1. Seismic Data Driven Reservoir Analysis FORT CHADBOURNE 3-D Coke and Runnels Counties, TX ODOM LIME AND GRAY SAND

2. Comments, Well Data
20 wells used for multi-mineral evaluation; 72 wells used for porosity estimation.
For 3 wells with no sonic log, correlations were applied (FCOLU_A_106, FCOLU_17_11 and FCOLU_51_33).
4 Wells with shear velocity (FCOLU_08_30, FCOLU_51_32, FCOLU_A_107 and FCOLU_A_110). A shear velocity model was calibrated and applied to the other 16 wells.
Main interval of interest: ODOM LIME; secondary intervals: GRAY SAND and CAMBRIAN SAND.
Main clay types used for modeling: Illite and Chlorite. Sandstone, Limestone, Dolomite and Feldspar were used in also in the modeling.
Fluids: water ppm of salinity and OIL of 30 API.
Fluid susbtitution made in well FCOLU_51_32.

3. Petrophysical analysis Observations & Conclusions
Clay type analysis indicates presence of chlorite and illite.
6 main facies types determined. An extra facies was used to differentiate bad-hole sections.
Odom lime thickness is fairly constant throughout the area, varying from 42 to 54 ft gross thickness. Two exceptions are, FCOLU_52_ (86 ft thick) and FCOLU_51_32 (61 ft thickness).
Gray sand thickness is highly variable, but usually ranging from no sand to ~40 ft thick. Exceptions though are FCOLU_17_11 (51 ft) and Sallie_Odom (61 ft).
Multi-mineral analysis of the Odom lime indicates an average effective porosity between 8 and 10%, and water saturations from 25 to 75%.
Gray sand effective porosities average 9%, while water saturations are normally very high, between 80 and 90%. Wells FCOLU_8_33, FCOLU_13_93, FCOLU_13_95, FCOLU_17_11 and Sallie_Odom have few feet with water saturations lower than 70%.

4. Observations & Conclusions
Elastic Properties
Observations & Conclusions
Shear wave velocity estimation in all wells was based on a correlation made with the recorder shear data in 4 wells (FCOLU_08_30, FCOLU_51_32, FCOLU_A_107 and FCOLU_A_110).
Acoustic impedance (AI) vs. Poisson’s ratio (POIS) cross plot shows a very good differentiation between facies.
Facies with high AI (> f/s.g/c3) and high POIS (>0.25) are the limestone facies. In this group the points with less AI correspond to the porous limestone's.
AI < f/s.g/c3 correspond to the clastic facies, POIS less than 0.25 correspond to the porous sands, and porosity increases when decreasing Poisson’s ratio. POIS greater than 0.25 correspond to very shaley sands and shales.
Lambda Rho vs. Mu Rho cross plot can also be used to differentiate facies and porosity.
Acoustic vs. Elastic impedance cross plot is ambiguous for facies discrimination

5. Observations & Conclusions
Fluid Substitution
Observations & Conclusions
Fluid substitution for ODOM LIME in well FCOLU_51_32 shows only a very small change in elastic properties for 100% water saturated limestone versus 90% oil saturated. This effect is mainly due to the low porosities observed in ODOM, and the small density difference between Oil and Water.
Fluid substitution in Gray sand also shows also very small difference between the oil and water saturated cases. However, increased oil saturation decreases AI and Poisson’s ratio.

6. Location Map and Selected Well Data
Seismic Grid
New well
For inversion
Update
Wells added
for structural
control
Wells with No DT Log
Well with Shear Log
2 Miles N

7. Lithology Review – Clays type
Z axis:
well number
Z axis:
well number
Chlorite trend
Chlorite trend
Ratio Neutron / Density porosity
Illite trend
Illite trend
Difference Neutron – Density porosity (v/v)
Odom lime
Gray sand

8. Lithology Review – Matrix lithology
Z axis:
well number
Z axis:
well number
Ratio Neutron / Density porosity
Clean points between sandstone and limestone region, both lithologies can be expected
Clean points in Limestone region, some sandstone and dolomite can be expected
Difference Neutron – Density porosity (v/v)
Odom lime
Gray sand

9. Summary of Reservoir Properties (ODOM)
WELL NAME
Gross / Net (G/N) Thickness (ft)
Effec. Porosity/
Total Porosity (%)
Sw (%)
Petrophysical Evaluation
(see attachments)
FCOLU_08_27
48 / 39 (0.81) /
30-55
FCOLU_08_30
48 / 27 (0.56)
6-14 /
20-50
FCOLU_08_31
47 / 27 (0.57) / 50
FCOLU_13_87
54 / 8 (0.15)
/ 7-8.9
50-65

10. Summary of Reservoir Properties (ODOM)
WELL NAME
Gross / Net (G/N) Thickness (ft)
Effec. Porosity/
Total Porosity (%)
Sw (%)
Petrophysical Evaluation
(see attachments)
FCOLU_13_93
45 / 24 (0.53)
6-7.6 / 6-7.8
20-30
FCOLU_13_95
44 / 4 (0.09)
6-10 / 6-10 35
FCOLU_17_11
42 / 2 (0.05)
6.4 / 6.5 38
FCOLU_26_18
43 / 21 (0.49) /
10-40

11. Summary of Reservoir Properties (ODOM)
WELL NAME
Gross / Net (G/N) Thickness (ft)
Effec. Porosity/
Total Porosity (%)
Sw (%)
Petrophysical Evaluation
(see attachments)
FCOLU_33_12
54 / 20 (0.37) /
15-38
FCOLU_50_01
57 / 0 (0) -
FCOLU_51_31
51 / 25 (0.49) /
36-50
FCOLU_51_32
61 / 41 (0.67) /
36-60

12. Summary of Reservoir Properties (ODOM)
WELL NAME
Gross / Net (G/N) Thickness (ft)
Effec. Porosity/
Total Porosity (%)
Sw (%)
Petrophysical Evaluation
(see attachments)
FCOLU_51_33
50 / 12 (0.24) /
55-70
FCOLU_52_02
86 / 38 (0.44) /
70-100
FCOLU_8_33
52 / 17 (0.33)
/ 7-11
23-32
FCOLU_A_106
47 / 12 (0.26) /
45-85

13. Summary of Reservoir Properties (ODOM)
WELL NAME
Gross / Net (G/N) Thickness (ft)
Effec. Porosity/
Total Porosity (%)
Sw (%)
Petrophysical Evaluation
(see attachments)
FCOLU_A_107
52 / 30 (0.58) /
33-78
FCOLU_A_110
49 / 26 (0.53) /
65-15
MCDONALD_1
50 / 15 (0.3)
6-10 /
40-100
SALLIE_ODOM_101
44 / 0 (0) -

14. Summary of Reservoir Properties (GRAY)
WELL NAME
Gross / Net (G/N) Thickness (ft)
Effec. Porosity/
Total Porosity (%)
Sw (%)
Petrophysical Evaluation
(see attachments)
FCOLU_08_27
34 / 32 (0.94)
7-10 / 10-13 90
FCOLU_08_30
9 / 9 (1) / 80
FCOLU_08_31
39 / 19 (0.49)
/ 8-15
FCOLU_13_87
19 / 15 (0.79) / 85
FCOLU_13_93
22 / 6 (0.27)
8-12 / 11-12 27
FCOLU_13_95
18 / 15 (0.83) /
67-85

15. Summary of Reservoir Properties (GRAY)
WELL NAME
Gross / Net (G/N) Thickness (ft)
Effec. Porosity/
Total Porosity (%)
Sw (%)
Petrophysical Evaluation
(see attachments)
FCOLU_17_11
51 / 19 (0.37)
7-10 / 10-13
54-100
FCOLU_26_18
13 / 5 (0.38) / 95
FCOLU_33_12
41 / 10 (0.24)
6-9 / 80
FCOLU_50_01
15 / 0 (0) -
FCOLU_51_31
9 / 6 (0.67) / 85
FCOLU_51_32
26 / 10 (0.38) /

16. Summary of Reservoir Properties (GRAY)
WELL NAME
Gross / Net (G/N) Thickness (ft)
Effec. Porosity/
Total Porosity (%)
Sw (%)
Petrophysical Evaluation
(see attachments)
FCOLU_51_33
7 / 3 (0.43)
7 / 8.2
100
FCOLU_52_02
NO SAND -
FCOLU_8_33
28 / 17 (0.61) / 68
FCOLU_A_106
16 / 12 (0.75) /
FCOLU_A_107
30 / 12 (0.4) /
FCOLU_A_110
31 / 14 (0.45)
6-9.2 /

17. Summary of Reservoir Properties (GRAY)
WELL NAME
Gross / Net (G/N) Thickness (ft)
Effec. Porosity/
Total Porosity (%)
Sw (%)
Petrophysical Evaluation
(see attachments)
MCDONALD_1
24 / 18 (0.75)
7-13 / 9-13
100
SALLIE_ODOM_101
61 / 59 (0.96)
11 / 12
30-100

18. Facies and Elastic Rock Property Analysis

19. Facies Analysis
6 facies were determined. Facies No 7 was included to differentiate bad-hole readings.
The productive facies are No. 5 and 6.
Elastic properties analysis was performed over Gray sand and Odom lime intervals, together with shales above and below.
Elastic properties analysis was done in the 4 wells with Shear recorded data.

20. Shear Wave Estimation
Shear wave estimation was based on a correlation established from 4 wells with recorded shear data: FCOLU_08_30, FCOLU_51_32, FCOLU_A_107 and FCOLU_A_110.
Z-axis: facies
Vels (ft/s)
Correlation in Odom lime
Correlation in Gray sand
Velc (ft/s)

21. Shear Wave Estimation Vels (ft/s) 4 wells recorded shear
Correlation in Odom lime
Correlation in Gray sand
Vels (ft/s)
Z-axis: facies
Z-axis: facies
Z-axis: facies
4 wells recorded shear
4 wells estimated shear
13 wells estimated shear
Velc (ft/s)

22. AI vs. POIS, Clastic Facies
Porous sandstone (yellow) has the lowest Poisson’s ratio and the presence of shale in sands (green) increases the Poisson’s ratio, making them hard to differentiate from the background.
Z-axis: facies
AI (ft/s.g/c3)
Background shale (purple) has very low acoustic impedance.
POIS

23. AI vs. POIS, Carbonate Facies
No porosity limestone (dark blue) has the highest acoustic impedance; the acoustic impedance gets lower when porosity is present (orange).
Z-axis: facies
AI (ft/s.g/c3)
When carbonate cement is present in sands (light blue), the Poisson’s ratio becomes higher as well as the acoustic impedance. Placing the points in an transition position between the carbonate and sandstone facies.
POIS

24. AI vs. POIS, Facies Analysis
Acoustic impedance differentiates the carbonate from the shale facies. But there is overlap between porous limes and the sands.
Z-axis: facies
AI (ft/s.g/c3)
While Poisson’s ratio differentiate the porous sands from the shales, cemented sandstones and carbonates
POIS

25. AI vs. POIS, Facies Analysis
Z-axis: facies
AI (ft/s.g/c3)
Within the carbonates, the lower the acoustic impedance the higher the porosity. This can be seen in more detail in the next slide.
POIS

26. AI vs. POIS Cross-Plot Analysis
Shale increase (more POIS and less AI)
Z-axis: Calcite
Z-axis: Quartz
Z-axis: Clay
AI (ft/s.g/c3)
Porosity trend in carbonates (less AI)
Porosity trend in sandstones (less POIS)
Z-axis: PHIT
Z-axis: PHIE
POIS

27. AI vs. POIS Analysis 20000 - AI (ft/s.g/c3) - 60000
Z-axis: Calcite
Z-axis: Quartz
Z-axis: Clay
AI (ft/s.g/c3)
Porosity trend in carbonates (less AI)
Porosity trend in sandstones (less POIS)
Z-axis: PHIT
Z-axis: PHIE
POIS

28. LambdaRho vs. MuRho 0 - MuRho - 100 0 - LambdaRho - 250
LambdaRho vs. MuRho crossplot is also very useful to differentiate facies.
Z-axis: facies
LambdaRho can separate carbonates (dark blue and orange) from sandstones, while MuRho will help to differentiate sand (yellow) from shale (purple) and shaley sands (green).
MuRho
LambdaRho

29. LambdaRho vs. MuRho 0 - MuRho - 100
Shale trend in sandstones
Z-axis: Calcite
Z-axis: Quartz
Z-axis: Clay
MuRho
LambdaRho it’s highly affected by porosity in sandstone, while in carbonates both LambdaRho and MuRho has an important effect.
Porosity trend in carbonates
Porosity trend in sandstones
Z-axis: PHIT
Z-axis: PHIE
LambdaRho

30. LambdaRho vs. MuRho 0 - MuRho - 100
LambdaRho it’s highly affected by porosity in sandstone, while in carbonates both LambdaRho and MuRho has an important effect.
Z-axis: Calcite
Z-axis: Quartz
Z-axis: Clay
MuRho
Porosity trend in carbonates
Porosity trend in sandstones
Z-axis: PHIT
Z-axis: PHIE
LambdaRho

31. AI vs. EI30 (30 degrees) Analysis
Elastic impedance poorly differentiates facies and petrophysical properties.
Z-axis: Calcite
Z-axis: Quartz
Z-axis: Clay
AI (ft/s.g/c3)
Z-axis: PHIT
Z-axis: PHIE
EI30 (ft/s.g/c3)

32. Fluid Substitution

33. Odom lime – AI vs. Pois, FCOLU_51_32
100% WATER
75% WATER – 25% OIL
10% WATER – 90% OIL
Increasing oil saturation,
decreases AI
and POIS.
A greater
effect is seen
in AI.
AI (ft/s.g/c3)
Z-axis: PHIE
Z-axis: PHIE
Z-axis: PHIE
Z-axis: PHIE
POIS

34. Odom lime – AI vs. Pois, FCOLU_51_32
100% water
AI (ft/s.g/c3)
Z-axis: PHIE
POIS

35. Odom lime – AI vs. Pois, FCOLU_51_32
75% water – 25% oil
AI (ft/s.g/c3)
Z-axis: PHIE
POIS

36. Odom lime – AI vs. Pois, FCOLU_51_32
10% water – 90% oil
AI (ft/s.g/c3)
Z-axis: PHIE
POIS

37. Gray Sand – AI vs. Pois – FCOLU_51_32
100% WATER
75% WATER – 25% OIL
10% WATER – 90% OIL
Increasing oil saturation, decreases AI and POIS
AI (ft/s.g/c3)
Z-axis: PHIE
Z-axis: PHIE
Z-axis: PHIE
POIS

38. Gray sand - AI vs. Pois – FCOLU_51_32
100% water
AI (ft/s.g/c3)
Z-axis: PHIE
POIS

39. Gray sand - AI vs. Pois – FCOLU_51_32
75% water – 25% oil
AI (ft/s.g/c3)
Z-axis: PHIE
POIS

40. Gray sand - AI vs. Pois – FCOLU_51_32
10% water – 90% oil
AI (ft/s.g/c3)
Z-axis: PHIE
POIS

41. ATTACHMENTS Multi-min Analysis

42. Petrophysical Properties - Well FCOLU_08_27
Lithology Depth (ft) Porosity Sw

43. Petrophysical Properties - Well FCOLU_08_30
Lithology Depth (ft) Porosity Sw

44. Petrophysical Properties - Well FCOLU_08_31
Lithology Depth (ft) Porosity Sw

45. Petrophysical Properties - Well FCOLU_13_87
Lithology Depth (ft) Porosity Sw

46. Petrophysical Properties - Well FCOLU_13_93
Lithology Depth (ft) Porosity Sw

47. Petrophysical Properties - Well FCOLU_13_95
Lithology Depth (ft) Porosity Sw

48. Petrophysical Properties - Well FCOLU_17_11
Lithology Depth (ft) Porosity Sw

49. Petrophysical Properties - Well FCOLU_26_18
Lithology Depth (ft) Porosity Sw

50. Petrophysical Properties - Well FCOLU_33_12
Lithology Depth (ft) Porosity Sw

51. Petrophysical Properties - Well FCOLU_50_01
Lithology Depth (ft) Porosity Sw

52. Petrophysical Properties - Well FCOLU_51_31
Lithology Depth (ft) Porosity Sw

53. Petrophysical Properties - Well FCOLU_51_32
Lithology Depth (ft) Porosity Sw

54. Petrophysical Properties - Well FCOLU_51_33
Lithology Depth (ft) Porosity Sw

55. Petrophysical Properties - Well FCOLU_8_33
Lithology Depth (ft) Porosity Sw

56. Petrophysical Properties - Well FCOLU_A_106
Lithology Depth (ft) Porosity Sw

57. Petrophysical Properties - Well FCOLU_A_107
Lithology Depth (ft) Porosity Sw

58. Petrophysical Properties - Well FCOLU_A_110
Lithology Depth (ft) Porosity Sw

59. Petrophysical Properties - Well MCDONALD_1
Lithology Depth (ft) Porosity Sw

60. Petrophysical Properties - Well SALLIE_ODOM_101
Lithology Depth (ft) Porosity Sw