of the largest blocks in terms of area in the Kurdistan
Region (WesternZagros, 2012).

Well Logs and cuttings samples were the main source of data for this study.

1.2 Location of the studied area :

Three wells have been selected for current study located near Duhok City,
Northwest of Iraq. The locations of wells and (UTM) coordinates values with the
thickness of formations are shown in Table (1.1). The geographic locations of the
selected wells are shown in Figure (1.1).

2
 Table 1.1 : Geographic Coordinates of the studied wells, and the thickness of
formations within each well.

Geographic Thickness
Wells Location Formation
Coordinates (m)
Alan 53
36°51'51.2" N Mus 82
Atrush-1 (AT-1) Atrush Field
43°27'0.25" E Adaiyah 78
Butmah 702
Alan 108.4
36°46'24.83" N Mus 66.1
Shaikhan-1B (SH-1B) Shaikhan Field
43°20'42.21" E Adaiyah 102.9
Butmah 529.5
Alan 94
36°59' 35.174" N Mus 99
Mangesh-1 Sarsang Field
43°10'15.221" E Adaiyah 136
Butmah 320

3
Figure 1.1 : Location Map of the studied wells ( from ArcMap).

4
1.3 Methods of Study

Well Logs and cuttings samples were the main source of data for this study.
The methods of study and collected data for the current study include:

1- ArcMap were used to construct Location Map.

2- Using Rockware Software for Constructing General Composite Column of
formations for three wells. Depending on Mud logging supplied by the oil
companies.
3- Fifteen rock samples (cuttings) were chosen in three wells from shale and
organic-rich limestone intervals depending on mud logging, gamma ray log,
and color of sample to reduce possible contamination, and prepared for Rock-
Eval Pyrolysis which was done in the Kurdistan Institution for Strategic
Studies and Scientific Research in Sulaimani (KISSSR).
4- Utilizing the facilities in Microsoft Office Excel 2007 for mathematical
calculations.
5- Description and identification of reservoir properties by using different types
of well logs, these include ; Gamma Ray, Resistivity logs (Deep Resistivity,
Shallow Resistivity, and Micro Resistivity), Sonic log, Density log (RHOB),
and Neutron log.
6- Using Interactive Petrophysics Software (IP) Version 3.5 for well log analysis
and identification Reservoir Properties.
7- Identification Lithology and Mineral composition of rock formation by using
Neutron-Density Cross Plot and M-N Cross Plot.
8- Determination of Total, Effective, and Secondary Porosity by Neutron,
Density, and Sonic Logs.
9- Constructing CPI log (Computer Processed Interpretation) for the three wells.

5
1.4 Geological Setting

1.4.1 Tectonics

Iraqi territory was divided by Jassim and Buday (2006) into three tectonic
units; the first unit is Stable Shelf which covers most of central, S and W Iraq with
no surface anticlines (Jassim and Buday, 2006a). The second unit is Unstable Shelf
that extends over N and E; this unit is characterized by structural trends and facies
changes parallel to the Zagros–Taurus suture belts, surface folds are among its
characteristic features (Jassim and Buday, 2006b).

Unstable Shelf can be subdivided into four tectonic zones; The Foothill Zone
characterised by long anticlines with Neogene cores and broad synclines containing
thick Miocene-Quaternary molasse. The High Folded Zone is characterized by
anticlines of high amplitude with Palaeogene or Mesozoic carbonates exposed in
their cores and Neogene clastics on their flanks. The Balambo-Tanjero Zone had
formed a basin near the plate boundary; it is characterized by imbricated structures
with over-riding anticlinal structures. The Northern Thrust (Ora) Zone is an uplifted
zone which developed along the plate margins during the Cretaceous and is
characterized by thrusted anticlinal structures (Jassim and Buday, 2006a).

The third unit is Zagros Suture, which can be divided in Iraq into three
tectonic zones from SW to NE; these are the Qulqula-Khwakurk, Penjween-Walash,
and Shalair Zones (Jassim and Buday, 2006a). According to these units of Jassim
and Buday (2006), the selected wells are located in the High Folded and Foothill
Zones of Unstable Shelf unit (Figure 1.2).

6
 Figure 1.2 Tectonic Map of Northern Iraq with the main structural trend (after Jassim
and Goff, 2006) showing the location of the studied wells.

1.4.2 Structural Framework

The selected wells are located in the Folded Zone, which is subdivided into the
High Folded Zone and the Low Folded / Foothill Zone by Buday (1980).

The first subdivision (High Folded Zone) covers most of the Iraqi Kurdistan
Region; extending from Zakho area, on the Turkish border in the NW, to
Derbendikhan-Halabja area near the Iranian border in SE. The width of this zone
varies from 25 to 50 km. It is affected by transversal blocks. The zone was
intermittently uplifted during Cretaceous and Palaeogene times and strongly
deformed in Late Tertiary (Jassim and Buday, 2006b).

7
 The folds in this zone are mostly asymmetrical with Mesozoic limestone in
their cores and Tertiary carbonate and clastic rocks on their flanks. The anticlines of
the High Folded Zone generally trend NW-SE in Northeastern Iraq, and E-W trend
in Northern Iraq. Narrow synclines are characteristic features of the High Folded
Zone; the broad syncline near Zakho is an exception. The cores of the anticlines are
often formed of Mesozoic rocks, usually of pre-Upper Cretaceous age. The
amplitudes of the anticlines exceed 2000 m in most of the high structures (Jassim
and Buday, 2006b)

The second subdivision (Foothill Zone) is characterized by a thick sedimentary

cover and by well-marked folding. The folds are arranged in narrow long anticlines
and broad flat synclines (Buday, 1980).

These folds form anticlinal traps for oil and gas fields in North Iraq; the Low
Folded Zone comprises the Kirkuk-Hamrin and Mosul-Butmah subzones, separated
by the SW-NE Hadar-Bekhme lineament coinciding approximately with the course
of the Greater Zab River (Aqrawi et al., 2010). The locations of the selected wells
are within Folded Zones as shown in Figure ( 1.3).

8
Figure 1.3 : Structural Elements of Iraq (after Aqrawi et al., 2010)
Showing locations of the studied wells.

9
1.5 Previous Studies

• The earliest study of Liassic subsurface formations in Iraq have been made by
Dunnington in 1953 (Bellen et al., 1959), who described lithology, fossil
content, thickness, boundary, and age for each formation.

• Dunnington (1958) conducted a detailed research on the generation,

migration, and accumulation of oil in Northern Iraq including description of
lithofacies distribution of Jurassic formations.

• Alsharhan and Nairn (1997) discussed the petroleum geology of Iraq and
assumed that Butmah Formation is a minor oil and gas reservoir, which
produced oil in Sufaya Field. This reservoir is sealed by the anhydrite bed of
overlying Adaiyah Formation. They also assumed that Alan Formation is
locally a minor oil and gas reservoir in well Samawa-1. The hydrocarbons of
that reservoir may be sourced from the younger Sargelu Formation.

• Jassim and Al-Gailani (2006) they provided an introduction to petroleum

systems, discussed in term of source rock richness, migration, reservoirs, cap
rocks and the possible associated traps. They regarded Adaiyah, Mus, and
Alan Formations as a poor reservoir units in N Iraq because of their locally
fractured carbonates and anhydrite.

• Mustafa (2009) studied geochemical and microfacies analysis of some Liassic

formations in wells Jabal Kand-1 and Qara Chuq-2. According to his study,
Mus Formation has good-very good OM content; kerogen is Type II and
mixed Type II/III. The OM content of the Alan Formation in these wells
indicates a fair to good source rock, while Adaiyah Formation has poor-fair
OM content. The kerogen Type II, has been determined for Alan and Adaiyah
Formations. The Alan, Mus, and Adaiyah Formations in the wells are in

10
 immature to slightly mature phase (early mature). Accordingly the
Hydrocarbon generation of Alan Formation has fair to good generation
potential if high enough maturity level is reached. Mus Formation has good
to very good hydrocarbon potential for generating oil, as OM is slightly
mature. While Adaiyah Formation has poor to fair generation potential.

• Aqrawi et al. (2010) studied petroleum systems of Iraq in general. They

assumed that carbonates within the uppermost Butmah Formation may have
reservoir potential, particularly when oolitic or dolomitized. Argillaceous
sediments associated with evaporites in Butmah Formation may have source
potential (Abboud et al., 2005, cited in Aqrawi et al., 2010). Minor seals may
also occur within evaporite and shale beds in upper Butmah Formation. The
massive evaporites of Alan Formation, with associated shales and
argillaceous limestones, provide good bottom seals for Sargelu Formation.
Mus Formation may also make a reservoir in Southern Iraq, where it
comprises oolitic to pseudo-oolitic carbonate facies (Al-Gailani 1998a, cited
in Aqrawi et al., 2010). The massive evaporites in Adaiyah Formation and the
associated shales, are probably effective seals for Butmah reservoir units.

• English et al. (2015), in an outstanding recent research, discussed the

Geologic Evolution of the Iraqi Zagros and its impact on the hydrocarbon
distribution in Kurdistan Region. They also gave informative details about
reservoir units in local oilfields.

11
1.6 Aim of the Study :

The major aim of the current research is to study the Source rock and
Reservoir Characterization of some formations of Liassic Epoch in Duhok
Governorate, Iraqi Kurdistan Region from three exploration wells. The current study
is based on well data and cuttings samples, in order to obtain the following :

1- Constructing well correlations between selected wells to study the lateral and
vertical changes of stratal units (Alan, Mus, Adaiyah, and Butmah
Formations).

2- Determining the degree of maturation, quantity and type of organic matter

content in the formations of the study intervals, and then find out the
hydrocarbon potential evaluation of organic matter in the studied intervals by
using Rock-Eval Pyrolysis method.

3- Evaluating Reservoir Petrophysical properties of the formations in three wells

through using available logs data.

4- Well log interpretation and determination of Shale Volume (Vsh), Porosity

(φ), Water Saturation (Sw), and the main lithological components in the
studied intervals.

12
CHAPTER
TWO
Stratigraphy
CHAPTER TWO STRATIGRAPHY

CHAPTER-II

STRATIGRAPHY

2.1 Preface

The studied stratigraphic interval (Butmah, Adaiyah, Mus, and Alan

Formations) belongs to Liassic Sequence in Iraq, as shown in Table (2.1). This
Sequence outcrops in numerous anticlines of the High Folded Zone of N and NE
Iraq and in the Rutba Subzone in Western Iraq (Jassim and Goff, 2006).

This Sequence is penetrated by many wells within the Rutba-Jezira, Salman,

and Mesopotamian Zones, the formations included in it are: the clastic-carbonate
inner shelf Ubaid, Hussainiyat and Amij Formations in Western Iraq, the carbonate-
evaporite inner shelf Butmah, Adaiyah, Alan and Mus Formations in well sections
of Central Iraq and the Foothill Zone, the restricted lagoonal Sarki and Sehkaniyan
Formations in the High Folded, and Balambo-Tanjero Zones of N and NE Iraq
(Jassim and Goff, 2006) (Figure 2.1).

13
Table 2.1 : Early Jurassic stratigraphic units in Iraq and neighboring countries, showing studied stratal intervals (blue shaded)
(compiled from : Van Bellen et al., 1959 ; James and Wynd, 1965 ; Buday, 1980 ; AI-Omari and Sadiq, 1977 ;
and Jassim and Goff, 2006 ).

Geologic Age Stratal Units in Iraq Units in Neighbouring Countries

Rutba Subsurface Kurdistan Saudi
Period Epoch Age Syria Iran
Uplift Sections Region Arabia
Muhaiwir Dhruma

Surmeh Fn.
Dogger Aalenian Sargelu Fn.
Fn. Fn.
Toarcian Alan Fn.

Marrat Fn.
Amij Fn.

Upper Dolaa Fn.

Pliensbachian Mus Fn. Sehkaniyan
Fn.
Jurassic

Early Jurassic

Sinemurian Hussainiyat Adaiyah Fn.

(Liassic)

Neyriz Fn.
Fn.

Minjur Fn.
Hettangian Butmah Fn. Sarki Fn.
Ubaid Fn.

Late Zor Hauran Middle Khanekhat

Triassic Rhaetian Baluti Fn.
Triassic Fn. Dolaa Fn. Fn.

14
Figure 2.1 : Paleogeography Map of Early Jurassic (Liassic) showing the geographic
distribution of formations throughout Iraq (Jassim and Goff, 2006).

15
2.1 Butmah Formation
This formation was first described by Dunnington in 1953 from Well Butmah-2
in the Foothill Zone of North Iraq; the formation was named from the name of that
well (Bellen et al., 1959).

Type Locality and Location : Type locality of the formation is in well

Butmah-2 (Bellen et al., 1959). The formation is widespread in almost all the
subsurface sections of the Foothill Zone, but is unknown in outcrops. It is present
most probably in the Mesopotamian Zone of the Unstable Shelf. On the Stable
Shelf, the formation evidently occurs to the north of the Rutbah Uplift in both Iraq
and Syria. Butmah Formation is replaced by Ubaid Formation over parts of the
Stable Shelf, and by Sarki Formation in the north and northeast of the Foothill Zone
(Buday, 1980).

Boundaries and depositional environment : The formation has conformable

and gradational contact with the underlying Baluti Shale Formation, the overlying
boundaries are abrupt with Adaiyah anhydrite Formation (Bellen et al., 1959;
Buday, 1980). Butmah Formation was deposited in a shallow water lagoonal and
sabkha environment (Jassim and Goff, 2006).

Age: The exact age of the formation has not been determined, but is accepted
to be Liassic, based on its stratigraphic position in the sequence (Buday, 1980). Age
equivalent of formation in Kurdistan is Sarki Formation (Bellen et al., 1959) and in
the Western Iraq equivalent is Ubaid Formation (Jassim and Goff, 2006) (Table 2.1).

Thickness and Lithology: The thickness of formation varies from well to

another, in Butmah-2 is (500 m); in other wells, it ranges between (162-570 m). The
lithology of formation is heterogeneous comprises of three layers which are: The
upper part (200 m), in type section, consists of oolitic, pseudo oolitic and detrital
limestone with beds of argillaceous limestone, shale, and anhydrite. The middle part
of the formation (180 m) is oolitic and pseudo-oolitic, argillaceous and dolomitic

16
with sandstone and shale beds. The lower part (120 m) is composed of limestone
with bedded anhydrite (Buday, 1980 ; Jassim and Goff, 2006).

In the current study, thickness of Butmah Formation in well AT-1 is (702.4 m),
lithologically comprises of three layers : The upper part (257 m) consists of
dolomite interbedded with a thin bed of anhydrite. The middle part (230 m) consists
of dolomite interbedded with shale and a thin bed of anhydrite with few beds of
dolomitic limestone and chert. The lower part (215.4 m) consists of dolomite
interbedded with a thin bed of shale and anhydrite (Figure 2.2).

In well SH-1B, the thickness of formation is (529.5 m). Lithologically the

formation comprises of three layers : upper part (188 m) composed of limestone
interbedded with dolomite, shale, and anhydrite with the presence of chert. The
middle part (100 m) is composed of dolomitic limestone interbedded with thin beds
of anhydrite, shale and dolomite, with the presence of few beds of argillaceous
limestone, the lower part (241.5 m) is composed of dolomite interbedded with shale,
associated with some beds of limestone and anhydrite (Figure 2.3).

In well Mangesh-1, the thickness of formation is about (320 m). Lithologically

the formation comprises of the upper part (74 m) composed of calcareous dolomite
and dolomitic limestone interbedded with shale, rare argillaceous limestone, the
lower part (246 m) is composed of dolomite interbedded with shale and rare
anhydrite (Figure 2.4).

17
Period Epoch Age Lithologic Description

Alternation
Toarcian From 1245-1298 m
Limestone, interbedded with shale

From1298-1380
Pliensbachian Limestone, interbedded with shale,
and in lower part thin bed of dolomite
is present

Sinemurian From 1380-1458 m

Anhydrite, interbedded with thin beds
of dolomite

From 1458-1715 m
Dolomite, interbedded with
Thin bed of Anhydrite
Early Jurassic (Liassic)

From 1715-1800 m
Jurassic

Dolomite, interbedded with thin beds

of shale. Some beds of Dolomitic
Limestone are present

From 1800-2160 m
Hettangian Dolomite, interbedded with shale
with thin bed of Anhydrite

Figure 2.2 : General Composite Column for formations, in well AT-1

18
Period Epoch Age Lithologic Description
From 1494.6 -1603 m
Limestone (Argillaceous), interbedded
with shale
Toarcian
From 1603-1669 m
Limestone (Argillaceous), with some
beds of shale

Pliensbachian From 1669-1772 m

Anhydrite, alternated with some beds
of limestone and dolomite, with presence
of some beds of shale

Sinemurian
From 1772-1960 m
Limestone, alternated with beds of
dolomite, shale, and anhydrite
Early Jurassic (Liassic)

From 1960- 2060 m

Dolomitic Limestone, alternated
with thin beds of anhydrite, shale,
and dolomite with presence of few beds
Jurassic

of argillaceous limestone

From 2060-2301m
Dolomite, interbedded with shale, with
presence of some beds of limestone and
anhydrite.

Hettangian

Figure 2.3 : General Composite Column for formations, in well SH-1B.

19
 Age
Period Epoch Lithologic Description

From 2647-2741m
Calcareous Dolomite, in upper part, while
Toarcian in the lower part, alternated with
Anhydrite.

From 2741-2840 m
Calcareous Dolomite, interbedded with
thin beds of Anhydrite and Dolomite,
The lower unit composed of Dolomite.
Pliensbachian From 2840- 2976m
Dolomite, Calcareous Dolomite and a thin
bed of Shale.
Early Jurassic (Liassic)

Sinemurian From 2976- 3050 m

Calcareous Dolomite, and Dolomitic
Limestone interbedded with Shale.
Jurassic

From 3050- 3296 m

Dolomite, interbedded with Shale and
rare Anhydrite.

Hettangian

Figure 2.4 : General Composite Column for formations, in well Mangesh-1.

20
2.3 Adaiyah Formation

Adaiyah Formation was first described by Dunnington in 1953 (Bellen et al.,

1959) in well Adaiyah-I from Northern Foothill Zone, given the name of this well
(Bellen et al., 1959).

Type Locality and Location: The type section of this formation is at well
Adaiyah-1 in Northern Foothill Zone (Bellen et al., 1959). This formation was
reported in Mesopotamian, Foothill Zones, and Anah Graben, where found absent in
Northwest Iraq (well Khlesia-1) due to truncation below the Lower Senonian
unconformity. Throughout the High Folded, Imbricated, and Northern Thrust Zones
the formation is replaced by the lower part of Sehkaniyan Formation. The boundary
between these two formations may lie on a buried uplift along the Dohuk-
Chemchemal line (Ditmar and the Iraqi-Soviet Team, 1971 cited in Jassim and Goff,
2006).

Boundaries and depositional environment: Both the lower and upper contact
of formation are gradational and conformable (Buday, 1980; Jassim and Goff,
2006). The formation is overlain by Mus Formation and underlain by Butmah
Formation. This formation was deposited in sabkha environment (pure lagoonal
evaporitic facies) in an inner shelf basin (Buday, 1980; Jassim and Goff, 2006).

Age: The age of the formation is presumed to be Liassic (probably Upper,

but not uppermost) based on regional correlation evidence (Bellen et al., 1959). Age
equivalent units are: the upper part of Hussainiyat Formation in Western Iraq, and
Lower part of Sehkaniyan Formation in High Folded, Imbricated, and Northern
Thrust Zones. In the neighboring countries, equivalents units are Upper Dolaa
Group in Syria, Marrat Formation in Saudi Arabia, and Neyriz Formation in Iranian
Zagros (Jassim and Goff, 2006) (Table 2.1)

Thickness and Lithology: The thickness of formation in type well is around

(90 m) of bedded anhydrite with subordinate beds of brownish limestones and black
21
calcareous shales and greenish marls with anhydrite nodules (Jassim and Goff,
2006). In some wells, such as Makhul-2, salt beds occur too (Ditmar and Iraqi-
Soviet Team, 1971; Thompson and Hart, 1957 cited in Jassim and Goff, 2006). In
other wells, the thickness ranges between (26-128 m).

In the current study, Adaiyah Formation in well AT-1 (Figure 2.2) is (78 m)
thick, consisting of anhydrite interbedded with thin beds of dolomite in some places.
In well SH-1B (Figure 2.3), the thickness of the formation is (102.9 m), consists of
anhydrite interbedded with a thin unit of shale, limestone, and dolomite. While in
well Mangesh-1(Figure 2.4), the thickness increases to (136 m) dominated by
dolomite, calcareous dolomite, and thin unit of shale. Adaiyah Formation may get
replaced by the lower Sehkaniyan Formation at well Mangesh-1. This change occurs
laterally and implies lithology convert from evaporate to carbonate rock (dolomite,
calcareous dolomite ) as shown in Figure (2.5).

2.4 Mus Formation

The Mus (Limestone) Formation was first described by Dunnington in 1953

(Bellen et al., 1959), in well Butmah-2 in the Foothill Zone of Northern Iraq. The
name of the formation is taken from Village of Tel Mus, situated some 5.5 km west
of well Butmah-2.

Type Locality and Location : The type section of the formation is at well
Butmah-2 in Northern Foothill Zone (Bellen et al., 1959). The formation has a
similar distribution to Adaiyah Formation in the Foothill and Mesopotamian Zones
(Jassim and Goff, 2006).

Boundaries and depositional environment: Mus Formation has conformable

and gradational contacts with underlying Adaiyah and overlying Alan Formations
(Jassim and Goff, 2006). Mus Formation was deposited in a transgressive marine
environment of normal salinity (Bellen et al., 1959).
22
 Age: Fossils are relatively abundant, especially in the upper part of the
formation, but the assemblage listed by Bellen et al. (1959) is insufficient for precise
age determination. The formation has been correlated based on the similarity of its
microfacies and fossil content, with the Upper Liassic «Lithiotis Limestone» of the
Sehkaniyan Formation of N and NE Iraq. Therefore a Late Liassic (probably Early
Toarcian) age is assigned to the Mus Formation (Lithiotis appears to range from
Pliensbachian-Toarcian) (Jassim and Goff, 2006). The surface equivalents of Mus
Formation are: Amij Formation in Western Iraq, and Middle part of Sehkaniyan
Formation in Kurdistan Region. Outside Iraq, the formation is equivalent to: lower
part Marrat Formation in Saudi Arabia (Bellen et al., 1959), limestone member of
Upper Dolaa Group in Syria (Dubertret, 1966 cited in Jassim and Goff, 2006), and
some limestone members of Surmeh Formation Iran (James and Wynd, 1965)
(Table 2.1).

Thickness and Lithology: thickness of the formation is (50 m) in type section

at well Butmah-2. In other wells, the thickness is (20 m) in Sasan-1, and (87 m) in
Jabal Kand-1, while the maximum recorded thickness is (92 m) in well Diwan-l in
the Salman Zone, SW Iraq (Jassim and Goff, 2006). The formation is a limestone
dominated stratigraphic unit, its upper parts are locally recrystallized, and rarely
dolomitized, pseudo-oolitic limestones, with some organic detritus, and some
intercalations of marly limestones. The lower part of the formation consists of
recrystallized and dolomitic limestones, interbedded with hard marly limestones
(Buday, 1980).

In the current study, the thickness Mus Formation at well AT-1 (Figure 2.2) is
(82 m). The lithology of formation consists of; upper part composed of limestone
interbedded with a thin unit of shale, and the lower part composed of limestone
interbedded with dolomite and some shale beds. In the section of well SH-1B
(Figure 2.3), the thickness of the formation is (66.1 m), lithologically the formation
consists of argillaceous limestone with very rare shale, the formation is highly

23
fractured. At well Mangesh-1 (Figure 2.4), the thickness is (99.5 m), the lithology of
the formation consists of: the upper part composed of calcareous dolomite
interbedded with a thin bed of anhydrite and dolomite, the lower part is composed of
dolomite. Considering the litho content, Mus Formation at well Mangesh-1 is
replaced by the middle part of Sehkaniyan Formation, and this change occurs
laterally due to high content of dolomite which is very rare in Mus Formation
(Figure 2.5).

2.5 Alan Formation

Alan Formation was first described by Dunnington in 1953 from well Alan-1,
north of Mosul City, the formation named after that well (Bellen et al., 1959).

Type Locality and Location : Type locality of the formation is well Alan-1
(Bellen et al., 1959). This well is located in the Stable Shelf and the western part of
the Unstable Shelf. This formation is best developed in the Foothill and
Mesopotamian Zones, and parts of the Salman Zone (Jassim and Goff, 2006). Alan
Formation was not found in anhydritic facies. In some places, such as Ain Zalah
area, the evaporitic lagoons are replaced by calcareous lagoonal or neritic conditions
(Bellen et al., 1959).

Boundaries and depositional environment: Alan Formation has conformable

and gradational contacts with the underlying and overlying stratal units. It is
overlain by Sargelu Formation and underlain by Mus Formation (Bellen et al., 1959;
Jassim and Goff, 2006). In well Mileh Tharthar, the lower contact is marked by an
erosional unconformity where Mus Formation is terminated by an erosional
unconformity and Alan Formation begins with sandy conglomerate (Bellen et al.,
1959). The formation was deposited in a basin-centred sabkha environment (Jassim
and Goff, 2006).

Age: The age of Mus Formation is assumed by its stratigraphic position

between the Middle Jurassic Sargelu Formation and the Liassic Mus Formation, a
24
Liassic age has been presumed (Bellen et al., 1959). Age equivalents of the
formation are: the upper Sehkaniyan Formation in Kurdistan Region (Bellen et al.,
1959), and the upper part of the Amij Formation in Western Iraq (Jassim and Goff,
2006) (Table 2.1).

Thickness and Lithology: Thickness of formation in type locality from well

Alan-1 is (87 m), but the thickness is greatly affected lateral wedging out by
anhydrite, which is typical for the formation (Bellen et al., 1959; Jassim and Goff,
2006). The maximum thickness is reached in well Makhul-2 (199 m), while in other
wells it ranges between (26-156 m). The lithology of formation comprises bedded
anhydrite with subordinate pseudo-oolitic limestone, in well Makhul-2 halite is
present (Jassim and Goff, 2006).

In the current study, the thickness Alan Formation in well AT-1 (Figure 2.2)
is (53 m), the formation consists of limestone interbedded with thin shale beds. In
well SH-1B (Figure 2.3), thickness increases to (108.4 m) dominated by
argillaceous limestone interbedded with shale. In well Mangesh-1, the thickness
decreases to (94 m), spread on two layers: upper part composed of calcareous
dolomite.The lower part is composed of calcareous dolomite interbedded with a thin
unit of anhydrite. The lithology in well Mangesh-1 (Figure 2.4) is dominated by
dolomite with anhydrite. The formation may get replaced by the upper Sehkaniyan
Formation due to lateral change in lithology to more dolomite which is common in
Sehkaniyan Formation (Figure 2.5).

25
 Depth 29.15 km 13.8 km
m Mangesh -1 SH-1B AT-1

A
RTE 998m ASL RTE 781m ASL RTE 1210 m ASL
2647
1245

1298.7
Alan
2741
1603
1380.5
Mus
2840.5 1458

61 m
2976

* Vertical Scale 1cm : 61m

* Not up to Horizontal Scale
* Datum is Top Alan Formation
Key map

Butmah Butmah

3296

Figure 2.5 : Stratigraphic Correlation along wells

AT-1, SH-1B, and Mangesh-1.

26 2160.4
CHAPTER
THREE
Source Rock Evaluation
 CHAPTER THREE SOURCE ROCK EVALUATION

CHAPTER-III

Source Rock Evaluation

3.1 Preface

Source Rocks are fine-grained sediments rich in organic matter, which are
capable of generating hydrocarbons after thermal alteration of kerogen, most source
rocks are grey or black shale that contain organic matter not less than 0.5% wt.,
which deposited in an anoxic environment and preserved until buried deep enough
for the processes of petroleum generation to begin. Some marl and limestone are
considered as source rock if containing enough Total Organic Carbon (TOC) about
0.4% wt., and deposited in an anoxic environment. The capacity of source rock to
generate crude oil and gas depends on quantity of (TOC) in the form of kerogen,
quality, and thermal maturity of the organic matters (Hunt, 1996).

Kerogen is the organic constituent of the sedimentary rocks that is insoluble

in organic solvents; kerogen is separated from inorganic materials such as minerals
by Hydrochloric (HCL) and Hydrofluoric (HF) acids. The main groups of organic
matter are "Sapropelic" and "Humic" Groups (Table 3.1).

Sapropelic organic matter refers to Kerogen Types (I and II). This type has high
H/C ratio, will generate oil and associated gas upon maturation. Algal, herbaceous,
and much amorphous are considered major contributors of this group (Hunt, 1996).
The Humic Organic matter refers to Kerogen Types (III and IV). This type of
Kerogen has low atomic H/C ratio and high atomic O/C ratio; therefore it usually
generates gas and possibly some oil or condensate upon maturation. Plant tissues are
major contributor to this group of organic matter (Tissot and Welte, 1984).

27
 Table 3.1 : Kerogen Types and Hydrocarbons produced upon Thermal Maturation,
based on summary works of (Tyson, 1987 ; Merrill, 1991).

General Hydrocarbons
Kerogen Petrographic Coal Maceral
Kerogen Generated
Type Form Group
Type
Algal
I
Sapropelic Exinite
(Oil-Prone) Amorphous or Oil, Gas
high H/C Liptinite
II
Herbaceous

Vitrinite Gas,
III woody or possibly
Humic Huminite minor Oil
(Gas-Prone)
high O/C Coaly
IV Inertinite None
(Inertinite)

3.3 Rock-Eval Pyrolysis

The Rock-Eval Pyrolysis is the simplest and fastest method used for
evaluation of hydrocarbon potential of source rocks (Espitalie et al., 1985).
Pyrolysis provides data on maturity, type of source rocks, and estimates the quantity
of hydrocarbon generated from a specific source rock. Pyrolysis is a laboratory
simulation of hydrocarbon generation that occurred in a sedimentary rock (Kamali
et al., 2006).

The selected samples were analyzed using (Rock-Eval 6) instrument.

Pyrolysis was performed on small quantity (100 mg) of crushed whole rock sample
which was heated to 550°C under an inert environment. To measure the yield, three
groups of compounds (S1, S2, S3, and Tmax), measured as three peaks on a
program.

28
 During the analysis, the hydrocarbons already present in the sample are
volatilized at moderate temperature (300°C). The amount of hydrocarbons is
measured and recorded as a peak S1. While the amount of hydrocarbon obtained by
heating of Kerogen present in the sample to a temperature between (300-550°C)
generates hydrocarbon compounds (recorded as the S2 peak). The CO2 generation is
recorded as the S3 peak. Residual carbon is also measured and recorded as S4; the
maximum temperature of peak hydrocarbon release (S2) during Pyrolysis (Tmax) is
also obtained which are useful for deduction the organic matter thermal maturity
(Espitalie et al., 1977).

These compounds are combined with TOC values to calculate the Hydrogen
Index (HI ), Oxygen Index (OI), Production Index (PI), and Genetic Potential (GP)

In this study, 15 samples were selected for Rock-Eval Pyrolysis from shale
and organic-rich limestone intervals depending on mud logging, gamma ray log, and
color of sample to reduce possible contamination. Table (3.2) shows Rock-Eval
Pyrolysis Data of treated samples of formations from the three studied wells.

29
 Table 3.2 : Rock-Eval Pyrolysis Data of Liassic Formations from the three studied wells.

Depth Sample TOC S1 S2 S3 Tmax S1/TOC

Well Name Formation HI OI PI GP S2/S3
(m) Type wt.% mg/g mg/g mg/g (°C) *100

AT-1 Alan 1245 1250 Cuttings 6.24 0.15 41.3 0.99 432 662 16 0 41 42 2
AT-1 Mus 1295 1300 Cuttings 2.29 0.1 12.7 0.52 426 553 23 0.01 13 24 4
AT-1 Butmah 1505 1510 Cuttings 0.85 0.6 6.24 0.15 416 734 18 0.09 7 42 71
AT-1 Butmah 1550 1555 Cuttings 3.21 0.51 23.7 0.3 429 738 9 0.02 24 79 16
AT-1 Butmah 1912 1915 Cuttings 0.59 0.1 1.69 0.89 421 286 151 0.06 2 2 17
AT-1 Butmah 1922 1925 Cuttings 0.61 0.1 2.26 0.22 433 370 36 0.04 2 10 16
SH-1B Alan 1596 1597 Cuttings 1.76 0.6 10.9 0.67 426 620 38 0.05 12 16 34
SH-1B Mus 1602 1603 Cuttings 1.8 0.61 10.3 1.04 427 571 58 0.06 11 10 34
SH-1B Adaiyah 1715 1716 Cuttings 1.29 0.28 5.93 1.33 427 460 103 0.05 6 4 22
SH-1B Butmah 2142 2143 Cuttings 0.82 0.11 0.75 2.38 416 91 290 0.13 1 0 13
SH-1B Butmah 2205 2206 Cuttings 0.75 0.06 0.58 1.54 422 77 205 0.09 1 0 8
SH-1B Butmah 2250 2251 Cuttings 0.92 0.09 0.82 1.37 417 89 149 0.1 1 1 10
Mangesh-1 Adaiyah 2864 2867 Cuttings 2.14 3.19 8.98 0.85 318 420 40 0.26 12 11 149
Mangesh-1 Butmah 3046 3051 Cuttings 1.23 0.51 3.71 1.11 421 302 90 0.12 4 3 41
Mangesh-1 Butmah 3129 3132 Cuttings 0.44 0.13 0.51 0.36 427 116 82 0.21 1 1 30

30
3.4 Total Organic Carbon (TOC)

Total Organic Carbon (TOC) is defined as the quantity of organic matter in a

rock sample and includes both kerogen and bitumen (Peters and Cassa, 1994). TOC
in sediments is derived from organic debris from living and dead organisms
incorporated into fine-grained sediments during deposition. The organic debris is
preserved in sediments when rapidly buried with the absence of Oxygen. The
quantity of TOC in rocks is closely related to sediment particle size; it is well
preserved in fine-grained rocks compared to coarse grained rocks. Therefore,
sandstones and skeletal limestone have very low TOC because the organic matter
has been destroyed by oxidation, high rate TOC in sediments is due to preservation
and transport of organic matter, not organic productivity (Hunt, 1996).

Hunt (1979) mentioned that the lower limits of TOC required to generate
hydrocarbon are 0.50 weight percent. Peters (1986) mentioned the (TOC %) values
between 0.5 and 1.0% indicate a fair source-rock generative potential, (TOC %)
values varying from 1.0 to 2.0% reflect a good generative potential, while values
greater than 2.0% refer to a very good generative potential (Table 3.3).

TOC can be determined in several ways, one of them is Rock-Eval Pyrolysis.

TOC is used as fundamental (or quantitative) parameter with the kerogen type and
maturation to classified source rocks (Miles, 1994).

31
 Table 3.3 : Indication of Source-rock Potential based on Total Organic Carbon (TOC %) ,
Values after Peters (1986).
TOC TOC Indication to
(wt. %) Quality Source Rock
0.0-0.5 Poor Negligible source capacity
0.5-1.0 Fair Possibility of slight source capacity
1.0-2.0 Good Possibility of moderate source capacity
> 2.0 V. good Possibility of good - excellent source

In the current study, fifteen rock samples were analyzed to determine their
TOC wt. percent, in order to quantitatively evaluate the Alan, Mus, Adaiyah, and
Butmah Formations in the three wells.

Based on TOC % values, Alan Formation is considered as an excellent

source rock in well AT-1, and good source rock in well SH-1B. Mus Formation,
would be regarded very good source rock in well AT-1, and good source rock in
well SH-1B. The Adaiyah Formation is considered a good source rock in well SH-
1B at the interval (1715-1716 m) due to shale richness in this interval, but in general
it is not considered as source rock because of the lithology of formation which is
commonly anhydrite. In well Mangesh-1, Adaiyah Formation is considered very
good source rock. Butmah Formation is considered fair source rock in well AT-1
(due to low value of TOC), but at the interval (1550-1555 m) it is regarded as very
good source rock. In the well SH-1B, Butmah Formation is regarded as a fair
source rock, while in well Mangesh-1, it is considered good to poor source rock.
The Tables (3.4, 3.5, and 3.6) show the values of TOC % and their evaluation for
formations of three wells based on the assumption of Peters (1986).

32
Table 3.4 : The values of TOC % and their evaluation for formations in well AT-1,
based on the assumption of Peters (1986).
Depth TOC Source rock
Formation
(m.) wt.% Evaluation
Alan 1245-1250 6.24 Excellent
Mus 1295-1300 2.29 V. good
1505-1510 0.85 Fair
1550-1555 3,21 V. good
Butmah
1912-1915 0.59 Fair
1922-1925 0.61 Fair

Table 3.5 : The values of TOC % and their evaluation for formations in well SH-1B,
based on the assumption of Peters (1986).
Depth TOC Source Rock
Formation
(m.) wt.% Evaluation
Alan 1596-1597 1.76 Good
Mus 1602-1603 1.8 Good
Adaiyah 1715-1716 1.29 Good
2142-2143 0.82 Fair
Butmah 2205-2206 0.75 Fair
2250-2251 0.92 Fair

Table 3.6 : The values of TOC % and their evaluation for formations in well Mangesh-1,
based on the assumption of Peters (1986).

Depth TOC Source Rock

Formation
(m.) wt.% Evaluation
Adaiyah 2864-2867 2.14 V. good
3046-3051 1.23 Good
Butmah
3129-3132 0.44 Poor

33
3.5 Rocks-Eval Parameters

In Rock-Eval Pyrolysis, samples are heated in an inert environment to

measure the yield, three groups of compounds as three peaks on a program, these
are S1, S2, S3, and Tmax:

S1

The amount of free hydrocarbons (gas and oil) present in the sample (mg HC/g of
rock), which are volatilized out of the rock at moderate temperature without
cracking the kerogen. The S1 peak is measured during the first stage of Pyrolysis at
temperature of 300 ºC (Tissot and Welte, 1984).

S2

The amount of hydrocarbons generated through thermal cracking of kerogen

present in the sample (mg HC/g of rock). These hydrocarbons are released within
temperature range of 300-550 °C (Vandenbroucke, 2003). S2 is an indication of the
quantity of hydrocarbons the rock may potentially produce when burial and
maturation continue.

S3

The amount of CO2 released during pyrolysis of kerogen present in the sample (mg
CO2 /g of rock) at a temperature about 390 °C. S3 is an indication of the amount of
oxygen in the kerogen and is used to calculate the Oxygen Index (Tissot and Welte,
1984).

Tmax

Tmax (oC) is the highest temperature at which the S2 (mg HC/g rock) peak reaches
its maximum amount of hydrocarbon generation during pyrolysis (Tissot and Welte,
1984).

34
3.5.1 Hydrogen and Oxygen Indices (HI and OI)

The Hydrogen Index (HI) represent the quantity of pyrolysable organic

compounds from S2 relative to TOC in the sample (mg HC/g TOC). The high HI
value is proportional to the hydrogen amount that contained in the kerogen which
indicates greater potential to generate oil. The S2 peak of a Rock-Eval analysis can
help to determine the total amount of hydrogen present in a sample which is useful
to know the type of kerogen and approximate level of maturation, HI can be
calculated according to the following formula :

HI = S2/TOC × 100 (mg HC/g TOC)

The Oxygen Index (OI) corresponds to the quantity of carbon dioxide from
S3 relative to TOC in the sample (Nunez-Betelu and Baceta, 1994). The S3 peak of
Rock-Eval analysis is useful to determine the total oxygen present in a sample.
Usually, the Oxygen Index is not accurate due to the combination of oxygen that
was released from organic matter with that from carbonate or that from the
oxidation of kerogen. The OI (mg CO2/g TOC) is useful to identify the type of
kerogen and approximate level of maturation when conjunction with HI (Ghori,
1998). OI can be calculated according to the following formula:

OI = S3/TOC × 100 (mg CO2/g TOC)

By plotting these two Rock-Eval parameters, Hydrogen Index (HI) versus

Oxygen Index (OI) on a modified Van Krevelen Diagram, we would be able to
determine type of kerogen present in the source rock and origin of organic matter, as
different types of OM have different hydrocarbon potentials (Tissot and Welte, 1978
and 1984).

35
 Type (I and II) source rocks generally contain Hydrogen Index values (greater
than 400 mg HC/g TOC) relative to the Oxygen Index (less than 50 mg CO2/g
TOC), and it is able to generate oil. While Type III source rocks commonly display
a wide range of Oxygen Index (5-100 mg CO2/g TOC) with a low Hydrogen Index
(less than 200 mg HC/g TOC), and it is able to generate gas. Type IV kerogen
commonly has HI values (less than 50 mg HC/g TOC) (Tissot and Welte, 1984;
Peters and Cassa, 1994).

The values of (HI) versus (OI) of the studied samples were plotted on the
modified Van Krevelen diagram (Figure 3.1). It is observed that organic matter for
samples Alan Formation represents Type I kerogen in well AT-1 and well SH-1B.
Samples belonging to Mus Formation represent Type I kerogen in well AT-1 and
Type II kerogen in well SH-1B.

While, Adaiyah Formation shows Type II kerogen in wells SH-1B and

Mangesh-1. The same diagram (Figure 3.1) displays that Butmah Formation
contains mixed kerogen Type (I&II) in well AT-1, kerogen Type IV in well SH-1B,
and mixed kerogen Type (II&III) in well Mangesh-1.

36
 1000
Legend

900 l

TYPE I

800

700

II
HYDROGEN INDEX (HI, mg HC/g TOC)

600
TYPE II

500

400

300

200
III
TYPE III

100
IV
TYPE IV

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300

OXYGEN INDEX (OI, mg CO2/g TOC)

Figure 3.1 : HI vs. OI plot, showing Types of Kerogen in

the studied formations at the three wells.

3.5.2 TOC versus S2

The determination of kerogen quality is supported by TOC versus S2 plot

(Figures 3.2a and 3.2b). The formations are consistent with the previous graphs
conclusions, except for Alan Formation in wells AT-1 and SH-1B, which tends to be
Type II kerogen instead of Type I kerogen, and Mus Formation shows Type II
kerogen instead of Type I kerogen in well AT-1.

37
Figure 3.2a : S2 vs. TOC plot, showing Kerogen Types.

Figure 3.2b: S2 vs. TOC plot, showing Kerogen Types.

38
3.5.3 HI versus Tmax

The plot of Hydrogen Index (HI) versus Tmax is commonly used to determine
kerogen type to avoid an influence of OI (Hunt, 1996). HI is defined as the amount
of hydrogen that kerogen contains and the amount of energy necessary to produce
hydrocarbons from that type of kerogen in the laboratory over a short period of time
(Gorin and Feist-Bukhart, 1990). The types of OM of the samples are also consistent
with the previous graph (HI vs. OI diagram), except for the sample taken from Alan
Formation shows Type II kerogen instead of Type I kerogen in well SH-1B.
Similarly, the sample of Mus Formation in well AT-1, which tends to be Type II
kerogen instead of Type I kerogen (Figure 3.3).

This graph also gives an approximate idea about maturation level, despite the
different indicated by kerogen types, all samples of this study are noticed to be
located in Immature Zone due to value of Tmax is less than (435oC) as dispalyed in
Figure (3.3).

39
 Figure 3.3 : HI vs. Tmax plot, showing Types of Kerogen and Level of Maturity.

3.5.4 Production Index (PI)

Production Index (PI) can be expressed as [PI = S1/(S1+S2)], which represent

the ratio of already generated hydrocarbon to the amount of whole hydrocarbons
that can be obtained from kerogen (Tissot and Welte, 1984). By using Production
Index (PI), we can measure the thermal maturity of a source rock. Low ratios
indicate either immature or extreme post mature organic matter. While high ratios
indicate a mature stage or contamination by migrated hydrocarbons or drilling
40
additives. The PI gradually increases with depth and associated hydrocarbon
generation. Anomalously high values of PI can also be used to identify petroleum
accumulations or stained carrier beds.

Production Index (PI) versus Tmax plot shows, the analyzed samples from
Alan, Mus, Adaiyah, and Butmah Formations in three well are located in immature
zone. This mean that organic matter present in these formations of three wells are
not converted into hydrocarbons (Figure 3.4).

Figure 3.4 : PI vs. Tmax plot, showing Kerogen Maturity

41
3.5.5 Genetic Potential (GP)

A Genetic Potential is a summation of the values (S1) and (S2). This

parameter can be mathematically expressed as (S1+S2) measured in mg/g of
rock (Tissot and Welte, 1984). Genetic Potential cannot be used to predict the
type of hydrocarbons (gaseous or liquid) that is produced during pyrolysis; it
is used to predict the quantity of hydrocarbons, which means a quantitative
evaluation of source rock (Tissot and Welte, 1978).

Genetic Potential values and their comparable source rock evaluations

are shown in Table (3.7).

Genetic Potential of organic matter in the Alan and Mus Formations in

the wells AT-1 and SH-1B are considered as good source potential, the
Genetic Potential value of Adaiyah Formation is moderate in well SH-1B, and
good in well AT-1. For Butmah Formation, the Genetic Potential value of
organic matter is good to moderate in well AT-1, poor in well SH-1B, and
poor to moderate in well Mangesh-1.

Table 3.7: Genetic Potential (GP) values and their comparable source rock quality
according to Tissot and Welte (1984).

Source Potential Genetic Potential (GP)

Poor <2 mg/g
Moderate 2–6 mg/g
Good >6 mg/g

42
3.6 Thermal Maturation

Thermal maturation describes the influence of heat and time during the
burial of organic matter in sediment, which provides an indication of source
rock maturity.

The thermal processes that converts kerogen (Organic Matter) into

petroleum have three maturation phases: (1) Immature organic matter, which
is not affected by temperature and may be affected by biological diagenesis
processes (2) Mature, which is within an Oil Window and converted to
petroleum and (3) Post Mature, which is within the Gas Window (Peters and
Cassa, 1994).

Thermal maturation is based on calculated parameters from Rock-Eval

Pyrolysis. The commonly used parameters include Tmax range, PI, and HI
value (Tissot and Welte, 1984; Peters, 1986; Hunt, 1996). The Tmax is the
temperature at which the S2 (mg HC/g rock) reaches its maximum amount
during Rock-Eval Pyrolysis. Tmax range indirectly gives the state of
maturation, when Tmax value is less than (435oC), it indicates immature
organic matter, while Tmax values between (435oC and 455oC) indicate Oil
Window conditions (mature organic matter). Tmax values between (455oC
and 470oC) represent the wet-gas zone and indicate over mature organic
matter (Peters, 1986). The Tmax range of the studied formations in the three
wells is considered immature source rocks, as the value of Tmax is less than
(435oC).

43
 Plotting the parameter HI versus Tmax, and PI versus Tmax indicated
the maturation level for the analyzed samples (Figures 3.3 and 3.4).

The plot of HI versus Tmax, the formations in the three wells are located
within the Immature Zone. Accordingly, these formations would be
considered immature source rocks (Figure 3.3).

Additionally, the relation between PI and Tmax also provides

information about maturity state of organic matter of the investigated section.
Based on that plot, the formations in all three wells are located within the
Immature Zone (Figure 3.4).

It is concluded that source rocks within the studied stratal interval have
been affected by diagenesis, without sufficient effect of temperature, because
the selected intervals in wells AT-1, SH-1, and Mangesh-1 were not buried
deep enough to reach the oil window.

Since the study area is away from the subduction zone ( between
Arabian and Iranian plates), this would probably lower the geothermal
gradient in the area, leading to decrease in thermal maturity.

Summary of the main results obtained from pyrolysis parameters for

evaluation of source rock of the four studied formations in the three wells are
shown in Table (3.8).

44
 Table 3.8 : Results obtained from Rock-Eval Pyrolysis

TOC Tmax Kerogen Source Rock

Well Name Formation Depth HI Quantity
wt.% (°C) Type Potential
Excellent
AT-1 Alan 1245-1250 6.24 432 662 Excellent Type I
(oil prone)
Very good
AT-1 Mus 1295-1300 2.29 426 553 V.Good Type I
(oil prone)
Fair
AT-1 1505-1510 0.85 416 734 Fair
(oil prone)
Type I
Very good
AT-1 1550-1555 3.21 429 738 V. Good
Butmah (oil prone)
Type II-
AT-1 1912-1915 0.59 421 286 Fair
Fair III
(oil+gas prone)
AT-1 1922-1925 0.61 433 370 Type II
Good
SH-1B Alan 1596-1597 1.76 426 620 Good Type I
(oil prone)
Good
SH-1B Mus 1602-1603 1.8 427 571 Good Type II
(oil+gas prone)
Good
SH-1B Adaiyah 1715-1716 1.29 427 460 Good Type II
(oil+gas prone)
SH-1B 2142-2143 0.82 416 91
SH-1B Butmah 2205-2206 0.75 422 77 Fair Type IV None
SH-1B 2250-2251 0.92 417 89
Very good
Mangesh-1 Adaiyah 2864-2867 2.14 318 420 V. Good Type II
(oil+gas prone)
Type II- Good
Mangesh-1 3046-3051 1.23 421 302 Good
III (oil+gas prone)
Butmah
Poor
Mangesh-1 3129-3132 0.44 427 116 Poor Type III
(gas prone)

45
CHAPTER
FOUR
Reservoir Properties
using Well Logs
CHAPTER FOUR RESERVOIR PROPERTIES USING WELL LOGS

CHAPTER-IV
Reservoir Properties using Well Logs

4.1 Preface

A petroleum reservoir is a subsurface rock/strata containing gas, oil,

and water in different proportions; these fluids are contained in the pore
spaces of rock formations, among the grains of sandstones or in cavities of
carbonates, the pore spaces are interconnected so the fluids can move through
the reservoir (Baker Hughes INTEQ, 1999). These porous formations have to
be sealed in such a way to prevent the escape of fluids, unless through a
wellbore (Baker Hughes INTEQ, 1999). Therefore, reservoirs are porous and
permeable rock bodies that contain commercial amounts of hydrocarbons.

The main goal of petroleum geologist is to determine the fundamental

properties of reservoir rocks (Reservoir Characterization), such as porosity,
permeability, fluid saturation, lithology, volume of shale, extensions and
thickness of the producing zones.

Well logs are graphs of depth in a well versus some characteristics or

properties of the rock. The rock properties are derived from measurements
made when instruments are lowered into the well on an electrical wireline or
cable. Most measurements are actually recorded as the instruments are raised
to the surface from the bottom depth in the well. This is the reason why well
Iogs are so important. Once a well is drilled, the only economical means of
finding out what is down there is with a well log. The only other means is to
drill out a core of the rock (Etnyre, 1989).

46
 The logging tool responds to the electrical, sonic, and radioactive
properties of the surrounding rocks and fluids. The primary information can
be determined from log data is porosity, volume of shale, lithology, and water
saturation.

In this study, well logs are used to determine the properties of reservoir
rock, as well logs are one of the most useful tools available to petroleum
geologist to determine these properties. The log data (in LAS format) of all
the three wells were loaded into Interactive Petrophysics Software IP (3.5V)
then used to carry out the determination of lithology, volume of shale,
porosity, and water saturation.

4.2 The Environment Correction of Well Logs

The borehole and the surrounding rocks are usually contaminated by

the drilling mud, which affects logging measurements. The zone inwhich
much of the original fluid is replaced by mud filtrate is called the Invaded
Zone (Figure 4.1). It consists of a Flushed Zone (Rxo) and a Transition or
Annulus Zone ( Ri), the depth of mud filtrate invasion into the Invaded Zone
is referred to as diameter of invasion (di) and measured in inches (Asquith and
Gibson, 1982).

The Uninvaded Zone is defined as the area beyond the Invaded Zone
where fluids of formation are uncontaminated by mud filtrate; instead, they
are saturated with formation water (Rw), oil, or gas (Asquith and Gibson,
1982) (Figure 4.1).

47
 dh = hole diameter
di = diameter of invaded
zone (inner boundary
of flushed zone)
dj = diameter of invaded
zone (outer boundary
of invaded zone)
∆rj = radius of invaded zone
(outer boundary)
Hmc = thickness of mud cake
Rm = resistivity of the
drilling mud
Rmc = resistivity of the mud
cake
Rmf = resistivity of mud
filtrate
Rs = resistivity of the
overlying bed
Rt = resistivity of uninvaded
zone
Rw = resistivity of formation
water
Rxo = resistivity of flushed
zone
Sw = water saturation of
uninvaded zone
Sxo= water saturation flushed
zone

Figure 4.1 : A graphical representation for the borehole ( after Schlumberger, 1998;
in Asquith and Krygowski, 2004).

The adjustments for logs of wells should bring log measurements back to the
standard conditions for which the tool has been characterized. Furthermore,
different measurements require different corrections. For example:

1- The Resistivity Log requires correction for borehole effect, bed thickness
effect, invasion effect, and may also be corrected for apparent dip,
anisotropy and surrounding beds in horizontal wells (Thomas, 2011).

48
2- The Neutron log needs corrections for borehole size, formation
temperature, formation pressure, mud salinity and barite content in mud
(Bassiouni,1994).
3- Density measurements require correction only for borehole size.

Not all corrections are significant in all cases. Corrections can be

calculated manually, using charts, or applied through softwares.

An Interactive Petrophysics Program V3.5 was used to carry out the

environmental corrections (hole-size, mud cake and invasion effects) that
conform to the Schlumberger requirements for the application of required
equations.

Figures (4.2), (4.4), and (4.6) show environmental corrections for Resistivity
Logs in wells AT-1, SH-1B, and Mangesh-1 respectively. It is found that the
differences between the original log readings and the corrected logs of three
resistivity logs (Deep, Shallow, and Micro-Spherical Focused logs) are
negligible. While Figures (4.3), (4.5), and (4.7) show environmental
corrections for gamma ray, neutron, and density logs. The corrected
recordings of these logs coincide with original logs, this mean the difference
between the original and the corrected logs are negligible too.

49
Sca le : 1 : 1000 AT-1
DB : IP (6) DEPTH (1245.M - 2160.5M) 06/02/2017 17:36

1 2 3 4 5 6

DEPTH Clay V olume CA LI (in) RLLD (OHMM) RLLS (OHMM) MSFR (OHMM)
(M) 8. 20. 0.2 2000. 0.2 2000. 0.2 2000.
Fn. 0.2
LLDC (OHMM)
2000. 0.2
LLSC (OHMM)
2000. 0.2
MSFLC (OHMM)
2000.

1250

A lan

1300

Mus

1350

1400

A daiy ah

1450

1500

1550

1600

1650

1700

1750

1800

Butmah

1850

1900

1950

2000

2050

2100

2150

1 2 3 4 5 6

DEPTH Clay V olume CA LI (in) RLLD (OHMM) RLLS (OHMM) MSFR (OHMM)
(M) 8. 20. 0.2 2000. 0.2 2000. 0.2 2000.

Figure 4.2 : Resistivity Logs Corrections for well AT-1.

0.2
LLDC (OHMM)
2000. 0.2
LLSC (OHMM)
2000. 0.2
MSFLC (OHMM)
2000.

50
Scale : 1 : 1000 AT-1
DB : IP (6) DEPTH (1245.M - 2160.5M) 04/02/2017 21:34

1 2 3 4 5 6
DEPTH Clay Volume CALI (in) GRS (API) NLBC (dec) RHOB (G/CC)
10. 20. 0. 100. 0.45 -0.15 1.95 2.95
(M)
Fn. 0.
GrC (API)
100. 0.45
NPHIC (dec)
-0.15 1.95
RHOC (G/CC)
2.95

1250

Alan

1300

Mus

1350

1400

Adaiyah

1450

1500

1550

1600

1650

1700

1750

1800

Butmah

1850

1900

1950

2000

2050

2100

2150

1 2 3 4 5 6

DEPTH Clay Volume CALI (in) GRS (API) NLBC (dec) RHOB (G/CC)
(M) 10. 20. 0. 100. 0.45 -0.15 1.95 2.95
GrC (API) NPHIC (dec) RHOC (G/CC)
0. 100. 0.45 -0.15 1.95 2.95

Figure 4.3: GR, Neutron, and Density Logs Corrections for well AT-1.

51
Sca le : 1 : 1000 SH-1b
DB : IP (9) DEPTH (1494.6M - 2301.56M) 06/02/2017 17:37

1 2 3 4 5 6

DEPTH Clay V olume CA LI (in) RDEP (ohmm) RMED (ohmm) RMIC (ohmm)
(M)
Fn. Fn. 8. 20. 0.2

0.2
LLDC (ohmm)
2000.

2000.
0.2

0.2
LLSC (ohmm)
2000.

2000.
0.2

0.2
MSFLC (ohmm)
2000.

2000.

1500

1550 A lan

1600

Mus

1650

1700

A daiyah

1750

1800

1850

1900

1950

2000

Butmah

2050

2100

2150

2200

2250

2300
1 2 3 4 5 6

DEPTH Clay V olume CA LI (in) RDEP (ohmm) RMED (ohmm) RMIC (ohmm)
(M) 8. 20. 0.2 2000. 0.2 2000. 0.2 2000.
LLDC (ohmm) LLSC (ohmm) MSFLC (ohmm)
0.2 2000. 0.2 2000. 0.2 2000.

Figure 4.4 : Resistivity Logs Corrections for well SH-1B.

52
Scale : 1 : 1000 SH-1b
DB : IP (9) DEPTH (1494.6M - 2301.56M) 04/02/2017 23:00

1 2 3 4 5 6

DEPTH Clay Volume CALI (in) GR (gapi) NEUT (dec) DENS (g/c3)
(M) 10. 20. 0. 100. 0.45 -0.15 1.95 2.95
Fn. 0.
GrC (gapi)
100. 0.45
NPHIC (dec)
-0.15 1.95
RHOC (g/c3)
2.95

1500

1550 Alan

1600

Mus

1650

1700

Adaiyah

1750

1800

1850

1900

1950

2000

Butmah

2050

2100

2150

2200

2250

2300
1 2 3 4 5 6

DEPTH Clay Volume CALI (in) GR (gapi) NEUT (dec) DENS (g/c3)
(M) 10. 20. 0. 100. 0.45 -0.15 1.95 2.95

Figure 4.5 : GR, Neutron, and Density Logs Corrections for well SH-1B.
0.
GrC (gapi)
100. 0.45
NPHIC (dec)
-0.15 1.95
RHOC (g/c3)
2.95

53
Scale : 1 : 1000 Mangesh
DB : IP (1) DEPTH (2647.M - 3296.M) 06/02/2017 17:59

1 2 3 4 5 6
DEPTH Clay Volume CALI (in) RD (ohm.m) RS (ohm.m) RM (ohm.m)
(M) 8. 20. 0.2 2000. 0.2 2000. 0.2 2000.
Fn. 0.2
LLDC (ohm.m)
2000. 0.2
LLSC (ohm.m)
2000. 0.2
MSFLC (ohm.m)
2000.
2650

Alan
2700

2750

Mus

2800

2850

2900
Adaiyah

2950

3000

3050

3100

Butmah

3150

3200

3250

1 2 3 4 5 6

DEPTH Clay Volume CALI (in) RD (ohm.m) RS (ohm.m) RM (ohm.m)

(M) 8. 20. 0.2 2000. 0.2 2000. 0.2 2000.

Figure 4.6 : Resistivity Logs Corrections for well Mangesh-1.

0.2
LLDC (ohm.m)
2000. 0.2
LLSC (ohm.m)
2000. 0.2
MSFLC (ohm.m)
2000.

54
Scale : 1 : 1000 Mangesh
DB : IP (1) DEPTH (2647.M - 3296.M) 04/02/2017 23:30

1 2 3 4 5 6

DEPTH Clay Volume CALI (in) GR (gAPI) NPHI (m3/m3) RHOB (g/cm3)
(M) 8. 20. 0. 100. 0.45 -0.15 1.95 2.95
Fn. GrC (gAPI) NPHIC (dec) RHOC (g/cm3)
0. 100. 0.45 -0.15 1.95 2.95
2650

Alan
2700

2750

Mus

2800

2850

2900
Adaiyah

2950

3000

3050

3100

Butmah

3150

3200

3250

1 2 3 4 5 6

DEPTH Clay Volume CALI (in) GR (gAPI) NPHI (m3/m3) RHOB (g/cm3)
8. 20. 0. 100. 0.45 -0.15 1.95 2.95
(M)
Figure 4.7 : GR, Neutron, and Density Logs Corrections for well Mangesh-1.
0.
GrC (gAPI)
100. 0.45
NPHIC (dec)
-0.15 1.95
RHOC (g/cm3)
2.95

55
4.3 Principles of used Well Logs

Prior to exposing the applications of different well logs, a brief review

of the principles for each used type is presented below.

4.3.1 Resistivity Logs

The Resistivity Log is a measurement of a formation resistance to an

electric current. The measurement is done by resistivity tools (Rider, 2002).

The rock are matrix and grains, considered good electrical insulators
so the ability to transmit the electric current depends on the fluid in pores and
saturation ratios of such materials, whether water or hydrocarbon. When
porosity of rock is filled with hydrocarbons, the rock will obtain resistivity
because hydrocarbons are considered non-conductive to electric current,
while when pores of the rock contain water, in this cause resistivity depends
on the degree of the water salinity. In fresh water, the resistivity will be high,
while when water is saline, the resistivity is low.

Accordingly, it is possible to distinguish between areas containing

hydrocarbons and those containing water.

The resistivity of formation can be measured by either induction or

electrode (Laterolog, Normal, Lateral, spherically focused logs, Microlog,
Microlaterlog, and proximity). These logs are different according to principle
of function, as they record resistivity of a layer where it is recorded in units
ohm/m on a logarithmic scale. The measured resistivity types are (Figure 4.1):

Deep Laterolog (LLD) resistivity: measures the deep resistivity of the

formation, or true resistivity (Rt), investigates about 10 ft. into formations.

56
Shallow Laterolog (LLS) resistivity: measures the shallow resistivity of the
formation or resistivity of the invaded zone, investigates 3 to 6 ft. into the
formations.

Micro-Spherical Focused Log (MSFL) resistivity: measures the resistivity of

the flushed zone (Asquith and Gibson, 1982).

4.3.2 Porosity Logs

Porosity is calculated from the following types of logs:

4.3.2.1 Neutron Log

Neutron Logs are porosity logs that measure the hydrogen ion
concentration in a formation. In clean formations (i.e. shale-free), where the
pores is filled with water or oil, the Neutron log measures liquid-filled
porosity (Asquith and Gibson, 1982).

Neutrons are created from a chemical source in the neutron logging

tool. The chemical source will continuously emit neutrons collide with the
nuclei of the formation material, and result in a neutron losing some of its
energy, because the hydrogen atom is almost equal in mass to the neutron,
maximum energy loss occurs when a neutron collides with a hydrogen atom.
Therefore, the maximum amount of energy loss is a function of a formation is
hydrogen concentration. Because hydrogen in porous formation is
concentrated in the fluid-filled pores, energy loss can be related to the
formation is porosity. Whenever pores are filled with gas rather than oil or
water, neutron porosity will be lowered; this occurs because there is less
concentration of hydrogen in gas compared to oil or water. The lowering of
neutron porosity by gas is called Gas Effect (Asquith and Gibson, 1982).

57
The neutrons slow down by successive collisions, until they are captured by
the nuclei of atoms such as chlorine, hydrogen, or silicon. The capturing
nucleus becomes intensely excited and emits a high-energy gamma ray of
capture (Schlumberger, 1989), a gamma ray (called a gamma ray of capture)
is emitted to dissipate excess energy within the atom.

Depending on the type of neutron tool, either these capture gamma rays
or the neutrons themselves are counted by a detector in the sonde. When the
hydrogen concentration of the material surrounding the neutron source is
large, most of the neutrons are slowed and captured within a short distance of
the source. On the contrary, if the hydrogen concentration is small, the
neutrons travel farther from the source before being captured. Accordingly,
the counting rate at the detector increases for decreased hydrogen
concentration and vice versa (Schlumberger, 1989). The more porous a rock,
the slower neutrons and gamma rays are emitted and counted.

4.3.2.2 Density Log

The Formation Density Log is a porosity log that measures the electron
density of the formation, the density logging tool consists of a radioactive
source (cobalt-60 or cesium 137) that emits gamma rays into the formation
and one or more gamma ray detectors, located at fixed distance from the
source, those gamma rays emitted by the source collide with electrons in the
formation, resulting in a loss of energy. Some of the gamma rays are lost to
the formation, while those that reach the detector are counted (Baker Hughes
INTEQ, 1999). When gamma ray collides with the dense formation, it loses
much of its energy compared with low-density formations in which less
energy is lost.

58
 The Density Log is used to determine porosity, the more porous a rock,
the more the gamma rays are able to return back to the detector.

The amount of electron is being related to formation density. This

density is then related to the bulk density (𝜌b) of the formation in gm/cc. A
density derived porosity curve is sometimes present with bulk density.

Table (4.1) shows the matrix densities of common lithologies. Density

porosity can be derived from bulk density using the following equation:

(𝜌𝑚𝑎 −𝜌𝑏 )
𝜑𝐷 = ………………………………..4.1
(𝜌𝑚𝑎 −𝜌𝑓 )

Where:

φD : Density-derived Porosity

𝜌ma : Matrix Density (from tables)

𝜌b : Bulk Density (read from the log)

𝜌f : Density of fluid {for fresh water mud = 1 gm/cc, for salt

water mud = 1.1 gm/cc}.

Table 4.1 : Matrix densities (𝜌ma) of common lithologies.

Matrix Density
Lithology
𝜌ma (gm/cc)*
Sandstone 2.648
Limestone 2.710
Dolomite 2.876
Anhydrite 2.977
Salt 2.032

* Constants presented here are used in Density Porosity formula (Schlumberger, 1972).

59
4.3.2.3 Sonic Log

Sonic Log measures the sound velocity through each rock layer in the
well, the logging tool has a sound transmitter at the top of the tool and two
sound receivers spaced along the tool. The time it takes the sound to travel
from one receiver through the rocks to the other receiver is recorded in units
of microseconds per foot, this velocity is called Interval Transit Time or Δt of
the rock (Hyne, 2001).

The porosity of the rock can be calculated from the Interval Transit
Time of the rock. Sonic Porosity is derived by Wyllie time-average equation:
∆𝑡𝑙𝑜𝑔 −∆𝑡𝑚𝑎
𝜑𝑆 = ………………………..……….. 4.2
∆𝑡𝑓 −∆𝑡𝑚𝑎

Where:
φS: Sonic- derived Porosity
∆tlog: The Interval Transit Time in the formation (from the log) .

∆tma: The Interval Transit Time in the matrix (from Table).

∆tf : The Interval Transit Time in the fluid within the formation
[For fresh -water mud = 189 µsec/ft.; for salt-water mud = 185µsec/ft.].

The velocity of sound through sedimentary rocks depends on the rock

matrix (lithology) and porosity, shales have the lowest sonic velocities,
sandstones have higher velocities, while limestone and dolomite have the
highest. Through the liquids the velocity of sound is slower and requires long
travel times to reach receivers or at porous a rock, which contains gas or
liquid and slower the sonic velocity will be, while at solids zone the velocity
of sound is faster and sound need short travel time to reach sonde and get
recorded by receivers. Table (4.2) shows the common ranges of transit time
through sedimentary rocks.

60
 Table 4.2: Interval Transit Time through common lithologies

Lithology ∆tma (µsec/ft)*

Sandstone 55.5
Limestone 47.5
Dolomite 43.5
Anhydrite 50
Salt 67

* Constants presented here are used in Sonic Porosity formula ( Schlumberger, 1972).

4.3.3 Gamma-Ray Log (GR)

The GR Log is a measurement of the natural radioactivity of the
formations. In sedimentary formations, the log normally reflects the shale
content of the formations. This is because the radioactive elements tend to
concentrate in clays and shales. Clean formations usually have a very low
level of radioactivity (Schlumberger, 1989).

The Gamma-Ray Log is used for identifying lithologies and provides

information for calculating the volume of shale in formation. To determine
the volume of shale (Vsh) from this log, first, the following formula is used to
calculated the Gamma Ray Index (GRI) from Schlumberger (1974):
𝐺𝑅𝑙𝑜𝑔 −𝐺𝑅𝑚𝑖𝑛
𝐺𝑅𝐼 = ………………………..4.3
𝐺𝑅𝑚𝑎𝑥 −𝐺𝑅𝑚𝑖𝑛

Then, the calculated Gamma Ray Index is used to determine the (Vsh) by
using the following equation for older rocks from Schlumberger (1974):

Vsh = 0.33(22*GRI -1) ………………………… 4.4

Where:
GRI : Gamma Ray Index .
GRlog : Gamma Ray log is reading in a zone of interest, API unit.

61
 GRmin : The minimum gamma ray is reading in clean zone, API unit.
GRmax : The maximum gamma ray is reading in shale zone, API unit.

4.4 Determination of Lithology and Mineralogy

Determination the lithology and mineralogical composition of the rock

formation is too important for the evaluation of a reservoir. Lithology often
describes the solid (matrix) portion of the rock. There are many techniques
used to estimate lithology, for this study two methods are chosen to estimate
lithology of formations, these methods are:

4.4.1 Neutron-Density Cross Plot

The neutron–density cross plot is one of the oldest techniques used for
determining the formation lithology. This method consists of plotting Neutron
Porosity (φN) versus Bulk Density (ρb) on a standard plot. The neutron log is
used to measure the amount of hydrogen in formation, which is assumed to be
related to porosity, while the density log is used to measure electron density
and from that formation bulk density. When the two logs are used together,
lithology can be determined (Asquith and Krygowski, 2004).

There are three lithology lines displayed on the cross plot; these lines
emerge for the three standard rock types: sandstone, limestone, and dolomite.

The lithology lines are marked with porosity values, the log values for a
particular interval or depth are plotted on the cross plot to create a point and
the location of the point with respect to the lithology lines is an indication of
lithology and porosity of that points. If a point falls directly on the lithology
line, the lithology of the point corresponds to the lithology of that line and the
porosity of the point corresponds to the porosity of the same line at that

62
location. If the point falls between two lines, it can be assumed to be a
mixture of the lithologies of those two lines (Krygowski, 2003).

Neutron-Density cross plot has shown that Alan Formation, in both

AT-1 and SH-1B wells, is composed of limestone, the porosity range between
(0-20 % ), while in well Mangesh-1, the lithology of that formation is mainly
dolomite, calcareous dolomite, and anhydrite, porosity range decrease to
(0-10 %).

Mus Formation is composed of limestone in wells AT-1 and SH-1B and the
porosity range (0-20 %), while in well Mangesh-1 is composed of dolomite,
calcareous dolomite, and anhydrite, porosity range between (0-10 %).

The lithology of Alan and Mus Formations is change from limestone in wells
AT-1 and SH-1B to dolomite in well Mangesh-1, this is due to the
dolomitization process that took place earlier in well Mangesh-1 compared to
wells AT-1 and SH-1B.

Adaiyah Formation is composed of anhydrite, calcareous dolomite and

dolomite, in well AT-1, the porosity range is between (0-7 %). At well SH-
1B, this formation is composed of anhydrite, limestone, and dolomite,
porosity range between (0-3 %). While in well Mangesh -1, this formation is
dominated by dolomite, calcareous dolomite, anhydrite, and limestone with
sandstone, the porosity range is between (0-10 %). Butmah Formation is
composed of dolomite, calcareous dolomite, dolomitic limestone with
limestone, anhydrite, and sandstone in all three well; the porosity range is
between (0-20 %) in wells AT-1 and Mangesh-1. While in well SH-1B, the
porosity decreased to (0- 15%).

Figures (4.8 , 4.9 , and 4.10) represent the Neutron-Density cross plot of the
four formations in wells AT-1, SH-1B, and Mangesh-1 respectively.

63
 AT-1 AT-1
PhiNeu / RHOB PhiNeu / RHOB
Active Zone : 1 Alan Active Zone : 1 Alan

1.9 1.9

40 40
40 40

2.12 2.12 40
40
30 30
30 30

30 20 30
20 2.34
2.34
20 20

RHOB
RHOB

10 10 20
20
10 2.56 10
2.56

SS 0 SS 0
10 10
LS 0 LS 0

2.78 2.78

DOL 0
DOL 0

(SWS) Density Neutron(NPHI) Overlay, Rhofluid = 1.0 (CP-1c 1989)

(SWS) Density Neutron(NPHI) Overlay, Rhofluid = 1.0 (CP-1c 1989) 3.
3. -0.05 0.08 0.21 0.34 0.47 0.6
-0.05 0.08 0.21 0.34 0.47 0.6
PhiNeu
PhiNeu 655 points plotted out of 655
430 points plotted out of 430
Zone Depths
Zone Depths
(2) Mus 1298.7M - 1380.5M
(1) Alan 1245.M - 1298.7M

AT-1
PhiNeu / RHOB
Active Zone : 1 Alan

1.9

40
40

2.12 40
30
30

20 30
2.34
20
RHOB

10 20

2.56 10

SS 0
10
LS 0

2.78

DOL 0

(SWS) Density Neutron(NPHI) Overlay, Rhofluid = 1.0 (CP-1c 1989)

3.
-0.05 0.08 0.21 0.34 0.47 0.6
PhiNeu
5607 points plotted out of 5620
Zone Depths
(4) Butmah 1458.M - 2160.4M

Figure 4.8 : Neutron-Density Cross Plot for formations in well AT-1.

64
Figure 4.9 : Neutron-Density Cross Plot for formations in well SH-1B.

65
 Mangesh Mangesh
NPHI / RHOB NPHI / RHOB
Active Zone : 1 Alan Active Zone : 1 Alan
2. 40 2. 40
40 40

40 40
30 30
2.2 30 2.2 30

20 30 30
20
20 20
2.4 2.4
RHOB

RHOB
10 10
20 20
10 10

2.6 2.6

SS 0 SS 0
10 10
LS 0 LS 0

2.8 2.8

DOL 0 DOL 0

(SWS) Density Neutron(NPHI) Overlay, Rhofluid = 1.0 (CP-1c 1989) (SWS) Density Neutron(NPHI) Overlay, Rhofluid = 1.0 (CP-1c 1989)
3. 3.
-0.05 0.08 0.21 0.34 0.47 0.6 -0.05 0.08 0.21 0.34 0.47 0.6
NPHI NPHI
841 points plotted out of 940
981 points plotted out of 995
Zone Depths
Zone Depths
(1) Alan 2647.M - 2741.M
(2) Mus 2741.M - 2840.5M

Mangesh Mangesh
NPHI / RHOB NPHI / RHOB
Active Zone : 1 Alan Active Zone : 1 Alan
2. 40 40
2.
40 40

40 40
30 30
2.2 30 2.2 30

20 30 30
20
20 20
2.4 2.4
RHOB

RHOB

10 10
20 20
10 10

2.6 2.6

SS 0 SS 0
10 10
LS 0 LS 0

2.8 2.8

DOL 0 DOL 0

(SWS) Density Neutron(NPHI) Overlay, Rhofluid = 1.0 (CP-1c 1989) (SWS) Density Neutron(NPHI) Overlay, Rhofluid = 1.0 (CP-1c 1989)
3. 3.
-0.05 0.08 0.21 0.34 0.47 0.6 -0.05 0.08 0.21 0.34 0.47 0.6
NPHI NPHI
1301 points plotted out of 1355 3057 points plotted out of 3200
Zone Depths Zone Depths
(3) Adaiyah 2840.5M - 2976.M (4) Butmah 2976.M - 3296.M

Figure 4.10 : Neutron-Density Cross Plot for formations in well Mangesh-1.

66
4.4.2 M-N Cross Plot for Mineral Identification
This technique is used when lithology of a formation is more complex,
the M-N plot requires a sonic log along with neutron and density logs. The
sonic log is a porosity log that measures Interval Transit Time (Δt) which is
the reciprocal of the velocity of a sound wave through one foot of formation.
A sonic log, neutron log, and density log are all necessary to calculate the
lithology dependent variable (M and N). M and N values are essentially
independent of matrix porosity (Asquith and Gibson, 1982).

A cross plot of these two variables makes lithology more apparent. M

and N values are calculated using the following equations (Schlumberger
1972):
∆𝑡𝑓 −∆𝑡
𝑀= × 0.01 ……………………. 4.5
𝜌𝑏 −𝜌𝑓

𝜑𝑁𝑓 − 𝜑𝑁
𝑁= …………………………… 4.6
𝜌𝑏 −𝜌𝑓

Where:

Δtf : Interval Transit Time in the fluid in the formation (189 for fresh mud
and 185 for salt mud).
Δt: Interval Transit Time in the formation (from the log).

𝜌f : Density of fluid (1.0 for fresh mud and 1.1 for salt mud).

𝜌b : Bulk Density of formation (from log).

φN : Neutron Porosity of formation from Neutron Porosity Log.

φNf : Neutron Porosity of fluid of formation (use 1.0).

67
 M-N cross plot can determine lithology of formations in the three well,
and is a good indicator of Secondary Porosity. It is obvious that the lithology
description is the same as mentioned in φN vs. 𝜌b cross plot method. It can
be noticed here the presence of Secondary Porosity in Butmah and Mus
Formations in all wells, and in Adaiyah Formation in well Mangesh-1, and
some places in Alan Formation at Wells Mangesh-1 and AT-1. The Figures
(4.11, 4.12, and 4.13) represent M-N Cross Plot for the studied formations in
wells AT-1, SH-1B, and Mangesh-1 respectively.

68
 AT-1 AT-1
N/M N/M
Active Zones : W:6 Z:1, 4 Active Zones : W:6 Z:1, 4

1.1 1.1

S S

Gypsum Gypsum
F F

0.98 0.98
Gas Gas
Salt Salt

Secondary Porosity Secondary Porosity

Vm a = 5943m /sec (19,500ft/sec) Vm a = 5943m /sec (19,500ft/sec)

0.86 S S SS 0.86 S S SS
Quartz Sandstone Quartz Sandstone
1S 3 4F F S S S S
2F F 1S 3 4F F S S S S
2F F
Calcite(LS) F Calcite(LS) F 1 2F F
3 4F F Vm a = 5486m /sec (18,000ft/sec)
1 2F F
3 4F F Vm a = 5486m /sec (18,000ft/sec)

M
Dolom ite S SS
M

Dolom ite S SS S S

3 2F
4 FF 1 F 3 2F
4 FF 1 F

0.74 0.74

S S
Anhydrite F Anhydrite F

Sulfur Sulfur
0.62 0.62
Appoxim ate Appoxim ate
Dolo & Quartz Porosity Ranges Shale Region Dolo & Quartz Porosity Ranges Shale Region
1 = 0 (tight) 1 = 0 (tight)
2 = 0 to 12pu 2 = 0 to 12pu
3 = 12 to 27pu F = FreshMud (Rhof = 1.0g/cm 3, DTf = 189usec/ft) 3 = 12 to 27pu F = FreshMud (Rhof = 1.0g/cm 3, DTf = 189usec/ft)
4 = 27 to 40pu S = SaltMud (Rhof = 1.1g/cm 3, DTf = 185usec/ft) 4 = 27 to 40pu S = SaltMud (Rhof = 1.1g/cm 3, DTf = 185usec/ft)
(SLB) M-N Plot for Mineral Identification (CP-8 2000) (SLB) M-N Plot for Mineral Identification (CP-8 2000)
0.5 0.5
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
N N
430 points plotted out of 430 649 points plotted out of 655
Zone Depths Zone Depths
(1) Alan 1245.M - 1298.7M (2) Mus 1298.7M - 1380.5M

AT-1 AT-1
N/M N/M
Active Zones : W:6 Z:1, 4 Active Zones : W:6 Z:1, 4

1.1 1.1

S S

Gypsum Gypsum
F F

0.98 0.98
Gas Gas
Salt Salt
Secondary Porosity Secondary Porosity
Vm a = 5943m /sec (19,500ft/sec) Vm a = 5943m /sec (19,500ft/sec)

0.86 S S SS 0.86 S S SS
Quartz Sandstone Quartz Sandstone
1S 3 4F F S S S S
2F F 1S 3 4F F S S S S
2F F
Calcite(LS) F 1 2F F
3 4F F Vm a = 5486m /sec (18,000ft/sec) Calcite(LS) F 1 2F F
3 4F F Vm a = 5486m /sec (18,000ft/sec)
M

Dolom ite S SS S Dolom ite S SS S

3 2F
4 FF 1 F 3 2F
4 FF 1 F

0.74 0.74

S S
Anhydrite F Anhydrite F

Sulfur Sulfur
0.62 0.62
Appoxim ate Appoxim ate
Dolo & Quartz Porosity Ranges Shale Region Dolo & Quartz Porosity Ranges Shale Region
1 = 0 (tight) 1 = 0 (tight)
2 = 0 to 12pu 2 = 0 to 12pu
3 = 12 to 27pu F = FreshMud (Rhof = 1.0g/cm 3, DTf = 189usec/ft) 3 = 12 to 27pu F = FreshMud (Rhof = 1.0g/cm 3, DTf = 189usec/ft)
4 = 27 to 40pu S = SaltMud (Rhof = 1.1g/cm 3, DTf = 185usec/ft) 4 = 27 to 40pu S = SaltMud (Rhof = 1.1g/cm 3, DTf = 185usec/ft)
(SLB) M-N Plot for Mineral Identification (CP-8 2000) (SLB) M-N Plot for Mineral Identification (CP-8 2000)
0.5 0.5
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
N N
621 points plotted out of 621 5597 points plotted out of 5620
Zone Depths Zone Depths
(3) Adaiyah 1380.5M - 1458.M (4) Butmah 1458.M - 2160.4M

Figure 4.11 : M-N Cross Plot for formations in well AT-1.

69
 SH-1b SH-1b
N/M N/M
Active Zone : 1 Alan Active Zone : 1 Alan

1.1 1.1

S S
Gypsum Gypsum
F F

0.98 0.98
Gas Gas
Salt Salt
Secondary Porosity Secondary Porosity
Vma = 5943m/sec (19,500ft/sec) Vma = 5943m/sec (19,500ft/sec)
0.86 S S SS 0.86 S S SS
Quartz Sandstone Quartz Sandstone
1S 3 4F F S S S S
2F F 1S 3 4F F S S S S
2F F
Calcite(LS) F 1 2F F
3 4F F Vma = 5486m/sec (18,000ft/sec) Calcite(LS) F 1 2F F
3 4F F Vma = 5486m/sec (18,000ft/sec)
M

Dolomite S SS

M
S Dolomite S SS S
3 2F
4 FF 1 F 3 2F
4 FF 1 F

0.74 0.74
S S
Anhydrite F Anhydrite F

Sulfur Sulfur
0.62 0.62
Appoximate Appoximate
Dolo & Quartz Porosity Ranges Shale Region Dolo & Quartz Porosity Ranges Shale Region
1 = 0 (tight) 1 = 0 (tight)
2 = 0 to 12pu 2 = 0 to 12pu
3 = 12 to 27pu F = FreshMud (Rhof = 1.0g/cm3, DTf = 189usec/ft) 3 = 12 to 27pu F = FreshMud (Rhof = 1.0g/cm3, DTf = 189usec/ft)
4 = 27 to 40pu S = SaltMud (Rhof = 1.1g/cm3, DTf = 185usec/ft) 4 = 27 to 40pu S = SaltMud (Rhof = 1.1g/cm3, DTf = 185usec/ft)
(SLB) M-N Plot for Mineral Identification (CP-8 2000) (SLB) M-N Plot for Mineral Identification (CP-8 2000)
0.5 0.5
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
N N
712 points plotted out of 712 434 points plotted out of 434
Zone Depths Zone Depths
(1) Alan 1494.6M - 1603.M (2) Mus 1603.M - 1669.1M

SH-1b SH-1b
N/M N/M
Active Zone : 3 Adaiyah Active Zone : 4 Butmah

1.1 1.1

S S

Gypsum Gypsum
F F

0.98 0.98
Gas Gas
Salt Salt
Secondary Porosity Secondary Porosity
Vma = 5943m/sec (19,500ft/sec) Vma = 5943m/sec (19,500ft/sec)

0.86 S S SS 0.86 S S SS
Quartz Sandstone Quartz Sandstone
1S 3 4F F S S S S
2F F 1S 3 4F F S S S S
2F F
Calcite(LS) F 1 2F F
3 4F F Vma = 5486m/sec (18,000ft/sec) Calcite(LS) F 1 2F F
3 4F F Vma = 5486m/sec (18,000ft/sec)
M

Dolomite S SS S Dolomite S SS S
3 2F
4 FF 1 F 3 2F
4 FF 1 F

0.74 0.74

S S
Anhydrite F Anhydrite F

Sulfur Sulfur
0.62 0.62
Appoximate Appoximate
Dolo & Quartz Porosity Ranges Shale Region Dolo & Quartz Porosity Ranges Shale Region
1 = 0 (tight) 1 = 0 (tight)
2 = 0 to 12pu 2 = 0 to 12pu
3 = 12 to 27pu F = FreshMud (Rhof = 1.0g/cm3, DTf = 189usec/ft) 3 = 12 to 27pu F = FreshMud (Rhof = 1.0g/cm3, DTf = 189usec/ft)
4 = 27 to 40pu S = SaltMud (Rhof = 1.1g/cm3, DTf = 185usec/ft) 4 = 27 to 40pu S = SaltMud (Rhof = 1.1g/cm3, DTf = 185usec/ft)
(SLB) M-N Plot for Mineral Identification (CP-8 2000) (SLB) M-N Plot for Mineral Identification (CP-8 2000)
0.5 0.5
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
N N
675 points plotted out of 675 2806 points plotted out of 3474
Zone Depths Zone Depths
(3) Adaiyah 1669.1M - 1772.M (4) Butmah 1772.M - 2301.5M

Figure 4.12 : M-N Cross Plot for formations in well SH-1B.

70
 Mangesh Mangesh
N/M N/M
Active Zone : 1 Alan Active Zone : 2 Mus

1.1 1.1

S S

Gypsum Gypsum
F F

0.98 0.98
Gas Gas
Salt Salt
Secondary Porosity Secondary Porosity
Vma = 5943m/sec (19,500ft/sec) Vma = 5943m/sec (19,500ft/sec)

0.86 S S SS 0.86 S S SS
Quartz Sandstone Quartz Sandstone
1S 3 4F F S S S S
2F F 1S 3 4F F S S S S
2F F
Calcite(LS) F 1 2F F
3 4F F Vma = 5486m/sec (18,000ft/sec) Calcite(LS) F 1 2F F
3 4F F Vma = 5486m/sec (18,000ft/sec)

M
M

Dolomite S SS S Dolomite S SS S
3 2F
4 FF 1 F 3 2F
4 FF 1 F

0.74 0.74

S S
Anhydrite F Anhydrite F

Sulfur Sulfur
0.62 0.62
Appoximate Appoximate
Dolo & Quartz Porosity Ranges Shale Region Dolo & Quartz Porosity Ranges Shale Region
1 = 0 (tight) 1 = 0 (tight)
2 = 0 to 12pu 2 = 0 to 12pu
3 = 12 to 27pu F = FreshMud (Rhof = 1.0g/cm3, DTf = 189usec/ft) 3 = 12 to 27pu F = FreshMud (Rhof = 1.0g/cm3, DTf = 189usec/ft)
4 = 27 to 40pu S = SaltMud (Rhof = 1.1g/cm3, DTf = 185usec/ft) 4 = 27 to 40pu S = SaltMud (Rhof = 1.1g/cm3, DTf = 185usec/ft)
(SLB) M-N Plot for Mineral Identification (CP-8 2000) (SLB) M-N Plot for Mineral Identification (CP-8 2000)
0.5 0.5
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
N N
939 points plotted out of 940 986 points plotted out of 995
Zone Depths Zone Depths
(1) Alan 2647.M - 2741.M (2) Mus 2741.M - 2840.5M

Mangesh Mangesh
N/M N/M
Active Zone : 3 Adaiyah Active Zone : 4 Butmah

1.1 1.1

S S

Gypsum Gypsum
F F

0.98 0.98
Gas Gas
Salt Salt
Secondary Porosity Secondary Porosity
Vma = 5943m/sec (19,500ft/sec) Vma = 5943m/sec (19,500ft/sec)

0.86 S S SS 0.86 S S SS
Quartz Sandstone Quartz Sandstone
1S 3 4F F S S S S
2F F S
F3
12 F 4F F S S S S
Calcite(LS) F 1 2F F
3 4F F Vma = 5486m/sec (18,000ft/sec) Calcite(LS) F 1 2F 3
F 4F F
M
M

Dolomite S SS S Dolomite S SS S Vma = 5486m/sec (18,000ft/sec)

3 2F
4 FF 1 F 3 2F
4 FF 1 F

0.74 0.74
S S
Anhydrite F Anhydrite F

Sulfur Sulfur
0.62 0.62
Appoximate Appoximate
Dolo & Quartz Porosity Ranges Shale Region Dolo & Quartz Porosity Ranges Shale Region
1 = 0 (tight) 1 = 0 (tight)
2 = 0 to 12pu 2 = 0 to 12pu
3 = 12 to 27pu F = FreshMud (Rhof = 1.0g/cm3, DTf = 189usec/ft) 3 = 12 to 27pu F = FreshMud (Rhof = 1.0g/cm3, DTf = 189usec/ft)
4 = 27 to 40pu S = SaltMud (Rhof = 1.1g/cm3, DTf = 185usec/ft) 4 = 27 to 40pu S = SaltMud (Rhof = 1.1g/cm3, DTf = 185usec/ft)
(SLB) M-N Plot for Mineral Identification (CP-8 2000) (SLB) M-N Plot for Mineral Identification (CP-8 2000)
0.5 0.5
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
N N
1337 points plotted out of 1355 3005 points plotted out of 3200
Zone Depths Zone Depths
(3) Adaiyah 2840.5M - 2976.M (4) Butmah 2976.M - 3296.M

Figure 4.13 : M-N Cross Plot for formations in well Mangesh-1.

71
4.5 Shale Volume (Vsh) Calculation

The high rate of shale in a reservoir, would lead to reduced

permeability. This, in turn, leads to lower productivity of formation. The
gamma ray cannot detect thin shale beds. The presence of shale with the
reservoir has a notable effect on porosity and water saturation.

To determine the volume of shale (Vsh), the first step is to calculate the
Gamma Ray Index from a GR log using the following formula of
Schlumberger (1974) , as cited below:
𝐺𝑅𝑙𝑜𝑔 −𝐺𝑅𝑚𝑖𝑛
𝐺𝑅𝐼 = …………………..4.7
𝐺𝑅𝑚𝑎𝑥 −𝐺𝑅𝑚𝑖𝑛

Where:

GRI : Gamma Ray Index.

GRlog : Gamma ray log is reading in the zone of interest ( API unit).
GRmin : The minimum gamma ray reading in the clean zone (API unit).
GRmax : The maximum gamma ray reading in shale zone (API unit).

The calculated Gamma Ray Index is used to determine the (V sh) by

using the following equation for older rocks from Schlumberger (1974):

Vsh = 0.33(22*IGR -1) ……………….. 4.8

A standard table proposed by Ghorab (2008) to distinguish between zones of

different shale content within rock formation (Table 4.3).

Table 4.3 : Zonation based on the percentage of shale volume (after Ghorab et al., 2008)

Vsh (%) Zone

<10 Clean Zone
10-35 Shaly Zone
>35 Shale Zone

72
The volume of shale is calculated for all formations in the three well, the
results are presented in Figures (4.14, 4.15, and 4.16). The results of
mathematical averaging calculated of clay volume are listed in Tables (4.4,
4.5, and 4.6).

For distinguishing between zones of different shale contents within the

each formation in three well, the standard proposed by Ghorab et al. (2008)
has been used. Accordingly, all formations in three well considered as clean
formations except the Alan formation in well SH-1B located in shaly zone.

Table 4.4 : Maximum, minimum and average Vclay values for each formation
in well AT-1 (as fraction).
Formation Alan Mus Adaiyah Butmah
Min. Vclay 0.017 0.014 0.003 0.001
Max. Vclay 0.186 0.143 0.109 1.007
Average Vclay 0.071 0.052 0.035 0.076

Table 4.5: Maximum, minimum and average Vclay values for each formation
in well SH-1B (as fraction)

Formation Alan Mus Adaiyah Butmah

Min. Vclay 0.045 0.027 0.019 0.021
Max. V clay 0.430 0.088 0.079 0.790
Average Vclay 0.139 0.040 0.029 0.064

Table 4.6 : Maximum, minimum and average Vclay values for each formation
in well Mangesh-1 (as fraction)

Formation Alan Mus Adaiyah Butmah

Min. Vclay 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.002
Max. V clay 0.047 0.024 0.592 1.004
Average Vclay 0.012 0.008 0.048 0.078

73
Figure 4.14 : Clay Volume Variation with Figure 4.15 : Clay Volume Variation with
Depth for well AT-1. Depth for well SH-1B.

74
Figure 4.16 : Clay Volume Variation with
Depth for well Mangesh-1.

75
4.6 Porosity Determination from Porosity Logs

Porosity can be defined as the percentage of voids to the total volume

of rock; it is measured as a percent and has the symbol φ.
𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑠
𝑃𝑜𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦(𝜑) = …………….. 4.9
𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑟𝑜𝑐𝑘

The amount of internal space or voids in a given volume of rock is a

measure of the amount of fluids a rock will hold (Asquith and Gibson, 1982).

Connected porosity, where void space has flowed through potential, is called
Effective Porosity, noneffective porosity is isolated. The summation of
effective and non-effective porosity produces Total Porosity, which represents
all of the void space in a rock.

Pore space in rocks at the time of deposition is Original or Primary

Porosity, while Secondary Porosity develops after sediments are deposited
(Link, 1987).

4.6.1 Total Porosity

Total porosity is all pore space in a rock whether effective or non-

effective. Total Porosity is determined from readings of the combination of
Neutron–Density logs. Schlumberger (1974) proposed an equation to
calculate Total Porosity from Neutron and Density Logs that may be
expressed as:
𝜑𝑁 +𝜑𝐷
𝜑𝑁𝐷 = 𝜑𝑡 = ……………………….4.10
2

Where:

φt : Total Porosity.

φN: Porosity calculated from Neutron Log.

φD: Porosity calculated from Density Log.

76
4.6.2 Effective Porosity

The effective porosity is total porosity less the fraction of the pore
space occupied by shale. In very clean sands, Total Porosity is equal to
Effective Porosity (Bowen, 2003). Effective Porosity is calculated from the
equation below:

φe = φt - (1-Vsh) …………………………………4.11

Where:

φe: Effective Porosity.

φt: Total Porosity.

Vsh: Shale Volume.

4.6.3 Secondary Porosity

Secondary Porosity is porosity formed post-depositional. Such porosity

results from groundwater dissolution, recrystallization, and fracturing (Link,
1982). Secondary Porosity can be computed by Secondary Porosity Index
(SPI) as shown below:

SPI=φt – φS ……………………………………4.12

Where:

SPI: Secondary Porosity Index.

φt : Total Porosity.

φS : Sonic Porosity

Secondary Porosity includes vugular spaces in carbonate rocks created

by the chemical process of leaching, or fracture spaces formed in fractured
reservoirs.

77
 The Total Porosity of formations in a studied interval is measured by
Interactive Petrophysics Program (V 3.5) from Neutron and Density logs. The
difference between the Total Porosity calculated from these logs and Sonic
Log will give a Secondary Porosity Index, and then calculate the Effective
Porosity after correcting the Logs or Total Porosity from the presence of clay.

The results of mathematical averaging calculated Total Porosity,

Effective Porosity, and Secondary Porosity are listed in Tables (4.7, 4.8, and
4.9) while Figures (4.17, 4.18, and 4.19) show the calculated types of these
porosities and their variation with depth in wells AT-1, SH-1B, and Mangesh-
1 respectively.

It is obvious that porosity is varied from one formation to another in well

AT-1, the maximum Effective Porosity is observed in Mus Formation, while
the minimum is observed in Adaiyah Formation. Secondary Porosity is high
in Mus and Butmah Formations when compared with other formations of low
records of Secondary Porosity.

At well SH-1B, the maximum Effective Porosity is observed in Alan

Formation, while the minimum value is record in Adaiyah Formation. High
Secondary Porosity is noticed in Adaiyah Formation if compared with other
formations in the same well which recorded low values.

In well Mangesh-1, the maximum Effective Porosity is recorded in Mus and

Butmah Formation, while the minimum record was in Alan Formation.
Secondary Porosity recorded high values in Alan Formatoin when compared
with other formations at the same well.

78
Table 4.7 : Average Porosity values for each formation in well AT-1 (as fraction).

Thickness Ave. Total Ave. Effective Ave. Secondary

Formations
(m) Porosity Porosity Porosity
Alan 53 0.075 0.056 0.011
Mus 82 0.073 0.059 0.021
Adaiyah 78 0.025 0.016 0.006
Butmah 702 0.050 0.031 0.016

Table 4.8 : Average Porosity values for each formation in well SH-1B (as fraction).

Thickness Ave. Total Ave. Effective Ave. Secondary

Formations
(m) Porosity Porosity Porosity
Alan 108.4 0.095 0.091 0.016
Mus 66.1 0.073 0.071 0.040
Adaiyah 102.9 0.004 0.003 0.113
Butmah 529.5 0.033 0.032 0.030

Table 4.9 : Average Porosity values for each formation in well Mangesh-1 (as fraction).

Formations Thickness Ave. Total Ave. Effective Ave. Secondary

(m) Porosity Porosity Porosity
Alan 94 0.027 0.022 0.086
Mus 99.5 0.048 0.045 0.045
Adaiyah 136 0.048 0.029 0.054
Butmah 320 0.075 0.045 0.054

79
Scale : 1 : 2500 AT-1
DB : IP (6) DEPTH (1254.M - 2160.5M) 09/08/2016 23:09

1 2 3 4 5

DEPTH PHIT (Dec) PHIE (Dec) PHISEC (dec)

Clay Vol
Fn.
(M) 0. 0.5 0. 0.5 0. 0.5
Alan

1300
Mua

1350

1400
Adaiyah

1450

1500

1550

1600

1650

1700

1750
Butmah

1800

1850

1900

1950

2000

2050

2100

2150
1 2 3 4 5

DEPTH PHIT (Dec) PHIE (Dec) PHISEC (dec)

Clay Vol

0. 0.5 0. 0.5 0. 0.5

(M)
Figure 4.17 : Porosity variation with depth at well AT-1.
* PHIT (Total Porosity) , PHIE (Effective Porosity ) , PHISEC ( Secondary Porosity)

80
Scale : 1 : 2500 SH-1b
DB : IP (9) DEPTH (1494.6M - 2301.56M) 13/09/2016 18:57

1 2 3 4 5

DEPTH PHIT (Dec) PHIE (Dec) PHISEC (dec)

Clay Vol
(M) Fn. 0. 0.5 0. 0.5 0. 0.5

1500

1550 Alan

1600

Mus
1650

1700
Adaiyah

1750

1800

1850

1900

1950

2000

Butmah
2050

2100

2150

2200

2250

2300
1 2 3 4 5

DEPTH Figure 4.18 : Porosity

PHIT (Dec) variation
PHIEwith
(Dec) depth at well SH-1B.
PHISEC (dec)
Clay Vol

(M) 0. 0.5 0. 0.5 0. 0.5

* PHIT (Total Porosity) , PHIE (Effective Porosity ) , PHISEC ( Secondary Porosity)

81
Scale : 1 : 2500 Mangesh
DB : IP (1) DEPTH (2647.06M - 3296.96M) 09/08/2016 20:46

1 2 3 4 5
DEPTH Clay Vol PHIT (Dec) PHIE (Dec) PHISEC (dec)
(M) Fn. 0. 0.5 0. 0.5 0. 0.5

2650
Alan

2700

2750
Mus

2800

2850
Adaiyah

2900

2950

3000

3050

3100
Butmah

3150

3200

3250

1 2 3 4 5
DEPTH Figure 4.19 : Porosity variation with depth at well Mangesh-1.
PHIT (Dec) PHIE (Dec) PHISEC (dec)
Clay Vol

(M) 0. 0.5 0. 0.5 0. 0.5

* PHIT (Total Porosity) , PHIE (Effective Porosity ) , PHISEC ( Secondary Porosity)

82
4.7 Fluid Saturation

Water Saturation (Sw) is the percentage of pore volume in a rock which

is occupied by formation water (Asquith and Gibson, 1982). It is represented
as the decimal fraction or as a percentage. While hydrocarbon saturation is
remaining pore volume that is occupied by oil and gas.

The determination of fluid saturation would help to know the permeable

zones that have hydrocarbon potential.

Fluid saturation can be determined from resistivity measurements by the

Archie Equation which relates the resistivity of the formation, porosity, water
saturation, and resistivity of formation water.

4.7.1 Determination of Water Saturations

Water Saturation (Sw) of reservoir in Uninvaded Zone is calculated by

the Archie`s Equation (1942) that is expressed as:

𝑎 𝑅𝑤 1
𝑆𝑤 = ( × )𝑛 …………………… 4.13
𝜑𝑚 𝑅𝑡

Where,

Sw: Water Saturation of the Uninvaded Zone.

Rw: Formation Water Resistivity at formation temperature (ohm-m).

Rt: True Formation Resistivity (ohm-m).

φ: Porosity

a: Tortuosity Factor = 1.0

m: Cementation Exponent, varies from 1.7 to 3.0 , normally equal to 2.0

n: Saturation Exponent, varies from 1.8 to 4.0 , normally equal to 2.0

83
 Water Saturation of formations Flushed Zone (Sxo ) is also calculated by the
Archie Equation, but Mud Filtrate Resistivity (Rmf) is used in place of
Formation Water Resistivity (Rw), and Flushed Zone Resistivity (Rxo) is used
in place of Uninvaded Zone Resistivity (Rt). For Flushed Zone the equation
takes the form:

𝑎 𝑅𝑚𝑓 1
𝑆𝑥𝑜 = ( 𝑚
× )𝑛 ……………………………… 4.14
𝜑 𝑅𝑥𝑜

Where,

Sxo : Water Saturation in the Flushed Zone.

Rmf : Resistivity of Mud Filtrate at Formation Temperature ( ohm-m).

Rxo: Shallow Resistivity (ohm-m).

The benefit from the water saturation values for the purpose of evaluating
the productivity in oil zone and calculate the hydrocarbon saturation. The
Tables (4.10, 4.11, and 4.12) show the Average Water Saturation of the
Uninvaded and Invaded Zones for wells AT-1, SH-1B, and Mangesh-1
respectively .

Table 4.10 : Average Water Saturation of Uninvaded and Invaded Zones in well AT-1.

Formation Alan Mus Adaiyah Butmah

Average Sw 0.009 0.053 0.410 0.372
Average Sxo 0.356 0.415 0.754 0.656

Table 4-11 : Average Water Saturation of Uninvaded and Invaded Zones in well SH-1B.

Formation Alan Mus Adaiyah Butmah

Average Sw 0.159 0.244 0.946 0.482
Average Sxo 0.489 0.608 0.963 0.682

84
Table 4.12 : Average Water Saturation of Uninvaded and Invaded Zones in well
Mangesh -1

Formation Alan Mus Adaiyah Butmah

Average Sw 0.209 0.049 0.194 0.126
Average Sxo 0.614 0.441 0.514 0.483

With a view to applying the above equation, it is necessary to find the related
variables, as follows:

4.7.1.1 Determination of the Mud Filtrate Resistivity (Rmf)

The values of mud filtrate resistivity (Rmf) which is recorded on a log’s

header of each well can be corrected from surface temperature to formation
temperature by applying (Arps, 1964) formula:

𝑇𝑠 +21.5
Rmf at Tf = Rmf at Ts ( ) for centigrade ……………. 4.15
𝑇𝑓 +21.5

𝑇𝑠 +6.77
𝑅𝑚𝑓 𝑎𝑡 𝑇𝑓= 𝑅𝑚𝑓 𝑎𝑡 𝑇𝑠 (
𝑇𝑓 +6.77
) For Fahrenheit ………...4.16

Where:

Rmf at Tf : Mud filtrate resistivity at the formation temperature.

Rmf at Ts: Mud filtrate resistivity at surface temperature.

Tf: Formation Temperature (oC or oF)

Ts: Surface Temperature (oC or oF)

Tf Calculated by this equation (Arps, 1964):

Tf= G.G * d+Ts …………………………..4.17

Where:

Tf: Formation Temperature.

85
d: Formation depth (m).

Ts: Surface Temperature.

G.G: Temperature Gradient, that calculates by this equation:

𝐵𝑇𝐻−𝑇𝑠
G.G = …………………………... 4.18
𝐷𝑟

Where:

G.G: Temperature Gradient.

BTH: Bottom Hole Temperature.

Ts: Surface Temperature.

Dr: Total Depth (m)

The average temperature gradients of formations in wells AT-1, SH-1B,

and Mangesh-1 are calculated from bottom hole temperature recorded in log
header of three wells equal to 0.0122 oC/m, 0.0106 oC/m, and 0.0102 oC/m
respectively.

It is important to measure formation temperature because the resistivities of

the drilling mud (Rm), the mud filtrate (Rmf) and formation water (Rw) vary
with this temperature.

4.7.1.2 Determination of Formation Water Resistivity (Rw)

Formation water resistivity (Rw) can be developed during geologic

time, and its value may widely change from a well to another in the same
reservoir due to an influence of salinity, temperature, and contamination with
fresh water (Tiab and Donaldson, 1996). There are some methods to calculate
the formation water resistivity from formation water analysis in a laboratory
by known salinity of formation water, the sample of formation water taken

86
from the zone of interest at the well site or a nearby well, or can be measured
from Spontaneous Potential (SP) Log, or from Apparent Resistivity Method.

In the present study, the Apparent Resistivity of the formation water

(Rwa) is used to estimate the value of Rw, Rwa can be calculated from Archie
equation:
𝑎 𝑅𝑤
𝑆𝑤 𝑛 = ………………………… 4.19
𝜑𝑚 𝑅𝑡

𝑆𝑤 2 𝜑2 𝑅𝑡
𝑅𝑤 = ………………………. 4.20
𝑎

If we assume the formation is 100% Water Saturated (Sw = 1) then;

𝜑𝑒 2 𝑅𝑡
𝑅𝑤𝑎 = ……………...... 4.21
𝑎

Where:

Rwa: Apparent Resistivity of the formation water.

φe: Effective Porosity.

Rt: Resistivity of the Uninvaded Zone.

a: Tortuosity Factor.

The minimum value of Rwa represents Rw in water zone. In hydrocarbon

zones Rwa ≥ 3 Rw (Avedisian, 1988). The results of Rwa for three studied wells
are shows in Table (4.13).

The presence of shale especially the green shale leads to reduce the
values of Rt, as a result the values of Rwa will not be accurate, thus to reduce
this effect IP software uses φe instead of φt where, φt=φe+Vsh φsh (Aldalawy,
2012).

87
 Table 4.13 : Formation Water Resistivity estimated by Apparent Resistivity Method

Well No. Mangesh-1 SH-1B AT-1

Formation Depths (m) 2924.7 2088.05 2134.125
Formation water resistivity (Rw) 0.000105 0.000101 0.000102

4.7.2 Determination Hydrocarbon Saturations

Hydrocarbon Saturation (Sh) is the remains of pore volume in a rock that

is occupied by hydrocarbon; it can be determined by using Water Saturation
data via this equation:

Sh=1- Sw ………………….4.22

Sh: Hydrocarbon Saturation

Once Flushed Zone water saturation (Sxo) is calculated, it can be

compared with the value for water saturation (Sw) of the Uninvaded Zone at
the same depth to determine, whether or not hydrocarbons were moved from
Flushed Zone during the invasion. If the value for Sxo is much greater than the
value for Sw, then hydrocarbons were likely moved during the invasion, and
the reservoir will produce (HLS Asia Limited, 2007).
The saturation in the Flushed Zone can be used to estimate the Residual
Oil Saturation (Sor) and the Movable Hydrocarbon Saturation (Shr) using the
following equation:

Sor = [φe ∗ (1 − Sxo)] ……………..………….. 2.23

Shr = [φe ∗ (Sxo − Sw)] ……………...………… 2.24

Where,

Sor: Residual Oil Saturation

Shr: Movable Hydrocarbon Saturation.

88
The results of fluid saturation are shown in Figures (4.20 , 4.21 , and 4.22)
for the three studied wells.

4.8 Bulk Volume of Water

The product of a formation’s water saturation (Sw) and its porosity (φ)
is the Bulk Volume of Water (Asquith and Krygowski, 2004). The Bulk
Volume of Water is calculated in the invaded and uninvaded zones by
multiplying the porosity by the water saturation (Schlumberger, 1989):

The Bulk Volume of Water in the Uninvaded Zone can be calculated as:

𝐵𝑉𝑊 = 𝜑𝑒 × 𝑆𝑤 …………………………4.25

Bulk Volume of Water in the Flushed or Invaded Zones is calculated as:

𝐵𝑉𝑊𝑠𝑥𝑜 = 𝜑𝑒 × 𝑆𝑥𝑜 ………………………4.26

The Tables (4.14, 4.15, and 4.16) show the Average Bulk Volume of
Water the Uninvaded and Invaded Zones of wells AT-1, SH-1B, and
Mangesh-1 respectively.

Table 4.14 : Average Bulk Volume of Water of Uninvaded and Invaded Zones
in well AT-1.

Formation Alan Mus Adaiyah Butmah

Average BVW 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Average BVWsxo 0.017 0.021 0.004 0.009

Table 4.15 : Average Bulk Volume of Water of Uninvaded and Invaded Zones
in well SH-1B.
Formation Alan Mus Adaiyah Butmah
Average BVW 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.001
Average BVWsxo 0.012 0.020 0.001 0.008

89
Table 4.16 : Average Bulk Volume of Water of Uninvaded and Invaded Zones
in well Mangesh-1.

Formation Alan Mus Adaiyah Butmah

Average BVW 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Average BVWsxo 0.007 0.018 0.010 0.015

The area between (BVWsxo) and (BVW) represents the movable

hydrocarbon, the area between (BVWsxo) and (φe) represents the residual
hydrocarbon, while the area between (φe) and (BVW) represents the total
hydrocarbon.

The Figures (4.20, 4.21, and 4.22) portray the relationship of these
variables (Sw, Sxo, Sor, Shr, BVW, and BVWsxo) with depth for the three wells.
As shown in these figures, which represent Computer Processed
Interpretation (CPI), the hydrocarbons are shown for Alan, Mus, and upper
part of Butmah Formations in wells AT-1 and SH-1B. While Adaiyah
Formation may represent the seal for Butmah Formation due to Anhydrite
lithology. In well Mangesh-1, the hydrocarbons show in Adaiyah Formation
is believed to result due to change of lithology to carbonate rock.
Hydrocarbons shows are also found in Mus and Butmah Formations, and
within some units of Alan Formation. Movable hydrocarbon, observed in
three wells, is approximately equal to the residual hydrocarbon, in some
places, it is less than residual hydrocarbon. This means that permeability
values range from medium to low in these formations.

90
Sca l e : 1 : 1000 AT-1
D B : IP ( 6) DEPTH ( 1245.M - 2160.5M) 18/11/2016 12:39

1 2 GammaRay Por os ity Input Res is tiv ity Satur ation Por os ity Lithology

DEPTH Gr C ( A PI) NPHIC ( dec ) RLLD ( OHMM) SW ( Dec ) PHIE ( Dec ) V WCL ( Dec )
Porosity / Sw

( M) 0. 150. 0.45 - 0.15 0.2 2000. 1. 0. 0.5 0. 0. 1.

RHOC ( G/CC) RLLS ( OHMM) SXO ( Dec ) BV WSXO ( Dec ) PHIE ( Dec )
1.95 2.95 0.2 2000. 1. 0. 0.5 0. 1. 0.
CPSL ( US/F) BV W ( Dec )
140. 40. 0.5 0. Clay

Res .Hy dr oc ar bon Por os ity

Mov able Hy dr oc ar b
Formation

Water Matr ix

1250
Alan

1300
Mus

1350

1400
Adaiyah

1450

1500

1550

1600

1650

1700

1750

1800
Butmah

1850

1900

1950

2000

2050

2100

2150

1 2 GammaRay Por os ity Input Res is tiv ity Satur ation Por os ity Lithology

DEPTH Gr C ( A PI) NPHIC ( dec ) RLLD ( OHMM) SW ( Dec ) PHIE ( Dec ) V WCL ( Dec )
Porosity / Sw

( M) 0. 150. 0.45 - 0.15 0.2 2000. 1. 0. 0.5 0. 0. 1.

Figure 4.20 : Computer Processed Interpretation (CPI) for well AT-1.

RHOC ( G/CC) RLLS ( OHMM) SXO ( Dec ) BV WSXO ( Dec ) PHIE ( Dec )
1.95 2.95 0.2 2000. 1. 0. 0.5 0. 1. 0.
CPSL ( US/F) BV W ( Dec )
140. 40. 0.5 0. Clay

Res .Hy dr oc ar bon Por os ity

Mov able Hy dr oc ar b

Water Matr ix

91
Sca le : 1 : 1000 SH-1b
DB : IP ( 9) DEPTH (1494.6M - 2301.56M) 18/11/2016 15:18

1 2 GammaRay Poros ity Input Res is tiv ity Saturation Poros ity Lithology
DEPTH GR (gapi) NEUT (dec ) RDEP (ohmm) SW (Dec ) PHIE (Dec ) V WCL (Dec )
Porosity / Sw

(M) 0. 150. 0.45 -0.15 0.2 2000. 1. 0. 0.5 0. 0. 1.

DENS (g/c 3) RMED (ohmm) SXO (Dec ) BV WSXO (Dec ) PHIE (Dec )
1.95 2.95 0.2 2000. 1. 0. 0.5 0. 1. 0.
DTCO (us /f t) BV W (Dec )
140. 40. 0.5 0. Clay

Res .Hy droc arbon Poros ity

Mov able Hy droc arb

Formation

Water Matrix

1500
Alan

1550

1600
Mus

1650

1700
Adaiyah

1750

1800

1850

1900

1950

2000
Butmah

2050

2100

2150

2200

2250

2300
1 2 GammaRay Poros ity Input Res is tiv ity Saturation Poros ity Lithology

DEPTH GR (gapi) NEUT (dec ) RDEP (ohmm) SW (Dec ) PHIE (Dec ) V WCL (Dec )
Porosity / Sw

(M) 0. 150. 0.45 -0.15 0.2 2000. 1. 0. 0.5 0. 0. 1.

DENS (g/c 3) RMED (ohmm) SXO (Dec ) BV WSXO (Dec ) PHIE (Dec )
1.95 2.95 0.2 2000. 1. 0. 0.5 0. 1. 0.
DTCO (us /f t) BV W (Dec )
140. 40. 0.5 0. Clay

Figure 4.21: Computer Processed Interpretation (CPI) for well SH-1B. Res .Hy droc arbon

Mov able Hy droc arb

Poros ity

Water Matrix

92
Sca le : 1 : 1000 Mangesh
DB : IP ( 2) DEPTH (2647.M - 3296.M) 12/06/2016 22:09

1 2 GammaRay Poros ity Input Res is tiv ity Saturation Poros ity Lithology

DEPTH GR (gA PI) NPHI (m3/m3) RD (ohm.m) SW (Dec ) PHIE (Dec ) V WCL (Dec )
Porosity / Sw

(M) 0. 150. 0.45 -0.15 0.2 2000. 1. 0. 0.5 0. 0. 1.

RHOB (g/c m3) RS (ohm.m) SXO (Dec ) BV WSXO (Dec ) PHIE (Dec )
1.95 2.95 0.2 2000. 1. 0. 0.5 0. 1. 0.
DTCO (us /f t) BV W (Dec )
140. 40. 0.5 0. Clay

Res .Hy droc arbon Poros ity

Mov able Hy droc arb

Formation

Water Matrix

2650
Alan

2700

2750
Mus

2800

2850

2900
Adaiyah

2950

3000

3050

3100
Butmah

3150

3200

3250

1 2 GammaRay Poros ity Input Res is tiv ity Saturation Poros ity Lithology

DEPTH GR (gA PI) NPHI (m3/m3) RD (ohm.m) SW (Dec ) PHIE (Dec ) V WCL (Dec )
Porosity / Sw

(M) 0. 150. 0.45 -0.15 0.2 2000. 1. 0. 0.5 0. 0. 1.

RHOB (g/c m3) RS (ohm.m) SXO (Dec ) BV WSXO (Dec ) PHIE (Dec )
1.95 2.95 0.2 2000. 1. 0. 0.5 0. 1. 0.

Figure 4.22 : Computer Processed Interpretation (CPI) for well Mangesh-1.

140.
DTCO (us /f t)
40. 0.5
BV W (Dec )
0.
Res .Hy droc arbon
Clay

Poros ity

Mov able Hy droc arb

Water Matrix

93
CHAPTER
FIVE
Conclusions and
Recommendations
CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CHAPTER-V

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Conclusions

The well logs data and cuttings samples have been used as the main source of
data in this study; the logs data were used to study the reservoir properties, the
cuttings samples were used for studying the organic geochemistry of the targeted
formations. The following conclusions were achieved from the present study:

1. The Stratigraphic correlations between selected wells have shown the lateral
changes in lithology of Alan, Mus, Adaiyah, and Butmah Formations. In
wells AT-1 and SH-1B, Alan and Mus Formations are dominated by
limestone, while at well Mangesh-1 these formations altered to calcareous
dolomite with some units of anhydrite. Adaiyah Formation gradually changes
from anhydrite in wells AT-1 and SH-1B to dolomite and some units of
anhydrite in well Mangesh-1, that means these formations tend to be replaced
by the equivalent Sehkaniyan Formation in well Mangesh-1.

2. The Total Organic Carbon (TOC) of rock samples from Alan Formation in
wells AT-1 and SH-1B, indicates excellent to good source rock richness.
Mus Formation indicates very good to good source rock richness in wells AT-
1 and SH-1B. Adaiyah Formation obtain good to very good OM content in
wells SH-1B and Mangesh-1. While, the OM richness in the samples of
Butmah Formation, in well AT-1, indicate fair to very good source rock,in
well SH-1B indicate fair source rock,while in well Mangesh-1 the samples
from Butmah formation indicate poor to good source rock.

94
3. Based on the pyrolysis data, the kerogen of the sampled Alan Formation in
the wells AT-1 and SH-1B has Type I which is oil-prone. Thereby, Kerogen
Type I has been determined for Mus Formation in well AT-1which are oil
prone, and Kerogen Type II in well SH-1B which are oil and gas prone.
Adaiyah Formation in wells SH-1B and Mangesh-1 has Kerogen Type II that
is oil and gas prone. Butmah Formation obtains Kerogen Type I and mixed
Type II/III in well AT-1 that are oil and gas prone. In well SH-1B, the
samples of Butmah Formation were interpreted as Kerogen Type IV It is an
inert, does not generate hydrocarbons. The existing OM type in well
Mangesh-1 is mixed with Kerogen Types II-III and III which are oil and gas
prone respectively.

4. The Tmax range of the formations in the three wells had indicated immature
source rocks with the value of Tmax less than 435 oC.

5. The Neutron-Density and M-N cross plots are used for lithology
determination, they display that main lithology for Alan Formation is
limestone in wells AT-1 and SH-1B, while in the well Mangesh-1 the main
lithology of that formation is dolomite, calcareous dolomite, and anhydrite.
Mus Formation is composed of limestone in wells AT-1 and SH-1B, while in
well Mangesh-1, it is dominated by dolomite, calcareous dolomite, and
anhydrite. Adaiyah Formation is composed of anhydrite, calcareous dolomite,
and dolomite in well AT-1, at well SH-1B the formation consisted of
anhydrite, limestone, and dolomite. While in well Mangesh-1, that formation
is composed of dolomite, calcareous dolomite, anhydrite, and limestone.
Butmah Formation is composed of dolomite, calcareous dolomite, dolomitic
limestone with limestone, anhydrite, and sandstone in the three wells.

95
6. The Volume of Clay is calculated from GR log, in well AT-1, showing that
concentration of clay is low in Alan, Mus, and Adaiyah Formations, and high
in some intervals of Butmah Formation. At well SH-1B, the concentration of
clay is very low in Mus, Adaiyah, and Butmah Formations, while in Alan
Formation, the increase in clay volume ranges between (10-20%). The
volume of clay was very low in all formations at well Mangesh-1 except in
some intervals where Adaiyah and Butmah Formations displayed relatively
high clay content. Accordingly, all formations in three wells considered as
clean formations except the Alan formation in well SH-1B located in shaly
zone.

7. Porosity is calculated by the porosity Logs. The Porosity of Alan Formation,

in both wells AT-1 and SH-1B, ranges between (0-20 % ) which indicates
good reservoir quality, while in well Mangesh-1 the porosity decreased to (0-
10 %), due to the presence of anhydrite. Porosity range of Mus Formation, in
wells AT-1 and SH-1B, is between (0-20 %), while in well Mangesh-1, the
porosity ranges between (0-10 %). Accordingly, Mus Formation can make a
good zone for preservation and accumulation of hydrocarbons. Adaiyah
Formation, in well AT-1, has a porosity ranging between (0-7 %) which is
attributed to present calcareous dolomite and dolomite. Therefore, the
hydrocarbon can be preserved in some units of this formation, but in general,
this formation is considered as a seal for hydrocarbon accumulation, at well
SH-1B, as porosity range is decreased to (0-3 %) which is a very low value.
While in well Mangesh-1 the range of porosity rises to (0-10 %) and
secondary porosity is enhanced due to tectonic processes and resulting local
fractures. For this reason, Adaiyah Formation can act as a reservoir in well
Mangesh-1. The porosity range of Butmah Formation in wells AT-1 and
Mangesh-1 are between (0-20 %), while in well SH-1B, the range is about
(0-15). The latter figures support good reservoir quality in Butmah Formation.

96
8. Water Saturation (Sw), an important parameter in reservoir characterization,
can be determined by Resistivity logs. The results of average water saturation
are low in Alan and Mus Formations in all well, indicating good hydrocarbon
saturation of over 75% for these formations. The average water saturation
(Sw) of Adaiyah Formation in well SH-1B is very high (up to 94.6%),
depriving its ability for hydrocarbon saturation, while in well AT-1, the
average water saturation is 41%, leaving hydrocarbon saturation at 59 %.
In well Mangesh-1 the average water saturation is 19.4% indicating good
hydrocarbon saturation of 80.6 %. Hence, Adaiyah Formation proved to be
potentially good oil carrier. The (Sw) estimated of Butmah Formation in well
AT-1, is 37.2 %, leaving 62.8 % for hydrocarbon saturation, while in well
SH-1B, (Sw) is 48.2%, indicating a hydrocarbon saturation of 51.8%. In well
Mangesh-1, the (Sw) of that formation is 12.6%, leading to high hydrocarbon
saturation up to 87.4 %. Accordingly, this formation seems potentially good
in reserving oil. The Table (5.1) summarizes different assessments of
petroleum system of Lower Jurassic formations from previous literature and
the present study.

97
 Table 5.1 : Comparative Petroleum System in different literature and the present study.

Alsharhan & Jassim & Aqrawi et al. English et al. Present Study
Formations
Nairn (1997) Goff (2006) (2010) (2015) AT-1 SH-1B Mangesh-1
Potential
Bottom Seal Reservoir
Reservoir
Reservoir
for Sargelu Fn.
Potential Potential in Upper Alan,
Alan Seal
(Minor) when comprises of in Atrush field Reservoir Reservoir
in Lower Alan
massive evaporites due to present
Poor evaporites
Reservoir Reservoir
Effective
in N Iraq Reservoir in Shaikhan, Potential Potential Potential
Mus ---- Atrush, Summail, Reservoir Reservoir Reservoir
in southern Iraq Barda Rash, and
Simrit fields

Seal Effective Seal Reservoir

represented in
Potential Potential Potential
Adaiyah for HC in Simrit, Barda-
massive evaporites Seal Seal Reservoir
accumulations Rash fields
of Adaiyah Fn.
Potential
Reservoir
in Upper Butmah Potential Potential
Reservoir or Reservoir Reservoir Potential
Butmah ---- ----
(Minor) Minor Seal especially in especially in Reservoir
when evaporites and upper parts upper parts
shale are present

98
5.2 Recommendations

1. The current study is an approach to Petroleum Geology of the recently drilled

area. Therefore the author hereby recommend the further core-based
biostratigraphic investigation to be carried out to solve any confusion
concerning the equivalent stratal units (formations) and their terminology.

2. Gas Chromatography (GC) techniques to identify the compositions of the

crude oil samples which are useful for interpreting the origin of the crude oil
present in the reservoir units.

3. Core plugs analyses to determine the permeability and porosity.

4. Image Log Interpretation for identification and characterisation of fractured

porosity, this would integrate with other estimated reservoir characteristics.

5. Building geological models, facies model and then distribute the

petrophysical properties (porosity and water saturation) to build
petrophysical models for formations to get further description supporting
subsurface interpretation for these formations.

99
REFRENCES
 References

Aldalawy, A.A. (2012). Variation of Petrophysical Properties in Abughirab and

Fauqi Oil Fields/Asmari Reservoir. Master Thesis, University of Baghdad,
143 p.

Al-Omari, F.S. and Sadiq, A. (1977). Geology of Northern Iraq. University of

Mosul, 198 p. (in Arabic).

Alsharhan, A.S., and Nairn, A.E.M. (1997). Sedimentary Basins and Petroleum
Geology of the Middle East. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, 843 p.

Aqrawi, A.A.M., Goff, J.C., Horbury, A.D., and Sadooni, F.N. (2010). The
Petroleum Geology of Iraq. Scientific Press Ltd, U.K., 560 p.

Archie, G.E. (1942). The electrical resistivity log as an aid in determining some
reservoir characteristics. Journal of Petroleum Technology, Vol. 146,
pp. 54-62.

Arps, J.J. (1964). Engineering concepts useful in oil finding. AAPG Bulletin,
Vol. 48, No. 2, pp. 157-165.

Asquith, G.B., and Gibson, C. (1982). Basic Well Log Analysis for Geologists.
AAPG, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 216 p.

Asquith, G., and Krygowski, D. (2004). Basic Well Log Analysis. Second Edition.
AAPG, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 239 p.

Avedisian, A. M. (1988). Well Log Analysis. Puplication of Mosul University,

Iraq.

Baker Hughes INTEQ (1999). Petroleum Geology. Houston, TX, 254 p.

Bassiouni, Z. (1994). Theory, measurement, and interpretation of well logs. Henry

L. Doherty Memorial Fund of AIME Society of Petroleum Engineers:
Richardson, TX, Vol. 4, 372 p.

Bellen, R.C., Van, Dunnington, H.V., Wetzel, R. and Morton, D. M. (1959).

Lexique stratigraphique international. Asie, Fascicule 10a, Iraq, Paris,
333 p.

R100
Bowen, D.G. (2003). Formation evaluation and Petrophysics. Jakarta, Indonesia,
273 p.

Buday, T. (1980). The regional geology of Iraq: Stratigraphy and Paleogeography.

Dar Al-Kutub Publishing House, University of Mosul, Iraq, 445 p.

Dunnington, H. V. (1958). Generation, migration, accumulation, and dissipation

of oil in Northern Iraq. In: Weeks, L.G., ed., Habitat of oil, AAPG
Symposium, pp. 1194-1251.

English, J.M., Lunn, G.A., Ferreira, L. and Yacu, G. (2015). Geologic evolution of
the Iraqi Zagros, and its influence on the distribution of hydrocarbons in
the Kurdistan Region. AAPG Bulletin, Vol. 99, No. 2, pp.231-272.

Espitalié, J., Laporte, J. L., Madec, M., Marquis, F., Leplat, P., Paulet, J., and .
Boutefeu, A. (1977). Rapid method for source rocks characterization
and for determination of petroleum potential and degree of evolution.
Revue De L'institut Français Du Pétrole (IFP), Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 23-42.

Espitalié, J., Deroo, G., and Marquis, F. (1985). Rock-Eval pyrolysis and its
applications. Revue De L'institut Français Du Pétrole (IFP), Vol. 40,
No. 5, pp. 563-579.

Etnyre, L.M. (1989). Finding oil and gas from well logs. Van Nostrand Reinhold,
New York, 305 p.

Ghorab, M., Mohmed, A. M. R., & Nouh, A. Z. (2008). The relation between the
shale origin (source or non-source) and its type for Abu Roash Formation at
Wadi El-Natrun area, south of Western Desert, Egypt. Australian Journal of
Basic and Applied Sciences, Vol.2, No.3, pp. 360-371.

Ghori, K.A.K. (2002). Modeling the hydrocarbon generative history of the Officer
Basin. Western Australia, PESA Journal, No. 29, pp. 29-42.

Gorin, G. E., and Feist-Burkhardt, S. (1990). Organic facies of Lower to Middle

Jurassic sediments in the Jura Mountains, Switzerland. Review of
Paleobotany and Palynology, Vol. 65, pp. 349-355

HLS Asia Limited (2007). Basic log interpretation. Log Interpretation Seminar
Workshop, New Delhi, 107 p.

Hunt, J.M. (1979). Petroleum geochemistry and geology. Freeman and company,
San Francisco, California, 617 p.

R101
Hunt, J.M. (1996). Petroleum Geochemistry and Geology. Second Edition, Freeman
and Company, New York, 743 p.

Hyne, N.J. (2012). Nontechnical guide to petroleum geology, exploration, drilling,

and production. Second edition, PennWell Corp. Tulsa, Oklahoma, 551 p.

Interactive Petrophysics software user manual (2008). version 3.5.

Jassim, S.Z., and Buday, T. (2006 a). Tectonic framework. In: Jassim, S.Z., and
Goff, J.C. (eds.), 2006. Geology of Iraq.Published by Dolin, Prague and
Moravian Museum, Brno, Czech Republic, pp.35-52.

Jassim, S. Z., and Buday, T. (2006 b). Units of the Unstable Shelf and the Zagros
Suture. In: Jassim, S.Z., and Goff, J.C. (eds.), Geology of Iraq.
Published by Dolin, Prague and Moravian Museum, Brno, Czech Republic,
pp.73-90.

Jassim, S.Z. and Al-Gailani, M. (2006). Hydrocarbons. In: Jassim, S.Z., and Goff,
J.C. (eds.), Geology of Iraq. Published by Dolin, Prague and Moravian
Museum, Brno, Czech Republic, pp. 326-354.

Jassim, S.Z., and Goff, J.C. (2006). Geology of Iraq. Dolin, Prague and Moravian
Museum, Brno, Czech Republic, 341 p.

James, G.A. and Wynd, J.G. (1965). Stratigraphic nomenclature of Iranian oil
consortium agreement area. AAPG Bull., Vol. 49, No. 12, pp. 2182-2245.

Kamali, M. R., Fathi, M. A., and Mohsenian, E. (2006). Petroleum geochemistry

and thermal modeling of Pabdeh Formation in Dezful Embayment. Journal
of Science , University of Tehran, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp.1-11

Krygowski, D.A. (2003). Guide to petrophysical interpretation. Austin, Texas,

U.S.A., 136 p.

Link, P.K. (1982). Basic Petroleum Geology. Oil & Gas Consultants International,
Inc., Tulsa, Oklahoma, 235 p.

Link, P.K. (1987). Basic Petroleum Geology. Second edition, Oil & Gas Consultants
International OGCI Publ., Tulsa, Oklahoma, 425 p.

R102
Mackertich, D., and Samarrai, A. (2015). History of Hydrocarbon Exploration
in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq. Gulf Petrolink, Bahrain, GeoArabia,
Vol. 20, No. 2, pp.181-220

Merrill, R.K. (1991). Source rock and migration processes and evaluation
techniques, in Merrill, R.K. (ed.), Handbook of Petroleum Geology.
AAPG Treatise of Petroleum Geology, pp. 13-17

Miles, J. A. (1994). Illustrated glossary of petroleum geochemistry. Clarendon

Press, London, 137 p.

Mustafa, K. A. (2009). Geochemical and microfacies analysis of some Liassic

Formations in selected sections, Kurdistan, Northern Iraq. Master
Thesis (Unpublished), University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway, 105 p.

Nunez-Betelu, L., and Baceta, J. (1994). Basics and application of Rock-Eval/TOC

Pyrolysis: an example from the uppermost Paleocene/lowermost Eocene in
the Basque Basin, Western Pyrenees. Munibe. Ciencias naturales, Vol. 46, pp.
43-62.

OPEC (2015). Share of World Crude Oil Reserves. Available from:

http://www.opec.org/opec_web/en/data_graphs/330.htm

Peters, K.E. (1986). Guidelines for evaluating petroleum source rock using
programmed pyrolysis. AAPG Bulletin, Vol. 70, No. 3, pp. 318-329.

Peters, K.E., and Cassa, M.R. (1994). Applied source rock geochemistry, in
Magoon, L.B., and W.G. Dow, eds., The petroleum system-from source
to trap: AAPG Memoir 60, Tulsa, Oklahoma, U.S.A., pp. 93–120.

Rider, M.H. (2002). The geological interpretation of well logs. Second Edition.
revised. Rider-French Consulting, Sutherland, Scotland, 280 p.

Schlumberger (1972). Log interpretation manual/principles. Vol. I, Schlumberger

Well Services Inc., Houston.

Schlumberger (1974). Log interpretation manual /applications. Vol.2, Schlumberger

Well Service Inc., Houston.

Schlumberger (1989). Log interpretation principales / applications. Schlumberger

Well Service Inc., Seventh Printing, Sugar Land, Texas.

R103
The Economist (Nov. 2012). The Kurdish Opening. Available from :
www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21565678

Thomas, W. E. (2011). Lecture notes for PET 370.

Tiab, D., and Donaldson, E.C. (1996). Petrophysics, Theory and practice of
Reservoir Rock and Fluid Transport Properties. Gulf Publishing
Company, Houston, Texas, 706 p.

Tissot, B. P., and Welte, D. H. (1978). Petroleum Formation and Occurrence, a

new Approach to Oil and Gas Exploration. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg,
Berlin, 538 p.

Tissot, B. P. and Welte, D. H. (1984). Petroleum Formation and Occurrence.

Second edition, Springer–Verlag, Heidelberg, Berlin, 699 p .

Tyson, R.V. (1987). The Genesis and Palynofacies Characteristics of Marine

petroleum source rocks. in Brooks, J., and Fleet, A.J. (eds.), Marine
petroleum source rocks. Geological Society of London, Special
Publication 26, pp. 47-67.

Vandenbroucke, M. (2003). Kerogen: from Types to Models of Chemical Structure.

Oil & Gas Science and Technology – Rev. IFP., Vol. 58, No. 2, pp.243-269.

WesternZagros (2012). Kurdistan and Northern Iraq Operator Activity Map.

Available from:
www.westernzagros.com/documents/120530_operator_activity_WEBVERSION

----

R104
 ‫هةلَسةنطاندني بةردي سةرضاوةيي وة تايبةمتةنديةكاني كوَطةي نةوتى ب َو‬
‫ثيَكهاتةكاني ضاخي جوَراسي زوو لة ضةند برييَكي دياريكراودا‪ ,‬لة ثاريَزطاى دهوَك‪,‬‬
‫هةريَمى كوردستاني عيَراق‬

‫نامةيةكة‬
‫ثيَشكةشي ئةجنومةني كوَليَذي زانست كراوة لة زانكوَي سةالحةددين‪-‬هةوليَر وةك بةشيَك لة‬
‫ثيَداويستيةكاني بةدةستهيَناني ثلةي ماستةري زانست لة جيوَلوَجي‬

‫لة اليةن‬
‫هةوار أنور زةنطةنة‬
‫بةكالوَريوَس لة زانكوَي سةالحةددين‪2009 -‬‬

‫بة سةرثةرشتياري‬
‫ث‪.‬ى‪.‬د‪ .‬طوٌََظند حسني شيَروانى‬

‫اربيل‪-‬كوردستان‬
‫بةفرانبار ‪2716‬‬
 ‫ثوختة‬

‫سيَ بريي‪ :‬ئةتروش‪ , (AT-1)1-‬شيَخان‪ (SH-1B)1B-‬وة مانطيَش‪ 1-‬لة كيَلطة نةوتيةكاني ئةتروش‪ ,‬شيَخان وة‬

‫بوَ‬ ‫سةرسةنط بةدواي يةكرتدا‪ ,‬كة دةكةونة ثاريَزطاي دهوَك لة هةريَمي كوردستاني عيَراق‪ ,‬هةلَبذيَردراون‬

‫هةلَسةنطاندني بةردي سةرضاوةيي وة تايبةمتةنديةكاني كوَطةي نةوتى بوَ ثيَكهاتووةكاني ضاخي جوراسيي زوو‪ .‬داتاي‬

‫لوطي بريةكان )‪ (Well Logs‬و منوونة برِاوةكاني ئةو بريانة بةكارهاتوون بوَ ئةم ليَكوَلَينةوةية‪.‬‬

‫بةكارهيَناني شيكارى تيَك شكان بةطةرمى بوَ منونةكاني ئةو ليَكوَلَينةوةية وا ثيشاندةدات كة برِي كاربوَني ئةندامي‬

‫)‪ (TOC‬بوَ ثيَكهاتووي عةالن لة بريةكاني )‪ AT-1‬و ‪ (SH-1B‬دةريدةخات كة بةردي سةرضاوةيي ‪(Source‬‬

‫)‪ Rock‬ناياب و باشن بةدواي يةكدا‪ .‬مادة ئةنداميةكان دياريكراون لة جوَري كريوَجيين يةك‪ .‬بةردي سةرضاوةيي‬

‫ثيَكهاتووي موس دةركةوتووة كة زور باش و باشن لة بريةكاني )‪ AT-1‬و ‪ (SH-1B‬بةدواي يةكدا‪ ,‬مادة ئةنداميةكان‬

‫دياريكراون لة جوَرةكاني كريوَجيين يةك و دوو‪ .‬منونةكاني ليَكوَلَينةوة بوَ ثيَكهاتووي عةداية لة بريةكاني ‪ SH-1B‬و‬

‫مانطيش‪ , 1-‬ثيشاندةدات كة بةردي سةرضاوةيي باش و زور باشن‪ ,‬وة جوَري كريِوَجينيةكةشي لة جوَري دووداية لةو دوو‬

‫بريةدا‪ .‬لة كاتيَكدا ثيَكهاتووي بومتة وا ثيشاندةدات كة بةردي سةرضاوةييةكةي لة ثةسةند بو زور باشة و وة جوري‬

‫كريوجينةكشي لة جوري يةك و دوو وة دوو‪ -‬سيَ دايةلة بريي ‪ . AT-1‬وة هةمان ثيكهاتوو لة بريي ‪ , SH-1B‬بةهاي‬

‫بري كاربوني ئةندامي تيداية كة دةريدةخات بةردي سةضاوةييةكةي ثةسةندة و وة جوري كريوجينةكةي ضوارة ‪.‬‬

‫ثيكهاتووي بومتة لة بريي مانطيش‪ 1-‬وا ثيشاندةدا كة بةردي سةرضاوةييةكةي خراث بو باشة و مادة ئةنداميةكةشي‬

‫دةركةوتوة لة جوَري كريوجيين دوو‪-‬سيَ و سيَ داية‪ .‬بةهاي ‪ Tmax‬دةريدةخات كة طةرمة ثيَطةيشنت ‪(Thermal‬‬

‫)‪ Maturity‬بوَ ثيَكهاتووةكاني ئةو ليَكوَلينةوةية لةو سيَ بريةدا دةشيَت لة قوَناغي ثيَنةطةيشتوو دابيَت‪.‬‬

‫داتاي توَماري بريةكان بةكارهاتوون بوَ ليكولينةوةي تايبةمتةندى ثيَرتِوفيزياوي كوَطةي نةوتى )‪ .(Reservoir‬وة‬

‫ئةو كارة تةواو كراوة بة بةكارهيَناني بةرنامةى ‪(Interactive Petrophysics Software Version‬‬

‫)‪ .3.5,2008‬ليَكدانةوةي توَمارةكان ثشتطريي كراوة بوَ‪ :‬ثيشبيين كردن بوَ جياكةرةوة بةرديةكان‪ ,‬هةذماركردني‬

‫قةبارةي شيَل‪ ,‬سةرجةم كوندارةكان )‪ ,(φt‬كونداري كاريطةر )‪ ,(φe‬كونداري الوةكي )‪ ,(φsec‬تيَربووني ئاوي )‪,(Sw‬‬

‫بارستايي ئاو )‪ ,(BVW‬هايدروَكاربوَني بةجيَماو وة هايدروكاربوني جووالو بوَ هةر ثيَكهاتوويةك لة هةرسيَ بريةكان‪.‬‬

‫‪A‬‬
‫ثةيوةندي كيَشراوي ضرِي نيوترِون و )‪ (M-N‬دروست كراوة‪ ,‬وا ثشت بةسنت بة توَماري قورِي )‪ (Mud log‬كة‬

‫ئامادةكراوة لة اليةن كوَمثانيا نةوتيةكان‪ .‬وة ئةمةش بةكارديَ بوَ ثيشانداني طوَران لة ثيَكهاتة بةرديةكاني‬

‫ثيَكهاتووةكاني )‪ (Formations‬عةالن‪ ,‬موس‪ ,‬عةداية و بومتة لة نيَوان بريةكان‪ .‬لة بريةكاني )‪ AT-1‬و‪1B‬‬

‫‪,(SH-‬ثيَكهاتووةكاني عةالن و موس وةك يةك لة بةردي كلسي )‪ ( Limestone‬ثيَكهاتوون‪ ,‬لة كاتيَكدا لة بريي‬

‫مانطيَش‪ 1-‬ئةو ثيَكهاتوانة لة دوَلَوَماييت كلسي )‪ (Calcareous Dolomite‬ثيَكهاتوون‪.‬ثيَكهاتووي عةداية‬

‫دةطوَريَت لة ئةنهايدرات لةبريةكاني )‪ AT-1‬و ‪ (SH-1B‬بوَ دوَلَوَمايت لة بريي مانطيَش‪ , 1-‬ئةوةش ماناي ئةوة دةدات‬

‫كة ئةو ثيَكهاتووة ) عةالن‪ ,‬موس و عةداية( لة بريي مانطيَش‪ 1-‬دةطوريَ بو هاوتاكةي )ثيَكهاتووي سيَكانيان(‪.‬‬

‫‪B‬‬