determining geologic controls on oil production …
TRANSCRIPT
DETERMINING GEOLOGIC CONTROLS ON OIL PRODUCTION THROUGH
CORE-LOG CALIBRATION AND LINEAR REGRESSION
ANALYSIS FOR THE NIOBRARA FORMATION
IN SILO FIELD, WYOMING
by
Carrie Marie Welker
A thesis submitted to the faculty o f The University o f Utah
in partial fulfillment o f the requirements for the degree o f
Master o f Science
in
Geology
Department o f Geology and Geophysics
The University o f Utah
May 2015
Copyright © Carrie Marie Welker 2015
All Rights Reserved
The University of Utah Graduate School
STATEMENT OF THESIS APPROVAL
The following faculty members served as the supervisory committee chair and
members for the thesis o f __________ Carrie Marie Welker___________________________
Dates at right indicate the members’ approval o f the thesis.
Lisa Stright________________________, Chair July 17, 2014Date Approved
Lauren Birgenheier_________________ , Member July 17, 2014Date Approved
John Bartley________________________, Member July 17, 2014Date Approved
The thesis has also been approved by_______John Bartley_________________
Chair o f the Department/School/College o f______ Geology and Geophysics
and by David B. Kieda, Dean o f The Graduate School.
ABSTRACT
The Niobrara Formation is an unconventional resource for onshore oil and gas
production in the U.S. The Silo Field, located in the Denver-Julesburg Basin in Laramie
County, Wyoming, has been producing from the Niobrara since 1981. The Niobrara is
an interbedded source-rock marl and low-porosity chalk/limestone deposited during the
Late Cretaceous in the Western Interior Seaway. Cumulative production as o f July 2013
was ~11 MMBO and 9,997 MMCFG. Despite a long production history, it is not well
understood why some wells in Silo are high-volume producers while neighboring wells
have poor production.
Though the Niobrara has been the attention o f much previous research, little
quantitative data have been published relating production to geologic variables. The
objective o f this study is to identify geologic factors that contribute to the most
productive wells at Silo Field. Geologic variables analyzed included thickness,
resistivity, weight % calcite, porosity, and fracture intensity. Choke size and perforated
length were also compared to production since drilling and production methodologies
have a substantial influence on well production. Starting from core description and
associated core measurements and working outwards to core-log calibration, cross
section construction, and map generation, this study established how geologic factors
vary stratigraphically and laterally in Silo Field. Then, relationships between geologic
variables, engineering practices, and production were explored. Methods relied heavily
on bivariate and multivariate linear regression.
Fracture intensity has the strongest correlation to production. Elevated resistivity
defines the productive fairway at Silo Field due to the presence o f open natural
fractures. Fractures in the Niobrara are classified as three types: tectonic, overburden,
and microfractures. Correlations between engineering practices and production for
horizontal wells drilled since 2005, which are absent for earlier wells, are a testament to
improved technology and promising for future field development.
iv
Dedicated to my friend
Sarah E. Moody
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT.............................................................................................................................. iii
LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. viii
LIST OF FIGURES.................................................................................................................. ix
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...................................................................................................xii
Chapters
1. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................1
1.1 Motivation for Study..............................................................................................11.2 Research Objectives and Methods.......................................................................31.3 Dataset and Limitations......................................................................................... 4
2. GEOLOGIC BACKGROUND.......................................................................................... 8
2.1 The Niobrara Formation.......................................................................................82.2 The Denver-Julesberg (DJ) Basin..................................................................... 112.3 Silo Field Production History.............................................................................13
3. CORE AND WELL LOG ANALYSIS..........................................................................33
3.1 Core Description..................................................................................................333.2 Core-Log Calibration..........................................................................................343.3 Cross Sections...................................................................................................... 45
4. CONTROLS ON PRODUCTION.................................................................................. 71
4.1 Geologic Controls on Production.......................................................................714.2 Engineering Controls on Production................................................................. 734.3 Combined Geologic and Engineering Controls on Production..................... 74
5. DISCUSSION.................................................................................................................... 87
5.1 Geologic Controls on Fracture Intensity 87
5.2 Interpreting Multivariate Results.......................................................................885.3 Natural Fractures..................................................................................................895.4 Resistivity..............................................................................................................965.5 Porosity.................................................................................................................. 985.6 Engineering Controls........................................................................................... 99
6. CONCLUSIONS..............................................................................................................109
7. FUTURE W ORK.............................................................................................................111
Appendices
A. CORE-LOG CALIBRATION DATA TABLES........................................................ 113
B. FRACTURE INTENSITY CALCULATION TABLES........................................... 119
C. CROSS SECTIONS....................................................................................................... 289
D. REGRESSION ANALYSIS DATA TABLES........................................................... 290
REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................294
vii
LIST OF TABLES
2.1. Frequency distribution table o f first year oil for Silo Field wells..........................27
2.2 Active 1980s vertical w ells ......................................................................................... 29
4.1 Bivariate results for first year oil production and geologic variables.................... 81
4.2 Multivariate regression results for first year oil production from geologic variables........................................................................................................................... 83
4.3 Multivariate regression results for first year oil production from geologic variables and perforated thickness............................................................................... 86
5.1 Bivariate regression results for fracture intensity.................................................... 101
5.2 Multivariate regression results for fracture intensity.............................................. 103
5.3 Natural fracture types in the Niobrara Formation, Silo Field................................ 104
LIST OF FIGURES
1.1 Location o f the DJ Basin with the locations o f Silo, Hereford, and Wattenberg fields highlighted............................................................................................................6
1.2 Location o f Silo Field..................................................................................................... 7
2.1 Paleogeography during Niobrara deposition in the Late Cretaceous (Coniacian- Campanian)......................................................................................................................19
2.2 Diagrammatic E -W cross section o f the asymmetric WIC foreland basin...........20
2.3 Niobrara stratigraphic column and type log for the DJ Basin..................................21
2.4 Map o f Niobrara outcrops, formation type localities, and oil and gas fields in the DJ Basin...........................................................................................................................22
2.5 Isopach map o f the Niobrara Formation and its stratigraphic equivalent,the Mancos Shale............................................................................................................23
2.6 Schematic E -W cross section o f the DJ Basin.......................................................... 24
2.7 Generalized stratigraphic column for the northeastern DJ Basin............................ 25
2.8 Drilling and production history maps o f Silo Field...................................................26
2.9 Locations o f active 1980s vertical wells (either producing oil or injectingwater)..............................................................................................................................28
2.10 Horizontal well paths in Silo Field, including 1990s horizontal wells and recent wells drilled since 2005.................................................................................................30
2.11 Production plots for Silo Field.....................................................................................31
2.12 Oil production through time for 1H Owen 14-19H well (SW SW Sec. 9, T15N, R 6 4W )............................................................................................................................32
3.1 Core locations................................................................................................................49
3.2 Lee 41-5 core description..............................................................................................50
3.3 Combs 1 core description............................................................................................ 51
3.4 Core photographs............................................................................................................52
3.5 Measured porosity from core versus porosity calculated from NPHI and DPHI logs ( ! n - d ) ....................................................................................................................... 54
3.6 Relationship between GR and weight percent calcite core measurements........... 55
3.7 Crossplots comparing weight percent calcite to calculated weight percent calcite............................................................................................................................... 56
3.8 Crossplots comparing measured weight percent clay to logs................................. 57
3.9 Thorium-potassium clay type crossplot for the gross Niobrara interval,Lee 41-5 well.................................................................................................................. 58
3.10 Crossplot o f Gamma Ray Index (Igr) versus Weight % Clay............................... 59
3.11 Diagram o f fracture identification logs and core description in a fractured interval.............................................................................................................................60
3.12 Example o f how fracture intensities were quantified using an FIL........................ 62
3.13 FID versus OMRL calculated fracture intensities..................................................... 63
3.14 Example o f the A log R technique applied in the Lower Cretaceous Greenhorn and Graneros formations..........................................................................64
3.15 A log R results for the Lee 41-5 well........................................................................... 66
3.16 Reference map for cross sections A -A ’ , B -B ’ and C -C ’ , and D -D ’ (AppendixC )......................................................................................................................................67
3.17 Type Log for the Niobrara Formation at Silo Field..................................................68
3.18 Crossplot o f GR vs. resistivity for the Lee 41-5 well.............................................. 69
3.19 Reference map for cross sections D -D ’ and E -E ’ (Appendix C )........................... 70
4.1 Thickness o f the lower B chalk and production........................................................ 75
4.2 Average o f deep resistivity o f the lower B chalk and production...........................76
x
4.3 Average o f weight percent calcite o f the lower B chalk and production...............77
4.4 Average o f porosity o f the lower B chalk and production.......................................78
4.5 Average o f FID fracture intensity o f the lower B chalk and production................ 79
4.6 Average o f OMRL fracture intensity o f the lower B chalk and production...........80
4.7 Fracture intensity vs. IP oil........................................................................................... 82
4.8 Choke size and production........................................................................................... 84
4.9 First year oil versus perforated length crossplots.................................................... 85
5.1 Fracture intensity crossplots......................................................................................102
5.2 Tectonic model for Silo Field.....................................................................................105
5.3 Stitched SEM photomicrograph examples o f Niobrara Formation pressure solution seams (microstylolites)................................................................................ 106
5.4 Resistivity versus FID fracture intensity and porosity crossplots for thelower B chalk and B marl..........................................................................................107
5.5 Choke size and decline curves for three post-2005 wells......................................108
xi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank the many people and institutions that provided me with the
education, guidance, funding, and encouragement to complete this Master’ s thesis. I am
grateful to the Energy & Geoscience Institute (EGI) and the Liquid from Shales Phase 2
project sponsors for providing me with opportunities to work in a professional
environment and present results of my research at professional meetings. A special thank
you to Tom Anderson for his invaluable mentorship, Milind Deo for his project
leadership, David Thul for his geochemical insights, and Peter Pahnke for his geological
enthusiasm.
Thank you to my thesis advisor, Lisa Stright, for taking me on as one of her first
students and working on this project with me and to my committee members, John
Bartley and Lauren Birgenheier. I appreciate all of them for their time spent not only with
regard to this thesis, but to teaching in the classroom and leading fieldtrips.
Lastly, sincere thanks to my family and friends for their constant reassurance and
encouragement these past few years.
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Motivation for Study
The Upper Cretaceous Niobrara Formation is a self-sourced, tight oil and gas play
that has been targeted for production in the Rocky Mountain region o f the United States
for over 100 years (Haskett, 1959; Harnett, 1968). Recently, the oil and gas industry’ s
attention has burgeoned toward the Niobrara due to recent improvements in horizontal
drilling and multistage hydraulic fracturing technology. The May 2013 Petroleum Supply
Monthly report released by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) stated that
onshore oil production in the lower 48 o f the United States has increased by 64% during
February 2010 to February 2013 (Milam, 2013). This increase in production rates is
largely due to horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing o f low permeability rocks.
Whereas the Bakken Formation in North Dakota and the Eagle Ford Formation and
Spraberry, Wolfcamp, and Bone Springs formations o f the Permian Basin in Texas are
the most prolific producers, the Niobrara Formation in Wyoming and Colorado is a
significant contributor to onshore oil production. The EIA reported that overall daily
production from the Niobrara was 250,000 barrels o f oil per day in October 2013 and
estimates that Niobrara production will reach 400,000 barrels o f oil per day by 2015
(Unconventional, 2013).
In 2009, the Jake 2-01H well, drilled in Hereford Field (Figure 1.1), Weld
County, Colorado, by EOG Resources, Inc., sparked interest after producing nearly 500
barrels o f oil per month from the Niobrara during its first 6 months o f production. Now
more than 4 years after the success o f the Jake 2-01H well, the Niobrara is still rising to
industry’ s expectations as operators continue to explore best ways to consistently drill
high-volume producing wells. Though the Niobrara has been the topic o f much previous
research, quantitative analysis o f relationships between geological trends and production
data is lacking. Continued research on which specific variables characterize high-
performing wells is crucial to maximally efficient and cost-effective development o f the
Niobrara Formation as an unconventional resource.
This study presents a field-scale analysis o f which variables contribute to
successful production from the Niobrara in Silo Field. Silo Field, located in the northwest
Denver-Julesberg (DJ) Basin in Laramie County, Wyoming (Figures 1.1 and 1.2), has
produced oil from the Niobrara Formation since 1981. Cumulative production from Silo
Field as o f July 2013 is ~11.0 MMBO and 9,997 MMCF. Silo was chosen because o f
widespread availability o f production history and because production is almost
exclusively from the Niobrara Formation. Even though the most dynamic area for
Niobrara production in the DJ Basin is Wattenberg Field (Figure 1.1), evaluating
production data as related to geologic characteristics specific to the Niobrara is not
possible since production is often commingled with hydrocarbons from other formations.
Despite over 30 years o f production history, comprehensive well data, and
previous research, it is not well understood why only a few wells at Silo are top
producers while neighboring wells have poor production rates. Natural fractures have
2
been recognized as vital for economic production, yet little work has been published to
identify statistical relationships between fractures or other geologic variables and
production. A clearer understanding o f these relationships at Silo Field will not only aid
in understanding past well performance, but also in efficiently predicting where and how
to drill future wells.
1.2 Research Objectives and Methods
This study investigates geologic factors that contribute to the most productive
wells or groups o f wells (“ sweet spots” ) at Silo Field by identifying and analyzing
relationships between geologic variables and production, with singular attention paid to
the main production target, commonly known as the middle or B chalk bench of the
Niobrara Formation. The main objectives o f this study are to 1) establish how geologic
variables and production vary in Silo Field, 2) determine which geologic variable(s) are
most important for successful production, and 3) investigate the role o f engineering
practices on production. Geologic variables include thickness, porosity, mineralogy,
fracture intensity, and total organic carbon. Engineering variables include choke size and
perforated length. Objective 1 was accomplished by collecting raw data from core and
production records, calibrating core measurements to wireline logs in order to extrapolate
core-log relationships to wells without core, and analyzing spatial patterns through cross
sections and maps. Objectives 2 and 3 were accomplished through performing linear
regression on geologic and engineering variables and production.
3
1.3 Dataset and Limitations
All data for this study, including core and associated core measurements, well
logs, production data, and completion records, are publically available and were accessed
from the United States Geological Survey-Core Research Center (USGS-CRC) and the
Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (WOGCC). Two partial Niobrara cores
and their associated datasets from Silo Field were available for study. These cores are
from the Lee 41-5 (49-021-20349, NE NE Sec. 5, T15N, R64W) and Combs 1 (49-021
20287, NE NE Sec. 35, T16N, R65W) wells. Both are vertical wells drilled in the 1980s
and cored within the B chalk interval only. No seismic data were analyzed as part o f this
study, although previous studies that relied on seismic imaging were considered.
Due to limited cored intervals and wells without full suites o f log data, geologic
controls on production were evaluated only in vertical wells drilled in the 1980s that were
completed in the lower B chalk. Even though other intervals, notably the C chalk, were
perforated in early vertical wells at Silo, this study assumes that the majority o f
production from the 1980 vertical wells was sourced from the B chalk. Without
Production Log Tools (PLTs), it is difficult to determine from which interval
hydrocarbons are produced. The B chalk became the main production target for
horizontal drilling at Silo Field, and the majority o f cumulative production is from the B
chalk (Brown, 2010). In order to normalize production for wells, all comparisons and
plots are made using first year cumulative oil. The number o f wells used in different
aspects o f core-log calibration and production analysis varies depending on data
availability.
All trends presented in this study are derived from measurements from the USGS-
CRC for the Lee 41-5 and Combs 1 cores. There are two challenges with these data: 1)
sparse measurements from limited intervals o f core were available and 2) error values
associated with the measurements were not reported. Therefore, the correlations between
geologic variables, engineering controls, and oil production presented herein are initial
approximations that need validation with additional data. With this limitation in mind,
this study does present a workflow to characterize general relationships between
production and geological variables using public domain data available applied to the
Niobrara in Silo Field. The methods used here could easily be applied to other formations
in other fields where well logs, core data, and production histories are readily available.
5
6
Figure 1.1 Location o f the DJ with the locations o f Silo, Hereford, and Wattenberg fields highlighted. Red indicates gas fields. Green indicates oil fields. O-O’ marks an approximate location for the cross section in Figure 2.6. Modified after Sonnenberg (2011).
7
T1 ^ X-----
\ )MING
■1 1T
T15M R67W
rjr
CheyenneCHEYflffNfc
UT13N R67W /• | T13N R66W
R65W R64W
T16N R6SW
Silo
T16N R$4W
\ ________
Field
T16N R63W
T16N
T15N R65W T15N R64W T15M R63W
T15N
T14N R65W
•«
T14N R64W rt T14M R63VV
N0 2 4 ( i i s s
T13N R65W
1 :2 7 6 3 1 4
T13N R64V£
w
T13M R63W
Figure 1.2 Location o f Silo Field. The green square in Laramie County on the Wyoming state map is the approximate area portrayed in the township map. Silo is ~12 miles northeast o f Cheyenne, WY. This study limits Silo Field to a four township area (T15- 16N, R64-65W).
CHAPTER 2
GEOLOGIC BACKGROUND
2.1 The Niobrara Formation
The Niobrara Formation is a low-permeability carbonate mudstone that was
deposited in North America in the Western Interior Cretaceous (WIC) foreland basin
during the Late Cretaceous (Coniacian to early Campanian, ~82-89.5 Ma). The WIC
Basin, located between the Cordilleran thrust belt to the west and the stable North
American craton to the east, subsided in response to tectonic compression due to Farallon
slab subduction beneath the North American plate and synorogenic sediment loading
(Kauffman, 1977; Weimer, 1984; Sonnenberg, 2011) (Figure 2.1). At the time o f
Niobrara deposition, high global sea level persisted (Barlow and Kauffman, 1985).
During the ~8 million year time o f Niobrara deposition an epicontinental seaway
stretched across the WIC basin from the Gulf o f Mexico to the Arctic Ocean (Figure 2.1).
Nearshore marine sediments sourced from the Sevier highlands in the west interfinger
with marine shale and carbonates toward the east. Limestone and chalk, including the
Niobrara Formation, were deposited within the eastern two-thirds o f the WIC basin
(Weimer, 1960; Longman et al., 1998) (Figures 2.1 and 2.2)
The Niobrara Formation is divided into two members (Figure 2.3). The basal,
carbonate-rich Fort Hays Member is overlain by the Smoky Hill Member, which is
characterized by regionally correlative chalk and marl intervals (Scott and Cobban, 1964;
Longman et al., 1998; Sonnenberg, 2011). Niobrara names originate from outcrop
locations in Kansas and Nebraska. The Niobrara Formation was first described near the
mouth o f the Niobrara River in Nebraska as part o f a U.S. government expedition to
survey transcontinental railroad routes (Barlow and Kauffman 1985; New, 2010). The
Fort Hays Limestone is named after Old Fort Hays in Kansas, and the Smoky Hill
Member after the Smoky Hill River in Kansas (Figure 2.4).
Based on outcrop investigation near Pueblo, Colorado, Scott and Cobban (1964)
defined seven subdivisions within the Smoky Hill Member based on lithology and
invertebrate fossils. Later studies introduced informal stratigraphic terms based on
subsurface well log correlation. For example, the A, B, C, and D chalk benches o f
Sonnenberg and Weimer (1993) and the nine alpha-numeric subdivisions o f Longman et
al. (1998) rely on gamma ray and resistivity log signatures (Figure 2.3). Recent studies
have focused on establishing a sequence stratigraphic framework for the Niobrara
Formation in order to better understand reservoir facies distribution in the DJ Basin
(Drake and Hawkins, 2012; LaChance and Robinson, 2012; Deacon et al., 2013).
The Niobrara Formation is a carbonate mudstone characterized by repeating yet
gradational chalk and marl cycles on the order o f tens o f meters to millimeters.
Compositional variations between chalk and marl facies o f the Niobrara Formation are
due to the relative inputs o f biogenic calcite, detrital and volcanogenic silicate minerals
(quartz and clays), and organic matter with associated pyrite (Scholle and Pollastro,
1985). Chalk facies o f the Niobrara are predominately composed o f coccolith-rich fecal
pellets from marine organisms that lived in the WIC Seaway, but also include
9
inoceramids, oysters, and foraminifera. Marl facies are less carbonate-rich and have
greater concentrations o f clays, detrital quartz, organic matter, and pyrite (Hattin, 1975;
Scholle and Pollastro, 1985; Longman et al., 1998).
The different scales o f chalk and marl bedding rhythms within the Niobrara
reflect complex, repetitive and interdependent interactions between climate, sea level,
and conditions within the WIC Seaway such as currents, salinity and oxygen content, and
water stratification (Ricken, 1996). Interbedding o f chalk and marl cycles within the
Niobrara Formation is interpreted as transgressive-regressive (T -R ) cycles (Figure 2.3)
(Barlow and Kauffman, 1985). Bedding rhythms have also been attributed to wet and dry
climate cycles (Ricken, 1996; Sonnenberg, 2011) and to regular variations in Earth’ s
orbit (Milankovich cycles) (Gilbert, 1895; Locklair and Sageman, 2008).
Unconformities along with regional thinning and thickening o f Cretaceous strata
deposited in the WIC Seaway are related to sea level changes and/or to tectonically
derived changes in basin topography (Weimer, 1984; Merewether and Cobban, 1985).
While other Cretaceous deposits in the WIC follow regional thickness patterns, the
Niobrara Formation features several thinning trends related to northeast-oriented
paleostructural highs. Anomalous thickness patterns testify to dynamic tectonic and sea
level conditions that existed during Niobrara deposition (Weimer, 1984).
The Niobrara is present in Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming,
Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas, and New Mexico (Figure 2.5). It has been a source o f
hydrocarbon production since the early 1900s (Haskett, 1959; Harnett, 1968; Lockridge
and Pollastro, 1988). The Mancos Shale, deposited in the western part o f the WIC
foreland basin, is the Niobrara’ s thicker, more siliciclastic-rich shale and siltstone
10
stratigraphic equivalent. Together the Niobrara and the Mancos Shale range from less
than 100 ft (30 m) to maximum thicknesses o f ~1800 ft (550 m) in the western part o f the
WIC foreland basin (Figure 2.5). Notable Niobrara-producing basins include the
Williston, Powder River, North Park, Sand Wash, San Juan, Raton, and DJ basins. Silo
Field, the focus of this study, is in the DJ Basin.
2.2 The Denver-Julesberg (DJ) Basin
The Denver-Julesberg (DJ) Basin (Figure 1.1) is one o f many structural basins
formed by the Laramide orogeny, a period of deformation in the western North American
plate that began in the Cretaceous and ended in early Tertiary time (Livaccari, 1991;
Weimer, 1996). The Laramide orogeny broke up the extensive WIC Basin into several
smaller structural basins separated by mountain uplifts. These Laramide structural basins
are present throughout the Rocky Mountain region (Dickinson et al., 1988) and have been
economically important for hydrocarbon extraction during the past century.
The DJ Basin is bound by the Apishapa Uplift, Las Animas Arch, Chadron-
Cambridge Arch, the Hartville Uplift, and the Front Range (Figure 1.1). It is an
asymmetrical foreland basin encompassing ~70,000 mi2 (180,000 km2) in Colorado,
Wyoming, Nebraska, and Kansas. The basin axis is oriented north-south through the
cities o f Cheyenne, Wyoming, and Denver, Colorado. The east limb has a ~0.5° structural
dip, while the west limb dips steeply (Figure 2.6). Faulting and folding are prevalent in
the steeply dipping west limb. In the east limb, wrench faulting influences reservoir
compartmentalization and fracture development (Weimer, 1996). In the DJ Basin, the
Niobrara Formation varies in thickness from 250 feet (~76 m) to more than 400 feet
11
(~120 m) owing to effects o f paleostructural relief (Weimer, 1984).
At its deepest part near Denver, Colorado, the DJ Basin is filled with ~13,000 ft
(4,000 m) o f sedimentary deposits ranging in age from Upper Paleozoic to Lower
Cenozoic (Figure 2.7). More than half o f this section, or ~8,000 ft (2,450 m), is
Cretaceous-aged marine strata, many o f which are important hydrocarbon reservoir and
source rocks (Weimer, 1996). Organic-rich source rocks are all Cretaceous in age and
include the Skull Creek Shale, Mowry Formation, Graneros Shale, Greenhorn Limestone,
Carlile Shale, and Niobrara Formation. Reservoir rocks include the Permian Lyons
Sandstone; the Lower Cretaceous Lakota, Dakota, D, and J (Muddy) Sandstones o f the
Dakota Group; and the Upper Cretaceous Codell Sandstone, Niobrara Formation and
Pierre Shale. The Niobrara Formation serves as both a source and reservoir rock. While
Cretaceous strata are the primary oil and gas targets, some fields produce from Paleozoic
or lower Tertiary rocks (Weimer, 1996).
Thermal maturity patterns within the DJ Basin are related to depth o f burial, basin
structure, and geothermal anomalies (Smagala et al., 1984). Thermally immature,
biogenic gas accumulations are present on the gently sloping eastern flank o f the basin
near the intersection o f Colorado, Kansas, and Nebraska (Lockridge and Pollastro, 1988).
In the western part o f the basin, thermal maturity levels increase due to increasing depth
o f burial, and thermogenic oil and gas accumulations exist (Figure 2.4 and 2.6). Elevated
thermal maturity anomalies in the Wattenberg Field (Figure 1.1) are associated with the
Colorado Mineral Belt, an area with an elevated geothermal gradient likely related to
underlying igneous intrusions and wrench fault systems (Meyer and McGee, 1985;
Weimer, 1996).
12
Hydrocarbon production began in the DJ Basin in 1881 with the completion o f the
first oil well drilled in Florence Field, Colorado, the oldest continuously producing oil
field in the United States. Currently, there are ~1,500 oil and gas fields within the DJ
Basin. As reported in 2007, cumulative production from all fields was ~1.05 billion
barrels o f oil and ~3.67 trillion cubic feet o f gas (Higley and Cox, 2007). These numbers
are no doubt much larger by now as operators have since invested billions in the DJ Basin
after the surprising success o f the Jake 2-01H well in Hereford Field, Colorado (Figure
1.1), in 2009. Wattenberg Field is now the most active area for Niobrara production and
development.
2.3 Silo Field Production History
Silo Field has been producing oil and gas almost exclusively from the Upper
Cretaceous Niobrara Formation since the early 1980s. Structurally, Silo Field is located
in a westward dipping monoclinal fold that lacks major structural closures. Within the
Silo area, the Niobrara is ~300’ thick and is found at depths between ~ 6200-8500 ft
(1900-2600 m). Kerogen within the Niobrara is Type II or oil-prone (Landon et al.,
2001). Thermal maturity values for the Niobrara at Silo are within the onset o f oil
generation (Thul, 2012).
The earliest hydrocarbon exploration in the Silo Field area targeted Lower
Cretaceous formations, but resulted in dry holes. The Blevins 1 well (49-021-20068, NE
NE Sec. 1, T15N, R65W), one o f the first recorded wells drilled in the Silo Field area by
Inexco Oil Co. in 1969, unsuccessfully targeted the Muddy and Dakota sandstones
(Figure 2.7). The discovery well that initiated the productive history o f Silo Field, the
13
Champlin 300 Amoco B1 well (49-021-20228, SE SE Sec. 5, T15N, R64W), was drilled
more than 10 years later in 1980 by Amoco Production Co. It was initially completed in
the Fort Hays Limestone in 1981 and later recompleted in the B chalk in 1984. The name
“ Silo” was given to this area in 1984 (Iverson, 1992). Three groupings o f wells from
different periods o f drilling activity define Silo Field history: 1) vertical wells drilled in
the 1980s, 2) horizontal wells drilled in the 1990s, and 3) wells drilled using advanced
geo-steering and hydraulic fracturing technology since 2005.
2.3.1 1980s Vertical Wells
During the 1980s drilling era, a total o f ~65 vertical wells were drilled in the Silo
Field area. Perforated intervals in these vertical wells varied from early targets in the Fort
Hays to later targets in the A, B, and C chalk benches. Some wells were even perforated
throughout the entire (~300 ft) Niobrara Formation. By December 1989, cumulative
production reached ~1.3 MMBO and 900 MMcf. Production during this era o f Silo
history is characterized by mostly low-volume producing wells and a few high-volume
producers (Figure 2.8 A; Table 2.1). The high-volume producing vertical wells likely
intercepted hydrocarbon-bearing fracture systems.
Table 2.1, Column A, displays the distribution o f first year oil produced from 49
wells with available production data. Nearly 90% o f all vertical wells (44 out o f 49)
produced less than 20,000 barrels o f oil in their first year o f production. Only five wells
produced more than 20,000 barrels o f oil, and one extremely productive well, the Leroy
Goertz B 1 (SW NE Sec. 31, T16N, R64W), produced over 120,000 barrels o f oil in its
first year (Table 2.1 Column A). A first year oil production bubble map o f the locations
14
o f these 1980 vertical wells shows that highest volume producers are located in the center
o f the field (Figure 2.8 A).
Three o f the original wells drilled during the 1980s in Silo are still active oil
producers. Three other wells are now injection wells (Figure 2.9; Table 2.2). Two o f the
oil producing wells were recompleted in 2005 and 2010, but have lower monthly
production than the Leroy Goertz C 2 (NE SW Sec. 31, T16N, R64W) (Figure 2.9),
which has no additional recompletions reported after its original completion in 1985. In
2012, it produced on average ~200 barrels o f oil per month (Table 2.2).
2.3.2 1990s Horizontal Wells
After positive results with horizontal drilling in the Austin Chalk in Texas
(Montgomery 1991a), horizontal drilling began at Silo in 1990. The majority o f
horizontal wells targeted the B chalk bench. Many well paths are oriented NE-SW or E-
W (Figure 2.10). The initial application o f horizontal drilling during the 1990s greatly
improved production rates for Silo Field. Just 6 years after the onset o f horizontal
drilling, cumulative oil production jumped from 1.3 MMBO to 7.2 MMBO (Figure 2.11).
In 1995, Silo Field was ranked 10th in oil production out o f all Wyoming fields after
being ranked 74th in 1985. This steep rise in production was soon echoed by an almost
symmetrical decline (Figure 2.11 A). A total o f 61 horizontal wells were drilled during
this time. Most were characterized by high initial production (~1,000 BOPD) and sharp
declines after 1 year (Johnson and Brown, 1993). Well treatments such as injecting large
volumes of water at high rates based on practices proven successful in the Austin Chalk
in Texas proved unsuccessful and demonstrated the different nature of fracture systems
15
present in the Niobrara and the Austin Chalk (Johnson and Brown, 1993). Also, in this
relatively early time o f geo-steering technology, wells paths often wavered out o f the
targeted B chalk bench and adversely affected production (Brown, 2010). In the late
1990s, economic downturn in the industry resulted in a hiatus in any new development at
Silo.
Compared to Silo vertical wells, production from 1990s horizontal wells is
generally higher in volume and distributed more evenly over the range o f first year oil
produced (Table 2.1, Column B). Only 28% o f horizontal wells produced less than
20,000 barrels o f oil in their first year (compared to 90% o f 1980s vertical wells). Despite
the overall higher volumes o f oil produced by horizontal drilling in the Niobrara
Formation, none o f the 1990s horizontal wells produced as much first year oil (>120,000
bbls) as the anomalous 1980s vertical well, Leroy Goertz B 1.
Out o f the 61 horizontal wells spudded in the 1990s, ~35 are still active oil
producers. During 2012, average production per well ranged from 21 barrels to 888
barrels o f oil per month. Three 1990s horizontal wells have been recompleted since 2005.
These recompletions have resulted in only short term increases in production. For
example, the 1H Owen 14-19H Reentry (SW SW Sec. 9, T15N, R64W), originally
completed in 1993, was recompleted in June 2005 and produced 2,630 barrels o f oil that
month. Production declined to 1,290 barrels in June 2006, and 2 years later in June 2007,
monthly production was 85 barrels (Figure 2.12).
16
2.3.3 Post-2005 Development
In 2005, modern drilling using advancements in geo-steering and multistage
hydraulic fracturing technology began in Silo Field with the reentry into the Kleiman 23
35 well (NE SW Sec. 35 T16N, R65W), a vertical well first completed in 1984. New
horizontal wells began to be drilled in 2009. As o f January 2014, there are 17 oil-
producing horizontal wells in Silo Field drilled since 2009. The majority is located in the
southern part o f the field (Figure 2.8 C). Interestingly, modern horizontals resemble
1990s horizontals in volume o f first year oil produced (Table 2.1, Column B-C ; Figure
2.8 B-C).
Operators currently active in Silo Field include Kaiser Francis Oil Co., SM
Energy Co., Noble Energy Inc., Lone Star Land and Energy II LLC, and Cirque
Resources LP. Since 2012, Kaiser Francis has drilled one vertical well, which they cored,
and 13 horizontal wells. Two o f these Kaiser Francis wells, the most recent o f which was
spudded January 2014, are testing the Codell Sandstone (Figure 2.7). Other operators are
more cautious about further investment in Silo. SM Energy, Noble, and Cirque had
multiple well locations that were approved but have expired since 2010.
Does the modern development o f Silo Field have the potential to cause a similar
resurgence in oil production rates similar to the early 1990s? Yearly and cumulative
production plots (Figure 2.11 A -B ) indicate a slight bump in production beginning
around 2010. From 2005 to 2012, Silo Field rose from 68th to 31st in Wyoming field oil
production rankings. Most recent horizontal wells, located in the southern half o f the
field, have yet to target Silo’ s historically productive fairway (Figure 2.8 C). Silo Field’ s
current development depends upon understanding relationships between geologic
17
variables and past production.
This research aims to elucidate these relationships by integrating available core
information, well logs, and production records. Starting from core description and
associated core measurements, and working outwards to core-log calibration, cross
section construction and map generation, this study establishes how geologic factors vary
statigraphically and laterally through Silo Field. Then, relationships between geologic
variables, engineering practices, and production are explored. Methods for determining
relationships between core and well logs and between geologic variables and production
rely on bivariate and multivariate linear regression.
18
19
Figure 2.1 Paleogeography during Niobrara deposition in the Late Cretaceous (Coniacian-Campanian). The WIC foreland basin lay between the Sevier Orogenic belt and the stable North American craton. Generally, siliciclastic and clay-rich sediments were deposited near the Sevier highlands, while more organic and calcite- rich sediments were deposited toward the east and southeast. Silo Field’ s location is outlined in red. A -A ’ is the approximate location o f the cross section in Figure 2.2. Modified after Finn and Johnson (2005)
20
A Utah Colorado Kansas and Nebraska Iowa.--------------------------*--------------------------vi---------- *----
A'
Sevier Highlands
Figure 2.2 Diagrammatic E-W cross section o f the asymmetric WIC foreland basin. See Figure 2.1 for the approximate location o f A -A ’ . Sandstone and shale interfinger with limestone and chalk present in the eastern two-thirds o f the basin. The Niobrara Formation is stratigraphically equivalent to the Mancos Shale. Modified after Sonnenberg (2011).
21
Figure 2.3 Niobrara stratigraphic column and type log for the DJ Basin. The Niobrara Formation is divided into two members. The basal, carbonate-rich Fort Hays is overlain by the Smoky Hill, which is characterized by regionally correlative chalk and marl intervals. The basal chalk unit above the Fort Hays Member in the type log is not present in the Silo Field area and is absent from the stratigraphic column. Modified after Longman et al. (1998) and Sonnenberg (2011).
22
Figure 2.4 Map of Niobrara outcrops, formation type localities, and oil and gas fields in the DJ Basin. Biogenic gas accumulations exist in the eastern DJ Basin, while thermogenic oil and gas are present to the west. Modified after Montgomery (1991a)
23
Figure 2.5 Isopach map of the Niobrara Formation and its stratigraphic equivalent, the Mancos Shale. Laramie County, Wyoming, the location o f Silo Field, is outlined in bold. Modified after Longman et al. (1998).
S ilo Field
(a p p ro x im a te o ca tio n )
Biogenic' Gas
Sea LevelSea Level
OIL GENERATION
14 7 MILES
Tertiary Cretaceous SSC re ta c e o u s js g Penn-Perm
L .U Jurassic Arkoses £m] Triassic P_~l Permian E J Pennsylvanian
Mississippian
I NIOBRARA
Figure 2.6 Schematic E -W cross section o f the D J Basin. Modified after Sonnenberg (2011). See Figure 1.1 for approximate location (O-O’ ).
NJ■p*
25
AGE FORMATION THICKNESSPALEOCENE Denver Formation
b £S B
UPPERCRETACEOUS
Arapohoe FormationLaramie Formation
Fox Hills Sandstone8 ^
Pier
reSh
ale Sussex (Terry) Sandstone
370'
(1
12
m)
Hyqiene Sandstone
Sharon Springs Member
Nio
brar
aFo
rmat
ion Smokey Hill
Member 350'
(1
07
m)
Fort Hays LimestoneCodell Sandstone
420'
(1
28
m)Carlile Shale
Greenhorn LimestoneGraneros Shale
LOWERCRETACEOUS
Dako
ta G
roup
D Sandstone
370'
(1
12
m)
. —f MowrvJ SandstoneSkull Creek Shale
Dakota Sandstone
Lakota Sandstone
JURASSICMorrison Formation
475'
(1
45
m)
Sundance Formation
TRIASSIC Lykins Formation o E ? 2
PERMIAN Lyons Sandstone r* £*— rfl
Fountain Formation 1000
' (3
05
m)
PENNSYLVANIAN
M ISSISSIPPI Leadville Limestone(or equivalent) 10
0'(3
0m
)
LOWERPALEOZOIC Lower Paleozoic Rocks
PROTEROZOIC Metamorphic and Igneous Rocks
Figure 2.7 Generalized stratigraphic column for the northeastern DJ Basin. Purple text marks hydrocarbon source rocks. Black dots indicate oil and/or gas producing formations. Thicknesses may vary throughout the basin. Modified after Montgomery (1991a) and Higley and Cox (2007).
26
A
. s •\ . T16N R66W S.
^
•
# • r k > f / H64W
o
a 5
ei
T15N R65W
N0 05 In *
1:11317*e
%
3 •
© T16N R64W
©
Drilling Era
O 1980s vertical 1990 horizontal
O modern horizontalO modern recompletion
Figure 2.8 Drilling and production history maps of Silo Field. Well locations are depicted as circles approximately sized according to first year oil and are colored according to drilling era. A) Vertical wells drilled during the 1980s, B) Horizontal wells drilled during the 1990s, C) Modern activity in Silo includes wells recompleted since in 2005 and wells spudded since in 2009.
27
Table 2.1 Frequency distribution table o f first year oil for Silo Field wells
First Year Oil for Silo Field Wells Frequency Distribution Table
1st Year Oil (Mbbls)
ANumber of
1980s wellsNumber of
1990s wells
CNumber of
modern wells*0 to < 10 29 5 710 to < 20 15 11 320 to < 30 2 6 230 to < 40 1 5 140 to < 50 0 4 050 to < 60 1 4 260 to < 70 0 2 170 to < 80 0 8 180 to < 90 0 8 0
90 to <100 0 5 2100 to < 110 0 0 0110 to < 120 0 0 0120 to < 130 1 0 0
Total Number of Wells 49 58 19
* includes wells recompleted since 2005 and wells spudded since 2009
28
Figure 2.9 Locations o f active 1980s vertical wells (either producing oil or injecting water). The Leroy Goertz C 2 has no reported recompletions since it was first completed in 1985 yet in 2012 produced ~200 barrels o f oil per month. See Table 2.2
Table 2.2 Active 1980s vertical wells (see Figure 2.9)
1980s Wells that are Still Active
Status API Number Well NameCurrent
OperatorCompletion
DateRecompletion
Date TargetCum Oil
(bbls)2012 bbls of oil
per month
Producing Oil 49 021 20319 PARKER 1 KAISERFRANCIS OIL CO 1984 2010
A, B and C 61,549 82
Producing Oil 49-021-20329KLEIMAN 23-35 RE
1-ElKAISERFRANCIS OIL CO 1984 2005 A, B and C 53,330 138
Producing Oil 49-021-20362 LEROY GOERTZ C 2 KAISERFRANCIS OIL CO 1985 _ A, B, and C 295,959 213
Active Injector 49-021 20228 CHAMPLIN 300 AMOCO B 1
KAISERFRANCIS OIL CO 1981 1984
B and Fort Flays Ls
63,269 -
Active Injector 49 021 20339 COMBS 3HKAISERFRANCIS OIL CO 1984 -
A, B, and C 34,563 -
Active Injector 49-021-20354 SE EPLER 2KAISERFRANCIS OIL CO 1985 -
B 68,333 -
NJID
30
Surface - Bottom holelocation location
★ Permit to drill
? Unknown/Confidential
i Spud oil well
• Oil well
* Gas well
Figure 2.10 Horizontal well paths in Silo Field, including 1990s horizontal wells and recent wells drilled since 2005. (WOGCC)
31
A
"Modern"Horizontal
75,000
50,000
25,000
200,000
175.000
150.000
125.000
100,000
-------Oil (Bbls)
------ Gas (Mcf)
------ Water (Bbls)
------ Number of ProducingWells
Silo Field Niobrara Production 1983 - 2012
B
----- Cum Oil BBLS
-----Cum Gas MCF
Cum Water BBLS
4 ,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011
Year
10,000,000
12,000,000
11,000,000
Silo field, WY Niobrara Cum ulative Production
with num ber of producing wells through tim e
9.000.000
8.000.0007.000.000
6.000.000 5,000,000
Number of producing wells
Figure 2.11 Production plots for Silo Field. (A) Oil, gas, and water production history from the Niobrara at Silo from 1983 to present. (B) Cumulative production o f oil, gas, and water from 1983 through present. The grey line is the number o f producing wells through time.
32
Figure 2.12 Oil production through time for 1H Owen 14-19H well (SW SW Sec. 9, T15N, R64W). Production initially increased but declined ~1 year after a 2005 recompletion. The other two 1990s horizontal wells that have been recompleted in Silo Field have resulted in similar short term success.
CHAPTER 3
CORE AND WELL LOG ANALYSIS
3.1 Core Description
Two partial Niobrara cores from within Silo Field were described: 1) 37 ft from
the Lee 41-5 well (49-021-20349, NE NE Sec. 5, T15N, R64W) and 2) 40 ft from the
Combs 1 well (49-021-20287, NE NE Sec. 35, T16N, R65W) (Figures 3.1-3.4). Both
wells are vertical wells drilled in the 1980s and cored within the Lower B chalk interval
(Figure 3.1). Core descriptions were made by logging mineralogical, sedimentary,
paleontological, and structural features (Figures 3.2 and 3.3).
Core was logged as chalk or marl based upon color. Lighter grey intervals were
logged as chalk, while darker grey to brown intervals as marl. Typically, marl is darker
due to greater clay and organic matter content (Longman et al., 1998). Transitions
between chalk and marl are gradational (Figures 3.2 and 3.3). Both cores exhibit brown
horizontal laminae (Figure 3.4 A), Inoceramid and oyster fossils (Figure 3.4 A), bentonite
layers (Figure 3.4 B), calcite-filled hairline fractures (Figure 3.4 B), vertical to
subvertical stylolites (Figure 3.4 D), pyrite laminae and lenses (Figure 3.4 D), and
bioturbation that ranged from moderate to absent. Unique to the Lee 41-5 core is a ~10 ft
long open vertical fracture in the chalk-rich base (Figures 3.2 and 3.4 C). No open
fractures were observed in the Combs 1 core.
Wispy, horizontal laminae (marked as mud drapes in Figures 3.2 and 3.3) stretch
continuously across the core and are darker than the surrounding matrix. The horizontal
laminae are present in both cores and were logged as “ mud drapes.” These are interpreted
as organic rich laminations that were subject to subsequent pressure dissolution (Figures
3.2, 3.3, and 3.4 A). Inoceramus and oyster shell beds and fragments are broken and
compacted (Figure 3.4 A). Tan to light green colored bentonite layers form breaks in the
core (Figure 3.4 B). Bentonite layers range from a few mm to 1 cm in thickness. Closed,
vertical to subvertical, calcite-filled fractures less than 0.5 mm wide and up to ~50 cm in
length occur in groups throughout the core (Figure 3.4B). The sides o f the open vertical
fracture at the base o f the Lee 41-5 core (Figure 3.4 C) have calcite mineralization. The
open vertical fracture in the Lee 41-5 (Figures 3.2 and 3.4 C) is likely a natural fracture
(not induced by coring) since mineralization was observed on the fracture’ s sides. Merin
and Moore (1986) described open vertical fractures in Niobrara core from Silo, including
from the Lee 41-5 well, as being oil-saturated. Prominent stylolites, recognizable by their
darker color and jagged, sawtooth pattern are present in both chalk and marl facies
(Figure 3.4 D). The longest stylolite, in the Combs 1 core (Figure 3.3), is ~40 cm long.
Pyrite is present as laminae, lenses, and nodules (Figure 3.4 D). Pyrite is most abundant
in marl intervals, e.g., the upper portion o f the Lee 41-5 core (Figure 3.2). Bioturbation is
indicated by disruption o f horizontal laminae and burrows.
3.2 Core-Log Calibration
Characterization o f porosity, mineralogy, fracture intensity, and total organic
carbon (TOC) throughout Silo Field was performed by defining relationships between
34
35
wireline logs and core descriptions (Figures 3.2 and 3.3) and corresponding core
measurements from the Lee 41-5 and Combs 1 wells. Porosity, mineralogy, and TOC
core measurements were compiled from USGS CRC records. Wireline logs were
accessed from the WOGCC. Fracture intensity was quantified using fracture
identification logs (FILs). Porosity, mineralogy, TOC, and thermal maturity core
measurements from the USGS CRC are in Appendix A. Calculated fracture intensity
from FILs are in Appendix B. Depth shifts o f -1.5 ft were applied to the Combs 1 core
and +5 ft to the Lee 41-5 based upon aligning core descriptions and measurements to
wireline log signatures.
Porosity measurements collected from the USGS-CRD and the WOGCC for the
Lee 41-5 and Combs 1cores were calibrated to NPHI and DPHI porosity logs (cf.,
Asquith and Gibson, 1982). First, a gamma ray index (IGR) (Equation 3.1) was calculated
in order to generate a Vshale curve (Larionov, 1969) (Equation 3.2). Then a shale
correction was applied to NPHI and DPHI curves (Equations 3.3 and 3.4). Lastly,
combined neutron-density porosity ( ! n-D) was calculated (Equation 3.5). These equations
are dependent on the following constants: GR value in a clean, relatively clay-free
interval (GRclean), and the GR and NPHI values in a clay-rich interval (GRshale and ! Nclay)
(Equations 3.1, 3.3 and 3.4).
3.2.1 Porosity
! _ wrvC|ean;(GRs"aie_ ! "clean)
(GR GRdean) Equation 3.1
Vshale = 0.33[22*Igr - 1.0] Equation 3.2
36
! n co rr
! d co rr = ! d ! ! 0 - 1 3 ! V sh a le ! E q u a t io n 3 .4corr
! N-D — ! N corr! ! D2
corr Equation 3.5
A best fit between porosity measurements from core and a calculated porosity
from neutron and density curves was not determiend. Alternatively, values for GRclean,
GRshale and ! Nclay were manually adjusted until a curve that visually matched the
measured porosity data from core was generated (Figure 3.5 A). Constants resulting in a
match between core data and the calculated neutron-density porosity curve (Equation 3.5)
were GRclean = 40 API units, GRshale = 130 API units, and ! Nclay = 0.23 porosity units.
Though ! n-d seems to match porosity measurements at certain depths (Figure 3.5 A), the
R2 value for measured porosity versus corresponding ! N-D points is very low (~0.14)
(Figure 3.5 B). Clearly, ! N-D does not capture all the variables that determine porosity.
3.2.2.1 Weight Percent Calcite
Weight percent calcite measurements were collected from the USGS-CRC for the
Lee 41-5 and Combs 1 cores. These measurements are from X-ray diffraction (XRD) and
do not have associated percent errors. The following core-well log relationships here can
only be considered as semiquantitative. Equation 3.6 represents the relationship between
3.2.2 Mineralogy
GR and measured calcite from a linear regression. Even though the determination
coefficient (R2) for measured calcite and GR is less than 0.5 (Figure 3.6), this was the
best correlation between calcite and any one log type. Cross plotting weight percent
calcite calculated from Equation 3.6 to actual weight percent calcite measured from the
Lee 41-5 and Combs 1 cores results in an R2 = 0.48 (Figure 3.7 A).
Weight % calcite = -0.23*(GR) + 105.11 Equation 3.6
The strength o f correlation between measured and calculated calcite is improved
(R2 = 0.61) by including ILD and NPHI logs in addition to GR to predict calcite
(Equation 3.7) (Figure 3.7 B).
Weight % calcite = -0.14*(GR) + 0.06*(ILD) Equation 3.7
- 149.02*(NPHI) + 113.52
Calcite content was estimated throughout Silo Field using the simple relation
between GR and measured weight % calcite (Equation 3.6). This allowed for a greater
number o f wells to be included in evaluating the relationship between calcite and
production since several wells had no available NPHI log.
3.2.2.2 Clays
Weight percent clay measurements collected from the USGS-CRC for the Lee 41
5 and Combs 1 cores were related to Total GR and thorium-potassium ratios (Th/K). As
37
in the weight percent calcite XRD measurements, the XRD clay measurements do not
have associated percent errors, and the following core-well log relationships can only be
considered as semiquantitative. Th/K is derived from the spectral gamma ray which
separates the GR log into uranium, thorium, and potassium, the three major components
responsible for natural radioactivity in rocks (Bigelow, 2002). There were no strong
correlations between clay content and GR (Figure 3.8 A) or between clay content and
Th/K (Figure 3.8 B). According to a crossplot o f Th versus K for the Lee 41-5 well
(Figure 3.9), clay is clearly more abundant in marl intervals than in chalk, and clay type
in the Niobrara appears to be mostly mixed layer illite-smectite and illite.
Additionally, this study explored calculating clay content based on the correlation
between gamma ray index (IGR) and weight percent clay (Equations 3.1 and 3.2) (Asquith
and Gibson, 1982; Bigelow, 2002). Bhuyan and Passey (1994) used a simple equation for
estimating weight percent clay from IGR, where IGR is multiplied by a constant. This
constant, C, represents average weight percent clay (Equation 3.8).
Wt % clay = IGR * C Equation 3.8
This study varied C from 10% to 50% and overlaid weight percent clay
measurements in the B chalk bench from the two available Niobrara cores (Figure 3.10).
Data points from the Lee 41-5 well lie within 0% to a little over 20% average weight
percent clay. The Combs 1 points lie within 20% to over 50% average weight percent
clay (Figure 3.10). While clay estimates using Equation 3.8 are an improvement over
V sha!e (Equation 3.2; Figure 3.10), the core measurements are widely scattered and cannot
38
be accurately predicted using this linear relationship.
Since calibrating clay content to well logs resulted in weak correlations or
nonlinear relationships, and in the case o f IGR, results unique to each core, clay content
was not extrapolated to other Silo wells or used to identify geologic controls on
production.
3.2.3 Fracture Intensity
Fracture intensity was calculated from fracture identification logs (FILs) available
from 1980s vertical wells. FILs o f this vintage are derived from four-arm dipmeter tools
and are useful for identifying both the presence and orientation o f natural fractures (Beck
et al., 1977; Heflin and Frost, 1983; Iverson, 1992). Contrasts in resistivity readings from
adjacent pads are caused by fractures filled with drilling fluid and indicate the presence o f
natural fractures in a formation. Here, the magnitude o f resistivity contrasts (separation
between curves) is assumed to correspond to some measure o f fracture intensity or
quality (Beck et al., 1977). At Silo Field, two different displays o f FILs were available:
Fracture Identification Logs (FIDs) and Oriented Micro-Resistivity Logs (OMRLs)
(Figure 3.11). The OMRL display indicates the orientation superimposed upon resistivity
contrasts while the FID display indicates the orientation in a separate track. OMRLs were
available from 15 wells, and FIDs were available for 17 wells. A total o f 25 wells had
either one or both o f these FILs available.
Natural fracture intensity was quantified in the same way from OMRLs and FIDs
(Figure 3.12). The length o f contrast recorded between adjacent pads was measured at 1
foot increments. Then, that length was divided by the width o f the track. For example
39
(Figure 3.12), at depth 8016 ft, the resistivity contrast pictured as black infill adds to a
total o f 11 mm (5 + 6 mm). Then 11 mm was divided by the measured width o f the track
(61 mm). The answer was then multiplied by 100 for a final result o f 18. A single value
to represent natural fracture intensity for each well was derived by dividing the sum o f
fracture intensities within an interval o f interest by that interval’ s thickness. Since
fracture intensities were made at one foot increments, this method is equivalent to
averaging fracture intensities throughout an interval. For example in Figure 3.12, a single
fracture intensity value is calculated by taking a sum o f fracture intensities within a 32 ft
interval (i.e. 560) and dividing by 32 for a final result o f 17.5. This averaging method
works because the thickness o f the lower B chalk is relatively constant (~30 ft). If major
thickness variations existed, then taking an average may result in skewing calculated
fracture intensity to higher values in thin intervals.
This measure o f fracture intensity is supported from visual observations from the
Lee 41-5 and Combs 1 core descriptions. There is evidence from the Lee 41-5 well that
FILs are sensing open fractures. At the base o f the core a 10 ft long open fracture runs
through the center o f the core (Merin and Moore, 1986) (Figures 3.2 and 3.4 C). In this
same interval, both the FID and OMRL identify natural fractures (Figure 3.11).
Fracture intensities calculated from OMRLs and FID logs do not correlate to one
another (Figure 3.13). This may be due either to the difference in log presentation or to
the pads o f the dipmeter tool sensing different areas o f the borehole on different logging
runs. Appendix B contains FIL- and OMRL-derived fracture intensity values calculated
at 1 foot increments for the gross Niobrara interval for Silo Field wells.
40
3.2.4 Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
Due to the limitations of predicting TOC from a single well log as discussed in
Passey et al. (1990), TOC measurements were calibrated to well logs by using the A
(delta) log R technique. The A log R technique calculates TOC in source rock intervals
based on the amount of separation (A log R) between a scaled overlay of a deep
resistivity log and either sonic, bulk density, or neutron porosity logs (Passey et al.,
1990). First, a baseline must be chosen in a fine-grained, nonsource rock section. In this
organic-lean environment, the overlaid curves will parallel each other based solely on
changes in formation porosity. Separation between the two curves will occur in two
cases: 1) in a hydrocarbon filled interval and 2) in organic-rich rocks. Calculations
performed in reservoir rocks result in flawed TOC values since the separation between
overlaid logs is due to the presence of hydrocarbons, not organic matter. For example,
research by Kaiser (2012) illustrates that A log R-calculated TOC only aligns with core
measurements in source rock intervals of the Lower Cretaceous Greenhorn and Graneros
formations (Figure 3.14).
Although a sonic-resistivity log overlay is preferred for the A log R technique,
neither of the cored wells with TOC measurements from Silo Field had available sonic
logs. Instead, this study used a bulk density-deep resistivity (RHOB-ILD) overlay.
Equation 3.9 expresses A log R using the RHOB-ILD scaled overlay.
! logR = logio ( ILD ) — 2.50(RHOB — RHOBbase) Equation 3.9VILDb ase '
41
TOC = (A log R) x io (2-297-° 1688*LOM) Equation 3.10
LOM = 2.3039(VRe)3 - 11.015(VRe)2 Equation 3.11
+ 19.464(VRe) ! 0.0307
Important variables that determine A log R-derived TOC (Equation 3.10) include
the baseline values chosen for deep resistivity (ILDbase,) and bulk density (RHOBbase) and
the level of organic metamorphism (LOM), a measure of thermal maturity (Passey et al.,
1990). Baseline values were chosen in the organic-lean Fort Hays Limestone. A LOM of
9.9 was calculated from Equation 3.11, derived from Hood et al. (1975).
LOM was calculated using vitrinite reflectance equivalence (VRe) instead of
vitrinite reflectance (Ro). Ro, an optical measurement made on kerogen (Dow and
O’Connor, 1982), is a common indicator of thermal maturity in sedimentary rocks. Ro
measurements available from the USGS CRC for the two Niobrara cores from Silo Field
are widespread (0.56-1.16) and in conflict with previous studies that report thermal
maturity at Silo Field to be ~0.6-0.7 (onset of oil generation) (Smagala et al., 1984; Thul,
2012). In order to avoid inaccurate maturity parameters from using Ro, VRe values were
calculated from Tmax measurements (also from the USGS CRC) according to Equation
3.12 (Jarvie et al., 2001). Tmax, a thermal maturity parameter derived from Rock-Eval
pyrolysis (Peters, 1986), is a more reliable thermal maturity indicator than Ro. Average
VRe calculated using Tmax measurements from the two Silo cores is 0.71 (Appendix A).
VRe = (0.01 * Tmax) - 7.16 Equation 3.12
In order to exclude reservoir rock intervals from A log R-derived TOC
42
calculations, a GR cutoff was applied. If GR < 110 API, then TOC was set to default to
an anchor value of 0.8%, or the “expected” value of TOC in the baseline Fort Hays
interval. This anchor value is slightly higher than the 0.5% that Landon et al. (2001)
reports for the Fort Hays Limestone. Additionally, pyrolysis data reports were reviewed
to ensure that only TOC core measurements in plausible source rock intervals were
included. Only data points with a S2 > 1.0 mg HC/g rock and TOC > 1.0 weight percent
were kept to calibrate the A log R-generated curve.
Calculated TOC for the Lee 41-5 well is presented in Figure 3.15. Note that the
black curve in Track 7 with no GR cutoff applied indicates that the chalk benches are
more organic-rich than marl whereas the red curve with a GR cutoff applied subdues this
effect by filtering out reservoir intervals where the A log R separation is due to the
presence of hydrocarbons instead of high porosity. The match between A log R-derived
and measured TOC is poor in the green-highlighted, low GR, high ILD interval (Figure
3.15). The match is better in the red-highlighted interval where GR is higher and ILD is
lower (Figure 3.15). This is similar to the results of Figure 3.14. It is likely that the
mismatch in the green-highlighted interval is due to the presence of hydrocarbons in the
lower B chalk.
This study’s attempt to model TOC revealed fundamental issues to consider when
applying the A log R technique in the Niobrara Formation. Potential reasons that A log R-
derived TOC did not calibrate well to TOC core measurements (Figure 3.15) are
complications from the interbedded nature and mineralogy of the Niobrara Formation,
log responses that do not conform to assumptions underlying the A log R method, and
potential deficiencies in available TOC measurements.
43
Since the Niobrara Formation is characterized by gradational cycles o f chalk and
marl at a range o f scales (mm to m), boundaries between source and reservoir rock are
fuzzy. Therefore, it is difficult to differentiate between the relative contributions of
migrated hydrocarbons and organic matter to the A log R separation. Another reason that
the chalks have elevated A log R-calculated TOC compared to the marls may be the
suppressed ILD signature in the marls (Figure 3.15; Track 3). Organic-rich marl intervals
are characterized by high GR readings, yet ILD readings are relatively low. The A log R
method assumes that resistivity will be relatively high in mature source rocks (Passey et
al., 1990). In this case, the highest resistivity within the Niobrara is in the reservoir chalk
benches. It is possible that the ILD is suppressed in the marls by the presence o f pyrite.
Pyrite is a conductive metallic mineral that can reduce measured resistivity.
Another limitation to this study’s application of the A log R technique stems from
how TOC was measured from the two Niobrara cores from Silo. TOC core measurements
used to calibrate A log R-calculated TOC were made on nonextracted samples. If a
sample is prepared without an organic solvent, then measured TOC may reflect heavy,
immobile hydrocarbons like bitumen in addition to kerogen. It is common to see TOC
measurements decrease by half when extracted with an organic solvent compared to
simply crushing the sample without using a solvent (David Thul, personal
communication). Since the TOC core measurements used in this study were made on
nonextracted samples, their usefulness in calibrating A log R-calculated TOC is
questionable.
Yet another problem with the Lee 41-5 wells A log R results stems from using
bulk density (RHOB) in the curve overlay (sonic logs, the preferred porosity log for the A
44
log R overlay, were not available). The RHOB tool is affected by borehole rugosity.
Where the caliper (CALI) tool indicates some caving in the lower B chalk interval
(Figure 3.15), the A log R separation is due not only to either organic matter or
hydrocarbons, but to borehole conditions. Using a sonic-resistivity or neutron porosity-
resistivity overlay may bypass the problems inherent to the RHOB-ILD overlay.
3.3 Cross Sections
Well logs from vertical wells were used to construct cross sections in the Silo
Field area in order to examine how geologic variables vary throughout the field. Wells
used in cross sections were chosen based on location and availability of wireline logs
including gamma ray (GR), deep resistivity (ILD), neutron porosity (NPHI), density
porosity (DPHI), and fracture identification logs (FIDs and OMRLs). Cross sections are
presented in Appendix C.
Cross sections A -A ’ and B -B ’ follow northwest-southeast and southwest-
northeast transects across Silo Field (Figure 3.16). Lithostratigraphic correlations of the
A, B, and C chalk and marl intervals, the Fort Hays Limestone, and the Codell Sandstone
were made according to GR, ILD, and porosity log signatures (Figure 3.17) after the type
log by Sonnenberg (2012). Additionally, these cross sections display the top of the lower
B chalk, the interval of interest for this study. Tracks displayed from left to right on cross
sections A -A ’ and B -B ’ are 1) GR and CALI, 2) depth (ft) 3) perforated intervals, 4)
ILD, 5) combined neutron-density porosity (Phi(N-D)) (Section 3.2.1), and 6) calculated
weight percent calcite (Section 3.2.2). The two wells with core are designated by red
circles and display porosity and weight percent calcite measurements.
45
Distinct petrophysical signatures for the Fort Hays Limestone and the A, B, and C
chalk and marl intervals of the Smoky Hill Member are apparent from cross sections A -
A ’ and B -B ’. A type log from Silo Field (Figure 3.17) illustrates that the Fort Hays is
characterized by low GR and low ILD. Chalk benches exhibit low GR and elevated ILD
while marl displays high GR and low ILD. Also, chalk is marked by a closer overlay of
the NPHI and DPHI curves compared to marl. High ILD in the chalk benches indicates
the presence of hydrocarbons and correlates to thermal maturity (Smagala et al., 1984;
Johnson and Bartshe, 1991a-b). The elevated GR and NPHI readings in marl are due to
greater amounts of clay minerals (Figure 3.9). However, these A, B, and C chalk-marl
distinctions are not always clear-cut. A cross plot of GR versus ILD for the Lee 41-5 well
(Figure 3.18) shows mixed signatures for the A chalk and C marl and the relatively low
GR of the B marl. Transitions between Niobrara chalk and marl are gradational, and
within A, B, and C chalk and marl divisions there are smaller-scale interbedded chalk and
marl cycles. The relatively low GR of the B marl suggests that it is more chalk-rich than
the A or C marl.
Within Silo Field there are no major stratigraphic thickness variations in the
Niobrara Formation. Average thickness for the gross Niobrara interval is ~300 ft.
However, the Niobrara is less than this 300 ft thick in a few wells due to missing section.
The Paul 1 (49-021-20304) and Champlin Amoco 283 B-1 (49-021-20227) wells in cross
section A -A ’ are both missing section from the B marl or A marl/B chalk, respectively.
Combined neutron-density porosity (Phi(N-D)) and calculated weight percent
calcite exhibit similar patterns throughout the wells in cross sections A -A ’ and B -B ’.
Porosity ranges from 5-10% and appears to have no consistent variation between the A,
46
B, and C chalk and marl intervals. The weight percent calcite curve ranges from 55%-
100%. Higher weight percent calcite is estimated in the chalk intervals (especially the
Fort Hays Limestone), while the lower weight percent calcite values are estimated in the
A and C marl intervals
Cross sections C -C ’ and D -D ’, which follow the same transects as A -A ’ and B -
B ’ (Figure 3.16), display transgressive and regressive surfaces (RS1, TS1, R S2...) that
were interpreted based on the GR log after the framework proposed by Drake and
Hawkins (2012) (Figure 3.17). Tracks from left to right include 1) GR and CALI, 2)
depth (ft), and 3) ILD. The assumption behind T-R surface picks is that chalk and marl
deposition was controlled by sea level of the WIC Seaway. When sea level was highest
(maximum transgression), chalk was deposited. Conversely, when sea level was lowest
(maximum regression) marl facies were deposited. Transgressive surfaces were picked at
depths where GR was at a minimum and regressive surfaces where GR was at a
maximum.
Compared to lithostratigraphic surfaces of cross sections A -A ’ and B -B ’, T-R
surfaces are characterized by greater thickness variations. In particular, the TS4-RS5-
TS5-RS6 cycles in the upper part of the Niobrara section exhibit significant thinning
thickening patterns. Also, the GR curve is highly variable within some of these T-R
surfaces, notably within the RS2-TS2 surfaces in the NE-SW transect of cross section
D -D ’. It appears that this interval in the lower Niobrara is more chalk-rich to the
northeast and marl-rich to the southwest. As Drake and Hawkins (2012) suggest, these
thickness and facies variations may be a result of many factors including local
paleotopography, deposition rates, benthic currents, and basement uplifts.
47
Cross sections E -E ’ and F -F ’ (Figure 3.19) are north-south transects that feature
wells with calculated fracture intensity. Tracks displayed from left to right on cross
sections E -E ’ and F -F ’ are 1) GR and CALI, 2) depth (ft) 3) perforated intervals, 4) ILD,
5) combined neutron-density porosity (Phi(N-D)) (Section 3.2.1), and 6) calculated
fracture intensity from FIDs and OMRLs (Section 3.2.3).
Fracture intensity increases toward the center of the field and with proximity to
the central northwest oriented wrench fault (Figure 3.19). Note that in cross section F -F ’,
the Parker 1 (49-021-20319) and the Lee 41-5 (49-021-20349) wells exhibit anomalously
high fracture intensity in the lower B chalk, which corresponds to an interval where the
caliper tool indicates a washout. In this case, borehole conditions are affecting both DPHI
and the four-padded resistivity tool from which fracture intensity was derived. While the
washout itself may be due to the presence of natural fractures, calculated fracture
intensity in this interval for these wells is unreliable and was excluded from further
analyses.
48
49
Figure 3.1 Core locations. A) Reference map for core locations. Red circles mark locations of the Combs 1 (49-021-20287, NE NE Sec. 35, T16N, R65W) and Lee 41-5 (49-021-20349, NE NE Sec. 5, T15N, R64W) wells. B) Both cores are from the middle or B chalk bench of the Niobrara.
50
Lee 41-5 Core Description
7980'-
7982'-
7984'-
7986'-
7988'-
7990'-
7992'-
7994"-
7996
7998'-
8000'-
8002'-
8004'-
8006'-
8008'-
8010'-
8012'-
8014'-
8016
8018'-
JlLl
Ar>
I I I vf chalk marl
FractureIntensity Core Description
Dark grey, planar laminated marl with horizontal calcite-filled fractures and vertical fracture. Pyrite laminae present
Bentonite ~1cm thick, overlaine by smallmud drapes and vertical calcite-filled fracture swarm.
Calcite-filled fracture -55 cm long, vertical stylolite Pyrite laminae
Abundant pyrite nodules
Dark grey planar laminated marl with discontinous and continuous pyrite laminae and nodules
SYMBOL KEY
^ bioturbation
=■ well-laminated
mud drapes
inoceramus shell or fragments
oyster shell fragments
—8 - bentonite layerPyrite nodules and oyster shell layer -3 mm thick
Large vertical calcite-filled fracture -50 cm long along with shorter hairline vertical calcite-filled fracture swarm
Mud drapes and pyrite nodule nearby a vertical styollte with dissolution nodule?Inoceramus layer 3-4 mm thick, intersected by a styololite
Hairline vertical calcite-filled fractures surrounding Inoceramus layerGradual shift from dark grey marl to underlying, slightly lighter grey chalk facies
Mud drapes, small oyster fragments and layers, bentonite -1-2 mm thick
Relatively abundant brown mud drapes from here down to base Styololites present
bentonite layer - 1 mm thick
Large vertical fracture -10 ft long running down middle of core
Bioturbation present here to base of core (laminae are more obscured)Grey chalk with Inoceramus layers and fragments, pyrite nodules and layer
{ \J \N stylolites
(7 ^ pyrite nodule
_ (__ pyrite layer
pyrite lens
/calcite-filled fracture
openfracture
Figure 3.2 Lee 41-5 core description. Cored interval covers around 37 ft of the Niobrara B chalk bench. See Figure 3.1 for core location.
51
8284'-
8286-
8288'•
8290’
8292
8294'.
8296
8298'
8300'-
8302'
8304'-
8306'-
8308'-
8310'-
8312
8314'-
8316'-
8318'
8320'
8322'
8324'.
8326'
Combs 1 Well
Core Description
Light grey marl grading into chalk at -8288'. Calcite-filled fractures, pyrite nodules and layers, dark brown mud drapes and shell fragments/layers are present.
Vertical stylolite -1 0 cm long
Calcite-filled fracture intersecting pyrite nodule bentonite layer
Bioturbated (lacking laminae or mud drapes)
Inoceramus shell ~ 2mm thick and mud drapes
Angled calcite-filled fracture terminates in ~2mm thick oyster shell bed
i—(TJk _
X Io
Stylolite - 20 cm long (core out of place here)Grey chalk with moderate bioturbation and shell fragments, hairline fractures.
horizontal fractures
angled and vertical calcite-filled fractures, mud drapes throughout
Horizontal stylolite swarm -1 5 cm thick
Inoceramus bed -1 -2 cm thick
Bioturbated, shell fragments, chalk begins to grade into a marl towards base.
Vertical stylolite -4 0 cm long, mud drapes and hairline calcite-filled fractures
SYMBOL KEY
bioturbation
— ■ well-laminated
mud drapes
inoceramus shell or fragments
oyster shell fragments
—B - bentonite layer
fl/UV stylolites
(?) pyrite nodule
__I__ pyrite layer
pyrite lens
calcite-filledfracture
openfracture
Scattered oyster shell fragments bentonite -1-3 mm thick
vf chalk marl
FractureDensityH M I
Figure 3.3 Combs 1 core description. Cored interval covers around 40 ft of the Niobrara B chalk bench. See Figure 3.1 for core location
52
Figure 3.4 Core photographs. A) Organic-rich laminations and Inoceramus shells in the Lee 41-5 core (8,005 ft). B) Hairline, calcite-filled fractures, and bentonite layer in the Lee 41-5 core (7,983 ft). C) Part of the open vertical fracture at the base of the Lee 41-5 core (8,013 ft). D) Stylolite and pyrite lenses in the Combs 1 core (8,290 ft).
53
Lee 41-5 core, 8,005 ft
Lee 41-5 core, 7,983 ft
Combs 1 core, 8,290 ftLee 41-5 core, 8,013 ft
54
Figure 3.5 Measured porosity from core versus porosity calculated from NPHI and DPHI logs (c(>n-d)- A) Depth track of measured porosity and c()n-d for the Lee 4 1 -5 well. B) Crossplot of measured porosity versus corresponding c|)n -d - While c()n - d seems to be a good match visually to porosity measurements at some depths, the R2 value for measured porosity and ((jn-dIs low ( -0 .1 4 ) .
55
Figure 3.6 Relationship between GR and weight percent calcite core measurements. The correlation is not good (R2 = 0.48), but this was the best relationship between measured calcite and any one log type.
56
A
B
Figure 3.7 Crossplots comparing weight percent calcite to calculated weight percent calcite. A) Measured calcite versus calcite calculated from GR (R2 = 0.48). B) Measured calcite versus calcite calculated from GR, ILD and NPHI (R2 = 0.61).
57
Figure 3.8 Crossplots comparing measured weight percent clay to logs. A) Measured weight percent clay versus GR. B) Measured weight % clay versus Th/K. Correlations are poor.
Potassium (%)
Figure 3.9 Thorium-potassium clay type crossplot for the gross Niobrara interval, Lee 41-5 well. Symbols are colored by A, B, C chalk and marl divisions of the Smoky Hill and Fort Hays Members. Clay type is mostly mixed-layer and illite. In general, clay is more abundant in marl intervals than in chalk
Un00
59
Gamma Ray Index and different weight % clay correlations
Gamma Ray Index
Figure 3.10 Crossplot of Gamma Ray Index (IGR) versus Weight % Clay. The multiple lines represent different relationships between clay content and IGR. Curve 1 represents a 1 to 1 linear IGR response from 0 to 100% shale content. Curve 2 is generated from Equation 3.2 and represents the correlation between IGR and Vshalein Mesozoic and Paleozoic rocks (Larionov. 1969). The other curves, generated from Equation 3.8, attempt to relate IGR to an average weight percent clay ranging from 10%-50%. Weight % clay measurements are plotted as pink triangles and green squares for the Lee 41-5 and Combs 1 wells, respectively. Core measurements are scattered and lie in different domains for each well. Therefore, clay content is not predicted by a linear relationship between IGR and average weight percent clay. Figure modified after Bigelow (2002).
60
Figure 3.11 Diagram of fracture identification logs and core description in a fractured interval. Fracture Identification Log (FID) (left) and an Oriented Micro-Resistivity Log (OMRL) (right) from the Lee 41-5 well (8,000-8,050 ft). Contrasts in resistivity readings between adjacent pads of the logging tool indicate the presence and orientation of fractures near the borehole. Contrasts from both FID and OMRL occur in the same interval that an open vertical fracture exists in the Lee 41-5 core (~8,008-8018 ft). The intervals shaded in red indicate the same depths intervals.
Lee 41-5
Fracture Intensity (FID)
100 oFracture Intensity
(OMRL)
AZI4 (DEG) RES2(DEG)
GR (GAPI)-90
AZI3 (DEG)360 -3 12
RES3(DEG)0 100
CAL11 (IN)-90
AZI2 (DEG)360 -3 12
RES4(DEG)6 16
CALI 2 (IN)-90
AZI1 (DEG)360 -3 12
RES1(DEG)6 16 -90 360 -3 12Open
vertical fracture
vf chalk marl
------- 8,050’
Oriented Micro-Resistivity Log (OMRL)
62
Figure 3.12 Example of how fracture intensities were quantified using an FIL (See Section 3.2.3 for explanation).
63
Figure 3.13 FID versus OMRL calculated fracture intensities. Fracture intensities calculated from OMRL and FID throughout the Niobrara Formation for the Combs 1 well do not correlate to one another.
64
Figure 3.14 Example of the A log R technique applied in the Lower Cretaceous Greenhorn and Graneros formations. Modified after Kaiser (2012). Log-derived TOC matches core data in source rock intervals (highlighted in red). Log-derived TOC does not align with core data in reservoir intervals (highlighted in green). Perhaps there are interbedded source rock intervals in the Bridge Creek Member as indicated by marl TOC measurements that match log-derived TOC.
65
ENCANA ENERGY RESARISTOCRAT ANGUS
12-8T3N R65W S8
66
Figure 3.15 ! log R results for the Lee 41-5 well. The red lines in tracks 3 and 4 show the baseline value for the bulk density-resistivity (RHOB-ILD) overlay. This baseline is in the Fort Hays Limestone. Track 5 is the RHOB-ILD overlay. Track 6 is A log R (Equation 3.9). Track 7 contains A log R generated TOC (Equation 3.10) and core measurements. The black curve has no GR cutoff applied while the red curve has a GR cutoff to exclude reservoir intervals. Where GR < 110 API, the red curve defaults to a TOC anchor of 0.8%. As in Figure 3.13, red highlights source-rock intervals where core TOC matches log-derived TOC, and green highlights reservoir intervals where core TOC does not match log-derived TOC.
67
Figure 3.16 Reference map for cross sections A -A ’, B -B ’ and C -C ’, and D -D ’ (Appendix C). Circles indicate vertical well locations. Well names are abbreviated API numbers. The two red circles mark well locations with core, the Combs 1 (49-021-20287, NE NE Sec. 35, T16N, R65W) and Lee 41-5 (49-021-20349, NE NE Sec. 5, T15N, R64W) wells.
68
Figure 3.17 Type Log for the Niobrara Formation at Silo Field. Lithostratigraphic tops were picked based on gamma ray (GR) and deep resistivity (ILD) patterns. Transgressive and regressive surfaces (RS1, TS1, RS2, etc.) were picked according to the framework proposed by Drake and Hawkins (2012).
69
Crossplot of G R and Resistivity
Resistiv ity D eep, IL D (o h m )
Figure 3.18 Crossplot of GR vs. resistivity for the Lee 41-5 well. Chalk, marl, and limestone of the Niobrara Formation at Silo Field have different petrophysical properties as illustrated by this crossplot of gamma ray (GR) vs. deep resistivity (ILD) for the Lee 41-5 well. Marl is characterized by higher GR and low ILD, chalk by moderate GR and high ILD, and the Fort Hays Limestone by low GR and low ILD. Lithological divisions are not always distinct as in the case of the C marl (yellow squares) and the A chalk (blue triangles).
70
Figure 3.19 Reference map for cross sections D -D ’ and E -E ’ (Appendix C). Circles indicate vertical well locations and are colored according to fracture identification log type. Well names are abbreviated API numbers. Left-lateral wrench faults and salt- dissolution edge locations are after Sonnenberg and Weimer (1993).
CHAPTER 4
CONTROLS ON PRODUCTION
4.1 Geologic Controls on Production
Lower B chalk thickness, zone-averaged deep resistivity, weight percent calcite,
porosity, and fracture intensity are compared to first year oil production from 1980
vertical wells in order to elucidate controls on production. Maps of each of these geologic
variables, encompassing the four-township boundary of Silo Field and displaying the left-
lateral wrench fault model of Sonnenberg and Weimer (1993), show the spatial changes
in each variable for the Lower B chalk interval, while crossplots show the correlation
with production (Figures 4.1-4.6). These maps also display production bubbles sized by
first year oil from vertical wells. All maps were generated using a minimum curvature
algorithm, with the exception of the fracture intensity map which was contoured by hand
due to sparse data coverage on the outskirts of the field. The strength of the linear
correlation between these geologic variables and first year oil production is quantified
using the determination coefficients (R2) (Table 4.1). Appendix D contains well data
tables used for regression analysis.
Fracture intensity calculated from FID logs has the strongest correlation (R2 =
0.33) relationship with first year oil production (Figure 4.5 B; Table 4.1). FID fracture
intensity also has relatively good correlation (R2 = 0.39) to initial production (IP) oil
(the amount of oil produced in the first 24 hours) (Figure 4.7). The next highest R2 value
(0.18) is for average weight percent calcite (Figure 4.3; Table 4.1), which was derived
from the GR log (Section 3.3.2). However, if the two wells with the lowest and highest
calculated weight percent calcite content that corresponds to the lowest and highest first
year oil are excluded, then the R2 value drops to 0.00. Lower B chalk thickness, zone-
averaged deep resistivity, matrix porosity, and OMRL fracture intensity exhibit no
correlation with first year oil production (R2 < 0.05) (Figures 4.1, 4.2, 4.4, and 4.6; Table
4.1).
In addition to comparing one variable at a time to first year oil, this study also
performed multivariate analysis to test the relative influences of multiple geologic
controls on production. The dataset includes 11 wells that had both fracture intensity and
production data (Appendix D). Table 4.2 presents results of multivariate regression for
first year oil production and the following six geologic variables: lower B chalk
thickness, zone-averaged and zone maximum resistivity, zone-averaged weight percent
calcite and zone-averaged fracture intensity of the lower B chalk, and the distance a well
is from the center fault in Silo Field. Distance from the center fault is included to test the
influence of proximity to either the wrench fault or salt dissolution edge at Silo (Figure
3.19). Values of all variables were normalized to 1 to compare relative contributions of
each variable.
The overall R2 value for this regression is 0.84 and the P value is 0.11. However,
the relatively high standard errors compared to the magnitude of each coefficient and the
high P values for each variable considered in this regression suggest a low probability
that the coefficients are statistically significant. The multivariate regression ranks average
72
resistivity (coefficient = 0.97) as the greatest influence on production, not fracture
intensity (coefficient = 0.18), contrary to the results of the univariate regression where
fracture intensity has a stronger linear relationship.
4.2 Engineering Controls on Production
Relationships between production and geological variables cannot be considered
in isolation since different drilling and production methods and engineering practices
substantially influence well production. For example, the onset of horizontal drilling in
the 1990s increased production at a significantly higher rate than drilling in a sweet spot
with a vertical well could accomplish (Figure 2.11). Two such engineering-related
variables are choke size and perforation length.
Choke refers to a well site device that restricts the flow or oil or gas in order to
regulate reservoir pressure. Choke size exhibits greater influence on production in wells
completed after 2005 (R2 = 0.57) than in older horizontal and vertical wells (Figure 4.8).
Smaller choke sizes resulted in higher first year oil.
Perforating a well refers to shooting holes through well casing to increase
connectivity between the reservoir and the borehole. Similar to choke, the length of
perforated intervals for horizontal wells is arguably only related to production in post-
2005 wells (Figure 4.9). Most 1990s and post-2005 wells do not exceed a perforated
length of 6,000 ft. Standard perforated lengths for post-2005 horizontal wells is between
4,000-5,000 ft, yet there is a large spread in first year oil produced. One well, perforated
~9,000 ft, produced ~70 thousand barrels of oil (MBO) in its first year. While this is
higher production than most wells with shorter perforated intervals, there are two wells
73
with ~4,000 ft long perforations that produced ~90 MBO (Figure 4.9 B). Clearly,
production is influenced by more than just perforated length.
4.3 Combined Geologic and Engineering Controls on Production
Multivariate regression analysis was performed on a combination of both geologic
variables and perforation length to determine the relative influences first year oil
produced from vertical wells at Silo Field. Perforated thickness was the only engineering
variable included because choke size was not available for all wells. The results in Table
4.3 are for the 11 wells for which there are fracture intensity data. Values of all variables
were normalized to 1 to compare relative contributions of each variable. The multiple R2
value of 0.99 and P value of 0.00 along with the relatively lower standard errors and P
values for the individual variables are an improvement over the results of Table 4.2. The
only difference between the regressions results presented in Tables 4.2 and 4.3 is the
addition of perforated length. This suggests that perforated length is important in
determining first year oil from the 11 vertical wells in this dataset.
Since filtering by fracture intensity limited the dataset to only 11 wells, fracture
intensity was excluded as a variable for regression analysis. This increased the dataset to
29 wells. Results of this regression analysis are poor (R2 = 0.16; P value = 0.66). This
may be a reflection of how important fracture intensity is as a control on production, or it
may be an effect of the greater variance introduced by nearly tripling the number of wells
in the dataset.
74
75
A
B
Figure 4.1 Thickness of the lower B chalk and production. (A) Isopach map of the lowerB chalk with bubbles sized by first year oil production from vertical wells. (B) Crossplotof the lower B chalk thickness versus first year oil.
76
B
Figure 4.2 Average of deep resistivity of the lower B chalk and production. (A) Contourmap of resistivity with bubbles sized by first year oil production from vertical wells. (B)Crossplot of resistivity versus first year oil.
77
A
B
Figure 4.3 Average of weight percent calcite of the lower B chalk and production. (A)Contour map of weight percent calcite with bubbles sized by first year oil productionfrom vertical wells. (B) Crossplot of weight percent calcite versus first year oil.
78
A
B
Figure 4.4 Average of porosity of the lower B chalk and production. (A) Contour map ofporosity with bubbles sized by first year oil production from vertical wells. (B) Crossplotof resistivity versus first year oil.
79
A
B
Figure 4.5 Average o f FID fracture intensity o f the lower B chalk and production. (A)Contour map o f FID fracture intensity with bubbles sized by first year oil productionfrom vertical wells. (B) Crossplot o f FID fracture intensity versus first year oil.
80
A
B
Figure 4.6 Average o f OMRL fracture intensity o f the lower B chalk and production. (A)Contour map o f OMRL fracture intensity with bubbles sized by first year oil productionfrom vertical wells. (B) Crossplot o f OMRL fracture intensity versus first year oil.
81
Table 4.1 Bivariate results for first year oil production and geologic variables. The number of well control points both for generating the maps and for determining R2 values in the crossplots varies based on available data. The number of wells in the crossplots is less than the number wells used to generate maps because not all wells had production data.
Geologic Variable
R2(determination
coefficient)Well Control Points Well Control Points
(map generation) (cross plots)
FID Fracture Intensity 0.33 15 14
Weight % calcite 0.18 54 38
Thickness 0.04 54 42
Deep resistivity 0.03 42 27
OMRL Fracture Intensity 0.01 15 15
Porosity 0.00 38 24
82
Figure 4.7 Fracture intensity vs. IP oil. Fracture intensity also has a relatively good correlation (R2 = 0.48) to IP oil.
83
Table 4.2 Multivariate regression results for first year oil production from geologic variables
n = 11
Multiple R2 0.84
Multiple P 0.11
Coefficients Standard Error P value
Intercept 7.10.- 0.50 0.75
Thickness (lower B chalk)
0.35 0.29 0.30
Averageresistivity
0.97 0.97 0.37
Maximumresistivity
5.80.- 0.58 0.22
Average Wt % calcite
0.68 0.31 0.10
Average Fracture Intensity
0.18 0.34 0.62
Distance from center fault
0.04 0.57 0.95
84
Figure 4.8 Choke size and production. Wells of different drilling eras are differentiated by color and symbol. Only modern horizontal wells drilled after 2005 display a correlation between choke size and production.
85
A
B
Figure 4.9 First year oil versus perforated length crossplots. A) First year oil vs. perforated length for horizontal wells drilled in the 1990s. There is no correlation between perforated length and production. B) First year oil vs. perforated length for post- 2005 horizontal wells. There is an arguable correlation between perforated length and first year oil, although there is a spread in production for lateral wells perforated 4,0006,000 ft.
86
Table 4.3 Multivariate regression results for first year oil production from geologic variables and perforated thickness
n = 11
Multiple R2 0.99
Multiple P 0.00
Coefficients Standard Error P value
Intercept 3.00.- 0.14 0.87
PerforatedThickness
0.37 0.05 0.01
Thickness (lower B chalk)
0.33 0.08 0.03
Averageresistivity
0.62 0.27 0.10
Maximumresistivity
-0.96 0.16 0.01
Average Wt % calcite
0.61 0.09 0.01
Average Fracture Intensity
0.25 0.09 0.07
Distance from center fault
-0.04 0.16 0.79
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
5.1 Geologic Controls on Fracture Intensity
Since fracture intensity derived from FIDs was determined to be the strongest
geologic influence on first year oil production (Table 4.1; Figure 4.5), this study explored
the relative influences of multiple geologic variables on FID fracture intensity. Table 5.1
presents coefficients, standard errors, R2, and P values determined from bivariate
regression analyses performed individually for seven independent variables from a
dataset of 11 vertical wells (Appendix D). These seven variables included the distance
wells are from both the center fault in Silo Field and the nearest fault, average and
maximum resistivity in the lower B chalk, thickness of the gross Niobrara interval and of
the lower B chalk, and average weight percent calcite of the lower B chalk. Values of all
variables were normalized to 1 to compare relative contributions of each variable.
Distance from the center fault and average resistivity are the two variables with the
strongest statistical relationship to fracture intensity (Figure 5.1). The other five variables
have significantly higher P values, indicating random relationships.
Table 5.2 presents multivariate regression results for fracture intensity as the
dependent variable and the same seven independent variables considered in bivariate
analysis (Table 5.1). The goal is to develop an equation to generate a spatial prediction of
fracture intensity in locations where the OMRL and FID logs do not exist. Even though
the bivariate relationships between many of these variables and fracture intensity were
not strong, when these variables are considered all together in multivariate regression
they result in a high R2 of 0.92 (Table 5.2). The high R2 and low P values for the overall
regression suggest potential for fracture prediction in Silo Field. Of course, the validity of
the equation derived from this regression needs to tested by first applying to it wells with
fracture intensity information. Only if fracture intensities from this equation match actual
fracture intensity can this equation be justified to predict fracture intensity in wells
without fracture identification logs.
5.2 Interpreting Multivariate Results
Results from multivariate regression presented in this study should be interpreted
with caution and perspective. Though the results of multivariate regression provide a
framework for ranking the most influential variables on successful production (Tables 4.2
and 4.3) and on fracture intensity (Table 5.2), controls on both production and fracture
intensity are likely more complex than this method of statistical analysis can decipher.
Questions concerning multivariate results include the following. Why are the coefficients
for maximum resistivity negative for both production and fracture intensity (Tables 4.2,
4.3, and 5.2)? Also, even though the statistical parameters resulting from regression
analysis indicate a strong correlation (high R2 and low P values) between variables, are
the relationships implied true to physical reality?
One observation about the results in Table 5.2 concerns a possible effect of how
fracture intensity was calculated. Note that maximum and average resistivity of the lower
88
B chalk have the highest coefficients in relation to fracture intensity (Table 5.2). This
may be because elevated resistivity anomalies reflect natural fractures in the formation.
However, since fracture intensity was calculated from a resistivity-based wireline tool
(Section 3.2.3), this relationship may be an artifact.
5.3 Natural Fractures
Natural fractures have been the focus of several Silo Field studies (Merin and
Moore, 1986; Montgomery, 1991b; Stell and Brown, 1992; Sonnenberg and Weimer,
1993; Sonnenberg, 2011). The analysis presented here is the first to quantify the
contribution of natural fractures to first year oil production. FID fracture intensity has a
greater influence on production than the zone thickness, porosity, resistivity, weight
percent calcite, or OMRL fracture intensity (Figures 4.1-4.6; Table 4.1).
It is not clear why FID-calculated fracture intensity is more strongly correlated to
first year oil production than OMRL-calculated fracture intensity (Figure 4.5 and 4.6;
Table 4.1). In theory, FID and OMRL are sensing the same resistivity contrasts caused by
the influx of drilling fluid into natural fractures that intersect the wellbore (Beck et al.,
1977; Iverson, 1992). Possibly, a difference in the FID logging tool or log display (Figure
3.11) from which fracture intensity was calculated resulted in a better correlation to first
year oil.
Natural fractures in the chalk benches of the Niobrara Formation, therefore, are
essential for the storage and deliverability of hydrocarbons at Silo Field. Several theories
for fracture origins for Silo Field have been proposed, but a definitive cause remains
elusive. Theories of fracture genesis in the Niobrara involve Laramide compressive
89
stresses, Permian salt-edge dissolution, Precambrian faults, differential compaction,
polygonal fault systems, and maturation and generation of hydrocarbons. Sonnenberg
(2011) and Treadgold et al. (2012) suggest that natural fractures owe their existence to
more than one cause. It is likely that fractures of different origins contribute to different
aspects of the Niobrara petroleum system. Based on previously published fracture
studies, natural fractures in the Niobrara at Silo Field can be divided into three different
groups: tectonic, overburden, and microfractures (Table 5.3).
Note that fracture intensity calculated from FILs (Section 3.2.3) corresponds to
resistivity contrasts caused by open fractures that filled with drilling fluid. Therefore,
calculated fracture intensity probably only reflects tectonic and overburden fractures and
does not capture microfractures.
5.3.1 Tectonic Fractures
Tectonic fractures, derived from Laramide stresses, are attributed to provide
reservoir storage capacity and permeability paths from the formation to the well bore
(Montgomery, 1991b; Sonnenberg and Weimer, 1993). Regional, systematic fractures
may form at depth in otherwise undeformed strata due to differential horizontal stress and
pore pressure that approaches the value of the least compressive stress (Lorenz et al.,
1991). One of the multiple hypotheses for how the Laramide orogeny occurred (Erslev,
2009) argues that the orientation of maximum compressive stress changed from ENE in
the early Laramide to NE in the late Laramide (Chapin, 1983). Merin and Moore (1986)
invoked this two-stage model of the Laramide orogeny to explain NE trending,
hydrocarbon-bearing, extensional fractures at Silo Field. They proposed that right-lateral
90
shear zones, developed in response to an early-Laramide ENE oriented maximum
principal stress, became extensional when the maximum principal stress orientation
rotated to the NE in late-Laramide time. However, a GIS-based analysis of kinematic
data from over 20,000 structures in the Rocky Mountain region by Erslev and Koenig
(2009) suggests that there was only one phase of ENE compression during the Laramide
orogeny. Sonnenberg and Weimer (1993) proposed a model for Silo Field in which
compressive tectonic stresses were responsible for wrench faulting, extension fractures,
and vertical stylolites (Figure 5.2). Both fractures and vertical stylolites are present in
core (Figures 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4 C-D). Though evidence of wrench fault movement has not
been observed in core, horizontal wells have encountered up to ~30 ft (9.2 m) of vertical
displacement. Faults at Silo appear to be left-lateral wrench faults (Sonnenberg and
Weimer, 1993). Left and right-lateral wrench faults are common in the central Rocky
Mountain foreland area (Stone, 1969; Chapin, 1983) and hold important implications for
reservoir compartmentalization and fracture development in petroleum systems (Weimer,
1996).
5.3.2 Overburden Fractures
Overburden fractures, derived from gravitational forces, are possibly due to
Permian salt dissolution (Davis and Lewis, 1990; Campbell and Saint, 1991; Lewis et al.,
1991; Montgomery, 1991b; Sonnenberg and Weimer, 1993; and Svoboda, 1995)
differential compaction (Thomas, 1992), and polygonal fault systems (Sonnenberg and
Underwood, 2013). They are potentially important for providing interconnectedness to
tectonic fractures. Permian salt thickness variations associated with structural features in
91
Cretaceous strata have been effectively drilled for hydrocarbons throughout the Denver
Basin (Oldham, 1996; Oldham and Smosna, 1996). The theory is that brittle chalk
benches of the Niobrara fractured as a result of flexure caused by Permian salt
dissolution. This is strongly established in areas of shallow Niobrara biogenic gas
production in the eastern flank of the Denver Basin (Figure 2.4) where salt dissolution
occurred after deposition of overlying strata. The influence of Permian salt dissolution at
Silo has been discussed by Davis and Lewis (1990), Campbell and Saint (1991), Lewis et
al. (1991), Montgomery (1991b), Sonnenberg and Weimer (1993), and Svoboda (1995).
Many of these publications are based on a three-dimensional multicomponent seismic
survey completed in the Silo area in 1987. The salt edge runs northwest-southeast
through Silo Field (Figure 3.18) and corresponds to the productive fairway and the
location of the central northwest oriented wrench fault. Although these researchers
established a plausible connection between salt dissolution and fracture development at
Silo, there is not enough evidence to establish salt dissolution as the primary cause of
overburden fractures. Objections include 1) fracture orientations do not correlate to
changes in strike of the salt edge, and 2) Permian salt dissolution effects were
compensated for before Niobrara deposition (Svoboda, 1995). Deciphering fracture
origins in the Niobrara involves a more complex structural analysis in addition to
Permian salt dissolution (Montgomery, 1991b).
Fracture genesis at Silo may also fundamentally be influenced by basement
structure (Montgomery, 1991b; Treadgold et al., 2012). Basement dynamics are a
proposed control on Permian salt dissolution and the northwest left-lateral wrench faults
at Silo. Recent 3D seismic imaging reveals an underlying Archean-Proterozoic fold and
92
thrust belt that was periodically reactivated during the Paleozoic through Tertiary
(Treadgold et al., 2012). Even though Erslev and Koenig (2009) concluded that Laramide
faults are generally independent of Precambrian faults, perhaps faults at Silo Field are an
exception. No matter the ultimate cause of fractures important for production at Silo
Field, fracture intensity does increase with proximity to the central northwest oriented
wrench fault and Permian salt edge (Figure 3.19 and 5.1 A; Appendix C, Cross Section
E -E ’).
Thomas (1992) claimed that differential compaction fractures, as opposed to
tectonic fractures, are more important for sustainable production in fractured reservoirs
like the Niobrara. Compaction fractures, caused by gravity, are influenced by
paleotopography. Thomas (1992) suggested that tectonic fractures alone lack the
interconnectedness vital for sustained production from a fractured reservoir and that a
reservoir which has fractures from both tectonic and compaction origins results in an
ideal intersecting fracture network. Therefore, emphasizing tectonic fractures while
ignoring compaction fractures may have contributed to unpredictable well-performance
in Silo Field.
Polygonal fault systems (PFSs), described in the North Sea by Cartwright (1996),
have recently been suggested to exist in the Niobrara Formation (Sonnenberg and
Underwood, 2013). PFSs are small-scale extension faults, characterized by throws of <
100 m, dips between 30-70°, and random orientations. They are bounded above and
below by undeformed layers and flatten with depth due to compaction. They are thought
to form by volumetric contraction early in the burial process, almost like giant mud
cracks. Recent 3D seismic imaging has helped researchers identify PFSs in the Niobrara
93
94
at Silo. Research is ongoing to investigate polygonal faulting within the Niobrara
(Kernan, 2013).
5.3.3 Microfractures
The final type of natural fracture relevant to the Niobrara at Silo Field is
microfractures (Table 5.3). Microfractures, formed from increasing pore pressures during
thermal maturation and generation of hydrocarbons, are important for primary migration
of hydrocarbons to larger, vertical reservoir fractures. Microfractures have been observed
in the Austin Chalk (Chanchani et al., 1996; Berg and Gangi, 1999) and in the Niobrara
Formation (Pahnke, 2014). Pahnke (2014) calls them microchannel pores in the Niobrara.
Schnerk and Madeen (1990) suggested that, in the Austin Chalk, microfractures provide
the permeability conduits for oil produced at low rates once pressures in vertical
macrofractures are depleted. Microfractures are associated with pressure solution seams
(microstylolites), which are characterized by dissolved carbonate, concentrated organic
matter, as well as quartz, clays, and pyrite (Pahnke, 2014; Figure 5.3). Solution seams are
sinuous, wispy laminae that form subparallel to bedding planes (Chanchani et al., 1996;
Pahnke, 2014) as a result of overburden pressure. Fletcher and Pollard (1981) treat
pressure solution surfaces as anticracks and argue they represent a key mechanism in the
bulk deformation of a rock mass. Microfractures are thought to be induced by increases
in pore pressure during petroleum generation from the organic matter concentrated in
solution seams. Horizontal fractures form in a thrust-fault regime when pore pressure
exceeds overburden stress and vertical effective stress becomes tensile. In strike-slip or
normal fault regimes, pore pressure cannot reach the overburden stress magnitude, and
microfractures may be shear or vertical (Cobbold, 2013). While pressure solution
surfaces and associated microfractures are probably a key component to understanding
hydrocarbon generation and migration in the Niobrara, their abundance at Silo Field may
be less since thermal maturity at Silo Field is relatively low compared to other productive
fields in the DJ Basin.
Most other productive areas in the Denver Basin (e.g., Wattenberg Field) are
predicted by Tmax values (derived from pyrolysis) at expulsion maturity (439-460°C),
but Tmax at Silo Field is at the onset of oil generation (433-438°C) (Thul, 2012). Unlike
conventional petroleum systems, the Niobrara’s low permeability limits migration
distances. Therefore, thermal maturation of a source rock interval and the close proximity
of a reservoir interval to that source rock are key requirements for a play to exist (Thul,
2012). One reason why Wattenberg Field has been more successful than Silo may be its
higher thermal maturity, which has resulted in the generation of more hydrocarbons and
the creation of more microfractures, which contribute to reservoir permeability. Pahnke
(2014) proposed that abundant microfractures form in the Niobrara where favorable
lithology and thermal maturity factors combine, as demonstrated from Wattenberg cores
which consistently break and fall apart along pressure solution seams. A comparison of
pressure solution seam occurrence and distribution between Wattenberg and Silo cores
would address this question. Thul (2012) suggested that Silo Field is productive despite
its relatively low thermal maturity due to a favorable tectonic history. In other words,
since Silo Field lacks the thermal maturity Wattenberg has, it may owe its success to a
sufficiently adequate fracture network provided by both tectonic and overburden
fractures.
95
Unraveling the origins and roles of different types of natural fractures at Silo is
confusing enough when qualitatively evaluated. Quantifying these aspects into a viable
reservoir model that results in repeatable success at Silo Field has been a continuing
challenge since the original 1980 vertical wells.
5.4 Resistivity
While no correlation between resistivity and production was found (Table 4.1),
this study identified a northwest trend in elevated resistivity in the lower B chalk bench
of the Niobrara that corresponds to the productive fairway at Silo (Figure 4.2). Resistivity
mapping has previously been used to delineate productive trends at Silo Field by Johnson
and Bartshe (1991a-b) and Sonnenberg and Weimer (1993). Johnson and Bartshe
(1991a-b) observed that wells producing from the B chalk bench had a resistivity of at
least 35 ohm-m, but also found that the magnitude of resistivity did not correlate to
cumulative production of individual wells. They interpreted increased resistivity to
indicate oil-bearing natural fractures. Sonnenberg and Weimer (1993) found similar
results in relating resistivity anomalies to spatial trends in production.
If deep resistivity tools are sensing oil-filled fractures, why is there not a direct
relationship between resistivity and production? There are several possible reasons that
resistivity does not directly correlate to oil production. 1) The mere presence of natural
fractures may not be the only contributor to successful production. Even though oil-filled
fractures are present, production will be minimal if some other geological or engineering
factor for production is missing. For example, if a well is not perforated in the interval
that contains oil-filled fractures then production from those fractures will be missed. 2)
96
Oil-filled fractures may not be in communication with the well bore. The deep resistivity
tool has a depth of investigation into the formation surrounding the borehole that could
detect a fracture that does not physically intersect the well bore (Johnson & Bartshe,
1991b). Oil-filled fractures detected by deep resistivity measurement may or may not
intersect the borehole, and, if they do not, they will not contribute to production. 3) A
resistivity anomaly does not indicate if adequate fracture intensity exists to drive
economic production (Sonnenberg & Weimer, 1993). 4) Elevated resistivity may also
reflect calcite-filled fractures, increased local cementation with proximity to faulting and
fracturing, or even oil-filled matrix porosity. Hairline calcite-filled fractures were
observed in core from Silo Field (Figure 3.4 B).
Figure 5.4 A-B compares the averages of resistivity versus calculated fracture
intensity and porosity for both the lower B chalk and B marl. There is a clear separation
between chalk and marl on the resistivity axis. Resistivity values for the B marl are
clustered around 10 ohm-m, while values for the Lower B chalk are all greater than 30
ohm-m. The positive relationship between resistivity and fracture intensity (R2 = 0.5) in
the lower B chalk (Figure 5.4 A), which is absent between resistivity and porosity (Figure
5.4 B) supports the theories that elevated resistivity identifies fractured reservoir intervals
at Silo Field and that elevated resistivity corresponds to higher fracture intensity near the
well bore.
Assuming that elevated resistivity does indicate oil-filled, fractured intervals, the
resistivity may not be directly related to production because oil-filled fractures detected
by the resistivity tool do not intersect the well bore. This implies that many vertical wells
with elevated resistivity in the B chalk interval but with poor production were drilled just
97
out of reach from a potential fracture network. The few high-volume producing vertical
wells at Silo Field likely happened to breach fracture networks (Figure 2.8 A; Section
2.3.1). This conclusion is encouraging for future horizontal drilling at Silo Field because
lateral well paths have a greater chance of intersecting these fractures.
5.5 Porosity
This study found that porosity ( !N-D) derived from DPHI and NPHI well logs
(Section 3.2.1; Figure 3.5) in the lower B chalk does not correlate to first year oil (Table
4.1; Figure 4.4). ! N-D is only a log-derived number that has been corrected for a VSH
factor and does not take into account fracture porosity, effective porosity, or the different
matrix porosity types and distributions within the Niobrara. Since production from Silo
largely depends on natural fractures, it is not surprising that ! N-D did not correlate with
first year oil.
The question remains whether matrix porosity is important for Niobrara production
at Silo Field. Even though initial stages of production from fractured reservoirs like the
Niobrara in Silo Field depend on fracture porosity, matrix porosity may contribute to later
stages of production after fractures are drained. Recent study of types and spatial
distribution of porosity indicates that these factors are important for understanding
unconventional reservoirs (L0n0y, 2006; Loucks et al., 2009; Slatt and O’Brien, 2011;
Pahnke, 2014).
Pahnke (2014) identified four basic pore types and 10 subtypes, which vary in
abundance and distribution according to lithology of the Niobrara Formation. For
example, interskeletal and intraskeletal porosity types are mostly found in the cleanest
98
chalk facies of the Niobrara, while interplatelet and intraplatelet porosity increases in
marl facies. Organic matter pores are commonly found in chalky marl and marl in fecal
pellets or within pressure solution surfaces. The microchannel pores of Pahnke (2014),
discussed in Section 5.3.3 as microfractures (Table 5.3), are the most obvious candidate
for providing permeable pathways for producible hydrocarbons. To determine what role
different porosity types and distributions perform in Niobrara production, further research
in upscaling porosity characterization from core through core-log or other calibration
techniques is needed for field-scale production analyses.
5.6 Engineering Controls
An encouraging sign for the ongoing development of Silo Field lies in trends this
study identified between engineering practices and production. The trends between choke
size and perforated length on production for post-2005 wells (Figures 4.7 and 4.8), which
is absent for earlier wells drilled in Silo, is a likely testament to advances in drilling and
well completion technology. While geological factors like the nature of the fracture
network are still influential in determining production, technology is now better able to
contribute to successful well outcomes in Silo Field than in earlier phases of field
development.
The correlation between first year oil and choke size (R2 = 0.56) (Figure 4.7) for
post-2005 horizontal wells implies that choking back a well’s initial production rate
results in higher first year oil. In a fractured reservoir, applying a choke potentially
regulates pressure and prolongs oil production from natural fractures. One hypothesis is
that wells with larger choke sizes have higher IP oil due to initial fracture production but
99
a steeper decline in production rate over time after fractures are drained. On the other
hand, wells with smaller choke sizes would behave oppositely. Decline curves for three
post-2005 horizontal wells at Silo Field indicate that initial production increases as choke
size decreases (Figure 5.5 B-D). The well with the smallest choke size (0.3 in) does
appear to have a slower decline in production (Figure 5.5 D). Other variables affecting
production may be well bore length and orientation, well treatment, or location relative to
a fracture network. Note how the well with the best production is located in the central
productive fairway (Figure 5.5 A and D). Future efficient development of Silo Field
involves continued efforts to decipher the complex controls on production.
100
101
Table 5.1 Bivariate regression results for fracture intensity
n = 11Independent
Va riableCoefficient
Sta nda rd Error R2 P value
Distance from center fault
-0.65 0.25 0.43 0.03
Average resistivity0.50 0.23 0.35 0.06
Distance from nearest fault
-0.28 0.25 0.12 0.30
Maximumresistivity
0.21 0.24 0.08 0.40
Thickness (gross Niobrara)
0.15 0.26 0.04 0.57
Thickness (lower B chalk)
-0.19 0.35 0.03 0.60
Average wt % calcite
-0.07 0.40 0.00 0.87
102
A
B
Figure 5.1 Fracture intensity crossplots. A) Average FID fracture intensity of the lower B chalk versus the distance a well is from the center fault in Silo Field. B) Average FID fracture intensity versus average deep resistivity of the lower B chalk. Distance from the center fault and average resistivity are the two variables with the strongest correlation to fracture intensity.
103
Table 5.2 Multivariate regression results for fracture intensity
Multiple R2 0.92 Multiple P 0.10
Sta nda rd
11IIn( Coefficients Error P value
Intercept -3.29 0.93 0.04
Averageresistivity
5.62 1.31 0.02
Maximumresistivity
-3.10 0.73 0.02
Distance from center fault
2.13 0.72 0.06
Distance from nearest fault
1.44 0.37 0.03
Thickness (lower B chalk)
-0.92 0.32 0.06
Average wt % calcite
0.76 0.26 0.06
Thickness(gross Niobrara)
0.40 0.18 0.11
104
Table 5.3 Natural fracture types in the Niobrara Formation, Silo Field
TYPE TECTONIC1 OVERB-RDEN2 MICRO1RACT-RES3
DESCRIPTION
sinous in shape,. , . , form subparallel to
vertical, vertical tobedding planes,
oriented subvertical,. . . . . . . . . associated withNE and NW randomly oriented?
solution seams (microstylolites)
1-NCTIONReservoir storage Reservoir storage Primary migration
Permeability Permeability Permeability?
POSSIBLEORIGIN
Permian salt Laramide dissolution2a orogeny Differential
compaction213 Petroleum Polygonal fault generation
Basement systems2c structure Basement
structure26Merin and Moore (1986); Sonnenberg & Weimer (1993); Treadgold et al. (2012)
2a Davis and Lewis (1990); Campbell and Saint (1991), Lewis et al. (1991), Montgomery (1991a-b); Sonnenberg and Weimer (1993); Svoboda (1995); Oldham (1996)
2b Thomas (1992)2c Sonnenberg and Underwood (2013); Kernan (2013)2d Treadgold et al. (2012)3 Chanchani et al. (1996); Berg and Gangi (1999); Pahnke (2014)
105
Figure 5.2 Tectonic model for Silo Field. This model accounts for the presence of vertical extension fractures parallel to the maximum horizontal stress (o x), vertical stylolites perpendicular to o1, and wrench faulting. Modified from Sonnenberg and Weimer, (1993) (after du Rouchet, 1981). Vertical fractures and stylolites are observed in core.
106
Figure 5.3 Stitched SEM photomicrograph examples of Niobrara Formation pressure solution seams (microstylolites). A) Marl microstylolite with concentrated organic matter, quartz silt, clays and pyrite as well as partially dissolved carbonate grains (foram test in upper center). B) Smaller chalk microstylolite consisting of the same undissolved constituents (partially dissolved foram test right center). The white rectangle is a gap in the photomicrography data set. Modified after Pahnke (2014).
107
A
B
Figure 5.4 Resistivity versus FID fracture intensity and porosity crossplots for the lower B chalk and B marl. A) Zone-averaged deep resistivity versus FID fracture intensity. B) Zone-averaged deep resistivity versus zone-averaged porosity. There is a clear separation between chalk and marl on the resistivity axis in both plots. The linear relationship between resistivity and fracture intensity in the lower B chalk, which is absent between resistivity and porosity, suggests that elevated resistivity does indicate the magnitude of fracture intensity.
108
Figure 5.5 Choke size and decline curves for three post-2005 wells. A) Map of location and well bore orientation for post-2005 wells. Green circles mark the locations of wells whose decline curves are presented in B) through D). Vertical axes are scaled to 15,000 barrels of oil, and horizontal axes are scaled to 4 years.
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSIONS
This study quantified the influence of the lower B chalk thickness, zone-averaged
deep resistivity, weight percent calcite, porosity, and fracture intensity on production for
1980s vertical wells in Silo Field, Wyoming. Fracture intensity in the lower B chalk
correlated most strongly with first year oil production. Natural fractures, therefore, are
essential for the storage and deliverability of hydrocarbons in Silo Field. This study
synthesized existing literature on natural fractures in the Niobrara and categorized natural
fractures into three types: tectonic, overburden, and microfractures. Each of these fracture
types hail from different origins and contribute to different aspects of the Niobrara
petroleum system. It is possible that Niobrara production from Silo Field is dependent on
interconnected tectonic and overburden fractures, whereas production from the more
thermally mature Wattenberg Field is dependent on microfractures associated with
pressure solution seams. Resistivity did not correlate to first year production in vertical
wells because the resistivity tool senses fractures that commonly are not in
communication with the borehole. The few high-volume producing vertical wells at Silo
likely breached a fracture network whereas most vertical wells did not. Horizontal wells
are higher producers because they have a greater chance of intersecting vertical fractures.
The correlations between choke size and perforated length with first year oil production
for wells drilled since 2005, which are absent for earlier wells, suggest that advancements
in drilling technology hold promise for future Silo Field development.
This study contributed to further understanding Silo Field by quantifying fracture
intensity and identifying it as an important control on oil production. Potential problems
with applying the A log R technique to the Niobrara Formation that stem from small scale
interbedding between source and reservoir quality lithologies, the presence of pyrite, and
the effect of generated hydrocarbons were addressed. These problems are relevant to
other source rock reservoirs. Findings of this study contribute to ongoing efforts to
develop an effective model of Silo Field in order to maximize efficient production from
the Niobrara. Additionally, this study illustrates simple methods for exploring the role
geological and engineering variables on production that could be applied to other fields
with publically available core, well log, and production data.
110
CHAPTER 7
FUTURE WORK
Suggestions for additional research on the Niobrara Formation that stem from this
study include the following:
1. Continued investigation on the A log R technique in a formation like the Niobrara
with small-scale, gradational contacts between source and reservoir rock types.
a. Obtain TOC measurements on extracted samples for reliable calibration of
the A Log R method.
b. Distinguish the extent that either kerogen or migrated hydrocarbons
contribute to the A log R separation. Explore how to quantify the
contribution from migrated hydrocarbons.
c. Test if TOC calculated using A Log corresponds to concentrated organic
matter concentrated in pressure solution seams.
2. Verify the fracture intensity generated using multivariate regression and create a
predictive fracture intensity map for Silo Field.
3. Further distinction between tectonic, overburden, and microfracture natural
fracture types and production in the Niobrara Formation.
a. Investigate the hypothesis that Niobrara cores from the more thermally
mature Wattenberg Field have more pressure solution seams and
associated microfractures than cores from Silo Field.
b. Characterize and map natural fractures by type and production potential
c. Determine relationships between fracture orientation from Fracture
Identification Logs (FILs) and production.
4. Explore how to quantify clay content of the Niobrara Formation and determine its
effect on production and fracture intensity at Silo Field.
5. Conduct a more robust multivariate analysis for well completion and engineering
practices and production for post-2005 wells in order to best direct future
development at Silo Field. Include variables like well bore orientation, lateral
length, number of fracture stages, and treatment fluid type and amount.
112
APPENDIX A
CORE-LOG CALIBRATION DATA TABLES
114
Table A. 1 Porosity Core M easurem ents and Log D ata
Silo Field Niobrara Core Porosity Measurements from the USGS CRC
Wireline Log DataCalculatedPhi(N-D)
(?)Well Name
(USGS Library #)
Depth_shifted(ft)
Porosity Measured (?)
GR(API)
DPHI(?)
NPHI(?)
7985 1.0 132.0 7.9 16.3 1.07987 3.7 154.9 9.2 18.3 3.07989 2.6 151.6 10.5 20.7 5.07991 2.5 171.7 10.7 19.7 4.07993 3.7 159.2 9.7 18.8 3.07995 2.3 166.5 5.6 17.6 2.07997 2.4 130.5 14.0 12.1 2.07999 2.6 162.4 26.3 14.6 1.08001 1.8 147.1 8.8 12.8 2.08003 2.1 145.8 12.8 11.9 2.08005 1.8 134.8 20.2 12.0 2.08007 1.9 128.7 27.2 10.8 3.08008 2.1 110.1 25.5 9.2 3.0
Lee 41-5 8009 2.8 88.5 23.1 9.3 5.0(D708) 8010 1.0 89.3 18.2 8.4 7.0
8011 1.2 102.5 18.2 9.6 6.08012 1.8 100.8 19.4 10.5 6.08013 7.7 87.5 29.8 9.7 7.08014 6.0 89.4 31.6 8.3 7.08015 5.8 112.6 31.1 8.8 5.08016 1.3 126.4 33.9 12.6 4.08017 5.5 114.5 32.2 14.0 5.08018 2.9 93.0 23.3 11.0 7.08019 5.4 95.6 23.2 9.2 6.08020 1.9 100.9 17.3 11.7 6.08021 1.9 92.9 16.8 12.1 7.08022 5.2 85.2 21.3 12.2 8.08023 2.8 70.0 15.9 10.2 9.0
8284.5 2.8 159.5 11.8 18.1 4.0Combs 1 8295.5 3.5 119.9 11.0 12.3 4.0(D548) 8300.25 6.4 104.1 13.2 11.3 7.0
8315.25 6.1 85.7 14.2 10.1 9.0
Table A.2 XRD Core Measurements and Log Data
Core XRD Measurements from the USGS CRC
(normalized weight %)Wireline Log Data
Well Name (USGS Library
#)
Depth_shifted(ft)
Quartz Calcite Clays GR ILD DPHI NPHI% Potassium
(K)Thorium
(Th)Uranium
(U)Th/K
7986.5 25.0 65.5 9.5 144.57 25.32 0.06 0.17 1.31 4.62 12.15 3.537988.5 16.1 73.1 10.8 146.06 27.89 0.10 0.21 1.41 5.26 13.98 3.73
Lee 41-5 (D708)
7995 17.4 73.9 8.7 166.49 21.14 0.06 0.18 1.41 4.47 14.43 3.178000 16.5 65.9 17.6 169.36 47.96 0.22 0.15 1.48 3.85 14.39 2.608005 5.1 92.9 2.0 134.82 101.07 0.20 0.12 1.38 5.29 12.54 3.838008 5.2 89.6 5.2 110.05 146.30 0.26 0.09 1.13 4.59 10.56 4.068018 5.1 91.9 3.0 93.01 216.84 0.23 0.11 0.65 3.46 12.51 5.32
8283.5 12.9 57.6 29.5 157.06 19.84 0.09 0.18 1.34 5.65 15.01 4.228287.2 12.9 57.6 29.5 140.29 35.83 0.10 0.13 0.94 2.85 15.33 3.03
Combs 1 8288.7 11.5 66.1 22.4 159.03 39.61 0.12 0.16 0.61 3.60 15.13 5.90(D548) 8290 12.0 62.9 25.1 140.37 41.32 0.15 0.14 0.77 3.03 14.73 3.94
8291.5 6.5 77.4 16.2 134.06 49.48 0.17 0.15 0.94 2.52 13.98 2.688292.8 6.5 77.4 16.2 141.00 55.80 0.16 0.14 0.84 2.90 13.57 3.45 115
Table A.2 Continued
Core XRD Measurements from the USGS CRC
(normalized weight %)Wireline Log Data
Well Name (USGS Library
#)
Depth_shifted(ft)
Quartz Calcite Clays GR ILD DPHI NPHI% Potassium
(K)Thorium
(Th)Uranium
(U)Th/K
8293.9 5.2 81.6 13.3 130.63 55.62 0.13 0.13 0.57 3.50 13.38 6.148295.7 5.2 81.6 13.3 112.65 56.74 0.10 0.12 0.62 4.22 10.97 6.818297.2 3.2 85.0 11.9 112.31 56.42 0.09 0.13 0.22 5.13 10.20 23.328298.3 4.2 85.3 10.5 77.98 50.45 0.12 0.11 0.45 2.15 10.55 4.788299.5 4.6 82.4 13.0 99.47 47.06 0.13 0.11 0.77 1.55 10.68 2.018302.5 4.6 82.4 13.0 94.18 44.16 0.16 0.11 0.53 2.67 11.51 5.058304.3 4.9 80.2 14.9 131.51 47.37 0.13 0.13 0.97 4.74 12.35 4.89
Combs 1 8307.2 4.9 80.2 14.9 95.30 57.69 0.10 0.12 0.66 4.27 8.56 6.478308.6 3.6 80.9 15.5 100.20 57.32 0.09 0.1 0.53 3.72 8.97 7.02[ oj8310.1 4.1 85.2 10.7 87.67 56.62 0.17 0.11 0.46 3.16 7.67 6.878312.1 4.1 85.2 10.7 68.42 56.25 0.10 0.1 0.57 3.09 7.67 5.428313.5 4.0 86.4 9.6 78.96 56.92 0.10 0.07 0.77 5.12 8.21 6.658315.9 4.0 86.4 9.6 85.86 55.88 0.15 0.1 0.75 3.44 10.48 4.598317.1 4.3 81.3 14.5 95.69 55.61 0.13 0.1 0.66 3.14 10.08 4.768319.7 4.3 81.3 14.5 105.10 41.58 0.11 0.12 0.97 4.33 9.36 4.468321.1 5.8 77.0 17.2 95.37 28.19 0.10 0.14 0.99 4.79 9.20 4.848323.4 5.8 77.0 17.2 101.51 20.25 0.07 0.13 1.16 6.04 10.64 5.21
116
117
Table A.3 Therm al M aturity Core M easurem ents and C alculated Param eters
<cre Thermal Maturity Mea8urement8
frcm the USGS <R<
<alculated Thermal Maturity Parameter
Well Name (USGS
Depth_8hifted(ft)
LE<0 TO< Tmax Mea8 ARc VRe LOMLibrary #)
7980 3.17 442 0.80 10.387981 3.08 437 0.71 9.917981 3.08 437 0.73 0.71 9.91
7981.5 2.717986 3.497989 3.347989 4.16 441 0.77 0.78 10.307993 3.09 440 0.76 10.217993 3.09 440 0.78 0.76 10.217997 3.13
Lee41-5 8000.5 2.50 435 0.67 9.67(D708) 8000.5 2.50 435 0.81 0.67 9.67
8001 2.19 440 0.76 10.218003 2.27 0.718003 2.108006 2.14 432 0.62 9.268006 2.14 432 0.83 0.62 9.268010 2.34 440 0.76 10.218013 7.478014 1.498017 3.048017 7.86 439 0.75 0.74 10.12
8285.8 3.108287.3 3.32 435 0.85 0.67 9.67
<cmb8l 8288.25 439.2 0.75 10.14(D548) 8289.5 1.93
8290.2 439.1 0.74 10.138291.5 436.8 0.70 9.89
118
Table A.3 Continued
Core T6ermal Ma5uri5y Measuremen5s
9rom 56e USGS CRC
Calcula5e: T6ermal Ma5uri5y Parame5ers
Well Name (USGS
De4567s6i95e:(95)
LECO TOC Tmax Meas ARo VRe LOMLibrary #)
8292.5 2.15 437 0.91 0.71 9.918293.65 438.5 0.73 10.078297.3 3.138297.6 437.7 0.72 9.998298.5 4.388298.7 436.6 0.70 9.868299.8 436.2 0.69 9.828302 0.81 432 0.92 0.62 9.26
8302.5 438.4 0.73 10.06Combsl 8306.5 1.15(D548) 8307.55 438.6 0.73 10.08
8310.1 437.9 0.72 10.018 3 ll.5 1.548312.6 438.7 0.74 10.098313 1.28
8316.2 438.1 0.73 10.038319.6 438.6 0.73 10.088322.5 1.52 440 0.93 0.76 10.218323.5 3.07
8323.75 439.1 0.74 10.13
APPENDIX B
FRACTURE INTENSITY CALCULATION TABLES
120
Table B.1 Calculated Fracture Intensity from O riented M icro R esistivity Logs (OM RL) and Fracture Identification Logs (FID); Com bs 1
CO M BS 1 (49-021-20287)OM RL FID
Length o f track (mm): 45 Length o f track (mm): 63
Depth(ft)
Total Length of Res Contrast
(mm)
Fracture Intensity (% Length of Res
Contrast/Length of track)
Total Length of Res Contrast
(mm)
Fracture Intensity (% Length of Res
Contrast/Length of track)
8184 12 26.67 2 3.178185 12 26.67 4 6.358186 10 22.22 1 1.598187 4 8.89 2 3.178188 8 17.78 2 3.178189 2 4.44 4 6.358190 2 4.44 4 6.358191 2 4.44 5 7.948192 1 2.22 6 9.528193 1 2.22 5 7.948194 4.44 4 6.358195 1 2.22 2 3.178196 1 2.22 0 0.008197 1 2.22 0 0.008198 1 2.22 0 0.008199 1 2.22 0 0.008200 4.44 0 0.008201 1 2.22 1 1.598202 4.44 1 1.598203 1 2.22 1 1.598204 1 2.22 2 3.178205 1 2.22 0 0.008206 2 4.44 1 1.598207 2 4.44 1 1.598208 8 17.78 1 1.598209 7 15.56 3 4.768210 1 2.22 1 1.598211 1 2.22 0 0.008212 1 2.22 0 0.008213 3 6.67 0 0.008214 2 4.44 0 0.008215 4 8.89 1 1.598216 2 4.44 0 0.00
121
Table B.1 Continued
8217 2 4.44 0 0.008218 1 2.22 3 4.768219 12 26.67 3 4.768220 17 37.78 3 4.768221 3 6.67 4 6.358222 2 4.44 3 4.768223 2 4.44 7 11.118224 4 8.89 9 14.298225 2 4.44 8 12.708226 3 6.67 7 11.118227 5 11.11 16 25.408228 2 4.44 4 6.358229 7 15.56 3 4.768230 2 4.44 0 0.008231 6 13.33 0 0.008232 7 15.56 3 4.768233 7 15.56 4 6.358234 4 8.89 1 1.598235 3 6.67 2 3.178236 2 4.44 2 3.178237 6 13.33 4 6.358238 6 13.33 1 1.598239 7 15.56 10 15.878240 16 35.56 6 9.528241 2 4.44 10 15.878242 3 6.67 12 19.058243 3 6.67 9 14.298244 5 11.11 4 6.358245 5 11.11 8 12.708246 3 6.67 2 3.178247 2 4.44 4 6.358248 5 11.11 1 1.598249 2 4.44 2 3.178250 5 11.11 0 0.008251 14 31.11 1 1.598252 3 6.67 0 0.008253 3 6.67 0 0.008254 7 15.56 0 0.008255 5 11.11 10 15.878256 8 17.78 5 7.948257 9 20.00 2 3.178258 4 8.89 2 3.178259 2 4.44 2 3.17
122
Table B.1 Continued
8260 2 4.44 2 3.178261 2 4.44 3 4.768262 2 4.44 2 3.178263 1 2.22 0 0.008264 1 2.22 1 1.598265 1 2.22 0 0.008266 2 4.44 0 0.008267 2 4.44 0 0.008268 2 4.44 1 1.598269 3 6.67 1 1.598270 8 17.78 0 0.008271 8 17.78 2 3.178272 10 22.22 1 1.598273 8 12.90 2 3.178274 4 6.45 0 0.008275 9 14.52 2 3.178276 4 6.45 1 1.598277 4 6.45 1 1.598278 2 3.23 3 4.768279 5 8.06 2 3.178280 3 4.84 0 0.008281 2 3.23 3 4.768282 2 3.23 2 3.178283 3 4.84 3 4.768284 2 3.23 1 1.598285 11 17.74 1 1.598286 17 27.42 8 12.708287 9 14.52 7 11.118288 11 17.74 2 3.178289 9 14.52 12 19.058290 9 14.52 6 9.528291 17 27.42 19 30.168292 17 27.42 7 11.118293 12 19.35 10 15.878294 19 30.65 10 15.878295 14 22.58 18 28.578296 26 41.94 14 22.228297 22 35.48 3 4.768298 9 14.52 6 9.528299 7 11.29 12 19.058300 12 19.35 16 25.408301 18 29.03 5 7.948302 12 19.35 7 11.11
123
Table B.1 Continued
8303 18 29.03 21 33.338304 9 14.52 11 17.468305 10 16.13 6 9.528306 18 29.03 2 3.178307 20 32.26 3 4.768308 19 30.65 8 12.708309 15 24.19 13 20.638310 24 38.71 20 31.758311 24 38.71 12 19.058312 23 37.10 2 3.178313 16 25.81 10 15.878314 11 17.74 13 20.638315 12 19.35 17 26.988316 10 16.13 2 3.178317 9 14.52 11 17.468318 11 17.74 20 31.758319 28 45.16 10 15.878320 8 12.90 4 6.358321 12 19.35 6 9.528322 8 12.90 3 4.768323 6 9.68 2 3.178324 9 14.52 0 0.008325 3 4.84 2 3.178326 1 1.61 0 0.008327 4 6.45 0 0.008328 3 4.84 1 1.598329 2 3.23 1 1.598330 4 6.45 5 7.948331 5 8.06 3 4.768332 12 19.35 1 1.598333 2 3.23 1 1.598334 2 3.23 0 0.008335 2 3.23 1 1.598336 2 3.23 1 1.598337 2 3.23 4 6.358338 4 6.45 10 15.878339 3 4.84 14 22.228340 6 9.68 9 14.298341 1 2.22 4 6.358342 3 6.67 0 0.008343 0 0.00 1 1.598344 1 2.22 3 4.768345 2 4.44 1 1.59
124
Table B.1 Continued
8346 0 0.00 1 1.598347 0 0.00 1 1.598348 2 4.44 1 1.598349 1 2.22 1 1.598350 0 0.00 0 0.008351 0 0.00 1 1.598352 0 0.00 0 0.008353 0 0.00 1 1.598354 0 0.00 0 0.008355 0 0.00 6 9.528356 0 0.00 1 1.598357 0 0.00 2 3.178358 0 0.00 2 3.178359 0 0.00 1 1.598360 0 0.00 1 1.598361 0 0.00 1 1.598362 0 0.00 2 3.178363 0 0.00 3 4.768364 0 0.00 1 1.598365 0 0.00 2 3.178366 0 0.00 1 1.598367 0 0.00 2 3.178368 0 0.00 2 3.178369 0 0.00 3 4.768370 0 0.00 3 4.768371 0 0.00 4 6.358372 0 0.00 2 3.178373 0 0.00 3 4.768374 0 0.00 2 3.178375 0 0.00 0 0.008376 0 0.00 3 4.768377 0 0.00 3 4.768378 0 0.00 2 3.178379 0 0.00 2 3.178380 0 0.00 2 3.178381 0 0.00 3 4.768382 0 0.00 2 3.178383 0 0.00 4 6.358384 0 0.00 5 7.948385 0 0.00 3 4.768386 0 0.00 5 7.948387 0 0.00 4 6.358388 0 0.00 2 3.17
125
Table B.1 Continued
8389 0 0.00 2 3.178390 0 0.00 2 3.178391 0 0.00 2 3.178392 0 0.00 0 0.008393 0 0.00 2 3.178394 0 0.00 3 4.768395 0 0.00 3 4.768396 0 0.00 3 4.768397 0 0.00 2 3.178398 0 0.00 3 4.768399 1 2.22 7 11.118400 1 2.22 3 4.768401 2 4.44 12 19.058402 2 4.44 3 4.768403 1 2.22 2 3.178404 2 4.44 9 14.298405 1 2.22 8 12.708406 1 2.22 4 6.358407 0 0.00 1 1.598408 1 2.22 0 0.008409 0 0.00 3 4.768410 0 0.00 1 1.598411 0 0.00 3 4.768412 0 0.00 2 3.178413 0 0.00 4 6.358414 0 0.00 1 1.598415 6 13.33 0 0.008416 1 2.22 0 0.008417 4 8.89 1 1.598418 2 4.44 5 7.948419 5 11.11 2 3.178420 1 2.22 1 1.598421 1 2.22 1 1.598422 3 6.67 0 0.008423 5 11.11 2 3.178424 2 4.44 0 0.008425 6 13.33 9 14.298426 4 8.89 12 19.058427 4 8.89 1 1.598428 4 8.89 1 1.598429 4 8.89 15 23.818430 12 26.67 10 15.878431 7 15.56 13 20.63
126
Table B.1 Continued
8432 6 13.33 6 9.528433 7 15.56 15 23.818434 4 8.89 22 34.928435 5 11.11 14 22.228436 7 15.56 4 6.358437 5 11.11 11 17.468438 9 20.00 10 15.878439 16 35.56 3 4.768440 15 33.33 2 3.178441 3 6.67 2 3.178442 4 8.89 7 11.118443 6 13.33 4 6.358444 7 15.56 2 3.178445 3 6.67 8 12.708446 10 22.22 10 15.878447 1 2.22 2 3.178448 1 2.22 2 3.178449 1 2.22 10 15.878450 2 4.44 3 4.768451 1 2.22 6 9.528452 5 11.11 1 1.598453 2 4.44 1 1.598454 6 13.33 1 1.598455 13 28.89 4 6.358456 2 4.44 0 0.008457 3 6.67 9 14.298458 14 31.11 1 1.598459 7 15.56 12 19.058460 13 28.89 0 0.008461 10 22.22 0 0.008462 5 11.11 3 4.768463 14 31.11 5 7.948464 8 17.78 6 9.528465 6 13.33 5 7.948466 14 31.11 5 7.948467 11 24.44 12 19.058468 6 13.33 4 6.358469 4 8.89 7 11.118470 7 15.56 7 11.118471 3 6.67 1 1.598472 2 4.44 2 3.178473 2 4.44 1 1.598474 4 8.89 10 15.87
127
Table B.1 Continued
8475 4 8.89 9 14.298476 2 4.44 3 4.768477 3 6.67 2 3.178478 2 4.44 2 3.178479 1 2.22 2 3.178480 1 2.22 3 4.768481 1 2.22 2 3.178482 2 3.178483 3 4.768484 2 3.17
128
Table B .2 Calculated Fracture Intensity from O riented M icro R esistivity Logs (OM RL) and Fracture Identification Logs (FID); B asin 3-B
B A SIN 3-B (49-021-20292)OM RL FID
Length o f track (mm): 24 Length o f track (mm): 55
Depth(ft)
Total Length of Res Contrast
(mm)
Fracture Intensity (% Length of Res
Contrast/Length of track)
Total Length of Res Contrast
(mm)
Fracture Intensity (% Length of Res
Contrast/Length of track)
7900 0 0.00 2 3.647901 0 0.00 2 3.647902 0 0.00 2 3.647903 0 0.00 2 3.647904 0 0.00 2 3.647905 0 0.00 1 1.827906 0 0.00 1 1.827907 3 12.50 4 7.277908 2 8.33 5 9.097909 1 4.17 1 1.827910 0 0.00 0 0.007911 3 12.50 0 0.007912 2 8.33 0 0.007913 4 16.67 2 3.647914 4 16.67 0 0.007915 2 8.33 1 1.827916 2 8.33 1 1.827917 1 4.17 1 1.827918 1 4.17 1 1.827919 1 4.17 1 1.827920 2 8.33 3.647921 1 4.17 1 1.827922 0 0.00 0.007923 0 0.00 1 1.827924 0 0.00 1 1.827925 0 0.00 1 1.827926 1 4.17 0.007927 0 0.00 1 1.827928 0 0.00 1 1.827929 1 4.17 1 1.827930 0 0.00 0 0.007931 0 0.00 0 0.007932 2 8.33 0 0.00
129
Table B.2 Continued
7933 1 4.17 1 1.827934 0 0.00 0 0.007935 1 4.17 0 0.007936 0 0.00 3 5.457937 0 0.00 0 0.007938 0 0.00 0 0.007939 1 4.17 0 0.007940 0 0.00 1 1.827941 0 0.00 1 1.827942 0 0.00 1 1.827943 0 0.00 4 7.277944 3 12.50 3 5.457945 3 12.50 3 5.457946 2 8.33 1 1.827947 2 8.33 1 1.827948 2 8.33 1 1.827949 1 4.17 1 1.827950 0 0.00 1 1.827951 1 4.17 0 0.007952 0 0.00 0 0.007953 1 4.17 1 1.827954 0 0.00 2 3.647955 0 0.00 1 1.827956 2 8.33 0 0.007957 0 0.00 1 1.827958 1 4.17 1 1.827959 6 25.00 2 3.647960 3 12.50 1 1.827961 3 12.50 1 1.827962 3 12.50 0 0.007963 2 8.33 5 9.097964 3 12.50 4 7.277965 3 12.50 2 3.647966 4 16.67 10 18.187967 3 12.50 0 0.007968 2 8.33 2 3.647969 0 0.00 1 1.827970 0 0.00 0 0.007971 0 0.00 0 0.007972 0 0.00 1 1.827973 0 0.00 0 0.007974 3 12.50 0 0.007975 0 0.00 2 3.64
130
Table B.2 Continued
7976 0 0.00 0 0.007977 2 8.33 2 3.647978 4 16.67 2 3.647979 1 4.17 0 0.007980 0 0.00 1 1.827981 1 4.17 0 0.007982 2 8.33 0 0.007983 0 0.00 3 5.457984 2 8.33 5 9.097985 2 8.33 2 3.647986 0 0.00 2 3.647987 2 8.33 1 1.827988 0 0.00 1 1.827989 1 4.17 1 1.827990 1 4.17 1 1.827991 2 8.33 1 1.827992 0 0.00 0 0.007993 0 0.00 1 1.827994 0 0.00 0 0.007995 0 0.00 0 0.007996 6 25.00 0 0.007997 2 8.33 0 0.007998 1 4.17 0 0.007999 0 0.00 1 1.828000 0 0.00 0 0.008001 3 12.50 0 0.008002 0 0.00 0 0.008003 0 0.00 0 0.008004 1 4.17 0 0.008005 2 8.33 3 5.458006 2 8.33 4 7.278007 2 8.33 7 12.738008 1 4.17 6 10.918009 1 4.17 1 1.828010 3 12.50 0 0.008011 3 12.50 2 3.648012 4 16.67 2 3.648013 5 20.83 2 3.648014 6 25.00 9 16.368015 2 8.33 7 12.738016 5 20.83 5 9.098017 3 12.50 5 9.098018 5 20.83 3 5.45
131
Table B.2 Continued
8019 5 20.83 14 25.458020 5 20.83 2 3.648021 5 20.83 7 12.738022 2 8.33 5 9.098023 2 8.33 6 10.918024 2 8.33 3 5.458025 2 8.33 1 1.828026 2 8.33 2 3.648027 2 8.33 0 0.008028 1 4.17 1 1.828029 1 4.17 1 1.828030 1 4.17 0 0.008031 0 0.00 0 0.008032 0 0.00 1 1.828033 1 4.17 1 1.828034 2 8.33 1 1.828035 2 8.33 1 1.828036 4 16.67 1 1.828037 1 4.17 2 3.648038 4 16.67 1 1.828039 3 12.50 3 5.458040 2 8.33 0 0.008041 3 12.50 0 0.008042 2 8.33 1 1.828043 1 4.17 0 0.008044 2 8.33 0 0.008045 3 12.50 1 1.828046 2 8.33 0 0.008047 1 4.17 2 3.648048 1 4.17 2 3.648049 1 4.17 1 1.828050 0 0.00 1 1.828051 1 4.17 4 7.278052 1 4.17 2 3.648053 1 4.17 4 7.278054 2 8.33 2 3.648055 1 4.17 2 3.648056 0 0.00 2 3.648057 0 0.00 3 5.458058 1 4.17 3 5.458059 0 0.00 3 5.458060 0 0.00 4 7.278061 0 0.00 3 5.45
132
Table B.2 Continued
8062 0 0.00 2 3.648063 0 0.00 3 5.458064 0 0.00 2 3.648065 0 0.00 3 5.458066 1 4.17 3 5.458067 0 0.00 1 1.828068 0 0.00 2 3.648069 0 0.00 2 3.648070 0 0.00 3 5.458071 0 0.00 2 3.648072 0 0.00 3 5.458073 0 0.00 3 5.458074 0 0.00 2 3.648075 0 0.00 2 3.648076 0 0.00 2 3.648077 0 0.00 3 5.458078 0 0.00 1 1.828079 0 0.00 3 5.458080 0 0.00 5 9.098081 0 0.00 4 7.278082 0 0.00 1 1.828083 0 0.00 3 5.458084 0 0.00 3 5.458085 1 4.17 2 3.648086 0 0.00 3 5.458087 0 0.00 2 3.648088 0 0.00 1 1.828089 0 0.00 3 5.458090 0 0.00 2 3.648091 0 0.00 4 7.278092 2 8.33 5 9.098093 0 0.00 6 10.918094 0 0.00 5 9.098095 0 0.00 11 20.008096 0 0.00 5 9.098097 0 0.00 4 7.278098 0 0.00 3 5.458099 0 0.00 1 1.828100 0 0.00 2 3.648101 0 0.00 1 1.828102 0 0.00 4 7.278103 0 0.00 5 9.098104 0 0.00 3 5.45
133
Table B.2 Continued
8105 0 0.00 2 3.648106 0 0.00 1 1.828107 0 0.00 0 0.008108 0 0.00 0 0.008109 0 0.00 2 3.648110 0 0.00 1 1.828111 0 0.00 2 3.648112 0 0.00 3 5.458113 0 0.00 4 7.278114 0 0.00 1 1.828115 0 0.00 1 1.828116 0 0.00 2 3.648117 0 0.00 2 3.648118 0 0.00 0 0.008119 0 0.00 1 1.828120 0 0.00 1 1.828121 0 0.00 1 1.828122 0 0.00 0 0.008123 0 0.00 2 3.648124 0 0.00 2 3.648125 0 0.00 1 1.828126 0 0.00 0 0.008127 0 0.00 1 1.828128 0 0.00 0 0.008129 2 8.33 0 0.008130 0 0.00 1 1.828131 0 0.00 2 3.648132 0 0.00 1 1.828133 1 4.17 1 1.828134 0 0.00 0 0.008135 1 4.17 2 3.648136 0 0.00 0 0.008137 0 0.00 0 0.008138 1 4.17 0 0.008139 2 8.33 1 1.828140 0 0.00 0 0.008141 0 0.00 4 7.278142 0 0.00 0 0.008143 0 0.00 11 20.008144 0 0.00 4 7.278145 0 0.00 3 5.458146 1 4.17 0 0.008147 0 0.00 0 0.00
134
Table B.2 Continued
8148 0 0.00 0 0.008149 0 0.00 2 3.648150 1 4.17 1 1.828151 2 8.33 0 0.008152 2 8.33 4 7.278153 1 4.17 2 3.648154 3 12.50 0 0.008155 2 8.33 0 0.008156 2 8.33 1 1.828157 0 0.00 1 1.828158 0 0.00 0 0.008159 0 0.00 2 3.648160 0 0.00 0 0.008161 0 0.00 1 1.828162 2 8.33 1 1.828163 0 0.00 1 1.828164 0 0.00 1 1.828165 0 0.00 0 0.008166 1 4.17 2 3.648167 1 4.17 2 3.648168 1 4.17 0 0.008169 1 4.17 1 1.828170 0 0.00 0 0.008171 5 20.83 0 0.008172 1 4.17 0 0.008173 0 0.00 0 0.008174 1 4.17 0 0.008175 0 0.00 2 3.648176 0 0.00 0 0.008177 0 0.00 0 0.008178 3 12.50 0 0.008179 0 0.00 0 0.008180 1 4.17 1 1.828181 1 4.17 1 1.828182 1 4.17 0 0.008183 2 8.33 1 1.828184 1 4.17 0 0.008185 0 0.00 2 3.648186 0 0.00 0 0.008187 0 0.00 0 0.008188 0 0.00 0 0.008189 0 0.00 1 1.828190 0 0.00 0 0.00
135
Table B .2 Continued
8191 0 0.00 9 16.368192 1 4.17 1 1.828193 1 4.17 0 0.008194 0 0.00 4 7.278195 0 0.00 2 3.648196 0 0.00 0 0.008197 0 0.00 2 3.648198 0 0.00 1 1.828199 0 0.00 0 0.008200 0 0.00 0 0.00
136
Table B.3 C alculated Fracture Intensity from O riented M icro R esistivity Logs (OM RL) and Fracture Identification Logs (FID); W arren No. 1-H
W A RREN NO. 1-H (49-021-20295)OM RL FID
Length o f track (mm): 24.5 Length o f track (mm): 60
Depth(ft)
Total Length of Res Contrast
(mm)
Fracture Intensity (% Length of Res
Contrast/Length of track)
Total Length of Res Contrast
(mm)
Fracture Intensity (% Length of Res
Contrast/Length of track)
8185 1 4.08 0 0.008186 0 0.00 0 0.008187 0 0.00 0 0.008188 0 0.00 0 0.008189 0 0.00 0 0.008190 1 4.08 0 0.008191 1 4.08 11 18.338192 2 8.16 9 15.008193 1 4.08 4 6.678194 1 4.08 7 11.678195 0 0.00 7 11.678196 0 0.00 9 15.008197 1 4.08 0 0.008198 0 0.00 0 0.008199 1 4.08 0 0.008200 2 8.16 0 0.008201 0 0.00 0 0.008202 0 0.00 0 0.008203 0 0.00 0 0.008204 0 0.00 0 0.008205 0 0.00 0 0.008206 1 4.08 0 0.008207 0 0.00 7 11.678208 0 0.00 3 5.008209 0 0.00 3 5.008210 1 4.08 0 0.008211 0 0.00 2 3.338212 2 8.16 0 0.008213 1 4.08 7 11.678214 0 0.00 0 0.008215 0 0.00 0 0.008216 0 0.00 1 1.678217 1 4.08 0 0.00
137
Table B.3 Continued
8218 0 0.00 4 6.678219 0 0.00 1 1.678220 0 0.00 0 0.008221 0 0.00 7 11.678222 2 8.16 20 33.338223 0 0.00 11 18.338224 0 0.00 2 3.338225 0 0.00 2 3.338226 3 12.24 5 8.338227 0 0.00 1 1.678228 1 4.08 0 0.008229 0 0.00 4 6.678230 1 4.08 1 1.678231 0 0.00 2 3.338232 1 4.08 5 8.338233 2 8.16 7 11.678234 0 0.00 6 10.008235 1 4.08 9 15.008236 1 4.08 1 1.678237 0 0.00 16 26.678238 2 8.16 0 0.008239 1 4.08 10 16.678240 1 4.08 0 0.008241 1 4.08 0 0.008242 1 4.08 0 0.008243 0 0.00 5 8.338244 0 0.00 4 6.678245 0 0.00 2 3.338246 0 0.00 0 0.008247 0 0.00 0 0.008248 0 0.00 0 0.008249 0 0.00 6 10.008250 0 0.00 2 3.338251 0 0.00 4 6.678252 1 4.08 13 21.678253 2 8.16 8 13.338254 2 8.16 14 23.338255 2 8.16 1 1.678256 1 4.08 15 25.008257 2 8.16 1 1.678258 2 8.16 9 15.008259 2 8.16 17 28.338260 2 8.16 5 8.33
138
Table B.3 Continued
8261 2 8.16 3 5.008262 0 0.00 4 6.678263 2 8.16 9 15.008264 1 4.08 4 6.678265 1 4.08 0 0.008266 1 4.08 0 0.008267 0 0.00 1 1.678268 0 0.00 0 0.008269 0 0.00 0 0.008270 1 4.08 0 0.008271 0 0.00 0 0.008272 0 0.00 0 0.008273 0 0.00 0 0.008274 0 0.00 2 3.338275 0 0.00 0 0.008276 1 4.08 0 0.008277 0 0.00 9 15.008278 0 0.00 2 3.338279 0 0.00 10 16.678280 0 0.00 0 0.008281 1 4.08 0 0.008282 0 0.00 0 0.008283 0 0.00 1 1.678284 0 0.00 1 1.678285 3 12.24 0 0.008286 2 8.16 0 0.008287 3 12.24 0 0.008288 0 0.00 1 1.678289 0 0.00 10 16.678290 1 4.08 4 6.678291 3 12.24 0 0.008292 0 0.00 0 0.008293 0 0.00 0 0.008294 1 4.08 2 3.338295 2 8.16 6 10.008296 2 8.16 6 10.008297 0 0.00 2 3.338298 0 0.00 0 0.008299 1 4.08 0 0.008300 0 0.00 2 3.338301 0 0.00 1 1.678302 1 4.08 0 0.008303 1 4.08 0 0.00
139
Table B.3 Continued
8304 0 0.00 2 3.338305 1 4.08 9 15.008306 0 0.00 0 0.008307 3 12.24 1 1.678308 1 4.08 0 0.008309 1 4.08 0 0.008310 1 4.08 1 1.678311 1 4.08 0 0.008312 0 0.00 1 1.678313 0 0.00 9 15.008314 0 0.00 6 10.008315 0 0.00 9 15.008316 1 4.08 14 23.338317 1 4.08 0 0.008318 0 0.00 0 0.008319 0 0.00 0 0.008320 0 0.00 0 0.008321 0 0.00 3 5.008322 0 0.00 0 0.008323 0 0.00 0 0.008324 0 0.00 0 0.008325 0 0.00 0 0.008326 0 0.00 0 0.008327 0 0.00 0 0.008328 1 4.08 0 0.008329 1 4.08 0 0.008330 0 0.00 0 0.008331 0 0.00 0 0.008332 0 0.00 0 0.008333 0 0.00 0 0.008334 0 0.00 0 0.008335 0 0.00 0 0.008336 0 0.00 0 0.008337 0 0.00 0 0.008338 0 0.00 0 0.008339 0 0.00 0 0.008340 0 0.00 0 0.008341 0 0.00 0 0.008342 0 0.00 0 0.008343 0 0.00 0 0.008344 0 0.00 0 0.008345 0 0.00 0 0.008346 0 0.00 0 0.00
140
Table B.3 Continued
8347 0 0.00 0 0.008348 0 0.00 0 0.008349 0 0.00 0 0.008350 0 0.00 0 0.008351 0 0.00 0 0.008352 1 4.08 0 0.008353 1 4.08 0 0.008354 0 0.00 0 0.008355 0 0.00 0 0.008356 0 0.00 0 0.008357 0 0.00 0 0.008358 0 0.00 0 0.008359 0 0.00 0 0.008360 0 0.00 0 0.008361 0 0.00 0 0.008362 0 0.00 0 0.008363 0 0.00 0 0.008364 0 0.00 0 0.008365 0 0.00 0 0.008366 0 0.00 0 0.008367 0 0.00 0 0.008368 0 0.00 0 0.008369 0 0.00 7 11.678370 0 0.00 0 0.008371 0 0.00 0 0.008372 0 0.00 0 0.008373 0 0.00 0 0.008374 0 0.00 0 0.008375 0 0.00 0 0.008376 0 0.00 0 0.008377 0 0.00 0 0.008378 0 0.00 0 0.008379 0 0.00 0 0.008380 0 0.00 0 0.008381 0 0.00 0 0.008382 0 0.00 0 0.008383 0 0.00 0 0.008384 0 0.00 0 0.008385 0 0.00 0 0.008386 0 0.00 0 0.008387 0 0.00 0 0.008388 0 0.00 0 0.008389 0 0.00 0 0.00
141
Table B.3 Continued
8390 0 0.00 0 0.008391 2 8.16 0 0.008392 0 0.00 0 0.008393 0 0.00 0 0.008394 0 0.00 0 0.008395 0 0.00 8 13.338396 0 0.00 1 1.678397 0 0.00 0 0.008398 0 0.00 1 1.678399 0 0.00 1 1.678400 0 0.00 1 1.678401 0 0.00 1 1.678402 0 0.00 1 1.678403 0 0.00 1 1.678404 0 0.00 1 1.678405 0 0.00 1 1.678406 0 0.00 1 1.678407 0 0.00 1 1.678408 0 0.00 1 1.678409 0 0.00 1 1.678410 0 0.00 1 1.678411 0 0.00 1 1.678412 0 0.00 0 0.008413 0 0.00 0 0.008414 0 0.00 0 0.008415 0 0.00 0 0.008416 0 0.00 0 0.008417 0 0.00 18 30.008418 0 0.00 0 0.008419 0 0.00 7 11.678420 0 0.00 1 1.678421 0 0.00 2 3.338422 0 0.00 0 0.008423 0 0.00 1 1.678424 3 12.24 7 11.678425 1 4.08 5 8.338426 1 4.08 11 18.338427 4 16.33 6 10.008428 1 4.08 0 0.008429 0 0.00 0 0.008430 0 0.00 0 0.008431 0 0.00 23 38.338432 1 4.08 0 0.00
142
Table B.3 Continued
8433 0 0.00 7 11.678434 1 4.08 0 0.008435 1 4.08 0 0.008436 0 0.00 8 13.338437 2 8.16 14 23.338438 1 4.08 0 0.008439 0 0.00 16 26.678440 0 0.00 0 0.008441 0 0.00 0 0.008442 0 0.00 0 0.008443 0 0.00 1 1.678444 0 0.00 0 0.008445 1 4.08 1 1.678446 0 0.00 11 18.338447 0 0.00 0 0.008448 1 4.08 0 0.008449 3 12.24 7 11.678450 0 0.00 2 3.338451 0 0.00 0 0.008452 1 4.08 0 0.008453 0 0.008454 3 12.248455 0 0.008456 0 0.008457 3 12.248458 1 4.088459 3 12.248460 1 4.088461 0 0.008462 1 4.088463 1 4.088464 0 0.008465 0 0.008466 0 0.008467 0 0.008468 0 0.008469 0 0.008470 0 0.008471 0 0.008472 0 0.008473 0 0.008474 1 4.088475 0 0.00
143
Table B.3 Continued
8476 0 0.008477 0 0.008478 0 0.008479 0 0.008480 0 0.00
144
Table B .4 C alculated Fracture Intensity from Fracture Identification Logs (FID); Parker 1
PA RK ER 1 (49-021-20319)FID
Length o f track (mm): 50
Depth(ft)
Total Length of Res Contrast
(mm)
Fracture Intensity (% Length of Res
Contrast/Length of track)
7897 0 0.007898 0 0.007899 0 0.007900 0 0.007901 2 4.007902 1 2.007903 0 0.007904 1 2.007905 1 2.007906 0 0.007907 4 8.007908 9 18.007909 12 24.007910 3 6.007911 0 0.007912 0 0.007913 0 0.007914 0 0.007915 0 0.007916 0 0.007917 0 0.007918 0 0.007919 0 0.007920 1 2.007921 3 6.007922 0 0.007923 2 4.007924 1 2.007925 2 4.007926 6 12.007927 0 0.007928 3 6.007929 4 8.00
145
Table B.4 Continued
7930 0 0.007931 2 4.007932 0 0.007933 0 0.007934 2 4.007935 1 2.007936 0 0.007937 0 0.007938 0 0.007939 0 0.007940 0 0.007941 0 0.007942 0 0.007943 0 0.007944 3 6.007945 0 0.007946 0 0.007947 0 0.007948 0 0.007949 1 2.007950 2 4.007951 2 4.007952 0 0.007953 3 6.007954 0 0.007955 0 0.007956 0 0.007957 2 4.007958 0 0.007959 3 6.007960 0 0.007961 0 0.007962 0 0.007963 1 2.007964 0 0.007965 2 4.007966 0 0.007967 0 0.007968 0 0.007969 0 0.007970 0 0.007971 0 0.007972 0 0.00
146
Table B.4 Continued
7973 0 0.007974 0 0.007975 0 0.007976 0 0.007977 0 0.007978 0 0.007979 0 0.007980 0 0.007981 0 0.007982 0 0.007983 0 0.007984 0 0.007985 0 0.007986 0 0.007987 0 0.007988 0 0.007989 0 0.007990 0 0.007991 0 0.007992 0 0.007993 0 0.007994 0 0.007995 3 6.007996 0 0.007997 0 0.007998 0 0.007999 0 0.008000 0 0.008001 0 0.008002 0 0.008003 5 10.008004 5 10.008005 0 0.008006 41 82.008007 41 82.008008 42 84.008009 42 84.008010 42 84.008011 10 20.008012 30 60.008013 28 56.008014 35 70.008015 14 28.00
147
Table B.4 Continued
8016 19 38.008017 16 32.008018 0 0.008019 27 54.008020 27 54.008021 26 52.008022 30 60.008023 30 60.008024 30 60.008025 29 58.008026 16 32.008027 18 36.008028 28 56.008029 37 74.008030 36 72.008031 37 74.008032 33 66.008033 34 68.008034 37 74.008035 0 0.008036 0 0.008037 0 0.008038 0 0.008039 0 0.008040 0 0.008041 0 0.008042 0 0.008043 0 0.008044 0 0.008045 0 0.008046 0 0.008047 0 0.008048 0 0.008049 0 0.008050 0 0.008051 0 0.008052 0 0.008053 0 0.008054 0 0.008055 0 0.008056 0 0.008057 0 0.008058 0 0.00
148
Table B.4 Continued
8059 0 0.008060 0 0.008061 0 0.008062 0 0.008063 0 0.008064 0 0.008065 0 0.008066 0 0.008067 0 0.008068 0 0.008069 0 0.008070 0 0.008071 2 4.008072 2 4.008073 12 24.008074 6 12.008075 1 2.008076 3 6.008077 4 8.008078 0 0.008079 0 0.008080 0 0.008081 0 0.008082 0 0.008083 0 0.008084 0 0.008085 0 0.008086 0 0.008087 0 0.008088 0 0.008089 0 0.008090 0 0.008091 0 0.008092 0 0.008093 0 0.008094 0 0.008095 0 0.008096 0 0.008097 0 0.008098 0 0.008099 0 0.008100 0 0.008101 0 0.00
149
Table B.4 Continued
8102 0 0.008103 0 0.008104 0 0.008105 0 0.008106 0 0.008107 0 0.008108 0 0.008109 0 0.008110 0 0.008111 0 0.008112 0 0.008113 0 0.008114 0 0.008115 0 0.008116 0 0.008117 0 0.008118 0 0.008119 0 0.008120 0 0.008121 0 0.008122 0 0.008123 0 0.008124 0 0.008125 0 0.008126 0 0.008127 0 0.008128 2 4.008129 3 6.008130 2 4.008131 5 10.008132 2 4.008133 4 8.008134 0 0.008135 1 2.008136 0 0.008137 5 10.008138 4 8.008139 9 18.008140 9 18.008141 2 4.008142 0 0.008143 2 4.008144 1 2.00
150
Table B.4 Continued
8145 0 0.008146 2 4.008147 5 10.008148 5 10.008149 2 4.008150 1 2.008151 2 4.008152 0 0.008153 2 4.008154 0 0.008155 1 2.008156 0 0.008157 7 14.008158 3 6.008159 0 0.008160 0 0.008161 0 0.008162 0 0.008163 2 4.008164 0 0.008165 0 0.008166 0 0.008167 0 0.008168 0 0.008169 0 0.008170 0 0.008171 0 0.008172 0 0.008173 5 10.008174 1 2.008175 0 0.008176 4 8.008177 4 8.008178 0 0.008179 0 0.008180 9 18.008181 0 0.008182 0 0.008183 11 22.008184 4 8.008185 13 26.008186 0 0.008187 0 0.00
151
Table B.4 Continued
8188 0 0.008189 1 2.008190 0 0.008191 0 0.008192 4 8.008193 0 0.008194 8 16.008195 0 0.008196 0 0.008197 0 0.008198 0 0.008199 0 0.008200 0 0.00
152
Table B.5 Calculated Fracture Intensity from Fracture Identification Logs (FID); Parker 2-H
PARKER 2-H (49-021-20321)FID
Length of track (mm): 76
Depth(ft)
Total Length of Res Contrast
(mm)
Fracture Intensity (% Length of Res
Contrast/Length of track)
7890 0 0.007891 0 0.007892 0 0.007893 0 0.007894 0 0.007895 0 0.007896 0 0.007897 0 0.007898 0 0.007899 0 0.007900 0 0.007901 0 0.007902 0 0.007903 0 0.007904 0 0.007905 0 0.007906 0 0.007907 0 0.007908 0 0.007909 0 0.007910 0 0.007911 0 0.007912 0 0.007913 0 0.007914 0 0.007915 0 0.007916 0 0.007917 0 0.007918 0 0.007919 0 0.007920 0 0.007921 0 0.007922 0 0.00
153
Table B.5 Continued
7923 0 0.007924 0 0.007925 0 0.007926 0 0.007927 0 0.007928 0 0.007929 0 0.007930 0 0.007931 0 0.007932 0 0.007933 0 0.007934 0 0.007935 0 0.007936 0 0.007937 0 0.007938 0 0.007939 0 0.007940 0 0.007941 0 0.007942 0 0.007943 0 0.007944 0 0.007945 0 0.007946 0 0.007947 0 0.007948 0 0.007949 0 0.007950 0 0.007951 0 0.007952 0 0.007953 0 0.007954 0 0.007955 0 0.007956 0 0.007957 0 0.007958 0 0.007959 0 0.007960 0 0.007961 0 0.007962 0 0.007963 0 0.007964 0 0.007965 0 0.00
154
Table B.5 Continued
7966 0 0.007967 0 0.007968 0 0.007969 0 0.007970 0 0.007971 0 0.007972 0 0.007973 0 0.007974 0 0.007975 0 0.007976 0 0.007977 0 0.007978 0 0.007979 0 0.007980 0 0.007981 0 0.007982 0 0.007983 0 0.007984 0 0.007985 0 0.007986 0 0.007987 0 0.007988 0 0.007989 0 0.007990 0 0.007991 0 0.007992 0 0.007993 0 0.007994 0 0.007995 0 0.007996 0 0.007997 0 0.007998 0 0.007999 0 0.008000 0 0.008001 0 0.008002 0 0.008003 0 0.008004 0 0.008005 21 27.638006 6 7.898007 15 19.748008 0 0.00
155
Table B.5 Continued
8009 10 13.168010 8 10.538011 3 3.958012 0 0.008013 0 0.008014 0 0.008015 0 0.008016 0 0.008017 0 0.008018 0 0.008019 0 0.008020 0 0.008021 0 0.008022 0 0.008023 0 0.008024 0 0.008025 0 0.008026 0 0.008027 0 0.008028 0 0.008029 0 0.008030 0 0.008031 0 0.008032 0 0.008033 0 0.008034 0 0.008035 0 0.008036 0 0.008037 0 0.008038 0 0.008039 0 0.008040 0 0.008041 0 0.008042 0 0.008043 0 0.008044 0 0.008045 0 0.008046 0 0.008047 0 0.008048 0 0.008049 0 0.008050 0 0.008051 0 0.00
156
Table B.5 Continued
8052 0 0.008053 0 0.008054 0 0.008055 0 0.008056 0 0.008057 0 0.008058 0 0.008059 0 0.008060 0 0.008061 0 0.008062 0 0.008063 0 0.008064 0 0.008065 0 0.008066 0 0.008067 0 0.008068 0 0.008069 0 0.008070 0 0.008071 0 0.008072 0 0.008073 0 0.008074 0 0.008075 0 0.008076 0 0.008077 0 0.008078 0 0.008079 0 0.008080 0 0.008081 0 0.008082 0 0.008083 0 0.008084 0 0.008085 0 0.008086 0 0.008087 0 0.008088 0 0.008089 0 0.008090 0 0.008091 0 0.008092 0 0.008093 0 0.008094 0 0.00
157
Table B.5 Continued
8095 0 0.008096 0 0.008097 0 0.008098 0 0.008099 0 0.008100 0 0.008101 0 0.008102 0 0.008103 0 0.008104 0 0.008105 0 0.008106 0 0.008107 0 0.008108 0 0.008109 0 0.008110 0 0.008111 0 0.008112 0 0.008113 0 0.008114 0 0.008115 0 0.008116 0 0.008117 0 0.008118 0 0.008119 0 0.008120 0 0.008121 0 0.008122 0 0.008123 0 0.008124 0 0.008125 0 0.008126 0 0.008127 0 0.008128 0 0.008129 0 0.008130 0 0.008131 0 0.008132 0 0.008133 0 0.008134 0 0.008135 0 0.008136 0 0.008137 0 0.00
158
Table B.5 Continued
8138 0 0.008139 0 0.008140 0 0.008141 0 0.008142 0 0.008143 0 0.008144 0 0.008145 0 0.008146 0 0.008147 0 0.008148 0 0.008149 0 0.008150 0 0.008151 0 0.008152 0 0.008153 0 0.008154 5 6.588155 2 2.638156 0 0.008157 0 0.008158 0 0.008159 0 0.008160 0 0.008161 0 0.008162 0 0.008163 0 0.008164 0 0.008165 0 0.008166 0 0.008167 0 0.008168 0 0.008169 0 0.008170 0 0.008171 0 0.008172 0 0.008173 0 0.008174 0 0.008175 0 0.008176 0 0.008177 0 0.008178 0 0.008179 0 0.008180 0 0.00
159
Table B.5 Continued
8181 0 0.008182 0 0.008183 0 0.008184 0 0.008185 0 0.008186 0 0.008187 0 0.008188 0 0.008189 0 0.008190 0 0.008191 0 0.008192 0 0.008193 0 0.008194 0 0.00
160
Table B .6 Calculated Fracture Intensity from Fracture Identification Logs (FID); 16-H 1-18
16-H 1-18 (49-021-20325)FID
Length of track (mm): 76
Depth(ft)
Total Length of Res Contrast
(mm)
Fracture Intensity (% Length of Res
Contrast/Length of track)
7890 0 0.007891 0 0.007892 0 0.007893 0 0.007894 0 0.007895 0 0.007896 0 0.007897 0 0.007898 0 0.007899 0 0.007900 0 0.007901 0 0.007902 0 0.007903 0 0.007904 0 0.007905 0 0.007906 0 0.007907 0 0.007908 0 0.007909 0 0.007910 0 0.007911 0 0.007912 0 0.007913 0 0.007914 0 0.007915 0 0.007916 0 0.007917 0 0.007918 0 0.007919 0 0.007920 0 0.007921 0 0.007922 0 0.00
161
Table B.6 Continued
7923 0 0.007924 0 0.007925 0 0.007926 0 0.007927 0 0.007928 0 0.007929 0 0.007930 0 0.007931 0 0.007932 0 0.007933 0 0.007934 0 0.007935 0 0.007936 0 0.007937 0 0.007938 0 0.007939 0 0.007940 0 0.007941 0 0.007942 0 0.007943 0 0.007944 0 0.007945 0 0.007946 0 0.007947 0 0.007948 0 0.007949 0 0.007950 0 0.007951 0 0.007952 0 0.007953 0 0.007954 0 0.007955 0 0.007956 0 0.007957 0 0.007958 0 0.007959 0 0.007960 0 0.007961 0 0.007962 0 0.007963 0 0.007964 0 0.007965 0 0.00
162
Table B.6 Continued
7966 0 0.007967 0 0.007968 0 0.007969 0 0.007970 0 0.007971 0 0.007972 0 0.007973 0 0.007974 0 0.007975 0 0.007976 0 0.007977 0 0.007978 0 0.007979 0 0.007980 0 0.007981 0 0.007982 0 0.007983 0 0.007984 0 0.007985 0 0.007986 0 0.007987 0 0.007988 0 0.007989 0 0.007990 0 0.007991 0 0.007992 0 0.007993 0 0.007994 0 0.007995 0 0.007996 0 0.007997 0 0.007998 0 0.007999 0 0.008000 0 0.008001 0 0.008002 0 0.008003 0 0.008004 0 0.008005 21 27.638006 6 7.898007 15 19.748008 0 0.00
163
Table B.6 Continued
8009 10 13.168010 8 10.538011 3 3.958012 0 0.008013 0 0.008014 0 0.008015 0 0.008016 0 0.008017 0 0.008018 0 0.008019 0 0.008020 0 0.008021 0 0.008022 0 0.008023 0 0.008024 0 0.008025 0 0.008026 0 0.008027 0 0.008028 0 0.008029 0 0.008030 0 0.008031 0 0.008032 0 0.008033 0 0.008034 0 0.008035 0 0.008036 0 0.008037 0 0.008038 0 0.008039 0 0.008040 0 0.008041 0 0.008042 0 0.008043 0 0.008044 0 0.008045 0 0.008046 0 0.008047 0 0.008048 0 0.008049 0 0.008050 0 0.008051 0 0.00
164
Table B.6 Continued
8052 0 0.008053 0 0.008054 0 0.008055 0 0.008056 0 0.008057 0 0.008058 0 0.008059 0 0.008060 0 0.008061 0 0.008062 0 0.008063 0 0.008064 0 0.008065 0 0.008066 0 0.008067 0 0.008068 0 0.008069 0 0.008070 0 0.008071 0 0.008072 0 0.008073 0 0.008074 0 0.008075 0 0.008076 0 0.008077 0 0.008078 0 0.008079 0 0.008080 0 0.008081 0 0.008082 0 0.008083 0 0.008084 0 0.008085 0 0.008086 0 0.008087 0 0.008088 0 0.008089 0 0.008090 0 0.008091 0 0.008092 0 0.008093 0 0.008094 0 0.00
165
Table B.6 Continued
8095 0 0.008096 0 0.008097 0 0.008098 0 0.008099 0 0.008100 0 0.008101 0 0.008102 0 0.008103 0 0.008104 0 0.008105 0 0.008106 0 0.008107 0 0.008108 0 0.008109 0 0.008110 0 0.008111 0 0.008112 0 0.008113 0 0.008114 0 0.008115 0 0.008116 0 0.008117 0 0.008118 0 0.008119 0 0.008120 0 0.008121 0 0.008122 0 0.008123 0 0.008124 0 0.008125 0 0.008126 0 0.008127 0 0.008128 0 0.008129 0 0.008130 0 0.008131 0 0.008132 0 0.008133 0 0.008134 0 0.008135 0 0.008136 0 0.008137 0 0.00
166
Table B.6 Continued
8138 0 0.008139 0 0.008140 0 0.008141 0 0.008142 0 0.008143 0 0.008144 0 0.008145 0 0.008146 0 0.008147 0 0.008148 0 0.008149 0 0.008150 0 0.008151 0 0.008152 0 0.008153 0 0.008154 5 6.588155 2 2.638156 0 0.008157 0 0.008158 0 0.008159 0 0.008160 0 0.008161 0 0.008162 0 0.008163 0 0.008164 0 0.008165 0 0.008166 0 0.008167 0 0.008168 0 0.008169 0 0.008170 0 0.008171 0 0.008172 0 0.008173 0 0.008174 0 0.008175 0 0.008176 0 0.008177 0 0.008178 0 0.008179 0 0.008180 0 0.00
167
Table B.6 Continued
8181 0 0.008182 0 0.008183 0 0.008184 0 0.008185 0 0.008186 0 0.008187 0 0.008188 0 0.008189 0 0.008190 0 0.008191 0 0.008192 0 0.008193 0 0.008194 0 0.00
168
Table B .7 Calculated Fracture Intensity from Oriented Micro Resistivity Logs (OMRL) and Fracture Identification Logs (FID); State No. 1-2
STATE NO. 1-2 (49-021-20328)OMRL FID
Length of track (mm): 32 Length o f track (mm): 60
Depth(ft)
Total Length of Res Contrast
(mm)
Fracture Intensity (% Length of Res
Contrast/Length of track)
Total Length of Res Contrast
(mm)
Fracture Intensity (% Length of Res
Contrast/Length of track)
7800 0 0.00 0 0.007801 0 0.00 0 0.007802 1 3.13 0 0.007803 0 0.00 0 0.007804 0 0.00 0 0.007805 0 0.00 0 0.007806 8 25.00 0 0.007807 2 6.25 3 5.007808 1 3.13 0 0.007809 0 0.00 0 0.007810 0 0.00 0 0.007811 0 0.00 11 18.337812 0 0.00 2 3.337813 0 0.00 1 1.677814 2 6.25 2 3.337815 1 3.13 1 1.677816 0 0.00 0 0.007817 0 0.00 0 0.007818 0 0.00 0 0.007819 0 0.00 0 0.007820 0 0.00 0 0.007821 0 0.00 0 0.007822 0 0.00 0 0.007823 0 0.00 0 0.007824 0 0.00 0 0.007825 0 0.00 0 0.007826 1 3.13 0 0.007827 0 0.00 0 0.007828 0 0.00 0 0.007829 0 0.00 0 0.007830 0 0.00 0 0.007831 0 0.00 0 0.007832 1 3.13 0 0.00
169
Table B.7 Continued
7833 0 0.00 0 0.007834 0 0.00 0 0.007835 0 0.00 0 0.007836 0 0.00 0 0.007837 0 0.00 0 0.007838 0 0.00 0 0.007839 0 0.00 0 0.007840 0 0.00 0 0.007841 0 0.00 0 0.007842 0 0.00 0 0.007843 0 0.00 0 0.007844 0 0.00 0 0.007845 0 0.00 0 0.007846 0 0.00 0 0.007847 0 0.00 0 0.007848 0 0.00 0 0.007849 0 0.00 0 0.007850 0 0.00 0 0.007851 0 0.00 0 0.007852 0 0.00 0 0.007853 0 0.00 0 0.007854 0 0.00 0 0.007855 0 0.00 0 0.007856 0 0.00 0 0.007857 1 3.13 0 0.007858 1 3.13 0 0.007859 0 0.00 0 0.007860 0 0.00 0 0.007861 1 3.13 0 0.007862 0 0.00 0 0.007863 0 0.00 0 0.007864 0 0.00 0 0.007865 0 0.00 0 0.007866 0 0.00 0 0.007867 0 0.00 0 0.007868 0 0.00 0 0.007869 1 3.13 0 0.007870 0 0.00 0 0.007871 0 0.00 0 0.007872 2 6.25 0 0.007873 0 0.00 0 0.007874 2 6.25 0 0.007875 0 0.00 0 0.00
170
Table B.7 Continued
7876 0 0.00 0 0.007877 1 3.13 0 0.007878 2 6.25 0 0.007879 0 0.00 0 0.007880 0 0.00 0 0.007881 0 0.00 0 0.007882 0 0.00 0 0.007883 0 0.00 0 0.007884 0 0.00 0 0.007885 0 0.00 4 6.677886 0 0.00 0 0.007887 0 0.00 2 3.337888 0 0.00 0 0.007889 0 0.00 0 0.007890 0 0.00 0 0.007891 0 0.00 0 0.007892 7 21.88 0 0.007893 1 3.125 0 0.007894 0 0.00 0 0.007895 1 3.13 0 0.007896 4 12.50 0 0.007897 0 0.00 0 0.007898 0 0.00 0 0.007899 0 0.00 0 0.007900 0 0.00 0 0.007901 0 0.00 0 0.007902 0 0.00 0 0.007903 0 0.00 0 0.007904 7 21.88 0 0.007905 1 3.13 0 0.007906 0 0.00 0 0.007907 1 3.13 2 3.337908 4 12.50 0 0.007909 0 0.00 0 0.007910 0 0.00 0 0.007911 0 0.00 1 1.677912 0 0.00 2 3.337913 0 0.00 1 1.677914 0 0.00 1 1.677915 6 18.75 1 1.677916 0 0.00 3 5.007917 1 3.13 3 5.007918 0 0.00 0 0.00
171
Table B.7 Continued
7919 5 15.63 0 0.007920 0 0.00 4 6.677921 0 0.00 0 0.007922 0 0.00 0 0.007923 0 0.00 0 0.007924 1 3.13 0 0.007925 0 0.00 0 0.007926 0 0.00 0 0.007927 0 0.00 0 0.007928 0 0.00 0 0.007929 0 0.00 2 3.337930 0 0.00 0 0.007931 1 3.13 0 0.007932 0 0.00 0 0.007933 0 0.00 0 0.007934 0 0.00 0 0.007935 1 3.13 0 0.007936 1 3.13 0 0.007937 1 3.13 0 0.007938 1 3.13 0 0.007939 2 6.25 0 0.007940 1 3.13 0 0.007941 0 0.00 0 0.007942 0 0.00 0 0.007943 0 0.00 0 0.007944 0 0.00 0 0.007945 1 3.13 0 0.007946 0 0.00 0 0.007947 0 0.00 0 0.007948 0 0.00 0 0.007949 0 0.00 0 0.007950 0 0.00 0 0.007951 0 0.00 0 0.007952 0 0.00 0 0.007953 0 0.00 0 0.007954 0 0.00 0 0.007955 0 0.00 0 0.007956 0 0.00 0 0.007957 0 0.00 0 0.007958 0 0.00 0 0.007959 0 0.00 0 0.007960 0 0.00 0 0.007961 0 0.00 0 0.00
172
Table B.7 Continued
7962 0 0.00 0 0.007963 0 0.00 0 0.007964 0 0.00 0 0.007965 0 0.00 0 0.007966 0 0.00 0 0.007967 0 0.00 0 0.007968 0 0.00 0 0.007969 0 0.00 0 0.007970 0 0.00 0 0.007971 0 0.00 0 0.007972 0 0.00 0 0.007973 0 0.00 8 13.337974 0 0.00 0 0.007975 0 0.00 0 0.007976 0 0.00 0 0.007977 0 0.00 0 0.007978 0 0.00 0 0.007979 0 0.00 0 0.007980 0 0.00 0 0.007981 0 0.00 0 0.007982 0 0.00 0 0.007983 0 0.00 0 0.007984 0 0.00 0 0.007985 0 0.00 0 0.007986 0 0.00 0 0.007987 0 0.00 0 0.007988 0 0.00 0 0.007989 0 0.00 0 0.007990 0 0.00 0 0.007991 0 0.00 0 0.007992 0 0.00 0 0.007993 0 0.00 0 0.007994 0 0.00 0 0.007995 0 0.00 0 0.007996 0 0.00 1 1.677997 0 0.00 0 0.007998 0 0.00 1 1.677999 0 0.00 2 3.338000 0 0.00 0 0.008001 0 0.00 0 0.008002 0 0.00 0 0.008003 0 0.00 0 0.008004 0 0.00 0 0.00
173
Table B.7 Continued
8005 0 0.00 0 0.008006 0 0.00 0 0.008007 0 0.00 0 0.008008 0 0.00 0 0.008009 0 0.00 0 0.008010 0 0.00 0 0.008011 0 0.00 0 0.008012 0 0.00 0 0.008013 0 0.00 0 0.008014 0 0.00 0 0.008015 0 0.00 0 0.008016 0 0.00 0 0.008017 0 0.00 1 1.678018 0 0.00 0 0.008019 0 0.00 0 0.008020 0 0.00 0 0.008021 0 0.00 0 0.008022 0 0.00 0 0.008023 0 0.00 0 0.008024 0 0.00 0 0.008025 0 0.00 0 0.008026 0 0.00 0 0.008027 0 0.00 0 0.008028 0 0.00 0 0.008029 0 0.00 0 0.008030 0 0.00 0 0.008031 0 0.00 0 0.008032 0 0.00 0 0.008033 0 0.00 0 0.008034 0 0.00 0 0.008035 0 0.00 0 0.008036 0 0.00 0 0.008037 0 0.00 0 0.008038 0 0.00 0 0.008039 0 0.00 1 1.678040 0 0.00 0 0.008041 0 0.00 0 0.008042 0 0.00 0 0.008043 1 3.13 0 0.008044 1 3.13 0 0.008045 0 0.00 5 8.338046 0 0.00 0 0.008047 0 0.00 0 0.00
174
Table B.7 Continued
8048 0 0.00 0 0.008049 3 9.38 2 3.338050 3 9.38 0 0.008051 0 0.00 0 0.008052 0 0.00 0 0.008053 0 0.00 0 0.008054 0 0.00 0 0.008055 0 0.00 0 0.008056 0 0.00 0 0.008057 0 0.00 0 0.008058 0 0.00 0 0.008059 0 0.00 0 0.008060 0 0.00 0 0.008061 0 0.00 0 0.008062 0 0.00 0 0.008063 2 6.25 12 20.008064 0 0.00 0 0.008065 0 0.00 0 0.008066 2 6.25 0 0.008067 0 0.00 0 0.008068 0 0.00 0 0.008069 0 0.00 0 0.008070 0 0.00 0 0.008071 0 0.00 2 3.338072 0 0.00 0 0.008073 0 0.00 0 0.008074 2 6.25 0 0.008075 0 0.00 0 0.008076 0 0.00 0 0.008077 0 0.00 0 0.008078 0 0.00 0 0.008079 0 0.00 0 0.008080 0 0.00 3 5.008081 0 0.00 2 3.338082 0 0.00 1 1.678083 0 0.00 2 3.338084 0 0.00 0 0.008085 0 0.00 0 0.008086 0 0.00 4 6.678087 0 0.00 0 0.008088 0 0.00 0 0.008089 0 0.00 0 0.008090 0 0.00 0 0.00
175
Table B.7 Continued
8091 0 0.00 0 0.008092 0 0.00 0 0.008093 0 0.00 0 0.008094 0 0.00 0 0.008095 0 0.00 0 0.00
176
Table B .8 Calculated Fracture Intensity from Fracture Identification Logs (FID); Keslar 1
KESLAR 1 (49-021-20331)FID
Length o f track (mm): 62.5
Depth(ft)
Total Length of Res Contrast
(mm)
Fracture Intensity (% Length of Res
Contrast/Length of track)
7855 0 0.007856 0 0.007857 0 0.007858 0 0.007859 0 0.007860 0 0.007861 0 0.007862 0 0.007863 0 0.007864 0 0.007865 0 0.007866 0 0.007867 0 0.007868 0 0.007869 0 0.007870 0 0.007871 0 0.007872 2 3.207873 0 0.007874 5 8.007875 4 6.407876 8 12.807877 9 14.407878 2 3.207879 0 0.007880 0 0.007881 0 0.007882 0 0.007883 0 0.007884 0 0.007885 0 0.007986 0 0.007887 0 0.00
177
Table B.8 Continued
7888 0 0.007889 0 0.007890 0 0.007891 0 0.007892 0 0.007893 0 0.007894 0 0.007895 0 0.007896 0 0.007897 0 0.007898 0 0.007899 0 0.007900 0 0.007901 0 0.007902 0 0.007903 0 0.007904 0 0.007905 0 0.007906 0 0.007907 0 0.007908 0 0.007909 0 0.007910 0 0.007911 0 0.007912 0 0.007913 0 0.007914 0 0.007915 0 0.007916 0 0.007917 0 0.007918 0 0.007919 0 0.007920 0 0.007921 0 0.007922 0 0.007923 0 0.007924 0 0.007925 0 0.007926 3 4.807927 0 0.007928 0 0.007929 0 0.007930 0 0.00
178
Table B.8 Continued
7931 0 0.007932 2 3.207933 1 1.607934 0 0.007935 0 0.007936 0 0.007937 0 0.007938 0 0.007939 0 0.007940 0 0.007941 0 0.007942 0 0.007943 0 0.007944 0 0.007945 0 0.007946 0 0.007947 0 0.007948 0 0.007949 0 0.007950 0 0.007951 0 0.007952 3 4.807953 0 0.007954 0 0.007955 0 0.007956 0 0.007957 0 0.007958 0 0.007959 0 0.007960 0 0.007961 1 1.607962 0 0.007963 0 0.007964 0 0.007965 0 0.007966 0 0.007967 0 0.007968 0 0.007969 0 0.007970 0 0.007971 0 0.007972 0 0.007973 0 0.00
179
Table B.8 Continued
7974 0 0.007975 0 0.007976 0 0.007977 0 0.007978 0 0.007979 0 0.007980 2 3.207981 3 4.807982 3 4.807983 3 4.807984 6 9.607985 0 0.007986 0 0.007987 0 0.007988 0 0.007989 0 0.007990 0 0.007991 2 3.207992 3 4.807993 5 8.007994 4 6.407995 3 4.807996 1 1.607997 0 0.007998 0 0.007999 0 0.008000 0 0.008001 0 0.008002 0 0.008003 7 11.208004 8 12.808005 4 6.408006 4 6.408007 0 0.008008 0 0.008009 0 0.008010 0 0.008011 0 0.008012 0 0.008013 0 0.008014 0 0.008015 0 0.008016 0 0.00
180
Table B.8 Continued
8017 0 0.008018 0 0.008019 0 0.008020 0 0.008021 0 0.008022 0 0.008023 0 0.008024 0 0.008025 0 0.008026 0 0.008027 0 0.008028 0 0.008029 0 0.008030 0 0.008031 0 0.008032 0 0.008033 0 0.008034 0 0.008035 0 0.008036 0 0.008037 0 0.008038 0 0.008039 0 0.008040 0 0.008041 0 0.008042 0 0.008043 0 0.008044 0 0.008045 0 0.008046 0 0.008047 0 0.008048 0 0.008049 1 1.608050 0 0.008051 0 0.008052 0 0.008053 0 0.008054 0 0.008055 0 0.008056 0 0.008057 0 0.008058 0 0.008059 0 0.00
181
Table B.8 Continued
8060 0 0.008061 0 0.008062 0 0.008063 0 0.008064 0 0.008065 0 0.008066 0 0.008067 0 0.008068 0 0.008069 0 0.008070 0 0.008071 0 0.008072 0 0.008073 0 0.008074 0 0.008075 0 0.008076 0 0.008077 0 0.008078 0 0.008079 0 0.008080 0 0.008081 0 0.008082 0 0.008083 0 0.008084 0 0.008085 0 0.008086 0 0.008087 0 0.008088 0 0.008089 0 0.008090 4 6.408091 0 0.008092 0 0.008093 0 0.008094 0 0.008095 0 0.008096 0 0.008097 0 0.008098 0 0.008099 0 0.008100 0 0.008101 0 0.008102 0 0.00
182
Table B.8 Continued
8103 0 0.008104 0 0.008105 0 0.008106 0 0.008107 0 0.008108 0 0.008109 0 0.008110 0 0.008111 0 0.008112 0 0.008113 0 0.008114 0 0.008115 1 1.608116 1 1.608117 0 0.008118 0 0.008119 1 1.608120 0 0.008121 0 0.008122 7 11.208123 0 0.008124 0 0.008125 0 0.008126 0 0.008127 0 0.008128 0 0.008129 0 0.008130 0 0.008131 0 0.008132 0 0.008133 0 0.008134 0 0.008135 0 0.008136 0 0.008137 0 0.008138 0 0.008139 0 0.008140 0 0.008141 0 0.008142 0 0.008143 0 0.008144 0 0.008145 0 0.00
183
Table B.8 Continued
8146 0 0.008147 0 0.008148 0 0.008149 0 0.008150 2 3.208151 0 0.008152 1 1.608153 0 0.008154 0 0.008155 0 0.008156 0 0.008157 0 0.008158 0 0.008159 0 0.008160 0 0.008161 0 0.008162 0 0.008163 1 1.608164 0 0.008165 10 16.008166 0 0.008167 0 0.008168 0 0.008169 0 0.008170 0 0.008171 0 0.00
184
Table B .9 Calculated Fracture Intensity from Oriented Micro Resistivity Logs (OMRL) and Fracture Identification Logs (FID); McConnaughey 1
M CCONNAUGHEY 1 (49-021-20336)OMRL FID
Length of track (mm): 57 Length of track (mm): 59
Depth(ft)
r-p, , , T ,, Fracture Intensity (% Total Length of D n . . Length of Res Res Contrast Contrast/Length of
(mm) track)
Total Length of Res Contrast
(mm)
Fracture Intensity (% Length of Res
Contrast/Length of track)
8070 5 0.09 0 0.008071 2 0.04 0 0.008072 4 0.07 0 0.008073 3 0.05 0 0.008074 7 0.12 0 0.008075 3 0.05 0 0.008076 4 0.07 1 1.698077 4 0.07 1 1.698078 3 0.05 3 5.088079 2 0.04 1 1.698080 1 0.02 0 0.008081 0 0.00 1 1.698082 0 0.00 1 1.698083 0 0.00 2 3.398084 1 0.02 0 0.008085 1 0.02 1 1.698086 6 0.11 1 1.698087 2 0.04 0 0.008088 0 0.00 0 0.008089 1 0.02 0 0.008090 0 0.00 0 0.008091 0 0.00 0 0.008092 0 0.00 0 0.008093 0 0.00 0 0.008094 0 0.00 0 0.008095 1 0.02 0 0.008096 1 0.02 0 0.008097 0 0.00 0 0.008098 0 0.00 0 0.008099 0 0.00 0 0.008100 0 0.00 0 0.008101 0 0.00 0 0.008102 0 0.00 0 0.00
185
Table B.9 Continued
8103 0 0.00 0 0.008104 0 0.00 0 0.008105 0 0.00 0 0.008106 0 0.00 0 0.008107 0 0.00 0 0.008108 0 0.00 0 0.008109 0 0.00 0 0.008110 2 0.04 0 0.008111 2 0.04 0 0.008112 2 0.04 0 0.008113 0 0.00 0 0.008114 0 0.00 0 0.008115 0 0.00 0 0.008116 4 0.07 0 0.008117 0 0.00 0 0.008118 0 0.00 0 0.008119 0 0.00 0 0.008120 0 0.00 0 0.008121 0 0.00 0 0.008122 0 0.00 0 0.008123 0 0.00 0 0.008124 0 0.00 0 0.008125 0 0.00 0 0.008126 2 0.04 0 0.008127 1 0.02 0 0.008128 2 0.04 0 0.008129 2 0.04 0 0.008130 1 0.02 0 0.008131 1 0.02 0 0.008132 1 0.02 0 0.008133 2 0.04 0 0.008134 0 0.00 0 0.008135 0 0.00 0 0.008136 0 0.00 0 0.008137 0 0.00 0 0.008138 4 0.07 0 0.008139 5 0.09 2 3.398140 4 0.07 2 3.398141 2 0.04 0 0.008142 2 0.04 0 0.008143 1 0.02 0 0.008144 1 0.02 0 0.008145 6 0.11 1 1.69
186
Table B.9 Continued
8146 9 0.16 2 3.398147 5 0.09 1 1.698148 3 0.05 0 0.008149 1 0.02 0 0.008150 2 0.04 0 0.008151 9 0.16 0 0.008152 4 0.07 1 1.698153 3 0.05 1 1.698154 3 0.05 0 0.008155 4 0.07 3 5.088156 1 0.02 2 3.398157 0 0.00 1 1.698158 1 0.02 0 0.008159 0 0.00 0 0.008160 0 0.00 0 0.008161 0 0.00 0 0.008162 0 0.00 0 0.008163 0 0 0 0.008164 12 0.21 0 0.008165 6 0.11 0 0.008166 6 0.11 0 0.008167 5 0.09 0 0.008168 0 0.00 0 0.008169 1 0.02 0 0.008170 3 0.05 0 0.008171 12 0.21 0 0.008172 1 0.02 0 0.008173 0 0.00 0 0.008174 0 0.00 0 0.008175 0 0.00 0 0.008176 0 0.00 0 0.008177 0 0.00 0 0.008178 0 0.00 0 0.008179 0 0.00 1 1.698180 4 0.07 0 0.008181 2 0.04 0 0.008182 2 0.04 0 0.008183 1 0.02 1 1.698184 5 0.09 2 3.398185 7 0.12 4 6.788186 6 0.11 4 6.788187 8 0.14 5 8.478188 9 0.16 4 6.78
187
Table B.9 Continued
8189 7 0.12 4 6.788190 5 0.09 1 1.698191 4 0.07 0 0.008192 2 0.04 2 3.398193 4 0.07 1 1.698194 2 0.04 0 0.008195 3 0.05 0 0.008196 3 0.05 0 0.008197 5 0.09 1 1.698198 2 0.04 0 0.008199 2 0.04 0 0.008200 5 0.09 0 0.008201 7 0.12 1 1.698202 6 0.11 1 1.698203 1 0.02 0 0.008204 0 0.00 0 0.008205 0 0.00 0 0.008206 3 0.05 0 0.008207 3 0.05 0 0.008208 7 0.12 0 0.008209 3 0.05 0 0.008210 4 0.07 0 0.008211 2 0.04 0 0.008212 4 0.07 0 0.008213 2 0.04 0 0.008214 2 0.04 0 0.008215 2 0.04 0 0.008216 3 0.05 0 0.008217 1 0.02 0 0.008218 1 0.02 0 0.008219 1 0.02 0 0.008220 1 0.02 0 0.008221 2 0.04 0 0.008222 1 0.02 0 0.008223 0 0.00 0 0.008224 1 0.02 0 0.008225 1 0.02 0 0.008226 1 0.02 0 0.008227 1 0.02 0 0.008228 0 0.00 0 0.008229 0 0.00 0 0.008230 0 0.00 0 0.008231 0 0.00 0 0.00
188
Table B.9 Continued
8232 0 0.00 0 0.008233 0 0.00 0 0.008234 0 0.00 0 0.008235 0 0.00 0 0.008236 0 0.00 0 0.008237 0 0.00 0 0.008238 0 0.00 0 0.008239 0 0.00 0 0.008240 0 0.00 0 0.008241 0 0.00 0 0.008242 0 0.00 0 0.008243 0 0.00 0 0.008244 0 0.00 0 0.008245 0 0.00 0 0.008246 0 0.00 0 0.008247 0 0.00 0 0.008248 0 0.00 0 0.008249 0 0.00 0 0.008250 0 0.00 0 0.008251 0 0.00 0 0.008252 0 0.00 0 0.008253 0 0.00 1 1.698254 0 0.00 0 0.008255 0 0.00 1 1.698256 0 0.00 1 1.698257 0 0.00 0 0.008258 3 0.05 0 0.008259 0 0.00 0 0.008260 0 0.00 0 0.008261 0 0.00 1 1.698262 1 0.02 0 0.008263 0 0.00 0 0.008264 2 0.04 1 1.698265 0 0.00 0 0.008266 0 0.00 0 0.008267 0 0.00 0 0.008268 0 0.00 0 0.008269 0 0.00 0 0.008270 0 0.00 1 1.698271 0 0.00 0 0.008272 0 0.00 0 0.008273 0 0.00 0 0.008274 0 0.00 0 0.00
189
Table B.9 Continued
8275 0 0.00 0 0.008276 0 0.00 0 0.008277 0 0.00 0 0.008278 0 0.00 0 0.008279 0 0.00 0 0.008280 0 0.00 0 0.008281 0 0.00 0 0.008282 0 0.00 0 0.008283 0 0.00 0 0.008284 0 0.00 0 0.008285 0 0.00 0 0.008286 0 0.00 0 0.008287 0 0.00 0 0.008288 0 0.00 0 0.008289 0 0.00 0 0.008290 0 0.00 0 0.008291 0 0.00 0 0.008292 0 0.00 0 0.008293 0 0.00 0 0.008294 0 0.00 0 0.008295 0 0.00 0 0.008296 0 0.00 0 0.008297 0 0.00 0 0.008298 3 0.05 0 0.008299 0 0.00 0 0.008300 0 0.00 0 0.008301 0 0.00 0 0.008302 0 0.00 0 0.008303 0 0.00 0 0.008304 0 0.00 0 0.008305 0 0.00 0 0.008306 0 0.00 0 0.008307 0 0.00 0 0.008308 0 0.00 0 0.008309 3 0.05 0 0.008310 5 0.09 1 1.698311 4 0.07 2 3.398312 2 0.04 0 0.008313 2 0.04 0 0.008314 6 0.11 2 3.398315 5 0.09 2 3.398316 3 0.05 1 1.698317 3 0.05 3 5.08
190
Table B.9 Continued
8318 2 0.04 2 3.398319 2 0.04 3 5.088320 3 0.05 0 0.008321 2 0.04 0 0.008322 1 0.02 0 0.008323 0 0.00 0 0.008324 1 0.02 0 0.008325 1 0.02 0 0.008326 1 0.02 0 0.008327 1 0.02 0 0.008328 0 0.00 0 0.008329 2 0.04 0 0.008330 3 0.05 0 0.008331 2 0.04 0 0.008332 1 0.02 0 0.008333 1 0.02 0 0.008334 1 0.02 0 0.008335 1 0.02 0 0.008336 0 0.00 0 0.008337 0 0.00 0 0.008338 4 0.07 0 0.008339 1 0.02 0 0.008340 1 0.02 0 0.008341 0 0.00 0 0.008342 0 0.00 0 0.008343 1 0.02 0 0.008344 4 0.07 0 0.008345 1 0.02 0 0.008346 4 0.07 0 0.008347 2 0.04 0 0.008348 0 0.00 0 0.008349 0 0.00 0 0.008350 3 0.05 0 0.008351 8 0.14 0 0.008352 2 0.04 0 0.008353 4 0.07 0 0.008354 6 0.11 0 0.008355 6 0.11 0 0.008356 1 0.02 0 0.008357 1 0.02 0 0.008358 1 0.02 0 0.008359 0 0.00 0 0.008360 0 0.00 0 0.00
191
Table B.9 Continued
8361 0 0.00 0 0.008362 3 0.05 0 0.008363 0 0.00 0 0.008364 0 0.00 0 0.008365 0 0.00 0 0.008366 1 0.02 0 0.008367 0 0.00 1 1.698368 0 0.00 1 1.698369 0 0.00 1 1.698370 0 0.00 0 0.00
192
Table B .10 Calculated Fracture Intensity from Oriented Micro Resistivity Logs (OMRL); State 34 1
STATE 34 1 (49-021-20331)OMRL
Length of track (mm): 38
Depth(ft)
Total Length of Res Contrast
(mm)
Fracture Intensity (% Length of Res
Contrast/Length of track)
7696 0 0.007697 0 0.007698 0 0.007699 0 0.007700 0 0.007701 0 0.007702 0 0.007703 0 0.007704 0 0.007705 0 0.007706 0 0.007707 0 0.007708 0 0.007709 8 21.057710 2 5.267711 0 0.007712 0 0.007713 1 2.637714 0 0.007715 0 0.007716 0 0.007717 0 0.007718 0 0.007719 0 0.007720 0 0.007721 0 0.007722 2 5.267723 0 0.007724 0 0.007725 0 0.007726 0 0.007927 0 0.007728 0 0.00
193
Table B.10 Continued
7729 0 0.007730 0 0.007731 0 0.007732 0 0.007733 0 0.007734 0 0.007735 0 0.007736 0 0.007737 0 0.007738 0 0.007739 0 0.007740 0 0.007741 0 0.007742 0 0.007743 0 0.007744 0 0.007745 0 0.007746 0 0.007747 0 0.007748 0 0.007749 0 0.007750 0 0.007751 0 0.007752 0 0.007753 0 0.007754 0 0.007755 0 0.007756 0 0.007757 0 0.007758 0 0.007759 0 0.007760 0 0.007761 0 0.007762 0 0.007763 0 0.007764 4 10.537765 0 0.007766 1 2.637767 0 0.007768 1 2.637769 0 0.007770 0 0.007771 0 0.00
194
Table B.10 Continued
7772 0 0.007773 0 0.007774 0 0.007775 0 0.007776 0 0.007777 0 0.007778 0 0.007779 0 0.007780 0 0.007781 2 5.267782 2 5.267783 1 2.637784 2 5.267785 1 2.637786 0 0.007787 0 0.007788 0 0.007789 0 0.007790 0 0.007791 0 0.007792 0 0.007793 0 0.007794 0 0.007795 0 0.007796 0 0.007797 0 0.007798 0 0.007799 2 5.267800 0 0.007801 2 5.267802 0 0.007803 0 0.007804 0 0.007805 0 0.007806 0 0.007807 0 0.007808 0 0.007809 0 0.007810 0 0.007811 1 2.637812 1 2.637813 1 2.637814 0 0.00
195
Table B.10 Continued
7815 2 5.267816 1 2.637817 1 2.637818 1 2.637819 2 5.267820 2 5.267821 1 2.637822 0 0.007823 0 0.007824 0 0.007825 0 0.007826 0 0.007827 0 0.007828 0 0.007829 0 0.007830 1 2.637831 0 0.007832 2 5.267833 1 2.637834 1 2.637835 1 2.637836 2 5.267837 0 0.007838 0 0.007839 0 0.007840 0 0.007841 0 0.007842 0 0.007843 0 0.007844 0 0.007845 0 0.007846 0 0.007847 0 0.007848 0 0.007849 0 0.007850 0 0.007851 0 0.007852 0 0.007853 0 0.007854 0 0.007855 0 0.007856 0 0.007857 0 0.00
196
Table B.10 Continued
7858 0 0.007859 0 0.007860 0 0.007861 0 0.007862 0 0.007863 0 0.007864 0 0.007865 0 0.007866 0 0.007867 0 0.007868 0 0.007869 0 0.007870 0 0.007871 0 0.007872 0 0.007873 0 0.007874 0 0.007875 0 0.007876 0 0.007877 0 0.007878 0 0.007879 0 0.007880 0 0.007881 0 0.007882 0 0.007883 0 0.007884 0 0.007885 2 5.267886 2 5.267887 2 5.267888 3 7.897889 2 5.267890 2 5.267891 0 0.007892 0 0.007893 0 0.007894 0 0.007895 0 0.007896 0 0.007897 0 0.007898 0 0.007899 0 0.007900 0 0.00
197
Table B.10 Continued
7901 0 0.007902 0 0.007903 0 0.007904 0 0.007905 0 0.007906 0 0.007907 0 0.007908 0 0.007909 0 0.007910 0 0.007911 0 0.007912 0 0.007913 0 0.007914 0 0.007915 0 0.007916 0 0.007917 0 0.007918 0 0.007919 0 0.007920 0 0.007921 0 0.007922 0 0.007923 0 0.007924 0 0.007925 0 0.007926 0 0.007927 0 0.007928 0 0.007929 0 0.007930 0 0.007931 0 0.007932 0 0.007933 0 0.007934 0 0.007935 0 0.007936 0 0.007937 0 0.007938 0 0.007939 0 0.007940 0 0.007941 0 0.007942 0 0.007943 0 0.00
198
Table B.10 Continued
7944 0 0.007945 1 2.637946 0 0.007947 0 0.007948 0 0.007949 0 0.007950 0 0.007951 0 0.007952 0 0.007953 0 0.007954 0 0.007955 0 0.007956 0 0.007957 0 0.007958 0 0.007959 0 0.007960 0 0.007961 0 0.007962 0 0.007963 0 0.007964 0 0.007965 0 0.007966 0 0.007967 0 0.007968 0 0.007969 0 0.007970 0 0.007971 3 7.897972 3 7.897973 1 2.637974 1 2.637975 0 0.007976 0 0.007977 0 0.007978 0 0.007979 0 0.007980 0 0.007981 0 0.007982 0 0.007983 0 0.007984 0 0.007985 0 0.007986 0 0.00
199
Table B.10 Continued
7987 0 0.00
7988 0 0.00
7989 0 0.00
7990 0 0.00
7991 0 0.00
7992 0 0.00
7993 0 0.00
7994 0 0.00
7995 0 0.00
7996 0 0.00
7997 0 0.00
7998 0 0.00
7999 0 0.00
8000 0 0.00
8001 0 0.00
8002 0 0.00
8003 0 0.00
8004 0 0.00
8005 0 0.00
8006 0 0.00
8007 0 0.00
8008 0 0.00
8009 0 0.00
8010 0 0.00
8011 0 0.00
8012 0 0.00
8013 0 0.00
8014 0 0.00
8015 0 0.00
8016 0 0.00
8017 0 0.00
8018 0 0.00
8019 0 0.00
8020 0 0.00
8021 0 0.00
8022 0 0.00
8023 0 0.00
8024 0 0.00
8025 0 0.00
8026 0 0.00
8027 0 0.00
8028 0 0.00
8029 0 0.00
200
8030
Table B.10 Continued
I 0 0.00
201
Table B.11 Calculated Fracture Intensity from Oriented Micro Resistivity Logs (OMRL) and Fracture Identification Logs (FID); Lee 41-5
LEE 41-5 (49-021-20349)OMRL FID
Length of track (mm): 35 Length of track (mm): 56
Depth(ft)
Total Length of Res Contrast
(mm)
Fracture Intensity (% Length of Res
Contrast/Length of track)
Total Length of Res Contrast
(mm)
Fracture Intensity (% Length of Res
Contrast/Length of track)
7898 4 11.43 0 0.007899 4 11.43 0 0.007900 5 14.29 0 0.007901 6 17.14 3 5.367902 5 14.29 10 17.867903 2 5.71 4 7.147904 2 5.71 0 0.007905 2 5.71 0 0.007906 2 5.71 0 0.007907 2 5.71 0 0.007908 2 5.71 1 1.797909 1 2.86 1 1.797910 2 5.71 0 0.007911 0 0.00 0 0.007912 0 0.00 0 0.007913 0 0.00 0 0.007914 0 0.00 0 0.007915 0 0.00 0 0.007916 0 0.00 0 0.007917 1 2.86 0 0.007918 0 0.00 0 0.007919 0 0.00 0 0.007920 0 0.00 0 0.007921 1 2.86 0 0.007922 0 0.00 0 0.007923 0 0.00 0 0.007924 0 0.00 0 0.007925 0 0.00 0 0.007926 0 0.00 0 0.007927 0 0.00 0 0.007928 2 5.71 0 0.007929 0 0.00 0 0.007930 0 0.00 0 0.00
202
Table B.11 Continued
7931 0 0.00 0 0.007932 0 0.00 0 0.007933 0 0.00 0 0.007934 0 0.00 0 0.007935 0 0.00 3 5.367936 0 0.00 3 5.367937 0 0.00 0 0.007938 0 0.00 0 0.007939 0 0.00 0 0.007940 2 5.71 0 0.007941 1 2.86 2 3.577942 0 0.00 0 0.007943 2 5.71 0 0.007944 0 0.00 0 0.007945 0 0.00 0 0.007946 1 2.86 0 0.007947 0 0.00 0 0.007948 1 2.86 0 0.007949 3 8.57 1 1.797950 5 14.29 1 1.797951 1 2.86 2 3.577952 2 5.71 1 1.797953 2 5.71 0 0.007954 1 2.86 1 1.797955 1 2.86 0 0.007956 1 2.86 0 0.007957 1 2.86 1 1.797958 0 0.00 0 0.007959 0 0.00 0 0.007960 0 0.00 0 0.007961 1 2.86 2 3.577962 0 0.00 0 0.007963 2 5.71 0 0.007964 2 5.71 0 0.007965 1 2.86 1 1.797966 0 0.00 0 0.007967 1 2.86 0 0.007968 2 5.71 0 0.007969 2 5.71 0 0.007970 3 8.57 0 0.007971 3 8.57 1 1.797972 2 5.71 3 5.367973 3 8.57 2 3.57
203
Table B.11 Continued
7974 3 8.57 0 0.00
7975 1 2.86 0 0.00
7976 1 2.86 0 0.00
7977 2 5.71 1 1.79
7978 2 5.71 0 0.00
7979 2 5.71 0 0.00
7980 1 2.86 0 0.00
7981 1 2.86 0 0.00
7982 1 2.86 0 0.00
7983 1 2.86 0 0.00
7984 2 5.71 0 0.00
7985 4 11.43 0 0.00
7986 6 17.14 9 16.07
7987 2 5.71 3 5.36
7988 4 11.43 0 0.00
7989 2 5.71 10 17.86
7990 3 8.57 0 0.00
Length of track (mm): 617991 6 1.64 0 0.00
7992 1 4.92 0 0.00
7993 3 0.00 0 0.00
7994 0 0.00 0 0.00
7995 0 0.00 0 0.00
7996 0 0.00 0 0.00
7997 0 0.00 0 0.00
7998 0 6.56 0 0.00
7999 4 9.84 0 0.00
8000 6 8.20 0 0.00
8001 5 9.84 1 1.79
8002 6 1.64 0 0.00
8003 1 14.75 1 1.79
8004 9 16.39 3 5.36
8005 10 13.11 4 7.14
8006 8 16.39 3 5.36
8007 10 21.31 4 7.14
8008 13 19.67 5 8.93
8009 12 22.95 25 44.64
8010 14 14.75 34 60.71
8011 9 8.20 22 39.29
8012 5 16.39 22 39.29
8013 10 11.48 21 37.50
8014 7 18.03 15 26.79
8015 11 16.39 8 14.29
204
Table B.11 Continued
8016 10 19.67 0 0.00
8017 12 16.39 14 25.00
8018 10 32.79 9 16.07
8019 20 26.23 14 25.00
8020 16 34.43 12 21.43
8021 21 4.92 0 0.00
8022 3 14.75 0 0.00
8023 9 21.31 10 17.86
8024 13 24.59 0 0.00
8025 15 22.95 21 37.50
8026 14 19.67 0 0.00
8027 12 18.03 14 25.00
8028 11 19.67 17 30.36
8029 12 16.39 16 28.57
8030 10 11.48 12 21.43
8031 7 13.11 14 25.00
8032 8 11.48 8 14.29
8033 7 8.20 19 33.93
8034 5 9.84 9 16.07
8035 6 8.20 29 51.79
8036 5 11.48 18 32.14
8037 7 13.11 12 21.43
8038 8 8.20 29 51.79
8039 5 8.20 11 19.64
8040 5 3.28 0 0.00
8041 2 6.56 4 7.14
8042 4 3.28 0 0.00
8043 2 0.00 0 0.00
8044 0 0.00 0 0.00
8045 0 0.00 0 0.00
8046 0 1.64 0 0.00
8047 1 1.64 0 0.00
8048 1 0.00 0 0.00
8049 0 0.00 0 0.00
8050 0 0.00 0 0.00
8051 0 0.00 0 0.00
8052 0 0.00 0 0.00
8053 0 0.00 0 0.00
8054 0 0.00 0 0.00
8055 0 0.00 0 0.00
8056 0 0.00 0 0.00
8057 0 0.00 0 0.00
8058 0 0.00 0 0.00
205
Table B.11 Continued
8059 0 0.00 0 0.00
8060 0 0.00 0 0.00
8061 0 0.00 0 0.00
8062 0 0.00 0 0.00
8063 0 0.00 0 0.00
8064 0 0.00 0 0.00
8065 0 0.00 0 0.00
8066 0 0.00 0 0.00
8067 0 0.00 0 0.00
8068 0 0.00 0 0.00
8069 0 0.00 0 0.00
8070 0 0.00 0 0.00
8071 0 0.00 1 1.79
8072 0 0.00 2 3.57
8073 0 0.00 0 0.00
8074 0 0.00 0 0.00
8075 0 0.00 0 0.00
8076 0 0.00 0 0.00
8077 0 0.00 0 0.00
8078 0 0.00 0 0.00
8079 0 0.00 0 0.00
8080 0 0.00 0 0.00
8081 0 0.00 0 0.00
8082 1 2.86 0 0.00
8083 1 2.86 0 0.00
8084 2 5.71 3 5.36
8085 0 0.00 2 3.57
8086 0 0.00 4 7.14
8087 0 0.00 3 5.36
8088 0 0.00 0 0.00
8089 0 0.00 0 0.00
8090 0 0.00 0 0.00
8091 0 0.00 0 0.00
8092 0 0.00 0 0.00
8093 0 0.00 0 0.00
8094 0 0.00 0 0.00
8095 0 0.00 0 0.00
8096 3 8.57 12 21.43
8097 2 5.71 24 42.86
8098 6 17.14 7 12.50
8099 1 2.86 7 12.50
8100 0 0.00 0 0.00
8101 0 0.00 0 0.00
206
Table B.11 Continued
8102 0 0.00 0 0.008103 0 0.00 0 0.008104 0 0.00 0 0.008105 0 0.00 0 0.008106 0 0.00 0 0.008107 0 0.00 0 0.008108 0 0.00 0 0.008109 0 0.00 0 0.008110 0 0.00 0 0.008111 0 0.00 0 0.008112 0 0.00 0 0.008113 0 0.00 0 0.008114 0 0.00 0 0.008115 0 0.00 0 0.008116 0 0.00 0 0.008117 0 0.00 3 5.368118 0 0.00 0 0.008119 0 0.00 0 0.008120 0 0.00 2 3.578121 0 0.00 0 0.008122 0 0.00 0 0.008123 0 0.00 0 0.008124 2 5.71 0 0.008125 1 2.86 0 0.008126 2 5.71 0 0.008127 1 2.86 0 0.008128 0 0.00 0 0.008129 3 8.57 4 7.148130 1 2.86 0 0.008131 1 2.86 0 0.008132 1 2.86 1 1.798133 2 5.71 0 0.008134 0 0.00 0 0.008135 0 0.00 2 3.578136 2 5.71 0 0.008137 4 11.43 6 10.718138 2 5.71 2 3.578139 4 11.43 4 7.148140 1 2.86 0 0.008141 3 8.57 2 3.578142 4 11.43 0 0.008143 5 14.29 13 23.218144 6 17.14 17 30.36
207
Table B.11 Continued
8145 3 8.57 20 35.718146 2 5.71 11 19.648147 2 5.71 0 0.008148 2 5.71 0 0.008149 1 2.86 0 0.008150 1 2.86 0 0.008151 1 2.86 0 0.008152 0 0.00 0 0.008153 0 0.00 0 0.008154 0 0.00 0 0.008155 0 0.00 0 0.008156 0 0.00 0 0.008157 0 0.00 0 0.008158 0 0.00 0 0.008159 0 0.00 0 0.008160 0 0.00 0 0.008161 0 0.00 0 0.008162 0 0.00 0 0.008163 1 2.86 0 0.008164 1 2.86 0 0.008165 1 2.86 0 0.008166 2 5.71 0 0.008167 0 0.00 0 0.008168 0 0.00 0 0.008169 3 8.57 0 0.008170 4 11.43 0 0.008171 1 2.86 0 0.008172 1 2.86 0 0.008173 1 2.86 0 0.008174 1 2.86 0 0.008175 1 2.86 0 0.008176 1 2.86 0 0.008177 1 2.86 0 0.008178 2 5.71 0 0.008179 2 5.71 10 17.868180 3 8.57 7 12.508181 2 5.71 2 3.578182 0 0.00 0 0.008183 0 0.00 0 0.008184 1 2.86 6 10.718185 1 2.86 1 1.798186 0 0.00 0 0.008187 4 11.43 3 5.36
208
Table B.11 Continued
8188 4 11.43 6 10.718189 1 2.86 4 7.148190 2 5.71 2 3.578191 1 2.86 3 5.368192 2 3.578193 1 1.798194 1 1.798195 5 8.938196 7 12.50
209
Table B .12 Calculated Fracture Intensity from Oriented Micro Resistivity Logs (OMRL);
State 2 1
STATE 2 1 (49-021-20350)OMRL
Length of track (mm): 71
Depth(ft)
Total Length of Res Contrast
(mm)
Fracture Intensity (% Length of Res
Contrast/Length of track)
7640 0 0.007641 0 0.007642 0 0.007643 0 0.007644 0 0.007645 0 0.007646 0 0.007647 0 0.007648 0 0.007649 0 0.007650 0 0.007651 0 0.007652 2 2.827653 1 1.417654 0 0.007655 0 0.007656 0 0.007657 0 0.007658 0 0.007659 0 0.007660 0 0.007661 0 0.007662 0 0.007663 12 16.907664 8 11.277665 0 0.007666 0 0.007667 0 0.007668 0 0.007669 0 0.007670 0 0.007971 0 0.007672 0 0.00
210
Table B.12 Continued
7673 0 0.00
7674 0 0.00
7675 0 0.00
7676 0 0.00
7677 0 0.00
7678 0 0.00
7679 0 0.00
7680 0 0.00
7681 0 0.00
7682 0 0.00
7683 0 0.00
7684 0 0.00
7685 0 0.00
7686 0 0.00
7687 0 0.00
7688 0 0.00
7689 0 0.00
7690 0 0.00
7691 0 0.00
7692 0 0.00
7693 0 0.00
7694 0 0.00
7695 0 0.00
7696 0 0.00
7697 0 0.00
7698 0 0.00
7699 3 4.23
7700 0 0.00
7701 0 0.00
7702 0 0.00
7703 0 0.00
7704 0 0.00
7705 0 0.00
7706 0 0.00
7707 0 0.00
7708 0 0.00
7709 0 0.00
7710 1 1.41
7711 1 1.41
7712 1 1.41
7713 0 0.00
7714 0 0.00
7715 0 0.00
211
Table B.12 Continued
7716 0 0.007717 1 1.417718 1 1.417719 1 1.417720 3 4.237721 2 2.827722 2 2.827723 0 0.007724 0 0.007725 2 2.827726 2 2.827727 0 0.007728 0 0.007729 0 0.007730 0 0.007731 0 0.007732 0 0.007733 0 0.007734 0 0.007735 0 0.007736 6 8.457737 1 1.417738 14 19.727739 1 1.417740 0 0.007741 0 0.007742 0 0.007743 0 0.007744 1 1.417745 2 2.827746 4 5.637747 1 1.417748 0 0.007749 2 2.827750 5 7.047751 5 7.047752 6 8.457753 5 7.047754 3 4.237755 3 4.237756 5 7.047757 2 2.827758 5 7.04
212
Table B.12 Continued
7759 5 7.047760 7 9.867761 4 5.637762 6 8.457763 2 2.827764 2 2.827765 4 5.637766 4 5.637767 2 2.827768 3 4.237769 4 5.637770 6 8.457771 6 8.457772 5 7.047773 4 5.637774 3 4.237775 2 2.827776 1 1.417777 3 4.237778 5 7.047779 3 4.237780 2 2.827781 1 1.417782 0 0.007783 0 0.007784 0 0.007785 3 4.237786 0 0.007787 0 0.007788 0 0.007789 0 0.007790 0 0.007791 0 0.007792 0 0.007793 0 0.007794 0 0.007795 0 0.007796 0 0.007797 0 0.007798 0 0.007799 0 0.007800 0 0.007801 0 0.00
213
Table B.12 Continued
7802 0 0.007803 0 0.007804 0 0.007805 0 0.007806 0 0.007807 0 0.007808 0 0.007809 0 0.007810 0 0.007811 0 0.007812 0 0.007813 0 0.007814 0 0.007815 0 0.007816 0 0.007817 0 0.007818 0 0.007819 0 0.007820 0 0.007821 0 0.007822 0 0.007823 0 0.007824 0 0.007825 0 0.007826 0 0.007827 0 0.007828 0 0.007829 0 0.007830 0 0.007831 0 0.007832 0 0.007833 0 0.007834 0 0.007835 0 0.007836 0 0.007837 0 0.007838 0 0.007839 0 0.007840 0 0.007841 0 0.007842 0 0.007843 0 0.007844 0 0.00
214
Table B.12 Continued
7845 0 0.00
7846 0 0.00
7847 0 0.00
7848 0 0.00
7849 0 0.00
7850 0 0.00
7851 0 0.00
7852 0 0.00
7853 0 0.00
7854 0 0.00
7855 0 0.00
7856 0 0.00
7857 0 0.00
7858 0 0.00
7859 0 0.00
7860 0 0.00
7861 0 0.00
7862 0 0.00
7863 0 0.00
7864 0 0.00
7865 0 0.00
7866 0 0.00
7867 0 0.00
7868 0 0.00
7869 0 0.00
7870 7 9.86
7871 6 8.45
7872 6 8.45
7873 4 5.63
7874 4 5.63
7875 4 5.63
7876 4 5.63
7877 5 7.04
7878 5 7.04
7879 2 2.82
7880 3 4.23
7881 2 2.82
7882 3 4.23
7883 4 5.63
7884 5 7.04
7885 5 7.04
7886 4 5.63
7887 3 4.23
215
Table B.12 Continued
7888 4 5.637889 3 4.237890 6 8.457891 6 8.457892 9 12.687893 3 4.237894 8 11.277895 5 7.047896 4 5.637897 2 2.827898 4 5.637899 2 2.827900 1 1.417901 0 0.007902 0 0.007903 0 0.007904 0 0.007905 0 0.007906 0 0.007907 0 0.007908 0 0.007909 0 0.007910 0 0.007911 0 0.007912 2 2.827913 0 0.007914 2 2.827915 0 0.007916 0 0.007917 0 0.007918 0 0.007919 0 0.007920 0 0.007921 0 0.007922 0 0.007923 0 0.007924 0 0.007925 0 0.007926 0 0.007927 0 0.007928 0 0.007929 0 0.007930 0 0.00
216
Table B.12 Continued
7931 0 0.007932 0 0.007933 0 0.007934 0 0.007935 0 0.007936 0 0.007937 0 0.007938 0 0.007939 0 0.007940 0 0.007941 0 0.007942 0 0.007943 0 0.007944 0 0.007945 0 0.007946 0 0.007947 0 0.007948 0 0.007949 0 0.007950 0 0.00
217
Table B.13 Calculated Fracture Intensity from Oriented Micro Resistivity Logs (OMRL) and Fracture Identification Logs (FID); Combs 4 1
COMBS 4 1 (49-021-20351)OMRL FID
Length of track (mm): 57 Length o f track (mm): 67
Depth(ft)
Total Length of Res Contrast
(mm)
Fracture Intensity (% Length of Res
Contrast/Length of track)
Total Length of Res Contrast
(mm)
Fracture Intensity (% Length of Res
Contrast/Length of track)
8206 0 0.00 0 0.008207 5 8.77 0 0.008208 3 5.26 0 0.008209 3 5.26 0 0.008210 6 10.53 0 0.008211 2 3.51 0 0.008212 2 3.51 0 0.008213 4 7.02 0 0.008214 10 17.54 0 0.008215 2 3.51 12 20.348216 6 10.53 3 5.088217 5 8.77 10 16.958218 4 7.02 8 13.568219 3 5.26 6 10.178220 3 5.26 2 3.398221 0 0.00 5 8.478222 1 1.75 0 0.008223 0 0.00 0 0.008224 2 3.51 0 0.008225 1 1.75 0 0.008226 0 0.00 0 0.008227 0 0.00 0 0.008228 0 0.00 0 0.008229 0 0.00 0 0.008230 1 1.75 0 0.008231 0 0.00 0 0.008232 1 1.75 0 0.008233 0 0.00 0 0.008234 0 0.00 0 0.008235 0 0.00 0 0.008236 0 0.00 0 0.008237 0 0.00 0 0.008238 0 0.00 2 3.39
218
Table B.13 Continued
8239 0 0.00 0 0.00
8240 0 0.00 0 0.00
8241 4 7.02 0 0.00
8242 3 5.26 7 11.86
8243 2 3.51 3 5.08
8244 6 10.53 9 15.25
8245 8 14.04 6 10.17
8246 4 7.02 21 35.59
8247 4 7.02 7 11.86
8248 4 7.02 8 13.56
8249 4 7.02 5 8.47
8250 0 0.00 0 0.00
8251 0 0.00 3 5.08
8252 2 3.51 0 0.00
8253 1 1.75 0 0.00
8254 3 5.26 0 0.00
8255 2 3.51 0 0.00
8256 6 10.53 3 5.08
8257 6 10.53 7 11.86
8258 4 7.02 0 0.00
8259 3 5.26 7 11.86
8260 3 5.26 0 0.00
8261 2 3.51 7 11.86
8262 1 1.75 0 0.00
8263 0 0.00 0 0.00
8264 0 0.00 0 0.00
8265 0 0.00 0 0.00
8266 3 5.26 2 3.39
8267 2 3.51 9 15.25
8268 2 3.51 16 27.12
8269 3 5.26 14 23.73
8270 2 3.51 0 0.00
8271 1 1.75 0 0.00
8272 4 7.02 5 8.47
8273 4 7.02 2 3.39
8274 5 8.77 3 5.08
8275 5 8.77 7 11.86
8276 5 8.77 3 5.08
8277 4 7.02 6 10.17
8278 4 7.02 6 10.17
8279 4 7.02 2 3.39
8280 2 3.51 0 0.00
8281 2 3.51 7 11.86
219
Table B.13 Continued
8282 3 5.26 8 13.56
8283 3 5.26 10 16.95
8284 4 7.02 4 6.78
8285 4 7.02 4 6.78
8286 6 10.53 3 5.08
8287 1 1.75 7 11.86
8288 3 5.26 10 16.95
8289 3 5.26 10 16.95
8290 2 3.51 12 20.34
8291 11 19.30 20 33.90
8292 9 15.79 1 1.69
8293 4 7.02 8 13.56
8294 9 15.79 0 0.00
8295 0 0.00 10 16.95
8296 2 3.51 0 0.00
8297 7 12.28 0 0.00
8298 24 42.11 46 77.97
8299 12 21.05 25 42.37
8300 9 15.79 9 15.25
8301 5 8.77 13 22.03
8302 2 3.51 1 1.69
8303 2 3.51 0 0.00
8304 0 0.00 0 0.00
8305 0 0.00 0 0.00
8306 9 15.79 4 6.78
8307 1 1.75 4 6.78
8308 2 3.51 2 3.39
8309 1 1.75 0 0.00
8310 2 3.51 0 0.00
8311 12 21.05 6 10.17
8312 6 10.53 2 3.39
8313 5 8.77 4 6.78
8314 6 10.53 6 10.17
8315 0 0.00 6 10.17
8316 5 8.77 5 8.47
8317 1 1.75 9 15.25
8318 1 1.75 0 0.00
8319 1 1.75 15 25.42
8320 1 1.75 2 3.39
8321 2 3.51 16 27.12
8322 5 8.77 12 20.34
8323 3 5.26 1 1.69
8324 3 5.26 5 8.47
220
Table B.13 Continued
8325 5 8.77 0 0.008326 7 12.28 6 10.178327 5 8.77 5 8.478328 6 10.53 3 5.088329 5 8.77 6 10.178330 6 10.53 5 8.478331 8 14.04 7 11.868332 8 14.04 3 5.088333 6 10.53 4 6.788334 2 3.51 5 8.478335 0 0.00 5 8.478336 2 3.51 6 10.178337 2 3.51 8 13.568338 2 3.51 2 3.398339 1 1.75 3 5.088340 0 0.00 0 0.008341 1 1.75 0 0.008342 14 24.56 0 0.008343 3 5.26 0 0.008344 0 0.00 1 1.698345 0 0.00 0 0.008346 0 0.00 0 0.008347 0 0.00 0 0.008348 6 10.53 5 8.478349 1 1.75 0 0.008350 1 1.75 0 0.008351 5 8.77 0 0.008352 5 8.77 3 5.088353 0 0.00 5 8.478354 0 0.00 1 1.698355 0 0.00 0 0.008356 0 0.00 0 0.008357 0 0.00 0 0.008358 0 0.00 0 0.008359 0 0.00 0 0.008360 0 0.00 0 0.008361 0 0.00 0 0.008362 0 0.00 0 0.008363 0 0.00 0 0.008364 2 3.51 0 0.008365 1 1.75 14 23.738366 0 0.00 11 18.648367 0 0.00 0 0.00
221
Table B.13 Continued
8368 1 1.75 12 20.348369 1 1.75 15 25.428370 1 1.75 15 25.428371 1 1.75 14 23.738372 0 0.00 0 0.008373 0 0.00 1 1.698374 0 0.00 0 0.008375 2 3.51 5 8.478376 0 0.00 1 1.698377 0 0.00 0 0.008378 0 0.00 0 0.008379 0 0.00 0 0.008380 0 0.00 0 0.008381 0 0.00 2 3.398382 0 0.00 1 1.698383 0 0.00 6 10.178384 0 0.00 1 1.698385 0 0.00 3 5.088386 0 0.00 1 1.698387 0 0.00 2 3.398388 0 0.00 0 0.008389 0 0.00 17 28.818390 3 5.26 21 35.598391 0 0.00 10 16.958392 0 0.00 5 8.478393 0 0.00 0 0.008394 0 0.00 0 0.008395 0 0.00 0 0.008396 0 0.00 4 6.788397 0 0.00 5 8.478398 0 0.00 0 0.008399 0 0.00 1 1.698400 0 0.00 2 3.398401 0 0.00 8 13.568402 0 0.00 0 0.008403 0 0.00 0 0.008404 2 3.51 20 33.908405 0 0.00 15 25.428406 0 0.00 12 20.348407 0 0.00 7 11.868408 0 0.00 0 0.008409 2 3.51 9 15.258410 2 3.51 9 15.25
222
Table B.13 Continued
8411 0 0.00 11 18.648412 0 0.00 6 10.178413 0 0.00 0 0.008414 0 0.00 0 0.008415 0 0.00 0 0.008416 0 0.00 0 0.008417 0 0.00 2 3.398418 0 0.00 0 0.008419 0 0.00 0 0.008420 0 0.00 0 0.008421 0 0.00 6 10.178422 0 0.00 1 1.698423 0 0.00 0 0.008424 0 0.00 0 0.008425 0 0.00 0 0.008426 0 0.00 0 0.008427 0 0.00 24 40.688428 1 1.75 21 35.598429 1 1.75 17 28.818430 0 0.00 7 11.868431 0 0.00 0 0.008432 0 0.00 0 0.008433 0 0.00 0 0.008434 8 14.04 8 13.568435 4 7.02 11 18.648436 3 5.26 3 5.088437 4 7.02 2 3.398438 4 7.02 2 3.398439 3 5.26 5 8.478440 12 21.05 3 5.088441 4 7.02 15 25.428442 9 15.79 4 6.788443 9 15.79 21 35.598444 14 24.56 19 32.208445 10 17.54 21 35.598446 6 10.53 10 16.958447 4 7.02 11 18.648448 5 8.77 9 15.258449 4 7.02 12 20.348450 2 3.51 4 6.788451 1 1.75 4 6.788452 1 1.75 0 0.008453 3 5.26 5 8.47
223
Table B.13 Continued
8454 4 7.02 11 18.64
8455 2 3.51 6 10.17
8456 1 1.75 2 3.39
8457 5 8.77 4 6.78
8458 3 5.26 0 0.00
8459 1 1.75 15 25.42
8460 0 0.00 2 3.39
8461 0 0.00 0 0.00
8462 2 3.51 0 0.00
8463 2 3.51 8 13.56
8464 4 7.02 14 23.73
8465 4 7.02 17 28.81
8466 0 0.00 0 0.00
8467 1 1.75 0 0.00
8468 6 10.53 9 15.25
8469 9 15.79 0 0.00
8470 7 12.28 5 8.47
8471 4 7.02 1 1.69
8472 5 8.77 0 0.00
8473 2 3.51 0 0.00
8474 0 0.00 0 0.00
8475 1 1.75 0 0.00
8476 4 7.02 0 0.00
8477 3 5.26 4 6.78
8478 7 12.28 0 0.00
8479 0 0.00 0 0.00
8480 3 5.26 0 0.00
8481 1 1.75 0 0.00
8482 0 0.00 5 8.47
8483 2 3.51 8 13.56
8484 1 1.75 8 13.56
8485 0 0.00 0 0.00
8486 0 0.00 3 5.08
8487 0 0.00 6 10.17
8488 3 5.26 0 0.00
8489 2 3.51 5 8.47
8490 0 0.00 0 0.00
8491 2 3.51 0 0.00
8492 1 1.75 4 6.78
8493 3 5.26 16 27.12
8494 0 0.00 2 3.39
8495 0 0.00 0 0.00
8496 0 0.00 0 0.00
224
Table B .14 Calculated Fracture Intensity from Oriented Micro Resistivity Logs (OMRL) and Fracture Identification Logs (FID); Combs 7
COMBS 7 (49-021-20353)OMRL FID
Length of track (mm): 32 Length of track (mm): 59
Depth(ft)
Total Length of Res Contrast
(mm)
Fracture Intensity (% Length of Res
Contrast/Length of track)
Total Length of Res Contrast
(mm)
Fracture Intensity (% Length of Res
Contrast/Length of track)
8162 3 9.38 0 0.008163 4 12.50 0 0.008164 2 6.25 1 1.698165 7 21.88 0 0.008166 1 3.13 2 3.398167 0 0.00 3 5.088168 0 0.00 0 0.008169 0 0.00 4 6.788170 0 0.00 2 3.398171 0 0.00 7 11.868172 0 0.00 9 15.258173 0 0.00 4 6.788174 0 0.00 0 0.008175 0 0.00 0 0.008176 0 0.00 0 0.008177 0 0.00 0 0.008178 0 0.00 0 0.008179 0 0.00 2 3.398180 0 0.00 0 0.008181 0 0.00 0 0.008182 0 0.00 1 1.698183 0 0.00 0 0.008184 0 0.00 0 0.008185 1 3.13 0 0.008186 0 0.00 1 1.698187 0 0.00 0 0.008188 1 3.13 0 0.008189 0 0.00 1 1.698190 0 0.00 0 0.008191 1 3.13 0 0.008192 0 0.00 0 0.008193 0 0.00 0 0.008194 0 0.00 0 0.00
225
Table B.14 Continued
8195 0 0.00 0 0.008196 2 6.25 3 5.088197 0 0.00 0 0.008198 0 0.00 0 0.008199 6 18.75 9 15.258200 0 0.00 1 1.698201 0 0.00 0 0.008202 0 0.00 2 3.398203 0 0.00 0 0.008204 0 0.00 3 5.088205 0 0.00 0 0.008206 0 0.00 0 0.008207 0 0.00 1 1.698208 1 3.13 4 6.788209 2 6.25 4 6.788210 2 6.25 3 5.088211 2 6.25 0 0.008212 2 6.25 0 0.008213 0 0.00 2 3.398214 0 0.00 0 0.008215 1 3.13 0 0.008216 1 3.13 2 3.398217 0 0.00 0 0.008218 0 0.00 0 0.008219 0 0.00 0 0.008220 0 0.00 5 8.478221 0 0.00 0 0.008222 1 3.13 4 6.788223 1 3.13 0 0.008224 0 0.00 0 0.008225 0 0.00 5 8.478226 0 0.00 0 0.008227 2 6.25 2 3.398228 3 9.38 0 0.008229 1 3.13 0 0.008230 0 0.00 0 0.008231 0 0.00 6 10.178232 0 0.00 1 1.698233 0 0.00 1 1.698234 1 3.13 7 11.868235 0 0.00 0 0.008236 0 0.00 2 3.398237 1 3.13 0 0.00
226
Table B.14 Continued
8238 1 3.13 0 0.008239 0 0.00 4 6.788240 0 0.00 0 0.008241 0 0.00 0 0.008242 0 0.00 0 0.008243 1 3.13 2 3.398244 0 0.00 0 0.008245 0 0.00 0 0.008246 1 3.13 0 0.008247 1 3.13 0 0.008248 1 3.13 0 0.008249 3 9.38 0 0.008250 0 0.00 0 0.008251 0 0.00 0 0.008252 9 28.13 0 0.008253 0 0.00 0 0.008254 0 0.00 0 0.008255 2 6.25 15 25.428256 0 0.00 2 3.398257 0 0.00 1 1.698258 0 0.00 0 0.008259 0 0.00 9 15.258260 0 0.00 8 13.568261 0 0.00 0 0.008262 3 9.38 2 3.398263 1 3.13 1 1.698264 1 3.13 0 0.008265 2 6.25 0 0.008266 1 3.13 0 0.008267 0 0.00 1 1.698268 0 0.00 0 0.008269 1 3.13 2 3.398270 1 3.13 2 3.398271 0 0.00 0 0.008272 1 3.13 2 3.398273 0 0.00 0 0.008274 0 0.00 0 0.008275 0 0.00 0 0.008276 0 0.00 0 0.008277 0 0.00 0 0.008278 0 0.00 1 1.698279 1 3.13 2 3.398280 0 0.00 0 0.00
227
Table B.14 Continued
8281 0 0.00 0 0.008282 0 0.00 0 0.008283 0 0.00 0 0.008284 0 0.00 0 0.008285 0 0.00 0 0.008286 1 3.13 0 0.008287 1 3.13 0 0.008288 1 3.13 1 1.698289 0 0.00 0 0.008290 0 0.00 0 0.008291 0 0.00 1 1.698292 0 0.00 2 3.398293 0 0.00 3 5.088294 1 3.13 2 3.398295 0 0.00 0 0.008296 0 0.00 0 0.008297 0 0.00 0 0.008298 0 0.00 0 0.008299 3 9.38 0 0.008300 0 0.00 0 0.008301 0 0.00 0 0.008302 0 0.00 0 0.008303 0 0.00 0 0.008304 0 0.00 0 0.008305 0 0.00 0 0.008306 0 0.00 0 0.008307 0 0.00 0 0.008308 0 0.00 3 5.088309 0 0.00 1 1.698310 0 0.00 1 1.698311 0 0.00 0 0.008312 0 0.00 0 0.008313 0 0.00 0 0.008314 0 0.00 0 0.008315 0 0.00 10 16.958316 0 0.00 0 0.008317 0 0.00 0 0.008318 0 0.00 0 0.008319 0 0.00 0 0.008320 0 0.00 0 0.008321 0 0.00 0 0.008322 0 0.00 0 0.008323 0 0.00 0 0.00
228
Table B.14 Continued
8324 0 0.00 0 0.00
8325 0 0.00 0 0.00
8326 0 0.00 0 0.00
8327 0 0.00 22 37.29
8328 0 0.00 0 0.00
8329 0 0.00 0 0.00
8330 0 0.00 0 0.00
8331 0 0.00 0 0.00
8332 0 0.00 0 0.00
8333 0 0.00 0 0.00
8334 0 0.00 0 0.00
8335 0 0.00 0 0.00
8336 0 0.00 0 0.00
8337 0 0.00 0 0.00
8338 0 0.00 0 0.00
8339 1 3.13 11 18.64
8340 1 3.13 12 20.34
8341 0 0.00 0 0.00
8342 0 0.00 0 0.00
8343 0 0.00 0 0.00
8344 0 0.00 0 0.00
8345 0 0.00 0 0.00
8346 0 0.00 0 0.00
8347 0 0.00 0 0.00
8348 0 0.00 0 0.00
8349 0 0.00 0 0.00
8350 0 0.00 0 0.00
8351 0 0.00 0 0.00
8352 0 0.00 0 0.00
8353 0 0.00 0 0.00
8354 0 0.00 0 0.00
8355 0 0.00 0 0.00
8356 0 0.00 4 6.78
8357 0 0.00 4 6.78
8358 0 0.00 4 6.78
8359 0 0.00 0 0.00
8360 0 0.00 0 0.00
8361 0 0.00 0 0.00
8362 0 0.00 0 0.00
8363 0 0.00 0 0.00
8364 0 0.00 0 0.00
8365 0 0.00 0 0.00
8366 0 0.00 5 8.47
229
Table B.14 Continued
8367 0 0.00 5 8.478368 0 0.00 4 6.788369 0 0.00 0 0.008370 0 0.00 0 0.008371 0 0.00 0 0.008372 0 0.00 0 0.008373 0 0.00 0 0.008374 0 0.00 0 0.008375 0 0.00 0 0.008376 0 0.00 0 0.008377 0 0.00 0 0.008378 0 0.00 0 0.008379 0 0.00 0 0.008380 0 0.00 0 0.008381 0 0.00 3 5.088382 0 0.00 0 0.008383 0 0.00 0 0.008384 0 0.00 0 0.008385 0 0.00 0 0.008386 0 0.00 0 0.008387 0 0.00 0 0.008388 0 0.00 0 0.008389 0 0.00 0 0.008390 0 0.00 0 0.008391 0 0.00 0 0.008392 0 0.00 0 0.008393 0 0.00 0 0.008394 0 0.00 0 0.008395 0 0.00 0 0.008396 0 0.00 7 11.868397 0 0.00 0 0.008398 0 0.00 4 6.788399 0 0.00 0 0.008400 0 0.00 1 1.698401 0 0.00 0 0.008402 0 0.00 0 0.008403 0 0.00 1 1.698404 0 0.00 0 0.008405 0 0.00 0 0.008406 0 0.00 0 0.008407 0 0.00 11 18.648408 0 0.00 0 0.008409 1 3.13 0 0.00
230
Table B.14 Continued
8410 1 3.13 2 3.398411 1 3.13 8 13.568412 1 3.13 0 0.008413 0 0.00 4 6.788414 0 0.00 0 0.008415 0 0.00 0 0.008416 0 0.00 6 10.178417 0 0.00 6 10.178418 0 0.00 1 1.698419 0 0.00 9 15.258420 0 0.00 0 0.008421 0 0.00 0 0.008422 0 0.00 0 0.008423 0 0.00 0 0.008424 0 0.00 0 0.008425 1 3.13 15 25.428426 1 3.13 4 6.788427 1 3.13 0 0.008428 7 21.88 3 5.088429 0 0.00 0 0.008430 0 0.00 0 0.008431 0 0.00 0 0.008432 0 0.00 0 0.008433 0 0.00 0 0.008434 1 3.13 0 0.008435 0 0.00 0 0.008436 0 0.00 0 0.008437 1 3.13 1 1.698438 0 0.00 0 0.008439 1 3.13 1 1.698440 0 0.00 0 0.008441 0 0.00 2 3.398442 0 0.00 1 1.698443 0 0.00 1 1.698444 0 0.00 0 0.008445 0 0.00 3 5.088446 0 0.00 0 0.008447 0 0.00 0 0.008448 0 0.00 0 0.008449 0 0.00 2 3.398450 0 0.00 2 3.398451 0 0.00 0 0.008452 0 0.00 11 18.64
231
Table B.14 Continued
8453 0 0.00 0 0.008454 0 0.00 3 5.088455 0 0.00 14 23.738456 0 0.00 0 0.008457 0 0.00 0 0.00
232
Table B .15 Calculated Fracture Intensity from Fracture Identification Logs (FID); Warren 1
WARREN 1 (49-021-20356)FID
Length of track (mm): 49
Depth(ft)
Total Length of Res Contrast
(mm)
Fracture Intensity (% Length of Res
Contrast/Length of track)
8041 0 0.008042 0 0.008043 8 16.338044 0 0.008045 8 16.338046 0 0.008047 0 0.008048 0 0.008049 0 0.008050 1 2.048051 1 2.048052 0 0.008053 1 2.048054 0 0.008055 5 10.208056 0 0.008057 1 2.048058 0 0.008059 0 0.008060 0 0.008061 0 0.008062 0 0.008063 0 0.008064 0 0.008065 0 0.008066 0 0.008067 0 0.008068 0 0.008069 0 0.008070 0 0.008071 0 0.008072 0 0.008073 1 2.04
233
Table B.15 Continued
8074 0 0.008075 0 0.008076 0 0.008077 0 0.008078 0 0.008079 0 0.008080 0 0.008081 0 0.008082 0 0.008083 0 0.008084 0 0.008085 0 0.008086 0 0.008087 0 0.008088 0 0.008089 0 0.008090 0 0.008091 0 0.008092 1 2.048093 0 0.008094 2 4.088095 2 4.088096 0 0.008097 0 0.008098 0 0.008099 0 0.008100 0 0.008101 0 0.008102 0 0.008103 0 0.008104 0 0.008105 0 0.008106 2 4.088107 4 8.168108 8 16.338109 0 0.008110 1 2.048111 0 0.008112 0 0.008113 0 0.008114 0 0.008115 0 0.008116 0 0.00
234
Table B.15 Continued
8117 1 2.048118 0 0.008119 0 0.008120 0 0.008121 0 0.008122 1 2.048123 0 0.008124 2 4.088125 1 2.048126 4 8.168127 4 8.168128 0 0.008129 0 0.008130 0 0.008131 0 0.008132 0 0.008133 0 0.008134 0 0.008135 0 0.008136 0 0.008137 0 0.008138 0 0.008139 0 0.008140 0 0.008141 0 0.008142 0 0.008143 0 0.008144 0 0.008145 0 0.008146 0 0.008147 0 0.008148 0 0.008149 0 0.008150 0 0.008151 0 0.008152 0 0.008153 0 0.008154 2 4.088155 1 2.048156 0 0.008157 0 0.008158 4 8.168159 0 0.00
235
Table B.15 Continued
8160 0 0.008161 0 0.008162 0 0.008163 0 0.008164 0 0.008165 0 0.008166 0 0.008167 8 16.338168 8 16.338169 16 32.658170 4 8.168171 8 16.338172 19 38.788173 7 14.298174 5 10.208175 3 6.128176 6 12.248177 4 8.168178 0 0.008179 2 4.088180 0 0.008181 0 0.008182 0 0.008183 0 0.008184 0 0.008185 0 0.008186 0 0.008187 0 0.008188 0 0.008189 0 0.008190 0 0.008191 0 0.008192 0 0.008193 0 0.008194 0 0.008195 0 0.008196 0 0.008197 2 4.088198 2 4.088199 5 10.208200 0 0.008201 0 0.008202 0 0.00
236
Table B.15 Continued
8203 0 0.008204 0 0.008205 0 0.008206 0 0.008207 0 0.008208 0 0.008209 0 0.008210 0 0.008211 0 0.008212 0 0.008213 0 0.008214 0 0.008215 0 0.008216 0 0.008217 0 0.008218 0 0.008219 0 0.008220 0 0.008221 0 0.008222 0 0.008223 0 0.008224 0 0.008225 0 0.008226 0 0.008227 0 0.008228 0 0.008229 2 4.088230 2 4.088231 2 4.088232 2 4.088233 0 0.008234 0 0.008235 0 0.008236 0 0.008237 0 0.008238 0 0.008239 0 0.008240 0 0.008241 0 0.008242 0 0.008243 0 0.008244 0 0.008245 0 0.00
237
Table B.15 Continued
8246 0 0.008247 0 0.008248 0 0.008249 0 0.008250 0 0.008251 0 0.008252 0 0.008253 0 0.008254 0 0.008255 2 4.088256 0 0.008257 1 2.048258 0 0.008259 0 0.008260 5 10.208261 3 6.128262 1 2.048263 2 4.088264 0 0.008265 0 0.008266 0 0.008267 0 0.008268 0 0.008269 0 0.008270 0 0.008271 0 0.008272 0 0.008273 0 0.008274 0 0.008275 0 0.008276 0 0.008277 0 0.008278 0 0.008279 0 0.008280 1 2.048281 1 2.048282 0 0.008283 0 0.008284 0 0.008285 0 0.008286 0 0.008287 0 0.008288 4 8.16
238
Table B.15 Continued
8289 0 0.008290 0 0.008291 2 4.088292 1 2.048293 0 0.008294 4 8.168295 0 0.008296 0 0.008297 3 6.128298 0 0.008299 0 0.008300 0 0.008301 0 0.008302 0 0.008303 0 0.008304 0 0.008305 0 0.008306 2 4.088307 2 4.088308 0 0.008309 0 0.008310 0 0.008311 0 0.008312 0 0.008313 0 0.008314 0 0.008315 0 0.008316 2 4.088317 0 0.008318 0 0.008319 0 0.008320 0 0.008321 5 10.208322 3 6.128323 1 2.048324 0 0.008325 8 16.338326 0 0.008327 0 0.008328 0 0.008329 0 0.008330 0 0.008331 0 0.00
239
Table B.15 Continued
8332 0 0.008333 0 0.008334 4 8.168335 0 0.008336 0 0.008337 0 0.008338 0 0.008339 0 0.008340 0 0.00
240
Table B .16 Calculated Fracture Intensity from Oriented Micro Resistivity Logs (OMRL) and Fracture Identification Logs (FID); 32-5 Lee 2 7
32-5 LEE 2 7 (49-021-20359)OMRL FID
Length of track (mm): 80.5 Length of track (mm): 81.5
Depth(ft)
Total Length of Res Contrast
(mm)
Fracture Intensity (% Length of Res
Contrast/Length of track)
Total Length of Res Contrast
(mm)
Fracture Intensity (% Length of Res
Contrast/Length of track)
7900 0 0.00 0 0.007901 0 0.00 0 0.007902 0 0.00 0 0.007903 0 0.00 0 0.007904 0 0.00 0 0.007905 0 0.00 0 0.007906 0 0.00 0 0.007907 0 0.00 0 0.007908 0 0.00 0 0.007909 0 0.00 0 0.007910 0 0.00 0 0.007911 0 0.00 0 0.007912 0 0.00 0 0.007913 0 0.00 0 0.007914 0 0.00 0 0.007915 0 0.00 0 0.007916 0 0.00 0 0.007917 0 0.00 0 0.007918 3 3.73 0 0.007919 3 3.73 0 0.007920 2 2.48 0 0.007921 2 2.48 0 0.007922 2 2.48 0 0.007923 6 7.45 0 0.007924 18 22.36 0 0.007925 12 14.91 0 0.007926 4 4.97 0 0.007927 6 7.45 0 0.007928 1 1.24 0 0.007929 1 1.24 0 0.007930 1 1.24 0 0.007931 3 3,73 0 0.007932 3 3.73 0 0.00
241
Table B.16 Continued
7933 3 3.73 0 0.007934 8 9.94 0 0.007935 3 3.73 0 0.007936 3 3.73 0 0.007937 4 4.97 0 0.007938 2 2.48 0 0.007939 1 1.24 0 0.007940 3 3.73 0 0.007941 2 2.48 0 0.007942 6 7.45 0 0.007943 2 2.48 0 0.007944 2 2.48 0 0.007945 2 2.48 0 0.007946 4 4.97 0 0.007947 3 3.73 0 0.007948 4 4.97 0 0.007949 3 3.73 0 0.007950 7 8.70 0 0.007951 4 4.97 0 0.007952 7 8.70 0 0.007953 7 8.70 0 0.007954 2 2.48 0 0.007955 1 1.24 0 0.007956 0 0.00 0 0.007957 11 13.66 0 0.007958 7 8.70 0 0.007959 5 6.21 0 0.007960 3 3.73 0 0.007961 1 1.24 0 0.007962 9 11.18 0 0.007963 3 3.73 0 0.007964 5 6.21 0 0.007965 4 4.97 0 0.007966 2 2.48 0 0.007967 4 4.97 0 0.007968 4 4.97 0 0.007969 2 2.48 0 0.007970 2 2.48 0 0.007971 3 3.73 0 0.007972 7 8.70 0 0.007973 6 7.45 0 0.007974 10 12.42 18 22.097975 7 8.70 0 0.00
242
Table B.16 Continued
7976 13 16.15 0 0.007977 4 4.97 0 0.007978 12 14.91 0 0.007979 9 11.18 0 0.007980 9 11.18 0 0.007981 5 6.21 0 0.007982 6 7.45 0 0.007983 2 2.48 0 0.007984 2 2.48 0 0.007985 1 1.24 0 0.007986 1 1.24 0 0.007987 2 2.48 0 0.007988 7 8.70 0 0.007989 6 7.45 0 0.007990 6 7.45 0 0.007991 6 7.45 0 0.007992 9 11.18 0 0.007993 7 8.7 0 0.007994 7 8.70 0 0.007995 8 9.94 0 0.007996 8 9.94 1 1.237997 4 4.97 0 0.007998 5 6.21 0 0.007999 3 3.73 0 0.008000 2 2.48 0 0.008001 2 2.48 1 1.238002 5 6.21 0 0.008003 7 8.70 0 0.008004 6 7.45 3 3.688005 5 6.21 0 0.008006 4 4.97 0 0.008007 3 3.73 0 0.008008 2 2.48 0 0.008009 2 2.48 0 0.008010 2 2.48 0 0.008011 2 2.48 0 0.008012 4 4.97 0 0.008013 4 4.97 0 0.008014 9 11.18 0 0.008015 8 9.94 0 0.008016 7 8.70 0 0.008017 7 8.70 0 0.008018 5 6.21 0 0.00
243
Table B.16 Continued
8019 5 6.21 0 0.008020 3 3.73 0 0.008021 3 3.73 0 0.008022 2 2.48 0 0.008023 5 6.21 0 0.008024 9 11.18 0 0.008025 6 7.45 0 0.008026 20 24.84 0 0.008027 15 18.63 0 0.008028 23 28.57 6 7.368029 12 14.91 6 7.368030 21 26.09 20 24.548031 20 24.84 3 3.688032 29 36.02 3 3.688033 18 22.36 15 18.408034 30 37.27 20 24.548035 14 17.39 14 17.188036 16 19.88 19 23.318037 7 8.70 17 20.868038 11 13.66 5 6.138039 9 11.18 0 0.008040 12 14.91 0 0.008041 12 14.91 0 0.008042 11 13.66 6 7.368043 14 17.39 8 9.828044 9 11.18 15 18.408045 10 12.42 7 8.598046 3 3.73 4 4.918047 6 7.45 2 2.458048 10 12.42 2 2.458049 10 12.42 0 0.008050 10 12.42 0 0.008051 4 4.97 0 0.008052 3 3.73 0 0.008053 3 3.73 0 0.008054 11 13.66 0 0.008055 12 14.91 0 0.008056 18 22.36 0 0.008057 7 8.70 0 0.008058 4 4.97 0 0.008059 2 2.48 0 0.008060 6 7.45 0 0.008061 5 6.21 0 0.00
244
Table B.16 Continued
8062 4 4.97 0 0.008063 2 2.48 0 0.008064 2 2.48 0 0.008065 5 6.21 0 0.008066 7 8.70 0 0.008067 4 4.97 0 0.008068 3 3.73 0 0.008069 5 6.21 0 0.008070 9 11.18 0 0.008071 7 8.70 0 0.008072 5 6.21 0 0.008073 3 3.73 0 0.008074 2 2.48 0 0.008075 1 1.24 0 0.008076 1 1.24 0 0.008077 1 1.24 0 0.008078 6 7.45 0 0.008079 4 4.97 0 0.008080 4 4.97 10 12.278081 3 3.73 0 0.008082 3 3.73 0 0.008083 2 2.48 8 9.828084 2 2.48 0 0.008085 2 2.48 0 0.008086 2 2.48 0 0.008087 2 2.48 12 14.728088 2 2.48 5 6.138089 2 2.48 0 0.008090 2 2.48 0 0.008091 6 7.45 12 14.728092 4 4.97 5 6.138093 4 4.97 0 0.008094 4 4.97 0 0.008095 1 1.24 12 14.728096 1 1.24 2 2.458097 1 1.24 10 12.278098 1 1.24 4 4.918099 1 1.24 0 0.008100 1 1.24 0 0.008101 1 1.24 0 0.008102 1 1.24 0 0.008103 1 1.24 0 0.008104 1 1.24 0 0.00
245
Table B.16 Continued
8105 1 1.24 0 0.00
8106 1 1.24 0 0.00
8107 1 1.24 0 0.00
8108 1 1.24 0 0.00
8109 1 1.24 0 0.00
8110 1 1.24 0 0.00
8111 1 1.24 0 0.00
8112 1 1.24 0 0.00
8113 1 1.24 0 0.00
8114 1 1.24 0 0.00
8115 1 1.24 0 0.00
8116 1 1.24 0 0.00
8117 1 1.24 0 0.00
8118 2 2.48 12 14.72
8119 2 2.48 12 14.72
8120 1 1.24 0 0.00
8121 1 1.24 0 0.00
8122 1 1.24 0 0.00
8123 1 1.24 0 0.00
8124 1 1.24 0 0.00
8125 1 1.24 0 0.00
8126 1 1.24 0 0.00
8127 1 1.24 0 0.00
8128 1 1.24 0 0.00
8129 1 1.24 0 0.00
8130 1 1.24 0 0.00
8131 1 1.24 0 0.00
8132 1 1.24 0 0.00
8133 1 1.24 0 0.00
8134 1 1.24 0 0.00
8135 1 1.24 0 0.00
8136 3 3.73 0 0.00
8137 1 1.24 0 0.00
8138 1 1.24 0 0.00
8139 1 1.24 0 0.00
8140 1 1.24 0 0.00
8141 1 1.24 0 0.00
8142 1 1.24 0 0.00
8143 1 1.24 0 0.00
8144 1 1.24 0 0.00
8145 1 1.24 0 0.00
8146 1 1.24 0 0.00
8147 1 1.24 0 0.00
246
Table B.16 Continued
8148 1 1.24 0 0.008149 1 1.24 0 0.008150 7 8.70 0 0.008151 7 8.70 0 0.008152 3 3.73 0 0.008153 2 2.48 0 0.008154 6 7.45 0 0.008155 8 9.94 0 0.008156 7 8.70 0 0.008157 7 8.70 0 0.008158 8 9.94 0 0.008159 4 4.97 0 0.008160 4 4.97 0 0.008161 4 4.97 0 0.008162 13 16.15 0 0.008163 8 9.94 8 9.828164 13 16.15 0 0.008165 8 9.94 0 0.008166 6 7.45 20 24.548167 11 13.66 8 9.828168 12 14.91 2 2.458169 5 6.21 2 2.458170 12 14.91 0 0.008171 8 9.94 0 0.008172 8 9.94 0 0.008173 4 4.97 0 0.008174 7 8.70 0 0.008175 6 7.45 0 0.008176 5 6.21 0 0.008177 4 4.97 0 0.008178 2 2.48 0 0.008179 1 1.24 0 0.008180 2 2.48 0 0.008181 1 1.24 0 0.008182 1 1.24 0 0.008183 1 1.24 0 0.008184 1 1.24 0 0.008185 1 1.24 0 0.008186 1 1.24 0 0.008187 1 1.24 0 0.008188 9 11.18 0 0.008189 4 4.97 0 0.008190 4 4.97 0 0.00
247
Table B.16 Continued
8191 4 4.97 0 0.008192 1 1.24 0 0.008193 1 1.24 0 0.008194 3 3.73 0 0.008195 6 7.45 0 0.008196 6 7.45 0 0.008197 2 2.48 0 0.008198 5 6.21 0 0.008199 10 12.42 0 0.008200 7 8.70 0 0.008201 2 2.48 0 0.008202 3 3.73 0 0.008203 3 3.73 0 0.008204 2 2.48 0 0.008205 2 2.48 0 0.008206 2 2.48 0 0.008207 1 1.24 0 0.008208 1 1.24 0 0.008209 1 1.24 0 0.008210 1 1.24 0 0.008211 1 1.24 0 0.008212 1 1.24 0 0.008213 1 1.24 0 0.008214 2 2.48 0 0.008215 2 2.48 0 0.008216 2 2.48 0 0.008217 2 2.48 0 0.008218 2 2.48 0 0.008219 1 1.24 0 0.008220 0 0.00 0 0.008221 0 0.00 0 0.008222 0 0.00 0 0.008223 0 0.00 0 0.008224 0 0.00 0 0.008225 0 0.00 0 0.008226 0 0.00 0 0.008227 0 0.00 0 0.008228 0 0.00 0 0.008229 0 0.00 0 0.008230 0 0.00 0 0.008231 0 0.00 0 0.008232 0 0.00 0 0.00
248
Table B.17 Calculated Fracture Intensity from Oriented Micro Resistivity Logs (OMRL); Great Western 1-16
GREAT WESTERN 1-16 (49-021-20360)OMRL
Length of track (mm): 70
Depth(ft)
r-p, , , T ,, Fracture Intensity (% Total Length of Length of ResRes Contrast Contrast/Length of (mm) track)
7400 0 0.00
7401 0 0.00
7402 0 0.00
7403 0 0.00
7404 0 0.00
7405 0 0.00
7406 0 0.00
7407 0 0.00
7408 0 0.00
7409 0 0.00
7410 0 0.00
7411 0 0.00
7412 0 0.00
7413 0 0.00
7414 0 0.00
7415 0 0.00
7416 0 0.00
7417 0 0.00
7418 0 0.00
7419 0 0.00
7420 0 0.00
7421 0 0.00
7422 0 0.00
7423 0 0.00
7424 0 0.00
7425 0 0.00
7426 0 0.00
7427 0 0.00
7428 0 0.00
7429 0 0.00
7430 0 0.00
7431 0 0.00
7432 0 0.00
249
Table B.17 Continued
7433 0 0.007434 0 0.007435 0 0.007436 0 0.007437 0 0.007438 0 0.007439 0 0.007440 0 0.007441 0 0.007442 0 0.007443 0 0.007444 0 0.007445 0 0.007446 0 0.007447 0 0.007448 0 0.007449 0 0.007450 0 0.007451 0 0.007452 0 0.007453 0 0.007454 0 0.007455 0 0.007456 0 0.007457 0 0.007458 0 0.007459 0 0.007460 0 0.007461 0 0.007462 0 0.007463 0 0.007464 0 0.007465 0 0.007466 0 0.007467 0 0.007468 0 0.007469 0 0.007470 0 0.007471 0 0.007472 0 0.007473 0 0.007474 0 0.007475 0 0.00
250
Table B.17 Continued
7476 0 0.007477 0 0.007478 0 0.007479 0 0.007480 0 0.007481 0 0.007482 0 0.007483 0 0.007484 0 0.007485 0 0.007486 0 0.007487 0 0.007488 0 0.007489 0 0.007490 0 0.007491 0 0.007492 0 0.007493 0 0.007494 16 22.867495 0 0.007496 0 0.007497 0 0.007498 0 0.007499 0 0.007500 0 0.007501 0 0.007502 0 0.007503 0 0.007504 0 0.007505 0 0.007506 0 0.007507 0 0.007508 0 0.007509 0 0.007510 6 8.577511 2 2.867512 2 2.867513 8 11.437514 2 2.867515 2 2.867516 5 7.147517 2 2.867518 2 2.86
251
Table B.17 Continued
7519 1 1.43
7520 1 1.43
7521 1 1.43
7522 4 5.71
7523 5 7.14
7524 5 7.14
7525 2 2.86
7526 0 0.00
7527 0 0.00
7528 0 0.00
7529 0 0.00
7530 6 8.57
7531 5 7.14
7532 5 7.14
7533 4 5.71
7534 3 4.29
7535 4 5.71
7536 5 7.14
7537 8 11.43
7538 12 17.14
7539 13 18.57
7540 12 17.14
7541 12 17.14
7542 12 17.14
7543 9 12.86
7544 4 5.71
7545 6 8.57
7546 4 5.71
7547 6 8.57
7548 4 5.71
7549 3 4.29
7550 6 8.57
7551 9 12.86
7552 7 10.00
7553 5 7.14
7554 4 5.71
7555 4 5.71
7556 4 5.71
7557 3 4.29
7558 3 4.29
7559 2 2.86
7560 2 2.86
7561 2 2.86
252
Table B.17 Continued
7562 2 2.867563 1 1.437564 0 0.007565 0 0.007566 0 0.007567 0 0.007568 0 0.007569 0 0.007570 0 0.007571 0 0.007572 0 0.007573 0 0.007574 0 0.007575 0 0.007576 0 0.007577 0 0.007578 0 0.007579 0 0.007580 0 0.007581 0 0.007582 0 0.007583 0 0.007584 0 0.007585 0 0.007586 0 0.007587 0 0.007588 0 0.007589 0 0.007590 0 0.007591 0 0.007592 0 0.007593 0 0.007594 0 0.007595 0 0.007596 0 0.007597 0 0.007598 0 0.007599 0 0.007600 0 0.007601 0 0.007602 0 0.007603 0 0.007604 0 0.00
253
Table B.17 Continued
7605 0 0.007606 0 0.007607 0 0.007608 0 0.007609 0 0.007610 0 0.007611 0 0.007612 0 0.007613 0 0.007614 0 0.007615 0 0.007616 0 0.007617 0 0.007618 0 0.007619 0 0.007620 0 0.007621 0 0.007622 0 0.007623 0 0.007624 0 0.007625 0 0.007626 0 0.007627 0 0.007628 0 0.007629 0 0.007630 0 0.007631 0 0.007632 0 0.007633 0 0.007634 0 0.007635 0 0.007636 0 0.007637 0 0.007638 0 0.007639 0 0.007640 0 0.007641 0 0.007642 0 0.007643 0 0.007644 0 0.007645 0 0.007646 0 0.007647 0 0.00
254
Table B.17 Continued
7648 0 0.007649 0 0.007650 0 0.007651 0 0.007652 0 0.007653 0 0.007654 0 0.007655 0 0.007656 0 0.007657 0 0.007658 0 0.007659 0 0.007660 5 7.147661 1 1.437662 0 0.007663 0 0.007664 0 0.007665 0 0.007666 0 0.007667 9 12.867668 4 5.717669 2 2.867670 0 0.007671 0 0.007672 0 0.007673 0 0.007674 7 10.007675 3 4.297676 3 4.297677 2 2.867678 0 0.007679 0 0.007680 0 0.007681 8 11.437682 4 5.717683 3 4.297684 2 2.867685 3 4.297686 1 1.437687 0 0.007688 2 2.867689 0 0.007690 0 0.00
255
Table B.17 Continued
7691 0 0.007692 0 0.007693 0 0.007694 0 0.007695 0 0.007696 20 28.577697 0 0.007698 0 0.007699 0 0.007700 0 0.007701 0 0.007702 0 0.007703 0 0.007704 0 0.007705 0 0.007706 2 2.867707 0 0.007708 0 0.007709 0 0.007710 0 0.007711 0 0.007712 0 0.007713 0 0.007714 0 0.007715 0 0.007716 0 0.007717 0 0.007718 0 0.007719 0 0.007720 0 0.007721 0 0.007722 0 0.007723 0 0.007724 0 0.007725 0 0.007726 0 0.007727 0 0.007728 0 0.007729 0 0.007730 0 0.007731 0 0.007732 0 0.007733 0 0.00
256
Table B.17 Continued
7734 0 0.00
7735 0 0.00
257
Table B .18 Calculated Fracture Intensity from Oriented Micro Resistivity Logs (OMRL) and Fracture Identification Logs (FID); Combs 1
COMBS 1 (49-021-20361)OMRL FID
Length of track (mm): 32.5 Length of track (mm): 62
Depth(ft)
Total Length of Res Contrast
(mm)
Fracture Intensity (% Length of Res
Contrast/Length of track)
Total Length of Res Contrast
(mm)
Fracture Intensity (% Length of Res
Contrast/Length of track)
8250 0 0.00 3 4.848251 17 52.31 2 3.238252 10 30.77 4 6.458253 11 33.85 3 4.848254 10 30.77 2 3.238255 2 6.15 2 3.238256 1 3.08 3 4.848257 1 3.08 2 3.238258 1 3.08 2 3.238259 1 3.08 3 4.848260 1 3.08 11 17.748261 1 3.08 11 17.748262 1 3.08 3 4.848263 0 0.00 8 12.908264 0 0.00 0 0.008265 2 6.15 6 9.688266 0 0.00 10 16.138267 0 0.00 0 0.008268 5 15.38 5 8.068269 2 6.15 1 1.618270 4 12.31 0 0.008271 2 6.15 1 1.618272 0 0.00 0 0.008273 0 0.00 0 0.008274 0 0.00 0 0.008275 0 0.00 1 1.618276 0 0.00 1 1.618277 6 18.46 2 3.238278 0 0.00 1 1.618279 0 0.00 0 0.008280 0 0.00 3 4.848281 11 34.00 6 9.688282 5 15.38 0 0.00
258
Table B.18 Continued
8283 0 0.00 5 8.068284 0 0.00 1 1.618285 4 12.31 0 0.008286 0 0.00 10 16.138287 1 3.08 13 20.978288 1 3.08 3 4.848289 9 27.69 6 9.688290 3 9.23 2 3.238291 1 3.08 3 4.848292 1 3.08 0 0.008293 1 3.08 6 9.688294 0 0.00 1 1.618295 0 0.00 3 4.848296 19 58.46 14 22.588297 0 0.00 9 14.528298 6 18.46 8 12.908299 2 6.15 2 3.238300 3 9.23 6 9.688301 3 9.23 2 3.238302 14 43.08 0 0.008303 1 3.08 9 14.528304 3 9.23 2 3.238305 5 15.38 2 3.238306 1 3.08 11 17.748307 3 9.23 8 12.908308 0 0.00 8 12.908309 0 0.00 8 12.908310 3 9.23 1 1.618311 0 0.00 2 3.238312 0 0.00 3 4.848313 0 0.00 1 1.618314 0 0.00 0 0.008315 3 9.23 1 1.618316 0 0.00 4 6.458317 0 0.00 16 25.818318 10 30.77 2 3.238319 9 27.69 0 0.008320 1 3.08 3 4.848321 2 6.15 3 4.848322 1 3.08 14 22.588323 4 12.31 12 19.358324 7 21.54 5 8.068325 5 15.38 10 16.13
259
Table B.18 Continued
8326 2 6.15 20 32.268327 3 9.23 15 24.198328 3 9.23 28 45.168329 3 9.23 19 30.658330 2 6.15 8 12.908331 2 6.15 10 16.138332 1 3.08 1 1.618333 0 0.00 18 29.038334 6 18.46 10 16.138335 8 24.62 12 19.358336 0 0.00 10 16.138337 5 15.38 12 19.358338 8 24.62 15 24.198339 2 6.15 14 22.588340 10 30.77 1 1.618341 2 6.15 2 3.238342 19 58.46 0 0.008343 2 6.15 19 30.658344 1 3.08 0 0.008345 0 0.00 3 4.848346 0 0.00 3 4.848347 2 6.15 14 22.588348 1 3.08 2 3.238349 0 0.00 3 4.848350 0 0.00 0 0.008351 1 3.08 0 0.008352 12 36.92 11 17.748353 3 9.23 3 4.848354 1 3.08 0 0.008355 4 12.31 3 4.848356 10 30.77 2 3.238357 2 6.15 2 3.238358 7 21.54 0 0.008359 6 18.46 2 3.238360 6 18.46 4 6.458361 10 30.77 2 3.238362 3 9.23 0 0.008363 11 33.85 2 3.238364 8 24.62 0 0.008365 3 9.23 10 16.138366 2 6.15 10 16.138367 2 6.15 11 17.748368 2 6.15 14 22.58
260
Table B.18 Continued
8369 0 0.00 5 8.068370 0 0.00 6 9.688371 1 3.08 2 3.238372 0 0.00 3 4.848373 2 6.15 2 3.238374 4 12.31 2 3.238375 3 9.23 1 1.618376 2 6.15 3 4.848377 3 9.23 3 4.848378 3 9.23 5 8.068379 2 6.15 3 4.848380 3 9.23 4 6.458381 2 6.15 6 9.688382 0 0.00 9 14.528383 0 0.00 11 17.748384 3 9.23 1 1.618385 1 3.08 4 6.458386 0 0.00 1 1.618387 0 0.00 5 8.068388 1 3.08 2 3.238389 0 0.00 2 3.238390 1 3.08 2 3.238391 0 0.00 1 1.618392 0 0.00 21 33.878393 0 0.00 2 3.238394 1 3.08 1 1.618395 0 0.00 0 0.008396 0 0.00 0 0.008397 0 0.00 0 0.008398 1 3.08 0 0.008399 1 3.08 7 11.298400 2 6.15 7 11.298401 2 6.15 10 16.138402 4 12.31 8 12.908403 2 6.15 10 16.138404 0 0.00 10 16.138405 0 0.00 7 11.298406 0 0.00 17 27.428407 0 0.00 16 25.818408 0 0.00 4 6.458409 0 0.00 6 9.688410 0 0.00 1 1.618411 0 0.00 10 16.13
261
Table B.18 Continued
8412 0 0.00 4 6.458413 0 0.00 1 1.618414 0 0.00 0 0.008415 0 0.00 2 3.238416 0 0.00 1 1.618417 0 0.00 1 1.618418 0 0.00 1 1.618419 0 0.00 16 25.818420 0 0.00 5 8.068421 0 0.00 16 25.818422 0 0.00 16 25.818423 0 0.00 8 12.908424 0 0.00 0 0.008425 0 0.00 1 1.618426 0 0.00 0 0.008427 0 0.00 0 0.008428 0 0.00 1 1.618429 0 0.00 0 0.008430 8 24.62 2 3.238431 0 0.00 3 4.848432 10 30.77 0 0.008433 3 9.23 1 1.618434 4 12.31 1 1.618435 0 0.00 1 1.618436 0 0.00 1 1.618437 1 3.08 4 6.458438 1 3.08 8 12.908439 4 12.31 7 11.298440 0 0.00 3 4.848441 0 0.00 12 19.358442 2 6.15 8 12.908443 0 0.00 12 19.358444 0 0.00 11 17.748445 0 0.00 7 11.298446 0 0.00 20 32.268447 0 0.00 21 33.878448 1 3.08 25 40.328449 1 3.08 7 11.298450 0 0.00 3 4.848451 0 0.00 14 22.588452 0 0.00 11 17.748453 0 0.00 17 27.428454 3 9.23 23 37.10
262
Table B.18 Continued
8455 0 0.00 7 11.298456 0 0.00 5 8.068457 0 0.00 14 22.588458 1 3.08 12 19.358459 0 0.00 12 19.358460 0 0.00 19 30.658461 0 0.00 22 35.488462 0 0.00 16 25.818463 0 0.00 16 25.818464 0 0.00 21 33.878465 0 0.00 11 17.748466 2 6.15 10 16.138467 0 0.00 34 54.848468 0 0.00 5 8.068469 0 0.00 11 17.748470 2 6.15 10 16.138471 3 9.23 20 32.268472 2 6.15 22 35.488473 0 0.00 2 3.238474 0 0.00 3 4.848475 0 0.00 19 30.658476 0 0.00 30 48.398477 0 0.00 4 6.458478 1 3.08 20 32.268479 1 3.08 33 53.238480 0 0.00 22 35.488481 2 6.15 4 6.458482 12 36.92 3 4.848483 23 70.77 3 4.848484 6 18.46 4 6.458485 7 21.54 4 6.458486 10 30.77 12 19.358487 12 36.92 16 25.818488 21 64.62 15 24.198489 4 12.31 10 16.138490 4 12.31 2 3.238491 1 3.08 25 40.328492 1 3.08 22 35.488493 1 3.08 32 51.618494 0 0.00 26 41.948495 0 0.00 5 8.068496 0 0.00 13 20.978497 0 0.00 12 19.35
263
Table B.18 Continued
8498 15 46.15 11 17.748499 2 6.15 18 29.038500 6 18.46 4 6.458501 12 36.92 6 9.688502 2 6.15 14 22.588503 2 6.15 4 6.458504 2 6.15 1 1.618505 1 3.08 27 43.558506 13 40.00 3 4.848507 12 36.92 3 4.848508 0 0.00 2 3.238509 0 0.00 1 1.618510 2 6.15 0 0.008511 20 61.54 1 1.618512 3 9.23 2 3.238513 5 15.38 5 8.068514 7 21.54 8 12.908515 3 9.23 4 6.458516 1 3.08 30 48.398517 1 3.08 6 9.688518 15 46.15 13 20.978519 1 3.08 18 29.038520 1 3.08 19 30.658521 0 0.00 7 11.298522 0 0.00 1 1.618523 0 0.00 2 3.238524 3 9.23 21 33.878525 3 9.23 34 54.848526 6 18.46 20 32.268527 2 6.15 18 29.038528 1 3.08 23 37.108529 0 0.00 16 25.818530 0 0.00 1 1.618531 0 0.00 0 0.008532 0 0.00 0 0.008533 0 0.00 0 0.008534 0 0.00 10 16.138535 0 0.00 0 0.008536 0 0.00 0 0.00
264
Table B.19 Calculated Fracture Intensity from Oriented Micro Resistivity Logs (OMRL);
GW Warren 2
GW WARREN 2 (49-021-20363)OMRL
Length of track (mm): 71
Depth(ft)
Total Length of Res Contrast
(mm)
Fracture Intensity (% Length of Res
Contrast/Length of track)
8050 0 0.008051 0 0.008052 0 0.008053 0 0.008054 0 0.008055 0 0.008056 0 0.008057 0 0.008058 0 0.008059 0 0.008060 0 0.008061 0 0.008062 0 0.008063 0 0.008064 0 0.008065 0 0.008066 0 0.008067 0 0.008068 0 0.008069 0 0.008070 0 0.008071 0 0.008072 0 0.008073 0 0.008074 4 5.638075 3 4.238076 5 7.048077 3 4.238078 14 19.728079 8 11.278080 6 8.458081 1 1.418082 0 0.00
265
Table B.19 Continued
8083 4 5.638084 4 5.638085 4 5.638086 6 8.458087 4 5.638088 8 11.278089 3 4.238090 4 5.638091 4 5.638092 4 5.638093 5 7.048094 2 2.828095 0 0.008096 0 0.008097 0 0.008098 0 0.008099 0 0.008100 0 0.008101 0 0.008102 0 0.008103 0 0.008104 0 0.008105 0 0.008106 0 0.008107 0 0.008108 3 4.238109 0 0.008110 0 0.008111 0 0.008112 0 0.008113 0 0.008114 0 0.008115 5 7.048116 0 0.008117 0 0.008118 0 0.008119 0 0.008120 0 0.008121 0 0.008122 0 0.008123 0 0.008124 0 0.008125 0 0.00
266
Table B.19 Continued
8126 0 0.008127 0 0.008128 0 0.008129 0 0.008130 9 12.688131 8 11.278132 5 7.048133 5 7.048134 4 5.638135 4 5.638136 5 7.048137 5 7.048138 2 2.828139 3 4.238140 0 0.008141 0 0.008142 0 0.008143 0 0.008144 0 0.008145 0 0.008146 4 5.638147 0 0.008148 0 0.008149 0 0.008150 4 5.638151 7 9.868152 11 15.498153 3 4.238154 0 0.008155 0 0.008156 0 0.008157 0 0.008158 0 0.008159 0 0.008160 0 0.008161 0 0.008162 0 0.008163 0 0.008164 6 8.458165 2 2.828166 0 0.008167 0 0.008168 3 4.23
267
Table B.19 Continued
8169 6 8.458170 6 8.458171 4 5.638172 0 0.008173 0 0.008174 3 4.238175 0 0.008176 1 1.418177 1 1.418178 3 4.238179 3 4.238180 8 11.278181 7 9.868182 7 9.868183 11 15.498184 12 16.908185 10 14.088186 4 5.638187 12 16.908188 3 4.238189 3 4.238190 3 4.238191 2 2.828192 3 4.238193 3 4.238194 10 14.088195 4 5.638196 5 7.048197 2 2.828198 3 4.238199 0 0.008200 0 0.008201 0 0.008202 0 0.008203 2 2.828204 2 2.828205 2 2.828206 3 4.238207 2 2.828208 2 2.828209 2 2.828210 1 1.418211 0 0.00
268
Table B.19 Continued
8212 0 0.008213 0 0.008214 3 4.238215 3 4.238216 8 11.278217 2 2.828218 4 5.638219 0 0.008220 0 0.008221 0 0.008222 0 0.008223 0 0.008224 0 0.008225 0 0.008226 0 0.008227 0 0.008228 0 0.008229 0 0.008230 0 0.008231 0 0.008232 0 0.008233 0 0.008234 0 0.008235 0 0.008236 0 0.008237 0 0.008238 0 0.008239 0 0.008240 0 0.008241 0 0.008242 0 0.008243 0 0.008244 0 0.008245 0 0.008246 0 0.008247 0 0.008248 0 0.008249 0 0.008250 0 0.008251 0 0.008252 0 0.008253 0 0.008254 0 0.00
269
Table B.19 Continued
8255 0 0.008256 0 0.008257 0 0.008258 0 0.008259 0 0.008260 0 0.008261 0 0.008262 0 0.008263 0 0.008264 0 0.008265 0 0.008266 0 0.008267 0 0.008268 0 0.008269 0 0.008270 0 0.008271 0 0.008272 0 0.008273 0 0.008274 0 0.008275 0 0.008276 0 0.008277 0 0.008278 0 0.008279 0 0.008280 0 0.008281 2 2.828282 0 0.008283 0 0.008284 0 0.008285 0 0.008286 0 0.008287 0 0.008288 0 0.008289 0 0.008290 0 0.008291 0 0.008292 0 0.008293 0 0.008294 0 0.008295 0 0.008296 0 0.008297 0 0.00
270
Table B.19 Continued
8298 0 0.008299 0 0.008300 0 0.008301 0 0.008302 0 0.008303 0 0.008304 0 0.008305 0 0.008306 0 0.008307 0 0.008308 12 16.908309 0 0.008310 0 0.008311 0 0.008312 0 0.008313 0 0.008314 0 0.008315 0 0.008316 3 4.238317 0 0.008318 0 0.008319 0 0.008320 0 0.008321 0 0.008322 1 1.418323 0 0.008324 0 0.008325 0 0.008326 0 0.008327 0 0.008328 0 0.008329 0 0.008330 0 0.008331 1 1.418332 0 0.008333 4 5.638334 3 4.238335 4 5.638336 5 7.048337 0 0.008338 0 0.008339 0 0.008340 0 0.00
271
Table B.19 Continued
8341 0 0.008342 0 0.008343 0 0.008344 0 0.008345 0 0.008346 4 5.638347 4 5.638348 4 5.638349 0 0.008350 0 0.008351 0 0.008352 0 0.008353 0 0.008354 0 0.008355 0 0.008356 0 0.008357 7 9.868358 0 0.008359 0 0.008360 0 0.008361 0 0.008362 0 0.008363 0 0.008364 0 0.008365 3 4.238366 2 2.828367 3 4.238368 7 9.868369 3 4.238370 0 0.008371 0 0.008372 0 0.008373 0 0.008374 9 12.688375 0 0.008376 0 0.008377 0 0.008378 0 0.008379 0 0.008380 0 0.008381 0 0.008382 0 0.008383 0 0.00
272
Table B.19 Continued
8384 0 0.008385 0 0.008386 0 0.008387 0 0.008388 0 0.008389 0 0.008390 0 0.008391 0 0.008392 0 0.008393 0 0.008394 0 0.008395 0 0.008396 0 0.008397 0 0.008398 0 0.008399 0 0.008400 0 0.00
273
Table B .20 Calculated Fracture Intensity from Oriented Micro Resistivity Logs (OMRL) and Fracture Identification Logs (FID); State 1-18
STATE 1-18 (49-021-20364)OMRL FID
Length of track (mm): 21 Length o f track (mm): 54
Depth(ft)
Total Length of Res Contrast
(mm)
Fracture Intensity (% Length of Res
Contrast/Length of track)
Total Length of Res Contrast
(mm)
Fracture Intensity (% Length of Res
Contrast/Length of track)
7940 0 0.00 4 7.417941 0 0.00 4 7.417942 0 0.00 0 0.007943 0 0.00 0 0.007944 0 0.00 0 0.007945 1 4.76 0 0.007946 2 9.52 0 0.007947 0 0.00 0 0.007948 0 0.00 0 0.007949 0 0.00 0 0.007950 0 0.00 0 0.007951 0 0.00 3 5.567952 0 0.00 0 0.007953 0 0.00 3 5.567954 0 0.00 1 1.857955 0 0.00 0 0.007956 0 0.00 0 0.007957 0 0.00 0 0.007958 0 0.00 0 0.007959 0 0.00 0 0.007960 0 0.00 0 0.007961 0 0.00 0 0.007962 0 0.00 0 0.007963 0 0.00 0 0.007964 0 0.00 0 0.007965 0 0.00 0 0.007966 0 0.00 0 0.007967 0 0.00 0 0.007968 0 0.00 0 0.007969 0.5 2.38 0 0.007970 0.5 2.38 0 0.007971 0.5 2.38 0 0.007972 0.5 2.38 0 0.00
274
Table B.20 Continued
7973 0.5 2.38 0 0.007974 0.5 2.38 0 0.007975 0 0.00 0 0.007976 0 0.00 1 1.857977 0 0.00 1 1.857978 0 0.00 0 0.007979 0 0.00 0 0.007980 0 0.00 0 0.007981 0 0.00 0 0.007982 0 0.00 1 1.857983 0 0.00 2 3.707984 0 0.00 2 3.707985 0 0.00 4 7.417986 0 0.00 1 1.857987 0 0.00 6 11.117988 0 0.00 1 1.857989 0 0.00 3 5.567990 0 0.00 3 5.567991 0 0.00 2 3.707992 0 0.00 4 7.417993 0 0.00 4 7.417994 0 0.00 0 0.007995 1 4.76 5 9.267996 1 4.76 3 5.567997 1 4.76 2 3.707998 1 4.76 0 0.007999 1 4.76 0 0.008000 1 4.76 2 3.708001 1 4.76 1 1.858002 0 0.00 0 0.008003 0 0.00 3 5.568004 0 0.00 2 3.708005 0 0.00 4 7.418006 0 0.00 1 1.858007 0 0.00 0 0.008008 0 0.00 2 3.708009 0 0.00 2 3.708010 0 0.00 2 3.708011 0 0.00 1 1.858012 0 0.00 0 0.008013 0 0.00 1 1.858014 0 0.00 0 0.008015 0 0.00 0 0.00
275
Table B.20 Continued
8016 0 0.00 2 3.708017 0 0.00 0 0.008018 0 0.00 0 0.008019 0 0.00 0 0.008020 0 0.00 0 0.008021 0 0.00 0 0.008022 0 0.00 0 0.008023 0 0.00 0 0.008024 0 0.00 0 0.008025 0 0.00 0 0.008026 0 0.00 0 0.008027 0 0.00 0 0.008028 0 0.00 0 0.008029 2 9.52 0 0.008030 2 9.52 0 0.008031 2 9.52 0 0.008032 3 14.29 0 0.008033 0 0.00 0 0.008034 3 14.29 3 5.568035 4 19.05 0 0.008036 0 0.00 0 0.008037 0 0.00 0 0.008038 1 4.76 0 0.008039 1 4.76 3 5.568040 0 0.00 3 5.568041 0 0.00 4 7.418042 0 0.00 0 0.008043 0 0.00 2 3.708044 4 19.05 0 0.008045 3 14.29 1 1.858046 1 4.76 3 5.568047 0 0.00 1 1.858048 1 4.76 1 1.858049 2 9.52 1 1.858050 1 4.76 0 0.008051 1 4.76 2 3.708052 1 4.76 3 5.568053 1 4.76 3 5.568054 1 4.76 4 7.418055 1 4.76 3 5.568056 1 4.76 5 9.268057 1 4.76 3 5.568058 1 4.76 10 18.52
276
Table B.20 Continued
8059 1 4.76 2 3.708060 1 4.76 1 1.858061 1 4.76 1 1.858062 1 4.76 6 11.118063 1 4.76 3 5.568064 1 4.76 2 3.708065 1 4.76 1 1.858066 1 4.76 3 5.568067 1 4.76 14 25.938068 1 4.76 0 0.008069 1 4.76 1 1.858070 1 4.76 0 0.008071 0 0.00 0 0.008072 0 0.00 1 1.858073 0 0.00 1 1.858074 0 0.00 1 1.858075 0 0.00 2 3.708076 0 0.00 0 0.008077 0 0.00 2 3.708078 0 0.00 2 3.708079 0 0.00 1 1.858080 0 0.00 0 0.008081 0 0.00 0 0.008082 0 0.00 0 0.008083 0 0.00 0 0.008084 0 0.00 0 0.008085 0 0.00 0 0.008086 0 0.00 0 0.008087 0 0.00 0 0.008088 0 0.00 0 0.008089 0 0.00 2 3.708090 0 0.00 0 0.008091 0 0.00 0 0.008092 0 0.00 0 0.008093 0 0.00 1 1.858094 0 0.00 1 1.858095 0 0.00 1 1.858096 0 0.00 0 0.008097 0 0.00 0 0.008098 0 0.00 0 0.008099 0 0.00 0 0.008100 0 0.00 0 0.008101 0 0.00 0 0.00
277
Table B.20 Continued
8102 0 0.00 0 0.008103 0 0.00 1 1.858104 0 0.00 0 0.008105 0 0.00 1 1.858106 0 0.00 0 0.008107 0 0.00 0 0.008108 0 0.00 0 0.008109 0 0.00 1 1.858110 0 0.00 0 0.008111 0 0.00 0 0.008112 0 0.00 0 0.008113 0 0.00 2 3.708114 0 0.00 0 0.008115 0 0.00 0 0.008116 0 0.00 0 0.008117 0 0.00 0 0.008118 0 0.00 0 0.008119 0 0.00 1 1.858120 0 0.00 0 0.008121 0 0.00 2 3.708122 0 0.00 0 0.008123 0 0.00 0 0.008124 0 0.00 1 1.858125 0 0.00 1 1.858126 0 0.00 1 1.858127 0 0.00 1 1.858128 0 0.00 2 3.708129 0 0.00 4 7.418130 0 0.00 5 9.268131 0 0.00 3 5.568132 0 0.00 1 1.858133 0 0.00 0 0.008134 0 0.00 0 0.008135 0 0.00 1 1.858136 0 0.00 0 0.008137 0 0.00 0 0.008138 0 0.00 1 1.858139 0 0.00 1 1.858140 0 0.00 1 1.858141 0 0.00 1 1.858142 0 0.00 0 0.008143 0 0.00 1 1.858144 0 0.00 0 0.00
278
Table B.20 Continued
8145 0 0.00 0 0.008146 0 0.00 0 0.008147 0 0.00 0 0.008148 0 0.00 0 0.008149 0 0.00 1 1.858150 0 0.00 0 0.008151 0 0.00 2 3.708152 0 0.00 1 1.858153 0 0.00 1 1.858154 0 0.00 0 0.008155 0 0.00 0 0.008156 0 0.00 0 0.008157 0 0.00 1 1.858158 0 0.00 0 0.008159 0 0.00 0 0.008160 0 0.00 0 0.008161 0 0.00 0 0.008162 0 0.00 1 1.858163 0 0.00 0 0.008164 0 0.00 0 0.008165 0 0.00 0 0.008166 0 0.00 3 5.568167 0 0.00 0 0.008168 0 0.00 1 1.858169 0 0.00 0 0.008170 0 0.00 0 0.008171 0 0.00 0 0.008172 0 0.00 0 0.008173 0 0.00 0 0.008174 0 0.00 0 0.008175 0 0.00 0 0.008176 0 0.00 0 0.008177 0 0.00 0 0.008178 0 0.00 0 0.008179 0 0.00 0 0.008180 0 0.00 2 3.708181 2 9.52 0 0.008182 0 0.00 2 3.708183 0 0.00 0 0.008184 0 0.00 0 0.008185 0 0.00 1 1.858186 0 0.00 0 0.008187 0 0.00 3 5.56
279
Table B.20 Continued
8188 0 0.00 0 0.008189 0 0.00 0 0.008190 0 0.00 0 0.008191 1 4.76 2 3.708192 2 9.52 0 0.008193 3 14.29 0 0.008194 0 0.00 1 1.858195 0 0.00 0 0.008196 0 0.00 0 0.008197 0 0.00 0 0.008198 0 0.00 0 0.008199 0 0.00 0 0.008200 0 0.00 0 0.008201 0 0.00 0 0.008202 0 0.00 0 0.008203 0 0.00 0 0.008204 0 0.00 1 1.858205 0 0.00 0 0.008206 0 0.00 2 3.708207 0 0.00 2 3.708208 1 4.76 0 0.008209 1 4.76 0 0.008210 1 4.76 2 3.708211 1 4.76 0 0.008212 1 4.76 0 0.008213 1 4.76 2 3.708214 1 4.76 0 0.008215 1 4.76 0 0.008216 1 4.76 2 3.708217 1 4.76 1 1.858218 9.52 0 0.008219 1 4.76 2 3.708220 1 4.76 3 5.568221 1 4.76 0 0.008222 1 4.76 0 0.008223 1 4.76 0 0.008224 1 4.76 0 0.008225 1 4.76 2 3.708226 3 14.29 0 0.008227 0 0.00 0 0.008228 0 0.00 0 0.008229 0 0.00 2 3.708230 0 0.00 2 3.70
280
Table B.20 Continued
8231 0 0.00 0 0.008232 0 0.00 0 0.008233 0 0.00 0 0.008234 0 0.00 0 0.008235 0 0.00 1 1.858236 0 0.00 1 1.858237 0 0.00 0 0.008238 0 0.00 0 0.008239 0 0.00 0 0.008240 0 0.00 0 0.00
281
Table B.21 Calculated Fracture Intensity from Oriented Micro Resistivity Logs (OMRL) and Fracture Identification Logs (FID); Combs 2
COMBS 2 (49-021-20372)OMRL FID
Length of track (mm): 51.5 Length of track (mm): 63
Depth(ft)
Total Length of Res Contrast
(mm)
Fracture Intensity (% Length of Res
Contrast/Length of track)
Total Length of Res Contrast
(mm)
Fracture Intensity (% Length of Res
Contrast/Length of track)
8190 0 0.00 0 0.008191 0 0.00 0 0.008192 1 1.94 0 0.008193 1 1.94 0 0.008194 0 0.00 0 0.008195 0 0.00 0 0.008196 0 0.00 0 0.008197 1 1.94 0 0.008198 0 0.00 0 0.008199 0 0.00 0 0.008200 1 1.94 3 4.768201 1 1.94 0 0.008202 0 0.00 3 4.768203 1 1.94 0 0.008204 0 0.00 3 4.768205 0 0.00 2 3.178206 0 0.00 0 0.008207 0 0.00 0 0.008208 0 0.00 0 0.008209 0 0.00 0 0.008210 2 3.88 0 0.008211 9 17.48 0 0.008212 2 3.88 3 4.768213 0 0.00 0 0.008214 0 0.00 0 0.008215 0 0.00 0 0.008216 1 1.94 0 0.008217 1 1.94 2 3.178218 1 1.94 0 0.008219 1 1.94 3 4.768220 1 1.94 0 0.008221 1 1.94 0 0.008222 0 0.00 0 0.00
282
Table B.21 Continued
8223 0 0.00 1 1.598224 0 0.00 2 3.178225 0 0.00 0 0.008226 1 1.94 0 0.008227 0 0.00 6 9.528228 1 1.94 0 0.008229 1 1.94 4 6.358230 2 3.88 2 3.178231 1 1.94 0 0.008232 0 0.00 0 0.008233 0 0.00 0 0.008234 1 1.94 1 1.598235 0 0.00 8 12.708236 12 23.30 6 9.528237 0 0.00 6 9.528238 0 0.00 0 0.008239 0 0.00 2 3.178240 1 1.94 6 9.528241 5 9.71 5 7.948242 2 3.88 4 6.358243 5 9.71 3 4.768244 1 1.94 0 0.008245 2 3.88 1 1.598246 1 1.94 0 0.008247 1 1.94 1 1.598248 1 1.94 0 0.008249 0 0.00 0 0.008250 0 0.00 0 0.008251 0 0.00 0 0.008252 0 0.00 0 0.008253 0 0.00 0 0.008254 0 0.00 0 0.008255 1 1.94 0 0.008256 0 0.00 0 0.008257 0 0.00 0 0.008258 0 0.00 0 0.008259 0 0.00 0 0.008260 0 0.00 0 0.008261 0 0.00 0 0.008262 0 0.00 0 0.008263 0 0.00 0 0.008264 0 0.00 0 0.008265 0 0.00 0 0.00
283
Table B.21 Continued
8266 0 0.00 0 0.008267 1 1.94 1 1.598268 5 9.71 0 0.008269 1 1.94 0 0.008270 5 9.71 0 0.008271 5 9.71 5 7.948272 4 7.77 1 1.598273 4 7.77 4 6.358274 5 9.71 5 7.948275 3 5.83 14 22.228276 3 5.83 0 0.008277 3 5.83 4 6.358278 1 1.94 3 4.768279 2 3.88 2 3.178280 1 1.94 0 0.008281 1 1.94 6 9.528282 1 1.94 0 0.008283 4 7.77 11 17.468284 0 0.00 0 0.008285 1 1.94 2 3.178286 1 1.94 0 0.008287 4 7.77 2 3.178288 1 1.94 7 11.118289 4 7.77 4 6.358290 2 3.88 2 3.178291 1 1.94 9 14.298292 1 1.94 1 1.598293 1 1.94 0 0.008294 0 0.00 1 1.598295 0 0.00 0 0.008296 0 0.00 0 0.008297 0 0.00 0 0.008298 0 0.00 0 0.008299 1 1.94 0 0.008300 0 0.00 0 0.008301 1 1.94 0 0.008302 2 3.88 0 0.008303 1 1.94 2 3.178304 1 1.94 0 0.008305 1 1.94 8 12.708306 4 7.77 0 0.008307 1 1.94 2 3.178308 0 0.00 18 28.57
284
Table B.21 Continued
8309 0 0.00 4 6.358310 3 5.83 2 3.178311 5 9.71 39 61.908312 6 11.65 19 30.168313 7 13.59 16 25.408314 5 9.71 13 20.638315 6 11.65 17 26.988316 4 7.77 6 9.528317 2 3.88 0 0.008318 0 0.00 2 3.178319 3 5.83 2 3.178320 2 3.88 0 0.008321 5 9.71 17 26.988322 5 9.71 20 31.758323 6 11.65 6 9.528324 2 3.88 2 3.178325 1 1.94 0 0.008326 1 1.94 0 0.008327 0 0.00 0 0.008328 0 0.00 0 0.008329 0 0.00 4 6.358330 1 1.94 0 0.008331 1 1.94 7 11.118332 1 1.94 0 0.008333 1 1.94 0 0.008334 1 1.94 0 0.008335 1 1.94 0 0.008336 1 1.94 0 0.008337 0 0.00 0 0.008338 0 0.00 0 0.008339 0 0.00 0 0.008340 0 0.00 0 0.008341 0 0.00 0 0.008342 0 0.00 0 0.008343 0 0.00 0 0.008344 0 0.00 0 0.008345 0 0.00 0 0.008346 0 0.00 0 0.008347 0 0.00 0 0.008348 0 0.00 0 0.008349 0 0.00 0 0.008350 0 0.00 1 1.598351 0 0.00 0 0.00
285
Table B.21 Continued
8352 0 0.00 1 1.598353 0 0.00 2 3.178354 0 0.00 2 3.178355 0 0.00 4 6.358356 0 0.00 0 0.008357 0 0.00 0 0.008358 1 1.94 5 7.948359 0 0.00 11 17.468360 2 3.88 9 14.298361 1 1.94 0 0.008362 0 0.00 1 1.598363 0 0.00 1 1.598364 0 0.00 0 0.008365 0 0.00 0 0.008366 2 3.88 1 1.598367 0 0.00 0 0.008368 0 0.00 0 0.008369 0 0.00 1 1.598370 0 0.00 4 6.358371 3 5.83 12 19.058372 4 7.77 8 12.708373 0 0.00 0 0.008374 0 0.00 0 0.008375 0 0.00 3 4.768376 0 0.00 3 4.768377 0 0.00 0 0.008378 0 0.00 0 0.008379 0 0.00 0 0.008380 0 0.00 0 0.008381 0 0.00 4 6.358382 1 1.94 3 4.768383 0 0.00 3 4.768384 0 0.00 4 6.358385 1 1.94 6 9.528386 0 0.00 1 1.598387 0 0.00 5 7.948388 0 0.00 0 0.008389 0 0.00 7 11.118390 1 1.94 3 4.768391 0 0.00 0 0.008392 0 0.00 0 0.008393 0 0.00 0 0.008394 0 0.00 0 0.00
286
Table B.21 Continued
8395 0 0.00 1 1.598396 0 0.00 0 0.008397 0 0.00 0 0.008398 0 0.00 0 0.008399 0 0.00 0 0.008400 0 0.00 0 0.008401 0 0.00 0 0.008402 0 0.00 0 0.008403 0 0.00 2 3.178404 1 1.94 0 0.008405 1 1.94 0 0.008406 3 5.83 0 0.008407 0 0.00 13 20.638408 2 3.88 20 31.758409 5 9.71 11 17.468410 0 0.00 12 19.058411 0 0.00 0 0.008412 0 0.00 0 0.008413 0 0.00 18 28.578414 0 0.00 1 1.598415 0 0.00 1 1.598416 0 0.00 0 0.008417 0 0.00 0 0.008418 0 0.00 0 0.008419 0 0.00 0 0.008420 2 3.88 0 0.008421 0 0.00 0 0.008422 0 0.00 0 0.008423 1 1.94 2 3.178424 0 0.00 4 6.358425 0 0.00 7 11.118426 0 0.00 0 0.008427 0 0.00 0 0.008428 0 0.00 0 0.008429 0 0.00 0 0.008430 0 0.00 0 0.008431 0 0.00 0 0.008432 0 0.00 0 0.008433 0 0.00 0 0.008434 0 0.00 1 1.598435 1 1.94 0 0.008436 2 3.88 5 7.948437 2 3.88 6 9.52
287
Table B.21 Continued
8438 0 0.00 0 0.008439 0 0.00 0 0.008440 1 1.94 0 0.008441 0 0.00 0 0.008442 0 0.00 0 0.008443 0 0.00 0 0.008444 0 0.00 1 1.598445 3 5.83 0 0.008446 0 0.00 9 14.298447 0 0.00 6 9.528448 3 5.83 0 0.008449 0 0.00 0 0.008450 0 0.00 0 0.008451 0 0.00 2 3.178452 0 0.00 4 6.358453 3 5.83 0 0.008454 0 0.00 2 3.178455 0 0.00 0 0.008456 4 7.77 0 0.008457 1 1.94 0 0.008458 1 1.94 0 0.008459 2 3.88 0 0.008460 0 0.00 0 0.008461 3 5.83 12 19.058462 0 0.00 0 0.008463 0 0.00 0 0.008464 0 0.00 0 0.008465 0 0.00 14 22.228466 0 0.00 8 12.708467 2 3.88 11 17.468468 2 3.88 7 11.118469 5 9.71 2 3.178470 2 3.88 0 0.008471 1 1.94 4 6.358472 0 0.00 0 0.008473 1 1.94 8 12.708474 4 7.77 6 9.528475 0 0.00 0 0.008476 0 0.00 12 19.058477 0 0.00 1 1.598478 4 7.77 22 34.928479 0 0.00 17 26.988480 0 0.00 2 3.17
288
Table B.21 Continued
8481 0 0.00 6 9.52
8482 0 0.00 0 0.00
8483 0 0.00 0 0.00
APPENDIX C
CROSS SECTIONS
(Appendix C includes six oversized panels that are available as supplementary material)
APPENDIX D
REGRESSION ANALYSIS DATA TABLES
291
Table D. 1 Regression Analysis Data Tables
API
NumberWell Name
IstYrOil
(bbls)
Fracture Intensity
(FID)
(lowerBCh_Avg)
Fracture Intensity
(OMRL)
(lowerBCh_Avg)
2120228 CHAMPLIN 300 AMOCO B 8,350
2120244 STATE X 32,943
2120260 LEROY GOERTZB 123,986
2120285 SG MCCONNAUGHEY 5,619
2120287 COMBS 11,947 12.49 20.46
2120292 BASIN No. 3-B 2,069 2.94 7.65
2120294 SOUTH PRINCE 10,761
2120295 WARREN 1-H 12,038 3.60 2.00
2120303 EPLER 10,837
2120304 PAUL 10,471
2120310 SENTRY 2-9 331
2120316 HORST 18,683
2120318 STATE 6,375
2120319 PARKER 21,405 40.43*
2120321 PARKER No. 2-H 10,497 2.29
2120323 CHAMPLIN PETRO CO 9-1 19,817 2.91
2120325 16-H No. 1-18 383
2120328 STATE 1-20 439 0.92 2.10
2120332 CHILD RANCH No. 30-1 534
2120336 MCCONNAUGHEY 711 1.33 0.07
2120337 STATE No. 12-1A 18,117
2120339 COMBS 3H 10,824
2120340 STATE OF WY-AA No. 1 3,076
2120346 STATE 34 No. 1 6,038 0.57
2120349 LEE 41-5 11,096 23.41* 15.68
2120350 STATE 21 12,439 4.34
2120351 COMBS 4 6,414 7.63 5.99
2120353 COMBS 7 5,628 0.75 0.88
2120356 WARREN No. 1 11,519 6.15
2120359 32-5 LEE 2 205 10.95
2120361 COMBS 1 17,047 7.83 5.97
2120363 GW WARREN 2 25,475 2.70
2120364 STATE No. 1-18 5,564 4.32 2.98
2120378 LEROY GOERTZD 4,697
2120372 COMBS 2 6,995 4.65
*Data excluded from analysis because of poor borehole conditions
292
Table D.1 Continued
API
Number
Perforated
Thickness (ft)
Choke Size
(in)
Thickness
(Niobrara) (ft)
Thickness
(lowerBCh) (ft)
Distance from
Center Fault
(ft)
2120228 65 1 294.50 33.77 1050
2120244 94 291.45 37.55 2140
2120260 170 291.00 31.87 2882
2120285 44 293.50 29.39 3132
2120287 30 299.00 31.25 650
2120292 38 290.08 32.8 13950
2120294 97 0.25 295.60 33.34 4250
2120295 87 289.57 30.53 10350
2120303 31 0.1875 294.95 35.02 9087
2120304 229 0.3125 268.00 29.07 2790
2120310 186 299.00 33.06 15586
2120316 111 0.3125 289.07 32.36 1340
2120318 100 291.12 34.1 9170
2120319 230 298.16 33.76 6150
2120321 202 297.93 34.29 7730
2120323 67 0.1875 292.31 35.87 870
2120325 115 295.82 34.69 14510
2120328 52 291.00 31.3 6800
2120332 262 297.87 27.64 37000
2120336 47 297.00 29.23 10250
2120337 7 0.28125 292.90 35.04 4025
2120339 55 288.94 30.8 5280
2120340 265 294.00 31.65 1920
2120346 320 286.89 37.09 20730
2120349 69 293.50 33.8 2600
2120350 264 264 33.1
2120351 238 290.00 30.74 2950
2120353 19 0.125 293.96 32.7 7500
2120356 175 0.15625 290.04 32.19 8020
2120359 140 295.52 34.93 885
2120361 28 279.54 31.42 1715
2120363 54 0.21875 297.34 33.21
2120364 24 295.79 32.98 10490
2120378 222 303.48 34.9 2370
2120372 32 286.01 31.5 6675
293
Table D.1 Continued
API
Number
Resistivity
(lowerBCh_Avg)
Resistivity
(lowerBCh_Max)
Porosity
(lowerBCh_Avg)
Wt%Calcite
(lowerBCh_Avg)
2120228 46.82 58.77 0.091 80.90
2120244 45.39 76.40 0.100 87.16
2120260 48.38 102.58 0.106 83.01
2120285 57.12 130.46 0.076 83.36
2120287 43.28 57.90 0.070 82.55
2120292 34.54 68.14 0.106 82.94
2120294 50.80 103.52 0.082 83.57
2120295 30.29 44.53 0.083 82.90
2120303 41.23 71.12 0.065 81.92
2120304 53.84 94.92 0.061 81.62
2120310 23.78 33.55 0.101 82.72
2120316 30.20 47.92 0.059 80.16
2120318 24.07 34.92 0.073 83.64
2120319 43.80 74.70 0.059 82.60
2120321 42.28 71.49 0.072 82.58
2120323 24.39 38.99 0.101 83.44
2120325 29.83 49.91 0.075 81.89
2120328 31.95 51.79 0.096 82.14
2120332 22.57 36.43 0.055 81.48
2120336 30.58 50.09 0.070 82.35
2120337 24.48 37.99 0.102 82.48
2120339 44.99 76.48 0.086 82.21
2120340 29.20 42.61 0.031 81.31
2120346 28.45 47.44 0.074 81.72
2120349 89.92 286.09 0.063 83.04
2120350 82.15
2120351 46.88 76.10 0.089 82.28
2120353 36.61 52.02 0.093 82.52
2120356 38.94 58.11 0.091 82.45
2120359 81.81
2120361 83.89
2120363 43.9614 71.6193 79.49
2120364 32.29 45.58 80.87
2120378 43.79 72.41 0.065 80.96
2120372 80.08
REFERENCES
Asquith, G. B., and C. R. Gibson, 1982, Basic well log analysis: Tulsa, Oklahoma,AAPG Methods in Exploration Series, 216 p.
Barlow, L. K., and E. G. Kauffman, 1985, Depositional cycles in the Niobrara Formation, Colorado Front Range, in L. M. Pratt, E. G. Kauffman, F. B. Zelt, eds., Finegrained deposits and biofacies of the Cretaceous Western Interior Seaway: Evidence of cyclic sedimentary processes: SEPM Second Annual Midyear Meeting, Golden, Colorado, Field Trip Guidebook No. 9, p. 199-208.
Beck, J., A. Schultz, and D. Fitzgerald, 1977, Reservoir evaluation of fracturedCretaceous carbonates in south Texas: SPWLA Annual Logging Symposium, 25 p.
Berg, R. R., and A. F. Gangi, 1999, Primary migration by oil-generation microfracturing in low-permeability source rocks: Application to the Austin Chalk, Texas: AAPG Bulletin, v. 83, no. 5, p. 727-756.
Bhuyan, K., and Passey, Q. R., 1994, Clay estimation from GR and neutron-densityporosity logs: SPWLA 35th Annual Logging Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, p. 115.
Bigelow, E. L., 2002, Introduction to wireline log analysis: Baker Atlas, 312 p.
Brown, R. G., 2010, Silo oil field, Laramie County, Wyoming: A case for furtherdevelopment, in L. Fletcher, ed., Unconventional energy resources: Wyoming Geological Association Symposium 61st Field Conference: Wyoming Geological Association, p. 1-14.
Campbell, M. J., and R. E. Saint, 1991, New understanding of Niobrara reservoircharacteristics based on horizontal drilling in Silo Field, southeastern Wyoming (abs): AAPG bulletin, v. 75, no. 6, p. 1123.
Cartwright, J. A., 1996, Polygonal fault systems: A new type of fault structure revealed by 3-D seismic data from the North Sea Basin, in P. Weimer, and T. L. Davis, eds., AAPG Studies in Geology No. 42 and SEG Geophysical Developments Series, No. 5: Tulsa, AAPG and SEG, p. 338-350.
295
Chanchani, J., R. R. Berg, and Lee Chung-I, 1996, Pressure solution and microfracturing in primary oil migration, Upper Cretaceous Austin Chalk, Texas Gulf Coast: Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies Transactions, v. 46, p. 71-78.
Chapin, C. E., 1983, An overview of Laramide wrench faulting in the southern Rocky Mountains with emphasis on petroleum exploration, in Lowell, J. D., ed., Rocky Mountain foreland basins and uplifts: Denver, Colorado, Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists, p. 169-80.
Cobbold, P. R., A. Zanella, N. Rodrigues, and H. L0seth, 2013, Bedding-parallel fibrous veins (beef and cone-in-cone): Worldwide occurrence and possible significance in terms of fluid overpressure, hydrocarbon generation and mineralization: Marine and Petroleum Geology, v. 43, p. 1-20.
Davis, T. L. and C. W. Lewis, 1990, Reservoir characterization by 3-D, 3-C seismic imaging, Silo Field, Wyoming: Geophysics-The Leading Edge, v. 9, no. 11, p. 22-25.
Deacon, M., K. McDonough, L. Brinton, S. Friedman, J. Dunn, and R. Lieber, 2013,Stratigraphic controls on reservoir properties, Cretaceous Niobrara Formation, DJ Basin, Colorado (abs): AAPG Annual Convention and Exhibition, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, May 19-22: Search and Discovery Article #90163.
Dow, W. G., and D. I. O’Connor, 1982, Kerogen maturity and type by reflected lightmicroscopy applied to petroleum exploration, in F. L. Staplin, ed., How to assess maturation and paleotemperatures: SEPM Short Course 7, p. 133-158.
Dickinson, W. R., M. A. Klute, M. J. Hayes, S. U. Janecke, E. R. Lundin, M. A.Mckittrick, and M. S. Olivares, 1988, Paleogeographic and paleotectonic setting of Laramide sedimentary basins in the central Rocky Mountain region: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 100, no. 7, p. 1023-1039.
Drake, W. R., and S. J. Hawkins, 2012, A sequence stratigraphic framework for the Niobrara Formation in the Denver-Julesburg Basin: AAPG Rocky Mountain Section meeting, Grand Junction, Colorado, September 9-12: Search and Discovery #50757.
du Rouchet, J., 1981, Stress fields, A key to oil migration: AAPG Bulletin, v. 65, p. 7485.
Erslev, E. A., and N. V. Koenig, 2009, Three-dimensional kinematics of Laramide,basement-involved Rocky Mountain deformation, USA: Insights from minor faults and GIS-enhanced structure maps: Geological Society of America Memoirs, v. 204, p. 125-150.
296
Fletcher, R. C., and D. D. Pollard, 1981, Anticrack model for pressure solution surfaces: Geology, v. 9, no. September, p. 419-424.
Gilbert, G. K., 1895, Sedimentary measurement of Cretaceous time: The Journal of Geology, v. 3, no. 2, p. 121-127.
Harnett, R. A., 1968, Niobrara oil potential: Wyoming Geological Association Earth Science Bulletin, v. 1, p. 37-48.
Haskett, G. I., 1959, Niobrara Formation of Northwest Colorado, in J. D. Haun and R. J. Weimer, eds., Symposium on Cretaceous rocks of Colorado and adjacent areas: RMAG, p. 46-49.
Hattin, D. E., 1975, Petrology and origin of fecal pellets in Upper Cretaceous strata ofKansas and Saskatchewan: Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v. 45, no. 3, p. 686696.
Heflin, J. D., and E. Frost, Jr., 1983, Some novel approaches in the use of wireline logs for fracture detection, in Isaacs, C. M., R. E. Garrison, S. A. Graham, and W. A. Jensky II, eds., Petroleum generation and occurrence in the Miocene Monterey Formation, California: Los Angeles, SEPM Pacific Section, p. 131-149.
Higley, D. K. and D. O. Cox, 2007, Oil and gas exploration and development along the front range in the Denver Basin of Colorado, Nebraska, and Wyoming, in D. K. Higley, ed., Petroleum systems and assessment of undiscovered oil and gas in the Denver Basin province, Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Wyoming—USGS Province 39: U.S.G.S, DDS-69-P, Ch. 2, 41 p.
Hood, A., C. C. M. Gutjahr, and R. L. Heacock, 1975, Organic metamorphism and the generation of petroleum: AAPG Bulletin, v. 59, no. 6, p. 986-996.
Iverson, W. P., 1992, Fracture identification from well logs: SPE Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting, Casper, Wyoming, May 18-21: SPE 24351, p. 359-367.
Jarvie, D. M., B. L. Claxton, F. Henk, and J. T. Breyer, 2001, Oil and shale gas from the Barnett Shale, Ft. Worth Basin, Texas, AAPG National Convention, Denver, Colorado, June 3-6: AAPG Bulletin, v. 85, no. 13 (Supplement), p. A100.
Johnson, R. A., and R. T. Bartshe, 1991a, Using resistivity to assess Niobrara fracture patterns for horizontal wells: Oil & Gas Journal, Sept. 2, p. 99-103.
Johnson, R. A., and R. T. Bartshe, 1991b, Analyzing resistivity, oil production of Niobrara in Wyoming’s Silo field: Oil & Gas Journal, Sept. 9, p. 68-71.
297
Johnson Jr., R. L., and T. D. Brown, 1993, Large-volume, high-rate stimulationtreatments in horizontal wells in the Niobrara Formation, Silo Field, Laramie County, Wyoming: SPE Rocky Mountain Regional/Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, Colorado, April 12-14: SPE #25926, p. 781-794.
Kaiser, C., 2012, Petroleum potential of the Graneros-Greenhorn petroleum system: Greater Wattenberg Area, Denver Basin, Colorado [M.S. thesis]: Golden, Colorado School of Mines, 132 p.
Kauffman, E. G., 1977, Geological and biological overview: Western Interior Cretaceous basin: The Mountain Geologist, v. 14, no. 3-4, p. 75-99.
Kernan, N., 2013, The polygonal fault system of the Niobrara Formation (abs): AAPG Rocky Mountain Section 62nd Annual Meeting, Salt Lake City, Utah, September 22-24: Search and Discovery Article #90169.
LaChance, L. E. R., and M. C. Robinson, 2012, Sequence stratigraphy of the UpperCretaceous Niobrara Formation, A Bench, Wattenberg Field, Denver Julesburg Basin, Colorado: AAPG Annual Convention and Exhibition, Long Beach, California, April 22-24: Search and Discovery #20176.
Landon, S. M., M. W. Longman, and B. A. Luneau, 2001, Hydrocarbon source rockpotential of the Upper Cretaceous Niobrara Formation, Western Interior Seaway of the Rocky Mountain region: The Mountain Geologist, v. 38, no. 1, p. 1-18.
Larionov, V.V., 1969, Borehole Radiometry: Moscow, U.S.S.R., Nedra.
Lewis, C., T. L. Davis, and C. Vuillermoz, 1991, Three-dimensional multicomponent imaging of reservoir heterogeneity, Silo Field, Wyoming: Geophysics, v. 56, no. 12, p. 2048-2056.
Livaccari, R. F., 1991, Role of crustal thickening and extensional collapse in the tectonic evolution of the Sevier-Laramide orogeny, western United States: Geology, v. 19, no. 11, p. 1104-1107.
Locklair, R. E., and B. B. Sageman, 2008, Cyclostratigraphy of the Upper Cretaceous Niobrara Formation, Western Interior, U.S.A.: A Coniacian-Santonian orbital timescale: Earth and Planetary Science Letters, v. 269, no. 3-4, p. 540-553.
Lockridge, J. P., and R. M. Pollastro, 1988, Shallow Upper Cretaceous Niobrara gasfields in the eastern Denver Basin, in S. M. Goolsby and M. W. Longman, eds., Occurrence and petrophysical properties of carbonate reservoirs in the Rocky Mountain region: RMAG Guidebook, p. 63-74.
298
Longman, M. W., B. A. Luneau, and S. M. Landon, 1998, Nature and distribution of Niobrara lithologies in the Cretaceous Western Interior Seaway of the Rocky Mountain region: The Mountain Geologist, v. 35, no. 4, p. 137-170.
L0n0y, A., 2006, Making sense of carbonate pore systems: AAPG Bulletin, v. 90, no. 9, p . 1381-1405.
Lorenz, J. C., L. W. Teufel, and N. R. Warpinsky, 1991, Regional fractures I: Amechanism for the formation of regional fractures at depth in flat-lying reservoirs: AAPG Bulletin, v. 75, no. 11, p. 1714-1737.
Loucks, R. G., R. M. Reed, S. C. Ruppel, and D. M. Jarvie, 2009, Morphology, genesis, and distribution of nanometer-scale pores in siliceous mudstones of the Mississippian Barnett Shale: Journal of Sedimentary Research, v. 79, no. 12, p. 848861.
Merewether, E. A., and W. A. Cobban, 1985, Tectonicism in the mid-Cretaceousforeland, southeastern Wyoming and adjoining areas, in The Cretaceous Geology of Wyoming; 36th Annual Field Conference Guidebook: Wyoming Geological Association, p. 67-73.
Merin, I. S., and W. R. Moore, 1986, Application of Landsat imagery to oil exploration in Niobrara Formation, Denver Basin, Wyoming: AAPG Bulletin, v. 70, no. 4, p. 351-359.
Meyer, H. J., and H. W. McGee, 1985, Oil and gas fields accompanied by geothermal anomalies in Rocky Mountain region: AAPG Bulletin, v. 69, no. 6, p. 933-945.
Milam, K., 2013, Rising production not limited to the big two: AAPG Explorer, July 2013, p. 26.
Montgomery, S., 1991a, Horizontal drilling in the Niobrara: Northern D-J basin Part 1: Regional geology and drilling history, in Cheney, T. and D. Cain, eds., Petroleum Frontiers, v. 8, no. 1, p.1-65.
Montgomery, S., 1991b, Horizontal drilling in the Niobrara: Northern D-J basin Part 2: Silo Field, in Cheney, T. and D. Cain, eds., Petroleum Frontiers, v. 8, no. 1, p. 148.
New York State Library, 2010, Gouverneur Kemble Warren Papers, 1848-1882SC10668: http://www.nysl.nysed.gov/msscfa/sc10668.htm (accessed May 2014).
Oldham, D. W., 1996, Permian salt in the northern Denver Basin: Controls on occurrence and relationship to oil and gas production from Cretaceous reservoirs, in M. W. Longman, and M. D. Sonnenfeld, eds., Paleozoic systems of the Rocky Mountain Region: Rocky Mountain Section SEPM, p. 335-354.
299
Oldham, D. W., and R. A. Smosna, 1996, Influence of Permian salt dissolution ondistribution of shallow Niobrara gas fields, eastern Colorado, Rocky Mountain Section AAPG Meeting: Montana Geological Society, Expanded Abstracts p. 159-164.
Passey, Q. R., S. Creaney, J. B. Kulla, F. J. Moretti, and J. D. Stroud, 1990, A practical model for organic richness from porosity and resistivity logs: AAPG Bulletin, v. 24, no. 12, p. 1777-1794.
Pahnke, P. D., 2014, Characterization of Cretaceous chalk microporosity related to depositional texture: Based upon study of the Upper Cretaceous Niobrara Formation, Denver-Julesburg Basin, Colorado and Wyoming, M.S. thesis, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, 52 p.
Ricken, W., 1996, Bedding rhythms and cyclic sequences as documented in organiccarbon-carbonate patterns, Upper Cretaceous, Western Interior, U.S.: Sedimentary Geology, v. 102, no. 1-2, p. 131-154.
Scholle, P. A. and R. M. Pollastro, 1985, Sedimentary and reservoir characteristics of the Niobrara Formation (Upper Cretaceous), Kansas and Colorado, in M. W. Longman, K. W. Shanley, R. F. Lindsay, and D. E. Eby, eds., Rocky Mountain Carbonate reservoirs A Core Workshop, SEPM Core Workshop No. 7, Golden, CO, p. 447-482.
Schnerk, G. C., and C. N. Madeen, 1990, The Austin Chalk: Simulation of horizontalwells in a heterogeneous formation: Society of Petroleum Engineers 65th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, SPE 20716, p. 25-36.
Scott, G. R. and W. A. Cobban, 1964, Stratigraphy of the Niobrara Formation at Pueblo, Colorado; USGS Professional Paper 454-L, 30 p.
Slatt, R. M., and N. R. O’Brien, 2011, Pore types in the Barnett and Woodford gas shales: Contribution to understanding gas storage and migration pathways in fine-grained rocks: AAPG Bulletin, v. 95, no. 12, p. 2017-2030.
Smagala, T. M., C. A. Brown, and G. L. Nydegger, 1984, Log-derived indicator of thermal maturity, Niobrara Formation, Denver Basin, Colorado, Nebraska, Wyoming, in J. Woodward, F. F. Meissner, and J. C. Clayton, eds., Hydrocarbon source rocks of the greater Rocky Mountain region: RMAG Guidebook, p. 355363.
Sonnenberg, S. A., 2011, The Niobrara Petroleum System: A New Resource Play in the Rocky Mountain Region, in J. E. Estes-Jackson, and D. S. Anderson, eds., Revisiting and revitalizing the Niobrara in the Central Rockies: Denver, RMAG, p. 13-32.
300
Sonnenberg, S. A., 2012, The Niobrara petroleum system, Rocky Mountain region: Tulsa Geological Society dinner meeting, Tulsa, Oklahoma, January 3: Search and Discovery Article #80206.
Sonnenberg, S. A., and D. F. Underwood, 2013, Polygonal fault systems - A new structural style for the Niobrara Formation and Pierre Shale, Denver Basin, Colorado: The Mountain Geologist, v. 50, no. 4, p. 127-142.
Sonnenberg, S. A., and R. J. Weimer, 1993, Oil production from Niobrara Formation,Silo Field, Wyoming: Fracturing associated with a possible wrench fault system (?): The Mountain Geologist, v. 30, no. 2, p. 39-53.
Stell, J. R., and C. A. Brown, 1992, Comparison of production from horizontal and vertical wells in the Austin Chalk, Niobrara, and Bakken plays , in J. W. Schmoker, E. B. Coalson, and C. A. Brown, eds., Geological studies relevant to horizontal drilling: Examples from western North America: RMAG, p. 67-87.
Stone, D. S., 1969, Wrench faulting and Rocky Mountain tectonics: The Mountain Geologist, v. 6, no. 2, p. 67-79.
Svoboda, J. O., 1995, Is Permian salt dissolution the primary mechanism for fracturegenesis at Silo Field, Wyoming?, in R. R. Ray, ed., High-definition seismic: 2-D, 2-D swath, and 3-D case histories: RMAG Guidebook, p. 79-85.
Thomas, G. E., 1992, Effects of differential compaction fracturing shown in four reservoirs: Oil & Gas Journal, v. 90, Feb. 3, p. 54-57.
Thul, D., 2012, Niobrara source rock maturity in the Denver Basin: A study ofdifferential heating and tectonics on petroleum prospectivity using programmed pyrolysis, M.S. thesis, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Colorado, 137 p.
Treadgold, G., G. Eisenstadt, J. Maher, J. Fuller, and B. Campbell, 2012, Niobrara fracture prospecting through integrated structural and azimuthal seismic interpretation, Silo Field area, Wyoming: The RMAG and the Denver Geophysical Society Annual 3D Seismic Symposium, Denver, Colorado, March 2: Search and Discovery # 20148.
Weimer, R. J., 1960, Upper Cretaceous stratigraphy, Rocky Mountain area: AAPG Bulletin, v. 44, no. 1, p. 1-20.
Weimer, R. J., 1984, Relation of unconformities, tectonics, and sea-level changes, Cretaceous of Western Interior, U.S.A., in J. S. Schlee, ed., Interregional unconformities and hydrocarbon accumulation: AAPG Memoir 36, p. 7-35.
301
Weimer, R. J., 1996, Guide to the petroleum geology and Laramide Orogeny, DenverBasin and Front Range, Colorado: Colorado Geological Society Bulletin, no. 5, p. 1-33.