157 gas samples analyses 22.5mb.cision.com/main/10918/9814809/408543.pdf · 2015-08-17 · mass...

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


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


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


2,2,3-‐trimethylbutane 0.071

benzol 0.243


cyclohexane 1.178

2-‐methylhexane 2.325

of 2


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




1c,2t,4c-‐trimethylcyclopentane 0.236


1c,2t,3c-‐trimethylcyclopentane 0.219


toluene 0.705


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



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


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)


±0.04

Comment: * -‐ parameter not included into the field of laboratory accredita5on

Executors: Ye.N. Konovalova


The Protocol cannot be partly reproduced without a wriien permission of Head of Laboratory.

Page 1 of 1

N-‐Butane (n-‐C4H10)


±0.029

Iso-‐Pentane (o-‐C5H12)


±0.014

N-‐Pentane (n-‐C5H12)


±0.009

Hexane sum (C6H14)


±0.009

Heptane sum (C7H16)


±0.003

Octane sum (C8H18)


±0.0014

Nonane sum (C9H20)*


±0.0007

Decane sum (C10H22)*


±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



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


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


(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

157 gas samples analyses 22.5mb.cision.com/main/10918/9814809/408543.pdf · 2015-08-17 · mass...

Documents