Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Ministry of Mineral Resources of RF
Federal Agency for Subsurface Management
Federal State Unitary Enterprise
Siberian Research Ins=tute of Geology, Geophysics and Mineral Resources
Tomsk branch
(TB FSUE “SNIIGGiMS”)
REPORT
DETAILED LITHOLOGICAL AND BITUMENOLOGICAL ANALYSIS
OF PRODUCTIVE SEDIMENTS OF CONTACT ZONE OF YELLEY-‐IGAISKAYA WELL 4
PERFORMED ON THE BASIS OF DEBRIS COLLECTION
#154 dated 15.04.2015
Book 1, folder 1
Report text
AGREED:
General Director LLC “BakcharneXegaz” ___________________M.Yu.Malarenko “__”________________ 2015
APPROVED:
Director of TB FSUE “SNIIGGiMS”
____________________V.B.Poplavsky “__”________________ 2015
Execu=ve in charge Head of laboratory, Doctor of Science Yu.M. Stolbov
Tomsk – 2015
71
Conclusion
The results of lithological and fluorescent-‐bitumenological analyses of a number of debris carried out of Yelley-‐Igaiskaya well 4 presented in this report make it possible to draw the following conclusions:
1. The zone saturated with hydrocarbons in well 4 column was generated in desegregated deposits of stra=graphic break of Paleozoic and Mesozoic deposits. Rock debris are represented mainly by dolomites and dolomi=zed limestones, genera=on of which was dominated by breaking of basement rocks. Due to long dura=on of the desegrega=on processes of parental rocks and their flushing by stream waters, the amount of finely-‐dispersed frac=on contained in produc=ve sediments is rela=vely low. Secondary minerals typically occurring in crust of chemical weathering are also not present in produc=ve sediments under study.
2. Petrographic analysis of thin rock sec=ons prepared from rock debris revealed frequent presence of organogenic intrusions and sulphate minerals in debris under study, which gives evidence of shallow-‐water sedimenta=on basin and shoreline proximity. Material composi=on of clas=c rocks gives evidence that there is a chance that zone of physical weathering of basement rocks was generated throughout the vast area.
3. Flow proper=es analyis in separate rock debris using petrographic and fluorescence microscopes showed that void space is dominated mainly by the presence of fractures and dissolved cavi=es. The main contribu=on into flow proper=es of pay zone was made by interfragmental voids which (as it was revealed experimentally) can make up to 25%.
4. When giving a petrographic descrip=on to samples, it was found that some of them have low flow proper=es (the rocks are =ght). However it would be unreasonable to refer them to seal type of rocks as their thickness is low. Most probably, the rocks that served as a seal to hydrocarbons accumula=on zone are deposited above the interval under study.
5. Bitumenological analyses of more than 200 samples of rock debris carried to the surface from Yelley-‐Igaiskaya well 4 revealed that most part of debris was carried out from deposits saturated with oil with density of ≥0.8 g/sm3. Chloroform extracts of bitumoids in about 20% of studied samples luminesce at ultraviolet light with bluish-‐yellow (pearl-‐blue) light which indicates light composi=on of bitumoids. Samples saturated with gaseous hydrocarbons were not found. This can serve as evidence that gas cap is situated higher than zone under analysis.
6. Evalua=ng perspec=ves of oil and gas bearing deposits, penetrated by Yelley-‐Igaiskaya well 4, taking into account results of lithological and bitumenological analyses, it is vital to, first of all, highlight that pay deposits were found in the zone of stra=graphic break and can be referred to crust of physical weathering [5]. The deposit can also be considered as a lithologically screened accumula=on.
It seems plausible that accumula=ons of a similar type can be found in other areas of the license territory. In order to find them, it would be efficient to perform reprocessing of seismic explora=on materials.
JSC “TomskNIPIne0”
Laboratory of Geochemistry and Crude Oil
PROTOCOL No. 156
Of qualitaGve chemical analysis of condensate samples
Dated 22.05.15
Copy No.1
Customer name and address: LLC “Bakcharne0egaz”, 634021, 111 Frunze Ave., Tomsk
Sampling date: 16.02.15
Date of analysis start: 23.03.15
TerminaGon of analysis date: 15.04.15
Analysis object: condensate sample, Yelley-‐Igaiskiy license block, well 4.
Sampling condiGons: separator.
Parameters idenGfied: density, kinemaGc viscosity, content of total Sulphur, water, solids, chlorine salts, asphaltenes, silica-‐gel tars, paraffine; pressure of saturated vapours, molecular weight, freezing temperature, fracGonal composiGon.
Parameter IdenGfied
Measuring unit Result of analysis Regulatory Document for TesGng Method
Absolute uncertainty
Density at 20˚C kg/m3 708.3 GOST 3900-‐85 ±1.1
KinemaGc viscosity at 20˚C
mm2/s 0.7162 GOST 33-‐2000 ±0.0122
KinemaGc viscosity at 30˚C
mm2/s 0.5962 GOST 33-‐2000 ±0.0101
Mass fracGon of total Sulphur
mass percent ˂0.015 GOST R 51947-‐2002
Mass fracGon of water
mass percent ˂0.03 GOST 2477-‐65
Mass fracGon of solids
mass percent ˂0.005 GOST 6370-‐83
ConcentraGon of chlorine salts
mg/dm3 ˂10.0 GOST 21534-‐76 (Method B)
Pressure of saturated vapours
kPa 79.0 GOST 1756-‐2000 ±3.5
Mass fracGon of asphaltenes*
mass percent ˂0.1 VNIINP InsGtute methodology
Comment: * -‐ parameter not included into the field of laboratory accreditaGon
Executors: A.I. Dubovaya, T.V. Dunaf, T.Ye. Kozlova
Head of laboratory: (signature) I.V. Goncharov
The Protocol cannot be partly reproduced without a wrilen permission of Head of Laboratory.
Page 1 of 1
Mass fracGon of silica-‐gel tars*
mass percent 0.14 VNIINP InsGtute methodology
±0.02
Mass fracGon of paraffine
mass percent ˂0.2 GOST 11851-‐85
Molecular weight*
114.1 OST 153-‐39.2-‐048-‐2003
±4.9
Freezing temperature
˚C Lower than minus 60.0 GOST 20287-‐91
FracGonal composiGon
˚C IniGal boiling point – 35.0 5.0 % – 57 10.0 % – 68 20.0 %– 87 30.0 %– 101 40.0 %– 112 50.0 %– 123 60.0 %– 140 70.0 %– 157 80.0 %– 178 90.0 %– 227
GOST 2177-‐99 (Method A)
±4.5 ±3
Component composi,on of condensate sampled from Yelley-‐Igaiskiy license block, well 4
(sampling date: 16.02.15)/
Table 1
Component % of mass
Ethane 0.039
Propane 0.929
I-‐butane 1.869
N-‐butane 2.535
2,2-‐dimethylpropane 0.092
I-‐pentane 4.023
N-‐pentane 4.017
2,2-‐dimethylbutane 0.367
cyclopentane 0.242
2,3-‐dimethylbutane 0.630
2-‐methylpentane 3.522
3-‐methylpentane 1.757
n-‐hexane 5.532
2,2-‐dimethylpentane 0.280
methylcyclopentane 1.096
2,4-‐dimethylpentane 0.394
2,2,3-‐trimethylbutane 0.071
benzol 0.243
3,3-‐dimethylpentane 0.163
cyclohexane 1.178
2-‐methylhexane 2.325
Page 1 of 2
2,3-‐dimethylpentane 0.766
1,1-‐dimethylcyclopentane 0.128
3-‐methylhexane 2.239
1c,3-‐dimethylcyclopentane 0.359
1t,3-‐dimethylcyclopentane 0.326
3-‐ethylpentane 0.156
1t,2-‐dimethylcyclopentane 0.536
2,2,4-‐trimethylpentane 0.015
n-‐heptane 6.965
methylcyclohexane 3.893
2,2-‐dimethylhexane 0.374
ethylcyclopentane 0.230
2,5-‐dimethylhexane 0.393
2,2,3-‐trimethylpentane 0.014
2,4-‐dimethylhexane 0.468
1c,2t,4c-‐trimethylcyclopentane 0.236
3,3-‐dimethylhexane 0.183
1c,2t,3c-‐trimethylcyclopentane 0.219
2,3,4-‐trimethylpentane 0.020
toluene 0.705
2,3-‐dimethylhexane 0.399
2-‐methyl-‐3-‐ethylpentane 0.225
PROTOCOL No.157
Of qualita5ve chemical analysis of gas samples
Dated 22.05.15
Copy 1
Customer name and address: LLC “BakcharneIegaz”, 634021, 111 Frunze Ave., Tomsk
Sampling date: 02.04.15
Date of analysis start: 27.04.15
Termina5on of analysis date: 28.04.15
Analysis object: separa5on gas, Yelley-‐Igaiskiy license block, well 4.
Sampling condi5ons: separator, separator pressure = 20 ATM.
Parameters iden5fied: gas component composi5on.
Parameter Iden5fied
Measuring unit Result of analysis Regulatory Document for Tes5ng Method
Absolute uncertainty
Helium (He) Mole frac5on, % 0.0255 GOST 31371.7-‐2008 (Method A)
±0.0018
Hydrogen (H2) Mole frac5on, % 0.0014 GOST 31371.7-‐2008 (Method A)
±0.0003
Carbon dioxide (CO2)
Mole frac5on, % 2.47 GOST 31371.7-‐2008 (Method A)
±0.15
Nitrogen (N2) Mole frac5on, % 1.61 GOST 31371.7-‐2008 (Method A)
±0.07
Methane (CH4) Mole frac5on, % 89.22 GOST 31371.7-‐2008 (Method A)
±0.08
Ethane (C2H6) Mole frac5on, % 3.06 GOST 31371.7-‐2008 (Method A)
±0.12
Propane (C3H8) Mole frac5on, % 1.92 GOST 31371.7-‐2008 (Method A)
±0.12
Iso-‐Butane (i-‐C4-‐H10)
Mole frac5on, % 0.64 GOST 31371.7-‐2008 (Method A)
±0.04
Comment: * -‐ parameter not included into the field of laboratory accredita5on
Executors: Ye.N. Konovalova
Head of laboratory: (signature) I.V. Goncharov
The Protocol cannot be partly reproduced without a wriien permission of Head of Laboratory.
Page 1 of 1
N-‐Butane (n-‐C4H10)
Mole frac5on, % 0.480 GOST 31371.7-‐2008 (Method A)
±0.029
Iso-‐Pentane (o-‐C5H12)
Mole frac5on, % 0.223 GOST 31371.7-‐2008 (Method A)
±0.014
N-‐Pentane (n-‐C5H12)
Mole frac5on, % 0.140 GOST 31371.7-‐2008 (Method A)
±0.009
Hexane sum (C6H14)
Mole frac5on, % 0.146 GOST 31371.7-‐2008 (Method A)
±0.009
Heptane sum (C7H16)
Mole frac5on, % 0.043 GOST 31371.7-‐2008 (Method A)
±0.003
Octane sum (C8H18)
Mole frac5on, % 0.0147 GOST 31371.7-‐2008 (Method A)
±0.0014
Nonane sum (C9H20)*
Mole frac5on, % 0.0054 GOST 31371.7-‐2008 (Method A)
±0.0007
Decane sum (C10H22)*
Mole frac5on, % 0.0010 GOST 31371.7-‐2008 (Method A)
±0.0003
Density, absolute* at 20˚C and 101.325 kPa
kg/m3 0.7805 GOST 31369-‐2008
±0.0041
Density, rela5ve* 0.6480 GOST 31369-‐2008
Molar weight* kg/mole 18.683 GOST 30319.1-‐96
JSC “TomskNIPIneft”
Laboratory of Geochemistry and Crude Oil
PROTOCOL No. 351
Of qualitative chemical analysis of condensate samples
Dated 10.08.15
Copy No.1
Customer name and address: LLC “Bakcharneftegaz”, 634021, 111 Frunze Ave., Tomsk
Sampling date: 02.04.15
Date of analysis start: 27.07.15
Termination of analysis date: 10.08.15
Analysis object: condensate sample, Yelley-Igaiskiy license block, well 4.
Sampling conditions: separator, 12 mm choke.
Parameters identified: density, kinematic viscosity, content of total Sulphur, water, solids, chlorine salts,
asphaltenes, silica-gel tars, paraffine; molecular weight, freezing temperature, fractional composition.
Parameter Identified
Measuring unit Result of analysis Regulatory Document for Testing Method
Absolute uncertainty
Density at 20˚C kg/m3 719.9 GOST 3900-85 ±1.1
Kinematic viscosity at 20˚C
mm2/s 0.8336 GOST 33-2000 ±0.0142
Kinematic viscosity at 30˚C
mm2/s 0.7589 GOST 33-2000 ±0.0129
Mass fraction of total Sulphur
mass percent 0.0212 GOST R 51947-2002
±0.0066
Mass fraction of water
mass percent <0.03 GOST 2477-65
Mass fraction of solids
mass percent 0.014 GOST 6370-83 ±0.007
Concentration of chlorine salts
mg/dm3 14.1 GOST 21534-76 (Method B)
±4.2
Mass fraction of asphaltenes*
mass percent 0.26 VNIINP Institute methodology
±0.07
Mass fraction of silica-gel tars*
mass percent 2.3 VNIINP Institute methodology
±0.3
Mass fraction of paraffine
mass percent <0.2 GOST 11851-85
Molecular weight* 110.3 OST 153-39.2-048-2003
±4.7
Freezing temperature
˚C Lower than 60.0 below zero
GOST 20287-91
Fractional composition
˚C Initial boiling point – 36.0
GOST 2177-99 (Method A)
±4.5 ±3
5.0 % – 56
10.0 % – 67
20.0 %– 86
30.0 %– 97
40.0 %– 111
50.0 %– 125
60.0 %– 138
70.0 %– 154
80.0 %– 175
90.0 %– 230
Comment: * - parameter not included into the field of laboratory accreditation
Executors: A.I. Dubovaya, T.V. Dunaf, T.Ye. Kozlova
Head of laboratory: (signature) I.V. Goncharov
(Stamp: “TomskNIPIneft Research Institute for Oil and Gas”)
The Protocol cannot be partly reproduced without a written permission of Head of Laboratory.
Page 1 of 1