New Hydrocarbon Prospect Determenation via Subsurface and Petrophysical Evaluation...

International Journal of Scientific Engineering and Applied Science (IJSEAS) – Volume‐3, Issue‐6, June 2017 ISSN: 2395‐3470

www.ijseas.com

114

New Hydrocarbon Prospect Determenation via Subsurface and Petrophysical Evaluation of Rudeis Formation, Belayim Land Oil Field, Gulf of Suez, Egypt.

M. A. ABD ELHADY1, A.S.S. AHMED2, A.M.METWALY2

1 Geology Department, Faculty of Science, Al Azhar University. 2 Belayim Petroleum Company.

ABSTRACT

This present work aims to combines the formation evaluation of wireline well logs with subsurface geological model of the Rudeis Formation in Belayim Land Oil Field, Gulf of Suez. Results followed procedures to evaluate reservoir characteristics throughout the penetrated wells in this Formation. The subsurface geological investigations were accomplished by studying the stratigraphic, tectonic and structural settings, and the petrophysical evaluation was done by the computer processed interpretation that puss through the quantitative interpretation technique. Petrophysical studied, core log data and porosity permeability relationship that reflact the good reservoir quality which can delineate more fluids with high porosity. The study area has all criteria to make it of considerable hydrocarbon potential. It is characterized by having homogeneous lithological response relevant mainly to sandstone facies, the hydrocarbon generating source rock, seal rock, reservoir rock, with reasonable porosity and structure closure. As results of the present study, using the subsurface and petrophysical evaluation, the data of Rudeis Formation has one trend with excellent correction Coefficient (91 %). That reflects the good reservoir quality which can delineate more fluids with high porosity. As a result of the present study three location are proposed to be prospects in Rudeis formation, these location structurally are located within a three way dip closure that is very attractive place for hydrocarbon accumulation.

Keywords: Reservoir characterization, Belayim Land Oil field, Rudeis Formation.


www.ijseas.com

115

1-INTRODUCTION

The Gulf of Suez is one of the most important hydrocarbon province in Egypt. Belayim land oil field lies on the eastern side of the Gulf of Suez, one hundred and 65 kilometers southeast of the Suez City (Fig. 1). It has been subject to intensive exploration activities since the early last Century. The Rudeis reservoirs are present over most of the study area and represent about 20% of production potential in the Gulf of Suez. The Rudeis sandstone has produced oil from fields such as the Shoab Ali, East Zeit, Ashrafi, GH376, Amal, Asal, Belayim Marine, Belayim Land, Al Ayun, July, Kareem, Matarma, Sudr, Morgan, Kheir, and Umm El Yusr and has tested gas from the Felefel field.

2-METHODOLOGY

The present study is based mainly on the use of the available wireline logs of four wells namely (113-81,113-95,113-142 and 113-166 St) and seven 2D seismic lines distributed in the study area, as shown in Figure (1).

Figure (1): Location map of Belayim Land Oil Field. It shows the location of the selected wells

in the study area.


www.ijseas.com

116

Stratigraphic Setting

The lithostratigraphic sequence of the study area ranges from Cambrian to Recent. It can

be classified into two mega sequences; pre-rift and syn-rift (Fig. 2). The stratigraphic time and

rock units, determined by examinations of outcrop sections, subsurface cores, electric logs as

well as micro faunal studies from ditch samples and thin sections, were described by Sadek

(1959), EGPC Stratigraphic Committee (1964), Webster (1982), Sellwood and Netherwood

(1984), Salah (1989), Ayad and Stuart (1990), Gawthorpe, R. L. and Hurst, J. M., (1993),

Bosworth and Mc Clay (2001) and Abd El-Naby et al. (2009) and others.

The penetrated stratigraphic section of the study area (Fig.2) ranges in age from Lower

Miocene (Rudeis Formation) to the Pliocene (post Zeit).

.


www.ijseas.com

117

Figure (2): Stratigraphic section of the study area (after Anany 2008).

Stratigraphic correlation chart in figure (3), runs in the East-West direction hanged on

Top Rudeis Formation and connecting the studied wells, shows that the Rudeis Formation is

thick in the South Western part recording it’s maximum thickness 330 m at 113-81 well and

decreases towards the North Eastern part recording 51 m at 113-166 ST.


www.ijseas.com

118

Figure (3): Stratigraphic Correlation chart of the study area Rudeis Formation.

STRUCTURAL SETTING

The Gulf of Suez is dissected by a complex pattern of faults: N-S to NNE-SSW as well as

E-W trending normal faults at the rift borders and within the rift basin, and NE trending strike-


www.ijseas.com

119

slip faults crossing the Gulf basin (Abd El-Naby et al., 2009). The interaction of these major

fault systems resulted in a complex structural pattern consisting of numerous horsts and grabens

with variable relief and dimensions.

The Gulf of Suez is currently subdivided into three structural provinces according to their

structural setting and regional dip directions. (El Diasty and Peters, 2014)

The central province occupies the central part of the Gulf of Suez. The characteristic

feature of that province is the pre-Miocene shallow structures underlying the Miocene sediments.

These highs were subjected to severe erosion. The eroded Pre-Miocene sediments were

redeposited in the early troughs. The regional dip is north east. The main clysmic and Aqaba

trending throw toward the southeast and northwest respectively.

Structure Contour Map.

The structure contour map of Rudeis Formation in study area figure (4) shows that was affected by four fault trends (NW-SE,and NE-SW) Rudeis Formation and this trends shown in seismic sections figures( 5), the same structural trends. A set of normal faults forming a horst, graben and step fault block that are very convenient for oil accumulations.


www.ijseas.com

120

Figure (4):The structure contour map of Rudeis Formation.

N

A

A’


www.ijseas.com

121

Figure (5): Seismic Section passing through of the study area.

Delineation of the structure

To elucidate the above mention structure, the geologic cross section (fig 6) was constructed in direction NW-SE respectively, direction of faults, unconformity, deviation of dips, thinning and thickening are evident.

The geologic cross section fig 6 passes through 113-81 and 113-95 wells. This section is shows 4 normal faults cutting through studied wells of succession forming horst and step blocks in South East and North West Side, South east block is dipping toward east and North west block dipping toward west.

NW SE

N


www.ijseas.com

122

Figure (6): Geologic structural cross section.

The Isopach map of Rudeis Formation

The Isopach map of Rudeis Formation is presented in Figure 8. The Thickness in study

area ranges between 51 m in 113-166-ST well to 330 m in 113-95 well. It is clear that increases

towards the South West part of the study area, in the vicinity of 113-95 well. However, the

platform occurs in the northern part recording its minimum thickness.


www.ijseas.com

123

Figure (8): Isopach map of Rudeis formation.

Lithological Identification cross-plot

The neutron-density and the neutron-sonic cross-plots of Rudeis Formation in four wells except one well which have not a particular login figure 9. It is mainly characterized by the predominance of sandstone. It is also characterized by the presence of shale and dolomite as cement.

335

335

325

325

315

315

305

305

295

295

285

285

275

275

265

265

255

255

245

245

235

235

225

225

215

215

205

205

195

195

185

185

175

175

165

165

155

155

145

145

135

135

125

125

115

115

105

105

95

95

85

85

75

75

65

65

55

55

45

45

35

35

345

345

355

355

365

365

375

37525

113-142

113-81

113-95

113-166(st)

124.00

330.00

215.00

51.00

829500 830000 830500 831000 831500 832000 832500 833000 833500

829500 830000 830500 831000 831500 832000 832500 833000 833500

65

70

00

65

75

00

65

80

00

65

85

00

65

90

00

65

95

00

66

00

00

65

70

00

65

75

00

65

80

00

65

85

00

65

90

00

65

95

00

66

00

00

0 250 500 750 1000 1250m

1:25000

30.0040.0050.0060.0070.0080.0090.00100.00110.00120.00130.00140.00150.00160.00170.00180.00190.00200.00210.00220.00230.00240.00250.00260.00270.00280.00290.00300.00310.00320.00330.00340.00350.00360.00370.00380.00

True vertical thickness [m]

C.I.=10


www.ijseas.com

124


www.ijseas.com

125

Figure (9) Lithological identification cross-plots.

All the thin section were described by the point counter analysis and Petrographic

description shows in figure 12 and table 2 consist of Dolomitic quartz arenite, fine grained,

moderately to poorly sorted and moderately cemented, for detrital grains is Subrounded quartz and

are the main framework of the samples with minor amounts 1.5% lithic fragments and 0.5% grain

coating detrital clays, while the abundant authigenic cement is dolomite which occurs as well

crystalline rhombohedrons partially filling the pores and minor amounts 1% of syntaxial quartz

overgrowth. The pore network is consisting of very good interconnected oversized primary

intergranular and secondary dissolution intergranular porosity, so reservoir quality is very good.


www.ijseas.com

126

Figure (12): photomicrograph of Rudeis Fm in well 113-81.

Table (2) Point Country Petrographic Description of well 113-81


www.ijseas.com

127

Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM)

This is a type of electron microscope produces images of a sample by scanning it with a

focused beam of electrons. The electrons interact with atoms in the sample, producing various

signals that can be detected and contain information about the sample's surface topography and

composition. The electron beam is generally scanned, and the beam's position is combined with the

detected signal to produce an image. SEM can achieve resolution better than 1 nanometer.

Specimens can be observed in high vacuum, in low vacuum, in wet conditions (in environmental

SEM), and at a wide range of cryogenic or elevated temperatures (McMullan, 2006)


www.ijseas.com

128

Figure (13): SEM photo of well 113-81.

A: General view of the sample figure 13 shows in fine to coarse grained and moderately

sorted sandstone, with open grain packing and a high degree of well-connected primary

intergranular porosity . Pores are lined with some poorly developed authigenic clays and partially

filled by common dolomite rhombohedrons.

Figure (14): SEM photo of well 113-81.

B: Close-up photograph in figure 14,the same view, shows quartz overgrowths and pore-

lining bladed gypsum aggregates. These aggregates may be original or an artefact, (commonly

occur throughout the sample).

RESERVOIR CHARACTERASTIC


www.ijseas.com

129

The lateral variation of petrophysical characteristics are represented by a number of iso-

parametric maps which are the net pay isochore, shale content, effective porosity, water saturation,

and hydrocarbon saturation maps and this output data values are clarified in table 3.

Table 2: Petrophysical characteristic of Rudeis Formation.

Rudeis Formation- Net Pay vs Net Reservoir thickness Distribution Map

Figure (15) shows that the net pay in study area ranges between 20 m in 113-166-ST well to

112 m in 113-95 well. It is clear that the net pay increases towards the South Western part of the

study area. The structural elements of the area under study might affect the net pay distribution.

Rudeis Formation- Shale content variation map

Figure (16) shows that the shale content increases towards the North Eastern part of the area

under study, where the shale content recorded its maximum value of 18 % in 113-81 well.

Rudeis Formation- Effective porosity variation map

Figure (17) shows that the effective porosity increases towards the South Western part of the

study area with a maximum value of 22 % in 113-95 well.

Rudeis Formation- Water saturation variation map

WellsFormation

NameTop Bottom

Gross

Thickness

(m)

Net Pay

(m)

Effective

Porosity

PHIE (%)

Water

Saturation

(%)

Hydrocarbon

Saturation

(%)

Shale

Content

(%)

113-81 Rudeis Fm 2718 3048 330 105 21 30 70 18

113-95 Rudeis Fm 2750 2965 215 112 22 28 72 8

113-142 Rudeis Fm 2768 2892 124 61 19 33 67 5

113-166 ST Rudeis Fm 3071 3122 51 20 17 36 64 8


www.ijseas.com

130

Figure (18) shows that the water saturation increases towards the north eastern part of the study area, where the water saturation recorded its maximum value of 36 % in 113-166-St well.

Rudeis Formation- Hydrocarbon saturation variation map

Figure (19) shows that, the hydrocarbon saturation increases towards the West, central part

of the study area with a maximum value of 72 % in 113-95 well.

Figure (15): Net Reservoir Thickness Distribution Map

140

140

130

130

120

120

110

110

100

100

90

90

80

80

70

70

60

60

50

50

40

40

150

160

30

30

20

20

10 0

113-142

113-81

113-95

113-166(st)

61.00

105.00

112.00

20.00

829500 830000 830500 831000 831500 832000 832500 833000 833500 834000

829500 830000 830500 831000 831500 832000 832500 833000 833500 834000

65

70

00

65

75

00

65

80

00

65

85

00

65

90

00

65

95

00

66

00

00

65

70

00

65

75

00

65

80

00

65

85

00

65

90

00

65

95

00

66

00

00

0 250 500 750 1000 1250m

1:25000

0.0010.0020.0030.0040.0050.0060.0070.0080.0090.00100.00110.00120.00130.00140.00150.00160.00

Net pay [m]

C.I.=10 m


www.ijseas.com

131

Figure (16): Shale content variation map

0.25

0.25

0.3

0.3

0.35

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

0.15

0.15

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1113-142

113-81

113-95

113-166(st)

0.05

0.18

0.08

0.08

829500 830000 830500 831000 831500 832000 832500 833000 833500 834000

829500 830000 830500 831000 831500 832000 832500 833000 833500 834000

657000

657500

658000

658500

659000

659500

660000

657000

657500

658000

658500

659000

659500

660000

0 250 500 750 1000 1250m

1:25000

0.000.050.100.150.200.250.300.350.400.450.50

VShale [%]

C.I.=0.05

0.21

5

0.215

0.21

0.21

0.20

5

0.205

0.2

0.2

0.19

5

0.195

0.19

0.19

0.18

5

0.185

0.18

0.18

0.17

5

0.17

5

0.22

0.22

0.225

0.225

0.23

0.23

5

0.24

113-142

113-81

113-95

113-166(st)

0.19

0.21

0.22

0.19

829500 830000 830500 831000 831500 832000 832500 833000 833500 834000

829500 830000 830500 831000 831500 832000 832500 833000 833500 834000

657000

657500

658000

658500

659000

659500

660000

657000

657500

658000

658500

659000

659500

660000

0 250 500 750 1000 1250m

1:25000

0.180.180.190.190.200.200.210.210.220.220.230.230.240.24

Porosity - effective [m3/m3]

C.I.=0.005


www.ijseas.com

132

Figure (17): Effective porosity variation map

Figure (18): Water saturation variation map

0.27

0.27

0.28

0.28

0.29

0.290.

3

0.3

0.31

0.31

0.32

0.32

0.33

0.33

0.34

0.34

0.35

0.35

0.26

0.26

0.25

0.24

0.39

0.4

0.41

0.36

0.36

0.37

0.38

113-142

113-81

113-95

113-166(st)

0.33

0.3

0.28

0.36

829500 830000 830500 831000 831500 832000 832500 833000 833500 834000

829500 830000 830500 831000 831500 832000 832500 833000 833500 834000

657000

657500

658000

65850

0659000

659500

660000

657000

657500

658000

658500

659000

659500

660000

0 250 500 750 1000 1250m

1:25000

0.240.250.260.270.280.290.30.310.320.330.340.350.360.370.380.390.40.41

Water saturation

C.I.=0.1


www.ijseas.com

133

Figure (19): Hydrocarbon saturation variation map

Computer processed interpretation (C.P.I) plot

Figure (20) is the computer processed interpretation plot for Rudeis Formation in 113-

81well. As is shown in this figure20, the Rudeis Formation is encountered at the depth of (2718-

3048 m). The gross interval is 330 m. It is characterized by the predominance of sandstone and

shale. Shale tends to increase downwards and sandstone tends to decrease downwards where the

effective porosity ranges between(0.1% to 27%) but the mean value is 21%. The Rudeis Formation

reveals some intervals that the water saturation reaches to 16%. The water saturation ranges

between 16% to 60 %,but the mean value is 33 %. The Oil Water Contact is at 2824 (-2548) m and

the net pay is 105 m.

0.73

0.73

0.72

0.72

0.71

0.71

0.7

0.7

0.69

0.69

0.68

0.68

0.67

0.67

0.66

0.66

0.65

0.65

0.74

0.74

0.75

0.76

0.61

0.6

0.59

0.64

0.64

0.63

0.62

113-142

113-81

113-95

113-166(st)

0.67

0.7

0.72

0.64

829500 830000 830500 831000 831500 832000 832500 833000 833500 834000

829500 830000 830500 831000 831500 832000 832500 833000 833500 834000

65

70

00

65

75

00

65

80

00

65

85

00

65

90

00

65

95

00

66

00

00

65

70

00

65

75

00

65

80

00

65

85

00

65

90

00

65

95

00

66

00

00

0 250 500 750 1000 1250m

1:25000

0.590.60.610.620.630.640.650.660.670.680.690.70.710.720.730.740.750.76

Oil saturation

C.I.=0.01


www.ijseas.com

134

Figure (20) Petrophysics Logs Display of Rudeis Formation in 113-81 well

Porosity vs horizontal permeability relationship

Porosity-Permeability relationship is one factor from many to control the quality of

reservoir, so the relation is in figure 21 for Rudeis Formation of well 113-81 and the data in table 3

has one trend with excellent correction Coefficient (91 %). This reflect the good reservoir quality

which can delineate more fluids with high porosity.

Table 3: Out-put data of Horizontal Permeability (KH) versus Core Porosity from Routine Core

Analysis.

O.W.C @2824 (‐2548) m


www.ijseas.com

135


www.ijseas.com

136

y = 1.0114e0.2945x

R² = 0.9122

1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0

Ho

rize

nta

l Per

mea

bili

ty (

md

)

Porosity (%)

113-81

Expon. (113-81 )

Figure (21) Porosity vs Permeability of Rudeis Formation for well 113-81.

Production Data

This is the production data of study wells which started producing in May 1997 from the

well 113-81 and are still producing till produced from the recent well 113-166 ST that started

putting in production in April 2011and formation water salinity measured from water samples that

have been taken during production and this is clarified in table 4.


www.ijseas.com

137

Table 4: Summary Production data of well study.

Wells Formation

Name

Daily Production

Rate m3/d

Cumulative

production

MMB

Water Resisitivity

Ohm.m

113-81 Rudeis 320 3 0.028

113-95 Rudeis 285 2.5 0.027

113-142 Rudeis 540 1.5 0.024

113-166 ST Rudeis 130 46 MB 0.025

I-Petroleum Potentialities

According to Magoon and Dow, (1994), the Petroleum system includes all those

geologic elements and processes that are essential for an oil and gas deposit to exist in nature.

These basic elements include a petroleum source rock, reservoir rock, seal, and trap; and the

geologic processes that create each of these basic elements. All these elements must be correctly

placed in time and space such that, the processes required formation a petroleum accumulation

can occur.

Source Rocks

According to Gluyas and Swarbrick (2004), a source rock is a sedimentary rock that

contains sufficient organic matter such that when it is buried and heated it will produced

petroleum (oil and gas).

The principal parameter in evaluating a rock unit to be a source rock is its organic

carbon content. Moreover, the type of organic matter determines to a great extent, the kind of

produced hydrocarbons being either oil or gas.


www.ijseas.com

138

According to Alsharhan, (2003), in prerift and synrift series the main source rock

corresponds to the marls of the Rudeis Formation. Its content in organic matter averages 2.5%

TOC but can locally reach 4% with a potential around 7kg/t. usually, the series of the younger

Kareem and Belayim formations may have a TOC in the range of1%.

Reservoir Rocks

According to Alsharhan, (2003), the Rudeis reservoirs are present over most of the study

area and represent about 20% of production potential in the Gulf of Suez. The Rudeis sandstone

has produced oil from fields such as the Shoab Ali, East Zeit, Ashrafi, Amal, Asal, Belayim

Marine, Belayim Land, Al Ayun, July, Kareem, Matarma, Sudr, Morgan, Kheir, and Umm El

Yusr and has tested gas from the Felefel field, the porosity ranges between 13 to 26%, and

permeability lies between 10 to 1000 md. The Rudeis carbonates are producers of oil in the Zeit

Bay, Bahr, Sudr, Asl, and Matarma fields and of gas in the Felefel field, with an average porosity

of 16%. These carbonates are particularly well developed in submerged high areas within the

lower Miocene basin.

Seal Rocks

According to Rashed, (1990), represent excellent seals for shallow-water limestone

reservoirs and were deposited as onlapping anhydritic evaporites during progressive eastward

basinal collapse and ongoing late-stage rifting events. Within the synrift sequence, however, the

Miocene evaporites are considered to be the ultimate seal for reservoir rocks in the Gulf of Suez.

This is particularly true in the southern and central Gulf of Suez, where the evaporites are

generally thick, either on the downthrown side of major Clysmic faults or in the downdip

direction of uplifted tilted fault blocks. However, the magnitude of throw on the Clysmic faults is

a critical factor in the effectiveness of the sealing mechanism (Meshref et al., 1988).

According to Saoudy, (1990), A small throw juxtaposes the evaporite section, on the

downthrown side, against the Miocene porous section on the uplifted block. A large throw brings

the Miocene evaporates in juxtaposition with the pre-Miocene reservoirs on the uplifted block, as

shown at the Hilal, Belayim Marine, and Belayim Land fields, while the Miocene clastic section,


www.ijseas.com

139

such as the Rudeis and Kareem formations, can act as seals especially in areas where some shaly

facies have developed. In such cases, porous intervals within the formation act as reservoirs,

whereas the shaly intervals become vertical and/or horizontal seals, depending on the magnitude

of the throw of the fault, the Miocene shales also are an important factor in stratigraphic traps,

where they confine a body of sandstone as a lateral facies variation.

Petroleum Entrapment

According to Magoon and Dow (1994), a trap is defined as any geometric arrangement

of rock that permits significant accumulation of hydrocarbon in the subsurface

According Salah and Alsharhan (1998), there are several mechanisms for petroleum

entrapment that are recorded in the Gulf of Suez. These are structural, stratigraphic, and

combination traps.

Structural Traps

In the Gulf of Suez, most oil accumulations are trapped structurally, the prerift and synrift

reservoirs produce oil from fault-related traps where the reservoir is laterally and vertically

confined by a down-faulted overlying seal.

Hydrocarbons in this type of trap are from either prerift sources across synthetic faults

(e.g., October, Belayim Land, Morgan, Geisum, and Shoab Ali fields) or the underlying prerift or

synrift sources, as in theHilal, East Zeit, Ramadan, and Ras Badran fields, and this type of

Petroleum Entrapment is represented in the study area.

Stratigraphic Traps

Stratigraphic traps have recently become important targets for hydrocarbon exploration in

the Gulf of Suez in general. There are some proven stratigraphic traps at the Ras El Bahar

discovery, where the Miocene porous carbonate wedge is sealed vertically and laterally by a

facies change to dense carbonate. In the Belayim Land Oil field, Miocene porous sandstone is

present as lenses that are sealed vertically and laterally by a facies change to evaporites. Oil

sources lie across faults or are located updip from the prerift sections.


www.ijseas.com

140

Combination Traps

According to A. S. Alsharhan, 2003, there are two proven cases of combination

traps. (1)In the Shoab Ali, Asl, Sudr, and Ras Matarma fields, the Eocene limestone is both

reservoir and source, with an updip contribution from the Upper Cretaceous carbonates and

sealed by synrift mudstones. In these fields some of the synthetic faults act as sealing faults. (2)

In the RR89 discovery and the Ras Gharib field, a reef reservoir deposited on a fault-controlled

high is sealed by Miocene evaporites.

CONCLUSION

As results of the present study concluded the following: Belayim Land is a large oil field

located in the central part of the Gulf of Suez, along the coast of the Sinai Peninsula, Rudeis

Formation is the main sandstone reservoir and considered as the most important hydrocarbon oil

bearing and represent about 20% of production potential in the Gulf of Suez with an average

thickness 180 m, average porosity 22 % and is a clean sandstone with average shale content 8 %.

The study area has all criteria to make it of considerable hydrocarbon potential. It is

characterized by having homogeneous lithological response relevant mainly to sandstone facies,

the hydrocarbon generating source rock, seal rock, reservoir rock, with reasonable porosity and

structure closure.

As results of the present study, using the subsurface and petrophysical evaluation, the

data of Rudeis Formation has one trend with excellent correction Coefficient (91 %). That

reflects the good reservoir quality which can delineate more fluids with high porosity.

As a result of the present study using subsurface and petrophysical evaluation, three

locations are proposed to be prospects in Rudeis formation as shown in figure (21). These

locations are structurally located within a three-way dip closure that is very attractive place for

hydrocarbon accumulation. Petrophysically these locations characterization by the following:

The first location, the red colored frame area, is located in the north of central part of the

study area (the reservoir is 215-330 m., the effective porosity is 22 %, shale content is 14 %, the

water saturation is 29 %, the hydrocarbon is 71 %). The second area is blue colored frame area is


www.ijseas.com

141

located in west of central part of the study area and characterized by the following;(the reservoir

is 51m ., the effective porosity is 17 %, , the shale content is 8 %, the water saturation is 36 %,

the hydrocarbon is 64 %). The third area is the green colored frame area is located in south of

central part of the study area and is characterized by the following ;(the reservoir is 124 m., the

effective porosity is 17 %, the shale content is 5 %, the water saturation is 33 %, the hydrocarbon

saturation is 67 %.

Figure (21): prospect map of Rudeis Formation.

Acknowledgements


www.ijseas.com

142

I wish to thanks the Belayim Petroleum Company (Petrobel), and General Egyption

Petroleum Corporation (E.G.P.C) for providing the used data in this study.

References

Abd El- Naby, A., M. Abd El-Aal, J. Kuss, M. Boukhary and A. Lashin (2009): Structural and basin evolution in Miocene time, southwestern Gulf of Suez, Egypt. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie – Abhandlungen, v. 251, no. 3, p. 331-353. Alsharhan, A. S. (2003): Petroleum geology and potential hydrocarbon plays in the Gulf of Suez rift basin, Egypt: AAPG Bulletin, v. 87, no. 1, pp. 143–180. Anany (2008) Petrobel, Internal Report,’’Stratigraphic succession of belayim land oil field.

Ayad, M. and Stuart, C. (1990): Sequence Stratigraphy without seismic techniques applied in the Gulf of Suez. 10th Petroleum Exploration and ProductionConference, Cairo, pp. 139-213. Bosworth, W. and K. McClay (2001): Structural and stratigraphic evolution of the Gulf of Suez rift, Egypt: A synthesis. In P.A. Zeigler, W. Cavazza, A.H.F. Robertson and C. Crasquin-Soleau (Eds.), Peri-Tethyan Rift/Wrench Basins and Passive Margins. Mémoire Musee Histoire Naturelle, Peri-Tethys Memoir 6, v. 186, p. 567-606. E.G.P.C. Stratigraphic Sub-committee; (1964): Oligocene and Miocene rock stratigraphy of the Gulf of Suez region, " Egypt. Mimographed. Cairo, 12PP. El Diasty, W. Sh. and K.E. Peters (2014): Genetic classification of oil families in the central and southern sectors of the Gulf of Suez, Egypt, Journal of Petroleum Geology, Vol. 37 (2), April 2014, pp 105-126. Gawthorpe, R. L. and Hurst, J. M. (1993): Transfer zones in extensional basins: their structural style and influence in drainage development and stratigraphy Journal of the Geological Society, v. 150, pp. 1137-1152. Gluyas, J. and Swarbick, R. (2004): Petroleum Geoscience. (1st edition), pp 56. Levorsen, A. I., (1967): Geology of Petroleum, 2nd ed.: SanFrancisco, W.H. Freeman and Co., 724 p. Magoon and W.G. Dow, eds (1994): The Petroleum System—From Source to Trap: AAPG Memoir60, p. 339–358. McMullan D (2006): Scanning electron microscopy 1928–1965. Scanning 17:175


www.ijseas.com

143

Meshref, W. M., M. S. Abu Karamat, and M. Gindi (1988): Exploration concepts for oil in the Gulf of Suez: 9th Egyptian General Petroleum Corporation, Petroleum Exploration and Production Conference, v. 1, p. 1–24. Rashed, A., (1990): The main fault trends in the Gulf of Suez andtheir role in oil entrapment: 10th Egyptian General PetroleumCorporation, Petroleum Exploration and Production Conference,v. 1, p. 143–178. Sadek, H., (1959): The Miocene in the Gulf of Suez region, Egypt:Geological Survey of Egypt Special Publication, 118 p. Salah, M. G. (1989): Geology and hydrocarbon potential of the southern sector of the Gulfof Suez, Egypt. M.Sc., Cairo University, 140 p. Salah, M. G., and A. S. Alsharhan (1998): The Precambrian basement:a major reservoir in the rifted basin, Gulf of Suez: Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, v. 19, p. 201–222. Saoudy, A. M., (1990): Significance of NE cross faults on oil exploration in the southern Gulf of Suez area, Egypt: 10th Egyptian General Petroleum Corporation, Petroleum Exploration and Production Conference, v. 1, p. 104–143. Sellwood, B.W., and Netherwood, R.E. (1984): Facies evolution in the Gulf of Suez area, sedimentation history as as indicator of rift initiation and development, Modern Geology, V. 9, pp. 43-69. Webster, D. J. (1982): Post Eocene stratigraphy of the Suez Rift, Egypt: 6th Egyptian General Petroleum Corporation, Petroleum Exploration and Production Conference, v. 1, p. 76–189.

New Hydrocarbon Prospect Determenation via Subsurface and Petrophysical Evaluation...

Documents

Transcript of New Hydrocarbon Prospect Determenation via Subsurface and Petrophysical Evaluation...