Selection (agent-chosen): ['15-135-24,881-00-00', '15-135-25990-00-00', '15-135-25402-00-00', '15-135-24,937-00-00']. These wells offer the highest proportion of usable depths in the field while carrying the full quartet of gamma ray, resistivity, density, and neutron curves needed for interpretation. They span a consistent logged interval and avoid the well flagged for quality abort as well as the many marginal or low-usability wells, giving the most reliable basis for the field analysis.
Across the four wells evaluated in this field, only two returned quantitative net pay estimates, with the remaining two abstaining—a meaningful caveat that limits confidence in any field-wide characterization. Where pay was resolved, the cross-well P50 net pay averages 11.2 m and ranges from 5.6 to 18.7 m (a per-well spread, not a cumulative total), indicating variable but locally viable reservoir development. The low mean net-to-gross of 0.037 points to a predominantly tight or shale-prone section with only thin, discrete pay intervals, and the high abstention rate underscores that this early picture should be treated as provisional pending additional well control.
Cross-well net pay P50 (NOT a sum — wells are not stacked): mean 11.2 m, median 10.3 m, range 5.6–18.7 m across 4 wells. NTG mean 0.037.
| Well | Status | Tier | Net pay P50 (m) | NTG | Avg PHIE | Avg Sw | Obj |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15-135-24,881-00-00 | DID_NOT_CONVERGE | bracketed | 18.7 | 0.065 | 0.146 | 0.379 | 1 |
| 15-135-25990-00-00 ⚠️ | DID_NOT_CONVERGE | bracketed | 8.4 | 0.027 | 0.184 | 0.375 | 2 |
| 15-135-25402-00-00 | DID_NOT_CONVERGE | bracketed | 5.6 | 0.012 | 0.152 | 0.391 | 1 |
| 15-135-24,937-00-00 ⚠️ | DID_NOT_CONVERGE | bracketed | 12.3 | 0.043 | 0.198 | 0.299 | 2 |
_No field figures generated._
Across the four wells evaluated, the two contributing wells return a cross-well net pay P50 averaging 11.2 m (ranging 5.6–18.7 m, not a summed figure), but the low mean net-to-gross of 0.037 points to thin, poorly developed reservoir intervals that materially limit standalone potential. With half the wells abstaining, confidence at the field scale remains low and the reported range should be treated as indicative rather than representative. The highest-leverage action is to resolve the two abstentions—through log reprocessing or reevaluation of cutoffs—to firm up the net pay distribution and confirm whether the modest NTG reflects a genuine reservoir limitation or a data-quality gap.