Professional Documents
Culture Documents
th
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPWLA 50 Annual Logging
Symposium held in The Woodlands, Texas, United States, June 21-24, 2009.
ABSTRACT
Carbonate reservoirs are often challenging to evaluate
in terms of accurate water saturations due to the
inherent heterogeneities. Conventional resistivity-based
water saturation estimates using Archie's equation
depend on petrophysical parameters strongly related to
reservoir rock texture, pore structure and wettability.
These parameters are often not readily available at the
time of evaluation, require time-consuming special core
analysis to obtain, and can vary significantly within and
across depositional sequences. Formation resistivity
may also be affected by electrical current flow via paths
of least resistance offered by the presence of brinefilled microporosity and fractures.
INTRODUCTION
The complex and heterogeneous nature of carbonates
makes accurate determination of oil saturation difficult.
The variation in pore sizes can often range from visible
to microscopic in close proximity. Carbonate bodies are
bulk = (1 ) ma + S w w + (1 S w ) HC
N (t ) = N 0 e t /
,
where
N(t) is the count rate at time, t.
N0 is the initial count rate.
is the decay constant in s.
Sandstone = 4.3
Dolomite = 4.7
Calcite = 7.1
Lithology
CLAYS
Anhydrite = 12
0
Fluid
GAS
10
15
20
OIL
25
Fresh
30
35
WATER
40
45
(2)
(3)
50
Increasingly Salty
4550
[c.u.]
(4)
bulk = (1 ) ma + ff
(1)
Mark of Schlumberger
T h e rm a l Neutron Porosity ()
L ith o lo gy (SpectroLith)
S ig m a ()
Data
Double exponential
Experiment vs. simulation
17 PU fresh water sandstone invaded by 200 kppm mud
25
20
Double exponential
components
sigma
15
SSn exp
SSn
10
LSn exp
Moments method
LSn
Near exp
Near
0
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
Full
Invasion (inches)
Fig. 7 EECF test and Monte Carlo simulation of 200kppm salt mud invasion in 17 PU freshwater sandstone.
sigma
SSn exp
SSn
20
LSn exp
LSn
Near exp
15
Near
10
0
0
10
12
Invasion (inches)
14
16
18
20
Full
Fig. 8 EECF test and Monte Carlo simulation of freshwater invasion in 17 PU 200 kppm NaCl sandstone.
FIELD EXAMPLES
Field Example 1. Evaluation of a low-resistivity pay
reservoir in OBM. Water saturation from a previous
offset well was estimated as high as 80%, while the
well has been continuously producing over 1,000
BOPD dry oil, leaving a large difference between logderived oil in place and actual production (Gyllensten et
al. 2007). A sponge core in another well indicated water
saturation of around 40%, more in line with production
data. MWLD separation between deep and shallow
sigma while drilling clearly indicated the free water
level (FWL), confirmed by the wipe sigma log, in this
well (Fig. 9). A better water saturation is obtained by
using sigma across the oil column and resistivity below
the FWL.
CONCLUSION
Recording sigma at multiple depths of investigation
(MDIS) while drilling can verify the presence or
absence of mud filtrate invasion and thereby improve
the quality of water saturation estimation from sigma.
In the absence of a wipe log, MDIS is essential.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to thank the Abu Dhabi National Oil
Company (ADNOC) and the Abu Dhabi Company for
Onshore Oil Operations (ADCO) for permission to
publish this work.
REFERENCES
Amer, M. et al., 2008, An innovative approach in
tracking injected water front in carbonate reservoir
offshore Abu Dhabi, ADIPEC, Abu Dhabi.
50 ft.
Fig. 9. Field Example 1. This 8.5in. borehole was drilled with OBM. Sigma was recorded while drilling. A repeat
log after reaching TD 2 days later was also recorded and is displayed along with the LWD drilling log above.
LWD density and neutron logs are displayed in Track 5, multiarray phase and attenuation resistivity offset by one
decade are displayed in Track 3, gamma ray, ROP, caliper and sigma time after the bit is displayed in Track 2.
Track 1 includes all the sigma logs, with deep sigma in red, medium sigma in green and shallow sigma in blue.
Sigma after drilling (wipe log) in solid black, and water-filled formation sigma (computed using Eq. 1) in dashed
black are also displayed. Across the oil column at the top, all recorded sigma curves overlie, and below they
separate, with the wipe sigma reading the lowest because of the large contrast between the formation water sigma
(around 90 cu) and the OBM sigma (around 20-25 cu). Sigma oil is around 20.
Decreases in sigma value compared to water-filled sigma and curve separation toward the lower part of the
reservoir indicate replacement of moveable formation water by OBM filtrate. The absence of curve separation
toward the top of the reservoir indicates no moveable water was displaced by OBM filtrate while drilling. Most
likely OBM filtrate is invading into the oil column, but it hidden by the similarity of the sigma values.
Sigma can be used as true formation sigma at the top of the reservoir to compute water saturation independent of
Archie parameters using Eq. 2. Water saturation from both sigma and resistivity are displayed in Track 6 with
corresponding fluid and rock volumes in Track 7. The final water saturation is obtained by using sigma across the
oil column and from resistivity below the free water level (FWL). Note the 30% to 40% difference between sigma
and resistivity water saturation.
Comparing the while drilling and wipe resistivity shown in Track 4 reveals similar curve separation and
information about free water movement via oil filtrate invasion and resistivity increase. However, the Low
Resistivity Pay nature of this reservoir prohibits the use of resistivity logs across the oil column. Separation between
deep and shallow sigma while drilling clearly indicated the FWL, confirmed by the wipe sigma log. In this
environment the direct measurements of sigma provided a much improved interpretation.
50 ft.
10 ft.
Fig. 10. Field Example 2. This 8.5-in. borehole was drilled with WBM of 200 ppk salinity. Density and neutron
LWD with strong response to reservoir fluid are displayed in Track 6. Resistivity logs are displayed in Track 2,
gamma ray, ROP, caliper, and sigma time after the bit are displayed in Track 3 and multidepth sigma logs are
displayed in Track 1. Sigma logs with different depth of investigation all respond to water, oil, and gas saturation
with sigma deep least affected by saline mud invasion and sigma shallow most affected, as seen by their responses
across the gas interval. Water saturation across the oil- and gas-bearing intervals, computed using deep sigma and
resistivity, agrees well except at the base of the oil-bearing layer where Sw-sigma is lower than Sw-Archie.
Sor across the flooded area with connate water salinity of 180 ppk and injection water salinity of up to 250 ppk is
computed using simultaneous solutions of Archie (with imbibition n) and sigma equations.
With water mixture salinity of 225 ppk, SOR from sigma and resistivity are in close agreement and are around 25%,
in line with expectations.
The mud invasion across the swept and unswept oil-bearing interval in Track 5 was caused by drilling interruption
when a trip was made to change the BHA. The sigma and SIFA responses and curve separation to WBM filtrate
invasion into oil is similar to the multiarray resistivity curve separation across this interval.
50 ft.
Fig. 11. Field Example 3. This well was drilled with WBM of 130 ppk. The top part of the reservoir was logged
while drilling and the lower part was logged after coring, with the continuation of LWD to TD after coring. A wipe
log after reaching TD was recorded around 10 days after logging while drilling of the top part. Track 5 shows
density and neutron logs and Track 6 shows the wipe density-neutron logs recorded 10 days later. Track 1 sigma
logs recorded while drilling and after drilling (wipe log).
Note the strong gas effect seen by density-neutron and sigma while drilling across the top interval and disappearing
by the time the wipe log was recorded 10 days later; it is also missing across the interval that was logged after
coring. Gas and oil volumes were derived from their respective downhole hydrogen indices, density, and sigma
properties across the uncored intervals.
Across the cored interval, ROS was computed using sigma as an Sxo tool with no gas in the model. Core analysis
results corrected to reservoir conditions are displayed along with sigma- and resistivity-derived water saturations in
Tracks 8 and 9. ROS from core plugs, which includes centrifuge plus Dean Stark (DS, Track 8), with similar trend
and magnitude as ROS from sigma (ROS=1-Sxo). Track 9 shows whole core analysis, which includes oil from DS
and sponge core. The match is very good between whole core ROS and sigma ROS at the top of the cored interval,
while the mismatch across the lower part indicates limited gas sweep.
Analysis of the wireline fluid sample taken across the uncored interval supports the evaluation and partitioning of
gas and oil volumes across the interval derived from the direct sigma measurements.
10 ft.
Fig. 12. Field Example 4. This 8.5in. borehole section was drilled with WBM of 250 ppk. Density, neutron and Pe
logs while drilling are displayed in Track 5 and the same wipe logs that were recorded a few hours after reaching
TD are displayed in Track 4. Multiarray propagation resistivity while drilling and corresponding wipe logs are
displayed in Track 2 with one decade offset in between. Multidepth sigma while drilling, water-filled formation
sigma computed using Eq. 1, and wipe sigma are all displayed in Track 1. With high formation water salinity, the
separation between sigma curves indicates invasion of mud filtrate into the formation, replacing moveable
formation water.
The difference between water saturation computed by sigma deep and resistivity across the lower part of the
reservoir (Track 8) most likely indicates incorrect Archie parameters, and the hydrocarbon is most likely residual.
Wireline formation pressure across the top part of the reservoir (Track 9), indicates three different fluid gradients.
Density, neutron, Pe, deep propagation resistivity and medium sigma are used to partition the hydrocarbon into
light and heavy phases (gas and oil) based on their downhole density, hydrogen index and sigma. To relate the
invaded zone hydrocarbon properties into the uninvaded zone, we assumed equal gas to total hydrocarbon ratios.
Agreement between GOC determined from logs and wireline formation pressure is excellent. Moreover, a wireline
fluid analyzer run to analyze the fluid below the GOC indicated oil. Gas saturation (Sg) is displayed in Track 9.
10
20 ft.
Fig. 13. Field Example 5. This 8.5-in. borehole was drilled with WBM of 185 ppk salinity. Density, neutron, and Pe
logs while drilling appear in Track 5 and the corresponding wipe logs recorded nearly 2 days after reaching TD in
Track 4. Track 2 displays multiarray propagation resistivity LWD and wipe logs with one decade offset between
curves. Multidepth sigma while drilling, water- filled formation sigma computed using Eq. 1, and wipe sigma are all
displayed in Track 1.
Hydrocarbon partitioning into light and heavy phases (oil and gas) is done using conventional LWD density/neutron
logs plus sigma. Hydrocarbon density is computed using volume fraction weight of each phase and displayed in
Track 9, which indicates rich gas (0.4 g/cc) at the top and oil of average 0.65 g/cc below.
Reservoir pressure from the wireline pressure tester (Track 9) indicates gas at top (0.1 psi/ft) and abnormal fluid
gradient of nearly 1 psi/ft over the lower interval. The reservoir pressure has dropped nearly 400 psi from the
original pressure and this area of the field has been injected via a nearby horizontal gas injector. These results
indicate that with ongoing depletion and gas injection, no meaningful fluid gradients can be established from
pressure measurements at this time. The log-derived hydrocarbon saturation and density data are better indicators
of reservoir performance and sweep efficiency.
11