Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology (2021) 11:2539–2559

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13202-021-01214-1

ORIGINAL PAPER-EXPLORATION GEOPHYSICS

Assessing hydrocarbon prospects in Abu Madi formation using well

logging data in El‑Qara field, Nile Delta Basin, Egypt
Mohammad Abdelfattah Sarhan1

Received: 18 March 2021 / Accepted: 8 June 2021 / Published online: 26 June 2021
© The Author(s) 2021

Abstract
In this work, the petrophysical properties of Abu Madi reservoir in El-Qara Field at northern Nile Delta Basin (NDB) were
evaluated depending on well logging data of two wells: El-Qara-2 and El-Qara-3. This evaluation revealed that in El-Qara-2
well, the promising gas zone is detected between depths of 3315 and 3358 m, while in El-Qara-3 well, the best gas interval
is detected between depths of 3358 and 3371 m. In addition to the production test parameters (gas rate, condensate rate, gas
gravity, condensate gravity, gas-to-oil ratio, flowing tubing head pressure, flowing bottom hole pressure, and static bottom
hole pressure), the calculated petrophysical parameters (shale volume, total porosity, effective porosity, and water satura-
tion) for both intervals were relatively similar. This confirms that the investigated wells were drilled at the same reservoir
interval within Abu Madi Fm. The depth variation in the examined zones was attributed to the presence of buried normal
faults between El-Qara-2 and El-Qara-3 wells. This observation may be supported from the tectonic influence during the
deposition of Abu Madi Fm. as a portion of the Messinian syn-rift megasequence beneath the NDB.

Keywords Well logging · Abu Madi Fm. · El-Qara field · Nile Delta basin

Introduction unconformity surface and led to the deposition of thick

evaporite sections (Rosetta Fm.). In this way, a north-trend-
Nile Delta Basin (NDB) is a passive-margin basin occupying ing fluvial system (The Eonile of Said 1990) was formed at
approximately 250,000 k­ m2 in the eastern Mediterranean the latitude of Cairo (Harms and Wary 1990). This Eonile
area. It was formed because of the thermal subsidence con- formed a deep canyon incision when the drainage system
sequent of the extensional tectonic phase, which isolated changed in the Early Miocene from northwest (from the Qat-
the African plate away from the Eurasian plate during the tara Depression) to northward (to its current position in the
Late Triassic–Early Cretaceous age (Dolson et al. 2001; May Mediterranean Sea) during the Messinian age owing to the
1991). eastward tilting of the land (Ross and Uchupi 1977). This
In the last five decades, several trillion cubic feet of gas canyon cut into the pre-existing Cenozoic–Mesozoic section
have been explored in the NDB and found in various strati- and transported huge quantities of sediments into the Medi-
graphic levels extending from the Oligocene to the Pliocene. terranean Basin (El-Barkooky and Helal 2002).
Since 1963, the Messinian Abu Madi sandstones have been Abu Madi Fm. consists of sandstone and shale interca-
the primary source of gas and condensate for several petro- lations (Rizzini et al. 1976), which was deposited during
leum companies in both onshore and offshore parts of the the Messinian age (Egyptian General Petroleum Corpora-
NDB (Abu El-Ella 1990). tion (EGPC), 1994; El Heiny and Morsi 1992). The term
During the Messinian age, the Mediterranean Sea “Abu Madi Paleovalley” refers to the Proto-Nile distribu-
was confined from the global ocean and dried owing to taries in the northern part of the NDB, which incised the
extraordinary evaporation. This process induced a major pre-existing shelf and slope of the Mediterranean Sea and
formed a wide fluvial system. This incision resulted from a
* Mohammad Abdelfattah Sarhan remarkable decrease in the ocean level worldwide during
msarhan@du.edu.eg the Messinian age (Harms and Wary 1990; Barber 1981;
Sestini 1989). Thus, all the sandstones of Abu Madi Fm.
1
Geology Department, Faculty of Science, Damietta were deposited as incised-valley fills reflecting the lowstand
University, New Damietta City 34517, Egypt

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
2540 Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology (2021) 11:2539–2559

system tract that was topped by transgressive estuarine facies formed in the northern Egypt, called the “Hinge Zone”
(Salem et al. 2005). (Said 1962; Sestini 1989). This zone separates the north-
El-Qara Field lies within the Abu Madi Paleovalley to ern Egypt on an east–west trend (Mosconi et al. 1996),
the north of NDB close to the Egyptian Coast (Fig. 1). It characterizing the southern boundary of the rifted con-
contains several drilled wells that produce gas from the tinental margin (Bertello et al. 1996) and controlling the
sandstones of Abu Madi Fm. In this study, two wells in stratigraphic and structural evolution of the north–central
El-Qara Field were examined, namely, El-Qara-2 and El- basins in Egypt (Said 1981; Harms and Wary 1990; Arisi
Qara-3. El-Qara-2 well was drilled with a total measured et al. 1994). Numerous extensional faults formed along
depth of 3460 m at the intersection between latitude 31° 28′ this Hinge Zone with strong faulting downward to the
57.1640″ N and longitude 31° 18′ 40.8516″ E. Alternatively, north resulted in a significant thick sedimentary succes-
El-Qara-3 well has a total measured depth of 3505 m at the sion (5000–7000 m) to the north of the hinge line, while
point between latitude 31°29′ 34.91″ N and longitude 31°16′ only 500–1500 m of the sedimentary cover was docu-
54.641″E (Fig. 1). mented to the south (Harms and Wray 1990; Sarhan and
Herein, the petrophysical properties of the reservoir inter- Hemdan 1994; EGPC 1994).
vals within the sandstones of Abu Madi Fm. in El-Qara-2 The NDB underwent dynamic subsidence throughout
and El-Qara-3 wells were assessed to examine the efficiency the Late Miocene owing to the uplift of Sinai and the East-
of these intervals as gas-bearing resources in El-Qara Field ern Desert and the start of the Gulf of Suez rift and the
in NDB. Aqaba–Jordan shear (Kamel et al. 1998). However, during
the Pliocene–Pleistocene age, a belt of compression was
developed, associated with the sinistral wrench movement.
Geological setting This phenomenon led to the creation of the northeast–south-
west Pelusium fault, which crosses the northwest seaward
NDB exhibits a thick sedimentary section from the Ter- parts of Sinai, bounds the southern part of the Nile Delta,
tiary to Quaternary ages. Throughout the Jurassic–Early and expands to the western part of the African plate (EGPC
Cretaceous, a major faulted and generally flexed zone 1994; Zaghloul et al. 2001).

Fig. 1  a Map displays the location of El-Qara Field, northern Nile Locations of El-Qara-2 and El-Qara-3 wells and two interpreted seis-
Delta Basin, and summarizes the active faults within the Abu Madi mic profiles in the examined field
Paleovalley during the Late Miocene age (Sarhan et al. 2014). b

13
Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology (2021) 11:2539–2559 2541

The Miocene section in the NDB includes the Abu Madi occasionally pyritic. However, the sandstone beds are
Fm. (or its equivalent Rosetta Fm.) and Qawasim Fm. from quartzose, grayish, off white, fine to coarse grained in the
top to bottom, characterizing the Messinian age. The Sidi basal sand body, fine to medium grained, occasionally
Salim Fm. represents the Middle Miocene age, and the Qan- coarse grained, moderately to poorly sorted in the mid-
tara Fm. represents the Early Miocene age. The Pliocene dle–upper part, weakly to moderately cemented by cal-
succession in the NDB includes the Mit Ghamr Fm. and careous cement, moderately hard to friable, and locally
El Wastani Fm. from top to bottom, representing the Late glauconitic (Fig. 2).
Pliocene age and the Kafr El-Sheikh Fm. of the Early–Mid- According to the composite logs of EL-Qara-3 well,
dle Pliocene age (El Heiny and Enani 1996; EGPC 1994; the shale beds are light gray, firm, sub-blocky, silty to
Vandre et al. 2007). very silty grained to siltstone in some parts, and noncal-
Generally, the Abu Madi Fm. in EL-Qara Field com- careous to slightly calcareous and show traces of glau-
prises sandstones with shale interbeds. Based on the conite. However, the sandstone interbeds are quartzose,
composite logs of EL-Qara-2 well, all the shales are gray, colorless, occasionally orange, fine to medium grained,
dark gray, firm, sub-blocky, silty grained, and locally to locally coarse grained, subrounded to subangular, moder-
siltstone, calcareous, and locally highly calcareous, and ately sorted, carbonatic cement, and semi friable (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2  Lithostratigraphic col-

umn for Abu Madi Fm. based
on the available composite logs
for El-Qara-2 and El-Qara-3
wells

13
2542 Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology (2021) 11:2539–2559

Data and methods wells. The log suit of each well includes caliper, gamma
ray, sonic, deep resistivity, bulk density, and neutron poros-
The hydrocarbon prospects of Abu Madi sandstones in El- ity logs (Figs. 3, 4). The composite logs of EL-Qara-2 and
Qara Field were assessed using Techlog software for the EL-Qara-3 wells were evaluated, and the data of drill stem
conventional wireline logs of EL-Qara-2 and EL-Qara-3 test (DST) and production tests were also available.

Fig. 3  Wireline log data with an interpretation for the gas zone in El-Qara-2 well

Fig. 4  Wireline log data with an interpretation for the gas interval in El-Qara-3 well

13
Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology (2021) 11:2539–2559 2543

Table 1  Well log data and output results for gas zone in El-Qara-2 well
Input well log data Output results
Depth (ft) Gamma Sonic (US/F) Deep Neutron Density (G/C3) Shale volume Total porosity Effective Water saturation
ray (API) resistivity porosity porosity
(Ωm2/m)

3315.02 36.90 80.19 3.94 0.22 2.37 0.12 0.21 0.17 0.63
3315.18 35.88 82.73 3.92 0.22 2.38 0.12 0.20 0.17 0.64
3315.33 34.37 85.99 4.00 0.21 2.39 0.11 0.20 0.17 0.64
3315.48 34.56 87.19 4.08 0.21 2.39 0.11 0.20 0.16 0.65
3315.63 36.98 86.81 4.14 0.21 2.40 0.12 0.20 0.16 0.66
3315.78 39.80 86.33 4.37 0.21 2.41 0.14 0.19 0.15 0.66
3315.94 41.68 85.77 4.87 0.21 2.42 0.15 0.19 0.15 0.65
3316.09 42.84 84.99 5.37 0.22 2.42 0.16 0.19 0.14 0.62
3316.24 42.51 84.58 5.79 0.22 2.39 0.16 0.20 0.15 0.56
3316.39 38.59 85.12 6.69 0.20 2.33 0.13 0.21 0.17 0.46
3316.54 31.06 86.24 8.12 0.17 2.26 0.09 0.23 0.20 0.37
3316.70 23.39 87.50 8.74 0.14 2.22 0.06 0.23 0.22 0.34
3316.85 18.87 88.75 7.87 0.13 2.20 0.04 0.23 0.22 0.36
3317.00 17.64 89.13 6.54 0.12 2.20 0.03 0.23 0.22 0.39
3317.15 17.62 88.39 5.58 0.12 2.21 0.03 0.23 0.22 0.43
3317.30 17.26 87.61 5.03 0.12 2.22 0.03 0.23 0.22 0.46
3317.46 16.56 87.34 4.74 0.12 2.23 0.03 0.22 0.21 0.48
3317.61 16.12 86.73 4.63 0.12 2.25 0.02 0.22 0.21 0.50
3317.76 16.14 85.53 4.61 0.13 2.27 0.02 0.21 0.20 0.52
3317.91 16.46 84.41 4.66 0.13 2.28 0.03 0.20 0.20 0.53
3318.06 16.99 83.29 4.72 0.13 2.30 0.03 0.20 0.19 0.55
3318.22 17.71 81.99 4.70 0.13 2.32 0.03 0.19 0.18 0.57
3318.37 18.13 80.76 4.56 0.13 2.33 0.03 0.19 0.18 0.60
3318.52 17.69 79.69 4.30 0.14 2.34 0.03 0.18 0.18 0.63
3318.67 16.72 78.84 3.99 0.15 2.35 0.03 0.19 0.18 0.65
3318.82 16.12 78.14 3.76 0.16 2.36 0.02 0.19 0.18 0.66
3318.98 16.63 77.71 3.64 0.16 2.37 0.03 0.18 0.18 0.68
3319.13 18.10 77.77 3.65 0.16 2.38 0.03 0.18 0.17 0.71
3319.28 19.95 78.09 3.71 0.15 2.39 0.04 0.17 0.16 0.74
3319.43 21.27 78.40 3.72 0.15 2.39 0.05 0.17 0.16 0.75
3319.58 21.23 78.75 3.66 0.15 2.39 0.05 0.17 0.16 0.75
3319.74 20.14 79.31 3.65 0.15 2.39 0.04 0.17 0.16 0.75
3319.89 19.31 79.59 3.69 0.14 2.39 0.04 0.17 0.16 0.75
3320.04 19.94 79.16 3.76 0.14 2.39 0.04 0.17 0.16 0.75
3320.19 21.52 78.61 3.87 0.14 2.39 0.05 0.17 0.16 0.74
3320.34 22.63 78.54 4.16 0.15 2.39 0.05 0.17 0.16 0.70
3320.50 22.13 78.36 4.69 0.16 2.39 0.05 0.18 0.16 0.65
3320.65 20.13 77.48 5.37 0.15 2.39 0.04 0.17 0.16 0.61
3320.80 18.19 76.55 6.04 0.14 2.39 0.03 0.17 0.16 0.58
3320.95 17.57 76.20 6.57 0.12 2.38 0.03 0.17 0.16 0.57
3321.10 18.32 76.39 6.91 0.12 2.37 0.03 0.16 0.15 0.56
3321.26 19.02 77.06 7.28 0.12 2.38 0.04 0.16 0.15 0.56
3321.41 18.66 77.51 7.78 0.12 2.40 0.03 0.16 0.15 0.56
3321.56 17.72 77.06 7.97 0.11 2.42 0.03 0.15 0.14 0.59
3321.71 17.65 76.33 7.51 0.11 2.43 0.03 0.14 0.13 0.63
3321.86 19.22 75.87 6.77 0.11 2.43 0.04 0.14 0.13 0.66
3322.02 21.12 75.71 6.40 0.12 2.43 0.04 0.15 0.14 0.67

13
2544 Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology (2021) 11:2539–2559

Table 1  (continued)
Input well log data Output results
Depth (ft) Gamma Sonic (US/F) Deep Neutron Density (G/C3) Shale volume Total porosity Effective Water saturation
ray (API) resistivity porosity porosity
(Ωm2/m)

3322.17 21.37 75.95 6.61 0.13 2.42 0.05 0.15 0.14 0.63
3322.32 19.78 76.36 7.11 0.13 2.41 0.04 0.16 0.15 0.59
3322.47 18.12 77.03 7.43 0.13 2.40 0.03 0.16 0.15 0.56
3322.62 17.80 78.01 7.44 0.13 2.40 0.03 0.16 0.15 0.55
3322.78 18.42 78.63 7.35 0.13 2.40 0.03 0.16 0.15 0.55
3322.93 18.82 78.68 7.38 0.13 2.40 0.03 0.16 0.15 0.55
3323.08 18.62 78.33 7.58 0.14 2.40 0.03 0.17 0.16 0.53
3323.23 18.38 77.43 7.94 0.14 2.39 0.03 0.17 0.16 0.51
3323.38 18.55 75.81 8.38 0.14 2.38 0.03 0.17 0.16 0.49
3323.54 19.01 73.92 8.75 0.14 2.39 0.04 0.17 0.16 0.48
3323.69 19.07 72.85 8.88 0.14 2.40 0.04 0.16 0.15 0.50
3323.84 18.68 73.33 8.59 0.14 2.43 0.03 0.15 0.14 0.54
3323.99 18.82 75.03 8.02 0.13 2.43 0.03 0.15 0.14 0.59
3324.14 20.02 77.22 7.51 0.13 2.43 0.04 0.15 0.14 0.60
3324.30 21.59 78.86 7.18 0.13 2.42 0.05 0.16 0.14 0.60
3324.45 22.64 79.30 6.90 0.14 2.42 0.05 0.16 0.14 0.60
3324.60 23.18 79.09 6.57 0.14 2.42 0.05 0.16 0.14 0.63
3324.75 23.48 78.88 6.36 0.14 2.43 0.06 0.15 0.14 0.65
3324.90 23.23 78.67 6.32 0.14 2.44 0.05 0.15 0.14 0.67
3325.06 22.74 78.29 6.33 0.14 2.45 0.05 0.15 0.13 0.68
3325.21 22.76 77.75 6.32 0.14 2.45 0.05 0.15 0.13 0.68
3325.36 23.26 77.40 6.33 0.14 2.45 0.05 0.15 0.13 0.68
3325.51 23.32 77.42 6.29 0.14 2.45 0.05 0.15 0.13 0.68
3325.66 22.36 77.64 6.09 0.14 2.44 0.05 0.15 0.14 0.68
3325.82 21.00 77.86 5.78 0.14 2.43 0.04 0.16 0.14 0.67
3325.97 19.94 78.17 5.59 0.14 2.42 0.04 0.16 0.15 0.65
3326.12 19.15 78.59 5.75 0.15 2.41 0.04 0.16 0.15 0.63
3326.27 18.34 78.61 6.44 0.14 2.42 0.03 0.16 0.15 0.60
3326.42 17.52 77.87 7.74 0.15 2.40 0.03 0.17 0.16 0.52
3326.58 17.26 76.96 9.49 0.15 2.40 0.03 0.17 0.16 0.47
3326.73 17.90 76.72 11.25 0.14 2.40 0.03 0.16 0.16 0.44
3326.88 18.86 77.42 12.65 0.13 2.41 0.04 0.16 0.15 0.43
3327.03 19.34 78.75 13.67 0.12 2.41 0.04 0.15 0.14 0.43
3327.18 19.17 79.75 14.36 0.11 2.40 0.04 0.15 0.14 0.43
3327.34 18.93 79.78 14.54 0.11 2.40 0.04 0.15 0.14 0.42
3327.49 19.16 79.20 14.05 0.11 2.39 0.04 0.16 0.15 0.42
3327.64 19.52 78.58 13.40 0.12 2.39 0.04 0.16 0.15 0.42
3327.79 19.46 78.26 13.33 0.13 2.39 0.04 0.16 0.15 0.41
3327.94 18.64 78.29 13.93 0.13 2.40 0.03 0.16 0.15 0.41
3328.10 17.42 78.72 14.63 0.13 2.41 0.03 0.16 0.15 0.40
3328.25 16.92 79.36 14.85 0.13 2.42 0.03 0.16 0.15 0.40
3328.40 17.59 79.81 14.63 0.13 2.41 0.03 0.16 0.15 0.40
3328.55 18.55 79.85 14.75 0.13 2.39 0.03 0.16 0.15 0.38
3328.70 18.93 79.32 15.52 0.12 2.37 0.04 0.17 0.16 0.37
3328.86 19.22 78.38 16.17 0.12 2.36 0.04 0.17 0.16 0.36
3329.01 19.91 77.43 15.75 0.12 2.38 0.04 0.16 0.15 0.37
3329.16 20.42 76.66 14.43 0.12 2.40 0.04 0.16 0.15 0.40

13
Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology (2021) 11:2539–2559 2545

Table 1  (continued)
Input well log data Output results
Depth (ft) Gamma Sonic (US/F) Deep Neutron Density (G/C3) Shale volume Total porosity Effective Water saturation
ray (API) resistivity porosity porosity
(Ωm2/m)

3329.31 20.03 76.21 13.88 0.13 2.41 0.04 0.16 0.15 0.41
3329.46 18.91 76.44 15.52 0.14 2.41 0.04 0.16 0.15 0.39
3329.62 17.83 77.42 18.85 0.14 2.41 0.03 0.16 0.15 0.34
3329.77 17.18 78.75 21.94 0.14 2.40 0.03 0.16 0.15 0.31
3329.92 16.76 79.92 23.48 0.13 2.40 0.03 0.16 0.15 0.30
3330.07 16.10 80.42 23.56 0.12 2.39 0.02 0.16 0.16 0.30
3330.22 15.25 80.23 22.28 0.11 2.37 0.02 0.16 0.16 0.31
3330.38 14.97 79.76 19.56 0.11 2.36 0.02 0.17 0.16 0.32
3330.53 15.53 79.38 16.39 0.11 2.35 0.02 0.17 0.16 0.35
3330.68 16.44 79.29 14.33 0.11 2.36 0.03 0.17 0.16 0.38
3330.83 17.12 79.49 13.53 0.11 2.37 0.03 0.17 0.16 0.40
3330.98 17.50 79.74 13.12 0.11 2.38 0.03 0.16 0.15 0.41
3331.14 18.07 79.79 12.65 0.12 2.38 0.03 0.16 0.15 0.42
3331.29 18.99 79.62 12.16 0.12 2.38 0.04 0.16 0.15 0.43
3331.44 20.10 79.38 11.81 0.12 2.38 0.04 0.16 0.15 0.43
3331.59 20.99 79.15 11.65 0.13 2.38 0.04 0.17 0.15 0.44
3331.74 20.98 78.90 11.51 0.13 2.38 0.04 0.17 0.15 0.44
3331.90 19.96 78.71 11.14 0.13 2.39 0.04 0.17 0.15 0.44
3332.05 18.77 78.61 10.54 0.13 2.39 0.03 0.17 0.16 0.45
3332.20 18.29 78.37 9.89 0.13 2.39 0.03 0.17 0.16 0.46
3332.35 18.54 77.69 9.33 0.13 2.39 0.03 0.17 0.16 0.48
3332.50 18.82 76.53 8.81 0.13 2.40 0.03 0.16 0.15 0.51
3332.66 19.08 75.65 7.94 0.13 2.40 0.04 0.16 0.15 0.54
3332.81 19.69 75.73 6.67 0.13 2.41 0.04 0.16 0.15 0.60
3332.96 20.39 76.51 5.53 0.13 2.42 0.04 0.15 0.14 0.69
3333.11 21.23 77.54 4.98 0.12 2.43 0.05 0.15 0.13 0.77
3333.26 22.18 78.15 4.89 0.12 2.42 0.05 0.15 0.13 0.79
3333.42 22.71 77.88 4.95 0.12 2.41 0.05 0.15 0.14 0.75
3333.57 22.12 77.09 5.06 0.13 2.41 0.05 0.16 0.14 0.70
3333.72 20.83 76.27 5.38 0.14 2.42 0.04 0.16 0.15 0.68
3333.87 20.13 75.56 6.19 0.14 2.43 0.04 0.16 0.14 0.64
3334.02 19.81 75.13 7.99 0.14 2.43 0.04 0.16 0.14 0.56
3334.18 19.04 75.18 11.23 0.14 2.43 0.04 0.16 0.14 0.47
3334.33 18.24 75.70 15.72 0.14 2.43 0.03 0.15 0.14 0.40
3334.48 18.46 76.44 20.96 0.13 2.44 0.03 0.15 0.14 0.37
3334.63 19.56 77.19 27.66 0.12 2.45 0.04 0.14 0.13 0.34
3334.78 20.00 77.75 36.89 0.10 2.44 0.04 0.13 0.12 0.30
3334.94 19.64 77.96 48.26 0.09 2.42 0.04 0.14 0.13 0.25
3335.09 19.52 77.99 61.76 0.09 2.38 0.04 0.15 0.14 0.20
3335.24 19.73 78.12 74.65 0.09 2.37 0.04 0.16 0.14 0.18
3335.39 19.48 78.39 76.10 0.09 2.37 0.04 0.15 0.14 0.18
3335.54 18.39 78.77 62.92 0.09 2.38 0.03 0.15 0.14 0.20
3335.70 17.33 79.23 47.17 0.09 2.38 0.03 0.15 0.14 0.23
3335.85 17.01 79.43 36.15 0.09 2.38 0.03 0.15 0.15 0.26
3336.00 16.89 79.19 28.76 0.10 2.37 0.03 0.16 0.15 0.28
3336.15 16.37 78.55 24.69 0.10 2.37 0.02 0.16 0.15 0.30
3336.30 16.09 77.56 22.64 0.10 2.37 0.02 0.16 0.15 0.32

13
2546 Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology (2021) 11:2539–2559

Table 1  (continued)
Input well log data Output results
Depth (ft) Gamma Sonic (US/F) Deep Neutron Density (G/C3) Shale volume Total porosity Effective Water saturation
ray (API) resistivity porosity porosity
(Ωm2/m)

3336.46 16.74 76.37 20.39 0.11 2.39 0.03 0.15 0.14 0.35
3336.61 17.58 75.51 17.61 0.11 2.41 0.03 0.15 0.14 0.40
3336.76 17.56 75.74 14.98 0.11 2.42 0.03 0.14 0.13 0.44
3336.91 17.56 77.02 12.76 0.11 2.42 0.03 0.15 0.14 0.47
3337.06 19.24 78.10 11.00 0.12 2.41 0.04 0.15 0.14 0.49
3337.22 21.59 78.07 9.87 0.13 2.41 0.05 0.16 0.14 0.50
3337.37 22.23 77.32 9.30 0.13 2.42 0.05 0.16 0.14 0.53
3337.52 21.24 76.70 8.71 0.14 2.44 0.05 0.15 0.14 0.56
3337.67 20.72 76.67 7.91 0.14 2.44 0.04 0.15 0.14 0.60
3337.82 21.43 77.12 7.36 0.14 2.44 0.05 0.15 0.14 0.62
3337.98 22.31 77.58 7.33 0.14 2.44 0.05 0.15 0.14 0.61
3338.13 23.00 77.78 7.60 0.15 2.44 0.05 0.15 0.14 0.60
3338.28 23.65 78.03 7.91 0.15 2.45 0.06 0.15 0.13 0.60
3338.43 23.33 78.40 8.17 0.15 2.45 0.05 0.15 0.13 0.59
3338.58 21.52 78.66 8.38 0.15 2.45 0.05 0.15 0.14 0.56
3338.74 19.48 78.36 8.60 0.15 2.44 0.04 0.16 0.15 0.54
3338.89 18.74 77.42 8.96 0.15 2.44 0.03 0.16 0.15 0.52
3339.04 19.15 76.45 9.47 0.15 2.44 0.04 0.16 0.14 0.51
3339.19 19.45 75.59 9.82 0.14 2.44 0.04 0.15 0.14 0.52
3339.34 19.52 74.74 9.77 0.14 2.45 0.04 0.15 0.14 0.54
3339.50 19.96 74.24 9.50 0.14 2.46 0.04 0.14 0.13 0.56
3339.65 20.71 74.09 9.22 0.14 2.46 0.04 0.14 0.13 0.59
3339.80 21.32 74.06 8.88 0.14 2.47 0.05 0.14 0.13 0.61
3339.95 21.40 74.28 8.62 0.13 2.47 0.05 0.14 0.12 0.63
3340.10 21.07 74.72 8.76 0.13 2.47 0.04 0.14 0.12 0.63
3340.26 20.55 75.08 9.42 0.13 2.47 0.04 0.14 0.12 0.60
3340.41 19.76 75.41 10.37 0.13 2.46 0.04 0.14 0.13 0.55
3340.56 18.81 76.20 11.21 0.13 2.43 0.03 0.15 0.14 0.49
3340.71 18.02 77.51 11.65 0.13 2.39 0.03 0.16 0.15 0.43
3340.86 17.78 79.00 11.73 0.12 2.34 0.03 0.18 0.17 0.39
3341.02 17.96 80.47 11.72 0.11 2.31 0.03 0.19 0.18 0.37
3341.17 17.86 81.64 11.69 0.12 2.29 0.03 0.20 0.19 0.36
3341.32 17.34 82.18 11.49 0.12 2.29 0.03 0.20 0.19 0.35
3341.47 17.03 81.79 11.10 0.12 2.28 0.03 0.20 0.19 0.35
3341.62 17.18 80.32 10.56 0.12 2.28 0.03 0.20 0.19 0.36
3341.78 17.60 78.48 9.92 0.12 2.29 0.03 0.20 0.19 0.38
3341.93 18.32 77.12 9.50 0.12 2.31 0.03 0.19 0.18 0.41
3342.08 19.41 76.22 9.63 0.11 2.34 0.04 0.17 0.16 0.45
3342.23 19.95 75.99 10.04 0.11 2.37 0.04 0.16 0.15 0.48
3342.38 18.64 76.75 10.27 0.11 2.39 0.03 0.16 0.15 0.49
3342.54 16.17 77.82 10.03 0.11 2.40 0.02 0.15 0.15 0.50
3342.69 15.02 78.65 9.29 0.11 2.40 0.02 0.15 0.15 0.52
3342.84 16.92 79.34 8.51 0.11 2.39 0.03 0.15 0.15 0.54
3342.99 20.03 79.85 7.91 0.11 2.38 0.04 0.16 0.15 0.54
3343.14 20.89 80.25 7.42 0.12 2.37 0.04 0.17 0.15 0.54
3343.30 19.15 80.64 7.16 0.13 2.37 0.04 0.17 0.16 0.54
3343.45 17.40 80.85 7.11 0.13 2.38 0.03 0.17 0.16 0.54

13
Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology (2021) 11:2539–2559 2547

Table 1  (continued)
Input well log data Output results
Depth (ft) Gamma Sonic (US/F) Deep Neutron Density (G/C3) Shale volume Total porosity Effective Water saturation
ray (API) resistivity porosity porosity
(Ωm2/m)

3343.60 17.67 80.89 7.07 0.14 2.39 0.03 0.17 0.16 0.55
3343.75 19.03 80.92 6.90 0.14 2.41 0.04 0.16 0.15 0.57
3343.90 19.72 80.86 6.68 0.15 2.42 0.04 0.16 0.15 0.60
3344.06 19.70 80.96 6.49 0.15 2.42 0.04 0.16 0.15 0.60
3344.21 19.28 81.59 6.35 0.15 2.40 0.04 0.17 0.16 0.58
3344.36 18.37 82.24 6.21 0.15 2.37 0.03 0.18 0.17 0.55
3344.51 17.10 82.36 6.05 0.14 2.34 0.03 0.19 0.18 0.52
3344.66 16.44 82.13 6.09 0.14 2.32 0.03 0.20 0.19 0.49
3344.82 17.10 81.86 6.45 0.14 2.31 0.03 0.20 0.19 0.47
3344.97 18.01 81.88 6.88 0.14 2.31 0.03 0.20 0.19 0.46
3345.12 17.90 82.44 7.01 0.13 2.31 0.03 0.20 0.19 0.46
3345.27 17.18 83.16 6.78 0.13 2.30 0.03 0.20 0.19 0.46
3345.42 17.41 83.33 6.42 0.13 2.29 0.03 0.20 0.19 0.47
3345.58 18.80 83.00 6.11 0.13 2.30 0.03 0.20 0.19 0.49
3345.73 19.84 82.70 5.80 0.13 2.32 0.04 0.19 0.18 0.53
3345.88 19.47 82.69 5.39 0.14 2.34 0.04 0.19 0.18 0.56
3346.03 18.67 82.97 4.97 0.15 2.35 0.03 0.19 0.18 0.58
3346.18 18.95 83.43 4.70 0.15 2.35 0.04 0.19 0.18 0.58
3346.34 19.74 83.82 4.70 0.16 2.35 0.04 0.19 0.18 0.58
3346.49 19.59 83.98 5.05 0.16 2.34 0.04 0.20 0.18 0.55
3346.64 18.07 84.21 5.80 0.16 2.33 0.03 0.20 0.19 0.49
3346.79 16.27 84.61 6.73 0.15 2.30 0.02 0.21 0.20 0.44
3346.94 15.51 85.03 7.46 0.14 2.28 0.02 0.21 0.20 0.41
3347.10 15.60 85.29 7.88 0.13 2.27 0.02 0.21 0.20 0.40
3347.25 15.56 84.83 8.00 0.12 2.27 0.02 0.21 0.20 0.40
3347.40 14.97 83.69 7.80 0.12 2.28 0.02 0.20 0.20 0.42
3347.55 14.30 82.73 7.59 0.13 2.30 0.02 0.20 0.19 0.43
3347.70 13.90 82.20 7.74 0.13 2.31 0.01 0.20 0.19 0.43
3347.86 13.59 82.00 8.10 0.14 2.31 0.01 0.20 0.19 0.42
3348.01 13.62 82.17 8.14 0.14 2.32 0.01 0.20 0.19 0.42
3348.16 14.33 82.34 7.66 0.15 2.33 0.02 0.19 0.19 0.44
3348.31 15.19 82.23 6.97 0.14 2.34 0.02 0.19 0.18 0.48
3348.46 15.57 82.18 6.39 0.13 2.34 0.02 0.18 0.18 0.51
3348.62 16.00 82.08 6.07 0.13 2.34 0.02 0.18 0.17 0.54
3348.77 16.88 81.62 6.04 0.13 2.35 0.03 0.18 0.17 0.54
3348.92 17.29 81.05 6.23 0.13 2.35 0.03 0.18 0.17 0.53
3349.07 16.51 80.40 6.45 0.14 2.35 0.03 0.18 0.17 0.52
3349.22 15.57 79.64 6.58 0.13 2.35 0.02 0.18 0.17 0.51
3349.38 15.90 79.17 6.61 0.13 2.35 0.02 0.18 0.17 0.51
3349.53 17.38 78.90 6.62 0.14 2.36 0.03 0.18 0.17 0.52
3349.68 19.12 78.61 6.63 0.14 2.37 0.04 0.18 0.17 0.53
3349.83 20.53 78.44 6.70 0.15 2.39 0.04 0.17 0.16 0.55
3349.98 21.38 78.19 6.88 0.15 2.40 0.05 0.17 0.15 0.56
3350.14 21.35 77.90 7.20 0.15 2.41 0.05 0.16 0.15 0.56
3350.29 20.00 77.96 7.62 0.15 2.42 0.04 0.16 0.15 0.55
3350.44 17.73 78.28 8.26 0.15 2.42 0.03 0.16 0.15 0.52
3350.59 15.74 78.58 9.20 0.14 2.40 0.02 0.17 0.16 0.48

13
2548 Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology (2021) 11:2539–2559

Table 1  (continued)
Input well log data Output results
Depth (ft) Gamma Sonic (US/F) Deep Neutron Density (G/C3) Shale volume Total porosity Effective Water saturation
ray (API) resistivity porosity porosity
(Ωm2/m)

3350.74 15.09 78.69 10.29 0.13 2.39 0.02 0.17 0.16 0.45
3350.90 15.74 78.51 11.26 0.12 2.38 0.02 0.17 0.16 0.43
3351.05 16.57 78.15 11.93 0.12 2.38 0.03 0.16 0.16 0.43
3351.20 16.76 77.85 12.23 0.12 2.38 0.03 0.16 0.15 0.43
3351.35 16.47 77.60 12.18 0.12 2.38 0.03 0.16 0.15 0.43
3351.50 16.13 77.32 11.95 0.12 2.38 0.02 0.16 0.15 0.43
3351.66 16.14 77.11 11.71 0.12 2.38 0.02 0.16 0.15 0.44
3351.81 16.45 76.90 11.34 0.12 2.39 0.03 0.16 0.15 0.45
3351.96 16.52 76.64 10.76 0.12 2.40 0.03 0.16 0.15 0.47
3352.11 16.20 76.38 10.06 0.12 2.40 0.02 0.16 0.15 0.49
3352.26 16.08 76.26 9.35 0.12 2.40 0.02 0.16 0.15 0.51
3352.42 16.56 76.23 8.76 0.13 2.41 0.03 0.16 0.15 0.52
3352.57 17.41 76.05 8.42 0.13 2.42 0.03 0.16 0.15 0.54
3352.72 18.15 75.80 8.38 0.13 2.42 0.03 0.15 0.14 0.55
3352.87 18.87 75.66 8.54 0.14 2.43 0.04 0.15 0.14 0.55
3353.02 19.50 75.77 8.70 0.14 2.43 0.04 0.15 0.14 0.55
3353.18 19.28 76.26 8.74 0.14 2.43 0.04 0.15 0.14 0.55
3353.33 17.97 76.66 8.65 0.14 2.43 0.03 0.16 0.15 0.53
3353.48 16.34 76.48 8.59 0.14 2.41 0.02 0.16 0.16 0.50
3353.63 15.51 75.93 8.74 0.14 2.39 0.02 0.17 0.16 0.48
3353.78 15.96 75.49 9.19 0.13 2.39 0.02 0.17 0.16 0.48
3353.94 16.86 75.38 9.65 0.12 2.40 0.03 0.16 0.15 0.50
3354.09 17.37 75.69 9.83 0.11 2.40 0.03 0.15 0.14 0.51
3354.24 17.53 76.06 9.80 0.11 2.39 0.03 0.16 0.15 0.50
3354.39 17.67 75.99 9.72 0.11 2.38 0.03 0.16 0.15 0.49
3354.54 17.82 75.67 9.59 0.10 2.37 0.03 0.16 0.15 0.49
3354.70 17.46 75.46 9.44 0.10 2.38 0.03 0.16 0.15 0.50
3354.85 16.95 75.45 9.24 0.10 2.38 0.03 0.16 0.15 0.51
3355.00 17.23 75.62 8.91 0.10 2.38 0.03 0.16 0.15 0.52
3355.15 18.24 75.78 8.39 0.10 2.38 0.03 0.16 0.15 0.54
3355.30 18.86 75.74 7.69 0.10 2.38 0.04 0.16 0.14 0.57
3355.46 18.44 75.75 6.84 0.10 2.39 0.03 0.15 0.14 0.61
3355.61 17.62 76.00 6.07 0.11 2.39 0.03 0.15 0.15 0.64
3355.76 17.29 76.32 5.57 0.12 2.40 0.03 0.16 0.15 0.67
3355.91 17.97 76.51 5.32 0.13 2.40 0.03 0.16 0.15 0.67
3356.06 19.20 76.55 5.16 0.14 2.41 0.04 0.16 0.15 0.68
3356.22 20.01 76.72 5.02 0.14 2.41 0.04 0.16 0.15 0.69
3356.37 19.66 77.06 4.94 0.14 2.42 0.04 0.16 0.15 0.70
3356.52 18.67 77.38 5.01 0.14 2.41 0.03 0.16 0.15 0.69
3356.67 18.30 77.62 5.24 0.13 2.41 0.03 0.16 0.15 0.67
3356.82 18.52 77.70 5.47 0.13 2.40 0.03 0.16 0.15 0.65
3356.98 18.71 77.71 5.68 0.14 2.40 0.03 0.16 0.15 0.63
3357.13 18.58 77.77 5.95 0.14 2.40 0.03 0.16 0.15 0.61
3357.28 18.10 77.80 6.22 0.15 2.41 0.03 0.17 0.16 0.59
3357.43 17.31 77.70 6.34 0.15 2.40 0.03 0.17 0.16 0.57
3357.58 16.68 77.43 6.28 0.16 2.39 0.03 0.17 0.17 0.55
3357.74 16.82 77.17 6.08 0.15 2.38 0.03 0.18 0.17 0.54

13
Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology (2021) 11:2539–2559 2549

Table 1  (continued)
Input well log data Output results
Depth (ft) Gamma Sonic (US/F) Deep Neutron Density (G/C3) Shale volume Total porosity Effective Water saturation
ray (API) resistivity porosity porosity
(Ωm2/m)

3357.89 17.33 77.08 5.71 0.15 2.37 0.03 0.18 0.17 0.56
3358.04 17.55 77.21 5.16 0.14 2.38 0.03 0.17 0.17 0.61
3358.19 17.26 77.75 4.54 0.14 2.39 0.03 0.17 0.16 0.67
Average 19.30 78.87 10.09 0.13 2.38 0.04 0.17 0.16 0.52

In this study, the wireline logs of the examined wells were ray log according to the following equation (Asquith and
first quantitatively investigated to separate the gas-bearing Gibson, 1982).
intervals from water zones within Abu Madi sandstones in
(GR - GRmin )
El-Qara Field. Vsh = (1)
The gas zone within the El-Qara-2 well was observed (GRmax - GRmax )
between depths of 3315 and 3358 m. Alternatively, in El- where Vsh represents the shale volume, GR represents
Qara-3 well, the appreciative interval was found between the gamma ray reading value, ­GRmin represents the low-
depths of 3358 and 3371 m. est gamma ray value, and G­ Rmax represents the maximum
The qualitative assessment of the wireline logs showed gamma ray value.
that the gas zones in each well exhibited the following char-
acteristics (Figs. 3, 4).
Total porosity (ϕT)
1 Constant caliper curve (approximately 8 inches), denot-
ing good borehole conditions and permeability. Total porosity is determined using the neutron–density logs
2 Low gamma ray values (< 30 API), reflecting the low and is shown in track seven in Figs. 3 and 4. It can be esti-
shale content. mated using the following formula (Asquith and Gibson
3 High values of deep resistivity logs, which probably 1982):
indicates the presence of non-conducive hydrocarbons
(gas). 𝜙T =
𝜙 N + 𝜙D
(2)
4 Crossover shape between the neutron porosity and bulk 2
density logs (i.e., the deflection of neutron log to the
where ϕT is the total porosity, ϕN is the neutron porosity,
right and the density curve to the left), indicating the
and ϕD is the density porosity.
presence of the sandstone matrix and/or hydrocarbon or
water saturating fluids.
Effective porosity (ϕe)
Thus, the motivating gas zones in the examined wells
The effective porosity curves (track eight in Figs. 3, 4) can
were quantitatively evaluated. This evaluation involves cal-
be calculated using the following equation (Asquith and
culating the most significant petrophysical parameters nec-
Gibson 1982):
essary for estimating the quality of potential hydrocarbon
reservoirs. These parameters include shale volume, total 𝜙e = 𝜙T ∗ (1 − Vsh ) (3)
porosity, effective porosity, and water and hydrocarbon satu-
ration (Tables 1, 2). where ϕe is the effective porosity, ϕT is the total porosity,
and Vsh is the shale volume.

Shale volume (Vsh) Connate water resistivity (Rw)

The calculated shale volume in the examined zones is shown According to Asquith and Gibson (1982), the Humble
in track six in Figs. 3 and 4. It is calculated using the gamma formula should be used to calculate the Fm. factor F for

13
2550 Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology (2021) 11:2539–2559

Table 2  Well log data and output results for gas zone in El-Qara-3 well
Input well log data Output results
Depth (ft) Gamma Sonic (US/F) Deep Neutron Density (G/C3) Shale volume Total porosity Effective Water saturation
Ray resistivity porosity porosity
(API) (Ωm2/m)

3358.11 26.67 81.05 7.17 0.15 2.37 0.19 0.17 0.13 0.59
3358.26 29.48 81.34 7.21 0.15 2.34 0.22 0.18 0.13 0.56
3358.41 29.39 82.52 7.18 0.16 2.34 0.22 0.18 0.13 0.55
3358.56 32.21 83.38 7.44 0.17 2.36 0.25 0.18 0.12 0.56
3358.71 32.53 82.84 7.40 0.17 2.37 0.25 0.18 0.12 0.58
3358.86 31.69 83.62 7.52 0.17 2.37 0.24 0.18 0.12 0.57
3359.01 29.99 84.28 7.64 0.17 2.37 0.22 0.18 0.13 0.56
3359.16 28.60 84.31 7.91 0.17 2.36 0.21 0.18 0.13 0.53
3359.31 29.32 85.01 8.08 0.17 2.36 0.21 0.18 0.13 0.52
3359.46 30.14 86.54 8.55 0.18 2.35 0.22 0.19 0.13 0.49
3359.61 30.94 86.94 8.75 0.18 2.35 0.23 0.19 0.13 0.49
3359.76 31.62 84.81 8.83 0.18 2.35 0.24 0.18 0.13 0.49
3359.91 32.80 83.22 9.02 0.17 2.37 0.25 0.18 0.12 0.52
3360.06 34.22 82.57 8.68 0.17 2.39 0.27 0.17 0.11 0.57
3360.21 34.90 81.75 9.47 0.18 2.39 0.28 0.17 0.11 0.54
3360.36 34.97 83.98 10.12 0.19 2.38 0.28 0.18 0.11 0.49
3360.51 33.18 85.56 10.21 0.19 2.35 0.26 0.19 0.13 0.45
3360.66 31.19 85.65 12.31 0.19 2.33 0.24 0.19 0.14 0.38
3360.81 28.66 85.58 11.75 0.18 2.32 0.21 0.20 0.15 0.38
3360.96 25.90 84.72 11.01 0.18 2.32 0.18 0.19 0.15 0.39
3361.11 25.43 84.66 11.17 0.18 2.32 0.17 0.19 0.15 0.39
3361.26 25.90 84.82 12.27 0.18 2.32 0.18 0.19 0.15 0.38
3361.41 27.11 84.45 12.91 0.18 2.33 0.19 0.19 0.15 0.37
3361.56 27.26 84.41 12.16 0.17 2.33 0.19 0.19 0.14 0.39
3361.71 26.69 84.40 12.35 0.17 2.33 0.19 0.19 0.14 0.39
3361.86 26.30 83.45 12.56 0.17 2.33 0.18 0.19 0.15 0.38
3362.01 26.23 82.28 17.02 0.16 2.32 0.18 0.19 0.14 0.33
3362.16 26.03 81.48 17.48 0.16 2.32 0.18 0.18 0.14 0.33
3362.31 25.54 80.97 12.93 0.16 2.32 0.17 0.18 0.14 0.39
3362.46 24.91 80.96 12.80 0.16 2.33 0.17 0.18 0.15 0.39
3362.61 24.36 79.91 12.51 0.16 2.34 0.16 0.18 0.14 0.40
3362.76 23.95 78.20 12.44 0.14 2.35 0.15 0.17 0.13 0.43
3362.91 24.51 77.93 12.13 0.13 2.37 0.16 0.16 0.12 0.46
3363.06 27.29 78.25 11.68 0.14 2.38 0.19 0.16 0.12 0.49
3363.21 29.48 78.84 11.26 0.15 2.38 0.22 0.16 0.11 0.49
3363.36 30.21 79.62 10.75 0.16 2.37 0.22 0.17 0.12 0.48
3363.51 26.61 79.36 10.31 0.16 2.37 0.18 0.17 0.13 0.48
3363.66 24.09 79.09 10.39 0.16 2.38 0.16 0.17 0.13 0.48
3363.81 22.13 79.77 10.72 0.16 2.40 0.13 0.16 0.13 0.49
3363.96 22.90 79.90 10.91 0.16 2.41 0.14 0.16 0.13 0.50
3364.11 23.11 80.57 11.12 0.16 2.39 0.15 0.16 0.13 0.48
3364.26 24.32 80.14 11.15 0.16 2.37 0.16 0.17 0.14 0.45
3364.41 23.50 79.35 11.43 0.15 2.36 0.15 0.17 0.14 0.45
3364.56 23.75 78.97 11.80 0.15 2.37 0.15 0.16 0.13 0.46
3364.71 23.48 79.22 12.35 0.15 2.39 0.15 0.16 0.13 0.46
3364.86 25.00 79.46 12.74 0.15 2.38 0.17 0.16 0.12 0.45
3365.01 23.91 80.06 15.09 0.15 2.36 0.15 0.17 0.13 0.39

13
Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology (2021) 11:2539–2559 2551

Table 2  (continued)
Input well log data Output results
Depth (ft) Gamma Sonic (US/F) Deep Neutron Density (G/C3) Shale volume Total porosity Effective Water saturation
Ray resistivity porosity porosity
(API) (Ωm2/m)

3365.16 22.70 81.26 19.32 0.14 2.36 0.14 0.17 0.13 0.34
3365.31 23.78 80.83 13.25 0.14 2.35 0.15 0.17 0.13 0.41
3365.46 25.89 80.98 13.37 0.14 2.37 0.18 0.16 0.12 0.43
3365.61 27.48 80.75 13.69 0.15 2.37 0.19 0.17 0.12 0.43
3365.76 25.88 80.61 12.09 0.15 2.36 0.18 0.17 0.13 0.45
3365.91 25.16 80.42 14.60 0.15 2.35 0.17 0.17 0.13 0.39
3366.06 25.33 80.56 14.58 0.15 2.35 0.17 0.17 0.13 0.39
3366.21 25.22 80.71 14.33 0.15 2.35 0.17 0.17 0.13 0.39
3366.36 27.58 80.25 14.20 0.14 2.35 0.20 0.17 0.13 0.40
3366.51 25.79 79.90 13.51 0.14 2.34 0.18 0.17 0.13 0.41
3366.66 25.47 78.64 13.69 0.14 2.34 0.17 0.17 0.13 0.41
3366.81 24.84 77.31 13.13 0.14 2.34 0.16 0.17 0.13 0.42
3366.96 25.19 77.68 13.17 0.14 2.35 0.17 0.17 0.13 0.42
3367.11 26.06 78.17 12.14 0.15 2.37 0.18 0.17 0.13 0.45
3367.26 25.48 78.52 12.29 0.15 2.37 0.17 0.17 0.13 0.44
3367.41 27.07 78.43 12.09 0.15 2.38 0.19 0.16 0.12 0.47
3367.56 25.21 79.40 11.80 0.14 2.39 0.17 0.16 0.12 0.49
3367.71 25.19 78.90 11.79 0.14 2.39 0.17 0.16 0.12 0.49
3367.86 25.18 80.13 11.76 0.14 2.37 0.17 0.16 0.12 0.47
3368.01 28.91 81.00 11.77 0.15 2.37 0.21 0.17 0.12 0.47
3368.16 30.08 80.91 11.77 0.15 2.36 0.22 0.17 0.12 0.45
3368.31 29.52 80.78 12.31 0.16 2.37 0.22 0.17 0.12 0.45
3368.46 29.49 81.24 12.38 0.15 2.37 0.22 0.17 0.12 0.46
3368.61 29.79 80.47 12.36 0.14 2.37 0.22 0.16 0.11 0.47
3368.76 29.82 79.95 12.30 0.14 2.37 0.22 0.16 0.11 0.47
3368.91 27.18 80.01 12.77 0.14 2.36 0.19 0.17 0.12 0.44
3369.06 24.50 79.81 13.06 0.14 2.35 0.16 0.17 0.13 0.43
3369.21 25.00 79.89 13.24 0.14 2.36 0.17 0.17 0.13 0.42
3369.36 26.45 79.90 12.86 0.15 2.36 0.18 0.17 0.13 0.43
3369.51 26.77 79.06 13.01 0.15 2.37 0.19 0.16 0.12 0.44
3369.66 26.59 78.18 12.49 0.14 2.37 0.18 0.16 0.12 0.45
3369.81 26.32 76.60 12.12 0.13 2.36 0.18 0.16 0.12 0.47
3369.96 25.28 76.68 11.95 0.13 2.36 0.17 0.16 0.12 0.47
3370.11 24.26 76.97 11.05 0.12 2.37 0.16 0.16 0.12 0.51
3370.26 22.42 77.51 10.32 0.12 2.38 0.14 0.15 0.12 0.53
3370.41 21.48 79.46 9.31 0.13 2.39 0.13 0.16 0.13 0.55
3370.56 20.90 79.56 8.44 0.14 2.39 0.12 0.16 0.13 0.57
3370.71 22.09 79.40 7.73 0.14 2.39 0.13 0.16 0.13 0.60
3370.86 24.29 79.31 6.90 0.15 2.39 0.16 0.16 0.13 0.63
3371.01 25.14 78.13 5.96 0.15 2.37 0.17 0.17 0.13 0.66
3371.16 23.51 77.39 5.73 0.14 2.37 0.15 0.16 0.13 0.68
Average 26.78 80.86 11.40 0.15 2.36 0.19 0.17 0.13 0.46

unconsolidated sands. Because the inspected sands in the formula, the cementation exponent m is set to 2.15 and the
examined wells are semifriable to friable, as described in tortuosity factor a is set to 0.62. Thus, the Archie model
the composite logs, the Humble formula was applied. In this (Archie 1942) yields the following equation.

13
2552 Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology (2021) 11:2539–2559

Fig. 5  Density–neutron cross plots (Schlumberger 1972) for the examined zones within Abu Madi Fm. at El-Qara Field. Note that the clustering
of plotted points on and near the sandstone line confirms the sandy matrix

13
Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology (2021) 11:2539–2559 2553

where Ro is the true resistivity (Rt) and Sw = 100%. Here,

Ro is approximately 2.50 Ωm2/m, as shown in the water
zones of the fourth track in Figs. 3 and 4. Thus,

Rw = 2.50∕36.63 = 0.07 Ωm2 ∕m.

Water saturation (Sw)

The water saturation in the reservoir zones in both wells is

calculated using the Simandoux model (Simandoux 1963):
1 Φm Swn VshSw
= + (6)
Rt aRw Rsh
where S w is the water saturation, R w is the connate
water resistivity and is set to 0.07 Ωm2/m, ϕ is the effec-
tive porosity, V sh is the shale volume, R sh is the shale
resistivity, and Rt is the deep resistivity.

Results and discussion

The investigation of the constructed neutron–density

cross plots (Schlumberger 1972) for the gas and water
zones in El-Qara-2 and El-Qara-3 wells showed the clus-
tering of points on and near the sandstone line, confirm-
ing the sandy matrix (Fig. 5). The constructed water
saturation–effective porosity cross plots (Asquith and
Gibson 1982) revealed that the sand grains of the exam-
ined zones in El-Qara-2 well varied in size from coarse to
very fine-grained. Alternatively, in El-Qara-3 well, most
Fig. 6  Water saturation–effective porosity cross plots (Asquith and sand grains were fine to medium grained in size (Fig. 6).
Gibson 1982) for the examined gas zones. Note that the sand size of The average Vsh calculated in the reservoir zone of El-
the gas zone in El-Qara-2 well differs in size from coarse to very fine, Qara-2 well was very low (0.04), while the shale content
and the sand grains are fine to medium grained in the El-Qara-3 well
in the reservoir of El-Qara-3 well increased and reached
0.19 (Tables 1, 2). The average total porosity was rel-
atively high and equal in both wells and reached 0.17
F = a∕𝜙m (4) (Tables 1, 2). The average effective porosity was higher
in the El-Qara-2 well (0.16) than in the El-Qara-3 well
where F is the Fm. factor, a is the tortuosity factor, ϕ is
(0.13) owing to the higher number of shales in the reser-
the effective porosity, and m is the cementation exponent.
voir zone of El-Qara-3 well (Tables 1, 2).
The average effective porosity in the water zones in both
The calculated water saturation is shown in blue in
wells was approximately 0.15, as shown in the water zones
track nine in Figs. 3 and 4, while the red color in the same
of the eighth track in Figs. 3 and 4.
track represents the hydrocarbon saturation. The water
F = 0.62∕(0.15)2.15 = 36.63 saturation was 0.52 in the gas zone of El-Qara-2 well (i.e.,
hydrocarbon saturation was 48%), while water saturation
Moreover, the connate water resistivity Rw can be calcu- is lower in the reservoir interval of El-Qara-3 well and
lated using the Archie equation (Archie 1942): reached only 0.46 (i.e., hydrocarbon saturation was 54%)
(Tables 1, 2).
Ro = F× Rw , (5)

13
2554 Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology (2021) 11:2539–2559

Fig. 7  Pickett plots for the examined zones in El-Qara-2 and El-Qara-3 wells. Note that most points plotted below SW = 75% line represent the
gas-bearing intervals

Pickett plots the x-axis and y-axis, respectively, with logarithmic scales.
Points representing the water zones in El-Qara-2 and El-
The Pickett cross plots (Pickett 1972) are constructed for the Qara-3 wells were clustering around line Sw = 100% (blue).
examined zones in Fig. 7. The cross plot presents the rela- However, most points characterizing the gas zones in the
tion between the deep resistivity and effective porosity on examined wells were clustered and positioned below line
Sw = 75%, reflecting the gas potentiality of both zones. These

13
Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology (2021) 11:2539–2559 2555

Fig. 8  Bar graphs for the production tests for different choke sizes for the gas zones in the examined wells. a gas rate (Q Gas), b condensate rate
(Q Condensate), c gas gravity, and d condensate gravity

plots match the results of the calculated water saturation summarized and shown in Figs. 8 and 9. These results
(Tables 1, 2), supporting the reliability of mathematical indicate that the characteristics of the promising zones
calculations and the significance of the examined zones as in the two wells were relatively similar, including the
potential gas-bearing intervals. produced gas rate (Q gas), produced condensate (Q con-
densate), gas gravity, rate condensate gravity, gas-to-oil
ratio, flowing tubing head pressure, flowing bottom hole
pressure, and static bottom hole pressure. These findings
Drill stem test (DST)
confirm that the two zones are the same hydrocarbon res-
ervoir extending within El-Qara Field, although they are
The available DST data for the investigated wells were used
located at different depths. This depth variation is attrib-
to verify the results of this study. DSTs for the water zone
uted to the presence of normal faults between El-Qara-2
in El-Qara-2 well confirmed the production of saltwater,
and El-Qara-3 wells (Fig. 10).
with total dissolved salts = 1024 gm/L, NaCl = 26 gm/L,
The presence of normal faults is abundant and expected in
and pH = 7.9. Alternatively, the DST results for the water
the Late Miocene section beneath the NDB. This is because
zone in El-Qara-3 well confirmed the production of salt-
Abu Madi Fm. is a portion of the Miocene syn-rift megas-
water, with total dissolved salts = 1060 gm/L, NaCl = 16.6
equence (Sarhan et al. 2014). Figures 11 and 12 show the
gm/L, and pH = 6.93.
interpreted seismic sections along the Abu Madi Paleoval-
ley within El-Qara Field. These seismic profiles confirm the
existence of growth normal faults associated with syn-rift
Production tests megasequences. The syn-rift megasequence in the NDB was
created because of the Red Sea–Gulf of Suez rift during the
The production tests for El-Qara-2 and El-Qara-3 wells Messinian age (Sarhan et al. 2014). Alternatively, the post-
confirmed the production of gas and condensate from rift megasequence within the northern–central part of the
the examined gas zones. The results of different choke Nile Delta was formed during the Pliocene–Quaternary age
sizes (1/4, 3/8, 1/2, and 5/8 inches) for both wells are (El-Fawal et al. 2016).

13
2556 Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology (2021) 11:2539–2559

Fig. 9  Bar graphs for the production tests for different choke sizes for the gas zones in the examined wells. a gas-to-oil ratio (G.O.R.), b flowing
tubing head pressure (FTHP), c flowing bottom hole pressure (FBHP), and d static bottom hole pressure (SBHP)

Fig. 10  Schematic cross-section shows the interpreted normal fault, which separates the gas-bearing reservoir within the Abu Madi Fm. between
El-Qara-2 and El-Qara-3 wells (refer to Fig. 1b for well locations)

13
Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology (2021) 11:2539–2559 2557

Fig. 11  East–west interpreted seismic profile No. MAN 478–81 growth normal faults within the syn-rift megasequence, including
shows the toplapping of the base of the syn-rift megasequence to Abu Madi Fm. (refer to Fig. 1b for seismic line location)
the lower reflectors of the pre-rift megasequence. The abundance of

Fig. 12  East–west interpreted seismic section No. Bil 824–85 (modified after Sarhan 2015) displays the onlapping of the internal reflectors of
the syn-rift megasequence to the base reflector (refer to Fig. 1b for seismic line location)

The deposition of Abu Madi Fm. represents the final stage Conclusions
of the Late Miocene syn-rift megasequence in the NDB
(Sarhan et al. 2014). Abu Madi Fm. was strongly affected The output results of well logging evaluation of the Abu
by tectonic impacts instead of relative sea-level changes Madi reservoir in El-Qara Field, northern NDB, are listed
(Sarhan 2015). Thus, the facies and distributions of Abu below.
Madi Fm. were controlled by faulting and erosion during
the Messinian age (El Heiny et al. 1990).

13
2558 Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology (2021) 11:2539–2559

• The most promising gas-bearing zone within El-Qara-2 Dolson JC, Shann MV, Matbouly S, Harwood C, Rashed R, Ham-
well is located between depths of 3315 and 3358 m, mouda H (2001) AAPG Memoir 74, Chapter 23: The Petroleum
Potential of Egypt
while in El-Qara-3 well, the gas interval is observed Egyptian General Petroleum Corporation (EGPC) (1994) Nile Delta
between depths of 3358 and 3371 m. and North Sinai: Fields, Discoveries and Hydrocarbon Potential
• The calculated petrophysical parameters along with the (a Comprehensive Overview). Egypt, Cairo
production tests for both gas intervals reveal relatively EI-Heiny I, Enani N (1996) Regional stratigraphic interpretation of
Neogene sediments, Northern Nile Delta. In: 13th EGPC Petro-
similar results, although they are located at different leum Conference on Explor Cairo Egypt, vol 1, pp 270–290
depths. This depth variation is attributed to the presence EI-Heiny I, Morsi S (1992) Stratigraphic correlation of Neogene
of normal faults between El-Qara-2 and El-Qara-3 wells. sediments in the eastern Nile Delta and Gulf of Suez. 11th
• The deposition of Abu Madi Fm. was accompanied by Exploration and Production Conf Cairo, vol 1, pp 166–193
El Heiny I, Rizk R, Hassan M (1990) Sedimentological model for Abu
the unstable tectonic setting characterized by the pres- Madi reservoir sands, Abu Madi Field, Nile Delta, Egypt. In 10th
ence of active extensional faults between the examined Pet. Exploration and Production Conference, vol 2, pp 515–551.
wells in El-Qara Field. El-Barkooky AN, Helal MA (2002) Sequence stratigraphy and sedi-
mentary history of the Neogene Nile Delta, AAPG Annual Inter-
national Meeting Cairo, Egypt, pp 27–30
El-Fawal FM, Sarhan MA, Collier REL, Basal A, Abdel Aal MHA
Acknowledgements I am grateful to the Egyptian General Petroleum (2016) Sequence stratigraphic evolution of the post-rift mega
Corporation (EGPC) and Belayim Petroleum Company (PETROBEL) sequence in the northern part of the Nile Delta basin. Egt Arab J
for releasing the geophysical data presented in this paper. I am much Geosci 9(11):1–20
gratitude to the Egyptian Knowledge Bank (EKB) for editing the Eng- Harms JC, Wary JL (1990) Nile Delta. In: Said R (ed) The Geology of
lish language of this paper by Enago services. Egypt. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 329–344
Kamel H, Eita T, Sarhan M (1998) Nile Delta hydrocarbon potentiality.
Declaration In: Proceedings of 14th EGCP Petrol conference, Egypt, Cairo,
pp 485–503
Conflict of interest The author declare that have no conflict of interest. May PR (1991) The Eastern Mediterranean Mesozoic Basin: evolution
and oil habitat. AAPG Bull 75:1215–1232
Ethical statements Hereby, I assure that this paper has not been pre- Mosconi A, Rebora A, Venturino G, Bocc P, Khalil M (1996) Egypt-
viously published and the manuscript reflects my own research and Nile Delta and North Sinai Cenozoic tectonic evolutionary model:
analysis in a truthful and complete manner. a proposal. In: 13th EGPC Petroleum Conference Explor Cairo,
Egypt, vol 1, pp 203–223
Pickett GR (1972) Practical Fm. evaluation. Golden, Colorado, G.R.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri- Pickett, Inc.
bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta- Rizzini A, Vezzani F, Cococcetta V, Khalil M (1976): Stratigraphy
tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long and sedimentation of the Neogene-Quaternary section in the Nile
as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, Delta area. A.R.E. 5th Expl Seminar, Cairo, pp 327–348.
provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes Ross DA, Uchupi E (1977) Structure and sedimentary history of the
were made. The images or other third party material in this article are southeastern Mediterranean-Nile cone area. Am Assoc Petrol
included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated Geol Bull 61:872–902
otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in Said R (1962) The geology of Egypt. Elsevier, New York, p 377
the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not Said R (1981) The geologic evolution of the River Nile. Springer-
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will Verlag, New York, p 151
need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a Said R (1990) Geology of Egypt. Balkema, Rotterdam, p 734
copy of this licence, visit http://​creat​iveco​mmons.​org/​licen​ses/​by/4.​0/. Salem AM, Ketzer JM, Morad S, Rizk RR, Al-Aasm IS (2005) Diagen-
esis and reservoir-quality evolution of incised valley sandstones:
evidence from the Abu Madi gas reservoirs (Upper Miocene), the
Nile Delta Basin, Egypt. J Sed Res 75:572–584
References Sarhan MA (2015) High resolution sequence stratigraphic analysis of
the Late Miocene Abu Madi Fm., Northern Nile Delta Basin.
Abu El-Ella R (1990) The neogene-quatemary section in the Nile Delta, NRIAG J Astron Geophys 4(2):298–306
Egypt; Geology and hydrocarbon potential. J Pet Geol 13:329–340 Sarhan MA, Collier REL, Basal A, Aal MHA (2014) Late Miocene
Archie GE (1942) The electrical resistivity log as an aid in determining normal faulting beneath the northern Nile Delta: NNW propaga-
some reservoir characteristics. Petrol Technol 5:54–62 tion of the Gulf of Suez Rift. Arab J Geosci 7(11):4563–4571
Arisi Rota F, Palmieri G, Quagliaroli F (1994) Nile Delta Basin: geo- Sarhan M, Hemdan K (1994)North Nile Delta structural setting and
logical and structural setting. IEOC internal report. trapping mechanism, Egypt. In: 12th EGPC Petroleum Conf
Asquith G, Gibson C (1982) Basic well log analysis for geologists: Explor, Cairo, Egypt, vol 1, pp 1–18
methods in Exploration series. AAPG, Tulsa, Oklahoma Schlumberger (1972) Log interpretation/charts. Schlumberger Well
Barber PM (1981) Messinian subaerial erosion of the Proto-Nile Delta. Services Inc, Houston
Mar Geol 44:253–272 Sestini G (1989) Nile Delta: a review of depositional environments
Bertello F, Barsoum K, Dalla S, Guessarian S (1996)Temsah discov- and geological history. Geol Soc Lond (special Publications)
ery: a giant gas field in a deep sea turbidite environment, 13th 41(1):99–127
EGPe Petroleum Conf Explor Cairo, Egypt,1, pp 165–180 Simandoux P (1963) Dielectric measurements on porous media, appli-
cation to the measurements of water saturation: study of behavior

13
Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology (2021) 11:2539–2559 2559

of argillaceous Fm.s. Revue De L’institut Francais Du Petrol Zaghloul ZM, Shaaban F, Yossef A (2001) Mesozoic and Cenozoic
18(suppl):93–215 sedimentary basins of the Nile Delta, Egypt. In: Zaghloul ZM,
Vandre C, Cramer B, Gerling P, Winsemann J (2007) Natural gas Fm Elgamal M (eds) Deltas modem and ancient. Proc. Mansoura
in the western Nile delta (Eastern Mediterranean): Thermogenic Univ. 1st Internat. Symp. on Deltas, Cairo, Egypt, 21–33.
versus microbial. Organ Geochem 38:523–539
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

13