19

Int. J Sci. Emerging Tech Vol-3 No 1 January, 2012

Reservoir Characterization of KONGA Field, Onshore Niger Delta, Southern Nigeria

*Omoboriowo, A.O.1, Chiaghanam, O.I.2, Chiadikobi,K.C.3, Oluwajana,O A4 Soronnadi-Ononiwu C.G5, Ideozu,R .U.6
Department of Geology, University of Port Harcourt, Port Harcourt, Nigeria 2,3 Department of Geology, Anambra State University, Uli,Nigeria 4 Department of Geology,Adekunle Ajasin University,Akungba Akoko,Ondo,Nigeria 5 Department of Geology,Niger Delta University,Wilberforce Island,Nigeria
4

1,6

*1dayoboriowo@yahoo.co.uk, 2oichiaghanam@yahoo.com,3kinsomino@yahoo.com, afolabi.oladotun@yahoo.com, 5chijiokesor@yahoo.co.uk, 6richmondideozu@yahoo.co.uk

Abstract - The evaluation of the reservoir characterization of KONGA Field, Onshore Niger Delta, Southern Nigeria using a suite of wire line logs from five (5) wells and biofacies data was undertaken. Five reservoir sand units were identified. These units were penetrated by three wells. The results revealed that the rock properties are variable and are controlled by environments of deposition during Oligocene late Miocene. Reservoir sands were found to range from 2496.73m/s to 2687.65m/s (8191.37ft/s 8817.73ft/s). The porosity of reservoir sands, which ranged from 17.34% to 22.78%, was good to very good. Their permeability, with average field range from 35.03mD to 103.68mD, was moderate to good. Hydrocarbon saturation was high in all the reservoir sands, ranging from 73.16% to 84.90%, with corresponding water saturation from 15.10% to 26.84%. Water saturations were not irreducible for reservoir sands I and J. The oil and gas yield of the field is high and can be exploited at profit. Keywords- wireline logs, reservoir, porosity, permeability, water saturation.

and

oil

producing

fields.

Figure 1: The location of the field under study in the Niger Delta, Nigeria

2. Objectives of the Study

The objectives of this study include, but not limited to the: Definition of the rock properties of the KONGA Field Determination of fluid types and contacts in reservoirs Definition of the limits of gas and/or oil production of the reservoirs Determination of variables that influenced variation in rock properties of KONGA Field

1. Introduction
The Field first discovery was made in 1975 by KONGA Well-01 which found some 264ft NGS and 307ft NOS in 11 intervals. A total of 5 wells have been drilled into the KONGA structure encountering 19 reservoirs between the depth of 7,000 and 12,000 feet. Thirteen of these reservoirs are oil bearing while 6 are gas bearing. Two of the oil bearing reservoirs are planned for further development. No hydrocarbon bearing reservoirs were logged in well-01. There are 7 completed drainage points in 4 wells, all producing under primary recovery technique. The KONGA FIELD is located in the coastal swamp region of the western onshore Niger Delta, Nigeria. It lies between latitudes 5 52 50 and 6 15 00N and longitudes 4 81 25 and 4 92 25E. The figure below shows the location of KONGA Field with respect to two Nigerian cities, pipelines
__________________________________________________________________________ International Journal of Science & Emerging Technologies IJSET, E-ISSN: 2048 - 8688 Copyright ExcelingTech, Pub, UK (http://excelingtech.co.uk/)

3. Geological Setting of the Niger Delta

Niger Delta is a large arcuate Tertiary prograding sedimentary complex deposited under transitional marine, deltaic, and continental environments since Eocene in the North to Pliocene in the South. Located within the Cenozoic formation of Southern Nigeria in West Africa, it covers an area of about 75,000 Km2 from the Calabar Flank and Abakaliki Trough in Eastern Nigeria to the Benin Flank in the West, and it opens to the Atlantic ocean in the South where it protrudes into the Gulf of Guinea as an extension from the Benue Trough and Anambra Basin provinces (Burke and Whiteman, 1970; Burke et al, 1972; Tuttle et.al 1999; IHS, 2010).

20
Int. J Sci. Emerging Tech Vol-3 No 1 January, 2012

The Niger Delta as a prograding sedimentary complex is characterized by a coarsening upward regressive sequences. The overall regressive sequence of clastic sediments was deposited in a series of offlap cycles that were interrupted by periods of sea level change (Etu-Efeotor, 1997; Bouvier et al, 1989; IHS, 2010). These periods resulted in episodes of erosion or marine transgression. Stratigraphically, the Tertiary Niger Delta is divided into three Formations, namely Akata Formation, Agbada Formation, and Benin Formation (Evamy et al, 1978; Etu-Efeotor, 1997; Tuttle et al, 1999). The Akata Formation at the base of the delta is predominantly undercompacted, overpressured sequence of thick marine shales, clays and siltstones (potential source rock) with turbidite sandstones (potential reservoirs in deep water). It is estimated that the formation is up to 7,000 meters thick (Bouvier et al, 1989; Doust and Omatsola, 1990). The Agbada Formation, the major petroleum-bearing unit about 3700m thick, is alternation sequence of paralic sandstones, clays and siltstone and it is reported to show a two-fold division. (Evamy et al, 1978; EtuEfeotor, 1997; Tuttle et al, 1999). The upper Benin Formation overlying Agbada Formation consists of massive, unconsolidated continental sandstones.

Methodology / Work Flow Chart

Well Logs Delineation and correlation of shale and reservoir sands

Biofacies data

Well Log Analysis

Evaluation of

Marock properties

Evaluation of Gamma Ray log motif

Dating of lithologic facies

4. Methodology
The various methodology adopted in the course of this study is summarized into a work flow chart as shown in Figure 2.

Environments of deposition and effects on rock properties/fluid contents

Geologic Interpretation

5. Results and Interpretation

This presents the results of the data processed / analysed and their interpretation with respect to research objectives.
Conclusion and Report

6. Lithologic Units and Well Correlation

Five reservoir sand units were identified and correlated across five wells. The reservoir sands are named Sand H, I, J, K, and L. Three wells namely KONGA 02, 03 and 05 penetrated through all these units whereas the other two wells, KONGA 01 and 04 penetrated through four sand units. The figure 3 is a panel showing the different lithologic units and their correlation across the five wells in KONGA Field. The top, base and thickness of each lithologic unit are presented in Table 1.

Figure 2: Work flow chart showing different stages and methodology

8. Porosity
As expected, due to changing environmental condition, the porosity of different units of reservoir sands shows variation laterally. Sand body H, with average porosity of 22.78% across the field, had average porosities of 22.79% at Well 02, 17.73% at Well 03, 24.39% at Well 04 and 26.22% at Well 05; Sand I, with average value of 22.22% had the value of 20.84% at Well 02, 18.11% at Well 03, 20.27% at Well 04 and 25.65% at Well 05; Sand J with average field value of 20.43% had average with average field value of 20.44% was found to have the porosity values of 16.48%, 17.52% and 27.31% at Well 02, Well 03 and Well 05, respectively (Table 2). The porosity values show a decrease down the depth. The Table below shows the result of porosity evaluation of the sand units of the Field.

7. Petrophysical Properties of the Rock Units

The petrophysical properties evaluated included: volume of shale, porosity, formation factor, water saturation, hydrocarbon saturation, irreducible water saturation, bulk water volume and permeability.

9. Permeability
Although highly variable, the average permeability of Sand H which is the most permeable

21
Int. J Sci. Emerging Tech Vol-3 No 1 January, 2012

unit within the field, ranged from 8.71mD to 233.49mD with overall average value of 106.63mD 130.25mD. This was closely followed by Sand I with average field value of 71.13mD, and with average permeability values of 130.25mD, 12.56mD, 21.30mD and 70.39mD at Wells 02, 03, 04 and 05, respectively. These two reservoir sandstones (Sands H and I) are the most porous and permeable units within the field. However, the other three sand bodies, reservoir sand J, K and L have moderate permeability values compared to sand bodies H and J. While sand L showed a slightly higher permeability values than sands J and K, the later nevertheless has almost the same permeability values across the field. From Table 4.5, it is observable that sand J with an overall average permeability value of 35.03mD, had average values of 4.35mD, 21.23mD, 12.40mD and 102.13mD at Wells 02, 03, 04 and 05, in that order. Similarly, Sand K with average field value of 35. 43mD was found to have the permeability of 2.96mD, 13.84mD, 13.97mD and 111.04mD at Wells 02, 03, 04 and 05, respectively (Table 3). In the whole, permeability was found to decrease down the depth, though sand L has higher values than sands J and K lying several feet above it. The permeability

values of the five (5) reservoir sands encountered in the study area are presented in Table 3.

10. Reservoir fluids

The five (5) reservoir sandstones, namely Sands H, I, J, K and L were found to contain gas, oil and water. The fluid type and their column in each reservoir vary across Wells. Reservoir sand H was found to contain gas, oil and water at Wells 02, 03 and 04 while it accumulates only oil and water at Well 05. For reservoir sand I, oil and water accumulate at location of Well 04 whereas gas, oil and water were widespread in other locations. While reservoir sand J was richer in oil and water at location of Well 02, it contained appreciable amount of gas in addition to oil and water at locations of Wells 03, 04 and 05. Reservoir sand K and L contained gas, oil and water at all Well locations. Table 4 shows the reservoir fluid type and column across four (4) Wells in the studied field. The fluid type and column could not be computed for Well 01 due to insufficient Well data.

22
Int. J Sci. Emerging Tech Vol-3 No 1 January, 2012

Figure 3: Down-hole delineation and well to well correlation panel of sand - shale units across KONGA Field. Numbers 1 - 6 indicate shale units while letters H L indicate sand units.

Table 1: Depth and thickness of Lithologic units across KONGA Field as observed across Wells (All depth and thickness are in Feet)

23
Int. J Sci. Emerging Tech Vol-3 No 1 January, 2012

11. Hydrocarbon Saturation

and

Water

At Well 02 (Table 5), reservoir sand H was found to contain 82.30% hydrocarbon saturation and 17.70% saturation water at depth 11325 11858ft. Gas column was up to (GUT) 11325ft, with Gas-Oil contact (GOC) at 11375ft and OilWater contact (OWC) at 11600ft. This reservoir sand, with an average Volume of Shale (Vsh) of 9.0%, average porosity of 22.79 and average permeability of 54.24mD was found to be irreducible at approximately 4% Bulk Volume Water (BVW), an indication that more oil and gas will be produced than water. Reservoir sands K and L encountered at Well 02 location were also at irreducible while reservoir sands I and J were not. Sand I had 76.15% hydrocarbon saturation and 23.85% water saturation; oil up to (OUT) 12000ft and oil-water contact (OWC) at 12300ft. Sand J contained 73.16% hydrocarbon saturation and 26.84% water saturation. The oil was up to (OUT) 12550ft, with OWC at 12725ft, even as water was down to (WDT) 12810ft. Reservoir sand K contained 80.68% hydrocarbon saturation and 19.32% water saturation. Its gas content was up to (GUT) 12875ft with Gas-Oil contact (GOC) at 13000ft; oil down to (ODT) 13225ft and water up to (WUT) 13200ft. Moreover, sand L had 84.90% hydrocarbon saturation and 15.10% saturation water.

At Well 03 (Table 6), only reservoir sands H and L were found to contain saturation hydrocarbon and water at irreducible state while reservoir sands I, J and K were not at irreducible. Reservoir sand H contained 81.01% hydrocarbon saturation and 18.99% saturation water; reservoir sand I contained 84.40% hydrocarbon saturation and 12.64% water saturation. In reservoir sand K, hydrocarbon saturation was 90.92% and water saturation 9.08% while hydrocarbon saturation in reservoir sand L was 96.08% with corresponding saturation water of 3.92%. At Well 04 (Table 7), only reservoir sand I which contained only oil and water was at irreducible. Sand H contained 73.36% hydrocarbon saturation and 20.64% water saturation; sand I contained 81.72% hydrocarbon saturation and 16.22% water saturation; while sand K contained 84.22% hydrocarbon saturation and 15.78% water saturation. At Well 05 (Table 8), none of the sandstone units contained formation water at irreducible state even though hydrocarbon occurrence was high and widespread. Sand H, which contained basically oil, accumulated 75.32% hydrocarbon saturation and 24.68% water saturation; sand I accumulated 76.35% hydrocarbon saturation and 23.65% water saturation; sand J accumulated 85.06% hydrocarbon and 14.65% water saturation. Moreover, sand K contained 90.32% hydrocarbon saturation and 9.68% water saturation; while sand L contained 91.87% hydrocarbon saturation and 8.13% water saturation. (Table 5 - 8).

Table 2: Porosity () values of reservoir sand units across KONGA Field. Litho Units Well 02 Well 03 Well 04 Well 05 Field Ave. range (%) (%) Aver 26.22 25.65 27.11 27.14 27.31 Field Ave. (%) Quality evaluation

Sand H Sand I Sand J Sand K Sand L

(%) Range 13.90 35.96 9.48 44.78 8.05 19.26 9.76 19.07 12.78 22.49

(%) Aver 22.79 20.84 15.28 15.14 16.48

(%) Range 5.79 21.98 7.50 23.01 16.8 25.45 17.0 23.64 14.2 21.96

(%) Aver 17.73 18.11 20.67 19.83 17.52

(%) Range 10.63 49.09 12.13 25.88 13.59 23.38 12.56 24.39

(%) Aver 24.39 20.27 18.64 19.26

(%) Range 20.26 37.48 22.15 29.12 24.13 32.67 20.41 31.61 17.54 32.80

17.73 26.22 18.11 25.65 15.52 27.11 15.14 27.14 16.48 27.31

22.78 21.22 20.43 17.34 20.44

Very good Very good Very good Good Very good

24
Int. J Sci. Emerging Tech Vol-3 No 1 January, 2012

Lith o Unit

Table 3: Permeability (K) values of reservoir sands across KONGA Field Well 02 Well 03 Well 04 Well 05

Field Ave. K range (mD) 8.71 233.49 12.56 180.25 4.35 102.13 2.96 111.04 6.80 127.17

Field Ave. K (mD)

Quality evaluati on

Sand H Sand I Sand J Sand K Sand L

K (mD) Range 1.06 540.58 0.25 2274.88 0.03 11.32 0.11 8.47 0.62 24.96

K (mD) Aver 53.24 180.25

K (mD) Range 0.79 32.02 0.02 29.06 3.82 56.12 2.71 34.65 1.25 21.38

K(mD ) Aver 8.71 12.56

K (mD) Range 0.18 305.64 0.44 62.67 0.92 32.20 0.55 42.49

K (mD) Aver 233.49 21.30

K (mD) Range 12.60 709.07 22.15 135.68 39.60 288.52 13.24 232.47 4.90 296.13

K (mD) Aver 119.27 70.39

103.68 71.13

Good Good

4.35 2.96 6.80

21.23 13.84 7.61

12.40 13.97

102.13 111.04 127.17

35.03 35.45 47.19

Moderat e Moderat e Moderat e

Table 4: Reservoir fluid type and column Litho Units Well 02 Fluid type Gas, Oil and Water Gas, Oil and Water Fluid contact GUT: 11325 GOC: 11375 OWC: 11600 GUT: 11950 OUT: 12000 OWC: 12300 OUT: 12550 OWC: 12725 WDT: 12810 GUT: 12875 GOC: 13000 ODT: 13225 WUT: 13200 GUT: 13375 GOC: 13450 OWC: 13525 Fluid type Gas, Oil and Water Gas, Oil and Water Gas, Oil and Water Gas, Oil and Water Gas, Oil and Water Well 03 Fluid contact GUT: 11325 GOC: 11350 OWC: 11800 GUT: 11950 GOC: 11985 OWC: 12150 GUT: 12525 GOC: 12950 OWC: 12625 GUT: 12815 GOC: 12950 OWC:1 3025 GUT: 13375 GOC: 13425 OWC: 13510 Fluid type Gas, Oil and Water Oil and water Well 04 Fluid contact GUT: 11375 GOC: 11475 OWC: 11625 OUT: 12050 OWC: 12300 Fluid type Oil and water Gas, Oil and Water Gas, Oil and Water Gas, Oil and Water Gas, Oil and Water Well 05 Fluid contact ODT: 11775 OWC: 11775 GUT: 12025 GOC: 12050 ODT: 12150 WUT: 12100 GUT: 12525 GOC: 12600 ODT: 12725 WUT: 12650 GOC: 12925 OWC: 13050

Sand H

Sand I

Oil Sand J

Gas, Oil and Water Gas, Oil and Water

GUT: 12600 GOC: 12635 OWC: 12800 GUT: 12900 GOC: 12975 ODT: 13200 WUT: 13050

Sand K

Gas, Oil and Water

Sand L

Gas, Oil and Water

GUT:13400 GOC: 13475 OWC: 13535

GUT: Gas Up To; WUT: Water Up To;

OUT: Oil Up To; WDT: Water Down To;

ODT: Oil Down To; GOC: Gas-Oil Contact; OWC: Oil-Water Contact.

25
Int. J Sci. Emerging Tech Vol-3 No 1 January, 2012

Table 5: Summary of reservoir sand properties at KONGA Well 02.

San d Depth (ft) Thick ness % Vsh Rang e 0.866.5 0.8 21.6 1.7 54.0 0.8 34.9 Aver 9.0 22.79 54.24 17.70 8.95 82.30 (%) K (mD) Sw (%) Swirr Sh (%) BV W (%) 3.96 Fluid Type Fluid contact / Column Nature of formation water Irreducible at 4% BVW Not at irreducible Not at irreducible Irreducible at 2% BVW Irreducible at 2% BVW

1132511885 1200012360 1255512800 1287513225

560

360

5.6

20.84

180.25

23.85

11.02

76.15

4.69

245

11.6

15.28

4.35

26.84

14.69

73.16

4.14

Oil and Gas Oil and Gas Oil

350

5.3

15.14

2.96

19.32

13.99

80.68

2.84

Oil and Gas Oil and Gas

GUT:11325 GOC:11375 OWC:11600 GUT: 11950 OUT:12000 OWC:12300 OUT:12550 OWC:12725 WDT:12810 GUT:12875 GOC:13000 ODT:13225 WUT:13200 GUT:13375 GOC:13450 ODT:13525 OWC:13525

1341013525

115

4.8 16.6

10.1

16.48

6.80

15.10

12.80

84.90

2.93

Table 6: Summary of reservoir sand properties at KONGA Well 03

San d Depth (ft) Thick ness % Vsh Rang e 1.5 38.9 5.3 69.2 1.5 83.1 3.3 83.1 7.8 16.0 Aver 4.9 17.73 8.71 18.99 12.40 81.01 (%) K (mD) Sw (%) Swirr Sh (%) BV W (%) 3.39 Fluid Type Fluid contact / Column Nature of formation water Irreducible at 3% BVW Not at irreducible Not at irreducible Not at irreducible Irreducible at 0.7% BVW

1132511885 1197512300 1252512750 1282513100 1341013525

560

325

27.1

18.11

12.56

15.60

12.48

84.40

2.74

255

18.7

20.67

21.23

12.64

9.83

87.36

2.52

275

12.6

19.83

13.84

9.08

10.19

90.92

1.85

115

11.8

17.52

7.61

3.92

11.76

96.08

0.68

Oil and Gas Oil and Gas Oil and Gas Oil and Gas Oil and Gas

GUT:11325 GOC:11350 OWC:11800 GUT:11950 GOC:11985 OWC:12150 GUT:12525 GOC:12950 OWC:12625 GUT: 12815 GOC:12950 OWC:13025 GUT:13375 GOC:13425 OWC:13510

Table 7: Summary of reservoir sand properties at KONGA Well 04

Sand Depth (ft) Thi ckn ess 620 % Vsh Range 10.3472.41 3.45 44.83 17.2472.41 2.07 72.41 Aver 32.04 24.39 233.49 20.64 8.82 79.36 (%) K (mD) Sw (%) Swirr Sh (%) BV W (%) 4.95 Fluid Type Fluid contact / Column Nature of formation water Not at irreducible Irreducible at 3% BVW Not at irreducible Not at irreducible

1138012000 1205012350 1260512810 1291013275

300

21.63

20.27

21.30

18.28

10.27

81.72

3.75

Oil and Gas Oil

GUT:11375 GOC:11475 OWC:11625 OUT:12050 OWC:12300 GUT:12600 GOC:12635 OWC:12800 GUT:12900 GOC:12975 ODT:13200 WUT:13050

205

42.91

18.64

18.64

16.22

11.27

83.78

3.00

365

18.76

19.26

13.97

15.78

10.69

84.22

3.07

Oil and Gas Oil and Gas

26
Int. J Sci. Emerging Tech Vol-3 No 1 January, 2012

Table 8: Summary of reservoir sand properties at KONGA Well 05

Sand Depth (ft) Thick ness % Vsh Range H I 1140011962 1202512375 562 350 0.9 28.1 0.9 8.3 0.9 28.1 0.9 57.6 1.8 57.6 Aver 7.2 5.0 26.22 25.65 119.27 70.39 24.68 23.65 7.66 7.69 75.32 76.35 (%) K (mD) Sw (%) Swirr Sh (%) BV W (%) 6.48 6.05 Fluid Type Fluid contact / Column Nature of formation water Not at irreducible Not at irreducible

Oil Oil and Gas Oil and Gas Oil and Gas Oil and Gas

1257512810

235

11.8

27.11

102.13

14.94

7.23

85.06

4.08

1287513175 1342513600

300

7.1

27.14

111.04

9.68

7.31

90.32

2.50

ODT:11775 OWC:11775 GUT:12025 GOC:12050 ODT:12150 WUT:12100 GUT:12525 GOC:12600 ODT:12725 WUT:12650 GOC: 12925 OWC:13050 GUT:13400 GOC:13475 OWC:13535

Not at irreducible

Not at irreducible Not at irreducible

175

22.8

27.31

127.17

8.13

7.43

91.87

2.13

12. Qualitative Interpretation of Well Logs

The examination of the wireline logs reveals that the reservoir sand bodies in each of the five wells are cyclically inter-bedded with shales (clays / siltstones) of varying thickness. These reservoirs contain gas and/or oil, and water as revealed by deep resistivity; neutron and density logs (see Figure 3). Though the geometry of these sand bodies could not be accurately ascertained, the gamma ray logs reveal a cylindrical / blocky shape with flat top and funnel shaped base for reservoir sand H indicating deposition in a fluvial / tidal flood plain, channel, deltaic distributary, deltaic front and shoreface. Sands I, J, and L showed serrated / saw-teeth shape in all wells, indicating rapid alternation of thin beds of shale with sandstones implying deposition under alternating low and high energy regimes, possibly at barrier bars and/or distributaries mouth bars, stormdominated shelf and distal marine slope. Sand K showed a symmetrical hour glass shape implying deposition in a tidal flat tidal channel and shoreface proximal offshores. Figure 4 shows types of gamma ray log shape and their stacking patterns along with interpreted depositional environment. Gamma ray logs also show a combination of serrated funnel and bell log shapes correspondingly indicating coarsening and fining upward stacking patterns, implying deposition in deltaic environment of tidal flats, fluvial channels and/or deltaic distributaries. Caliper logs in Well 01 and Well 05 (see Figure 3) show the reservoir sands as having smooth profile, implying mud cake build-ups and their being porous and permeable. Only reservoir sands H and I caved in

and washed out at certain intervals at Well 05, indicating zones of very high porosity and permeability within the sands.

13. Chronology of the Lithologic Facies

The analysis of biofacies data from KONGA well 01 reveals that KONGA wells penetrated the P784 and P788 (corresponding to top - base depth range of 7150ft 11950ft and 6250ft 6490ft, respectively), and F9600 and F9620 (corresponding to top - base depth range of 6030ft 11990ft and 10750ft-10750ft, respectively) biofacies zones. From the Niger Delta Cenozoic Geological Chart (Figure 5), both the pollen and foraminifera fossil zones indicate that the sediments penetrated by KONGA wells were deposited in the Oligocene - late Miocene times. Based on the pollen and foraminifera zones, three (3) sedimentary/ stratigraphic sequences are identified: sequence I (F9600) 11.5 7.4Ma, sequence II (P780) 10.8 9.7Ma and sequence III (P820) 9.3 7.4Ma. They correspond to the sedimentary facies deposited in the Coastal Swamp depobelt. They also constitute the unit of upper Agbada Formation. Below this are sedimentary facies characterized by Alabamina-1 and Bolivina-26 which is interpreted as belonging to the sedimentary facies of the Greater Ughelli depobelt and Central Swamp depobelt, respectively. This set of rock units constitutes the lower Agbada Formation. It is riched in pollens and devoid of forams, indicating their formation in the brackish / fluvio-deltaic environments in the Oligocene early Miocene times.

27
Int. J Sci. Emerging Tech Vol-3 No 1 January, 2012

Figure 4: Gamma ray log motifs / shapes of reservoir sands, their stacking patterns, and depositional environments.

28
Int. J Sci. Emerging Tech Vol-3 No 1 January, 2012

Figure 5: Niger Delta Cenozoic Geological chart

14. Discussion
The evaluated sands showed little reduction in porosity with increase in depth. The porosity of the upper unit (Sands H and I) is generally higher than those of the lower unit (Sands J, K, and L). This, according to Schlumberger (1985), is due to the unconsolidated nature of the Niger Delta. Compaction and diagenetic processes therefore, seemed to have very little or no effect on the porosity of the field in contrast to the depositional processes and

environments of deposition. This is evident on the gamma ray log motifs of the sands of the lower Agbada (sand unit J, K and L) deposited in the open shelf or shelf slope. The low energy of this environment had very little or no influence on the reworking of the sands, hence the decrease in porosity. This contrasts with the sediments of the upper Agbada unit (sand unit H and I) deposited in high energy environment of tidal plain and the deltaic front where strong waves influence reworked on the sands.

29
Int. J Sci. Emerging Tech Vol-3 No 1 January, 2012

The lateral variation in porosity might have been caused by changes in the depositional environment and the gradual deepening of the depth of deposition due to the progradation of the coastline and the shift in depobelts southerly and seaward. This finding is consistent with the reports of Evamy et al (1978) and Bouvier et al (1989). Permeability values though highly varied both laterally and vertically, were moderate to good. The high permeability of the reservoir sandstones in the field would result in rapid water and hydrocarbon flow. However, the wide variations in the bulk volume water (BVW) indicate that some zones were not at irreducible water saturation. These zones would produce wet hydrocarbons (that is, wet gas and oil) whereas the zones where the BVW were at irreducible water saturation would produce water-free hydrocarbons. The

In this regard, the average volumes of shale were found to be highest in Sand J, followed by Sands L and K (all three classified as lower Agbada), while Sands I and H (both classified as upper Agbada) were the least. The variation in depositional processes and environments of deposition of sandstones most probably account for the observed trends in transit times / velocities, porosity, permeability, bulk volume water and formation water saturation whereas variations in acoustic impedance, reflection coefficient and transmission coefficient seem to depend on rock porosity, density (implicitly its hardness), type and nature of bounding surfaces as well as type and amount of fluid present within the rock unit. Biofacies data shows vertical subdivision of KONGA Field into three broad facies units. The upper unit with depth range of 0 - 6,000ft is characterized with pollen (P) and foraminera (F) of undistinguished zone; the middle unit with depth range 6,010 11,990ft is associated with P784 P820 and F9600 F9620 fossil zones; and the lower unit of 12,040 13,300ft depth is associated with undifferentiated Pfossil zones.

water-free hydrocarbon production zones vary laterally along the reservoir sand units and also across the different reservoir units in the field. Of all the sand units, Sand I and J were not irreducible. Thus, any well screened within these units would produce wet hydrocarbon. The reservoir sands H, K and L within the field would produce high amount of water-free hydrocarbons. The information from gamma ray log motifs revealed reservoir sands H, I and J as barrier bars, tidal channel and deltaic flat deposits which can be collectively grouped as fluvio-deltaic plain deltaic front environments whereas sands K and L were deposited in prodeltaic to shelf margin/slope. This wide depositional environments account for variation observed in the porosity and permeability of the rock units. It is established that porosity and permeability of sandstones depend on grain size, sorting, cementation and compaction (Schlumberger, 1991, Etu-Efeotor, 1997; Rider, 1986, 1996). These variables undoubtedly are functions of the sedimentary environment and depositional processes. The reservoir sands J, K and L deposited in a low energy marginal deltaic and shelf margin / slope have slightly reduced porosity and permeability due to high volume of clays (shales) and silts (siltstones) often associated with such environments. To the contrary, high porosity and permeability obtained for reservoir sands H and I are due to their deposition in the deltaic plain / front, which is a high energy environments associated with fluvial and fluvio-marine processes which enhances sorting and reduces heterolithic conditions in sediments. As explained by Tyler (1988), fluvial (channel) and fluvio-marine (barrier bar) processes would generate better quality reservoirs as against marine processes which tend to decrease reservoir quality by producing less sorted heterolithic lithologies. Hence, the difference in quality of reservoir sand units in terms of porosity and permeability is, to a greater extent, related to the degree of sorting of sandstone which is fundamentally controlled by depositional environments and processes, as well as the volume of shale in each unit.

15. Summary and Conclusion

The detailed and systematic evaluation of the rock units has enabled the actualization of the set objectives. From the analysis of the wireline logs of five (5) wells (KONGA 01- 05), it is observed that five of the reservoir sand units across the field were hydrocarbon riched. These units were characterized by porosity, permeability and acoustic impedance values which compared closely with that obtained for sands of other Niger Delta fields. This variability was controlled by the deposition of the sediments in different environments. The results of gamma ray log motif and seismic attributes analyses revealed the sandstones to have been deposited in a broad environment of fluvio-deltaic plain, deltaic front and open-shelf margin / slope. The fluvio-deltaic and deltaic front facies were deposited as point bar and tidal channel sands of the lower upper shoreface. Conversely, the shale units were deposited at the shelf margin / slope in association with changes in sea level. Reservoir Sands I and J were not at irreducible water saturation. Much water and wet hydrocarbons would be produced by wells bored through these units. Some other sand units, namely Sand H, K, and L, were at irreducible water saturation at some well locations and not at irreducible at other well locations. These reservoir zones would produce water-free hydrocarbons. . The rock properties of the KONGA Field are variable due to environmental influence and depth of burial. The environments of deposition had a control over the properties of the rock units. Sand units have good and quality properties as reservoir rocks while the shale units function both as source rocks and seals. The porosities of the reservoir sands are good to very good; their permeabilities moderate to good. Oil and

30
Int. J Sci. Emerging Tech Vol-3 No 1 January, 2012

gas accumulation is high and widespread throughout the field. Though some wells and reservoir sand units would produce wet hydrocarbons, zones where waterfree hydrocarbons are producible are wide spread throughout the field. The hydrocarbon resources can be exploited at profit.

[6] Kamerling, P., Knaap, W. A., Molloy, F. A., and Rowlands, P. H., (1978): Hydrocarbon habitat of Tertiary Niger Delta. AAPG Bulletin. 62: 277298. [7] Rider, M. H., (1986): The Geological Interpretation of Well Logs. 1st ed. Halsted Press: New York, NY. [8] Rider, M. H., (1996): The Geological Interpretation of Well Logs. 2nd ed. Whittles Publishing: Caithness. [9] Schlumberger, (1985): Well Evaluation Conference, Nigeria. International Human Resources Development Corporation (IHRDC) publication, Boston. 16-60. Schlumberger, (1991): Log Interpretation Principles/Applications. Schlumberger Wireline and Testing, Texas, TX.

References
[1] Bouvier, J. D., Kaars-Sijpesteijn, C. H., Kluesner, D. F. and Onyejekwe, C. C., (1989): ThreeDimensional Seismic Interpretation and Fault Sealing Investigations. Nun River Field, Nigeria. AAPG bulletin. 73(11): 1397 1414. [2] Burke, R. C., Desauvagie, T. F. J. and Whiteman, A. J., (1972): Geological History of the Benue Valley and adjacent areas. University Press: Ibadan. [3] Burke, R. C. and Whiteman, A. J., (1970): The Geological History of the Gulf of Guinea. Scientific Committee on Oceanographic Research (SCOR) Conference, Cambridge University, Easter. [4] Doust, H., and Omatsola, E., (1990): Niger Delta. Divergent/passive Margin Basins. AAPG Memoir 48: 239-248. [5] Etu-Efeotor, J. O., (1997): Fundamentals of Petroleum Geology. Paragraphics: Port Harcourt, PH. [6]Evamy, B. D., Haremboure, J.,

[10]

[11] Tuttle, M. L. W., Brownfield, M. E., and Charpentier, R. R., (1999): The Niger Delta Petroleum System. USGS Science for a changing world: Open File Report 99-50, 65p. .