Reservoir Quality and Petrophysical Model of the Tarn Deep-Water Slope-Apron System, North Slope, Alaska

Pacific Section AAPGMay 8, 2006

Alaska Department ofNaturalResources

Kenneth P. Helmold, Alaska Division of Oil & GasWayne J. Campaign, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc.William R. Morris, ConocoPhillips Co.Douglas S. Hastings, Brooks Range Petro. Corp.Steven R. Moothart, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc.

Outline

• Regional setting• Petrology of sandstones• Facies and reservoir quality• Regional reservoir quality model• Petrophysical model• Conclusions

Conclusions• Reservoir quality is initially controlled by

textural parameters related to turbidite elements• Channels are the best reservoirs followed by

lobes, crevasse splays and levees• Mechanical compaction exerts a strong regional

control on reservoir quality• Reservoir quality of Brookian sandstones can

be accurately predicted prior to drilling • Petrophysical model is complicated by

abundance of structural clay and low-density zeolite

Location of Tarn Field

N

Stratigraphic Column of North Alaska

Tarn Slope-Apron Deposits

N

• Located at toe-of-slope

• Fed by slope gullies

• Fairly small features

Outline

• Regional setting• Petrology of sandstones• Facies and reservoir quality• Regional reservoir quality model• Petrophysical model• Conclusions

Brookian Sandstone CompositionTotal Quartz

Feldspar Lithic Grains

(including chert)

Sedimentary Grains

Volcanic Grains Metamorphic Grains

(including chert)

Paleocene Cenomanian Albian

Cenomanian sands are lithic rich with abundant volcanic rock fragments

Typical Brookian Sandstones

Albian (Torok)Argillaceous rich RFGenerally lack cement

Paleocene (Flaxman)Chert richMedium-grain sand

Cenomanian (Tarn)Volcanic glass richAnalcime cement

100 µm

Brookian Sandstone Phi-K Trends

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

1000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30Porosity (%)

Perm

eabi

lity

(md)

PaleoceneCenomanianAlbian

1 md K cutoff = Phi of 12% Paleocene, 15% Albian, 17% Cenomanian

Analcime and Microcrystalline Rims

100 μm

100 μm

Silica-rich glass = NaAlSi2O6 • H2O + SiO2Analcime Quartz

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2.40 2.50 2.60 2.70 2.80 2.90Grain Density (g/cc)

Ana

lcim

e (b

ulk

%)

ChannelLobesCrev SplayLeveeAban ChanBasin Plain

r = - 0.68

10 μm100 μm

Outline

• Regional setting• Petrology of sandstones• Facies and reservoir quality• Regional reservoir quality model• Petrophysical model• Conclusions

Channel Facies

Sedimentary Facies: Amalgamated Ta, some Tb, Tabc, Tc (climbing at margins)

Bed Thickness: Thin to very thickGrain Size: Very fine to fine-grain sandAvg. Porosity: 20 %Avg. Permeability: 33 mdAvg. H2O saturation: 46 %Avg. Dispersed clay: 4 %

Cha

nnel

Leve

e

Lobe Facies

Sedimentary Facies: Tace, Tabe, Tabce, Tbce, occasional Tae, Tbe

Bed Thickness: Thin to very thick,rare very thin

Grain Size: Very fine- to fine-grain sand, rare mud

Avg. Porosity: 18 %Avg. Permeability: 7 mdAvg. H2O saturation: 61 %Avg. Dispersed clay: 8 %

Lobe

Crevasse SplayFacies

Sedimentary Facies: Tce (climbing), Tb, Tabe, Tace, rare Tbe, Tbce

Bed Thickness: Very thin to thickGrain Size: Very fine- to lower fine-grain

sand, mud and siltAvg. Porosity: 17 %Avg. Permeability: 3 mdAvg. H2O saturation: 64 %Avg. Dispersed clay: 13 %

Spla

yLe

vee

Leve

e

Levee Facies

Sedimentary Facies: Tce, TcBed Thickness: Very thin, rare thinGrain Size: Very fine-grain sand,

mud and siltAvg. Porosity: 16 %Avg. Permeability: 2 mdAvg. H2O saturation: 68 %Avg. Dispersed clay: 22 %

Leve

e

Depositional Control on Reservoir Quality

Best reservoirs in channels; poorest in levees and basin plain

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

1000

10 15 20 25 30Porosity (%)

Perm

eabi

lity

(md)

ChannelLobeCrev SplayLeveeBasin Plain

Effect of Grain Size on Phi-K

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

1000

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30Framework Grain Size (mm)

Perm

eabi

lity

(md)

r = 0.63

ChannelLobeCrev SplayLeveeBasin Plain

5

10

15

20

25

30

0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30Framework Grain Size (mm)

Poro

sity

(%)

r = 0.61

Facies control on grain size is largely responsible for reservoir quality variability

Outline

• Regional setting• Petrology of sandstones• Facies and reservoir quality• Regional reservoir quality model• Petrophysical model• Conclusions

Brookian Erosion Map80 Miles

Tarn Field

Erosion estimates derived from sonic compaction curves

mapped by Matt Burns,from Rowan et. al., 2003;USGS Open-File Report 03-329

Maximum Burial Depth (Dmax) = Present Depth (ft) + Brookian Erosion (ft)

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

1000

2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000

Dmax (feet)

Perm

eabi

lity

(md)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000

Dmax (feet)

Poro

sity

(%)

Brookian Phi-K vs. Dmax

Cenomanian

Albian

Model regression

Increasing Burial Depth

Incr

easi

ng G

rain

Siz

e

Increasing Burial Depth

• Locally, reservoir quality is controlled by grain texture related to turbidite elements

• Regionally, reservoir quality is controlled by compaction

Albian Prospects Cenomanian Prospects

Brookian Reservoir Quality Model

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 5 10 15 20 25Predicted Porosity (%)

Mea

sure

d Po

rosi

ty (%

)

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

0.01 0.1 1 10 100Predicted Permeability (md)

Mea

sure

d Pe

rmea

bilit

y (m

d)

Incr

easi

ng B

uria

l Dep

th

Compaction of Brookian Reservoirs

> 9000’ Dmaxø = 11 %k = 0.1 md

7000-9000’ Dmaxø = 15 %k = 3 md

< 7000’ Dmaxø = 18 %k = 12 md

100 µm

Outline

• Regional setting• Petrology of sandstones• Facies and reservoir quality• Regional reservoir quality model• Petrophysical model• Conclusions

Petrophysics: Overview of the Problem

• GR log does not distinguish sand

• RT and RHOB logs do show sand character

• Problem results from presence of analcime and structural clay

• Standard shaly-sand log model is not appropriate

Effect of Clay on Log Model• Reservoir contains 30-50% argillaceous rock fragments• Lithics are older and more compacted than surrounding shales

• Lithics are “pinpoints” of conductivity that are not connected• Structural clay has little impact on reservoir quality

Effect of Analcime on Log Model

• Grain densities vary over a wide range from 2.52 – 2.78• A single lithology model would yield poor results• Solve for Φ and grain density allowing for mineralogical variation• Model must use more than one porosity tool

Resistivity – Mineral Effect Cross PlotEx

cess

Neut

ron

Mine

ralE

ffect

1 10

0.0

3.0

6.0

9.0

12.0

15.0

18.0

21.0

24.0

27.0

30.0

RT (OHMM)0 1

Color: XRD.CALCITE_XRD

1

1

11

1

11

1

11

111

1

1

1

1

11 11

11

1

11

1

11

11

11

11

11

11

1

1

1

11

1

11

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

11

3

3

33

33

3333

3

3

33

33

3

33

3

44

4

444

444

4

444

4

4

44

4444

44

4

4

44444

4

44

44

4

44

4

4

4

4

4

4

44

45

5

5

55555

5

5555

555

5

5

55

5

5

5

5

5 5

55

55

5

55

555 56

6

6

6

6

66

66

6

66

6

6

6

66

66

666

6

6

66

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

194194

0

0 0

0

50

RT / XRD.HI_MINRL Crossplot6 Wells

• Neutron correction is developed from the resistivity log• Calculate phi and grain density from standard Neutron/Density cross plot

• Calculate mineral effect on Neutron log from mineral abundances (TS & XRD) and Log Parameter Table• Plot mineral effect against raw logs to determine “best fit”• Deep resistivity has best correlation

CoreG/C32.4 2.9

Log ModelG/C32.4 2.9

5200

5250

5300

SSTVD

FEETCore Porosity

PCT50 0

Log PorosityV/V0.5 0

Log Sw1 0

Core SwPCT100 0

Grain Density

Model ResultsWell Legend: Well A Well B Well C Well D Well E Well F

0.0

3.0

6.0

9.0

12.0

15.0

18.0

21.0

24.0

27.0

30.0

0.000

0.030

0.060

0.090

0.120

0.150

0.180

0.210

0.240

0.270

0.300

TARN

.PHI

TX

CORE.PHI (PCT)

1 111

1 11 1

1

1111

1111

11

1

1

11 1

1111

111 1

11

11

111

11 111 1

1

1 111

11

111

1 11111 1

11 1

1 1

1

1

111

1

1

1

1

111

111 11111

11111 1

1

11 1

11 1

1

1 11 11

1

11

111

1 11111

11

1111 111 11

111

1111 1111

11

1111

1

11

11 1

11

1

1111

11 1

11

11

1 11 1

1

1

1

1

1111

1

11

1 11

1 11

1111

1

11

1

1

1

11

1

1

1

11

1

1 11

11

12

222

2 222

2

2

22

223

3 3 33 3333 33

344 444

44

444

4

444 44

4

44

4

44 4

44

44 4

4444

444

4

4

44

4

44

44

44

4

44

44

4

444 444 4

4444

444 4

44

4

44

4 4

444 444

4

444

4

44

4

444

44

4444

4

44

4

44

444

4

44

44 4

444

4

4

4

4 4

44

4

4444

5 55

55

55

55 55 5555555

5 55

5 555 555

5 55555

55

5555555 55 5 55555

5555 55

55

555 55

55

5

5 5

5

5

55 5

5

5 55 5

55

5

5

555

55

5

5

56

66 66

6

66

6

66

666

66 66 66

66

6

66

66

6

6

6

6666

666

666 6

6

6

6

6666

66

6

6

6

66

6

6

6

666 6

666666 666666

66 666666666

540540

0

0

0 0

• Results are for multiple wells• No log normalization or individual customization

Conclusions• Reservoir quality is initially controlled by

textural parameters related to turbidite elements• Channels are the best reservoirs followed by

lobes, crevasse splays and levees• Mechanical compaction exerts a strong regional

control on reservoir quality• Reservoir quality of Brookian sandstones can

be accurately predicted prior to drilling • Petrophysical model is complicated by

abundance of structural clay and low-density zeolite

The End

Reservoir Quality and Petrophysical Model of the Tarn Deep-Water Slope-Apron System, North Slope, AlaskaOutlineConclusionsSlide Number 4Slide Number 5Slide Number 6OutlineBrookian Sandstone CompositionTypical Brookian SandstonesBrookian Sandstone Phi-K TrendsSlide Number 11OutlineSlide Number 13Slide Number 14Slide Number 15Slide Number 16Depositional Control on Reservoir QualitySlide Number 18OutlineBrookian Erosion MapBrookian Phi-K vs. DmaxSlide Number 22Compaction of Brookian ReservoirsOutlineSlide Number 25Slide Number 26Slide Number 27Slide Number 28Slide Number 29ConclusionsSlide Number 31