3 PETROPHYSICS

This section documents the extensive logging and coring programs conducted in the White Rose wells,
and provides an overview of the subsequent interpretation and integration of this database. For a
comprehensive analysis of the White Rose petrophysical data, refer to the White Rose E-09, L-08, A-17,
N-22, N-30, L-61, and J-49 Petrophysical Reports, Husky Oil Internal Reports, March – May 2000. Data
from the H-20 well drilled in 2000 are currently being analyzed.

3.1 Logging Programs

Drilling in the field was done in two stages; five wells were drilled from 1984 to 1988, and three wells
were drilled in 1999. White Rose A-90 did not encounter any reservoir section and was not analyzed.
The typical logging program of the wells drilled in 1999 consisted of the following logs:

• Resistivity;
• Acoustic;
• Magnetic Resonance;
• Radioactive;
• Formation Micro Imager;
• Formation Tester; and
• Seismic Velocity.

The typical logging program of the wells drilled from 1984 to 1988, consisted of the following logs:

• Resistivity;
• Acoustic;
• Radioactive;
• Dipmeter;
• Formation Tester;
• Sidewall Cores; and
• Seismic Velocity.

Although similar logging programs were used in both stages, the 1999 log data quality is better quality
and more complete because of equipment upgrades and borehole environment. Both induction and
laterolog resistivity logs were sometimes run on the same well. Drilling muds were water-based, except
for E-09, which used an oil-based mud. Production logs were run on the A-17 and N-30 wells.

White Rose DA Volume 2 (Development Plan) • January 2001 Page 107

3.2 Calibration of Log Data to Core Data

Five of the seven wells have core cut in the Avalon reservoir section. N-22 has core in the Hibernia
section. An extensive core analysis program was undertaken to calibrate the log response and
petrophysical parameters to core measurements. Core data were depth shifted to correlate with the log-
measured responses.

Overburden corrections were applied to core porosity data to simulate insitu reservoir conditions. The
well log response of downhole porosity devices (neutron, density, magnetic resonance, and sonic data)
was then calibrated to the corrected core porosities. The mineralogy indicated from core was used to
build the lithological models used in the ELANPlus analysis.

Special core analysis provided data on the overburden correction to be applied to porosity. Standard core
analysis may incorporate systematic errors in porosity because these values are measured at low pressure
(for example, 2,750 kPa), which lead to an over-estimation of porosity. At surface conditions pore
volumes tend to expand with the decrease in confining pressure. Additional core analysis was undertaken
to correct core porosity data and simulate insitu reservoir conditions. These data are summarized in
Table 3.2-1.

Table 3.2-1 Overburden Corrected Porosity from Special Core Analysis

Well Phi corr/ Overburden Corrected Fit Coefficient

Phi uncorr Porosity (R2 )
N-30 0.971 0.9888 x(UNCOR_PHI) - 0.003 0.9982
L-08 0.952 1.002 x ( UNCOR_PHI) - 0.0072 0.9950
A-17 0.948 0.9773 x( UNCOR_PHI) - 0.0047 0.9902

All 0.957 0.9981 x( UNCOR_PHI) - 0.0065 0.9929

Note: UNCOR_PHI is core porosity measured at 2,750 kPa.

Core porosity at low pressure versus core porosity at simulated overburden pressures is shown in Figure
3.2-1. This graph compares porosities determined at 2,750 kPa versus 35,280 kPa for the gas zones,
37,610 kPa for the oil zones, and 39,710 kPa for the water zones.

Special core analyses (SCAL) were undertaken to determine the electrical properties of the formation.
Critical parameters in the calculation of water saturation from the log data are dual water equation
constants ‘a’, ‘m’ and ‘n’. These should be derived from the electrical measurements on cores and from
the log response of water-saturated intervals.

White Rose DA Volume 2 (Development Plan) • January 2001 Page 108

Figure 3.2–1 Special Core Analysis – Overburden Correction

White Rose DA Volume 2 (Development Plan) • January 2001 Page 109

Assuming a = 1, the following values (Table 3.2-2) for the cementation exponent ‘m’ were derived from
the core data for the Avalon sand.

Table 3.2-2 Cementation Exponents from Special Core Analysis

Well Average Cementation Exponent Fit Coefficient

‘m’ ‘m’ Equation (R2 )
N-30 1.834 -1.7925 x (NOB_PHI) + 2.1394 0.5551
L-08 1.785 -1.1959 x (NOB_PHI) + 1.9583 0.5997
A-17 1.724 -0.9681 x (NOB_PHI) + 1.8889 0.4921

All 1.785 -1.0259 x (NOB_PHI) + 1.9534 0.2096

Note: NOB_PHI is net overburden corrected core porosity.

Although core was cut in the Avalon Formation of J-49 and L-61, no SCAL measurements were
performed on the core.

The ‘m’ relationships for the different wells is illustrated in Figure 3.2-2. The trend indicated in the
figure suggests that ‘m’ increases as well position varies south to north. In the petrophysical analysis of
each well, the well ‘m’ equation was used to generate a variable ‘m’ for use in the water saturation
equation. The input porosity was the log-derived effective porosity (PIGN). For wells that do not have
‘m’ data from core, the data from the closest offset were used. Hence, for E-09, the ‘m’ relationship for
L-08 was used, and for J-49 and N-22, the ‘m’ relationship for N-30 was used. For L-61, the field
average relationship was used.

The saturation exponent ‘n’ cannot be determined from the log data. Therefore, electrical measurements
of partially oil-saturated cores were performed and the results are provided in Table 3.2-3.

Table 3.2-3 Saturation Exponents from Special Core Analysis

Well Average Saturation Exponent Fit Coefficient

‘n’ ‘n’ Equation (R2 )
N-30 1.960 5.2726 x (NOB_PHI) + 1.0844 0.8213
L-08 1.860 7.8982 x (NOB_PHI) + 0.6378 0.6663
A-17 1.910 3.4613 x (NOB_PHI) + 1.2763 0.7079

All 1.897 5.9785 x (NOB_PHI) + 0.9297 0.6949

Note: NOB_PHI is net overburden corrected core porosity.

White Rose DA Volume 2 (Development Plan) • January 2001 Page 110

Figure 3.2–2 Special Core Analysis – Cemetation Exponent – ‘m’

White Rose DA Volume 2 (Development Plan) • January 2001 Page 111

The ‘n’ relationships for the different wells is illustrated in Figure 3.2-3. The data in the figure suggest
variations in the ‘n’ relationships. In the petrophysical analysis of each well, the well ‘n’ equation was
used to generate a variable ‘n’ for use in the water saturation equation. The input porosity was the log
derived effective porosity. For wells that do not have ‘n’ data from core, the data from the closest offset
was used. Hence, for E-09, the ‘n’ relationship for L-08 was used, and for J-49 and N-22, the ‘n’
relationship for N-30 was used. For L-61, the field average relationship was used.

Another critical constant in the water saturation calculation is the formation water resistivity (Rw).

The Rw was determined using the modular dynamic tester water samples gathered in the Avalon
Formation water zone at 3,047 and 3,094.5 mKB in White Rose L-08. The samples were obtained using
the optical fluid analyzer and resistivity measurements to minimize the mud filtrate contamination.

A Tritium tracer, added to the mud system, was used to determine the amount of mud filtrate
contamination in each sample. Each sample was corrected for mud filtrate contamination.

The values obtained for each sample are indicated in Table 3.2-4. At 25°C, the resistivities varied from a
low of 0.212 to a high of 0.565 ohm-m. Sample #208 was used because this sample indicated the lowest
pH above 7, and from tritium analysis, had the least amount of mud filtrate contamination.

Table 3.2-4 MDT Water Sample Analyses from L-08

Sample Sample Sample Mud Sample Contam Contam Sample Mud Corrected Corrected
# Depth Tritium Tritium Tritium Sample Sample pH Salinity Formation Formation
(m) Conc Conc Contam Rw@25 Conc (ppm) Salinity Resistivity
(pCi/ml) (pCi/ml) (%) (ohm-m) (ppm) PPM Rw @ 25
(ppm) (ohm-m)
199 3,047 10,874 42,345 25.7 0.135 47,100 8 133,267 17,327 0.339
311 3,047 10,294 42,345 24.3 0.156 39,960 8 133,267 9,992 0.565
315 3,047 9,722 42,345 23.0 0.144 43,746 8 133,267 17,068 0.344
208 3,094.5 2,853 38,058 7.5 0.171 36,000 7.7 133,267 28,118 0.218
233 3,094.5 2,870 38,058 7.5 0.167 36,972 7.8 133,267 29,118 0.212
248 3,094.5 2,970 38,058 7.8 0.173 35,500 7.9 133,267 27,225 0.224

The Rw used for the Avalon field study was 0.218 @ 25°C, 0.082 @ FT of 100°C, which is 28,118 NaCl
equivalent.

White Rose DA Volume 2 (Development Plan) • January 2001 Page 112

Figure 3.2–3 Special Core Analysis – Saturation Exponent – ‘n’

White Rose DA Volume 2 (Development Plan) • January 2001 Page 113

The water analysis of sample #208 before a mud filtrate correction is provided in Table 3.2-5.

Table 3.2-5 MDT L-08 Water Analyses of Sample #208

Cations Anions
Ion Weight Mass Mole Ion Weight Mass Mole
(mg/L) Fraction Equivalent (mg/L) Fraction Equivalent
(mole/L) (mole/L)
Na 15,860 0.3265 689.91 Cl 25,500 0.5679 778.32
K 250 0.0517 64.26 Br 53 0.0011 0.66
Ca 757 0.0156 37.76 I 58.2 0.0012 0.45
Mg 102 0.0021 8.38 HCO3 1,068 0.022 17.51
Ba 3.01 0.0001 0.04 SO4 390 0.008 8.11
Sr 122 0.0025 2.78 CO3 0 0 0
Fe 2.63 0.0001 0.14 OH 0 0 0
Ba 56.4 0.0012 15.64 H2 S NIL
Mn 0.25 0 0.01

The porosity-permeability relationships of core data were studied to establish cutoff parameters for net
pay calculation. A combined plot of permeability versus porosity for the cored wells in the White Rose
Field is provided in Figure 3.2-4. Based on a 2-mD insitu air permeability cutoff, a corresponding
porosity cutoff of 8 percent was derived.

White Rose DA Volume 2 (Development Plan) • January 2001 Page 114

Figure 3.2–4 Core Porosity Versus Core Permeability to Air

White Rose DA Volume 2 (Development Plan) • January 2001 Page 115

3.3 Petrophysical Methodology

All wells in White Rose were evaluated using ELANPlus, a volumetric computer analysis program
marketed by Schlumberger Geoquest. This program determines the petrophysical parameters by solving
simultaneous equations, which relate reservoir volumes to tool response equations. It solves the complex
interpretation problems associated with mixed lithologies, special minerals, dual porosity systems, and
varying clay and fluid types.

Reservoir models are constructed using different matrix and fluid constituents and each model uses
different log inputs to create the simultaneous equations used to solve for the unknown reservoir
volumes. The parameters used in the equations are selected with the help of quality control plots, curve
reconstructions to validate models, and outside inputs from core pressure and water analysis. The models
are combined using probabilistic algorithms and volumes are combined to give effective porosity, volume
of shale, apparent grain densities, log derived permeability, and water saturations.

The following petrophysical methods were employed in analyzing the wells.

3.3.1 Volume of Shale

The volume of clay was used in determining effective porosity and reservoir quality. In each analysis,
the clay volume is determined from the clay parameters for gamma ray, sonic travel time, formation
density, neutron porosity, volumetric cross section, shallow and deep resistivity log data, and other
reservoir parameters. Log crossplots and histograms, together with core data, were used in determining
these parameters. The average clay volume in the net pay sections of each well is listed in Table 3.3-1.

White Rose DA Volume 2 (Development Plan) • January 2001 Page 116

Table 3.3-1 Clay Volume in Net Pay Section by Well

Well Formation Net Pay Pay

HPT Avg Vol Clay
h (m) %
L-61 S. Mara Member 3.66 17
L-61 Avalon 2.44 16
L-61 Eastern Shoals 7.01 19
N-22 Wyandot (gas) 5.79 18
N-22 Avalon (gas) 35.51 9
N-22 Cape Broyle (gas) 0.61 3
N-22 Hibernia (oil) 36.73 6
J-49 Avalon Gas 6.71 10
J-49 Avalon Oil 24.99 1
J-49 Eastern Shoals Oil 6.25 3
N-30 Avalon Gas 56.54 10
N-30 Avalon Oil 12.29 1
N-30 Eastern Shoals Oil 10.05 7
E-09 Avalon Gas 28.17 9
E-09 Avalon Oil 105.54 4
E-09 Hibernia Lwr1 21.18 2
E-09 Hibernia Lwr2 8.08 9
L-08 Avalon Gas 51.49 7
L-08 Avalon Oil 108.47 1
A-17 Avalon Gas** 8.69 7
A-17 Avalon Oil 92.54 1
Note: **Major portion behind intermediate casing not evaluated. Portion of gas zone in open hole contaminated with
cement.

The clay volume in the Avalon net pay section by well, where the target well is L-08, is displayed in
Figure 3.3-1.

3.3.2 Shale Cutoff

To discriminate between reservoir and non-reservoir rock each sample point had to meet a shale cutoff.
The volume of shale had to be equal to or less than 30 percent of the total reservoir volume.

White Rose DA Volume 2 (Development Plan) • January 2001 Page 117

Figure 3.3–1 Clay Volume Versus Porosity in Avalon Pay Section

White Rose DA Volume 2 (Development Plan) • January 2001 Page 118

3.3.3 Effective Porosity

A consistent method was followed in determining effective porosity using ELANPlus. For wells with
core in the Avalon Formation, the overburden-corrected core porosity was used to calibrate the
ELANPlus derived porosity. The input parameters were modified such that core and log porosity
matched. Grain density information from core was used for lithological identification and log parameter
selection. It was also used to confirm the log analysis derived apparent matrix densities.

On the three wells drilled in 1999, porosity, derived independently from magnetic resonance, was used to
confirm the ELANPlus derived porosities. In addition, the formation micro images on these wells were
used to better describe the calcite stringers and nodules noted in the Avalon reservoir.

For wells without core, magnetic resonance or resistivity images, parameters were selected using
offsetting wells drilled in 1999. For example, E-09 parameters were modified to closely match those on
L-08, N-22 parameters were modified to closely match those in N-30, and J-49 parameters were modified
to closely match those in N-30. More information detailing how effective porosity was determined along
with a listing of the log parameter inputs used, can be found in the Appendices of the White Rose E-09,
L-08, A-17, N-22, N-30, J-49, L-61 Petrophysical Reports, Husky Oil Internal Reports, March – May
2000.

3.3.4 Porosity Cutoff

To discriminate between reservoir and non-reservoir, each sample point had to meet a porosity cutoff.
The effective porosity had to be equal to or greater than 8 percent of the total reservoir volume. This
cutoff was determined using core porosity and permeability data.

A plot of core porosity versus core permeability for J-49, N-30, L-08, and A-17 in provided in Figure 3.2-
4. The second order equation representing the line of best fit was found to be:

2
Y = 10 –1.6268 + 26.3716 x – 30.0988 x

The porosity-permeability relationship indicated a conventional 2-mD air permeability corresponding to

an approximate porosity of 8 percent, hence the justification for the porosity cutoff. More information
detailing how the porosity cutoff was determined along with complete summaries and listings is provided
in White Rose E-09, L-08, A-17, N-22, N-30, J-49, L-61 Petrophysical Reports, Husky Oil Internal
Reports, March – May 2000. For sensitivity purposes, each well report includes summaries and listings
using a 10 percent porosity cutoff.

White Rose DA Volume 2 (Development Plan) • January 2001 Page 119

3.3.5 Water Saturation

Water saturations were determined using the dual water equations of ELANPlus. In most cases, because
of the generally low clay content in the reservoir rocks, the dual water relationships for flushed and
undisturbed zones reduces to the simple Archie relationship for water saturations.

The core SCAL data for L-08, A-17, and N-30 were used in determining water saturation. In particular,
the ‘m’ and ‘n’ values were determined from the individual well SCAL data for the respective well.

For wells without core, the ‘a’, ‘m’, and ‘n’ parameters were selected using offsetting wells drilled in
1999. For example, E-09 parameters matched those in L-08, N-22 parameters matched those in N-30,
and J-49 parameters matched those in N-30. For L-61, the field average values were used.

A Pickett plot of the wet sandstones in the White Rose E-09, L-08, and A- 17 wells using average ‘m’
and ‘n’ (from the above tables), with a water resistivity of 0.08 Ω at formation temperature, is illustrated
in Figure 3.3-2. Although the results are acceptable, they are not as good as those using the variable ‘m’
and ‘n’, as can be noted by the water saturation values in the water zones as depicted on the formation
evaluation plots for the individual wells. These plots can be found the in the White Rose Appendices of
the E-09, L-08, A-17 Petrophysical Reports, Husky Oil Internal Reports, March-May 2000.

White Rose DA Volume 2 (Development Plan) • January 2001 Page 120

Figure 3.3–2 Picket Plot for Water Zones in E-09, L-08 and A-17

White Rose DA Volume 2 (Development Plan) • January 2001 Page 121

The fluid contacts noted in each well, as determined from log and pressure analysis, are noted in Table
3.3-2.

Table 3.3-2 Fluid Contacts

Well Formation Contact Log Subsea

Depth Depth
(m TVD) (m SS TVD)
L-61 Avalon Water
Avalon Top of Transition 2,986.0 -2,963.1
Avalon Bottom of Transition 3,007.0 -2,984.1
N-22 Hibernia Oil - Water 3,631.3 -3,603.6
J-49 Avalon Gas - Oil 3,092.6 -3,069.7
Avalon Oil – Water 3,154.0 -3,131.1
N-30 Avalon Gas - Oil 3,039.2 -3,014.2
E-09 Avalon Gas - Oil 2,894.8 -2,871.8
Avalon Water
Avalon Top of Transition 3,013.0 -2,990.0
Avalon Bottom of Transition 3,032.5 -3,009.5
L-08 Avalon Gas - Oil 2,897.0 -2,872.0
Avalon Water
Avalon Top of Transition 3,014.0 -2,989.0
Avalon Bottom of Transition 3,034.5 -3,009.5
A-17 Avalon Gas - Oil 2,899.7 -2,874.7
Avalon Water
Avalon Top of Transition 3,010.0 -2,985.0
Avalon Bottom of Transition 3,024.5 -2,999.5

3.3.5.1 Water Saturation Cutoff

The water saturation cutoff discriminates between hydrocarbon bearing (pay) intervals and wet intervals.
Intervals that have greater than 50 percent water saturation were assumed to be wet or non-productive.

3.3.5.2 Resistivity Tools and Corrections

The true formation resistivity was determined from the deep laterolog for wells drilled with a water-based
mud, or an induction log in wells with oil-based drilling fluid. The laterolog provided the preferred
resistivity in wells drilled with conductive drilling fluids.

The resistivity logs were corrected for invasion effects, which were applied using the GeoFrame
environmental correction program ‘PrePlus’.

White Rose DA Volume 2 (Development Plan) • January 2001 Page 122

3.4 Core Data (Cored Intervals, Core Recovery)

A total of 517.3 m of core was cut in the seven White Rose wells, with 508.7 m recovered, and 452.8 m
analyzed.

The totals of core cut, core recovery, intervals analyzed and number of routine core analysis performed
for each well are illustrated in Figure 3.4-1. Non-analyzed intervals are calcite nodules/stringers or
shales.

The core diameter is 88.5 mm for N-30, L-08, A-17, and 126.5 mm for N-22, L-61, and J-49. Routine
core analysis was performed primarily on plug samples in J-49 and L-61, and on both full diameter and
plug samples in N-30, L-08 and A-17.

The following routine core measurements were performed:

• Permeability to air (mD)

- Kh-max, K h-90°, Kvert , for full diameter samples (N-30, L-08, A-17);
- Kh-max only for plug samples (L-61, N-22, J-49, N-30, L-08, A-17);
- Kh-max, K vert , for some plug samples (N-30, L-08, A-17);
• Porosity (%) for all samples (L-61, N-22, J-49, N-30, L-08, A-17);
• Water saturation (%) for all samples (L-61, N-22, J-49, N-30, L-08, A-17);
• Corrected water saturation (%) for plug and full diameter samples (N-30, L-08, A-17); and
• Grain density (kg/m3 ) for all samples (L-61, N-22, J-49, N-30, L-08, A-17).

A summary of special core analysis tests is provided in Table 3.4-1.

Table 3.4-1 Special Core Analysis Test Summary

Test Name Number of Tests

Well N-30 Well L-08 Well A-17
Overburden Correction for Porosity 9 10 9
Cementation Factor Exponent 9 10 9
Saturation Exponent 9 7 6
Overburden Formation Resistivity 9 10 9
Overburden Formation Resistivity Index 9 7 6
Air-Brine First Drainage Centrifuge Capillary Press 9 7 6
Acoustic Velocity (Compressional and Shear) 4 5 5
Triaxial Compressive Strength 4 - 3

White Rose DA Volume 2 (Development Plan) • January 2001 Page 123

Figure 3.4–1 White Rose Cores (All Formations)

White Rose DA Volume 2 (Development Plan) • January 2001 Page 124

3.5 Petrophysical Summary

The summary in Table 3.5-1 contains petrophysical parameters determined from core, pressure, and log
analysis. It summarizes the petrophysical parameters for all production tested intervals, and includes the
S. Mara Member, Wyandot, the Avalon, Cape Broyle, Eastern Shoals, and Hibernia formations. The
parameters were determined using a porosity cutoff of 8 percent, a water saturation cutoff of 50 percent,
and a volume of shale cutoff of 30 percent.

The thicknesses for the gross, net reservoir, and net pays for the Avalon in all wells are displayed in
Figure 3.5-1. The gas zone thicknesses for the A-17 well are correct for the 8.5” hole section only.

The distributions of net pay for porosity and water saturation in the Avalon section by well are displayed
in Figures 3.5-2 and 3.5-3. Both the gas and the oil zones are represented.

The net pay unit thicknesses for each well for the Avalon oil and gas intervals is displayed in Figure 3.5-
4. The unit thickness is defined as:

Unit Thickness = (h) x (Net Pay Avg Porosity) x (1-Net Pay Avg Water Saturation)

White Rose DA Volume 2 (Development Plan) • January 2001 Page 125

Table 3.5-1 White Rose Petrophysical Parameters

Net Pay Pay Pay

Gross Net
Pay Avg Avg Avg
Well Formation Thickness Reservoir
HPT Phi Sw Perm
h (m) h (m)
h (m) % % mD
L-61 S. Mara Member Gas 30.0 4.11 3.66 22 15 29
Avalon Gas 55.0 6.25 2.44 11 43 2
Eastern Shoals Oil 230.9 13.41 9.45 11 41 2
N-22 Wyandot Gas 9 7.62 5.79 19 30 -
Avalon Gas 124 65.23 35.51 16 19 29
Eastern Shoals Gas 53.85 8.23 0.61 15 49 49
Hibernia Oil 288 84.28 36.73 12 29 19
J-49 Avalon Gas 136.6 16.46 6.71 14 33 14
Avalon Oil 38.25 32.12 24.99 14 23 41
Eastern Shoals Oil 98.85 20.27 6.25 12 33 9
N-30 Avalon Gas 127.29 60.7 56.54 13 26 15
Avalon Oil 15.2 12.29 12.29 13 18 27
Eastern Shoals Oil 49.79 10.49 10.05 14 31 16
E-09 Avalon Gas 66.8 29.39 28.17 11 24 9
Avalon Oil 118.1 108.28 105.54 15 19 45
Avalon Transition 19.35 14.99 7.92 15 36 64
Avalon Water 112 96.72 - - - -
Hibernia Lwr1 Oil 107 47.85 21.18 12 27 33
Hibernia Lwr2 Oil 90 20.27 8.08 13 37 15
L-08 Avalon Gas 82.5 55.6 51.49 14 18 18
Avalon Oil 116.85 108.47 108.47 16 16 82
Avalon Transition 19.85 18.17 6.62 14 35 43
Avalon Water 62.85 55.81 - - - -
A-17 Avalon Gas** 19.20** 11.13** 8.69 12** 29** 2*
Avalon Oil 110.13 92.85 92.54 16 21 75
Avalon Transition 14.85 11.34 7.43 18 36 206
Avalon Water 57.85 46.84 - - - -
Note: **Major portion behind intermediate casing and not evaluated. Portion of gas zone in open hole contaminated
with cement.

White Rose DA Volume 2 (Development Plan) • January 2001 Page 126

Figure 3.5–1 Thicknesses - Avalon

White Rose DA Volume 2 (Development Plan) • January 2001 Page 127

Figure 3.5–2 Net Pay Porosity Distribution – Avalon

White Rose DA Volume 2 (Development Plan) • January 2001 Page 128

Figure 3.5–3 Net Pay SW Distribution – Avalon

White Rose DA Volume 2 (Development Plan) • January 2001 Page 129

Figure 3.5–4 Well Unit Thickness – Avalon

White Rose DA Volume 2 (Development Plan) • January 2001 Page 130