About This Item

Share This Item

The AAPG/Datapages Combined Publications Database

AAPG Bulletin

Abstract


Volume: 71 (1987)

Issue: 11. (November)

First Page: 1440

Last Page: 1440

Title: A Dry Hole or Reservoir Damage? What We Need to Know: ABSTRACT

Author(s): John R. Farina

Article Type: Meeting abstract

Abstract:

Stories abound in the industry about the oil or gas Previous HitfieldNext Hit drilled and abandoned by one company, only to be "discovered" by a second company that evaluated the Previous HitdataNext Hit from a different perspective. The Elmworth Previous HitfieldNext Hit (Canada), and Beeville, North Resenberg, and Running Duke fields (Texas) are all Previous HitexamplesNext Hit where the initial well penetrated the hydrocarbon column but was not completed, or was completed, tested, and abandoned.

Numerous explanations exist as to why fields are abandoned and then rediscovered. Often contributing to this cycle is a lack of understanding of the reservoir's pore geometry, and of the effects of drilling or completion-induced damage on production or pressure performance measured by drill-stem tests, repeat formation testers, and well logs. Additionally, the inability to tell the difference between a low-permeability noncommercial reservoir and a damaged commercial reservoir results in a lot of missed Previous HitfieldNext Hit discoveries.

In my lecture, I discuss the causes of formation damage, as well as factors that signal the reservoir's vulnerability to damage (e.g., small pore throats, authigenic clays, low reservoir pressure). I also include case Previous HitexamplesNext Hit of conventional tests that, by routine analysis, show the zone to be noncommercial when, in fact, the well was completed and produced commercially.

Understanding the type of reservoir system being tested and using all available tools and Previous HitdataTop are the key to determining reservoir behavior.

End_of_Article - Last_Page 1440------------

Copyright 1997 American Association of Petroleum Geologists