2nd SPWLA-India Symposium, November 19-20, 2009

SPWLA 2nd India Regional Conference, November 19-20, 2009

E
FORMATION RESISTIVITY EVALUATION IN TIGHT GAS SANDS IN
CHINA

Doug Murray, Schlumberger Oilfield Services

Simon Marsden, Sino Gas & Energy
Copyright 2009, held jointly by the Society of Petrophysicists and Well Log Resistivity measurements are used throughout the
Analysts (SPWLA) and the submitting authors.
nd lifetime of a well. The acquisition of accurate resistivity
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPWLA 2 India Regional
Conference held in Mumbai, India, November 19-20, 2009. is critical to estimate initial reservoir water saturation
and how it may change with production. Resistivity
measurements are based on either the principle of
ABSTRACT induced current (induction) or laterolog.

A common concern in unconventional tight gas Induction technology is used to evaluate wells drilled
reservoirs is the acquisition and interpretation of the with non- or low-conductive drilling fluids such as
optimal resistivity for formation evaluation. The choice fresh water, oil or air. They respond to conductivity, not
of whether an induction or laterolog measurement is resistivity and are best at measuring true formation
most appropriate can be complicated. Fundamentally resistivity at high conductivities and in situations of
induction measurements respond to conductivity and resistive invasion where the conductivity of the flushed
laterolog measurements respond to resistivity. In oil zone is lower than the conductivity of the undisturbed
based or fresh mud systems with relatively low zone. Induction technology is based on the idea of an
formation resistivities (high conductivities), induction electromagnetic transmitter creating a magnetic field
measurements are preferred. Contradictorily, laterolog that induces a current (ground loop) into the formation.
tools perform better in environments of high formation The current flowing through the ground loop generates
resistivities (low conductivities) and saline drilling a secondary magnetic field which in turn generates a
fluids. current in a receiver coil that is proportional to
formation conductivity. The induction measurements
Borehole fluid invasion can further complicate the shown in this paper were acquired with Schlumberger’s
measurement. Laterolog tools are best suited to Array Induction Tool (AIT), an induction device with
conductive invasion, a situation that exists when multiple depths of investigation (Hunka et al, 1990).
relatively saline drilling fluid invades the near wellbore
and causes the shallow formation resistivity to be less Laterolog tools are used to acquire resistivity
than the deep resistivity. A resistive invasion profile, information in wells drilled with conductive fluids such
can cause the laterolog resistivity to read higher than as fresh and salt water based muds. They respond to
the actual formation resistivity. Induction tools are most resistivity, not conductivity and are best at measuring
accurate in intervals of resistive invasion and perform true formation resistivity at high resistivities, high
poorly when conductive invasion is present. contrasts in resistivity between formation and drilling
Furthermore resistivity logs are influenced by mud, and for conductive invasion, a situation in which
measurement resolution and bedding dip. Due to the resistivity of the flushed zone is less than the
anisotropy effects, conventional resistivity logs in thin resistivity of the undisturbed zone. The laterolog
bedded reservoirs are pessimistic. measurements shown in this paper were acquired with
Schlumberger’s High Resolution Laterolog Array Tool
In this paper we summarize the induction and laterolog (HRLT), a laterolog device with multiple depths of
responses in tight gas sands with similar drilling fluid investigation (Smits et al, 1998).
conductivities and varying formation properties. In one
formation the laterolog resistivity was the most accurate With prior knowledge of drilling fluid resistivity, bore-
while in another the induction log was best. It is shown hole size and formation resistivity tool planners can be
that a poor understanding of laterolog and induction used to select the most appropriate resistivity tool.
measurement physics can result in either missed pay or However knowledge of the drilling fluid invasion
in overly optimistic interpretations. profile may not be available. The issue with invasion
profile is in the physics of the induction and laterolog
INTRODUCTION measurements. Fundamentally an induction
measurement responding to the near wellbore and
deeper resistivities can be described as a group of
resistivities in parallel. Therefore induction tool
1
 2nd SPWLA-India Symposium, November 19-20, 2009
SPWLA 2nd India Regional Conference, November 19-20, 2009

E
conductivities are dominated by the highest
conductivity path. Likewise a laterolog measurement Actual log data for the above planned scenario is shown
responding to the near wellbore and deeper resistivities in Figure 2.
can be described as a group of resistivities in series
dominated by the highest resistivity path (Crary et al,
2001), (Griffith et al, 2000) and (La Vigne et al, 1997).

Often the resistivity acquisition choice, either induction

or laterolog, is based on the known wellbore and
formation parameters. After acquisition the analyst will
perform the necessary environmental corrections but as
only a laterolog or an induction measurement was
acquired ignore the affects of conductive and/or
resistive invasion. The following reviews two cases
from clean, tight, sand reservoirs in China where both
induction and laterolog measurements were acquired. In
both cases the borehole size was 8.5”, drilling fluid
resistivity (Rm) at downhole temperature was 0.60
ohm-m, formation porosities were ~10%, permeabilities
are less than 1 mD and formation resistivities vary due
to changes in gas saturation and other reservoir
properties.

CASE 1

Figure 1 shows the output from a resistivity tool

planner for a hole-size of 8.5”, Rm = 0.60 ohm-m,
formation resistivity (Rt) = 10.0 ohm-m and invaded
zone resistivity (Rxo) = 40.0 ohm-m.

Fig. 2 Case 1 Induction and Laterolog resistivity logs

over tight sand

Track 1 has the Gamma Ray (light green solid) and

Caliper (black dashed). Track 2 has the laterolog
resistivities; RLA1 (black solid), RLA2 (dark green
dotted), RLA3 (purple dashed), RLA4 (blue dashed),
RLA5 (red solid) and the cylindrically focused flushed
zone resistivity Rxoz (light green solid). Track 3
contains the two foot vertical resolution Induction
resistivities; 10” depth of investigation (DOI) AHT10
(black solid), 20” DOI AHT20 (dark green dotted), 30”
DOI AHT30 (purple dashed), 60” DOI AHT60 (blue
dashed), 90” DOI AHT90 (red solid), and the
cylindrically focused flushed zone resistivity Rxoz
(light green solid). Track 4 has the Neutron porosity
Fig. 1 Case 1 resistivity tool planner output.
TNPH (blue dashed), formation density RHOZ (red
solid) and formation photoelectric factor PEFZ (pink
The tool planner results indicate that in this
dashed). The neutron porosity and formation density are
environment all resistivity measurements from both the
presented on a sandstone compatible scale.
array induction (1ft, 2ft and 4ft vertical resolution logs)
and array laterolog (RLA1, RLA2, RLA3, RLA4 and
One can observe over the interval X51 to X57 that the
RLA5) should be valid. Both the Rxo (blue square dot)
induction log reads lower than the laterolog and
and Rt (red square dot) lie within the green shaded go-
indicates a clear resistive invasion profile. Due to this
area. However as this is a scenario of resistive invasion
resistive invasion profile the laterolog cannot read the
(Rt <= Rxo), an induction tool would be preferred.
correct formation resistivity. Formation evaluation
2
 2nd SPWLA-India Symposium, November 19-20, 2009
SPWLA 2nd India Regional Conference, November 19-20, 2009

E
performed with the laterolog resistivities would be
optimistic and over estimate hydrocarbon saturation.

In this low permeability interval, the deep drilling fluid

invasion also affects the induction resistivity in that the
deepest reading curve AHT90 does not measure true
formation resistivity Rt. To correctly estimate Rt a
correction for invasion needs to be applied.

CASE 2

Figure 3 shows the output from the resistivity tool

planner for a hole-size of 8.5”, Rm = 0.60 ohm-m, Rt =
300.0 ohm-m and Rxo = 100.0 ohm-m.

Fig. 4 Case 2 Induction and Laterolog resistivity logs

over tight sand

The Figure 4 curve presentation is the same as that

shown in Figure 2 except that the resistivity scales are
changed from 2-200 ohm-m to 2–2,000 ohm-m due to
the higher formation resistivity. Also, as per the tool
planner recommendation the induction logs displayed
are the 4ft vertical resolution curves; AHF10, AHF20,
AHF30, AHF60 and AHF90.

Fig. 3 Case 2 resistivity tool planner output. Over the interval X37 to X40 one can observe a
conductive invasion profile on both the induction and
The tool planner results indicate that in this laterolog measurements. The deepest laterolog array
environment only the array induction 4ft vertical RLA5 and the deepest induction AHT90 have similar
resolution resistivity measurement would be valid while resistivity values but the 4 foot induction suffers from
all array laterolog (RLA1, RLA2, RLA3, RLA4 and poor vertical resolution. Due to both the conductive
RLA5) measurements are valid. The Rxo (blue square invasion profile and the relatively poor resolution of the
dot) lies within the blue shaded go-area. The Rt (red induction tool, in this interval the laterolog is
square dot) lies just outside the induction 2ft limit considered to be the better choice.
indicating that only the 4ft vertical resolution log would
be valid. In this scenario Rt > Rxo indicating If one considers the fundamental strengths and
conductive invasion and that a laterolog tool would be weaknesses of laterolog and induction measurements,
preferred. and the invasion domains in which optimal results
could be achieved, an optimal or best resistivity (Best
Actual log data for the above planned scenario is shown Rt) could be determined from a combination of the two.
in Figure 4. In non-invaded formations, the choice of laterolog or
induction can be determined from the tool operating
range, Rt, Rm and caliper. For Cases 1 and 2 these
ranges are graphically displayed by the tool planner
computation shown in Figures 1 and 3. In invaded
formations; a combination of porosity, and the mud
filtrate resistivity (Rmf) / formation water resistivity
(Rw) ratio can be used to select the best resistivity tool.
After environmental and invasion corrections have been

3
 2nd SPWLA-India Symposium, November 19-20, 2009
SPWLA 2nd India Regional Conference, November 19-20, 2009

E
performed a workflow based on the above can be used the induction resistivity would result in a pessimistic
to select the “Best Rt”. interpretation.

Figures 5 and 6 show a computed Best Rt (solid black

curve) for the intervals represented in Cases 1 and Case
2 respectively. For clarity the medium DOI curves for
both the laterolog (RLA1, RAL2, RLA3 and RLA4)
and induction (AH10, AH20, AH30 and AH90) have
been removed, and the environmentally and 1D
invasion corrected Rt (solid purple) for both the
laterolog and induction tools have been added.

In Figure 5 one can observe that the environmentally

and invasion corrected deep induction resistivity is
selected as Best Rt, which is much lower that the
laterolog derived resistivities. In this very clean
sandstone a simple Archie approach can be used to
compute water saturation (Sw). In this zone, an
erroneous use of the laterolog resistivity to compute
water saturation would lead to an optimistic
interpretation.
Fig. 6 Case 2 Best Rt (solid black curve) overlaid on
laterolog and induction curves

SUMMARY

It was shown that in a situation of resistive invasion the

laterolog resistivity was overly optimistic and that the
induction was most accurate. An opposite condition of
conductive invasion was also shown. In this case the
induction measurement was shown to be pessimistic
and the laterolog most accurate.

In low permeability reservoirs close attention to the

physics of laterolog and induction resistivity
measurements is necessary to understand the
measurement that best represents true formation
resistivity. An often overlooked phenomenon is the
relative responses of laterolog and induction in resistive
and conductive invasion scenarios.

Knowledge of the reservoir saturations and drilling

fluid invasion profiles are seldom known before well
log data acquisition. In tight gas sands, where by
definition permeabilities are low, deep fluid invasion,
can occur. For accurate saturation determination it is
necessary to acquire both laterolog and induction
Fig. 5 Case 1 Best Rt (solid black curve) overlaid on
resistivities to avoid either missed pay or an overly
laterolog and induction curves
optimistic interpretation.
In Figure 6 over the interval X37 to X40 the
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
environmentally corrected deep laterolog resistivity is
selected as Best Rt, which is higher that the induction
The authors would like to thank Sino Gas & Energy for
derived resistivities. As per Figure 5 the reservoir
their permission to present some of the figures shown,
lithology over this interval is a clean sandstone and as
and both Sino Gas & Energy and Schlumberger Oilfield
such a simple Archie approach can be used to compute
water saturation (Sw). In this case the erroneous use of
4
 2nd SPWLA-India Symposium, November 19-20, 2009
SPWLA 2nd India Regional Conference, November 19-20, 2009

E
Services for the time and effort required to publish this number of senior managerial positions (Petroleum
paper. Engineering Manager, Project Manager) and worked on
the appraisal and development of major gas and oil
REFERENCES projects worldwide.

Crary, S., Jacobsen, S., Rasmus, J., and Spaeth, R.,

2001, Effect of Resistive Invasion on Resistivity Logs
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
New Orleans, Louisiana, Sept. 30 – Oct. 1 2001.

Griffith, R. Barber, T., and Faivre, O., 2000, Optimal

Evaluation of Formation Resistivities Using Array
Induction and Array Laterolog Tools, SPWLA Annual
Logging Symposium, June 4-7, 2000.

Hunka, J., Barber, T., Rosthal, R., Minerbo, G., Head,

E., Howard, A., Hazen, A., Chandler, R., 1990, A New
Resistivity Measurement System for Deep Formation
Imaging and High-Resolution Formation Evaluation,
SPE Annual Conference, 23-26 September 1990, New
Orleans, Louisiana.

La Vigne, J., Barber, T. and Bratton, T., 1997, Strange

Invasion Profiles: What Multi-array Induction Logs
Can Tell Us About How Oil-Based Mud Affects the
Invasion Process and Wellbore Stability: 38th Annual
SPWLA Symposium, Houston, USA.

Smits, J., Dubourg, I., Luling, M., Minerbo, G.

Koelman, J., Hoffman, L., Lomas, A., Oosten, R.,
Schiet, M., Dennis, R., 1998, Improved Resistivity
Interpretation Utilizing a New Array Laterolog Tool
and Associated Inversion Processing, SPE Annual
Conference, 27-30 September 1998, New Orleans,
Louisiana.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Doug Murray is a Principal Petrophysicist with

Schlumberger Oilfield Services based in Beijing, China.
Since joining Schlumberger in 1982, he has held
various positions in the field, management, engineering
and formation evaluation. His career includes
assignments to Canada, Algeria, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia,
Trinidad & Tobago, Argentina, Japan and China. He
holds a Bachelors degree in electrical engineering from
Lakehead University, Canada and a Masters degree in
Management from Hull University, England. He is a
member of SPWLA, SPE, and SEG.

Simon Marsden is the Technical Manager of Sino Gas

& Energy. He is a Petroleum Engineer with more than
30 years of experience in the upstream oil and gas
industry of which 10 years have been spent working on
gas projects in China. His career has principally been
with Shell International EP Co. where he has held a