KMS Technologies – KJT Enterprises Inc.
Presentation
Strack, K. – M.
2004
Resistivity Logging
Past, present & future
Society of Physics Students,
Technical Meeting, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia
Resistivity Logging
Past, present & future
K. Strack
KMS Technologies – KJT Enterprises Inc.
June 2004
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
Resistivity logging: Past, Present & Future
• Introduction
• Past
⌦History
⌦Older tools
⌦Pitfalls
• Present
⌦Overall concept
⌦Improved tools
⌦Innovative tools
⌦Interpretation
• Future
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
Resistivity logging: Past, Present & Future
• Introduction
• Past
⌦History
⌦Older tools
⌦Pitfalls
• Present
⌦Overall concept
⌦Improved tools
⌦Innovative tools
⌦Interpretation
• Future
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
Objective
• Provide a resistivity logging snapshot
• Stay with wireline only (MWD later)
• Link past & future developments
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
Oil - Resistivity relationship
Rxo
Shale
Rt
V ′′
V′
Oil
V
Ti g ht
Oil
1/2 Oil
1/2 Water
Water
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
Resistivity logging: Past, Present & Future
• Introduction
• Past
⌦History
⌦Older tools
⌦Pitfalls
• Present
⌦Overall concept
⌦Improved tools
⌦Innovative tools
⌦Interpretation
• Future
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
The fun of ancient logging
After SPWLA, 1979
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
The Phases
•
•
•
•
1921
1927
1949
Since
- 1927 Conceptual Phase
– 1949 Acceptance Phase
– 1985 Maturity Phase
1985 – Reinvention Phase
• Historically:
⌦Schlumberger dominated (exceptions: MPI, EMI)
⌦During 1990 Baker caught up and developed new
tools (3DEX and TCR)
After Luthi 2001
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
Resistivity logging: Past, Present & Future
• Introduction
• Past
⌦History
⌦Older tools
⌦Pitfalls
• Present
⌦Overall concept
⌦Improved tools
⌦Innovative tools
⌦Interpretation
• Future
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
Resistivity tools underlying principle
(after van Ditzhuijzen, 1994)
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
Electric resistivity devices
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Normal log
Lateral log
LL3
LL7, DLL
LL8 – as LL7 but shorter spacing & return
Rxo logs
Diplogs
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
Normal and lateral principle
Cable armor
Normal
V
V
Lateral
After Labo 1987
JT Enterprises Inc. 2000
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
Normal &
lateral logs:
curves
After Labo 1987
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
LL3 and LL7
LL3
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
LL7, DLL
Micro-SFL principle
Rxo= (VMo – VM1) / Io
After Peeters, 1995, Schlumberger
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
Microlog picture
After SPWLA, 1979
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
Dipmeter tool principle
Different environments
•Water based mud
• Oil based mud
After Luthi, 2001
.
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
Diplog principle
• used in water based mud
After Luthi, 2001
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
OBM dip tool
principle
• used in oil based mud
After Luthi, 2001
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
SLB’s dip log tool: SHDT
After Luthi, 2001
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
SHDT™ diplog
example
After Luthi, 2001
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
Resistivity logging: Past, Present & Future
• Introduction
• Past
⌦History
⌦Older tools
⌦Pitfalls
• Present
⌦Overall concept
⌦Improved tools
⌦Innovative tools
⌦Interpretation
• Future
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
Li
Rt
LLD
50
25
0
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
LLS
Rxo
Depth of Invasion
1000
BHD = 8 in
Rm = 0.15
Wm
Depth (in.)
After Mezzatesta, 1996
100
10
1
98 100 102 104 106 108 110 112 114 116
bhd
= 8 in.
Rm = 0.15 W m
Apparent Resistivities (Ωm)
96
Pitfalls: Laterolog invaded layers
2-D
Inversion
Results
0
ft
in. 100
100
0.2
200
ohm-m
DLL
DLL
rri
i
DIL
DIL
150
true
true Rxo
Rxo
true
true Rt
Rt
est.
est. Rxo
Rxo
est.
est. rri i
from The Log Analyst, 1994
After Strack et al., 1998
200
invasion
invasion radius
radius
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
est.
est. Rt
Rt
Pitfalls: Induction logs
After Anderson, 1986
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
Resistivity logging: Past, Present & Future
• Introduction
• Past
⌦ History
⌦ Older tools
⌦ Pitfalls
• Present
⌦ Overall concept
Direct image of geology
More data
New measurements
Better understanding of measurements & geology
⌦ Improved tools
⌦ Innovative tools
⌦ Interpretation
• Future
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
Combined photo & image
image
photograph
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
From meters to acquisition systems
Limits
Possibilities
HDLL
Galvanic
DLL
V ′′
V’
V
Apparent Rt
Data
Inversion
Rt
After Strack, 1999
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
From meters to acquisition systems
HDIL
DPIL
Apparent
ApparentRt
Rt
Raw
RawArray
Array→
→Data
Data Inversion
Inversion →
→Rt
Rt
After Strack et al., 1998
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
Resistivity logging: Past, Present & Future
• Introduction
• Past
⌦History
⌦Older tools
⌦Pitfalls
• Present
⌦Overall concept
⌦Improved tools
Image tools (WBM & OBM)
Array tools (Induction & Laterologs)
⌦Innovative tools
⌦Interpretation
• Future
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
From diplog to imaging
• Imaging started with dip logs
• Today multi button imagers replace most dip
•
•
logs
Image tool are used for geologic
interpretation
Could be used also for reserve estimates
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
How the display is derived
Azimuth
0 180 360
Dip
Azim
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
Courtesy of Paauwe, 2001
Example
After Rider, 1996
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
Current electrical imagers
EMI
6 alternately
offset
electrical
imaging pads
Powered
standoff
centralizes
tool
Pad with
25 buttons
FMI
CBIL is attached
to lower end of
tool string
STAR
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
Alternate pads
offset from each
other
Courtesy of Paauwe, 2001
RESISTIVITY IMAGE COVERAGE
4 ARM 4 PAD
8.5” hole:
12.25” hole:
4 ARM 4 PAD 4 FLAP
6 ARM 6 PAD
2-FMS 4-FMS
FMI
EMI/STAR
1987
1991
1994+
80%
56%
60%
42%
20%
14%
1989
40%
28%
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
Courtesy of Paauwe, 2001
Oil based mud (OBM) imager
•
•
•
•
•
•
Difficult to get current via OBM
Resolution must be on formation scale
Resistivity range must be large
Imager must have higher lateral/vertical res.
OBMI™ introduced 2001
Cheung et al., 2001 paper
OBMI trademark of Schlumberger
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
OBMI™ functional diagram
(Schlumberger OBMI,2002)
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
OBMI™ versus core image
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
After Cheung et al., 2001
Array industion requirements
•
•
•
•
•
Multiple depths of investigation
Multiple vertical resolution (improved!)
Increased depth of investigation
More reliable measurements
Streamlined interpretation
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
Resolution matched example
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
After Beard et al., 1996
Array Induction: Dip Effect & Correction
HDIL Resolution
Matched
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
After Dip
Correction
After Beard and Evans, 1996
Step change through hardware
Reserves estimate
DPIL vs. HDIL
DPIL
Reservoir Thickness:
HDIL
HDIL
DPIL
DPIL
DPIL
DPIL
HDIL
HDIL
Net Pay and Saturation Analysis
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
HDIL
270 ft
Net Pay (ft)
103.6
130.1
Net Pay
38.4%
48.2%
Por . Feet
15.4 ft 18.9 ft
Hyd . Feet
7.4 ft
9.2 ft
HDIL data allowed 24%
more OIIP be booked.
After Strack et al., 1998
2 ft VRM vs 2D inversion
OIIP = (A*h)*Por*(1-Sw)
A= 160 acre
Assume 7,758 API Bbl/acre-foot
1 Bbl = $22
porosities
porosities
OIIP 14,912,427 Bbl 16,173,193 Bbl
Value 328 M$
356 M$
2D
2D inversion
inversion
2 ft VRM Curves
Sw
Sw
volumetrics
volumetrics
HDIL
HDIL VRM
VRM
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
h
67.00 ft
Por
25.8%
(1-Sw) 69.5%
2D Inversion
74.75 ft
25.9%
67.3%
After Strack et al., 1998
Array laterolog objectives
• Next generation lateral
instrument
• Resolve
⌦thin beds (< laterolog- 2ft)
⌦deep invaded formations
• Provide accurate radial
profile of Rt & Rxo
⌦ invasion & flushed zone
evaluation
• Provide risk analysis input
⌦error bounds, parameter
importance
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
HDLL versus DLL
HDLL
HDLL
DLL
DLL
Rt
Rt
Gamma
ray
Gamma ray
MLL
MLL
caliper
caliper
SP
SP
Improved
vertical
Resolution
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
Rxo
Rxo
After Itskovich et al., 1998
HRLA Principle and Modes
24 ft
Mode 1
Mode 2
Mode 3
Mode 4
Mode 5
Courtesy of Barber, Schlumberger, 2001
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
Field Logs
• Main pay zone
• Gas sand
• Channel sand
•
•
environment
8.5-in. bit
Rm = .08 Ohm-m
Courtesy of Barber, Schlumberger, 2001
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
Resistivity logging: Past, Present & Future
• Introduction
• Past
⌦History
⌦Older tools
⌦Pitfalls
• Present
⌦Overall concept
⌦Improved tools
⌦Innovative tools
Azimutal image
3D induction
Through Casing Resistivity
⌦Interpretation
• Future
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
Azimuthal
resistivity
imager (ARI™)
After Luthi, 2001
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
ARI™ example
After Luthi, 2001
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
ARI™ detailed
example
After Luthi, 2001
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
Resistivity tools
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Laterologs
Induction logs
Thin bed tools
Azimuthal resistivity imager
Relationship to image tools
Through casing resistivity
3D induction
Inversion of resistivity logs
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
TCRL™: Benefits
• Bypassed hydrocarbons
• Monitor reservoir changes with time
⌦water/gas flood control
• Better reservoir estimates
⌦larger depth of investigation
⌦optimized vertical resolution
Strack, 1999
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
Basic history
•
Three electrode scheme
-
Alpin (1939)
•
Modern design
-
Kaufman (1990)
Vail (1991)
•
WA feasibility study
-
May-Nov. 1993
•
Colorado test
-
Dec. 1993-Mar. 1994
•
PML acquisition by BA
-
Q4 1997
•
First digital log, BA Texas
-
5/98
•
SLB commercial service
-
1999
•
BHI cancel project
-
2000
Strack, 1999
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
TCRL principle of operation
Casing
Current leaking into
the current tube
Z+dZ
I(Z+dZ)
O
V
Z
4
Ir
O
Injected current
I(Z)
Main current flow
Leakage
Strack, 1999
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
Operational modes
Reference
~
G
Tool
~
B
A
G
D
~
B
Tool
C
∆V
E
V0
Measurement
Calibration
V1
V2
A
G
Tool
C
D
∆V
V1
V2
B
A
C
D
E
E
J
J
J
F
F
F
Strack, 1999
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
TCR tools at Baker Atlas test well
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
Strack, 1999
SLB: measurement & calibration
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
(Aulia et al., 2001)
ρ2
Oil saturated (1 00 Ω
m)
-20
turatio
n
sa t u
-30
Brin
e
to top
Relative depth (m)
Casing
1 0Ω m
Mixed
sa
rated
(1 Ω
(1 0Ω m
m)
)
Casing shoe & reservoir depletion
-10
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Apparent Resistivity / Formation Resistivity
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
Strack, 1999
Casing collar effect (resistive)
Feasibility Study
Test well
-0.5
Si /Sc = 1/4
1/8
1/16
1/32
1/100000
Rel. Position (m)
222
0
Si
∗
∗∗ ∗
224
0.5
Sc
1
-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Leakage: (Measured-undistorted) / undistorted 226
0.005
Link to original field plot
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
Depth (ft)
220
Collar
∗
∗
∗
∗ ∗ ∗ Measured
Calculated
∗
0.01
0.015
Leakage Current (A)
Strack, 1999
0.02
Colorado test: Blind test zone
4800
Log run 1
01.22.94
Log run 2
01.26.94
Induction log 02.27.82
Casing collars
Depth (ft)
4850
4900
4950
1
10
100
1000
Apparent resistivity (Ωm)
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
Strack, 1999
TCR™ versus CHFR™
After Qiang et al., SPWLA 2002
0
6
CALI
IN
2500
16
CXY
6
IN
16
GR
0
GAPI
100
Deep Induction
DEPTH
CCL
FEET
CHFR
TCR_L
TCR_L
CHFR
2
OHMM
200 2
OHMM
TEMP
200 100 DEGF 200
x050
x100
7” OD casing
~20-year old
23 lb./ft.
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
Summary: TCR™
• TCR works: Schlumberger have working tools
• Numerical modeling predicted results
• It took 60 years from idea to tool
• Better commercial tools are still needed
After Strack 1998
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
Transverse Induction - history
• Problem long known (Gianzero, Anderson, Klein & Allen etc)
• Commercial values recognized by Shell (1991)
⌦20 – 30% missed reserves
• Project concept developed Shell/WALS 1992/93
• Shell funded development by Baker Atlas
• Shell patents: Beard et al., 1998 – WO 98/00733; Strack
et al., 2000 - # 6147496
• First TILT tool runs GOM, Oman 1999, name
•
changed to 3DEX™
SLB’s equivalent tool 2003
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
Crossbeds & sand/shale & siltstones
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
After Strack & Kriegshaeuser, 1999
Resistivity: example
30
80
Core
0.2
200
Clean
sand
x545
x580
x600
Thin beds
Production
test
x630
Gamma ray
After Strack & Kriegshaeuser, 1999
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
Laterologs
1750 BOPD
GOR 3250
Turbidite example
After Blackbourn & Thomson, 2000
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
Transverse Induction logging principle
Shale: low Rt
Rh
Sand: high Rt
Rv
Additional applications
Fracture detetion
Horizontal well interpreation
Geo-steering
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
After Kriegshaeuser et al, 2000
Resistivities in laminar Sand/Shale sequences
10 Ωm
Sand
resistivity
Resistivity
Vertical resistivity
Horizontal resistivity
Anisotropy
Shale
resistivity
1 Ωm
100%
50%
Net / gross
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
0%
After Kriegshaeuser et al, 2000
Anisotropy influence on resistivity
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
After Yu et al., 2001
Anisotropic vs. Isotropic data match
Depth (ft)
Hxx - component
Hyy - component
Hzz - component
x380
x380
x380
x400
x400
x400
x420
x420
x420
x440
x440
x440
x460
x460
x460
x480
x480
x480
x500
x500
x500
x520
x520
x520
measured
anisotropic
isotropic
x540
x540
x540
-2
0
2
-2
0
2
0
2
4
Magnetic Field (mA/m) Magnetic Field (mA/m) Magnetic Field (mA/m)
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
After Kriegshaeuser et al, 2000
3DEX™: Inversion results
After Yu et al., 2001
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
3DEX™ example data
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
After Yu et al., 2001
Resistivity logging: Past, Present & Future
• Introduction
• Past
⌦History
⌦Older tools
⌦Pitfalls
• Present
⌦Overall concept
⌦Improved tools
⌦Innovative tools
⌦Interpretation
Modeling & inversion
• Future
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
Resistivity tools
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Laterologs
Induction logs
Thin bed tools
Relationship to image tools
Through casing resistivity
3D induction, example
Inversion of resistivity logs
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
Inversion Outline
•
•
•
•
Inversion methodology
Practical implementation
Case histories
Conclusions
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
After Strack et al., 1998
⇐ 1 – dimensional (D) model (vertical) ⇒
Earth Models
⇐ 2 – dimensional (D) (cylindrical) ⇒
Rt, n-1
Rxo, n-1
borehole
Rm
Lxo, n-1
Rt, n
Rxo, n
Rt, n+1
R⇐
Lxo,(dip)⇒
xo,3n+1
n+1
– dimensional (D) model
BHD
Lxo, n
⇐ 1 – dimensional (D) model ⇒
After Strack et al., 1998
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
Rt, n-1
Rt, n
Rt, n+1
Logging process
Logs
ATLAS
WESTERN
Measurements
Geological formation
Earth model described
by parameters
(resistivity distribution)
Strack, 1999
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
Modeling process for logs
Logs
Modeled
data
log
Modeling
Geological formation
Geological
Geologicalformation
formation
Earth model described
by parameters
(resistivity distribution)
Inversion
?
Strack, 1999
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
RIPM
X300
Lxo
Lxo
300
Inversion: 1D versus 2D
DPIL
DPIL
X320
X320
Lxo
Lxo
DLL
DLL
DLL
X360
X360
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
X340
X340
Rt
Rt
Rt
Rxo
Rxo
Rxo
Rt
Rt
Rt
DLL
DLL
DLL
1-D
1-D
DPIL
DPIL
Rxo
Rxo
Rxo
2-D
2-D
After Strack et al., 1998
DLL
underestimating
oil reserves
Rxo
Deep
Lxo
Shallow
MLL
2 m
(6.5 ft)
Rt
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
After Strack et al., 1998
Sw Diff. Chart Fluid Vol.
Lithology
2-D Fluid Vol.
Reservoir
Reservoir Analysis
Analysis
Chart
Chart 2-D
2-D
Hydrocarbon
HydrocarbonMeters
Meters
Avg.
Avg.Sw
Sw
5.4
5.4
25%
25%
Increased
IncreasedOIP
OIPEstimates
Estimates
6.0
6.0
21%
21%
10%
10%
2-D Inversion
versus chart
interpretation
2-D Lxo
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
After Strack et al., 1998
Inversion Conclusions:
• Better delineated oil bearing zones
• More accurate formation parameters
• Risk analysis parameters
• New ways for data integration & upscaling
• Frontier: horizontal well interpretation
• Future: Imaging
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
After Strack et al., 1998
Resistivity logging: Past, Present & Future
• Introduction
• Past
⌦History
⌦Older tools
⌦Pitfalls
• Present
⌦Overall concept
⌦Improved tools
⌦Innovative tools
⌦Interpretation
• Future
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
The paradigm shift
Past
Field Logs
Present
Future
Field Log
Modeling
Field Logs
Processing
Logs
Imaging
Modeling
Interpretation
Imaging
Modeling
Interpretation
Interpretation
Evaluation
Evaluation
Integration
Evaluation
After Strack et al., 1998
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
Optimum use: MWD & Wireline
• Ability to
•
enhance both
LWD & Wireline
resistivity data
More resistive
zones translate
into more OIP
Joint
MPR
HDIL
Joint inversion of MPR & HDIL data
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
After Strack et al., 1998
Integrated
Integrated
Imager
Imager &&
Microlaterolog
Microlaterolog
STAR
STAR
resistivity
resistivity
MLL
MLLresistivity
resistivity
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
button
buttonK
Kfrom
from3D
3D
modeling
modeling
Optimum tool
V1
V
∆V
V”
V2
V
Measure
• galvanic & inductive
• horizontal & vertical
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
General formation evaluation trend
• Optimum use of MWD & wireline
⌦MWD: routine and steering
⌦wireline: imaging and deep (1-10 years then MWD)
• Advanced logs: mineralogy, downhole analysis..
• Downhole laboratories & factories
• Integrated optimized solutions
⌦tie with SWD to seismic cube
© Copyright KJT Enterprises Inc. 2001-2004
KMS Technologies – KJT Enterprises Inc.
6420 Richmond Ave., Suite 610
Houston, Texas, 77057, USA
Tel: 713.532.8144
info@kmstechnologies.com
Please visit us
http://www.kmstechnologies.com//