Cased Hole Formation Resistivity Tool

Alief Mahadika P. R. / 071001600008

Abstract

In the past hydrocarbon saturation have Field logs obtained in this trial will be
been monitored behind casing by pulsed presented and discussed in the paper.
neutron capture (PNC) logs. These tools have
been quite successful in our environment
onshore Abu Dhabi characterized by good
Introduction
porosity carbonate reservoirs with high salinity
waters.
Several of the oil-fields onshore Abu Dhabi
are GIANTS, with producing lives expected to
The ability to measure formation
exceed 100 years. Generally water-injection is
resistivity directly through casing in monitoring
installed to support natural waterflood and
wells adds a new dimension, by allowing the
maintain reservoir pressure.
measurement of water saturation further away
from the borehole, less affected by the Monitoring focused on water-sweep plays an
“damaged zone” invaded by mud filtrate and important role. Since the potential gain from an
drilling fines. Until recently, resistivity logging improved recovery mechanism is large, at any
in cased hole has been restricted to Induction one time other recovery processes are being
logs in fiberglass lined wells. New advances tested in pilot form to optimise the next phase of
in digital electronics has made it possible to field development. These pilots also require
produce the sufficiently accurate and stable monitoring.
downhole sensors required to measure
formation resistivity through steel casing. The Up to now fluid saturation was determined
first Middle East trials of a new Cased Hole behind casing by time-lapse pulsed neutron
Formation Resistivity Tool (CHFR) took place capture (PNC) logging tools. Although these tools
in 1999/2000 in several ADCO wells. are shallow reading
- depth of investigation is about 1 foot behind
Monitoring fluid saturation changes and casing - they provide good quality data in our
movement in fluid contacts with time, fields characterized by good porosity reservoirs
including the identification of swept zones, with formation waters and injection waters of high
barriers to flow and bypassed oil are the main salinity.
applications for the CHFR. With a greater
dynamic range than PNC-logs, the CHFR will The first Middle East trials of a new Cased
complement data from sponge cores and Hole Formation Resistivity Tool (CHFR) were
open hole logs in swept zones, leading to carried out during 1999 and 2000 in several
more robust ROS determination. ADCO wells. The theory of measuring formation
resistivity through steel casing has been known
The CHFR may also be used for for some time, but only recent advances in digital
primary evaluation, where no logs could be electronics have made it possible to produce the
acquired in open hole, and allows re- sufficiently accurate and stable downhole sensors
examination of wells with old resistivity logs. required. The main objectives of the trial were to
evaluate the capabilities of the CHFR prototype
tool in typical ADCO wells and conditions.
In low resistivity where the CHFR is
Successful trial results would impact not only our
near it’s specified limit of 1 Ohmm, the effects
cased hole logging programs and monitoring
of resistive cement behind casing become
strategies, but also the design of pilots and
important and require careful correction. PNC-
observation wells.
logs are favored in this low resistivity range.
Applications higher frequency. Casing current loss is measured
through 4 rings of 3 electrodes attached to
The main application of the CHFR is caliper-like arms that open up and establish
Reservoir Monitoring. During the producing contact with the steel casing at each station.
life of a reservoir, through casing formation Good electrical contact is essential; a problem in
resistivity data may help understand fluid flow wells with scale or corrosion products on the
and recovery processes in several ways: inside of the casing. In double casing the CHFR
will only read the resistivity of the cement between
 Evaluation of reservoir fluid saturation
casings.
changes with time including the
identification of swept zones, potential flow
barriers and bypassed oil. Downhole tool calibration is achieved by
 Monitoring movement in oil/water contacts comparing the cased hole measurements to open
(OWC). hole logs.
 Identification of off-take rate induced water
coning, by repeat logging at different off-
take rates, allowing time to re-establish Tool Specifications
stable conditions.
 Estimating residual oil saturation (ROS) to
Length………………………............................ 43
a water flood or a combined water-
alternating-gas (WAG). Open hole logs in ft.
dedicated wells through swept zones and Measuring point to bottom:……………………15 ft.
sponge cores or low invasion cores may Tool OD...........................……………………3 3/8 in.
provide important information. PNC logs in Casing range: ……………...........…...4 ½ - 9 5/8 in.
casing may support such data. Measuring Temperature..........…......……......... 150°C (300°F)
formation resistivity through casing allow Pressure ...........................…………...... 15,000
the evaluation of ROS further away from psi
the borehole, less affected by mud filtrate
Deviation   with extra centralizer)
or acid effects.
Bore hole fluid: …………………….Water / oil / gas
Operating frequency:……………………………1Hz
The CHFR tool may also be used for Electrode spacing: ….……………….......……...2 ft.
primary evaluation of reservoirs where no Vertical Resolution..........…………………. 4 ft.
logs could be acquired in open hole, due to Depth of investigation: .………………..7 ft to 30 ft.
operational problems where the risks of open Equivalent Logging Speed…….......120 ft/ hr (2 ft.
hole logging were too large. Wells with old or spacing)
faulty logs may also be re-examined. Resistivity range ..........…...…....... 1 to 100
Ohmm
Combinability: Bottom only tool; run with Gamma
Tool Principles Ray and CCL above the CHFR tool for depth
Measurements are taken while the control.
tool is stationary. The CHFR measures
formation resistivity by injecting current into
the casing through a centralizer at the top of
the tool that returns to surface. Slight Trial Results W-1
variations in the current loss through the
casing are related to current leaking into the
The first trial well was chosen because it
formation and may be calibrated to formation
has a variable resistivity profile ranging from 0.5
resistivity. The voltages investigated by the
to 100 Ohmm. W-1 was drilled and completed in
tool are in the Nano-Volt range, which
July 1996 as an observer with a 5 ½” GRE Liner
requires exceptionally stable and low noise
in a Gas Injection Pilot pattern.
electronics down hole. Frequency of
operation is limited to around 1 Hz; to avoid
polarization associated with a DC- After the GRE liner developed leaks, it
measurement and skin effects caused by a was worked over in November 1997, sidetracked
and completed with a 7” steel liner. At the time of
drilling, the upper part of the main reservoir spacing” measurement on a future CHFR would
was already partially water flooded as seen allow these corrections to be more accurately
on the open hole LWD logs. LWD resistivity defined.
logs provide an excellent basis for
comparison, since these logs are less The impact on the W-1 evaluation is significant.
affected by invasion, being recorded very Using the CHFR data in the petrophysical model
soon after penetration of the formation by the established for this well give much higher oil
drill bit. The well has since been regularly saturation across the water-flooded interval in the
monitored using PNC logs. The first CHFR log upper part of the zone.
was run in May 1999; Fig. 1.
This saturation profile is unlikely; from the
Initially, the differences observed several passes of time-lapse data acquired to
between CHFR and LWD resistivity were date and the open hole logs in the sidetrack there
thought to be related to saturation changes is no hint of any such re-saturation across this
from water- and gas-injection in the Pilot area. interval. The specified optimum range of operation
However, detailed comparison with PNC logs for the CHFR is from 1- 100 Ohmm. In this
from May 1999, highlights significant example we see the greatest deviation from PNC
discrepancies between 50 and 100 ft. and results as we approach 1 Ohmm. Given that the
from 145 to 180 ft. Here the PNC logs agree CHFR is operating near its specified limit it would
very well with the original LWD resistivity logs. be prudent to favor the PNC as the preferred
A second CHFR run in September 1999 is method for analyzing the swept zone.
virtually identical to the first CHFR; see Fig. 1.
Possible reasons for the discrepancies
between the CHFR and the LWD resistivity However the far greater depth of investigation
and PNC logs include: of CHFR should make it very useful for detecting
early water breakthrough in other intervals before
the flood water enters the zone of investigation of
 Different depths of investigation of PNC a PNC tool.
and CHFR. The PNC tool measures
approximately 1 ft behind casing, while the
It is also unlikely that the plugged back
CHFR reaches up to 30 ft. Mud invasion
original hole 100 feet from the steel cased
may impair the near wellbore so that any
sidetrack would affect the CHFR logs with a depth
oil re-saturation further away from the
of investigation limited to 30 ft.
borehole is only seen by the CHFR and not
(yet?) by the PNC.
 Open water-filled fractures nearby may
perturb the CHFR measurements by Summary Of Trial Results
providing low resistivity current paths away
from the wellbore. The CHFR trial in ADCO is encouraging
 PNC logs may be more influenced by and represents a breakthrough in Cased Hole
variable cement quality and thickness than logging technology.
the CHFR. On the other hand the CHFR
may also be influenced by cement in ways The data may be used qualitatively to
we do not yet fully understand. monitor water front movement. Quantitative
analysis of fluid saturation in low resistivity water
The effect of resistive cements on Through flooded zones requires knowledge of cement
Casing Resistivity Tools was first highlighted resistive parameters and careful application of the
by Klein in 1993. Different cement thickness relevant corrections. The greatest discrepancies
(1–2 in. thick annuli) and resistivity (1-100 between CHFR and PNC logs occur in swept
Ohmm) effects on the CHFR have been zones where CHFR is near the lower limit of its
modeled and reported by Beguin (2000). operating range. Until other deep reading
Cement effects may at least partially explain measurements become available to resolve this
the observed differences between the CHFR discrepancy, the PNC results are preferred in
and LWD. Perhaps the inclusion of a “short- swept zones and CHFR should be used for
indications of early water breakthrough where
its far deeper depth of investigation would be
most useful. REFERENCES.
 Operationally the CHFR tool worked fine
and repeatability is satisfactory.
1 Recent Progress on Formation Resistivity
 CHFR vertical resolution is almost the Measurement through Casing. P.Beguin,
same as the Dual Laterolog.
D.Benimeli, A.Boyd, I.Dubourg, A.Ferreira,
 In intervals with resistivity less than 2 A.McDougall, G.Rouault, P.van der Wal.
Ohmm, CHFR generally reads too high Rt. Schlumberger. SPWLA Annual Symposium in
 Compared with cased hole PNC-logs, oil Dallas, USA, June 2000.
saturations derived from the CHFR are
higher, particularly in water swept zones –  The Petrophysics of Electrically Anisotropic
in the low resistivity range. Reservoirs. J.D.Klein et al. SPWLA 36 th Annual
 Different depths of investigation between Symposium, Paris, June 1995.
PNC- logs and CHFR complicate direct 3 Cement Resistivity and Implications for
comparison. Measurement of Formation Resistivity Through
 Adding of a “short spacing” measurement Casing. SPE 26453. J.D. Klein, P.R.Martin and
to the CHFR, may better define the cement A.E.Miller 1993.
effects.